II 
 
 l^.
 
 
 ■-mm- 
 
 'a^. 
 
 ?-M'''' 
 
 ■vv;:-, ■' 
 
 ' *-■■ V 
 
 ' ■'»"
 
 ORIGIN AND STRUCTURE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PENTATEUCH
 
 The Pentateuch 
 
 ITS ORIGIN AND STRUCTURE 
 
 AN EXAMINATION OF RECENT THEORIES 
 
 BY 
 
 EDWIN CONE BISSELL, D.D. 
 
 Professor of the Hebrew Language and Literature in the Hartford Theological 
 
 Seminary 
 
 
 / * > c " r J 
 
 V. •• • • '• • . •*• -*„ .»- -.-" 
 
 NEW YORK 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 
 
 1907
 
 Copyright, 1885, by 
 
 :harles scribner's sons 

 
 J3S 
 
 I ^^ ^ ^.j 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 o«! 
 
 While pursuing Old Testament studies in the University at 
 Leipsic, some years since, the writer became warmly interested 
 in the subject of Pentateuch criticism, especially in connection 
 with the more private societies (Gesellschaften) of Delitzsch and 
 Guthe, where it was made the chief topic of discussion. Having 
 once entered upon it, he found the questions it raised of too grave 
 a nature to be relinquished without a serious eifort at settlement. 
 In fact, in view of the startling conclusions reached by an eminently 
 respectable portion of German scholarship, he felt bound to give 
 reasons, at least to himself, for his faith in an Old Testament 
 revelation. He has accordingly had before him, for the most part, 
 the criticism in its German form. For his readers this method of 
 treatment will have the advantage, that, while the works of such 
 representative writers as Graf and Wellhausen are no less easily 
 comprehensible in their leading principles and terms, they fully 
 M include, and are the evident source of, the most that has been said 
 on that side of the question in England and America. 
 
 A little more than one half of the present book has already 
 
 appeared in print: the papers numbered i., iii., v., vii., viii., in the 
 
 g^ Bibliotheca Sacra during the years 1882-84; and iv. in the Journal 
 
 "^ of the Society for Biblical Literature and Exegesis for July - Uecem- 
 
 '^ ber, 1884. All such papers, however, have been carefully revised, 
 
 and to some of them considerable additions been made. 
 -ct A work of this kind, if it is to be faithfully done, requires the con- 
 "^ scientious study of problems of the utmost intricacy and perplexity. 
 The cursory reader, it is likely, will turn rapidly over the papers 
 numbered iii.-vi., dealing mostly with the origin and inner relation- 
 ship of Pentateuch laws. But to the more thoughtful reader and 
 the student who is aware that, for a score of years, it has been 
 ^ in this thicket of the Hebrew legislation that some of the keenest 
 ^^ intellects of the age have wrestled mightily over great biblical ques- 
 tions, they will have a peculiar attraction. Every law of the Penta- 
 teuch, aside from a few in Exodus having no important bearing 
 on the subject in hand, has been brought under review in these 
 four i^apcrs and conveniently tabulated. Excepting the articles of 
 HoiTmann (^Magasin f. d. ]]'isscnsc)iaft d. JudeniJniins, 1879-80), 
 to which he acknowledges himself much indebted, the author knows 

 
 iv p7'eface. 
 
 of no one work of the criticism making these laws so special a 
 subject of examination. He knows of none whatever treating them 
 so systematically and fully. It may not be amiss, moreover, to 
 state, while holding himself alone responsible for results reached, 
 that, through a series of years, the reasoning employed in this part 
 of the book has been brought to the test of the freest discussion 
 of the class-room. 
 
 The good sense of the reader may be trusted not to draw two 
 quite unwarrantable inferences from this book. First, because the 
 author finds the so-called traditional view of the origin and structure 
 of the Pentateuch much better supported than the one now most 
 widely current in Germany, that therefore he beguiles himself with 
 the illusion that there are no serious difficulties in it still remaining 
 to be solved. And, second, because he is forced to reject as erro- 
 neous, not only the general conclusions, but also many of the logical 
 methods, of Wellhausen, and the class of critics he represents, that 
 therefore he does not approve of biblical criticism when properly 
 conducted. Next to adopting the theories of these critics, no 
 higher mark of interest in such criticism could well be demanded 
 than that one freely consent to enter upon its discussion with them 
 on the plane, and with the terms, of their own choosing. 
 
 For, strange as it may seem, the author is convinced that the 
 thing of greatest influence in Pentateuch criticism, as now gen- 
 erally conceived of, is but loosely connected with the Pentateuch 
 — it is the point of view of the investigator (see p. 317). The 
 philosophy, even more than the science, is responsible for conclu- 
 sions reached. But if there be great undiscovered secrets in the 
 Bible, they must surely be one in essence with the secret of the 
 earth and of man: a secret of the Lord which will be disclosed 
 to them that fear Him. 
 
 To find the truth and the will of God as expressed in it, to stay 
 by it, love it, make it one's own, defend it to the death, — that is 
 the common goal of religion and of all true science. If one man 
 study the Bible religiously and another study it scientifically, still 
 they are friends and allies unless the one's religion or the other's 
 science is somehow at fault. Indeed, why should your religion 
 exclude my science even here, or my science your religion, if 
 both the science and the religion possess the teachableness and 
 the sweet humility of the little child, to which was made the 
 promise of the kingdom? 
 
 Hartford, September 7, 1885.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 I. 
 Introductory i 
 
 II. 
 Historical Sketch of the Criticism . 42 
 
 III. 
 The Proposed Analysis of the Law Tested in its Lead- 
 ing Principles 85 
 
 IV. 
 Laws Peculiar to Deuteronomy 132 
 
 V. 
 Laws Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy . . .164 
 
 VI. 
 Laws Peculiar to the "Priests' Code" ...... 206 
 
 VII. 
 
 Unity and Genuineness of Deuteronomy 248 
 
 VIII. 
 The Law and the Prophets 290 
 
 IX. 
 The Law and the Historical Books 318 
 
 X. 
 The Law and the Psalms 362 
 
 XI. 
 Literature of the Pentateuch and the Related 
 
 Criticism of the Old Testament 410 
 
 XII. 
 
 Indexes 47*^ 
 
 (i) Scripture Texts. 
 (2) General Index.
 
 THE PENTATEUCH 
 
 ITS ORIGIN AND STRUCTURE. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 If we discover among us in these days any disposi- 
 tion to underrate or relatively disparage the Old Testa- 
 ment, any tendency to neglect it in our theological 
 schools, we must see, too, that Providence is signally 
 interposing on its behalf, and vindicating for it the 
 highest claims to our attention. It is safe to say, 
 bating from the statement whatever you please for any 
 partiality one might have for favorite studies, that not 
 a few of the problems with which the minds of thought- 
 ful men are grappling to-day directly concern the 
 Hebrew Scriptures. It is the Book of Genesis that 
 we couple in our thinking with certain puzzling 
 questions of geology and cosmography. 
 
 It is the same book that serves as point of departure 
 for the still mooted subject, when human history had 
 its beginning, and how it began. It is to the Old 
 Testament chiefly that the science of archaeology, 
 opening up in our day so broad a field and awakening 
 in its devotees so inspiring an ardor, comes to lay 
 down its store of gathered facts and illustrations.
 
 The Pentateuch : Its OriHii a^id Stnictiire. 
 
 <b ' 
 
 From old Sepharvaim of the Books of Kings and Isaiah 
 some of the latest treasures of monumental literature 
 have been welcomed to our Western world. 
 
 It is significant, too, that an eminent Assyriologist 
 published, not long ago, as the result of special study 
 in this department, a discussion of the question — more 
 practical in its bearing than might appear — Where was 
 Paradise'?^ And it is not geography or history or 
 chronology alone that these priceless records are 
 teaching us. They are enriching our lexicons and 
 correcting our grammars as well. It is an open secret 
 that there are in the sacred text not a few words, 
 Hebrew and Aramaic, whose meaning as yet has only 
 been surmised, and that a single Psalm of less than 
 forty verses has thirteen words that do not elsewhere 
 occur in the Bible. Hence, it is a gladdening con- 
 sideration that scholars are now in process of construct- 
 ing from these same monuments of the past lexicon 
 and grammar of a closely allied Shemitic tongue older, 
 it is claimed, and more archaic in its forms, than any 
 other known to man, and of such a character that the 
 vocalization of every word has been exactly preserved. 
 
 As if all this were not enough to quicken our flag- 
 ging zeal, and teach us that the Hebrew Scriptures can 
 never be divorced from the Greek Scriptures in our 
 reverential study, the heaviest cannonading of biblical 
 criticism is just now heard among these earliest records 
 of our faith. Around the Gospels and Epistles there 
 is, for the moment, a comparative lull in the conflict, 
 while Moses and his great work are sharply challenged. 
 
 A certain style of biblical criticism has always found 
 here an attractive field — where the scantiness of 
 objective and contemporaneous elements has seemed 
 
 ^ Friedrich Delitzsch, Wo lag das Parodies?
 
 Introductory. 3 
 
 to invite and permit a corresponding subjective fulness 
 and assurance. We are already accustomed, in 
 connection with the Pentateuch, to such names as 
 "Jehovist," "Elohist"and "Younger Elohist," "Deu- 
 teronomist" and " Redactor," although they are found 
 in no accredited list of sacred writers, and have hitherto 
 failed to impress us with the simple grandeur of him 
 who smote the rock at Horeb, and spoke face to face 
 with God, "as a man speaketh to his friend." We 
 have seen one scheme of the origin of Genesis and its 
 companion books give place in quick succession to 
 another. We have seen the documents of which it is 
 assumed that they are composed, submitted, on the 
 basis of other assumptions, to every sort of kaleido- 
 scopic arrangement, until, as it should seem, the very 
 limit of possible combinations had been reached. 
 
 But it has been left to critics of our own day to 
 propound a theory of the Pentateuch, and the course of 
 Israelitish history, which totally eclipses all that have 
 preceded it. Were the goodly towns and cities of these 
 Eastern States of America, with their swarming mill- 
 ions of people, with all their glory of material magnifi- 
 cence and moral power, suddenly to be put down, in 
 some way, conceivable or inconceivable, in the far-off 
 valley of the Mississippi, leaving only scattered villages 
 and hamlets where this surging tide of life had been 
 before, it could not so affect our organic existence as 
 a people, it could not so completely change the avenues 
 of trade, revolutionize our social habits and methods of 
 living and working, color and shape our national future, 
 as would this latest scheme of criticism, were it to suc- 
 ceed, revolutionize our old-time theories of the compo- 
 sition and organic structure of the Old Testament, and 
 the order, continuity, and contents of sacred history.
 
 The PcntatciicJi : Its Orio;in and Structure. 
 
 <b ' 
 
 It is nothing less than a tremendous critical cataclysm, 
 an upheaval and a transformation that are continental 
 in their reach and influence. 
 
 The movement may be said, to have taken its rise 
 long since in the strictures of an Aben Ezra^ on the 
 current method of treating the Pentateuch as solely the 
 work of Moses. From him it came down through 
 a Carlstadt,^ Spinoza,^ Astruc,'* continually taking 
 broader sweep and clearer outline to the time of 
 Reuss,^ George,^ and Vatke/ of our present century. 
 But until the appearance of Graf^ as its champion, 
 somewhat less than a score of years ago, the theory had 
 not really taken characteristic shape; had found no 
 sufficient sponsor ; had failed to awaken the serious 
 attention of scholars to its claims ; in fact, had some- 
 times met the smile of derision in the house of its 
 friends. Under his skilful manipulations and masterly 
 support, it took at once front rank among stirring 
 questions ; indeed, it may be said, shot like a meteor 
 into the sky of human observation. And though men 
 looked to see it pass away again, like our meteors, it 
 blazes still, a growing and portentous wonder to this 
 very hour. 
 
 And this is one of the strangest things about the 
 theory : its sudden and wide success in the land of its 
 birth. Professor Robertson Smith, in a recent work, 
 
 1 For an account of his exegeiical works, see Ersch u. Gruber's Encyklop'ddie , i., s.v. 
 He held that the Pentateuch was mainly the work of Moses, excepting only certain 
 interpolations. 
 
 ''■ De Cationicis Scriptttris, 1520. 
 
 2 Tractates Theologico-politictts, 1670. 
 
 ^ Conjectures sur Ics Mi-moires ort'oiuatcx, etc., 1753. 
 
 ^ Tkesen (1833), Art. " Judenthum," in Ersch u. Gruber's Encyklop. His most 
 recent work published is Ceschichte d. Hciligen Schri/ten d. A. T., 1881. 
 
 ^ Die Aelteren yHdischcn Feste, etc., 1835. 
 
 ' Die Religioti d. A. T.,\. 1835. 
 
 '^ De Tcmplo Silonensi, etc. (1855); Die geschichtlichen Ducher d. A. T. (1866): 
 Art. in reply to Riehin in Merx's Archiz' (1869).
 
 Introductory. 5 
 
 declares that it represents "the growing conviction of 
 an overwhelming weight of the most earnest and sober 
 scholarship." 1 And while I should wish to limit such a 
 statement to Germany and to change at least one of 
 the adjectives applied to scholarship, there can be, I 
 think, no doubt that a large majority of the younger 
 theologians of Germany have really adopted the chief 
 conclusions of Professors Kuenen^ and Wellhausen,^ 
 and found in them a happy solution of many perplexing 
 critical problems. Of this class, it is not enough to 
 say, that the theory represents their convictions, or 
 even dominates them. They flaunt it ; wear it as a 
 decoration'; receive its principal supporters with clangor 
 of trumpets, as though a sweeping victory had been 
 won. 
 
 Excepting works relating exclusively to the text, 
 nearly everything of weight that has appeared in 
 Germany in the department of the Old Testament for 
 the last two years has treated of this theme. Heavy 
 reviews have been started in defence of the new 
 hypothesis, voluminous commentaries written, saturated 
 Vv^ith its spirit and methods ; and even some of the 
 later Hebrew grammars show on their supposed impas- 
 sive pages marks of the theological revolution. 
 
 Does any one ask, But what is it all to us } What 
 are the books we read, or the moral atmosphere we 
 breathe, to us t Take the German books, and the 
 translations of German books, out of our theological 
 libraries, and you would be amazed at the emptiness of 
 the shelves. Nor is it a matter which concerns theo- 
 
 1 The Old Testament in the yewish Church, p. 216. 
 
 2 His principal works have been published in England, The Religion 0/ Israel, etc., 
 3 vols., 1874; The Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, 1877; but numerous articles on the 
 same subject have appeared from time to time in the Theolog. Tijdschrijt (Leyden) . 
 
 ^ " Die Composition dcb Hcxateuchs " in yahrhilcher filr Deutsche Thcologie, 1876, 
 pp. 392-450, 532-602; 1877, pp. 407-47y; Geschichie Israels, i. 1878.
 
 TJic Pentateuch: Its Oris:in and Structure 
 
 ^' 
 
 logians and ministers only. The theory has ah'eady 
 crossed the EngHsh Channel bodily, and is finding 
 adherents also, here and there, among the Christian 
 churches of America. It has learned to utter itself 
 in an attractive English style ; even found its way in 
 a series of biblical Articles, how and why I know not, 
 into the most prominent of English Encyclopaedias. 
 
 One will still recall the vigorous protests made, some 
 years ago, on the appearance of "Essays and Reviews." 
 But a rationalism such as was reprobated in " Essays 
 and Reviews " was mildness itself compared with that 
 of an Article entitled " Israel," by Julius Wellhausen, 
 in vol. xiii. of the Eficyclopcedia Britannica. It cuts 
 completely loose from all traditional views of Israelitish 
 and early sacred history. If its positions be true, it 
 makes dreadful havoc not only of a considerable part 
 of the ancient Scriptures, but of many of the choicest 
 classics of the English church and the English tongue. 
 And though it be balefully false, still, from the stand- 
 point of our times a certain plausibility cannot be 
 denied it ; and as one of the characteristic, culminating 
 products of the lauded scientific method, it challenges 
 our serious attention. 
 
 The theory in its latest form, and stated in the very 
 briefest terms, is this : ^ The Hexateuch, that is, the 
 Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua, is made up of three 
 leading documents, — omitting here a minor distinction, 
 — belonging to wholly different writers and widely 
 different times. The Jehovist document,^ which is the 
 oldest and briefest, begins with the middle of the fourth 
 verse of the second chapter of Genesis, and while mainly 
 
 1 Cf. Wellhausen's edition of Bleek's Einleitiing in d. Alte Testament C1878), pp. 
 177, 178. 
 
 2 A distinction is made by critics between the "Jehovist " and the document ascribed ta 
 him, it being called a " Jahvist " document.
 
 Introductory. 7 
 
 appearing as history, contains the legislation of the so- 
 called Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx.-xxiii. ; xxxiv.).i 
 The second document originally embraced only the 
 legislative portions of Deuteronomy (xii.-xxvi.). It was 
 at once occasion and product of the so-called " Deuter- 
 onomic reforms" in the time of Josiah (621 e.g.), itself 
 originating possibly in some collusion of priests and 
 facile king. Later it was given its present historic 
 setting by the " Deuteronomist," who also worked over 
 the document which had preceded it, making his hand 
 especially prominent in the Book of Joshua : all, you 
 will perceive, some centuries after the time of Moses. 
 The most important work of all, named from the nature 
 of its contents the " Code of the Priests," which begins 
 the Bible, contains parts of Genesis and Exodus and the 
 Levitical legislation of the middle books of the Penta- 
 teuch, with its historic setting, did not see the light, it 
 is said, till after the exile. True, it claims to be Mosaic, 
 as does also Deuteronomy ; but that is simply an histri- 
 onic, not an historic, claim, — a representation made in 
 the interest of its authority. In its narrative portions 
 it is mainly a product of the fancy, although that nar- 
 rative includes such matter as an account of the taber- 
 nacle and its furniture ; and, as for the rest, it is the 
 work of no one man, but of a school — a sort of precipi- 
 tate from the literary activity of various priests and 
 learned men. Still the Hexateuch is not complete. 
 There is required another mastcrhand, — a masterhand, 
 indeed, — a Redactor, who shall unite this "Code of the 
 Priests " to the previous work of the Jehovist and the 
 Deuteronomist, making the one supposed continuous 
 history, by skilful trimming here and interpolating 
 there, accord with the other continuous history, and the 
 
 ' All references to the Old Testament are to the Hebrew text.
 
 8 The Pentatetich : Its Origin and Stritcture. 
 
 laws of the different periods fit together, as best he can. 
 He appears as these subjective personages usually do. 
 He lives in the time and breathes the atmosphere of 
 the last great work, the " Code of the Priests " ; and 
 governed fully by its spirit he joins together in one 
 grand whole these diverse products of a millenium, 
 and deterred, as far as we know, by no scruples of 
 conscience, leaves them under the countenance of a 
 supposititious Sinaitic lawgiver, whose name has 
 been sagaciously painted in, and whose personality 
 has been impressed at every convenient opportunity. 
 
 Now, from the point of view of this school of criticism, 
 that is, accepting it as true that these men really did 
 this work in the way described, it must be acknowledged 
 that they did it extremely well. The Pentateuch as 
 thus made up, and as a mere literary achievement, is an 
 eminent success ; in fact, a very prodigy of genius, call 
 it a romance, or call it what you will. But there are 
 those who are unable to take this point of view ; and 
 such will naturally look to see what is to be the outcome 
 of this stupendous reconstruction of the records, pos- 
 sibly, even before they test the question of its 
 probability. 
 
 They will scarcely be able to resist the conviction 
 that, if this be a true representation of the case, then 
 the jewel set in the crown of the Scriptures reflects a 
 false lustre ; that we have in the Pentateuch simply a 
 five-fold imposition, a nearly worthless composite of 
 mingled cleverness and fraud. Real homogeneousness 
 of texture there is none. Patriarchal history, excepting 
 some floating myths, completely gone. Mosaic history, 
 even, only represented in some scattered debris borne 
 downward on the heaving waters of a beclouded tide. 
 A sacred history of the Old Testament, properly
 
 Introductory. 9 
 
 speaking, there can be none. It is reduced simply to an 
 account, more or less credible, of the rise, development, 
 and decline of a Jewish sect that reached its bloom after 
 the exile. The principal contents of the Pentateuch 
 have really nothing to do with the history of an Israel 
 that sprang from the loins of Abraham, but solely with 
 this post-exilian sect. 
 
 Such a people as Israel there was ; but all you can 
 learn of them, to any purpose, must be learned from the 
 Books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, and the prophets 
 of the preexilian period. The great lawgiver of the old 
 economy, and withal the grandest figure in primitive 
 history, not Moses after all, but Ezra, the priest, who, 
 with his straggling remnant, overlived the heavy blows 
 of Chaldaea and Assyria ! The standing designation, 
 "the Law and the Prophets," sanctioned and sanctified 
 by the usage of Christ and his apostles, a misnomer ; 
 it should rather be "the Prophets and the Law," the 
 real historic order being just the reverse of the order as 
 it now appears. The sources of the Old Testament 
 religion are in the literature of the early prophets. Pro- 
 tevangelium there is none. The promise made to the 
 seed of the woman, shining like another Bethlehem star 
 over the birthplace of human sin, a Jehovistic conceit, 
 meaning something or meaning nothing. 
 
 There is as radical an overturning of biblical theology, 
 you will see, as of biblical history as hitherto conceived. 
 The idea of sacrifice, for instance, must be readjusted 
 on a wholly different plan, and made to serve a totally 
 different aim. It surely cannot take the widely com- 
 prehensive range supposed, while ever narrowing in 
 concentric circles to one central, all-controlling fact, as 
 the writer to the Hebrews seems firmly to have believed. 
 For this new scheme, as it leaves the history of redemp-
 
 lO The Pentateuch : Its Oriscin and Structure. 
 
 &>' 
 
 tion without an orderly beginning, so it leaves it with- 
 out a sufficient end. It smites off the roots of the 
 development, and is only consistent in looking for 
 nothing among the branches. The one fitting consum- 
 mation of the national life and religion of Israel, the 
 one glorious conclusion of the Old Testament premises, 
 openly declared to be not Jesus Christ, of the seed of 
 David, of the tribe of Judah, whose day Abraham saw 
 and was glad, but the political catastrophe which over- 
 took the Jewish state seventy years after our era began, 
 and the rabbinical schools which then sprang up.^ 
 Without extravagance of statement, such is the startHng 
 discovery which scholars professing to be governed by 
 strictly scientific principles have mad? in our day ; such, 
 in bare outline, is the scheme, with some of its more 
 obvious results, which, with all seriousness, they offer 
 for the acceptance of the Christian wc rid, and of which 
 Professor Robertson Smith says that it " represents an 
 overwhelming weight of the most efrnest and sober 
 scholarship." Bear with me in stating a few natural 
 reasons for supposing that a really sober and reverent 
 scholarship will be extremely slow in accepting it. 
 
 First, such a scholarship will find it impossible, I 
 think, to adopt many of those principles of criticism 
 which are its necessary condition. One of these prin- 
 ciples or axioms, for examj^le, is that persons of our 
 day — I should perhaps say some persons of our day — 
 have the ability to take up these ancient records, exist- 
 ing quite apart, with no native contemporaneous matter 
 to which there can be appeal, and solely on the basis of 
 inward characteristics of style and the like decide 
 with nice exactness upon their relative age.^ The 
 
 1 See Wellhausen's Art. " Israel," as above, pp. 428, 429. 
 
 2 Murray {Lectures on the Origin and Growth 0/ the Psalms, New York, 1880, p. 
 132 f.) has well characterized the uncertainty of conclusions drawn from such a source.
 
 Introductory. 1 1 
 
 recurrence of certain names of God, in fact, is the 
 hinge on which the question turns ; Jehovah marking 
 the earliest document, and Elohim the latest. And 
 yet, these hypothetical documents, as now found, would 
 be wholly unintelligible if rent asunder, are both abso- 
 lutely essential to the integrity and continuity of the 
 history as we have it ; and there are other passages 
 equally essential, where both the characteristic words 
 must be admitted to be integral parts of the same docu- 
 ment. Imagine the conclusions, were any modern 
 composition, a sermon or a religious book, to be sub- 
 jected to the same process of dissection. 
 
 I know how widely this theory of documents prevails 
 in Europe, even among scholars otherwise as far apart 
 as Wcllhausen and Delitzsch. But among German 
 scholars there is beginning to show itself, in view of 
 the tremendous conclusions which are drawn from it, 
 a call for a serious review of the principles on which it 
 rests.^ Those principles are acknowledged to be but 
 partially applicable to the Pentateuch, and scholars are 
 far enough from being agreed just how to apply them. 
 They are not, and cannot be, applied to other parts 
 
 " Taking up the Psalms of the Davidic Book, scholars have been accustomed first of all, 
 by means of the dozen or so poems which, from internal setting or external allusion, have 
 a consensus in their favor as of Davidic authorship, to fix what they call David's style of 
 writing, and make this the standard for judging the other poems of the collection. Now 
 style, though, on the whole, the surest purely literary test of authorship, is not a com- 
 plete one, especially when dealing with ancient literature. I doubt, if the writings of the 
 English Poet- Laureate should have the good fortune to survive two thousand years, and 
 then be the sole remains of English letters from the Victorian period, whether any one 
 will be inclined to refer the ' In Memoriam ' and ' The Princess ' to the same author. Per- 
 haps they will say they have been placed together through the misapprehension of some 
 later editor, while the ' Northern Farmer' will be rejected as spurious by all, and made the 
 point of many an argument as to the decay of the English speech. In the study of any 
 ancient literature, the argument from literary style can only be used with the greatest 
 caution. It has broken down in the literary study of the Hebrew Scriptures just at a point 
 when most was expected of it — in the comparison of the earlier and later chapters of 
 Isaiah." 
 
 ' Marti, " Die Spuren der sogenannten Grundschrift des Hexateuchs" in Jahrb. fuf 
 Protestant. Theologie (1880), p. 152.
 
 1 2 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 of Scripture, as Job and Ecclesiastes, the Psalms, 
 Proverbs, and Nehemiah, where a use of these divine 
 names scarcely less peculiar is found. Yet men build 
 on these shifting sands as though they were founda- 
 tions of imperishable stone ; and alas ! it is the temple 
 of our common hope which they would build. 
 
 Another canon of the newer criticism is that a law 
 or ceremonial rite can only then be regarded as really 
 in existence when it is appropriate to that age, and can 
 be shown to have been enforced. On the basis of this 
 canon it goes on to reason that as there is no sufficient 
 evidence that the Pentateuchal laws were executed, — 
 the Deuteronomic before the time of Josiah, or the 
 Levitical before the exile, — therefore, they did not 
 respectively come into being before these periods. 
 
 Now, if the premise were to be admitted, so sweeping 
 a conclusion would by no means follow. For though it 
 might be shown that these laws were often but poorly 
 enforced, it can never be shown that there was no effort 
 to enforce them. But the premise is not, and will not 
 be, admitted. Nothing, in fact, could be more fallacious. 
 There is no one century of Christian history in which 
 it cannot be demonstrated to be conspicuously false.^ 
 Had we for the first fourteen centuries of our era no 
 other literature than the New Testament, what would 
 be easier, on such a principle as this, than to establish 
 conclusions the most absurd and misleading .-' Does 
 the church of the fourteenth century adequately, even 
 decently, represent that book .'' This great complex 
 and corrupt organism of popes and prelates, it might be 
 said, could never have come from a mould so simple, 
 with a spirit so diverse ! Luther, consequently, was no 
 mere translator ; he must have been originator, author ! 
 
 1 Stebbins has well shown the absurdity of this canon in a note on p. 24 of his excellent 
 work,/} Study of the Pentateuch.
 
 hitrodiictory. 1 3 
 
 The New Testament is mainly from his pen. Under 
 cover of a new rendering, as a matter of fact, he wrote 
 the Gospels and many of the Epistles. Nothing else 
 could have furnished the basis for a reformation so rad- 
 ical and far-reaching as that of his day.^ It was Jesus 
 who said : " Did not Moses give you the law, and yet 
 none of you doeth the law } " Make the life of a 
 people the test to determine the nature of the laws of 
 the people, and that for this people whose neck was 
 iron and forehead brass! It is quite true that even 
 good men, like Samuel, sometimes turned aside from 
 the letter of their code. But he is not the only good 
 man who has done it. 
 
 A third fundamental canon of the latest criticism, 
 really held and acted upon by its leading representatives, 
 and not infrequently confessed, is that a supernatural 
 revelation, prophecy, and miracle are incredible. That 
 is, it dogmatically assumes the impossibility of that 
 which as believers in Christ we must make an unaltera- 
 ble premise in all our reasoning. Nothing else will 
 explain either the activity of this criticism or the form 
 it everywhere assumes. This, indeed, is the principal 
 ground of objection to a Mosaic Torah. Moses, it is 
 said, on the traditional view, would be a greater miracle 
 than Jesus, who simply came in the fulness of time ; for 
 he came wholly out of time and out of place. Hence, 
 there must be such a readjustment of the records as shall 
 put Moses in his place, and show a gradual development 
 of the history and laws. One may not begin with 
 Genesis, and then follow up with the Levitical code, 
 but with the Judges. The real sources of Israelitish 
 history were there. 
 
 A straight line of development is demanded, con- 
 
 1 So essentially Bredenkamp, Gesetz u. Propheten, p. 5.
 
 14 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure . 
 
 trary to the actual order of historic development, which 
 is not in straight lines. A straight line of development 
 is demanded : it cannot be otherwise, it is said, than 
 that Israel first built a house, and not till afterward 
 a church.^ 
 
 But, if the history of Israel teaches anything, it 
 teaches that his house and church were one. There is 
 not the slightest documentary evidence that in concep- 
 tion or practice any such dualism ever existed among 
 them. In fact, we take direct issue with this method 
 of reasoning. We do not find ourselves under any 
 such logical compulsion to reconstruct the Pentateuch. 
 We see no such imperative need for denying super- 
 naturalism in the Bible, but quite the contrary. The 
 logic here used against it in the Old Testament is as 
 futile when applied to the New as feathered arrows 
 against a rampart of stone. Admitting the miracle of 
 Jesus, the miracle of Moses is no anachronism. As in 
 the Christian religion, so in that from which it sprang, 
 we might expect to find the essential peculiarities of it 
 in its original sources, might be even surprised did we 
 not see it exhibiting itself in its greatest purity and 
 power at the outset of its course. 
 
 But there must be no appeal to the New Testament 
 — that is another principle hotly insisted on. It is 
 unscientific. " We must either cast aside as worthless," 
 says Kuenen, " our dearly bought scientific method, or 
 must forever cease to acknowledge the authority of the 
 New Testament in the domain of the exegesis of the 
 Old." 2 The New Testament, however, is at least an 
 equal sharer in the glory or the dishonor of the Book ! 
 You cannot lay the hand of violence on any funda- 
 mental truth of the elder dispensation, but the shrine 
 
 1 Wellhausen, Geschichte, p. 267. ^ The Prophets and Prophecy iu Israel, p. 487.
 
 Introductory. 1 5 
 
 of the later will tremble m every part ! Still the 
 Master and his apostles must not be heard as witnesses ! 
 We treat our criminals with more respect. 
 
 Has the fact that, if the New Testament were 
 allowed to utter itself in the matter, its utterances 
 would be final, nothing to do with such a canon ? The 
 Master says that Moses, about whom this conflict 
 chiefly centres, wrote of him. Shall that, and similar 
 things, have no infinitesimal weight in a discussion of 
 the question, what Moses wrote, or whether he wrote 
 at all } The Epistle to the Hebrews accepts the 
 doctrine of sacrifice in its Levitical form as of Mosaic 
 origin — the very point in debate. Is it therefore to be 
 silenced, and forever silenced, for the church of Christ, 
 as it inevitably must be if this theory prevail } How- 
 ever this may be, we should regard any mere critical 
 method too dearly bought at such a price. With an 
 early Christian writer, we would rather choose to say : 
 " To me Jesus Christ is the sum of all records ; my 
 inviolable records are his cross and death and resurrec- 
 tion and the faith through him," ^ 
 
 Moreover, the principles of this type of criti- 
 cism allow one to impute to Old Testament writers 
 motives and practices which totally unfit them to be the 
 medium of spiritual instruction. The Scriptures, it is 
 true, have a human side ; but it has been left to these 
 critics to charge upon not a few of its writers conscious 
 trickery and imposition. And that they fully believe 
 their own charge is sufficiently evinced by the treat- 
 ment they themselves accord to the sacred writers. 
 They seem to think it needful to meet this supposed 
 finesse not only with exposure, but with an irreverence, 
 a triviality, a spirit of depreciation, which show that a 
 
 > Ignat., m]. Phi In del., viii.
 
 1 6 TJie PentateiicJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 feeling of contempt has overcome the natural sense of 
 sorrow and shame which such a fact might be expected 
 to produce. Wellhausen has been at special pains to 
 point out that whatever in the sacred history has a 
 decidedly religious coloring — "pious" utterances, 
 " unctious speeches, to break the monotony," is his 
 fleer at them ^ — is pure hypocrisy, the work of an 
 artist, and not the real experience of living men who 
 spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 
 
 I have already alluded to some of the fraudulent 
 practices of which the various scriptural writers, with no 
 exception of age, have been accused. Deuteronomy, a 
 fabrication of the seventh century ; a clever stratagem 
 to secure respect for legal enactments from a reluctant 
 people. The Book of Joshua, for the most part, a simi- 
 lar forgery to bolster up the first. The Levitical laws, 
 with their framework of history, reaching from the 
 creation of the world, through the exodus, to the prom- 
 ised land, essentially a fraud of the time of the exile. 
 The Books of Chronicles, written of design to sustain 
 this spurious document, and in all their history, which 
 runs parallel to that of the Books of Samuel and the 
 Kings, adrodtly keeping up the mystification. The 
 Books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings themselves, where, 
 if anywhere, we might expect genuine history, widely 
 interpolated and retouched in the interests of this same 
 counterfeit of the exilian priests. Is this criticism, or 
 is it caricature } Is it interpreting history, or is it 
 manufacturing history .-' Our Christian instincts revolt 
 at such a profanation. How much is actually left us that 
 will reward the pains of investigation .'' Where can we 
 set our feet on really solid ground } In a perverse 
 
 1 See Geschichte, pp. 340, 347, and p. 309: "Was der israelitischen Geschichte 
 vorzugsweise den Namen der heiligen Geschichte eingetragen hat, beruht xumeist auX 
 nachtraglicher Uebermalung des urspriinglichen Bildes."
 
 Introductory. \ J 
 
 effort to show that the history must have taken a 
 certain course, the history itself has been sacrificed. 
 The theory has been adjusted, but at the expense of 
 the facts. In an effort to reconstruct an ancient temple, 
 according to the rules of modern taste, a beginning has 
 been made by defacing and crushing its precious 
 material, smiting a cruel pathway through arches, and 
 pillars, and statues of renown, until, at last, it is found 
 that there is too little left to build so much as a credit- 
 able house, much less a shrine for our sweetest 
 memories and most sacred hopes. 
 
 It is safe to predict from the very start where those 
 adopting such canons of criticism are sure to come out. 
 It is a foregone conclusion. A truly serious and rever- 
 ent scholarship can neither accept the canons nor enter 
 into serious argument with those who do. For a full 
 hundred years critics have been discussing the text of 
 Homer on the Wolfian basis, and have as yet failed to 
 achieve among themselves an agreement even in lead- 
 ing points. 1 But how poor an arena are the pages of 
 Homer for an active subjectivity to disport itself 
 compared with the Pentateuch ! Better far for us to 
 take the morsel that is left after the paring and 
 trimming are over, and try to nourish our spiritual 
 being on it, in our generation, than to enter, with terms 
 like these, on a wrangle at once so wearisome and so 
 profitless. 
 
 I by no means intend to say that every individual 
 who belongs to this class of critics would take each one 
 of these principles in the full sense here explained. 
 But they are thoroughly characteristic of the class. 
 Professor Robertson Smith, it is likely, would disclaim 
 being governed by some of them. But Professor 
 
 1 Cf. TXtzWex'va. Zeitschri/t fur kirchliche Wissenscha/t^eXx.. (1882), p. 49.
 
 1 8 The Pcntateiicli : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Smith's acknowledged masters would not disclaim 
 them. And sooner or later, under the silken glove of 
 the mild-mannered Scotch professor, one will surely 
 feel the mailed hand of a Paul de Lagarde or a Julius 
 Wellhausen. 
 
 I remark, in the second place, that it will be just as 
 impossible for a sober and candid Christian scholarship 
 to accept the style of interpretation needful to defend 
 successfully the theories of this type of criticism. It is 
 necessary for it, placing Deuteronomy in the time of 
 Josiah, and the Levitical legislation a couple of centuries 
 later, to show that no slightest trace of them appears 
 earlier than these respective periods. A single undis- 
 puted passage in an earlier book necessarily presuppos- 
 ing their existence is quite enough to render the 
 argument, which is mainly an argument from silence, 
 null and void. And is it needful to say to any student 
 of the Hebrew Scriptures that, even allowing the 
 widest scope for the convenient, but always to be sus- 
 pected, theory of interpolations and omissions, it is here 
 confronted with an impossible task .■* Culling out 
 individual parts, and imputing them to later hands, 
 however extended the process, can never destroy the 
 coloring and spirit of the witnessing records : the 
 records themselves must first be annihilated. I shall 
 select under this head here but a few facts by way of 
 example. 
 
 Look first at the Deuteronomic legislation, making 
 a definite and repeated claim to being Mosaic, and 
 which our critics hold for a product of king Josiah's 
 time. It has laws not one, but many, which would be 
 utterly senseless as productions of this later period. 
 The order, for instance, is given to Israel, after their 
 settlement in Canaan to wipe out Amalek, and not to
 
 Introductory. 19 
 
 forget it ; when in the time of Josiah Amalek had 
 already long since wholly disappeared from history.^ 
 They are also commanded to destroy the Canaanites, 
 who had then ceased to be of any importance what- 
 ever.2 A law is made against Ammon and Moab, and 
 in favor of Edom, which exactly reverses the real rela- 
 tions of these peoples to Israel in the time of Josiah.^ 
 Directions are given for choosing a king, it being 
 assumed that they have none, several hundred years 
 after the anointing of Saul.* An organization of the 
 Israelitish army is presupposed wholly out of place in 
 the days of kingly authority.^ Mourning customs are 
 forbidden, clearly allowed and practised in the time of 
 Josiah and later ; which, whatever else it may prove, is 
 entirely inconsistent with the theory that Deuteronomy 
 originated in his day.^ To say of these laws that they 
 are a part of the fictitious coloring given by the writer 
 to his work that it might seem Mosaic is to make of 
 the deception a monstrosity, to no one more embarrass- 
 ing than to the critics themselves. 
 
 Then consider the connection between the Deutero- 
 nomic and the Levitical legislation. It is assumed by 
 the criticism that the former chronologically precedes. 
 It will be shown, on the contrary, by arguments that no 
 candid mind will be likely to resist, that the order of 
 the Bible is the actual, chronological order; that Deu- 
 teronomy is what it purports to be, a repetition and 
 modification, under other circumstances, of older laws, 
 at the hands of him who himself had been their medium 
 at first, and who therefore had the right to modify, as 
 well as repeat, them. 
 
 • Deut. XXV. 17-19; cf. I Sam. xiv. 48; xv. 2 ff. ; xxvii. 8; xxx. i f . ; i Chron. iv. 43. 
 2Deut. XX. 16-18. 
 
 * Deut. xxiii. 3, 4, 7, 8; cf. Jer. xlviii. 47; xlix. 6, 17, 18; Ps. cxxxvii. 7; Joel iii. ig, 
 Obad. ; Isa. Ixiii. 1-6. *Deut. xvii. 14-20. "Deut. xx. 9. 
 
 "Deut. xiv. 1, 2; cf. Jcr. vil. 29; xvi. 6; xli. 5.
 
 26 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structuf^. 
 
 It is said, for example, in Deuteronomy of the 
 Levites, that they are to have no inheritance among 
 their brethren, that the Lord is their inheritance, as he 
 had said unto them. Where had this been said ? It is 
 a direct citation of a part of the Elohistic Torah, falsely 
 dated in the time of the exile.^ Elsewhere, the people 
 are charged in their treatment of the leprosy to observe 
 implicitly, and do all that the Levitical priests should 
 teach them, as he had commanded them. Where was 
 this commanded ? To the extent of two whole chapters 
 in the Levitical legislation, and nowhere else.^ In the 
 law relating to animals clean and unclean, there is a 
 direct dependence of the Deuteronomic on the Leviti- 
 cal form, an obvious textual corruption serving to make 
 assurance doubly sure.^ 
 
 In a law relating to sacrifice found in Deuteronomy, 
 the Israelites are prohibited from sacrificing anywhere 
 else than at the central sanctuary. But with the prohi- 
 bition a concession is joined, specifically introduced as 
 a concession, that they may slaughter animals for pri- 
 vate use at home. The concession points unequivo- 
 cally back to the Levitical form of the law, which had 
 prohibited the killing of animals at all, as might have 
 been expected in the wilderness, except at the central 
 sanctuary.* In the Levitical legislation provision had 
 been made for six cities of refuge in Canaan ; in Deu- 
 teronomy we find Moses selecting three of them on the 
 east of Jordan, and strictly enjoining the establishing 
 
 ^xviii. 2; cf. Num. xviii. 20, 23, and Delitzsch in Zeitschrift fur kircliliche Wissen- 
 scha/t, etc. (1S80), p. 448. Professor Delitzsch has a series of Articles on the Criticism of 
 the Pentateuch, extending through all the numbers of this ZeitscJirift for 1880, whose value 
 cannot well be overestimated. The same subject is also resumed by him in this periodical 
 for the year 1882. 
 
 ^Deut. xxiv. 8, 9; cf. Lev. xiii., xiv. 
 
 ^Deut. xiv. 3-20; cf. Lev. xi. 2-19, and Dillmann in his recent Commentary on Exodus 
 and Leviticus (in Kurzgefasstes e.vegct. HandbucJi). 
 
 *Deut. xii. 6-i5; cf. Lev. xvii. i-g.
 
 Introductory. 2 1 
 
 of the other three after the conquest of the land.^ In 
 the Levitical code, absurdly imputed to Ezra and his 
 colaborers, circumcision is made the seal of the Abra- 
 hamic covenant. It is a remarkable fact that already 
 in the Book of Deuteronomy circumcision has passed 
 over from the natural use to a figurative sense, the 
 people being called to circumcision of heart.^ In Deu- 
 teronomy, moreover, there are a number of explicit 
 references to the historical portions of this Levitical 
 document. I say references to this, simply because we 
 are shut up to such a conclusion. They are references 
 to something. They correspond in matter and in minute 
 distinctions of form to it. And there is absolutely 
 nothing else that we know of to which they could refer.^ 
 And now, how is such a line of argument met by our 
 critics .'' Sometimes with evasions ; sometimes with 
 depreciation, or a denial of pertinency. When this is 
 impossible, there is a resort to the elastic theory of in- 
 terpolations. Deuteronomy has been manipulated in 
 the interests of the later documents ; or, there are 
 omissions in the original Jahvist document which, if 
 extant, would be found to have furnished the foundation 
 on which Deuteronomy built. I have marked, in fact, 
 a number of instances whei^e, to avoid the conclusion to 
 them impossible, that Deuteronomy depends on other 
 parts of the Pentateuch, which they assign to the exile, 
 some of the brightest of these men have taken refuge 
 in this asylum for imbeciles, an hypothesis of omissions 
 in a document of which they can know literally nothing 
 but what is written in the Bible.^ Could there, indeed, 
 
 'Deut. iv. 41; xix. 1-13; cf. Num. xxxv. 
 
 ^ Deut. X. 16; XXX. 6, as in Jer. iv. 4; ix. 26. 
 
 ' Deut. X. 22; cf. Gen, xlvi. 27; Deut. i. 23; cf. Num. xiii, 3 ff. ; Deut. x. i, 2; cf. Ex. 
 xxxiv. I. 
 
 * See last citation of passages, and with Gen. xxxiv, 15, cf. Gen, xvii. 10 (Wellhausen, 
 Geschichte, p. 364 f.).
 
 22 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 be an audacity more astounding ? They scout the idea 
 of supernaturalism and miracle in the scriptures, and yet 
 arrogate to themselves the very attributes of Deity ! 
 
 Sidney Smith si^eaks of some one whose forte was 
 science, but whose foible was omniscience. Now, what- 
 ever the forte of our critics may be, they certainly have 
 a very decided foible for omniscience. They claim to 
 be able not only to tell us exactly, and by the score, 
 where passages have been inserted in the text, and the 
 hand that did it, but, something inconceivable to any 
 one but God alone, where they have been left out. And 
 this to us is the vital point of the matter : they must be 
 able to know, and to tell us, as much as this, or their 
 theory is worthless for the conclusions they seek to 
 establish. 
 
 If we move downward from the Deuteronomic period, 
 we shall find it just as hard to make our way along the 
 track of Israelitish history without the postulate of its 
 code, and the elder one on which it clearly rests. The 
 temple of Solomon in its furnishing, its peculiar rites of 
 dedication, its swarming priests and Levites, who with- 
 out instruction know each his place and duty, is nothing 
 less than a glaring anomaly in history, if this hypothesis 
 be true. And why the scathing denunciations of Jero- 
 boam, the separatist, who, with his golden calves at Dan 
 and Bethel sought to breed political discord among the 
 people by pandering to an idolatrous taste } Why is he 
 reproved for devising "of his own heart" a festival on 
 the eighth month, except that he did it in contravention 
 and defiance of one already legally, that is Levitically, 
 ordered for the seventh .■' Why did his memory haunt, 
 like an evil spectre, all the subsequent history of Israel 
 to the very end, so that the writer of the Books of Kings 
 can utter no heavier censure over its wickedest rulers 
 than that they walked in the steps of Jeroboam, the son
 
 Introductory. 23 
 
 of Nebat, who caused Israel to sin ? There can be but 
 one answer. There was an acknowledged law against 
 which he was a conspicuous and arrant offender. 
 
 The existence of such a law is not only proved by a 
 certain line of conduct which is everywhere branded as 
 transgression, but also by numerous efforts at reform in 
 the express direction of this code. Jehoash was a re- 
 former, and Amaziah, and Azariah, and above all Heze- 
 kiah, the very last of whom lived a full hundred years 
 before our critics' date of Deuteronomy. They have a 
 single aim. They face one way, and that, the way of 
 the Mosaic laws. Their fault was never one of direction, 
 but solely of lack of force and thoroughness. Again 
 and again are they rebuked for stopping short of the 
 goal ; altars were still left to blaze for Baal as well as 
 God. 
 
 Josiah himself, claimed as the first great reformer 
 under Deuteronomic inspiration, is simply one in a loyal 
 line that reaches back to Samuel and the heroic judges 
 who preceded him. He had no suspicion that he was 
 undertaking what was new. It was over a broken and 
 disregarded law, which ought to have been supreme in 
 Israel, that he rent his clothes, humbled himself, and 
 wept in sorrow and penitence. 
 
 Our critics have, also, the wonder of the Psalter to 
 explain, which certainly had its beginning considerably 
 before the sixth century, and yet echoes and reechoes 
 in every part the Mosaic law. One of its psalms recog- 
 nizes every form of sacrifice known to the ritual of 
 Leviticus, save one. In its fivefold division it is directly 
 based on the Pentateuch. Its proem is a psalm describ- 
 ing the blessedness of him whose delight is in the law 
 of the Lord; and elsewhere, as we believe through the 
 lips of David himself, it breaks forth into ecstatic praise
 
 24 The PentateiLcJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 of it: "The law of the Lord is perfect converting the 
 soul." "The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing 
 the heart." 
 
 If a single one of the earlier psalms can be shown to 
 rest upon the Torah rather than on the teachings of the 
 prophets, that of itself is enough to overthrow the main 
 positions of our critics. And a great deal more than 
 this is possible. 
 
 Take an example from them, the eighth, which by 
 almost universal consent is ascribed to David. Note 
 carefully the line of thought along which it moves. It 
 is a night scene. The gaze of the shepherd and poet is 
 fixed on the spangled skies: "When I consider thy 
 heavens, the work of thy fingers ; moon and stars which 
 thou hast ordained ; What is man, that thou art mindful 
 of him .-* and the son of man that thou visitest him .-* 
 For thou didst make him a little lower than God, and 
 crownedst him with glory and honor. Thou madest 
 him to have dominion over the works of thy hands," 
 What amazing language is this ! How does David know 
 these things .-• How does he, in the wildest flights of 
 fancy, dare to say that man has been made but a little 
 lower than God } He had gratefully read it, where we 
 may still read it to-day, in the opening chapter of the 
 Bible, whose thought not only he appropriates, but the 
 precise order of it. Yet these very words of Genesis 
 are an inseparable part of the document assigned by our 
 critics to the period of the exile, six hundred years after 
 the reign of David. 
 
 And aside from the individual psalms, they must 
 tell us how the collection came to reach in Israel 
 that high plane of spiritual feeling and utterance, 
 which has never yet been passed, and that amidst 
 the densest moral darkness of neighboring peoples.
 
 In tro ductory. 2 5 
 
 There is but one Psalter for the whole Bible. And 
 it has proved sufficient. Its buttresses are deep and 
 strong enough to bear up a structure that was twenty- 
 centuries building ; its invisible arch lofty enough 
 to cover the grandest architectures of prophetic vision 
 and of Christian hope. On any principle of develop- 
 ment, let them inform us, if the Mosaic laws and 
 institutions were not behind it, what was behind it, to 
 push it upward, before the period of the exile, and to 
 some extent before the acme of prophetical influence 
 had been reached, to such a pitch of moral grandeur, to 
 such hitherto unknown ideas of God and man's relations 
 to him } 
 
 What long stretches of time, what mighty moral 
 forces, what terrible wrestlings of the human spirit 
 must have gone before that story of temptation and 
 blessed escape found in the seventy-third Psalm ! 
 What an experience of precious rest in God, whose 
 sweet depth no plummet has since fully sounded, is 
 found in Psalm twenty-third ! How striking, and how 
 Christian withal, the solution of the mystery of individ- 
 ual immortality conveyed in the words : " Whom have 
 I in heaven but Thee ! . . . My flesh and my heart 
 faileth : God is the strength of my heart and my portion 
 forever." First a house, then a church, is the maxim 
 of our critics. But surely here is an altar and holiest 
 worship, souls who pant after God. Here are songs in 
 every key, from the tumultuous depths to serenest 
 heights, and hearts to feel them and voices to sing 
 them. And here is he who dwcllcth not in temples 
 made with hands ; who inhabiteth the praises of Israel ; 
 and dwelleth with him that is of a contrite heart and 
 who trembleth at his word. 
 
 Then, further, those who are seeking to make every-
 
 26 TIic Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 '<i' 
 
 thing clear on the principle of natural development 
 have not only the anomaly of reforming kings without 
 a standard of reform and the furnished temple of the 
 Psalter without priesthood or ritual to explain, but also 
 the attitude and work of the preexilian prophets. 
 They, it is claimed, were the real sources of Israelitish 
 history and religion. Who and what were their 
 sources .'* Moses was too great, too developed a char- 
 acter to have arisen in the period of the exodus ! What 
 a soil, then, the period of the judges for such a growth 
 as that of Samuel ! Whence came Elijah the Tishbite ? 
 and Obadiah and Joel, Amos and Hosea, Isaiah and 
 Micah .'' Unlike in natural gifts and training, they 
 were yet impelled by one spirit ; uttered really but one 
 message. Prophets of two fiercely rival kingdoms, 
 they never waver in their loyalty to one invariable 
 standard and to one King.^ It was Amos of Judah 
 who, while tending his flocks in Tekoa, heard the call 
 of God, and hurried to confront the haughty king of 
 Israel and his false priests at Bethel. It was Elijah of 
 Israel who won from the people of Judah such love and 
 reverence that, to this day, in certain ceremonies, 
 their descendants still set for him a chair as an invisi- 
 ble guest.2 
 
 What gave to these men this unity of spirit, this fiery 
 zeal, this mysterious power over kings and people ^ 
 What was it that took away all sense of fear in the 
 discharge of duty } Whence that idea of solemn, 
 imperative duty .? It was the Mosaic law given 
 amidst the awful sanctions of Mount Sinai, that was at 
 once their bond and inspiration ; that ruled them and 
 heartened them. They severally make direct and 
 
 ^ The order of the Minor Prophets is particularly to be noted, a prophet of Israel 
 being joined with one of Judah, with obvious intent. 
 
 - Qi. Delitzsch, OldTest. History of Redemption, p. up.
 
 Introditctory. 27 
 
 unmistakable allusions to it, or its essential historic 
 setting.! All their utterances are based on such a 
 presupposition. They recognize a covenant made with 
 God through Mosaic mediation. That covenant had 
 not been kept. Their whole activity proclaims a per- 
 verse trend of thought and conduct against which they 
 relentlessly fight, one and all. Founders of a religion 
 they were not, and could not be, men like these, without 
 a sign of collusion ; but mighty reformers they were, 
 who set their faces like a flint against a prevailing 
 degeneracy and lapse of the people whom God had 
 chosen for his own,^ 
 
 Caroline Fox, in her Memories, tells of a Quaker of 
 literary turn who would not undertake a translation of 
 the Iliad lest he should catch the martial spirit of its 
 heroes. Our critics, so far from catching the spirit of the 
 Hebrew prophets, have not seemed able even to under- 
 stand their teaching in its distinguishing features. To 
 overlook the higher truth in their burning metaphors 
 and startling paradoxes, and charge them with hostility 
 to the idea of sacrifice because they denounce an 
 unworthy dependence on altar gifts as an opus operatum, 
 and properly brand the sacrifices of the wicked as an 
 abomination,^ is not only to bring them into conflict 
 with themselves,^ but also with the whole current of 
 
 ^ Amos ii. lo; Hos. xii. 13; Mic. vi. 4; vii. 15. 
 
 *Cf. Watson, The Law and the Prophets, p. 79 : " If you deprive the prophets of the 
 one book on which their teaching could be founded, how do you account for the prophets 
 and their teaching? You frame a theory which accounts for the composition of the 
 Pentateuch on naturaUslic principles; but in so doing you cut the ground from under the 
 prophets' feet. The prophets had to learn before they could teach; what was their text- 
 book? Not the law; it had to be fabricated. Not the history (at least with the earlier 
 prophets), for it had yet to be written in the true spirit. By whom then were the 
 prophets taught? By the direct inspiration of Uod apart from all human means? That 
 is the only answer the modern critics have left for themselves, an answer which they 
 certainly will not give." 
 
 ^ Cf. Prov. xxi. 27. 
 
 * Cf. Green, Moses and the Prophets, -p. 147 f. ; Watts, The Newer Crzticis>n,p. 83 fT
 
 28 The Pentateuch : Its Orisrin and Structure. 
 
 '<i ' 
 
 biblical teaching, from the lesson of those first offerings 
 of Cain and Abel to the words of Him who made love 
 to be more than all whole burnt-offerings and sacri- 
 fices (Mark xii. 33). 
 
 Still further, these critics, who make the Mosaic law 
 essentially a product of the post-exilan Judaism, have 
 to explain what has been noted as a conspicuous pecu- 
 liarity of the Hebrew people as of no other people, 
 stamped on their whole history from the beginning, 
 through this very period, too, when if there was no law 
 there could be no transgression : a peculiarly active 
 conscience, and that an evil conscience ; " a feeling of 
 guilt ; a feeling that a lofty task had been assigned 
 them, which they neither can nor will perform ; a 
 feeling of contrariety between knowledge and will, so 
 that sins are heaped on sins."^ What could have so 
 awakened this feeling in them of all the ancient 
 peoples that we know, so that it must be recognized 
 as one of the dominant factors of their history, before 
 the exile as after the exile ? It was the coming in of 
 the law, to state it as Paul does in Romans, that made 
 the transgression abound, that kept the conscience, 
 even though an evil conscience, alert, an unsilenced 
 oracle of power and dread within, and brought ever 
 heavier burdens of guilt upon them, till they should 
 come at last to Him who is the end of the law for 
 righteousness to every one that believeth. 
 
 Now these are things which we find in the books 
 themselves, an inseparable and undeniable part of the 
 records ; and they militate decisively against the theory 
 we have been considering. If the theory be true, they 
 ought not to be there, and could not be there. But 
 there they are. No hypothesis of interpolations or 
 
 1 So De Welte in Stttd. u. Kritiken (1833), p. 1003.
 
 fntroductory. 29 
 
 omissions can affect the most of them any more than 
 it would the history written in stone, of a Sargon or a 
 Sennacherib. They are wholly beyond the critic's art. 
 It is a spirit that breathes and moves outside the 
 letter; that utters itself, indeed, in words, but yet is 
 something more than words, and will still live on, con- 
 fuse and mutilate the letter as you will. It is a myste- 
 rious coloring reaching to deepest depths, and can no 
 more be blotted out than its radiant blue can be wiped 
 Ifi^m the summer's sky. 
 
 Finally, it is safe to say that a really sober Christian 
 scholarship will never abandon a position against which 
 so little valid objection can be urged for one involving 
 the extraordinary inconsistencies of that before us. I 
 do not deny that there will be difficulties with any 
 theory which would account for the origin and struc- 
 ture of a work of the character of this, antedating all 
 other native records. But it is neither reasonable nor 
 in any true sense scientific, if there be a feasible way 
 of harmonizing the documents as they are, to reject 
 the solemn and oft-repeated testimony which they give 
 of themselves, sustained as it is by all the historical 
 evidence accessible to us, Jewish and Christian, to take 
 refuge in an hypothetical scheme such as we have been 
 considering. 
 
 I have already pointed out a few of the sacred 
 objects, supposably established truths, some of them, 
 as it seems to me, fundamental to the Christian faith, 
 as well as whole books of Scripture, that it has been 
 found needful to offer up to this imperious theory. 
 The list is not yet exhausted. The Book of Joel, until 
 of late, has been held by the almost unanimous con- 
 sent of scholars to be among the very oldest of the 
 prophets. A critic now among the adherents of Well-
 
 j,o 
 
 The Pentateuch : Its Orizin and Structure. 
 
 '&> ' 
 
 hausen wrote a work as late as 1875 ^ in defence of this 
 position. But Joel recognizes no other place of wor- 
 ship than Jerusalem ; lays great stress on sacrifices, 
 regarding it as something to be bewailed when they are 
 hindered ; names the people by the so-called Elohistic 
 term, QdJidl, congregation. Hence, Joel can be no pre- 
 exilian prophet. He must move down, and still further 
 down, and take his place among the very last and 
 lowest.2 It is the exigency of the theory, mind )ifi.y, 
 that makes this requirement, nothing else. It is 1^1% 
 dilemma into which they would be brought who say 
 that no traces of this " Code of the Priests " are discov- 
 erable before the exile, if this mighty prophet of Judah 
 were allowed to stand in his place and give his testi- 
 mony. 
 
 A similar exigency accounts for the misplacing of 
 another quite as important portion of Scripture — the 
 patriarchal history and its sequel in Exodus and other 
 books. It is supposed to belong, largely, as I have 
 said, to this "Code of the Priests" made up in the 
 exile. But there was a time when our critics took 
 another view. They dated only the Levitical code of 
 laws so late. But it was shown them, and they were 
 compelled at the edge of the sword to yield the point, 
 that, unless all critical principles hitherto acknowledged 
 as valid were abandoned, the history must go with the 
 code. They were an inseparable part of the same 
 Elohistic document. 3 And so, humbly, but as we may 
 
 'Smend, Moses apud Prophetas, Halis. Cf. also his " Ueber die von den Propheten 
 des achten Jahrhunderts vorausgesetzte Ent wickelungsstufe der israelii. Religion " in Stud, 
 u. Kritikcn for 1876. In his Commentary, Der Prophet Ezechicl (1860), however, he 
 goes wholly over to the theory of Wellhausen. 
 
 ^Cf. Mcrx, Die Proph. des Joel iind Hirer Ausleger, Halle, 1879; Stade, De Populo 
 Javan (academical Programme), Giessen, 18S0; and Delitzsch's Article on the other side, 
 in the Lutherische Zeitschrift (1851), " Zwei sichere Ergebnisse im Betreff der Weissa- 
 gungsschrift Joels." 
 
 3 See Riehm's Article in review of Graf, in Stud. u. Kritiken (1868), pp. 350-379-
 
 Introductory. 3 ^ 
 
 well believe far from thankfully, they took the history. 
 An exigency of another sort was upon them. But, if I 
 mistake not, they have plunged themselves thereby 
 into vastly greater difficulties, wholly unforeseen at 
 first. It has obliged them to separate themselves from 
 some of the very ablest of their friends, who still regard 
 this history as among the oldest parts of the Bible. It 
 has forced them to reverse the old-time order of Elohist 
 and Jehovist, and thus to leave at the chronological 
 head of the Bible those two infinitely weighty chapters 
 of Genesis which are the record of the Fall and its 
 accompanying promise justly claimed to be of more 
 importance than the whole Pentateuch besides. More 
 than all, we have in this very Elohistic history itself a 
 document which carries within it the condemnation of 
 the hypothesis. It simply does not agree, on any 
 principles of theirs, with the laws to which they have 
 reluctantly joined it. As actual history of those 
 ancient times, it is intelligible, and can be accounted 
 for ; but as an invention of the time of the exile, to 
 preface and introduce the Levitical legislation, it is 
 preposterous ! The contents of these chapters are 
 heterogeneous. Their teachings respecting sacrifice ; 
 the technical names they apply to various offerings ; 
 the practices they allow or forbid, in other respects, 
 and their whole point of view can be harmonized on no 
 such supposition. The man, or the set of men, capable 
 of originating the legislation of Leviticus and Numbers 
 in the fifth century b.c, or in any other century, cer- 
 tainly was incapable of so absurd a thing as to invent 
 the history that precedes it as its introduction, or find- 
 ing it at hand consciously to use it as such.^ 
 
 1 Sec Article by Delitzsch " Opfer," in Riolim's Handivbrtcrbuch des Bib.Altertunn, 
 p. 1114. Cf. Watson, ibid. p. 194 f. He says of the theological ideas of the Patriarchs: 
 "Did the patriarchs realize the idea of God's omnipresence? Genesis teaches us thii
 
 32 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 And then, besides, there is the abnormity of reasoning, 
 as these critics do, about this "Code of the Priests." 
 They claim that it is essentially a fiction, written to 
 compass certain ends. It has its nucleus in the taber- 
 nacle and its rites, which never really existed, since it 
 is only a reflection of Solomon's temple projected back 
 into the Mosaic age. But, forthwith, they go on to 
 reason about the document as though it were actual 
 history, able to sustain the weightiest historical conclu- 
 sions. They tell us of the emphasis it lays on the 
 centralization of worship, on the distinction it makes 
 between the priests and Levites, and the like, and 
 insist that this shows an historical development appro- 
 priate only to the time of the exile. But, if the " Code 
 of the Priests " be fiction, then it is not a history. And 
 if it invented the story of the tabernacle and made it 
 Mosaic simply for effect, who shall say that it did not 
 invent the distinction between the priests and the 
 Levites, and all the other details, also for effect t Who 
 has a right to pronounce just where fancy ends and fact 
 begins? It would appear that our boasted critical 
 method is again at fault. True it is, that a romance 
 may take the coloring of its time, and teach us history. 
 
 truth, but the Patriarchs had hardly learned it; cf. Gen. iii. 8; iv. i6; xvi. 13; xviii. 21. 
 Did they regard God as one who searches the hearts and reins? The same answer may 
 be given. Notice how God is represented as arriving at the knowledge of the guilt of 
 Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. xviii. 20-22). Observe the difference of tone between Abra- 
 ham's simple and childlike expostulations with God in Gen. xviii. 23, etc., and the deep 
 heart-searchings and anxious intercessions of the prophets." He remarks further of their 
 idolatrous sysieins. " Image worship is not unknown, and there are such things as 
 'strange gods.' But idolatry is not the sin of the age. No idolatrous system is presented 
 to our notice, the names of no false gods appear. The sinners of the age, the antedilu- 
 vians and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, are not described as worshipers of 
 false gods, but as offenders against fundamental principles of morality. Here is a strong 
 proof of genuineness. . . . What an irresistible temptation it would be to the later pro- 
 phetic historian of the critical theory to utilize the flood and the destruction of Sodom 
 and Gomorrah, in his attack against the sin of his age — idolatry." Watson illustrates 
 the same principle in the matter of political ideas, the nature of sin, and the absence oj 
 r^erence to persons and institutions of a later date.
 
 Introductory. 33 
 
 But when we have only the work itself to depend upon, 
 who may decide where to draw the line ? How, espe^ 
 cially, can we know in the case of an imaginative writer 
 like the present, who would carry us back into the 
 Mosaic age, how much the castles in the air he builds 
 will be modeled on principles that rule in his own, and 
 how much be the reflection of other, times ? ^ 
 
 Still further, we find it just as anomalous and incon- 
 sistent to claim, as this theory does, that works like 
 ours should be imputed to Moses at all. Who was 
 Moses ? According to the theory (at least as devel- 
 oped by its principal advocates), a half-mythical hero 
 living away back beyond the barbarous period of the 
 judges whose mysterious figure is abnormally enlarged 
 by the mists that envelop it. Why, then, this feverish 
 anxiety of a people through a whole millennium to 
 attribute their highest achievements in legislation to 
 him who was at home in a period that knew no law .'' 
 No one thinks of imputing the Magna Charta of Eng- 
 land to Arthur of the Round Table. What gives to 
 Moses a right to so high a position, when we must go 
 by the royal David and the great Samuel to reach him t 
 And why especially fictitiously ascribe to him two great 
 codes of laws so diverse, and from this point of view so 
 contradictory, as the Book of Deuteronomy and the 
 " Code of the Priests." For we can understand how 
 Moses himself after the experience of twice a score of 
 years might modify, on entering Canaan, his own 
 statutes. But that a priest of the time of the exile, or 
 a company of priests, should seek to palm off as Mosaic 
 the Levitical legislation on a reluctating people, in the 
 face of Deuteronomy already, a little while before, 
 
 1 This argument has been well put by Kittel, in Theologische Studien aus Wurtetn- 
 berg (1881), pp. 40, 151 f.
 
 34 The PentatencJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 ostensibly received as Mosaic, would be the height of 
 absurdity ; it would be invoking the name and authority 
 of Moses for that which was demonstrably un-Mosaic. 
 
 This course appears still more unreasonable when it 
 is noted that our critics are making ever less of the 
 man of whom the books themselves have made so 
 much. Until of late a modicum of Pentateuch laws has 
 been allowed a great antiquity, at least in an oral form. 
 This is true of the so-called Book of the Covenant, that 
 is, four chapters in Exodus including the ten command- 
 ments. But now there is a weakening also here, 
 Wellhausen seeing no good reason why the Mosaic 
 origin even of the ten commandments should be main- 
 tained.^ What is the cause .-' One reason is obvious : 
 the existence of the ten commandments, especially the 
 second of them, cannot be made to harmonize with the 
 supposed earlier attitude of Israel toward idolatry. 
 And do not all these ancient documents mysteriously 
 "hang together," to use an expression of the critics.-' 
 Place side by side this Book of the Covenant and the 
 "Code of the Priests." Is there any falling off ? Are 
 not the ten words fully up in form and spirit to any 
 part of it ? But admit a Moses of the ten command- 
 ments, and their Sinaitic setting, and where can we 
 stop, where is our theory of development } We have 
 admitted the work of a master, and we must admit the 
 master himself. We have a monument chiseled in 
 stone that we are still proud to set high above any work 
 of uninspired genius — there must have been an artist, 
 too, greater and nobler than his work. 
 
 I find another inconsistency quite as great in the 
 fact that this " Code of the Priests " is ascribed by our 
 critics to the time of the exile. Why there especially ? 
 
 ' Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. xiii. p. 399.
 
 Introductory. 35 
 
 Objections to placing it there are numerous enough, 
 and not one reason for it, if you accept the simple 
 matter of getting, in this way, the time required by 
 such a theory of development. Outside of this sup- 
 posed production, there is not in the entire period the 
 first trace of any Mosaic tradition. One will look in 
 vain in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah for a single 
 suggestion of the possibility of such an enterprise as 
 this. The Torah Ezra introduces is conspicuously the 
 old Mosaic. That part of it now called the " Code of 
 the Priests " is never even cited in his writings. It is 
 obviously not that which is mirrored in the peculiar 
 legislation of the exile ; is even directly opposed to it in 
 some important respects. The high-priest of these post- 
 exilian books, for instance, is far from holding the 
 commanding place assigned in the Levitical law. The 
 whole organization of the priesthood has undergone a 
 decided change — new offices with new names, Nethi- 
 nim, Sopherim, various leaders of music, being intro 
 duced of which this "Code of the Priests" knows 
 nothing. 
 
 So that, aside from the serious difficulty of explain- 
 ing how a work could have been written in the exile 
 without a sign of the grammatical forms, syntax, and 
 language of that period, but agreeing exactly in its 
 archaisms with the oldest portions of the Pentateuch, 
 we have this still weightier objection, of its essential, 
 material inappropriateness to the age said to have 
 produced it as the culmination of a process then reach- 
 ing its bloom. The conclusion is scarcely to be 
 resisted that here, again, an awkward theory needed to 
 be accommodated. Our critics have at last simply 
 unloaded at this point, with an apparent sense of relief, 
 a document which they had tried in vain to adjust to
 
 $6 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 every previous age succeeding Moses. This age, too, 
 equally protests against it ; simply will not have it ; 
 scornfully repels with a reforming zeal, heightened by 
 seventy years of exile, a literary imposture thus ground- 
 lessly charged upon it. 
 
 An important fact seems to have been strangely over- 
 looked thus far in this whole discussion : that the time 
 of the exile was the period when, as it is universally 
 agreed, the synagogues came into prominence. Long 
 musing by the rivers of Babylon had borne its fruit. 
 Under the common guidance of priest and prophet it 
 was beneath the open sky that prayer had been wont 
 to be made. The false idea that worship was solely a 
 matter of priestly functions and of brilliant shrines had 
 been effectually exploded. Not alone the hard lot of 
 exiles, but the disappointment of the second temple had 
 brought it about, and the spiritual lesson which the 
 seers of Judah and Israel alike had all along been striv- 
 ing to teach was at last acknowledged : that to under- 
 stand the law and do it was more than all burnt-offering-. 
 On his return from Babylon, it was Ezra himself who 
 set the example of liberty from ceremonial observances. 
 At the very time when, as our critics think, he was sur- 
 reptitiously introducing a priestly code of his own, from 
 his pulpit of wood before the water-gate, he was acting 
 in positive contravention of its exclusive spirit. Under 
 the very shadow of the temple he was doing that for 
 which these laws would have pointed him to the temple 
 courts. 
 
 The same century could never have produced on any 
 theory of development tendencies so directly antago- 
 nistic — the centripetal and centrifugal. A "Code of 
 the Priests " can never have sprung, on naturalistic prin- 
 ciples, from an age so bare of priests and priestly power.
 
 Introductory. 37 
 
 It demands exclusiveness just when men are pining for 
 greater breadth and freedom. It saddles with a burden- 
 some ritual a people who have learned by recent ex- 
 perience how high the spirit is above the form. It 
 makes centralization imperative, when God's providence 
 is teaching the worth of a larger measure of diffusion 
 and independence. It turns all eyes and calls all 
 worshipers to the degenerate temple at the very crisis 
 when began historically that grand popular movement 
 in the direction of the synagogues which ended in sup- 
 planting altogether the dominant influence of the temple 
 and its Sadducaean hierarchy. 
 
 This, moreover, suggests the consideration that the 
 post-exilian history of the Jewish people down to this 
 very day is just as much a matter that needs explanation 
 on the basis of the present theory. For such a mighty 
 growth as this you must have depth of soil, and you 
 must have time. The decade of centuries antedating 
 the exile are none too numerous. The clear-cut schism 
 of the Samaritans ; the singular attitude o^^ the Israel- 
 itish nation over against the great world-powers — the 
 Persian, the Greek, the Roman ; the tremendous earnest- 
 ness displaying itself in sects like those of the Pharisees 
 and Sadducees ; the heroic, and in the annals of religious 
 wars as yet unequaled, struggle of the Maccabees ; 
 they have no sufficient ground in the shallow sacerdotal- 
 ism of an aspiring priesthood of the exile. This is no 
 mere zeal for ecclesiastical observances. " We fight," 
 said Judas Maccaboeus, " for our lives and for our 
 laws."^ And elsewhere, respecting the temple services 
 of which they had been deprived, in a sentiment worthy 
 of the Epistle to the Hebrews : " God did not choose 
 the people for the place's sake, but the place for the 
 people's sake." 2 
 
 ^ I Mac. iii. 21. * ? Mac. v. 19. 
 
 
 M2311
 
 38 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 And the marvel of the Jewish race through eighteen 
 Christian centuries, without political power, without a 
 home, without a standing among the nations of the 
 earth, forever ground between the upper and nether 
 millstone of civil disabilities and moral obloquy, clearly- 
 resting under what one has called the " sacred anger " 
 of their God, and yet ominously preserved, keeping un- 
 changed every national peculiarity, succumbing to 
 nothing, as little to the detestable ostracism and Jew- 
 baiting of our day as to the barbarous cruelties of the 
 Middle Ages : it can be accounted for by no theological 
 riffraff, no easy-going system of history and laws, which 
 you may turn end for end without essential injury. No 
 agnostic misconception indeed can veil the fact that in 
 this people we have the archetype of a religious prin- 
 ciple, rather a redemptive plan in its unfolding, reaching 
 backward to the beginning, and in its very indestructi- 
 bility a striking prophecy of the consummation. ^ We 
 have heard of the demand which the sceptical Frederick 
 II. of Prussia once made upon his chaplain: an un- 
 answerable proof of the divinity of the Scriptures, plain 
 and short, if possible, a single word. And you know 
 how the demand was met, and met as was required, by 
 a single word, and that word, just as full of mysterious 
 meaning to-day as ever before, was — Israel.^ 
 
 But a crowning inconsistency which I find in the 
 methods and conclusions of our critics is that, while 
 busy with codes and their proper distribution among 
 the centuries, they have strangely overlooked the law- 
 giver himself, have completely failed to account for the 
 conception of such a character as that of Moses and the 
 unique portrayal of it in the Pentateuch, Dazzled, as it 
 should seem, by the glare of their own torches, they 
 
 > Cf. Rom. xi. 12. 2 gf. Naville, The Christ (1880), p. 204.
 
 Introductory. 39 
 
 have never fully gauged the magnitude of the problem 
 which they undertake to solve. When the destructive 
 critics of the New Testament have finished their work, 
 if such a supposition be allowable, and torn piecemeal 
 the four histories of our Lord, parceling out the frag- 
 ments to different hands and different times, there will 
 still remain untouched, and forever above the reach of 
 critical experts, the peerless Christ to be accounted for ; 
 and here, in like manner, is the Moses of the Pentateuch 
 coming with radiant face from God's presence. A 
 greater miracle than Jesus, he is called, if he be a 
 product of the early age. But is it easier, then, to 
 believe that a priestly coterie of Josiah's time and Ezra's 
 time made him than that God made him?^ Is the 
 miracle one whit lessened, if he be regarded as a cheap 
 composite, the patched up manikin of half a score of 
 different hands, plying their crafty arts through half a 
 score of centuries .■• As a gift of God's good providence 
 sent for a special purpose, the character is intelligible. 
 It has been ever so in human history, that great sons of 
 their times have, sooner or later, responded to the clarion 
 call of great opportunities. But, as the puppet of a 
 show, the result of some hocus-pocus of Jehovist and 
 
 1 Cf. Payne-Smith, The Credibility of the Pentateuch, p. 37 f. " Alike the patriot- 
 ism, the self-denial, and the purposes sought by Moses are intelligible, if he were a real 
 man, but the history is most improbable if he were a mythical hero. He might have made 
 his own son his successor in the chieftainship : as a matter of fact he passes him by, and 
 chooses instead Joshua, a young noble of the race of Ephraim. On the conquest of 
 Canaan, Joshua receives large landed estates, but for the sons of Moses there was nothing 
 more than their share of the Levitical offerings. Even the headship of the tribe of Levi 
 belonged to Aaron, the elder brother of Moses ; and upon him and his descendants the high- 
 priesthood was conferred. They did consequently hold a grand position; but as for Moses 
 himself, in i Chron. vi., after he has been barely mentioned, his race drops entirely out of 
 the genealogy, while the family of Aaron is carefully described. All this is full of meaning 
 typically and finds lis explanation in New Testament truths; but to these I nuist not 
 refer, as they lie outside the argument. I only point out the facts as given in the nar- 
 rative, that while Moses conferred the spiritual power on Aaron, and provided for its 
 permanent continuance, betook diligent care that his own kingly office (Deut. xx.xiii. 5) 
 should neither be permanent nor hereditary. Yet hereditary rights were ^ot unknowt)."
 
 40 TJie PentatejicJt : Its Origin arid Structure. 
 
 Elohist, Deuteronomist and Redactor, a mere toy. 
 picture, made of blocks, squared and painted by different 
 hands — that strains our credulity too far. It is in- 
 credible. 
 
 Would any one venture the hypothesis that Raphael's 
 Madonna di San Sisto might have been the mutual 
 product of a number of different artists, who employed 
 themselves in different periods upon it, while Raphael 
 himself was but a sort of final redactor of the work? 
 Is it a possible supposition that any half-dozen hewers 
 of marble, though each one were gifted with a master's 
 skill, could ever have realized the conception which 
 Michael Angelo attained in his statue of Moses .-' It is 
 not to be thought of. The marble itself must speak to 
 brand it as false. But here is a unity and a complete- 
 ness higher than that of art, — the unity of nature, the 
 unity of a noble human life. Perfect it is not, for then 
 it would be other than human ; but — from that first 
 sweet picture of the little child nestling in its cradle of 
 papyrus leaves, among the reeds of the Nile, to that 
 last, solemn journey to the top of Nebo, to get one 
 glimpse of the dear land which, because of sin, he 
 might not set his foot upon — unique, and to the final 
 stroke beyond the possible reach of invention. 
 
 Greatest of all names in these ancient records, great 
 as deliverer and leader of Israel ; great as lawgiver and 
 religious reformer in a savage age, what form more 
 worthy than his to stand beside the shaggy Elijah as fit 
 exponent of Israelitish history amidst the transfiguring 
 glory of him who was its chiefest end and ripest 
 bloom } 
 
 Conjured into the history he was not, and could not 
 have been ; and just as little can he be conjured out of it. 
 But in it, and of it, then the miracle, if miracle it be, ig
 
 Introductory. 41 
 
 God's, and cannot be overthrown. And with the over- 
 shadowing personality of a Moses, indisputably fixed in 
 the age of Moses, you have not only a sure and stead- 
 fast anchor for the documents that bear his name, but 
 also a sufficient pledge of their genuineness and order. 
 The material universe during these cycles of time 
 since the exodus has been slowly undergoing change. 
 The "everlasting hills," of which the Psalmist speaks, 
 have taken on other shapes, gradually yielding to the 
 touch of time. But this sublime figure of the ancient 
 books, and those first great truths he uttered so long 
 ago, remain unchanged. Our critics may succeed in 
 obscuring, for some and for a time, the image and its 
 historic setting ; but to efface or greatly alter it were 
 impossible. Like the palimpsest of the gospel, it may 
 be written over and over with other thoughts. But 
 there will also be happy discoverers in the good time to 
 come. The human will fade out at last, and the divine 
 shine through.
 
 II. 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE CRITICISM. 
 
 Previoqs to the Christian era there are no traces of a 
 second opinion concerning the authorship of the Penta- 
 teuch : It was universally ascribed to Moses. So tena- 
 ciously, indeed, was the opinion held and so undisturbed 
 was it by any critical questionings that the two foremost 
 representatives of Jewish public sentiment and Jewish 
 history in the time of our Lord, Philo ^ and Josephus,^ 
 did not scruple even to state that the last eight verses 
 of Deuteronomy which describe the lawgiver's death 
 were, no less than the rest, from the lawgiver's hand.. 
 This opinion, as it concerned Mosaic authorship in 
 general, our Lord and his disciples seem to have shared. 
 In sixteen different passages, including parallels, Moses 
 is referred to by the Master. In two of them (John 
 iii. 14; vi. 32) he is connected with important events in 
 the history of the exodus. In two others he is referred 
 to as lawgiver (Matt, xxiii. 2 ; John vii. 19), and in the 
 second in a manner too explicit to escape attention : 
 " Did not Moses give you the law ? " In a number of 
 others (Matt. viii. 4; cf. Mark i. 44 ; Luke v. 14; Matt. 
 xix. 8. Cf. Mark x. 3-9 ; Mark vii. 10 ; Luke xx. 37 ; John 
 
 ^ a. Yiarima.nn, Histon'sch-kritsche Forsckitngen, pp. 1-71; Diestel, Geschichte d. 
 Alt. Test, etc., p. 555 ff.; Merx, " Nachwort " (pp. Ixxviii.-cxxii.) of Tuch's Co»t- 
 vtentar iiber die Genesis; Bleek's EiiUeitung in d. Alt. Tcsi.., ed. by Wellhausen, pp 
 .1-178; Siegfried, Spinoza ah Kritiker, etc.; Strack, in Herzog's Eiicyk., art. 
 "Pentateuch" ; Briggs, Biblical Study, pp. 164-213; Curtiss, "Sketches of Penta- 
 teuch Criticism" in the Bibliotheca Sacra for January 1884, pp. 1-23, 660-697. 
 
 2 De Vita Mosis, iii. 39. s Antiq., iv. 8, 48.
 
 Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 43 
 
 vii. 22, 23), most of them in circumstances apparently 
 forbidding the theory of simple accommodation to 
 a popular misconception, he speaks, respectively, 
 of Moses as having given a law concerning leprosy 
 (cf. Lev. xiii. xiv), concerning obedience to parents (cf. 
 Ex. XX. 12), concerning divorce (cf. Deut. xxiv. 1-4),^ 
 thus directly imputing to him legislation belonging to 
 each of the three great parts into which many modern 
 critics divide the Pentateuch and refer to widely sep- 
 arated periods of time. 
 
 In three other passages (Mark xii. 26 ; Luke xvi. 29, 
 31; xxiv. 44) in speaking of the Old Testament, as a 
 whole or in part, he employs the epithets, the "Book of 
 Moses," " Moses and the Prophets," " the Law of Moses, 
 the Prophets, and the Psalms," in a way, considering the 
 usages of his times, to indicate that he accepted, or at 
 least did not reject, the popular sentiment regarding 
 the origin of the Pentateuch. And finally, in John v. 
 45-47, our Lord appeals to the "writings of Moses" as 
 witnessing to him, telling his Jewish hearers that, if 
 they really believed Moses, they would also believe him 
 because Moses wrote of him. 
 
 It is well known, further, that different New Testa- 
 ment writers in numerous instances — not less than a 
 score and a half altogether — follow the example thus 
 set them by the Master and that there is not a single 
 case of deviation from the rule of ascribing the Penta- 
 teuch to Moses, or, in other words, of connecting him 
 with larger or smaller portions of it in a way to imply 
 his literary responsibility for its contents as a whole. 
 
 These undisputed facts, now, are by no means cited 
 at this point, as forestalling critical discussion and 
 proving beyond question for everybody that Moses 
 
 * In Mark x. s he says Moses wrote this law.
 
 44 The PentateticJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 actually wrote the Pentateuch or any considerable 
 portions of it ; but simply as historical facts having a 
 very important bearing — and for some persons, at least, 
 a decisive one i — on the point at issue, and that cannot 
 be left out of account whatever conclusions may be 
 finally reached. There is no slight significance in the 
 very strength of the later attestation in its relation to 
 the earlier. 
 
 Of the testimony of the post-Mosaic biblical books it 
 has been said that it is susceptible of a twofold inter- 
 pretation and does not force us to the inference that 
 they represent the whole Pentateuch to be Mosaic. Of 
 the post-exilian writings, again, it is affirmed that 
 their great distance from the period when the Penta- 
 teuch originated unfits them to be altogether competent 
 and convincing witnesses to its authorship. 
 
 Due weight must be allowed to such objections. The 
 latter one, in truth, is not enough considered by critics 
 of the present day who often speak with the assurance 
 of contemporaries and eyewitnesses of events that took 
 place in the exodus period or before the flood. On 
 the other hand, it must not be overlooked that if we 
 have to do with a " tradition," so called, it is one that 
 is distinctly traceable in authentic sources of informa- 
 tion ; is uniform, uninterrupted, and universal, and when 
 submitted to the test of national writers of acknowl- 
 edged trustworthiness, of the purest motives, and the 
 highest moral purpose, so far from breaking down or 
 weakening in the least, it finds in them its clearest 
 enunciation and its most emphatic support. 
 
 The circumstance is worthy of attention that the 
 first, as far as we have information, to challenge the 
 
 1 Cf. an Art. by Professor Boardman on " Inspiration " in the Bibliotheca Sacra 
 for July, 1884, p. 528 r.
 
 Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 45 
 
 Mosaic authorship of the Pentaieuch were the heretical 
 leaders and skeptics of the sub-apostolic age. Not that 
 this, in itself considered, should militate against the 
 position from a critical point of view. It serves simply 
 to show that, in this case, there is a motive sufficient 
 to account for the interruption now, for the first time, 
 made in the current of history. The objections 
 offered are wholly of a dogmatic nature ; they are not 
 so much directed against Moses as Mosaism. 
 
 The Gnostic, for example, sees no way of escapmg 
 from the teachings of the Pentateuch as he finds it, and 
 hence he separates it into parts having, as he claims, 
 differences in origin and being vested with an unequal 
 authority. The Nazarene, to whom animal food is 
 obnoxious, in like manner refuses to accept as genuine 
 any book that makes his forefathers consumers and 
 offerers of the forbidden flesh.^ The apostate Julian, 
 on the other hand, simply vents his spleen on Moses, 
 as he does on Jesus, and shows to what extent a rooted 
 aversion has perverted his judgment when he charges 
 the self-renunciating leader of the exodus with dema- 
 gogism.2 
 
 In fact, a history of the criticism might almost pass 
 by these earliest critics as standing quite outside the 
 range of genuine seekers after truth, did not the 
 same danger which they so conspicuously illustrate 
 threaten us at every step in our inquiries. Preposses- 
 sions are inevitable. We can no more be rid of them 
 than of our skins. They are, indeed, an essential part 
 of our mental and moral furnishing.^ But stubborn 
 
 '^ Epiphanii Panariurn. Hacr. xviii. i; xxxiii. 3,4. 
 
 *Cf. Juliani Impcratoris libroricin contra Christianos quae supersunt, ed. by 
 Neumann, Leipz., 1880. Prolegomena, pp. 20, 21. 
 
 ''On this account, I cannot feel full sympathy with the views expressed in an able 
 address delivered before the second annual Baptist Autumnal Conference by my
 
 46 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 prejudice is quite another thing, and nothing is more 
 fatal to the successful pursuit of facts. To claim to be 
 free from it is the cheapest of professions. To be 
 really free from it, one of the rarest of virtues. 
 
 The rise of anything that might properly be called 
 criticism in the department of the Pentateuch seems to 
 have been with Aben Ezra. His active life falls within 
 the first half of the twelfth century. He was an ardent 
 scholar, but a neo-Platonist in philosophy. His attitude 
 toward the Scriptures is much in dispute. Pronounced 
 it was not ; nor can it be interpreted as antagonistic 
 to the claim that "the law was given by Moses." When 
 a compatriot, a certain " Isaac," remarks on the well- 
 known verse in Genesis where, by implication, kings 
 
 esteemed friend, Dr. D. G. Lyon, of Cambridge, on " The Results of Modern Biblical 
 Criticism." He says: " On the other hand, biblical criticism does not love the Bible. 
 In common with all science, its only aim and its only love is truth. The Bible is to it 
 what the stars are to astronomy, or the flowers to botany — the field of its exploration, 
 within which it seeks the truth. Biblical criticism, as criticism, is the same whether 
 practised by a pietist or a rationalist. The term ' devout criticism ' would be impossible — 
 fully as much so as the term ' Christian science.' The spirit of a critic may be Christian 
 or otherwise; science has no religion and is hostile to none." Cf. Proceedings, etc., 
 Boston, 1883, p. 60. I confess to liking better the careful statements of Principal Rainy 
 {,The Bible and Criticism, p. 136 f.; cf. p. no f.) : " Now, I think, there is an interest 
 here to be guarded, if we can guard it wisely. Some think that we should concede to 
 criticism the right to work out its own results, taking no responsibility about them, 
 showing no antagonism to any of them, assured that, in the end of the day, all established 
 facts will be found harmonizing with all well-warranted faith. That is not a view in 
 which I can acquiesce. I think criticism, even as carried on by believing men, needs an 
 influence arising from the point of view of those who represent simply the interests of the 
 common faith. I think it is the better for having to reckon with that. Critical probabili- 
 ties are often no more than critical plausibilities. Besides, criticism, full of scientific 
 enthusiasm for methods formed and proved in the field of general literature, is in danger 
 of not always rightly estimating how the divine element in the Scriptures modifies the 
 problem and qualifies the results. It is the business and the point of honor of criticism to 
 do the utmost and the very best that can be done with the natural, the historical, the 
 common laws and the common conditions; and in this case criticism is none the worse 
 for a certain counter-pressure to compel her to make her work peculiarly sure when her 
 problems are peculiarly delicate. . . . Every day of my life I fall in with critical opinions 
 which I find myself dismissing from my mind as opinions which I am not going to adopt, 
 partly, no doubt, because I don't think it likely any strong evidence will be found in 
 support of them; but partly also because whatever presumptions could be pleaded for 
 them, I rate highly the presumptions arising against them, from their apparent incongruity 
 with what appears to me to be a sound and reasonable view of the Bible."
 
 Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 47 
 
 are ascribed to Israel (Gen. xxxvi. 31) that it must have 
 been written in the days of Jehosaphat, this scholar 
 takes him to task for the assertion and vindicates its 
 origin in the Mosaic period {Com. in Deut. xxxiii. 5). 
 His reasoning is far from brilliant ; but what conclu- 
 sion he would have us draw from it is beyond 
 dispute. Hence when Aben Ezra elsewhere (in his 
 comments on Deut. i. 2) indicates a number of passages 
 in the Pentateuch as, in his view, of doubtful origin or 
 doubtful meaning,^ it is scarcely fair to go behind the 
 record and charge him with holding some other opinion 
 concerning them. His attitude is simply one of inquiry 
 and is equally creditable to his discrimination and good 
 sense. It cannot be considered as really prejudicing 
 that which he elsewhere clearly assumes toward the 
 Pentateuch as a whole.^ 
 
 Following Aben Ezra the next critic in order of time 
 to attract particular notice was Carlstadt, a contem- 
 porary of Luther (1480-1541).^ Vain as he was im- 
 petuous and rash, the Reformation never came nearer 
 shipwreck than when he temporarily guided its fortunes 
 during the absence of his chief at Wartburg. The very 
 work which contains his criticisms on the Pentateuch 
 contains also a subtle attack on Luther, whom he 
 regarded as a rival* 
 
 Carlstadt not only denied the Mosaic authorship of the 
 
 1 " If thou shall understand," he says, " the secret of the twelve [that is, concluding 
 verses of the Pentateuch], also, ' Moses wrote this book' [Deut. xxxi. 9] and ' theCanaan- 
 ite was then in the land ' [Gen. xii. 6] , ' in the mountain of the Lord lie appeareth ' [Gen. 
 xxii. 14], also, ' behold his bed is abed of iron' [Deut. iii. 11], thou shalt recognize the 
 truth." The rabbinical commentary from which I verify this passage was published in 
 Wilna, 1876. 
 
 2 Similarly Hartmann: " Aber er wollte dutch solche Andeutungen den Pentateuch 
 keineswegs verdachtig machen oder das giittliche Ansehen des erlauchteii Gesetzgebers im 
 Geringsten schmalern." — Forschic7i^cn, etc., p. i. 
 
 ' De Canonicis Scripturis, 1520. 
 
 * Cf. Mayer, Dissertatio de Karolstadio, Greifswald, 1703. Jagcr, Andreas Doden- 
 stetn von Karlstadt, Stuttgart, 1856.
 
 4^ The PcjitatencJi : Its Origin and Strnciure. 
 
 Pentateuch, but declared the man demented who could 
 attribute it to Moses.^ His reasons, however, are as 
 uncertain as his temper. Moses could not have written 
 the account of his own death. But that account appears 
 in the same style as the remainder of the Pentateuch. 
 Hence, Moses could not have written the Pentateuch. 
 Those twelve concluding verses of Deuteronomy, 
 however, make an exceedingly slender thread to bind 
 together such massive argumentation. Were we to 
 admit the ability of Carlstadt, or any other man, to 
 decide the question of style with such limited means of 
 comparison, and were we even to admit that the style of 
 the Pentateuch is not Mosaic, we might be still a good 
 way off from admitting that Moses is not responsible for 
 the literary contents of the Pentateuch whatever may 
 have been his sources, or whoever his amanuensis. 
 
 A little later, Andreas Masius (d. 1573), a venturesome 
 Roman Catholic jurist, of Belgium, discussed the same 
 topic. In the preface and other portions of a scholarly 
 commentary on Joshua,^ he advanced the opinion that 
 Ezra, either alone or in conjunction with others, in edit- 
 ing the Pentateuch, as he assumes that he did, may have 
 interj^olated it, also, to the extent of single explanatory 
 words, here and there, or possibly sentences. Still, he 
 did so, if at all, according to Masius, under the special 
 guidance of the Spirit who inspired Moses, the original 
 writer. Even so mild and conservative a statement as 
 this was held by his ecclesiastical superiors to be fraught 
 with peril, and Masius's book was interdicted. That is, 
 it was buried alive to come up again in a crop of similar, 
 or more intemperate, works, like that of Carlstadt, which 
 no interdict could reach. 
 
 For one such the world did not have long to wait : it 
 
 ' De Canojiicis, etc., p. 364 IT. 2 Josvae Imperatoris Historia, 1574-
 
 historical Sketch of the Criticism. 49 
 
 was Hobbes's Leviathan} In spirit and methods Hobbes 
 was the forerunner of the modern scientific sceptic. He 
 vigorously applied to history and revelation the princi- 
 ples that govern in the study of physics. Yet, in his 
 criticisms of the Pentateuch, Hobbes was no inconoclast. 
 Compared with Wellhausen's Geschichte, there is little 
 in his book of portentous title that would now attract 
 unusual attention, although at that time it cost him his 
 position at court. He denied the Mosaic authorship of 
 the Pentateuch as a whole, mainly on the ground of 
 scattered expressions supposed to be inconsistent with 
 such a theory. What is directly ascribed to Moses in 
 the Pentateuch itself, as, for example, the fourteen chap- 
 ters of legislation in the Book of Deuteronomy, even so 
 much of a theological outlaw as Hobbes had not the 
 hardihood to pronounce post-Mosaic. 
 
 A contemporaneous ally of the English critic was the 
 Frenchman, Isaac Peyrere (1594-1676). His work on 
 the Prseadamites ^ provided him the opportunity for dis- 
 coursing on the composition of the Pentateuch. He 
 denied, for much the same reasons as Hobbes, that in 
 its present form it is a work of Moses ; but, like Hobbes, 
 he conceded the participation of Moses in the composi- 
 tion. The leader of the exodus had kept a journal of 
 principal events, including the giving of the law, and 
 had prefaced the same with a history of the world from 
 the beginning, not excepting the Praeadamites. If these 
 precious autographs had not been lost — Peyrere does 
 not tell us how they were so soon lost, notwithstanding 
 the evident care that was taken of them — we should 
 not have had the anachronisms, confused arrangement, 
 and obscurities of the present narrative ; nor should wq 
 
 ' Published originally in 1651, new editions have appeared in England within the last 
 three years. His works in fnll were published by Molesworth, London, 1839-45. 
 * Systeina Theologiciim ex rneadainilarum llypothesi, 1655.
 
 50 TJie PentateucJi : Its Origin and Striictitre. 
 
 have been obliged to mourn the absence of all docu- 
 mentary support for the doctrine of the Praeadamites, 
 excepting only a single verse in the Epistle to the 
 Romans (v. 14). 
 
 The fact that Peyrere was persuaded afterward to 
 retract his pet theories, and also to abjure the Protest- 
 ant faith, leaves the force of his reasoning, be it weak 
 or strong, precisely where the retraction of Galileo left 
 the movements of the heavenly bodies. 
 
 An abler critic than either Hobbes or Peyrere and a 
 bolder one than even Carlstadt was Benedict Spinoza.^ 
 He was a Jew of extraordinary learning for his times 
 and a man whom no pains could turn aside from his 
 convictions. His great fault as a critic lay in his 
 philosophy. He rejected, at the start, a supernatural 
 revelation, miracle and prophecy, and was the father 
 of all such as handle the weapons of rationalistic 
 Science in dealing with the Scriptures. 
 
 Following up the clues furnished by Aben Ezra, 
 whom he, however, characterized as somewhat of a 
 iveathercock and trimmer, he went on to indicate still 
 other peculiarities of the Pentateuch which, in his 
 judgment, disprove the authorship) of Moses. There 
 Vvas the fact that Moses is spoken of, so often, in the 
 third person ; that he is pronounced the meekest of men 
 (Num. xii. 3); that certain places are called by names 
 which they first received at a later period ; that the 
 hand that concludes the work describes the death of 
 the lawgiver and lauds him as the first of prophets. 
 
 These considerations, Spinoza averred, furnish incon- 
 testable evidence that the Five Books are not from 
 Moses. That he wrote parts of them is evident enough. 
 He wrote a Book of the Wars of God (Ex. xvii. 14 ; cf. 
 
 ^ Tractatus Theologico-Politicus , 1670.
 
 Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 5 1 
 
 Num. xxi. 14), the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx. 22- 
 xxiv.), some Book of the Law (Deut. xxxi. 9), which 
 furnished the basis for the present Book of Deuteron- 
 omy.i But the Pentateuch is the work of some late 
 compiler, not unlikely Ezra. His unity of purpose is 
 everywhere apparent ; but he carries it out imperfectly 
 and leaves not a little in the way of editing to be 
 desired. 
 
 Thus far, critical discussions of the Pentateuch have 
 been mostly of the nature of assaults on its genuine- 
 ness and the chief response they have evoked has been 
 that of authority and repression. With Richard Simon, 
 whose book on the critical history of the Old Testa- 
 ment appeared eight years after that of Spinoza, began 
 the answer of argument.^ The laws of the Pentateuch, 
 he contended, are the veritable autograph of Moses, 
 while the history of his times was written, under his 
 direction, by public annalists after Egyptian models. 
 The somewhat heterogeneous products of these diverse 
 pens, together with the Mosaic legislation, form the 
 Pentateuch as we now have it. The theory was ingen- 
 ious and, for a Roman Catholic writer of that day, 
 
 * Neither Spinoza, nor Hobbes mentioned above, gives Moses credit for anything like 
 all that is ascribed to him in the Scriptures. He is said (Ex. xxiv. 4) to have written 
 that part of Exodus styled (vs. 7) the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx.-xxiii.). He wrote 
 alsotheform in which that covenant was renewed (Ex. xxxiv. 10-26; cf. vs. 27). Nearly 
 every law of the three middle books is directly traced to him as its authoritative mediator. 
 The same is true of the code of Deuteronomy (xii.-xxvi.), if, indeed, it be not asserted in 
 that book (xxxi. 9) tliat all the Pentateuch is from his hand. It would be using the term 
 " this law " in scarcely a broader sense than it is employed in the earlier part of Deuteron- 
 omy itself (i. 5). According to Exodus xvii. 14, again, Moses was commanded to write a 
 document concerning the devotement of Amaiek to destruction and it was to be written 
 " in the book," that is, be added to records which had already been made (cf. Josh. xxx. 
 8). He is said, further, to have put down in writing <a list of the more than forty stations 
 where the Israelites encamped in the wilderness, and, clearly, not as simple scribe, but, as 
 the context shows, as the divinely appointed leader of the host that went forth out of 
 Egypt " under the hand of Moses and Aaron" (Num. xxxiii. 2; cf. vs. i). The so- 
 called " Song of Moses " (Deut. xxxii.) is declared not only to have been written down 
 by him, but to h.avc been taught to the children of Israel (cf. xxxi. 22). 
 
 ' Histoire Critique dii I 'iciix Testament, 1678.
 
 5 2 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Stnicture. 
 
 ingenuous ; but it was cumbersome and very imperfectly 
 applied. 
 
 Ostensibly to correct the mistakes of a predecessor, 
 but really to complicate still more what De Wette called 
 the "dangerous game" of the critics, appeared seven 
 years later the anonymously published work of Le 
 Clerc.i Undercover of a remonstrance with Simon for 
 his intemperate assault on Protestant writers, this 
 scholar airs a theory that in temerity would do credit to 
 our own day. A variety of internal signs, he avers, 
 disprove the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (Gen. 
 xii. 6; xiv. 14; xxxv. 21 ; xxxvi. 31; xxxvii. 14; xl. 15). 
 It must have come into its present form at a much later 
 period. Who so likely to have put his shaping hand 
 upon it as that priest who in the Book of Kings 
 (2 Kings xvii. 27 f.) is said to have been sent from 
 Babylon to teach the Samaritan colonists the Jewish 
 faith .? 
 
 Simon, however, in another work,^ took up the 
 gauntlet thus thrown down ; and, convinced by him, or 
 with more probability by the reasoning of the distin- 
 guished Hebraist, Witsius,^ Le Clerc soon afterward 
 retracted his hypothesis,* accounting for all internal diffi- 
 culties in the Mosaic records as simple interpolations 
 and vindicating for Moses the proper authorship of the 
 work. Undeterred by so inglorious a surrender on the 
 part of a contemporary, still another Dutch scholar, 
 the Mennonite Anton van Dale, hazarded, in connection 
 with a work on idolatry,^ the conjecture that the Penta^ 
 teuch is a compilation at the hand of the exilian Ezra, 
 
 1 Sentimens de quelques theologiens de Hollaude sur V Histoire Critique, 1685. 
 
 '^ Rcponse au livre itititulc Sentintens, etc., 1696. 
 
 ^ Miscellajieorum Sacroruiii Libri, 1692, 1700. 
 
 < Commentary on Genesis {Prolegom. dissertat.tertia), 1693. 
 
 ^ De Origine et Progressu Idololatriae, 1696.
 
 t 
 
 Histoncal Sketch of the Criticism. 5 3 
 
 the pandects of Moses and writings of the earlier 
 historians and prophets furnishing him the material. 
 
 Two things will have been specially observed in the 
 review of opinions up to this point, and in what may be 
 called its first period : first, and foremost, the extreme 
 superficiality of the reasons given for denying the 
 Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, although they 
 have been thought worthy of an almost exact repro- 
 duction in our own day. It surely needs no great 
 depth of insight to see the precariousness of the con- 
 clusion that because Moses could not well have written 
 the last twelve verses of Deuteronomy, therefore he 
 could not have been the author of the rest of the book ; 
 that because, in Gen. xiv. 14, Laish is called by the 
 name of Dan, common in later times, therefore the 
 section where it is found, in fact, the whole of Genesis, 
 originated in the later times when that name was 
 common. It betrays a remarkable confusion of ideas, 
 in short, to accept as signs of authorship the very 
 things that spring to the eye even of a cursory reader 
 as evidence, if any exists, of editorship. It is not the 
 freckle, but the face, that determines the complexion. 
 
 And, second, it appears that none of these adverse 
 critics are disposed to deny the literary activity of 
 Moses, or even his predominant influence in the com- 
 position of the Pentateuch. If we have not his auto- 
 graph throughout, or even at all, it is conceded that 
 the apographs are largely shaped by that autograph. 
 Spinoza, who would have flinched, it is likely, from 
 no conclusions to which his principles and reasoning 
 seemed to lead him, finds no occasion as yet for dis- 
 pensing with the chief figure of Hebrew history ; as he 
 finds no necessity for theories of wholesale invention 
 and multitudinous textual corruptions. He does, it is
 
 54 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 true, represent Ezra as a compiler ; but that is still at 
 a considerable remove from representing him as a con- 
 spirator. 
 
 As it concerns the general nature and results of Pen- 
 tateuch criticism in this its opening period, its isolated 
 and sporadic character is obvious. Schools of criticism 
 there are none. No great critical authorities have thus 
 far arisen, within the church or out of it, to attract a 
 following by their superior position or to compel it by 
 the force of their reasoning. In fact, the majority of 
 controversialists are Philistines by profession. 
 
 Still, it is seldom that they seem inspired by such 
 aversion as led Rimarius, a century later, to stigmatize 
 the leader of the exodus as a shameless impostor.^ It 
 is rather a superabounding intellectual vitality or a 
 restiveness of authority. One and all, as I have already 
 hinted, concede to the hand of Moses what would now 
 be thought a fatal preeminence everywhere. A part of 
 them only have any knowledge of the original tongues 
 of Scripture. With an embarrassing profusion of con- 
 jectures, there is a lamentable absence of really signifi- 
 cant facts. The masses of believing people, meanwhile, 
 along with the more thoughtful biblical scholars remain 
 unmoved. The struggle has not yet transferred itself 
 to the church. The famous representatives of Protest- 
 antism, Carpzov, Spanheim, Prideaux, and Vitringa, 
 stand solidly together with the Roman Catholics Du 
 Pin, Calmet, and Simon, in defence of the view that the 
 Pentateuch is essentially Mosaic. 
 
 During the first eighty years of the eighteenth cen- 
 tury no new assaults were made on this position. 
 Michaelis, in his Introductioii to the Old Testament, the 
 
 1 Cf. the Wol/enbuttel Fragjuents. It was a work published by Lessing in a periodical 
 form from 1771, under the title, Ziir Gcschichie und Litteratiir aus den Sch'dizen des 
 herzoglichen Bibliothek z?< Wolfeitbutiel.
 
 Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 55 
 
 first part of which did not appear till 1787/ could not 
 well have been more pronounced in support of it. 
 "That Moses," he says, "is the author of the five books 
 which we ordinarily name from him is the common 
 view of Jews and Christians ; and I hold it," he adds, 
 "not only as perfectly correct, but also as something 
 which is as certain as anything that can be asserted of 
 the author of an ancient book can be."^ 
 
 That the books claim to be that for which the Jews 
 held them, he regarded as indisputable. Later interpo- 
 lations he would not deny ; but that Ezra, David, or the 
 high priest Hilkiah had surreptitously introduced the 
 compositions themselves could be easily shown from 
 their contents to be false. With equal clearness, and 
 to the same general effect, up to the last of the four 
 editions of his voluminous Introduction to the Old Testa- 
 ment, appearing from 1782 to 1824, testified Johann 
 Gottfried Eichhorn, although his work was one charac- 
 terized by great boldness of conception, the highest 
 scholarly enthusiasm, and was universally recognized as 
 marking a new departure in theological science. 
 
 In the meantime, however, there were evident signs 
 that the deepening current of Pentateuch criticism was 
 about to be diverted into a new channel. As early as 
 1753 there had been published simultaneously at Brus- 
 sels and Paris a little book by Jean Astruc, a devout 
 and studious Roman Catholic physician, on the struc- 
 ture of Genesis.^ In this book much use was made of 
 the circumstance that in Genesis the names of God, 
 Elohim and Jehovah, arc not employed indiscriminately, 
 
 '^ Einleiiung in die Gottlichen Schrifien d. Altett Tesiatneiits. Cf. pp. 150, 153, 156. 
 
 •A similar position, ably supported by arguments drawn from the works themselves, 
 was taken by Jerusalem, Dricfe iiber die Mosaischen Schrifien, 1783. 
 
 ^ Cofij'ectitres siir les Memoires originuKx dent il pardit que Moysc s'est servi />07ir 
 composer le livre de la Genese. It appeared ia a German translation at Frankfort in 
 1789.
 
 56 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 but usually alternate with one another in what appear 
 to be alternate sections. 
 
 A new discovery by Astruc this was not. The 
 same singularity had been observed by Simon, Vitringa, 
 and others. But it was Astruc who first called 
 particular attention to the fact, showed its extent, and 
 sought to draw important conclusions from it. Such an 
 employment of the divine names indicated, in his view, 
 the use of documents in the preparation of the work, 
 two leading ones and others of minor importance. Of 
 these original records Moses, in his narrative of events 
 which had occurred ages before his day, had made faith- 
 ful and proper use. In fact, he had simply copied them 
 literally and placed them, each by itself, in its related 
 order. And it was due wholly to the careless hands of 
 Moses' successors that in recasting them for the purpose 
 of a connected narrative there had arisen the repetitions 
 and other irregularities of Genesis as it now appears. 
 
 Of this original theory of Astruc, Eichhorn had 
 availed himself ; but by no means as a servile imitator. 
 To the former's argument derived from the peculiar 
 recurrence of the divine names, he added another, of 
 which quite too confident and unrestricted an applica- 
 tion has since been made, based on differences of style. 
 The entire contents of the first fifty-two chapters of the 
 Pentateuch he carefully divided up between these two 
 documents, holding, however, that, in some rare cases, 
 other authorities had been made use of.^ From begin- 
 ning to end, as it has been remarked, Eichhorn, like 
 Astruc, was loyal to the prevailing, and almost universal, 
 sentiment of his time, that, bating certain trifling addi- 
 tions by later editors, Moses was the responsible author 
 of the Pentateuch. 
 
 ^ Einleitung, p. 107 f.
 
 Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 1 7 
 
 It is much to be regretted that so reverent a scholar 
 as Astruc and so sharp a critic as Eichhorn did not see 
 the necessity of discriminating between the fact that 
 original documents were most likely used in the 
 composition of Genesis ^ and the capacity of modern 
 scholars clearly to distinguish and separate them 
 from one another, even to closely connected phrases 
 and single words. It is singular that numerous 
 marked exceptions to the alleged methodical recur- 
 rence of the one or other divine name did not 
 awaken a suspicion that something besides a diversit}i 
 of documents was at the basis of such an interchange 
 of titles ; as, for example, a change of topic or of 
 point of view. 
 
 It is an acknowledged impossibility, in fact, to found 
 a rational theory of separable documents on the use of 
 the divine names as they now appear in Genesis ; it is 
 needful first to introduce another theory that these 
 names have been, to a greater or less extent, displaced 
 and changed, to meet the exigencies of a continuous 
 history. For it is far from true that the present 
 so-called Elohim documents are exclusively Elohistic or 
 the Jehovah documents Jehovistic.^ And were they so, 
 what possible ground could it furnish for carrying on 
 the rigorous analysis through Exodus, Leviticus, Num- 
 
 1 That such a people as Israel is known to have been should have definite traditions 
 both written and oral concerning their patriarchal ancestors and the beginnings of history 
 and that these traditions were of sufficient strength to survive the hard experiences of 
 Egypt is no unreasonable hypothesis. 
 
 - Cf. Professor Green's remarks in Schafll's edition of Herzog s.t. " Pentateuch," p. 1801 : 
 " As the ark of the covenant is the voucher for the unity of the sanctuary, and for the 
 genuineness of the Mosaic legislation respecting it, so the contents of the ark form no 
 inconsiderable bulwark for the unity of the Pentateuch. If monumental evidence is to be 
 trusted, the Decalogue is Mosaic, and is preserved in Ex. xx. in its genuine authentic 
 form. The critics assign it to the Jehovist, and claim for it the characteristics of Jcho- 
 vistic style. But it has also the peculiar phrases of Deuteronomy; and the reason 
 annexed to the fourth commandment is based on the Elohistic account of the creation. 
 (Gen. i. i-ii. 3). This imquestionably Mosaic document includes Elohist, Jehovist, and 
 Deuteronomist all in one,"
 
 58 The PentatcucJi : Its Origi7i and Structure. 
 
 bers, and Deuteronomy, where even this slight trace of 
 diversity, or any other that can be made generally 
 intelligible, fails to show itself ? One looks for more 
 clearness in what purport to be scientific investigations 
 and results. The analysis of water into its original 
 elements, or of atmospheric air, may be made demonstra- 
 tive. Everybody accepts the conclusion, not because 
 he wishes to, but because he must. In this other 
 analysis, started by Astruc and brought to its climax, it 
 is to be hoped, by Graf and Wellhausen, where elements 
 are concerned more subtle and irresponsive to our tests 
 than oxygen or hydrogen, there is nothing to compel 
 the assent of incredulity. There is solely the dictum 
 of that coterie of scholars who, for some reason best 
 known to themselves, have adopted the current theory. 
 If it were unanimous, it would still be far from indis- 
 putable or even very imposing. 
 
 Take, for example, the fourth chapter of Genesis, 
 which, because the name for God used in it is generally 
 Jehovah, is called Jehovistic. But the word Elohim is 
 found in verse 25, and a satisfactory reason for its occur- 
 rence there, from the point of view of the document 
 hypothesis, we are wholly unable to discover. Chapter 
 xvii., on the other hand, is pronounced Elohistic ; but at 
 the very beginning Jehovah is used interchangeably 
 with El Shaddai : ^ " Now when Abram was ninety-nine 
 years old Jehovah appeared to Abraham and said unto 
 him I am El Shaddai ; walk before me, and be thou 
 perfect." The narrative then proceeds with the uni- 
 form use of Elohim till the next chapter is reached and 
 there is a change of subject. 
 
 ^ This title is identified by critics generally with Elohim ("cf. Gen. xxviii.)- And they 
 are consequently forced to say that in this passage Elohim stood in the original instead of 
 Jehovah and was changed by the Jehovist. But this is entirely out of harmony with the 
 usage of the Scriptures which makes El Shaddai correlative with Jehovah.
 
 Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 59 
 
 In Genesis xxviii. 20-22, again, in one and the same 
 prayer both names of the Deity are employed. " If 
 Elohim will be with me," says Jacob at Bethel, . . . 
 "and I come again unto my father's house and Jehovah 
 will be my Elohim, then this stone which I have set up 
 as a pillar shall be the house of Elohim." 
 
 In Exodus iii., similarly, and inexplicably as it seems 
 to us on the hypothesis of the documents, these two 
 designations of the divine Being are freely used for one 
 another in the account of the burning bush at Sinai. 
 Of the unity of the narrative, there ought to be no 
 doubt ; it is stamped upon it as unmistakably as upon 
 the coin from the mint. Its exceptional character in 
 the use of the divine names, it is true, has been 
 explained by calling it a mixed document. But it is the 
 hypothesis of a baffled and bewildered criticism. The 
 very necessity of acknowledging, in addition to other 
 anomalies, the presence of such mixed documents is a 
 confession of the inadequacy of a theory based on the 
 alleged exclusive use of a certain divine name in cer- 
 tain original sections of the Pentateuch, 
 
 Why the two words Elohim and Jehovah alternate 
 with one another so peculiarly in the earlier chapters of 
 Genesis may be accounted for, to some extent, by a 
 theory of diverse original sources of information. 
 There is no disposition to deny that oral tradition, 
 supported by various written documents, was very 
 largely depended on in the composition of the work. 
 But in many cases this peculiarity may be better 
 accounted for by supposing that some specific moral 
 purpose voiced itself in this way. What that purpose 
 was it is not difficult in most instances even now to 
 discover. It may be expected to appear more fully 
 when the real meaning and inner relationships of the 
 words Elohim and Jehovah have be{Mi determined.
 
 6o TJie PentateiicJi : Its Orinn and Structure. 
 
 (i' 
 
 Throughout the Pentateuch there is a marked recog- 
 nition of the meaning of names. No fact is more 
 deeply impressed on the history of the two chief patri- 
 archs, Abraham and Jacob. And if we have Elohistic 
 and Jehovistic sections in Genesis, so we have in the 
 Psalms and other Scriptures. In fact, we are much 
 more likely to find a key to the anomalies of Genesis in 
 the nineteenth Psalm, where the Creator, El, of the first 
 part is boldly discriminated from the Revealer, Jehovah, 
 of the second part, than in any Conjectures sur les 
 Mcmoires. 
 
 In Ecclesiastes, too, the only title used for God is 
 Elohim, while in Proverbs the case is reversed and 
 Jehovah only occurs. So in Job, while both titles are 
 employed, it is in a way of unexampled eccentricity, i If 
 there be a secret, therefore, it is not one that is confined 
 to Genesis, It is, above all, no secret of Pentateuch 
 criticism, in general, whose conjectural solution it is 
 permitted to make the cornerstone of all its ponderous 
 architectures. 
 
 But it was not by reasoning of this kind that the 
 hypothesis of documents was to meet its overthrow ; it 
 was rather by a more consistent and thorough applica- 
 tion of its own false postulates within the Pentateuch 
 itself.2 Astruc and Eichhorn had found traces of 
 original sources in Genesis, but had been, naturally, 
 much embarrassed in the really impossible task of 
 dissecting them out and accounting for their present 
 form. To this Sisyphus problem the criticism now 
 addressed its chief energies and from that day to this it 
 has presented itself largely in the role of the manipu- 
 
 1 In the prologue, epilogue, and historical portions the title for God is Jehovah ; while in 
 the discourses proper, making up the body of the work, it is El or Eloah. 
 
 2 Much the same line of reasoning found in Eichhorn is followed in Ilgen's Die 
 Urkunden, etc., and Gramberg's Libri Geneseos . . . adumbratio nova.
 
 Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 6 1 
 
 lator of a bewildering spectacle of analyses vying with 
 counter-analyses. 
 
 Where Eichhorn, for example, had seen two leading 
 original sources with an occasional excerpt from others, 
 Vater, apparently with the same spectacles, saw simply 
 a mass of fragments with neither a logical nor chrono- 
 logical connection. Their present juxtaposition was 
 due to a series of collectors and editors whose dates 
 range from the time of David to that of Jeremiah. 
 
 To the objection that it is difficult to conceive of so 
 many single, disconnected com.positions as circulating 
 about in a written form in Israel, he replies : " Difficult, 
 to be sure, it is ; but it is a difficulty which inheres in 
 the subject, that is, in the form of the Pentateuch as it 
 now Appears. And it is far less difficult and a great 
 deal less artificial than the theory of two documents 
 covering the same ground, the parts of which have been 
 patched together to make up Genesis."^ 
 
 Hasse took much the same view^ in his earlier work, 
 but retracted it twenty years later ^ to return to the 
 position that the Pentateuch is essentially Mosaic. 
 
 Its ablest supporter, next to Vater, and a more dis- 
 criminating one than he, in some respects, was Anton 
 Theodor Hartmann.^ In a series of investigations 
 extending over more than six hundred octavo pages he 
 aims to show from a variety of considerations that the 
 so-called Books of Moses had their origin in a number 
 of comparatively insignificant, more or less mythical, 
 post-Mosaic fragments which formed the nuclei of 
 larger .collections and, finally, little by little, were 
 brought together and took on the volume and orderly 
 arrangement of the present Pentateuch. The problem 
 of so mysterious, not to say miraculous, a growth min- 
 
 1 Comnictitar, \^. 514 f. ^ Aussichten zu kun/iigen Au/kl'drungen, 1785. 
 
 ^ Entdeckungen, elc , 1805. *Forschunsc?t, etc.
 
 62 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 istered to by invisible hands, witnessed to by no living 
 creature, does not seem to have disturbed the equanim- 
 ity with which the author of Historisch-kritische For- 
 schungen announces his far from historical conclusions. 
 
 The theory of fragments, on which that of the docu- 
 ments now went to pieces, had, however, this advan- 
 tage over its predecessor, that it applied with greater 
 uniformity and consistency, not alone in Genesis, but 
 throughout the Pentateuch, the principles of analysis it 
 had inherited. This was at the same time its fatal 
 misfortune. It brought up in absurdity. It failed to 
 give any good account of the remarkable unity of 
 design and symmetry of arrangement which are among 
 the most noticeable characteristics of the work from 
 beginning to end. Hence the necessity of new postu- 
 lates in which this factor should have its proper place. 
 It was provided in what soon came to be known as the 
 theory of supplements. 
 
 The way had been prepared for it by publications 
 from De Wette,^ Ewald,^ Gramberg,-^ Stahelin,* Bleek,^ 
 Tuch,^ and others, who during the first forty years of 
 the present century had been wrestling with the same 
 problem as Vater and Hartmann, but after another 
 method. The latter had made a chief object of the 
 analysis, carrying it to the point of disintegration ; the 
 former worked on the hypothesis of unity, and were 
 constructive where the other had been destructive. 
 
 De Wette, for example, characterized what seemed to 
 him to be the fundamental portion of Genesis as an 
 "Elohim Epic." Ewald called it the "Book of Ori- 
 gins." Tuch, the "Original Document." One and all 
 recognized an historical groundwork and vindicated for 
 
 '^Kritik der Is. Geschichte, 1807. "^ Coiiiposition dcr Genesis, 1823. ^ Librz Genes- 
 eos, etc., 1828. * Kritische Untersuchungeu, 1830. ^ De libri Gentseos origine, 1836. 
 « Com,, 1838.
 
 Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 63 
 
 the composition a marked unity of plan, which, how- 
 ever, they refused to believe existed from the beginning. 
 An original Elohim document had been worked up by a 
 process of supplements and interpolations into what we 
 now have essentially in Genesis ; and the hand that did 
 it was that of the Jehovist. " Nay, not Genesis alone," 
 says Tuch : " but the whole Hexateuch, excepting Deu- 
 teronomy, including the legislation, has at its basis an 
 historical composition, in which God is styled Elohim." 
 Of this the Jehovist made the freest use, changing it 
 and adding to it to suit his purpose, until the result, in 
 its main features, is before us. 
 
 A very harmless theory, one might say. Only put 
 Moses in the place of the Jehovist, and endue him with 
 that "wisdom from above," which we know he must 
 have had, and what can one want more .'' But the 
 theory is far from being either harmless or consistent. 
 It is not to be forgotten that Deuteronomy is unceremo- 
 niously dropped out of the arrangement as a later pro- 
 duction and with it, naturally, goes Moses, at least, the 
 Moses of the exodus.^ It is to be carefully remem- 
 bered that these men, worthy men and admirable 
 scholars, nevertheless of like passions with ourselves, 
 professed to be able to point out the — to us — invisible 
 boundaries of the so-called original document, the places 
 where it has been supplemented and where it has been 
 changed, but with a fatal lack of unanimity in doing it. 
 
 It is well known, moreover, to all who have given the 
 subject attention, that this alleged original document, 
 announced as containing a continuous history from the 
 beginning of the world, when stripped of its supposed 
 accessories, has the appearance of anything else rather 
 
 lA later effort of Stahelin {Kritische Unlcrsuchungen ubcr den Pentateuch, dc, 
 1843) to show that the Jehovist and tlie Deuteronomist were one and the same person, 
 Delitzsch characterizes {Com, iiber die Genesis, p. 34) as a failure.
 
 64 The Peniatetich : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 than a continuous history. It is almost as lean a col- 
 lection of planless, unintelligible fragments as the 
 conjectural additions of the Jehovist would be when 
 separated from their context. 
 
 And, what is still more serious, we find that this 
 so-named original history, in a number of signal 
 instances, refers back to matters which, by our critics, 
 are made a part of the Jehovist's additions.^ The advo- 
 cates of the theory will tell us, it is true, that these are 
 Jehovistic interpolations in the body of the Elohim doc- 
 ument, or are disjecta membra, that the Elohim docu- 
 ment itself originally contained, and more besides ; all 
 of which to a simple inquirer, who is not already pre- 
 possessed with accordant theories, has quite too much 
 the appearance of evasion. 
 
 But objections arising from without and from an 
 alleged "unscientific" point of view could not be 
 expected to have great weight with the scholars most 
 concerned. There were others, however, to which they 
 could not remain insensible. The theory of documents 
 had died of too much analysis. Its originals, by its 
 own friends and its own reasoning, were shown to 
 be but disconnected fragments that could never be 
 accepted as the foundation of the Pentateuch. The 
 theory of supplements, on the other hand, died of too 
 little analysis. If Vater and Hartmann had gone too 
 far, just as surely, it was now affirmed, had Ewald and 
 Bleek failed to go far enough. With an eye single to 
 the unity of the work, they had overlooked important 
 evidences of diversity. An edited " Book of Origins " 
 did not meet the conditions of the problem. 
 
 It was Hupfeld who led the vigorous and successful 
 
 iWith Gen. v. 29 cf. iii. 17; with xvii. 20, xvi. 10; xix. 29 with xiii. 10-13; **'•• 
 19 with xxi. 33. For other passages see Keil's Introd. i., p. 96.
 
 Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 65 
 
 attack on the current hypothesis.^ He charged it with 
 accepting as a sole original document what was itself 
 but an obvious compilation. Its so-called Elohim 
 original ought to be divided, as already Ilgen,^ fifty 
 years before, had pointed out, not merely into two 
 wholly separate Elohim originals, but had been loaded 
 down besides with a mass of heterogeneous materials 
 that quite obscured its true character. The supposed 
 Jehovist editor was really no editor at all, but repre- 
 sented an original work. 
 
 There were, in fact, three continuous historical com- 
 positions at the foundation of the Pentateuch, two 
 Elohistic and one Jehovistic. The first began with the 
 creation and ended with the partition of Canaan. The 
 second, beginning with Genesis xx., treated only of the 
 patriarchs and bore a striking resemblance to the Jeho- 
 vistic. The latter, like the first Elohistic, originally 
 contained a narrative beginning with the creation. 
 These three quite independent accounts a later editor 
 combined into a continuous one, hesitating at no 
 liberties with the text he had before him to accomplish 
 his design. 
 
 This was the hypothesis of Hupfeld, and, unsubstan- 
 tial as to some it might appear, it proved to be made of 
 tougher material than its predecessor, which was not 
 long in giving way before it. Critics since his time 
 have, indeed, here and there, shown a disposition to 
 yield reluctantly a position which had been so ably 
 defended by masters of Old Testament research ; but 
 there can be no disputing the fact that the main current 
 of the criticism passed quickly into the channel which 
 Hupfeld's strong blows cleaved for it. 
 
 Henceforth we hear less of a document and more of 
 
 1 Quellen der Genesis, 1853. ^ Die Urkunden, etc., 1798.
 
 66 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 documents. The Jehovist takes his place beside the 
 Elohist, like an Aaron beside Moses. And a second 
 Elohist, introduced to relieve perplexity, has become 
 the innocent cause of other perplexities. Above all a 
 Redactor comes upon the stage who, from being, at 
 first, a mere shifter of the scenery, in a brief decade or 
 two grows to be the chief personage of the drama. 
 
 The grounds of Hupfeld's conclusions we cannot 
 tarry to elucidate at length. They were mainly these 
 two : the peculiar use of the divine names, and the 
 discrepancies alleged to exist between the Jehovist and 
 Elohists, on the one hand, and the two Elohists com- 
 pared together, on the other. He failed, however, to 
 tell us how his theory of a later editor who was blind 
 to these discrepancies while sharp enough in other 
 respects can help the matter. Might not the Jehovist, 
 too, easily have overlooked or accounted trivial sup- 
 posed disharmonies which a Redactor equipped with 
 modern German wisdom and dialectics did not stumble 
 at, and with which, moreover, the Jewish people for 
 nearly three millenniums have had no serious diffi- 
 culty.? But, at least, a point had been gained in 
 shifting an uneasy burden. It could scarcely be 
 expected that it would voluntarily be again put back on 
 the same sore spot. 
 
 Before proceeding, now, to show the main course 
 which the criticism naturally took under Hupfeld's 
 sturdy impulsion, especially its chief development in 
 our own times, it may be well to indicate diverging 
 lines. As I have said, with him, about thirty years ago, 
 some were inclined to call a halt. They refused to 
 follow the new master. The measuring-rule of the 
 analysis began, apparently, to look too much like the 
 wand of a conjurer.
 
 Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 67 
 
 Among these separists and remonstrants was Schra- 
 der, the latest editor of De Wette's Introduction to the 
 Old Testament. 
 
 The theory he represents is remarkable for the preci- 
 sion and assurance with which different documents, 
 so called, are assigned to certain periods and places in 
 Israelitish history.^ The leading Elohim section, for 
 example, he affirms to be the work of a priest of 
 David's time. It extends to the end of the Book of 
 Joshua. The second Elohist was probably from north- 
 ern Israel. He wrote soon after the disruption of the 
 kingdom (975-950 B.C.). Down to near the middle of 
 the first Book of Kings (i Kings ix. 28) his hand can 
 be distinctly traced. The Jehovist was also a northern 
 Israelite, who came upon the stage a little more than a 
 century later (825-800 b.c). He combined the two 
 Elohists in one work with his own, adding to the compi- 
 lation not a little of what was then current in the form 
 of oral tradition. Deuteronomy (iv. 44-xxviii.) sprung 
 up about two hundred years later, its author himself 
 uniting it to the still incomplete Hexateuch structure. 
 After the Babylonian exile, Joshua was separated from 
 the other five books.^ 
 
 It will be seen that Schrader follows Hupfeld but in 
 part. He agrees with him in his main divisions, but 
 differs as it respects the origin of the work as a whole. 
 
 Another independent critic of high rank is Noldeke.^ 
 According to him the authors of all the three principal 
 documents lived during, or not long after, the time of 
 David ; but the first Elohist was the last to appear. 
 The Jehovist worked over the second Elohist ; but it is 
 
 1 Cf. Lebrbuch der Historisch-kritischen Einleitung (Da Wette's), 1869, pp. 232- 
 325, and art. " Pentateuch " in Schenkel's Bibel-Lex. 
 
 2 See a careful risiimi of this and other theories in Strack's art. " Pentateuch" in 
 Herzog's Encyk. 2te Aufl. 
 
 » Untersuchungen zur Kritik d. A. T. 1869. ^
 
 68 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 impossible now to separate the two into their con- 
 stituent parts. The Deuteronomist wrote antecedent 
 to the reforms of Josiah and incorporated his work with 
 the Hexateuch. Most significant is Noldeke's position 
 in two respects: that hke Schrader he believes Deu- 
 teronomy followed not only the second but the first 
 Elohist, and that the attempt to classify, at present, 
 two of the leading so-called original documents of the 
 Pentateuch is labor lost. 
 
 More important even than the dissent of Schrader 
 and Noldeke is that of August Dillmann. As to the 
 difference in age between the two Elohists he ventures to 
 assert nothing. The second is certainly somewhat older 
 than the Jehovist, who makes use of it, and seems, like 
 Deuteronomy, to have arisen not long before the reign 
 of Josiah. All the three are based on still more ancient 
 authorities, the nucleus of the second Elohist being the 
 Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx. 22-xxiii. 19). In this 
 last statement, Dillmann, it will be carefully noted, 
 differs from most other critics early and late, who 
 assign this important portion of Exodus to the Jehovist, 
 Noldeke, however, avowing a non possiimus. 
 
 In his commentary on Genesis published twelve years 
 since,! Delitzsch characterized an assertion of Merx,^ 
 that Hupfeld had overthrown the hypothesis of supple- 
 ments, as a mistake. In the cases just cited we see few 
 signs of its survival except as a wreck, portions of which 
 have been variously fitted up, according to individual 
 taste, to complete, if possible, the uncertain voyage. 
 Delitzsch himself has so far modified his views within 
 a short time that even the hypothesis of supplements 
 must now look exceedingly antiquated to him. He 
 accepts, contrary to Schrader and Dillmann, the order 
 
 1 Com. uber die Genesis, 1872. Cf. p. 34. 2 Tuch's Com. 2te Aufl. p. Ixxxviii. ff.
 
 Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 6g 
 
 of the documents adopted by the most recent analysts, 
 that is, Jehovist, second Elohist, Deuteronomy, first 
 Elohist, but differs greatly from them as respects the 
 time of composition. The Jehovist and Deuteronomist, 
 as he holds, both wrote before Isaiah, the second Elohist 
 before Ezekiel ; and while the work of composing and 
 emending the Pentateuch probably went on till after the 
 Babylonian exile, it is still fundamentally Mosaic and 
 the product of supernatural revelation. 
 
 Professor Delitzsch,^ as his many pupils and friends 
 gladly recognize, is a strong and delightful man and an 
 admirable scholar. But it is a very stiff and ugly cur- 
 rent, in which he has thus placed himself, and the result 
 is not yet clear. He will at least pardon the wish that 
 he may get safely out of it. 
 
 And here it may not be amiss to consider some 
 important conclusions that seem to flow out of the 
 several sporadic views we have been considering. 
 They are important out of all proportion to their 
 number. They are not the views of laymen, but of 
 eminent biblical scholars who believe in criticism and, 
 to a greater or less extent, in the principles of Penta- 
 teuch analysis. These scholars notoriously disagree 
 not only, in some points, from one another, but espe- 
 cially from the great body of critics with whom they are 
 often indiscriminately classed. If it were simply a dif- 
 ference of view respecting the time when the several 
 documents appeared, though the difference were a thou- 
 sand years, as in some cases it is, it would be, from the 
 point of viezv of the criticism, serious without being 
 strictly essential. But when one calls the Book of the 
 Covenant (Ex. xx. 22-xxiii. 19) with all its striking 
 
 'Cf., in addition to " Pentateuch-kritische Studien " in Zeitschrift fur Kirchlichc 
 Wissenschaft , etc. 1880, Hebrew Student, 1882, Nos. i.-iv. and Curtiss's art. " Delitzsch 
 on the Origin and Composition of the Pentateuch" in Presbyterian Review, July. iSi"
 
 70 TJie PentateiicJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 characteristics Elohistic while others call it Jehovistic, 
 it touches the vital question of the analysis at a vital 
 point. It is, in fact, an axe laid at the root of the tree. 
 
 When another, who fully believes in this newly dis- 
 covered prerogative for determining and resolving docu 
 ments in the Pentateuch, nevertheless disputes the 
 power of anybody to separate Jehovist from second 
 Elohist, it is a staggering blow at the very foundation 
 of the critical fabric. When such scholars as Schrader, 
 Noldeke, and Dillmann unite in the opinion that the 
 latest composition of the Pentateuch is Deuteronomy, 
 the fact that this is the old historical position is of little 
 account here in comparison with another matter : that 
 the critics are divided at a point where the contact 
 should have been closest. A fatal distrust of critical 
 opinions is necessarily awakened. One may, indeed, 
 be pointed back to the first nine chapters of Genesis 
 and reminded that at this point Noldeke and Dillmann 
 find themselves in almost exact agreement in what they 
 impute to the first Elohist. The only difference, it is 
 said, concerns five verses or parts of verses. But opin- 
 ions on the first few chapters of Genesis are harmless 
 byplay compared with the dismemberment and disloca- 
 tion of the Pentateuch. Besides, there is still a differ- 
 ence in five verses or parts of verses. And it is by no 
 means certain that this apparently small disagreement, 
 taken in connection with other anomalies of the criti-- 
 cism, does not thoroughly vitiate the whole matter, 
 investing it with elements of uncertainty that not only 
 destroy its value for purposes of scientific study, but 
 also, and especially, show its incompatability with a 
 revelation such as the Bible purports to be. 
 
 We now turn to follow the main current of the 
 criticism from the time of Hupfeld, The work of
 
 Historical Sketch of the Criticism. yi 
 
 Edward Bohmer^ was of minor interest except as an 
 indication of the self-assurance bordering on frivolity 
 with which subjective opinions were pronounced on the 
 age and order of appearance of the Pentateuch compo- 
 sitions. His principal difference from Hupfeld was in 
 a more detailed and slightly altered analysis. 
 
 In 1 86 1 Knobel completed his series of scholarly 
 commentaries on the Hexateuch. In themselves con- 
 sidered they marked a reaction from current views. 
 But Knobel was no come-outer. He was simply a sur- 
 viving representative of an earlier order of things. 
 The flood had not floated, but only stranded, him. 
 His continued advocacy of the exploded supplement 
 hypothesis, together with a quite original analysis, 
 excited curiosity but did not win adherents. Critics 
 have even had the temerity since to suggest that the 
 documents of which he so confidently spoke had no 
 existence, save in Knobel's imagination.^ 
 
 Keil's Commentary on the Pentateuch also began to 
 appear in 1861. It is needless to say that its clear 
 reasoning and conservative spirit had no perceptible 
 influence in checking the tide so strongly setting in 
 a contrary direction. It was no fault of Keil. His 
 arguments from his own point of view, which we 
 must believe to be in the main correct, have never been 
 answered. They are unanswerable. Kiel's misfortune 
 was, if it can be styled a misfortune to be called upon 
 to "face a frowning world" in defence of what one 
 believes to be the truth, that the Zeitgeist was against 
 him. Some day, however, this very fact may prove to 
 be his grandest distinction. 
 
 Bishop Colenso's voluminous work^ added little to 
 
 1 Das Erste Buch dcr Tliora, etc. 1862. 
 
 * Kuenen, in Bleek's Einlcit. (1878), p. 153. 
 
 * Jhe Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, 1862.
 
 72 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 the discussion that was new ; it added something to 
 the acerbity and tartness of it, and served to advertise 
 more widely the revolutionary movement that was in 
 progress beyond the English Channel. 
 
 The same year, however, there appeared a little 
 treatise by Julius Popper,^ which, though extravagant 
 even to incoherence in some of its positions, in one 
 important respect marked a turning-point in the criti- 
 cism of the Pentateuch. The legislation that con- 
 cerned the building of the tabernacle contained in 
 Exodus XXXV. -xl., and the consecration of the priests in 
 Leviticus viii.-x., according to him, did not take on its 
 present form until long after the period of the exile. 
 Moreover, the work ascribed to the first Elohist, so far 
 from being a connected composition was the product of 
 a long-continued revision {diaskeue) to which even Ezra 
 was far from giving the finishing-touch. 
 
 Popper's conclusions, which he largely deduced from 
 the divergences of the Samaritan and Septuagint texts 
 from the Massoretic, were too slenderly supported to 
 attract more than a very limited attention. But they 
 served to encourage the watchful Graf in a scheme 
 which, as subsequently elaborated by Wellhausen, now 
 dominates Germany. 
 
 Graf was a pupil of Reuss.^ For more than fifty years 
 the master has been unsuccessfully iterating views for 
 which the pupil, only in another form and manner, 
 won an almost immediate hearing. Perhaps, for 
 once, the Frenchman failed in the traditional suavity 
 as well as in tact. He would not allow that even 
 the Decalogue is Mosaic. The historical portions of 
 the Pentateuch he bluntly declared to be a "gross 
 
 1 Der Biblische Bericht tibcr die Stiftshutte, etc. 
 
 2Cf. his Geschichte ties Alien Test. § 71, and others of his works n«ted in the 
 Bibliography
 
 Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 73 
 
 fiction . . . dreams of an impoverished people." Its 
 laws really arose after the Prophets and are a post- 
 exilian precipitate following ages of production and 
 revision. The Book of the Covenant belongs to the 
 time of Jehosaphat. Deuteronomy is an invention of 
 Josiah to help out a lagging reform. 
 
 Such bold statements of Reuss, which his pupil and 
 literary successor was to clothe in a less repugnant 
 form and support by more telling arguments, radical as 
 they may appear, actually show but a slight divergence 
 from the position of Hupfeld and Bohmer, save in the 
 one intangible element of time. It is not a difference 
 in underlying principles. Reuss, Vater, and Vatke 
 simply refused to wait for the slow deductions which 
 brought their fellows and successors at last to the same 
 result. They unceremoniously leaped the chasm which 
 Graf's hypothesis bridged. The chief service of the 
 latter is well illustrated by a remark of Duhm -.^ " Noth- 
 ing is simpler," he says, "than the theory of Graf. It 
 was only needful to place a single original authority, 
 which is generally called the 'fundamental document,' 
 by others, the 'Book of Origins,' as the composition of 
 the first Elohist ... in the post-exilian times, in the 
 days of Ezra and Nehemiah, in order, with one blow, to 
 put the 'Mosaic period' out of the world." 
 
 Graf's earliest publication ^ was mainly tentative, yet 
 quite in the line of his latest conclusions. In it he 
 took the ground that the tabernacle is simply a diminu- 
 tive copy of Solomon's temple. All that was said about 
 it in the middle books of the Pentateuch belongs to 
 their latest post-exilian accretions. Eleven years later 
 when his principal work appeared,^ he was prepared to 
 
 * Die Theologie dcr Prophctcn, p. 17. 
 
 ' Commcntntio de tcinplo Siloiioisi, 1855. 
 
 » Die Geschichtlichen Buclier dcs A. T. iS66.
 
 74 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 say that not only the legislation which concerned the 
 tabernacle, but all the laws of the first Elohist — that is, 
 the great body of legislation found in Exodus, Leviticus, 
 and Numbers — was of the same late origin. The his- 
 torical portions of this document, however, as had been 
 held all along since Astruc's day by the majority of 
 critics, he still made the oldest portions of the Penta- 
 teuch. 
 
 Like Stahelin^ and Bertheau ^ before him, he found the 
 nucleus of this conglomerate of compositions in the laws 
 that make up its middle part. To provide a place for 
 them seemed to him the first concern. In doing this 
 Graf wrenched the first Elohist out of its historical 
 setting and brought inextricable confusion into the 
 analysis. His order of documents was : first Elohist, 
 (historical portions), Jehovist (including second Elohist), 
 Deuteronomist, final Redactor (who enlarged the col- 
 lection by the addition of the Levitical and other 
 priestly legislation). But this final Redactor, so called, 
 was really no other than the first Elohist, reappearing 
 under another name. So Riehm ^ and others * pointed 
 out and argued that, unless Graf gave up the leading 
 principles of the analysis as hitherto applied, he had no 
 right to separate the legislative portions of this the 
 most important document of the Pentateuch from the 
 historical. Graf yielded to the force of this argumenta- 
 tion,^ but without retracing his steps. " Riehm is 
 right," he said, "and hence I must maintain that the 
 whole of the first Elohist, history as well as laws, is 
 post-exilian." 
 
 It was an audacious announcement, but one for which 
 
 ^ Ibid. 2 j){g Sieben Grup^en Mosaischer Gesetze, 1840. 
 
 3 Stud. u. Kritik. 1868, pp. 350-379. 
 
 * Kuenen, De Godsdienst van Israel, p. 202. 
 
 f" Merx. Archiv, etc. 1869, pp. 466-477.
 
 Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 75 
 
 the way had been prepared, as we have seen, by Rcuss, 
 Popper, and the earher works of Graf himself. The 
 time had come, in fact, when critics were waiting for 
 another turn of the kaleidoscope. The old combina- 
 tions no longer satisfied them. The documents found 
 no secure resting-places in the periods to which they 
 had been assigned. It remains to be seen how long the 
 present hypothesis, supported though it be by an 
 external unanimity hitherto unknown, can resist the 
 elements of antagonism and disruption that even iiv 
 greater measure have been gathered up within it. 
 
 One of the first to come to the defence of the nev« 
 position was Kuenen,i who argued its truthfulness from 
 an historic point of view. Then Kayser,^ who treated 
 more especially the literary side of the argument. Fol- 
 lowing them was Duhm,^ who, assuming the theory to 
 be established, attempted to construct a theology of the 
 prophets on the basis of it. So far from being de- 
 pendent on the Mosaic history and institutions, they 
 antedated them, as he held : in fact, were the indirect 
 occasion and inspiration of them. 
 
 None of these writers, however, exerted a tithe of the 
 influence, in bringing the hypothesis to its present wide 
 prevalence, of Julius Wellhausen.^ By the boldness of 
 his conjectures, the precision of his analysis, the 
 keenness and breadth of his reasoning, sophistical and 
 specious only, though it often is, as well as by an 
 unusually attractive style, he has succeeded in giving it 
 a currency which is, at least, unexampled in the history 
 of Old Testament criticism. He marks the culminatincr 
 point in that method of criticism that took its rise with 
 
 * Ibid., and numerous articles in the Theologisch Tijdschrift. 
 
 * Das vorexilische Bitch, etc. 1874. ^ Ibid. 
 
 * yahrbiicher fur dciitsche Theologie, 1877, 1878; Bleek's Einleitutig (1878); 
 Geschickte Israel's (1878) ; Art. " Israel" in the Encyclopaedia Britatmica, etc.
 
 "j^ The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Astruc and Eichhorn. But the distance at which he 
 stands removed from Astruc and Eichhorn, or even from 
 De Wette and Bleek, it would be difficult for the un- 
 initiated to conceive. 
 
 It was a simple thing to do, as Duhm affirmed, to 
 transfer what had been regarded as the fundamental 
 document of the Pentateuch, and making up one half 
 of its matter,^ to the period of the Persian supremacy. 
 What is easier than a conjecture } Two efforts of Graf, 
 with the encouragement of his master and other sym- 
 pathizers, accomplished it. But if it be anything more 
 than a conjecture, if it rest on fact, it is a stupendous 
 change that has been effected. The keystone has been 
 taken from the arch of Israelitish history, as hitherto 
 read and understood, and the whole structure lies in 
 ruins. I have already, in the introductory paper, noted 
 some objections and indicated a few of the startling 
 results flowing from such an hypothesis, I will here 
 content myself in concluding the present one with 
 offering some additional reasons for regarding it only as 
 an Jiypothesis, and palpably one of the most untenable 
 character. 
 
 The scheme, as already outlined, calls for the follow- 
 ing division and distribution of the Pentateuch : we 
 have first the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx.-xxiii., 
 xxxiv.), which is tolerably ancient ; but, if dating from 
 Moses, not necessarily left by him in a written form or 
 containing the Decalogue in its present shape. Then, 
 the Jehovist and second Elohist, circulating orally and 
 separately at first and so undergoing changes and 
 additions, to be at last united together by the Jehovist 
 in the period after the division of the kingdom. Third, 
 the laws of Deuteronomy and other Deuteronomic 
 
 1 For its contents see the table at the close of this paper.
 
 Historical Sketch of the Criticism. "jy 
 
 revisions toward the end of the seventh century B.C. 
 Fourth, the programme of Ezekiel's temple (xl.-xlviii.), 
 marking the greatest transition of the history. Fifth, 
 certain chapters of Leviticus (xvii.-xxvi.). Sixth, the 
 first Elohist, or " Priests' Code " as it has come to be 
 called, containing the rest of the laws of the Pentateuch 
 with their historical setting prefaced by the account of 
 the creation (Gen. i.). The whole work was completed 
 and introduced, according to Wellhausen, in the year 
 444 B.C., and in this most delicate and most difficult 
 operation of all the chief role was assumed by the 
 "Redactor." 
 
 (i) It may be remarked now, first, as it respects such 
 a scheme, that it is by no means claimed by its oppo- 
 nents that the assumption of the Mosaic authorship of 
 the Pentateuch removes all difficulties from the ques- 
 tion of its composition, but simply that this assumption 
 is beset with the fewest difficulties. 
 
 (2) It is one of the clearly mistaken postulates of the 
 proposed hypothesis that it represents the Israel of the 
 Mosaic period as an undisciplined and savage horde. 
 As matter of fact, it had already become a separate 
 people and was rapidly developed into a nation in the 
 midst of abundant means and inspiring models for high 
 social, literary, and religious progress. 
 
 (3) Granting for the moment the reality of what is 
 apparently claimed in the Pentateuch to be Moses and 
 the work of Moses, it cannot but be acknowledged 
 that there is no character, in the Bible or out of it, 
 better fitted to be the mediator of such laws and the 
 magna pars of such a history than the adopted son of 
 Pharaoh's daughter, the reputed leader of the exodus. 
 
 (4) It is incredible that a people long under the influ- 
 ence of Egypt, where a powerful priesthood with
 
 78 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 established rights and privileges existed, should itself 
 have remained a whole millennium of subsequent inde- 
 pendent existence without priests or written regulations 
 for them. 
 
 (5) The positive and often-repeated claim made in the 
 Pentateuch itself for Mosaic authorship in general has 
 not only the emphatic, if sometimes exaggerated, 
 external support of all authorities from his day down- 
 ward, but also the incidental corroboration of a multi- 
 tude of internal characteristics appropriate to his age 
 and circumstances. To all this the counter-evidence of 
 the criticism can hold no comparison either in trust- 
 worthiness or extent. 
 
 (6) The doctrinal teaching of those parts of the Pen- 
 tateuch assigned by the Wellhausen theory to the time 
 of the exile, at least equally with its other portions, is 
 of a primitive and undeveloped character, reflecting 
 rather an Israelitic connection with the Egypt of 
 Rameses II. and ancient Chaldaea than with Cyrus and 
 his successors of the Persian period. 
 
 (7) It is not denied that documents were used in the 
 composition of Genesis and to a limited extent in the 
 other five books of the Hexateuch. A priori nothing 
 could be more likely. But it is denied, the critics them- 
 selves being among our witnesses, that any reliable 
 criteria have as yet been discovered, or are likely to be 
 discovered, for discriminating with accuracy among 
 them.^ 
 
 1 The remarks of Professor Green, in the American edition of Herzog's Encyk. s.v. 
 " Pentateuch," p. i8oi, are worthy of special attention. He says of the critical analysis of 
 the Pentateuch: " Some things arc plausibly said in its favor, but there are serious objec- 
 tions to it which have never yet been removed. I cannot regard it as certainly estab- 
 lished, even in the Book of Genesis, much less in the remainder of the Pentateuch where 
 even Bleek confessed he could no longer sunder the Elohist from the Jehovist: the second 
 Elohist he could find nowhere. Thus much, at least, may be safely said: the criteria 
 of this proposed analysis are so subtle, not to say mechanical, in their nature, so many 
 purely conjectural assumptions are involved, and there is such an entire absence of exler-
 
 Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 79 
 
 (8) While differences of style may be recognized to 
 some extent, even within the limits of the Hebrew of 
 the Pentateuch, it is often quite as likely to be due to 
 a difference in the matter treated as to diverse author- 
 ship or date. In any case, the style of the " Priests' 
 Code," assigned by Wellhausen to the exile, must be 
 admitted to have the peculiar coloring of the most 
 ancient Biblical Hebrew, and to be burdened in places 
 with infinitesimal details touching matters foreign to 
 the cultus of the later period.^ 
 
 (9) The matter of the time when the documents 
 were composed is not to be confounded with other 
 questions that concern their separation and distribu- 
 tion. If the latter, from the nature of the case, are 
 largely conjectural, the former is still more so. Dill- 
 mann, Schrader, and Riehm, who accept certain 
 features of the analysis, nevertheless insist that the 
 first Elohist is the oldest document of the Pentateuch, 
 while Graf, Wellhausen, and others claim that it is the 
 youngest ; and some who adopt Wellhausen' s order of 
 arrangement differ extremely from him as it respects 
 origin and date. 
 
 nal corroborative testimony, that no reliance can be placed in its conclusions, where these 
 conflict with statements of the history itself. Genesis may be made up of various docu- 
 ments and yet have been compiled by Moses. And the same thing is possible in the later 
 books of the Pentateuch." 
 
 1 Cf. Ryssel, De Elohistas Pcntaieuchici Sermone,a.ndL'D€[\\.z&c\\ in Zeitschrift fur 
 Kirchliche Wissenschaft, etc. 1880, pp. 393-399. The remark of Driver, in the second 
 edition of his e,\cellent Treatise on the Use of the IIcbrcM Tenses (Oxford, 1881), 
 Preface, p. x., that Delitzsch, in this article, unreservedly accepts the position that the use 
 of Ji{^n as a feminine in the Pentateuch is not an archaism, seems to me to be aii incorrect 
 inference from Delitzsch's words. On p. 397 f., for e.xample, he says: "Da nun aber 
 dieses sogar von Personen weiblichen Geschlechts gebrauchte feminine, Xlu, auch schon 
 zur Zeit der Tcxtrcdaktion als Sprachfehlcr gait (denn cs ist ausserhalb des Pcntateuchs 
 imerhort und in dem Samaritanischcn hebraischen Pentateuch ist es durchweg bcseitigt), 
 so liegt der Textredaktion die Voraussetzung unter, dass in der Sprache der Mosaischen 
 Zeit, obgleich sie ein fiir das Femininum ausgepragtes X^D besass, doch der doppel- 
 geschlcchtige Gebrauch das XTH vorgehcrssclit und die Genusuntcrscheidung sich auf der 
 unterstcn Stufe der Entwickelung befunclen halx;." Cf. also Konig, Z)^ Criticae Sacral 
 ArgHVicnto e Linguae Legibus Repetitu (T.c! / . 1879), p. 27.
 
 8o TJie Pejitatcuch : Its Oris[in and Structure, 
 
 i) ' 
 
 (lo) It is a serious objection to the chronology of the 
 documents as assigned by Graf and his successors, from 
 the point of view of the criticism they represent, that 
 the Jehovist document, containing an account of the fall 
 of man and the earliest promise of his recovery, not only 
 logically, but especially theologically, considered the 
 most important of the Pentateuch records, is placed at 
 the beginning of a millenial development. Too early, 
 as they would hold, for a jDrotevangelium, it certainly is 
 too coherent and purposeful for a myth. 
 
 A similar inconsistency mars the alleged development 
 in other respects. From the time of Samuel and the 
 earlier prophets, for example, there is held to be a rapid 
 deterioration from a state of high spirituality to the 
 baldest ceremonialism. But this is as much opposed to 
 the principle that the religion of Israel is a natural 
 growth as it is to the actual history of the period.^ 
 
 (ii) The hypothesis into which those of De Wette 
 and Hupfeld have bloomed, to say nothing of its earlier 
 phases, is based largely on a series of petitio principii. 
 It is obliged to assume at the outset the impossibility 
 of much its opponents regard as vital : as, for example, 
 the historical credibility of the Pentateuch, particularly 
 on its supernatural side. To the books that bear wit- 
 ness against it, it assigns a novel position which 
 insures their silence, or it renders their evidence 
 nugatory by charges of interpolation and revision. 
 Proof texts play a less prominent part in its programme 
 
 1 Weddell's remarks in the Old Testament Student for June, 1884, p. 402, have in view 
 much the same fallacy: "Accepting the rationalistic hypothesis of the New Criticism, 
 Israel was either a religious development, an evolution; or it was a religious decadence, 
 a failure. If it was a development up from low beginnings, then Moses is one difficulty. 
 We cannot account for him. If it was a national declension and failure, then what shall 
 wedo with Christ and his words. . . . Our Bible lies before us. What do we find therein? 
 Covenant, law, Gospel; priest, prophet, Messiah. These stand in reciprocEil relation. 
 That relationship is not counter-destructive."
 
 Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 8 1 
 
 than textual corruptions. Its master of ceremonies 
 throughout is the " Redactor." 
 
 What DiUmann said of the position of Wellhausen 
 to the effect that each of the three leading documents 
 of the Pentateuch had passed through several editions 
 before being united to its companion documents, that 
 it was an " hypothesis of perplexity," is ^ no less true 
 of the scheme as a whole. 
 
 (12) It is charged upon the advocates of the common 
 historical belief that their premise of a divine revela- 
 tion, accredited by prophecy and miracle, leaves them 
 no option. The same may fairly be retorted against 
 those who substitute for it the fixed premise of 
 a simply natural development. Its defenders are no 
 longer free. Their subsequent course of reasoning can 
 only be regarded as predetermined and compulsory. 
 
 {13) But a theory which finds itself forced by exigen- 
 cies peculiar to itself to deny that written laws came 
 from Moses, that any considerable portion of the 
 Psalter is Davidic, that the earlier prophets authorita- 
 tively rebuked idol worship, that there are allusions to 
 the ceremonial law as such in the historical books, is, 
 on its face, radically at fault and unworthy of our 
 confidence. 
 
 (14) The uncertainty which the methods of criticism 
 now under review have already brought, and are calcu- 
 lated to bring, upon the vital questions of revelation, 
 inspiration, and the Old Testament reli^on generally, 
 with which the religion of the New Testament cen- 
 tring in the teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ is inseparably connected, can only be regarded 
 by reflecting Christian men as a proof of their falla- 
 
 ' Die Hiicher Exodus u. Leviticus (Lcipz. 1880), p. viii. : "Mit einem Q' Q- Q'', J' 
 J- J'*, K' I'.'- K'', vermag ich nichts anzufangeii und kann dariii Dur VerlegenheitS" 
 hypothcsen sehea,"
 
 82 TJic Pentateuch : Its Orie^in mid Structure. 
 
 <i ' 
 
 ciousness. To hold one's faith in suspense until trust- 
 worthy results are reached in this way is to be without 
 the benefit of necessary religious guidance in this life. 
 
 (15) The Samaritan Pentateuch, agreeing substan- 
 tially with that of the Jews, and not to be dated much 
 later than Nehemiah's time, is at once a tangible and 
 an insuperable obstacle to a theory that would refer the 
 compilation and introduction of the Hexateuch to this 
 same period of conflict and perverse antipathies.^ 
 
 (16) It is still too early to decide what will be the 
 final outcome of Egyptian and Assyrian discoveries in 
 their bearing on the composition of the Pentateuch. 
 The parallels in the latter tongue to the history in 
 Genesis, though some centuries older in their present 
 form than the Books of Nehemiah and Ezra, make no 
 pretence to being contemporaneous records. They are 
 clearly copies, and like extant manuscripts of the New 
 Testament are valid, independent witnesses for a period 
 long anterior to themselves. So much, accordingly, 
 may be safely inferred from the testimony of the monu- 
 ments : that not a little of the material contained in the 
 early part of Genesis, including narratives of both the 
 leading documents, was in circulation long before the 
 time of Moses, and not simply as traditional germs, but 
 in detailed form, in the biblical order and with its 
 blending of supposed different accounts.^ 
 
 ^ It is not necessary to suppose that the Samaritan recension is of earlier date than the 
 exile; although it is impossible to prove that it is not. It might be even conceded that the 
 Samaritans took it bodily from the copy that began to circulate at Jerusalem after the 
 return from the exile. But the fact that it is the Pentatettch and not the Hexateuch, and 
 that the history of Joshua was subsequently current among them in another form, is quite 
 sufficient to show that, already, at this time, the " Law of Moses " had attained to at least 
 semi-canonical rank by itself and was invested with a peculiar sanctity. 
 
 ^ Lenormant thinks the Chaldaean narrative of the deluge is not less than thirty-five 
 hundred years old (^The Beginnings 0/ History, p. 392). Contrary to the view of Bickell 
 {Zcitschrift fur Katholische Theologie, 1877, pp. 1^9-131) and Abbii Vigouroux (Z^a 
 Bible et les decouvertes inodernes, 2d ed. i. pp. 165, 190, 251-254), however, 
 he maintains that the Chaldaean record confirms "in a decisive manner the distinction
 
 Historical Skt tcli of tJ:c Criticism. 83 
 
 List of Passages claimed by Wellhausen to belong to 
 THE "Priests' Code":-^ 
 
 Genesis i.-ii. 4<^; v. (ex. 29); vi. 9-22; vii. ii-viii. 5 (ex. vii. 
 12, i6c, 17, 22, 23, viii. 2b), 13, 19; ix. 1-17, 28, 29; x. 1-7, 20, 
 22, 23, 31, 32; xi. 10-32 (ex. 29) ; xii. 4b, 5; xiii. 6, lib, 12; xvi. 
 3, 15, 16; xvii. ; xix. 29; xxi. 2b-5 ; xxiii. ; xxv. 7-17 (ex. lib), i^^ 
 20, 26c ; xxvi. 34, 35 ; xxvii. 46-xxviii. 9 ; xxix. 24, 28b, 29 (?) ; 
 xxxi. 18 (in part) ; xxxv. 9-15 (vs. 9 impure), 22C-29 ; xxxvi. 6-8, 
 40-43; xxxvii. I, 2 (partly) ; xlvi. 6, 7, 8-27 (?) ; xlvii. 5-1 1 (ex. 
 6b), 27b, 28; xlviii. ■})-'] \ xlix. 28 (?), 29-33; 1. 12, 13. 
 
 Exodus i. I, 5, 7 (in part), 13, 14 (partly) ; ii. 23 (in part), 24, 
 25; vi. 2-vii. 13, 19, 20=1, 21C, 22, 23; viii. 1-3, iib-15; ix. 8-12; 
 xi. 9, 10 (certain expressions); xii. 1-21, 28, 37a, 40, 41, 43-51 ; 
 xiii. I, 2, 20; xiv. I, 2, 4 (partly), 8b, 9 (partly), 10, 15 (partly), 
 28 (?) ; xvi. 1-3, 9-13=*, i6b-i8a, 22-26,31-34, 35a; xvii. i (ex. last 
 clause); xix. i, 2a; xxiv. I5b-i8a; xxv. i-xxxi. 17, 18 (Elohistic 
 I)ut doubtful) ; xxxiv. 29-32, 33-35 (? "ein apokryphisches Anhang- 
 sel ") ; xxxv.-xl. 
 
 Leviticus (including the unique collection xvii .-xxvii.). 
 
 Numbers i. i-x. 28; xiii. i-i7a, 21, 25, 26 (mostly), 32 
 (partly) ; xiv. i, 2 (fragments of them), 5-7, 10, 26, 27, 28 (last 
 two in doubt), 34-36 ; xv. ; xvi. i, 2 (partly), 8-1 1, 16-22, 35 ; xvii.- 
 XX. id, 2, 3b, 6, 12, 22-29; '^^^- 4^' 1°' f I ('ill doubtfully) ; xxv. 6- 
 xxxi. ; xxxii. 16, 17 (partly), 18, 19, 24, 28-33; xxxiii.-xxxvi. (ex. 
 xxxiii. 50-56, " lassen ein fremdes Element in Q erkennen"). 
 
 between the two accounts, Elohist and Jehovist, cast together by the last redactor of tlie 
 Pentateuch. Taking each account separately and parallelizing them, the Chaldaean nar- 
 rative is found to agree with each one individually, in every step of its course, and not 
 with the result of their union." But if the Chaldaean inscription agree with each one 
 individually, it certainly proves (i) the contemporaneousness of both the accounts in 
 Genesis at the time when the Chalda;an record was made. And (2) it shows, conclusively, 
 that if we have two accounts of the deluge combined in Genesis, they may have been 
 combined as far back as the time of Abraham, since we have an example from about thai 
 period of the story as thus put together in the Chaldaean language. Lenorraant affirms 
 that the Chaldaean account agrees with the Jehovist and Elohist, respectively, but not 
 with the result of their union. Does he mean that it does not harmonize the alleged dis- 
 crepancies between the two? But suppose there are no such discrepancies. It is enough 
 that it gives in one continuous narrative what our critics separate in Genesis into two 
 distinct narratives. For example, if it agree with the Jehovist document in the account it 
 gives of the occasion for the flood (Gen. vi. 5, 8), it agrees with the Elohist equally in 
 assigning dimensions to the ark (Gen. vi. 15). It makes its Hasisatra sacrifice after the 
 flood is over as the Jehovist alone makes Noah (Gen. viii. 20), and it shows how its hero 
 was subsequently blessed of the gods as alone the Elohitt relates that Noah was blessed of 
 Elohim (CJen. ix. i-ii).
 
 §4 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origm and Stvnctiire. 
 
 Deuteronomy xxxii. 48-52 (compares with Num. xxvii. 12-23); 
 xxxiv. I a, 7a (?), 8, 9. 
 
 Joshua iv. 19 (" whether a fragment of a once complete narra- 
 tive very questionable ") ; V. 10-12; ix. 15c, 17-21; xiii. 15; xiv. 5 
 (including xviii. i, said to belong before xiv. i) ; xv. (except 13-19 
 and some others) ; xvi. 4-8 ; xvii. 1-4, 7, 9 (partly) ; xviii. 11-25 ! 
 xix. (ex. 47, 49, 50, and possibly more, together with enumeration of 
 the cities) ; xx. (with additions) ; xxi. 1-42 ; xxii. 9-34.^ 
 
 1 Cf. Jahrbucher fur detitsche Theologie, 1876, Band xxi. 392-450, 531-602. For 
 further explanation of the supposed relation of PC to the documents with which it is asso- 
 ciated see the beginning of the next paper. It did not seem needful in the present work to 
 set forth in detail the textual contents of JE and D. For the purposes of our argument 
 they can be inferred with sufficient accuracy by subtracting, in accordance with the data 
 elsewhere given, those of PC from the text of the Bible as we now have it.
 
 III. 
 
 THE PROPOSED ANALYSIS OF THE LAW TESTED 
 IN ITS LEADING PRINCIPLES. 
 
 The Hexateuch, as analyzed by Wellhausen and the 
 class of critics he represents, may be formulated as 
 follows : JE + D + HG + PC (Q) + R. This formula 
 will be found convenient for reference, as well as to 
 present to the eye the relative order of the codes 
 according to this system. 
 
 At the risk of repetition, it may be well to explain 
 here, somewhat more in detail, this analysis. 
 
 The letters JE stand severally for a Jehovist and an 
 Elohist document, the former beginning at Genesis ii. 
 4^ ; the latter at Genesis xx. These are claimed to be 
 the oldest documents of the Bible ; but the question of 
 their relative age is not specially mooted. The germ 
 of J is the so-called Book of the Covenant (Exodus 
 xx.-xxiii., xxxiv.), though, with this exception, it is in 
 the main an historical work. It arose, it is said, in the 
 period of the earlier Hebrew kings and prophets. E is 
 a similar historical work which, after circulating like its 
 companion document, separately for a time, — according 
 to Wellhausen each passed through three editions in 
 this separate form, — was united to J by the Jehovist, 
 who also revised and edited to some extent. D repre- 
 sents the legislative portions of Deuteronomy, originat- 
 ing in the eighteenth year of King Josiah (b.c. 621), 
 the chapters preliminary and following being added at
 
 86 The Pentateuch : Its Oi'is!;iii and Structure, 
 
 <i ' 
 
 a considerably later period. HG (that is, Heiligkeits- 
 gesets, law of holiness) is used for chapters xvii.-xxvi. 
 of Leviticus, which were composed, it is maintained, at 
 about the time of Ezekiel, although not by him. 
 Q {quatuor foederum liber) is the great historical and 
 legislative work beginning the Bible, and like E 
 peculiar in its predominant use of Elohim as a name 
 for God, and embracing very nearly one half of the 
 entire Hexateuch. PC is the symbol for " Priests' 
 Code," the name given to Q after receiving, from time 
 to time, the various additions made to it, up to the 
 period of its completion subsequent to the exile. The 
 letter R stands for Redactor, the person who combined 
 JE and D with PC. He is assumed to have had the 
 style of the document last named, and to have done his 
 work wholly in its spirit. The Hexateuch, having thus 
 been brought essentially to the form in which it is 
 now found, was published and introduced by Ezra 
 (b,c, 444). 
 
 Each of these letters or combination of letters, it will 
 be seen, — except the last, — represents a different 
 stage of the legislation ; JE having for its nucleus the 
 Book of the Covenant, which is followed by the Deuter- 
 onomic code, and that in succession by Leviticus xvii.- 
 xxvi., and the remaining priestly legislation of the 
 middle books of the Pentateuch, 
 
 The method adopted by Wellhausen to prove that 
 these collections of laws do actually represent different 
 so-called stratifications, which took form in the widely 
 separated periods indicated in our note, is twofold. 
 First, he endeavors to show that, when compared, there 
 is evidence of a marked development in these several 
 parts of the legislation themselves in the direction 
 named : that is, from JE toward PC. Second, he calls
 
 TJie Proposed Analysis Tested. 87 
 
 attention to the impression left by the laws on the 
 historical books of the Old Testament, — ■ not excepting 
 the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua, — and claims 
 that the history most readily adapts itself to such 
 a theory of the post-Mosaic development of the codes. 
 Under the first head five particulars are specially dwelt 
 upon: (i) the place of worship; (2) the sacrifices; 
 (3) the feasts ; (4) the priests and Levites ; (5) the 
 provision made for the support of priests and Levites. 
 
 The object of the present paper will be to discover, if 
 possible, what fair conclusion may be drawn from an 
 examination and comparison of these several collections 
 of laws on the points named. Is such a theory of 
 development as is proposed a necessary or legitimate 
 outcome of a really candid and critical investigation } 
 Adopting Wcllhausen's order, let us consider the atti- 
 tude of these laws as it respects 
 
 (i) Tlie Place of Worship. — The position here 
 assumed is that there are three successive steps in 
 the growth of the idea and practice among the 
 Israelites of worshiping at one central sanctuary, 
 and that these three steps are distinctly marked off in 
 three principal codes of the Pentateuch. In JE, for 
 example, a plurality of altars, it is alleged, is freely per- 
 mitted. In D, however, which represents the point of 
 view of King Josiah who struck "the first heavy 
 blow " against this practice, unity of worship is every- 
 where insisted on. While in PC such unity of worship 
 is presupposed as a thing of the past, and by means of 
 the fiction of the tabernacle referred to the very earliest 
 times. This in brief is the theory. 
 
 As to the question how it fits the legislation, Well- 
 hausen, it is noticeable, instead of coming directly to 
 the point, devotes a dozen pages to a summary of the
 
 8S TJie PentateiicJi : Its Orinn and Structure. 
 
 i> ' 
 
 teachings of the historical books on the subject. By 
 giving to exceptions which he there finds the force of 
 established rules, misapprehending and misapplying 
 some plain statements of fact, and wholly setting aside 
 the testimony of the author of the Books of Kings, — 
 with whom he acknowledges himself to be in open con- 
 flict, — this critic is able to affirm that this was "the 
 actual course of the centralization of the cultus ; one 
 can distinguish these three stages." ^ And it is only 
 after such a manipulation of the history, in which Well- 
 hausen is able to find, previous to the building of 
 Solomon's temple, no trace of a central sanctuary, 
 that he makes his appeal to the Pentateuch legislation. 
 What, now, is the bearing of this legislation on the 
 subject before us ? Does it, in itself considered, justify 
 or encourage the hypothesis of an extended process of 
 development from the custom of many contempora- 
 neous altars to the one sanctuary ? After a reasonably 
 
 1 Geschichte, i. p. 29. It can only be regarded, for example, as a serious misapprehen- 
 sion of facts when {Geschichte, i. p. 18) in citing instances of extemporized places of 
 worship he refers to the conduct of Saul as recorded in i Sam. xiv. 33-36 (Hebrew text as 
 throughout) as an instructive one of the kind. There is not the slightest indication in the 
 text that the stone on which the people slew the captured cattle was regarded by Saul as 
 an altar for sacrifice ; or that the writer of the book referred to it in the words which 
 this critic puts into his mouth: " That is the first altar which Saul had built to God." 
 
 Hoffmann {Magazinfilr die Wissenschaft des Jtidenthiiins, 1879, p. 9 f.), after call- 
 ing attention to the fact that as well the Septuagint as the Syriac version support 
 the Hebrew text, remarks: " Danach wird also der grosse Stein, auf dem das Yolk 
 geschlachtet, keineswegs vom Berichterstatter fllr einen Altar gehalten, sondern nachdem 
 das Yolk bereits das Yieh geschlachtet, baute Saul, wahrscheinlich zum Andenken an 
 den errungenen Sieg (vgl. Exod. 17. 15), daselbst einen Altar. Es ware auch kurios, 
 wenn der Berichterstatter vom dem Stcine, den das I'olk zii Saul hingewalzt (v. 33) 
 behaupten woUte: dies sei der erste yJjV«r, den Saul gebaut ! ! Die Stelle beweist nun 
 wieder das Gegentheil von dem, was sie beweisen soUte. Saul ist nur darob entriistet, das 
 Yolk zur Erde geschlachtet und mit dem Blute oder iiber dem Blute gegessen, und 
 befiehlt, dass Alle nebem ihm auf einem grossen Steine schlachten"" 
 
 Cf. also Sime, Kingdom of All Is., p. 72. 
 
 Of the author of the Books of Kings Wellhausen says {ibid. pp. 20, 21) : " Aber diese 
 Betrachtungfwcise des Bedeutungs des Konigthums fUr die Geschichte des Cultus ist 
 nicht die des Verfassers der Kbnigsbiicher. . . . Diese Auffassimg nun ist ungeschicht- 
 lich und ubertragt die Bedeutung, die der Terapel kurz vor dem Exil in Juda erlangt hat^ 
 in die Zeil und in die Absicht seiner Griindung."
 
 The Proposed Analysis Tested. 89 
 
 careful examination one is forced to reply with 
 a decided negative. He will find, on the contrary, 
 each one of the codes not only implying unity of 
 worship, but even requiring it ; and that no part of 
 the legislation of the Pentateuch gives the least color 
 to any other practice. Such a scholar as Delitzsch 
 cannot have overlooked essential facts, and this is the 
 conclusion also to which he has come : " In truth, the 
 Deuteronomic demand for unity of the cultus is no 
 novelty, but a demand of the whole Torah in all its 
 constituent parts." ^ 
 
 The position taken by our critics may be successfully 
 assailed, and with almost equal force, from two quar- 
 ters. It is not true that JE permits a contempora- 
 neous plurality of altars ; it is not true that PC 
 presupposes unity of worship as something already 
 established in the history of Israel. If the several 
 codes, as here divided and adjusted, represent a 
 growth at all in the matter, — which we do not believe, 
 — it is in D, and not in PC, that we find the climax. 
 In nearly a score of instances, within half that number 
 of chapters, attention is called to the topic, and a 
 special emphasis is given by a repetition of the same 
 peculiar form of words (Deut. xii. 5, et passim). And 
 what could be more fitting in a document professedly 
 looking backward on more than a generation of trans- 
 gression and lawlessness covering in part this very 
 ground (Deut. xii. 8), and looking forward to an imme- 
 diate transition from a life in camp to the conquest and 
 occupation of the promised land .-^ 
 
 As it concerns PC, so far is it from presupposing, as 
 is affirmed, a central place of worship as something 
 long established, it makes scarcely any allusion to 
 
 ^ Zcitschri/t fiir kircJilichc XVissenschaft, etc. 1880, p. 562.
 
 90 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure, 
 
 a place of worship in this particular aspect of the 
 matter ; and as it relates to the holy land, with which 
 it is supposed this code had alone to do, it wholly 
 ignores the subject. Even in its law concerning the 
 Passover, where, if anywhere, it might have been' 
 expected that this point would be emphasized, it is 
 given no observable prominence. The tabernacle 
 itself, about which all this form of the legislation may 
 be said to gather, has for its direct object in no sense 
 the furnishing of a central point for sacrifice. Its first 
 object, rather, as its name "tent of meeting" imports, 
 was to provide a place for God to meet his people. It 
 is true that also in this part of the Mosaic laws all are 
 expected, under penalty of the loss of citizenship, to 
 bring their sacrifices to this " tent of meeting " (Lev. 
 xvii. 8, 9).^ As long as the wilderness life continued, 
 this was the only natural and warrantable course for a 
 people who, instead, of the many gods of the nations, 
 had one Lord (Deut. vi. 4). But iteration and empha- 
 sis on this point was left for a sufficient reason, as we 
 have seen, to Deuteronomy. Whatever culminating 
 point there may be, it will be found there. 
 
 But does not the tabernacle, on the possible hypothe- 
 sis that in its fundamental conception it is a product of 
 the post-exilian period, whether one regard it as a tent 
 of meeting or a place for sacrifice (that is, as a sanctuary 
 from the divine or the human side), if it be transferred 
 
 1 Kittel {Theologische Stiidi'en aus IViirtemberg; 1881, pp. 41, 42) has pointed out 
 the fact that this very passage is evidence against the position that in PC unity of worship 
 is altogether presupposed; and he cites Wellhausen himself as saying {Geschzchie, i. p. 
 389), "Die brtliche Einheit des Gottesdienstes wird hier noch gefordert, nicht voraus- 
 gesetzt." It is true that he considers the passage as one that found its way into PC 
 through revision; but this postpones the difficulty without solving it. Why should a 
 reviser, working in the spirit of the document he is revising, have put in such an inhar- 
 monious sentiment? Kittel has also adduced the rebellion of Korah (Num. xvi. 8-1 1) as 
 further evidence, from whatever point of view it may be regarded, that PC is far enough 
 from having to do simply with matters of worship already brought to a concIiJsioD 
 (J. Q. P- 3»)-
 
 The Proposed Analysis Tested. 91 
 
 t 
 
 by its fabricators to the Mosaic age, in the nature of 
 the case presuppose on their part a centrahzation of 
 the cultus in their own time ? By no means. The 
 most that it could show, supposing it to represent cen- 
 trahzation of worship, would be that they wished to 
 have it understood that this was the form of worship 
 which prevailed in the far past. And we can have no 
 logical claim even to that inference. As I have already 
 shown in the introductory paper, on the supposition 
 of a pure invention one has nothing substantial to 
 build upon. "Ex nihilo nihil fit." These facile inven- 
 tors may have had a dozen reasons for their course 
 unknown to us. It is only by showing from wholly 
 independent and reliable sources what motives must 
 have influenced them, that we have any right to speak 
 with assurance of such motives. 
 
 How is it then with JE .-' There is but a single pas- 
 sage in its code on which much reliance is placed to show 
 its position in this matter (Ex. xx. 24), and it reads as 
 follows: "An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, 
 and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings and thy 
 peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen : in every 
 place ^ where I record my name I will come unto thee, 
 
 ^ ^o/with the article undoubtedly conveys the idea of totality, but as far as the real 
 sense here is concerned it makes no difference whether this phrase be rendered, with Dill- 
 mann {Com., in loc), Bunsen's Bibeliverk, and Wellhausen {Geschichte, i. p. 30), " in 
 every place," or with our common English version, " in all places." The meaning doubt- 
 less is " in that place, wherever it be," where God should cause his name to be remem- 
 bered, there he would receive and own the offerings of his people. There is a similar 
 collocation of words at Gen. xx. 13. The really important part of the verse, as I have 
 said above, lies in the words " where I record my name," or, " cause my name to be 
 remembered." It is of interest that the Targums give this clause here the sense of" cause 
 my name to dwell," that is, they apparently identify the place with the t.ibernacle (cf. Ex. 
 xxiv. 16; XXV. 8; xxix. 46; Num. ix. 17; Dent. xii. i\,fi/>assi)n). The Samaritan Penta- 
 teuch, on the other hand, read, though probal)ly as a correction, for" in every place," " in 
 the place," making the matter still more definite. The objection of Wellhausen to the 
 view that the tabernacle is referred to is that the altar here described is not the altar of 
 the tabernacle. Nor is the tabernacle yet in existence, it maybe replied; but when it 
 came into existence it came under this law and included this aiiar. The objections
 
 92 The Pentateicch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 and I will bless thee." And it may safely be submitted 
 to any one, without discussion, whether this passage, 
 taken by itself, encourages sacrificing at many altars at 
 one and the same time, or gives to every Israelite dis- 
 cretionary powers to offer his sacrifices when and 
 where he will ? 
 
 The vital point of the verse, which has been much 
 obscured by making an issue on the phrase " in every 
 place," is contained in the words "where I shall cause 
 my name to be remembered." This expression, while 
 not positively excluding the possibility that there might 
 be more than one authorized place of worship at the 
 same time, can by no means be cited as giving legisla- 
 tive authority for the establishment of a multitude of 
 contemporaneous altars. Such a thought must be first 
 read into the verse, in order to be deduced from it. And 
 it cannot be denied that it might with at least equal 
 justice, in harmony with the common and traditional 
 view, be understood as implying that in the lapse of 
 time the place of worship would be often changed, but 
 that the presence and blessing of God would make any 
 place sacred for this purpose. 
 
 That this is, in fact, the real meaning of the words 
 may be amply proved, from a variety of considerations. 
 
 which Dillmann {ibid.) brings against this view, while acknowledging it to be the ordinary 
 one, are far from convincing. The most important of them, that since Jehovah was 
 understood to dwell in the tabernacle, he could not properly be spoken of as coming to it, 
 is sufficiently answered by a passage which he himself cites (2 Sam. vii. 6 f), where God 
 is represented as saying, " I have not dwelt in a house . . . even unto this day, but have 
 walked in a tent and in a tabernacle." And in the following verse the places are spoken 
 of in which he had walked with Israel. Hence the meaning in our passage of the " every 
 place" where he should cause his name to be remembered is such places as he should 
 come to — not apart from, but in connection with, the tabernacle. One's confidence in the 
 view that the passage at least refers to one central, well-known altar, and not to many 
 contemporaneous ones will not be weakened by the fact that it is held, among others, by 
 such scholars as Hoffmann {Magazinfur die Wissenschaft des yudenthums, 1879, pp. 
 17, i8), Franz Delitzsch (1. c. pp. 562, 563), Strack (in Herzog's E?icyk. s.v. " Penta- 
 teuch"), Bredenkamp {Gesetz u. Prophete}i,y^. 129-139), and Riehm {Gesetzgebung 
 miosis im Lande Moab^ p. 25 f.).
 
 The Proposed Analysis Tested. 93 
 
 First, it would be remarkable, if a plurality of altars 
 were meant, that the singular number is used, and that 
 we do not find here, or anywhere else in this document, 
 the expression " altars of God," although the author is 
 familiar enough with the many altars of the heathen 
 (Ex. xxxiv. 13). The usage corresponds, in fact, to the 
 fundamental conception of the Old Testament religion 
 as everywhere strongly monotheistic, as over against 
 a radical tendency in another direction. 
 
 Then, according to Wellhausen, JE represents a 
 period of Israelitish history so early that the idea of 
 centralizing the worship had not yet found its way into 
 the cultus ; and this opinion he thinks is confirmed by 
 our passage. But suppose that in this very document 
 the precise contrary appears, shall not that fact 
 modify one's views of this verse .'' Such is really the 
 case. Not only is the matter of centralizing worship 
 recognized, but enjoined by statute. Others have 
 already pointed out that the offering of Abraham on 
 the distant Moriah — a narrative assigned by our critics 
 to this earliest document (E^) — was an evident fore- 
 shadowing of the future place of Israelitish worship.^ 
 And does not the Ark of the Covenant — that is, the 
 depository of the first covenant made with Israel, 
 including the decalogue, and so in conception indissolu- 
 bly bound to the code of JE — point most conclusively 
 in the same direction t 
 
 But I have said that the matter was even fixed by 
 statute. How otherwise can we interpret the injunc- 
 tion to Israel (Ex. xxiii. 14 ff. ; xxxiv. 23) that three 
 times in the year, at the great annual feasts, all males 
 shall appear before the Lord } It is not possible that 
 the point of view of such a command should be that of 
 
 ^ Cf. Delitzsch in Riehm's Handworterbuch, s.v. " Opfer."
 
 94 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 a plurality of altars. They are excluded by the very 
 terms employed in it. Besides, it should not be over- 
 looked that the theory of our critics touching JE brings 
 that document into direct antagonism with D, The 
 former would thus establish by law what the latter 
 emphatically prohibits. And, so far from attempting 
 to conceal such divergence, pains are taken rather 
 by our critics to display it, as furthering the view of 
 their separate origin. But whenever they originated, 
 it is unquestionable that D sustains the most intimate 
 relations to JE, largely borrowing from it both the form 
 and substance of its entire code. And no one is more 
 ready to acknowledge this than our critics themselves.^ 
 D even quotes in its additions an apposite part of the 
 very passage we are now considering (Ex. xx. 25 ; cf. 
 Deut. xxvii. 5, 6). How unlikely, then, would be the 
 supposed diversity on a point of so much importance 
 as that of the place of worship. Greater fulness and 
 explicitness in this, as in other matters, is indeed 
 called for in D ; but flat contradictions or essential 
 change of attitude are excluded by the very circum- 
 stances of the case. 
 
 Noldeke, also, has pointed out how impossible is the 
 theory that makes the unity of the cultus begin with 
 D and with King Josiah (b.c. 621). "If Hezekiah [c. 
 B.C. 726] already to a tolerable degree had carried out 
 this unity in Judah, the effort toward it must have 
 been quite old ; for one cannot so easily have made up 
 his mind to suppress violently old and sacred customs 
 if the theory had not long since demanded it." ^ 
 
 (2) The Offerings. — Wellhausen introduces his chap- 
 ter on the offerings with the remark that, as among the 
 ancients generally, so among the Hebrews, the offering 
 
 * Cf. W. Robertson Smith, The Old Testa7neni, etc. p. 431. 
 2 Untersuchung zur Kritih d. Alt. Test. p. 127 f.
 
 The Proposed Analysis Tested. 95 
 
 was the chief factor in their cultus ; and that, as already 
 shown in the matter of the place of worship, so it 
 might be regarded as probable also here that one 
 would find a historic development whose different 
 stages are reflected in the Pentateuch. He intimates, 
 however, that the results in the present case may not 
 be as satisfactory as could be desired, owing to the 
 fragmentary nature of the documents. Still, judging 
 from the number of instances brought forward in proof 
 of such development, and the apparent confidence with 
 which they are urged, this modest beginning can be 
 regarded as meaning little more than the polite bow 
 before the address. 
 
 In examining these further supposed evidences of 
 growth in the Pentateuch, it is to be carefully borne 
 in mind that it is not needful for one holding the 
 ordinary view to show that this alleged evidence does 
 not exist, or even that it might not be convincing, pro- 
 vided that certain necessary premises of Wellhausen 
 and his co-laborers respecting the several documents 
 were to be admitted ; but only that no such evidence, 
 if carefully weighed, seriously militates against the 
 commonly accepted position. The remark of Professor 
 Curtiss 1 on the difficulty of meeting our critics on 
 their own terms derives its force, as he has shown, 
 entirely from the peculiar difficulty of the terms they 
 impose. It is really saying, " Let me have the prem- 
 ises, and you shall admit my conclusion." And if, for 
 the time being, we adopt as a working-basis these 
 premises to test the correctness of results derived 
 from them, it is by no means to be taken as an aban- 
 donment of positions hitherto held. 
 
 The more important specifications of Wellhausen 
 
 ' Current Discussions, etc. 1883, p. 35.
 
 96 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structtire. 
 
 under the present head may be arranged as follows : 
 According to JE the practice of sacrificing sprung up 
 before the time of Moses ; according to PC, it was 
 introduced by him. Both JE and D represent the 
 offerings simply as festive meals ; PC makes them 
 include, to a greater or less extent, the idea of atone- 
 ment. That is to say, the earlier documents know in 
 general only of the two kinds of offering, the burnt 
 and peace offering ; the " Priests' Code," while speci- 
 fying various details of the other offerings, adds to the 
 list the sin and trespass offering, of which, it is 
 affirmed, the Old Testament, previous to the time of 
 Ezekiel, knows nothing. The latest code differs, 
 further, in a variety of minute particulars, and in 
 general, as over against the to whom of JE, insists on 
 the when, the ivhere, the through whom, and especially 
 on the hozv, of the sacrifices. By means of the gradual 
 centralization of the cultus at Jerusalem, this critic 
 would have us understand, in short, that the early and 
 natural connection of sacrifices with the ordinary life 
 was destroyed, and they wholly lost their original 
 character. 
 
 Taking up, now, these general positions, and begin- 
 ning with the first particular mentioned, it may well 
 be asked if it be a quite fair statement of the case to 
 say that, while JE represents the custom of sacrificing 
 as springing up before Moses, PC makes it begin with 
 him .? If it be meant, as we suppose, that PC, in fail- 
 ing to speak of sacrificing as practised before the 
 time of Moses, would reflect unfavorably on its com- 
 panion document which gives instances of it, then we 
 must characterize it as a wholly gratuitous assumption. 
 There is nothing whatever in the letter or spirit of the 
 documents to encourage, or even suggest, it. Indeed,
 
 The Proposed Analysis Tested. 97 
 
 what could be more improbable than such an omission 
 for this reason, on the part of those to whom the con- 
 tents of JE could not have been unknown? Or even, 
 if that were not meant, but only that the one docu- 
 ment, because of an independent point of view, begins 
 the treatment of the subject with Moses, while the 
 other begins it with Cain and Abel for the same 
 reason, — then we might well ask, in view of the 
 acknowledged fragmentary nature of the documents, 
 what of it ? And still more forcibly, on the basis of 
 the ordinary view, which would find no inconsistency in 
 the circumstance that one part of the same work takes 
 up and develops a subject introduced in another, — 
 what of it ? 
 
 Besides, has not the difference that is alleged to 
 exist between the documents in this respect been, to 
 say the least, somewhat overdrawn ? So it appears 
 to us. The one represented by JE cannot be said to 
 lay any stress whatever on the matter of sacrificing. 
 It is something made wholly incidental to the history. 
 If there be a divergence, it is reduced to a minimum. 
 JE never introduces, for example, the leading patri- 
 archs as accustomed to sacrifice. Altars, it is true, 
 are mentioned in connection with them, but mostly 
 on occasions of simple prayer. ^ 
 
 Moreover, were the difference charged a matter of 
 fact, there would be many ways of explaining, even 
 from our critics' own point of view, more reasonable 
 than the one adopted. It might be supposed, as 
 already intimated, that the extant patriarchal document 
 actually contained only the few instances of worship 
 by sacrifice found in JE. Must PC then repeat these, 
 or formally recognize them, in order to give such an 
 
 1 Cf. Delitzsch, s.v. " Opfer," in Riehm's Handworterbuck,
 
 q8 TJie PentateucJi : Its Origin and Striicttire. 
 
 appearance of harmony that no one could possibly 
 doubt it ? Or it might be supposed that the contents 
 of PC were designed in this respect to supplement 
 what has been aptly and harmoniously introduced by 
 JE. Or, still again, the two documents may have been 
 left in this somewhat abrupt attitude, as over against 
 one another, in order to distinguish between two really 
 different, though conterminous, periods in the history of 
 sacrifice : the first marking the fact that it was the 
 spontaneous product of an inward need of men ; the 
 second, that it had been taken up, like some other old- 
 time usages, by the Mosaic legislation, given the form 
 and stamped with the spirit of the religion of Jehovah. 
 What, indeed, could be more in harmony than this with 
 the general position of our critics on the matter of 
 development ? Any one of these suppositions would 
 be quite sufificient to account for the line of demarca- 
 tion separating JE and PC as respects the matter of 
 sacrifice, supposing it to exist ; and they would be far 
 more reasonable and probable than that of an inten- 
 tional and invidious omission on the part of the 
 " Priests' Code " or of an omission implying even 
 a difference of literary plan. 
 
 But, as a matter of fact, we are prepared to go 
 further and deny that, otherwise than in the imagina- 
 tion of the critics, the distinction between the docu- 
 ments predicated exists. Does PC, for example, 
 really represent that the custom of sacrificing is exclu- 
 sively of Mosaic origin .-' The contrary can certainly 
 be maintained. It will be allowed to cite here the code 
 of laws represented by HG (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.), which, 
 originating, as it is held, during the exile, should have 
 a solidarity of interest in this respect with PC. At 
 Leviticus xvii. 5 a custom of sacrificing in the open
 
 T]ie Proposed Analysis Tested. 99 
 
 fields is referred to in the way of condemnation, and 
 a direct Mosaic law given to prohibit it in future. 
 Does not this presuppose a usage of sacrificing that 
 was pre-Mosaic ? Besides PC itself, as Hoffmann ^ has 
 shown, discriminates between those forms of sacrifice 
 mentioned in JE and such as it has introduced for the 
 first time. In the latter case, the occasions calling 
 them forth are carefully described ; in the former, this 
 is omitted, apparently as something already understood, 
 and so unnecessary. In the same direction, too, points 
 the circumstance that a number of technical terms 
 seem to have come over from the pre-Mosaic usage in 
 sacrificing, and still to have held their place, side by 
 side with the Mosaic, even when precisely similar 
 things are meant. 
 
 Other special points of difference alleged to exist 
 between JE and PC will require less attention. It is 
 claimed, for instance, that PC first introduces the sin 
 and trespass offering with their idea of atonement, and 
 that the late origin of this document may accordingly be 
 inferred, when it is considered that the earliest appear- 
 ance of these offerings elsewhere is in the prophecy of 
 Ezekiel. That this form of offering, we answer, as 
 afterward developed in the Mosaic legislation and under 
 the technical name of sin-offering, was common in the 
 patriarchal period, no one would care to affirm. That, 
 however, the original burnt-offering included it in its 
 fundamental conception, there can be no just doubt. As 
 it concerns the time of its introduction as technically 
 a sin-offering, it is clear that Hosea, near the beginning 
 of the eighth century b.c, mentions it as such, and 
 that the author of Isaiah liii. 10 alludes to it, and that 
 it is introduced as something well known in the fortieth 
 
 1 Magazinfur die Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1879, p. 90 ff.
 
 100 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 psalm (vs. 7) — a psalm whose superscription ascribes 
 it to David, and whose composition neither Hitzig nor 
 Ewald ventures to date after about the sixth century 
 B.C. These instances are quite enough to disprove the 
 sweeping assertion of Wellhausen ^ respecting the date 
 of the sin-offering, — not to mention 2 Kings xii, 16, 
 where " the trespass-money and sin-money " most natu- 
 rally refer to that which was voluntarily handed by the 
 people to the ministering priest on the occasion of such 
 sacrifices.2 If the reference in Kings be not to the sin- 
 offering, but fines in money are alone meant, — the 
 priest receiving the whole sum, — then our critics are 
 forced to the unwelcome conclusion that PC in its 
 legislation actually diminishes by so much the former 
 revenue of the priests. 
 
 But our attention is invited to a number of minor 
 particulars which are said to show most conclusively 
 that the " Priests' Code " is a much younger docu- 
 ment than those with which it is associated. It is 
 asserted, for example, that previous to Jeremiah (vi. 20) 
 the practice of offering incense, which PC enjoins, is 
 not alluded to in the biblical books.^ Suppose that this 
 were true, it would be a matter of no great importance, 
 and might be wholly ascribed to accident. The wine 
 of the drink-offering, too, fails to find mention in the 
 earlier prophets, excepting Joel, who is no longer 
 allowed a place among them (but cf. Ps. xvi. 4). And 
 the same is true of the oil, save in one place in Micah 
 (vi. 7). The simple reason in each case was that there 
 was no special occasion for mentioning them. But the 
 statement is not strictly true. Isaiah (i. 13), whose 
 prophetical activity antedated that of Jeremiah by a 
 full century, makes a clear allusion to it ; for he can 
 
 1 Geschichte, i. p. 77. 2 See Thenius's Com., ad he. 
 
 * See Wellhausen, ibid, i, pp. 67-69.
 
 The Proposed Analysis Tested. loi 
 
 mean nothing else by the " incense " of which he 
 speaks than the incense offered with the meal -offering. 
 
 Then, it is claimed that the flour used for sacrifice in 
 PC and the Chronicles is fine fiour, while everywhere 
 else qemach, or ordinary flour, is employed.^ But it 
 may well be asked what there is strange in this ? The 
 latter word is only twice introduced in such a connec- 
 tion elsewhere altogether (Judges vi. 19; i Sam. i. 24) ; 
 and how can it be regarded as peculiar in the circum- 
 stances that in these cases the ordinary word for flour 
 should be used, without qualifying it, as Abraham 
 already does in JE (Gen. xviii.) by adding that fine flour 
 is meant ? The word for fine flour must have been an 
 old Hebrew word, and might certainly have been used 
 if found fit and convenient. 
 
 Again, it is claimed that according to PC the flour 
 for sacrifices was preferred in a raw state, while the 
 earlier usage, even in the case of burnt-offerings, was 
 first to bake it.^ But it is a claim that has no real 
 documentary support. Outside of the wholly excep- 
 tional instance of Gideon's extemporized sacrifice 
 (Judges vi. 19 f.) there is no evidence that the flour 
 used in connection with the burnt-offering was ever 
 baked ; while in the matter of the meal-offering the 
 practice in PC is far from uniform (Ex. xxix. ; Lev. ii, ; 
 Ezek. xlvi. 14). Wellhausen was plainly misled by the 
 account in Ezek. xlvi. 20, confounding the portion eaten 
 by the priests with that offered to the Lord. 
 
 Of the same nature is the alleged circumstance that 
 according to the earlier codes all flesh used for sacri- 
 fices must first be boiled, while according to PC it was 
 to be offered raw.^ There is not a syllable enjoining 
 such a rule in the earlier codes. And the entirely 
 
 » Wellhausen, ibid. p. 69; cf. however, Num. v. 15. 
 
 s Wellhausen, ibid. p. 71. ^ Wellhausen, ibid. p. 70.
 
 I02 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Stricture. 
 
 abnormal action of Gideon, just alluded to, is literally 
 the only clear example of such a practice. It is not 
 supported by the conduct of Eli's sons in i Sam. ii. 
 13 ff., since there is no proof that it was their intention 
 to offer on the altar boiled flesh. And it is just as 
 little supported by a passage cited in D (Deut. xvi. 7 ; 
 cf. Ex. xii. 9), as bdshal there means " to roast," and not 
 **to boil" (cf. 2 Chron. xxxv. 13), the words "in water " 
 or " in milk " being always added when it had the latter 
 meaning. Such cases, on the contrary, as that of 
 Manoah (Judges xiii. 19 f.) and of Solomon (i Kings 
 iii. 4; viii. 5) show conclusively that the earlier codes 
 knew no such practice as that which has been imputed 
 to them. 
 
 But does it not appear from i Sam. x. 3 f. that at 
 first it was permitted to use leavened bread upon the 
 altar, while at Lev. ii. 1 1 (PC) it is prohibited 1 1 The 
 loaves here spoken of were not for sacrifice, as is evi- 
 dent from the disposition actually made of them (vs. 4). 
 
 Can it not, at least, be said that peace-offerings were 
 the predominant form of offerings in the ancient times, 
 while in PC one finds them transformed into the whole 
 burnt-offering .? 2 Such a representation, we reply, 
 scarcely answers to the facts (cf. Gen. viii. 20 ; xxii. 7 ; 
 xxxi. 54 ; xlvi. i ; Job i. 5 ; xlii. 8). It may be 
 admitted that the whole burnt-offering is made promi- 
 nent in the so-called " Priests' Code " ; but to attempt 
 to make out in it a special divergence in this respect 
 from the other supposed documents would not repay 
 the effort. Delitzsch well asks how we should know, 
 without PC, how to discriminate between the two as 
 altar-gifts, when David, for example, brings "burnt- 
 offerings " and "peace-offerings" (2 Sam. xxiv. 25) at 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 77. s Ibid. pp. 71-74.
 
 The Proposed Analysis Tested. 103 
 
 the threshing-floor of Arauna ? "And is not the *fat 
 pieces of the thank-offering' (i Kings viii. 64) the very- 
 expression which is furnished by the Elohistic ritual 
 (Lev. vi. 5) ? " 1 
 
 What has already been said is more than sufficient to 
 show how unsafe it is to draw from the circumstances 
 of mere diversity in characteristics any inference con- 
 cerning the late origin of the so-called " Priests' Code " 
 as related to its associated documents. Undoubtedly, 
 if these several parts of the Pentateuch are divided from 
 one another and examined singly, it will be found that 
 the one named PC does insist more than the others on 
 the technicalities of the sacrificial ritual. But could it, 
 in the nature of the case, well have been otherwise } 
 D announces and carries out a special programme for 
 itself, looking in quite another direction ; while JE, 
 having altogether so very little to present in the form 
 of legislation, might well be excused from entering upon 
 such details. The whole Book of the Covenant makes 
 but five chapters, over against the main contents of the 
 three middle books of the Pentateuch. And our critics 
 confess that they are unable to find any traces whatever 
 of the earlier Jehovistic work between Ex. xxxiv, and 
 Num. x.-xxix. 
 
 Undoubtedly, too, under the influence of the Sinaitic 
 legislation, the matter of sacrifices, as we have before 
 said, which originally may have been an expression of 
 spontaneous human feeling, took a special and fixed 
 form as a divinely authorized institution for the highest 
 ends ; but there is no satisfactory evidence in this form 
 itself that it must have originated subsequent to the 
 time of Moses. The monuments of other contempo- 
 raneous peoples demonstrate, rather, that, so far from 
 
 ' Cf. s.v. " Opfer " in Riehm's Handworierbufh.
 
 I04 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 holding that the highly developed stage represented in 
 the Mosaic ritual and its singularly full and exact termi- 
 nology is evidence of a later period, we might be 
 surprised not to find something like them there. And 
 even if we conclude that this Mosaic code is far superior 
 to any of its contemporaries, especially in the unity of 
 its purpose and its elevated moral tone, that can be no 
 reason for rejecting Mosaic authorship on the part of 
 those who accept the Bible as a supernatural revelation. 
 For that there are persons who are unable to bring 
 themselves to believe in supernatural interpositions in 
 human history is no reason why one should part with 
 his commonsense in seeking to account for the history 
 of Israel. 
 
 (3) TJie Feasts. — The annual feasts of the Jews, as 
 is well known, were seven in number, of which four fell 
 on the seventh month, and all during the first seven 
 months of the year. Three of these were pilgrimage 
 feasts (those italicized below), in which it was required 
 that every male Israelite should appear with an offering 
 before the Lord, and which, in harmony with this 
 custom, were commonly designated CJiaggim ; while 
 the others were known as Moddhini, or simply appointed 
 gatherings. The cycle began with the Passover, which 
 was followed" immediately by the feast of unleavened 
 bread ; and these in succession by the feast of weeks, 
 the feast of trumpets, the day of atonement, and the 
 feast of tabernacles, whose last day closed the list with 
 a solemn assembly. 
 
 It is argued, now, with respect to these feasts, by the 
 advocates of the analysis we have been considering,- 
 that they originated in certain popular festivals celc 
 brating the beginning and close of the agricultural year, 
 and that the process of transformation into historical
 
 The Proposed Analysis Tested. 105 
 
 institutions is clearly discoverable in the present Pen- 
 tateuch codes. That the feasts, in part, may be based 
 on previous usages of the people is, indeed, not only 
 quite credible, but might be shown to be, a priori, 
 probable from what we know of other Mosaic institu- 
 tions. That they appear, however, in any part of the 
 legislation of the Pentateuch in any other form than as 
 established ecclesiastical ordinances is, we will venture 
 to say, incapable of proof. 
 
 Take, for instance, the two associated feasts of the 
 Passover and of unleavened bread, which, according to 
 this theory, should be found in JE and D as the open- 
 ing harvest festival. There is not a particle of evidence 
 in these documents (cf. Ex. xxxiv. 18; Deut. xvi. 1-8) 
 that they had any other origin or purpose than to cele- 
 brate the exodus from Egypt. That is made in both of 
 them their sole occasion. If they had a different origin, 
 it is carefully concealed. 
 
 Singularly enough, however, on the basis of this 
 theory, we discover in immediate connection with the 
 rules for these feasts as found in HG (Lev. xxiii. 4-8 ; 
 cf. vs. 9-14) — a document here virtually identical with 
 PC — our first and only allusion to a harvest ceremony. 
 In this passage, to use the language of Wellhausen, 
 " the special Easter rite is the presentation of a sheaf 
 of barley." 
 
 But how can this be made to harmonize with the 
 development hypothesis to find the root where the 
 bloom should be ; to find in a document which is 
 alleged to have arisen in the time of Ezekiel elements 
 one would suppose to be out of place anywhere, except 
 in the earliest literature "i Let Wellhausen, as one of 
 its leading advocates, himself explain : " One may 
 remind us," he says, " on the other hand, it is true, that 
 this passage at present belongs to PC, But the col-
 
 io6 The PentateucJi: Its OrisriJi and Stnichire, 
 
 i>' 
 
 lection (Lev. xvii.-xxvi), as is well known, was simply 
 worked over and received by it ; originally, however,, 
 was an independent corpus, which stood at the point of 
 transition from D to PC, resembling now this and now 
 that. And the complete justification [mark the words] 
 for making use of Lev. xxiii. 9-22 in this connection 
 appears in this, — that only in this way does the rite 
 there described take on life and meaning." ^ But the 
 question is not concerning making use of Leviticus. 
 It is a question why Leviticus alone makes use of such 
 a ceremony if the ceremony explains the origin of 
 the festival ! 
 
 Nothing needs, however, to be added to this explana- 
 tion, except, perhaps, to call attention to a subsequent 
 remark of the same critic,^ where he speaks of the same 
 rite of Leviticus, together with that of the wave-loaves 
 of the feast of weeks and of the booths at the feast of 
 tabernacles — all of which things are totally ignored by 
 the two documents claimed to be the oldest of the 
 Pentateuch — as "petrified fragments" of the "old 
 customs," the faint traces which betray the real sources 
 of the development. Indeed, as "petrified fragments" 
 of a primitive heathenism one would suppose them to 
 be as much out of place in PC as Druidical worship 
 would be in St. Paul's Cathedral. 
 
 But there is a marked divergence in the documents, 
 it is said, also in their mode of indicating the time of 
 celebrating the feasts ; PC giving a definite numerical 
 date, while the other two documents speak only in the 
 most general terms of the month only. This, according 
 to Wellhausen,^ points not only to a fixed, uniform 
 regulation of the cultus in the former, but also \o an 
 essential change of its nature. It is true that the dates 
 of the feasts are differently expressed, as it is claimed ; 
 
 1 Geschichte, i. p. 88, note. * Ibid. p. 103. » md. p. 104.
 
 The Proposed Analysis Tested. 107 
 
 but it is not true that they are any the less definitely 
 indicated in the one case than the other. The Pass- 
 over, for example, according to JE, was instituted on 
 going out of Egypt, and the particular day is assumed 
 to be well known. In like manner, in the case of 
 the feast of unleavened bread (Ex. xxxiv. 18), not only 
 is the month mentioned, but it is implied that the 
 particular date had been determined, and was well 
 understood ; the original being properly rendered, with 
 Bunsen's Bibelwerk, "at the time determined on in 
 the month Abib " {in der bestimmten Zeit des Aehren- 
 monats). 
 
 The same may be said of D. It not only ordains the 
 celebration of the Passover on the ground of the 
 deliverance from Egypt, but calls special attention 
 (Deut. xvi. 3) to the day to be observed as that of their 
 coming forth ; it is that which they are to recall. So, 
 too, the date for the observance of the feast of weeks is 
 either assumed in the earlier documents to be well 
 known, as in JE (Ex. xxiii. 16 ; xxxiv. 22), which is 
 familiar also with both the names that are applied to it 
 — feast of weeks and feast of harvest ; or it is clearly 
 pointed out, as in D (Deut. xvi. 9; cf. Lev. xxiii. 15, 16), 
 by means of data which must have been sufficiently 
 current or accessible. The reason why a different 
 designation for the date is employed in PC may have 
 been a desire to provide additional safeguards against 
 the confusion that might otherwise have arisen from 
 the unsettled state of the calendar at that period ; 
 both sun and moon years being probably in use among 
 the Israelites already at the time of the exodus. They 
 certainly could not have been unknown to them.^ 
 
 'Cf. Hoflrnann, ibid. pp. 104, 105; Dillmann, " Ueber Kalenderwesen der Israeliten 
 vordem babylon. 'E.x\\.," Monatsckri/t der konig. Acad. d. Wissenschaft zu Berlin, 
 October 27, 1881.
 
 1 08 The Pentateuch : Its OriHn and Structure. 
 
 'i3 ' 
 
 It is further objected to the ordinary view of the 
 Pentateuch codes, as it respects the feasts, that in D 
 (Deut. xvi. 4, 8) the Passover is represented as the first 
 day of the feast of unleavened bread, while in PC it is 
 assigned to the fourteenth day of the month, a full 
 week being afterward devoted to the connected feast, 
 beginning with the fifteenth. This is supposed to indi- 
 cate an earlier stage of the development. 
 
 The account in Deuteronomy is, indeed, peculiar in 
 apparently merging the observance of the Passover 
 with that of the feast of unleavened bread. That, 
 however, a knowledge of their true relation to one 
 another is presupposed is evident from the distinctions 
 already found in JE (cf. Ex. xxiii. 18; xxxiv. 18, 25), 
 the fact that both names are discriminatingly applied 
 (vs. I, 16), and the manner in which the two feasts are 
 wrought together. From vs. 4^-7 the Passover is 
 clearly referred to in its narrower sense ; while in vs. i 
 the appropriate day for slaying the paschal lamb is 
 assumed to be known and to have been properly 
 observed. And when in vs. 4^ it is said that there 
 shall not remain over till the morning any of the flesh 
 that was killed on the evening of the first day, it is 
 plain that the evening of the fourteenth is meant, and 
 not the first day of the following feast, for a variety of 
 reasons. This language is directly borrowed from JE 
 (Ex. xxiii. 18; xxxiv. 25; cf. also Ex. xii. 6, 10; Num. 
 ix. 12) in its law of the Passover. It is in closest 
 harmony with vs. 7^, where permission is given, after 
 the celebration of the Passover, to return to -the 
 tents — previous, that is, to the observance of the 
 accompanying feast. 
 
 That this cannot mean the morning after the first 
 day of unleavened bread is obvious from the fact that
 
 The Proposed Analysis Tested. ioQ 
 
 such a supposition would be in direct contradiction 
 with the following verse, which calls for a solemn clos- 
 ing assembly on the seventh day, as also with another 
 requirement of this verse, that seven subsequent days, 
 including that of the final assembly, are to be devoted 
 to the feast of unleavened bread. And what is found 
 in vs. 2, where sheep and cattle are spoken of as 
 victims for the Passover feast, offers no objection to 
 this view. The name Passover is here given to the 
 whole series of feasts, as afterward (v. i6) the name 
 Mazzoth is applied to it — a usage, moreover, which 
 perpetuated itself in New Testament times (Mark xiv. i ; 
 Luke xxii. i), and is recognized by Josephus,^ who 
 speaks of " the festival of the unleavened bread, which 
 is called pascha (^a^-xa)." If there were any doubt on 
 this point, it would be settled by the language of vs. 3, 
 where the command is given to eat unleavened bread 
 for seven days in addition to the Passover ("there- 
 unto"), this Hebrew expression referring undoubtedly 
 to the Passover proper, as Riehm ^ and Keil ^ have 
 pointed out, and having no clear sense on any other 
 supposition. 
 
 Still further it is asserted that, while D (in agree- 
 ment with I Kings viii. 66 ; cf. Ezek. xlv. 25) assigns 
 seven days to the celebration of the feast of taber- 
 nacles, PC (2 Chron. vii. 9 agreeing) requires eight. 
 But attention may be called to the brevity of treatment 
 given the subject in JE and D. The former does not 
 even mention the number of days at all (Ex. xxiii. 16 ; 
 xxxiv, 22); and D (Deut. xvi. 13-15) devotes to the 
 matter but three verses, to ten in Leviticus (xxiii.) and 
 twenty-seven in Numbers (xxix.). Marti has made it 
 appear probable that the Deuteronomic form of the law 
 
 ' Antiij. xiv. 2. 2; xvii. 9. 3. "^ Gesctzgcbutig Mosis im Lande Moab, p. 52. 
 
 s Com., in loco.
 
 I lO TJie PeiitateucJi : Its Oriscin and Structure, 
 
 d 
 
 is based on that in Leviticus/ and in one of these 
 Levitical forms (vs. 42) nothing is said of an eighth 
 day. The special object of D in calling attention to 
 this feast, as so often, seems to have been to emphasize 
 the unity of the place of worship. Besides, this eighth 
 day did not, strictly speaking, belong to the feast of 
 the tabernacles, but brought to a close the whole series 
 of yearly feasts. And this, further, might well serve 
 to account for the circumstance that it is not always 
 mentioned in connection with it, either in the codes or 
 the history. 
 
 It is worthy of notice, also, that JE and D make no 
 allusion to two other feasts of the Jewish year, that of 
 trumpets, and the day of atonement. But can it be 
 justly a source of objection to the common view of the 
 Pentateuch legislation that each one of its codes does 
 not cover the precise ground of the others respectively } 
 Just as little, moreover, can this fact be properly 
 employed to support the theory of a later development 
 in PC ; since the ground of this difference may have 
 been purely accidental. 
 
 Take, for example, the feast of the new moon or 
 trumpets. What possible important reason can there 
 have been, from any point of view, why notice should 
 have been taken of it outside of PC .■* The nature of 
 the feast precludes the conjecture that it is found in 
 PC, and there alone, from dogmatic considerations. 
 And, on the other hand, the feast of weeks, one of the 
 great pilgrimage feasts, finding a place in all the codes, 
 receives no notice whatever in the historical .books 
 before Chronicles (2 Chron. viii. 13). So, too, in the 
 entire legislative portions of Deuteronomy there is no 
 recognition of the observance of the weekly Sabbath, 
 
 * yahrbiicherjur J>rot. Theologie, 1880, p. 349.
 
 TJie Proposed Analysis Tested. 1 1 1 
 
 Could the danger of drawing important conclusions 
 respecting the existence of laws and institutions from 
 the presence or absence of allusion to them where we 
 imagine it should be found be more strikingly ex- 
 hibited ? Because one does not find in the Epistles 
 a full reproduction of the Gospels, shall that be a 
 reason, in so far, for rejecting the Gospels? 
 
 The day of atonement, however, it is claimed, is in 
 quite another category. It most naturally, on dog- 
 matic grounds, has its origin in the technical, priestly 
 legislation of PC ; and that, too, in its latest develop- 
 ments subsequent to the exile. Do not codes and his- 
 tory alike point to this period for its actual origination ? 
 
 The times of the exile and some centuries later were, 
 indeed, peculiar in many respects. But the climax of 
 anomalousness would be reached if it were to be sup- 
 posed that a law of this nature originated then, a law 
 which has for one of its principal objects the cleansing 
 of the temple in every part, the temple which either 
 still lay in ruins or existed but as a lamentable 
 reminder of its former grandeur. Moreover, if it 
 originated then, at what precise time did it originate ? 
 When did the spirit begin to work that finally took 
 shape in this elaborate ritual (Lev. xvi. ; xxiii. 26-32 ; 
 Num. xxix. 7-1 1).** The Chronicler makes no allusion 
 to its observance, and his book carries us far beyond the 
 exile. If it did not come up until we find some men- 
 tion that it was kept, then we are borne on, too, beyond 
 the days of Ezra and Nchemiah, who cannot be so 
 readily spared from the council that projected, in times 
 subsequent to the exile, a scheme like this. In short, 
 the argument from silence here overshoots its mark. 
 The silence is unbroken in the historical books of the 
 Old Testament. And there is no evidence of its
 
 1 1 2 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 celebration till more than a century after the supposed 
 introduction of PC in the year B.C. 444. 
 
 Still might we not justly expect some allusion to it 
 in the earlier historical books if it were Mosaic? 
 There is no more ground for demanding this than there 
 would be for demanding express mention of it in the 
 post-exilian literature, — especially by the Chronicler, 
 if it had its origin at that period. That there is, in 
 fact, no point of the Israelitish history previous to the 
 exile reviewed in the Bible which really requires special 
 notice of it has been sufficiently shown by able writers 
 like Hamburger, 1 and most conclusively by Delitzsch.^ 
 The position which this law holds in PC itself has been 
 too much overlooked. It is found in two instances in 
 connection with the proclamation of the other feasts 
 (Lev. xxiii. ; Num. xxix.), as well as in two others, 
 where the remaining ones are not noticed (Lev. xvi. ; 
 XXV. 9). And Delitzsch has shown ^ that the whole 
 Torah is penetrated by its spirit and formally bound to 
 it by minute references in many passages. 
 
 (4) T]ie Priests aud Levitcs. — The hypothesis of our 
 critics here, in harmony with their positions as already 
 noticed, is that in the earliest periods of Israelitish his- 
 tory there was no distinction between priests and lay- 
 men : any one might officiate at the altar ; or, if there 
 were priests by calling, they were to be found only at 
 the more important sanctuaries. Hence JE has noth- 
 ing to say of priests. It does not put an Aaron beside 
 Moses. In D, too, we still find no radical distinction 
 made between priests and Levites ; every Levite is 
 eligible to the priesthood. It is only in PC that the 
 
 1 Real-Encyclop'ddie fiir Bibel uttd Talmud, s.71. 
 
 ^ZeitscliriftJ'ilrKirchUclie IVisscnscJiaft, etc. pp. 171-183. 
 
 ^ Ibid. p. 180 I., and in Riehm's Ilandwiirterbuch s.v. " Versohnungstag," where he 
 says: " Uebrigens aber ist die ganze priesterliche Gesetzebung von Beziehungen auf diesen 
 GeneralsUhntag durchflochten."
 
 The Proposed A nalysis Tested. 1 1 3 
 
 separation is fully made — where, moreover, it is repre- 
 sented that the priests were never anything else than 
 sons of Aaron. This document even goes so far as to 
 put at the head of this caste of priests — contrary to 
 the whole spirit of the Old Testament elsewhere — a 
 high-priest of such prominence and power that the 
 person of a theocratic king would be wholly over- 
 shadowed beside him. 
 
 It must be said, now, in looking at the documents, 
 that the statements concerning JE are but partially 
 correct. The Aaronic priesthood as such does not yet 
 appear. And why should it ? No one holds to its 
 existence before the time of Moses and Aaron ; and 
 the sparse fragments of presumed Mosaic legislation 
 found in this document leave no sufficient place for its 
 introduction. It cannot be said that the manner of 
 their introduction into the history when it comes does 
 not harmonize to the fullest extent with the statements 
 of the Pentateuch concerning the origin of the priest- 
 hood. The pure artificialty of the scheme, claimed by 
 Wellhausen, and to be expected on his theory, does not 
 appear.^ 
 
 That the idea of priests is not foreign to this docu- 
 ment is clear from Gen. xlvii. 22. In Ex. xix. 22, 24, 
 too, the presence of priests is assumed during the 
 giving of the covenant. And from what other class is 
 it so likely that the numerous magistrates here found 
 were drawn (cf. Ex. xxi. 22 ; xxii. 8 ; and especially with 
 xxi. 6 cf. Dcut. XV. 17; xvii. 9; xix. 17) ? So in Joshua, 
 a passage admitted to belong to JE, we find a company 
 of priests bearing the ark of God across the Jordan. 
 Nor is the matter left to occasional references even 
 here. As we have already seen, the idea of a central 
 
 > Ibid. p. 228.
 
 114 The Pcjitatetich: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 sanctuary already at home in it, is inseparable from the 
 legislation concerning the three great annual feasts. 
 Are the feasts, indeed, any way practicable without the 
 sanctuary, or the sanctuary without an established 
 priesthood and a law of sacrifice ? 
 
 As it concerns D, the hypothesis proposed can only 
 be adjusted with even greater violence to the facts. It 
 is declared, for instance, that it recognizes no distinc- 
 tion between priests and Levites, and support is 
 claimed for the position from the uniform title of the 
 former in Deuteronomy, namely, " Levitical priests." 
 But no one will deny that this usage harmonizes admir- 
 ably with the supposed descent of the priests, and as a 
 designation is not without example in the very latest 
 books of the Old Testament, even such as are sup- 
 posed to be saturated with the spirit of PC (Jer. xxxiii. 
 1 8, 21 ; Isa. Ixvi. 21 ; 2 Chron. v. 5 ; xxiii. 18 ; xxx. 27). 
 Moreover, if we look at one of these passages in D 
 (Deut. xviii. 1-8) we shall find that the distinction 
 between these two classes, as a matter of fact, is 
 fairly indicated even here. When (vs. i) "the priests, 
 the Levites, the whole tribe of Levi " are spoken of, 
 why the qualifying phrase if they are understood to 
 mean one and the same class .'' Again (vs. 2), it is said 
 of these two classes, embracing the whole tribe 6f 
 Levi, that the Lord is their inheritance, as he had said 
 unto them. I have already shown elsewhere that this 
 is a direct citation of Num. xviii. 20, 23, and it is to be 
 particularly noted now that the passage in this its orig- 
 inal form is applicable, as here applied, to both priests 
 and Levites. And it will be observed further, in this 
 passage of Deuteronomy, that from vs. 3-5 the priest 
 is plainly distinguished from his tribal brother the 
 Levite, being spoken of by himself ; while in vs. 6-Z
 
 The Proposed Analysis Tested. I15 
 
 the case is reversed. This is made certain by the fact 
 that their diverse maintenance is directly referred to 
 (with vs. 3, 4 cf. vs. 8 and Num. xviii. 21-24). And in 
 the moving picture of a Levite, who had been engaged 
 apparently in some other service in the land, but whose 
 heart now yearns for the service of the central sanctu- 
 ary of his people,- — -besides which no other is recog- 
 nized in this book, ^ — -every feature of the situation, 
 especially the command to extend sympathy and help 
 to him, speaks of a difference in station. When it is 
 said that he is to be permitted to serve there, such 
 service is expressly limited to that of his brethren the 
 Levites, like portion with whom also — understood to 
 be established by statute — he is to have. Could all 
 who serve at this sanctuary, or even the great propor- 
 tion, be priests .■* It is impossible. Even if the author 
 of Deuteronomy had made no distinction, we should be 
 obliged to make it in our own minds. 
 
 But are not the priests in D (Deut. x. 8 ; cf. xxxi. 9) 
 understood to be the proper persons to bear the ark of 
 the covenant, while in the legislation of PC (Num. iii. 
 31 ; iv. 15 ; vii. 9; cf. i Chron. xv. 15) it is made the sole 
 duty of the Levites t This is hardly a fair statement 
 of the case. In the legislation of PC it is nowhere 
 said that the priests sJiall not bear the ark. On the 
 other hand, we do not learn from D that they always 
 have this service to perform (Deut. xxxi. 25). The 
 truth established alike by all phases of the legislation 
 and by the history (see i Sam. vi. 1 5 ; 2 Sam. vi. 13; 
 I Kings viii. 6 ; 2 Chron. v. 4, 5, 7) is, that while this 
 was ordinarily made the duty of the Levites, it was 
 also not considered out of character for the priests on 
 special occasions to do it ; nay, wholly comported with 
 their position when, from being a task, it became for 
 any reason a mark of distinction and honor.
 
 1 1 6 TJie Pentatcjich: Its Orioin and Structure, 
 
 i3 ' 
 
 It cannot be denied, however, that there is in D a 
 marked obscuration of the distinction between priests 
 and Levites. The name given to the former is not 
 that which prevails in HG, — "the priests," — -and 
 especially not that most common in PC — "the priests, 
 the sons of Aaron," or "Aaron and his sons," the 
 fact of their priestly office being understood. They 
 are, indeed, sometimes named " priests " in Deuter- 
 onomy, but in no instance is their descent from Aaron 
 indicated. In a majority of instances, on the other 
 hand, their origin from Levi is emphasized (Deut. xvii. 
 9, 1 8 ; xviii, i ; xxi. 5 ; xxiv. 8 ; xxvii, 9 ; xxxi, 9). 
 And this usage perpetuates itself to a considerable 
 extent in the subsequent literature (Josh. iii. 3 ; viii. 
 33; Jer. xxxiii. 18, 21; Isa. Ixvi. 21), even in works 
 which in other parts show that they are well aware of 
 the distinction (Ezek. xliii. 19; xliv. 15). How is this 
 undeniable and most singular fact to be accounted for ? 
 
 As it seems to us, the peculiar circumstances under 
 which the Book of Deuteronomy professes to have 
 been produced have been too much overlooked. While 
 Aaron was still alive and stood with Moses at the head 
 of the Israelitish community, while the tribe of Levi 
 still remained in the wilderness and stood very much 
 on a level with the other tribes as it respects both 
 privileges and hardships, there could be no special 
 occasion for making the distinction between family 
 and tribe any less marked than it appears in the 
 Levitical law. But on their entrance into Canaan, 
 when the matter of conquest and the division of the 
 land between the tribes would be uppermost, the cir- 
 cumstances were entirely changed. One whole tribe, 
 not a single family only, was to be excluded from that 
 division. How might they be expected to feel when
 
 TJie Proposed Analysis Tested. 117 
 
 they actually confronted the fact ? Because they were 
 Levites, that did not make them any the less men, or 
 any the less tenacious than others of their tribal rights. 
 Already in the experiences of the wilderness, notwith- 
 standing the cloud that hangs over those experiences, 
 we have evidence that these whilom slaves of Egypt 
 cherish the ambitions that aspire to place and power. 
 And the history of the period of the conquest, with 
 . the centuries immediately succeeding, suffices to show 
 that tribal jealousy was a factor that no judicious 
 leader of Israel could afford to overlook. 
 
 This was no time, consequently, when the people were 
 standing on the margin of the promised land, and two 
 and a half tribes had already been apportioned their 
 inheritance, for a man like Moses to overlook the 
 particularly trying position of his own tribe of Levi. 
 Was it not natural that he should seek in every way to 
 make easier for them what was hard enough at best, to 
 be characterized as a really sublime act of self-denial >. 
 
 When, in fact, from that day to this, has a genuine 
 service of the altar been anything else } It might be 
 said that a mere title, the raising of their tribal name 
 into prominence and honor could have weighed but 
 little with them. But it is on such trifles as this that 
 great affairs have turned in history. That the priestly 
 class of the Israelitish people should cease to bear the 
 title "sons of Aaron," and be hailed as "sons of Levi," 
 and the whole tribe be lifted bodily, as it were, by the 
 honorable positions assigned and the kindly mention 
 everywhere made of them in the closing words of the 
 great lawgiver of Sinai, — that could have been no trifle 
 among a people such as came up out of Egypt, where 
 to be a priest was to stand beside the king himself. 
 
 But a special evidence of a later period is said to be
 
 1 1 8 The Pentateuch : Its Orip'in and Structure, 
 
 'i>' 
 
 found in the position assigned in PC to the high-priest. 
 Wellhausen sees in this personage the climax of many 
 centuries of development in the priesthood, and a most 
 exaggerated climax. The figure he makes in the Pen- 
 tateuch, it is claimed, is a wholly disproportionate one, 
 and that to put him back into the age of Moses would 
 be the grossest of anachronisms.^ It should be 
 observed, however, at the outset, that the figure which 
 this critic represents as that of the high-priest, is, in 
 no small degree, one created by his own imagination ; 
 and his way of interpreting the history may be inferred 
 from a single example. He says of Samuel, whom he 
 calls an Ephraimite, that he slept every night in 
 discharge of the duties of his office beside the ark of 
 the Lord to which, according to Lev. xvi., the high- 
 priest was allowed to enter but once a year. 
 
 Being an Ephraimite, as should be well known, was 
 no hindrance to one's being also a Levite (Judges, xvii. 
 7 ; cf. I Chron. vi. 7-13, and Curtiss's note on p. 95 of 
 Lcvitical Priests), which Samuel in all probability was. 
 But that he slept in the most holy place is not affirmed 
 in the text (i Sam. iii. 3) ; it says simply that he slept 
 in " the temple of the Lord where [of course] the ark 
 of God was." 
 
 Wellhausen assumes, further, that the title high- 
 priest is of late origin, and seeks to create the impres- 
 sion that its presence in PC is as noticeable as its 
 absence from the historical books. Yet this title is 
 found but twice altogether in PC (Num. xxxv, 25, 28), 
 and once in HG (Lev. xxi. 10), and the usage in the 
 history is precisely similar, the two titles being em- 
 ployed interchangeably, the simpler one, however, 
 largely preponderating even in the Books of Chronicles, 
 Ezra, and Nehemiah. 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 153 f.
 
 The Proposed Analysis Tested. 119 
 
 It is alleged, too, that in PC the high-priest appears 
 arrayed in royal purple and diadem, and standing at 
 the head of a compact ecclesiastical hierocracy, which 
 shows a total transformation of the nature of the office 
 as set forth in Jewish history. Here again our critic's 
 theory has sorely misled him. The royal purple is 
 indicated by quite a different word from the one em- 
 ployed in the description of the high-priest's robe, as 
 has been pointed out by Hoffmann, Delitzsch, and 
 others ; and the only diadem of this official was 
 a simple turban of white, which formed the covering 
 for his head in the earliest and latest periods alike 
 (cf. Lev. xvi. 4 ; Ex. xxviii. 31 ; xxxix. 22). 
 
 In short, a single fact is sufficient to show how com- 
 pletely all historical ground fails for regarding the high- 
 priest of PC as a post-exilian creation. It is enjoined 
 in this document that the high-priest shall be anointed 
 on entering upon his office, and the history corroborates 
 the employment of the rite (Ex. xxviii. 41 ; xxx. 30 ; 
 Lev. iv. 3, 5, 16; vii. 36; x. 7 ; xxi. 12). Yet this also 
 Wellhausen ^ regards as a novelty of the exile. " He 
 receives," he says, " on his induction into office the 
 anointing, like a king, and is called accordingly 'the 
 anointed high-priest.' " But if this procedure be, as is 
 supposed, a product of this late period, how does it 
 happen that it occurs in no single case as a usage in it .'' 
 Even as early as Zechariah iii. we find the high-priest 
 installed without ceremony. How is it possible to sup- 
 pose that the subtle hierocrats of this age made some- 
 thing found by themselves to be unnecessary or 
 impracticable so imposing a feature of their ritual } It 
 is probable that one principal reason why this earlier 
 custom was not continued after the return from 
 
 1 Ibid, p. 154.
 
 1 20 TIic Pentateuch : Its Orio-in and Strncturc, 
 
 i>' 
 
 Babylon was an uncertainty as to the method of 
 compounding the anointing oil or the proper solemniza- 
 tion of the rite.^ 
 
 When, in fact, we look more closely at the historic 
 position of the priesthood, including the high-priest, as 
 reflected in the literature of the exile, we see in how 
 many important respects it refuses to yield us the form 
 demanded by the code supposed to be the offspring of 
 this very period. It is something less, but it is also 
 something more. And it would have been more in 
 keeping with their professed aim, if our critics — 
 instead of questioning the prophetical books so minutely, 
 and turning not only the infrequent utterances of the 
 Hebrew seers on these topics, but their very silence, 
 into proofs of the non-existence of a large part of the 
 Pentateuch in their time — had given more attention 
 to the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Chronicles, 
 where, if anywhere, this strange theory should find 
 positive support. 
 
 Why, for example, has it been overlooked that sub- 
 sequent to the time of King Josiah the historical books 
 recognize a sort of high-priest of secondary rank, of 
 which PC knows absolutely nothing (cf. 2 Kings xxv. 
 i8; Jer. Hi. 24; 2 Chron. xxxi. 13; Neh. xi. 11). Some- 
 times he is called "the second priest," and again "the 
 ruler." The Talmud describes his office as that of a 
 "leader of the priests," his ordinary business being to 
 assist the high-priest, and in case of his disability to 
 represent him on the day of atonement. Is it possible 
 that an office of this character should have been over- 
 looked in a code of the nature of PC, if it came into 
 existence to any considerable extent at or after the 
 time of the exile '\ 
 
 ' a Ex XXX 22-33 and Delitzsch, Zeitschrift, etc. p. 337.
 
 TJie Proposed Analysis Tested. 121 
 
 Again, the Books of Chronicles are deemed the 
 clearest historical mirror of the "Priests' Code." Ac- 
 cordingly we might expect, at least, an adumbration of 
 its main features. Why, then, in so characteristic a 
 matter as its account of the organization of the service 
 of the Levites, do they take scarcely any account of 
 the code (r Chron. xvi., xviii., xxiv., xxvii.) ? The whole 
 treatment of the temple music is confined to the history, 
 not a word in the code, excepting only what is said of 
 the trumpets of the priests (Num. x. i-io). To know 
 how important a matter this service was regarded, and 
 to what dimensions it grew, with its thousands of per- 
 formers and its leaders, a Heman, an Asaph, and a 
 Jeduthun standing alongside of David himself in the 
 honor of a conspicuous place in the Psalter, one must 
 refer to the Chronicler and to him alone. 
 
 Here, too, we make the discovery of new offices and 
 titles for the Levites : "door-waiters" (i Chron. xv. 23), 
 "trustees" of sacred funds (Neh. xii. 44), " secretaries " 
 in swarms (2 Chron. xxxiv. 1 3), the so-called " servants 
 of the priests " in numerous classes (cf. 2 Chron. viii. 
 14 f.). Most of the leading kings of Judah, in fact, 
 after Solomon's reign either renewed the innovations 
 which he and his father had made, or introduced other 
 changes in the arrangements of the temple to suit their 
 times. And among the Levites who are found return- 
 ing after the exile are still other classes (Ezra ii. 55, 58 ; 
 viii. 20), of which the previous history gives no account. 
 Among these one bears a name which well serves to 
 show how wide a period actually stretches between the 
 origin of the Levitical code and the times we are con- 
 sidering. In that code the Levites, as over against tlio 
 priests, receive the title " Ncthunim " (Num. iii. 9; viii. 
 1 6, 19 ; xviii. 6), while here they are termed " Nethi-
 
 122 TJie Pentateuch: Its OriHn and Structure. 
 
 i>' 
 
 nim." How is this abrujDt change in usage to be ex- 
 plained on the hypothesis of a common chronological 
 origin ? 
 
 A still more surprising incongruity, also, may be 
 pointed out.^ It is well known that the relative number 
 of Levites returning from the captivity was very small, 
 in the first instance but one twelfth the number of the 
 priests ; and in the second, even less. It is matter of 
 tradition, which is fully supported by the later history,^ 
 that in order to punish this defection Ezra withdrew 
 from them the stipulated tithe, transferring it to the 
 priests. But if this be so, how is it that the fact is not 
 recognized in the legislation of PC .'' We find the law 
 of tithes given in D, not only in full force, but put, it 
 may be said, in even a stronger form (Num. xviii. 21, 
 24), the Levites being no longer obliged to share their 
 portion with others, but enjoying it exclusively by 
 themselves.^ 
 
 ^ Cf. Delitzsch, s.v. " Leviten " in Riehm's Hand^vorterbuch. 
 
 ' Josephus, Aiitiq. iv. 4. 4; xx. 8. 8; Heb. vii. 5. 
 
 ^ Cf. Watson, The Laiu and ike Prophets, p. 84 f. : " The promotion and enforcement 
 of God's orderly worship, and of his worship alone, the authors [of PC in the exile] seem 
 utterly to miss . . . here. For orderly worship, a carefully arranged code of laws was 
 necessary. The laws of the Pentateuch are anything but this. You have laws intermixed 
 with the history, laws repeated, laws inserted, apparently as they were given by God, 
 or as the need arose. In its lack of arrangement, it is just the book which Moses 
 might have been supposed to write during the desert wanderings, when he had to bear the 
 burden of the people alone. But Ezra — to take the sacerdotal legislation only, of which 
 he is said to be the author — -wanted a working code for certain definite purposes. It is 
 strange he could not have contrived something better. When we examine his work, we 
 find he has been more anxious to give his laws and precepts an antique form than to make 
 them practical, working laws. He stamps the mark of the wilderness so deeply on his 
 laws that they are often, without adaptation, unfit for use in the Promised Land. He 
 seems to study confusion. He mixes the history which illustrates his law and the laws 
 which enforce the teaching of his history. Considering his circumstances and his very 
 practical purpose, we can find no excuse for him; unless, indeed, we hold that his object 
 was to forge a book which would completely deceive, rather than a law which would really 
 work." 
 
 "And yet Ezra is not a clumsy workman; he is a consummate artist. He is able to 
 invent narratives which presuppose his laws, and to contrive coincidences which appear to 
 be undesigned. Take the narrative of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, as an instance. Here 
 he is inventing a narrative to enforce his law by which the sons of Aaron are distinguished
 
 The Proposed Analysis Tested. 123 
 
 (5) Maintenance of Priests and Levites. — It is held, 
 also, that the codes arrange themselves in chronological 
 order from JE to PC, as it respects the support 
 accorded to the priests and Levites severally. Origi- 
 nally, it is claimed, the sacrifices were occasions for 
 sacred meals, to which the priests, if there were any, 
 were invited. But it was wholly a matter of courtesy, 
 any claims they made for services being satisfied by the 
 proprietors of the respective altars in some way which 
 might be agreed upon. The primitive literature repre- 
 sented by JE reflects this state of things. But in D, 
 already, the priesthood is found better supported, 
 certain parts of the animal sacrificed being by statute 
 allowed them ; while in PC the acme is reached, the 
 demand of the priesthood having become at this date 
 something enormous. " It is incredible," says Well- 
 hausen,^ " all that, in the end, must be given up to 
 them. What originally stood side by side is heaped 
 together ; what was left free and undefined is brought 
 to measure and prescribed." Not that they really could 
 
 from the other Levites — one of the main objects of his work. As you will remember, this 
 is said to have been the Jewish way of writing history. Now it is plain there would be no 
 difficulty in framing a simple narrative, embodying a divine punishment on Levitical dis- 
 content. But Ezra's plan is most subtle. He joins the Reubenites and Levites in one 
 conspiracy. There he makes one point. The Reubenites and Levites, we find, were 
 close neighbors in the desert encampments. Better still, he joins two tribes together which 
 might be supposed to have similar causes of discontent. The Reubenites would be 
 jealous for that priesthood which was theirs by right of birth; the Levites would be 
 jealous for that priesthood which had been given the whole tribe for their faithfulness at 
 Sinai. Mark what a genius Ezra is. When he writes, the Levites are smarting under 
 a recent wrong; they have had the priesthood for centuries and it has just been taken 
 away from them. Thejealousy of the Reubenites, on the other hand, is a remote tr.adition, 
 or possibly an invention of Ezra's brain. Ezra pieces together in this marvelous fashion 
 this actual, present jealousy of Levi with this remote, hypothetical jealousy of Reuben, 
 so as to give his story a semblance of truth. He is bold as well as subtle. He strikes at 
 the most famous of all the Levitical families, the family of Korah, a name which his 
 descendants had brought to honor. He is so bold as to be careless; for, at first sight, he 
 leaves us to imagine that Korah's family, so famous in after history, was wholly destroyed 
 along with their father. Was Ezra or any one else capable of thus fitting his history to 
 his laws? If not, we must remember that this narrative alone, if true, brings back the 
 sacerdotal legislation to the Mosaic times," 
 1 Ibid. p. 164,
 
 1 24 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 have expected to fleece the people to this extent, how- 
 ever, for such a provision as that of the forty-eight 
 Levitical cities was a pure invention, at once unexe- 
 cuted and unexecutable.^ 
 
 Now, as it concerns JE, what rational ground can 
 there be for assuming that it came into being at a time 
 when as yet priests were not officially recognized or 
 provided by statute with a sufficient support ? At best, 
 it can only be a few exceptional instances which our 
 critics find in abnormal circumstances and an unsettled 
 period (cf. i Sam. ii. 12-16), over against which we are 
 able, as already shown, to point in this very document 
 to examples where priests are found in high official 
 position, and enjoying all that is implied in it of recog- 
 nition and support (Ex. xix. 20-25 ; Josh, iii. 9-17). It 
 is inconceivable that the priests selected to bear the 
 ark across the Jordan before the hosts of Israel should 
 be of the starveling, vagabond class described by Well- 
 hausen. 
 
 As relates to D, we are unable to find anything justi- 
 fying the extreme position so confidently taken. It is 
 absurd to suppose that it means to give (Deut. xviii.) 
 a full account of all that, in its time, was appropriated 
 for the support of the priesthood. In that case to have 
 been a "stranger" or a "foreigner," under the mild 
 Deuteronomic code, would have been far preferable to 
 serving at the miserly altar of Israel's only sanctuary. 
 
 The hypothesis, moreover, is positively precluded by 
 the form of the legislation in D. Its direct citation 
 (xviii. 2) of earlier laws could scarcely be more direct 
 if chapter and verse were given. The Deuteronomic 
 form of the law, in short, is but a repetition and 
 enlargement under circumstances which specially called 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 168 f.
 
 The Proposed Analysis Tested. 125 
 
 for both, of previous enactments. The people after 
 more than a generation of life in camp are now to be 
 scattered up and down a wide extent of country, with 
 difficulty traversable, and on both sides of the Jordan. 
 A most important restriction touching the slaughter of 
 animals for food has been accordingly removed in the 
 very opening lines of the code (xii. 1 5). The revenues 
 of the sanctuary, however, must suffer a proportionate 
 abatement. Supposing, then, that the code of the 
 middle books is already in force, what more natural 
 than that some compensation should be made to the 
 officiating priests .'' As we have noticed, their title as 
 " Levitical priests " no longer represents that exclusive 
 dignity to which the " sons of Aaron " might have 
 aspired. Shall it not be made to appear that the 
 changes inaugurated imply no lack of appreciation of 
 the priestly station and function ? The offices to which 
 elsewhere in this book they are seen to be eligible 
 require this (xvii. 12; xx. 2; xxvi. 3). In what a 
 lamentable condition, indeed, must the religion of 
 Israel have been if men of the rank of supreme magis- 
 trates in the administration of justice must submit, 
 under the name of a support, to the miserable pittance 
 which this form of the code, taken by itself, grants to 
 its priests. 
 
 And if we compare the regulations of D and PC we 
 shall find that the common theory best harmonizes 
 with the facts. In Deuteronomy xviii. 3, 4, it is said : 
 " And this shall be the right of the priests from the 
 people who offer sacrifices, whether ox or sheep, one 
 shall give the priest the shoulder, the two cheeks, and 
 the stomach. [And in addition to] the first-fruits of 
 the corn, the wine, and the oil, the first shearing of 
 the sheep." What is added in parenthesis serves to
 
 1 26 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 present the true relation of this rule to that of PC. 
 The introduction (vs. r, 2) shows that the code of the 
 middle books is kept strictly in view. There (Num. 
 xviii. 12, 13) the first-fruits have been already promised 
 to the priests ; here this fact is recalled in order to add 
 to it the wholly new source of income, the first shear- 
 ings of the sheep. That the parts of the animal 
 assigned in D to the priests are over and above those 
 given them in connection with the peace-offerings of 
 PC appears from the language used. The terms are 
 carefully chosen. Along with the stomach they are 
 assigned here the " forequarter " and the two cheeks ; 
 there (Lev. x. 15), it is the "wave-breast " and "heave- 
 leg." In PC it is the peace-offerings that are referred 
 to (Lev. vii. 1 1 ; cf. Num. xviii. 11); in D, as it would 
 appear (note the phrase, vs. 3, " from the people " ), 
 any and all sacred meals which might be made at the 
 sanctuary or places contiguous (xii. 17; xv. 19, 20). 
 
 But are there not direct contradictions of PC to be 
 found in D, making the ordinary hypothesis that they 
 have the same origin impossible .-* So it is announced 
 and specifications are given. In Deuteronomy, xii. 
 6, 7, 17, for example, the people are forbidden to 
 eat the tithe of their products, except at the central 
 sanctuary, and the prohibition is later repeated (xiv. 
 23). In PC, on the other hand (Num. xviii. 21, 24, 
 26, 28), the tithes are given by a perpetual ordinance 
 to the Levites as reward for their services at the 
 sanctuary ; and they are even enjoined to give a 
 tenth of their tenth to the priests. 
 
 All this is at once admitted, and may be as readily 
 explained on the ground that the object of the tithe 
 in D is wholly different from that of PC, and is meant 
 to be understood as a second additional tithe, although 
 not as wide in its application as the first.
 
 The Proposed Analysis Tested. 12/ 
 
 Still another tithe, to be made once in three years 
 for festival purposes at home, is a feature of the legis- 
 lation peculiar to Deuteronomy (xiv, 28; xxvi. 12) 
 and quite appropriate to its supplementary character. 
 The three tithings taken together and carried out to 
 the letter can in no sense be regarded as oppressive in 
 their character or in the least out of harmony with 
 one another. At any rate we have direct historical 
 evidence that the Jews were accustomed to observe 
 such a system of tithing. And this furnishes the 
 strongest confirmatory testimony that the three tithes 
 were all and severally enjoined in the code.^ 
 
 A more serious conflict still, it is thought, shows 
 itself in the matter of the firstlings of the flocks and 
 herds. In D (xii. 6, 17; xiv. 23; xv. 19), they are 
 devoted to festival purposes at the sanctuary ; in PC 
 (Num. xviii. 15-19), they are given to the priests. 
 Here is an apparent disagreement, truly, but it is more 
 in appearance than in reality. It is true that the Levit- 
 ical code puts the firstlings into the hands of the 
 priests, but not for any purpose they may choose. 
 They are made theirs to sacrifice ; and only after the 
 proper portion had been offered on the altar was 
 another fixed jDortion to be theirs for food, " as the 
 wave-breast and the right leg" were theirs (Ex. xxix. 
 26-28 ; cf. Deut. xviii. 3). That in Deuteronomy the 
 more popular side of the law is presented, and these 
 very firstlings, while still belonging to the Lord, are 
 regarded as proper material for sacred meals on the 
 part of their former owners and their offerers is not to 
 call in question the legislation of the Book of Num- 
 bers. It is only to shed additional light upon it. The 
 people, that is, the original owners of the animals, are 
 
 ^Tobit, i. 7 ; Josephus, Aniiq. iv. 8. 8.
 
 128 The P eiitateiicJi : Its Ongin and Structure. 
 
 understood to be sharers with the priests on these 
 occasions, as was doubtless the case in the other offer- 
 ings. In neither phase of the legislation is there any- 
 exclusive right given ; that of PC especially limits it 
 (Num. xviii. i8). 
 
 Might it not have been expected that our critics, 
 who seem to be much concerned that the priests are 
 granted in this document, at the expense of the people, 
 privileges so wholly disproportionate and oppressive, 
 would have discovered this very natural method of 
 materially curtailing their perquisites } 
 
 Is it in any sense, moreover, true that in PC the 
 claims of this class have advanced to an incredible 
 extent, and become the intolerable yoke that is repre- 
 sented .'' Such a conclusion must be the result of a 
 very superficial examination of the subject, or a much 
 higher valuation of the income of the priests than 
 is either just or reasonable. Wellhausen has by no 
 means exhausted the list of things which, first or last, 
 might be claimed by the priest,^ although making some 
 mistakes in the enumeration, as others have already 
 pointed out.^ He fails, however, to discriminate fairly 
 as it respects the real value of the priestly per- 
 quisites. It should have been made clear that there 
 was understood to be a wrong as well as a right 
 way of appropriating and using them. Some of them 
 belonged exclusively to the officiating priest ; others to 
 the whole class, — some might be consumed by the 
 priest in company with his household ; others, only by 
 such male priests as were ceremonially clean. The 
 time and place of their consumption, too, were defi- 
 nitely fixed by law (Lev. vii. 15-17). It should have 
 been especially shown, or at least not concealed, that 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 164. * Hoffmann, ibid. 1880, p. 143 t
 
 TJie Proposed Analysis Tested. 129 
 
 the great mass of these allotted gifts were, in their 
 very nature, exceedingly perishable, being articles of 
 food that could only have a transient value. There 
 was little, indeed, of anything that fell exehisively to 
 the priest, even in PC, that could do more than furnish 
 him a bare physical support. 
 
 Moreover, the propriety of going beyond PC, into 
 the historical books of the exile, in order to find mate- 
 rial for depreciating this class is more than question- 
 able. That the support of the sanctuary, in addition 
 to their own support, was in the earlier times expected 
 to come out of what was contributed to those offici- 
 ating there is to be inferred from the fact that no 
 other provision was made for it in any of the codes. 
 When, therefore, Wellhausen cites Neh. x. 32, 33 to 
 show that it was not the case (in the later times), but 
 that special provision was made, he cites a powerful 
 witness against his own hypothesis. The history and 
 the code in its sujDposed much revised and finally com- 
 pleted post-exilian form are thus shown to be strikingly 
 out of harmony with one another. 
 
 And when, now, in addition to what has been said, it 
 is considered that no part of the legislation of the Pen- 
 tateuch contains a syllable concerning the collection 
 for the priests of these dues, that there is no legal 
 limitation of the amount of the first-fruits to be given 
 them, and that hence in all periods their actual income 
 depended almost wholly on the generosity and the 
 religious fidelity of their countrymen, the whole sub- 
 ject assumes a wholly different aspect. It will, at 
 least, appear most clearly that the document named 
 PC does not make it one of its chief aims to increase 
 the power and wealth of this alleged favorite class. 
 
 Still more unfortunate, if anything, are our critics
 
 1 30 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 in the use they make of the legislation respecting 
 the Levitical cities (Num. xxxv. 1-8 ; Josh. xiv. 4). If 
 they are a pure fabrication of PC, having the same 
 general aim to increase the wealth and influence of the 
 priesthood, why are they given to the Levites, — to the 
 tribe, and not to the family .'' And why do we find in 
 a document having this purpose and springing up in 
 the exile so singular a division of these cities, only 
 thirteen of the whole finally falling to the priests (Josh, 
 xxi.), notwithstanding the fact that they greatly out- 
 numbered the Levites at the period of the return from 
 Babylon, and always outranked them, whether in PC or 
 out of it .? Surely nothing could be more inconsequent 
 than to make this an invention of the later priests. 
 
 And not only does the theory of invention condemn 
 itself; it is proved false by many facts of Israelitish 
 history. It is not true that we discover in this history 
 no traces of the law or efforts to enforce it, as Riehm 
 has conclusively shown.^ In fact, the fundamental 
 assumption of our critics that according to the records 
 of the Hebrew people the priesthood had at first but a 
 'modicum of power, and that it gradually developed along 
 the centuries until subsequent to the exile the apex of 
 the pyramid was reached, is radically incorrect. To 
 make such an impression possible the history must be 
 tortured and schooled and made to tell a preconcerted 
 story. The sojourn in Egypt must be denied ; and just 
 as stoutly any connection of this class with the Jewish 
 lawgiver through Aaron its head. There must be an 
 overlooking of those passages in which JE itself speaks 
 of the priests, with the highest respect, and of the 
 numerous points in the history where to the hand of 
 the priest are gathered the reins of highest influence 
 even in civil affairs. 
 
 1 HandiuSrterbuch, *.». " Levitenstadte,"
 
 The Proposed Analysis Tested. 131 
 
 It was inevitable, in the nature of things, that in the 
 checkered history of Israel, especially during the wars 
 of the conquest, the rule of the judges, the rise and 
 dominance of mighty prophets, this class should seem 
 sometimes to be overshadowed, and that particularly in 
 the spiritual decadence of the people the proverb should 
 be fulfilled, "like people, like priest" (Isa. xxiv. 2). 
 
 But in all this there is no justification for the sus- 
 picion that the Levitical legislation was not behind 
 them. Their failure in all cases to live up to it is 
 sufficiently clear and need not be denied. It is strik- 
 ingly paralleled in the better furnished ministry of the 
 Christian church. The purest and most dutiful Aaronic 
 priest is only debtor to the confession of the noblest 
 and most faithful servant of Christ : " I count not 
 myself to have apprehended." The standard in both 
 cases is planted far above the attainment, and in both 
 alike proves thereby the divinity of its origin and the 
 perfectness of its ends.
 
 IV. 
 
 LAWS PECULIAR TO DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 The importance of the Book of Deuteronomy in all 
 discussions touching the age and origin of the Penta- 
 teuch cannot well be overestimated. Leading critics, 
 indeed, like De Wette ^ and Graf,^ have regarded it as 
 decisive battleground. Lying in the midst of the sup- 
 posed development of Pentateuch literature from Moses 
 to Ezra, it ought to show, if it appear anywhere, positive 
 evidence of the evolution then in progress. It ought 
 to show this especially in its legislation, which, as the 
 name "Deuteronomy" imports, forms the body, and is 
 undoubtedly the main object, of the work. It ought to 
 show it most of all in such laws as are original with this 
 book and intrinsically represent it. 
 
 It is said of the Pentateuch codes in general that they 
 but reflect, in their several parts, the changing social 
 and ethical standard of the Hebrew people during many 
 hundred years previous to the exile. If this be true, 
 
 * Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischeti Einleitung. \ Neu bearbeitet von Schrader, 
 Berlin, 1869, pp. -iii^.; and Studien u. Kriiiken, 1837, p. 953: "The view taken of 
 Deuteronomy is for the criticism of the Pentateuch decisive." 
 
 2 Die Geschichtlichen B'ucher des Alien Testaments, p. 4 f. ; cf. also Kleinert, Das 
 Deuteronomiitm, p. 3: " Denn zwar dieses erkennt De Wette an, und hat damit fiir 
 seine Nachfolger einen Fingerzeig gegeben, dessen Nichtbeachtung fast immer der 
 kritischen Untersuchung zur Schadigung gereicht hat: dass in dem Deuteronomium das 
 i)(><i /JJil TtdU (TTW fiir die ganze kritische Frage iiber den Pentateuch gegeben ist." 
 Wellhausen, on the other hand, with a good deal of unnecessary bravado, rules the whole 
 matter out of the discussion as something already settled. He says (Geschichte, p. 9) : 
 " Ueber den Ursprung des Deuteronomiums herrscht noch weniger Zweifel; in alien 
 Kreisen, wo iiberhaupt auf Anerkennung wissenschaftlicher Resultate zu rechnen ist, 
 wird anerkannt, dass es in derZeit verfasst ist, in deres entdeckt . . . wurde."
 
 Laws Peculiar to Dc2iteronomy. 133 
 
 and they are in no sense ideal or prophetical in char- 
 acter, the peculiar product of a superhuman revelation, 
 or inspiration at the genesis, and throughout the 
 progress of a much more limited development, the 
 fact should appear most plainly, not so much in the 
 features that are common to all of them, but rather in 
 such as are exceptional and individual. There are some 
 laws, as for example that regarding public worship, or 
 that of the feasts, which, in a form more or less modi- 
 fied, appear, as we have seen, in each of the three great 
 divisions of the Pentateuch legislation. In such cases 
 there is ample room for discussion, in fact, imperative 
 need of it, on a host of questions quite apart from the 
 main question. It must first of all be determined 
 whether these diverse forms are, as alleged, the result 
 of widely varying circumstances of place and time, or 
 may fairly be regarded as evidence simply of another 
 point of view within the same period and on the part 
 of the same legislator. Where, however, a law is found 
 in but one of these divisions and in but one form, the 
 area of debatable ground is greatly lessened. We are 
 then prepared at once to test our critical theory con- 
 cerning the age of the document and to do it under 
 circumstances of the least embarrassment. 
 
 Now, it is well known that no inconsiderable portion 
 of the Deuteronomic laws are of this character. And 
 it is a highly significant fact in itself, since it is just 
 what we might expect on the common hypothesis that 
 this code chronologically concludes the legislation of 
 the Pentateuch. But it is also of value as furnishing 
 a capital opportunity to prove the validity of a favorite 
 tenet of many modern critics. 
 
 Out of the full score of these early laws original with 
 Deuteronomy, and confined to it, there are some, it is
 
 134 l^^i-^ Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 true, of such a nature that a chronological test can only 
 with difficulty be applied to them. But with the 
 majority it is quite otherwise. Their response to such 
 a test is both immediate and categorically direct. The 
 only question remaining to be asked, that is, for those 
 who will press a question of this sort, is whether these 
 laws are seriously meant, or, like the so-called " Blue 
 Laws " of Connecticut, are but ^//(?.s-z-statutes, whose 
 originator was satisfied if they were founded on fact 
 and were not easily distinguishable from fact. 
 
 The first example of a law peculiar to Deuteronomy 
 is that concerning scductioji to idolatry. It occupies 
 the entire thirteenth chapter and appears in three 
 sections : (i) as applying to false prophets (vs. 2-6) ; 
 (2) to individual members of the community whom it 
 rigorously singles out from the most intimate relation- 
 ships (vs. 7-12) ; and (3) to whole cities which might 
 become infected with the crime (vs. 13-19). The close 
 logical connection, both of the subject and its treatment 
 with what immediately precedes, is the first thing that 
 attracts attention. 
 
 The Deuteronomic code, opening with the twelfth 
 chapter, begins with a command addressed to the 
 people to totally destroy idolatry and remove every 
 vestige of it from the land which the Lord their God 
 is giving them as a possession (xii. 2-4). Next follow 
 directions respecting their own place of worship. 
 There is to be but one such place, and the Lord him- 
 self will designate it (xii. 5-28). Then comes the 
 present law prohibiting, under penalties the severest 
 known to the Pentateuch, efforts from any quarter to 
 draw away the people into heathenism. 
 
 In these three phases of the law, together with a 
 later section (xvii. 2-5) on the punishment of Hebrew
 
 Laws Peculiar to Deuteronomy. 135 
 
 idolaters, we have what seems intended to be a com- 
 plete presentation of the subject as well on its positive 
 as its negative side. It is not easy to see how any 
 code could have more fully met the requirements of the 
 case on the supposition that the Israelitish people are 
 what and where they purport to be. It offers by far 
 the most developed form of Pentateuch legislation on 
 this theme. That of the middle books, notwithstand- 
 ing the fact that it is supposed to have originated 
 during the exile when the popular spirit of opposition 
 to idolatry really culminated, is not only less compre- 
 hensive but much less stringent. And what more 
 natural } The gigantic evil against which a struggle, 
 unsuccessful for a full millennium was to be under- 
 taken, now fairly confronted them. Every part of the 
 law breathes the spirit of originality and of initiatory 
 movement. There are two allusions to the exodus 
 from Egypt (vs. 6, 11). The crossing of the Jordan 
 is in immediate prospect ; participial forms and tlie 
 future tense of the verb characterize every reference 
 to the promised land. 
 
 On the contrary, there is nothing in the times of 
 King Josiah, eight centuries later, where critics would 
 anchor our code, save his singular zeal for purity of 
 worship, that could suggest the origin of such a stat- 
 ute in his time. He did, it is true, slay on their own 
 altars some priests of the high places of Samaria (2 
 Kings xxiii. 20) ; but the history of that period fur- 
 nishes no occasion for the peculiar specifications of our 
 law touching idolatrous /r^///tVi' (vs. 2-6) ; and its form, 
 in other respects, especially in its allusions to Canaani- 
 tish neighbors, would have been an anachronism at so 
 late a day. 
 
 It is universally admitted that the reforms of Josiah
 
 1 36 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 were largely inspired and directed by this law. But 
 how is it to be accounted for, unless by the account it 
 gives of itself? On no principle of development could 
 it have been the spontaneous product of the age 
 wherein it wrought so mightily. The reformation in 
 the days of Hezekiah and other earlier kings is also 
 evidence against it. If, however, from the period of 
 the conquest it had existed and lain comparatively 
 dormant, but now, when the divided kingdom was 
 hastening to its fall, under the divine Providence it had 
 come to its inherited right and its legitimate influence, 
 the prodigious effects produced may be readily under- 
 stood. There is many an analogous fact in the history 
 of Christianity. In the vegetable world, too, as is well 
 known, there are plants that reach their bloom only 
 after lengthy periods of seeming unproductiveness. 
 But there is no period when the flower is not present 
 in germ or that all the energies of the plant are not 
 steadily working toward it. 
 
 The next independent law of Deuteronomy relates 
 to the appointment of judges and officers (xvi. 18): 
 "Judges and officers shall ye appoint for yourselves 
 in all your gates." By "judges," magistrates seem to 
 be meant, and by "ofificers," their assistants. In a 
 second passage (xvii. 8-13) it is further enjoined that 
 if these local magistrates find any case brought before 
 them for decision too difficult, they — the judges or 
 elders, not the people — may carry it up to the central 
 place of worship and submit it to the Levitical priests 
 or to the judge, that is, supreme magistrate who might 
 be ruling in those days ; a verdict thus obtained should 
 be irreversible. 
 
 The law obviously contemplates a settled order of 
 things in the land of Canaan. It does not, however.
 
 Laws Peculiar to Deiitcronomy. 137 
 
 presuppose it. The cities referred to are those which 
 the Lord their God is "on the point of giving" them. 
 It shows, no doubt, an advance as it respects the insti- 
 tutions of the wilderness (Ex. xviii. 13-26; cf. Num. xi. 
 16, 17, 24-29), but an advance along the same line. 
 The original provision for seventy elders is so 
 extended as to adapt it to circumstances in immediate 
 prospect. The dignity and the civil power which, up 
 to this time, had inhered in Moses and the high-priest 
 are now to be vested in the priests of the central sanc- 
 tuary and the chief magistrate of the nation. 
 
 And this arrangement seems actually to have been 
 carried out, at least in its main features, in the post- 
 Mosaic history, by Joshua (viii. 33 ; xxiv. i), during the 
 time of the judges (cf. Ruth iv. 1-9), and in the life of 
 Samuel. It is maintained, however, that in this whole 
 matter our author simply imputes to Moses something 
 that must have originated at a much later day. Even 
 so conservative a critic as Riehm^ affirms that the 
 existence in his time of a court of appeal is presup- 
 posed by the writer of Deuteronomy. And inasmuch 
 as the history gives us no account of an institution like 
 it before the reign of Jehosaphat (2 Chron. xix. 8-1 1) 
 five centuries later, we must conclude that the law 
 relating to judges and officers was made after his day. 
 
 To this reasoning and conclusion alike we are quite 
 unprepared to subscribe. For, in the first place, if 
 anything is taken for granted in the Deuteronomic law 
 of the higher court, it is the possibility and the custom 
 of appeal, not the existence of this very court. With 
 such a general custom the people had been familiar at 
 least for a generation, the harder questions having all 
 along been carried to Moses and Aaron, and after 
 
 1 Ceseizgebunf^ Mosis, p. 62 ; Handworterbuc/i, s.v. " Gerichtswesen."
 
 138 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Aaron's death to Moses and Eleazer (Num. xxvii. 2). 
 This practice was now to be continued, the highest 
 civil authority acting for the lawgiver. 
 
 In the second place, the court instituted by Jehosa- 
 phat was, in some of its features, a totally different 
 affair from the one before us. It was composed of 
 priests and Levites, instead of Levitical priests. It 
 had a civil, as well as ecclesiastical, head acting at one 
 and the same time. Our law presents them as acting 
 independently. The civil head is represented by a 
 family chief of Judah, ndgtdh, an official unknown to 
 Deuteronomy in this connection, with whom are asso- 
 ciated also some of the chiefs of the fathers of Israel ; 
 while the high-priest is the ecclesiastical head. 
 
 In the third place, we find David, a hundred and fifty 
 years before the time of Jehosaphat, apparently guided 
 in his appointment of officials by the Deuteronomic 
 code (i Chron. xxiii. 1-4; xxvi. 29-32). It might, 
 indeed, be objected that this account of what David did 
 is found only in the much depreciated history of the 
 Chronicler. But if the second of his books be compe- 
 tent authority for the alleged acts of Jehosaphat, the 
 first should be thought no less so for those of David. 
 
 The law for \.\iQ piinisJinient of Hebirw idolaters (xvii. 
 2-5) has been already casually mentioned in connection 
 with that concerning seduction to idolatry. Like the 
 latter, it professes to be anticipatory legislation (v, 2) ; 
 and there would be no further need of calling attention 
 to it were it not for a peculiar species of idolatry to 
 which it refers : " And hath gone and served other gods 
 and worshiped them as the sun, or the moon, or any of 
 the host of heaven which I have not commanded " (v. 3). 
 The worship of the heavenly bodies, Sabaeanism, is here 
 recognized as a possibility. But from the historical
 
 Laws Peculiar to Dcntcrojiomy. 139 
 
 books of the Old Testament (2 Kings xxi. 3 ff. ; 
 2 Chron. xxxiii. 3 ff.), we learn that the public introduc- 
 tion of such worship injiidah took place in the reign of 
 Manasseh, at the beginning of the seventh century 
 before Christ. It is accordingly held that the present 
 law would be out of place in the time of Moses, the 
 tacit assumption, of course, being that a law never pre- 
 cedes, but always follows, the outbreak of the crime 
 against which it is directed. 
 
 But, were such a principle to be admitted in the 
 present case, the conclusion reached would by no 
 means follow, since there is overwhelming evidence 
 that this particular form of idolatry had been known 
 to the Israelites from the beginning. The kingdom of 
 Israel had practised it long before the time of Manas- 
 seh, as witnessed to by the Books of Kings (2 Kings 
 xvii. 16). Amos, too (v. 26 f.), during the reign of Jero- 
 boam II., makes direct reference, as is now acknowl- 
 edged by the best authorities, to the worship of Saturn 
 in the northern kingdom, naming the planet both by its 
 Accadian and its Assyrian title.^ 
 
 It is indisputable, moreover, that sun, moon, and star 
 worship was one of the most primitive and universal 
 forms of idolatry among the leading nations with which 
 the Hebrews during the Mosaic period came in contact. 
 
 '.See Riehm's Handworterbuch, s. v. " Assyrien," "Sonne"; also Schrader, 
 Die Keilinschriften, etc. ate Aufl., p. 442, and in Studien nnd Kritiken, 1874, pp. 
 324-332. Hommel, too {Die Vorsemitischeti Kulticren, i. (2), p. 204), speaks of the 
 renowned temple of the goddess of the Moon, which the o/d king of Ur, Ur-bagas (c. 2870 
 B.C.), and his son Dungi built; and still further (p. 209), of a temple of the Sun at 
 Larsa, the EUasar of Gen. xiv. i. Rawlinson, in The Religious of the AncietU IVorld 
 (p. 145), says of the religion of the Phoenicians : " That Shamas or Shemesh, ' the Sun,' 
 was worshiped separately from Baal has already been mentioned. In Assyria and Baby- 
 lonia he was one of the foremost deities; and his cult among the Phoenicians is witnessed 
 to by such names as Abed-Shemesh, which is found in two of the native inscriptions. . . . 
 The sun-worship of the Phuenicians seems to have been accomp.inied by a use of sun- 
 images, of which we have perhaps a specimen in the accompanying figure which occurs 
 on a votive tablet found in Numidia."
 
 140 TJie Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 It lay at the basis of the Baal and Astarte cultus of 
 their Canaanitish neighbors. Its prevalence in Egypt 
 is proved by the monuments.^ And how seriously 
 Abraham's Chaldaean ancestry was devoted to it 
 appears from the fact that in the wedge - shaped 
 inscriptions of their day the uniform ideographic 
 representation of the divinity was a star.^ Hence, so 
 far from finding it strange that we meet with an alleged 
 Mosaic law of this sort in Deuteronomy, we should 
 think it strange if under the circumstances supposed it 
 were not there. 
 
 Besides, the form of the statute is not to be over- 
 looked : " And hath gone and served other gods . . . 
 which I have not commanded." A certain kind of 
 worship then had been enjoined. We cannot well be 
 mistaken in supposing that the second of the ten com- 
 mandments is specially referred to. " Thou, shalt have 
 no other gods before me," and especially the clause, 
 " Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or 
 any likeness of that which is in heaven above " (Ex. 
 XX. 3, 4). 
 
 We are confirmed in this view by what is said in a 
 previous chapter of Deuteronomy (iv. 19), where the 
 writer, indirectly commenting on the giving of the law 
 at Horeb, alludes to this very thing, that is, interprets 
 the second commandment, as it would seem in this 
 sense : " And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, 
 and when thou seest the sun and the moon and the 
 stars, all the host of heaven, shouldst be led to worship 
 and serve them." So that the force of the concluding 
 words of our law, " worship any of the host of heaven 
 which I have not commanded," may fairly be said to 
 be, " which I have elsewhere already forbidden." 
 
 1 Cf. Ebers, s.v. " Egypten," in Riehm's Haiidworterb.; also s.v. " Gebet," idem, 
 
 2 Idetn. s.v, " Assyrien." Cf. Rawlinson, AncietU Mon. i. pp. 123, 127.
 
 Laws Pcadiar to Deuteronomy. 1 4 1 
 
 We come next in order to the law of the king (Deut. 
 xvii. 14-20). Fault has often been found with the 
 original political constitution of the Hebrew people, 
 as formulated in the Pentateuch, on the ground of its 
 impracticability. It was, to some extent, impracticable, 
 and for a very natural reason. A pure theocracy would 
 be wholly practicable only among unfallen or perfectly 
 sanctified men. It is not to be regarded as a defect of 
 the Mosaic constitution that it put forward so unique 
 and noble an ideal ; that it pursued it till its practica- 
 bility at that time, and under the circumstances that 
 then prevailed, was fully demonstrated ; or, further, that 
 from the first it foresaw the exigencies that would arise 
 (Gen. xvii. 16; xxxvi. 31 ; xlix. 10) and made provision 
 for them by means of statutes designed to regulate and 
 limit what might not be wholly prevented. 
 
 The law of the king, as we find it recorded in Deu- 
 teronomy, is, on its face, framed in anticipation of a 
 juncture to arise. It looks forward to a period when 
 the Canaanites shall have been dispossessed, their land 
 apportioned, and Israel definitely settled in it. The 
 demand for a king would then arise. It would come 
 from the people. Permission is granted to comply with 
 this demand conditionally, and directions given in detail 
 concerning the manner of the sovereign's choice, the 
 title he shall bear, the government of his household, his 
 income, his relative position among his brethren, the 
 succession, and other matters, in a way to set him 
 wholly apart from any contemporaneous kings, so, 
 indeed, as to show that he was to be a king under the 
 peculiar conditions of a government that must still be 
 recognized, as in the end, theocratic. 
 
 The law, in short, is Mosaic in the finest shading of 
 its phraseology. It is true that some temptations and
 
 1 42 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Strnctnre. 
 
 evil practices of kings in general — • in the event proving 
 to be also those of later Israelitish kings, like Solomon 
 — seem to have been directly in mind throughout and 
 guarded against. With the knowledge of what the 
 kings of Egypt and Canaan were, what less could have 
 been expected of such a man as Moses, to say nothing 
 of the fact that our book represents him as a prophet ? 
 
 On the other hand, there are features of this law 
 which plainly preclude the theory of its supposed origin 
 near the close of the seventh century b.c. What sense 
 on such a supposition in the injunction that a foreigner 
 was not to be set up as a king ? Already, for centuries, 
 the succession had been firmly established in the family 
 of David. ^ Or in forbidding to lead the people back 
 again to Egypt } Such a return had not been thought 
 of since the first crossing of the Jordan ; although so 
 familiar a subject in the mouths of the people in Moses' 
 time (Ex. xvi. 3 ; Num. xi. 5 ; xiv. 4). 
 
 It is true that we do not find Samuel, when long 
 after the subject of a king is broached by the discon- 
 tented people (i Sam. viii. i ff.), quoting this law. 
 There is excellent reason for his not doing so. He is 
 looking at the matter and speaking of it from the point 
 of view of his petitioners. He calls attention to the 
 additional and oppressive burdens the new office will 
 entail on them ; to the more than questionable spirit 
 and form in which their request is made. It is true 
 that he feels obliged to condemn the project, as it is 
 
 1 Delitzsch {Zeitschrift fiir kirchliche Wissenschaft, etc. i8So, p. 565) has suffi- 
 ciently answered the point made by Prof. W. Robertson Smith (A nswer to the A mended 
 Libel, ■^. 26), who refers to Is. viii. 5, in evidence that " die syrisch-ephraimtische Ligue 
 die Davidische Dynastie zu beseitigen und einen Syrer Ben Tab'el zum Konige von Juda 
 zu machen gedachte, indem er dabei bemerkt, dass eine Partei in Juda dieses Vorhaben 
 begiinstigte. Aber woher weiss er dass so gewiss? Es ist nichts als auf streitiger und 
 mehr als unwahrscheinlicher Deutung von les. S, 6 benihende Vermuthung.'' He adds 
 that the sins there rebuked are common to the whole people.
 
 Laws Pcctdiaj' to Deuteronomy. 143 
 
 brought before him, just as Gideon had already done 
 (Judges viii. 22, 23) ; and that finally in those particular 
 circumstances — as in any circumstances if the best 
 thing were wanted — the request for a king is conceded 
 under protest. But there is just as little reason on this 
 ground for holding that Samuel was unacquainted with 
 the Deuteronomic law of the king, as there is for 
 holding that Hosea was not acquainted with it, who 
 also says (xiii. 11) that God gave to Israel a king in his 
 anger; or that St. Stephen (Acts xiii. 21) was ignorant 
 both of Samuel's and of Hosea's words because in his 
 reference to the choice of Saul as king he says not 
 a word of there being any opposition to it. 
 
 The people of Samuel's time, it is evident, knew of the 
 law ; they do not overlook the advantage they have in 
 it in the appeal they make. They use its language 
 almost word for word in Hebrew, "make us a king to 
 judge us like all the nations " (i Sam. viii. 5 ; cf. Deut. 
 xvii. 14). And it has been noticed that the whole 
 context is saturated with Deuteronomic expressions 
 and ideas.^ 
 
 iCf. Sime, Kingdom of All Israel (London, 1883), pp. 35-38, and Professor Green 
 in the Sunday-School Times for October 6, 13, 1883. The ingenious theory of Ewald 
 adopted by Riehm (^Gesetzgebung Mosis, p. 81 ff.), that in the specification of our law 
 that the king " shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to 
 Egypt, to the end that he may multiply horses," the hiring out of Israelites as mercenaries 
 to the Egyptian king is meant; and that such a state of things might well have existed in 
 the time of Manasseh is utterly lacking in documentary support. The only passage that 
 even looks in this direction is the threatening contained in Deut. xxviii. 68, that in case 
 of unfaithfulness the people shall be carried down to Egypt in ships. Aside from this 
 there is not a hint of such a possibility in the biblical books. And it is impossible to 
 suppose that if a project so repugnant to the Jewish spirit and institutions had been 
 entertained, it would have been so completely overlooked. 
 
 Moreover, in the narrative of the crowning of Joash, c. 878 b.c. (2 Kings xi. 12), jhere 
 is a notable allusion to a law of some kind that was committed to him. It is said of the 
 high-priest on that occasion that he brought forth the king's son and put the crown 
 and the testimony upon him. On the original word for " testimony," Thenius says 
 {Co}n., in loco) that it was not an ornament, not a phylactery on the crown, not the 
 royal insignia, but the law, a book in which Mosaic regulations had been written. This 
 conclusion is certainly in harmony with the uniform employment of the word in the Old 
 Testament. And Klcinert ^DeuUronomiii/u, p. ^jj), with other firsl-rate authorities.
 
 144 J^fi^ Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Not inferior in importance to this law of the king, 
 among the independent statutes of the present code, is 
 that relating to the prophet l^v\\\. 15-19). "A prophet 
 from the midst of thee, from thy brethren like myself, 
 shall the Lord thy God raise up unto thee," etc. It is 
 most singularly introduced in connection with a prohibi- 
 tion of magic, to which, in fact, it holds a subordinate 
 position. Moses is the speaker. He assumes, as some- 
 thing well understood, that this prophet had been 
 already provided for at the giving of the law in Sinai, 
 although we have no other record of such a provision. 
 He declares that when he comes he will be the mouth- 
 piece of Jehovah to Israel, and that whoever refuses 
 to hear him, it will be required of him. 
 
 Nowhere is the personality of the great mediator of 
 the Siniatic covenant more distinctly impressed on an 
 utterance of the Pentateuch. Now, let it be supposed 
 that it was not he. Let us look for a moment at the 
 hypothesis that it is some unknown prophet or priest of 
 many centuries later who is speaking here, as if he were 
 Moses. What must have been the man's temerity to 
 press his impersonation to the extent that he not only 
 makes the supposititious lawgiver say that the coming 
 prophet will be like himself, but refer to an event in 
 his own and their past history concerning which the 
 Pentateuch is silent and the people of that later day 
 were probably ignorant } How strange the working 
 of his mind, especially if he were himself a prophet, 
 that he should introduce in so dubious a connection, 
 
 supposes that our Deuteronomic law of the king is specially meant. Whether this be 
 so, or, as seems more likely, it be the entire code of Deuteronomy that is referred to Ccf. 
 Deut. xvii. 18, 19), there can be little doubt that it was considered the proper thing 
 to do to pot a written copy of some portion of the Pentateuch in the hands of the king on 
 his acceislon. And since this is one of the very things enjoined in the statute we are now 
 considering, it is to be inferred that the custom arose in this way through the mediation 
 of the priests, in whose hands it was kept.
 
 Laws Peculiar to Deuteronomy. 14^ 
 
 that is, as subordinate to a law on magic, the matter 
 of Hebrew prophecy, and the culmination of it too, an 
 institution surpassed by no other in its grandeur and 
 importance. 
 
 It is not to be supposed that critics who reject the 
 Mosaic authorship of these laws will, with Delitzsch 
 and others, see in the present one a direct, not to say 
 exclusive, prophetic reference to the Messiah. They 
 would rather choose to hold, it is likely, that if there 
 be a latent allusion to such a possible outcome of 
 prophecy, it is simply the product of a wholly natural 
 hope and aspiration of the Jewish mind. 
 
 If this be so, and we have before us simply an ex post 
 facto reference to Hebrew prophets and prophecy in 
 general, as they had come to be, and to be known long 
 before the conjectured date of Deuteronomy, it is 
 certainly a surprising and wellnigh incredible circum- 
 stance. The almost surreptitious manner of its 
 introduction, as we have said, puzzles us. It presents, 
 moreover, but a single one of the prophet's many-sided 
 functions. It characterizes men like Samuel, Gad, and 
 Elijah, Obadiah, Amos, and Jonah as being like Moses, 
 which would set everybody to thinking of more respects 
 in which they were quite unlike him. It speaks of 
 a prophet, has the office principally in mind, when more 
 than a score and a half of them, differing from one 
 another as widely as Elisha and Jeremiah, had already 
 appeared, whose activities had extended over a period 
 of five hundred years. It offers as a criterion to prove 
 the claims of such as might give themselves out for 
 prophets, the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of their pre- 
 dictions ; when such seers of the distant future as 
 Isaiah and Micah were then upon the stage, for whom 
 so specific a test would have been as inapjoropriate as
 
 146 TJic Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 it was fitting for the sporadic prophets and their 
 imitators in the early days. 
 
 We meet next, in the series of laws now under 
 review, with one against the i-emoving of landmarks 
 (Deut. xix. 14) : "Thou shalt not remove the boundary 
 line of thy neighbor which those going before have 
 placed as a boundary in thy inheritance which thou 
 shalt inherit in the land the Lord thy God is giving 
 thee for a possession." The reference, plainly, is to 
 the fraudulent displacement of boundaries separating 
 one's landed property from that of his neighbor. How 
 serious a breach of equity it was regarded may be 
 inferred from the circumstance that it is one of the acts 
 singled out in the 27th chapter of this book for special 
 execration. The important point now to be considered, 
 however, is a supposed anachronism of the writer in 
 representing Moses as saying, "which those going 
 before have set as a boundary." The clause is ren- 
 dered by some, "which the forefathers," or "thy fore- 
 fathers set as a boundary," and it is accordingly 
 regarded as a clear lapsus pcnncs of our ^?/«.fz-legislator 
 of the exodus. But there is not only no necessity for 
 this rendering, there is, as it seems to us, no propriety 
 in it. The word in question is found without the 
 article or any pronominal or other limitation. It means 
 simply " predecessors," and might justly be employed 
 in such a connection by one who was legislating not for 
 any particular emergency, but for the whole future of the 
 covenant people. That it is used in this sense here and 
 not in that of " forefathers " who had already departed, 
 the context is conclusive proof. The "boundaries" 
 spoken of are those of the land which the Lord their 
 God is "on the point of giving them." This participle 
 is as characteristic a feature of all references to the
 
 Laivs Pcc.t'.iar to Dcuttvonomy. 1 47 
 
 land of Canaan in our code as yibhchar is of the formula 
 by which the central sanctuary is designated. The 
 criticism that would impute to our lawgiver, whoever 
 he may be, the folly of expressing, within the limits of 
 a single verse, ideas so contradictory as that the Israel- 
 ites had long been settled in Canaan, and that they had 
 not yet entered it, condemns itself. 
 
 To possess and occupy Canaan meant a long and 
 bitter conflict. It is natural, therefore, to find no 
 inconsiderable part of our code devoted to military 
 operations and rules of war. How captives are to be 
 treated, cleanliness in camp, what cities are to be 
 spared and what destroyed, the demolition of heathen 
 shrines, — these are some of the timely topics treated 
 by our lawgiver on the eve of the conquest. Of a like 
 nature is the one we now take up regarding preparation 
 for battle (Deut. xx. 1-9; xxiv. 5). It is most unique in 
 character, and bears in every part the evidence of strict 
 historic truthfulness. 
 
 First, there is an appeal for courage in view of supe- 
 rior numbers and strength. He who had brought them 
 out of Egypt would be with them. Should they see 
 horses and chariots, they were not to be afraid of them. 
 Afraid of horses and chariots ! Childish admonition if 
 it be not childlike and genuine ! In Hezekiah's and 
 in Josiah's time the land already swarmed with them. 
 Ahab alone was master of a good two thousand chariots 
 of war (cf. Is. ii. 7). 
 
 Next, the very process of entering on a campaign is 
 simply detailed. It is assumed, in harmony with Num- 
 bers (i. 3), that the whole male population over twenty 
 years of age and capable of bearing arms is at the place 
 of muster. It is assumed, further, in accord with 
 instructions of the same book (xxvi. 2), that full lists of
 
 148 The Pentateuch : Its Origin, and Strnctnfd. 
 
 those subject to military duty are in the hands of the 
 Shoterim. It is also assumed that a priest specially 
 designated for the purpose " the priest," again in 
 dependence on the Book of Numbers (xxxi. 6), where 
 Phinehas acted in this capacity, will be present to 
 hearten and inspire the host with his trumpet and his 
 brave words. It is assumed that the Shoterim, who 
 have the muster-rolls, are empowered, not only to 
 address the assembled levies, retain or dismiss at will 
 such as are found eligible or ineligible for active service 
 (with V. 6 cf. Lev. xix. 3 f.), but also to divide and sub- 
 divide them into battalions and companies, set them in 
 battle array, and place suitable leaders at their head. 
 
 The entire arrangement, in short, is peculiarly primi- 
 tive and appropriate only to the earliest periods of the 
 commonwealth. After the rise of king, court, and 
 mighty men of war, after Sauls second year, when 
 three thousand chosen men were made the nucleus of 
 a standing-army, especially after David's day, when 
 royal bodyguards were customary and foreign mer- 
 cenaries began to be employed, such an arrangement 
 would have been antiquated and impossible. 
 
 The treatment of hostile cities that are r.ot of Canaan 
 is also made the subject of special legislation in our 
 code (xx. 10-14, 19, 20), and the manner cf its intro- 
 duction is full of meaning. The lawgiver had just 
 been speaking of Canaanitish cities, wliich in sharp 
 discrimination he refers to as " the cities of these 
 nations here " (xx. 15), that is, lying over against their 
 encampment in the fields of Moab. Vox them there 
 was one law of procedure. It had been indicated in 
 previous deliverances to which he now refers (v. 17). 
 
 But it is not alone the peculiar introduction of the 
 subject that is significant. The whole outlook of the
 
 Laws Pcadiar to Deuteronomy. 149 
 
 legislation is equally so. With what propriety, for 
 example, could a writer of King Josiah's time, three 
 hundred years after the division of the kingdom, a hun- 
 dred after the final captivity of Israel, when many %. 
 fortress of Judah was already in possession of Assyrian 
 troops, in the midst of the moral decadence and politi- 
 cal disintegration that are reflected in the prophecy of 
 Jeremiah, preface a command to exterminate the 
 Canaanites with another specifying how foreign cities 
 were to be besieged and their prospective spoils appro- 
 priated ? Especially on what principles of psychology 
 could it be anticipated that under circumstances like 
 these a romancing legislator of the later day, without 
 a hint of an impending catastrophe tc the polity and 
 people to which he himself belonged, would coolly 
 bethink himself of so small a matter as the fruit-bearing 
 trees that might be growing around the beleaguered 
 towns of imaginary foreign foes, and sedulously enjoin 
 that they be spared for food ? 
 
 In the ceremonial oi purification for murder, the mur- 
 derer being unknown, recorded in Deut. xxi. 1-9, we 
 have a remarkable example of the utmost simplicity of 
 form united with a singularly active consciousness of the 
 sacredncss of human life and the solidarity of human 
 responsibility concerning it.^ Where, but amidst the 
 simplicity of primitive times, should we find the authori- 
 ties of different cities determining jurisdiction after a 
 method so rudimental as actual measurement ? 
 
 The entire scene, in its homely picturesqueness, 
 makes the impression of the very beginnings of political 
 existence. The gathering by a perennial stream, an 
 appointed substitute for the unknown criminal in lead- 
 ing, the handwashing in token of non-complicity with 
 the crime, the touching declaration breaking into 
 
 I Cf. Gen. iv. lo, the Jehovist; ix. 6 (PC).
 
 1 50 The Peniateuck : lis Origin and Structure. 
 
 prayer : " Our hands shed not this blood and our eyes 
 saw not the deed. Forgive, O Jehovah, thy people 
 Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent 
 blood to the charge of thy people Israel," are all of the 
 same simple character. If at first we seem to be wit- 
 nessing a sacrifice (cf. kdpJiar, v. 8), we soon find that 
 this is not the case. The fundamental elements of 
 a sacrifice are wanting. There is no altar. The blood 
 is not shed. The victim's neck is simply broken (cf. 
 Ex. xiii. 13). It is an execution. Justice has done its 
 work as far as it is possible to do it under these circum- 
 stances. The murdered man has been avenged by the 
 whole community acting as his kinsman. The same 
 form of words, in fact, that in a previous chapter 
 brought to a close the execution of a wilful homicide 
 (xix. 13) also concludes this ceremony. 
 
 The next two topics treated in the independent code 
 of Deuteronomy, that of female captives (xxi. 10-14) 
 and a disobedient son (xxi. 18-21), offer but indefinite 
 indications of their age. Still, the former implies a 
 state of things like that which existed only on the eve 
 of the conquest and for a short time after it. The 
 captives referred to cannot be Canaanitish women with 
 whom marriage was forbidden ; and the acquisition of 
 foreign territory and spoils, as we have seen, ceased to 
 be a subject of aspiration, and could not have been one 
 of legislation, after the reign of David ; while the 
 latter harmonizes perfectly with its historic surround- 
 ings as well as with the other codes with which it is 
 associated (Ex. xxi. 17; Lev. xx. 9), and seems to be 
 definitely referred to in some passages of the Chokma 
 literature. (Prov. xix. 18, falsely rendered in the A. V. : 
 cf. XXX. 17; Ecclus. iii. 1-16).^ 
 
 1 It is an interesting fact, and not without significance, that the old Babylonian family 
 customs were very similar to those here indicated. If a son refused to obey his father of
 
 Laws Peculiar to Deuteronomy. 151 
 
 A peculiar regulation concerning tJie bodies of persons 
 who had been hanged is met with in Deut. xxi. 22, 23. It 
 is enjoined that they be buried on the day of execution, 
 in order that they may not pollute the land. While in 
 itself containing nothing out of harmony with a supposed 
 Mosaic date, there is a positive confirmation of such 
 date in the Book of Joshua. In two notable instances 
 this appointed successor of Moses is reported as acting 
 in studied consistency with this law (viii. 29; x. 27). It 
 is true that much of the Book of Joshua is alleged to 
 have been written by the author of Deuteronomy, but 
 these two passages are not included by the majority of 
 critics in that part of it, but admitted to be among its 
 oldest portions.^ 
 
 The law requiring that in the case of building "a new 
 house" a parapet for safety be made around the roof 
 (xxii. 8) might imply either previous and customary life 
 in tents, or that the new-comers would find in Canaan 
 houses already built, as, in fact, is directly stated else- 
 where (xix. i). An occasion for the introduction of the 
 subject here may possibly have been the fact that the 
 tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, 
 were then in process of providing homes for their fami- 
 lies and shelter for their flocks east of the Jordan 
 ^^um. xxxii. 16) antecedent to the passage of the river. 
 
 Among the many provisions of the Deuteronomic 
 code inculcating humanity, or conceived especially in 
 "i. humane spirit, is that regarding a complaint of 
 unchastity previous to marriage, preferred by a husband 
 against a newly married wife (xxii. 13-21). One main 
 object of it seems to have been to protect an otherwise 
 helpless woman against the brutality of a selfish and 
 
 his 7Hother, various severe punishments might be visited upon him, even to selling him 
 as slave. Cf. Hommel, ibid. p. 416. 
 1 See Kleinert, ibid. p. 96 f.
 
 152 TJie PentateucJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 unscrupulous lord to whom she was legally bound. 
 The rigorous punishment inflicted on the plaintiff, if he 
 failed to make out his case, the fine (cf. Ex. xxi. 22), the 
 beating (cf. Deut. xxv. 1-3), and the denial of the right 
 of future separation on any terms (xxiv. 1-4), bring the 
 statute into line with other enactments of the present 
 code and bespeak for it the same origin. 
 
 An extended law for a somewhat similar case is found 
 in Numbers (v. 11-31) ; but the legal process is wholly 
 dissimilar, and the complaining husband there goes 
 unpunished. Riehm holds ^ that in the codification of 
 the Deuteronomic law we have evidence that the one 
 found in Numbers was already considered antiquated, 
 and that hence the former belongs to a much later 
 period. But the two cases are different enough in their 
 nature to require different laws. Both of the laws are 
 apparently based on old-time customs. The Deuter- 
 onomic seems to be more changed, and, possibly, with 
 special reference to that of Numbers, supplementing it, 
 as it were, with the needed moral background and 
 standard by which a one-sided application might be 
 avoided. Without superseding it for the special case it 
 had in view, it emphasizes in its heavy penalties for the 
 baseless slanders of a husband a principle of equity 
 there unrecognized, but which, expressed or unex- 
 pressed, should always be understood to rule in similar 
 circumstances. 
 
 Israel was considered as forming a peculiar congrega- 
 tion {qdJidl) ^ of the Lord, and it is not strange that we 
 
 1 Gesetzgebung, etc. p. 67. 
 
 2 This term is found nowhere else in the Pentateuch except in Num. xvi. 3 ; xx. 4, 
 where it is used in the one instance by the promoters of Korah's rebellion and in the 
 other by the people who murmur at Moses in the wilderness of Zin. In itself, it is 
 thought to indicate a late origin for a document in which it occurs; and its appearance in 
 Joel is one of the reasons given for assigning that work to the period of the exile. But 
 there were good reasons for its employment in the middle books of the Pentateuch under
 
 Lazvs Peculiar to Deuteronomy. 153 
 
 find at the beginning of its national life a law defining 
 and restricting its bounds (Deut. xxiii. 2-9). With a 
 mixed multitude swarming in its camp, a more oppor- 
 tune moment for such a law than just before the con- 
 quest there could not well have been. The first provi- 
 sion concerns persons unmanned by castration or other 
 mutilation of the reproductive organs. Held in honor 
 by contemporaneous people, they failed to meet the 
 totality of the divine claim ; as they were unable also, 
 in some instances, to comply with the requisition of the 
 Abrahamic covenant whose seal was circumcision. 
 
 Yet such a law would scarcely have been suggested 
 to the imagination of a man eight centuries later. Even 
 Samuel mentions eunuchs as among the prospective 
 servants of Israelitish kings (i Sam. viii. 15). And so 
 we find them at the court of Ahab (i Kings xxii. 9), of 
 Joram (2 Kings viii. 6; ix. 32), and in the kingdom of 
 Judah employed with honor by the very successor of 
 Josiah (2 Kings xxiv. 12, 15). Israelites, it is likely, 
 they were not ; but foreign slaves. Still their employ- 
 ment is no slight symptom of altered circumstances. 
 And we are not surprised to see Isaiah (Ivi. 3 ff.)^ 
 advancing to a far more spiritual view, making, in fact, 
 the transition to that new economy in which the 
 queen of Ethiopia's eunuch becomes a distinguished 
 
 trophy of this same " ecclesia of the Lord." 
 
 From a special subordinate class, our law goes on to 
 
 the historical circumstances mentioned; and there is no good reason why, later, Moses 
 should not himself have adopted the word and filled it with a better spirit. Moreover, the 
 principle that rules in this whole section is thoroughly Lcvitical. Its requirements are quite 
 analogous to those respecting the qualifications of a priest (Lev. xxi. 17 ff.), as also of all 
 offerings made to the Lord (xxii. 18 f. 24). And it is not the first time that the Deuter- 
 onomic code has shown a marked advance beyond that of the middle books in the senti- 
 ment that Israel was to be a consecrated, priestly nation (with Lev. xvii. 15 cf. Deut. 
 xiv. 21). 
 
 ^ Schultz (Das Deuteronomium erkVdri, p. 569) has called attention to the coloring of 
 the language in the context of Isaiah as seeming to show a dependence on Deuteronomy
 
 154 TJic PcntateiicJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 mention nationalities that are eligible or ineligible to 
 the privilege of Jewish citizenship. And here the 
 impress of its time upon the document becomes still 
 more decided. The attitude assumed by our lawgiver 
 toward these nations does not seem unnatural, if he be 
 Moses. But no writer in his senses could have 
 seriously taken it after the time of Solomon. Because 
 of their treatment of Israel on their march from Egypt 
 (Num. XX. i8 ff. ; xxii. 5) the Ammonite and Moabite 
 are forever shut out from citzenship among the chosen 
 people. The Edomite is admitted to it after a short 
 probation ; so, too, the Egyptian, — the former on the 
 ground of kindred blood, the latter on that of hospi- 
 tality to the Hebrew strangers. 
 
 Turn now to the earliest prophets. There is scarcely 
 one of them who is not found facing in a contrary 
 direction. So it is with Hosea (vii. 16; viii. 13), with 
 Joel (iv. 19), with Amos (iii. 9), and especially Isaiah, in 
 the first forty chapters of whose prophecy there are 
 nearly as many denunciations of Egypt. And Edom ! 
 Considering their historical relations to Israel, nothing 
 could be more friendly than the tone in which our law 
 alludes to them. But we find absolutely no echo of it 
 in any subsequent period, even down to the time of the 
 Maccabees (i Mace. vi. 31). Saul fought with them 
 (i Sam. xiv. 47) ; David, for a time, made them tribu- 
 tary (2 Sam. viii. 14). Under Joram they regained 
 their independence. They were the heartiest allies of 
 Syria and Ephraim against Ahaz {circa B.C. 740) ; and 
 never did their traditional hatred show itself more con- 
 spicuously than in the siege and capture of Jerusalem 
 (B.C. 588), when, in the language of the Psalmist, they 
 cried out : " Raze it, raze it to the foundation thereof ! " 
 (Ps. cxxxvii. 7). All the more important prophets from
 
 Laws Peculiar to Deuteronomy. 155 
 
 Obadiah and Joel to Ezekiel hold a position toward 
 Edom which is the exact antithesis of that of the Deu- 
 teronomic law. Which one of them, or what man of 
 their time, could possibly have been the author of it ? ^ 
 
 We come next to a brief regulation touching nma- 
 way slaves of foreign masters seeking refuge in Israel 
 (xxiii. 16, 17). They are not to be given up, but allowed 
 to dwell unmolested wherever they will. The law is 
 stamped with no indubitable marks of Mosaic origin. 
 If fitness of political and moral relationships is to be 
 the criterion, it might be adjusted to almost any age 
 of the world, from b.c, 1800 to the present time. If 
 a theory of interpolations is to be allowed free play, 
 there is many a period of Israelitish history subsequent 
 to Moses when it might have been fitly interjected 
 among the laws of the Pentateuch. 
 
 But why may it not be Mosaic, as it claims .-• It 
 breathes his spirit. It is most apposite to the circum- 
 stances of Israel, as themselves fugitives from Egypt. 
 It harmonizes well, too, with the oft-repeated reference 
 to the former thraldom. And, happily, the monuments 
 furnish us with positive evidence that such a law would 
 at least be no anachronism at the time of the exodus. 
 In an extant treaty between Rameses II. and the king 
 of the Hittites, one article relates to this very matter 
 of the mutual exchange of fugitive servants. That 
 Moses was acquainted with this fact, and intentionally 
 forbade what it as positively required, we need not 
 assert. Enough that in this case the science of 
 
 > We finil a similar, if a less marked, change of feeling with respect to Moab indicated in 
 the later times. The story of Ruth the Moabitess was probably written not long after 
 the death of David. The scenes it desctibed occurred a full hundred years earlier (Ruth 
 i. i). And, although the history represents this people as more or less inimical to Israel 
 or Judah down to the latest pcriocK, still the spirit of the Book of Ruth is clearly reflected 
 in the great prophet of King Josiah's day, who, after predicting their overthrow, declares: 
 " Yet will I bring again the captivity of Moab in the latter days, saith the Lord " (xlviiL 
 47, cf. xlix. 6, 7, 18).
 
 156 TJic PeJitateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 archaeology comes promptly forward to set a bound 
 to the literary fancies that are so inclined to run riot 
 among these ancient records.^ 
 
 Of peculiar historic as well as moral interest is the 
 Deuteronomic lazv of divorce (xxiv. 1-4). The form in 
 which it is found, the character of much of the legisla- 
 tion with which it is associated, as well as the very 
 nature of the case, serve of themselves greatly to 
 weaken the force of the objection that it is too devel- 
 oped a law for the period of the exodus. Were no 
 weight to be allowed to the statement in Genesis (ii. 
 21-24) for the genuineness of which our Lord seems 
 to vouch (Matt. xix. 4, 5, 8), that monogamy was the 
 original and designed relationship of husband and 
 wife, it might be expected that the relation of the sexes 
 would be one of the first and principal respects in 
 which a perverted nature would manifest itself. And 
 we find accordingly that cognizance is taken of it in 
 what purports to be the earliest history and the 
 earliest laws (cf. history of Abraham and the seventh 
 commandment). 
 
 The regulation now before us, in fact, might be 
 regarded as little more than a specification under the 
 seventh commandment. It is remarkable alike for its 
 concessive and its restrictive character. It assumes the 
 prevalence of divorce — a fact also recognized in a 
 number of other laws of this and the Levitical code 
 (Lev. xxi. 7; Deut. xxii. 19, 29). It assumes that it 
 was carried on with some degree of formality. And 
 such a custom, with the form it took of giving a " bill 
 of divorcement," our law does not forbid ; neither does 
 it command it. Herein our Lord corrected the Phari- 
 sees' false quotation of the Pentateuch, changing their 
 " Why did Moses command 1 " into " Moses suffered.'" 
 
 * See Records of the Past, iv. p. 31 f.
 
 Laws Peciiliar to Denteronomy. 157 
 
 In its restrictions, on the other hand, the law assumes 
 the sacredness of the marital tie and provides against 
 an obvious tendency to break and renew it at will. Its 
 sole prohibition, however, is of the remarriage of 
 divorced persons after a second marriage had been 
 entered upon by the former wife. This, as the words 
 " after that she has been defiled " (cf. Num. v. 20) indi- 
 cate, it looked upon as a form of adultery and not to be 
 tolerated. 
 
 The law tends directly to the preservation of the orig- 
 inal tie ; and, in case it is severed, plainly encourages 
 a single life in view of a possible later reunion. It 
 does not rise to the plane of Malachi (ii. 13-16), who 
 declares that God "hates putting away." But neither, 
 on the other hand, does it misrepresent a Moses of the 
 exodus, or go beyond what might have been expected 
 of a legislation that followed and flowed out of the 
 ten commandments.^ 
 
 Punishment by flogging (Deut. xxv. 1—3, seems to 
 have been resorted to in Israel chiefly for gross 
 offences against sexual morality (Lev. xix. 20 ; Deut. 
 xxii. 18). The spirit of the Deuteronomic law respect- 
 ing it is thoroughly national in its recognition of the 
 Israelitic election and brotherhood. At the same time 
 the mode of inflicting the punishment by making the 
 offender lie flat upon his face is thoroughly Egyptian 
 and positively out of harmony with the later rabbinical 
 practice.^ 
 
 Levirate marriage, legally sanctioned first in Deuter- 
 onomy (xxv. 5-10), had no doubt prevailed in its main 
 
 1 The last remark is fully supported by what is known from the monuments of ancient 
 Babylonian customs. If a man would separate from his wife, who had not been untrue to 
 him, he was obliged to pay her a sum of money so large that very few could have availed 
 themselves of the legal right. Cf. Hommel, ibid. p. 417. 
 
 ' See The Criminal Code of the Jews according' to the Talmud, Massecheth Synk^ 
 drill, by Benny. Lond. 1880, p. 122 f.
 
 158 TJie Pcntate7ich : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 features from the earliest times. In the narrative of 
 Judah's sin with his daughter-in-law (Gen. xxxviii.), 
 assigned by critics to the document JE, we find the 
 practice already in force to the extent that any 
 breach of it is regarded as a serious crime. Accord- 
 ingly, the Levitical regulation (Lev. xviii. 16) forbid- 
 ding marriage with a deceased brother's widow is 
 obviously to be limited to cases where there were 
 children, as also the Jews of our Lord's time under- 
 stood it.i 
 
 Not only is our law in its place in the age of Moses 
 with respect to that which goes before it, but also that 
 which follows. The story of Ruth, whose scene is laid 
 in the period of the judges, is evidently not a little 
 modified by it. The detailed proceedings of Boaz, his 
 singular care to follow a certain fixed order, his appeal 
 to the regular legal tribunal of his city, and the motive 
 he urges for his conduct, in which he uses almost the 
 very language of our code, to "raise up the name of the 
 dead upon his inheritance," give at least a color of 
 probability to the theory that the law of Deuteronomy 
 was already a recognized authority in Palestine. 
 
 The next independent ordinance of our coAq prescrib- 
 ing punishment for a gross act of iniinodesty on the part 
 of a woman (xxv. 11, 12) offers no internal characteris- 
 tics by which its age might be even approximately fixed, 
 unless it be the form of the punishment. The offend- 
 ing hand was to be cut off. It is the only instance in 
 the Pentateuch where mutilation is directly enjoined. 
 So unusual and severe a retribution for such an 
 act would scarcely have been thought of in the later 
 time. 
 
 The commission for the destruction of Amalek, found 
 
 • Versus Riehm, Gesetzgebung, etc. p. 68.
 
 Laws Peculiar to Deuterono^ny. 159 
 
 in Deuteronomy (xxv. 17-19), there can be little doubt, 
 refers directly to Exodus xvii. as its basis and original. 
 An entire clause of the Hebrew, and the most essential 
 one, is repeated word for word. The appeal, moreover, 
 is made in a way to indicate an event still fresh in 
 remembrance : " Remember ^ that which Amalek did to 
 thee in the way as ye came out of Egypt." Still 
 another side-light appears in an allusion to the present 
 circumstances of Israel : *' So it shall come to pass that 
 when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all 
 thine enemies round about, in the land which the Lord 
 thy God is giving thee to possess as an inheritance, 
 thou shalt wipe out the remembrance of Amalek from 
 under heaven ; forget it not." 
 
 If now, on the other hand, we follow the biblical his- 
 tory of the relations of Israel to Amalek, subsequent 
 to this supposed period of the exodus, we shall see how 
 impossible and absurd it would have been for such 
 directions to be seriously promulgated as late as the 
 reign of Josiah or even that of Solomon. After their 
 first defeat in a sharply contested battle with Joshua 
 at Rephidim (Ex. xvii. 8-16), we find them joining the 
 Canaanites in a successful attack on Israel at Hormah 
 (Num. xiv. 43-45). Later, Balaam, in his prophecy, for 
 some reason not clearly known, hails them as the "first 
 of the nations," but predicts their total overthrow 
 (Num. xxiv. 20). 
 
 Another hundred years follow, and, as allies of the 
 Ammonites and Moabites, they make a partially suc- 
 cessful foray upon the coasts of Israel (Judges iii. 13). 
 Then Gideon successfully warred with them. But it 
 was not till the days of Israel's first king that the Pen- 
 tateuch commission really began to be executed. In 
 
 * The infin. abs., like the emphatic imperative in Greek, Gesen. § 131, 4, b., is used.
 
 1 60 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 two great campaigns Saul broke their strength, wasted 
 their land, and put to death their king (i Sam. xiv. 48; 
 XV. 2-33). 
 
 The entire history of this war is pervaded by the 
 spirit of the ancient code. Samuel's words to the king 
 are: "Thus saith Jehovah of hosts: 'I am punishing 
 (visiting judicially, \"npD) that which Amalek did to 
 Israel. , . . Now go and cut off Amalek and utterly 
 destroy all that he has ' " (Sam. xv. 2, 3). And thor- 
 oughly as Saul did his work, it did not satisfy the 
 terms of his commission. David dealt the hostile 
 remnant a heavy blow after their capture of Ziklag, and 
 in Hezekiah's time, still a century before the date 
 assigned by some to the Deuteronomic code, so 
 reduced and feeble had they become that five hundred 
 Simeonites are able to complete their overthrow and 
 extinction (i Chron. iv. 43). After this time the name 
 of Amalek disappears from history. 
 
 Our code is brought to a fitting close by a peculiar 
 formula of acknowledgment and thanksgiving. It is 
 professedly given to be used immediately subsequent to 
 the conquest and quiet occupation of the promised land. 
 Critics are not satisfied with this account which the 
 document gives of itself, and see in its strong liturgical 
 cast positive marks of a later day. Kleinert, however, 
 among others, takes exception to this opinion as being 
 unworthy of an age in which the knowledge of the 
 Vedas has ceased to be a monopoly.^ It may be added 
 that such an objection is unworthy of an age that has 
 brought to light the stores of information contained on 
 Egyptian and Assyrian monuments. 
 
 This one simple liturgical ceremonial of Deuteronomy 
 we are able, in fact, to match with many far more elabo- 
 
 1 Das Deuteronomium, p. 104.
 
 Laws Peculiar to Deuteronomy. i6i 
 
 rate ones, in different tongues, that date from even an 
 earlier period.^ The wonder is, indeed, not that we 
 have this one simple, prescribed formula of thanksgiv- 
 ing for the individual Israelite in his periodical visits to 
 the central sanctuary, but that, in all the biblical litera- 
 ture before the exile, it stands so much alone. We 
 have really nothing of a precisely similar character with 
 which to compare it. And in view of the consideration 
 that prayer, in some form, must date back to the begin- 
 nings of human history, it would seem the height of 
 captiousness to characterize the ceremonial before us 
 as an anachronism in the age of Moses.^ 
 
 Such, now, are the independent laws of Deuteronomy, 
 the primary and essential elements, as we may suppose, 
 of this remarkable code. And such are a few of the 
 more patent internal characteristics by which its age as 
 a whole, and in its several parts, might be approxi- 
 mately inferred. That they are demonstrative need not 
 be held ; that, however, they show an overwhelming 
 weight of probability in favor of Mosaic origin through- 
 out cannot well be denied. Such an origin, in fact, is 
 directly or implicitly claimed by the great majority of 
 the statutes brought under review, and especially by 
 those that are of chief importance. If it be denied in 
 the case of the rest, is it too much to demand that ade- 
 
 ' See especially an inscription from the tomb of Beni- Hassan, of the 12th Egyptian 
 dynasty, in Warrington's Wheti was the Pentateuch IVrztien ? p. 18 f. ; also the prayer 
 of Menkaura to Osiris, dating as far back as the 5th dynasty (Wilson's The Egypt of the 
 Past, Lond. 1881, p. 93), and the philosophical precepts of Ptah-hotep {ibid. p. 107 
 f.), computed to be five thousand years old; and cf. Rawlinson, The Religions 0/ the 
 Aticieni IVorld, p. 60 f., and 24, where he says of the religion of ancient Egypt that its 
 " worship was conducted chiefly by means of rythmic litanies or hymns, in which 
 prayer and praise were blended, the latter predominating." For still other specimens 
 of this liturgical worship see Records of the Past, vol. ii. pp. 105, 134; vol. iv. pp. 
 99-104; vol. vi. pp. 99-101; vol. viii. pp. 131-134. 
 
 2 The fact that the first-fruits are to be brought in the hands in a basket forestalls any 
 objection that might arise on the ground that we have here prescribed a different disposi- 
 tion of the first-fruits from that enjoined in another place (xviii. 4; cf. Num. xviii. 12 f.).
 
 1 62 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 qiiate reasons be given for wrenching them from the 
 ancient mould in which we find them imbedded ? ^ 
 
 Mosaic claims, we are well aware, are often summarily 
 dealt with in these days ; but sometimes perhaps with- 
 out sufficiently pondering the consequences. The alter- 
 native here, at least, does not lack in startling effects. 
 If not Moses, then some one who would be thought to 
 be Moses, or to write in the spirit of Moses. In either 
 case, an antique flavor. Mosaic sanction is wanted. 
 But why } If the critical theories prevailing in many 
 quarters be adopted, there was no Moses who was 
 worthy of such pains. And why, especially, such an 
 excess of Mosaic coloring in a purely legal document, 
 so that it might almost be thought that the laws were a 
 conceit to magnify the half-mythical hero, instead of the 
 name of Moses being used to give weight to the laws "i 
 
 If not Moses, we ask again, then who? Some king 
 of Judah or Israel .'' The history furnishes no example 
 of a royal legislator ; enough, of those who broke and 
 trampled upon the laws of their fathers. Possibly, some 
 prophet then } Which prophet .? His modesty in con- 
 cealing his name and adopting as pseudonym that of 
 the leader of the exodus is only equaled by the way in 
 which he introduces the subject of prophecy in his 
 work, as incidental to a law regulating magical arts. 
 But why not a priest, possibly Hilkiah himself, who 
 first introduces our code to the attention of his king .'' 
 
 ^ So, too, Bleek, in a similar connection (Einleitungin das Alte Testament. Vierte 
 Auflage, bearbeitet von J. Wellhausen, Berlin, 1878, p. 35) : " Wir sehen also, wie ein 
 bedeutender Theil der Gesetze und Anordnungen des Pentateuchs, sowohl dem Inhalte 
 als der Form nach, dem Mosalschen Zeitalter angehoren muss. Da wir nun als ein 
 feststehendes sicheres Ergebniss gefunden haben, dass so bedeutende Theile des Gesetz- 
 buches von Moses herriihren, dass also auf jeden Fall das Wesentlichste der darin enthal- 
 tenen Gesetzgebung ihm angebort, so sind wir nicht berechtigt, ihm einzelne der sich darin 
 findenden und auf ihn zuriickgefurhten gesetziichen Anordnungen abzusprechen, wenn sle 
 nicht bestimmte Spuren eines abweichenden Characters und einer spateren Zeit an sich 
 tragen."
 
 Laws Peculiar to Deuteronomy. 163 
 
 Critics are by no means agreed among themselves 
 whether the code is of priestly or prophetic origin ; it 
 is too little pronounced in either direction. Priestly, 
 in any decisive features, it is far enough from being ; 
 quite the reverse, if its uniform point of view be 
 taken account of. 
 
 The point of view from beginning to end is conspicu- 
 ously that of a tender father of his people, emphatically 
 Mosaic, in short, and nothing else. That it is genuine, 
 and not assumed for effect, the latest results of biblical 
 archaeology unite with the best results of literary criti- 
 cism in strongly confirming.^ 
 
 * The reasoning employed in this paper to show that the independent legislation of 
 Deuteronomy is Mosaic bears with equal force against the theory that it has undergone 
 any special revision in a period subsequent to Moses. We find neither in form, spirit, nor 
 language any valid evidence whatever of such revision in the series of laws we have 
 passed under review.
 
 V. 
 
 LAWS REPEATED AND MODIFIED IN 
 DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 It is absolutely essential to the scheme proposed by 
 Wellhausen for the reconstruction of the Pentateuch 
 that the code of Deuteronomy be found, or be made, to 
 antedate that of the middle books. To talk about the 
 exile as the period for the elaboration and publication of 
 the latter on any other hypothesis would be the height 
 of absurdity. If it can be shown, accordingly, by an 
 actual comparison of the laws of the two codes with 
 one another and a minute examination of each law by 
 itself, using even such tests as our critics propose, that 
 there is not only no necessity for such a transposition 
 of the codes, but no justification for it, it must be a 
 fatal blow at the hypothesis. Wellhausen's supposed 
 strong position would be completely turned. He would 
 be exposed to a raking fire on both flanks which it 
 would be impossible for him to endure. 
 
 I have already pointed out in my second paper that 
 such critics as Ewald and Bleek among the elders, and 
 Noldeke and Schrader among those of to-day, have never 
 abandoned the ground that the Deuteronomic code fol- 
 lows and supplements the others. And of Dillmann it 
 cannot be said that this is not his position. He is far 
 enough from accepting the conclusions of Wellhausen, 
 though hesitating with respect to the relative order of 
 certain collections of laws. Here, then, is a nucleus of
 
 Lazus Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy. 165 
 
 scholars and reputable critics that critics and scholars 
 might rally to, in an exigency, with considerable confi- 
 dence. Here is a notable defection from that wide 
 movement to revolutionize Jewish history and put Ezra 
 in the place of Moses which beginning with Vatke and 
 Reuss has culminated in Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen. 
 But, fortunately, we are not looking for a nucleus to 
 rally to. It has not come as yet to the question of a 
 forlorn hope. So far this is simply a battle of theories. 
 The essential facts remain what they always have been. 
 All parties will be compelled at last to return to them. 
 It is no question of great names, nor of many names. 
 It is a question of the dispassionate weighing of evi- 
 dence, for which an Englishman or an American is 
 every whit as capable as a German or a Frenchman ; 
 and a man of good sense and sound judgment should 
 count, in general, for as much as the university pro- 
 fessor. 
 
 I have shown in the third paper what appears to me 
 to be the bearing of the facts, comparing code with 
 code, as it respects some of the most fundamental 
 assumptions of our critics. The facts do not, on any 
 fair interpretation of them, support their theory respect- 
 ing the Israelitish cultus : the place and form of wor- 
 ship, the festivals, the priesthood and its maintenance ; 
 that is, that these matters were a product of slow evo- 
 lution rather than of revelation, that they were grown 
 in Palestine and by the rivers of Babylon, rather than 
 given at Sinai and in the Plains of Moab. Quite the 
 contrary. The facts when allowed to speak, untram- 
 meled and unforced, utter a unanimous and an emphatic 
 no — a no of protest, and sometimes of repugnance, 
 for the whole strange scheme which they have been 
 used to substantiate.
 
 1 66 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 In my fourth paper attention has been given exclu 
 sively to such laws as are peculiar to Deuteronomy, 
 They have been subjected, each by itself, to a rigid 
 and, as I believe, unpartisan examination. So far as 
 they had anything communicable on the subject in 
 hand, their response was evidently without reluctance 
 and without reserve. And nearly all had something 
 to communicate. With simpHcity and directness they 
 uniformly bore testimony, in fact, to an origin in the 
 exodus period. Counter - evidence there was none 
 distinguishable. 
 
 And now, before proceeding to collate the testimony 
 of the remaining laws of Deuteronomy, let attention be 
 directed, for a moment, to a marked characteristic of all 
 the laws of this book as well as the historical matter 
 with which they are associated. I refer to the intellec- 
 tual and moral stage of development which they pre- 
 suppose and demand in the people whose laws they are. 
 It is clearly a people who are acquainted with law and 
 accustomed to its restraints. Moreover, they seem to 
 be familiar with laws of this peculiar sort, where the 
 civil is nowhere sharply distinguished from the reli- 
 gious : with a state that is a church and a church that 
 is a state, the two institutions being merged in one as 
 they never have been so completely since. That is the 
 impression, unmistakably, which laws and history alike 
 make upon us. Let them explain it, who would make 
 this the first written code for Israel and who find them- 
 selves able to dispense with the Pentateuch as a record 
 of facts. 
 
 This can be no horde of savages who are here 
 addressed. It is to be taken for granted that they are 
 spoken to in a style, and reasoned with in a spirit, that 
 are adapted to their capacity. This book with its laws
 
 Laws Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy. 167 
 
 reflects, in some good degree, as our critics themselves 
 must admit, the national attainment at the period when 
 it originated. Then, it was a most extraordinary- 
 attainment, to which the history of the period offers no 
 parallel ! We find religious beliefs, habits of thought 
 respecting social matters, depth of feeling, a conscious- 
 ness apparently responsive to the highest motives, an 
 accepted ethical system not yet antiquated, that with- 
 out some such training as we are told Israel actually 
 had after the escape from Egypt would be unaccount- 
 able. If, in short, you take away the laws and the 
 history that precede Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, 
 you take away the very thing and the only thing that 
 can make Deuteronomy intelligible to us.^ 
 
 ' This matter was so well stated by Isaac Taylor ( The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, New 
 York, 1862, pp. 169 ff.) nearly a quarter of a century ago, that it will bear repetition some- 
 what at length. " There is much more in the last book of the Pentateuch than in the 
 preceding four — regarded as a ground and moral condition of the Hebrew people of that 
 time; for it consists of a series of popular addresses, orally delivered; and these, by the 
 calm majesty of the style throughout, by the remonstrant tone, by innumerable allusions to 
 events and usages, carry with them a demonstration of historic verity which no ingenuous 
 and cultured mind will fail to admit. . . . The Israelite of that time was such that to him 
 might be propounded, intelligently, the sublime theology and the rightful and truthful 
 ethics of the Book of Deuteronomy; which have held their place, unrivaled, as Institutes 
 of Religion, from age to age. What is our alternative on this ground? This book is 
 either ' from heaven,' in its own sense, or it is from man. If from heaven, then a great con- 
 troversy reaches its conclusion, by admission of the opponent; but if from man, then the 
 people among whom this theology, and these ethical principles, and these institutions 
 spontaneously arose, and to whose actual condition they were adapted, were a people far 
 advanced beyond any other, even of later times, in their religious conceptions, in their 
 moral consciousness, in their openness to remonstrance, and their sensibility toward some 
 of the most refined emotions of domestic and social life. . . . Our question is. What 
 were these people, or wArtjf Aa(^ /AO' ^'^''"'"'^ i" consequence of their Egyptian sojourn? 
 what in consequence of the discipline of the desert? What, upon a new generation, had 
 been the influence of the Sinaitic law, and of tabernacle worship, and of the tribune 
 administration of social order? Prospective as were many of the Mosaic injunctions, 
 social and ecclesiastical, the theology was ripe and entire, from the first; so were the 
 ethical principles, and so was the worship. The generation which then reached maturity 
 along with all of younger age, from infancy upward, were the product of this religious 
 and social training. . . . The Mosaic homilies arc available as indirect, yet conclusive, 
 evidence of a true theistic habitude of mind among the people of the ExoduS. . . . They 
 must have been a people with whom there had been matured a settled usage of theistic 
 terms, devout habitudes, and withal a diffused warmth of those social sentiments which 
 are consequent upon, and which arc the proper results of, an expansion of the domestic 
 aflTections."
 
 1 68 The PeiitateucJi : Its Orinii and Structure, 
 
 i>' 
 
 But our review of the laws of Deuteronomy is not 
 yet complete. There are still others among them, like 
 those treated in the third paper, which relate to topics 
 common to the legislation of the middle books. Differ- 
 ent laws, or a different recension of laws on the same 
 theme ! What an opportunity is offered for the discov- 
 ery of stratification and marks of epochs, if any such 
 exist ! Which is the original form .'' 
 
 I have put at the head of this paper the result 
 reached after careful investigation. The laws of Deu- 
 teronomy appear but as an authoritative restatement, 
 and appropriate modification, of those that immediately 
 precede them in the Pentateuch. The Mosaic tradition 
 that from the first has covered and hallowed both is 
 abundantly confirmed. How this conclusion has been 
 reached I now proceed to show. 
 
 Destncction of Idols and of HcatJien Shrines in 
 Canaan. — The code of laws found in Deuteronomy is 
 consistently introduced (xii. i) with the words : "These 
 are the statutes and judgments which ye shall observe 
 and keep in the land which the Lord God of thy fathers 
 giveth thee as a possession." The first requirement is 
 no less so (vs. 2-4) : " Thou shalt utterly destroy all 
 places where the nations whom thou drivest out serve 
 their gods," etc. It is something to which attention 
 had been already repeatedly called in the preliminary 
 history (iv. 15-19; vii. 5, 25, 26), and to which the 
 present code also, under another form, reverts in this 
 and a subsequent chapter (xii. 29, 30; xx. 18). Such 
 a requirement, moreover, was naturally to be expected 
 when the essential character of the Israelitic religion is 
 considered as contrasted with that of the Canaanites. 
 That it is found in all phases of the Pentateuch legis- 
 lation will not surprise us when we reflect on the
 
 Laws Repeated a/id Modified in Deuteronomy. 169 
 
 extreme difficulties that, notwithstanding, always at- 
 tended its execution, even down to the exile (Judges 
 ii. 2; viii. 24-27; xviii. ii f . ; i Kings xii. 25 f.). 
 
 The Deuteronomic form is somewhat more pictorial 
 and detailed, but it is no more emphatic, than that of 
 the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xxiii, 24; cf. vs. 33; 
 xxxiv. 12-17), or that of the middle books (Num. xxxiii. 
 51, 52), and covers in general the same ground. We 
 have alone in Deuteronomy and Exodus an allusion 
 to the peculiar image of Astarte, falsely rendered 
 "groves " in the common version, and in Numbers 
 certain forms of idolatry are mentioned which do not 
 appear in the other books. But as the former does not 
 indicate a kind of false religion prevalent only in the 
 earlier times, so the latter just as little are evidence of 
 a later origin for the literature containing them. 
 
 The "Bamoth"of Numbers (cf. Lev. xxvi. 30) are 
 no doubt included in the more circumstantial descrip- 
 tion of Deuteronomy : " All the places wherein the 
 nations . . . served their gods, upon the high moun- 
 tains and upon the hills." And while the word mash- 
 kith (Lev. xxvi. i) is not unknown to other biblical 
 books (Prov. xviii. 11 ; xxv. 11), the thought expressed 
 by it here in connection with " stone," whether it be 
 that of an engraved stone or of an image made of 
 stone, can only suggest the rudest forms of idolatry, 
 which would hardly have been first introduced at the 
 time of the exile. Here, then, while we find the three 
 codes differing, it is without disharmony. Each has its 
 peculiar characteristics, and gives in its own way the 
 one charge against the idolatry of Canaan ; but evi- 
 dences of conflict or of widely diverse circumstances of 
 time and place there are none. 
 
 The Worship of Moloch, — Moloch (called also
 
 1 70 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Molech, Milcom, Malcom, in the Bible) was a fire-god, 
 allied to Baal, and the tutelary divinity of the Ammon- 
 ites. This people, as such, are first mentioned in 
 Deuteronomy (ii. 20 ; cf. Gen. xix. 38), and continued 
 to exist as a distinct nation down to the time of the 
 Maccabees (i Mace. v. 6). In just what the worship of 
 Moloch consisted is not altogether clear. The weight 
 of authority inclines to the view that children, having 
 first been put to death, were actually consumed by 
 fire in his honor.^ 
 
 Now, of the several codes, that of Exodus has noth- 
 ing to say of this special form of idolatry. Deuter- 
 onomy refers to it twice (xii. 31 ; xviii. 10) : in the first 
 instance, however, only in the form of an allusion to 
 a horrible and apparently well-known custom of the 
 heathen, without prohibiting it. In the second case, it 
 is prohibited, but in the most general terms, and as 
 subordinate to another and the principal matter. In 
 neither case is the name of the god, which must have 
 been familiar (cf. Amos v. 26), so much as mentioned. 
 
 In the middle books, on the other hand (Lev. xviii. 
 21 ; XX. 2-5), the law appears in definite shape, and the 
 name of the god is made particularly prominent, being 
 found in both passages, and three times repeated in the 
 longer one. Under such circumstances, it cannot be 
 doubtful which form of the law is original ; or better, 
 which is the law, and which the warning that is based 
 upon it. That of Leviticus is presupposed in Deuter- 
 onomy. As a statute, the latter would be quite too 
 indefinite without the other ; in fact, it would be 
 unintelligible. 
 
 It may be noted also, in passing, that we have here 
 in Leviticus itself an example of the repetition of a 
 
 * Cf. Dillmann, Com., zh loco; and Schrader, s.t. in Riehm's Handworterbuch.
 
 Laws Repeated and Modified ui De7itero7t07ny. 171 
 
 law in an enlarged form — a proceeding which the later 
 critics find so difficult to understand, in the case of 
 separate books of the Pentateuch, on the supposition 
 that they all originated in the Mosaic period. It is 
 assumed that this Levitical legislation belongs to one, 
 and that a late, period. Why, then, this iteration 
 within the space of two chapters .-• 
 
 It is not to be overlooked that with the Hebrew 
 there was no stronger form of emphasis than just such 
 a repetition. In this case, therefore, as in others, it 
 was with them no literary defect to repeat a law which 
 was to be modified or amended, or to repeat a law with- 
 out essential change to which special importance was 
 attached ; its importance was thereby only the more 
 enhanced. 
 
 We find moreover, in one of these passages (Lev. xx. 
 4, 5), the possibility intimated in the very law itself 
 that it might not be executed, and provision made for 
 such a contingency. With what propriety, then, can 
 the failure to execute a law of the Pentateuch be con- 
 sidered as conclusive evidence of the non-existence of 
 that law .'' 
 
 Still further, there is abundant evidence that the 
 present law, whether first promulgated in Moses' time 
 or in Josiah's time, was at no time fully obeyed, up to 
 the period of the captivity, and even later (i Kings xi. 
 5 ; 2 Kings iii. 27 ; xvi. 3 ; Isa. xxx. 33 ; Jer. vii. 31 ; 
 Zeph. i. 5). 
 
 Destruction of Canaanitish Cities. — With a regula- 
 tion peculiar to itself concerning other cities on which 
 war should be made (xx. 10-15), the Deuteronomic code 
 combines, also, rules of warfare to be observed in the 
 case of the cities of Canaan (xiii. 13-19; xx. 15-18, 19, 
 20 ; cf. vii. 1-6). In this particular, however, it had
 
 1 72 Tlie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 been anticipated by the previous books (Ex. xxiii. 23, 
 24, 27-33; xxxiv. 12-16; Num. xxxiii. 50-56), and 
 while repeating for substance the injunctions there laid 
 down, it directly refers to them in the words : " As the 
 Lord thy God hath commanded thee" (Deut. xx. 18). 
 It might be claimed, it is true, that this citation is only 
 of the Book of the Covenant. But there is nothing 
 gained by excluding the passage in Numbers. It con- 
 tains nothing new or peculiar of any sort by which 
 a later origin could be predicated for it. 
 
 The Deuteronomic law, moreover, plainly distin- 
 Sfuishes in its introduction between a new and an old 
 element in itself. "Thus shalt thou do unto all the 
 cities very far off from thee, which are not ... of 
 these nations here. [Note the correspondence with 
 the supposed situation of Moses.] But of the cities of 
 these peoples . . . thou shalt save alive nothing that 
 breathes, ... as the Lord thy God hath commanded 
 thee" (vs. 15-17). The sweeping form of the com- 
 mand, too, agrees better with Numbers than with Exo- 
 dus, where a gradual driving out is in view. " By 
 little and little I will drive them out from before thee, 
 until thou be increased and inherit the land " (Ex. xxiii. 
 30). And it may be remarked, incidentally, that this 
 law, in any of its three forms, would be an anachronism 
 in any period of Israelitish history subsequent to the 
 time of David. 
 
 Forbidden Mourning Customs. — In Deut. xiv. i, 2, we 
 find heathenish mourning customs forbidden, such as 
 shaving the head and cutting the flesh. The motive 
 assigned is that Israel is a holy people to the Lord their 
 God, and has been chosen by him for a peculiar posses- 
 sion from all the peoples of the earth. Parallel pas- 
 sages are alone found in Leviticus (xix. 27, 28 ; xxi. 5,
 
 Laws Repeated and Modified in De?ttero7tomy. i J 2) 
 
 the latter for the priests), and they show no essential 
 differences, certainly none that indicate a later origin. 
 There is nothing, indeed, to stand in the way of the 
 common view that the Deuteronomic law here is a 
 repetition of the Levitical and that both belong to the 
 earliest period. On the contrary, it is strongly sup- 
 ported by the marked hortatory and rhetorical charac- 
 ter of the former, nicely harmonizing, as it does, with 
 the supposed circumstances of its promulgation. 
 
 We find, moreover, in this connection a striking dis- 
 proof of the position that the code of Deuteronomy 
 originated in Josiah's time. The prophet Jeremiah 
 began his work in the eleventh year of this king's reign. 
 And yet we discover numerous passages (vii. 29 ; xvi. 6 ; 
 xli. 5 ; xlvii. 5 ; xlviii. 37) in his prophecy where the 
 mourning customs — here so emphatically forbidden — 
 are recognized as fully in vogue, and the prophet's atti- 
 tude toward them is by no means such as it must nec- 
 essarily have been if they had been the product of his 
 own age, or, much more (as some suppose), of his own 
 pen. It is simply one instance, of many, where a law 
 of the Pentateuch had so far fallen into disuse that even 
 a true prophet could seem to act in almost total uncon- 
 sciousness of it. 
 
 Food as Clean and Unclean. — The long passage, 
 Deut. xiv. 3-20, treats of the various kinds of food 
 which the Israelites were forbidden or allowed to eat, 
 and there is every reason for believing that it is based 
 on the still longer passage. Lev. xi. 1-2 1, 22-43, where 
 alone in the Pentateuch, outside of Deuteronomy, this 
 most important topic of the ceremonial law is dealt 
 with. Such a conclusion is forced upon us not alone 
 by the minute dependence of the Deuteronomic form of 
 the law, in the matter of arrangement and language.
 
 1/4 'r^^ Pentateuch: Its Origiji atid Structure. 
 
 on that of Leviticus, but also, and especially, by its 
 noteworthy variations. For example, Deuteronomy, 
 instead of saying with Leviticus, simply, that all quad- 
 rupeds that divide the hoof and chew the cud may be 
 used as food, proceeds to specify, as well it might on 
 the entrance into Canaan, a number of varieties under 
 this head. 
 
 Then, secondly, while faithfully enumerating the 
 three classes — quadrupeds, fishes, and fowls — of 
 Leviticus prohibited as food, it omits to mention 
 a fourth class, reptiles, eight species of which are 
 forbidden in that code. Still further, it passes over in 
 silence a list of insects, including locusts, that in 
 Leviticus are allowed as food. Now, both the additions 
 and omissions are significant, being precisely such 
 as might most naturally have been expected under the 
 circumstances. 
 
 In Canaan, into which the sons of Israel are just now 
 passing, the quadrupeds particularly named in Deuter- 
 onomy are those which would be their main dependence 
 for food. On the other hand, the reptiles prohibited in 
 Leviticus, but passed over in Deuteronomy, are such as 
 in their new home they would have neither occasion 
 nor desire to eat. While the several varieties of locusts 
 allowed to be eaten by the Levitical legislation (xi. 22, 
 23), and the following details (vs. 24-43), ^^^ appar- 
 ently left unnoticed in Deuteronomy for the reason 
 given by Riehm,i because it contents itself with calling 
 attention, to this extent, to the express provisions of 
 the old law as found in Leviticus. Indeed, the enlarge- 
 ment in Leviticus is devoted merely to an explanation 
 of what is meant by "every creeping thing that flieth," 
 forbidden in both codes. At least the practice of John 
 
 ^ Gesetzgebung Mosis, etc. p. 56.
 
 Laws Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy. 1 75 
 
 the Baptist (Matt. iii. 4) shows that the omission in 
 Deuteronomy to cite locusts as permitted food was not 
 understood as an interdiction of them.^ 
 
 Anijnals Eaten to be Properly Slaughtered. — With the 
 law just noticed there fitly connects itself this one for- 
 bidding as food the flesh of animals accidentally killed 
 or dying a natural death. It is really the old Noachian 
 precept (Gen. ix. 4) in another form, which forbade eat- 
 ing the blood with the flesh (cf. Deut, xii. 16, 24; xv. 
 23), and which was held by the Jews of later times to 
 be binding on all proselytes (cf. Acts xv. 20, 29 ; xxi. 
 25). The present enactment is found in each of the 
 three codes, but with considerable difference of detail. 
 The differences will be best displayed by placing the 
 several codes side by side. 
 
 Ex. xxii. 30. Lev. xvii. 15. Deut. xiv. 21. 
 
 " Flesh iorii in the field " Every soul that eats of " Ye shall not eat of a car- 
 
 ye shall not eat ; ye shall a carcase or what was torn case: to the stranger who is 
 
 cast it to the dogs.'^ of wild beasts, be he citi- in thy gates thou shalt give 
 
 zen or stranger, . . . shall zV, that he may eat it; or thou 
 
 be UTiclean until the even- mayest sell it to the /or- 
 
 ing." eigner." 
 
 One thing strikes us at once on looking at these laws, 
 and is very instructive as it respects the form of the 
 Pentateuch legislation as a whole, that, while the same 
 general principle underlies them all, there has not been 
 
 > But this not all. An evident textual variation already alluded to (see p. 20 above) 
 sets almost beyond doubt the dependence of the Deuteronomic form of the law on the 
 other. In the Levitical code (vs. 14), according to the common version, the following 
 species of unclean birds are named: " the vulture and the kite, after its kind." In Deu- 
 teronomy (vs. 13) these become: " And the glede, and the kite, and .he vulture, after its 
 kind." If, now, we place the original words of both codes, as they appear in the present 
 text, side by side, we shall see how the discrepancy was possible and most likely arose. 
 A copyist read in Deuteronomy r for d, a most natural and not infrequent confusion of 
 letters; and then he added the word for vulture in its phonetic form, since being found in 
 Leviticus, this species could not be properly omitted here. The Targum of Deuteronomy 
 and the Vulgate agree, indeed, with the present text. But the Samaritan Pentateuch 
 and the LXX., as well as four Hebrews MSS. cited by Kennicott, read in harmony with 
 Leviticus, " the vulture," as the first species, instead of" the glede," and it seems reason* 
 ably certain that this was the original text of both codes.
 
 I yG The Peiitataich : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 the least apparent effort made to bring them into a 
 merely formal, literary harmony. They seem to have 
 been confidently entrusted, just as they are, not only to 
 the good sense, but to the good will, of contemporaries 
 and of posterity. Their very diversity of form, like the 
 costumes of strange peoples mingled together in the 
 same city, often enables us the better to localize them 
 and assign them their true place in the history of 
 Israel. 
 
 In the present case there is nothing strange in the 
 fact that the more technical and concise Levitical code, 
 followed here by Deuteronomy, should use the term 
 "carcase" instead of the circumlocution of Exodus, or 
 that it should otherwise repeat, as not overlooking it, 
 the prohibition in its original form. Again, it is not 
 singular, but quite in keeping with the circumstances, 
 that the law in its Levitical shape, as applicable espe- 
 cially to life in camp, should put both citizens and 
 strangers under the same rule ; while the Deuteronomic, 
 looking toward changed conditions in Palestine, takes 
 on a considerably milder form as it respects the latter. 
 In fact, the permission to sell the carcases of fallen 
 animals to " foreigners " would have been without 
 special pertinence during the forty years' wanderings. 
 Such a class was then almost entirely wanting ; while 
 the "stranger," that is, sojourner and possible proselyte, 
 belonging to a wholly different category, was necessa- 
 rily subjected, as we have seen, to Israelitish laws. 
 
 Moreover, it is natural, and fully answers to supposed 
 historical relations, that in Leviticus, the law for the 
 priest alone excepted (xxii. 8), there should be a letting 
 up in the severity of the restrictions imposed in the 
 matter before us, with clear reference again to the 
 difficulty of obtaining food of any sort during the long
 
 Laws ]R.epeated and Modified in Deuteronomy. 1 7/ 
 
 sojourn in the wilderness ; while in both the earliest 
 and latest forms of the law, no such contingency being 
 directly in view, the prohibition is absolute. For it is 
 clear that mere ceremonial uncleanness, from which one 
 might be freed by simple ablutions in water, and last- 
 ing only until evening, could not have been regarded as 
 a complete interdiction. And, finally, it is no surprise 
 to find the more developed form of the law in Deuter- 
 onomy, rather than Exodus. It is true that both alike 
 are of the nature of prohibitions, but it is only this 
 one of all the codes that makes the distinction between 
 Israelites and strangers. This shows a growth in the 
 sentiment that the people of God were to be a holy 
 people. 
 
 TJie Sabbatic Year. — The term " Sabbatic Year " is 
 found only in Leviticus ; but there is no doubt that the 
 same thing is referred to in all the three constituent 
 parts of the legislation (Ex. xxiii. 9-1 1; Lev. xxv. 
 1-7; Deut. XV. i-ii). That of E.xodus could not, 
 indeed, be properly understood, might be open to a 
 wholly false interpretation, without the limitations 
 offered by the code of the middle books. That of 
 Deuteronomy is no less dependent, being really a 
 result of experience in the practical workings of the 
 law. For the temporary release of a poor debtor had 
 come to be demanded from the circumstance that 
 during the Sabbatic year he was naturally less able to 
 meet any indebtedness which he might have incurred. 
 
 To say, with some, that the code in Exodus recog- 
 nizes no absolute period of rest of this sort for the 
 whole people and land at once is to overlook the con- 
 text (vs. 12), where the obligatory rest of the Sabbath 
 directly appears as the norm of the new regulation. It 
 is true that the Levitical code positively enjoins rest
 
 I y8 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 on the seventh year, while that of Exodus does so only 
 constructively ; nevertheless, it does it. The command 
 to sow the fields six years, taken in connection with 
 the fact that one might not harvest crops on the 
 seventh year, might be considered an indirect, but it is 
 no less a real, injunction to desist from agricultural 
 pursuits during that year. 
 
 As thus considered, the three forms of the law nicely 
 fit together, like so many mutually dependent pieces of 
 a mechanism. To substitute one for the other, or 
 to regard them as representing a slow development, 
 the form in Leviticus being the final outcome, is clearly 
 impossible. The close relation of Deuteronomy to 
 Exodus here is shown by the unusual word, rendered 
 " let lie fallow," occurring in both, and in the entire 
 Pentateuch only found in these sections ; while to the 
 code of Leviticus it holds, as we have already inti- 
 mated, the relevancy of a by-law, intended to guard 
 against a possible evil consequence of the original 
 enactment. 
 
 It may be observed, moreover, incidentally, that the 
 Deuteronomic tithe enjoined for every third year 
 (xiv, 28, 29) seems to presuppose the institution of the 
 Sabbatic year as such. Otherwise there would be 
 needful a double system of reckoning : one on the basis 
 of seven years with respect to the year of release, and 
 one on the basis of three years with respect to the 
 tithe. Now, the two exactly harmonize in the cycle of 
 seven years, the special tithe falling on the third and 
 sixth, and there being none at all on the seventh, year. 
 
 Release of Hebreiv Servants. — Associated with the 
 Sabbatic year and the law concerning the release of 
 debtors we find an enactment relating t-) the discharge 
 of Hebrew servants. As a rule such service was in
 
 Laws Repeated and Modified hi Deuteronomy. 1 79 
 
 repayment of debts, the meeting of which was other- 
 wise impossible. Each of the three codes takes cogni- 
 zance of the matter, devoting to it nearly the same 
 amount of space, but in other respects having many 
 points of divergence, though all are within the bounds 
 of perfect harmony (Ex. xxi. 2-6 ; Lev. xxv. 39-46 ; 
 Deut. XV. 12-18). It is with these divergences that we 
 have here principally to do. 
 
 Exodus, for example, speaks only of Hebrew men as 
 servants ; so, too, Leviticus. But Deuteronomy speci- 
 fies also women of the nation, who, in a similar way 
 and for a similar reason, may have sold themselves into 
 bondage to their Hebrew brethren. The first code, 
 again, enjoins that after six years of continuous service 
 — having no direct reference, however, to the Sabbatic 
 year — these bondmen are to go free. As they came, 
 so are they to go ; that is, without compensation from 
 their masters. With this — excepting only a new 
 period of release to be hereafter noted — Leviticus 
 agrees. Deuteronomy, however, as in the former case, 
 has an important addition. Exactly as they came they 
 are not to go. They are to be set free, but not sent 
 away emj^ty. They are to be "loaded down" with 
 gifts from the flock, the threshing-floor, and wine-press, 
 in remembrance of the fact of a once common bondage 
 in Egypt. 
 
 The first code, still further, commands that in case 
 a Hebrew servant elects to remain permanently in the 
 service of the Hebrew master, a contract to that effect 
 may be made, slave and master appearing before the 
 Lord (that is, the priest or judge who represented him), 
 and the master there, against the post of the door, 
 boring with an awl the ear of his slave as a symbol of 
 his servitude. Of this Leviticus has nothing, another
 
 1 80 TJie Pentate7icJi : Its Orizin and Stnicture. 
 
 i>' 
 
 limitation already hinted at, the year of jubilee, being 
 in view. And Deuteronomy, properly enough from its 
 new point of observation, changes it in so far as that it 
 does not require, in the ceremony described, appearing 
 "before the Lord." It might be performed, in the 
 case of menservants and maidservants alike, at the 
 owner's house. Now, thus far, excepting only the pro- 
 vision respecting the year of jubilee, whose relations 
 to the present law remain to be considered, there is 
 nothing that requires any disturbance of the relative 
 position of the codes, as fixed by tradition and history. 
 There is only the natural expansion in Deuteronomy 
 which its whole spirit and the alleged circumstances of 
 its origin might have led us to expect. 
 
 As yet, however, we have failed to notice a pecu- 
 liarity of Leviticus besides its introduction of the year 
 of jubilee, which, according to some, shows a develop- 
 ment beyond the plane of Deuteronomy. It forbids in 
 the most emphatic language treating the Hebrew 
 brother as a slave (vs. 39, 42, 45). It is not for a 
 moment to be forgotten that he is still a " brother of 
 the children of Israel." I have called this a peculiarity 
 of Leviticus. It is so only in outward form. The 
 spirit of it appears just as clearly in Deuteronomy, and 
 the form in which it is there clothed is not one whit 
 less striking or impressive. He is to be enriched with 
 presents on the ground of a common brotherhood and 
 a former common thraldom in Egypt. The author of 
 Deuteronomy, with the passage in Leviticus before his 
 eyes, might, indeed, have consciously and deliberately 
 chosen so to express himself, putting thus in the 
 concrete and in the form of an illustration what is 
 there abstractly enjoined. 
 
 But how is to be explained the provision of Leviticu.s
 
 Lazvs Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy. 1 8 1 
 
 that a Hebrew servant is to remain with his master till 
 the year of jubilee? Is it not a clear contradiction of 
 that which speaks of a term of six years and of the 
 so-called perpetual servitude of the other codes ? By 
 no means. It simply offers still another limitation to 
 the principal injunction of the code, showing, in fact, 
 Jlow it tvas related to the year of jubilee. The obser- 
 vance of such a year had been independently enjoined 
 (Lev. XXV.). It was to forestall possible conflict, not to 
 precipitate it, that the matter is here treated. The law 
 respecting six years of service is not repealed, but so 
 far modified, as well as that of otherwise life-long servi- 
 tude, as that both kinds of service should terminate 
 with the year of jubilee.^ 
 
 To suppose that the Levitical code was meant to 
 stand by itself, as a later form of the other two, is to be 
 guilty of the absurdity of supposing that any one in 
 that later period could be capable, in the face of his 
 own appeal for brotherly consideration and leniency, of 
 condemning a Hebrew servant, willing or not, to serve 
 out the whole period, long or short, that preceded the 
 year of jubilee. Hence the only reasonable conclusion 
 is that these different forms of the law, as in other 
 cases, were simply meant to supplement, and not to 
 obstruct or supersede, one another. 
 
 Animal Saerifices to be Faultless. — The Deuteron- 
 omic code (xvii. i; cf. xv. 21) like the Levitical (xxii. 
 ig-27) allows for sacrifice only such animals as are 
 absolutely without blemish. The same general term 
 is used in the original of both codes for blemish ; but 
 the Levitical alone gives anything like a detailed list 
 of defects to be reckoned under that category. How 
 
 1 The slave then received back his forfeited landed property, etc., and there was no 
 longer any occasion for his being a slav«.
 
 1 82 The Pentateuch: Its Ojngin and Structure. 
 
 either priest or layman could have determined what, in 
 the eye of the law, constituted a blemish without some 
 such guide as is furnished by the legislation of the 
 middle books of the Pentateuch, it is not easy to see. 
 Deuteronomy furnishes only a hint in that direction, 
 and in its almost studied generalization seems clearly 
 to presuppose information as obtainable from other 
 sources. Malachi (i. 8) is the first of the prophets to 
 refer definitely to the subject, and it is in such a way as 
 to give anything but encouragement to the theory of 
 a post-exilian origin of the law in Leviticus. 
 
 Oppression of the Poor and Strangers. — A series of 
 enactments enjoining kind treatment of the poor and 
 strangers appears in each of the several codes. All are 
 of like tenor. That of Exodus (xxii. 21-24) treats of 
 the stranger, the widow, and fatherless : to mishandle 
 or afflict them is to expose one's self to the severest 
 visitations of the divine judgments. Leviticus (xix. 
 I3> 33> 34) 3.nd Deuteronomy alike (xxiv. 14, 15 ; cf. xvi. 
 19, 20) direct attention particularly to hired servants, 
 whether citizens or strangers : their wages are to be 
 promptly paid and they are to be in nowise oppressed. 
 Both the latter codes are remarkable for the motives 
 given for obedience. The former says (vs. 33): "The 
 stranger that dwelleth with you shall be as one born 
 among you ; . . . for ye were strangers in the land 
 of Egypt." The latter (vs. 15): "For he is poor, 
 and setteth his heart upon it [the money due] ; lest 
 he cry against thee to the Lord, and it be a sin 
 unto thee." 
 
 There is nothing here to show that the Levitical 
 law is a later development, but rather the reverse. It 
 alone of the three glances backward to the land of 
 Egypt. Yet this must be looked upon as simply fortui-
 
 Laws Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy. 1 83 
 
 tous. The three forms of the law are all from one 
 period, and only serve to enforce by repetition and the 
 urging of different incentives the same obligation of 
 tenderness toward the weak and helpless. 
 
 Number of Witnesses in Capital Cases. — The Deu- 
 teronomic law relating to idolatry (xvii. 2-7; xiii. 1-19) 
 is, in general, but an expansion of the brief regulation 
 of the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xxii. 19). It has one 
 important specification, however, in which it covers 
 ground common with that of the middle books. In 
 Numbers (xxxv. 30) it is forbidden to put to death one 
 charged with murder on the testimony of a single wit- 
 ness ; there must be witnesses. In Deuteronomy (xvii. 
 6; cf. xix. 15), on the other hand, the number of wit- 
 nesses declared to be necessary in such cases is fixed 
 expressly at two or three ; and, still further, it is made 
 binding on these witnesses, in the execution of the 
 sentence, to raise their own hands first against the 
 criminal. 
 
 Can it be considered in any sense probable that the 
 legislation in Numbers originated after that of Deuter- 
 onomy, especially in view of the uniform Jewish prac- 
 tice, which was undoubtedly based on Deuteronomy 
 (John viii. 17 ; Acts vii. 58 ; Heb. x. 28) .-• In my intro- 
 duction to the Additions to Daniel ^ it is shown to be 
 likely that the Book of Susanna had for its real object 
 a reform in the method of conducting legal processes, 
 and especially to correct abuses springing from the 
 dominance of the principle that two witnesses were 
 sufficient to convict of the most heinous offences.^ 
 
 * Old Testament Apocrypha, New York, 1880, p. 447. 
 
 ' The somewhat indefinite form of the law even in Deuteronomy would naturally lead to 
 discussion among those so much given to it as the later rabbins. Besides it was a matter 
 of life and death and it was to be expected that every possible point would be hotly con- 
 tested. The question of priority, however, as between the two forms of the law, here turns, 
 as it seems to me, not exclusively on later usage, but, also and especially, on the fact that
 
 1 84 TJie PcntatciicJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Magical Arts and Divination. — There was nothing 
 more common among all the peoples of antiquity, 
 including the inhabitants of Canaan and adjacent 
 lands, than the practice of magic in some of its 
 numerous forms. Ancient Egypt abounded in it, and 
 the monuments of Assyria and Babylon show that 
 these nations in their religious, social, and even politi- 
 cal, life were no less under its influence. And as one of 
 the most subtle and fascinating forms of idolatry, it was 
 natural that the Mosaic law should take cognizance of 
 it, and denounce the severest penalties against it. In 
 this particular all the codes agree ; there is not one of 
 them that does not adjudge so gross a violation of its 
 fundamental principles as worthy of death (Ex. xxii. 
 17; Lev. xix. 26, 31; XX, 6, 27; cf. Num. xxiii. 23; 
 Deut, xviii. 9-14). 
 
 But there is a marked gradation in the fulness and 
 emphasis with which the several books characterize 
 this sin. Exodus speaks only of the female magician ; 
 Leviticus and Numbers of five other sorts ; while Deu- 
 teronomy combines in its list all of them together under 
 their technical names (using the masculine form, how- 
 ever), adds to them three other kinds not found in the 
 
 the Deuteronomic law is the more complete. It is true that in other instances, not a few 
 indeed in this very paper, the fact of an undeveloped form of a law in Deuteronomy has 
 been taken as presupposing and pointing to a prior more developed form to be found else- 
 where, namely, in the middle books. Why may not then the brevity of the law in 
 Numbers in this case presuppose an older and fully developed law in Deuteronomy ? 
 Because the cases are really very different. In the one, we are adjusting facts to the 
 theory that the Deuteronomic code is a somewhat later repetition and supplementary 
 popular form of that of the middle books. In the other case, to the theory that the laws 
 of the middle books are a 7nnch later, fiilly developed, officially promulgated Priests' 
 Code. In such a code it could not be expected that a law of this character, especially 
 involving the functions of priests, would be found having the relation of this one to Deu- 
 teronomy. If it could be shown in the other cases mentioned that, notwithstanding the 
 contrary averment of the history connected with the laws, the forms of the law found in 
 Deuteronomy accord better with the hypothesis of a gradual development of such laws 
 into those of the middle books, such a process of reasoning would not apply here where 
 the more developed and precise form is found to be the one alleged to be earlier.
 
 Laivs Repeated and Modified in De7iteronomy. 1 85 
 
 parallel accounts, and puts the sin on a level with the 
 offering of human sacrifices. There is but one conclu- 
 sion to be drawn from such a fact, and it is far enough 
 from agreeing with that theory of gradual development 
 for these laws, with Leviticus and Numbers at its crown, 
 that has sprung up in our times. 
 
 The history of the matter as it appears in the 
 Hebrew literature is quite as irreconcilable a factor in 
 such a theory. Centuries previous to the time when, 
 according to our critics, the code of Deuteronomy 
 began to have force, during the reign of Israel's first 
 king (i Sam. xv. 23 ; xxviii. 7-9), we already find its 
 severe penalties executed against this crime ; and long 
 after the supposed post-exilian introduction of the 
 Levitical legislation it still continues to flourish, and 
 remains a prominent sin of the intractable people of 
 the exodus down to the Christian era (Zech. x. 2 ; 
 Mai. iii. 25). ^ 
 
 Cities of Refuge. — Not less prevalent than supersti- 
 tion and idolatry among the peoples with whom Israel 
 had to do was the immemorial practice of blood-revenge. 
 The Shemitic races, it is well known, were particularly 
 given to it, and are so to this day. To what terrible 
 excesses it naturally led, since retaliation in its turn 
 provoked retaliation, what wild feuds arose among fam- 
 ilies, which could only be suppressed by their total 
 extermination, may readily be conceived ; in fact, is 
 matter of history, sacred as well as profane. This ter- 
 rible custom, now, the Mosaic laws aimed not to do 
 away with, for it was founded in a natural and proper 
 sentiment of justice, but to restrict and regulate in 
 keeping with the spirit of all its institutions. Murder 
 was a crime against society, indeed, but a greater crime 
 
 * Cf. Hamburger, s.v. " Zauberei " in Real-Encyc. fur Dibel -und Talmud
 
 1 86 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 against God. He would avenge. The man-slayer 
 should be his instrument, and no longer self-appointed 
 and self-moved. At the same time there must be scru- 
 pulous care exercised. It was only the guilty who 
 should suffer. Provision should be made not only that 
 fathers should not be put to death for sons and sons for 
 fathers (Deut. xxiv. i6), but to rescue the involuntary 
 homicide himself from the hands of offended relatives 
 while their "blood was hot." This was the real occa- 
 sion for the cities of refuge. 
 
 The three codes present the matter much as we 
 might expect them to do on the supposition that they 
 appear in chronological order, and that all of them 
 originated within the Mosaic period. The Book of the 
 Covenant (Ex. xxi. 13) recognizes the necessity for a 
 law on the subject, and announces that some place will 
 be provided to which one accidentally taking the life of 
 another may flee and be safe. In the fuller legislation 
 of the Book of Numbers (xxxv. 1-38), in natural con- 
 nection with instructions concerning the Levitical cities, 
 such provision is duly made, and a sufficient number of 
 conveniently situated asylums of this sort appointed. 
 In Deuteronomy (iv. 41-43) we find Moses, in harmony 
 with the law of the middle books, designating three 
 cities of refuge on the eastern side of the Jordan ; and 
 subsequently, Joshua (Josh. xxi. 13, 21, 27) selecting 
 the other three called for by the statutes on the 
 western side. 
 
 The Deuteronomic code (xix. 1-13 ; cf. xxiv. 16), evi- 
 dently presupposing what Moses is recorded as doing 
 previously (iv. 41-43), is much of the nature of a com- 
 mentary on the law in Numbers. It makes still more 
 explicit by illustration what class of persons might find 
 domicile within the refuge cities (vs. 4, 5) ; gives com-
 
 Laws Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy. 187 
 
 prehensive, though brief, directions for rendering the 
 cities easily accessible, and, what is more important of 
 all for our investigations, adds the concession that, on 
 certain conditions, three cities more, making nine in 
 all, may be used for this purpose. The conditions are 
 that the people prove obedient and faithful — ■ which, 
 unhappily, they do not — and their boundaries are ulti- 
 mately enlarged to the extent promised to Abraham 
 (Gen. XV. 18). 
 
 In this provision for additional cities found in Deu- 
 teronomy critics like Wellhausen profess to find a 
 special stumbling-block. They do not see how it is 
 possible that such a concession could have been made 
 in Deuteronomy, if it be the latest form of the law, in 
 the face of the allotment of but six cities for this pur- 
 pose in Numbers. It is only, however, because they 
 are unwilling to acknowledge that Moses was equally 
 concerned in both codes. If it be granted, as it should 
 be, that he was fully competent (always, of course, 
 under divine direction) to modify, as circumstances 
 might demand, his own earlier regulations, the difficulty 
 at once disappears. 
 
 On the other hand, from their own point of view, we 
 do not see how the difficulty is made any less serious 
 by supposing that the legislation of Numbers, if it fol- 
 lowed long after that of Deuteronomy, would venture 
 so to counterwork established and ostensibly Mosaic 
 institutions as to ordain that three of its six cities of 
 refuge should be on the eastern side and three on the 
 western side of the Jordan, when the Deuteronomic 
 code (xix. 7-9), taken by itself, as it is assumed it 
 should be, allows but three cities altogether for such a 
 purpose, or six on the western side on conditions that 
 were never actually complied with. No one can fail to
 
 1 88 The PentatcucJi: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 i>' 
 
 see that this horn of the dilemma is fully as embar- 
 rassing as the other.i 
 
 Bearing False Witness. — In addition to the regula- 
 tion already considered concerning the number of 
 witnesses needful to establish capital offences, there 
 is another in the Pentateuch relating to the bearing of 
 false witness. Its first appearance is in the decalogue 
 itself, and then again in the same Book of the Cove- 
 nant {Ex. xxiii. I, 3), forming what Ewald and others 
 name a "pentade," that is, a law having five separate 
 injunctions, all sustaining a relation more or less close 
 with a central theme. The " pentade " here, however, 
 is somewhat arbitrarily made up, and might be consid- 
 erably enlarged by adding the prohibitions recorded or 
 implied in vs. 6, 8, immediately following. The same 
 topic is taken up in Leviticus (xix. 11, 15, 16), but in 
 a very general way, covering in the main the same 
 ground, but with no greater fulness, and much less 
 definiteness, than Exodus. 
 
 It is not till we come to Deuteronomy (xix. 16, 21) 
 
 * A scholarly friend, whose life has been given to the critical study of the Old and New 
 Testaments, sends me the following criticism on the view taken in this section: " I am not 
 at all sure of your interpretation of the number of the cities of refuge. It depends upon 
 the priority of Num. xxxv. to Deut. xix. Both were spoken ' in the plain of Moab' and 
 must have been not far from one another in time. Now if we can suppose Deut. xix. 1-13 
 to have been spoken before the conquest of the transjordanic territory, all will be clear. 
 Moses provides absolutely for three cities, and for three more in case of enlargement of 
 territory. The territory on the east of Jordan was not intended, so to speak, to be con- 
 quered or divided among the tribes, and Moses consented reluctantly to its occupation by 
 the two and a half tribes (see Num. xxxii.). Before this territory was conquered, three 
 cities were likely to be enough. Afterward it was seen that they would be too distant and 
 Moses (Deut. iv. 41-43) appointed the three cities on the east of the Jordan. Numbers 
 XXXV., in appointing six cities, locates three on the east of Jordan, thus clearly including 
 those of Deut. iv. The passage in Numbers was certainly after the conquest on the east, 
 and so was Deut. iv. If we suppose Deut. xix. to have been before, it will be necessary 
 to suppose that the two discourses were delivered in the reverse order from that in which 
 they are recorded. I know of no objection to this, and there is an obvious reason why 
 the longer exhortation founded on the law (which may have actually been divided into 
 several discourses) should follow the shorter one on the history. I do not recall anything 
 in this longer discourse inconsistent with this supposition. Deut. iv. 44-49, which is often 
 considered as belonging with it, may quite as well be connected with the previous 
 discourse."
 
 Laws Repeated and Modified in Detiterononiy. 189 
 
 that we find anything like detail. Here directions are 
 given concerning what is to be done to test the matter 
 whether a witness be true or false ; and in case he is 
 proved false, what penalty is to be visited upon him. 
 The other two codes seem, certainly, to be before the 
 legislator of Deuteronomy, and his direct object to 
 supplement them. Comparing together the codes of 
 Leviticus and Deuteronomy, if one's judgment is to 
 be based solely on the laws in form and substance as 
 they now appear, there could be no reason for assign- 
 ing a later date to that of Leviticus. 
 
 Rights of InJieritajicc. — The unwritten law of inheri- 
 tance in Israel was that the eldest legitimate son 
 should be his father's heir, receiving a double portion 
 of all his possessions, the father's special blessing, and 
 all other rights and privileges appertaining to the 
 proper head of the family. This law is recognized by 
 incidental allusions in the history and the codes, but is 
 nowhere made the subject of an enactment, except in 
 the way of restriction or supplement. 
 
 Deuteronomy, for example, provides against the pos- 
 sible partiality of a father for the first-born son of a 
 favorite wife (xxi. 15-17), prohibiting his making him 
 his heir in preference to the real first-born ; while 
 Numbers (xxvii. i ff. ; xxxvi. ; cf. Josh. xvii. 3 f.) pro- 
 vides for the case where there are no children save 
 daughters, constituting them equal heirs of their 
 father's estate, on the understanding that they marry 
 within their own tribe. In the same connection, it is 
 shown what is to be done if there are no children at all. 
 The second case is an exceedingly interesting one, 
 from the fact that it is special legislation, and arose, in 
 its original form, from an actual appeal to Moses on 
 the part of the daughters of a man who had died
 
 1 90 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 leaving no son. Moreover, it was subsequently 
 amended because of a similar direct appeal to the 
 lawgiver in view of certain difficulties expected to 
 arise under it if it were left as first drafted. It is 
 quite probable that the legislation in Deuteronomy was 
 the result of a similar, though unrecorded, emergency. 
 
 Such instances, in fact, serve to account, in some 
 measure, for the journal-like character of a large por- 
 tion of the laws of the Pentateuch. So-called discre> 
 pancies are often nothing more or less than amend- 
 ments called forth by altered circumstances, or revision 
 suggested by further thought. In the case before us 
 there is certainly no just occasion for predicating a 
 later date for the law in its Levitical form. We see, 
 indeed, the very circumstance of the history that 
 called it forth passing before our eyes. Incidentally, 
 attention may be called to the fact that the 
 Deuteronomic code at this point makes use of the 
 otherwise unused expression of Jacob in his address 
 to Reuben, found in a document usually ascribed to 
 the second Elohist {cf. with Deut. xxi. 17, Gen. xlix. 3, 
 " beginning of my strength " ). 
 
 The Property of a Brother Israelite. — In Deut. xxii. 
 1-4 we have the command to restore the straying 
 animal of a brother, or anything else he may have lost. 
 Added to this is another of similar import, to the effect 
 that help is to be given in case the animal of a brother 
 fall under its burden. It is altogether but a somewhat 
 changed reproduction of a passage in Exodus (xxiii. 
 4, 5), which, however, contains the thought that this 
 brother whose animal js astray or in trouble is one with 
 whom the person addressed is not on friendly terms. 
 Still, the epithet "brother" used in Deuteronomy 
 may be understood as comprehending the special case
 
 Laws Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy. 191 
 
 mentioned in Exodus, together with all others of a 
 similar character ; while this form of the code alone 
 extends the rule to anything which might be lost 
 (using a word only used elsewhere in Ex. xxii. 18 and 
 in the code of the middle books : Lev. v. 22, 23). 
 Considering, moreover, the secondary character of the 
 legislation in Deuteronomy, it is remarkable to what 
 extent its language differs from that of Exodus while 
 expressing the same general thought. It is far enough 
 from being a slavish imitation. 
 
 Kijidness to Animals. — In harmony with the fourth 
 commandment, v/hich enjoins rest for animals as well 
 as man, we find in Deuteronomy (xxii. 6, 7) the com- 
 mand not to destroy a bird and its young or eggs at the 
 same time. Doubtless the purpose of the law was 
 partly economic ; but the special motive urged, "that it 
 may be well with thee," shows that higher considera- 
 tions also ruled (cf. Ex. xxiii. 19; xxxiv. 26; Deut. xiv. 
 21 ; xxv. 4). It seems to be but another specification, 
 or illustration, under the law given in Leviticus (xxii. 
 28) which prohibits the killing of an animal and its 
 young, "whether it be a cow or ewe," both in one day. 
 There is no evidence whatever that the Deuteronomic 
 law antedates the Levitical. The one looks simply 
 toward the open fields and ordinary life ; the other 
 toward the sanctuary and its sacrifices. 
 
 Mixing Diverse Things. — The law in Deuteronomy 
 against sowing a field with diverse seed, ploughing with 
 an ox and an ass yoked together, wearing garments of 
 mingled woolen and linen, and forbidding one sex to 
 wear the clothing of the other (xxii. 5, 9-1 1), is, as it 
 would appear, but an enlargement of that of Leviticus 
 (xix. 19), two of the particulars being precisely the 
 same, and the unlike one in the latter code — that
 
 192 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Stnicttire. 
 
 cattle of diverse kinds shall not be allowed to gender 
 together — not being of such a nature as to suggest 
 priestly improvements of a later date. A peculiar dual 
 form is found only in these two places. The same is 
 true of another word, which is explained in the more 
 popular code as meaning a material made up of woolen 
 and linen. Deuteronomy speaks of "vineyard," in 
 place of "field" found in Leviticus; but it is an 
 unimportant variation.^ The motive urged in Deuter- 
 onomy for not sowing with diverse seeds is worthy of 
 notice, " lest it be made holy," that is, be confiscated 
 to feed the priests and Levites of the sanctuary (cf. 
 Lev. vi. 11). 
 
 Fringes on the Garment. — In the Book of Numbers 
 (xv. 37-41) Moses is represented as enjoining upon the 
 Israelites, in the name of the Lord, that they should 
 wear fringes on the borders of their garments, and that 
 these fringes be ornamented with a ribbon of blue, the 
 whole to be a memorial of what God had done for them 
 and of their duty to him. In Deuteronomy (xxii. 12) 
 the word " borders " is changed to " four borders," for 
 "garments" we have "upper garment" (cf. Ex. xxii. 
 26), and the fringes themselves, instead of cj(^ith 
 (found only here and in Ezek. viii. 3), are called g^dilini 
 (cf. I Kings vii. 17). All the changes seem to be in 
 the interest of clearness and definiteness. The employ- 
 ment of the former word in Ezekiel has no bearing on 
 its use here, as it is there used for quite a different 
 thing, the forelock. The Deuteronomic name, which 
 
 ^ It might better be said, perhaps, that as a more specific statement, it is more naturally 
 found in a code of the purport of that of Deuteronomy. So Kamphausen in Riehm's 
 Handworterbuch s.v. " Verschiedenartiges": " Die Erwahnung des wol hauptsachlich 
 in Betracht kommenden Weinbergs erscheint als eine der Verdeutlichung dienende nahere 
 Bestimmung des alten Gesetz. Es war namlich wol haiifiger der Fall, dass man Zwi- 
 schen die Reihen der Weinstbcke irgend eine Art von Getreide oder Gemiise saete, als dass 
 man die untereinander gemengten Kiirner z. B. von Gerste und Weizen auf dasselbe 
 Feld streute."
 
 Latvs Repeated and Modified in Dcntero7toniy. 193 
 
 is derived from the process of manufacturing, is surely 
 an improvement, for such a code, over the more tech- 
 nical designation of Numbers, being a common word, 
 and having the same meaning in Hebrew, Aramaic, 
 Syriac, and Arabic. 
 
 Svis against Chastity. — The only law against un- 
 chastity in the Book of the Covenant is contained in 
 the two injunctions (Ex. xxii. 16, 18), the one relating 
 to the seduction of a bondmaid who is a virgin, the 
 other to lying carnally with a beast as with mankind. 
 Leviticus devotes to the subject a series of enactments, 
 extending, altogether, over more than thirty verses 
 (xviii. 6-30; XX. 10-26). The legislation of Deuter- 
 onomy is largely special (xxii. 13-29; xxiii. i), having 
 nothing in common with Leviticus except a command 
 concerning adultery in its narrower sense (vs. 22 ; cf. 
 Lev. xviii. 20; xx. 10), which it defines and punishes 
 in the same way ; and the one concerning the seduction 
 of a virgin (vs. 28, 29; cf. Lev. xix. 20-22), which, 
 however, it considerably enlarges, and makes cover 
 three distinct cases, all of them different from the one 
 adduced in Leviticus. 
 
 Of the two codes, taken simply by themselves, the 
 priority of date would naturally fall to the form in 
 Leviticus, that of Deuteronomy being of too limited 
 a character to stand by itself, and its enactments, as we 
 have intimated, of the nature of amendments. Atten- 
 tion, moreover, may well be called to the fact that in 
 the passage in Deuteronomy (xxiii. i) the law of 
 incest as found in Leviticus (xvii. 7 ff.) seems to be 
 recalled and renewed by a repetition of the first enact- 
 ment of it. The lawgiver had together with the one 
 chief instance of incest the others, which were almost 
 equally criminal, in mind, as the anathemas (Deut.
 
 1 94 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 xxvii. 20, 22, 23) show. It is but another way of 
 citing the Levitical code. 
 
 Cleanliness in Camp. — True to its historical back- 
 ground, Deuteronomy has a number of laws relating to 
 methods of conducting warfare upon the inhabitants of 
 Canaan and the adjacent countries. As was to be 
 expected, they are all, to a large extent, peculiar to it ; 
 and the present one has been selected for special 
 remark only because, in its principal features, certain 
 laws of the books immediately preceding are so clearly 
 reflected in it (with Deut. xxiii. 10-15 cf. respectively 
 Lev. XV. 1-33; xviii. 19; xx. 18; Num, v. 1-4; xxxi, 
 19-24). The particular uncleanness specified in vs. 10, 
 1 1 of Deuteronomy is provided for in the same way in 
 the other code (Lev. xv. 16, 17 ; cf. Num. v. 2), and the 
 same degree of ceremonial impurity is imputed to it. 
 That of vs. 12, 13, while special in its character, is 
 wholly of one spirit with that of the Book of Numbers. 
 So, too, the motive assigned for what is required in the 
 people's code is fully up to the standard of that of the 
 priests' : " Sanctify yourselves, therefore, and be ye 
 holy; for I the Lord am holy" (Deut. xxiii. 15; cf. 
 Lev. XX. 7). It is not an unimportant circumstance in 
 view of current theories of development in this 
 particular direction. 
 
 Prostitution. — The code of the middle books forbids 
 male prostitution, otherwise known as sodomy, in the 
 following terms : " Thou shalt not lie with mankind as 
 with womankind; it is an abomination" (Lev. xviii. 
 22) ; and female prostitution with equal explicitness in 
 the following chapter (xix. 29). Deuteronomy com- 
 bines the two enactments in one (xxiii. 18, 19), using a 
 technical term for prostitute first employed in Genesis 
 (xxxviii. 21 f.), but frequently found in the later histori-
 
 Laios Rr/catccl and Modified in Deuteronomy. 195 
 
 cal and other books (i Kings xiv. 24; xv. 12 ; xxii. 47 ; 
 2 Kings xxiii. 7; Job xxxvi. 14; Hos. iv. 14). It also 
 adds to it an injunction, perhaps suggested by this very 
 term as used by Phoenician and Canaanitish neighbors, 
 to the effect that money obtained by such means " for 
 any vow " is in no case to be brought into the house 
 of the Lord. 
 
 There is every indication that Deuteronomy repre- 
 sents the latest form of the law. The expression 
 " house of the Lord," otherwise strange to the book, 
 occurs in Exodus (xxiii. 19), and is no proof that the 
 temple was already built. The epithet "dog" applied 
 to the male prostitute is as remarkable for its literary 
 precision as for its exalted moral tone. 
 
 Usury. ■ — Exacting interest for what was loaned to 
 Israelitish brethren is forbidden in each of the three 
 forms of the legislation of the Pentateuch (Ex. xxii. 24 ; 
 Lev. xxv. 35-37; Deut. xxiii. 20, 21) ; but these forms 
 are by no means simple repetitions of one another. 
 Each furnishes something peculiar to itself. 
 
 EXODUS. LEVITICUS. DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 " If thou lend money to (7«^ "And if thy brother "Thou shalt not exact in- 
 
 of my people among you, thou have grown poor . . . or the terest ol thy brother, interest 
 
 sha'.t not be to him as one ex- stranger and sojourner for money, interest for food, 
 
 acting interest; thou shah not with thee, thou shalt re- interest for anything for 
 
 charge him with interest." lievehim. Thou shalt not -which one might exact in- 
 
 take interest from him or terest. Of the/oreigner thou 
 
 increase. Thy money thou mayest exact it, but of thy 
 
 shalt not give him for in- brother thou shalt not exact it, 
 
 terest, nor thy food for in order that the Lord thy God 
 
 increase. I am the Lord may bless thee." 
 your God." 
 
 In Exodus the poor Israelite is spoken of as one of 
 God's people, and this thought supplies the place of the 
 motives urged in the other laws. In Leviticus, not 
 only is interest for money loaned prohibited, but for 
 food. In Deuteronomy this is extended to anything
 
 196 The Pentateuch: Its Origm and Structure. 
 
 loaned. Leviticus enjoins that its provisions shall be 
 applied to strangers (proselytes) and sojourners who 
 are casually dwelling among the Israelites. Deuter- 
 onomy adds, in harmony with its special outlook, that 
 from foreigners interest for anything loaned may be 
 legally received ; that is, from Phoenician, Canaanitish, 
 and other professional traders with whom they may 
 have dealings. 
 
 It is plain that there is no call here for any adjust- 
 ment ; the sacred laws are completely self-adjusting. 
 They nicely fit and complement one another, and the 
 three taken together form one harmonious whole. The 
 question of conflict or of development in the line of 
 Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, with a space of cen- 
 turies between the separate codes, cannot for a moment 
 be entertained. 
 
 Voivs. — The legislation of the Pentateuch neither 
 imposed vows nor treated them as particularly merito- 
 rious. They might be made or ignored without sin 
 (Deut. xxiii. 22). This attitude was to have been 
 expected ; since it is what God requires, and not what 
 one voluntarily takes upon himself, that these laws 
 make it their object to prescribe and enact. Still the 
 subject could not be wholly overlooked ; for vows had 
 in all times and countries a great deal to do with the 
 religious life as popularly understood and practised. 
 
 Hence the Mosaic laws undertake to regulate the 
 matter in harmony with their own fundamental princi- 
 ples. If, for example, one had actually made a vow, it 
 must be fulfilled at the exact time and in the manner 
 originally assumed (Num. xxx. 3 ; Deut. xxiii. 22, 23 ; 
 Judges xi. 30 ff). Everything of which a person had 
 the proper disposal, that is, which did not already come 
 under the head of appointed offerings, it was presup
 
 Laivs Repeated and Modified in Dcnteronomy. k^'J 
 
 posed in the law might be voluntarily devoted to God, 
 and it does not accordingly refer to the matter except, 
 as we have already seen, by forbidding that the gains 
 of prostitution shall be brought into the house of the 
 Lord (Deut. xxiii. i8). Such an exception gives just 
 the local coloring to this phase of the legislation which 
 its supposed circumstances admit and serves also to 
 display its true relation to the others in this matter. 
 It is the middle books that have the most to say con- 
 cerning vows (Lev. vii., xxii., xxiii., xxvii. ; Num. vi., 
 XV., xxix., and especially xxx.). What is said in the 
 people's code (Deut. xii. 6, ii, 17, 26; xxiii. 22 f.) is to 
 be looked upon less in the light of any attempt to lay 
 down rules, with the exception just noticed, and more 
 as designed to impress an important principle under- 
 lying all vows, that what had been once vowed could 
 never be recalled (cf. its " when thou vowest a vow," 
 and "what thy mouth hath spoken " with Num. xxx. 3, 
 
 6, 7, 13)- 
 
 It is true that in the degeneracy of the later Judaism 
 an ever greater stress came to be laid on self-imposed 
 duties and restraints (Mai. i. 14; Matt. xv. 5 ; Mark vii. 
 9), and it might therefore be claimed that the minute 
 injunctions of the middle books reflect the spirit of a 
 post-exilian Israel. But when it is considered that 
 nothing at all is said of vows in the laws of Exodus, 
 and that what is said in Deuteronomy is of a hortatory, 
 or a purely emendatory, character, the legislation of the 
 middle books seems to be positively demanded to meet 
 the requirements of so fixed and widespread a custom 
 of the earliest periods and one so ethical in its bearings. 
 
 Pledges. — Deuteronomy treats the matter of pledges 
 given for loans, relatively, at considerable length 
 (xxiv, 6, 10-13, 17, 18), and altogether from its uni-
 
 198 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 formly merciful and humane point of view. In form, 
 what it has to say is evidently based on Exodus (xxii. 
 25, 26), whose provisions, or more properly illustrations, 
 it simply enlarges. Neither form of the law has any- 
 thing to say about the pledging of land, which first 
 came into use after the time of Nehemiah (Neh. v. 3) ; 
 and the same is true of the code of the middle books, 
 which is silent on the entire subject. 
 
 Man-stealing. — The law concerning man-stealing is 
 also limited to the same two codes. In the first form 
 of the law (Ex. xxi. 16) the matter is not confined to the 
 stealing of Hebrews alone ; and if the one stolen were 
 either found in the thief's hands, that is, as a slave, or 
 had been sold by him, the thief was to be put to death. 
 In the second form (Deut. xxiv. 7), the matter is con- 
 fined to the stealing of Hebrews, and the thief is to be 
 put to death if he be found stealing or selling one of his 
 brethren. The law in Deuteronomy is either a milder 
 form of the other, or to be understood as putting a 
 proper interpretation upon the other. 
 
 Leprosy. ■ — - Delitzsch ^ has laid down the safe princi- 
 ple that where there are " in Deuteronomy references to 
 the laws which are fully codified by the Elohist, these 
 laws, as well as those of the Book of the Covenant, are 
 to be looked upon as antedating Deuteronomy." " That 
 this," he goes on to say, " is true of the law of Leviti- 
 cus relating to the leprosy we think we have shown in 
 our first article.^ The impressive exhortation, Deut. 
 xxiv. 8, to hold one's self obedient, in case of the lep- 
 rosy, to the directions of the Levitical priests, which 
 themselves, in turn, rest on divine instructions {'as I 
 have commanded them ' ; cf. with this the expression 
 referring to the law of the Sabbath, vs. 12), presupposes 
 
 1 Zeitschrift fur Kirchliche IVisscnschaft, etc. 1880, p. 446. ^ [i,id, pp. 3-10,
 
 Laws Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy. 199 
 
 the existence of such special norms, products of divine 
 revelation, as stand recorded in Lex. xiii., xiv." It is 
 not easy to see how this conclusion of Delitzsch can be 
 avoided. The Book of the Covenant does not take up 
 the subject. Deuteronomy refers explicitly to instruc- 
 tions somewhere given to the priests concerning it. 
 They are found in full in Leviticus, and found nowhere 
 else. 
 
 The allusion to Miriam in Deut. xxiv. 9 is incidental, 
 and is made, apparently, for the sake of warning, lest 
 one expose himself by disobedience to the danger of 
 the leprosy. It should not be used so to limit the pre- 
 ceding verse as to make it teach that if the people are 
 not submissive to the priests they will be liable to 
 attacks from this dreadful disease. It was not against 
 the priests, but against Moses, that Miriam and Aaron, 
 himself the head of the priesthood, had shown a rebel- 
 lious spirit. The rendering of vs. 8, which Schultz and 
 Keil strangely favor : " Take heed against the plague 
 of the leprosy by observing and doing according to all 
 the Levitical priests," etc., is not only grammatically 
 less to be recommended, but introduces by the but-end 
 an incongruous thought into the context. It is possible, 
 indeed, that the reference is to Miriam's exclusion from 
 camp, and solely to that, showing that the strictest 
 rules were enforced even in her case, and hence should 
 be in that of all others. 
 
 Gleaning. — Of the law in Leviticus in behalf of the 
 poor (xix. 10), that the corners of the fields and the 
 gleanings as well of vineyards as grainfields are to be 
 left for them, Dillmann ^ remarks that its age is wit- 
 nessed to not only by its form, but by its repetition 
 in xxiii. 22, and in Dcut. xxiv. 19-22. In the latter 
 
 * Cont.f in loco.
 
 200 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 passages the gleanings of olive-trees and sheaves for- 
 gotten in the harvesting are also included among the 
 perquisites of "strangers, the fatherless, and widow." 
 It was a goodly land upon which the people looked 
 over from the steppes of Moab. What wonder that 
 the heart grew generous in view of it ? 
 
 Jiist Weights and Measures. — As it has just oc- 
 curred, and not infrequently occurred, so here, we find 
 Deuteronomy doing little more than simply repeating 
 a regulation of Leviticus (xix. 35, 36 ; cf. Deut. xxv. 
 13-16) in a slightly altered form. The language of the 
 latter betrays no sign of a later age, and still less does 
 the motive which is urged as an incentive : the fact that 
 God had brought them from the land of Egypt. The 
 style of Deuteronomy is more popular, it has fewer 
 specifications than Leviticus, but it is one with it in 
 spirit and conveys essentially the same message. The 
 motive it offers, as over against that of the parallel 
 code, is strikingly appropriate to the alleged circum- 
 stances of its origin : " In order that thy days may be 
 prolonged in the land which the Lord thy God 
 giveth thee" (cf. iv. 26, 40; v. 16, 30; vi. 2; xi. 9; 
 xvii. 20; xxii. 7; xxv. 19; xxviii. 8; xxx. 16; xxxi. 13). 
 
 It is worthy of notice that our code ends, as it began, 
 with a reference to the speedy entrance on the pos- 
 session of the promised land. The present series of 
 laws forms no exception to the rest of the code, or any 
 of the codes, in the fact of laying emphasis on this 
 impending event. The chief difference between Deu- 
 teronomy and the middle books in this respect is that 
 it seems to feel considerably more than they the 
 nearness of Palestine. The legislation of PC, like its 
 history, is more appropriate to a migratory people, 
 always centring, as it does, about the tabernacle. The
 
 Laws Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy. 20 1 
 
 legislative and narrative portions of Deuteronomy, on 
 the other hand, are more appropriate to a people about 
 to settle as a morally and politically united nation in 
 a long-hoped-for national domain. 
 
 Let us, in conclusion, briefly recall some of the prin- 
 cipal features of the series of laws just considered. 
 If we mistake not, they have an important bearing 
 on important problems of the criticism. Among the 
 enactments are some, as for example that enjoining the 
 wiping out of unconquerably hostile Canaanitish cities 
 (xiii, 13-19; XX. 15-18), which, on the supposition of 
 ungenuineness, would not alone be senseless — they 
 would be ridiculous. There are still others, like that 
 which specifies a single characteristic sin in a certain 
 category of unchastity (xxiii. i), that without the back- 
 ground of some such legislation as that of the middle 
 books would be as incomplete as the law against 
 unclean food apart from specifications. 
 
 There are others, and a not inconsiderable list of 
 them, which plainly appear to be laws of the so-called 
 "Priests' Code" modified, sometimes slightly changed 
 in form, sometimes essentially supplemented. The 
 changes are precisely of the nature to be expected, if 
 the history actually took the course it is said to have 
 taken (xiv. 21 ; xv, i-ii ; xvii. 6, 7 ; xix. 15, 16; xxiii. 
 20, 21). And it is particularly significant that we have 
 found instances, both where there was an indirect 
 assumption of another and a fuller code existing else- 
 where, and instances of the direct and, as it seems to 
 us, indisputable citation of such a code (xx. 1 8 ; xxiv. 8) 
 — citations made for the apparent purpose of calling it 
 to mind and enforcing its injunctions. 
 
 Then, too, here, as elsewhere, the peculiar form of the 
 Deuteronomic code has attracted our attention. It is
 
 202 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 adapted to the supposed occasion of a popular assem- 
 bly. It is simple in style. The technical language of 
 the preceding books disappears. The laws meant only 
 for the priests are left out entirely. A difficult or 
 dubious term that we have in the parallel passage in 
 Leviticus, for example, is here explained as meaning 
 woolen mixed with linen (xxii. ii). Of Moloch, the 
 Ammonite deity, mentioned again and again in Leviti- 
 cus, we hear not a word here ; but more than once the 
 warning is sounded against the abominable rite of pass- 
 ing children through the fire (xii. 31 ; xviii. 10). The 
 practice of deceiving in the matter of weights and 
 measures is here alone forbidden in the picturesque 
 form : " Thou shalt not have in thy wallet a stone and 
 a stone, a great and a small one. Thou shalt not have 
 in thy house an ephod and an ephod, a great and a 
 small one" (xxv. 13-16). 
 
 Nearly all the laws of Deuteronomy, moreover, are 
 marked by a peculiarly hortatory, rather than a merely 
 prohibitive, style. The " thou shalt not " of Mount 
 Sinai has largely taken on a pathetic " O, do not " 
 of expostulation and affectionate appeal. What is 
 enjoined is not alone put upon the conscience of the 
 individual Israelite : he is expected to lay it to heart. 
 Each of the codes treats of the respect that is due to 
 the poor and the helpless ; but neither of the others to 
 the extent that it is done in this. It is exactly in the 
 spirit of Deuteronomy to enjoin that the back of the 
 enfranchised slave be loaded down with gifts from 
 granary and wine-press (xv. 14). It is just like it to 
 call attention to the circumstance that the day-laborer 
 "sets his heart" upon his earnings and to urge that 
 he be paid the wage of the day on his day (xxiv. 15). 
 
 There is evidently a purpose in all this. As it seems
 
 Laws Repeated aiid Modified in Deuteronomy. 203 
 
 to us, it cannot lie far off from that other purpose which 
 prompted Moses to rehearse to the people their own 
 code in a language they could understand and to pro- 
 vide for this whole impressive scene just preceding, as 
 we are told, the exit of the great lawgiver from the 
 stage of Jewish history. Alike the style of speech and 
 the spirit of it harmonize perfectly with the circum- 
 stances of the case as they are frankly recited in the 
 eleven chapters that introduce the code of Deuter- 
 onomy and the eight that follow it. With those other 
 circumstances in the days of King Josiah (b.c. 621), 
 alleged to be the real historic setting of these laws, 
 clearly and emphatically they do not harmonize. 
 
 For strictly speaking this is not legislation. It is 
 next to impossible that it should be legislation in its 
 earliest, rudimental form. It is rather the admonition 
 that follows the precept, Moses performing the office of 
 prophet, after fulfilling so well the office of leader and 
 legislator. It is the same voice that we hear speaking, 
 but one grown somewhat tremulous with age and full 
 of the tenderness of a farewell utterance. 
 
 Mark the motives to which appeal is made. These 
 are the thousands of Israel, fresh from a pilgrimage of 
 forty years in the rough wilderness skirting the south- 
 ern borders of Canaan. But they are addressed as any 
 audience of Bible-educated people in similar circum- 
 stances might be addressed. The standard that is set 
 for them — how far short does it come of that which is 
 set for us by the teachers and preachers of to-day .'' If 
 there be imperfectness of form, there is surely none in 
 spirit. It is a spirit that we recognize as divine. 
 
 As wc have already said, with the whole Pentateuch 
 before us, with the certain knowledge that all its sub- 
 lime history was enacted just as it is recorded, and just
 
 204 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Stmctiire. 
 
 as it is claimed to have been enacted by those in circum- 
 stances to know most about it, we cannot cease to 
 wonder at such a people; that "at the moment which 
 ended their tent-life in the wilderness, and which imme- 
 diately preceded their entrance upon the land assigned 
 them . . . they, in full ecclesia, might properly be 
 taught, advised, upbraided, promised, threatened, in the 
 manner of which the closing book of the Pentateuch is 
 the record and summary." ^ But if you take away the 
 Pentateuch as a record of facts ; if you take away the 
 history whose source and inspiration is Mount Sinai, 
 and that is broken in upon, as this purports to be, by 
 divine interpositions ; if, above all, you take away the 
 educating influence of the tabernacle and its worship, 
 we have a riddle on our hands more perplexing by far 
 than that offered by any irregularities of the codes. It 
 was the apostle James who said : " Show me thy faith 
 apart from works and I will show thee my faith by my 
 works." Show me a Deuteronomic people without the 
 patriarchal history, without Exodus and Leviticus, and 
 I will show you one that these histories and laws were 
 calculated to produce as nothing else could. 
 
 To stigmatize such efforts as the foregoing, to adjust 
 the laws of the Pentateuch to one another on the 
 theory of a common origin, a theory which has the 
 support of the books themselves and all that can 
 properly be called biblical history, as "traditional" 
 and "harmonistic," does not establish a contrary con- 
 clusion. If there were nothing else to stimulate and 
 recommend such efforts the alternative offered by our 
 critics would of itself be sufficient : a veritable Tohtl 
 Vdbhohil (Gen. i, 2) over which broods no Spirit of God 
 to call order out of the confusion. 
 
 > Isaac Taylor, The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, p. 169.
 
 Table of Laws Reviewed. 
 
 205 
 
 TABLE OF LAWS REVIEWED IN THE LAST 
 THREE PAPERS. 
 
 Subject. 
 
 1 Introductory, 
 
 2 Destruction of idols, etc., 
 
 3 Centralization of worship, 
 
 4 Worship of Moloch, 
 
 5 Seduction to idolatry, 
 
 6 Destruction of Canaanitish 
 
 cities, 
 
 7 Forbidden mourninK customs, 
 
 8 Food as clean and unclean, 
 
 9 Animals eaten to be properly 
 
 slain, 
 10 Offerings, 
 
 n Sabbatic Year, 
 
 12 Releaseof Hebrew servants, 
 
 13 Sacrifices to be faultless, 
 
 14 The feasts, 
 
 15 Judges and Officers, 
 
 16 Oppression of the poor, 
 
 17 Punishment of Ueorew Idol- 
 
 aters, 
 
 18 Witnesses needful, 
 
 19 The king, 
 
 20 Priests and Levites, 
 
 21 Magical arts, etc., 
 
 22 The prophet, 
 
 23 Cities of refuge, 
 
 24 Removing Landmark, 
 
 25 False witness, 
 
 26 Preparation for battle, 
 
 27 Hostile cities, 
 
 28 Purification for murder, 
 
 29 Female captives, 
 
 30 Right of inheritance, 
 U Disobedient son, 
 
 ii Hanging, 
 
 33 Property of a brother Israelite, 
 
 $4 Kindness to animals, 
 
 35 Regard for liuiuan life, 
 
 % Mixing of diverse things, 
 
 37 Fringes, 
 
 58 Charge of unchastity, 
 
 59 Sin against chastity, 
 
 W Persons shutout 01 the con- 
 gregation, 
 H Cleanliness of the camp, 
 (2 Fugitive slave, 
 13 Prostitution, 
 U Usury, 
 
 15 Vows, 
 
 16 Divorce, 
 VI Pledges, 
 
 18 Man-stealing, 
 
 19 Leprosy, 
 
 50 CJleaning, 
 
 51 Forty stripes, 
 
 52 Leviratc marriage, 
 
 5;! Punishment of immodesty, 
 
 54 Just weights and measurrs, 
 
 55 Amalek, 
 
 56 Offering of llrst-fruits, etc. 
 
 DKtlTEBONOMY. 
 
 Exodus. 
 
 Numbers. 
 
 12:1 (see Hebrew text 
 
 
 
 
 throughout). 
 
 , 
 
 , , 
 
 • • 
 
 12:2-4,29, 30; 4: 15-19; 
 
 23:24,33; 
 
 ,34:12-17; 
 
 N. 33:51, 52 
 
 7:5,25,26; 20:18 
 
 cf.23:13. 
 
 
 12:6-28; cf. 2G:2tf. 
 
 20:24,25; 
 
 i 34 : 23-26 
 
 L. 17 : 1 ff. e< pas- 
 sim. 
 
 12:31; cf 18:10 
 
 , 
 
 ^ , 
 
 L. 18:21; 20:2-5 
 
 13:1-19; 16:21-^2 
 13:13-19; 20:15-18 
 
 , 
 
 , , 
 
 • • • 
 
 23:23,24, 
 
 27-33; 34: 
 
 N. 33: 50-56 
 
 
 12-16 
 
 
 
 14:1,2 
 
 , 
 
 , ^ 
 
 L. 19:27,28; 21:5 
 L. 11 : 1-21, 22-43 
 
 14:3,20 
 
 . 
 
 . . 
 
 14:21 
 
 22:30 
 
 
 L. 17 : 15 
 
 14:22-29; cf 12:17-19; 
 
 22:29; 23:18, 19 a; 
 
 N. 18 : 21-32 et 
 
 15:19-23; 26:12-19 
 
 34 : 19, 20, 25, 26 a. 
 
 passim, 
 L. 25 : 1-7 
 
 15:1-11 
 
 23:9-11 
 
 
 15:12-18 
 
 21: 2-6 
 
 
 L. 25:39-46 
 
 15:19-23; 17:1 
 
 
 
 L. 22: 19-27 
 
 16: 1-17 
 
 23:14-17; 
 
 34:* 21-23 
 
 L. 23:4 ff.-. N.28: 
 
 16:18-20; 19:8-13 
 
 
 
 lift-. 
 
 16:19-20; 24: 14, 15 
 
 22:21-24 
 
 
 L. 19: 33, 34 
 
 17 : 2-5 ; cf. 4 : 19 
 
 22:19 
 
 
 , , 
 
 17:6, 7; cf. 19: 15, 16 
 
 , 
 
 , ^ 
 
 •N.35:30 
 
 17 : 14-20 
 
 • 
 
 ^ , 
 
 • • • 
 
 18:1-8 
 
 
 , , 
 
 L. 7:8-10; 10:14,15 
 N. 18:8-20 
 
 
 
 
 18:9-14 
 
 22:17 
 
 
 L. 19:26, 31; 20:6, 
 
 18:15-22 
 
 
 
 27; N.23:23 
 
 19:1-13; cf. 4: 41-43 j 
 
 21:13 
 
 
 N. 35: 1-34 
 
 23:16 
 
 
 
 
 19:14 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 • • • 
 
 19:15-21 
 
 23:1-3 
 
 
 L. 19: 12, 15,16 
 
 20:1-9; 24:5 
 
 , 
 
 • • 
 
 . • - 
 
 20:10-14,19,20 
 
 , 
 
 • • 
 
 • • ■ 
 
 21:1-9 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 • . • 
 
 21:10-14 
 
 , 
 
 , , 
 
 • ■ • 
 
 21:15-17 
 
 , 
 
 , , 
 
 N.27:lff.jch.36 
 
 21:18-21 
 
 , 
 
 ^ , 
 
 • • > 
 
 21:22-23 
 
 , 
 
 , ^ 
 
 • • ■ 
 
 22 : 1-4 
 
 23:4,5 
 
 
 • • • 
 
 22: 6,7; cf. 14:21; 25: ■ 
 
 4 23:191; ! 
 
 J4 : 26 6. 
 
 L. 22:28 
 
 22:8 
 
 , 
 
 , , 
 
 • . ■ 
 
 22 : 5, 9-11 
 
 ^ 
 
 • ■ 
 
 L. 19:19 
 
 22:12 
 
 , 
 
 
 N. 15:37-41 
 
 22 : 13-21 
 
 , 
 
 ^ , 
 
 ■ • • 
 
 22:22-29; 2;?: 1 
 
 22! 16. 18 
 
 
 L. 18: 6-30; 20: 
 10-26. 
 
 23:2-9 
 
 , 
 
 ■ • 
 
 ■ ■ • 
 
 23:10-15 
 
 , 
 
 • • 
 
 L. 15: l-,3'!; N. 5: 
 
 23:16,17 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 1-4 etvassimy 
 
 23:18,19 
 
 , 
 
 , , 
 
 L.18i22| 19:29 
 
 23:2t\21 
 
 22:24 
 
 
 L. 2.5:3.5-;!7 
 
 23:22-24; cf. 12:6, 11, 
 
 
 • • 
 
 L.chs.7,22,23,2r; 
 
 17,26 
 
 
 
 N. chs. 6, 15, 29, 
 
 24:1-4 
 
 , 
 
 , , 
 
 3U 
 
 24:6,10-13,17,18 
 
 22:25,26 
 
 
 ... 
 
 24:7 
 
 21:16 
 
 
 . . * 
 
 24:8.9 
 
 
 ■ • 
 
 I^ chs. 13. 14 
 
 24 : 19-22 
 
 • 
 
 a • 
 
 L. 10:0, 10; 23:22 
 
 25:1-3 
 
 , 
 
 , , 
 
 • • • 
 
 2.5 : 5-10 
 
 , 
 
 • • 
 
 « • • 
 
 25:11, 12 
 
 ^ 
 
 • • 
 
 . . ■ 
 
 2.5 : 13-1() 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 L. 19:35,36 
 
 2.5: 17-19 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 • • • 
 
 2G: 1-19 
 
 
 • • 
 
 • • •
 
 VI. 
 
 LAWS PECULIAR TO THE " PRIESTS' CODE." 
 
 On the theory that Moses led the Israehtes out of 
 Egypt, something within the Mosaic period answering 
 to the priestly legislation of Leviticus and Numbers is 
 not only a natural, but almost a necessary, presumption. 
 Of the four great castes of Egypt, that of the priests 
 was second in rank, holding in fact the same relation to 
 the king that in Israel the high-priest held to Moses 
 and his successors. The description Herodotus gives 
 of the Egyptian priests, their dress, their means of 
 support, the advantages they enjoyed and the influence 
 they exerted, reminds us, at every step, of the priestly 
 class in Israel.^ 
 
 When Pharaoh would honor Joseph, he gives him his 
 
 1 " They are religious to excess, far beyond any other race of men, and use the follow- 
 ing ceremonies: They drink out of brazen cups, which they scour every day: there is 
 no exception to this practice. They wear linen garments, which they are especially 
 careful to have always fresh washed. They practise circumcision for the sake of cleanli- 
 ness, considering it better to be cleanly than comely. The priests shave their whole body 
 every other day, that no lice or other impure thing may adhere to them when they are 
 engaged in the service of the gods. Their dress is entirely of linen, and their shoes of the 
 papyrus plant: it is not lawful for them to wear either dress or shoes of any other material. 
 They bathe twice every day in cold water, and twice each night, besides which they 
 observe, so to speak, thousands of ceremonies. They enjoy, however, not a few advan- 
 tages. They consume none of their own property and are at no expense for anything; 
 but every day bread is baked for them of the sacred corn, and a plentiful supply of beet 
 and of goose's flesh is assigned to each, and also a portion of wine made from the grape. 
 Fish they are not allowed to eat; and beans — which none of the Egyptians ever sow, 
 or eat, if they come up of their own accord, either raw or boiled — the priests will not 
 even endure to look on, since they consider it an unclean kind of pulse. Instead of a 
 single priest, each god has the attendance of a college, at the head of which is a chief 
 priest; when one of these dies, his son is appointed in his stead." — See Rawlinson's 
 Herodotus, ii. p. 65 f.
 
 Laws Peculiar to the ^^ Priests Code" 207 
 
 signet-ring and marries him to a daughter of the priest 
 of On. Moses, the adopted son of an Egyptian prin- 
 cess, brought up in all "the wisdom of Egypt," was also 
 the son-in-law of a priest of Midian.^ For forty years 
 he pastured his sheep on that very peninsula of Sinai 
 where afterward, for forty years, he led the flock of 
 God. The name he gives his first-born ^ sufficiently 
 proves his loyalty, during this period of training, to his 
 own nation and its traditions. And it is not a position 
 that surprises us by its boldness, when Bertheau claims 
 that Moses in Midian came in contact with a form 
 of the faith of his Shemitic ancestors purer than that 
 prevailing among the Hebrew abjects of Egypt.^ 
 
 However this may be, it is certain that the law and 
 ritual of the Israelites, while not a little colored by 
 those of Egypt, no less find justification in the con- 
 temporaneous monuments of allied Shemitic races, like 
 the Phoenician and the Assyrian. " Among both we 
 find traces of sacrifices and institutions which offer 
 many parallels to the religious ordinances of Moses. 
 Besides the Sabbath . . . the Babylonians and Assyr- 
 ians had various festivals and fasts, on which certain 
 rites had to be performed and certain sacrifices offered ; 
 they knew of ' peace-offerings ' and of ' heave-offerings,' 
 of the dedication of the first-born and of sacrifices for 
 sin. The gods were carried in procession in 'ships,' 
 which, as we learn from the sculptures, resembled in 
 form the Hebrew ark and were borne on men's 
 shoulders by means of staves. In the front of the 
 image of the gods stood a table, on which shew-bread 
 was laid ; and a distinction was made between the meat- 
 ier. Geike, Hours with the Bible, ii. 86-114; Sayce, Fresh Lightfrom the Ancient 
 Monuments, p. 71 f. 
 
 * Ger shorn = a stranger there. 
 
 ^Geschichte, p. 242. Cf., however, KurtZj Hist, of the Old Covenant, ii. p. 195.
 
 2o8 The Pentateiicli : Its Origin and Strnctiire. 
 
 offering and the animal sacrifice. Certain unclean 
 kinds of food were forbidden, including the flesh of 
 swine and creeping things ; and in the outer court were 
 large lavers called ' seas,' like the sea of Solomon's 
 temple, in which the worshipers were requested to 
 cleanse themselves. Many of these regulations and 
 rites came down from the Accadians (Gen. x. lo), who 
 founded the great cities of ancient Chaldaea and were 
 the inventors of the hieroglyphics afterward developed 
 and the cuneiform character of the Assyrian." ^ 
 
 To assume, accordingly, that the priestly legislation 
 and ritual of Israel, regarded as Mosaic, are, on their 
 face, anachronistic, is to assume what the monuments 
 disprove. To assume that prophets in Israel must 
 have preceded priests, the so-called Jehovistic writings 
 the Elohistic, the protevangelium of the second chap- 
 ter of Genesis the sacrifices of the first, is to assume 
 what the literature of contemporaneous peoples would 
 lead us to regard as most improbable.^ It was to the 
 priests of Egypt that was given the care and the inter- 
 pretation of the sacred books. Not only was the 
 prophet not superior to the priest, but prophecy was 
 regarded as a subordinate function of the priesthood 
 itself. The very name employed to designate the 
 Egyptian written character (hieratic), on which the 
 alphabetic systems of most other peoples have been 
 based, like its companion word "hieroglyphic," shows 
 how predominant was the position of the priesthood 
 among this most ancient of civilized peoples. 
 
 1 See Sayce, ibid. p. 77 f. 
 
 ^ See Rawlinson's Herod, ii. p. 67, note; and the opening sentence of the " Decree " of 
 the Rosetta Stone in Records of the Past, iv. p. 71. In the " Decree of Canopus," a 
 document nearly a century older than the Rosetta Stone there is still further confirmation 
 of the statement that the priestly office was sometimes understood to include the pro- 
 phetical {Records 0/ the Past, \m. p. 85); "And they should be called priests of the 
 benevolent gods in their name, that they should occupy a higher rank through the name 
 of their office; and of their place as prophet thereof," etc.
 
 Laivs Pecidiar to the ''Priests' Code." 269 
 
 We are permitted then to begin the investigation of 
 the so-called " Priests' Code " of the Pentateuch with a 
 strong presumption in favor of its genuineness. Such 
 a series of laws might have been given by a Moses of 
 the exodus, might even have been expected from him, 
 were he to figure at all in the character of a lawgiver. 
 And the question that, in the present paper, we have 
 to answer is. Do these laws in their present form, when 
 examined in detail, necessitate the theory of a later 
 date } Is there anything about them that should lead 
 to the certain conclusion or render probable, notwith- 
 standing the plausibility and practicability of the 
 traditional view as sustained by the monuments, the 
 position that they are neither the production of Moses 
 nor come from his age } Every law peculiar to the 
 " Priests' Code " and not hitherto examined by us, 
 including Lev. xvii.-xxvi., will be passed under review. 
 
 Coticerning Blasphemy (Lev. xxiv. 15, 16; Num. 
 XV. 30, 31). — The law against blasphemy is but the 
 negative side of the demand that due honor shall be 
 paid to Jehovah, the unseen King. It is no more out 
 of place, therefore, in the Mosaic period, in itself con- 
 sidered, than the first and second precepts of the 
 decalogue. It is, in fact, but another form of the 
 commandment : " Thou shalt not take the name of 
 the Lord thy God in vain." It finds an echo in still 
 another injunction of the Sinaitic code (Ex. xxii, 27). 
 
 Moreover, it purports to be the outcome of an actual 
 event of the Mosaic history (Lev. xxiv. 10-14). We 
 are informed in the context that the son of an Israel- 
 itish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, had been 
 detected "execrating the name." Inquiry is made 
 of the Lord by Moses to learn what shall be done 
 with him. It is enjoined that he shall be stoned by
 
 2IO The Pejitatctich : Its Orizin and StmcUire. 
 
 i3 ' 
 
 the whole congregation " without the camp." Then 
 follows the law which is to govern in similar cases. 
 Dillmann ^ thinks he sees evidence that it is somewhat 
 older than the history here made its setting. Be that 
 as it may, there is not a scintilla of proof that either 
 is post-Mosaic. The contrary is sustained by both 
 circumstantial and direct evidence. The whole con- 
 ception of the crime of blasphemy was revolutionized 
 among the post-exilian Jews (2 Mace. x. 4, 36). 
 Malachi used terms for characterizing the offence 
 that are unknown to Leviticus (i. 6, 12). Meanwhile 
 it is the Levitical form of the law that is enforced 
 in so flagrant and unjust a way by Jezebel's emissaries 
 in the northern kingdom, before the close of the tenth 
 century (i Kings xxi.). 
 
 T/ie Sacred Vestmetits (Ex. xxviii. 1-43). — Like 
 the priestly class of contemporaneous peoples, the 
 priesthood of Israel, also, was to be distinguished by 
 a peculiar official dress. An entire chapter, it will be 
 observed, is devoted to its details. With a strong 
 Egyptian caste throughout, it shows, perhaps, an equal 
 acquaintance with the customs of a Shemitic ancestry. 
 Linen was the fabric uniformly employed for clothing 
 by the priests of Egypt ; while, if we may trust the 
 frescos of Egyptian dwellings, delight in colors was 
 a marked Shemitic trait.^ The hand-loom and its 
 appurtenances had long been a familiar piece of 
 domestic furniture. Needlework with gold thread, 
 as well as cord made from twisted gold wire, were 
 common devices for ornamentation. Linen corselets, 
 engraved stones, and even something answering in 
 kind to the mysterious Urim and Thummim of the 
 Jewish high-priest, might all have been suggested 
 
 1 Com., in loco. - Cf. Rawlinson in Pulpit Com. on Exodus, ii. p. 280.
 
 Laws P ecu! i a.- to the '^Priests Codg'' 2il 
 
 by Egyptian precedents. The pomegranate tassel, 
 on the other hand, was an Assyrian device, together 
 with bells of the present modern shape. Hence 
 it may be seen that the directions for clothing the 
 Jewish priests are everywhere stamped with marks 
 of the Mosaic age. What is characteristic in them 
 characterizes as well oriental antiquities in general. 
 
 But there are also considerations of a more positive 
 nature to be presented. Delitzsch, for example, has 
 called attention to the several colors employed in 
 the Jewish high-priest's ephod.^ They are the same 
 that are found in the coverings of the sanctuary. In 
 the case of two of these, the technical terms used 
 to designate them occur only in the Elohistic por- 
 tions of the Pentateuch. If these sections were 
 a product of the exile, we might expect to meet 
 with the given terms in the literature of that period. 
 But this is conspicuously not the case. 
 
 The word for red pwple, for instance, in our code and 
 throughout the Elohistic Torah is argaman? At the 
 time of the exile, this had become corrupted into the 
 half-Aramaic, half-Persian argezuati. The color known 
 in the earlier period as tola'atJi shani, scarlet or crimson, 
 the Chronicler, representing the latest stage of the lan- 
 guage and that which, on the hypothesis should be, but 
 is not, used in the regulations before us, has changed to 
 karmil? Such indications as these no scholar will feel 
 inclined to overlook. They are of the nature of those 
 inimitable vegetable and animal formations which have 
 left here and there an impression on the broken surface 
 of our globe and have become the accepted data for 
 determining its geological periods. 
 
 ' Preface to Curtiss's Levitical Priests, p. xi. 
 ^ I employ here Delitzsch's transliteration. 
 ' Cf. 2 Chron. ii. 6.
 
 ± i 2 TJie Pc^itateucJi : Its Orisrin mid Structure, 
 
 ■i>' 
 
 So, too, the history of the Urim and Thummim 
 furnishes something more than a hint in the same 
 direction. Just what this device was and how it was 
 employed, we need not now stop to inquire. Perhaps it 
 will never be fully known. The very mystery that, to 
 us, overhangs the subject is significant. There appears 
 to be none in the minds of biblical writers. Previous 
 acquaintance is assumed in the manner of its intro- 
 duction. There is no effort at explanation. Let it be 
 supposed now, for the moment, that our code arose in 
 Ezra's day and that what we glean from the historical 
 books concerning this oracle of light and right furnishes 
 the needed information concerning it. But this is pre- 
 cisely what we are not permitted to suppose. It would 
 be placing the pyramid on its apex. 
 
 So far from finding a development in the matter from 
 the Mosaic period downward, we find the opposite. 
 Abiathar of David's time is the last of whom it is said 
 that he made use of the Urim and Thummim. We 
 discover Eleazer, Aaron's successor, wearing it as a 
 fitting part of his high-priestly furnishing (Num. xxvi'. 
 2i). We find it mentioned as one of the distinguishing 
 honors of the tribe of Levi by Moses in his blessing 
 (Deut. xxxiii. 8). But the history subsequent to Solo- 
 mon's day is wholly silent respecting it. And, still 
 more noticeably, that of the exile furnishes positive 
 evidence that it had then ceased to exist (Ezra ii. 63 ; 
 Neh. vii. 65). Questions of priestly genealogy are by 
 common consent postponed until there shall arise a 
 priest with Urim and Thummim. We know, further, 
 that he was waited for in vain. The generation of the 
 Maccabees (i Mace. iv. 46; xiv. 41), two centuries later, 
 are prosecuting still the same hopeless quest. With the 
 rise of prophecy this earlier and ruder style of divine
 
 Laws Peculiar to the '^Priests' Codey 213 
 
 communication had forever passed away. The later 
 yearning for its restoration was no sign of development, 
 but of decadence. The principle underlying our Lord's 
 words, " It is expedient for you that I go away," is 
 applicable to all times. The prophet was greater than 
 the seer. To bring back deliverances by Urim and 
 Thummim after the former had done, for the time, his 
 work was to face toward the wilderness instead of 
 toward Him in whom all prophecy culminated and 
 had its supreme embodiment. 
 
 The Consecration of Priests (Ex. xxix. 1-42 ; Lev. vi. 
 12-16; viii.). — The ceremony of consecrating the sons 
 of Aaron to the priesthood consisted mainly in these 
 four things : ablution, investiture, anointing, and sacri- 
 fice. The first, as a symbol of moral purity, is common 
 to all religions, especially to the Egyptian. The appro- 
 priateness of the dress of Israelitish priests to the 
 circumstances of their supposed origin has already been 
 considered. The rite of anointing as a sign of conse- 
 cration is a peculiarity of the Jewish dispensation and 
 of that which sprung from it. Its underlying idea is 
 devotement. The person or thing so anointed was set 
 apart for God, as purified and well-pleasing in his sight. 
 This is the import of the declaration in Leviticus 
 where we read (viii. 12): "And he poured some of 
 the anointing oil on Aaron's head, and anointed him, 
 to sanctify him." The use in Egypt and among other 
 nations of antiquity of perfumed oils for medical pur- 
 poses and as a luxury is too well known to need 
 enlargement. So skilfully was it prepared that speci- 
 mens from the times of the Pharaohs, still redolent 
 of rare spices, have come down to our day.^ 
 
 Why it was that the Jews alone, as far as we know, 
 
 1 See 'Richm's HandwSr/erduck, s.v. " Salbe."
 
 214 The PentatcucJi: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 anointed with oil as a rite of inauguration, having a 
 special word to distinguish the sacred from the secular 
 use, may be as difficult to explain as some other facts 
 in the history of this singular people. But there is 
 nothing in the circumstance that can suggest an 
 innovation of a later day. On the contrary, the usages 
 of a later day, as already shown,^ differ essentially 
 from those of the supposed Mosaic period. There is no 
 evidence that when Ezra and Nehemiah were on the 
 stage the high-priest was anointed at all (cf. Zech. iii.). 
 And there is just as little evidence that, after their 
 original consecration in the sons of Aaron, ordinary 
 priests were ever again anointed on entering upon their 
 office (Ex. xxix. 29 f. ; cf. xxviii. 41 ; xxx. 30; xl. 15 ; 
 Lev. vii. 36 ; x. 7 ; Num. iii. 3). 
 
 The matter of the offerings made by priests on the 
 occasion of their consecration (Ex. xxix. 38-42 ; vi 
 12-16 ; viii.) presents no features requiring special com- 
 ment. The dividing of a victim sacrificed was a wide- 
 spread custom throughout the East ; as was also the 
 ceremony of filling the hands of an official at the time 
 of his installation with the insignia of his office. That 
 in the midst of this solemn ritual we find evidence here 
 and there that the physical necessities of God's servants 
 are not left wholly unprovided for is no symptom that 
 our document is of priestly origin. It serves rather to 
 show that Moses who through a whole generation acted 
 the part of purveyor and commissary-in-chief as well 
 as military and religious leader was true to himself. 
 Indeed, it is on the alleged utterances of Moses that 
 Paul bases the principle that those who "preach the 
 Gospel are to live of the Gospel " (i Cor. ix. 4, 9 ; 
 I Tim. v. 18 ; cf. Deut. xxv. 4). 
 
 1 See above, p. 119,
 
 Laws Peculiar to tJic ''Priests Code." 215 
 
 The Anointing Oil (Ex. xxx. 22-33). — Besides the 
 fact already mentioned, that the anointing of the high- 
 priest at his installation cannot be historically verified 
 as a custom of the later times,^ there are other circum- 
 stances of interest connected with the anointing oil. 
 Of the four varieties of spices entering into its compo- 
 sition, only one, cinnamon, could have been rare in 
 Moses' day. It is but three times spoken of in the 
 Bible (Prov. vii, 17; Cant. iv. 14). Still, Herodotus 
 cites it as an article of commerce from Arabia ^ and 
 claims a Shemitic origin for its present universal name. 
 The point of difficulty with the later Jews, it is likely, 
 consisted not in the nature of the materials employed, 
 but in the peculiar method of composition. It was not 
 a bald mixture of spices with oil. It was the product 
 of acquired skill, such as only a Bezaleel possessed 
 (Ex. xxx vii. 29). 
 
 Special Requirements of Priests (Lev. x. 8-1 1 , xxi. 
 1-24). — Among the various requirements made of the 
 priesthood by which its character for holiness was to be 
 maintained and emphasized there seems to be but one 
 which comes within the scope of the present inquiry. 
 A priest was not permitted to marry a licentious, 
 profane, or divorced woman. The high-priest's choice 
 of a wife was further confined to a virgin of his own 
 people. These are the sole limitations of the law 
 touching this matter. The ordinary priest, accordingly, 
 might, if he chose, marry a widow, or go outside the 
 bounds of his own people and take as wife the daughter 
 of a " stranger " dwelling among the Israelites. 
 
 This statute, now, could not have been made in the 
 time of Ezra and Nehemiah, for it does not reflect its 
 tendencies. We discover already in the Book of 
 
 ' See Hamburger's Re'dl-Encyc. s.v. " Salbol." * iii. m.
 
 2i6 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Ezekiel a toning up of the legislation in this respect. 
 The ordinary priest is there subjected to the rule for 
 the high-priest, in that he is prohibited from marrying 
 a widow, except the widow of a former priest. But 
 among the exiles who have returned from Babylon we 
 find ourselves in an atmosphere surcharged with this 
 stricter spirit. Severest penalties are visited not alone 
 on priests but on the laity for intermarriage with any 
 heathen people. And it is noticeable that Ezra, who 
 makes humble confession to God on account of such 
 transgressions in Israel, most significantly has the Deu- 
 teronomic, and not the Levitical, form of the legislation 
 in view (Ezra ix. 12 f. ; x. 18 ff. ; cf. Deut. vii. 3 ; xxiii. 7). 
 How is it possible, then, that such a law as this of the 
 middle books could have originated at any period sub- 
 sequent to the prophecy of Ezekiel } How much less 
 could the strenuousness of that prophecy in the matter 
 before us have marked a transition in the direction of 
 the relative laxity of the " Priests' Code " ! 
 
 The High-Priest to be of Eleaser s Line (Num. xxv. 
 10-13). — The effort of the Wellhausen criticism to 
 make out that the Aaronic priesthood, with the 
 high-priest at its head, was a novelty of the exile is 
 one of the least plausible of its many wild conjectures. 
 The history furnishes not an iota of valid evidence 
 for it to rest upon The story of Aaron and Miriam 
 stands or falls with that of Moses himself. The sec- 
 tion from Numbers now before us belongs to a nar- 
 rative of events occurring near the close of the exodus 
 period.i It brings the history of the priesthood one 
 step further downward Eleazer has succeeded Aaron ; 
 and now it is promised that Phinehas, on account 
 of his sublime act of moral courage and zeal for God, 
 shall perpetuate the succession. 
 
 iNum, j.-xiv. belongs to the earlier part, xv. ff. to the later.
 
 Laws Peculiar to the " Priests' Code." 2 1 7 
 
 The designation " son of Aaron " as a title for tlie 
 high-priest, on which the circle of critics just alluded 
 to lays so much stress as being a peculiarity of the 
 "Priests' Code," is found already in this very code, 
 in the process of passing over into the usage of the 
 historical books. The defection of Nadab and Abihu, 
 who were also "sons of Aaron," no doubt contributed 
 to hasten the change. This title, in itself considered, 
 had ceased to mark the high distinction conveyed by 
 the words as originally used ; and other things, like 
 this act of Phinehas, are employed to add honor to 
 the sacred official position. Phinehas succeeded his 
 father Eleazer (Judges xx. 20), and, excepting a brief 
 interruption between the time of Eli and David, the 
 line, as far as we have any knowledge of it, was con- 
 tinued in his descendants 
 
 It cannot be shown that in any period of the history, 
 leaving out the thoroughly abnormal one of the judges, 
 the high-priest ever held any other position relative 
 to the other priests and the common people than 
 that accorded him in our code. The same desig- 
 nation is everywhere applied to him, namely, " the 
 priest," that we find given to the chief of the order 
 in the middle books of the Pentateuch. Nowhere 
 do we find any other person than the high-priest 
 permitted to enter the holy of holies for the perform- 
 ance of priestly duties. In short, the representation 
 that there are four stages of development in the 
 history of the Israelitish priesthood from the Jeho- 
 vistic period, when there was no priest, through the 
 Deuteronomic, when there was no distinction between 
 priests and Levites, to Ezekiel's day, when a distinc- 
 tive family of priests arises, and to the " Priests' Code " 
 of the exile, when this family, falsely tracing its lineage
 
 2 1 8 The PentateucJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 back to Aaron and setting a high-priest at its head, 
 dominates alike the whole civil and religious life of 
 Israel, is a pure invention, and at every step opposed 
 to the plainest statements of the history. 
 
 " The post-exilian period of the hierocracy," says 
 Delitzsch, " of which it is claimed that the * Priests' 
 Code ' was meant to furnish the legal basis, does not 
 exist. The high-priesthood of Eleazer's line with its 
 attendant priests stands alongside of Ezra and Nehe- 
 miah just as little distinguished as that of Ithamar 
 alongside of Samuel. The relation in which Ezra and 
 Nehemiah stood to the priesthood and the priesthood 
 to them positively precludes the idea that either 
 intended, by means of a new Torah, to make the 
 priesthood a ruling-force in the new state. And, in 
 fact, it is not 'hierocracy,' but 'legalism,' that is the 
 right word to characterize the impulse which Ezra 
 the scribe gave to Judaism." ^ 
 
 Requirements of those Eating of the Sacrificial Offer- 
 ings (Lev. xxii. 1-16; Num. xviii. 10 ff.). — As a part 
 of the " Priests* Code," if that code have the origin and 
 the significance claimed for it by many critics, the law 
 relating to the disabilities unfitting a priest to share in 
 the sacrificial meals has not only no pertinence, but is 
 antagonistic to its spirit and calculated to defeat the 
 purpose which is supposed to have prompted it. It is 
 not a statute that brings honor and privilege to the 
 "sons of Aaron," but one that curtails his privileges 
 and puts him in humbling contrast with his high office. 
 Whether he eats or drinks, or whatever he does, he is 
 not to forget that he is made a priest after the law of a 
 carnal commandment" (Heb. vii. 16), that he has 
 " infirmities " and needs to offer up sacrifices " first for 
 his own sins " {ibid. vs. 27, 28). 
 
 ^Zeitschriftfiir Kirchlkhe Wisscnscha/i,€tc. 1880, p. 234.
 
 Laws Peculiar to tJie "Priests' Codey 219 
 
 This is not the representation we should look for in 
 a scheme concocted for their own benefit by a coterie 
 of aspiring men of Ezra's day. It is, however, con- 
 spicuously that of the Levitical code in every part. It 
 is equally that of the earliest and latest history. It is 
 Moses who acts as mediator and voices the divine 
 authority during the exodus period. Aaron is through- 
 out a secondary figure. His very first attempt at 
 leadership in his brother's absence is an acknowledged 
 blunder and proves a wellnigh fatal one (Ex. xxxii.). 
 It is Moses who ultimately transfers to the elder 
 brother his delegated office : an office whose sanctity in 
 itself, as over against the prerogatives of any person, 
 was signally indicated in the swift punishment of 
 irreverence on the part of Aaron's eldest sons, who 
 sought to prostitute it to their selfish ends. And when, 
 in later days, the father himself, in proud reliance on 
 his sacerdotal preeminence, ventures with Miriam to 
 antagonize and call in question Moses' authority 
 (Num. xii. 2), the rebuke he merits and receives is 
 of one piece with that administered to Aaron's recreant 
 descendants by Ezra and Nehemiah in the later day 
 (Neh. xiii. 28, 29). 
 
 Special Prerogatives of Priests (Num. vi. 22-27 > ^• 
 i-io). — Among the peculiar prerogatives of Aaron's 
 sons, that of the priestly benediction and that of 
 carrying the silver signal-trumpets are pertinent to our 
 present investigations. The code before us, in har- 
 mony with other phases of the law and with the 
 history, makes the proper benediction a priestly act. 
 Kayser,^ however, with some others, has claimed that 
 in Deuteronomy the Lcvitc also is invested with this 
 function (Dcut. x. 8). In his general statement he is 
 
 • Das Vorexilische Buck, etc. p. 131.
 
 220 The Pentateucli : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 correct, but is wholly mistaken in his application of it. 
 The Levites are not technically spoken of in Deuter- 
 onomy, in distinction from priests, but simply as con- 
 stituting one of the tribes of Israel and so including 
 priests as well as ministers of a lower grade. And as 
 it regards the latter function it must not be overlooked 
 that the original purpose of the silver trumpets pre- 
 supposes the Mosaic age. The principal use assigned 
 them is to summon the assemblies that should gather 
 at the door of the tabernacle and to give the signal for 
 the "journeying of the camps." If it be an example 
 of "legal fiction," we can see no occasion to justify its 
 employment in the present instance. On the contrary, 
 the history of the exilian period (Ezra iii. lo; Neh. xii. 
 35) and, in fact, of the usage generally, after the 
 buildmg of Solomon's temple, shows no such uniformity 
 as it respects the employment of horns in religious 
 services as to lead to the supposition that the present 
 law is an invention, and crowns a development that 
 culminated in the fifth century b.c. 
 
 The Tabernacle (Ex. xxv.-xxviii, 19. Cf. xxxvi.- 
 xxxviii.). — It can scarcely be doubted by a candid mind 
 that the story of the Jewish tabernacle has an historical 
 basis, or that for its conception we must look to the 
 Mosaic period. To make it merely an ideal picture of 
 the Babylonian exiles, a reflection of Solomon's temple 
 projected backward by a vivid fancy upon the distant 
 canvas of Hebrew mythology, is to be as untrue to the 
 records that furnish us with our only account of the 
 structure as to any normal function of the imagina- 
 tion. The critic, indeed, in this way gets a theory of 
 the tabernacle that suits to some degree his theory of 
 development in the history ; but it is at a fatal cost. 
 How then, on any proper principles of historical devel- 
 opment, is the temple itself to be accounted for ?
 
 Laws Peculiar to the ''Priests Code.'' 22 T 
 
 Perhaps, however, so inopportune a query will be 
 regarded as also an impertinence. Given the theory 
 that you have an elephant and a tortoise for the earth 
 to rest its crushing weight upon, what difference can it 
 make whether it be elephant or tortoise that is left 
 dangling in the abyss ? 
 
 The reality of the Mosaic tabernacle and its principal 
 furniture is vouched for not alone by the Elohistic 
 " Priests' Code " with laws relating to it that breathe 
 everywhere the Mosaic spirit (Lev. xvii.), but also by 
 each of the other alleged leading documents of the 
 Pentateuch (Ex. xxxiii. 7-1 1 ; Num. x. 35 f . ; xi. 16 f . ; 
 Deut. x. 1-5 ; xxxi. 14 f.). This testimony the earliest 
 history circumstantially confirms. Jehovah is repre- 
 sented, for example, by the prophet Nathan as not 
 having dwelt in a house from the day that he brought 
 the children of Israel out of Egypt, but in a tent and 
 in a tabernacle (2 Sam. vii. 6 f.). David, accordingly, 
 when he prepares on Mount Zion a place for the ark 
 erects a tent for its reception. Without an accepted 
 Mosaic precedent for such an act, it would have been, 
 especially in view of the recent history of the ark, in 
 the highest degree unnatural, not to say incomprehen- 
 sible or impossible. 
 
 When this conclusion, however, has been reached we 
 are not yet clear of difficulties. Not that, with our 
 present knowledge of Egypt and the presumed grade 
 of civilization attained by Israel, we are troubled with 
 questions concerning the costly materials employed in 
 the structure of the tabernacle, the skilled labor 
 demanded, or the brevity of the time apparently 
 allotted to the rearing of so complex and costly a 
 sanctuary. We have only to think of the pyramids ; 
 and, further, that this very people was fresh from
 
 222 TJic PcntatciicJi. : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 labors on the treasure-houses of Pharaoh. Neither 
 does the matter of transportation present any greater 
 perplexities. With no necessity of haste and an army 
 of laborers at command, what obstacle could a country 
 otherwise impassable to loaded vehicles have offered to 
 the march of Israel as historically described ? If a 
 greater carrying-power is required of the Levitical 
 family of Merari than of that of Kohath or Gershom, 
 it cannot be denied that it is also found to be more 
 numerous by nearly a third (Num. iv. 34-49) and that 
 special facilities are documentarily conceded to it for 
 its service. 
 
 To hold with Riehm, following Kamphausen,^ that 
 thirty-two hundred able-bodied men between the ages 
 of thirty and fifty years, with at least four wagons and 
 four yoke of oxen at their disposal (Num. vii. 8), were 
 insufficient to bear such parts of the tabernacle as are 
 assigned to them in the records is to betray an excess 
 of captiousness.^ 
 
 But an objection of a more serious nature is urged. 
 The Pentateuch recognizes, it is said, a twofold taber 
 nacle. The tabernacle of the " Priests' Code " is one 
 affair; that of the earlier documents quite another. 
 The first tabernacle is properly no tabernacle at all in 
 a technical sense. It is a simple tent, without parapher- 
 nalia of any sort. The position assigned it, contrary 
 to that of the " Priests* Code," is outside the camp and 
 at a distance from it (Ex. xxxiii. 7-1 1). It alone is 
 honored by the presence of the cloudy pillar, and among 
 
 ' See art. " .Stiftshiitte " in Riehm's Handworterbuch. It would appear from Num. 
 iv. 32 that the four wagons named were not the sole dependence for purposes of transpor- 
 tation. 
 
 ^ The inconsistency of much of our modern criticism is exhibited in no way more fre- 
 quently perhaps, or more characteristically, than in this, that from making literary prodi- 
 gies of our biblical writers and editors, it proceeds, in the ne.\t breath, to make of them 
 bunglers of the first rank.
 
 Laws Peculiar to tJic ^^ Priests Code^ 223 
 
 ^ tiier historical events connected only with it was that 
 of the election of the seventy elders and their spiritual 
 enduement (Ex. xiii. 21 ; Num. x. 33; xii. 5; xiv. 14). 
 
 What, now, is to be said of this hypothesis and 
 the historical statements adduced in its behalf 1 The 
 apparent discrepancies in the documents Wcllhausen 
 and his supporters have known how to utilize to the 
 utmost in favor of a theory that separates them by many 
 centuries of development. He puts them so far apart, 
 indeed, that only a man as sagacious as the final 
 redactor of the Pentateuch could ever have seen any 
 connection between them, or one with his charac- 
 teristic temerity have thought to harmonize them as 
 a common product of the Mosaic period.^ But all 
 critics, fortunately, have not to struggle with so credu- 
 lous an incredulity as that of Julius Wellhausen. 
 
 A more modest theory to explain the alleged phe- 
 nomena of the documents is that of Riehm^ and others. 
 The tabernacle of the " Priests' Code " is no invention 
 of the fifth century before Christ, it is said ; it is no 
 invention at all. It is the reflection of the Davidic 
 tabernacle backward into the Mosaic age. It is the 
 tabernacle as the times of David actually knew it that 
 the pen of the Elohist has sketched for us. Wholly 
 diverse from that described in the supposed earlier 
 records it is not, but a natural outgrowth of it and 
 holding the same relation to it that the royal period of 
 Israel held to that of the exodus. Admitting the 
 hypothesis of the documents, this effort of Richm to 
 harmonize them is certainly a marked improvement on 
 that of Wcllhausen. 
 
 But would not a still easier method of explaining the 
 
 * See Wellhausen, Geschichte, i. p. 40 (T. Cf. W. Robertson Smith's Old Testamtnt 
 in ike "jfewish Church, pp. 318, 432. 
 
 * Ibid. p. 1567.
 
 224 TJie PentateucJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 history and laws in harmony with themselves be, to 
 discard entirely the hypothesis of separate documents 
 in the narrative and law of tlie tabernacle ? The 
 hypothesis certainly needs the support of the alleged 
 discrepancies much more than the alleged discrepancies 
 need that of different documents. 
 
 If, in short, it be a matter of choosing between rival 
 theories to explain the phenomena, the traditional one 
 seems to us every way to be preferred. That the 
 Elohist and Jehovist and even the Deuteronomist and 
 Redactor are all combined in one person in this matter 
 it would be far easier to believe than that any two of 
 them are so much at loggerheads as to require theories 
 of the nature of those proposed to reconcile them. 
 
 Looking at the matter, then, as it is historically pre- 
 sented to us, we discover that after Moses received the 
 order to build the tabernacle the dreadful defection of 
 the people, in the matter of the golden calf, took place. 
 This naturally interrupted the execution of the plan. 
 In the meantime a provisional tent was used, not 
 improperly called by the name subsequently given to 
 the tabernacle, " tent of meeting " ; since it, too, 
 actually served as the meeting-place of the congrega- 
 tion. It is pitched at a short remove from the encamp- 
 ment, in order, as the historian is careful to inform us, 
 to manifest the divine displeasure at Israel's recent sin 
 (Ex. xxxiii. 7). It is not in the midst of the camp 
 (Num. xi. 24, 26, 30; xii. 4, 5) ; but just as little is it 
 wholly apart from it. It is nowhere said, as has been 
 affirmed, that, on the march, this primitive tabernacle 
 was born aloft before the host. This is stated only 
 concerning the ark. It is sometimes called the taber- 
 nacle, indeed, but only by a well-known usage of the 
 definite article in Hebrew whereby a certain definite
 
 Laws Peculiar to tJic ^'■Priests Code.^' 225 
 
 conception of an object by the writer and his readers 
 is indicated. 
 
 This very tent, moreover, had probably been known 
 before as the tent of Moses. Here God had made 
 special communications with his servant (Ex. xviii. 
 13-16). Joshua, as temporary leader in Moses* absence, 
 occupies it (Ex. xxxiii. 11). There is no impropriety in 
 his doing so previous to the establishment of the 
 Levitical system. For the same reason God without 
 the mediation of sacrifice makes revelations of himself 
 here (Ex. xxxiii. 7, 9, 11 ; cf. xiii. 21). It is before 
 their lee;al institution and the introduction of the ritual. 
 Now, when so much has been admitted, all the princi- 
 pal difficulties involved in the narrative have disap- 
 peared. ^ To stigmatize such explanations, moreover, 
 as " harmonistic " is not to overthrow them. The 
 problem is one of harmonizing apparently conflicting 
 statements whatever theory is adopted. If, in the well- 
 known case that was brought before Solomon for deci- 
 sion (i Kings iii. 16-28) the living child that was in 
 dispute had been divided by the sword, the conflict 
 would, indeed, have been finally adjusted: but only 
 by the irremediable loss of the one precious thing at 
 stake. So here the knife is one way of forever settling 
 the question : but it should be the very last to be 
 resorted to. 
 
 The Furniture of the Tabernacle. — Of the articles 
 of furniture found in the tabernacle, the ark was 
 the only one ever admitted to the holy of holies 
 (Ex. XXV. 10-22). Its correspondence in conception to 
 
 iCf. Ranke, Untersuchung uber den Pentateuch, ii.6i,68; Kurtz, History of the 
 Old Covenant, iii. 171 ; Green, ^roses and the Prophets, p. 57 f. It would not serve in 
 any degree to disprove the origin of the legitimate and only tabernacle in the Mosaic 
 period if it could be shown, as sonic claim, that the work upon it was not completed in all 
 its details until after its formal dedication (cf. Num. xvi. 38 f.; xxxi. 52 ff.). The contrary 
 might, indeed, have been most confidently expected.
 
 226 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 similar objects of veneration among contemporaneous 
 peoples has already been remarked. And, if its 
 hereditary name, pointing back to the giving of 
 the law on Sinai, were not a sufficient link of con- 
 nection with the records of the Jehovist, there is 
 no lack of evidence to vindicate its claim to be 
 historic and Mosaic. It appears in Deuteronomy 
 (x. 3), repeatedly in Joshua (iii., vi., xviii.), in Judges 
 (xx. 26 ff.), in Samuel (2 Sam. xv. 25), and Kings 
 (i Kings viii.), until, finally, it is lodged within the 
 sacred precincts of the temple of Solomon, Of its 
 fortunes subsequent to the time of Isaiah (2 Chron. 
 xxxiii. 7 ; xxxv. 3), we have no account. The temple 
 or Zerubbabel was clearly without it ; and hence 
 by no fiction of Ezra could it have been smuggled 
 into the history of the earlier times. 
 
 TJie Altar of Incense had its place " before the vail " 
 (Ex. XXX. 1-2 1, 34-38), but so near to the holy of 
 holies as to share somewhat in its sacredness (i Kings, 
 vi. 22 ; cf. Heb. ix. 4). The narrative of its form and 
 function, being exceptionally found in a section by 
 itself, has given rise to the theory that it is a still later 
 accretion of the exilian " Priests' Code." On so slight 
 a foundation many a pretentious structure of the 
 criticism is reared. But there can be no doubt that 
 the temple of Solomon had an altar of incense 
 (i Kings, vi. 20 ; vii. 48 ; ix. 25). Why then should 
 a code originating after that period be of the form 
 of ours, bringing in the regulations for this altar as 
 a kind of appendix or afterthought .■' 
 
 It is difficult, it is true, to explain the peculiar 
 arrangement of sections on the supposition that the 
 law arose in the exodus period ; but the difficulty is 
 greatly enhanced if the interior of Solomon's temple
 
 Laws Peculiar to the ^^ Priests' CodeT 227 
 
 furnished the norm and guide. Moreover, it is a 
 significant fact that the altar of incense in Solomon's 
 temple was made of cedar ; that of the " Priests' Code " 
 is constructed of acacia {spina j^gyptiaca). If now, the 
 wise and forethoughtful legislator of the later day is 
 looking through an inverted telescope at Solomon's 
 temple in order to form his picture of the exodus 
 period, why has he overlooked this circumstance ? 
 That he has an eye for details we have abundant proof. 
 The altar of incense in the second temple, so far as we 
 can judge, is formed on the model of the " Priests' 
 Code." 
 
 And what is true of the altar of incense is true also 
 of the principal remaining articles of the original 
 tabernacle. They are each and all represented as 
 differing, to some extent, from those of the first 
 temple, while agreeing with those restored and used 
 in the second. 
 
 The table of shew-bread as described in the " Priests' 
 Code" was an exceedingly simple structure of acacia 
 wood (Ex. XXV. 23-30 ; Lev. xxiv. 5-9). There is every 
 reason to believe that the one found in Zerubbabel's 
 temple followed its specifications (i Mace. i. 22 ; iv. 49). 
 We read nowhere in the earlier or later history that 
 more than one table was used for this purpose at one 
 and the same time. But in Solomon's day, we are told 
 that the number rose to ten, five being placed on the 
 right and five on the left of the entrance into the holy 
 of holies (2 Chron. iv. 8, 19; cf. i Chron. xxviii. 16). 
 
 In like manner and to a like extent the number 
 of candlesticks was multiplied in Solomon's temple 
 (i Kings vii. 49; 2 Chron. iv. 7) ; and they seem to 
 have remained at that number until carried away by 
 the Babylonian conquerors (Jer. lii. 19). The exiles,
 
 228 The PentateiicJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 however, on their return from Babylon made provision 
 but for one (i Mace. i. 22), in harmony with the alleged 
 original code (Ex. xxvii. 20, 21 ; Lev. xxiv. 1-4; Num. 
 viii. 1-4). 
 
 The altar of burnt-offering appears to have undergone 
 similar changes in its history. That of the tabernacle, 
 in material, size, and the provision made for approaching 
 it (Ex. xxvii. I ff. ; xxxviii. i ff.), differed considerably 
 from the one used in the royal period (i Kings viii. 64 ; 
 2 Chron. iv. i ; vii. 7). Of the altar of burnt-offering 
 in Zerubbabel's temple we find no special description. 
 But we may safely infer from various hints that it 
 also went back for its model to the simplicity of the 
 supposed original one (i Mace. iv. 47) and not to the 
 precedent of Solomon. Wellhausen directly asserts 
 that this was the case.^ 
 
 Now in each of these instances, and the argument is 
 the stronger from the fact that there are four of them, 
 the conclusion to be drawn is inevitable. The practice 
 of the exiles from Babylon conforms to the regula- 
 tions of the " Priests' Code " and not to the usage of 
 the first temple. We may suppose, then, either that 
 the " Priests' Code " arose at this period or we may 
 suppose that it was followed because it was univer- 
 sally regarded by the Jews as Mosaic and authoritative. 
 We cannot suppose that, having its origin at this late 
 day, it was in any sense a projection of the first temple 
 backward into the Mosaic period. Such an hypothesis 
 must be regarded as, in the circumstances, impossible. 
 
 This being so, then I submit that we are shut up to 
 the conclusion that this code did not originate with 
 Ezra or any contemporary of his, but was adopted in 
 preference to the usages of the first temple because it 
 
 1 Geschickie, i. p. 30 and note.
 
 Laws Peculiar to tJie ^^ Priests Code." 229 
 
 was looked upon as the primitive and obligatory form 
 of the legislation. For we can easily understand how 
 the priests of the later day should wish to sanction and 
 follow national religious institutions in their original 
 form. But how <7?^«j-?-Mosaic legislators of these times 
 or of any other period subsequent to Solomon should 
 wish, or dare, to counterwork ordinances like those of the 
 first temple if these were up to that time the only ones 
 in existence is incomprehensible. What could be more 
 completely at variance with the statement that there 
 were many priests, Levites and chief of the fathers, 
 old men, who had seen the glory of the first house and 
 "wept with a loud voice " at the relative meanness of 
 the second (Ezra iii. 12, 13) } It is tenfold more likely, 
 in short, that the so-called " Priests' Code " is actually 
 antique and Mosaic, than that, while offering these 
 sharp contrasts to the practice of the golden and proto- 
 typal period of Hebrew history, it only pretends to 
 be so. 
 
 The Burnt-Ojfering (Lev. i. 1-17 ; vi. 1-6; Num. 
 xxviii. 1-15). — All of the laws of the Book of Leviticus 
 and of the first ten chapters of Numbers are repre- 
 sented as having been given during the fifty years 
 intervening between the setting up of the tabernacle 
 and the departure from Sinai (with Ex. xl. 17 cf. Num. 
 X. 11). But one of the first things we notice in the 
 ritual of the burnt-offering is that this form of offering 
 is presupposed as something already existing : " If any 
 man of you bring" (that is, according to custom). 
 This is in harmony with what we learn of the earliest 
 forms of sacrifice among the patriarchs. The burnt- 
 offering and peace-offering, as we have already shown, 
 were their type (Gen. viii. 20 ; xxii. 7 ; xxxi. 54 ; xlvi. 
 I ; Job i. 5 ; xlii. 8).
 
 230 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin mid Structure. 
 
 We fail to find the marked transition, said to 
 exist between the Jehovist and Elohist documents in 
 passing from one to the other. Nor do we discover 
 anything in the whole ritual of the burnt-offering as it 
 appears in Leviticus and Numbers, the presentation, 
 the imposition of hands, the slaughter, the disposition 
 of the blood, the consumption of the victim, that unfits 
 it for the exodus period. That it extends beyond the 
 simple rites of an Abel or an Abraham should not 
 surprise us. It is intended for a people new-born 
 from Egypt. Earlier custom, however, as we have said, 
 undoubtedly forms the basis of the system and it has 
 precisely the same origin and the same authority as 
 the so-called primitive (Sinaitic) laws of the Pentateuch 
 (Ex. XX. 23-26; xxiii. 18 f. ; xxxiv. iv. 25). 
 
 Meal and Drink Ojferings (Lev. ii. 1-6, 7-1 1 ; 
 X. 12, 13; Num. XV. 1-12; cf. Num. xxviii.). — Offering 
 to God some portion of the products of the earth by 
 which the offerer is sustained has a basis in nature 
 and not simply in ecclesiasticism. David pointed it 
 out when he said : " All things come of thee and of 
 thine own have we given thee" (i Chron. xxix. 14). 
 
 The drink-offering is never found — as was common 
 in heathen religions — by itself, in the Mosaic ritual, 
 but invariably in connection with the meal-offering. It 
 is worthy of notice also that no part of the wine used 
 in this offering formed any part of the priests' perqui- 
 sites (Lev. X. 9; cf. Ecclus. 1. 15). 
 
 The fact that the vessels used for making the drink- 
 offering are mentioned as a part of the furniture of the 
 table of shew-bread is no evidence of a more ancient 
 practice, in accordance with which wine as well as 
 bread was exhibited upon it. They are mentioned 
 when and as they are simply because it was found most
 
 Laws Peculiar to the " Priests' Code^ 23 1 
 
 convenient so to enumerate them. They are in pre- 
 cisely the same category, in this respect, as the pots in 
 which the sacred frankincense ^vas kept (Ex. xxv. 29). 
 
 It can be regarded, moreover, as no intentional color- 
 ing of the record, but an incidental circumstance of 
 great significance, that the meal and drink offerings as 
 accompaniments of other more important sacrifices are 
 only prospectively prescribed in the " Priests' Code." 
 They are represented as designed for a future period, 
 that which should follow the conquest of Palestine. 
 "Speak unto the children " is the form with which the 
 statute is introduced, "and say unto them. When ye 
 have come into the land of your habitations which I 
 am giving unto you," etc. (Num. xv. 2). 
 
 Peace-Offerings (Lev. iii. i-i/jvii. 11 -21, 28-34 ;xix. 
 5-8 ; xxii. 29, 30). — The peace (or thank) offering, there 
 can be no doubt, was common before the time of Moses 
 (Gen. xxxi. 54 ; xlvi. i ; Ex. x. 25 ; xxxii. 6), and not 
 alone among the Hebrews but other neighboring 
 peoples. Its most essential characteristic, the accom- 
 panying feast participated in symbolically by God and 
 really by the offerer and his friends was merely the 
 recognition of a mutual covenant, in a form universally 
 practised in the Orient. The ritual of this class of 
 sacrifices as found in the " Priests' Code " presents no 
 single feature that is out of harmony with its alleged 
 origin in the Mosaic period. The two names given to 
 it indicate simply two different points of view : the one 
 referring more particularly to the outward rite ; ^ the 
 other,2 to the underlying moral significance of it. If 
 the theory of a late date for the " Priests' Code " were 
 correct, we might have expected to find the latter term 
 only in the youngest documents, which is not the case 
 (Ex. XX. 24 ; xxiv. 5). 
 
 » Zebhach. * Sheltm.
 
 232 The Pentateuch : Its Origin a7id Structure. 
 
 The Sin-Ojfering (Lev, iv. ; v. 13 ; vi. 17; Num. xv. 
 22-28). — It is significant that in the order of narration 
 the sin-offering follows those above mentioned, although 
 as a matter of ritual it ordinarily preceded them when 
 all were presented at the same time. The others had 
 been in use before the days of Moses. This, at least 
 in its present form, had not. The immediate object of 
 the sin-offering was expiation, as that of the trespass- 
 offering was satisfaction or restitution. 
 
 In saying, now, that technically speaking there are 
 no signs of the existence of sin-offerings before the 
 time of Moses, that is, that they had no existence, 
 except as all bloody offerings were understood to be of 
 the nature of an atoning sacrifice, we do not, by any 
 means, unfavorably prejudice the position that they 
 originated with him. For there is nothing in this form 
 of sacrifice, per se, to make it an anachronism in his 
 time, while the ritual itself, in its outward form, is 
 indubitably impressed with marks of the exodus period. 
 The bullock, for example, that is to be offered up, is to 
 be brought to the " door of the tabernacle of the con- 
 gregation before the Lord " (Lev. iv. 4 ; cf. vs. 5, 7, 15, 
 16, 18). After its slaughter and the prescribed sprink- 
 ling and pouring of its blood about the sanctuary, 
 the carcass is to be carried "without the camp" and 
 burned (Lev. iv. 12, 21). 
 
 These are unintentional corroborations of the Mosaic 
 origin of the code or they are an intentional shaping 
 and coloring of it for purposes of deception. 
 
 That within the Levitical law of the sin-offering 
 itself there are expressions suggestive of development, 
 as some have intimated (v. 1-6), Delitzsch denies.^ 
 And that from the beginning of the eighth century B.C. 
 
 1 S.V. " Siindopfer " in Riehm's HandwQrterbuch.
 
 Laws Peculiar to the ^'Priests' Code^ 233 
 
 the post-Mosaic history is without an adequate recogni- 
 tion of its existence I have elsewhere shown to be an 
 error.^ 
 
 The Trespass-0ffe7'ing (Lev. v. 14-26; vii. i-io ; 
 Num. V. 5-10). — Besides the differences just noted as 
 existing between the sin and the trespass offering, 
 there were also others. In the case of the latter, the 
 victim must be either a ram or a sheep ; in the former, 
 it depended on the rank and ability of the offerer what 
 it should be. In the trespass-offering there was a defi- 
 nite restitution required for injuries done ; in the other, 
 the sacrifice alone sufficed. The trespass-offering was 
 always of a private and individual character, the sin- 
 offering might be for a community or the whole people. 
 In the case of the trespass-offering, the blood of the 
 victim was sprinkled only on the sides of the altar ; in 
 the other, there was a variety of solemn ceremonies 
 prescribed for it. And it may be said, in general, that, 
 as might have been expected, the ritual of the sin- 
 offering is of a much more serious and rigid character 
 than the other. That among Mosaic institutions 
 room should be found for distinctions as fine and as 
 detailed as these cannot be accounted strange when in 
 the original Sinaitic code ritualistic and other similar 
 discriminations scarcely less sharp are made (Ex. xx. 
 22, 23 ; xxi. 1-6 et passim). 
 
 The assertion, now, that the trespass-offering is but 
 a subordinate development out of the sin-offering, 
 from which it was differentiated by the finical scribes 
 of the later day, has no historical evidence in its sup- 
 port. If there were development in the premises, it 
 might have been expected in just the contrary direc- 
 tion, the stricter form following the more lax. Thir 
 
 ' See p. 99 r.
 
 234 T^^^ Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 order alone, moreover, would be in harmony with the 
 general position of the critics who offer the hypothesis. 
 That the terminology of the Pentateuch does not 
 always indicate clear distinctions is true.^ But such 
 instances are exceedingly rare and exceptional. In- 
 deed, omitting a single allusion in 2 Kings xii. 17 — 
 which, however, is disputed — and some notices in 
 Ezekiel (xl. 39 ; xlii. 1 3 ; xliv. 29 ; xlvi. 20), there is not 
 a single reference to the trespass-offering outside the 
 Pentateuch before the days of Ezra. The only histori- 
 cal observance of it is the one he orders in the case of 
 those who had married foreign wives. 
 
 The very nature of the offering furnishes just and 
 sufficient ground for this. It is, as before remarked, of 
 a purely private and individual character. For this 
 reason, doubtless, it is not mentioned in connection 
 with burnt and sin offerings in the well-known passage 
 of the Psalms (xl. 7). The post-exilian literature is as 
 bare of it as the preexilian (Bar. i. 10). Consequently, 
 the argument from silence is worthless for proving the 
 earlier non-existence of this form of sacrifice. When, 
 in the post-Mosaic times, it is first mentioned (see the 
 passages in Ezekiel above cited), it is without circumlo- 
 cution or explanation of any sort, as something already 
 understood. No law original with the exilian scribes, 
 or in their period, could have been introduced with the 
 abruptness and apparent inattention of this, in the 
 Book of Ezra, where (x, 19) it is said of the offending 
 priests: "And having trespassed, (they furnished) a 
 ram of the flock for their trespass." 
 
 Of Release from Vows (Lev. xxvii. 1-34). — It is 
 noticeable that the chapter which contains the law 
 concerning vows, especially their commutation, is 
 
 * Once (Num. v. 8) the ram of the trespass-offering is entitled a " sin-offering."
 
 Laws Peculiar to the ''Priests Code." 235 
 
 made apparently with design an appendix to the 
 Sinaitic legislation (cf. Lev. xxvi. 46). It concerns the 
 regulation of a permanent custom (cf. Gen. xxviii. 20 ff. ; 
 Deut. xxiii. 22-24), which might not be overlooked, but 
 which, properly speaking, formed no part of the posi- 
 tive religious institutions of Israel. 
 
 The Hebrew literature shows that vows of a relisfious 
 nature were exceedingly common in the earlier periods 
 of the history, and this of itself would render it 
 exceedingly probable that they early came under the 
 restriction of written law (Judges xi. 30 ; i Sam. i. 1 1 ; 
 Job xxii. 27; Jon. i. 16; Prov. xx. 25 ; Eccles. v. 3-5). 
 
 Again, it is clear that regulations of this sort would 
 be far more likely to spring up in the period before the 
 conquest, when such high hopes ruled respecting the 
 promised land, than in the poverty-stricken times of 
 Ezra when, even for the ordinary sacrifices required by 
 their ritual, the Israelites were so largely dependent on 
 the generosity of their Persian lords (cf. Ezra vii. 
 1 1-26). 
 
 And, still further, the exilian and post-exilian prac- 
 tice in the matter of vows is of such a nature as to 
 render extremely precarious the theory that our present 
 law arose in, or about, the year 444 b.c. Malachi, 
 whose prophecy dates from the time of the second resi- 
 dence of Nehemiah in Jerusalem, we find castigating 
 the contemporary Israelite for so bold an evasion of 
 our code as the substitution of a worthless female 
 victim in place of the male that had been pledged 
 (i. 14). He singles out for condemnation, that is, a 
 form of transgression which on the supposition of the 
 introduction of this code just before would have been 
 next to impossible. It had expressly forbidden this 
 very thing, and, what is more to the point, forbidden it
 
 2'i^6 The Pcntateiich : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 on the penalty of losing both the animals (Lev. xxvii. 
 lo). Moreover, from this time downward the degen- 
 eracy grew apace, until at the beginning of the Chris- 
 tian era men had come to excuse themselves from the 
 holiest of duties on the vain plea that they had made 
 a vow conflicting with them (Matt. xv. 5 ; Mark 
 vii. 9 ff.). 
 
 Of the Nazarite (Num. vi. 1-2 1). — The vow of the 
 Nazarite differed from the ordinary one in that it 
 affected the person, was one of abstinence and of 
 separation unto the Lord. It was a kind of volun- 
 tarily assumed priestly sanctity. The long hair of 
 the Nazarite, it might be said, answered, in its way, 
 to the regalia of the sons of Aaron. His abstemious 
 ness and avoidance of ceremonial defilement went even 
 beyond theirs. His whole life, as a Nazarite, must 
 begin anew, if, by chance or by design, his vow had 
 been violated. 
 
 That this peculiar institution, now, was of Shemitic 
 origin (cf. Jer. xxxv.) and that it antedated the age of 
 Moses there can be no reasonable doubt. The cases 
 of Samson and of Jephtha show that it was already a 
 well-known custom in the period of the judges. And 
 the law before us has clearly the aim to regulate the 
 custom in unison with the ritual of the central sanctu- 
 ary. When the prophet Amos (ii. 11, 12) fixes upon 
 this as a characteristic mark of the desperateness of 
 his times, that when God had raised up Nazarites 
 among his contemporaries of the northern kingdom, 
 they had given them wine to drink, it is alone the 
 recognized legal obligation of the Nazarite that gives 
 special pertinency and force to the charge. 
 
 The revival and expansion of the order in the time 
 of the Maccabees is quite too late a phenomenon to be
 
 Laws Peculiar to the ^^ Priests^ Code!' 237 
 
 an echo of exilian legislation (cf. i Mace. iii. 49). Not 
 a trace, in fact, appears of it from the purely incidental 
 reference of Amos to the equaUy incidental one amidst 
 the reforms of Judas Maccabaeus. Priests were not so 
 plentiful on the return from Babylon, nor a life of 
 sanctity so sought after, that a law of the nature of 
 this would have been the natural product of the 
 period ; or, if arising then, would have been so com- 
 pletely overlooked by its chosen annalists. 
 
 Rite of Purification at Childbirth (Lev, xii. 1-18). 
 — It is to be emphatically denied that the Bible gives 
 any encouragement to the sentiment that the mere 
 act of giving birth, or the fact of having given birth, 
 is a defilement. The condition into which a woman 
 is brought by the birth of a child is said rather to 
 be like the impurity of her monthly illness (vs. 2). It 
 was, to a certain extent, the effect and evidence of 
 death. Such death, as the penalty of sin, had not 
 only a physical, but a moral, character. One needed, 
 therefore, to be ceremonially purified from it. Now, 
 while the Jews shared with other nations of antiquity 
 this general sentiment and various laws of purification, 
 still they moved on quite another plane. It cannot 
 be shown that either in their deeper moral sense of 
 what this impurity was or their special rules for rec- 
 ognizing it and freeing themselves from it, they were 
 indebted to popular influences without themselves. 
 We know of no nation antedating Israel, and in con- 
 tact with it, that could have supplied these regula- 
 tions, much less giving evidence of an ethical standard 
 requiring them. 
 
 We find, moreover, the prophets of the earliest 
 period, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, 
 governed by the same general conception, and appar-
 
 238 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Strnctnre. 
 
 ently appealing to the same fixed laws, that appear 
 on this subject in Leviticus (Hos. ix. 3 £. ; Am. vii. 
 17; Mic. ii. 10; Is. XXX. 22; Jer. xix. 13; cf. 2 Kings 
 xxiii. 10). 
 
 The priest-prophet Ezekiel, it is true, shows an 
 enhanced interest and zeal in the direction of cere- 
 monial purity. But it is no more than might have 
 been expected from one who represented here the 
 bloom of prophetical teaching. For there can be no 
 doubt that it was the prophets who practically did 
 most toward developing, in Israel, the inclination for 
 ceremonialism, even while fighting it in itself, by the 
 very stress they laid on the ethical verities that lay 
 beneath it. The development everywhere is of such 
 a sort as to require the presupposition of some reg- 
 ulative norm corresponding to the law of the middle 
 books of the Pentateuch. It is too uniform, it is too 
 persistent, it is too serious in its demands upon the 
 conscience to be the offspring only of an uncertain, 
 popular custom. 
 
 Purification by Means of the Ashes of a Red Heifer 
 (Num. xix. 1-22). — In the peculiar ceremonial of puri- 
 fication in which the ashes of a red heifer were 
 employed, it was still the sense of impurity produced 
 by death that chiefly ruled. And it is not to be over- 
 looked that it is the Jehovist who places at the begin- 
 ning of his document the weighty words : " In the 
 day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die" 
 (Gen. ii. 17). In this one sentence is recognized and 
 asserted the vital principle that underlies every 
 Elohistic ordinance of purification. 
 
 The present law bears no date and has no history. 
 In the order of the narrative, it belongs to the second 
 year of the exodus. If it were given in immediate
 
 Laws Pcxuliar to the ^^ Priests Code.'* 239 
 
 connection with the plague that followed the rebellion 
 of Korah, as may reasonably be supposed, it could 
 have had no wiser setting of circumstances. The 
 fact that the divine communication concerning it is 
 made to Moses and Aaron is worth noting. It is 
 unusual. Aaron's installation as high-priest is thus 
 assumed, which, if it be not a conscious perversion 
 of the truth, is a striking support of it. 
 
 Then, further, it is to be observed that, notwith- 
 standing the high-priesthood of Aaron is so assumed, 
 Eleazer is represented as the one who carries out 
 in detail the provisions of this statute. This would 
 scarcely be the method of an inventor, especially 
 of one inspired with the purposes ascribed to the 
 exilian projectors of the Levitical system. Besides 
 this, the people are spoken of as though still in camp 
 (vs. 3, 9). The tabernacle is at the centre of ritual- 
 istic worship. Instructions are given, which, in the 
 later times, were no longer understood. Others are 
 omitted which needed then to be supplied. In fact, 
 the form that this rite assumed in post-exilian Judaism 
 proves anything else rather than that it was an insti- 
 tution owing its origin to the austerities of the Baby- 
 lonian exiles.^ The biblical books give us no authority 
 for assuming that they ever actually practised it at all. 
 
 Feast on the first of the Seventh Month (Lev. xxiii. 
 23-25 ; Num. xxix. 1-6). — The feast whose observance 
 was appointed for the opening of the seventh month 
 is of importance from a critical point of view out of 
 all proportion to any emphasis that is laid upon it in 
 the historical books. It is not so much as mentioned 
 in these books, or anywhere else in the Bible, out- 
 side of the two passages cited from Leviticus and 
 
 ' See Riehm's Handwdrterbiich, s.v. " Sprcngwasser."
 
 240 The Pentateuch : Its Origin anet Strncttire. 
 
 Numbers, unless it be in Neh. viii. 9-12. And if the 
 event recorded in Nehemiah be a reference to it, it will 
 repay a little careful attention. For it is of this 
 passage that it is oracularly declared that it marks 
 the primal introduction of the " Priests' Code." 
 
 It was at this assembly, it is alleged, on the first of 
 Tisri of the year b.c. 444, that Ezra, in the presence of 
 Nehemiah and with his countenance and cooperation, 
 proclaimed to the returned Babylonian captives the 
 priestly laws of the middle books of the Torah, to which 
 they had hitherto been total strangers. ^ 
 
 But it is remarkable, at the outset, that in this pas- 
 sage in Nehemiah the whole people recognize, sponta- 
 neously for all that we know to the contrary, the first 
 day of the seventh month as one to be scrupulously 
 observed. They gather voluntarily at the water-gate 
 in Jerusalem on that day. Then, further, we find Ezra, 
 without extraordinary announcement reading to the 
 gathered populace from "morning until midday" out 
 of what is termed "the book of the law of Moses." 
 The people themselves request him so to do. And the 
 book is brought to him from some quarter where it 
 seems to have been sacredly deposited. As he reads 
 the voice of incontinent weeping breaks forth from the 
 assembled multitude. 
 
 What is it that so touches the cords of tender feel- 
 
 1" Dieses Priestergesetz war noch unwirksam als Maleachi auftrat, bis Esra am i. 
 Tishri des J. 444 in Beisein Nehemia's vor dem Wasserthore Jerusalems es (nach Giese- 
 brecht sogar schon wesentlich so, wie es jetzt im Pentateuch vorliegt, mit den anderen 
 Thoroth zusammengearbeitet) proklamirte. Da beugte sich die Priesterschaft, der die 
 Hut des mosaischen Gesetzes befohlen war, und das ganze Volk in alien seinen Standen 
 von oben bis unten sofort widerspruchslos unter das Joch dieser neuen Thora ! Und 
 werwardenn der Verfasser des fortan massgebenden Priesterkodex? Esra selbst kann 
 es sein, sagt Kayser. Aber nein, er nicht s.agt Wellhausen. Wer also denn ! Hier fehlt 
 die Antwort und unser Staunen wachst, denn urn so kiihner war der Gewaltstreich des 
 Reformators und um so schafsmassiger die junge Kolonie, die sich in das neue Gesetz 
 von so obskurer Entstehung einpferchen liess."— Delitzsch, in Zeitschriftfur kirchliche 
 Wissenscha/t, etc. 1S80, p. 624.
 
 Laws Peculiar to the ^^ Priests Code." 241 
 
 ing ? Is it the " Code of the Priests " ? What part 
 of it, pray ? Can it be the detailed instructions given 
 for washing, clothing, and installing their ecclesiastical 
 leaders ? Or is it the description, chapter by chapter 
 and verse by verse, of the tabernacle of Exodus, the 
 clever work of Bezaleel and Aholiab, the rings, the 
 staves, the curtains, the knops, and the bowls ? If the 
 chiefs of the exilian congregation had any real designs 
 upon it of the nature described, they would surely have 
 spared them an ordeal of this kind. But if it was not 
 the Levitical laws that were read and explained and that 
 drew forth responses so unexpected and overwhelming, 
 then what foothold is there anywhere in the record for 
 the theory that this was the occasion of their earliest 
 introduction ? 
 
 Still further, we notice that it is not alone Ezra who 
 is concerned in this matter of the first of Tisri, b.c. 
 444. On the right hand and on the left, he is officially 
 supported by more than a dozen priests whose names 
 are carefully given. As many prominent Levites cir- 
 culate among the people with the same intent. And 
 Nehemiah, the civil governor, does not fail, as we have 
 intimated, to second, by word and act, the whole pro- 
 ceeding. If it be masquerading in the name and 
 character of Moses, it is clear that all the principal 
 representatives of Israel are implicated in it. It is 
 no usurpation by any single man or class ; it is a 
 conspiracy on a gigantic scale. But to suppose that 
 these men could thus have duped their contemporaries 
 into the acceptance of laws as Mosaic which were 
 not so ; to suppose that had they perpetrated such a 
 fraud there would not be the slightest trace of it in 
 the history or traditions of the period ; to suppose, 
 in view of the great moral purpose obviously lying at
 
 242 The PentateiicJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 the basis of this as of all other portions of the 
 Pentateuch, that any of these persons, or any one 
 associated with them, would wish so to impose on 
 the credulity of his generation, are all, and severally, 
 impossible suppositions ; and any theory that bases 
 its support upon them is unworthy the confidence of 
 Christian men. 
 
 Moreover, let us look more closely at the way in 
 which these colonists from Ahava celebrate their 
 festival. It has every appearance of being an imper- 
 fect resumption of customs long neglected. According 
 to the ritual of the "Priests' Code" the day was to be 
 introduced by the blowing of trumpets. Here there 
 appears to be nothing of the kind. The people are 
 far more ready to weep than to rejoice. 
 
 For this day there had been ostensibly appointed, 
 too, a fixed number and order of animal sacrifices, 
 burnt-offerings, meal-offerings, and sin-offerings. Not 
 a vestige of them is seen here, however. On the con- 
 trary, after the ceremony of the public reading from 
 the Pentateuch has been concluded, the people are 
 enjoined, in phraseology as strange to the ritual of 
 Leviticus and Numbers as to the earlier historical 
 books, to go their way, eat the fat, drink the sweet, 
 and send portions to them for whom nothing had 
 been prepared. If this were mainly an effort to 
 establish and give currency to the cycle of Levitical 
 festivals, why are the most essential features of this 
 one overlooked and elements so foreign to it authori- 
 tatively introduced ? 
 
 TJie Day of Atonement (Ex. xxx. 10; Lev. xvi. 1-34; 
 xxiii. 26-32; Num. xxix. 7-1 1). — -The most important 
 critical questions involved in the ritual and history of 
 the day of atonement have been already considered.^ 
 
 1 See p. Ill f-
 
 Laws Peculiar to the ^^ Priests Code." 243 
 
 The hypothesis that assigns its origin to any late 
 period falls by its own weight. It is as true of this 
 observance, as of that of the feast of trumpets, that 
 no certain mention is made of it in the historical 
 books of the Old Testament previous to the exile. But 
 the same may be said of the post-exilian annals of 
 the Jews. Josephus ^ is the very first to refer to the 
 matter. The argument from silence, therefore, is of 
 no worth in the present case. 
 
 The manner in which it appears in the code, how- 
 ever, deserves attention. It is confined to no one phase 
 of it, but it is treated in four different passages belong- 
 ing to three separate books of the Pentateuch. In 
 Exodus there is but a bare allusion ; still one that is as 
 significant for its comprehensiveness as for its brevity. 
 It presupposes the existence of the ritual and refers to 
 the one annual observance of it, which it rigorously 
 enjoins for all the future. 
 
 Of the passages in Leviticus, one details in full 
 the solemn offices of the high-priest, the other charac- 
 terizes the duties and obligations of the day from the 
 point of view of the people. In Numbers the required 
 sacrifices are enumerated. Such a fourfold presenta- 
 tion of the law is a fact of moment. It can never be 
 made to harmonize with the assumption that it is a 
 product of reflection "by the waters of Babylon." 
 
 Again, if there are no references in the prophets 
 or historical books that positively prove a preexilian 
 observance of the day of atonement, it is just as 
 certain that there are none that disprove its potential 
 existence in the statute. ^ In the meantime, other 
 evidence is not wanting of its Mosaic origin. Every 
 
 1 Antiq., xiv. i6. 4. 
 
 2 Dclitzsch has conclusively established this in the Zeitschri/tfur Kirchliche IVitstn- 
 scha/t, pp. 173-181.
 
 244 ^'^^^' Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 phase of the law is introduced by the statement that 
 it comes from him. The very occasion of its first 
 announcement is declared to be the conspiracy of Nadab 
 and Abihu, a circumstance that has not the slightest 
 tinge of invention about it (Lev. xvi. i, 2). It stands 
 or falls, moreover, with other alleged Mosaic institu- 
 tions, some of which have the support of the Jehovist, 
 equally with the Elohist, documents. The doctrine of 
 the atonement, in fact, holds no more central place 
 in the Christian religious and dogmatic system than 
 does the day of atonement in the Jewish ethical and 
 ritualistic. There is not, for instance, an allusion to 
 the ark with its peculiar covering — and there are more 
 than twenty such references in Exodus and Leviticus — • 
 that does not recognize the one most conspicuous 
 feature of the day of atonement. The title "mercy- 
 seat " seems to have had no other formal or moral 
 basis than the characteristic act of the high-priest in 
 sprinkling there the blood of atonement. In the 
 second temple there was no ark at all.^ 
 
 Such, now, are a few of the particulars in which laws 
 peculiar to the so-called " Priests' Code " may be shown 
 to correspond to the character and origin they claim 
 for themselves. The great proportion of them, it will 
 have been observed, are double-acting. They not 
 only favor or force the presumption of the genuine- 
 ness of the laws, but they disprove the contrary. 
 
 The testimony, moreover, is singularly uniform and 
 hence cumulative. It has a decided qualitative value 
 too, as well as one of quantity and uniformity. " It 
 is not the evidence of witnesses first schooled and 
 cautioned and then brought into court to do their 
 
 1 The technicalities of our law, too, in other respects are just as conspicuously not 
 exilian. Its word for fasting, for example, is qitm, a word which is without a parallel in 
 'he Pentateuch, another expression being always used (or it.
 
 Laws Peculiar to the "Priests Code." 245 
 
 best for the party by whom they are summoned." ^ It 
 is the purely incidental testimony rather of scores of 
 disconnected facts and events which, notwithstanding, 
 point in one direction and voice one conclusion, 
 
 "Every revolution," says Emerson,^ "was first a 
 thought in one man's mind, and when the same 
 thought occurs to another man it is the key to that 
 era. Every reform was once a private opinion, and 
 when it shall be a private opinion again, it will solve 
 the problem of the age." 
 
 One great difficulty with a certain current type of 
 critics is their unwillingness to acknowledge that the 
 brain of a Moses could have conceived and have carried 
 such a system of laws as we have been considering. 
 If it was first a thought in some man's mind, there 
 is no man of Old Testament times more likely than 
 he to have had that thought. That the same thought 
 did not also, at once, occur in ripeness and fulness 
 to his contemporaries is no anomaly. Revolutions 
 are a growth. Private opinion becomes public opinion 
 only by long preparatory processes of evolution, pre- 
 ceded by equally long and rigid ones of involution and 
 digestion. 
 
 When the thought of Moses did actually occur, if 
 formally rather than spiritually, to other men, and 
 his private opinion became, by virtue of hard expe- 
 rience, their private opinion, it solved the problem of 
 post-exilian Judaism ; it became the key to that pro- 
 longed after-era of legalism. 
 
 With a lawgiver of Mosaic stature and prescience 
 there, with a scribe Ezra here, and a thousand years of 
 Israelitish disciplinary history between, no incongruity 
 of the narrative surprises us. Given a Moses, this 
 
 1 Isaac Taylor, Historic Proof, London, 1828, pp. 21, 22, 
 * Essays, y.i. New York: Lovell&Co. 1884.
 
 246 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Moses of the Bible at the genesis of the development, 
 and an Ezra was sure to follow sooner or later. Deny, 
 however, the Moses of biblical history and you make 
 an Ezra — certainly this Ezra — a wholly impossible 
 character. 
 
 The chief figure of his times, he has in that case 
 only his supreme assurance and adroitness to rec- 
 ommend him. Portrayed as a man who fasts and 
 prays and is eager for reform, we see that it is 
 simply as a cloak for plans of self-aggrandizement 
 The first to occupy a pulpit, he is the first to 
 prostitute it to evil ends. Reputed to have been a 
 principal in fixing the canon of the sacred books, 
 the information fails to entertain us ; for the books 
 on that very account become other than sacred in our 
 eyes. In short, it is no fair compensation for a loss 
 like that of a Moses of the exodus that we are blandly 
 introduced to this Ezra of critical manipulations and 
 hypotheses. Our admiration of him grows in inverse 
 proportion to our knowledge of his character and the 
 biblical record of his life.
 
 Laws Peculiar to the " Priests' CodeT 
 
 247 
 
 TABLE OF LAWS PECULIAR TO THE 
 "PRIESTS' CODE." 
 
 EXODCS. 
 
 28:1-43. 
 29:1-42. 
 30:22-33. 
 
 Subject. 
 
 Blasphemy, 
 
 Sacred Vestments, 
 
 Consecration of Priests, 
 
 Anointing Oil, 
 
 Higli Priest from Elcazer's Line, 
 
 Who niiprlit Eat of the Sacrifices, 
 
 Special Prerogatives of Priests, .... 
 
 Tabernacle and its Furniture, 25 : 1-27 :19 ; cf. 36 : 1-38 : 
 
 31. 
 Altar of Incense, 30: 1-21, 34-38. 
 
 Table of the Shew-bread, 25 : 23-30. 
 
 Care of tlie Lamps of the Taber- 
 nacle, 27:20,21. 
 The Burnt Oflerin", 
 Meal and Drink Offering, 
 
 Peace-OfFering, 
 
 Sin-Offering, 
 
 Trespass-Offering, 
 
 Of Release from Vows, 
 
 The Nazarite, 
 
 Purification at Childbirth, 
 
 Purification by the Ashes of i 
 
 Red Heifer, 
 Initinl Feast of Seventh Month, 
 The Day of Atonement, 30 : 10, 
 
 Leviticus. 
 
 24:15,16. 
 
 6:12-1618. 
 10:8-11; 21; 1-24. 
 
 22 \ i-ie! 
 
 NUMBEBS. 
 
 15:30,31. 
 
 25:10-13. 
 
 18: 10 ft'. 
 
 6: 22-27; 10: 1-10. 
 
 24 : 5-9. 
 
 24:1-4. 8:1-4. 
 
 1: 1-17; 6: 1-6. 28:1-15. 
 
 2: 1-16; 6: 7-11; 10: 
 
 12,1.3. 15: 1-12; chap. 38. 
 
 3: 1-17; 7: ll-.'M; 19: 
 
 6-8; 22: 29, .30. 
 
 4-5: 1.3; 6: 17-23. 
 5: 14-26; 7: 1-10. 
 27:1-34. 
 
 12:' 1-8.' 
 
 23 • 23-25. 
 
 lei 1-34 ;'23: 26-32. 
 
 15:22-28. 
 5 : 5-10. 
 
 6:1-21. 
 
 10:1-22. 
 29: 1-6. 
 39:7-11.
 
 VII. 
 
 UNITY AND GENUINENESS OF DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 The surprise awakened by recent archaeological 
 discoveries in Assyria and Egypt has left, as yet, 
 little opportunity for gauging their proper scientific and 
 religious value. That they are to be accorded a place 
 of increasing prominence in the province of biblical 
 criticism there can be no doubt. To have, in addition 
 to Moses and the prophets, the testimony of such as 
 have risen from the dead is a favor not granted to 
 every age. The tone of assumption might well grow 
 milder and the hand of violence less hasty in the 
 presence of witnesses like these. 
 
 We read with less patience an hypothetical history of 
 Israel dating simply from the period of the judges, with 
 the storehouses of Pithom and their exodus product, of 
 bricks with straw and bricks without straw, just rising 
 from the dust before us. We spare ourselves the 
 strained attention needful to follow a fine-spun argu- 
 ment designed to prove the barbarity of the Mosaic 
 period, with a voluminous literature in hand reaching 
 back to the patriarch Noah, and representing in devel- 
 oped form every species of composition known to the 
 Bible. We have something tangible with which to 
 resolve, at least to make credible, many a so-called 
 myth of Genesis in the diluvian slabs of our museums, 
 covered with a contemporaneous literature, and artistic 
 seals before us which were worn bv gentlemen of Ur o^
 
 Unity and Gcnnincncss of Deuteronomy. 249 
 
 the Chaldees before the days of Abraham. We rise up, 
 in short, from the reading of such a book as Sayce's 
 Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments} Schradcr's 
 KeilinscJiriften nnd das Alte Testainent^ or Hommel's 
 volumes on Die Semiten nnd iJire Bede7itiing fiir die Kul- 
 turgeschichte^ or the works of Brugsch-Bey and Ebers 
 on Egypt, with the feeling that, notwithstanding the 
 scholarly equipment and stubborn confidence of those 
 assailing the historical genuineness of the Pentateuch, 
 its defenders have no occasion to be daunted. As often 
 before, the earth is helping the woman.^ Deductions 
 have been based on a far from complete induction. 
 The goddess Isis is represented on the Egyptian monu- 
 ments with the crux ansata, or sign of life, in her right 
 hand, and in her left, as a wand, a papyrus stem.^ And 
 who shall say to what honor the humble papyrus leaf 
 and its companion witnesses may yet come in the 
 hands of that Providence which began with the begin- 
 ning, and will go on with its great purposes to the end, 
 of human history } 
 
 Moreover, if the course of Old Testament criticism 
 be followed from its inception to the present time 
 a similar impression will be made by no small part of 
 it of inconsequent claims and preposterous conclusions. 
 And to this characterization the Book of Deuteronomy 
 offers no exception. It was English deism that first 
 
 'The Religious Tract Society (London, 1884). This author remarks (Preface, p. 3): 
 " The same spirit of scepticism which had rejected the early legends of Greece and Rome 
 had laid its hands on the Old Testament and had determined that the sacred histories 
 themselves were but a collection of myths and fables. But suddenly, as with the wand of 
 a magician, the ancient eastern world has been reawakened to life by the spade of the 
 explorer and the patient skill of the decipherer, and now we find ourselves in the presence 
 oV monuments which bear the names or recount the deeds of the heroes of Scripture. One 
 by one these ' stones crying out ' have been examined or more perfectly explained, while 
 others of equal importance are being continually added to them." 
 
 2 Leipzic, 18S1, 2te Aufl., 1883. 
 
 3 Leipzic, from 1881. ■• Rev. xii. 16. 
 
 6 Wilson, The Eeypt of the Past (London, 1881), p. 15.
 
 250 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Strncture. 
 
 set afloat the theory that the work was the product of 
 the seventh century, an essential forgery of the subtle 
 priest Hilkiah.^ And for more than a century since 
 there is scarcely an hypothesis from A to Z that has 
 not been inquisitively tried upon it ; but only to leave 
 the criticism of to-day as widely divergent as ever in its 
 opinions. 
 
 At the beginning of the present century Vater as- 
 signed the book to the period of the exile.^ De Wette, 
 the several editions of whose Introduction to the Old 
 Testament are a literary curiosity in the variety of 
 views they have from time to time represented, finally, 
 like his English predecessor, fixed upon the period of 
 King Josiah as the date of its completion and surrepti- 
 tious introduction, excepting some minor portions 
 thought to be products of the Assyrian period.^ 
 Stahelin held that the author of Deuteronomy was the 
 same person who worked over the fundamental Elohim 
 document — now called the " Priests' Code" — extend- 
 ing through the first four books of the Pentateuch and 
 the Book of Joshua, and that he brought the whole 
 Hexateuch to its present state during the reign of 
 Saul.^ Bleek^ advocated somewhat similar views, but 
 maintained that Deuteronomy was composed by a later 
 independent editor — not the Jehovist — who closed 
 up his labors with this production about the time of 
 Manasseh. The Song of Moses (xxxii.) was written, he 
 claimed, by some poet of the time of Ahaz or Heze- 
 kiah. There was nothing whatever in the book, he 
 averred, or in any part of the Pentateuch, to justify the 
 theory of its composition as late as the exile. It was, 
 
 * Parvish, Inquiry into the Jeivish and Christian Revelation, p. 324. 
 2 Com. liber den Pent., vol. iii. pp. 391-728. 
 
 * Einleit., Achte Ausgabe, p. 323. 
 
 * Stiidien und Kritiken (1835), p. 462 f.; Specielle Einleit. (1862), pp. 22-34. 
 ^ Einleit. {^%^^),^.■Lo^{.
 
 Unity and Genuineness of Deuteronomy. 251 
 
 in fact, the whole Hexateuch that was found in the 
 temple by the priest Hilkiah. Movers/ in an exhaus- 
 tive monograph, demonstrated the utter groundlessness 
 of the supposition that Deuteronomy was a forgery of 
 King Josiah's time. Ewald^ was of the opinion that 
 the first thirty chapters of the work were written by 
 some person in the time of Manasseh ; the remaining 
 chapters being a composite, but of not much later date. 
 Knobel ^ adopted the theory that the author of Deuter- 
 onomy (i.-xxxi. 14) was the one who wrote also a large 
 part of Joshua, and brought the whole Hexateuch to 
 its present state not earlier than the reign of Josiah. 
 It will be noticed that up to this point the drift 
 of sentiment — a drift it should be called — is almost 
 altogether in the direction of making Deuteronomy 
 the youngest portion of the Pentateuch. It is well 
 represented by Bleek, who says:* "It may be held as 
 certain that the Deuteronomic laws, together with 
 the addresses they contain, as, indeed, the whole of 
 Deuteronomy from the beginning, was written with 
 reference to the preceding history of the people and 
 the legislation of Moses, and to continue and supple- 
 ment it. And it is decidedly false to hold with Vater, 
 Von Bohlen, Vatke, and George that Deuteronomy with 
 the laws it contains is older than the foregoing books 
 with their legislation." And yet, to-day, this camp of 
 Blcck and his illustrious compeers — De Wctte, Ewald, 
 and others — is confronted by a large body of scholars, 
 marshaled by the latest editor of Bleek's Introduction, 
 who confidently assert the direct opposite of that 
 so confidently asseverated by these acknowledged 
 masters of Old Testament criticism. 
 
 1 Zeitschrift/icr kathoUsche Theolog^ie, 1834, 1835. 
 
 * GeschicIUe d. I'olkes Is. (1843, 3'<^ And., 1864), i. 96 f. et passim. 
 
 s Commeutar {in Kurzgcfasstes exegct. Handbuch zuni A. T., 1861), p. 579 f. 
 
 * Einlcit., ibid. p. 107.
 
 252 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origm and Structure. 
 
 Reenforced by Graf, Kuenen, Kayser, Wellhausen, 
 and many more, the condemned theory of Vater and 
 Vatke is now in the ascendant. And though the hypoth- 
 esis of the origin of the Deuteronomic legislation a great 
 while after the age of Moses is retained, it is made, 
 with a slight exception, the introduction to, and not the 
 conclusion of, the Pentateuch codes ; while its histor- 
 ical portions are relegated to that convenient limbo of 
 all otherwise unorganized material, the time of the 
 exile. Is it a better scholarship or a sharper critical 
 acumen that has brought about so radical and revolu- 
 tionary a change of front .-' We venture to suggest 
 that it is the growing influence of the doctrine of 
 naturalistic development. The fathers of Old Testa- 
 ment criticism held in no mean estimation the sacred 
 Scriptures themselves as something to be considered, 
 reverently studied, deferred to.^ Their sons, it would 
 seem, carried away by the subtle but imperious spirit 
 of their time, can see nothing, venerate nothing, save 
 their Procustean hypothesis of historical evolution.^ 
 
 Moreover, we find just as little essential harmony 
 among the later scholars as among the earlier ; perhaps 
 
 • De Wette's remark (as quoted by Kleinert, Das Denteronomitim, p. 3) : "I did not 
 begin the criticism. Now that it has begun its dangerous game, it must be played 
 through; for only that is good which is perfect of its kind," is reverence itself compared 
 with some of Wellhausen's utterances. 
 
 2 Rawlinson, in his recent book. The Religions of the Ancient WoHd , aiiivcs at the 
 following conclusions (p. 242 f.) : " The historic review which has been here made lends 
 no support to the theory that there is a imiform growth and progress of religions from 
 fetishism to polytheism, from polytheism to monotheism, from monotheism to positivism, 
 as maintained by the followers of Comte. None of the religions here described shows any 
 signs of having been developed out of fetishism, unless it be the Shamanism of the 
 Etruscans. In most of them the monotheistic idea is most prominent at the first, and 
 gradually becomes obscured, and gives way before a polytheistic corruption. In all there 
 is one element, at least, which appears to be traditional, namely, sacrifice, for it can scarcely 
 have been by the exercise of his reason that man came so generally to believe that the 
 superior powers, whatever they were, would be pleased by the violent death of one or 
 more of their creatures. Altogether, the theory to which the facts appear on the whole 
 to point is the existence of a primitive religion communicated to man from without, 
 whereof monotheism and expiatory sacrifice were parts, and the gradual clouding over 
 of its primitive revelation everywhere, unless it were among the Hebrews."
 
 Unity and Genuineness of Deutcrononty. 253 
 
 there is even less of it. They are not agreed on the 
 question whether Deuteronomy is a priestly or a pro- 
 phetic document ; whether it was forged in the time of 
 the early kings or only found then ; whether it is essen- 
 tially a unit in its history and laws, or the historical 
 portions were framed about the laws by some exilian 
 expert in literary appropriations and adaptations ; 
 whether its laws^.as now extant, came from one hand or 
 have been considerably modified in their transmission ; 
 whether some of the book is Mosaic, by way of oral 
 tradition, or none of it ; whether it claims to be from 
 the lawgiver of the exodus, or makes no such claim ; 
 whether, if it be not what it purports to be, it is to be 
 regarded as a gross offence against morality, or one to 
 be readily condoned as simply a legal fiction, in the 
 sense of Roman jurisprudence and, as we suppose, of 
 Roman morals. In such a state of things there is 
 clearly, as yet, no logical obligation laid upon us to 
 leave the old moorings. There is one thing to be 
 dreaded even more than conservatism, and that is 
 chaos. We accordingly proceed to inquire whether it 
 be not possible on other principles, lying near at hand 
 and scientific in their nature, — using that word in its 
 truest sense and not as a shibboleth, — to reach results 
 before which a candid judgment will readily bow. 
 
 First, then, there are abundant, and abundantly 
 satisfactory, grounds for maintaining the literary and 
 material unity of the Book of Deuteronomy. It is a 
 remarkable example of it in its outward form. One 
 might be safely challenged to point to another book 
 of the Bible that is more so. The few verses of intro- 
 duction are singularly appropriate (i. 1-5) and so 
 detailed as it respects dates and places, amounting 
 almost to a species of literary triangulation, that it
 
 254 ^^^^^ Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 scarcely offers a choice between a theory of honest 
 history and egregious, not to say impossible, invention. 
 It tells just where the Israelites were when these 
 addresses were uttered, fixing the spot, as I have said, 
 with little less than geometric exactitude by refer- 
 ences to half a dozen other places in the neighborhood. 
 It gives the year of the wilderness wanderings, the 
 month, and even the day of the month, in noticeable, 
 though clearly undesigned, coincidence with other 
 important chronological data of the history. The 
 crossing of the Jordan was on the tenth of Abib of 
 the following year (Josh. iv. 19). The previous month 
 had been spent in mourning for the departed chief 
 (Deut. xxxiv. 8). Hence ten, full, solemn days are 
 left for the delivery of the great discourses of our book. 
 The whole is popular, hortatory, retrospective, and 
 spiritually elevating, nowhere falling below the key 
 struck in the opening announcement : " These are the 
 words which Moses spake unto all Israel." 
 
 The first address (i. 6-iv. 43) is a pertinent review of 
 the salient points in the history of the preceding forty 
 years, especially in its bearing on the present emer- 
 gency. It looks and points directly forward to the 
 following section, and is logically and indissolubly 
 bound to it by continual and emphatic reference under 
 the title of "this law," "these statutes " (i. 5 ; iv. i, 2, 
 6, 8, 9, 14, 44), although being itself, in this part, solely 
 a resume of well-known historical events. It ends with 
 Moses' selection of the three transjordanic refuge 
 cities, serving at once as the fulfilment of a promise 
 (Ex. xxi. 13) and a pledge of heroic faith that their 
 counterparts beyond the flood would also be achieved 
 (Deut. xix. 1-13). The entire discourse in its present 
 form might easily have been spoken in half an hour.
 
 Unity and Gennincness of Deuteronomy. 255 
 
 The second address (iv. 44-xxvi,), being the kernel 
 of the book and a little more than three times as long 
 as the first, occupies itself mostly with a free recapitu- 
 lation, in popular form, of earlier enactments, but with 
 such modifications and timely additions as prove the 
 hand of the Master.^ 
 
 The third discourse (xxvii.-xxx.) forms as naturally 
 the conclusion of the second as the first had formed 
 its introduction. There the choice of the refuge cities 
 witnessed to the heroic faith of Moses. Here the 
 imposing ceremonial appointed for Ebal and Gerizim 
 proves his moral earnestness and high prerogative as 
 the lawgiver of his people. Seconded now by the 
 elders, and again by the priests and Levites, he sets 
 forth in words that echo and reecho in every subse- 
 quent period of Jewish history the fact that God's laws 
 have a reverse, as well as an obverse, side ; that the 
 divine covenant was, indeed, a hope and an encour- 
 agement, but was also a responsibility and a warning. 
 
 Then, in the following chapter (xxxi.), this grand 
 old man, with a touching allusion to his infirmities 
 and approaching death, in the presence of the people 
 impressively passes over into the hands of his suc- 
 cessor his great trust, and at the same time delivers 
 with suitable instructions to the priests a copy of what 
 he calls "this law." Up to this point what could be 
 more obvious than a complete oneness of design and 
 representation throughout our book } The beginning 
 (i. 3, 5) looks forward to the end ; and the end while 
 taking up the very epithets and phrases of the begin- 
 
 'Delitzsch (Curtiss, Levitical Priests, Preface, p. 9) with his usual sagacity has 
 noted this fact, and speaks of the "psychological truth" of these "testamentary 
 addresses, the freshness and richness of the Egyptian reminiscences, the freedom with 
 which the author reproduces historical incidents, laws, and, above 'all, the Decalogue, 
 a freedom which is scarcely conceivable except on the supposition that the speaker was 
 the lawgiver himself."
 
 256 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Stnicture. 
 
 ning carries on its thought to the only possible climax. 
 It is, in short, the unity of nature, of inward logical 
 dependence and sequence, and no uniformity forced 
 upon it from without. 
 
 To this unity the two following chapters (xxxii., 
 xxxiii.) containing Moses' Song and Moses' Blessing 
 make certainly no interruption. They rather grow 
 out of the circumstances that go before, as the flower 
 from its bud. They are strictly Deuteronomic in the 
 best sense of the word and fittingly crown the work ; 
 and both are documentarily claimed as utterances 
 of Moses just prior to his climbing of Nebo on his 
 way to the better Canaan. And finally, the closing 
 sections of the book (xxxiv.), by some other sympa- 
 thetic hand, that tell how Moses died and was buried 
 according to the word of the Lord, and how the people 
 mourned for him, and what they thought of him, form 
 a conclusion for the whole that is as fitting as it is 
 moving and beautiful. 
 
 No less than in its literary structure the book of 
 Deuteronomy is a unit in its language and style. I 
 am aware how uncertain arguments based on the 
 mere coloring of language have come to be regarded. 
 Undoubtedly too much weight has sometimes been 
 attributed to them. But, in the present case, the 
 fact is so patent that the scholar has little advantage 
 over the unlearned, if he be an observant, reader. 
 Still, the testimony of acknowledged masters in bibli- 
 cal criticism may serve to strengthen the impression 
 which even a cursory reading of the book cannot fail 
 to make. 
 
 Of these authorities Bleek deservedly stands among 
 the foremost for candor and scholarship. It is with 
 a refreshing confidence of tone that he expresses him-
 
 Unity and Genuineness of Deuteronomy. 257 
 
 self on this point : ^ "This book in general," he says, 
 " offers unmistakably a greater unity of representation 
 and of substance than the foregoing. This is true 
 especially of the longer addresses, the didactic, as well 
 as the legislative portions (i.-iv. 40 ; iv. 44-xxvi. ; 
 xxviii.-xxx.). These parts are so much alike in lan- 
 guage and all characteristic features that we may 
 accept it as certain — and, moreover, there is scarcely 
 any dispute about it — that they were, generally speak- 
 ing, composed in the form in which they now lie 
 before us by one and the same writer." 
 
 So Dillmann,^ with no less assurance and directness, 
 although writing twenty years later, and from a dif- 
 ferent point of view : " Deuteronomy is anything 
 rather than an original book of the law. On the 
 contrary, it is a new didactic recommendation and 
 explanation of the old law for the people. Nothing 
 is gained by sundering chaps, xii.-xxvi. from the rest 
 of the book ; for here, too, there is everywhere mani- 
 fest the same spirit, the same language, and the same 
 purpose as throughout." 
 
 Delitzsch,^ likewise, while still holding, notwithstand- 
 ing the desperate conclusions that have been drawn 
 from it, the hypothesis of separate, determinable docu- 
 ments in the Pentateuch, considers that " the style 
 of Deuteronomy marks it off indubitably as something 
 unique and entire in itself." " Deuteronomy," he 
 says, "to its close is cast in one mould. The 
 historical connections, conclusions, transitions, state- 
 ments have the same coloring as the addresses. The 
 addresses are freely reproduced, and the reproducer 
 is identical in person with him who composed the 
 
 ' Einlett., p. 106. 
 
 ^ Die Buclicr Ex. u. Levit (in Kurzgcfasstes Handbucli), Vorwort, pp. vii., viii. 
 
 3 Zeitschriftfur KirchUche Wissenscha/t, etc. (1880), p. 504.
 
 258 The Pentateuch : Its Origm and Structure. 
 
 historical framework and the intermediate historical 
 portions. In a similar manner, if in a less degree, 
 this unity of coloring extends through Deuteronomy- 
 proper, that is, chaps, xii.-xxvi., containing the repeti- 
 tion of the law. All the constituent parts of the book, 
 not excepting the legislative, are interwoven with 
 expressions favorite with the work and peculiar to it." 
 
 And Kleinert, in his well-known monograph on our 
 book,^ remarks : " The literary peculiarities of the law 
 in Deuteronomy are at the same time peculiarities of 
 the [historical] framework ; and precisely the same lit- 
 erary individuality that confronts us in chaps, v.-xxvi. 
 makes itself felt as well in chaps, i.-iv., as also in 
 parts subsequent to chap, xxvii. The same didactic 
 tone, there as here, pervades the discourse." 
 
 It is true that Kleinert and the others mentioned 
 support no one view of the origin and date of the work. 
 It is true that their opinions are not uniform as 
 respects its concluding portions. But as against the 
 ipse dixit of current theorists, who have come to 
 assume it as proved that Deuteronomy is simply 
 block-work throughout, where sandstone from the 
 exile is found side by side with the granite and gneiss 
 of earlier periods, it should be decisive. As well in 
 the strikingly logical arrangement of its everywhere 
 harmonious material as in the confessed coloring 
 of vocabulary and style, the work, in its main features, 
 is a demonstrable unity. 
 
 In the second place, it can be confidently maintained 
 that, whoever penned the Book of Deuteronomy as 
 amanuensis or historiographer, if its own clear and con- 
 tinually repeated testimony is to be accepted, Moses 
 is responsible both for its substance and general form. 
 
 ^ Das Deuterononiium, p. 160.
 
 Unity and Genuineness of Deuteronomy. 259 
 
 It does not simply belong to his time ; it actually 
 originated with him. It is essentially the product 
 of his divinely illuminated mind, is thoroughly 
 penetrated by his spirit, and in outward arrange- 
 ment still carries throughout the peculiar indi- 
 vidual impression he left upon it. 
 
 It would surprise one unacquainted with the subject 
 to know how large a portion of the book is put directly 
 into the mouth of the lawgiver and is represented 
 to be spoken by him. By actual enumeration of 
 verses, it makes fifteen sixteenths of the whole 
 matter. Out of nearly a thousand verses, there are 
 but about sixty that are not in the form of direct 
 address, that is, that do not purport to be the word- 
 for-word utterances of Moses himself. If the first 
 thirty chapters be taken by themselves, the relative 
 disproportion is much more marked ; the average 
 of introductory or explanatory material to what 
 remains being only about that of a single verse to 
 a chapter. All of the rest might be included in 
 quotation marks. 
 
 It is by no means assumed that Moses was not also 
 the author of a part at least of this subsidiary material. 
 But the attention is now invited to the extraordinary 
 form in which almost the whole book appears. The 
 space required for introducing the speaker, stating the 
 circumstances under which his series of addresses 
 took place and what occurred after they were over, 
 is the least possible, it would seem, for perspicuity. 
 The rest comes under the simple rubric : " These are 
 the words which Moses spake to all Israel" (i. i), or 
 something of that nature. 
 
 The name of the lawgiver is found thirty-seven times 
 in the book, and in the great majority of cases it is
 
 26o TJic Pentateuch : Its Origm and Structure. 
 
 introduced with the special purpose of connecting him 
 authoritatively with its matter. The strictly legisla- 
 tive portion (xii.-xxvi.) shares this peculiarity equally 
 with the historical ; the first person being used with- 
 out exception. Omitting the last chapter, describ-^ 
 ing what took place after Moses relinquished his 
 leadership, there are less than half a dozen exceptions 
 to this uniform classification of the contents. Every- 
 thing else is stamped and sealed, as it were, by such 
 words as, "Moses spoke," "Moses commanded," "The 
 Lord said to Moses." 
 
 It is a remarkable circumstance and one which 
 cannot be overlooked or evaded in any worthy dis- 
 cussion of the genuineness of Deuteronomy. If the 
 person to whom we are indebted for the book as we 
 now have it, whoever he may have been, had delib- 
 erately set out to place beyond all dispute the question 
 of Mosaic responsibility for its contents, it would be 
 hard to say how he could have stated it more carefully 
 or wisely. 
 
 This is not all. Not only is Moses made responsible 
 for the substance of the book of Deuteronomy, he is 
 equally so for its literary construction and expression. 
 It is declared that he wrote it (xxxi. 9, 24), and wrote 
 it " to the end " — an addition of no slight impor- 
 tance. It is true that the term employed is "this 
 law," "this book of the law." Still, there ought to 
 be no uncertainty on that account, considering the 
 form in which the work is cast, its own usage as it 
 respects this very term, and the admitted unity of 
 language and style throughout. The whole book up 
 to this point is meant. 
 
 Moreover, the so-called " Song of Moses " (xxxii.) 
 cannot be «^xcluded. Of this, too, it is said that Moses
 
 Utiity and Genuineness of Deuteronomy. 261 
 
 wrote it at God's command, and taught it to the chil- 
 dren of Israel (xxxi. 22). Of the blessing with which 
 it is declared that " Moses the man of God blessed the 
 children of Israel before his death," it is nowhere 
 specifically announced, indeed, that he also composed 
 it and left it in a written form. The circumstances, 
 however, leave scarcely any other inference open. He 
 was not a man to recite another's composition on such 
 an occasion. And if he thought it needful perma- 
 nently to shape and fix the foregoing historical and 
 legislative records, and was concerned not to leave 
 them to the uncertainties of oral tradition, he would 
 not think it less needful to do it with this series of 
 predictions, whose fine shading of thought might be 
 still more easily obscured and lost. 
 
 In saying now, however, that we have the authority 
 of Deuteronomy that Moses composed and wrote 
 Deuteronomy, we do not say, necessarily, that it 
 teaches that it is actually his autograph ; it may or 
 may not be that. The Epistles ascribed to Paul are 
 no less truly his, and were no less certainly written 
 by him, because his own hand was not mechanically 
 employed on many of them. It is simply meant that 
 the Book of Deuteronomy makes the claim that it is 
 Mosaic in its present literary plan and structure ; but 
 this is meant. And it is more, and is clearly intended 
 to be more, than saying that the book is substantially 
 Mosaic, gets its authority,, under God, from Moses. 
 It means that it was written under his eye, and 
 received his approval as correctly reporting his utter- 
 ances, which make up almost the whole of it. 
 
 It is not without significance that after authori- 
 tatively connecting the lawgiver so many times by 
 name with the general contents of the work, and then
 
 262 The Pentateuch : Its Origin atid Structure. 
 
 ascribing to him the writing of it to the end, it is 
 further stated that the book thus completed was by 
 him formally committed to the custody of the Levites 
 for preservation beside the ark (xxxi. 24 £.). 
 
 How in the face of all this circumstantial detail, 
 whose truthfulness as a whole or in any particular 
 there is not the slightest historical ground for ques- 
 tioning, one can still say that Deuteronomy makes no 
 claim to be the work of Moses, it is not easy to under- 
 stand. Or, admitting that such a claim is made, and 
 so made, as well by implication as direct statement, 
 over and over, in every part, conspicuously, emphati- 
 cally, one can hold that it is simply for effect, and 
 was never intended to represent a fact, is quite as 
 inexplicable. 
 
 Why, it may be asked, if this were the case, is there 
 nowhere discoverable in earlier or later Jewish history 
 the shadow of a tradition that language is here used 
 with so unheard-of a license .-' Is it credible that the 
 whole Jewish race from Moses to Jesus Christ can have 
 conspired to pose before the world in so false a charac- 
 ter, and that too in the face of a statute for which 
 mankind is confessedly their debtor : "Thou shalt not 
 bear false witness against thy neighbor" } Is it likely 
 that any small portion of it colluded to hoodwink the 
 rest, and succeeded in doing it so far as to make them 
 believe that they themselves had been eyewitnesses of 
 various great events during a long period of years of 
 which they were as ignorant as the man in the moon .'' 
 "We saw," says the speaker, — you as well as I, — 
 " the sons of the Anakim " (i. 28). " In the wilderness 
 thou didst see how the Lord did bare thee as a man 
 doth bear his son " (i. 31). "And I instructed Joshua 
 at that time " [mark ! Joshua, the man who succeeded
 
 Unity and Genuineness of Deuteronomy. 263 
 
 Moses], " saying, Thine eyes have seen all that the 
 Lord did to these two kings" (iii. 21). Again, alluding 
 to specific circumstances : " Your eyes have seen all 
 that the Lord did because of Baal-Peor " {iv. 3 ; cf. 
 Num. XXV. 3). 
 
 And not only does the writer assume and affirm, but 
 he denies the opposite : " I speak not to your children, 
 who have not known and who have not seen the chas- 
 tisement of the Lord your God, his greatness, his 
 mighty hand, and his outstretched arm " (xi. 2). And 
 near the end of the book, as well (xxix. 3-5) : "Ye have 
 seen all that the Lord did before your eyes, . . . the 
 great temptations, . . . the signs, and those great 
 miracles. . . . And I have led you forty years in the 
 wilderness." Four times, and in each of the three 
 leading sections (ii. 7 ; viiii. 4 ; xxix. 4), the length of 
 time spent by Israel in the eventful journey from 
 Egypt is alluded to.^ 
 
 If this be invention, it matters not in what king's 
 reign or under what prophetic or priestly sanction it 
 was invented ; its impudence and dishonesty are only 
 equaled by the stupidity of the people that did not 
 discover that it was so, or discovering and knowing it 
 have never made a sign that they accepted it otherwise 
 than as literal fact. 
 
 It is claimed, however, that there are indubitable 
 marks of a later origin stamped on the book itself — 
 anachronisms, contradictions, incidental remarks, geo- 
 graphical, ethnographical, or explanatory — that, what- 
 ever else may appear to favor a Mosaic origin, point 
 to a period long subsequent to his day for its compo- 
 
 ' It is true that elsewhere a whole generation is said to have fallen in the wilderness 
 (cf. Num. xxvi. 64, 65). It was, however, only the males over twenty years of age who 
 had been put under the ban (Num. i. 3,45,49). The Levites had been exempt as well as 
 the women and youth. So that the congregation was still identical with that which left 
 Egypt.
 
 264 The PeutatciicJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 sition ; at least, for the form in which it now appears. 
 It may be well to consider here these objections, as 
 far as they relate to the historical portions of Deuter- 
 onomy, before adducing additional reasons in support 
 of Mosaic authorship. Still, let it be understood that 
 it is not regarded as a matter of superlative importance. 
 The fly on the elephant's back does not detract from 
 the majesty of the elephant. 
 
 It may be acknowledged at the outset, without yield- 
 ing an iota as it concerns the main point at issue, that 
 our book has some scraps of supplementary material ; as, 
 for example, to mention the principal one, the twelve 
 verses of the closing chapter. And here and there a 
 remark is thrown in, possibly editorial, or of the nature 
 of what might originally have been a gloss, which, 
 because there was no other place to put it, has^ound 
 its way into the text. But every such case bears 
 unmistakable witness to itself. There is just as little 
 danger, in our book, of confounding this subsidiary 
 matter with the body of the work as there would be if 
 it appeared in another character, or was printed in a 
 different color. As already noticed, fifteen sixteenths 
 of Deuteronomy is in the form of direct address ; the 
 name of the speaker being in every instance given and 
 being in every instance the same. 
 
 To cite these exceptions, therefore, as evidence that 
 a fictitious writer of a later day has unwittingly 
 betrayed himself, is to make a simpleton of the writer. 
 Either he meant to conceal his identity, or he did not. 
 If he did, and carelessly dropped into this method of 
 speaking, it was an example of imbecility wholly 
 unworthy of the author of a book like this. If he did 
 not mean to conceal his identity, but to have it under- 
 stood that he was some writer subsequent to Moses,
 
 Umty and Geimincness of Dcutcronoiny. 265 
 
 then he just as certainly meant to have it understood 
 that only for the occasional remarks appearing as such 
 to the dullest intellect is he responsible, and that they 
 are in no sense or degree intended to touch the ques- 
 tion of the proper authorship of the book, which in 
 more than a score of cases is directly imputed to 
 Moses. 
 
 This supplementary matter, however, it is to be care- 
 fully noticed, insignificant as it is in amount, — making 
 up, if we omit the concluding sections, but two per 
 cent, of the whole, — is far from being of one character. 
 The most of it is in the form of introductory state- 
 ments or historical reminiscences, quite pertinent to 
 the context, and differing from it only in the one 
 circumstance that it is expressed in the third person 
 instead of the first. If it did not originate with Moses, 
 there is no intimation or proof that it did not. The 
 mere fact that he is represented as one spoken of, 
 instead of speaking, — the analogy of other biblical 
 books being the standard, — is wholly unimportant. 
 What is actually given out as spoken by Moses in 
 propria persona could not be so represented without 
 some such narrative portions. It is not the handle of 
 the knife that cuts ; but the handle is no unnecessary 
 means in the process. 
 
 Whether, therefore, Moses is to be directly charge- 
 able with such prefatory remarks as " These are the 
 words which Moses spake (i. i f.) ; " This is the law 
 which Moses set before the children of Israel " (iv. 44) ; 
 " Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them " 
 (v. i), and some other like things, is only of the slight- 
 est consequence in its bearing on the question of the 
 genuineness of Deuteronomy. Pie surely may have 
 been the author of them for all that anybody knows
 
 266 TJie PentateiicJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 to the contrary. Inherent improbability arising from 
 their contents and form there is none. But when 
 these parts are subtracted from the one sixteenth 
 of the book not included in addresses positively 
 ascribed to Moses, the residuum is scarcely worth 
 disputing about. It cannot, as already intimated, fairly 
 be made a ground of dispute, if it be agreed that it 
 is of the nature of later editorial additions but only 
 as it is understood to represent the writer of the 
 book. And then we have the question to settle, Is 
 it of such a character as to misrepresent a Moses of 
 the exodus .<* 
 
 « 
 
 In the first chapter, for example, the remark in verse 
 2, "There are eleven days' journey from Horeb by way 
 of Mount Seir unto Kadesh-barnea " ; and in verse ii, 
 " The Lord God of your fathers make you a thousand 
 times as many as ye are, and bless you as he hath 
 promised you," are obviously parenthetical. The latter 
 may have been uttered by the author of the work ; the 
 former is somewhat less likely to have been. Still, 
 even such a remark would not have been without its 
 force on his lips, as showing that a journey of eleven 
 days, about one hundred and sixty-five miles, had been 
 prolonged on account of Israel's intractableness, to one 
 of many toilsome years. But if any one is disposed 
 to object to such an explanation as forced, let it pass. 
 There is really too little involved to require a discus- 
 sion. Let it be supposed — it is as fair a supposition 
 as any other — that some later hand, some editor, even 
 as late a one as Ezra, made the addition, as he would 
 no doubt feel that he had a perfect right to do ; it 
 would not prove the Book of Deuteronomy exilian ; 
 it would not cast so much as a shadow on its essential 
 authority or genuineness.
 
 Unity and Genuiiieness of Deuteronomy. 267 
 
 Again, at ii. 10-12 (cf. vs. 29) the narrative is simi- 
 larly interrupted by a remark concerning the peoples 
 who had dwelt in Moab before Lot obtained possession, 
 and in vs. 20-23 of those who had previously occupied 
 the land of the Ammonites. These passages, also, may 
 be editorial notes. Their form encourages such an 
 hypothesis. They are quite unique, and even in our 
 English version are put in parenthesis. In that case 
 they offer direct evidence that the work as a whole has, 
 and by even the cursory reader is assumed to have, a 
 point of view and a course of thought that is pecu- 
 liarly its own. In other words, as thus regarded, they 
 could not be used as marks for determining the age of 
 the work in which they are found, since they form no 
 real part of it. 
 
 But there is no imperative necessity for holding 
 them to be later additions.^ Very late additions, it is 
 clear, they cannot be ; they imply too exact a geograph- 
 ical knowledge, and the other circumstances are too 
 detailed. Besides, they have an immediate bearing on 
 the thought of the context. If God had driven out 
 many and strong nations before the descendants of 
 Lot, and given them now a permanent possession 
 which was not to be disturbed, would he do less for the 
 descendants of Abraham and Jacob .'* Whoever wrote 
 these verses had the intention of making the most of 
 a fact encouraging to the Israelites on the eve of the 
 conquest. Nothing, consequently, could be in closer 
 
 * The perfects in the last part of verse 12 may easily enough be prophetic perfects, and 
 there is no inappropriateness in the way of speaking in verse 22 of the children of Esau 
 in Moses' time as dwelling in Seir, " unto this day." Sime offers another explanation, 
 referring the " land of his possession " to the conquests that had already been made east 
 of the Jordan. " The context proves the accuracy of this rendering. ' Behold,' it is said 
 a few lines afterwards (Dcut. ii. 24), ' I have given into thine hand Sihon the Amorite, 
 king of Heshbon, and his land, begin, possess.' The beginning of the conquest is the 
 point insisted on by the writer of Deuteronomy, not its completion, of which he could 
 have known nothing." — The Kingdom oy All Israel, p. 438.
 
 268 The Pentateuch : Its Origin atid Structure. 
 
 harmony with the spirit of our book. Then, further, it 
 is not to be forgotten that if Moses had wished to 
 introduce such incidental matter, he was shut up to 
 this method of doing it. Footnotes were out of the 
 question. Other ancient writers, and those not so 
 ancient as he, Hke Herodotus, have written in the 
 same way.^ 
 
 The note in iii. 9, " Hermon the Sidonians call 
 Sirion, and the Amorites call it Shenir," has not the 
 same clear motive underlying it and may be said to be 
 logically unnecessary to the thought of the context. 
 But when the importance of this mountain as a land- 
 mark in Palestine is considered, such a specification of 
 its several names cannot be regarded as altogether 
 superfluous. The question how Moses could have been 
 informed of the facts here stated has been mooted. 
 Since it has come to light, however, that both of the 
 foreign designations of Hermon were well known in 
 the cognate Assyrian tongue,^ it can no longer be 
 regarded as serious. It is also worthy of attention 
 that both of these alternative names for the mountain 
 appear in the later Hebrew literature (Ps. xxix. 6 ; 
 Ezek. xxvii. 5 ; Cant. iv. 8 ; i Chron. v. 23). 
 
 So, still further, in the immediate context (vs. 11), 
 what is said of Og's bedstead or sarcophagus ; and, 
 again, of the son of Manasseh (vs. 14), that he called 
 the land he had obtained possession of by his own 
 name "unto this day," one may explain as he will, the 
 coloring of the passages is most emphatically not such 
 
 'In chap. cxxv. book i (see Rawlinson's Herod, vol. i. p. 248 f.), for example, a 
 case quite similar to ours is found, where a narrative concerning Cyrus is broken in upon 
 by a description of the different tribes that made up the Persian nation. " Now the 
 Persian nation is made up of many tribes. Those which Cyrus assembled and persuaded 
 to revolt from the Medes were the principal ones on which all the others depended. 
 These are the Pasargadae, the Maraphians, and the Maspians, of whom the Pasargadae 
 are the noblest." 
 
 " Schrader, Keilinschriften, etc. p. 158 f.
 
 Unity and Genuineness of Deuteronomy. 269 
 
 as might have been expected in a work written as late 
 as the seventh century b.c. A critic must be hard 
 pushed to take refuge in such a position. 
 
 It has, indeed, been objected that there would have 
 been no occasion for calling the attention of Moses' 
 contemporaries to such particulars concerning the land 
 of Bashan, its king of gigantic stature, and the like. 
 But that is not the point. It was not enough that they 
 already knew these things. Deuteronomy contains, it 
 is to be observed, an important addition beyond the 
 account in Numbers (xxxii. 41). It cites the circum- 
 stance in order to draw an important lesson from it, 
 as in the case just considered. The sixty so-called 
 cities that had been captured were no easy prey for 
 any marauding bands ; they were fortified towns (see 
 vs. 4, 5), "fenced with high walls, gates, and bars." ^ 
 The victories had been signal ones. Should not the 
 memory of what God had then wrought on their behalf 
 inspire hope now, when they confronted the problem 
 of conquering a home for themselves beyond the river .? 
 Such an allusion, therefore, is no inadvertence. It 
 precisely represents and voices the main purpose of 
 the book. 
 
 Nor is there anything in the concluding words " unto 
 this day " that necessitates a different conclusion. It 
 means no more than "so far," "until now." Some 
 months, at least, had elapsed since these heroic tasks 
 had been so thoroughly accomplished by the son of 
 
 ' In view of what modern research has brought to light concerning these giant cities of 
 Bashan, we are not only not surprised at such a reminiscence from the lips of Moses, but 
 rather that he passes over tHe matter with only a slight reminiscence. Cf. Porter, Five 
 Years in Damascus (London, 1855) ; Giant Cities of Bashan and Syria's Holy 
 Places (London, i860); Burton and Drake, Unexplored Syria (London, 1872). The 
 difficulty that in Deuteronomy, Jair alone is mentioned as the conqueror and possessor of 
 Bashan, while in Numbers Nobah is made to share it with him, and the ajiparent dis- 
 crepancy in the number of cities, are explained, among other things, by Kurtz, History 
 of the Old Covenant, iii. 467.
 
 2/0 The PentatatcJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Manasseh ; and that was time enough to justify this 
 famiUar phrase. It is similarly used by contempora- 
 neous writers. " Ye have not left your brethren many 
 days, unto this day," said Joshua to the two tribes and 
 a half-tribe that had assisted their brethren in their 
 earlier military occupation of Canaan (Josh. xxii. 3). 
 And subsequently in reviewing his own life, this 
 second great captain of Israel says to the people 
 whom he had so often led to victory : ** But you, no 
 man hath been able to stand before you unto this day" 
 (Josh, xxiii. 9). There is no room for uncertainty in 
 these passages as to the length of time meant to be 
 covered by the words " unto this day." It is illogical, 
 consequently, to base upon them as used in Deuter- 
 onomy an argument for the post-Mosaic origin of the 
 book, even supposing them to be an original and 
 constituent part of it. 
 
 Again, it is claimed that the writer of Deuteronomy 
 betrays himself as one impersonating Moses by his 
 peculiar use of the Hebrew words, rendered " beyond 
 Jordan," showing that he writes from the point of view 
 of Palestine proper, and not of the plains of Moab. We 
 submit that it is not the writer of Deuteronomy who 
 betrays himself, but the objector, who puts a quibble in 
 the place of a reason. This expression occurs ten times 
 in our book (i. i, 5 ; iii. 8, 20, 25 ; iv. 41, 46, 47, 49 ; 
 xi. 30). There is not one case among them that with- 
 out positive violence and a false exegesis will permit 
 the inference that has been drawn from it. 
 
 The words mean, taken by themselves, " at the cross- 
 ing of the Jordan." Used alone they point neither to 
 the east nor the west side. Just what is meant in any 
 given instance is a matter which can be determined 
 only by the context. The writer of this book, in fact,
 
 Unity and Genuineness of Deuteronomy. 271 
 
 employs the words in the very same passage, intelli- 
 gibly and with clear intention, to mean now the east, 
 and again the west, side of the Jordan (iii. 8, 20). Con- 
 scious of the ambiguity of the phrase, he uses it in no 
 single case where misunderstanding might arise that 
 he has not himself guarded against it. He says, " on 
 this side Jordan in the plain over against the Red 
 Sea" ; or, "on this side Jordan in the land of Moab " ; 
 or, "toward the sunrising " ; or, "by the way where the 
 sun goeth down." Every passage of the ten is thus 
 rigorously insured against the possibility of error by 
 means of an added explanation, excepting one (iii. 20), 
 which does not need it. How absurd, in these circum- 
 stances, the ado that has been made, and continues to 
 be made, over these words by critics, learned and 
 unlearned, who seem never to have thoroughly exam- 
 ined the connection in which they stand. 
 
 Once more, the thread of direct address which 
 prevails in the book is singularly dropped in the tenth 
 chapter {vs. 6, 7). Moses is represented as discoursing 
 of what took place at Sinai. The first tables of the 
 law had been broken, the second prepared, and the ten 
 commandments written upon them by the finger of 
 God. "And I turned about," he says, "and came 
 down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark 
 which I had made ; and there they are, as the Lord 
 commanded me." Upon this follow two verses in the 
 narrative form, relating to certain journeys of the 
 Israelites in the wilderness and Aaron's death, — events 
 that occurred many years later, the latter nearly forty 
 years afterward, — from which the speaker just as sud- 
 denly goes back to the first person again and to what 
 happened at Sinai. 
 
 The thought is as closely connected in verses five
 
 2/2 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 and eight as though there had been no diversion. It 
 looks like what would be called in geology a fault, a 
 displacement of material. Still, it may not be so. 
 Reasons of more or less pertinence have been given 
 why Moses himself might have intentionally digressed 
 in this way. For our purpose it is enough to notice 
 that the digression does not reach beyond the Mosaic 
 age. There is nothing in it to suggest the tampering 
 of a later hand. If it be out of place, it is not out of 
 character. If it be a fragment, it is to all appearance 
 a fragment of Deuteronomy and bears the marks of 
 the period of the exodus.^ 
 
 Finally, the so-called "Blessing of Moses" (xxxiii. 
 1-29), although introduced as from him, as we have 
 already noticed, is denied to be his, because Moses, it 
 is said, would never have styled himself the " man of 
 God," as the title designates him. This, however, is 
 not so certain. He surely might have done so without 
 presumption. It is simply the name of an ofifice, and 
 the very same that elsewhere in this book Moses claims 
 for himself, when he says : " A prophet shall the Lord 
 your God raise up unto you like to me " (xviii. 15). 
 
 Still, suppose that Moses did not write the title of 
 the poem, it would not follow that the poem is not his, 
 as somebody in the ancient time — everybody, as far as 
 we know — affirms that it is. There is nothing that 
 appears from the simple reading of it that should lead 
 an unbiased mind to a contrary conclusion. And 
 Volck, one of the editors of the later editions of 
 Gesenius's Hebrew Lexicon, who has written an 
 exhaustive and masterly monograph of nearly two 
 
 ' The list of places to and from which the journeyings are here said to have been made 
 are, in general, the same as those found in Numbers (xxxiii. 30-33) ; but they differ some- 
 what in their spelling and are given in a different order. It is not to be forgotten, how- 
 ever, that the Israelites traversed the same ground more than once and in different 
 directions.
 
 Unity a7id Gcmiinencss of Deitteronomy. 273 
 
 hundred octavo pages on its less than thirty verses, 
 reaches the conclusion that there is nothin": in the 
 poem itself to justify the calling in question the 
 correctness of its title.^ 
 
 These, now, are the anachronisms, contradictions, 
 geographical and ethnographical remarks which, as far 
 as the historical portions of Deuteronomy are con- 
 cerned, have been so much magnified by recent critics 
 as furnishing positive evidence of the post-Mosaic 
 origin of the book. I am not aware that there are 
 others of any significance. How far from overpowering 
 in quantity do they appear beside the thirty chapters 
 of solid matter in the midst of which they stand ! And 
 in quality they are even more disappointing. 
 
 They are admitted to be exceptions to the ruling 
 form of the book ; but they do not give the response 
 to adequate tests which they have been said to give and 
 been counted on to give. We fail to find in one of 
 them any indications, open or covert, that the book of 
 which they form a part is the product of Hezekiah's 
 reforms or Hilkiah's finesse. Most of them are but 
 loosely attached to the text at best. If they were 
 taken bodily out of it, the book would be still left 
 complete in all its essential features. Let them be 
 looked upon either as instances where the writer forgot 
 himself and unconsciously assumed his real character, 
 — a supposition totally out of harmony with their 
 nature, — or as later editorial supplements and super- 
 fluities, there is nothing in either case to justify the 
 enormous conclusions that have been drawn from them. 
 They are quite of the same stock as the body of the 
 book. The writer or writers of them move in the same 
 circle of ideas that rule throughout, wear the rough 
 
 ' Der Segen Mose's Untersucht und Ausgclcgt. Cf. pp. 154-160.
 
 2/4 T^he Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 garments of the Israelitish wanderers, speak the 
 dialect of the recent slaves of Egypt. 
 
 Whatever, in short, any supposed later writer or 
 compiler may be thought to have overlooked in the 
 form of the book to make it appear outwardly other 
 than Mosaic gives no shred of encouragement to the 
 theory that it belongs to a later age, after Joshua, after 
 Samuel, after David, after the earthquake throes that 
 divided the kingdom, after the reforms of an Asa or 
 the pestilential wickedness of an Ahaz or a Manasseh. 
 The positive evidence, as far as any exists, points 
 uniformly in one direction ; and the negative evidence, 
 if so it may be called, does not disprove, but con- 
 firms, it. 
 
 Suppose the book were a composition of the royal 
 period, as it has become largely the mode to affirm, or 
 a mosaic out of different periods, none of them as early 
 as David, and that the ecclesiastical enthusiast who 
 wrote it or edited it actually sometimes forgot his role, 
 as it has been asserted the Deuteronomist has done. 
 Would he have left the traces of it that we find in our 
 work .'' What strange threads of history rather, what 
 bits of experience unknown to the beginnings of 
 national life, what reminiscences of sacred places, what 
 possible and every way probable coloring of sentiment, 
 like that which makes the Psalter a mirror of Israel's 
 inner being, might have been confidently expected in 
 place of the limited range and uniform tenor of the 
 matter we actually find .'' ^ 
 
 ' " Vast changes took place in Israel during the eight centuries which preceded the 
 supposed forgery. A fugitive host of foemen entered and conquered Palestine, divided 
 the country among them, and then for four centuries fought for existence as separate 
 warring tribes. From being a republic, Israel became a limited monarchy. Kings took 
 the place of judges, and one of them made the Hebrew State the first empire of his age. 
 Under another, the kingdom so painfully raised to greatness was split in two, weakened 
 by civil strife, and preyed on by powerful neighbors. At last the larger of the two frag-
 
 Unity and GcK::inciu\':s of Daiterononty. 275 
 
 Let us select, for example, a single prominent 
 feature of Deuteronomy. If it have one, it is the 
 emphasis it lays on the place of worship for Israel — 
 that it is to be ojie, the one which the Lord their God 
 should choose for them. Nearly twenty times within 
 the space of a few chapters this matter is insisted on, 
 without deviation in form or relaxation from its iron 
 firmness of command. " Unto the place which the 
 Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to 
 put his name there, unto his habitation shall ye seek, 
 and thither shalt thou come " (xii. 5). 
 
 The cultus of God was to be confined to a central 
 shrine. The idolatrous and deadly worship on the 
 "heights" was to be relentlessly rooted out. The 
 writer, it is claimed now, had his eye on Jerusalem. 
 He must have had, if he were Hilkiah or any prot^g^ 
 of Hezekiah. Not only was his eye upon it, but his 
 heart was full of it, and a leading purpose of his work 
 was to discourage worship at any other point ; nay, to 
 brand it as a positive transgression of a reiterated law 
 of Jehovah by the mouth of his greatest legislator. 
 And yet he never gets beyond this form of words : 
 "unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose 
 out of all your tribes." He uses it with the history of 
 the Israelitish cultus for more than half a millennium 
 before him. 
 
 He knew of the sad degeneracy of the times next 
 succeeding Joshua ; of the falseness of Eli's anointed 
 sons ; of Samuel's heroic breasting of an evil tide ; the 
 
 merits, after losing towns and provinces to Damascus, Moab, and Ammon, was itself 
 repeatedly wasted, and then overwhelmed by the power of Assyria. Literature was cul- 
 tivated among the Helirews during these eight centuries. Changes, very striking to the 
 imagination, took place in their worship and in their art of war. But of all these things 
 there is not one word or one hint in Deuteronomy. If it be a true history, it could not 
 contain references to them. If it be a forgery, no man could have written it without in 
 some way or another showing his hand." — Sime, ibid. pp. 415, 416.
 
 276 TJie PentatnicJi : Its Origin and Strnctuir. 
 
 full story of the ark in its wanderings from Gilgal to 
 Shiloh and from Shiloh to Kirjath-jearim, its honors 
 and its neglect, until David brought it, with psalms of 
 rejoicing, to its present place on Mount Zion. He 
 knew of the temple of Solomon and its memorable 
 dedication in the presence of a united and happy 
 people. He knew — • the writer of a Deuteronomy of 
 the seventh century must have known — of the civil 
 conflicts that succeeded Solomon's reign ; of the divisive 
 efforts of a Jeroboam the son of Nebat ; of the high- 
 handed idolatry at Bethel and Beersheba ; of the luxu- 
 rious Samaria of Jereboam II. ; of Asa's reforms, and 
 Elijah's challenge to Baal's priests, and Jezebel's 
 cruelty, and the heathenish Syrian altar of Ahaz in the 
 temple court. And knowing it, we can judge from the 
 spirit that rules in his work what he thought about it 
 all — how keenly sensitive it made him to the desperate 
 woes of his countrymen and the dishonor to his God. 
 And still it is claimed that he wrote so repeatedly and 
 so tamely : " unto the place which the Lord your God 
 shall choose out of all your tribes . . . shall ye seek." 
 It is neither the sentiment nor the form of sentiment 
 that we might have expected in view of such a history. 
 It is quite too general and too lax. The evil Jeroboam 
 might have claimed it as meaning his altar, as well as 
 the good Jehosaphat. It is conceived in far too calm 
 and too colorless a spirit. It implies a unity where 
 there is already hot dissension and every sign of wild 
 anarchy for the time to come. It is psychologically 
 impossible, in short, that a man in the midst of the 
 antagonisms of the later day, given a priest or prophet 
 of whatever unparalleled nerve or adroitness, could 
 have expressed himself in the manner the writer of 
 Deuteronomy has done on the subject of divine 
 worship.
 
 Unity and Genuineness of Deuterono'iny. 277 
 
 Moreover, let it be remembered that, according to 
 the theory, the book is to no slight extent an invention. 
 The writer was bound to no method, was at liberty to 
 manipulate material or manufacture it to suit his pur- 
 pose. Why, then, is there nowhere a hint of such a 
 place as Jerusalem, much less of its already historic 
 sanctuary } His chief object, it is alleged, was to give 
 the temple cultus the advantage of the oldest and the 
 highest authority. How is it conceivable, in these cir- 
 cumstances, that he should not only use so equivocal 
 an expression as " the place which the Lord your God 
 shall choose," but keep the precise place he meant, the 
 cynosure of mind and heart, so completely out of view .-' 
 
 More than this, his representations are misleading, 
 on any such hypothesis, and Jerusalem is the last place 
 that would be thought of. One would rather think of 
 Jericho, where the first great victory in the promised 
 land was won ; or Mount Nebo, where the " man of 
 God " was buried, distant and inaccessible though it 
 might have been regarded at any time after the division 
 of Canaan ; above all, of Mounts Ebal and Gerizim, 
 now within the domain of the dreaded Sargon, who had 
 captured Samaria. These mountains occupied the 
 geographical centre of the land. The region had long 
 before been honored in patriarchal, as it has long since 
 in Christian, story. It is also represented as about to 
 be the scene of a public celebration and attestation of 
 this very Deuteronomic code, otherwise unexampled in 
 the annals of the people. I submit that, if the writer 
 of this so-called Fifth Book of Moses had Mount Zion 
 in his secret thought, he would never have so hallowed 
 and glorified the mountains Ebal and Gerizim, and 
 made them as conspicuous in his work as they are in 
 the landscape of the Holy Land. It would prove a
 
 2/8 The Pentateuch : Its Ongm and Structure. 
 
 clumsiness of literary execution with which so deft 
 a hand cannot be charged. 
 
 In this connection, too, attention should be called to 
 another quite as serious oversight of our critics in their 
 hunt for evidence of the late origin of Deuteronomy. 
 It is the freshness and the peculiar character of its 
 Egyptian reminiscences, together with the entire 
 absence of allusion, near or remote, to the Assyrian 
 power. It might, indeed, be said to be designed — the 
 chosen covering under which a clever hand wrought to 
 accomplish the highest moral ends. But if it be a 
 covering, it is one which a really clever hand would 
 not at all have needed and which a devout hand would 
 never have chosen or allowed. It is obvious here, too, 
 that there are psychological grounds, reasons existing in 
 the nature of things, making the authorship of such a 
 work after the recovery of Assyria (b.c. 900) and the 
 accession of Shalmaneser II. (b.c. 858) wholly incom- 
 prehensible. 
 
 If it be difficult to conceive of a writer under the 
 shadow of the temple, and for the sake of it, ignoring 
 Jerusalem while making prominent Ebal and its altar, 
 it is no less so to think of one making everything of 
 Egypt, when, were he a real son of his time, in sym- 
 pathy with what Hebrew poets and seers are saying, he 
 should be making everything of Assyria; at least, 
 should find it impossible to be so completely oblivious 
 of the empire before which Micah saw Zion " ploughed 
 as a field," Jerusalem "become heaps," and the "moun- 
 tain of the house as the heights of the wood" (iii. 12). 
 
 Egypt was politically a nonentity in the period 
 between the middle of the tenth and the close of the 
 eighth century e.g. Sunk in corruptions, it fell an easy 
 prey to the hordes of the Ethiopian conqueror Shabak,
 
 Unity and Gennineness of Deuteronomy. 279 
 
 the So of the biblical books (2 Kings xix. 9 ; cf. Isa. 
 xxxvii. 9). Under Psammetichus I., in the seventh 
 century (b.c. 664), it reached again a moderate pitch of 
 commercial prosperity, but never regained its former 
 military strength. In fact, after the time of Rehoboam 
 the successor of Solomon, when Shishak successfully 
 besieged Jerusalem (i Kings xiv. 25), the kingdoms of 
 Judah and Israel had as little to hope as to fear from 
 the once formidable neighbor of the south. Sentinels 
 on their watchtowers were facing in quite another 
 direction. 
 
 It is the Egypt of Sethos I., Rameses I. and II., and 
 of Menephthes that has left its indelible impression on 
 the Pentateuch. The nearly twoscore references to it 
 by name in the Book of Deuteronomy alone are of un- 
 mistakable significance. In eleven only of the thirty- 
 four chapters do we fail to find them. They abound 
 equally in every part — laws as well as history. More 
 than half the references are to Israel's deliverance and 
 the signal manner of it. The next largest number are 
 to the wonders wrought upon Pharaoh. Others are to 
 the fact of the hard servitude, the homelessness, and 
 the oppression of Israel. Four make mention of what 
 kind of a land Egypt had been found, its evil diseases, 
 and its methods of agriculture. 
 
 Could anything, for example, be more true to nature 
 or more picturesque than this : " For the land of which 
 thou goest to take possession is not like the land of 
 Egypt, whence ye are come out, where thou sowedst thy 
 seed, and wateredst it with thy foot as a garden of 
 herbs " (xi. 10) } Two passages make tender allusion 
 to the circumstances that attended the going of Jacob 
 into Egypt, and two contain terrifying ones to a possible 
 future thraldom there. How abundant this testimony,
 
 28o The Pentateuch : Its Orio-in a? id Structure. 
 
 c> ' 
 
 and how inexplicable on the supposition that our book 
 was written at any time between the reign of Jeroboam, 
 the son of Nebat, and the reforms of King Josiah ? 
 Moreover, it is of one uniform character. Selected out, 
 a shred here and a shred there, from the entire web, 
 there is no dissimilarity of color or texture. It is a 
 Shemitic fabric, woven thick with threads of Egyptian 
 memories. 
 
 Suppose that this book, now, or any considerable part 
 of it, had been written at the time when Hczekiah 
 took away the high places with their altars and com- 
 manded that worship should be paid at one altar (2 
 Chron. xxxii. 12), or when the more marked reforms 
 that synchronize with the beginning of Jeremiah's 
 prophecies were begun. Not only would such inci- 
 dental references to Egypt, in their numerousness and 
 in their coloring of bygone days, surprise and baffle 
 us, but, as we have said, not less the seeming utter 
 obliviousness of the empire of the North. The monu- 
 ments fully confirm what the biblical books had long 
 ago more than led us to infer, that for the children 
 of Israel in Palestine, at least after the beginning of 
 the tenth century, the antagonistic world-empire lay 
 no longer on the Nile, but on the Tigris and the 
 Euphrates. 
 
 There is scarcely a king from Ahab down who did 
 not find himself harassed with problems that concerned 
 Assyria or its no less mighty successor at Babylon. 
 Whatever reforms of the cultus or the civil polity were 
 called for in all this period we may be sure got some- 
 what of their motive from the hope that thus a suc- 
 cessful barrier might be raised against this dreaded 
 despotism. Jehu's ambassadors bearing gifts figure 
 on the marble obelisks of Shalmanezer (b.c. 810-781).
 
 Unity and Gciuiiiicticss of Deuteronomy. 281 
 
 Uzziah was punished and fined by Tiglath Pileser II. 
 (B.C. 723) for his temerity in joining the Syrians against 
 him. Ahaz, at first an ally, afterward became an 
 obsequious slave of the same power. 
 
 Samaria was reduced and its king and people led 
 away to exile (b.c. 722). Hezekiah, like his father, paid 
 the hated tax which purchased him immunity from 
 worse inflictions. Next to the escape from Egypt 
 there was, perhaps, no event that made a deeper 
 impression on the Hebrew mind and literature than 
 the precipitous retreat of Sennacherib, in this same 
 king's reign, mysteriously smitten by the Providence 
 he had defied. So, too, Esar-haddon (b.c. 670), Assurb- 
 anipal (b.c. 688), and Esar-haddon II., whose reigns 
 reach to the utmost limit of the period that by the 
 wildest criticism could be assigned to the essential 
 portions of Deuteronomy, were all of them more or less 
 concerned with the now broken and scattered Israel 
 and the ever-waning political fortunes of Judah and 
 Jerusalem. In the meantime Tyre and Sidon, Phoe- 
 nicia, Philistia, and Edom had been successively sub- 
 jugated, the whole of the Nile region overrun ; and the 
 lordly potentate of the North added to his other titles, 
 "king of the kings of Egypt and Cush." 
 
 What vestige of all this do we find in Deuteronomy .-* 
 What one word of Assyria and its influence to offset 
 the nearly forty references to the Egypt of Joseph and 
 Moses and the exodus.? Judging from the confidence 
 with which our book is assigned to this or that era of 
 reform among the kings of the Assyrian period, one 
 m'.ght reasonably expect some definite evidence that it 
 knew of these mighty monarchs and their overwhelming 
 influence on the people of Palestine and adjacent lands 
 — that the Assyria of the prophets and historical books
 
 282 The PentateucJi : Its Orisrin ajid Structure, 
 
 t> ' 
 
 really came into its field of vision. There is no such 
 evidence. 
 
 There is a single allusion, at the close of the Deuter- 
 onomic legislation (Deut. xxvi. 5), to the Shemitic origin 
 of Israel, sufficient to show that the author was not 
 blind in one eye, that the country that had been the 
 early home of his people was not a total blank in his 
 mind ; but in other respects it is of a nature to show 
 that he was wholly ignorant of the sweeping changes 
 that between the period of the exodus and the fall of 
 Samaria had there occurred : " A Syrian ready to perish 
 was my father, and he went down into Egypt and 
 sojourned there with a few." How differently must he 
 have sj^oken if his vision had been filled with the scenes 
 that floated before the prophetic eye of an Hosea or 
 Isaiah ! 
 
 The human mind, indeed, is capable of abstracting 
 itself from its surroundings. Rapt enthusiasts in 
 science or art have sometimes been known to pursue 
 apparently undisturbed the objects of their devotion, 
 while sword and flame were wasting about them. But 
 such a man the tender and sympathetic writer of Deu- 
 teronomy was not. The highest patriotism burns in his 
 every utterance. His country's illumined history, her 
 divinely sanctioned laws, her past, and still more 
 inviting future, — these are his undeviating theme. 
 The book before us, in short, as the product of a 
 patriotic Jewish pen in the midst of the political 
 convulsions of the Assyrian period would be a literary 
 fnonstrimt, a psychological contradiction. The elements 
 are wanting that could have produced it ; the elements 
 are present that, as surely as the action of chemical 
 contrarieties, would have made it impossible. 
 
 And this leads, in conclusion to some reflections on
 
 Unity and Genuineness of Deuteronomy. 283 
 
 the spirit that rules in Deuteronomy and other out- 
 standing, characteristic moral features that are as 
 universal as they are apparently undesigned. There 
 is nothing that witnesses more directly or cogently to 
 its genuineness ; they precisely fit the theory of Mosaic 
 origin ; they are practically inexplicable on any other. 
 
 At the outset, it is noticeable that the spirit of our 
 book is at the farthest remove from one of reserve. It 
 is as ingenuous and open as the day. It moves 
 unembarrassed and with an appearance of the greatest 
 familiarity amongst the grandest factors and forces of 
 the early Israelitish history. It follows no beaten track. 
 It knows the story of Exodus and Numbers ; but it is 
 independent of it, shaping the rich material in a way 
 peculiar to itself. It puts its hand upon the sacred 
 code of Sinai, even that central portion and glory of it 
 which was written in stone by the finger of God, 
 assuming the right and claiming the prerogative of 
 giving it an altered form. 
 
 A bold si^irit he must be acknowledged to be. If he 
 were not Moses, he could not have acted with more 
 supremacy of knowledge or apparent consciousness of 
 authority if it had been he. Things are taken for 
 granted which a romancer would have been careful to 
 fortify with arguments. Statements are volunteered 
 which prudence would have led him to keep back. 
 Matters are passed over in silence which a secret 
 an.xiety must have led him to divulge and expatiate 
 upon. Infinitely touching things are said, and in a 
 manner that is no less touching. Solemn judgments, 
 promises of unheard-of good are uttered in the character 
 of one who spoke from God and with God. 
 
 Prophets there were many in Israel. If this repre- 
 sentation be correct, here was the prophet of the old
 
 284 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 economy. Others saw visions and dreamed dreams ; 
 he spoke face to face with God and was deemed worthy 
 of honors never claimed for an Amos or an Isaiah". 
 Somebody adds, in the closing section of the book : 
 " There arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto 
 Moses." On its face it is a later addition, like the rest 
 of the chapter. But it is the "amen" that confirms 
 the letter of the history or the self-praise that seals 
 the counterfeit. 
 
 The countenance of Moses, it is said, shone with the 
 radiance of the divine presence. He had great priv- 
 ileges ; but he had also great responsibilities and trying 
 ordeals. Heaven honored his intercessions with signal 
 deliverances ; but heaven punished his sin with a visi- 
 tation so severe that nothing could better serve to 
 magnify the law and make it honorable. The promised 
 land he might not set his foot upon ; and yet God com- 
 forted him and God buried him. A paradox truly, but 
 only on the hypothesis of unreality. Without an army, 
 without the restraints of established customs and regular 
 occupations, by the sheer force of his goodness, his 
 disinterestedness, his supreme patience, and the favor 
 of God, he led, as a father, for forty years, the most 
 intractable and obstinate of peoples. The intrigues of 
 his own family neither disheartened nor angered him. 
 
 Alive as few others to the demands of even-handed 
 justice, having for his great task the training of a people 
 in the arts of war as well as of peace in a rude age, it is 
 still the law of love to God as a rule of conduct on which 
 he everywhere chiefly insists. Five several times he 
 returns to it (Deut. vi. 4 f. ; x. 1 2 ; xi. 13; xxx. 6, 20) 
 with emphatic reiteration ; and the aged John, who of 
 all the apostles perhaps drank in most of the spirit of 
 the gospel, but echoes in his farewell letter the farewell
 
 Unity a7id Genuineness of Deuteronomy. 285 
 
 message of the great lawgiver of the wilderness : " He 
 that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him " 
 (i John iv, 16). Strangers, widows, and the fatherless 
 were his especial charge (x. 18; xiv. 29; xvi. 11; xxiv. 
 17, 19; xxvi. 12), another Israel within Israel. 
 
 Recognizing that higher truth of Paul, that the 
 written law is not made for a righteous man (i Tim. 
 i. 9), his point of view throughout is superior to the 
 code he so rigorously lays down. He commands, for 
 example, that the poor brother shall be relieved. 
 "Thou shalt not harden thy heart, nor shut thy hand," 
 he says, "from thy poor brother." But beyond this 
 point, where mere human law must stop short, he goes 
 on to say : " And thy heart shall not be grieved when 
 thou givest unto him " (Deut. xv. 10), He enjoins 
 upon masters that they load their departing slaves with 
 gifts and rewards : " Thou shalt furnish him liberally 
 out of thy flock and out of thy floor and out of thy 
 wine-press." But it is no injunction, it is a moving 
 entreaty, when he adds : " It shall not seem hard unto 
 thee when thou sendest him away free from thee " 
 (Deut. XV. 10, 18). 
 
 If this be invention, the inventor meant that it should 
 be received as fact, as indeed it was, and ever gratefully 
 has been. It is that alone which has given the book all 
 the authority and all the power for good it has ever had. 
 But if it be invention, the effrontery and real falseness 
 of the invention is only equaled by its spiritual beauty 
 and ideal truth. If it be invention, the discovery to the 
 world of the mysterious inventor, who combined within 
 himself qualities so exceptionally excellent with those 
 so exceptionally otherwise, might be some compensation 
 for the loss from sacred history of such a character and 
 career as that of the Moses of the exodus.
 
 286 The Pentateuch : Its Origin mid Structure. 
 
 The Book of Deuteronomy is distinctly based on the 
 presumption that the man whom it makes its hero has 
 an important history behind him. It everywhere 
 impHes, in fact, something answering to what we 
 learn of Moses in the middle books of the Pentateuch. 
 Without this previous history the representation of him 
 is not simply a torso, it is the barest fragment of a full- 
 sized figure. The period that the narrative covers is 
 only the few hurried days preceding the passage of the 
 Jordan. Moses appears upon the scene as already an 
 old man whose work is virtually over. He wears, 
 indeed, accustomed honors ; exercises still, with un- 
 diminished zeal, a shepherd's care for his people ; but 
 we are never suffered to forget that we are listening to 
 parting words and looking upon one of the most solemn 
 of farewells. 
 
 The book opens with a significant reference to the 
 fortieth year, expecting the reader, without explanation, 
 to understand what is meant by it. The entire matter, 
 unlike that of any other book of the five, is of a purely 
 subjective cast. The ecclesiastical and theocratical 
 nomenclature of Leviticus and Numbers has disappeared 
 along with the topics on which it was employed. It is 
 the people who are addressed, and on civil and social 
 themes ; but a people called of God, and all whose 
 institutions are to be fashioned with chief reference to 
 his claim. Ethical precepts are those chiefly empha- 
 sized. The Lord their God is God of gods and Lord 
 of lords, a great God, a mighty and a terrible, who 
 regardeth not persons nor taketh reward. He executeth 
 judgment for the fatherless and widow, and loveth the 
 stranger, giving him food and raiment (x. 17, 18). 
 
 The ten commandments furnish the keynote and 
 gtarting-point of all the Deuteronomic laws. Their
 
 Unity and Gemdneness of Detiteronoiny. 287 
 
 affinity is naturally with the Sinaitic code, rather than 
 with the priestly regulations of the middle books. Of 
 both Moses professes to have been the mediator (iv. 5, 
 10). He is apparently not insensible to the difficulties 
 that such a claim involves, and is equally ready to 
 confess his limitations, infirmities, and sins. He does 
 not hesitate to set in the boldest relief the miraculous 
 nature of Jehovah's dealings with his covenant people. 
 "Did ever a people," he asks, "hear the voice of God 
 speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast 
 heard, and live } " But he hesitates just as little, with 
 all his brooding tenderness of feeling, to charge that 
 favored people to their faces with rebellion, with weak 
 defection and despicable cowardice, with stiff -neckedness 
 and hard-heartedness since he had known them ( i. 26, 
 31, 43 ; vi. 16; ix. 6, 22, 24). Not for their sakes, but 
 for the fathers' sakes were they chosen (x. 15), and in 
 all that "great and terrible wilderness" had there been 
 folded about them the everlasting arms. 
 
 Would such sentiments have been calculated to 
 recommend a book calling for the sweeping reforms of 
 this to men of the later day } The sudden lapse from 
 efforts at betterment when the outward pressure ceased 
 shows in the midst of what a fearful current of opposi- 
 tion the revivals of Hezekiah and Josiah had been 
 begun. 
 
 Lessons from the past alternate throughout with 
 solemn admonitions for the future. The Bible fur- 
 nishes few examples of warnings which in melting 
 pathos or awful power equal those of this book (cf. 
 xxviii.). It does not surprise us that the rabbins of a 
 later day named it the "Book of Admonitions." The 
 possibility and fear, rising in some places to prophetic 
 conviction, that the Israel of Red Sea deliverances and
 
 288 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 of Sinai would yet one day lapse from its high privilege, 
 and lose sight for a time of its predestined goal, domi- 
 nate like a trumpet-tone beginning, middle, and end of 
 this series of discourses. It is for this reason, among 
 others, that the fourteen chai^ters of legislation, whose 
 faithful observance was meant to prevent the day of 
 calamity, are flanked by Ebal and Gerizim. That 
 imposing ceremonial should be forever afterward a 
 solemn and restraining memory (xi. 29 ; xxvii.). 
 
 For this reason, too, the heroic leader desires to be 
 with his people as long as possible. How much of the 
 Book of Deuteronomy might have been unknown to us, 
 or have appeared in quite another form, had he been 
 able to complete in person the conquests of which 
 the forty years of seemingly aimless wanderings and 
 his sin had robbed him ! His wish in the matter he 
 makes no effort to conceal. Again and again he speaks 
 of it in words that tremble with suppressed emotion. 
 It had been made the subject of earnest petition (vii. 
 23-29). " I must die," he says, " in this land. I may 
 not go over Jordan. But ye will go over to possess 
 that good land " {iv. 22). 
 
 Moreover, there is but one sole reason given for the 
 deprivation. The Lord was angry with him because he 
 had failed to be as patient with them, his people, as he 
 might have been (iv. 21). At the close of the book the 
 subject is introduced in connection with Moses' age 
 and infirmities : " He said unto them, I am a hundred 
 and twenty years old this day. I can no more go out 
 and come in. Also the Lord hath said unto me. Thou 
 shalt not go over this Jordan." 
 
 How rare an opportunity for the writer of the book, 
 if he had so desired, to clear his hero of the almost 
 only stain that rested on his great career, to suggest
 
 Unity and Genuineness of Deuteronomy. 289 
 
 that it was physical infirmities that unfitted him to 
 brave the hardships of a campaign in Canaan ! A few 
 sKght changes, and what a different and, as it might be 
 thought, far more natural and worthy conclusion should 
 we have had for this great man's life ! To die as Jacob 
 did, for example, comforted by the ministry of loving 
 hands. Kis faults v/ere venial, compared with Jacob's. 
 From a literary point of view it was as unskilful as 
 from the point of view of ordinary demerit unkind to 
 make that one peccadillo of years gone by stand out 
 so conspicuously here at the close and climax of his 
 life. But it is like the Bible always to show its 
 preference for candor over simple literary effect and 
 finish. 
 
 This is no romance. We recognize the force of 
 resistless truth. It is charged with a spirit before 
 which we unhesitatingly bow. Every mountain alti- 
 tude has its peculiar flora and fauna. It would be in 
 vain to seek to convince a botanist that certain plants 
 were found flourishing on the summit of Mount 
 Washington. Ocular proof would not be needful to 
 convince him of the contrary. The impossibility would 
 be in the nature of things. And there are spiritual 
 elevations to which finesse and falsity are of necessity 
 strangers. The plane on which the whole Book of 
 Deuteronomy moves is one of these moral uplands. It 
 begins with the sublimities of Sinai and ends with the 
 inimitable solemnities of Nebo and Pisgah. It is no 
 effort at historiography interjected with pious expres- 
 sions, as some critics ^ represent the later biblical 
 narratives to be. It is in web and woof sacred history, 
 narrated, as it was enacted, under the eye of God. 
 
 * Wellhausen, Geschichie, i. pp. 340, 349.
 
 VIII. 
 
 THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS. 
 
 Current problems of the Biblical criticism of the 
 Old Testament have this peculiarity, that it makes little 
 difference where one begins to discuss them, he cannot 
 easily miss the main question. Indeed, it is an obvious 
 misfortune of this criticism, as represented by such 
 scholars as Graf and Wellhausen, that, instead of being 
 able to concentrate its forces at any one point, it is 
 obliged to scatter them along a line reaching from the 
 times before Moses to those following Ezra, and to be 
 as fully alert in one period as in another, since defeat 
 anywhere must result in total rout and overthrow. 
 
 Nominally, its aim seems to be to reconstruct the 
 Pentateuch, or rather Israelitish history, on the prin- 
 ciple of a natural development ; but this necessitates as 
 well a logical and historical revision of the entire Old 
 Testament, not excepting the works of post-exilian 
 writers. It accepts, as we have seen, only the so-called 
 Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx.— xxiii., xxxiv., with nebu- 
 lous fragments of history) ^ as the germ of the ancient 
 Scriptures, and as representing down to the times of 
 Josiah (c. B.C. 621), even through the notable reigns 
 of David and Solomon, the aggregate of Israelitish 
 annals and laws. With this king it dates the Deuter- 
 onomic code, holding it to be a recasting and enlarge- 
 ment of these same fragments of Exodus to suit the 
 
 ^Cf. Wellhausen's edition of Bleek's Einleitung in das A. T., p. 178.
 
 TJic Law and the Prophets. 291 
 
 emergency of a central sanctuary, that is, of Solomon's 
 temple, and the tendency expressing itself in it. The 
 Levitical legislation, with its introductory history, 
 forming the real body of the first four books of the 
 Bible, appeared about two centuries later, under Ezra. 
 
 From this scheme it will at once appear that it is not 
 alone the Pentateuch which is involved. The historical 
 books must furnish a definite arena of discussion. And 
 the prophets before the exile, who it is supposed were 
 special sources of the nation's history and religion, are 
 a preeminently important factor in the debate, while 
 the Psalter and some other portions of the Hagi- 
 ography, as evidently reflecting the spirit and teachings 
 of the rest, cannot be altogether overlooked. 
 
 In this paper I shall direct attention to but one prin- 
 cipal feature of the subject, namely, to the prophets 
 who appeared before the exile ; and I shall seek to 
 answer the question, whether, in fact, as is alleged by 
 our critics, they preceded what is known as the Leviti- 
 cal code or followed it ; that is, whether the common 
 order, the Law and the Prophets, should stand, or 
 should be changed to the Prophets and the Law. As 
 already intimated, the settlement of this one question, 
 in the nature of the case, must be a virtual settlement 
 of the entire discussion in its present form. And while 
 there are points where the line of our critics' defence 
 might perhaps be considered weaker, there is no point 
 where a successful defence is, for the theory they 
 defend, more imperatively necessary. 
 
 The question, then, is on the relative order of the 
 Law and the Prophets ; and waiving for the time all 
 other related matters, let it be determined, if possible, 
 from the writings especially involved. Has the cere- 
 monial law of Exodus, Numbers, and Leviticus, with
 
 292 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Strncture. 
 
 its conspicuous setting of history, left any such impres- 
 sion on the prophets referred to as might be expected 
 if they had it before them ? Or, more definitely, has 
 this part of the Pentateuch left any discoverable 
 impression at all upon these prophets, so that its 
 existence in their time may be justly inferred, since 
 that would be quite enough to prove the point at issue ? 
 
 In the meantime we shall do well to remember who 
 these writers are whom we propose to consult ; that 
 they are prophets, and not priests ; that their office in 
 its essential import, and as interpreted by the whole 
 Israelitish history, called them to watch over the spirit 
 of the law, not to teach and explain its letter. At all 
 times it was the substance, not the form, of it that was 
 the subject of their burning utterances.^ 
 
 Some one has said of Milton, and not altogether in 
 compliment it is likely, that his soul was like a star 
 and dwelt apart. These men, too, moved and shone in 
 the spiritual heavens ; yet not, like stars, cold and far 
 away. It was more like those nearer heavenly bodies 
 that are the very sources of life and force to our little 
 earth. They quickened like suns. As they moved so 
 ebbed and flowed the tide of human affairs about them. 
 And it was precisely the prophets' spiritual elevation 
 above the world that enabled them to act to the 
 greatest advantage upon the world. It was no mere 
 matter of individualism, pronounced as that was 
 in the case of some of them. Moreover, it was no 
 example of that overvaluation and overrefinement of 
 the inward life in distinction from the outward, not 
 
 •So Marti in yahrbiicherfur Protestantische Theologie (1880), p. 159: " Sie [die 
 Propheten] waren, also, diejenigen Manner, die zu wachen hatten Uber die wirksame 
 Seite des Gottesdienstes im Israelitischen Volke. . . . Sie sind weniger die Wachter der 
 Theokratie in ihren cultischen Institutionen als nach ihren sittlichen und moralischen 
 Vorschriften." Cf. also Delitzsch in Messiajiic Prophecies (Edinburgh, 1880), pp. 
 &-X3.
 
 TJic Lazv and the Prophets. 293 
 
 wholly unknown among ourselves ; that disposition to 
 fix the gaze upon some vague and hazy possibilities of 
 the future, to the overlooking and the neglect of that 
 which presses for an answer now. 
 
 Above all, it was no vulgar appetite for applause that 
 impelled them. There was not one of them who would 
 not gladly have hidden himself out of sight behind the 
 work he did. Several of them, as it is, appear only as 
 a name. As in the case of Joel : " The word of the 
 Lord which came by Joel, the son of Pethuel," — that 
 is literally all that we know of the man's personal 
 history. No ; their singularity was of another sort. It 
 was that of men who stood and who served on higher 
 spiritual levels. They refused to be merged in the 
 common class. They declined to sink themselves out 
 of sight in any prophetical guild. They were men who 
 could not be satisfied to wear a uniform, follow their 
 file-leaders, be set in a row and counted. They were 
 unwilling to yield up their finer spiritual aspirations 
 to that subtle and all-pervasive atmosphere of perfunc- 
 toriness in which the men of their time had come to 
 live. They felt that somebody must be singular and 
 nondescript ; that somebody must resist the tendency 
 to trim and adjust to a usage not the highest ; that 
 somebody must protest by word and deed against a 
 stagnant, depressing, criminal uniformity. And true it 
 is, in every age, that it is only on the dusty levels of 
 mediocrity that men move in battalions. As soon as 
 they begin to ascend, it is always after leaders. 
 
 The leading positions taken by our critics now to 
 prove the negative of the question before us are : (1) 
 that the prophets before the exile are absolutely silent 
 respecting the Levitical code, with the history that 
 belongs to it ; and (2) that they show decided hostility
 
 294 The PeiitateiicJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 to animal sacrifices, a circumstance bearing still more 
 directly against its supposed existence.^ On these two 
 abutments the critical arch at this point and its whole 
 amazing superstructure may be said to rest. And we 
 have reason to be thankful for the clearness and unmis- 
 takableness of the issue thus presented. 
 
 That both these positions are simply supposititious, 
 and have no substantial basis whatever, that indeed 
 they are demonstrably false on any fair interpretation 
 of the records, I think can be made to appear to really 
 candid minds ; and even beyond this, that the first, if 
 true, would prove nothing in the present case ; while 
 the second can be supported on no grounds which 
 would not introduce confusion and absurdity into the 
 prophetical literature. 
 
 Starting with a minor point, I remark that, if it were 
 to be admitted that the preexilian prophets make no 
 direct reference to the Levitical code, it would by no 
 means follow that it had no existence in their time. 
 Do these prophets in their denunciations of idolatry 
 ever make any direct reference to that earliest sup- 
 posed fragment of Iraelitish literature, the Book of the 
 Covenant, especially to the second commandment, 
 holding so prominent a place in the Sinaitic legislation } 
 It is acknowledged to have been extant in this period ; 
 it was recognized as Mosaic and authoritative.^ To 
 
 ' See Wellhausen, Geschichte Israels, i. pp. 1-5, 57-59; W. Robertson Smith, The Old 
 Testament in the Jewish Church, pp. 286-288; and The Prophets of Israel, pp. 164, 
 173 f. ; Duhm, Die Theologie dcr Propheten, pp. 12, 17, 18. 
 
 2 Soe The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, pp. 2915, 331. In the latter passage 
 this critic says: " While the Pentateuch does not make Mosts the author of the Levitical 
 code, it tells that he wrote down certain laws. He wrote down the words of Jehovah's 
 covenant with Israel (E.\. xx.\iv. 27, 28; E.x. xxiv. 4, 7). In the former passage the 
 words of the covenant are expressly identified with the Ten Words on the tables of stone. 
 In the latter pa.ssage the same thing seems to be meant." This is sufficient to show 
 Professor Smith's opinion respecting the Decalogue. When he proceeds on the basis of 
 Ex. xxiv. 4 to argue that it was only the Decalogue that Moses is here said to have 
 written^ the circumstances under which these words were uttered (" And Moses wrote all
 
 The Latv and the Prophets, 295 
 
 cite its clear and exceedingly explicit prohibition of 
 graven images and of the service of false gods, 
 which these prophets were always in one form or 
 another denouncing, one might suppose would have 
 been both pertinent and effective. In no case is it 
 done. The precepts of this code, moreover, were 
 practically ignored by the people down to the time of 
 the exile. What, then, is an argument worth drawn 
 simply from the absence of direct appeal on the part 
 of Israelitish prophets to supposed Mosaic institutions 
 and laws ? 
 
 It is well to note, indeed, in passing, into what a 
 trying dilemma our critics are brought by this same 
 Book of the Covenant, with its pronounced and clear- 
 cut enactments. Assuming it to be the sole collection 
 of laws possessed by the Israelites till near the close of 
 the seventh century e.g., they are not only compelled, 
 in direct contravention of a favorite method of argu- 
 mentation, to admit that it was never directly appealed 
 to, and remained in its principal features inoperative, 
 but, to save their theory of the originality of the 
 religion of the j^rophets of this period, must even argue 
 that prophets and people were governed by principles 
 really antagonistic to it. 
 
 These prophets, they affirm, did not trouble them- 
 
 the words of the Lord," etc.), as following what is narrated in Ex. xx. 18-22, and the laws 
 of which that passage is the natural introduction, plainly forbid such a construction. 
 Indeed, when it is said, xxiv. 3, that " Moses came and told the people all the words of the 
 Lord, and all the judgments," it is evident on the face of it that " all the words " cannot 
 refer simply to the Decalogue, and "all the judgments" to the laws that follow it, 
 xxi.-xxiii. For (i) the people had themselves heard the Decalogue (xx. 1,19), and did 
 not need to have it so especially rehearsed. And (2) on that supposition the people 
 would be absurdly represented in xxiv. 3 as saying that they would keep the Decalogue, 
 while they decline to say what they would do respecting the "judgments" ("that is, the 
 Book of the Covenant, xxi.-xxiii.). While (3), at xxiv. 7, Moses is said to have rend in 
 the hearing of the people the Book of the Covenant, and secured their assent to it before 
 ratifying with them, by the sprinkling of blood, the Covenant with which it stood in 
 connection. Cf. also Dillmann's Commentary on Die B'llcher Exodus und Leviticus 
 (1880), p. 2^6.
 
 296 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 selves about image-worship, or any other special form 
 of cultus. Elijah had no quarrel with Ahab concerning 
 golden calves, says Professor Smith, more than once, in 
 his latest work.^ In fact, to avoid the necessity of 
 taking account of the first and second commandments 
 as recognized motives influencing the minds of men 
 during this period, we find this critic resorting to a 
 style of reasoning as utterly trivial as it is unjustified 
 by anything that we know in the premises. 
 
 Elijah, who could not have been ignorant of the 
 words written by the divine finger : " Thou shalt have 
 no other gods before me ; . . . Thou shalt not make 
 unto thee any graven image," Elijah, it is said, was 
 moved to oppose the worship of Baal in his time, among 
 
 1 The Prophets of Israel, pp. 96, 109, 113. Professor Green, in Moses and the 
 Prophets, p. 265, as it seems to me, uses language none too strong when he characterizes 
 this position as an " atrocious misrepresentation." " If there is any one thing," he goes 
 on to say, " of which Jehovah expresses his utter abhorrence everywhere throughout the 
 Scriptures, it is the practice of idolatry in whatever form; and that a true prophet of the 
 Lord, jealous as Elijah was for his name and worship in a time of widespread apostasy, 
 and to whose divine commission such signal attestations were given by the Lord himself, 
 could possibly have been ' indifferent ' to what was so grossly dishonoring to God, or, as it 
 is mildly put in the passage above cited, ' plainly out of place ' in his worship, is absolutely 
 beyond belief." Cf. also, Bohl, Ziim Gesetz -itnd zjirii Zeiigniss, p. 71 f. " Und hier 
 sei es nun gestattet, ein ernstes Wort mit jenen Krilikern zu reden, welche den Kal- 
 berdienstim Nordreiche Israel ftir etwas ganz Unverfangliches halten, wogegen weder Elia 
 noch Elisa protestirt hiitten. Zuerst habe Hosea von seinem besonderen theologischen 
 Standpunkt aus dagegen Verwahrung eingelegt. 1st denn fUr diese Kritiker i Kon. 
 Cap. 13 absolut nicht vorhanden? Ein Mann Gottes aus Juda, also ein Prophet des 
 wahren Gottes, bedroht hier den Altar von Bethel, vor dem gerade Jerobeam opfert, und 
 verheisst ein Racher ex ossibns Davidis, der die Hcihenpriester auf diesem Altar opfern 
 und ihn dadurch entheiligen werde. Zur Gewahr der Richtigkeit dieser Verheissung gibt 
 er nach Prophetnart das naher liegende Zeichen, dass der Altar zerbersten und die 
 opferasche sich verschUtten werde, was denn alsbald geschah. Die zur Lahmlegung 
 dieses Propheten gebieterisch ausgestreckte Hand Jerobeam's verdorrt und wird geheilt; 
 dann aber muss Jerobeam die furchtbare Abweisung Seitens des Propheten erfahren, dass 
 derselbe nicht einmal einen Bissen Brots von ihm annehraen will. Obschon augenblicklich 
 geheilt, ist er doch verworfen fiir immer mit sammt seinem ganzen Kalberdeinst ! Nach 
 Wellhausen (S. 300) ist dass nun eine grobe Legende, die nicht einmal dem Deuterono- 
 misten angehort. Warum das der Fall ist, dass erfahren wir absolut nicht (Was Wellhausen 
 beibringt, hat nicht den Schein eines Grundes, denn Cap. 13, 33 steht deutlich: ' Jerobeam 
 machte it'ieder, d. h. wieter Priester der Hohen) es ist dass ein solches dictum, wie es 
 sich die modernen Kritiker gem gestatten, und dass eben zu jenen gehort, die sich dann wie 
 ein Dogma durch die neueren kritischen Schriften hindurchziehen."
 
 The Law and the Prophets. 297 
 
 other things, by the wine-bibbing habits of the Baal 
 worshipers.^ 
 
 Hezekiah, of whom the writer of the Books of Kings 
 declares that he " clave unto the Lord " and kept his 
 commandments "which the Lord commanded Moses," 
 according to the Scotch professor became a reformer 
 under circumstances even less creditable to his good 
 sense and supposed loyalty to the national religion. 
 He had seen, as the result of recent wars, many heathen 
 shrines demolished and finally abandoned ; while the 
 temple at Jerusalem, in view of its apparent inviola- 
 bility, at the same time assumed a relatively greater 
 importance. Hence the thought came to him, Why 
 should not he set about the demolition of idolatrous 
 shrines and so enhance still more the importance of 
 the temple ? ^ 
 
 The conclusiveness of this reasoning is only equaled 
 by that of the same critic when he announces that the 
 code of Deuteronomy " must be regarded as in a great 
 measure a product of reflection on the failure of 
 Hezekiah's measures." ^ Criticism, properly speaking, 
 this is not. It does not indicate even a candid inspec- 
 
 1 The Prophets of Israel, pp. 84, 85. Professor Smith admits that this is only a surmise 
 of his. " We have no evidence that Elijah had a personal connection with the Rechab- 
 ites; but Jonadab was a prominent partisan of Jehu, and went with him to see his zeal for 
 Jehovah when he put an end to liaal and his worsliipers " (2 Kings x. 15 sq.). The 
 other things which are supposed to have influenced Elijah in his opposition to Baal were; 
 (i) the influence of the prophetic guilds, although the Professor concedes that " Elijah 
 himself, as far as we can judge, had little to do with these guilds "; and (2) the sense of 
 the injustice done to Naboth by Ahab in the matter of the vineyard. These are all the 
 reasons which this critic can find for Elijah's contest with the prophets of Baal and their 
 hideous idolatry. 
 
 * The Prophets of Israel, p. 362 f. 
 
 ' Ibid. p. 368 f. It was not the result of reflection on the prohibitions of the Deca- 
 logue, or on the inherent wrong of idolatry; but " it starts from the observation that it 
 is impossible to get rid of Canaanite elements of worship until sacrifice and ritual obser- 
 vances arc confined to one sanctuary, and that this again is impossible till the old principle 
 is given up that all food, and especially every animal slain for a fe.ast, is unclean unless 
 presented at the altar." So it is to political shrewdness and finesse, as well as sober 
 reflection, that we are to ascribe th? origin of the Deuteronomic code.
 
 298 TJie PentateucJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 tion of the records ; but only a not very happy faculty 
 for guessing, here too much under the influence of the 
 faculty for wishing to be a safe guide in historical 
 questions. I have heard of an artist who once bought 
 on the market a cheap picture of an animal, and finding 
 it scrapable, scraped out of it a masterpiece by Correg- 
 gio. But who ever heard of a7t artist persistently 
 attempting to reverse this process ? 
 
 These, however, are merely negative results. We 
 now go further, and affirm that the Israelitish prophets 
 who rose before the exile, so far from being absolutely 
 silent respecting the Levitical code and unaffected by 
 it, on the contrary show, from first to last, that it has 
 made a most powerful impression upon them. Their 
 work, severally and unitedly, is largely a work of 
 recovery and repair in significant harmony with its 
 provisions ; while, as we believe, definite allusion is 
 made to it as to a well-known, extensive, and divinely 
 authoritative body of laws. 
 
 There is the prophet Joel, for example, who, until the 
 exigencies of this new theory made another conclusion 
 imperative, was regarded by the almost unanimous 
 consent of scholars as one of the oldest in the list.^ 
 He says nothing, it is true, about any Mosaic law of 
 offerings which controlled the sacrificial ritual of the 
 temple in his day. But is it any the less to the point 
 that, in evident sympathy with an established priest- 
 hood, on the occasion of a great national calamity he 
 
 1 And it may be said that one of the chief problems of the Wellhausen type of critics 
 has seemed all along to have been how best to discredit, or get rid of, the defendant's 
 witnesses. As late as 1875, when Duhm's Theologie der Propheten appeared, he was 
 obliged to admit the virtual unanimity of scholars on the question of Joel's early date. 
 He says (p. 71): " Zwar wird gegenwartig Joel fast mit einstimmigkeit hoher hinauf 
 gesetzt ; doch hoffen wir das jiingere Alter dieses Propheten mit iiberwiegender Wahrschein- 
 lichkeit erweisen zu konnen." The proofs given, however (pp. 275-277), are, for the 
 most part, simply a begging of the question, being based on the truthfulness of the 
 theory which is under discussion, namely, that the Levitical code originated at the time 
 of the exile.
 
 The Law and the Prophets. 299 
 
 summons them as ministers of his God to gird them- 
 selves and lament because the meal-offering and drink- 
 offering are cut off from the house of their God (i. 13) ? 
 
 So, too, Amos, the inspired herdsman of Tekoa, who 
 prophesied near the beginning of the eighth century 
 B.C., and, though himself from Judah, in that marked 
 unity of spirit which characterized all the prophets, 
 carried his bold message to the very centre of 
 idolatrous worship in the northern kingdom. It is of 
 transgression that he speaks. There is some definite 
 law of the Lord (ii. 4; cf. Lev. xxvi. 15) which has 
 been despised and statutes which have not been kept. 
 
 It is evident, moreover, that something more than 
 the Decalogue is referred to (iv. 6-1 1 ; v. 4, 5, 21, 22), 
 when, with withering sarcasm, which would have been 
 simply farcical if there had been no reference to a 
 legally established place and order of worship, he bids 
 the people of Israel come to Bethel and transgress and 
 at Gilgal to multiply transgressions ; and, further, in 
 masterly hyperbole, summons them to bring their slain 
 offerings every morning, their tithes once in three days, 
 and, like the Pharisees of aftertimes, to publish abroad 
 their freewill offerings, whose value was in their being 
 the product of a silent, inward sense and impulse. In 
 these utterances there are nearly as many allusions to 
 requirements of the Levitical or Deuteronomic legisla- 
 tion as there are clauses (Deut. xiv. 28, 29; xvi. 10; 
 Lev. xxii. 21, 23; Num. xv. 3). 
 
 Hosea, beginning his work near the same time, but 
 still, according to our critics, not far from two centuries 
 before the appearance of Deuteronomy, and three and 
 a half centuries before the code of Leviticus was 
 conceived by Ezra and his coadjutors, we find hotly 
 denouncing the priesthood of his day ; not as pj'iests,
 
 300 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 observe, but as those who had been unfaithful and 
 wilfully ignorant of their appointed work. They 
 had misled the people. They had forgotten the law 
 of their God (iv. 6.) and God, therefore, repudiated 
 them. 
 
 From the immediate context and other utterances of 
 this prophet it is plain enough to see what this law is 
 which, in his view, the priests have forgotten and 
 trampled upon. It is a law which has to do with the 
 sin-offering^ and other sacrifices (iv. 8; cf. Lev. vi. 19; 
 Hos. viii. 13 ; ix. 4) ; with the distinction in food as 
 clean and unclean (ix. 3, 4) ; with feasts, and new 
 moons, and Sabbaths (ii. 13, cf. Tev. xxiii. 2, 4 ff.). 
 Moreover, it is a written law of wide extent and many 
 precepts. " I write for him," says the prophet in the 
 name of the Lord, "the myriads of my law" (viii. 12, 
 not "the great things of my law," as the A. V. has it) 
 — "they were accounted a strange thing." 
 
 I am aware that among those who think the prophecy 
 of Hosea ought not to contain such a sentiment the 
 most persistent efforts have been made to put upon 
 these plain words a different meaning ; but the motive 
 has been too transparent and the exegesis too strained 
 to command anything more than a strictly partisan sup- 
 
 iLit., "They eat [fut. expressing the idea of what is customary] the sin of my 
 people." Wellhausen {Gcschichtc, i. p. 75) and his adherents (cf. The Old Test, in 
 the Jewish Church, p. 251 ; The Prophets cf Israel, p. 105) deny that the sin-offering is 
 referred to. But if the priests are here spoken of, it is difficult to see what else can be 
 meant. According to the Levitical code (Lev. vi. ig), a part of the ceremony of this 
 very sin-offering was for the priest to eat of it; and there can be no good reason for sup- 
 posing that this is not meant here, except that it would offer an insurmountable obstacle to 
 the new theory. That a fine paid in money to the priest by the transgressor is intended 
 can by no means be admitted. A passage adduced in its support (2 Kings xii. 17) does 
 not mean this (cf. Theile, Die Biicher der Konige, in loc.) ; and there is nothing in the 
 Old Testament which gives the least coloring to the hypothesi.s that any such system of 
 indulgences was ever known in Israel. The context of our passage shows that with the 
 priests of Hosea's time the eating was the principal part of the ceremonial of the sin- 
 offering. And they were quite willing that the people should commit more sin that 
 they themselves might have the more to eat. (Cf. the conduct of Eli's sons, i Sam. ii. 
 12-17.)
 
 Tlic Laiu and the Prophets. 301 
 
 port.i In fact, in addition to the evident references to 
 the Mosaic laws, moral or ritual, just referred to, it has 
 been shown by a recent writer that there is not a single 
 book of the Pentateuch which, in the way of illustration 
 or historical reminiscence has not left its impression on 
 the pages of our prophet.^ 
 
 Micah, also, in that memorable passage (vi. 6-8) cited 
 by our critics to show that he rejected sacrifices alto- 
 gether, demanding in their place that men should do 
 justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God, in 
 this very utterance but echoes, as it should seem, a 
 sentiment of the Book of Deuteronomy (x. 12), which 
 it is affirmed did not yet exist, and presupposes the 
 practice of ritual observances whose warrant can only 
 be found in the Levitical code (Lev. ix. 3 ; cf. Num. xv. 
 I— 16; xxviii., xxix.). 
 
 But of still more importance than these isolated 
 references is the fact that there are certain grand 
 features of the preexilian prophets, common at least to 
 the most of them, which, in the nature of the case, can 
 
 1 Professor Smith (The Old Test. etc. p. 297) says: " But the prophets of the eighth 
 century never speak of a written law of Moses. The only passage which has been taken 
 to do so is Hosea viii. 12. And here the grammatical translation is, ' Though I wrote for 
 him my Torah in ten thousand precepts ' they would be esteemed a strange thing." 
 [Revised version : "Though I write for him, etc., . . . they are counted."] The matter, 
 however, is not so easily disposed of. If the use of the past tense in the last cl.ause is 
 not allowed any weight in determining how the first verb is to be rendered, or if Smend's 
 objection {Studicn u. Krit., 1876, p. 633) that the hypothetical translation emasculates 
 the passage of all sense whether the verb or the word for " ten thousand" be emph.asized, 
 still how can it be denied that there lies on the face of the declaration the presupposition 
 of a nurittcji Torah? One of the latest commentators (Nowack, Dcr Prophet Hosea, 
 p. 140) renders the verb as Ewald rendered it by " ich schreibe." But though it were to 
 be taken hypothelically (as the future in Ps. xci. 7), that must not be allowed to obscure 
 the obvious force of the verb that follows. As Bredenkamp has insisted: " Das als 
 thatsachlich ausgesagte Fremdachten dcr Torah oder Toroth (LXX.),sctzt nothwendig 
 das Vorhandcnsein desselben und zwar als geschriebener voraus" (Geselz und Propheten 
 p. 37 f.). Cf also " the law of the L<ird and his statutes" in Amos (ii. 4), of which 
 Rudolph Sinand wrote in 1876: " I do not understand how Duhm can affirm that these 
 words should not be directly referred to an external divine law. For choq is really just 
 = sintittttiH" {Siudie/i n. Krit. (1876), p. 634, note). 
 
 ' Curtiss, Le7>itieal Priests, pp. 176-178; cf. Smend, I.e. p. 641.
 
 302 The Pentateiich : Its Origin and Strncture. 
 
 only be accounted for by regarding them as the result 
 of the priestly legislation of the Pentateuch. One of 
 them is the uniform attitude of these prophets toward 
 a central sanctuary. According to the current criticism 
 they ought, at least the oldest of them, to be wholly 
 silent on this subject, since, until Deuteronomy 
 appeared, more than two hundred years after the date 
 of Joel and Amos, and a hundred after that of Hosea, 
 Micah, and Isaiah, there was no sign of a law regarding 
 it. Every one did, it is said, in this respect what was 
 right in his own eyes (cf. Deut. xii. 8). In fact, it is 
 supposed that there was sufficient justification for such 
 a state of things found in the Book of the Covenant 
 itself (Ex. XX. 24, 25). 
 
 It is Joel, however, who calls for the proclamation of 
 a solemn fast in Zion, that is, Jerusalem (ii. 15), and 
 declares that it is the dwelling-place of Jehovah (iv. 17). 
 It is Amos who begins his terrible arraingment of the 
 kingdoms of the earth, especially of Judah and Israel, 
 with the thrilling words " Out of Zion the Lord roareth, 
 and uttereth his voice from Jerusalem " (i. 2). Bethel, 
 the seat of idolatry, is to him a Beth-Aven (a seat of 
 nothingness), and at Gilgal and Beersheba God would 
 be sought in vain (v. 4-6). 
 
 It is Hosea, a citizen of the nortJiern kingdom, who 
 invariably stigmatizes that kingdom as an organized 
 apostasy, without a future and unworthy of the favor of 
 Jehovah. Judah it was that should find mercy and 
 salvation from the Lord their God (i. 6, 7 ; cf. xiv. i). 
 With his eyes fixed, as it would appear, on Jerusalem, 
 he delivers the message which closes his book : " Take 
 with you words, and turn to the Lord ; say unto him. 
 Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously ; so 
 will we render the calves of our lips " (xiv. 2, 3 ; cf. his
 
 The Lazv and the Prophets, 303 
 
 attitude toward Jehu (i. 4) after he had shown his true 
 character). 
 
 So too, Micah, in that sublime prediction concerning 
 the last days, when the mountain of the house of the 
 Lord should be established on the top of the mountains, 
 announces that it is from Zion that the law shall go 
 forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem (iv, 
 2, 3). And especially Isaiah, the close of whose pro- 
 phetical activity antedated still by three quarters of a 
 century the supposed date of Deuteronomy, leaves us 
 no room to doubt how he regarded a plurality of altars 
 among his countrymen. Zion is the mountain of the 
 Lord to which the nations shall resort (ii. 2 ff.), copying 
 the very words of his contemporary Micah (iv. i, 2), to 
 give additional emphasis to the thought. The Lord 
 would dwell on Zion, as once in the fiery cloud of the 
 wilderness, and no enemy, not even a Sennacherib, 
 should dare to lift his hand against it (x. 32 ; cf. xxxiii. 
 20 ; XXX. 29). 
 
 To those who find it not only unnecessary, but pre- 
 sumptuous, to make allowance in these utterances of 
 God's prophets for a supposed political bias such 
 evidence as this will be amply conclusive. The theory 
 that during all this period there existed no statute 
 touching a central sanctuary where the ordinary 
 worship of God was to be conducted is a chimera. 
 Defection, illegality, ignorance, perverseness there was 
 enough of ; but there was also something lying back in 
 the early history of the people, well-known, fixed, and 
 authoritative, which no true prophet could ignore and 
 to which no instructed Israelitish conscience could fail 
 to respond. 
 
 Let us direct attention to another thing made 
 singularly emphatic by these early prophets, and yet
 
 304 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 most singularly made emphatic if the theory of oui 
 critics be accepted ; namely, the fact that a solemn 
 covenant existed between Jehovah and the Israelitish 
 people. Sometimes it is under the form of the marriage 
 relation that it is represented, as very largely and 
 repeatedly by Hosea (i.-iii.), who, it may be said, is full 
 of the thought and fortifies himself in it against the 
 stout resistance of rulers and people (vi. 5, 7 ; viii. i). 
 He charges them with swearing falsely in making this 
 covenant (x. 4), and with being a people bent on 
 backsliding (xi. 7; cf. xiv. 1).^ Sometimes, as in Amos, 
 it is by a touching allusion to the early history (iii. 
 1-3). The sons of Israel are the family whom God had 
 brought up out of Egypt. Them only had he known of 
 all the families of the earth ; therefore he would punish 
 them for their iniquity. Could two walk together 
 except they were agreed } (Cf. also iv. 6-1 1 ; v. 4, 5, 21, 
 22.) Sometimes, as in the graceful metaphors of an 
 Isaiah, it is under the image of a family whom God had 
 nourished and brought up, to be repaid with unthank- 
 fulness and rebellion (i. 2, 4) ; or of a vineyard on which 
 there could not have been expended more kindly effort, 
 while it had rewarded its patient and painstaking Lord 
 only with wildness and emptiness (v. 2, 4), 
 
 But under whatever form it may appear, it is every- 
 where a conspicuous and controlling fact with these 
 earlier prophets. Their most powerful reasoning is 
 rooted in it, and from it, as from an acknowledged event 
 of history, their most stirring appeals find directest 
 
 1 So Nowack, ibid. p. xxx. of the Einleitung : " Sehen wir darauf hin unser Euch an, 
 so ergiebt sich als Grundvoraussetzung fiir die Busspredigt Hoseas die, dass Jahve in der 
 Zeit, da Israel aus Egypten zog und in der Wiiste weilte, dies Yolk sich erwahlt und einen 
 Bund mit ihm geschlossen (ix. lo; xi. i ; xii. lo; xiii. 4, 5) ; kraft dessen Israel eiiie Reihe 
 von Verpflichtungen auf sich nahm, die in der Torah Jahves niedergelegt sind (viii. i, 
 12), als deren Inhaber und Verkiindiger Hosea die Priester dieses Reiches ansieht'' 
 Civ. 6).
 
 The Law and the Prophets. 30^ 
 
 inspiration. So common and universally accepted, 
 indeed, had the thought become, that it had already 
 passed over from a literal to a metaphorical sense, and 
 we find Hosea (ii. 20) speaking of a covenant which the 
 Lord would make with beasts of the field, for Israel's 
 sake. 
 
 Carlyle speaks of a peculiar class of people in his day 
 who, in writing and deed, struggled not in favor of 
 duty being done, but against duty of any sort being 
 required.! Our prophets obviously did not belong to 
 such a class. They have the keenest possible sense of 
 certain obligations which had been assumed by Israel, 
 and hence of certain inevitable obligations to be dis- 
 charged by Israel. 
 
 Now, will any one venture the assertion that such a 
 thought and moral force as this of the covenant could 
 have sprung from the oral transmission of those few 
 chapters of Exodus known as the Book of the Cove- 
 nant } By no means. Its solemn basis and warrant lie 
 outside that book (cf. especially xix. 3-6 f. ; xxiv. 3 f.). 
 Our critics themselves rather seek to deny that any 
 such covenant existed ; or, if it existed in thought, that 
 it was anything more than a figment of the brain, a 
 mere fancy of the prophets, no real thing presupposing 
 two covenanting parties ; presupposing as to the Israel- 
 ites any actual covenant must (Ps. 1, 5), and as the very 
 etymology of the word and history of the conception 
 demand, sacrificial blood to solemnize it and sacredly 
 bind the covenanting parties to its provisions.^ 
 
 ^ Reminiscences by Froude (Harper's ed.), ii. p. 76. 
 
 ^ Cf. Zech. ix. II : " Even thou ! through the blood of thy coven.int, T have sent forth 
 thy prisoners out of the pit." There can be no doubt that the ceremonies recorded in Ex. 
 xxiv. 3-8 are here referred to. WcUhauscn says, in a note on p. 434 of his Gcschichte, 
 i.: " Die Vorstellung cines zwischen Jahve und Israel eingcgangencn P.undes (Berith), 
 von der aus die Autorilaten der Biblischen Theologie das ganze Alte Testament zu 
 verstehen glauben, findct sich bei den altcrcn Propheten nicht."'
 
 3o6 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Could anything be more fatal than thus to fly in the 
 face of what is written as plainly on the whole pro- 
 phetical literature of this period as high spiritual 
 aspiration and loyalty to Jehovah are written there ? 
 It is as an unfaithful wife that Israel is depicted, who 
 has forgotten the days of her first tender love, when, 
 led by a prophet of the Lord, she came up out of 
 Egypt (Hos. ii. 17; xi. i; xii. 14). 'She has broken 
 her plighted troth and been treacherous and untrue 
 (Hos. V. 7 ; vi. 7). She is even represented as saying 
 in the better future, " I will arise and return to my first 
 husband ; for it was better with me then than now " 
 (Hos. ii. 7). There is nothing more characteristic of 
 the prophetical activity of an Hosea or Amos than just 
 this uniform and persistent effort to reclaim and bring 
 back the nation to what appears to be a universally 
 acknowledged standard. Human language offers no 
 resources to express more strongly than is here 
 expressed the sense of the prophets that Israel had 
 fallen away, backslidden, broken faith with God. This 
 is the actual, palpable substance of their commonest 
 utterances. 
 
 We never find them, as though founders of a new 
 religion, dealing in abstractions or generalities ; hover- 
 ing in the air with imaginary conceptions of duty ; 
 pulling now one way and now another, or, in obvious 
 collusion, joining their forces to hoodwink a credulous 
 people. They are at the farthest possible remove from 
 anything like mere histrionic representation There 
 is one thing which all will freely accord to these men, 
 and that is, a marked intellectual superiority. But 
 there is another thing which we must just as certainly 
 accord them — a deep and all-pervading intellectual 
 sincerity and uprightness. They had tremendous con-
 
 The Law and the Prophets. 307 
 
 victions, not a bit of dilettanteism. They believed, 
 therefore they spoke. If they appear somewhat intol- 
 erant it is because they felt that they had the warrant 
 of history, and of the God of history, to be intolerant. 
 It is with historical and popularly accepted facts that 
 their message is concerned whether here or there, 
 with something well known to all, and long known, 
 and known not simply by the understanding, but also 
 by the heart and conscience. 
 
 A marked characteristic of the Hebrew prophets 
 I say was this, that they were men of thorough and 
 intense convictions. Their utterances were first bur- 
 dens that pressed with the weight of positive truths on 
 their own hearts. The horizon of their knowledge may 
 have been limited ; but, so far as it concerned their 
 communications, it was clearly defined. The era of 
 half-truths had not yet dawned. Religious speculation 
 had not yet seduced the serious-minded from the con- 
 templation and the realization of awful facts. The 
 word " agnostic," which may be explained as the polite 
 excuse of ignorance urged in our day as a veil for 
 indifference or contempt, was still unknown. Above all, 
 a spirit of agnosticism had not so taken possession of 
 God's own servants that they were unwilling to speak 
 with positiveness, even where He himself had clearly 
 made revelations and enjoined duties. The great first 
 principles of religion, the being and personality of God, 
 His government by a plan which literally leaves noth- 
 ing out, the inexorable law of righteousness, the innate 
 ugliness and clinging curse of sin, these were not 
 with them matters of technical, philosophical discussion, 
 but fixed and overwhelming motives. On them they 
 planted themselves, and there they rested, as on an 
 immovable fulcrum, the mighty lever of their influence
 
 3o8 TJie PcntatencJi: Its Oi'igin and Struct Jire. 
 
 over men. The problems they had to face, the work 
 they had to do, really left no margin for vacillation and 
 uncertainty on questions like these. I do not mean, 
 please note, that the prophets of Israel fully understood, 
 in their widest relations, all of their own utterances. 
 It is clear that they did not. I mean just as little to 
 say that what they had to declare was always in 
 harmony with their natural inclinations. It was often 
 quite the reverse. What, indeed, is more pitiful in 
 human story — tragic, one might say, if it were 
 regarded simply as human story — than the lives of 
 some of these men } It was just this sharp antago- 
 nism between a sense of imperative duty and all the 
 kindly impulses of the human heart that wrung from 
 them such touching exclamations as abound in their 
 writings. •* 
 
 It was on the ground of an alleged covenant that 
 Israel is called upon to be a holy people to the Lord 
 (Ex. xix. 5, 6; Lev. xi. 44; xx. 25, 26; Deut. xiv. 21). 
 
 1 Cf. Watson, The La-iv and the Prophets, p. 79: " The teaching of the prophets is 
 such that a careful preparation of the teachers is demanded. Prophetical teaching is not 
 one of those common plants concerning which we do not need to ask whence it springs. 
 The prophets have familiarized us with certain principles of right. They have taught us 
 what it is which makes a man acceptable in God's sight. Their teaching on these 
 points is accepted by all Christians as certain, nay, as obvious, truth. But these truths 
 vrere not always familiar and obvious. Their doctrine, when they taught it, was in 
 many noints new and strange. It is certain they derived no help from heathen teachers. 
 It is certain they were far in advance of their nation and their time. Hence the serious 
 difficulty which arises when the sole basis of their teaching is taken away. 
 
 "The teaching of the prophets was unique; it was also one consistent whole. The 
 prophets' teachings were at unity amongst themselves. What was the cause of this 
 agreement ? Cause there must have been. The prophets did not hand down from age to 
 age the sayings of their predecessors. Of them as of the Great Prophet it was true, they 
 taught with authority, and not as the scribes. The later canonical prophets used freely 
 the writings of the earlier ones, but they were independent teachers. The earlier 
 prophets were in the main independent of one another. We want a founder of the pro- 
 phetical school of thought, but unless he is Moses we cannot find him. On the critical 
 theory he cannot be Moses. The very few, though no doubt great, ideas, which the 
 modern critics allow Moses to have left behind, do not make a sufficiently wide common 
 ground for the prophetical teaching. On the traditional theory the agreement of the 
 prophets is natural; they have all the same teacher, even God, and they all use the same 
 textbook, the Pentateuch. On the critical theory the agreement is inexplicable."
 
 The Law and the Prophets. 309 
 
 They were his pecuHar possession. He was holy and 
 they should be holy. And it is noticeable that this 
 idea of holiness, though naturally, as found in our 
 prophets, not bounded by the external requirements of 
 the Levitical code (Isa. vi. 3), at least takes knowledge 
 of them and is everywhere more or less modified by 
 them. Hence it is that Jeremiah distinguishes the cir- 
 cumcised Israelite, who is yet uncircumcised in heart, 
 from the uncircumcised Egyptian (ix. 24, 25), He 
 recognizes the outward rite no less that he recognizes 
 also its inward, spiritual meaning. And Isaiah, the 
 most idealistic of all these earlier prophets, stigmatizes 
 the people of his day as rebellious, in that they pollute 
 themselves by dwelling amidst the sepulchres of the 
 dead, lodging in the monuments, and eating swine's 
 flesh, the broth of abominable (that is, ceremonially 
 unclean) things steaming in their caldrons (Ixv. 3, 4 ; 
 Ixvi. 17).^ 
 
 Everywhere the land of Israel is looked upon as holy 
 for Israel's sake (Amos vii. 17; Hosea ix. 3, 5); Zion 
 and its temple are holy ; and no less the altar-gifts and 
 those who offer them (Isa. xxiii. 18; xliii. 28; Jer. xi. 
 15); feast-s. Sabbaths, and festival days (Isa. xxx. 29; 
 Ivi. 6; Iviii. 13; Hosea ix. 5). It would be difficult, 
 indeed, to find a prophet after the exile who shows 
 a deeper sense of the existence and sacred character of 
 some ceremonial law than, for examjile, Hosea seems to 
 do in one of his prophetic utterances (ix. 3-5 ; cf. Num. 
 xix, 14 f.). 
 
 The inference is imperative. These prophets refer, 
 though it may be never so indirectly, to the extended 
 legislation of the Pentateuch. There is no other sup- 
 
 ' Even on the supposition that these passages are not from Isaiah, but from some one 
 who lived during the cxilt;, still they must have been spoken long before the supposed 
 introduction of the " Code of the Priests" (444 B.C.).
 
 3 1 o The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Stritcture. 
 
 posable circumstance which so well accounts for their 
 habitual attitude, their prevailing current of thought 
 and coloring of speech, as this overshadowing Sinaitic 
 code founded on the covenant formally concluded 
 through the mediation of Moses. Such a covenant, in 
 the nature of the case, demanded an extended Torah to 
 define its provisions. To this same Torah in general, 
 we believe, Jeremiah refers in that prediction of future 
 brighter days, when Jehovah should make another cove- 
 nant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah ; 
 not such a covenant as he made with their fathers ; but 
 his law he would put in their inward parts and write it 
 in their hearts (xxxi. 32). The idea of covenant and 
 law, that is, are with him interchangeable, inseparable. 
 To a Jewish mind, in fact, the one involved the other 
 as truly as the idea of a sacrificer involved that of 
 a sacrifice and an altar. 
 
 But it is said that the earlier prophets show decided 
 opposition to the offering of sacrifices in themselves 
 considered, and therefore they cannot have known and 
 acknowledged this Levitical code which prescribes 
 them and contains the ritual by which they were after- 
 ward to be governed. If such a claim were not made 
 by men of learning and responsible positions we could 
 hardly regard it as seriously meant. On its face it 
 appears to us as nothing less than preposterous. 
 
 Does Samuel show opposition to sacrifices when he 
 says to the impatient and recreant Saul : " To obey is 
 better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of 
 rams" (i Sam. xv. 22) .? No more does Hosea when, in 
 rebuke of gross excesses of externalism, he declares as 
 the mind of the Lord : " For I desired mercy, and not 
 sacrifice ; and the knowledge of God more than burnt- 
 offerings " (vi, 6). There are no texts better adapted
 
 TJie Lazv and the Prophets. 311 
 
 than these to illustrate the uniform attitude of the 
 prophets in all periods of Israelitish history toward 
 animal sacrifices. What they opposed was misdirec- 
 tion, degenerating into absolute idolatry. It was an 
 effort at prayer without a consecration of the will. It 
 was a perverse tendency to look upon sacrifice as an 
 opus operatnni, something in itself sufficient for their 
 spiritual needs. 
 
 To enjoin the people to bring their offerings was 
 wholly needless. To interdict it would have been as 
 futile as to interdict the dews from gathering on 
 Lebanon. What they did properly seek to do was to 
 insist on the spiritual significance of these solemn 
 rites ; to persuade men that the form without the 
 substance was not only rubbish, but might be even 
 a stench in the nostrils. Just as a minister of our day 
 might say to men who offer their means for the spread 
 of the gospel and the support of its institutions while 
 personally standing aloof from it : " It is not your money 
 we want, but you." Just as the apostle Paul actually 
 said to his Corinthian sympathizers under similar cir- 
 cumstances : "I seek not yours, but you" (2 Cor. xii. 
 14). So these men of God in the olden time in the 
 midst of a tendency to pure exteriority, to exaggerate 
 the matter of the flesh and blood of their offerings until 
 they were made to represent everything in religion 
 and, at the same time, to excuse everything in irre- 
 ligion and idolatry, found no language but that of 
 hyperbole that met the case.^ 
 
 1 It was not formalism alone nor idolatry alone that the earlier prophets opposed, but 
 both together, and especially the latter as a direct fruit of the former. So Delitzsch, in 
 speaking of the schism of Jeroboam II. {^Old Testament History of Redemption 
 p. 105 f.), truly says: " For out of dynastic considerations Jeroboam sought to perpetuate 
 the independence of his dominions by destroying the religious unity of both kingdoms, 
 and by introducing a new mode of worship, which, without cutting loose from Jehovah, 
 met the heathen lusts and Egyptian propensities of the masses through the choice of a
 
 3 1 2 The Pentatciic]i : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Do you think God hungry ? Will he eat the flesh of 
 bulls or drink the blood of goats ? said the Psalmist, in 
 view of a similar perverseness (1. 13 ; cf. xl. 7-10). No 
 stronger language is found in any prophet on this sub- 
 ject than in Isaiah.^ He compares the sacrifice of a 
 lamb to the cutting off the neck of a dog, and in 
 the same passage puts the offering of an oblation on 
 the same level with the presentation of the blood of 
 swine (Ixvi. 3). He cannot mean to reject and cast 
 obloquy upon sacrifices themselves ; for he elsewhere 
 represents them as praiseworthy and to be desired (xix. 
 19). In the very context, he indulges, as here, in the 
 language of strong hyperbole. " Where is the house," 
 he asks, as representative of the Highest, "that ye 
 will build for me " (Ixvi. i, 2)} Was he therefore 
 an opponent of an outward temple .-* And in another 
 place (i. 12, 13): "Who hath required this at your 
 hands, to tread my courts .■* Bring no more vain 
 oblations ; incense is an abomination unto me." 
 
 Is this to be taken as prosy literalness t Then, in 
 the same breath that the prophet discourages outward 
 offerings and sacrifices he also favors the closing of the 
 tem^Dle gates against his apostate countrymen. There 
 is no argument to prove the one which will not just as 
 really prove the other. 
 
 Jeremiah, also, uses language on this point which is 
 scarcely less emphatic. " To what purpose," he asks 
 
 symbol derived from the Egyptian steer-god, and flattered the Ephraimitic national pride by 
 the choice of ancient places celebrated through the great national reminiscences connected 
 with them (i Kings xii. 26 sqq. ; Amos iv. 4; v. 5; viii. 14; Hosea iv. 15). This syn- 
 cretistic state religion (Amos vii. 10, 13), with its self-created priesthood and its servile, 
 fawning prophets, is considered by the prophets of Jehovah in both kingdoms as an 
 accursed apostasy; and so every fraternization of the kings of Judah with the kings of 
 Israel excites the displeasure of the prophets, even when it is favorable to the interests of 
 the kingdom of Judah." Cf also Smend, Stud. u. Kritiken, 1876, pp. 6oi, 602, 606. 
 
 ' If our critics' theory were true, one might expect, as Bredenkamp has shown {ibid. 
 p. 78 f.), to find in Amos and Hosea the most marked antithesis noted between outward 
 offerings and inward piety rather than in Isaiah, Micah, and Jeremiah.
 
 TJic Latv and the Prophets. 3 1 3 
 
 in one place, " is there brought to me incense from 
 Sheba and sweet cane from a far country ? Your burnt- 
 offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet, 
 unto me" (vi. 19, 20). When we consider the circum- 
 stances of the case, that a wretched reliance on altar- 
 gifts had in his day gone so far and been so mixed with 
 idolatrous conceptions and practices that every city had 
 its god, every street its shrine (xi. 13), and that a king 
 of Israel in heathenish blindness had even ventured to 
 offer up his own son (2 Kings xvi. 3 ; cf. Hos. xiii. 2 ; 
 Mic. vi. 7), is it to be wondered at that a prophet speak- 
 ing in the name of the Lord should say : " Yo2ir burnt- 
 offerings are not acceptable, nor yoiir sacrifices sweet, 
 unto me " ? Is it to be wondered at that sometimes 
 he falls into the language of hyperbole or apparent 
 paradox, so often found needful by our Lord 
 himself ? 
 
 How poor a vehicle is human speech at the best to 
 carry to human hearts the inspired utterances of a 
 prophet of God ! It seems sometimes to stagger with 
 the weight that is put upon it. The words come forth 
 bursting and out of order. And how utterly tame and 
 inconsequent must the communications of a Jeremiah 
 and an Isaiah have appeared even to us, if in circum- 
 stances like theirs they had only prosily stated just 
 what our critics require of them. 
 
 That Jeremiah was no opponent of sacrifices when 
 properly offered is clear from the fact that elsewhere he 
 speaks of them as the crowning blessing of a happier 
 day (xxxiii. 18, 21). How could he have been opposed 
 to sacrifices .-' He was himself a priest. More than 
 this, he was contemporary and coadjutor of the very 
 King Josiah in whose reign, according to our critics, 
 the code of Deuteronomy with its provisions for every
 
 3 1 4 The PcntaiciicJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 form of animal-offerings was foisted on a heedless 
 people. 
 
 We find, indeed, no other spirit, touching ritual 
 observances, ruling in any of these earlier prophecies 
 than precisely that which dominates in those that 
 follow the exile, when, as it is supposed, the " Code 
 of the Priests" came to fullest bloom. Zechariah, for 
 examjjle, made his appeal to these very men when a 
 deputation from Bethel came to ask if fasting were still 
 pleasing to God : " (Do ye) not (know)," he pertinently 
 inquires, "the word which Jehovah hath proclaimed 
 by means of the former proj^hets, when Jerusalem was 
 inhabited and in prosperity } " 
 
 "So declareth Jehovah of hosts, saying: 
 Judgment ot truth judge ye. 
 And mercy and compassion 
 Do ye each to his brother." 
 
 (vii. 9 ; cf. Isa. Iviii. 3 ff.). And Haggai takes greatest 
 pains to show (ii. 11-14) that it is the ethical relation 
 of the people to God that is vital. Consistency, 
 consistency was his demand. Not alone holy flesh and 
 punctilious conformity to sacerdotal rites ; but clean 
 hands and a loyal heart. And Malachi, who closes up 
 with great announcements and ringing appeals the 
 goodly line of the ancient prophets of Israel, but 
 reflects in this respect with undiminished splendor the 
 spirit of all who had gone before him. Suddenly the 
 Lord who was longed for would come to his temple. 
 But who could abide the day of his coming ? He would 
 appear as a refiner's fire. He would purge the sons of 
 Levi as gold and silver, that their offerings to the Lord 
 should be offerings of righteousness ; that Judah and 
 Jerusalem should bring sacrifices that would be pleasant
 
 The Law and the Prophets. 3 1 5 
 
 to the Lord " as in t/ie days of old^ and as in former 
 years" (iii. 1-4).^ 
 
 Is anything more needed to show what was the 
 unchanging attitude of the Israelitish prophets in every 
 period with respect to the development of religious 
 life among the people ? The writer of Deuteronomy 
 represents it as well as an Amos or an Isaiah when he 
 says (x. 12): "And now, Israel, what doth thy God 
 require of thee but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk 
 in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord 
 thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul ? " 
 Above all He represents it, who came as the last and 
 greatest of the prophets, and who said, in sharp rebuke 
 of the spurious ceremonialism of his day, jDutting its 
 true interpretation on that now disputed text of Hosea : 
 " Go and learn what that meaneth : I will have mercy, 
 and not sacrifice." 
 
 ' So, too, the Son of Sirach, in obvious dependence on the prophets and psalms, 
 although living in the pent-up atmosphere of the later Judaism (Ecclus. xxxv. 1-12) : — 
 " He that keepeth the law bringeth many offerings. 
 
 He that taketh heed to the commandment offereth a thank-offering. 
 
 He that requiteth a good turn offereth fine flour, 
 
 And he that giveth alms sacrificeth praise. 
 
 To depart from wickedness is a thing pleasing to the Lord, 
 
 And to depart from unrighteousness is a propitiation. 
 
 Thou shalt not appear empty before the Lord, 
 
 For all these things are done because of the commandment. 
 
 The offering of a just man maketh the altar fat. 
 
 And the sweet saver thereof is before the Most High. 
 
 The sacrifice of a just man is acceptable, 
 
 And the memorial thereof shall not be forgotten. 
 
 Give the Lord his honor with a friendly eye. 
 
 And diminish not the first-fruits of thine hands. 
 
 In all thy gifts show a cheerful countenance. 
 
 And dedicate thy tithes with gladness. 
 
 Give unto the Most High according as he'hath given. 
 
 And as thou hast gotten, give with a friendly eye. 
 
 For the Lord is rccompcnser. 
 
 And will give thee seven times as much. 
 
 Do not think to corrupt with gifts, for such he will not receive; 
 
 And trust not to unrighteous sacrifices. 
 
 For the Lord is judge. 
 
 And with him is no respect of persons." 
 
 \
 
 3i6 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 What more natural than that these grand old prophets, 
 if so be that they were true prophets of God, standing 
 firm where priests and people had fallen away, should 
 do this very work ? That they should see and should 
 hold up the spiritual side of the Mosaic laws and 
 institutions, insist upon it, emphasize it, and all the 
 more because of the enormous exaggeration of the 
 merely outward by their contemporaries ? Like every- 
 thing else in this world of ours that has lived and made 
 itself felt, the progress of the Israelitish religion was 
 never in straight lines of growth, but always by a kind 
 of action and reaction ; revealing mighty underlying 
 forces that pushed it onward, but also other forces, only 
 less mighty, that pushed it backward — a sort of systole 
 and diastole that ever marks the throbbings of a deeper 
 life in human affairs. 
 
 And is not this fact that the prophets did the work 
 they did, and stood together to do it, shoulder to 
 shoulder, the shaggy Elijah and the tender Hosea of 
 Israel beside Amos and the great Isaiah of Judah, 
 politically divided, but one in aim and one in spirit 
 against an intractable nation of formalists and idolaters, 
 the strongest proof that they were specially, super- 
 naturally moved of God so to do ? Does it not carry 
 in itself the clearest condemnation of that theory of 
 the merely natural development of the Old Testament 
 religion which our critics would persuade us to adopt ?^ 
 
 I It is not so easy to see how, on any just principle of development, the matter is 
 helped for these critics by the supposition of a climax of spirituality in the prophets, and 
 of sacerdotalism in the age that follo^yed them. We might justly expect rather, first, that 
 which is natural, then that which is spiritual. The remark of Smend still remains true, 
 whatever his present attitude toward this theory may be {ibid. p. 638) : " Schon hienach 
 mochten wir die Bemerkung Duhms, dass die Prophetic abgestorben sei, als durch Esra 
 das Gesetz in's Leben trat, dahin umkehren, dass das Gesetz kanonische Geltung erhielt, 
 weil die Prophetie abstarb." Just in this direction, too, points that relatively isolated 
 text in the Book of Proverbs (xxix. 18) : " Where there is no vision the people are in 
 disorder; but he that keepeth the law, happy is he,"
 
 The Law and the Prophets. 3 1 7 
 
 And so, without resorting to any of the numerous 
 collateral arguments which might be urged against the 
 theory we have been considering, like the uniform testi- 
 mony of the oldest witnesses and the repeated confirm- 
 atory references of Jesus and his apostles ; without 
 calling special attention to the wholesale dislocations, 
 eliminations, conjectural readings, and charges of 
 duplicity against Old Testament writers which would 
 be necessitated by the change proposed ; without 
 taking advantage of the naive admissions of some of 
 the ablest of this class of critics showing that their 
 objections to the traditional view, after all, inhere less 
 in the documents themselves than in their own minds 
 and their own invincible prepossessions,^ we find that, 
 tested by the reasoning on which its supporters them- 
 selves most rely, this concerted effort to face about the 
 preexilian prophets and reconstruct on other principles 
 the history of Israel is a signal failure. 
 
 1 As, for instance, Wellhausen {Geschichte,\. p. ii): "Passages out of Amos and 
 Hosea may be adduced which are supposed to show acquaintance with the ' Code of the 
 Priests'; upon him, however, who holds them to be earlier than it, they can make no 
 impression." And Stade (as quoted by Professor Duff in Xhe. Bilih'otkeca Sacra, 1882, p. 
 392) : " But I am convinced that the controversy will never be settled by an analysis of 
 the Pentateuch. The view taken of the Pentateuch will depend, on the one hand, on the 
 view taken of the critical structure of the Books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings; and on 
 the other, on the theological valuation of prophecy.
 
 IX. 
 
 THE LAW AND THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 
 
 If the Books of Chronicles were admitted to be 
 genuine and authentic, the criticism that makes a con- 
 siderable part of the Pentateuch of post-exilian origin 
 would, by its own admission, be impossible. These 
 books assume the existence in every period of the 
 history of this same supposed post-exilian portion ; that 
 is, especially, the so-called " Code of the Priests." 
 Their account of David's reign and that of his suc- 
 cessors down to the point where the Book of Ezra 
 takes up and continues the narrative is particularly 
 characterized by the dominance of Levitical institutions 
 and laws. Among the long lists of genealogies with 
 which the history is introduced, that of the tribe of 
 Levi is given a noteworthy prominence.'- David's 
 recovery of the ark and the imposing ceremonies 
 attending its introduction into Jerusalem require not 
 less than three crowded chapters of description and they 
 are fortified by dates, extended lists of proper names, 
 and even the form of service observed on the occasion 
 (i Chron. xiii., xv., xvi.). Four other chapters are 
 devoted to the classification of the Levites and their 
 assignment to appropriate duties in the temple service 
 (i Chron. xxiii.-xxvi.). In one instance (2 Chron. vii. 
 
 ^ " Ueberall," says Wellhausen, Geschichte, i. p. 223, " wird vorausgesetzt, dass 
 Israel wahrend der ganzen Konigzeit nach den zwolf Stammen organisirt gawesen sei; 
 bekanxuich ist dlese Voraussetzung grundfalsch."
 
 The Law and the Historical Books. 3 19 
 
 7-9) a direct effort seems to be made to harmonize 
 a statement of the earlier history (i Kings viii. 65 f.) 
 with the Mosaic law of the feast of tabernacles. 
 
 It is generally recognized, indeed, that a chief aim of 
 the compiler of Chronicles was no other than to direct 
 special attention to such periods and events in Israel- 
 itish history as would best illustrate the ceremonial lazv 
 and show what benefits had arisen from such obser- 
 vance. And the one circumstance that here chiefly 
 distinguishes the partisans of Graf and Wellhausen 
 from other scholars is that they regard this aim as 
 inconsistent with a truthful narrative ; look upon the 
 history in so far as it has this coloring and is controlled 
 by this purpose as pure fabrication. They not only 
 assert this in every form of emphatic declaration, but 
 carry it to the point of a contemptuous depreciation and 
 ridicule of the Chronicler.^ It is as precarious a pro- 
 cedure from a logical point of view as, we believe, it is 
 unjustified by the contents of the books. 
 
 It is well known that a principal reason given for 
 denying the existence of the ceremonial law previous 
 to the exile is the alleged silence of the historical books 
 concerning it. But here is a book that is full of refer- 
 ences to this law, makes it a direct object to emphasize 
 and honor it, and so restores the imperiled balance of 
 the biblical narrative. It provides the information we 
 were looking for. 
 
 The first intimation of the existence of the planet 
 Neptune came through the observed perturbations of 
 
 • " Die Chronik dagegen legt das Gesetz — und zwar im vollen Umfange das ganze pen- 
 tateuchische Gesetz, namcntlich den darin dominirendeii Priestercodex — nicht bloss ihrem 
 Urteil iiberdie Vergangenheit z\\ Grunde sondcrn diclitet aiich die Thatsachen in jcne 
 von jeher gultige Norm um und denkt sich das alte hebraischc Volk gcnau nacli dem 
 Muster der spateren jiidischen Gemeinde, als einheitlich geglicderte Hierokratie, mit 
 einem streng centralizirtcn Cultus von uniformer Legitimitat an der heiligen Stattc zu 
 Jerusalem." — See Wellhausen, ibid. p. 197.
 
 320 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 its companion planets. And mathematical reckonings, 
 on the basis of heaven's first law of order, won their 
 secret from the stars. So here, the Old Testament 
 history were an enigma unless Samuel and the Kings 
 have their complement in Chronicles. It must be a 
 very convincing argument, therefore, and one untainted 
 by the suspicion of ulterior aims, that can impeach the 
 authority of so opportune and reasonable a book. 
 
 To say that an historian cannot have a special point 
 of view and yet confine himself to facts is surely absurd. 
 To write history with a purely didactic purpose, singling 
 out events and characters best subserving that purpose, 
 is as legitimate an aim as any other. What higher use 
 can history have than to instruct us .-' In itself it 
 involves no distortion of the truth to display its different 
 aspects, as, for example, the four evangelists have done 
 in their fourfold narrative of the life of Jesus Christ. 
 And that the Chronicler, in view of the lack of promi- 
 nence given to the ceremonial law in other histories of 
 Israel, current then and since, should deliberately set 
 out with the object of supplementing them in this 
 respect is not only extremely natural, but it is highly 
 creditable to his judgment. 
 
 It cannot be denied that the work he produced is 
 based on original written documents, since he quotes 
 them by name. It cannot be denied that from a merely 
 historical standpoint, ecclesiasticism aside, his book is 
 of immense value. Many are the missing links which 
 we discover in his pages.^ Especially as it concerns 
 
 ' " He alone relates Asa's war with Zerah the Ethiopian (2 Chron. xiv. ) , the invasion of 
 Jerusalem by hordes of Philistines and Arabians in the time of Jehoram (2 Chron. xxi. 
 16 ff., important for the understanding of Obadiah, Joel, and Amos), the details of the 
 attack made upon Judah by leagued Syrians and Ephraimites (2 Chron. xxviii. 5, 16 f.), 
 the victory of Jehosaphat over the allied neighboring peoples (i Chron. xx., important 
 for the history of the Psalms). Through him we have fuller information respecting 
 Ziklag and Hebron as the starting-places of David's dominion (i Chron. xi., xiL). And
 
 TJie Lazv and the Historical Books. 3^1 
 
 our knowledge of the prophets, of whom we have so 
 little information from any quarter, is his work of rare 
 significance. Six of these devoted men, Oded, Azariah, 
 Hanani, Jahaziel son of Zechariah, Eliezer son of 
 Dodavah, Zechariah son of Jehoida, and their vast 
 influence on the affairs of their times would be 
 otherwise quite unknown to us.^ 
 
 One-sided, as it may be called, largely subjective in 
 character, stamped with the spirit and phraseology of 
 a later day, even sometimes tinged with extravagance 
 and hyperbole in its style, as every candid reader must 
 acknowledge, the work of the Chronicler is, notwith- 
 standing, a faithful documentary record. The discre- 
 pancies and contradictions which have been charged 
 against it may be readily explained from the peculiar 
 point of view of the compiler, or, in the case of 
 numbers and the like, from corruptions in the text. In 
 short, over against the strained efforts and uncritical 
 insinuations of Wellhausen, it will suffice to place the 
 recent opinion of August Dillmann, who will not be 
 suspected of being governed by the exigencies of a 
 theory. " Chronicles," he says,^ "is thoroughly reliable 
 history, being drawn from the official records of the 
 Israelites, which explains the numerous instances in 
 which it coincides, even verbally, with Kings ; and 
 where it differs in names, etc., can be explained by 
 textual corruptions either in Chronicles, Kings, or 
 their common source. But the point of view is priestly, 
 and therefore the author dwells at greater length upon 
 those features of the history which are ecclesiastical. 
 . . . The object of the writer was not so much to retell 
 
 of all that the better kings did for the cult, for popular instruction, for the administration 
 of justice and the defence of the empire, the knowledge derived from the Chronicles u 
 incomparably greater than from the Books of Samuel and Kings." — Franz DeliUsch, in 
 the Sunday-School Times for November 24, 1883. 
 
 1 Cf. Delitzsch, ibid. - Herzog's Encyk., ate Aufl., s.v. " Chronik."
 
 322 The Peiitate2ich: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 the story of Israel, as, from the rich historical stores at 
 his command, to select those portions which related 
 more particularly to the history of worship, in order to 
 demonstrate to his compatriots how precious this legacy 
 was, and how fundamental to the existence and pros- 
 perity of the new state arising from the ashes of the 
 old." 1 
 
 But let the argument from Chronicles, decisive as it 
 must be regarded, be for the present waived ; the 
 remaining historical books, without the support of that 
 one which seems to have been especially charged with 
 the service, offer sufficient evidence that they were 
 antedated by all the Pentateuch codes in all their 
 essential features. 
 
 Attention is invited, in the first place, to the peculiar 
 moral atmosphere in which the history moves and its 
 one invariable point of view. It is the more significant 
 that, to such an extent, it must be recognized as an 
 environment, something that cannot be accounted for 
 simply by the letter of the text, that cannot be con- 
 jured away by changes in the text. Just as, for 
 example, in the history of our own country written 
 subsequent to the Revolution, or the civil conflict of 
 twenty years ago, one might expect to find a tacit 
 recognition of these overshadowing events in the point 
 of view of a writer of later American history, a tone 
 and spirit discovering itself in the %vay he writes, 
 though never definitely expressed in %vJiat Jte ivrites ; 
 so in the history of Israel, we may look for something 
 answering to this after such momentous national crises 
 as the giving of the Law and the subsequent entrance 
 of Israel as a commonwealth of priests upon the 
 
 1 Cf. Strack, in Zockler's Handbuch, etc. p. 163, and Brown, in the Andover RevieiB 
 for April, 1884, " The Books of Chronicles," etc.
 
 The Law and the Historical Boohs, 323 
 
 promised possession of Canaan. And we shall not 
 look in vain. 
 
 Observe the general plan on which the Books of 
 Judges, Samuel, and the Kings were conceived and 
 constructed as a whole. They are closely connected 
 histories. First Samuel begins where the Book of 
 Judges leaves off, and evidently the choice and shaping 
 of the material of the former book were with definite 
 reference to the latter, to which it appears as a sequel. 
 The same is true of the Books of Kings in relation to 
 Samuel. There is a clear purpose and a unity of 
 purpose throughout. Like the plant that takes its pre- 
 destined shape while the law and forces of its growth 
 are out of sight, the material of these books assumed 
 its present form, both in general and particular, in 
 obedience to certain fixed ideas which are presupposed 
 rather than announced ; or, are largely presupposed as 
 well as, now and then, announced. An impression is 
 carried along from chapter to chapter which is as real 
 as the aroma of a flower and almost as intangible. 
 
 It is something of which the historian assumes his 
 readers to be as conscious as he himself is. His tone 
 is never apologetic. His object is never entertainment. 
 He seems always to state facts with a view to enforcing 
 them. The narrative is in no case a bare record of 
 events. It is pragmatical, didactic throughout. Just 
 like the Book of Genesis and only in a less degree 
 just like the Books of Chronicles, it is made use of as 
 the channel for a higher truth, which, after all, is under- 
 stood to be the principal truth. To fa'.l to recognize 
 this, indeed, woulil be to lose the key to the history. 
 One may call it an ethical coloring, or a theocratic bias, 
 or what he will, but the influence is always there. It 
 makes the impression upon us of something like a
 
 324 TJic Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 judicial process. The historian is giving in his 
 testimony. To hear it is to decide at once upon its 
 bearing.! 
 
 Israel appears everywhere as the one chosen people 
 sustaining peculiar relations to Jehovah and owing him 
 peculiar duties. There is a solidarity of interests and 
 of responsibility. A common and universal obligation 
 is recognized. A silent appeal is taken to an assumed 
 standard. Each new character as he appears is faith- 
 fully judged by it, and finds his place accordingly among 
 the noble or ignoble of the historic line. 
 
 How emphatically is this true in the lives of 
 Samuel, Saul, and David and the story of their mutual 
 relationships ! The weightier factor in their histories 
 .is the one out of sight. No handwriting on the wall is 
 needed to inform us of the first king of Israel that he 
 has been weighed in the balances and found wanting. 
 There is a line of conduct that is at once felt to be con- 
 sonant with the principles that, from beginning to end, 
 govern in the composition. There is another line of 
 conduct, and it may be even the prevailing one, that is 
 felt to be out of harmony with those principles, betrays 
 a hateful dissonance not only with them, but with what 
 are supposed to be the better sympathies of the reader. 
 
 But, as I have said, we are not left simply to infer 
 what the point of view of these books is, most impor- 
 tant as that which is to be inferred from their structure 
 and uniform coloring must be regarded in our discus- 
 sion ; it is also written boldly out in the history and 
 even defined by positive statements. And though such 
 
 * Cf. Conder, The Origin of the Hebreiu Religion, p. 13 f.: " The feature of the 
 Old Testament we have been considering is not peculiar to Genesis or to the Pentateuch. 
 It pervades the Hebrew Scriptures. It is not that history is tiiade the ?nediu»i oj 
 religious instruction. That would be a most narrow and mistaken view of the matter. It 
 is that religion is shown as the soul of history ; the supreme reality and central power in 
 humaa affairs; the deepest foundation of human life."
 
 The Law and the Historical Books. 325 
 
 statements may be relatively few, like the particles of 
 iron in the spring, the whole current of the narrative 
 has been impregnated and tinctured by them. The 
 Book of Judges, for example, opens with a detailed 
 review of the causes that produced the desperate state 
 of things it is led to describe ; why after Moses and 
 Joshua there should arise such men as Jcphthah 
 and Samson ; after organization and law, misrule 
 and anarchy. There had been wholesale defection. A 
 o^eneration had arisen which " knew not the Lord nor 
 yet the works which he had done for Israel " (Judges 
 ii. 10). There are, naturally, tribal difficulties. Evi- 
 dences of a very imperfect civilization are not sup- 
 pressed. The great mistake and the great crime, 
 however, is everywhere stamped as apostasy. The 
 people, it is true, are not disintegrated altogether. 
 Sometimes they even act as the " congregation of the 
 Lord" in the spirit of the Mosaic institutions (Judges 
 xix.-xxi.) ; but the leaven of transgression had every- 
 where left its mark. They had forsaken, it is said, 
 " the Lord God of their fathers who brought them out 
 of the land of Egypt" (ii. 12). They had "provoked" 
 the Lord and his anger was hot against them. They 
 had " turned out of the way " in which their fathers 
 had walked. They " ceased not from their own doing, 
 nor from their stubborn way." They had "transgressed 
 the covenant" of God which he had "commanded their 
 fathers " (ii. passim). There can be no doubt, in short, 
 how the writer of the Book of Judges regarded the 
 people of Israel even in that early age : they were, in 
 his eyes, a race of backsliders. They had consciously 
 lapsed from acknowledged standards and been faithless 
 to solemn vows. And their sins are with him just as 
 much sins of folly and wilfulness, are painted every
 
 326 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 whit as black as are those of a Jeroboam or a 
 Manasseh in the later books. 
 
 Moreover, we are not obliged to change our position 
 as we move down into the Books of Samuel and the 
 Kings. We not only feel that we are in the same 
 atmosphere, but whenever the history speaks, it is in 
 the same ground-tone. Samuel succeeds to Eli and his 
 unfaithful sons, for the alleged reason that they fall 
 below the standard which, as they well know, God has 
 set for them. The warm friendship springing up at 
 first between the prophet Samuel and the youthful 
 king of goodly stature is changed later to estrangement, 
 not because of merely personal differences, but because 
 of the king's failure to respond to certain moral obliga- 
 tions to which it is assumed that prophet and king are 
 equally amenable. " And Samuel said unto Saul, 
 'Thou hast rejected the word of the Lord^ and the 
 Lord hath rejected thee.' . . . And Samuel came no 
 more to see Saul until the day of his death ; neverthe- 
 less, Samuel mourned for Saul " (i Sam. xv. 26, 35). 
 
 What is it that so sharpens the contrast between Saul 
 and David, leads the historian to dwell with evident 
 relish on some peculiar incidents in the latter's history } 
 He sees in him a worthier instrument of the Provi- 
 dential purpose. David recognizes a divine order of 
 things in Israel and bows to it. In his earliest public 
 appearance as the champion of his brethren against 
 Goliath his significant language is : " Who is this 
 uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies 
 of the living God .'' " And again, later : "Thou comest 
 to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield ; 
 but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts, 
 the God of the armies of Israel whom thou hast defied " 
 
 ^ The " word of tke Lord " here, be it observed, is in the form of a Pentateuch law (cf. 
 Deut. XXT. 17-ij).
 
 TJie Laxv and the Historical Books. 327 
 
 (i Sam. xvii. 26, 45). It is much that this language 
 says ; it is still more that it suggests. 
 
 So when he flees from the fury of Saul, it is to 
 Samuel that he resorts and unbosoms himself (i Sam. 
 xix. 18). On another occasion it is to the priest Abim- 
 elech that he escapes from the dangers that environ 
 him at court (i Sam. xxi. 2). Later, the prophet Gad 
 directs his flight (i Sam. xxii. 5). And in still another 
 emergency he unites with his the fortunes of the priest 
 Abiathar {ibid. vs. 20), 
 
 This power behind the throne in Israel, how noticea- 
 bly it shows itself and how sympathetically throughout 
 the life of David ! And when led of God, he finally 
 goes up to Hebron to be crowned, his first thought, as 
 king of a reunited j^eople, is for the neglected ark at 
 Kirjath-jearim. In his palace of cedar, too, and amidst 
 the almost ideal glory that crowned the closing period 
 of his reign of forty years, it is solicitude for the tem- 
 ple, the Deuteronomic conception of a worthy sanctuary 
 for the God of Israel, that prompts his highest efforts. 
 
 Much has been made of the strong Davidic coloring 
 which, as all must acknowledge, has been given to these 
 standard histories of Samuel and the Kings. But in 
 no merely partisan import are they Davidic. There 
 breathes quite another spirit in them than that of hero- 
 worship. They are Davidic because David was Israel- 
 itic in the historic and highest sense ; because he made 
 so largely his goal that which, if the history be true, 
 was also the goal of every godly priest, prophet, and 
 loyal son of Abraham, naturally, not excepting the one 
 who penned the records. They are Davidic because 
 the David of the history is the David of the Psalter, 
 to whom "the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing 
 the heart " (xix. 9). 
 
 So, too, when the affairs of the disrupted kingdom
 
 328 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 pass under review, we are left in just as little uncer- 
 tainty respecting the attitude of the historian. What- 
 ever different hands may, supposably, from first to last, 
 have been engaged on the composition, there is but one 
 point of view discoverable in its present form. The 
 change of dynasties, the love or the hate of kings, the 
 devotion or the disgust of a fickle people work no alter- 
 ation in that. To do evil in the sight of the Lord and 
 to do right in his sight have not, severally, one sense in 
 Solomon's day and another in Ahab's or Josiah's or 
 Zedekiah's. Whatever charges may be laid against the 
 responsible historian of i and 2 Kings, a want of con- 
 sistency in his historical judgment concerning public 
 men and public events cannot be made one of them. 
 To the standard by which, for example, he tries the 
 principles of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who caused 
 Israel to sin, he is undeviatingly true to the end. 
 
 With peculiar interest he seems to linger on the 
 description of the temple and the services of dedica- 
 tion. He prefers to speak of the life of Solomon when 
 it is at its best ; but he disguises nothing. He tells 
 also of his love for strange women, his idolatry and 
 moral degeneracy. He knows how to discriminate in 
 men's conduct between what is really good and what is 
 only relatively so. " Jehoash," he says, "did what was 
 right ^ in the sight of the Lord all his days wherein 
 Jehoida the priest instructed him. But the high-places 
 were not taken away" (2 Kings xii. 3, 4). Amaziah 
 " did what was right in the sight of the Lord, yet not 
 like David his father ; he did according to all things as 
 Joash his father did. But the high-places were not 
 taken away " {ibid. xiv. 3). 
 
 And when the culmination of calamity finally comes 
 
 ' This expression, so frequent in Kings, appears to be derived from Deuteronomy (xii 
 28; xiii. 18, 19, and often), and in both books seems to imply a legal standard.
 
 The Law and the Historical Books. 329 
 
 to the northern kingdom, it is only in harmony with his 
 position from the beginning that he makes it the 
 occasion for showing that it is the predicted and 
 natural result of forbidden courses, the lightning-stroke 
 which the people and their rulers had themselves chal- 
 lenged. " In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of 
 Assyria took Samaria and carried Israel away into 
 Assyria " (2 Kings xvii. 6). " And it was so because 
 the children of Israel had sinned against the Lord their 
 God who had brought them out of the land of Egypt " 
 (vs. 7). They "would not hear, but hardened their 
 necks, like the neck of their fathers" (vs. 13, 14). 
 " And they rejected his statutes and his covenant which 
 he made with their fathers " (vs. 15). "Therefore the 
 Lord was very angry with Israel and removed them out 
 of his sight : there was none left but the tribe of Judah 
 only" (vs. 18). And then, attesting his impartiality, 
 proving that it is from no merely partisan or Judaistic 
 standpoint that he speaks, he frankly adds : " And 
 Judah kept not the commandents of the Lord their 
 God ; but walked in the statutes of Israel which they 
 made " (vs. 19). 
 
 There is no need of further illustration. No one 
 will attempt to dispute either the uniformity or the 
 definiteness of the moral lesson which has been 
 emblazoned on the historical books of the Old Testa- 
 ment. None can doubt what impression the one 
 historian, or the historians many, meant to make, and 
 to make powerful and deep, upon the Israel of their 
 time. The one indictment of their countrymen under 
 many charges is for apostasy ; the one summons 
 amidst a multitude of voiced or unvoiced appeals along 
 the whole line is to repentance and reform. 
 
 What, now, have the critics who concede no written
 
 330 The PentateiLch : Its Ongin and Structure. 
 
 law to Israel before the close of the seventh century to 
 say concerning it ? It is just what we should expect 
 to find on the supposition, and only on the supposition, 
 that something answering to the alleged institutions 
 of Moses arose in the age of Moses. I do not say 
 that, of itself, it proves their existence then in their 
 present Pentateuch form. For that other facts will 
 be found to vouch. But until itself disproved, it does 
 prove the reality of a Mosaic era and a paramount 
 Pentateuch influence, if one may so speak, in the 
 shaping of the historic Israel. It is safe to infer the 
 fountain from the stream. And to the same degree, 
 on the other hand, it serves to disprove the rise of 
 essential Mosaism in any period subsequent to that 
 which we have passed in review. 
 
 The issue, therefore, is plainly before us. How is it 
 met by the champions of what is called " scientific " 
 criticism .-' Not, by any means, by a denial of the testi- 
 mony, at least in its general tenor and outline. It is 
 rather by an unwarranted attack on the character of the 
 witness. The text, it is said, which gives us these 
 results is far from trustworthy. Much of it is purely 
 mythical, especially that of Judges ; while the best of 
 it is of a composite character in which old and new, 
 good and bad, are everywhere almost inextricably 
 commingled. It is the critic, it will be observed, the 
 advocate, who constitutes himself also the supreme 
 judge to decide, at sight, what is real and what is false, 
 what is in place and what is out of place. He asks for 
 no consensus of opinions. He quotes nobody. He 
 expects his ex catJiedrd judgment to be accepted. ^ 
 
 ^Cf. Dwinell, in Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1884, p. 340 f. : " Everything in the histor- 
 ical books, as we have them, from the time of Moses down, which conflicts with this 
 theory, and which intimates the necessity of one place of worship or the existence of a 
 ()riesthood as a separate order from the Levites, is therefore summarily branded as of later
 
 * The Law and the Historical Books. 331 
 
 He is modest enough, however — or is it some other 
 motive than self-distrust that prompts him ? — to 
 acknowledge that sometimes even he is at a loss. The 
 fabric has been too cunningly woven even for him. 
 The rotten thread of imposture is there, he affirms, 
 to vitiate the stock ; but it cannot with certainty 
 always be disentangled and removed. 
 
 Suppose that we object to such a course of reasoning 
 as both unscientific and unhistorical. Suppose that we 
 point to the fatal results of it in the discredit that 
 is brought upon the only supposed reliable history of 
 Israel that the critics have left to us. Suppose, espe- 
 cially, that we bewail the violence that is thereby done 
 to what may be termed the sacred element in the 
 ancient Scriptures. The criticism of Julius Well- 
 origin and set aside from being evidence in the case. And it is the high function of his- 
 torical criticism to go through the nominal records of those ancient times, assort their 
 contents, .^nd declare authoritatively when the several parts were written, what portions 
 were original and what interpolations — a task which is not so difficult as it might seem 
 to be, inasmuch as each part must have been written, it is assumed, at a time when it 
 would dovetail in with the stage of religious knowledge which the theory accords to the 
 people at that period. The method and rate of religious progress are assumed, and the 
 facts are interpreted under that, instead of inferring the method and rate of religious 
 progress from the historical records as they have come down to us. The history must be 
 assorted and adapted to the theory of progress, rather than the theory of progress shaped 
 to the history. This makes the task comparatively easy, and at the same time proclaims 
 the greatness and sagacity of the historical critic." Again, p. 347: " Moreover, they 
 are involved in another difficulty. By discarding the account in the historical books 
 detailing the practice of the ceremoni.al in the early times, and holding that it sprang up 
 under the influence of the prophets, they have this strange phenomenon on their hands: 
 ilic introduction among a historical people of a revolutionary ritualism, not only with no 
 record of its introduction, and in an age showing no signs of invention or creation apart 
 from the prophets, whose influence was in another direction, but with no recorded 
 historical preparations for it. It sprang fuUgrown into power, not like Minerva out of 
 the brain of Jupiter, but out of the womb of historical night and nothingness, historically 
 unannounced, uncaused; and it sprang into such instant dazzling and bewildering 
 influence as to send its glamour back over the past and cause a new history of the pre- 
 ceding times to be written in which it should have the appearance of all the gravity and 
 dignity of hoary age. And this is done in the name of historical criticism, by those who 
 think that sacred history is an orderly and natural flow of events, and is to be explained 
 on rational principles; discrediting the records we have of the antecedents of ritualism, 
 they bring it in at a bound as a new creation, and with such a weird, supernatural power 
 as to charm all the historical records into a false representation of its antiquity! This 
 is another instance of facility of credulity in those who lack faith."
 
 332 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 hausen and his asssociates is appalled by no ajDpari- 
 tions of evil that it has conjured up. If it feel a 
 reverence for theocratic institutions and the hand of 
 God in history, it betrays little. It is the very religious 
 element in the records that is stigmatized as most com- 
 pletely spurious. It is the very man who says such 
 sharp things about apostasy, is continually recalling 
 the covenant and other exodus experiences, and has the 
 name of the God of Israel oftenest on his lips, who is 
 pronounced the greatest hypocrite of all. It is he who 
 has put the simple facts and characters of an uncertain 
 period in a Deuteronomic or exilian uniform and made 
 them do battle for ideas that are really foreign to them. 
 It would be scarcely possible, in short, to exaggerate 
 the stains of corruption which Wellhausen and his 
 co-laborers find penetrating the records in every signifi- 
 cant part. The unity of Israel, for example, of which 
 so much is made in the books, is, as he alleges, but a 
 theoretic unity, invented to base upon it the notion of 
 a theocracy. In the genuine tradition it did not exist, 
 but only in the devised one. At the bottom of a 
 false continuity, there lies a false generalization. Even 
 the necessary sins, it is claimed, have been artfully 
 provided to meet the exigencies of an artfully concocted 
 religious narrative.^ Of the account of the repentance 
 of Israel at Mizpeh in response to the appeals of 
 Samuel, where they are said to have put away Baalim 
 and Ashtaroth to serve the Lord only (i Sam, vii. 3 ff.), 
 Wellhausen declares that there is not a " true word in 
 it." It was fabricated with a motive and that motive 
 was to idealize Samuel. This prophet was esteemed a 
 pattern saint (Jen xv. i). What more natural than 
 that he should be assigned the chief place in the 
 
 1 Geschichte, i. p. 243 f.
 
 The Law and the Historical Books. 333 
 
 theocracy, that is, in that religious commonwealth into 
 which the later Judaism deftly transmogrified its earlier 
 counterpart. Actual theocracy there was none ; it had 
 been introduced bodily into the history by revision. 
 Grace and guilt are there made to play their part in the 
 course of events like mechanical forces. Its super- 
 naturalism is simple pedantry ; its characters and its 
 admonitions are holy or otherwise, "according to 
 receipt." Nothing of the kind, we may be sure, 
 existed in the original narrative. In that, Israel 
 appeared just like any other ancient people.^ 
 
 To a logic of this sort we know of no surer or 
 speedier antidote than to display it. The critic resorts 
 to a veritable coup de grace ; he settles the question by 
 removing it outside the domain of discussion for believ- 
 ing men. Among the circle of readers to whom this 
 series of papers will come it would certainly occur to 
 very few to hesitate between even the extreme posi- 
 tions of the old theology and the alternative which is 
 here presented. 
 
 Attention is invited, accordingly, in the second place, 
 to the uniformity of what may be called fundamental 
 religious ideas as they appear in the historical books, 
 when compared with those of the Pentateuch and of 
 the prophets. They show no break in the continuity. 
 The potential factors of the sacred history are equally 
 those of the lawgiver and of the seer, who is supposed 
 to have been a law unto himself. It is an extraordinary 
 circumstance if the criticism we are criticizing, what- 
 ever its method, has reached just conclusions. 
 
 Its claim is that the Lsraelitish religion is but one 
 of the principal ancient religions, having a like origin 
 and governed by precisely similar laws of growth. Its 
 
 ' Ibid. p. 259 f., 245 fl".
 
 334 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure, 
 
 alleged particular election is an untenable hypothesis. 
 There is nothing whatever supernatural about it. In 
 fact, this i^eople was but one of the several Hebrew 
 tribes that pressed into Canaan. After bitter conflicts, 
 on the principle of the survival of the fittest, it came, 
 finally, to absorb and dominate the rest. It has no 
 actual history, save from the period of the judges. 
 Its beginnings were as rude as the rudest. Its God, 
 Jehovah, was, at first, a tribal deity only, holding to 
 Israel simply the relation that a Chemosh did to the 
 Moabites. Sacred stones and trees long continued 
 to be worshiped without a suspicion of wrongdoing. 
 Gradually by a peculiar reversal of moral outlook what 
 had been the sanctioned and legitimate was stigmatized 
 as idolatrous and criminal. The principal agents in 
 this revolution were the prophets of the eighth century 
 and their successors. So-called Mosaic institutions are 
 the post-exilian blossom of a very small Mosaic germ 
 which it is not easy to trace beyond the period of the 
 earlier kings. ^ 
 
 Such is the theory. Plausible it surely is per se, that 
 is, ignoring the historical books as history and admit- 
 ting them only as half-mythical stories such as the 
 beginnings of other religions show. It falls in with 
 popular ideas and current tendencies of thought. But 
 the point to be determined is, Does it harmonize with 
 the facts ? Does it fit the records of the biblical books 
 as we have them .'' or can it, without positive violence, 
 be adjusted to them ? The test we are now to apply is 
 a perfectly fair one and, in its sphere, may be regarded 
 as decisive. Were the ruling ideas of the prophets by 
 which they are supposed to have revolutionized the 
 religion of Israel original and elemental with them .-' or 
 
 1 Cf. Kueiien, V'/w Rcligiiui of Israel, i. Introd. and chaps, i., iv., v; Diihm, Dil 
 Theologie dcr Prophetoi, Prolegom. etc.; Stade, GeschicJitcd. Volkes Is., p. 127 ff.
 
 TJie Laiv and the Historical Books. 335 
 
 were they, in kind, also regarded as fundamental in 
 the Patriarchal and royal periods ? 
 
 Take, for example, the doctrine that God is one. Is 
 there any evidence whatever that the Jewish people 
 were at any time anything else, ideally, than monothe- 
 ists ? Isaiah represents the God of Israel as saying, 
 " I am the first, and I the last ; and beside me there is 
 no God " (Is. xliv. 6). How does that differ in senti- 
 ment from the great announcement which prefaces the 
 Decalogue : " Thou shalt have no other gods before 
 me " ? It is but an echo of Moses' words in the land 
 of Moab : " Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one 
 Lord " (Deut. vi. 4) ! " The Lord he is God ; there is 
 none else beside him. The Lord he is God in heaven 
 above and upon the earth beneath" (Deut. iv, 35, 39). 
 And the whole history moves on the same level. That 
 there was an ugly trend toward idolatry for nearly a 
 thousand years is not denied ; no effort is made by any 
 biblical writer to conceal the fact. It is clear, however, 
 that it generally took the form of a false worship of 
 Jehovah rather than of a direct worship of other deities ; 
 it was a transgression of the second commandment 
 rather than of the first. There were, it is true, idola- 
 ters of a grosser sort ; another Israel within Israel, 
 which dropped down to the plane of all that was base 
 in the surrounding heathenism. It is shown as well by 
 the strenuousness of reiterated prohibitions, as by the 
 details of the narrative. But, unless the whole repre- 
 sentation of the historical books is false to the core, 
 the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he who deliv- 
 ered from Egyptian oppression, carried Israel as on 
 eagle's wings during the wanderings of the wilderness, 
 dispossessed the Canaanites, alternately punished and 
 delivered the redeemed w:'-'- w in its carher lapses,
 
 33^ The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Stnictuf^. 
 
 raised up and stood by his servant Samuel, so that he 
 appears almost like a heavenly apparition on the sacred 
 page, was the glory and reward of such reigns as those 
 of David, Asa, and Josiah, as he was the terror of such 
 as Saul's, Jeroboam's, and Ahab's, was, from beginning 
 to end, one and the same God, not less in the deeper 
 consciousness of the people of Israel than in that of 
 their teachers and leaders. 
 
 Moreover, this one God is represented everywhere as 
 the only one of his kind, the God, the omnipotent, the 
 eternal, the holy God, Creator, and universal Governor. 
 There may be a difference of emphasis as one rises 
 from the phraseology of the Law and the relative calm- 
 ness of the historian to the impassioned fervor of pro- 
 phet and poet ; but there is no difference in the essential 
 point of view. There is nowhere discoverable, from first 
 to last, a stage of transition, or any actual traces of one, 
 where the idea of the alleged national God is found 
 passing over into that of the supreme God. It appears 
 nowhere as a mere adumbration, but always full-orbed 
 and complete. Let the improbability, for example, be 
 assumed that some post-exilian scribe stamped on the 
 first verse of the Bible the great and many-sided 
 thought : " In the beginning God created the heavens 
 and the earth." We hear, too, the devout Hannah, at 
 the time when Israel was just emerging from the politi- 
 cal chaos which followed the conquest, echoing it in 
 her prayer : *' The pillars of the earth are Jehovah's, and 
 he hath set the world upon them" (r Sam. ii. 8). It is 
 Isaiah, it is true, who suggests that there is but ' one 
 answer to the inquiry : " Who hath created these 
 things that bring out their host by number ? " (xl, 26). 
 But the so-called Jehovistic narrator of Genesis (xviii. 
 14), in the breadth of his representation surely puts
 
 The Law and the Historical Books. 337 
 
 himself close beside him in the question : " Is there 
 anything too hard for Jehovah ? " 
 
 We are told that it was with the later prophets that 
 the notion of the divine holiness had its origin and that 
 monotheism itself, in its best sense, was but a fruit oi 
 their peculiarly ethical conception of the divine nature.^ 
 Yet it is in the alleged earliest document of the Pen- 
 tateuch (Ex. xix. 6, that is, JE) that God is made to say to 
 Israel : " Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, 
 and an holy nation." It is there that we find the 
 sentiment worthy of the period of Israel's spiritual 
 bloom : " Who is like thee, O Lord, among the gods ? 
 Who is like thee glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, 
 doing wonders?" (Ex. xv. 11). And it can have been 
 only a deep consciousness of this same awful attribute 
 vof the God he served that lent its mysterious power to 
 the finger of the prophet Nathan when he confronted 
 the guilty David (2 Sam. xii. 7), and that gave its 
 keenest barb to Elijah's challenge of Ahab : " I have 
 not troubled Israel ; but thou and thy father's house, in 
 that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord 
 and gone after Baals " (i Kings xviii. 18).^ 
 
 So, too, as it respects the matter of worship through 
 images, the effort to show that there was a gradual 
 development in the historic Israel from mere fetishism 
 up to the spiritual representations of an Isaiah (xxxi. 
 3), based on such facts as the Ark of the Covenant 
 with its cherubim, circumcision, the dedication of the 
 first-born, and such anomalies as the worship of Aaron's 
 golden calf, the use of cphod, teraphim, and the like,^ 
 fails, not alone in view of the direct prohibition of the 
 second commandment, but of the inability of anybody 
 
 * See Kuenen, The Religion of Is., i. p. 43 IT. 
 
 2 Cf. also a portion of Solomon's prayer of dedication (i Kings viii. 31, 32). 
 
 3 Kuenen, ilu'ci. i. chap. iv.
 
 338 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 to point to a single instance in the history where visible 
 representations of the Deity are actually approved by 
 responsible leaders or even seem to be in harmony 
 with the deeper religious feeling of Israel. 
 
 Nothing could be more unfair than to infer the ideal 
 aims of any people simply from what was more or less 
 customary in it, much less from what is claimed by 
 every historical writer to be irregular in its customs. 
 It was left, indeed, to the Master to make the sublime 
 announcement that God is a spirit and that they who 
 worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. 
 This sentiment, however, was no novelty of the 
 Christian era. It was born in no bitter experiences of 
 the exile. It is found already in the code of Deuteron- 
 omy, written as with a pen of iron (xii. 2-4, 29, 30; cf. 
 iv. 15-19; vii. 5, 25, 26; XX. 18). It is displayed, as a 
 jewel on its foil, against the dark background of Israel's 
 earlier Canaantish history. Gideon made an ephod of 
 the people's ornaments ; but mark the characterization 
 of it ! It became a " snare " and its service was looked 
 upon as spiritual adultery (Judges viii. 24-27). A simi- 
 lar device of Micah is stigmatized as a thing, a graven 
 image {Judges xvii. 4), and the reverence shown it 
 stamped as an abnormity of a lawless age and a positive 
 antagonizing of the worship of the Lord before the ark 
 at Shiloh (Judges xviii. 31). 
 
 The candor of the historian supplies us, also, with 
 the information that King Solomon erected a high- 
 place to Chemosh, the " abomination of the Moabites " 
 (i Kings xi. 7). But we do not need to be informed 
 that it is the lapsed Solomon. It is he who at an 
 earlier period had given expression to the thought: 
 " Will God, indeed, dwell on the earth } Behold the 
 heaven of heavens cannot contain thee, how much less 
 this house which I have builded " (i Kings viii. 27).
 
 The Law n.if .// ■ llistjrical Books. 33Q 
 
 The better moral sentiment of Israel on this subject 
 during the period of the earlier kings, is well voiced in 
 that masterpiece of the Chokma literature, the Book 
 of Job. " If," says this writer, " I saw the sunlight 
 when it beamed forth and the moon walking in bright- 
 ness and my heart was secretly befooled and I kissed 
 my hand to them : that, too, would have heen a punish- 
 able offence ; for I should have played the hypocrite 
 before God on high" (Job xxxi. 26-28). It is equally 
 so, in the evident abhorrence which Jeroboam's legend 
 for his golden calves at Bethel awakened, as far as we 
 know, in every Jewish writer of his and subsequent 
 biblical times : " Behold thy gods, Israel, which brought 
 thee up out of the land of Egypt " (i Kings xii. 28). 
 How confidently, moreover, this narrator relied on 
 the enlightened moral sense of his countrymen in this 
 characterization of the Egyptianized king of Israel, 
 and how far he is from showing himself a merely parti- 
 san historiographer of the southern kingdom, appears 
 in his bold appeal to numerous other facts in the civil 
 policy of Jeroboam, not one of which had any pertinence 
 except as he himself truly represented the course of 
 Israelitish history and spoke from the standpoint of 
 the long ago chosen people (i Kings xii. 31-33; xiii.). 
 
 But there is another phenomenon of the Israelitish 
 religion clearly witnessed to by the history in common 
 with the Law and the Prophets to which attention should 
 be called in this connection : it is the universality of 
 its outlook from the start. Its genius might be said to 
 be particularism. Selection and election mark its 
 career from its patriarchal ancestry downward. It is 
 never concealed, however, that the particular is for the 
 general ; the redeemed nation the unit of a redeemed 
 world.
 
 340 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Strncttif^. 
 
 It is claimed, now, and must, on their principles, 
 necessarily be claimed, by the advocates of a merely 
 natural evolution of Israel's history, that this element of 
 universalism is a product of the prophetic period. It is 
 held that before the time of Micah and Isaiah Israel's 
 religious hope and aspiration were shut up within the 
 narrow horizon of the nation politically considered. 
 Largely indebted to their matchless prophets, 
 especially the later ones, for their marvelous perspec- 
 tive, it is freely confessed that this people undoubtedly 
 was. If these men outgrew the name, they never out- 
 grew the prerogative, of seers. They vaulted at a 
 bound intervening centuries and seemed to apprehend 
 not a little of the breadth of that most universal and 
 most characteristic of Christian petitions : " Thy king- 
 dom come"! Still Jews, and in their little rocky 
 home-land burning with a patriotism which no trials 
 could quench, they also spoke jubilantly of a common- 
 wealth of nations, a universal empire of righteousness 
 and peace, where the ransomed of the Lord should 
 return to Zion and sorrow and sighing should flee 
 away. 
 
 Our grandest Christian enterprises, in fact, still run 
 in prophetic grooves. It is not St. John and St. Paul 
 who are the patrons of modern missions, but rather 
 the rapt Isaiah. It is his bugle that still, to-day, rallies 
 and guides the march of the militant host. And as, 
 sometimes, there are stars which refuse to be obscured, 
 making themselves manifest even through the splendor 
 of a noonday sun, so there are passages in this and 
 other prophets so luminous with heavenly hope that, 
 not alone in the gloom of Africa or the twilight of the 
 older civilizations, but at the very focus of Christian 
 civilization and enlightenment, they serve as beacons 
 of inspiration and encouragement.
 
 The Lazv and iJic Historical Books. 341 
 
 It is true also, as has been already said, that both the 
 earlier and later Israel — though rather the later than 
 the earlier — -has been marked by a peculiar isolation. 
 It has been the gulf stream of human society, although 
 with little of its tropic warmth. Balaam's prediction 
 concerning it has been literally verified to our day. It 
 has been a people that has dwelt alone and has not 
 been reckoned among the nations (Num. xxiii. 9). 
 Still, these facts, so far from furnishing a reason for 
 denying the stamp of universalism that has been put 
 upon the institutions and history of Israel throughout, 
 serve rather to display it, on the one hand, by a marked 
 coincidence ; on the other, by as marked a contrast. It 
 is not needful to recall our Lord's words to his Jewish 
 cqntemporaries : " Your father, Abraham, rejoiced to 
 see my day ; and he saw it, and was glad " (John viii. 
 56). The same truth is more than foreshadowed in 
 numerous passages in Genesis (xviii. 18; xxii. 18; 
 xxvi, 4). While it was in this father of Israel that the 
 high-water mark of national election was reached, it is 
 to him also that we may especially look for evidence 
 that such election was a means, had an application that 
 reached to the utmost limits of the pagan world. If, 
 for reasons that are obvious,^ the principle of universal- 
 ism, the thought of the Psalmist, " The kingdom is the 
 Lord's, and he is the Governor among the nations " 
 (xxii. 29), was, at first, to some extent kept in abeyance, 
 its existence and wide potentiality are undeniable. 
 
 If, for instance, there could be found no other 
 justification for what are termed, in our day, "home 
 missions," a sufficient one might be found in the primi- 
 tive customs and codes of Israel. There was never a 
 time when others than Israelites were not, by con- 
 
 ' Such as the inarkctl isolation of peoples generally in the earlier periods, and especially 
 the antagonistic attitude alniost universally taken toward Israel,
 
 34- The PoitatciicJi, : Its Origin and Strncture. 
 
 version and religious assimilation, becoming embodied 
 with the Jewish people. No other nation of antiquity- 
 had such kindly and humane laws respecting the 
 " strangers " who found refuge among them. They 
 begin in Exodus (xx. lo; xxii. 20, the "Book of the 
 Covenant "), and they make a feature of the Deuteron- 
 omic code scarcely second to any other. Long before 
 Micah's startling announcements and Isaiah's visions, 
 we find in many a biblical writer a breadth of concep- 
 tion concerning Israel's future, and a beginning made 
 in what may be called her foreign-missionary work, that 
 are certainly not unworthy of the prophetic climax. 
 
 Leaving out of view the far-reaching predictions of 
 the dying patriarchs and other similar indications of 
 Israel's earlier attitude toward the nations, it is the 
 mother of Samuel whose song, echoed in the magnificat 
 of Mary the blessed, exalts Jehovah as the judge of the 
 ends of the earth, before whom the heavens thunder 
 and his enemies lick the dust (i Sam. ii. 10). Solomon, 
 in his prayer of dedication, where, if anywhere, it might 
 be expected that the sentiment of political and religious 
 centralization would find place, bethinks himself also 
 of the stranger out of a far country, "when he shall 
 come and pray toward this house." He pleads : " Hear 
 then in heaven thy dwelling-place, and do according to 
 all that the stranger calleth to thee for : tJiat all the 
 people of the earth may knozv thy name to fear thee as 
 do thy people IsraeV\\ Kings viii. 42, 43 ; cf. vs. 60). 
 And it may be looked upon as an historical reflection 
 of this petition that it is recorded that when the Queen 
 of Sheba came to "hear the wisdom of Solomon," she 
 was also led to magnify the Lord his God, and to 
 confess that the Lord had " ever loved Israel " (i Kings 
 X. 9). The most moving picture, perhaps, in the great
 
 The Lata and the Historical Books. 343 
 
 career of the prophet Elijah is that of his friendly 
 ministrations to the impoverished Canaanitish widow 
 of Zarephath. Among the most significant acts of 
 Elisha were the healing of Naaman the Syrian and the 
 fore-announcement to Hazael of Damascus, the future 
 scourge of Israel, of his elevation to the throne (2 Kings 
 viii. 7-15). Prophecy is not less prophetic because it 
 shows itself in action as well as in speech. 
 
 What one thing, indeed, could better have proved the 
 world-calling of the covenant people than the mission 
 of Jonah to the great Assyrian capital on the banks of 
 the Tigris ? In this little book the current of history 
 and prophecy meet and coalesce. It has been justly 
 called ^ " a foreign-missionary book in the midst of the 
 Old Testament " ; a divine anticipation of the breaking- 
 down of barriers in the announcement of salvation." 
 Objecting to some parts of the story as fabulous does 
 not explain the reason why such a story is told of the 
 son of Amittai, a contemporary of the prophet Elisha. 
 The fact of his inevitable and unalterable commission 
 is but set in the stronger light by his reluctance to 
 execute it. It was the Jew who resisted, the character 
 that lacks no prominence in the sacred annals, even in 
 those of the New Testament. It is the Israelite, the 
 true son of Abraham, the man who has been lifted into 
 the higher atmosphere of the national institutions, who 
 finally yields and preaches the preaching that he is 
 bidden. 
 
 These, now, are some of the most characteristic 
 elements of the religion of Israel. They are acknowl 
 edged by all to be such in the most developed stages 
 of that religion. But we find them potential and 
 necessary elements in the patriarchal and royal periods 
 
 1 Pgliusch, Messianic Prophecies, p. 58 f.
 
 344 '^^^^ PoitateiicJi : Its Origin mid Structure. 
 
 as well as in the prophetic. If there be any later era 
 of the nation's life when they first began to be intro- 
 duced, we fail to discover it. If there were a real 
 chrysalis period and condition of these principles, the 
 present text of the Bible gives us no intimation of it ; 
 much less of the point of transition where they took 
 the i^lace of others which were their exact opposites 
 and had been disputing the way with them. Signs of 
 conflict, it is true, are sufficiently abundant ; but it is 
 with Canaanitish and other heathen customs, which, 
 like the Canaanites themselves, are recognized as under 
 the ban and exist alone by sufferance. 
 
 If, accordingly, the theory of our critics be correct, 
 there is a singular confusion of ideas in the books of 
 Judges, Samuel, and the Kings. Not only have they 
 been seriously tampered with, they have been wholly 
 and purposely reconstructed in the interest of a late 
 and largely fanciful conception of Israelitish history. 
 And this, these same critics, as we have seen, do not 
 hesitate to affirm and to make the starting-point of all 
 their reasoning. But let us be consistent. We may 
 accept or we may reject the biblical books as our 
 authorities. We cannot, with fairness, accept what we 
 please and reject what we please, to suit the require- 
 ments of an hypothesis confessed to be alien to both 
 the letter and spirit of the Bible as it now exists. 
 It will probably be found, in the end, that what 
 the majority of men and women who have the Bible 
 wish to know is what the biblical writers themselves 
 say. What the critic has to say, if it contradict the 
 Bible, will doubtless be taken for what it is worth. 
 And what it is worth will depend largely upon the 
 evidence he has to offer that he has special facilities 
 for discovering the errors of the Bible and that he
 
 TJie Law and the Historical Books. 345 
 
 himself may safely be followed where it would lead 
 us astray. 1 
 
 We remark in the third place, and finally, that the 
 historical books of the Old Testament contain such 
 references, direct and indirect, to the Pentateuch 
 history and codes in their united form as the Torah 
 mediated by Moses, that we are fully justified, in the 
 circumstances, in inferring, what these histories would 
 plainly have us infer, that they all and severally 
 belong to the Mosaic period. 
 
 The references are of such a kind, that is, as to 
 substantiate the point of view, the spirit, the ruling 
 principles of the narrative as we have found them in 
 the preceding investigation. It is not to be overlooked, 
 however, that it is with histories that we now have to do. 
 It would be unfair to demand of them that they give 
 us a detailed account of the regular religious and eccle- 
 siastical usages of the periods they cover, unless they 
 profess to do this, which is clearly not the case. They 
 necessarily take not a little for granted. They were 
 written for people who did not need to be assured of 
 the certainty of many things now considered uncertain. 
 They therefore note, as we would expect them to do, 
 offences against the laws rather than occasions of their 
 regular observance ; the extraordinary rather than the 
 ordinary. The principles that governed the writers, 
 their ethical point of view required them to do as 
 
 * The Congregationalist of October 9, 1884, in a notice of Stanley's work on The 
 Future Religion, has the following remarks on his methods, which are also pertinent here : 
 " On this b.isis Mr. Stanley is free to rule in and to rule out, to accept a statement as far as 
 it suits his preconceived theories, and anywhere and any when to reject a part, or tlio wliole, 
 as he may find needful for the uses of whatever hypothesis is for the time being in hand. 
 This is convenient for Mr. Stanley. But the inconvenience of it to the reader partly con- 
 sists in the fact that it requires him to accept that gentleman as the source of all revelation 
 fit toclaim human confidence, while failing to suggest so much as a scintilla of proof that 
 he knows any more than everybody else knows about it." Cf also a notice of Von 
 Ranke's Universal History in llie Sunday-School Times for September 13, 1884, p. 586,
 
 34^ The Pentateuch : Its Origm and Structure. 
 
 much as this. Their duties as historians did not 
 require them to do more. 
 
 Taking, now, a hasty survey of the three connected 
 histories of Judges, Samuel, and the Kings,^ let us see 
 if there has not been left upon them such a peculiar 
 impression of the so-called "Mosaic" institutions as 
 to force us, all things being considered, to the conclu- 
 sion that their acknowledged point of view is genuine 
 and not assumed ; that is, that the Torah in its full 
 extent furnished the literary and moral basis on which 
 they were one and all constructed. We will begin 
 with references that are more or less indefinite ; then, 
 take up such as seem unmistakable ; and finally, note 
 what is exceptional and might be supposed, if it stood 
 alone, to justify a contrary result. 
 
 We find, at the outset, that the Book of Judges is 
 joined to that of Joshua by the conjunction vav, and 
 that its opening chapters have the marked coloring of 
 the Book of the Covenant and the code of Deuteronomy 
 (ii. 1-3; cf. Ex. XX. 2; xxiii. 33; Deut. xii. 3 f.). We 
 find the Deuteronomic office of the judge, during this 
 whole period, taking precedence of every other (Deut. 
 xvi. 18 f. ; xvii. 8 1). We find the nation as such, 
 notwithstanding it is so conscious, in this era of land 
 settlements, of its tribal character, sometimes, at least, 
 acting in unison (viii. 22, 23 ; xx. i ; xxi. 16, 22 f.). We 
 find in the acknowledged kingship of Jehovah a tacit 
 recognition of the most fundamental principle of the 
 theocracy (viii. 22 f.). We see the Levites scattered 
 among the other tribes, enjoying peculiar prerogatives 
 accorded peculiar honors (xvii. 5-13 ; xix. i, 2). The 
 rite of circumcision is recognized as a national dis- 
 
 1 The Book of Joshua, which would be a decisive factor in the discussion if it were 
 admitted to it as genuine history, is excluded by our critics as being a part of th*^ Hexa- 
 J«uch whose age and composition are in debate.
 
 The Law and the Historical Books. 347 
 
 tinction (xiv. 3 ; cf. xv. 18). The tribe of Judah holds 
 the preeminence which is claimed for it in the history 
 of the exodus (i. 2; xx. 18; cf. Num. ii. 3 ; x. 14; Gen. 
 xlix. 8 ff.). 
 
 When, further, we come to the Books of Samuel, we 
 find them introduced by an account of a Levitical 
 and a priestly family and their intimate relationship. 
 Samuel appears as judge to supplant the inefficient 
 Eli ; but also to introduce an office of higher signifi- 
 cance and bring back his lapsed people to what he 
 claims to be the old faith and the old service (i Sam. 
 vii. 3 f.). 
 
 The Ark of the Covenant comes into ever greater 
 prominence as the central object of the national sanctu- 
 ary and the focus of religious life. In the very opening 
 chapters the Elohistic history of the Book of Exodus 
 is made a subject of frequent reference (i Sam. iv. 8 ; 
 viii. 8 ; xii. 8 ; cf. Ex, iii.-xv.). The historian hastens 
 forward to his principal topic, which is the career of 
 David ; but he seems never to forget that the peculiar 
 history of Israel hitherto has furnished the pledge, and 
 is the ground of hope, for its future (cf. i Sam. iv. 
 14-22 ; viii. 6, 7). 
 
 In the Books of Kings, the law of the land, precedent, 
 what is sanctioned in distinction from what is often in 
 vogue is, as we have seen, everywhere represented as 
 something that has come down from the fathers. In a 
 surprising number of instances it is definitely connected 
 by name with Moses and with the institutions of Moses 
 (i Kings ii. 3 ; viii. 9, 53, 56; 2 Kings xiv. 6; xxviii. 
 4, 6; xxi. 8 ; xxiii. 25). At the same time, what appear 
 to be verbal reminiscences of the Pcntateucli history 
 and its two leading codes are scattered about in both 
 Samuel and the Kings like scraps of ore from a central
 
 348 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 ledge (i Sam. ii. 13 ; cf. Deut. xviii. 3 ; i Sam, xv. 29; 
 cf. Num. xxiii. 19; i Sam. viii. 5; cf. Deut. xvii. 14; 
 2 Sam. vii. 22-24; cf. Deut. iv. 7; x. 21 ; xiii. 6)} 
 
 These might be called general allusions to the 
 Pentateuch. There is a multitude of others which 
 fail as little in pertinence as in explicitness. The law 
 of the Nazarite, for example, is found only in the 
 "Priests' Code" (Num. vi. 1-21); while the historical 
 books show us that it had its greatest significance as 
 a practice near the close of the period of the judges. 
 In fact, the only Nazarites for life mentioned in the 
 Bible are Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptist. In 
 harmony with all the codes, the eating of the blood, 
 with the flesh, of animals is treated by Saul as a 
 gross offence (i Sam. xiv. 32, 33 ; cf. Gen. ix. 4; Lev. 
 iii. 17; Deut. xii. 16, 23; xiv. 21, 23). So, too, the 
 command to Saul to destroy the Amalekites rests 
 equally and solidly on the two abutments of an histori- 
 cal fact and legal enactment of the Elohistic Torah, 
 on the one hand, and the code of Deuteronomy, on 
 the other (i Sam. xv. i ff. ; Ex. xvii. 8 ff. ; Deut. xxv. 17- 
 19). We likewise find in this same period of Israel's 
 first king what appears to be the regular observance 
 of the festival of the new moon, a matter legitimated 
 solely by the code of the middle books of the 
 Pentateuch (i Sam. xx. 5 ; cf. Num. x. 10; xxviii. 11). 
 Ceremonial impurity also is looked upon even by Saul 
 as a sufficient occasion for abstinence from religious 
 festivities (i Sam. xx. 26; xxi. 5, 6). The law against 
 the taking of bribes and that making the destruction of 
 every form of witchcraft along with those practising it 
 
 ' Further, with i Kings ii. 3 cf., in the original, Deut. xxix. 8; with i Kings ii. g cf. 
 
 Deut. xxi. 17; with i Kings xxii. 17 cf. Num. xxvii. 17; with i Kings xxii. 27 cf. 
 
 Deut. xvi. 3; with 2 Kings v. 27 cf. Ex. iv. 6; Num. xii. 10; with 2 Kings xiv. 27 
 cf. Deut. ix. 14; xxix. 20.
 
 The Law and the Historical Books. 349 
 
 the imperative duty of the state, we discover already in 
 force under circumstances that greatly enhance the 
 stress that is laid upon them in the codes (i Sam. viii. 
 3 ; xii. 3 ; cf. Deut. xvi. 9 ; i Sam. xxviii. 9 f. ; cf. Deut. 
 xviii. 10, 1 1). 
 
 In the time of Solomon the feast of tabernacles, as 
 well as the other two pilgrimage feasts, are recognized, 
 as it would appear, as established usages (i Kings viii. 
 2 ; ix. 25). 1 In his prayer of dedication specific notice 
 is taken of the blessings and curses of the Pentateuch, 
 both in their earlier and their later form (i Kings viii. ; 
 cf. Lev. xxvi. ; Deut. xxviii.). In harmony with Joshua 
 xxi. 8, Anathoth is incidentally indicated as one of the 
 Levitical cities (i Kings ii. 26 ; cf. Josh. xiv. 4; Num. 
 XXXV. 8). Of Jeroboam it is said that he purposely 
 transgressed the law respecting the feast of the 
 seventh month, that is, the feast of tabernacles 
 (i Kings xii. 32 f. ; cf. Lev. xxiii. 34 ff.). And of Jehu 
 that he took " no heed to walk in the law of the Lord 
 God of Israel" {2 Kings x. 31). In 2 Kings vii. 3, 
 during the famine in Samaria, we find a company of 
 lepers treated just as the Levitical statutes enjoin, 
 in their exclusion from the camp (Lev. xiii. 46; 
 Num. V. 3). 
 
 Other passages represent as something known to 
 every one the hour of morning and evening sacrifice 
 (i Kings xviii. 29 ; 2 Kings iii. 20) ; the law of the 
 trespass-offering and sin-offering (2 Kings xii. 17),^ 
 
 ' " Denn wenn i Kon. viii. 2 gesagt wird, dass sich das Volk, urn Zeuge der Ubcrfiih- 
 rung der Bundeslade in den vollendeten Tempel zu sein im 7. Monat bechagh versam. 
 melte, so bezieht sich dieses Chagli nicht aiif die Tempelwcihc (wie es verstehen liese 
 wenn lachagh chagh gesagt ware), sondern aiif das in den Tischri fallende Lauljenfest, 
 mit welchem Salomo die Tenipelweihe verband." — Delitzsch, in Zeitschri/t /'tir 
 kirchlicke Wissetischaft, etc., 1880, p. 173. 
 
 2 " Schuldopfer-und Sundop/ergeld, d. i., das, was man bei diescn Opkrn /rc/uu'/Ug 
 dein adininistrirenden Priester fur seine Bemuhunff darreichte, s. 4 Mos. Sj lo." — 
 Thenius, Com., in ioc.
 
 350 TJic PeiitateticJi: Its Oi'igin and Structure. 
 
 and that of the Sabbath (2 Kings iv. 23. ; cf. xi. 5 f.). 
 In 2 Kings xiv. 6, Amaziah is declared to have acted 
 in a certain matter according to that which was 
 "written in the book of tlie law of Moses," the code of 
 Deuteronomy being obviously referred to (Deut. xxiv. 
 16). A few chapters later we are informed concerning 
 the mixed peoples whom the king of Assyria trans- 
 planted to the northern kingdom, that they did not 
 " after the law and commandment which the Lord 
 commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named 
 Israel ; with whom the Lord had made a covenant and 
 charged them saying. Ye shall not fear other gods . . . 
 but the Lord who brought you up out of the land 
 of Egypt. . . . And the statutes, and the ordinances, 
 and the law, and the commandment which he wrote 
 for you, ye shall observe to do for evermore ; and ye. 
 shall not fear other gods (2 Kings xvii. 34-37 ; cf. Deut. 
 xiii. 4 with vs. 36). Moreover, there is so much 
 said of writing, as of letters and of books, in all this 
 period from Samuel down (i Sam. x. 25 ; 2 Sam. i. 18; 
 xi. 14, 15 ; I Kings xi. 41 ; xxi. 8 ; 2 Kings v. 5 ; x. i ; 
 XX. 12; cf. Ex. xvii. 14; xxxii. 32, 33 ; Num. v. 23; xxi 
 14; Deut. xxvii. 8; xxxi. 9; Josh. x. 13 ; xviii. 9), that 
 it would have been no surprise to us to read, as we do 
 (2 Kings xxii. 3), that in the eighteenth year of King 
 Josiah, on the occasion of certain repairs in the temple, 
 the high-priest, Hilkiah, found there " the book of the 
 law," even if the Pentateuch had not already instructed 
 us (Num. xvii. 22; Deut. xvii. 18; xxxi. 9, 25, 26; cf. 
 Josh. xxiv. 26) that it had been originally deposited 
 beside the ark. 
 
 But still further, and still more directly to the point, 
 to go back once more to the beginning, there is the 
 central and indisputable fact that, during the whole
 
 The Lazv and the Historical Books. 35 1 
 
 period of the judges, including the hfe of Samuel, the 
 Mosaic institutions of a national sanctuary and a 
 national Aaronic priesthood existed and were governed, 
 as far as the sacred history informs us, in essential 
 accordance with the Pentateuch legislation. Nowhere, 
 for example, in the Book of Judges is there more than 
 one "house of the Lord " spoken of (xix. 18). Except- 
 ing for a brief period and under extraordinary circum- 
 stances this was at Shiloh (Judges xviii. 31 ; i Sam. ii. 
 29).^ Here Phinehas, grandson of Aaron, officiated as 
 priest (Judges xx. 28), and here the annual festivals 
 were duly and consecutively celebrated (Judges xxi. 19; 
 I Sam. i. 3, 7 ; ii. 14, 19). Eli and his sons are recog- 
 nized as lineal descendants of Aaron and as called to 
 the priesthood solely on that account (i Sam. ii. 27, 28; 
 xxii. 20 ; I Kings ii. 27). They dwell at Shiloh, where 
 the "tabernacle of the congregation" (i Sam. ii. 22) 
 containing the ark and other furniture of the Mosaic 
 structure are found (i Sam. iv. 4 ; cf. Ex. xxv. 22 ; 
 Num. vii. 89). It has the altar (i Sam. ii. 29), the 
 "lamp of God" (i Sam. iii. 3), and the table of shew- 
 bread (i Sam. xxi. 5). Here the fat pieces of animals 
 are incensed or offered up by fire (i Sam. ii. 15, 28). 
 Here, before the door of the " tabernacle of the con- 
 gregation," as of old, the people assemble (ii. 22) to 
 tithe the tenth (i Sam. viii. 15, 17), vow their vows 
 (i Sam. i. II), and bring to the Lord meal-offerings, 
 burnt-offerings, peace-offerings, and trespass-offerings, 
 all of which forms of sacrifice are recognized in the 
 first ten chapters of i Samuel. 
 
 It is claimed that at this time the distinction between 
 priest and layman did not exist. But we find, on the 
 
 1 That its being elsewhere w.is exceptional is evident from wh.it is said in Judges xx. 27. 
 This verse, moreover, shows that " Bethel " and not " house of God " is the proper ren- 
 dering in the preceding verse.
 
 3^2 The PentateiicJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 contrary, the people holding the officiating priests 
 amenable, in their service, to established regulations 
 and warmly resenting innovations regarded as in 
 defiance of law (i Sam. ii. 13-17; cf. Deut. xviii. 3; 
 Lev. vii. 31, 32). We find the priests using some 
 peculiar implements of the ancient tabernacle which 
 are scarcely mentioned elsewhere outside the code of 
 the middle books of the Pentateuch (i Sam. ii. 13, 14; 
 cf. Ex. xxvii. 3 ; xxxviii. 3 ; Num. iv. 14). We see 
 them habited in the priestly vestments appointed by the 
 great lawgiver, the high-priest, it is to be especially 
 noted, in the ephod with its dazzling breastplate con- 
 taining the Urim and Thummim (i Sam. ii. 28 ; xiv. 3 ; 
 xxi. 10; xxviii. 6, 15 ; cf. Ex. xxviii. 30; Lev. viii. 8; 
 Num. xxvii. 18-21 ; Deut. xxxiii. 8). And, finally, we 
 are able, with reasonable certainty, to identify nearly 
 every incumbent of the high-priest's office from the 
 time of Aaron to that of David as well as from David 
 to the Babylonian exile. ^ 
 
 Such a mass of evidence, now, as is here furnished 
 in favor of the existence of what was most charac- 
 teristic in the laws of the Pentateuch cannot be 
 set aside by simple assertions to the contrary. It 
 is not enough that men tell us that, in their opinion, 
 the histories have been worked over in a later 
 period in the spirit of later institutions. We want 
 proof, at least as clear as that which we give, that 
 the laws of the Pentateuch ever existed in any other 
 form than in that in which we now find them. We 
 want positive historical testimony that this process of 
 working over, in the manner thus indicated, was ever 
 
 ^ Cf. s.z'. " Hbhepriester " in Riehm's Handworterbitch, etc.; idem. s.v. " Zadok." 
 Passages of the historical books on which the principal dependence is placed are Judges 
 XX. 28; Num. XXV. 13; I Chron. v. 27-41; vi. 35-38; i Sam. xiv. 3; xxi. i; xxii. 9; 
 I Kings ii. 26. See also art. " High-priest'" in Smith's Bible Dictionary.
 
 TIte L,azv and the Historical Books. 353 
 
 so much as attempted by a biblical writer of the later 
 day. A single accredited sample of such work actually 
 done, with names and dates, is certainly not too much 
 to ask of an hypothesis which so upsets all our 
 I^revious conceptions of the character and method of 
 biblical writers. " No man rendeth a piece from a new 
 garment and putteth it upon an old garment ; else he 
 will rend the new, and also the piece from the new will 
 not agree with the old. And no man putteth new wine 
 into old wineskins, else the new wine will burst the 
 skins, and itself will be spilled, and the skins will 
 perish " (Luke v. 36, 37). 
 
 Moreover, with such a mass of evidence in support of 
 the old theory, which is also the acknowledged teaching 
 of' the Scriptures themselves, that the Torah in all its- 
 essential features is Mosaic, there is no difficulty in 
 accounting for what is exceptional and anomalous in the 
 records. Having the law, one can measure the depart- 
 ures from it, and having the history, one can readily 
 account for such departures. The difficulties, on the 
 other hand, begin and multiply to an extent that is quite 
 disheartening the moment we begin to investigate on 
 the principle that the records are anything else rather 
 than a bona fide account of things as they really were ; 
 that the men who had to do with them were of a 
 character diametrically opposed to that of the Psalmist 
 who wrote : " Who, O Jehovah ! shall be a guest in thy 
 Tabernacle .'' Who shall dwell in thy holy mountain } 
 He that walketh blamelessly, and doeth justice, and 
 speaketh truthfully in his heart" (Ps. xv. i, 2.) 
 
 During the period of the judges we find positively 
 nothing, all the circumstances being considered, that 
 has even the appearance of illegality which is not con- 
 demned as illegal. The sacrifice at Bochim was in the
 
 354 The PentateucJi: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 presence of " the angel of the Lord," if not of the ark 
 itself. The altar that Gideon built at Ophrah was 
 solely as a monument (of. Ex. xvii. 15 ; Josh. xxii. 16, 
 26 f.), as the context, where one of another sort is 
 referred to, shows (Judges vi. 24, 25 f.). There is no 
 evidence that it was ever used for sacrifice. Manoah's 
 offering in the open field was in recognition of a 
 theophany, and hence in perfect harmony with Ex. 
 XX. 24, and with the other codes. 
 
 Micah was a confessed idolater as well as thief 
 (Judges xvii. 5, 12). His actions prove conclusively 
 that a semi-priestly character was then accorded to 
 Levites. That they were regarded as actual priests it 
 does not prove. Their position throughout the book is 
 wholly consonant with that assigned them in the Penta- 
 teuch (xix. i.). Gideon's " ephod " that he made of the 
 earrings taken in battle is stigmatized as idolatrous by 
 epithets worthy of an Isaiah (Judges viii. 24-27.) The 
 expression "before the Lord" cannot justly be under- 
 stood to refer to an established sanctuary (Judges xi. 
 II ; XX. I ; cf. I Sam. xxiii. 18 ; i Kings iii. 6; 2 Chron. 
 xiv. 12; Neh. i. 4, and many other passages). The ark 
 itself, indeed, may to some extent have been carried 
 about from place to place during this period, as we 
 know it was in the following one (with Judges xx. 
 27, 31 cf. I Sam. iv. 3; Num. x. 35). Worship, 
 combined with animal sacrifices in its presence, was, 
 of course, the very thing authorized by every phase of 
 the Pentateuch laws (Judges xx. 26, 27 ; xxi. 4). 
 
 So when we turn to the Books of Samuel and the 
 Kings, it is the presence or the absence of the ark 
 which justifies everything that is normal and sufficiently 
 explains everything that is abnormal in the history. 
 Whether at Shiloh, or in the hands of the Philistines, at
 
 The Lazv and the Historical Books. 355 
 
 Kirjath-jearim or on Mount Zion, it is everywhere and 
 always, "the Ark of the Covenant," the silent witness 
 from the period of the exodus. There is but one such 
 ark in Israelitish history, and it renders that history in 
 its main features, especially in its characteristic religious 
 features, indivisible and unimpeachable. The secret of 
 the books is the secret of the ark which stored them 
 and between whose cherubim dwelt Jehovah of hosts. 
 At Shiloh we find the ark in its accustomed place 
 within the tabernacle. It is the old tabernacle as well 
 as the old Mosaic "Ark of the Covenant." It bears its 
 Pentateuch title, "the tent of meeting" (i Sam, ii. 22; 
 cf. Ex. xxix. 4). It is not, as has been affirmed,^ a 
 house with posts and doors. It was to the prophet 
 Nathan, considerably later, that the message came from 
 the Lord, saying, " I have not dwelt in a house since 
 the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of 
 Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and 
 in a tabernacle (2 Sam. vii. 6 ; cf. i Sam. i. 9; iii. 15). 
 Our critics have simply confounded the inclosure of the 
 tabernacle with the tabernacle itself. And they make 
 mistakes even less excusable when they afifirm that 
 because it is said of Samuel that he slept within this 
 inclosure, he must have slept in the presence of the 
 ark ; and that when it is narrated of Hannah that she 
 made her little son a coat of linen, it betrays an 
 infringement of the " Priests' Code," which allows such 
 a garment only to the highest ecclesiastic.^ An " ephod " 
 it is called, to be sure, as is the garment which David 
 wore when he danced before the ark (i Sam. ii. 18; 2 
 Sam. vi. 14), but a "linen ephod" in both cases, which 
 was a very different thing from that which formed a 
 principal article of the high-priest's official costume. 
 
 * Smith, Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 258 f. ^ Smith, ibid. p. 259.
 
 356 Tlie PcntateucJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 And when we carefully scan in the succeeding history 
 the list of alleged transgressions of Pentateuch laws, 
 especially that of sacrificial worship at a central altar, 
 it will be found that not a single one of these cases 
 occurs before a certain fixed date, and that there is not 
 one that is not clearly disapproved after another fixed 
 date. The close of the first period is definitely marked 
 by the capture of the ark at Shiloh ; the beginning of 
 the second, by the erection and dedication of the temple 
 at Jerusalem. Between these two points, a space of 
 not far from a hundred years, are found clustered 
 together the most of those anomalies on which such 
 extraordinary conclusions have been based. ^ Anomalies 
 occurred then simply because the times were anomalous. 
 The capture of the ark by the Philistines, and its 
 subsequent obscuration and neglect throughout the 
 remainder of Samuel's regency and the whole of Saul's 
 reign, equally signalized a period of dreadful spiritual 
 relapse on the part of Israel, the abandonment of 
 covenant obligations, and a temporary suspension of 
 the laws of the covenant. " Ichabod " ! was the dying 
 exclamation of Eli's daughter-in-law. "The glory is 
 departed from Israel; for the ark of God is taken" 
 (i Sam. iv. 19-22). " God was wroth with his inher- 
 itance," says the Psalmist, referring to the same event, 
 " so that he forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent 
 which he placed among men" (Ps. Ixxviii. 58-62). 
 
 * " There is not from Joshua to Samuel a recorded instance of sacrifice elsewhere than 
 at Shiloh which is not explicitly declared to have been offered either in presence of the 
 ark or in connection with an immediate manifestation of the presence of Jehovah or of 
 the Angel of Jehovah. And no sacrifice was offered by any one not a descendant of 
 Aaron, except when Jehovah or the Angel of Jehovah had appeared to him. The only 
 exceptions are expressly characterized by the sacred historian as open and flagrant 
 transgressions of known law: as the idolatry at Ophrah (Judges viii. 27) and that of the 
 renegade Micah (xvii. 5), not to speak of apostasy to Baal and Ashtoreth which is repro- 
 bated and chastised from the beginning to the end. The Book of Judges does not contain 
 a trace of sanctioned, or even tolerated, worship upon high-places." — Professor Green, 
 Moses and the Prophets., p. 137 f.
 
 TJie Lazv and the Historical Books. 357 
 
 Statute law, for the time being, whose support and 
 sanction was the God who dwelt between the cherubim, 
 gave way to common law, and men returned to customs 
 that ruled before the days of Moses. This, indeed, 
 along with outward afflictions, was the providential 
 means intended to bring back the people to a sense of 
 their obligation and their need. And it succeeded. 
 They "lamented after the Lord" (i Sam. vii. 2) and by 
 this very discipline were prepared, as they could not 
 otherwise have been, to understand the spiritual 
 significance of the temple at Jerusalem. 
 
 It is thus, then, that we explain the fact of Samuel's 
 sacrificing at Mizpeh, Ramah, Bethlehem, Gilgal, and 
 possibly other places (i Sam. vii. 5-9, 16; x. 8 ; xi. 14, 
 15 ; xvi. 2 ff.), and that he did it while the tabernacle 
 was at Nob and even after the ark had been brought 
 back to Kirjath-jearim. He acted on the principle that 
 a central sanctuary no longer existed. Its law he 
 regarded as for the time being in abeyance. In fact, 
 the original conditions of its observance were no longer 
 present (Deut. xii. 10). It is everywhere assumed, 
 moreover, that in doing so he was divinely directed ; 
 that just as really as Moses in mediating the laws, 
 Samuel was an extraordinary agent of Jehovah in 
 temporarily suspending them. To obey was better 
 than sacrifice (i Sam. xv. 22, 23). 
 
 And as it concerns the sacrificial worship offered at 
 various places by others, as by David's family at Bethle- 
 hem (i Sam. XX. 6), Absalom at Hebron ( .? 2 Sam. xv. 
 7-9), David himself at the threshing-floor of Araunah 
 (2 Sam. xxiv. 18), Adonijah at En-rogel (i Kings i. 7-9), 
 Solomon at Gibeon (r Kings iii. 4), Elijah on Carmel 
 (l Kings xviii.), when they arc not represented, as in 
 the last case, to be in obedience to a divine command
 
 358 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 (vs. 36), they may be looked upon, one and all, as simply 
 illustrating the principle ncccssitas non habet legem. 
 There existed no one place in this period of the retire- 
 ment of the ark from its accustomed and historic 
 position which was really more legitimate and author- 
 ized than another. 
 
 Just this absence of a legal sanction for worship 
 previous to the time of Solomon is indicated by the 
 writer of the Books of Kings when he says : " Only the 
 people sacrificed in high-places, because there was no 
 house built unto the name of the Lord until those 
 days " (i Kings iii. 2). Its potency as a rally ing-point 
 had pui'posely and as a punisJimoit of disobedience been 
 withdrawn from the ark ; it was only restored and this 
 sacred object again became the appointed meeting- 
 place of God and his people after its establishment 
 within the consecrated temple (i Kings xiv. 21).^ 
 Sporadic worship at these various places did not con- 
 stitute them sanctuaries in the same sense that the 
 ark had been a sanctuary. Their sole justification was 
 necessity. And the moment the necessity ceased, they 
 cease to be accorded even a ^//^j-Z-sanction.^ 
 
 1 That men who are not priests should offer sacrifices may be looked upon, indeed, as 
 irregular (Lev. i. 9 f.; v. 8 f.) ; but even the most stringent regulations of the " Priests' 
 Code " do not absolutely forbid it. Others than priests, therefore, on special and extra- 
 ordinary occasions, might officiate in this capacity, without offending against the Mosaic 
 regulations. Still it is by no means certain that, in several instances which we find in 
 the history where persons are spoken of as offering sacrifices, the meaning is not that they 
 luid sacrifices offered. Qiii facit fer alium, facit per se. The case of Saul (i Sam. 
 xiv. 33-35) is not one of proper sacrifice. 
 
 2 It was probably with reference to the temple which he proposed to build (2 Sam. vii.) 
 that David, when he brought up the ark from Kirjath-jearim, did not a^o bring up the 
 tabernacle from Gibeon (2 Sam. vi. 17). The tent which he pitched in the city of David 
 was meant to foreshadow the future home of the ark and centre the nation's attention upon 
 it. This purpose o£ David was providentially greatly forwarded, when the treachery of 
 Abiathar furnished Solomon with an occasion for removing him from his post as high- 
 priest on Zion and putting in his place the loyal Zadok, who hitherto had acted in this 
 capacity in connection with the tabernacle in Gibeon (i Kings ii. 26 f . ; cf. i Chron. xvi. 
 39; xxiv. 3; 2 Sam. viii. 17; xv. 24-29, 35; xx. 25; and s.v. " Zadok," in Riehm's Ha/id- 
 wdrterbuch, etc.). With the anomaly of a dual high-priesthood it was doubtless meant to 
 put an end also to the equal anomaly of tmlegalized, as well as illegal, worship in Israel.
 
 The Law and the Historical Books. 359 
 
 There is no sign in the biblical books that subsequent 
 to the dedication of the temple worship in other places 
 was approved. Here the writer of Kings is of one 
 mind with the writer of Chronicles ; and, it may be 
 added, with the Psalter and contemporaneous prophets. 
 He is obviously out of conceit with Asa, Jehosaphat, 
 and the other relatively good kings that in their 
 reforms they stop short of removing the high-places 
 (i Kings XV. 14; xxii. 43). This is proved not alone by 
 referring to the Books of Chronicles (2 Chron. xiv. 3-5 ; 
 xvii. 6), where the whole matter is set in the clearest 
 light ; but by the way in which the facts are stated in 
 Kings. After an enumeration of what these men did 
 in the direction of moral renovation that was right, he 
 uniformly adds : " Nevertheless, the high-places were 
 not taken away." 
 
 Ahaz, in fact, is directly blamed for sacrificing in 
 the high-places (2 Kings xvi. 4). It is no evidence 
 that the kings, especially the good ones, inwardly 
 approved of the Bamoth because they failed to 
 extirpate them. It is no sufficient evidence that there 
 was no law and no dominant public sentiment already 
 formed against these places, because at some of the 
 Bamoth Jehovah himself was worshiped and the 
 ministry was by Levitical priests (2 Kings xviii. 22 ; 
 xxiii. 8, 9). The circumstances and particularly the 
 force of inveterate custom are to be considered. It was 
 the beginning of a period and it was also the end of 
 one. The transition could not well have been made 
 without more or less of such irregularities as we find 
 recorded in the history. And as it concerns the 
 northern kingdom, there is nothing in its ecclesiastical 
 non-conformity that cannot be readily accounted for by 
 its political non-conformity. The watchword, " What
 
 360 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 portion have we in David ? . . . To your tents, O 
 Israel," which the ten tribes took up in the days of 
 Rehoboam, furnishes a key to all their un-Mosaic and 
 unhistorical divergences and excesses. 
 
 In fact, there is nothing so very hard to understand 
 in this people's attitude toward the law in any period, 
 if the biblical history, brief as it is, be heartily accepted. 
 It was a people of whom it is confessed by its own 
 writers that it fell into gross idolatry in the very pres- 
 ence of Mount Sinai and omitted for forty years the first 
 necessary step toward the recognition of the covenant 
 by which it had solemnly bound itself, that is, the 
 observance of the rite of circumcision (Josh. v. 2 ff.). 
 Its great lawgiver predicted apostasy with his latest 
 breath (Deut. xxviii. f.). Its greatest military leader 
 died with admonitions on his lips (Josh. xxiv. 14 ff.). 
 
 How completely this untutored child which came up 
 out of Egypt was dependent on its external circum- 
 stances, particularly its immediate leaders, for moral 
 stimulus, could not be more suggestively set forth than 
 in those words which close the Book of Joshua : " And 
 Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua and all 
 the days of the elders that overlived Joshua and who 
 had known all the works of the Lord that he had done 
 for Israel." There were some hundreds of probationary 
 years in which there was no Joshua and no such elders 
 with vivid memories of God's deeds ; when there were 
 only Samsons and Jephthahs and Gideons ; men of faith 
 and heroism, it is true, but certainly lacking in deep 
 religious feeling and quickened consciences for the law 
 of Jehovah. 
 
 Israel's need of worthy leaders seemed never to be 
 greater than when it was without them. It was in 
 closest contact with an alien civilization considerably
 
 The Lazv and the Historical Books. 361 
 
 superior to its own. It was in a hand-to-hand grapple 
 with religious customs which were fascinating and 
 seductive to the last degree. That it made a sad 
 failure is not strange. That it did not make a total 
 failure is due solely to direct providential interposition. 
 Moses and Joshua could not come back again ; but a 
 Samuel was raised up, and henceforth the forces that 
 contended against the little Israel of Siniatic memories 
 had the mighty line of prophets to reckon with. " And 
 when [after the enthronement of David over all Israel] 
 more peaceable and settled times came, the tradition 
 was broken. Customs, heathen and idolatrous, or at 
 least contrary to the law, had become inveterate. It 
 was found impossible to enforce laws which had been 
 so long ignored. The revival of laws which are old and 
 may be deemed obsolete is always a difficult task. To 
 abolish old customs is beyond the power of absolute 
 kings. We may wonder that David did not enforce the 
 exact observance of the law of Moses, but the history 
 indicates that his power over his subjects was by no 
 means absolute. When the one shrine was established 
 in Jerusalem, obedience to the Mosaic law and the 
 supremacy of the tribe of Judah would be closely con- 
 nected in the people's mind. Moreover, David was not 
 allowed to build the temple, apart from which the cere- 
 monial code could not be carried out. If David's failure 
 to enforce the law can be accounted for, the failure of 
 his successors need cause us little trouble. His prac- 
 tice was an ideal to which they rarely attained. The 
 written law would have no force against immemorial 
 custom. Nothing less than a revolution, nothing less 
 than the destruction of the national life for a while, 
 could give back to the law its rightful authority." ^ 
 
 1 See Watson, The Law ami the Prophets, p. 120.
 
 X. 
 
 THE LAW AND THE PSALMS. 
 
 In discussing the question, what impression, if any, 
 has been left by the Law upon the Book of Psalms, it 
 is important to agree, at the outset, upon some general 
 principles which shall govern us, and to fix, if possible, 
 a common point of view. The Psalms form a col- 
 lection. At what time, approximately, was this 
 collection closed .-* They are products of various 
 periods and of a considerable number of different 
 authors. Can the age and authorship of a large pro- 
 portion of them be fixed with sufficient certainty to 
 make a discussion of this sort practicable and satis- 
 factory ? More definitely, is the Book of Psalms pre- 
 exilian in its essential features, or is it post-exilian ? It 
 should not be difficult to secure among biblical scholars 
 a fair measure of unanimity in these preliminary 
 matters. 
 
 First, as it respects the collection, we have direct 
 evidence of its virtual completion previous to the close 
 of the Persian period, that is, before b.c. 333. We learn, 
 for example, from i Chron. xvi. 36, that the Psalter at 
 that time was divided into books, as at present, and 
 that the doxologies with which these books conclude 
 had been already added to them. To affirm that no 
 composition could have found its way into the collection 
 after this period would perhaps be unjustifiable. It may 
 be said that it cannot be proved that there were any.
 
 The Law and the Psalms. 363 
 
 And, if there were such, they were not only exceed- 
 ingly few, but must have been inserted, by exception, 
 in a collection looked upon as formally complete. 
 
 The position of the Psalter in the ancient lists of 
 Old Testament canonical books, at the head of the 
 third collection, and the fact that it gave its name to 
 this series is highly significant. The fact that the 
 Septuagint version (b.c. 284-145)^ has precisely the 
 same list of psalms, in the same order, is equally sig- 
 nificant. The fact that the Seventy ascribed some of 
 the psalms which they found without note of author- 
 ship to David, others to certain of the canonical 
 prophets, but none to a later date, while leaving quite 
 a number to circulate in the anonymous form in which 
 they had received them, shows what opinion they held 
 respecting the antiquity of the Book.^ 
 
 Here, then, we may establish one principal chrono- 
 logical boundary. The Book of Psalms was brought to 
 an orderly conclusion sometime during the Persian 
 supremacy. Its fivefold division, in imitation of the 
 Pentateuch, with proem and praiseful afterpart, had 
 already, at the date of the Chronicler, been given to it. 
 The possibility of fugitive Maccabaean psalms need not 
 be disputed, extremely doubtful though they be. A 
 Maccabasan Psalter is simply an absurdity to smile at. 
 The Hebrew songs with which the Maccabaean heroes 
 sometimes introduced their battles {2 Mace. xii. 37 ; xv. 
 29) were clearly those of Israel's greatest warrior, 
 David. The books which they gathered together 
 after the desolating wars of the Seleucidae were the 
 books that long before had received the sanction of 
 
 » See my discussion of its age in The Apocrypha of the O. T. (N. Y., i88o), p. i8. 
 
 ^ It is, of course, not impossible that the Seventy had manuscript authority for these 
 changes. The conclusion we draw from the fact would not be altered if it were so. 
 Jeremiah, Ezp.kiel, Haggai, and Zechariah have certain psalms imputed to them (137, 138, 
 
 146-148).
 
 364 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 the wisest and best of their countrymen (i Mace. i. 56 ; 
 2 Mace. ii. 14). 
 
 But if the Book of Psalms was completed not long 
 after the return of the exulants from Babylon, it was 
 even more certainly begun not later than King David 
 and the bulk of it written within two hundred years 
 of his reign. Its core, and what still forms the char- 
 acteristic and greater portion of it, seems to have 
 formed, in fact, the standard Book of Praise in the 
 temple of Solomon.^ 
 
 The early history of Israel may be said, without 
 exaggeration, to abound in lyrical compositions.^ From 
 Egypt the people brought musical instruments and in 
 that land they came in contact with specimens of the 
 poetic art that are still the admiration of the learned.^ 
 The prophetic schools established by Samuel were 
 direct promoters of instrumental music and song 
 (i Sam. xix. 19 f.). 
 
 David, accordingly, with his natural taste for lyric 
 poetry, was in the best circumstances to attain a 
 remarkable success in its cultivation. That he was 
 devoted to it from his youth there is abundant evidence 
 outside the Psalter (2 Sam. i. 17 f. ; iii. 33 f. ; xxiii. 1-5). 
 His harp, a principal occasion for his introduction to 
 the court of Saul, was no less the solace of his own 
 later years. One of the favorite titles by which he was 
 known among his peoiDle was " the sweet psalmist of 
 Israel" {2 Sam. xxiii. i). The first result of his anoint- 
 ing by the prophet Samuel seems to have been a 
 higher uplifting of soul in sacred song. It is indispu- 
 table that in David's time music and psalmody reached 
 
 ' It is by no means unlikely that Psalm Ixxii. marks the limit of an original collec- 
 tion which was for the most part Davidic. See vs. 20. 
 2 Cf., for example, Gen. iv. 23, 24 ; Ex. xv.; Deut. xxxii. ; Judges v.; i Sam. ii. 10 ff 
 2 See " Hymn to Amen-Ra " in Records of the Past, ii. p. 127 ff.
 
 TJic Laii) and the Psalms. 365 
 
 their highest bloom in Israel. An orchestra of four 
 thousand instruments accompanied and led the songs 
 of the sanctuary (i Chron. xxiii. 5), The names of his 
 choir-leaders, an Asaph and a Heman, were thought 
 worthy of an honor scarcely second to that of a Joab or 
 an Abner (i Chron. xxv.). Even two centuries later, 
 in the rival kingdom of the north, it was the musical 
 skill of David that was cited as the standard and 
 chief example of high attainment (Am. vi. 5).^ 
 
 It is no surprise, therefore, that we find nearly one 
 half of the entire number of psalms ascribed to David 
 and more than a score of others to his chief singers and 
 their families. There is no sufficient reason for reject- 
 ing these ancient superscriptions. They have a real 
 and unimpeachable historical value. They give the 
 earliest accessible information respecting the origin of 
 the compositions to which they are attached. They are 
 in fullest harmony with all our a priori conclusions. 
 They come down to us, along with the original text, 
 from an age that had already become antiquity when 
 the Septuagint appeared. The very musical notes that 
 accompany them were unintelligible to the scholars of 
 the Maccabaean times. 
 
 Besides the period of David and his immediate suc- 
 cessors, there is but one other in Jewish history when 
 the writing of psalms could well have flourished : that 
 which closely followed the exile. It was, at least, a 
 true instinct that led the Greek translators to attach 
 the names of post-exilian prophets to some of the 
 nameless psalms which reached them. The harps 
 that had been hung u})on the willows in Babylon 
 undoubtedly inspired the march of the homeward 
 bound and beguiled their work of restoration, l^ut the 
 
 ' Cf. also the notable tribute of Sirach's son, Ecclus. xlvii. 8-11.
 
 366 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 number of post-exilian psalms, whether considered as 
 matter of history or of criticism, cannot have been 
 large. They do not predominate in the collection. 
 They may generally be distinguished from the original 
 portions of it by features that are unmistakable. 
 
 On these principles, then, the discussion in the 
 present paper will be conducted: (i) That a large 
 nucleus, if not the bulk, of the Book of Psalms origi- 
 nated with David and his immediate successors. (2) 
 That the titles are to be taken as genuine and authen- 
 tic unless positive and convincing testimony to the 
 contrary can be adduced. (3) That it is safe to argue, 
 not alone from individual psalms, but from the spirit and 
 teaching of the collection as a whole, especially the 
 acknowledged earliest collection whose boundaries have 
 already been indicated (cf. Ps. Ixxii. 20). Within 
 these general limitations, simply taking care, in detail, 
 that no just canon of biblical criticism be violated, we 
 may move alike with freedom and with confidence. 
 
 In the first place, then, let attention be directed to a 
 few apparent verbal correspondences between a number 
 of psalms and the Pentateuch, naturally implying the 
 priority of the latter. When, for example, in the fifth 
 psalm, which is ascribed to David,^ we hear one saying, 
 " O Jehovah ! In the morning thou shalt hear my 
 voice ; in the morning / will make ready for thee" we 
 find the author very fitly and beautifully employing 
 the exact original expression used in the Pentateuch 
 for laying in order the wood and the victim on the 
 altar of sacrifice (Gen. xxii. 9; Lev. i. 7, 8; vi. 5). 
 When, again, in another place (Ps. vii. 13), the same 
 alleged writer ^ declares that, if the sinner turn not, 
 
 ' The contents of the psalm are in no respect out of harmony with the Davidic author- 
 ship claimed for it. 
 
 ^ The psalms iii.-xLx., excepting only v., vi., and xiv., even Hitzig regarded as forming 
 the genuine Davidic kernel of the whole Psalter.
 
 The Law and the Psalms. 367 
 
 God will "whet his sword" of retribution, the intense 
 realism and anthropomorphism of the figure startle us 
 less, because we recall the fact that it likewise occurs 
 in that old and high-wrought " Song of Moses " which 
 crowns his closing work (Deut. xxxii. 41 f.). In fact, 
 this is its only other occurrence in the Old Testament. 
 The eighth psalm is very generally conceded to be from 
 the pen of David. It has already been shown ^ that 
 not only the thought, but the precise order of it, 
 is taken from the biblical narrative of the creation 
 (Gen. i. 26 f.). It was not pointed out, however, that 
 the dependence extends even to the etymology of the 
 words ; and that when the Psalmist speaks of the 
 Creator as making man "rule" over the works of his 
 hands and of putting them "all under his feet," he has 
 in mind, as it should seem, the yirdil and r^dhit of 
 the primitive records (Gen. i. 26, 28), and insensibly they 
 give its peculiar coloring to his style. In the following 
 psalm (ix. 17 ;~ cf. xxxviii. 13; cix. ii.) we read that 
 the wicked are snared in the work of their own hands. 
 The Hebrew word so translated is first used in this 
 figurative sense in Deuteronomy (xii. 30), where it is 
 applied to the seductions of Canaanitish idolatry. 
 
 The remarkable petition, a little further on (Ps. 
 xvii. 8), 
 
 " Keep me as the pupil of the eye ; ^ 
 Under the shadow of tliy wings liide mc," 
 
 is a second, and a double one, of the many echoes of 
 the sublime and most suggestive " Shirah " of Moses, 
 found near the close of Deuteronomy (xxxii. 10, 11). 
 The astounding, not to say paradoxical, epithet given 
 
 ' See the introductory paper, p. 24. 
 
 - The fact that psahn ix. is acrostic is no evidence that it is not Davidlc. .See 
 Pelitzsch, Com., in loco. 
 
 ' Literally, " Utile man, ilauijliter of the eye."
 
 368 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Strncturi. 
 
 to Jehovah in the eighteenth jisalm ^ (vs. 3) and often 
 elsewhere in the collection, " My rock in whom I take 
 refuge," is from the same prolific source (Deut. xxxii. 4, 
 n). There is nothing more marked in the Hebrew 
 poetical literature of the later times, or more full of 
 sparkle, it may be added, than these gems borrowed 
 from the ancient songs. Their setting may be changed, 
 but they have a lustre, wherever found, peculiarly their 
 own. Here is one, for instance, from the memorable 
 paean of victory chanted by the Israelites on their 
 escape from Pharaoh and the Red Sea. It is set in the 
 crown of the composition : " Jehovah is a man of war, 
 Jehovah is his name" (Ex. xv. 3). Who could ever 
 forget the bold metaphor .? There is scarcely any end 
 to the changes that are rung upon it from Moses (Deut. 
 xxxii. 41 f.) down. To David, himself a man of war, 
 it offered the very thought he needed for many an 
 impassioned utterance like that which introduces the 
 following outburst (Ps. xxxv. 1,2): — 
 
 "Strive thou, O Jehovah! with them that strive with me; 
 Fight against them that fight against me. 
 Grasp the shield and buckler, 
 And arise in my defence." 
 
 In a context rich in reminiscences of the Pentateuch 
 we find in still another psalm (Iv. 4) a rare expression, 
 which, outside the history of Jacob and Joseph, appears 
 only in the Book of Job. "With a hatred relentless 
 as that of Esau and unnatural as that of Joseph's 
 brethren," the hunted fugitive seems to say: — 
 
 '■'■They threaten- me with evil, 
 And angrily assail me." 
 
 1 The genuineness of the title which ascribes the composition to David is supported by 
 ? Sam. xxii., where also the psalm is found. 
 
 2 There can be little doubt that the figure of Ahithophel is before David's mind and calls 
 forth the significant word from the patriarchal narratives (Gen. xxvii. 41; xlix. 23; 1. 15).
 
 The Law and the Psabns. 3(39 
 
 To the Israelite of the exodus what more suggestive 
 or thriUing sight, whether in camp or field, the Ark of 
 the Covenant perhaps alone excepted, than the waving 
 pennants of the several tribes (cf. Num. i. 52 ; ii. 2 ; x. 
 14) ! We cannot well be mistaken therefore in suppos- 
 ing, especially in view of the extreme rarity of the 
 term, that it was with a direct historic outlook and 
 inspiration that David wrote the stirring challenge 
 (Ps. XX. 6) : — 
 
 "We shout for joy in thy salvation; 
 In the name of our God we display our tannery ^ 
 
 Such are simple specimens of the influence favorite 
 wo.rds and expressions of the earliest Hebrew literature 
 seem to have left on the earliest compositions of the 
 Psalter. They might easily be multiplied. They are 
 no unimportant element in the criticism and should not 
 be overlooked. If they stood alone they would not be 
 without their value. They represent, however, the 
 weakest and humblest in that rich chorus of voices 
 which throughout the Psalms bears witness to the 
 overshadowing influence of the Mosaic literature. 
 
 Attention is called accordingly, in the next place, to 
 some of the abundant allusions within the same limited 
 range of primitive psalms to fundamental facts of 
 Pentateuch history. If we mistake not, the history of 
 Joseph is referred to in the proem of the collection 
 (i. 3, last clause).^ In the third psalm,'^ when it is 
 said : " l^ut thou, O Jehovah ! art a shield about me," 
 the great promise made to Abraham in Genesis (xv. i ; 
 
 1 The word dnghal is at home in Numbers, but outside our psahn is nowhere else 
 found, except in Canticles. 
 
 -It was written before Jeremiah" denn Jeremia kannte ihn; das Fhich-und Segens- 
 wort, Jer. xvii. 5-8, ist wie cine auslegende und aussmiickende Paraphrase." — Delitzsch. 
 Com., ill loco. Cf. Gen. xxxix. 3, 23. 
 
 ^ It is entitled l" Dkavidh, and internal characteristics support the tr.nditioa
 
 3/0 The Pentatetich : Its Oi'igin and Structure. 
 
 cf. Deut. xxxiii. 29) is clearly reflected. Further on, in 
 the same poem (vs. 8), Moses' notable formula of invo- 
 cation before the Ark of the Covenant, as it took its 
 appointed place in advance of the host, is called to 
 mind, as often elsewhere in our book, in the impas- 
 sioned QuindJi Y^JwvdJi, " Arise, O Jehovah " (Num. x. 
 35 ; cf. Ps. vii. 7 ; ix. 20). In the following psalm (vs. 
 4),^ the circumstance of which so much is made in 
 the Book of Exodus (xi. 7, etc.), that God had " put 
 a difference " between Israel and its oppressors, seems 
 to be reflected in the sentiment, " Jehovah keepeth 
 apart his beloved for himself," the unfamiliar word 
 of the earlier work reappearing in the later. In 
 the immediate context (vs. 7), too, the oft-recurring 
 priestly benediction (Num. vi. 26 f.) is paraphrased 
 and other evidences of the Torah's influence are not 
 wanting. 
 
 Then follow in succession references, as it should 
 seem, to the memorable commission of Moses respect- 
 ing Amalek (Ps. ix. 6; cf., in the original, Ex. xvii. 
 14-16 ; Deut. XXV. 17 f.) ; to the blessing of Noah (Ps. 
 ix. 13 ; cf. Gen. ix. 5) ; the formation of man from dust 
 (Ps. ix. 18 ; cf. Gen. iii. 19) ; the overthrow of Sodom 
 and Gomorrah (Ps. xi. 6 ; cf. Gen. xix. 24 f) ; ^ to the 
 deluge (Ps. xiv. 2;^ cf. Ps. xxix. 10; Gen. xi. 5 ; xviii. 
 21) ; the extraordinary condescension of Jehovah to his 
 servant Moses in the matter of the vision (Ps. xvii. 15 ; 
 cf. Ex. xxxiii. 20 ; Num. xii. 8) ; the exposure of Moses 
 in his infancy (Ps. xviii. 17; cf. Ex. ii. 10, MdshdJi) ; td 
 the sublime record of the creation (Ps. xxiv. 2 ; cf. Gen. 
 
 1 There is no reason for disputing the title which calls Psalm iv. a " psalm of David." 
 
 ' Psalm xi. is acknowledged by Ewald and Hitzig to be Davidic. 
 
 3 Of Psalm xiv. Delitzsch says: " In dem Verwerfungsurtheil liber die sittlich-religiose 
 Beschaffenheit der gegenwartigen Menschheit welches Psalm 14 niit Psalm 12 gemein hat, 
 liegt zugleich einu Bestatigung fiir das /'' Dhavidh beider; 14:7 aber nothig uns nicht in ' 
 die Zeit des £xils hinab." — Com., iii loco.
 
 TJic Lazv cnid tlic Psalms. 37 1 
 
 i. I, 2, 9 ; Ps. xxxiii. 6) ; ^ to Jehovah's memorable testi- 
 mony concerning Abraham (Ps. xxv. 14; cf. Gen. xviii, 
 1 7) ; 2 the famine that drove the family of Jacob into 
 Egypt (Ps. xxxvii. 19 ; see word for "famine" here and 
 found elsewhere in Gen. xlii. 19, 33 only) ;'^ to the 
 translation of Enoch (Ps. xlix. 16; cf. Gen. v. 24);* 
 the solemn ceremonies attending the ratification of 
 the covenant at Sinai (Ps. 1. 5 ; cf. Ex. xxiv. 5-8) ; '"' the 
 confusion of tongues at Babel (Ps. Iv. 10 ; cf. Gen. x. 
 25 ; ^ Jacob's halting-places on his return from Padan 
 Aram (Ps. Ix. 8, 9; cf. Gen. xxxiii. 17, 18)/ and to the 
 passage of the Red Sea after the deliverance from 
 Egypt (Ps. Ixvi. II, 12).^ Within the compass of the 
 first seventy psalms, that is, in a series of compositions 
 ascribed almost without exception to King David, and 
 none of them containing matter in conflict with such a 
 claim, we find apparent references to such momentous 
 events in Pentateuch history as the creation of the 
 world and of man, the translation of Enoch, the Deluge, 
 the blessing of Noah, the confusion of tongues, promi- 
 nent incidents in the life of Abraham and of Jacob, the 
 fiery judgment on the cities of the plain, the bondage 
 in Egypt and the miraculous deliverance from it, to 
 Moses by a singular allusion to the origin of his name, 
 as well as other personal references, and to the solemn 
 giving of the law at Sinai. Scarcely a leading fact or 
 personage, indeed, is overlooked. And yet, to appear 
 
 ' Ewald and Hitzig agree with DeliUsch in ascribing Psalm xxiv. to David. 
 
 ' Psalm xxv. contains nothing inconsistent with Davidic authorship. 
 
 8 Psalm xxxvii. is said to be " by David," and Delitzsch pronounces it worthy of him. 
 
 * Psalm xlix. is by the "sons of Korah." It has the doctrinal coloring of the Davidic 
 psalms and need not be much later. 
 
 ''Psalm 1. is " by Asaph," but has no signs of a late period (cf. 2 Chron. xxix. 39). 
 
 *■ Psalm Iv. is said to be " by David," though Hitzig refers it to the lime of Jeremiah. 
 
 ' Psalm Ix. refers to David's war with the allied Syrians and .Vmmonites. 
 
 *The allusion to instrumental accompaniment in the title points at least to a pre- 
 exilian origin for the psalm.
 
 3/2 TJic PciitateiicJi : Its Origin and Structnfe. 
 
 ance, it is wholly fortuitous. There is evidently 
 no effort made to reproduce a single fact as such 
 and for its own sake. They spring unbidden to 
 the singer's lips. The very freedom and deftness of 
 manipulation, a touch as light as that which fell 
 upon the harpstrings, attest the currency of the 
 narratives and a common acquaintance of the people 
 with them. 
 
 But this is not all. TJie Law proper^ the great body 
 of legislation to be found in the Pentateuch^ still more 
 emphatically thaji the history, has left its impression on 
 the minds of IsraeVs earliest song-writers. This law is 
 cited by its historic title in the very opening stanza 
 of the Psalter (i. 3; cf. Deut. xi. 18-20; xvii. 19; Josh, 
 i. 8, and Ps. xl. 8, 9). The Deuteronomist's striking 
 phrase, "sacrifices of righteousness," is taken bodily 
 into the text in its original form a little further on 
 (Ps. iv. 6 ; cf. Deut. xxxiii. 19). The fact that the 
 orphaned and oppressed are the special wards of Jeho- 
 vah, the poet reechoes also from the lawgiver's lips 
 (Ps. x. 14, 18 ; cf. Deut. x. 18 ; xiv. 17 f. etc.).^ The pro- 
 hibition of the codes against usury and the taking of 
 bribes he not only seconds but adds to its motives the 
 higher inducement that only thus can one become a 
 friend and guest of God (Ps. xv. 4, 5 ; cf. Ex. xxii. 24 ; 
 xxiii. 8 ; Lev. xxv. 37 ; Deut. xxiii. 2 ff.).^ 
 
 It was by the law ("the words of thy lips," Ps. xvii. 
 4) that the Psalmist professes to have been kept from 
 the oppressor's paths. In that law there had been 
 
 ^ Psalm X. and xxxiii. are the only properly anonymous ones of the first book. The 
 LXX. have joined the former to Psalm ix., and this is in harmony with the acrostic 
 arrangement, the strophes of Psalm x. being needful to complete the alphabet. Hitzig, 
 with Delitzsch and others, as we have already seen, regarded both psalms as Davidic. 
 
 - Psalm XV. is imputed to David and appears to have been composed during the rebellion 
 of Absalom. Verse i seems to presuppose that Mount Zion was already honored with the 
 presence of the Ark of the Covenant (2 Sam. vi. 17).
 
 The Law and the Psahns. 373 
 
 left, as it were, the Deity's footprints amongst the 
 ways of men. In following them, the human step, too, 
 might be unwavering (vs. 5). It had "judgments" as 
 well as " statutes " (Ps. xviii. 23 ; cf. Deut. vi, 2 ; vii. 1 1 ; 
 viii. 11). It was "Jehovah's law" (Ps. xix. 8; cf. 2 
 Kings xi. 12) ; no mere inward voice, but a summary 
 of testimonies, precepts, commandments and ordi- 
 nances, in the keeping of which there was great 
 reward (vs. 8-1 1). When he says (Ps. xxvi. 6)} "I will 
 wash my hands in innocence ; And I will compass 
 thine altar, O Jehovah," the Psalmist has undoubtedly 
 in view the priestly calling of every Israelite and sig- 
 nalizes one of the commonest acts of such a calling (cf. 
 Ex. xix. 6 ; xxx. 20). The custom of sometimes offering 
 sacrifices in the midst of trumpet-peals has left its 
 mark, as might have been expected, on one of David's 
 sweetest songs (Ps. xxvii. 6 ; cf. Num. x. 10).^ He rec- 
 ognizes it as a behest of God that he should seek his 
 face (vs. 8) and " appear " before him (Ps. xlii. 3 ; cf. 
 Ex. xxiii. 17, and the other codes) .^ With a freewill 
 offering he would come and with sacrifices (Ps. liv. 8 ; 
 cf. Num. XV. 3),* fulfilling from day to day his vows 
 (Ps. Ixi. 9).^ Nothing, indeed, could be more desirable, 
 in his view, than the lot of such as were chosen of God 
 to dwell in his house and to be filled with the blessings 
 
 ' Psalm xxvi. like Psalinxv. is appropriate to the period of Absalom's rebellion and shows 
 the same longing for the sanctuary. That the " house " spoken of might be a tent is 
 clear from Gen. xxviii. 17; Ex. xxiii. 19; xxviv. 26. 
 
 -Psalm xxvii. is ascribed to David, and the " house of Jehovah " is still nothing 
 more than a " tent" (vs. 4, 5). 
 
 ■i Psalm xlii. is a " maskil " of the " sons of Korah." It is the first psalm of the second 
 book. The Korahite family was one of the most distinguished of the Levitical families in 
 the time of D.^vid (cf. i Chron. xii. 6). And there is no sufficient reason for putting 
 this composition much after his day. 
 
 ■• Psalm liv. is Mavidic in style and teaching, and in its superscription is dated at the 
 period of Saul's persecutions. 
 
 " On Psalm Ixi. Delitzsch remarks: " Wir bleiben bei dem stolz ignorirten I' Dhavidh 
 und h.-ibendafiir cin viel schlichtercs Vcrstandniss dcs Psalm zum I.ohne." — Com., in ioc 
 It seems to have been composed on the occasion of the flight before Absalom.
 
 374 '^^^^ Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 thereof (Ps. Ixv. ^)} " Let me," he exclaims, in strong 
 hyperbole, "abide in thy tent ages. Let me hide under 
 the cover of thy wings." As one of the elect com- 
 munity it is in closest harmony and sympathy with the 
 Levitical Torah that he finds himself in the "courts of 
 the Lord " (vs. 4). He, or another in the same spirit, 
 says : — 
 
 "I will enter thy house with burnt-offerings, 
 I will pay to thee my vows; 
 Those which my lips have offered. 
 And my mouth hath spoken in my distress. 
 Burnt-offerings of fallings I will bring thee, 
 With the incense of rams ; 
 I will offer bullocks with goats" (Ivi. 13 f.). 
 
 This Hebrew poet, now, or circle of poets, of the 
 tenth or eleventh century b.c, surely betrays no igno- 
 rance of the Mosaic codes or the innermost core and 
 essence of them. The impression they have left upon 
 him, on the contrary, is fully as deep as the sentiment 
 that Israel had a God, and standing as a people in the 
 world. On the supposition that the Pentateuch was 
 virtually complete and in its present form at that time, 
 it would be unfair to expect, in a series of poems from 
 David, or from contemporary pens, written in circum- 
 stances in which these must have been written, more 
 numerous or more specific allusions to it than such as 
 we have found.^ Li fact, this must be conceded by 
 
 1 Psalm Ixv., although containing much the same matter and having, in general, the 
 same style as Psalms viii., xix. , xxix., and like them imputed to David in the superscription, 
 Delitzsch thinks cannot be so early. He refers in disproof to the fact that " es scheint also 
 Entlastung Israel's und iiberhaupt der Volker vom Drucke einer Weltmacht gemeint zu 
 sein." Cf. vs. 2, 7, 8. That is not so certain, however. And were it true, it need not 
 refer to the empires of Babylon or Persia. 
 
 2 Let the references to the Pentateuch in the first thirty chapters of Ecclesiasticus or the 
 first half of the Book of Wisdom be compared with those of the first half of the Psalter 
 and the larger number will be found in the earlier, not the later, work, in the preexilian, 
 not the post-exilian, composition.
 
 The Law and the Psalms. 375 
 
 critics who, while insisting that the bulk of the Torah 
 arose after the seventh century, and the Levitical code 
 subsequent to the exile, equally insist that the bulk 
 of the Psalter, including many of the psalms we 
 have been considering, is also post-exilian. If the 
 compositions we have passed in review do not reflect 
 the Mosaic period and a Mosaic Pentateuch, much 
 less do they reflect the rabid legalism of the exulants 
 from Babylon. They do reflect a Mosaic Pentateuch. 
 It is precisely that which they reflect. They do mark 
 the earlier and not the later stages of acquaintance 
 with it and ethical appropriation of it ; the religion 
 of Israel before it hardened into Judaism ; the religion 
 of Jsrael and not the refinements of the scribes. 
 And we fail to see how our critics can hope for 
 commensurate returns from their concerted and 
 determined efforts to dislocate the so-called " Davidic 
 psalms " from their traditional position in the Scrip- 
 tures. Summoned to bear testimony to a post-exilian 
 Torah, they refuse to given even so much as a sign 
 of acquiescence. If allowed to speak at all, — and 
 they must be allowed to speak, — they can only 
 utter themselves in condemnation of such an 
 hypothesis. 
 
 Nor are we yet done. There are several psalms, 
 carrying upon them every mark of an origin in the 
 royal period, of having been chanted, if any were, by 
 David's and Solomon's Levitical choirs in the original 
 temple at Jerusalem, that have also so clear a stamp 
 of dependence on the Pentateuch and particularly on 
 the priestly institutions of Leviticus as to deserve a 
 special consideration. 
 
 Take, for example. Psalm xvi. It is confessed by 
 Hitzig that it betrays nothing inconsistent with its
 
 3/6 TJie Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 claim to Davidic authorship.^ Its allusion to idolatry 
 can be considered no anachronism at that time, as 
 some maintain (cf. Judges xviii. 17 f.; i Sam. xix. 
 13-16). But if it be not deeply rooted in the Penta- 
 teuch, it would be a serious problem to tell whence 
 its singular phraseology really comes. 
 
 Its author distinguishes between drink-offerings 
 properly and improperly made (vs. 4). He knows that 
 prohibition of the Book of the Covenant forbidding that 
 the names of idols should be so much as mentioned by 
 loyal Israelites {ibid.; cf. Ex. xxiii. 13). He knows the 
 promise that was made to the tribe of Levi that 
 Jehovah would be his portion (vs. 5 ; cf. Num. xviii. 20 ; 
 Deut. x. 9 ; xviii. i, 2), and how to associate with 
 it that other precious memory that the chosen 
 people were to be a peculiar people, a kingdom 
 of priests (Ex. xix. 6). He says, in the same natural 
 connection, giving a tropical force to the fact of the 
 partition of the holy land among the tribes, that the 
 " lines have fallen " to him amid pleasant surroundings 
 and that a "goodly heritage" is his {ibid.; cf. Josh, 
 xvii. 5 ; Judges xviii. i). And he calls his heart his 
 "glory," just as the patriarch Jacob had done in 
 blessing his sons : a bit of philosophy and a mark 
 of spiritual attainment withal that should not be 
 overlooked (Gen. xlix. 6). 
 
 Now, if the Pentateuch existed at the time David 
 wrote this psalm, so many direct allusions to it within 
 the space of less than half a dozen verses, allusions to 
 its three alleged leading portions, to its characteristic 
 codes, in fact to every book of it, are easy enough to 
 explain. If there were no Pentateuch, on the other 
 
 1 He remarks, moreover: " Der Psalm, welchen gedrungene Kraft der Sprache, v. 4, 
 sowie Frische urid Anschaulichkeit des bildlichen Ausdruckes kennzeichnen, v. 4-6, 11, 
 eignet unzweifelhaft dem hohera Alterthum." — Com. (Leipz. 1863), p. 79.
 
 The Law and tJie Psalms. 377 
 
 hand, no written law and no trustworthy history, we 
 are simply mystified by our investigations, not at all 
 enlightened and edified. 
 
 Psalm xviii. has been already three times cited in 
 the present paper (vs. 3, 17, 23), Its genuineness is 
 vindicated by the historical books, where it also appears 
 in a somewhat altered form.^ It contains, however, 
 unless we are at fault, not less than six additional 
 reminiscences of the Pentateuch within the space 
 of thirteen stanzas The natural phenomena accom- 
 panying the deliverance from Egypt and the giving of 
 the Law furnish the groundwork of the thought in the 
 seventh and following verses. The winged cherubim 
 of Jthe tabernacle also receive a passing notice (vs. 10). 
 The words hdel and qnr which it employs (vs. 31) 
 are both antique and Mosaic (cf. Deut. xxxii. 4). The 
 expression "high-places" (vs. 34) comes from the 
 "Song of Moses" (Deut. xxxii. 13); and the bold 
 announcement, " I will pursue mine enemies and 
 overtake them, I will turn not back till they be 
 consumed," from the song of the triumphing Israelites 
 in view of Pharaoh's overthrow (Ex. xv. 9). 
 
 Psalm xxiv. also has been already briefly cited. In 
 its opening lines (vs. 2), as in Psalm viii., the primitive 
 record of creation, as far as it concerns the work of the 
 second day, is adapted to poetic measure. The expres- 
 sion "fulness thereof" as related to the earth comes 
 from the "Blessing of Moses" (Deut. x.xxiii. 16). The 
 third commandment reappears in the fourth verse. In 
 the seventh and following verses the language pulsates 
 vigorously with the thought that Jehovah's dwelling- 
 place is with the historic ark, and that when it moves, 
 he, the " King of glory," also moves, as the Book of 
 
 * " Die Davidiiche Authentic unci so weit die Aussage der Ueberschrift in Zwoifcl zu 
 Ziehen, gebricht es an jcdein Grund." — Hitzig, ibid. p. 95.
 
 3/8 TJie PentateucJt: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Numbers had represented (ix. ; x. 35 ; cf. 2 Sam. vii. 6). 
 The occasion celebrated seems to be the removal of 
 the sanctuary from Kirjath-jearim to Mount Zion. 
 For beauty of language and majesty of conception the 
 following stanzas can scarcely be excelled (vs. 9, 10) : 
 
 " Lift up, O gates, your heads! 
 Lift up yourselves, ye ancient doors, 
 That the King of Glory may come in! 
 Who, then, is the King of Glory? 
 Jehovah of Hosts ; 
 He is the King of Glory." 
 
 But far superior to any others in their bearing on the 
 questions of Pentateuch criticism are the psalms num- 
 bered in our collection xl., 1., and li. (in the Septuagint 
 xli., li., Hi.). The first and last are introduced as compo- 
 sitions of David, the third as that of Asaph, who, as is 
 well known, is represented as a poet, musician, and 
 prophet of David's time (i Chron. xvi. 5 ; 2 Chron. 
 xxix. 30 ; Neh. xii. 46). ^ 
 
 The superscription to Psalm li. tells us that it was 
 written by David after Nathan's rebuke concerning the 
 matter of Bathsheba (2 Sam. xii. i). Nothing could be 
 more fitting to the circumstances. Already in previous 
 utterances of his there has appeared evidence that all 
 is not right with the singer (cf. Ps. vi., xxxviii.). Here 
 the broken spirit casts off, as it were, its heavy load, 
 and opens itself without reserve to the re-creating 
 
 I Ewald and Hitzig, to whom Delitzsch perhaps in this case may be joined, are inclined 
 to date Psalm xl. at the time of Jeremiah, if not to make him its author. The figure of the 
 pit, however (vs. 3), might quite as well have been taken from the experience of Joseph. 
 And it has not a few peculiarities of David's style. But for our present purpose, the date 
 as between B.C. 1000 and 600 can make but little difference. 
 
 Of Psalm 1. Delitzsch says that it is " ein asafiche Originalpsalm "; that is, it is not to 
 be ascribed to some later member of the family, but to its head. The only objection of 
 weight to considering the title of Psalm li. genuine is the allusion in verse 20 to building 
 the walls of Jerusalem. But this is just what Solomon is said to have done (i Kings iii. 
 i; ix. 15; cf. Josh. xix. 50; 2 Chron. viii. 2).
 
 The Law and the Psalms. 379 
 
 influence of the Holy Spirit. Better might the Chris- 
 tian heart deny itself the comfort of such a psalm as 
 the twenty-third than part with this deep-toned miserere 
 which appeals to a still more active consciousness and 
 voices a sorer need. 
 
 Now, however, we are concerned with another aspect 
 of it. It is with sin and moral uncleanness that the 
 sacrificial Torah is supposed to have particularly to do. 
 Does our psalm make any alhision to its rites ? The 
 writer says : — 
 
 "Purify mei with hyssop and I shall be clean, 
 Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow." 
 
 In the first half of the verse there is undoubted 
 reference to the priestly custom of sprinkling lepers, 
 and others ceremonially unclean, with water by means 
 of a branch of hyssop.^ In the second half of the 
 verse a no less characteristic regulation of the Levitical 
 code is recalled and tacitly approved (Lev. vi. 27 ; xiii. 
 54; xvii. 16, and often). 
 
 David lays hold of the ancient law by its external 
 features ; but it is clearly the kernel of it that he 
 seeks. " Be thou, O God ! " he, in effect, says, " my 
 priest without intermediary. Do thou for me, in 
 reality, that which no son of Aaron can do except in 
 form. Their poor ministry is for the flesh. With me 
 it is the spirit that is sick, and faint, and corrupt." 
 David looked beyond the outward ceremony of purifica- 
 tion, and his prophetic, though troubled, soul — made 
 capable of the prophetic impulse, we might almost say, 
 by the greatness of his trouble — in the symbol saw the 
 thing symbolized. And it is from the same illuminated 
 
 » Literally, " Un-sin me." 
 
 * The oriRinal word is found only in Ex. xii 22; Lev. xiv. 4, 6. 49, 51, 52; Nuin. 
 xix. 6, 18; I Kings v. 13.
 
 380 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 plateau, where clearer vision and a deeper experience 
 have come to him, that what is said a little later is 
 uttered (vs. 16, 17): — 
 
 *' For thou delightest not in sacrifice. 
 Else would I give it ; 
 
 In offerings made by fire thou hast no pleasure. 
 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit , 
 A heart broken and contrite, O God ! thou wilt not despise." 
 
 Disparaging sacrifices ! As a sufficient means of puri- 
 fication and pardon, as the final and only ground of hope 
 — yes. How could he do otherwise.'' The man who 
 knows what it is to be a sinner against God (vs. 6) does 
 not need any Epistle to the Hebrews to inform him 
 that his ultimate appeal must be to God. Dispar- 
 aging sacrifices ! As an eloquent tribute of deepest 
 human feeling and longing, whether of penitence or of 
 gratitude — no. It is clear from the context, as well as 
 from the whole teaching of Israelitish history, that he 
 does not and can not disapprove of them in themselves 
 considered. His very allusion to them attests the 
 commonness of their use. And there were circum- 
 stances, he immediately goes on to say, when God 
 could " delight in sacrifices, in burnt-offerings and 
 whole burnt-offerings " (vs. 20).^ It was when his 
 altars really smoked for him. It was when the offering 
 really brought together the offerer and Him who was 
 offered to ; when it had ceased to be a barrier and 
 had become a bond and channel of spiritual communion. 
 The whole spirit of the Psalms shows that this is the 
 deeper thought which underlies the figure and unites 
 
 1 Even if the unlikely supposition were to be admitted that the last two verses of the 
 psalm are a later addition, it would be a still more unlikely supposition that, at any 
 period within which their origin would be allowable, they could have been added as a 
 correction of King David's utterances. They must have been appended, if it all, ta 
 illustrate, and not to counterwork, his teaching as then understood.
 
 TJic Lazo and tJic Psalms. %Z\ 
 
 In one the otherwise incoherent utterances of the 
 contrite singer. 
 
 Let us turn now to the fortieth psahn. As we read, 
 we can scarcely resist the feeling that it is a kind of 
 response to the one we have just reviewed ; the praise- 
 note, as it were, which in nearly all of David's composi- 
 tions follows words of confession and prayer. God had 
 heard his cry for help. He had lifted him out of the 
 "miry pit." He had put a "new song" in his mouth. 
 He exclaims : — 
 
 " Oh, the blessedness of the man 
 Who maketh Jehovah his trust!" 
 
 And naturally, then (vs. 6), he recalls the wonders 
 God had wrought for Israel ; his "thoughts " for them, 
 which were more than could be told. But it is the 
 deeper thought, what is revealed to him as the under, 
 lying purpose of all Jehovah's dealings with his people, 
 that he finally fixes upon. 
 
 " Sacrifice and oblation thou desirest not ; 
 Ears hast thou hollowed out for me. 
 
 Burnt-offering and sin-offering are not what thou requirest.^ 
 Then I said : ' Lo ! I come, 
 In the roll of the book it is written for me ; 
 To do thy will, O my God, is my delight. 
 And thy law is written in my innermost heart.'" 
 
 * The pertinent remarks of Professor Green {/Ifoscs and the Prophets, p. no f.) may 
 be here cited: " If Ezekiel is the inventor of sin-offerings [as Smend and onr critics gen- 
 erally maintain], Psalm xl. 6 mnst have borrowed them from him or from the Levitic.-il 
 Law, wh'ch he pioneered. Such language, when found in Micah vi. 8, Jer. vii. 22, is 
 interpreted [Prof. R. Smith, Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 288] as affirm- 
 ing that ' Jehovah has not enjoined sacrifice,' that he has, in fact, given no law upon the 
 subject; the Levitical Law was consequently luiknown. But if Psalm xl. 6 can speak thus 
 after Ezekiel's I^aw, or the Levitical Law, had been announced, Micah and Jeremiah could 
 do the same; and then, for all that appears, the Levitical Law may antedate their utter- 
 ances. Or if Psalm xl. was prior to the time of Ezekiel, the sin-offering was not 
 introduced by him; though not mentioned elsewhere, it was part of the preexilic ritua/ 
 and Moses may have ordained it after all."
 
 382 The Pentateuch : Its Origm and Structure . 
 
 It is precisely the spirit that ruled in the psalm of 
 penitence just considered that rules in these utterances 
 of victorious confidence and rejoicing. The writer 
 recognizes that what God most wanted on the part of 
 his people was open ears and an obedient will. The 
 Law he had given them^ would otherwise fail of its 
 purpose. What mattered it, that it was written in a 
 book, if the heart did not honor and delight in it ? 
 What mattered a ritual of sacrifice if there were not to 
 be also a spirit of self-surrender, symbolized and set 
 forth by the outward offerings. " Hence," says the 
 Psalmist, " I come with the book written for me ; but 
 not with the book alone ; I come with that which will 
 please thee better : a heart to interpret the book and 
 a will to keep it." 
 
 Does such language surprise us on David's lips } It 
 ought not. It is true that we find the prophets of the 
 sixth century looking forward to just such an inward 
 reception of the Law and response to it as one of the 
 blessings of the better days to come (Jer. xxxi. 32). 
 But it had also been the demand of every great leader 
 of Israel from Moses down (Deut. xxx. 6, 16; Prov. xxi. 
 3 ; Hos. vi. 6; Mic. vi. 6-8; Is. i. ir-15). It was simply 
 putting in another form a sentiment that David might 
 have heard many a time from the lips of his own revered 
 teacher and friend ; one, in fact, he could not well have 
 failed to hear, since it was the reverse of that which 
 had characterized the fatal policy of his predecessor, 
 whose condemnation had been spoken in the never-to- 
 be-forgotten words : " Behold, to obey is better than 
 sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams " (i Sam. 
 
 ^ It was a law that, obviously, had to do with sacrifice and oblation, with burnt-offering 
 ai»d sin-offering; else why does he mention them at all in this connection? 
 
 2 " Die Aussage Davids ist der Widerhall dieser Aussage Samuels mit welcher dem 
 Konigtum Sauls das Todesurtheil gesprochen und also dem kiinftigen Konigtum Davids 
 der Weg gottgefalligen Bestandes vorgezeichnet ward." — Delitzsch, Com., in loco.
 
 TJie Law a?id the Psalms. 383 
 
 XV. 22).2 To deny, on the other hand, David's author- 
 ship of this psalm and to transfer it to the time 
 of Jeremiah, or even later, does not help the matter 
 for our critics. It is not a voice that witnesses 
 to God's invariable attitude toward animal sacrifices. 
 It is, as we have said, a chorus of voices whose 
 sound cannot be escaped within the confines of 
 Hebrew history. 
 
 Nowhere, however, is the sentiment tliat animal 
 sacrifices were never intended to serve as a commuta- 
 tion for that which is due from man to God and to his 
 fellow-man more earnestly set forth than in Psalm 1. 
 The repudiation and rebuke here of a doctrine so gross 
 borders even on contempt. And it is instructive to 
 find that the man from whose mouth we hear such 
 language, in this instance, is himself a Levite. As in 
 the case of Jeremiah, whose priestly office did not 
 prevent his putting obedience before outward rites 
 (vii. 21 f.), so Asaph is enough of a Levite at heart to 
 see what was the inner meaning of the code he served. 
 
 The psalm opens with a summons from God to " his 
 people " to meet him in solemn conference. They are 
 his "favored ones"; the same who had made^ a cove- 
 nant with him by sacrifice. Mark the significant 
 words. They are in tender allusion and clearly, too, 
 an approving one to what had occurred at Sinai when 
 the law was given (Ex. xxiv. 5-8). Does he then forth- 
 with proceed to disallow and denounce the offering 
 of sacrifices ? He denounces their counterfeit ; the 
 degeneracy and coarseness that can imagine him 
 pleased with offerings that bear upward no incense of 
 real devotion. This is the impeachment he brings : — 
 
 ' The use of the participle indicates the continuance of the act of making a coven int. 
 It had not been d jne oiice for all, but was an ever-present condition of the divine relatiou- 
 ship to his people.
 
 384 The Pentatettch : Its Origin and Stmcture. 
 
 " Hear, O my people, and I will speak; 
 
 Israel, I will testify against thee — 
 I, that am God, thine own God ! 
 
 Not for [the lack of] thy sacrifices do I reprove thee ; 
 For thy burnt-offerings are ever before me. 
 
 1 need not to take bullocks out of thy house, 
 Nor he-goats out of thy folds ; 
 
 For mine is every beast of the forest, 
 
 And the cattle upon a thousand hills. 
 
 I know every bird of the mountains, 
 
 And the abundance [brood] of the meadows is with me. 
 
 Were I hungry, I would not tell thee, 
 
 For mine is the world and its fulness. 
 
 Do I eat the flesh of bullocks. 
 
 Or do I drink the blood of goats ? 
 
 Rather sacrifice unto God thanksgiving, 
 
 And pay thy vows unto the Most High. 
 
 Then call on me in the day of trouble ; 
 
 I will deliver thee, as one honoring me. 
 
 But to the wicked, God saith : 
 
 What is it to thee, to speak of my statutes, 
 
 And to take my covenant in thy mouth ? " 
 
 Can there justly be any misunderstanding of these 
 pathetic and earnest v^ords .'' They are simply the 
 interpretation and application from the Hebrew national 
 and historical point of view of the sacrificial Torah. It 
 had become to many a law of license and a cloak of 
 wickedness. Evil men mouthed Jehovah's " statutes " 
 and " covenant," but inwardly hated both and secretly 
 cast his words behind their backs. It was in this way, 
 at least, that the son of Sirach understood and inter- 
 preted the sentiments of our psalm. Writing in the 
 midst of the ever-narrowing regulations of post-exilian 
 Judaism, he was in no danger, surely, of depreciating 
 unduly the outward rite. Paraphrasing at length the 
 thoughts of our auther, he does not hesitate to follow 
 his copy in its warmest denunciations of hypocritical
 
 The Lazv and the Psalms. 385 
 
 ecclesiasticism.^ Indeed, what more absurd hypothesis 
 could well have been conceived than this, that among 
 the Israelites all ordinary laws of growth were reversed 
 and the ethical idea of sacrifices, as a natiwal product, 
 preceded and ushered in the custom of sacrificing, that 
 that was not first which was natural but that which was 
 spiritual ? This is what the advocates of a purely 
 natural development in the institutions of Israel soberly 
 ask us, in opposition to every known principle of 
 development, to believe. 
 
 On the contrary, the poets and prophets of Israel 
 have done just the work that was to have been expected 
 of them. They have emphasized the symbolical sig- 
 nificance of the Law over against its ceremonial features, 
 and rather than the ceremonial. With them these 
 legal regulations are less a matter of objective contem- 
 plation and study, and more a motive. They are 
 impressed with the fact that the best Israelite, after all, 
 is he who is one inwardly. And this is as consonant 
 with the nature of the literature they represent as it is 
 with the advanced stage they occupy in the development 
 of revelation. Without introducing anything actually 
 new, they mark a successful effort toward a better 
 adjustment of the old. Forms of worship begin more 
 and more, thanks largely to them, to pulsate with the 
 spirit of worship. The general is more and more 
 translated into the special and individual. " Bless ye 
 the Lord, O house of Israel " comes to take on, even 
 for the "house of Israel," the more significant and more 
 Christian form : " Bless the Lord, O my soul " ! 
 
 ' "Sacrificing wh.it is wrongfully gotten is an offering of mockery, 
 
 And the mocUeries of transgressors arc not accepted." 
 " He that washeth himself because of a dead body, if he touch it again. 
 
 What availelh his washing?" — Ecclus. x.vxiv. i8, 25. 
 " He that rcquiteth a good turn offereth fine flour; 
 
 And he that giveth alms sacrificcth praise." — Ibid. xxxv. i.
 
 386 TJie Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 But it is time to direct attention, briefly, to another 
 particular in which the earliest portions of the Psalter 
 bear witness to the essential integrity of the Pentateuch 
 in their day. We find them not only penetrated in 
 general with the same ethical spirit ; but they are 
 stamped zvith the tnost fundamental and characteristic 
 principles of the Israelitish religion as there formally set 
 forth. Let us illustrate by some examples. 
 
 One of these principles, common as we have already 
 elsewhere shown to every part of the legislation, is the 
 demand for a single national sanctuary. To what 
 extent it remained an ideal most imperfectly attained 
 in the earlier Jewish history, our examination of the 
 historical books has demonstrated. Still, an ideal it 
 always was, earnestly striven for by such as were 
 capable of being much moved by ideals. The triumph 
 of the national spirit in David's time and the centrali- 
 zation of power in him gave an opportunity for a 
 corresponding centralization in the national worship 
 never before enjoyed. He makes no law on the sub- 
 ject, it is to be carefully noted. He acts, in every 
 respect, as though it were a matter of course ; that is, 
 as though there had always been a Law and that, now. 
 Providence had given a clear field for its execution. 
 At the earliest opportunity he brings the Ark of the 
 Covenant to Mount Zion. Thither the tribes were 
 to go \v^ (Ps. cxxii. 5) : — 
 
 "The tribes of Jehovah — it was a precept in Israel — 
 To give thanks to the name of Jehovah." 
 
 Such a tacit assumption on the king's part and the 
 universal, unresisting assent of the tribes at the start 
 are witnesses, that must not be overlooked, to what all
 
 The Law and the Psalms. 387 
 
 along had been the national goal. And the Psalms 
 throughout reflect this spirit. 
 
 The abode of Jehovah is looked upon as the so-called 
 "holy hill," that is, Zion (iii. 4). He had chosen it for 
 a habitation and there he would dwell forever. The 
 mountains of Bashan vainly sought to rival it in his 
 esteem (Ixviii. 15, 17). On Zion he was enthroned 
 (ix. 12; Ixv. 2). His dwelling-place, as of old, was the 
 humble tabernacle which was there pitched (v. 5 ; 
 X. I, 4; XV. i; xviii. 6; Ixi. 5). From Zion went 
 forth the salvation of Israel (xiv. 7) : Zion, on the 
 extreme north, a joy of the whole earth (xlviii. 3 ; 1. 2). 
 There praise waited for Jehovah and amid its stillness 
 ascended the thankful song (Ixv. 2). 
 
 These are simple illustrations of the many echoes in 
 the oldest parts of the Psalter to this clear teaching of 
 the Pentateuch. And the surprising thing about it is 
 that the Psalms echo no other sentiment whatever. 
 One may be safely challenged to discover a single 
 exception to the rule. Not only surprising, but inex- 
 plicable, would be the circumstance, if the Hebrew 
 religion were understood to be still in a chrysalis state, 
 if this sentiment first took palpable shape and began 
 really to be insisted on four centuries later, during the 
 reforms of King Josiah. 
 
 Again, we discover just as little trace of uncertainty 
 in our collection of early psalms, in their representa- 
 tions of God. It is certain that they never recognize 
 more than one God, the Jehovah-Elohim of the Penta- 
 teuch and the prophets. Heathen deities are, indeed, 
 alluded to ; but so far from being put on a level with 
 Jehovah, or regarded as, in any sense, his rivals, there 
 is rather a refusal to acknowledge them as gods at all 
 (xvi, 4 ; xcvii. 7). The bulk of the Psalter is taken up
 
 388 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 with the direct worship of Jehovah, with grateful 
 and tender words of adoration and praise exclusively 
 for him. 
 
 If we were to trust the representations of our critics 
 it was a very different state of things that actually 
 existed for centuries after David lived. Until the 
 prophets, one by one, and sporadically, began to intro- 
 duce a more exclusive spirit, the religion of Israel, it is 
 said, was practically syncretistic. Israel had, nom- 
 inally, a national deity, as other nations about it, and 
 his name was "Jehovah," But the practice of the 
 notorious Jeroboam I. and the still more notorious 
 Jeroboam II. best illustrates the actual faith of 
 the people. Their worship was a compromise ; their 
 religion made up of a fusion of elements in which 
 a great deal of pure heathenism was mingled with 
 a modicum of what is now known as Judaism. And 
 such a course, it is declared, was then, in that stage of 
 development, inevitable and legitimate. The acknowl- 
 edged best men of the times, iconoclasts like Elijah, 
 took no exception to matters that, in a later day, were 
 branded as idolatrous and criminal. 
 
 It has already been shown what violence is done by 
 such a theory to the facts of Israelitish history as 
 recorded by Israelitish historians and to the real con- 
 sensus of prophetical opinion and teaching. It is even 
 more at war with the Psalms. In what one of them is 
 there to be detected so much at a glance of favor 
 toward Moloch or Chemosh, Baal or Ashtoreth } 
 Where is the scintilla of evidence to be found in any 
 verse of these one hundred and fifty separate composi- 
 tions, running through a period of at least six hundred 
 years, that Jehovah was looked upon as merely the 
 God of Israel ? It is an alleged David, rather, who
 
 TJie Lazv and the Psalms. 389 
 
 speaks for all Hebrew singers when he says, in tender 
 invocation to Jehovah (xvi. 2-4) : " Thou art my 
 Lord : I have no good beyond thee ; " and adds : 
 "Their griefs shall be multiplied who wed with other 
 gods [ ? exchange God for an idol] : — 
 
 " I pour not out their drink-offerings of blood, 
 Nor take their names upon my lips." 
 
 It is the same representative David, we are informed, 
 who elsewhere utters himself quite to the same intent : 
 
 " None is like thee among the gods, O Lord ! 
 Neither are there any works to be compared with thine. 
 All the nations whom thou hast made, 
 Shall come, O Lord ! and worship before thee. 
 And they shall give glory to thy name, 
 For thou art great and doest wonders ; 
 Thou art God alone " (Ixxxvi. 8-1 1). 
 
 The ideas concerning God and the epithets applied 
 to him in the Psalms, so far from being Canaanitish or 
 syncretistic, are, in fact, more nearly Christian in their 
 depth and definiteness of conception. Without fear of 
 vagueness we still accept them as expressing our own 
 supposed more philosophic notions. Is it, for example, 
 his relations to the material universe that we would 
 characterize as being above it and the author of it ? 
 How compactly and how eloquently it is set forth in 
 the couplet (xxxiii. 9) : — 
 
 " For he spoke and it was done ; 
 
 He commanded and it stood fast " ! 
 
 Is it his own self-existence and eternity .-• In one of 
 the oldest compositions of the collection, one, indeed, 
 ascribed to the lawgiver of the wilderness himself,^ we 
 
 ' Psalm xc. 2. " F,s gicbt knuni cin Schiiftdcnkmal t\c9, Altertiims, welches das 
 Uebcrlicferungszeugniss seiner Alstammung so glanzenj rechtfertigt, wie dicser Psalm." 
 ^Pelitzsch, Com., in loco.
 
 390 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 find this most impressive reflection of the mystery : 
 " Before the mountains were brought forth or ever thou 
 didst give birth to the earth and the world, From aeon 
 to aeon thou art God." They recognize and character- 
 ize, as do no other compositions of antiquity outside the 
 Scriptures, the divine omniscience and omnipresence 
 {ibid, cxxxix.), and, above all, the divine holiness that 
 can suffer nothing unclean, insincere, or inwardly 
 untrue in its sight (xxii. 4 ; xxiv. 3 f. ; Ixxi. 22). They 
 find in God that which it has always been so hard 
 for the natural man to think of as possible attributes 
 of the same great being : an harmonious blending 
 of matchless power with a mercy and condescension 
 equally matchless: — 
 
 "One thing has God spoken; these two have I heard: 
 That power belongeth unto God ; 
 And that to thee, O Lord, belongeth loving-kindness" (Ixii. 12). 
 
 So, too, in the form of the worship paid to Jehovah 
 we discover that the Israelitish psalmody is entirely 
 consistent with the presuppositions of Israelitish 
 history. It is never presented to us as a worship at 
 second-hand, but direct and personal. It is never set 
 forth as a worship through symbols and outward repre- 
 sentations of the Deity, but a worship of One who is 
 supposed to know every secret of the heart (i Sam. 
 xvi. 7 ; Ps. vii. 10, etc.). There is, in short, just as 
 little a breach of the second commandment observable 
 in the form and spirit of the Psalms as of the first 
 commandment. 
 
 What has been already said of Zion as the recognized 
 seat of the Jehovah cultus cannot be harmonized with 
 the hypothesis of a recognized adoration of images there 
 or elsewhere. We hear of the "holy hill," the "taber-
 
 The Latv and the Psalms. 391 
 
 nacle," the "sanctuary," the "throne of Jehovah " ; but 
 we hear of no orderly worship save of him who dwelt 
 between the cherubim, nothing whatever in approval of 
 the bamoth and their ceremonies ; nothing in honor of 
 the star-images of Amos's memories (v^ 26), or of the 
 molten calf of Hosea's denunciations (viii. 5) ; or the 
 "asherahs" of Deuteronomy. It is noted and enjoined 
 that men appear before Jehovah in " holy attire " 
 (xxix. 21); but that any admiration is expended on the 
 probably quite as sumptuous pagan rites we have no 
 hint. Now the psalmists cannot have been ignorant of 
 that which, if the records are true, the ordinary Israelite 
 knew so much. They cannot have approved of that 
 concerning which they are so significantly, and as 
 we believe purposely, silent. We fail to see good 
 reason why other places and forms of worship than 
 those of Zion find no reflection in the Hebrew 
 Psalter, if they were ever, as is alleged, as legitimate 
 and fully sanctioned as those of Zion within the 
 periods covered by our psalms. Here, too, there is 
 an argumentum e silentio worthy of the consideration 
 of our critics who build so massively upon it 
 elsewhere. 
 
 Not only is there no outspoken approval, nor even so 
 much as a hint of acquiescence, there are positive utter- 
 ances of disapproval of any such efforts at a dualistic 
 service (xxxi. 7; xliv. 21 f.). There is an all-pervading 
 spirit that speaks louder than words, an attitude toward 
 Jehovah and his service that precludes the opposite, 
 points to a contrast in fact as well as in act. It is the 
 taunt of the other sort of people, for example, the men 
 who walk by sight, that seems to reach us in the heart- 
 less interrogatory (xlii. 4, 11): "Where is thy God.?" 
 It is the men who bow at other and prohibited altars
 
 392 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 who shoot out the lip and wag the head, saying m mien 
 as well as in words (Ps xxii. 8, 9) : — 
 
 "He trusted in Jehovah, let him release him; 
 Let him rescue him, for he delighteth in him." 
 
 It could not have been they who made a fetish of the 
 sun or the moon, who were wont to utter themselves so 
 humbly and yet so profoundly in the language of their 
 inspired singer : — 
 
 "When I see thy heavens, 
 The work of thy fingers ; 
 The moon and the stars. 
 Which thou didst create ; 
 What is a mortal man 
 That thou bearest him in mind?" 
 
 It could not have been the loyal Israelites, of whom 
 David says (Ps. xvi. 3) that they are the " noble of the 
 earth," in whom is all his delight, who bowed down to 
 images of stupid oxen, trying to persuade themselves 
 that somehow Jehovah dwelt in them and would mani- 
 fest himself through them. It was the loyal Israel 
 rather, those who were in sympathy with David and 
 joined David in those words, scarce comprehensible 
 indeed, but elevating and sweet, and a sure antidote 
 one might think against the seductions whether of 
 the Egyptian apis or the gilded calf of Samaria 
 (Ps. viii. 6 f.) : — 
 
 "Thou hast made him little less than God, 
 And with glory and honor thou hast crowned him ! 
 Thou gavest him rule over the works of thy hands; 
 Thou hast placed them all under his feet. 
 Sheep and oxen, under liim are they all ; 
 And alike, the beasts of the field, 
 The birds of the air and the fish of the sea."
 
 The Laiv and the Psalms. 393 
 
 And there is another hypothesis of our critics in 
 which, whatever may be their conclusions from the other 
 Scriptures, they cannot have fully reckoned with the 
 Psalms. It is that the prophets of the royal and subse- 
 quent periods were far from being in harmony with one 
 another or with the people to whom they brought their 
 messages ; that, above all, the prophet was at war with 
 the priest, jealous of his influence and contesting step 
 by step his innovations and growing usurpations. Of 
 all this, there is not one trace in the psalms of David 
 and his successors. Not one inharmonious note do we 
 here discover, not one element of discord. The singer 
 "Asaph" was known not only as Levite, but also as 
 prophet. The sons of Korah, recognized as Levites of 
 the Levites, are recognized in their productions as first 
 of all Israelites. Their songs are strikingly national in 
 tone. They honor tlie sanctuary but in no spirit of 
 ecclesiasticism. Both, like Ethan, are significantly 
 introduced as David's singers. They sing in his meas- 
 ures. They reflect his spirit. They teach his doctrine. 
 To find any marked cleavage-lines dividing these 
 compositions such as is supposed to exist in the law ; 
 to find opposing tendencies and dissentient opinions on 
 such matters as the cultus, the history, the moral and 
 political outlook, the dangers, the goal of Israel, we 
 will venture to say is impossible. Priestly, kingly, and 
 prophetical elements are found mingling in every part 
 and blending without disharmony. It is "Asaph," 
 perhaps, who makes most of God as Judge. It is the 
 "sons of Korah" who chiefly exalt him as King. It is 
 David who strikes every cord in the gamut and in an 
 ethical and doctrinal, as well as an historical, sense is, 
 above all others, the " sweet psalmist of Israel." 
 
 It might be said now that, as in the case of the
 
 394 T^^^^ PentateiicJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 historical books, so here in the Psalms, we are to 
 consider that we have a carefully edited edition of 
 these works which needs as careful a sifting of original 
 from secondary and foreign material. But the project 
 of an expurgated edition of the Psalter, we venture to 
 say, might as well be given up, if it be entertained on 
 the principles we have been considering. To expur- 
 gate the Psalter of all testimony hostile to the Well- 
 hausen theory of Israelitish history, or out of harmony 
 with it, would be to expunge the Psalter, at least its 
 acknowledged earlier portions. It would be, by some 
 means, to rid ourselves altogether of a psalmist David, 
 to level Zion, and silence the witnesses to a pure 
 worship of Jehovah in this period of the united 
 kingdom. That, indeed, is what is aimed at, virtually 
 if not directly, in the efforts now making to move the 
 collection from its historic base and set it bodily down 
 in the morass of the exile. 
 
 Or it might be said that we have not in our present 
 Psalter the actual songs of the people, but only of those 
 who frequented the sanctuary at Jerusalem ; and that 
 this collection does not fairly represent the habitual 
 practices and spiritual attainments of even that part of 
 Israel whose centre of worship was Solomon's temple. 
 Very true ; it is freely admitted that it is quite unlikely 
 that it does fairly represent them, generally, in these 
 respects. When did a hymnbook ever represent the 
 habitual practices, or even the spiritual attainments, of 
 any people .-* The hymnbook of the Lutheran Church 
 of Germany is far enough from representing German 
 Lutheranism as it appears in the daily lives, or even in 
 the current beliefs, of many of its members. The spirit 
 of Wesley's hymns, in all charity we may say it, was 
 never the spirit to which Wesley's followers would lay
 
 TJie Law and the Psalms. 395 
 
 claim as having either fully or widely attained it. The 
 hymnbook records the aspirations, the hopes, the sup- 
 plications, the confessions, the longings, the victories 
 of the church in its best state. It is always something 
 to be accounted for, however. It is itself an effect and 
 not simply a cause. Of what was the Israelitish hymn- 
 book an effect .? Something went before Luther's 
 hymns that made them possible. What went before 
 David's .'' It makes no difference whether the composi- 
 tions we have been considering were in the mouths 
 of few or many ; whether they were sung in Samaria 
 or only in Jerusalem ; in the homes of the people or 
 only at the temple. They presuppose something of 
 which they are the outgrowth. 
 
 If the Pentateuch previously existed in essentially its 
 present form ; if its laws were to a considerable extent 
 known to the people and had been somewhat, though 
 to a much less extent, observed by them ; if Israelitish 
 history had actually taken the course that is recorded 
 in the historical books, we have a sufficient historical 
 and ethical basis for the Psalter. We know whence 
 these poems derive their present form and peculiar 
 methods of expression ; we know from what grand and 
 all-sufficient source under God they receive their inspira- 
 tion and motive power. We can see how well adapted 
 they were to worshipers of those times, how they 
 stimulated the conscience, inspired the zeal, and melted 
 the heart, just as our best hymns do ours. But without 
 the Pentateuch and the illumined history, a Saul before 
 David, and a full-sized Moses before the noble Samuel, 
 we have a stream without a fountain, we have some of 
 the ripest fruits of biblical training without the trace 
 of anything that could properly be called a Bible. 
 
 Finally, I wcnikl direct attention to what might be
 
 39^ The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 called the personal element in the Psalms : in other 
 words, to what the psalmists themselves were, as indi- 
 cated and illustrated in what they said. We have 
 been considering these compositions as products of 
 cultivation, the result of long - continued processes. 
 Their authors, in a still more marked and indisputable 
 sense, are products of a continuous training and 
 development. May we not, possibly, find them, /// 
 themselves, quite as valuable witnesses to the pre- 
 Davidic history of Israel as recorded in the Scriptures 
 as we have found their works 1 We will examine one 
 or two characteristic traits of these men, which, because 
 they are characteristic and uniform, may be fairly 
 attributed to one man, whom we will name the Psalm- 
 ist, be he David, or some other, who took on the senti- 
 ments and wrote in the spirit of the master. This 
 Hebrew poet, to appearance, was quite unconscious of 
 being, to such an extent as it has proved, a singer for 
 others than himself. He was first of all and essentially 
 an independent singer. It was his own longings, 
 hopes, confessions, supplications, hosannas, that he 
 gave utterance to. And his melodies are no less his 
 that they served to voice so well the higher aspirations 
 of multitudes of his countrymen and voice still our own. 
 He had, for example, a personal consciousness that he 
 was a sinner and a longing to be free from sin. More 
 than once is the peculiar exclamation, so emphatic in 
 its form in the original, " O the blessedness ! " made 
 the vehicle of his surcharged feeling and desire in this 
 respect (Ps. i. 1,2; xxxii. i, 2) : — 
 
 " O the blessedness of the man, 
 Who walketh not in the counsels of the wicked. 
 Nor in the way of sinners standeth, 
 Nor in the seat of scoffers sitteth !
 
 The Law and the PsalmS. 397 
 
 But his delight is in the law of Jehovah. 
 
 O the blessedness of him, 
 
 Whose transgression is taken away. 
 
 Whose sin is covered ! 
 
 O the blessedness of the man, 
 
 To whom Jehovah no guilt imputeth 
 
 And in whose spirit there is no guile ! " 
 
 Four of the so-called penitential psalms (vi., xxxii., 
 xxxviii., li.) are inscribed in our collection to the pen of 
 David. Since the time of Origen the Christian church 
 has found no means more fit, on certain occasions, to 
 express her own grave sense of ill-desert. In one, the 
 true doctrine of sin is set forth in terms so discrimi- 
 nating and exact that we search in vain elsewhere in 
 the Scriptures for a parallel. It is held to be more 
 than a sum of sinful acts : it is a nature that is perverse ; 
 something more than drops of blood on the driven 
 snow : the whole snow is crimson. Whatever the 
 wrong done to the neighbor, it is first and chiefly a 
 wrong against God, who sees the heart and judges the 
 secret motive. It is an offence that has struck so 
 deep that in some phases of it, as he elsewhere con- 
 fesses (xix. 13), it has gone beyond the ken of the 
 sinner himself, so that he must cry out : " Who can 
 understand his errors .-' From hidden faults do thou 
 declare me free." 
 
 Confessions so profound and supplications so intense 
 as we find here recorded, where the Psalmist jjleads, as 
 for his life, to be washed thoroughly from his iniquity 
 and to be cleansed from his sin, declares that he knows 
 his transgressions and that his sin is ever before him, 
 that he cannot be content until God has created within 
 him a clean heart and renewed a right spirit within 
 him, are not to be passed lightly over even by those
 
 398 Tlie PcntatciicJi : Its Origin and Striictnre. 
 
 who are seeking only for criteria of periods and of 
 growths in these ancient documents ; are not to be 
 hastily passed over, especially by such. They are a 
 product of Hebrew life and experience. They are not 
 ethnic, not even Shemitic, in the general sense. I have 
 before me an Accadian penitential psalm, one of the 
 best specimens that I have been able to find in ancient 
 profane literature.^ It is about as long as the fifty-first 
 psalm. It confesses sin and deprecates wrath. There, 
 however, the comparison ends. Its confession is only 
 of a sin of ignorance. Its prayer is directed to a 
 pantheon and not to God. It expects to be heard, 
 apparently, for its much speaking.^ It dares to charge 
 the superior powers again and again with injustice in 
 language like this : — 
 
 " How long, O my god, who knewest (though) 
 I knew not, shall (thy) strength (oppress me) ? " 3 
 
 What made the difference, now, between the Acca- 
 dian psalm and that of David } As a certain writer has 
 expressed it with reference to another of the composi- 
 tions of the Psalter : There is " underlying this poem, 
 from the first line to the last, the substance of philo- 
 sophic thought, apart from which, expressed or under- 
 stood, poetry is frivolous, and not in harmony with the 
 
 "^Records of the Past (vol vii. 151 f.). Cf. what Isaac Taylor says of another psalm 
 containing some of the characteristic elements of the fifty-first: " Thus stripped of his 
 modern self, let him read the sixty-fifth psalm, and let him open his heart, and mind, too, 
 to admit the largeness of its intention, the width of its lookout upon the world, the just- 
 ness of its theism,^ if indeed a Creator is acknowledged, and if the Creator be good also, — 
 the warmth of its piety, and the gladsomeness of its temper, and the landscape freshness of 
 its images ; and withal the preparation which is made in its exordium for the outpourings of 
 a grateful piety, by the open confession of sin and the deep consciousness of it as the 
 reason of the divine displeasure. This ode supposes — it connotes — an instituted congrega- 
 tional worship, a temple, a liturgy, and a teaching! " — Isaac Taylor, Spirit of Hebrew 
 Poetry, p. 206 f. 
 
 2 " For the tearful supplication of my heart sixty-five times let the name be invoked of 
 my god." See line 30. 
 
 ^ See line 13 et passi»i.
 
 The Laiu and the Psalms. 399 
 
 seriousness of human life : tliis psalm is of a sort 
 which Plato would have written, or Sophocles — if only 
 the one or the other of these minds had possessed a 
 heaven-descended theology." ^ 
 
 Notice, moreover, some of the reasons which seem to 
 prompt the Psalmist in his desire to be rid of sin. A 
 principal one is that sin is offensive to God and will 
 meet with certain retribution at his hands. There is 
 no subject more often on his lips. The man who 
 ascends the hill of the Lord to stand in his presence 
 must have clean hands and a pure heart ; be one who 
 has not lifted up his soul to evil nor sworn in deceit 
 (Ps.^xxiv. 3 f.). Jehovah's eyes behold, his eyelids try 
 " the children of men " (xi. 4). He is not only a righteous 
 God himself, but he proves the depths of every heart 
 (vii. 10). Beginning, in fact, with the first psalm, and 
 going straight through the second till we come to the 
 end of the collection, there is nowhere any lack of 
 evidence that in the Psalmist's mind there is nothing 
 that God loathes like sin, and that to be a friend of 
 God and enjoy his favor he, too, must loathe it and put 
 it away. 
 
 Nor is there any difficulty in comprehending what 
 the Psalmist brands as morally offensive and sinful. 
 There is no vacillation or hesitation discoverable in his 
 delineations. He defines the character he condemns 
 by special terms, which, however much they may be 
 confounded in our translations, have apparently always 
 their fixed valuation and meaning with him. He 
 describes it, again and again, in all the detail of its 
 hatefulness and deformity. He uses the appropriate 
 device of poetic parallelism to set it forth as the total 
 opposite of that toward which he struggles and is 
 
 ' Isaac Taylor, ibid. p. ao8.
 
 400 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 approved of God. He prays and seemingly as one 
 fully conscious of what his words mean — in language 
 which we with all our precision of philosophic state- 
 ment may still adopt (xxvi. 9 ; xxviii. 3) : — 
 
 " Gather not my soul with sinners, 
 Nor with blood-stained men my life. 
 Draw me not away with the wicked, 
 Nor with the workers of iniquity ; 
 Who speak kindly with their neighbors. 
 While evil is in their hearts." 
 
 He may not, it is true, be always free from doubts 
 concerning the retributive justice of his God, especially 
 when he beholds the prosperity of the wicked, that 
 they have not the trouble of other mortals. Some- 
 times, indeed, it almost seems to him that he has 
 cleansed his heart in vain and washed his hands in 
 innocence. But to give utterance to such a thought 
 would be, he says, to be faithless to the generation of 
 God's children. It would be, above all, to fail to 
 understand the lesson of God's sanctuary (Ps. Ixxiii. 
 passim). The generation of God's people ! The sanct- 
 uary ! What was the secret, then, which they carried 
 and which was also the secret of Providence and of 
 Israelitish character .'' 
 
 It may be said, now, that all this does not prove 
 beyond dispute that the Psalmist had the ceremonial 
 law before him or that it antedated his time. Very 
 true. It is not simply after ceremonial holiness that 
 he is striving. It is not ceremonial impurity which he 
 mostly characterizes as sin. On the other hand, it 
 must be remembered that it is not ceremonial holiness 
 which is the sole requirement of the Pentateuch or 
 of the Levitical institutions. It is not even their 
 principal requirement, but the loyalty and love of a
 
 The Laiv and the Psalms. \0\ 
 
 consecrated heart (Lev. xix. i8 ; Deut. vi. 5). And 
 might it not be expected that a poet, if anybody, would 
 look and reach toward the ideal ? that, especially, an 
 inspired poet would take in that of which rites and 
 ceremonies were only the symbol and preparation ? 
 
 The "mystery of the blood" he may not have 
 fathomed. What Old Testament writer has clearly 
 done so, if we except Isaiah (liii.) ? But could he have 
 reached a higher level of revelation or of experience 
 than he has done in the petition (Ps. li. 9) : " Un-sin 
 (thou) me with hyssop and I shall be clean : Wash 
 (thou) me and I shall be whiter than snow." He sees 
 in the rite only a symbol, it is true, and not a type. 
 But the rite he does not fail to see, or the essential 
 thing about it, whether as symbol or type, that it is to 
 the priest-king, Jehovah, to whom he must look for 
 pardon and that to him he will not look in vain. In 
 this circumstance, after all, we find the culmination of 
 biblical teaching, both of the old covenant and the 
 new. And that we find it here in the Psalms, even in 
 their earliest portions, is something to be accounted for 
 by those who believe in the natural evolution of the 
 Israelitish, as of every other religion.^ 
 
 Another specially noticeable trait of our Psalmist, as 
 
 ' Cf. Delitzsch, Covt. ueber die Psalnten (1873) p. 53 f. Perowne has some pertinent 
 remarks concerning the psalmists' attitude toward sacrifices f^The Psalms, Andover, 1882, 
 vol. i. p. 47): "He evidently did not regard those sacrifices, as so many Christian 
 writers have regarded them, as having in the case of those who offered them in penitence 
 and faith a spiritual efficacy. Their only efficacy to him was the efficacy which the 
 law itself assigned to them; they were the instruments of restoring him, when he had 
 transgressed, to his place as a member of the theocracy, a citizen of the visible kingdom of 
 God. But they did not confer or convey ihe rcmissioti 0/ sins. They were external, 
 and their efficacy was external. . . . How far the Jewish believer saw into the typical 
 meaning of his sacrifices is a question which cannot now be answered. . . . But the 
 typical meaning and the real efficacy are two very different things. In truth, as has been 
 truly argued (McDonnell's DoHneUa7t Lectures. Appendix to the First Sermon), if we 
 assign to the type the virtue of the antitype, if we make the remission of sins procured 
 by the one coextensive with the remission of sins procured by the other, we destroy the 
 type altogether. The sacrifice had no moral value. Hence the Psalmist says, not 
 sacrifice, but a broken heart."
 
 402 The PentatciicJi : Its Origin and Structure.. 
 
 displayed in many different compositions, is the evident 
 closeness of his personal relationship to God. When 
 every allowance has been made for poetic license and 
 oriental glow, there is a most remarkable residuum left 
 needing to be accounted for. It is not so strange that 
 we hear the apostle John saying, " Behold what manner 
 of love the Father hath bestowed upon us that we 
 should be called the children of God" (i John iii. i) ; 
 or the apostle Paul declaring, "For me to live is 
 Christ " (Phil. i. 21)! They stand in the noontide 
 blaze of revelation. But we have in this collection of 
 old Israelitish songs, and on its opening pages, some of 
 them, at least, dating from the foundations of the first 
 temple, expressions of trust and confidence in God, of 
 a tender, absorbing communion with him, that yield to 
 nothing which the New Testament can offer. We are 
 embarrassed, in fact, at the very outset by the 
 universality and excess of this element in the Psalter. 
 It will be no easy task by mere examples to give an 
 adequate idea of either its richness or its importance 
 in our ethical and, in so far here, our critical valuation 
 of the Psalms. 
 
 There is, for instance, the bold contrast which the 
 Psalmist sees between himself and those who are 
 " without God " and seek their highest good in his 
 gifts and not in him (iv. passim) : — 
 
 " Jehovah keepeth apart his beloved for himself: 
 When I call him, Jehovah heareth me. 
 There are many who say, 
 ' Who will sliow us what is good?' 
 Lift upon us, O Jehovah, 
 The light of tliy presence! 
 Thou hast put gladness in my heart. 
 More than in the time their corn and new wine increased.
 
 The Laio and iJic Psalms. 403 
 
 In peace I will lay me down, 
 
 And at once will sleep, 
 
 For thou, O Jehovah, when I am alone, 
 
 Makest me dwell securely." 
 
 In another place he hesitates not to pour out his 
 complaints to his heavenly Friend (vi.), detailing them 
 one by one, just as a child might do in its mother's ear, 
 and as he goes on it is pleasant to see how his heart 
 is lightened and his voice takes on the ring of gladness 
 and deliverance. He never forgets, however, what 
 sort of a being Jehovah is, so as to presume upon his 
 condescension. He knows that he is righteous and 
 that only " the righteous shall have vision of his face " 
 (xi. 7). But confidence and love are to him no presump- 
 tion. " My shield," he says, " is upon Jehovah '" 
 (vii. 11). He cannot keep within his own bosom the 
 exuberance of his joy. If his case be exceptional, he 
 certainly sees no reason why it should not be the rule. 
 Out of an evident experience he exclaims (xxxiv. 9) : — 
 
 " O taste and see that Jehovah is good. 
 
 How blest the man who taketh refuge in him " ! 
 
 " Cast thy burden on Jehovah, 
 
 And he will sustain thee" (Iv. 22). 
 
 " Though one fall, it shall not be at full length, 
 For Jehovah supporteth him with his hand" (xxxvii. 24). 
 
 Note the significant, endearing other titles which 
 he applies to him whose final title is Jehovah. He is 
 a "rock," a ".shield," a "fortress," a "deliverer," the 
 soft "brooding of wings," a "refuge," a "cleft rock." 
 In fact, the sentiment now so current in Christian 
 circles in the sweet lines, 
 
 " Rock of ages, cleft for me, 
 Let mc hide myself in thee,"
 
 4O4 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 IS a sentiment that was almost as current in David's 
 time. And at once what a longing and what a satis- 
 faction is voiced in utterances like these {xlii. i ; 
 xxviii. 4) : — 
 
 " One thing have I asked of Jehovah, 
 
 That will I seek after: 
 
 That I may dwell in the house of Jehovah, 
 
 All the days of my life." 
 " As the hart panteth after the waterbrooks 
 
 So panteth my soul after thee, O God." 
 
 How could we spare from our Bibles, even with the 
 gracious assurances of the Master concerning the 
 Father's love and care for us, such an abandonment of 
 trust in the divine Providence as is expressed in the 
 twenty-third psalm, beginning and carrying through to 
 the end the thought, — 
 
 " The Lord is my Shepherd, 
 I shall not want " .'' 1 
 
 Or what would it cost us to give up one such psalm as 
 the sixty-third, where as on the chiming silver bells 
 changes are rung on the opening sentiment, — 
 
 " O God ! thou art my God ; earnestly I seek thee " ? 
 
 But in nothing perhaps is the Psalmist's intimacy of 
 union and communion with God more clearly demon- 
 
 1 " This is an ode which for beauty of sentiment is not to be matched in the circuit of 
 all literature. In its way down through three thousand years or more, this psalm has 
 penetrated to the depths of millions of hearts; it has gladdened homes of destitution and 
 discomfort; it has whispered hope and joy amid tears to the utterly solitary and forsaken, 
 whose only refuge was in Heaven. Beyond all range of probable calculation have these 
 dozen lines imparted a power of endurance under suffering, and strength in feebleness, 
 and have kept alive the flickering flame of religious feeling in hearts that were nigh to 
 despair. The divine element herein embodied has given proof, millions of times repeated, 
 of its reality and of its efficacy, as a formula of tranquil trust in God, and of a grateful 
 sense of \\\?, goodness, which all who do trust in Him may use for themselves, and use it 
 until it has become assimilated to their own habitual fulness." — Isaac Taylor, ibid. p. 77 f.
 
 The Law and the Psalms. 405 
 
 strated than in the strength of confidence and the 
 boldness of courage it gives him respecting death and 
 the future beyond it. It begins already in the 
 sixteenth psalm (vs. 8-1 1), where, having said that he 
 sets Jehovah before him always, he adds : — 
 
 " So my heart is glad, my spirit exulteth ; 
 My flesh, too, abideth securely. 
 For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Sheol, 
 Nor let thy beloved waste away in the grave. 
 Thou wilt make known to me the path of life : 
 In thy presence is fulness of joy ; 
 At thy right hand are pleasures forevermore." 
 
 In like manner in the seventeenth (vs. 14, 15), where, 
 in contrast with the men of the world whose portion is 
 in the present life, he exclaims : — 
 
 " As for me, in righteousness 
 Shall I have vision of thy face ; 
 I shall be satisfied, when I awake with thy likeness." 
 
 Again in the twenty-third (vs. 4), which seems to 
 cover in its brief compass the whole area of possible 
 human experiences : — 
 
 " Yea, when I walk through the valley of death's shadow, 
 I will fear no evil ; for thou art with me." 
 
 And in a connection so common in the other examples, 
 in the forty-ninth : — 
 
 "But God will redeem my soul from the dominion of Sheol, 
 For he will receive me." 
 
 And, finally, in Psalm Ixxiii. (23-26), in a beauty and 
 tenderness of expression that cannot fail to move the 
 stoutest sceptic even : —
 
 4o6 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 " But as for me, I am ever with thee ; 
 
 Thou holdest with thy hand my right hand. 
 
 With thy counsel thou wilt guide me, 
 
 And afterward receive me to glory. 
 
 Whom have I in heaven but thee? 
 
 And with thee, I delight not in the earth. 
 
 My flesh and my heart fail, 
 
 But God is the strength of my heart, 
 
 And my portion forever." 
 
 Union with the Lord — what else is the ground of 
 hope for immortality and eternal life under the new 
 economy.? "Because I live," said the Master, "ye shall 
 live also " (John xiv. 9).! Union with the Lord him- 
 self, that is also the final ground of hope for life and 
 happiness beyond the grave under the old economy. I 
 am well aware of the objection that will be made to 
 such a use of these psalms. It will be said that 
 they are of exceptional import, that they represent 
 individual, sporadic attainment only and by no means 
 that of the masses of Israel. 
 
 Let it be admitted that this is true. It should by all 
 means be admitted as probably true. Still the question 
 remains. How came it about that individuals, that 
 anybody, reached a pitch of development so amazing in 
 times so early and, as is alleged, so crude and immature ? 
 No hypothesis of a later religious " coloring " given to 
 documents ancient in themseves, such as is made to 
 account for many supposed anomalies in the historical 
 books, will here avail. Nay, the very abundance of 
 
 1 Rowland Hill, it is said, was accustomed for many years before his death to repeat 
 oyer to himself often this simple stanza: — 
 
 " And when I 'm to die, 
 Receive me, I'll cry; 
 
 For Jesus has loved me, I cannot tell why; 
 But this I can find: 
 We two are so joined, 
 That he '11 not be in glory and leave me behind."
 
 The Lazv and the Psalms. 407 
 
 religious teaching here is one of the strongest proofs 
 that that of the historical books is not coloring at all, 
 but only the natural texture of the fabric. Here, at 
 least, web and woof are of one pattern and one stuff. 
 It is not peculiar expressions that attract our attention : 
 it is compositions that are peculiar throughout ; it is 
 psalms and the men who wrote them. How is it 
 possible that we have works of this nature and men of 
 this stature .-' A Pentateuch largely from the pen of 
 Moses and his contemporaries will not be so difficult 
 a problem when this problem is settled. 
 
 We can comprehend how such an Israelitish singer 
 as we have been listening to, in some important 
 respects so far beyond Moses and his work, supposing 
 that the Pentateuch was his work, was the 
 crown of a certain development, but as its virtual 
 beginning he seems to us an impossible character. 
 We can see, for example, how it would be possible for 
 a David to grow into this intimacy with Jehovah and 
 this voluminous expression of such intimacy, when we 
 think of Abraham, who was called the "friend of God" ; 
 of Moses, who spoke with him face to face ; of Samuel, 
 who from childhood on responded to the divine call 
 with a "speak Lord, for thy servant heareth " ! But, 
 if you reverse the pyramid, putting the apex where the 
 base should be, the Psalmist somehow in the place of 
 the Patriarch, and admit no regulative norm of holy 
 living and aspiration such as the so-called Mosaic insti- 
 tutions offer, the matter becomes simply inexplicable 
 to us. 
 
 I read in one of the daily journals the following 
 sentiment, quoted from a sermon on last Lord's day : 
 "The very first chapters of Genesis teach us that 
 man's surroundings deteriorate in obedience to a
 
 4o8 The PeiitateiicJi : Its Origijt and Structure. 
 
 deterioration in man himself. The inward Eden is 
 related to the outward Eden as cause and effect. 
 Tenement-house reform, for example, taken as the 
 handmaid of other movements deserves great praise, 
 but taken alone is of little value. No fact is more 
 evident than that certain stages of civilization require 
 certain corresponding surroundings. Place a family in 
 a house that is above it, and the family will either 
 emigrate or degrade the house to its own level. Any 
 attempt to elevate degraded man by simply changing 
 his surroundings is like attempting to elevate the 
 unhatched chicken into a robin by tinting the shell, 
 or to precipitate spring by shoveling off and melting 
 the snow upon your sidewalk." 
 
 One chief trouble with our critics has been that 
 they have not carried their induction from facts, their 
 study of symptoms, far enough. They have marked 
 almost exclusively, and dwelt upon, the outward evi- 
 dences of deterioration in Israel. They have largely 
 failed to mark it as deterioration. They have seemed to 
 forget that on the hypothesis of a degenerate and fallen 
 race, the outward paradise to be regained might be ex- 
 pected to follow, and sometimes follow very gradually, 
 the inward paradise which is its ground. They have 
 been all too ready to draw immediate conclusions from 
 evil surroundings, and too slow to note the signs of 
 high ethical and spiritual attainment in spite of evil 
 surroundings. Without achieving a really complete 
 survey of all the circumstances, they have adopted as a 
 leading principle of their reasoning the shallow maxim 
 that "circumstances make the man." While if there 
 be one lesson more than another that the history of 
 human progress and enlightenment teaches, it is that, 
 under an all-controlling Providence, the man, if he be
 
 TJie Law and tJic Psalvis. 409 
 
 a man, makes the circumstances. " For every house is 
 built by some one [even the house of Hebrew history 
 and worship]; but he "i^at built all things is God" 
 
 (Heb.iii. 4). '{D
 
 ^r. 
 
 LITERATURE OF THE PENTATEUCH AND THE 
 
 RELATED CRmCISM OF THE 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT.^ 
 
 Aaron. Co7n. in PentateucJiiDn. Jena, 1710. 
 
 Aben Ezra. Handschriftlicher Com. iieber Exodus. Prag, 1840. 
 
 Abenmelech. Scholia in V. T. Ven., 15 18. 
 
 Abicht. Exej-citat. de Servorwn Hcbraor. Acquis. Leipz., 1704. 
 
 Abrabanel. Com. in Pent. Mosis. Frankf., 1708. 
 
 Abrabanel. Com. in Prophetas Priores. Leipz., 1686. 
 
 Ackermann. Introd. in Libros Sacros Vet. Foederis. Ed. Tertia. 
 
 Viennae, 1853. 
 Adler. " Der Versohnungstag in der Bibel." Zeitschrift f. Alttest. 
 
 Wissenschaft. Nos. i, 2. 1883. 
 Ainsworth. Annotations on the Five Books of Moses, etc. Lond., 
 
 1639. Reprinted, Glasg., 1846. 
 Airy. Notes on the Earlier Heb. Script. Lond., 1876. 
 Alard. Pericopa Pent at. Bib. Triglossometrica. 161 8. 
 Albo. Grund u. Glaubenslehre d. Mos. Religion. Frankf., 1838. 
 Alcuimus. QncBstioncs in Genesin. Hagen, 1529. 
 Alexander, A. Hist, of the Israelitish Nation. Phil., 1853. 
 Alexander, W. L. " Age and Authorship of the Pent." Sunday 
 
 Mag., May, Oct., 1868. 
 Alford. Getiesis, etc., for English Readers. Lond., 1871. 
 Alford. The Book of Genesis, &tc. Commentary. Lond., 1872. 
 "Alleged Geolog. Ev. of the Antiquity of Man." Brit. Quarterly, 
 
 Apr., 1863. 
 Allen, G. "Who was the Primitive Man?" Fortnightly Rev., 
 
 Sept., 1882. 
 Allen, J. H. "Criticism of the Old Test." Unit. Review, \'i\. 135. 
 Allen, J. H. Hebrew Alen and Times. Bost. and Lond., 1861. 
 Allix. Refex. snr les cinq Livres de Moyse. Lond., 1687. 
 
 1 There has been no effort to make this list exh.-\ustive. A large number of titles, in 
 fact, were omitted at the last moment for want of space. It will be found, however, to 
 include the more important books and articles, old and new, relating to the Pentateuch 
 and the criticism of the Old Testament as especially bearing on the Pentateuch. Rev. 
 Ernest C. Richardson, Librarian of the Hartford Theological Seminary, has rendered 
 valuable assistance in its collection and verification.
 
 Literature of the Peiitatettch. 41 1 
 
 Aim, V. d. TJicologische Briefe an die Gebildeten der Deutschen 
 
 Nation. 3 Bd. Bd. \., Das Alte. Test. Leipz., 1862. 
 Alting. De Vaticinio Patriarchae Jacobi. Franeker, 1660. 
 Amnion. Nova Versio Gra^ca Pent at. ex miico S. Marci Biblio- 
 
 tkecce Codice Veneto. Erlang., 1790. 
 Andr6. Expos. Apologctique de la Thcol. dii Pentat. Paris, 1849. 
 Andrews. •' The New Pentateuch Criticism." Heb. Student, Dec, 
 
 1882. 
 Anger. De Onkelo Chaldaico. Leipz., 1845. 
 Anti-Colenso. Lond., 1863. 
 Aretius. Cojii. in Pcntaieuchnin. Bern, 1602. 
 Argus. Was Adam tlie First Man Created? Lond., 1878. 
 Argyll. Primeval Alan. Lond., i86g, 
 Argyll. " Recent Speculations on Primeval Man." Good Words, 
 
 March, 1868. 
 Arnaud. Le Pentateiique Mosdique defendit. Paris, 1865. 
 Arnold, A. See Tuch. 
 
 Arnold, J. M. Genesis a7id Science. Lond., 1875. 
 Anmdell. Scientific Vabie of Tradition. Lond., 1879. 
 Askenazi. Notes et Com. sur le Pentatcuque. Leghorn, 1881. 
 Astruc. Conjectures sur les Memoir es Orginaux, do?it il par ait que 
 
 Moyse s'est servi pour composer le Livre de la Genise. 
 
 Bmxelles, 1753. 
 Attersol. Commentary upon Numbers. Lond., 161 8. 
 Atwater. Tlie Tabcr>uicle of tlie Jeivs. 2d. ed. New York, 1877. 
 Auberlen. " Die Mes. Weissagungen d. Mos. Zeit." Jahrb. f. 
 
 Dents. Theol., 1858, p. 778. 
 August! . Grundriss einer Historisch-Kritischen Einleitung hi's 
 
 Alte Testament . 2te Aufl., Leipz., 1827. 
 Augusti. See Hopfner. 
 Augustine. " Ouasstiones in Heptateuchum." Opera, torn. iii. 
 
 p. 674, ed. Migne. 
 Auscher. Sur le Veritable Caract^re de la Loi Mosdique. Besan- 
 
 9on, 1876. 
 Autenrieth. D. Ursprung der Beschneidung, etc. Tubing. , 1829. 
 " Authorsliip of Genesis." Canad. Montldy, xiii. 409. 
 Babington. Comfortable Notes upon the Pent. Lond., 1637. 
 Baclier. Jbn Esra's Einleit. zu seine/n Pentateuch-Commentar , als 
 
 Beitrag zur Geschichte d. Bibel-exegese bcleuchtet. Wien, 1876. 
 Bachmann. Die Festgesetze d. Pentateuchs. Berlin, 1858. 
 Bachmann. Das Buck d. Ricldcr ausgelegt . Berlin, 1867. 
 Back. Geschichte d. fudischeji Volkes it. seifier Literatur. Lissa, 
 
 1878. 
 Baehr. Symbolik d. Mos'dischen Cultus. 2te Aufl. 2 Bde. 
 
 Hcidclb., 1874. 
 Bacr. With Franz Delitzsch is publisliing a critical text of the 
 
 Hebrew O. T. Of the Pent, only Gen. has as yet appeared. 
 Baldeweg. Pas Zcitalter der Riclder. Zittau, 1S77. 
 Balfour. "Tlie Sinai Covenant." British and F'or. Ev. Rev., 
 
 July, 1877.
 
 412 TJie PentatencJi: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Balgarnie. " A Chapter in Antediluvian Chronology." Expositor, 
 
 1878, p. 449; 1880, p. 215. 
 Baltzer. D. Bibl. Schopfungs-geschichte. Leipz., 1867-72. 
 Bannister. Epito)ne of the Laws, Lit. attd Relig. of the Jews. 
 
 Lond., 1861. 
 Barclay. Heathen Mythology Corroborated, etc., by Scripture. 
 
 Lond., 1884. 
 Baring-Gould. Heathenism and Mosaism. 2 vols. Lond., 1869. 
 Baring-Gould. Origin and Developme?it of Relig. Belief. 1869. 
 Baring-Gould. Legends of Old Test. Characters. 2 vols. Lond., 
 
 1871. 
 Barradas. Itinerarium Filiorum Israel ex A^gypto in Terr am 
 
 Reproinissionis. Coimbra, 161 7. 
 Barrett. Old Test. Criticism. 2 vols. Lond., 1847. 
 Barrows. " Mosaic Narrative of the Creation." Bibliotheca Sac. 
 
 xiii. p. 743. 
 Barrows. " Mosaic Six Days and Geology." Ibid., xiv. p. 61. 
 Barrows. "Missionary Spirit of Psalms and Prophets." Ibid., 
 
 xvii. p. 457. 
 Barry. Introd. to Study of Old Test. Lond., 1856. 
 Bartlett. From Egypt to Palestine. New York, 1879. 
 Bartlett. "Authorship of the Pentateuch." Bibliotheca Sac. xx. 
 
 p. 799; xxi. pp. 495, 725. 
 Bartlett. Sources of History in the Pentateuch. New York, 1883. 
 Bate. Philos. Priticiples of Moses Defended. Lond., 1744. 
 Bate. Transl. of Petit. fro7H the Hebrew. Lond., 1773. 
 Baudissen . Jahve et Moloch . Leipz . , 1 87 1 . 
 Baudissen. "Unsprung d. Gottesnamens '/aw." Zeitschrift f. 
 
 Hist. Theologie, 1875, iii. 
 Baudissen. Stiidien z. Semit. Religionsgeschichte. Leipz., 1876-79. 
 Bauer, B. Die Religion d. Alien Testatnents. 2 Bde. Berlin, 
 
 1838, 1839. 
 Bauer, B. " Der Mosaische Ursprung d. Gesetzgebung d. Pen- 
 
 tateuchs Vertheidigt." Zeitsch.f. Speculative Theol., 1836, 
 Bauer, E. StreitderKritikmitKircheu.Staat. Bern, 1844. 
 Bauer, G. L. Lehrbuch der Hebr. Alterthumer. Nlirnb., 1797. 
 
 2te Aufl., von Rosenmliller, 1835. 
 Bauer, G. L. Bcschreibung d. Gottesdienst. Verfassung der alien 
 
 Hebr der. 2 Bde. Nlirnb., 1805. 
 Bauer, G. L. Hebr. Mythologie des Alien u. N. Test. 2 Bde. 
 
 Nlirnb., 1802. 
 Bauer, G. L. Entwurf einer Historisch-Krit. Einleitung in d. 
 
 Schrift. d. A. T., Nlirnb., 1794 If. 
 Bauer, G. L. Handb. d. Geschichte d. Hebrd. Nation von ihrer 
 
 Entstehung, etc. Nlirnb., 1800-1804. 
 Baumgarten. TJicolog. Coininctiiar zum Pentateuch. Kiel, 1842. 
 Baur, F. C. Die Natur religion dcs Alterthums. Stuttg., 1824. 
 Baur, F. C. " Ursprung. Bedeutung d. Passafestes u. d. Beschneid- 
 
 ungsritus. Tubing. Zeitschrift f. Theologie, 1832, p. 47. 
 Baur, F. C. " Der. Heb. Sabbath u. die Nationalfeste d. Mosaischen 
 
 Cultus." Ibid., p. 125,
 
 Literature of the Pentateuch. 413 
 
 Baur, G. A. L. Sechs Tabellen uber die Geschichte d. Is. Volkes. 
 
 Giessen, 1848. 
 Baur, G. A. L. D. weltgeschichtliche Bedeutung d. Is. Volkes. 
 
 Ibid., 1847. 
 Baylee. Genesis and Geology. Liverpool, 1859. 
 Beach. Hist. Value of I he Fir si Eleven Chaps, of Gen. Best., 
 
 1844. 
 Bechor-Schor. Com. zu7n Pentateuch. Ed. by Jellinek. Mlinchen, 
 
 1856. 
 Beecher. " Logical Methods of Professor Kuenen." Presbyt.Rev., 
 
 Oct., 1882. 
 Beecher. " Historical Evidence vs. Critical Evidence." Christian 
 
 Thought, Nov., Dec, 1884. 
 Beecher. " Chronol. of Period of the Judges." Old Test. Student, 
 
 Jan., 1884. 
 Beer. Leben Abrahams tmch d. J'udischcn Sage. Leipz., 1859. 
 Beke. Researches in Primeval History. Vol. i. Lond., 1834. 
 Bellamy. History of All Religions. Lond., 1813. 
 Bellermann. De Ustc Palceographice Hebraicce ad Explicatida 
 
 Biblia Sacra, etc., 1804. 
 Bellermann. Handb. der Bib. Liter at ur. Erfurt, 1787 ff. 
 Bellermann. Die Urim u. Thuinmini. Berlin, 1824. 
 Bellermann. Ueber die Alte Sitte Steine su salben. 1793. 
 Bellet. God's Witness in Prophecy and History (treats Gen. xlix.), 
 
 Lond., 1883. 
 Benary. De HebrcEorum Leviratu. Berlin, 1835. 
 Ben David. Zur Berechnung u. Gesch. d. fiidischen Kalenders. 
 
 Berlin, 1817. 
 Ben David. D. Religion d. Hebraer vor Mose. Berlin, 181 2. 
 Ben David. " Ueber Geschriebenes u. Mlindliches Gesetz." 
 
 Zeitsch.f. Wiss. d. fudcntJiums, 1822, p. 197. 
 Benisch. Coletiso''s Objections Crit. ExaiJiined. Lond., 1863, 
 Benisch. Rise and Development of fudaism. Lond., 1874. 
 Benson. The Mor. and Hist. Difficulties of Genesis. Hulsean 
 
 Lect., 1822. 
 Bergel. Mythologie d. alien Hebrcer. 2 Bde. Leipz., 1883. 
 Berger, G. Beweis v. d. Falnqkeit d. ersten Menschen. Berlin, 
 
 1780. 
 Berger, J. Praktische Einleit. in''s Alte Tesiatneni. Leipz., 1799. 
 Berger, P. EAnge d'Astarie. Paris, 1879. 
 Bergmann. Origine, Signification, et Histoire . . . de la Circon- 
 
 cision. Strassb., 1844. 
 Bergmann. Jacob's Trautn zu Bethel erkldrt. Strassb., 1884. 
 Bergson. D. Beschneidungv. Histor. Krit. u. Medicin. Stand- 
 
 punkte. Berlin, 1847. 
 Berliner. D. Massorah zutn Targtim Onkelos. Leipz., 1877. 
 Berliner. Targum Onkelos Herausg. u. Erldutert. Berlin, 1884. 
 Berliner. See Raschi. 
 
 Bernard. Creed and Ethics of the fews. Lond., 1832. 
 Bernhardi. Com. de Causis quibus effect\um sit, ut regnum fuda: 
 
 diutius persisteret quam regnum Is. Lowen, 1824.
 
 414 1^^^^ PentatcucJi: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Bernstein. Ursprung d. Sagen v. Ab., Is. u. Jacob. Berlin, 1871. 
 Bernus. Richard Simon et son Histoire Critique du Vieux Testa- 
 
 ment. Lausanne, 1869. 
 B^ron. Origifie de r Unique Couple Humain, etc. Paris, 1867. 
 Berruyer. Histoire du Peuple de Dieu. Paris, 1728. 
 Bertheau. Zur GeschicJUe d. Israeliten. Getting., 1842. 
 Bertheau. Die Sieboi Gruppen Mos. Gesetze. Getting., 1840. 
 Bertheau. Beschreibung d. Lage d. Paradieses, etc. Getting., 
 
 1847-48. 
 Bertheau. "Die Zahlen der Genesis in Kapitel 5 und. 11." 
 
 Jahrbucher f. Dent. Thcologie, 1878, p. 659. 
 Bertheau. "Die alttestamentl. Weissagung von Israels Reichs- 
 
 herrlichkeit in seinem Lande." Jalirb. f. Dent. T/ieoL, pp. 
 
 314, 595 (1859) ; p. 486 (i860). 
 Bertheau. " D. Verschied. Berechnungen d. zwei ersten Perioden 
 
 in d. Genesis." Zeitsch. d. Deutsch. Morg. Gesellschaft, 1845, 
 
 p. 40. 
 Bertheau. Richteru. Ruth erklixrt (2te Aufl., Leipz., 1883. Kurz- 
 
 gefastses exeget. Handb.). 
 Berthet. The Prehistoric World. Phil. : Porter and Coates. 
 Bertholdt. Historisch-kritische Einleitimg tn SamintlicJie Kanon. 
 
 u. Apok. Schriftend. Alt. u.N. Testaments. 6 vols. Erlangen, 
 
 1812-19. ^ 
 
 Berthoud. "Les Elements Divins des Religions Antiques." 
 
 Bibliothique Univcrselle. Juillet et Aoi^t, 1880. 
 Bertram. DePolitiaJudaica tain civ. quam eccles. Leyden, 1651. 
 Bertsch. Gesch. des Alien Bundes 71. Volkes. Stuttg., 1857. 
 Bible Myths ajid Parallels in other Religions. New York. 1883. 
 Biblia Polyglotta Complut., 15 17; Antwerp (Regia), 1572; Paris, 
 
 1645 ; Lond., 1657. 
 Biblical Archaeology, Trans, of Soc. of. Lond., since 1872. 
 Bellinger. Disputatio de Cidtu Dei Rationali. Frankf., 1731. 
 Belfinger. Notae in Spinosae Methodum explicandi Script. Ibid. 
 Binnie. Proposed Reconstruction of Old Test. History. 3d ed. 
 
 Edinb., 1880. 
 Birks. Difficulties of Belief as to Creation, €iz. Lond., 1855. 
 Birks. Bible and Modern Thought. Ibid., 1862. 
 Birks. Superfiatural Revelation. Ibid., 1879. 
 Birks. Pentateuch and its Anatofnists. Ibid., 1869. 
 Birks. Exodus of Israel. Ibid., \%(i\. 
 
 Bissell, A. P. Law of Asylum in Is. Hist. Considered. Leipz., 1884. 
 Bissell, E. C. The Historic Origin of the Bible. New York, 1874. 
 Bixby. "Religious Genius of the Races." Unitar. Rev., July, 
 
 Aug., 1883. 
 Blackie. " Mos. Acc't of Creation compared with Heathen Mythol." 
 
 Good Words, Oct., 1861. 
 Blake. " The Bible and its Critics." Cong. Quarterly, xi. 528. 
 Blau. " Der Dekalog in. einer Samar. Inschrift aus d. Tempel d. 
 
 Garizim." Zeitsch. d. Deut. Morg. Gesellschaft, xiii. p 275. 
 Blayney. Pentateuchus Hebr. Samar it anus. Oxford, 1790.
 
 Literature of the Pentateuch. 41 5 
 
 Bleek. Brief an d. Hebriier. 2 Bde. Berlin, 1840. Ed. by 
 
 Windrath, Elberfeld, 1868. 
 Bleek. " Beitrage zu den Forschungen ueber den Pentateuch." 
 
 Stud. u. Kiitkcii, 1 83 1, p. 488. 
 Bleek. " Aphoristische Beitrage zu den Untersuchungen ueber den 
 
 Pentateuch.'- Ros&nmWWuf?, Biblisch-Exegetisches Repert., 1822. 
 Bleek. Einleitiing in d. Alte Testament. 4te Aufl. bearbeitet von 
 
 Wellhausen, Berlin, 1878. Eng. trans, from 2d Germ. ed. 
 
 2 vols.. Lend., i86g. 
 Bleek. De Libri Genes cos Originc at que Indole Hist or. Observa- 
 
 tiones. Bonn, 1836. 
 Bloch. Studien zur Geschichte d. Sammlung d. Alt. Hcbr'd. 
 
 Literatur. 2te Aufl., Wien, 1882. 
 Bloch. "Wellhausen liber d. Alter d. Priestergesetzbuches." 
 
 Jud. Literat7trbl. Nos. 15, 16,41, 42, etc., 1879. 
 Blunt, H. Exposition of tlie rentatcuch. New ed., Lond., i860. 
 Blunt, J. H. Annotated Bible. Gen.-Esth. Lond., 1878. 
 Blunt, J. J. Undesigned Coincidences in Old and New Testaments. 
 
 9th ed. Lond., 1869. 
 Blunt, J. J. Principles for Proper Understanding of the Mos. 
 
 Writings. Lond., 1883. 
 Boardman. "Genesis of Sin" (Gen. iii.). Princeton Rev., July, 
 
 1880. 
 Bodenheimer. Der Segen Mosis. Crefeld, i860. 
 Bohl. Zum Gesetz u. znm Zeugniss. Wien, 1883. 
 Bbhme. Erklar7ingemieber d. Erste Buck Mosis. 1623. 
 Bohmer. Das Erste Buck d. Thora. Halle, 1862. 
 Bbhmer. Liber Genesis Pentateucliicus. Ibid., id>6o. 
 Bohlen. D. Gen. Historisch-Icrit. erldutert. Kbnigsberg, 1835. 
 Bonar. Com. on Leviticus. 5th ed., Lond., 1875. 
 Bonfr^re. Com. in Pentateiichum. Antw., 1625. 
 Bonfr^re. Com. in Jos., Judg., et Ruth. Paris, 163 1. 
 Bonnet. Les Dtcouvertes Assyriennes et le Livre de la Gendsc. 
 
 Paris, 1884. 
 Borrhaus. Com. in Pentateuchnm. Basel, 1557. 
 Bosanquet. Expos, of the First Tuoenty Chaps, of Exodus. Lond., 
 
 1876. 
 Boscawen. "Bab. Creation Legends." Acade?ny, July 27, 1878. 
 Bouch^-Leclercq. Histoire de la Divination dans VAntiquiti. 
 
 4 vols. Paris, 1882. 
 Bovet. Egypt, Palestine, and Pha;nicia. Lond., 1882. N. Y., 1883. 
 Boyce. Tlie Higher Criticism and t tie Bible. Lond., 1880. 
 Bramesfeld. Der Alttest. Gottesdienst, etc. Glitersloh, 1864. 
 Brandis. Historischer Gewinn aiis der Entzifferung d. Assyr. 
 
 Inschriften. Berlin, 1856. 
 Brandt. "Die Assyrisch- Babylon. Keilschrift Literatur u. d. 
 
 Alt. Test." Deutsch. Ev. lUdtter (1884), ix. 3. 
 Braun. De Vestibus Sacerdotuin Hebrceorum. Leyden, 1680. 
 
 Amsterdam, 1698, 1701. 
 Braun. " Aelteste. Bibl. Sagen." Ausland, 1861.
 
 41 6 TJie Pe7itateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Braun. Nat ur gesch. der Sage. Munchen, 1864-65. 
 Bredenkamp. " Zu Gen. xx. 17, 18." Zeitsch. f. Kirch. Wiss. u. 
 
 Kircliliches Leben, 1882, p. 671. 
 Bredenkamp. Gesetz tind Propheteti. Erlangen, 1881. 
 Brerewood. Diversity of Languages and Relig. Lond., 1614 fF. 
 Briggs. " A Critical Study of the History of the Higher Criticism." 
 
 Presbyt. Rev., Jan., 1883. 
 Briggs. " The Little Book of the Covenant." Hebrew Student, 
 
 May, 1883. 
 Briggs. " The Greater Book of the Covenant." /<^/V/., June, 1883. 
 Briggs. "The Hebrew Poem of Creation." Old Test. Student, 
 
 April, 1884. 
 Briggs. Biblical Study. New York, 1883. 
 Briggs. " Right, Duty, and Limits of Biblical Criticism." Presbyt. 
 
 Rev., 1881, p. 551. 
 Briggs. " The Argument e Silentio.'''' Journ. of Soc. of Bib. Lit. 
 
 atid Exegesis. January-June, 1884. 
 Brightwell. Notes on the Pentateuch. Lond., 1840. 
 Brill. Bijbelstudien. Vol. L has studies on the Pentateuch. 
 
 Leyden, 1876. 
 Broadley. Lnternal Evidence of the Religion of Moses. 1805. 
 Brown, F. Assyriology : its Use and Abuse in Old Test. Study. 
 
 New York, 1885. 
 Brown, F. " New Testament Witness to the Authorship of Old 
 
 Testament Books." Journ. of Soc. of Bib. Lit. and Exegesis, 
 
 July-December, 1882. 
 Brown, F. " The Books of Chronicles with special Reference to 
 
 those of Samuel." Andover Rev., April, 1884. 
 Brown, R. "The Archaic Solar-Cult of Egypt." Theol. Review, 
 
 October, 1878. 
 Brown, W. The Tabernacle: its Priests and LJ:vites. 2d. ed. 
 
 Edinburgh, 1872. 
 Brown, W. Antiquity of the Jews. Lond., 1820. 
 Browne, E. H. Pent, and Elohistic Psahns. Lond., 1863. 
 Browne, H. Hatidb. of Hebrew Antiquities. Lond., 1852. 
 Bruce. The Chief End of Revelation. Lond. and N. Y., 1881. 
 Brugsch. Bibelund Denknialer. Leipz., 1875. 
 Brugsch. Gesch. yEgyptens luiter d. Pharaonen. Leipz., 1877. 
 Brugsch. A History of Egypt under the Pharaohs. 2d ed. 
 
 Lond., 1 88 1. 
 Brugsch. Religion u. Mythologie d. alten ^gypter. Erste Halfte, 
 
 Leipz., 1884. 
 Brugsch. Der Bau d. Tempels Salomo''s tiach der Koptischen 
 
 Bibelversion. Leipz., 1877. ^ 
 
 Brugsch. DExode et les Monuments Egyptiens. Leipz., 1875. 
 Brugsch. " Pithom u. Ramses." Deutsche Revue. Marz, 1884. 
 Briill. Das Samar. Targtim ztun Pentateuch. Frankf., 1873-75. 
 Bruns. " Sagen von d. Entstehung d. Menschengeschlechts." 
 
 Neues Repertoriutn f. Bibl. u. Morg. Lit. Th. 2, p. 197. 
 Bruston. L^s Inscriptions Assyr. et VAncien Test. Paris, 1873.
 
 Literature of the Pcntateiicli. 417 
 
 Bruston. Histoire Critique de la Lit. Prophttique. Paris, 1881. 
 Bruston. " Les deux J^hovistes." Rev. de Theol et de Philos. 
 
 Janv , 1885. 
 Bruston. " Le Document Elohiste et son Antiquity." Revue 
 
 Thtologiqiie (de Montauban), 1882, p. 13, 97. 
 Bruston. " Les quatre Sources des Lois de I'Exode." Rev. de 
 
 Thtol.et de Philos. Juill., 1883. 
 Bryant. The Plagues inflicted upo)i the Egyptians. 2d ed., Lond., 
 
 1810. 
 Budde. Die Biblische Urgeschichte. Giessen, 1883. 
 Budde. " Seth u. die Sethiten. Eine Berichtigung." Zeitschrift 
 
 f. Alttest. Wissenschaft, 1884, p. 298. 
 Budde. " Genesis 48, 7 u. die benachbarten Abschnitte." Ibid., 
 
 1883, p. 56. 
 Buddeus. Htstoria Ecclcstastica V. T. Halle, 1715 fF. 
 Buddeus. l)itroductio ad Philosophiain Ebraeoriitn. Halle, 
 
 1702, 1720. 
 Buddensieg. " Ueber eine Vormosaische Sintflutliversion." Jahr- 
 
 b'l'icher f. Dent. Theologie, 1873. 
 Budge and Sayce. Babylonian Life and History. Lond. Relig. 
 
 Tract Soc, 1884. 
 BUdinger. Egypt. Einwirkunge?!. anf Hebriiische Culte. Wien, 
 
 1873- 
 Bulil. " Wann ist das Fiinfte Bucli Mose Abgefasst worden"? 
 
 Theol. Tidskr. Kjobii., 1878. 
 Bunsen. Gott in dcr Gesduchte. Leipz., 1858. 
 Bunsen. Egypfs Place in Universal History (trans, by Cotterill 
 
 witli addit. by Birch). 5 vols. Lond., 1848-67. 
 Bunsen. ALgyptens Stelle in dcr Wcltgeschichte. Vols, i.-iii. 
 
 Hamb., 1845; vols, iv., v., Gotha, 1856-57. 
 Bunsen. Vollstandiges Bibclwerk fur die Gemeinde. 9 Bde. 
 
 Leipz., 1858-70. 
 Burder. The Scripture Commentary. Lond., 1809. 
 BUrger. Der Talmud ti. d. Pei'fectibilitiit des Mosaisnius v. Stand- 
 
 punkte d. Reform bclcucJitet. Pesth, 1849. 
 Bush, C. Notes on Genesis. 26th ed., 2 vols. New York, 1859. 
 Bush, C. Notes on Exodus. 2 vols, /bid., i?>^6. 
 Bush, C. Notes on Leviticus, /bid., iS^y. 
 Bush, C. No/ cs on Numbers. //;/<•/., 1863. 
 Bush, C. Notes on Josliua. 2d. ed. //;/V/., 1862. 
 Bush, R. W. Popular /ntrod. to the Pentateuch. Lend., 1883. 
 Buttmann. Mythos der SYmdfluth. 2te Aufl. Berlin, 1819. 
 Buxtorf. De I\uitifice iMaximo Hcbraeorum. Basel, 1685. 
 Bynaeus. De Calceis Hebraeorum. Lib. duo. Dort, 1694. 
 Cabell. Test i7>iony of Mod. Science to Unity of I\/ankind. 2d ed. 
 
 Boston, 1859. 
 Cajetan. Comment, in Pentateuchum, etc. Paris, 1539, 1543. 
 Calmet^ Dissertationes qui peuvent scrvir de ProUgotnhies d 
 
 VEcriture Sainte. Paris, 1720. 
 Calov. Criticus Sacer. Piblicus de Sacrae Scripturae Auctoritate. 
 
 Wittenberg, i643fr.
 
 41 8 TJie PentateucJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Calvin. Com. on JosJma. Lond., 1578. 
 
 Calvin. In Quinqtie Libros Mosis Com. Lond., 1595- 
 
 Calvin. In Librum Geneseos Com. Ed. bv Hengstenberg. Berlin, 
 
 1838. 
 Calvin. Book of Moses catted Genesis. Trans, by King. Edinb., 
 
 1847-50. 
 Candlish. Authority of Scripture Independent of Crtttctsm. 
 
 Edinb., 1877. 
 Candlish. Contrib. to Exposition of Book of Genesis. 2 vols. 
 
 Edinb., 1853. 
 Cardall. IsraeVs yourneyings in the Wilderness . Lond., 1848. 
 Carlstadt. De Scripturis Canonicis Libellus. Wittenberg, 1521. 
 Carpenter. "Deuteronomy." Modern Rev., K^xW, iZ'^y 
 Carpenter. " The Book of Judges." Modern Rev., ]\!\y, \^^2>- 
 Carpenter. " Through the Prophets to the Law." Modern Rev., 
 
 Jan., 1884. 
 Carpzov. Introductio ad Libros Canonicos Bibliorum V. T. Omnes. 
 
 Leipz., I7i4-2ifr. 
 Carpzov. Critica Sacra V. T. Leipz., 1728, 1748. 
 Carrau. DOrigine des Ctdtes Primitifs. Rev. des Deux Mondes, 
 
 Avril, 1876. 
 Carriere. " BegrifF, Ursprung, u. Entwickelung d. Mythus." 
 
 Zeitsch . f. Philos . i . , 1 862 . 
 Carriere. Les Origines du Texte Masorcthique de VAncien Testa- 
 ment. Examen Critique d'une R6cente Hypoth^se par A. 
 
 Kuenen. Paris, 1875. 
 Cartwright. Annotatio7ies in Genesin. Lond., 1648. 
 Cary. " The Bible and Criticism." Unit. Rev. xvi. 425. 
 Caspari. " Gesch. Sabbathsjahre." Stud. u. Kritiken. i. 1877. 
 Castalio. Books of Mos. in Latin Prose, with Notes. 1546. 
 Castell. Animadv. in Pentat. Samariticuin. Lond., 1660. 
 Cave. "Evolution and the Hebrews." Ev. Review., ]2in., 1881. 
 Cave. Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice. Edinb., 1877. 
 Cellarius. Exxerpta Pentat. Satnar. Vers. Cum Lat. Interpret., 
 
 etc. Jena, 1705. 
 Cecil. Element. Relig. Truths from the Five Books of Moses. 
 
 Lond., 1881. 
 Cell^rier. Esprit de la L&gisl. Mosdique. Paris et Geneve, 1837. 
 Cell^rier. Introd. a la Lecture des Livres Saints. Geneve, 1832. 
 Celldrier. DeTOrigine Authcntique et Divine de VAncien Testa- 
 
 7nent. Geneve et Paris, 1826. 
 Ceriani. Translatio Syra Pescitto Vet. Test, ex Codice Ambrosiano. 
 
 Sec. fere vi. Milan, 1876 fif. 
 Ceriani. Monumenta Sacra et Profana (vol. ii. Milan, 1868, 
 
 pp. 1-344, contains a fragment of Genesis and Ex. i.-xxxiii. 2, 
 
 according to tlie text of two mss. of the British Museum) . 
 Chaie. Handb. d. Israelii. Ritualgesetze. Konigsb., 1847. 
 Challis. Creation in Plan and in Progress. Lond., 186 1. 
 Chambers. " The Theory of Professor Kuenen." Presbyt. Rev., 
 
 1880, p. 304.
 
 Literature of the Pejttaieuch. 419 
 
 Chambrun de Rosemont. Essai d''un Commentaire Scientifique de 
 
 la Gen^se. Paris, 1883. 
 Chandler. Vindication of the History of the Old Testament. 
 
 Lond., 1741. 
 Chamberlain. Plain Reply to Colenso. Lond., 1863. 
 Chareney. " Fragments sur la Symbolique H^braique." Rev.de 
 
 Lingieistique. Avril, 1869. 
 Charleville. " Les Sections du Pentateuque, etc." Rev. des 
 
 Etudes Jtiives. 
 Chester. "Notes on the Topography of the Exodus." Pal. 
 
 Explor. Fund (Quarterly, 1880, p. 231 ; 1881, p. 104. 
 Cheyne. " Recent Advances in Bib. Criticism." Old Test. Stu- 
 dent, Oct., 1884 (reprinted from Cjiardian). 
 Clant. Dissert, de Labro Tabernaadi, etc. Groningen, 1733. 
 Clark. Israel in Egypt. New York, 1874. 
 Clark. Fundamental Questions (on Genesis, etc.). New York, 
 
 1882. 
 Clarke. Ten Great Religions. Part 2, Boston, 1883. 
 Clarkson. Antedil. and Patriarchal Researches. Lond., 1836. 
 Clayton. Vindicat. of Histories of O. and N. Tests. Lond., 1751. 
 Clemens. Dissert alio de Labro Aeneo a Mose in Tabernaculi Atrio 
 
 Collocato. Groningen, 1732. 
 Clement (d. 1793). Sur VOrigine de Pent. d. Samaritans. 
 Cock. (Lat. Cocceius.) Considerationes ad ultima Mosis. Frankf., 
 
 1650. 
 Cockburn. Credibil. of Jewish Exodus Defended. 1809. 
 Codex Alexandrinus (a facsimile executed for the Brit. Museum). 
 
 4 vols. Lond., 1879-84. 
 Cohen. Historisch-kritische Darstellung d. J'udischen Gottes- 
 
 dienstes, etc. Leipz., 1819. 
 Coke. Creeds of the Day. Vol. i. The Old Test. Lond., 1883. 
 Colin. Lehrb. d. Vorchristlichen Religionsgeschichte. Lemgo, 
 
 1853- 
 Coleridge. Misc. Dissertations on Chaps, xvii., xviii. of fudges. 
 
 Lond., 1768. 
 Colenso. IVellhausen on Cotnpos. of Hexateuch. Lond., 1878. 
 Colenso. Lectures on the Pentateuch and the Moabite Stotie. 
 
 Lond., 1873. 
 Colenso. The New Bible Com. Examined. Lond., 1871. 
 Colenso. The Pentateuch and Rook of Joshua. 6 vols. Lond., 
 
 1862-79. 
 " Colenso on Joshua." Boston Rev., iii. 190. 
 Colenso, Rationalism ift Works of . Lond., 1863. 
 Colenso on the Horns of a Dilcm/na. Lond., 1863. 
 Colet. Mos. Account of Creation. Ed. by Lupton. Lond., 1876. 
 Commentary Wholly Biblical, The. 3 vols. Lond. and New 
 
 York, 1868. 
 Comtncntary, The Pulpit. Edited by Spence and Exell. Genesis. 
 
 Introductions by Farrar, Cotterill, Whitelaw ; Expos, and 
 
 Homiletics by Whitelaw. Exodus. Expos, and Homilet. by
 
 420 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 George Rawlinson. Leviticus. Introd. by Collins and Cave ; 
 Expos., etc., by Meyrick. Numbers. Introd. by Whitelaw; 
 Expos., etc., Winterbotham. Deuteronovty . Expos, by 
 Alexander; Horn, by Clemance. Lond. and New York. 
 
 Commefitary, An Old Test. Edited by Ellicott. Genesis, R. 
 Payne Smith. Exodus, George Rawlinson. Leviticus, Gins- 
 burg. Numbers, Elliott. Deuteronomy, Walker. Lond. and 
 New York. 
 
 Commentary, The Bible. Edited by Cook. Introd. to Pentateuch, 
 Browne. Genesis, " Bishop of Ely." Exodus, Cook and 
 Clark. Leviticus, Clark. Numbers. Introd. by Espin ; Com. 
 by Espin and Thrupp. Deuteronomy, Espin. Lond. and 
 New York, 1872 ff. 
 
 Comtnentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and 
 Homiletical. A Trans, of Lange's Bibelwerk with enlarge- 
 ments under the editorial supervision of Philip SchafF (New 
 York, 1867-82). ThQ Book of Genesis vidiS trans, and ed. by 
 Tayler Lewis and A. Gosman ; Exodus, by Mead ; Leviticus, 
 by Gardiner with an Introd. by Osgood ; Nufnbers, by Lowrie 
 and Gosman ; Deuteronomy, by Gosman. 
 
 Conant. Genesis with Notes. New York, 1868. 
 
 Conant. " History and Methods of Modern Bib. Crit." Proceed- 
 ings of Second An. Baptist Conference, Boston, 1883. 
 
 Conder, C. R. Handbook to the Bible. London and New York. 
 
 Conder, E. R. Origin of the Hebrew Religion. Lond. Relig. 
 Tract Soc. 
 
 Conradi. Tabernaculi Structura et Figura. Hanau, 1621. 
 
 " Contribution to the Criticism of Gen." Ain, Israelite, Nov. 7, 
 1884. 
 
 Cook. Origins of Religion and Language. Lond., 1884. 
 
 Cooper. An Archaic Dictionary ; Biographical, Historical, and 
 Mythological , from the Egypt., Assyr., and Etruscati Monu- 
 ments and Papyri. Lond., 1876. 
 
 Cooper. The Pentateuch and Egypt. Lond., 1875. 
 
 Corrodi. Brief e einiger Holldtidischer Gottesgelehrten 7ieber Simon'' s 
 Kritische Geschichte d. Alt. Test, herausg. v. Le Clerc, Uebers. 
 mit Anmerkungen ze. Zusdtzen. 2 Bde. 1799. 
 
 Corrodi. Versuch einer Beleuchtung d. Geschichte d. Judischen 
 Bibelkanons. Halle, 1792. 
 
 Corrodi. Beitrdge zur Beforderung des vernunft. Denkens (Heft 
 iv. p. 104 ff. treats of the documents of the Pentateuch). 
 Winterthur, 1780, 1801. 
 
 Cosquin. " Les Monuments Assyriens et la Bible." Questions 
 Controversies deVHistoire. 2^ S6rie. 188 1. 
 
 Cotterill. Does Science aid Faith in regard to Creation ? New 
 York, 1884. 
 
 Cowles. The Pentateuch in its Progressive Revelations of God to 
 Men. New York, 1874. 
 
 Cowles. Hebrew History. Ibid., 1875. 
 
 Cox. "Adam's Gospel" (Gen. iii. 14 f.). Exposit»r,]2in.., 1884.
 
 Literature of the Pentateuch. 421 
 
 Cozza. Biblior 117)1 Sacrorum Groecus Codex Vaticanus . . . Collatis 
 Studiis C. Vercelloni et Jos . Cozza. Rome, 1869-81. 
 
 Crafts. Must the Old Test. Go? New York, 1883. 
 
 Cramer. De Moloclio. VVittenb., 1720. 
 
 Crawford. Patriarchal Dynasties from Adam to Abraham. 
 Richmond, 1877. 
 
 Craven. Biblical Chronology . 2d ed. Boston, 1876. 
 
 " Credibility of Pentateuch." Christian Observer, Ixiv. 517. 
 
 Credner. Beitrage z. Einleit.in d. Bibl. Schriftefi. Halle, 1832. 
 
 Creuzer. "Beitrage zur Judischen Geschichte." Stud. u. Kriti- 
 ken, 1850, 1853. 
 
 Critici Sacri. 9 vols. Lond., 1660; Amst., 1698; Frankf., 1696. 
 
 " Crito." The Song of Moses, Qic. Lond., 1782. 
 
 Crosby. Expos. Notes on Joshna. New York, 1875. 
 
 Crosby. " The Authorship of the Pentateuch." The Indepetident, 
 Feb. I, 1883. 
 
 Cross. Hints to Eng. Readers of the Old Test. Lond., 1882. 
 
 Crosskey. " Recent Defences of the Mosaic Cosmogony." Modern 
 Rev., Oct., 1883, p. 675. 
 
 Cumming. Moses Right and Bp. Colettso Wrong. Lond., 1863. 
 
 Cunaeus. De Republica Hebraeortim. Leyden, 1617. 
 
 Currey. Hist, of Is. as preparing for the Gospel. Hulsean Lect. 
 Camb., 1851-52. 
 
 Curtiss. " Present State of O. Test. Studies." Current Discus- 
 sions in Theology, Chicago, 1883. 
 
 Curtiss. " History of Israel." /^/V/., 1884. 
 
 Curtiss. " Papers on the Lang, and Lit. of Israel." The Advance, 
 1883, Jan. and Feb. 
 
 Curtiss. " Sketches of Pentateuch Criticism." Bibliotheca Sac, 
 Jan. and Oct., 1884. 
 
 Curtiss. De Aaronitici Sacerdotii at que Thoroe Elohisticae Origine. 
 Leipz., 1878. 
 
 Curtiss. " Delitzsch on the Origin and Composition of the Penta- 
 teuch." Presbyt. Rev., July, 1882. 
 
 Curtiss. The Levitical Priests. Edinb., 1877. 
 
 Cyril (of Alex.). Com>n.i7t Pent., Greece etLatine. Antw., 1618. 
 
 Da Costa. Israel u. die V'olker. Frankf., 1855. 
 
 Dahler. De Librorum Paraleipom. Auctoritate. Strasb., 1819. 
 
 Dale. De Of-igitieet Progressu Idololatrice. 1696. 
 
 Danglar. Les Semites et le Shnitisme. Paris, 1882. 
 
 Danz. De Eesto yud. Septimanaru?n, Qic. Jena, 17 15-18. 
 
 Darmsteter. Die Philosophie d. Gesch. d. J'udischen Volkes. 
 Wien, 1884. 
 
 Darwin. Descent of Man. New ed. Lond., 1880. 
 
 Dassov. Scholia Criticoriim in Levit . Kiel, 1707. 
 
 Dassov. Dissert, de Suspendio Hominis Lapidibus Obruti. 
 Wittenb., 1694. 
 
 Datema. De Dekaloog. Utrecht, 1876. 
 
 Dathe. Pentateuchus ex Recetisione I'e.xius Hebra'i. Leipz., 179 1. 
 
 Dathe. Libri Historici V. T. Halle, 1784.
 
 422 The PentateucJi: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Daumer. Entwendmig d . yEgyp. Eigenthums. Nurnb., 1833. 
 Daumer. Der Feuer-und Moloch-dienst der Alien Hebrder, 
 
 Braunschweig, 1842. 
 Davidson, J. The Pentateuch and Hebrews. Edinb., 1877. 
 Davidson, P. Pentatench Vindicated. Lond., 1863. 
 Davidson, S. A Treatise on Bib. Criticism. Lond., 1855. 
 Davidson, S. Introd. to the Old Test. 3 vols. Lond., 1862-63. 
 Davison. Primitive Sacrifice. An Itiqidry. Lond., 1825. 
 Davidson. Origin of the World. New York (without date). 
 Dawson. Story of the Earth and Man. New York (without date). 
 Dawson. The Dawn of Life. Lond., 1875. 
 Dawson. P'ossil Men and their Modern Representatives . Lond., 
 
 1880. 
 Dawson. Nature and the Bible. New York, 1875. 
 Dawson. " Antiq. of Man and Origin of Species." Princeton 
 
 Rev., Nov., 1880. 
 Dawson. Studies of the Costnogony , etc., of the Hebrew Scriptures. 
 
 Montreal and Lond., i860. 
 Day. The Five Books of Moses. Lond., 1549. 
 Deane. "The Septuagint Additions to the Heb. Text." Expositor, 
 
 Aug., Sept., 1884. 
 De Broglie. •' L'Origine de la Religion." Contemporain, Juin. 
 
 1883. 
 De Brossis. Du Cidtu de Dieux fetiches. Paris, 1760. 
 DeGeer. Disserfatio liiauguralis de Bileamo. Leyden, 1816. 
 Deicke. Ueber d. S'undfluth. Vortrag. Gallen, 1861. 
 DeLavaur. Confer, de la Fable avec PHist. Sainte. Paris, 1730. 
 Delbrlick. " Verhaltniss zwischen Relig. u. Mythologie. Zeitsch. 
 
 f. Volkerpsychol., 1865, p. 487. 
 Delff. Grundz'uge der Entwickelungsgesch. d. Religion. Leipz., 
 
 1883. 
 Delitzsch, Franz. " Die neue Mode d. Herleitung des Gottesna- 
 
 mens [Jehovah]." Zeitsch. f. Luther. Theologie, 1877, iv. 
 Delitzsch, Franz. " Der Esra d. Ueberlieferung u. d. Esra d. 
 
 neuesten Pentateuchkritik." Zeitsch. f. Luther. Theologie, etc., 
 
 1877, p. 445. 
 Delitzsch, Franz. " Ueber den Jahve-Namen." Zeitsch. f. Alttest. 
 
 Wisse7ichaft, 1883 (2) ; 1884 (i). 
 Delitzsch, Franz. " Priester Segen." Zeitsch. f. Kirch. Wiss.ti. 
 
 Kirchlichcs Leben, 1882, p. 113. 
 Delitzsch, Franz. Com. i'tber d. Genesis. 4te Aufl. Leipz., 1882. 
 Delitzsch, Franz. " Pentateuch-kritische Studien." Zeitsch f. 
 
 Kirch. IViss. 11. Kirchliches Leben, 1880. This series of 
 
 articles continued through the year, and under the title " Urmo- 
 
 saisches" into the year 1881. 
 Delitzsch, Franz. Co/n. zum Hebr'derbrief (illustrating Mos. 
 
 system of sacrifices). Leipz., 1857. 
 Delitzsch, Franz. Bibl. Commentar i'lber die Psalmen. 3te Aufl.. 
 
 Leipz., 1873; 4te Aufl. (revised), 1884. 
 Delitzsch, Franz. See Baer. See also KeiL
 
 Literature of the Pentateuch. 423 
 
 Delitzsch, Fried. Wo Lag das Paradies? Leipz., 1881. 
 
 Delrius. Glossae in Genesin. Leyden, 1608. 
 
 Deuison. Antiquity of Man. Lond., 1865. 
 
 Denio. " Present Outlook of Old Test. Study." New Englander, 
 
 1883, p. 643. 
 Derenbourg. " Encore c^uelques Mots sur les Sections du Penta- 
 
 teuque." Rev. des Etudes, Juin, Sept., 1883. 
 De Rossi. Scholia Critica in Vet, Test. Libros (supplement to the 
 
 work entitled Variae Lectiones, etc.). Parma, 1798. 
 De Rothschild. Hist, and Lit. of the Israelites. Lond., 1871. 
 Der Urspr'utigliche Entwickeh/ngsgang d. Religioscn u. Sittlichen 
 
 Bildung der IVclt (anonymous). Greifswald, 1829. 
 De Saporta. " Prehistoric Archaeology." Pop. Scietitific Monthly, 
 
 Sept. and Oct., 1883. 
 De Smedt. Principles de la Critique Historiq^ie. Liege: Soc. Bibl. 
 
 Beige, 1883, 
 Deuteronomy, Notes on. Vol. IL Lond., 1882. 
 " Deuteronomy as the Production of Moses." Joiir. of Sac. Lit., 
 
 XX. 313. 
 " Deuteronomy, the Book and its Critics." Church Quart. Review, 
 
 Oct., 1877. 
 De Wette. Vorles. uber die Religion ihr Wesen, etc. Berlin, 1827. 
 De Wette. Die Heilige Schrift d. A. u. N. Tests. Uebersetzt. 2te 
 
 Aufl. Heidelb., 1831, 1832. 
 
 De Wette. LeJirb. d. Historisch-KritischenEinleitung in d. Kanon. 
 
 u, Apok. Bi'icher d. Alt. Test. 8te Aufl., neu bearbeitet von 
 
 Schrader. Berlin, 1869. 
 
 De Wette. Review of Vatke's Religion d. A. T. George''s D. aelt. 
 
 J'lidis. Feste and v. Bohlen's Genesis. Stud. u. Kritiken, 1837. 
 
 De Wette. EOrigine Authentique et Divine de VAncien Testainent. 
 
 Geneve et Paris, 1826. 
 De Wette. Dissertatio Critico-exegetica qua Deuterononiiuin a 
 Prioribus Pentateuchi Libris Diversuni alius Cujusdam Re- 
 ce7ttioris Auctoris Opus esse Denionstratttr. Jenae, 1805. 
 De Wette. Lehrb. d. Hebrli. fildischen Archaologie. 4te Aufl. 
 
 (Rabiger). Leipz., 1864. 
 Die Chronologie der Genesis ( i Mosis) im Einklang ?nit der Pro- 
 fane n (anonymous). Regensburg, 1881. 
 Diederichs. Zur Geschichte Simsons. Getting., 1778. 
 Diemer. Ge7i. ti. Ex. n. d. Milstater Handschrift. Wien, 1862. 
 Diestel. Einfluss d. Aegypt. Cidtur aif. Is. 2. Zeit Mosis. 
 
 Vortrag. Elberfeld, i86r. 
 Diestel. " Der Monotheismus des jilteren Heidenthums vorziig- 
 
 lich bei den Semiten." Jaiirb. f. Dcut . TJieologic, i860. 
 Diestel. Die Sihidflicth u. die Flidhsai^cn d. /lltcrthjwis. Berlin, 
 
 1872. 
 Diestel. Der Segeyi Jacobs, Gen. xlix. Braunschweig, 1853. 
 Diestel. " Stiftshlitte." SchenkcFs Bibel-Lex. 
 Diestel. " Die Religiosen Delicte im Israelit. Strafrecht." Jahrb'ii- 
 cher f. Prot. Theologie, 1879, ^^-
 
 424 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Dillmann. Urspr. d. Alltest. Religion. Acad. Rede. Giessen, 1865. 
 Dillmann. Die Bilcher Exodus Jind Leviticus {Kiirzgefasstes Exeget. 
 
 Haiidb.'). Leipz., 1880. 
 Dillmann. Die Genesis (^ibid.). 4te Aufl. Leipz., 1882. 
 Dillmann. Biblia V. T. ^thiop. Bd. i., Octateuchus. Leipz., 
 
 1853-55. 
 Dillmann. " Ueber d. Kalenderswesen d. Israeliten vor dem 
 
 Babylon. Exil." Monatsch.d. K'dnig. Acad. d. IViss. zu Berlin., 
 
 Oct. 27, 1881. 
 Dillmann. "Ueber die Herkunft d. Urgeschichtlichen Sagen d. 
 
 Hebraer." Sitzungsbericht d. K. Acad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin., 
 
 April 27, 1882. 
 Dillmann. " Ueber Baal mit dem Weiblichen Artikel." Ibid., 
 
 June 16, 1881. 
 Dillmann. " Bibeltext des Alten Testaments." Yitrzo^s Encyk., 
 
 2te Aufl., ii. p. 381. 
 Dillmann. " Bildung der Sammlung heiliger Schriften Alten 
 
 Testaments." Jahrb.f. Deut. Theol. (1858), p. 419. 
 Dimock. Notes 07i Gen., Ex., etc. Gloucester (Eng.), 1804. 
 Disraeli. Genius of Judaism. Lond., 1833. 
 Ditmar. Geschichte d. Israeliten if\^Q.yxv&). Berlin, 1788. 
 Dittmar. Geschichte der Welt mit R'ucksicht auf die Entwickelung 
 
 des Lebens in Religiofi, etc. 4 Bde. Heidelb., 1847-51. 
 Dods. IsraeVs Iron Age. 4th ed. Lond., 1880. 
 Dods. The Book of Genesis. Edinb., 1882. 
 
 Donnelly. Atlantis : t/ie Antediluvian World. New York, 1882. 
 Doorninck. Bijdrage tot de Textkritiek von Richteren i.-xvi. 
 
 Leyden, 1879. 
 Douglass. The Book of Joshua. Lond., 1882. 
 Dozy. Die Israeliten zu Mekkav. David^s Zeit. Haarl., 1864. 
 Drechsler. Einleit u. Echtheit d. Genesis. Hamb., 1838. 
 Drechsler. Die Unwissenschaftlichkeit im Gebiete d. Alttest. 
 
 Kritik (directed against Vatke and V. Bohlen). Leipz., 1837. 
 Drew. Colenso''s Exam, of Pent. Examined. Lond., 1863. 
 Drexellius. JVoe Architcctus Arcae. Munich, 1644. 
 Driver. " On some Alleged Linguistic Affinities of the Elohist." 
 
 Jourtial of Philol., xi. p. 201. 
 Droysen. Grundriss der Historik. Leipz., 1868. 
 Drusius. Ad Loca Difficiliora Jostiae, Judic, et Sam. Com- 
 ment arius. Franeq., 1618. 
 Duff. " Structure of O. Test. Books." Bibliotheca Sac, Oct., 
 
 1880, July, 1882. 
 Duffield. " Evolutionism respecting Man and the Bible." Princeton 
 
 Rev., Jan., 1878. 
 Duke. Qiiestion of Incest by Marriage with Sisters in Succession. 
 
 Lond., 1882. 
 Duncan. Law of Moses : its Char, and Design. Lond., 185 1. 
 Duncker. Geschichte des Alterthums. 5te Aufl. Leipz., 1878. 
 Duncker. History of Antiquity. 6 vols. Lond., 1877-82. 
 Dunlop. " The Man Moses." Am. Church Rev., July, 1883.
 
 Literature of the Pentateuch. 425 
 
 Dunner. " Beleuchtung einiger Stellen in Exodus iii." Monat- 
 schrift f. Gesch. u. IViss. d. Judenthums, 1870, pp. 97, 145, 
 
 193- 
 Duns. " The Serpent of Eden." Bibliotheca Sac, xxi. p. 163. 
 
 Du Pin. Prolcgomencs sur la Bible. Paris, 1701. 
 
 Dupuis. Origine de tons Ics Cultcs. 12 vols. Paris, 1796. 
 
 Durell. TheHcb. Text on the Parallel Proph. of Jacob and Moses 
 
 Relating to the Twelve Tribes. Oxford, 1763. 
 Dushak. Gesch. n. Darstellnng d. Jud. Cultus. Mannlieim, 
 
 1866. 
 Dushak. Das Mosaisch-Talinudische Strafrecht. Wien, 1869. 
 Dwiglit. Tlie Hebrew Wife (treats of marriage with a deceased 
 
 wife's sister). Lond., 1836. 
 Dwinell. " The Prophets of Israel," Rev. of W. R. Smith's book 
 
 of that title. Bibliotheca Sac, April, 1884, p. 327. 
 Ebers. Dnrch Gosen,ziim Sinai. 2te Aufl. Leipz., 1881. 
 Ebert. '' Zur Angelsachsischen Genesis." Anglia,\.i. 
 Ebrard. " Kritik." Hftxzog's Peiil-Enyr^k. iste Aufl. 
 Ebrard. Anfcinge d. Menscliengeschlechts. Frankfurt, 1876. 
 Eckard. Ueberdie Mosdische Peligion, tic. Greifswald, 1787. 
 Eckermann. Lehrb. d. Religions-gescJiichte n. Mythologie. 2 Bde. 
 
 Halle, 1854 f. 
 Eckstein. " D. Sitz d. Cultur in dcr Urwelt." Zeitscti.f. V'olker- 
 
 psychol., etc., i860, p. 261. 
 Edersheim. Prophecy and Hisl. in Relation to tJie Messiah. 
 
 Lond., 1885. 
 Edersheim. The Exodus and the Wanderings in the IVilderness. 
 
 Lond. Relig. Tract. Soc. 
 Edersheim. World before the Flood and Hist, of Patriarchs. Ibid. 
 Edersheim. The Laws and Polity of the Jews. Ibid. 
 Edwards. "Certain Erroneous Methods and Principles in Bib. 
 
 Criticism." Bibliotheca Sac, vi. p. 185. 
 Edwards. "Authenticity and Genuineness of the Pentateuch 
 
 Ibid., ii. 356, 658. 
 Egli. " Zur Textkritik von Gen. xx." Zeitschrift f. JTiss. Theo- 
 
 logie, 1880, p. 344. 
 Egli. " Pentateuchisches." /(^Z(f., 1881, p. 205. 
 Ehrt. Abfassungszeit u. Abschluss d. Psalters, etc. Leipz., 1870. 
 Eichhorn. Einteitungind. Alte Test. 4teAufl. Getting., 1823-24. 
 Eichhorn. Weltgcsc'hichte. 5 vols. 1801-1814. 
 Eichhorn. Repcrtorium fur Bib. u. MorgenUind. Literaiiir. 10 
 
 Bde. Leipz., 1787-1801. 
 Eichhorn. " Urgeschichte." Repertorinfn,\y., v. (1779). 
 Einhorn. Princip dcs Mosaisnnis. Leipz., 1854. 
 Elliot. Moses and Modern Science. Lond., 1871. 
 Elliott. "Unity of the Pentateuch." Ilcb. Student, ]\mc, 1883. 
 Elliott. Vindication of the Mos. Authorship of Pentateuch. 
 
 Cincinnati, 1884. 
 Encyclopa:dia Britannica. lias valuable articles on the O. Test. 
 
 Books and the Criticism of tlie O. T. 
 
 1-1
 
 426 TJic Pcntatejicli : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Engel. Losung d. Paradiesfrage. Leipz., 1885. 
 
 Engelhardt. " Ein Beitrag zurFrage liber die Cherubim." Zeitsch. 
 
 f. Luther. Theologie, etc. 1861. 
 Engelhardt. " Die Idee der Stiftshiitte." Idem, 1868. 
 Engelstoft. Historia Popidi Judaici Biblica usque Occupationem 
 
 Palcesiinae. Copenhag., 1832. 
 Erdmann. Natnr ti. Schopfjing. 'Leipz., 1840. 
 Ernesti. " On conforming to the Laws of Criticism in the Study of 
 
 Divinity." Opusada Oratoria, 3. Leyden, 1762. 
 Erpenius. Pentateuchus Mosis, Arabice. Leyden, 1622. 
 Essays and Reviews. Eds. 1-9. Lond., 1861. 
 Esteoule. Essai sur VAiUorite de VAncien Test. Paris, 186 1. 
 Etheridge. Targutns of Onkelos a7id Jonathan. Lond., 1862-65. 
 Etheridge. Introduction to Hcb. Literature. Lond., 1856. 
 Ewald. De P'eriarum Hebraearuni Or. et Ratione. Getting. , 1 84 1 . 
 Ewald. Die Althcrth'umer d. Volkes Israel. Getting., 1866. 
 Ewald. Jahrbucher d. Bib. Wissenschaft. Getting., 1849-65. 
 Ewald. Geschichted. Volkes Israel. 3te Ausg. Gotting., 1864-68. 
 Ewald. The History of Israel. 4 vols. Lond., 187 1. 
 Ewald. Die Propheten d. Alten Bundeserklart. 2teAufi. 3 Bde. 
 
 Getting., 1867-68. 
 Ewald. Dichterd. Alten Bundes. 3te Ausg. 3 Bde. 1866-67. 
 Ewald. Die Composition d. Genesis kritisch tmtersticht. Braun- 
 schweig, 1823. 
 Ewald. Review of Staheliii's Krit. Unterstcchung iiber die Genesis. 
 
 Stud. u. Kritiken, 1 831, iii. 
 Ewald. " Neue Untersuchungen liber den Gott der Erzvater." 
 
 Jahrbucher d. Bibl. Wissenschaft, 1859-60, x. p. i. 
 Ewald. " Ueber die Volks-und Geistesfreiheit Israel's zur Zeit der 
 
 grossen Propheten bis zur ersten Zerstorung Jerusalems." 
 
 Ibid., 1848, i. p. 95. 
 Ewald. "Ueber die Wendung aller Geschichte Israel's in ihrer 
 
 hohen Mitte." Ibid., 1859-60, x. p. 29. 
 Ewald. " Das grosse Lied im Deuteronomium xxx." Ibid., 1856, 
 
 viii. p. 41. 
 Ewald. " Die Weissagungen Bileam's." Ibid., 1856, viii. p. i. 
 Ewald. "Erklarung der Biblischen Urgeschichte. Ibid, (in 
 
 various numbers), 1848-58. 
 Ewald. " Ueber das suchen und finden sogenannter Makkabaischer 
 
 Psalmen." Ibid., 1853-54, vi. p. 20. 
 Examen Critique de V Ancien Test. : Le Pentateuque. Paris, 1882. 
 Exell. Homiletical Commentary on Genesis. Lend., 1875. 
 Faber, Horae Mosaicae. 2 vols. Oxford, 1 801. 
 Faber. ArchiioLdcr Hebrlier. (Onlyparti. appeared.) Halle, 1773. 
 Fabri. Entstehung d. Heidenthums. Barmen, 1859. 
 Fabricius (d. 1654). Disputatt. in Genesim, etc. 
 Fabricy. Des Litres Primitifs de la Revelation. Rome, 1772. 
 Fagius. Versio ad Targ. Onkelos cum Notts. Argent., 1546. 
 Fairbairn. The Revelation of Law in Scripture. Edinb., 1868- 
 Fairbairn. The Typology of Scripture. Edinb., 1876.
 
 Literature of the Pcntatctich. 427 
 
 Fairbairn. Imperial Bible Dictionary. Edinb., 1865. 
 Fairholme. Afosaic Deluge. Lond., 1840. 
 Farrer. Primitive MatDicrs and Ctistoms. Lond., 1876. 
 Fassel. D. Mos. Rabbiiiische Civilrecht. Gr. Kanisha, 1854. 
 Fausset. The Englishman's Crit. and Expository Bible Encyclo- 
 
 pcedia. Lond. and New York, 188 1. See also Jamieson. 
 Favez. Le Deuteronome. Lausanne, 1874. 
 
 Fayus. Defensio Relig.ncc non Mosis et Gentis Jicd. Ultraj., 1709. 
 Feldhoff. Die Zeitenlinie d. Heil. Schrift. Frankf., 1831. 
 Feldhoff. Die Volkertaf el der Genesis . Elberfeld, 1837. 
 Fenton. Early Hebrew Life. Lond., 1880. 
 
 Fenton. " Prim. Heb. Land Tenure." Theol. Review, Oct., 1877. 
 Fenton. " The Goel." Theol. Review, Oct., i%y^. 
 Fergus . Laws and Institutions of Moses . 1 8 1 1 . 
 Ferguson, H. " Historical Testimony of the Prophet Zephaniah." 
 
 Jour, of Soc. of Bib. Lit. and Exegesis, Jan. -June, 1884. 
 Ferguson, R. Sacrifice itt Relation to God and Man. Lend., 
 
 1856. 
 Ferri^re. Le Paganisme des Htbrenx Jnsqic' ii la Captivitt de 
 
 Baby lone. Paris, 1884. 
 Fichte. Versnck e. Kritik alter Offenbarnng. Konigsb., 1793. 
 Field, F. Origenis Hexaploriim quae super sunt. Oxford, 1875. 
 Field, H.M. " Humane Features of the Mosaic Law." Bibliotheca 
 
 Sac, X. p. 340. 
 Filachou. Commentaire Philosophiqice du Premier Chapitre de la 
 
 Genhe. Paris, 1882. 
 Fink. Gesch. u. IVesenheit d. Religiofien. Leipz., 1844. 
 Fischer. Heidenthum 11. Offenbarnng. Mainz, 1878. 
 Fischer. Urgeschichte d. Menschen it. die Bibel. Wurzburg, 1878. 
 Fleming. Fallen Angels and Heroes of Mythology. Lond., 1880. 
 Fleming. The Gospel in Leviticus. Lond., 1880. 
 Fleury. Moers des Israelites. Bruxelles, 1701. 
 Flockner. Z. Aidhentie n. Integretiit d. Moseliedes. Beuthen, 
 
 1876. 
 Floigl. Gesch. d. Semit. Altertnms in Tabellen. Leipz., 1882. 
 Fluegel. Die Mosaische Dicit iDid Hygiene. Kalamazoo, 1881. 
 Formby. Monotheism derived from the Hebrew Nation and the 
 
 Law of Moses, the Primitive Relig. of the City of Rome. 
 
 Lond., 1877. 
 Fowle. " The Place of Revelation in Evolution." Nineteenth 
 
 Ce7d., Sept., 1881. 
 Fowler, C. H. Fallacies of Coletiso Reviewed. Cincinnati, 1865. 
 Fowler, F. W. Answer to Colenso. Lond., 1863. 
 Frankel. Das Mosaisch-Talmudische Eherecht. Breslau, i860. 
 Frankel. " Ueber d. Entwickelung der Pentateuch - Perikopen- 
 
 Verlesung." Monatschrift f. Gesch. u. IViss. d. JudetUliums, 
 
 1867, p. 385. 
 Frankel. " I)ie Zeit des Konigs Chiskija und der Zeitgenos- 
 
 sischen Propheten. Ibid., 1870, p. 49. 
 Freihold. Das Erste Leben d. Menschheit. Jena, 1876.
 
 428 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Freund u. Marx. Prdperation sum Alien Testament. The 
 
 Pentateuch appeared, Leipz., 1863. 
 Frey. Hist, ab Orbe Coiidito ad Mosis Mortem. Basel, 1583. 
 Friederich. Symbolik d. Mosaichcn StiftsJuitte. Leipz., 1841. 
 Friedhoff. Status Primi Hominis Supernaturalis et Indcbitus 
 
 Theissing, 1850. 
 Friedlander. GcschicJde d. Is. Volkes. Leipz,, 1848. 
 Friedreich. Ueber die J'ud. Beschneidung. Ausbach, 1844. 
 Friedrich. Der Segen Jacobs. Breslau, 1811. 
 Fries. " Die Lage von Kades.'' Stud. u. Kritiken, 1854, p. 50. 
 Fries. " Z. Kamphausen's Bemerkungen iiber die Stiftshiitte." 
 
 Stud. u. Kritiken, 1859, i. 
 Fritzsche. De Revelatiojiis Notione Biblica Com. Leipz., 1828. 
 Fritzsche. Priifung der Gr'unde mit welchen netierlich die 
 
 Aechtheit d. Bucher Mosis bestritten warden ist. Leipz., 18 14. 
 Froschammer. Ueber d. Genesis d. Menschengeschlechts . Miin- 
 
 chen, 1883. 
 Fulda. " Ueber das Alter d. Heil. Schriften d. Alten Test." 
 
 Paulus' Neues Reperto7'iu7n, 1791, iii. 
 Fulda. " Resultate Freimiithiger Untersuchung ueber den Kanon 
 
 d. Alten Testament.'" Paulus' Mefnorabilien, 1795. 
 Fulton. The Law of Marriage, containing the Heb. Law, etc. 
 
 New York, 1883. 
 Furst, Der Pentateuch. Illustrirte Volksausgabe. Prag, 1882. 
 Flirst. " Beitrage zur Kritik der Bucher Samuel." Zeitschrift f. 
 
 IViss. Theologie, 1881, p. 170. 
 Furst. Hebrdisches 71. Chald. Ha7idwdrterb7ich. 3te Aufl. bear- 
 
 beitet von Ryssel. Leipz., 1876. 
 FUrst. Geschichted. Biblischen Liter at7ir. 2 Bde. Leipz., 1867-70. 
 Gaab. Beitrage z. Erkldr. des i, 2, 4 B. Mosis. Tubing., 1796. 
 Gaab. " Explicatio Nova Cap. xxxiii. Deuteronomii." Co77tmen- 
 
 tationes Theologicae oi Velthusen, etc. Leipz., 1794-99. 
 Gabler. Afeue Vers7ichuiig uber die Mos. Sch'bpf/mgsgeschichte a7is 
 
 der Hdhere7i Kritik. Niirnb., 1796. 
 Gainet. Accord de la Bible et de la Geologie da7is le Credtio7i de six 
 
 Jours. Reims, 1867. 
 Gall. P7-i77ieval Man. 2d ed. Lond., 1880. 
 Galloway. Philos. of the Creation. (Gen. i.-x.) Edinb., 1885. 
 Garbett. Divine Pla7i of Revelatio7i. Boyle Lect. Lond., 1864. 
 Garbett. The Bible a7id its Critics. Boyle Lect. Lond., 1861. 
 Gardiner. " Note on Gen. xi. 26." Bibliotheca Sac, Oct., 1877. 
 Gardiner. Old a7id N. Testa77ients i7i their Mut7ial Relations. 
 
 New York, 1885. 
 Gardiner. " Early Narratives in Genesis." A 777. Church Rev., xxk. 
 
 Gardiner. "Darwinism." Bibliotheca Sac, xxix. p. 240. 
 Gardiner. " Chronolog. Value of the Genealogy in Gen. v." 
 
 Bibliotheca Sac, xxx. p. 323. 
 Gardiner. '^Relation of Ezekiel to the Levitical Law." Journal 
 
 ofSoc. of Bib. Lit. and Exegesis, July-Dec, 1881.
 
 Literature of the Pentateuch. 429 
 
 Garland. Genesis: With Notes, q\.c. Lond., 1878. 
 
 Gartner. Bibelu. Geologie. Stuttg., 1867. 
 
 Gast. " Assyrian Research and the Old Testament." Rcf. Quart. 
 
 Review, 1884, p. 178. 
 Gast. "Pentateuch Criticism: its History and Present State." 
 
 lief. Quart. Review, 1882, pp. 179, 374. 
 Gauhnin. De Vita et Morte Mosis. Paris, 1628. 
 Gaussen. TJie Exodus of Israel. Lond., 1869. 
 Gaussen. Le Premier Chapitre de la Genhe ExposL 2^ 6dit. 
 
 Toulouse, 1865. 
 Gaussen. From Egypt to Sinai. Lond., 1869. 
 Gautier. " Quelques Opinions R6centes sur ' Jehovah.'" Rev. de 
 
 Thcol. et de Philos., Oct., 1877. 
 Geddes. Critical Remarks on the Hebrew Scriptures. Vol. i. 
 
 (Pentat.). Lond., 1800. 
 Geddes. Kritischb u. Exeget. Anmerkungen u. cine Abhandlung 
 
 tieber Mosis tt. die Verfasser des Pentateuchs. Halle, 1802. 
 Geftken. Ueber die Verschiedene Eintheilung des Dekalogus und 
 
 den Einfluss dcrsclben auf den Cultus. Hamb., 1838. 
 Geiger. Urschrift u. Uebersetsung der Bibel. Breslau, 1857. 
 Geiger. " Das nach Onkelos benannte Thargum zum Pentateuch." 
 
 Jiidische Zeitschrift, 1 871, p. 85. 
 Geiger. " Die Lebensjahre d. zwei altesten Geschlechtsreihen." 
 
 Zeitsch.f. IViss. u. Leben, 1861, pp. 98, 175. 
 Geiger. Die Gesetzlichen Differenzen zwischen Saniar. u. Juden." 
 
 Zeitsch. d. Dent. Morgenland. Gesellschaft, xx. p. 527. 
 Geio'er. " Gen. vi. 3 bei den Samaritanern." Zeitsch. d. Deut. 
 
 Morgenland. Gesellschaft, xxviii. p. 489. 
 Geiger. Cf. also, ibid. xvi. p. 714 ; xviii. pp. 590, 813 ; xix. p. 610 ; 
 
 XX. pp. 143, 447; xxi. p. 169; xxii.p. 528. 
 Geiger. " Der Baal ind. Hebra. Eigennamen." Ibid., xvi. p. 728. 
 Geiger. Das Judcntluim u. seine Geschichte. Breslau, 1871. 
 Geike. Hours with the Bible. Vols, i., ii. Lond., 1881. 
 Gelbe. Zur Einleitung ins Alte Test . Leipz., 1866. 
 Gell. Amend, of Eng. Translation of the Bible. Vi.'i., Pefitateuch. 
 
 Lond., 1659. 
 Gellion-Danglar. Les Semites et le Semitisme. Paris, 1882. 
 " Genesis and the Commentators." Scottish Rev., Nov., 1882. 
 Genesis in Advance of Present Science. A Crit. Examination of 
 
 Chaps, i.-ix. (anonymous). Lond., 1883. 
 George. Die Aelteren Judischcn Teste, etc. Berlin, 1835 
 Gerard. Institutes of Bib. Criticism. Boston, 1823. 
 Gerdes. De Festo Clangoris. Duisburg, 1730. 
 Gerhard, J. Com. super Deutcronomium. Jena, 1567. 
 Gerhard, J. Com. super Genesin. Jena, 1693. 
 Gerhard, P. " 1st d. Stiftshlitte eine tendenciose Fiction," etc. ? 
 
 Beweis d. Glaubens, Oct., 1879. 
 Gerlach. J)as Alte Testament mit Einleit . licrlin. 1843. 
 Gesenius. De Pentateuchi Samaritani Origine, Indole et Auctoritate. 
 Halle, 18 1 5.
 
 430 The PentateucJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Gesenius. Hebraisches u. Chal. Handworterb. i'lber d. Alte Test. 
 
 9te Aufl. (Muhlau u. Volck.) Leipz., 1882-83. 
 Gessner. Das Liedd. Deborali i'lbersetzt u. erkldrt. Quakenbruch, 
 
 1879. 
 Gfrorer. Urgesch. des Menschengeschlechts . Schaffhausen, 1885. 
 Ghillany. Die Menschenopfer bei alten Hebr'der. (Cf. Sttid. u. 
 
 Kritiken, 1843, i^-) NUrnb., 1842. 
 Ghillany. Das judenthnm u. die Kritik. Nurnb., 1844. 
 Gibbens. Qjiestions on first \\ Chaps, of Genesis. Lond., 1601. 
 Gibson. The Mosaic Era. New York, 188 1. 
 Gibson. Ages Before Moses. Ibid., i2>jg. 
 Giesebrecht. " Zur Hexateuchkritik." Zeitsch.f.Alttest. Wissen- 
 
 schafi, 1 88 1, f. 177. 
 Giesebrecht. " Abfassungszeit der Psalmen." /i^/;^., pp. 276-332. 
 Gieseler. " Ob Aben-Esra Mosen fiir den Verfasser des Penta- 
 
 teuchs halte." Stud. u. Kritiken. 1829, i. 
 Giles. Hebrew and Christian Records. Lond., 1877. 
 Girdlestone. Getiesis: its Aiithcfiticity, Qic. Lond., 1864. 
 Gladstone. " The Iris of Homer and her relation to Genesis ix. 
 
 11-17." Contemp. Review, h^ixW, 1878. 
 Glaire. lHtrodnctio)i historiqite et critique auxlivres de PAncien et 
 
 du Nouveau Testament. 4^ ddit. 5 vols. Paris, 1868-69. 
 Godet. £tudes bibliques. i^e s^rie : Ancien Testament. 2^ 6dit. 
 
 Neuch^tel, 1873. Lond. (in Eng.), 1875-79. 
 Godwin. Civil and Eccles. Rites of An. Hebrews. Oxford, 1616. 
 Goens. " La Methode de la Critique d'apr^s A. Kuenen." Revue 
 
 de TMol. et de Philosophic, 1881, p. 164. 
 Goldziher. D. Mythus bei den Hebraern. Leipz., 1876. Lond. 
 
 (in English), 1877. 
 Goltz. Gottes Offenbarung durch Heil. Geschichte, nach ihretn 
 
 Wesen betrachtet. Basel, 1868. 
 Goodwin, C. W. " On the Mosaic Cosmogony." Recent Inquiries 
 
 in Theology, Boston, 1861. 
 Goodwin, H. Gradual Devel. of Revelation. Lond., 1871. 
 Goodwin, H. Essays on tiie Pentateuch. Lond., 1867. 
 Gdrres. Die Volkertafel d. Pentateuch. Regensb., 1845. 
 Graetz. " Segen Bileams." Monatschr. f. Gesch. ti.Wiss. d. Jud., 
 
 1884, p. 468. 
 Graetz. Geschichte der Juden von den alt est en Zeiten bis auf die 
 
 Gegenwart. 2te Aufl. 11 Bde. Leipz., 1864-70. 
 Graetz. "Das Debora-Lied." Monatschrift f. Gesch. ti, IViss. 
 
 d. Judenthums, 1881, p. 193; 1882, p. 123, 
 Graf. De Templo Silonensi, ad illustrandum locum fud., xviii. 
 
 30,31. Meissener Programm, 1855. 
 Graf. " Beitrage zu den Theologischen Wissenschaften von den 
 
 Mitgliedern der Theolog. Gesellschaft zu Strassburg." Heft i. 
 
 Jena, 1847. The ?rt. has reference to Simon's Histoire 
 
 Critique du Vieux Testament. 
 Graf. Die Geschich. Bilcher d. Alten Testaments. Leipz., i866. 
 Graf. Der Segen Mosis erkldrt. Leipz., 1857.
 
 Literahire of the Pejitateuch. 431 
 
 Graf. "Was bedeutet d. Ausdruck ' vor Gott erscheinen' in d. 
 
 Gesetzen d. Pentat., Ex. xxi. 6; xxii. 7, 8." Zeitsch. d. Deid. 
 
 Morgenldnd. Gesellschaft, xviii. p. 309. 
 Graf. Der StaiiDii Simeon. Meissener Programm, 1866. 
 Graf. " Zur Geschichte des Stammes Levi." Merx's Archiv, 
 
 1867, pp. 68, 208. See also his reply to Riehm's strictures on 
 
 Die Geschich. Bucher d. A. T., Stud. 11. Kritiken, 1868, in 
 
 Merx's Archiv, 1869. 
 Graf. " Priester." Schenkel's Bibel-Lex. 
 Graham. The Mosaic Cosmogony. Lond., 1865. 
 Gramberg. Die Chronik nach ihrem Geschichtlichen Character , etc., 
 
 gepruft. Halle, 1823. 
 Gramberg. Kritische Geschichte d. Religionsideen d. Alt en Test. 
 
 Berlin, 1829-30. 
 Gramberg. Libri Geneseos secundum Fotites rite digtioscendos 
 
 Adumbratio Nova. Leipz., 1828. 
 Grandpierre. Essai snr le Pentateuque. Paris, 1844. 
 Grant. Bible Record of Creation True for every Age. Lond., 
 
 1877. 
 Grasshoff. Das Erste B. Mose. Bremen, 1884. 
 Graves. Lectures on the Last Four Books of the Pentateuch. 
 
 Dublin, 1 83 1. 
 Gray. Mosaic Record and the Earth'' s Antiquity. Lond., 1851. 
 Greaves (d. 1676). Observatt. in Persicu/n Petit. Versionem. 
 Green, J. B. Hebrew Migration from Egypt. 2d ed. Lond., 1882. 
 Green, W. Song of Deborah. . . Trans, and Com. Lond., 1723. 
 Green, W. H. " Genuineness of the Pentateuch." Princeton Rev., 
 
 Jan., 1878. 
 Green, W. H. The Pentateuch Vindicated from the Aspersions of 
 
 Bishop Colenso. New York, 1863. 
 Green, W. H. " Prof. W. Robertson Smith on the Pentateuch." 
 
 Presbyt. Review, 1882, p. 108. 
 Green, W. H. Moses and the Prophets. New York, 1883. 
 Green, W. H. "Was Moses the Author of the Pentateuch?" 
 
 Herzog's Encyck. Am. ed. by Schaff ^■.■z'. " Pentateuch." 
 Gregory (of Nyssa). Mystica Vitae Mosis Ennarratio. Lat. 
 
 trans. Basel, 1521. 
 Gresswell. Objections of Colenso Unfoiuided. Lond., 1863. 
 Gr6tillat. "Wellhausen et sa M^thode dans sa Critique du Pen- 
 tateuque." Revue de Thiol, et de Philos, Sept., 1883. 
 Gr6tillat. " La Thdorie du Sacrifice L^vitique d'apr^s Baehr et 
 
 Oehler." Ibid., 1881. 
 Grevin. Nouvelle etude sur le chapitre pretnier de la Genise. 
 
 Paris, 1859. 
 Griesinger. D. Ajtthetitie d. A. T. Schriften. Stuttg., 1804. 
 Griesinger. Ueber d. Pentateuch. Ibid., 1806. 
 Griffin. Colenso atid the Pentateuch. Lond., 1863. 
 Grill. Die,Ersvdter der Menschheit. Leipz., 1875. 
 Grilliot. Etudes H'istoriques et Crit. sur Ics Religions. Paris, 18S3 
 Grimmel. De Lapidum Cultu apud Patriarchas. Marburg, 1853.
 
 432 TJic Pentateuch: Its Oris^iji and Stnicture, 
 
 Grohmann. Einzig M'ogl. Standpiiiikt die Offenbarimg zu 
 
 beitrtheilen. Leipz., 1798. 
 Grohmann. Offenbariing7i. Mythologie. Berlin, 1789. 
 Grohmann. Die H'dhere RcUg. Ucberzcugiuig. Hamb., 181 1. 
 Gronemann. Die Jonathaiiische Pcutateuch-Uebersetzting in ihrem 
 
 Verhixltnisse 2nr Halacha. Leipz., 1879. 
 Groot. History of the Israelites and Jiiiiaans. New York, 1879. 
 Groser. Introduction to Josh., Jud., Ruth, a Sam. Lond., 1881. 
 Grosse. Allgeineine HistoriscJi-Krit. Einleitung in sammtliche 
 
 Kanon. B'uclier d. Alien lest. Leipz., 1821. 
 Grotius. Explicatio Decalogi, etc. Amsterd., 1640. 
 Grotius. Annotationes in V. T. 3 tomi. Halle, 1775. 
 Gruner. Diatr. de Primitiarwn Oblatione ac Consecratione. 
 
 Leyden, 1739. 
 Gumpbach. Ueber den Altjildischen Kalender. Brussels, 1848. 
 Guthe. De Foederis Notione Jeremiana. Leipz., 1877. 
 Guthe. Fragment e einer lederhaiidscJwift enth. Mose''s letzte 
 
 Rede, etc. Leipz., 1883. 
 Guttler. Empir. Kritik d. Mos. Ui'geschichte . Freiburg, 1877. 
 Guyau. " De Origine des Religions." Rev. Philos., D^c, 1879. 
 Guyot. The Bible Cosmogony in the light of Modern Science. New 
 
 York, 1884. Cf. Dana in Bibliothcca Sacra for April, 1885. 
 Hachnelt. Der Thiir/nbau zu Babel. Heidelb., 1880. 
 Hackett. " First Eleven Chapters of Gen.," etc. Bibliotheca Sac, 
 
 xxii. p. 395. 
 Hackmann. Praecidatiea Sacra S. Ajtimadv. Phil. Crit. exhib. 
 
 Genesifi, Exod., et leviticum. Leyden, 1735. 
 Haeckel. Evolution of Man. 2 vols. Lond., 1879. 
 Haeckel. History of Creation. 2 vols. Lond., 1876. 
 Hagel. Apologie des Moses. Sulzbach, 1828. 
 Haggenmacher. Der Ur sprung d. Religion, etc. Leipz., 1883. 
 Hahn. De Religionis et Superstitionis Natura et Ratione. Bres- 
 
 _ lau, 1834. 
 Haitsma. Cttrae Philol. Exegeticae in Cenesin. Franeq., 1753. 
 Hal^vy. " Esdras et le Code Sacerdotal." Revue de IHistoire des 
 
 Relig., iv. p. 22. 
 Hal^vy. Melanges de Critique et dHistoire relatifs aux Peuples 
 
 Scmitiques. Paris, 1883. 
 Hamburger. " The Tabernacle in Canaan." Sunday-Sch. Times, 
 
 Sept. 22, 1884. 
 Hamburger. Reiil-Encyc. fur Bibel ji. Talmud. Strelitz, 1870. 
 Hamelmanne. Comm. in Pentateuchum. Dilingae, 1563. 
 Hamilton. A General Iiitroduction to the Study of the Hebrew 
 
 Scriptures. Dublin, 18 14. 
 Hamilton, W. T. The Pentateuch and its Assailants. Edinb., 
 
 1852. 
 Hamm. Exercitat. Philol. Sac. de Ara Interiore. Herborn, 1715. 
 Haneberg. Einleitung in Alt. Ji. N. Test. Regensb., 1876. 
 Haneberg. Die Reiigiosen Alterthilmer der Bibel. 4te Aufl 
 
 Munchen, 1S69.
 
 Literature of the Pentateuch. 433 
 
 Hannecker. Die Philistder. EichstJitt, 1872. 
 
 Happel. Anlage d. Menschen Z7ir Religion. Leyden, 1877. 
 
 Hardt. Ephejnerid. Philol. qiiib. dijjicil. qicaedaiii Loca Pentat. 
 
 Explicata. Helmst., 1693, 1696. 
 Harkness. Egyptian Life and Hist, according to the Monuments. 
 
 New York, 1884. 
 Harman. Introd. to ^tudy of Ileb. Scriptures . 3d ed. New 
 
 York, i88r. ^ 
 Harris. Alan Primeval. Lond., 1849. 
 Harris. Pre-Adatnite Earth. Lond., 1850. 
 Hartmann, A. T. Aufkldrungen i'tbcr Asien. Oldenburg, 1806. 
 Hartmann, A. T. Die Enge Verbinduiig des Alien Testament jnit 
 
 d. Afetien, &tc. Hamb., 1831. 
 Hartmann, A. T. Lingnistische Einleitung in d. Studium d. 
 
 Bucher d. Alt. Test. Bremen, 1818. 
 Hartmann, A. T. / HistoriscJi-KritiscJie Forschungen Ytber d. Bil- 
 
 diDigd. Zeitalter n. den Plan d. F'lhif Bucher Mose''s. Rostock, 
 
 1831. 
 Hartmann, E. von. Das Religiose Beivusstsein d. Menschheit im 
 
 Stufengang seiner Entivickelung. Berlin, 1882. 
 Haselniann. Der Einzug Is. in Canaan. Barmen, 1872. 
 Hasse, F. R. Geschichte des Alien Bundes. Leipz., 1863. 
 Hasse, J. G. Aitssichten zu Kunftigoi Atfkldrungen liber d. Alt. 
 
 Test, in Briefeti. Jena, 1785. 
 Hasse, J. G. Entdeckungen im Felde d. dltesten Erde-und Men- 
 
 schengeschichte. Halle, 1805. 
 Hatton. Tlie Law and the Prophets. Lond., 1866. 
 Hauff. Offenbarungsglaube u. Kritik d. Bibl. Geschichtsbllcher. 
 
 Stuttg., 1849. 
 Haug. Das Alt. Test, von " Der von Sctiiloli .''"' Berlin, 1872. 
 Haupt. See Delitzsch, Fried. 
 
 Haupt. Keilinschriftliche Sint/luthbericht. Leipz., 1881. 
 Hauser. Fabulous Gods denounced in the Bible. Phil., 1880. 
 Hausrath. Geschichte d. Alttest. Literatur. Heidelb., 1874. 
 Havernick. Handb. d. Historisch-Kritischen Einleitung in d. Alte 
 
 Testament. Erlang., 1836-49. A second edition was edited 
 
 by Keil, 1849, 1854-56 (in English, Edinb., 1852). 
 Hawks. Egypt a IVitness to the Bible. New York, 1850. 
 Heath. "The Exodus." Pal. Explor. Fund. Quart., July, 1883. 
 Hebrew Migration from Egypt. Lond., 1879. 
 Hecht. Der PoUateuch. Explau. from Raschi. Braunschw., 
 
 1848. 
 Hecker. Die Israeliten 11. der Monotheismus . From tlie Dutch. 
 
 Leipz., 1879. 
 Hedge. Primeval World of Hebrc-iO Tradition. Boston, 1869. 
 Heibert. V0//1 Paradies bis sum Schilfmeer. Parallelen zwischeft 
 
 biblischen und ausserbiblischen Berichten. Gera, 1881. 
 Heidenhcim. Die Samar. Pentateuch-Version. Leipz., 1884. 
 Heidegger. Historia Sacra Patriarcluirum. Amsterd., 1688. 
 Heiligstedt. Prliperation zur Genesis. Halle, 1872.
 
 434 ^^^ Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Heilprin. The Hist. Poetry of the Ancient Hebrews. 2 vols 
 
 New York, 1880. 
 Heim. Bibelstunden liber d. Erste B. Mosis. Stuttg., 1845 fF. 
 Heinemann. Geschiclite der Judcn. Berlin, 1849. 
 Heinemann. D. VVahrheiten d. Is. Religion Nachgewiesen. Ber- 
 
 lin, 1853. 
 Heinemann. Der Pentateuch mil Uebersetztrng, Targ. u. Com- 
 
 mentatoren. 5 Bde. Berlin, 1831-33. 
 Hellwald. ddturgeschichte in ihrer Natur. Entwickelmig. 
 
 Augsb., 1874. 
 Hempbell. " Christ's Testimony to the Mos. Authorship of the 
 
 Pentateuch." Southern Presbyt. Rev., Jan., 1884. 
 Hengstenberg. Die GeschicJite Bileams u. Seine VVeissagungen. 
 
 BerHn, 1842. Eng. Trans., Edinb., 1848. 
 Hengstenberg. " Moses u. Colenso." Evangel. Kirchen-Zeitung, 
 
 Jan., Feb., 1864. 
 Hengstenberg. Die Anthentie d. Pentateuchs. Berlin, 1836-39. 
 Hengstenberg. GeschiclUe d. Reiches Gottes tmter d. Alien Bunde. 
 
 Berlin, 1869-71. In English, Edinb., 1871, 1873. 
 Hengstenberg. Die Biicher Mose''s nnd yEgypten. Berlin, 1841. 
 
 Eng. Trans., Edinb., 1845 ; New York, 1850. 
 Hengstenberg. Beitrage ziir Einleitung ins Alte Test. 3 Bde. 
 
 Berlin, 1831-39. 
 Hengstenberg. Die Opfer der Heiligen Schriften. Berlin, 1852. 
 Hengstenberg. " Das Passa." Evangel. Kirchen-Zeitung, 1852, 
 
 Nos. 16-18. 
 Henry, F. A. " The Critical Study of the Scriptures.'' Princeton 
 
 Rcviezu, 1883, p. 294. 
 Henry, F. A. " Reconstruction in Religious Thought." Ibid., 
 
 July, 1884.. 
 Henry, M. Com. on the O.and N. Testaments. Lond., 1875. 
 Henry, P. Expos, of Gen.i.,-xi. Lond., 1838. 
 Hensler. Bemerkungen i'lber Sfellen in den Psalmen utid in der 
 
 Genesis. Hamburg, 1791. 
 Henslow. "First Chapter of Genesis." Christ. Apologist, April, 
 
 1877. 
 Herbst. De Pentateuchi Quatuor Ltbrorjim Posteriorum Auctore et 
 
 Editor e. Tubing. , 18 17. 
 Herbst. Historisch-Kritische Einleitung in die Heil. Schriften d. 
 
 Alien Test. (Completed and published, after the author's death, 
 
 by Welte.) 4 Bde. Freiburg, 1840-44. 
 Herberger. Das Erste B. Moses ausgelegt. Halle, 1854. 
 Herder. Aelteste Urkunde des Menschengeschlechts. Riga, 1774. 
 Hereford. " Trustworthiness of Hebrew Traditions." Atlantic 
 
 Monthly, Nov., 1882, p. 597. 
 Heringa. " Ueber den Begrijf, die Unentbehrlichkeit u. den rich- 
 
 tigen Gebrauch der Bib. Kriiik'''' (aus der HoUandisch von 
 
 Beckhaus). Offenbach, 1804. 
 Hershon. Genesis, 7uith a Talmudical Commentary (^Pent. accord. 
 
 to Talmud). Lond., 1883.
 
 Literature of the Pentatetich. 435 
 
 Hertz. Sind in den Buchern der Konige Spiiren d. Pentateuchs u. d. 
 Mos . Gesetze zii fin den ? Altona, 1822. 
 
 Herwerden. Disputatio de Libra Josuae. Grbningen, 1826. 
 
 Herxheimer. Der J'entateiich erklcirt, &X.c. Leipz., 1864. 
 
 Hertwig. Tabellen zitr Einleit. in d. Ktmon. ti. Apok. B'ucher d. 
 Alien Test, (neu bearbeitet von Kleinert). Berlin, 1869. 
 
 Herzberger. Einleitjingin die Bibel. Friedberg, 1840. 
 
 Herzfeld. Geschichte d. Volkes Israel. 3 Bde. Nordhausen, 
 1847-57. 
 
 Herzog. Relil-Encyk. Hamb., 1854 ff. 2te Aufl. Leipz., 1877 ff. 
 
 Hess. Bibliothck der Heiligen Geschichte. Zurich, 179 1. 
 
 Hess. Geschichte d. Israeliten vor den Zeiten Jesu. Zurich, 
 1776-88. 
 
 Heumann. De Fato Uxoris non Miracidoso. Jena, 1706. 
 
 Hewson. The Heb. and Greek Scriptures compared with Oriental 
 History, etc. ,Lond., 1870. 
 
 Heyman de Ricql^s. Demonstration de la Divinite du Pentateuque. 
 Lyon, 1844. 
 
 Heyse et Tischendorf. Biblia Sacra Latina V. T. Hieronymo 
 Interprete, etc. Leipz., 1873. 
 
 Hezel. Versnch einer Geschichte d. Bibl. Kritik d. Alten Testa- 
 ments. Halle, 1780. 
 
 Hezel. Lehrbuch der Kritik d. Alt. Test. Leipz., 1783. 
 
 Hezel. Geschichte d. Heb. Spracheu. Littcratiir. Halle, 1776. 
 
 Hezel. Bibl. Real-Lexikon. Leipz., 1783, 1785. 
 
 Hezel. Ueber die Qiiellen d. Mosa. Urgeschichte. Lemgo, 1780. 
 
 Hezel. Gedanken uber d. Babylon. Stadt-u. Thurmbau. Hild- 
 biirg., 1774. 
 
 Hicks. " Primitive Man." Baptist Quarterly, July-Sept., 1884. 
 
 Hildebrandt. Diss, in Pentateuchum. Helmst., 1684. 
 
 Hilgenfeld. " Vatke's Ansicht liber Pentateuch- J osua." Zeitsch.f. 
 IViss. Theologie, H. 1,2, 1885. 
 
 Hill, D. J. "Practical Bearings of Mod. Bib. Criticism. Proceed- 
 ings of Second Baptist Ant uin. Conference, Boston, 1883. 
 
 Hill, U.J. " Antecedent Probabilities of a Revelation." Prince- 
 ton Rev., Sept., 1883. 
 
 Hill, M. Christ or Colenso. Lond., 1863. 
 
 Hill, T. " Erasmus Darwin." Bibliotheca Sac, xxxv. p. 461. 
 
 Hill, T. " The First Chapter of Genesis." Bibliotheca Sac, 
 xxxii. p. 308. 
 
 Hillen. Relig. Vorstellungen im Anfange d. Geschichte. Coesfeld, 
 1880. 
 
 Hilliger. Das Debora-Lied. Uebersetzt u. erkldrt. Giessen, 1867. 
 
 Himpel. " Selbstandigkeit, EinlK-it. u. GlaubwUrdigkeit d. Buches 
 Josua." Tubing. Theol. Quartalsch., 1864, p. 385; 1865, 
 p. 227. 
 
 Hirsch. Der Pentateuch Hebriier Uebersetzt u. Erliiutert. 5 Bde. 
 Frankfurt, 1876. 2te Autl. (Genesis), 1883. 
 
 Hirschfelder. Scriptures Defended (against Colenso). Toronto, 
 Can., 1864.
 
 43^ TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Striccture. 
 
 Hirt. Der Tempel Salo7non''s. Berlin, 1809. 
 
 Hirzel. De Chaldaismi Biblici Origitie et Auctoritaie Critica. 
 
 Leipz., 1830. 
 Hirzel. De Pent. Versionis Syr. Indole. Leipz., 1825. 
 History against Colenso. Lond., 1864. 
 Hitzig. Begriff der Kritik am Alt. Test. Heidelb., 1831. 
 Hitzig. Review of Von Bohlen's Genesis and Bleek's De Libra 
 
 Geiteseos. Stud. u. Kritiken, 1837, iv. 
 Hitzig. Urgeschichte u. Mythologieder Philistder. Leipz., 1845. 
 Hitzig. Ostern tt. Pfi>igste)i. Heidelb., 1837-38. 
 Hitzig. Die Psalmen. Leipz., 1863. 
 Hitzig. Geschichte d. Volkes Israel. Leipz., 1869. 
 Hoare, J. N. " Relig. of the Egyptians." Nineteenth Century, 
 
 Dec, 1878. 
 Hoare, W. H. Letter to Bp. Colenso. Lond., 1863. 
 Hoare, W. H. Veracity of the Book of Genesis. Lond., i860. 
 Hobbes. Leviathan. Amsterd., 1670; Lond., 1882. 
 Hochstadter. "Die JVlosa. Volkertafel." ji'id. Literaturblatt., 
 
 1880, p. 170. 
 Hodge. " First Two Chapters of Gen." Universal. Quarterly, 
 
 April, 1885. 
 Hody. De Biblioruvi Textibns Originalibus , Versionibus Graecis 
 
 et Lat. Vulg. 4 vols. Oxford, 1705. 
 Hoelemann. D. Einhcit d. Beiden ScJiopfungsgeschichte (Gen. 
 
 i.-ii.). Berlin, 1862. 
 HoflF. Die Mosaischen Opfer . Warschau, 1845. 
 Hoffmann, A. G. Entwnrf d. Hcbrci. AltertM'imer. Weimar, 
 
 1832. 
 Hoffmann, D. " Abhandlungen liber die Pentateuch-Gesetze." 
 
 '& 
 
 Magazin f. die IViss. d. fndenthmns, 1879-80. 
 Hoffmann, W. Die G'ottliche Stufenordnung im Alt. Testament. 
 
 Berlin, 1854. 
 Hoffmeister. Moses u. fosiia, Eine Kriegshistorische Studie. 
 
 Wien, 1878. 
 Hofmann. Der Schriftbeweis . 2te Aufl. Nordlingen, 1857-60. 
 Hofmann. Aegyptisclie 7(. IsraclitiscJie Zeitrechjncng. Ibid., 1847. 
 Hoijer. De Transitu Israelii, per Mare Rnbrum. Jena, 1759. 
 Holberg. J'ud. Geschichte v. Erschaffung d. Welt. Band i.. The 
 
 Old Test. Altona, 1747. 
 Hollenberg. " Zur Textkritik d. Buches Josua." Zeitsch. f. d. 
 
 Alttest. Wissenschaft, 1881. 
 Hollenberg. " Die Deuteronom. Bestandtheile d. B. Josua." Stud. 
 
 u. Kritiken, 1874, p. 462. 
 Hollenberg. Programm jiber die Alexand. Uebersetzung d. B. 
 
 Josua. Mors, 1876. 
 Hollmann. Com. Philol.-Crit. in Carmen Deborae (Jud. v.). 
 
 Leipz., 1818. 
 Holmes. Vet. Test. Gr. cum Variis Led. ed. R. Holmes, contin., 
 
 Jacob Parsons. 5 vols. Oxford, 1798-1827. 
 Holste. Iter Israelitarum ex ^Egypto ad Terram Canaan. Ros- 
 tock, 1707.
 
 Literature of the Pentateuch. 437 
 
 Holzner. Miuidus a Deo Creatus. Aschaffenb., 1840. 
 
 Homberg. Lecture sur V Interpretation a donner aiix Prhniers 
 
 Versets de la Genhe. Rouen, 1883. 
 Hommel. " Zur Altbabylon. Chronologic." Zeitsch.f. Keilschrift- 
 
 forschung, etc., i., 1884. 
 Hommel. Bab.- Assy rische 71. Israelitische Ceschichte in Tabellen- 
 
 form. Leipz., 1880. 
 Hommel. " Die Lage des Gartens Eden nach den neuesten keilin- 
 
 schriftlichen Forschungen." Augsburg Allgenieine Zcititng 
 
 (Wissenschaftliche Beilagen), Nos. 229-231. 
 Honert. Dissertationcs Hist, de Creationc Mnndi. Leyden, 1738. 
 Hopfner (and Augusti). Exeget. Handbuch d. A. Testament. 
 
 Leipz., 1797-1800. 
 Hopkins. "Exposition of the Original Text of Gen. i., ii." 
 
 Bibliotheca Sac.„ xxix. pp. 510, 716. 
 Hopkins. Exodus : Trans, with Notes, Critical, etc. Lond., 
 
 1784. 
 Home. " Earliest Epochs of Authentic Chronology." Fortnightly 
 
 Rev.., Oct., 1862. 
 Home. Introdintionto the Critical Sttidy of the Scriptures. 13th 
 
 ed. Lond., 1872. 
 Horsley. Bib. Criticism on the O. Test. Lond., 1845. 
 Horst. Lev, xvii.-xxvi. n. Hezekicl. Colmar, 1881. 
 Hottinger. Exercitatt. de Pentatcuctio Samaritano. Zurich, 1644. 
 Hottinger. Historiae Crcationis Examoi. Heidelb., 1659. 
 Hottinger. Diss, de Heptaplis Paris, ex Pentat.instituta. Zurich, 
 
 1649. 
 Hottinger. Juris Hebraeorum Leges CCLXI. Zurich, 1655. 
 Hottinger. De Decimis Jjcdacontm Exercitatt. Leyden, 17 13. 
 Hotzl. Jakob nnd Esau, Typik nnd Kasuistik. Munchen, 1881. 
 Houbigant. Prolegomena in Sac. Script. Paris, 1745. 
 Houbigant. Notae Criticae in Universos V. T. Biblos. Frank- 
 furt, 1777. 
 Houghton. Some of Colenso''s Objections Examined. Lond., 1863. 
 Howard. LXX. Version of the Pentateuch. Lond., 1856-57. 
 Huber. Einleit. in d. siimmtl. B'ucher d. Heil. ScJirift. Basel, 
 
 1841. 
 Hufnagel. Moseh wie er sich zeicJinet in seiner Ceschichte. Frank- 
 furt, 1822. 
 Hug. De Opere Sex- Dierum Coin. Freiburg, 1821. 
 Hug. Die A f OS. Ceschichte des Jfcnschen. Leipz., 1793. 
 Hug. " Ueber das Mos. (iesetz vom Jobeljahr." Zeitsch. f d. 
 
 Ersbisthum Freiburg, i. 
 Hug. De I'entatcuchi Versiojie Alex. TUbing., 1818. 
 Hulimann. Staatsverfassung dcr Israeliten. Leipz., 1834. 
 Hlillmann. Ursprungd. Religion d. /Uterthums. Berlin, 1804. 
 Hummelauer. Der Bibl. Schopfungsbericht. Freiburg, 1877. 
 Hupfeld. Die (Juellen der Genesis. Berlin, 1853. 
 Hupfeld. Commentatio de Primiti^'a ct Vera Festorum apud 
 
 Hebraeos Ratione. Programme. Halle, 1852-65.
 
 438 TJie Pentateucli: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Hupfeld. Die Psalmen. Gotha, 1867-70. 
 
 Hurwitz. Sagen der Hebrder (from the English). 2te Aufl. 
 
 Leipz., 1828. 
 Hutton. Silent Witness of the Hebrew to the Truth of the Historical 
 
 Scriptures. Lond., 1882. 
 Huxley. " Method and Results of Ethnology." Fortnightly Rev., 
 
 June, 1865. 
 Iken. " De Institutis et Ceremoniis Legis Mosaicae ante Mosen." 
 
 Dissertatt. Phil. Theol., etc. Leyden, 1749-70. 
 Iken. A7itiquitates Hebraicae. Bremen, 1764. 
 Iken. De Cultti Quotidiano Templi. Bremen, 1736. 
 Ilgen. Die Wrkunden des Jerus. Tempel-Archivs in ihrer 
 
 i/rgestalt. Halle, 1798. 
 Inglis. Notes on Genesis. Edinb., 1877. 
 Ingram. Bp. Colenso'^s Objections Answered. Lond., 1863. 
 Isaac. Com. in Pentatenchiun. Constan., 1518. 
 Isaac. Gejierations of Jsaac (Com.) . Amsterd., 1708. 
 Isaacs. Custotns, Pites, eic, of the Jews. 2d ed. Lond., 1836. 
 "Israel im Lichte d. Neuen Testaments." Zeitsch.f. Kirch. Wiss., 
 
 etc., Heftx., 1883. 
 Jacobus. Notes Crit., etc., on Genesis. New York, 1865. 
 Jacobus. Notes on Exodus. New York, 1874. 
 Jacolliot. La Genhe de rHimia^iitc. Paris, 1880. 
 Jaeger. " Modern Conception of the Development of the 
 
 Religion of Israel." Am. Church Review, July, 1883. 
 Jahn. Einleit. in d. Gottlichen B'ucher d. Alt. Testatnents. 2te 
 
 Aufl. 1802. 
 Jahn. Hist, of Hebrew Co/nmonwealth. 3d ed. Lond., 1840. 
 Jahn. Bib. Archcsology. 5th ed. New York, 1859. 
 Jahn. " Beitrage zur Vertheidigung der Echtheit d. Pentateuchs." 
 
 BengePs Archivf. d. Theologie, etc., 1818-19. 
 James. Moise ei Darwin. Paris, 1882. 
 Jamieson. Authentic, of the Pent. History. Lond., 1802. 
 Jamieson, R. (Fausset and Brown). Com. on the O. and N. Tests. 
 
 4 vols. New York, 1875. 
 Jamieson, R. The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua. Phil., i860. 
 Jarrel. Old Test. Ethics. Greenville (Texas), 1882. 
 Jatho. Blickein d. Bedeutjingd. Mos. Ctdtus. Hildesheim, 1876. 
 Jatho. Grundzuge d. Alttes't. Chronol. /bid., 18^6. 
 Jenisch. Sollte Religion dem Menschenjemals entbehrlich werden ? 
 
 Berlin, 1797. 
 Jerusalem. Brief e ueber d. Mos. Schriften. Braunschw., 1783. 
 Jewish Reply to Colenso. Lond., 1865. 
 Johannsen. Die Kosmogotiischen Ansichten der Inder u. Hebrder, 
 
 etc. Altona, 1883. 
 Johlson. Die PYinf B'ucher Mosis. Frankfurt, 183 1. 
 Johnson, F. " Theistic Evolution." Andover Rev., April, 1884. 
 Johnson, F. " The Curse upon Nature " (Gen. iii. 14-19). Bap- 
 tist Quart. Review, April, 1884. 
 Johnson, J. B. Structjire and Devel. of the Bible. Lond., 1877.
 
 Literature of the Pentateuch. 439 
 
 Johnson, S. Oriental Religions and their Relation to Universal 
 
 Religion. Loncl., 1879. 
 Johnstone, F. Vindieation of Book of Gen. Lend., 1838. 
 Johnstone, W. H. Israel after the Flesh. Lond., 1850. 
 Johnstone, W. H. Israel in the World. Lend., 1854. 
 Jones, J. F. Egypt s Biblical Relations, &X.C. Lond., i860. 
 Jones, W. Honiilct. Coin, on the Book of Numbers. Lond., 1880. 
 Josephus, The Works of. Trans, by Whiston. Baltimore, 1839. 
 
 Editions of the original text: Ittig, Leipz., 1691 ; Hudson, 
 
 Oxf., 1720; Havercamp, Amst., 1726; Oberthiir, Leipz., 1782- 
 
 85; Richter, /^/V/., 1827 f . ; Dindorf, Paris, 1845-47; Bekker, 
 
 Leipz., 1855-56. 
 Jost. Geschichted. yudenthums u. seiner Secten. 3 Bde. Leipz., 
 
 1857-63. 
 Jouet. Hist, des Religions de totes les Royaumes du Monde. 6 vols. 
 
 Paris, 1724. 
 Joule. Notes on Leviticus. Lond., 1879. 
 Jukes. Law of Offerings (l.ev. i.-vn.). Lond., 1854. 
 Jukes. Types of Genesis considered. Lond., 1857. 
 JUlicher. " Die Quellen von Ex. vii. 8-xxiv." fahrblicher f. 
 
 Prot. Theologie, Hefte 1,2, 1882. 
 Junius (du Jou). Analysis Expos, in Petitateitch. 1604. 
 Junilius. De Partibiis Legis Divinae. Paris, 1556. 
 Jurieu. Histoire Critique des Dogmes et des Ctdtes. Amsterd., 
 
 1704; Lond., 1705. 
 JuynboU. Cornin. in Hist. Gentis SamaritancE. 
 Kaiser. De Clierubis Mosaicis. Erlangen, 1827. 
 Kaiser. Com. in Priora Geneseos Capita. Nurnb., 1829. 
 Kalisch. Hist . and Crit . Commentary on the Old Test. Genesis, 
 
 Lond., 1858. Ex., 1855. Lev., 1867-72. 
 Kalisch. Bible Studies. Part i., The Prophecies of Balaam. 
 
 Lond., 1877. 
 Kalkar. Cantici Deborae Interpret alio. Copenh., 1883. By the 
 
 same author an Exeget. Handbuch (in Dutch) to the Old Test. 
 
 Vol. i.. Gen. -Lev. Ibid., 1836. 
 Kalthoff. Handb. d. Hebrdischen Alterth'umer. Miinster, 1840. 
 Kalthoff. Jus Matrimonii Veterum Indorum cum eodem Hebrae- 
 
 orum Jure subinde Comparatum. Bonn, 1829. 
 Kiimpf. •' Ueber die Bedeutung des Wortes 'Sabbath' im Penta- 
 teuch." Monatschrift f. Gesch. u.Wiss.d. Judenthums, 1862, 
 
 p. 144- • 
 Kamphausen. " Bemerkungen liber die Stiftshiitte." Stud u. 
 
 Kritiken, 1858, p. 97; 1859, P- ^i°- Replied to by Fries, 
 
 ibid., p. 103. 
 Kamphausen. Die Chronologie d. Hebrdischeft Kotiige. Bonn, 1883. 
 Kamphausen. Das Lied Mosis. Leipz., 1862. 
 Kamphausen. " Bemerkungen iiber cinigc Stella d. 4 Cap. der 
 
 Genesis." Stud. u. Kritiken, 1861, i. 
 Kamphausen. Review of Riehm's Comment, dc Natura et Notione 
 
 Symb. Cheruborum. Ibid., 1864, iv.
 
 440 TJlc Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Kanne. Biblische Untersicchungen u. Atislegung mit u. ohnt 
 Polcmik (contests Vater's views). 1819, p. 79; 1820, p. 72. 
 Reviews De Wette's Einlcit., 1820, pp. 1-72. 
 Kanne. Erste Urkitnden d. Geschichte, etc. Frankfurt, 1808. 
 Kapp. UrspniJig der Menschen u. V'olker nach d. Mos. Genesis. 
 
 Nurnb., 1829. 
 Karch. Die Mos. Stiftshutte, etc. 2 Bde. Wurzburg, 1876. 
 Karlstadt. See Carlstadt. 
 Kaulen. Einleitimg in d. Heil. Schrift. A. 71. N. Test. Freiburg, 
 
 1876-82. 
 Kaulen. Die Sprachverwirrung zu Babet. Mainz, 1 861. 
 Kautzsch. See Muhlau. 
 Kayser, A. Das Vorexilische Buck d. Urgeschichte Is. u. seine 
 
 Erweiternng. Strassb., 1874. 
 Kayser, A. "Der Gegenwartige Stand d. Pentateuch Frage." 
 Arts, in Jahrbucherf.Frot. Theologie, 1 881, pp. 326, 520, 630. 
 Kayser, F. " Ueber d. Theol. Lehre d. Alten Aegypter." Der 
 
 Katkotik, 1882, p. 616. 
 Keary. Dawn of History. Lond., 1878. 
 
 Keerl. Schopfungsgesch. u. d. Lehre v. Paradies. Basel, 1861. 
 Keerl. Einheit der Bibt. Urgeschichte. Basel, 1863. 
 Keil. Der Tenipcl Salomons. Dorpat, 1839. 
 Keil. Apologia Mosaicae Traditionis de Mundi Hominumque 
 
 Originibus Exponentis. Dorpat, 1838. 
 Keil. Lebrbuch d. Historisch. Krit. Einleitungind. Kan. u. Apok. 
 Schriften d. Alt. Test. 3te Aufl. Frankfurt, 1873. In Eng- 
 lish, Edinb., 1873. 
 Keil. Apologet. Versuch uber d. Bucher d. Chronik. Berlin, 
 
 1833. 
 Keil. " Abhandlung iiber die Gottesnamen im Pentateuch." 
 
 Zeitsch . f. Lidher. Theologie, 1 85 1 , p . 2 1 5 . 
 Keil. " Die Opfer des Alt. Test, nach ihrer Symbol, u. Typischen 
 
 Bedeutung." Ibid., 1856, iv. ; 1857, i., ii., iii. 
 Keil (and Franz Delitzsch). Biblischer Com. uber das Alt. Test. 
 Com. on the Pentateuch by Keil. On Gen. and Ex., 3te Aufl., 
 1878; Lev., Numb., and Deut., 2te Aufl., 1870. 
 Keil. Handbuch d. Bibl. Archliologie. Frankfurt, 1875. 
 Kelle. Vorurtheilsfreie Wurdigung der Mos. Schrtften. Frei- 
 burg, 181 1. 
 Kemink. Com. de Cartnine Deborae. Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1840. 
 Kennedy. Chronol. of Eive Books of Moses. Lend., 1762. 
 Kennedy. The Pentateuch : its Age and Origin. Lond., 1884. 
 Kennicott. A Short Introd. to Hebrew Criticism. Lond., 1774. 
 Kennicott. Vetus Test. Hebraicmn cum Variis Lectionibus. Oxford, 
 
 1776-80. 
 Kenrick. Hist, of Phcsnicia. Lond., 1855. 
 Kern. " Ueber die Eherne Schlange." BengePs ^r^/^/7/ /. die 
 
 Theologie, etc., 1882, p. 396. 
 Kidder. Com. on the Pentateuch. 2 vols. Lond., 1694. 
 Killisch. Versuch einer Kritik d. erst en B. Mosis. Berlin, 1841
 
 Literature of the PentateuclL 441 
 
 Kimchi. Com. ziir Genesis. Ed. by Ginsburg. Pressburg, 1842. 
 
 Kimchi. Co?/!, in Oinnes V. T. Libros. Gotha, 1713. 
 
 Kingsley. The Gospel of the Pentateuch. Lond., 1854. 
 
 Kinns. Moses and Geology. 3d ed. Lond. and New York, 1882. 
 
 Kircher. Area Noe. Amsterd., 1675. 
 
 Kircher. Turris Babel. Amsterd., 1679. 
 
 Kirsch. Pentat. Syr. ex Polyglott. Angl. Sziimna Fide edidit. 
 
 Hof, 1787. 
 Kittel. " Die Neueste Wendung der Pentateuch-Frage." Studieti 
 
 aus Wihteniberg, 1881-82. 
 Kitto. A CyclopcEdia of Bib. Literature. 3d ed. 3 vols. Lond., 
 
 1869-70. 
 Kitto. The Tabernacle ajid its Furniture. 1849. 
 Kitto. Hist, of Palestine from the Patriarchal Age. Edinb., 
 
 1843. 
 Klaiber. Das Pri'esterliche Orakeld. Israeliten. Stuttg., 1865. 
 Klee. La Deluge, ^ic. Paris, 1847. 
 Kleimenhagen. ISfatur d. Geistes nach d. Mos. Lehre. Leipz., 
 
 1878. 
 Klein, G. " Die Totaphoth nach Bibel u. Tradition." Jahrb'ucher 
 
 f. Prot. Theologie, vii., p. 666. 
 Klein, S. Guide du traducteur du Pentateuque. Colmar, 1852. 
 Kleinert. Das Deuteronomiuni und d. Deuteronomiker. Leipz., 
 
 1872. 
 Kleinert. " Religionsgesch. Studien zur Theorie des Opfers." 
 
 Stud. u. Kritiken, 1874. 
 Kleinert. See Hertwig. 
 Klemm. Allgem. Culturgeschichte d. Menschheit . 10 Bde. Leipz., 
 
 1843-52. 
 Klostermann. "Das Lied Mose u. das Deuteronomiuni. "" Stud. 
 
 u. Kritiken, 1871, p. 249; 1872, pp. 230,450. 
 Klostermann. " Ezechiel. Ein Beitrag zu besserer Wiirdigung 
 
 seiner Person u. s. Schrift." Stud. 7(. Kritiken, 1877, p. 391. 
 Klostermann. " Beitrage zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Penta- 
 
 teuchs." Zeitsch.f. Lilt her. Theologie, 1877, p. 401. 
 Klostermann. " Kalendarische Bedeutungdes Jobeljahres." Stud. 
 
 u. Kritiken, 1880, p. 720. 
 Knappert. Religion of Israel. From the Dutch. Lond., 1877. 
 Kneppelhout. De Re Cibaria Vet. Hebraeorum. Utrecht, 1768-69. 
 Kneucker. " Philistaer." Schenkel's Bibel-Lex. 
 Knight. Pe7it. Narrative Vindicated. New York. Wiley. 
 Knobel. Die BYtcher N'umeri, Deuteronomium u. Josua erkldrt 
 
 {Kurzgefasstes Kxegct. Handb. zum Alt. Test.). Leipz., 1861. 
 
 A new edition is in preparation by Dillmann. 
 Knobel. Die Volkertaf el der Genesis. Ciicsscn, 1850. 
 Knox. Races of Men. 2d ed. Lond., 1862. 
 Knowles. Observations on Div. Miss, of Moses. Lond., 1763. 
 Kohler. Lehrbuch d. Bibl. Geschichte d. Alt. Test. Erlangen, 
 
 1875 ff- 
 Kohler. De Prommciatione ac Vi Sac. Tetragram. /b/d., 1864.
 
 442 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Kohler. Der Segen Jacobs untersucht it. erklart. Berlin, 1867. 
 
 Kohn. De Pentateiicho Safuaritano. Leipz., 1865. 
 
 Kohn. Saiiiar. Sttidien. Breslau, 1868. 
 
 Kohut. D. Persische Pentateiichi'ibersetsjmg. Leipz., 1871. 
 
 Kolb. Cidturgesch. d. Menschheit. 2te Aufl. Leipz., 1872. 
 
 Konig, F. E. Die HauptproblcDted. Altisraelit. Religionsgeschichte 
 
 gegen'i'iber den EiitwickelitngstJieoretikern. Leipz., 1884. 
 Konig, F. E. De Criticae Sacrae Argument o e Linguae Legibus 
 
 Repetito. Treats Gen. i.-xi. Leipz., 1879. 
 Konig, F. E. " Beitraigezur Bibl. Chronologic. " Zeitsch. f. Kirch. 
 
 \Viss., etc., 1883, p. 281. 
 Konig, F. E. Der Offenbaru7igsbegriff des Alten Testafnents. 2 
 
 Bde. Leipz., 1882. 
 Konig, F. E. Falsche Extreme d. neueren Kritik d. A. Testa- 
 ments. Leipz., 1885. 
 Konig, J. Das Alter u. die Entstehungsweise d. Pentateuchs. 
 
 Freiburg, 1884. 
 Konig, L. Alttest. Studien. Berlin, 1839. 
 Koppe. Israelitas non 215 sed 430 Annas in Egypto commoratos 
 
 esse efficitiir. Getting., 1777. 
 Kbppen. Versuch zur Bestimnuing d. Verhiiltniss einer Offenba- 
 
 rung zu d. Menscheti. Getting., 1797. 
 Kosters. Historie-beschoziwitig van d. Detderonotnist , etc. Ley- 
 den, 1868. 
 Krall. Studien zur Gesch. d. Alten Aegypten. Wien, 1884. 
 Kranold. De Anno Hcbraeorutn Jubilaeo. Getting., 1838. 
 Krause. Tabernacle ajid Priest/tood. Lond., 1879. 
 Krehl. Religion die Vorislatnischeti Araber. Leipz., 1863. 
 Krieg. Monotheistnus d. Offenbarung u. d. Heidenthtim. Mainz, 
 
 1880. 
 Krummacher VVanderungen Is. durch d. Wuste nach Kanaan. 
 
 Elberfeld, 1834. 
 Krummacher. Paragraphen zur Heil. Geschichte.' Berlin, 1818. 
 Krummel. Religion d. Alt. Aegypter. Heidelb., 1883. 
 Kuebel. Soc. u. Volkwirthschaftliche Gesetzgebung d. Alt. Test. 
 
 Wiesbaden, 1870. 
 Kuebel. Alttest. Gesetz u. seine Urkutide. Stuttg., 1857. 
 Kuenen. " Ezekiel." Modern Rev., Oc\.., \%'&\. 
 Kuenen. De Profeten en de Profctie onder Israel. Leyden, 1875. 
 Kuenen. Prophets and Prophecy in Israel. Lond., 1877. 
 Kuenen. The Religion of Israel. From the Dutch. 3 vols. 
 
 Lond, 1874. 
 Kuenen. De Vijf Boeken van Moses. Leyden, 1872. Numerous 
 
 articles of his relating to Pent, criticism have appeared in the 
 
 Theol. Tijdschrift since 1870. 
 Kuenen. " Jahve and the ' other Gods.' " Theolog. Review, July, 
 
 1876. 
 Kuenen. Volksgodsdiettst en Wereldgodsdienst . Leyden, 1882. 
 Kuenen. National Religions and Universal Religions. Lond. and 
 
 ;^ew York, 1882.
 
 Literature of the Pentateuch. 443 
 
 Kuenen. Petit, and Book of Josh. Ed. by Colenso. Lond., 
 
 1865. 
 Kuenen. Historisch-Krit. Onderzoek naar het Ontstaan en de 
 
 Verza?ncling van de Boeken des Ouden Verbonds. Bd. i. 
 
 Leyden, 1861. 
 Kliinol. Gesch. d. J'lldischen Volkes von Abraham. Leipz., 1791. 
 Kuhl. Anflinge d. Mcnschengeschlcchts, &\c. Mainz, 1876. 
 Kiiper. Das Priesicrthum d. Alt. Bundes. Berlin, 1866. 
 Kurtz. DasMos. Opfcr. Mitau, 1842. 
 Kurtz. Der Alttest. Opfcradtus. Ibid., 1862. 
 Kurtz. Sacrificial Worship of the Old Test. Edinb., i863_. 
 Kurtz. " Praliminarien zu einer Construction der Hail. Ge- 
 
 schichte." Zeitsch. f. Ltdher. Theologie, 1842-43. 
 Kurtz. Geschichte des Alt en Bundes. 3 Bde. Mitau, 1848 ff. 
 Kurtz. History of the Old Testament. 3 vols. Phil., 1859. 
 Kurtz. Die Ehen d. S'ohne Gottes. Mitau, 1857. 
 Kurtz. Die S'ohne Gottes. Ibid., 1858. 
 Kurtz. Bib&l u. Astrono/nie. ste Aufl. Berlin, 1865. 
 Kurtz. The Bible and Astronomy. Phil., no date. 
 Kurtz. Beitrdge zur Vertheidigung n. Begriindiing der Einheit des 
 
 Pentatenchs. I. Nachweis der Eitiheit von Gen. i.-iv. Ko- 
 
 nigsb., 1844. II. Die Einheit d. Genesis. Berlin, 1846. 
 Kurtz. Lehrbiuh d. Heil. Geschichte. 13 Aufl. Konigsb., 1874. 
 Kurtz. Znr Symbolik d. Mos.Stiftshutte. Leipz., 1851. 
 Kurtz. '• Ueber die Symbol. Dignitat des in Numb, xix., Verord- 
 
 niten Ritus." Stud. u. Kritiken, 1846, iii. 
 Kurtz. " Ueber die Symbol. Dignitat d. Zahlen an der Stift- 
 
 shiitte." Idem, 1844, ii. 
 Kurtzgefasstes Handb. zum Alt. Test. (See Knobel and Dill- 
 
 mann.) Leipz., from 1838. 
 Knotel. System d. A£gypt. Chronologie. Leipz., 1857. 
 Labhardt. Quae de Jiidaeorum Origine Judicaverint Veteres. 
 
 [Augsburg], 1 88 1. 
 Laborde. Commentaire Geographique sur VExode et les IVombres. 
 
 Paris, 1842. 
 Lacour. See Renard. 
 
 Ladd. Doctrine of Sacred Scripture. 2 vols. New York, 1883. 
 Ladd. " Cherubim." BibliothecaSac, xxxiii. p. 32. 
 Lagarde. Genesis Graece, etc. Leipz., 1868. 
 Lagarde. Vet. Testamenti ab Origine Recensiti Fragmenta apud 
 
 Syros Servata Quinquc. It contains Ex. and Numb., etc., 
 
 accord, to Mss. found in Lond. and Paris. Getting., 1880. 
 Lagarde. Materialicn zur Kritik u. Geschichte d. Pentatettchs. 
 
 Leipz., 1867. 
 Lagarde. "The meaning of 'Jahve.'" Trans, by A. Duff. 
 
 Bibliotheca Sac, xxxv. p. 544. It originally appeared in 1874 
 
 as appendix to Lagarde's ed. of Jerome's Psalter. 
 Lagarde. The Question, ll'hether Marriage with a Deceased wife'' s 
 
 Sister is or is not Prohibited in the Mosaic IVrititigs, Answered 
 
 Gottingen, 1882.
 
 444 T^^^ Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Lamy. De Tabernaculo Foederis. Paris, 1720. 
 
 Lamy. Traite Hist, de VAncienne Pdque des Juifs. Paris, 1693. 
 
 Lambert. Le Deluge A fosdique. Paris, 1868. 
 
 Land. Dispntatio de Carmine yacobi. Rotterdam, 1858. 
 
 Lange, C. G. Versuch einer Jlarmonie d. Heil. u. Profanscri' 
 
 bentenind. Geschichte d. Welt. Baireuth, 1774-80. 
 Lange, G. P. See Theologisch-Homiletisches Bibelwerk and Com- 
 
 t)ientary. 
 Langfelder. Symbolik d. JtidenthutHs . Klausenb., 1876. 
 Langhans. Handb. d. Bibl. Gesch. 11. Literatur. Bern., 188 1. 
 Laniado. Glossa Magna in PoitatencJnmi. Ven., 1596. 
 Larsow. Genesis Uebersetzt u. Erklixrt. Berlin, 1843. 
 Laurie. "The Bible and Assyr. Inscriptions." Bibliotheca Sac., 
 
 xiv. 147. 
 Lauth. Geschichtl. Ergebnisse d. Aegyptologie. Munchen, 1869. 
 Lauth. Moses der Ebrder. Ibid. 
 
 Lavauer. Conference de la Fable avec PHistoire Saiftte. Paris, 1730. 
 Layfaye. Histoire du Culte des Divinites d''Alexandrie. Paris, 
 
 1884. 
 Leathes. Structure of the Old Test. Lond., 1873. 
 Leclercq. Histoire de la Divination dans V Antiquite . Tome 2. 
 
 Les Sacerdoces Divinat aires. 4 vols. Paris, 1882. 
 Le Clerc. Coin, in V. Eibros Alosis Historicos. Tubing. , 1733. 
 Lecointre. La Campagne de Mdise pour la Sortie d''Egypte. Paris, 
 
 1882. 
 Ledrain. Histoire d'' Israel. Part i, Paris, 1879. Part 2, 1882. 
 E Antiquite Devoilee au Moycn de la Genhe, etc. Paris, 1808. 
 Lee, F. Epistolary Discourse concerning the Books of Ezra, 
 
 Gemdne and Spurious. Lond., 1722. 
 Lee, S. Vetus Test. Syi'iace . . . ad fidem Codicutn MSS. etnen- 
 
 davit. Lond., 1824. 
 Lee, S. A. " Truth of Mos. Records." Nat. Magazine, vii. 
 Lef^vre. Religions et Mythologies Comparces . Paris, 1878. 
 Lehmann. Das Gesetz IsraeVs. Mannheim, 1845. 
 Le Mercier. In Genesin Com. Geneva, 1598. 
 Lemme. Religioiisgesch. Bedeutung d. Dekalogs. Breslau, 1880. 
 Lemoine. Defence of Sacred Hist, of the Old Test. Lond., 1753. 
 Lemoine. Vindicat. of Literal Account of Fall. Lond., 175 1. 
 Lengerke. Kendan. Volks-und Religionsgeschichte Israels. Ko- 
 
 nigsb., 1844. 
 Lenormant. " The First Sin." Contemp. Review, Sept., 1879. 
 Lenormant. " The Deluge." Ibid.,^o\., iSijc). 
 Lenormant. "Genealogies bet. Adam and the Deluge." Ibid., 
 
 April, 1880. 
 Lenormant. " Ararat and Eden." /^/^., Sept., 188 1. 
 Lenormant. La Genhse ; avec Distinction des Iilements Con- 
 
 stitiUifs dji Texte. Paris, 1883. 
 Lenormant. La Genhse, Traductioji d''apris PHebreu, etc. Paris. 
 
 1883. 
 Lenormant. Les Origines de V Histoire. 3d ed. Paris, 1882-83
 
 Literature of the Pejitateuch. 445 
 
 Lenormant. The Begimtmgs of History. (Trans, from 2d edo 
 
 by F. Brown.) New York, 1882. 
 Lenormant. Les Sciences Occultes in Asie; La Magie chez les 
 
 Chaldcens, etc. Paris, 1874. 
 Lenormant. C/ialdccan Magic. Lond., 1877. 
 Lenormant. Les Prciiiiercs Civilisations. Paris, 1874. 
 Lenormant. Histoire xlncienne de V Orient jiisqiC aux Giierres 
 
 Mcdiqnes. Paris, 1881-83. 
 Leo. Gescliichte dcs J'udiscJioi Staates. Berlin, 1828. 
 Leo. Lehrb. d. Universal-GcscJnchte. 3te Aufl. Halle, 1849. 
 Lepsius. Ucber die xxii. Aegyp. Konigsdynastie. Berlin, 1856. 
 Le Savoureux. " Le Premier Mot de la Bible." Rev. Theologiqne, 
 
 Juill., 1878. 
 Lessing. Beitrage zur Gesch. u. Liter atur (contains so-called 
 
 " Wolfenblittel Fragments ") . Braunschw., 1773 ff. 
 Lester. The Pre- Adamite. Phil., Lippincott. 
 Leven. D Hygiene des Israelites. Versailles, 1884. 
 Levi. Rites and Ceremonies of the Jews. Lond., without date. 
 " Lev. xi. 3-7 and Deut. xiv. 6-8.'" Jour, of Sac. Lit., xxxv'n. 
 Levy. " Althebra. Siegelsteine nachgewiesen." Zeitsch. d. Deut. 
 
 Mo}-genldnd. Gesellschaft, xi. p. 318. 
 Lewis, T. The Six Days of Creation. New York, 1879. 
 Lewis, T. The Bible and Science. Schenectady, 1856. 
 Lewis, T. Nature and the Scriptures. (Vedder Lectures.) New 
 
 York, 1875. 
 Lewis, Th. Antiquities of the Heh- Republic. Lond., 1724-25. 
 Leydecker. De Rcpitblica Hebraeorum. Amsterd., 1704. 
 Leyrer. " Stiftshutte.'" Htrzog'?, Redl-Encyk. isteAufg. " Reini- 
 
 gung." Ibid. 
 Liber Librorum ; Structure, Limitations, and Purpose. New 
 
 York, 1867. 
 Lichtenberger. Encyclopedic des Sciences Religieuses. Paris, 18771!. 
 Lieblein. Egyptian Religion. Leipz., 1884. 
 Lightfoot. Observations 0)1 the Book of Genesis. Lond., 1642. 
 Lightfoot. Collatio Pent. Heb. cum Samaritico. Lond., 1660. 
 Lightfoot. Gleanings out of the Book of Exodus. Lond., 1643. 
 Lighifoot. Horae Hebraicae. Camb., 1648. In English. 4 vols. 
 
 Oxford, 1859. Ed. Carpzov, Leipz., 1684. 
 Lilly. Ancient Religion and Modern Thought. Lond., 1884. 
 Lindemann. Gescliiclde der Meinung iilterer u. neuerer I'olker. . . 
 
 von Gott, Religion ti. Priesterthum. Stendal, 1784-95. 
 Lindgren. Grundz'iige der Geschichte der Judischen Hierarchie. 
 
 Cf. Stud. u. Kritiken, 1830, p. 946. 
 Linton. Notes on the Book of N'und/ers. Lond., 1884. 
 Lippcrt. Allg. Gesch. des Priesterthutns. Bd. ii. Berlin, 1884. 
 Lippert. D. Seelencult in seiner Beziehung z. Althebrii. Religion. 
 
 Berlin, 1881. 
 Lipschlitz. De Communi et Simplici Humani Generis Origine. 
 
 Hamb., 1864. 
 Lisco. Das Alt e Test, mit Erkldrungen, etc. Bd. i, 1843.
 
 446 The PentateticJi : Its Origin and StrnctHn'. 
 
 Lisco. Das Ceremonialgesetz d. Alt. Testament. Berlin, 1842. 
 Listor. " Was becleutet im Mos. Cultus d. Versohnen? " Theol. 
 
 Tidskr.,^0. 6, 1878. 
 Litton. The Mosaic Dispells at ion. Bampton Lectures for 1856. 
 Lolinis. Land u. Volk d. alien Hcbrder. Regensb., 1844. 
 Lolir. Geschich. d. Heil. ScJiriften vom Anfange der Dinge. 
 
 Berlin, 1881. 
 Looman. Geschicdencs der Israeliten. Amsterd., 1867. 
 Lonsano. Krit. Com. z. Pentateuch, mil Bemitzung Zehn Alter 
 
 Mannschrifte. Amsterd., 1659. 
 Lotz. Quest tones de Historia SaMati. Leipz., 1883. 
 Louis. " Poor Laws of the Ancient Hebrews." Transactions of 
 
 Soc. of Bib. Archa'ology, 1884. 
 Loveland. " Authority of Moses." Univer. Quarterly, iv. 
 
 196. 
 Low. Graphische Requisiten u.ErzeugnissebeidenJtiden. Leipz., 
 
 1870-71. 
 Lowengard. Jehova nicht Moloch der Gott. d. alien HebrHer. 
 
 Berlin, 1843. 
 Lowman. Ritual of Hebrew Worship. Lond., 1748. 
 Lowy. " Die Letzten Acht Verse des Pentateuchs." Jiid. Lit. 
 
 Blatt., 1 88 1, No. 29. 
 Lubbock. Prehistoric Times. Lond., 1865. 
 Ludwig. " Interpretation der Schopfung.sgeschichte bei dem 
 
 ApologetenTheophilus." Jahr.f. Prot.Theologie, 1880, p. 717. 
 Lund. D. Alien J'udischen Heiligthlimer. Hamb., 1695 ff. 
 " L'Unit6 du Sanctuaire chez les H^breux." Rev. de VHistoire des 
 
 Religions, i., 1880. 
 Luther. Enarrationes in Genesin. See vols, i.-xi. of the Latin 
 
 ed. of L.'s works. Erlangen, 1826-73. 
 Luzzatto. " Com. liber d. letzten Abschnitt d. Genesis." Jeschw 
 
 run, iii., 1859. 
 Luzzatto. De Onkelosi Cald. Pentateuchi Versione. Wien, 1830. 
 Lyell. Antiquity of Man. New ed. Lond., 1863. 
 Lynch. Exodus of the Child, of Israel. Lond., 1857. 
 Lyncken. " Sociale Bedeutung d. Mos. Gesetzes." Beiveis d. 
 
 Glaubens, March-June, 1884. 
 Lyon. " Results of Modern Criticism." Old Test. Student, Dec, 
 
 1883. 
 Macdonald. Introd. to the Pentateuch. 2 vols. Edinb., 1861. 
 Macdonald. Defence of Genesis . /Z'/c/., 1856. 
 Macgregor. " Age of the Pent." Brit, and For. Ev. Rev., 
 
 April, 1877. 
 Mackay. Conquest of Canaan (Jos. i.-xii.). Lond., 1884. 
 Mackay. Progress of Intellect in Relig. Devel. of the Hebrews. 
 
 2 vols. Lond., 1850. 
 MacLean. Jewish Nature Worship. Cincinnati, 1883. 
 Maclear. Book of Joshua. With Notes, etc. Cambridge, 1878. 
 MacWhorter. " The Edenic Period of Man." Princeton Rev., 
 
 July, 1880.
 
 Literature of the Pentateuch. 447 
 
 MacWhorter. " Jehovah considered as a Memorial Name." Bib- 
 
 liotheca Sac, xiv. p. 98 ; xvi. p. 808 ; xxi. p. 876. 
 Mahan. Answer to Bp. Colenso. New York, 1863. 
 Maier, F. K. " Aben Esra's Meinung iiber den Verfasser des 
 
 Pentateuch." Stud. u. Kritiken, 1832, iii. 
 Maier, W. Moses u. Christus oder das G'ottl. Programm d. Welt- 
 
 geschichte. Passau, 1876. 
 Maimonide. De Cibis Vititis. Copenh., 1734. 
 Maimonide. De Juribus Anni Sepii/ni et JiibilcBi. Frankf., 
 
 1708. 
 Maimonides. Reason of tJie Law of Moses. Lond., 1827. 
 Malan. Book of Ada/n and Eve. From the Ethiopic. Lond., 
 
 1882. 
 Mandel. Todtiing der Schlachtthiere nach. Is. Ritus. Wien, 1883. 
 Mangold. " Sabbath u. Sabbathjahr." SchenkePs Bibel-Lex. 
 Mannheimer. ""Der Mosaismus im Gegensatz z. Aegypterthum." 
 
 Jild. Lit.-Blatt, No. 41, 1878. 
 Man''s Age in the World, etc. By an Essex Rector. Lond., 1865. 
 Marbach. " D. Heilige Sage v. Ursprung d. Menschengeschlechts." 
 
 Protest. Kirchenzeit., No. 30, 1878. 
 Marbach. "DasBlut: eine Theolog. Studie." Zeitsch. f. Wiss. 
 
 Theologie, 1866. 
 Marck. In precipuas qiiasdatn partes Pentat. Co7n. Leyden, 1713. 
 Maresius. Refiitatio Fabnlae Preadamiticae. Groning., 1656. 
 Marsden. Influence of the Mos. Code on Legislation. Lond., 1862. 
 Marsh. Lectures on the Criticism of the Bible. Lond., 1831. 
 Marsh. Authenticity of the Five Books of Moses Vindicated. 
 
 Camb., 1792. 
 Marshall. Colenso'' s Errors Exposed. Lond., 1864. 
 Marsham. Canon Chronicus Aegypt., Ebr., et. Graec. Lond., 
 
 1672. 
 Marti. " Die Spuren der Sogenannten Grundschrift d. Hexa- 
 
 teuchs." Jahrb'ucher f. Prot. Theologie, 1880, pp. 127, 308. 
 Marti. "Das Alte Test, in Kritik u. Kirche." Volksblatt f. d. 
 
 Ref. Kirche d. Schweiz, 1881, No. 36-39. 
 Martineau. " Legislation of Pentateuch." Theol. Rev., ix. 474. 
 Marx. Traditio Rabbinorum Veterrima de Libroruin V. T. Ordine 
 
 et Origine Illustrata. Leipz., 1884. 
 Marx. See Freund. 
 Masius. fosuae Imperatoris His tor ia Illustrata at que Explicata. 
 
 Antwerp, 1574. 
 Maspero. Geschichte der Morgenland. V'olker ini Alterthu/n. 2te 
 
 Aufl. (Paris, 1875), Leipz., 1877. 
 Massey. The Natural Genesis ; or. Second Part of a Book of the 
 
 Beginnings, etc. Lond., 1883. New York, 1884. 
 Matheson. "Spiritual Devel. of Moses." Good Words, xxii. 
 " Matters in Dispute concerning the Old Testament." Atn. Church 
 
 Review, Oct., 1884. 
 Matthes. " Mythen in het Oude Test." Theolog. Tijdschrift, 
 
 March-May, 1877.
 
 44^ TJi-^ Pentateuch : Its Origin and Strncture. 
 
 Matthes. " Het Richterenboek," Theol. Ttjdschr.,l<iov., i?,Zi. 
 Matthes. " The False Prophets of Israel." Mod. Rev., July, 
 
 1884. 
 Matthew'' s Prologues on the Five Books of Moses. Lond., 1551. 
 Maurer. Coju. Gra7nmat.-Hist. Criticjis iti V. T. Vol. i., con- 
 taining Hist. Books, etc., Leipz., 1832-35. 
 Maurice. Patriarchs and Lawgivers of the Old Test. Lond., 
 
 1867. 
 Maurice. The Doctrine of Sacrifice deduced from Scripture. 
 
 Lond., 1879. 
 Mauritius. Tract. Philol. de Sortitioite Veterum, Hebraeorum 
 
 imprimis. Basel, 1692. 
 Maury. Croyances et Lcgendes de VAntiquite. Paris, 1863. 
 Mawer. Priest of War among the Hebrews (Deut. xx. i, 2). 
 
 1 741. 
 Maybaum. Entwickelung d. Altis. Priesterthums . Breslau, 1880. 
 Maybaum. Entwickelung d. Is. Prophetenthiuns. Berlin, 1883. 
 Maybaum. " Zur Pentateuchkritik." Zeitsch. f. Volkerpsychol. 
 
 71. Sprachwissenschaft , 1883, p. 191. 
 Mayer. " Urspmng der Sieben Wochen-Tage." Zeitsch. d. Deut- 
 
 schen Morg. Gesellschaft, 1883, p. 453. 
 Mayer, J. De Temporibus Sanctis et Festis Diebus Hebraeorum. 
 
 Amsterd., 1724. 
 Mayer, S. Die Rechte der Israeliten, Athener, u. R'omer, etc. 
 
 Leipz., 1862-66. f^ , 
 
 Mazade. Sur I'Origine PAge et VEtat Critique d'Pent. Saviar. 
 
 Geneve, 1830. 
 McCaul. Examinatioji of Colenso. Lond., 1863-64. 
 M'Causland. Adam and the Adamite. 4th ed. Lond., 1877. 
 M'Causland. Shinar. Ibid., 1869. 
 
 M'Causland. Builders of Babel. New ed. Ibid., \'i']^. 
 McClelland. A Brief Treatise on the Cation, etc., of the Holy 
 
 Scriptures. New York, i860. 
 McClintock (and Strong). Cyclopcedia of Bib., Theolog., and 
 
 Ecclesiastical Literature. 10 vols. New York, 1867-82. 
 McCosh. Development: What it Can Do, &ic. New York, 1883. 
 Mcllvaine. " Moral Difficulties of the Old Test." Bibliotheca Sac, 
 
 xxxiv. 672. 
 Mcllvaine. "The Miracle of Creation." Princeton Rev., May, 
 
 1878. 
 McLane. "Speculation and the Bible." Bibliotheca Sac, xviii. 
 
 P- 338- 
 McLennan. " The Levirate and Polyandry." Fortnightly Rev., 
 
 May, 1877. 
 McSweney. " The Bible and Assyr. Discoveries." The Month, 
 
 XX. II. 
 
 Mead. "Examination of Ex. xxxii. 7-1 1." Journal of Soc fof 
 
 Bib. Lit. and Exegesis, July-Dec, 1881. 
 Mead. " Study of the Monuments." Bibliotheca Sac, xxiv. 
 Means. " Narrative of the Creation in Gen." Ibid., xii. p. 83.
 
 Literature of tJic P entateiich. 449 
 
 Means. "Recent Theories of the Origin of Lansfuasfe." Ibid.. 
 
 xxvn. p. 162. 
 Meier. Review of Ghellany's Die Menschenopfer d. alt. Hebriier. 
 
 Stud. 71. K'ritiken, 1843, iv. 
 Meier. " Ueber die Eherne Schlange." Zeller's Theolg. Jahr- 
 
 bi'icher, 1854, p. 585. 
 Meier. Review of Daumer's Der Feuer n. Molochdiefist. Stud. u. 
 
 R'riti/ccii, 1843. 
 Meier. Gesch. d. Poetischen Nationalliteratur d. Hebriier. Leipz., 
 
 1856. 
 Meier. Uebersetsuttg u. Erkliiru7ig d. Debora-Liedes . Tubing. , 
 
 1859. 
 Meikle. Edemc Dispensation. Lond., 1850. 
 
 Meiners. Allg. Krit. Gesthichte der Religionen. 2 Bde. Hann- 
 over, i8q6. 
 Meiners. Grundriss d. Gesch. alter Religionen. Lemgo, 1785-87. 
 Mel . Grund-Beschreibung der StiftshiUte. Frankfurt, 1 7 1 1 . 
 Menard. Histoire des Israelites d^apr^s VExeghe Biblique. Paris, 
 
 Mendelssohn. Die Funf Bilcher Mose iibersetzt . Berlin, 1780. 
 Menken. " Die eherne Schlange." Schriften, vi., 1858, p. 349. 
 Merrill. " The Assyr. Monuments." Bibliotheca Sac., xxxii. 320. 
 Merx. Die Prophetie d. Joel u. Hire Auslegcr (bears on the Pent. 
 
 crit.). Halle, 1879. 
 Merx. " Der Werth der Septuaginta fur die Textkritik des A. T. 
 
 am Ezechiel aufgezeigt." Jahrb'uclier f. Prot. Theologie, 
 
 1883, p. 65. 
 Merx. " Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die Opfergesetze, Lev. 
 
 i.-vii." Zeitsch.f. Wiss. Theologie, 1863, pp. 41, 164. 
 Merx. See Tuch. "Nachwort" to his Co?/ifnentar, (td. of 1871. 
 Merx. Archiv f. Wiss. Erforschutig des Alt. Test. Halle, 1867 
 
 (and part of) 1868. 
 Messmer. Geschichte der Offenbartmg. Freiburg, 1857. 
 Mestral. Conunentaire sur la Gcndse. Lausanne, 1865. 
 Mestral. Com //le ntaire sur f Erode. Lausanne, 1865. 
 Meyer, C. W. Apologie der Geschichtlichen Auffassimg d. Histor. 
 
 Bilcher d. Alt. Test, besonders des Pent. Sulzbach, 181 1. 
 Meyer, E. " Kritik d. Berichte iiber d. Erobcrung Paliistinas." 
 
 Zeitsch.f. Alttest. IVissenschaft, i., 1881. 
 Meyer, E. Geschichte d. Alterthuins. Vol. i. Stuttg., 1884. 
 Meyer J. Tractatus de Teniporibus Sacris et Testis Diebus Hebrae- 
 
 oruni. Amsterd., 1698, 1724. 
 Mezger. Histor ia Sacra de Gentis Heb., Ortu, Progressu, etc. 
 
 Augsb., 1700. 
 Michaelis, C. B. Dissertat. de Poenis Capitalibus . . . imprimis 
 
 Hebraeoruvi. Halle, 1730-49. 
 Michaelis, J. D. Einleit. in d. G'dttlichen Schriften d. Alt. Bundes. 
 
 Hamb., 1787. 
 Michaelis, J. D. Biblia Hebraica. Halle, 1720. 
 Michaelis, J. D. Das Mosdische Recht. Frankf., 1770-75.
 
 450 The Pejitateiich : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Michaelis, J. D. Coin, on the Laws of Moses. Lond., 1814. 
 Michaelis, J. D. Abhandlungen von den Ehegesetzen Mosis. 
 
 Getting., 1755-68. 
 Michow. Urgeschichte d. Menschengeschlechts . Eisleben, 1855. 
 Micraelius. Syntagma Historiarum Ecclesiae. Stettin, 1630. 
 Middleton. Allegor. and Literal Interpret, of Gen. i.-iii. Lond., 
 
 ^752. . . 
 
 Mielziner. Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce. Cincinnati, 
 
 1884. 
 Mielziner. Verhaltnisse der Sklaven bei den Alien Hebr'dern. 
 
 Leipz., 1859. 
 Miller. "The Six Days." Southern Presbyt. Review., Jan., 
 
 1885. 
 Milman. The History of the Jews. 3d ed. Lond., 1863. 
 Mitchell. " Ezekiel and Leviticus." Heb. Student, i, 2, 1883. 
 " Modern Theory of Deuteronomy." Christ. Observer, Ixxvii. 859. 
 Moebius. Historia Prophetoi Bilcami. Leipz., 1676. 
 Moeller. Ueber die Verschiedenheit des Sty Is der Beiden Hauptur- 
 
 kunden der Genesis. Getting., 1792. 
 Moffat. " Antiquity of Genesis." Princeton Rev., xxxiii. 37. 
 Moise. " Les Noms des Mois H^breux." L 'Univers Israelite, 
 
 No. 9, Paris, 1881. 
 Molchow. "1st der Pentateuch von Mosis verfasst?" Verlags- 
 
 Magazin, Ziirich, 1881. 
 Moldenhauer. Zeitrechnungim B. d. Richter. Hamb., 1766. 
 Mombert. See Tyndale. 
 Mooar. "Favorable References to the Foreign Element in the 
 
 Hebrew History." BibliothecaSac, xxvii. p. 614. 
 Moon. Pent, and Joshua considered. Lond., 1863. 
 Moore, D. Divine Author, of Pentateuch. Lond., 1863. 
 Moore, G. The First Man and his Place in Creation. Lend., 
 
 1866. 
 Moreau. Exam, of Colenso''s Objections. Lond., 1863. 
 Morin. Exercitatioties Ec. in utrumque Samaritanorum Pefita- 
 
 teuchum. Paris, 1631. 
 Morin. Prolegom. zur Ausgabe d. LXX. Paris, 1628. 
 Morison. Key to Gen.-Numb. Lond., 1847. 
 
 Mortillet. Le Prthistorique Antiquite de VHomme. Paris, 1882. 
 Mortillet. "La Religion Prthistorique." Rev. de PHistoire des 
 
 Religions. Janv.-F6vr., 1883. 
 fortimer and New^ton. " Recent Criticism of the Bible." North 
 
 Am. Review, April, 1884. 
 Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuch. Lond., 1864. 
 Mose ben Nachmann. Ueber d. Vorzuge d. Mos. Lehre. Ed. by 
 
 Jelinek. Wien, 1872. 
 " Moses, Colenso on." Boston Rev., iii. 190. 
 " Moses, Character of." Christian Observer, W. JT)?)- 
 " Moses, Div. Legation of." Christian Observer, vm. gi] xxviii. 
 
 793 ; Theol. Repository , v. 39, 49, 366. 
 Mosler. Jiidische Stammverschiedenheit . Leipz., 1884.
 
 Litcrat2irc of the Pentateiick. 45 1 
 
 Motais. Mo'ise, la Science et VExeg^se. Paris, 1882. 
 
 Movers. Krit. Ujitersiichung ubcr die Bibl. Chronik. Bonn 
 
 1834. 
 Movers. " Ueber die Auffindung d. Gesetzbuches unter Josia." 
 
 Zeitsch. f. Pliilos. u. Kathol. Theologie, 1834-35. Nos. 12, 14. 
 Movers. Die PJwnizier. 3 Bde. Bonn, 1841-50. 
 Mozely. Ruling Ideas in Ea7'ly Days. New York, 1879. 
 Mudge. Tabernacle of Test, in the Wilderness. Lond., 1861. 
 Miihlau. Liber Gen. sine Punctis Exscriptus. Curaverunt F. M. et 
 
 A. Kautzsch. Leipz., 1868. 
 MUhlau. See Ge.senius. 
 Miihlau. Besitzen wir d. Ursprutiglicheji Text d. Heil. Schrift. ? 
 
 Dorpat, 1884. 
 Muhlert. D. M'dglichkeit d. gottlichen Offenbarung. Leipz., 1832. 
 Miiller, CO. Prolegomena zn e. Wiss. Mythologie. Getting., 1828. 
 Muller, J. Ur sprung des Pesach-u. Mazzothfestis. Bonn, 1883. 
 Miiller, J. G. Wer sifid denn die Semiten? Basel, i860. 
 Miiller, J. G. Die Semiten in ihrem Verhaltniss zu Chamiten u 
 
 Japhiten. Gotha, 1872. 
 Muller, Max. hitrod. to tJie Science of Religion. Lond., 1873. 
 Muller, Max. Origin and Growth of Religion as Illust. by the 
 
 Religions of India. Lond., 1878. 
 Munnell. " Genuineness of the Pentateuch." Christ. Quarterly 
 
 Rev., Jan., 1884. 
 Munter. Religion der Karthager . 2te Aufl. Copenh., 1821. 
 Muntinghe. Brevis Expositio Critices V. T. Grbning., 1827. 
 Miirdter. Kurzgefasste Gesch. Bab. n. Assyr. nach d. Keil- 
 
 schriftdenkmdlern mit besond. Beriicksichtignng d. Alt. Test. 
 
 Stuttg., 1882. 
 Murphy. "The Weekly Sabbath." Bibliotheca Sac, xxix. p. 74. 
 Murphy. " The Book of Deuteronomy." British and For. Ev. 
 
 Review, ]2.n., 1878. 
 Murphy. A Critical and Exeget. Commentary on the Book of 
 
 Genesis. Edinb., 1863; Andover, 1866. 
 Murphy. Exodus. Edinb. and Andov., 1866. 
 Murphy. Leviticus. Ibid., 1872. 
 
 Murray. Remarks on Gen. and Exodus. 3d ed. Lond., 1842. 
 Mussy. L^Hygiine de Mo'ise, etc. Paris, 1885. 
 Nach'tigall. " Fragmente iiber die allmahlige Bildung der den 
 
 Israeliten Heil. Schriften." Henke's Magazin f. Religions- 
 philosophic, etc., 1794-96. 
 Nagel. Dissertat. de Calendario Vet. Hcbraeorum. Altdorf, 1764. 
 Naville. The Store City of Pithoin and Route of the Exodus. 
 
 Lond., 1885. 
 Nehringer. Allgem. Geschichte d. Alien Testaments. Leipz., 1717. 
 "Nemo." Alan: Palccolithic, Neolithic, and several other Races 
 
 not inconsistent witJi Scripture. Dublin, 1876. 
 Nesbitt. Science of the Day and Goiesis. New York, 1882. 
 Nestle. "Die Menschliclie Lebensdaucr u. das Alter des Moses." 
 
 Zeitsch. d. Deut. Morgenldnd. Gesellschaft, xxxiii. p. 509.
 
 452 The Pentateuch: Its Ongin and Structure. 
 
 Nestle. Die Is. Eigennatnen nach ihrer Religionsgeschichtlichen 
 
 Bedeutung. Haarlem, 1876. 
 Nestle. " El, Elohim, Eloa." Theolog. Studien aus Wilrtefnberg, 
 
 1882, iv. 
 Nestle. " Zur Frage ob ' Jehovah ' Hiphil sein konne." Jahrbb. 
 
 f. Deutsche TheoL, xxiii. p. 126. 
 Neteler. "Die Prophet. Verfasser d. Alt. Test. BUcher." Der 
 
 Katholik, Oct., 1876. 
 Neteler. Die Echtheit d. Pentatetichs. Miinster, 1867-71. 
 Neteler. " Harmonist. Versuch liber Assyr. u. Bibl. Chronologie." 
 
 Tubing. Quartalschrift, 1874, iii. 
 Neumann. Die Stiftsh'utte. Gotha, 1861. 
 Neumann. " Die Wolke im Allerheiligsten." Zeitsch. f. Lnther. 
 
 Theologie, 1851. 
 Neumann. " Die Opfer des Alten Bundes." Deutsche Zeitsch. f. 
 
 Christl. VVissenschaft , 1852-53, 1857. 
 Neumann. Sacra V. T. Salutaria. Leipz., 1854. 
 Neuville. " UEthnologie et le loe chap, de la Gen^se." Rev. des 
 
 Questions Historiques. Avril, 1878. 
 Nevin. Notes on Exodus. Phil., 1873. 
 
 " Newman and Greg on the Old Test." North Brit. Rev., xvi. 119. 
 Newton. The Book of Beginnings : a Study of Genesis. New 
 
 York, 1884. 
 Newton. See Mortimer. 
 
 Nicolai. De Sepulchris Hehraeorum. Leyden, 1706. 
 Nicolai. Diatrib. de Juratnentis Hebraeorimi, Graecor., etc. 
 
 Frankf., 1700. 
 Nicolas. " Le J^hovisme Mosaique." No2iv. Rev. de Theol., 
 
 livr. 4, 1861. 
 Niebuhr. Geschichte Ass7ir''s u. Babels, tic. Berlin, 1857. 
 Niemeyer. Characteristik der Bibel. Halle, 1775. 
 Niethhammer. Ueber d. Versuch einer Kritik aller Offenbarung. 
 
 Jena, 1792. 
 Nitzsch. D. Religionsbegriff d. Alten. Hamb., 1832. 
 Noack. Die Pharaonen i>n Bibellande. Leipz., 1870. 
 Noack. Der Religiose Geist der Menschheit in seiner Geschicht- 
 
 lichen Entwickehing. 2 Bcle. Leipz., 1850. 
 Noldeke. Die A/nalekiter. Getting., 1864. 
 Ndldeke. " Bemerk. iiber Hebra. u. Arab. Eigennamen." Zeitsch. 
 
 d. Dejct. AlorgenUind. Gesellschaft, xv. p. 806. 
 Noldeke. "Elohim, El." Sitzungsbericht d. K. Pr. Akad. d. 
 
 Wissenschaft , 1882, p. 1175. 
 Noldeke. Die Alttest. Literatur. Leipz., 1868. 
 Noldeke. Untersuchimg zur Kritik des A. Test. Kiel, 1869. 
 Noldeke. " Ueber den Gottesnamen El." Monatsbericht der K. 
 
 Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, 1880, p. 760. 
 Nork. D. Sonftencultus d. Alten V'olker. Heilbron, 1840. 
 Nork. Das Leben Mosis aus Astrognostischem Standpunkte 
 
 betrachtet. Leipz., 1838. 
 Norton. The Pentateuch and its Rel. to Jewish and Christian 
 
 Dispensations. Lend., 1863.
 
 Literature of the Pentateuch. 453 
 
 Notes on the Book of Deuteronomy. 2 vols. Lond., 1881-82. 
 Nowack. Die Bedeutung d. Hieronymus f. d. Alt test. Textkritik. 
 
 Getting., 1875. 
 Nowack. Die Assyi- .-Babylonischeii Keil-Inschriften u. das Alte 
 
 Testament . Berlin, 1878. 
 Nutt. Sketch of Samaritan History, Dogma, and Literature. 
 
 Lond., 1874, 
 Obermliller. Die Entstehnng d. Hebr'der. Wien, 1878. 
 Ode. Dissertat. de Anno HebraeorujH Jtibilaeo. Utrecht, 1745- 
 Oeder. Freye [/ntersuchnngen ueber einige Biicher d. Alt. Test. 
 
 Ed. by Vogel. Halle, 1771. 
 Olaster. .Com. in PentateiicJiuni. Lisbon, 1856-58. 
 Olshausen. " Eeitrage zur Kritik des Ueberlieferten Textes im B. 
 
 Genesis." Monatsbericht d. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, June, 
 
 1870. 
 " On the Name Jehovah and the Doct. of Ex. iii. 14." British and 
 
 For. Ev. Rev., Jan., 1876. 
 "On the Testimony of Language respecting the Unity of the 
 
 " Human Race." North Am. Rev., July, 1867. 
 Oort. " De Aaronieden." Theol. Tijdschrift, 1884, p. 289. 
 Oort. Der Ur sprung d. Blutbeschuldigung bei den Juden. Ley- 
 den, 1883. 
 Oort. De Per icope Numb, xxii.-xodv. Leyden, i860. 
 Oppert. " Die Bibl. Chronologie nach den Assyr. Keilinschriften." 
 
 Zeitsch. d. Deutschen Morg. Gesellschaft, 1869. 
 Oppert. Histoire des Empires de Chaldte et de VAssyrie. Paris, 
 
 1865. 
 Opwyck. De Legibus Ebraeorum Forensibus. Leyden, 1637. 
 Orelli. " Der Mosaismus." Die Alttest. Weissaguftg,&\.c. Wien, 
 
 1882, p. 141. 
 " Origin and Significance of Jewish Sacrifices." Bibliotheca Sac, 
 
 xxviii. p. 145. 
 Orth. " La Centralisation du Culte de Jehovah." Nouv. Rev. de 
 
 Theol., D^c, 1859. 
 Orth. " La Tribu L6vi et la Loi." Ibid., p. 384. 
 Orton. "The Bible and Egyptology." Bib. Review, iv. 203. 
 Osburn. Egypt and its Test, to the Bible. Lond., 1846. 
 Osburn. Israel in Egypt. 2d ed. Lond., 1856. 
 Osgood. "Jesus Christ and the Newer School of Criticism." 
 
 Baptist Quaj'terly, 1883, p. 88. 
 Osgood. " Prehistoric Commerce in Israel." Bapt. Qtiart. Rev., 
 
 Apr., 1882. 
 Osgood. " History and Methods of Modern Biblical Criticism." 
 
 Proceedings of Sec. Autum. Baptist Conference. Boston, 1883. 
 Osiandcr. Cotn. in Pentata/chi/m. Tul)ing., 1675 flf. 
 Osiander. Coinmcntariiis in Jiid. Tiibing., 1682. 
 Osiander. Coin, in Josuam. Ibid., 1681. 
 Outram. De Sacrificiis. Amstcrd., 1678. 
 Owen. A Short Introd. to Heb. Criticism. Lond., 1774. 
 Owen. Divine Origi?ial, etc., of the Scriptures. Oxford, 1659.
 
 454 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Page. Pretensions of Bp. Colenso Considered. Lond., 1863. 
 Pahle. Gesck. d. Oriental. Alterthums. Oldenburg, 1864. 
 Paine. The Tabernacle, Temple, etc. Boston, 1861. 
 Palfrey. The Jewish Scriptures and Antiq. Lond., 184 1, 1848. 
 Palmer, E. H. History of the Jewish Nation. Lond., 1874. 
 Palmer, E. H. The Desert and the Exodus. 2 vols. Lond., 
 
 1871 ; New York, 1872. 
 Palmer, E. H. The Negeb. Lond., 1871. 
 Palmer, G. The Migration from Shinar. Lond., 1880. 
 Palmer, H. S. Ancient History frojn the Monuments. Lond 
 
 1878. 
 Palmer, W. Sacred and Egypt. Chronol. Harmonized. 2 vols. 
 
 Lond., 1861. 
 Pareau. Antiq. Hebraica breviter Descripta. Utrecht, 1817. 
 Park. " The Divine Institution of Sacrifice." Bibliotheca Sac, 
 
 Jan., 1876. 
 Parker, F. Replies to Bp. of NataVs Pentatettch. Lond., 1864. 
 Parker, J. The People's Bible. Vol. i.. Genesis; vol. ii., Exodus. 
 
 Lond., 1885. 
 Parker, J. " The Second Book of Moses." Expositor, Apr., 
 
 1885, p. 305. 
 Parkes. " Compar. Philol. as indicating the Antiq. of Man." 
 
 Quart. Jour, of Science, Apr., 1866. 
 Parsons. See Holmes. 
 Parvish. Inquiry into the Jewish afid Christian Revelation. 
 
 Lond., 1739. 
 Pastoret. Histoire de la Legislation. Paris, 1817. 
 Patrick, Lowth, etc. Com. on the Bible. 4 vols. Lond., 1849. 
 Patrick. Com. upon the Second Book of Moses. Lond., 1697. 
 Patrick. Com. upon the Third Book of Moses. Lond., 1698. 
 Pattison. Antiquity of Man. Lond., 1863. 
 Patton. " Dogmatic Aspect of Pentateuchal Criticism." Presbyt. 
 
 Rev., 1883, p. 341. 
 Paul. Analysis and Critical Inter, of Genesis. Edinb., 1852. 
 Paulus. " Ueber die Anlage u. den zweck des Ersten u. Zweiten 
 Fragments der altesten Mos. Menschengeschichte." Neues 
 Repertor.f Bibl. u. Morg. Litter atur, Th. 2, p. 209. 
 Paulus. D. Ur sprung d. Althebra. Litter atur durch SatnueVs 
 
 Geist u. seinen Prophetenschulen. Heidelb., 1822. 
 Peabody. " Char, and Institutions of Moses." Christ. Exatniner, 
 
 xxi. I. 
 Peabody. " Bearing of Mod. Scientific Theories on the Funda- 
 mental Truths of Christianity." Bibliotheca Sac, xxi. p. 710. 
 Penrose. Lectures on the Pentateuch. Lond., 1845. 
 " Pent, and Book of Joshua Criticised." Ch. Remembrancer, xlv. 
 
 225, 484. 
 Pentateuchism Analytically Treated. Vol. i., Genesis. Lond 
 
 i860. 
 Pentateitchus, Hebr., Chald., Arab., Pers., cum Com. Jarchi. 
 Constantinople, 1546.
 
 Literature of the Pentateuch. 455 
 
 Pentateuchus , cin/i Targ. ac Cofnm. Jarchi. Bolog., 1490. 
 Petitateuchus Hcbraifl-Clialdaio-Persicits-Arabiciis. 1550. 
 Pentateiichus Hebraicus Hispa/iicKS ct Barbaro-GraecKs . Con- 
 stant.; 1548. 
 Petermann. Pentateiichus Samaritanus, i. Genesis. Berlin, 1872. 
 Petermann. Dc Diiabus Pent. Parapliras. Chatdaicis. /^/c/., 1829. 
 Peyr^re. Sy sterna Theologicum ex Proeadamitarum Hypothesi. 
 
 Holland, 1655. 
 Pfaff. '* GegenwJirt. Stand d. Frage nach dem Ursprung d. Men- 
 
 schengeschlechts." Zeitsch. f. d. ges. Luther. Theologie, etc., 
 
 1865, p. 401. 
 PfafF. D. Alter u. Ursprung d. Menschengeschlechts. Frankf., 
 
 1878. 
 Pfaff. Schopfiingsgeschichte. 2te Aufl. Frankfurt, 1877. 
 Pfaff. Die Neuesten Theorieen attf devi Gebiete d. Sch'dpfungs- 
 
 gescJiichte. Ibid., 1868. 
 Pfeifer. Critica Sacra. Dresden, 1680; Altdorf, 1751. 
 " Pharaoh of Joseph." Proceedings of Soc. of Bib. Arc/iceot. ,iSSo-Si . 
 Philippi. "1st 'Jehovah' Accadisch-Sumerischen Ursprungs?" 
 
 Zeitsch. f. Votlier psychologic, 1883. 
 Philippi. "Zur Eintheilung d. Dekalogs." Zeitsch. f. Kirch. 
 
 li'iss. u. A'i re hitches Leben, 1881, Hefte 9, 10. 
 Philippson. D. Entwickelung d. Relig. Ideen im Judenthume. 
 
 Leipz., 1847. 
 Philo. De Vita Mosis. Prag, 1838. See, also, ed. of his works. 
 Pianciani. Erliuderimgen znr Mos. ScJi'dpfungs-Geschichte. Re- 
 
 gensb., 1853. 
 Pick. "A Collection of Various Readings of the Samar-Pent." 
 
 Bibliotheca Sac, 1876-78. 
 Pickering. Hist, of Races of Man. Lond., 1850. 
 Pioger. UCEiivre de six Jours, t\.c. Paris, 1880. 
 Piscator. Comm. in Deuteronomium. Herborn, 1615. 
 Planck. " Der Ursprung des Mosaismus." Zeller's Tubing. Theo- 
 
 log. Jahrbucher , 1845. 
 Planck. Die Genesis d. Judenthwns. Ulm, 1843. 
 Plumptre. " Assyrian and Babylonian Inscriptions in their Bear- 
 ing on the Old Testament." Expositor, March, April, Oct., 
 
 1881. 
 Pococke. Porta Mosis. See ed. of his works by Twells. 2 Bde. 
 
 Lond., 1740. 
 Pontas. Scriptura S. ubique sibi Constans. This is the title of 
 
 Collet's ed. of a work by Pontas published in Paris, 1730. 
 
 It discusses the supposed contradictions of the Pentateuch. 
 Pool. Annotations on t/te Whole J>ible. 3 vols. New York. 1880. 
 Poole. " Hebrew Ethics in Evidence of the Date of Heb. Docu- 
 ments." Contenip. Review, Apr., 188 1. 
 Poole. Genesis of the Earth and Man. Lond., i860. 
 Poole. Chronol. of Ancient J'lgypt. Lond., 185 1. 
 Poole. " Ancient Egypt in its Comparative Relations." Contevtp. 
 
 Review, 3d art., Aug., 1881.
 
 456 TJie Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Poncet. JVouv. Eclaircissetnents sur VOrigine de la Pent. Satnar- 
 
 itams. Paris, 1760. 
 Pond. " Author of Genesis." Methodist Quart., xxiii. 601. 
 Popper. D. Ursprjing d. Mo7iotheis)nus. Berlin, 1879. 
 Popper. D. Bibl. Bericht uber die Stiftshutte. Leipz., 1862. 
 Portal. Compar. of Egyptian with Hebrew Syjnbols. New York, 
 
 1875. 
 Porter. The Pentateuch and the Gospels . Lond., 1865. 
 Pott. Mytholog. Vorstellnngen v. l/r sprung der V'dlker n. Spra- 
 
 chen. Lemgo, 1863. 
 Pott. Moses u. David keine Geologen. Berlin, 1799. 
 Pott. Coni/nottatio de Antiq. Doatmento, quod extat Gen. ii. et Hi. 
 
 Helmstadt, 1789. 2d ed., 1796. 
 Potwin. " Destructive Analysis in Theology." Bibliotheca Sac., 
 
 xxix. p. 419. 
 Pratt. The Genealogy of the Creation. Lond., 1861. 
 " Prehistoric Man." Church Quart. Review, July, 1881. 
 Preiss. " D. Ursprung des Jehovakultus." Zcitschrift f. Wiss. 
 
 Theologie, 1881, p. 210. 
 Pressel. " Laubhlittenfest." Herzog's Real-Encyk. iste Aufl. 
 Pressel. Geographic u. GescJiicJite der Urzeit. Nordlingen, 1883. 
 Pressens6. EOrigine de la Morale et de la Religion. Paris, 1883. 
 Priestley. Institides of Mos. and of the Hindoos. Lond., 1800. 
 Priestly. " Moses, Inspiration of." Theol. Repository , iv. 27, 123. 
 " Primeval Hist, of the Old Test." Quart. Review, lii. 496. 
 Pritchard. Vindiciae Mosaicae. Lond., 1866. 
 Proctor. " Origin of the Week." Contemp. Review, June, 1879. 
 Prout. " Recent Theories on the Pentateuch." British Quart. 
 
 Rev., Jan., 1884. 
 Pustkuchen. Urgeschichte d. Menschheit. Lemgo, 1823. 
 Pye. Moses and Bolingbroke. Lond., 1766. 
 Pye. The Moral System of Moses. Lond., 1770. 
 Quarry. Genesis and its Authorship. Lond., 1873. 
 Rae. " Recent Spec, on Prim. Religion." Cotitemp. Rev., Oct., 
 
 1880. 
 Ragg. Accord of Re^ielation with Science. Lond., 1856. 
 Rainy. The Bible and Criticism. Lond., 1878. 
 Ranke, F. H. Untersuchung i'lber den Pentateuch aus dem Gebiett 
 
 d. Hoheren Kritik. Erlangen, 1834-40. 
 Ranke, L. v. Universal History (Eng. trans.). Nevs^ York, 1884. 
 Rashi. In Pentateiichuin Com. Ed. by Berliner. Berlin, 1866. 
 Rask. Die Aelteste Hebr. ZeitrecJinung bis Moses. Copenh., 1828. 
 Raska. Die Chronol. d. Bibel im Einklange mit d. Zeitrechmi7ig d. 
 
 Aegypter u. Assyrer. Wien, 1878. 
 Rau. Dissertat. de Nube Gloriosa super Arcam Foederis. Utrecht, 
 
 1760. 
 Rauber. Urgeschichte des Menschen. 2 Bde. Leipz., 1884. 
 Raumer, G. W. D. Zug d. Israeliten aus Acgypten nach Kanaan. 
 
 Leipz., 1837. 
 Raumer, R. v. D. Urverwandtschaft d. Semit. u. Indo-german. 
 
 Sprachen. Frankf., 1876.
 
 Literature of the Pentateuch. 457 
 
 Rawlinson. " The Pentateuch." Aids to Faith, 'LonA., i%62. 
 RawUnson. Antiquity of Man. Lond., 1883. Cf. Journat of 
 
 Cliristian Pliilos., 1883, p. 339. 
 Rawlinson. Tiie Religions of t lie Ancient Wortd. Lond., 1882; 
 
 New York, 1883. 
 Rawlinson. History of Ancient Egypt. 2 vols. Lond., 188 1. 
 Rawlinson. Egypt aiid Babylon, from Sacred and Profane 
 
 Sources. New York, 1885. 
 Rawlinson. Hist. Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records. 
 
 Lond., 1859; Boston, i860. 
 Rawlinson. Monarchies of the Ancient World. 2d ed. 3 vols. 
 
 New York, 1871. 
 Rawlinson. Origin of Nations. Lond., 1877; New York, 1881. 
 Recent Inquiries it} TJicol. by Eminent Eng. Churchmen [better 
 
 known as Essays and Reviews'}. 4th Am. from 2d Lond. ed., 
 
 1862. 
 •' Recent Translations of the Pentateuch." Church Quart. Review, 
 
 1881. 
 Reckendorf. Das Leben Mosis. Leipz., 1868. 
 Records of the Past. Eng. Trans, of the Egyptian and Assyr. 
 
 Monuments. 12 vols. Lond., Bagster. 
 Redslob, A. M. De Hebrceis Obstetricantibus Commentatio. 
 
 LeijDz., 1835. 
 Redslob, G. M. Die Bibl. Angaben nber die Stiftung u. Grund d. 
 
 PascJiafcier. Hamb., 1856. 
 Redslob, G. M. Leviratsehe. Leipz., 1836. 
 Redslob, G. M. Die A. T. Namen der Bev'dlkeruug d. ivir kitchen 
 
 u. idealen Israeliten-Staates. Hamb., 1846. 
 Redslob, G. M. Der Begriff d. Nabi. Leipz., 1839. 
 Redslob, G. M. Der Schopfungsapolog (Gen. ii. 4-iii. 24). 
 
 Strassb., 1846. 
 Regensburg. Die Chronol. d. Genesis im Einklang mit der Pro- 
 
 faneti. Mainz, 1881. 
 Reinhard, J. P. Einleitung zu d. Kirchengeschichte d. A. Bundes. 
 
 Erlang., 175 1. 
 Reinhard, P. C. Abriss einer Geschichte d. Entstehung u. Ausbil- 
 
 dungd. Religiosen Ideen. Jena, 1794. 
 Reinisch, L. Ursprung u. Entwickelung d. Aegypt. Priester- 
 
 tJiums, etc. Wien, 1878. 
 Reinisch, S. L. " Zur Chronol. d. Alten Aegypter." Zeitsch. d. 
 
 Deutsch. Motg. Gescllschaft, 1861. 
 Reinke. Z. Erkldrung d. Alten Test. 5 Bde. Miinster, 1863 ff. 
 Reinke. Die Weissagung Jacobs, ate. Miinster, 1849. 
 Reinke. Die Scliopfing d. Welt. Miinster, 1859. 
 Reland. Aniiq. Sacrae Veteruni Hcbracoruni. Utrecht, 171 1. 
 Reland. Paliistina ex Monumentis l/eteribus Illustrata. Nlinrb., 
 
 1716. , 
 Renan. Etudes d'Histoire Religicuse. Paris, 1863. 
 Renan. " Les Noms Th^ophoscs Apocopes dans les Langues 
 
 Sem." Rev des Etudes, Oct., D^c, 1882.
 
 458 The PcntatciiciL : Its Origin and Strnctnrc. 
 
 Renan. " La Tendance des Peuples S^mitiques au Monoth^isme." 
 
 Journal As., 1859, PP- -H» 4i7- 
 Renan. Das yude/il/ni/u vom GesicJitspunkte der Rasse u. der 
 
 Religion. Vortrag. Basel, 1883. 
 Renard et Lacour. " De la Manne du Desert on Manne des H6- 
 
 breux." Critiqice Historiqiie, etc., Alger, 1881. 
 Rendell. Antedihiv. History. Lond., 1851. 
 Rendell. Fostdiliiv. History. Ibid., 1855. 
 
 Renouf. Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, as illus- 
 trated by the Relig. of Ancient Egypt. Hibbert Lectures. 
 
 Lond., 1880. 
 Repertorium d. Exegese d. Alt. Test. Th. i.. Genesis. Berlin, 1855. 
 Reubelt " Bible and Tradition." Christ. Quarterly, vii. 106. 
 Reusch. Lehrb. d. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 4te Aufl. 
 
 P'reiburg, 1870. 
 Reusch. Bibeln. Natiir. 4te Aufl. Ibid., i?>76. 
 Reuss. Die Geschichte d. Heil. Schriften d. Alten Testamettts. 
 
 Braunschweig, 2te Halfte, 1881. 
 Reuss. " Judenthum." Ersch u. Gruber's Encyclop'ddie. 
 Reuss. Les Prophites. Paris, 1879. 
 Reuss. La Bible, Traduction Noicvelle avec Introductions et Com- 
 
 mentaires. Paris, 1875 ff- (Part iii., LHistoire Saittte et 
 
 la Loi, Pent, et Jos., 2 vols., 1879). 
 R^ville. Les Religions des Peuples non Civilises. Paris, 1882. 
 R^ville. ProUgomhies de VHistoire des Religions. Paris, 1881. 
 Rialle. La Mythologie Comparee. Paris, 1878. 
 Riant. Invention de la Sepulture des Patriarches . . . a Hebron. 
 
 G^nes, 1883. 
 Richards. " The Deluge of Ogyges and Deucalion." Bibliotheca 
 
 Sac, iii. pp. 347, 699. 
 Richers. Die Schopfu ngs-Paradieses 7/. Sund/luthgeschichte [Gen. 
 
 i.-ix.] Erkldrt. Leipz., 1854. 
 Riehm. " D. Schuldopfer." Stud. u. Kritiken, 1854. 
 Riehm. Das Erste Buch Mosc [a revised trans, and explan. re- 
 marks]. Halle, 1873. 
 Riehm. De Naturaet Natione Sy)nbol. Cheruboruni. Basel, 1864. 
 Riehm. " D. Begriff der Slihne im Alt. Test." Stud. u. Kritiken, 
 
 '^77- 
 Riehm. " Bilderdienst." Handworterb. d. Bzbl. Altertums. 
 Riehm. Handworterb. d. Bibl. Altertunis. Herausg. unter Mit- 
 
 wirkung G. Baur, Beyschlag, Delitzsch, Ebers, u. A. Leipz., 
 
 1884. 
 Riehm. " Die so-genannte Grundschrift des Pentateuchs." Stud. 
 
 u. Kritiken, 1872. 
 Riehm. Review of Graf's Die Geschichtlichen Bilcher. Ibid., 1868. 
 Riehm. Der Bibl. Schopfungsbericht. Halle, 188 1. 
 Riehm. D. Gesetzgebung Mosis im Lande Moab. Gotha, 1854. 
 Riggenbach. Die Mos. Stiftsh'utte. 2te Aufl., Basel, 1867. 
 Rinck. " D. Schuldopfer." Stud. u. Kritiken (with a " Nach- 
 
 trag" by Riehm), 1855, p. 369.
 
 Literature of the Pentateuch. 459 
 
 Rinck. Einheit d. Mos. Schopfiingsbericht. Heidelb., 1822. 
 
 Rioult. " L'Archdol. Pr6historiqLie,"etc. Rev.d. Qtiestions Hist., 
 Jan., 1882. 
 
 Rivet. Comment, in Libr. 2 Mosis, qui Exodus inscribitur . Ley- 
 den, 1634. 
 
 Rivet. Introductio Generalis ad Script. Sac. V. et N. Test. Ley- 
 den, 1627. 
 
 Robbins. " Song of Deborah." Bibliotheca Sac, xii. p. 597. 
 
 Robert. Pentateuc/ii I'ersio Latiiia Autiquissima e Cod. Lugd. 
 Paris, 1880. 
 
 Roberts. Oriental III. of the Sacred Scriptures. Lond., 1835. 
 
 Robertson, F. W. Notes on Genesis. Lond., 1877. 
 
 Robertson, J. Clavis PentateucJu. Edinb., 1770. 
 
 Robinson. Vindication of Mos. System of Creation. Lond., 
 1709. 
 
 Roderich. Die Volkertaf el des Moses. Priim, 1880. 
 
 Rodier. Antiqtiite des Races Humaines. Paris, 1862. 
 
 Rogers, B. B. Mosaic Records. 2d ed. Lond., 1865. 
 
 Rogers, H. Vindication of Colcnso. Edinb., 1863. 
 
 Romaine. Div. Legation of Moses Demojistrated. Lond., 1747. 
 
 Roringer. De Miitati Hebraeorum Ingenii post Red. e Captiv. 
 Baby I. Ratione ct Causis. Leyden, 1820. 
 
 Rosch. " Zeitrechnimg." Wtrzog^s Redl-Encyk. iste Aufl. 
 
 Rosenmliller. ScJwlia in Vetics Testamenttim. [Vol. i. treats of 
 tlie Pent.] Leipz., 1788 tif. 
 
 Rosenmliller. Pentateuchus Annotatione Perpet. Illustratiis . 
 Leipz., 1821-24. 
 
 Rosenmliller. De Versione Pent. Persica. Leipz., 1813. 
 
 Rosenmliller. Handb. f. d. Liter at ur d. Bibl. Kritik u. Exegese. 
 4 Bde. Getting., 1798-1800. 
 
 Rosenmliller. Handb. d. Bibl. Alterthumer. 4 Bde. Leipz., 
 1823-31. 
 
 Rosenstock. Heidnische Mantik u. /s. Prophetie. Wolfenblittel, 
 1880. 
 
 Rosin. Der Pentateuch-Commentar d. R. Samuel ben Meir, nach 
 Handschriften u. Druckwerken berichtigt u. m. krit. Erkld- 
 ru)igen Herausgegeben. Breslau, 1881. 
 
 Roskoff. Die Simsonsage. Leipz., i860. 
 
 Roskoff. Die Hebr. Alterthutner in B?-iefen. Wien, 1857. 
 
 Roskoff. D. ReligionsTvesen d. Rohesten Naturvolker . Leipz., 
 1880. 
 
 Rosseau. Ueber Nat'url. u. Geoffenbarte Religion. Neustrel., 
 1796. 
 
 Rubinsohn. " Origin and Structure of the Bible." Christ. Exam- 
 iner, liv. 165. 
 
 Rule. Oriental Records Cflnfirmato?y of the Old and New Testa- 
 ments. Lond., without date ; New York, 1877. 
 
 Rundquist. Curac Philol. Exeg. in Cant. Mos. Upsala, 1834. 
 
 Rutherford. Exam, of KennicotVs Defence of Samar. Pent. 
 Camb., 1 761.
 
 460 TIic PentatcncJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Ryssel. De Elo]iistae Pentateuchici Sermone. Leipz., 1874. 
 Saalschutz. Arch'dologie der Hcbracr. Konigsb., 1855-56. 
 Saalschlitz. Das JMosaische Recht. 2te Aufl., Berlin, 1853. 
 Saalschutz. Forsc/umgen im Gebiete d. Hebr'disch-Aegypt. Archd- 
 
 ologie. Konigsb., 1838. 
 Saalschutz. Haiiptpri}icipien d. Is. Gottesdienst . Konigsb., 1845. 
 Sack, J. Die Religio7t Altisraels. Leipz., 1885. 
 Sack, K. H. Licder d. Hist. B'ucher d. A. T. Barmen, 1864. 
 Salvador. Loi de Moise. Paris, 1822. 
 Salvador. Histoire dcs Institidions de Mdise et dn Penple Htbreu. 
 
 Paris, 1828; (in German) Hamb., 1836. 
 Sanday. " Nature and Devel. of Monotheism in Israel." Theolog. 
 
 Review, Oct., 1876. 
 Sandblichler. Vertlieid. d. Gottlichkeit d. Mos. Gesetzes, etc. 
 
 Sulzb., 1787-97. 
 Sandys. In the Beginning. Lond., 1879. 
 Sargent. A Cotnpettd. of Bib. Criticism. Lend., i860. 
 Sayce. See Budge. 
 
 Sayce. Babylonian Literature. Lond., 1879. 
 Sayce. Fresh Light froTn the Ancient Monuments. Lond. : The 
 
 Religious Tract Soc. 
 Sayce. "Origin of the Name 'Jehovah.'" Mod. Review, Oct., 
 
 1882. 
 Sayce. "The Gods of Canaan." Contemp. Review, Sept., 1883. 
 Sayce. The Ancient Empires of the East. Nevi^ York, 1884. 
 Schafer. Die Rclig. Altert/iumer der Bibel. Munster, 1878. 
 Schafter. Das Diluvimn in der Bibel. Frankf., 1884. 
 Schelling. Atitiquissimi de Prima Malortmt Hum. Origine, etc. 
 
 [Gen. iii. explicat.] Tubing., 1792. 
 Schenkel. Bibel- Lexikoti. Leipz., 1868-75. 
 Schenkel. " Moses," " Reinigkeit." Bibel-Lex. 
 Scherer. La Critique et la Loi. Paris, 1850. 
 Scherer. " Le Monoth^isme S^metique." Nowv. Rev. de ThtoL, 
 
 iv., 1859. 
 Scheuchzer. " Ueber d. Zeit d. Zweiten Einfalls d. Hyksos in 
 
 /4igypten." Zeitsch. d. Dent. Morgenldnd. Gesellschaft, xiv. 
 
 p. 640. 
 Scheuchzer. " Zur Geschichte v. Assur u. Babel. Ethnograph- 
 
 isches." Ibid., xvi. p. 482. 
 Schickard. Jus Regium Hebraeorum. Ed. by Carpzov. Leipz., 
 
 1764. 
 Schiller. " D. Stern aus Jacob." Beweis d. Glaubens, Jan., 1884. 
 Schlegel. D. Geist d. Religiositdt alter Zeit en u. V'olker. 2 Bde. 
 
 Hannov., 1819. 
 Schleicher. Bedeid^ing d. Sprache f. d. Natur geschichte d. Men- 
 
 schen. Weimar, 1865. 
 Schleiden. "D. Einheit d. Menschengeschlechts." Wester- 
 
 mann's ///. Monatsch., Apr., i860. 
 Schleiden. " Die Pluralitat d. Menschenarten." Ausland, No. 
 
 10, i860. Cf., also, No. 17.
 
 Literature of the Peiitateuch. 461 
 
 Schlichter. De Lychnucho Sacro ejusque Mysterio. Halle, 1740. 
 Schlichter. De Panibus Facieruni Eorumque Mysterio. Ibid., 
 
 Schlottmann. " Astarte," " Aschera," " Gbtzendienst," Riehm's 
 Handworterb. d. Bibl. yiltertums. 
 
 Schmeidler. Der Untergang d. Ketches Jtida. Breslau, 1831. 
 
 Schmid, C. F. Historia Aniiqua, etc. Leipz., 1775. 
 
 Schmid, C. F. Origo Librr. Canotticorum V. T. Wittenberg, 
 1772. 
 
 Schmid, R. "Die durch Darwin angeregte Entwickelungsfrage." 
 Stud. It. Kritiken, 1875, p. 7. 
 
 Schmidt, J. E. C. Ei^is d. Aeltesten u. Schonsten Idytten des 
 Morgeidandes [i IVIos. xlix.]. Giessen, 1793. 
 
 Schmidt, K. L. C. " Ueber die Entstehung u. das Alter der Gen- 
 esis." BibliotJieJi f. Krititi u. Exegese, 1802. 
 
 Schmidt, O. Das Opfer in d. Jahve-Religion u. im PolytJieisnms . 
 Halle, 1877. 
 
 Schmidt, S. Super Mosis Librum Primum Annotationes . Ar- 
 gent., 1697. 
 
 Schmidt, S. Comme^itar. in Libr. Judicum. Strassb., 1706. 
 
 Schnell. Das Israelii. Pec/U. Basel, 1853. 
 
 Schodde. " Ezra's Relation to the Law." IVew YorJc Independ- 
 ent, April 5, 1883. 
 
 Schodde. "Histor. Character of Genesis." Lidheran Quart., 
 X. 74. 
 
 Schodde. " Old Test. Criticism in the Am. Church." Old Test. 
 Student, June, 1884. 
 
 Schoebel. Demonstration de P Authenticity de la Genhse. Paris, 
 
 1873- 
 Schoebel. Dhnonstration de VAutheniicite de VExode. Pans, 
 
 1871. 
 Schoebel. Danonstration de V AiUhenticite Mosdique du Uvitique 
 
 et des Nojnbres. Paris, 1869. 
 Schoebel. De V Universality du Deluge. Paris, 1858-60. 
 Schoebel. Le Mdise Histor ique et la Redaction Mosaique du Penta- 
 
 teuqjie. Paris, 1875. 
 Schoebel. Les Stations d Israel dans le Desert. Paris, 1859. 
 Schoebel. Me moire sur les six Jours ou Epoques de la Genise. 
 
 Paris, 1859. 
 Schoebel. Me moire sur le Monothcisme primitif attribue par M. 
 
 E. Penan a. la seule Race Shiutique. Paris, i860. 
 Schoebel. Refutation de quelques Objections centre les Ricits de la 
 
 Genise. Paris, 1862. 
 Schoebel. Satan et la Chute de V Homme . Paris, 1859. 
 Scholl. "Ueber die Opferidee der Alten, insbesond., der Juden " 
 
 Studien d. Ev. Geistlichkeit W'urtembergs, iv., Hefte 1-3. 
 Scholz, A. Die j-Egyptologie u. d. B'ucher Mosis. Wurzburg, 
 
 1878. 
 Scholz, A. Die Keilschrift-Urkunden u. d. Genesis. Wurzburg, 
 
 1877.
 
 462 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Scholz, F. P. De Origine No7mnis " Jahve.'''' Breslau, 1857. 
 Scholz, J. M. A. Einleitung iti die Heil. Schrift. 3 Bde. Kbln, 
 
 1 844-48 . 
 Scholz, J. M. A. Haiidb. d. Bibl. Archaologie. Bonn, 1834. 
 Scholz, P. Die heil. Alterth'umer d. Volkes Is. Regensb., 1868. 
 Scholz, P. Gotzetidienst Ji. Zaiiberwesen bei den alien Hebriiern. 
 
 Regensb., 1877. 
 Schrader. " Der Babylon. Ursprung d. Siebentagigen Woche." 
 
 Stud. u. Kritiken, 1874. 
 Schrader. " Gellibde," " Jahve." Schenkel's Bibel-Lex. 
 Schrader. " Ueber Sinn u. Zusammenhang d. Stuckes v. den 
 
 Sohnen Gottes." Stud, zur Kritik. u. Erkldrimg d. Bibl. 
 
 Urgeschichte, Zurich, 1863, p. 61. 
 Schrader. "Die Abstammung der Chaldaer u. die Ursitzen d. 
 
 Semiten." Zeitsch. d. Deut. Morgenldnd. Gesellschaft, 1873, 
 
 P- 397- 
 Schrader. Die Kedinschriften u. das Alte Testament. 2te Aun., 
 
 Giessen, 1883. 
 Schrader. " Semitismus u. Babylonismus." Jahrbucher f. Prot. 
 
 Theologie, 1875. 
 Schrader. SpracJwergleichtcng u. Urgeschichte. Jena, 1883. 
 Schrader. Zur Frage nach de^n Ursprung d. Alt baby Ion. Cultur. 
 
 BerHn, 1884. 
 Schrader. "Zur Kritik. d. Bibl.-Assyr. Chronologie." Zeitsch. d. 
 
 Deut. Morgenldnd. Gesellschaft , xxv. p. 449. 
 Schrank. Com. Literalis in Genesin. Solisb., 1835. 
 Schroeder. See Theologisch-Homilet . Bibeliverk. 
 Schroeder. Das Erste B. Mose Ausgelegt. Berlin, 1844-45. 
 Schroring. " Zur Erklarung der Genesis." Zeitschrift f. Wiss. 
 
 Theologie, 1880, p. 385. 
 Schroter. " Bar-hebraus' Scholien zu Gen. 49, 50; Ex. 14, 15; 
 
 Dt. 32-34, u. Jud. 5." Zeitsch. d. Deutschen Morgefil. Gesell- 
 schaft, Bd. xxiv. pp. 506, 518, 550. 
 Schulthess. Das Paradies, etc. Leipz., 1821. 
 Schultz, F. W. Das Dcuteronomium Erkldrt. Berlin, 1859. 
 Schultz, F. W. " Die Innere Bedeutung der A. T. Feste." 
 
 Detdsche Zeitsch. f. Christl. IViss., 1859. 
 Schultz, F. W. Die Sch'dpfungsgeschichte nach Naturwissenschaft 
 
 u. Bibel. Gotha, 1865. 
 Schultz, F. W. " Ephod." Yiexzo^?, Redl-Ericyk. 2te Aufl. 
 Schultze, F. Der Fetischismus. Leipz., 1871. 
 Schultze, M. Geschichte d. Altebr'dischcn Liter atur. Thorn, 1870. 
 Schultze, M. Handb. d. Ebrd. Mythologie. Nordhausen, 1876. 
 Schultze, M. Moses u. die Zehnwort-Gesetze d. Pentateuchs. 
 
 Berlin, 1875. 
 Schulz, J. C. F. Scholia in V. T. (continued by G. Lr. Bauer). 
 
 Nurnb., 1789-98. 
 Schulz, J. H. Philos. 71. Krit. Untersuchungen . . . uber d. Mos. 
 
 Religion. Leipz., 1785. 
 Schulze. Compendiiun Archaologiae Hcbr. Dresden, 1793.
 
 Literature of the Pentateuch. 463 
 
 Schumann, A. Prakt. Einleitung in d. Biicher d. A. u. N. Testa- 
 ments. Berlin, 1848. 
 Schumann, G. A. Genesis Hebraice et Greece cum Annotatiotie 
 
 Per pet 11 a. Lips., 1829. 
 Schuster. Aelteste Sagen der Bibel. Luneburg, 1804. 
 Schiitz. " L'Esprit deMo'ise." Mentoires dePAcad. de Stanislaus , 
 
 i860, p. 301. 
 Scott. Moses and the Pentateuch. Lond., 1863. 
 Scott. Principles of N. T. (2notations . . . applied to Bib. Crit. 
 
 and espec. to the Gospels andtJie Pentateuch. Edinb., 1877. 
 " Scripture Evolution." Amer. Church Rev., Oct., 1884. 
 Seinicke. Geschichte d. Volkes Is. Vol. i. Gotting., 1876. 
 Seisenberger. D. Bibl. Schopficngsbericht ausgelegt. Freising, 
 
 1881. 
 Selden. De Aniw Civ. et Calendario. Lond., 1644. 
 Selden. De Siiccessionibiis in Bona Deftmcti ad Leges Ebraeorum. 
 
 Lond., 1 63 1. 
 Selden. De Success, in Pontificatum Ebr. Lond., 1636. 
 Selden. De Synhedriis et Praefecturis furid. Vet. Hebr. 3 vols. 
 
 Lond., 1650. 
 Selden. Uxor Hebr. Absolvens Nicptias et Divortia Vet. Hebr. 
 
 Wittenberg, 17 12. 
 Selnecker. In Genesin Commentarius. Lips., 1569. 
 Semler. Abhandlungv. Freier Untersuchung des Kanons. Halle, 
 
 1771-75. 
 Semler. Apparatus ad Liberalem V. T. Ititerpretationem. Halle, 
 
 Serpilius. Lebensbeschreibungen d. Bibl. Scribenten. Leipz., 1708. 
 Sewall. "The Humaneness of the Mosaic Code." Bibliotheca 
 
 Sac, xix. p. 368. 
 Seyffarth. Grundsatze d. Mythologie u. d. alien Religionsge- 
 
 schichte. Leipz., 1843. 
 Sharpe. Hebrew Inscriptions from the Valleys between Egypt and 
 
 Mount Sinai. Lond., 1877. 
 Sharpe. History of Egypt from the Earliest Times. Lond., 1876. 
 Sharpe. History of the Heb. Nation and its Literature. 4th ed. 
 
 Lond., 1882. 
 Shedd. "The Two Views of the Old Testament."' New York 
 
 Observer, Jan. 11, 1883. 
 Sherer. Defence of Colenso. Lond., 1863. 
 Siegfried. Spinoza als Kritiker u. Ausleger d. Alt. Test. Berlin, 
 
 1867. 
 Sifra. Comme7itar zu Lev. aus d. Anfange d. 3 Jahrhunderts. 
 
 Ed. by Schlossberg. Berlin, 1863. 
 Sigonius. De Republica Hebraeoritm. Frankf., 1855. 
 Sillem. D. Alte Test, im Lichte d. Assyr. Forschungen, etc. 
 
 Hamb., 1877. 
 Sime. Deuteronomy the People^s Book. Lond., 1877. 
 Sime. The Kingdom of All Israel. Lond., 1883. 
 Simon, D. W. "Authority of the Bible." Pirit. (htart. Review, 
 
 Oct., 1864, p. 364.
 
 464 The Peiitatetich : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Simon, R. Histoire Critique du Vieiix Testament . Paris, 1678. 
 Simon, R. R^ponse an Livre Intitule Sentiinens, etc., par le 
 
 Prieur de Bolleville. Rotterdam, 1686. 
 Simpson. Typical Cliaractcr of the Tabernacle. Edinb., 1852. 
 Singer. Onkelos u. das Verhiiltniss seines Targujns zur Halacha. 
 
 Frankf., 1881. 
 Smend. Der Prophet Esechiel Erlddrt. {Kurzgef. Exeget. Handb., 
 
 2te. Aufl.), Leipz., 1880. 
 Smend. Die Listen d. D'ucJier Esra ti. Neh. zusammengestellt u. 
 
 l/nters7(cht. Programm, Basel, 1881. 
 Smend. Moses apud Prophetas. Halle, 1875. 
 Smend. " Ueber die Genesis d. Judenthmiis." Zeitsch. f. Alttcst. 
 
 Wissenschaft, 1882, p. 94. 
 Smend. " Ueber die von den Propheten des achten Jahrhunderts 
 
 Vorausgesetzte Entwickelungsstufe der Is. Religion." Stud. 
 
 n. Kritiken, 1876, p. 599. 
 Smith, G. Assyr. Discoveries. New ed. by Sayce. Lond., 1880. 
 Smith, G. Assyria to the P''all of Nineveh. Lond., 1875. 
 Smith, G. Doctrine of the Cherubi/n. Lond., 1850. 
 Smith, G. Hist, of Babylon. Ed. by Sayce. Lond., 1877. 
 Smith, G. Sacred Annals. Vol. i.. Patriarchal Age. Lond., 1859. 
 Smith, G. The Chaldcaan Account of Genesis. New ed. Lond., 
 
 1880; New York, 1881. 
 Smith, G. "The Jews: a Deferred Rejoinder." Nineteenth Cen- 
 tury, Nov., 1882. 
 Smith, H. P. " Critical Theories of Julius Wellhausen." Presbyt. 
 
 Rev., 1882, iii. 
 Smith, H. P. " The High Places." Hcb. Student, April, 1883. 
 Smith, J. A. " Language of Primitive Man." Heb. Student, 
 
 March, 1883. 
 Smith, J. A. " Mod. Bib. Criticism : its Practical Bearings." Old 
 
 Test. Student, Feb., 1884. 
 Smith, J. A. " Studies in Archaeology and Comparative Religion." 
 
 Old Test. Student, 1884-85. 
 Smith, J. R. Origin of the Hum. Race. Philol. Proofs. Lond., 
 
 1846. 
 Smith, R. P. Mosaic Authorship and Credibility of the Penta- 
 teuch. Lond. Relig. Tract Society. 
 Smith, T. Hist. of. Moses Viewed in connection with Egypt. An- 
 tiquities. Edinb., i860. 
 Smith, W. A Dictionary of the Bible. 3 vols. Lond., 1860-63. 
 
 Am. ed. revised, 4 vols. Boston, 1870. 
 Smith, W. The Book of Moses; or, the Petit, in its Authority, 
 
 Credibility, and Civilization. Lond., 1868. 
 Smith, W. The Old Test. History. Lond., 1865; New York, 
 
 1871. 
 Smith, W. R. Additional Atisiuer to the Libel, etc. Edinb., 1878. 
 Smith, W. R. " Animal Worship and An. Tribes among the 
 
 Arabs and in the Old Testament." Journal of Philol., 1880, 
 
 P-7S-
 
 Literature of the Pentateuch. 4^5 
 
 Smith, W. R. "Decalogue." Encyc. Britannica. 
 
 Smith, W. R. " The attitude of Christians toward the Old Testa- 
 ment." Expositor, April, 1884. 
 
 Smith, W. R. " The Chronol. of the Books of Kings." Journal 
 of Philol., X. p. 2og. 
 
 Smith, W. R. T/ic Old Testament in the Jewish Ouirch. Lond., 
 1881. 
 
 Smith, W. R. Ttie Prophets of Israel. Lond., 1882. 
 
 Smith, W. R. " The Poetry of the Old Testament." British 
 Quart. Rev., Jan., 1877. 
 
 Smyth. Unity of the Hum. Races. New York, 1850. 
 
 Sorensen. Histor.-Krit. Com mentar zur Genesis. Kiel, 185 1. 
 
 Solomon, G. Genesis ubersetzt u. co)nmcntirt. Leipz., 1847. 
 
 Solomon, J. D. BcscJineidung Historiscli u. Medicin. Beleuchtet. 
 Braunschw., 1884. 
 
 Soltau. Vessels of tlie Tabernacle. Lond., 1865. 
 
 Sommer. " Rein u. Unrein." Bibl. Abhandlungen, Bonn, 1846. 
 
 Southall. Recent Origin of Man. Phil., 1875. 
 
 Spencer. De Legibus Hebraeorunt Ritualibus . Camb., 1685, 1727. 
 
 Spencer. Hebrews and Phcenicians, Classified and Arranged. 
 Lond., 1880. 
 
 Spiess. Comparative Study of Religions. Jena, 1874. 
 
 Spinoza. Tractatus TheologicoT^oliticus . Hamb., 1670. The 
 book was actually printed in Amsterd. It is also found in 
 Paulus's ed. of Spinoza's Works, vol. i. p. 141 (Jena, 1802), 
 and was republished in England (Lend.) in 1863. 
 
 Stade. Geschichte d. Volkes Israel {Allgem. Geschichte in Einzel- 
 rt'<zr.$'/6'//«;/!^, herausg. Von Oncken). Berlin, 1881. 
 
 Stade. " Lea u. Rachel." Zeitsch. f. d. Alttest. Wissenschaft, 
 1881, p. 112. 
 
 Stade. " Text des Berichtes liber Salomo's Bauten." Ibid., 1883, 
 p. 129. 
 
 Stade. "Wo entstanden die Sagen Uber die Hebraer?" Ibid., 
 
 P- 347- 
 Stade. " Zur Entstehungsgesch. d. Vordeuteronom. Richterbu- 
 
 ches. Ibid., 1881, p. 339. 
 Stahelin. Animadversiones Quaedam in Jacobi Vaticiniutn (Gen. 
 
 cap. xlix.). Basel, 1827. 
 Stahelin. Das Leben Davids. Basel, 1866. 
 Stahelin. " Der Stamm Levi." Zeitsch. d. Deutsch. AforgenlciJid. 
 
 Gesellschaft , ix. p. 708. 
 .Stahelin. " Erobemng u. Vertheidigung Palastinas durch Josua." 
 
 Ibid., 1849, ii. 
 Stahelin. Kritische Unterstichungen uber den Pentateuch. Berlin, 
 
 1843. 
 Stahelin. Kritische Untersuch. Ytber die Genesis. Basel, 1830. 
 Stahelin. Review of Konig's Alttest. Studien. Stud. u. A'rittken, 
 
 1838. 
 Stahelin. Specielle Einleit. in d. Kanon. Biicher d. Alt. Test. 
 
 Elberfeld, 1862.
 
 466 The PeiitatcucJi : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Stanley. Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church. 3 Parts. 
 
 7th ed. New York, 1877. 
 Stanley. Sinai and Palestine in Connection with their History. 
 
 New York, 1883. 
 Starke. Synopsis BibliotJiecce Exeget. in V. T. Leipz., 1741-50. 
 
 New ed., Berlin, 1870. 
 Staudlin. Cojunientt. de Leginn Mosaicarum Alemento et Ingenio, 
 
 Collectione et Effectibus. Getting., 1796-97. 
 Staudlin. "Die Echtheit der Mos. Schriften Vertheidigt." Ber- 
 
 tholdt's Ar//. Journal, 1825. 
 Stearns. " The Old Testament in the Jewish Church." Baptist 
 
 Quarterly, 1882, p. 221. 
 .Stebbins. A Study of the Pent, for Popidar Reading. Boston, 
 
 1881. 
 Stebbins. "Did Ezra write or amend the Pentateuch?" Unit. 
 
 Review, Sept., 1883. 
 Steglich. Skizsen uber Schriften u. Bucherwesen der Hebraer zur 
 
 Zeit d. A. Bundes. Leipz., 1876. 
 Steiner. " Opfer," " Jubeljahr," " Versohnungstag." SchenkePs 
 
 Bibel-Lex. 
 Steinthal. " Das Fiinfte B. Mose." Zeitsch.f.Vdlkerpsychol.,\\. i. 
 Steinthal. " Z. Characteristik d. Sem. Volker." Ibid., i860, p. 328. 
 Sterringa. Animadv. Phil.Sacr.in Pentateuchiun. Leyden, 1721. 
 Steudei. Ueber die Haltbarkeit d. Glaubens an Geschichtliche 
 
 HoJiere Offenbarungen Gottes. Stuttg., 18 14. 
 Stevens. " Prehistoric Literature." Bibliotheca Sac.,-^yiV\\\. p. 609. 
 Stewart. Tiie Mosaic Sacrifices . Lond., 1883. 
 Stickel. " Auszug d. Israeliten aus .(Egypten bis z. Rothen Meer." 
 
 Stud. u. Kritiken, 1850, ii. 
 Stier. Priester u. Propheten, ihr Wcrken u. Gegenseitiges Verh'dlt- 
 
 niss. Wien, 1884. 
 Stifler. " The Relation of the Gospels and the Pentateuch." 
 
 Baptist Quarterly Rev., Jan., 1883. 
 Stbckl. Das Opfer nach scineni IVesen n. seiner Geschichte. 
 
 Mainz, i860. 
 Stockl. Liturgie u. Dogmatische Bedeutung der Alttest. Opfer. 
 
 Regensb., 1848. 
 Stokes. The Objectivity of Truth. Lond., 1884. 
 Strachan. Mosaic IVarrative Examined. Lond., 1854. 
 Strack. " Gesch. d. Juden." Jahresberichte d. Geschichtswissen- 
 
 schaft, 1878, i. 
 Strack. Prolegomena Critica in V. Test. Hebraicuni. Leipz., 
 
 1873. See, also, " Pentateuch," in Herzog's Redl-Encyk., 2te 
 
 Aufl. 
 Strack. See Zockler. 
 Strack " The Higher Criticism a Witness to the Credibility of 
 
 the Biblical Narrative." Hcbraica, March, 1884. 
 Strong. "Documentary Origin of Genesis." Meth. Quart. Rev., 
 
 Jan., 1882. 
 Strong. See McClintock.
 
 Literature of tJic Pentateuch. 467 
 
 Stuart. TsracVs Lawgiver. Lond., 1882. 
 
 Stuart. The Bible True to Itself. A Treatise ott the Historical 
 
 Truth of the Old Testament. Lond., 1884. 
 Stubner. Ad Hist . Eccles . Vet. Test.Introdiictio. Nlirnb., 1690. 
 Studer. Das Btich d. Richter erklart. Leipz., 1835. 
 Studer. De Versionis Alex. Origine, Historia, Usii et Abtisii Crit^ 
 
 ico. Bern, J 823. 
 Stiuiien. Theologish Tijdschrift onder Redactie van Chantepie en 
 
 Valeton, Groningen, from 1875. The second has an article on 
 
 the Bible as a Revelation. From 1879 there are papers on 
 
 Deuteronomy. 
 Subjects in Disptite between the Author of the Div. Legation of Mos. 
 
 [Warburton] a)id a late Professor in Oxford. Lond., 1766. 
 Super. " Recent Crit. of the Pentateuch." Northwestern Chris- 
 tian Advocate, Dec. 17, 1884. 
 Sliss. Die SVindflnth. Leipz., 1883. 
 Sutherland " The Pentateuch and Egypt." Methodist Quart., 
 
 XXXV. 221. 
 Talbot. Antiq. of the Book of Genesis. Lond., 1839. 
 " Targums on the Pentateuch." Am. Ch. Quart. Rev., April, 1881. 
 Taylor, E. B. Primitive Cidture. Lond., 1871. 
 Taylor, F. Chald. Parapr. in Pent. Latine, etc. Lond., 1649. 
 Taylor, L Considerations on the Pentateuch. 3d ed. Lond., 
 
 1863. 
 Taylor, J. P. " Prof. W. Robertson Smith from a Conservative 
 
 Standpoint." Bibliothcca Sac, 1882, p. 291. 
 Taylor, W. C. ///. of Bible from Monuments of Egypt. Lond., 
 
 1838. 
 Taylor, W. M. Moses the Lawgiver. New York, 1879. 
 Teller. Die Aelteste Theodicee. Jena, 1802. 
 Teller. Notae Crit. et Exeget. in Gen. xlix., Deut. xxxiii., Ex. xv., 
 
 Jud. V Halle, 1766. 
 Terry. " The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch." Methodist 
 
 Quart. Rev., 18S4, pp. 405, 605. 
 Terser. Annotationes in Genesin. Upsala, 1655. 
 Thalemann. Tractat. de Nube super Area Foederis . Leipz., 1752. 
 Thalhofer. Die Unblutigen Opfer des Mos. Cultus. Regensb., 
 
 1848. 
 Thayer. The Hebrews and the Red Sea. Andover, 1883. 
 " The Book of Genesis and Science." Lond. Quart. Review, 
 
 April, 1877. 
 " The Distinctive Character of the O. Test. Scriptures." Brit, and 
 
 For. Ev. Review, Jan., 1870. 
 "The Genesis and the Sinaitic Revelation." Amer. Israelite, July 
 
 18, 1884. 
 Theile. Pentateuchus. Ex Editione utriusqjte Testavienti Tauch- 
 
 nitiana. Leipz., 1861. 
 Thenius. Die Biicher Samuels erkldrt {Exeget. Handb. ziim 
 
 A.T.). 2teAufl., Leipz., 1864. 
 Thenius. Die Bllcher Konige. Idem, 1873.
 
 468 TJie PcntateiicJi : Its Origin and Strnctni'c. 
 
 Theodoret. " Questiones in Leviticum.'" Op. torn. i. p. 114 
 
 Ed. Sirmond. Paris, 1642. 
 " The Old Test, and Human Sacrifice." British and For. Ev. 
 
 Review, July, 1884. 
 Theologisch-Hoiiiiletisclies Bibelwerk, herausg. v. J. P. Lange. 
 
 Leipz., 1857 ff. The work on the Pent. — excepting Deut. by 
 
 Schroeder ■ — was by the editor. See Commentary. 
 " The Peninsula of Sinai." Loud. (2narterly Rev., July, 1867. 
 Thierbach. Weber den Auszug d. Kinder Is. aus ALgypten. 
 
 Erfurt, 1830. 
 Thiersch. De Pentateiichi Versione Alexandrifta. Erlang., 1841. 
 Theirsch. Die Genesis ttach ihrer Moral, n. Prophet. Bedeutung. 
 
 Basel, 1870. 2te Aufl. under title: Die Anfiinge d. Heil. 
 
 Gesch. nach dem Ersteti B. Mosis Betrachtet. Basel, 1877. 
 Tholuck. " Ueber den Ursprung des Namens Jehova." Ver- 
 
 mischte Schriften, Gotha, 1867, p. 184. 
 Thomas. Key to the Books of Satn., &\.q. Lond., 1881. 
 Thompson, E. A. "Genesis and its First Four Chapters." Brit- 
 
 isli and For. Ev. Review, Jan., 1877. 
 Thompson, J. Gidde to Study of the Pentateuch. Lond., 1839. 
 Thompson, J. P. "Notes on Egyptology." Bibliotheca Sac. 
 
 Continued through a series of years from 1864. 
 Thompson, W. H. The Great Argument ', or, Jesus Christ in the 
 
 Old Test. New York, 1884. 
 Thompson, W. M. The Land and the Book. 2 vols. New York, 
 
 1882. 
 Thornton. Lectures on the Pentateuch. Lond., 1843. 
 Thwing. " Prof. W. Robertson Smith and his Theories of Old 
 
 Test. Criticism." Bibliotheca Sac, 1882, p. 133. 
 Tieftrunk. V er such einer Kritik der Religion. Berlin, 1790. 
 Tiele, C. P. Die Assyriol. 71. ihre Ergebnisse f. d. Vergleichende 
 
 Religionsgeschichte. Leipz., 1878. 
 Tiele, C. P. Egyptian Religion. Lond. and Boston, 1882. 
 Tiele, C. P. Egypt ische en Mesopotainische Godsdiensten. Am- 
 
 sterd., 1872. 
 Tiele, C. P. " La Religion des Ph^niciens." Revjie de PHistoire 
 
 lies Religions, 1881, t. iii. 2. 
 Tiele, J. N. Chronol. d. A. T. bis zujn ersten Jahr Koresch. 
 
 Bremen, 1839. 
 Tiele, J.N. Das Erste B. Mosis Uebersetzt u. Com. Erlang., 1836. 
 Tischendorf. See Heyse. 
 Tischendorf. Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petrop. St. Petersb., 
 
 1862. 
 Tischendorf. De Israelitaruni per Mare Rubrum Transitu. 
 
 Leipz., 1847. 
 Tischendorf. V. T. Graece. 5th ed. 1875. The ed. of 1880 
 
 contains as an appendix the readings of II. and X. by Nestle. 
 Tobler. Gedanken u. Antwort zur EJire d. Altvdt. u. Mosis. 
 
 Zurich, 1788. 
 Tompkins. " Egyptology and the Bible." Pal . Explor . Ex. Fund. 
 
 Quarterly, Jan., 1884.
 
 Literattire of the Pentateuch. 469 
 
 Topler. De PentateucJti Interpretationis Alex. Indole Crit. et Her- 
 7ncticut. Halle, 1830. 
 
 Townsend, G. Com. on the Pent, and Job. Lond., 1849. 
 
 Townsend, J. Veracity of Mas. as Historian. Vol. i. Lond., 
 1813. 
 
 Townsend, L. T. Mosaic Records and Mod. Science. Lond., 1881. 
 
 Toy. " Date of Deuteronomy." Unitarian Rev., Feb., 1885. 
 
 Toy. "On the Gen. Interpret, of Ezek. xl.-xlviii." (abstract). 
 Jo7irnal of Soc. for Bib. Lit. and Exegesis, July-Dec, 1880. 
 
 Toy. The Babylon. Element in Ezckicl. Ibid., 1881, p. 59. 
 
 Tracy. " The Bible Doctrine of Divorce." Bibliotheca Sac, xxiii. 
 p. 384. 
 
 "Tradition a Source of Relig. Knowledge in Early Ages." Bibli- 
 otheca Sac, xvi. p. 359. 
 
 " Transmission of Books of Moses." Christian Observer, Ixv. 707. 
 
 Trapp. Com. npon the Pentateuch. Lond., 1650. 
 
 Trede. Der Einheit. Ursprung d. Menschengeschlechts . Kiel, 
 1878. 
 
 Tridon. Du Molochisme fuif. Bruxelles, 1884. 
 
 Trigland. Disputatt. de Origine Sacrificiorum. Leyden, 1692. 
 
 Trip. Die Theophanien in den Geschichtsb'uchern d. A. T. Ley- 
 den, 1858. Rev. by Schultze. Stud. n. Kritiken, 1859, ii. 
 
 Tristam. Genesis and the Brickfields. Lond., 1879. 
 
 Tristam. The Land of Israel. 2d ed., Lond., 1866. 
 
 Tromm. Co}icordantiae Graecae Versionis. . . Interpretum. 2 tomi. 
 Amsterd., 17 18. 
 
 Trovver. Short Comments on Numb, and Deuteronomy. Lond., 
 
 1877. 
 Trumbull. Kadesh-Barnea: its Importance and Prob. Site. New 
 
 York, 1883. 
 Trusen. Die Sitten, etc., d. Alten Hebraer. Breslau, 1853. 
 Tuch. " Bemerk. zur Genesis c. xiv." Zeitsch. d. Dent. Morgen- 
 
 land. Gesellschaft. i. p. 161. 
 Tuch. CovDnentar i'lber die Genesis. 2te Aufl. besorgt von Ar- 
 nold u. Merx. Halle, 1871. 
 Tuch. " Etwas iiber das Manna." Zeitsch. d. Deut. Morgcnliind. 
 
 Gesellschaft, iv. p. 224. 
 Tulloch. " Luther and Recent Criticism." Nineteenth Century, 
 
 April, 1884. 
 Turner. Compan. to Book of Genesis. New York, 1846. 
 Twesten. Die Religi'dsen, Polit., u. Socialen Ideen d. Asiat. Cul- 
 
 turvolker. BerUn, 1872. 
 Tyler. "Origin of Name Jehovah." Modern Rev., 1883, p. 177. 
 Tympe. Prima Quitique Geneseos Capita. Jena, 1756. 
 Tyndale. I'he Pe/it. newly Corrected, cic. 1534. A facsimile ed. 
 
 by Mombert, New York, 1884. 
 Ubaldi. Introductio in Sacram Script uram. Vol. ii., Rome, 
 
 1879. ^ . 
 
 Ugolino. Thesaurus Aiitiquitat. Sacrarum. 34 vols. Venice, 
 
 1769.
 
 470 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Uhlemann. Handb. d. Aegypt. Alterthumskunde. Leipz., 1857 f. 
 Uhlemann. Israeliten u. Hyksos nt Aegypten. Leipz., 1856. 
 Ullmann. Historisch odcr Mythisch? Hamburg, 1838. 
 Ulysse. Pentateiichi Versio Latina Antiquissima e Cod. Lugdu- 
 
 nensi. Paris, 1881. 
 Umbreit. Grundtone d. Alteti Testaments. Heidelb., 1843. 
 Umbreit. " Probe einer Auslegung d. Schopfungsgeschichte." 
 
 Stud. 11. Kritike7i, 1839, i- 
 Umbreit. " Der Busskampf Jacobs." /ii^zV/., 1848, i. 
 Umbreit. Review of Bahr's Symbolik d. Mos. Cidtus. Ibid., 
 
 1843, i. 
 Umbreit. Review of Friedrich's Symb. d. Mos. Stiftsh'utte. Ibid. 
 Umbreit. "Sieben Blicke in d. I Cap. d. Genesis." Ibid., 1846, 
 
 iv. ; 1847, iii. 
 Unruh. Zug der Israelii, aus Aegypt en nach Canaan. Langen- 
 
 salza, i860. 
 Urgeschichte d. IVett, etc. Anon. Zerbst, 1855. 
 Urquhart. " Jehovistic and Elohistic Theories." British and For. 
 
 Ev. Review, 1882, p. 205. 
 Use of Jehovah and EloJdin in Pentateuch. Lond., 1869. 
 Usher. Annates V. et N. Test. Lond., 1650; Bremen, 1686. 
 Vaihinger. " Pentateuch," " Moses," " Pascha," " Philistaa" u. 
 
 '_' Philister," " Pfingsfest." Herzog's Real-Encyk. iste Aufl. 
 Vaihinger. " Ueber das Verzeichniss der Reisezuge Israels durch 
 
 die Wuste, Numb, xxxiii. 1-49." Stud. 71. Kritiken, 1870, 
 
 . P- 445- 
 Vaihinger. " Weg d. Israeliten v. Gosen bis zum Uebergang durch 
 
 _ d.^Rothe Meer." Ibid., 1872. 
 Vaihinger. " Zur Aufliellung d. nach exilischen Geschichte d. 
 
 Volkes Israel nach d. Blichern Esra u. Nehemia." Ibid., 1854, 
 
 i. ; 1855, i. 
 Valeton. " Deuteronomium." Stiidien, v., Nos. 2, 3, and 4; vi. 
 
 i,2i A'l vii. 1-3. See Stitdien. 
 Van Dyk. " Godsdienst en Historic." Valeton's Studien, vii. 4. 
 Van Goens. " La M^thode de la Criticjue d'apr^s A. Kuenen." 
 
 Rev. de Theol. et de Philos., Mars, 1881. 
 Van Oosterzee. Moses : a Biblical Study. Trans. Lond., 1875. 
 Van Til. Commentaritis de Tabernac. Mosis. Dort, 1714. 
 Van Til. Opus Analyt. comprehendens Introductionem in S. S. 
 
 Jena, 1723. 
 Varen. Decades Mosaicae in Gen. et Exodum. 1659. 
 Varen. Decades Biblicae in IV. Libri Mosis. 1668. 
 Vater. Commentar iiber den Petitateuch. Halle, 1802-5. 
 Vatke. Die Religion d. Alien Test. Berlin, 1835. 
 Vatke. See Hilgenfeld. 
 
 Veith. Anfdnge d. Menschenwelt. Wien, 1865. 
 Venema. Dissertationes ad Genesin. 1747. 
 Venema, Institutt. Historiae Ec. Vet. et Nov. Test. Leyden, 
 
 1777-83- 
 Vercellone. See Cozza.
 
 Litcrattifc of the Pcntatcnch. 4/1 
 
 Vermigli. In Prim. Libruiii JlTosis Com. 2d ed. Heidelberg, 
 1606. 
 
 Vernes. " L'Origine et la Composition du Pentateuque." Melanges 
 de Critique Religieiise. Paris, 1880. 
 
 Vernes. " Les plus Anciens Sanctuaires des Israelites.'" Revue de 
 VHistoire des Religions, y Ann^e, Nr. i . 
 
 V^ron. Histoire IVaturelle d. Religions, etc. Tom. v. et vi. de la 
 BibliotJiek Afateriatiste. Paris., 1884. 
 
 Vet7-is Testament u/nj'uxta Septuaginta ex Auctoritate Sixti V. P. M. 
 Editum. Rome, 1587. 
 
 Vigouroux. " La Bible et rAssyriologie." Rev. des Questions His- 
 toriques, Avril, Oct., 1879. 
 
 Vigouroux. La Bible et la Dtcouvertes Modernes en Palestine, en 
 Egypte, et en Assyrie. 3d ed. 4 vols. Paris, 1881-82. 
 
 Vigouroux. " La Bible et I'Egyptologie. Le Passage de la Mer 
 Rouge par les Hdbreux." Revue des Questions Historiques, 
 Janv., 1 88 1. 
 
 Vigouroux. " La Chronologic Biblique avant le Deluge." Ques- 
 tions Controversies de I Histoire, 7.'^ Serie, 1881. 
 
 Vigouroux. " Les Juges d'Israel." Rev. des Questions Histo- 
 riques. Juill., 1877. 
 
 Vigouroux. Manuel Bibliqjie Ancien Test. 2d ^d. T. i. Intro- 
 duction Ghicrale Pentateuque. Besanc^on, 1881. 
 
 Vilmar. " Symbol. Bedeutung des Naziraergelubdes." Stud. u. 
 Kritiken, 1864, iii. 
 
 Vogel. D. letzten Gr'unde d. Mensck. Glaubens. Sulzlj., 1806. 
 
 Volck. Der Segen Mosis. Erlangen, 1873. 
 
 Volck. Die Bedeidung d. Semit. Philologief. d. Alttest. Exegese. 
 2te Aufl., Dorpat, 1874. 
 
 Volck. Mosis Canticum Cygneujn. Nordling., 1861. 
 
 Volck. See Gesenius. 
 
 Vblker. Mythologie des Japhet. Geschlechtes. Giessen, 1824. 
 
 Vollers. Pentateuch7is Samaritanus (iii. Leviticus). [A continu- 
 ation of Petermann's work.] Berlin, 1883. 
 
 Volney. Rechcrdies Nouv. sur VHistoire Ancienne. Paris, 18 14. 
 
 "Von den Beiden Recensionem der Zehn Worte." Allgeineine 
 Zeit. d. Judenthums, 1882, p. 521. 
 
 Vuilleumier. Etude sur le Monotheisvie des Hebreux, son Carac- 
 tire, ses Origines. Paris, 1864. 
 
 Vuilleumier. "La Critique du Pentateuque dans sa Phase Actu- 
 elle." Revue de Thiol, et de Philos., 1882-84. 
 
 Vuilleumier. La Ridemption dans V Ancien Test. Paris, 1869. 
 
 Vuilleumier. " Le MoTse Egyptien," etc. Rev. de Thiol, et de 
 Philos., Nov., 1880. 
 
 Vuilleumier. " Le Nom de Dieu Jahv<ih-9eba6th.'" Rev. de Thiol, 
 et de Philos., A\n\, I'ijj. 
 
 Waehner. A)iiiquitatcs Ebraeorum de Israeliticae Gentis Origine^ 
 etc. 2 vols. Getting., 1742-43. 
 
 Wahl. D. Verfasser d. Buches d. Richter. TUbing., 1859. 
 
 Waltz. Einheit d. Mefischengeschlechts, etc. Lcipz., 1859-60.
 
 4/2 The PentatcucJ^ : Its Origin and Stnccture. 
 
 Walcott. Sacred Archeology . Lond., 1868. 
 Walton. S.S. Biblia Polyglotta. 6 vols. fol. Lond., 1657. 
 Wangemann. Das Erste BncJi Mosis . . . erkldrt. Berlin, 1881. 
 Wano;emann. Das Opfer iiach Lchre d. Heil. Schrift. 2 vols. 
 
 Berlin, 1866. 
 Wangemann. Die Bedeutung d. Stiftsh'utte. Berlin, 1866. 
 Warburton. Divine Legation of Mosis Demonstrated. 5 vols. 
 
 Lond. (1738), 1846. 
 Ward, L. F. Genesis of Man. Phil., 1880. 
 
 Ward, W. H. "Assyrian Studies." BibliothecaSac, xxvii. p. 184. 
 Ward, W. H. "The Serpent Tempter in Oriental Mythology." 
 
 Ibid., April, 1881. 
 Warnekros. Entwurf d. Hebr. Alterthi'imer. Weimar, 1782. 3d 
 
 ed. by A. G. Hoffmann, 1832. 
 Warring. " The Argument of Science with Gen. i." Journal of 
 
 C/iristian PJiilos., Jan., 1884. 
 Washburn. Sermons on the Ten Conitnandments . New York, 
 
 Washburn. "Aim and Infl. of Mod. Bib. Criticism." Princeton 
 
 Pev., July, 1879. 
 Watson. The Law and the Prophets. Huls. Lectures, 1882. 
 
 Lond., 1884. 
 Watts. The Newer Criticism and the Analogy of Faith. 3d ed. 
 
 Edinb., 1882. 
 Weber, F. W. Ktirzgefasste Einleit. iti d. Heil. Schrift. 6te 
 
 Aufl., Nordling., 1881. 
 Weber, G. Geschichte d. Volkes Israel. Leipz., 1867. 
 Weed. " Route of the Exodus." Expositor, Sept., 1883. 
 Weiller. Ideen z. Gesch. d. Entwickehmg d. Relig. Glaubens. 
 
 Mlinchen, 1808-15. 
 Weiss, B. Critical Invest, of Hist. Events, etc., of Petit. Dundee, 
 
 1850. 
 Weiss, J. H. Zier Geschichte d. Judischen Tradition. Wien, 
 
 1871. 
 Welch. " Moses and his Wife." New Englander,?)&'!^\.., \%Z\. 
 Weld. " Route of the Exodus." Pal. Explor. Fund Quarterly, 
 
 July, 1883. 
 Wellhausen. " Composition des Hexateuchs." fahrb. f. Deutsche 
 
 Thcologie, 1876-77. 
 Wellhausen. De Gentibus et Familiis Judaeis quae i Chron. ii.-iv. 
 
 enumerantjir . Getting., 1871. 
 Wellhausen. Geschichte Israels. Erster Band. Berlin, 1883. 2te 
 
 Aufl., under the title, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. 
 
 Berlin, 1883. 
 Wellhausen. " Israel." Encyc. Britannica. 
 Wellhausen. Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten. i. "Abriss d. Geschichte 
 
 Israels u. Juda's." Berlin, 1884. 
 Welte. Nachmosaisches im Pentateuch beleuchtet. Freiburg, 1841. 
 Welte. See Herbst, also Wetzer. 
 Werner, A. De Votis Vet. Israelitarum. Stade, 1737.
 
 Literature of the Pentateuch. 473 
 
 Werner, C. G. Geschichtliche Auffassuni^ d. drei Erst en Kapitel d. 
 
 Erstcii B. Mosis. Tubing., 1829. 
 Wesseling. Diatr. Judaeorwn Arclionitibus . Utrecht, 1738. 
 Wetzer (u. Welte). Kirchen-Lexikon. 2te Aufl., Frankf., from 
 
 1880. 
 Whedon. Com. on the Old and New Testaments . 7 vols. New 
 
 York, 1860-80. 
 Whiston. Maori's of Flav. Josephiis (trans, from Greek). Lond., 
 
 1736. See Josephus. 
 White. Coni. on Gen. i.-iii. Lond., 1656. 
 Whitehouse. " Route of the Exodus." Expositor, Yiftc, i^^t,. 
 Whitfield. Tabernacle, Priesthood, and Offerings of Israel. 2d 
 
 ed. Lond., 1884. 
 Wichelhaus. " Gedanken aus der Einleitung in die Genesis." 
 
 Reformirte K. Zeitung, 1884, pp. 721, 769. 
 Wickes. Moses or the Zulu. Lond., 1863. 
 Wicksteed. " Sources of Early Israelitish History." Atlantic 
 
 Monthly, March, 1884. 
 Wiedemann. Aegyptische Geschichte. i Abtheil. Gotha, 1884. 
 Wiedemann. Gesch. Aegypt. v. Psaittinetisch i. bis aif Alex, den 
 
 Grossen. Leipz., 1880. 
 Wiedemann. " Gesch. d. achzehnten .(^gyp. Dynastie." Zeitsch. 
 
 d. Deiitsch. Morg. Gesellschaft, 1877, p. 613. 
 Wight. Genesis and Geology . Lond., 1857. 
 Wight. Mosaic Creation and Geology. Lond., 1847. 
 Wiener. Wdrterbiich znm Pentateuch. Hannover, 1867. 
 Wilkins, A. S. PJicp.nicia and Israel. Lond., 187 1. 
 Wilkins, D. Quinqne Lib. May sis in Lingua ^gyptiaca et ex 
 
 eadcm Latine versi. Lond., 1731. 
 Wilkinson, L G. Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. 
 
 Revised ed. by Birch. 3 vols. Lond., 1878. 
 Wilkinson, W. C. " The Lev. Law as a Tuition to Theism." Heb. 
 
 Student, Jan. -Feb., 1883. 
 Williams. The Beginning of the Book of Genesis. Lond., 1861. 
 Willis. The Worship of the Old Covenant. Lond., 1880. 
 Wilson, D. Pre-historic Man. 2 vols. Lond., 1862. 
 Wilson, E. The Egypt of the Past. Lond., 1881 . 
 Wilson, J. Our Israelitish Origin, etc. Lond., 1878. 
 Winchell. A Demonstration of the Existence of Men before Adam, 
 
 etc. Chicago, 1880. 
 Winchell. Evolution. New York, 1874. 
 Winchell. Reconcil. of Science and Religio7i. Ibid., 1877. 
 Winer. Biblischcs Realivorterbuch. 2 Bde. 3te Aufl., Leipz., 
 
 1847-48. 
 Winer. De Version. Pentat. Samar. Indole. Leipz., 1817. 
 Winer. De Onkeloso ejusque Paraph. Chaldaica. Erlang., 1820. 
 Winer. De Jonathanis in Pentateuchum Paraph. Chaldaica. 
 
 Ibid., 1823. 
 Wines. Cotnmentaries on the Laws of the Ancient Hebrews. New 
 
 York, 1855.
 
 474 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Wines. " Laws of the Ancient Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sac, x. 
 
 p. 619. 
 Winstock. " The Prophets as Spiritual Guardians of the Hebrew 
 
 Faith." Anier. Hebrew, Jan. 2, 1885. 
 Wise. "Moses: the Man and the Statesman." Amer. Israelite, 
 
 1883, Jan. 26, Feb. 2. 
 Witsius. " De Cultu Molochi." Miscel. Sacra. Leyden, 1736. 
 Wogue. Hist aire de la Bible et de VExig^se Biblique jiisqii' a nos 
 
 Jours. Paris, 1881. 
 Wolcott. " The Site of Sodom." Bibliotheca Sac, xxv. p. 112. 
 Wolde. De Anno HcbraeoriDH Jnbilaeo. Getting., 1837. 
 Wolff, M. Urgeschichte oder i Mos. i.-vi. 8. Homberg, i860. 
 Wolff, O. " Auszugd. Israeliten aus ^gypten." Theol. Zeitschrift 
 
 V. Dieckhof u. Kliefoth, 1863. 
 Woolley. Analysis of the Hebrew Mythology. Lond., 1877. 
 Wolseley. Reasonableness of Scripture Belief . Lond., 1672. 
 Wordsworth. The Holy Bible in the Author. Version. With Notes 
 
 and Introductions. Lond., 1872. 
 Wright, A. Practical Com. on the Pentateuch. Lond., 1661. 
 Wright, C. H. H. The Book of Genesis in Hebrew with a Criti- 
 cally Revised Text, etc. Lond., 1859. 
 Wright, G. F. " Recent Works on Prehistoric Archaeology." 
 
 Bibliotheca Sac, xxx. p. 381. 
 Wright, Wm. The Empire of the Hittites in the Light of the Bible 
 
 atid Inscriptions. Lond., 1884. 
 Wurster. " Zur Characteristik u. Geschichte des Priester-codex u. 
 
 Heiligkeitsgesetz." Zeitsch. f. Alttest. IVissenschaft , 1884,1. 
 Wuttke. Religion-u. Staatsidee in d. Vorchristlichen Zeit. Leipz., 
 
 1872. 
 Yonge. "Esau and Jacob." Expositor, May, 1884. 
 Yonge. " Jacob's Pillar." Idem, Jan., 1884. 
 Zahn. "1st Fetischismus eine urspriingliche Form d. Religion?" 
 
 Allgem. Miss. Zeitsch., May, 1879. 
 Zahn. Samuel der Prophet u. Reformator. Vortrag. Barmen, 
 
 1873- 
 Ziegler, A. Htstor. Entwickelung d. G'dttbchen Offenbarung tn 
 
 ihr. Hauptmojnente Speculativ Betrachtet. Nbrdl., 1842. 
 Ziegler, L. Brtichstucke einer vorhieronymianischen Uebersetzung 
 
 des Pentatejtch . . . zum ersten Male ver'dffentlicht . Munchen, 
 
 1883. 
 Zockler. " Der Mos. Schopfungsbericht u. die Neuere Naturwis- 
 
 senschaft." Ev. Kirchenseitiing, 1880, No. 25 f. 
 Zockler. " Die Sintfluth-Sagen des Alterthums, nach ihrem Ver- 
 
 haltniss zur biblischen Sintfluthgeschichte." fahrb. f. Deut. 
 
 Theol., 1870, p. 319. 
 Zockler. Die Urgeschichte der Erde u. des Menschen. Vortrage. 
 
 Gutersloh, 1868. 
 Zockler. " Die Urgestalt der Religion." Warneck's Missions- 
 
 Zeitschrift, Oct.-Dec, 1880. 
 Zockler. " Gesetz u. Propheten." Ev. Kirchen-Zeittmg, Nos. 33, 
 
 34, 1882.
 
 Literature of the Pentateuch. 475 
 
 Zbckler. Handb. d. Theologischen Wissenschaften in Encyklopd- 
 
 discher Darstellung. Nordlingen, 1883 f. See particularly the 
 
 section on " Einleitung ins A. T." by Strack, " Archaol.," and 
 
 "Gesch."by F. W. Schultz. In English, T. and T. Clark, 
 
 Edinb. 
 Zockler. Luther als Ausleger d. Alten Test., gewurdigt mif Grtmd 
 
 seiiies groseren Genesis-Commentar. Greifswald, 1884. 
 Zockler. "Nineveh's u. Bab. Zeugniss f. d. Geschichtsinhalt d. 
 
 Alten Test.'* Zeitsch.f. Kirch. Wiss., etc., 1880, p. 289. 
 Zockler. " Ueber die Anfange d. Menschlichen Geschichte." 
 
 Zeitsch. f. Luther. Theol., 1869. 
 Zollmann. Bibel u. Natur in der Harmofiie ihrer Offenbarung. 
 
 3te Aufl., Hamb., 1872. 
 Zorn. Historiq Bibliorum ex Ebraeorion Diebus Fes t is et yejuniis. 
 
 Leipz., 1 74 1. 
 Zschokke. Historia Sacra Antiq. Testamenti. 2d ed. Wien, 
 
 1884. 
 Zunz. Die Gottesdietistlichen Vortrage d. Juden Historisch Ent- 
 
 wickelt. Berlin, 1832. 
 Zunz. Die 24 B'ucher d. Heil. Schrift. Berlin, 1837. Zunz was 
 
 general editor. His co-laborers were Arnheim, Furst, and 
 
 Sachs.
 
 XII. 
 
 INDEXES. 
 
 (i) Scripture Texts.^ 
 
 Genesis. 
 i. 2 . . . 
 ii. 17 . . 
 ii. 21-24 
 iii. 17 . 
 iv. 10 
 iv. 23 . 
 V. 29 
 
 204 
 
 238 
 
 156 
 
 64 
 
 149 
 
 58 
 
 64 
 
 vm. 20 102,229 
 
 ix. 4 17s 
 
 ix. 6 149 
 
 X. 10 208 
 
 xii. 5 47. 52 
 
 xiii. 10-13 64 
 
 xiv. 14 ... 53 
 
 XV. 18 187 
 
 xvi. 10 64 
 
 xvii. 10 21 
 
 xvii. 20 64 
 
 xviii loi 
 
 xviii. 14 336 
 
 xviii. 18 341 
 
 xix. 29 64 
 
 xix. 38 170 
 
 XX 65 
 
 XX. 13 91 
 
 xxi. 33 64 
 
 xxii. 7 102,229 
 
 xxii. 14 47 
 
 xxii. 18 341 
 
 xxii. 19 64 
 
 xxvi. 4 341 
 
 xxxi. 54 102,229,231 
 
 xxxiv. 15 21 
 
 XXXV. 21 52 
 
 xxxvi. 31,47, 52 141 
 
 xxxvii. 14 52 
 
 xxxviii 158 
 
 xxxviii. 21 194 
 
 xl. IS 52 
 
 xlvi. I 102 
 
 xlvi. 27 21 
 
 xlvii. 22 113 
 
 xlix. 3 190 
 
 xlix. 10 141 
 
 Exodus. 
 
 111. 
 
 ••••.;. 59 
 
 vi. 12-16, viii 214 
 
 X. 25 231 
 
 xii. 6, 10 108 
 
 .xii. 9 102 
 
 Exodus. 
 
 xiii. 13 I5« 
 
 XV. 3 368 
 
 XV. II 337 
 
 xvi. 3 142 
 
 xvii. 14 50 
 
 xvii. 15 354 
 
 xvii. 8-16 159 
 
 xviii. 13-16 225 
 
 xix. 6 308,337 
 
 xix. 22, 24 113 
 
 xix. 20, 25 124 
 
 xx.-xxiii 7. 5i>76, 85 
 
 XX 
 
 . 140 
 
 • 342 
 
 • 45 
 
 . 184 
 
 . 68f. 
 
 233 
 
 3.4 
 
 XX. 10 
 
 XX. 12 
 
 XX. 17 
 
 XX. 22-xxiii. 19 
 
 XX. 22, 23 
 
 XX. 23-26 230 
 
 XX. 24 354 
 
 XX. 24, 25 302 
 
 XX. 25 94 
 
 xxi. 2-6 179.233 
 
 xxi. 6, 22 113 
 
 13 186,254 
 
 16 198 
 
 17 150 
 
 22 113. 152 
 
 "3 
 
 193 
 
 191 
 
 183 
 
 XXI. 
 
 xxi. 
 
 xxi. 
 
 xxi. 
 
 xxii. 
 
 xxii. 
 
 xxii. 
 
 xxii. 
 
 xxii. 
 
 xxii. 
 
 xxii. 
 
 xxii. 
 
 xxii. 
 
 .\xiii 
 
 xxiii 
 
 xxiii 
 
 x.xiii 
 
 xxiii 
 
 xxiii, 
 
 xxiii 
 
 xxiv 
 
 xxiv 
 
 XXV. 
 XXV. 
 
 x,\v. 
 
 XXV. 
 XXV. 
 
 i6, 18 
 
 i3 
 
 19 
 
 20 342 
 
 21-24 182 
 
 24, 25, 26 195,197 
 
 27 209 
 
 30 175 
 
 4> 5 190 
 
 9-11 177 
 
 14 93 
 
 16 107, 109 
 
 18 108 
 
 23, 24, 27-33 172 
 
 24 169 
 
 •4 
 
 . 16 ...... • . . 
 
 ■xxviii.; xxxvi. -xxxviii. 
 
 10-22 
 
 23-30 
 29 . . 
 
 •91 
 
 22ft 
 , 91 
 , 225 
 , 227 
 
 23^ 
 
 * All references are to the Hebrew text.
 
 Indexes. 
 
 477 
 
 Exodus. 
 
 xxvii. 20, -ji 22S 
 
 xxviii. 1-43 , 210 
 
 xxyiii. 41 :iy 
 
 XXIX 101 
 
 xxix. 26-28 127 
 
 xxix. 29 214 
 
 xxix. 38-42 214 
 
 xxix. 46 gr 
 
 XXX. I-2I, 34-3S 226 
 
 XXX. 10 . . .' 242 
 
 XXX. 22-33 120,215 
 
 XXX. 30 119,214 
 
 XXxii 2ig 
 
 xxxii. 6 231 
 
 xxxiii. 7-9, 11 222,224 f- 
 
 xxxiv. 1 21 
 
 xxxiv. 13, 23 93 
 
 xxxiv. 10-26 51 
 
 xxxiv. 12-17 169,172 
 
 xxxiv. 18 . . . .' 105, 107 
 
 xxxiv. 18, 25 108 
 
 xxxiv. 22 107, 109 
 
 xxxiv. 25 2^,0 
 
 xxxiv. 26 igt 
 
 XXXV., xl 72 
 
 xl. 17 229 
 
 Leviticus. 
 
 i. 1-17 229 
 
 ii loi 
 
 ji. 1-6, 7-11 230 
 
 ii. II 102 
 
 iii. 1-17 231 
 
 iv 232 
 
 iv. 3, 5, 16 119 
 
 V. 22, 23 191 
 
 vi. 5 103 
 
 vi. II 192 
 
 vi. 12-16 213 
 
 ^!: '9 ..• • •..; • • .: 300 
 
 vu., xxii., xxiu., xxvii 197 
 
 vii. T5-17 128 
 
 vii. 36 214 
 
 viii.-x 72 
 
 viii. 12 2:3 
 
 X. 8-11 215 
 
 ": 9 230 
 
 XI. 2-19 2-> 
 
 xi. 1-21, 22-43 173 f. 
 
 xi. 44 303 
 
 xii. 1-18 237 
 
 xii. 31 202 
 
 xiii., xiv 20, 43, 199 
 
 xiii. 13-19 201 
 
 XV. 1-33 194 
 
 XVI Ill 
 
 xvi. 1,2 244 
 
 xvi. 1-34 242 
 
 xvi. 4 119 
 
 xvii. 1-9 20 
 
 xvii.-xxvi 77,86,98,106 
 
 xvii. 5 98 
 
 xvii. 7 193 
 
 xvii. 8, 9 90 
 
 xviii. 6 ff. 193 
 
 xviii. 16 15S 
 
 xviii. 20 103 
 
 xviii. 21 170 
 
 xviii. 22 194 
 
 Leviticus. 
 
 xix. 3 f. 148 
 
 xix. 11,15,16 188 
 
 xix. 13. 33. 34 182 
 
 xix. 20 157 
 
 xix. 26-31 184 
 
 xix. 27, 28 172 
 
 xix. 35, 36 200 
 
 XX. 4,5 171 
 
 XX. 9 150 
 
 XX. 18 201 
 
 xxi. 7 156 
 
 xxi. 10 118 
 
 xxii. 1-16 21S 
 
 xxii. 8 176 
 
 xxii. II 202 
 
 xxii. 15 175 
 
 xxii. 19-27 i8i 
 
 xxii. 2T, 23 299 
 
 xxii. 28 191 
 
 xxiii. 9-22 . . , 106 
 
 xxiii. 23-25 239 
 
 xxiii. 26-32 111,242 
 
 xxiv. 5-9 227 
 
 xxiv. 15 202 
 
 XXV. 1-7 177 
 
 XXV. 10-14 209 
 
 XXV. 13-16 202 
 
 XXV. 35-37 195 
 
 XXV. 39-46 179 
 
 xxvi. 15 . . 299 
 
 xxvi. 30 109 
 
 xxvi. 46 235 
 
 xxvii. 1-34 134 
 
 xxvii. 10 236 
 
 NUMHERS. 
 
 i.-xiv 216 
 
 iii. 3 214 
 
 iv. 34-49 222 
 
 V. 1-4 194 
 
 VI. I-2I 236,34s 
 
 vi., XV., xxix f. 197 
 
 vi. 22-27 219 
 
 vii. 8 222 
 
 viii. 1-4 281 
 
 X. 10 348 
 
 X. II 229 
 
 X. 33 223 
 
 X. 35 221.354 
 
 xi. 24, 26, 30 224 
 
 xii. 2 219 
 
 XV. 1-16 301 
 
 XV. 1-12 230 
 
 XV. 2 231 
 
 XV. 3 299 
 
 XV. 22-28 232 
 
 XV. 30,31 209 
 
 xviii. 10 21S 
 
 xix. 1-22 238 
 
 xi.\. 14 f. 309 
 
 xxiii. 9 341 
 
 XXV. 3 263 
 
 XXV. 10-13 ..... 316 
 
 xxvii. 21 312 
 
 xxviii 1-15 229 
 
 xxix. 7-11 242 
 
 x.w. 3 196 
 
 xxxii. 41 269
 
 478 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Deuteronomy. 
 
 »• I f 259,265 
 
 J- i-S 253 
 
 1. 2, II 266 
 
 ••2 47 
 
 >• S 51 
 
 ;• 6 254 
 
 1. 23 21 
 
 1.26,31,43; vi. 16, etc 287 
 
 i. 28, 31 262 
 
 ii. 7 263 
 
 ii. 10, 12 267 
 
 ii. 20 170 
 
 iii. 9 26S 
 
 iii. II 47 
 
 iii. 21 263 
 
 jv. 3 . . 263 
 
 iv. 4-xxviii 67 
 
 iv. 5, 10 287 
 
 iv. 15-19 168 
 
 iv. 19 140 
 
 iv. 41 21 
 
 vj: 4 90. 335 
 
 vii. 3 216 
 
 vii. 5. 25. 26 338 
 
 vii. 23-29 288 
 
 X. 1-5 21 
 
 X. 3 226 
 
 X. 6, 7 271 
 
 X. 8 115 
 
 X- 12 301,315 
 
 X. 15 287 
 
 xi. 2 , 263 
 
 xi. 10 279 
 
 xi. 29 288 
 
 xii.-xxvi 7> 51 
 
 xii. I 168 
 
 xii. 2-4, 5-28 134 
 
 xii. 5, 8 89 
 
 xii. 6-16 20 
 
 xii. 6, II, 17, 26 126,197 
 
 xii. 8 302 
 
 xii. 10 357 
 
 xii. II 91 
 
 xii. IS 125 
 
 xii. 16 175 
 
 xiii. 2-6,7-12,13-19 134 
 
 xiii. 13-19 171 
 
 xiv. 1,2 19, 172 
 
 xiv. 3-20 20, 173 
 
 xiv. 21 175 
 
 XV. l-II 177 
 
 XV. 10, i3 . 2S5 
 
 XV. 12-18 179 
 
 XV. 17 113 
 
 XVI. 1-8 105 
 
 xvi. 3, 9 107 
 
 xvi. 4-8 108 
 
 xvi. 7 102 
 
 xvi. 13-15 109 
 
 xvi. 18 136,346 
 
 xvii. 2-5 134 
 
 xvji. 2-7 183 
 
 xvii. 9 113 
 
 xvii. 14 141,143 
 
 xvii. 9, 18 116 
 
 xviii. 2 20, 124 
 
 xviii. 3,4' 124,127 
 
 xviii. 9-14 . , 184 
 
 xviii. 15-19 144 
 
 Deuteronomy. 
 
 xix. 1-13 154 
 
 xix. 14 146 
 
 xix. 16, 21 188 
 
 xix. 17 113 
 
 xix. 19 191 
 
 XX. 1-9 147 
 
 XX. 9,16-18 19 
 
 XX. 10-14, IS, 19, 20 ....... . 148 
 
 XX. 10-15 171 
 
 XX. 18 172 
 
 xxi. 1-9, 10-14, 18 149 f. 
 
 xxi. 15-17 189 
 
 xxi. 17 ... 190 
 
 xxii. 1-4 190 
 
 xxii. 5,9-11 191 
 
 xxii. 8, 13-21 151 
 
 xxii. 12 192 
 
 xxii. 18 157 
 
 xxii. 19, 29 . 156 
 
 xxiii. I 193 
 
 xxiii. 2-9 153 
 
 xxiii. 10-15 194 
 
 xxiii. 16, 17 155 
 
 xxiii. 18 197 
 
 xxiii. 22,23 •• 19^ 
 
 xxiv. 1-4 43. 156 
 
 xxiv. 9, 19-22 199 
 
 xxiv. 14, 15 182 
 
 XXV. 1-3 152,157 
 
 XXV. 4 191 
 
 XXV. 5-10, II, 12, 17-19 157 f. 
 
 XXV. 17-19 19 
 
 xxvi. 5 282 
 
 xxvi. 12 127 
 
 xxvii.-xxx 255 
 
 xxvii. 20-23 194 
 
 xxviii 360 
 
 xxix. 3-5 263 
 
 XXX. 6, 16 382 
 
 xxxi 255 
 
 xxxi. 9, 24 260 
 
 xxxi. 9 .... 47,51 
 
 xxxii. 250 
 
 -xxxii. 4, 37.,. 41 368 
 
 xxxii.-xxxiii 256 
 
 xxxiii. 5 47 
 
 xxxiii. 8 212 
 
 xxxiv 256 
 
 xxxiv. 8 254 
 
 Joshua. 
 
 iii. 3 • 116 
 
 iii. 9-17 124 
 
 iv. 19 254 
 
 V. 2 360 
 
 viii. 29 .... 151 
 
 viii. 36 116 
 
 X. 13 350 
 
 xiv. 4 130 
 
 xvii. 3 189 
 
 xxi. 8 349 
 
 xxi. 13,21,27 186 
 
 xxii. 3 270 
 
 xxii. 16 354 
 
 xxiii, 9 270 
 
 xxiv. 14 360 
 
 xxiv. 26 350 
 
 XXX. 3 51
 
 Indexes. 
 
 An 
 
 Judges. 
 i. 2 • • • 
 ii. 1-3 • • 
 ii. 2 . . . 
 ii. 10, 12 . 
 iii. 13 . . 
 vi. 19 . . 
 viii. 22, 23 
 viii. 24-27 
 xi. II 
 xi. 30 . 
 xiy. 3 . 
 xvii. 4 . 
 xvii. 5, 12 
 xvii. 7 . 
 xix.-xxi. 
 xix. I, 2 
 xix. i3 . 
 XX. I . . 
 XX. 20 . 
 XX. 26 . 
 XX. 27 . 
 xxi. 16, 22 
 
 • 347 
 
 • 346 
 . 169 
 
 .325 
 
 • 159 
 
 . lOI 
 
 43.346 
 
 338 
 
 354 
 96.235 
 347 
 338 
 354 
 118 
 
 325 
 346 
 351 
 •354 
 , 217 
 , 226 
 ■ 354 
 ■346 
 
 I Samuel. 
 
 i. II 235.351 
 
 i. 24 loi 
 
 ii. 14, iQi etc. . 351 
 
 ii. 10 342 
 
 ii. 12-26 124 
 
 ii. 13 102 
 
 ii. IS, 28 351 
 
 iii. 3 • ....••• 118 
 
 iv. 3 354 
 
 iv. 19-22 356 
 
 vii. 3 347 
 
 vii. 6 221 
 
 viii. iff. 142 
 
 viii. 3 349 
 
 viii. 5 '43 
 
 viii. 15 153 
 
 X, 3 102 
 
 X. 25 350 
 
 xiv. 3 352 
 
 xiv. 47 '54 
 
 xiv. 48 ig, 160 
 
 XV. 2 19 
 
 XV. 22 310.382 
 
 XV. 23 185,357 
 
 XV. 26, 35 326 
 
 xvi. 7 390 
 
 xvii. 26, 45 327 
 
 xix. 19 364 
 
 XX. 5, 26 348 
 
 xxi. 2 327 
 
 xxii. 20 «•••••• 351 
 
 a Samueu 
 
 i. 17 . . • • 364 
 
 i. 18 35" 
 
 ii. 8 336 
 
 vi. 13 115 
 
 vii. 22-24 348 
 
 xi. 14 350 
 
 xii. 7 337 
 
 XV. 7-9 357 
 
 XV. 25 226 
 
 xxiii. I 364 
 
 xxiv. 35 102 
 
 1 Kings. 
 
 i. 7-9 357 
 
 ii. 3 347 
 
 ii. 26 349 
 
 iii. 2 • 358 
 
 iii. 6 354 
 
 iii. 16-28 225 
 
 vi. 20, 21 226 
 
 vii. 17 192 
 
 vii. 49 227 
 
 viii. 2 349 
 
 viii. 6 115 
 
 viii. 42 f. 342 
 
 viii. 64 103 
 
 viii. 65 3'9 
 
 viii. 66 109 
 
 XI. 7 33^^ 
 
 xi. 41 350 
 
 xii. 25 169 
 
 xii. 28 339 
 
 xiv. 24 195 
 
 xiv. 25 279 
 
 XV. 14 359 
 
 xviii. 18 337 
 
 xxii. 9 ^53 
 
 2 Kings. 
 
 iii. 20 . 349 
 
 iii. 27 171 
 
 iv. 23 350 
 
 V. 5 350 
 
 viii. 6 153 
 
 viii. 7-15 343 
 
 xii. 17 234 
 
 xvii. 6 329 
 
 xvii. 34-37 350 
 
 X. 31 349 
 
 xi. 12 143 
 
 xii. 3,4 328 
 
 xii. 16 . • 100 
 
 xii. 17 234 
 
 xiv. 6 347 
 
 xvi. 3 313 
 
 xvi. 4 359 
 
 xvii. 6 329 
 
 xvii. 16 139 
 
 xvii. 27 f. 52 
 
 xviii. 22 359 
 
 xix. 9 279 
 
 xxi. 3 nr. 139 
 
 xxi. 8 347 
 
 xxiii. 7.... 195 
 
 xxiii. 10 238 
 
 xxiii. 20 135 
 
 XXV. 18 120 
 
 1 Chronicles. 
 
 iv. 7, 8, 19 227 
 
 iv. 43 160 
 
 V. 23 268 
 
 vi. 7-13 '"8 
 
 xvi., xviii., xxvii 121 
 
 xxiii. 5 365 
 
 xxix. 14 , .... 230 
 
 2 Chronicles. 
 
 ii. 6 211 
 
 iv. 8, 19 227 
 
 v. 4, 5, 7 "5
 
 480 The Pentateuch . 
 
 Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 2 Chronicles. 
 vii. 7-9 . . . 
 
 319 
 109 
 no 
 
 121 
 
 359 
 319 
 
 vin. 13 
 
 viii. 14 
 
 xjv. 3-5 
 
 xiv. 12 
 
 xxiii. i3 114 
 
 XXX. 27 114 
 
 xxxi. 13 120 
 
 xxxii. 12 280 
 
 xxxiii. 3 ff. 139 
 
 xxxiv. 13 121 
 
 xxxv. 13 102 
 
 Ezra. 
 
 ii- 55, 58 
 II. 63 . . 
 iii. 10 . 
 iii. 12, 13 
 vii. 11-26 
 ix. 12 
 
 . 121 
 . 212 
 . 220 
 . 229 
 
 • 23s 
 
 . 2l5 
 
 Nehemiah. 
 
 '•4 354 
 
 V. 3 198 
 
 vii. 65 212 
 
 X. 32. 33 129 
 
 xi. II 120 
 
 xii. 35 220 
 
 xii. 44 121 
 
 xiii. 28, 29 , 219 
 
 Jon. 
 
 i. 5 102,229 
 
 xxii. 27 235 
 
 xxxi. 26-28 339 
 
 xx.\vi. 14 195 
 
 xlii. 8 102 
 
 Psalms. 
 
 i. I, 2 396 
 
 »• 3 369,372 
 
 J"- 4 387 
 
 iv 402 
 
 vii. 7 370 
 
 vii. 10 390 
 
 vii. II 403 
 
 vii. 13 366 
 
 ix. 6, 13, 18, 20 370 
 
 X. 1,4 387 
 
 X'- 4 399 
 
 x;- 7 403 
 
 xiv. 2 370 
 
 xiv. 7 387 
 
 XV. 1,2 353,387 
 
 XV. 4, s 372 
 
 xvi. 2-4 100,384 
 
 xvi. 3 392 
 
 xvi. 8, II, 14, 15 405 
 
 xviii. 6 377 
 
 xyiii. 23 373 
 
 xix. 9 327 
 
 xix. 13 397 
 
 XX. 6 369 
 
 xxii. 4 390 
 
 xxii. 8, 9 392 
 
 xxii. 29 341 
 
 xxiii 405 
 
 xxiv 377 
 
 Psalms. 
 
 xxiv. 3 399 
 
 XXV. 14 371 
 
 xxvi. 9 400 
 
 xxviii. 3 , 400 
 
 xxix. 6 , 268 
 
 xxix. 21 391 
 
 xxxi. 7 391 
 
 xxxiii. 6 371 
 
 xxxv. 1,2 368 
 
 xl 99 f., 381 
 
 xj:. 7 234 
 
 xlii. I 404 
 
 xlii. 4, II 391 
 
 ! 383 
 
 '• 5 371 
 
 1. 13 312 
 
 li., vi., xxxviii 378 
 
 Iv. 4 368 
 
 Iv. 22 403 
 
 Ivi. 13 374 
 
 Ixviii. 15, 17 387 
 
 Ix.xi. 22 390 
 
 Ixxii. 20 366 
 
 l.xxviii. 58-62 356 
 
 Ixxxvi. 8-11 ' . . . . 389 
 
 cxxii. 5 386 
 
 cxxxvii. 7 19, 154 
 
 Proverbs. 
 
 vii. 17 215 
 
 xviii. II 169 
 
 xix. iS 150 
 
 XX. 25 235 
 
 xxi. 3 382 
 
 xxi. 27 27 
 
 Ecclesiastes. 
 
 V. 3-3 235 
 
 Solomon's Song. 
 
 IV. 8 268 
 
 iv. 14 215 
 
 Isaiah. 
 
 i. 2, 4 304 
 
 i. 11-15 382 
 
 i. 13 100 
 
 ii. 7 147 
 
 V. 2, 4 304 
 
 vi. 3 309 
 
 xi.x. 19 312 
 
 xxiii. 18 309 
 
 xxiv. 2 131 
 
 XXX. 33 171 
 
 xxxi. 3 337 
 
 xxxvii. 9 279 
 
 xl. 26 336 
 
 xliv. 6 335 
 
 Ivi. 3 153 
 
 Ivi. 6 309 
 
 Iviii. 3 314 
 
 Iviii. 13 309 
 
 Ixiii. 1-6 19 
 
 Ixvi. 3 312 
 
 Ixvi. 21 , ii4, 116 
 
 Jeremiah. 
 
 iv. 4 21 
 
 vi. 19, 20 313 
 
 vi. 20 • . . . • I • • . 100
 
 Indexes. 
 
 481 
 
 Jeremiah. 
 
 vii. 21 383 
 
 vii. 29 19, 173 
 
 vii. 31 171 
 
 ix. 24, 25 309 
 
 ix. 26 21 
 
 xi. 15 309 
 
 xix. 13 238 
 
 xxxi. 32 310 
 
 xxxiii. i8-2i 114,116,313 
 
 XXXV 236 
 
 xli. 5 19 
 
 xlvii. 5 173 
 
 xlviii. 37 173 
 
 xlviii. 47 19 
 
 xlix. 6, 7, 18 155 
 
 Ij: 5 19 
 
 lii. 19 227 
 
 Hi. 24 120 
 
 EZEKIEL. 
 
 viii. 3 192 
 
 xxvii. 5 268 
 
 xl.- xlviii 77 
 
 xl. 39 234 
 
 xlii. 13 234 
 
 xliv. 29 234 
 
 xlv. 25 109 
 
 xlvi. 14 loi 
 
 xlvi. 20 234 
 
 HosEA. 
 
 i. 4 303 
 
 V 6, 7 302 
 
 fi. 7. 17 306 
 
 iv. 6, 8 300 
 
 v. 7 306 
 
 vi. 6 310,382 
 
 vi. 7 304 
 
 vii. 16 134 
 
 viii. I . 304 
 
 viii. 13 154 
 
 ix. 3 238, 309 
 
 xii. 13 27 
 
 xiii. 2 313 
 
 xiii. II 143 
 
 xiv. 1-3 I • 302 
 
 Joel. 
 
 i. 13 299 
 
 ii. 15 302 
 
 iii. 9 '54 
 
 iv. 17 302 
 
 iv. 19 299 
 
 v. 4-6 302 
 
 Amos. 
 
 ii. 4 299 
 
 ii. 10 27 
 
 iii. 1-3 3"4 
 
 iii. 9 15+ 
 
 iv. 6-11 299,304 
 
 V. 4, 5,21, 22 304 
 
 v. 26 139.170 
 
 vi. 5 3*^5 
 
 vii. 17 238,309 
 
 Jonah. 
 i. 16 235 
 
 MiCAH. 
 
 i. I ff 3°3 
 
 ii. 20 238 
 
 iii. 12 278 
 
 iv. I, 3 303 
 
 vi. 4 27 
 
 vii. 7 100,313 
 
 vii. 15 37 
 
 Zephaniah. 
 i. 5 171 
 
 Haggai. 
 ii. 11-14 314 
 
 Zechariah. 
 
 iii 119,214 
 
 vii. 9 314 
 
 ix. II 305 
 
 X. 2 i8s 
 
 Malachi. 
 
 i. 6, 12 210 
 
 i. 8 182 
 
 i. 14 197.235 
 
 ii. 13-16 157 
 
 iii. 1-4 315 
 
 iii. 25 185 
 
 Ecclesiasticus. 
 
 iii. 1-16 150 
 
 xxxiv. 18, 25 385 
 
 XXXV. I-I2 315 
 
 XXXV. I 38s 
 
 1. IS 230 
 
 Baruch. 
 i. 10 234 
 
 1 Maccabees. 
 
 i. 22 22S 
 
 i. 56 364 
 
 iii. 21 37 
 
 iv. 46 212 
 
 v. 6 170 
 
 vi. 31 154 
 
 2 Maccabees. 
 
 ii. 14 364 
 
 v. ly 37 
 
 X. 4. 36 "° 
 
 xii. 37 363 
 
 XV. 29 363 
 
 Matthew. 
 
 viii. 4 42 
 
 XV. 5 197.236 
 
 xxiii. 2 42 
 
 Mark. 
 
 i. 44 42 
 
 vii. 9 197.236 
 
 X. 3-9 42 
 
 xii. 26 43 
 
 xiv. I 109
 
 482 
 
 The P entatench : Its Origin and Structure. 
 
 Luke. 
 
 V. 14 42 
 
 V. 36, 37 353 
 
 xvi. 29, 31 43 
 
 XX. 37 42 
 
 xxii. I log 
 
 xxiv. 44 43 
 
 John. 
 
 v.. 45-47 43 
 
 vii. 19 42 
 
 viii. 17 1S3 
 
 viii. 56 341 
 
 xiv. 9 ■ 406 
 
 Acts. 
 
 vii. 58 183 
 
 xiii. 21 143 
 
 XV. 20, 29 175 
 
 xxi. 25 175 
 
 Romans. 
 xi. 12 . 38 
 
 1 Corinthians. 
 
 ix. 4, 9 214 
 
 2 Corinthians. 
 
 xii. 14 I • • • • 311 
 
 Philippians. 
 i. 21 402 
 
 I Timothy. 
 
 i. 9 285 
 
 V. 18 214 
 
 Hebrews. 
 
 iii. 4 409 
 
 vii. 16 218 
 
 ix. 4 •••••••••■ 226 
 
 I John. 
 
 iii. I... ....#. 402 
 
 iv. 16 285 
 
 (2) General Index. 
 
 Aben Ezra 4, 46 
 
 Altar of incense 226 
 
 Amalek, Destruction of 158 
 
 Argument from peculiar use of divine 
 
 names 55 
 
 Assyrian and Egypt, discoveries. 82, 248y. 
 Assyria not recognized in Deut. . . 2.'&af. 
 
 Astruc 4, 55 
 
 Atonement, Day of 111,242 
 
 Bearing of Israel's sojourn in Egypt. 77 
 
 Benny 157 
 
 Bertheau . 207 
 
 Bickell 82 
 
 " Beyond Jordan " 270 
 
 Blasphemy, Law against 209 
 
 Bleek 42,62,162,251,257 
 
 Bbhl 296 
 
 Bbhmer 71 
 
 Bredenkamp 13, 92, 312 
 
 Briggs . 42 
 
 Burnt-offering, The ..•«>.... 229 
 
 Carlstadt 4, 47_/ 
 
 Carlyle 305 
 
 Character of earlier Pent, criticism . 51 
 
 Chronicler, Aim of 319 
 
 Chronicles, Genuineness of .... 3i8_/". 
 
 Missing links in 320 
 
 Cities of Refuge 185/. 
 
 Cleanliness in camp 194 
 
 Code of Priests 7, 30, 34y'. 
 
 Codes of Pentateuch 85 
 
 Colenso 71/- 
 
 Conder 324 
 
 "Congregation" 30> iS3 
 
 Consecration of Priests 213 
 
 Criticism, The, Its inadequate rejoin- 
 ders 21 
 
 The Literature of 5 
 
 Criticism, The, Its logical consequen- 
 ces 6, 8, 76 
 
 The Inconclusiveness of its 
 
 reasoning . 16, 297?"., 81 
 
 The False principles of ... . 10 
 
 Critics no longer free 81 
 
 Curtiss 42, 95 
 
 Delitzsch, Franz. 20, 26, 30, 31, 63, 
 68_/!, 89, 92, 97, 103, 112, 120, 122, 
 243. 255, 257. 311. 321, 343. 349. 370, 
 
 374. 37S, 382, 389, 401 
 
 Delitzsch, Friedrich 2 
 
 Destruction of Canaanitish cities . . 171 
 Deuteronomy, Legislation of ... . 18 
 
 No evidence of a late origin in, 
 
 263^., 2747?: 
 
 Moses claimed for its author . 258_/f". 
 
 Book of. Importance in the criti- 
 cism 132 
 
 Bearing of its code i64_/'. 
 
 Ethical plane on which it moves, 
 
 166/., 283/ 
 
 Diversity of views concerning its 
 
 origin and structure .... 25oy! 
 
 Unity of 253^^. 
 
 Language and style of 256 
 
 Development not in straight lines . . 13 
 
 De Wette 28,52,62,132, 252 
 
 Diestel 43 
 
 Dfficulties in traditional view .... 78 
 Dillmann. 68, 81, 92, 107, 170, 199, 210, 
 
 257. 295 
 
 Disobedient son. Law for isoy. 
 
 Divisions among the critics .... bdff. 
 
 Divorce, Law of '^S^f- 
 
 Documents: Age determined how? . 10 
 
 in Pent 78 
 
 Duhm 73, 298, 334 
 
 Dwinell 330
 
 Indexes. 
 
 483 
 
 Ebers 140 
 
 Egyptian coloring in Deuteronomy, ^i^Zf. 
 
 Eichhorn 55/- 
 
 Elohistic history. Character of . ... 31 
 
 Emerson 245 
 
 Encyclopasdia Britan 6, 34 
 
 Essays and reviews 6 
 
 Eunuchs, Law for 153 
 
 Ewald 62, 100, 140, 251 
 
 Example of repetition of a law . ... 170 
 
 Feasts, The, Wellhausen's theory of. 
 
 104-112 
 Feast of New Moon no 
 
 of Trumpets no 
 
 of the Passover 105/. 
 
 Female captives, Law for 150 
 
 Fiction versus fact 32 
 
 First day of seventh month 239 
 
 Formula of Pent, analysis 85 
 
 Fox, Caroline 27 
 
 Frederick n., Question of 38 
 
 Fugitive Slaves, Law for 155 
 
 Fundamental ideas of the prophets . 334^. 
 
 Geike 207 
 
 George 4 
 
 Gleaning igg 
 
 Gnostics, Objection of 45 
 
 Graf 4, 5, 72/., 132 
 
 Gramberg 62 
 
 Green .... 27, 57, 78, 143, 296, 356, 381 
 
 Hamburger . 112, 185, 215 
 
 Hartmann 42, 47, 61 
 
 Hasse 61 
 
 Hebrews, Epistle to 15 
 
 Herodotus 215, 268 
 
 Hexateuch, Composition of b/. 
 
 High-priest 118, 216 
 
 Historical Books, Ethical standard of. 
 
 ... . 322^. 
 
 Hitzig 100, y]i>f. 
 
 Hobbes 49 
 
 Hoffmann 88, 92, 99, 107, 128 
 
 Homer, Text of 17 
 
 Hommel 139,151,157,249 
 
 Hostile cities of Canaan, Law for . i48_/. 
 
 Ignatius quoted 15 
 
 Ilgen 60 
 
 Israel and Egypt 206 
 
 Israel and Assyria 207 
 
 Jehovist document : importance of its 
 
 contents 80 
 
 Jerusalem, His letters 55 
 
 Jewish people, History of 37 
 
 Josephus 42, log, 122, 243 
 
 Josiah, Reforms of 23 
 
 Joshua, The Book of 346 
 
 Judges and officers, Appointment of. 
 
 Julian, His objections . 45 
 
 Kamphausen 192, 222 
 
 Kayser 75, 219 
 
 Keil 71, 109 
 
 Kindness to animals. Law concerning. 191 
 King, Law of the i4ij'^ 
 
 Kittel 33,90 
 
 Kleinert 143, 151, 160, 258 
 
 Knobel 71 
 
 Kuenen S. 7i. 75. 334. 337 
 
 Kurtz 225, S69 
 
 Lagarde 18 
 
 Landmarks, Law concerning . . . 146^^ 
 Law concerning food as clean and un- 
 clean 173 
 
 concerning animals eaten . . . . 175 
 
 for protection of human life . . 151 
 
 concerning destruction of idols . 168 
 
 Laws, Case of amendment of ... . 190 
 
 Laws, Their execution 12 
 
 Le Clerc 52 
 
 Lenormant . 82 
 
 Leprosy, Law concerning 198 
 
 Levirate marriage 157 
 
 Levitical cities 130 
 
 Levitical legislation: its connection 
 
 with Deut 19 
 
 Luther 12 
 
 Lyon 45 
 
 Magical arts 184 
 
 Man-stealing 198 
 
 Marti 11, no, 292 
 
 Masius 48 
 
 Meal and drink offerings 230 
 
 Merx 30, 42 
 
 Michaelis 54 
 
 Mixing diverse things . 191 
 
 Moloch, Law for 169 
 
 Mosaic claims: Alternative if dis- 
 puted 162 
 
 Moses, Blessing of 272 
 
 Farewell of 286 
 
 largely ignored 33> 38 
 
 " Miracle " of his character and 
 
 life 13 
 
 with the earlier critics 53 
 
 fitted for the work imputed to 
 
 him 77 
 
 Mourning-customs forbidden .... 172 
 
 Movers 251 
 
 Murray 10 
 
 Naville 38 
 
 Nazarines, Objections of 45 
 
 Nazarite, Law for 236 
 
 " Nethenim " and "nethunim" . . . 121 
 New Testament, Witness of . . . 14, 42 
 
 Noldeke 67, 94 
 
 Nowack 304 
 
 Offerings, Wellhausen's theory of, 
 
 94-104 
 
 Oil, The anointing 215 
 
 Old Test, study. Value of xf. 
 
 Old Test, writers: their character 
 
 impugned 15 
 
 Omniscience claimed by critics ... 22 
 Oppression of poor forbidden .... 182 
 
 Parvish 250 
 
 Peace-offerings 231 
 
 Pentateuch, Doctrinal teaching of . . 78 
 
 Analysis 85 
 
 Criticism, Opening period of . . 54
 
 484 The Pentatetich 
 
 Its Origin mid Structure. 
 
 Perowne 401 
 
 Peiiiio principii 80 
 
 Peyrere 49 
 
 Philo 42 
 
 Place of worship, Wellhausen's theory 
 
 of 87-^94 
 
 Pledges, Law concerning 197 
 
 Popper 72 
 
 Prepossessions 45 
 
 Priests, Requirements of . . . .215, 218 
 
 Prerogatives of 219 
 
 and Levites, Maintenance of, 123-129 
 
 Code of: its contents 83^". 
 
 Property of Israelitish brethren . . 190 
 Prophets. Opinion of critics concern- 
 ing them 293/- 
 
 Their use of hyperbole 313 
 
 Their attitude respecting a cen- 
 tral sanctuary 302y! 
 
 Their teaching in general . . . 26_^. 
 
 Their recognition of a covenant. 304 
 
 Their earnest convictions . . . 307 
 
 Not to be classed as same office 
 
 with the priests 000 
 
 Law concerning their office . 144/^ 
 
 Impressions made upon them by 
 
 the Law 298^. 
 
 Prostitution, Law concerning .... 194 
 
 Protevangelium 9 
 
 Purification in case of murder .... 149 
 
 at childbirth 237 
 
 by ashes of a red heifer .... 238 
 
 Psalms. Principles adopted in dis- 
 cussing them 366 
 
 Their verbal reminiscences of the 
 
 Pent. _. . 366/ 
 
 Their recognition of Pent, history, 
 
 369/ 
 Psalms, The, and the Pent, legislation. 
 
 23/, 372 
 
 and the leading principles of the 
 
 Israelite religion 386,/. 
 
 Psalms, The. Their personal element 
 
 396/- 
 
 They do not disparage sacrifice, 380/. 
 
 Punishment by flogging 157 
 
 for immodesty 158 
 
 of Heb. idolaters 138 
 
 Rainy 46 
 
 Ranke 225 
 
 Rawlinson .... 139, 140, 161, 206, 208, 
 
 210, 252 
 Reaction among German critics begun. 11 
 
 Redactor 7, 66, 74, 81 
 
 Reforms in Israel 23 
 
 Release of Heb. servants 178 
 
 Religion of Israel: its consummation. 10 
 
 Reuss 72 
 
 Revelation as supernatural ..... 13 
 
 Riehm . 30, 74, 92, 109, 130, 137, 139, 143, 
 
 152, 158, 174, 213, 222/., 339 
 
 Rights of inheritance 189 
 
 Rimarius 54 
 
 Ryssel . 1 . . . . 79 
 
 SAB.EANISM T-Z^f- 
 
 Sabbath, The no 
 
 Sabbatic year 177 
 
 Sacred vestments, The 2ioy". 
 
 Sacrifices to be faultless 181 
 
 Samaritan Pentateuch 82 
 
 Sayce 208, 249 
 
 Scheme of the criticism . . . . 29oy., 334 
 
 Schrader 67, 139, 249, 268 
 
 Second Elohist 66 
 
 Seduction to idolatry ^34^^ 
 
 Sepharvaim z 
 
 Siegfried 42 
 
 Sime 88,143,275 
 
 Sin-offering, The 232 
 
 Sins against chastity 193 
 
 Sixteen reasons against the Criticism . 77^ 
 
 Smend 30, 312, 316 
 
 Smith, R. P 39 
 
 Smith, W. R. . 4, 10, 94, 142, 223, 294, 
 
 296, 300_/. 
 
 Spinoza 4,50 
 
 Stade 317, 334 
 
 Stahelm 62 
 
 Stebbins 12 
 
 Strack 42, 67, 92, 322 
 
 Style of interpretation employed . . 18 
 
 Style of Pent, writers 79 
 
 Subjectivity of the criticism ^J'. 
 
 Sunday-School Times 345 
 
 Superficiality of the earlier criticism . 53 
 Synagogue, The 36 
 
 Tabernacle, The 220^". 
 
 Table of shew-bread 227 
 
 Taylor, Isaac . . . 167, 204, 245, 398, 404 
 Testimony of New Test, writers: its 
 
 bearing 44 
 
 Thenius 100, 143 
 
 Theory of Documents 55.^- 
 
 of Graf and Wellhausen . . . 72_^ 
 
 of Supplements 62^^. 
 
 Time of composition of the Pent. . . 79 
 Traces of Pent, in the historical books. 
 
 3457?: 
 
 Trespass-offenng, The 233 
 
 Tuch 42, 6z 
 
 Uncertainty of results 81 
 
 Unchastity, Charge of 151 
 
 Urim and Thummim 212 
 
 Usury, Law touching 195 
 
 Van Dale 52 
 
 Vater 61 
 
 Vatke 4 
 
 Vigouroux 82 
 
 Vitringa 56 
 
 Volck 273 
 
 Vows 196, 234 
 
 Warrington 161 
 
 Watson 27, 122, 308, 361 
 
 Watts 27 
 
 Weddell _ . 80 
 
 Weights and measures, Law concerning 200 
 
 Wellhausen . 5, 11, 86, 113, ii8y., 12Z/., 
 
 223, 228, 289/, 294, 300, 3i8if., 332 
 
 Wilson 161, 249 
 
 Witness, Bearing false 188 
 
 Witnesses in capital cases 183 
 
 Witsius 52 
 
 Wolfenbiittel Fragments 54 
 
 Zeitgeist 71 
 
 Zockler 17
 
 i 
 
 3
 
 MAR 1 5 1943 
 
 ftPR 8 1 1943 
 3£P 2 8 1944 
 
 VlAY 2 1952 
 JEC 2 9 1952 
 
 RSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 This book is DUE on^^e last date stamped below 
 
 SRC SEP 1 8 
 
 193»' 
 
 
 !\N 17 1968 
 
 Form L-9— 15m-7,':-iJ 
 
 ir^ny- 
 
 968 
 
 
 /*,=VT* 
 
 ^Cf 09 
 
 V'^-.l- 

 
 3 1158 00510 3832 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 383 103 9
 
 m 
 
 
 ltiV.!.fJjML-:: 
 
 I