GIFT OF THOMAS RUTHERFORD BACON MEMORIAL LIBRARY THE GENESIS OF GENESIS A STUDY OF THE DOCUMENTARY SOURCES OF THE FIRST BOOK OF MOSES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESULTS OF CRITICAL SCIENCE ILLUSTRATING THE PRESENCE OF BIBLES WITHIN THE BIBLE BY BENJAMIN WISNER BACON WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY GEORGE F. MOORE Professor in Andover Theological Seminary " The books of the Old Testament in their present form, in many instances are not, and do not profess to be, the original documents on which the history was based. There was (to use a happy expression employed of late) tl A BIBLE WITHIN A BIBLE," an " Old Testament before an Old Testament was written." To discover any traces of the lost works in the actual text, or any allusions to them even when their substance is entirely perished, is a task of immense interest." STANLEY HARTFORD THE STUDENT PUBLISHING COMPANY 1892 COPYRIGHTED 1891 By STUDENT PUBLISHING Co. D. S. MOSELEY, PRINT. BIBLES WITHIN THE BIBLE 267978 TO EDWARD E. SALISBURY, LL. D. LATE PROFESSOR IN YALE UNIVERSITY, THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED IN TOKEN OF GRATITUDE AND AFFECTION. PREFACE. The attention of the reading public of America has been called frequently of late to the claims of the science of Higher Criticism, a study all-important to a correct under- standing of the Scriptures ; and in particular to that theory of the science which maintains the origin of the Pentateuch from a compilation of older documents. They have been assured of the practically unanimous acceptance of this theory abroad, and have been themselves witnesses of the divided opinions of scholars at home. Considering the im- portance of the subject, the enormous mass of accumulated evidence pro and con, the conflicting claims of scholars as to the resulting benefit or injury to accrue to Christian faith from the acceptance of the theory, it should be apparent to all, as a primary axiom, that the reading public are entitled to judge for themselves. As to the method of presenting the facts to the public, two propositions are easily established. I. The public require, not controversial argument, but explanation. The method of the controversialist, which ever side be cham- pioned, rarely gains more than a partisan applause guaranteed in advance, and the converts to be made among those " con- vinced against their will." It assumes that the -public has already made up its mind, or else to judge for the public. The assumption is either false or impertinent. A public accustomed to exercise the right of private judgment de- mands, in the case of so important and widely supported a theory, a plain statement of the case, an explanation of the general principles involved, of the nature, rather than the details, of the argument, and as simple a presentation of methods and results as possible. It wants " the documents in the case." viii PREFACE. II. It is not necessary that the presentation of the case should be made from a standpoint of hostility to the new theory, nor even from one of indifference. The public wishes to do justice to the new theory. Until it has had opportunity to obtain a general conspectus thereof it occupies the standpoint of traditional opinion. It has not time to give to the minutiae of controversial discussion, but desires to be informed in general outline of the method pur- sued by the critics and the results propounded. Such an explanation can only be given by one familiar with the critical argument and at least in some degree in sympathy with the theory. The position of such an expositor differs however from that of the advocate and special pleader, in that he undertakes to explain and not to argue. He does not pretend to have no opinion, but refrains from obtrud- ing his opinion upon the reader, preferring to state the most general facts and grounds of critical procedure in an unbi- assed way, and leave the reader to draw his own conclusions. In accordance with the general proposition first laid down, the present work is addressed not merely to scholars and technical investigators, but to the general public. The author believes that critics and biblical scholars will find contributions of value to the science of documentary analysis within its pages ; but argument in support of these original investigations has been relegated to technical reviews, and even notes which require the use of Hebrew text have been inserted in a special appendix, reference being made by means of the numerals (i), (2), (3), etc. Chapter III. is a reprint of the author's articles in Hebraica iv. 4 and v. i (1888) intended to exhibit the present state of the documen- tary analysis. The articles have been deprived of the foot- notes, in which all divergences from the analysis of Dillmann given in the text by six of the foremost critics were pre- sented, and for the purpose of a minute comparison of the analyses of Wellhausen, Kuenen, Budde, Jlilicher, Delitzsch and Kittel, the reader will be obliged to consult the articles in their original form. One of the principal results of the PREFACE. i x articles has been, however, to establish beyond the possibility of dispute the existence of a real and extraordinarily minute agreement of all schools of documentary analysis. The citation of the authority of Dillmann alone will therefore serve the purposes of the general reader, as it is, in the main and essentially, identical with that of all critics. The present work will be found accordingly to be in general a graphic presentation of the consensus of modern criticism. But the author has not restricted himself to a following of authorities. The analysis has been carried through independently, with results in a number of cases diverging from those of all former critics. For the process and evidence in these cases of original analysis the reader is referred to Hebraica, October, 1890, and following- numbers, where it is given in detail. Technical argument has thus been avoided in the present volume, but the general reader will have opportunity by consulting chapter III. to assure himself that the recog- nized authorities in this field are fairly represented, while at the same time the more exact student has placed at his disposal, through the notes and references, the means of verifying all statements and examining the grounds of in- dependent analysis. A careful study of the opening para- graphs of chapter III. is especially recommended. If the few lines of Hebrew in this chapter and in Appendix II. appear somewhat formidable, the main ideas will be found available and even indispensable to the thoughtful reader. In recent years, thanks largely to the efforts of Profs. W. R. Harper of Chicago and C. A. Briggs of Union Seminary, the claims of Semitic literature to a position in the curricu- lum of study for every person of liberal education are coming to be felt. The literary and scientific study of the develop- ment of the Hebrew and Hellenistic religious consciousness as exhibited in their literature the Bible is beginning to be recognized as something not to be left merely to the pulpit orator and the Sunday-school teacher, but to be eagerly welcomed into the domain of school, college and university training. With the recognition has come a perception of the x PREFACE. transcendent interest of these studies and a growing demand from beyond the academic walls for admission to at least a gleaner's share in these new fields of scientific investigation. The author desires to meet this demand, and to present to all classes of Bible students, in churches, Sunday-schools, academies and other institutions of learning, as well as to the general public, that which might be expected to be gained from a course of lectures on the Documentary Theory of the Pentateuch, if delivered on one of the recently endowed university foundations for instruction in Biblical Literature. The method of the book explains itself. Part I. is intro- ductory. The science of Documentary Analysis and that inseparable from it of Historical Criticism are briefly ex- plained and illustrated. A more complete idea of each, and of their mutual relations, can be gained by reading the articles " Israel " and " Pentateuch " in Enc. Brit., gih ed. ; W. Robertson Smith's "Old Testament in the Jewish Church," and "Prophets of Israel," D. Appleton and Co., 1882 and 1883 ; Prof. Geo. T. Ladd's "What is the Bible?" Scribner's, 1888; and Prot C. A. Brigg's "Biblical Study" (3d ed., 1890); and "Messianic Prophecy," Scribner's, 1886. Fr. Lenormant's " Beginnings of History" (translated), Scrib- ner's, 1883, and Geo. Smith's " Chaldean Account of Genesis ;" new ed. ; Sampson Low, Marston and Co., London, 1880, are books of kindred aim adapted to the requirements of the general reader. Of a more technical character are Prof. Ladd's "Doctrine of Sacred Scripture," Scribner's, 1883; and, as standard works respectively of historical and analyti- cal criticism, J. Wellhausen's " History of Israel" (translated), A. and C. Black, Edinburgh, 1885 ; and Kuenen's " Hexa- teuch " (translated), Macmillan and Co., London, 1886. To readers of German, Dutch and French, an inexhaustible field is opened. A bibliography will be found in almost any one of the larger works just enumerated. Part II. affords to the eye a general view of the processes and results of Pentateuch analysis during the 138 years of its labor. The typographical means employed display the text PREFACE, xi of Genesis according to the revised version, the portions assigned to sources, compilers, editors and interpolators characteristically exhibited, and the loss or displacement of material indicated, so that at a glance the reader may com- prehend the whole process of untwisting of each supposed strand in the composite thread, and judge whether or not it be reasonable. The references at the foot of the page are for the most part intelligible to the reader unfamiliar with Hebrew, and are mainly concerned with resemblances and contrasts in style and subject matter among the supposed documents. In a few cases they are intended to elucidate the thought, and go beyond the limits of the Hexateuch. Part III. affords a connected view of the supposed docu- ments J, E and P, as they are restored by the analysis. Lost material has sometimes been conjecturally supplied, but all such supplemental material is marked with [ . . . . . . ] These gaps can sometimes be filled with certainty from subsequent references in the same document (e. g. J's version of the first interview of Joseph with his brethren in Egypt corresponding to E in Gen. xlii., from J in xliii. 3-7, 1 8-2 1 ; xliv. 19-29) ; sometimes all attempts at restoration of lost material must be mere guesswork. But gaps are fortunately the exception, not the rule. A few conjectural readings and amendments to the text of good authority, spoken of in the notes to Part II., are introduced in Part III. ; also preferred marginal renderings, and, in a small number of cases, new translations suggested by the analysis, and an arrangement of the text in verses, intended to exhibit the traces of metrical form displayed by the original. The first Appendix presents a group of passages connected with the Creation and Flood story, exhibiting remarkable affinity with the well-known Assyrian Flood and Creation tablets. Critics now regard these passages in Genesis as having been grafted upon the stock of Hebrew tradition, the majority considering them as an interpolation into the docu- ment J, others as incorporated by J together with the national epos. These passages are taken out as a group xii PREFACE. and placed, in Appendix I., in juxtaposition with the cunei- form narratives for purposes of comparison. In joining the number of those who are endeavoring to awaken a new interest in biblical study by means of the remarkable results of analytical criticism, the author wishes to express his most grateful acknowledgments to Prof. A. Kuenen of Leyden and President W. R. Harper of Chicago for the kindness experienced at their hands. Also to Prof. George F. Moore of Andover for his scholarly revision and criticism of the new readings of Part III., beside innumerable other services of value, and to the eminent scholars to whom he is indebted for their courteous commendation of the book to the English-speaking public at home and abroad. To the reader who may approach these pages in the endeavor to find a deeper, clearer meaning in the ancient book than hitherto, he would express the sincere and sanguine hope that new light upon the unknown history of this long revered and cherished literature may prove it ever more and more clearly a " word of God," frag- ments providentially preserved of religious thought from that people whose history is the history of the development of the religious consciousness. If " given unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners," it was no less "given of God," because the gift extended over many centuries, "line upon line and precept upon precept." It is no less divine if the fruit of generations of consecrated human hearts and consciences, rather than the utterance of a single individual. What is true of the individual investigator is in a still higher degree true of any science, the science of criticism included. " We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth." If reassurance is needed in regard to the effect of presenting to the public these claims of the higher criticism, I prefer to give it in the words of others rather than my own. Says Prof. Briggs of Union Seminary : " The higher criticism has rent the crust with which rabbinical tradition and Chris- tian scholasticism have encased the Old Testament, overlay- PREFACE. xiii ing the poetic and prophetic elements with the legal and the ritual. Younger biblical scholars have caught glimpses of the beauty and glory of biblical literature. The Old Testa- ment is studied as never before in the Christian Church. It is beginning to exert its charming influence upon ministers and people. Christian theology and Christian life will be ere long enriched by it. God's blessing is in it to those who have the Christian wisdom to recognize, and the grace to receive and employ it."* In the firm confidence that a general acquaintance with the discoveries claimed to have been made by the higher criticism in the Pentateuch can only conduce to the lasting benefit of His cause, who said, "Thy word is Truth," this volume is respectfully submitted to the Christian public. BENJAMIN WISNER BACON. Parsonage, Oswego, N. K, October, 1891. * Biblical Study. By Chas. A. Briggs. New York: Scribner and Sons. 1886. Page 247. ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS. PREFACE, vii.-xiii. INTRODUCTION, . . xxiii.-xxx. PART FIRST: INTRODUCTORY. CHAPTER I. HIGHER CRITICISM AND THE SCIENCE OF DOCUMENTARY ANALYSIS. 1. Criticism is appreciation. Biblical criticism, both textual and " higher," is necessary to do justice to the Bible, and is the indis- pensable foundation of a valid doctrine of Revelation and Inspira- tion ; hence also of a scientific Revealed Theology Pp. i, 2 2. The Documentary Analysis : Its field and function. Treatises on its history and method. Illustrations of its success from patristic literature ;-.- Pp. 2-6 3. General nature and history of Oriental MSS. Agglomerative in their origin, and accretive in their transmission. Explanation, and testimony to the fact Pp. 6-10 4. Origin of prose histories. The minstrels the first historians. Literature at first mnemonic in purpose. Illustrations from extra- Pentateuchal literature Pp. 10-22 5. Relation of poetic sources to incorporating narrative. Illustrations from Joshua x. and Judges xv. Higher criticism goes behind the author to his sources. The Book of Jashar Pp. 12-17 6. Sources cited as such by the Pentateuch. The Book of the Wars of Yahweh. Prose sources named. Deuteronomy and the Book of xvi CONTENTS. the Covenant. Other writings attribi the sources quoted as such to the Pentateuch narrative. Theory of the analysis Pp. 17-21 7. The analysis has the right to search the Scriptures. A priori ex- clusion refuted. An unreasonable demand complied with. Unity can only be certified by the results of attempted analysis Pp. 21-24 8. The demand for " credentials " complied with Pp. 24-25 CHAPTER II. THE SCIENCE OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM. i. Documentary analysis is only preliminary to Historical Criticism. Indispensableness of the latter to appreciation of both history and literature. Results P. 27 a. Illustration from secular literature needless. Historical criticism is a cross-examination of the witnesses Pp. 27, 28 3. Biblical historical criticism illustrated from the Psalms and Deutero-Isaiah. Two methods of accounting for the phenomena. Practical results of the critical method Pp. 28-30 4. Biblical archaeology and the history of historical criticism to be studied in other treatises. The purely literary branch of the science, in the single department of the Hexateuch, alone treated here. A scriptural discrimination Pp. 30, 31 5. External and Internal evidence. The former includes Tradition. All New Testament references belong under this head. The doctrinal argument irrelevant. Internal evidence. For deter- mination of dates the two kinds of evidence are complemen- tary Pp. 31-34 CONTENTS. xvii 6. Date and authorship of the Pentateuch in the light of external and internal evidence. The tradition. Other external evidence as- sures its existence circ. 300 B. C. Anonymity Pp. 34-36 7. Evidence opposed to Mosaic authorship. External e silentio, (a) from the history, (b) from the prophetic literature. Relation of Chronicles to the older historical books. Pre-exilic history ignores the ritual law. The contrast might be due to disappearance of the Pentateuch Pp. 36-39 8. The prophetic literature ignores the ritual law and positively dis- claims a knowledge of its existence Pp. 39~42 9. Internal evidence. How its force may be nullified. Post- Mosazca. Destructive criticism of Colenso. Illustrations. Its object; Pp. 42-46 10. The date 620 B. C. for Deuteronomy the key to historical criticism of the Pentateuch. Why critics identify Hilkiah's law-book, II. Kings xxii.f, with Deuteronomy. External evidence for this date Pp. 46-49 11. Internal evidence in Deuteronomy. Post-Mosaica. Character and style of the Code. The religious revolution demanded. Its ne- cessity and radical nature. Deuteronomy providentially if not miraculously fitted to the necessities of reform in the seventh century, B. C Pp. 49-54 12. Position of the priestly code in regard to the great reform. Characterization of P. Relation to the history and litera- ture Pp. 54-5 7 13. Relation of Deuteronomy to P an unbroken silence. Deuteronomy "analyzes" Exodus and Numbers. Internal evidence for post- exilic origin of P. Illustration from Ezekiel of legal develop- ment. . Pp. 57-59 xviii CONTEXTS. 14. Characterization of JE. External and internal evidence of date. Its function in the prophetic movement Pp. 59-62 15. J and E. Relation and contrast of J and E., Pp. 62, 63 1 6. Results of the Critical Theory. An inductive doctrine of revela- tion and inspiration Pp. 63, 64 CHAPTER III. THE DOCUMENTARY THEORY OF TO-DAY. 1. Purpose of the articles. Method pursued. The Grafian theory. History of the amalgamation of JE. Origin and incorporation of Deuteronomy. The "prophetic " element of the Hexateuch. Growth of the priestly legislation. Rewriting of the history as a framework to the priestly legislation. Supplementation. Amal- gamation of the priestly with the prophetic elements. Final redaction Pp. 65, 66 2. The theory of Dillmann. Mainly a peculiar theory of the origin of P. The earliest priestly codes. The great priestly writer. Simultaneous combination of E, P 2 , J and parts of P 1 by R. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomist Pp. 66, 67 3. Evangelical critics. List of authorities P. 67, 68 4. Table of Dillmann's analysis of P, E and J throughout the Hexa- teuch Pp. 68-94 PART II. The text of Genesis according to the Revised Version in varieties of type to exhibit the constituent sources and method of their compilation according to the general consensus of critical analysis, with notes explanatory of the phenomena of redaction Pp. 97-223 CONTENTS. xi* PART III. The separate documents J, E and P conjecturally restored, with revised translation according to emended text and conjectural readings of good authority Pp. 225-334 APPENDICES. Appendix I. The great Flood Interpolation and connected passages, placed in juxtaposition with a translation of their cuneiform paral- lels Pp. 335-350 Appendix II. Hebrew Notes Pp. 351, 352 INTRODUCTION. INTRODUCTION. " If you penetrate the secret of the twelve [last verses of Deuteronomy, containing the account of Moses' death], also 4 And Moses wrote' (Ex. xxiv. 4; Num. xxxiii. 2; Deut. xxxi. 9, 22), 'And the Canaanites were then in the land' (Gen. xii. 6 ; cf. xiii. 7), 'In the mountain of the Lord he ap- pears ' (Gen. xxii. 14), 'And his bedstead was an iron bed- stead' (Deut. iii. n), you will discover the truth." In these enigmatical words Aben Ezra [fn68j, the acutest of the mediaeval Jewish commentators, calls attention to a number of indications in the Pentateuch of a later hand than that of Moses. He leaves the inference to his readers with a caution ; " He who understands will hold his tongue " (Comm. on Gen. xii. 6). It is not certain what inference he himself drew. The mystery he makes about it might easily lead us, as per- haps it did Spinoza, to exaggerate the extent of Aben Ezra's departures from the received opinion. He deprecates in an outburst of orthodox horror the temerity of a certain Isaac, who ascribed the list of kings in Edom " before there was any king in Israel " (Gen. xxxvi. 31), to the time of Jehosha- phat. On the other hand, it is not clear that Aben Ezra meant no more than to point out the existence of some later glosses in the Mosaic text of the Pentateuch. However that may be, with these observations criticism had made a begin- ning. It was a long time before anything more came of it. The new impulse to Bible study in the Reformation century did not take a critical direction. The erratic reformer Carl- stadt [f 1541] declared the authorship of the Pentateuch unknown and unknowable ; the Catholic Andreas Maes ft 1573], one of the men of learning whom scholars will always delight to honor, held that long after Moses the xxiv INTRODUCTION. Pentateuch had passed through the hands of an editor (per- haps Ezra), who had at least introduced words and clauses here and there to make the meaning- clearer, and substituted for obsolete names of places those .by which they were known in his time. The Church responded by putting Maes's Joshua on the Index.* Biblical scholarship had, indeed, much to do before addressing itself to the problems of the higher criticism. The ancient versions of the Old Testament were to be edited and the entire apparatus brought together in the great Polyglot Bibles ; the interpretation of the Old Testament on the basis of the original text wholly neglected among Christians since Jerome was to be taken up, and the tools of the interpreter created ; the history, geography, chronology, archaeology of the Bible to be worked up ; the versions to be compared with the Hebrew text, and the beginnings of systematic text criticism made. This work was done in the seventeenth century with a comprehensive learning and an indefatigable diligence which command not only our admiration but our lasting gratitude. There were giants in the earth in those days. Toward the end of the century the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, as we have it, was again challenged. Hobbes in his "Leviathan," 1651 and La Peyrere in his fantastic " Preadamites," 1655, did little more than enlarge and comment on Aben Ezra's list of diffi- culties ; though the latter argues also from the obscurity, confusion, and disorder of many parts of the narrative that we have a jumble of excerpts and transcripts rather than an original work. He does not doubt, however, that Moses wrote the greater part of the Pentateuch. Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-politicus, 1670, making Aben Ezra's obscure hints his point of departure, went much farther and anticipated many of the observations and inferences of subsequent criti- cism. He shows that there are much more serious difficulties in the way of the long-established opinion that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch than the superficial anachronisms * This did not deter other Catholic scholars from following in his footsteps. The Spaniard Pefeira and the Flemish Jesuit Bonfrere are particularly to be named. I NT ROD UCTION. xxv which would at most warrant the conclusion that it had been glossed here and there by copyists or revised by an editor. The whole history of Joseph and Jacob, for example, shows by its internal inconsistencies that it is extracted and compiled from different histories. No author could have put Genesis xxxviii. (the story of Judah and Tamar), with its introduction, "And it came to pass at that time," where it now stands, interrupting the history of Joseph and involving the most patent chronological absurdities ; it must be taken from another book, and introduced here by the compiler without sufficient examination. The hypotheses by which the commentators seek to relieve such difficulties, if true, would prove that the ancient Hebrews were entirely ignorant both of their own language and of the way to tell a story ; in which case there would be no principle or norm in the inter- pretation of Scripture, but every man might invent any ex- planation he pleased. This clear statement of the inevitable outcome of the attempt to remove critical difficulties by exe- getical inventions contains the judgment not only of the rabbinical commentators whom Spinoza had immediately in view, but of much modern exegesis as well. Such a method is not to interpret the Scripture but to correct it ; or as he says in a note, to corrupt it, and give it, like a piece of wax, as many shapes as you please. His own theory was that the Pentateuch and older Historical Books (Josh., Jud., Sam., Kings) were the work of a single historian, who proposed to write the antiquities of the Jews from the beginning to the first destruction of Jerusalem, and who largely compiled his work from older writings. Who this historian was, cannot be certainly established ; but there are considerations of some weight which support the conjecture that it was Ezra. The criticism of the seventeenth century is best known by the names of Richard Simon, Histoire critique du Vieux Testa- ment, 1678 (edition suppressed ; authorized reprint, Rotter- dam, 1685), and Jean Le Clerc, Sentimens de quelques the'ologiens de Hollande sur V Histoire Critique, etc., 1685, etc. ; to whom may be added Anton van Dale, 1696. These scholars agree xxvi INTRODUCTION. only in their negative conclusion : the Pentateuch as we have it can not be the work of Moses. Each has his own hypo- thesis of its origin. According to Simon it grew out of the public archives under the direction of prophets and scribes ; Le Clerc imagined it the work of the Samaritan priest, i Kings xvii. 28 ; Van Dale makes Ezra the author. Without some new instrument, criticism could not get beyond negative results. Its researches could make it in- creasingly clear that the Pentateuch in its present form is not Mosaic ; that it is a compilation rather than an original work ; but that true history of the book which, as Spinoza justly says, is the basis of its interpretation, it could not divine. The course of criticism in the seventeenth century, and again in Germany in the end of the eighteenth, shows that the logical drift of opinion was to bring the compilation of the Pentateuch down to the age of Ezra ; in which case, as no criteria other than the intrinsic probability of the relation existed, by which to determine the age or work of the sources employed by the author, the historical value of the work was effectually destroyed. The necessary instrument, the critical analysis, was put in the hands of criticism by the French physician, Jean Astruc. Astruc's father, a Reformed pastor, who abjured before the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, had given him a thorough education.* He rose to eminence in his profession, not only as a practitioner, but as the author of treatises which are still named with honor. It was the man of science, not the theologian, who discovered the secret of Genesis. The repe- titions, or parallel narratives (e. g. the two accounts of the creation of the world and especially of man ; the threefold repetition of some of the particulars of the flood) ; the pecu- liar use of the names Elohim and Jehovah in Genesis, in contrast with Exodus iii.ff ; the antichronisms, or disturb- ances of the chronological order, led him to conjecture that the author (Moses) had employed at least two older nar- * It is often said (e. g. by Renan in his preface to the French translation of Kuenen's Introduction) that Astruc was not a Hebrew scholar. This is contradicted, however, by his own language, Conjectures, p. 18 ; cf. Note p. 31, 32, etc. I NT ROD UCTION. xxvii ratives, one of which used the name Elohim, the other, Jehovah. This hypothesis he tested by carrying through the analysis. His success in this attempt was itself a verifica- tion ; but the verification became demonstrative when it appeared that upon the separation of the Elohim and the Jehovah Memoirs the repetitions, contradictions, and anti- chronisms which had so much exercised commentators and critics, disappeared of themselves. With the confidence of the man of science in scientific method, he wrote at the end of his prefatory exposition of these results : "So we must either renounce all pretence of ever proving any thing in any critical question, or agree that the proof which the combina- tion of these facts affords amounts to a complete demonstra- tion of the theory of the composition of Genesis which I have propounded." Unfortunately, few theologians had sufficient scientific or historical training to recognize the absolute cogency of the demonstration. Astruc's motive and his application of the results were conservative. He congratulated himself that his surgeon's knife had effected a radical cure of what he calls the " malady of the last century," the doubt of the Mosaic authorship of Genesis ; and especially that he had " annihilated the vain triumph of Spinoza," in the matter of Genesis xxxviii. The father of analytic criticism was an apologist. His own analysis was tentative and imperfect ; his criteria were too simple ; his application of them too mechanical: His hy- pothesis of the way in which the " Memoirs" were combined was artificial and improbable. But when all that is said, his discovery remains one of the most brilliant and fruitful in the history of criticism. His Conjectures had no better fortune than the works of laymen usually experience at the hands of scholars of the schools. J. D. Michaelis, in a review of the book the year after its appearance, gave the author the credit of being a well-meaning man ; but added that he seemed not to be ac- quainted with the literature of Old Testament studies since Clericus, and that his original contributions were worthless ! INTRODUCTION. The theory of the composition of Genesis from two principal narratives was taken up in Germany by Michaelis's younger colleague, Eichhorn (from 1779), and improved on by Ilgen (1798), who recognized a second Elohist (E), and in other ways displayed remarkable insight. In the early years of the present century the hypothesis of Astruc- Eichhorn- Ilgen, that our Genesis is the harmonistic combination of two or three continuous narratives, gave place for a time to the theory of Geddes (1792) and Vater (1805), who regarded the Pentateuch as a planless and dis- orderly congeries of loose scraps, of various age and worth, brought together by a late compiler. This was the direction in which German criticism had been feeling its way before Eichhorn, and to which it now returned. This "Fragment Hypothesis " succumbed to the demonstration, which was ere long forthcoming, that the Pentateuch is not such a hodge-podge ; but has, in spite of a certain appearance of disorder, a manifest unity and strongly marked plan. This plan appears most conspicuously in the main Elohistic narrative, the " Groundwork " of the Pentateuch, as it now began to be called. And this led to the hypothesis, which enjoyed for a while the adhesion of the leading critics, that the Groundwork has received extensive additions by a later writer. These pieces of new cloth do not always match the old garment ; they are often misplaced, and have sometimes made rents : the disorder on the surface of a well-ordered composition is thus accounted for. In this theory (" Supple- ment Hypothesis ") the Fragment Hypothesis is only half overcome. A juster and more discriminating analysis soon showed that the Jehovistic parts of Genesis have a plan and order of their own, and when separated form a tolerably complete whole. This was demonstrated by Hupfeld, whose work on the Sources of Genesis appeared, by a noteworthy coincidence, in 1853, the centennary of the publication of Astruc's Conjectures. Hupfeld rediscovered Ilgen's second Elohist, and demonstrated that Genesis is a cord, not of two, but of three strands. Criticism had now nothing to do but to INTRO D UC TION. xxix return to the original hypothesis, that Genesis is a combina- tion of older histories (so-called "Document Hypothesis"); and did so with more assured confidence, since all conceiv- able alternatives had been tried and excluded. Since this return to the right path much progress has been made in the details of the analysis by the studies of Nb'ldeke, Wellhausen, Kuenen, Dillmann, Budde, and others. In Genesis, at least, we are approaching, if we have not already reached, the limit to which it can be carried. There will always be a remainder which defies our analysis. And, as in all other historical investigations, the evidence varies from the highest degree of probability to the most delicate balancing of seem- ingly contradictory indicia. But there is no reason to think that the general results in which critics now agree will be overturned. In this volume the actual status of the analysis is graphi- cally exhibited by the use of different fonts of type for the different narratives which have been combined to make our Genesis. The composite character of the whole having been thus made apparent, the unity and substantial integrity of the three main sources is shown by bringing together the disjecta membra of each of them. Synthesis must be the test of analysis.* Of the author's qualification for the task he has undertaken, the work itself is the best witness. It is the fruit of long and thorough study of the text, and of intimate ac- quaintance with the extensive and widely scattered literature of recent criticism. Mr. Bacon has proved his ability to do original work of value in this field by various articles in Hebraica and the Journal of Biblical Literature which have * Earlier attempts to present the results of the analysis to the eye are not to mention Astruc's parallel columns E. Boehmer, Liber Genesis Pentateuchicus^ 1860 (the Hebrew text in different fonts of type) ; followed by his Das erste Buck der Thora. Uebersetzung seiner drei Quellenschriften u. s. w., 1862. Lenormant, La Genese. Traduction d* apres I" Hebreu avec distinction des elemens constitutifs du fexte, suivie d' un essai de restitution des livres primitifs, 1883 ; English transla- tion under the title : The Book of Genesis^ etc., 1886. (On this translation see Andover Review X., 654.) Kautzsch and Socin, Die Genesis mit ausserer Unterscheidung der Quellenschriften^ u. s. w., 1889 ; second edition, 1891. It is proper to say that the pre- sent work was far advanced before the appearance of the first edition of Kautzsch and Socin's excellent little volume. xxx INTRODUCTION. received merited commendation from scholars. A more competent guide through the labyrinth of the analysis would be hard to find. It would not be strange if the very clearness with which the results of criticism are here exhibited should give rise to some apprehension of the consequences if they should be generally accepted. But surely apprehension is groundless. That a better understanding of the way in which God has revealed Himself in the history of the true religion, whose early chapters are written in the Old Testament, will dimin- ish men's faith in religion or the Scripture, or their reverence for them, is no less unreasonable than to suppose that better knowledge of Astronomy or Geology must impair faith in the God of Heaven and Earth. PART. I. CHAPTER I. Higher Criticism and the Science of Documentary Analysis. CHAPTER II. The Science of Historical Criticism. CHAPTER III. Pentateuchal Analysis. PART I. INTRODUCTORY. CHAPTER I. HIGHER CRITICISM AND THE SCIENCE OF DOCUMENTARY ANALYSIS. i. Criticism is appreciation. To criticise means, both by etymology and correct usage, to do justice ; but as all things partaking in any degree of a human character are imperfect, and justice implies the exposing of imperfection, the word is naturally apt to acquire a sinister sense to which it is not justly entitled. Biblical criticism is therefore in reality not merely an innocent pursuit for specialists, but in the highest , degree a science to be cultivated by all who honor and revere the Scriptures. To fail to criticise the Bible is to fail to do it justice. In former times when it was customary to deny even the existence of a human element in the Bible, textual criticism was denounced as an attack upon revealed religion. But textual criticism is now universally admitted to have corrected vast numbers of errors on the part of scribes and copyists, and may justly claim to have brought us by means of its marvellous apparatus for minute comparison of texts, to a position by many centuries nearer to the original writers of the Scriptures. The Higher Criticism* accepts the text which textual criti- cism furnishes as the closest possible approximation to the original, and identical for all practical purposes with the auto- graph of the latest editor or compiler as the case may be ; but beyond this point it undertakes to carry us still further back. It inquires how the text thus established came to assume that form. Was the writer an editor or compiler * "By the Higher Criticism is meant that study which tries to reproduce the influ- ences and circumstances out of which the biblical books arose, and thus exhibit them as true children of their own time." Ladd. What is the Bible? p. 126. I 2 HIGHER CRITICISM AND THE merely, as the writers of Kings and Chronicles declare them- selves to be? Then what were his sources, and what was their authority? Was he an author, as in the case of the fourth gospel ? Then who was he ? When and where did he live ? Under what circumstances and for what purpose did he write? What were his materials, and, if his personal opinions enter into the writing, what is the ground and de- gree of the respect to which his opinions are entitled ? All these questions are essential to a just appreciation of the Scriptures, and at the same time they are such as are legiti- mately comprised in the field of a special science. Until they are answered on scientific principles there can be no scientific doctrine of revelation and inspiration, no valid in- terpretation, and consequently no scientific science of Re- vealed theology. It is not assumed that there is no divine element in the Bible. It is not of course assumed that there is no human element in it, beside the mistakes of copyists. Nothing is assumed. One thing however is regarded as certain : that whether the Bible as it left the hands of the final editors was all divine, or all human ; or whether it was neither the one nor the other, but partook, as it is now admitted to partake, of the nature of both, there is no other way to do it justice than by criticism. By no other means can the human ele- ment, if there be one, be made to disclose its imperfections, and the divine element, if there be one, be made to disclose its perfections, but by Biblical Criticism, both the textual and the higher. 2. But it is with only a single department of the higher criticism that we have mainly to do in the present volume, the subordinate branch of Documentary Analysis, whose principal function is the extrication of sources. Even here we do not go beyond the first six books of the Old Testament, which critics regard as a literary unit and call the Hexateuch. It has been the unique privilege of the present century to succeed in unearthing veritable libraries of ancient literature. SCIENCE OF DOCUMENTARY ANAL YSIS. 3 Monuments of stone, tablets of clay, scrolls of parchment and papyrus have yielded up many secrets of the past to the patient search and scrutiny of the archaeologist. But a field of discovery by no means the least fruitful has been the page of authors and historians long known to our libraries, as well as of others recently brought to light. When we hear the ancient authors Sanchoniathon, Berosus, Manetho, and others quoted, the impression is apt to be made that copies of their works are in existence. This is not the case ; the works of a great proportion of these ancient writers are known to us only as they are quoted by Eusebius, Josephus, or some ancient historian whose works survive. But it necessarily happened that in many instances, especially in the earlier times, sources were not quoted by title and name, but simply incorporated ; for ideas of copyright and plagiarism, author's privileges and citation of authorities, are of modern invention. It is obvious, however, that no historian can write without sources, either oral or written, and if we possess more than one book wherein the same material appears, it becomes at once a problem within the ability of science to solve, at least in some degree, what the source was. A familiar instance is the book of Chronicles, which reproduces verbatim page after page of the earlier books of Samuel and Kings. Another kind of problem, almost equally familiar, is that of the Syn- optic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, where again we have the same material employed three times over in long passages verbally identical, but where the phenomena are such as to make the theory of direct transfer of limited appli- cation. That which is not so well known to the general public is the fact that a science exists, and has existed for more than a century, with definite method and rules for going, beneath the surface of ancient writings, and, so to speak, examining the material of their foundations and tracing thereon the masons' marks, and that many important results of this science have already secured universal acceptation among those competent to judge. At present the trustworthiness of the science in its 4 HIGHER CRITICISM AND THE general methods and results can be best exhibited by an illustration drawn from patristic literature, since thus we shall not raise the mooted question of the documentary the- ory of the Pentateuch.* Up to the time of the publication in 1883 of the extremely ancient Christian document entitled, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, the eminent German critics, Bickell and Gebhardt had concluded from their studies of the so-called Apostolic Constitutions and Apostolic Epitome that some more ancient document underlay these writings. In 1882 appeared the work of Krawutzky, "in which he under- took to recover and reconstruct the imbedded earlier and simpler document." When, in 1883, this Teaching of the Twelve Apostles was brought forth from its hiding-place of centuries in a neglected convent library of Constantinople and given to the Christian world, the close correspondence of it with the document conjecturally reproduced by the pro- cesses of "documentary analysis" demonstrated the latter to be " a success of the most pronounced and brilliant character, "f Like work to this so successfully accomplished in patristic literature, can be done, and has been done in the biblical writings, and its results have been scrutinized, checked and corroborated by the mutual criticism of many schools of higher criticism, comprising the most illustrious names in Biblical scholarship for a century past. Corroboration by the discovery of the actual documents supposed to have been imbedded in the Hexateuch is scarcely to be expected ; for the discovery of the Assyro-Chaldean Flood and Creation tablets, \ though furnishing unmistakeable evidence of a rela- * Instead of a minute description of the history and methods of this science of Documentary Analysis, the reader is referred to the article Pentateuch in the Enc. Brit. IX. ed., or, if accessible, to a very excellent French history of Pentateuch analysis by A. Westphal, Les Sources du Pentateuque (Paris, Librairie Fischbacher, 1888.) The methods can best be studied by the English reader in Kuenen's Hexa- teuch already referred to : by readers of German in Kuenen, and in Wellhausen's Composition des Hexateuchs^ Berlin, 1890. t Professors Hitchcock and Brown of Union Theological Seminary. Introduction to their edition of the Didache. \ See Appendix I. SCIENCE OF DOCUMENTAR Y ANAL YSIS. 5 tionship between the two versions, affords no material verb- ally incorporated into the narratives supposed to have been interpolated in Genesis. The archaeologist has however brought to light quite recently a document whose bearing upon the documentary theory of the Pentateuch is too direct and important to permit an ignoring of it in any work assum- ing to present the claims of the analysis. Professor Geo. F. Moore of Andover, in an article published in the Journal of Biblical Literature 1890, Part II, and entitled, "Tatian's Diatessaron and the Pentateuch," shows how every process attributed by the critics to R. the Redactor, or assumed com- piler and editor of the Pentateuch, is paralleled, and more than paralleled, by those applied by the long-lost author Tatian to the material taken by him from our own canonical four gospels. That which in the analysis of the Hexateuch has been ignorantly denounced as "a crazy patchwork " is seen to be more sober, more credible by far, than the process actually applied by Tatian to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to make his Diatessaron, or " Harmony of the four gospels." This work is itself an illustration of the constructive power of the documentary analysis, for it was reconstructed by Zahn in 1881 "with conspicuous success" by means of a Latin Harmony of the sixth century and the Armenian com- mentary on it of Ephraem Syrus. In 1888 Ciasca edited the Diatessaron itself from two codices, the Vatican Cod. Arab, xiv., and a MS. recently acquired by the Museum Borgianum. For details of the comparison between the mode of con- struction of this composite gospel for such it is, rather than a harmony and the composite Pentateuch assumed by the overwhelming majority of modern scholars, the reader is referred to the above mentioned article. It is however the history of Tatian's Diatessaron which has a more immediate bearing than even its text upon the Pentateuchal theory. Prof. Moore will allow me to quote his language. "This harmony of the Gospels was made after the middle of the second century. ... It was for several generations the Gospel of a large part of the Syrian church, and is quoted simply as such After the beginning of the fifth century, however, there came a change. 6 HIGHER CRITICISM AND THE Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa (411-435), ordered that the churches of his diocese should be supplied with copies of the Separate Gospels, and that they should be read. A few years later, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus (423-457), found the Diatessaron in use in two hundred churches in his diocese one in four of the whole number. He sequestered them, and replaced them by copies of the Gospels of the Four Evangelists. These names are not without significance. They are the opposite of 'Composite Gospel,' the common name for the Diatessaron. The title of Matthew in the Curetonian fragments, which puzzled Cureton, and of which Bernstein proposed a wholly untenable explanation, expresses this contrast ; it is ' The Separate Gospel Matthew. ' " Had it not been for the forcible intervention of the bishops, the Syrian church would doubtless have repeated to the letter the history of the supposed documentary sources of the Pen- tateuch J. E. D. and P;* for in an uncritical age motives of convenience and the tendency to assimilation far outweigh the claims of literary comparison for the sake of historical accuracy. What the Separate Gospels did for the Syrian church the analysis aims to do for us by a Separated Hexa- teuch. The greater the number of witnesses and the wider the divergence in their standpoint, the longer will be the base-line of critical measurement and the stronger and more accurate the history determined by it. 3. Complete as is the parallel between the history of Tatian's Diatessaron and the supposed history of the Penta- teuch, no one pretends to say that such a supposition would be probable in the case of a modern Occidental work. Two facts cooperate to make the supposition credible in the case of ancient Oriental books which in the case of modern books would be quite improbable : first, their long and checkered history in the MS. form, subject to all kinds of manipulation and interpolation such as textual criticism bears witness tof; second, ancient, and especially Oriental methods of book- making. So nearly universal is the rule that very ancient documents are conglomerate, having incorporated in their history larger or smaller quantities of older or foreign material, that scarcely * I. e., Jahvist, Elohist, Deuteronomist and Priestly writer. See p. 21. tE. g., Mark xvi. 9-20 and John vii. 53 viii. n. Rev. Ver. SCIENCE OF DOCUMENTAR Y ANALYSIS. 7 one exists to which the process of analysis has not been ap- plied with more or less striking success. The Egyptian Book of the Dead, perhaps the oldest writ- ing in existence, and the Homeric poems, are generally re- garded as conglomerate, though so far back as traceable in history they have been protected from divergent forms by canonization and hence afford but slight crevices for the wedge of analytical criticism. Other sacred books of antiq- uity, however, the Vedas, the Bundehesch and the Edda, are mines of primitive documentary treasure ; while the clay tab- lets of Sardanapalus avow themselves copies of works dating from 2000 B. C., and earlier. In fact it is the general expec- tation of the antiquarian that investigation of an early docu- ment will disclose still earlier fragments. Hence discoveries of ancient writings are no sooner made than appeal is taken both to historical and analytical criticism, to discover what- ever may be underlying the present text. An example is The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, wherein already the discovery of a still earlier portion by critical analysis has been announced and is generally accepted. These facts necessarily presuppose a somewhat different character and structure in ancient documents from that to which we are accustomed in modern literature. No one would think, for example, of trying to analyze one of Dick- ens's novels or a story of the war of the Rebellion or Ban- croft's History of the United States, into component parts. We might indeed be sure, in cases like the last, that certain sources must underlie the w r ork of the author ; but we should know it a hopeless task to attempt anything like a recon- struction of more than minute parts of such authorities em- ployed, because of their great number and the thorough process of mental review and assimilation which they had undergone before composition began. But with respect to the writings here dealt with the case is wholly different. In the first place, works of fiction spun out of the author's individual mind are notoriously (with exceptions too few to be considered) not to be found in primeval literatures. 8 HIGHER CRITICISM AND THE Secondly, a certain class of writings, manifestly the auto- graphs of individuals, such as monumental inscriptions, are of course excepted in any case from the sphere of analysis. Such autographs are however, in the nature of the case, compara- tively rare and brief. When transmitted to us by literary transcription and incorporation into larger works, they are liable to those modifying processess revision, emendation, expansion which always accompany such transmission, and of which we shall have more to say in the course of the argu- ment. Writings of this class are therefore more apt to be the finished product of documentary analysis than its raw material. Thirdly, in the case of historic, poetic and religious writ- ings (the usual form in which the literary legacy of the early past is transmitted to us), we must expect a very different character and structure from that of modern books. A mod- ern writer has a vast number of works on kindred topics, which are also accessible to his readers. He cannot quote at length from all, he dare not plagiarize at length from one or two. With the ancient writer the case is entirely different. He has but very few sources three or four at the utmost. He has neither the capacity nor the desire to compare critically, to digest and reproduce in his own language. On the other hand there is no objection to unlimited transfer of material. He may simply copy a whole book. He may copy the whole or parts of two books or three, and add as much or as little as he chooses of his own. In either case his work will be equally serviceable and equally approved. A book was a book, individually and by itself, before the days of systematic publication; it was judged by its contents as true or untrue, interesting or uninteresting, without regard to authorship, sources, or possible relation to other books, previous or con- temporary, like or unlike. The man who owned it owned so much parchment or paper, on which he copied what he chose and wrote what he chose. His successor owned it in like manner and could treat it in like manner. It is no wonder that ancient documents, of even a few pages only, contain SCIENCE OF DOCUMENTAR Y ANAL YSIS. 9 elements extremely heterogeneous in character. It is no wonder either that we should find (as we do) that documents usually tend to swell in bulk as they pass on from generation to generation. Even supposing the owner of a book to ab- stain from inserting on the margin or between the lines observations of his own an abstinence more apt to flow from mental indolence than from any idea of literary impropriety- he cannot be expected to abstain from inserting into his vol- ume any floating scrap of history or poetry which strikes him as valuable, especially if he has a notion that it emanates from the same author as the volume in his possession. Omission, on the other hand, would be comparatively rare, occurring only in very obvious cases of duplication or contra- diction. These a priori conclusions were strikingly confirmed, as we have seen, by the discovery of Tatian's Diatessaron ; further illustration and authority for these statements will be afforded by the following extract from a review of vol. III. of Kenan's History of Israel in the Christian Union for April 9, 1891 : " Oriental history is compilation, in which the several parts retain their individuality. There is less desire for smoothness and unbroken connection than for the inclusion of all matters bearing on the subject in hand. That * the pieces exist in their entirety, not digested (p. 58), is to a large extent true. Renan cites as examples of the habit the Chronicle of Malalas of Antioch, among the Greek compilations ; Moses of Chorene, Firdusi. The materials thus used are preserved in their new combination, but lost as separate works. 'It is, in fact, the law of Oriental history-writing that a book kills its predecessor. The sources of a compilation rarely survive the compilation itself. A book in the Orient is hardly ever copied just as it is. It is brought up to date by the addition of whatever is known, or believed to be known, besides. The individuality of a historical book does not exist in the Orient. The sub- stance is held to, not the form ; there is no scruple at mixing authors and styles. The desire is to be complete, that is all.' " (Pp. 61, 62.) Says Prof. W. Robertson Smith of Cambridge : " When critics maintain that some Old Testament writings tradition- ally ascribed to a single hand, are really of a composite origin, and that many of the Hebrew books have gone through successive redactions, or, in other words, have been edited and re-edited, in different ages, receiving some addition or modification at the hand of each editor, it is often supposed that these are mere theories devised to account for facts which may be susceptible of a very different explanation Here it is that the Septuagint conies in to justify the critics, and provide 10 HIGHER CRITICISM AND THE external evidence of the sort of thing which to the conservative school seems so incredible. The variations of the Greek and Hebrew text, reveal to us a time when the functions of copyist and editor shaded into one another by imperceptible degrees. They not only prove that Old Testament books were subjected to such processes of successive editing as critics maintain, but that the work of redaction went on to so late a date that editorial changes are found in the present Hebrew text which did not exist in the MSS. of the Greek translators No one who has been personally occupied with old Eastern MSS., and has observed the way in which copyists, on account of the scarcity and costliness of writing material, were accustomed to fill up blank pages at the end of a book by writing in some other work or passage which they wished to preserve, and that without any note or title whatever, will for a moment venture to affirm that the title at the beginning of the book must necessarily apply to the whole contents of the volume"." * The testimony of competent witnesses is unanimous that early, and especially Oriental MSS. are far from being uni- versally homogeneous in original structure, while their trans- mission has been exposed to almost unlimited interpolation and manipulation. The earliest Semitic authorship seems to have been frequently a process of agglomeration, of which the Diatessaron is only one of the latest and most elaborate examples. The transmission of these early works has again been not merely copying, but during a considerable part of the history a process of accretion. There are however two considerations which relieve the sense of dissatisfaction occa- sioned by this disclosure. First: elimination is much rarer than addition. Second : the very fact of great antiquity, although in one respect complicating the problem of analysis, makes the probability the stronger that the writing, if com- posite, is the resultant of few elements rather than many. 4. There will be no disposition in any quarter to dispute the general proposition that the earliest prose histories are found to rest upon a foundation of folk-lore and minstrelsy. The history of literature presents to us in the earliest period the age of war-songs and ballads sung at feasts or round the camp fire by bards whose music is but a step from the ring- ing shield or twang of bow-string; of legends, too, that cluster around sacred groves or venerated shrines. The Homeric poems, the Runic sagas, survived thus in oral form for an in- * Old Test, in the jfezvis/t Church, pp. 105 and 109. SCIENCE OF DOCUMENTAR Y ANALYSIS. 11 definite period. While the treasury of tribal tradition was still small, for a period indeed which to the modern seems almost incredible, the memory alone was sufficient to preserve the most memorable of these traditions entire; but gradually the increasing burden compelled reluctant resort to the labor- ious and costly method of writing. In most cases if not all, literature begins in the attempt to preserve the overflowing treasures of oral tradition ; the different forms of poetic ex- pression, cadence, rhythm, rhyme and alliteration, being mnemonic expedients previously resorted to. We need not be surprised therefore to find underlying a primitive historical writing, as one of its principal sources, individual songs, some- times of even epic proportions ; and not infrequently whole collections of early poems, usually of a warlike, often of a re- ligious character. The prose Edda reduces to the form of a continuous story the earlier lyric mythology. Herodotus and his predecessors draw upon the earlier legends of poetic form. Livy looks back to Ennius "the Homer of Rome." But most nearly allied to Hebrew writings is the Arabic epic Kitab-el-Aghdni, whose resemblance in its mingled prose and verse to some of the Old Testament writings is a favorite illustration of Renan. "Rhythmic structure," he says, "especially when conformed to the rules of the Semitic parallelism, is like the quipou, the knotted string which holds fast what would otherwise drop out of memory. Thus it is that every Arab tribe, making no use of writing, preserved, in old times, the whole Divan of its poems ; thus it is that the memory of the pre-islamic Arabs, from which it would have been in vain to expect a single accurate statement of historic fact, preserved, down to the time of the scribes of Baghdad, one hundred and fifty years after Mohammed, the immense poetic treasure of the Kitab-el-Aghdm, the Moallakdt, and other poems of the same sort. The Tuareg tribes in our own day exhibit phenomena of the same kind."* It is well known to what extent the historical writings of the Old Testament, especially the Pentateuch, Joshua and the book of Judges, are strewn with poems and poetic fragments antique in structure and often of great beauty. It will hardly be supposed that the author of the prose work himself com- posed the poems for the embellishment of the history. But * E. Renan. Histoire du peitple d' Israel. I. p. 304. 12 HIGHER CRITICISM AND THE if not, here is already a "source" easily separable, whose re- lation to the work which now incorporates it we should do well to discover. What if the Song- of Lamech, the Blessing of Noah, the Oracle of Rebekah, the Blessings of Isaac and of Jacob form parts of such a fund of folk-lore and minstrelsy! In that case not only will the separate study of these frag- ments carry us back to an earlier period of the history, but a comparison of their standpoint with that of the writer who incorporates them, will shed an invaluable light upon the question how the latter shall be understood, and to what ex- tent our view of his narrative is to be affected by the sources to which he thus invites our study. Illustrations are abundant. The 4th and 5th chapters of Judges give respectively a prose and a poetic account of the victory of Deborah and Barak. There can be no question as to the relative antiquity of the two, since the song bears every mark of a paean of victory dating from the immediate remem- brance of the triumph. The prose narrative in this instance makes a highly favorable impression by its correspondence with and at the same time its seeming independence of the poem, as if its author had at command some further details of the battle, written or traditional, though he manifestly looks back to "that time" as one more or less remote. 5. But let us turn to another instance even more noted. Joshua x. 12, 13, contains a quotation expressly assigned to its source. The author, perhaps because what he relates might seem to require more authority than his mere state- ment, after quoting four lines of poetry says, "Is not this written in the book of Jashar?" The quotation is a poetic apostrophe to the sun and moon, placed no doubt in the mouth of Joshua, and reminds us of the impassioned asser- tion of Deborah's Song, " The stars in their courses fought against Sisera." It read as follows: 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. SCIENCE OF DOCUMENTAR Y ANAL YSIS. 13 We recognize at once the force and beauty of a poetical figure. But there is no evidence that the author of the prose narrative did so. To him it was simply a miracle, but one the stupendous character of which in its cosmical relations he of course could not appreciate. In a tone of wonder he de- clares : " And the sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that Yahweh hearkened unto the voice of a man ; for Yahweh fought for Israel." Here we see an author distinctly citing his authority by title, and apparently misconceiving it. This is quite a differ- ent matter from that in Judges iv., and if we succeed in estab- lishing unity of authorship between this prose account and other parts of the historical writings, we learn to treat such other parts with the caution suggested by the discovery that the writer is dependent on a poetical source, the book of Jashar, which in at least one case he failed to interpret cor- rectly. That which is so undeniably true in the case of this passage in Joshua must be admitted to be at least possible in other cases. We find ourselves thus prompted by the very letter of the Scriptures themselves to this inquiry : Is it permissible to go behind the letter of the text in these other cases also ? It is by this process of " searching the Scriptures," that we are led toward an answer. Where the narrative is not act- ually set face to face with the cited authority we cannot pro- ceed with the same confidence ; but we can proceed with a degree of probability which makes the whole study one of the profoundest interest to the lover of sacred history. No fault has been found with the revisers for eliminating from the book of Judges one of its most remarkable prodi- gies by a simple modification of the translation of xv. 19, from "God clave a hollow place that was in the jaw" to "God clave the hollow place that is in Lehi," although such attempts to lighten the task of faith are wont to be resented. Lehi of course means "jawbone" and the spring called En-hakkore ("spring of him that called"), which 14 HIGHER CRITICISM AND THE is at Lehi, is said by the writer to have derived its origin and name from Samson's prayer. The name of the place Lehi or Ramath-Lehi ("hill of the jawbone") corresponds to the Greek name for a certain promontory which Strabo gives as Onugnathos, "ass's jawbone," and is supposed by critics to be derived from the appearance of the cliff,* as in Hebrew a rock is called a "tooth," shen,\ and a cliff a "jaw." Will it be resented if after the revisers, by simply regarding Lehi as a proper name in v. 19, have eliminated one of the most incred- ible prodigies of the Old Testament, the higher criticism proceeds to remove the equally stupendous one which imme- diately precedes it, by doing exactly the same thing in v. 16, viz., translating Lehi as a proper name ? If this is permissible, verse 16 will read literally, " And Samson said, At Lehi an ass [or a heap] a heap, two heaps, At Lehi an ass [or a heap] I have slain a thousand men." The merest tyro in criticism will see at a glance that the word translated "an ass" in the text, which is identically the same word (hamor) as that twice repeated at the end of the first line, is simply what is called a dittograph, the com- monest of scribal errors, by which a word is accidentally duplicated in writing. Either because the word Lehi ("jaw- bone of") suggested the translation "an ass" for the first hamor or because the reduplication of the word ("a heap, two heaps ") to signify great numbers made confusion, the simple fragment of a war song, At (Heb. be) Lehi, a heap, two heaps, At Lehi I have slain a thousand men, was transformed into " With (a secondary sense of be) the jawbone of an ass heaps upon heaps, With the jawbone of an ass I have slain a thousand men." \ * Cf . note to Gen. xvi. 14, the well of Lehi-roi, tCf. French dent, Dent du Midi, Dent du Dru. t Cf. Heb. Notes, d) SCIENCE OF DOCUMENTAR Y ANALYSIS. 15 But since the elimination of the prodigy is effected in this case by the removal of a single dittographic word from the text, many will be inclined to consider this textual criti- cism. It is not. The author of the chapter himself read and wrote "jawbone of an ass," and builds all his story on the fact. We must go behind the author to his source, which in this instance is unquestionably an ancient song, probably the same twice quoted in the preceding chapter. When it be- comes manifest from verses 15 and 17 that the author himself understood his material in the sense, " With the jawbone of an ass," no matter how absurd the rendering, textual criticism has no more to say. It becomes the duty of the higher criti- cism to put the inquiry, How far does the author correctly interpret his source ? To most minds the conclusion will be inevitable that we have here instead of a stupendous prodigy the simple misinterpretation of an ancient song. Outside the Pentateuch it is therefore entirely possible to trace in some of the historical books, certain fragments of the sources employed, and even to place the source itself in comparison with the narrative deduced from it. Not only is this true, but we know the title of one of the most important of the earlier works quoted, and can make a beginning already toward reconstructing it. For the Sepher haj-Jashar^ or " Book of the Upright," quoted by the author of Joshua x. 10, ff. is referred to elsewhere in the Old Testament and considerable extracts made from it. The noble elegy upon the death of Saul and Jonathan, II Samuel i. 17-27, there called (or per- haps directed to be sung to the melody of) " The Song of the Bow," and attributed to David, is the most important excerpt, and easily constitutes the most authentic and earliest witness to David's skill as a minstrel, besides corroborating the touching story of the friendship of David and Jonathan. 14 1 am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan, Very pleasant hast thou been unto me : Thy love to me was wonderful, Passing the love of woman. Behold it is written in the book of Jashar." 16 HIGHER CRITICISM AND THE But while this corroboration of I Samuel and of the tradi- tion which in Amos's time (Amos vi. 5) gave to David the rep- utation of a bard, is most welcome, it must be admitted that the period to which we should assign the collection quoted here and in Joshua x., is brought down to a later date than we have been accustomed to assign to the composition of Joshua itself. Even if we assume with Renan in his brilliant but inexcusably superficial and dogmatic Histoire du Peuple tf Israel, that the Song of the Bow marks the closing of the collection of haj-Jashar, we cannot place this date earlier than the reign of David. But M. Renan, who avowedly depends more upon the instinctive intuition of a French Semitic scholar than on the patient industry and cautious method of German critics, has in this instance been led astray by his in- tuition that the Sepher haj-Jashar must have been completed in, or soon after, the period of David. " It is therefore our opinion that the battle of Gilboa and the elegy on the death of Jonathan occupied the last pages of the book. Certainly there was no allusion to the last perioa of David nor to the reign of Solomon.'"* A glance at the LXX. version, however, at I Kings viii. 12, would have proved that the building and dedication of the temple were also treated in the book of Jashar. The poetic fragment which, according to the Hebrew, begins Then spake Solomon : " Yahweh hath said that he would dwell in the thick darkness ; But I have built thee an house to dwell in, A place for thine habitation forever ;" was more complete and correct in the text possessed by the LXX., and read in a way which restores both the parallelism and poetic thought of the opening line. " Yahweh created the sun in the heavens, But he hath determined to dwell in darkness, I have built an house of habitation for thee, A place to dwell in eternally. Behold is it not written in the book of Jashar :" * " Nous pensons done and Dltf JO!! in vs. 19 and 35b = E. The names of Esau's wives also in vs. 10,13f,16-18 were altered by E to bring them into correspondence with his source in vs. 1-5). 10. The TOLEDOTH of Jacob: Joseph's greatness in Egypt; the sons of Jacob migrate thither [a table of Jacob's descendants] ; Pha- raoh gives them audience and offers them the land of Eamses ; Jacob brings his life to a close in Egypt ; adopts the sons of Joseph ; gives final directions to his sons ; dies, and is buried in the cave of Mach- pelah. 37:2a (to ftf^D or to 3pj^); 41:46,(47(?),36(?),50(?)) ; 46:6f,8-27, (vs. 8,12b,15,20,26f worked over by E) ; 47:5b, supplying before it from LXX. 'Q 'o njna yoBn VJDI spy nor SN nonyo IND>I fpv 1 ? njna "io*n - Then 5b,6a,7-ll,27 in part, 28 ; 48:3-6 ; 49:la,28b-32 (exc. either 30b or v. 32 = E) ; 48:7 (exc. DPf? H^D N1H = R ) ; *9:33 in part J; 50:12f. II. Exodus-Deuteronomy. 1. "The sons of Israel which came into Egypt;" the cry of their bondage comes up before God. 1:1-5,7 (exc. v. a6), 13f (exc. *O"O iTHSO [= J or E l ^d D n [= ]); 2:23 (from IfiWI on) -25. 2. Theophany to Moses ; revelation of the name Yahweh as a pledge of deliverance ; Moses commissioned to deliver Israel ; [a genealogy of Eeuben, Simeon and Levi showing the descent of Moses and Aaron ; Aaron appointed Moses' spokesman. 6:2-5,6*,7,10f,13,14-27 (vs. 8f,12,28f,30a = E. Much misplacing is also due to E) ; 6:30b-7:7. 3. The./Zue wonders in Egypt. Aaron's contest with the magicians. 72 PENTATEUCHAL ANALYSIS. (a) The first wonder : Aaron's rod changed M a serpent ; the magi- cians do likewise. 7:8-13. (6) The second wonder : Aaron's rod turns all the water of Egypt to blood ; the magicians do likewise. 7:19-22 (exc. 20, from fflfT on and 21a )- (c) The third wonder : Aaron's rod brings frogs ; the magicians do likewise. 8:1-3,11 (from tffl on. Supply njHfl 3? pHTD- (d) The fourth wonder : Aaron's rod brings lice ; the magicians fail and acknowledge " the finger of God." 8:12-15. (e) The fifth wonder : Moses and Aaron sprinkle ashes before Pha- raoh ; it becomes a boil on man and beast ; the magicians being stricken flee. Pharaoh still obdurate. 9:8-12. (/) [Conclusion of the section. Pharaoh's obduracy provokes the direct intervention of Yahweh.] 11 :9,10(9b perhaps = R). 4. Passover : the deliverance from Egypt. (a) Moses and Aaron receive directions from Yahweh for Israel; regulations concerning the calendar and the killing and eating of the passover lamb. 12:1-13,28. (b) Egypt smitten; Israel delivered; the law of Mazzoth. In 12:37 the word DDOJHO ; then vs. 43-49, 14-20 ,50, 40 ,4 la (lib = 51), 51. (c) The first-born shall be Yahweh's. 13:1,2. 5. Passage of the Red Sea. 13:20; 14:1-4,8,9 in part (exc. DHHriN- -IflTn [= JE] and I t= R ])> 15 ~ 18 ( exc - '*?** pyvn no in v. is, and o^n HN in v - 16 [= E Di 21ac,22,23 26 ; the first 6 words of 27,28a, 29 (VBnSDt 1M1Q) in 17,18,23,26,28 and "|^ yy\ DID ^D in v. 9 = R). 6. The march to Sinai : [Elim] ; Manna given ; Rephidim ; Sinai ; Moses goes up into the mount. (15:27?); 16:l-3*,6*,8-14,15b,16-18,22-24,31-34,35*; 17:la; 19:2a,l ; 24:15-18a (to pjfil) (15:27 perhaps E(?). Ch. 16 entirely worked over by R and removed from its proper position [to this all the critics agree]. The P 2 elements are given as above in Dill., in., p. 634, but in n., p. 165, PENTATEUCHAL ANALYSIS. 73 somewhat differently, e. g. v. 6f is attributed to P 2 and v. 8 to R. Vs. 3 in part, 4f,15a, 19f in part, 21, 25-30 ,35a = J, the rest = R). 7. The law and the testimony : the pattern shown in the mount ; the institution and regulation of the Levitical ritual. From Ex. 25 to Num. 10 the entire mass is admitted by all the crit- ics to belong to P in its various stratifications P 1 , P 2 , P 3 . Only Ex. 32-34:28, and a trace of E in 31:18 belongs to the u prophetic " element, a- id in these three chapters Dillmann alone finds a single trace of P 2 (in 32:15a). The extrication of Pi, P 2 , P 3 in Ex. 25-Num. 10 and the legal chapters of Numbers, with the analysis of the great code of the "prophetic" Hexateuch, Deuteronomy, are reserved for another arti- cle. The historical thread of P 2 is traced by all the critics in Ex. 25ff., (the construction of the tabernacle), Lev. 9,10 in part ; (the inaugura- tion of the ritual, and death of Nadab and Abihu), Num. 10:11-28; (the departure from Sinai). We proceed from the point where P 2 is again combined with JE, viz., in the story of 8. The sending of the spies, murmuring of the people at their report and the punishment. Num. 13:l-17a ; 21,25,26a,32 (to {OH) ; 14:1 in part, 2 in part, 5-7,10, 26.27-29,34-38. 9. The revolt of Korah and the Levites ; punishment of the people's murmuring ; the plague arrested by Aaron's atonement. 16:la,2f in part, 4 in part, 5-7 for the most part, 18-24a,35; 17:6-15, 16-28 (16:3 in part, 8-ll,16f,24b,27a,32b = R; 17:1-5 = P 3 ). 10. Water from the rock at Meribah ; the sin of Moses and Aaron ; Aaron's death ; fragments of the itinerary. 20:la (to ?>}OrU 2,3b,6f,8a*,10a,12M3*,22-29; 21:10f ; 22:1 (many traces of R). 11. Israel misled by the Midianites after the counsel of Baalam; Phinehas' prompt action stays the plague. 25:6-9,14-16,19 (10-13 = P 3 . 17f = R. Ch. 31 is connected with this account, but in its present form = P 3 ). 12. The census of the nation, preparatory to the occupation of Ca- naan; regulation of inheritances where the heirs are females; the daughters of Zelophehad. Ch. 26 (exc. vs. 8-11 and 58-61 [= P 3 ]) ; 27:1-11. 13. Moses receives directions to prepare for his death ; Joshua com- missioned ; Reuben and Gad receive an inheritance east of Jordan. Deut. 32:48-52 (exc. glosses in vs. 49 and 52). The passage is a repe- tition of Num. 27:12-14 [P or R], this latter according to Dill, being 74 PENTATEUCHAL ANALYSIS. the copy; Num. 27:15-23; 32:la (to tJ|), 2b,4a,20-22*,28-30,18f,40(?) (therewith probably Josh. 13:15-19,23-27*,28,29b,32. See Josh, in toe.). 14. [An itinerarium of the wilderness stations]. 33:1-49 (exc. 8f*,14f*,16f*,40,49 [= E]). 15. Moses' death. Deut. 1:3; 34:la(to *Q3), 5*,7a,8f. III. Joshua. 1. Crossing the Jordan; passover at Gilgal [Achan's trespass]; the league with Gibeon. 3:4(?); 4:13*,15-17,19; 5:10-12; 7:l,18b,25ba; 9:15b,17-21,27 in part. 2. The inheritance of Reuben and Gad. 13:15-19,23-27*,28,29b,32 (vs. 20-22 ,29a,30f, 33 = Rd). 3. The distribution of the inheritances by lot ; Judah's inheritance ; a description of the territory of the tribe, giving boundaries, and enu- merating the cities and villages. 18:1 ; 14:1-5 ; 15:1-12,20-44,48-62 (vs. 45-47 = R, v. 63 = JE inserted by Rd). 4. The inheritance of Manasseh-Ephraim, of Benjamin, and of the other seven tribes ; similar tables of boundaries and cities, ending with a colophon. 17:la,3f,7*,9*,10*; 16:4*,5-9; 18:lla,12-28 ; 19:la6-7,8b,10-16,17*, 18-23*,24*,25-31*,32*,33-39*,40*,41-46*,48,51 (17:lb,2,8,ll-13 ; 16:1-3, 10; 18:llb; 19:laa,8a,9,27 in part, 47,49f = JE. 17:5f = R). 5. The cities of refuge and the cities of the priests and Levites appointed. 20:l(?),2f ,6*,7-9 ; 21 :1-40 (41-43 = D2) ; the portions of ch. 20 omitted are wanting in LXX. Well, and Kuen. consider LXX. more correct here and regard vs. 4f, etc., as late interpolations in a style imitating D. Dill, prefers the Massoretic text and assigns the additions to Rd. The LXX. found them superfluous and so omitted them. 6. The altar built by the transjordanic tribes. Its intention is mis- understood by the rest of Israel and they march against Reuben, Gad and Manasseh ; explanation of the Gileadites and peaceful separation of the tribes. 22 :9f, 13-15,19-21, 30f,32a (vs. 1-6 = D ; vs. 7f = Rd including a trace of E in v. 8 ; vs. ll*,12,24-27,32*,33f = E ; vs. 16-20 and 22-29 in their present form = R ; the whole chapter thoroughly worked over by R and afterward a second time by R d ). PENTATEUCHAL ANALYSIS. 75 B. THE EPHRAIMITE NARRATIVE E. The first demonstrable appearance is in Gen. 20. Probable traces in chs. 15 and 14. Not impossibly 4:17-24, and 6 :l-4, belong to E (Dill, in., p. 617). I. Genesis. 1. [Abram recaptures Lot from Chedorlaomer and is blessed by Mel- chizedek.] Ch. 14 = E (on a basis of E (?) exc. vs. 17-20 = K). 2. The promise of Isaac. 15:2* (traces in vs. 1,3,5,6 worked over by J and E). 3. Sarah and Abimelech. Ch. 20 (exc. v. 18, and mrWl D'tDJfl in v. 14 = E). 4. Birth of Isaac and expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael. 21:6,8-21. 5. Abraham's covenant with Abimelech at Beer-sheba. 21:22-32a. 6. The sacrifice of Isaac. 22:l,2*,3-10,ll*,12f,14*,19 (vs. 15-18 = E). 7. [Abraham's marriage with Keturah.] 25:1-4 (v. 5 = J; v. 6 = E). 8. Birth of Jacob and Esau. 25:25* ,27* (fragments). 9. [Isaac in Gerar.] 26:1*,2*,6. 10. The blessing of Isaac ; Jacob defrauds Esau of the inheritance. 27:1-45 in part. (Vs. 15,24-27,30a (to 3py HN), 35-38 = J. Vs. 21-23,30b,33f == E. 44b = 45aa, one J, the other E. Impossible to carry the analysis further). 11. Flight to Haran ; Bethel ; Jacob's dream and vow. 28:llf ,17-22 (v. 19a(?) J and E ; 19b,21b = E). 12. Jacob in Haran ; marriage with Leah and Eachel. 29:l,15b-30 (exc. vs. 24,29 = P2 and v. 26 ~ J). 13. Birth of the tribe-fathers. 30:l-3a,6,8,17-24(exc. 20b,22c,24b[= J],22a[= P2] and 21 [= E or J]). 14. Jacob's service with Laban ; he returns from Aram ; pursuit of Laban and covenant on Mt. Gilead. 30:26,28 (32-34 "hardly" E's); 31:2,4-17,19f,21*,22-24,26,28-45*,47*, 51-54*; 32:1; (31:10,12, ^py* in v. 45, v. 47 in part, 1 HtH ^H PUtt and i nrn ^n -\y m vs. SH, nwrr royon nxi v. 52, and v. 53 = E). 76 PENTATEUCHAL ANALYSIS. 15. The story of Mahanaim and Peniel ; encounter with Esau. 32:2f,4* (in part), 14b-22, 24 ,25-32 ; 33:4*,5,lla (32:33 = K). 16. Jacob's land purchase at Shechem; fulfills his vow at Bethel; death of Deborah and Rachel. 33:19f*; 35:l-4,6b-8,16-19a,20 (v. 6a = P2, ^ fl^ ^ft in v. 6 and D|-ft JTD NIPT in 19b, also vs. 21,22a = E). 17. Joseph's prophetic dreams and the envy of his brethren ; Reuben seeks to save him from their conspiracy and restore him to his father ; he persuades the brethren to cast Joseph into a pit ; Midianites pass by, find Joseph, and kidnap him ; Reuben returning is in despair at not finding the child ; the brethren report his death. 37:5-18a (exc. 5b.8c, VIlN^ 1HN ISD'I in vs. 9,10a [LXX.] = R; vs. 12-14*; p"On pOyO in v. 14 = R or J) 19,20,22,23f*,24,28*,29f, 31f*,34f*,36 ; also plfrO ^"1 in v. 21 (vs. 28c,35b = J ; 31f part E, part J). 18. Joseph is brought to Egypt and sold to Potiphar, Pharaoh's head sheriff, who entrusts him with the care of the prison ; the dreams of Pharaoh's officers interpreted. 39:4 in part, 6,21 in part ; 40:2,3a,4,5a.6-15a,16-23 (39:1 19. Joseph interprets Pharaoh's dream, and is made ruler of Egypt. Ch. 41 (exc. a few traces of J in vs. 14,18-22(?),34, and one part of the following doublets : 30b = 31 ; 35b = 35a ; 41 ,43b,44 = 40 ; 49 = 48 ; 55,56a = 54b. 20. The sons of Jacob go to Egypt to buy food ; Joseph meets them roughly and imprisons Simeon on pretence of their being spies; he demands that Benjamin be brought down ; Reuben pledges himself for Benjamin's safety. Ch. 42 (exc. 2a,4b,6, parts of 7, ^tf in 10,27,28a*, and 38 [= J] ; 28b belongs after v. 35). 21. Joseph reveals himself ; his brethren return to fetch Jacob. 43:14* ,23c; 45:1-27 (exc. la,2,4b,5a,10 in part, 13f = J; vs. 19-21*). 22. Jacob migrates to Egypt. 46:1 in part, 3f,5 in part (la,5b = J or R); 47:12, parts of 13-26* (13-26 = J on a basis of E, removed by R from after 41:55 and worked over). 23. Jacob blesses Joseph and dies ; death of Joseph. 48:l,2a,9a,10b,llf,15f,20 in part, 21f ; 50:l-3(?),15-26 (exc. v. 18 and parts of 21,24 [= J]) (in ch. 48 E is expanded by R through the addi- tion of 2b,9b,10a,13f,17-19,20b from J). PENTATEUCHAL ANALYSIS. 77 II. Exodus. 1 . Oppression in Egypt ; birth and youth of Moses. 1:6,8-12,15-2:14 (exc. traces of J in 1:10,12,20; 2:14; also 1:21 and parts of 2:6f = J). 2. Moses called at Horeb and commissioned to deliver Israel ; revela- tion of the name Yah wen. 3:l-3*,4b-6,9-16*,18-22*. 3. Moses returns to Egypt with the rod of God ; the demand made of Pharaoh. 4:17,18,20b,21,28b,31aa; 5:3f, 6-8,10,1 la,12-19,20f in part (4:22f = J, removed by R from before 10:28 ; 6:1 = E). 4. The five plagues of Egypt : blood, lice, hail, locusts and darkness. 7:15 in part, 16 in part, 17b,20 in part, 18 in part, 21a,24 ; 8:16a,21- 24a; 9:22,23a,24a,31f ,35 ; 10:8-13a,14a,15 in part, 20,21-27; (in 7:15 5. The destruction of the first-born of Egypt and the exodus. 11:1-3; 12:31-33,37b,38; 13:17-19 (21f*?). 6. The passage through the Red Sea ; Miriam's song. 14:5 7 in part(?), 15 in part, 16 in part, 19a, 20 in part, 24 in part,25a ; 15:20f,l-19. 7. [Marah] ; water from the rock at Horeb ; battle with Amalek ; Jethro's visit. 15:22-26 (27 = P2); 17:3-6,8-16; 18:1-27 (exc. 2b [= R] and traces of J in 1,(5),9,10 ; the story last named is probably misplaced). 8. The ten words [and the covenant] at Horeb. 19:2b,3-8*,10-15,16 in part, 17-19*; 20:1-20* (vs. 9-11 = P2) ; then 21-26 ; 24:3,4 (from pV| on), 5f ,8a,ll,12 in part, 13f , and chs. 21-23, viz., the Book of the Covenant, an ancient code incorporated by E. (R removed it from after 24:14, its original position. The following glosses and interpolations by R should be eliminated : 22:20-23,24b,30 ; 23:13,15,23-25,31b,33). 9. The golden calf ; departure from Horeb ; the tent of meeting. 31:18b; 32:15 in part, 16-19aa,25-29 ; 33:1-5 in part (in v. 5 the be- ginning,to ^JO&, then DD'O MHtf Win), 6*. .. .7-11. III. Numbers. 1. The departure from Horeb, [Taberah; the manna and the quails in Qibroth Taawah]. 10:33a; ll:l-3,7-9,10ba,30-35. 78 PENTATEUCHAL ANALYSIS. 2. Miriam and Aaron rebel ; arrival in Kadesh and sending of the spies. 12:1,2 in part, 3a,5 in part, 9-15 (mostly) (v. 16 = R); 13:17b in part, 18,20 in part, 23f ,29-31,32 in part ; 14:lf in part, 23 in part, 24,25b,39- 41 in part, 44 in part (14:11-23 = R). 3. Rebellion of Datham and Abiram ; the earth swallows them up. Traces in 16:1-4 (e. g. Ib, and parts of 2,3f), in 12-15 (e. g. 14a6,15b = E, 14aa,15a = J) and in 25-34 (28f ,32a = E, 30f ,33a = J). 4. Death of Miriam ; water from the rock in Kadesh ; embassy to Edom. 20:lb,3a,4f ,7,8 (first two words and ba), 9*,10b*,ll (v. 9 = R), 14-19,21. 5. The brazen serpent ; Israel in the border of Moab ; conquest of the territory of Sihon. 21:4-9 (exc. infi VTD m v. 4 = R), 12-18a,21-24 (LXX.) (18b-20 and 25-32* = R, from another source [J(?)J ; 33-35 has been imported by Rd from Dt. 3:1-4). 6. Balak and Balaam ; the involuntary blessing of the prophet hired to curse. 22:2-21 (exc. 3a,4,5a,7a,17f and perhaps *}ft# fttf BOJT1 in v. 21 [= J]), 36-41; 23:l-26,27f in part(?); 24:25(?) (23:28[27]-30 ; 24:20-24 = R). 7. The people sin at Baal-peor ; Gad and Reuben receive their lot ; the cities of Jair. 25:la,3,5 ; 32:2a,3,16f (20f in part(?)), 24,34-38 ( IV. Deuteronomy. 8. Directions for a sacrificial feast on Ebal ; charge to Joshua ; [the blessing of Moses]. 27:5-7a (vs. l-3,9f = DM,7b,8 = R d , H-26 = R<* and R) ; 31:14f (vs. 16-23 ; 32:1-44 = J) and ch. 33 (incorporated by E(?)). V. Joshua. In this book the problem of critical analysis is greatly complicated by the intro- duction of a new element. Pa has been extricated with comparative facility and unanimity. JE is still the main residuum, but according- to all the critics, greatly expanded and worked over by R d . Dillmann supposes the author of Deuteronomy to have supplied to his code a historical appendix, which constitutes, therefore, an independent source, taken up by R d and combined with PS and JE. The four docu- ments, three of them already united by R, were amalgamated and worked over by him. Kuen., Well., Bud., Kitt. attribute these Deuteronomic additions to D2 or Rd, the writer who incorporated Deuteronomy with JE and provided it with a his- torical introduction and appendix. The result is, in the opinion of all, such an PENTATEUCHAL ANALYSIS. 79 obliteration of the characteristics of J and E by Rd, or so thorough an incorpora- tion of them into Da, that they are only traceable with difficulty and in a few passages. Dillmann assigns the following passages to JE in Josh. 1-12: Chs. 2-8:26 (27-30, 31b(?)); ch. 9 for the most part (9:3 9a,ll-15a,16,22f); 10:1-11,16-27; 11:1,5-9. From this must be subtracted a verse or two for Pa (see Pa below) and some minor contri- butions of D and R d . The portions assigned to D by Dill, in Josh. 1-12 are as follows: In general chs. l-3f; 5:1; 8:32,34f; 10:12-14,28-43; 11:10-23. From Pa come only 8:4 in part(?); 4:13 in part, 15-17,19; 6:10-12; 7:l,18b,25in part; 9:15b,17-21, 27 in part. In chs. 13-24 Pa predominates. Dill, assigns to it 13:15-19,23-27a,28,29b,32; 14:1-5; 15:1-12,20-44,48-62; 16:4 in part, 5-9; 1 7 :la,3f, 7 in part, 9 in part, 10 in part; 18:l,lla, 13-28, ch. 19 for the most part; 20:2f,6in part, 7-9; 21:1-40; 22 :9f , 13-15, 19-21,30f ,32a. This portion removed, the parts assignable to D according to Dill, are 13:1,7; 18:10b; 2 1:41-22:6 and ch. 23. This element also being removed there remains for JE 14: 6-15 in part; 15:13-19; 16:1-3,10; 17:1-18 in part; 18:2-10,llb; traces in ch. 19 (specific- ally 19:39f); much of ch. 22 and ch. 24 for the most part. 1. Crossing the Jordan ; the people circumcised by Joshua at Gilgal ; the "rolling away " of the reproach of Egypt. 3:12; 4:la,4f ,7b,9 ; 5:2f (exc. 2)W and m& in v. 2 [= Rd]), 8f (vs. 4-7 = Ed, cf. LXX.). 2. The capture of Jericho. (5:13-15 = E or J) 6:1 (E or J, 4 in part*, 5f,7b,8f*,13*,15*,16a (17-19 = E or J), 20b (21-25 = E or J) (touches in 3f,ll,14f = E; vs. 2,17b, 18 and 27 and the continued blowing of trumpets, 4,8f ,13 = Ed). 3. The capture of Ai and covenant with the Gibeonites. 8:10-12,14 in part, 16 in part, 17 in part, 18,20b,26,30,31b ; 9:3-27 (exc. 6b,7,9 in part, 10,14f,16 in part, 17-21, 24f, 27). (Ch. 7 for the most part = J. 8:lf,7b,8a,22b,27-29 and traces in 3,11,15,21,24; also 9:lf,9 in part, 10,24f,27 in part = Ed; 8:13 and VT JTlDJD ^ V. 19 = R). 4. The battle of Gibeon. 10:1-11,16-27 (vs. 12-14,15,28-43 = D ; vs. 8 and 25 and 1,2,6,7,19,24, 26f in part = Ed). 5. Settlement in the land, and inheritances of the tribes; Caleb receives Hebron ; the house of Joseph obtain a double portion ; they invade Gilead. 14:6-15*; 15:13(V); 16:l-3(?); one of the two stories in 17:14-18 (14f = 16:14 in part, 17f ) ; 19:49f ; 22:8*. 6. Conclusion of E's history ; Joshua's charge to the people at She- chem ; the history briefly reviewed and Israel pledged to the service of Yahweh ; Joshua's death and burial. Ch. 24 (exc. If in part, 6-8 in part, 17-19 in part, lOf in part, 13 in part, 26a,31 = E and Ed). 80 PENTATEUCHAL ANALYSIS. C. THE JUDJEAN(?) NARRATIVE J. I. Genesis. 1. The beginning of the world ; paradise ; the woman's transgression and the curse. 2:4b-3:24 (exc. DTfjtf after HIPP passim; 3:20 and perhaps 2:10- 15 = R). 2. Adam's descendants [Cain and Abel(?)] ; a seven-linked geneal- ogy, the last link branching into three ; the song of Lamech ; [a frag- mentary ten-linked genealogy ending with Noah and his three sons(V)]. 4:1-16 (misplaced(?); JYH1 v. 1 = B), 17-24,25f ; 5:29 (J follows in 17-24 an older source, possibly E). 3. The sons of God and the daughters of men ; corruption of the earth. 6:1-8 (exc. p-HPR* DJl v. 4, D'OBTr-.-DnNO and VWO in v. 7 = R) ; J rests in 6:1-4, as also in 4:17-24, upon an older source, possibly E. 4. [The deluge of forty days ; rescue of Noah and his family in the ark ; sacrifice of Noah and promise of Yahweh.] 7:lf,3 in part, 4f ,7*,10,12,16b,17,22*,23* ; 8:2b,3a,6-12,13b,20-22 (E = 7:3a,7 in part, 8f,22f in part). 5. [The peopling of the earth from the sons of Noah] ; Noah's vine culture and prophetic song concerning Shem, Japheth and Canaan. 9:20-27, 18f; 10:8,10-12,13-19,21,25-30 (9:20-27 is from a special source. 10:9,24 and perhaps 14 in part and D*D! HDlfcO in v. 19 6. The tower of Babel and the dispersion ; Abram and his kindred. ll:l-9,28b-30 (exc. DHDD *)1*O = B) 7. Abram called from his home; his journey with Lot, halting at Shechem and Bethel ; separation from Lot and settlement at Mamre. 12:l-4a,6-9 ; 13:2,5,7-lla,12 last clause, 13-18 (13:3f and }Qy tf?} in v. 1 = B). 8. Yahweh's covenant with Abram. Traces in ch. 15 worked over by R ; specifically, v. 4,9-18* (exc. 12- 16 = R) ; R = v. 7f ; R