msmmmm 
 
 f.mn 
 
(QanteU Hniueraitg Blibrarg 
 
 Stif&ta, 5Jem Sorfe 
 
 W. P. Willcox 
 
Cornell University Library 
 BS1213 .K9S 1886 
 
 Historico-critical inquiry into the orii 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 029 283 771 
 
The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029283771 
 
THE PENTATEUCH AND BOOK OF 
 JOSHUA. 
 
AN 
 
 HISTORICO-CEITICAL INQUIEY 
 
 INTO 
 
 THE ORIGIN AND COMPOSITION 
 
 OF 
 
 THE HEXATEUCH 
 
 (PENTATEUCH AND BOOK OP JOSHUA) 
 
 A. KUENEN 
 
 PEOFESSOK OP THEOLOGY AT LEIDEN 
 
 TRANSLATED FBOM TBB DUTCB, WITS TEE 
 ASSISTANCE OF THE AUTHOR 
 
 PHILIP H. WICKSTEED, M.A. 
 
 I^anboit 
 
 
 MACMILLAN AND 
 
 CO, 
 
 1886 
 
 
 [ All rights reserved ] 
 
 
 »A 
 
 
 k-r 
 
 
PRINTED BT HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY 
 
TRANSLATOE'S PREFACE. 
 
 The fii-st edition of Professor Kuenen's Hiatorico- 
 critical Inquiry into the Origin and Collection of the Books 
 of the Old Testamenf^ was exhausted some years ago, and 
 the work here presented to the English reader is the first 
 instalment (the only one that has yet appeared) of the 
 second edition 2. It is, therefore, properly speaking, the 
 opening chapter of a complete treatise on the Books of 
 the Old Testament. 
 
 The special intricacy of the critical questions raised by 
 the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, the great amount of 
 attention which they have recently excited, and the im- 
 portance of their bearings upon the history of Israelite 
 religion, have led Professor Kuenen to deal with them at 
 exceptional length ; and the same considerations confer 
 upon this portion of his work an independent interest 
 and value which make it unnecessary to offer any apology 
 for laying it before English Students of the Bible — at 
 least provisionally — in the form of a substantive work ; 
 but in justice to Professor Kuenen, it should be borne 
 in mind that the subject is treated throughout from the 
 point of view of a general ' Introduction,' not from that 
 of a monograph on the Hexateuch. 
 
 So rapid have been the recent gi-owth and change of 
 critical opinion on the Hexateuch that the opening por- 
 
 * Historisch-Kritisch Onderzoelc naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de 
 Boeken des Oaden Verbonds, Three Vols., Leiden, 1861-65. 
 
 ^ Historisch-critisch Onderzoelc, etc. Tweede, geheel omgewerkte Uitgaye. 
 Eerste Deel, Eerste Stuk. De Hexateuch, Leiden, 1885. 
 
VI 
 
 Translator s Preface. 
 
 tions of the ' Inquiry,' thoug]i mucli in advance of the 
 times in which the first edition was issued, had to be com- 
 pletely re-written for the second^ The Author would have 
 preferred, on many grounds, to withhold his treatise for 
 the present, and content himself with pursuing his special 
 investigations, and continuing the series of his 'Contri- 
 butions to the criticism of the Pentateuch and Joshua ' in 
 the Dutch Theologisch Tljchclmft'^. For though the main 
 lines of the subject can now be laid down with remarkable 
 firmness and certainty, yet a variety of important, though 
 subordinate, points still remain as to which it will be 
 impossible to pronounce with confidence till yet further 
 researches shall have thrown fresh light upon them. 
 
 In Professor Kuenen's view, however, an ' Introduction ' 
 should be written not for independent and fully equipped 
 students, but for those who desire to be initiated into the 
 present state of knowledge and the points round which the 
 experts are still engaged in controversy. 
 
 Under this aspect it was impossible not to recognise the 
 urgent need, both in Holland and elsewhere, of a concise 
 but complete exposition of the criticism of the Hexateuch 
 which should not only build upon the foundations laid 
 long ago and universally accepted, but should, as it were, 
 construct the whole edifice, from base to pinnacle, before 
 the eyes of the student. 
 
 These considerations determined Professor Kuenen to 
 overcome his scruples, and no longer to withhold the first 
 chapter of his new edition. 
 
 In his preface (from which many of these details are 
 taken) he lays it down as the primary object of his work, 
 
 ' See Introduction. 
 
 ' Vols, xi., xii., xiv., xt., xviii. These essays are alluded to by Professor 
 Eobertson Smith (Preface to Wellhausen's Prolegomena, p. ix.) as 'perhaps 
 the finest things that modern criticism can show.' 
 
Translator s Preface. vii 
 
 not so much to advance knowledge as to indicate the 
 point which it has abeady reached ; but inasmuch as it is 
 not always easy to draw the line between the problems 
 which are and those which are not ripe for solution, he has 
 found it impossible to avoid occasional excursions into 
 fields of inquiry which still belong to the domain of the 
 ' memoire ' more properly than to that of the ' hand-book.' 
 
 The Introduction, on the recent history of the criticism 
 of the Pentateuch, has been compiled, with Professor 
 Kuenen's assistance, from various articles and notices 
 contributed by him from time to time to the Theologisck 
 TijchcJirift. The Author had some hesitation in allowing 
 this addition to his work, on the ground that it might 
 seem implicitly to claim for this treatise the character of 
 a monograph on the Hexateuch, complete in itself, whereas 
 it is really, as we have seen, only the long first chapter of 
 an ' Introduction to the Old Testament.' He was, however, 
 induced to withdraw his objection in the face of an urgent 
 representation of the value and interest which such an intro- 
 ductory essay would possess for his English readers. 
 
 In executing the translation I have had the advantage 
 of the Author's extremely careful and thorough revision of 
 the proof-sheets ; and I cannot refrain from offering him 
 my sincerest thanks for his unfailing patience in rendering 
 me every possible assistance. 
 
 The references (both Biblical and others) have been 
 carefully verified throughout. In the very few cases in 
 which I have not been able to consult the books referred to 
 Professor Kuenen has for the most part been good enough 
 to re-verify the references for me. In this way a small 
 number of errors has been removed from the remarkably 
 cori'ect original. I shall be well satisfied if these cor- 
 
viii Translator s Preface. 
 
 rections are found to balance the inevitable additional 
 errors which must accrue, despite every device of checking 
 and verifying, in reprinting so many thousands of figures. 
 
 The Biblical references are given to the chapters and verses 
 of the Hebrew ; but where these differ from the numeration 
 of the English versions I have added the latter in square 
 brackets [ ]. This has been done even where the point of 
 the reference is entirely linguistic ; and, indeed, in all cases 
 it must be understood that while the chapter and verse 
 of the English are given for convenience, it is the Hebrew 
 Text which is actually referred to, and the point of the 
 reference will not always be obvious from the English 
 versions. The English reader, therefore, must not at once 
 conclude that the reference is erroneous if he does not find 
 anything to the purpose in the passage indicated. 
 
 The pagination of the original is given in the margin. 
 
 In the spelling of the proper names no uniform system 
 has been followed. The traditional forms have been pre- 
 served when they appeared to be completely naturalized. 
 In other cases an approximation to a reasonable orthography 
 has been attempted. More especially the mute final ' h ' 
 has been dropped, and ' y ' has been substituted for ' j.' In 
 the transliteration of Hebrew words a uniform system has 
 been adopted in consultation with Professor Kuenen (note 
 ■' = y, D and S = ph, but n and 3=b, etc.). 
 
 PHILIP H. WICKSTEED. 
 
 London, Feb. i8S6. 
 
OOITTEI^TS. 
 
 Teanslator's Preface . . . . v 
 
 Contents . . . . . ix 
 
 Introduction . . . . . . xi 
 
 Addendum to Page 2 . . . xl 
 
 Literature . . . i 
 
 § I. Names, Division, and Contents ....... 2 
 
 §2. Testimony of the Hexateuoh itself as to its author . .12 
 
 § 3. Investigation and provisional determination of the general 
 
 character of the Hexateuch. A. The legislation . . 17 
 § 4. Investigation and provisional determination of the general 
 
 character of the Hexateuch. B. The narratives . . 32 
 
 § 5. Points of departure in the resolution of the Hexateuch into its 
 component parts : the collections of laws and the designa- 
 tions of the Deity .... ... 49 
 
 § 6. The Priestly elements of the Hexateuch (P) .... 65 
 
 § 7. The deuteronomic elements of the Hexateuch (D) . . . 107 
 
 § 8. The 'prophetic' elements of the Hexateuch (JE) . . . 13S 
 § 9. Provisional determination of the chi-onological order of the 
 
 constituent elements of the Hexateuch .... 165 
 
 § 10. The Hexateuch and the other books of the Old Testament . 174 
 § II. The Hexateuch and the political and religious history of Israel 192 
 § 12. The origin and antiquity of the constituent parts of the Hexa- 
 teuch. A. The reformations of Josiah and Ezra as starting- 
 points for determining the chronology of the legislation, and 
 of the evolution of the Hexateuch . . , . .214 
 § 1 3. Continuation. B. The origin and compilation of the ' prophetic ' 
 
 elements of the Hexateuch ... . . 226 
 
 § 14. Continuation. C. The Deuteronomist, his precursors and his 
 
 followers .......... 262 
 
 § 15. Continuation. D. History of the priestly legislation and his- 
 toriography 272 
 
 § 16. The redaction of the Hexateuch .... . 313 
 
 Index or principal passages in the Hexateuch dealt with in 
 
 THIS volume 343 
 
INTEODUCTION. 
 
 OidVine of tlie History of the Criticism of the PenfateucJi and 
 Book of Joshua dxiring the last quarter of a Century. 
 
 I. 
 
 FivE-AND-TWENTY years ago ■• the defenders of the ' authen- 
 ticity' of the Pentateuch were never weary of insisting on 
 the mutual disagreement of its assailants. The charge was 
 not altogether baseless, and yet a dominant theory as to 
 the origin of the Mosaic writings was certainly established 
 amongst the representatives of the critical school. The main 
 points upon which unanimity seemed gradually to have been 
 reached were the following: ' The Deuteronomist, a con- 
 temporary of ilanasseh or Josiah, was the redactor of the 
 Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua, and it was he who 
 brought them into the form in which they now lie before us. 
 He interwove or inserted his own laws and narratives into 
 the work of the Yahwist (Jehovist) that dated from the 
 eighth century b. C, and was therefore about a hundred years 
 old in his time. To this Yahwist we owe the first four books 
 of the Pentateuch and the earlier (prse-deuteronomic) recen- 
 sion of Joshua. His work was in its turn based upon a still 
 earlier composition — the " Grundschrift " or " Book of 
 Origins " — which came from the pen of a priest or Levite 
 and might be referred to the century of Solomon. Embedded 
 in this " Grundschrift" were still more ancient fragments, 
 some of them Mosaic. The Yahwist expanded and sup- 
 
 ^ The date at which the first volume of my Histonsch-Kntisch OndenoeJc, 
 etc. was published at Leiden. See Preface. 
 
xii IntrodicciioH. 
 
 plemented the Gruudsch rift with materials drawn in part 
 from tradition and in part from written sources.' 
 
 Wide diversity of opinion still existed on a number of 
 details, especially as to what laws and narratives should 
 be regarded as earlier than the 'Grundschrift ' and attri- 
 buted to a so-called ' prse-Elohist'; and again, as to the 
 sources of the Yahwist. But the great majority of the 
 critics held by the main lines of the sketch given above. 
 It seemed to have become almost an axiom that ' the Book 
 of Origins' (or the earlier Elohist), the Yahwist and the 
 Deuteronomist succeeded each other in the order I have 
 indicated. At any rate this was the genealogy of the 
 Pentateuch drawn up by Ewald and his school, by de Wette, 
 by Bleek, and by many others. 
 
 I myself could not escape from the overpowering in- 
 fluence which such a consensus naturally exercised. But 
 I may now point out, with pardonable satisfaction, that even 
 in i860 I could not accept the dominant theory as it stood 
 and felt obliged to modify it very considerably. 
 
 In the first place [OnderzoeJc, 1st ed., chap. I. § 18) I 
 followed Hupfeld and others in rejecting the 'Erganzungs- 
 hypothese' (cf. p. 159 sqq. of this woik). The Yahwist did 
 not ' fill in ' the elohistic ' Grundschrift.' His narratives were 
 originally independent, and it was not till long after their 
 composition that they were welded by a redactor into a 
 single whole with other documents, some earlier and some 
 later than themselves. 
 
 A second departure from the current hypothesis was more 
 significant. It referred to the ' Grundschrift ' or ' Book 
 of Origins' itself, in which I distinguished successive 
 elements. I not only followed Hupfeld once more in 
 recognising a second Elohist, by the side of the author of 
 the 'Grundschrift' (op. cit. p. 76 sqq.), but I went on to 
 impugn the unity of the priestly legislation in Uxodus-Num- 
 
Introduction. xiii 
 
 lers with its connected narratives (p. 84 sqq.). For the 
 hypothesis (of Ewald and others) that these laws and narra- 
 tives were committed to writing in Solomon's reign, I sub- 
 stituted the contention that they were successive deposits of 
 the traditions and views of the priestly circles in which they 
 rose, and had been repeatedly worked over and expanded 
 before they acquired the form in which we now possess them. 
 
 Closely connected with this departure from the critical 
 tradition was yet another. I still supposed that the priests 
 had begun to commit their traditions to writing in the reio-n 
 of Solomon. But when was the last hand put to the work ? 
 What was the date of that redaction of the priestly passages 
 which was finally incorporated in the Hexateueh ? I 
 answered: It must have been subsequent to Deuteronomy. 
 The priestly code contains regulations, such as Lev. xvi., 
 xvii. ; Hum. xvi., xviii., xxxi.^ which can only be understood 
 as further developments of the demands made in Deuteronomy 
 (p. 147 sq.j 153 sqq., cf also p. 193 n. on Josh. xxi.). 
 
 All this necessarily involved a fourth departure from the 
 received opinion. The Deuteronomist could not have been 
 the redactor of our present Hexateueh. Such a hypothesis 
 was excluded alike by chronology and by the way in which 
 the task was performed. It was evidently from the sacerdotal 
 corporation of Jerusalem that the Hexateueh received its 
 present form ; and the redactor, accordingly, must have been 
 a priest of Jerusalem (p. j 6^ sqq., p. 194 sqq.), 
 
 I must confine myself to the simple enumeration of these 
 points, merely adding that some of my deviations from the 
 then current opinion might be regarded as a return to earlier 
 hypotheses. The priority of Deuteronomy as compared with 
 the priestly laws had been defended by George ^ and Vatke^ 
 
 ' J. F. L. George : Die alteren judisohen Feste mit einer Kritik der Gesetz- 
 gebung des Pentateuch, 1835. 
 
 ^ W. Vatke : Die biblische Theologie wissenschaftlich dargestellt, I., 1835. 
 
xiv Introduction. 
 
 [OnderzoeJc, p. 46 sq.). And when I now re-read the argu- 
 ments which I then regarded as an adequate refutation of 
 their views I can but acknowledge the power of tradition 
 or, if you will, of public opinion, even in the domain of 
 criticism! Not that the views of these two scholars satisfied 
 every reasonable requirement, or could even now be accepted 
 in the form in which they presented them. But they 
 contained elements of truth to which I was far from doing 
 justice. The concessions I made were inevitable — but wholly 
 inadequate. From my present position I regard them on the 
 one hand as a tribute extorted by the power of truth, but on 
 the other hand as a humiliating proof of the tyranny which 
 the opinions we have once accepted often exercise over us. 
 When we are really called upon boldly to quit our ground 
 and choose a new site for our edifice we too often attempt to 
 stave off the necessity by timid and minute modifications in 
 the plan to which we are already committed. 
 
 But it is high time to turn to the proper purpose of this 
 Introduction and attempt to sketch the course that the 
 criticism of the Hexateuch has taken since the year i860, 
 
 I pass over Keil's commentary on the Pentateuch (1861 
 sqq.) and Knobel's Pentateuch and Book of Joshua (1853- 
 1861), since they exercised no permanent influence on the 
 criticism of the Hexateuch; but in 186a appeared the first 
 part of J. W. Col en so 's Pentateuch and Book of Joshua 
 critically examined, which deserves our close attention. 
 
 Colenso's work was of course attacked as blasphemous from 
 the orthodox side ; but it was also taxed from the opposite 
 quarter with falling short of the requirements of modern 
 scholarship. Those who urged this charge no doubt accorded 
 more favour to the immediately following Parts II- V. of the 
 Bishop's work, than they had done to Part I. ; but I have 
 never been able to accept this judgment. In such a sketch 
 
Introduction. xv 
 
 as this, Parts II- V. can occupy but little space. No doubt 
 they contain much that is interesting. For example, Part III. 
 includes a very careful analysis of Deuteronomy, Part IV. a 
 number of sound observations on the composition and the 
 unhistorical character of Genesis i.-xi., and Part V. a fresh 
 investigation of the composition of Genesis. But in all this 
 the writer builds upon foundations already laid, and still 
 appears as a supporter of what I have called the ' dominant 
 hypothesis^.' Where he deviates from his predecessors — 
 especially in Part II., with reference to the Elohim- and 
 Yahwe-psalms — he cannot be said to have improved upon 
 them. And even if it were otherwise, if all his innova* 
 tions had been improvements, still he would in the main 
 have merely worked out and confirmed what was pretty 
 generally admitted before he wrote. No new light is struck, 
 no new direction given to research in these volumes. 
 But it is far otherwise with Part I. Continental criticism 
 of the Pentateuch had been inconsiderately busying itself 
 with a constructive work that used these very materials 
 now so rudely tested by Colenso. For myself I gladly 
 admit that he directed my attention to difficulties which I 
 had hitherto failed to observe or adequately to reckon with. 
 And as to the opinion of his labours current in Germany I 
 need only say that inasmuch as Ewald, Bunsen, Bleek, and 
 Knobel were every one of them logically forced — if they 
 could but have seen it ! — to revise their theories in the light 
 of the English bishop's researches, there was small reason in 
 the cry that his methods were antiquated and his objections 
 stale ! 
 
 It will be remembered that Colenso demonstrated the 
 
 ' In Parts VI. and VII. Colenso adopts a new critical position, and partially 
 allies himself with the opponents of the once 'dominant hypothesis.' The 
 detailed work contained in Part VI. especially, demands and will receive a 
 conscientious consideration in the body of this work. 
 
xvi Introduction. 
 
 absolutely unhistorieal character of sundry narratives in the 
 Pentateuch by applying the test of those universal laws of 
 time and space from which no chain of phenomena can escape. 
 In a certain sense this was nothing new. Colenso was not 
 the first to note that the stories of the Mosaic times were 
 not simple reflections of the facts, but must be regarded as 
 exaggerated and but half historical legends. But his inves- 
 tigations made it clear that this was but half the truth. He 
 showed that the very documents which most expressly put 
 themselves forward as authentic, and make the greatest 
 parade of accuracy, are in reality the most unhistorieal of all. 
 In other words it is just the narratives of the ' Grundschrift ' 
 or ' Book of Origins ' which turn out to be the most helpless 
 before his criticism. This is all the more remarkable inas- 
 much as Colenso urged his objections without any regard to 
 the separation of the various documents. He was only con- 
 cerned with the question whether the representations of the 
 Pentateuch, as they stand, correspond or fail to correspond 
 with the actual facts. Again and again he meets with in- 
 superable difficulties, and behold ! it is always in the ' Grund- 
 schrift ' that they occur. With one single exception the 
 twenty chapters of his book are devoted to an absolutely 
 pulverising criticism of the data of the ' Grundschrift.' 
 
 The dominant theory of the genesis of the Hexateuch had 
 not prepared us for any such result. In the earliest of the 
 documents we should have expected to find the most faithful 
 reflection of the actual facts. Nor is this all. How are we 
 to reconcile Colenso' s results with the form into which the 
 accounts of the ' Grundschrift ' are thrown ? When we read 
 that the Israelites numbered 600,000 fighting men and then 
 discover that physical impossibilities are involved in any such 
 supposition, it is easy to put down the estimate to the em- 
 bellishing hand of legend. But when we are presented with 
 two official reports of the census, in 'Num. i. and xxvi. respec- 
 
Introduction^ xvii 
 
 tively, which accurately define the numerical strength of each 
 tribe, severally, and in conclusion make the totals reach just 
 about the given figure, then surely the case is changed, I 
 must either suppress my difficulties as best I may in the face 
 of the authority with which I am confronted, or — if that is 
 simply impossible — I must frankly declare that the 'authority' 
 is no authority at all, but neither more nor less than a fiction. 
 There is no other alternative. Now Colenso's criticism 
 places us again and again in the face of this dilemma. 
 He himself did not perceive the legitimate inferences that 
 flowed from his demonstrations ; for in subsequent volumes '■ 
 of his work he accepts the current opinion as to the date 
 and character of the ' Grundschrift.' But the fact only 
 serves to emphasise the impression made by his criti- 
 cism on an observant reader capable of estimating its true 
 bearings. Such at least vpas the result in my own case. I 
 had myself pointed out some of the difficulties on which 
 Colenso dwelt (cf. Onderzoek, I. 36 under /. [on &;. xxxviii. 
 25 sqq.] and 9a, n. 13 [on i\'"i»«. xxxi.] ) ; but massed together 
 as they were by him, and set forth with such imperturbable 
 sang froid and relentless thoroughness, they raised a strange 
 presentiment in my mind which gradually ripened into a 
 settled conviction that we had stopped half way in our 
 criticism of the 'Grundschrift,' and must go right through 
 with it before we could reach our goal. 
 
 This same year of i86a witnessed another attack on the 
 ' Grundschrift ' from quite another side in a work by the 
 Jewish scholar Dr. J. Popper, entitled Ber hibliscJie BericJit 
 iiber die StiftsJiiitte. Ein Beitrag zur GeschicMe der Com- 
 position iind Biaskeue des Pentateuch. The results of Pop- 
 per's investigation are in substance as follows: 'The de- 
 scription of the rearing of the tabernacle (Ex. xxxv.-xl.), 
 
 1 I.e. Parts II- V. Cf. p. xv. noU. 
 
 b 
 
xviii Introduction. 
 
 and of the consecration of the priests to their task {Lev. viii.) 
 is later than the injunctions on these two subjects {Ex. 
 xxv.-xxxi.), and cannot have received its present form until 
 long after the Babylonian captivity,' This book of Popper's 
 is in more than one respect a tough piece of reading. The 
 style is so diffuse as to furnish an unbroken illustration of 
 the well-known rule on ' I'art d'ennuyer.' And moreover the 
 question itself is highly involved, for the author bases his 
 conclusions on a study not only of the Masoretic, but of the 
 Samaritan text and the Greek translation of TLx. xxxv. sqq. 
 A still greater difficulty, however, was, in the first instaneOj 
 raised by the result of the investigation. It departed so 
 widely from the traditional belief and seemed so far to over- 
 step the limits of all legitimate hypothesis that it took some 
 time to recover the calm and impartial frame of mind impera- 
 tively requisite for the fair consideration of the theses here 
 maintained. My present judgment on Popper's investigations 
 may be found in my ' Religion of Israel,' Ch. VIII. and IX., 
 and in the body of this work (p. 74 sqq.), but from the first 
 I was profoundly impressed by his argument, which gave a 
 shock to the very generally accepted belief in the unity of the 
 ' Grundschrift/ and introduced the idea of a ' continuous dia- 
 sheue' that was obviously destined to exercise a powerful 
 influence upon future investigations ^ 
 
 With the exception of Geiger and Graf, the recognised 
 German critics took no notice of this work, brimful of suo-- 
 gestiveness though it was, and thereby they showed but toa 
 
 ' The quasi-antobiographical character of this introduction justifies, and 
 indeed almost demands, the mention of another work that might otherwise 
 have been passed over. I refer to that startling and fascinating book of 
 Dozy'g, 'De Israelieten te Mekka,' Haarlem, 1864. Though I cannot in- 
 dicate any considerable obligations to this book on the field of Pentateuchal 
 criticism, and am still less prepared to defend its dashing and brilliant hypo- 
 theses on the field of history, yet the awakening caused by Dozy's rare origin- 
 ality and freedom from traditional restraint produced an effect on my own 
 studies none the less real and important for being almost entirely indirect. 
 
Introduction. xix 
 
 plainly how the ' dominant hypothesis ' had established itself 
 in their minds too firmly to allow them to see the importance 
 or the truth of anything that conflicted with it ^- 
 
 It was by no means an accident that Graf, almost alone 
 of German critics, did justice to Popper's work, for he had 
 very largely shaken off the critical tradition which blinded 
 the rest. His epoch-making work : Die geschicJitUchen Biicher 
 des Alien Testaments. Zwei Jiistorisck-hitische TJntersucTiungen, 
 bears the date of 1 866, but as a matter of fact it appeared 
 towards the close of 1865. 
 
 The second essay [Bas Buck der Clironih ah GescJiicMsquelle, 
 p. 1 14-347) has a certain connection with the criticism of the 
 Pentateuch, inasmuch as the Chronicler is often cited as a 
 witness to the credibility of some of the Pentateuehal narra- 
 tives and the early existence of many of the laws, and it is 
 important to determine with certainty the degree of confidence 
 that may be placed in him. In this respect Grafs careful 
 investigations yield in general a negative result. He demon- 
 strates, as others had done before him, but with unprece- 
 dented thoroughness, the freedom with which the Chronicler 
 manipulated his materials, and shows that when his authorities 
 left him in the lurch he had no hesitation in accepting and 
 setting down as actual fact everything that his historical and 
 dogmatic convictions assured him must have happened. We 
 cannot fail to note the special effect of this line of criticism 
 in depriving the laws and narratives of the ' Grundschrift ' of 
 an important source of confirmation — for the most part, 
 indeed, of the only support which the whole Old Testament 
 affords them. Now this same 'Grundschrift' is itself the 
 chief though not the only subject of the former of Grafs two 
 essays. Its title {^Die Bestandtheile der geschichtUaJien Biiclier 
 
 ^ Unfortunately it cannot be said that Popper himself, in his subsequent 
 work 'Der TJrsprung des Monotheismus,' Berlin, 1879, realised the legitimate' 
 expectations raised by his essay. 
 
 ba 
 
XX 
 
 Introdiictioii. 
 
 von Genesis i. bis 3 Kings xxv.) shows tliat it covers, in some 
 sort, a much wider field ; but whereas it deals with Judges, 
 Samuel, and Kings in so summary a manner as to leave many 
 important questions unanswered, its treatment of the Hexa- 
 teueh was such as to inaugurate a veritable revolution. And 
 to this we must now confine ourselves. Graf's first care is 
 to establish a firm point of departure, or basis of operations ; 
 and this he finds in Beuteronomij . In agreement with the 
 vast majority of critics he identifies Hilkiah's book of Law 
 (2 Kings xxii. sq.) with the deuteronomic code; and he like- 
 wise attributes its composition as well as its publication to the 
 same reign. The details of his criticism will be duly noted in 
 the body of this work (ef p. 131 and elsewhere) and need not 
 detain us here. Taking Deuteronomy as his fixed point 
 Graf proceeds to inquire which of the laws and narratives of 
 the Hexateueh are assumed in that work as already existing, 
 and which of them on the contrary announce themselves as 
 subsequent to it. His conclusion, put into a nut-shell, is 
 that the Yahwistic laws {Ex. xx.-xxiii.; xiii. 1-16; xxxiv. 10— 
 27) and the Yahwistic narratives are shown to be prse-deuter- 
 onomic by a careful comparison of their form and contents 
 with the ordinances and statements of the Deuteronomist ; 
 whereas the priestly or ritual laws usually regarded as 
 belonging to the ' Grundschrift ' are post-deuteronomic. 
 Graf confronts these ordinances one after another with the 
 precepts of the Deuteronomist and the evidence of the his- 
 torical books — and always with the same result, viz. the 
 establishment of the priority of Detiteronomi/. I must refer 
 to my 'Keligion of Israel' (Ch.VIII., and the second note 
 appended to it) for the details in which I agreed with Graf or 
 dissented from him at the time. Here we must note that he 
 still supposed the (curtailed) ' Grundschrift,' the Yahwist, and 
 the Deuteronomist to follow each other in the accepted order, 
 and regarded the last of the three i\s the redactor of a his- 
 
Introdticiion. xxi 
 
 torico-legislative work beginning- with tlie creation of the 
 world and ending with the death of Joshua. But this work, 
 he believed, was something very different from our present 
 Hexateueh ; for in this latter the whole mass of the priestly 
 laws and [nota hene!) some priestly narratives were added by 
 Ezra after the Captivity, forming altogether a colossal inter- 
 polation in the work of the Deuteronomist, consisting of 
 Ex. xxv.-xxsi. ; xxxv.-xl., all Leviticus, and the greater part 
 of Numbers. If these priestly additions are withdrawn we have 
 the work of the Deuteronomist leftj consisting of Genesis and 
 JosJma in their present form, Deuteronomy nearly as we now 
 have.it, and Eosodus and Numbers in their original form. 
 
 Such was the genealogy of the Hexateueh as drawn out 
 by Graf We note at once that it splits the so-called 
 ' Grundschrift ' — Ewald's ' Book of Origins ' — into two. The 
 smaller, or historical portion retains its place as the earliest 
 element of the Hexateueh, the basis on which the Yahwist 
 built in the eighth century b. c, and itself therefore still more 
 ancient. The greater, or legislative section of the supposed 
 ' Grundschrift,' on the other hand, is the latest of all the 
 great strata of the Hexateueh. Some of it is a little earlier 
 than Ezra, some of it due to Ezra himself, and some of it — 
 a genuine discovery of Popper's-^even subsequent to 450 b. c. 
 But how is it possiblcj one asks at once, that the earliest and 
 the latest elements of the Hexateueh should hitherto have 
 been classed together and regarded as portions of one and the 
 same work ? Graf answers (p. 9a sq.) that a certain resem- 
 blance of language had misled the critics, but that its true 
 explanation must be sought not in community of origin, but 
 in the later priestly author's deliberate imitation of the style 
 of the 'Grundschrift,' especially such passages of it as Gen,- 
 xvii. for example. 
 
 The first glance at Graf's essay was enough to satisfy me 
 that this attempt to split up the ' Grundschrift ' was the 
 
xxii Introduction. 
 
 Achilles-heel of his whole hypothesis. My attention waS 
 continuously directed to this point hy a renewed study of the 
 Hesateuch which I had already entered upon in connection 
 with my lectures for 1865-66, before the appearance of Graf's 
 book ; and my conviction was soon established that his solu- 
 tion could not be the true one. It was neither one thing nor 
 the other. Anyone who took his stand with Graf on the 
 historical passages which he still recognised as belonging 
 to the ancient prse-Yahwistie ' Grundschrift,' might show 
 that he had no right to make the legislative portions so 
 much later. The historical and legislative sections are 
 dominated by essentially the same conceptions and resemble 
 each other so closely that they cannot possibly be severed by 
 a period of three or four centuries. And conversely, if we 
 are forced to admit with Graf that the ritual legislation is 
 exilian or post-exilian then we must assign the priestly 
 histories to the same period also. Were there any need I 
 would undertake to place this dilemma in so strong a light 
 that it could not be misconceived, but it will be enough 
 simply to refer to Num. xx. 23-29; xxvii. 12-23; xxxiv. ; 
 XXXV. 1-8 ; 9-15 (the last three pericopes in whole or in part 
 legislative, and yet assigned by Graf to the 'Grundschrift' 
 proper) and Josh. xxi. These passages alone suffice to show 
 how impossible it is to separate the historical sections from 
 the laws, and to make the former some centuries earlier than 
 the latter. 
 
 But what then ? Must the laws stand with the narratives, 
 or must the narratives fall with the laws ? I could not 
 hesitate for a moment in accepting the latter alternative. 
 The reader will see by what has gone before that I was 
 already more than half won over to such a view, and Graf's 
 treatise had itself influenced me powerfully in the same, 
 direction. He had supported his thesis that the priestly laws 
 are post-deuteronomic with a host of valid arguments which, 
 
Introduction. xxiii 
 
 though not severally conclusive in every instance, established 
 an irresistible case collectively, whereas in recognisino- the 
 high antiquity of the historical parts of the ' Grundschrift ' 
 and the use made of them by the Yahwist he had simply 
 attached himself to the traditions of the critical school without 
 adducing a single argument to support them. It was obvious 
 that the question whether these historical passages were 
 really in their place at the head of the genealogy of the 
 Hexateuch had never so much as presented itself to him. 
 Hardly had I begun seriously to ask myself on what 
 grounds they had been placed there by others and left 
 there by Graf than I saw more clearly day by day that they 
 had no real claim whatever to be regarded as prae-Yahwistic. 
 In a word, not only does the prophetic preaching chrono- 
 logically precede the priestly legislation, but the pro- 
 phetic (= Yahwistic) representations of the genesis of the 
 theocracy precede the priestly historiography. And 
 may we not ask, in passing, whether the problem when so 
 formulated does not almost solve itself ? 
 
 Perhaps I may be permitted at this point to transcribe a 
 fragment of a letter I received from Graf in answer to the 
 objections I had urged against this portion of his solution. 
 His last public utterances were of similar purport, but it is 
 not without interest to show that in 1866 (his letter is dated 
 Nov. 13th of that year) a simple expression of the difficulty, 
 unsupported by any attempt at a proof, had already disposed 
 him to revise his ideas of the genesis of the Hexateuch. 
 Writing to the Alsatian (whom moreover the German 
 governments allowed to remain till his death — not Professor 
 of Old Testament Exegesis and Criticism at any of the 
 Universities, but — 'Professeur de Frangais' at the Eoyal Gym- 
 nasium of Meissen) I had availed myself of the French 
 language, in which he likewise answered. ' Je suis loin de 
 croire que toutcs les difficultes soient resolues. Au contraire 
 
xxiv Introduction. 
 
 vous m'en faites remarquer une bien serieuse et qui n'a pas 
 manque en effet de me causer beaucoup de scrupules, la gvande 
 ressemblance entre les lois sacerdotales et les parties elohis- 
 tiques de la Genese. Je n'ai pu donner moi-meme qu'une 
 explication de cette ressemblance quant h. la loi sur la cireon- 
 cision (p. 93) que je suis force de reconnaitre comme insufR- 
 sante et vous avez raison de craindre qu'en s'appuyant sur 
 I'antiquite de ces parties elohistiques on ne puisse soulever de 
 bien graves diffieultes contre ma maniere d'envisager les 
 origines du Pentateuque. Mais vous me faites pressentir une 
 solution de cette enigme qui m'a frappe d'autant plus vive- 
 ment qu'elle etait tout-d,-fait nouvelle pour moi et que cepen- 
 dant j'ai senti a I'instant que e'etait la sans doute la solution 
 v&-itable, c'est que les parties elohistiques de la Genese 
 seraient posterieures aux parties jehovistiques. La priorite de 
 riSlohiste sur le Jehoviste a ^te jusqu'a present tellement hors 
 de doute ou plutot admise comme une sorte d'axiome, que la 
 preuve du contraire produirait une veritable revolution dans 
 la critique du Pentateuque, principalement de la Genese ; 
 mais je ne manquerai pas dorenavant de considerer le Penta- 
 teuque sous ce point de vue, pour parvenir a me former une 
 conviction raisonnee par rapport a cette priorite.' 
 
 My own conclusions, after a special study of the priestly 
 narratives from this point of view, are embodied in my 
 'Eeligion of Israel,' and will be further illustrated in the 
 course of this essay. I may therefore pass them over for the 
 present. I may likewise deal very summarily with Riehm's 
 criticism of Graf 's booki. He protests against the attempt 
 to separate the historical from the legislative portions of the 
 ' Grundschrift,' the essential unity of which he maintains. 
 And he further recalls Hupfeld's attack on the 'Erganzungs- 
 hypothese,^ and regrets that Graf has paid no attention to^it. 
 
 ' KStudien u. Krit., 1868, p. 350-79. 
 
IntrodiKtion. 
 
 XXV 
 
 On botli of these points I am completely at one with him. 
 But his arguments in support of the priority of the ritual 
 laws, compared with those of Dexderonowy, are so extremely 
 weak that they could hardly have seemed satisfactory to their 
 author himself had he not already been committed to the 
 conclusion they are adduced to support. - 
 
 In one important point Graf's researches were supplemented 
 by my countryman Dr. W. H. Kosters, whose doctoral essay 
 De Historie-liescJiouwing van den Beuteronomist met cle hericJiten in 
 Genesis-Niimeri vergeleken, appeared in Leiden in 1868. Graf 
 had shown that the Deuteronomist was unacquainted with 
 the priestly laws; but which of the narratives of the 
 Pentateuch lay before him ? And, specifically, were the 
 priestly or elohistic narratives amongst them ? This was 
 the question which Dr. Kosters asked and answered. He 
 compared all the historical data in Deuteronomy with the 
 narratives of Genesis— Niimhers ; and the result — which is 
 always the same — renders it almost certain that the deu- 
 teronomic conception of history stands midway between the 
 Yahwistic (prophetic) and the elohistic (priestly). Kosters 
 himself, however, in keeping with the plan of his dissertation, 
 confines himself to the purely negative conclusion that the 
 Deuteronomist shows no familiarity with the priestly nar- 
 ratives. With the character and relative position of these 
 latter he only concerns himself incidentally; but they were 
 soon to be submitted to a luminous examination on their 
 own merits by Noldeke, whose work comes next in our 
 chronological survey. Is not such a succession of investiga- 
 tions itself a sufficient indication that the results previously 
 legarded as established were no longer felt to be satisfactory, 
 and that a new conception was gradually ripening ^ ? 
 
 ' From tHis point of view I may likewise call attention to M.M.Kalisch's 
 ' Historical and Critical Commentary, etc' Leviticus, Part I., 1867, Part II., 
 1S72, London. After having dealt in a prevailingly conservative spirit with 
 
xxvi Introduction, 
 
 The first and most important of the four essaj^s that 
 mate up Noldeke's JJntersnchungen zur KritiJc cles A. Tes- 
 taments {K\e\, 1869) deals with 'Die s. g. Grundschrift des 
 Pentateuchs/ At the outset Noldeke explains his belief that 
 the essential elements of the Hexateuch must be assigned to 
 the following sources and writers: (i) The 'Grundschrift;' 
 (2) the Yahwist, who compiled his work out of materials 
 that included an elohistic document, from which he took 
 over entire sections; but which we must carefully dis- 
 tinguish from the ' Grundschrift ; ' (3) the redactor, who 
 united (i) and (2) into a single whole; (4) the Deuterono- 
 mist, who combined his own legislation and the associated 
 historical passages with the work of (3). The bulk of 
 the essay is then devoted to an investigation of the first of 
 these sources. Noldeke begins by attempting to define its 
 limits. He runs through the whole Hexateuch, watching for 
 the formal and substantial marks of the ' Grundschrift,' which 
 grow ever clearer and fuller as he proceeds. At the close of 
 this investigation (p. 7-108) he reviews the ' Grundschrift' as a 
 whole, and endeavours to sketch the method of its author and 
 determine its historical value. It is in the pages devoted to 
 this task (p. 108-143) that the true and permanent signifi- 
 cance of Noldeke's essay appears to me to lie. He lays 
 down, with the hand of a master, the characteristics of the 
 priestly author, his passion for systematising, for developing 
 a symmetry and an ascending emphasis everywhere, and 
 setting everything before us in a minutely definite shape. 
 His chronology and his figures generally are submitted to 
 a keen inspection, and with striking results. The contrast 
 between the ' Grundschrift ' and the Yahwistic narratives 
 
 Genesis and Eiodus, Kalisch treated the critical questions suggested by- 
 Leviticus with great vigour and independence, and arrived at conclusions 
 essentially in harmony with those of Graf. His independent co-operation was 
 of high value. 
 
Introductioji. xxvli 
 
 comes out with ever growing distinctness. The latter are 
 legends worked up in the prophetic spirit^ the former have 
 left tradition far behind, and give us instead the offspring 
 of the fancy, or more often the postulates of the dogmatic 
 system of their author. To a certain extent all this had been 
 noted before^ but never had it been so displayed in its full extent 
 and significance. What had previously been no more than a 
 well-grounded impression was raised by Noldeke's discoveries 
 into an established fact. Let me give a single instance. The 
 two lists in Numbers i. and xxvi. might have been pronounced 
 inventions without the least hesitation, because — well be- 
 cause they could not rest upon tradition. But now came 
 Noldeke and showed to demonstration how they were con- 
 structed. ' The figure of 600,000 for the whole force of 
 fighting men was given by the earlier writings. Divided 
 amongst the twelve tribes this would give an average of 
 50,000 warriors for each tribe. Now the two lists are so 
 constructed that, in each case, six of the tribes give more and 
 six less than the average ; but not the same six in the two 
 lists. Simeon and Naphthali, who muster 59,300 and 53,000 
 respectively in Numbers i., have come down to 33^300 and 
 45,400 in Numbers xxvi., whereas Asher and Manasseh have 
 risen from 41,500 and 32,200 respectively to 53,400 and 
 53,700.' Is not a single glance such as this into the work- 
 shop of the author of the ' G-rundschrift ' enough to instruct 
 us as to his method ? 
 
 I confess that it was a great disappointment to me, and 
 still remains enigmatical, how Noldeke, after giving such 
 a sketch of the character of the ' Grundschrift,' should hold 
 by the tradition as to its antiquity, or at least decline to 
 depart anything like far enough from it. There is no need, 
 he says (p. 141), to make the so-called ' Grundschrift ' the very 
 oldest document of the Pentateuch. It may really be so, but 
 it may also be contemporary with the work of the Yah wist, or 
 
xxviii Inirodticiion.. 
 
 even somewhat later. But— and this is the limit Noldeke 
 thinks we must insist on — it is at least prse-deuteronomic, 
 Grafs proofs to the contrary are pronounced inadequate. 
 Taking his stand on the unity of the ' Grundschrift,' which 
 Graf had made the great mistake of sacrificing, and insisting 
 on the antiquity of its narratives, which Graf did not deny, 
 Noldeke maintains that the laws also must be attributed to 
 some priest of the temple of Solomon. It is true that the 
 laws in question were never carried out, but this is easily 
 explained from the circumstances. The priests must hold the 
 helm of the state before the full realisation of their demands 
 could be so much as thought of After the Captivity, and 
 under Ezra's influence, the whole Mosaic code was made the 
 rule of faith and conduct; but it was not the post-exilian 
 period that produced that code. It did but bring to light and 
 embody in practice what had long existed in theory or as 
 a demand. 
 
 My friend De Goeje, who reviewed Noldeke's book in Be 
 Gicls, was fully justified in pronouncing this conclusion wholly 
 unsatisfactory. Had Noldeke disarmed Grafs proofs of the 
 post-deuteronomic origin of the ritual laws ? Some of them 
 he had not so much as noticed. Others he admits to be 
 valid in a certain sense, but maintains that they only show 
 the laws to have exercised no practical influence at first. 
 And no doubt we should have to accept this solution if 
 the laws were really proved to have been in existence at 
 an early date. But the proof would have to be a very strong 
 one before it could induce us to believe that a whole system 
 of priestly legislation was codified for no practical purpose, but 
 simply in the hope of better times. Now no such proof 
 is given by Noldeke at all. His attempts to trace the 
 ' Grundschrift ' in Amos and Hosea will be duly noted in the- 
 body of this work, but when we compare them with the 
 colossal force of Grafs demonstration Noldeke appears to- 
 
Introdtution. xxix 
 
 be CDgaged in an attempt to suspend a 'fifty-six" by a 
 cobweb ; and indeed be admits bimself (p. 143) that a sceptic 
 migbt, at need, explain all the references to the ' Grund- 
 schrift ' in the prophets of the Assyrian period, and even 
 in Jeremiah and his contemporaries, as mere coincidences. 
 But he goes on to say that ' the Deuteronomist, at any rate, 
 implies with absolute certainty the existence of the whole 
 compilation of which the " Grundschrift " is a part.' As 
 long as Noldeke simply asserted this I could only let my 
 denial stand against his assertion. But at a later date he 
 endeavoured to bring proofs of his position, and these are 
 duly considered in their proper place (yid. infr., p. 171 sq.). 
 The weakness of his positive proof, which Noldeke himself 
 seems to perceive, is made good in his opinion by an ar(jii~ 
 menium ex alsurdo which he brings to reinforce it. The 
 'Grundschrift' must have been written about the time in 
 which he places it, because it cannot have been written 
 later. The post-exilian period, he thinks, was absolutely 
 incapable of producing such a work. Now this is — or rather 
 was — the general estimate of the post-exilian period, in- 
 cluding the age of Ezra and Nehemiah. I should be glad 
 to see this conception, against which my ' Keligion of Israel ' 
 is one unbroken protest, seriously discussed, and, if unable 
 to defend its life, honourably buried^. That the Jewish 
 people became dry and unfruitful as soon as it returned 
 from Babylon must be accepted as soon as it is proved ; but 
 a mere traditional prejudice must not be allowed for a moment 
 to protect an idea which is in itself equally mournful and 
 astonishing. 
 
 Schrader, in the 8th edition of de Wette's Einleitung, 
 
 ' This hope, originally expressed in 1870, is now within measurable 
 distance of its full accomplishment, I may call attention, for instance, to 
 E. Smend's very interesting sketch 'tjber die Genesis des Judenthums' 
 in the Zeitschr, f. alttest. Wissenscha/t, II. 94-151. 
 
XXX Inti'oductiofi. 
 
 adopted a position essentially analogous to that of Noldeke, 
 but lie supported it by no fresh arguments of any weight, 
 and his contributions to the discussion will be noticed in 
 detail in the body of this work. 
 
 Noldeke's treatise long remained the most conspicuous and 
 important of all the attempts to refute Graf, and it was 
 likewise the latest that Graf himself ever saw. The few 
 pages which he devoted in Merx's Archiv (i. 466-77) to 
 Riehm's and Noldeke's criticisms were not in the hands of 
 the public till their author had ceased to breathe, and the 
 later contributions to the discussion he had raised never 
 came under his eye. His concessions, in the article just 
 referred to, were important. In the first place, he admits, 
 with Hupfeld, Eiehm, and Noldeke, that the ' Erganzungs- 
 hypothese ' must be abandoned, and that the Yahwist's 
 literary activity must be recognised as independent. In the 
 second place he allows that his attempt to divide the 'Grund- 
 sehrift ' has failed ; that the legislation and the history must 
 go together and that his own hypothesis of imitation was 
 inadequate to explain their mutal connection. It follows, 
 then, that if the legislation is exilian or post-exilian, then 
 the accompanying narratives must be so too. So far from 
 shrinking from this conclusion Graf embraces it unhesi- 
 tatingly. It is nothing but habit, he declares (p. 468 sq.), 
 that prevents our recognising the ' Grundschrift ' as the 
 latest stratum of the Pentateuch. We find it difficult not 
 to think of the creation story in Gen. i. as the foundation of 
 that which follows rather than as' a later story placed before 
 it. Graf attempts to dispel this prejudice by running through 
 the Hexateuch and indicating the proofs of the later origin 
 of the historical portions of the ' Grundschrift.' At the same 
 time, however, by a kind of inversion of the old ' Erganzungs- 
 hypothese,' he denies the independence of the ' Grundschrift' 
 and endeavours to show that its narratives not only pre- 
 
Introduction. xxxi 
 
 suppose those of tlie Yahwist, but were intended from the 
 first to supplement them and to constitute a single whole 
 with them^. One need not accept this view of the relations 
 of the two sets of narratives In order to appreciate the weight 
 of Graf's arguments for the later origin of the ' Grundschrift' 
 or the vigour with which he defends his position with regard 
 to its laws against the attacks of Riehm and Noldeke. The 
 idea of the passive existence of these laws for ages before they 
 had any practical influence is decisively rejected by Graf. 
 He argues that the transplanting of the foremost represen- 
 tatives of the priesthood, with Jehoiaehin, to Babylon, where 
 they were deprived of the support of a civil and ecclesiastical 
 organization of their own, was the very thing most calculated 
 to throw them back upon half traditional, half theoretical 
 methods of collecting, systematising, developing, and completing 
 the precepts of their religion, and so stimulating that ' theo- 
 retical reconstruction of history and legislation,' which, ac- 
 cording to Noldeke himself (p. 132), is the most prominent 
 characteristic of the ' Grundschrift.' Ezekiel at the opening 
 and Ezra at the close (or at least at a decisive turning point) 
 of this period of Babylonian activity furnish the irrefragable 
 proof that it is not a mere creature of the imagination. 
 
 With this short paper of Graf's the problem maybe regarded 
 as assuming its true form. His great essay had recalled the 
 criticism of the Pentateuch to the true path, and his frank 
 recognition of his errors had prevented its being drawn away 
 again on a side issue. In the discussion that followed he 
 could take no part, but however much we may lament we 
 can hardly complain that one who had done so much was 
 not enabled to do yet more. 
 
 "We have seen that Graf's hypothesis, in its original form, 
 had, at first, won no support. Nevertheless, if arguments 
 
 ' Vid. infr. p. 299, 301 sq., where the somewhat analogous views put 
 forward by Maybaum in 1880 are likewise discussed. 
 
xxxli Inlrodtiction. 
 
 are to be weighed^ not counted, and if in criticism as else- 
 where the heaviest weight is to weigh heaviest, then we 
 must admit that the ultimate issue could not even then be 
 doubtful, and that all valid objections to the hypothesis 
 must be met not by withdrawing it, but by pushing it 
 through to its legitimate conclusions. 
 
 The remainder of this introduction will be devoted to a 
 brief and summary indication of the principal steps by which 
 this result has been actually attained. 
 
 II. 
 
 In 1869 and 1870 my own 'Religion of Israel ' appeared 
 in Holland. It was an attempt to write the religious history 
 of Israel from the point of view of the newer criticism, and 
 to show that that criticism not only rested on a firmer objec- 
 tive basis than the theories it sought to overthrow, but would 
 in its turn serve as the foundation of a constructive treat- 
 ment of Israel's history in every way more coherent and 
 rational than had been possible previously. 
 
 I had no reason to complain of the reception or the effect 
 of my work. In Holland and England it was accepted by 
 many scholars as having laid down the main lines of the 
 religious development of Israel correctly, and in further 
 elaborating and defending its fundamental assumptions I was 
 able to rely on the support of my friends Tiele, Oort, 
 De Goeje, Kosters, and many others. 
 
 I was subsequently able to strengthen whatever impression 
 I had made by publishing from time to time a more detailed 
 treatment of special points or aspects of the question in the 
 eleventh and following volumes of the Tlieologiscli Tijchclirift, 
 in a series of Contributions to the criticism of the Pentateuck 
 and Joshua. 
 
 German scholarship, however, long appeared to present an 
 
Introduction. xxxiii 
 
 almost solid phalanx against the newer criticism, and until 
 Germany was won, the battle waSj to say the least, ' behind 
 and before/ Merx^ and de Lagarde^ indeed, were our allies, 
 and were able to point to utterances which proved that they 
 had reached important points of agreement with us indepen- 
 dently of our help. Moreover rumours were abroad of im- 
 portant defections from critical orthodoxy impending but not 
 j'^et declared. It almost seemed as though our German 
 friends were lying in ambush somewhere watching for their 
 chance. Woe to the enemy when they should spring upon 
 him ! 
 
 Meanwhile the attack was strengthened by a work which 
 issued (like Graf's) from the school of Reuss. Aug. Kayser 
 published in 1874 Das vorexilische BucJi der UrgeschicJite 
 Israels und seine Irwe'deningen, in which he defended the 
 thesis that 'the elohistic document, the so-called Grund- 
 schrift, was composed in its entirety (historical and legis- 
 lative portions alike) after the return from the Captivity.' 
 Inasmuch as Kayser was unacquainted with anything that 
 bad been written on the subject since Graf's Gescliiclitliclie 
 Biicher, his investigations had hardly less value as an in- 
 dependent confirmation of results already gained by others 
 than they would have possessed had they really been, as 
 he supposed, entirely new in the breadth and scope of their 
 conclusions. 
 
 Kayser begins with a fresh analysis of the Pentateuch, 
 which advances the critical position at several points of 
 interest ; but the weight of his essay lies in the very careful 
 examination of the Israelitish literature in order to discover 
 
 ' Cf. Merx in Frot. Kirchemeitung for 1865, no. 17, and in Ma Nachwort 
 to Tuch's Genesis, 2nd ed. 
 
 ^ Cf. Lagarde in the Gott. Gel. Anzeigen, for Sept. 28, 1870, p. 1549-1560, 
 containing a reference to his academical lectures in 1864 and the following 
 years. 
 
 C 
 
xxxiv Introduction. 
 
 indications of the form in which the Pentateuchal narratives 
 and laws lay before the other biblical authors. Beginnings 
 with Deuteronomy^ and running through the whole series 
 of historical books, then returning to trace the prophets down 
 in chronological order, Kayser finds that in all cases the 
 priestly narratives and laws alike are excluded from the field 
 of vision of the prse-exilian and early exilian writers, who 
 build first upon the prophetic and then upon the deuteronomic 
 elements of the Hexateuch^ and show not the smallest trace of 
 acquaintance with the Priestly Codex. It will be seen that 
 Kayser's line of investigation was not new; but it was carried 
 out with a comprehensive thoroughness and minuteness that 
 gave it the highest importance, and though Schrader and 
 Noldeke again stepped forward (and now for the last time) in 
 defence of the critical tradition, they were far from successful 
 in disarming Kayser's demonstration^. 
 
 And here I must desert the order of chronology, for a 
 moment, to note the issue in 1879 of the third part of 
 Edouard Reuss's great work La Bible, under the sub-title 
 L'Histoire sainte et la Loi. The venerable Strassburg 
 Professor showed himself, in his admirable introduction to 
 this work, to be not so much a distinguished convert to 
 the Grafian hypothesis as its real author. Ever since 1833 
 he had held and had from time to time uttered opinions, 
 based rather on intuitive insight than on minute and ex- 
 haustive investigations, which anticipated the main result 
 of the newer criticism and substituted the succession Prophets, 
 Law, Psalms, for the traditional Law, Psalms, Prophets. In 
 the lecture-rooms of Strassburg, then, we might look, in 
 no small measure, for the ultimate source of Grafs and 
 Kayser's inspiration, and Eeuss had the satisfaction of 
 seeing the views he had enunciated in his youth taken up 
 
 ' Kayger has made further contributions to the analysis of the Pentateuch 
 in the Jahri. f. prot. Theol, i88i (vid. infr. p. 2). 
 
Introduction. xxxv 
 
 and elaborated by his distinguished pupils and commanding 
 ever increasing assent as he incorporated them, matured 
 and consolidated, into the works of his old age^. 
 
 Prom this parenthetical notice of the founder of that 
 Strassburg school of criticism which, as we have seen, 
 played such an important part in the history we are tracing, 
 we may now return to our chronological survey, remem- 
 bering that we have reached the point at which our allies 
 in Holland, England, and Alsatia were awaiting, so to speak, 
 the adhesion of their German friends. 
 
 At last, in 1875, Bernhard Duhm, of Gottingen, broke 
 the consensus of the German critics by the publication 
 of Die Theologie der Proplieten als GruncUage fur die innere 
 3niwicMungsgescMc7ite der IsraelitiscJien Religion. 
 
 It is not obvious from the title of this work what bearing 
 it has on the question here at issue ; and in truth our 
 problem is attacked by Duhm in quite a new and inde- 
 pendent way. It is nevertheless inseparably connected with 
 the subject of his monograph. For to study the theology 
 of the prophets we must know whether Prophecy is an in- 
 dependent phenomenon, or whether it is a link in a chain ; 
 and if it is the latter we must distinctly realise its posi- 
 tion and its connection with what goes before and comes after 
 it in order rightly to comprehend its character. 
 
 Will the traditional succession of Mosaism, Prophecy, 
 Judaism, lead us to a true understanding of the Prophets ? 
 Duhm regards this succession as antecedently improbable. 
 In point of fact it makes the legal period precede and 
 follow the prophetic ; and moreover Judaism by no means 
 strikes us as a mere falling back upon antiquity. The post- 
 exilian psalms, for example, sung in praise of the Law, are 
 redolent with a freshness of delight which fully justifies 
 
 ' See also ' Die Gesch. der Meil. Schrift. A. T's.,' by Ed. Eeuss., Braun- 
 schweig, 1882. 
 
 C 3 
 
xxxvi Introdtiction. 
 
 us in believing tliafc the poets must have felt themselves 
 in a complete and intelligent sympathy with the Law such 
 as could never have belonged to a 'restoration.' But the 
 difficulty is far greater in understanding how that very 
 identical legalism which we know to have been the death 
 of prophecy in the post-exilian period could have been its 
 nurse or mother in the earlier times. It is all very well 
 to say that the prophets maintained the spirit of Mosaism 
 while neglecting its letter, but in the first place we are 
 never shown that this assertion has any intelligible sense, 
 and in the next place no attempt is made to show us that 
 it is true. Certainly the law itself makes no such distinction 
 as is here implied, and if the prophets had intended to do 
 so they could not have helped laying it down and defending 
 it, while at the same time defining their position towards 
 the letter. 
 
 Prima facie, then, both psychology and history seem 
 opposed to the succession Mosaism, Prophecy, Judaism; but 
 we have yet to ask whether a closer investigation of the 
 documents may not compel us to accept it, or, in other words, 
 whether it can be shown that the great central mass of 
 the Tora, narrative and legislative, did really precede the 
 prophets. 
 
 Provisionally accepting the results obtained, on this point, 
 by Vatke, myself, Kayser, and others, Duhm proceeds to 
 investigate the historical conditions and the internal develop- 
 ment of prophecy, to see whether the whole history, external 
 and internal, can be consistently traced out on the assumption 
 of the non-existence of the priestly legislation. The result 
 is that, in the whole course of his masterly investigation, 
 he is never once driven back upon the Mosaic Law for 
 explanations or illustrations of the growth of prophecy. 
 This IS, in itself, an important indication that he has chosen 
 the right point of view. But there is more. On two occa- 
 
Introduction. xxxvii 
 
 sions his path leads him into immediate contact with the 
 Tora, viz. when he has to deal with Deuteronomy in describing 
 the historical environment of the prophets of the second 
 period, and again when his investigation closes, at the time 
 of Ezra and Nehemiah. Does it appear at these critical 
 points that he has been following the wrong track? And 
 does he meet with phenomena here which compel him to 
 adopt other premises than those from which he started ? 
 On the contrary, he is able, here too, to explain what he 
 finds before him without violence or difBculty. 
 
 Take his section on Deuteronomy (p. 194 sqq.). The 
 fundamental ideas of the deuteronomie legislation are^ he 
 saySj the demand to serve Yahwe alone, and serve him with 
 the service of the heart ; Israel's sanctity, or the consecration 
 of Israel to Yahwe ; the temple at Jerusalem as Yahwe's 
 only sanctuary ; Levi's descendants as the only lawful priests. 
 Now these fandamental ideas he clearly shows to be derived 
 specifically from Hosea and Isaiah ; so that they presuppose 
 their activity, but nothing else, — no priestly legislation for 
 instance. And, we may add, if even Deuteronomy presupposes 
 such an objective projection of religion as we find in Hosea 
 and Isaiah, not in Amos or Micah (see the striking passage 
 in Duhm, p. 199 sq.), how much more must the priestly code 
 follow rather than precede the same ! 
 
 This last point is brought out by Duhm himself in his 
 section on ' the establishment of the Theocracy ' (p. 264 
 sqq.) ; where, in spite of what seems to me his injustice 
 towards Ezra's Law, he nevertheless points out its connection 
 with all that had gone before with irrefragable truth. 
 
 Experience had shown that there were scholars who might 
 remain deaf even to the claims of such historical considera- 
 tions as these, who would prefer to think that the so-called 
 ' Grundschrift ' dropped from the sky some few centuries 
 before anyone wanted it rather than that it grew up in 
 
xxxviii Introduction. 
 
 its own historical environment when its hour had come. 
 Yet as I read Duhm's book, it seemed as if they must hear at 
 last, so loud and clear was the witness he bore, alike in 
 the passages analysed and throughout his work. 'I have 
 already declared myself absolutely convinced by the argu- 
 ments of Graf, Kuenen, and others in support of the Grafian 
 hypothesis. The post-exilian origin of the priestly book 
 of religion has been demonstrated more cogently and more 
 abundantly than the exilian origin of the second part of 
 Isaiah' (p. 195). Bold words! yet not too bold. No one 
 who had really grasped the situation could take any other 
 view^. 
 
 Duhm's work was not without its effect, but it was reserved 
 for another scholar finally to break up the German opposition 
 to the ' Grafians,' as we were generally called. 
 
 In 1876 and 1877 Dr. Julius Wellhausen, well known by 
 his admirable treatment of various critical and historical 
 subjects connected with the literature and religion of Israel, 
 published his valuable studies on the ' Composition des Hexa- 
 teuchs ' in the Jahrb. f. deiitsche Theologie. Though mainly 
 devoted to the critical analysis of the Hexateuch, these 
 studies were intimately connected with our question, and 
 their author left no room for doubt as to his position with 
 respect to it 2. His great contribution to its solution, how- 
 ever, was made in the year 1878, in the first volume of his 
 History of Israel. I can fortunately dispense with any 
 detailed account of this work inasmuch as it is now in the 
 
 ^ Were I criticising Duhm's book, instead of merely pointing out its place 
 in the history of Peutateuchal investigation, I should have to dwell on its 
 involved and perplexing style, its overstrained contrasts and distinctions, and 
 its occasionally unsympathetic tone. 
 
 '^ The earlier of these articles were translated and controverted by Colenso, 
 whose objections will be noted from time to time in this work. They are 
 now reprinted as the second volume of the author's Skizzen imd Vorarheiten, 
 Berlin, 1885. 
 
Inti'oduction. xxxix 
 
 hands of English readers \ but I can hardly describe the 
 delight with which I first read it — a delight such as seldom 
 indeed meets one on the path of learning. At one with the 
 writer a priori, not only in principles but in general results, 
 I was able to follow him from beginning to end with almost 
 unbroken assent, and at the same time to learn more than I 
 can say from every part of his work. Now and then my 
 pleasure was — shall I say tempered or increased ? — when I 
 noted that Wellhausen had got the start of me as to this or 
 that point that I had expected to indicate for the first time, 
 in my own forthcoming work. But I could not wish that I 
 had been sooner on the field, for in that case I should have 
 missed all the other points which I had not anticipated and 
 by which I could now profit. 
 
 Wellhausen 's treatment of our theme, for which I must 
 refer to his book itself, was so cogent, so original, and so 
 brilliant, that its publication may be regarded as the ' crown- 
 ing fight' in the long campaign. Since 1878 the question 
 has been more and more seriously considered in Germany — 
 and in most cases to consider it seriously has meant to decide 
 it in our sense. Some eminent scholars still hold out 
 against the ' Grafian hypothesis^,' but it is no longer possible 
 to count its supporters or to enumerate seriatim the works 
 written in its defence or built upon its assumptions^. In 
 
 ' Prolegomena to the History of Israel, with a reprint of the article Israel 
 from the 'JEncydopcedia Britannica,' by Julius WeHhausen, etc., translated by 
 J. Sutherland Black, M.A. and Allen Menzies, B.D. Preface by Prof. W. 
 Bobertson Smith, Edinburgh, A. and C. Black, 1885. 
 
 2 The foremost place amongst them belongs to Dillmann (vid. iufr. p. i), 
 whose -view, however, cannot be judged in its entirety till the appearance of 
 his forthcoming commentaries on Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua. He is 
 supported by Ed. Eiehm of Halle, already referred to. A middle position 
 is defended or sought by W. Graf von Baudissin {Der heutige Stand der 
 alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft, Gieszen, 1885) and in a, certain sense by 
 Delitzsch (vid. inir. p. 2). 
 
 " I cannot, however, refrain from mentioning the names, if nothing more, of 
 Budde, Giesebreoht, Horst, Smend, Stade, and Eobertson Smith, 
 
xl Introdtiction. 
 
 setting forth in this treatise, for the first time, its complete 
 and systematic critical justification I am no longer advocating 
 a heresy, but am expounding the received view of European 
 critical scholarship. Those who dissent from it may still 
 appeal to names which command universal respect, but they 
 can no longer stake their case on the ' consensus criticorum,' 
 which has at last declared itself against them, 
 
 whose writings will be noticed in the body of this work, and P. E. Konig 
 (Der Offenharungsbegriff des A. T., 2 vols., Leipzig, 1883) who combines the 
 Grafian criticism with a very rigid doctrinal orthodoxy. 
 
 Addendum to Page a. 
 
 Since the early sheets of this work left my hand, the translation 
 of Wellhausen's Prolegomena (see p. xxxix) has appeared. Eefer- 
 ences to this, as to other translations, are inserted in square 
 brackets. 
 
 "Wellhausen's Articles on the Composition of the Hexateuch are 
 now published separately as the second part of his Skizzen und 
 Vorarbeiten, Berlin, 1885; but as the pagination of the original 
 is given in the margin of the reprint, the references in this work 
 will be available for either form of the essays. — Te. 
 
THE HEXATEUCH 
 (PENTATEUCH AND BOOK OF JOSHUA). 
 
 LlTERATUEB. For more than a century past the origin of the Pentateuch, [5] 
 and especially the question whether Moses was its author, has been the 
 subject of diligent inquiry and of violent dispute. The most important of the 
 almost innumerable books and essays that deal with separate portions of the 
 critical inquiry will be mentioned in their proper places in the course of our 
 investigation. The subject, as a whole, is dealt with in the ' Introductions ' to 
 the Old Testament (J.G. Eichhorn;L. Eertholdt; W. M, L. de Wette 
 (8th ed. by E. Schrader); F. Bleek (3rd ed. by A. Kamphausen 
 [English translation of 2nd ed. (also by Kamphausen) by G. H. Venables] ; 
 4th ed. by J. Wellhausen); H. A. C. Havernick (2nd ed. by C. F. 
 Keil [English translation of 1st ed. by W. L. Alexander (general) and 
 A. Thompson (special)]; C.F. Keil [English translation by G. C. M. 
 Douglas]; J. J. Stahelin; S. Davidson; and others), and also in the 
 following works, amongst others of less importance ; — 
 
 a. The Commentaries on the Pentateuch and Joshua. For the older com- 
 mentaries cf. Kamphausen in Bleek 's Mini. 3rded. p. 156-158 [i. i6i-i6.i], 
 and the works there cited. The best known recent Commentaries are : J . S . 
 Vater, Commeniar ilber den Pentateuch, 3 Theile (Halle, 1802-1805); M. 
 Baumgarten, Theol. Commentar zum A. T., Erster Theil; Pentateuch (Kiel, 
 1842-1844) ; A. Knobel, in the Kurzgefasstes exeg. Handbuch zum A. T. 
 Lief. xi. (Genesis, 4th ed. neu bearb. von A. Dillmann); xii. (Exodus u. 
 Leviticus, 2nd ed. neu bearb. von A. Dillmann); xiii. (Numeri — Josua) ; 
 M. Kaliech, A hist, and crit. commentary on the 0. T. vol. i.-iv. Genesis, 
 Exodus, Leviticus part i. and ii. (London, 1855-1872) ; C. F. Keil, in the Bihl. 
 ComTuentar ■Uher das A. T.,hjG. F. Keil and P. Delitzsoh, Theil i. Die Bilcher 
 Moses ; Theil ii. i ; Josua, Eichter u. Hut (Leipzig, i86r sqq. [English transla- 
 tions by J. Martin ; Pentateuch, 3 vols. Josh. etc. i vol.] Commentaries on 
 the Book of Genesis have been written by G. A. Schumann (iS 29); P. von 
 Bohlen(i835) [partial English translation, edited by J. Heywood]; F. Tuch 
 (1838; 2nd ed. by Arnold and Merx, 1871); F. Delitzsch (1852 ; 4th ed, [6] 
 1872) ; E. Bohmer (1862) ; on Deuteronomy, by F. W. Schuitz (1859) ; on 
 Joshua, by F. J. V.D.Maurer (1831); C.F. Keil (1847) [English transla- 
 tion by J. Martin]. 
 
 h. The critical researches ofJ.S.Vater, Ahhandlang iiber Moses ■«. die 
 Verfasser des Peniateuchs (in his Commentar, etc. iii. 391-728) ; W. M. L. 
 deWette, .BeftTOffezwrXridV^des^. T, 2Bande(Halle, 1806-1807); A. Th. 
 
 B 
 
2 The Hexateuch. [§i. 
 
 Hartmann, Bist. Krit. Forschungen uher . . . fiinf Siicher Mose's (Rostock, 
 1831) ; F, H. Eanke, Untersuchungen ilber den Pentateuch, 2 Bande (Erlangen, 
 1834-1840), E. W. Hengatenberg, Die Authentie des Pentateuchs (in hia 
 Beitriigezur Einl.in das A. T., Bd. ii. and iii., 2 Bande (Berlin, 1836-1839) [Eng- 
 lish translation by J. E. Eyland] ; B. Welte, Nachmosaisches im Pentateuch 
 (Ereiburg, 1841) ; J. J. Stahelin, Krit. Untersuchungen iiber den Pent., die 
 Bucher Jos. Richt. Sam. u. der Konige (Berlin, 1843) ; J. W. Colenso, The 
 Pent, and Book of Joshua critically examined, part i.-vii. (London, 1 862-1 879) ; 
 Lectures on the Pent, and the Moabite stone (London, 1873) ; K. H. Graf, Die 
 gesch. Biichcr des A. T., p. 1-113 (Leipzig, 1866); Th. Noldeke, Untersu- 
 chungen zur Kritik des A. T., i.-iii. p. 1-172 (Kiel, 1869) ; A. Kayser, Das 
 vorexil. Buck der Urgeschichte Israels iii. seine Enoeiterungen (Strassburg, 
 1874); Der gegenwdrtige Stand der Pentateuchfrage (Jahrb. fur prot. Theol. 
 1881, p. 326-365, 520-564, 630-665) ; J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des 
 Bexateuchs (Jahrb. f. deufcsche Theol. xxi. 392-450, 531-602 ; xxii. 407-479) ; 
 Gesch. Israels, i. (Berlin, 1878) ; 2nd ed. entitled Prolegomena zur Geschichte 
 Israels (Berlin, 1883) ; F. Delitzsoh, Pentateuch-hritische Studien, i.-xii. in 
 the Zeitschr. f. kirehl. Wissensohaft u. kirchl. Leben, Jahrg. i. (Leipz. 1880). 
 
 § I. Names, Division, and Contents. 
 
 To the first five books of their Sacred Scripture the Jews 
 gave the name of pllin, or teaching. This word is often 
 used in the Old Testament itself, where it generally signifies 
 the teaching given by Yahwe to his people by means of 
 his servants (priests, prophets, etc.)^, and often, more spe- 
 cifically, Yahwe's revelation to and by Moses, which was 
 [7] written down in a book^: whether the books we now possess 
 or not cannot be determined till later on. 
 
 ^ On this use of the word see § 10, n. 4. 
 
 ' Cf. Josh. viii. 31, 34; xxiii. 6 ; i Kings ii. 3 ; 2 Kings xiv. 6; xxii. 8 ; 
 xxiii. 25; 2 Chrun. xxiii. 18; xxv. 4; xxx. 16; xxxiv. 14; xxxv. 12; Ezr. 
 iii. 2 ; vii. 6 ; Neh. "viii. i ; etc. 
 
 The division of the Tora into five books (known by the 
 Jews as n~linil "'lyp^n nUJOn) is presupposed by the names 
 rj irevTCLTevxcs /3i/3Aos and Pentateuchus (liber), current amongst 
 the Hellenists and the Greek and Latin Christians. The 
 division is certainly very old 3; it seems to have been known 
 to the latest collector of the Psalms*, and may very well be 
 
n. 1-6.] Names and Divisions. 3 
 
 original, i. e. contemporaneous with the final redaction of the 
 Tora^. In the Hebrew text the five books are indicated 
 respectively by their first or almost their first words, whereas 
 in the Greek translation their names refer to their main 
 contents, or some striking portion of them^. These Greek 
 names, unchanged or translated into Latin or the vernacu- 
 lars, subsequently passed into general use. 
 
 " HaTius Josephus is familiar with it, c. Apion, i. 8. 
 
 • In all probability it was this division that suggested the splitting up of 
 the Psalms into five books, 
 
 ° The division is not forced upon the Tora, but falls in naturally with its 
 contents. Ex. i. opens a new section, the history of the people; ISx. xl. 
 closes the subdivision of the legislation that refers to the sanctuary ; the book 
 of Leviticus, though not a well rounded whole, is clearly parted by the 
 colophons in xxvi. 46, xxvii. 34, from Numbers, which latter has its own 
 superscription (i. i) and colophon (xxxvi. 13). Finally, the beginning of 
 Deuteronomy obviously coincides with a fresh departure. Cf. Delitzsch, Die 
 Genesis, p. 15, and below, § 16, n. 13-15. 
 
 ^" AiVTepovdptLov signifies repetition of the law (previously delivered at 
 Sinai) ; to 8. toSto in Dent. xvii. 15 is a mistranslation of nNin minn n:itiD, 
 i.e. the reproduction or 'the copy of this tora;' how the translator meant 
 TO 5. v6fios Maivcr^, Josh. viii. 32 [Gik. ix. 5] to be taken is not certain, probably 
 '(the book) Deuteronomy, the law of Moses.' Cf. Th. Tijdschr. x. 549 sq. 
 (1876). 
 
 The book of Joshua takes its name, in which the 
 original and the old translations agree, from the chief per- 
 sonage in the narrative it contains. In the Jewish canon, 
 though immediately following the Tora, it is sharply divided 
 from it, and is assigned to another division of the Sacred 
 Scripture. In this work, on the contrary, the Tora and the [8] 
 book of Joshua are not only treated together, but are in- 
 cluded under the common heading of the Hexateuch; for 
 they belong to each other, and their contents form a single 
 whole, and, moreover, they are the final outcome of one and 
 the same literary process. The weight of the latter reason 
 can only be gradually appreciated as we go along, but that 
 of the former will be obvious at once from the following 
 survey of the contents of the books. 
 
 B 2 
 
4 The Hexateuch. [ § i- 
 
 This survey aims at being more than a mere table of con- 
 tents, which the reader might easily draw up for himself. It 
 is intended to prepare for the investigation we have under- 
 taken into the composition of the Hexateuch, and the mutual 
 connection of its parts, by a preliminary indication of the 
 drift, or plan of the whole work; or, in other words, to trace 
 the thread which runs through the whole, and which we 
 shall see at once so holds it together as utterly to exclude 
 any idea of its being a mere chance assemblage of hetero- 
 geneous elements. 
 
 The election and settlement of Israel, the people 
 of Yahwe, consecrated to him and destined for his 
 service, — such is the main subject of the Hexateuch. The 
 book of Genesis, then, figures as an indispensable intro- 
 duction, in which the formation of this people is described. 
 But it does not enter upon its proper subject till xi. 27 sqq. 
 (migration of Terah and his family to Canaan) or xii. i sqq. 
 (call of Abraham); — what precedes serving to indicate the 
 place of Israel's forefathers in the history of the world, and to 
 connect their origin with the beginning of all things. In 
 i.-iv. the creation of heaven and earth and the fortunes of 
 the first human beings are related. Ch. v. contains a genea- 
 logical tree from Adam to'TSToah. The flood, with the escape 
 of Noah and his sons, is the subject of vi.-ix. After a few 
 records of their descendants in general (x.-xi. 9), a special 
 genealogical tree from Shem to Terah (xi. 10-32) brings us 
 down to Abram, the tribal father of Israel and of the nearest 
 kindred peoples. In this division of Genesis the consecration 
 [9] of the sabbath (ii. 1-3), the distinction between clean and 
 unclean beasts (vii. 2 sqq.) and Elohim's commands to Noah 
 (ix. 1-7), point forward towards the ordinances of the Mosaic 
 time, while the statements as to Terah's. ofi'spring (xi. 26-30) 
 await their due expansion in the narratives concerning Abram 
 (xii. 5 ; xiii. 5 sqq. ; xix. ; xxii. 20 sqq. ; xxiv. ; and xv. sqq.). 
 
n. 7-10.] Contents of Genesis. 5 
 
 In xii.-xxv. II Abraham is the chief person. A short 
 account of his son Ishmael (xxv. 13-18) is followed by a 
 fuller narrative of the fortunes of Isaac and of his two sons 
 np to the time of Isaac's death (xxv. 19-xxxv. 29); and 
 then in like manner Esau and his race are rapidly dealt 
 with in ch. xxxvi., after which the history of Jacob and his 
 sons, especially of their migration to Egypt and their expe- 
 riences there, is told at greater length (xxxvii.-l.). The con- 
 nection of this portion of the narrative with what precedes 
 and follows comes out in the repeated employment of the 
 superscription : ' [and] these are the toledoth of,' etc.'^ in the 
 continuous chronology^, in the frequent announcements of 
 Israel's settlement in Canaan^, in the account of the in- 
 stitution of circumcision^", and so forth. 
 
 ' See Gen. ii. 4; v. i ('this is the book of the toledoth of Adam') ; -pi. 9 ; 
 X. i; xi. 10, 27; xxv. 12, 19 ; xxxvi. 1,9; xxxvii. 2. Graetz, Gesch. der Juden, 
 ii. I, p. 457 sq., truly remarks that nnSin n^Nl always points forward ; but 
 it is not true that "n ribx, without the copula, always points backward, unless 
 we are prepared to alter the text of Gen. v. i ; vi. 9 ; xi. 10 ; xxxvii. 2 ; (cf. 
 also Gen. xxxvi. 20, 29). If we make Gen. ii. 4" refer to what precedes as 
 well as what follows it, and regard xxxvi. as a single whole, in spite of v. 9, 
 we arrive at the conclusion that Genesis consists of tm toleddth — which, how- 
 ever, differ so much in length, and are so far from obvious, that we may 
 doubt whether any such division was contemplated by the redactor. 
 
 * The chronology may be made out from the following passages : Gen. v. ; 
 vii. 6, 11; xi. 10-26; xii. 4; xvi. 16; xvii. i; xxi. 5; xxv. 7, 20, 26; 
 XXXV. 28 ; xxxvii. 2 ; xli. 46 ; xlv. 6 ; xlvii. 9 ; Ex. xii. 40 — which last text 
 fixes the year of the exodus, by which again further dates are reckoned in 
 Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, 
 
 ' The predictions to the patriarchs need not be enumerated here. The 
 following deserve special notice : Gen. xv. 13-16 (Egyptian bondage, exodus, 
 settlement in Canaan) ; xlix. (fortunes and territories of the tribes) ; 1. 25 
 (Joseph's bones, cf. Ex. xiii. 19 ; Josh. xxiv. 32). 
 
 '° See Gen. xvii., especially v. 10-14, where the ordinance refers to the future [10] 
 as well as the present ; of. xxi. 4 ; xxxiv. 15 sqq. ; also Ex. xii. 44, 48, where 
 the rite is presupposed. 
 
 The Sinaitic legislation forms the centre of the book 
 of Exodus. The arrival of Israel in the desert of Sinai 
 (xix. i) is preceded by accounts of the oppression of Jacob's 
 
6 The Hexateuch. [§i. 
 
 progeny in Egypt (i.), the birth, the early fortunes and the 
 call of Moses (ii.-iv.), his appearance before Pharaoh, the 
 plagues of Egyptj the exodus (v.-xiii. 16) — with which 
 latter the laws of the passover, the feast of unleavened bread, 
 and the consecration of the first-born are connected (xii. 
 1-25, 43-50; xiii. 1-16), — the passage of the Red Sea (xiii. 
 i7-xv.)j the miracles of the manna and the quails (xvi.), 
 the events at Rephidim (xvii.), and the visit of Jethro, 
 Moses' father-in-law (xviii.). The events at Sinai are related 
 in the following order : the announcement of the revelation 
 of Yahwe's will (six.); the proclamation of the Decalogue 
 (xx. 1-17); the commandments given to Moses by Yah we 
 (xx. i8-xxiii.); the covenant between Yahw^ and Israel, on 
 the basis of these commandments (xxiv.); further injunctions 
 from Yahwe to Moses concerning the construction of the 
 sanctuary, the ohel mo'ed, and the consecration of Aaron 
 and his sons to the priesthood (xxv.-xxxi. 17). Between the 
 delivery of these injunctions and their execution (xxxv.-xl.) is 
 inserted the account of Israel's apostasy and its consequences 
 (xxxi. 18-xxxiv.). The arrangement of these events and ordi- 
 nances rouses our suspicions on more points than one, but in 
 the main it is chronological (xii. i sqq. 51; xvi. i; xix. i; 
 xl. a, 17). The approaching settlement of the people in 
 Canaan is constantly spoken of, with references to the pro- 
 mises made to the fathers (iii. 6 sqq.; vi. 2 sqq.; xxiii. 20-33; 
 xxxii. 13; xxxiii. I, 2; xxxiv. 11-16). The genealogical tree 
 in vi. 14-25 contains a number of names to which the 
 narrative subsequently returns. 
 
 The book of Leviticus is almost entirely devoted to 
 legislation; viii.-x. can hardly be regarded as constituting 
 an exception. The book, therefore, contains no chronological 
 statements. From ISx. xl. 2, 17, compared with Num. i. i; 
 [II] ix. 1-8; X. II, it would follow that the laws of Leviticus 
 were drawn up after the completion of the ohel mo'ed 
 
n. II, 12.] Contents of Exodus and Levitictis. 7 
 
 and before the departure of Israel from the Sinaitic desert. 
 This agrees with the statements as to place in. Lev. i. i ; 
 vii. 38; XXV. i; xxvi. 46; xxvii. 34. We find these state- 
 ments in the headings and colophons with which some, but 
 not all, of the laws in LevHicvs are provided ^^ The laws 
 themselves deal with offerings [Lev. i.-vii.), clean and unclean 
 animals (xi.), bodily uncleanness, especially leprosy (xii.-xv.), 
 the celebration of the great day of atonement (xvi.), sacrificing 
 at the sanctuary^ and the blood of the victims (xvii.), the 
 ethico -religious duties of the Israelite (xviii.-xx.), the qualifi- 
 cation and the special duties of the priests (xxi., xxii.), the 
 festivals (xxiii.), the golden lamp-stand and the shew- 
 bread (xxiv. 1—9), the punishment of blasphemy and the penal 
 code in general (v. 10-23), ^^ sabbatical year and the year 
 of jubilee (xxv.)jand vows (xxvii.); while viii.-x. refers to the 
 consecration of the priests to their office and all that goes 
 with it ; and the long discourse in xxvi. sets forth to Israel 
 the consequences of the observance and of the breach of 
 Yahwe's precepts. This summary is enough to show that 
 the arrangement of the ordinances is far from perfect, but 
 that points of contact with Exodus and Numbers are not 
 wanting ^^, so that on this ground, as well as on others, 
 Leviticus should be regarded as an essential portion of the 
 Tora. 
 
 " See Lev. vii. 38 ; xi. 46, 47 ; xiii. 59 ; xiv. 54-57 ; xv. 32, 33 ; xxvi. 46 ; 
 xxvii. 34. The superBcriptions, including those in vi., vii., will be dealt with 
 hereafter. 
 
 '^ In addition to the mention of the dhel mo'dd {Lev. i.-vi. and viii.-x. 
 passim ; xii. 6 ; xiv. 11, 23 ; xv. 14, 29 ; xvi. passim ; xvii. 4-6, 9 ; xix. 21 ; 
 xxiv. 3) we may note amongst other things how Lev. viii. refers back to Ex. 
 xxix. 1-37 ; how Lev. xvi. is related to Ex. xxx. 10 {Lev. xxiii. 26 sqq. ; xxv. 9) ; 
 Num. xxix. 7 sqq. ; and Lev, xxiii. ioNum. xxviii., xxix. ; how Lev. xxv. 32-34 is 
 connected with the consecration of the Levites in Num. iii. sq. and of the 
 Levitical cities in Num. xxxv. 1-8 ; and Lev. xxvii. with Num. xxx. 
 
 The book of Numbers, partly historical and partly legis- 
 lative, completes the account of the sojourn of Israel in the 
 
8 The Hexateiuh. [ § i . 
 
 [12] Sinaitic desert, i.-ix. 10. The accounts of the census and 
 the disposition of the camp (i., ii.), the gifts of the heads of 
 the tribes at the consecration of the sanctuary (vii.), the 
 setting apart of the Levites for their functions (viii.), the 
 celebration of the passover in the second year after the exodus 
 (ix. I— 14), and the column of cloud and fire (y. 15-23), are 
 interspersed with more or less germane ordinances as to 
 the Levites and their duties (iii., iv.), the cleansing of the 
 camp (v. 1-4), the trespass-ofiering and the oflfering of jealousy 
 {y. 5-10, 11-31), the Nazirite vow (vi. 1-21), the priestly 
 blessing {v. 22-27), and the sacred trumpets (x. i-io). A 
 similar intertwining of matter may be observed in x. i i-xix. : 
 the narrative is continued in x. 11-28 (march from the desert 
 of Sinai) ; v. 39-36 (details of the journey in the desert) ; xi., 
 xii. (Tab'era, Kibroth-hattaava, Miriam's leprosy) ; xiii., xiv. 
 (the dispatch of the spies and its consequences); xvi., xvii. 
 (revolt of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram) ; whereas in xv. we 
 find legal regulations on five miscellaneous subjects ; in xviii. 
 on the income of the priests and Levites ; in xix. on the 
 purification of the unclean. With xx. the preparation for 
 Israel's settlement begins : at Kadesh Miriam dies and the 
 people murmur against Moses and Aaron (xx. 1-13); thence 
 an embassy is dispatched to Edom [v. 14-21); Aaron dies 
 {y. 32-29) ; the territory of Sihon and of Og is conquered 
 (xxi.) ; Balaam blesses Israel (xxii.-xxiv.) ; idolatry is practised 
 at Shittim, and punished (xxv.) ; the second census takes 
 place (xxvi.) ; the rights of heiresses are regulated (xxvii. 
 i^ii); Joshua is appointed and consecrated as Moses' suc- 
 cessor (y. 12-23); ^'^^ \2i-^^ concerning fasts and vows are 
 supplemented (xxviii.-xxx.) ; Moses punishes the Midianites 
 and makes regulations about the booty (xxxi.) ; he allows the 
 tribes of Reuben and Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh to 
 settle in the Transjordanic region (xxxii.) ; records the 
 stations of the desert wanderings now ended (xxxiii. 1-49); 
 
n. 13, I4-] Contents of Numbers and Deuteronomy, g 
 
 orders the extermination of the Canaanites (v. 50-56) ; defines 
 the limits of Israelis future territory (xxxiv.) ; issues ordi- [13] 
 nances concerning the priestly and Levitieal cities (xxxv. 1-8) 
 and the cities of refuge (v. 9-34) and supplements the prcYious 
 ordinance (xxvii. i-ii) concerning heiresses (xxxvi. 1-12). 
 The whole is closed by a colophon (xxxvi. 13). It is obvious 
 that here too the order of succession is often anything but 
 natural, and challenges further investigation. But neither 
 chronological arrangement^' nor connection with the two 
 preceding books ^* is wanting; while xxvii. 12-14, xxxii. 
 20 sqq., xxxiv., xxxv. 1-8, 9-34, and other passages, contain 
 announcements or injunctions, the fulfilment of which we 
 find in due course in Deuteronomy (xxxii. 48-52, xxxiv.) and 
 in Joshua (i. 12-18, xiv. 1-5, &c., xx., xxi.). 
 
 ^^ See, in addition to the texts already mentioned (i. i ; ix. 1-8; a. ii), 
 xiv. 33-35 (announcement of the forty years' wandering) ; xx. i (ist month 
 [of the 40th year?]) ; v. 22-29, cf. xxxiii. 38 (fifth month of the 40th year). 
 
 '* The points of contact with Leciticus have been indicated in n. 12 ; those 
 with Exodus hardly need to be pointed out: the 6hel mo'dd, the sacred 
 vessels, and Aaron and his sons as priests, are presupposed passim. Further, 
 compare Bx. xxxviii. 25 sq. with Num. i. 
 
 In the last chapters of Xumbers the close of the life of 
 Moses is represented as close at hand (xxvii. 12-14, xxxi. 2), 
 and we therefore expect the account of his death immediately. 
 Butj as a fact, almost the whole of Deuteronomy precedes it, 
 so that this latter book seems like a huge parenthesis. Its 
 position after Numbers agrees with the date in the super- 
 scription i. 1-5 (first day of the eleventh month of the 
 fortieth year), which is the only chronological datum in the 
 book. This superscription refers in the first instance to the 
 address of Moses to the assembled people, contained in i. 
 6-iv. 40, and chiefly devoted to recalling the events of the 
 years and months just gone. A short account of the 
 establishment of the cities of refuge in the Transjordanic 
 region, iv. 41-43, severs this address from the discourse of 
 
lO 
 
 The Hexateuch. [ § 
 
 Moses which follows, in v. sqq., and which is referred by a 
 fresh superscription (iv. 44-49) to the same place and period 
 as the other. This discourse, at the beginning of which the 
 [14] Decalogue is repeated (v. 6-18 [6-21]), is hortatory up to 
 the end of xi., and then, from xii. onward, it is legislative 
 and runs on unbroken to the end of xxvi.^^ The four follow- 
 ing chapters (xxvii.-xxx.) still introduce Moses as the speaker, 
 but they are not simply a continuation of v.-xxvi., as may be 
 seen from the fresh headings in xxvii. i, 9, 11 ; xxix. i, and 
 from the colophon in xxviii. 69. Ch. xxvii. is chiefly con- 
 cerned with a religious assembly to be held at Mounts Ebal 
 and Gerizim (cf. xi. 29-32); and in xxviii.-xxx. the blessing 
 and the curse of the law are held before Israel. In xxxi. we 
 read that Moses reduced the law he had proclaimed to writing, 
 pointed to Joshua as his successor, and composed a song of 
 solemn warning to his people, which song is given in xxxii. 
 1-43, and earnestly commended to Israel in v. 44-47. A 
 second announcement of Moses' death v. 48-52 (cf. Nuw. 
 xxvii. 12-14) precedes 'the blessing of Moses, the man of 
 God,' in xxxiii., and the record of his actual death, ending 
 with a fitting tribute to his character and services (xxxiv.). 
 
 ■" The summary of the contents of the laws is omitted here, but will be 
 given later on, when a comparison between them and the other legislative 
 parts of the Tora will be instituted. 
 
 The close connection between the book of Joshua and 
 the Tora is unmistakable. In both sections of the former, 
 i.-xii. (the conquest of Canaan), and xiii.-xxiv. (the partition 
 of the land, and Joshua's last dispositions) constant and ex- 
 press reference is made to Moses, to his deeds and to his 
 ordinances'^. And moreover, material agreement and connec- 
 tion with the Tora become obvious at once in the first part of 
 the book. After the death of Moses (cf. Deut. xxxiv.) Joshua 
 takes command and prepares the people, especially the Trans- 
 jordanic tribes (cf. Num. xxxii. 20 sqq.; Deut. iii. 18-22), for 
 
n. 15-] Contents of D eider onomy and yos/ma. ir 
 
 the passage of the Jordan (i.); he sends out spies (ii.), and 
 on their return accomplishes the passage (iii. iv), which is 
 constantly represented in Deuteronomy as close at hand. After 
 this the people are circumcised (v. i-8) and the passover [15] 
 celebrated {v. 9-1 a). The series of conquests, announced by 
 an angelophany {v. 13-15), is opened by the taking of Jericho 
 (vi.), which is immediately followed^ after the punishment 
 of Achan's offence, by the fall of Ai (vii. i-viii. 29). The 
 assembly at Ebal and Gerizim is held {v. 30-35) in accord- 
 ance with the injunctions of Moses (I)eut. xxvii. 1-13). The 
 Gibeonites succeed by a stratagem in securing their lives 
 (ix.), but the kings first of southern (x.) and then of northern 
 Canaan (xi.) are defeated by Joshua, their cities taken, and 
 the inhabitants exterminated, in accordance with the Mosaic 
 precepts in Deuteronomy. A list of the conquered cities closes 
 this section of the book (xii.). 
 
 In the second section the dispositions made by Moses con- 
 cerning the Transjordanic region are called to mind (xiii.), 
 and the partition of Canaan proper is then described. The 
 introduction (xiv. 1-5) refers back to the indications of 
 Num. xxxiv. ; and the episode of Caleb's inheritance, which 
 immediately follows (v. 6-15), depends upon Num. xiii., xiv. 
 and still more directly upon Deiit. i. 20-46. Territories are 
 assigned respectively to Judah (xv.), Ephraim, and Manas- 
 seh (xvi., xvii.), without neglecting the commands of Moses 
 concerning Manasseh {Num. xxvii. i-ii; xxxvi. 1-12), and 
 then — at Shiloh, where the oh el mo'ed (cf Exod. xxv. sqq.) 
 was pitched — to the other tribes also (xviii., xix.). The cities 
 of refuge (xx.) and the priestly and Levitical cities (xxi. 1-40 
 [1-42]) are next assigned, in execution of the law in Num. 
 XXXV. The settlement of Israel thus accomplished {v. 41-43 
 [43-45] ), the Transjordanic tribes turn homewards, with rich 
 presents (xxii. 1-8), and by the erection of an altar give the 
 other tribes occasion to manifest their attachment to the one 
 
12 The Hexateuch. [§i.n. i6- 
 
 sanctuary {v. 9-34). Finally, Joshua takes leave of his people 
 (xxiii.), and at his instance the covenant between Israel and 
 Yahwe is renewed in Shecbem (xxiv. 1-28); his two addresses 
 [r6] alike presuppose the narratives and exhortations of the Tora 
 throughout. A short account of the deaths of Joshua and 
 Eleazar, and of the interment of Joseph's bones (cf. n. 9) 
 closes the book {v. 29-33) ■'■''. 
 
 " Moses is mentioned in i. 1-3, 5, 7, 13-15, 17 ; iv. 10, 13 ; viii. 31-33, 
 35 ; ix. 24; xi. 12, 15, 20, 23 ; xii. 6 ; xiii. 8, 12, 15, 21, 24, 29, 32 sq. ; xiv. 
 2 sq., 5-7, 9-11 ; xvii. 4 ; xviii. 7 ; xx. 2 ; xxi. 2, 8 ; xxii. i, 4 aq., 7, 9 ; xxiii. 6 
 — fifty-six times altogether, against four only in Judges (or five, including 
 xviii. 30) and two in Samuel. The other points of contact and agreement with 
 the Tora likewise gain a.dditional significance and weight from the contrast 
 between Joshua on the one side and Judges and Samuel on the other. 
 
 " In accordance with the purpose of this survey only » few of the chief 
 references to the Tora are included in it ; others will come under notice later 
 on, e.g. viii. 29 ; x. 27 ('about the going down of the sun,' cf. Dent. xxi. 22 
 sq.) ; xiii. 21 sq. (cf. Num. xxxi. 8, 16) ; xxii. 17 (cf. Num. xxv.) ; xxiv. 9, 10 
 (cf. Num. xxii. -xxiv. ; Dent, xxiii. 5, 6), etc. etc. 
 
 § 2. Tedmiony of the Kexatetwh itself as to its author. 
 
 It is but fair to begin an inquiry into the origin of the 
 Hexateuch by weighing any testimony we may find in the 
 work itself as to the author of the whole or of any part of it. 
 
 The books of Genesis and Leviticus contain no state- 
 ments as to how or by whom they were committed to 
 writing. In Exodus we read that Yahwe commanded Moses 
 to record the attack of Amalek in the book ('IDES), or 
 rather — according to the reading of some of the old trans- 
 lations (nsTDS)— in a book -{^vii. t.]),; that Moses wrote 
 down (xxiv. 4) all the words of Yahwe, which had been 
 uttered to him on Sinai (xx. 23-xxiii. ^^), and read out this 
 Book of the Covenant to the people (xxiv. 7); that when 
 Yahwe had set forth the commandments, on the basis of 
 which he made a covenant with Israel (xxxiv. 10-26), he 
 commanded Moses to write down these words {v. 27). In 
 
-§ 2. II. 2.j Notices of Moses and Joshua as Writers. 1 3 
 
 Nu7nlers we are told that Moses recorded the camping places 
 of Israel in the desert (xxxiii. 2), — a statement which is 
 immediately followed by the list itself {v. 3-49). Finally, 
 the book of Joshua contains the statement-^xir. 36)^ that \M'\ 
 after the solemn renewal of the covenant between Israel and 
 Yahwe, Joshua 'wrote down these words in the book of 
 the tora of God/ Two of these texts, Ex. xvii. 14 and Josh. 
 xxiv. 26, cannot be accepted as in any way bearing- on the 
 authorship of the narratives to which they belong : for 
 what Moses (or Joshua) is there said to have written down 
 by no means coincides with what now lies before us, and 
 must, in the latter case, be very definitely distinguished from 
 it^. On the other hand, the remaining passages are most 
 naturally understood as making Moses the author, not of 
 the narratives into which they are incorporated, but of the 
 pericopes to which they refer, i. e. Ex. xx. 33— xxiii. 33 ; xxxiv. 
 10—2,6 ; Num. xxxiii. 3—49^. Whether these indications are 
 correct or not we must inquire hereafter. To stretch these 
 statements further and make them apply to the books in 
 which they occur, or even to the Tora as a whole, i^ at 
 open variance with their obvious meaning^. 
 
 * AYhat MoseB is to write down, according to l^x. xvii. 14, is not the account 
 of the conflict with Amalek which we now possess in Ex. xvii. 8-16, but (cf. 
 JDeut. XXV. 17-19) the treacherous conduct of the Amalekites that will one 
 day be avenged by their utter extinction. Still less can we identify the 
 words written down by Joshua (xxiv. 26) with the passage in Josh. xxiv. 
 1-24 ; for the latter does not stand ' in the book of the tora of God,' and con- 
 tains not the obligations entered into by the people, which Joshua was to 
 register, but the description of what took place at Shechem. It is the official 
 docoment which we do not possess, and not the narrative of its enditement, 
 that is assigned to Joshua. See further n. 3. 
 
 ^ Obvious as this interpretation is, it is not the necessary or the only possible 
 one. It is certainly highly probable that ' all the words of Yahwfe,' Ex. xxiv. 
 4 (cf. V. 3, 'all the words of Yahwfe and all the mishphatim'), refers to the 
 precepts in Ex. xx. 23-xxiil. 33, so that e mente auctoris (cf. £x. xxiv. 7) these 
 precepts are rightly designated the book of the Covenant; but it might 
 be maintained that Ex. xxiv. 3-8 refers to some other commandments of 
 Yahwfe. Cf. § 5, n, 3 — In Ex. xxxiv. 27 Moses receives an order : but does 
 
14 The Hexateiuh, [§2. 
 
 he execute it ? I have expressly refrained from citing v. 28, for the subject of 
 nriD'i, is not Moses but (cf. v. 1-4) Yahwfe. The curious relation in which 
 V. 27 thus stands to v. 28 — a point to which we shall have to return — makes it 
 in some sense doubtful whether v. 27 really does refer to v. 10-26, for which, 
 however, everything else pleads. — The writer of Num. xxxiii. 2 unquestionably 
 intends it to be understood that his list in v. 3-49 is founded on notes by 
 [18] Moses, but he does not say in so many words that this very list was actually 
 written by Moses. 
 
 ' Hengstenberg, Authentic, ii. 149 sqq. [ii. 122 sqq.] ; Haevernick, 
 Einl. i. I, p. 19 sqq. [14 sqq.], and the rest who adopt this interpretation, start 
 from the Masoretic reading Tpoa inifx. xvii. 14 : what can ' the book' mean, 
 if not the roll in which Moses regularly recorded all that took place in the desert 
 and that Yahwe revealed to him ? To this day-book the other passages are 
 also made to refer, and even when it is not mentioned it is supposed to underly 
 the Tora or even to be identical with it. Against this it may be remarked 
 (i) that this interpretation of tdD3 is quite unsupported : the supposed day- 
 book has never once been mentioned before Ex. xvii., and therefore could not 
 be called ' the book' ; (2) that even if this were not so, still the identification of 
 the said day-book with what Moses subsequently wrote {Ex. xxiv,, xxxiv., etc.) 
 or with the whole Tora — including Genesis / — is arbitrariness itself. — If the 
 Masorets vocalised Ex. xvii. 14 correctly, then 'the book' must mean the book 
 destined, or to be provided, for that purpose ; cf. Num. v. 23. But the vocali- 
 sation TDD3 (LXX. ; Arab. ; and perhaps other versions, which, however, could 
 not have expressed the article) here, as in i Sam. x. 25, has everything in 
 its favour, including the analogy of Is. xxx. 8 ; Jer. xxx. 2. Wherever the con- 
 sonants, i.e. the writers themselves, decide the matter the article is absent. 
 
 Far more numerous and of quite a different character are 
 the testimonies in Deuieronomy. In the course of the second 
 address (iv. 44-xxvi) Moses speaks (xvii. 18 sq.) of 'this 
 tora' (which he sometimes indicates or paraphrases as the 
 commandment, the mishphatim, etc.), which he gives 'this 
 day *.' The expression itself together with these closer defini- 
 tions raises it above all doubt that the reference is exclusively 
 to the series of exhortations and commandments which Moses 
 uttered, shortly before his death, in the land of Moab in the 
 hearing of all Israel S- Concerning 'this tora,' it is related 
 that Moses wrote it down and gave it to the priests, the 
 sons of Levi (xxxi. 9, 24-26), commanding them to read it 
 aloud on the feast of tabernacles every seventh year to the 
 whole people (v. 10-13); which injunction must likewise 
 
n. 2-6.] Moses as the Writer of Detcteronomy. 1 5 
 
 be referred to the same deuteronomic tora^. But wliereas 
 this code, according to the texts now cited, is in process 
 of production from v. to xxvi., and only exists in writing 
 after xxxi. 9, we find 'this tora ' mentioned in the first 
 discourse of Moses (iv. 8, cf. i. 5) as though it were already 
 in existence ; and in passages which follow the second 
 or legislative discourse, but precede xxxi. 9, the expres- 
 sions occur ' the words of this tora, written in this book ' [19] 
 (xxviii. 58); 'the book of this tora' {y. 61); 'this book of 
 the tora' (xxix. 20 [ai] ; xxx. 10); 'this book' (xxix. 19, 
 36 [30, 37]). Not one of these texts gives the least occasion 
 for changing the interpretation of the formula ' this tora.' 
 In testifying that Moses not only pronounced but com- 
 mitted to writing the legislative discourse of v.-xxvi., 
 they agree with xxxi. 9. But at the same time they con- 
 tain a curious prolejisis, which is quite incompatible with 
 the supposition that Moses is the author of the whole book, 
 and which suggests the idea that we may be in the presence 
 of one of those literary artifices which so often betray them- 
 selves by similar inconsistencies'. 
 
 * See V. I ; vi. 6; vii. ii ; viii. i, ii ; i. 13 ; xi. 8, 13, 26-28, 32 ; xiii. ig 
 [18] ; XV. 5, 15 ; xix. 9. — In xxvii., too, we have ' all the oommandments which 
 I command you this day' {v. i) ; 'this tora' {v. 3, 8, 26); and in xxxii. 
 ' this tora ' {v. 46). Further parallels are found in ' this covenant,' xxix. 
 8, 13 [9, 14] ; of. 'this curse,' v. 18 [19] ; 'the covenant of Yahwfe, that he 
 makes with you this day,' v. 11 [12]. 
 
 * The opinion that the whole tora is intended — defended by !F. W. 
 Schultz in Das Deut. erkl. p. 87 sqq., but withdrawn in his work Die Schop- 
 fungsgeachichte nach Natiirmssenschaft u. Bibel, p. viii. sqq. — is inconsistent, not 
 only with the expressions themselves, but with the colophon, xxviii. 69 
 [xxix. i] : ' these are the words of the covenant, that Yahwfe commanded 
 Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides 
 the covenant that he had made with them at Horeb.' What the 
 book itself distinguishes we are not at liberty to identify. 
 
 ^ Nothing is more natural than that when ' this tora,' i. e. Deuteronomy, had 
 become a part of a greater whole, the precept in question should have been 
 referred to that whole, i.e. to the Pentateuch itself. Perhaps Josephus {Anti- 
 quities, iv. 8. 12), so understands it; at any rate he speaks quite generally of 
 
1 6 The Hexateuch. [§2. 
 
 ' the laws ' being read aloud. It deserves notice, however, that the Jewish 
 tradition still preserves traces of a true perception of the author's meaning. 
 The passages which the Mishna {Sotah, vii. 8) says were read aloud by the 
 king at the feast of the tabernacles in the seventh year all of them belong to 
 Deuteronomy. In Sifri on Deut. xvii. i8 (ed. Bomberg, f. 45 b. ; ed. Fried- 
 mann, i. f. 105 b.) the question is raised why the passage in question says 
 * mishne tora.' The answer is : * because it was to be transcribed ; others 
 say: because on the day of the assembly (bnpn DTl) nothing is read but 
 Deuteronomy.^ Here ' the day of the assembly ' must mean one of the days of 
 the feast of the tabernacles of the seventh year. — The Old Testament itself 
 gives no evidence in this matter. The assembly described in Neh. vlii.-x. was 
 of quite a special character : it began as early as the first day of the seventh 
 month, and was expressly designed to make the Tora known in its entirety. 
 Moreover there is nothing whatever to show that it took place in ' the year 
 [20] of release,' nor yet to indicate what portions of the Toi-a were read on the 
 days of the feast {Nell. viii. 18). 
 
 ' According to Hengstenberg, Authentic, ii. 153 sqq. [ii. 125 sqq.], and 
 others, Moses wrote Deut, i.-xxx. and gave the book to the priests (xxxi. 
 9) ; but this was a symbolical action ; he afterwards received the book 
 back again and added xxxi. 1-23; the sequel, from v. 24 to xxxiv. 12, is 
 an appendix taken up into the tora shortly after his death. Exegetically 
 considered this is quite arbitrary : there is not the least indication that the 
 account of Moses writing down the tora, xxxi. 9, is from the hand of Moses 
 himself; nor that a change of authors takes place at xxxi. 24. Moreover it 
 is quite inconceivable that Moses (in xxviii.-xxx) should have referred to 
 the book he was engaged in composing, as already in existence, and even as 
 having been in existence some days before, when he was still speaking to the 
 people. These and other such difficulties, in which the recognition of the 
 absolutely historical character of the statements of Deuteronomy involves us, 
 give ample occasion to the doubt which has been expressed in the text, and 
 which wiU hereafter be expressly justified. 
 
 From what has now been said it is obvious that those who 
 ascribe the Tora in its entirety to Moses, and the Book of 
 Joshua to the hero whose name it bears, cannot appeal to the 
 testimony of the Hexateuch itself. The Mosaic origin of 
 certain passages in Exodus and Nu7nbers, and of a great part 
 of Beiderommy, may be supported by such an appeal, but 
 no more than this. Whether even this can be established 
 thus will be seen later on, but at the very outset^ in view of 
 the character of the testimonies themselves, we must pro- 
 nounce it doubtful. 
 
§ 3.J Chronological Arrangement of the Laws. 17 
 
 § 3. Investigation and provisional determination of the general 
 character of the Hescatetich. A. The legislation. 
 
 The Jewish and Christian tradition that makes Moses the 
 author of the Tora, and Joshua of the book that bears his 
 name, implies in the first place that the Hexateuch dates 
 from the time in which the books of Exodus—Deuteronomy, 
 and the book of Joshua place us. Can this supposition be 
 allowed ; and if not, by what must it be replaced ? The 
 answer to this question must determine the point of view 
 from which we are to regard the Hexateuch, and consequently 
 the method and course of our criticism. With this question 
 in view, therefore, we shall submit the legislation of the [21] 
 Hexateuch to a preliminary investigation in this paragraph, 
 and its narratives to a similar treatment in § 4. 
 
 Our survey of the contents of the Hexateuch (§ i) has 
 already shown us to what source the laws it contains are referred, 
 and in what order they are communicated. Yahwe reveals 
 them to Moses, or sometimes to Moses and Aaron, or after the 
 death of the latter to Moses and Eleazar ; a direction is often 
 added as to the persons to whom Moses is to give them, — 
 whether the children of Israel or Aaron and his sons 1. From 
 Deuteronomy we learn how Moses acquitted himself of his task, 
 for the ordinances which he there delivers to the people have 
 been revealed to him beforehand by Yahwe ^. — As to the 
 arrangement of the laws, it is evident that the Tora, in its 
 present form, was not intended to furnish its readers with a 
 system of legislation ; for similar subjects are not treated 
 in immediate succession, and even the regulations that con- 
 cern one single subject are scattered up and down ^. Indeed 
 we can only speak of any proper arrangement at all within 
 the limits of the several groups or collections of laws, which 
 are sometimes very clearly marked oflF, such as Hx. xx. 23- 
 xxiii. 33; Ex. xxv.-xxxi. 17; Lev. i.-vii. ; Deut. xii.-xxvi. 
 
 c 
 
i8 The Hexateiuh. [§3. 
 
 How far there is any real arrangement even here we shall see 
 presently. The Tora, as a whole, gives the laws in chrono- 
 logical 01-cler, i. e. with reference to the time at which they 
 were revealed to Moses or, in the case of Beiit. v.-xxvi., at 
 which they were delivered by him to the people *. 
 
 ' See, for instance, Ex. xx. 22 ; rxi. i ; xxv. i, 2 ; xxxi. 12, 13 ; Lev. vi. i, a ; 
 xi. I ; xiii. i ; Num. xxvi. i, etc. etc. 
 
 ^ In Deut. T. 28 [31] Moses announces that Yahwfe had uttered to him on 
 Horeb ' all the commandments, institutions and mishphatim which he was to 
 teach to the Israelites, that they might observe them in the land that Yahwfe 
 should give them.' This is referred to again in the words of vi. i, 'these 
 are the commandments, etc., which Yahwfe commanded me to teach you, etc' 
 
 ^ Cf. § I. Thus, for example, the feasts are dealt with in Ex. xxiii. 14-17 ; 
 xxxiv. 18, 22-25 ; iew. xxiii. ; iV«m. xxviii. sq. ; Deit*. xvi. 1-17 ; and mapyfith 
 and the passover in Ex. xii. 1-28, 43-50; Nam. ix. 1-14 as well; vows in 
 Lev. xxvii. ; Num. xxx, ; and the Nazirite vow in particular in Num. vi. 1-21 ; 
 [22] the punishment of sabbath-breakers in Ex. xxxi. 14 ; xxxv. 2 ; Num. xv. 32-36. 
 These are but a few out of many instances. 
 
 * This is obvious enough in the vast majority of cases. Observe that in 
 Num. xxvi. I; xxvii. 2; xxxi. 12, 13 the mention of Eleazar indicates that 
 the ordinances in question were communicated after the death of Aaron ; we 
 meet with Eleazar as early as in Num. xvii. 2 [xvi. 37] ; xix. 3, but only as 
 his father's probable successor (xvii. 18 [3] ; xix. i). Further, note Lev. 
 xvi. I (cf. X. 1, 2) and, with respect to Deuteronomy, not only Deut. i. 3, 4 
 and the corresponding note of locality in iv. 46-49, but the repeated announce- 
 ments of the approaching passage of the Jordan in v. sqq., such as ix. i ; 
 xi. 31 sq. ; xxvii. 2, 4, 12, and of the settlement in Canaan in xii. 29 ; xv. 4; 
 xvi. 20, etc. — Only a few of the laws are given without any direct indica- 
 tion of the time and place of their delivery, in Num. xv. and xix. (before 
 Aaron's death, v. i); and in Num. xviii., which latter stands, however, in 
 close connection with the story of Korah's revolt, given in xvi. sq. But in 
 these cases also the intention of the author of the Tora was obviously to 
 indicate by the position assigned to the laws the time of their promulgation. 
 
 If we ask whether this distribution of the legislative 
 activity of Moses over the years during which he was 
 guiding Israel accords with probability, we can but 
 answer in the negative. The laws are congested in the 
 first year after the exodus (from Ex. xx. to Num. x. 10), and 
 the closing months of the fortieth year (from Num. xxvii. 
 to the end of Detiteronomi/). For the thirty-eight years of 
 wandering only some few ordinances are left {Nnm. xv., xviii., 
 
n. 1-5.J The Tor a and its Setting. 19 
 
 xix.). This accords but ill with the demands of proba- 
 bility'. It is still more obvious that the legislation, 
 taken as a whole, does not answer in any single respect 
 to the expectations raised by the supposed time and circum- 
 stances of its promulgation. If we grant that Moses, while 
 still in the desert, may have given laws intended for the 
 people when settled in Canaan, or, in other words, may have 
 presupposed the transition of the tribes from the nomad to 
 the agricultural life, it still remains very strange that he 
 should have made such an assumption tacitly, and so have 
 left this great transition wholly unregulated^. Nor is it less 
 surprising that various subjects which at that time belonged 
 entirely to the future are dealt with at length and down to the 
 smallest details, though in some cases one would have thought 
 that the experience subsequently to be gained might well 
 have been waited for'. In strange contrast with this minute- [23] 
 ness of the legislation stands its incompleteness : regulations 
 as to the government of the clans, the tribes and the whole 
 people, though constituting the very first condition of the 
 introduction and maintenance of any legislation, are nowhere 
 found, and that too though the tribes, having ust escaped 
 from the bondage of Egypt, can hardly have had a trace of 
 any such government already in existence. Whenever the 
 law-giver speaks of the authorities he assumes their existence 
 and activity, though one would have supposed that, before 
 Israel's settlement in Canaan, he would have had to institute 
 them and define their functions ^- When we put all this together 
 we cannot avoid the conclusion that the character of the 
 legislation as a whole is in absolute contradiction with the 
 setting in which the Hexateuch puts it. 
 
 ' A far stronger expression would be justified when we consider that accord- 
 ing to Num. XX. 22-29 "f- xxxiii. 38 the mourning for Aaron was not over 
 till the first day of the sixth month of the fortieth year, so that we have only 
 five months left (cf. Deut. i, 3) for the rest of the march to the Transjordanio 
 
 C 2, 
 
20 
 
 The Hexateuch. [ § 3- 
 
 district and its conquest [Nmn. xxi.), the episode of Balaam (xxii.-xxiv.), the 
 worship of Baal-Peor (xxv.), the second census (xxvi.), the chastisement of 
 Midian (xxxi.), and the settlement of the Transjordanic tribes (xxxii.) ! The 
 few ordinances contained in Num. xxvii.-xxx., xxxiv.-xxxvi. only serve to 
 make the impossibility of such a succession of events all the more conspicuous. 
 '= On the face of the whole legislation, of course, we read that the theatre is 
 the desert; Israel is encamped there; the settlement in Canaan is in the 
 future. With regard to the laws in Ex. xxv. sqq. ; Lev. i. sqq. ; iV«m. iv. sqq., 
 xix., etc., this is elaborately shown to be the case by Bleek, Einl., p. 29 sqq. 
 (4th ed.), but it is also applicable in the main to Ex. xxi.-xxiii. (see especially 
 xxiii. 20 sqq.), and to Deuteronomy (cf. n. 4). In other words it is not only 
 the superscriptions that assign the laws to Moses and locate them in the 
 desert, but the form of the legislation likewise accords with this determination 
 of time and place. Now this may be explained in two ways ; either the laws 
 really come from Moses and the desert, or they are merely put into his mouth, 
 and the desert and so forth belong to their literary form of presentment. With 
 this dilemma before us let us examine the phenomena to which the text 
 directs attention, and, to begin with, let us consider the following point : — 
 
 The people for whom the laws are destined Is a people culti- 
 vating the soil and inhabiting cities. I will only select a few 
 of the abundant proofs of this statement. The fourth of the ' ten words ' 
 (Ex. XX. 10 ; Deul. v. 14) speaks of ' thy man slave and thy woman slave, thy 
 cattle and thy stranger that is within thy gates.' Ex. xxi. I-II presupposes 
 slavery in quite a developed form : the Hebrew reduced to indigence sells 
 himself or his daughter. Ex. xxi. 33, ' if any man opens or digs a pit,' etc. 
 [24] JSx. xxii. 4, 5 [5, 6], the vineyard, the corn, the sheaves, etc. Ex. xxii. 28 
 [29], the surrender of the first-fruits of the harvest, of wine, and of oil. 
 Ex. xxii, 30 [31], beasts torn in the field. Ex. xxiii. 4, 5 (cf. Deiit. xxii. 1-4), 
 strayed ox, overloaded ass. Ex. xxiii. 10-12, thy land, thy vineyard, thy fig- 
 tree, the stranger. Ex. xxiii. 19 (cf. xxxiv. 26), ' the best of the first-fruits of 
 thy land.' Lev. xi. 9, 10, fish of the sea and the rivers. Leu. xiv. 40, 41, 45, 
 53, outside the city. Lev. xix. passim, e.g. v. 9, thy harvest ; v. 10, thy vine- 
 yard; u. 13 (and a number of others), hirelings or day-labourers. Lev. xxv. 
 as a whole, e. g. v. 29 sqq., the distinction between houses in cities and in 
 villages, paralleled by that in iej;. xxvii. 22 between lands obtained by in- 
 heritance and those obtained by purchase. Nam. xxvii. i-ii ; xxxvi., regula- 
 tion of the tenure of land by inheritance. Dcut. xx. 5, 6, newly-built houses 
 and newly-planted vines. Deut. xxi. 3, 'a heifer, that has not been worked 
 with and that has not borne the yoke.' Deut. xxii, 6, 7, regulations about 
 bird-nests. Deut. xxiii. 16, 17 [15, 16], concerning escaped slaves and their 
 surrender. Deut. xxiii. 25, 26 [24, 25]; xxiv. 19-22, etc. etc. Every reader 
 of the Tora will readily admit that its contents are, for the most part, in 
 strange contrast with the words which constantly remind us that Israel is 
 still on the way to Canaan. The authors, so far from contemplating the 
 settlement of the people in a more or less hazy future, constantly assumS 
 it as actual, together with all that in the course of time it would bring 
 
n. 5-8.] Incompleteness of the Tora. 21 
 
 into existence. Especially instructive is the distinctive use of '133, ij 3UJin> 
 and the contrast m\Nl ii' 
 
 ' The feasts, at any rate the festival of first-fruits or of weeks, and the 
 harvest-home or feast of tabernacles, are agricultural ; yet the offerings are 
 enumerated in Num. xxviii. sq., and even the separate sacrifices for each day 
 of the harvest feast in xxix. 12—38. The regulations as to vows in Lev. xxvii,, 
 Num. XXX., likewise descend to the minutest particulars. And so does the 
 law concerning leprosy and its treatment, Lev. xiii., xiv., and the disinfection 
 of (stone) houses, Lev. xiv. 33-53. 
 
 ' Cf. Vatke, Vie Religion des A. T., p. 204-211, contradicted, but by no 
 means refuted, by Hengstenberg,.4!ittem(-je, ii. 338sqq. [ii. 276 sqq.] Duly 
 to appreciate the phenomenon under discussion we must bear in mind that 
 regulations about the High Priest, the priests, the Levites, their duties and 
 the limits of their prerogative, their revenues and so on, are not wanting in the 
 Tora (cf. Lev. xxi., xxii. ; Num. iii. sqq, ; xviii. etc.) The omission especially 
 concerns the executive and judicial power. Even if what we are told of the 
 heads of the tribes and clans were an accurate reproduction of the real con- 
 dition of things we should still require an account of the functions and powers 
 of these chiefs and princes ; but we find nothing of the sort. The provision 
 for the administration of justice in i'x. xviii. 21-26 is unsuited for a settled 
 people, and the narrative itself represents it as a merely temporary arrange- 
 ment, for it leaves the decision in all important matters to Moses, and no refer- 
 ence whatever is made to it in the rest of the Tora — not even in Num. xi., 
 which is worked up into a single whole with it in Lent. i. 9-18. In the laws 
 of Deuteronomy, ' the elders of the city ' appear from time to time as the repre- 
 sentatives of the citizens and as judges {Dent. xix. 12 ; xxi. ^5-4, 6, 19 ; xxii. 
 15-18 ; XXV. 7-9), without their relation either to the heads of families or to 
 the assistants of Moses in Ex. xviii. or Num. xi. being defined. And yet these [25] 
 ' elders of the city ' are the only persons whom we can think of as charged 
 with the execution of the penal laws, for example, of Ex. xxi. 15 ; xxii. 18 ; 
 xxi. 32, etc. etc. The priests also appear to exercise a certain judicial 
 authority, but what it is and to what cases it applies is not clear. The 
 injunctions in Ex. xxi. 6 ; xxii. 7, 8 [8, 9] (referring to appearance before 
 Elohim, and to the sentence there pronounced), are wholly inadequate 
 as they stand. Wiat do they mean ? The law-giver m.ust have explained 
 this unless he could assume it as known in practice. The same holds good in 
 a stUl higher degree of Deut. xvii. 8-13. Here an appeal is allowed in law- 
 suits to the Levitical priests ofliciating at the sanctuary, but associated with 
 them is 'the judge who shall be in those days ;' and according to u. 12 the 
 sentence is pronounced now by the priests and now by the judge. What 
 decides which it is to be? and who is this 'judge?' The probable answer 
 may be gathered from 2 Chron. xix. 8-1 1, but what sense would such «■ pre- 
 cept have had if uttered by Moses without the least explanation or supple- 
 ment ? 
 
 Vatke, ibid., is fully justified in insisting upon the profound significance of 
 these facts as bearing on the Mosaic origin of the Tora. A people may make 
 
2 2 The Hexateuch. [§3- 
 
 a shift without written laws, but the executive and judicial power is indis- 
 pensable. If this latter is not instituted by the Tora, and is only now and 
 again incidentally referred to, it is obvious at once that the Tora was written 
 for a settled and organised people — such as Israel actually became, but, in 
 the time of Moses, had yet to become. 
 
 The representation given in the Hexateuch of the legis- 
 lative activity of Moses involves the essential unity of 
 the Tora; and this furnishes us with another test of its 
 accuracy. From this point of view let us first examine the 
 form and then the contents of the Tora. 
 
 In comparing the several portions of the Tora with respect 
 to their form we must not forget, (i) that they are not repre- 
 sented as being absolutely contemporaneous, for between the 
 Sinaitic group, from Ex. xx. to Num. x. lo, and the laws 
 which profess to have been promulgated in the fields of 
 Moab, from Num. xxvii. to the end of Deuteronomy^ there is 
 a space of nearly forty years ; (a) that, as already seen (§ %), 
 the actual committal of a great number of the laws to writing 
 {Ex. xxv.-xxxi. 17, Leviticus, Numbers) is never attributed in 
 so many words to Moses ; he is only named as the writer of 
 Ex. XX. a3-xxiii. and of the great legislative discourse in 
 Dent, v.-xxvi.; all the other laws, though revealed to him 
 and promulgated by him, may — according to the representa- 
 tions of the Hexateuch itself, which we are here following — 
 [26] have been reduced to writing by some other hand or hands ; 
 (3) that in Deiiteronomy, including xii.-xxvi., a different style 
 is adopted to that of the other laws : the oratorical and 
 hortatory element may not be wholly absent in the latter, 
 but in the former it comes prominently into the foreground 
 and permeates, so to speak, the whole style of expression. 
 For all these reasons we have no right to expect absolute 
 similarity of form in all parts of the Tora. But such uni- 
 formity is far indeed from being realised. Without going 
 into details, to which we can do more justice in another con- 
 nection (§ 6 sqq.), we may say at once that each several group 
 
ji. 8-io.J Differences of Style in the Tor a. 2 3 
 
 of laws has its own linguistic character and is specially- 
 marked by certain fixed formulae which constantly recur, 
 while their absence from the other groups must at any rate 
 seem strange, if we are to assign a common origin to them all, 
 even with the reservations just indicated^. The representation 
 of Moses as a law-giver, given in the Hexateuch itself, is 
 therefore contradicted rather than confirmed by the form of 
 the legislation. With respect to the tradition which makes 
 him the actual writer of the whole Tora, we must express 
 ourselves much more strongly: It is absolutely excluded by 
 the difference of form between the several codes i". 
 
 ° In TJew of our future investigations I may confine myself here to a few 
 striking examples : ' I, Yahwfe, am your God,' or ' I am Yahwfe,' occurs in 
 Lev. xviii. 2, 4-6, 21, 30; xix. 2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 30-32, 34, 
 36, 37; XX. 7, 8, 24; xxi. 8, 12, 15, 23; xxii. 2, 3, 8, 9, 16, 30-33; xxiii. 
 22, 43 ; xxiv. 22 ; xxv. 17, 38, 55 ; xxvi. i, 2, 13, 44, 45. Except in this group, 
 neither of these expressions is found anywhere but at the head of the Deca- 
 logue (-Ex. XX. 2 ; Dmt. v. 6) and in Num. iii. 41, 45 ; x. 10 ; xv. 41. — The 
 designation of the months as ist, 2nd, etc., which we should have expected from 
 ^x. xii. 2 to appear in all the laws, is absent from Ex. xiii. ; xx. 23-xxiii.; 
 xxxiv. ; Deut. xvi., and all the rest of the book except i. 3 ; in these passages the 
 first month is called a'axn tfirt {Ex. xiii. 4 ; xxiii. 15 ; xxxiv. 18 ; Deut. xvi. i), 
 an appellation which does not appear in the laws that mention the months bv 
 number. — For punishment by death the Book of the Covenant uses the Hophal 
 of ma {Ex. xxi. 12, 15-17, 29; xxii. 18 [19]); and once the phrase ri>nn «') 
 {Ex. xxii. 17 [18]). The former expression, which for that matter is perfectly 
 natural and regular, also appears in other laws, such as Ex. xxxi. 14 sq. ; xxxv. 
 2 ; Lev. xix. 20; xx. passim, etc.; Deul. xiii. 6, 10 [5, 9], etc. But here it 
 alternates with (or is united to) other formulae, viz. {a) in Ex.— Num., ' to be 
 rooted out (ma:) from,' etc; Ex. xii. 15, 19 ; xix. 33, 38 ; xxxi. 14, etc. (24 [27] 
 times in all, never in Deut.) : (i) in Deut. the phrase, ' and thou shalt destroy 
 (T93) the evil (or, the wicked one) out of thy midst;' Deut. xvii. 7, 12 ; xix. 
 19 ; xxi. 21, etc. (12 times in all, never in Ex.-Num.) See further, Knobel, 
 Num. Deut. u.Josh., p. 515 sqq.,527 Bqq.,587 sqq.,from whose copious collec- 
 tion abundant examples may be gleaned. 
 
 '° The position that all the laws of the Tora are from a single hand 
 really does not merit refutation. The very form of these laws, apart from 
 their contents, reduces the supposition to an absurdity. Even where the sub- 
 jects are identical (e.g. in Ex. xxi. 1-6 and Deut. xv. 12-18 ; Lev. xi. and Deut. 
 xiv. 1-21), orthe tone similar {Ex. xxiii. 20-33; Lev.xxvi.; Dew*, xxviii.), the 
 form, the style, and the language are completely different. Only one word 
 
24 The Hexateuch. [ § 3- 
 
 more : according to the chronology of the Hexateuch, Num. xxvii.-xxxi., xxxiv. 
 -xxxvi., and DeuUronomy, belong to one and the same year, nay, there would 
 hardly be a month between the dates at which they were respectively written 
 by one and the same author. Yet note the difference, for example, be- 
 tween Num. xxrv. 9-34 and Deut. xix. 1-13, — two laws on the very same 
 subject ! 
 
 In inquiring into the unity of the Tora we must now 
 proceed from the form to the contents of the laws. And 
 indeed this latter is the more important inquiry. But before 
 we can enter upon it, we must determine the relation of 
 Deuteronomy to the legislation of the preceding books. Ac- 
 cording to the general opinion, which has found expression 
 in the very title of the book^ — though not really supported 
 by it, since it rests upon a mistake (§ i, n. 6), — the Sinaitic 
 legislation is repeated in Beideronomy , and at the same 
 time brought into harmony with the requirements of the 
 settlement of Israel in Canaan, now instant. But we 
 must insist, (i) that in the book itself no previous legis- 
 lation is assumed except the Decalogue, which is given 
 in V. 6-18 [6-21]; for though other laws have been re- 
 vealed to Moses on Sinai, yet inasmuch as they are intended 
 for the people when living in Canaan, he now delivers 
 them to Israel for the first time (v. 28 [31]; vi. i)"; 
 the alleged references to an earlier legislation, which are 
 cited as conflicting with this view, must be explained 
 otherwise 1^; (2) that i'he \a.ws oi Exodus-Numbers are them- 
 selves intended for a settled people cultivating the soil (n. 6), 
 and would therefore need no modification in view of the 
 impending passage of the Jordan. — There can be no question, 
 therefore, that if we place ourselves at the point of view of 
 the Hexateuch itself we are justified in regarding the ordi- 
 [28] nances of Ewodm-Leuteronomy as the several parts of a 
 single body of legislation, and comparing them one with 
 another as such is. The comparison will often reveal im- 
 portant differences, nay, irreconcilable contradictions. This 
 
n. 10.] Deuteronomy and the Smaitic Laws. 25 
 
 is especially true of Deuteronomy when compared with the 
 laws that stand between ^x. xxv. and the end of Numiers, so 
 that even if the relation in which Deuteronomy has been sup- 
 posed to stand to the preceding books could be accepted 
 as the true one, it could not in any way bridge over the 
 kind of difference we actually find between them. 
 
 The complete demonstration of this fact must be deferred, 
 but a few examples may serve to indicate the mutual relation 
 of the codes. We may note, then, more especially, the laws 
 concerning — 
 
 (a) The place of worship, Bx. xx. 34; Dent. xii. and parallel 
 passages; Lev. xvii. and parallel passages^*. 
 
 (^) The religious festivals, Ex. xxiii. 14-17 and parallel 
 passages; Deut. xvi. 1-17; i/et;. xxiii. and parallel passages''. 
 
 (c) The priests and the Levites, Ex. xxviii. sq. and parallel 
 passages; Num. in. and parallel passages ; Deut. xviii. r-8 and 
 parallel passages ■^^. 
 
 [d) The tithes of crops and cattle. Num. xviii. 31-32 ; Lev. 
 xxvii. 33 sq.; Deut. xiv. 33-29; ^^^vi. 13-15 ^^• 
 
 {e) The firstlings of cattle, Ex. xxii. 29 [30]; xiii. i%, 13 ; 
 xxxiv. 19, 20; Deiot. xv. 19-33; Num. xviii. 15-18^^. 
 
 (/) The dwelling places of priests and Levites in the land 
 of Canaan, Deut. xviii. 6 and parallel passages; Num. xxxv. 
 1-8 and parallel passages; Josh. xxi. 1-40 [1-43]^'. 
 
 (g) The age at which the Levites enter upon their duties, 
 Num. iv. 3, 33, 30, 35, 39, 43, 47 ; viii. 34^°- 
 
 (h) The manumission of Israelitish slaves, Ex. xxi. 1-6 ; 
 Deut. XV. 13-18; Lev. xxv. 39-43^^. 
 
 Without anticipating the sequel of our inquiry, we may lay 
 it down at once that most of the laws which are here brought 
 under comparison answer to wholly different wants and were 
 made in view of widely divergent circumstances, and accord- [293 
 ingly must, in all probability, be separated from each other 
 by a space, not of years, but of centuries ^^- 
 
26 The Hexateuch. [§3- 
 
 This conclusion is partially coincident and wholly con- 
 sistent with the result of our previous investigation (concern- 
 ing the form of the codes) ^^^ so that nothing prevents our 
 making it the provisional epitome of our final judgment on 
 the legislation of the Hexateuch. 
 
 " Cf. Graf, Gescliichlliclie Biicher, p. n sq. I do not mean to assert that 
 the writer of Deut. v. 28 ; vi. i, was not acquainted with any previous code, 
 such as the Book of the Covenant, Ex. xx. 23-xsiii., for instance. But he 
 does not assume it as known to his readers, and does not put his own precepts 
 into any definite relations with these older laws. If we suppose him to have 
 intended to repeat them, and at the same time to supplement and extend 
 them, we cannot appeal to any testimony of his own in support of the supposi- 
 tion. That ' the covenant ' entered into at Sinai was regarded by our author 
 as containing no other commands of Yahwfe to Israel than ' the ten words,' 
 is further evinced by his calling the stone tablets upon which these "words' 
 were written (v. 19 [22]), 'the tablets of the covenant' (ix. 9, 11, 15). It 
 is also worth noting that in ix., x., where the events at Horeb are recalled, 
 no mention is made of the Book of the Covenant and its solemn acceptance by 
 the people {Ex, xxiv. 3-8), though this would have placed Israel's sin in a yet 
 stronger light. 
 
 '^ I myself formerly {Eistorisch-krilisch Ondenoek, ist ed., i. 45) relied 
 upon I)eut. xviii. 2, compared with Num. xviii. 20 [but the real reference here 
 is to the election of Levi as the priestly tribe, which Deuteronomy itself (x. 8, 9) 
 places earlier than the time at which Moses is represented as speaking, and 
 with which election of course the declaration, ' Yahwfe is Levi's inheritance,' 
 would be simultaneous] ; xxiv. 8, compared with Lev. xiii., xiv. [but here the 
 author is not thinking of written laws, but of the oral tora, which the priests 
 are to utter in accordance with the will of Yahwfe ; see below, § 10, n. 14] ; 
 xxvi. 18, 19, compared with Bx. xix. 4-6, Lev. xviii.-xx. [but the words of the 
 author himself, especially ' to-day ' {v. 1 7, 18), clearly show that he is thinking 
 exclusively of the union which is there and then being entered upon in the 
 land of Moab ; it is quite a mistake to see any reference here to Ex. xix., etc.]. 
 
 ^^ The different destination of the several codes must of course be kept 
 in view : the Book of the Covenant (cf. JSx. xx. 2 2 ; xxi, i) and the legis- 
 lative discourse in Deut. v. -xxvi. are addressed to the people ; other laws, e.g. 
 Lev. xiii., xiv., to the priests or to the Levites. But since it remains equally 
 imperative that the several parts of a single legislation should be in mutual 
 harmony, this need not affect our conclusions. 
 
 '* In my Godsdienst, i. 493-496 [iJeJ. Isr. ii. 81-84], I liave shown that 
 in Ex. XX. 24, permission is given to erect altars and offer sacrifices to Yahwfe 
 in different places, and that this permission, which is not contradicted by Ex. 
 xxi. 14 ; xxiii. 14-17, 19", agrees with Ex. xxi. 6 ; xxii. 8, 9, where the exist- 
 ence of more than one sanctuary of Yahwfe is presupposed. — In Deuteronomy ^ 
 on the other hand, it is repeatedly laid down, with the utmost emphasis, that 
 
n. 11-16.] Discrepancies in Laws about Festivals. 27 
 
 only ' in the place which Yahwfe shall chooae,' that is to say in the one central 
 sanctuary, shall sacrifice be made in his honour {Deut. xii. 5, 8, 11, 14, 18, 21, [30] 
 26 ; xiv. 23-25 ; xv. 20 ; xvi. 2, 6 sq., 11, 15 sq. ; xvii. 8, 10 ; xviii. 6 ; xxvi. 2). 
 — In Lev. xvii., and in a number of other laws, such as Ex. sxv. sqq. ; Lev. 
 i. sqq.; xziii., etc. etc., the 6hel mo'^d is the only place of sacrifice. So 
 that here again the cultus is centralised in the one sanctuary, the exclusive 
 pretensions of which, however, are not expressly maintained, but rather 
 assumed, and now and then, as it were, incidentally coniirmed. 
 
 " Ex. xxiii. (cf, also rxxiv. 18, 32-24 '< '^^^- 3-1°) and Deut. xvi. agree in 
 the recognition of three yearly feasts at which the Israelites must repair to 
 Yahwfe's sanctnaries or sanctuary to see his face (cf. Geiger, TJrschrift, p. 
 337 sqq.) ; though the two codes differ in points of secondary importance. In 
 Lev. xxiii., on the other hand, as in Num. xxviii. sq,, the " nsio are seven 
 in number : sabbath, new moon, ma9p6th in conjunction with phesach, feast of 
 weeks, new moon of the 7th month, day of atonement, feast of tabernacles. Their 
 common mark is the uiTp NTpD, i.e. the sacred assembly or gathering of the 
 people at the 6hel mo'^d, with which sacrifices and cessation from work 
 were associated {Lev. xxiii. 2, 4, 7, 8, 24, 27, 35-37 ; Num. xxviii. 18, 25, 26 ; 
 xxix. i, 7, 12 ; Ex. xii. 16). Now although ma996th, the feast of weeks, and 
 the feast of tabernacles occupy a higher place, even in this second group of laws, 
 than the new moon in general, for example, or the special new moon of the 
 7th month, nevertheless the absolute silence of the first group of laws con- 
 cerning these festivals, and also — which is far more significant — concerning 
 the day of atonement (cf. Lev. xvi.), remains highly remarkable, and indeed, 
 on the supposition that the solemnities in question were known to the authors, 
 inexplicable. See below, § 11. 
 
 ^^ According to Ex. xxviii. sq. and the laws in Leviticus and Nmnhers 
 generally, Aaron and his sons are the only lawful priests. It is true that 
 the Levites in a body are set apart for the service of the sanctuary {Nuvi. iii. 
 sq., viii., xviii., etc.), but they are excluded from the priesthood (see, for 
 instance. Num. xvi. 9, 10 ; xvii. 5 [xvi. 40] ; xviii. 1—3). The line between 
 the sons of Aaron and the other Levites is clearly drawn in these laws ; the 
 subordinate position of the latter is unequivocally declared and strictly 
 maintained. It is quite otherwise in Deuteronomy. According to x. 8, 9, 
 Yahwfe has separated the tribe of Levi 'to bear the ark of the covenant of 
 Yahwfe, to stand before Yahwb's face to serve him and to bless in his name' — 
 in a word, to exercise the priesthood. Accordingly, the priests are called 
 throughout this book □n';rr □':nDn or n'7 ':3 "3n, the Levitical priests 
 or the priests, sons of Levi (xvii. 9, 18; xviii. i; xxi. 5; xxiv. 8; 
 xxvii, 9 ; xxxi. 9 ; cf. Josh. iii. 3 ; viii. 33), never ' sons of Aaron,' and in 
 Deut. xviii. i, 'the whole tribe of Levi' stands in apposition with 'the Levitical 
 priests,' after which the author thus proceeds : ' the sacrifice (^i|?NJ of Yahwfe 
 and his portion (i.e. the portion that falls to Yahwfe, in';nj) shall they eat, 
 and he (i.e. the tribe of Levi) shall have no inheritance amongst his brethren ; 
 Yahwfeishisinheritance, ashehas said tohim' (xviii. i^, 2). The equivalence 
 of priests and Levites could hardly be formulated more distinctly. Does the 
 
2 8 The Hexatetuh. [§3- 
 
 [31] author mean, then, that the priestly office was exercised— in the one sanctuary 
 of course— by all the Levites without distinction? Not so, for he tells us 
 that the Levites sojourn aa strangers in the different cities of Israel (n. 19). 
 But he considers them all qualified to act aa priests. ' If the Levite (i. c. any 
 Levite whatever) cornea out of one of your cities in all Israel, where he 
 sojourns as a stranger, and with undivided desire (iffiD: mN-ba:!) betakes 
 himself to the place which YahwJ; shall choose, then he shall serve in the 
 name of Yahwfe, hia god, like all his brothers, who stand there before the 
 faoeof Yahwfe' (xviii. 6, 7). AU this la quite unequivocal; it is a uniform 
 and consistent picture ; the passages support and explain each other. One 
 more instance ! Inasmuch as Deuteronomy knowa nothing of priests + inferior 
 servants of the sanctuary, it must of course lay upon the Levitical priests in 
 general all the duties which are divided in Exodus — Numhers between the two 
 classes. And so it does. According to Nam. vi. 23-27, Aaron and his 
 sons pronounce the blessing ; in Dent. x. 8, 9 ; xxi. 5, we find the tribe of 
 Levi (or the Levitical priests, or sons of Levi) separated (or, chosen), amongst 
 other things, to bless in the name of Yahwfe. The bearing of the ark of the 
 covenant is amongst the duties assigned to the Levites in Num. iii. 31 ; iv. 5, 
 6, 15 ; and in Beut. x. 8, also, it is part of the task of the tribe of Levi. It ia 
 accordingly ascribed to ' the prieats, sons of Levi,' in Dent. xxxi. 9, and to 
 ' the Levites' in Deut. xxxi. 25. Cf. Josh. iii. 3, 6, 8, 13-15, 17 ; iv. 9-11, i5, 
 18 ; vi. 6 ; viii. 33. 
 
 Anyone who is curious to know the harmonising artifices employed to 
 remove this discrepancy between Exodas-Numhers, and Deuteronomy, may 
 consult Hengstenberg, Authentic, ii. 401-404 [ii. 329-332]; Haever- 
 nick, Einl.i. 2, p. 429 sqq. [311, 312], and more especially S. Ives Curtiss, 
 The Levitical priests (Edinb., 1877). I* ^^i '^^ course, Deuteronomy in this case 
 that has to be forced into agreement with Exodus-Numbers. The harmonists, 
 therefore, attempt to show that the texts of Deuteronomy do not necessarily 
 involve the absolute exclusion of the system of Exodus-Numbers, but only pasa 
 over in silence what is there expressly worked out — viz. the division of the 
 priestly duties amongst the different descendants of Levi ; they do not say, 
 but neither do they deny, that Aaron and his sons have a place of their own 
 apart. No doubt this is what would be the case if the whole Tora were 
 from a single hand ; but it is not what actually is the case. Deut. xviii. 1-8 
 and the parallel passages are in no way incomplete or fragmentary: Levi, 
 the priestly tribe, is aa clear and finished a conception as that of Aaron 
 and his sons + the Levitical subordinates. The texts of Deuteronomy itself 
 are therefore the best and the all-sufficient arguments against these really hope- 
 less efforts of the apologists. Cf. also Kayser, Jahriiicher f. prot. Theologie, 
 1881, p. 336-340, 637-643. 
 
 See further, n. 17-19, which show that this discrepancy between Exodus- 
 Numbers, and Deuteronomy, by no means stands alone ; and also the historical 
 explanation of the phenomenon in § 15. 
 
 " The practices enjoined in the various passages cited are evidently not 
 identical : the tithes of the harvest according to Num. xviii. 21-32, and of the 
 
n. i6-i8.j Priests and Levites, Tithes and Firstlings. 29 
 
 cattle according to Leu. xxvii. 32 sq., are to be given to the Levites, who, in 
 their turn, must surrender a tenth of them to the priests ; they differ, therefore, 
 from the tithes of the harvest, which, according to Dent. xiv. 22-29 ; sxvi. 12- 
 15 (cf. xii. 6, 17-19), are to be set aside by the Israelites for sacrificial meals [32} 
 to which the Levites must he admitted, and are to be wholly given up every third 
 year to the Levites, widows, orphans, and strangers. In order to make out, in 
 spite of this, that the passages agree with each other, we must suppose them to 
 run- parallel, or, in other words, must suppose that one and the same law- 
 giver requires two tithes. That is how the Jews have actually taken it 
 (cf. so early an authority as Tobit i. 6-8), and that is how they must take it, 
 since they regard the Tora as a single whole. But the very question we have 
 to decide is whether they are right in this ; and the answer must be in the 
 negative. The author of Deuteronomy knows nothing of any other 
 tithes, to be given to the Levites, in addition to those he men- 
 tions. Had it been otherwise he could not have passed them over in 
 silence ; he m u s t at least have explained why the Levites — who were already 
 so richly provided for — were to have a share of his tithes in addition. But 
 there is more. In Dent, xviii. 3, 4, the ordinary revenues of ' the Levitical 
 priests, the whole tribe of Levi' (cf. n. 16), are summed up, and there, in v. 3, 
 we have their share in the offerings, and, in u. 4, the iirst-fruits that the people 
 are to give them, but no mention is made of the tithes. If we were to 
 interpret Deut. xviii. 3, 4 as referring to the priests in distinction from 
 the Levites — which as we have seen in n. 16 would be wrong — we should 
 still have to say that the tithes of the tithes are not mentioned. 
 This is inconceivable if the author had known of them. — Conversely, if we 
 look at Num. xviii. 21 sqq. in connection with Deuteronomy, as cited above, 
 our conclusion is the same, for here the Levites receive * all the tithes of 
 Israel ' (v. 31). How can we suppose, when reading this, that yet other tithes 
 have been or are to be demanded ? The method which the defenders of the 
 nnity of the Tora ascribe to the law-giver is simply treacherous ; he withdraws 
 from the Israelites the free disposal of a fifth part of the produce of their 
 land, and expresses himself throughout as though it were only a tenth which 
 he claimed for religious purposes. The single law-giver can only be retained 
 by the sacrifice of his moral character. 
 
 On the tithes of cattle cf. § 15, n. 30. Here we need only remark that 
 Deateronomy simply mentions the tithes of com, wine, and oil (xii. 17; 
 xiv. 23 ; as well as xxvi. 12, where nxiin signifies this same produce of the 
 land), and therefore excludes the tithes of cattle. 
 
 '" The laws on the consecration of the firstlings of animals differ widely one 
 from another, as the following survey shows : — 
 
 (a) Hx. xxii. 29 [30] demands the male firstlings of oxen and sheep for 
 Yahwfe ; they are to be sacrificed to him on the eighth day after their birth. 
 
 (5) jEr. xiii. 12, 13; xxxiv. 19, 30 demand the male firstlings of all domestic 
 animals for Yahwfe ; the ass-foal, which cannot be sacrificed, is to be redeemed 
 by a sheep, or, if not, then killed. 
 
 (c) Deat. XV. 19-23 (cf. xiv. 22-27; xii. 6 sq., 17) says that the male 
 
30 
 
 The Hexateuch. [§3- 
 
 firstlings of oxen and small cattle are sacred to Yahwfe, and therefore 
 must not be turned to private use, but must be consumed, year by year, 
 at the sanctuary, in sacrificial feasts in which the Levite is to share. 
 [33] {^) ■^"™- ^^"i- 15-18 (cf. Lev. xxvii. 26, 27) demands for Aaron {v. 8), that 
 is for the priests, all (i.e. male and female) firstlings of cattle; the clean 
 beasts, oxen, sheep, and goats must be given to them in kind, and when 
 their blood and fat have been laid on the altar must be eaten by them ; the 
 unclean beasts must be bought off from the priests, either at the fixed price of 
 5 shekels {Nam. ibid.), or at the valuation of the priest, with the addition of 
 one-fifth : if the possessor is dissatisfied with this the animal is to be sold (Lev. 
 ibid.) and the price to be paid to the priest. 
 
 The differences between (a) and (5) may be passed over, and we may confine 
 ourselves to the following points : (i) on comparing 6 with d we notice that 
 the former contains a regulation about the ass-foal, which is modified in the 
 latter to the advantage of the priests ; the practice which the former allows, 
 viz. breaking the neck of the ass belonging to Yahwfe, if its owner cannot 
 redeem it — which would comply with the requirements of consecration, but 
 • would not bring in anything to the priest — is not sanctioned by the latter : 
 the priest always receives either the price of the animal's redemption, or the 
 proceeds of its sale; (2) between c and d there is direct contradiction : that 
 which Deuteronomy sets aside for sacrificial feasts is assigned in Numbers to 
 the priests. The latest attempt to remove this contradiction is due to Dr. 
 Ives Curtiss, op. cit., p. 39-41, who tries to explain Num. xviii. 18 other- 
 wise. ' It is not said in Numbers that all the fiesh of the firstlings belongs 
 to the priests, nor in Deuteronomy that the people are to eat all of it.' On 
 the contrary, in saying * their flesh shall be yours ; even as the wave breast 
 and the right shoulder shall it (i.e. their flesh) be yours,' the law-giver means 
 that the priests are to receive the breast and shoulder of the firstlings as of 
 the thank-offerings {Ex. xxix, 27, 28 ; Lev. vii. 34). In other words : by his 
 reference to the thank-offering he specifies the sense in which the firstlings of 
 the cattle are assigned to the priests. The priests would think it a fine 'speci- 
 fication' that took back the greater part of what had first been given ! If 
 the law-giver had wished to say what Dr. Curtiss reads, he must of course 
 have written ' their flesh shall be yours as that of the thank-offerings,' i.e. 
 not in whole but in part. But he names just those parts of the thank-offering 
 which the priests did receive : the breast and the shoulder. Inasmuch as 
 they obtained these in whole and not in part, it follows that they are to 
 receive the flesh of the firstlings in the same way. We must add that 
 according to Dr. Curtiss's exposition oi Num. xviii. 15-18 there is no direc- 
 tion as to what shall be done with the rest of the flesh. If the Israelite had 
 taken it away with him out of the sanctuary he would not — always according 
 to Dr. Curtiss's exegesis — have violated the law. But how can this be 
 reconciled with the fundamental conception of all the laws on this subject, 
 viz. that the firstlings belong to Yahwfe ? ' The grammar certainly allows, 
 and harmony demands , that we should understand that the priests received 
 the same proportion of the firstlings of sheep and cattle as of peace-offerings ' 
 
n. i8— 23.J Contradictions between sundry Laws. 31 
 
 (p. 41, n. 3). The words I liave italicised fumish the solution of the riddle 
 how any man dare put forward such explanations. 
 
 '° The regulations in Num. xxxv. i-8, which Josh. xxi. 1-40 [i-4'2] repre- 
 sents as having been put into practice when the land was conquered, hardly 
 need amy comment : the forty-eight cities, with the pastures belonging to 
 them, are given in fee simple to the priests and Levites ; indeed the pastures [34] 
 are inalienable {Lev. zxv. 34). If non-Levites may dwell in the cities — as 
 may be gathered yer consequentiam from Lev. xxv. 32, 33 — the Levites still 
 remain the owners: the cities are their mriN (ibid.). This is quite incon- 
 sistent with the fact that, according to Deut. xviii. 6 (cf. xii, 12, 18 ; xiv. 27, 
 29 ; xvi. II, 14), the Levites sojourn as strangers in the cities of the Israelites ; 
 and are repeatedly {Deut. xii. 19; xiv. 27, 29; xvi. 11, 14; xxvi. 11 sqq.) 
 classed with the widows, orphans, and strangers, and commended to the 
 charity of Israel. Let him explain who can how the law-giver, after having 
 made, in the 40th year, such ample provision for the priests and Levites, could 
 assume, a few days later, that his injunctions would not be carried out, and 
 that the Levites would wander about in destitution. 
 
 ^ According to Num. iv. the Levites serve from their 30th to their 50th 
 year; according to iVum. viii. from their 2;th to their 50th. Hengsten- 
 berg, Authentie, ii. 391 sqq. [ii. 321 sqq.], fails in his attempt to remove the 
 contradiction ; his assertion that Num. viii. refers to the service in general, 
 and Nvm. iv. to service as porters, is contradicted by Num. iv. 19, 24, 
 27, 47* Delitzsch, Lie Genesis, p. 50, admits the divergence and i-egards 
 Num. viii. as a later modification of Num. iv. Very probable ! But a modi- 
 fication introduced by the same law-giver who had drawn up Num. iv. ? And 
 did the necessity for it arise while Israel was still in the wilderness and the 
 circumstances remained unchanged? For another view see § 15, n. 28. 
 
 '^ The points of difierence between the laws in Ex. xxi. 1-6 and in Leut, xv. 
 12-18 are not without interest, but both alike are opposed to Lev. xxv. 39-43^ 
 in the former the Hebrew slave is set free after six years' service ; in the 
 latter the brother who has sold himself as a slave is set free in the year of 
 jubilee. How anyone can say (see Hengstenberg, for example, ibid. p. 440 
 [362]) that the one does not exclude the other is hardly comprehensible. 
 Ex. xxi. is taken to mean: he shall serve you six years unless the year of 
 jubilee falls in the interval ; and again : the slave, if he choose to do so, shall 
 serve his master all his life long (dSis'^), that is to say, not all his life 
 long, but until the year of jubilee. Next, ' he shall serve you tiU the year of 
 jubilee* {Lev. xxv. 40) is explained to mean : provided always that his six 
 years of service do not terminate sooner ! Is there any need to refute such 
 interpretations ? 
 
 "^ This is the case in particular with the points of difference, to which 
 attention is called in n. 14, 15, and 16-19. Consider, for instance, what the 
 concentration of sacrifices, feasts, etc. in one single sanctuary involves. In 
 fact it will be seen presently that the intervening period is measured by 
 centuries. 
 
 ^ The comparison between the contents of the several codes naturally yields 
 
32 The Hexateuch. [§3-0.23- 
 
 the more poeitive and definite results. But the differences of form, to which 
 we first turned our attention, lead in general to the same conclusion ; and the 
 inappropriateness and want of natural arrangement which characterise the 
 laws when regarded as codes of the desert, disappear or receive their explana- 
 tion on the hypothesis of a later origin. 
 
 [35] § 4- Investigation and provisional determination of the general 
 character of the Hexateuch. B. The narratives. 
 
 The investigations instituted in § 3 have dealt exclusively 
 with the legislation, but they cannot fail to influence our 
 views as to the narratives of the Hexateuch also. For the 
 laws do not stand alone. Some of them are furnished with 
 historical introductions from which they cannot be detached ^. 
 Others are so closely united with narratives that the connec- 
 tion must have existed from the first ^. The result obtained 
 with respect to the laws must therefore be extended to any 
 historical passages which prove to be inseparable from them ; 
 and they too must be regarded as coming neither from a 
 single period nor a single hand. But side by side with these 
 passages there are others which are not affected by the in- 
 quiry as to the legislation. The narratives in Genesis and 
 Joshua do not, for the most part, stand in direct connection 
 with the laws. And even in Exodus and Numbers the con- 
 nection between legislation and history is often very loose or 
 altogether wanting ; in some cases it is quite obvious that the 
 two existed independently at firsts and were only subsequently 
 united into a single whole ^. To form a correct and complete 
 conception of the character of the Hexateuch we must there- 
 fore submit its narratives also to an express examination. 
 Indeed, it will be well provisionally to set aside the results 
 arrived at with regard to the laws, and examine the nar- 
 ratives independently. 
 
 ^ This is the case with Ex. xii. (institution of the pasaoTer) ; Lev. xxiv. 
 10-23 (punishment of blasphemy) ; Num. iz. 1-14 (postponement of the cele- 
 bration of the passover on account of unoleannesa) ; xv. 32-36 (punishment of 
 
-§ 4- n. 3.] Laws and Narratives. 
 
 sabbath-breakers) ; xxvii. I-Ii ; xxxvi. (succession of daughters to property) ; 
 rxxi. (cleanness of the camp, partition and consecration of the spoil). All 
 these laws, at any rate in their present form, are inseparable from the 
 narratives which introduce them. 
 
 ^ There ia a very close connection between &;. xxv.-xxxi. 17 (laws as to the 
 structure of the tabernacle and the consecration of the priests) and ISx. xxxv. 
 -xl. ; Lev. viii., ix. (account of the execution of these directions ; with which, 
 again. Lev. x. is closely connected). Num. i. and Sx. xxxviii. 26 are not, it is 
 true, in harmony with each other, for the reckoning on which the passage in 
 Exodus rests must be supposed to precede by some months the census with 
 which its result precisely coincides, but it is utterly impossible that the two pas- [36] 
 sages should have sprung up independently one of the other. Num. iii. and iv. 
 are connected with Lev. x. by Num. iii. 4. Num. vii. is closely connected with 
 Ex. xxv.-xxxi., etc. ; Nam, x. 11-28 with Num. ii. ; Num. xviii. with Korah's 
 revolt in Num. xvi., xvii. Of course the character of this connection must 
 be more closely determined in each particular case ; it by no means follows 
 that it is always due to one and the same cause — to community of authorship 
 for instance. But however we may explain it, the connection itself is 
 undeniable. All this holds good of Deut. i.-iv. 40 ; xxvii. ; xxxi. sq., and 
 xxxiv. compared with the great legislative discourse in Deut. iv. 44-xxvi. ; 
 and also of JosTi. xx., xxi. compared with Num. xxxv., and, in general, 
 of the partition of the land in Josh, xiv.-xix. compared with Num. xxxiv. 
 Details will follow later on when we come to the minuter inquiry just 
 promised. 
 
 " I do not mean to deny that the authors of the narratives in question were 
 acquainted with the laws, or at any rate with some of them ; for the contrary 
 is often evident on a careful comparison. I only mean that as they now stand 
 in the Hexateuch they do not form an integral portion of the legislation 
 which it likewise contains. With respect to Genesis and Josh, i.-xii. ; xxii.- 
 xxiv. this is obvious at once. But even where laws and narratives stand side 
 by side they often have no connection with each other. Indeed, Ex. xxxi. 18- 
 xxxiv. positively breaks the connection between Ex. xxv-xxxi. 1 7 and xxxv.- 
 xl., and Ex. xxv.-xxxi. 17, in its turn, is obviously thrust in between xxiv. 
 and xxxi. i8-xxxiv. Observe, for instance, how in Ex. xxxiii. ^-a the 
 existence of the tabernacle, which according to Ex. xxxv. sqq. has yet to be 
 built, is already assumed. So again Num. xv. is connected neither with xiii. 
 sq. nor with xvi. sq. ; Num. xix. neither with xviii. nor xx. ; Nam. xxviii.- 
 XXX. stands oddly between xxvii. (cf. v. 13) and xxxi. (cf. v. 2). For the rest 
 these examples, like those in u. 2, are by no means homogeneous, and the 
 indication of the peculiarities of each must be reserved. 
 
 Meanwhile the phenomena indicated in. n. 1-3 justify us at once in drawing 
 a conclusion of some importance with reference to the hypothesis put forward 
 by E. Bertheau in his work ; Die sieben Gruppen mosaischer Gezetze in den 
 drei mittleren BUchem des Pentateuchs (G-ott., 1840). I must content myself, 
 however, with referring to the more elaborate criticism in my Eistorisch- 
 Tcrilisck OnderzoeJc (ist ed., i. 41-44) and remarking; (i) that each of 
 
 D 
 
34 The Hexateuch. [ § 4- 
 
 the ' seven groups ' consist of seven series, and each of these again of ten 
 commandments, so that the whole codex which Bertheau believes he 
 can find in Exodus-Numlers contains 490 precepts; (2) that the manner 
 in which the seven series and the ten commandments belonging to each of 
 them are indicated and, yet more, the omission of some of the laws from the 
 numbering, as 'supplementary,' is occasionally very artificial, not to say 
 arbitrary ; (3) that the mutual contradictions in the laws, already brought out 
 in § 3, and to be further shown in the sequel, make their union into a single 
 systematically arranged code extremely improbable ; and, above all, (4) that 
 the intimate connection between some of the laws and some of the narratives 
 (n. I and 2) absolutely forbids us to suppose that the former existed at first 
 in a separate form as a book of law, and were not united with the narrative 
 passages or taken up into a continuous history until afterwards. In other 
 words, Bertheau's hypothesis supposes arelation between the legislation and 
 the histoiy which, as a matter of fact, is anything but universal in the 
 Pentateuch, though it certainly does appear sporadically (cf. n. 3). 
 
 [37] In fixing the chronolog'ieal relations of the narratives of 
 Exochis- Joshua to the time of Israel's deliverance from Egypt 
 and settlement in Canaan^ we may find a point of departure 
 in Num. xxi. and JosJi. x. Each of these chapters makes 
 a citation, the former {y. 14) from the book of the wars 
 of Yah we, the latter [v. 13) from the book of the 
 upright*. Both these works are probably collections of 
 songs, and they certainly date from the period of the 
 monarchy^. The narratives whose authors appeal to them 
 must, of course, be later still. Indeed the mode of citation, 
 especially in Num. xxi., warrants the belief that the authors 
 stood very far from the events which they record: their 
 attitude approaches that of the archaeologian who does not 
 simply tell his tale, but defends a specific interpretation of 
 the events and supports it by citations^. 
 
 Perhaps other poetical passages in the Hexateuch are bor- 
 rowed from the same or similar collections'', and, if so, their 
 occurrence would strengthen the opinion just expressed. At 
 any rate, the use of the formula ' even to this day ' inclines 
 us to place the writers of the Hexateuch long after the times 
 of Moses and Joshua*; and here and there a historical or 
 geographical note in the book of Deuteronomy forces us to the 
 
n. 3-7-] Poetical Fragments. 35 
 
 same conclusion^ The traditional view which makes Moses 
 and Joshua themselves come forward as witnesses concerning 
 their own achievements and fortunes is not supported by 
 a single trait in the narratives^ and is distinctly contra- 
 dicted by several ^•'- 
 
 4 Tr'n TDD, i.e. the book either of that which is right (so. in 
 Yahwfe's eye), or of him who is right (again, in Yahwfe's eye). Without 
 possessing the book itself it is impossible to decide with certainty between 
 these two interpretations. The latter, however, gains some support from the 
 use of I'T^'<, Deut. xxxii. 15 ; xxxiii. 26, to indicate the people of Israel in its 
 relation to Yahwfe. 
 
 ^ For the Sepher hayyash^r, see 2 Sam. i. 18, where we learn that 
 David's dirge on Saul and Jonathan was included in it. Evidence of the date 
 of the Sepher Milchamoth Yahwfe is supplied by the title itself : the 'wars 
 of Yahwfe ' are the wars of Israel against his neighbours in the period of the 
 Judges, under David (i Sam. xviii. 17 ; xxv. 28), and later on. The collector 
 of the songs referring to these wars presumably lived after their close, when [38] 
 Israel's heroic age was long gone by. Hengstenberg's attempt. Authentic, 
 ii. 223-226 [ii. 182-185], to establish the earlier and successive origin of the 
 collection may be left to condemn itself. 
 
 ° In Num. xxi. 14, 15 an expression from 'the book of the wars of Yahwfe' 
 is cited to prove that the Arnon was the boundary between the Amorites and 
 the Moabites, so that when the Israelites had crossed it ('in the desert,' 
 V. 13, east of the Dead Sea) they were in Amorite territory. The writer 
 attaches great weight to this. After having mentioned in v. 25 that by 
 defeating Sihon Israel became master of Heshbon and its dependencies, he 
 continues (v. 26) : 'for Heshbon is the city of Sihon, king of the Amorites, 
 and he had waged war against the first king of Moab and had taken away all 
 his land as far as the Arnon ' — a statement which he proceeds to support by a 
 poetical citation, o. 27-30 ('wherefore the poets, — here called □''jitinn, — say'). 
 — What an absurdity to ascribe such a narrative to a contemporary ! It gives 
 back the echoes of the disputes between the Transjordanic tribes and the 
 Moabites and Ammonites, in which the question seems often to have been 
 raised who it was that the former had dispossessed (cf. Judges xi. 12-28; 
 Deut. ii. 9, 19). The writer has a decided opinion of his own on the subject, 
 and he oiiers proofs in confirmation of it. — Evidence of another kind shows 
 that Josh. X. stands in the same category as Num. xxi. The quotation runs 
 on to the words Vl'N '15 Dp' T3> (v. 13") ; what follows (' and the sun stood 
 still in the midst of the heaven,' etc.) is a prosaic paraphi'ase of what has 
 gone before, and probably a misunderstanding of the poet's meaning. 
 
 ' Especially Oen. xlix. ; Ex. xv. 1-19 ; 20 sq., ' The song of the well,' 
 Num. xxi. 17, 18, though brought into connection, in this passage, with Israel's 
 stay at Beer, may very well have been taken from the mouth of the people, 
 in which case it is not really an ' occasional ' poem at all. Deut. xxxii. 
 
 D 3 
 
[39] 
 
 36 The Hexatetich. [ § 4- 
 
 and xxxiii. will bs dealt with later on, when their connection with the rest of 
 the book is investigated. 
 
 » aen. xix. 37, 38; xxvi. 33; xxxii. 33 [32]; xxxv. 20; xlvii. 26; Deut. 
 ii. 22 ; iii. 14 ; x. 8 ; xi. 4 ; xxxiv. 6 ; JoiA. it. 9 ; v. 9 ; vi. 25 ; vii. 26 ; viii. 
 28 sq. ; ix. 27 ; x. 27 ; xiii. 13 ; xiv. 14; xv. 63 ; xfi. 10. As to the passages 
 in Genesis, though it is highly probable that they should be brought down far 
 beyond the time of Moses, yet there is nothing in this expression absolutely to 
 preclude the Mosaic date. The same may be said of Beut. ii. 22 ; xi. 4. But 
 Bent. iii. 14; a. 8 ; xxxiv. 6 unquestionably bring us to a later date, and so 
 too, with ever-growing distinctness, do the texts in Joshua. Ch. vi. 25 ; xiv. 14 
 do not refer to Eahab and Caleb, but to their descendants ; xv. 63 points to 
 the time after David, for till then Jerusalem was still completely in the power 
 of the Jebusites {Judges xix. 12), but after its capture by David they remained 
 there side by side with the Israelites (2 Sam. xxiv. 16, l8 ; i Kings ix. 20, 21 ; 
 Hzra ix. i, 2 ; Zach. ix. 7) ; xvi. 10 we should have to place before Solomon 
 if I Kings ix. 16 were to be taken literally; but it is probable that Gezer was 
 at first subject to the Philistines (2 Sam. v. 25 ; i Chron. xiv. 16 ; xx. 4) and 
 did not become tributary to the Israelites till after its conquest by Solomon's 
 father-in-law. — To ix. 27 we shall return presently, but note in the meantime 
 that 2 Sam. xxi. 2 shows that the Gibeonites, though persecuted by Saul, were 
 not exterminated by him. 
 
 ' See Deut. ii. 10-12, 20-23; iii. 9, 11, 13'', 14. There is not the smallest 
 reason for assigning these notes to any one but the author of Deut. i. i-iv. 40, 
 with which their linguistic character coincides (Q'p:!?, D^, n, ilJT, TDiBn, rtiST, 
 etc.). They may, no doubt, be considered as glosses, for it can hardly be 
 intended that Moses communicated these details to the Israelites by word of 
 mouth ; but in that case they are glosses on the speech of Moses made by the 
 hand which committed it to writing. The remark made upon Num. xxi. in n. 6 
 is therefore applicable u, fortiori to Beut. ii., iii. : their author is a scholar, 
 in his own way, and he gives his readers the benefit of his geographical and 
 historical knowledge. Cf. Ewald, Geschichte, i. 184 sq. (3rd ed.) [125, 126]. 
 — The questions raised by x. 6-9 are very complex, and must therefore be 
 reserved for future treatment (§ 7, n. 6). 
 
 '° Evidence against the authorship of Moses is supplied not only by Beut. 
 xxxiv. (especially v. 10), but by lEx. vi. 26, 27 ; xi. 3 ; Nam. xii. 3, 6 sqq. ; 
 Beut. xxxiii. 4, in which Moses himself is spoken of in the most objective 
 manner possible. That Joshua wrote the book which bears his name certainly 
 cannot be inferred either from xxiv. 26 (§ 2, n. i) or from any other passage of 
 the book. Ch. v. I has been ascribed to a contemporary, on the strength of the 
 i:"il», but the true reading is DTDS (of. the versions), and the received text 
 is due to the eye having wandered to iv. 23. 
 
 This would be the place for an express treatment of the so-called anachron- 
 isms of the Pentateuch, i.e. the texts which illustrate its post-Mosaic 
 origin. As long as the tradition that Moses was the author of the Tora was do- 
 minant, it was natural that great stress should be laid on pointing out these ana- 
 chronisms, or, on the other hand, demonstrating that the passages in question 
 
n. 7-io.J Narratives remote from the Facts recorded. 3 7 
 
 might quite well have come from the hand of Moses. The texts over which the 
 controversy raged are collected by Hengsteuberg, Authentie, ii. 179-345 
 [ii. 146-282]; Keil, Hinl. § 38 [i. 137 sqq.] and elsewhere. But this phase 
 of the critical inquiry now lies behind ua. The Mosaic origin of the whole 
 Tora is hardly defended now. Attention is directed to phenomena of wider 
 scope and greater significance, which bear upon the problem as a whole and 
 lead to a positive solution of it. I shall therefore confine myself to the simple 
 enumeration of the most important of these texts, and a reference to my 
 Sistorisdh-lcritiseTi Onderzoeh, (ist ed.) i. 22-29, where the quality of their 
 apologetic treatment is illustrated by a few examples. 
 
 That the Tora was written in Canaan appears from the use of d' 
 for the West, and pTrt T2» for the district which we, too, taking our stand 
 in Canaan, call the Transjordanic region ; and further, from texts such as Gen. 
 xix. 20-22 ; xxi. 31 ; xxiii. 2 ; xxvi. 32 sq. ; xxviii. 19 ; xxxv. 19, where names 
 of places in Canaan are explained — surely not either by or for those who had 
 yet to enter the land ! — or again from the detailed — and yet not always really 
 intelligible or correct — information about the regions in which Israel wandered 
 before the conquest, Deut. i. 1-5 (cf. Graf, GescMohtliche Biicher, p. 6, n.). 
 The historical position of the writers of the Tora betrays itself, for example, 
 in Gen. xii. 6; xiii. 7; xl. 15 (the ancient inhabitants are expelled; Canaan 
 has become 'the land of the Hebrews'); Gen. xiy. 14; Deut. xxxiv. i (the 
 name of Laish is already changed to Dan; cf. Josh. xix. 47; Jud<jes xviii. 
 29); Deut. ii. 12 (Canaan occupied by Israel); iii. 11 (Og's bed a relic of [40] 
 antiquity) ; iii, 14 (the name JHtiuyoift- yai?" has long been in use); xix. 14*^ (the 
 □ ^3i^«"i themselves were living in Canaan) ; Wmn. xv. 32 (the sojourn in the 
 desert a closed period of history) ; Gen. xxxvi. 31 (Israel governed by kings). 
 Proofs of post-Mosaic origin are particularly numerous in the poetical passages, 
 &en. xlix. (cf. J. P. N. Land, Disp. de carmine Jacohi, Lugd. Bat., 1857 ; 
 K. Kohler, Der Segen JacoVs, Berl. 1867) ; JEx. xv. (especially v. 13, 17) ; 
 Deut. xxxii. (cf. A. Kamphausen, Das Lied Mose's, Leipz., 1862); xxxiii. 
 (cf. K. H. Graf, Der Segen Mose's, Leipz., 1857; ^- Volck, Der Segen 
 Moseys, Brl., 1873) ; and in the story of Balaam, Num. xxii.-xxiv. (cf. B. E. 
 de Geer, De Bileamo, Traj. ad Ehen., i8i6; Hengatenberg, Die Geseh. 
 Bileams und seine Weissagungen, Berl., 1842; H. Oort, Disp. de pericope 
 Num. xxii. 2-xxiv., Lugd. Bat., i860'; M . Kalisch, Bible Studies, i., London, 
 1877). 
 
 Now the inference drawn from these special phenomena 
 is at once confirmed and rendered more definite by the 
 contents and the general character of the narratives them- 
 selves. All the marks which usually appear in subsequent 
 and late accounts of events are united in the narratives of 
 the Hexateuch. The further we push our inquiry the more 
 clearly will this be seen. For the present a number of striking 
 
38 The Hexateuch. [§4- 
 
 instances will suffice to remove all doubt as to the true 
 character of the Hexateuch as a historical authority. 
 
 In the narratives which we owe to eye-witnesses or con- 
 temporaries, or which at any rate were written down 
 shortly after the events themselves, we find a unity and 
 mutual agreement qualified only by inevitable divergencies. 
 But in the case of later accounts, belonging to different 
 periods, and perhaps issuing from different circles, contra- 
 dictions as to the main issues as well as the details must 
 inevitably appear. The historical reminiscences, orally pre- 
 served diiring a longer or shorter period, are constantly 
 taking up alien and not alwaj's identical matter into their 
 texture. When they come to be written down the legends 
 are worked up in one way by one writer and in another 
 by another, according to the point of view and purpose 
 of each respectively, so as often to be notably modified or 
 even completely transformed. That the narratives of the 
 Hexateuch have shared this fate appears in the first place 
 from their mutual contradictions. They often give us 
 [41] mutually excluding, or at any rate more or less widely diverg- 
 ing representations of one and the same event or individual. 
 We find these accounts either side by side or forced quaiul 
 meme into a single whole. This phenomenon appears not 
 only in Genesis, i.e. in the narratives concerning the pras- 
 Mosaic time-'^^, but, just as unmistakably, in Exodus, Nim- 
 hers ^'^, and Joshta ^^. A characteristic modification of the 
 same phenomenon appears in the historical reminiscences here 
 and there woven into Deuteronomy; on the one hand they 
 show acquaintance with the narratives which we possess in 
 Escodus and Numbers, but, on the other hand, their reproduc- 
 tion of them is extremely free ^*. 
 
 '' Here we find side by side 
 
 tlie two creation stories, Gen. i. i — ii. 4", and ii. 4*-23. The division of 
 the work of creation into six days is entirely unknown to the second story. 
 Moreover, the order of creation is quite different in the second : first, the 
 
n. I I.J Duplicate Narratives. 
 
 39 
 
 man is created (». 7), then trees and plants («. 8 sq.), then animals {v. 19), 
 and lastly the woman {v. 21, 22). Cf. the commentators, and H . Hupfeld, 
 Die Quellen der Genesis, p. 109 sqq. ; Bunsen's Bibelwerk, I. p. exiii. sqq. ; 
 
 two accounts of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's escape, 
 Gen. XTiii. i-xix. 28 and xix. 29 ; 
 
 two accounts of the origin of the name Beer-sheba, Gen. xxi. 31 and xxvi. 
 
 32, 33 ; 
 
 of the name Beth-el, Gen. xxviii. 10-19 ^^'^ xxxv. 15 ; 
 
 of the name Israel, Gen. xxxii. 25-33 [24-32], and xxxv. 10 ; 
 
 of the names of Esau's wives, Gen. xxvi. 34; (xxvii. 46); xxviii. 9 and 
 Gen. xxxvi. 2, 3 ; 
 
 of Esau's settlement in Seir, which took place, according to Gen. xxxii. 4 sqq. ; 
 xxxiii. I sqq., during Jacob's sojourn in Mesopotamia, and, according to Gen. 
 xxxvi. 6, 7, after his return thence. 
 
 We have also the following cases of originally distinct narratives worked up 
 together : — 
 
 two accounts of the deluge in Gen. vi.-ix. : 17. For (l) the corruption 
 of mankind and the consequent displeasure of Yahwfe are narrated and 
 explained in vi. (1-4), 5-8, and again, but differently, in v. 9-13; (2) vi. 
 19, 20; vii. 8, 9, 14 sq. speak of one pair of every kind of animal being 
 taken into the ark by Noah at God's command ; while vii. 2, 3 distinguishes 
 between clean and unclean beasts, and orders seven pairs each of the former 
 to he preserved ; (3) side by side with Yahwfe's resolve that mankind shall 
 not be destroyed again, viii. 20-22, stands God's covenant with Noah, and his 
 promise that the deluge shall not be repeated, ix. 1-17 ; 
 
 two accounts of Joseph coming into Egypt, in Gen. xxxvii, xxxix, xl. 
 According to one Joseph is thrown into «■ pit, at the advice of Reuben, 
 but, while the brothers are eating bread, he is stolen by Midianitish 
 merchants, carried away to Egypt and sold to Potiphar, a eunuch of 
 Pharaoh's, who has charge of the prisoners as captain of the body-guard [42] 
 (xxxvii. 1-25", 28", 29-36 ; xl. i sqq.). According to the other story Joseph, 
 at the advice of Judah, is sold to Ishmaelites who carry him to 
 Egypt and sell him to an Egyptian in whose house he enjoys prosperity 
 at first, but is afterwards slandered by his master's wife ; and only in con- 
 sequence of this slander comes inside the prison house (xxxvii. 25''-27, 28''; 
 xxxix, except a few words in ». i). 
 
 The above absolutely irrefragable proofs of the composite character of the 
 narratives of which Genesis is composed make it very probable that certain 
 other narratives which strongly resemble each other, must also be regarded as 
 doublets, i. c. as diverse renderings of a single tradition, or as variations on a 
 single theme. Compare the following passages : — 
 
 Gen. xii. 10-20 and xx. 1-18 : the author of the second account knows 
 nothing of the first ; the renewed recourse to the same deception after its 
 first failure is too improbable psychologically for the same author to have 
 ascribed both attempts to Abraham ; 
 
 Gen.xvi. 4-14 and xxi. 8 -21. See Godgeleerde Bijdragentot: 1866, p. 467 sqq.; 
 
40 
 
 The Hexateuch. [ § 
 
 Qen. xxi. 2 2-34 and xxvi. 26-33 1 observe the identity of the names Abimelech 
 and Phiool, and the mutually excluding interpretations of the origin of 
 Beer-sheba, xxi. 31 ; xxvi. 33, with which the stories respectively close. 
 "^ In these books we find two accounts side by side 
 of the revelation of the name Yahw^, Ex. iii. 14, 15 and vi. 2 sq. ; 
 of the name of Moses' father-in-law, Ee'uel, JSx. ii. 18, 21 ; Jethro, 
 Ex. iii. I ; iv. 18; xviii. i sqq. Cf. also 'Num. x. 29, where niio ]nn may 
 refer to Hobab (as in Judges iv. 11), but may also refer to Ee'uel, as in 
 Ex. ii. 18, 21 ; 
 
 of the lightening of Moses' task as judge and leader of his people, Ex. xviii. 
 (appointment of judges over 1,000, 100, 50, and 10 families), and Num. xi. 11 
 sqq, (yo elders associated with Moses and inspired with his spirit). The two 
 narratives diverge widely. But the latter betrays no trace of acquaintance 
 with the former (see especially 1}. 14), and in Deut. i. g-i8 they are united 
 into a single whole ; 
 
 of the manna and the quails, Ex. xvi. and Num. xi, : the latter chapter, 
 when compared with the former, reveals a partial repetition accompanied by 
 divergencies, e.g. concerning the manna ; 
 
 of the tabernacle : according to Ex. xxxiii. 7-1 1, it was pitched outside the 
 camp, as is also assumed in Num. xi, 16, 26 ; xii. 4 ; Deut. xxxi. 14 sq., but 
 the sanctuary described in Ex. xxv. sqq. ; xxxv. sqq. stands in the middle of 
 the camp, in accordance with Num. ii. sqq. ; 
 
 of the person and character of Balaam : in Num. xxii-xxiv. he is a prophet 
 of Yahwfe, whom Balak, king of Moab, tries to induce to curse Israel, but who, 
 faithful to Yahwfe's command, blesses the people and then returns home ; 
 according to Num. xxxi. 8, 16 (cf. Josh. xiii. 22) Balaam sojourns amongst the 
 Midianites, it is at his suggestion that the latter seduce Israel to idolatry, and 
 accordingly he is slain together with them. With the former representation 
 Mic. vi. 5 is completely in harmony, and Deut. xxiii. 4, 5 and Josh. xxiv. 9 at 
 any rate substantially so. 
 
 The narratives in which heterogeneous elements are united into an often 
 [43] very ill connected whole need not be dissected here : we shall return to them 
 presently. The composite character of the following passages is especially 
 obvious : Ex. vii.-xi. ; xiv. (two representations of the passage of the Eed Sea) ; 
 xix. i-xx. 21 and xxiv. (where an almost hopeless confusion results from 
 the mingling of conflicting accounts), xxxi. i8-xxxiv. (where there is similar 
 confusion — xxxii. 7-14, to name a, single point, conflicting with i). 17 sqq., 
 30 sqq. ; and xxxii. 25-29 [where the punishment is actually inflicted] with 
 V. 30-34 [where Moses prays that it may be averted]) ; Num. xiii., xiv. 
 (cf. Th. Tijdschrift, xi, 545 sqq,) ; xvi., xvii. (ibid. xii. 139 sqq.) ; xxv. 
 (according to the one account, Israel commits idolatry with the Moabitish, 
 according to the other, with the Midianitish women ; cf. De profeten en de 
 profetie onder Israel, ii. 134-136 [390-392]). 
 
 " A careful reading of Joshua constantly reveals the interweaving of diver- 
 gent accounts. The dispatch of the spies (ii.) contradicts the date given in 
 i. 10, II, cf. iii. 2. Ch. iii. and iv. are full of repetitions which are inexplic- 
 
n. 11-14.J Divergent and Confiicting Accounts. 41 
 
 able on the supposition of a single author. Ch. vi. 2-5 (where the sound 
 of the trumpet is the signal for the fall of Jericho) does not at all correspond 
 with V. 8 (where the whole procession round the city is continuously accom- 
 panied by the trumpets). In viii., v. 3 sqq. conflicts with v. 1 2 sqq. The 
 composite character of ix, is shown byi;. 17-21, where the whole matter is 
 decided and the result made known to the Gibeonites, though in v. 22 sqq. 
 Joshua has still to inquire into it before pronouncing judgment ; and also 
 by the two-fold representation of the destiny of the Gibeonites, as 'wood- 
 cutters and water-drawers for the community ' or as ' slaves of the house of 
 Yahwfe ' (w. 21, 23 ; in which latter verse, in defiance of all grammar, the one 
 is combined with the other) . 
 
 " Cf. W. H. Kosters, De historieieschouwing van den Seuferonomist, met 
 de herichten in Gen. -Num. vergelelcen (Leiden, 1868). We shall return to this 
 matter presently, and may confine ourselves hereto a few examples. Deut. ix., 
 X. sometimes reproduces Ex. xxxii. literally. Deut. i. 6-19 points clearly 
 enough to Ex. xviii. and Num. xi., weaving the two accounts into one (n. 12). 
 In Deut. i. 20-46 we recognise more than one expression from Num. xiii. sq., 
 but we also find the statement, in v. 20-22, that Moses sent the spies at 
 the request of the Israelites. Deut. ii. 4-8 departs from Num. xx. 
 14-21. Deut. 1. 37; iii. 26; iv. 21 — where Yahwfe is wroth with Moses 
 because of the Israelites — have nothing to correspond to them in 
 Numiers. 
 
 The clear indications of diversity of authorsliip fur- 
 nisted by these conflicting representations would lead us 
 a priori to expect linguistic evidence of a corresponding 
 nature. Nor is our expectation deceived : each of the diver- 
 gent accounts has its distinctive language, and characteristic 
 turns of speech and style. Indeed the narratives differ so 
 widely in this respect, that without reference to their con- 
 tents, and where, from the nature of the case, these contents 
 can give us no help, we are still able to place the diversity of 
 authorship above the reach of doubt by merely noting the 
 divergencies of form ^^. For our present purpose it will be [44] 
 enough simply to note this fact; for characteristics of lan- 
 guage and style serve not only to distinguish the narratives 
 of diverse origin, but, above all, to identify the passages due 
 to a single hand, and will therefore naturally present them- 
 selves for further consideration when we come to this portion 
 of our task. 
 
42 
 
 The Hexatettch. [ § . 
 
 ■'' It is almost superfluous to remark that the two creation stories, for 
 example, and the two accounts of the flood (n. ii) differ widely in form as well 
 as matter. Here, therefore, contents and language combine. The form alone 
 is enough to stamp Gen. xvii., for instance, as due to some other hand than 
 that which penned either Gtn. xv. sq. or Gen. xviii. Gen. xxiii. stands off 
 with equal distinctness from what precedes and what follows it. But it is 
 needless to go on ; especially as the diflferonce of language and style that we 
 have established in the case of the legislative matter (§ 3, u. 9, 10) could not 
 and does not fail to present itself here too, seeing how closely the laws and 
 narratives are often connected. 
 
 The evidence furnished by the conflicting- character of the 
 narratives of the Hexateuch and their differences of form is 
 confirmed by their contents, or the representation they 
 give us of the course of the historical events, indicating 
 that they are separated from the facts themselves by a very 
 great lapse of time. The book of Genesis may here be left 
 out of account, since the picture it contains of the age of the 
 patriarchs gives us no unequivocal indications of the period 
 at which it was produced ^^. It is otherwise with the descrip- 
 tion of the exodus from Egypt, the wandering in the desert, 
 and the conquest and partition of Canaan, which the fol- 
 lowing books suppTj?. Their representations, to put it in 
 a word, are uttjerly unhistorical, and therefore cannot 
 have been committed to writing until centuries after Moses 
 and Joshua. 
 
 It cannot be denied, in the abstract, that we are justified 
 in arguing from the character of the narratives to their 
 chronological relation to the facts they record. It is true 
 that our first endeavour must be to determine the age of 
 the accounts, independently of their contents, by examining 
 their mutual relations and their form, and thus gaining 
 a clue to their historical value ; but when this inquiry 
 has been made and has led to a positive result, then the 
 greater or smaller degree in which the historical character 
 is stamped on the narratives themselves may, in its turn, 
 be used as a help towards determining the interval that 
 
n. 15.J Characteristics of Contemporary Accounts. 43 
 
 lies between their composition and the facts. Of course this [45] 
 method can only be fruitfully employed upon one condition, 
 viz. that the test is universally admitted as fair. 
 Otherwise the inferences drawn will have no validity, at 
 any rate in the eyes of those who object to the test selected. 
 For this reason we must lay no stress in this connection upon 
 the miracles of the Hexateuch, even now that we have learned 
 something of its character as a historical authority : the ques- 
 tion of miracles is too completely dominated by divergent 
 personal convictions to supply materials for a unanimous con- 
 clusion. But there are requirements with which every story, 
 whether miraculous or not, must comply, and from which, 
 always and everywhere, narratives tend to depart in propor- 
 tion as they recede from the times to which they refer and 
 are less and less controlled by the reality or by the living 
 tradition concerning it. 
 
 Amongst these requirements is a certain measure of fullness 
 and clearness, never absent from a reflection of the actual 
 facts, but on the other hand, often missed by those who have 
 only realised them vaguely if at all. Now it cannot be 
 denied that in the books of Eccochis-Joshua incompleteness 
 and indistinctness are far from rare ; in particular the 
 forty years' wandering in the desert is passed over almost 
 in silence, and its main features are very imperfectly and 
 divergently explained ^'^. But since there is room for differ- 
 ence of opinion even here, let us apply another test which 
 leads to absolutely incontrovertible results. The represent- 
 ations in the later books of the Hexateuch simply defy 
 the conditions of space and time to which every event 
 is subject, and by which, therefore, every narrative may 
 be tested. The exodus, the wandering, the passage of 
 the Jordan and the settlement in Canaan, as they are 
 described in the Hexateuch, simply could not have 
 happened. We strive in vain to conceive their occurrence 
 
44 
 
 The Hexateiich. [ § 
 
 as long as we retain tlie data of the Hexateuch itself. 
 The more we go into detail the more clearly does this come 
 [46] out^*- The fact is extremely important in determining the 
 character of the Hexateuch. All the more so since this 
 representation of the course of events is not sporadic, but 
 appears throughout, and is sometimes rounded into a com- 
 plete system which at first produces the impression of an 
 accurate reflex of the facts, but, when we discover that it 
 cannot possibly be such, must be supposed to owe its origin 
 to the constructive imagination which works upon unhis- 
 torical premisses as readily as though they were facts ^''. 
 
 This verdict on the character of the Hexateuch would 
 be forced upon us by the nature of its presentment of 
 the history even were we unable to explain it genetically. 
 But as a fact the explanation is quite easy. The mental 
 necessity of making the events of long past ages visibly, 
 and as it were tangibly present, makes tradition, else- 
 where as well as in Palestine, concentrate the events of 
 a whole era within the narrow space of a few years and 
 the exploits of one or more successive generations within the 
 life of a single hero. That this took place in Israel with 
 regard to the great events recorded in Exodus-Josliua is not 
 only probable a priori, but is actually apparent from a number 
 of the accounts which we find in the books themselves^". 
 They show the unmistakable traces of the condensing and 
 concentrating process that must have preceded their com- 
 mittal to writing ; and this fresh confirmation of their later 
 origin serves at the same time to explain the unhistorical 
 presentation of the facts which we have noted, and which 
 could not but result from such- a process of evolution ^^. 
 
 " Cf. my essay on De stamvaders van liet Israeliettsche volk in Tli. Tijdschr., 
 V. 255-312. Many of my readera may think the facts there collected significant 
 enough. But since they can only lead indirectly to definite conclusions as to 
 the age of the narratives, they yield in importance to the phenomena which 
 are dealt with in n. 17-20. 
 
n. i6-i8.] Incomplete^iess of the Narratives. 45 
 
 " From the survey of contents (§ i) we have seen that the announcement of 
 the wandering, made in the second year after the exodus, occurs in i^um. xiv. 
 The place assigned to 'Num. xv.-xix. suggests that the laws there registered [47] 
 were promulgated, and the revolt of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram took place, 
 during this time of wandering ; but there is no more specific indication of the 
 date either of the laws or the events. Now follows Num. xx. i : 'And the sons 
 of Israel, the whole community, came into the desert of ^in in the first month, 
 and the people abode at Kadesh, and Miriam died there and there was she 
 buried.' ' The first month ' — of what year ? If of the fortieth, then the 
 intervening space of 38 years is filled by xv.-xix., with no other indication 
 whatever ; if of the third year, and if, accordingly, the events oiv. 2-13 belong 
 to this same year, then 37 years lie between v. 13 and v. 14-22 (embassy to 
 the king of Edom) without a single word in the text to indicate it. But even 
 this is not all. With regard to the wandering, the Hexateuch contradicts 
 itself. It begins at Kadesh (or Kadesh Barnea), according to Devi. i. 40 
 (cf. 19) ; ii. I, 13, 14; Josh. xiv. 7; Num.ssW. 26 (nnSip), after the spies had 
 been dispatched thence ; and there is no mention in these passages of Deuter- 
 onomy of any return to Kadesh. But according to Num. xii. 16 ; xiii. 3, 26 
 (pND "12TO 'la) the desert of Pharan is the place from which the spies 
 set out, and the arrival of the people at Kadesh falls much later, perhaps 
 in the fortieth year {Nam. xxxiii. 37; and probably xx. I'also). Another 
 version yet is found in Deut. i. 46 ; ' and ye abode in Kadesh many days, as 
 long as ye abode there ' (i. e. during a long period that the author does not 
 venture to define) ; and any idea of twisting this representation into agreement 
 with the two others, is dispelled by our finding it again elsewhere, viz. in 
 Judges xi. 16, 17, and perhaps also in Num. xx. i'' (' and the people abode at 
 Kadesh'). These phenomena really admit of but one explanation : when the 
 stories of the Hexateuch were committed to writing Israel's abode in the 
 desert belonged to a distant past, of which one had formed one idea and 
 another another, but of which no one could give a consistent account. Why 
 Num. xxxiii., in spite of v. 2, cannot modify our view of the case, will be 
 seen hereafter (§ 6, n. 43 and § 16, n. 12). — Very fragmentary and obscure, 
 too, is Nam. xxi. 1-3 (of. xxxiii. 40) ; and so is the description of the conquest 
 of Canaan in general, extending, according to Josk. xxii. 3, over 'many days,' 
 and according to xiii. I, till Joshua had become an old man, whereas vi. sqq. 
 would lead us to suppose that it was all accomplished in a very brief space 
 of time. Other examples that do not lie so much on the surface will present 
 themselves in great number as we go along. 
 
 1' It is the great merit of the bishop of Natal, Dr. J. W. Colenso, to 
 have recalled attention to this fact (which had been noted before, but was in 
 danger of gradually falling into oblivion), and to have made it palpable to 
 every one. See Part i. of his work referred to on p. 2. A single sub-section 
 of the narrative, the passage of the Red Sea (Ex. xiv.), had already been sub- 
 mitted to similar criticism by H. S. Eeimarus, in one of the fragments 
 published by Lessing, and also included in Klose's (unfinished) edition 
 of the Schutzschrift filr die vernUnftigen Verehrer Gottes (Zeitsohrift fiir die 
 
46 ^ The Hexatetich. [ § 4. 
 
 hist. Theol. 1852, p. 404-426). The number of Israelitish fighting men is 
 given in Ex. xii. 37 ; Num. xi. 21 as 600,000, with which Num. i. 46 ; ii. 32 ; 
 xxvi. 51 (cf. also Jfx. xxxviii. 25 sq.) agree, and this gives a people of two and 
 a half million souls. This is the prevailing representation of the Hexa- 
 [48] teuch, and though some few texts conflict with it (cf. my Godsdienst, i. 1 74 sq. 
 [Bel. Isr. i. 172-176] ), it must certainly be taken as the starting point of our 
 criticism. The herds of cattle were in proportion to the numbers of this huge 
 multitude {Ex. xii. 38) ; the enormous figures to which we must mount if we 
 accept as historical the accounts given in the Hexateuch of the regular celebra- 
 tion of the passover {Ex. xii. ; Num. ix. 1-14 ; Josh. v. 10) have been shown by 
 Colenso (p. 57 sqq., 65 sqq.). Now consider what the migration of such a host 
 —including old and sick people, weaklings and little children — would be, the 
 inevitable confusion that would accompany it, the diificulties involved in the 
 people all living in tents, which they would have to carry with them, the 
 fodder that would be needed for all the cattle — and then read Ex. xii., xiv. 
 etc. Is it not obvious that the narrators had never once thought of all this 
 and regarded it as the simplest matter in the world to accomplish things 
 which, in point of fact, are absolutely impossible within the limits of 
 space and time which they themselves assign ? Take, as specific instances, 
 the passage of the Ked Sea in a single night {Ex. xiv. 20, 24, 27) ; the passage 
 of the Jordan, which, according to Josh, iii., iv., did not occupy more than 
 one day ; the march of all the fighting men round Jericho, again accomplished 
 in a single day, nay, repeated as many as seven times on the seventh day 
 {Josh, vi.) ; finally, the march of all Israel — ' both the stranger and the 
 native,' 'the whole assembly, and the women and the children and the 
 stranger, who went up in their midst ' — out of the camp, through the midst 
 of the still unconquered land, to the mountains of Ebal and G-erizim, the pre- 
 sence of them all in the space between these two raountains and the reading 
 oftheTorain their hearing {Josh, viii, 30-35). It is not too much to say 
 that the representation of all this given in the Hexateuch is absurd. The 
 miraculous feeding of the people with manna and quails {Ex. xvi. ; Num. 
 xi.), and the water from the rock {Ex. xvii. 1-7 ; Num. xx. 1-13), do not 
 remove a single one of these difficulties. 
 
 ^' By the side of these round numbers — Ex. xii. 37 ; Num. xi. 21 — stand 
 the apparently very accurate figures of Num. i. 46 ; xxvi. 51, which are 
 obtained by adding up the numbers of the fighting men of the several tribes, 
 and in close connection with these, again, we find the detailed order of march 
 Num. ii., the minute regulation of the duties of the Levites and their position 
 in the camp. Num. iii., iv., and the description of the march out of the desert 
 of Sinai, Num. x. 11-28. Statements that go into such detail appear at 
 the first glance to rest upon personal observation, or at least upon very lively 
 reminiscences and contemporary data; and a corresponding verdict has, ac- 
 cordingly, often been passed upon them. But if it is established (cf. n. 18), that 
 the whole representation must be unhistorical, then we are forced to find 
 some other explanation. The round numbers then appear to be the earlier 
 ones, and the figures that pretend to greater accuracy, strike us as being based 
 
n. 18-20.] Unhistorical Character of Narratives. 47 
 
 upon the others, and worked out in such detail in order to leave nothing 
 indeterminate or uncertain in the picture set before the reader. A posierioii, 
 this view ia supported by a whole series of phenomena, such as the extra- 
 ordinary relation between the results of the census in Nam. i. and in Num. 
 xxvi. respectively (cf. my Gndsdienst, ii. 74 [Bel. Isr. ii. 165 sq.]) ; the 
 number of the male first-boms in Israel as given in Num. iii. 40-51 (cf. Col. 
 op. cit., p. 84-90) ; the description of the war against Midian, Nam. xxxi. [49] 
 (ibid. p. 139-146) etc. All these details, if taken as history, are beset 
 vrith insuperable difficulties. — Other proofs of the later origin of the more 
 elaborate narratives wiU be given below, § 15, u. 22. 
 
 '" It seems advisable to begin by examining these special narratives, and 
 then to proceed (n. 21) to develope and justify the general conclusions. 
 Amongst the most striking examples are the following ; — 
 
 u. Num. xxxii. 33, 39-42; Deut. iii. 12-16; iv. 43; xx'x. 7 [8]; Josli. 
 xii. 6, and other passages in Joshaa, where the settlement of half Manasseh as 
 well as of Reuben and Gad appears as a disposition made by Muses. The 
 case of Yair ben Manasseh comes expressly within this arrangement. Certain 
 nomad villages in Gilead were called JSavvoth Yair after him, and Moses 
 himself declares {Deut. iii. 14) that the name has survived ' until this day ' (!) . 
 But in Nwm. xxxii. 1-33 a story is preserved in which Moses extends permis- 
 sion to remain beyond the Jordan to Eeuben and Gad only, and in v. 33, 39-42 
 we detect the clearest proofs that half Manasseh was only added afterwards. 
 Moreover, it appears from Jiid. x. 3—5 that the eponymous Yair of the 
 Havvoth belonged to the period of the Judges. Hence we conclude, that the 
 settlement of half Manasseh by Moses is unhistorical, and that the story 
 sprang from the tendency to ascribe to Moses everything that took place before 
 the passage of the Jordan ; and this would include the dispositions made as to 
 the settlement of the Transjordanic tribes. This is confirmed a posteriori by 
 the fact that the writers of Deut. iii. 14 ; Josh. xiii. 30 make mistakes about the 
 Havvoth Yair, placing them in Bashan instead of in Gilead, and confounding 
 them with the sixty fortresses in the former region (in conflict with i Kings 
 iv. 13 ; Judges x. 3, 4; i Gliron. ii. 21-23). Cf. TTi. Tijdschr., xi. 478-482. 
 
 h. Hebron and Deblr are conquered by Caleb, the Kenizzite, and Othniel, 
 his younger brother {Josh. xiv. 6-15; xv. 13-19). Since Caleb and his 
 descendants were afterwards adopted into Judah there is no positive discrepancy 
 in ascribing to that tribe the conquest, at any rate, of Hebron, Jud. i. 10. But 
 elsewhere, in accordance with the theory that Joshua conquered the whole of 
 Canaan, the capture of both cities is ascribed to him, JosTi. a. 36 sq. (Hebron ; 
 all the inhabitants destroyed) ; 38 sq. (Deblr ; treated in like manner) ; xi, 
 21, 22 (all the Anakim of Hebron, Deblr, Anab, and the whole mountain of 
 Judah rooted out) cf. xii. 10, 13 (the kings of Hebron and Deblr enumerated 
 amongst those whom Joshua slew). 
 
 K. According to Jnd. i. 17 the tribe of Judah conquered ^ephath after 
 Joshua's death, and called the place Horma. But in Josh. xii. 14 the king 
 of Horma is one of the princes overthrown by Joshua, and in Num. xxi. 1-3 
 the Israelites, under Moses, avenge themselves for the defeat inflicted upon 
 
48 The Hexateiich. [§4. n. 20, 21. 
 
 them by the king of Arad, slay the Canaanites and call 'the place' Horma. 
 The same name appears again in Nxim. xiv. 45 ; Deut. i. 44. Judah's exploit 
 might be attributed in the later accounts either to Joshua or to Moses, since 
 Horma was a frontier place, and might be considered as belonging to Canaan 
 or to the desert indifferently. 
 
 d,. Jud. iv., v., distinctly show that the account of the conquest and devas- 
 
 [5°] tation of Hazor in Josh. xi. i, 10, 11, 13 is antedated. If Hazor had really 
 
 been burned and all its inhabitants slaughtered by Joshua, how could it have 
 
 become so powerful within the period of the Judges as to subdue the northern 
 
 tribes and hold them in subjection for twenty years {Jud. iv. 2) ? 
 
 e. I have shown in Nieuw en Ond, 1868, p. 1-19, that the actual condition 
 of the Gibeonites in Solomon's time (i Kings ix. 20 sq.) is antedated and 
 explained by an ordinance of Joshua's, in Josh. ix. On v. 21, 23, see above 
 n. 13. 
 
 ^' It is impossible to mistake the connection between the piling up of exploits 
 on the era and the persons of Moses and Joshua, some examples of which have 
 been given in n. 20, and the thoroughly unhistorical character of the general 
 representations examined in n. 18, 19. Their common root is the antedating 
 of the Israelite nation, which in reality only came into existence under the 
 monarchy and as a consequence of the struggles of the period of the Judges, 
 whereas the Hexateuch represents it as already existing, issuing from Egypt, 
 traversing the desert and settling in the Transjordanic region under Moses, 
 and subsequently, under Joshua's lead, conquering and dividing Canaan at a 
 single rush. Cf. my Qodsdienst, i. 136 sqq. [_Bel. Isr. i. 132 sqq.]. It 
 was quite natural to think of this Israelite nation as very numerous and 
 compact, collected into a single camp, constantly moved from place to place in 
 the desert, but after the passage of the Jordan permanently pitched, first at 
 Gilgal {Josh. iv. 19 sq. ; ix. 6; x. 6, 7, 9, 15, 43; xiv. 6), then at Shilo 
 (Josh, xviii. i, 9). Very judicious remarks on the historical reality that may 
 lie at the basis of this will be found in K. H. Graf, Der Stamm Simeon 
 (1866), p. 9 sqq. ; but the representations of the Hexateuch, as they stand, can 
 only be regarded as the products of ages long after Moses and Joshua, when 
 the true course of events was almost forgotten, and genuine historical reminis- 
 cences could only be preserved by having a place assigned them in a fiictitious 
 frame-work. Our further researches will make this still more plain. The 
 main point, however, is already placed beyond the reach of question, and we 
 are no longer in doubt as to the right point of view from which to regard 
 the Hexateuch as a history. 
 
 The conclusion of this inquiry is identical with that of our 
 provisional criticism of the legislation (§ 3). Although, as 
 shown in § i, it is impossible to deny a certain unity to the 
 Hexateuch, yet we have seen (i) that elements of various 
 origin may be distinguished in it ; (a) tbat most of them are 
 
§ 5.j Provisional Conclusions. Distinct Codes. 49 
 
 remote from the age of Moses and Joshua, and therefore, (3) that 
 the composition as a whole must be severed from the times to 
 which it refers by many centuries. The resolution of 
 the Hexateuch into its component parts, then, presents 
 the problem to the solution of which our efforts must now 
 be directed. 
 
 § 5. Joints of dejparUire in the resolution of the Hexateuch [51] 
 into its component ]}arts: the collections of laws and the 
 designations of the Deity. 
 
 In the critical analysis to which, having established its 
 right of existence, we must now proceed, everything depends 
 upon our securing fixed points of departure; and in 
 the light of the history of critical research, which has 
 now been zealously pursued for more than a century, we 
 cannot long remain in doubt where to look for them. The 
 mass of legislative matter spontaneously splits itself into 
 three groups or collections, while the characteristic employ- 
 ment of the divine names in Genesis and the opening chapters 
 Qi Exodus indicates the lines on which the narratives must be 
 united and severed respectively. 
 
 I. The division of the laws into three groups is raised 
 above all possibility of doubt by its distinct recognition in 
 the Tora itself, which compelled us to take some account of 
 it even in our initial survey in § i. To begin with the 
 most obvious facts, then, we distinguish the following 
 groups : — 
 
 A. The laws in Ex. xx. 33-xxiii. 33. Their succession is 
 not always natural and regular. Some of the ordinances 
 break the context and suggest the idea that they may be 
 later insertions^. But on the whole the laws are a coherent 
 whole and form a code complete within the limits the author 
 seems to have imposed on himself ^ and closed by a hortatory 
 
 E 
 
5° The Hexateuch. [ § 5. 
 
 discourse in xxiii. ao-33. Accordingly we find the name 
 n'^'lirT "IDD, tlie Book of the Covenant, applied to 
 these laws in the narrative that immediately follows them 
 (Ex. xxiv. 7)3. An introductory verse (xx. %%) brings 
 them into direct connection with the words that Yahwe 
 had spoken to Israel from heaven, i. e. the Decaloo-ue 
 (xx. 1-17); but there is no subsequent trace of this, and we 
 may well doubt whether the connection was not established 
 at a later date*. In one passage (xxiii. 15) reference is 
 made to a previous command of Yahwe; probably the one 
 contained in Ex. xiii. 3-10. But whether this reference is 
 original, i.e. due to the author of the laws himself, may be 
 [52] reasonably doubted 5- "We find no announcement in this col- 
 lection of any laws to be drawn up subsequently. 
 
 ' Ch. XX. 33-26 ia related to xxii. 17 sqq. [18 sqq.] and to xxiii. 14 sqq., 
 and would be more in place side by side with them than just before the ordi- 
 nances relating to civil life in xxi. i-xxii. 16 [18]. Ch. xxi. 16 disturbs the 
 connection between d. 1 5 and 1 7, both of which deal with the relations of children 
 to parents. Ch. xxiii. 4, 5 separates v. 1-3 and v. 6-8, which refer to the duties 
 of judges and witnesses. Ch. xxiii. 9 is a mere repetition of xxii. 20 [21]. Ch. 
 xxiii. 13 is thrust in amongst regulations concerning the holy seasons, v. 10-12 
 (sabbatical year and sabbath), and t). 14 sqq. (the three high festivals) ; the 
 verse, moreover, contains a general exhortation which is premature. Finally, 
 xxiii. 14-19 certainly seems to have been retouched, for v. 16 is but half gram- 
 matical after v. 15 ; v. 17 we should expect immediately after v. 14; and xt. 19' 
 repeats xxii. 28" [29"] in another form. Cf. Wellh. (xxi.: 559 sq.), who 
 also raises doubts against certain other verses, e.g. xx. 23 ; xxii. 20^^, 21 ; 
 24' ; 30 [21'', 22 ; 25' ; 31] ; xxiii. 9", where the plural takes the place of the 
 singular used elsewhere. 
 
 ^ What ' limits ' I mean is obvious. The cultus is not regulated in detail ; 
 the rights and duties of the priests are not determined at all. But in xxii. 
 28-30 [29-31] ; xxiii. 14 sqq. the lawgiver says all that he thinks necessary 
 about the worship of Yahwfe ; and he might well refrain^as the author of 
 Deut. xii. sqq. does, for example — from regulating matters which fell within 
 the province of the priesthood. To call his code incomplete would be to 
 judge it by an arbitrary standard. 
 
 ' The unanimity with which xxiv. 3-8 is brought into immediate connec- 
 tion with XX. 23-xxiii., is only broken, as far as I know, by Colenso, who 
 assumes (Wellhausen on the Composition, p. 27 sqq.), that xxiv. 3-8 is 
 inserted into an older narrative, in which xx. 23-xxiii. (with the exception 
 
n. 1-5.] Book of the Covenant. Deuteronomy. 5 1 
 
 of certain interpolated passages), and xxiv. i, 2, 9-1 1 followed each other 
 without a break. He therefore regards ' the Book of the Covenant * as a 
 name of later origin than the code itself. He admits, however, that xxiv. 3-8 
 is intended by its author to refer to xx. 23-xxiii., which indeed is obvious. 
 The distinction between 'words of Yahwe ' and 'mishphatim ' (u. 3) accords 
 with ssi. I, but it is not apparent where these ' mishphatim ' end, — perhaps 
 with xxii. 16 [17], up to and including which the ordinances generally take 
 the conditional form (oi), while the ethico-religious precepts and admonitions 
 begin with v. 17 [18] (cf. u. i). 
 
 ' We cannot fail to observe that in xxiv. 3-8, where the covenant between 
 Yahw^ and Israel is made, there is not the slightest mention of the Decalogue. 
 It certainly was not included in the book written by Moses, and it was that 
 book {v. 4, 7, 8) that formed the basis of the covenant. This can only be 
 explained on the supposition that the Book of the Covenant itself and xxiv. 
 3-8 were not originally connected with the Decalogue, whence it would 
 also follow that xx. 22'' is a later addition serving to connect them; for it [53] 
 is now generally admitted, — even by Colenso {Pentateuch, vii.. Appendix, 
 Synoptical Table, p. iii.), who formerly denied it [Pentateuch, vi. 149 sq.), — 
 that the words ' ye have seen that I have spoken to you out of heaven,' refer 
 to the proclamation of the Decalogue. 
 
 ■"' It occurs in the passage (xxiii. 14 sqq.), which, as already seen (n. i), has 
 been retouched, and moreover, in a verse that, in its present form, does not fit 
 on to the one that precedes it. The analogy of xx. 22*^ (n. 4) strengthens 
 the probability that the reference was inserted when the Book of the Covenant 
 was incorporated into the account of the Sinaitic legislation. 
 
 B. The laws in Deuteronomy. It is impossible to doubt 
 their independence of the laws in the other books. They stand 
 in a setting of their own, and expressly assert themselves as 
 a separate code (cf. § i and § 2, n. 4-7). The only questions 
 are, (i) where the collection begins and ends, and (a) whether 
 it has come down to us in its original form, or with later 
 additions. If we follow the indications of the book itself we 
 must begin by detaching Beut. i. i-iv. 40; iv. 41-43 and 
 xxvii. sqq. from the code of laws, and so reducing the 
 latter to iv. 44-xxvi. (cf. § i and § 3, n. 4-7). Ch. v.-xi. 
 may be regarded as an introduction, — whether from the hand 
 of the law-giver himself or some other it would be prema- 
 ture to decide^. The collection of laws in the narrower sense, 
 Deut. xii.-xxvi.j strikes us as a single whole. The order of 
 succession is not always what we might have expected, but 
 
 E a 
 
52 The Hexatetuh. [§5- 
 
 the supposition that the confusion is caused by later inter- 
 polations only seems to be admissible in a few exceptional 
 instances'', and in any case the general character of this 
 second section remains unaffected by any such additions ; it 
 is consistent throughout, and distinguishes these laws very 
 clearly from those of the Book of the Covenant on the one 
 hand and those which we have yet to consider on the other*. 
 
 ' Deut. v-xi. and xii-xxvi. are usually assigned to a single author. The 
 divergent opinion ofWellhausen (xxii. . 462 sq.) en J. J. P. Valeton 
 (in his treatise : Deuteronomium, which appeared in Studien, Theologisch 
 Tijdschrift, vol. v. 169-206, 291-313; vi. I33-I74> 3°3-32i; vii. 39-56, 
 205-2 2 y) will be considered in § 7. 
 
 ' Here and there the breach of continuity is ob^doua. Ch. xvi. 21, 22; xvii. I 
 (against idolatrous practices and on the choice of sacrificial animals) have no 
 connection whatever with xvi. 18-20 (appointment of local judges); whereas 
 [54] ^^ii- 2-7 does stand in a kind of connection with it, and v. 8-13 directly con- 
 tinues it. The doubt, therefore, forces itself upon us whether xvi. 21-xvii. i (or 
 xvi. 21-xvii. 7) may not be misplaced. The succession of precepts in xxi.-xxv. 
 again, is sometimes suspicious ; but we shall see in § 7 that it can generally 
 be explained. 
 
 ° On this point, also, see § 7. I may remark by anticipation that xvii. 2-7, 
 for instance, though somewhat strangely placed (n. 7), perfectly harmonises both 
 in language and spirit with other deuteronomic laws, such as xiii. 3-6, 7-12, 
 13-19 [1-5. 6-11, 12-18]. 
 
 If we survey the laws that remain after removing the 
 Book of the Covenant and Deut. xii.-xxvi., we discover but 
 few of them [Esc. xii. 21-27; xiii. i sq., 3-10, 11-16 ; xxxiv. 
 10-27) which show any perceptible affinity with these two 
 collections^- This fact furnishes our first reason for consti- 
 tuting a third group — 
 
 C. comprising all the remaining laws o? Sxodm-JVumiers^". 
 The essential homogeneity of this group is confirmed on every 
 side. It is true that the laws in question do not form a closed 
 and ordered whole ; indeed their arrangement leaves very much 
 to be desired; some of the ordinances or groups might be 
 removed without leaving any perceptible void ; some of them 
 have every appearance of being novellae ; and in some cases 
 
n. (>-\i?^ Priestly Laws in Exodtis-Numbers. 53 
 
 they contradict each other ^-. But^ in spite of all this, they 
 form a single group which may hest be characterised as the 
 priestly legislation. By far the greater part of these laws 
 concerns the cultus, the sanctuary and its servants, the sacri- 
 fices and festivals, ceremonial cleanness and purification, and 
 vows ; and even where other subjects are dealt with they are 
 treated with reference to these great themes, or the rights 
 and interests of the priests and Levites, or at any rate in the 
 priestly spirit-'^. Add to this that cross references from one 
 law to another are very frequent throughout the group and 
 throw the mutual connection of the ordinances into clear 
 relief^^. We cannot hesitate, then, to mark them off from 
 the Book of the Covenant and the deuteronomic code, but 
 this conclusion must not prejudice our further investigation 
 of certain phenomena that plead against the absolute unity 
 and community of origin of the whole of this stratum of 
 legislation. Neither must the recognition of the priestly [55] 
 laws as a single group blind us to the close connection in 
 which many of them stand with certain narratives^*; on the 
 contrary, we must note this attachment of the legislation to 
 the history, — or, to put it in another way, this gradual trans- 
 ition from history to legislation — as one of the notes of the 
 priestly passages that may throw light on their character. 
 
 ° On these passages cf. Dillmann's commentary; Wellhauaen (xxi. 
 543 sqq., 553 sqq.) ; Golenso, Fentateuch, vi. 142 sq.; and Appendix, p. 
 89 sqq. ; and also § 9, n. 4. 
 
 " Group C. will therefore consist of Eo:. xii. 1-20, 43-50 ; xxv.-xxxi. 17 ; 
 xxxv.-xl. ; all Leviticus ; and all the laws in Numbers, viz. ii.-iv., v., vi., 
 viii. i-x. 10, XV., xviii., xix., xxvii. 1-14, xxviii.-xxx., xxxiv.-xxxvi., with the 
 addition of certain passages half historical and half legislative in character, 
 amongst which, indeed, we might have placed Ex. xxxv.-xl. Cf. below, u.. 14. 
 
 ■' Our review of the contents of the Tora (§1) has furnished repeated con- 
 firmation of this fact. Unlike the Book of the Covenant and Deuteronomy, 
 the laws of the third group have no exordium. Lev. xxvi. has all the appear- 
 ance of a closing discourse, but is nevertheless followed by a whole series of 
 laws, at the head of which Lev. xxvii. is very strangely placed, though not 
 more so than Lev. xxiv. {v. 1-9 on the preparation of oil for the sacred lamp 
 
54 
 
 The Hexateuch. [ § 5. 
 
 and of the shew-bread; v. 10-23 on the punishment of the blasphemer and on 
 punishments in general), between xxiii. (festivals) and xxv. (sabbatical year 
 and year of jubilee). Note also the position of Hmn. v. 5-10 (trespass offering), 
 V. 11-37 (offering of jealousy); viii. 1-4 (on lighting the golden lamp), 
 etc., etc. Amongst the laws that might drop out without affecting the general 
 structure may be mentioned Lev. xviii.-xx., and many detached ordinances in 
 Numbers, which may likewise serve as examples of novellae : Num. v. 5-10 
 (cf. Lev. V. 14-26 [v. 14-vi. 7]) ; xv. 22-31 (of. ieii.iv. 13-21, 27-31) ; xxviii. 
 sq. (cf. Lev. xxiii.) ; xxx. (cf. Lev. xxvii.). — We have already noted (§ 3, u. 20, 
 17) the contradictions between Nam. viii. 24 and Num. iv. ; and between 
 Num. xviii. 21-33) tithes of the fruits of the earth and of trees only) and Lev. 
 xxvii. 32 sq. (tithes of cattle as well). Cf. also Lev. xix. 5-8 (thank-offerings 
 must be consumed on the day on which they are offered, or the day following) 
 and Lev. vii. 15-18 ; xxii. 29, 30 (praise-offerings — a species of the geniis 
 thank-offering — must always be eaten on the day itself), together with many 
 other laws which will be reserved for consideration in § 6, inasmuch as their 
 discrepancies do not lie so near the surface. 
 
 '^ In the great majority of cases the priestly character of the laws strikes us 
 at once, e. g. in Ex. xxv.-xxxi. 1 7 ; Lev. i.-vii. ; xvi. ; xxi. sq. ; xxiii., etc., etc. Nor 
 is there any real doubt about it in the other cases. i?ti. xi.-xv. treats of 
 cleanness and cleansing, and perpetually refers the Israelite to the priest as 
 the only person competent to distinguish between clean and unclean, and to 
 cleanse, in the name of Yahwfe, "whatsoever has been polluted (cf. Veui. xxiv. 8; 
 [56] Ez. xliv. 23 ; Hag. ii. 11 sqq.). Lev. xviii.-xx. includes some purely ethical com- 
 mandments, but the leading thought is the purity of the people consecrated to 
 Yahwfe, the Holy One ; and this fully accounts for the prominence given to 
 the regulations of the sexual life. In all the priestly laws the day of rest is 
 dwelt on with great emphasis {Ex. xxxi. 13-17 ; xxxv. 1-3 ; Num. xv. 32-36), 
 and closely connected with this high reverence for the sabbath are the laws 
 with respect to the sabbatical year and the year of jubilee {Lev, xxv.) ; the ideas 
 as to the tenure of land, which are there enforced, reappear in Num. xxvii. 
 i-i I and xxxvi. ; devotion to the interest of the priests and Levites shines 
 distinctly through Lev. xxv. 32-34. The treatment of vows in Lev. xxvii. ; 
 Num. xxx. and vi. 1-21 is likewise thoroughly priestly. In fact there are 
 really no exceptions to the rule laid down. Even Num. xv. 37-41, though at 
 first sight we might think it would scarcely be out of place in Deuteronomy 
 (cf. Deut. vi. 8, 9 ; xi. 18-20 ; xxii. 12 ; and further, Ex. xiii. 9, 16), has its 
 own peculiarities which connect it with the preceding priestly laws. Observe 
 the language of w. 38, and compare v. 40, 41 with Lev. xviii.-xx. 
 
 " Of § I, especially n. 12, 14. The list of examples there given is not 
 exhaustive. The fact that the Levites appear, for the first time, in the book 
 of Numbers has sometimes been regarded as showing discrepancy between 
 that book and the two that precede it ; but in reality it is an example of the 
 consistency of Lxodns-N umbers : the subordinate servants of the sanctuary 
 and of the priesthood are not mentioned till the 6 h e 1 m o ' ^ d has been built, 
 the priests consecrated, and the sacrifices and other elements of the cultus 
 
n. II-I4.] Priestly Laws. Divine Names. 55 
 
 regulated — and moreover, Mx. xxxviii. 21 and Lev. xxv. 32-34, which are 
 exceptions to the rule, prove that the Levitee are not unknown to JiJxoditg- 
 Leviticus, but are intentionally passed over in silence. Further, compare Lev. 
 xxvii. 17 sq., 21, 23 sq. ; Num. xxxvi. 4 with Lev. xxv. ; — Ex. xxix. 38-42 with 
 Num. xxviii. 3-8 ; Lev. vi. 1-6, etc. The minuter study of the priestly laws 
 (§6 and 15), though revealing discrepancies, will at the same time establish 
 far more numerous points of union. 
 
 ^* Ct § 4, n. I, 2. The connection between the historical and legislative 
 passages is often so close that the line cannot be drawn between them, and 
 many sections might be termed historical or legislative with equal propriety, 
 e.g. Lev, X. ; Num. vii. (which is manifestly an example for imitation, if not a 
 precept) ; ix. 1-14; xxxi. 
 
 We have seen that the division of the whole mass of laws 
 into these three groups must ultimately influence our view of 
 the narratives of the Hexateuch. This would come out still 
 more clearly were we to start from this division of the laws, 
 and, endeavouring to sift the historical pieces, were to affiliate 
 to each group of laws the narratives tliat seemed akin to it. 
 But before doing so we must review these narratives on 
 their own merits, and, if possible, discover fixed points of 
 departure for our critical analysis in them also. 
 
 II. Ever since the year 1753 a.d., in which Astruc gave [57] 
 the world his Conjectures^^, the use of the divine names, and 
 especially of Elohim and YahwS, in Genesis and the open- 
 ing chapters of Exochis, has been the subject of diligent 
 research and lively debate, which have not been barren of 
 definite results. It is therefore unnecessary to arrive at and 
 establish these results afresh, as though the question were 
 a completely new one ; for we are at liberty to assume them 
 as already made out, though not without indicating the 
 grounds on which they rest and the way in which they were 
 first obtained. 
 
 (i) The names Elohim and Yah we are by no means sim- 
 ple synonyms. Yah we — probably derived from mn = n''n, 
 but of doubtful signification's — is the proper name of Israel's 
 god. Elohim — derived from an obsolete stem plSl^, to 
 fear— was originally a true plural, signifying the objects 
 
5 6 The Hexateuch. [ § 5- 
 
 of men's fear, the higher beings ; but it is generally used 
 as a singular, in the sense of the higher power. It 
 always retains its force as a nomen appellativum'^'^ , and is 
 accordingly applied to other gods as well as to Yahwe. In 
 the books of the Old Testament, however, Elohim, with or 
 without the article, is very often applied to the only being 
 whose full claim to the title the writers allowed, i.e. to 
 Yahwe. To this extent it assumes the character of a nomen 
 proprium^^. 
 
 (a) The original distinction between Yahwe and Elohim 
 very often accounts for the use of one of these appellations in 
 preference to the other^^. But this is not always the case. 
 In Genesis and the opening chapters of Exodus, and else- 
 where in the Old Testament, we find a number of passages 
 in which the use of Elohim or ha-Elohim can be explained 
 neither by the meaning of this word, as distinguished from 
 Yahwe, nor by the love of variety^"; so that we can only 
 attribute it to subjective causes, i.e. we must suppose that 
 the writers, for some reason or other, preferred the de- 
 signation Elohim or ha-Elohim. 
 
 (3) Although elsewhere we can but guess at the motives 
 concerned, the authors themselves explain them in the case 
 [58] of Genesis and Ex. i.-vi. In Ex. vi. 2, 3 Elohim declares that 
 he had revealed himself to the patriarchs as El-Shaddai, 
 and he reveals his name of Yahwe, — unquestionably for 
 the first time, according to the writer, — to Moses ^^ 
 Something similar is likewise to be found in Ex. iii. 1^-1^, 
 in a narrative which cannot be due to the same author as 
 Ex. vi. 3, 3 ^^. The writers who cherished this belief concerning 
 the name Yahwe could not represent either God himself, 
 in the prse-Mosaic times, or the people who were then living, 
 as using this name ; and in all probability they would them- 
 selves avoid it in the narratives that referred to this earlier 
 period ^^. After the revelation to Moses there was no longer 
 
§ 5.J Elohim and Yahwe in Gen. \.~Ex. vi. 57 
 
 any reasou for their adhering to the name Elohim, and we 
 shall therefore no longer expect to find the narratives of 
 these authors (supposing them to be preserved in the Hexa- 
 teuch), characterised by this peculiarity. And, as a fact, the 
 name Elohim becomes much less frequent after ISx. vi. 2, 3, 
 thereby showing that we were not deceived as to the influence 
 which a belief in the Mosaic origin of the name Yahwe must 
 exercise upon the usage of the authors^*. 
 
 (4) It is obvious at a glance that the exclusive use of 
 Elohim in the Book of Genesis is confined to certain portions, 
 and that the name Yahwe is supposed to be known and is 
 freely employed in others^'- Gen. iv. 36'' makes it very prob- 
 able that this is connected with a different idea as to the 
 antiquity of the name of Yahwe ^^; but, in any case, it fur- 
 nishes a conclusive proof that Genesis is made up of narratives 
 of various origin, for the writers whose opinions we learn 
 from Ex. vi. 2, 3 ; iii. 13-15, may have composed the Elohim- 
 narratives or sections, but cannot have composed those in 
 which Yahwe occurs. 
 
 (5) Although the two parallel accounts, in Ex. vi. 2, 3 and 
 iii. 13-15, ought at once to have suggested the idea that 
 more than one writer in Genesis studiously avoided the use 
 of the name Yahwe, yet all the Elohim-passages were at 
 first ascribed to a single author. Further investigation 
 showed that this position was untenable^'. Some of the 
 Elohim-passages, evidently connected with Ex. vi. 2, 3, stand 
 
 off very clearly and sharply from the Yahwe-sections with [59] 
 which they are now united in Genesis; whereas others, which 
 might be brought into connection with Ex. iii. 13-15, are 
 closely allied to these same Yahwe-sections, — far more closely 
 than to the former group of Elohim-passages^^. There is 
 really nothing to surprise us in this. Authors who agreed 
 in assigning a Mosaic origin to the name ' Yahwe,' and who 
 therefore avoided its use in dealing with early times, may well 
 
58 The Hexateuch. [§5- 
 
 have differed in many other respects, — in date and in general 
 tendencies for instance. The one characteristic which is com- 
 mon to both may be a specially obvious one, yet it is but one 
 of the many marks which must be duly observed in tracing 
 the origin and the mutual relations of the passages^'. 
 
 (6) Antecedent probability pleads that the authors of 
 the narratives we have so far considered would deal with 
 the sequel of the history, and that their accounts may 
 be preserved in the Hexateuch^". And this turns out 
 to be the case. We have already seen tliat the mutual 
 relation of the narratives in Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua, 
 is, on the whole, similar to that in Genesis. In the former, 
 as in the latter, parallel and at the same time conflicting 
 representations either stand side by side or have been worked 
 up into a single whole (§ 4, n. 11-13, 15). Moreover, we 
 can now recognise, without difficulty, the continuations of the 
 groups of narratives which the use of the divine names 
 enables us to distinguish in Genesis^^. But, of course, the 
 complete demonstration of all this must depend upon the 
 results of our further investigations. 
 
 ^' Conjectures sur les Mimoires originaux dont il paroit que Moyse s'esi seni 
 pour com^ooserle livre de la Genise (Bruxelles, 1753). The very title stows how 
 little Astruc questioned the Mosaic authorship of Genesis. On the develop- 
 ment and modification of his hypothesis by Eiohhorn and others see 
 Merx in Tuch's Genesis, 2nd ed., p. Ixxviii. sqq. ; de Wette-Schrader, 
 Einleitung in das A. T., p. 309-311 ; Bleek-Wellhausen, Einleitimg, 
 p. 56 sqq., and others. 
 
 '' Cf my Godsdienst, i. 397-401 [He?. Isr. i. 398-403], Schrader, Article 
 Jahve in Schenkel'a Bibel-Lexilcon, iii. 167-171, and my Volksgodsdienst 
 en Wereldgodsdienst, p. 261-263 [National Religions and Universal Ueligions 
 (Hibbert Lectures for 1882), p. 308-311]. 
 
 " Cf. also Fleischer apud Delitzsoh, Die Genesis, p. 25 sq., and in 
 Levy's Neuhebr. u,. Chald. Worteriuch, ii. 445 i. 
 [60] " The following examples from the book oi Judges may be noted : iv. 23; 
 ■"• 36, 39> 4° ; ™i- 3 ; 13^- 7. 23, 56, 57 ; xv. 19 ; xviii. 10 ; xx. 27. 
 
 ^' When the god of Israel is placed over-against the gods of the heathen, 
 the former is naturally described by the proper name, Yahwfe (i Kings xviii. 
 2i> 36, 37; J"-'!f/es x{. 24; Er.xii. 12; xv. 11; xviii. 11). When heathens 
 
n. 15-22.] Reasons for use of Elohim. 59 
 
 are introduced aa speaking, they use tlie word Elohim {Qen. xli. 39 ; JudgeH i. 
 7, etc.), but this rule ia often violated by an oyersight, and the heathens are 
 made to speak of Yahwfe (Gen. xxvi. 28.29; ^ Sam. xxix. 6 ; i Kings v. 21 [7] ; 
 X. 9)' So too the Israelites, "when speaking to heathens, often use Elohim, aa 
 Joseph does, for instance, to Potiphar's wife. Gen. xxxix. 9 ; to the butler and 
 baker. Gen. xl. 8 ; and to Pharaoh, Gen. xli. 16, 25, 28, 32 (but also in v. 51, 
 52, where he is not addressing heathens, which makes us suspect that there 
 may be some other reason for the preference of Elohim) ; so too Abraham to 
 Abimelech, Gen. xx. 13 (where Elohim even takes the plural construction). 
 — "Where a contrast between the divine and the human is in the mind of the 
 author, Elohim is at any rate the more suitable word, e. g. Judges ix. 9, 13 ; 
 Gen. iv. 25 ; xxxii, 28 ; Ex. viii. 15 ; xxxii. 16, etc. 
 
 ™ In a number of the Psalms, especially Ps. xlii.-lxxxiv., E 1 o h 1 m is prevail- 
 ingly, but not exclusively, employed, and that too in phrases or connections in 
 which Yahwfe is exclusively used elsewhere, and also in cases where passages in 
 all other respects parallel read Yahwfe (e.g. Ps. liii. 3, 5-7 [2, 4-6] ; cf. xiv. 
 2, 4, 6, 7 ; Ps. Ixviii. 8, 9 [7, 8] ; cf. Judges v. 4, 6). It is impossible to 
 apply any of the principles of n. 19 to these cases, or to explain the use of 
 E 1 h 1 m in Gen. \.-Ex. vi. by the aignification of the word, as Hengsten- 
 berg, Authetiiie, i. 181-414 [i. 213-393]; Keil, uher die Gottesnamen im 
 Pentateuch (Zeitschr. f. luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1851, p. 215-280), and others 
 try to do. These (mutually conflicting) attempts to find some grounds in 
 the nature of the case for the use of Elohim to the exclusion of Yahwfe, or by 
 its side, have simply failed, and need not be dealt with any more (cf. Hist.- 
 lerit. Ond., ist ed., p. 64 sq., and in answer to Graetz, Gesch. der Juden 
 ii. I, p. 452 sqq., Th. Tijdschrift, x. 553 sqq.). Love of variety could 
 only be pleaded if Elohim and Yahwfe generally occurred side by side, as 
 in Gen. vii. 16; xxvii. 27, 28. But since, as a matter of fact, Elohim occurs 
 thirty-five times, for example, in Gen. i. I-ii. 4", and Yahwfe nineteen times in 
 Gen. xxiv., in either case to the complete exclusion of the other name, it is 
 obvious that the motive in question did not come into play. 
 
 ^' The words of Elohim (v 2") run : ' I am Yahwfe, and I appeared to 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as (5) El-Shaddai, but as to (or, by) my name 
 Yahwfe I was not known to them' (or, ' I did not make myself known to 
 them') u. 2^ 3. Hengstenberg (Aufhentie, i. 262 sqq. [i. 274 sqq.]) and 
 others attempt in vain to explain away the contrast between the patriarchal 
 and Mosaic periods, so as to leave room for the acquaintance of the patriarchs 
 with the name Yahw!;. Cf. the Commentators, and Hupfeld, Die Qaellen der 
 Genesis, p. 87 sq. 
 
 '^ In the beginning of the narrative, as it now stands, the name Yahwfe is 
 repeatedly employed {Ex. iii. 2, 4, 7). But in -o. 11 and 13 Moses addresses 
 ha-Elohlm, and is answered by him in v. 12, 14, 15 (Elohim, without the 
 article, in ti. 14, 15). So when Moses asks what he is to reply if the Israelites 
 ask the name of Him who sent him, and therefore hears the name rrnN [^0 
 (». 14), for which niH' is immediately substituted {v. 15), we can but suppose 
 that this name had never been revealed previously, and was now for the first 
 
6o The Hexateuch. [ § 5- 
 
 time communicated to Moses, and by him to the people. JBa-. iii. and vi. are 
 therefore parallels, and are not from the same hand ; and accordingly they differ 
 in detail though agreeing in their main idea. For example, the author of 
 'Eho. iii. does not mention El-Shaddai as the name of Elohim in the patriarchal 
 age. 
 
 ^ Passages such as Gen. xv. 7, in which God names himself Yahw^, or 
 T. 29 ; xvi. 2, 5, II, etc., in which others call him by this name, cannot possibly 
 be assigned to the author oiEx. iii. 13-15 orof vi. 2, 3. But it is conceivable 
 that when the writers are speaking of God in their own persons they may use 
 the name of Yahwfe, for, in any case, they were familiar with it themselves. 
 Whether they actually did so or not cannot be determined a priori ; but, as a 
 matter of fact, the texts themselves show that they use Elohim throughout; 
 and the rule is so precise that in the few passages in their narratives where 
 Yahwfe now stands we need not hesitate to ascribe it to the later manipula- 
 tion or corruption of the text. 
 
 ^' The passages in which Elohim occurs, as a nomenproprium, subsequently to 
 the revelation of the name Yahwfe, are the following : JEx. xiii. 17 (bis), 18, 
 19 ; xiv. 19 ; xviii. i, 12, 15, 19 (bis) ; xx. i, 19-21 ; xxiv. 11 ; Num. xxi. 5 ; 
 xxii. 9, 10, 12, 20, 22, 38; xxiii. 4, 27; Bent. iv. 32; xxv. 18; Josh. xxii. 
 33; xxiv. I, 26 ; exclusive of compound phrases such as ' spirit of Elohim,' 
 ' writing of Elohim,' ' man of Elohim,' ' finger of Elohim,' which hardly 
 come under the same category. Against these instances (about thirty in 
 all) in the hundred and fifty-five chapters from Ex. vii. to Josh. xxiv. stand 
 about one hundred and twenty such in the first fifty-six chapters of the 
 Hexateuch. 
 
 ^' Delitzsch (op. cit., p. 56 sq.) divides Gen. i.-Ex. vi., in accordance with 
 the use of the divine names, into elohimische Abschnitte, jehovisohe Ahschnitte, 
 gemischte Ahschnitte, and Ahschnitte latenten Characters (in which no designa- 
 tions of God appear). To the second group he assigns, for instance. Gen. xii., 
 xiii., XV., xvi., xviii., xix., xxiv., in which, as may be seen at a glance, Yahwfe 
 is extremely frequent. 
 
 ^° 'At that time (time of Enos) they began (mrr DSJa N'lp';) to call with 
 the name, or by the name (cf. Ges., 5 138, anm. 3*) of Jahve = to address him in 
 prayer (cf. Zeph. iii. 9 ; Jer. x. 25) and proclaim him (compare Ex. xxxiii. 19 ; 
 xxxiv. 5 with XXXV. 30). . . . This passage \_Gen. iv. 26^] is the first link in 
 the chain, xii. 8; xiii. 4 ; xxi. 33 ; xxvi. 25. With Enos opened the formal 
 and solemn worship of Jahve (or rather of God, as Jahve) with prayer and 
 preaching and sacrifice ' (Delitzsch, op. cit., p. 179). 
 
 ^' As long ago as 1798 K. D. Ilgen {Die Vrkunden des ersten Btwhes 
 Moses in ihrer Urgestalt, Halle) distinguished two Elohiats whom he called 
 Eliel ha-rish6n and hassheni. But his opinion found little or no favour, 
 and the Elohlm-passages were generally attributed to a single author until 
 H. Hupfeld {Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetsung, 
 Berlin, 1853) secured acceptance for the correct view. 
 
 " The two series of Elohlm-passages will presently be indicated and com- 
 pared alike with each other and with the Yahwfe-sectiona (§ 8 and § 13). At 
 
n. 2 2-3 I.J Two groups of Elohim-passages. 6i 
 
 present we have only to show that the anticipations raised by Ex. vi. 2, 3 and [62] 
 iii. 13-15 are confirmed by the perusal of Genesis. Observe that Ex. vi. i, 3 
 is at any rate inseparably connected with v. 4-7 ; that Gen. xvii. and xxxv. 9-15 
 agree in the most striking manner both with each other and with Ex. vi. 
 2-7 (note Elohim, Qen. xvii. 3, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23 ; xxxv. 9-11, 15 ; Ex. vi. 2 ; 
 El-Shaddai, Gen. xvii. i ; xxxv. 11 ; Ex. vi. 3 ; nnun yTN, Gen. xvii. 8 ; Ex. 
 vi. 4; nna DV!^) ^*'*- ^™- 7) '9) ^i ; -Er. vi. 4; the promise, Gen. xvii. 7, 
 8 ; !Ei;. vi. 7 ; the prediction, Gen. xvii. 6, 16 ; xxxv. ii' ; mo and rtn, Gen. 
 xvii. 6, 20 ; xxxv. 11 ; the changes of name. Gen. xvii. 5, 15 ; xxxv. 10); that 
 whereas the very characteristic style of these three connected pericopea re- 
 appears in a number of the Elohim-passages of Genesis (e. g. i. i-ii. 4" ; ix. i- 
 1 7 ; xxiii. ; xxviii. i-7) etc.) it is conspicuously absent from other narratives 
 which are none the less marked by the use of Elohim, such as Gen. xx. i-i 7 ; 
 xxi. 6-32, and the Elohistic portions of Gen. xxix.-xxxv. ; that these latter 
 narratives not only diflFer in tone and character from the former, but even con- 
 tradict them (compare Gen. xxi. 6-21, where Ishmael appears as a child carried 
 by his mother, with Gen. xvii. 25, where he is thirteen years old before the birth 
 of Isaac ; Elohistic portions of Gen. xxix.-xxxv. , which represent Jacob's 
 journey to Mesopotamia as a flight from Esau, with Gen. xxviii. 1-7, where it 
 is referred to other causes, etc.) ; and finally, that the Elohistic narratives of 
 the second group not unfrequently appear to be doublets of corresponding 
 Yahwfe-passages or vice versd, as the case may be (compare Gen. xx. 1-17 with 
 xii. 10—20 ; Gen. xxi. 6-21 with xvi. ; Gen. xxi. 22-34 with xxvi. 26-33). -"^H 
 this must be developed more clearly and precisely hereafter, and so must our 
 provisional assumption of the connection of the Elohim-passages of the second 
 group with Ex. iii. 13-15. But the necessity of constituting the two groups 
 themselves and of severing the first group from the Y'ahwfe-pericopes far more 
 sharply than the second is already obvious enough. 
 
 ^' The remark might seem superfluous ; but the history of critical investi- 
 gation has shown that far too much weight has often been laid on agree- 
 ment in the use of the divine names — so much so that it has twice led the 
 critics wrong (of n. 27). It is well therefore to utter a warning against laying 
 an exaggerated stress on this one phenomenon. 
 
 ™ Ex. vi. 2-7 points forward as unmistakably as backward. The author 
 has obviously recorded the appearances of Elohim to Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob, and mentioned the covenant he entered into with them {v. 3, 4), 
 and it is equally obvious that he intends to describe the deliverance from 
 Egypt and the union of Yahwfe with Israel (v. 5-7). Ex. iii. 15-17 like- 
 wise belongs to a greater whole, in which both Elohlm's relations to the fathers 
 and the redemption from Egypt and settlement in Canaan were mentioned 
 (cf. ?). 8, 17). Now of course it is possible that these sequels are not to be found 
 in the Hexateuch, but the opposite is far more likely. Indeed there is no 
 conceivable reason for supposing that the two Elohim documents were sud- 
 denly dropped at Ex. iii. and vi. respectively. 
 
 ^1 The remarks made in n. 28 with regard to the Elohim-passages in Genesis 
 are equally applicable here. At present we have only to show that what 
 
62 The Hexatetich. [§5- 
 
 [63] suggested itself as probable beforehand turns out, on reading the sequel, to be 
 true. This becomes evident on considering the following points : — 
 
 (i) In Ex. vi. 2-7, V. 7 agrees with Ex. xxix. 45 ; Jjev. xi. 45 ; xxii. 33 ; 
 XXV. 38 ; and Gen. xvii. — the connection of which with fie. vi. ^-7 was 
 demonstrated in n. 28 — agrees with the laws in Bx. xxv. sqq., Leviticus, and 
 Numbers. This agreement is so obvious that it need not be established by 
 the citation of single verses. All the characteristic formulas of Gen. xvii. 
 (obis nnn, n';i» mriN, nnn'j; 'that soul shall be destroyed from out its 
 people;' nin Dvn OSSl, etc.) reappear in the laws in question and the 
 historical passages connected with them. 
 
 (2) With respect to Ex. iii. 15-17, a reference to Ex. xviii. must suffice for 
 the present. The two agree as to Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, the priest 
 of Midian (iii. i ; xviii. i, 2, 5), in the use of D'nbxn in (iii. i ; xviii. 5) ; 
 of 'the god of my (thy) father' (iii. 6; xviii. 4), and a number of other 
 peculiarities which will be noticed hereafter. 
 
 The close coaneetion between the laws and the narratives 
 of the Hexateuch (§ 4, n. i, a) naturally suggests the 
 question whether the separation of the narratives on the 
 lines suggested by the use of the divine names in any way 
 coincides with, or is related to, the division of the laws 
 into three groups or collections. This question must be 
 answered in the affirmative, for the following reasons : — 
 
 (i) The Elohim-passages of the first group (n. 28) attach 
 themselves spontaneously, so to speak, to the priestly or 
 ritual legislation (n. 31). 
 
 (2) An unmistakable affinity exists between the Yahwe- 
 sections and the second group of Elohim-passages on 
 the one hand, and the Book of the Covenant on the 
 other 2^. 
 
 (3) And further, historical passages of kindred form and 
 contents are connected, as V7e have seen already (§ 4, n. 3), 
 with the deuteronomic legislation ^^. 
 
 This justifies the conclusion that three groups of narra- 
 tives answer to the three collections of laws ; and there 
 is no reason why we should not provisionally combine them 
 thus, and so proceed to the study of each united group of 
 laws and narratives; but, of course, this must not prejudice 
 
n-3i-33-] Grouping of elements of Hexateuch. 63 
 
 the question as to their common origin, which is one of 
 the very points we have to decide. 
 
 ^ Observe that we do not speak of their ascription to a single author. If 
 we can show such a relationship between any one of our collections of laws 
 and a certain group of narrativeSj as to exclude the possibility of their having [gj,] 
 come into existence independently one of the other, that is enough for our 
 present purpose. Now it cannot be denied that Ex. xxi.-xxiii. is connected 
 alike with xix., xxiv., and with xxxii.-xxxiv., and therefore also with the 
 narratives that introduce the former or grow out of the latter. And these 
 are — speaking generally — not the Elohlm-passages of the first group, but the 
 Yahwfe-passages together with the closely-related second group of Elohim- 
 passages. See also § 8 and § 13, which must not be further anticipated here. 
 
 ^ This relationship is indicated rather than proved in § 4, n. 2. It is, how- 
 ever, generally admitted ; and indeed many authorities go so far as to assign 
 Devi. i. i-iv. 40, and a number of passages in Joshua (e. g. i. ; viii. 30-35 ; 
 xxiii.) to the author of Deut. xii.-xxvi. himself. See, further, § 7 and § 14. 
 
 It would be very desirable to arrive at some general 
 agreement as to the designations of the groups of laws and 
 narratives indicated above, with corresponding abbrevia- 
 tions. As yet the practice of critics is far from uniform; 
 but Wellhausen has proposed a system which does not in 
 any way prejudge the mutual relations and relative anti- 
 quities of the different groups, and so might be accepted 
 on all sides. We shall therefore follow it, though modifying 
 and supplementing it in certain points. In explaining this 
 system we shall sometimes have to assume the results of 
 our further investigation (§ 6 sqq.). 
 
 The final editing of the Hexateuch which gave it its 
 present form maybe called the redaction. The redactor 
 or redactors we shall call R, or R^, R^, etc., if it should 
 prove necessary to distinguish different periods or stages 
 of their work. 
 
 The whole priestly portion, including the ritual laws 
 and any narratives which may be shown to be connected 
 with them, will be indicated by the letter P. If any necessity 
 should arise for distinguishing different strata, varying in 
 
64 The Hexateuch. [ § 5- 
 
 date but all mutually related, we may use the abbreviations, 
 Pi, PS etc. 
 
 In the same way all the laws and narratives written by 
 the deuteronomic lawgiver, or in his spirit and under his 
 [65] influence, may be indicated by the letter D ; and here again 
 we may distinguish, if necessary, between D^, D^, etc. 
 
 The analogy of these two designations would suggest that the 
 remaining laws and narratives should be indicated by the initial 
 letter of the Book of the Covenant. There are, however, 
 valid objections to this. It will be better to designate them 
 by J and E, in accordance with the use of Yah we ( Jahwe) * 
 and Elohim in Genesis and the opening chapters of Exodus, 
 only we must remember that the Elohim-passages shown 
 to belong to the priestly laws and narratives have already 
 been included under P, so that E will only embrace those 
 Elohim-narratives, with their continuations in the succeeding 
 books, which do not belong to P, but are more nearly related 
 to the Yahwe-sections. The mutual relation of J and E 
 is one of the most vexed questions of the criticism of the 
 Hexateuch, and the use of the symbols themselves must of 
 course be afiected by its solution ; but, meanwhile, there can 
 be no objection to our indicating all that is left in the 
 Hexateuch after the withdrawal of R, P, and D, by the 
 combination JE ^*. 
 
 " Cf. Wellliauseii, xxi. 392. His suggestion is (i) supplemented by dis- 
 tinguishing the stages or periods of E and D by means of the figures i, 2, etc.; 
 and (2) modified, as follows, with respect to the priestly elements: Wellhausen 
 calls the great historico-legislative work that begins with the cosmogony 
 in Gen. i. i-ii. 4" and includes, amongst other passages, Gen, xvii. ; Ex. xxv. 
 sqq., etc., 'das Vierbundesbuch ' because of the four covenants mentioned 
 in it (Gen. i. 28-30 ; ix. i-i 7 ; xvii. ; Ex. vi. 2 sqq.), and indicates it by Q, from 
 the Latin quatuor. The ritual laws, however, are in some cases not derived 
 
 * The continental J being the phonetic equivalent of the English T and the Hebrew S 
 it is usual In Germany and Holland to write Jahve or Jahwo as the transliteration of 
 mn'. J, having thus become the accepted symbol of the work of theTahwist, is pre- 
 served in this translation for the sake of uniformity.— Tr. 
 
n. 34.J System of Abbreviations. 65 
 
 from Q, or only form a part of it in a secondary sense, so that Wellhausen 
 has to distinguish 'der Priestercodex ' (PC), which embraces all the priestly 
 passages, from the special work Q. Against this it may be urged that the 
 meaning of 'Q' is not sufficiently obvious — is, in fact, somewhat far-fetched 
 (Gem. i. 28-30 is not really a covenant, but a blessing) — and that the relation- 
 ship between Q and 'der Priestercodex' in its entirety is not reflected in their 
 respective symbols. Both objections are removed by the use of P and the 
 distinction between P^, P^, etc. It will presently be seen that Wellhausen 's 
 Q is my P^ 
 
 No elaborate comparison of the system I have adopted with those of other 
 writers is needed. I will only mention that Colenso indicates the Elohlm- 
 passages of the first group (included under my P) by E ; those of the second 
 group by -B ; the Yahwfe-sections by J ; the deuteronomic elements by D ; 
 and the priestly laws and narratives by LL ('Later Legislation'). 
 
 § 6. The Friestly elements of the Heocateucli (P). [66] 
 
 The various elements of the Hexateuch are now united 
 into a single whole. The way in which this result was 
 brought about we must leave, for the present, out of con- 
 sideration ; but we must recognise the possibility of the 
 later authors who worked over the older material, and the 
 editors who combined independent laws and narratives, having 
 made occasional omissions or modifications ; and this will 
 naturally prevent our being able to clear up certain points 
 until later on in our inquiry. The separation of the priestly 
 elements, however, is least encumbered by this difiiculty^ 
 and we will therefore undertake it first. 
 
 It was provisionally shown in § 5 that a connection exists 
 between the priestly laws in Exodus-Numbers, and the Elohim- 
 passages of the first group in Gen. \.—Ex. vi. We will begin 
 our investigation with the study of these latter passages, and 
 on the strength of the connection indicated, will include them^ 
 by anticipation, under the letter P. 
 
 We have • no difficulty in discovering in certain Elohim- 
 passages in Genesis the now scattered segments of a syste- 
 matic work that begins with the creation in six days, 
 followed by a genealogy from Adam to Noah, describes the 
 
66 The Hexateuch. [§6. 
 
 deluge and the covenant of Elohim with Noah and his 
 posterity, passes by another genealogy (from Shem to Terah) 
 on to the tribal fathers of Israel, Abram, Isaac, and Jacob, 
 and continues their history down to the death of Jacob in 
 Egypt. All this has come down to us nearly, but not quite, 
 complete. There are some few verses and passages as to 
 which we cannot yet determine whether they do or do not 
 belong to the work; for it is only the study of the other 
 elements of the Hexateuch and of the method of its redaction 
 that can settle the point. But, generally speaking, the now 
 scattered portions so obviously belong to each other and 
 resemble each other so closely in language, style, and cha- 
 racter, that there is no room for the smallest doubt as to 
 [67] their common origin, so that, in point of fact, almost com- 
 plete agreement reigns on the subject. This work, then, 
 includes G'ew. i.-ii. 4*; v. 1-38, 30-32; vi. 9-23; a number 
 of verses and half verses in vii. and viii. ; ix. 1-17, 28, 29; 
 X. 1-7, 13-32 (in part) ; xi. 10-27, 31, 32 ; xii. 4", 5 ; xiii. 
 6, ii*", 12* ; xvi. I, 3, 15, 16; xvii. (except niH'' in v. i, which 
 has taken the place of QTIt'I^) ; xix. 29 ; xxi. a''-5 ; xxiii. ; 
 XXV. 7-20 (except for slight additions), 0,6° ; xxvi. 34, ■i^^ ; 
 xxvii. 46 ; xxviii. 1-9 ; xxxi. 18 ; xxxv. 9-15, 22''-29 ; xxxvi. 
 6-8, 40-43, and perhaps a few more verses ; xxxvii. i, a* ; 
 xlvi. 6, 7 ; xlvii. 5, 6* (LXX.), 7-1 1, 27, 28 ; xlviii. 0^-6 ; xlix. 
 29-33 ' ^- ^2' •'S* ^^ ^® ^^'^ ^® ^^^ enumeration coincides 
 with those of Noldeke, Schrader, Colenso, Kayser, 
 Dillmann, and Wellhausen, or at any rate the majority of 
 them, its correctness need not be defended afresh. I shall 
 only render the briefest possible account of those details as to 
 which differences of opinion of more or less importance still 
 exist ^- 
 
 1 Ge.n. vi. 15, 16 is separated by Col. {Pentateuch iv. 30 sq. ; vi. 535 ; Well- 
 hausen on the Composition, etc., p. 95) from v. 9-14, 17-22, and assigned to J ; 
 but the language is that of P (of. Ex. xxv. 10, 17, 23 ; xxx. 2 ; xxvii. i), and 
 
P in Genesis. 67 
 
 tlie two verses, so far from breaking the context, are essential to the descrip- 
 tion of the ark. — In vii., viii. two almost parallel narratives are combined into 
 a single whole, and consequently the analysis does not always yield very de- 
 finite results. We find distinct traces of P in vii. 6, 7, 8, 9, u, 13, 14, 15, 
 16", 18-21, 22; viii. I, 2"-, 2-6, 13-19. But the verses have been worked 
 over by some later hand, for the distinction between clean and unclean 
 animals, vii. 8, belongs properly to the other narrative, in which it afi'ects the 
 numbers taken into the ark (vii. 2). On the other hand, nip:i T31 (vii. 3) 
 and am (vii. 23 ; and also vi. 7) remind us of P, in which these expressions 
 constantly recur (Gen. i. 27 ; v. 2 ; vi. 19 ; vii. 9, 16 — i. 25, 26 ; vi. 20 ; vii. 
 14; viii. 17, 19; ix. 3). It is evident from these indications that when the 
 two texts were woven together a certain process of assimilation took place. — 
 On X. 1-7, 13-32, cf. Wellh. xxi. 395 sqq., according to whose careful study 
 (approved by Dillm., Gen., p. 153 sqq., and K. Budde, Die Mbl. Urgeschichte 
 untersucM, p. 219, and elsewhere), 11. 1-5, 6, 7, 20, 22, 23, 31, 32 are taken 
 from P, and the remaining verses from JE. Such being the relations between 
 the two documents, it is easy to understand that x. (always excepting v. 8-12) 
 has been included in P by some critics and excluded from it by others. The 
 truth, in this particular case, lies between the two. — On xi. 28-32 cf. Wellh. 
 xxi., p. 398 ; Budde, op. cit., p. 415 sqq. V. 31, 32, unquestionably come from 
 P ; whereas v. 29 (cf. r. 21 ; xxii. 21 and xxii. 20, 23 ; xxiv. 15, 24, 27), and [68] 
 in all probability v. 28, 30 also, must be assigned to other sources (cf. xv. 7 ; 
 and xvi. i", the doublet in P of v. 30). — Ch. xxi. 2''-5 was of course preceded 
 in P by an account of Isaac's birth, which we probably still possess in «. i, 2", 
 though 'Elohlm' has been changed to ' Yahwfe' and vjpl'j added from v. 7. — 
 Oh. XXV. 1-6 differs too much in form from the other genealogies in P (nV for 
 T^in) to have been taken from that document ; and its contents conflict with 
 the chronology of xxxiii. i ; xxv. 7. Cf. Budde, op. cit., p. 216-225, on this 
 and other genealogies in Genesis. In the rest of the chapter, v. 7-11", 12-17, 
 19, 20, certainly belong to P, and v. 11'' and 18 are generally included also, 
 but see Wellh. xxi. 410, 417. The objections urged by Hupfeld (p. 59 sq.) 
 and Kayser {Das vorex Buck d. Urgesch., p. 21 sq.) against the ascription of 
 ■u. 13-16" to P do not allow due weight to the formal evidence (oniaifll 
 cnn'jin';, omTQai onnsna). V. 26^ (cf. the chronology in the pre- 
 ceding sections of the work) shows that the birth of Isaac's sons was recorded 
 in P; but v. 21-26" is from another source. Ch. xxvi. 34, 35 ; xxvii. 46 and 
 xxviii. 8, 9 (the last two verses presupposing u. 1-7, of which they are the 
 sequel) belong to each other, and cannot be united to xxvii. 1-45. — Ch. xxxi. 
 18 must of course have been preceded in P by an account of Jacob's abode in 
 Padan Aram, of his marriage and the birth of his children ; but these accounts 
 — which analogy would lead us to suppose were short — are no longer to be 
 found in xxix.-xzxi. 17. Ch. xxxv. 22^-26 shows that P agreed with the other 
 narrators as to the names and the mothers of Jacob's children, but not as to 
 Benjamin's birth in Canaan. — Ch. xsxiv. (with the connected verse xxxv. 5) 
 is ascribed by many authorities, in whole or in part, to P, to which it really is 
 closely related in language and ideas ; see especially i\ 1, 2, 5, 10, 13, 15, 17, 
 
 1' % 
 
68 The Hexateuch. [§6. 
 
 20, 22-24, 27-29, and cf. Th. Tijdsch., xiv. 273 sqq. But on the other hand this 
 chapter accords but ill with the sobriety and stateliness of the patriarchal 
 history in P, and I have therefore omitted it from my enumeration. See, 
 further, § 16, n. 12, on this point and on ti5> in xxxv. 9 and on v. 14; zzxv. 
 g-15, as a whole, has already been dealt with in § 5, n. 28. — The contra- 
 diction between xxvi. 34, 35 ; xxviii. 8, 9 and xxxvi. ::— 5, which has long per- 
 plexed the commentators, leads Wellh., xxi. 438-440, to the conclusion that 
 the latter verses — together with v. 9-19, which depend upon them — must be 
 excluded from P. Well-founded objections to v. 31-39 (the list of Edomite 
 kings) and v. 20-30 (information about the Horites), as alien to the purpose 
 and character of P, which never loses sight of the sacred line, had been 
 urged by others. This only leaves v. 6-8 (cf. xiii. 6, 11'', 12") and 40-43, 
 — the discrepancy between the latter and v. 9-19 furnishing Wellhausen 
 with another proof that he is right in rejecting v. 1-5, 9-19. AJl this is 
 unanswerable; and yet the result is not quite satisfactory, for one would 
 have expected more ample information concerning the Edomites than is 
 contained in v. 40-43. Perhaps a list of Esau's descendants, which was given 
 at this point in P, has been superseded by v. 1-5, 9-19. — It is universally 
 [69] allowed that the elaborate history of Joseph, xxxvii. 2''-36 ; xxxix. sqq., is 
 largely drawn from other sources. But it appears from the few fragments 
 indicated above that P likewise contained an account of the emigration of 
 Jacob and his famOy to Egypt, and ascribed it to Joseph's influence. This 
 is obvious from xlvi. 6, 7, to which some would add o. 8-27. Against this 
 latter passage, however, Kayser (p. 30-32, cf. Wellh., xxi. p. 441) has urged 
 very weighty objections : the list constantly assumes details (see especially 
 V. 12, 15, 18, 20, 25) which are mentioned in the other documents, but not in 
 P ; and moreover it betrays every sign (see especially v. 21) of being a very 
 arbitrary piece of patch-work from other genealogies, especially Num: xxvi. 
 In spite oiv. 15, then, which is characterised by the linguistic peculiarities of 
 P, the passage cannot be assigned to that document, but must be due to a 
 compiler who knew Genesis in its present form, and, amongst other sources, 
 Nam. xxvi. — Ch. xlvii. 7-1 1, in which the language of P is unmistakable, seems 
 nevertheless to be connected by v. ii* ('as Pharaoh had commanded') with 
 what goes before (v. 5, 6, where a corresponding command of Pharaoh is 
 given). It is usual, therefore, to consider v. 11'' as an addition by E. But it 
 is better to suppose with Wellh. xxi. 441 sq. and Dillm., p. 419 sq., that the 
 LXX. has preserved the original text of v. 4 sqq., and that u. 5, 6" belongs to P. 
 In that case v. 6^, preceded by the words elTre dk iapaui tS> 'laaricp, contains the 
 answer to the prayer of v. 4, and the text of P runs through thus, xlvi. 6, 7 ; 
 [' and Jacob and his sons came to Egypt to Joseph, and Pharaoh said,' etc.] ; 
 xlvii. 5, 6"', 7-1 1, etc. — In xlviii., v. 7 is often assigned to P, as well as 
 V. 3-6 ; and in that case of course xxxv. 16", 19, 20 must also belong to it. 
 But inasmuch as these latter verses are not in the style of P and are 
 contradicted by xxxv. 22''-26, while v. 7 itself hangs on but very loosely 
 to V. 3-6, it is better to regard this verse as a gloss, whether by E or by 
 some later reader, who was of course acquainted with Gen. xxxv. 16 sqq. Cf. 
 
n. I.J P in Genesis and Exodus. 6g 
 
 Budde in ZeUschr. f. a. t. Wissenseh. iii. 56-86. Observe that Ephraim and 
 Manasseh are here included amongst the sons of Jacob, i.e. amongst the 
 tribes. We shall refer to this again. — Before xlix. 29-33 we want the state- 
 ment that Jacob's sons collected round him and were addressed by him. It 
 may possibly be still contained in v. i", 28*, and may originally have run thus : 
 ' and Jacob called his sons and blessed them. Each one of them did he bless 
 with the blessing designed for him' {dele nidN, which makes the construction 
 needlessly strained). — In 1., besides u. 12, 13, which join on immediately 
 to xliz. 29-33, the chronological data in v. 22, 26 may have been taken from 
 P, but as they now appear they are worked into the texture of other accounts. 
 
 In the opening ctapters of Exodus we cannot fail to recog- 
 nise tbe continuation of the work that we separated so easily 
 from the other narratives in Genesis. It embraces Ex. i. 1-7, 
 13, 14; ii. 2^-2^, and the revelation of the name Yahwe to 
 Moses in Ex. vi. 3-7, which has already been dealt with 
 (§ 5, n. ai, 38). In P itself this revelation must have been [70] 
 preceded by some details concerning Moses, which have not 
 been able to hold their place by the side of the more elaborate 
 narrative of Ex. ii.-v. drawn from other sources. Now almost 
 all the critics take the revelation of the name Yahwe as the 
 opening of a new section of P, which may be traced through 
 Ex. vi.-xvi., and again in Ex. xxv. sqq.; but Colenso holds 
 that Ex. vi. 3-5 is the last passage preserved to us 
 of the book that begins with Gen. i.-ii. 4", while he ascribes 
 the passages that are usually regarded as its continuation to 
 a writer who lived many centuries later ^. The grounds on 
 which this divergent opinion rests cannot for the most part 
 be examined till later on ^. All we can say at present is 
 that it seems highly improbable that the sequel to Ex. vi. 
 3-5, which certainly existed once, should not have been 
 taken up into the Hexateuch, and that we can see no reason 
 whatever for ascribing to a far later follower the passages 
 which have always been regarded as forming that sequel*. We 
 recognise the continuation of our work, then, in Ex. vi. 8-12^ ; 
 vii. 1-7, and the five strikingly parallel accounts of the won- 
 ders performed by Moses and Aaron, vii. 8-13, t), 19 2,0 (21"?), 
 
70 The Hexateuch. [§6. 
 
 33 ; viii. 1-3, 11''; V. 13-15 [5-7j "5''; ^- i<5-i9], and ix. 8-13 
 (35?), to which xi. 9, 10 belongs as an epilogue^- There can 
 be no doubt that xii. contains the sequel of this narrative, in 
 V. i-30j 38, 40, 41, 43-51, which all hang together; but the 
 legal prescriptions they contain, especially v. 14-30, 43-50, fit 
 very ill into the historical context. If the writer himself 
 placed them where they now stand his interest in the legisla- 
 tion made him forget the requirements of the narrative ; or if 
 not, then his account of the exodus must have been supple- 
 mented afterwards, in his own style and spirit, by the inser- 
 tion of the connected laws''. We must further assign to P Hx. 
 (xiii. 30?); xiv. 1-4, 8, 9, 10 (in part), 15-18, 3i (in part), 
 33, 33, 36, 37 (in part), 38, 39^; xvi. (subsequently worked 
 over and expanded)^; (xvii. i ; xix. 3*?); xxiv. 15-18*'^". 
 
 [71] ° Cf. Fentateueh, vi. 130 sqq., 574 sqq. ; App., p. 116-144. Colenso 
 himself subsequently cama to the conclusion that he had been at least to some 
 extent mistaken. Cf. E. Crompton Jones's communication to The 
 Academy, No. 583 (7 July, 1883), based on a letter from Colenso himself 
 (t 20 June, 1883). 
 
 ' Colenso afl&rms (i) that our document, from Gen. i. to Ex. vi., on 
 the one hand, and what I call its sequel, from Ex. vi. onwards, on the 
 other hand, stand in totally distinct relations to the matter by which 
 they are respeotlTely surrounded in the Hexateuch ; and (2), that the 
 document itself must date from the time of Samuel, whereas the supposed 
 sequel (Colenso's LL) is exilian or post-exilian. This latter point is 
 obviously the more important. The date of our document being already fixed 
 by Colenso {Pentateuch, v., ch. viii., ix.), the question presented itself to him 
 thus : ' does the post-exilian origin of the priestly laws and narratives in 
 Exodus-Numiers and Joshua compel us to modify our previous conclusions 
 with respect to Gen. i.-Ex. vi. ? ' A negative answer involved the position — 
 which, as far as I know, Colenso alone defends — that LL is from another 
 and much later author than our document. The similarity between the two 
 is recognised (Pentateuch, vi. 576 sqq.), but is explained by imitation. — Now 
 the main supports of Colenso's opinion cannot be judged till later on. At 
 present we have only to inquire whether it is true, in contradiction with our 
 provisional results, that the narratives and laws announced, or at least fore- 
 shadowed in Ex. vi. ii-7, are not really to be found in the Hexateuch. 
 
 ' While referring to Dillmann, Noldeke, Kayaer, and Colenso him- 
 self for proof of the coincidence of language and style between the pericopes 
 before and after Ex. vi., I will only remark that at any rate in the passages 
 
n. 2-8.] P in Exodits. 71 
 
 mentioned above there is nothing to indicate a diflferent author. The high 
 rank assigned to Aaron (JSx. vii. sqq.) has not become conspicuous till 
 now, but there has not been any earlier opportunity for it. The affinity 
 between Gen. xvii. and the laws in Ex. xii. is univerBally allowed. The vin- 
 dication of the sabbath rest in ISx. xvi. recalls Gen. ii. 1-3. But the very 
 fact that no critic has ever so much as suspected that an enormous interval 
 lay between JBa;. vi. 2-5 and v. 6-8, etc., when engaged on the analysis of 
 Exodus, and that the idea was only suggested to Colenso himself by ex- 
 traneoiis considerations, is quite enough to forbid our accepting the hypothesis 
 at the present stage of our inquiry. 
 
 ^ The verses 13-28 interrupt the progress of the narrative, and cannot 
 possibly have been placed where they now are by the author of v. 2-12. When 
 they were inserted — by K we may assume for the present — it became necessary 
 to pick up the thread of v, 10-12 again ; and this is actually done in v. 29, 30. 
 And, when once we have seen E at work on his own account in this 
 chapter, the question rises whether he has not been busy with the earlier 
 verses also, especially v. 6-8 ? See below § 16, n. 12. 
 
 '■ We must not fail to observe that the first four miracles are performed by 
 Aaron, who also bears his part in the fifth ; that the wonders themselves are 
 not so much of the nature of plagues as of demonstrations of Yahwfe's might ; 
 that all this is in perfect keeping with the idea of a match against Pharaoh's 
 magicians, who come off worse and worse each time ; and finally that Moaes 
 and Aaron come forward from the first with the demand for the unconditional 
 liberation of Israel (whereas in other accounts they merely demand temporary 
 leave of absence, v. i, 3; vii. 16, 26 [viii. i] ; viii. 16 [30] ; iz. i, 13 ; x. 3, 
 24-36 ; xii. 31). 
 
 ' We shall have to face this alternative ultimately, but may by that time [72] 
 be in a position to make a choice which would be rash at present. The verses 
 in question (14-20, 43-50) emphatically intrude upon the historical context, 
 especially liJTp NTpo {v. 16), and the regulations concerning the natives of 
 the land and the strangers (■». 19, 45, 49, etc.). But on the other hand, 
 V. 14-20, 43-50 are most closely related to v. 1-13, and are indispensable as 
 the complement of the law contained in them. Wurster {Zeitsch. f. a. t. 
 Wissensch., iv. 112 sqq.) thinks these verses are shown to be a part of P by 
 their very position in the framework of the history. — Kayser (p. 44 sq.) and 
 Wellhausen (xxi. 542) do not assign v. 21-37 *" "^"^ document, since the 
 passage does not quite agree with v. 1-13. On the other hand, we cannot 
 allow with Kayser (p. 45 sq.) that v. 11-13 belongs to the author of v. 21-27 ; 
 for it is indispensable after v. l-io, and is quite on the same lines. 
 
 * So in the main Noldeke, Kayser, Knobel-Dillmann, and others. 
 Wellhausen (xxi. 545 sqq.) only derives v. i, 2, 4 (in part), 81^, 9 (in part), 10 
 (in part), 15 (in part), 28 (?) from P, and the remaining verses from another 
 source. His chief argument is that in v. 16, 21, 36 the magic staff is assigned 
 not to Aaron (cf. ». 6), but to Moses. But this staff is only barely mentioned 
 in (J. 16 together with the outstretched hand, which supersedes it altogether 
 in V. 31, 36, 27 (of. ^li. 5). We cannot be surprised at it6 being Moses 
 
72 The Hexateuch. [§6. 
 
 who performs this miracle, and indeed we could expect nothing else after 
 ix. 8-12. Moreover, P's representation of the miracle, according to our 
 analysis (the parting of the sea and the passage of Israel between two walls 
 of water, v. 21, 22, 26, 28), does not join on to any of the narrati^^eB frag- 
 ments of which Wellhausen finds in xiv., and least of all to v. 19", with its 
 "marach Elohlm,' who would be quite superfluous in a narrative in which the 
 hand of Moses accomplishes everything. 
 
 ' So Noldeke, p. 48 sq. On the divergent opinions of Kayser (p. 50 sqq.) 
 and Wellhausen (xxi. 547 sqq.) see T/i. TydscA., xiv. 281-302, and further 
 § 16, n. 12. 
 
 '° The stations of the Israelites on their journey from Eamses to Sinai were 
 unquestionably mentioned in P. But whether the data in xiii. 20; xv. 22, 
 27 ; xvii. I ; xix. i, 2", come from thence must remain uncertain since they 
 are now worked into narratives taken from elsewhere. Ch. xvii. i ; xix. 1, 
 2^ are, however, quite in P's style, so that the probability in their favour is 
 greater than that for the other verses. — On xxiv. 15-18* cf. Noldeke, 
 P- 53 sq. ; Kayser, p. 56, and Wellhausen, p. 566 sq. 
 
 Our right to speak of the verses and sections thus far 
 separated as the priestly elements of the Hexateuch 
 can no longer be doubted. Whenever the subject matter has 
 given the author of our document an opportunity of revealing 
 himself, he has displayed his lively interest in religious cere- 
 monies and usages ((?«». ii. 1-3 ; ix. 4 ; xvii. ; xxi. 4 ; lEx, xii. 
 T-ao ; 43-50; xvi. 4, 5, 1% sqq., 31 sqq.), and his great 
 reverence for Aaron the ancestor of the future priesthood 
 [73] (cf. n. 6 and Hx. xvi. % sqq.). But, as might have been 
 expected, the priestly character of his work comes out far 
 more distinctly when he goes on to describe, in Hx. xxv. sqq., 
 the covenant between Yahwe and Israel which he had pre- 
 viously announced {JUx, vi. 7). For it can hardly be doubted 
 that these chapters are really the sequel of our document ; the 
 language and style are the same ^^, and the ordinances put 
 forth with respect to the place of worship and the consecration 
 of Aaron and his sons as priests, answer completely to what 
 we should specially expect in the legislation of P. The 
 several ordinances of xxv.-xxix. follow each other in natural 
 and regular order^ and may well have been arranged by the 
 author himself as they now stand ^^. In xxx. and xxxi. 1-17, 
 
n. 9-12.] Priestly tone of P. 73 
 
 on the other hand, the connection is looser, or is altogether 
 wanting, and we find ordinances that diverge from what has 
 gone before, and are not assumed further on, where they would 
 naturally be referred to ; whence we gather that these two 
 chapters are later additions, constructed on the lines of 
 xxv.-xxix., but not drawn up by the author himself". The 
 chapters that follow nest in Exodtis, xxxi. i8-xxxiv. a8, have 
 nothing in common with P, either in substance or form. 
 Ch. xxxiv. 29-35, though related to P, does not belong to it^*. 
 On the other hand, xxxv.-xl., and Lev. viii., are so com- 
 pletely dependent upon xxv.-xxxi., that their author must have 
 had these chapters in their entirety before him. This in 
 itself is proof positive that the author of xxv.-xxix. cannot 
 have drawn them up. Nay, they must even be later than 
 XXX.; xxxi. 1-17. Just as xvi. was subsequently filled in and 
 expanded, so it would seem that a very short original account 
 of the execution of the commands of Epo. xxv. sqq. was 
 gradually elaborated, till at last it was brought almost into 
 the form of the instructions themselves. The remarkable 
 divergencies of the Greek translation of Ex. xxxv.-xl. make 
 us suspect that the final redaction of these chapters was 
 hardly completed — if indeed completed — when that translation 
 was made, i. e. about 250 b. c. ^s. 
 
 " Cf. Dillmann, Ex.u. Lev., p. 262 ; Colenao, Pentateuch, vi. 576 sqq. Of [74] 
 course there are a number of technical terms in Ex. xxv. sqq. which occur no- 
 where else in the Old Testament, except in the corresponding passages in Ex. 
 xxxv. sqq., I/ev. viii. sq., and are therefore not to be found in the sections 
 hitherto assigned to P. But the only building instructions in Genesis which 
 are taken from P, viz. vi. 15, 16, strongly resemble Sx. xxv. sqq., and when- 
 ever P appears as a law-giver, i.e. in Gen. xvii. and Ex. xii., he uses the formulae 
 which reappear in ife. xxv. sqq. (nnn^ with the pronominal suffix; 'that 
 soul shall be destroyed from amongst its people;' 'between the two evenings ;' 
 ob'W preceded by the status oonstructus of n'la, npn, njns, etc., etc.). 
 
 " The order of succession is as follows : Ex. xxv. 1-9, free-will offerings 
 for the establishment of the cultus; v. 10-22, the ark of the covenant and the 
 Cherubim ; v. 23-30, the table of the shew-bread ; v. 31-38, the golden lamp- 
 stand ; V. 39, 40, postscript ' on aU these utensils,' which, it will be observed, 
 
74 The Hexateiuh. [ § 6. 
 
 pertain to the two divisions of tie sanctuary proper ; in xxvi. we come to the 
 tabernacle itself, the construction of which ia expounded in v. 1-30, and then 
 ("• 31-37) follow the directions concerning the veil between the holy place and 
 the holy of holies, followed by the indication of the position in the sanctuary 
 of the utensils, the preparation of which was ordered in xxv. ; then we have 
 xxvii. 1-8, the altar ; v. 9-19, the fore-court of the tabernacle ; v. 20, 21, the 
 oil for the lamp ; xxviii., the garments of Aaron and his sons ; v. 1-5, intro- 
 duction; 11. 6-14, the ephod ; v. 15-30, the breast-plate ; v. 31-35, the mantle; 
 v. 36-38, the frontlet; v. 39, the tunic, the turban, and the girdle ; j). 40-43, the 
 garments of Aaron's sons ; with an anticipated injunction {v. 41, to which we 
 shall return) to consecrate Aaron and his sons to the priestly office, as set 
 forth in detail in xxix. 1-35 ; 0. 36, 37, the purging and consecration of the 
 altar; x. 38-42, the institution of the daily sacrifices for morning and evening, 
 passing, in v. 43-46, into an epilogue : Yahwfe will consecrate the sanctuary to 
 himself and Aaron and his sons as priests, and so will dwell in the midst of 
 Israel. 
 
 No further proof is needed that these five chapters, speaking generally, form 
 a well arranged and rounded whole. A few points only demand further con- 
 sideration, a. Moses receives the command to lay nirn in the ark (xxv. 16, 
 21 ; cf. xl. 20), i.e. the code of the ten words {Tix. xxxi. 18 ; xxxii. 15; xxxiv. 
 29) and not, as Knobel has it (.Ec. u. Lev., ist ed., p. 263 sq.), the priestly 
 code. How P can thus refer to Ex. xx. 1-17, which is not a part of his work, 
 will be considered and explained in § 16, n. 12. 6. P makes Moses ascend 
 Mount Sinai, xxiv. 15-18", and it is there, accordingly, that xxv. sqq. is 
 revealed to him, of. xxxi. 1 8 ; Num. iii. i ; xxviii. 6 (allusion to Ex. xxix. 38- 
 42). Ch. xxv. 9 and 40 are in harmony with this representation ; and if in 
 xxvi. 30 and xxvii. 8 there seems to be a reference to what Yahwfe *had 
 shown Moses on the mountain,' there is no reason why the perfecta in 
 these verses should not be taken as futura exacta ; when Moses has descended 
 from the mountain he is to conform to what 'will have been revealed' to him. 
 V. We shall see presently that in xxx., xxxi. later regulations have been 
 added to the laws about the sanctuary and the garments and consecration of 
 the priests. This makes us suspicious with respect to xxv.-xxix. also, which 
 [75] would be no less liable to interpolation than to supplementing. We must 
 therefore note that xxvii. 20, 2 1 occupies an unexpected place in a treatise so 
 carefully arranged ; that xxviii. 41-43 really anticipates xxix., and moreover 
 mentions that the sons of Aaron are to be anointed, which is not enjoined in 
 xxix. ; that xxix. 36, 37 — expiation for the altar and its purification, before it 
 has been used, — hardly seems appropriate ; and finally that the institution of 
 the tamid, v. 38-42, comes in strangely here. At present we confine our- 
 selves to these remarks, but shall return to the subject hereafter. 
 
 " Cf. Wellh., xxii. 410-414, and on some of the sections into which xxx. 
 and xxxi. fall. Popper, Der hibl. Sericht iiber die Stiftshutte, p. ill sqq., 194 
 sqq. ; Graf, Geschichtliche Backer, p. 63. The subsections are :— 
 
 Ch. xxx. i-io, the altar of incense. If the author of xxv.-xxix. had been 
 acquainted with this ' most holy ' object («. 10) he would have described it in 
 
n. 13.] Laws in Exodtis xxv.-xxx. 75 
 
 XXV., and mentioned it in xxvi. 31-37 ; and in xxvii. 1-8 there would have 
 been some indication that the altar there mentioned was not the only one. 
 L&e. xvi. (iJ. 12, 18, 20, 33) likewise knows of but one altar, and does not 
 mention the expiation prescribed in E.r. xxx. 10. On the other hand, it is 
 urged that the golden altar, or altar of incense, appears repeatedly in P else- 
 where {Jix. xxx. 27 ; xxxi. 8 ; xxxv. 15 ; xxxvii. 25 ; xxxix. 38 ; xl. 5 [of. 10, 
 26] ; Le.v. iv. 7, 18 ; Num. iv. 11) ; that the altar of i?.i:. xxvii. 1-8 ; Lev. xvi. 
 is often called, as if for distinction, the altar of burnt offering {Ex. xxx. 28 ; 
 xxxi. 9; xxxv. 16; xxxviii. i ; xl. 6, 10, 29; iep. iv. paasim) or the brazen 
 altar {Ex. xxxviii. 30; xxxix. 39), and that altars, in the plural, are men- 
 tioned (Num. iii. 31) ; further, that the altar of incense is known not only to 
 the chronicler (i Chron. vi. 49 ; xxviii. 18 ; 2 Chron. xxvi. 16, 19 ; cf. iv. 19) 
 and to the authors of i Mace. (i. 21 ; iv. 49) and 2 Mace. (ii. 5), but to the 
 writer of the books of Kings (i Kings vii. 48 ; cf. vi. 20, 22 ; ' the brazen altar,' 
 viii. 64; 2 Kings xvi. 14, 15) : and probably also to Ezekiel, who speaks in 
 ix. 2 of ' the brazen altar,' implying a knowledge of some other altar. All this 
 evidence seems to Delitzsch, Studien, p. 113— 121, and Dillmann, Ex. u.Eev., 
 p. 316 (cf. 264), to remove the doubts urged by Wellhausen against £>;. xxx. 
 i-io. But this cannot be allowed. The fact remains that the passage does 
 not stand where the author of Ex. xxv.-xxix. must have placed it, and the 
 natural inference that this author had in his mind a sanctuary without an 
 altar of incense is commended a posteriori by Ezek. xli. 21, 22, and xliv. 
 16, which show that the prophet Ezekiel, likewise, left his proposed temple 
 without any altar of incense distinct from the table of shew-bread, inas- 
 much as he identified the two. Such then was the intention of the author of 
 Ex. xxv.-xxix. (and Lev. xvi.) likewise. Ex. xxx. i-io is a correction of this 
 representation, as may be gathered from v. 10, for instance, which can only be 
 regarded as a supplement to the rite prescribed in Lev. xvi. ; cf. n. 23. — ■ 
 This conclusion would hold good even were it certain that the temple of Solo- 
 mon had an altar of incense in it. But Stade {Zettsch. f. a. t. Wissensch., iii. 
 143 sqq., 168 sq.) has shown that this is at least doubtful. 
 
 Ex. xxx. 11-16, the poU-tax of half a shekel, to be paid at the census by 
 all who had reached the age of twenty. The pericope would be out of place L/oJ 
 anywhere amongst the directions for the construction of the tabernacle, and is 
 most distinctly so when placed between 0. i-io and 17-21. Moreover, it 
 presupposes the command to number the people {Num. i. ; — just as the yield 
 of the tax itself, in Ex. xxxviii. 24-30, rests on the figures of Num. i.), whence 
 it follows that it was written after Num. i., and therefore not by the author 
 oi Ex. xxv.-xxix. On Neh. x. 33 [32] see § 15, n. 30. 
 
 Ex. xxx. 17-21, the brazen laver, would have been mentioned in xxvii., if 
 the writer of xxv.-xxix. had thought it necessary to speak of it. 
 
 Ex. xxx. 22-33, the lioly °^^ °^ anointing. According to Ex. xxix. 7, 29, 30; 
 Lev. viii. 12 Aaron only is anointed ; and so too in Lev. iv. 3, 5, 16 ; vi. 13, 
 15 [20, 22] ; xvi. 32 ; xxi. 10, 12 ; Num. xxxv. 25. In this pericope {v. 30), 
 on the other hand, and in Ex. xxviii. 41 (cf. n. 12) ; xl. 15 ; Lev. vii. 36 ; x. 
 7 ; Num. iii. 3 the anointing is extended to the priests. This is, doubtless, 
 
76 The Hexateuch. [ § 6. 
 
 the later representation, so that xxx. 22-33 appears to be a supplement, as we 
 should have guessed from its position after xzix., not in it. In «. 27 the altar 
 of incense is mentioned. 
 
 Ex. zxx. 34-38, on the incense, which belongs to v. i-io, and is homogeneous 
 with II. 22-33, must be regarded in the same light. On v. 17-21, 22-33, 34" 
 38, consult, further. Popper, p. 109, 197 eq. 
 
 Ex. xxxi. i-i I, the call of Bezaleel and his assistants, presupposes not only 
 xxv.-zxix., but (». 8, 9, 11) xxx. also, and must, accordingly, be one of the 
 additions. 
 
 E.r. xxxi. 12-17, the sabbath ordinance, seems to be placed here (and 
 repeated in xxxv. 1-3) to show that the preceding injunctions, though pro- 
 ceeding from Yahwe, did not override the regulations as to the seventh day. 
 Hence Popper, p. 109 sq., 198 sq., draws the very just inference that the 
 pericope does not belong to the original document, but rose out of it upon sub- 
 sequent reflection and was inserted with a subsidiary legislative intention. 
 This comes out with special clearness in Ex. xxxv. 3, but the latter in its 
 turn throws a similar light on this pericope also. 
 
 ^* It is generally allowed that xxxi. 18 — xxxiv. 35 takes up the narrative of 
 Ex. xix.-xxiv., and is thrust in between xxv.-xxxi. and xxxv.-xl. in much 
 the same way as xxv.-xxxi. itself is wedged in between it and xix.-xxiv. 
 And indeed xxxiii. 7-1 1 diametrically contradicts P's representation. — The 
 most we can ask is whether the name 'table of the testimony,' which 
 appears in Ex. xxxi. 18 ; xxxii. 15 ; xxxiv. 29, may have arisen under the 
 influence of P, whose usage it recalls ( ' ark of the testimony,' ' tent of the 
 testimony,' etc.). In xxxiv. 29-35 Wellhausen (xxi. 566) sees a fragment 
 of P, and no doubt we seem to detect his redundant style in v. 29, and are 
 reminded of him by Aaron (v. 30, 31) and 'the princes in the congregation' 
 iv. 31). I cannot, however, assign this pericope to him : it presupposes the 
 existence of the sanctuary that, according to P, has still to be built, and seems 
 to place it outside the camp (ii. 34-35), in common with xxxiii. 7-II, 
 which it also resembles, in point of form — especially in the use of the imper- 
 fect and perfect with 1 in v. 34, 35. See below § 16, ji. 12. 
 [77] ^° The question of the origin of Ex. xxxv.-xl. (cf. Dillm. Ex. «. Eev., p. 
 354 sqq.) is very difficult and involved. Before attempting to justify the 
 conclusion I have reached, I will give a synopsis of the contents of these 
 chapters, adding in a second and a third column references to the correspond- 
 ing passages of the Greek translation and the parallels fi-om Ex. xxv.-xxxi. 
 
 Hebeew Text. Geeek Text. Ex. xxv-xxxi. 
 
 [References to Tischen- 
 dorfs edition. In many 
 editions the numbering 
 of the verses is made 
 to conform to the He- 
 brew.] 
 
 xxxv. 1-3. Sabbath ordinance. xxxv. 1-3. xxxxi. 12-17. 
 
 4-19. Moses eihorts the peo- 4-19 ^v. 8 omitted; xv. 1-9. 
 
n- 14, 15-] Text of Exodus xxxv.-xl. 
 
 77 
 
 Hbbkew Text. 
 
 pie to free-will oflFerings, 
 
 and enmneratea the things 
 
 they must pro\dde. 
 20-29. The gifts are brought. 
 30-35. Moses announces the 
 
 call of Bezaleel. 
 xxxvi. 1-7. The reception of 
 
 gifts closed. 
 8-19. The tapestries for the 
 
 Tabernacle are made ; 
 20—34. ^^^ woodwork ; 
 35-38. the curtains ; 
 
 xxxvii. 1-9. the ark ; 
 
 10-16. the table of the shew- 
 bread ; 
 
 17-24. the lamp-stand ; 
 
 35—28. the altar of incense; 
 
 29. the oil of anointing and 
 the incense ; 
 xxxviii. 1-7. the altar of burnt 
 offering ; 
 
 8. the brazen laver ; 
 
 9-20. the fore-court ; 
 
 21-23. heading of the ac- 
 counts of the gold, silver, 
 and brass employed ; 
 
 24-31. the accounts them- 
 selves ; 
 xxxix. I -3 1, the garments of 
 the high priest and the 
 priests are made ; 
 
 32-43. the completed work is 
 presented to Moses. 
 xl. 1-16. Moses receives and 
 executes the command to 
 set up the sanctuary and 
 consecrate the priests. 
 
 17-33. The Tabernacle is 
 erected, and the aacred 
 utensils placed in it. 
 
 34-38. The pillar of cloud 
 and fire. 
 
 Gkeek Text. 
 
 Ex. xxv-xxxi. 
 
 w. 1 2 sqq. ■ 
 positions), 
 
 with trans- 
 
 
 20-29. 
 
 
 
 30-35- 
 
 
 xxxi. i-ii. 
 
 xxxvi. 1-7. 
 
 
 
 Cf xxxvii. I, : 
 
 2. 
 
 xxvi. 1-12, 14. 
 
 Cf. xxxviii. i8- 
 xxxvii. 3-6. 
 
 xxxviii. 1-8. 
 9-12. 
 
 -21. 
 
 15-30- 
 31-33. 36, 
 37- 
 XXV. 10-21. 
 
 23-30- 
 
 13-17- 
 
 Wanting. 
 TXTviii. 25. 
 
 Cf. xxxviii. 22 
 
 -24. 
 
 31-40. 
 
 XXX. 1-6. 
 
 Cf. XXX. 22-33, 
 
 34-38- 
 xxvii. 1-8. 
 
 xxxviii. 26. 
 
 xxxvii. 7-18. 
 
 19-21. 
 
 
 XXX. 17-19. 
 xxvii. 9-19. 
 
 xxxix. i-io. 
 
 
 Cf. XXX. 11-16. 
 
 xxxvi. 8''-4. 
 
 
 xxviii. 6-40. 
 
 xxxix. II, 14- 
 
 23- 
 
 
 xl. 1-13 {v. 6-8 of the 
 Hebrew partially, 
 and ». 1 1 of Hebrew 
 entirely omitted). 
 
 14-26; xxxviii. 27 ; xl. 
 27 {v. 28, 29'' of the 
 Hebrew omitted). 
 
 28-32. 
 
 I subjoin the following remarks, (i) The third column shows that Ex. [78] 
 xxv.-xxviii., XXX., xxxi. are repeated, almost in their entirety, in xxxv.-xxxix. 
 (while Ex. xxix. reappears in Leo. viii.). The omission of certain verses, e.g. 
 jEr.xxv. 15, 16; 21, 22; 30; 40; xxvi. 12, 13; 30; 33, 34; xxviii. 29, 30; 
 35 ; XXX. 6-10 is no more than natural : they would be out of place in the 
 account of the preparation of the sacred objects, and some of them actually 
 appear in xl. 17-33, in the account of the erection of the tabernacle; just in 
 the same way xxx. 18-21 is reproduced in xl. 30-32, and not after xxxviii. 
 8. On the other hand, we note the real omission of Ex. xxvii. 20, 21 (the 
 equivalent of which does not appear till Lev. xxiv. 1-3) ; and the elaborate 
 
78 The Hexateuch. [§ 6. 
 
 passage on the oil of anointing and the incense (xxx. 2 2-38) is but rapidly sum- 
 marised in xxxvii. 29. (2) The order of the subsections in the Hebrew text of 
 JSx. XXXV. sqq., though departing from that of ISx. xxv. eqq., is in itself unim- 
 peachable. This is clear from the iirst column. The sabbath ordinance must 
 now of course come first (cf. n.13) ; the call of Bezaleel, etc. is mentioned much 
 earlier than in Ex. xxv. sqq. It is natural enough that in the actual order of 
 manufacture the tent should come first, and the holy vessels afterwards, 
 though the sacred character of the latter secured them the first place in 
 xxv. sqq. The altar of incense and the laver, which figure in an appendix in 
 xxv. sqq., take their proper place here (xxxvii. 25-29; xxxviii. 8). The 
 accounts come in quite appropriately in xxxviii. 21-31, just after the construc- 
 tion of the metallic objects, and before the manufacture of the priestly gar- 
 ments, which follows that of the other articles both here {Ex. xxxix. 1-31), and 
 in the original {Ex. xxviii.). It is only in xl., taken in connection with Eev. 
 viii., that the arrangement becomes somewhat strange. We shall return to 
 this. (3) The Greek text is not so satisfactory. Its relation to the Hebrew 
 may be gathered from a comparison of the first two columns. With regard to 
 the opening, xxxv. i-xxxvi. 7, and the close, xxxix. 32-xl. 38, passing over 
 minor divergencies, there is no essential diflference between the two texts. 
 Ch. xxxvi. 8" (Hebrew and Greek) is immediately followed in the Greek text 
 by the section on the priestly garments, so that xxxvi. 8''-40 in the Greek 
 corresponds to xxxix. I'-si in the Hebrew. Then the rest of the description 
 appears, but in a very strange order, and with very noticeable abbreviations. 
 In the Greek xxxvii., we have in succession the Hebrew xxxvi. 8-19 (con- 
 tracted into 2 verses); v. 35-38; xxxviii. 9-20 ; 21-23 — and so on. The 
 strangest of all is that the Hebrew xxxviii. 21-23 and 24-31 — a single pas- 
 sage — is split into two, and the parts severed, in the Greek (xxxvii. 19-2 j 
 and xxxix. i-io). 
 
 The added passages in Ex. xxx., xxxi. are throughout assumed in xxxv. sqq., 
 so that these latter chapters cannot possibly be due to the author of xxv.-xxix. 
 Nor can they even have a common origin or date with Ex. xxx., xxxi. This 
 seems to me to be obvious alike from their contents and character and from 
 their form. To give such a diffuse account of how Moses executed the com- 
 mands of Yahw^, immediately after the commands themselves, and for the 
 most part couched in identical terms, is an idea that would more readily occur 
 FtoI ^° later readers and manipulators than to the author of xxv.-xxxi., or of any 
 poi'tion of the ordinances themselves. The form, too, is very defective, especi- 
 ally when the writer ventures on anything beyond mere copying, e.g. xxxvi. 
 1-7. But we need not insist on these general impressions, for there are more 
 definite proofs of later origin. 
 
 (i) According to xxxviii. 25-28 the 603,550 half shekels paid by the 
 fighting men at the census are devoted to building the sanctuary. This con- 
 flicts with Ex. xxx. 11-16, where the poll-tax is assigned to 'the service 
 of the ohel mo'^d' (d. 16), i.e. defrays the expenses of the oultus, while the 
 erection of the sanctuary is provided for by free gifts, including silver {Ex. 
 sxv. 3 ; cf. xxxv. 5, 24). The writer of ^a;. xxxviii. 24-31 was misled by the 
 
n. iS-J Exodus XXXV— xl. 79 
 
 positioB of 'Ea. xxx. n-i6, and misunderstood the paasage. — When this is 
 once established, other divergencies, especially the addition of ^. xxxv. 2 (cf. 
 xxxi. 12-17) and other small details, may fairly be taken as evidence of 
 diversity of authorship. Cf. W e 1 1 h ., xxii. 41 7 sq. 
 
 (2) A close comparison of Ex. zxv.-xxxi. and xxxv.-xl. reveals small 
 grammatical divergencies, which seem inexplicable if the two sections are 
 from one hand or period. Cf. Popper, p. 84-98, who shows that many of 
 these peculiarities are identical in character with those that distinguish the 
 Samaritan from the Masoretio text of the Pentateuch. Trifling as they are in 
 themselves, this gives them a real evidential importance. What could have 
 induced the author of Ex. xxv. sqq. to write nn«"';N nriM in xxxvi. 10, 12, 
 13, 22, instead of his own phrase, rinin« bw riMJN? The Samaritan 
 editor, however, objects to this latter formula, when applied to lifeless objects, 
 so strongly that he corrects or omits it even in the original section, xxvi. 3, 5, 
 6,17. 
 
 (3) In the same connection it deserves notice that within the limits of TSx. 
 xxxv.-xl., (andiew. viii.) there are traces of more than one hand, leading us 
 to suspect that the section was not written uno tenore, but successively. Ch. 
 xl. J-16 is altogether superfluous : the commands about erecting the sanctuary, 
 placing the utensils in it, and clothing the priests, which hare been given 
 already in xxv., xxxi., are here repeated — apparently because they seemed to 
 be wanting in xxxv.-xxxix., which is only concerned with the manufacture of 
 the things themselves. The following section, xl. 17-33, now and then (v. 27, 
 29, 30^-32) anticipates the account of the consecration of the priests (^Lev. 
 viii.) and their first sacrifice {Lev. ix.) ; whereas if it had been from the same 
 hand as these two chapters, even the semblance of inconsistency would have 
 been avoided. Add that in xxxix. {v. 1, 5, 7, 21, 26, 29, 31, 42, 43), and a 
 part of xl. {v. 16, 19, 21, 23, 35, 27, 29, 32) [cf. Lev. viii. 4, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 
 29, 36] the formula ' as Yahwfe had commanded Moses ' is constantly used, 
 whereas in xxxv.-xxxviii. it never once occurs identically, and but seldom 
 in a modified form (xxxvi. i ; xxxviii. 22). 
 
 (4) Finally, the Greek translation furnishes yet another proof of the late 
 origin of the whole section, — a proof which is intimately connected with the 
 indications of successive stratification just given. For, u. the difference [80] 
 between the text and the translation is in itself evidence that the text was not 
 fixed. Even suppose the translator had what we now read before him, in any 
 case he did not feel bound to follow it, but considered himself at liberty to 
 jump about in it as he chose. Why here more than elsewhere ? It cannot 
 
 be accidental. The translator must, for some reason, have regarded xxxv.-xl. 
 and xxv. -xxxi. in different lights. 5. This argument partly falls to the 
 ground — but only to make way for a more weighty one — if we are justified in 
 concluding (with Popper, p. 172-177) that the differences between Ex. 
 xxv.-xxxi. and xxxv.-xl. in the Greek version indicate different translators. 
 And in truth it is hard to see why the same translator should have translated 
 D'Tl and D>ni by dvarpoptts {(popds) and $TJicai in the one section, and 
 always chosen different words {SiwaTrjpes, fiox>^oi and (vpets, iiiare aipetv) in 
 
8o The Hexatetcch. [ § 6. 
 
 the other. Other instances are equally striking. But would the translator 
 of XXV. sqq. have left xxxv. sqq. untranslated ifhe had found these latter 
 chapters in his text? 
 
 Popper, p. 142 sqq., draws further and more definite inferences from the 
 Greek version. The difference of form noted above (3) between Mx,. xxxix., 
 xl. ( + Lev. viii.) and xxxvi.-xxxviii. leads him to suspect that the former group 
 is earlier than the latter. In this connection he notes that in the Greek text 
 xxxix. I ''-31 follows immediately after xxxvi. 8'. Whence this phenomenon? 
 He answers : when the translator executed his task, xxxix., xl. ( + Lev. viii.) 
 were already written, and were therefore at once translated, with the rest. 
 The second stratum of the description (xxxvi. S^-xxxviii.) was not written till 
 later, was subsequently inserted by scraps into the Greek text, and was 
 naturally placed after xxxix. 1-31 (= xxxvi. 8''-4o). — This opinion, to which 
 I formerly inclined (cf. Godsdienst, ii. 266 [Bel, Isr. iii. 48, 49]) I am com- 
 pelled, after repeated consideration, to reject ; a. because we should have to 
 suppose that the enumeration of the objects surrendered to Moses, xxxix. 32- 
 43, was written before the account of their fabrication, xxxvi.-xxxviii. ; 
 whereas the reverse order must be the real one ; and /3. because the Greek 
 translation itself furnishes the proof that the priestly garments — in accordance 
 with the order observed in xxv.-xxviii — ought to occupy not the first, but the 
 last, or one of the last places. In the enumeration of xxxv. 9 sqq. (in the 
 Greek) the garments of Aaron and his sons come near the end, being followed 
 only by the sacred oil of anointing and the incense. So, too, in the list of the 
 articles delivered, xxxix. 14 sqq. . first the ait-qv-q and its utensils iv. 14-18 
 [^Hebr. 33, 35, 38, 37, 36]) ; then the sacred garments of the priests (y. 19 
 [_Hebr. 41]) ; and finally other portions of the tent and fore-court {v. 20, 2 1 
 [JSebr. 40, 34, 40]), which, in harmony with the natural order, preceded the 
 priestly garments in the Hebrew text (xxxix. 32 sqq.). It is true that the 
 translator mentions the garments before the afCTjvq, in this last section (/cai 
 jjveyKav Tcis arokcis -nphs M. Kol t^v (Tktjv^v /c.t.A..), but in so doing he betrays 
 himself, for in his own text, as we have seen, the aroXai appear later on. 
 And if we are thus driven to the conclusion that the translator transposed 
 the section on the priestly garments, thus showing that he considered 
 himself entitled to take such liberties when he saw occasion to do so, we 
 [81] can no longer allow Popper's inferences from the arrangement of the text. 
 I.e. we have no right to place the original Greek translator between the, 
 composition of Ex. xxxix., xl. ( + Lev. viii.) and the compilation of xxxvi.- 
 xxxviii. 
 
 My own inference as to the chronology of the passages may still seem 
 arbitrary, for it is conceivable that xxxv. sqq. was accidentally de- 
 ficient or defective in the MS. used by the Greek translator, and in that 
 case the confusion in the Greek text would of course prove nothing. But it 
 will spontaneously result from our further inquiries (§15) that the hypothesis 
 of an accident is unnecessary, and therefore inadmissible. 
 
 Uxodtis xl. does not complete the account of the carrying out 
 
h. 15.] Greek text of Ex. xxxv.-xl. 81 
 
 of the ordinances concerning the institution of the cultus, for 
 there still remains the consecration of Aaron and his sons as 
 priests, which was commanded in Bx. xxix. The record of 
 this act is contained in Lev. viii., which, as we have seen, 
 is related to ISso. xxxv.-xl., and therefore belongs to a late 
 stratum of P^". 
 
 Between Ex. xl. and Lev. viii. there now stand the sacrificial 
 ordinances of Lev. i-vii. In itself it is not surprising that 
 these regulations should precede the first ritual performance 
 in the tabernacle {Lev. ix.), and even the consecration of the 
 priests, which itself involved certain sacrifices (Lev. viii.). 
 But closer investigation shows that this position^ however 
 appropriate, was assigned to the section not by the author 
 of Lx. xxv.-xxix., but by one of the later remodellers of his 
 work. These chapters, though relatively speaking a single 
 whole, are by no means due to a single hand. Lev. i.-v. 
 [i-vi. 7], which strikes us as more original than vi.,vii. [vi. 8- 
 vii.], is itself the product of continuous redaction, shows some 
 slight divergences from Ex. xxix., and betrays familiarity with 
 Lx. XXX. I— 10, i. e. with a late stratum of P (cf. n. 13) ; 
 Lev. vi., vii. [vi. 8-vii.] contains supplements to i.-v. [i.-vi. 7], 
 and in its turn was not written straight off, but was gradually 
 accumulated^''. The whole of Lev. i.-vii. may have existed 
 as an independent collection, subsequently introduced, with 
 a modified superscription (compare Lev. i. i with vii. 0^% 38), 
 into its present connections^. The possibility of accomplish- 
 ing this union without any considerable disturbance of the 
 unity of P is partly explained by the close original aflSnity 
 of all the priestly narratives and laws, but partly by the [82] 
 evident care with which they were brought into agreement 
 and connection with each other at the time of compilation 1^. 
 
 In Lev. ix., x. the historieo-legislative work broken off after 
 Ex. xxv.-xxix. is continued. After the insertion of Ex. xxxv.- 
 xl. and Lev. viii., a connecting link was added to unite Lev. ix. 
 
 G 
 
82 The Hexateuch. [§6. 
 
 to this account of the execution of Yahwe's commands to 
 Moses ^°. In other respects, also, the original form of the 
 narratives has been altered. Lev. x. 6, 7 ; v. 8-1 1 ; v. 16-30 
 are evidently later expansions, the last of which presupposes 
 the incorporation of the sacrificial ordinances of Lev. i.-vii., 
 and applies them to a certain detail in Lev. ix., the result of 
 which is a misconception of the latter and an unnecessary 
 attempt to justify it^^ 
 
 We do not find the direct continuation of Lev. x. 1-5 ; 
 13-15 till we come to Lev. xvi. (cf. v. i). The intervening 
 chapters, Lev. xi.-xv., stand on the same footing as Lev. i.-vii. 
 They are not essential in the position they now occupy, but 
 are very appropriately inserted there. They come after the 
 consecration of the priests, whose functions concerning the 
 'clean' and the 'unclean' they regulate, and before the 
 law of the day of atonement on which the sanctuary is 
 cleansed from the pollutions caused by involuntary un- 
 cleanness of priests and people. Lev. xi.-xv. accordingly 
 belongs to P in the wider sense, though not assignable to 
 the author of Llx. xxv.-xxix., and Lev. ix. ; x. 1-5, I3-t5. 
 The chapters further resemble Lev. i.-vii. in having risen 
 successively, and not in a single piece ^^- On the other hand, 
 Lev. xvi., which the author of Llx. xxx. 10 must have known, 
 is a single whole, in which the conception of the sanctuary 
 and its utensils which characterises Hx. xxv.-xxix. reappears ^^- 
 
 '° To what Bas been said on Tim. viii. in n. 15 we may here add that D. 2 
 assumes that the priestly garments have been handed over to Moses {Ex. 
 xxxix. 41); in v. 10, 11, 15 the altar — i.e. the altar of burnt offerings; 
 which appears to be the only one known to the writer — and other sacred 
 objects, including the laver and its pedestal (JSx. xxx. 17-21 ; cf. n. 13), are 
 [83] sprinkled and cleansed (cf. h. 12, near the end) ; in 11. 16, 25, 26, compared 
 with En. xxix. 13, 22, 23, slight changes of expression occur which seem to 
 betray diversity of authorship (cf. Popper, p. 96 aq.) ; 11. 30 differs in posi- 
 tion from the corresponding Ex. xxix. 21, and mentions the oil of anointment 
 before the blood of the sacrifice, — in both which particulars it agrees with the 
 Samaritan text of Ez. xxix. (cf. Popper, p. 97 aq.); v. 31 (read »n'i:}) 
 
n. i6, I),] Laws in Lev. i.-v. and vi., vii. 83 
 
 refers, not to Lev. vii. agsqq., but to Ex. xxix. 31 ; and finally, in v. 33, 34, if 
 the text is sound, the original, Ex. xxix. 35-37, ia very slavishly reproduced — 
 assuredly not by the author himself. 
 
 " On Lev. i.-vii. consult Th. Tijdschr., iv. 492-500, and the writers cited 
 there. I must confine myself here to a brief defence of the position taken up 
 in the text, which differs in some respects from my previous results. 
 
 a. Lev. i.-v. [i.-vi. 7] deals successively with the burnt offering (i.) ; the 
 food offering (ii.) ; the thank oflfering (iii.) ; the trespass offering (iv., v. 1-13) ; 
 the guilt offering (v. 14-36 [v. 14-vi. 7]). The fourth section is not from a 
 single hand. Ch. v. 1-13 is an appendix, from the hand of a writer who, 
 unlike the author of iv., thought it necessary to enumerate the several cases in 
 which a trespass offering was required. He was acquainted with iv. and, on the 
 whole, follows the same linguistic usage, though not without divergences 
 (w. I ^^^■s NiD3i, cf. V. 17; vii. 18; v. 5 minn; v. 6, 7, innjN-nN N'^m). 
 Neither is v. 14-26 [v. 14-vi. 7] a single whole : v. 14-16, 30-26 [vi. 1-7] 
 give one and the same representation of the guilt offering, but v. 17-19 intro- 
 duces confusion, and loses sight of the distinction between trespass and guilt 
 offering ; the opening (d«i) is inappropriate ; 1:13? No:i, as in v. I, should be 
 noted. 
 
 b. If vi., vii. [vi. 8-vii.] were from the same hand as i.-v. [i.-vi. 7], the 
 succession of the several kinds of sacrifice would be identical ; whereas in fact 
 the trespass offering (vi. 17-23 [24-30]) and guilt offering (vii. 1-7) follow 
 immediately after the burnt offering (vi. 1-6 [8-13]) and food offering 
 (vi. 7-11 [14-18J), and the thank offering comes last (vii. 11-21). Moreover, 
 one would expect the subject matter to be suitably divided between i.-v. [i.- 
 vi. 7] and vi., vii. [vi. 8-vii.]; and this is not the case, as Knob el rightly- 
 pointed out Ex. u. Lev., p. 401. On the other hand, vi., vii. [vi. 8-vii.] did not 
 come into existence independently of i.-v. [i.-vi. 7] ; for the former presup- 
 poses the contents of the latter, and is not a complete sacrificial code in itself. 
 It cannot, therefore, be regarded as more ancient than i.-v. [i.-vi. 7]. The 
 priority of iii. to vii. 11-21 is specially marked. 
 
 c. Ch. vi., vii. [vi. 8-vii.], again, is not written uno tenore. The sections 
 vi. 1-6, 7-11, 17-33 [S-13, 14-18, 24-30]; vii. 1-7, 11-21 begin with 
 min riNJ, and run parallel to each other. Importations from another 
 source, or later additions, appear in yi. 13-16 [19-33] (daily food offering of 
 the High Priest ; or, according to others, his offering of consecration ; of; 
 Th. Tijdschr., iv. 498 sq.) ; vii. 8-10 (additions concerning the priests' share in 
 the burnt and food offerings, tacked on to v. 6, but out of place); vii. 33-37 
 (prohibition of fat and blood; cf iii. 17); vii. 28-36 (express assignment of 
 the breast and right shoulder of the thank offering to the priest). 
 
 d. The relation of Lev. i.-vii. to Ex. xxv.-xxix. is at once determined by the 
 mention of the altar of incense {Ex. xxx. i-io) in Lev. iv. (cf. u. 13). But 
 besides this we note that in Ex. xxix. 10-14 (= Lev. viii. 14-17), in ordaining 
 the trespass offering of Aaron and his sons, the burning of the victim's flesh is 
 enjoined, but not the bringing of its blood into the sanctuary. It is other- [84] 
 wise in Lev. iv. 5-7. Had this precept been incorporated by the author of Ex, 
 
 G 2 
 
84 The Hexatevtch. [§ ^■ 
 
 xxix. (and, a fortiori, if he himself had given it) he would not have departed 
 from it in v. 10-14. ^^ must therefore regard Lev. iv. 3-12 as the descrip- 
 tion of the later and more developed practice. Wellhausen (xxii. 408 sq.) 
 'draws the same conclusion from Sx. xxix. 15-18 ; 19-28 ; 31—34 ; 2, 3, 23, 24, 
 which regulate the burnt offering, thank offering, and food oflfering on occasion 
 of the consecration of the priests. Had the author of Ex. xxix., he argues, 
 Intended to regulate the practice with regard to these kinds of oflfering, as is 
 done in Lev. i.-iii., he would not have described it so fully in these other 
 passages. But the validity of this reasoning is doubtful, for the description of 
 so exceptional a solemnity as the consecration of the first priests does not 
 make it superfluous to regulate the ordinary procedure. At any rate the 
 single discrepancy which Wellhausen notices proves more than the 
 many repetitions, especially in the case of a writer by no means distinguished 
 for conciseness. 
 
 " Our point of departure is the subscription or colophon, vii. 37, 38. It 
 follows the order of vi., vii. [vi. 8-vii.], i. c. it places the thank offering last, 
 and moreover it presupposes vi. 12-16 [19-23], which it misunderstands as an 
 ordinance d'Ni'jd'), i.e. concerning the High Priest's sacrifice of consecra- 
 tion. Now we read in v. 38 that Yahwe revealed these toras to Moses o n 
 Mount Sinai. What I previously urged against the soundness of this 
 reading {GodscUenst, ii. 93 [Bel. Isr., ii. 187] ; Th. Tijdnchr., iv. 496) is 
 unfounded ; for the concluding words, ' in the desert of Sinai,' mean that the 
 sacrificial cultus began there — to be continued, of course, afterwards. Thus, 
 if i. -vii. is derived, by the colophon, from a revelation on Mount Sinai (cf. 
 Lev. XXV. I ; xxvi. 46), the statement in Lev. i. x, that the laws were revealed 
 'from out the ohel mo'^d' cannot be original, and must have received its 
 present form from the hand which inserted the whole collection here. And 
 indeed Lev. i. i shows evident signs of manipulation. — It is obvious from 
 ji. 17 d that it cannot have been the author of Ex. xxv.-xxix. who incorporated 
 this group of laws. 
 
 '° We have seen already that Lev. vi., vii. [vi, S-vii.] was written, or at 
 least collected, as a supplement to Lev. j.-v. [i.-vi. 7]. This is why, 
 for example, the ritual of the guilt offering is described (in vii. 1-7); and that 
 of the trespass oflfering not (in vi. 17-23 [24-30]). The latter had been com- 
 pletely handled by the author of Lev. iv., whereas the former had only been 
 dealt with by a reference to the trespass offering, Ler. v. 14-26 [v. 14-vi. 7]. 
 From the precepts concerning the various trespass offerings in Lev. iv., a general 
 rule is deduced in vi. 23 [30]. — But these are not the only passages in P with 
 which Lev. vi., vii. [vi. 8-vii.] stands in connection. Thus Lev. vi. 1-6 [8-13] 
 glances back at the institution of a morning and evening burnt offering in Ex. 
 xxix. 38-42 (Num. XKviii. 1-8), although, as we shall see (§15 n. 30), the 
 latter passage itself is not original. So, again, in Lev. vi. 12-16 [19-23] the 
 insertion of ' on the day that he is anointed ' seems to be an attempt to give 
 another turn to the law about the daily food offering of the High Priest 
 and to make it an injunction concerning the food offering of his consecra- 
 tion (cf. vii. 37) ; for in its original form it was anterior to the ordinance 
 
n. 17-21.] Lev. i.-v., vi., vil., and ix., x. 85 
 
 of a two-fold daily burnt offering, and was rightly perceived by tie interpo- 
 lator to be in contradiction with it. Subsequently the two laws were carried 
 out side by side, and the interpolation was so explained as to lose its [85] 
 force. Cf. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 82, n. 2 [79, n. 2]. — Finally, liev. 
 vii. 28-36 is expressly taken up into the mdex, sacrificiorum to emphasise an 
 advance upon Deut. xviii. 3, the breast and the right shoulder being de- 
 manded as the priest's share. This demand seems to have been new when put 
 forward in J?j-. xxix. 27, 28, and is, therefore, repeated again in Lev. x. 14, 15 ; 
 Num. xviii. 11, 18. 
 
 Dillmann, E.r. u. Lev., p. 373 sqq., 438 sqq. takes an entirely different 
 view of Lev. i.— v., vi. sq. [i.-vi. 7 ; vi. 8-vii.] from the one set forth in n. 17- 
 19. In so far as his contention is not met by the facts indicated in n. 17-19, 
 its consideration must be reserved till later on (§ 15, n. 6), since it is con- 
 nected with views as to the priestly lawgiver's forerunners and sources which 
 cannot be entered into here. 
 
 ™ ' The eighth day ' of Lev. ix. i refers to the seven days' ceremony of con- 
 secration ordained in lEx. xxix. 35, but not described till Lev. viii. {v. 33-36), 
 We have already remarked (p. 73) that Ke. xxxv.-xl. ; Lev. viii. has probably 
 superseded a very short primitive notice of the execution of Ex. xxv. sqq. 
 Lev. ix. originally stood in connection with this notice. See n. 21. 
 
 °' According to the most natural meaning of Lev. x. 6, 7 the consecration 
 of Aaron and his sons is still in progress ('for the oil of anointing of Yahw^ 
 is upon you ') ; whereas in Lev. ix. i it is already completed. The two former 
 verses, therefore, are from another hand. — The general precept in Lev. x. 8-10 
 is tacked on to this insertion. It does not fit the historical context, and seems 
 to be intended as a further preparation for the laws on uncleanness in Lev. 
 xi.-xv. — Lev. X. 16-20 is admirably suited to throw light on the origin of the 
 later amplifications. The trespass offering for the people is treated in Lev. ix. 1 5 
 exactly in the same way as that for the High Priest, v. 8-11, and this — as the 
 personal presence of Moses would itself guarantee — was in perfect 
 accordance with the law, closely conforming to the injunctions con- 
 cerning the trespass offering at Aaron's consecration, Lk. xxix. 10-14 {^^^- viii. 
 14-17), and only including the sprinkling of the altar (of burnt offerings) and 
 the burning of the flesh. But, judged by the standard of Lev. iv., this same 
 performance was irregular, inasmuch as it omitted to bring the blood into 
 the sanctuary, and to sprinkle the altar of incense. For this omission, 
 therefore, the interpolator to whom we owe Lev. x. 16-20, and who occupied 
 the stand-point of Lev. iv., might reasonably have blamed Aaron and his sons. 
 But instead of that he assumes that they knew and followed Lev. iv., and there- 
 fore infers from the blood of the trespass offerings not being brought inside the 
 sanctuary, that the flesh should not have been burnt either ; and that, this 
 being so, the trespass offering for the people — though not the previous priestly 
 one— ought to be eaten by the priests ; and he makes Moses rebuke them on 
 this ground. It is true that this is not really in harmony with Lev. iv., 
 but it is an easily explained inversion of the rule which was deduced from 
 Lee. iv. in Lev. vi. 23 [30]. The writer of Lev. a. 16-20 acquiesced in it all 
 
86 The Hexateuch. [§ 6. 
 
 the more readily as it gave tim an opportunity of explaining the motives 
 of Aaron's (supposed) dereliction, and of making Moses tacitly accept them. 
 
 '^'^ The successive filling in and amplification of the laws in iei). xi.-xv. 
 becomes manifest at once in ieii. xi. The colophon in v. 46, 4;^ shows that 
 [86] this tora originally treated only of clean and unclean animals which respec- 
 tively could and could not be eaten ; -o. 24-40, with the exception perhaps of 
 v. 29, 30, is therefore a later addition. But v. 41 sqq. must also be regarded 
 as a subsequent expansion ; the parallel law in Dent. xiv. 3-20 is made up of 
 three sections, b. 4-8; v. 9, 10; v. 11-20, answering to iev. xi. 2-8, 9-12, 
 13-23, which makes it at least probable that the fourth section, ics. xi. 41 sqq., 
 was not committed to writing at the same time as the first three ; and its 
 position after v, 24-40, instead of after v. 13-23, strengthens the probability. 
 — Lex. xii. 2 refers, as Wellhausen (xxii. 421) justly remarks, to xv. 19 ; and, 
 therefore, xii. must be later than xv. — Lev, xiv. 33-53 (leprous houses) joins 
 on to xiii. 47-59 (leprous garments), and would have immediately followed it 
 had xiii., xiv. been written continuously. In the colophon, xiv. 55-57, the 
 tora on the cleansing of the leper (xiv. 1-32) is not mentioned. Whether 
 this pleads for the later origin of the section we will not stay to inquire. 
 
 From all that we have seen we should judge that Lev. xi.-xv. was a later 
 insertion between x. and xvi. rather than a preexisting document incorporated 
 by the author of these chapters ; and we note further that xvi. i connects 
 itself directly with x., and in no way suggests that such a mass of other laws 
 has preceded the regulations for the day of atonement. The question is 
 finally settled by the fact that in Lev. xi.-xv. the sacrificial precepts of Lev. 
 i.-vii. are presupposed (e. g. in xii. 6-8 ; xiv. 12, etc.), whereas we have seen 
 already that the author of Lev. ix. ; x. 1-5 ; 12-15 ^^^ ^'^'^ unacquainted 
 with them. See further § 15, n. 5. 
 
 "' Starting from the position that the cleansing of the sanctuary and the 
 atonement for the people are two distinct things, mixed up together in Lev. 
 xvi. as it now stands, Oort, Th. Tijdschr., x. 155-160, attempts to separate 
 two elements, an original law to which v. 1-4, Ii''-I4, 16 (mostly), 18", 
 ig, 23, 24°, 25", 29" belong, and the later expansions which include the 
 remaining verses. In my opinion the cleansing of the sanctuary and that of 
 the people — which surely belong to each other, since the uncleanness of the 
 people pollutes the sanctuary (cf. Ezelc. xiv. 18-20) — were alike dealt with by 
 the original lawgiver himself. The attempt to separate the two has accord- 
 ingly failed. V. 11'' cannot follow immediately on v. 1-4 ; from v. 16, 19, it 
 appears that the people had brought a trespass offering (which, however, is 
 only mentioned in the verses which Oort cuts out, 0. 5-11", 15), whereas v. 
 24 tells us that there are likewise two burnt offerings, or, in other words, that 
 v. 1-3 and V. 5 sqq. belong together. Nor is it possible to bring v. 29-34 into 
 agreement with o r t ' s hypothesis. — The order of the ceremony in Lev. xvi. 
 answers, mutatis mutandis, to Lev. ix. ; while Lev. xiv. 6, 7, 52, 53 are 
 analogous to Lev. xvi. 2o''-2 2, the sending away of the goat 'forAzazel;' 
 BO that from this point of view likewise we find nothing to militate against 
 the unity and originality of Lev. xvi. 
 
n. 21-23.] Laws in Lev. xi.-xv. and xvi. 87 
 
 Mx. XXX. 10 must be regarded as an amplification oiLev. xvi. ; or, if not, then 
 it rests upon a misconception of the precepts contained in the latter ; for Lev. 
 XTi. never mentions an altar of incense, even in v. 14, where it could not have 
 been passed over if the author had known of it. The writer therefore 
 occupies the position of Ejc. xxv.-xxix., and the altar which he mentions is 
 the altar of burnt offerings. Cf. n. 13. 
 
 The chapters we have next to coiisidei',-Z/e«;.xvii.-xxvi., though [S7] 
 in general form and substance belonging to P, nevertheless differ 
 considerably from the two priestly strata which we have disco- 
 vered hitherto, and most recently in Lev. i.-xvi. The difference 
 affects the language and general style, and, occasionally, the 
 substance. It is not continuous, however, for here and there — 
 either in whole sections or in detached verses and phrases, and 
 especially in Zev. xvii., xxi. sq., xxiii.— xxv. — we recognise the 
 peculiarities of the priestly passages already dealt with. All 
 these phenomena are explained by the supposition that an 
 older stratum of priestly legislation lies at the basis of 
 Zev. xvii.-xxvi., and that when it was introduced into its 
 present connection it was fused together with more recent 
 ordinances, similar in character to those of Ex. xxv.-xxxi., 
 XXXV.— xl., and Zev. i.-xvi., or was worked over in their spirit. 
 Indicating this older legislation by P^, the historico-legisla- 
 tive work that begins with Gen. i.-ii. 4^ by P^, and the 
 later amplifications and recensions by P', P*, we may say 
 that in Zev. xvii.-xxvi. P^ has been combined with fragments 
 in the style of P^ and his followers, or, at any rate, modified 
 in that direction^*. 
 
 The complete proof of this hypothesis cannot be given till 
 later on. But its general correctness is indicated, even at the 
 present stage of our inquiry, by the following facts : — 
 
 (i) Zev. xxvi. 3-45 is clearly the conclusion of a code 
 of priestly character, which the colophon in v. 46 declares to 
 have been revealed to Moses by Yahwe 'on Mount Sinai '^^ ; 
 
 (2) the resemblances to Zev. xxvi. 3-45i ^^^ ^^yle and con- 
 ception, which constantly recur in Zev. xvii. i-xxvi. 2,, render 
 
8S> The Hexateuch. [§ 6. 
 
 it highly probable that the code of which we possess the con- 
 clusion in the first-named chapter (P^) has been partially or 
 wholly preserved in those that precede it^^; 
 
 (3) in Lev. xvii. i-xxvi. % we occasionally find the char- 
 [88] acteristics of P^, P^, etc., asserting themselves very distinctly 
 
 along side of the peculiarities of P^, whether in independent 
 passages or in smaller additions to pi 27 . 
 
 (4) the mutual relations of P-"^ on the one side, and of 
 P^, P^, etc. on the other, hardly allow any other supposi- 
 tion than that P^ represents an earlier stage of the 
 priestly legislation^^. 
 
 '^ The difference between Lev. xvii., xviii.-xx., xxvi. and the other priestly 
 formations was observed so long ago as by Knob el; and Ewald and 
 N o 1 d e k e explained it, at any rate as far as iev. xvii.-xx. goes, from the 
 supposed use of older documents by the author of Leviticus ; the hypothesis 
 put forward in the text is defended, though with differences of detail, by 
 Graf (Gesch. Biieli., p. 75-83) ; myself {Godsdienst, ii. 58 sqq., 90 aqq. [iJeL 
 Isr., ii. 151 sqq., 183 sqq.]); Colenso {Pentateuch, yi. i sqq.); Kayser 
 (op. cit., p. 64-79, 176 sqq.), and "Well hau sen (xxii. 421-444). The question 
 of the date and authorship of the legislation underlying Lev. xvii.-xxvi. will 
 be dealt with later on (§ 15), when we shall also have occasion to consider 
 Dillmann's hypothesis (Ex. und Lev., p. 533 sqq.) concerning its origin. 
 At present we have only to show that Lev. xvii.-xxvi. belongs to P, 
 and in what sense it does so. 
 
 ^' The repeated mention of ' my ordinances, commandments, and statutes ' 
 (v. 3, 15, 43), and on one occasion 'all these commandments' {v. 14), 
 can only be understood as referring to the preceding laws. Their priestly 
 character is evident from v. 11, 13 (Yahwfe's dwelling, pain, conceived as 
 a portable tent, in the midst of Israel) ; v. 30, 31 (unlawful worship of 
 Yahwfe, high value attached to sacrifice); n. 34, 35, 43 (disregard of 'my 
 sabbaths' one of Israel's chief sins). It is obvious how strongly analogy 
 pleads for this view of Lev. xxvi. 3-45 ; it would be very strange if this 
 discourse were not a concluding exhortation similar to Ex. xxiii. 20-33 ^^^ 
 Deut. xxviii, to which it bears a close resemblance, for instance, in its progress 
 from promises to threats. It is but natural, then, to regard v. 46 as the colo- 
 phon of the code to which iej). xxvi. 3-45 belongs (cf. Deiti. xxviii. 69 [xxix. i]). 
 The revelation to Moses ' on Mount Sinai ' appears again in xxv. i, but as it 
 is likewise found in Lev. vii. 38 (n. 18) and xxvii. 34, this detail is not 
 decisive for the connection between xxv. and xxvi. 
 
 '^ It is probable a priori that something beyond the concluding exhorta- 
 tion of the code in question has been preserved ; and the universally recog- 
 
n. 24-27.] Composik ckai'-acter of Lev. ■x.vu.-x.x.vl. 89 
 
 nised differences between Lev. xvii. eqq. and i.-xvi. at once suggest that we 
 possess the remains of it in the first-named group of chapters; and the 
 reality, at any rate in part, of the connection thus suggested, is demonstrated 
 by the following points of agreement : 
 
 'I (am) Yahwfe,' 'I Tahwfe (am) your god,' and other more extended 
 formulas of like import occur in xviii. 2, 4-6, 21, 30; xix. 2-4, 10, 12, 14, [6, 
 18. 25, 28, 30-32, 34, 36, 37; XX. 7, 8, 24; xxi. 8, 12, :5, 23; xxii. 2, 3, 8, 
 9) l6< 30-33 ; ^iii- 22, 43 ; xxiv. 22 ; xxv. 17, 38, 55 ; xxvi. I, 2, 13, 44, 45 ; 
 
 nipni Tjbn xviii. 3 ; xs. 23 ; xxvi. 3 ; ^ [89] 
 
 ntoS in conjunction with Tottj, xviii. 4; xix. 37; xx. 8, 22 ; xxvi. 3 ; 
 
 'EDUJiDl *nipn, xviii. (4) 26 ; xix. 37 ; xx. 22 ; xxv. iS ; xxvi. 15, 43 ; 
 
 V3D ]n:, xvii. ID ; XX. 3, 6; xxvi. 17 ; 
 
 'mani) xvii. 10 ; xx. 3, 5, 6 ; xxvi. 30 ; 
 
 'My,' or ' Yahwfe's sabbaths,' 'its (the land's)' or 'your sabbaths,' 
 xix. 3, 30 ; xxiii. 38 ; xxvi. 2, 34, 35, 43 (which last verses agree in 
 contents likewise with xxv. 1-7, 18-22). 
 
 The chapters which are thus connected with Lev. xxvi. 3-45, and especially 
 Lev. xviii.-xx., have a number of other words and expressions in common 
 which are not met with elsewhere in the Pentateuch, and which therefore 
 bear additional testimony to their separate origin ; cf. D i 1 1 m a n n, Ex. w. 
 Lev., p. 635, 540 sq. 
 
 ^^ This is the case, for instance, in Lev. xvii. 4-6, 9, (where ' the entrance 
 of the 6hel mo'ed,' at any rate in v. 4-6, is superfluous, not to say disturbing, 
 and is apparently due to the influence of Ex, xxv. sqq.) ; in Lev. xix. 21, 22 
 (which obviously announces itself as a later addition to v. 20, in the spirit of 
 Lev. T. 14-26 [v. 14-vi. 7], and is characterised by the ' entrance of the ohel 
 mo'ed'); in the texts which assume that the priesthood has been conferred on 
 Aaron and his song and that they have been consecrated to the office, such as 
 ifi'.xvii. 2 (introduction to the ordinances that follow) ; xxi. i, 17, 21, 24; xxii. 
 2, 4, 18 (all which verses follow the uniform usage of Ex. xxv. sqq., whereas 
 Lev. xxi. 10 [' the priest, who is great above his brethren '] departs from it, 
 though agreeing with Ex. xxv. sqq.— as does v. 12 likewise — with respect to 
 the anointing of the High Priest) ; in Lev. xxi. 23 (where ' the veil' is men- 
 tioned) ; in xxii. 29, 30 (where, as in Lev. vii. 15-18, the praise offerings 
 must be eaten on the very day on which they are made, whereas in Lev. xix. 
 5, 8, the thank offerings — of which the praise offering is a species — 
 may be consumed the following day) ; in Lev. xxiii. 1-8, 23-25, 26-32, 33- 
 38 (all which verses — except v. 3, which is shown by i;. 38, 'beside the 
 sabbaths of Yahwfe,' to be a later addition — belong to each other and form a 
 tolerably complete system of festivals, provided with a superscription v. i, 
 2, and a colophon v. 37, 38 of its own, and agreeing in contents and 
 terminology with the laws of ph(5sach and ma996th in Ex. xii., and of the 
 day of atonement in Lev. xvi., while standing off with some sharpness from 
 the sections in v. 9-22 and 39-44, which latter clearly betrays its derivation 
 from some other source by the very position it occupies after the colophon, 
 V. 37, 38; see further, n. 28); in Lev. xxiv. 1-4, 5-9 (two passages which 
 
90 The Hexateuch. [§ 6. 
 
 appear to be strangely out of place and are manifestly connected with the 
 ordinances of Ex. xxv.-xxxi. and the account of their execution) ; in Jjeo. 
 xxiv. 10-23 (and especially in the framework of this passage, v. 10-14, 23> 
 [of. Num. ix. 6-14; XV. 33-36 ; xxvii. i-ii ; xxxri.], which is evidently not 
 original, but derived from v. 16) ; in iw. xxv. 8-17, 33-55 pnssim (most 
 obviously in v. 9 ' on the day of atonement,' and v. 23-34, '^® Levitioal 
 cities, of. Num. xxxv. 1-8, but also in other verses, as will be shown more in 
 detail in n. 28 and in § 15, n. 5). 
 
 ^' The mutual relations between P^ and V, P ', etc., are not always 
 [90] equally clear ; in some cases there is room for more than one explanation, 
 and in others — in Lev. xviii. -xx., for instance — parallel passages in P, which 
 would enable us to form an opinion as to the relative antiquity of the different 
 elements, are wanting. The following points, however, present no ambiguity : — 
 I a. Lev. xvii. 3-7 ordains that all oxen and sheep which the Israelites 
 desire to slaughter must be brought to the sanctuary and eaten there as thank 
 offerings. The text of these verses is mixed (n. 27), but K a y s e r {Jahrb. f. p. 
 Theologie, 1881, p. 541-544) attempts in vain so to emend them, by aid of the 
 LXX., and so to analyse them into their two constituent elements as to get rid 
 of the injunction to slaughter beasts nowhere but at the sanctuary. The great 
 objection to his treatment of the passage is that he makes the amalgamation 
 of two very ordinary precepts result, as if by accident, in the enunciation of a 
 commandment which attaches itself to and developes the ancient usage of the 
 people. The commandment in question was only possible of execution as long 
 as the sanctuaries of Yahwfe were so numerous that everyone could find one 
 close at band. But in this passage it is given in connection with the one only 
 sanctuary — apparently by someone who was acquainted, at least by tradition, 
 with the ancient practice, and desired to maintain it still. In P^, etc., slaugh- 
 tering is left entirely free (cf Gen. ix. 3, 4; Lev. vii. 22-27), and the thank 
 offering is implicitly ranked amongst the ordinaiy sacrifices by the assertion 
 of the priest's right to a share in it. This latter conception is the more 
 recent. See further, § 14, 11. 6. 
 
 6. Lev. xix. 5-8 chronologically precedes Lev. vii. 15-18 (with which 
 Lev. xxii. 29, 30 is parallel; cf. n. 27), for had the author of Lev. xix. 
 been acquainted with the distinction drawn in Lev. vii. between the praise 
 offerings and the other thank offerings he could not have issued his precept 
 without qualification. 
 
 c. The festal code to which Lev. xxiii. 9-22, 39-44 belong, is earlier than 
 the one with which they are now connected (cf. n. 27). In the latter, 
 not only the month, but the day of the month on which the feast falls 
 is determined (». 5, 6, 27, 34), and the feast of tabernacles lasts eight 
 days (v. 36). On the other hand, in v. 9-22 the sheaf of the first-fruits 
 (and, seven weeks after, the sacrifice of the firstlings) is fixed for ' the 
 day after the sabbath' (v. 11, 15, 16), i.e. the first day of the harvest 
 week {v. 10), which of course would fall sometimes on one and sometimes 
 on another day of the first month. Thus the feast still depends on the 
 actual cultivation of the soil, which is certainly an earlier usage than its 
 
n. 27, 28.] Earlier legislation in Lev. xvii.-xxvi. 91 
 
 fixed celebration on a, given day; but see further § 15, n. 8. So again 
 ''• 39~44 originally contained the simple injunction that 'the feast of 
 Yahwfe' (the old name of 'Tabernacles') should be celebrated 'in the 
 seventh month' {v. 41), 'when you have gathered in the produce of the 
 land ' {v. 39). It was not till afterwards, when v. 39-44 was united 
 with V, or still later, that the fifteenth day of the seventh month was 
 inserted in ». 39. It is equally clear that the feast of tabernacles lasts 
 seven days, according to the writer of v. 39-44 (see v. 39, 40, 41), and 
 that the eighth day, together with the sabbath obaervanoe on the first, 
 has been transferred by interpolation from v. 35, 36 into v. 39. In both 
 respects the priority belongs to v. 39-44, as will be further shown in 
 § 15. n. 8. 
 
 d. On the mutual relations of the elements of Lev. xxv., cf. Kayser, 
 op. cit. p. 75-77; Wellh. xxii. 436-439. F. 1-7, on the sabbatical year, [91] 
 together with v. 18-22, on the same subject (out of place, therefore, since 
 V. 8-17 deals with the year of jubilee) certainly belongs to P'. It would 
 be simplest to assign the whole law on the year of jubilee, v. 8-17, 23- 
 55 to P^, but we are prevented from doing so by traces of the language 
 and style of P' in v. 14-17, 35-38, and some other verses. It is probable, 
 therefore, that P' contained a law on 'the year of releasing' (imn no®), 
 but it does not follow that it fell on the fiftieth year, and it may not have 
 differed from the seventh or sabbatical year; see further, § 15, u. 4, 18. 
 
 The regulations concerning the consecration of persons and 
 things in Lev. xxvii. presuppose the law of the year of 
 jubilee [Lev. xxv. 8-55), and are written with reference to 
 it. They do not belong to P^j however, but to P^, or to 
 still later priestly formations. Their connection with Lev. 
 xxv. 8-55 may have been the occasion of their incorporation 
 in this context. The colophon, v. 34, is an imitation of 
 Lev. xxvi. 46 ^^. 
 
 There can be no question that Num. i.-x. 28 belongs to P. 
 In the historical sections (i.-iv., vii., viii. ^-"^6; ix. 15— x. 28) 
 the construction of the tabernacle and the consecration of 
 the priests are throughout assumed^", and the laws in 
 v., vi., viii. 1-4 ; ix. 1-14, are closely connected with the 
 priestly ordinances we know already ^^. On the other hand, 
 it is clear that Num. i.-x. 28, as it stands, does not come 
 from P2. The laws referred to above manifestly belong to 
 ps, or still later formations "I The narrative, too, has been 
 
9 2 The Hexateuch. [§ 6, 
 
 worked over, as viii. 5-26 shows beyond the possibility of 
 reasonable doubt ^^. How far this manipulation was carried 
 it is impossible to determine with certainty. Wellhausen 
 thinks we can only assign i. 1-16, 48-54; ii. ; iii. 5-13; 
 ix. 15 — X. 28 to P^, inasmuch as the remaining sections 
 (i. 17-47 ; iii. 1-4, 14-51 ; iv. ; vii.) contain repetitions 
 which elaborate and exaggerate the representations of P^, and 
 must therefore be regarded as secondary, like Num. viii. 5-26, 
 in which the same phenomena appear ^*- But it is just the 
 question whether the author of P^ is himself characterised by 
 any such sobriety as is here supposed, and whether, at any 
 [92] rate in Num. i. 17-47 ; iii. 14-51, and iv., it is not he 
 himself who has expanded his own ideas on the camp in 
 the desert and the service of the Levites beyond what was 
 strictly necessary '^ In view of the results of our exami- 
 nation of P in Bxodus and Leviticus we cannot be surprised 
 that we are unable to answer this question with certainty ^^. 
 
 ^^ Note the year of jubilee in v. I'j, i8, 21, 23, 24; and the verb -iio in 
 V, 8, only in Lev. xxv. 25, 35, 39, 47 besides. The later origin of the law is 
 shown by its whole contents : the idea of accurately determining the value of 
 persons {v. 3 sqq.) and things (». 9 sqq.) is certainly of relatively late origin, 
 and is consequent upon difficulties that had arisen in practice. Moreover in 
 V. 32 tithes of the cattle are required — heightening the demand made in 
 Num. xviii. 21-32 (cf. § 15, n. 30 c.) On v. 34 of. § 16, n. 15. 
 
 ™ Yahwe speaks to Moses ' in the ohel mo'ed,' i. i, the existence of which 
 is likewise constantly assumed in i. 49 sqq. ; ii.-iv. passim ; vii. etc. The 
 consecration of Aaron and his sons is referred to passim, and reference is 
 made to Lev. x. 1-5 in Num. iii. 1-4, and throughout the regulations con- 
 cerning the work of the Levites. 
 
 '^ Num. V. 1-4, ejection of the leprous and unclean from the camp, is con- 
 nected with Lev. xiii., xv. ; — Num. v. 6-10, on the guilt offering, serves to 
 complete Lev. v. 14-26 [v. 14-vi. 7] ; — Num. v. 11-31, the law of the ordeal of 
 the wife suspected by her husband, presupposes {i\ 15) the ordinance concern- 
 ing the food offering. Lev. ii. etc. ; — Nam. vi. 1-21, on the Nazirite's vow, rests 
 on the general precepts as to sacrifices, Ljcv. i.-vii. ; — Num. vi. 22-26, the 
 priestly blessing, is a more detailed account of one of the official duties of the 
 priests (cf. Lev. ix. 22) ; — Num. viii. 1-4, on the golden lamp-stand, supple- 
 ments the laws as to the ohel mo'^d and the sacred utensils ; — Num. ix. 1-14, 
 celeljration of the passover in the second month by those who are prevented 
 
n- 2 9-3 3- J Earlier andlater elements in Num. \.~y^. 93 
 
 by uncleanness from taking part in the ordinary celebration, provides for a 
 case not dealt with in the earlier laws on the subject {Ex. xii. ; Lev. xxiii.) ; the 
 language of the historical heading v. 1-5 quite agrees with that of the laws. 
 
 '^ This appears clearly enough, with respect to most of the laws, from the 
 mere summary of their contents given in n. 31, and is thereby rendered 
 probable with respect to the others too. Note, more especially, that 'Num. v. 1-4 
 is reaUy nothing more than the application of Lev. xiii. and xv. (and perhaps 
 we should add iVum. xix.) to ' the camp,' the disposition of which was minutely 
 described in Num. i.-iv. ; that v. 5-10 deals with a question that might be 
 raised by the law of the guilt offering, and decides it in the interest of 
 the priest, who becomes the substitute of the injured man, when the latter 
 is not forthcoming, and receives the compensation ; that the strange position of 
 v. 1 1-3 1 is perhaps best explained by the supposition that it once existed as 
 an independent tora (cf. v. 29-31) and was subsequently incorporated here, 
 together with the preceding and succeeding toras ; that the second part, 
 especially, of the law of the Nazirite's vow (vi. 9-12, 13-19), must be later 
 than the ordinances in Lev. i.— vii,, to which there is a very marked reference \f\x\ 
 in V. 20 ; that Num. viii. 1-4, both in position and contents, ia closely parallel 
 to Lev. xxiv. 1-4, 5-9 (of. n. 27) ; that Nam. is.. 1-14 does not quite fit the 
 historical framework, since v. 1—5 places us on the fourteenth day of the first 
 month, whereas in Num. i. i we had already reached the first day of the 
 second month; this departure from the chronology — which has doubtless 
 caused the corruption of the text in v. 2, 3 — indicates the later insertion of 
 this passage, which is really nothing but an introduction to the novella on 
 JS:e. xii. contained in v. 6-14. — In considering all this we mast remember that 
 the laws which are presupposed and developed in Num. v., vi., viii. 1-4, ix, 
 1-14 have themselves been shown to be later additions to V, so that the 
 result holds a fortiori of these appendices. 
 
 ^^ We call attention to this passage first, because the results it yields are 
 certain. JVum. viii. 23-26 directly contradicts Num. iv. 3, 23, 30, etc., and 
 probably contains a 1 a t e r modification of that law (cf. § 3, n. 20) which may 
 have been necessitated by the small number of the Levites. In 1 C/tron. xxiii. 
 24 sqq. David is made to fix the beginning of their time of service at a still 
 earlier age. Now, though Num. viii. 5-22 is not directly connected with v. 
 23-26, yet it falls under the same judgment. It is an insipid repetition and 
 exaggeratioh of the account of the separation of the Levites for the service of the 
 sanctuary in Num. iii. and iv. If the author of these last-named chapters had 
 supposed that the Levites, before entering on their duties, had to be purified, 
 and presented to Yahw^ by rrDljn, like a sacrifice, he would not have passed 
 it over in silence ; for he represents them in iii. and iv. as already entrusted 
 with the task which in that case they would only have become qualified to 
 undertake in viii. 5-22. This pericope, then, must be a later addition, as we 
 might have supposed from its setting, viii. 1-4, 23-26. Its author observed 
 that a formal oonseoration of the Levites, analogous to that of the priests 
 {Lev. viii.), was not recorded, though it seemed to be neither unsuitable nor 
 superfluous. This defect he supplied. 
 
94 The Hexateuch. [ § 6. 
 
 ^ Cf. Wellhausen, xxii. 413, 448-451. Hib objections, tlie relative 
 weight of which I am far from denying, are enumerated in n. 35, together 
 with what may be said against them. 
 
 *" It is m'ged against i. 1 7-47 that it may be borrowed from ii., including v. 
 44, 46 (cf. ii. 32) and v. 47 (cf. ii. 33) ; that the order of the tribes does not 
 agree with i. 5-16, but with ii., and that v. 48-54 ought not to follow the 
 census, but, as its contents show, to precede it. On the other hand, it is not un- 
 natural that the order in which the tribes encamped should be followed by 
 anticipation even in i., that i. 46, 47 should be repeated after the description 
 of the encampment, or that v. 48-54 should be placed after the census, since 
 strict logic would otherwise have required that it should precede v. 5-16 also 
 (no head of the tribe of Levi being mentioned). We cannot be surprised that in 
 a fictitious narrative the succession of details should be open to criticism. 
 Moreover — and this is the chief argument in support of i. 17-47 — i^'- 48-ii> 
 34 followed immediately upon i. 1-16 then there would be no account at all 
 of the census itself, for in ii. it is assumed. 
 [94] With regard to iii. 1-4 Wellhausen observes (xxii. 413) that v. 3 extends 
 the process of anointing to the sons of Aaron, in contradiction with Ex. xxix. 
 (cf. n. 12, 13). In iii. 5-iv. 49 he considers iii. 5-13 alone to be primitive; 
 iv. 1-33 is a repetition, in slightly modified order and with much exaggeration, 
 of the precautions of iii. 14-39 against the contact of the Levites with the 
 sacred vessels. In iv. 34-49 we have another census of the three Levitical 
 clans, which may likewise have been manufactured out of iii. 14-39. In iii. 14-39 
 itself (and the connected v. 40-51) we have the elaboration of the main idea 
 of iii. 5-13, which was all that the original author (P^) had given ; the earliest 
 interpolator repeats, in iii. 14 sqq., the command that had been given once 
 already in v. 5 sqq., and thereby betrays himself. Add to this that (as Well- 
 hausen had previously noted) iii. 31 ; iv. 11 mention the golden altar of 
 incense, and iv. 16 mentions the incense and oil of anointing (cf. Ex. xxi. l-io ; 
 22-33; 34-38, and n. 13). — Against this maybe urged that iii. 5-13 con- 
 tains a commandment simply, and no kind of record of its execution, and that 
 it would be more than strange if P^ had given the numbers of the other tribes, 
 but not those of the Levites, and had omitted to give any more detailed account 
 of the duties of the latter. The objections to iii. 14-iv. 49, as we now have 
 them, are not imaginary, especially in the case of iv. But this does not 
 justify us in simply erasing them, for what would then remain cannot be the 
 complete narrative of P*. 
 
 Wellhausen's objections to the originality of Num. vii., which I 
 simply endorse, are drawn from v. i, 10, 84, 88, where the gifts of the heads 
 of tribes are brought into connection with the consecration of the altar, i.e. with 
 an event which preceded Nam. i. i in order of time. Num. vii., then, is out of 
 place, and must consequently be attributed — not to the author of the precepts 
 in Ex. XXV. sqq., but — to a later priestly writer, who desired to introduce the 
 heads of the tribes, mentioned in Nwm. i. 5-16, as models of liberality towards 
 the sanctuary which his own contemporaries would do well to copy. Moreover 
 P* is never quite so monotonous and wearisome as the author of Num. vii. 
 
n- 34-37-J Priestly Laws, etc., in Num. i. sqq. 95 
 
 °°We must bear in mind (i) that we no longer hold the thread of P= in 
 our hands, for in Lev. xvii.-xxvi. we have found P' welded together with P^ 
 and later priestly fragments, and are unable to say what position was occupied 
 in P2 by the law of festivals and of the year of jubilee, fragments of which 
 we have discovered respectively in Lev. xxiii. and Lev. xxv. ; whence results 
 an uncertainty that prevents our drawing any inferences from the plan of 
 P"; (2) that, even in Exodus and Leviticus, P= is not only supplemented 
 by, but also welded together with, or supplanted by, P=, P», etc. 
 In other words P^ has been not only interpolated but recast again and again. 
 It is really no more than natural, therefore, that in Num. i. i-x. 28 we should 
 come upon passages which can neither be granted nor denied to P ^. The 
 relation is too complicated to admit of so simple a statement, and from its 
 very nature it is sometimes impossible to disentangle. 
 
 The wanderings of Israel in the desert are treated very 
 briefly in P, as in the other strata of the Pentateuch. To 
 P^ we owe one of the two accounts of the despatch of the [95] 
 spies and its consequences, which are now welded together 
 in Num. xiii., xiv., and an account of the revolt of Korah 
 and his party against Moses and Aaron, which was subse- 
 quently united into a single whole with a story of Dathan's 
 and Abiram's revolt against Moses, in Num. xvi. [xvi. 1-35]. 
 This story of Korah is continued — still from P^ — in Num. 
 xvii. [xvi. ^6 — xvii.], and followed in Num. xviii. by a law 
 concerning the revenues of the priests and Levites. In 
 Num. xiii. xiv., as well as in xvi. xvii., P^ — whether before 
 or after its fusion with the narratives now united to it — has 
 been expanded by later priestly writers ^''. 
 
 By the side of these historical or historico-legislative pas- 
 sages we find a few detached laws in Num. xv. and xix., which 
 seem to stand on the same footing as the other priestly 
 ordinances which form the more recent strata of P — those in 
 Num. V. and vi. for instance ^*. 
 
 " Cf. Th. Tijdschr., xi. 545-566 ; xii. 139-162, where the following results 
 are obtained: Num. xiii. 1-17", 21, 25, 26", 32 ; xiv. I^ 2", 3, 5-7, 10, 26-38, 
 and again Num. xvi. i (in part), 2 (in part), 3-11, 13-15°) 16-24, ^7*, 35. 
 belong to P. All this is, in the main, from P^, but his narrative has been 
 expanded in Num. xiv. 26-38, though quite in his own spii-it ; and one of hia 
 followers (P' or P*) has so far modified his representation of Korah's revolt, in 
 
9^3 The Hexateuch. [ § 6. 
 
 Num. xvi. I, 8-II, 16-18, as to make Korah and his two hundred and fifty 
 associates into L e v i t e s who covet an equality of priestly functions with 
 Aaron and his sous. Num. xvii. 1-5 [xvi. 36-40] is likewise from the hand 
 of this later writer, whereas the rest of xvii. [xvi. 41-xvii. 13] and the whole 
 of xviii. belong to P^. The proofs of these statements are given in the essay 
 referred to. Further, of. § 16, n. 12. 
 
 ^* The passages in question contain the following regulations : — 
 
 Num. XV. 1-16, on the measure of the food offerings that must respectively 
 accompany the various burnt and thank offerings, — evidently a novella to 
 Lev. ii., intended to regulate what was there left to the free will of the 
 sacrificer or to usage. The heading, v. 2, coincides with. Lev. xix, 23 ; xxiii. 
 10; XXV. 2 ; and v. 14-16 extends the precept to the O'lJ (cf. Lev. xvii. 8, 10, 
 13 ; xxiv. 22). 
 
 V. 17-21, offering to Yahwfe of first-fruits of barley meal. F. 18 coincides 
 with v. 2 and indicates a common origin of the two laws. 
 
 F. 22-31 on the trespass offering of the community and the individual. This 
 law differs from Lev. iv. in demanding, for the involuntary trespasses of the 
 community, an ox for a burnt offering and a goat for a trespass offering, 
 instead of an ox for a trespass offering {Lev. iv. 13-21), and perhaps we should 
 add, in containing no separate regulations concerning the high priest and the 
 [96] nasi {Lev. iv. 3-13, 22-26). The tone of v. 31, too, differs from that of the 
 laws in Lev. l.-vii. and reminds us of P' in Lev. xvii.-xxvi. 
 
 F. 32-36, stoning the sabbath-breaker. This passage shows its kinship to 
 the framework in Lev. xxiv. 10-14, 23 (cf. n. 27) by the use of such words as 
 intfD and tfno. Like Ex. xxxi. 12-17; xxxv. 1-3, it is a novella on the 
 observance of the sabbath. 
 
 V. 37-41, the 9i9lth on the garment as a reminder of the commands of 
 Yahwfe ; cf. above, § 5, u. 13. 
 
 Wellhausen's conjecture (xxii. 447) that these ordinances were 
 collected and incorporated by the same hand that worked over P', in Lev. 
 xvii.-xxvi., and inserted it in its present place, is strongly supported by the 
 phenomena indicated above. 
 
 Num. xix. 1-13, 14-22, the ashes of the red heifer, and their use as a means 
 of purification. See Wellhausen, xxii. 447 sq. He rightly regards t>. 14-22 
 (with the heading minn riNl) as an appendix to v. 1-13, and further notes 
 the peculiarity of form and contents of the law. It can only be taken as 
 a later modification of the original demand that the restoration of the un- 
 clean must be accompanied with a trespass offering (of. Lev. v. 2, 3). If the 
 author of Lev. v. 1-13 or xv. had been acquainted with Num. xix. he would 
 have referred to it, or inserted it after his own ordinance. The present 
 position of Num. xix. — as of Num. xv. — out of all connection with what 
 precedes and follows, is enough in itself to rouse the suspicion that neither 
 chapter is taken from P^; for the latter follows a, regular plan in which 
 each law has its proper motive, as is once more illustrated in the last of 
 the sections assigned to P^ in the text, viz. Num. xviii. (introduced by xvi. 
 27 sq. [12 sq.]). 
 
n- 37, S^-] JViim.xv.yXix. P zn N^nm. xx.-xxxvi. 97 
 
 In the remaining chapters of Numbers (xx.-xxxvi.), 
 which transport us to the fortieth year after the exodus 
 (§ 4, n. 17), we find in the first place a number of laws 
 which must certainly be assigned to P. Such are xxviii., 
 xxix. (on the festival offerings) ; xxx. (on the vows of married 
 and unmarried women); xxxiv. 1-15, 16-29 (on the boun- 
 daries of Canaan, and the partition of the land, to which 
 the section xxxiii. 50-56 belongs as an introduction) ; xxxv. 
 1-8 (on the Levitical cities) ; xxxv. 9-34 (on the cities of 
 refuge and on unintentional homicide). Again, the half narra- 
 tive, half legislative pieces xxvii. i-ii ; xxxvi. (the daughters 
 of ^elopheehad and the inheritance of daughters), and xxxi. 
 (the war against Midian, the division of booty, and the 
 preservation of cleanness during war) likewise belong to P. 
 We reckon xxvii. i-i i ; xxxiii. 50 — xxxvi., amongst the 
 original components of P^ ^^, while the other passages are later 
 additions, as appears from position, contents, or character, as [97] 
 the case may be *". 
 
 It is a priori probable that, in the second place, the 
 historical framework into which these laws fit, and to 
 which they refer, has been preserved in Nitm. xx. sqq. And 
 in point of fact we at once recognise in xx. 22-29 ; xxi. 10, 
 II ; xxii. I ; xxv. 6-19 [6-18] ; xxvi. and xxvii. 12-23, pieces 
 of P^ here and there, especially in xxv. 6-19 and xxvi. (v. 9- 
 11), not quite untampered with, but elsewhere preserved in 
 their original form*^ Moreover, we gather from references 
 in Num. xx. 24 ; xxvii. 14 {Beut. xxxii. 51), that P^ contained 
 an account of the rebelliousness of Moses and Aaron at 
 Kadesh; and xxxiv. 13-15; xxxv. 14, assume a previous 
 statement concerning the settlement of Reuben, Gad, and 
 half Manasseh in the Transjordanic district. The former 
 is preserved in Num. xx. 1-13, and the latter in Num. xxxii., 
 but it is not easy to separate them from the other narratives 
 with which they are now welded *^ 
 
 H 
 
98 The Hexateuck. [§ 6. 
 
 Ch. xxsiii. 1-49, the list of stations in tte journey through 
 the desert, which, according to v. 3, was written down by- 
 Moses himself (§ 2, n. 2), presupposes the accounts in P^, 
 but it also assumes the other accounts of Israel's abode in the 
 desert, and can only have been drawn up and inserted by R*^. 
 
 The account in P^ of the death of Moses, for which N-um. 
 xxvii. 12-23 prepares us, is not now to be found in the book 
 of Numbers, but is preserted in Beut. xxxii. 48-5 2^ and xxxiv., 
 though united with matter drawn from other sources**. 
 Originally these pericopes followed immediately after Num. 
 xxxvi., so that the whole of Deuteronomy must be considered 
 with reference to P^ as an interpolation. The colophon in 
 Num. xxxvi. 13 may be contemporaneous with the incorpora- 
 tion of Deuteronomy *^. 
 
 " All these laws share the obvious characteristic of fitting into a historical 
 context. In Num. xxvii. i-ii the daughters of ^elophechad (cf. xxvi. 33) 
 come to Moses and Eleazar (cf. xx. 22-29), and speak of Korah's rebellion, 
 their account of which agrees with that of P^ in Num. xvi. [xvi. 1-35] (cf. n. 
 37) ; and the decision promulgated in connection with their application rests 
 [98] on the same motive as the year of the jubilee, viz. the retention of the owner- 
 ship of the soil in the family of the original proprietor. — Num. xxxvi. 1-12 
 serves as a supplement to the law just mentioned, and restricts the marriage 
 of heiress daughters to their own tribe ; in ti. 4 the year of jubilee is ex- 
 pressly mentioned. This supplement might, of course, be due to » later 
 legislator ; but the two laws are 30 completely in harmony with each other 
 that there is nothing to prevent our assigning them to the same author. — 
 The ordinances in Num. xxxiii. 50-xxxv. all stand in immediate connection 
 with the approaching settlement in Canaan and join on to laws and narra- 
 tives which have been (or will shortly be) assigned to P^. Note Eleazar 
 and Joshua (xxxiv. 17; cf. xx. 22-29; ^^^vii. 12-23); Caleb as nasi of 
 Judah (xxxiv. 19; cf. xiii. 6) ; the recognition of the special position of the 
 Levites and the provision for their support to which xxxv. 1-8 bears testimony ; 
 the exalted rank in the state and over his brethren taken by the High Priest, 
 xxxv. 25, 28, 32, 'who is anointed with the sacred oil' (cf. u. 13). To all 
 this must be added the linguistic usage in these laws, which in no way departs 
 from that of P^ — unless it be in xxxiii. 50-56, and especially v. 52, 55, 56, 
 which remind us ot Lev. xvii.-xxvi. (of n'3toD n3DD, nD3, in v. 52, and the 
 tone and style of v. 55, 56). But inasmuch as P' precedes P', the latter — to 
 whom V. 54, for instance, is certainly due — may in this passage have conformed 
 to his predecessor's usage. See, however, § l6, n. 12. 
 
n. 39-4I-] Diverse Elements of Num. xx. sqq. 99 
 
 " That Num. xxviii. sq. and xxx. stand in no kind of connection with the 
 progress of events is obvious. They would be in their place after Lev. xxiii. 
 and xxvii. As regards Num. xxviii. sq., in particular, note that the author 
 of this catalogue of festivals presupposes the law of P " which is now welded 
 together with another law, from P', in Lev. zxiii. (cf. n. 27). He goes beyond 
 P^, however, for he fixes the amount of every festal offering — which P^ had 
 left to the liberality of the community or to usage — with such minuteness as 
 to prescribe a special sacrifice for each day of the feast of tabernacles {Num. 
 xxix. 12-39). ^® gather, then, that he is later than the author of this 
 other law, in Lev. xxiii. In complete harmony with this view we find him 
 beginning with a precept as to the tamld. Num. xxviii. 3-8, taken from Ex. 
 xxix. 38-42, to which he refers in v. 6. Such an attempt to deal exhaustively 
 with the subject of the communal sacrifices betrays the lateness of the passage. 
 — I have rested nothing on the relation of Num. xxviii. 27-29 to Lev. xxiii. 
 18-20 ; for it is almost certain that the latter text has been interpolated from 
 the former, and originally simply enjoined a thank offering of two lambs and 
 an niDK, not further defined (cf. Leo. xxiii. 8, 25, 37, 36) ; when the interpo- 
 lation was made, or still later, ' an ox, two rams ' was accidentally or 
 designedly altered into 'two oxen, a, ram.' Cf. especially Dillm. Ex. u. 
 Lev., p. 691. 
 
 Num. XXX. (except v. i [xxix. 40], which seems to belong to xxviii. sq.) 
 serves to supply an omission in the laws concerning vows {Lev. xxvii. ; cf. 
 Num. vi. 1-21) which, in all probability, had only been discovered by ex- 
 perience. Hence it would follow that this ordinance, together with the 
 preceding one, belongs to the class of novella. 
 
 On the position oi Num. xxxi., Wellhausen (xxi. 582) should be consulted. 
 It appears from v. 2 that the author was acquainted with Num. xxvii. 12-23, [99] 
 and intended his narrative for the place it now occupies. But the writer of 
 Num. xxvii. 12-23 himself cannot have meant to make the punishment of 
 the Midianites precede the death of Moses ; and had he mentioned it at all he 
 would have brought it in after xxv., and would have placed the announce- 
 ment of the death of Moses later (on xxv. 16-19 [i6-i8] see u. 41). The 
 suspicion thus roused that Num. xxxi. is the work of one of the followers of 
 P^, seems to me to be fully justified by its contents. The peculiarities of P" 
 are much exaggerated, for example, in v. 19 sqq. (the purification of the execu- 
 tioners), and in v. 35 sqq. (the very minute regulations concerning the division 
 of booty). The chapter is parallel with Num. vii., for example, (n. 35). 
 
 " In Num. XX. 22-29 i xxvii. 12-23, which, moreover, are closely connected 
 with each other, all the characteristics of P^ appear in unison. On the 
 language cf. Knob el. There are references to Ex. xxviii. in Num. xx. 26, 
 28 ; xxvii. 21. 
 
 Num. xxv. is not a single whole. V. 1-5 deals with the apostasy of the 
 Israelites to Baal-Peor, to which they are seduced by the daughters of 
 M o a b , and for which, by the order of Moses, they are punished by their 
 judges (or, strictly, are to be punished, for the execution of the sentence ia 
 not recorded). In this story there is nothing to suggest P. On the other 
 
 H a 
 
lOO The Hexateuch. [§6. 
 
 hand, in v. 6-15 oonneotiona between Midianitish women and Israelites are 
 mentioned, in consequence of whicli Yahwfe sends a plague, which is 
 checked by Eleazar's bold deed when twenty-four thousand men have already 
 perished. Eleazar's zeal is rewarded by the promise that the priesthood shall 
 be hereditary in his family. This narrative — unquestionably belonging to P^ of. 
 nsin ')n«, nojo m», obis nana, tD3, etc.— is not complete : the beginning, 
 in which the trespass itself and the breaking out of the plague were described 
 (cf. Num. xxxi. 16), was omitted when the story was united to the other, of 
 which, in its turn, we now possess the beginning, but not the end. But 
 what are we to say toii. 16-19 [xxv. i6-xxvi. i"], or rather — since v. 19 [xxvi. 
 I"] belongs to xxvi. — to v. 16-18 ? It prepares the way for Nmn. xxxi., and 
 would necessarily incline us to assign this latter to P", if it belonged 
 to P^ itself. But this is very doubtful: the verses are clumsy in 
 form, and the combination of ' the affair of Peor ' — which is mentioned in v. 
 1-5, but not in v. 6-15 — with 'the affair of Cozbi,' makes it very probable 
 that they were written after the union of v. 1-5 and v. 6-15, and must be 
 attributed either to the author of iViim. xxxi. (cf. n. 40), or to K. More 
 on this in § 16, n. 12. 
 
 Num. xxvi., the account of the second census, appears to belong to P^, with 
 the exception of v. 9-11, which refers to Nam. xvi. [xvi. 1-35], in its present 
 form, and is therefore a later addition (n. 37). The coupling of 'Moses and 
 Eleazar' (v. i, 3, 63) is in harmony with Num. xx. 22-29 ; v, 65 agrees with 
 V in Num. xiii., xiv. (n. 37) ; v. 52-56 proves that the census is in its place 
 here, and is part of the preparation for the approaching settlement in Canaan 
 (cf. Num. xxxiv.). Wellhausen (xxii. 454sq.) considers v. 57-62 (genealogy of 
 the Levites) primary, and Ex. vi. 13-28 ; Num. iii. 14 sqq. ; Gen. xlvi. 8-27, 
 all of them secondary. He can therefore see no reason against assigning v. 
 [100] 57-62 to P^. But the relation of Num. xxvi., as a whole, to Num. i., ii. causes 
 himi difBeulties. In the heading of Num. xxvi., he urges, there is no refer- 
 ence to the former census, and indeed in v. 3, 4 the population now numbered 
 is described as ' the children of Israel, who had come out of Egypt,' and it is 
 not till V. 63-65 that this census is clearly distinguished from the previous one. 
 In my opinion this objection is unfounded. V. 3 (to whom does ddn refer?) 
 and 4 (the beginning of which is wanting, so that we cannot tell whether the 
 second part is or is not a superscription) are corrupt, and do not warrant any 
 certain conclusion; but besides this, the distinction which Wellhausen 
 misses is found in the mention of Eleazar together with Moses {v. I, 3), 
 which, it is true, is not explained till v. 63-65, but which indicates the fortieth 
 year after the exodus clearly enough from the first. 
 
 ^^ With regard to Num. xx. 1-13 opinions differ much. The portions 
 assigned to P^ are as follows : — by Col en so {Pentateuch, vi. 76 sq. and Appen- 
 dix, p. 25), V. 2-13 ; by Schrader, v. i", 2, 3''-l3 ; by Noldeke (op. cit., p. 83 
 sq.), V. I (in part), 2, 3-5 (in part), 6-11, 12 (in part), 13 ; by Kayser, v. 2, 
 3", 6, 8", 9, lo", ... 12, 13 ; by Wellhausen (xxi. 576 sq.), i", 2, 3^ 6, 9 
 (in part), 12 (probably) ; by Knobel (op. cit., p. loi), v. i", 2, 6. This diver-^ 
 genoe of opinion is quite explicable. The whole pericope looks like a doublet 
 
n. 41, 42-] P in N'tim. xxv., xxvi., xx., xxxii. loi 
 
 of Ex. xvii. i-J', which latter does not belong to P^; and this inclines us to 
 think (with Colenso, etc.) that our passage is from P^. But against this may- 
 be urged : (i) that v. 4, 5, g (at the end), 11 (at the end), depart from the 
 linguistic usage of P^, and that although the staff preserved in the sanctuary 
 is mentioned in v. 8, 9 (cf. Nxm. xvii. 25, 26 [10, 11]), in v. 11, on the con- 
 trary, it is the staff of Moses that is spoken of; (2) that the version of what 
 took place at Kadesh referred to by P^ in Num. xx. 24, xxvii. 14 {Deitt. xxxii. 
 51) differs from that oi Num. xx. 1-13. In the passages cited we read that 
 Moses and Aaron had been contumacious (mo) or had dealt faithlessly (bva) 
 with Yahwfe. Now in Num. xx. it is not clear what the sin of Moses and 
 Aaron is, but it certainly is not contumacy or breach of faith. It is the 
 Israelites that are called (v. 10) ' stubborn.' And although the further con- 
 tents of Num. xxvii. 14 and Deut. xxxii. 5 1 show that, in spite of the difference 
 noted, it is one and the same event which is referred to in these passages and 
 in Num. xx., yet the story in P' must have undergone very important 
 modifications when incorporated in Numbers or at some later date, and 
 these modiiications may in their turn have influenced the text of Num. xxvii. 
 14 and Dcut. xxxii. 51, the integrity of which I gravely suspect. The ques- 
 tion, then, seems more than usually involved, for the welding of P^ with 
 another account was accompanied by a recasting of P^ itself. Such being the 
 state of the case, I should prefer to abstain from any decisive opinion on the 
 details. 
 
 That P' told of the settlement of the two and a half tribes in the Transjor- 
 danic district is raised above all doubt by Num. xxxiv. 14-16 ; xxxv. 14 (and 
 also by Josh, xiii., of which more hereafter). It is equally clear that Num. 
 xxxii., as we now have it, cannot be identified with P^'s account. Here — to 
 take a single point — we find that in v, 1-32 Gad and Reuben (Reuben and 
 Gad in v, i only) appear on the stage without half Manasseh, and when the 
 latter has been included, without warning given or reason assigned, in v, 33, 
 he is then called Machir in v. 39, 40 ; but according to P^ {Num. xxvi. 29-34) 
 Machir is Manasseh's only son, and cannot therefore signify the more eastern 
 of the two sections of the tribe only. And yet it is equally impossible to deny 
 the connection between V and Num. xxxii. V. 6-15 is an extremely late [loi] 
 addition {Th. Tijdsclir.,xi. 559-562) and need not be further considered. But 
 in V. 1-5, 16-32 the characteristics of P^ are here and there unmistakable, ] 
 
 especially (but not exclusively) in v. 2 (Eleazar and the princes of the 
 community), 18 C^njnn, Lev. xxv. 46; Num. xxxiv. 13), 19 Cma), 22 (iiiia, 
 niriN), 24 (dd'Bd nsti. Num. xxx. 3 [2], cf. 13 [12]), 25, 27 (':tn, Num. 
 xxxvi. 2), 27 (ms Vfbn, Num. xxxi. 5 ; Josh. iv. 13), 28 (Eleazar, Joshua, 
 and the heads of the tribes), 29 (cf. 22), 30 (iriN:, cf Josh. xxii. 9, 19; 
 Gen. xxxiv. 10; xlvii. 27). It is not clear how we are to explain this, 
 priestly colouring of a narrative which, for the reasons already given, cannot 
 be assigned to P'', Perhaps we must assume that the author of Num. xxxii. 
 1-5, 16 sqq., on this occasion, departed from his usual practice of simply- 
 weaving his two authorities together, and made up an account of his own 
 from them. In this case the characteristics of either source might reappear 
 
102 The Hexateuch. [§6. 
 
 indifferently in his narrative. Possibly the original narrative of P^ dealt 
 separately with Reuben and Gad on the one hand and half Manasseh on the 
 other, and the redactor, for some unknown reason, thought good to omit his 
 account of the latter. Here, as in the case of Num. xx. 1-13, I must leave 
 the question undecided. 
 
 " Cf. Kayser, op. cit., p. 97-99; Wellh. (xxii. 453 sq.). The agreement 
 of Num. xxxiii. 1-49 in language and contents with P' is generally allowed 
 (of. Knobel and others), and the passage has therefore usually been assigned 
 to that work. But this is inconsistent with the references to events re- 
 lated elsewhere (compare v. 8 with JUx. xv. 22 ; v. g with Ex. xv. 27 ; v. 14 
 with Ex. xvii. i sqq. ; v. 16. with Num. xi. 34 ; ■«. 17 with Num. xi. 35 ; v. 40 
 with Num. xxi. 1-3) ; and since the comparison of Num. xxxiii. 1-49 with the 
 parallel passages leaves no room to doubt the priority of the latter, the only 
 hypothesis left is the one put forward in the text, viz. that Num. xxxiii. I-49 
 is compiled from various sources, including the narratives of our Pentateuch. 
 What value attaches to those geographical names that must have been derived 
 from other sources it is impossible to say. 
 
 *' As to Sent, xxxii. 48-52 there is no room for doubt : Num. xxvii. 12-14 is 
 taken up again and repeated because the moment there foretold has now arrived. 
 InasmuchasiV«)?i.xxviii.-xxxi.,xxxiii. are derived from other sources (n. 39-43) 
 so that, in P^, only Num. xxxii. (in its original form) and xxxiv.-xxxvi. inter- 
 vened between Num. xxvii. 12 sqq. and Deut. xxxii. 48-52, it is possible 
 that * this same day,' in v. 48, may mean the day on which Moses received the 
 prediction of his death. It is more probable, however, that some later 
 day is meant, which was clearly indicated in a portion of P^ that had to be 
 omitted when Deuteronomy was incorporated into it. — It cannot be precisely 
 determined how much of Deut. xxxiv. is taken from P^. Certainly v. 8, 9, cf. 
 Num. XX. 29 ; xxvii. 18-23 ; probably also v. i" (cf. Deut. xxxii. 49) and v. 7" 
 (in accordance with P'^'s frequent practice of giving ages); but see Deut. xxxi. £. 
 The rest of the chapter is without the obvious characteristics of P^, and may 
 very well be taken from other sources. Nothing is more natural than that 
 when the materials were worked into a single whole details identically 
 given in the various sources should be dropped now from one and now from 
 the other. 
 [102] " The qualification 'with reference to P^' is necessary. If we regard 
 Deuteronomy as the continuation of the non-priestly passages in Exodus and 
 Numbers then we should rather speak of P as an interpolation. We shall not 
 be able to choose between these alternatives till later on. — Num. xxxvi. 1 3 
 seems to include the laws that we have seen reason to deny to P^ {Num. xxviii. 
 sqq.), and if this be so it can hardly be earlier than the union of the priestly 
 and non-priestly passages in a single work. 
 
 The death of Moses did not bring the writers whom we 
 have indicated by P to their goal. The settlement of 
 Israel in Canaan unquestionably lay within the limits of 
 
n. 42-45-] P in Deut. and in JoshiM. 103 
 
 the task they had undertaken*^- And the book of Joshua 
 furnishes the proof that they actually went on to describe 
 this settlement, and, specifically, that P^'s statements on this 
 subject have not been lost *''. 
 
 We must leave it doubtful whether the account of the 
 conquest in P^ went into detail. The fragments still pre- 
 served in Josh, i.-xii. are insufficient for its reconstruction 
 as a whole. They are Josh. iv. (13?), 19 ; v. 10-13 ; ix, 15'', 
 17-31, 37*; and it is only the last of these passages that 
 suggests anything approaching to an elaborate account of 
 Joshua's victories *'. 
 
 Iq the second half of the book of Joshua (xiii.-xxiv.), the 
 remains of P^ are much more extensive. They appear in com- 
 bination or alternation with materials drawn from other 
 sources, which must likewise have described the division of 
 the land and the territory of each tribe *'. In xiii., xv., xviii. 
 II- — xix. 48, especially, it is often difiicult to determine how 
 to divide the geographical data between P^ and these other 
 sources ; in some cases the lists of cities may equally well 
 have been taken from the former or the latter, and perhaps 
 were almost identical in them from the first ^''. We will 
 therefore leave the point undecided, and will likewise defer 
 the inquiry into the mode in which the two sets of materials 
 were woven together. Without anticipating, however, we 
 may at once assign the following passages to P^, on the 
 strength of their form and contents : xiii. 14'' (LXX.), 15, 33'', 
 34, 38, 39 (in part), 31 (in part), 33; xiv. 1-5; xv. I, 30; 
 xvi. 4-8 ; xvii. i% 3-6 ; xviii. i, ii% 30'', 1%^; xix. i (in part), [103] 
 8^ 16, 33, 34, 31, 33 (in part), 39, 40, 48, 51 ; xx. (accord- 
 ing to the text of the LXX.) ; xxi. 1-40 ^^ 
 
 Two remarks must here be made : — 
 
 (3) These passages evidently have not come down to us 
 in all cases in their original form and order: differences 
 between the representation of P^ and that of the other 
 
1 04 The Hexatetuh. [ § 6. 
 
 sources may well have necessitated transposition or modifi- 
 cation ^^- 
 
 (a) As in all parts of the Pentateuch, so here and there in 
 Josli. xiii.-xxiv., we come upon passages side by side with 
 those from P^ which may more properly be assigned to his 
 later followers than to himself. This is the case, specifically, 
 with 3o&h. xiii. %^, %'i ; xxii. 9-34°^. 
 
 *' For proof of this we need only go back to 'Nwai. xxxiii. 50-rxxv. It is 
 hardly conceivable that the author who wrote down these precepts would not 
 record their execution. So too Nam. xxvii. 15-23 makes us expect to hear 
 more of Joshua as the leader of the people. 
 
 ^"^ A single glance at Josh. xiv. 1-5 ; xx. ; xxi. 1-40, compared with the 
 chapters in Numbers cited in n. 46 is enough to establish this. But see the 
 following notes also. 
 
 *" On Josh. iv. 13 cf. Oolenso, Pentateuch, vi. App. p. 51 : N3Sn 'UlVn, as in 
 Num. xxxi. 5 ; xxxii. 27 ; mn' ':d'!, as in Num. xxxii. 20, 21, 27, 29, 32 (with 
 riDrr'jQ'? in v. 20) ; in^"i^ mn5?, as in Josh. v. 10. But note that in Num. xxvi. 
 the fighting strength of the two and a half tribes is far above 40,000, so that 
 if P^ gives this figure he is inconsistent with himself. Hence the hesitation 
 with which I assign v. 13 to P ^. On the other hand, v. 19 is certainly his, as 
 shown by the careful definition of time and the form of its expression (cf. Ex. 
 xii. 3, 6, 18 ; xvi. i'', etc., etc.). The connection is very close between this 
 last verse and v. io~I2 ; for the language of which cf. iv. 13, 19 ; Num. xxxiii. 
 3 ; Ex. xii. 17, 41 ; Lev. xxiii. 21, 28-30 ; Deut. xxxii. 48 ; and for ti. 12 Ex. 
 xvi. 35. — In Josh, ix., v. 17-21 and 22 sqq. are evidently doublets, the latter 
 taking up again what had been dealt with in the former. We can identify 
 P^ in V. 15^ and 17-21 by the mention of ' the congregation ' and its * princes' 
 (j). 15'', 18, 19, 21), and from the use of n^ij (v. 18 cf. Ex. xvi. 2 ; Num. xvii. 
 6 [xvi. 41]) and t]Sp {v. 20 cf. Num. i. 53; xvii. 11 [xvi. 46] ; xviii. 5, etc.) 
 In u. 21 the princes decree that the Gibeonites shall be 'wood-cutters and 
 water-carriers for the congregation.' V. 23I1 originally ran Ti» D3Q ni3< «';1 
 '•n'jw n'^b ; the rest of what we now read is interpolated from. v. 21, as is sufB- 
 ciently shownbythesingularnT3^before>3Dm, etc. So ini;. 2 7 the two descrip- 
 tions ( ' wood-cutters and water-carriers of the congregation ' and ' (slaves) of 
 the altar of Yahwfe ') stand side by side, and here again the former is taken 
 from P^ — Thus it appears that in P' the treaty with the Gibeonites was 
 [104] related at length. It would be natural to infer that the whole story of the 
 conquest was given in detail were it not that the priestly author may have 
 had a special interest in describing the position of the Gibeonites more accu- 
 rately than he felt had been done in t. 23, 27 (' slaves of the house' or ' of 
 the altar of Yahwe'). It is possible, then, that P^ may exceptionally 
 have treated this one event in detail. 
 
 Elsewhere, too, in Josh, i.-xii. some critics have thought they detected 
 
n, 46-51.] P in Joshiia. 105 
 
 traces of P^. Noldeke {Untersuchungen, p. 95-98) marks, though not with- 
 out hesitation, iii. i; vi, 20, 24; vii. i, 14, 16, 17, 24, 25''; x. 27; 28-43 ; 
 xi., xii. (these last sections recast); Colenso {Pentateuch, vii. Appendix, 
 Synoptical Table, p. v.) assigns the following to P^, in addition to what I 
 have given him ; iv. 12; vi. 19, 24*; vii. 1, 18 (in part), 25''; ix. 14; x. 27*. 
 My reasons for not being able to foUow these scholars are obvious : conclusive 
 signs of P^ are absent. If it were known that the conquest of Jericho, the 
 death of Achan, etc., were really narrated in P ', such minute indications as 
 are found in these verses might be allowed to weigh. But this is not the case. 
 
 '' Such passages as xiii. 1-7; xiv. 6-15; xv. 13-19; xvii. 14-18; xviii. 
 2-10, which certainly do n 1 belong to P ^ — since they either contradict it or 
 have nothing in common with it — prove that the narrators from whom the 
 greater part of Josh, i.-xii. was borrowed also described the settlement of the 
 tribes in their territories. 
 
 *° It is obvious at once that the list of passages from V, to be given imme- 
 diately, includes a number of verses and half verses which are nothing more 
 than superscriptions and colophons, and as such are parts ofaframework, 
 which must, of com'se, have had contents in the document to which it 
 belonged. This I am as far as possible from denying. But we must admit 
 (cf. n. 49) that the geographical details may have been taken from other 
 documents. I am therefore unable expressly to assign them to P^. In most 
 cases, fortunately, it is of little consequence to which source the names of the 
 cities are ascribed, for the reason, amongst others, that the geographical 
 material, as already said, was presumably identical in the sources themselves, 
 whether it was that one borrowed from the other or that the two were alike 
 dependent on a common authority. 
 
 " Cf. Th. Tijdschr.jXi. 484-496 [criticised by Colenso, Wellhausen on the 
 composition, p. 86-95], where several points which can only be touched upon 
 here, are treated more in detail. I there assume that it was P^ who brought 
 Josh, xiii.-xxiv. into its present form ; but I cannot now pronounce so 
 decidedly. If the accounts of P^ and of other sources were welded together 
 by a third hand, the process is more involved than I once supposed, but my 
 judgment as to the ultimate sources of the sections and verses themselves 
 remains unaffected. 
 
 The heading of the description of the Transjordanic region, that has fallen 
 out of the Hebrew text of Josh, xiii., but is preserved in the LXX. in v. 14, is 
 certainly genuine, as shown inter alia by its agreement with 1;. 32. Of a 
 similar character are the headings and colophons in v. 15, 23'', 24, 28, 29 
 (emended after the LXX.) They must all be assigned to P^ on account of the 
 agreement between v. 14" [LXX.], 32 and xiv. i ; xix. 51, and the use of nnn 
 throughout. In v. 31 the last words (' to half the sons of Machir after their [105] 
 families ') are a correction of what precedes (' to the sons of Machir '), made 
 to harmonise it with V, who knows of no son of Manasseh except Machir 
 {Num. xxvi. 29-34), and can therefore only locate a portion of Machir's 
 descendants in the Transjordanic region.— Ch. xiv. 1-5 rests so completely 
 upon Num. xxxiv. sq. that no doubt can be entertained as to its origin. It 
 
io6 The Hexateuch. [§6. 
 
 shows that P" contained an account of the inheritance of the nine and a half 
 tribes, of which we have the colophon in xix. 51. It is therefore highly 
 probable that the verses out of xv., xviii., xix. indicated above — in which mDo 
 repeatedly occurs, and which are parallel in many other respects to the super- 
 scriptions and colophons in xiii. — likewise belong to P^- Ch. xvi. and xvii. 
 remain for special notice. In xvi. 1-3 (of. xvii. 14) 'the sons of Joseph' 
 receive one lot. These verses, therefore, are not from P ^, for he expressly 
 says that the sons of Joseph were two tribes (xiv. 4; Qen. xlviii. 3-6 
 and elsewhere). The latter conception reappears in xvi. 4, which we 
 therefore assign to P^, together with v. 5-8 that cannot well be from the 
 author oiv, 1-3. So, too, xvii. I* is from P^, who elsewhere (xiv. 4 ; xvi. 4), 
 gives the precedence to Manasseh as the elder. V. 1°, 2, on the contrary 
 (Manasseh's sons in the plural, and Machir dwelling in the Transjordanic 
 district) is at variance with P^ (see above), and is accordingly contradicted 
 by -0. 3-6, in which latter we at once recognise the author of Num. xxvii. 
 I— II ; xxxvi., that is to say, P^. — The ascription of xviii. I to P^ needs no 
 justification (')NTto>"'33 m»"'5D; I3>ia '^hn, \S233), while the ascription of 
 V. i:-io to some other source is equally certain, for we find neither Eleazar 
 nor the princes, nor the ' ohel mo'^d ' in them, but ihllD throughout, f)DV n'3 
 in V. 5, in harmony with xvi. 1-3 ; xvii. 14-18, and Levi (not Aaron and his 
 sons) called to the priesthood in i\ 7. Such divergences put beyond all reach 
 of doubt the division of Josh. xiii. sqq. between P^ and other sources. — With 
 respect to xx. (on the text of which cf. Tli. Tijdschr., xi. 467-478) and xxi. 1-40 
 (or 1-42 if we count in the verses on Peuben which have dropped out after v. 
 35) there can be no two opinions ; taken together they correspond to the two 
 parts of Num. xssv,, and moreover, xxi. 1-42 was announced as early as in 
 xiv. 4. — Ch. xxiv. 33 is generally assigned to P^, since Phinehas only appears 
 elsewhere in priestly passages (amongst which Jud. xx. 27^, 28*^ must be 
 reckoned). But xxi. 10 sqq. assigns cities injudaeato the priests, the sons 
 of Aaron, and the ' hill of Phinehas ' in the mountains of Ephraim does not 
 agree very well with this. Probably, therefore, xxiv. 33 stands on the same 
 footing as Deut. x. 6 (cf. § 7, n. 6). 
 
 ^'' It follows from xiv. 4; xvi. 4 ; xvii. i" ('for he was Joseph's first-born') 
 that in P' Manasseh preceded Ephraim ; whereas in Josh, xvi., xvii. Ephraim 
 is dealt with before Manasseh. — According to Wellhausen's acute con- 
 jecture (xxi. 596 sqq.) xviii. I preceded xiv. 1-5 in P^, so that the whole of 
 the land was divided at S h i 1 o h. This is supported by the close of xviii. i , 
 ' and the land was subdued before their face,' which sounds much more like 
 an introduction to the account of the whole division than the announcement 
 [106] of the second half of the work ; and again in xiv. 1-5 the ascription of the land 
 by lot to the nine and a half tribes is treated as a single act ; and finally in xix. 
 51, 'the tribes of the children of Israel ' — not seven of these tribes only — are 
 said to have received their inheritance at Shiloh. All this can hardly be 
 denied. But Wellhausen's conjecture is too closely connected with xiii. 
 1-7 to be finally pronounced upon at this stage of our inquiry. See below, 
 § 7, n. 27 ; 16, n. 12. 
 
"•5I-53-] P in Joshua -idn.-yiyixv. 107 
 
 '' On Josh. xiii. zi*, 22 — borrowed from Num.sxxi. 8 — of. Th. Tijdschr.,xi. 
 495 ^l- — Josh. xxii. g-34 (to which v. 7, 8 perhaps belongs, but certainly not 
 V. 1-6) does not appear to me to be composite. Knob el {Num.-Josh., 
 p. 475 sq.) distinguishes two elements: viz. v. 9-1 1, 13-15, 21, 30-33", from 
 P^ andi). 12, 16-20, 22-29, ii^, 34, from the ' Kriegsbuch." Kayser (op. cit., 
 p. 106 sqq.) divides the passage otherwise : v. 9 (in part), 10 (in part), 11, 
 12 (in part), 13, 14, portions of v. 15, 16, 19, 70 (?), 21, 23-26, all v. 29, parts 
 of "• 3I> 32 from P^ ; the rest from a Yahwistio narrative in which the Trans- 
 jordanic tribes are taxed with apostasy from Yahwfe, whereas in P* 
 the accusation is that they wish to withdraw from the one sanctuary 
 at Shiloh. The unity of the narrative is defended with perfect justice by 
 Colenso {Pentateuch, vi., App. p. 66, 67), Wellhausen (xxi. 601), and 
 others: the contrast between v. 26, 29 (P^) and v. 22, 27, 28, 34 (another 
 source) which Kayser attempts to establish does not exist, and Knob el's 
 division is purely arbitrary. I cannot, however, allow Wellhausen's 
 assertion that ' the conceptions and expressions are altogether those of Q 
 (= P'^).' Note -aiiD in v. 9-11, 13, 15, 21 (niDO in v. 14 oidy), and still 
 more the agreement in tone and style with Num. xxxi. and xxxii. 6-15 (see 
 above, n. 40, 42), i.e. with the later additions to P^. The contents also plead 
 for a later origin : the narrative is an absolutely unhistorioal invention framed 
 to defend the doctrine of a unique sanctuary which it represents as completely 
 established and assimilated by the popular consciousness. In harmony with 
 this, too, is the silence concerning Joshua, who is still the chief personage in 
 V. 1-8, and the rdle assigned to Phinehas. 
 
 § 7. T/ie deuteronomic elements of the Heccateuch (D). 
 
 The study of the deuteronomic elements of the Hexateuch 
 must start from the collection of laws in Bent, xii.-xxvi., 
 which, as already seen (§ 5, n. 6-8), is led up to by i.-iv. and 
 v.-xi., and presupposed in xxvii. sqq., and has accordingly 
 been [universally accepted as the kernel of the deuteronomic 
 literature. 
 
 Deut. xii.-xxvi. is a single whole. Here and there the 
 order of the precepts leaves something to be desired, and 
 occasionally the suspicion of later interpolations is provoked^; 
 but in spite of this it remains quite unmistakable that these 
 chapters as a whole come from one author, and constitute 
 a sinele book of law. 'The tora of Yahwe' which they [107] 
 promulgate is intended by the writer to embrace all the 
 demands that Yahwe makes from his people, and accordingly 
 
io8 The Hexateuch. [§7- 
 
 it regulates not only the worship — which must he offered 
 to Yahw^ alone and in his one sanctuary, — but also the 
 political, civic, and domestic life of the people consecrated 
 to him, and the moral duties of the individual Israelite^. 
 This unity of conception is, of course^ perfectly compatible 
 with the use of existing materials, whether detached laws 
 or collections ; and in all probability the use of such mate- 
 rials furnishes the true explanation of the differences we 
 detect on comparing xxi.-xxv. with the rest of the code ^. 
 But even these chapters are not without traces of the 
 characteristic language of the deuteronomic lawgiver, 
 which comes out much more distinctly in xii.-xx. and xxvi., 
 and pleads so powerfully for the unity of the whole col- 
 lection *. 
 
 ' To these digressions I shall return in § 14, n. I. Even those who lay 
 most stress upon them regard them as exceptions to the rule, and do not 
 hesitate to accept the unity of the law-book in the relative sense which will 
 be more closely defined in n. 2. 
 
 "^ The following survey of the contents of Dent, xii.-xxvi, may serve to con- 
 firm the statement in the test. The code opens with an emphatic warning 
 against the religious practices of the Canaanites, especially against sacrificing 
 in more than one place, the use of blood, etc. (xii. [xii. 1-31]). Then, after 
 a parenthetical exhortation to faithful and complete observance of all the 
 commandments (xiii. I [xii. 32]), follow laws concerning the prophet (v. 2-6 
 [1-5]) or the near and dear one {v. 7-12 [6-1 1]) who tempts to idolatry, and 1 
 the curse upon the apostate city {v. 13-19 [12-18]). Let Israel consecrate 
 himself to Yahwfe and shrink from everything unclean (xiv. 1-2 1). Let tithes 
 of the fruits of the field, and the firstlings of cattle be consecrated to Yahwfe 
 {v. 22-29). The shemitta must be observed in the seventh, or sabbatical year 
 (xv. i-i I ) ; and the Hebrew slave, male or female, released after seven years' 
 service {v. 12-18). A more precise injunction (cf. xiv. 23) as to the consecra- 
 tion of the firstlings {v. 19-23) is followed by the deuteronomic calendar of 
 festivals (xvi. 1-17 : passover and ma996th, feast of weeks, and feast of 
 tabernacles). Precepts concerning the judges (xvi. 18-20), the supreme court 
 in the city of the sanctuary (xvii. 8-13), the king (i'. 14-20), the priests (xviii; 
 1-8), and the prophets (v. 9-22) are broken, somewhat abruptly, by the pro- 
 hibition of ash^ras and ma59ebas (xvi. 21, 22), by the command to ofier beasts 
 without blemish to Yahwfe (xvii. i), and by a law on stoning the idolater (y.. 
 2-7), which latter is brought into a certain connection with the precepts on the 
 administration of justice by its definition of the duties of the two witnesses 
 {v. 6, 7). The law of the cities of refuge (xix. 1-13) and the regulations about 
 
n. I, 2.J The Kernel of Deuteronomy. 109 
 
 witnesses {v. 15 and 16-21) — the latter preceded by the prohibition of the [108] 
 removal of land-marks {v. 14) — are likewise connected with the administra- 
 tion of justice. Ch. xx. deals with war ; v. 1-9 with relief from military 
 service; v. 10-18 with the fate of conquered cities; v. 19, 20 with the fruit 
 trees near a besieged city. Then follow, generally speaking, shorter laws : 
 the steps needed to purify the land when the body of a slaughtered man is 
 found in the open field (xxi. 1-9) ; marriage with a female captive of war 
 (w. 10—14); rights of first-born sons [v. 15-17); punishment of the contuma- 
 cious son {y. 1 8-2 1 ) ; removal of the body from the gibbet before evening (v. 2 2, 
 23, related to v. 1-9) ; preservation and restitution of discovered property (xxii. 
 1-3) ; helping up a neighbour's beast of burden that has fallen (». 4) ; 
 against change of garments between men and women (y. 5) ; on taking bird- 
 nests (v, 6. 7) J o^ making a parapet round the open roof (v. 8); against 
 mixing unlike sorts in sowing seed, in using beasts, or in making clothes 
 (v. 9— 11) ; tassels on the four corners of the garment (v. 12) ; punishment of 
 the man who slanders his bride (». 13-19) ; but also of the woman who has 
 committed fornication before her marriage (». 20, 21); kindred regulations 
 against adultery, under various circumstances (». 22, v. 23 sq., v. 25-27, v. 28 
 sq.) ; prohibition of a man's marriage with his father's wife (xxiii. i [xxii. 
 30]) ; qualifications for admission into the assembly of Yahwfe (». 2-9 [1-8]) ; 
 precautions to secure the cleanness of the camp {y. 10-15 [9-14]); against 
 surrender of run-away slaves (v. 16 eq. [15 sq.]); prohibition of prostitution 
 in honour of the deity, and the dedication of the hire to Yahwfe {y. 18 sq. 
 [17 sq.]) ; against usury {y. 20 sq. [19 sq.]) ; against neglecting to perform a 
 vow (22—24 [2i~23]) ; the use of a neighbour's vineyard and corn-field and 
 its limits {y. 25 sq. [24 sq.]) ; on divorce (xxiv. 1-4) ; the first year of mar- 
 riage (y. 6) ; against taking a miU-stone in pledge {y. 6) ; prohibition of kid- 
 napping {y. 7) ; on leprosy {y. 8 sq.) ; mercifulness in taking pledges (ti. 10- 
 13); justice to the day-labourer iy. 14 sq.) ; limitation of the punishment to 
 the culprit himself (i). 16) ; regulations in favour of foreigners, widows, and 
 orphans {y. 17-22) ; scourging as a punishment (xxv. 1-3) ; provision for the 
 ox that treads the com (y. 4) ; marriage with a deceased brother's wife (v. 5-10) ; 
 observance of decencies when two men are at blows {y. 11 sq.); against dis- 
 honesty in trade {y. 13-16) ; on rooting out the Amalekites {y. 17-19). The 
 Israelite is to bring his first-fruits to the sanctuary of Yahwfe and to testify 
 his gratitude to him {y. i-ii) ; after giving up the tithes of the third year he 
 is solemnly to declare that he has fulfilled his obligation, and is to implore 
 Yahwfe's blessing {y. 12-15). Israel is to pledge himself to observe 'these 
 institutions and statutes ' and to belong to Yahwfe, who on his side will bless 
 and exalt Israel {y. 16-19). 
 
 If I call Dmt. xii.-xxvi. ' a single book of law ' it is in no small degree on 
 the strength of xxvi. In xxi.-xxv. the precepts are often defectively arranged ; 
 kindred matter is not always treated together, and no fixed plan seems 
 to be followed. But in xxvi. the lawgiver returns to the subjects he had 
 placed in the fore-front— the one sanctuary, the first-fruits, the tithes, the 
 Levitioal priests— and follows them up with a covenant {y. 16-19) between 
 
no The Hexateuch. [§ 7. 
 
 [109] Yahw^ and Israel based on the laws and ordinances now set forth at length. 
 In xxl.-xzv. he seemed to lose himself in all kinds of details, but in xxvi. he 
 recovers himself and shows that he is the' same man at the end that he was at 
 the beginning. 
 
 " P. Kleinert, Das Deid. u. der VeuteronomiJcer (1872), defends the 
 position (p. 124-135 and elsewhere) that Bent, xii.-xxvi. — and indeed the 
 whole of Deut. v.-xxvi. — should be regarded as the ' codification ' of older 
 (Mosaic) laws, which are in some cases simply adopted, in others worked up 
 and expanded, and in yet others enforced by more or less elaborate exhorta- 
 tions, so that Vent, xii.-xxvi. may be regarded as a series of paraphi-ases and 
 discourses on Mosaic texts. But this description does not correspond with the 
 facts. We shall indeed see presently that even in the earlier chapters, e.g. 
 xiv. 1-2 1 ; XV. i-ii ; 12-18 ; xvi. 1-17, D has assimilated older laws ; but it 
 is a veritable assimilation, and in the process he moulds his material into his 
 own forms and nowhere betrays dependence. So he proceeds up to the end of 
 XX. ; it is the author himself that is speaking throughout, and we can never 
 distinguish between a text and a commentary. Ch. xxvi. resembles xii.-xx. 
 in this respect. It is only in xxi.-xxv. that the relations are such as 
 Kleinert describes. Here, for the most part, the writer seems to confine 
 himself to adopting precepts or lessons, expounding their motive, and exhort- 
 ing his readers to observe them. See xxi. 21'', 23'' ; xxii. s', ']", 21'', 22', 24'' ; 
 xxiii. 6, S"", 21'' [5, 7*1, 20''] ; xxiv. 4'', 7'', 9, is**, 19''; xxv. 12'', is"", 16, 19. 
 We shall see from the following note that these verses contain their full share, 
 of the linguistic peculiarities of xii.-xx., xxvi. 
 
 * On the characteristi cs of th e deuterongmic language — though not of 
 xii.-xxvi. only, but of v.-xxvi., or the whole book of Deuteronomy — compare 
 Knobel {Num.- Josh., p. 586-589); Colenso {Pentateuch, iii. 402-405 and 
 elsewhere), and above all Kleinert (op. cit., p. 214-235). With a view, inter 
 alia, to the question we shall have to discuss presently as to the relations 
 between xii.-xxvi. and v.-xi., i.-iv., xxvii. sqq., I here subjoin a list of 
 the principal expressions and turns of language which constantly recur in 
 xii.-xxvi., and which, in almost every case, either do not appear at all or 
 appear comparatively rarely, except in the deuteronomic literature. I need 
 hardly say that such a list as this, even were it far more complete, could 
 never adequately characterise the style of the author, a true impression of 
 which cannot really be gained except by repeated perusal of his work : — 
 
 1. 3n«, nariN (nominal infinitive), of Yahwfe to Israel ani vice versa, xix. 
 9 ; xxiii. 6 [5] ; xiii. 4 [3]. 
 
 2. ';3«, 'to eat before Yahwfe's face,' xii. 7, 18 ; xiv. 23, 26; xv. 20. 
 
 3. cnnx D>n';«, '(go after, serve) other gods,' xiii. 3, 7, 14 [2, 6, 13]; 
 xvii. 3 ; xviii. 20. 
 
 4. DTibK with pronominal suffix, preceded by mrr, especially 'Yahwfe, 
 your God,' passim throughout Deuteronomy. (307 times according to Colenso, 
 Pentateuch, iii. 405.) 
 _, 5. TTN in Hiphil with d'O', xvii. 20 ; xxii. 7 ; cf. xxv. 15. 
 
 6. -[Ul, in the formula: '(the place) that Yahwfe shall choose,' xii. 5, II, 
 
n. 2-4.] Language of Deut. Ku-xxxi. iii 
 
 14, 18, 26; xiv. 23-25; XV. 20; xvi. 2, 6, 7, II, 15, 16; XTii. 8, 10, 15; 
 xxvi. 2. 
 
 7. 13>3, 'to root out (the evil thing),' xiii. 6 [5] ; xvii. 7, 12 ; xix. 13, 19 ; [no] 
 xxi. 9, 21 ; xxii. 21, 22, 24; xxiv. 7. 
 
 8. "I"i2, in Piel, ' (that) Yahwfe may bless you,' etc., xiv. 24, 29 ; xv. 4, 10 ; 
 xvi. 10, 15 ; xxiii. 21 [20] ; xxiv. 19. 
 
 9. t:, 'stranger, orphan, and widow,' xxiv. 17, 19, 21; coupled with 'the 
 Levite,' xiv. 29; xvi. 11, 14; xxvi. 12, 13. 
 
 10. ibn, ' after Yahwfe,' xiii. 5 [4] ; ' in Yahwfe's ways,' xix. 9 ; xxvi. 1 7. 
 11. 1131, 'that ye were slaves,' etc. xv. 15 ; xvi. 12 ; xxiv. 18, 22. 
 
 12. Din, 'let not your eye pity,' xiii. 9 [8] ; xix. 13. 21 ; xxv. 12. 
 
 13. Q'pn (never in the singular), united with 'statutes,' 'testimonies,' 
 'law,' 'conmiand' or ' commands,' ^asst'm throughout Deuteronomy. 
 
 14. ST, in the formula : ' gods whom ye have not known (nor your fathers),' 
 xiii. 3, 7, 14 [2, 6, 13]. 
 
 15. DV, 'all the days,' xii. i ; xiv. 23 ; xviii. 5 ; xix. 9. 
 
 16. 312', 'that it may be well with thee,' xii. 25, 28 ; xxii. 7. 
 
 17. 310>, inf. Hiph. as an adverb, xiii. 15 [14] ; xvii. 4 ; xix. i8. 
 
 18. NT, in the form hntS xiv. 23 ; xvii. 19. 
 
 19. niT, of the acquisition of Canaan, xii. 29; xvi. 20; xvii. 4; xix. i ; 
 xxvi. i; especially nuii';, xii. i, 29; xv. 4; xix. 2; xxi. i ; xxiii. 21 [ao] ; 
 xxv. 19. 
 
 20. 3'), only in iv. II ; xxviii. 65 ; xxix. 3, 18 [4, 19] ; everywhere else in 
 Deuteronomy 33^. 
 
 21. to';, Kal xiv. 23 ; xvii. 19 (xviii. 9) ; Piel xx. 18. 
 
 22. m 3, Kal XX. 19; Hiphil xiii. 6, 11, 14 [5, 10, 13]; Niphal xix. 5; 
 xxii. I. 
 
 23. ';n: in Hiphil xii. 10 ; xix. 3 ; xxi. 16. 
 
 24. nbr^:, of Canaan (never mnw), xii. 9, 12; xiv. 27, 29; xv. 4; xviii. 
 I, 2 ; xix. 10 ; xx. 16 ; xxi. 23 ; xxiv. 4 ; xxv. 19 ; xxvi. i. 
 
 25. bpD with D'jswa, xiii. 11 [10] ; xvii. 5 ; xxii. 21, 24. 
 
 26. 1D3S, Hiphil, and ioi3», xv. 6, 8 ; xxiv. 10-13. 
 
 27. ntos, in the formula d'T niDBD, xiv. 29; xvi. 15 ; xxiv. 19. 
 
 28. niD, redeem, i.e. release from Egypt, xiii. 6 [5]; xv. 15; xxi. 8; 
 xxiv. 18. 
 
 29. ms, Piel, in the phrase : 'which I command thee,' xii. 11, 14, 21 ; xiii. 
 1, 19 [xii. 32 ; xiii. 18] ; xv. 5, 11, 15 ; xix. 7, 9 ; xxiv. 18, 22. 
 
 30. mson, ooUeotive, xv. 5 ; xvii. 20; xix. 9 ; xxvi. 13. 
 
 Sl.nnto, withmn> 'aoS^i- 7. 12. 18; xiv. 26; xvi. 11 (14; xxvi. 11). 
 
 32. »3iD, Niphal; of the oath of Yahwfe to the fathers, xiii. 18 [17] ; xix. 8 ; 
 xxvi. 3, 15. 
 
 33. 13m, Piel, in the formula: ' Yahwfe makes his name dwell, etc.,' xii. 11 
 (cf. s) ; xiv. 23 ; xvi. 2, 6, ii ; xxvi. 2. 
 
 34. nbvi, ino'T n'juja, xii. 7; xv. 10; xxiii. 21 [20]. 
 
 35. sold, hearken to, obey, with 'jn and bip^, xiii. 4, 5, 9, 19 [3, 4, 8, 18]; 
 XV. 5; xvii. 12; xviii. 14, 15, 19; xxi. 18, 20; xxiii. 6 [5]; xxvi. 14. 
 
ri2 The Hexateuch. [§7. 
 
 36. sail;, in the phrases 'they shall hear (the whole people, or Israel, 
 shall hear) and be afraid,' xiii. 12 [11] ; xvii. 13 ; xix. 20; xxi. 21. 
 
 37. TQiti with mSDn or one of its synonyms as object, xiii. 5, 19 [4, i8] ; 
 [illj xvii. 19; xix. 9; in conjunction with riiicsb, xii. i; xiii. i [xii. 32] ; xv. 5; 
 
 xvi. 12; xvii. 10; xxiv. 8. 
 
 38. TDiij, Niphal, taking S before a pronoun, xii. 13, 19, 30 ; xv. 9 ; xxiv. 8. 
 
 39. -\BU>, 'in thy gates ( = cities),' xii. 12, 15, 17, 18, 21 ; xiv. 21, 27-29; 
 sv. 7, 22; xvi. 5, II, 14, 18; xvii. 2, 5, 8; xviii. 6; xxiii. 17 [16]; xxiv. 14; 
 xxvi. 12. 
 
 40. asn : nisn and nin' n3»n, xii. 31 ; xiii. 15 [14] ; xiv. 3 ; xvii. i, 4 ; 
 xviii. 12; xxii. 5; xxiii. ig [18]; xxiv. 4; xxv. 16. 
 
 See further, u. 10, 16, 26. 
 
 The collection of Beut. xii.-xxvi. has no heading. It is 
 Moses who proclaims the laws to Israel (xviii. 15, 17, etc.), 
 Lut there is no express declaration to that effect at the 
 beginning. This is no omission, however, for in Deuteronomy 
 the code is the second portion of a discourse delivered by 
 Moses which begins at v. i, and is introduced by the super- 
 scription in iv. 45-49. It is obvious that v.-xi. is intended 
 as an introduction to xii.-xxvi., and that on the whole it is 
 not inappropriate as such ^. Now this does not in itself prove 
 that the former is from the same hand as the latter, and that 
 the collection of xii.-xxvi. was from the first put into the 
 mouth of MoseSj addressing Israel after the conquest of the 
 Transjordanic district ; but the objections to the unity of 
 authorship^ which have been urged most recently by Well- 
 hausen and Valeton^ are not convincing. The position 
 occupied by the author of xii.-xxvi. is faithfully indicated in 
 the superscription iv. 45-49 ^. The hortatory character and 
 diffaseness of v.-xi. by no means compel us to ascribe it 
 to another author^. In details v.-xi. and xii.-xxvi. com- 
 pletely and yet spontaneously agree '- Finally, in language 
 and style they present just that degree of agreement and 
 difference which we should be justified in expecting on the 
 hypothesis of a common origin '^^. Any difficulties that may 
 still remain fall away if we accept the very natural suppo- 
 sition that the author of xii.-xxvi. composed the introduc- 
 
n. 4-6.] 
 
 Deut. v.— xi. 112 
 
 tion (v.-xi.) subsequently, with his eye upon the laws that 
 he had already collected ^^. 
 
 " The contents of v.-xi. shall be described in Wellhauaen's words [112] 
 (xxii. 462 sq.) ; for they contain a forecast of the reasons that prevent him 
 from attributing these chapters to the author of xii.-xxvi., and will therefore 
 enable us to summarise his further objections the more briefly in n. 6. 'The 
 laws do not begin till xii., up to which point Moses is always coming but 
 never comes to business. In v. i, he announces the institutions and statutes 
 which the people are to observe in the land of Canaan, but immediately 
 involves himself in a historical presentation of the occasion on which they 
 were communicated to himself on Horeb forty years ago, when the people 
 begged him to interpose as mediator. At the beginning of vi. he again appears 
 to be coming to the communication of the ordinances and statutes, but turns 
 off into a plea for obedience to the laws, based on love of the lawgiver. And in 
 similar ways our patience is yet further tried in the following chapters. The 
 discourse always turns upon the ordinances and statutes which I 
 shall give you this day, but we are never told what they are. In 
 vii. and viii. an attempt is made to disarm by anticipation all manner of 
 threatening dangers which might lead to their neglect after the conquest of 
 Canaan. Yahwfe's grace — which the Israelites might think they could dis- 
 pense with when they were out of the wilderness — will always be needed, 
 and his wrath will always be terrible. This gives occasion to a long digres- 
 sion on the golden calf ; and it is not till x. 1 2 sqq. that we return to the 
 enforcement of the commandments ; while xi. once more insists that Yahwfe's 
 past care for Israel demands both gratitude and obedience, but that his future 
 care will not be rendered superfluous by the possession of the land, since its 
 fruitfulness depends upon the grace of heaven.' On Valeton see the fol- 
 lowing note. 
 
 ^ After giving his survey of the contents (cf. n. 5) Wellhausen goes on to 
 say that the reason why the author of v.-xi. so constantly mentioned ' the 
 ordinances and statutes ' was that they actually lay before him in a written 
 work to which he was composing a preface. How else can we explain xi. 
 26 sqq., setting forth the blessing and the curse attendant on the observance 
 or neglect of the laws which are not yet so much as issued ? And if the 
 author of v.-xi. edited the code of xii.-xxvi. with a preface, we may sup- 
 pose that at the same time he introduced a modification here and there. Ch. 
 xvii. 14-20 (in which xxxi. 9, 26 are assumed) may have been inserted by 
 him, as well as xxiii. 5-7 [4-6], which places ua in the fortieth year after the 
 exodus. Forxxvi. 17, 18 seems to be parallel to .Efe. xix., xxiv. ' Deuteronomy 
 originally presented itself as an enlarged edition of the old Book of the Cove- 
 nant. It did not make Moses carry about with him for forty years the laws 
 and statutes he had received on Horeb, but made him publish them to the 
 people at once ' (xxii. 464). 
 
 Valeton {Studien, vi. 1 5 7-1 74) agrees with Wellhausen in denying 
 the exhortations of v.-xi. to the author of xii.-xxvi., but differs from him in 
 
 I 
 
114 The Hexateuch. [§7- 
 
 thinking lie can trace a definite plan in them. The author is diflfusive and 
 sometimes falls into repetitions, but does not lose sight of his object ; which is 
 an appeal for the faithful observance of the tora contained in xii.-xxvi., — an 
 appeal based on the decalogue and drawn in part from the dangers Israel must 
 expect in Canaan, and in part from the experiences of the wilderness. If he 
 [113] seems now and then to wander from his subject, it is because' his discourse has 
 been largely interpolated ; v. 5; vii. 17-26; ix. 18-20, 22-25; ^- l-Io*> 18- 
 20 ; xi. 13-21 (or at any rate v. 16, 18-20) ; 26-28 (but see Studien, vii. 44 n.); 
 29-31 are all later additions. — As far as this view coincides with Wellhau- 
 s en's it will be criticised in n. 7-10. — As for the supposed interpolations, I 
 may say at once that it seems to me extremely difficult to determine whether 
 it is the author himself who indulges in these digressions, or deviations, 
 or whether they are due to some other hand. It must be admitted that 
 they might well be dispensed with, and sometimes disturb the context. But 
 the author himself is indicated in general by the style and language of the 
 suspected sections, which agree with D even in minutiae. Ch. vii. 17-26, for 
 instance, is a string of deuteronomio expressions. Even where the writer 
 keeps closest to ^x. xxiii. 20-33 — though, for that matter, no closer than the 
 author of v. i-i6 — he still uses deuteronomio formulse ; v. 21 '3DD V13? (cf. n. 
 16) ; V. 22 ';i2j: {Beat. vii. i ; xxviii. 40J ; v. 23 td\ij Niphal (Beut. xii. 30; 
 xxviii. 20, 24, 45, 51, 61 ; iv. 26), etc. But I need not examine the interpo- 
 lations severally. A decision upon them, though a necessary part of any future 
 commentary on Deuteronomy, would have no decisive influence on our views 
 concerning Deut. v.-xi. as a whole. An exception must be made, however, in 
 the case of x. i-io", since the authenticity of these verses is far from a matter 
 of indifference to the criticism of the Hexateuch. On v. 1-5 cf. Th. Tijdschr., 
 XV. 204-207, where it is shown that at any rate the verses in question should 
 not be denied to D without very grave reason. But no such reason is forth- 
 coming. V. 1-5 is a digression, it is true, but a perfectly appropriate and — ■ 
 after mention of the tables of the covenant in v. 19 [22] ; ix. 11, 17 — a far 
 from superfluous one. Then v. 8, 9 are most closely connected with the pre- 
 ceding verses ; it is on account of the ark that the election of the Levites is 
 mentioned here — in purely deuteronomio phrase, cf. xviii. 5 ; xxi. 5 — and, 
 accordingly, we see that the duty of carrying this ark is the first to be men- 
 tioned (v. 8). V. 6 and 7, again, belong toi>. 8, 9, to which they are introduc- 
 tory. Unquestionably they are borrowed from some such source as the work to 
 which Num. xxi. 12 sqq. belongs. But the writer of i>. (1-5) 8, 9 himself may 
 have taken them thence, for they record a circumstance connected with the ser- 
 vice of Yahw6 {v. 6) and bring us to the place, Yotba, at which the Levitea 
 were set aside for it (y. 7). In v. lo** the speaker returns from this digression 
 to the point from which he had started (ix. 26-29). -'■ admit that this is a 
 strange style of composition, but I cannot think that we are justified in saying 
 that it is impossible, and so regarding as an interpolation a passage which 
 bears the author's stamp so clearly upon it. See, further, Th. Tijdschr., xv. 
 200 sq. 
 ' Consider the following points, taken in their mutual connection ; — In 
 
n. 6-io.j DeiU.M.-yX. same hand as yX\-y.yM\. 115 
 
 xii.-xxvi. Moses is the speaker; see xviii. 15, 17, 18; xxiv. 18, 22, and also 
 xii. 8, where the lawgiver reveals himself as one of the people. He is 
 Bpeaking at a definite point of time, 'this day,' xii. 8 ; xiii. 19 [18] ; xv. 5, 
 15; xix. 9; xxvi. i;-, 18 (cf. 'here,' xii. 8). The passage of the Jordan 
 is mentioned, apparently as imminent, xii. 10, and also, repeatedly, the seizure 
 of Canaan, the rooting out of its inhabitants, etc., xii. i, 2, 29 ; xv. 4 ; xvi. 20 ; [114] 
 xvii. 14; xviii. 9, 12, 14; xix. i, 2, 14; xx. 16-18 ; xxi. i. 23; xxiii. 21 [20] ; 
 xxiv. 4 ; XXV. 19 ; xxvi. i. And on the other hand there is nowhere so much 
 as a word of reference to any future wanderings in the desert. Ch. xxiii. 
 5-7 [4-6] is written as if in the fortieth year after the exodus (and is there- 
 fore withheld from the author of xii.-xxvi. by "Wellhausen; cf. u. 6). 
 The same may be said of xxiv. 9, which' presupposes not only Miriam's 
 leprosy. Num. xii., but even her death, Num. xx. i ; and likewise of xxv. 
 17-19, where it is evident that Amalek's former misdeeds are recalled 
 to mind, and the sentence provoked by them repeated, in view of the 
 approaching conquest. In xviii. 16-20, finally, a glance is thrown tack upon 
 the sojourn at Horeb and the ' day of assembly ' (cf. n. 9) as upon long 
 past events. 
 
 " In the nature of the case the tone of xii. sqq. must differ from that of v. sqq. 
 We have only to ask whether, if the author of xii.-xxvi. had wished to insist 
 on the faithful observance of his precepts, he would have been likely to do so 
 in the style of v.-xi. Unquestionably he would ; for even in the code itself 
 he does not avoid repetitions (xii., etc.), and easily drops into the hortatory 
 tone (e. g. xii. 28 ; xv. 4r6, 15 ; xvi. 20 ; xviii. 9 sqq. ; xxvi. i sqq.). Cf. also 
 the list of Deuteronomic phrases in n. 4 and in n. 10 below. 
 
 ' Especially noteworthy, I think, is the resemblance between xviii. 
 16-20 and the hortatory introduction. In a. 16 nna, as in v. 2 ; ix. 8; 
 ^inpn Dva, as in ix. 10; x. 4, cf. v. 19 [22]; fjON «•;, cf. v. 22 [25]; 'this 
 great fire,' as in v. 22 [25], cf. v. 4, 23 [26] ; ix. 10 ; x. 4 ; niDN «'7i, cf. v. 
 22 [25] ; in v. 17 a^B'n as in v. 25 [28]. Yet it cannot be said that the 
 author of v.-xi. is simply borrowing from xviii. 16 sqq., for he moves quite 
 freely, and never touches upon the thesis of the last-named passage about 
 prophecy as a substitute for Yahwfe's immediate revelation. It is the s a m o 
 author who describes the assembly at Horeb in v., mentions it incidentally 
 in ix., X., and makes an independent use of it in xviii. 
 
 Again, compare, xxvi. 6 (id3>,q 'nD3; m Q12» ^nj >lj) with x. 22 and 
 vii. I ; ix. i, 14; xi. 23. 
 
 xxvi. 8, display of might and miracles at the exodus, with v. 15; vi. 21, 
 22 ; vii. 8, 19 ; ix. 26 ; xi. 2-4 (the agreement extends to the phraseology) ; 
 
 xviii. 1-8, on the Levitical priests, with x. 8, 9 : agreement in substance, 
 again, without servile imitation ; 
 
 xii. 3 with vii. 5. 
 
 See, further, the following note. 
 
 ^^ Of the forty expressions registered in n. 4 we find the following in v.-xi. 
 1. V. 10; vi. 5 ; vii. 13; xi. i. — 3. v. 7 ; vi. 14; vii. 4; viii. 19; xi. 16,28. — 
 4. 'pasiim, — 5. V. 30 [33] ; xi. 9, cf. v. 16 ; vi. 2. — 9. x. 18. — 10, vi. 14 ; viii. 19; 
 
 I -2, 
 
ii6 The Hexateuch. [§7- 
 
 xi. 28 ('go after other gods') ; v. 30 [33] ; viii. 6; x. 12; xi. 22 ('on YahwVs 
 path' or 'paths'). — 11. v. 15 (a verse which does not appear in the other recen- 
 sion of the Decalogue). — 12.Tii.i6. — 13. passim. — i4.xi.28. — 15. v. 26 [29]; 
 [115] vi. 24; xi. I. — 16. V. 16 (ntQ" ]»□'; does not occur in Hx. xx. 12), 26 [29] ; 
 vi. 3, 18. — 17. ix. 21. — 18. V. 26 [29] ; vi. 24; viii. 6; x. 12. — 19. -pi. 18; 
 viii. I ; xi. 8, 23, 31. — 20. likewise occurs in v.-xi. — 21. v. i, and in Piel v. 
 28 [31] ; vi. I ; xi. 19. — 24. x. 9; cf. ix. 26, 29. — 28. vii. 8 ; ix. 26. — 29. vi. 
 2, 6 ; vii. II ; viii. i, 11 ; x. 13 ; xi. 8, 13, 22, 27, 28.— 30. v. 28, [31] ; vi. 
 I, 25; vii. II ; viii. i ; xi. 8, 22. — 32. vi. 10, 18, 23 ; vii. 8, 12, 13; viii. i, 
 18 ; ix. 5; X. II; xi. 9, 21. — 35. viii. 20; ix. 19, 23; x. 10; xi. 13, 27, 28; 
 — 37.V. 10, 26 [29]; vi. 2, 17; vii. (8), 9, 11; viii. 2,6, 11 ; x. 13; xi. i, 8, 22; 
 together with nitoS^, v. i, 29 [32]; vi. 3, 25 (vii. 12); viii. i; xi. 32. 
 . — 38. vi. 12 ; viii. II, xi. 16. — 39. v. 14 ; vi. 9 ; xi. 20. — 40. vii. 25, 26 ; the 
 Piel of a»n, which occurs twice in the latter verse, and also occurs twice 
 in xxiii. 8 [7]. 
 
 Twenty-seven out of the forty phrases occur, then, in v.-xi., and we must 
 add that from the nature of the case 2, 6, 7, 25, 26, 31, 33, 36 could 
 not occur, so that really only five out of a list of thirty- two are wanting. 
 — The following parallels may now be added : 
 
 41. ';3N, in the phrase ' eat and be filled,' vi. 11 ; viii. 10, 12 ; xi. 15 ; xiv. 
 29 ; xxvi. 12. 
 
 42. riDN, V. 14, 18 [21]; xii. 12, 18; XV. 17; xvi. 14. The synonym 
 nnDiB does not occur in Deuteronomy except in xxviii. 68. 
 
 43. Q'ias> n'3>v. 6; vi. 12; vii. 8; viii. 14; xiii. 6, 11 [5, 10]. 
 
 44. pn, 'cleave to (Yahwfe),' x. 20; xi. 22 ; xiii. 5 [4]. 
 
 45. UT, in the formula : 'com, new wine, and oil,' vii. 13; xi. 14 ; xiv.23; 
 xviii. 4. 
 
 46. D'DD^ ;n:, vii. 2, 23; xxiii. 15 [14]. 
 
 47. nbiD, in the phrase, 'to be to him a people of his own,' vii. 6; xiv. 2 ; 
 xxvi. iS. 
 
 48. n3ic, in the connection, 'to forget Yahwb,' vi. 12; viii, 11, 14, ig; 
 ix. 7; xxvi. 13. 
 
 49. bNDic, in the formula, '(to depart) to the right hand or to the left,' 
 V. 29 [32]; xvii. II, 20. 
 
 50. »atf, in the foi-mula, 'Hear, Israel!' v. i ; vi. 4; ix. i ; xx. 3. 
 
 All this seems amply to justify the opinion expressed in the text. In v.-xi. 
 the legislative terminology does not occur, but otherwise the formal agi-eement 
 with xii.-xxvi. is as great as it well could be, while there is not the faintest 
 trace of servile imitation. 
 
 ^' On this supposition Deuf. xii.-xxvi. was never published without the 
 heading and introduction (iv. 45-49 and v.-xi. respectively), but these 
 latter may have been written at a longer or shorter interval after the code. 
 The only objection, so far as I can see, which can be urged against this view is 
 that the preliminary work is incomplete. The author who thus introduces 
 Moses as the speaker could hardly omit to tell us further how the discourse 
 had been preserved and could now be published in writing. But this he has 
 
n. 10, ii.j Language of Deut. v.-xi. 117 
 
 really done, for we shall see presently that the account of how ' this tora ' 
 was written down (xxxi. 9-13) is from the same hand as v.-xi., xii.-xxvi. 
 This will also remove the difficulty presented, according toWellhausen, 
 by xvii. 18 (cf. n. 6), and we shall not be obliged to withhold the ordinance in [116] 
 ■u. 14-20, to which it belongs, from the author of xii.-xxvi., in whose 
 code it is quite in its place — is indeed indispensable — and whose language is 
 stamped upon almost every word of it. 
 
 The chapters which precede v.-xxvi. in the book of Bexder- 
 onomy must now be submitted to a closer examination, with 
 a special view to the question whether they are due to the 
 author of the great legislative discourse (D^) or not. 
 
 Deut. i. i-iv. 40, and the postscript v. 41-43 cannot be 
 assigned to D^. This appears from their very position before 
 the heading, iv. 45-49, and from their relation to it ■'•^. 
 And it is confirmed by their contents, which are at any rate 
 in part foreign to the hortatory and legislative purpose of 
 v.— xxvi. Obviously i. i-iv. 40 was composed by a writer 
 whose spirit responded to that of D-"^, and whose interest 
 in history and archoBology made him feel the absence of 
 all mention of the historical antecedents of the legislative 
 discourse of v.-xxvi. He therefore supplied the defect 
 through the mouth of Moses himself, and took the oppor- 
 tunity of laying upon his lips fresh exhortations to observe 
 the tora ^^. That he made use of narratives which we still 
 possess in Uxochis and Numbers is unquestionable ^* ; but that 
 he intended his historical introduction to link the Deutero- 
 nomic legislation to the older narrative cannot be proved and 
 is not likely ■''. 
 
 This hypothesis excludes the supposition, which many 
 scholars still regard as admissible^ that D'^ himself subse- 
 quently added this introduction to his work. The language 
 of i.-iv. seems at first sight to plead for unity of authorship), 
 but it really tells against it ; and the great similarity must 
 be explained as the result of imitation '^^. The question is 
 settled by the fact that in certain details i.-iv. contradicts 
 
ii8 The Hexateuch. [§7- 
 
 D^, and in suck a way as to exclude any idea ttat D^ 
 intended to correct himself^''. These chapters, then, are the 
 work of one of the followers of D^, whom we may designate 
 provisionally as D^. 
 
 1.1 1 7J 12 Were i.-iv. and v.-xxvi. from a eingle hand there would be no 
 necessity for a fresh superscription to v. If the promulgation of the laws 
 began here it would be another matter, but v.-xi., though not quite 
 homogeneous with i.-iv., is just as much introductory, as a comparison, 
 more especially, of iv. with v. sqq. will show ns. But even if we grant 
 the necessity of separating v.-xzvi. from i.-iv. by a fresh inscription, still 
 there was no need to define the time and place of the discourse with such 
 minuteness as characterises iv. 46-48, since everything noted there has been 
 told and retold to the reader of ii. and iii. already. In other words, the 
 heading in iv. 45-49 is due to =-. writer who was not acquainted with the 
 introduction to v.-xxvi. contained in i.-iv. These chapters, then, were added 
 later, and not by the author of v.-xxvi., who would surely have taken suflScient 
 pains with the completion of his own work to have perceived that the heading 
 in iv. 45-49 had become superfluous, and must therefore be withdrawn, or at 
 least shortened. — ■ K 44 is a connecting link, probably inserted when i.-iv. 43 
 was joined on to v.-xxvi. 
 
 " Let us begin by forming an idea of the contents of i. i-iv. 40 ; 41-43. 
 Ch. i. 1-5 is a lengthy but far from lucid heading ; in which the connection of 
 V. 1,2 with the deiinitions of time and place in 11. 3-5 remains obscure. In 
 V. 6 Moses begins to speak. He first tells of Yahwfe's command to depart 
 from Horeb (ti. 6-8) ; then of the appointment of judges and officers, who were 
 to assist him in guiding the people {v. 9-18) ; then of the journey through the 
 desert, the arrival at Kadesh-Barn^'a {v. 19), and the despatch of the spies 
 with its consequences (». 20-45). After a brief mention of the stay at 
 Kadesh (v. 46) and the circuit of Mount Seir (ii. i), he describes the march 
 through the territory of Edom and the rules observed on that occasion at 
 Yahwfe's command {v. 2-8 ") ; then he speaks of Israel's arrival on the Moabite 
 frontier, the integrity of which was respected — again at the command of 
 Yahwfe (S"", 9). [At this point there is a note on the earlier inhabitants of 
 the lands of Moab and Seir (v. 10-12)]. Israel arrives at the brook Zared, 
 thirty-eight years after leaving Kadesh; Yahwfe's sentence on the recalci- 
 trants is accomplished (v. 13-16). Ammon's territoi-y is not violated («. 17- 
 19). [Here again a note on the successive inhabitants of Canaan and the 
 neighbouring lands (v. 20-23)]. Sihon, on the other hand, — so Moses 
 proceeds, — the king of the Amorites at Heshbon, was slain, in accordance with 
 Yahwfe'a prediction and decree, and his land was conquered by Israel {v. 24- 
 37), after which Og, king of Bashan, met the same fate, and the territory of 
 these two princes was assigned to Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh (iii. i-i 7)- 
 [In this passage also there are two notes, on the name of Mount Hermon 
 {v. 9) and on the iron bed of king Og {v. 11) respectively]. The tribes just 
 
■4.J 
 
 DetU. i.-iv. 119 
 
 named are exhorted to help in the conquest of Canaan {v. 18-20), while 
 Joshua is encouraged by an appeal to the display of Yahwfe's might which he 
 has now experienced (f. 21, 22). For it was Joshua who should lead the people 
 to their destination, not Moses himself, whose repeated prayer to be allowed to 
 cross the Jordan had been rejected («. 23-29). Here the historical reminiscences 
 cease, and the discourse of Moses takes a more hortatory character. He 
 insists, in general, upon the strict observance of the precepts he is about to 
 issue (iv. 1-4), and specially points to the privilege which Israel enjoys above [iiS"! 
 other peoples in this revelation of Yahwfe's will {v. 5-8), to the theophany at 
 Horeb and, in connection therewith, to the duty of eschewing idolatry and 
 star-worship {v. 9-20). Soon Moses himself will be dead and the people will 
 be settled in Canaan {v. 21-23) ; but let them not on that account forget 
 Yahwfe and draw his punishment upon their heads, so as to experience his 
 wrath before they turn and seek his mercy {v. 24-31); rather let the thought 
 of Yahwfe's unique and unheard-of tokens of favour lead them to fidelity 
 towards him ( v. 3 2-40) ! 
 
 The postscript v. 41-43 mentions the selection of three cities of refuge 
 in the Transjordauic district. Their function is described in v. 42, in expres- 
 sions which we meet with again in Deut. xix. 4, 6. In d. 41 li'iin, as in Devit. 
 xix. 2, 7. See below, n. 17. 
 
 The characterisation of the author of these chapters given in the text 
 hardly needs any further justification after this review of hia work. The 
 notes, glosses as it were on the discourse, which he himself puts into the 
 mouth of Moses, are the clearest proofs of his interest in antiquities ; but the 
 discourse of Moses itself is also drawn up mainly with a historical pur- 
 pose, though the tone of warning and exhortation is not wanting. ISfote, 
 especially, Deut. ii., iii. 1-17, evidently written to throw light upon Israel's 
 relations to his neighbours and to explain the settlement in the Transjordanic 
 region. When the author passes, in iv. i sqq., from history to admonition, he 
 anticipates the points which D^ impressed upon his readers in v. sqq., and, 
 like him, though with a somewhat different intention (of. n. 17), makes use of 
 the events at Horeb for the purpose. Characteristic of his historical sense, in 
 this connection, is his comparison of Israel with other peoples (iv. 6-8 ; 32-34). 
 His affinities with D ' are as unmistakable as the difference that parts him 
 from him. 
 
 See, further, Valeton, Sludien, vi. 304-320, who describes the character 
 and tendency of the historical introduction, i.-iv., very justly. But his con- 
 tention that this discourse, as well as v.-xi. (n. 6), has been subjected to inter- 
 polation cannot be accepted. No doubt the verses which he regards as later 
 additions, viz. ii. 10-12, 20-23; "i- 9> lo*) i^j I3*-i7; i'*'- 21, 22 (23-31? 
 of. Studien, vii. 225, n. 3), really are, for the most part, notes on the discourse 
 of Moses — but they are notes from the hand of the same author that put the 
 discourse into his mouth. His language betrays him, and the parenthetical 
 communication of these historical and geographical details is in perfect har- 
 mony with the general character of i,-iv. 
 
 "Dr. W. H. Kos ters, De liistovie-heschouwin g van den Deuteronomist, 
 
1 20 ' The Hexateitch. [ § 7- 
 
 p. 32-85, shows this by a comparison of Deut. i. 6-19 with 'Ex. xviii. 13-27 ; 
 Nmn. si, ; of Veat. i. 20-45 with Num. xiii., xiv. ; of Bmt. ii. 2-23 with Num. 
 XX. 14-23 and xxi.; oi Deut. ii. 24-iii. II with Num. xxi. 21-35 > oi Deut. iii. 
 1 2-20 with (parts of) Num. xxxii. The agreement, in matter and form, is 
 too great to allow of the supposition that the parallel narratives rose up 
 independently of each other; the departures in Deut. i.-iii. from the parallel 
 passages may be severally explained on the supposition that the author freely 
 reproduced or intentionally modified the other accounts. 
 [119] 15 'We leave it undecided, for the present, what the character of this older 
 narrative was ; but in any case it embraced the events of the fortieth year, so 
 that the discourse of Moses in v.-xxvi. would directly connect itself with it. 
 No bridge from one to the other was needed, and in no case could it have 
 been furnished by a sometimes rather widely divergent representation of 
 those very events that had just been recorded in the older narrative. No 
 doubt i.-iii. is a recapitulation, but it was intended for readers not acquainted 
 with the older narratives, which certainly were not placed in their hands 
 together with it. 
 
 The case is different with i. 1-5. Whether Knob el is right in taking 
 «. 1, 2 to refer to the preceding discourses of Moses in Exodus — Numbers 
 I will not undertake to say, for the two verses seem to me unintelligible. 
 But in V. 3, 4 we really have the link that joins Deuteronomy to a narra- 
 tive of the exodus and the events of the fortieth year. Observe that the 
 month in which Moses speaks is here specified as the eleventh — by a number, 
 that is, not a name. This usage is not found elsewhere in Deuteronomy (see 
 xvi. i), but is characteristic of P {Ex. xii. 2, etc.), from whom it is doubtless 
 borrowed here. In all probability, therefore, we must attribute v. 3, 4 to R, 
 and may perhaps assume that they were thrust in between the beginning 
 (». I, 2) and the end {v. 5) of the heading of i.-iv., a.nd that on that occasion 
 the text oft!, i, 2 was marred — not entirely by accident. Vale ton takes a 
 rather different view {Studieu, vi. 304 sq.) ; he makes the original heading of 
 the historical discourse consist of 0. i", 5 ('These are the words which Moses 
 spoke to all Israel. On the other side of the Jordan, in the land of Moab, 
 Moses began, etc.') ; v. 1^-^ he attributes to E. 
 
 '" In characteriaing the language of i.-iv. I shall again make use of the list 
 in II. 4 and 10. We meet in these chapters with the following : — 1. iv. i'j. — 
 4. here too ijassim. — 5. iv. 26, 40. — 13. here too passim. — 15. iv. 40.^ — 16. iv. 
 40. — 18. iv. 10. — 19, iii. 12, 20; iv. i, 22 and nnjl"?, ii. 31 ; !"■ 18 > i''"' 6> I4> 
 26.— 20. holds equally for i.-iv.— 21. Kal iv. 10; Piel iv. I, 5, 14.— 22. iv. 
 ^^[^J-23. i. 38; iii. 28.-24. iv. 21, 38.-27. ii. 7.-29. iv. 2, 40.— 32. i. 8, 35; 
 'Mi7i4 ; iv. 31,-35. i. 45 ; iii. 26 ; iv. 1, 30. — 37. iv. 2, 40 ; with niCS, i^- ^■ 
 ■ — 38. iv. 9, 23 (of. 15; and without ), ii. 4). — 46. i. S, 21 ; ii. 31, 33, 36. — 
 48. iv. 9, 23, 31. — 49. ii. 27. In proportion to the extent of the section, 
 i.-iv., and considering the subject of i,-iii,, the number of these words and 
 phrases is high ; and it might be raised still further. With 44, the verb 
 pn, compare iv, 4, D'pnii. The following supplement should also be duly 
 considered : — 
 
n. 14-17.J Deut. i.-iv. compared with v.-xxvi. 121 
 
 51. yT«n, in conjunction with naimn, i. (25), 35; iii. 25; iv. 21, 22 ; vi. 
 18 ; viii. (7), 10 ; ix. 6 ; xi. 17. 
 
 52. ijj«n (-[nio), iv. 12, 15, 33, 36; V. 4, 21, 23 [24, 26] ; ix. 10; i. 4. 
 
 53. T, in the formula, 'with mighty hand and outstretched arm,' iv. 34; 
 V. 15 ; vii. 19 ; xi. 2 ; xxvi. 8. 
 
 54. (mn) DV3, ii. 30; iv. 20; vi. 24; viii. 18; x. 15. 
 
 55. 053, Hiphil iv. 25 ; ix. iS (and xxxi. 29; cf. xxxii. 16). 
 
 56. 21b, in the phrase, 'with all your heart and with all your soul,' iv. 29 ; 
 vi. 5; i. 12; xxvi. 16. 
 
 57. mn, Hiphil i. 26, 43; ix. 7, 23, 24 (and xxxi. 27). [120] 
 
 58. nD3, and the subgt. niDD, iv. 34; vi. 16; vii. 19. 
 
 59. Ta», in such phrases as, 'which ye pass over, to etc.,' iii. -21 (sing.); 
 iv. 14, 22, 26; vi. i; xi. 8, 11, 31. 
 
 60. yis, fear, i. 29 ; vii. 21 ; xx. 3. 
 
 It is not surprising that a great number of scholars, including Knob el, 
 Graf, Kosters, Colenso, and Kleiner t, should have assigned i.-iv. 
 to the author of v.-xxvi., chiefly on the strength of the linguistic evidence. 
 At present only Klostermann (SifiK?. &. i&i<., 1871, p. 253 sqq.) ; Hol- 
 lenberg {ibid., 1874, p. 467-470); Wellhausen (xxii. 460 sqq.) and 
 Valet on (op. cit.) stand on the other side. In my opinion these scholars 
 are right in not allowing themselves to be led away by the language of i.-iv. 
 from the opinion they have formed, on other grounds, as to its origin. The 
 resemblance — which is especially marked in iv. — is not of a kind to exclude 
 the hypothesis of imitation ; and is accompanied by divergences. It is only in 
 i.-iv. that we find n'in', ii. 5, 9 (bis), 12, 19 (bis); iii. 20; the forms 
 n-i^nn, pnnn, Tnsnn (ii. 5, 9, 19, 24; iii. 23; iii. 26) [r|D«nn is not 
 peculiar to i. 37 ; iv. 21, but occurs in ix. 8, 20 also] ; the expression 
 (man 115, for Egypt, iv. 20; the formula ■r\'^u-i D», iv. 20, in place of 
 n')3D □» (cf. 47 in n. 10). The use of nnNn in i. 7,- 19, 20, 27, 44 ; iii. 9 
 diflFers from that in vii. i ; xx. 17 (and approximates to the use of this 
 namein Jo«A. xxiv. 8, 12 [LXX.], 15, 18). More of a like kind might be added ; 
 but I attach greater weight to the different general impression left by the 
 perusal of iv. and of the exhortations of v. sqq. The redundancy observable 
 even in the latter degenerates into diffuseness, repetitions, and the piling 
 up of stock phrases and exhortations in the former. I think, therefore, that, 
 although the strength of the proof lies in the phenomena pointed out in n. 12, 
 13, 17, yet the language itself also pleads against the unity of authorship. 
 
 ■" It is but natural that the author of i.-iv. should for the most part agree 
 even in details with v. sqq., which he had completely assimilated and which 
 was always in his mind. This makes the following po ints of diff erence all 
 the more significant. 
 
 u. In jDeui. .xxiii. 4-7 [3-6] a very unfavourable judgment is passed on 
 Moab and Ammon, on the ground, amongst others, that they had refused 
 bread and water to the Israelites ; whereas the Edomites are regarded as 
 brothers («. 8 [7]), But in ii. 29 we are told that the Edomites and the 
 Moabites alike — who are therefore placed on the same footing here and in 
 
12 2 The Hexateuch. [ § 7- 
 
 V. 4Bqq. 9, — granted the request for food and drink, that was addressed in 
 ■vain to Sihon. — This contradiction, which cannot be got rid of, is decisive if 
 we accept the authenticity oi Dent, xxiii. 2-9 [t-8]. On this point see § 14, 
 n. I. 
 
 h. The passage relating to the covenant at Horeb, iv. 1 1 sqq., rests upon 
 V. I sqq., xviii. 16-19, ^'"i ^^^ much in common with them. But there are 
 points of difference too. In iv. 1 1 the mountain burns ' even into the heart 
 [1*7] of heaven.' In v. 12 the Israelites are reminded that they saw no form 
 (n^TDn), and then in v. 15-18 and again in v. 23 sqq. this circumstance is 
 made the occasion of an emphatic warning against worshipping images. Exag- 
 geration may explain the former point, but the latter specifically distinguishes 
 [121] this author from D', who makes no such use of the events at Horeb either in 
 V. or in xviii,, and indeed never displays such zeal against image-worship as 
 does our writer. 
 
 c. In v.-xi. stress is laid on the Israelites whom Moses is addressing having 
 witnessed the miracles of Yahwfe at the exodus and in the desert, and 
 being the same generation with which Yahwfe had made a covenant at 
 Horeb (v. 2, 3 ; xi. 2-7). The writer of i.-iv., on the contrary, brings it out 
 very clearly that all the Israelites who had shown their contumacy at 
 Kadesh-Barn^a had died in the desert (ii. 14-16). I find no actual and con- 
 scious contradiction in this. Klostermann (p. 254) andHollenberg 
 (p. 468) express themselves too strongly when they say that Deut. v.-xxvi. 
 lacks all ' chronological moorings ' and that Moses speaks ' as though his 
 hearers had themselves come out of Egypt and were themselves in the very 
 act of entering Canaan.' The author of v.-xi. knows of the wandering in the 
 desert for forty years (viii. 2, 15; xi. 5), and of the rebelliousness of the 
 Israelites after the despatch of the spies (ix. 23). He evidently knows that 
 the recipients of the deuteronomic legislation were not really identical 
 with the witnesses of the theophany at Horeb, but nevertheless he wishes to 
 identify them with them. But the author of i.-iv. is particularly anxious 
 to distinguish them. Is it not clear that he cannot be D^ himself? 
 What could move the latter thus to correct himself? 
 
 d. According to Klostermann (p. 258 sq.) and HoUenberg (p. 468) 
 the postscript iv. 41-43 is meant to remove the contradiction between Num. 
 XXXV. 9-34 (three + three cities of refuge) and Deut. xix (three cities of refuge, 
 and when Israel's territory has received its ultimate extension, three more) by 
 showing that when Moses delivered Deut. xix. he had already assigned the 
 three Transjordanio cities of refuge, and had therefore only now to mention 
 the three (ultimately six) Canaanite ones.— This is not correct. There is not 
 the least evidence that the writer of Deut. iv. 41-43 was acquainted with the 
 law of Num. xxxv. 9-34. Nor could the design of harmonising Deut. xix. 
 with it be attributed to him in any case, for it is just by making Moses 
 assign these three cities that he comes into conflict with Num. xxxv, and its 
 sequel Josh, xx., in both of which the selection is made later, after the con- 
 quest of Canaan and by Joshua. Num. xxxv., therefore, must be left 
 wholly out of consideration. Either D' assumes the account in Deut. iv. 41-431 
 
n. 17-] Deut. i.-Iv. a later addition. 123 
 
 and therefore only speaks, in xix., of the cities of refuge in Canaan, or else he 
 omitted to mention the Transjordanic cities, together with the others, in xix., 
 because his legislation is throughout conceived as intended for the people 
 settled in Canaan proper ; and in this case iv. 41-43 is intended to make 
 good the omission and (in accordance with the actual facts) to give due 
 recognition to the rights of asylum of the Transjordanic cities also. Proba- 
 bility pleads for the second alternative, for iv. 41-43 was written by someone 
 who knew Deut. xix. and followed it (n. 13). This cannot have been D' 
 himself, for had he observed his own omission he would have removed it by a 
 modification of Deut. xix. 
 
 e. The historical background of the exhortation in iv. 23-31 seems not to 
 be the same as that of C in v.-xi. More on this in n. 23, under (4). 
 
 With respect to the last chapters of Beuteronomi/ various [122] 
 questions arise which are too closely connected with the 
 redaction of the Hexateuch to admit of being answered at 
 present. As to their relations or want of relations with D^, 
 the following points should be noted : — 
 
 (i) Ch. xxxii. 48-52, and certain verses of xxxiv., have 
 already been assigned to P^ and his followers (§ 6, n. 44). 
 
 (2) ' The blessing wherewith Moses, the man of God, blessed 
 the children of Israel, before he died,' xxxiii., stands in no 
 sort of connection with what goes before, and was doubtless 
 inserted here simply because the death of Moses is recorded 
 in xxxiv. ; no traces of D-' or his followers can be discovered 
 in it ". 
 
 (3) Neither is ' the song of Moses,' xxxii. 1-44, deutero- 
 nomie itself ■'^^, though it is brought into connection with 
 the deuteronomic passages by an introduction, xxxi. 14-30, 
 and a short postscript, xxxii. 45-47. This setting itself is 
 composite. Ch. xxxi. 16-22 constitutes the real introduction, 
 and V. 14, 15, 23; xxxii. 44, prove that the song itself was 
 once a portion of a historical composition that dealt with the 
 times of Moses. Now whether the song, together with the 
 introduction, was incorporated in Deuteronomy, or whether 
 it was subsequently united to it, together with, and as 
 a part of, the historical writing to which it belonged^ must 
 
124 The Hexateuch. [§7- 
 
 be left for the present undecided. Probability favours the 
 latter alternative^ which involves the ascription of the 
 second introduction; xxxi. 34-30, and the postscript, xxxii. 
 45-47, to a redactor, who must however, as shown by his 
 language, be reckoned amongst the followers of D^ ^°- 
 
 (4) Amongst the passages that remain after the removal of 
 these non-deuteronomic elements (xxvii. i-xxxi. 13, andxxxiv. 
 in part), there are some which, it seems, we must ascribe to 
 D^, viz. xxvii. 9, 10 ; xxviii., which form the conclusion 
 of the great legislative discourse of v.-xxvi.; and xxxi. 9-13, 
 in which Moses is said to have committed it to writing and 
 given the necessary orders for its preservation and public 
 reading. The objections urged against the ascription of these 
 
 [123] passages to D^ fall to the ground if we suppose that he added 
 them, like v.-xi., when he issued his code xii.-xxvi^^. 
 
 (5) On the other hand, xxvii. 1-8 ; II-13 ; 14-26 ; xxix. ; 
 XXX. ; xxxi. 1—8, and the deuteronomic verses of xxxiv., must 
 be looked upon as later additions and elaborations in the style 
 of i.-iv. Ch. xxvii. 1-8 is a deuteronomic recasting of an earlier 
 original, and is, in that respect, parallel with xxxi. 14-30. It 
 breaks the context, and for that, if for no other reason, must be 
 regarded as a later addition; v. 11-13 rests on a misunder- 
 standing of xi. 39-32J and so betrays its later origin at once ; 
 V. 14-26 is a still later interpolation provoked by v. 11-13, 
 with which, however, it no more agrees than it does with 
 xii.-xxvi. Ch. xxix. and xxx., in so far as they run parallel with 
 xxviii., are superfluous and-out of place; and moreover a differ- 
 ent historical stand-point from that of D^ may be detected in 
 them. Ch. xxxi. 1-8 belongs to i.-iv. and therefore cannot be 
 attributed to DV Finally, the deuteronomic parts of xxxiv. 
 seem to be a recasting and expansion of some older narrative 
 and therefore appear to stand on the same footing as xxvii. 
 1-8 ; xxxi. 14-30 (see abovCj under (3) ) ^^. 
 
 The inquiry we have instituted shows that the tora of D 
 
n. 1 8-20.] Closing Chapters of Deuteronomy. 125 
 
 called a literature into existence that held very closely to the 
 form and contents of its prototype. This conclusion may be 
 used all the more boldly in the sequel inasmuch as it perfectly 
 harmonises with what we should have expected a j}riori ^^- 
 
 '' It is now admitted on all hands that Beut. xxxiii. is not by the same 
 author as the rest of the book, and it is pretty generally allowed that the 
 blessing is the earlier. According to K. H. Graf, Der Segen Moseys, p. 79 
 sqq., it dates from the time of Jeroboam II. C 1 e n s o, who was at first 
 disposed to regard D^ as its author {Pentateuch, iii. 570 sqq.), subsequently ad- 
 mitted that it was otherwise {Pentateuch, vii., Appendix, Synoptical table, 
 p. iv.) 
 
 '° The opposite view is taken by C 1 e n s 0, Pentateuch, iii. 563 sqq. vii. 
 Appendix, Synoptical table, p. iv,, and, of course, by the defenders of the 
 Mosaic authorship, such as F. W. S c h u 1 1 z. Das Beut. erMdrt, p. 649 
 sqq.; Keil, Lev. Num. Beut., p. 537 sq. [iii. 466]. The real points of 
 linguistic similarity to D' and his followers are but few, especially if xxxi. [124] 
 14-30, which has naturally borrowed much from the song, is excluded from 
 the comparison ; and if any explanation of those that remain were needed, it 
 might be found in the supposition that the song was known to D', etc. With 
 ■"• 3, '^TJj compare {Num. xiv. 19) Beut. iii. 24 ; v. 21 [24] ; ix. 26 ; xi. 2 ; 
 with D. 17, ' gods whom they did not know, whom their fathers feared not,' 
 compare Beut. xi. 28 ; xiii. 3, 7, 14 [2, 6, 13] ; xxviii. 64; xxix. 25 [26] ; 
 with 16, 19, 21 (bis), 27, DSS, verb and suhst., compare Beut. iv. 25 ; ix. 18 ; 
 with ? . 13, "112 iB'tDSn, compare viii. 15 (in reversed order) ; and with the 
 appeal to heaven and earth in v. 1, compare Beut. iv. 26 ; xxx. 19 (and xxxi. 
 28). The other similarities alleged have no evidential value. 
 
 ^ On this point consult Klostermann's interesting study, B as Lied 
 Mose u. das Beuteronomium {Stud. u. Krit., 1871, p. 249-294). The hypothesis 
 from which Klostermann starts with reference to the book of Numbers 
 within which Beuteronomy was included, I regard as untenable. But he 
 seems to have p r o v e d, partly with and partly against Knobel {Num., 
 Beut., Josh., p. 320 sq.), (i) that xxxi. 16-22 is the real introduction to the 
 song; (2) that the song itself, together with the introduction, once formed 
 part of a composition on the Mosaic age from which xxxi. 14, 15, 23 ; xxxii. 44 
 are also taken ; (3) that xxxi. 24-30 ; xxxii. 45-47 are deuteronomic, and 
 probably from the hand that united the work just referred to with the deutero- 
 nomic passages in which it is now embedded. Passing over the questions 
 of redaction I may here note the main proofs of these three points. 
 
 (i) Ch. xxxi. 16-22 is an independent piece, not from the same hand as v. 
 14, 15, 23. In V. 16 there is a new opening ; there is not a trace of Joshua in 
 the whole passage, una in v. 19 being addressed to the Israelites. It is not 
 deuteronomic ; it does not contain one of the usual turns and exjiressions, and 
 on the contrary has a number of words and phrases foreign to Beuteronomy : 
 'Tn« n:i; 153 'n'jN; nnniBn; d':b Tnon; nisi; ■';«n:D: is'jn^n; yw:; 
 
126 The Hexateuch. [§7. 
 
 IS' ntos); D1E3. Its connection with tlie song to which it now formB the in- 
 troduction is evident in every line and needs no further proof. 
 
 (2) F, 14, 15 again are not deuteronomic, cf. nilD"? npj IJJTQ brii^. 
 Kloatermann is of opinion that the author of these verses incorporated the 
 song and the introduction {v. 16-22) into his own narrative, and in order to 
 make them fit in placed the introduction between v. 14, 15 (Moses and Joshua 
 in the 6hel mo'^d) and v. 23 (Yahwfe's command to Joshua). Thus the song 
 would be revealed to Joshua also, and he might share the command to pro- 
 mulgate it, which accords with xzxii. 44 (from the same hand as xxxi. 14, 15, 
 23). — Nothing can be urged against this view in itself, but it is not, as 
 Klostermann thinks, the only possible one. If it should appear that the 
 song and introduction are later than xxxi. 14, 15, 23, we might then suppose 
 that the author of the introduction had woven both introduction and song into 
 his account of Joshua's consecration to his office, and that xxxii. 44 was like- 
 wise inserted by the same author. Whether this hypothesis is actually prefer- 
 able to the other cannot be decided yet. Cf. § 8, n. 15, and § 13, u. 30. 
 
 (3) Ch. xxxi. 24-30 ; xxxii. 45-47 are deuteronomic in the first place, (cf. 
 Klostermann, p. 266-270, 275 sq., whose proof covers the verses, xxxi. 
 
 [125] 24, 25, 30, which Knob el derives from another source), and in the second 
 place their special purpose is to bring the preceding section, v. 14-23, and the 
 song itself, xxxii. 1-43, 44, into connection with the inditing and depositing of 
 the deuteronomic tora. The author follows %. 14-23, but without ceasing to 
 depend on D'. 
 
 '^^ On the subject of this and the following notes, cf. Th. Tijdsohr., xii. 21; 7- 
 323, where the propositions laid down in the text as to xxvii. are expressly 
 worked out. I will not now dwell on the verses I have denied to D' (cf. n. 
 22), but will briefly note the reasons for assigning the passages indicated 
 above to him. 
 
 (i) Ch. xxvii. 9, 10. The tora does not come to an end with xxvi. ; the 
 closing discourse (parallel to Ex. xxiii. 20-33; Lev. xxvi. 3-45) and the 
 colophon have still to be supplied ; and accordingly they appear in xxviii. 
 1-68 and xxviii. 69 [xxix. 1] respectively. Now, although we can imagine 
 these passages joining on immediately to xxvi., yet xxvii. 9, 10 forms an 
 admirable connection between them, suited to the weight of the denunciation 
 in xxviii. There is nothing, then, to prevent our following the linguistic 
 evidence of these verses and assigning them to D' (cf. 4, 29, 35, SO in 
 
 n. 4, 10). 
 
 (2) The warp and weft of xxviii. are so obviously spun out of deuteronomic 
 material, that the only question left is whether it is possible to explain the 
 fact as resulting from imitation rather than from unity of authorship. 
 Wellhausen (xxii. 461 sq.) points out that in Dciii. xxyiii. 58, 61, ' the 
 words of this tora, wi-itten in this book ' and ' the book of this tora ' are 
 mentioned, and hence he concludes that the author of the blessing and the 
 curse had the work of D' before him, and therefore was not D' himself. But 
 here the remarks on xvii. 18, 19, made in n. 11, are again applicable; if D' 
 himself (xxxi. 9-13) records the writing down of 'this tora' by Moses, he 
 
n. 20, 21.] Components of Deut. xxvii. sqq. 127 
 
 might well drop into the mention of ' the book of this tora,' especially in a 
 subsequent addition to his work — and such in any case we must hold xxviii. 
 no less than v.-xi. (of. n. 1 1 ), to have been. So much is certain, that the 
 position taken up by the author of xxviii. is precisely that of D'. Like him 
 (xi. 13 sqq., xxvi. sqq.) he sets the blessing and the curse over against each 
 other and leaves the free choice between the two open to Israel. His de- 
 scription of the blessing {v. 1-14) is briefer than that of the curse {v. 15- 
 68), but this lies in the nature of the case. Amongst the many disasters 
 which are to ensue on Israers disobedience, deportation to a foreign land 
 occurs (v. 36, 37, 41, 63-68), but it is merely one out of numberless afflictions, 
 and the first mention of it is followed by the enumeration of other penalties 
 which are to fall upon Israel in his own land {y. 38-40, 42 sqq.). The deport- 
 ation is to the author a simple possibility — and one out of many such — so that 
 he never follows it up, in the whole of his long discourse, or says anything of 
 its consequences or its fruits. In v. 63-68, likewise, the threatened captivity 
 closes the scene, and the threat ' you shall offer yourselves for sale there (in 
 Egypt) to your enemies, and no one shall bid for you,' is the last word. All 
 this is in marked contrast (of. n. 22) with iv. 26 sqq. ; xxix. [xxix. 2-29], 
 XXX., so that the limited outlook of our passage cannot be regarded as acci- 
 dental. Add that the colophon xxviii. 69 [xxix. l] answers to the exordium 
 V. 2 sqq. There is really no reason, then, to depart from the usual opinion con- 
 cerning xxviii., which is also defended by Graf, Klostermann, and 
 Hollenberg. The last-named scholar, however, holds, with good reason, [r 26] 
 that the distinction between xxix. sq. [xxix. 2-xxx.] and xxviii. [xxviii.-xxix. i] 
 is more certain than the unity of v.-xxvi. and xxviii. Kleinert'n 
 opinion (op. cit., p. 196 sqq.), that xxviii. 28-37, 49~57 ^i'® interpolations, 
 many centuries later than the rest, stands or falls with the antiquity he 
 assigns to the origiual discourse, cf. § 12, n. 1-7. Vale ton {Studien, vii. 
 44 sq.) only allows v. 1-6, 15-19 to the author of the hortatory discourse 
 (v.-xi.) and regards all the rest as later expansion. He points out the con- 
 nection of these verses with xxvi. 16-19, and the beautiful parallelism between 
 the blessing and the curse which marks them. Undoubtedly the denunciation 
 would have gained in force if the author had restrained himself within the 
 limits supposed, but does this give us any right to deny that the elaborate 
 development of the antitheses is his ? In v. 7-14, 20-68, I cannot discover a 
 single indication of diverse authorship, and the language and style of D' are 
 obvious throughout — in v. 47-68, which Kayser {Jdhrh. f. p. Theologie, 
 1881, p. 530 sq.) denies to the original author, as well as elsewhere. But 
 after all it must be admitted that a discourse such as this courted interpolation, 
 so to speak, and we cannot therefore guarantee the authenticity of every 
 word. 
 
 (3) Ch. xxxi. 9-1 3 may easily be detached from v. 1-8, to which it in no way 
 refers, and may be regarded as the continuation of xxviii. The language is 
 that of D^ without a single departure (with v. 9 compare x. 8 ; with 0. 10 
 compare xv. 1-6 ; xvi. 13-16 ; with «. 11 compare the passages under 6 in n. 
 4; with V. 12 compare ibid, 39, 18, 21, 37, 4; with t), 13 compare ibid, 21, 
 
T28 The Hexatettch. [§7- 
 
 18, 15, and xii. i [but also iy. lo]). A main argument for assigning these 
 verses to D' is that they not only harmonise with the setting he has chosen, 
 but are a necessary part of it. He could not send forth the legislative dis- 
 course in v.-xxyi. without at the same time answering the question how it had 
 been preserved — preserved as we shall presently see, § 13, for many centuries ! 
 This is why he states that Mosea himself provided for its being written down 
 and perpetuated. Add to this the evidence of xvii. 19 (see above, n. 11). 
 
 The limits I assign to the original ' book of the tora ' coincide exactly with 
 those laid down byColenso {Fentateuch, vii., Appendix Syn. table, p. iv.), 
 except that he puts iv. 44, instead of iv. 45-49, at the head of the book. In 
 this I would gladly follow him if iv. 44 contained any indication of the time 
 and place of the discourse of Moses ; but we find none such till we come to 
 *'• 45-49j ^"d since something of the kind is really indispensable we are forced 
 to lay hold of these verses and claim them, or some shorter heading of similar 
 purport, for D'. 
 
 ^^ In brief, the reasons are as follows : — 
 
 (i) Ch. xxvii. 1-8. Here an older injunction, v. 5-7" (sacrificial feast on 
 Ebal), ia taken up by a writer who knows and copies D', and the feast is 
 made a means of enforcing ' this tora ' {v. 3, 8) . That the author ia not 
 D ' appears less from his language (compare t«i, v. 8, with i. 5, however), 
 than from the position of the passage and from its character, passing as it does 
 beyond the lines of D'. 
 
 ' (2) V. 11-13 i^ unconnected with v. 1-8, and is certainly from another 
 
 hand. It is placed here because of Ebal, in v. 4, but it really refers back to 
 
 [127] xi. 29-32. In this latter passage, however, nothing ia said of dividing the 
 people into two sections. The idea, in D ', is to ' lay the blessing on Gerizim 
 and the curse on Ebal,' where they will both lie ready to hand, and will one 
 or the other fall upon the people, when settled in Canaan, according to their 
 deeds. The misconception in xxvii. 11-13 betrays the later writer. 
 
 (3) F. 14-26 is only in appearance the continuation of v. 11-13. Levi 
 takes a diflferent r6le in the second passage ; and it was unknown to the 
 writer of Josh. viii. 30-35, who was acquainted with xxvii. 1-8, 11-13. The 
 writer of v. 14-26 intended his addition to stand where we now find it {v. 26, 
 ' the words of this tora '), and attaches himself indiiferently to D' (compare v. 
 17 with xix. 14; V. 19 with xxiv. 17; v. 20 with xxiii. i [xxii. 30]), and to 
 P' in Lei', xviii.-xx. (compare v. 18 with Lev. xix. 14 ; v. 21 with Lev. xviii. 
 23 ; v. 23 with Lev. xviii. 8, etc.). These veraea are not — as they would have 
 been had D' been their author — an epitome of L>eut. xii.-xxvi. Eor all these 
 reasons we must regard this passage as a late interpolation. Cf. K a y s e r, op. 
 cit., p. 101 sq.; Tli. Tijdschr., xii. 306-309 and below, § 16, n. 12. 
 
 (4) Ch. xxix [xxix. 2-29], xxx. ia a single whole. Kleinert's supposi- 
 tion that xxix. 21-37 [22-28] ; xxx. i-io are interpolations, comes under the 
 same judgment as his views concerning xxviii. (n. 3 1 (2)). In xxix. i [2] we have 
 a fresh opening, which, when taken in connection with xxviii. 69 [xxix. i], at 
 once challenges the suspicion that the diacourse ao introduced is a later addition. 
 The only real question is whether this interpolation was made by D ' (K n b e 1 , 
 
n. 21, 22.J Aitalysis of Deut. xxvii., xxviii.-xxxi. 8. 129 
 
 Graf, and others), or by one of his followers. The linguistic evidence is not 
 conclusive ; deuteronomio words and phrases abound, but there is also much 
 that is special, e.g. nb« (xxix. ii, 13, 18-20 [12, 14, 19-21] ; xxx. 7), and in 
 general the phraseology of xxix. 3 [4], 9 [10] (asj), 10 [11] (wood-cuttera 
 and water-carriers), 11 [12] (nnil 13!?), 16 [17] (d'^i")!! D'Slpli); I7> 18, 
 [18, 19], 21 [22] (n'jn, D»«'jnn), 22 [231,25 [26] (nnbp'jn n'ji, cf. iv. 19), 27 [28] 
 (i2in:), XXX. 3 (niaui ani), 6 (circumcision of the heart), 11-14, 15 (cf. 19 bis, 
 20, pregnant useof Q<'n, blessed life). But the contents forbid us to ascribe 
 the two chapters to D^. It is true that the author observes the conditions 
 imposed by the historical situation so far as to treat the lot of Israel 
 after the settlement in Canaan as still uncertain and dependent upon his atti- 
 tude towards the tora. But this is merely a matter of form, for it is obvious 
 throughout that to the writer's mind the punishment has already actually 
 fallen upon the people in the specific form of banishment, and the blessing can 
 only be earned after and in consequence of it. ' The realisation of the curse 
 is taken for granted, and is the point of departure for the hopes of conversion 
 and blessing in the future ' (W ellhausen). See especially xxx. i sqq. ; at 
 first it seems as though the realisation of ' all these words,' including blessing 
 and curse alike, were to be spoken of, but the writer falls at once into a dis- 
 course exclusively concerned with the curse, and with the exiles, their repent- 
 ance, and the blessedness that will follow it. This has no parallel in 
 D', either in xxviii. or elsewhere; but only in iv. 25 sqq. Here, too, the 
 opening is hypothetical, ' i f you beget children and grand-children . . . and do 
 what is evil in Yahwfe's eyes,' etc. (y. 25), then ye shall not live long in the 
 land, etc. {v. 26 sqq.). But instead of any notice of the alternative possibility [128] 
 we find a promise (». 29 sqq.) to the exiles who seek Yahwfe that they shall be 
 restored and shall enjoy the tokens of his favour undisturbed. This resem- 
 blance to i.-iv., taken in connection with n. 12 sqq., is an additional reason 
 for assigning xxix. [xxix. 2-29], xxx. to one of the followers of D^ rather than 
 to himself. 
 
 (5) Ch. xxxi. 1-8. This is a fragment of a history of the Mosaic period, 
 standing in no direct coimection with ' this tora.' The contents are essentially 
 the same as those of v. 14, 15, 23, which we have assigned above (n. 20) to 
 an older narrator : what Yahwfe says to Joshua in *. 23, Moses says to him in 
 ■». 7 (read s'^n) and 8. Our passage, then, is the expanded deuteronomio 
 parallel of the older account, which was itself afterwards appended — of course 
 by another hand — to the deuteronomio pericope that had been built upon it 
 (thus reversing the process by which Devi, i.-iv. was appended to the narra- 
 tives of JExodus and Numbers, of which it was itself the deuteronomio epitome ; 
 cf. n. 14, 15). The agreement of xxxi. 1-8 with i.-iv. appears (a) from 
 the references in v. 2 to iii. 27 (i. 37) ; and in v. 3'' to iii, 28 (i. 38 ; iii. 21 sq.) ; 
 (6) from the language, which bears the common deuteronomio stamp, nin' 
 Tn'JN; TDHJn; wt ; D'':s'; <n:; niSDrT''73; the oath to the fathers; Vnjri) 
 but agrees more particularly with i.-iv. Observe the combination of pin with 
 yON, original in xxxi. 23 and adopted thence in v. 6, •/ ; iii. 28, cf. i. 28 (Josh. 
 i. 6, 7, 9, 18; X. 25); nonn, iv. 31 ; xxxi. 6, 8 (with 3ii> here as in Josh. 
 
 K 
 
130 
 
 The Hexateuch. [ § 7- 
 
 i-6); nnn «')i Mi>n «■;, xxxi. 8 (cf. ii. 6 isn»n bwi iMi'n hvt)\ i. 21 {Josh. 
 i. 9 ; viii. i ; x. 25). On the parallel passages in Joshua more hereafter; at 
 present we need only state our conclusion that i.-iv. and xxxi. 1-8 belong to 
 a single work by one of the followers of D ^. 
 
 (6) Ch. xxxiv. Cf. § 6, n. 44. Traces of deuteronomic language and 
 conceptions in v. 4 (the oath to the fathers; Tasn n'; riDiIJ), 6 (VlD 
 TiVD, cf. iii. 29), 7" (? cf. xxxi. 2"), 11, 12. But by their side — not counting P'' 
 in V. I", 8, 9 — are expressions that point to other sources : v. 7'' does not 
 agree with xxxi. 2'' ; v. 10, D'oD"'j« D>3B, as in Gen. xxxii. 31 [30] ; Ex. xxxiii. 
 II (but "d3 "d in Deut. v. 4). The case is therefore identical with that of 
 xxxi. 14-30 and not unlike that of xxvii. 1-8 ; xxxi. 1-8. 
 
 ^' D' is well aware that he conceives and regulates the relation between 
 Yahwfe and Israel in a manner special to himself, and the very form which 
 he adopts emphasizes the importance and novelty of his tora. How fully he 
 was justified in this belief will appear presently (§ 12). It is, therefore, per- 
 fectly natural that a portion of the prophetic literature should show signs of 
 his influence, and that men should rise to carry on his work, and, specifically, 
 to write the history of the Mosaic and subsequent ages in his spirit. The 
 book of Joshua at once supplies the proof that this is what actually took 
 place. 
 
 Just as tlie close oi Numbers, from the hand of P^ raises the 
 expectation of a narrative of the conquest and division of 
 Canaan from the same source, and jnst as we actually find 
 the narrative we expect, mingled with other documents, in 
 [129] the book of Joshua (§ 6, n. 46-53), so we are likewise prepared, 
 by the closing' chapters of Deuteronomy, for further information 
 from the same hand, or from the same school, concerning the 
 doings of Joshua as the successor of Moses ^*- Nor do we 
 search the book of Joshua in vain in this case either. 
 
 Joshua i.-xii. is by no means deuteronomic as a whole. We 
 cannot even detect and separate any connected deuteronomic 
 narrative in it. And yet these chapters contain turns and 
 conceptions so characteristically deuteronomic, that when taken 
 in their mutual connection and with reference to their context 
 they justify the conclusion that Joshua i.-xii. — apart from the 
 fragments of P^ embraced therein (§ 6, n. 48)^5 — contains 
 the deuteronomic expansion and recasting of an older historj^. 
 The line cannot always be drawn with certainty between this 
 
n. 2 2-25.] Deuteronomy and Joshua. 131 
 
 original narrative and the modifications introduced into it. 
 But it is highly probable that the following passages and 
 verses should be regarded as inserted, or at least recast, in the 
 deuteronomic recension: — i. (almost entirely); ii. 10, ii; iii. 
 Z^l; iv. 14, 31-34; V. a (llfij and n^i^tij); 4-7; viii. i, 
 3^ 37, ^9(?)^ 30-35 ; ix. 34, 35, 37" ; X. 8, 35^ 37(?), 40-43 ; 
 xi. 10-30, 33''; xii., largely^''. 
 
 In the second portion of the book of JosJiua (xiii.-xxiv.) 
 the deuteronomic recension has likewise left distinct traces, 
 amongst which we include xiii. i''-6, 8-13^ 14, 33 ; xiv. 6- 
 15 ; xviii. 7 ; xxi. 41-43 [43-45] > s;xii. 4, 5 ; xxiii. ; xxiv. I, 
 9, 13, 3127. All these are additions, not to P^ but to the 
 accounts which we have already (§ 6, n. 49-53) seen are now 
 united with his in Joshua xiii.-xxiv^*. Ch. xx. would be an 
 exception to this rule were the deuteronomic phrases that occur 
 in it {v. 3 (in part), 4, 5, 6'") allowed to rank with those indi- 
 cated above. But the text of the LXX. proves that they were 
 not inserted in the priestly account of the selection of the cities 
 of refuge until after the final redaction of the whole book ^^. 
 
 Our previous investigations (n. 13 sqq.) at once suggest the 
 question whether these passages and verses are from D^, or [13°] 
 from one or more of his followers. The latter hypothesis, 
 which Hollenberg has conclusively defended, has antecedent 
 probability on its side also, and completely harmonises with 
 the conclusions we have reached in regard to Bent, i.-iv., 
 xxvii., xxix.-xxxiv ^''. It seems hardly possible, however, to 
 ascribe the deuteronomic recension to a single author ; nor is 
 there anything against our supposing several hands to have 
 been at work on the same lines ^^. 
 
 ^ Cf. Deut. xxvii. i-8 ; xxxi. 3-6, 7, 8, 23, aa well as passages that come so 
 early in the book as i. 38 ; iii. 21, 22, 28. 
 
 ^^ The question whether the deuteronomic editor had these fragments of 
 P^ before him, or, in other words, whether they were a constituent part of the 
 narrative into which he inserted matter of his own, cannot be solved by the 
 
 K 3 
 
132 The Hexateuck. [ § 7- 
 
 evidence of i.-xii, ; but siii.-xxiv. yields a negative answer (n. 27, 38), which, 
 when once we have obtained it, we may extend to i.-xii, likewise. 
 
 ^* We will first enumerate the deuteronomic terms and expressions in the 
 book of Joshua, as a, whole, referring to the list in n. 4, 10, 16; and we 
 will then proceed to the more detailed statement and defence of the conclu- 
 sions they warrant. 
 
 In Jos/twa, then, we recognise, 1. xxii. 5; xxiii. II. — 3. xxiv. 2, 16. — 4. 
 Yahwe, followed by D'n'jN with pronominal suffix, passim, e. g. i. 9, II, 13, IS, 
 17; ii. 11; ix. 9, 34, etc., etc. In narrative always ' Yahwfe, the god of 
 Israel,' vii. 13, 19, 20 ; viii. 30 ; ix. 18, 19 ; x. 40, 42 ; xiii. 14, 33 ; xiv. 14 ; 
 xxii. 24 ; xxiv. 2, 23, a formula which does not appear in the Pentateuch 
 except in Ex. v. i ; xxxii. 27. — 5. of xxiv. 31. — 6. ix. 27''. — 10. xxii. 5.— 13. 
 xxii.5.— IS.iv. 24.— 19. i. 15; xxiii. 5; nl2j^, i. 11; xiii. i ; xviii. 3; xxiv. 4. 
 — 23. i. 6. — 24. nbn:, xiii. 6, 7, 14, 33 ; xxiii. 4 (also occurs in P^, xiv. 3 ; xvii. 
 4,6;xix.49). — 25.vii.25. — 30. xxii. 5. — 32.i.6; v.6; xxi. 41, 42 [43,44]. — 
 35. i. 17 ; V. 6; xxiv. 24. — 37. nnir, xxii. 3 (with miDilJn, very common in P^ 
 etc., but also occurring in /)e»i. xi. I ; C?e)!.xxvi.5),5; withmirff';, i. 7) 8;xxii.5. 
 • — 38. TQic:, withisD, xxii. 5, and with personal pronoun, preceded by ';, xxiii, 
 
 II ; of. DevA. ii. 4 ; iv. 9, 15. — 43. xxiv. 17. — 44. xxii. 5 ; xxiii. 8. — 46. x. 12 ; 
 
 xi.6. — 49. i. 7; xxiii. 6. — 51. xxiii. 16 (cf. nilTDn nai«n, ». 13, 15). — 53. iv, 
 
 24. — 56. xxii. 5. — 57. i. 18. — 60. i. 9. 
 This list is enough in itself to show that deuteronomic phrases occur 
 
 with special frequency in the passages and verses indicated above ; and the 
 
 impression is confirmed by the parallel passages collected in u. 22, and also 
 
 by the following supplement. 
 
 61. DV, in the formula 'many days,' xi. 18; xxiii. i ; xxiv. 7, cf. Deut, i, 
 
 46 ; ii. I ; xx. 19. 
 [131] 62. DnV; in 'Yahwfe fights for Israel,' x. 14, 42; xxiii. 3, 10, ct Deut, 
 
 iii. 22. 
 
 63. ni3 in Hiphil, i. 13, 15; xxii. 4; xxiii. i, c{. Deut. iii. 20; xii. 10; 
 XXV. 19. 
 
 64. naBJ:"'33, x. 40; xi. 11, 14, cf. Deal. xx. 16. 
 
 65. TDU) in Hiphil, ix, 24; xi. 14, 20; xxiii. 15; xxiv. 8, cf. Deut. ii. 22, 
 23, and elsewhere. 
 
 On the deuteronomic recension of Josh, i.-xii., in particular, consult Hol- 
 lenberg'a careful investigations in Stud. u. Krit., 1874, p. 472-506, and 
 note the following points : — ■ 
 
 Ch. i. With V. 3-5' compare Deut. xi. 24, 25" (see below, n. 30). In v. 8, 
 ' this book of the law ' as in Deut. xxix. 20 [21] ; xxx. 10. The D'TTOt', v. 10, 
 appear in Deut. xvi. 18 ; xx. 5, 8, 9 ; xxix. 9 [10] ; xxxi. 28, but also in Ex. v. 
 6, 10, 14, 15, 19 ; Num. xi. 16 ; the editor may therefore have found them in 
 the original, from which he certainly took the cont ents of v. I, 2, 10, II, 
 though not without running them into his own mould. With v. 12-15 com- 
 pare Deuf. iii. 18-20 ; the answer of the Transjordanic tribes, v. 16-18, which is 
 replete with deuteronomic phrases, is evidently a homiletio addition. 
 
 Ch, ii. 10, Q'Tnn, of Sihon and Og, as in Deut, ii. 34; iii, 6. With v. 11'' 
 
n. 25, 26.] Language of D in Joshua. 133 
 
 compare Dud. iv. 39. — H ollenberg (p. 490 sq.) believes v. 9, 24 also to be 
 deuteronomic additions ; but they do not contain the characteristic phrases 
 (cf. Deut. ii. 25) and may have been borrowed from Ec. xv. 15, 16, by the 
 earlier author himself; in which ease v. 10, 11 is a development of the 
 theme given in ?;. 9. 
 
 Ch. iii. 2-iv. 24 remains a compound narrative (§ 4, n. 13) even when the 
 deuteronomic additions have been thrown out. The latter are easily detected 
 by their language ; iii. 3 (n'l'jn D':n3n as in 'Dent. xvii. g, 18 ; xviii. i ; xxiv. 
 8 ; xxvii. 9) ; 7 (cf. i. 5, and Dmt. ii. 25) ; iv. 14 (refers back to iii. 7) ; 21-24 
 (paraphrase and expansion, addressed to all Irsael, of what was said to the 
 twelve men in d. 6, *j, though referring there to the heap of stones in the 
 bed ofthe river). It might be asked whether 'the priests bearing the 
 ark' (iii. 6, 8, 13-15, 17 ; iv. 9, 10, 16, cf. Dent, xxxi, 9) are not also deut- 
 eronomic, and,if so, whether one ofthe two accounts ofthe passage of the Jordan 
 must not be placed in its entirety amongst the deuteronomic additions. But 
 these verses do not display the usual characteristics of the editor, so that we 
 had better attribute no more than iii. 3, 7 ; iv. 14, 21-24 to him. 
 
 Ch. V. 2, 3, 8, 9 are very properly regarded by Hollenberg(p. 493 eq.) 
 and, independently of him, by Well haus en {Geschiclite, 1st ed., i. 365) as 
 an old account of the introduction of circumcision, which is represented 
 as an Egyptian practice, the application of which to the Israelites will 
 remove the reproach of uncleanness hurled at them by the Egyptians. V. 4-7 
 serves to bring this account, which could not but offend the editor, into at least 
 the semblance of agreement with the current belief as to the origin of circum- 
 cision. These verses betray their dependence upon Deuteronomy, not only 
 by the parallels already cited, but by their agi'eement with Deut. i. 34, 35, 
 and the resemblance of the heading (Tnn nil) to Deut. xv. 2 ; xix. 4. But 
 see below, § 16, n. 12. It obviously follows that, in t'. 2, aiu) and nMUi — 
 which are quite beside the mark, since Joshua had performed circumcision 
 on no previous occasion — were added by the author of v. 4-7. fiSzT 
 
 On the ark of Yahwfe, borne by the priests, vi, 6 sqq., see above on 
 iii., iv. 
 
 In viii. I, perhaps the first words only (cf. n. 22) are a deuteronomic addition. 
 V. 29 agrees with Deut. xxi. 23 in substance, but not in words, so that its 
 deuteronomic character must remain doubtful. — The destination of the booty 
 of Ai, V. 2^, 27, is midway between the deuteronomic ordinances concerning 
 non-Canaanite and Canaanite cities respectively {Deut. xx. 12-14; 16-18). 
 The meaning is that Israel was allowed to take possession of the property of 
 the men ofAias an exception; and v. 2^, 27 must therefore be regarded 
 as dependent on Deut. xx. — V. 30-35 assumes Deui. xxvii. 1-8, 11-13 tlirough- 
 out. See further, u. 30. 
 
 Ch. ix. 27I' is evidently of deuteronomic origin. According to H oil en- 
 berg (p. 496 sq.) the same may be said of v. 22-27 ^^ ^ whole. But 
 Wellhausen rightly contests this (xxi. 593 sq.); 0. 22 and 23 are the 
 indispensable sequel oi v. 16 and are continued, in their turn, in i', 26, 27* 
 (which has passed through the hand of the redactor however, cf. § 6, n. 
 
134 The Hexateuch. [§7; 
 
 48). F. 24, 25, on the other hand, looks like a, subsequent addition and re- 
 minds us of D' and his followers. 
 
 Onx. of. Hollenberg (p. 497 sqq.) andWellhausen (xxi. 594 sqq.). 
 As to V. 8 — an obvious insertion — no doubt can exist. The same may be said 
 of o. 25. For «. 27 of. note on viii. 29. Hollenberg regards «. 12-15 
 as a deuteronomic addition also, but in spite of ':C^ ]n: (d. 12) and 
 'jNlil)'') on';: mrr (». 14), I hold, with Wellhausen, that this is very 
 doubtful; the style is not the same. As to v. 28-39,43 I am not clear. 
 Wellhausen assigns them, together with v. 40-42, to the deuteronomic 
 writer ; and it certainly harmonises with the latter's spirit thus to extend 
 the area of Joshua's victoiies, and then allow him the free disposal of the land 
 whose inhabitants have been slaughtered. Nevertheless the discrepancy 
 between v. 37 (nsVn-nNi) and v. 23 (|nin ibn-nN) makes it probable 
 that a story lay at the basis of v. 28-39, 43) "whose author was unacquainted 
 with V. 16-27. I^ ^°) *^i^ story was taken up by the deuteronomic writer and 
 reproduced in v. 40-42. 
 
 In xi. the deuteronomic recension is clearly traceable, perhaps even in f. 
 2 , 3 (where the four kings of v. i are increased by an indefinite number of 
 others), but certainly in v. 10-20, which is due in its entirety to the deutero- 
 nomic editor, save for a few details in -ii. 10, 11. F. 23" (cf. xiv. 15) must likewise 
 be attributed to him. But v. 21, 22 (inconsistent with xiv. 6-15) and v. 23" 
 (that comes too soon ; see below on xiii. sqq.) are not his. In all probability 
 they are a still later addition, in which Joshua's conquests were yet further 
 expanded in defiance of the fixed tradition about Caleb as the conqueror of the 
 Anakites. 
 
 Ch. xii. 1-6 recalls — without any real appropriateness — the conquest of 
 Sihon's and Og's territory. It is closely related to Deid. iii. 9-12, 14-17 and 
 presumably comes from the same hand or the same school. The title («. 
 7, 8,) of the list that now follows resembles xi. 17 ; it uses rmJT cf. 0. 6; 
 i. 15; Deut.ii. 5, 9, 12, 19; iii. 20, and generalizes Joshua's victories, cf. x. 
 28 sqq. ; xi. 10-20. It may therefore be assigned to the deuteronomic editor, 
 and in that case the list itself, v. 9-24, must also have been drawn up by him. 
 [133] It is quite in harmony with this that the original authors of vi. sqq. and xxiv. 
 appear not to have known of the thirty-one kings defeated by Joshua. 
 
 " We have already seen from § 6, n. 49-53, that Josli. xiii.-xxiv. presents 
 a most complicated problem for solution. In order to arrive, if possible, at 
 some trustworthy conclusion as to the nature and extent of the deuteronomic 
 recension of these chapters, we must take xxiii. as our point of departure, for the 
 language of this chapter (n. 26) proves it to be deuteronomic in its entirety. 
 Against K n o b e 1 (p. 480 sqq.) who divides it between the ' Kriegsbuch,' the 
 Jehovist, and Deuteronomist, see amongst others. Colons 0, Wellhausen, 
 and especially Hollenberg (p. 481-485). Now in Joshua's discourse the 
 defeat of the Canaanites is an accomplished fact (». 3, etc.) ; the tribes have a 
 heritage assigned them, still partially in the possession of the old inhabitants 
 («. 4); their settlement in that heritage is still to come 
 («. 5 sqq.) ; and Joshua utters his admonitions and warnings in view of it. 
 
.n. 26, 2 7- J Detiteronomic recension of yoskua. 135 
 
 The meaning of v. I is, ' After many days (cf. xxii. 3) when Yahwfe had given 
 rest,' etc. (and not, ' many days after Yahwfe,' etc.). In a word, just as the 
 Transjordanio tribes are dismissed to their homes in xxii. i sqq., so here the 
 rest of the Israelites are disbanded by Joshua when the conquest and the 
 partition of the land have been completed (cf. xxiv. 28). — We infer from xxiii., 
 therefore, that the deuteronomic editor conceived the partition of the land to 
 be an act of Joshua's, so far fonning a complete and single whole that 
 the settlement itself, likewise regarded as a single act, could follow in due 
 course upon it. But this is not the only view we find in Josh. xiii. sqq. Ac- 
 cording to xviii. 2 sqq. Judah and Joseph established themselves first (see es- 
 pecially V. s*"), and then the remaining seven tribes had their heritage assigned 
 them at Shiloh — by lot in their case, but, it would seem, not so in the case 
 of Judah and Joseph, otherwise Joshua would not have reproached the tribes 
 (y. 3 sqq.), but would have borne the blame of the delay himself. Ch. xvii. 
 14—18 agrees with xviii. 2 sqq. The independent settlement of Judah and 
 Joseph, however, is not further described in xiii. sqq. ; the account of it which 
 the original author of xvii. 14-18 ; xviii. 2 sqq. must have left, has certainly 
 been omitted. It is not difficult to guess why. The deuteronomic editor 
 makes a point of showing that all the tribes had their heritage assigned them 
 by Joshua, and that too in one and the same manner, namely, by lot. He 
 could therefore only retain so much of the older accounts as seemed capable of 
 being reconciled in some sort with this conception ; and could not retain the 
 heading which definitely excluded it. This throws some light on the obscure 
 verses xiii. 1-7. F. i probably belonged to xviii. 2 sqq., originally, but was 
 transferred to its present place by the deuteronomic writer. The words (u. 
 i''), ' there yet remains exceeding much land to be taken and possessed,' 
 which originally referred to the whole of Canaan except the territory occupied 
 by Judah and Joseph, are now taken in another sense and applied to the 
 districts which still remained in the possession of the old inhabitants {v. 2-6, 
 where this explanation is, oddly enough, put into the mouth of Yahwfe him- 
 self). The command to divide the remaining territory (amongst the seven 
 tribes, to wit) that must also have belonged originally to xviii. 2 sqq., is now 
 made to embrace the nine and a half tribes, and is transplanted 
 together with the rest (v. 7), without the writer's taking the trouble to bring [134] 
 it into any connection with his own words (v. -2-6). This hypothesis also 
 throws light on the almost verbal coincidence of xiii. i with xxiii. i*", 2'', and of 
 xiii. 6*^ with xxiii. 4*^. 
 
 Haying thus modified the account of the partition of the land the deuterono- 
 mic editor added certain details of his own. In the first place the concise 
 description of the Transjordanio land, xiii. 8-12, which sometimes agrees 
 verbally with xii. 1-6 (cf. n. 26) ; then the remark as to Levi, xiii. 14 
 (cf. Deut. xviii. i, 2), repeated in v. 33 — though the text of the LXX. 
 indicates the hand of a later copyist here; then the passage xiv. 6-15, 
 the relation of which to Deut. i. 19-36 is extremely close (cf. Th. 
 Tijdschr., xi. 551 sq., 558 sq., where it is also shown that ynnN"';?!, v. 6, 
 is a gloss) ; and finally xviii. 7 (=xiii. 14). 
 
136 The Hcxateuch. [§7- 
 
 Linguistic evidence shows that xxi. 41-43 [43^45] likewise is an addition 
 ty the deuteronomio writer, as well as xxii. (3 ?), 4, 5, if, indeed, the whole 
 pericope sxii. 1-6 is not from his hand, or at least recast hy him («!. 7, 8 
 
 1 reo-ard as a very late addition, intended to explain the D313>1 of i). 6 more 
 fully ; V. 7" is quite superfluous and interrupting). — On the other hand, xxiv. 
 1-2 7 is certainly not of deuteronomio origin ; of. H 1 1 e n b e r g (p. 485-488), 
 and W.'ellhausen (xxi. 601 sq.) ; but a comparison of v. \^ with zziii. 
 
 2 ; of v. 13 with Dmt. vi. 10 ; and of v. 31 with the passages collected under 
 5 in n. 4 and Dtut. xi. 7, makes it probable that these verses were recast or 
 inserted by the deuteronomio editor. There are, likewise, traces of the deutero- 
 nomic usage in V. 2 (D'-in« □'n'jN T33>), 4 (im« nuiT';), 7 (of. n. 26,61), 16 
 (cf. 2), 17I' (cf. Beid. xxix. 15 [16]), 24 (cf. n. 4, 35), but they are not 
 distinct enough to lead to any definite conclusion ; v. 9 and 10 certainly resemble 
 Deui. xxiii. 5 and 6, but they also differ from, and therefore are not dependent 
 on, them, 
 
 ^° With respect to most of the texts dealt with in n. 27, this is obvious at a 
 glance. In xiv. 6-15 we find Joshua at Gilgal (v. 6), whereas it is highly 
 probable, to say the least, that P' makes the whole partition of the land take 
 place at Shiloh (§ 6, n. 52). Ch. xviii. 7 occurs in a connection (». 2-10) that 
 has nothing in common with P^. Ch. xxi. 41-43 [43-45], though it now 
 follows the list of priestly and Levitical cities (from P ^) is in no way what- 
 ever connected with it ; but attaches itself to xxii. 1-6, which does not belong 
 to P^. Neither in xxiii., nor in the deuteronomio additions to xxiv., nor in 
 the original text of that chapter, is the smallest knowledge of xxii. 9-34 (P^ 
 or P*) betrayed. 
 
 "' Cf. Hollenberg, Her CharaMer der alex. Vebersefzung des B.Josua, p. 
 15, and Th. Tijdschr., xi. 467-478. 
 
 ^° See Stud. u. Krit,, 1874, p. 462-506. Hollenberg clearly shows that 
 the deuteronomio passages in Joshua, while resembling Deui. v.-xxvi. in lan- 
 guage, are in far closer agreement yet with Dent, i.— iv., xxvii., xxix.-xxxi., etc. 
 He also points out that Deut. xi. 24, 25 is cited in Josk. i. 3-5'' as a word of 
 Yahwe to Moses — a mistake of which the vrriter of Deut. xi. could hardly 
 have been guilty. I cannot allow, with Hollenberg (p. 479 sq.), that 
 Deut. xxvii. i sqq. has been misunderstood by the author of Josh. viii. 30-35, 
 or, in other words, that the latter identifies the plastered stones with the rough 
 stones of the altar ; but I agree with him that the original writer to whom we 
 owe V. 30-32, 34 (except ' the blessing and the curse ') and 35, was himself one 
 [135] of the followers of D', inasmuch as Deut. xxvii. 1-8 was either composed by 
 him or lay before him as he wrote (cf. n. 22 under (i) ) ; a fortiori, then, the 
 same may be said of the man who added v. 33 and ' the blessing and the curse ' 
 in V. 34, in accordance with Deut. xxvii. II— 13 (cf. n. 22, under (4) ). The 
 outlook into the future at the close of the discourse in xxiii. (v. 12-16), is the 
 same as in Deut. xxix. ; xxx. ; iv. 26 sqq. (cf. n. 22). 
 
 =' I have shown in Th. Tijdschr., xii. 315-322 that Josh. viii. 30-35 is the 
 work of t w o deuteronomio redactors (cf n. 30). But apart from this it seems 
 difficult to believe that the deuteronomic passages dealt with in n. 26, 27 are 
 
n. 27-33-j The deiUeronomic redacto7--s of JosJiita. 137 
 
 all from the same hand. Ch. xxi. 41-43 [43-45] and the passages related to 
 it, viz. xxii. 1-6 ; x. 40-42 ; xi. 10-20 dift'er in purport from xxiii. ; xiii. 2-6. 
 Now it is perfectly true that D' himself is not always consistent. For 
 example, he insists, according to the changing needs of his admonitions, now 
 upon the greatness {Beut. x. 22 ; xxvi. 5) and now upon the amallness (vii. 7, 
 cf. I, 17, 22; ix. I ; xi. 23) of Israel's numbers. But this is not exactly 
 parallel to the inconsistency we should have to ascribe to the deuteronomio 
 editor of Joshua, if he had allowed xxi. 41-43 [43-4.';] and xxiii. to follow one 
 upon the other. We may further ask whether Josh. i. 8 is not later than v. 
 7 ? whether x. 36, 37 can have been taken into his history by the author of 
 xiv. 6-15 ? and, finally, whether xi. 21-23" — °i which consult n. 26 — does not 
 give additional evidence of the repeated recasting of the historical narra- 
 tive in a deuteronomio sense ? Cf. § 16, u. 12. 
 
 The results yielded by the analysis of Joshua suggest the 
 question whether the deuteronomio recension was confined to 
 that book alone, or whether it embraced Genesis — Numhers also. 
 The latter hypothesis cannot be rejected or even pronounced 
 improbable a priori. As a matter of fact Col en so believes 
 he has recognised the hand of the Deuteronomist in Genesis, 
 Exodus, and NuniLers, and assigns to this soiirce no inconsider- 
 able portion of the laws and narratives they contain — four 
 hundred and twelve Masoretic verses in all ^^. He would not 
 stand alone — or almost alone ^^ — in his opinion, if any evidence 
 for it lay on the surface of the texts. Whether a closer 
 examination, especially of the non-priestly portions, will con- 
 firm his position, can only appear hereafter (§ 8, 13). 
 
 ''' So in PentateucTi, vii., Synopt. table, p. i.-vi., and App., p. 145 sqq. In 
 the previous volumes of his work C o 1 e n s o had already found numerous 
 traces of D in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers, but had not represented his 
 influence as so extended. The deuteronomio verses in Genesis he now puts at 
 117, those in Exodus at 138I, those in Nunihers at 156I. 
 
 33 There are points of contact between Colenso's opinion and that of 
 Stahelin, who (most recently in his Specielle Einleitung,p. 22 sqq.) identifies 
 the Deuteronomist with the Jehovist, i.e. the author of Genesis — Numlers [136] 
 after the withdrawal of P ; but the difference between him and Colenso ia 
 far greater than their agreement. Wellhausen approaches more nearly to 
 Colenso's position when, from time to time (xxi. 543 sq., 549, 555, 564,584), 
 he notes a relationship between JE, i. e. the redactor of the two works J and E, 
 and the book of Beuteronomij, and even asks whether JE may not have been 
 revised by a deuteronomio redactor. Ad. Julicher (see § 8, n. 10) goes 
 
138 The Hexateuch. [§8. 
 
 further and asserts that this actually was so. But the assumption of a 
 deuteronomio recension of this kind falls notably short of Colenso'a con- 
 tention. 
 
 § 8. The 'projihetic ' elements of the Hexateuch {JE). 
 
 The designation of ' prophetic,' which is here applied to all 
 that remains of the Hexateuch when the priestly and the 
 deuteronomic elements are removed, must be regarded as alto- 
 gether provisional. It rests upon the indisputable relationship 
 between some of the passages in question and the writings 
 of the prophets of the eighth and seventh centuries before 
 Christ, but in no way prejudges the question whether these 
 passages were actually written by prophets ; and still less 
 does it imply any decision concerning the origin of the 
 passages in which this relationship cannot be traced. The 
 possibility, for instance, that priests of Yahwe may also have 
 had a hand in the work is by no means excluded by our no- 
 menclature. What we want is simply a common title for all 
 that does not belong to P or D, and the name selected does 
 not seem inappropriate when we consider the phenomenon 
 already noticed and remember the width of the connotation 
 of prophecy in Israel ''-. 
 
 1 See further § 13. 
 
 The examination to which these 'prophetic' elements are 
 submitted in the present § is exclusively concerned with their 
 mutual relations and the connection in which they stand to 
 the rest of the Hexateuch. The results to which it leads us, 
 therefore, must necessarily be incomplete; and will be sup- 
 plemented in the following §§. 
 
 Nothing is clearer than that the ' prophetic ' elements do 
 not form a literary whole. The usual indications of the 
 union of different accounts — ^repetition, discrepancies, differ- 
 ences of language — force themselves repeatedly and un- 
 
n. I.] ' Prophetic ' elements of the Hexateuch. 1 39 
 
 mistakably iipoii us. But it is no less obvious that some [137] 
 of the narratives and pericopes have a common origin : they 
 presuppose one another, and agree in language and style ^. 
 The ultimate goal of the critic, therefore, must be the com- 
 plete indication of the connected works — and the detached 
 narratives and laws, if there are any — which lie at the basis 
 of the ' prophetic' portions of the Hexateuch, and the explana- 
 tion of the method in which they have been interwoven on 
 the one hand, or welded together and recast on the other. But 
 this remains at present an unattained ideal. As the analysis 
 has been carried gradually further it has become increasingly 
 evident that the critical question is far more difficult and 
 involved than was at first supposed, and the solutions which 
 seemed to have been secured have been in whole or in part 
 brought into question again. The present position is, -in its 
 main outlines, as follows : — 
 
 The phenomena which present themselves in the ' prophetic' 
 elements of Qen. i.-xi. leave room for more than one hypothesis. 
 These chapters undoubtedly contain divergent accounts of the 
 earliest generations of men and their distribution over the 
 earth, which cannot possibly be due to one and the same 
 author. Nevertheless we now find them united together, and 
 it is not immediately obvious whether the fragments which 
 we may suppose to be the earliest have been incorporated by 
 a later author into his own work, or whether they have been 
 welded with the more recent pericopes by a third hand '^. 
 The first half of Abraham's history, in Gen. xii.-xix., even 
 when the passages taken from P have been removed, again 
 shows the clearest traces alike of complexity of origin and of 
 successive recensions. For example, the whole of xiv. is 
 derived from a different source from that which precedes and 
 follows. But the study of these chapters still fails to yield 
 any definite results *. From Gen. xx. onwards, however, the 
 general character of the ' prophetic ' elements becomes much 
 
1 40 The Hexateuch. [ § 8. 
 
 clearer ; for at this point a writer appears who, widely as 
 lie differs from P in other respects, resembles him in avoid- 
 ing- the name Yah we, and employing Elohim or Ha- 
 [138] elohim instead. In the rest of Genesis this use of 
 Elohim^ even in non-priestly passages, constantly recurs, 
 and the same conceptions and the same style that we note 
 in Gen. xx. reappear with it. Now these sections do not 
 form a well connected whole ; they are but fragments, and, 
 moreover, in spite of all that they have in common, they 
 do not always breathe the same spirit. But notwithstanding 
 this we must regard them as portions of a single work, which, 
 on account of its use of Elohim, we may call the elohistic 
 document, and may indicate by the letter E^. Side by side 
 with these passages we also find in Genesis, from xx. onwards, 
 another set of narratives or perieopes, which are connected 
 together, and which often run parallel with E in matter, 
 though departing from it in details and language. This 
 group must also be derived from a single work which we 
 may call the Yahwistic document, inasmuch as it is 
 distinguished from E by the use of Yah we (Jahve), and 
 which we may indicate by the letter J*. It is no more 
 complete than E^. This J is also the chief, though not the 
 only source from which the earlier chapters of Genesis draw, 
 alike in i.-xi. and xii.-xix'. On the other hand it is not 
 strictly demonstrable that E has contributed anything to the 
 first half of Abraham's history {Gen. xii.-xix.), and there is no 
 reason whatever to assign any portion of Gen. i.-xi. to him^. 
 
 It is probable a priori that neither E nor J would confine 
 himself to the patriarchal period. Both alike would have 
 something to say of the release of Israel from Egypt and 
 the settlement of the tribes in Canaan^. And as a fact 
 in Exodus, Nimihers, and Jos/ma we here and there detect just 
 
 * See translator's note on p. 64, 
 
' Pi-'opheiic ' elements of the Hexateuch. 141 
 
 sucli a parallelism between E and J as we have seen in Genesis. 
 But here it is sporadic, and by no means so clear as in Genesis. 
 Traces of E appear in Hx. i. and ii., and in Ux. iii. 1-15 
 the same document comes very distinctly into view, though 
 not without foreign admixture. This perieope is the ' pro- 
 phetic ' counterpart of the priestly passage, Ex. vi. 3 sqq., . 
 and it explains the use of E 1 h i m in the accounts of the 
 prte-Mosaic age which are drawn from E^"- We should 
 naturally expect that this particular characteristic of E would 
 now disappear, but the facts do not confirm our expectation : 
 E 1 h i m and Ha-elohim still characterise the docu- 
 mentj even after Ex. iii. 15, though we cannot follow its [139] 
 traces at all easily. It is only here and there that we can 
 detect it with certainty amongst the ' prophetic ' elements 
 of Ex. iii. i6-xii^i. Subsequently it reappears in Ex. xiii. 
 17-19, 2ij 32; xiv. 19* (and 19'' (?)); xv. 33-26; xvii. 
 i''-7, 8-16; xviii. ; and then again in Ex. xix. 9% 10-17; 
 XX. 18-21, 1-17; xxiv. 12-14, 18", but we also find it in 
 certain other sections of Ex. xix.-xxiv., which seem to con- 
 tradict the representation of the Sinaitic legislation given in 
 E, and therefore, it would seem, cannot be assigned to that 
 document, i.e. in Ex. xxiv. i, 2, 9— 11, and in the Book of 
 the Covenant, with the appended narrative of the covenant 
 itself, Ex. XX. 23-xxiii. and xxiv. 3-8. The solution of this 
 riddle cannot be attempted till later on^^. The story of 
 Israel's apostasy at Sinai, which is preserved in an expanded 
 form and combined with other narratives in Ex. xxxii.— 
 xxxiv. also belonged originally to E ^^. We may further 
 ascribe the following passages, with more or less probability, 
 to the same document : Wum. x. ^^-^6 ; xi. 1—3 ; one of the 
 strands out of which xi. 4-35 is twisted ; xii. ; the ' pro- 
 phetic ' portion of xiii., xiv., and of xvi. ; xx. I -1 3 in part, 
 14-21 ; xxi. 4''-9, 13-30, 31-33 ; and xxii. 3-xxiv., with 
 the exception of a certain amount of matter which must have 
 
142 The Hexateuch. [§8. 
 
 .been borrowed from elsewhere 1*. In Dent. xxxi. 14-^3 again 
 we find traces of E^''. Finally, it is obvious from Josh, xxiv., 
 which must be largely drawn from E, that this document 
 related the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, but we can no 
 longer detect its accounts with any certainty in Josh, i.-xii ^'^. 
 Still more scanty and indefinite are the results of the 
 critical analysis of Exodus — Joshua with respect to J. In 
 lix. i.-xv. we can, no doubt, detect the narrative of J, running 
 parallel with that of E, as in Genesis, but it appears in far less 
 distinctness and purity than before ^''. On the other hand, it 
 is doubtful whether J has contributed anything to the 
 accounts of the Sinaitic legislation and the apostasy of the 
 people (Ex. xix.-xxiv. and xxxii -xxxiv). The specific assign- 
 [140] ment of the Book of the Covenant {Ex. xx. 32-xxiii. and xxiv. 
 3-8) to J is emphatically to be rejected 1*- As to the rest of 
 the Hexateuch, J may apparently be discovered in Num. x. 
 29-33 ; in the story of the quails that lies at the bottom 
 of Num. xi. 4-35, and in Num. xxi. 1-3 1^. A part of Josli. 
 i.-xii., with a few stray sections in xiii. sqq., especially xvii. 
 14-18, may perhaps belong to our document, but conclusive 
 proof of the fact is not forthcoming ^''. 
 
 ^ Specimens of discrepancies within the limits of the ' prophetic ' matter may 
 be found amongst the examples in § 4, i±. 1 1 sqq. Many more will be added 
 in the course of this section. The mutual harmony of many of the narratives, 
 both in matter and form, is allowed on all hands, and need not be demon- 
 strated till the facts brought out in n. 3 sqq. spontaneously develope it. 
 
 ^ On these chapters of. the Commentaries and monographs cited by D i 1 1 - 
 mann, (Icnesis, p. 14 sq., 49 sq., and elsewhere, to which must now be added 
 K. Budde, Die hihl. Urgeschichte untersncht (G-iessen, 1883) and my review 
 of it in Th. Tijdschr., xviii. 121-171. Budde rightly judges, in agreement 
 with Well haus en (xxi. 398 sqq.) and to some extent with Ew aid and 
 Dillmann, that Gcft. iv. i6''-24; and xi. 1-9 know nothing of the deluge, and 
 derive the present race of men from Cain, in unbroken descent ; and also that 
 a story lies at the basis of Gen. ix. 20-27 which represents Noah as the father 
 of Shem, Japhetb, and Canaan, and is therefore irreconcileable with the con- 
 ception that runs through Gen. vi. sqq. elsewhere, making Noah the father of 
 Shem, Ham, and Japhet, and through them the ancestor of a new humanity. 
 Gen. vi. 1-4, again, though not exactly in conflibt with its surroundings, like 
 
n. 2-4.] ' Prophetic' narratives iri Gen. i.-xx. 143 
 
 the three passages just named, strikes us as a detached fragment. At any 
 rate, it is connected neither with what goes before it, i.e. Gen. iv., nor yet 
 with what follows. But on the other side, we must observe that Gen. iv. i6''- 
 24 is led up to by v. i-i6% and is assumed in ■!). 25, 26 ; that Gen. ix. 20-27 
 is crudely harmonised with Gen. vi. sqq. by the insertion of the words 'Ham, 
 the father of in v. 22" (cf v. 18 i"), and that Gen. xi. 1-9 is anticipated by 
 X. 25 (the explanation of the name Peleg). We may explain all this either, 
 with B u d d e , as the work of a redactor who interwove the materials supplied 
 by two independent documents, or as due to the method of the latest of the 
 ' prophetic ' writers, who appropriated fragments from one or more predeces- 
 sors, and incorporated them in his own work. I incline to the latter hypothesis, 
 but it would be rash to determine the question at this stage of the inquiry, and 
 at present we have simply to note the phenomena of Gen. i.-xi. as they stand. 
 
 * The most remarkable instance is Gen. xiv. The story is in its proper 
 place, for it pre-supposes Lot's separation from Abram, and his settlement in 
 Sodom (xiii. 5, 7-1 1°, 12^ 13). But it does not contain the least hint of the 
 wickedness of the men of Sodom, and conversely the author of Gen. xviii., xix. 
 knows nothing whatever of the conquest of the five cities, or the rescue of 
 their inhabitants by Abram. Gen. xiv., then, must be due to a different [141] 
 author, and in point of fact it is distinguished from the other chapters by 
 marked linguistic peculiarities. — The evidence borne by Gen. xv. is of another 
 character : here two accounts are united into a badly fitting whole, and then 
 further supplemented by elements foreign to both. F. 5, 6 places lis in the 
 middle of the night \ ij.ii (continuation of r. 7-1 1) and 17 (continued in v. 18) 
 describe the afternoon and approaching evening. In v. 2-4 the question is 
 who shall be Abram's heir, and elsewhere (e.g. v. 7 sqq., 17 sq.) it is what 
 his posterity shall inherit. The prediction in v. 13-16, which is itself compo- 
 site, breaks the connection between ^5. 12 and 17. Finally, the curious list 
 given in v. 19-21 is without parallel in the 'prophetic' passages, and is cer- 
 tainly not part of the original story. — But the other chapters also yield 
 unmistakable evidence of composite origin, and of recension. The author of 
 Gen. xii. 10-20 does not think of Abram as accompanied by Lot, and therefore 
 cannot be the same as the writer of v. 1-4", 6-9 ; xiii. 5, etc. (though the gloss 
 • and Lot with him,' xiii. I*", attempts to harmonise the two). Or if we decline 
 to accept this inference we must suppose that Gen. xii. 10-20 is misplaced. (Cf. 
 "Wellhausen, xxi. 413 sq. ; Dillmann , Gen. p. 211 sq.). — Gen. xiii. 14-17 
 and XV. 5, 18 are variations on one theme. Cf W e 1 1 h . xxi. 414. and on Gen. 
 xvi. 8-10, ibid. p. 410. — According to Wellhausen (xxi. 415 sqq.), Gen. 
 xviii. and xix. have also been recast ; he regards xviii. 22 "-33 "• and v. 17-19 
 which leads up to it, as later additions ; he likewise thinks that ' the two 
 angels ' who appear in xix. i sqq., and are distinguished from Yahwfe, are later 
 than 'the three men' of xviii. 2 sqq. 22, who represent Yahwfe. This view, 
 on which more hereafter, § 13, n. 21, is not refuted by Dillmann, Genesis, 
 p. 248 sq. ; but even those who cannot accept it must admit that more than 
 sufficient proof has already been given of the thesis that the ' prophetic ' sec- 
 tions of Gen. xii. -xix. are not all taken from the same source, 
 
1 44 The Hexateuch. [ § 8. 
 
 = Cf. de Wette - Schi-ader, p. 274 sqq. ; Dillmann, Genesis, 
 passim ; Wellhaueen, xxi. 405 sqq. ; o 1 6 n s o , Wellhausen on the 
 Composition, p. 95-132; Feniateuch, vii., App., p. 145 sqq. ; cf. v., Crit. 
 Anal., p. 77 sqq. Though these scholars fall notably short of complete 
 agreement, yet they are so far at one aa to leave no room for doubt that we 
 are treading upon firm ground in our identifications of E. On the other hand, 
 it must be admitted ( I ) that the resemblance between E and the narratives or 
 pericopes now united with it is sometimes bewilderingly close, so that when the 
 use of E 1 h i m does not put us on the track, we are almost at a loss for 
 means of carrying the analysis through ; ( 2 ) that the accounts which we assign t6 
 E on the strength of their language and mutual connection sometimes develope 
 internal differences, which force us to ask whether all that we rank, and can- 
 not choose but rank, under E can really be from one and the same hand. 
 I With the reservations implied in these remarks I would assign the following 
 passages to E : Gen. xx. 1-17 ; xxi. 6 (?), 7 (?), 8-31 ; xxii. 1-13, 19 ; probably 
 a part of xxvii. ; xxviii. 10-12, 17-22 ; a part both of xxix. and of xxx. ; 
 nearly all xxxi, ; xxxii. 1-3, i4''-22 [xxxi. 55-xxxii. 2 ; xxxii. i3''-2i] and 
 perhaps a few more verses of xxxii. and some verses of xxxiii. i— 17 ; further, 
 xxxiii., 18-20, in great part; xxxv. 1-4, 6-8 ; xxx vii. 2''-i4, 21, 22, 28-30, 32 
 (in part), 34 (in part), 35 (in part), 36, and some other verses ; xl.-xlii. 
 L^4^J (except for slight modifications, and, it would seem, further expansions of E's 
 text by a later hand) ; xlv. 1-5 (modified here and there), 6-28 (in great part) ; 
 xlvi. i-5» ; xlviii. i, 2, 8-22 (save for the later addition of v. 13, 14, 17-19) ; 
 1. 15-26. I must be content with referring to my predecessors, enumerated 
 above, and with very short comments on the results set forth. In xx. 1-17 
 Elohim or Ha-elohlm occurs six times, whereas in the parallel xii. 
 10-20 Yahwfe is used throughout. V. 18, in which Yahwfe occurs, is 
 evidently a gloss on v. 17, due to another hand, for it misrepresents the 
 meaning : Abimilech too had been sick ; whence ti'jm instead of riDibm. — On 
 xxi. 6, 7 cf. Budde, op. cit., p. 215, 224, v. 8-31, beyond all doubt is of 
 common origin with xx. 1-17 ; not so v. 32-34 : witness Y a h w fe, in v. 33, 
 against Elohim nine times in v. 6-3 r ; ' land of the Philistines,' in d. 32, 
 34, at variance with xx. 2. — Ch. xxii. 1-13, 19 is E's, except for the change of 
 Elohim V. II (cf. xxi. 17), to Yahwfe; whereas in v. 14-18 we have aii 
 addition, dependent on xii. 1-3, and agreeing with it in the use of Yahwfe 
 {v. 14 bis, 15, 16, against Elohim five or six times in v. 1-13). On the 
 purpose of L'. 14-18, and on 'the land of Moriah,' in v. 2, cf, Wellhausen, 
 xxi. 409 sq. and § 13, n. 29. The heading of the section, v. 20-24 (of. i>. 1) 
 seems to indicate E as its source; but see Budde, p. 220 sqq. — On xxvii., 
 cf. Wellhausen, xxi. 422 sqq. ; Dillmann, Genesis, p. 309. It appears 
 from the sequel of E in Gen. xxxii., xxxiii., that in this document, as well as 
 others, Jacob was represented as sinning against Esau and fleeing to Haran ; 
 an account of his trespass, therefore, must have occurred in E and, as a matter 
 of fact. Gen. xxvii. betrays itself clearly enough as composite ; the con- 
 tributions of E, however, cannot be identified with certainty. — Ch. xxviii. 
 10-22 is evidently two-fold: y. 10-12, Jacob's dream, should be followed 
 
n. 5-] E in the Book of Genesis. 145 
 
 immediately by t). 17 (perliaps preceded by yp'n from c. 16); Jacob under- 
 stands, by the ladder, that Bethel is a place at which heaven and earth 
 communicate. In the interpolated passage, v. 13-16, note Yahwfe {v. 13, 
 16), against Elohlm in the other story {y. 12, 17, 20, 22), for the single 
 appearance of Yahwfe in the latter («. 21) can hardly be original ; see further 
 n. 6. — The analysis of xxix., rxx, yields no complete result. Ch. xxix. 31-35 
 (Y ah w fe four times), and xxx. 25-43 (contradicting xxxi.) are certainly not 
 E's; whereas he is indicated in xxx. 6, 8, 17, iS, 20, 22, 23, by Elohlm, 
 note especially 1. 23, of which u. 24 (Yahwfe) is the doublet. Cf. further, 
 "Wellhausen, xii. 425 sq. and Dillmann, Gm., p. 319 sq. — With 
 regard to xxxi. there is remarkable harmony amongst the critics. E is 
 credited by Schrader with v. 1, 2,4-17", 19-47, 51-54; by Golenso 
 with v. 2,4-9, I4-I!'> 19-48'') 50-54; by Dillmann with u. 2, 4-17, 19, 
 20, 21 (in part), 22-24, 26, 28-45, 47, 51-54; by Wellhausen (xxi. 
 430 sqq.) with almost the same verses. F. 18 has already been assigned to 
 P^- The rest of the chapter has received some additions, such as v. i (doublet 
 of 2), 3 (uses Yah wfe, and is ignored in v. 4 sqq.), 23'' (doublet of 25") and 
 others, especially in v. 45-54, Wellhausen's masterly treatment of which 
 shoidd be consulted ; but it is impossible not to see that, with these exceptions, 
 it is a single whole, conflicting with xxx. 25-43 ^^^ agreeing in substance and 
 in languagewith the passages taken fromB. — Ch. xxxii. 1-3 [xxxi. 55-xxxii. 2] [143] 
 is certainly from E, in which document np32 DOirn, pffio with '7, sja with a 
 and D'n'jN O«';o repeatedly occur. On xxxii. 4 [3]-xxxiii. 17, on the other 
 hand, Wellhausen, xxi. 433 sqq., and Dillmann, Gen., p. 340 sq. 
 differ somewhat. Both scholars hold that xxxii. i4''-22 [i3''-2i] and certain 
 details in xxxiii. 1-17 (Elohlm in ■!). 5, 10, 11) are taken from E, but xxxii. 
 25—33 [24-32] is derived by Dillmann from the same source, and by 
 Wellhausen from J (cf. n. 6). In this case Elohlm , «. 29, 31 [28, 30] 
 is no sufficient evidence, for in v. 29 [28] it is appellative (cf. Judges ix. 9, 13), 
 and V. 31 [30] is dependent on 29 [28]. Nor is the linguistic evidence of the 
 passage conclusive in other respects. The decision must, therefore, be made 
 upon other grounds, which cannot be considered till later on ; cf. § 13, n. 23. 
 At present we can only say that in the E-sections, after Gen. xxxii., the 
 patriarch is generally called ' Jacob,' whereas the J-passages generally 
 speak of Israel : this pleads for the derivation of Gen. xxxii. 25-33 from J, but 
 it is not conclusive, since in our mongrel text of Genesis numerous 
 exceptions to the rule occur. — Ch. xxxiii. 18-20 may be derived in the main 
 from E, but the language of P" has influenced the form of «. 18. Wellhau- 
 sen's objection (p. 438, but compare p. 602) to the derivation of v. 19 from E 
 cannot be maintained. It is true that the verse contradicts xxxi v., but neither 
 this chapter, nor xxxv. 5, which builds upon it, can be assigned to E. The 
 latter does not harmonise with xxxv. 4, and is quite superfluous. For the 
 rest, xxxv. 1-8 is rightly assigned to E by the great majority of critics ; 
 Colenso's objections with respect to v. 2-4 {Pentateach, vi., App., p. 11 1) 
 are not made good by the parallel passages he cites. — On the history 
 of Joseph, xzxvii. and xxxix.-l., Wellhausen (xxii,, p. 442 sqq.) and 
 
 L 
 
1 46 The Hexateuch. [ § 8. 
 
 E ill maun {Gen., p. 372 sqq., 382 sqq.) may be profitably compared with 
 each other. The narrative of E is distinguished from another with which it 
 is now united, by the following points, amongst others : Reuben, not Judah, 
 takes the lead amongst Joseph's brothers (xxxvii. 21, 22, 29, 30 ; xlii. 22, 37) ; 
 Joseph is kidnapped by Midianites, without the knowledge of his brothers, 
 not sold by his brothers to Ishmaelites, and is carried off to Egypt, where he 
 becomes the slave of Potiphar, Pharaoh's eunuch, captain of the body-guard, 
 and keeper of the prison, not of a man-ied Egyptian, whose wife slanders him 
 and has him tlirowu into prison (xxxvii. 28", 36, cf. xxxix. I" ; xl. 15" ; xli. I2, 
 cf. xl. 3, 4, 7 > ^i- 1°)- If tliis is the general relation in which the two stories 
 stand to each other, then the three chapters, xl.-xlii., together with a part 
 of xxxvii., belong to E. As we now have them, the chapters have not oidy 
 been retouched here and there to harmonise them with the other story, but are 
 characterised, like xxxix., by a redundancy not usually observed in E. On 
 the presumable cause of this, cf. § 16, n. 12. As for xxxix., we must 
 follow Dillmann and dissent from Wellhausen in denying it to 
 E, in spite of the linguistic suggestions of v. 6, 7, 9, 14 : Pharaoh's eunuch 
 cannot have been married, and E does not make Joseph a prisoner, but a slave 
 of the prison-keeper. It seems natural, at first, to see the continuation of 
 xl.-xlii, in xliii., xliv., which, on the whole, take the same view of the 
 [144] course of events. But they diverge in details (cf. Wellhausen and D i 1 1- 
 mann), and Elohlm in xliii. 29; xliv. 16 is no evidence for E, since 
 Joseph speaks and is spoken to as a heathen until xlv. It is only in xlv. 
 that E reappears: observe Elohlm in v, 5, 7-9; xlvi. 2; and the notable 
 departures in xlv. 2* 16 sqq. from xlvi. 28-xlvii. 6. In v. 4, 5 (Joseph 
 sold by his brothers) E's representation (xl. 15" and parallel passages) 
 is combined with that of the other story. — On xlvii. 12-26 the critics are at 
 variance, but there are no conclusive reasons for assigning the verses to E. 
 In xlviii. i, 2, 8-22, on the other hand, the characteristics of E come out 
 distinctly: note Elohlm in «. 9, 11, 15, 20, 21, and other points of linguistic 
 agreement (of. W e 1 Ih a ua e n, xxi. 449 and Dillmann). The passage, 
 however, is not from a single hand, as B u d d e, after Dillmann, has 
 clearly shown {Zeitschr. f. a. t. Wissenschaft., 1883, p. 57-62). The two 
 scholars are not at one in defining E's share. In my opinion it consists of 
 V. I, 2, 8-12, 15, 16, 20-22; while Ephraim's promotion {v. 20) is elaborated 
 in 13. 13, 14, 17-19, which must therefore be regarded as interpolations, not 
 as remnants of another narrative. Ch. xlviii. 22 presents difficulties in con- 
 nection — not with xxxiv., with which E has nothing to do, but — with xxxiii. 
 19, which by no means prepares us for a conquest of Shechem by Jacob, 
 and with Josh. xxiv. 32 (also belonging to E), where this conquest is likewise 
 ignored. Cf. Th. Tijdschr., xiv. 272 sq. — On 1. 15-26 there is hardly room for 
 diversity of opinion: note Elohlm, not only in v. 19, where it is unavoid- 
 able, but in V. 20, 24, 25 also. Cf. further Dillmann , Genesis, p. 453. 
 
 C 1 e n B {Pentateuch, vii., App. and Synop. table) differs from Dillmann 
 and Wellhausen in only assigning the following passages of Gen. xxxvii., 
 xxxix.-l. to E : xl. 2, 3", 4, 5 »•, 6-23 ; xli. 1-30, 32-34, 36-39, 44 45, 47, 56, 
 
n. 5, 6.] E and J in the Book of Genesis. 147 
 
 67; xlii. 6, 6^ 7°; xlv. 16-18, 21"; 1. 22, 23, 25. The composite character 
 of Gen. xxxvii. is here overlooked ; and moreover the inadmissible hypothesis 
 is embraced that the writer who generally speaks of Y a h w fe now and then 
 (xlv. 5, 7-9; xlvi. 2 ; xlviii. 9 sqq.) uses Elohlm. 
 
 ^ The 'prophetic' passages still left in Gen. xx.-l., when B has been 
 removed, agree in the use of Yahwfe, but are not otherwise homogeneous. 
 They are in part parallel with E, independent of it, and generally more or 
 less divergent from it, and i n p a r t dependent on E, and apparently intended 
 to supplement or expand it. We have already (n. 5), brought xx. 18 ; xxii. 
 14-18 under the latter category. What further passages should be embraced 
 in it rather than in the other group is sometimes doubtful ; or at any rate we 
 cannot decide the question at this stage of our inquiry. The following list of j 
 passages taken from the document J, with the remarks appended, { 
 must therefore be regarded as merely provisional ; cf. throughout Well- I 
 hausen, Dillmann, and n. 5. The independent J-sections, then, are 
 Gm. xxiv. (on ii. di^-d"], cf. Wellh . xxi. 418, and on the other side Dillm . 
 Gen. p. 289 sq.); xxv. 1-6 (cf. Budde, p. 220 sqq.); 21-34 (with the 
 exception of 26 '=, from P'; Dillmann, p. 299, finds traces of E also, in 
 this passage, but see Budde, p. 217, n. 2); xxvi. 1-33 in part {v. 1-5 
 departs considerably from J's style, and has, at any rate, been worked over ; 
 V. 15 and 18 are manifest interpolations, dependent upon xxi. 22-31) ; xxVii. [145] 
 1-45, in part (cf. n. 5) ; according toWellhausen, xxi. 410 sqq., Dill- 
 mann, p. 316, and others, xxviii. 13-16, together with certain touches in v. 
 17-22 ; but I think it highly improbable that these are fragments of an inde- 
 pendent account, by J, of a revelation at Bethel ; Gtn. xii. 3 ^, it is true, is 
 repeated almost to the letter in v. 14, but the same follower of J who notably 
 modified this promise elsewhere (xviii. 17-19), xxii. 15-18 ; xxvi. 4, may have 
 reproduced it here without alteration ; there is no reference to the theophany 
 at Bethel anywhere in the sequel of J, and we may gather from Gen. xii. 8 
 (cf. xiii. 3) where the place is mentioned, that J carried back its consecra- 
 tion to Abraham rather than to Jacob; xxviii. 13-16 must, therefore, be 
 regarded as homogeneous with xxii. 14-18, and as due to the same hand that 
 modified the text of E in v. 21'' ; — xxix.-xxxiii., in part (of. u. 5) ; certain 
 verses of xxxiv., in which Simeon and Levi avenge their sister (including v. 
 II, 12, 19, 25, 26, 30, 31 ; cf. Til. Tijdsc}i,r.,-s.b!. 257-281, and on the other 
 side Dillm. Genesis, p. 348 sqq. ; also cf. § 16, n. 12 ; perhaps xxxv. 22" 
 (but see remarks on xlix.), and some touches in v. 16-21 ; a part of 
 xxxvii. (cf. n. 5), but not v. 12-18, for the flocks pasturing at Shechem 
 can hardly be reconciled with xxxiv.; the whole of xxxviii. ; xxxix. in 
 part (cf. n. 5 ; but the wordy style and constant repetitions by which 
 this chapter is unfavourably distinguished from the other J-pericopes, justify 
 some doubts; cf. § 13, n. 26 and 16, n. 12); a few touches in xl.-xlii. ; 
 almost the whole of xliii., xliv. (of. n. 5) ; xlvi. 28-xlvii. 5 ", 29-31 ; according 
 to most of the critics xlix. i''-28'', the blessing of Jacob, adopted though not 
 composed by J, and in this case we must add xxxv. 2 2", a note by J to 
 explain and justify xlix, 3, 4 ; but this very note raises my suspicions ; it is 
 
 L a 
 
1 48 The Hexateuch. [ § 8. 
 
 too slight for J, who always enters more into details^ and seems rather to 
 indicate » later colleotorj to whom, in that case, we must likewise attribute 
 the preservation of Jacob's blessing ; the sentence on Simeon and Levi, v. 5-7, 
 is illustrated by the portion of xxxiv. borrowed from J, but the latter was not 
 
 written for this purpose, and has, therefore, no bearing on our question ; 
 
 finally 1. i-ii, 14 (at any rate in great part, of. D illm . p. 453). 
 
 ' With regard to the main ' prophetic ' narrative of Gen. xii.-zix., no doubt 
 exists ; it is the beginning of J's account of the lives of the patriarchs, the con- 
 tinuation and conclusion of which we have provisionally gathered up in n. 6. 
 The passages agree in the use of Yahwfe throughout, and, more generally, in 
 language and style ; and the contents of the former series are constantly 
 assumed in the latter. The original narrative has been subject to later additions 
 and modifications, as shown in n. 4, but the very fact that these can be detected 
 as they can serves to bring out the unity of what remains all the more clearly. 
 Cf. further the Commentaries, especially D i 1 1 m a n n . — Gen. i.-xi. presents a 
 more complicated problem. Is J, in Gen. xii.-l., the continuation of Gm. [ii. 
 4''-iii.] iv. 17-24; xi. 1-9, which know nothing of a deluge, or of 
 Gen. vi.-viii., a., containing the account of the flood and all that depends upon 
 it (cf. 11. 3) 1 It is hard to decide, for the two ' prophetic ' elements of Gen. 
 i.-xi. have not only been woven together, as we have remarked already, but 
 were closely related to one another from the first. And the language of J in 
 [146] Gen. xii. sqq. has points of afiinity with either group. (Compare, for example, Gen. 
 xiii. 10, mrr ' J, with ii. 8, etc., and Gen. xii. 7, and the parallel passages, with 
 viii. 20.) We must, therefore, reserve our judgment on this point, but the 
 presumption seems already to favour the connection of the main narrative of 
 Gen. xii. sqq. with the earlier 'prophetic' passages in Gen. i.-xi.; for the 
 expansion and modification of xii. sqq. will then be parallel to the introduc- 
 tion of a later stratum into i.-xi., whereas, on the other supposition, it will 
 have no analogy in these earlier chapters. 
 
 ' Schrader (op. cit.) ascribes the following to E : Gen. iv. 33, 24 (1) vi. i 
 (in part), 2, 3 ; a. 1-7, 13, iS», 19, 20, 22-24, 26-32 ; xii. 6"-", S""", 9 ; xiii. 
 2, 3, 6, T^°, 8-10° i"*, ii«, 12C, 18"''; xiv. (except v. 22 in part). Dill- 
 manu detects the same document in Gen. iv. 17-24 ; vi. 1-4 ; ix. 20-27 i *i^' > 
 XV. I, 2, 4, 8, 9-I1, 17, 18 (cf Genesis, p. 86 sq., III sq., 147 sq., 218 sq., 
 230 sq., where it will be seen that he does not pronounce with equal decisive- 
 ness in every case). Now it is perfectly true that Gen. xx is the continuation, 
 not the beginning, of a history, and must therefore have been preceded in the 
 document itself by other statements about Abraham. But it does not follow 
 that any of these have been preserved in Gen. xii.-xix. If, as we should 
 gather from Josh. xxiv. 2, 3 (E), they dwelt upon the idolatry of Abraham's 
 relatives, their omission is extremely natural. We should, however, be quite 
 prepared to recognise E-passages in Gen. xii.-xix. were there any clear traces 
 of such. But this is not the case, either in Gen. xiv., which is quite long 
 enough to furnish material for the identification of the writer, or in Gen. xv. 
 The latter is certainly composite (cf. n. 4), but it cannot be shown that E is 
 one of its sources. The linguistic evidence is so far from conclusive as to 
 
n. 6-1 1.] E and J in Genesis and in Ex. i.-xil. 149 
 
 allow B u d d e (p. 416, u. i), in contrast with Dillmann (as above), to assign 
 nothing to E but v. i (in part), 2^, 3", 5, and to refer i (in part), 211, 3'', 4, 6-11, 
 17, 18 to J. — The supposition that E likewise contained an ' Urgeschiohte ' 
 is altogether arbitrary. We have certainly no right to assume it a priori, and 
 there is no positive evidence that any single passage in Gen. i.-xi. belongs 
 to E. This being the state of the case, it is not surprising that Colenso, 
 amongst others, should find no trace of E before Gen. xx., and that Well- 
 hausen, agreeing with him as to Gen. i.-xi. (xxi. 419), should only point 
 out the influence of B here and there, and even that with hesitation, in Gen. 
 xii.-xix., especially in xv. (p. 411 sq.). Budde, likewise, is unable to 
 assign any portion of Gen. i.-xi. to E (op. cit., p. 6 sqq., 216 sqq., 381 sq., 
 414 sqq.). 
 
 ' Texts such as Gen. xlvi. 1-5 ; xlviii. 8-22 ; 1. 24, 25 (E) and Gen. xii. 7 ; 
 xxiy. 7 ; xxvii. 28, 29 (J) make it as good as certain that in both documents 
 the narratives about the patriarchs formed an introduction to the history of the 
 exodus and the settlement in Canaan. We are therefore justified, on every 
 ground, in looking for the continuation of both in Exodtts-Joshua. 
 
 " On Ez. i. sqq. cf, in addition to Wellhausen (xxi. 538 sqq.) and 
 Dillmann, Exodus u. Leviticus, Ad. Jiilicher, Die Quellen von Ex. i.-vii. 7 
 (Halle, 1880), and Die Quellen von Ex. vii. 8-xxiv. 11 (Jahri.f. protest. Theo- 
 logle, viii. 79-127, 272-315), to which essays I shall refer in this and the [147] 
 following notes as Jttlicher A and Jiilicher B. — In Ex. i. 17, 20, 21 
 Elohim occurs; and accordingly v. 15-21, towhichf. 8-12 seems to belong, is 
 pretty unanimously assigned to E. On the origin of Ex. ii. 1-23** there is 
 more difference of opinion: according to Jiilicher (A, 9 sqq.), v. 1-22 is 
 borrowed from E ; according to Dillmann, v. 1-14 from E, and 15-23°- from J ; 
 Wellhausen (xxi. 539) regards the narrative throughout as a patchwork 
 of J and E. In Ex. iii. 1-15, on the contrary, E is quite unmistakable: 
 Elohim or Ha- elohim ino. i>>, 4*", 6, 11-15 ; v. 4'" from the same hand as Gen. 
 xxii. II ; xlvi. 2, cf. xxii. i, 7 ; xxxi. 11 ; xxxvii. 13 ; ». 12, ' I will be with 
 you,' as in Gen. xxviii. 20; xxxv. 3, etc. To this narrative — in which 
 Yahwfe could not possibly be used before v. 14, 15 — another account is now 
 welded (or detached verses added) in which that name occurs (». 4", 7) ; 
 whence the repetition in v. 9, cf. v. 7, 8. All this tends to obscure the 
 unquestionable fact that E has now reached a turning point, inasmuch as the 
 E-portion of .Ec. iii. 1-15 is parallel with Ex.Vi. 2 sqq. (P^), and in direct 
 contradiction with Gen. iv. 26 (J). — On the use of Elohim for Yahwfe after 
 Ex. iii. 15, cf. § 5, n. 24, It will be shown, in n. 11 sqq., that the pericopes 
 and verses in which it occurs may be referred with great probability to E. 
 
 " After the removal of P (cf. § 6, n. 6) we still have a composite narrative 
 left in Ex. vi. ;i-xii. ; and it is yet more obvious, even to the most superficial 
 inspection, that Ex. iii. i6-vi. i, though entirely 'prophetic,' is far from forming 
 a single whole. It is true that in Ex. vii, 8-xi. the plagues are usually 
 announced in the same terms, identical phrases constantly recur, and a certain 
 gradation in the negotiations between Moses and Pharaoh is obvious. Cf., for 
 example, (v. 3) ; vii. 16 ; ix. i, 1 3 ; x. 3 (' the god of the Hebrews ') ; (iv. 23 ; 
 
1 50 The Hexatetich. [ § 8. 
 
 V. i) ; vii. 16, 25 [viii. i] ; viii. i6 [20] ; ix. i ; x. 3, 7 (' let my people go 
 out, that they may serve me [celebrate a feast in my honour],' sometimes with 
 the addition ■ in the desert') ; (iv. 23) ; ™. 14, 27 [viii. 2] ; ix. 2 ; x. 3, 4; 
 (|«D, of Pharaoh); viii. 4, 5; 24. 25 [8, 9, 28, 29] ; ix. 28 ; x. 17 (nn» 
 in Hiphil; viii. 26 [30]; x. 18 in Kal (?)) ; viii. 18 [22]; ix. 4; xi. 7 
 (n'jBn ; of. also ix. 26, parallel in substance) ; viii. 4, 21 [8, 25] ; ix. 27 ; x. 
 8, 16 (xii. 31), (Moses and Aaron summoned by Pharaoh) ; vii. 14; viii. 11, 
 28 [15, 32] ; ix. 7, 34 ; X. I [laa, T<33n, Pharaoh's heart, or Pharaoh . . . 
 his heart] ; ix. 18, 24 ; x. 6, 14 ; xi. 6 (such plaguea had never been before, 
 and should never be again) ; viii. 21 [25] ; x. 9-11, 24 (rising concessions of 
 Pharaoh) ; (iii. 21, 22) ; xi. 2. 3 (xii. 35, 36) (spoiling the Egyptians). But 
 alongside of these proofs of relative unity there is the clearest evidence of 
 diversity of sources. Ch. x. 28, 29, if not immediately followed by xi. 4-8, is 
 wholly irreconcileable with it, for the discourse in the latter passage is addressed, 
 according to ■». 8, to Pharaoh himself. Sometimes it is the staff of Moses that 
 works the miracles (vii. (15), 17, 20 ; ix. 23 ; x. 13, as well as x. 21-27, ™ 
 which it is understood, though not mentioned), but in the great majority of 
 cases this staff is not, and hardly could be, mentioned, for the plagues are 
 simply announced in Yahwfe's name, often a day in advance (viii. 19 [23] ; 
 ix. 5, 6, 18 ; X. 4, cf. viii. 6, 25 [10, 29]). In iii. i6-vi. i we meet with the 
 [148] following contradictions. After iv. 10-12, where Yahwfe promises to teach 
 Moses what he shall say, we hardly expect the complaint of t). 10 to be met, 
 in V. 14-16, by the association with Moses of Aaron as a, mouth-piece ; and 
 moreover it is clear from vii. 8-xi., where Moses is constantly the speaker, that 
 Aaron did not figure as Moses' prophet in all the narratives of the exodus, 
 and it is even a question whether he was mentioned at all in some of them ; 
 so much is certain, that in the compound narrative of vii. 8-xi. — always 
 assuming the withdrawal of P^ — Aaron only appears to disappear again, so 
 that Wellhausen, Dillmann, and Jtilicher (B) unanimously assume 
 that in viii. 4, 8, 21 [8, 12, 25] ; ix. 12, 27 ; x. 3, 8, 16 the original author 
 only spoke of Moses. — Ch. iv. 19 sounds strange indeed after v. 18, and, in 
 general, after all that has preceded it in iii., iv. — Ch. iv. 21-23, especially the 
 command to threaten Pharaoh with the death of his first-born from the begin- 
 ning, harmonises ill with iii. 18-20 and with the action of Moses in vii. sqq. — Ch. 
 iv. 24-26, Yahwfe's attack on Moses by night, is enigmatical in its present con- 
 nection. — In Hx. iii. i6-xii., then, we may find abundant points of support for 
 a critical analysis ; but here we cannot separate two distinct documents, as we 
 have done in Jacob's biography and elsewhere, and assign its share to each 
 with confidence. The most we can hope for is to determine whether it is E or 
 J that lies at the basis of the narrative ; and sometimes even this is 
 doubtful. 'The staff of Elohlm,' iv. 20'', and consequently the command in 
 7). 17, must come from E, and this carries with it the passages indicated above, 
 in which the plagues are brought about by the waving of this staff. From 
 this it would follow that the divergent accounts in which Yahwfe himself 
 sends the plagues and makes Moses announce them, come from J, though per- 
 haps in a more primitive form than they have now assumed. And, accordingly, 
 
n. 1 1 , 1 2.] E and J in Ex. i.-xii. E in Ex. xiii. sqq. 1 5 1 
 
 this is the view now dominant, though the scholars who agree in accepting it 
 differ from each other in detail (Dillmann, Jiilicher), or shrink from 
 any decisive utterance (Wellhausen). As a specimen I may cite the 
 results arrived at by Dillmann and Julicher with respect to E's con- 
 tributions. Dillmann enumerates iii. 16-22 mostly; iv. 17, 20*, 18, 31 ; 
 V. mostly; vii. 15, 16, \f', 2o^ 3i»-, 23 in part, 24; viii. ifi", 21-24", 25''; 
 ix. 22, 23»', 24"', 25" (?), 31, 32, 35 ; s. 8-i3», 14 in part, 15 in part, 20 ; x. 
 21-27; si. 1-3; xii. 31-33, 37'', 38. — Julicher(A andB) : iv. 17,18,20''; 
 V. I, 2, 5 ; vii. 17 in part, 18, 20 in part, 21, 24, 25"; viii. 21'', 22, 23 ; ix. 23, 
 23", 24 and 28 in part, 35 ; x. 7, 8-11, 12, 13=-, 14", 15*, 20 ; 21-27 ; 28, 29 ; 
 xi. 1-3 ; xii. 32, 35-38. Here we find enough agreement to show that criti- 
 cism is not following imaginaiy tracks, but enough disagreement to prove 
 that again and again the tracks are obliterated. It appears that in JSx. i. sqq. 
 the simple interweaving of the authorities with the retention of the special 
 characteristics of each, gave way to their fi'ee use, and their intimate blending 
 and recasting. 
 
 '^ It is obvious that the first group of passages here mentioned is not a con- 
 nected whole. But in indicating the verses that may be derived with some 
 confidence from E — and that is our only concern at present — we need not 
 trouble ourselves about their connection. Here again the chief characteristics [149] 
 of E which appear in the passages may be indicated. In^a;. xiii. 17-19 Elohlm 
 occurs three times ; ti. 19 is obviously from the same hand as Gen. 1. 25. Our 
 conclusion as to v. 21, 22 must depend very much on what we think of xiv. 
 19''. Now xiv. IQ" is from E; of. 'Nn "In'jd, Gen. xxii. 11 (above, n. 5) ; xxxi. 
 11,13; xlviii. 15, 16 (also xxviii. 12; xxxii. 2). Hence "Wellhausen (xxi. 
 p. 546), Dillmann, and Jiilicher conclude that v. ig"" is taken from 
 another narrative. But is not this account of the column of cloud and fire 
 really the indispensable explanation of the statement about ' the angel of 
 Elohim' 'ra.v. 19*? What is the meaning of his changing his place from 
 before to behind the camp of Irsael, if not that the column placed itself 
 between the two camps, giving light to the one and leaving the other in 
 darkness (ti. 20) ? If ti. 19" had meant anything else some kind of explanation 
 would at least have been indicated. 'The angel,' then, must be identified 
 with 'the column,' and in that case -u. ig*, 20 as well as v. 19" must 
 be referred to E. It will also follow that xiii. 21, 22 belongs to E, and 
 the use of tsio (cf. xxxiii. 11; iV«m. xiv. 44) confirms this conclusion. — ■ 
 Hx. XV. 23-25'' presents no special characteristics of E, but v. 25', from which 
 the passage cannot be separated, is from the same hand as Josh. xxiv. 25 
 (cf. n. 16) ; and the concluding words remind us of Gen. xxii. i. F. 26 con- 
 tains more than one deuteronomic turn of expression (•r'n'PN mn»>V2^Saiil3»rTj 
 nisn and D'prij Tom), and we may therefore suppose that it has been recast 
 (cf. § 13, n. 31) ; but compare xviii. 16, 20, and for ndt Gen. xx. 17 ; Num. 
 xii. 13. — The derivation of &. xvii. 2-7, 8-16 from E is supported by the prox- 
 imity of xviii., the staff in Moses' hand, which is called ' the staff of Elohlm ' 
 in V. 9, the mention of Joshua, who takes an important place elsewhere in E, 
 and the use of na: {y. ii) and w'jn (v. I3)> cf. xxxii. 18. In v. 2-7, however. 
 
152 The Hexateuch. [§8. 
 
 foreign elements have been incorporated, and v. 8-16 also seems to have been 
 worked over. Cf. Wellbausen (p. 549 sq.) ; Dillmann {Ex. u. Lev. 
 178) and Jiiliclier (B, 276 sqq.), the last of whom does not duly ap- 
 preciate the traces of E in v. 8-16. — On the origin of Ex. xviii. the critics are 
 almost unanimous. Observe Elohlm in v. I'', 5, 12 (bis), 15, 16, 19 (ter), 21, 
 23 ; on') baw in v. 13 as in Gen. xxxi. 54 ; xxxvii. 25 ; the agreement of v. 16, 
 20 with XV. 26 ; mn in v. 21, like nxn in Gen. xxii. 8. But v. i sqq. has been 
 worked over, as Wellhausen (xxi. 550 sq.), Dillmann (p. 184 sqq.), 
 and Jiilicher (B, 294 sq.) have shown in detail. 
 
 On i?.)-. xix.-xxiv. see Th. Tijdschr., xv. 175-223, where I showed that Ex. 
 XX. 18-21 originally stood before v. i-i'J, as Jiilicher (B, 312 sqq.) was 
 maintaining at the very same time. It is further shown in the same article 
 that the account of the delivery of the Decalogue originally contained nothing 
 about a Covenant-Book or the establishment of a covenant {Ex. xxiv. 3-8), and 
 that Ex. xxiv. 12 in its primitive form contained the command to ascend the 
 mountain and there to receive both the tables written by God and the reve- 
 lation of the laws and commandments destined for Israel. Now this deca- 
 logue-story may be referred with high probability to E. Not reckoning the 
 Decalogue itself — on which more in § 13, u. 20 — it contains the following 
 traces of E'a usage: Elohlm xix. 17; xx. i, 19-21 ; xxiv. 13; noil): fol- 
 lowed by ) xix. 12, as iu Gen. xxxi. 24, 29 ; no: in Piel, xx. 20 as in Gen. 
 xxii. I ; Ex. xv. 25 ; the mention of Joshua, muii3 of Moses, xxiv. 13, as in 
 xxxiii. II ; of Aaron andHur, xxiv. 14, as in xvii. 10, 12 ; of Moses' ofiice of 
 [^5°] Judge, xxiv. 14, as in xviii. 13 sqq. The following expressions are likewise 
 quite in harmony with E's style: 22'nn, xix. 17, aa in Num. xxiii. 3, 15; 
 Josh, xxiv. I ; nn, xxiv. 14, as in Geti. xlviii. 9; Num. xxii. 19; xxiii, i, 29 
 (but also in Gen. xxxviii. 21, 22, J). — Now it is very remarkable, and at first 
 sight most perplexing, that certain passages are found for which there is no room 
 in this decalogue-story, and which nevertheless conform, or at least approximate, 
 to the linguistic usage of E. This holds good {a) oi Ex. xxiv. i, 2, 9-11 (on 
 the connection of which, in point of matter, with xix. 13^, 20-25, cf. Tk. 
 Tijdschr., XV. 214-220) ; observe ha-elohim in v. 11, and the agreement 
 of this verse with xviii. 12; {b) of the Book of the Covenant, Ex. xx. 23- 
 xxiii. 33, and the narrative in Ex. xxiv. 3-8 that belongs to it. The nume- 
 rous points of contact with E had already been pointed out by Knob el 
 {Ex. II. Lev. 1st ed., p. 183 sq., cf. Num.-Josh. p. 532 sqq.) and have quite 
 recently been elaborately treated by Jiilicher (B, 305). Specially 
 worthy of note is the use of Ha-elohim or Elohlm in xxi. 6, 13; 
 xxii. 7, 8, 27, [8, 9, 28], (making it probable that Elohlm originally 
 stood in xxii. 10, [11] also), of naN in xxi. 7, 20, 26, 27; xxiii. 12; of 
 ipai □''3ll3n in xxiv. 4, and, in the same verse, the mention of the twelve 
 ma99eba3 (cf. Gen. xxviii. 18; xxxi. 52; and also xxxiii. 20, in which read 
 nisn and 7\'i). These phenomena must not induce us, with Knob el and 
 Dillmann, to regard the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant as 
 parts of one and the same narrative, nor. Math Jiilicher (B, 31 2 sqq.), 
 to regard the Decalogue as the original introduction to the Book of the 
 
n. 12—14.] E in Ex. xix. sqq. and Numbers. 153 
 
 Covenant, explaining its proclamation from heaven as a later modi- 
 fication of E's account. These views are opposed by Ti.r. xxiv. 3-8 (where 
 the Decalogue is n 1 mentioned) ; i<. 1 3 (where, on the one hand, ' the stone 
 tables,' which were destined for the Decalogue alone, are mentioned, 
 and on the other hand the revelation of further laws and commandments 
 is represented as still to come ; so at least in the genuine and original text, 
 now recast) ; and also by the absolute silence alike of Tix. xxxii.-xxxiv., 
 and of Deuteronomy concerning the Book of the Covenant and its accept- 
 ance by all the people. But this relationship with E must none the less 
 be taken into account, and we shall therefore revert to it hereafter, § 13, 
 n. 32. 
 
 " On the repeated manipulation and expansion of JEx. xxxi. i8-xxxiv. cf. 
 the essay in Th. Tijdschr., sv. already mentioned. I refer the following pas- 
 sages to the original narrative; 7i!r. xxxii. 1-6; 15-20 (21-34?); fragments 
 of xxxii. 30-xxxiii. 6; xxxiii. 7-1 1 entirely; xxxiv. I, 4, 28*^. The relation- 
 ship of these verses to E is unmistakable. The use of E 1 o h 1 m in (xxxi. 18), 
 xxxii. 16 proves little in casn, for it is almost appellative ('divine work, or 
 writing'). But we must note ini '013, xxxii. 2, 3, cf. Ge?i. xxxv. 4; — D<3ii5n 
 xxxii. 6, and the agreement of the whole verse with xxiv. II ; — xxxii. 18, cf. 
 xvii. II, 13 ; — xxxiii. 6, iiTn in, cf. iii. i ; xvii. 6 ; — xxxiii. 9, 10, cf. n. 12 on 
 Ex. xiii. 31, 32 ; — xxxiii. 11, D'jD'bN D':D, cf. Num. xii. 8; xiv. 14; Deut. 
 xxxiv. 10 ; also Joshua, n"i\riD of Moses, as in xxiv. 13 ; xxxii. 17, and hJto 
 as in xiii. 22 ; Num. xiv. 44 ; — and finally, xxxiv. 4 Tp2l D'3tfn. 
 
 " A few remarks on these passages must suffice. Num. x. 33-36 is of 
 uncertain origin ; Num. xiv. 40-45 runs in many respects parallel with it, 
 and would therefore suggest E as its source, and so also would Deut. i. 33, in- 
 asmuch as Dei.it. i.-iv. shows an obvious dependence upon E throughout ; no 
 inference can be drawn from v. 33*^ ; for v. 33 "^-36, which embodies a general 
 rule, does not belong to it; perhaps v. 33°- goes with xi. 1-3. This brief [151] 
 .narrative recalls E by the intercessory prayer of Moses in v. 2, cf. Gen. xx. 7, 
 17 ; Num. xxi. 7 ; and by psjs followed by ■;«, as in Ex. xv. 25 ; xvii. 4 ; Num. 
 xii. 13 ; XX. 16, etc. — OnNum.^i. 4-35 seen. 19. — The ascription of Num. xii. 
 toEis supported by nn«"';», v. i, as in Gen. xxi. 11, 25; Ex.xviii. 8; Num. xiii, 
 24 (Josh. xiv. 6) ; rrsoa ©'Nn, v. 3, as in B7. xi. 3 ; isfa bnN, v. 4, cf. E.r. 
 xxxiii. 7 ; v. ^, cf. Ex. xxxiii. 9 ; Deut. xxxi. 15, and also Num. xi. 35 ; v. 6, 
 snnn, as in Gen. xiv. I ; and likewise by the dream as a means of revelation, 
 cf. E passim ; v. 8, cf. Ex. xxxiii. 11. — The verses that remain in Num. xiii. sq. 
 when P is withdrawn (xiii. i7''-20, 22-34, 26'', 27-31; xiv. i ", 2^, 4, 8, 9, 
 11-25, 39~45)> contain, in my opinion, a narrative from E, but recast and 
 expanded by another hand, which has dealt vei-y drastically with xiv. 11-25, 
 especially. According to Wellhausen (xxi. 571 sq.) and E. Meyer (KritiTc 
 der Berichte iiher die Eroherung Palaestinas, in Zeitschr. f. alttest. Wissenschaft, 
 i. 117-146, especially p. 124, 139 sq.), this remoulder of the story had 
 another account at his service as well. Be this as it may, we trace the 
 linguistic usage of E in xiii. 20 (pinnn, as in Gen. xlviii. 2); v. 24. 
 rm«-';», as in Num. xii. i, etc.; xiv. i (bip ;n:,cf. Gen. xxi. 16); v. 14 
 
154 The Hexateuch. [§8. 
 
 (pillar of cloud and fire, as in TSj-. xiii. 3i, etc.) ; v. 40 (ipll D'illin, as in 
 Ex. sxxiv. 4, etc. ; i:3n, as in TSx. iii. 4^ etc.) ; i-. 42 (Yahwfe in the midst of 
 Israel, as in Dezii. xxxi. 17, though elsewhere too, -Ec.xvii. 7, etc.) ; ?). 44 (ifiio, 
 as in i?.c. siii. 22 ; xxxiii. 11). — It would likewise appear that E lies at the 
 basis of the story of Dathan and Abiram {Nam. xvi. i in part, 12-14, 15*. 
 25, 26, 27 "-32", 33, 34 [?]). Cf V. 12 (snp followed by S, as in Num. xxii. 
 6, 20); 14 (di31 mfc.as in Num. xx. 17; xxi. 22); v. 25 (the elders of 
 Israel, repeatedly in E) ; -u. 27 (as: followed by 'jriN nno, just as in TUx. 
 xxxiii. 8) ; v. 28 ('abo,' as in iV^um. xxiv. 13). But the original has been 
 largely remodelled, especially v. 13, 14, 28 sqq., and was further altered when 
 fused with P^. — On Num. xx. 1-13 cf. § 6, n. 42. The narrative welded with 
 that of P^ seems to be derived from E. Compare v. 4, 8, 11, -I'Si, with Gen. 
 xlv. 17; &. xxii. 4 ; I'. 5 in general with Nnm,. xvi. 13, 14; ?). 8 (niDDn) 
 and V. II (iriTQn) — wherewith v. 9 rrirr ':Dbo is only half in accord — with 
 JSx. iv. 20'', and the parallel passages. — Nimi. xx. 14-21; xxi. 21-31 are 
 referred to J rather than E byWellhausen (xxi. 577), on account of 'the 
 remarkable use of names of peoples as singulars ' (of. Kz. xiv.). But this is a 
 weak argument, for the use of the singular in xx. 14 sqq. is explained by the 
 very natural opening ' thy brother Israel ; ' and the plural occurs also («. 1 5-1 7, 
 19"); in xxi. 21 sqq. mas>«, v. 2 2, is the only singular. The two pericopes are 
 from the same hand, as may be seen by comparing xxi. 21 sq. with xx. 14, 17, 
 and xxi. 23 with xx. 18, 20. Their derivation from E is supported by xx. 14 
 (n^'jn followed by «so, as in Ex. xviii. 8) ; the ■j«';d in v. 16 ; in:, 'grant,' 
 in XX. 21 ; xxi. 23, as in Gen. xx. 6. Compare, further, pss, xx. 16 'with Ex. 
 XV. 25 ; xvii. 4 ; Num. xii. 13 ; Josh. xxiv. 7 (but elsewhere also). Meyer, 
 too, detects E in this passage (p. Ii8).' — From the same document comes 
 Num. xxi. 4*-9, attached by v. 4" to xx. 22-29 (P^). In v. 5 occurs Elohim 
 (replaced by Yahwfe in v. 6-8) ; v. 5, 7, tit followed by 2 as in Ntim. xii. i ; 
 [152] in V. 7, 'j'jDnn followed by ha and TS3, as in Num. xi. 2 and the parallel 
 passages. On the other hand, there is a similarity of idea, though not of 
 words, between 'jp'jpn nribn, v. 5, and Num. xi. 6 (J, cf n. 19), but this only 
 proves that E and J shared an idea of the manna which differs from that of 
 J" in Ex. xvi. — V. 12-20 and v. 21-31 do not quite agree together: the 
 embassy to Sihon does not start from ' the field of Moab ' {v. 20), but from a 
 previous station, probably from the Arnon (ti. 13). This would incline us to 
 derive v, 12-20, in whole or in part, from some other source than that of i). 
 21-31. But the author of the latter (E) is quite in agreement with J^^ as to 
 the facts, and the quotations in v. 14, 15, v. 17, 18% and «. 2 7-30 are evidently 
 all of them due to the same hand. We must therefore suppose that E pre- 
 faced his own narrative (v. 21-31) by a passage from an older itinerarium — 
 whence perhaps Deut. x. 6, 7 is likewise taken — and illustrated certain points 
 by poetical citations (v. 13^-15 ; v. 17, 18"), just as he did with the main 
 feature of his own narrative also (v. 26, 27-30). Clf my essay in Th. Tijdschr., 
 xviii. 497 sqq., and below, § 13, u. 12 ; 16, u.. 12, both on this passage and on 
 Num. xxii. 2-xxiv. This latter section is referred to E by Knobel in its 
 entirety, and by Sohrader with the exception of xxii. 22-35 > xxiv. 20-24 ; 
 
n. 14-16.] E in Numbers and in Deut. xxxi. 155 
 
 while Wellliausen (p. s^Ssqq.) divides it between E and J, and Colengo 
 between E and D. 
 
 ^° Dent. xsxi. 14-23, sxxii. 44, belongs to xxxii. 1-43, cf. § 7) n. 20. Tlie 
 language of this frame-work has been influenced by ' the song of Moses ' 
 itself, but independently of this it is very peculiar, and here and there 
 approaches the usage of P'. The following list of parallel passages will bring 
 this out, and at the same time will show the relationship to E which is here 
 and there unmistakable. 
 
 Ch. xxxi. 14, rnD*) "t'O* I^Tp, Gen. xlvii. 29; aa'nn, occurs passim in the 
 'prophetic' passages, and is found in Ex. xix. 17; Josh. xxiv. i (E) ; tsio "jnx, 
 cf. Tij-. xxxiii. 7-11 ; l^Sum. xi. 16, 17 (E). 
 
 y ■ 15, p» nD9 repeatedly in E (JSc. xiii. 21, 22 ; xiv. 19; xxxiii. 9, 10; 
 Num. xii. 5). 
 
 V. 16, l'm3N-D» 33©, Gen. xlvii. 30. — n:i followed by 'Tn«, of idolatry, 
 Ex. xxxiv. 15, 16, and Lev. xvii. 7 ; xx. 5, 6 ; Num. zv. 39 (P). — T3: 'n>N, 
 Z?e«(. xxxii. 12 and Gen. xxxv. 2, 4 ; Josh. xxiv. 20, 23 (E). — aiy, with Yahwfe 
 as its object, Josh. xxiv. 16, 20, and elsewhere. — n'Ta TDH, «. 20 andlj™. xxvi. 
 15, 44, cf. Num. XV. 31 (P). 
 
 V. 17, hi< mn. Num. xi, 33 and elsewhere. — D'^D Tnorr, v. 18, taken from 
 xxxii 20. — «20, ' befall,' as in Ex. xviii. 8 ; Num. xx. 14 (E). — niST, v. 21, 
 taken from xxxii. 23. — mp3, Yahwfe in the midst of Israel, as in Num. 
 xiv. 42 (E), but elsewhere also. 
 
 Y. 18, •;« niD, in the religious sense, v. 20, Lev. xix. 4, 31 ; xx. 6 — 
 D^irTN □n'?x, V. 20, fifteen times in Dent., and also in .Ec. xx. 3 {Deut. v. 7) 
 (E) ; xxiii. 13 ; xxxiv. 14, and /o«A. xxiv. 2, 16 (E). 
 
 F. 19, 'D3 □<«), as in iVitm. xxiii. 5 (where Yahwfe is the subject, however). 
 — I'sh n'n, as in Josh. xxiv. 22 (E), cf. Gen. xxxi. 52 (E). 
 
 F. 20, nmKrr'jN «'3n, found nowhere else. — The oath to the fathers, v. 
 23; in Deut. passim; further in Gen. xv. ; xxii. 16; xxiv. 7; xxvi. 3; 1. 24, 
 (E); Ex. xiii. 5, 11; xxxii. 13; xxxiii. i'; Num. xi. 12''; xiv. 16, 23. — 
 ' flowing with milk and honey,' five times in Deut. ; further in Ex. iii. 8, 17 ; [153] 
 xiii. 5 ; xxxiii. 3 ; Num. xiii. 27 ; xiv. 8 ; xvi. 13, 14, and Lev. xx. 24 (P). — 
 Sltol 'jDN, a deuterouomic phrase (Deut. vi. 11 ; viii. 10, 12 ; xi. 15 ; xiv. 29 ; 
 xxvi. 1 2). — JSJI, the same idea as in xxxii. 15. — yw:, as in Num. xiv. 11, 23 ; 
 xvi. 30. 
 
 F. 21, rt35. Gen. xxx. 33 (followed by 3); with iy, .Er. xx. 16.— T2', as in 
 Gen. vi. 5 ; viii. 21. — mton, Gen. xxvii. 4, 33; xxxvii. 18 ; xli. 50; xiv. 28; 
 Ex, i. 19, and Lev. xiv. 36 (P). 
 
 F. 23, yo«l pin, a deuteronomic formula {Deut. iii. 28; xxxi. 6, 7 ; -^osA. 
 i. 6, 7, 9, 18 ; A. 25). — 'I will be with you,' not uncommon elsewhere, and 
 occurs in Gen. xxviii. 15, 20; xxxv. 3; xlviii. 21 (E). 
 
 How these phenomena are to be explained we shall inquire in § 13, n. 30. 
 
 '^ Josh. xxiv. is full of references to earlier narratives and consequently has 
 most important bearings upon the criticism of the Pentateuch. It is, there- 
 fore, much to be regretted that no agreement has yet been reached as to 
 the origin of this chapter. Against Knobel, Noldeke {Untersuchungen, 
 
15^ The Hexateiich. [§8. 
 
 p. 105), Hollenberg {Sludien u. Kritiken, 1874, p. 485-488) and 
 Wellhausen (xxi. 601 sq.), who derive it, at any rate in great part, from 
 
 E, we must set Schrader, who refers it to his ' prophetischer Erzahler' 
 (i. a. J, or — since t; is narrator is also the redactor — JE), and Coleuso, who 
 
 assigns it — with the exception of v. 28-30, 33 (JE) and v. 26, 27, 33 (P) 
 
 to D, i. 6. the deuteronomic editor of the ' prophetic ' elements of the Hexa- 
 teuch {Pentateuch, vi., app. p. 70-73; Wellhausen on the Composition, -p. 
 83 sqq.). We have already observed (§ 7, n. 27) that the chapter has not 
 escaped a deuteronomic recension, but even so it retains such marked peculi- 
 arities of form and contents, and stands off so sharply from xxiii., that we 
 cannot possibly attribute it to the author of the latter, viz. D. There is 
 more to be said in support ofSchrader's opinion, but the following list will 
 show that the characteristics of E preponderate. How we are to explain the 
 presence of elements foreign to that document must be considered hereafter. 
 
 V. I, ai'nn, see above on Deut. xxxi. 14. — o'n'jNn 'iDb, as in iSr. xviii. 
 12 (E). — F. 2, 16, QnnN □'n'jN, see on Deut. xxxi. 18. The circumstance is 
 not mentioned in Gen.—V. 3, n^Tn followed by stt, Gen. xvi. 10; xxii. 17, 
 etc. (not in E). — V. 5, r|jj, also in Ex. xii. 23, 27; xxxii. 35, etc. — 7. 6, 
 D'lliiEai 23T3, not only in Ex. xiv. 9, 17, 18, 26, but in Ex. xv. 19 also. — ■ 
 
 F. 7, nin>"SN pi's, see above on Num. xx. 16. nD3 not only in Ex. xiv. 28, 
 but in Ex. xv. 5, 10. — V. 8, 12, 15, iS, ' the Amorite,' as a generic name for 
 the inhabitants of Canaan, not only in Deut. i. 7, 20, 27 ; iii. 9 ; Josh. v. 1 ; 
 vii. 7 ; X. 5, 6, but also in Gen. xv. 16 and xlviii. 22 (E). (The end of v. 8, 
 D3'3E]n Di^niENl is perhaps an addition by D; cf. § 7, n. 26 under 65). — 
 V. 9, 10, though related to Deut. xxiii. 5, 6 (b'jp and na«), has a character of 
 its own ; Balak's war against Israel, and Israel's ' deliverance out of his 
 hand,' do not appear elsewhere, though this phrase itself is common enough in 
 E (Gen. xxxvii. 22 ; Ex. iii. 8 ; xviii. 9, 10 ; but also in Gen. xxxii. 
 12 [11]; Deut. xxxii. 39; Josh. ix. 26, etc.). — F. it, the names of the 
 seven peoples are evidently a gloss ; the war of ' the lords of Jericho ' with 
 Israel wag not mentioned in vi. — F. 12, (to be emended after the LXX, 
 with Hollenberg, Die alex. TJehers. <l. B. Josua, p. 16), the expulsion 
 of ' the twelve kings of the Amorite ' appears here only, and is a de- 
 
 [154] parture from Josh. xii. The concluding words 'not with thy sword, nor 
 with thy bow' occur in Gen. xlviii. 22 (E). — F. 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 24, 
 mn'TiN T3S, as in Deut., but joined in v. 14 with nDN2i D'ona, a phrase 
 unknown to D. On TDM see under u. 23. — F. 16, nVjn followed by b, 
 as in Gen. xviii. 25 ; xliv. 7, 17 ; Josh. xxii. 29, never in E. — F. 17, D'llS n'n, 
 Ex. xiii. 3, 14, but also xx. 2 (E). "|i"i2 iniD, as in Ex. xxiii. 20, but also in 
 Gen. xxviii. 20 (E). — V. 18, D'Dyn"^DTi« is a later addition, parallel to the 
 one in v. II. — F. 19, Ni^p'^JN, cf. Ex. xx. 5. — sibe') Nto:,jEf. xxiii. 21, but also 
 Gen.'Y. 17(E). — F. 20, 23, T3: 'n'j«,- see under DeiiL xxxi. 16; united with Ton 
 (of. V. 14), in Gen. xxxv. 2 (E),and elsewhere. — F. 25, TODMini pn D'iD, Ex.xv. 
 25 (E) ; the task here assigned to Joshua is special to this chapter ; in xxiii. he 
 constantly refers to the book of law left him by Moses. — V. 26, a reference to 
 some other 'book of law,' than the one we know; ' Elohlm,' as in u. I ; the 
 
n. 1 6-1 8.] E in Joshiia. 157 
 
 rearing of a stone, as in Gen. xxviii. and elsewhere in E. — F. 2 7 again is very 
 peculiar; my'; m-rrnn, much as in Deut. xxxi. 19; of. especially Gen. 
 xxxi. 44 sqq. (E ; coincidence both in matter and form). — F. 29, D'lain nn« 
 n'jNn, very frequent in E. — F. ■l,^'>■ = Gen. 1. 25 ; Ex. xiii. 19 (E) ; v. 32'' = 
 Gen. xxxiii. 19 (E). If the concluding words of v. 32, which give no sense, 
 may be emended after the LXX. (n'ln:'; FlDTb Fi:n'l), then the statement of 
 Gen. xxxiii. 1 9 is not only accepted but expanded, probably by its author him- 
 self, in Joih. xxiv. 32'' ; cf. Gen. xlviii. 22. 
 
 Now it is obvious that the representation of the conquest of Canaan given 
 in Joih. i.-xii. does not coincide with that which underlies Josh., xxiv. 11-13. 
 According to the latter passage the Israelites cross the Jordan and are attacked 
 by the men of Jericho, whom God gives into their hand ; after which he sends 
 the hornet before them and expels the twelve kings of the Amorites, where- 
 upon they become masters of the whole land without striking a blow. The 
 document in which this conception — merely referred to in v. 11 -1 3 — was duly 
 developed, may have been used in the composition of Josh, i.-xii., but it 
 cannot be precipitated from it. We must therefore decline to accompany 
 Knobel, followed by Schrader, in his attempt to identify E's narrative 
 in the following passages : ii. ; iii. i, T-^l; iv. i", 4-7; 14, iS, 20-24; v. i, 
 2-9) i3-'5; ™i- 12, 13 (and v. 30-35 in part); x. 12-15; ^'^^ further, xiv. 
 6-15; XV. 14-19; xvii. 14-18; xxii. 7, 8 (to which Schrader adds u. 12, 
 16°, iS*", ig*", 22-29, 33'') ; neither this particular resolution of the narratives, 
 nor the assigning of the above pericopes to E, can be justified or rendered 
 probable. Cf Hollenberg in Slvd. u. Kiit., 1874, p. 492 sqq.; Well- 
 hausen, xxi. 585-596, and below, n. 20 ; § 13, n. 29. 
 
 " Cf. n. 10-12, whence we may easily infer how the case stands with J's 
 contributions to Ex. i.-xv. Note also that according to E's representation 
 Moses' wife and sons stay behind in Midian, when he himself returns to 
 Egypt {Ex. xviii. i sqq.; n'm'jc THN in v. 2 is evidently a harmonising 
 addition). It follows that Ex. iv. 20", 24-26 cannot be taken from E, and we 
 may attribute it with high probability to J. 
 
 " Cf. n. 12 and 13. Wellhausen (p. 551 sqq.) and Dillmann {Exodus 
 u. Leviticus, p. 190 sqq.) evidently start from the assumption that J described 
 the events at Sinai and that we must possess at any rate some remains of his ['55] 
 account. Jtilicher (B, 295 sqq.) takes the same view as far as Ex. xix.- 
 xxiv. II is concerned. But their conclusions as to J's actual contributions 
 are widely divergent. Wellhausen iinds them in ^. xix. 20-25 ■ • ■ 
 XX. 23-26 ; xxi.-xxiii. ; xxiv. 3-8 ;— Dillmann in xix. 9°, 20-25 ; (xx- 1-17 ; 
 perhaps in another form) ; xxiv. i, 2 ; xxxiv. 10-27 ; fragments in xxiv. 3-8 ; 
 ■». 9-II, 12 in part, 18''; xxxii. I-14, i9''-24, 30-34; fragments in xxxiii. 
 1-6; V. 12, 13, 18-23 ) xxxiv. 1-9 : xxxiii. 14-17 ; — Jiilicher (B), iinally, in 
 Ex. xix. 9", II (12, 13" in part), 15, 16*, 18, 20-22, 25 ; but not in xx.-xxiv. 
 II at which latter verse Jiilioher's investigation closes. Clearly all is 
 uncertainty. The cause is not far to seek ; the Sinai stories have passed 
 through many phases before reaching their present form, and no small part of 
 the original contents of the documents has been lost in the process ( § 13, n. 
 
158 The Hexateuch. [§8. 
 
 32). The fact that tie so-called Worda of the Covenant, Hx. xxxiv. 10-27, 
 show traces of some other code in addition to the Decalogue and the Book of 
 the Covenant — which are derived from, or at least related to, E — naturally 
 suggests that this other legislation was supplied by J. But as soon as we try 
 to test the hypothesis we are met by the difficulty that the "Words of the 
 Covenant have undergone more than one recension (§ 13, n. 21, 32). The 
 ten short commandments, whichWellhausen (xxi.554,n. 2), following other 
 scholars, detects in these 'Words,' may really have come from J, but there is 
 no clear proof of it. 
 
 " Num. X. 29-32 is a very curious passage, in which the human aspects of the 
 matter are dwelt on, as elsewhere in J ; cf n. 5. on G-en. xxix.-xxxi. — In 
 Num. xi. 4-35 I think three elements must be distinguished, (a) the story of 
 the quails and the origin of the name Kibrdth-hattaava, that lies at the basis, 
 {y. 4-13, 15, 31-33, perhaps in an earlier form, 34, 35); (6) later expansions 
 and embellishments {v. 18-24°', perhaps 31-33 in part) ; (c)an independent story 
 of how Moses' complaint that his task was too heavy was met by the gift of 
 the spirit of prophecy to seventy elders {v. 14, 16, 17, 24'>-3o). Probably (a) 
 belongs to J ; cf. the more sober conception of the manna in v. 6-9 ; (e) on the 
 contrary comes fi-om E, compare i). 25 with Ex. xxxiii. 9 ; Num. xii. 5 ; Deut. 
 xxxi. 15 ; V. 28 with E.r. xxiv. 13 ; xxxii. 17 ; xxxiii. 11; v. 30, P|DNJ, with 
 Num. xii. 14, 15; on the difficulty which Ex. xviii. seems to present to the 
 derivation of (c) &om E, cf. infr. § 13, n. 25 ; and on the origin of (6) ibid. n. 
 29.— Ch. xxi. 1-3 is certainly not from the same hand as xiv. 45, where 
 Horma occurs as the name of a place already known ; it is not from E, there- 
 fore, and there is no reason why we should not assign it to J. On xxii. 2- 
 xxiv. ; XXV. 1-5, cf the essay referred to at the end of n. 14. The 'pro- 
 phetic ' elements of xxxii. cannot belong either to E or J ; for more, see § 13, 
 n. 29. 
 
 '^'' In Josh, i.-xii. we found (§ 7, u. 26) a histtprical narrative, recast and 
 expanded by D^ in which (according to § 6, n. 48) a few fragments of P' are 
 incorporated, but which otherwise belongs to ' the prophetic stratum.' This 
 'prophetic history' — to which we must assign ii. 1-9, 12-iii. 2, 4-6, 8-iv; 
 12, 13 (?). 15-18; 20; '^- I' 2 (recast by D'''), 3, 8, 9; 13-vii. 26; viii. 2", 
 [156] 3-26, 28, 29 (?): ix. 1-15% 16, 22, 23, 26; X. 1-7, 9-24, 26, 27 (?), 28-39; 
 xi. 1-9, 21-23" — though clearly betraying its composite origin, has evidently 
 been worked up systematically into a single whole, as appears, especially, from 
 the anticipatory and retrospective notices in vi. 17, 22, 25, cf (ii.) ; ii. 10 
 (cf iv. 23); vi. 18 (cf. vii. especially v. 26); ix. (which assumes vi. viii.); x. 
 (which assumes vi., viii., ix.); xi. 19 (cf. ix.). The one pericope, viii. 30-35, 
 which might be removed without injury to the context, is added by D^ (§ 7, 
 n. 26, 30). This systematic plan makes it probable a priori that the written 
 accounts were not taken as they stood and placed side by side, but freely 
 worked up, or, in other words, that they simply furnished the writer with 
 materials, which he used in his own way and from his own point of view. 
 Investigation shows that this is actually the case, especially in vi. sqq. In 
 ii.-v. the two narratives may still be severed to some extent: between i. 11 
 
n. 18-20.] J in Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua. 159 
 
 and iii. 2 there is no room for what is recorded in ii., so that this chapter can- 
 not be from the same hand as iii. a sqq. ; in iii. 2-iv. (when P^ and D" have 
 been withdrawn), iii. 12, 15 in part, 16 in part; iv. 4-7, 9, 10, 11", 15-18 
 (raising a heap of stones in the bed of the Jordan), must differ in origin from 
 the rest, wherein the stones are piled up at Gilgal ; in v. the connection of v. 
 13-15 with what precedes (as well as with what follows) is unsatisfactory. 
 But from vi. onwards the indications of various accounts lie far less near the 
 surface. Wellhausen (xxi. 589 sq.) has succeeded in showing the traces of a 
 story in vi. in which the priests and the ark are not mentioned, but the people, 
 after compassing Jericho on six days in succession, raise the war cry and 
 blow the trumpet on the seventh, whereupon the walls fall ; and likewise 
 (p. 594, cf. Hollenberg, op. cit., p. 596) in tracing the remains of a narrative 
 in ix. in which the negociations with the Gibeonites were conducted by ' the 
 men of Israel,' and not by Joshua. Again, in viii. 1-29, — which certainly was 
 not written uno tenon, cf. § 4, n. 13 — Wellhausen finds in v. 3", 12, 13, 
 14**, 18, 20 in part, 26, fragments of a widely divergent representation of the 
 course of events. Throughout these chapters the earlier account is continually 
 asserting itself in spite of the author, who endeavours to supplant it 
 by his own representation. Such being the state of the case it is more 
 than difficult to indicate the original sources from which the earlier narratives 
 must have been derived. On E'a share cf n. 16. The inferences there drawn 
 from Joili. xxiv. 11-13 seem to carry with them the conclusion that the 
 fundamental lines of i.-xii. were drawn by or copied from some other hand 
 than E's ; and, as far as I can see, it may very well have been J's. But this 
 rests on considerations that cannot be presented and estimated till later on. 
 See § 13, n. 14. 
 
 Josh. xiii. sqq. also rests, as shown in § 6, n. 49-53 ; 'J, n, 27, on a ' pro- 
 phetic ' account of the partition of the land ; but the only remaining portions 
 of it, which contain anything but lists of cities, are xvii. 14-18 ; xviii. 2-6, 
 8-10. Ch. xvii. 14-18 is a very remarkable passage, which gives a different 
 and, as we see at once, an older representation of the settlement of the 
 tribes than the one based on a partition by Joshua which underlies xiii. sqq. 
 elsewhere. The pericope therefore stands upon the same footing as the more 
 antique fragments in i.-xii., of which we spoke just now, and may therefore be 
 assigned to J. Ch, xviii. 2-6, 8-Io,'onthe other hand, rests on the current con- [l57] 
 ception in its most developed form — that of a partition b y 1 1. See more in 
 
 § 13. n- 29- 
 
 We have now arrived at a stage of our investigation of the 
 ' prophetic ' strata at which we must consider the relation 
 in which they stand to the rest of the Pentateuch, especially 
 
 to P. 
 
 It was long thought that a satisfactory answer to this ques- 
 tion was supplied by the so-called 'Erganzungshypothese' 
 
1 60 The Hexateuck. [ § 8. 
 
 (or 'filling-in hypothesis'), which suggested itself in the study 
 of Genesis and was then applied to the other books of the 
 Hexateuoh as well. The upholders of this hypothesis found 
 the original stratum or ground-work of the Hexateuoh in 
 the whole body of Elohistic passages (P^, E), which they 
 assigned to a single author, while regarding the Yahwistic 
 and deuteronomie laws and narratives as later additions, 
 intended to fill in the original ^1. 
 
 The theory cannot now be defended in its primitive form. 
 It fell to the ground as soon as it had been shown that all the 
 Elohim-pericopes could not possibly be derived from one and 
 the same document; and this was shown by K . D. Ilgen 
 first, and then yet more conclusively by H. Hupfeld. 
 Moreover these same scholars further demonstrated that the 
 passages supposed to have been written merely as supplements 
 and expansions were for the most part complete and intelligible 
 by themselves, and departed so widely frona the supposed 
 ' Urschrift ' or ' Grundschrift,' even when they did not dia- 
 metrically contradict it, that they were strangely unsuited to 
 ' fill it in/ and could never have been intended to do so ^^- 
 
 This latter difficulty also applies to the more recent 
 Erganzungshypothese which Knobel, Sehrader, and 
 Colenso defend in various forms ^^. Widely as these 
 forms may differ, they all of them imply the gross im- 
 probability of the supposed later author having designed 
 or adduced his narratives to fill in an account into which 
 they did not fit and which they often contradicted. We 
 might perhaps suppose him to have been unconscious of 
 the disagreement occasionally; but we really cannot 
 allow that he could have overlooked or disregarded it 
 throughout ^*. 
 
 I If we acknowledge, then, that the ' prophetic ' elements are 
 independent of tlie priestly ones, and call in a redactor to 
 unite the two, we have still to inquire into the mutual 
 
§8.] The ' Erganzimgshypothese! i6i 
 
 relations of the prophetic elements themselves. 
 Noldeke's supposition that E was incorporated by J, and 
 H. Schultz's opposite theory that E built upon and ex- 
 panded J ^^, seem equally inadmissible, for the following 
 reasons : — 
 
 (i) Neither hypothesis agrees with the contents of J and E. 
 Though the two documents differ far less from each other than 
 from P, yet they are too widely discrepant to allow their com- 
 bination to be ascribed to the author of either of them. It 
 must be the work of a third hand ^^ ; 
 
 (2) This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that some of 
 the ' prophetic ' passages cannot be derived either from E or 
 J, and must therefore have been taken from elsewhere ; and 
 this process of supplementation appears in the Hexateueh in 
 such a form as to make it difficult — sometimes impossible — to 
 ascribe it to either of the two main authors ^'' ; 
 
 (3) There is still room for much inquiry concerning the 
 literary process by which the ' prophetic ' elements acquired 
 their present form. But we may safely say that it was highly 
 intricate in its nature. The redaction was sometimes scru- 
 pulously conservative in regard to the documents, some- 
 times harmonising, sometimes independent and free. 
 Its character is incompatible with the idea that it was the 
 work of one of the authors themselves ^^. 
 
 We have still to ask whether this redaction of the 
 ' prophetic ' elements coincides with that of the Hexateueh 
 in general (Dillmann), or whether it preceded it in point 
 of time, so that this stratum, compressed into a single whole, 
 lay before the final redactor amongst his other documents 
 (Wellhausen). The outcome of our further studies as to 
 the respective antiquities of the great strata of the Hexateueh 
 will be one of the hinges on which our definite choice between 
 these two opinions must turn, but we are already in a position [159] 
 to pronounce Wellhausen's the more probable. We may 
 
 M 
 
1 62 The Hexateuch. [§8. 
 
 note especially that tlie deuteronomic recension and expansion 
 of Joshua affect the prophetic elements alone (§ 7, n. a8), and 
 this fact is irreconcilable with Dillmann's theory ^9. 
 
 =1 This ' Erganzungsliypotbese ' was defended by F. Tuch (Commentar 
 iilerdie Genesis, 1838; 2nd ed. 1871, p. xxrix. sqq.) ; F. Bleek {Mnleitung 
 in das A. T.); Stahelin {Krit. XJntersuchungen iiber die Genesis, 1830; 
 Krit. Tint, iiber den Pent., die Bilclier Jos. Richt. Sam. u. der Konige, 1843; 
 Spezielle Einleitung in das A. T., 1863, p. 23 sqq.); C. von Lengerke; de 
 Wette (in the later editions oi his Einl. in das A. T.), and others. Stahelin, 
 who identifies the Deuteronomist with the Jehovist, assumes but one supple- 
 mentation of the ' Grundschrift ;' the others regard the Jehovist as the author 
 of Gen.-Num., and of Josh, in its original form, and believe that his work was 
 again 'filled in' by the Deuteronomist. It is the former 'filling in' with 
 which we are here concerned. 
 
 Cf. K. D. Ilgen, Bie Vrkunden des Jems. Tempelarchivs in ihrer Urge- 
 stalt, i. Halle, 1798) ; H. Hupf eld, Bie Quellen der Genesis u. die Art ihrer 
 Zmammensetzung (Berlin, 1853). The former scholar divides Genesis between 
 three writers, two Elohists (Sopher Eliel harishon and hassheni) and one 
 Yahwist (Sopher Elijah harishon). Just and discriminating remarks on 
 their mutual distinctions are not wanting, but Ilgen is often unfortunate 
 in his analysis, especially in his separation of the two Elohists, which — 
 perhaps partly in consequence of his ill success — fell more and more into 
 discredit, until at last Hupf eld completely rehabilitated it, by establishing 
 the distinction between P and E, p. 38 sqq., 167 sqq.; and the independence 
 of J, p. loi sqq. ; and, finally, by furnishing the compact demonstration that 
 the combination of these three documents must be the work of »■ redactor, 
 p. 195 sqq. Hupfeld's main argument is embodied in the text and seems 
 to requii'e no further development : it is indeed a complete misconception 
 of the character and the mutual relations of the narratives to suppose that 
 E and J were intended to fill in P — Gen. ii. 4'-iii., for instance, to fill in 
 Gen. i. i-ii. 4" ; and the stories about Esau and Jacob in E and J to fill in 
 the completely heterogeneous representation of P^ (§ 6, n. i), etc. 
 
 ^' Knob el retains the name 'Grundschrift' for P; he holds that it was 
 filled in by the Jehovist, who made use of two documents, ' das Eechtsbuch ' 
 ( = E; the name being taken from Josh. x. 13) and 'das Kriegsbuoh' (the 
 name from Num. xxi. 14), but also made independent contributions himself, 
 especially in Genesis, which is largely his work, whereas in Exodus sqq. he 
 generally confines himself to making esoerpts from his two documents. 
 
 Sehrader(de'Wette'3 Einleitung, 8th edition) makes the ' annalistio 
 nan'ator ' ( = P) and the ' theocratic narrator ' ( = E) compose their works in 
 complete independence of each other ; the ' prophetic narrator ' weaves them 
 together, but at the same time fills them in by narratives of bis own ; his 
 [160] additions — answering to Knobel's 'Kriegsbuoh' and 'Jehovist' — are of very 
 considerable extent in Genesis, Exodus, Numhers, and Joshua. In Schrader's 
 
n. 21 
 
 -25.] Criticism of the ^ Erg'dnzungshypothese' 163 
 
 hands, therefore, the ' Erganzungahypothese * undergoeB an important modi- 
 fication : for it is no longer P, but P + E that is 'filled in.' Schrader's 
 P + E, however, answers very much to the ' Grundschrift ' of Tuoh, 
 Stahelin, etc. 
 
 The form under which Colenso defended the ' Erganzungshypothese ' is 
 very peculiar. It will be remembered that he makes the ' Grundschrift ' of 
 Tuch and the rest end with Tix. vi. 2-5 ; and refers what is usually 
 regarded as its continuation (P iniiSc. vi.-/osA. xxiv.) to the most recent of all 
 the elements of the Hexateuch, viz., LL ('Later' or 'Levitical Legislation'). 
 The 'Grundschrift' (Colenso's E) is therefore filled in from Gtn.\. to^. 
 vi., and continued from Mx. vi. onward, first by IS ( = our E, Knobel'a 
 'Eechtsbuch,' Schrader's 'theocratic narrator'), and then by J, who in 
 his turn exchanges the character of supplementer for that of continuator after 
 Num. xxii.-xxiv., where E comes to an end. Thus we have two successive 
 layers of supplement and continuation, though we must bear in mind that IS 
 and J are very closely related, if they are not one and the same person. ('The 
 second Elohist, J?, perhaps merely the Jahvist in an early stage of his literary 
 activity,' Pentateuch, vii.App. p. 136, 139 and elsewhere.) The work that 
 rose under the successive labours of E, E, and J, is, according to Colenso, 
 ' the Original Story ' (0. S.), which — centuries after its completion — was inter- 
 polated and expanded by the Deuteronomiet or by more than one deutero- 
 nomic redactor, and into which the partially historical but chiefly legislative 
 passages indicated by the letters LL were inserted at a still later date. 
 
 ^' Cf. n. 22. The remarks by which Colenso {Pentateuch, vii. App. p. 129 
 sqq.) once more attempts to establish the supplemental character of the 
 contributions of E and J are anything but conclusive. No doubt there are 
 stories in E and J which do, as a matter of fact, serve to fill in the data of P 
 in our present book of Genesis. Gen. v. 29, for instance, supplements v. 28 ; 
 in Gen. xvi. 4 (J) ' Hagar ' takes us back to v. i, 3 (P), etc. But even if 
 these examples were far more numerous than they really are, they would 
 not prove the point in support of which they are alleged, viz. that E and J 
 were written with a view to filling in P. It is perfectly obvious that 
 they were not. The story of the flood in J has not so much as the distant 
 semblance of a supplement to the one in P ; nor does the representation of the 
 plagues of Egypt in ' the prophetic passages ' stand in any such relation to that 
 in P. Ef sic in ceteris. The point of agreement between the hypotheses of 
 Knobel, Schrader, and Colenso, viz. that all alike rob one (or even more) 
 of the original authors of the Hexateuch of his independent activity and force 
 him to do duty as a redactor, involves so gross an improbability that we could 
 only accept it if it were supported by unequivocal evidence; whereas, as a 
 fact, all the phenomena appealed to in its support may be as well, if not 
 better, explained in other ways. 
 
 ^° Cf. Noldeke, Uniersuchungen, etc., p. 3 sq. ; H. Schultz, AUtestament- 
 liche Theologie (2nd ed. 1878), p. 85-88. Noldeke believes the ' Erganzungs- 
 hypothese' to have been ' completely refuted ' by Hupfeld and others; the 
 combination of P, and 'the prophetic elements' must be the work of a 
 
 M 2, 
 
1 64 The Hexateuch. [ § 8. n. 25 
 
 redactor ; E and J are, he thinks, correctly determined in general by Hup- 
 [l^ij feld, but incorrectly regarded as independent of each other : ' the writer who 
 has most genius of all the pentateuchal authors, the .Tehovist, made use of 
 this Elohist as one of his chief authorities. . . . He borrowed long passages 
 from him, but in such an independent manner that we cannot always quite 
 distinguish what belongs to the JehoTist himself from what he has taken 
 from the Elohist, especially in the middle books of the Pentateuch.' 
 Schultz is also a pronounced opponent of the filling-in hypothesis (p. 86) and 
 distinguishes between J and E (whom he calls B and C). After stating that 
 C is generally regarded as earlier than B he adds, ' I am convinced, on the 
 contrary, that C is later than B, was acquainted with the latter's work and 
 expanded it, more especially enriching it from sources derived from Northern 
 Israel.' Schultz appeals in confirmation of this view, (i) to the fact that C 
 does not appear till well on in Abraham's history {Gen. xz.) ; (2) to the resem- 
 blance of his style and vocabulary to E's ; (3) to the fusion of the two accounts, 
 especially in the stories of Jacob and Joseph ; (4) to the fact that where C and 
 B run parallel it is the former whose representations are heightened and 
 betray a conscious purpose, e.g. in Gen. xx. compared with xii. 10-20 and 
 xxvi. 
 
 "" When E and J can be distinctly identified, so as to bring out their rela- 
 tions to each other clearly, e. g. in Gen. xx. sqq., xxviii. sqq., xxxvii., xxxix. sqq., 
 we see that the idea of one having taken up and elaborated the other is 
 altogether inadmissible. To take a single example : in Gen. xxxvii., how 
 could the vrriter who says that Joseph was sold to Ishmaelites have 
 incorporated in his narrative the story that he was kidnapped by Midian- 
 ites, or vice versa % — It is urged on the other side (i) that E and J are too 
 much alike to have been written independently of each other. (But no one 
 denies that J may have known and imitated E, or vim versa. What we do 
 deny is that either of these authors marred his own work by combining it 
 with that of the other) ; (2) that here and there one of the two authors, and 
 specifically J, obviously takes the rule of commentator or harmonist. (But 
 this harmonist, though he too uses the name Yahwfe, must certainly be dis- 
 tinguished from J. Cf. n. 28.) 
 
 *' The hypothesis that E was filled in by J, or vice versa, both with original 
 matter and with fragments drawn from other sources, is no doubt admissible 
 in the abstract ; but as soon as we trace out the supposed process in specific 
 cases it breaks down. In Ex. xix.-xxiv. and xxxii.-xxxiv. we find three con- 
 ceptions of the Sinaitic legislation side by side. There is nothing to indicate 
 that they were woven together by any one of their three authors, and we have 
 therefore no right to assume that they were, since a priori the supposition has 
 everything against it. — If Gen. xiv. had been incorporated by J in his narra- 
 tive, some trace ofit would surely appear in xviii., xix., whereas as a fact there 
 is not the least trace in these chapters of what, according to xiv., had just 
 befallen Sodom and the other cities, and Lot. M sic in ceteris. 
 
 ^' The proofs of this assertion as to the character of the redaction lie 
 scattered through n. 4 sqq. Its scrupulous conservativism is proclaimed loudly 
 
— § 9. n. I.] J and E combined by a Redactor. 165 
 
 enough by the presence of so many doublets (compare Gen. xx. with xii. 
 10-20 ; Gen. xvi. with xxi. ; Gen. xxix. sqq., etc.) It is harmonising in Gen. [163] 
 sxvi. 15, i8, for instance, and (in another way) in Gen. xxii. 14-18; xxviii. 
 13-16 ; and (in yet another way) in the little additions to E and J in Gen. xl. 
 sqq., which are evidently intended to smooth down the inequalities that 
 must necessarily arise when fragments now of one, now of the other narrative 
 are successively taken up. The best examples of the free use of the two 
 sources have been supplied by the prophetic portions of -Ec. vii.-xii. and 3osk. 
 vi.-xii. But see more below, in § 13 and 16, where we shall show that the 
 redaction has penetrated far deeper than has yet appeared, and that more than 
 one stage must be distinguished in it. 
 
 ^ Consult the inquiry into the age of the various documents in § 9 sqq., 
 and on the special questions of the redaction of JE and of the whole Hexa- 
 teuch respectively, see § 13 an'd 16. 
 
 § 9. Provisional determination of the chronological order of 
 the constituent elements of the Hexateuch. 
 
 It has hardly been possible to trace out and dissect the 
 various constituents of the Hexateuch, as we have tried to do 
 in § 5-8, without now and then touching on the question of 
 their chronological relations to each other. The results already 
 obtained^ or flowing directly from the investigations con- 
 ducted, may now be gathered up, before we proceed to esamine 
 the evidence of the literature and history of Israel as to the 
 genesis of the Hexateuch (§ 10 and 11). These results cannot, 
 in the nature of the case, be complete ; but since they are 
 yielded by the Hexateuch itself, however fragmentary or neg- 
 ative they may be, they deserve to be collected and set forth 
 independently, for comparison with anything we may learn 
 hereafter from other sources. They may be summed up in the 
 four theses that follow. 
 
 I. The 'prophetic' narratives of the Hexateuch 
 (JE) were not written to fill in or elaborate the 
 priestly accounts (P), and therefore need not neces- 
 sarily be subsequent to them'. 
 
 ' Cf. § 8, n. 21-24. Schrader {Mini., p. 313, n. a) still asserts that 'the 
 prophetic passages take account of the work of the annalistio narrator (P).' 
 
1 66 The Hexateuch. [§9. 
 
 But not one of the examples he cites has any real evidential value : either 
 the references are imaginary, or they occur in verses which belong not to JE 
 but to E. 
 
 [163] II. The deuteronomic laws are later than the ordi- 
 nances incorporated in the 'prophetic' portions, and 
 in particular, later than the laws of the Book of the 
 Covenant. In Beut. v. 6-18 [6-ai], when compared with 
 IjX. XX. a-17, this relation would appear still more clearly than 
 it does, were it not that in the latter text subsequent inser- 
 tions have been made, and some clerical errors have slipped 
 in ; but even now the matter is beyond dispute I The 
 parallels between Ex. xx. 33-xxiii. 0,7, and Deuteronomy are 
 very numerous, especially in Deut. xii.-xx., and are of such 
 a character as to leave no doubt as to the priority of 
 the former collection ; here, at any rate, the few exceptions 
 confirm the rule ^. The relation of Deuteronomy to Hx. xiii. 
 I, 2; 3-10; 11-16, to the kindred passage Eos. xii. 31-27, 
 and to the Words of the Covenant, Ex. xxxiv. 10-27, is not 
 so easy to determine, and accordingly various conceptions of 
 it are current. It seems well therefore to leave it an open 
 question for the present*. 
 
 ° D's version is distinctly marked as the later of the two by the insertion 
 'as Yahwfe, your god, has commanded you,' 13. 12, 16, 'and that it maybe 
 well with you,' v. 16 (cf. § 7, n. 4, 16) ; ' and thy ox and thy ass,' v. 14 ; 'and his 
 field,' V. 18 [21] ; and by the substitution of nixnrTN'; for the second TDnn'x';, 
 V. 1%, together with the inversion of the order of niliK and n'l, whereby the 
 latter term receives the narrower signification of ' dwelling,' whereas in Ex. 
 XX. 17 it is the whole establishment, the several parts of which are then 
 enumerated with the repetition of ID nn"«'). On the other hand n:iorT^3i, 
 Ex. XX. 4, is a corruption of n3iDn"')3, Dent. v. 8, and Tpffi'ns, Ex. xx. 16, is 
 an explanation of NliU'lS', in Deul. v. 18 [20], (cf. Dmt. v. 11; Ex. 
 XX. 7). But there is no reason why we should not lay these readings 
 to the charge of the copyists. A more important fact is the occurrence in 
 the Decalogue, even in Ex. xx., of deuteronomic formula : 'thy stranger 
 that ia within thy gates' («. 10) ; 'that thy days may be prolonged ' {v. 12) ; 
 'in the land which Yahwfe thy god giveth thee' {v. 12), [cf. § 7, n. 4]. 
 But if it seems improbable that D found these expressions in the Deca- 
 logue and appropriated them to himself, we are still at liberty to suppose that 
 
n. 1-3. ] D's relation to JE. 167 
 
 they were transferred from the denteronomio recension to that of Tix,. xx. : 
 nothing is connnouer than for parallel passages to be brought into closer 
 agreement by redactors or copyists. The most important of the differ- 
 ences between the two recensions, that between ISx. xx. ii and Deut. v. 14'' 
 (from JSd'), onwards) 15, admits of more than one explanation. Dent. t. 14'', 
 15, is quite in the style of D, and is certainly from his hand. But it is not 
 probable that he substituted these grounds of the obserTance for the reference 
 to the creation story in Hx. xx. 11; for elsewhere in the Decalogue he expands, 
 but never omits. We must therefore look upon Deut. v. 14'', 15, as an addition, 
 not a substitution ; and in that case -Ea;. xx. 11 must be a later and independ- [164] 
 eut amplification of the text which D had before him. See further, § 16, 
 n. 13. 
 
 ^ The relation of D to the Book of the Covenant is not uniform throughout, 
 but it is always that of a later to an earlier legislator. The permission to 
 build altars, JSr. xx. 24-26, is repealed in Beut. xii., etc. ; the law of the feasts, 
 Ex. xxiii. 14-18 (cf. xiii. 3-10; xxxiv. 18, 22, 23), is very notably modified by 
 the introduction of the one only sanctuary ; but the three great feasts are 
 retained, and more than one special expression reappears ; the ordinance of the 
 sabbatical jeax,jEx. xxiii. 10, 11, is superseded by another, Deut. xv. i sqq., in 
 which Douj, Ex. xxiii. 11, is used in a modified sense. Dent. xv. 1-3, 9; xxxi. 
 10. Elsewhere D simply adopts the older law, omitting what is no longer 
 appropriate, and amplifying certain details. Thus in Deut. xv. 12-18, com- 
 pared with Ex. xxi. 2-1 1, the symbolical action at the sanctuary drops out, 
 since D only recognises one such sanctuary, and the present to the released 
 slave is added. — And again, in Deut. xix. 1-13 compared with Ex. xxi. 12-14, 
 the specially determined cities of refuge take the place of the raany altars of 
 Yahwfe. — Deut. xix. 19-21 paraphrases the rule of Ex. xxi. 23, 24. Deut. 
 X. 19; xiv. 39, etc., are quite in the spirit of Ex-, xxii. 20-23 [21-24]; 
 xxiii. 9 ; but the positive 'support' takes the place throughout of the negative 
 'not oppress.' — Deut. xvi. 19 further illustrates Ex. xxiii. 8. — De^it. xv. 7-11 
 elaborates Ex. xxii. 24 [25] ; and in the same way Ex. xxii. 28, 29 [29, 30] ; 
 xxiii. 19" (cf. xiii. 11-16; xxxiv. 19, 20, 26»') are worked out more fully in 
 Deut. XV. 19-23 (cf. xiv. 22-29) > ^^'^ -^- ^™- 3° l3^~\' ™ Deut. xiv. 1-21 ". 
 The precept so oddly placed in Deut. xiv. 2 1 °, is certainly taken from Ex. xxiii. 
 19'' (cf. xxxiv. 26''). The hortatory conclusion, Ex. xxiii. 20-33, ^Iso lay 
 before D, at any rate in part; in vii. 20", 22 he adopts v. 28, 29 almost 
 literally from it, though the passage squares but ill with his own representa- 
 tion of the numbers of the Israelites (x. 32) and the conquest of the land 
 (ix. 3)- 
 
 In Deut. xxi.-xxv. some of the precepts and exhortations agree in sub- 
 stance with those of the Book of the Covenant, though there is no evidence 
 of borrowing. Compare Ex. xxi. 16 with Deut. xxiv. 7; -ESc. xxii. 20-23 [21- 
 24] with Deut. xxiv. 14, 15; Ex. xxii. 24 [25] with Deut. xxiii. 20; Ex. xxii. 
 25, 26 [26, 27] with Deut. xxiv. 6, 10-13. The same maybe said oi Ex. xxiii. 
 4, 6 compared with Deut. xxii. i, 4, though in this case the Book of the 
 Covenant, which speaks of the ox and the ass of ' thine enemy ' (' thy hater ') 
 
1 68 The Hexateuch. [§g, 
 
 Beema to be leas primitive than D, whicli haa ' thy brother.' But this furnishes 
 no proof of the priority of D, since the expressions are independent, and more- 
 over Hr. xxiii. 4, 5 breaks the context and is a later addition (§ 5, n. i). 
 
 * The following points must be considered in determining the relation of 
 these passages to Deuteronomy, (a) Ex. xiii. 2 is a very short and general 
 precept, parallel in substance with JSx. xxii. 28'', 29 [29'', 30]; xxxiv. 19, 
 20"", elaborated in Ex. xiii. 11-16, on which see below, under (c); (6) Ex. 
 xiii. 3-10, the tora on eating ma996th, la referred to in Ex. xxiii. 15 ; xxxiv. 
 1 8 ; the reference, however, ia not due to the authors of the regulations in Ex. 
 xxiii. and xxxiv. themselves, but rather to the redactor (E) who placed these 
 latter regulations after Ex. xiii,, though they are really older, and are them- 
 selves elaborated in Ex. xiii. 3-10, not vice versa. Deitt. xvi. 1-8 agrees in 
 contents with our tora; compare v. 3", S*", 4", 8 with Ex. xiii. 6", 8sq. 7, d'', 
 but T> seems to be the less original alike in combining ma993th with ph^sach, 
 [165] in the reasons assigned in w. 3 ('3y DnV, ]llBni), and ins. 8 compared with .Es. 
 xiii. 6''. With Ex. xiii. 8 ( = ». 14, 15 ; Ex. xii. 25-27) cf. Deut. vi. 7, 20sqq. ; 
 xi. 19; Josh. lY. 6sqq.,2i sqq.; with ». g ( = ». 16) compare De!«i. vi. 8 ; xi. 18 — a, 
 remarkable group of parallels which gives great likelihood to the conjecture 
 that Ex. xiii. ,^-io rose in the circles whence Deuteronomy issued ; (c) Ex. xiii. 
 11-16, the consecration of the first-born, is likewise related to Deuteronomy, 
 as shown by the parallel passages already cited. Compare, further, Ex. xiii. 
 12 ("13123) with Deut. vii, 13; xxviii, 4, 18, 51; Ex. xiii. 13; xxxiv. 20 (nil") 
 with Deut. xxi. 4, 6. But the consecration of the human first-born to 
 Yahwfe is not enjoined in Deuteronomy either in xv. 19-22 or elsewhere ; the 
 relation, therefore, is not one of complete agreement in this case; (rf) on Ex.. xii. 
 21-27, see § 6, 11. 7. The coincidence between v. 34-27 and Ex. xiii. 8, 14, 15 
 and the parallel passages has already been pointed out. The preceding verses, v. 
 21-23, though not written by P^, are in his style and spirit. In i)eM(. xvi. 1-8 
 thereisnota trace of the practices here enjoined as D^WIS pf,*. 24, nor indeed 
 is there any room for them. This would lead to the conclusion that Ex. xii. 21- 
 23 is later than Deuteronomy; (e) in J?.r. xxxiv. 10-27 ""'^ ™^^' distinguish 
 between the original ritual decalogue, and the two-fold recension which it haa 
 undergone. "We shall learn presently that the second reviser, at any rate, 
 was dependent upon Deuteronomy; the precepts which D shares with the 
 original (compare w. 18 with Deut. xvi. i, 3 ; i). 23 with Deut. xvi. 16 ; t). 25'' 
 with Deut. xvi. 4; v. 26'' with Deut. xiv. 21''), occur elsewhere too {Ex. 
 xxiii. 14, 15, iS'', ig'') and therefore need not have been taken by D from 
 ' the words of the Covenant ; ' it does not appear that D was acquainted with 
 the first recension of the original. But see, further, § 8, n. 18 ; 13, n. 21, 29, 
 32. 
 
 III. The deuteronomic history consists in part of 
 recensions and amplifications of 'prophetic' narra- 
 tives, necessarily involving the priority of the 
 latter; in part of more independent compositions, 
 
n. 3-5-J D' s relation to JE. 169 
 
 which, however, stil] run parallel, in almost every 
 case, with JE, and are dependent on it. In the nature 
 of the case this relation cannot be equally obvious every- 
 where ; but generally speaking it is unmistakable, even where 
 the Deuteronomist or his followers depart pretty widely from 
 JE in their accounts of what took place ^, 
 
 * Cf. Graf, Gesch. JBiicher,]). g-i-g ; W.H. Kosters, De SistoriebescJiomcing 
 van den Deuteronomist', Kayser, op. cit., p. 141-146 ; Wellhausen, xxii. 
 465-473 ; and, on the nari'atives and pericopea recast byD^ and D^, § 7, n. 
 30 (on Deut. xxxi.) ; n. 22 (on Deut. xxvii., xxxiv.) ; n. 35, 27, 28 (on Jos/t. 
 L-xii,, xiii,— ssiy.) There is really no difference of opinion as to the relation 
 here asserted between D and JE. It is only on the question "whether D 
 presupposes historical portions of P also, and works them up in his own 
 characteristic style, that opinions differ. See n. 6. I may therefore confine 
 myself here to pointing out D's parallels with JE, and the chief indications of [166] 
 th.e dependence of the former. In Deut. i. 6-19 use is made alike of Ex. sviii. 1 3- 
 ■27 and of Num. xi. 11-17, 24-29. Deut. i. 20-45 i^ taken from JE in Num. 
 xiii., xiv. ( § 8, 11. 14) ; v. 39, emended after the LXX., is no exception to the rule ; 
 on V. 2 3 see n. 9 ; v. 2 2 and others contain embellishments and amplifications by 
 D himself. Deut. ii. 2-23 is a free recension oiNum. xx. 14-23 ; xxi. i sqq. ; and 
 Deut. ii. 24-iii. 1 1 of Num. xxi. 2 1-35 ; beneath iii. 12-20 lies the same concep- 
 tion of the settlement in the Transjordanic district which we find in Num. xxxii., 
 but the formulse of P^ (§ 6, n. 42) do not occur in Deut. iii. With regard to the 
 events at Sinai, Deut. v., ix., x. (of. iv. and xviii. 16 sqq.) reproduce the repre- 
 sentation of Ex. xix.-xxxv., xxxii.-xxxiv. ; the agreement is sometimes verbal 
 (compare, especially, Deut. ix. 9 with Ex. xxiv. 18, xxxiv. 28 ; Deut. ix. 10 with 
 Ex.sxsi. i8; xxxii. 16; Detji.ix. 12-14 with jEi. xxxii. 7-10; see, also, the 
 writers cited above). D's silence as to the revelation and promulgation of 
 the Book of the Covenant — which he knows and makes use of, 11. 3 — may be 
 explained as a deliberate and intentional avoidance of all reference to a legis- 
 lation which his own was intended to supersede, or may be taken as an 
 indication that the Book of the Covenant and the striking of the covenant 
 itself {Ex. XX. 23-xxiii. ; xxiv. 3-8) had not yet been taken up into the cycle 
 of Sinai-stories when D handled it. The same may be said, mutatis mutandis, 
 of 'the Words of the Covenant,' with the reservations that flow from u. 4. 
 Cf. T7i. Tijdschr., xv. 179 sqq., 191 sqq. and below § 13, n. 32. — In Deut. vi. 
 I<5 ; ix. 22 mention is made of ' Massa,' which appears, along with Meriba, 
 in Ex. xvii. 2-7 ; cf. Num. xx. i-i 3 ; but whether D was acquainted with either 
 of these narratives cannot be determined ; the mention of Tab'era and 
 Ebr5th-hattaava points to Num. xi. 1-3, 4 sqq. — In Deut. viii. 3, 5, 16 ; 
 xxix. 5 [6] the representation of the manna given in JE {Num. xi. 6- 
 9 ; xxi. 4, 5) is adopted and turned to purposes of edification. Cf. Tk. Tijdschr., 
 xiv. 287 sq. — Deut. viii. 15 looks like an allusion to Num. xxi. 4-9^-Deisf. xi. 
 
1 70 The Hexatetich. [ § 9, 
 
 6 presupposes the story about Datlian and Abiram in JE, which we now 
 have in combination with P's story of Korah in Num. xvi. [xvi. 1-35] — Beut. 
 sxiii. 5, 6 [4, 5] brings Balaam into connection with (the Ammonites and) 
 the Moabites, as in Num. xxii.-xxiv. ; so that this or a similar story, in 
 marked divergence from Num. xxv. 6 sqq. ; xxxi. (P), is implied by D. — So 
 too Deut. xxiv. 9 implies a story of Miriam's leprosy {Num. xii.) and xxv. 
 17-19 an account of Amalek's onset {Mc. xvii. 8-16 ; Amalek'a treachery 
 may be regarded as D's exaggeration). 
 
 IV. Tliere is no evidence that the Deuteronomist 
 and his followers were acquainted with the priestly- 
 laws and narratives. The texts that are commonly cited 
 as references to a written priestly tora demand another 
 interpretation ^. The deuteronomic legislation never depends 
 on tlie priestly ordinances as it does on those incorporated 
 in JE ''. Not a single one of the narratives that we possess 
 in a deuteronomic recension is borrowed from P (§ 7, n. 20, 
 [167] 23, 25, 27, 28). As a rule the historical accounts of P are 
 neither adopted nor contradicted by D, but are simply treated 
 as non-existent *. Parallels which, considered alone, might 
 lead to an opposite conclusion, must of necessity be otherwise 
 explained when we consider the relations in which D and 
 P stand to one another as wholes'. 
 
 ^ In Deut. X. 9 and xviii. 2 alike, the statement that Levi is to have no 
 territory assigned to him because ' Yahwfe is his heritage ' is followed by the 
 words 'as he said to him.' When? Naturally at the moment when Levi 
 was separated for the divine service, i. e. when Israel was encamped at Yotba 
 (Deut. X. 7). There is no reference, then, to any earlier law, and least of all 
 to Num. xviii. (v. 20), where the qualifications and revenues of Levi are regu- 
 lated quite otherwise than in Deut. xviii. 1-8. — In Deut. xxiv. 8 the Israelites 
 receive the exhortation ' do according to all that the Levite-priests shall teach 
 (nv) you ; as I commanded them, so ye shall observe to do.' Here the oral 
 tora of the priests on cleanness and uncleanness is referred to, and the conviction 
 is expressed that in delivering this tora they are the organs of Yahwfe (cf. Deut. 
 xxxiii. 10" and the parallel passages ; and below, § 10, n. 4). Had the writer 
 been thinking of the toras on leprosy and its treatment now found in Lev. 
 xiii., xiv., he would have expressed himself otherwise. 
 
 ' The only laws with respect to which one might be disposed to question 
 this assertion are Deut. xiv. 3-21 and Lev. xi. 2-47 : the former might be re- 
 garded as an excerpt from the latter, with the language of which (that of P) 
 
n. 5—9.] D's relation to P. 171 
 
 it certainly agrees. And so Eielim, in conunon witH most of the commen- 
 tators, actually takes it, Stud. u. Krit., 1868, p. 358 sqq. His view is com- 
 bated in my Godsdienst, i. 502-504 [Eel. Isr., ii. 94 sqq.] and below, § 14, 
 n. 5. — The other examples alleged by Eiehm, op. cit., will be considered 
 elsewhere. They do not furnish so much as the semblance of a proof of D's 
 dependence upon P. 
 
 ' We have seen already (n. 5) that in general D follows JE in his representa- 
 tion of the past. This phenomenon is coupled with the complete ignoring of P, 
 and, more specifically, of P's Sinaitic legislation, to which there is not the re- 
 motest reference ia JDeut. t. sqq. In other words, Ex. xxT.-xxxi., the account of 
 the building of the tabernacle, etc. in Ex. xxxt.-x1., and the whole systema- 
 tising of the ritual in Lev. i.-Num. x., are for the author of Deut. v. sqq. as 
 though they were not. If any doubt as to the significance of this silence were 
 left it would be removed by Deut. xii. 8, 9, for it is here assumed that in the 
 fortieth year after the Exodus freedom to sacrifice in more than one place still 
 existed, whereas according to P the one sanctuary had been in use from Sinai 
 onwards. And, accordingly, D never once mentions the tabernacle of Ex. 
 XXV. sqq. Ch. xxxi. 14, 15 is not from his hand, and moreover the 6hel mo'ed 
 there mentioned is that of Ex. xxxiii. 'j-11 ', Nam. xi. 24 sqq. ; xii. 4 (JE). — 
 Add to this that D knows nothing of Joshua as a faithful spy {JDeut. i. 36 ; 
 tfosh. xiv. 6-15 ; on the words *and concerning thee' in ??. 6 see § 7, n. 27); 
 that he makes the spies start from Kadesh Barn^a and not from the desert of [168] 
 Pharan (I)eut. i. 19 sqq.) ; that he gives an account of the manna differing 
 from P's version in Ex. xvi. {Deut. viii. 3, 5, 16) ; makes Aaron die at Mosera, 
 not on Mount Hor {Deut. i. 6) ; knows nothing of Korah {Deut. xi. 6), and 
 shows no acquaintance with P's representation of the events in the field of 
 Moab and the part which Balaam played in them {Deut. xxiii. 5, 6 [4, 5], cf. 
 iv. 3, as against Num. xxxi. 8, 16 ; Josh. xiii. 22, cf. Num. xxv. 6 sqq.). 
 Amongst the details which D never mentions, though they are recorded in P, 
 there is scarcely one which could have presented any difficulties to him ; the 
 supposition that he was unacquainted with P is the only satisfactory explan- 
 ation of his silence. 
 
 ' See the writers cited inn. 5, and likewise Noldeke's remarks onKayser'a 
 arguments in Jahrb, f.prot. Theologie, i. 348-351, and my answer in Th. Tijds- 
 chrift, ix. 533-536, compared with Wellhaus en's, op. cit. — Noldeke appeals 
 in the first place to Deut. iv. 41-43 ; xix. 2-7, compared with Num. xxxv. 
 9-34; /osA. XX. ; but see § 7, n. 17, 29. In the next place he points to the 
 following passages : — 
 
 Deut. i. 23 compared with Num. xiii. 1-16. But D was not acquainted 
 with these names, or at any rate did not adopt them, for he does not count 
 Joshua amongst the spies. The agreement is therefore confined to the num- 
 ber being twelve, which circumstance P may equally well have taken 
 from D, unless it was in JE already, as may well have been the case, for the 
 redactor of Num. xiii., xiv. could hardly have preserved JE's statement of 
 the number while adopting P's list of the names. 
 
 Deut. A. 3 (D'am 'SS P"i><)j cf. Ex. xxv. 10 sqq. But the ark of Ex. xxv. 10 
 
172 The Hexateuch. [§9. 
 
 sqq. was not made by Moses, but by Bezaleel and his associates ; and wlien com- 
 pleted it could hardly be called ' an ark of shittim wood ' any longer, for it was 
 overlaid with gold and surmounted by Cherubim ; the command to make it, in 
 Ex. sxv. sqq., stands in quite a different connection from that of Deat. i. 1-5. 
 i\Ioreover JE is acquainted with the ark (^Num. x. 33-36 ; xiv. 44) and the 
 6hel mo'ed in which it was kept {Ex. xxxiii. 7-1 1 and parallel passages). We 
 are therefore fully justified in supposing that JE likewise contained an 
 account of its construction, which D adopted with or without modifications. 
 When E.r. xxv. 10 sqq. was taken up by the redactor, this account in JE had 
 of course to be omitted. 
 
 Deut. X. 6 sq. compared with Num. xx. 22-29 ^^^ ^^^ other texts of P 
 which mention Eleazar as the son and successor of Aaron. But D disagrees 
 with Nitm. XX. as to the place in which Aaron died and was succeeded by 
 Eleazar, so that he cannot have drawn his information thence, nor need he 
 have done so, for Eleazar ben Aaron appeared in JE also (Josh. xxiv. 33). 
 
 Deut. i. 38 ; iii. 28, etc. compared with Josh. xiv. sqq., where Joshua actually 
 does divide Canaan by lot. But it is doubtful whether this is the meaning of 
 Vn^n (without bii:!!), and suppose D and P really do agree in this con- 
 ception of the partition (cf. § 7, u. 27), even then there is no special reason 
 for giving P the priority. 
 
 Deut. xsxii. 48-52 ; xxxiv. regarded as an amplification of the account in 
 the ' G-rundschrift,' almost the very words of which it still preserves. But 
 Deut. xxxii. 48-52 is simply a fragment of P, and in Deut. xxxiv. we find 
 JE, the additions of D, and P, all welded together by a redactor. Cf. § 7, 
 n. 22, under (6). 
 
 Josh. ix. 27'', considered as an addition by D to «. 27" (P). But see § 6, 
 n. 48 ; 7, n. 26. 
 [169] Josh, xviii. 3 sqq. as an addition by D to v. i, 2 (P). But see § 6, n. 52 ; 
 7, n. 27. 
 
 Josh, xxii., as a deuteronomic recension of a narrative from P. But see § 6, 
 
 !»• 63; 7.°- 27- 
 
 Deut. X. 22 compared with Gen. xlvi. 8-27 ; Ex. i. 5. But see Th. Tijdschr., 
 ix. 533 sq. ' Which is the earlier, the round figure of 600,000 in Ex. xii. 37 
 and the parallel passages, or the elaborate genealogical lists in Num. i. and 
 xxvi. ? Noldeke himself has taught us that the latter form an artificial 
 superstructure raised on the basis of the former. Just so the figure 70 in 
 Deut. X. 22 is far more ancient than the list of Jacob's descendants in 
 Gen. xlvi. 8-27, which «. 2 1 alone would at once betray as a " Machwerk " of a 
 very late date.' 
 
 These parallels, extremely doubtful and insignificant in themselves, are of 
 course wholly insufficient to disarm the unmistakable results of n. 8. 
 
 There is nothing in theses I. and IV. to determine the rela- 
 tive antiquity of P with respect to JE and D : P may be 
 later than D and a fortiori than JE, but it may also be con- 
 
n. 9-1 2.] Historical relation of P to JE and D. 173 
 
 temporary with one or the other, or it may even be earlier 
 than JE and a fortiori than D, provided only that for some 
 reason or other it remained unknovpn to both. The definitive 
 choice between these several possibilities will depend, amongst 
 other things, on the evidence of the Israelitish literature and 
 history (§ 10 and xi). But now that we have drawn the 
 boundaries between the three Hexateuchal groups we are in a 
 position, without further delay, to estimate the probable his- 
 . torieal value of each, and thence infer what result to expect 
 from our continued investigations. Amongst the passages 
 formerly cited (§ 4, n. 17 sqq.) in proof of the unhistorieal 
 character of the Hexateuch, we now perceive that the most 
 striking examples come from P'^". Wherever we can compare 
 its accounts with those of JE and D they seem to depart 
 further from the reality 1^. In all probability, then, P's nar- 
 ratives are the latest ^^. 
 
 '" See especially § 4, n. 19 : the genealogies there referred to all belong to 
 P. It is in P, too, that the absolutely unhistorieal representation of Israel's 
 settlement in the Transjordanic district and of the division of Canaan by lot 
 is most fully developed (§ 4, n. 20 ; 6, n. 52). 
 
 ^^ It is not easy to determine the limits we must observe for such a com- 
 parison to retain its full demonstrative force. I will therefore confine myself 
 to a few examples, and can do so the more readily as we shall have to re- 
 turn to this matter again (§ 15). "When P, evidently with the ritual 
 institutions of Moses in view, scrupulously avoids the mention either of 
 sacrifices or altars in his narratives of the patriarchs, and when he 
 gives an account of Jacob and Esau {Gen. xxxv. 27-29; xxxvi. 6-8), 
 which excludes those hostile relations that occupy so important a place in 
 JE's account of the brothers, he shows little concern with the reality, and [17°] 
 subordinates historical probability to considerations of quite another order. 
 In distinction from JE he makes Moses and Aaron demand the complete 
 release of Israel, and represents the plagues of Egypt as a contest between 
 them and Pharaoh's magicians (§ 6, n. 6) ; he purges the exodus of its 
 character of a hasty flight (Ex. xii. i-20, 28, 40, 41 as against ii. 29-39); 
 describes the passage of the Red Sea as walking on dry land between the 
 waters heaped up on either hand (§ 6, n. 8); and sees in the manna no meagre 
 and distasteful food, but bread from heaven, wherewith Israel was sated {Th. 
 TijdscTir., xiv. 287 sqq.). Can it be denied that his representations in all 
 these cases are less probable and therefore later than those of JE ? 
 
 12 See further, § 15. 
 
174 The Hexafeuch. [§ 
 
 10. 
 
 § 10. The Hexateitch and the other looJcs of the Old Testament. 
 
 To determine the antiquity of the whole Hexateuch and of 
 its several elements, it is of the utmost importance to compare 
 Genesis-Joshua with the other books of the Old Testa- 
 ment ; and also with the history of the Israelitish people and 
 their religion, which we gather from these books. The literary 
 comparison must take the precedence, for we must assume 
 its results in our investigation of the historical position 
 occupied by the laws of the Hexateuch. This com- 
 parison must deal alike with actual quotations from the 
 Hexateuch and with passages so similar in form and contents 
 as to indicate dependence, or at least relationship. It need 
 hardly be said that all the alternative explanations of each 
 parallel must be duly considered, that in many cases no deci- 
 sive choice can be made amongst them, and that our judgment 
 on the ambiguous phenomena must conform to the results 
 arrived at in eases which admit of but one interpretation. 
 
 The prophetic writings must be taken before the historical 
 and those again before the poetical books, for the antiquity of 
 the first is least doubtful or contested, and that of the last most 
 so. Within each of these three groups the latest books will as 
 far as possible be taken first, since this procedure will again 
 secure our advancing, as far as may be^ from the known to 
 the doubtful or unknown. 
 
 [lyi] A. The Prophets. 
 
 We mast consider separately, (i) the attitude of the prophets 
 towards the Tora generally ; (%) any passages we may find in 
 their writings which present specific parallels to laws or nar- 
 ratives of the Hexateuch. 
 
 (i) The book of Daniel (ix. ti, 13) and Malachi (iii. 
 %l [iv. 4] cf. iii. 7) mention Moses as a law-giver, but he does 
 
§ 10.] The Prophets and the Tora. 1 75 
 
 not appear in this capacity in the older prophets. Deutero- 
 Isaiah (Ixiii. 11, la) knows of him as Israel's leader at the 
 passage of the Red Sea and in the desert ; Jeremiah (xv. 1) 
 places him by the side of Samuel, as a prophet, Micah (vi. 4) 
 by the side of Aaron and Miriam as Israel's deliverer from 
 Egypt, and finally Hosea evidently refers to him when 
 (xii. 14 [13] ) he ascribes the deliverance from Egypt and the 
 subsequent guidance of the people to ' a prophet ' ^. 
 
 But did the prophets before Malachi refer to the Law, 
 though without naming Moses as the law-giver ? So much is 
 obvious, that they did not regard it as the divinely sanc- 
 tioned code to which they and the whole people of Israel 
 were subject. Not a single trace of any such view is to be 
 found ^. Least of all did they recognise the authority of the 
 ceremonial injunctions, for, if we except Ezekiel and certain 
 utterances relative to the sabbath {Isaiah Ivi. 1-8 ; Iviii. 13; 
 Jeremiah xvii. 19-27), they show complete indifference to- 
 wards them, or even declare that they do not include them 
 amongst the commands of Yahwe. This is conspicuously 
 the case with Jeremiah (vii. ai-23), Isaiah (i. 11-15), 
 Micah (vi. 6), and Amos (iv. 4, 5 ; v. 31-27) ^ What they 
 mean by the tora (or teaching) of Yahwe is not a book of 
 law at all, but the commandments and exhortations which 
 Yahwe has previously given or still gives to his people by his 
 interpreters, the priests and prophets. In most cases we 
 are to think of oral teaching, but the existence of 
 written 'tora' also is expressly asserted in one passage 
 {Ilosea viii. 12), and rendered highly probable by the context 
 in others {Amos ii. 4 ; Jeremiah xliv. 10, 33, etc. ; EzeJciel v. 
 6, 7 J xi. 12, 20, etc.) *. The covenant between Yahwe and [172] 
 Israel is also mentioned now and then by some of the 
 prophets, and specifically by Jeremiah, in a manner evidently 
 implying that a written statement of its conditions was 
 present to the mind of the speaker^. 
 
176 The Hexateuch. [§i°- 
 
 ' The text of Isaiah Ixiii. 11 ia corrupt, ncn probably being a later inser- 
 tion ; but i\ 1 2 still remains. 
 
 ^ At least five centuries had elapsed since the time of Moses, when those 
 prophets flourished whose writings we still possess. A Mosaic law-book, 
 rendered venerable by its origin and its high antiquity, and itself laying 
 claim to a quite exceptional authority (e.g. Deut. iv. 2; xiii. i [xii. 32]), must 
 have been constantly cited and upheld against the people by any teachers 
 who recognised it. But there is not a trace to be found in our prophets of 
 the ' it is written ' style. Even if they show any knowledge of written laws 
 (cf. u. 4) they mention them but very rarely — especially the pre-exilian 
 prophets — and even then not at all in the spirit of unconditional submission 
 with which a complete Mosaic code must have inspired them. In considering 
 this matter, we must of course allow for the prophets' consciousness of being 
 themselves the trusted ones of Yahwfe {Amos iii. 7), the ' men of the spirit ' 
 {Hosea ix. 7), but this is not enough by itself to explain their independence ; 
 if ' the tora of Yahwfe ' had been codified in their time they could not have 
 advocated and enforced the service of Yahwfe without in some way defining 
 their relation to it. 
 
 '" On the sabbath in the prophetic writings cf. § 11, n. 22 ; on Ezekiel see 
 below, n. 10-12 and § 11, passim. Here we may confine ourselves to those 
 of the passages cited above which refer to the sacrifices and feasts in honour 
 of Yahwfe. We must not assert that the prophets reject the cultiis uncon- 
 ditionally. On the contrary they too share the belief, for instance, that 
 sacrifice is an essential element of true worship {Isaiah Ivi. 7 ; Zech. xiv. 16- 
 19 ; 3Iic. iv. i sqq. ; Isaiah ii. i sq. ; xviii, 7 ; xix. 19 sqq., etc., etc.). 
 The context always shows that what they really protest against is the idea 
 that it is enough to take part in the cultus, that there is no inconsis- 
 tency in devotional zeal coupled with neglect of Yahwfe's moral demands, 
 and that as long as his altars smoke and his sanctuaries are fre- 
 quented his favour is sure (cf. Jer. vii. 8 sqq., etc., etc.). But it is 
 also clear from the manner in which the prophets give utterance to this 
 ethical conviction, and maintain it against the people, that they are far 
 from regarding the cultus as in like manner and in like degree an ordin- 
 ance of Yahwb, or as resulting from a positive divine command insisted on 
 with as much emphasis as the other. And this would have been the case 
 had the Mosaic tora, as we know it, existed and been recognised in their 
 day. Only consider, from this point of view, the texts just now cited. 
 Jeremiah's contemporaries could have met his assertion in vii. 22 ('for I 
 spoke not to your fathers nor gave them commandments, on the day that 
 I led them out of Egypt, concerning burnt offering and sacrifice ') with » 
 direct denial, if they had known the laws in P, such as Lev. i.-vii. To 
 Isaiah's question: 'when ye come to see my face (read niNT^), who has 
 [173] required this of you, to tread my forecourts flat?' (i. 12), the answer must 
 have been : ' Yahwfe himself !' Amos is especially unequivocal. His 
 strong expressions in v. 21, 22 are inexplicable if the feasts, the burnt 
 offerings and the gifts had been ordained by Yahwfe himself. To the question 
 
n. 1-4.] The Prophets not depende7it on the Tor a. 177 
 
 wUcli he adds {v. 25) : ' did ye offer me sacrifice and food-offering in the 
 desert forty years long, house of Irsael ? ' he ezpects a negative answer, 
 whereas the laws and narratives of P allow of nothing but an affirmative 
 one. Equally clear is iv. 4, 5. Here Amos ironically exhorts his hearers 
 to make their (yearly) sacrifices every day and to bring their tithes (due 
 every third year) every third day, to consume their praise-offerings on 
 leavened bread and to proclaim free-will offerings, ' for,' he adds, ' this 
 you delight in,' or, ' this is your fancy.' Could he have spoken thus if 
 the Israelites had only been showing their obedience to Yahwfe's command, 
 and, at worst, merely displaying a somewhat exaggerated zeal ? — Cf. on the 
 other side the essay by K. Marti in Jalirb. f. prot. Theologie, 1880, p. 
 308-323. Marti generally interprets the prophetic texts on sacrifice fairly 
 enough, but he uniformly misconceives, and so contrives to escape, 
 the inferences with respect to the priestly tora to which they lead. Our 
 thesis, that the polemic of the prophets against the religion of their con- 
 temporaries would necessarily have differed in form had they known and 
 recognised a ritual legislation, is untouched by Marti. 
 
 ' The original meaning of min is the pointing out of what is to be done 
 in some special case. Hence Smend, in his essay Vher die von den Propheten 
 des viii. JaJirh. vorausgesetzie Eiitwickehmgsstafe der isr. Heligion (Stud. u. 
 Krit., 1876, p. 599-664), correctly infers that tora primitively signified the 
 instruction given by the priest, who pronounced in Yahwfe's name, not only 
 on cleanness and uncleanness, but also — and this is our special point just 
 now — on right and wrong. It is thus that our oldest witnesses use the 
 word, viz. Amos (ii. 4, on which more presently) and Ho sea (iv. 6, where the 
 priest appears as the bearer of the tora, identified by Hosea with the true 
 knowledge of Yahwfe; viii. i, where sinning against Yahwe's tora stands in 
 parallelism with violating his command; v. 12, which must be interpreted, 
 like V. 1, in accordance with iv. 6 ; see below). Nor did later writers lose 
 consciousness of this original connection between ' priest ' and ' tora ; ' tora 
 always remains the vox propria for the priestly decisions, especially in the 
 administration of justice. Cf. Veiit. xxxiii. 10 (from the period of Jeroboam II. ; 
 Levi is the subject; the mm stands in parallelism with 'the statutes' 
 (□'EBffin) of Yahwfe) : Mic. iii. 11 (the priests 'point out,' give tora, for 
 hire) : Zepli. iii. 4 (min iDon, of the priests); Jeremiah ii. 8 (the priests 
 minn 'MJon); xviii. 18 ('tora and priest' go together, like 'counsel and sage,' 
 'word and prophet': all the more interesting inasmuch as Jeremiah is here 
 reproducing the vox populi) ; perhaps other passages of Jeremiah, which will be 
 discussed presently, might be added; Sah. i. 4 (parallel toTDDiDc) ; Ezele. vii. 
 2 6 ( = Jer. xviii. 1 8, with slight modifications, but ' tora and priest ' are retained 
 unaltered); xxii. 26; xliv. 23, 24; Hagg. ii. 11 ('ask tora of the priests' — ■ 
 on cleanness and uncleanness, «. 12, 13) ; Malachi ii. 6-9 (a very remarkable 
 passage, to be compared withDeui. xxxiii. 8-1 1). — Meanwhile the word 'tora' 
 was not confined to the activity of the priest as the interpreter of Yahwfe's 
 will : the prophet not only rebukes the sins which have been or are being [i 74] 
 committed, but points out what ought to be done; so that his preaching 
 
 N 
 
178 The Hexateuch. [§ 
 
 10. 
 
 likewise may be called ' tora of Yahwfe.' So the prophet Isaiah, with his 
 high position and influence, may be said to use the formula habitually (i. lo; 
 ii. 3 [ = Jliic. iv. 3] ; v. 24; viii. 16, 20, of v. i sqq. ; xxx. 9), while he calls the 
 prophets the teachers (' moreh ') of Jerusalem's citizens (xxx. 20). Nothing 
 is more natm-al than that his usage should have been followed by others, 
 e.g. Jeremichh vi. 19 (in parallelism to 'my words'); xxvi. 4 (cf. v. 5), 
 perhaps also ix. :2 [13]; xvi. 11; xxxii. 23 (in which places, however, the 
 written law may be included, for it was not unknown to the prophet ; see 
 below) ; further, Deutero-Isaiah, xlii. 4 (of the preaching of the servant of 
 Yahwfe) ; perhaps also xlii. 21, 24; li. 4, 7; and Zechariah vii. 12 (where 
 minn is followed by ' and the words which Yahwfe has sent by his spirit, by 
 the hand of the former prophets ;' cf. i. 2-6). 
 
 With the prophets, then, ' the tora of Yahwfe ' is by no means a closed and 
 completed whole, handed down from antiquity, but the continuous and ever 
 renewed indication to Israel of Yahwi's will. There was of course nothing 
 to prevent this ' pointing out ' from being committed to writing. And it is to 
 this that a reference is found as early as in Hosea, viii. 12, where Yahwfe 
 says, ' I write (or, if I write) for him (Israel) ten thousand of my toraa, they 
 are counted as those of a stranger.' The text is doubtful, the reading I have 
 translated is Hitzig's ('nTinna"]), which is recommended by its close 
 adherence to the traditional text, but militated against by the use of laT, 
 which occurs nowhere else except in much later writers, and by the displeasing 
 hyperbole of the ' ten thousand ' which is quite unjustified by the context. 
 The Keri 'an, ' the multitudes,' is no better. Perhaps we must make up our 
 minds with Graetz (GescA. d. Juden, ii. i. p. 469 sq.) simply to read 
 'niirr'Tl"! 'if I write for him the words of my tora, they are,' etc. Now 
 although this utterance of Hosea's is hypothetical (not >nin3, but an3N), 
 yet it proves that the idea of committing the tora to writing was not strange 
 to him, whence we may presume that it actually took place, or had taken 
 place, from time to time. Ch. viii. i agrees with this ; ' violating the cove- 
 nant ' with Yahwfe may at any rate be understood without violence as 
 breaking an act of covenant drawn up by Yahwfe. It is the priests that we 
 must think of as the guardians, if not the authors, of such documents (iv. i-io), 
 but, in Hosea's opinion, they did not stand any the higher themselves, nor 
 exercise any the more influence over the people, on that account. — Thus pre- 
 pared by Hosea we recognise some such written tora, at any rate 
 with a high degree of probability, even in the earlier Amos (ii. 4), who 
 reproaches the men of Judah with having ' despised the tora of Yahwfe and 
 broken his statutes, D'pn;' but D'pn ™ay be taken, in case of need, 
 to indicate the hallowed usage, so that min would refer to the oral 
 teaching of priests and prophets, though the first interpretation is the more 
 probable. Why the phrase should compel uB to deny v. 4 to Amos (Duhm, 
 Wellhausen, Oort), I cannot see. — Two centuries after Amos, in the time 
 of Jeremiah, a wiitten tora had evidently become a current conception. 
 Yahwe laments, ' They have not walked after my tora and after myordin- 
 [175] ances, which I laid upon them and their fathers.' {Jer. xliv. 10, cf. v. 23 where> 
 
n. 4, 5.] ' Tora ' in the prophetic writings. 1 79 
 
 besides the mpf^j we have the miS of Yahwfe), and with this (written) tora 
 in his mind the prophet declares his faith that in time to come Yahwfe will set his 
 tora in the inward parts and write it in the hearts of -his people (xxxi. 
 33). The priests and prophets, against whom he is contending, likewise make 
 use of writing, as a means of influencing the people, whence he complains 
 of ' the lying pen of the writers,' viii. 8. — Ezekiel too must surely be thinking, 
 at any rate in part, of written laws, when he mentions Yahwe's mpn and 
 D^IDDMJD, in a way which generally implies their existence long ago, and in 
 XX. («. II, 13, 6, 19, 21, 24, 25) involves their having been given in the 
 desert. Finally, see Isaiah xxiv. 5. 
 
 ° On Hosea viii. i, to whisili vi. 7 is parallel, cf. n. 4. Jeremiah's use of 
 ri'il does not always suggest a written document (xiv. 21 ; xxii. 9; xxxii. 
 40 ; cf. xxxiii. 21, the covenants with David and with Levi) ; but it certainly 
 does soinxi. {v. 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, where the words of the covenant are constantly 
 referred to) ; in xxxiv. 13, 18 (where a specific commandment is a part of the 
 covenant) ; in a certain sense also in xxxi. 31-33 (since the tora written in the 
 heart is coordinate with the new covenant). Ezekiel'a usage (xvi. 8, 59 sq., 61 
 sq. ; XX. 37 ; xxx. 5 ; xxxiv. 25 ; xxxvii. 26 ; xliv. 7) is identical with Jeremiah's. 
 In Deutero-Isaiah n'T2 is used throughout of the future union between 
 Yahwfe and Israel (liv. 10; Iv. 3; lix. 21; Ixi. 8), only in Ivi. 4, 6, of a 
 former covenant to which the Sabbath ordinance, amongst others, belonged. 
 In Isaiah xxiv. 5 we find n'la along with mm and pn. 
 
 (a) The author of the book of Daniel, and Malachi, who 
 mention the ' tora of Moses,' also show the actual acquaint- 
 ance with it that might have been expected. The small 
 number of the parallels presented by the first-named book is 
 not surprising. In Malachi they are more numerous and are 
 borrowed from various parts of the tora ''. In the book of 
 Jonali and in Joel, which may probably be placed about the 
 time of Malachi, the agreement with the Hexateuch is con- 
 fined to a few texts of JE, to which, in the case of Joel, 
 a reminiscence of D must perhaps be added''. Haggai and 
 Zechariah (i. -viii.) perhaps show points of contact with D, 
 but certainly not with P ^. In the prophecies uttered shortly 
 before and immediately after the return from the Babylonian 
 captivity the influence of D is again distinctly perceptible, 
 here and there, as well as an acquaintance with the narratives 
 of JE. The allusions to details in P, which some have 
 traced in a few passages, are, to say the least, very doubtful ^. 
 
i8o The Hexateuch. [§ 
 
 lO. 
 
 [176] Ezekiel's connection with the Hexateuch is far closer than 
 that of any of these prophets. He shares with them the use 
 of JE and Di''. But, in addition to this, he manifests, 
 (i) a great resemblance in conception and style to the priestly 
 passages which we indicated by P^ in § 6^^, and (a) striking 
 parallels with P^, together with some of his characteristic words 
 and formulffii^. This relationship with P at once establishes a 
 marked distinction between Ezekiel Jmd his immediate pre- 
 decessors, the prophets of the closing period of the kingdom 
 of Judah. Obadiah, Habakkuk, Zecli. xii.-xiv., Nahum, 
 and Zephauiah afford certain points of comparison with JE 
 and D ; and, considering the narrow limits and the subject- 
 matter of these prophecies, we cannot expect much more ; but 
 there is not a trace of P in any of them 1^. From the nature 
 of the case, we learn more from Jeremiah, who began 
 his preaching in 636 B.C., and committed it to writing in 
 604 B.C., and subsequently. We might call him, in one word, 
 the deuteronomic prophet. He has a great number of 
 peculiar words and turns of expression in common with D^ 
 and his followers — so much so indeed that some have thought 
 they recognised him as the author of Deuteronomy , though in 
 taking ujj this idea they have allowed the really remarkable 
 agreement to blind them to no less important differences ^^. 
 The few points of contact with P must not pass unnoticed, 
 but they cannot for a moment be accepted as proofs of 
 acquaintance with the priestly laws and narratives i^. 
 
 Ascending from the seventh to the eighth century we 
 completely lose sight of Deuteronomy ; the traces of the book 
 that have sometimes been seen in Micah and Isaiah or 
 their predecessors Zech. ix.-xi., Hosea, and Amos are not 
 really there ^''. Nor is there any evidence of acquaintance 
 with P in these prophets ; for what commonly does duty 
 as a proof to the contrary is hardly worthy of attention". 
 On the other hand, they yield us more or less distinct parallels 
 
n.6-8.] TheHexatetick and the post-exilian prophets. i8i 
 
 to the narratives in JE, though in some cases it remains 
 doubtful whether we should explain them as evidence that 
 the prophets had read the stories, or in some other way^*. 
 
 ° The subject to which the rest of this § is devoted is dealt with by Dr. [177] 
 H. Gelbe, Beitrag zur EM. in das A. T. (Leipzig, 1866), passim, and more 
 expressly by Colenso, Pentateuch, vii. p. 85-482, as well as in the general 
 introductions to the Hexateuch. A subsection of it is treated by K. Marti, 
 Die S-pnren der sogenannteii Grundsduft des Sexaieuchs in den vorex. Proph. 
 des A. T. (Jaki-b.f. prot. Theologie, 1880, p. 127-161, 308-354). The points 
 raised in this and the following notes must constantly be compared with the 
 facts discussed in § 11, from which the present § may often be supple- 
 mented, for it is not always possible to draw a clear line between them. 
 
 The points of contact between Daniel and the Hexateuch are, from the nature 
 of the case, few in number, though unequivocal in character. Acquaintance with 
 the Hexateuch is shown not only in ix. 4 sqq.,butby the use of Tonn (viii. 11- 
 13 ; xi. 31 ; xii. 11) and of D'HiTp MJIp (ix. 24), both of them terms borrowed 
 from P. Again, compare i. 8 with the dietary laws in Lev. xi. and Detit. xiv. 
 — Malachi attaches himself to D in iii. 22 [iv. 4] (Horeb) ; iii. 3 (the sons of 
 Levi as priests) ; ii. 4 sqq. (the covenant with Levi), and in this last passage 
 specifically to Dent, xxxiii. 8-I1 ; further compare iii. 17 (nV;iD) with Deut. 
 vii. 6; xiv. 2 ; xxvi. 18; Er. xix. 5. But the denunciation in i. 8 sqq. 
 presupposes (not only Deut. xvii. I, but also) Lev. xxii. 20-25, and the re- 
 quirement to bring ' all the tithes ' into the treasury of the temple cannot be 
 based on T>, but must rest on Num. xviii. 21 sqq. 
 
 ' Compare Jonah iv. 2 with E.r. xxxiv. 6, 7 ; and perhaps i. 14 with Deut. 
 xxi, 8, though the coincidence here may be accidental ; further Joel ii. 13 
 with the above cited Ex. xxxiv. 6,7; Joel ii. 3 with Gen. ii. ; xiii. 10 ; Joel ii. 2 
 with Ex. X. 14; Joel ii. 12 with Deut. vi. 5; Joel ii. 23 with Deut. xi. 14. 
 It will be seen that these parallels are unimportant, and moreover Joel's 
 date is so much contested that his evidence has little value. 
 
 ' Compare Saggai ii. 17 with Deut. xxviii. 22, though it does not follow 
 that this passage was in the prophet's mind. Zech. i. 2-6 ; vii., viii., i. b. 
 Zechariah's discourses as distinguished from his visions, recall Jeremiah, and 
 consequently D, in tone and in style, but they show no traces of imitation. — As to 
 P, if Haggai had been acquainted with a written priestly law, he would have 
 appealed to it (in ii. u-13), and especially to Num. xix. 11, instead of leaving 
 it to the priests to decide the ritual question which he took as the point of 
 departure for his exhortation. I cannot discover (with Colenso, vii. 291) a 
 reference to Ex. xxix. 45, 46, in Hay. ii. 5. Zechariah, as appears from vii. 
 5 ; viii. 19, knows of no other fast in the seventh month than the one in com- 
 memoration of Gedaliah's death (a Kings xxv. 25), which he calls 'the fast 
 of the seventh month.' In other words, he knew nothing of the great day of 
 atonement of Lev. xvi., etc. On the other hand, Zech. iv. 2 shows agree- 
 ment with Ex. xxv. 31 sqq., but it does not extend to the expression, and 
 
1 82 The Hexateuch. [§ 
 
 10. 
 
 only consists in the representation of the lamp-stand (which Zechariah may 
 have seen in Zerubbabel's temple) as having seven lights, in opposition to 
 I Kings vii. 49. Cf. Graf, GeschiclitUche Bilcher, p. 62. 
 
 ' The influence of D is less perceptible in the style than in the conceptions 
 of Deutero-Isaiah. In vindicating the unity of Yahwfe (xliii. 10-12 ; xliv. 
 [178] 6, 8, 24; xlv. 5, 6, etc.), the prophet advances along the path opened by 
 J) (vi. 4, etc.) Cf. also Isaiah liii. 10 (d'D' T'l^^fi) ; Ixiii. 17 ( mrr' OIT; 
 Israel YahwVs n';n:) ; li. 13 (n^ilj), etc. — Parallels with JE maybe detected 
 at once in Isaiah li. 2 ; 3 (mn'-p and p») ; 10 ; Hi. 4 ; 12 (piona, cf. Beut. 
 xvi. 3) ; Ixiii. 11-13. — I think we should also add liv. 9, for Gen. viii. 21, 22 
 underlies it. Others, however (e.g. Colenso, vii. 290 sq.), find a citation of 
 Gen. ix. 11 or 15 here, but in neither of the passages in Genesis is an oath 
 of Elohim (Tahwfe) mentioned, and laj followed by bs is equally remote 
 from nnMJ and from mDn. No conclusive proof of the use of P can be 
 found, then, in Isaiah liv. 9. Still less can such a proof be derived from 
 xxxiv. II (ini''2lN1 inn"lp) compared with Gen. i. 2 (for tolm-walohu was, 
 beyond doubt, a current expression for chaos), or from xiii. ig compared with 
 Gen. xix. 29 (for "[Dn is the fixed expression, occurring in Gen. xix. 21, 25 
 also, for the lot that fell upon Sodom and Gomorrah — which two cities P never 
 mentions at all! — and 'Elohim' added to njDnp expresses the idea that 
 these cities were destroyed in a supernatural manner, by the higher powers). 
 
 '° The combination of Din with ps (JSzeTc. v. 11 ; vii. 4, 9 ; viii. 18 ; ix. 5, 
 10 ; xvi. 5 ; xx. 17) is certainly borrowed from D (vii. 16 ; xiii. 9 ; xix. 13, 
 21; XXV. 12); as also D»3 .Efee/c. viii. 17; xvi. 26; mtarr, .^ei. v. 6; xx. 8, 
 13, 21 ; nitos'j TDiD, Ezek. xviii. 9; xx. 21 ; d'Yj?©, Tlzek. xxi. 20 [15]. For 
 parallels with Deut. xxviii. andxxxii. see Colenso, Pentateuch, vi., App., p. 
 4. Moreover, we shall presently see that Ezekiel's ordinances for the future 
 are based upon the laws of D, and presuppose them throughout (§ 15, n. 
 12 sqq.) Acquaintance with JE shines through in Ezeh. xxxiii. 24; xxviii. 
 13 ; (xxxi. 8, 9, 16, 18 ; xxxvi. 35), xx. 6 ('flowing with milk and honey'), 
 etc. 
 
 '' I shall return to this resemblance in § 15, n. 10. Here I need only 
 point out that it is sufficiently striking to have induced Graf, and after him 
 Colenso, Kayser, Horst (£ct. xviii.-xxvi. und EzeMel) and others, to 
 find in Ezekiel the author or redactor of Lev. xvii. sqq. 
 
 ^' Ezekiel and P'' agree in the use of the following words and idioms : — • 
 
 □ m:n ynN, J,zei-. xx. 38; Gen. xvii. 8 ; xxviii. 4; xxxvi. 7; xxxvii. 1 
 (xlvii. 9) ; Rv. vi. 4. 
 
 mn a^^n nsi', Ezek. ii. 3 ; xxiv. 2 ; xl. i ; Gen. vii. 13 ; xvii. 23, 26, etc. 
 (also Lev. xxiii. 14, 2r, 28-30). 
 
 Ifp-i, Ezel. i. 22 sq., 25 sq. ; x. i ; Gen. i. 6-8, etc. 
 
 ro, Ezelc. xlvii. 10; Gen. i. 11, etc.; vi. 20; vii. 14; Lev. xi. 14-16, etc, 
 (JDeut. xiv. 13-15, 18). 
 
 Fi33-';3 11D2 Qii), HzeTc. xvii. 23 ; xxxix. 4, 17 ; Gen. vii. 14. 
 
 nin«, Ezelc. xlv. 5, 7, 8, etc. ; Gen. xvii. 8, etc. 
 
 T«D T«D3, Ezelt. ix. 9 ; xvi. 13 ; Gen. xvii. 2, 6, 20 ; Ex. i. 7. 
 
n. 8-1 4.J Ezekiel andy eremiah, and the Hexateuch. 183 
 
 D'UJip s5Tp, "Ezek. xli. 4 ; xlii. 13 ; xliii. 12 ; xliv. 13 ; xlv. 3 ; slviii. 12 ; 
 JEr. xxTi. 33 sq., etc., etc. (in i Kings vl. 16 ; vii. 50 ; viii. G, it is probably a 
 gloss). 
 
 D'TDBHJ ntoS, Ezek. T. 10, 15, etc. ; E.r. xii. 12 ; Num. xxxiii. 4. 
 
 T «to: (in taking an oath), Ezelc. xx. 6, 15, 23, 28, 42 ; xlvii. 14; Ex. vi. 
 8 ; Num. xiv. 30. 
 
 nmnN-';« naJN man, ^ze^. i. 9, of. 11 ; Ex. xxvi. 3, etc. [179] 
 
 n>:3n, iirfi;. viii. 3, 10 ; i. 8 ; ii. xxv. 9, 40. 
 
 But the Concordances should also be consulted on q'71» (preceded by n*T2, 
 pn, npn) ; Niuj followed by ji»; p-\T, ^d: ; Tan; nnnn; yp® {E:eh viii. 
 10; ieo. xi. passim; but also Veut. vii. 26); TD3 as a sacrificial term; 
 niaiDic; psn!;; mn'3 nn; miN (ReZc. xlvii. 22; iJr. xii. 19, 48 sq., etc.), 
 N^iDO, and a number of other terms collected by Smend, p. xxvii. sq. 
 
 There are striking parallels in EzeJc. iv. 6 and Num. xiv. 34 ; Ezelc. xxxvi. 3, 
 13 and Num. xiii. 32 ; EzeJc. xx. 42 and Ex. vi. 3 ; i7si?7j. xxviii. 13 and Ex. 
 xxviii. 17 sqq. (xxxix. 10 sqq.) ; EzeJc. xx. 12 and J5r. xxxi. 13. 
 
 These phenomena certainly demand an explanation, and they will receive it 
 in § 1 5, ii. 1 1 sqq. Here I must content myself with noting that the suppo- 
 sition that Ezekiel imitated P° is only one of several possible explanations. 
 Why should not P^ have imitated Ezekiel, for example, or both have drawn 
 their style and language from some common source ? 
 
 '' Compare Hai. iii. 3 with Deut. xxxiii. 2 ; Sai. iii. 6 with Gen. xlix. 26 ; 
 Deut. xxxiii. 15 ; Uab. iii. 19 with Deut. xxxiii. 29 ; — Zech. xiii. 3 with Deut. 
 xviii. 20; ZecJi. xiv. 5 with Deut. xxxiii. 2 ; — Nahum i. 3°' with Ex. xxxiv. 6, 
 7; A'am. xiv. 18; — Z«p7i. iii. 3 with Gere. xlix. 27 ; Zejj/i. iii. 5 withi)eui. xxxii. 
 4. Even Marti can discover no traces of P in these prophets. 
 
 ^* The latest exposition of the striking agreement in language and style 
 between Jeremiah and D is due to Colenso {Pentateuch, vii., App., p. 85-110), 
 who collects no less than two hundred words and formulae, common to the 
 prophet with D, or common to D with the redactor of Judges, Samuel, and 
 Kings. Cf. also Kleinert'a survey of D's language compared vrith the 
 parallel passages in other books (op. cit., p. 214-235), which has the 
 advantage of including the terms and phrases in D which do not occur in 
 Jeremiah. It is needless to enumerate the many parallel passages once 
 more, since the fact to which they bear testimony is unchallenged. The 
 only question would be whether it justifies the conclusion that Jeremiah 
 and D are identical. For us, however, the question does not exist in this 
 form, for we have recognised (§ 7, n. 12 sqq.) more than one writer in 
 Deuteronomy; and which of these should we identify with Jeremiah? D' 
 and D ^ have at least as good a claim as D ', if we are to take what appears to 
 me the wholly mistaken course of resting the decision on the question of 
 formal agreement and taking nothing else into consideration, when in point 
 of fact there is a material difference amounting to nothing less than 
 a divergence in the very conception of religion. Cf. Duhm, Die Theologie der 
 Propheten, p. 1 94 eqq., and especially p. 240 sqq. There is not a trace in 
 Jeremiah of D's zeal for the one only sanctuary, of his interest in the cultus, 
 
184 The Hexatetuh. [§iO' 
 
 or his devotioD to the Levitical priesthood. Ch. xxxiii. 17-26 is in all- proba- 
 bility not from Jeremiah's hand ; and in vii. (of. xxvi.) he takes up a deiinite 
 position against the deuteronomic conception. 
 
 "= The points of contact referred to appear in 
 
 Jer, ii. 3, where it is assumed that any (unqualified) person who eats tinp 
 is rendered guilty (DffiN), cf. liev. xxii. 10, 16. But there is nothing to show 
 [180] that this assumption rests on liev. rxii. It was doubtless an article of the 
 popular creed, whence Jeremiah may have taken it direct. 
 
 Jer. iii. 16 (xxiii. 3), where mo and nn (in the opposite order in iii.) stand 
 close together as in Gen. i. 22, 28 ; viii. 17, and in eight other places in P. 
 But what is to prevent our adopting the reverse supposition that P borrowed 
 this formula from Jeremiah, or that it was current in the priestly circles in 
 which both alike moved ? 
 
 Jer. iv. 23, inn inn, as in Gen. i. 2. But see n. 9 on Isaiah xxxiv. 11. 
 
 Jer. vi. 28 ; ix. 3, V3"i T\bn, as in Lev. xix. 16. But there is not the least 
 proof that the prophet is referring precisely to this law. 
 
 In /ec. xi. 4 ; xxiv. 7; xxx. 22; xxxi. i, 33; xxxii. 38, the phrase occurs 
 ' ye shall be to me for a people, and I will be to you for Elohim,' which is 
 derived byColenso {Peniateiich, vii., App., p. 133). from Gen. xvii. 7, 8. 
 But in this passage (as in Ex. xxix. 45) it only appears in half, whereas in 
 Deut. xxix. 12 [13] it occurs in full. And in no case can anything be urged 
 for the priority of Gen. xvii. rather than Jeremiah. 
 
 Jer. xxx. 21, ^bw irj^l rnnpni, cf. Ex. xix. 22 ; Lev. x^ . 21 ; Num. xvi. 
 5, 9. But bii B):: was, beyond doubt, the vox propria for the priest's drawing 
 near to Yahwfe, and as such was at any rate known to Jeremiah ; he agrees 
 with Xiim. xvi. in the use of 3'ipn, but surely he need not have borrowed the 
 word from this or that specific document. 
 
 Jer. xxxii. 27, cf. Num. xvi. 22 ; xxvii. 16; but it is precisely the charac- 
 teristic nnn before Tto2"'J3 that is not found in Jeremiah. 
 
 '" Supposed parallels have been discovered in the following passages : Isaiah 
 xxx. 9 and Deut. xxxii. 6, 10 ; but the resemblance is extremely slight ; 
 Isaiah xxx. 17 and Deal, xxxii. 30 {Lev. xxvi. 8) which do really resemble 
 each other, but so far from there being anything to indicate that Isaiah is the 
 imitator, the elabj.ation of the idea in Deuteronomy and Leiiticus suggests the 
 contrary ; Mioah v. 6 [7] and Dent, xxxii. 2, but if there is anything more 
 than an accidental coincidence of imagery — with wide divergency of application 
 — where does the priority lie ? Micah vi. 8 and Deut. x. 12, 13, but the con- 
 tents of Yahwfe's demand differ completely in Micah and in Deuteronomy (cf. 
 Eoorda, Comm. in vat. Mich., p. 120) ; Micah vi. 14, 15 and Deut. xxviii. 
 39, 40, but in the latter passage the vine and olive bear no fruit, in the former 
 the fruits are gathered in and prepared, but not enjoyed ; Amos iv. 9, 10 and 
 Deut. xxviii. 22, 38 sqq. (Lev. xxvi. 25), but the prophet had no need to 
 learn the disasters which visited Canaan from D ; Amos ix. 8 and Deut. vi. 1,5 
 agree in the use of the words noiNn '3D"'7l'D TDiIJn, but T> may just as well 
 have taken them from Amos as vice versa ; ITos. ii. 10 [8] and Deut. vii. 13 ; 
 xi. 14, in both which passages ' corn, wine, and oil ' are mentioned (!) ; Sos. 
 
n. 1 4- 1 8.] Prophets ofStk cent, and the Hexateuch. 1 8 5 
 
 iii. I and Dent. vii. 8 ; xxxi. i8, with a number of other parallels of equal 
 weight (Haevernick'a Jiinl. i. 2, p. 545 sqq. [418 sqq.]), which collectively 
 indicate a certain relationship between D and Hosea, but throw no light on 
 the question of priority until combined with other considerations — which 
 decide it in Hosea's favour. Cf. § 13, n. 5. 
 
 " Marti (op. oit., p. 325 sqq.) gives the following as parallels : Amos vii. 
 4 (Isaiah li. 10 ; Psalm xxxvi. 7 [6]), nm Dinn, from Gen. vii. 11 ; but why 
 should not V, on the contrary, have borrowed the words from the impressive [181] 
 and poetical style of language with which he was familiar in his predecessors ? 
 Gen. xix. 29, underlying Amos iv. II (JDeut, sxix. 22 [23] ; Isaiah xiii. 19), 
 but see above, n. 9, on the last named passage. Gen. xxxv. 9-15, known to 
 Hosea, see xii. 5^ [4''], who makes the theophany at Bethel follow Jacob's 
 wrestling (Gen. xxxii. 25-33). Now it is true that the book of Genesis, as we 
 possess it, contains an account of this theophany taken from P^ ((Jen, xxxv. 
 9-15), but E also makes Jacob go to Bethel and build an altar there (ii. 1-4, 
 6-8); and Gen. xxviii. 10-12, 17-23 makes it extremely probable that this 
 document, in its unmutilated form, recorded a theophany there likewise, a 
 trace of which has perhaps been preserved in Gen. xxxv. 14 by H, who took 
 V. 9 sqq. from P^. But see § 13, n. 4. — No one ia likely to follow Marti 
 (p. 33S sq.) in tracing the influence oi Ex. vi. 7, and the parallel passages, in 
 Sos. i. 9 ; ii. 35 [23]. The only proof alleged that Isaiah (x. 24, 26 ; xi. 15, 
 cf. Ixiii. 12) makes use of P^ {E.r. xiv.) is the word i>p3 — which, however, only 
 occurs in Deutero-Isaiah, and need not have been borrowed from P^ even by 
 him. Is it not more probable that the representation of the passage of the 
 Bed Sea in P- is based on a literal acceptation of the poetical 5 p 1 ? Nor can 
 one see why Ex. xl. 34-38 (cf. Num. ix. 15, 16) must be the original of Isaiah 
 vi. 4 (Ezeh. x. 3, 4) and iv. 5, for E likewise knows of the column of cloud 
 and fire {^Ex. xiii. 21 sq.), and, what is more, knows of it specifically as resting 
 on the tent in which Yahwfe revealed himself to Moses (Ex. xxxiii. 9, 10; 
 Num. xii. 5 ; Deut. xxxi. 15) : why may not Isaiah have followed this docu- 
 ment? Eor Isaiah vi. 4 we surely need not seek any source at all. Nor 
 should Lev, vi. 6 [13] be cited in explanation of Isaiah vi. 6, for the prophet 
 says nothing of an ever-burning fire, and even had he done so he might have 
 known of it in other ways. — It does not follow that Amos had read the law of 
 the Nazirite's vow in Num. vi. 1-31 because he speaks of the Nazirites and 
 their abstinence in ii. 11 sq. To make Nam. xvi. 8, 9 the original of Isaiah 
 vii. 13, and to see a reference to Nam. xxviii. 11 in Eos. ii. 13 [11] is strange 
 indeed ! 
 
 1' Compare Isaiah i. 9 ; iii. 9 with Gen. xix., especially with «. 4. 5 ; Isaiah 
 xi. II, 15, 16; xii. 3;'xxx. 39 with Ex. xiv. and with xv., as a whole, but 
 especially v. 3"; Mic. vi. 5 with Num. xxii.-xxiv. ; Mic. vi. 4; vii. 15, 20 
 with JE on the patriarchs and the exodus (though no proper citations occur) ; 
 Bo.s. xii. 4, 5 with Gen. xxv. 36«; xxxii. 35-33 [24-32] ("n -^os- xii. S^ [4'] 
 see n. 17) ; Eos. xii. 13 [13] with Gen. xxvii. 43 ; xxix. 18 sqq.; Eos. ix. 10 
 with Num. xxv. I sqq. ; Amos ii. 9, 10 ; v. 25 (forty years' wandering) with 
 the representation in JE, which lies, for instance, at the basis of Deut. ii. 7 ; 
 
1 86 The Hexatetuh. [§ 
 
 ro. 
 
 viii. i. On the other hand, the agreement between Awios ii. 9, 10 and Num. 
 siii. 27-33 is unimportant. 
 
 B. The Historical Books. 
 
 The book of UdJier may be passed over in silence here. 
 The Chronicles, beyond all doubt, presuppose the Hexa- 
 teuch in its present form. The genealogical section with 
 [183] which they open (i Chron. i. i-ix. 34) makes use of its 
 different elements and borrows all that fits into the 
 author's plan^'. In the second section (i Chron. ix. '3,^- 
 a Chron. xxxvi.) the references to the tora are very numerous, 
 and it serves the author throughout as the standard by which 
 to judge the past. It is specifically the ordinances of P, 
 including the points in which they differ from D^that stand 
 before his eyes and which he conceives as having been 
 in force in earlier as well as later times^". The redactor of 
 the books of Ezra and Nehemiah can hardly be any other 
 than the Chronicler himself; or, at any rate, he adopts 
 exactly his attitude towards the tora^^. The passages 
 he incorporates from the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah 
 attach themselves more closely to D, though the relationship 
 with P may be detected even in them^^. Neh. viii.-x. will be 
 best treated in another connection (§ 12, n. 12, 13). The 
 only book of the fifth century B.C. that remains is Ruth, in 
 which the line of Judah's descendants conforms with P 
 (compare Ruth iv. 18-22 with Ex. vi. 23 ; Num. ii. 3 ; vii. 12; 
 xxvi. 19-21), but which is by no means dependent on the 
 tora in other respects, — as to the levirate marriage, for instance 
 iv. 1-12. The character of the book, however, forbids us to 
 argue hence that its author was unacquainted with the iora^^. 
 
 In the books of Kings repeated reference is made to 'the 
 tora of Moses' or 'of Yah we' (i Kings ii. 3 ; 2 Kings x. 31 ; 
 xiv. 6 [cf. Beut. xxiv. 16] ; xvii. 13, 34, 37 ; xxi. 8 ; xxiii. 25). 
 There can be no doubt that what is meant is the tora which 
 
n. 1 8-20.] The Historical Books and the Hexateuch. 187 
 
 Deiiteronomy represents Moses as delivering in the Trans- 
 jordanic region and subsequently committing to writing : 
 tlie references themselves prove it, and moreover the redactor 
 of Kings occupies the position and uses the language of D^ 
 and his followers ^*. There is no evidence of acquaintance with 
 P, unless it be in i Kings xviii. 31'' (cf. Gen. xxxv. 10} and 
 viii. i-ii, the latter of which passages has evidently passed 
 through a later recension ^s. — In the books of Samuel the 
 Mosaic tora is not mentioned and is but very seldom made use 
 of; when it is we see that the writer is dependent on D ^^. 
 — The redactor of Judges also attaches himself to D and [183] 
 follows his linguistic usage ^''. The connection with Joshua 
 is effected (ii. 6-10) by the repetition of a few verses 
 belonging to the prophetic portion of that book which D had 
 worked over (xxiv. 28-31) and in which we likewise find certain 
 details which reappear in the introduction to Judges (i. i-ii. 
 5)^*. Of the two appendices (xvii. sq. and xix.-xxi.) the first 
 shows a remarkable independence with respect to the Hexa- 
 teuch, whereas the other betrays some points of contact alike 
 with D and P ^s. 
 
 '" It is generally allowed that i Chron. i. i-ii. 2 is borrowed from Gen. r. ; 
 X.; xi. 10-33; sxv. 1-4: 12-16; xxxv. 23-26; xxxvi. In the sequel 
 the writer availa himself, for instance, of the list of priestly and Lefitioal 
 cities in Josh. xxi. 10-39 (^^^ ^ Ghron. vi. 39-66) of Gen. xlvi., Ex. vi., and 
 Num. xxvi. (see Chronicles passim). Cf. Bertheau's commentary. 
 
 '° See I Chron. xvi. 40 ; 2 Ghron. xii. i ; xiv. 3 ; xvii. 7 sqq. ; xxiii. 18 ; xxv. 
 4 ( = 2 Kings xiv. 6, cf. Sent. xxiv. 16); xxx. 16; xxxi. 3, 4, 21; xxxiii. 8; 
 xxxiv. 19 ; xxxv. 26. Most of these references leave no room to doubt that 
 the ritual law, amongst and indeed above the rest, stood before the writer's 
 mind. His accounts of the observance of its special precepts will be enumer- 
 ated and discussed in § 1 1 . In proof of his adhesion to P, even where the 
 latter departs from D, I need only mention the following examples : the constant 
 distinction between priests and Levites ; the account of Solomon's eight day 
 celebration of the feast of tabernacles (2 Chron. vii. 8, 9), in accordance with 
 Lev. xxiii. 36, 39, and in conflict with i Kings viii. 65 sq. ; and the statement 
 that tithes, including tithes of cattle, were brought to the Levites (2 Chron. 
 xxxi. 5, 6). It is generally acknowledged that the writer also adopted the 
 language of P, and we need therefore cite no texts to prove it. 
 
1 88 The Hexateuch. [§ lo-- 
 
 '^ Cf. &ca iii. 2 ; vi. 18 ; vii. 6 ; If eh. xiii. i. Here too we note adherence 
 to the precept9 which distinguish P from the other legislators, e. g. the dis- 
 tinction between the priests and the Levites {faasim), and the destination 
 of tithes of the fruits of field and tree (JVeA. xii. 44-47 ; xiii. 5). 
 
 ^^ See especially Eir. ix. 10-12, to be compared with J)eu,t. vii. 1-3 ; xxiii. 
 7, but also with hew xviii. 24, 25 ; all these passages are cited in a free form 
 by Ezra, and — which is highly remarkable — cited as utterances of Yahwfe , 'by 
 the hand of his servants the prophets.* Further, iVeA. i. 8, 9, a free citation, 
 again, of Dent. xxx. 1-5. That we are justified, however, in assuming acquain- 
 tance with P also on the part of Ezra and Nehemiah, appears from Ifek. xiii. 
 10-13 (tithes of the fruits of field and tree for the Levites) ; 14-22 (strict 
 enforcement of the Sabbath rest). 
 
 ^' Cf. Bleek-Wellhausen, Einl., p. 204 sq., where the post-exilian origin 
 of the genealogy and its dependence upon P are alike made clear. On iv. 
 [184] 1-12 see § II, n. 33, and, on the attitude of the book of Hufh towards the 
 measures taken by Ezra and Nehemiah against the foreign wives see my 
 G'o(/M?('fns£, ii. 148 sqq. [Rel. Isr., ii. 242 sqq.]. This polemical purpose, and 
 the interest in ancient customs to which iv. 1-12 bears witness, alike forbid us 
 to receive the writer's evidence in the cause we are now trying as altogether 
 unbiassed. In no other writer would the silence with which Sent. xxv. 5-10 
 is passed over possess so little significance. 
 
 " The deuteronomic tora is the standard by which the redactor of Kings 
 judges Solomon and his successors at Jerusalem (i Kings iii. -i, 3 ; xiv. 23; 
 XV. 14 ; 2 Kings xii. 3 ; xiv. 4 ; xv. 4, 35 ; xvi. 4) together with the kings 
 of Israel (l Kings xv. 26, 34; xvi. 26, 31; xxii. 53 [52] ; 2 Kings iii. 3 ; 
 xiii. 2, 11; xiv. 24; XV. 9, 18, 24, 28) ; and the praise he awards to Hezeldah 
 (2 Kings xviii. 3 sqq.), the blame he lays on Manasseh for returning to the 
 worship on ' the high-places ' (xxi. 3) and his delight in Josiah'a reformation 
 (xxii. sq.) all rest on the same tora. So far there is really no difference of 
 opinion. It is only when we add to the assertion that the writer knows and 
 constantly presupposes D, the further statement that he knows nothing of the 
 laws and narratives of P (n. 25) that we meet with contradiction. It is need- 
 less therefore to expatiate further on the adhesion of the redactor of Kings to 
 D, or to show expressly that the pericopes which he wrote, or at any rate 
 recast (2 Kings xvii. 7-23, 34-41; further, i KingsW. 3,4; iii. 5-15"; viii. 
 12-61; ix. 1-9; xi. I sqq., etc.) agree with D', and still more with his suc- 
 cessors, in the choice of language and in style. The agreement is so great 
 that Colenso, in the wake of others, has thought he could recognise D 
 himself, whom he believes to be the prophet Jeremiah, in the redactor of 
 Kings — (Pentateueh, vii. p. 4 sqq., App., p. 85 sqq.) — an opinion which seems to 
 me wholly inadmissible, but which I mention here because it could never 
 have been maintained in former times, and could not have come up again now, 
 had not the connection with D been extremely close. 
 
 -'■ On I Ju«^s viii. i-ii cf. Bleek-Wellhausen, Einl., p. 233-235, and 
 Colenso, Feiitateiich, vii. p. 2'j sqq., I58sq. The main proof is that the writer 
 of Kings cannot have written, ' the priests and the Levites ' (v. 4). In the 
 
n. 21-28.] TheHistoricalBooks mid theHexateuch. 189 
 
 first place lie mentions tlie priests alone in v. 3, 6, 10, 11, and in the next 
 place he regards all the Levites as qualified for the priesthood (I Kings xii. 
 31), and therefore could not distinguish between them and the priests. This 
 led me formerly to suppose (Godsdiemt, ii. 208 [Rd. Isr., ii. 301]) that 'the 
 Levitioal priests ' originally stood in v. 4, as in the parallel passage 2 Chron. 
 V. 5 ; and further that the ' 6hel mo'^d ' of ti. 4 was the tent pitched upon 
 Zion by David (2 Sam. vi. 17; i Kings i. 39; ii. 28-30), and not the 
 Mosaic tabernacle {Ex. xxv. sqq.) ; for the author never mentions the latter, and 
 therefore does not place it, as the Chronicler does (cf. § 11), at Gibeon (see 
 I Kings iii. 4). But I must now grant to Wellhauaen and Colenso that 
 * 6hel mo'^d ' never signifies the tent of David, and does not occur at all in the 
 older historical books (i Sam. ii. 2 2 ^ is an interpolation, cf. the LXX.) ; that ' all 
 the holy vessels which were in the 6hel ' recalls the Mosaic tabernacle ; that v. 
 4 is wholly superfluous after v. 3 and before v. 6, and departs from the linguistic 
 usage of V. 3, 6 in employing the phrase mn' ]Tiw, for all which reasons it 
 must be denied to the author of Kings and assigned to a later interpolator, 
 who was acquainted with P, and who therefore very naturally missed the 
 'ohelmo'^d' audits holy vessels at this point. In that case v. sC^ntu)' m3>''5D [185] 
 and Tji:, as in P) is a later insertion also. This supposition is the less 
 hazardous inasmuch as we are forced to recognise interpolations in i'. i, 2 
 (' this is the seventh month ') and v. 6 (' to the holy of holies '), which are to 
 some extent subsequent even to the text translated by the LXX. — And since 
 it thus appears that the only passage which obviously depends upon P has passed 
 through a later recension, it is highly probable that i Kings xviii. si'', a 
 literal citation of Gen. xxxv. 10, must be explained in the same way: in its 
 contents it is parallel to ii Kings xvii. 34'' (from the hand of the redactor), 
 and we may well suppose that the reference to the change of the name 
 of Jacob into Israel was inserted here by an ancient reader. It is 
 worth noticing that most of the MSS. of the LXX., including the best, read 
 'I(xpari\ for ip3>'''33, which may be a trace of another attempt to bring the 
 verse into agreement with the usual and more acceptable phraseology, before 
 the second half had been added. 
 
 '^ The agreement with D comes out especially in i Sam. vii. ; viii. ; i. 1 7- 
 27 ; xii. ; 2 Sam. vii., on which chapters cf. Thenius, and also Bleek-Well- 
 hausen, Mtil, p. 209 sqq. ; Colenso, Fentateuch, vii. p. 56 sqq., 107 sqq. 
 It is, therefore, restricted to a few chapters, which are, moreover, clearly 
 distinguished from the body of the work in other respects as well. The — 
 altogether negative — relation to P will come out of itself in § 11. 
 
 " The general scheme or programme of the book of Judges, ii. lo-iii. 6, and 
 the stereotyped opening of the accounts of the several judges so nearly related 
 to it (iii. 7 ; iv. I ; vi. i, 7-10, etc.), bear a close resemblance to the retrospec- 
 tive survey in 2 Kings xvii. 7-23, 34-41, and therefore to D also. Cf. Bleek- 
 Wellhausen, Kinl., p. 183 sqq.; Colenso, Pentateuch, m.p. ^6 sqq., 85 sqq. 
 In the stories which the redactor fits into his framework we no longer trace this 
 resemblance. 
 
 "' On the origin of Josh. xxiv. 28-31 see above, § 7, n. 27; 8, n. 16. P'a 
 
I go The Hexateuch. [§i°- 
 
 hand cannot be traced in these verses, so the supposition that the redactor of 
 Judges adopted them is not at all inconsistent with his adhesion to D (n. 27). 
 There are further parallels between Jude/es i. 10-15 ^^^ Josh. XY. 13-19 ; 
 Judges i. 21 and Josh. xv. 63 ; Judges i. 27, 28 and Josh. xvii. 12, 13 ; Judges 
 i. 29 and Josh. xvi. 10. On the source of these passages in Josh. xiv. sqq. cf 
 § 6, n. 49. Here again the redactor of Judges shows complete literary in- 
 dependence of P. 
 
 '^ On Judges xvii. sq. cf. § 11 ; on xix.-xxi. Bleek-Wellhausen, Ehil, p. 
 199-203 ; Graetz, Geschichte d. Juden, i. 351 sqq. The source and character 
 of this narrative are not yet fully made out ; but it certainly has not so high 
 an antiquity as Graetz gives it. Jud.-rK. 13 (^jNiiu'D nin mm:) recalls 
 Beut. xiii. 6 [5] ; xvii. 12 : xxii. 22; Jnd. xxi. 11, 12 (tdi and ''i 23ii)d) 
 recalls Num. xxxi. 17, 18, 35 ; noi {Jud. xx. 6) frequently occurs in P and in 
 Ezekiel, but also in Hosea vi. 9 ; Jud. xx. i (myn ';npni) is parallel with 
 Lev. viii. 4 ; Num. xvii. 7 [xvi. 42]. Jud. xx. 27'', 28" (cf. Num. xxv. 6 sqq. ; 
 Josh. xxii. 9-34) would also have to be considered were it not that these words 
 break the context and are evidently a later insertion. 
 
 ] C. The Poetical Books. 
 
 The antiquity of the poetical books, and of the several poems 
 embraced in one of them, namely the book of Psalms, is the 
 subject of so much controversy that their evidence concerning 
 the Hexateuch and its constituent parts cannot throw much 
 weight into the scale. The assertion that the Psalms of 
 David, and the Proverbs of Solomon, — to which some have 
 added the book of Job — demonstrate the existence of the tora 
 before the division of the kingdom, is in any case incapable 
 of proof ^''- Those poetical compositions as to the date of which 
 comparative agreement has been reached, confirm in general 
 the inferences drawn from the prophetic and historical writings 
 contemporary with them. Ecclesiastes and the Song of 
 Solomon may be passed over. We notice the repeated men- 
 tion of the tora and a varied use of the sacred history it 
 contains in those Psalms which are put down by common 
 consent as the latest ^^. The epic of Job, from the nature 
 of the case, yields scanty results. Its author knew ' the ten 
 words,' and probably also Deuteronomy^'^. Nor are the 
 parallels in Proverbs numerous ; i.-ix. shows a certain re- 
 
n. 28-34. J The Poetical Books and the Hexateuch. 191 
 
 lationship to Deuierommy ; and references to Gen. ii., iii. are 
 found both within this section (iii. 18) and beyond it (xi. 30 ; 
 xiii. la; xv. 4)^^. Finally, the Lamentations resemble 
 Jeremiahj to whom tradition assigns them, in their depend- 
 ence upon Deuteronomy . We seek in vain for any traces of 
 P in them^*. 
 
 °° This assertion was formerly made by Delitzsch, Die Genesis, and ed., 
 p. 13 sq. No one can seriously maintain, (i) that the literature of the century 
 of David and Solomon is proved to be authentic, and (2) that its evidence 
 covers the whole tora. And yet both points must be established before that 
 century can be iixed as the terminus ad quern of the composition of the tora. 
 
 °' The later poems here referred to include the foUovring, amongst others : 
 Ps. i., xix. 8-15 [7-14], Ixxvii., Ixxviii., xcv., ov., cvi., cxiv., cxix., cxxxv., 
 cxxxvi., etc. 
 
 ^^ Compare especially Joh xxxi. 9-12, 26-28 (o'ViE pi') with Ex. xx. 2, 
 14 ; perhaps there is also a reference to Deid. xxii. 22 ; xvii. 2-7. In weigh- 
 ing the evidence of the Jobeid we must not forget that the hero lives outside [187] 
 Canaan and in the patriarchal age. The poet would have violated the form he 
 had selected had he cited or obviously followed the tora. 
 
 ^^ Compare Frov. vii. 3 with Deut. vi. 8; Prov. iii. 12 with Deut. viii. 5, 
 etc. But it is more important to note the hortatory tone of Pro;;, i. sqq., 
 which recalls both Jeremiah and D ; and also the affinity of Prov. iii. 9, 10 
 with the tendency of Deuteronomy, and again the affinity of Deut. iv. 5-8 with 
 the tendency of the book of Proverbs as a whole, but more especially of i.-ix. 
 
 '' Compare Lamentations i. 10 with Deut. xxiii. 3 (a formal reference) ; 
 Lam,, i. 9 with Deut. xxxii. 29 ; Lam. i. 20 with Deut. xxxii. 25 ; Lam. ii. 20 ; 
 iv. 10 with Deut. xxviii. 53-57; Lam. iii. 64; iv. 2 with Deut. ii. 7 ; iv. 28, 
 etc. 
 
 In drawing our conclusions from the facts we have now 
 collected we must not forget that chance may have had its 
 share in them. The Israelite writers were not aware that 
 they would sometime be forced to give direct or indirect 
 evidence of their attitude towards the Hexateuch ; and their 
 silence therefore is no absolute proof that they were un- 
 acquainted with the whole or with any special part of the 
 collection, and still less that it did not exist. But when two 
 or more contemporaries represent one and the same attitude, 
 positive or negative, then the hypothesis of mere accident 
 becomes more and more improbable and at last wholly in- 
 
192 The Hexateuch. [§io-n. 35. 
 
 admissible. We are therefore fully justified in concluding 
 from the survey made in this §, (i) that Deuteronomy was 
 not known before the last quarter of the seventh century 
 B.C., and (3) that the priestly laws and narratives were still in 
 the nascent stage in Ezekiel's time (593-570 B.C.) and did not 
 exist, in the form in which we now have them in the Hexa- 
 teuch, before the time of Ezra and Nehemiah ^^. 
 
 ^^ Note, in illustration of (i), that not one of the prophets of the eighth 
 century is dependent on D (n. i6). The impossibility of ascribing the fact 
 to chance is emphasized by the persistency with which D asserts itself, shining 
 more or less distinctly through all the subsequent literature, as soon as once 
 its influence appears. As to (2), on the other hand, note that Ezekiel at first 
 stands alone in his affinities of style and spirit with P. Deutero-Isaiahandhis 
 contemporaries, Haggai and Zechariah (i.-viii.), have no knowledge of him. It 
 is not till about 450 B.C. that the priestly document comes definitively forward, 
 never to be lost sight of again. This in itself leads up to the view of the 
 genesis of P set forth in the text. Moreover Ezekiel, for all his aflinity with P, 
 does not follow him, as we shall presently see in § 11. This confirms the 
 [188] idea that the later writers, up to the middle of the fifth cent^u'y, do not 
 Ignore P by accident, as it were, but that his historico-legislative work did 
 not really exist in their day. See f m-ther, §11 sqq. 
 
 § II. The Hexateuch and the political and religious history 
 of Israel. 
 
 Our previous investigations have shown us in the first 
 place that the book of Joshua is most intimately connected 
 with the Pentateuch and presupposes its laws and narratives 
 (§ I, cf. § 7-9); and in the second place that there- 
 presentation of the Mosaic times and of the settlement in 
 Canaan which the Hexateuch gives us is, as a whole, contra- 
 dicted by the veritable history (§ 4, n. 16-31). The former 
 result forbids us to admit the book of Joshua as an independ- 
 ent witness to the Mosaic origin or the high antiquity of 
 the Pentateuch ; but the latter by no means absolves us from 
 the duty of going on to compare the Hexateuch with the 
 history alike of Israel and of the Israelitish religion, — and 
 
— §ii.n. I.] Method of Comparison. 193 
 
 this with especial reference to the laws and to the accounts 
 of their observance in Joshua's time. This comparison may 
 not only define the purely negative results already obtained 
 more closely, but may throw light on the chronological 
 succession of the several elements of the Hexateuch. 
 
 The rules we must follow rise out of the very nature of the 
 case, and therefore need no express defence. They are the 
 following : 
 
 (1) None but firmly established historical facts or doings 
 can be allowed as evidence of the existence of any legal 
 ordinance they may imply. The historian's own conviction 
 on the subject can be taken as direct evidence only concerning 
 the time at which he himself lived, and must be confirmed in- 
 dependently before it can be trusted as regards the period of 
 which he wrote and from which he may have been separated 
 by many centuries. The possible influence of his very con- 
 viction upon his account of the past must never be lost sight 
 of ; and in proportion as we discover it to have been greater 
 or smaller, our confidence in his records will fall or rise. 
 
 (2) Proceedings at variance with the tora must not be [189] 
 accepted without more ado as proofs that it did not exist or 
 was not held binding. This is only justified when the desire 
 
 of those concerned to comply with Yahwe's demands is above 
 all doubt, and when the repeated occurrence of the act in 
 question, or some other such circumstance, precludes the idea 
 of accident. 
 
 (3) On the other hand, actions that harmonise with the 
 precepts of the tora cannot be accepted as proving its exist- 
 ence, unless it is clear that they were done not in obedience to 
 the custom out of which the tora itself was developed, but in 
 view of the positive legal prescription ^. 
 
 ' On this subject, in its whole scope or in some of its branches, the following 
 works, amongst others, may be consulted with advantage: De Wette, tiher 
 den Zvstand des Religioni'CuUns der Israeliten in HinKwht aiif die Gesetsgebung 
 
 O 
 
194 T^i^ Hexateuch. [§ "• 
 
 c?es Pentateuchs {Seitrage emr Einl. in das A. T., i. 223-265); Gramberg, 
 Krit. Gesch. der MeUgionisideen des A. T. (2 Biinde, 1829-30), passim; Heng- 
 stenberg, Ber Pent. u. die Zeii der Richier (Beitr. zur Einl. in das A. T., 
 iii. 1-148 [ii. I-I2I]) ; Haeverniok, Einl., i. 2. p. 493-54° [3^7-437] ; Well- 
 hausen, Prolegomena, 17-174 [17-167] {Ordinances of Worship) ; Colenso, 
 Pentateuch, vii. passim. 
 
 From the accounts of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezr. \ii.~Ne^. 
 xiii.) we learn that about the middle of the fifth century B.C. 
 the Mosaic tora was in existence, and that its precepts, more 
 specifically, concerning the cultus, the priests, the Levites, 
 their revenues, and so forth, were then put into practice 
 through the influence of these two men, and, when necessary, 
 maintained against the opposition they encountered in certain 
 quarters. To this rule, however, which is supported by a 
 relatively large number of texts ^, there are some few excep- 
 tions. From Ezra ix. 4 we must conclude that when Ezra 
 arrived at Jerusalem a food offering was made every evening 
 in the temple, but not a burnt offering (Ecc. xxix. 38-42 ; 
 Nnm. xxviii. 3-8) ; from Nek. x. 33 [32], that the ordinance 
 of a yearly contribution of half a shekkel for the sanctuary 
 (Ex. XXX. 11-16) was not found in Ezra's and Nehemiah's 
 tora; and, finally, from Nek. x. 38-40 [37-39] ; xii. 44-47; 
 xiii. 5, 12 that this tora claimed for the Levites tithes of the 
 fruits of field and tree, but not of cattle (cf. Lev. xxvii. 32, 
 [19°] 33) ^- How these phenomena are to be explained cannot 
 appear till later. 
 
 The first half of the book of Ezra (i.-vi.) has been omitted 
 from this survey, partly because it deals with an earlier period, 
 the return from the Babylonian captivity and the first ex- 
 periences of the community in Judsea, but chiefly because its 
 accounts of the Mosaic tora and the observance of its precepts 
 are essentially homogeneous with the passages in the books 
 of Chronicles which deal with the pre-exilian period. Ac- 
 cording to these accounts, then, the tora, and particularly its 
 ritual portions, had been established from the earliest times, 
 
n. I.J The Chronicler and the Mosaic Tor a. 195 
 
 and specially since the reign of David, as the universally 
 recognised standard, which all well - disposed persons, 
 whether kings or people, observed and maintained. Thus, 
 in obedience to the precepts of the tora (Ex. xxv. sqq.), the 
 ohel mo'ed remained the only legitimate place of offering till 
 Solomon's temple was completed (i Chron.yi. 17, 34 [32,49] ; 
 xvi. 39, 40 ; xxi. 28-30 ; a Cliron. i. 3, 5 sq. ; v. 5) ; the 
 priesthood was hereditary in Aaron's family (i CJiron. vi. 34 
 [49] and passim) ; the high-priestly office was filled by the 
 descendants of Eleazar ben Aaron (i Chron. v. 30-41 [vi. 4- 
 15], etc.) ; the exclusive qualification of the priests to offer 
 sacrifice was jealously guarded (3 Cliron. xxvi. i6-ai) ; the 
 Levites were always distinguished from the priests and con- 
 fined to those lower offices about the sanctuary with which 
 they were specially entrusted (i CJiron. xii. 26 sq. ; xiii. 2 ; xv. 
 4 sqq. ; xxiii. 3 sqq., 28-32 and jiassim), while all non-Levites 
 were excluded from the sanctuary (2 Chron. xxiii. 6 sqq.). 
 The priests and Levites, again in accordance with the re- 
 quirements of the tora, were in possession from the first of 
 their forty-eight cities with the surrounding pastures (i Cliron. 
 vi. 39-66 [54-81] ; xiii. 2 ; a Chron. xi. 14 ; xxxi. 19), and 
 the people brought to the sanctuary and its servants all 
 that was enjoined in the tora, including tithes of oxen and 
 sheep (a Chron. xxxi. 4-6) and the yearly temple-tax of half a 
 shekkel (a Chron. xxiv. 5, 9). In the temple the worship was 
 carried on, from the time of Solomon downwards, in perfect 
 accordance with the law (a Chron. ii. 4; viii. la, 13 ; xiii. 11; 
 xxxi. 3 ; Ezr. iii. 3-5 ; vi. 1$ sqq.) ; the morning and evening [191] 
 burnt ofierings were performed in the tabernacle at Gibeon 
 even before the temple was built, and were continued thence- 
 forth (i Chron. xvi. 40 ; Ezr. iii. 3) ; and as early as in the 
 days of Solomon the eight days of the feast of taber- 
 nacles were observed (a Chron. vii. 9). The temple music was 
 organized by Da\'id (i Chron. xxv., etc.), but the sacred 
 
 % 
 
ig6 The Hexateuch. [§ n- 
 
 trumpets of the priests were still kept in use (i Chron. xv. 24; 
 xvi. 6 ; % Chron. xiii. 12), in accordance with the Mosaic 
 precept (iV^!»«. X. i-io). Real departures from this rule 
 never appear in the Chronicles and Ezr. i.-vi. : what 
 might at first appear to he in conflict with the tora, or at 
 least with the ordinances of P, is really in harmony with them 
 or is a further development of them. There was nothing to 
 prevent the Chronicler from now and again using the (deutero- 
 nomie) designation of ' Levitieal priests ' (2 Chron. v. 5 ; xxiii. 
 18; XXX. 27), inasmuch as he too regarded the Aaronites — and 
 it is to them alone that he refers — as belonging to the tribe of 
 Levi (i Chron. v. 27 sqq. [vi. I sqq.] ; vi. I sqq. [i6sqq.], etc.). 
 David's ordinance as to the age at which the Levites were to 
 enter upon their service (i Chron. xxiii. 24, 27) is but a con- 
 tinued movement in the direction of the prescriptions of the 
 priestly tora upon which it rests [Num. iv. 3, 23, 30, 35, 39, 
 43, 47 ; viii. 24). The other departures from the tora — if 
 not explained by the author himself (i Chron. xxi. 28-30), — 
 may be ascribed to the effect of tradition in heightening the 
 written law and rendering it more precise (i Chron. xxiii. 31; 
 a Chron. xxix. 34, ef. xxx. 3 ; xxx. a sqq. ; xxxv. 6, 11) *■ 
 
 " The redactor of Ezra and Nehemiah has dealt with his authorities, 
 amongst which were the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah themselves, in 
 varying style. Sometimes he has taken them up unaltered, and sometimes he 
 has excerpted and recast them more or less freely. The deviations from the tora 
 to be noticed in n. 3 occur in the chapters which he has taken direct from Mb 
 sources ; but side by side with them we may trace even here dependence 
 upon the tora ; and it appears undiluted wherever the redactor himself is 
 speaking. Priests and Levites are distinguished throughout, in both hooka; 
 starting with the list of the returning exiles, Ezr. ii. {Neh. vii.), and on 
 through Ezr. vii. 13, 24; viii. 15 sqq., 29, 30, 33 ; ix. I ; i. 5, 18-23; -^*''- 
 iii. 17 ; viii. 7; x. i, 9, 10, 29 [ix. 38; a. 8, 9, 28] ; xi., passim; xii. i sqq., 
 8 sqq., 22 sqq., 27, 30, 44 ; xiii. 13, 29, 30. The priestly trumpets {Num. x. 
 i-io) are mentioned in Neh. xii. 35. The eighth day of the feast of tabernacles 
 [192] {Lev. xxiii. 36, 39) appears in NeA. viii. 18. As to the things to be tithed a 
 deviation from P may be observed (n. 3), but in the main point, viz. the pay- 
 ment of tithes to the Levites, and by the Levites themselves to the priests, 
 Neh. X. 38-40 [37-39] ; xii. 47 ; xiii. 5, 12 agree with Num. xviii. 21-2S ; and 
 
n. 2-4.] The Chroniclei- and the Mosaic Tora. 197 
 
 so too iVeA. X. 37 [36] (firstlings) with ^am. xviii. 15-18 ; and 'Neh. i. 34 [33] 
 with P'a regulation of the cultus in general. 
 
 ' Neh. X. 34 [33] is perhaps in harmony with Tizr. ix. 4, inasmuch as it 
 mentions the perpetual mincha by the side of the perpetual burnt offering. 
 But see more on the deductions warranted by these and the other texts, and 
 on Nell. -viii. i sqq. compared with Lev. xvi. and the parallel passages, in § 15, 
 n. 30, 32. 
 
 ' Elaborate comment on the numerous parallels with P would be super- 
 fluous, for there can be no difference of opinion as to their significance. And 
 yet we cannot pass them by unnoticed, partly because, as we shall presently 
 see, the Chronicler deviates from the older narrative of Kings, and sometimes 
 diametrically contradicts it (n. 5 sqq.), when he thus runs parallel with P ; 
 and partly because these parallels are of no small weight in determining 
 whether the Chronicler's deviations from P are of the same character 
 as those we observe in the books of Judyes-Kings and the prophets. 
 The remarks in the text upon this subject are directed against Ives 
 Curtiss {The Levitical Priests, p. 110-120, and De Aaron, sacerdotii 
 atque thorm eloh. orig., p. 32-40), supported by Marti (op. cit., p. 134 
 sqq.) Their reasoning is subtle, but sophistical. According to Curtisa 
 himself (p. 114, n. 6) priests and Levites stand side by side twenty-three 
 times in the books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah ; and the number must 
 be raised if we include i Chron. ix. 2 ; Ezr. x. 5 ; Neh. x. 29, 35 [28, 34] ; xi. 
 20, where the 1 between D'l') and D'jna is wanting, but must certainly be 
 either supplied mentally or {Neh. xi. 20) actually inserted. Now what is the 
 meaning, in the presence of this fact, of the use of the deuteronomic formula 
 in the three texts mentioned above ? The idea that the writer changes his 
 position is absurd and perfectly gratuitous, for this ancient formula does not 
 contradict his own belief even in semblance — though his belief, on the other 
 hand, does contradict the ancient formula, when used, as it is in D, to express 
 the sole qualification of birth which the priests must possess. Had the 
 Chronicler perceived all that D asserted and denied in his D'l'jrt D'jnDn, he 
 would unquestionably have avoided the expression ; but in the third century 
 B.C. all this had long passed into oblivion. — The remaining texts hardly 
 need illustration. The comparison of the mutually discrepant regulations of 
 the age of service for the Levites {Num. iv., viii., x Chron. xxiii.) renders it 
 highly probable that their scanty numbers (cf. Ezr. ii., viii. 15 sqq.) made it 
 necessary to admit them to their duties at an ever earlier age, and that tho 
 successive regulations on the subject were ascribed in part to Moses and in 
 part to David. Cf. § 6, n. 33 ; 15, n. 15, 28. — The note on David's sacrifice at 
 Arauna's threshing-floor, i Chron. xxi. 28-30, is rendered all the more 
 significant by its absence from the parallel narrative (2 Sam. xxiv.) For 
 the celebration of the passover on the wrong month, 2 Chron. xxx. 2 sqq., cf. 
 Num. ix. 6 -14 : Hezekiah, while not applying this law, yet acts on it by analogy. 
 The slaughter of the pascal lambs by the Levites is explained in 2 Chron. [193] 
 xxx. 1 7 as due to the unoleanness of the fathers of families, to whose duty it 
 really fell (-&:. xii. 6). But we gather from 2 Chron. xxxv. 6, 10 ; Ezr. vi. 20 
 
198 The hexateuch. [§ii. 
 
 that, apart from accidental causes, the task was usually entrusted to the 
 Levites ; nor is this actually forbidden by the Tora, though in this particular 
 the written law is more liberal towards the laity than the later practice. — A 
 similar judgment must be passed on 2 Chron. xxix. 34 (of. xxx. 3, 15, 24). 
 According to Leo. i. 1-6 ; iii. i sq., 6-8, the burnt and thank offerings are to 
 be slaughtered and flayed by the worshipper who makes them. The Chronicler 
 assumes that the flaying at any rate is part of the priestly task, and goes on to 
 show that under certain circumstances it may be committed to the Levites (cf. 
 I Chron. xxiii. 31). Obviously the established practice of his day was more 
 stringent than the legal regulation out of which it had been gradually 
 developed. — Curtiss also refers {The Levit. Priests, p. 117 sq.) to 2 Chron. xi. 
 13, 14; xxix. 5 ; xxxi. z, as texts which might be cited in proof that the 
 Chronicler does not draw a uniformly sharp distinction between priests and 
 Levites. But since he himself admits that ' there is not the slightest doubt 
 in regard to the interpretation of the foregoing passages, because they are 
 abundantly explained by the connection ; ' and that only when ' isolated ' 
 could they seem to imply a deviation from the writer's representations 
 elsewhere, we really must ask him to abstain from ' isolating ' them, and in 
 that case they may n 1 be cited for his purpose. 
 
 We get a very different impression of the attitude in 
 which the centuries before Ezra stood to the Mosaic tora if 
 we consult the other historical books and the prophetic 
 literature. 
 
 According to a Kings xxii., xxiii., ' the book of the law of 
 Moses' was the foundation and norm of the reformation in 
 Josiah's eighteenth year (631 B.C.). The relation between 
 this book and the whole Tora, as to which we have already 
 gained some light (§ 10, n. 35), will be established more ex- 
 pressly hereafter (§ la and 14). No accounts can be dis- 
 covered of the previous recognition of the whole Tora or of 
 any portion of it as a binding authority : a Kin^s xi. 12 
 (a Chron. xxiii. 11) furnishes no proof whatever of the exist- 
 ence of the Decalogue at the time of the crowning of Joash 
 ben Ahaziah ^. 
 
 On comparing the accounts contained in the writings 
 referred to above with the several regulations of the Tora, we 
 arrive at the following conclusions with reference (I) to holy 
 places ; (II) to holy persons ; (III) to holy seasons ; (IV) to 
 
n. 4.] Numerous Bamoth before the Captivity. 1 99 
 
 religious acts and usages ; and (V) to the political and civic 
 life :— 
 
 I. There is not a trace in Judges-Kings of the Mosaic [194] 
 ohel mo'ed (7i>. xxv. sqq.), afterwards set up, according 
 to Josh, xviii. I ; xix. 51, at Shiloh ; for i Sam. ii. aa*" is an 
 interpolation, and i Kings viii. 4 does not belong to the 
 original account of the building of the temple by Solomon 
 (§ 10, n. 25). The repeated declaration of the Chronicler that 
 the ohel mo'ed was pitched at Gibeon in David's time is 
 never confirmed by the books of Samuel, and is contradicted 
 by I Kings iii. 4 ^. 
 
 The restriction of worship to the one sanctuary was never 
 so much as thought of, as far as we can tell, before Hezekiah. 
 la the period of the Judges there was a temple of Yahwe at 
 Shiloh (i Sain. i. 9 ; iii. 3, 15 ; cf. Judges xxi. 19 ; xix. 18) ; 
 Mica had a sanctuary in Mount Ephraim, and the tribe of 
 Dan afterwards erected one in the city of their own name 
 {Judges xvii. sq.) ; while altars were raised and sacrifices made 
 at Bochim (ii. 5), at Ojjhra (vi. 34 sqq. ; viii. 37), at ^or'a 
 (xiii. 19), at Mi9pha (xx. i), and at Bethel (xx. 23, 36-28 ; 
 xxi. 2, 4). Samuel sacrifices at Migpha (i Sam. vii. 9), builds 
 an altar at Rama (v. 17), and celebrates a feast there (ix. 13) 
 on a high place (nd), as he subsequently does at Bethlehem 
 (xvi. 4 sqq.). And so again, in Samuel's presence (xi. 15), or 
 at his express command, Saul sacrifices at Gilgal (x. 8 ; xiii. 9). 
 It is recorded in praise of Saul that he built an altar to 
 Yahwe (xiv. '^^). In his reign the clan to which David 
 belonged held a sacrificial feast at Bethlehem (xx. 29), and this 
 was obviously nothing exceptional. Absolom asks and obtains 
 leave from his father David to attend a similar feast at He- 
 bron (2 Sam,. XV. 7 sqq.). David himself makes sacrifices 
 wherever the ark halts between Kiryath-Ye'arim and Jeru- 
 salem, as well as on the hill of Zion (vi.) and on the threshing- 
 floor of Arauna (xxiv.) ; and there was a place near the 
 
200 
 
 The Hexateiich. [§ 
 
 capital where it was his custom to pray, and assuredly to sacri- 
 fice also (xv. 32). Solomon held a great sacrificial feast ' on 
 the high place ' at Gibeon (i Kings iii. 4) '' . After the erection 
 [195] of the temple at Jerusalem the same freedom still prevailed 
 for centuries, not only in Ephraim (xviii. 20 sqq.), but in 
 Judah too, whose kings, Asa (xv. 14), Jehoshaphat (xxii. 44 
 [43]), Joash (a Kings xii. 3), Amaziah (xiv. 4), Uzziah (xv. 
 4), Jotham (v. 34), and Ahaz (xvi. 4), are all reported to have 
 maintained the bamoth. The writer oi Kings registers this as 
 a transgression (ibid.), but it does not appear that either the 
 monarchs themselves or their contemporaries regarded it as 
 such. At any rate, not one of the prophets of the eighth cen- 
 tury champions the exclusive claims of Jerusalem* ; and as this 
 is true of Isaiah as well as the rest, it must remain doubtful 
 ■whether Hezekiah really attempted the complete suppression 
 of the worship in the high places attributed to him in 3 Kings 
 xviii. 4 (cf. V. 22 ; Isaiah xxxvi. 7). In any case, his reforma- 
 tion was but a preliminary effort followed by a reaction under 
 Manasseh (2 Kings xxi. 3) ". It was Josiah who first suc- 
 ceeded in making the temple the one only sanctuary of 
 Yahwe, in accordance with the requirements of the book of 
 law found by Hilkiah (xxii. sq.). Whether it retained this 
 position under his successors is doubtful (cf. xxiv.). But in 
 the captivity Ezekiel, to whom the bamoth are an abomina- 
 tion (xx. 27 sqq.), ordains a single sanctuary for the future, 
 quite in the spirit of Josiah's reformation (xl. sqq.), and such 
 was the undisputed position, so far as we know, of Zerub- 
 babel's temple after the return '". 
 
 ' In the Pentateuoh nnsn is the Decalogue {Ex. xxxi. i8 ; xxxii. 15; 
 xxxiv. 29 ; xl. 20 ; whence "rn )n«, '!n«, piTD, n3TD), but exclusively in P, 
 or (as in Ex. xxxii.-xxxiv.) in E. There is nothing to show that this name 
 was adopted in ordinary usage ; for though such an inference might follow 
 from 2 Kings xi. 12, were it certain or even probable that a collection of laws 
 is referred to in the passage at all, yet as a matter of fact, when we read that 
 Jehoiada 'brought out the royal child and laid or placed upon him (bj ;nj) 
 
n. 5-8.] Nzimerous Bamoth before the Captivity. 201 
 
 the crown and nnrn,' it is anything but natural to understand (with 
 TheniuB, Bertheau, etc.) that a collection of laws is meant. Indeed, the 
 'laying 'or 'placing upon' seems absolutely to exclude this interpretation. 
 Presumably nns> is synonymous with ns, and means, in this passage, the 
 royal insignia — perhaps a mantle or other such adornment. 
 
 ' The absence of I Sam. ii. 22 '' from the LXX. in itself renders its authenti- 
 city doubtful. But besides this, the clause is inconsistent with the rest of the 
 narrative : neither ii. 11 sqq., 23 sq., nor the prophetic discourse in v. 27-36, 
 refers to this crime of Eli's sons. F. 22 •> is a haggadic addition by some one [196] 
 who had read Kr. xxxviii. 8. — The Chronicler's accounts of the tabernacle at 
 Gibeon have already (p. 195) been cited. The author who explains Solomon's 
 sacrificial feast at Gibeon by the words ' for this was the great bama' (i Kings 
 iii. 4), knows nothing of an 6hel mo'^d erected there. And again, this 
 presumably later writer, who both disapproves of and excuses Solomon's 
 sacrificing on the high places (t). 2, 3), would have been surprised to hear that 
 the one lawful sanctuary was at that very time reared at Gibeon itself ! 
 
 ^ The evidence referring to the period before the completion of the temple 
 hardly requires any comment. Samuel's offerings fall in the period during 
 which the ark of Yahwfe was in the hands of the Philistines, or was lying 
 unnoticed at Kiryath-Ye'arlm (i Sam. iv. 11 ; vi. ; vii. i, 2), and therefore, 
 according to Hengstenberg (op. cit.,p. 48 sqq. [39 sqq.]) they are no proof that 
 the tora ordaining the one only sanctuary was not in existence. But this 
 contention overlooks the facts (i) that taking the ark to the scene of battle 
 (see the passages already cited and 2 Sam. xi. 11 ; xv. 25 sqq.) is 'inconsistent 
 alike with the letter and the spirit of the law,' both of D and of P (of. my 
 Godsdieiist, i. 231 sq., 255 sqq. [Eel. Isi:, i. 231 sqq., 256 sqq.]); and (2) 
 that if the ark had been indispensable for the legality of sacrifice, and if 
 Samuel had recognised it as being so, he would either have gone to Kiryath- 
 Ye'arim or abstained from all sacrifice ; there is not the smallest connection 
 between his supposed motive and his actual conduct. — The subterfuges by the 
 aid of which an attempt has been made to disarm the remaining items of 
 evidence are, if possible, still more wretched, and may, therefore, be passed over. 
 — David's sacrifices on the way to Jerusalem (2 Sam. vi. 13) I have of course 
 only included for the sake of completeness. They are recorded in i Chron. 
 XV. 26 also, and indeed are quite unexceptionable in themselves. David's 
 sacrifice by the ark on Zion shortly afterwards (2 Sam. vi. 17 ; i Chron. xvi. i) 
 may also be defended, though only as an exception ; and in this light ac- 
 cordingly it is represented — by the Chronicler (i CAcoji. xvi. 37-43). Parallel 
 to this is the excuse made for David's sacrifice in i Chron. xxi. 28-30. 
 
 * The Chronicler, like his predecessor, mentions the maintenance of the 
 bam6th under Asa (2 Chron. xv. 17), Jehoshaphat (xx. 33), Joram (xxi. ii), 
 and Ahaz (xxviii. 4, 25), their abolition by Hezekiah (xxxi. 1 ; cf xxxii. 12), and 
 Josiah (xxxiv. 3), and their restoration by Manasseh (xxxiii. 3, 17, 19). But 
 he also records their suppression by the pious kings Asa (xiv. 2, 4 [3, 5]) and 
 Jehoshaphat (xvii. 6). This cannot be historical, for it is contradicted by 
 KiiiffH and in the passages cited above from the Cliron'cler himself. We 
 
202 The Hexateuch. [§ii- 
 
 must therefore suppose that since Asa and Jehoshaphat both did what was 
 right in the eyes of Yahwfe (xiv. i [2] ; xvii. 1-4), the Chronicler ascribed to 
 them the deeds which he regarded as immediately involved in their piety, and 
 which they really would have performed if they had been acquainted 
 with the Tora. — The assertion that none of the prophets of the eighth century 
 condemns the worship of YahwJs on the high places seems to be in conflict 
 with Mic. i. 5, 'For the transgression of Jacob is all this, and for the sin of 
 the house of Israel. What is the transgression of Jacob ? Verily Samaria. 
 And what the bam6th of Judah ? Verily Jerusalem.' The ' bamoth,' it has 
 [197] been argued, would not be used as a parallel to ' transgression' (5J1CD), unless 
 such abominations were committed at them as to lead the prophet utterly 
 to condemn the worship conducted there. But in that case how could Micah 
 call Jerusalem 'the bam6th of Judah'? The very thing characteristic of the 
 bam6th was that they were found all over the kingdom, and those at Jerusa- 
 lem (2 Kings xxiii. 8) were no more numerous, and were certainly no more 
 objectionable, than those elsewhere. F. 5" shows us that the true reading 
 must certainly be riNlDn, 'and what the sin of Judah? Verily Jerusalem.' 
 And so it actually stands in the LXX. Cf. R or da. Comment, in Mich, vat,, 
 p. 12 sqq. ; Cheyne, Micah (in Cambridge Bible for Schools), p. 18 sq. My 
 position, then, is unassailed by Micah, and Isaiah strengthens it. The latter 
 prophet condemns most sternly the way in which Yahwfe is served in the 
 temples of the bamdth, and especially the use of images (ii. 8 ; xvii. 8 ; 
 xxxi. 7) ; and he regards a reformation as a crying need. But it will consist 
 in flinging away the gold and silver images, not in suppressing the bam6th 
 (ii. 18-20; XXX. 22). 
 
 ° Wellhausen {Prolegomena, i. 26, 48 sqq. [25 sq., 46 sqq.]) seems inclined 
 to reject the account of Hezekiah's suppression of the bam6th altogether. 
 If 2 Kings xviii. 4 stood alone I should agree with him. But in d. 22 {Isaiah 
 xxxvi. 7; 2 Chron. xxxii. 12) the account receives a confirmation at once so re- 
 markable and so unsought, that I cannot'put it altogether on one side. We may 
 well suppose, however, thatHezekiah did not carry through his reformation; 
 he contemplated the centralisation of worship, but did not bring it about. 
 Hence Josiah's measures, which were far more drastic than his, and were separ- 
 ated from them too by a space of nearly a hundred year.s, appeared to contem- 
 poraries altogether novel. Cf. my Hi66cciiccte)'esfor 1882, p. 149, n. 2 [Vollcs- 
 goclsilienst en wereMgodsclienst, p. 126, n. i]. 
 
 '" What we hear in 2 Kings xxiv. of Josiah's successors makes it doubtful 
 whether they maintained his reformation of the cultus. We need not wonder, 
 therefore, that Jeremiah laments over the number of altars in Judah and 
 Jerusalem (ii. 26-28: xi, 13) — at which sacrifice was undoubtedly offered to 
 Yahwe as well as to Baal. For the rest, the quite exceptional sanctity of the 
 temple of Jerusalem had become an article of faith even amongst the prophet's 
 opponents (vii. 4), and this was certainly in some degree the consequence of 
 Josiah's measures and of their rigid enforcement till the end of his reign. We 
 cannot wonder that- Ezekiel, who had formerly done priestly service in the 
 temple himself, should take the same view, or that the returning exiles should 
 
n. 8-10.] The Bamoth. The Priesthood. 203 
 
 have kept up the tradition (Jizra iii. i sqq.). Haggai {pansiin) and Zechariah 
 (e. g. iv. 8 sqq.; vi. 9 sqq.) likewise used their influence in the same direction. 
 Cf. also Wellhausen, Prolegomena, i. 28 sq. [27 sq.]. 
 
 II. The regulations of the Tora conferring- the exclusive 
 qualification for offering sacrifice and doing the other priestly- 
 duties on the single tribe of Levi, or a single family within 
 that tribe, were not observed by Gideon {Judges vi. 36), 
 Manoa (xiii. 19), Mica (xvii. 5), the citizens of Beth- 
 shemesh (1 Sam. vi. 14, 15), Samuel (vii. 9, 10, etc.), Saul 
 (xiii. 9), David (a Sam. vi. 17, 18; viii. 18 ; xx. 26; xxiv. [198] 
 18 sqq.), Solomon (i Kings iii. 4; iv. 5 ; viii. 62,-64), and 
 Jeroboam I. (xii. 32 sq. ; xiii. i). Almost all the accounts 
 are irreconcileable with the supposition that the precepts in 
 question nevertheless existed". From Judges xvii. 7-13 we 
 can infer no more than that the Levites were considered better 
 suited for the priestly office than others. According to 
 Ezekiel xliv. 6-9, even foreigners were admitted to the service 
 of the sanctuary before the captivity'^. 
 
 The distinction between priests and Levites — so emphatically 
 enforced by P (§ 3, n. 16) — only appears once in the whole pre- 
 exilian and exilian literature. It is in i Kings viii. 4, and the 
 passage, both on this and on other accounts, lies under suspicion 
 (cf. n. 6 and § 10, n. 25). Of Aaron^ as the ancestor of the 
 legitimate priesthood, no writer before Ezra knows anything. 
 From the end of the seventh century we find the priesthood 
 assigned to the tribe of Levi as a whole, just as it is in Beutero- 
 noyny'^'^. Ezekiel confirms this, but ordains that in the 
 future only one Levitical family, that of (J]adok, shall exer- 
 cise the priesthood, while the other Levites are to occupy 
 themselves in the lower services connected with the cultus 
 (xliv. 10-16; cf. xl. 46; xliii. 19 ; xlviii. 11)". 
 
 The notices of the organization of the priesthood in the 
 temple of Jerusalem are in the nature of the case too frag- 
 mentary and incomplete to furnish any adequate conceptions. 
 
204 The Hcxateuch. [§ n. 
 
 So much, however, is clear, that they partly conflicted with 
 the regulations of P, and were partly independent of them i'. 
 With respect to the revenues of the priests, again, we are 
 but imperfectly informed. "What can be gathered from i Savi. 
 ii. 13-16 ; 3 Kings xii. 4 sqq., differs totally from the regu- 
 lations of the Tora^^. Nor do Ezekiel's ordinances on the 
 subject agree with them any better i'. No mention is any- 
 where found of the priests' right to tithes of the fruits of 
 field and tree and of cattle, or of the priestly and Levitical 
 cities ^^. 
 
 [199] " Some of these texts require annotation, i Sam. vi. 14, 15 is cited on 
 the supposition that 15" is a gloss intended to remove the scandal of the 
 sacrifice by the men of Beth-shemesh, Had the writer himself known any- 
 thing of the Levites he would have mentioned them at once in v. 14, and not 
 after the sacrifice, — Samuel, who appears in I Satn. i. sqq. as a servant of the 
 sanctuary and constantly acts as a priest in vii. sqq., is made a descendant 
 of Kehath ben Levi by the Chronicler (i Chron. vi. 7-13, 18-23 [23-28, 33- 
 38]), but according to I Sam. i. I he was an Ephraimite. — In 2 Sam. viii. 18 
 it is said of David's sons: vn n^ina, i.e. they were made or appointed 
 priests. Thenius and Bertheau, following i CAroj?. xviii. 17, where 
 these words are replaced by "j'jDn Tb D':'iDNTn, take )n3 as designating some 
 other high office filled by David's sons. But it is highly improbable, in fact 
 inconceivablej that so common a word should be used in such a double sense. 
 The writer can only mean that David's sons acted as priest s — perhaps on 
 special occasions, such as household and f^^mily sacrifices. The Chronicler 
 could not but regard this as an incredible statement, so he altered the text. 
 This view is confirmed by 2 Sam. xx. 26 : after mentioning Cadok and Abia- 
 tliar as priests in v. 25, the writer goes on ' and also Ira, the Yairite, became 
 ipTi) David's priest.' Note both the qualifying ' David's,' and the opening Q31, 
 which excludes any other interpretation. In I Kings iv. 5'' is a similar state- 
 ment : after fadok and Abiathar (d. 4) follows another priest, Zablid ben 
 Nathan, who was also 'the king's friend' (cf. 2 Sam. xv. 37; xvi. 16), and 
 as such well suited to support him on occasion of his domestic sacrifices. I 
 have not cited i Kings iv. 2, for pan is probably a gloss (cf. the LXX.), and 
 in any case it is not a title of Azaria ben Qadok — unless we are to suppose 
 that ;n3 is used in three senses, and that too in an official list of high 
 functionaries I — Amongst all the witnesses we have now summoned against 
 the existence of the Tora there are only two to whom objection might be 
 taken, viz. Mica and Jeroboam I. In my opinion even they would have 
 been compelled to conform to the Tora, if it had really limited the 
 right of sacrificing in their day ; and of all the others we may add that they 
 would have desired to comply with it, had it existed. 
 
r. I i-i 
 
 5.J Priestly functions performed by Laymen. 205 
 
 " The eTJdence given by tte prophet, however amazing from the point of 
 view of the Tora, is quite unequivocal, and is indirectly confirmed by Jonli. ix. 
 23) 27 (of. § 6, n. 48), and by 2 Sam. vi. 10, 11, where the ark is deposited 
 in the dwelling of Obed-Edom of Gath. The Chronicler himself tells us 
 that this man and his descendants remained in the service of the sanctuary 
 (i CTiron. XV. 18, 24 sq. ; xvi. 38; xxvi. 4, 8, 15), though he endeavours to 
 remove the scandal by finding room for Obed-Edom amongst the descendants 
 of Levi, in defiance alike of his name and of the epithet ^r\yr[, which stamps 
 him as a Philistine. 
 
 '^ The state of things to which Jur'ges xvii. 7-13 ; xix. i, 18, bear witness 
 indicates a leading up to the exclusive exaltation of Levi to the priest- 
 hood, and the exclusive claim is assumed as established in Jer. xxxiii. 
 17-22 (probably later than Jeremiah); Isaiah Ixvi. 21 (read □^ib □':nD')); [200] 
 I Kings xii. 31 (where the redactor tells us how .Jeroboam ought to have 
 acted, according to the Law: he should have appointed Levites— not 'sons 
 of Aaron' — as priests). The recognition of Levi as the priestly tribe also 
 underlies Zeeh. xii. 13" and the gloss in i Sam. vi. 15' (cf. u. 11). 2 Sam. xv. 
 24 is corrupt: it appears fi-om 24'', 27-29, that Abiathar should have been 
 mentioned immediately after Qadok ; but his place is now taken by ' and all 
 the Levites with him,' while inUN 'JS'I is wholly out of place. "When we 
 consider that the Levites are represented here as ' bearing the ark,' and that 
 it is this task which the Chronicler, in conformity with P, always assigns to 
 them (i Chron. xv. 2, 13, 15 ; 2 Chron. v. 4 ; xxxv. 3), it strikes us as more 
 than probable that this verse has been purposely altered in order to bring it 
 into harmony with the demands of the Tora. On v. 27 see n. 15. 
 
 '* Cf. S m e n d ' s Oonmaentary. The attempts to explain EzekieVs utter- 
 ances in some other way do not merit refutation. Every effort to bring them 
 into harmony with P is wrecked upon the undeniable fact that Ezekiel 
 regards the exclusion of the Levites from the priestly office as something 
 new, as a degradation, as the punishment of the idolatry they practised and 
 fostered while they were yet priests of the bamfith. Commentators who are 
 pledged not to admit this really deserve our pity. See further, § 15, n. 15. 
 
 '^ In David's reign Cadok' and Abiathar stand side by side as priests 
 (2 Sam. viii. 17; xx. 25; cf. also i Kings iv. 4) — a position wholly un- 
 recognised by the Tora. The former of the two is called iBNin •^7:271 in 
 2 Sam. XV. 27 (cf. "Wellh., Text der Biicher Sam., p. 198), but this is only 
 a post-exilian gloss. Solomon's action with respect to Abiathar (i Kings ii. 
 26 sq., 35) implies that the king could dispose of the priesthood as he chose, 
 which is again incompatible with P. — The chief of the Jerusalem priests is 
 called 'jnan in^rr, MJ«nn ]n:3, in 2 Kings xii. 11 [10]; xxii. 4, 8; xxiii. 4 
 (xxv. 18 l = Jer. lii. 24]). Whether this title was employed as early as the 
 time of Joash I will not decide ; elsewhere (2 Kings xvi. 10 sqq. ; Isaiah viii. 
 2, etc.) we find 'the priest' in its place, and this is perhaps the older designa- 
 tion ; but there can be no doubt as to the fact of a primacy. ' The priest,' 
 kot' i^ox^y, bad a deputy, n:iDDn "3 (2 Kings xxiii. 4 [read )n3] ; xxv. 18). 
 Under him stood three threshold-watchers, fjcn >^nffi (2 Kings xii. 10 [9] ; 
 
2o6 The Hexateuch. [§ n. 
 
 xxii. 4 ; xxiii. 4 ; xxv. 18 [ = /er. lii. 24]), who were evidently high officials. 
 According to Jehoiada's ordinance (2 Kings xi. 18 ; xii. 13 [11] ; Jtr. xxix. 
 26) another priest commanded the temple police, which itself no doubt con- 
 sisted of priests {Jer. xx. i). In 2 Kings xix. 2 we read of 'the elders of the 
 priests;' and in Isaiah xliii. 28 of the princes of the sanctuary;' cf. also 
 
 1 Chron. xxiv. 5 ; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 14. — The regulation of the temple service 
 by the Chronicler deviates widely from this. Cf. Th. Tijdschr., iii. 469-472. 
 
 " Cf. Wellh., Prolegomena, 160 [154]. It is mentioned in i Sam. ii., as a 
 proof of the coarse greed of Eli's sons, that they sent their servants to demand 
 a portion of the cooked or even the raw flesh of the sacrifice ; the meaning 
 evidently being that they should have waited for anything the sacrificer might 
 choose to give them. Neither Dent, xviii. 3 nor Lev. vii. 34, therefore, can have 
 [201] been known in their time, or even to the author of this narrative. Charac- 
 teristic, too, and quite outside the range of the Tora is the usage to which 
 
 2 Kings xii. 4 sqq. bears evidence ; that of making money offerings to the 
 priests, out of which the latter had to pay for repairs to the temple. 
 
 " Cf. EzeJc. xliv. 28-30; xlv. 4, 5; xlviii. 10-14; and further, xlv. 24; 
 xlvi. 5, 7, II, 14; and on the relation of these regulations to Deut. xviii. I 
 sqq. and Num. xviii. 8 sqq. see Smend, JSzehiel, p. 367. 
 
 ^^ Amos iv. 4 is no exception, cf. § 10, n. 3. The prophet assumes that the 
 Israelites brought tithes to the sanctuary every three years. For the priests ? 
 He never says so ; and the presumption is that they were devoted to sacri- 
 ficial feasts. The third year is still called ' the year of tithes ' in Deitt. xxvi. 
 12, though, for that matter, D'a own ordinance is that the tithes are to be 
 ceded to the poor in the third year and eaten at the sanctuary the other two 
 (xiv. 22-29) ; ^o 't^** Amos is at variance with him too. — In i Sam. viii. 14, 
 1 7 the tithes are mentioned again. But there it is the king who adds to his 
 other extortions a demand for tithes from corn-land, vineyard, and sheep-fold, 
 to enrich his favourites. Whatever else these verses prove they certainly 
 do not show that the Israelites were accustomed to paying tithes to the ser- 
 vants of the sanctuary. — As to the priestly and Levitical cities, the texts 
 in the Chronicles which mention them stand alone. There are no paral- 
 lels even in Ezekiel, though he uses (xxxvi. 5 [?] ; xlv. 2 ; xlviii. 15, 17) the 
 characteristic word UJTID, which is applied in Num. xxxv. 1-8 ; Josh. xxi. to 
 the territory of these cities. Ezekiel's equivalent for this institution of P 
 appears in the texts cited in n. 17. On the presumable origin of P's regula- 
 tions see § 15, n. 16. 
 
 III. The celebration of feasts in honour of Yah we might 
 be taken for granted even if it were not expressly mentioned ; 
 but the notices we can collect do not lend themselves to the 
 supposition that the precepts of the Tora were known. With 
 regard to the three high festivals, if we pass over a doubtful 
 allusion in Isaiah (xxx. 29), Josiah's passover is the first 
 
n. 15-18.] Priests and Festivals before the Captivity. 207 
 
 celebration of which, we possess historical assurance {% Kings 
 xxiii. ai-23). The feast of first-fruits or weeks is never 
 mentioned at all, even by Ezekiel. The feast of ingathering 
 or tabernacles, on the other hand, is frequently mentioned, 
 and appears as the feast kot' l^oyr]v. It was probably for a 
 long time the only feast celebrated by the whole people, or 
 at least by the population of a whole district, at one 
 of the greater sanctuaries (i Kings viii. 65; xii. 3a; IIos. 
 xii. 10 [9] ; Zecli. xiv. 16-19 > T^^eh. xlv. 25 ; cf Judges 
 xxi. 19; I Sain. i. 3, 21 ; ii. 19). But although this re- 
 mained the chief festival up to the captivity, we also hear of [202] 
 ' feasts ' in the plural as early as in the eighth century (Am. 
 V. 21 ; viii. 10 ; Hos. ii. 13 [n] ) ; and in Isaiah they seem to 
 be spoken of as held at Jerusalem (xxix. i ; xxxii. 9 sqq. ; cf. 
 xxxiii. 20)^^. 
 
 As to the other holy seasons we should note the following 
 points: a. the great day of atonement (Lev. xvi. and the 
 parallel passages) is never mentioned, and was unknown 
 even to Ezekiel (xlv. 18-20)^"; I. the feast of the new 
 moon was observed from the earliest times (i Sam. xx. 5, 6 ; 
 2 Kings iv. 33 ; Am. viii. 5; Hos. ii. 13 [11] ; Isaiali i. 13), 
 but this cannot be regarded as due to the enactments of the 
 priestly tora (Num. xxviii. 11- [5), and accordingly there is 
 not a trace of the ' day of blowing the trumpets ' at new moon 
 (Lev. xxiii. 23—25; Num. xxix. i— 6)^^; c. the sabbath also 
 appears to be a very ancient institution (2 Kings iv, 23 ; Am. 
 viii. 5 ; IIos. ii. 13 [11] ; Isaiah i. 13), though it was only in 
 the Babylonian captivity and afterwards that it came to be so 
 deeply reverenced, and to be regarded as a main item in the 
 covenant between Yah we and Israel (Jer. xvii. 19-27 ; Isaiah 
 Ivi. 2; Iviii. 13; Kzeh. xx. 16; xxii. 26, etc.)^^; d. the 
 sabbatical year (Lev. xxv. 1-7) was not observed before 
 the captivity, as we see not only by the silence of the pro- 
 phets and historians as to its observance, but from positive 
 
2o8 The Hexateuch. [§ 
 
 II. 
 
 statements that it was neglected (Lev. xxvi. 34 sq., 43 ; % 
 Chron. xxxvi. ai)^^; e. the year of release {Bent. xv. 
 I -11) appears to be mentioned once by Ezekiel (xlvi. 17), but 
 the year of jubilee {Lev. xxv. 8 sqq.) never at all, not 
 even, as has been supposed, by Jeremiah, in xxxiv. 9-20, for 
 the law that underlies this passage is the ordinance concerning 
 the release of the Israelitish slaves after six years' service 
 {Beut. XV. 12-18)2*. 
 
 " Note, in illustration, that Isaiah ix. 2 [3] (I'spa nnntoa), and Sos. ix. 
 I , justify the inference that reaping and threshing were accompanied by festi- 
 vities, "which doubtless bore a religious character, but which seem, at any 
 rate as far as these passages show, to have been confined to the field and the 
 threshing-floor, or in other words — like the sheep-shearing — to have had no 
 connection with the public or general cultus ; — and further, that the designa- 
 tion of ' the feast,' i Kings viii. 65, etc., admits of no other interpretation than 
 [203] the one given in the text, for Jeroboam I. could hardly have confined himself 
 to changing the time of the feast of the seventh month, if the two others had 
 taken equal rank with it. And in Judges xxi. 19, in like manner, we read 
 'the feast of Yahwfe,' not 'a feast in honour of Yahwfe;' — and, again, note 
 that Isaiah xxix. i, which seems from xxxii. 9 sqq. to have been uttered at the 
 great autumn festival, mentions a cycle of feasts, which must have been 
 closed every year by the autumn festival and could hardly have been 
 treated as a single whole unless the feasts of which it consisted had all been 
 celebrated in one place, viz. the temple. 
 
 '" In this passage Kzekiel ordains a cleansing of the sanctuary, necessitated 
 by the involuntary trespasses of the people, on the first day of the first and 
 seventh months (on the text of V. 20, of. Smend). Lev. xvi. would have 
 rendered this completely superfluous, and must therefore have been unknown 
 to him. 
 
 ^' The passages cited speak for themselves. 2 Kings iv. 23 deserves atten- 
 tion as indicating that the day of the new moon (like the sabbath) was with- 
 drawn from ordinary work, and might, for instance, be employed in paying 
 visits — perhaps to the priest or prophet. Cf. Amos viii. 5. 
 
 ""^ According to Geiger, Vrschr. u. Uehersetzungen, p. 96 sq., and Eow- 
 landWiHiams, Hebrew Prophets, ii. 155 eq., Jer. xvii. 19-27 is an interpo- 
 lation dating from after the captivity (cf. Neh. xiii. 15-22). Cf. my Profeten, 
 ii. 74-76 [Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, p. 339 sq.]. So much at least is 
 certain, that this prophecy is without parallel either in Jeremiah himself or 
 any of his contemporaries, and that if it is really from his hand we must suppose 
 that he was enunciating something new in insisting on the high importance 
 of rest on the seventh day as such. 
 
 ^ On the mutual relation oi Ex, xxiii. 11, 12 and Lev. xxv. 1-7, see Hup- 
 
n. 1 9-24. j Festivals in the pre-exilian times. 209 
 
 feld, £>e primit. fest. apud Sehr. rat., ii. lo sq. Letting all the fields lie 
 fallow in the seventh year is such an important circumstance in the life of a 
 people that it must have been mentioned in the prophetic and historical 
 books had it really been observed, and accordingly in the post- 
 exilian period, when the Tora was actually carried out, we do find it referred 
 to more than once (i Mace. vi. 49, 53, and in Josephus). The arr/umentiim e 
 sileiitio has great force in this instance. But Lev. xxvi. 34 sq., 43, ia still more 
 unequivocal. Even D (Deut. xv. i-ii) had already substituted another ordl- 
 na.nce for Ej:. xxiii. 11 sq. Cf. Wellh., Prolegomena, i. 123 sqq. [114 sqq.]. 
 
 ^ Here Ezekiel ordains that the territories granted by the prince to his 
 servants shall remain in their possession till ' the year of release ' (Tmn n:iE), 
 and shall then revert to him. This is usually taken to refer to the year of 
 jubilee, to which the word nm is no doubt applied in Lev. xxv. 10. The 
 argument is weak, however, and in the absence of any proof that Ezekiel was 
 acquainted with Lev. xxv. 8 sqq., no weight can be attached to it. Nor is it 
 likely, in the abstract, that a temporary grant would hold good for — in 
 some cases— over forty years. But there is more. Jeremiah — with whose 
 writings Ezekiel was unquestionably familiar — uses the word nm of the 
 liberation of slaves after six years' service (xxxiv. 8, 15, 17). Accordingly 
 Ezekiel's "imn njilj wouldprobably be the seventh ye ar, which D (-Dc«/. 
 XV. I sqq.), following Ec. xxiii. 11 sq., calls man iijn "ic. The regulation in ifeci:. [204] 
 xlvi. 1 7 is in perfect keeping with the character of this seventh year, and at the 
 same time it may be regarded as the germ which the (later) law of the year of 
 jubilee, Lev. xxv. 8 sqq., brought to fiill development. — As to tTer. xxxiv. 8— 
 22 itself, it points [v. 14) unmistakably to Deut, xv. 12. It is true that this 
 tora, like Ex. xxi. i sqq., lays it down that every Israelitish slave is to be 
 released after six years' service. But Jeremiah himself says (v. 15, 16), that 
 this precept of the Law had long been neglected. The manumission, there- 
 fore, which would otherwise have been an individual matter, had to be carried 
 out by all the nobles at once, and after a solemn pledge. Cf. Graf, Jeremia, 
 p. 430 sqq. 
 
 IV. The sacred actions recorded deviate in more re- 
 spects than one from the precepts in P. This is at once 
 exemplified by the sacrifices, which, as might have been 
 expected, are frequently mentioned in the prophetic and 
 historical books. Deviations may be noted in the sacrificial 
 rites, but still more in the estimate of the ritual and of the 
 sundry kinds of sacrifice. Whereas P regulates the sacrificial 
 procedure down to the minutest details, and ranks the burnt- 
 oflFering, and still more the trespass-offering, above the thank- 
 offering, it is this latter that appears most prominently in the 
 historical notices ; and it is obvious that no importance is 
 
 p 
 
2IO The Hexafeuch. [i'l- 
 
 attached in any ease to the method in which the sacrifice 
 is made^^. The trespass-offering is not unknown, but, 
 at any rate before the captivity, there is no trace of 
 the distinction drawn in Lev. iv. sqq. between the trespass and 
 the guilt-offering ^8. Again, we find traces and examples 
 in the historians and prophets of human sacrifices made to 
 Yahwe {Judges xi. 30-40 ; i Sam. xv. 32 sq. ; 3 8am. xxi. 1-14 ; 
 Mic. vi. 7*'; TSzeli, xx. 25 sq.), whereas the only human sacri- 
 fices known to the Tora are those in honour of strange gods 
 {petit, xii. 31 ; xviii. 10; Lev. xviii. 21 ; xx. 2-5)^''. 
 
 The chief difference between the Nazirite's vow in Judges 
 xiii.; and i Sam. i. (cf. Amos ii. 11 sq.), and that of the Tora 
 {Num. vi. 1-21), is that the latter is temporary and the former 
 permanent. The permanent form of the vow is unquestionably 
 the earlier 2^. The application of the cherem to the Ama- 
 lekites (i Sam. xv.) and to the tribe of Benjamin {Judges xx.) 
 leaves it an open question whether the custom was legally 
 [205] regulated or not ^'- According to Am. viii. 10 ; Isaiah 
 iii. 24 ; xxii. 12 ; Mic. i. 16 ; Jer. xvi. 6 ; xli. 5; the Israelites 
 employed forms of mourning which the Tora condemns 
 {Deut. xiv. I; Lev. xix. 27 sq.) ^''. Circumcision appears 
 to have been regularly practised, but is never represented 
 — as it is in Gen. xvii. — as the distinguishing mark of the 
 Israelite ^^. Finally, the distinction between things clean 
 and unclean exists, but betrays no clear traces of the influence 
 either of the deuteronori''ic or of the priestly Tora ^^. 
 
 ^^ Cf. especially Wellh., Prolegomena, 54-85 [52-82]. I must be content 
 with touching upon the main points. Thank-offerings of slaughtered beasts, ac- 
 companied by sacrificial feasts, occur in i Sam. i. 3 sqq. ; xx. 2952 Sam. tI. 18 ; 
 XV. 7 sqq., 12; I A'lHg's viii. 62 sqq.; Isaiahi. II ; xix. 21, etc. They are also 
 the most fi-equent class in D {Deut. xii. 7 and the parallel passages), though 
 burnt-offerings are also mentioned alike by D and by our other witnesses. Of 
 this latter kind we find a very remarkable description in Judges vi. 19-21. We 
 see from i Sam. xiv. 34 ; i Kings xix. 31, what short work was sometimes 
 made of sacrificial formalities, and 2 Kings v. 1 7 tells in the same direction, 
 inasmuch as no kind of prescriptions are given to the foreigner Naaman as to 
 
n. 25-30.] Sacred Actions in pre-exilian times. 211 
 
 the way ia which he is to make his sacrifices; offering them in honour of 
 Yahwfe is the chief and indeed the only point. 
 
 ^'^ Cf. Sos. iv. 8. But this passage does not mean that the priests ate the 
 trespass-offerings of the people — which, according to the Tora, they had a right 
 to do — but (cf. yiii. ii) that they traded on the zeal for the cultus dis- 
 played by the people, instead of guiding them, as they should have done, 
 to the true ethical knowledge of God (iv. i sqq.). Hosea's words, therefore, 
 give but a very faint, if any, indication of the existence of sacrifices of atonement. 
 ■ — In 2 Kings xii. 17 [16], on the other hand, we even iind ciliN and nxtDn side 
 by side, but they are preceded by F1D3, and must therefore mean the money 
 fines which the Israelite had to pay in the case of certain trespasses, and 
 which, as we learn from this passage, fell to the priests. There ia a certain 
 connection between this usage and the regulation of trespass and guilt-offerings 
 in Lev. iv. sqq., but that the fonner sprang from the latter by no means appears. 
 In Ezekiel we find the two-fold offerings of atonement, as we should have 
 expected, xl. 39; xlii. 13; xliii. 19; xliv. 29 ; xlvi. 20; they are amongst the 
 many verbal and substantial coincidences between him and P. 
 
 " Perhaps I Sam. xv. 32 sq. ought not to be included in the list, since 
 Agag fell a victim to the cherem which had been launched upon all Amalek 
 {v. 3) ; but it deserves note that Samuel hews hnn in pieces ' before the face 
 ofYahwfe.' In JiKc. vi. 7' 'S^O and '\DD] iiNCn are parallel: "n therefore 
 is not a sin-offering, but the sin itself, which the questioner supposes may be 
 made good or expiated by the sacrifice of one of his children. This seems to [206] 
 imply that human sacrifices were not altogether unknown in the worship of 
 Yahwfe, and were not regarded as wholly irreconcileable vrith it. The law- 
 givers, however, do not attack this eiTor (though E, in Gen. xxii. 1-19, does 
 BO, at least indu-ectly). 
 
 ^ Many scholars have seen in the life-long Nazirite's vow an extension or 
 exaggeration of the tora in Num. vi. But Amos ii. 11 sq. and the example of 
 the Eechabites (Jer. xxxv.) do not favour this idea, and moreover it is clear 
 as a matter of history that the specific Judaism was disposed to restrain rather 
 than to stimulate the Nazirite's vow. It is but natm-al to explain the differ- 
 ence between Nam. vi. and the pre-exilian practice as produced by the same 
 tendency. 
 
 ^' The trustworthiness of Judges xx. is doubtful (§ 10, n. 29) ; and i Sam. 
 XV. ia a late narrative. But, in any case, the two chapters can hardly be 
 cited as indicating that the tora of Deut. xx. 16-18 (cf. vii. i sqq.; xiii. 13-19 
 [12-18]), was recognised as binding; for these ordinances regulate the appli- 
 cation of the cheremto the Canaanites and to Israelitish idolaters, and there- 
 fore do not run parallel with Judges xx. and i Sam. xv. ; and moreover the 
 laws assume a practical acquaintance with the cherem itself, which, in point 
 of fact, was not introduced by the tora but adopted and regulated by it. 
 
 ^° D, in Deiii. xiv. i, uses exactly the same words (nmp and njnn) that the 
 prophets employ to describe the ordinary mourning ouatoms. Could Amos 
 have made Yahwfe threaten to 'bring baldness upon every head,' if Yahwfe's 
 •own tora, with an appeal to Israel's consecration to himself, had forbidden 
 
 P 2, 
 
2 1 2 The Hexateuch. [ § "• 
 
 ' the making of a bald place between the eyes for the dead' ? It is remark- 
 able, but not inexplicable, that even Jeremiah does not condemn the popular 
 usage; he is not D himself (§ lo, n. 14), and there was no reason why he 
 should submit to the latter's authority in a matter weU-nigh indifferent. 
 
 »' The nncircumcised are the Philistines (2 Sam. i. 20; Judges xiv. 3; 
 XT. 18 ; I Sam. xiv. 6; xvii. 26, 36 ; xxxi. 4; of. xviii. 25 ; 2 Sam. iii. 14), not 
 the Canaanites or the surrounding tribes in general. It is not till near the 
 captivity {Jer. ix. 24 sq. [25 sq.]), or in its actual course {EzeJc. xliv. 7, 9), 
 that the foreskin becomes the sign of distinction between the Israelite on the 
 one hand, and his neighbours or the stranger in general on the other ; and this 
 is the state of things reflected in the conception of the circumcision found in 
 Gen. xvii. 
 
 ^^ Cf. Amos vii. 17 ; Sos. ix. 3 ; Isaiah vi. 5. But the agreement between 
 Hos. ix. 4 and Deut. xxvi. 14 is remarkable. Both the prophet and the law- 
 giver here adopt the current popular conception. 
 
 V. There are comparatively few facts that testify for or 
 against the existence of the Mosaic ordinances concerning the 
 political and civic life. The proceeding described in 
 Buik iv. 1-12 lies outside the laws of Zev. xxv. 2,^ ; Deut. xxv. 
 5-10^^. The account of Saul's election as king in i Sam. viii.; 
 [207] X. 17-27, is subject to grave suspicion ; but if it be accepted 
 as history it shows that Samuel was unacquainted with the 
 law of the monarchy in Deut. xvii. 14—20^''- In i Sam. xxx. 
 21-25 David regulates the partition of the spoil in a way 
 that cannot be harmonised with JVum. xxxi ^'. His answer to 
 Nathan's parable, 2 Sam. xii. 5, 6, can hardly be looked upon 
 as an application of Hx. xxi. 37 [xxii. i] — a precept from 
 which Prov. vi. 31 also deviates ^'^. In the conversation 
 between David and the woman of Teko'a (2 Sam. xiv. 4-17) 
 it is obvious that no legal regulations of blood-avenging (cf. 
 Deut. xix. 1-13 ; Num. xxxv. 9-34) are present to the mind 
 of either interlocutor ^^. The judicial murder of Naboth 
 (i Kinffs xxi.) cannot be regarded as perpetrated in outward 
 conformity with the Tora known to us ^^ In 2 KinffS xiv. 6 
 (2 C/iron. xxv. 4) it is not Amaziah who is speaking, but the 
 historian, — who was, as we know, perfectly well acquainted 
 with Deuteronomy (xxi v. 16). Other points of contact with 
 
n. 30-39-J The Tor a and the Civic life. 213 
 
 the laws regulating the civil life have sometimes been dis- 
 covered in the Old Testament, but they are not really 
 there ^^. 
 
 '' See above, § lo, n. 23. Deul. xrv. 5-10 only lays the brothers of 
 the deceased under obligation to man-y his widow, and has therefore no appli- 
 cation to the case in point. Accordingly the passage is never appealed to in the 
 transactions between the go'^1 and Boaz. The symbolical act mentioned in 
 'Riiih iv. 7 has no connection with Devi. xxv. 9, 10, and has nothing beyond 
 the fundamental idea in common with Jjev. xxv. 25. 
 
 ^' Hengstenberg' a attempted demonstration (op. oit., iii. 246-261 [ii, 
 201-213]), 'that the transaction presupposes the existence of the Pentateuch in 
 general and especially of the law of the monarchy,' no longer needs refutation. 
 
 ^^ In Num. xxxi. — which forms, as a whole, a very sharp contrast to the 
 accounts of David's wars — we have specially to consider v. 27-30, The ms 
 to whom these verses assign half the booty is not once thought of by David. 
 Neither does he give the priests any share. 
 
 ^° The four-fold restitution of -Er. xxi. 37 [xxii. i] — which Prov. vi. 31 
 makes seven-fold — occurs again in 2 Sam. xii. 5 sq., but had David been 
 thinking of the Tora, he would not have added, in violation of its precepts, a 
 sentence of death as well. 
 
 ^' Both laws agree in requiring that wilful murder shall be punished by 
 death {Deut. xix. 11-13; Num. xxxv. 16-21), and this is just what David's 
 sentence remits (2 Savi. xiv. 8-1 1). 
 
 ^ K e i 1 (on the passage) thinks that Naboth refused to sell his heritage in 
 obedience to Lev. xxv. 23-28; Num. xxxvi. 7sqq. — as though these laws 
 forbade such a sale, instead of presupposing it in the very fact of restricting 
 its validity to the year of jubilee. — On i Kings xxi. 9, 10, he cites not only [208] 
 Deut. xvii. 6 sq. ; xix. 15 ; Num. xxxv. 30 (which are more or less to the pur- 
 pose, as they require the testimony of at least two witnesses, though this 
 requirement seems to be determined by the nature of the case), but 
 also Ex. xxii. 27 and Deut. xiii. 11 [10]; xvii. 5, 'in which idolatry, 
 as the practical denial of God, is punished by stoning.' But Naboth 
 is not accused of denying Y a h w fe , and so of idolatry, but of a political 
 offence — and that is why his inheritance falls to the king without 
 more ado, though no such provision comes within the scope of the Tora. 
 
 ^' Marti does not merit refutation, when he asserts (op. cit., p. 333 sq.) 
 that Jer. xxii. 17 ; xxvi. 15 ; EzeJc. xvi. 38 ; xxxiii. 6, 8 sq. ; iii. 18, 20, must 
 necessarily rest upon Gen. ix. 5, 6, or (p. 352) that Jer. xliv. 19 presup- 
 poses the law as to the validity of a married woman's vow. Num. xxx. 4 sqq. ; 
 or {Hid.) that Num. xxxv. 33 underlies Mic. iv. 11 and Ezelc. xxxvi. 17. For 
 whose benefit such parallels are cited it is not easy to imagine. 
 
214 -^'^^ Hexateiuh. [§ 
 
 12. 
 
 § 13. The origin and antiquity of the constituent parts of 
 the Hexateiich. A. The reformations of Josiah and Ezra 
 as startinrj-points for determining the chronology of tie 
 legislation, arid of the evolution of the HexateucJi. 
 
 Havina: now ascertained that the Mosaic law was not in 
 force in Israel from the first, and further that it consists of 
 heterogeneous elements, it is natural that we should next 
 inquire when and how the legislation as a whole, or any 
 portion of it, was actually drawn up and enforced. A priori 
 it seems probable that events of such profound significance 
 must have left some traces behind them in the historical 
 records of the people, and as a matter of fact we do not look 
 for them in vain. In the accounts of the period of the Judges 
 and the Kings down to Josiah (639-608 B.C.) there is not 
 a single word about the introduction of the Law or its accept- 
 ance by the people or its leaders. The assertion that the 
 legislation of Exodus-Nnmbers, or even the whole Tetrateneh, 
 was published under Ahaz^ is not even indirectly supported 
 by the narratives concerning him 1. The oldest accounts of 
 Hezekiah's reformation (3 Kings xviii. 4) say nothing 
 whatever of its being founded on a written law^. On the 
 other hand, we are told in 3 Kings xxii., xxiii. that Josiah's 
 [209] reformation in the eighteenth year of his reign (631 B.C.) 
 was based upon the book of law found in the temple by 
 Hilkiah. The names applied to it, and all the particulars 
 given as to its contents, lead us to identify it with the laws 
 and exhortations that make up the kernel of the book of 
 Deuteronomy (v.-xxvi., xxviii)^. This does not in itself 
 prove that the book which was now made known and promul- 
 gated was also composed about the same time. But the evi- 
 dence derived from the literature of Israel, both before and after 
 Josiah's reformation, makes it extremely probable that this 
 was the casC*, and the probability is raised almost to certainty 
 
n. 1-3.] Promulgation of Mosaic Laws. 215 
 
 by a minute consideration of the contents of the deuteronomic 
 legislation ^. And if this be so, then there is no room to doubt 
 that the book was written with a view to the use that Hilkiah 
 made of it. It was not by accident, but in accordance with 
 the writer's deliberate purpose, that it became the foundation 
 and the norm of Josiah's reformation ^. 
 
 * The supposition is made by Graetz, Gesch. der Juden, II. i., p. 149 sqq., 
 l6osqq. He believes that tbe proniiilgation of Geiiesh-Nuvibers under Abaz 
 had been preceded by the public reading of special narratives and laws, e. g. 
 of &. xxxiii. 12-17 on occasion of the coronation of Joash ; of Sx. zxv. sqq. 
 when the temple was restored under the same king ; of Num. xvi.-sviii. 
 under Uzziah (p. 56, 61, 102 sq., 470 sq.). Graetz distinguishes between this 
 public reading and the original composition, whether of the special narratives 
 and laws or of the whole Tetrateuch. This latter he places far earlier, though 
 assigning no external influence to it, inasmuch as he believes the priests to have 
 kept the written Tora to themselves at first while giving their decisions by 
 word of mouth (p. 56 and elsewhere). See the refutation of this highly 
 arbitrary and unsatisfactory theory in Th. Tijdschr., jl. 549-576. I must con- 
 tent myself here with remarking that 2 Kings svi., while mentioning the 
 interest taken by Ahaz in the temple service, does not say a word of such an 
 important fact as the promulgation of the Tetrateuch would have been ; nor 
 is any trace of it to be found in 2 Chron. xxviii. The same may be said of 
 the records of Joash and Uzziah (2 Kings xi. ; xii. ; xv. 1-7 ; 2 Chron. xxiii. ; 
 xxiv. ; xxvi.). Indeed all that Graetz attempts to show is that the reading 
 out alike of these special passages and of the whole Tetrateuch was specially 
 needful and suitable at the particular moments he indicates — as though this 
 alone proved anything, or could have any significance except to those who are 
 convinced already that the Tetrateuch was in existence ! 
 
 ' Cf. § II, n. 9. It is very remarkable that the author of Kings, who ia 
 himself acquainted with the deuteronomic code, and ascribes it to Moses, 
 declares (2 Kings xviii. 6) that Hezekiah observed the commaudmenta of 
 Yahwfe, which he had commanded Moses, but yet does not venture to repre- [310] 
 sent his reformation as the carrying out of these commandments. Cf. 2 Kings 
 xviii. 22, where the suppression of the bamoth is represented as an arbitrary 
 measure of Hezekiah'a own, and the writer himself does not protest against 
 such a view of it. Even in 2 Chron. xxix.-xxxii., though it is completely 
 dominated in other respects by the Chronicler's view of the Law (§ 11, n. 4), 
 this peculiarity of the older narrative is not quite obliterated. 
 
 ' So (amongst others) De Wette {Beitr. zur Einl., i. 168 sqq.), Bleek, 
 Ewald, Kiehm, Col enso,Eeuss, Graf, etc., andalsoWellhausen 
 (xxii. 458 sq. ; Prolegomena, 426 sqi^. [402 sqq.]) and Valeton(S<({fZte«,vii.2io 
 sqq.), allowing for their special views on the limits of the original Deuteronomy 
 (5 7> n. 5^10). Hilkiah'a book is called ' the book of law ' (2 Kings xxii. 8 ; 
 
2i6 The Hexateuch. [§*2.- 
 
 cf. II and xxiii. 24, 25), or 'the book of the covenant' (xxiii. 2, 3, 31). In 
 the books of Kings the former designation can hardly mean anything but the 
 deuteronomic code, the only one with which the author is acquainted (§ 10, 
 n. 24, 25) ; the second is applicable to more than one collection (cf. Tlx. xxiv. 7), 
 but is, at any rate, perfectly appropriate to Deuteronomy (xxviii. 69 [xxix. i] ; 
 cf. v. 3). The length of the book was such as to allow of its being read aloud 
 to the king by Shaphan (2 Kings xxii. 10), and by the king in his turn to 
 the people, in the temple (xxiii. 2) ; and this prevents our thinking of the 
 whole Pentateuch, but falls in well enough with the supposition that the 
 kernel of Deuteronomy, or a still smaller collection, is intended. Hilkiah's 
 book contained precepts about the pascal feast (2 Kingn xxiii. 21 ; cf. Deut. xvi. 
 1 sqq.), and terrible denunciations against those who should transgress its ordi- 
 nances (2 Kings xxii. 1 3 sqq. ; cf., inter alia, Deut. xi. 1 3 sqq. ; xxviii.) Finally, 
 it occasions a reformation of the cultus, aiming at the complete extirpation of 
 idolatry and the suppression of the bamSth, i. e. the centralisation of the 
 sacrifices and festivals at the temple of Jerusalem ; and such passages B,a Deut. 
 vii. ; xiii. 1-6 [xii. 32-xiii. 5], 7-12 [6-11], 13-18 [12-17], etc.; xii.passim; 
 xiv. 23-25; XV. 20; xvi. 2, 6, 7, II, 15, 16; xvii. 8, 10; xviii. 6; xxvi. 2, 
 show how completely this tendency is embodied in the deuteronomic tora 
 also. 
 
 The objections urged against these proofs of the identity of Hilkiah's book 
 of law with the deuteronomic tora are very weak. Seinecke {GescTiiclite d. V. 
 Israel, i. 386 sq.) appeals to Jeremiah's silence concerning the covenant to 
 which Josiah pledged his people {2 Kings xxiii. i sqq.), but does not notice Jer. 
 xi. I sqq., which confirms both the main contents of 2 Kings xxii. sq., and the 
 view we have taken as to Hilkiah's book. He is further of the opinion that 
 the threat of punishment which made so deep an impression on Josiah (2 Kings 
 xxii. II sqq.) must have been unconditional, and therefore cannot he 
 identified with that in Deuteronomy, which is still dependent on the attitude 
 of the people towards the law, and is balanced by promises conditional on 
 submission to its precepts. But this assimies, in the first place, that the 
 ipsissima rerha of Josiah and Huldah are preserved in 2 Kings xxii. 11 sqq., 
 though the author wrote when the actual catastrophe had shown that the 
 punishment was inevitable ; and, in the second place, it overlooks the circum- 
 stance that even in this long subsequent redaction of Josiah's and Huldah's 
 [ i] words, emphatic stress is laid on the fact that the precepts of the book have 
 already been transgi'essed by the fathers and up to the present moment {v. 13, 
 16 sq.), so that the (originally conditional) penalty has already been incurred 
 and can no longer be averted. — V a t k e ' s objections {Bihl. Theol., i. 504 sqq., 
 511, n. 5) are better supported. He maintains that Hilkiah's book of 
 law coincides substantially with the older laws in Ex. xx.-xxiv., together 
 Tvith certain other ordinances now incorporated in Deuteronomy, and certain 
 denunciations which were appended to them, while Deuteronomy itself he re- 
 gards as the outcome, rather than the basis of Josiah's reformation, i.e. as the 
 codification of the measures taken. But Vatke fails to observe that Josiah's 
 violent measures against idolatry and the bam&th immediately follow upon 
 
n. 3-g.] HilkiaK s Law-book and Deuterotioiny. 217 
 
 the solemn acceptance of Hilldah's book of law (xxiii. i sqq.), and would 
 unquestionably have been resisted had they not been justified by it. A per- 
 fectly valid appeal against the centralisation of the cultus might have been 
 made to i?.f. xx. 24, etc. And moreover, Deut. xii. 8 was written when the 
 bam6th were stiU in existence. — K 1 e i n e r t objects not so much to the 
 identification of Hilkiah's book of law with Deuteronomy (see op. cit., p. 79-83), 
 as to fixing the date of its composition so late as in Josiah's reign. We shall, 
 therefore, reserve his remarks for n. 5. 
 
 * Cf. § 10, n. 16, 13, 35. To reconcile the belief that Deuteronomy existed 
 in the eighth century B.C., or still earlier, with the absence of all reference to 
 it in the older prophets, it has been supposed that it was kept concealed from 
 the people in prophetic or priestly circles. But this contradicts the spirit of 
 Deuteronomy itself, which is essentially addressed to the people, and is an 
 appeal to their zeal for Yahwfe. Neither the legislation proper (xii. sqq.), nor 
 the exhortations (v. sqq.), can have been written as a mere literary essay ; 
 both alike are meant in dire earnest, and would, therefore, be brought to the 
 knowledge of the people on the very first opportunity. 
 
 ° The composition of Deuteronomy in the seventh century B.C. (whether 
 nnder Manasseh or under Josiah will be discussed in n. 6) is supported, (i) 
 by a number of the special exhortations and precepts, and (2) by its relation 
 to the religious development of Israel as a whole. 
 
 (i) In the many passages referring to the one sanctuary of Yahwfe {Dent. 
 xii. 5, II, 14, 18, 21, 26; xiv. 23-25; XV. 20; xvi. 2, 6 sq,, 11, 15 sq. ; 
 xvii. 8, 10; xviii. 6; xxvi. 2; cf. xxxi. ix) Deuteronomy presupposes the 
 existence of the temple of Jerusalem. It is true that the usual formula runs, 
 ' the place which Yahwfe shall choose," but this is only because the laws 
 are put into the mouth of Moses. The real author had an actual sanctuary 
 in his mind, as we see from the texts themselves, and especially from xii. 5 
 (out of all your tribes), 14 (in one of your tribes) ; and also from xii. 5,21; 
 xiv. 24 ; xxvi. 2, which imply a fixed abode of Yahwfe rather than a moveable 
 tent. 
 
 The law of the monarchy (Deut. xvii. 14-30) was wi-itten after Solomon's time 
 and with the express purpose of averting errors such as his. This is especially 
 obvious in v. 17, alike from the use of C'lljj by itself (unintelligible, in 
 connection with what follows, unless we mentally supply nV"iD3 from Solo- 
 mon's history), and from 1327 tic n^t (evidently written by some one 
 acquainted with the consequences of Solomon's polygamy). How much more 
 probable this is than that Solomon should not only have transgressed the law, [2 1 2] 
 but gone on to justify its apprehensions by his own example ! 
 
 The ordinance of Deut. xvii. 8-13 presupposes the existence of a high court 
 of appeal at Jerusalem under a two-fold presidency, spiritual and civil. Such 
 a court was surely not the creation of the early years of the monarchy. The 
 Chi'onicler says that it was instituted by Jehoshaphat (2 Ghron. xix. 8-1 1), 
 and his statement may deserve credit ; but if the long period that lies between 
 his own date and + 900 B.C. makes us question his authority, we shall suppose 
 that he antedates the institution rather than the reverse. This would throw 
 
2i8 The Hexatetuk. [§12. 
 
 the deuteronomio ordinance, which implies that this court of appeal had been 
 long established, so much the later. 
 
 The inference drawn from the absence of all mention of Deuteronomy in 
 2 Kings x-riii. 4 (n. 3), is strengthened by the warning in Bevieronomy 
 against worshipping ' the host of heaven' (xvii. 3 ; of. iv. 9). The prophets of 
 the eio-hth centm'y never mention this form of idolatry, but Jeremiah (viii. 2 ; 
 xix. 13 ; cf sxxiii. 22) and Zephaniah (i. 5) do. The author of Kings tells us 
 that it was introduced by Manasseh and abolished by Josiah (2 Kings xxi. 3, 
 5 ; xxiii. 4, 5). This argument would be conclusive as to the date of the 
 deuteronomio law were it not that the same author attributes this form of 
 idolatry to the ten tribes also (3 Kings xvii. 16). But this is in a general 
 survey of a long- vanished past which is characterised by anything but pre- 
 cision ; nor is it supported by the evidence of Amos and Hosea, for example, 
 or by any statements of the author himself concei'ning the introduction or 
 patronage of this special idolatry by the kings of Ephraim. We can therefore 
 attach no value to this statement, and cannot allow it to invalidate the con- 
 clusions drawn from his precise and positive data as to Manasseh and Josiah. 
 For the opposite view, see Kleinert (op. oit., p. 105-112). 
 
 (2) Cf. Duhm, Die Theol. der Propheten, p. 194-202. Deuteronomy rests, 
 on the one hand, on Hosea, who laid such stress on the exclusive character 
 of Israel's relation to Yahwfe, and in connection therewith fostered the dis- 
 positions to which D so fervently appeals ; and on the other hand, on Isaiah's 
 preaching of the inviolability of Jerusalem as the seat of Yahwfe and on its rati- 
 fication by the events, which alone could justify the intrinsically monstrous 
 and unnatural demand that the worship of Yahwfe should be confined to the 
 one single temple. — And again, Deuteronomy presupposes Hezekiah's partial 
 reformation (2 Kings xviii. 4; cf. n. 3), for the incomplete and partially 
 defeated practice usually precedes the theory, and not vice versd ; and it also 
 presupposes the reaction under Manasseh (3 Kings xxi.), which would serve 
 to draw those who sympathised with Isaiah more closely together, and to 
 direct their thoughts towards such changes in the religious condition of the 
 country as would best answer to the purpose of Hezekiah and Isaiah, and make 
 such apostasy as had taken place under Manasseh impossible. Deuteronomy 
 is the programme of a drastic reformation of this kind which would guarantee 
 its own permanence. 
 
 As against the arguments ranged under (i) and (2)Kleinert's objections 
 to the composition of Deuteronomy under Manasseh or Josiah are of very 
 little weight. They are drawn, tt. from the command to exterminate the 
 [213] Canaanites (Dent. vii. ; xx. 16 sqq., etc.), as unnecessary and inappro- 
 priate in Josiah's days ; &. from the military laws (Dent. xx. I-15 ; xxi. 
 10-14; and also xxv. 17-19), as presupposing a very different and much 
 earlier condition of things than obtained under Josiah ; c. from the precepts 
 concerning the one sanctuary (cited under (i) above) and the prohibition 
 contained in Deut. xvi. 3i sq., as directed against Canaanite abuses, and not 
 against the errors of the seventh century B.C., when the high places of 
 y a h w fe had long been abolished for ever (2 Kings xviii. 4) and the mingling 
 
n. 5, 6.] Deuteronomy composed tender Josiah. 219 
 
 of the worship of Yahwfe witli heathen rites and symhols was a thing of 
 the past ; d. from the numerous references to Egypt {Veut. xxiii. 8 sq. 
 [7 sq.] ; v. 15; vi. 21, etc.; and also xvii. 16), as equally strange and 
 purposeless under Josiah; e. from Deut. xii. 8, as compelling us to place 
 Deuteronomy nearer to the time of Moses. — Amongst these objections there is 
 one — that under c. — which is wholly false ; for we know nothing of a per- 
 manent suppression of the bam6th by Hezekiah, but on the contrary read 
 (2 Kings xxi. 3") that Manasseh rebuilt the high places that his 
 father had destroyed; we also learn (xxiii. 8,9) that Y a h w fe was 
 worshipped at the bam6th which Josiah abolished ; and thus the attempt 
 to show that Deut. xvi. 21 sq. would have been superfluous in his time breaks 
 down completely. The other objections fall to the ground when we take 
 into consideration the form in which D thought fit to present his exhortations, 
 and his obvious dependence, which Kleinert himself admits, upon 
 earlier collections of laws. In xii. sqq., as well as in v.— xi. (§ 7, n. 7), D 
 selects the moment immediately before the conquest of Canaan, and preaches 
 the ideal that stood before his own mind through the lips of Moses, In spite 
 of this the period in which he actually lived may well be expected to shine 
 through here and there, and so it does (see under (i) and (2) above). But 
 Kleinert seems to demand that he should always forget his part. 
 Why shoiHd he not give utterance to his horror of idolatry, and his ideal of a 
 people consecrated to Yahwb, under the form of a command to exterminate 
 the Canaanites ? How completely subservient this command is to the expres- 
 sion of an idea, and how little it is intended for practice, we learn especially 
 from vii., where ». 20 sqq. (borrowed from Ef, xxiii. 28-30) conflicts with the 
 precepts and representations of D himself (x. 22). The reproduction of older 
 laws or conceptions is likewise ignored by Kleinert. JJeut. xxv. 17-19 was 
 doubtless impossible to carry out in Josiah's time, but does it follow that it 
 was out of place in a Mosaic book of law drawn up in his reign with the help 
 of earlier documents ? To produce such a work as D at all it was necessary 
 to keep the past and its institutions as steadily in view as the demands of 
 the present. If we cannot believe in the possibility of such a compromise we 
 must take up the position (from which Kleinert shrinks) that what we have 
 called the dress of the book is the simple expression of the historic truth. 
 On the other hand, if once we have relinquished its authenticity, we must 
 thenceforth take due account of all that a literary fiction necessarily in- 
 volves. 
 
 ' The opinion that D wrote under Manasseh — upheld by E w a 1 d, B 1 e e k, 
 Kiehm (in 1854; though he subsequently declared in favour of Hezekiah's 
 reign), Vale ton, and others — seems at first to have an advantage in preserving 
 the complete good faith of Hilkiah, Shaphan, and Huldah, who take the 
 leading parts in 2 Kings xxii. A book of law that was some decades old in [214] 
 621 B.C., however it happened that it strayed into the temple and was dis- 
 covered there, may have been regarded as really Mosaic, and may have been 
 presented as such to Josiah. But this is open to the great, and in my opinion 
 fatal, objection that it makes the actual refoi-mation the work of those who 
 
2 20 The Hexateuck. [§12, 
 
 had not planned it but were blind tools in the service of the unknown pro- 
 jector. Analogy is against the supposition. And the r6le assigned to D 
 himself is almost equally improbable ; for he is made to commit his aspira- 
 tions to writing, urge their realisation with intensest fervour — and leave the 
 rest to chance. How much more probable that he and other kindred spirits 
 planned the means which should lead to the end they had in view ! Ex- 
 perience had shown, under Hezekiah and Manasseh alike, that much, if not 
 all, depended on the disposition of the king; and the problem therefore 
 was how to secure Josiah for the plans of the reformers. Its solution is 
 recorded in 2 Kings xxii. If this be so, then D himself must have been 
 near to Josiah and must have worked in his reign. Of. Nieuw en Our], viii, 
 207-221. 
 
 Valeton's treatment of the question upon which we are engaged 
 deserves special notice. He does not deny that the book of law found by 
 Hilkiah and enforced by Josiah is the same as the original Deuteronomy, but 
 he will not allow that it is rightly regarded as the programme of a so-called 
 Mosaic party, or that it was drawn up as the standard of a reformation such 
 as Josiah accomplished. Deuteronomy, he contends, is simply what it is 
 called in 2 Kings xxii. sq., minn "IDD, i. e. the codified expression of Yahwfe's 
 demands, which the writer believed had been in force from the first, and 
 might therefore be properly laid upon the lips of Moses. In this case there 
 would be nothing strange in the supposition that it had been written for 
 some considerable time before it excited attention, was recognised by Josiah 
 as the expression of Yahwis's will, and accordingly accepted and carried out 
 {Studien, vii. 212 sqq.). — Vale ton's characterisation oi Deuteronomy \% 
 incomplete rather than unjust (of. § 7, n. 2). It overlooks alike the great 
 significance of the command to worship Yahwfe alone, in the one only sanc- 
 tuary, and the sharp contrast between this command and the actual condition 
 of affairs, which was so completely at variance with it that its intro- 
 duction amounted to a revolution. We see as clearly as possible from 
 2 Kings xxiii. what it was that Josiah and his coadjutors regarded as the 
 essential matter. Is it likely that they mistook the real purport of Deutero- 
 nomy, and that it was only by accident that they attached the greatest 
 importance to one out of its many groups of precepts and proceeded immedi- 
 ately to put it into practice ? The supposition is improbability itself. What 
 • the law-book accomplished was what it intended to accomplish. Our con- 
 ception of its origin then is fully justified. There is certainly nothing capri- 
 cious in illustrating its special tendencies by reference to the events of 
 Hezekiah's and Manasseh's reigns (n. 5, under (2)), and thence inferring 
 that the centralisation of the cultus was still opposed to the popular convic- 
 tions when the book was composed. It follows that Deuteronomy — not in all 
 its conmiands, but in this one central principle and everything that flows 
 from it — expressed the conviction of a minority; and whether we call it 
 ' the Mosaic party ' or anything else, the essential fact remains that it was a 
 [215] minority, and that its triumph in 621 B.o. cannot reasonably be ascribed to 
 chance. 
 
n. 6.] Object of Deicteronomy. The Priestly Tora. 221 
 
 The preceding argument involves the thesis that in Josiah's 
 eighteenth year the priestly legislation had not yet been 
 introduced, and was not introduced in company with the 
 deuteronomic code. The evidence alike of the Israelitish litera- 
 ture and of the history of the people^ together with its religious 
 development, is in perfect harmony with this position "^ . And 
 this being so, the importance of the deviations of the priestly 
 code from the standard of Deuteronomy becomes the measure 
 of our confidence that the former, when its turn came, cannot 
 have been introduced by a side wind, but must have been 
 proclaimed to the people and accepted by them no less than 
 the other. Now this did not happen before the Babylonian 
 captivity ; or at any rate^ there is not a trace of it to be 
 found either in Jeremiah and his contemporaries or in the 
 annals of the years 631-586 b.o. That it should have taken 
 place during the captivity is in itself highly improbable, and 
 is contradicted by the literature of the period, and especially 
 by the prophecies of Ezekiel *. The accounts of the early 
 years after the return from Babylon (536 B.C.) are, in like 
 manner, absolutely silent as to tlie introduction of the priestly 
 law, while the writings of Haggai and Zechariah (i.-viii.) 
 bear evidence of its non-existence ^- It is not till we come to 
 ]>leh. viii.— X. (in which Ezra and Nehemiah both appear upon 
 the stage, and which must therefore refer to 444 B.C. or one of 
 the years immediately following), that we find what we want. 
 The law which the narrative represents as read out and 
 ultimately (x. i sqq.) accepted by the representatives of the 
 people, is no other than the priestly legislation. As to 
 this there cannot be a moment's doubt ^^. But we have still 
 to determine whether the legislation in question had reached 
 its present dimensions at that period, and also whether, when 
 Ezra read it^ it was already united with the deuteronomic 
 code and the still earlier prophetic matter. Certain traits 
 in the narrative itself, together with other historical notices. 
 
222 The Hexateuch. [§12. 
 
 lead us to answer both questions, but the first with the 
 greater confidence, in the negative '^. 
 
 The trustworthiness of Neh. viii.-x., which is here assumed, 
 [216] has recently been called in question, chiefly on the ground 
 that we owe the narrative to the Chronicler, who goes to work 
 with the utmost freedom and is very untrustworthy, more 
 especially when, as here, he is describing religious assemblies 
 and ceremonies ^^. But although the books of Hzra and 
 Nehemiah, including NeJi. viii.-x., were doubtless brought into 
 their present form by the Chronicler, he commanded older 
 materials for his compilation, some of which were accounts 
 contemporary with the events themselves. Such an account 
 he must have followed throughout, and generally reproduced 
 literally, in Neh. viii.-x. The supposition that he composed 
 these chapters independently, or actually invented the scenes 
 they sketch, is in violent opposition to their contents 1^. 
 
 ' Cf. § 10, n. 15, 17, where it is shown that neither the prophets of the 
 eighth century, nor even Jeremiah and his contemporaiies, were acquainted 
 with the priestly laws and narratives ; n. 24, 25, from which it appears that 
 the author of Kings had no knowledge of P, and cannot therefore have in- 
 cluded it within his meaning in 2 Kings xxii. sq.; § II, passim, where we have 
 seen that the existence of P's precepts, especially where they deviate from D, 
 is unsupported by a single fact of history in the pre-exilian ages. When com- 
 bined with the arguments for identifying Hilkiah's book of law with D, and 
 with nothing else (u. 3-6), all these facts make it perfectly evident that in 
 621 B.C. the introduction of the priestly law was still in the future, 
 
 ° Cf. § 10, n. 10-12. However simple it may seem to explain Ezekiel's 
 affinity with P' and P^ by making the prophet dependent upon the priestly 
 authors, we find that in point of fact this view is utterly untenable, and we are 
 forced to deny all knowledge of their laws and narratives to him. Por it is 
 only so that we can understand his setting down, in xl.-xlviii„ his own regula- 
 tions of the very matters which the priestly legislators also deal with — the 
 arrangements of the sanctuary, the sacred utensils, the qualifications for 
 assuming the priestly office, the privileges and duties of the priests, the 
 festivals, the partition of the land, the territory of the sanctuary and its 
 servants. Were his ordinances capable of being interpreted as a modification 
 of the precepts in P, in view of the altered circumstances, they might be con- 
 sidered in some degree intelligible, however strange. But this is not really 
 the case. See, provisionally, § II, n. 12, 14, 17, 20, 24, and further, § 15. 
 
 * Cf § 10, n. 8 (on Haggai and Zechariah i.-viii.). The fortunes of the 
 
n. 7-I3-] Promulgation of Priestly Tor a. 223 
 
 returned exiles are but imperfectly known to ua. But JSzr. i. sqq., and the 
 description of their religious condition in Jizi-. vii. sqq., give us anything but the 
 impression that a new era of legislation had broken during the years 536-458 
 B.C. The Jewish community was evidently feeding in the old pastm-es — and 
 finding no support for zeal and inspiration in them. 
 
 ^° The precepts on the celebration of the feast of tabernacles, which, accord- [217] 
 ing to NeJi. viii. 13-18, were first made known by Ezra, and were subsequently 
 observed by the people, are found in Tiev. xziii. 40-43 ; and the extension of 
 the festal period to eight days, deviating from Deut. xvi. 13-15, appears in 
 liiv. xxiii. 39 (cf. Nell. viii. 18). The obligations undertaken by the signa- 
 tories of the act of covenant in Neh. jl. 30-40 [29-39] ^^^ those imposed by P. 
 This is specially noteworthy with respect to the observance of the sabbath rest 
 and the sabbatical year {v. 32 [31]); the contributions to meet the cost of the 
 shew-bread and the daily and other sacrifices {v. 34 [33]) ; the ofi^ering of the 
 firstlings, including the first-born of man and beast, and tithes of the produce 
 of the land, to the Levites, who are to yield a tithe in their turn to the priests 
 (v. 36-40 [35-39]). The occasional deviations from the priestly law in its 
 present form (§ 11, n. 3 ; 15, u. 30) certainly demand an explanation, but they 
 do not prejudice the general agreement. This agreement is most conspicuous 
 in (7.36-40 [35-39], which deviates from Bad. xviii. i sqq.; xiv. 22-29; 
 XV. 19-23, while agreeing with Num. xviii. On v. 31 [30], where all marriages 
 with heathens are condemned, cf. Smend, Die Listen der BUcher Esra und 
 Nehemia, p. 5 sq. The prohibition of connubium with the Canaanites, to which 
 Ezra and Nehemiah must have appealed in justification of their exclusive 
 policy, occurred in the older laws {Ex. xxxiv. 12-16 ; Deut. vii. i sqq.), and is 
 both assumed and repeated in P (Num. xxxiii. 51-56 ; Lev. xviii., xx.). 
 
 ^' See § II, n. 3, and especially § 15, ii. 30. Our further inquiry will 
 embrace the question whether P had been welded with the older laws and 
 narratives when Ezra read out the Tora (§ 15, n. 25). It is answered in the 
 aflarmative in my Godsdienst, ii. 134 sqq. [Eel. Isr., ii. 329 sqq.] ; and in the 
 negative by Eeuss, L'hidoire sainte et la Lui, Introduction, p. 256 sqq. 
 
 " In my Godsdienst, ii. 198-201 lEel. Isr., ii. 286-291], I tried to correct the 
 one-sided and partially eri'oneous view of Neh. viii.-x., which I had myself 
 advanced in the first edition of this work (i. 347-352). Since then the trust- 
 worthiness of this passage has been attacked by Colenso, Pentateuch, vii. 
 423-430, and defended by Wellhausen in Bleek's Einl., p. 268, n. i ; and 
 Geschichte, ist ed. i. 433. 
 
 ^ Neh. viii.-x. deserves special treatment on its own account, but I must 
 content myself at present with showing that the chapters cannot be regarded 
 as the free composition of the Chronicler, but must have been derived by him 
 from some older and, on the whole, trustworthy document. This seems obvious 
 at the outset from the fact pointed out in § 11, n. 2-4 (cf n. 10, above), that 
 agreementwithP, which is unqualified in the Chronicler, is accompanied 
 by deviations in Neh. viii.-x., as in other passages borrowed by the Chronicler 
 from his sources. The force of this argument will come out more clearly if we 
 illustrate a few branches of it separately. Can we suppose that the writer 
 
2 24 The Hexateiich. [§ i^- 
 
 who shows his acquaintance with Ex. xxx. 11-16 in 2 Cliron. xxiv. 6, 9, would 
 ignore the precept in Nell. x. 33 [32], and suhstitute a voluntary engagement 
 on the part of the people to contribute a smaller yearly sum 1 or that the 
 author of 2 Chron. xxxi. 5, 6 (where tithes of cattle are paid), should mention 
 [218] tithes of corn, new wine and oil alone in Neh. x. 36-40 [35-39] ? Add to this 
 that the writer (unquestionably the Chronicler himself), who tells us, in Ezr. 
 iii. 4, that the exiles, on their return to Judeea, immediately ' celebrated the 
 feast of tabernacles according to what is written,' can hardly be identical 
 with the author of Nell. viii. 1 3-1 7 ; and that the distinction between Levites 
 on the one hand, and singers and porters on the other, which appears in Neh, 
 X. 40 [39], is not only foreign to the Chronicler's ideas, but is expressly denied 
 by him in his picture of David's regulation of the cultus (i Chron. xxii. sqq.). 
 ■ — Against this Colenso {ibid., and Appendix, p. 'Ji-'j'j) urges the language 
 of Neh, viii.-x., which seems to him to indicate the Chronicler as author. But 
 this is a mistake. No doubt there is a comparatively close agreement in 
 vocabulary and style between the two writers, but this is adequately explained 
 by the short space of time that separated them, and also by the freedom 
 which the Chronicler may occasionally have allowed himself in reproducing 
 the work of his predecessor. The agreement itself, however, is far from con- 
 tinuous or complete. In purity of language and Hebrew construction, NeJi. 
 viii.-x. appears to me to be far superior to the passages invented and composed 
 by the Chronicler himself. 
 
 Wellhausen {ibid.) bases his proof that the Chronicler borrowed JV.eA. 
 viii.-x. from some other source exclusively upon a comparison between JEsr, 
 ii., iii. I, and Neh. vii., viii. i". The Chronicler takes the list of returning 
 exiles in the former passage from Neh. vii., and lets the beginning of the nar- 
 rative in Neh. viii.-x. follow immediately upon it [Ezr. iii. i =Neh. vii. 73''! 
 viii. I '^) ; in the work that lay before him, therefore, he must have found Neh. 
 (i.-vi.) vii. and viii.-x. in their present order, and therefore he cannot him- 
 self have been the author of viii.-x. This is perfectly sound, and retains its 
 force even if Wellhausen's conjecture as to the character and antiquity 
 of the document in question be regarded as inadmissible or as too hazardous. 
 
 Taken in connection with our previous investigation of tlie 
 cbronological succession of the several elements of the Hexa- 
 teuch (§ 9), these accounts of Josiah's and Ezra's reformations 
 lead to the following results : 
 
 The ' prophetic ' elements, as we have already seen, are in 
 general pre-deuteronomic, and we now perceive that this 
 involves their being earlier than 621 B.C. It is highly 
 probable, on various grounds, that their union with D had 
 taken place before the further incorporation of P could in any 
 way be contemplated^*- Though we have not discovered 
 
'^^ 1 3, 1 4 -J Inferences from foregoing investigation. 225 
 
 when this union (JE + D) took place, we have seen that 
 it cannot he the work of D^ himself (§ 7, n. 13 sqq.). The 
 ' prophetic ' passages, then, remained independent during a 
 longer or shorter period subsequent to 631 B.C., and we cannot 
 be sure that they underwent no expansion or modification [219] 
 in the course of it. We must keep this in mind in the sequel 
 of our inquiry (§ 13). 
 
 The length of the deuteronomic period, which begins in 
 the year 631 B.C., and which called the additions to D^ 
 into existence, cannot yet be determined. All we can say 
 is that it extended beyond the beginning of the Babylonian 
 captivity (§ 7, n. 13 sqq.). This period covers not only the 
 activity of D^'s successors, but the combination of Deutero- 
 nomy, as expanded by them, with the ' prophetic ' elements 
 (§ 14). 
 
 In the year of Ezra's reformation, 444 b. c. or shortly 
 afterwards, the priestly code, — accompanied of course by the 
 historical framework from which it cannot be severed, — existed 
 as a book of law. Its history therefore naturally falls 
 into two periods. During the first, from ... to 444 b. c, 
 Ezra's law-book was being prepared and put into the form in 
 which he read it. The second period, from 444 to . . . b. c, 
 covers the further recension and expansion of the book. The 
 union of this work with the deuteronomico-prophetic elements 
 that had already been welded into a single whole is placed in 
 the first period by some, and in the second by others (of. n. 11). 
 In the natural course of our investigation of the history of P 
 we shall see which hypothesis is the more probable (§ 15). 
 The way in which this union was effected and our present 
 Hexateuch brought into existence will still remain as the 
 subject of further inquiry (§ 16}. 
 
 " The long period that separates D' and his successors from Ezra leaves 
 time enough and to spare for a process of amalgamation, which the form of 
 Ueutero'iiomy itself seemed to challenge. But besides this, we have already 
 
2 26 The Hexateiich. [§iz.n. 14. 
 
 seen that the deuteronomic recension of the Hexateuoh only extends to the 
 prophetic elements (§ 7, n. 28), which is a direct indication that D and JE 
 wei-e once united, without P. We shall meet, in the course of our investi- 
 gation, with still further proofs that P was incorporated into or interwoven 
 with a combined D + JE. 
 
 [220] §13. Continuation. B. The origin and compilation of the 
 ^prophetic ' elements of the Hewateuch. 
 
 Speaking generally, and without prejudice to tlie possibility 
 of a partial expansion at a later date, — perhaps on a con- 
 siderable scale, — the 'prophetic' elements are prae-deutero- 
 nomic, i.e. earlier than the year 631 B.C. (§ la). The 
 terminus a quo of their origin is the ninth century before our 
 era, and, more closely yet, the second half of that century. 
 The prophetic literature, in the narrower sense, does not begin 
 before the eighth century ; and it would seem probable at the 
 outset that the historiography, if older at all, is at any rate not 
 much older ^- The literary characteristics of the ' prophetic ' 
 passages point to the same period. The poetical treatment of 
 Israel's history is already behind them, and the germs of 
 historical research are apparent ^. But the chief consideration 
 that forbids us to assign a higher antiquity to the ' prophetic ' 
 narratives is based on their contents. The sagas about the 
 patriarchs, the exodus, and the conquest, presuppose the unity 
 of the people (which only came into existence with and by 
 means of the monarchy) as a long-accomplished fact which 
 had come to dominate the whole conception of the past 
 completely ^- 
 
 ' I assume that we possess no more ancient prophecies than those of 
 Amos, the contemporary of Jeroboam II., and that Isaiah xv., xvi. must be 
 referred to the same reign. The fact that the earlier prophets, as far as we 
 can tell, did not appeal to writing, finds its most natural explanation in the 
 supposition that in their time Israelitish literature was in its infancy, if it 
 existed at all. 
 
 ^ Cf. § 4, n. 4-7. The references there discussed occur in 'prophetic' 
 narratives, in which are also imbedded the poetical fragments of which no 
 
— § 13- n. 3.J 'Prophetic' elements of the Hexateuch. 227 
 
 sources are indicated, Buch as Gen. iv. 23, 24; zlix. 1-27; Jix. xv. 1-19 ; 
 JVijm. xxi. 17, 18, 27-29 ; Bmt. xxxii. 1-43 ; xxxiii. No doubt some of these 
 narratives might have been contemporary with the songs, or at least with 
 collections such as 'Sepher milohamdth Yahwfe' and 'Sepher hayyash^r;' 
 but this is not probable a priori, and is contradicted by the contents of 
 the narratives themselves, of which more will be said in n. 3. 
 
 ' Cf. § 4, n. 16-21, where the narratives of the Hexateuch are dealt 
 with as a whole ; but with the needful restrictions, the remarks are 
 applicable to the 'prophetic' passages also; for they too start from the 
 unhistorical assumption of Israel's national unity at the time of the deliver- [221] 
 ance from Egypt and the settlement in Canaan, and so cannot have been 
 written tm the facts upon which this conception was based had not only 
 occurred but had settled, as it were, so as to be able to bear a superstructure. 
 This necessitates the lapse of at least two centuries from the union of the 
 tribes. The same may be said of the stories of the patriarchs. The suc- 
 cession of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob-Israel, and his twelve sons, is completely 
 established, and the authors agree even as to the side branches, Lot (Moab 
 and Ammon), Ishmael, and Esau-Edom; of. Genesis and Num. xx. 14-21 ; 
 xxi. 13 eqq. The several sagas were probably of local origin. Eor example, 
 Isaac belongs originally to Beersh^ba, and Jacob to Bethel. The welding 
 process cannot have begun till the national unity was established ; and it 
 must have reached its ultimate completeness when the stories out of which 
 Gen. xii. sqq. is worked up and compiled were written. The same conclusion 
 is indicated by the details further discussed in n. 15. 
 
 To determine the date of the writings from which, as we 
 have seen (§ 8), the ' prophetic ' elements of the Hexateuch 
 are largely drawn, is a task beset with no small difficulties. 
 The facts we have to go upon are comparatively few and are 
 often ambiguous. And sometimes, too^ it is doubtful whether 
 the evidence refers to the original narratives themselves or to 
 the more or less modified form in which they have come down 
 to us. We must therefore be on our guard against too hasty 
 conclusions, and must be content, when the circumstances 
 require it, with a more or less vague result. 
 
 The external evidence of the date of the * prophetic' 
 elements — excluding Deuteronomy, to which we shall return — 
 is scanty and inconclusive. Positive proof that Amos was 
 acquainted with the narratives of E and J is not forthcoming. 
 The particulars referred to by Hosea occur in narratives 
 derived from J [Hos. ix. 10; xii. 4, 5, 13 [3, 4, 12]). 
 
 Q 3 
 
^28 The Hexateuch. [§i3- 
 
 Isaiah (x. 34-a6; xi. ii, 15 sq. ; xii.) presupposes some 
 such account of Israel's deliverance from Egypt as we 
 possess ill Ex. i. sqq. ; and elsewhere (iii. 9), it would seem, 
 the Yahwistic account of the fall of Sodom {Gen. xix. 4 sq.). 
 [222] The author of Mic. vi. 4 sq. was acquainted with iVwm. xxii. % 
 -xxiv., presumably in nearly the present form. Later cita- 
 tions only confirm what is established on other grounds, and 
 may therefore be passed over here. There are large portions 
 of the Hexateuch which are never cited at all, or only cited in 
 works dating from the exile *. 
 
 * A Bummary of the results previously obtained (§ 10, n. 18) will secure ua 
 against neglecting any of them in the present §. Avii. i. II is not necessarily 
 dependent on Gen. xxvii. 40, and ' the Amorite' in ii. 9, 10 is the dweller in 
 Canaan, not in the Transjordanic district, so the passage cannot be taken as 
 referring to Num. xxi. The agreement of Amos (ii. lo ; v. 25) with E {Num. 
 xiii. sq.) as to the forty-years' wandering is equally far from proving his 
 dependence on this document. — The passages in Hosea are clear. The least 
 conclusive is ix. 10, compared with Num. xsv. 1-5, for the expressions used 
 differ. That xii. 4sq., 13 [3 sq., 12], depend upon Gen. xxv. 26" ; xxvii. 43 ; 
 xxix.lSsqq.; xxxii. 25-33 [24-32], is all but certain. The words (xii. 5 '' [4'']), 
 ' at Bethel he ( Yahwfe) found him (Jacob) and there spoke he with him ' (read 
 TD3>), point to an account of a theophany at Bethel after Jacob's return from 
 Aram. Strictly speaking, the only such narrative we possess is from P', in 
 Gen. XXXV. 9 sqq. But we have already observed, § 10, n. 17, that material 
 foreign to P^ is embedded in this passage, especially in v. 14, for P^ nowhere 
 else mentions the mapp^ba, or the libation by which it is here consecrated. 
 Apparently, then, P^'s account is expanded here by E, not with original 
 matter, however, but with extracts from JE, in which latter surely some- 
 thing more was said of Jacob's second stay at Bethel than simply that he 
 built an altar there (xxxv. 7 ; cf. xxviii. 10-22 ; xxxv. 1-4). We may now 
 gather from Sos. xii. 5^ [4''] that this further account was originally 
 contained in that same document which the prophet follows elsewhere, viz. J. 
 — The texts of Isaiah and the passage Mic. vi. 4, 5 (in the opinion of many 
 scholars not from Micah, but from a later prophet, contemporary with 
 Manasseh) need no comment. On the evidence from the last half-century of 
 the kingdom of Judah, cf. § 10, n. 13, 14. This survey has brought out the 
 fact that the prophets of this and of a still later period are wholly silent con- 
 cerning Joseph, for example, and concerning Joshua's military operations. 
 Noah and the flood are not mentioned by any prophets before Ezekiel (xiv. 
 14, 20) and Deutero-Isaiah (liv. 9). 
 
 It is but natural that many of the ' prophetic ' narratives 
 
n. 4. J Native soil of the ' Prophetic ' elements. 229 
 
 should give eo clue to their native soil. But by far 
 the greater number of those which do furnish more or less 
 explicit indications on the subject had their origin, and were 
 probably committed to writing, in Northern Israel. Jacob- 
 Israel, who appears in Genesis as the ancestor of the whole 
 people, was originally the personification of the tribes which 
 ranged themselves round Ephraim ^. In the stories about [223] 
 him, in Gen. xxvii.-l., Joseph, the father of Manasseh 
 and Ephraim, is the chief personage, and he is presented 
 to us, with unmistakable sympathy, as the favourite of 
 Yahwe, and as a model of wisdom, power, and generosity ; 
 while all this is rendered the more conspicuous by the freedom 
 with which the writers dwell on the less praiseworthy conduct 
 of his brothers, alike in their relations to him, and in other 
 respects (Gen. xxxiv. ; xxxv. 32 ; xxxvii. ; xxxviii. ; xlix. 2- 
 4, 5-7, 14 sq.). The connection between this conception of 
 Joseph and the mutual relations of the tribes comes out 
 with special clearness in Gen. xlviii. 8-22 °^ The accounts 
 of the exodus and the journey through the desert betray 
 no special sympathy with any one section of united Israel, 
 but in the narrative of the conquest it is the Ephraimite, 
 Joshua, — whose part has not been without importance, 
 even in the days of Moses (TSx. xvii. 8-13 ; xxiv. 13 ; 
 xxxii. 17 sqq. ; xxxiii. II ; iV««. xi. 28 sqq.), — who steps 
 to the front {JDevi. xxxi. 14, 15, 23 ; Josh. i. sqq. ; xvii. 14- 
 18; xviii. I sqq.; xxiv.). The localities that have derived 
 a consecration from the heroes or events of the olden time are 
 likewise situated in Northern Israel, as Bethel {Gen. xii. 8 ; 
 xiii. 3, 4 ; xxviii. 10-22 ; xxxv. 1-4, 6-8); Shechem {Gen. xii. 
 6, 7; xxxiii. 18-20; xlviii. 22; Josh. xxiv. i sqq., 32); 
 Gilgal {Josh. iv. 3, 8, 20-24 ; v. 9, 13-15) ; Ebal {Deut. xxvii. 
 _5_7 ; Josh. viii. 30) ; the burial places of Joshua {Josh. xxiv. 
 30), of Eleazar {v. 33), of Deborah and Rachel {Gen. xxxv. 8, 
 16-20) ; Machanaim, Penuel, and other Transjordanic places 
 
230 The Hexateuch. [§i3- 
 
 {Gen. xxxi. 47, 49 ; xxxii. 3, 31 [2, 30] ; xxxiii. 17 ; 1. 10, 
 11); or are connected with Northern Israel, like Beersh^ba 
 (G'ew. xxi. 14, 31-33; xxii. 19; xxvi. 23, ■^'3,; xxviii. 10; 
 xlvi. 1-5 ; cf. Amos v. 5 ; viii. 14). The only exception to 
 this rule is Hebron, the place where Abraham settles (Qen. 
 xiii. 18 J cf. xiv. 13 ; xviii. i), and where Jacob also dwells 
 (Gen. xxxvii. 14) ; but the authenticity of this latter notice is 
 much suspected ^. The mere mention of these places would 
 of course determine nothing as to the fatherland of the writers. 
 But what they have to tell us about them is in most cases 
 [224] obviously intended to consecrate and strengthen the worship 
 of Yahwe of which they were the seats ; and this we should 
 only expect from men who took an interest in the sanctuaries or 
 were in the habit of visiting them, i. e. from Northern Israel- 
 ites *. Now this rule would make the author of the texts 
 referring to Hebron (i.e. J) a Judsean ; and many scholars 
 have accepted the inference as sound and have found 
 support for it in Gen. xxxvii. 36 sq. ; xxxviii. ; xliii. 3 sqq. ; 
 xliv. 14-34; xlvi. 38; xlix. 8-12. But these passages are 
 not conclusive ; for such ideas and language concerning He- 
 bron and Judah might well arise in Northern Israel, and the 
 texts previously cited, not a few of which belong to J, plead 
 for the supposition that he was a Northerner *. 
 
 ^ The juxtaposition ' Israel and Judah,' or ' Judah and Israel,' which occurs 
 in the Old Testament passim, ought not to be regarded as an inaccurate 
 expression, involving a combination of or a contrast between the whole and one 
 of the parts. It is a reflection of the original fact. It was only in relatively 
 later times that Judah, which is not mentioned in Judges v., was incorporated 
 into Israel, thus extending the meaning of this latter name. The idea found 
 favour in Judah itself, but it is more than probable that the narratives in 
 which it was expressed, and by which it was perpetuated, had their origin in 
 Ephraim and not in Judah. On Gen. xxxvii. 14, the solitary 'prophetic ' text 
 which makes Jacob dwell at Hebron, see n. 7. 
 
 " It would be incorrect to assert that the narrators in Genesis exalt Joseph at 
 the expense of his brothers, and are unfriendly to Judah. This would con- 
 tradict their ever-present idea that all the tribes have sprung from a single 
 father and on the strength of this common descent are a single people. And 
 
n. 5-8.] Origin of J and E i^i North-Israel. 231 
 
 moreover, both Judah {Qen. xxxvii. 26 sq.) and Eeuben (v. 22, 29 sq.) attempt 
 to rescue Joseph, and the spii-it, for instance, of Gen. xlii. 21 sq. ; xliy. 14-34 i 
 1. 15 sqq., is anything but unfriendly to the brothers. See also u. 9. 
 Nevertheless, it remains true that Joseph alone, • crowned of his brethren ' 
 (Gem. xlix. 22-26), is represented as without spot or blemish, and receives the 
 homage of all the rest {Gen. xxxvii. 5-1 1, 19 sq. ; xlii. 6, 9 ; 1. 15 sqq.). 
 
 ' Perhaps the mountain on which Abraham stood, prepared to offer up 
 Isaac {Gen. xxii. i sqq.), should be added to the list of places in Northern 
 Israel. See below, 11. 29. — With respect to Eeershsfba, note that although it 
 is assigned to Judah in Josh. xv. 28, it properly belonged to Simeon, JoA. 
 xix. 2 ; I Chron. iv. 28. Amos, as cited above, condemns the worship at Beer- 
 sh^ba, but it is obvious from his own words that participation in it was far 
 from exceptional amongst his contemporaries. — While J, in the texts cited 
 above, makes Hebron Abraham's dwelling-place, E places him at Beersh^ja [225] 
 {Gen. xxi. 14, 33 ; xxii. 19), where J and E unite in iixing Isaac's abode {Gen. 
 xxvi. 33 sqq. ; xxviii. 10). In weighing these accounts, for our present pur- 
 pose, we must remember that the writers were not free to choose whatever 
 spots they liked. Hebron was Abraham's 'territorial cradle,' and Beersh^ba 
 Isaac's. It needs no explanation or justification, therefore, when they make 
 the two patriarchs dwell respectively in these two places, but we have to give 
 some account of why Abraham is transplanted to Beersh^ba. See ii. 9. 
 — Jacob's dwelling at Hebron, Gen. xxxvii. 14 (E), is extremely strange. 
 Shechem and Bethel, according to Ge?i. xxxiii. 18-20; xxxv. i sqq. ; xlviii. 
 21 sq., are his proper homes, and in the same district we must look for 
 his grave. Gen. xlvii. 29-31 ; 1. 4 sq. (not to be confounded with P^ in Gen. 
 xlix. 29-33 ; 1. 12 sq.). He might, however — in narratives of the same origin 
 — sojourn at Beershi^ba, whence he is made to spring {Gen. xxviii. 10) ; so that 
 Gen. xlvi. 1-5 (E) need not surprise us, though the passage would seem more 
 natural if Jacob did not come to Beersh^ba (whence ?), but was dwelling 
 there already. The sacrificial feast and the theophany would be more appro- 
 priate at the beginning of his journey to Egypt, than at one of his halting- 
 stations. Possibly V. i has been altered with a view to P^'s representation 
 to be mentioned immediately. But we should not expect to find Jacob at 
 Hebron either in E or in J. In V, on the other hand, it would seem quite 
 natural, for there Hebron is very emphatically described as the abode of 
 Abraham and Isaac {Gen. xxxv. 27), and Jacob is said to have dwelt 'in the 
 land of his father's sojourning' {Gen. xxxvii. i), while all three patriarchs are 
 buried in the cave of Macphela at Hebron {Gen. xxiii. ; xxv. 9, 10 ; xxxv. 29 ; 
 xlix. 29-33 ; 1. 12 sq.). It is natural, therefore, to suspect that in Gen. xxxvii. 
 14 the name of Hebron has been substituted for some other, under the 
 influence of P ^. 
 
 ' In this connection, note specially Gen. xii. 6 sq., 8 ; xiii. 3 sq., 18 ; xxi. 31, 
 33 ; xxvi. 23-25 ; xxviii. 18, 20-22 ; xxxi. 45 sqq. ; xxxii. 2, 30 [i, 29] ; xxxiii. 
 20 (on the reading cf. § 8, n. 12, p. 152) ; xxxv. 7 ; xlvi. 1-4 ; Bent, xxvii. 5-7 ; 
 Josh. iv. 3, 8 ; V. 9, 13-15 ; viii. 30 ; xxiv. 26 sq. On the stage of religious 
 development to which these passages testify, see n, ig. 
 
232 The Hexateiuh. [§i3- 
 
 ' Dillmann {Genesis, p. xii. and elsewhere) and Stade {Geschichte d. V. 
 Israel, p. 57 sq.) agree in regarding Judaea aa J's fatherland; and Well- 
 hausen {Geschichte, 1st ed., i. p. 373 sq., and elsewhere), though less confident, 
 adopts the same view. On the other side are de Wette-Schrader (p. 321 
 sq.) and Eeuss {Geschichte der heil. Schri/t. A. Ts, p. 249 sqq.), and their 
 opinion seems to me preferable. We have already noted (n. 6) that neither 
 J nor E takes sides with any one of the tribes, or, specifically, for or against 
 Joseph or Judah ; for both alike occupy the Israelite position, in the widest 
 sense of the word. And, from that position, J, though an Ephraimite, might 
 very well mention Hebron as Abraham's dwelling-place — for in fact he had 
 hardly any choice in the matter, cf. n. 7 — and might present Judah in a 
 favourable or, at any rate, half favourable light. This would not prove his 
 prepossession in Judah's favour, or his Judsan origin, unless we knew (as 
 Dillmann thinks we may) that J was later than E, and was acquainted 
 [226] with his work. In that case he must have substituted Hebron for Beersh^a, 
 and, in the history of Joseph, Judah for Eeuben, which could hardly be attri- 
 buted to any motive but patriotism. But if, on the other hand, J is the earlier 
 narrator (cf. infr., u. 10 sqq.), then the texts on Judah and Hebron prove 
 nothing. — On Gen. xxxviii., to which these remarks do not apply, opinions differ 
 widely. Schrader (p. 321) finds ' an unfavourable aspect of Judah ' displayed 
 in it; Reuss (p. 250) thinks that Judah is treated with 'bitter scorn' in 
 the narrative ; but most other scholars find a friendly disposition towards 
 Judah in it. If I had to choose I should accept the latter view, for v. 26 is 
 enough by itself to prove that the writer had not the least intention of reviling 
 Judah. The fact simply is that he took a lively interest in this tribe, and 
 was acquainted with the sagas in which its history and the jealousies of its 
 very heterogeneous elements were reflected. But this is as easy to under- 
 stand in a Northern Israelite, possibly a neighbour of Judah, as in a Judsean. 
 Gen. xxxviii., therefore, breaks down, like the other passages, when appealed 
 to in proof of the Judsean origin of J's work. The phenomena, then, 
 which plead for Northern Israel retain their full significance ; and we must 
 add that the literary merit of J's narratives, and the freedom and robust- 
 ness of spirit which they indicate, suit Israel far better than Judah. See 
 more on this in n. 23. — As to E's fatherland there is hardly any difference of 
 opinion. Almost everything combines to stamp him as an Ephraimite, and 
 all that appears to weigh in the other scale admits, as we shall see (n. 25 sq.), 
 of an explanation that removes all serious difficulty. If E is really later than 
 J (n. 10 sqq,), then the removal of Abraham from Hebron to Beersh^ba, and 
 the substitution of Eeuben for Judah {Gen. xxxvii. 22, 29 sq. ; xlii. 2isq., 
 37), are additional proofs of his sympathies with Northern Israel. 
 
 In attempting to determine the relative antiquity 
 of the ' prophetic ' narratives we may pursue three methods. 
 We may (i) compare the more or less closely parallel narra- 
 tives, and endeavour to discover which are the earlier ; (2) 
 
n.9, 10.] Comparison of ' Prop/ieiu narj^atives. 233 
 
 examine and weigh, the references to historical events which 
 occur in some of the narratives ; (3) test the religious and 
 moral ideas reflected in the stories by those of the prophets 
 whose dates we know. In the nature of the ease we shall find 
 that the three lines of research sometimes converge, and that 
 in a great many cases no one of them leads to any certainty. 
 
 (1) Mutual comparison often yields no definite 
 solution of the question of priority ; for the points of differ- 
 ence are sometimes unimportant or susceptible of more than 
 one explanation. This is the case, for instance, with the 
 parallel accounts of Joseph and his brothers {Gen. xxxvii., [227] 
 xxxix. sqq.) and the release from Egyptian slavery {JLx. 
 i. sqq.) 1". On the other hand, strong probability, if not 
 certainty, supports the originality of Gen. ii. 4''-iii. ; iv. 16''- 
 24 ; xi. 1-9, as against vi. 5-viii. and x. ; of Gen. ix. 20-27, 
 as against the same vi. 5—^111. and x. ; of Gen. xvi. 2, 4-14, 
 as against xxi. 9-19 ; of Gen. xxvi. 6-12, as against xx. and 
 xii. 10-20 ; of Gen. xxvi. 25''-33, as against xxi. 23-31 ; of 
 Gen. XXX. i4-i5, as against v. 17, 18, and 21-23 ; of Gen. 
 XXX. 28—43, as against xxxi. 4—13 ^^- In Viim. xxii. 2-xxiv. 
 we have not two stories running parallel ; but xxii. 22—34 
 preserves a fragment of an account of Balaam that appears to 
 be older than the redaction we now possess, and may therefore 
 be regarded as its original. Similar fragments of earlier and 
 more original narratives may also be traced here and there in 
 the book of Joshua, especially in vi., viii., and ix^^. The 
 far sharper contrast which some scholars have discovered 
 between two representations of the conquest of the Trans- 
 jordanic district, now woven together in Num. xxi. sqq., is not 
 really there ■'^- Nor can it be allowed that the accounts of 
 Joshua as leader of the people at the conquest of Canaan are 
 balanced by another representation, in another document of the 
 Hexateuch, in which Joshua does not appear ^*. 
 
 '" On the points of difference between B and J in Gen, xxxvii., xxxix. sqq., 
 
2 34 The Hexateuch. [§i3- 
 
 see § 8, n. 5. The priority of neither can really be established. We may ask, 
 however, whether the round-about way in which the author of xxxix. brings 
 Joseph into prison does not mark him as later than the writer of xxxvii. 36, 
 especially since the chapter serves to throw Joseph's virtue and the favour in 
 ■which he stood with Yahwfe into so strong a light. Cf. n. 26. — The compari- 
 son of E and J in Hx. 1 sqq. likewise leaves the question of priority open. 
 The essential agreement of the two becomes all the more striking when we 
 note the divergence between them and P^ (which appears to be later) with 
 reference alike to the demands made by Moses and to the plagues (§ 9, n. 11). 
 
 " On the whole subject-matter of this note, cf. Wellhausen, GeschicMe, 
 1st ed., p. 370 sqq., with whom I agi-ee in many points. My reasons in 
 each case for regarding the one parallel passage as more original than the 
 other are briefly as follows : — 
 [228] Gen. ii. 4Mii. ; iv. 16 ''-24; xi. 1-9, belong to each other, and differ from 
 Gen. vi. 5-viii. in knowing nothing of a flood. They must therefore be 
 much older than the last-named narrative, the contents of which could not 
 have been either unknown or intentionally ignored, had it existed. As a 
 matter of fact, Gen. vi. 5-viii. follows the Assyrio-Babylonian saga, which 
 must of course have become known in Israel at some definite period, so that 
 the earlier writer may very well have been ignorant of it. It agrees with 
 this view that we find the geographical knowledge of the author of the story 
 of Paradise, Gen. ii. 10-14, extremely primitive, whereas the horizon of the 
 author of the table of nations. Gen. x., who is also the writer of Gen. vi. 5- 
 viii., is notably wider. In the same way iv. 1-16", 25, 26, which lead up to 
 the account of the flood or are connected with it, are later than ii. 4''-iii. ; iv. 
 i6''-24, and thus confirm the conclusion to which we have been led. Cf. 
 Budde, Die hibl. VrgescTiichte, passim; and below, n. 26. 
 
 Gen. ix. 20-27. The triad, Shem, Japheth, Canaan, which characterised 
 this pericope in its original form, must assuredly be older than the received 
 Shem, Ham, and Japheth, which a later editor introduces by means of '3« Dti 
 (». 22, cf. also V. 18''). Por the latter triad, which is connected with Noah, 
 the ancestor of the new race of man, may easily have been developed out of 
 the former, whereas it is impossible to imagine how Canaan could have been 
 made into one of the three sons of this tribe-father. 
 
 Gen. xvi. I -1 4 (except v. i , 3, which are P ^'s) and xxi. 9-19 are doublets, in spite 
 of the difference in the circumstances. The names of Hagar and Ishmael are 
 the immediate occasion of the legend, and in this respect xvi. keeps closest to 
 the source, not only in v. 11, but in making Hagar take flight instead of being 
 expelled. Ch. xvi., then, is nearest the origin. Moreover, Abraham is much 
 gentler and nobler in xxi. II, 13 than in xvi. 6; the angelophany in xxi. 
 17 ('out of heaven') is not so naively materialistic as in xvi. 7 ('and the 
 angel of Yahwfe found her,' etc.), and, finally, the well, only introduced in 
 xvi. 7 for the sake of the name to be given it in v. 14, has become an essential 
 part of the narrative in xxi. 
 
 Gen. xxvi. 6-12, xx., and xii. 10-20, betray dependence on one side or the 
 other, even in the choice of words and the forms of expression. Cf, Dlpon, 
 
n. 10-12.] Comparison of Prophetic' narratives. 235 
 
 xxvi. 7; XX. II ; Nin Tiinx, xxvi. 7; xx. 5 ; xii. 19; jTn, xxvi. 7; xx. 4; xii. 
 12; i:'; n>to» n«rnD, xxvi. 10; xx.g; xii. 18; compare also the description of 
 Isaac's wealth, xxtI. [4, with xx. 14; xii. 16; and further, note nj in xx. i ; 
 xii. 10 (xxvi. 3) ; and compare nuno-niia, xxvi. 7, with ''D-nQ\ xii. 11. But 
 no inferences as to priority can be drawn from these parallels. Nor do the 
 contents of the three narratives force any conclusion upon us. Ch. xii. 10-20 
 has least claim to rank as the original ; for the Pharaoh is evidently a super- 
 lative form of the king of Gerar, and the representation of Abram's conduct 
 and Yahwfe's intervention (v, 13, 16, 17) is a far fi'om pleasing exaggeration 
 of the corresponding features of the other two stories. It is harder to decide 
 between xxvi. 6-12 and xx. The last-named has a special and antique 
 flavour, in v. 3-7, 16, for example. But on the other hand it is made to serve 
 for Abraham's glorification, and that too in his character of prophet (». 7, 17), [229] 
 and may easily be taken as an elaboration of the theme supplied by xxvi., 
 whereas one does not see how the reverse process could have produced the 
 far simpler representation of xxvi. out of xx. It is easier to suppose that 
 a threatening danger developed into an actual one, averted by divine inter- 
 vention, than that the latter shrank down into the former. The play on the 
 name of Isaac, too, xxvi. 8, seems to be an original trait. 
 
 Gen. xxvi. 25''-33 and xxi. 22-31, again, have certain expressions in 
 common ; compare xxvi. 28 with xxi. 22, 27 ; xxvi. 29 with xxi. 23 ; xxvi. 32 
 with xxi. 30. In this case there can be no question as to the original identity 
 of the two stories. Now xxvi. is far simpler than xxi. In the latter the 
 covenant extends to the posterity of either party {v. 23), the oath is considered 
 as an oath of purgation (v. 25 sqq.), and, to complete the explanation of the 
 name Beersh^ba, the seven lambs are introduced (». 28 sqq.). What could 
 have induced the author of xxvi. to di-op this trait ? On the other hand, what 
 more natural than to add it ? Isaac, not Abraham, as the protagonist, pleads 
 for the originality of xxvi. 25''-33, and also for that of xxvi. 6-12 as 
 against xx. ; for Beershflja is Isaac's ' cradle,' and the principle, ' to him that 
 hath shall be given,' would easily explain the transference to Abraham of 
 sagas concerning him. 
 
 Gen. XXX. 14-16 explains Eachel's pregnancy (and Joseph's birth) by 
 Beuben's duda'im,'and the name of Issachar by Leah's cession of the dudaim to 
 Kaohel. In comparison with this, v. 1 7 sq. (another and less offensive etymo- 
 logy of Issachar) and d. 22 sq. (Joseph a gift of Elohlm) are less spontaneous 
 and further removed from the popular beliefs. 
 
 Gen. XXX. 28-43 and xxxi. 4-13 explain Jacob's great wealth by his own 
 cunning and by the care of Elohlm respectively. The former is in perfect 
 harmony with the uniform representation of Jacob's character. Can the latter 
 be anything but an ethico-religious improvement upon it ? For observe that 
 the mutual agreement of the two passages forbids us to regard them as inde- 
 pendent, so that one must in any case be a transformation of the other. 
 
 '2 On Num. xxii. 2-xxiv. see § 8, n. 14, p. 154, and the essay there referred 
 to. That xxii. 22-34 gives us a fragment of an older Balaam-legend is not 
 susceptible of rigorous demonstration, but it is highly probable : the Balaam 
 
236 The Hexateuch. [§i3- 
 
 who seta out without consulting Yahwfe, or perhaps against his orders, and is 
 then opposed hy the angel, seems to me to have an antique flavour, in keeping 
 with the introduction of the speaking ass, and to be more primitive than the 
 Balaam who is determined from the first to submit to God's com m and (xxii. 8), 
 in spite of his wish to comply with Balak's proposal. — On Jodi. vi,, viii., ix. 
 see § 8, n. 20. The higher antiquity of the very fragmentary naiTatives pre- 
 served in these chapters, as compared with the accounts into which they are 
 woven, appears clearly enough from their greater simplicity. This argument is 
 specially conclusive in vi. The priests, the continuous trumpet-blast, and the 
 seven circuits on the seventh day can only be later improvements and 
 embellishments. 
 [230] ^^ The opinion here rejected is upheld by Meyer in the essay referred to in 
 § 8, n. 14, and by Stade, Geschidiie d. V. Israel, p. 113 sqq., and is com- 
 bated in Th. Tijdschr., xviii. 516-532. According to Meyer and Stade, E's 
 narrative in Num. xxi. 21-31 is a later invention, written with a purpose; 
 the older accounts knowing nothing of an Amorite kingdom in the Trans- 
 jordanic district, while in Num. xxi. i8''-2o it is the Moabite territory 
 into which Israel forces his way, and in Num. xsv. 1-5 he dwells at Shittim 
 with Moabites ; the same version of the facts reappearing in one of the com- 
 ponent elements of Num. xxii. 2-sxiv. But all this cannot be allowed. On 
 the relation oi Num. xxi. 21-31 to v. 12-20, see above, § 8, n. 14. If the view 
 there taken be correct, then it does not follow from v. 18^-20 that the author 
 knew of no Amorite kingdom ; for, his itinerarium being a mere list of the 
 places of encampment, he would have no occasion to mention it in any case. 
 Thus in Num. xxxiii. 1-49, the later origin of which is unquestioned by M ey er 
 and Stade, no mention is made of Sihon. The names INID mto and 
 "n mmy, by which Israel's place of encampment beyond the Jordan is indi- 
 cated, simply show that this district was originally Moabitish territory, and do 
 not exclude the supposition that it was ruled by an Amorite king at the time ; 
 and accordingly these designations are used by D and P, who certainly knew 
 all about the Amorite kingdom across the Jordan. Nor is Num. xxv. 1-5 
 inconsistent with the existence of that kingdom, for we are not to suppose 
 that the Amorite invaders expelled or exterminated the people of the land 
 they conquered. On Num. xxii. 2-xxiv., in connection with this controversy, 
 see Th. Tijdsdir., xviii. 528-532. — Meyer's proofs, as we have seen, turn 
 out to be inconclusive ; and the objections to his view are overwhelming. 
 First of all comes the ancient poem in Num. xxi. 27-30. Meyer is com- 
 pelled to strike out the words pn'D "TON 'jhi^b (v. iQ^) as a gloss, in spite 
 of their poetical form, and to content himself with a very unsatisfactory ex- 
 planation of the whole fragment (p. 130 sq.) ; whereas the poem as it stands is 
 admirably suited to confirm the main fact in E's account, which is further 
 supported by the numerous parallel passages mentioning the defeat of Sihon, 
 king of the Amorites. Small evidential value can be assigned to the passages 
 of D and P, for they are entirely dependent on Num. xxi. 2 1 sqq. Judges 
 (x. 8) xi. 12-28 is of relatively ancient date {v. 24) and has rather more 
 significance, for though it presupposes Num. xxi. yet it adds some traits of its 
 
ji. 12-14.] Conflict between J and E in Num. xxi. 237 
 
 own (d. 16, 17, 25), and is therefore something more than a mere copy. But 
 I lay chief stress on i Kings iv. 19, where ' the land of Gilead ' is described 
 as ' the land of Sihon, king of the Amorites, and of Og, king of Bashan.' 
 Even if we felt compelled to read 'King of Heshbon' with the LXX., the 
 epithet, which is very different from ' King of Moab,' would still prove that 
 when the list of Solomon's of&cers, v. 'J-IQ, was di-awn up, it was an accepted 
 fact that the Transjordanic region had been conquered from a non-Moabite 
 prince. The idea, then, cannot have been a late invention directed against the 
 Moabites — with whom, moreover, Israel surely never waged a paper war. It 
 is one thing to make apologetic use of such^a fact as Israel's respect of Moab's 
 frontier, and quite another thing to invent it for polemical purposes. — There 
 is no proof, therefore, that J's representation of the events in the Trans- 
 jordanic district was remote from that of E and much more historical and 
 ancient. 
 
 " Meyer's assertion 'that the Yahwist ( = J) knows nothing of Joshua' [23'] 
 (p. 133 sqq.) is in my opinion rash and unsubstantiated. He finds the 
 yahwistio account of the conquest in Judges i. ; ii. 1-5, when purged of later 
 additions. Between the conquest of Jericho (assumed in i. 16), and the 
 exploits of the tribes narrated in i., he thinks it probable that the treaty with 
 the Gibeonites stood, and finds a few fragments of J's account of it in Josli, 
 ix, (of. § 8, n. 20), whereas in all the rest of the book of Joshua he believes 
 there is not a single letter taken from J. From this it would follow that 
 the person and work of Joshua are pure inventions, since nothing else could 
 explain J's silence. But this result is wholly inadmissible. The Joshua of 
 the book that bears his name, the leader of the united Israel, the conqueror 
 and divider of all Canaan is certainly not a historical character, but neither 
 is he a pure creation out of nothing. The accounts of him show that in 
 tradition and literature his work gradually assimied grander dimensions and 
 his person greater significance. The deuteronomic redactor goes further than 
 his predecessors. Josh. xxiv. is simpler than i.— xii. ; and in Josh. xvii. 14-1S 
 far more is ascribed to the initiative and efforts of the several tribes than 
 elsewhere in the book. The analogy of these phenomena might naturally lead 
 us to expect a narrative in which Joshua appeared simply as an Ephraimite 
 hero, but does not give the least suggestion that in the earliest narratives he 
 did not appear at all. Yet it is this expectation that dominates Meyer's 
 criticism. Remove it and there is no reason left for denying all share in the 
 book of Joshua to J, or assuming a contrast here between J and E far sharper 
 than they display elsewhere in the Hexateuch. 
 
 (2) References to historical facts, such as might 
 give a clue to the dates of composition, are extremely rare in 
 the 'prophetic' narratives of the Hexateuch. In Gen. ix. ao- 
 27 the subjection of the Canaanites to Israel, i. e. the reign 
 of Solomon, is presupposed. The author of Gen. xxvii. 29, 
 
238 The Hexateuch. [§i3- 
 
 39 sq. is not only familiar with David's victories over the 
 Edomites, but also with the rebellion of the latter under 
 Solomon and their revolt against Jehoram ben Jehoshaphat. 
 The writer of Gen. xxxi. 44 sqq. in all probability had in 
 view the wars of the Aramaeans and Israelites for the posses- 
 sion of the Transjordanic district. Ex. xv. 17'' was written 
 some considerable time after the building of Solomon's 
 temple ; Num. xxiv. 7 after the 'institution of the monarchy ; 
 w. 17 sq. after David's successful wars against Israel's neigh- 
 bours ; V. 33-34 ill the Assyrian period, presumably not 
 [333] earlier than the seventh century B.C. Finally, Josh. vi. 35 
 cannot have been written till the rebuilding of the walls 
 of Jericho, in Ahab's reign, had long been a thing of the 
 past 1°. 
 
 The poetic passages, some of which have been mentioned 
 already, give pretty clear indications as a rule of the period in 
 which they arose. ' The blessing of Jacob,' Gen. xlix. 1-37, 
 combines elements of different dates, some of which cannot 
 have been written until after the establishment of the 
 monarchy, or even till after the beginning of the wars between 
 the Aramaeans and the kingdom of Ephraim. ' The blessing 
 of Moses,' Bent, xxxiii., is later than Gen. xlix. i-37; and 
 cannot have been written till sometime in the reign of 
 Jeroboam II., at earliest. ' The song of Moses,' Deut. xxxii. 
 1-43, appears to belong to the Chaldeean period '■''. But the 
 value of these chronological indications is impaired by our 
 uncertainty as to the history of the incorporation of 
 these poems into the Hexateuch. The supposition that they 
 were not inserted till long after their composition, though not 
 always likely, may well be defended in some cases ^''. 
 
 •■^ The date assigned to Qen. ix. 20-27 ^^ elaborately defended by Budde 
 (op. cit., p. 506 sqq.), who very justly takes i Kings ix. 20 sq. as his point of 
 departure, and at the same time shows that the slavery of the Gibeonites, 
 which is ascribed to an ordinance of Joshua in Josh. ix. 21 sqq., did not really 
 
n. 15.J Historical allusions i^i J and E. 239 
 
 begin till the time of Solomon. In Saul's day they were still independent 
 (2 Sam. xxi. 1-14), and it must have been long after Solomon that the idea 
 sprang up of their having been slaves of the temple from the beginning. — 
 Israel's supremacy over Edom dates from the events recorded in 2 Sam. viii. 
 13, 14, for I Sam. xiv. 47 is too vague to be built upon. An attempt was 
 made to throw oflf the yoke under Solomon (i Kings xi. 14-16) ; it was success- 
 fully repeated under Jehoram (2 Kings viii. 20-22) ; and it was not punished 
 till the time of Amaziah (2 Kings xiv. 7, 10). Knowing what we do of the 
 date of the ' prophetic ' narratives, we shall not hesitate to regard the events 
 under Jehoram at any rate as already known to the author of Gen. xxvii. 40. 
 — The inference from Gen. xxxi. 44 sqq. speaks for itself, when once we have 
 learned that the relations of tribes and peoples are presented to us in Genesis 
 in the form of family history. Note especially v. 51 sq. The wars with 
 Aram for the possession of the Transjordanic district began, so far as we know, 
 under Ahab (i Kings xx., xxii.), and were carried on thenceforth almost with- 
 out intermission. — Since the settlement of Israel in Canaan is assumed through- 
 out Ex. XV. 1-18 (v. 13, 16, 17), the ascription of the song to Moses in u. i" can- 
 not be accepted. Equally unequivocal is d. 1 7 "^ ; ' the sanctuary of the Lord, 
 established by your hands' can be no other than the temple of Jerusalem; 
 nor would it rise immediately after its foundation to the commanding position 
 it occupies here. It is possible, however, with Wellhauaen, Prolegomena, [233] 
 p. 23 n. [22 n.], to take -u. 1 7 " as a later addition, an incorrect explanation and 
 limitation of 'the holy dwelling-place' (ti. 13) and 'the mount of thine 
 inheritance, the place which Yahwfe has made his dwelling' {v. 17"), by 
 which the poet may have intended the holy land in general. In that case 
 11. I'j " would not indicate a later origin for the whole poem. But the ques- 
 tion remains whether it would be possible, on other grounds, to assign a high 
 antiquity to it. Wellhausen himself {Prolegomena, p. 374, n. 1 [352, n. i]) 
 answers in the negative, and we cannot but allow, with him and Jiilicher, 
 B, p. 125 sq., that Kc. xv. 20 sq. renders the preceding account of a song sung 
 by Moses and the sons of Israel improbable, if it does not positively exclude 
 it ; and on the other hand that the tone and style of the song itself by no 
 means support its reference to a high antiquity. Isaiah adopts u. 2" in xii. 
 2^, and xii. 5 reflects v. i^. But apart from the doubts affecting the authen- 
 ticity oi Isaiah xii. (Ewald, Propheten d. A. Bundes, i. 459 [ii. 239 sq.]) this 
 citation of the opening words (cf. ti. 21) cannot pass as a conclusive proof of 
 the existence of the whole poem. — Num. xxiv. 7 would be anticipated by xxiii. 
 21, were it clear that the 'royal shout' refers to the earthly monarchy; but 
 the parallelism seems to show that the king in whose honour the shout is 
 raised is the national deity Yahwfe. But Nnm. xxiv. 7 is unequivocal, and 
 V. 17, 18 must certainly be taken as referring to David's victories (2 Sam. 
 viii. 2 ; s. ; on I Sam. xiv. 47 see above). The much-discussed verses 22-24, 
 which announce the deportation of the Kenites by the Assyrians and the 
 humiliation of the latter by foes who 'come from the coast of Chittlm,' 
 transplant us to the Assyrian period, and, it would seem, to the second 
 half of the seventh century B.C. Cf. M. M. Kalisch, BihU Studies, i. 
 
240 The Hexateuch. [§ 13- 
 
 285 sq., 291 gqq., and Th. Tijdsclir., xviii. 538 sqq. — The author of i Kings 
 xvi. 34 was acquainted with Josh. vi. 26, to which he refers. Both writers 
 regard the deaths of Hiel's sons as a judgment from Yahwe on the violation 
 of the cherem. It is generally assumed that Hiel lost his sons during the 
 rebuilding of Jericho, and that this, being understood as a judgment, caused 
 the prediction to be put into Joshua's mouth. But this makes everything 
 hang on the mere accidental coincidence of these deaths with the rebuilding 
 of the walls of Jericho ; and moreover it does not really satisfy the expres 
 sions 'lay the foundations on hia first-bom' and 'rear the gates on his youngest 
 son.' Hiel, assuredly, sacrificed his two sons to avert the wrath of the 
 deity whose possession he violated, and Josh. vi. 26, as it now stands, was not 
 written till the real significance of the fact was forgotten and another explana- 
 tion had to be found. Hence it follows that a considerable period must 
 have elapsed between the rebuilding of Jericho and the date of Josh. vi. 26. 
 
 '° The hypothesis that Gen. xlix. is a collection of proverbs, judgments, and 
 aspu-ations of various dates concerning the tribes, worked up into a single 
 whole, was first enunciated by E. Renan {Hist. Ginir. des Langues Simi- 
 tiques,^. Ill sqq.), and was further developed by J. P. N. Land (Z)?sp. de cann. 
 Jacohi, L. B. 1857). It still appears to me to give the best account of the 
 [234] phenomena presented by 'the blessing.' The settlement of the tribes in 
 Canaan is presupposed throughout. But while some of the apophthegms point 
 to the period of the Judges (c. 5-7, v. 14 sq., v. 16 sq.), others transplant us to 
 a later time. AVhatever interpretation be adopted of the difficult verse 10, the 
 words on Judah, c. 9-12, can in any case hardly date from before David. 
 And would Joseph be called ' the crowned of hia brethren ' {v. 26) before a 
 king had risen from his ranks, i. e. before the foundation of the Ephraimite 
 kingdom ? If we accept the natural inference, «. 23 sq. must in all probability 
 be referred to the attacks of the Aramaeans and their repulse ; for the 
 words do not suit the personal fortunes of Joseph, and in any case the 
 analogy of all the other sayings and the contents oi v. 22, 25 would oppose 
 any such explanation. Finally we may ask whether the division of the people 
 into twelve tribes, or rather the union of the twelve tribes into the single 
 Israel, is not enough in itself to prevent our making ' the blessing ' older than 
 the tenth or ninth century B.C.? Cf. also "VVellhausen, Geschichte, ist ed., 
 p. 375, n. I ; Stade, Geschichte d. V. Israel, p. 145-173. 
 
 On Dewt. xxxiii. cf. K. H. Graf, Der Segen Mose's erUart (1857). The 
 monarchy has long been established, i>. 5. Judah ia separated from Israel, 
 and aspirations towards a reunion are cherished, u. 7. In ii. 17 a warlike and 
 victorious king, sprung from Joseph, — in all probability Jeroboam II. — is 
 referred to. The verses on Levi, v. 8-1 1, indicate a high estimate of the 
 spiritual privileges of the tribe ; even if, as we may well suspect, it was a 
 Levite who uttered them, still we cannot place them earlier than the eighth 
 century B. c. ; and, indeed, if it were not that they are thrown into such an 
 original form and must be judged in connection with the other sayings, they 
 might even lead us to look for the poet in the same circles from which the 
 Deuteronomist issued. Cf. Stade, op. cit., on this point also. 
 
n. 15-17.J Historical Alhtsions. 241 
 
 Dent, xxxii. 1-43 will be best discussed in connection with the introduction, 
 xxxi. 16-22. See n. 30. 
 
 " On Ex. XV. 1-17 see n. 15, whence we may gather that the incorporation 
 of this poem should not be referred to the writer of v. 20 sq., but to a hand 
 which worked over both this and the other ancient accounts of the passage of 
 the Ked Sea, that is to say to JE ; cf. n. 29 ; and in this case it throws no light 
 on the date either of E or J. — It is uncertain to whom we owe the preserva- 
 tion of Gen. xlix. 1-27 (§ 8, n. 6). Deut. xxxiii. is completely detached, and 
 might very well have been incorporated even after the final redaction of the 
 Hexateuch, but its date gives no support or countenance to such a supposition 
 (cf. 11. 16). Deut. xxxii. 1-43, on the other hand, is made an integi'al portion 
 of the present Hexateuch by the two-fold introduction, xxxi. 16-22, 25-30, 
 and the postscript, xxxii. 44; and it is therefore as important in its bearing on 
 the question of the composition of the Hexateuch as Nam. xxii. 2-xxiv., for 
 instance, which cannot be torn out of the context in which it occurs. See 
 further, u. 29. 
 
 (3) Judged by the ethieo-religious conceptions they [235] 
 reflect, the 'prophetic' elements of the Hexateuch are by no 
 means all on the same level. In the first place, we find 
 certain passages distinguished by their close adhesion to the 
 primitive popular beliefs, by their crudely anthropomorphic 
 representations of the deity, and by the naivete with which 
 they bring out Israel's attitude towards the earlier inhabitants 
 of Canaan^ or give expression to Israel's national pride, — in a 
 word, by the absence^ or at any rate the feeble manifestation, 
 of the ethieo-religious spirit that breathes through the 
 written prophecies of the eighth century^*. In the second 
 place, a somewhat analogous attitude towards the popular 
 religion characterises a second series of narratives. So far 
 from being hostile, they were evidently intended alike to 
 purify this popular religion from the heathen practices that 
 went along with it, and to impress it upon the hearts of their 
 original readers". In the third place, we have yet 
 another group of narratives and laws in which the concep- 
 tions of the prophets of the eighth century b.o. are so dis- 
 tinctly reflected that it seems no more than natural to refer 
 them to their age and their school^". And finally, there 
 are also passages that seem rather to belong to the seventh 
 
 R 
 
242 The Hexateuch. [§13. 
 
 century, parallels to which, at any rate, we seek in vain iu 
 the earlier prophets ^^. 
 
 Deuteronomie ideas, and the terms and expressions in- 
 separable from them, are comparatively rare in the 'pro- 
 phetic' portions of the Hexateuch. They are not altogether 
 wanting-, however, and they demand an explanation. At the 
 close of our whole survey we shall return to them ^^. 
 
 ^' Peculiar difficulties beset the comparison we are about to institute in this 
 and the following notes. We can only make use of passages that bear unequivocal 
 evidence of their own date, i.e. such passages as definitely fit a certain 
 period and would really be unintelligible if referred either to an earlier or to 
 a later epoch. Their number cannot, from the nature of the case, be great, 
 and the impression they make on the reader, which cannot always be analysed 
 objectively, must play an important part in their identification. In each case 
 I shall begin by enumerating the passages in the successive books which 
 appear to me to reflect the spirit of some definite period, and shall then touch 
 on the chief points upon which my judgment is founded. In the iirst group, 
 then, I place the following ; — 
 
 Gen. ii. 4Mii.; iv. I-I6^ i6''-24; vi. 1-4; is. 20-27; xi. 1-9; xviii. i- 
 [236] xix. 28 (but cf. § 8, n. 4, and below, n. 21) ; v. 30-38 ; xxv. 21-34 ! sivii. 
 1-45 ; xxxii. 25-32 [24-31] ; xxxiv. (cf. § 8, n. 6) ; xxxviii. ; Hx. iv. 24-26 ; 
 xxiv. I, 2, 9-11 ; Num. x. 29-32, 33-36; Josh. v. 2 sq., 8 sq. The passages 
 betray themselves as prge-prophetic, or at least as unaffected by the spirit of 
 canonical prophecy, by the anthropomorphisms of Gen. iii. 8, 22 ; iv. 14, 16' ; 
 xi. 5, 6 ; xviii. 20, 21 ; Mx. xxiv. 9-1 1 ; by the mythological elements in Gen. 
 vi. 1-4; xxxii. 25-32 [24-31] (of. also Studer in JaArb. f.prot. Theologie, 
 1875, p. 536-545) ; Ex. iv. 24-26 ; by the identification of Yahwe with the 
 ark in Num. i, 33-36 ; by the naivete with which hatred of Moab and 
 Ammon is expressed in Gen. xix. 30-38, and jealousy of Bdom in Gen. xxv. 
 21-34 ; xxvii. 1-45, without any feeling, apparently, that the preference given 
 to Jacob needs justification to the moral as well as to the national consciousness 
 of the reader (cf. Gen. xxx. 28-43, and, in contrast, xxxi. 4-13 ; see above, n. 
 11); by their attitude towards the Canaanites, especially the condemnation of 
 Simeon's and Levi's deed of violence and exclusiveness in the ' prophetic ' 
 factor of Gen. xxxiv., the juxtaposition of Shem (Israel) and Japheth (the 
 Phoenicians? of. Budde, op. cit., p. 338 sqq.) as the joint masters of Canaan 
 (the original population of the inland parts) in Gen. ix. 20-27, the unconcerned 
 recognition of Judah's half-Canaanitish origin in Gen. xxxviii. — a chapter 
 which is marked throughout by its realism, and the absence of the ethical 
 factor from the author's judgments no less than from the doings of his heroes ; 
 by the secular and historical interest, so to speak, which betrays itself 
 especially in Gen. iv. 16 ^^-24 (explanation of the different modes of life and the 
 arts) ; Num. x. 29-32 (tlie Kenites Israel's guides during the wanderings in 
 
n. i8, 19.J ' Prce-Prophetic nar^'atives in Hexatetich. 243 
 
 the desert) ; Josh. v. 2 sq., 8 sq. (recognition of the Egyptian origin of circum- 
 cision and of Israel's duty to conform to the judgment of the Egyptians with 
 respect to uncircumcision). 
 
 1° The passages that fall under this head have already been indicated in 
 n. 8. The constantly recurring statements that at this or that place in Canaan 
 one of the patriarchs built an altar, planted a tree, or reared a stone, — and that, 
 too, in honour of Yahwe, — can have no other purpose than the one suggested in 
 the text. The authors who chronicle these particulars are warm upholders of 
 Yahwism, but they are not pm-itans like Amos, for instance (of. Av2. iii. 14; 
 iv. 4; V. 5 ; viii. 14, against Bethel, Gilgal, Beersh(?ba and Dan) or Hosea 
 (iv. 15 ; ix. 15 ; x. 5, 15, against Bethel and Gilgal). Their attitude towards 
 the maffebas (see the passages cited) deserves special notice. They do not 
 share the superstition originally associated with them. In their eyes they are 
 memorials of Yahwfe's presence or help, or of a sacrificial feast held in his 
 honour. But when thus regarded they appear harmless to them ; just as 
 Hosea (iii. 4; a. 1, 2) and Isaiah (xix. 19) mention them without express 
 condemnation. In the subsequent laws, on the other hand, the mayfebas are 
 forbidden without any reservation (not only in Ex. xxiii. 24 ; xxxiv. 13; Dent. 
 xii. 3, which deal specifically with the destruction of the ma95ebas of the 
 Canaanites, but in Deut. xvi. 22 ; Lev. xxvi. i, which are directed against the 
 use of ma99ebas in the Yahwfe-worship). 
 
 There is yet another indication that at any rate some of the ' prophetic ' 
 writers are not altogether in line with Amos, Hosea, etc. They not only [237] 
 tell of sacrifices and festivals held in honour of Yahwfe, but also enjoin 
 their observance; for the 'words of the covenant,' which are preserved 
 in a later version in Ex. xxxiv. 10-26 (cf. n. 21), all refer to the cultus 
 of Yahwfe, and in the Book of the Covenant we find, side by side with 
 ' the ordinances ' and the moral exhortations, certain regulations of the 
 cultus also (Ex. xxii. 28-30 [29-31]; xxiii. 12, 14-19, though these last 
 verses are under suspicion of being borrowed from Ex. xxxiv.). Ex. xiii. 
 3-9, 10-16 on ma99flth and the consecration of the first-born, and the 
 kindred precept in Ex. xii. 21-27, must also be referred to this category. 
 Now although we have seen (§ 10, n. 3) that Amos and his successors must 
 not be represented as condemning all sacrifices and feasts, yet they would 
 not themselves have either regulated or enforced them ; and there is therefore 
 a real difference in this respect between them and the writers who incorporate 
 these ordinances. 
 
 A somewhat different view of Gen. xxviii. 10-22, and consequently of all 
 the texts now under review, is put forward by Oort, Th. TijdscJir., xviii. 299- 
 301. He thinks it' conceivable, not to say probable, that the legends about 
 the sacred spots were committed to writing at a time when their claims were 
 assailed; that is to say, not before 722 B.C., but after Hezekiah, when the 
 idea of centralization began gradually to gain ground. But I think Beth-el 
 and the other sanctuaries are not so much defended and maintained as exalted 
 and commended by the writers in Genesis, and this might be done when the 
 kingdom of Ephraim was still flourishing, and indeed rather then than later. 
 
 E 2, 
 
244 The Hexateiuh. [ § 'S- 
 
 The writers, as far as we can see, never thought of the centralising policy 
 either way. 
 
 ^° Under the reservations expressed at the beginning of n. i8, I reckon 
 amongst the passages completely in their place in the eighth century, Grni. 
 XX. ; xxii. ; xxxv. 2-4 ; -Ex. iii. 1-15 ; xix. 10 sqq. ; xx. 1-17 ; xx. 23-xxiii. ; 
 xxxii. I sqq. ; Num. xxi. 4''-9 ; xxii. 2-xxiv. 19 ; Josli. xxiv — of course ex- 
 cluding the verses already indicated (§ 8) which were not united with or 
 incorporated into these pericopes till later. The following considerations sup- 
 port the date assigned : — 
 
 In Gen. XX. 7, 17 Abraham is styled 'nabi,' and great power is ascribed 
 to his intercession, indicating the century in which the prophets had under- 
 taken the spiritual guidance of their people and were reverenced as Yahwfe's 
 trusted servants. Gen. xviii. 17 is to some extent parallel (cf. Amos iii. 7), 
 but see n. 21. 
 
 Gen. xxii. shows how Elohim, though having the right to demand the sacri- 
 fice of children, does not actually require it, but is content with the willingness 
 to make it. Cf. Mic. vi. 6, 7. 
 
 Gen. xxxv. 2-4 makes the appearance of Elohim dependent alike on the ex- 
 pulsion of strange gods and on ceremonial bodily cleanness. The former 
 condition is developed in Josh. xxiv. and elaborately supported by an appeal 
 to Yahwfe's 'holiness' and 'jealousy' (riNjp) ; the latter we come upon agaiu 
 in Kc. xix. 10 sqq. These passages serve, in their way, the great object 
 pursued by the prophets from the eighth century onwards, viz. the complete 
 consecration of all Israel to the worship of Yahwfe alone. 
 
 .Ea. iii. 1-15 and, in connection therewith, the use of Elohim by the writer 
 [238] (E) from whom this pericope is largely derived, bear witness to reflections on 
 the historical development of religion which contrast rather sharply with the 
 unconcerned manner in which J uses the name of Yahwfe from the beginning, 
 and even puts it upon the lips of non-Israelites . I think this indicates a period 
 at any rate not earlier than the eighth century. Cf. also n. 26 on Gen. 
 iv. 25 sq. 
 
 Ex. XX. 1-17. This redaction of the Decalogue has been interpolated alike 
 fi'om D and from P^ (§ 9, n. 2 ; 16, n. 12); nor is it possible now to determine 
 its original form with certainty, whence its date must also remain doubtful. 
 Now jEc. (xxiv. 12-14 ;) xxxii. i sqq. assumes the proclamation of some Deca- 
 logue, which might, accordingly, be assigned, together with Ex. xxxii. i sqq., 
 to the eighth century, or might be brought down (together vrith the narrative 
 again), to the seventh century (vid. infra). But was this Decalogue essen- 
 tially identical with the one we possess in Ex. xx. 1-17? If the original has 
 been merely expanded and in other respects left as it was, the choice between 
 the eighth and seventh centuries still remains perplexing, for most of the 
 ' words ' fit equally well into either. If we are to regard the writer who sum- 
 marised Yahwfe's commands in the Decalogue as an original and creative 
 author, we must place him in the eighth century ; but if we are to suppose 
 that he merely resumed what the prophets of Yahwfe had already uttered, we 
 must make him a contemporary of Manasseh. His ethical conception of the 
 
n. 19, 2o.j Relatio7iship to Prophets of %th century. 245 
 
 service of Yahwfe finds its closest analogue in Mic. Ti. i-vii. 6, whicli is in all 
 probability a product of this latter period. 
 
 Ex. -S3.. 23-xxiii. In comparing the Book of the Covenant with the pro- 
 phetic literature our thoughts naturally turn, not to the mishphatlm, with 
 which the prophets hardly ever come into contact, but to the moral exhort- 
 ations, some of which, however, seem to be later incorporations (§ 5, n. i). 
 The most important are Ex. zxii. 20-23 [21-24] (against the oppression of 
 strangers, widows, and orphans); 24-26 [25-27] (justice and mercy to the 
 needy); xsiii. 1-3 (against false witness and false judgment); 6-8 (against unjust 
 sentences and bribery) ; 9 (as in xxii. 20 [21]); 10-12 (the sabbatical year 
 and the sabbath, enforced on behalf of the poor and the bond-servants) . Now 
 we note at once that by far the greater number of these precepts can be paral- 
 leled from the prophets of the eighth century, especially Amos (e.g. iv. i sqq. ; 
 vi. 3-6 ; viii. 4-6) and Micah (e. g. ii. i aq., 8 sq. ; iii. i sq., 9-1 1, and also vi. 
 10-12). But at the same time we must confess that they would not be the 
 least out of place either earlier or later. The errors against which they are 
 directed existed before the eighth century, and had still to be rebuked by Jere- 
 miah and his contemporaries. 
 
 iSr. xxxii. I sqq. can only be understood as a condemnation of the established 
 religion of Northern Israel, and at the same time of the priests connected with 
 it, who probably traced their descent from Aaron. This condemnation is quite 
 in the spirit of Amos (iv. 4 ; v. 5 ; viii. 14) and still more of Hosea (viii. 4-6; 
 ^- 5' 6; 15 ; 3dv. 4 [3]), with whom, I need not say, Isaiah and Micah are 
 completely at one. The command given to Moses to lead the people into 
 Canaan [v. 34'') is followed by the words, ' and in the day of my visitation I 
 will visit their sin upon them.' We must not ignore the possibility that the [239] 
 writer is only expressing an expectation, but it is more natural to see in 
 his words a reference to a punishment that had already fallen, viz. the 
 deportation of Northern Israel in 722 B.C. According to this view the author 
 will have lived in the reign of Hezekiah or soon after. Cf. Oort, Tlu Tijdschr., 
 sviii. 295, 312 sq. 
 
 Num. xxi. 4''-9 must be brought into connection with 2 Kings 'Kyiii.^*. The 
 author of this latter was acquainted with the story in Numbers, as we see frpm 
 his words ' the brazen serpent, which Moses made.' But it is very doubtful 
 whether Hezekiah and his advisers likewise knew it. The breaking of the 
 Nehustan seems rather to indicate that they regarded it not as a venerable 
 and ancient symbol, but as an idol, or at any rate an image of Yahwfe, on 
 which it was their duty to execute the sentence pronounced by Isaiah (ii. 8, 
 19 sq. ; XXX. 22; xxxi. 7). To that extent the writer of Num. xxi. 4''-9 and 
 Isaiah differ, but on the main issue they are at one, since even the former does 
 not defend the idol or Yahwfe-image, and only rescues the brazen serpent by 
 making it an innocent symbol of Yahwfe's healing power, just as the ma99ebas 
 are elsewhere incorporated into Yahwism (cf. u. 19). He would scarcely have 
 written thus after Hezekiah's treatment of the Nehustan, so that we may re- 
 gard him as a precursor of Isaiah's, with whom however the latter was un- 
 acquainted or whom at any rate he declined to follow slavishly. 
 
246 The Hexateitch. [§i3- 
 
 iViiitt. xxii. 2-xxiv. 19. We have already seen that Balaam's blessing pre- 
 supposes alike the establishment of the monarchy and the victories of David 
 (n. 15). And we may now add that the political and military tone of the de- 
 scription of Israel's might and prosperity places us in the eighth century e.g., 
 either in the reign of the second Jeroboam himself (cf. 2 Kings xiv. 23-29 ; 
 xiii. 5), or in the period which still retained the memory of his warlike fame. 
 Cf. Th. Tijdschr., xviii. 537 sq. We need not be surprised, therefore, to find 
 thoughts put into the mouth of Balaam, which we also meet with in the pro- 
 phets of the eighth century. Compare Num. xxiii. 19 with Hos. xi. 9' (i Sam. 
 XV. 29) ; Num. xxiii. 23*' with Am. iii. 7 (2 Kings xiv. 25). And moreover, the 
 whole conception of ' the prophet ' (illustrated In Balaam's person) as Yahwfe's 
 organ, bound to announce his will whether he would or no {Num. xxii. 8, 13, 
 18, 20, 38; xxiii. 3, 12, 26; xxiv. i, 12, 13), is completely in the spirit of 
 .these same prophets. Cf. Am. iii. 8, and the reproaches hurled against their 
 opponents by Micah, ii. 11 ; iii. 5-7 ; and Isaiah, xsx. 10 sq., etc. 
 
 *' Under the same reservation as in n. 20 I should now refer the following 
 passages to the seventh century B.C. ; Gen. xv. 5, 6; xviii. 17-19, 22''-33''; 
 E.t. xix. 3-8 ; xxiii, 20-33 iii P^^t ; the recension of Mr. xxxii.-xxxiv. ; (espe- 
 cially xxxii. 7-14 ; 25-29, the revelation of Yahwfe's glory to Moses, xxxiii. 
 12'', 13, 17-23; xxxiv. 2'>, 6-8, and the expansion of the Words of the 
 Covenant in Ej-. xxxiv. 10-28°); Num. xi. 14, 16, 17, 24''-30 ; xii. ; Deut. 
 xxxi. 14-23; Josh. V. 13-15. 
 
 The later recension and expansion of the stories in E and J, indicated in 
 § 8, n. 3 sqq., drop down into the seventh century as a natural consequence 
 [240J Qf tjig results we have obtained (n. 18-20) ; but this conclusion must 
 now be submitted to independent verification. From the nature of the case, 
 however, it is impossible to establish the correctness of our chronology sepa- 
 rately for "each one of the added passages, either by comparison with the 
 prophetic literature or by any other method. Nor is this necessary, for we 
 have every right to extend the judgment passed on the few verses or peri- 
 copes mentioned above to the passages connected with them or obviously 
 of common origin with them. As to the passages in Genesis, note that xii. 3 
 (xxviii. 14), where ' the families of the land ' are mentioned, is certainly more 
 primitive than xviii. iS ; xxii. 18 ; xxvi. 4, where 'the peoples of the earth ' 
 are substituted. The latter formula stands, in Gere, xviii. I7-I9> ™ " '^oi' 
 text that sounds almost deuteronomic, and may therefore be brought 
 down with high probability to the seventh century (cf. Jer. iii. 17; iv. 2 ; 
 xii. 15-17; xxxiii. 9). In the immediate neighbourhood of these verses 
 stands the pericope ». 22^-33'', the theme of which, viz. the righteousness 
 of Yahwfe in connection with the lot of individuals, appears again to point 
 to the seventh century, in which at all events it was dealt with by the 
 Deuteronomist (vii. g, 10; xxiv. 16), Jeremiah (xvii. 14-18; xviii. 19-23; 
 xxxi. 29 sq. [30 sq.]), and Habakkuk (i. 12 sqq.). — While the passage testifies 
 to continued theological reflection, its soteriology finds an echo in Gen. xv. 
 5, 6, which is parallel not with Isaiah vii. 9'', but with Mah. ii. 4''. 
 
 In Ex. xix. 3-8 — or perhaps it would be more accurate to say 3''-8, taking 
 
n. 20, 21.] Relationship to Prophets of']th century. 247 
 
 3* as continued in lo'', and v. 3''-8, as a later insertion — we are struck by 
 the strong assertion of Yahwfe's unity and supremacy in v. 5 and the highly 
 idealistic conception of Israel's relation to the peoples in v. 6. No parallels 
 are to be found earlier than in Deuteronoimj, ythere the characteristic n') 3D 
 {v. 5) also recurs (vii. 6 ; xiv. 2 ; xxyi. 18), as well as the opening phrase of 
 ■u. 5, 'if ye will listen obediently,' etc. {Deut. xv. 5; rxviii. i; also in Jix. 
 XV. 26 ; xxiii. 22). 
 
 On Bx. xxiii. 20-33, see below, n. 32. 
 
 With regard to Ex. xxxii.-xxxiv. I would call attention to the following 
 points : (l) Ex. xxxii. 7-14 on the one hand clearly does not belong to the 
 original, as appears from its inconsistency with v. I'j sqq., and yet on the other 
 hand it was known to D, who adopts these verses in ix. 12 sqq., sometimes 
 verbally, though bringing them into conformity with his special style and 
 usage. This in itself defines their date pretty closely, and so far from there 
 being anything in their contents to forbid our bringing them to the seventh 
 century, we may compare v. 12, 14 (nynrr'jS' Dn^ni) with Jer. xxvi. 18 sq. ; 
 xlii. 10 (t/beZ ii. 13; Jonah iv. 2); and the appeal to Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Israel, -u. 13 (cf. xxxiii. I ; Num. xxxii. 11), with Jer. xxxiii. 26; Deiit. i. 8, 
 and elsewhere; (2) Ex. xxxii. 25-39 is best explained as a translation oi Deiit. 
 xxxiii. 9 into a visible act and at the same time as a preparation for the 
 deuteronomic representation of the election of Levi as the priestly tribe — so 
 that we shall have to bring down this interpolation (for such it is) to the 
 seventh century likewise ; (3) the verses on the revelation of Yahwfe 3 
 glory to Moses {Ex. xxxiii. 12'', 13, 17-23; xxxiv. 2'>, 6-8), now interwoven 
 with the plea by which Moses strove to induce Yahwfe still to accompany 
 Israel, represent a later stage of religious development than that of the 
 prophets of the eighth century; they testify to continued reflection upon 
 Yahwfe's being and attributes, and contain the germs of a doctrinal belief; [241] 
 we must add that xxxiv. 7 rests on the Decalogue; (4) the 'Words of the 
 Covenant' appear to have been expanded twice, a. when they were still 
 isolated (t>. 14^-16, 19', 20, 21^, 22); h. when taken up into the connection 
 in which they now appear («. 9, 10-13, 24). On this last extension see below, 
 n. 32. The first, though showing no sign of the influence of D, is dependent 
 on the Decalogue (cf. v. 14'' with xx. 5), and, especially in v. 15, 16, adopts a 
 later style of language, so that we cannot concede any higher antiquity to it 
 than to the other interpolations in Ex. xxxii.-xxxiv. — From this result it 
 follows that Num. xiv. :i-25, in its present form, must likewise date from 
 the seventh century. The perieope is older than Deut. i.-iv., as a comparison 
 of 11. 22-24 with Deid. i. 35, 36 shows beyond dispute ; but on the other hand 
 V. 17, 18 proves that it is either dependent upon Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7 or of identical 
 origin with it. Compare, further, v. 11-16 with Ex. xxxii. 9-14 and v. 21 
 with Isaiah vi. 3, which the wi-iter has followed. 
 
 Num. xi. 14, 16, 17, 24''-30 and xii. are mutually connected 'studies of pro- 
 phecy,' in which the spirit of prophecy is recognised as indispensable for Israel's 
 guidance and its extension to every Israelite is aspired after, while at the same 
 time it is placed on a lower level than the immediate and unbroken inter- 
 
■248 The Hexateti-ch. [§i3- 
 
 course witli Yaliwfe (xl. 17, 29 ; xii. 6-8). The man who drew these sketches 
 may have started from certain touches in the earlier prophets {Am,, iii. 1, 8 ; 
 Isaiah xxxii. 15 sq.), but the development of prophecy in the eighth century 
 lay behind him, and his aspirations are most nearly paralleled by tTer. xxxi. 31- 
 34; E:el: xi. 19 sq., and the still later prediction oi Joel iii. 1 sq. [ii. 28 sq.]. 
 
 On Deut. xxxi. 14-23, cf. § 8, n. 15, and below, n. 30. 
 
 Josh. V. 13-15 — perhaps continued in vi. 2 sqq. (vi. i being a parenthesis), 
 though it is Yahwfe himself that is the speaker there — is related to Ex-, iii. i 
 sqq., as we see especially from a comparison of J). 15 with Ex. iii. 5. But ' the 
 prince of the host of Yahwfe ' hag taken the place of the Mal'ach Yahwfe, who 
 speaks as Yahwfe himself. The formula niri' Nas is itself late {Ps. ciii. 21 ; 
 cxlviii. 2 ; cf. i Kings xxii. 19), and hence it would seem to follow that the 
 idea of a captain of that host must be late likewise. And in fact it has no 
 real parallel either in Ezekiel or in Zcc/j. i.-viii., but only in Daniel (x. 12 
 sqq.). We cannot be accused of rashness, then, in placing Josh. v. 13-15 
 among the later pericopes. 
 
 ^^ The deuteronomic tone of Ex. xix. 3''-8 ; xxxiv. 10-13, 24 has been in- 
 dicated by anticipation in n. 21. But see further, u. 31, 32. 
 
 The phenomena to which attention has now been directed 
 (p. 232—348) lead up to the following hypothesis with regard 
 to the origin and subsequent fortunes of J and E: — 
 
 The yahwistic document (J) was composed in the 
 north-Israelite kingdom within the ninth or quite at the 
 beginning of the eighth century B.C. -^ The elohistic 
 [242] document (E) was written, in the same kingdom, by an 
 author who was acquainted with J, and who must have lived 
 about 750 B.c.^* Both works were known and well received 
 in Judah also. But they could not permanently satisfy the 
 existing and gradually unfolding requirements of the latter 
 kingdom. Accordingly both alike were so expanded and recast 
 that in the second half of the seventh century distinctively 
 Judsean editions of J and E had come into existence ^^. This 
 supposition, so natural in itself, is supported by the facts 
 already indicated (n. 20, 21), as well as by certain other 
 phenomena presented by the yahwistic and elohistic passages 
 of the Hexateuch ^°. 
 
 At some period later than 650 b.c. the documents J and E, 
 thus supplemented and worked over, were combined into 
 
-n. 2 1-23.] Origin mid History of J and E. 249 
 
 a single whole. The moment at which this took place, 
 giviDg rise to JE, camiot be determined with certainty, but 
 we may place it with high probability at the close of the 
 seventh or the opening of the sixth century. For it does not 
 appear that the Deuteronomist himself, i.e. the author of 
 I)eut. V. sqq., had JE before him as a whole ^^ His fol- 
 lowers, on the other hand, made use of it in Beut. i.-iv. and 
 in Josliua'^^. This leads to the supposition that the harmonist 
 of J and E accomplished his task after the year 631 b.c. and 
 before the beginning of the Babylonian captivity. This is in 
 harmony with the fact that though not directly dependent 
 on the Deuteronomist (cf n. 31, 32), he has nevertheless 
 a close affinity to him, and incorporates at any rate some few 
 fragments that issued from deuteronomic circles ^''. Moreover 
 there is at least one positive reason for bringing down J E as 
 late as this, for if he incorporated the so-called ' Song of 
 Moses,' Betit. xxxii. 1-43, and wrote the introduction to it, 
 Beut. xxxi. 14-23, his work cannot be much earlier than 
 the date we have assigned. To give it a higher antiquity 
 would involve the assumption that the Song and its intro- 
 duction had no place in it, but were inserted later, though 
 still before the Babylonian captivity. And this assumption 
 has nothing to support it ^''- 
 
 ^3 The northern origin of J, pronounced probable in n. 9, is supported by 
 the use which Hosea makes of this document specifically, and also by its 
 general character. As long as the northern kingdom existed it was the centre [243] 
 of the life of Israel, spiritual and literary, as well as material ; and it is 
 there, rather than in Judah, that we should be inclined to look for an author 
 such as J, thoroughly devoted to Yahwism, but free from any touch of scrupu- 
 losity and marked by such freshness, originality and graphic power. — The date 
 assigned rests on the following considerations : — According to n. 11, 12, J is 
 the earlier of the two documents. Of the passages described as 'pr£e-prophetic' 
 in n. 18 by far the greater number belong to J; the only exceptions 
 being £/. xxiv. i, 2, 9-11 and Nmn. x. 33-36, which we have assigned to E 
 (§ 8, n. 13, 14). The conclusion that J himself lived before the close of the 
 era the characteristics of which he reflects so clearly, is certainly not rash. 
 And now it becomes obvious why we assigned G'e«. xxxii. 25-33 [24-32] to 3, 
 
250 The Hexatetich. [§i3- 
 
 rather than E in § 8, n. 5. It falls in far better with the former's than with 
 the latter's tone of thought. The inferences justified by all these considerations 
 are defined still further by n. 3 and 4. J cannot be earlier than the second 
 half of the ninth century, nor later than Hosea, who is acquainted with his 
 narratives, including Get%. xxsii. 25-33 [24-32]. 
 
 ^' On E's fatherland, see n. 9. In support of the date here proposed note, 
 (i) that we have seen E to be later than J (n. 11, 12); (2) that the ethioo- 
 religious ideas expressed in a number of his narratives and in his laws take us 
 right into the atmosphere of the eighth century prophecy (n. 20) ; (3) that his 
 representation of events and style of narrative give corresponding evidence of 
 reflection and research, and are inexplicable unless referred to this, or a still 
 later, period. Note, specifically, the studied use of Elohlm (n. 20) ; the care- 
 ful avoidance, as a general rule, of anthropomorphic descriptions of God's reve- 
 lations ; and the use of poetical citations, in Sum. sua. 14, 27, to support 
 historical statements. — If these considerations forbid us to mount higher than 
 about 750 B.C., on the other hand we cannot come down much lower. For, (i) 
 E is an Ephraimite, and therefore earlier than 722 B.C. No doubt some por- 
 tion of the people remained in the land after that year, and the literary life 
 of northern Israel might conceivably have been prolonged. But there is no 
 positive evidence that it was so, and it hardly seems probable (cf 2 Kings 
 xvii. 24 sqq.) ; and moreover the passages in E concerning Ephraim contain 
 no allusions to the catastrophe which would have been a thing of the past had 
 the document been composed after 722 B.C.; (2) E's attitude towards the 
 sacred places, of which details were given in n. 19, implies that they were still 
 in existence and were frequented by the worshippers of Yahwfe; (3) none of 
 the passages on which we can confidently reckon as fragments of the original 
 E give the smallest indication of a later date. Anyone may convince himself 
 of this by reading them. The very fact that NoZdeke, Schrader, and 
 Dillmann have been able to regard E as the earlier of the two writers shows, 
 at any rate, that no clear marks of the seventh century, for instance, can be 
 found in the document. We have already observed, in n. 20, that the com- 
 position of Num. xxii. 2-xxiv. 19, for example, cannot be brought down as late 
 as the seventh century; and such anthropomorphisms as appear in xxii. g, 20 
 add their testimony in favour of the earlier date. So too with E.e. xxiv. 
 I, 2, g-ii and Num. x. 33-36, the contents of which show that they belong 
 in spirit to the ' pr£e-prophetic' passages of n. 18. 
 [244] 25 "wjiat I have said of J and E in n. 23, 24 does not refer to these docu- 
 ments in their present form, but to their older and original elements ; the 
 necessity of separating which from the later additions follows immediately 
 from the phenomena pointed out on p. 241 sqq. Now it is generally assumed 
 that these additions came from the pen of the harmonist who made a single 
 whole of the two documents (n. 27-30). But by far the gi-eater number 
 of them have not the remotest connection with the process of fusion ; 
 they have no harmonising purpose, but serve to continue, expand or im- 
 prove upon the special document, be it J or E, in which they are incor- 
 porated. Moreover they have no such internal affinities with each other, 
 
n- 23-25.J Origin and History of J and E, 251 
 
 either in form or contents, as to be suitably referred to a single hand. I 
 have therefore given the preference to the hypothesis of a Judjean edition 
 alike of J and of E, though I must not be understood to deny the pos- 
 sibility that some of the additions may be due to a hand no earlier than 
 that of the redactor of the ' prophetic ' elements ; for though his chief con- 
 cern was unquestionably the combination of J and E, it does not follow- 
 that he always confined himself to harmonising, or rather that he was never 
 led by the very nature of the harmonising task itself to overstep its strict 
 limits. 
 
 It appears from n. 21 that Ge»». xviii. 17-ig, 2 2''-33'' must be refeiTed to the 
 Judsean edition of J. See, further, n. 26. — ^But the expansion and elaboration 
 more especially of E must have been very important and extensive. Some 
 of the later passages pointed out in n. 21 should probably be referred to 
 the harmonist, and will therefore come under discussion shortly (n. 29) ; 
 but others, — viz. Num. xi. 14, 16, 17, 24''-3o ; xii. ; xiv. 11-25, — belong to 
 the Judffian recension of E, together with Num. xxiv. 20-24 (cf. n. 15). The 
 objection to assigning the former group to E, which seemed to flow from Ex. 
 xviii., has now disappeared. It is not improbable that the author of Ei-. 
 xviii. himself, after relating the appointment of judges over 10, 50, 100 
 and 1000 families, should have mentioned the selection of seventy elders, 
 filled with the spirit of prophecy, without so much as a word of allusion 
 in the latter narrative to the contents of the former ; but there was no reason 
 why the Judaean editor of E, who was more interested in vindicating its 
 true place for prophecy than in illustrating the Mosaic age, should be re- 
 strained from inserting his own sketch by the existence of an imperfect 
 parallel in his predecessor. — Still more important than these additions were 
 the modifications introduced by the Judsean editor into the Sinai-records 
 of E, which must indeed have undergone several successive recensions. 
 In n. 20 we saw that the Decalogue and the account of its proclamation 
 (Ec. xix. 3", lo'-ip; XX. 18-21, 1-17, cf. § 8, n. 12) together with the as- 
 sociated story of the worship of the golden calf (Ex. xxiv. 12-14; ^^^^^i'- 
 1-6, 15 aqq.), were probably not incorporated till at least as late as Heze- 
 kiah's reign. According to n, 21, Ex. xxxii. 7-14 and other additions 
 in Ex. xix., xxxii. -xxxiv. are later still ; but some of them are shown by 
 their deuteronomic tinge not to belong to the Judsean recension on which 
 we are now engaged (cf. n. 22). Here it may well be objected that criti- 
 cism, so freely applied, positively eliminates the subject on which it is 
 operating ! What remains for the original narrative of E when all these 
 additions are removed? Not much except xxxiii. 7-1 1, it must be con- [245] 
 fessed. And this passage itself is incomplete, for the ark, of which the 
 &hel mo'ed must surely have been the receptacle from the first, is not men- 
 tioned in it. But this result, however strange at first sight, is really 
 quite natural. In E's primitive account, the journey of the children of 
 Israel to ' the mountain of Elohlm ' can hardly have had any other purpose 
 than to give them the occasion for receiving ' the ark of Elohlm ' which 
 was to accompany them on their further journey towards Canaan. On 
 
252 TJie Hexateuck. [ § 1 3- 
 
 the one hand it is certain that E mentioned this ark {Num. i. 33-36; 
 xiv. 44), and must therefore have given an account of its origin ; and on 
 the other hand the texts just cited prove that he must have regarded its 
 possession as a privilege and represented its acquisition as a sign of the 
 favour of Blohlm. In other words, the connection in which the 6hel moMd, 
 the receptacle of the ark, now occurs, is not original; and Ex. ssxiii. 7-11 
 can only be a fragment. In Er. xxiv. I, 2, 9-1 1 another fragment of like 
 nature is perhaps preserved. See further, u. 32. 
 
 ^' (i) The character of the Judsean recension of J comes out most clearly 
 in (tVji. i.-xi. We have already recognised Gen. ii.4''-iii. ; iv. i, 2'', i6''-24; 
 vi. 1-4; ix. 20-27; ^'' '~9 ^^ tli6 more ancient elements of J's ' history of 
 origins' (cf. n. iS, and § 8, n. 3). The question was then left open, whether 
 these older passages were taken up and recast by a later hand, or whether 
 they were amalgamated with an independent ' history of origins ' by a redactor ; 
 but it may now be decided in favour of the former hypothesis. The sup- 
 position of a Judsean edition of J not only accounts for the facts, but commends 
 itself by its simplicity. The original narrative was first supplemented by the 
 incorporation of Gen. iv. 2'-, 3-16", a comparatively ancient notice (cf. n. 18), 
 derived from the same circle of ideas to which the story of Paradise and the 
 family tree of Cain belong (cf. Th. Tijdschr., xviii. 153 sqq.). A later writer, 
 to whose knowledge the Assyrio-Babylonian legend of the flood had come, 
 thought good to incorporate it, recast in the Israelitish spirit, into J's 'history 
 of origins,' and to make Noah (whom he took from Gen, ix. 20-27) *li^ rescued 
 survivor from the flood and the ancestor of the new race of men. But the 
 saga required this Noah to be the tenth from Adam, and since he could not be 
 a descendant of the fratricide Cain, the original list of Cainites was recast and 
 expanded into a genealogy of ten generations of Sethites, of which we possess 
 the heading only in Gen. iv. 25, 26 and a fragment in Gen. v. 29, the rest having 
 made way for the similar list of P^ (Gen.i. 1-28, 30-32). After this the 
 editor placed the story of the flood, important fragments of which we possess 
 in Qen. vi. 6-viii. Contents and style combine to show that it ia not older 
 than the seventh century (TA. Tijdschr., xviii. 164 sqq. ; to the ideas and ex- 
 pressions of a later date there collected we may add Yahwfe's repentance in 
 {}en. vi. 6, 7, which only appears in writings of this or a still later period, — 
 if we except the not quite similar utterance of Amos, vii. 3, 6). After Gen. ix. 
 20-27 the editor inserted a table of nations of which again we possess mere frag- 
 ments {Gen. X. ; cf. § 6, u. i ; 8, n. 7) ; but what we have — especially Gen. a. 
 [246] 8-12-T-harmonises perfectly with the date we have assumed. — We shall have 
 no difiiculty now in recognising the hand of the Jud^an editor here and there 
 in the other portions of Genesis. For instance, in xii. 10-20 (cf. § 8, n. 4), 
 where a saga of which Isaac was originally the subject is transferred, in imi- 
 tation of E (xx), to Abram; in Gen. xv. (on v. 5, 6, see n. 21), though the chapter 
 has been worked over more than once and must therefore come under consi- 
 deration again (§ 16, u. 12) ; also, it seems, in Gen. xxxix., which we have al- 
 ready seen cause to assign to a later form of the Joseph-saga (n. 10), and 
 which sinks below the undoubted J-passages in point of form, while distin- 
 
n. 25-28.] Origin and History of J and E. 253 
 
 guislied from them by its pronounced ethical tone. — It is almost certain 
 that in ExoduSj Numhers, and J'oshua, likewise, J has been subject to re- 
 cension, but in these books the harmonist has been more drastic in his. 
 treatment of J and E than in Genesis, so that it is often impossible now 
 to distinguish between the earlier and later elements of his sources. Cf. 
 n. 27-30. 
 
 (2) Most of the additions to E have been dealt with already in n. 25, 
 and the presumable expansions of his narrative in Ke. i. sqq., Josh. i. sqq., 
 have just been mentioned under (i). It remains to note iV?(n»^^>i 32-35 
 — which is evidently a later addition, rounding off the concep^^^f 'tfie con- 
 quest of the whole Transjordanic district as the work of Mg^sJji^pxxxii., 
 likewise, the half-tribe of Manasseh, that takes possession of the kingdom 
 of Og, is inserted (v. 33 in part, 39-43) into a narrative that only men- 
 tioned Eeuben and Gad and their settlement. This might suggest that 
 the original story, together with Num. xxi. 21-31, is E's, and the later ad- 
 ditions {Num. xxxii. 33, in part, 39-42), together with Nnm. xxi. 32-35, 
 the Judsean editor's. But we shall see in n. 39 that another hypothesis 
 deserves the preference. 
 
 " Cf. § 9, n. 5. Anyone who ascribes the whole mass of later ' prophetic' 
 additions to the harmonist JE, must without question place his date 
 earlier than the year 621 B.C., for D^ had most certainly read JEx. xxxii. 
 7-14, Num. xiv. 11-25, not to mention any other passages (n. 21). But 
 if we assign these, and certain other additions, to the Judiean edition of 
 E, we need only suppose that D^ had this edition before him; for the com- 
 bined documents, or in other words JE as a whole, cannot be traced with 
 certainty in the historical allusions of D '. An exception would have to be 
 made in the case of the story of the quails in Num. xi. 4 sqq., did D ' really 
 allude to it (ix. 22); but he may have found the story in J before its 
 combination with E. On the other hand Dathan and Abiram (xi. 6) belong 
 to E (§ 8, n. 14), and therefore the reference to them is not an exception to 
 the rule, as Meyer thinks it is (Zeitschr. f. alttest. Wissensehaft, i. 123). 
 The argumentum e silentio has more than its usual force in this instance, since 
 not a few of the narratives in J {Gen. vi. 5-viii. ; xviii., xix., etc.) would 
 have served D''s purpose admirably, and would surely have been used by him 
 had they lain before him in the very same document in which he read the 
 stories of E which he so generally followed. 
 
 ^^ The strongest evidence is furnished by the deuteronomic recension of 
 Joshua, which, extends to all the 'prophetic' elements and of which, therefore, 
 nothing short of JE can have been the subject. — But even Beat, i.-iv., xxix. 
 sqq. betray acquaintance not only with J and E, but with JE also. Compare 
 Deut. iv. 3 with Num. xxv. 1-5 ; Beat. xxix. 23 with Gen. xviii. sq. ; x. 19 ; 
 Beut. i. 9 sqq., both with Ej:. xviii. and Num. xi. 4-34, which latter story was [247] 
 oidy brought into its present shape by JE (n. 29). It would be possible to 
 argue that these passages only prove an acquaintance with the Judaian edition 
 of E side by side with the occasional consultation of J. But the ' prophetic ' 
 portion of Num. xxxii., which is closely followed for the most part in Beut. iii; 
 
2 54 The Hexateuch. [§i3- 
 
 I2-20, must in all probability be referred to JE (n. 29), and in that case we 
 have positive proof that T)eid. i.-iv. stands on the same footing as the recension 
 of Joshua. 
 
 ^^ We will begin by pointing out the sections and verses which must he 
 assigned to JE, and which may serve to characterise the method he followed. 
 The minor harmonising additions and modifications, inseparable from the 
 attempt to weave two works into one, may be passed over in silence. Qm. 
 xvi. 8-10 (to be assigned — with Wellh. xxi. 410, and against Dillmann, 
 Genesis, p. 237 sqq. — to JE, who makes Hagar return to her master's house, 
 because of Gen. xxi. 9 sqq., whereas in the original story she brought her son into 
 the world in the desert) ; — xx. 18 (an incorrect explanation of v. 17, marked 
 as JE's by 'Yahwfe,' § 8, n. 5); — xxii. 15-18 (where tie yahwistio promise 
 to Abraham in Gen. xii. 3 ; xviii. 18 is incorporated into a story of E's. But 
 JE did not confine himself to this expansion. He has likewise been busy 
 with II. II, 14, and Wellhausen, xxi. 409 sq. ; Dillmann, Genesis, p. 273 
 sqq., and others, rightly judge that he substituted 'Moria' in v. 2 for the 
 name of some place in Ephi-aim, with the express purpose of transplanting 
 Abraham's deed of faith to Jerusalem — whence it also follows that we are 
 not to look for JE in Northern Israel); — xxvi. 15, 18 (remarkable harmonis- 
 ing glosses, dictated by Gen. xxi. 22 sqq., inserted into J's narrative) ; — xxviii. 
 13-16 (which I take to be a complete parallel to xxii. 15-18; cf. § 8, n. 6); 
 — £.>:. i.-xi. (where the ' prophetic ' narrative, in its present form, is due to 
 JE, who did not simply interweave his documents, in this case, but made 
 their statements the groundwork of a narrative of his own, especially in iv.- 
 xi., cf. § 8, n. 10, II ; leading us to infer that the emphasis laid upon the 
 miraculous character of the plagues and the contrast between the lot of Israel 
 and that of the Egyptians are due to him or at least were heightened by him) ; 
 - — xiii. I eq., 3-10, 11-16 (mutually connected ordinances on ma996th and the 
 consecration of the first-born to Yahwfe. We have seen, § 9, n. 4, that these 
 ordinances are not dependent upon Deuteronomy, though they have a strong 
 affinity with it ; they stand in no connection with the documents that underlie 
 Ex. xii., xiii. ; and we may probably assume that they were inserted here by 
 JE, though not written by him; on Ex. xii. 21-27 see § 16, u. 12) ; — xv. 1-19 
 (likewise lashed in by JE, cf. n. 15) ; — xviii. i sqq. (recast by JE, in order 
 to harmonise J's representation, in iv. 24-26, that Moses took his wife and 
 one son to Egypt, with E's idea that the wife and two sons staid behind with 
 the father) ; — Xum. xi. 4-34 (a combination of 'E? on the seventy elders, 11. 14, 
 16, 17, 24*^-30, with J on the feeding with quails, the latter story being ex- 
 panded and embellished, especially in 11. 18-24°, 31, 32; Wellhausen, xxi. 
 568 sqq., distinguishes between two quail stories, but their existence cannot 
 be proved, and the recension of J by JE, including the insertion of ' the 
 [248] elders,' completely accounts for the narrative as it now stands) ; — Num. xxxii. 
 (i.e. the 'prophetic' account of the settlement of Eeuben, Gad, and half 
 Manasseh in the Transjordanic district, which is welded together with a 
 parallel story from P^ in that chapter. We have already seen, in § 6, u. 42, 
 that it is impossible accurately to assign its own to each of the main documents, 
 
n. 28, 29.J The Harmonist of J and E. 255 
 
 whence again it follows that the pedigree of the ' prophetic ' narrative cannot 
 be determined with certainty. A hypothesis was suggested in n. 26 which 
 seemed very probable. But I cannot accept it as definitive for the following 
 reason : the 'prophetic' narrative in Num. xxxii. asserted not only that Eeuben 
 and Gad received the Transjordanic district as their heritage, but also that 
 their armed men crossed the Jordan and took part in the conquest of Canaan. 
 Now this latter trait is a remote corollary of the wholly unhistorical concep- 
 tion of the unity of Israel in the time of Moses, and the conquest of Canaan 
 as an act accomplished simul et semel. But this corollary cannot be shown to 
 rest on any premises supplied either by J or by E. It only emerges among 
 the followers of D', in Deut. iii. 12-20; Josh. i. 12-15; i^- 12 ; xxii. 1-6; in 
 P^, if Josh. iv. 13 is from his hand, § 6, n. 48, and in the very late author of 
 Josh. xxii. 7, 8, 9-34, § 6, n. 53. This being so I think the ' prophetic' por- 
 tion oi Num. xxxii. must be referred to the very last recension, i.e. to JE. 
 It is probable enough that the ' prophetic ' redactor had an older account, of 
 E's, before him, which would explain the omission of half Manasseh in v. 1-32 
 even now. But in that case the older account was completely recast by JE 
 in V. 1-32 and supplemented in v. 33, 39-42 by the introduction of Manasseh. 
 All that remains of it, then, has passed through the hand of JE, and must 
 be regarded as his work) ; — Josh, i.-xii. (which, according to § 8, n. 16, 20, 
 mtist be regarded in the same light as Ex. i. sqq., and must therefore be 
 referred to JE, — ^with the exception of the deuteronomic additions and the 
 few verses inserted from P". Cf. also § t6, n. 12); — xiii. sqq. (also JE's 
 redaction, — though with the same reserve as before, which in this case covers 
 a good deal, cf. § 6, n. 46 sqq. and § 7, n. 26 sqq. The 'prophetic' redactor's 
 hand is most obvious in xviii. ^-6 [y. 7 is a deuteronomic addition], 8-10. 
 These verses embody the idea that an inheritance was assigned to the seven 
 lesser tribes, though not to Judah and Joseph, by lot. D^ does not know, or 
 at any rate does not accept it, § 9, n. 9 ; whereas P^ extends it to all the 
 tribes on this side the Jordan, xiv. 1-5. In JE the partition is made by 
 Joshua, without Eleazar, who is first introduced by Y', ibid. The section, 
 therefore, caimot be assigned to the final redactor, who adheres to P, § 16. 
 But it is unquestionably late ; for even this qualified division by lot, preceded, 
 observe, by a plan and survey of Canaan, as though it were an uninhabited 
 land, is an advanced deduction from the urJiistorical conception of Israel's 
 settlement, and would be out of place either in J or E. The language, too, 
 is far from antique. Compare 11. 3, n3«'l», with Ex. xvi. 28 ; Num. xiv. 11 ; 
 13. 4, 'Di, with Jer. xxix. 10; Gen. xlvii. I3, and a number of other passages 
 in P ; ■». 5, 6, 9, p'jn, with v. 7 ; xiv. 4, and other texts of D and P. All this 
 agrees perfectly with the supposition that JE is the author). 
 
 The consideration of JE's work shows us in the first place that he certainly 
 does not belong, as has sometimes been supposed, to the eighth century B.C. [249] 
 The mingled reverence and freedom, so strange sometimes to our ideas, with 
 which he treats his documents, is quite out of keeping with the age in which 
 the narratives themselves arose, or were supplemented from the still living 
 springs of the popular saga, and is thoroughly characteristic of the later student, 
 
256 The Hexateuch. [§i3- 
 
 collecting and recasting, making it his first object to preserve, and even when 
 he attempts something more never quitting the beaten tracks. I can hardly 
 think that Eeuss would have supported the date mentioned above {Geschichte 
 d. Alt. Test., § 213-216), if he had examined JE'a method in detail. — We have 
 already glanced at the relation in which JE stands to Deuteronomy, which is 
 important in determining his date more closely. It comes out clearly, for 
 example, in his incorporation of Ex. xiii. i, 2, 3-10, 11-16, and in Josh. 
 xviii. 2-6, 8-10. But his linguistic usage also testifies to JE's close affinity 
 with D' and his followers. This is exemplified by the way in which he speaks 
 of the inhabitants of Canaan. E, it would seem, uniformly employed the 
 general term ' the Amorite' {Gen. xlviii. 22 ; Josh. vii. 7 ; x. 5, 6, 12 ; xxiv. 
 12, 15, 18, perhaps also in the now expanded verse Josh. v. i), which D^ sub- 
 sequently adopted from him {Deut. i. 19, 20, 27, 44; cf. also Gen. xv. 16), 
 J, on the other hand, called the native population ' the Canaauite' (Gen. xii. 
 6; xxiv. 3, 37; 1. 11), or 'the Canaanite and the Perizzite' (Gen. xiii. 7; 
 xxxiv. 30 ; cf. xxxviii. 2), and his usage also was adopted by later writers (not 
 only Judges i. i, 3-5, 9, lo, 17, 27-30, 32, 33, but Ex. xiii. 11 ; Deut. xi. 30 ; 
 Gen. xlvi. 10; Mc. vi. 15). JE — in agreement with Deuteronomy (xx. 17 six 
 peoples, vii. i seven peoples) — preferred the resonant enumeration of six 
 peoples, and constantly inserted them into the periods he adopted or recast. 
 See Bx. iii. 8, 17; xiii. 5 (where the Hivvites are wanting in the Masoretic 
 text); xxiii. 23 ; xxxiii. 2 ; Josh. ix. i ; xii. 8. To some of these texts, how- 
 ever, a deuteronomic origin may be assigned with equal probability, and such 
 is undoubtedly the source of Ex. xxxiv. 11 (six peoples) ; Josh. iii. 10; xxiv. 
 II (seven peoples) ; Judges iii. 5 (six peoples). This insertion is more than 
 once coupled with the description of Canaan as ' a land flowing with milk and 
 honey,' Ex. iii. 8, 17 ; xiii. 5 ; xxxiii. 3 ; cf. Num. xiii. 27 ; xiv. 8 ; xvi. 13 ; 
 which expression may be borrowed either from J or from E, but if so was 
 adopted and constantly employed alike by JE and by D' (vi. 3 ; xi. g ; xxvi. 
 9, 15 ; xxvii. 3 ; cf. xxxi. 20 ; Josh. v. 6), and afterwards by others {Jer. xi. 5 ; 
 xxxii. 2 2 ; Ezek. xx. 6, 1 5 ; Lev. xx. 24). This single example will suffice to show 
 how natural it is that there should still be some want of agreement whether 
 certain verses should be assigned to JE or to one of the followers of D'. 
 Cf. u. 31. 
 
 '" ' The song of Moses ' was found ready to hand, not composed, by the 
 author of the introduction, Deut. xxxi. 14-23. Had he written it himself, he 
 would have made it answer the intention with which he inserted it better. 
 He would have sung in the person of Moses, and would have brought the 
 close of the song into harmony with his purpose. The first question, then, is : 
 What is the date of the song itself? Knobel {Num., Deut. u. Josh., p. 324 
 sq.) and Schrader (De Wette's Einleitung, p. 322) are wrong in assigning 
 it to the Syrian period, about goo B.o. The ' no-people,' the 'foolish (godless) 
 [250] nation,' of ». 21, must of necessity refer either to the Assyrians or to the Chal- 
 dEeans. But the latter supposition is really the most natural, for Isaiah v. 26, 
 27 ; xiv. 31 ; xxxiii. 19, are not nearly such close parallels as Jer. v. 15, 16 ; 
 vi. 22, 23, and above all Hah. i. 6 sqq. How the poet could signify the 
 
"• 29, 30-J JE- So7ig of Moses. 257 
 
 Aramseans by these names I cannot see. Now v. 21 is not a prediction, but 
 a description of what Yahwfe had declared he would do {v. 20) and has now 
 accordingly done. For from v. 29 onwards the poet deals with the conse- 
 quences of the (now accomplished) chastisement, and expresses the hope that 
 Israel will humble himself in consequence, and that so the worst may be 
 averted. This is the position either of an Ephraimite poet of about 740 B.C., 
 or of a Judaean contemporary of Jeremiah. Now the style and language of 
 the song plead for the second alternative. The opening {v. 1-3), which is not 
 free from inflation, is imitated but likewise exaggerated from Isaiah i. 2, and 
 has affinities with Fs. xlix. 2-4 [1-3]. Expressions constantly recur which 
 we seek in vain in the writers of the eighth century, e.g. v. 4, h'lV ; 16, D'BDn 
 and riDrin; 17, ^b\d; 18, 'j'jin; 20, nisonn; 21, ^an; 22, mp, r:n'7; 24, 
 Dnb, eat; 30, -i3d; 33, ti3n; 35, Bio, T«; 42, n'luj; 43, )':Tn; linguisti- 
 cally the song may be classed with Jeremiah and Ezekiel. More than this 
 cannot in my opinion be inferred from the parallel passages in D' (cf § 7, 
 n. 19) and in Jeremiah. On this last point, cf Kamphausen, Das Lied 
 Hose's, p. 295 sqq., where the following parallels are specially pointed out : v. 1, 
 43 {Jer. ii. 12 ; vi. 18, 19); v. 4", 21'' {Jer. ii. 5) ; «. 5 (Jer. ii. 31) ; v. 6^ 
 {Jer. iv. 22 ; v. 21) ; v. 6=, 18 {Jer. ii. 26-28 ; iii. 19) ; v. 15 {Jer. ii. 20 ; v. 7, 
 28) ; V. 18, 19 {Jer. vi. 19, 30) ; v. 21 {Jer. ii. ii, 12) ; v. 25 {Jer. vi. 11) ; v. 
 30 {Jer. iii. 14) ; v. 35 {Jer. vi. 15) ; v. 37, 38 {Jer. ii. 26-28). To these we 
 may add v. 22 {Jer. xv. 14; xvii. 4) ; v. 13 {Lam. iv. 9). Kamphausen does 
 not doubt the priority of Dent, xxxii., but it is really very questionable. 
 Jeremiah follows his originals closely and on a large scale when he follows 
 at all, as in xlvi. sqq. for example ; and as for Deut. xxxii. being one of his 
 models, it is out of the question. His points of agreement with it are 
 no greater than are usual between contemporaries of kindred spirit. 'The 
 song of Moses* may have been composed about 630 B.C., but may equally 
 well be twenty or thirty years later. — The introduction, xxxi. 14-23, presents 
 no difficulties to this date. We have already (§ 8, n. 15) found traces of E's 
 language, and affinities with Josh. xxiv. in it. But points of difference are 
 not wanting, either in the language (here and there related to P'), or in the 
 historical stand-point, for the writer lives in the midst of the ' many disasters 
 and distresses ' which he makes Moses announce, and he therefore does not 
 take the song as a warning against apostasy, but as evidence that Israel's 
 humiliation is the consequence of his sin, and as such is a dispensation of 
 Yahwfe. The author of Josh. xxiv. does not take so gloomy a view. His 
 Joshua is deeply concerned as to Israel's future, but is by no means sure that 
 it will be as gloomy as it is painted in Deut. xxxi. by Moses. Josh, xxiv., 
 then, need not prevent our placing the introduction to the Song somewhere 
 between 597 and 586 B.C., for example ; though it might, for that matter, be 
 still later, i. e. exilian. The short time allowed between the composition of 
 the song and that of the introduction presents no difficulty ; for it need not 
 have prevented the author of the latter from believing the song to be really 
 Mosaic ; and, moreover, it is by no means certain that he did believe this ; 
 for the hortatory purpose which it served would doubtless have seemed [251] 
 
 S 
 
258 The Hexateuch. [§i3- 
 
 to him a complete justification of its ascription to Moses. — On xxxi. 
 24-30, cf. § 7, u. 20. These verses, which presuppose the introduction, are 
 due to an exilian writer, and therefore present no difBculty to the date 
 we have assigned. The only question that remains, then, is whether to 
 ascribe the introduction — together, of course, with the incorporation of the 
 song — to JB himself, or to one of the earliest readers of his work. Such an 
 interpolation is not altogether impossible, but it is very improbable. It must 
 have preceded the amalgamation of JE with D, which would bring it nearly 
 back to the date of JE himself. And, moreover, there is no positive evidence 
 for it of any kind. On the contrary, the introduction is so interwoven with 
 the account, borrowed from E, of Joshua's consecration to his task (1;. 14, 15, 
 23) as to form a. fairly consistent whole with it. We cannot suppose, then, 
 that the union was affected by any other hand than that of JE himself. 
 
 Had JE's work been preserved in its original form, our 
 inquiry might close at this point. As it is, we have still to 
 inquire what influence the amalgamation with D^ and his 
 followers had upon JE (cf. § 14). We have already seen that 
 the deuteronomic redactor who reduced the two works to one 
 recast the account of Israel's settlement in Canaan in his 
 own spirit (§ 7, n. 36-31). But it was only the booji of 
 Joshua and the accounts of the last activities and death of 
 Moses {Bent, xxvii., xxxi., xxxiv.) leading up to it; that 
 underwent such drastic treatment. In the preceding books 
 the redactor confined himself to adding a few deuteronomic 
 touches, which show, by the comparative ease with which we 
 can separate them, that the contents of JE have remained 
 otherwise unaltered 2^. On one point only did the redactor 
 allow himself rather more freedom. He very considerably 
 expanded the Sinaitic legislation, which embraced nothing 
 but the Decalogue in JE, by transposing both the Book of 
 the Covenant {Ex. xx. 32-xxiii.) and the Words of the 
 Covenant (Ex. xxxiv. 10-28) from the place which they 
 occupied in JE to the account of the legislation of Sinai. 
 Positive evidence or proof of this thesis cannot be given, but 
 the indirect indications which support it from various sides 
 give it a high degree of probability ^^. 
 
 r2";2] ^' Colenso's contention, mentioned but not criticised in § 7, n. 32,33, 
 
n. 30-32-J Deiiteronomic Recension of Hexateuch. 259 
 
 has not been confirmed by our further researches, including those of the 
 present §, Moreover, when examined closely it is inadmissible in itself. 
 The sections attributed by Colenso to D, i.e. to the Deuteronomist him- 
 self or to one or more redactors working upon his lines, have little indeed 
 in common, and they often conflict with the known pui-port of D's laws. 
 It is hard to conceive of a writer or a school that could enrich Genesis, 
 for example, with the following verses and sections: — vi. 4; x. 8-12; xi. 
 28-30; xii. 1-4", 6-20; xiii. 1-5, 7'', 14-17; xv. 1-21; xvi. 10; xviii. 13-19, 
 22'>-33 ; xix. 27, 28 ; xxii. 14-18; xxiv. 4-8, 38-41, 59, 60; xxvi. 2-5, 24, 
 25"; xxviii. 13-15, 20-22, etc. We look in vain for any connection between 
 such heterogeneous passages, and we wonder how D, of all men, came to 
 embellish the theophany at Bethel in Gen. xxviii. 10 sqq., by the inser- 
 tion of V. 13-15, and even to supplement it by a vow to found a temple 
 there, 1), 20-22. Truly t\as farrago is wanting in all internal unity, and 
 is only held together in appearance by a few words and formulte that recur 
 from time to time, but which, though employed by D^ and his followers 
 amongst others, are by no means their characteristic or favourite expressions. 
 
 Keservlng Ex. xix.-xxiv., xxxii.-xxxiv., for special treatment in n. 32, we 
 observe clear traces of D's influence in G-en. xxvi. 5 (the synonyms m?DiIJO, 
 ni2D, mpn, and mm side by side; v. 4 is practically identical with xxii. 
 17, 18 (JB) to which V. 3'' refers, cf. xxii. 16 ; and v. i" presupposes a certain 
 passage of J°, viz. G-en. xii. 10-20, so that there too either JE or a later 
 redactor is at work. We must therefore either refer v. i*, 3', 4 to JE and 
 ■u. 5 to D, or give u. i", 3''-5 to D. The latter hypothesis is prefer- 
 able as being the simpler); Ex. xv. 26 (cf. § S, n. 12; the deuteronomic 
 colouring is not to be mistaken ; the poetic J'lNn, too, occurs in Deut. i. 45). 
 ■ — No other deuteronomic phi-ases can be pointed out with equal certainty. 
 But we must grant, with Jtilicher, that a number of verses in Ex. iv. sqq. 
 suggest the question whether JE's narrative has not been retouched by a deut- 
 eronomic redactor. The supposition is far from unnatural, for Ex. i. sqq., like 
 Josh. i. sqq., must have invited expansion and supplement. But I imagine 
 that — partly because JE and D are separated by so short a period — an 
 intimate deuteronomic recension is incapable of being strictly proved, and I 
 shall therefore content myself with enumerating the passages that might 
 be referred to it, and indicating the pages on which Jtilicher deals with 
 them: — Ex. iv. 21-23 (•) (A> P- 24 sq.); viii. 18'' (?) ; ix. 14'', 16, 29'; 
 X. i', 2 (B, p. 90, 92, 97); xii. 42 (B, p. 116). I have already dealt with 
 Ex. xii. 21-27; xiii. 1-16, 17"; xv. 25'', 26; xvii. 14', 16 (B, p. no sq., 
 117 sq., 119, 275 sq., 272 sq.). 
 
 ^'' I shall here describe in detail the process by which, after repeated 
 attempts in another direction (of. Th. Tijdschr., xv. 164-223), I was led to 
 this hypothesis, for I think this will be my best way of supporting it. 
 
 (i) D' is acquainted with the Book of the Covenant and makes diligent 
 use of it (§ 9, n. 3), but he never mentions that it was submitted to the [253I 
 people and accepted by them at Sinai. He does speak of revelations re- 
 ceived by Moses on the mountain {Deut. v. 27, 28), but the proclamation 
 
 S 3 
 
26o The Hexateuch. [§i3- 
 
 of their contents is, according to him, still in the future at the moment 
 at which he introduces Moses as speaking, and therefore it did not take 
 place at Sinai. Nor is there any room for the Words of the Covenant, 
 Ex. xxxiv. 10-27, in D^'s representation of the events at Sinai. The Sinaitic 
 legislation, according to him, embraced the Decalogue, and nothing else. 
 And such was still the view of his follower, the author of Dent, i.-iv., as 
 appears from iv. 10-15. 
 
 (2) These facts are fully explained by either of the two following sup- 
 positions : CI. D ' found the Book of the Covenant and the Words of the 
 Covenant in the Sinai-story that he had before him, but intentionally 
 passed them over in silence because he wished to supersede them by his 
 own legislation ; 6. the documents in question were not embodied in the 
 Sinai-stories known to D '. The agreement of Dmt. iv. io-i,t with D' is 
 an argument, though not a conclusive one, against a. ; while b. finds a 
 powerful support in the fact that neither the Book of the Covenant (to- 
 gether of course with the conclusion of the covenant itself, Ex. xxiv. 3-8), 
 nor the Words of the Covenant fit into the Sinai-stories ; or rather, in the 
 fact that they are excluded by them. In Ex.- xxxii.-xxxiv. the conclusion 
 of the covenant on the basis of the Book of the Covenant is by no means 
 assumed ; nor yet in Ex. xxiv. 12—14, where, on the contrary, the revelation of 
 Yahwfe's will is still a thing of the future. Conversely, there is no allusion 
 in Ex. xxiv. 3-8 to the proclamation of the Decalogue. The articulation of 
 the Book of the Covenant to the Decalogue (Ex. xx. 22) is defective and 
 evidently not original. The Words of the Covenant likewise stand in a 
 connection which they do not fit. In matter they have nothing to do with 
 Israel's apostasy in Ex. xxxii., and in form they are very clumsily attached 
 to the preceding theophany by Ex. xxxiv. 9. This being so we must conclude 
 that when D^ and the author of Deut. i.~iv. wrote, the Book and the Words 
 of the Covenant had not yet been incorporated into the ' prophetic ' Sinai- 
 Btories, or, in other words, that they were not a part of JE's account of the 
 events at Sinai. Cf. the fuller development of (i) and (2) in Th. Tijdschr., xv. 
 
 179-183, 191-197- 
 
 (3) On the other hand, the Book of the Covenant and the conclusion of the 
 covenant itself belong to E (§ 8, n. 12), and we may consider it probable, at 
 any rate, that the Words of the Covenant, in their original form, are very 
 ancient and were once part of a narrative of the foundation of Israel's national 
 existence, possibly due to J (§ 8, n. 18). Both alike, therefore, must have 
 been contained in JE. 
 
 (4) This forces the suspicion upon us that the Book and the Words of the 
 Covenant occupied a different place in J E, and that that place was the 
 very one now taken by the deuteronomic law itself, so that their promul- 
 gation by Moses and acceptance by the people immediately preceded the 
 passage of the Jordan. Kadesh, ' the well of right ' {Gen. xiv. 7), would not be 
 inappropriate as the scene of this drama (Num. xx. i ; Deut. i. 46 ; xxxiii. 2) ; 
 but if we suppose that ' the field of Moab ' was represented in JE as the scene 
 of the legislation, which, be it always remembered, was destined for Canaan, 
 
n. 32.J Original position of Ex. xix. sqq. 261 
 
 then we understand alike why D^ locates the legislative activity of Moses 
 there, and why the amalgamation of D and JE forced the Book and the [254] 
 Words of the Covenant to make way for D's laws and find some other place. 
 The fact is that Deut. xii.-xxvi. is really a new edition of the Book of the 
 Covenant, though very greatly amplified and modified, and the idea that its 
 place in history was prescribed beforehand by that Book seems extremely 
 natural ; and equally natural, in that case, is the transference both of the Book 
 and of the Words of the Covenant to Sinai, where, according to D itself, the 
 revelation of Yahwfe's will had had a beginning in the proclamation of the 
 Decalogue. 
 
 (5) A posteriori this suspicion is confirmed partly by the strange massing 
 of laws in JBx. xix.-xxiv. and xxxii.-xxxiv. and the loose connection in which 
 they stand to each other and to the Sinai-stories (see under (3)), but chiefly 
 by the numerous and distinct traces of a deuteronomic recension 
 these chapters. These traces are found, a. in J<!x. xix. ^"-S ; see above, u.. 
 21; &. in the Decalogue itself, jEx. xx. 1-17, see above, § 9, n. 2 ; u. in 
 .Ex. XX. 32'', 23; of. Beut. iv. 13, 36; Ux. xix. 4 and observe the difference 
 of form between 1). 33 (3 pers. plur.) and 24 (3 pers. sing.) which shows 
 at any rate that v. 33 is from another hand; d. in JSx. xxiii. 30-33. The 
 Book of the Covenant, even in its earliest form, no doubt closed with a 
 hortatory address, but its present conclusion is not all from one hand. 
 Wellhausen (xxi. 560), Dillmann {JEx. u. Lev., p. 251 sqq.), and 
 Meyer (Zeitschr. f. alttest. Wissenschaft, i. 138) find its kernel in v. 20- 
 22", 25''-3i'', and later amplifications in v. 22''-25», 3i''-33. With regard 
 to V. 23, 24 and again u. 3l'^-33, it is impossible not to agree with them. 
 The verses interrupt the progress of the discourse or introduce foreign 
 matter into it. Whether v. 22^ and 26" are later additions I dare not 
 decide. But it does seem clear to me, that the reviser, who may have 
 retouched the kernel of the discourse itself here and there, was under the 
 influence of D. Compare v. 2 2i» with Xc. xv. 26 (D) ; Deiit. xv. 5; xxviii. 
 I, etc. ; t. 23, the six peoples of Canaan, with Deut. xx. 17 (see n. 29); u. 
 24", to bow down and serve, with Deut. iv. 19 ; v. 9; viii. 19; xi. 16; 
 xvii. 3; xxix. 25 [26] ; xxx. 17; v. 24* with Deut. xii. 30; vii. 5; xii. 3; 
 V. 32 with Deut. vii. 2 ; Jlx. xxxiv. 12, 15 ; v. 33 with Deut. vii. 16. 
 When taken in connection with the fact that the heading of the Book of 
 the Covenant, Ex. xx. 22*, 23, likewise contains deuteronomic turns of 
 expression, these parallels at any rate rouse the suspicion that the same 
 redactor who gave this tinge to the heading has revised the concluding 
 discom-se also. Julicher (B, p. 299 sqq.) finds traces of his hand still 
 earlier, in Sx. xxii. 19, 20-23 [21-24], 24-26 [25-27] ; xxiii. 1 sqq.; e. in 
 Ex. xxxiv. 10-13, 24; for it seems, in the first place, that v. I1-13 anticipates 
 •v. 15, 16, and has been placed before it by a later editor; nor is the 
 joining on of v. 14 to u. 11-13 by '5 original ; and in the second place, it 
 is obvious that in v. 10-13, ^4 ^^^ deuteronomic formula are compara- 
 tively numerous. Compare v. 10, nin< rrtoso, with Deut. xi. 7, Josh. xxiv. 
 31; «Ti:, with Deut. i. 19; vii. 21, etc.; u. 11, 'that which I command 
 
262 The Hexateuch. [§i4- 
 
 you tliis day,' with D pauim; cf. also Deut. xii. 28; v. 12, lOHi: followed 
 by h, ajpio, npi found in Deuteronomy; v. 13 with Deut. vii. 5 (which 
 verse, however, might in its turn he regarded as an amplification of v. 13 and 
 JBx. xxiii. 24) ; v. 24, i^DD ffinin, with Deut. iv. 38 ; ix. 4, 5 ; xi. 23 ; xviii. 
 12; Josh, xxiii. 9, 13; 'jna a'mn, with Deiii. xii. 20; xix. 8. — Taken 
 together a.-e. surely make it highly probable that Hx. xix.-xxiv. and xxxii.- 
 [^SS] xxxiv. were brought into their present form by a deuterouomio reviser, 
 and more specifically yet that it was this reviser who lashed the Book and 
 the Words of the Covenant into their present connection. 
 
 (6) From the nature of the case this hypothesis, even if accepted, still 
 leaves many questions unanswered. The repeated recensions of the Sinai- 
 etories (cf. n. 21, 25) could not but result in an ill-fitting whole, and conversely 
 nothing is more natural than that we should be unable to reascend, through 
 all the successive modifications, from the final outcome to the original source. 
 All that can fairly be required is that the hypothesis I have framed to account 
 for the present form of the story should be found not to conflict with those 
 phenomena upon which it is not based, but with which it comes into contact. 
 And this requirement it meets. The Words of the Covenant, in then- primitive 
 form and as they appeared in JE (cf. n. 21), contain nothing whatever that 
 would compel us to regard them as having been Sinaitic from the first. The 
 same may be said of the Book of the Covenant. Even the concluding' dis- 
 course, xxiii. 20-33 — ™ its entirety with no great violence, and in its kernel 
 (see under (5)) quite naturally — might originally have been laid upon the 
 lips of Moses as he stood upon the border-land of Canaan. In the account of 
 the conclusion of the covenant, Mx, xxiv. 3-8, there is just one trait that 
 points to Sinai, viz. ' under the mountain,' in v. 4. But we are certainly no 
 rash in ascribing the addition of these two words to the redactor who incor- 
 porated the account into the Sinai-stories with a clear knowledge of what he 
 was about. In Ex. xxxii. sqq., again, there is nothing to conflict with my 
 hypothesis. These chapters were part of JE, and were used by the deutero- 
 nomic redactor, without alteration, for the frame-work of the Words of the 
 Covenant. Ex. xxxiv. 9 is the clumsy articulation of his insertion with the 
 naiTative into which he inserted it, and v. 28 that really belongs to v. i, 4, now 
 has to do second duty as the conclusion of the passage immediately preceding 
 it, v. 10-27, though it does not really stand in any connection with it, and 
 is not even in harmony with it. Finally, on v. 29-35, see § 16, n. 12. 
 
 § 14. Continuation. C. T/ie Beuteronomist, his precursors 
 and Ms followers. 
 
 The character of the deuteronomic elements of the Hexa- 
 teuch enabled us, from the outset, to reach pretty firm results 
 both as to their mutual relations (§ 7) and their relative (§ 9) 
 and absolute antiquity (§ 13). But it does not seem super- 
 
§ i4.j The DeiUeronomist. 263 
 
 fluous once more to review the results of our previous re- 
 searches, on the one hand to draw them to a focus, and on the 
 other hand further to support and supplement them. 
 
 Whereas the sacred history is the centre of interest to the 
 prophetic writers in the Hexateuch, it is the legislation of 
 Devt. xii.-xxvi. that makes the kernel of the deuteronomic 
 portions, while all the rest exists only in connection with this [256] 
 and for its sake. It is therefore of the utmost importance 
 that we should form as complete and correct a conception as 
 possible of this legislation, and of its origin and date. The 
 question whether our point of departure is to be Deut. xii.- 
 xxvi. (and xxvii. 9, 10, cf. § 7, n- 21) in its present extent 
 must be answered in the affirmative. The few sections which 
 possibly did not belong to it originally are in no way out of 
 keeping with the whole, and were perhaps incorporated in 
 his book of law by the author himself in a subsequent 
 revision. This will apply, for instance, to xv. 4, 5 ; xvii. 
 14-20 ; XX., and also to xxiii. 3-9 [1-8] ^- Deviations from 
 the natural order in the sub- sections must likewise be ex- 
 plained as due to interpolation by the author himself, or 
 must be attributed to the copyists^. With the reservations 
 necessarily involved in what has been said, the arrangement 
 of the book of law can be perfectly understood and justified, 
 if we bear in mind that the writer, though working with 
 a special end in view, was not altogether independent. In 
 deploying the duties of the people consecrated to Yahwe 
 alone, he not only takes the long-established customs 
 into account but also uses written sources. It has been 
 shown already that he was acquainted with the Book of the 
 Covenant, and that he borrowed many ordinances from it, 
 generally modifying them more or less ^. But in addition to 
 this collection it is highly probable that he had command 
 of another, perhaps of more than one other, of which he made 
 special use for xxi.-xxv.* Not a single trace of acquaintance 
 
264 The Hexateuch. [§i4- 
 
 with the priestly legislation can be found. Lev. xi. is not 
 the original of Beid. xiv. 3-21, but rather a later and 
 amplified edition of those priestly decisions on clean and un- 
 clean animals which the deuteronomist adopted^. Nor can 
 Lev. xvii.-xx., with which he sometimes agrees in substance, 
 have been amongst his sources '\ From this side, then, no 
 objections can be urged against the supposition already de- 
 fended (§ 12, n. 1-6), that Lent, xii.-xxvi. dates from Josiah's 
 reign. In so far as the language and style can be taken in 
 [^57] evidence, they completely harmonise with this conclusion''. 
 
 ' It cannot be denied that xv. 4, 5 conflicts with v. 7, and that v. 6 joins on 
 to II. 3 even better than to I). 5. On the other hand, the verses are completely 
 deuteronomic both in form and contents, and it is therefore probable that they 
 ■were inserted by the writer himself when it occurred to him that the poverty 
 of some of the Israelites, which is assumed in v. 3, 7 sqq., would never exist 
 at all if Yahwfe's demands were complied with perfectly. — On xvii. 14-20 see 
 § 7, n. II. — Wellhausen (xxii. 463 sq.) questions whether xx. belongs to the 
 original work, inasmuch as 11. 5-8 more especially ia quite unpractical, and 
 was presumably written when the kingdom of Judah no longer existed. But 
 the lawgiver's idealism comes into conflict with the reality elsewhere too, 
 and in v. 5-8 he is by no means inconsistent with himself. Cf. Valeton, 
 Studien, vi. 133 sqq. The last named scholar has also urged objections to 
 xiv. 2, which he regards as an amplification by the second hand (Studien, vii. 
 40, n. 2) ; against xviii. 16-22, where Yahwfe himself is the speaker, in viola- 
 tion of the rule elsewhere observed, and where the language of v.-xi. (cf. v. 
 25; ix. 9; X. 4) is followed (Studien, vi. 161, n. i) ; against xix. 7-10 as 
 breaking the connection between v. 4-6 and II-13, and probably referring to 
 the conquest of the Transjordanic district, with which event the writer of xii.- 
 xxvi. does not elsewhere concern himself (Studien, v. 308 sq.). But these 
 objections proceed on the assumption that xii.-xxvi. and v.-xi. are not from 
 the same hand, and they have no weight for those who think otherwise (§ 7, 
 
 n. 5-II). 
 
 Ch. xxiii. 2-9 [1-8] demands a special investigation. Wellhausen (xxii. 
 464) and Valeton (Studien, vi. 143 sq.) find difficulties in v. 5-7 [4-6], the 
 former because these verses presuppose the events of the fortieth year after 
 the exodus, in conflict with xxvi. 18 sq., which places us at Sinai ; the latter 
 on the same grounds, and also because they give a reason for the exclusion of 
 Moab and Ammon other than their unclean origin (v. 2-4 [1-3]). These 
 objections cannot be allowed. Against the first, see § 7, n. 7 ; as to the 
 second, note that v. 4 [3J need not be taken as an application of the general 
 rule of V. 3 [2], and that the historical justification contained in v. 5-7 [4-6] 
 is parallel with that of v. 8 [7]. If the one is in its place, so is the other. — ■ 
 
n. I, 2.J Unity of Deuteronomy xii-xxvi. 265 
 
 The objections urged by Geiger (PrscSri/^, p. 88-91) against the genuine- 
 ness of the whole section are more weighty. The formula " 'jnp (v. 2, 3 bis, 
 4 bis, 9 [i, 2 bis, 3 bis, 8]) occurs nowhere else in Deuteronomy and recalls Ezr. 
 X. 8. The hostility towards Moab and Ammon and the first reason given for 
 it (v. 5 [4]) conflict with Veut. ii. 9 sqq., 19-21. The episode of Balaam is 
 referred to here (v. c,^-'J [4''-6]), but nowhere else in Deuteronomy ; nor does 
 it fit into the frame-work of the book which makes Moses promulgate his tora 
 in the fields of Moab, and find his grave there (xxxiv. 5, 6). The phrase 
 131 DQlbiD iDnirNb has some resemblance to Jer. xxix. 7; xxxviii. 4, 
 but does not occur in its entirety until after the captivity {Hzr. ix. 12 ; 
 NeJi. xiii. I ; JEsfh. x. 3). It is only in this latter period that the whole 
 passage really finds its place, for the problem as to who should and who 
 should not be admitted into the community was then a burning question, [258] 
 whereas it can hardly be said to have existed before the exile. — The coinci- 
 dence of ao many at first sight remarkable phenomena cannot fail to make 
 some impression; but Geiger's argument will not really bear examination. 
 The external evidence for the authenticity of xxiii. 2-9 [1-8] is very strong. 
 Not only Fzr. ix, 12 and Neh. xiii. i sq., but even Lam. i. 10 alludes to 
 it. The conflict with ii. 9 sqq., 19-21 is real, but proves nothing ; for i.-iv. 
 is from another hand. The parallels to v. 7 [6] are citations or imitations of the 
 verse itself. The formula " 'jnp, which occurs not only in A''!()n. xvi. 3 ; xx. 4 
 (P"), but as early as Mic. ii. 5, is not found elsewhere in D, but this is probably 
 because it is borrowed from the collection of laws whence the materials of 
 xxi.-xxv. are derived. The objection against v. ^'^-'j [4''-6] has just been met ; 
 so that nothing remains but the general drift of the passage. Now in judging of 
 this Geiger fails to notice that 8" [7"] would be wholly inexplicable, and & 
 [7''] very surprising in a post-exilian passage. The ideas then entertained 
 about Edom may be learnt from Olad. v. 11 sqq.; EieTc. xxv. 12; xxxv. 5 sqq.; 
 Isaiah xxxiv.; Mai. i. 2-5; Psalm cxxxvii. 7. The events of which the 
 memory lives in all these passages, were evidently unknown to the author of 
 Dent, xxiii. 8» [7°], that is to say, they were subsequent to his date. 
 
 " The arrangement of the precepts in Deut. xii. sqq. is examined with 
 special care by Valeton, Stadien, v. 169 sqq., 291 sqq. ; vi. 133 sqq. He 
 holds that xvi. 21-xvii. i is misplaced (not xvii. 2-7, which concerns the 
 administration of justice regulated in xvi. 18-20; xvii. 8-13); also xix. 14 
 (that ought rather to come after xxiv. 5 [?]) ; xx. (that may once have stood 
 between xxi. 9 and xxi. 10, with which latter verse its opening words coincide) ; 
 and lastly xxii. I-IO, which has nothing to do with the ordinances concerning 
 domestic life before and after it, and which might perhaps be added to xxiii. 
 16 [i5]-xxv. This latter group, however, presents us with no orderly suc- 
 cession of precepts, and is only a whole in so far as it reflects the humane 
 spirit of the legislator and his effort to secure fairness. This last remark 
 of Valeton's is undeniably true, but that very fact forbids our making 
 too severe demands on the logical arrangement of the commandments. It 
 is only exceptionally that we have any right to attribute the want of order 
 to the copyists. 
 
266 The Hexateuch. [i 
 
 14- 
 
 ' See § 9, n. 3, and cf. Valeton's treatise, cited in n. 2, whicli embraces a 
 survey of these parallels. 
 
 * Note 2 has already shown us that xxiii. 2-9 [1-8] was probably borrowed 
 from some such collection. Elsewhere too the language gives evidence of 
 B's dependence on a predecessor, e.g. in xxi. 4, 6 (the verb Fits, elsewhere 
 oidy in Ex. xiii. 13 ; xxxiv. 20, and even there not of such an action as that 
 in xxi. 1-9, which is quasi-sacrificial, though quite sui generis) ; or again xxiii. 
 18, 19 [17, 18] (" rrn, not to be found elsewhere in Deuteronomy, though 
 occurring in Ex. xxiii. 19) ; also xxiv. 5 (where the same expressions are not 
 used for the same subject as in xx. 7). Attention has already been directed, 
 ™ § 7, n. 3, to the deuteronomic additions to ordinances obviously taken from 
 elsewhere. 
 
 ^ Cf. § 6, n. 22. The relation of Lev. xi. to Deuf. xiv. 1-21, indicated in the 
 text, is quite unmistakable, even apart from the additional proof furnished by 
 [259] Lev. xi. 41-45. Observe that the popular enumeration of the mammalia that 
 may be eaten {Deut. xiv. 4, 5) is omitted in Lev. xi., in which their general cha- 
 racteristics only are mentioned ; that Lev. xi. 9-1 2 strikes us as a paraphrase of 
 Deut. xiv. 9, 10 ; and that Deut. xiv. 19 is worked out more accurately in Lev. xi. 
 20-23. A comparison of Deut. xiv. 2i» with Lev. xi. 39, 40 gives equally clear 
 results. The prohibition in Deuteronomy is absolute, but not so in Leviticus, 
 where it is expressly added that the uncleanness consequent on the transgression 
 lasts 'till the evening,' and may be removed by washing the clothes. The 
 distinction between the Israelite and ' the stranger within your gates and the 
 foreigner,' which appears in Deut. xiv. 2i*, has vanished without a trace in Lev. 
 xi.; and in Lev. xvii. 15, 16, in the treatment of the same subject, the two 
 are expressly placed on the same footing. In both respects the priority of 
 Deuteronomy is undeniable. On the other hand, it must be admitted that the 
 language of Deut. xiv. 3-20 departs from that of D and resembles that of P. 
 Note vab in v. 13-15, i8 ; Y^1i in v. 19. But this may easily be explained on 
 the supposition that D, who knew of ' the Levitical priests, ' who was in com- 
 munication with them (xvii. 18 ; xxxi. 9), and who elsewhere, too, shows that he 
 attached value to their teaching (xxiv. 8), adopted this tora on ' things clean 
 and unclean ' from them, either by word of mouth or from the written notes 
 of one of them. In either case it is highly natural that traces should be found 
 in Deut. xiv. 3-20 of the same style which reappears in a more advanced 
 stage of development in P. 
 
 * D (xii. 16, 23, 27; XV. 23) has in common with Lev. xvii. 10-14 ^^^ 
 prohibition of blood, which occurs elsewhere in P also {Gen. ix. 4 ; Lev. iii. 
 17 ; vii. 26, 27 ; xix. 26). But there is nothing to indicate indebtedness to 
 P. The belief that Yahwfe condemned the eating of blood was primeval 
 (i Sam. xiv. 32-34), and was simply accepted by D, whereas in Lev. xvii. it 
 was brought into coimection with the more recent theory of atonement on 
 which it was made to rest. — There is much more difficulty in deciding the 
 relation of D to Lev. xvii. 3-7, which forbids the slaughter of oxen and sheep 
 except as thank-offerings, and to v. 8, 9, which confines sacrificing to the 6hel 
 mo'^d. V. 3-7 conflicts with Deut. xii. 15, 20-22, where express permission 
 
n. 3-6.] D's relation to other Legislators. 267 
 
 is given to slaughter, elsewhere than at the sanctuary, for private use ; v. 8, g, 
 on the other hand, centralises the worship, as does D passim. Then did D 
 appropriate and confirm the one precept and cancel the other ? In that case 
 we should expect him to allude to Leo. xvii., or at least to have some few 
 expressions in common with it. But neither the one nor the other is the case. 
 And, what is more, Deut. xii. 8 absolutely excludes this hypothesis. The 
 command to worship Yahwfe in one single place could not have been put 
 forward as something new and as a command for the future only had D known 
 that Moses had already laid it down as the rule in the desert, which would 
 cei-tainly imply that it had been regularly practised under his own eye. It is 
 certain, therefore, that D was not acquainted with Lev. xvii. 3-7, 8 sq. in 
 the present form. Neither can we suppose that he knew the original precept 
 of P^, which is now embodied in these verses of Lev. xvii., together with traits 
 borrowed from P^ (§ 6, u. 27 ; 15, n. 5) ; for in its original form it was 
 identical in purport with the present recension. Against this it is urged that 
 "• 3-7 fits closely to the ancient popular usage, which really held slaughtering [260] 
 to be a religious rite, and therefore only allowed its performance at the 
 sanctuary, i.e. at the nearest bama {Bos. ix. 4). But before we can assert that 
 v. 3-7 upholds this practice we must strike out everything that refers to the 
 one sanctuary. And Diestel, cited by Kittel in Theol. Stud, aus Wiirtem- 
 herg, ii. 44sqq., actually attempts to do this. But his analysis is extremely 
 arbitrary, and really amounts to the manufacture of a law to meet the 
 demand. ' The dwelling of Yahwfe ' (»;. 4), the camp (v. 3), and ■ the priest ' 
 who does service at the dwelling of Yahwfe {v. 5, 6) can no more be got rid of 
 from V. 3-7 than the ' se'h'lm,' which only appear in later writers (Isaiah 
 xiii. 21 ; xxxiv. 14; 2 Chivn. xi. 15) can be expunged from v. 7. The question 
 how P' could make such a demand as that all oxen and sheep should be 
 slaughtered at the one only sanctuary, has already been answered in § 6, 
 n. 38. Anyone who finds the answer unsatisfactory may note that in this 
 passage the command to slaughter ' by the dwelling of Yahwfe ' is given by 
 Moses to the Israelites in the desert, and may suppose that by tlu-owing 
 his ordinance into this form P^ intended to show what Yahwfe really might 
 demand, even though he should not intend to insist upon rigorously maintain- 
 ing it under quite altered circumstances. 
 
 The passages parallel with Lev. xviii.-xx., taken in the order of the 
 chapters in Deuteronomy, are the following (cf. Kayser in JaTirbuch.f. prot. 
 Theologie, 1881, p. 656 sqq.) : — 
 
 Deut. xii. 16, 23 ; xv. 23 = £et). xix. 26 and the parallel passages (just dealt 
 with) ; 
 
 Deaf. xiv. i = Lev. xix. 28 (terminology differs, showing that the two pre- 
 cepts were independently formulated) ; 
 
 Deut. xvi. 19, 20 = Lev. xix. 15, 16 (but far more closely parallel with JEx. 
 xxiii. 2, 3, 6-8 ; there is no evidence that T) was acquainted with the passage 
 in Leviticus also) ; 
 
 Deut. xviii. io'^=Lev. xviii. 21 ; xx. 2-5 (agree in subject-matter only) ; 
 
 Deut. xviii. 10'', 11= Lev. xix. ^6^, 31 (the same) ; 
 
268 The Hexateuch. [§i4- 
 
 Deut. xxii. 5, 9-11 =ie«i. six. 19 (in spite of all resemblances there is great 
 difference here. Deuteronomy adds the prohibition of change of clothes between 
 man and woman, and of ploughing with an ox and an ass ; and Leviticus the 
 prohibition of crossing different animals. The use of mules, which coniiicts 
 with this, is mentioned in David's time (2 Sam. xiii. 29 ; 2 iii. 9 ; i Kinns i. 
 33. 38, 44) and later (i Kings x. 25 ; xyiii. 5, etc.), whence Dillmann infers 
 {Ex. u. Lev., p. 554) that the prohibition had already been forgotten by that 
 time ; but what the texts really show is that no such prohibition had as 
 yet been thought of, and that we must regard it as the last deduction from 
 the theory that underlies Deut. xxii. and Lev. xix. alike. Lev. xix. then 
 is certainly not older than Deut. xxii.) ; 
 
 Deut. xxii. 2 2 = ieti. xviii. 20 (here again the resemblance is only in the 
 contents) ; 
 
 Deut. xxiii. i [xxii. 3o] = Lcti. xviii. 8 (resemblance only in contents ; and, 
 moreover, it must be observed that in Lev. xviii., xx. this one prohibition is 
 followed by a whole series of analogous regulations which D could not 
 have passed over in silence had he known them. It is only in Leviticus 
 that the locus of the forbidden degrees is fully developed. Deut. xxvii. 
 22, 23 is not considered here, inasmuch as it does not belong to D, but is a 
 later interpolation. Cf. § '], n. 22) ; 
 [261] Deut. xxiii. i8 = Le('. xix. 29 (no trace of dependence on either side); 
 
 Deut. xxiv. 14, I5 = ie». xix. 13, 14 (but also=.E'a:. xxii. 22-24; there is no 
 evidence that D was acquainted with the passage in Leviticus also) ; 
 
 Deut. xxiv. i9-22 = ie». xix. 9, 10, of. xxiii. 22 (the two writers formulate 
 the same precept independently) ; 
 
 Deut. XXV. 13-16 = £e». xix. 35, 36 (agree only in contents ; the more sys- 
 tematic formulating o^ Leviticus is certainly not earlier that that ofD). 
 
 In this connection we must also consider Deut. xxv. 5-10, in connection 
 with Lev. xviii. 16; xx. 2T. The levirate marriage rests on a primeval 
 visage {Oen. xxxviii.), but is recognised by D {ihicl.) and even insisted on 
 as a stern duty. According to Dillmann (p. 546), it must be regarded 
 as an exception to the rule which is laid down in the parallel passages of 
 Leviticus, and which was followed whenever the union with the iirst brother 
 had had issue. Eut in that case how comes it that D never alludes to 
 the rule itself and that the exception to it is never mentioned in Leviticus''. 
 To me it seems obvious that D cannot have been acquainted with Jjcv. 
 xviii. and xx., and that the prohibition of marriage with the brother's 
 wife in these latter passages is a corollary of the priestly theory of cleanness, 
 directed against the ancient usage and the tora that sanctioned it. 
 
 ' The extant Israelitish literature is too limited in extent to enable us 
 to determine the age of any work with certainty from mere considerations 
 of language and style. Moreover, Deuteronomy rather set than followed 
 the style of the age in which it was written. Nevertheless, it is unde- 
 niable that, in general terms, Deuteronomy and Jeremiah, not Deutero- 
 nomy and Isaiah, Hosea or Amos, go together (cf § 10, n. 14, 16). 
 This is an indirect coniirmation of the arguments which plead for the reign 
 
n. 6-8.] D and Lev. xvii. sqq. Deiiteronomic School. 269 
 
 of Josiah. The passage in Mic. vi. i-8 points in the same direction. It 
 is not dependent on Deuteronomy, and yet it is more deuteronomio in tone 
 and style than any other passage of the old prophetic literature, and is marked 
 by the same intense earnestness that distinguishes D's exhortations ; compare 
 Mic. vi. S with Beul. i. \2. The author of this passage might he called a pre- 
 cursor of D. This remark holds true if the words are ascribed to Micah, but 
 it gains a still higher significance if we are to attribute them, with Ewald 
 and others, to a contemporary of Manasseh. 
 
 Our previous investigation led us to the conclusion that 
 the book of Deuteronomy contained a number of passages, 
 besides the legislation of xii.-xxvi. (xxvii. 9, 10), which must 
 be ascribed to the same author ; viz. the hortatory intro- 
 ductionj v.-xi. ; the closing discourse, xxviii. ; and the verj"- 
 brief historical notice, xxxi. 9-13 (§ 7, n. 5-11, 3i). All this 
 had been combined with the book of law probably before the 
 latter came to the knowledge of Josiah and was put into 
 force by him, certainly before it was copied out and published. 
 Presumably this publication took place shortly after the [262] 
 reformation in the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign. At 
 any rate the enlarged edition contains nothing which could 
 prevent our assigning this date to it *. 
 
 * To what has been said already in support of this view, in § 7, especially 
 n. 21, I may now add that an edition of Deuteronomy without the Deca- 
 logue must be considered highly improbable. If the Decalogue really 
 possessed the authority that D assigns to it when he makes Yahwfe himself 
 utter it, what could be more obvious than to attach his own legislation to it 
 and put it forward as the fuller elaboration of the principles laid down therein? 
 And this is what he actually does in v. I sqq., 24 sqq. [27 sqq.]. On xxviii. 
 and xxxi. 9-13, see § 7, n. 21, where it also appears that the prae-exilian 
 position is maintained both here and in v.-xxvi. 
 
 The subsequent history of the deuteronomio book of law 
 may be divided, generally, into two periods. Throughout 
 the former it stood by itself, at the beginning of the latter it 
 was united into a single whole with the ' prophetic ' elements. 
 In the first period, beyond all doubt, we must place the 
 addition of the historical introduction, i. i— iv. 40, to which 
 xxxi. 1-8 belongs ; and perhaps also the tacking on of xxix., 
 
270 The Hexateuch. [§i4- 
 
 xxx.^ All else that bears the deuteronomic stamp must be 
 referred to the second period. Some sections, viz. Beut. xxvii. 
 1-8 ; xxxi. 24-30; xxxii. 44, 45-47; xxxiv. 4, 6, 7% 11, 13, 
 and the original deuteronomic recension of the historical 
 narrative in Joshua, may be due to the redactor who inserted 
 the deuteronomic tora into the ' prophetic ' sacred history i". 
 On the contrary, Bent, xxvii. 11-13, 14-36, a portion olJosh. 
 viii. 30-35, and certain other deuteronomic sections in Joslma, 
 which cannot be indicated with absolute certainty, must be 
 regarded as later interpolations". 
 
 Beut. i. i-iv. 40 ; xxxi. 1-8 ; xxix., xxx., were written after 
 the beginning of the Babylonian captivity, i. e. at the earliest 
 after Jehoialdm was carried away captive in the year 597 B.C. 
 (§ 7. n- 33, under (4), (5)). At that time Deuteronomy had 
 not been welded with the prophetic history. The moment at 
 which this union took place can no more be determined than 
 [263] the exact dates of the sections which were subsequently 
 woven in. But when the Jewish exiles returned to their 
 fatherland {^"3,6 b. c.) the deuteronomico-prophetic book may 
 have existed in the same form in which it was united with 
 the priestly codex some century later ^2. 
 
 ® Cf. § 7j ^' 12-17, 22 under (4), a glance at wMcli will explain tte 
 distinction drawn in the text between i. I-iv. 40 ; xxxi. 1-8 and xxix. sq. 
 It is very certain that i. sqq. is not intended to link v. sqq. to the pre- 
 ceding history; and it is equally certain that, when it was added, v. sqq. 
 still stood alone. After the union with JE it would have been, to a great 
 extent, superfluous, and could hardly have been incorporated. On the contrary 
 it is quite possible that xxix. sq. was inserted when the amalgamation with 
 JB had already taken place. But even so these two chapters still remain 
 essentially an addition not to the united deuteronomico-prophetic work (DJE), 
 but to the deuteronomic legislation and exhortations, and are in fact a modiiied 
 edition of the closing discourse of xxviii. 
 
 1° Cf. § 7, n. 22 under (i), (6) ; n. 20 under (3) ; m. 25-31. What is there 
 said will quite explain why the sections mientioned in the text are assigned to 
 the redactor of D + JE. Deiit. xxvii. 5-7"; xxxi. 14-23 ; xxxii. 1-43; xxxiv. 
 i''-3, 5, 7*^, 10, as well as the original account of the conquest and partition 
 of the land in Jos?tua, are fragments of JE ; and inasmuch as they now 
 appear combined with or incorporated in passages of deuteronomic tone, some 
 
n. 9-1 2.J D s followers and their date. 271 
 
 of which are obviously intended to connect them with the deuteronomic tora, 
 we can hardly attribute these latter passages to any other hand than that of 
 the redactor. Consider, more especially, the way in which Deat. xxvii. 5-7" ia 
 amplified and framed-in, v. 1-8 ; and also Beut. xxsi. 24-30, where ' this tora ' 
 and ' this song ' are spoken of and commended to the love of the Israelite. 
 Beui. xxxii. 44, 45-47, too, serves in its way the pui-poses of the redaction 
 of D + JE, and the deuteronomic additions to JE in JosTiua really are 
 additions, written with JE in view and intended from the first to supplement 
 it and bring it, as far as necessary, into agreement with the deuteronomic 
 tora. 
 
 " Cf. § 7, n. 12 under (2), (3) and n. 30, 31. If, as shown in these notes, 
 Deiit. xxvii. II-13 rests on a misunderstanding of xi. 29-32, and was inserted 
 here on the strength of the mention of Ebal in v. 4, then it must be attributed 
 to a later interpolator. In that case, the same hand must have expanded 
 Josh. viii. 30-35 by adding v. 33 and the words ' the blessing and the curse' 
 in V. 34 ; unless indeed these additions were made, in view of Deut. xxvii. 1 1- 
 13, by a still later interpolator (cf. § 16, n. 12). Neither the writer nor the 
 reviser of Josh, viii. 30-35 shows any knowledge of Deut. xxvii. 14-26, which 
 section, accordingly, must be regarded as of still later origin. With respect to 
 the two-fold deuteronomic recension of JE in Joshua, we can get no further 
 than the recognition of its reality and more or less probable guesses as to the 
 matual relations of the two strata. Cf. § 7, n. 31. 
 
 " On the historical background of Deut. i. i-iv. 40 ; xxix. sq., see § 7, n. [264] 
 22 under (4), Now that we know O^ to have been a contemporary of Josiah, 
 we cannot be surprised to find that his followers, the authors of i.-iv. and 
 xxix. sq., had the beginning of the captivity behind them, whether we think 
 of the year 597 or the year 586 B.C. This date is in perfect harmony with the 
 view of history taken in i.-iv. and the antiquarian glosses with which the 
 author illustrates the discourse of Moses (§ 7, u. 13). — The amalgamation of 
 JE with D, therefore, must be exilian at least, if not post-exilian. But 
 the date at which it was accomplished can no more be defined with pre- 
 cision than the antiquity of the later interpolations indicated above (n. 11). 
 Meanwhile it is intrinsically probable that JE and D did not long exist 
 separately. D seemed to court attachment to JE from the first ; the historical 
 introduction, i. i-iv. 40, though borrowed from JE, did not render the more 
 elaborate narratives of the latter superfluous ; and the necessity of a deutero- 
 nomic amplification of JE in Joshua must have made itself early felt. Eor 
 all these reasons we may well suppose that the origin of JE + D falls 
 within the period of the exile, in which indeed it seems more in place 
 than in the years that followed 536 B.o. And if we may suppose that the 
 returning exiles brought JB + D out of Babylon with them, then the redaction 
 of the Hexateuch as a whole, on which more in § 16, becomes perfectly 
 comprehensible in its turn. 
 
^T^- The Hexateiuh. [§iS- 
 
 § 15. Continuation. D. History of the priestly legislation 
 and historiography. 
 
 With regard to the priestly legislation, we arrived at the 
 provisional conclusion in § 13 that it was introduced in 
 Judsea by Ezra and Nehemiah in the year 444 b. c, or shortly 
 afterwards, and had been reduced to writing not loner before. 
 The closer examination of the priestly elements of the Hexa- 
 teuch, to which we shall now proceed, must show us whether 
 this conclusion is shaken by the objections urged against it, 
 how it is related to the critical analysis in § 6, and whether, in 
 connection with that analysis, we can make it more precise. 
 
 It is an established fact that from primeval times the 
 priests of Yabwe uttered tora orally, i. e. declared the will of 
 Yahwe to the people that came to consult them or invoked 
 their intercession. The priestly tora was naturally concerned, 
 in the first instance, with the worship of Yahwe [2, Kings xvii. 
 27, 28), but it also covered the whole field of administrative 
 justice, and therefore the personal and social relations of the 
 [265] Israelites ^. Naturally the local judges also had an interest 
 in knowing the rules which underlay the priestly sentences on 
 these latter subjects. It is therefore anything but surprising 
 that when, in about the eighth century b. c, an Israelitish 
 literature arose, the rules of justice and the closely associated 
 ethical injunctions, including exhortations to observe the reli- 
 gious duties, should have been written down. That this really 
 happened we learn from Hosea (viii. 12), and even apart from 
 his evidence we should have known it from the Book of the 
 Covenant, from the Deuteronomist's other sources, and from the 
 deuteronomic law itself, all which can hardly have been com- 
 mitted to writing without the assistance of priests of Yahwe; 
 and in any case they rested on the tradition preserved by them ^ 
 The priestly laws, in the narrower sense, which we find in the 
 Pentateuch, likewise include regulations which would not 
 
n. I-4-] The Priestly Tor a. 273 
 
 have been misplaced in the collections just named, and which 
 may have been written down, in their present or in some 
 earlier form, before Josiah's reformation ^. But a written regu- 
 lation of the cultus did not exist in the prEe-deuteronomic 
 times. Even were this otherwise, in no case could any such 
 high antiquity be ascribed to the special regulation of the 
 cultus which lies before us in Exodus-Numlers. Its existence 
 before the Babylonian captivity is excluded by the evidence 
 of the Israelitish literature, and isj moreover, irreconcilable 
 with its relation to Deuteronomy, with which it cannot be 
 contemporary and which it cannot chronologically precede *. 
 
 ^ Cf. § 10, n. 4. To the texts from the writings of the prophets there 
 cited I would now add 2 Kings xyii. 27, 28, where the 'teaching' of the 
 priests is brought into immediate connection with the question ' how they * 
 — the Assyrian colonists — 'should fear (or serve) Yahwe.' We rightly dis- 
 tinguish between public worship and the administration of justice, but we 
 must not forget that the two are far from forming an absolute contrast. 
 Hence the collections of laws to be mentioned in n. 2, though they do not 
 regulate the worship of Yahwfe, nevertheless contain precepts which bear 
 upon it inasmuch as they define the duties of the Israelite towards Yahwfe and 
 Ms sanctuary as well as in other matters. See, for example, JSx, xxii. 19, 
 28-30 [20, 29-31] ; xxiii. 13, 14-19 ; Heut. passim. 
 
 ^ Whether the authors of these books of law were themselves priests can- [266] 
 not be determined. But it is obvious from Vetit. xxiv. 8, and still more from 
 xvii. 18, xxxi. 9, that the Deuteronomist had relations with the priesthood of 
 Jerusalem. In xiv. 3-21 he even incorporates a priestly tora on clean and 
 unclean animals into his book of law (§ 14, n, 5). 
 
 ' Cf. the parallel passages in Deuteronomy stJid Lev. xviii.-xx., in § 14, n. 6. 
 Besides these there are other precepts or admonitions in the priestly laws that 
 bear the same character : Zev. xix. 3, 4, 11, 12, 14, 16-18, 20; xx. 9; xxiv. 
 10-23 ; ^'^v 17, 35-38. If Dillmann's assertion {Ux. u. Lev., p. 373 sqq., 533 
 sqq.), that 'aSinaitic law-book of hoary antiquity' underlies Lev. xvii.-xxvi., 
 especially, were accepted with the needful sobriety and confined to such 
 ordinances as are quoted above, it might at least be discussed. The 
 priestly laws of this kind, which are embodied in P, might conceivably be 
 as old, for instance, as the precepts of the Book of the Covenant. Whether 
 they really were written down so early must form the subject of a special 
 inquiry, in which their surroundings must also be duly considered. See below, 
 n. 8. 
 
 * I am now building upon the results obtained in § 10, 11. It was there 
 shown that even the later prophets and historians, but more especially and 
 emphatically those that lived before the exile, were unacquainted with any 
 
 T 
 
2 74 The Hexateuch. [§i5- 
 
 ritual legialatioii, and specifically with that whicli has come down to us. See 
 especially § lo, n. 3, 13, 15, 17, 25; § 11, i.-iv., p. 199-212. In perfect 
 agreement with this we find D and his followers either assuming or expand- 
 ing and recasting in their own spirit the narratives and laws of JE, but never 
 those of P' (§ 9, n. 6-9) ; and also that the representation of historical facts 
 in P^ is less worthy of credit, and therefore later, than that of JE, with 
 which D agrees (§ 9, u. 11). It is true that most of these arguments are 
 negative and rest on the silence observed concerning the ritual legislation and 
 the narratives associated with it, but in spite of this their complete conver- 
 gence gives them a high degree of evidential value. Moreover, they are con- 
 firmed by a number of considerations of a positive character, which will be 
 discussed successively in this §, Here, where we are concerned with the ques- 
 tion whether the priestly legislation can or cannot be prse-exilian, its relation 
 to Deuteronomy is the decisive consideration. Now we know something of 
 this relation already from the comparison between the denteronomic and the 
 priestly laws instituted in § 3, n. 14-19, 21, But there we only proved that 
 the laws were inconsistent with each other and could not be contemporaneous. 
 The investigations of § 11, however, amply justify the conviction that there is 
 not a single instance in which the deuteronomic law can be taken as a later 
 modification of the priestly law, whereas the latter always can and some- 
 times must be regarded as the development and rectification of the former. 
 For— 
 
 a. (§ 3, 11. 14). The laws in which the one only sanctuary is presupposed are 
 later than those which introduce it as something new {Vent. xii. 8) and urge 
 with unmistakable emphasis the duty of frequenting it. Even the single 
 priestly law that insists on the centralisation of worship (Lev. xvii. 1-9) and 
 thus forms an exception to the rule, stands in the same relation to Deutero- 
 nomy as the rest (§ 14, n. 6). 
 
 h. (§ 3, n. 15). The hypothesis that the priestly regulation of the festivals 
 is earlier than that of Deuteronomy would make the silence of the latter con- 
 cerning the day of atonement utterly inexplicable ; but the priestly cycle of 
 [267] seven holy seasons may very well have been developed out of the deuteronomic 
 triad, and the (sacred) number of seven itself, in connection with the hetero- 
 geneous character of the festivals included, pleads directly in favour of such 
 an origin. But see more below, n. 8 and 17. 
 
 <■■ (§ 3> "• i6)' One has only to read the priestly regulations about the 
 priests and Levites, and their respective privileges and duties, to convince 
 oneself that D' could not have ignored them, had he known them. On the 
 other hand, the limitation to a single family of the hereditary qualification 
 which had originally been allowed to others also, is not at all surprising. And 
 moreover it can be shown in casu what the historical occasion of the change 
 was, and how it was brought about. See below, u. 15. 
 
 f'- (§ 3) El- I7>- If we have fairly stated the case with respect to the dis- 
 tinction between priests and Levites, then a similar judgment must be passed 
 on the assignment of tithes to the latter. It is later than the deuteronomic 
 ordinance which destined the tithes for sacrificial feasts. Even apart from 
 
n. 4-] Priestly Tor a later than Deuteronomy. 275 
 
 this consideration we must regard the consecration of the tithes to Yahwfe 
 as the original, and their assignment to the servants of the sanctuary 
 as a later modification. To arrange these two precepts in the reverse order 
 is against all analogy. See more below, n. 1 6. 
 
 "• (§ 3> II- i8). For the same reason we must regard the priestly laws on 
 the firstlings of cattle as later than those in Deuteronomy. This is coniirmed 
 by a comparison between Mx. xiii. 13°-; xxxiv. 20" and Num. xviii. 15 sq. ; 
 Lev. xxvii. 27 (the firstlings of unclean animals), which shows quite unmis- 
 takeably that in Israel, as elsewhere, the priests had an eye to their own 
 revenues, and made the legislation serve to increase them. 
 
 /• (§ 3) ^- 19)- It is hardly possible to conceive that the law on the priestly 
 and Levitical cities, Num. xxxv. 1-8, should first have been carried out, as we 
 are told it was in Josh. xxi. 1-40, and then allowed to lapse. On the other 
 hand, if we regard such a law as demanded in the interests of the temple 
 servants, then the necessity for a change in the position of the Levites 
 revealed by Deuteronomy makes it all the more natural. In this case it 
 stands in line with EzekieVs ordinances, on which more in n. 16, 
 
 g. (§ 3, n. 2T). The mutual relation of (i?j*. xxi. 1-6) Deat xv. 12-18 and 
 Lev. XXV. 39-43 can only be matter of dispute as long as the two laws are con- 
 sidered by themselves. When we reflect that the year of jubilee is never 
 mentioned except in P^ (cf. § 11, n. 24), and further that the law which refers 
 to it speaks of the Levitical cities {Lev. xxv. 32-34), and strikes us on the one 
 band as a relaxation of the ordinance in £x. xxi. 1-6 ; Deut. xv. 12-18, which, 
 as we see from Jer. xxxiv. 8-22, of. § 11, n. 24, encountered practical diffi- 
 culties, and on the other hand as the remotest of the deductions from the 
 sabbatical commandment — a theoretical completion, unsuited for practice — 
 then we shall no longer hesitate to pronounce Lev. xxv. 39-43 later than Deut. 
 XV. 12-18. Cf. also n. 18. 
 
 From this point forwards our inquiry must proceed on the 
 
 facts brought to light by our analysis of the priestly elements, 
 
 in § 6. We discovered, there, that the passages in question 
 
 were due neither to a single hand nor a single period. The 
 
 legislation, fragments of which are preserved in Lev. xvii.- 
 
 xxvi., is clearly distinguished from the great mass of priestly [268 
 
 laws and associated narratives. And with this we must begin, 
 
 inasmuch as we have provisionally shown (§ 6, n. 34-38) 
 
 that it is older than the matter that surrounds it either in 
 
 Lev. xvii.-xxvi. or elsewhere. Although we cannot always 
 
 separate out the fragments of this legislation (P^) from their 
 
 present setting with adequate certainty, yet the incontestable 
 
 remains of it are sufficiently numerous to enable us to deter- 
 
 T 2, 
 
276 The Hexatetich. [§i5- 
 
 mine its character and antiquity^. It was not written uno 
 tenore, but is a collection of ordinances, — closely related to 
 each otiier doubtless, — brought together by a redactor who 
 fitted it into a frame-work of his own''. The idea of holiness 
 comes even more prominently into the foreground in this 
 collection than it does in the other priestly laws, so that it 
 has been not inappropriately styled ' the legislation of sanc- 
 tity'/ In determining its antiquity we must begin by 
 considering its relation to Deuteronomy, to which it is evidently 
 subsequent, though not so remote from it as the laws of P^ 
 are. This comes out most clearly in the legislation concerning 
 the feasts. Other indications, though less unequivocal, plead 
 for the same relationship*. In the next place the legislation 
 itself gives evidence of the date of its origin, and those data 
 which justify a positive inference point to the Babylonian 
 captivity'. Finally the comparison with Ezekiel enables us to 
 fix the date still more closely. The points of contact between 
 this prophet and P^ are so numerous and striking that K. H. 
 Graf, and after him certain other scholars, have regarded 
 Ezekiel himself as the author or as the redactor of the collec- 
 tion. But this is a mistake. The hypothesis gives no account 
 of the difference that accompanies the resemblance, nor is the 
 difficulty met by suggesting that some interval elapsed be- 
 tween Ezekiel's prophecies, especially xl.-xlviii., and the laws 
 he drew up, either earlier or later. In as far as the agree- 
 ment between Ezekiel and P^ really requires an explanation, it 
 [269] may be found in the supposition that P^ was acquainted with 
 the priest-prophet, imitated him and worked on in his spirit. 
 From this it would follow that the 'legislation of sanctity' 
 arose in the second half of the Babylonian captivity, presum- 
 ably shortly before its close ; and there is not a single valid 
 objection to this date-'". 
 
 = Cf. § 6, n. 26, 27 andL.Horst, Lev. ccvii.-xxvi. und Heseiiel; Bin 
 Beitrag stir Pentateuchlcritik (Colmar, 1881), In identifying the fragments of 
 
n. 5-] Legislation of Lev.-K.vii.-x.yiVi. 277 
 
 P' criticism avails itself of a two-fold criterion. We may assign to pi with 
 high probability, (a) the sections which obviously are not a part of P^ or its 
 later amplifications, and (6) those that are related in form and substance to 
 the concluding discourse in Lev. xxvi. 3-45. "We therefore recognise P' with- 
 out hesitation in Lev. xviii. ; in xix., except v. 2'^ (where "•■ '33 mjj-ia points 
 to P'^ and J). 21, 22 (which forms an addition to v. 20, and shows traces of P^'s 
 language) ; in xx. (except 'and of the stranger who sojourns in Israel,' in v. 2 
 which is taken from P=) ; and in xxvi. 1, 2 (verses which, it must be confessed, 
 have no connection with what precedes or follows, but which manifest all 
 the characteristics of P'). As to these chapters and verses there is great 
 unanimity amongst the critics. Kayser {Das vorexU. Buck, p. 69) and 
 Horst (op. cit., p. 19), it is true, deny Lev. xix. 5-8 to P', and regard v. 6-8 
 as an interpolation from Leo. vii. 17, 18, but in doing so they fail to observe 
 that a distinction between praise-offerings and ordinary thank-offerings is 
 made in Lev. vii. 15-18, which is not observed in Ler. xix. 5-8, and must 
 therefore, have been unknown to the author of these latter verses. They do 
 not depend upon Lev. vii. 17, 18 then ; and their formal agreement therewith 
 shows rather that the author of Lev. vii. knew and adopted them, but at the 
 same time supplemented them. Cf. | 6, n. 28 h. — It is not such a simple matter 
 to separate P"^ out of Lev. xvii., xxi.-xxv. On Lev. xvii. cf. § 6, n. 28 a 
 Dillmann (p. 535) and Horst (p. 14-17). The last-named scholar assigns 
 to P' the prohibition of sacrifices elsewhere than at Yahwfe's dwelling (v. 3-7 
 in part), of offerings to other gods than Yahwfe (v. 8 sq.), and of eatino- blood 
 {v. 10-14) ; t° I" t^^ prohibition of slaughtering cattle and sheep elsewhere 
 than at the 8hel mo'i5d (■». 3-7 in part), and of eating ter^pha and nebula (v. 
 15 sq.). But his splitting up of v. 3-7 cannot be pronounced successful, and 
 traits of P^ are as obvious in v. 8 sq. and 10-14 (Israelites and giJrlm on the 
 same footing; the entrance into ohel moMd) as traces of P' are in r. 1550. 
 (1315 Nir:). When two texts are so completely amalgamated as is here the 
 case, it is impossible to arrive at any certainty as to the original form of either. 
 ' — In Lev. xxi., xxii. I think we must assign the following passages to P' ; — 
 xxi. ii'-9, io" (as far as vnND), 11, 12 (in part), 13-15, 16, i7''-20, 21 (except 
 'from the seed of Aaron, the priest'), 22 (the words 'the bread of his god 
 shall he eat' only), 23 (except 'to the veil he shall not draw nigh') ; xxii. 
 8, 9, 10-14 (^^^ 1*^* verse perhaps revised after P^) ; 15, 16, 26-28, 31-33 ; 
 in xxii. 1-7 I can find but a few traces of this legislation ; all the rest has been 
 added from or in imitation of P', especially the repeated mention of Aaron 
 and his sons, as appears, for instance, from the order of the words in xxi. 1 7, 
 21 ; the regulations concerning temporary uneleanness in xxii. 1-7, the passage [270! 
 xxii. 17-25, which is in formal and substantial harmony with P^ and v. 29, 30 
 ( = Lev. vii. 15, 16, deviating from Ler. xix. 5-8 ; see above). Cf. Horst, p, 
 20-24, with whom I here agree almost throughout. — Lev. xxiii. 9-22, 39-43 
 can only be ascribed to P' in a qualified sense, for the characteristic represen- 
 tations and expressions of the rest of the chapter (from P^) reappear here also. 
 Note nin Dvn D23> (v. 14, 21); Mjip N-ipn,mii> n;«')a, etc. (u. 21). More- 
 over V. 18-20 seems to be interpolated from Num. xxviii. 27, 29, and v. 39-43 
 
278 The Hexateuch. [§i5- 
 
 likewise appears not to have come down to us in its original form. Cf. § 6, 
 n. 28, and below, n. 8. — In Lev, xxiv. 15-23 we recognise P' with ease {v. 15, 
 •\«En «iD3 ; V. 19, n'DS ; v. 22, 0D'n"3« mrr ':n), though even in this section 
 certain touches appear to have been added from or after P^ («. 16, 2 2, where 
 the g&im and the Israelites are put on the same footing). — Finally, in Lm. 
 XXV. there can be no doubt that v. 1-7 and 18-22 belong to P'; in the rest of 
 the chapter the usual characteristics of the 'legislation of sanctity' only appear 
 sporadically, especially in v. 14, 17, sg^ 40"-, 43, 46'', 53, 55 (cf. Horst, p. 
 27-30'). See § 6, u. 28, and below, n. 18. 
 
 Nothing could be more natural than that the remains of P^ should imme- 
 diately precede the closing discourse ieii. xxvi. 3-45, which belongs to them, 
 that is to say, should be collected in Lev. xvii-xxvi. Nevertheless it remains 
 possible, and indeed is far from improbable a priori, that fragments of P' 
 may appear elsewhere also. And as a fact some scholars, relying especially 
 on linguistic evidence, have thought they could identify such scattered frag- 
 ments in .&. xxix. 38-46 (or at any rate v. 45, 46); xxxi. 12-14"; -^^"' v. 21, 
 22 [vi. 2, 3] (according to Dillmann elsewhere also, inZci). ii. ; v. 1-7, 21-26 
 [vi. 2-7] ; vi. [vi. 8-30] ; vii. ; see below, n. 6) ; x. 9-11 ; xi. 1-23, 41-47 ; xiii. 
 2-44,47-58; xiv. 34-45,48; JVum. iii. 11-13; x. 9, 10; xv. 37-41; and yet 
 further in iSr. vi. 6-8 ; xii. 12*; and in some other priestly narratives. Cf. 
 Horst, p. 32-36, and the writers he cites. It is quite true that some of these 
 passages bear a certain resemblance to P^ in language. Thus, ' I am Yahwfe,' 
 or ' I, Yahwfe, am thy god ' {TSx. xxix. 46 ; xxxi. 13 ; Lev. xi. 44, 45 ; Num. iii. 
 13 ; i. 10 ; XV. 41 ; Ex. vi. 6-8; xii. 12'') is one of P''s formulae, though not 
 peculiar to him (cf. Ex. xx. 2 ; Dent. v. 6.) The word rrns, Lev. v. 21 [vi. 2], 
 is likewise one of his terms (ie». xviii. 20 [19] ; six. 11, 15, 17; xxv. 14, 15, 17). 
 It must also be conceded that the demand for sanctity, which is one of the 
 most striking characteristics of P' (cf. n. 7), is advanced in some of the above- 
 named passages [Ex. xxix. 44 ; xxxi. 13 ; Lev. xi. 44, 45 ; Num. xv. 40). But 
 it remains a question whether these phenomena justify us in assigning the 
 passages to P'. An alternative explanation is that their authors knew and 
 imitated P' (cf. u. 12 sqq.). It is only where the several indications combine 
 and where the context also points to borrowing that the derivation from P^ 
 gains more probability. Now this is the case with Lev. xi. 44, 45 (with which 
 V. 1-23, 41-43, 46, 47 are connected) and with Num. xv. 37-41. The former 
 tora might be regarded as announced in Lev. xx. 25, and the latter stands off 
 sharply from the ordinances in Num. xv. 1-36, and certainly has not a cam- 
 mon origin with them. 
 [271] P.Wurster's o^mion, Znr Charalderistik des Priestercodex mid Seilig- 
 IceiUge&etzes [Zeifschr. f. alttest. Wissensch., 1884, p. 112-133), deserves 
 special mention. He attempts to show that even in Lev. xi.-xv., which is 
 only separated from xvii. sqq. by the single chapter xvi., the oldest elements, 
 afterwards revised and amplified, were drawn from P^, viz. Lev. xi. 1-7, g-23, 
 41, 43, 46, 47; xiii. 1-46°; xiv. 1-8"; and he discovers the same author 
 again in Num. v. 1 1-31 ; vi. 2-8. Vid. op. cit., p. 1 23-1 27 ; and on the addition 
 of Num. vi. 9-12, 13-21, p. 129-133. It is true that these are separate 
 
n. 6.] Lev. xvii.— xxvi. and allied passages. 279 
 
 torfltli, adopted and not written by P^ and his followera. Nor ia a certain 
 affinity to P^ wanting. But it is only in litv. xi. that this affinity is so marked 
 as to make it probable, as we have already seen, that the kernel of the chapter 
 is derived from P' The division of Num. vi. 1-21 between two authors is iu 
 my opinion impossible :. even in v. 2-8 it is assumed that the Nazirite's vow is 
 temporary (». 4-6, 8). 
 
 ® It seems rash at iirst to pronounce so positively on a collection of laws 
 which we only possess in fragments, but in reality nothing is more natural 
 than that Wellhausenj Kayser, Horst and others should agree in the 
 matter. Gtraf {Geschichiliche Biicher, p. 76 sq.) had already remarked, with 
 justice, that Lev. xviii, and xx. could not be from one and the same hand ; the 
 current opinion that the latter chapter defines the punislmient of the acts for- 
 bidden in the former, is not correct. It is a case of two independent, though 
 substantially parallel tordth on the same subject. When we have recognised 
 the mutual relation of these two chapters, we shall be ready to perceive 
 that Lev. xxi., sxii. is not by the author (for instance) of xix. It is far 
 soberer and more monotonous than would have been the case had the writer 
 of xix. handled its subject-matter. Nor are the introductory or epitomising 
 exhortations in Lev. xviii. 1-5, 24-30; xix. 37; xx. 22-27; :^i- 31-33 ! 
 XXV. 18-22 so closely connected with the precepts that precede or follow them 
 as necessarily to have a common origin with them. It is far more natural to 
 ascribe them to the author of the discourse in Lev. xxvi. 3-45, which they 
 strongly resemble in purport and language. Cf. § 6, n. 26, and compare 
 Lev. XXV. 19, 22 with xxvi. 4, 10, 20. 
 
 All this involves the rejection of Dillmann's hypothesis as to the origin 
 of Lev. xvii. sqq. That hypothesis is, in substance, that there existed in 
 Israel a Sinaitic law-book of extreme antiquity — which may be indi- 
 cated by the letter S — which was drawn upon by later but still prse-exilian 
 authors, including D, and before his time P^ and J (I use my own designations 
 to avoid confusion). S, adopted and recast by P^ (say SP^), lies at the basis 
 of Liev. ii. ; v. 1-7, 21-26 ; vi., vii. ; and, in the recension of another and later 
 lawgiver, oi Lev. iv. (Ex. u. Lev., p. 373 sqq.). In Lev. xi. two recensions of 
 S were employed by R, namely SP^ and J's recension (say SJ), from the 
 latter of which v. 41— 44'^ and v. 1—23 are largely drawn, whereas v. 24-40 and 
 44^-47 are chiefly from SP"" (p. 480 sq.). A similar origin is assigned 
 to Lev. xvii. sqq., which was adopted by E partly from SP", partly from SJ, 
 Lev. xvii. rests upon SP^, but in v. 4-7 on SJ also (p. 535 sqq.) ; Lev. xviii. 
 on SP^ again (p. 541 sq.) ; Lev. xix. 20-22, 30-36 likewise on SP'', while the [272] 
 rest of this chapter, together with Lev. xx. (a few touches from SP^ excepted) 
 comes from SJ (p. 550, 560). In Lev. xxi., xxii., in like manner, E followed 
 SJ for the most part in xxi. 1-15, 16-24, ^^'^ ®^^ throughout xxii. (p. 563 
 sqq.). Lev. xxiii., xxiv., on the contrary, is taken in its entirety from V, but 
 the latter had appropriated regulations from S in xxiii. 9-22, 39-43 ; xxiv. 15- 
 22 (p. 575 sq., 596 sq.). The case is almost the same with Lev. xxv. ; xxvi. I, ^, 
 though here E took a few verses (xxv. 18-22 ; xxvi. i, 2) from J also (p. 602 sq.). 
 Finally, Lev. xxvi. 3-45 is the work of J, and constitutes his hortatory conclu- 
 
28o The HexateiLch. [§i-'i- 
 
 Bion to the laws which he had adopted from S, but it has been interpolated 
 throughout, and especially in D. 32-45, by a later prophetic writer (p. 619 
 sqq.). £ej). xxvii. is P^'s, but he follows S in it, and borrows some of his regu- 
 lations from that source (p. 628, 636 sq.). We must wait for the publica- 
 tion of Dillmann's commentary on Num.-Josli. to know which sections of 
 Numbers and Deuteronomy he supposes to have been directly or indirectly 
 drawn from S. 
 
 Following the objections — conclusive for the most part — urged by Horst 
 (p. 36-47) and Kayser {Jdhrb. f. prot. Theologie, 1881, p. 648-665), I would 
 make the following remarks on this hypothesis. No one will say that it has 
 simplicity or internal probability to commend it. On the contrary, it ia as 
 involved as it well can be. The redactor has two recensions of one and the 
 same law-book before him, and he uses each in turn, so that he sometimes falls 
 into repetitions and contradicts himself. On the other hand he treats his 
 documents with great freedom, and sometimes drops out considerable portions 
 altogether {Ex. u. Lev., p. 550). Such a representation of the origin of Lev. 
 svii. sqq. can hardly be accepted unless imperatively demanded by the facta. 
 And this it certainly is not. Dillmann starts from Lei\ xviii.-xx. (p. 540 
 sq.), and then builds upon the result he has there obtained. But here, at the 
 outset, he fails to demonstrate the use of the two recensions (SP^ and SJ). It 
 ia clear enough, doubtless, that Lev, xviii.-xx. was put together and worked up 
 by a collector, and also that certain foreign elements were afterwards inserted 
 into it (see above), but it does not appear that the streams from which the 
 collector drew had flowed from a single source, nor that P^ was commenting 
 upon another code — which is constantly in conflict with his own precepts, 
 observe — whenever his hand or that of one of his followers can be traced in 
 Lev. xviii.-xx. ; and least of all does it appear that by the side of this sup- 
 posed P^S we have also a JS, i.e. a recension of S in the prophetic spirit, 
 whether by J or by some other such author. It is just this branch of the hypo- 
 thesis — the most improbable intriuaically — that is most destitute of proof. — ■ 
 The significance of the hypothesis, however, lies not in these two recensions 
 of the one document, but in the high antiquity assigned to the document 
 itself. Dillmann would willingly sacrifice P'^S and JS if he could establish 
 S as ' of hoary antiquity.' But conversely, even if we accepted the two 
 recensions, it would not follow that their original had come down from the 
 earliest times. Dillmann had still to prove the high antiquity of 
 S — and he has not proved it. The Israelitish literature does not sup- 
 port, and therefore opposes it. On the relation of D to S in Lev. xviii.-xx. 
 Bee § 14, 11. 6, on his relation to S in Lev. xxiii., see below, n. 8 ; and further, 
 [273] "'• 9 ^^'^ ^°' '^^^ facts to which attention is there called disprove the high 
 antiquity claimed for S by Dillmann, and with it his whole hypothesis. 
 
 ' The name was suggested by Klostermann {Zeitschr. f. luth. Theol. 
 1877, p. 416), and has been adopted, with good reason, by others. Its 
 appropriateness is apparent, for instance, from Lev. xix. 2 ; xx. 7j §! 26 
 xxi. 6-8, 15, 23; xxii, 9, 16, 32 (xi. 44, 45; Num. xv. 40). But even 
 where sanctity is not spoken of, it is still before the lawgiver's mind: e.g. 
 
n. 7, 8.] Date of Lev. xvii.-xxvi. 281 
 
 in ice. xviii., xx., where marriage with relatives is condemned as unclean, 
 and in xxii., where the use of the kodashlm is regulated. Cf. Horst, p. 47-51. 
 
 ° The two positions here laid down as to the relation between P' and 
 Deuteronomy, — viz. (i) that P' is later than D, and (3) that he is nearer to 
 him than P- is — must he severally illustrated. 
 
 "With regard to (i), I may refer at once to § 14, n. 6, where the position 
 that D was not acquainted with IiCV. xvii., xviii.-xx. is defended by citations 
 that, in some cases, clearly demonstrate his priority, whereas there is no proof 
 whatever of the opposite relationship. The comparison of D with Lev. x^i. sqq. 
 leads in general to the same result. In Lev. xxi. severer demands of purity 
 are laid on the priest than on the layman, and the ordinary priests are dis- 
 tinguished from him ' who is greater than his brethren ; ' whereas no trace of 
 either of these conceptions can be discovered in D. In D the use of nebula is 
 forbidden to all alike {Deut. xiv. 21") ; whereas in Lev. xxii. 8 nebi51a and 
 terepha are forbidden specifically to the priest (on iew. xvii. 15, 16 — due in 
 its present form to P^ — cf. § 14, n. 5). The regulations concerning the pente- 
 cost and feast of tabernacles in Lev. xxiii. 9—32, 39-43 are more detailed than 
 the corresponding precepts in Deut. xvi. 9-12, 13-15, and therefore in all 
 probability later, for in the nature of the case religious usages gradually 
 become more and more accurately determined, and such was in point of fact 
 the course which the Israelitish festal legislation took. The sabbatical year of 
 Lev. XXV. 1-7, 18-22 seems to have been unknown to D. At any rate he 
 makes not the smallest allusion to it in his regulations concerning the year of 
 release, xv. I-II. And is it not highly probable, in itself, that this extension 
 of the sabbath rest to the very soil is a later application of that sabbatical 
 idea which lay so close to the heart of the priests ? Cf. Lev. xix. 3, 30 ; Ex. 
 xxxi. 12-17; XXXV. 1-3 ; Nam. xv. 32-36 ; and on the relation of Lev. xxv. 
 1-7 to Ex. xxiii. 10 sq., see § 11, n. 23. 
 
 (2) The mutual relations of P' and P" in Lev. xxiii. have already been 
 explained in § 6, n. 28. I would now further point out that in Ex. xiii. 3-10; 
 Deut. xvi. 1-8 the feast of ma95flth is iixed in the month Ablb, and in Deut. 
 xvi. 9-12 Pentecost is fixed seven weeks after the beginning of the harvest, 
 without any definite indication of the days on which the two feasts are to be 
 celebrated. This is completely in harmony with their original character ; 
 for, as agricultural feasts, they were necessarily dependent on the harvest and 
 could not possibly be held on a previously determined day. It was not till 
 after the centralisation of worship at Jerusalem that any inconvenience could 
 arise in the matter, and D makes no attempt as yet to obviate it — apparently 
 supposing that the ma996th week and pentecost would be officially announced 
 from Jerusalem year by year in accordance with the condition of the barley [274] 
 and wheat fields. For the same reason ' the feast of ingathering ' has no 
 fixed date in Deut. xvi. 13-15, and was doubtless intended by the lawgiver 
 to be proclaimed in like manner. Accordingly when P', in Lev. xxiii., assigns 
 no fixed day either for pentecost or tabernacles, he is following the earlier 
 lawgivers, whereas P''^ deserts their footprints and sacrifices, or at least com- 
 promises the true character of the festivals for the sake of regularity and 
 
282 The Hexateuch. [§i5' 
 
 uniformity. So again tlie feast of taternaclea lasts seven days according to 
 P' {Leu. xxiii. 39-41) as it does in Deut. xvi. 15, whereas P- (hev. xziii. 35, 
 36, from which v. 3g has been interpolated) departs from them and specifies 
 eight days. In this connection we may note that in I Kings viii. 65 sq. ' the 
 feast,' i. e. the feast of tabernacles, lasts seven days, and on the eighth day 
 Israel returns homewards, whereas in 2 Chron. vii. 8-10 the eighth day is 
 absorbed into the festival and Israel is dismissed not on the 22nd but on the 
 23rd of the seventh month. The regulations which the earlier narrator presup- 
 poses (those of D and P', to which Bzeli. xlv. 25 still adheres), are unquestionably 
 older than those with which the later Chronicler makes the account of his pre- 
 decessor square (those of P^). Dillmann (p. 575 sqq.) does not admit the 
 distinction between P' and P', and therefore thiidcs it possible that Lev. xxiii. 
 9-22, 39-43, as well as the rest of the chapter, belongs to P^- Yet he sees the 
 difference between these verses and the others, and therefore supposes that P^ 
 borrowed them from S. But if this were so then v. 39-43 certainly would not 
 come after P^'s ordinances as to the feast of tabernacles, in v. 33-36, and the 
 colophon of his whole festal legislation, in v. 37, 38. It is true that no law of 
 Pentecost from P^ precedes v. 9-22, but this is no proof of Dillmann's 
 hypothesis. No more is the absence of ma996th and ph^sach in the fragments 
 of P'. The redactor of Leo. xxiii. might reproduce both P'' and P' in a single 
 instance {v. 33-36 and 39-43) without its following that he must do so 
 always. And what could be more natural than that, as a rule, he should 
 only adopt one of them? The harmonising shifts to which Dillmann is 
 reduced are conclusive evidence against his theory. ' The day after the 
 sabbath,' in v. 11, 15, which, as we learn from v. 10 and Deut. xvi. 9, can be 
 no other than the first day of the harvest week, Dillmann explains by 
 V. 5-8j — with which, however, the writer himself would have brought it into 
 connection, had such been his meaning. The 'seven days' of v. 39-41, and 
 the indefinite formulae 'when you gather in the produce of the land' and 'in 
 the seventh month,' v. 39, 41, are sacrificed to v. 33-36 and to v. 39, which 
 has been interpolated from them. Such explanations can content no one who 
 has once seen the true bearings of v. 9 sqq., 39 sqq. The relation of P^ to D on 
 the one side and to P^ on the other, which comes out so clearly in Lev. xxiii., is 
 further illustrated by the following facts : a. P\ though priestly in origin and 
 character, has a number of precepts in common with D, whereas the parallel 
 passages between P^ and D are very few ; b. the exaltation of one of the 
 priests above his brethren, which distinguishes P^ from D (see under (l)), is 
 carried much further yet in P^; u. P^'s year of jubilee, in Lev. xxv. 8-17, 23- 
 55, is further removed than P''s sabbatical year in Lev. xxv. 1-7 from Deut. 
 XV. I-ii, 12-18. 
 [275] ' In the nature of the case the several laws in Lev. xvii. sqq. give no 
 unequivocal evidence as to the age of the lawgiver. They are conceived in 
 general terms and are written in the person of Moses. Neither have the 
 exhortations Lev. xviii. 1-5, 24-30; xix. 2, 37 ; xx. 23-26 any date stamped 
 upon them. It is clear that the settlement in Canaan is merely represented 
 as still in the future, but it does not appear how far back in the past it really 
 
n. 9.j Lev. xxvi. composed in the Captivity. 283 
 
 lies. It is otherwise with the concliiding discourse in Ijev, xxvi. 3-45. Here 
 too Moses is the speaker, the conquest of the laud is in the future, Israel's 
 attitude towards Yahwfe's ordinances and judgments is uncertain, and so 
 forth. But involuntarily the author, like the writer oi Veut. xxix. sq., iv. 25 
 sqq., etc., allows his own historical position to shine through. He knows that 
 Israel has sacrificed on bambth and in sanctuaries, has reared chammanlm 
 and served idols (». 30 sq.). He not only anticipates the dispersion of Israel 
 and the devastation of his land {v. 33), but can regard this depopulation and 
 lying fallow of the land as the penalty for the neglect of the sabbath law, as 
 the payment in full of what the soil owes to Yahwfe {v, 34, 35, 43). This 
 last trait is decisive.- The trespass could not be assumed as a fact when 
 the law had only just been given, nor even while it was still open to 
 observe it though it had already been neglected for a time. We cannot 
 fail to recognise, under the form of a prophecy, the writer's account of the 
 fact which he actually witnessed — the land lying fallow. The same conclu- 
 sion is supported by v. 36 sqq. (parallel with Deut. xxix. sq. ; iv. 25 sqq. ; cf. 
 § 7, n. 22 (4)), where the punishment is past and only the penitence and 
 restoration are future: Israel, then, is in exile. Horst (p. 65 sq.), on the 
 strength of these very verses, places Lev. xxvi. 3-45 shortly before the 
 captivity, perhaps under Zedekiah, but in this he fails to do justice to their 
 contents or to distinguish between what was necessarily involved in the form 
 selected by the writer and what we may infer as to his own date from the 
 underlying assumptions on which he goes. Wurster (op. cit., p. 122 sq.) 
 declares for the early years after the return and appeals in support of this 
 date to the practical character of P^'s precepts concerning the priests, the 
 sacrifices, the feasts, etc. ; and also to his demand, in Lev. xvii. 3 sqq., 
 that there should be no slaughtering save at the sanctuary — a demand which 
 might have been made just after 536 B.C., but at no other time. On this last 
 point see § 6, u. 28 and § 14, u. 6. Wurster'a theory, which really differs 
 but little from my own, is very seductive, and might be accepted were it not 
 opposed to Lev. xxvi. 3-45, which shows us that Israel's time of punishment 
 is not yet over. — Though I do not think a comparison of Lev. xxvi. with the 
 denunciations in Deuteronomy decides the question of priority either way (but 
 see Wellh., Prolegomena, 405 [381 sq.]), yet the language quite confirms 
 the date we have assigned, as I shall presently show with respect to P' as a 
 whole. This is granted by Dillmann too (p. 618 sqq.) as far as Lev. xxvi. 
 goes. But he thinks that the later words only occur sporadically in v. 3-31, 
 and that it is not till we come to o. 32 sqq. that they become more frequent. 
 He therefore supposes that this discourse was composed in the eighth century, 
 and was interpolated, expanded and supplemented during the captivity. But 
 this hypothesis is without foundation. The passage is a single whole. See 
 bsi, V. 43, 44, as in v. 11, 15, 30; np, v. 40, 41, as in v. 21, 23, 24, 27, 28; 
 *"• 36) 37 ii connection with v. 17 ; v. 43, 44 in connection with v. 15. But 
 the progi-ess of the whole discourse pleads more powerfully than any detached 
 expressions for its unity. F. 3 1 is not a conclusion. The covenant struck in [276] 
 I). 9, broken in v, 15, and avenged by the sword in v. 25, cannot be severed 
 
284 The Hexateuch. [§ 15. 
 
 from its restoration in v. 42, 44, 45 ; and if these latter verses are part of the 
 original, then all that precedes and prepares for them from v. 32 onward must 
 be so too. Dillmann's view of Lev. xvii. sqq. encounters an obstacle in Lev. 
 xxvi. 3-45 which cannot be put aside, and which should have suflSoed to make 
 him reconsider his whole hypothesis. 
 
 The general character of P''s language is indicated by the fact that it is 
 mainly on the strength of linguistic evidence that he has been identified 
 with Ezekiel (n. 10). It is an unquestionable fact that his laws and ex- 
 hortations contain a number of words that appear for the first time in the 
 writers of the Chaldsean period (D, Jeremiah, and yet later authors). The 
 value to be attached to this evidence will be discussed in n. 11. I shall con- 
 fine myself here to enumerating a few examples. The following words are 
 taken from Giesebrecht's table (cf. n. 11) : nbaw, ';nin, mpa, mjd: naMO, 
 T31, minn, nniiiia, imn, -[in, -[dd, ppo, rtbsB, "jte, nnn D<pn, jaip, 
 D3-1, m-1, ^DT, miiBD, n'3toD, ypMJ, Piel and ypiS, with which the parallel 
 passages and Giesebrecht's explanations should be compared. We may 
 further note D'bT'jj (Lev. xxvi. 30; Deut. xxix. 16 [17] ; Jef. 1. 2 ; lEsek. 
 passim; Kings six times) ; ';»J {Lev. xxvi. 11, 15, 30, 44; Jer. xiv. 19 ; 'Ezeh. 
 xvi. 45 ; Job xxi. 10; and in another sense ^ Sam. i. 21) ; miN {Lev. xvii. 
 15 ; xix. 34 ; xxiii. 43 ; Hzeh. xlvii. 22 ; Psalm xxxvii. 35 [?] ; V passim) ; 
 inn (Aramffian ; Lev. xx. 17 ; Prov. xiv. 34 ?) ; rn: (Lev. xviii. 19 ; xx. 21 ; 
 Zeeh. xiii. i ; Lam. i. 17 ; Hzeh. and V passim; JEzr. ix. 11 ; 2 Chron. xxix. 
 6); JS'ai ;S' {Lev. xxvi. 43; JSzek. xiii. 10; xxxvi. 3); 'jijb {Lev. xix. 7; 
 vii. 18 ; EzeTc. iv. 14 ; Isaiah Ixv. 4) ; Nip {Lev. xviii. 25, 28 ; xx. 22 ; Pi-ov. 
 xxiii. 8 ; xxv. 16 ; Job xx. 15 ; Jonah ii. 11 [10] ; nsT (Kal, and Hiphil in 
 another sense. Lev. xxvi. 34, 41, 43; cf. Dillm. ; Niphal, Lev. xix. 7; xxii. 
 23, 27; i. 4; vii. 18; Isaiah xl. 2); rrann {Lev. xviii. 22, 26, 27, 29, 30; 
 XX. 13; appears as early as Isaiah i. 13; also in Qen. xliii. 32; xlvi. 34; 
 Ex. viii. 22 [26] ; but only becomes frequent, through the influence of D, in 
 Jeremiah, EzeJciel, etc.). See further n. 10. 
 
 " The identity of P' and Ezekiel has been maintained, after G-raf {Ge- 
 schichtliche Siicher, p. 81-83) by Bertheau, in his review of Graf's work 
 {Jahrb.f. d. Theol. 1866, p. 150 sqq.), Colenso {Pentateuch, vi. (1871) p. 3 
 sqq.; App. p. 1-8), Kayser {Vorexil. Buch., p. 176-184; Jahrb.f. p. TheoL 
 1S81, p. 548-553) and, most recently of all, by Horst (p. 69-96), though the 
 last-named scholar diff"ers from his predecessors in regarding Ezekiel as the 
 collector of the laws in Lev. xvii. sqq., and the writer only of the discourse 
 in Lev. xxvi. 3-45. On the other hand, Graf's hypothesis is combated or 
 rejected by Noldeke (I/niecsMc/mngeB zur Kiitik d. A. T. p. 67-71); by 
 myself {Godsdienst, ii. 94-96 [Rel. Isr. ii. 189-192]) ; G. C. Steynis {De ver- 
 handing van de wetgeving bij Ezech. tot die in den Pent., p. 124 sqq.) ; Well- 
 hausen (xxii. 440 sq. ; Prolegomena, 399 sqq., [376 sqq.]) ; Klostermann 
 (Hat Ezeeliiel die in Lev. iS-26 am deutlichsten erkennhare Gesetzessamm- 
 lunff verfasst ? in Zeitschr. f. lufh. Theol. 1877, p. 406-445); Reuss (L'Jiist. 
 sainte et la lot, Introd. p. 252 sq.) ; Smend {Iter. Proph. Ezekiel,^. xxv. 
 sqq., 314 sq.) ; Delitzsch (Stud., p. 617 sqq.), but whereas Noldeke, 
 
n. 10.] Lev. xvii.-xxvi. and the Prophet Ezekiel. 285 
 
 Klostermann, and Delitzsch assign the priority to Lev. xvii. sqq. the [277] 
 others give it to Ezekiel. — The positions laid down in the text rest upon the 
 following considerations ; — 
 
 (1) The similarity in style, vocabulary, and phraseology is very remarkable. 
 See, more especially, Colenso, vi. 3 sqq. ; and Horst, p. 72 sqq. Ezekiel 
 and Lev. xxvi. have twenty-two expressions in common that occur nowhere else 
 in the Old Testament, and thirteen more that occur nowhere else in the Pen- 
 tateuch. In the nature of the case coincidences between the prophet and Lev. 
 xvii. sqq. are less frequent, but amongst them are the following: nipni -ibn 
 {Lev. xviii. 3; xx. 23 ; xxvi. 3; 'Ezek. v. 6, 7 and in ten other places); 
 Dnn 'm Dl«n dhn nius' t^n {Lev. xviii. 5; Jiseh. xx. 11, 13, 21 (25); 
 compare Ezek. iii. 17 sqq. ; xviii. 9, 13, 19 sqq., 31 sq. ; xxxiii. 8 sqq., 12 sqq.) ; 
 ''d nns T\^y {Lev. xviii., xx., passim ; Ezeh. xvi. 36, 37 ; xxii. 10 ; xxiii. 10, 18, 
 29) ; the use of niipon, of b^n wi^ mrr ukd or with nin' iDTpo, etc., etc. 
 Specially noteworthy too are Lev. xxvi. ii) = Eze]c.iv. 17; xxiv. 23; xxxiii. 
 10; Lev. xxvi. ii=E:e]c. xxxvii. 26, 27 (xxv. 4); Lev. xsivi. 4, 20 = Ezek. 
 xxxiv. 27. Mutual independence is out of the question in such a case. 
 
 (2) This resemblance is accompanied by linguistic differences. Some of 
 the idioms of Lev. xxvi. do not appear in Ezekiel; such are Jiri: Jffl' (u. 
 10; cf. Lev. xxv. 22); f]i-i j'Ni (». 17, 36,37); np -[Vn («. 21, 23, 34, 27, 28, 
 40, 41), etc. Ezekiel never uses mn' ':n alone, though the phrase ' and ye 
 (they) shall know that I am Yahwfe ' occurs times without number. Nor 
 does he use n'ns. More might be urged of a like nature. But I would 
 not venture to assert that these divergencies exclude the identity of P' 
 and Ezekiel, especially if we refer the 'legislation of sanctity,' and the pro- 
 phecies to different periods of Ezekiel's life. I attach more importance to the 
 difference in artistic power, which in my opinion raises Lev. xxvi. 3-45 above 
 Ezekiel's denunciations. But neither is this conclusive against identity of 
 authorship ; for Ezekiel may have risen above himself on occasion. It is only 
 on condition of our finding other proofs that P^ and Ezekiel are not the same 
 that we can bring in these formal divergencies as confirmatory evidence. 
 
 (3) These other proofs are not wanting. At the outset we must note the 
 ascription of ' the legislation of sanctity ' to Moses. We are not in a position 
 to say that Ezekiel would have felt a scruple against this, but we can say that 
 as far as we know he never made use of this form of utterance, and that a 
 priori we have no right whatever to expect it from him. In xl.-xlviii. he 
 makes Yahwfe himself announce the regulations of the restored theocracy, 
 What could have induced him, a few years earlier or later, to relegate 
 similar precepts to the Mosaic age ? If these latter are earlier than xl.- 
 xlviii., then Ezekiel, as the organ of Yahwfe, is himself made to annul a, 
 portion of them ; if on the other hand they are later, then he must have 
 cancelled his first draft. But in that case, why did he not withdraw it? 
 Though it is conceivable enough in itself that a prophet should introduce 
 Moses as a speaker, yet such a bis in idem as Graf and the rest assume is 
 in a high degree improbable. 
 
 (4) Add to this that with all their affinities Ezekiel and P" differ in [278] 
 
286 The Hexatetuh. [§i5- 
 
 their precepts. It is not witliout reason that Smend (op. cit.) speaks of 
 ' a whole series of important differences in matter.' If these differences 
 were all of a similar kind they might be chronologically explained on the 
 supposition that, either in xl.-xlviii. or in Lev. xvii. sqq., Ezekiel had modi- 
 fied his former ordinances in one definite direction. But this is not the 
 case. It is only now and then that the divergent ordinances seem to stand 
 in any such relation to each other, and even then the priority seems to 
 belong now to hev, xvii. aqq., and now to Ezek. xl. sqq. P' never men- 
 tions subordinate priests (Levites), — not even in Lev. xxii. 1-13, whereas 
 Ezekiel introduces and justifies the distinction between priests and under- 
 priests (xliv. 9 sqq., cf. n. 15). In P^ ma995th and tabernacles have no 
 fixed date (cf. n. 8); in Ezekiel they have (xlv. 21, 25); in P' we find 
 the sheaf of the first-fruits and the feast of pentecost {Lev. xxiii. 9 sqq.), 
 which Ezekiel does not mention, probably for the same reason which made 
 him loosen the connection between the two other high festivals and the 
 cultivation of the land. — On the other hand, P' is in advance of Ezekiel in 
 the law of the sabbatical year {Lev. xxv. 1-7 ; cf. xxvi. 34 sq., 43), to which 
 the prophet never refers, unless he alludes to it in xlvi. 17 (§ 11, n. 24), 
 where in any case he says nothing of the land lying fallow. But above all 
 there is the distinction drawn between the priests and the High Priest, in 
 Lev. xxi. i-g, 10-15, "^ which Ezekiel knows nothing whatever. That this 
 is no accident appears from Lev. xxi. 5, 10 compared with Ezelc. xliv. 20 
 (3?"1D forbidden in the latter passage to all the priests, in the former to 
 the High Priest alone), and from Lev. xxi. 7, 13, 14 compared with Ezelc. 
 xliv. 22 (the prohibition of marriage with a layman's widow is cancelled 
 in Leviticus as far as the ordinary priest is concerned, and intensified in 
 the case of the High Priest into the prohibition of marriage with any 
 widow). In the same way a comparison of Ezeh. xlvi. 14 with Lev. xxiii. 
 13 points to a difference of authorship. In Ezekiel the mincha that ac- 
 companies the lamb of the daily morning sacrifice consists of a sixth of an 
 ephah of meal and a third of a hln of oil, whereas in other cases the 
 mincha is expressly left of undefined amount, -o. 5, 7, II ; but in Lev. 
 xxiii. the lamb of the firstlings is accompanied by a mincha of two-tenths of 
 an ephah of meal, with oil poured over it, and a quarter of a hin of wine 
 (a precept which, in its turn, deviates from that of P^ Ex. xxix. 40; 
 Nam. xxviii. 5, 9, 13 sqq.; xxix. 4 sqq., where the mincha to go with a 
 lamb is fixed at one-tenth of an ephah of meal, a quarter of a hln of oil, 
 and a quarter of a hin of wine). The difference in the quantities of meal 
 prescribed is just what might be expected between two writers : in de- 
 fining the amount of oil Ezekiel goes further than P'; hia silence about 
 the wine as an element in the sacrifice is not accidental, for elsewhere too 
 he omits it. Even in xlv. 17 "[D3n seems to mean the oil (cf. Smend), 
 and XX. 28 certainly implies no approval of the customary libation. Further, 
 compare xliv. 21 with v. 29. — Horst (p. 91 sqq.) allows most of these 
 points of difference, but he thinks they put no difficulty in the way of the 
 hypothesis he defends, viz. that Ezekiel was the collector and not the author 
 
n. lo.j Lev. xvii.-xxvi. later than Ezekiel. 287 
 
 of the 'legislation of sanctity.' But in that case what could make him 
 subsequently deviate from the laws he had himself collected ? Why fix the 
 amount of the mincha differently and pass the High Priest by in silence ? 
 Why not follow Jjev. xxiii, 9 sqq. in including Pentecost amongst the high 
 festivals to be celebrated by communal offerings ? 
 
 (S) If the supposition that P' and Ezekiel are identical thus falls to the [279] 
 ground, the question remains to which of the two we must give the priority. 
 Ezekiel's assumption of the legislator's office in xl. sqq. is best explained on 
 the supposition that the priestly tordth had not been codified before his time. 
 He thus appears to be the elder. We have also seen that some of P^'s pre- 
 cepts represent a more advanced stage of development than Ezekiel's (see 
 under (4)). So far all the indications agree ; but we likewise noted some points 
 on which Ezekiel is in advance of P^ on the road that leads to P'. This does 
 not force us to reverse our decision, however, for it is quite conceivable that in 
 these special points P^ attached himself to Ezekiel, whereas P^ adhered to the 
 older tradition. And, again, the date inferred from hev. xxvi. 3-45 (n. 9) con- 
 firms the priority of Ezekiel ; for the author of this discourse has a longer exile 
 behind him than Ezekiel has. Hence it follows that in iey. xxvi., where P^ 
 coincides with Ezekiel, he is imitating him — sometimes word for word. And 
 as a matter of fact (cf. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 404 sq., 407 sq. [381, 383 
 sq.] ) it is clear, for instance, that Hzeh. xxxiii. 10 is the original which the prophet 
 himself in xxiv. 23 and P' in Lev. xxvi. 39 make use of. Not a single valid 
 objection can be urged against this view of the relations of P^ and Ezekiel, It 
 is perfectly true that JBzek. xviii. 6, 7 and xxii. 7-12 respectively imply that the 
 commandments now contained in iew. xviii. 19, 20; xix. 13, 15, 35; xxv. 14, 17, 
 36 ; and Lev. xviii. 7, 9, 1.5, 19, 2a ; xix. 16, 30, 33 ; xx, 9, 10, etc., were by no 
 means evolved after Ezekiel's time, but could be assumed by him as well known 
 to his contemporaries pretty much in the form in which we have them in P^ (cf. 
 Horst, p. 81-S3). But no one maintains that P' invented these and other 
 such precepts. They may even have been in writing long before his time, 
 like the tora which D incorporated in xiv. 3-21 (§ 14, n. 5) ; but the date of 
 P' himself must not be confounded with that of his sources. In the same way 
 we must grant to Klostermann (op. cit., p. 436 sqq.) that the formula 
 mn' ^3N appears in an earlier form in Lev. xviii. sqq. than in Ezekiel ; but it 
 is not the creation of P', who borrowed it from the older lawgivers (of. Ex, xx. 
 2). Again, it is true that Ezekiel, both in this and many other cases, is 
 dependent either on older torfith or on his prophetic predecessors, and 
 Klostermann seems to regard the fact — on which he dwells with great 
 emphasis, p. 413 sqq. — as conclusive. But how does this prove that Ezekiel 
 was not followed, in his turn, by a later lawgiver? Delitzsch (p. 619) 
 thinks that this ' inversion of the true relationship ' makes the drastic changes 
 in Ezekiel's festal and sacrificial legislation initiated by P' entirely in- 
 explicable, but I answer that we are no more bound to regard P' as a slavish 
 copyist of Ezekiel than Delitzsch himself is bound to make Ezekiel uniformly 
 follow P'- Moreover we know — and this is conclusive — that P^ likewise 
 departed from Ezekiel in very important particulars. 
 
288 The Hexateuch. [§ i5' 
 
 In the priestly elements of the Hexateuch which remain 
 after the withdrawal of P^, we have already (§ 6) seen reason 
 to recognise the several portions of a single whole, a historico- 
 legislative work (P^) that begins with the creation of heaven 
 and earthj passes on, after a rapid survey of the history of the 
 [280] primitive world and the patriarchs, to the narrative of Israel's 
 release from Egypt and the legislation of Moses, and ends 
 with the settlement of Israel in Canaan. But in our previous 
 investigation we never proved that these legislative and 
 narrative passages (i) really belong to each other, and (2) 
 once constituted a single and independent whole. All this 
 we tacitly assumed or merely sought to render probable prima 
 facie. We have now reached a point of our inquiry at which 
 we can give the full proof. 
 
 But first we must ask whether we are justified in assuming 
 as our point of departure the date which we fixed for the 
 legislation in § 12, chiefly on the strength of the narratives 
 concerning Ezra and Nehemiah. We have no hesitation in 
 answering in the affirmative. We shall take the post- 
 exilian origin of P^'s laws, and a fortiori of those of 
 his followers, as our point of departure, looking forward 
 to a closer chronological definition in due course. For no 
 single objection that can throw any doubt upon this date 
 has been urged. The language of the priestly legislator 
 cannotj in the nature of the case, lead to any absolute cer- 
 tainty, but it raises no difficulty whatever against the sup- 
 position that he lived in the sixth or fifth century b.C.^'^ 
 The same hypothesis is in some cases supported and in others 
 demanded by the relation of P^'s ordinances to those of P-^ 
 and of the prophet Ezekiel, and more generally by the consider- 
 a,tion of their contents taken in connection with the established 
 facts of the history of Israel and of the Israelitish religion. 
 Not till the period we have named could any system of 
 legislation treat the people as a religious community (or 
 
n. ii.j Langiiage of the Priestly Laws. 289 
 
 congregation) rather than as an independent body politic 1^; 
 assign the foremost place to the High Priest ^3. make the 
 centralisation of worship, as an accomplished fact, its point 
 of departure^*; explain the difference between priests and 
 Levites genealogically and enforce it with the utmost rigour i'; 
 make such provisions as we find in P^ for the support of 
 priests and Levites alike ^^ ; and, finally, regulate the whole 
 worship after the pattern observed in these laws^''. In all 
 these essentialsj as well as in minor matters ^^, P^'s legisla- 
 tion stands in such relations to the ordinances of Deuteronomy, 
 of Ezekiel and of P^, as its later origin, within the sixth, or 
 the first half of the fifth century, would demand and would [281] 
 alone exjilain. 
 
 " Cf. C. V. Eyssel, ~De Elohistce Feniateuchici sennone (Lips. 1878); 
 F. Giesebreclit, Zur Hexateuchkritik. Der Sprachgebrauch des hexa- 
 ieuchischen MoMsten {Zeitschr. f. alttest. Wissensch. i. 177-276) ; S. E. 
 Driver, On some alleged linguistic affinities of the Elohist (Journal of 
 •Philology, vol. xi. 201-236). In the present note we shall only deal with 
 that portion of the subject of the above-named essays which refers to 
 the laws of V, and the narrative sections inextricably intertwined with 
 them. The language of Ms narratives, especially from Gen. i. to Ex. vi., 
 will be expressly examined hereafter (n. 21), inasmuch as it has been 
 alleged in proof of the high antiquity of these passages. Only a part of the 
 laws on which we are engaged were committed to writing by P^ himself. 
 Some were incorporated into his work, or incorporated into the Hexateuch 
 along with his work, at a subsequent period, while others are of yet later 
 origin, and must be regarded as amplifications or modifications of his precepts. 
 But here, in discussing the question whether the language of these laws 
 presents any obstacle to the recognition of their post-exilian origin, these 
 differences may be ignored. 
 
 Well-founded objections are urged by Giesebrecht (p. 177 sqq.) against 
 the method followed by Eyssel in his plea for the high antiquity of VK 
 Eyssel (p. 19 sqq.) distinguishes three ' aetates' in the history of the Hebrew 
 language, 1. from the earliest times to the year 700 B.C. ; 2. from 700 B.o. 
 to the end of the sixth century, so that Haggai and Zechariah (i.-viii.) are 
 still within the limits of this ' ajtas' ; 3. from 450 B.o. to the close of the Old 
 Testament literature (a. the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah ; h. Chronicles 
 and Ecclesiastes ; c. Daniel and Esther). He then proceeds to ask whether 
 P'' belongs to the 3rd period, and answers in the negative. But (i) seeing 
 that no one supposes P^ to be a contemporary of the Chronicler, Eyssel has 
 only the fragments of Ezra and Nehemiah left for comparison, and they are 
 
 U 
 
290 The Hexateuch. [§i5- 
 
 far too limited in extent to furnish a standard, and (2) the question is not 
 whether P^ and Ezra are one and the same person, or even whether they are 
 absolutely contemporary, but whether there is anything in P^'s language to 
 prevent our supposing that he is later than Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 
 and Deutero-Isaiah. It is to this point that the inquiry should have been 
 directed. — Now when we consider the obvious tendency of Eyssel's essay, it 
 is highly remarkable that his results should be so unfavourable as they actually 
 are to the high antiquity of the laws in P^, He discovers a whole series 
 of formations and grammatical peculiarities in them which are special to his 
 second ' setas ' (p. 35 sqq.), a list of Aramjeisms that is not to be despised 
 (p. 70-72), and even some phenomena that belong exclusively to his third 'aetas' 
 (iffi« vi\ Num. ix. 20 sq. ; mn nVin sin, Ex. xii. 42 ; p. 61, 63 ; cf. also 
 p. 68, on NTpD, yc:3, NiDD, riTir, and p. 77, n. i : ' Attamen concedendum est 
 in quibusdam partieulis ad librum Numerorum pertinentibus pauca inesse 
 posterioris setatis vestigia, quEe in recentissimis demum libris reperiantur. 
 Quibus soils si quis, aliis disquisitionis partibus prorsus neglectis (!), nitatur, 
 eum eo posse adduci, ut has partes statuat post exilium [i. e. after the year 
 450 B.C.] esse oonscriptas hand negaverim'). But Eyssel thinks that these 
 idioms occur exclusively in a single group of laws, concerning the tabernacle, 
 [282] the priests and the Levites, which he therefore refers to the second 'setas,' 
 while deriving the rest, together with the narratives in Gen. i.-Ex. vi., from 
 the first ' ffitas.' To the question which laws belong to this later group, we 
 receive, strangely enough, somewhat divergent answers. The final list (p. 80) 
 embraces the laws in Ex. xii. (in part) ; xxv.-xxxi. ; xxxv.-xl. ; Lev. viii.-x. ; 
 xxvii. ; Num. i.-x. 28 ; xv.-xix. ; xxvi. sqq. (i. o. xxvi.-xxxvi.). But in 
 note 2 {ihid.) Nimi. xv. I-16 ; xxviii. sq. and xxxii. sq. are included 
 amongst the earlier passages ; and on p. 78 we read not that Lev. viii.-x., 
 xxvii., but that 'Lev. v. sqq. exceptis capita undecimo aliisque legum 
 partibus ' belong to the later group ; while on p. 45 the ' particulse ' {sic) in 
 which the forms n:i'3n, nNi:n and the like occur, are thus summed up ; ' Ex. 
 25-30. 35 sequ.; Lev. 5, 7, 10, 22, 23; Num. 5, 6, 14-28 sequ.' This 
 vacillation, however, is not altogether inexplicable. The truth is that it is 
 hazardous in the extreme thus to divide P^'s laws between two 'states.' 
 The criteria relied on are wholly inadequate, as Ryssel himself appears to 
 feel when (p. 81) he seeks support for his divisions from Wellhausen whose 
 results, however, differ totally from his own. But the strangest is yet to 
 come. The grammatical and linguistic peculiarities which are accepted as 
 conclusive, would lead- to a different conclusion from the one which Eyssel 
 arrives at. In Lev. i.-vii., which is finally relegated to 'tetas i,' the following 
 traces of the later usage, recognised as such by Eyssel himself, occur: 
 'iu!:(p.4i), ni2Jmn(p.43), nD-i:n, nDnn,Tnniu)n (p. 44sq.), d'Ni'jd (p. 51), 
 nni!5«, riNnm, nni2Jn (p. 49), jnpD (p. 47), S'jrr intrans. (p. 54), n'sno (p. 41), 
 maiN (p. 46), nns') (p. 79 u.), Jd abundans (Lee. iv. 2 ; v. 13, p. 62 n. cf. 67) 
 and the Ai-amseisms nin and minn. Even if the evidential value of some of 
 these forms should be invalidated, more than enough would still remain to 
 expose the utter uncertainty of Eyssel's conclusions. What he grants 
 
n. ii.j Language of the Priestly Laws. 291 
 
 concerning a single gi-oup of laws, he ought, from his own point of view, to 
 extend to all P^'s legislation. 
 
 While Eyssel concerns himself chiefly with the forms and grammar of P', 
 and only devotes a, few pages — chiefly of a polemical character — to his 
 vocabulary (p. 69-76), Giesebrecht, on the other hand, makes it his special 
 task to acquaint us with the latter. With this view he takes all the 
 commonest words in P^ (and some in P') — omitting technical terms, how- 
 ever, which admit of no comparison with other books of the Old Testament — 
 arranges them alphabetically, and then states, in separate columns, whether, 
 and if so where, each of them occurs in writings (i) earlier than 700, (2) 
 between 700 and 600 B.C., (3) of the exilian and post-exilian period. Finally, 
 there is a column in which we are told whether the words, or significations, 
 in point are known in Aramaean. The result of this comparison is thus 
 summed up (p. 206) : ' In the early period the points of contact between 
 the prophetioo-poetic literature and the ehohistic lexicon amount to almost 
 nothing ; in the eighth century they are still of very moderate frequency ; 
 in Deuteronomy they rise to a number which almost doubles that of the 
 earlier literature ; and thenceforth they rise steadily from Job, Proverbs and 
 Jeremiah to Deutero-Isaiah and Ezekiel.' The same gradual ascent is traced 
 through the historical books (p. 206 sqq.). These facts are incontestible. 
 Giesebrecht' B table is carefully drawn up, and the result summarised above 
 remains true, even if we think that here and there he may have gone too [283] 
 far in excluding parallel passages from the earlier prophetic and historical 
 literature which he regards as corrupt or interpolated. The question remains, 
 however, what evidential value can we ascribe to these facts. To my mind 
 their importance is chiefly negative. They seem to prove, not that P^ 
 belongs to the exilian or post-exilian period, but that it is vain to attempt to 
 vindicate a high antiquity for his work, and place it, for instance, in the eighth 
 century B.C., on the strength of linguistic evidence. We may see from 
 Driver's essay (op. cit.) that the conclusion whichGiesebrecht draws from 
 his parallels, is open to dispute in a large number of the cases when taken 
 separately. It is not proved, and strictly speaking it is not susceptible of 
 proof, that the numerous words which P^ has in common with the writers of 
 the sixth century were not really in use in earlier times ; for their absence 
 from the older literature maybe simply accidental ; neitherisitproved 
 that the eighteen Arameeisms noted by Kyssel and the ten others added by 
 Giesebrecht (p. 220-228), all of them really are Aramfeisms and not good 
 old Hebrew words which the earlier writers knew but did not use because they 
 did not require them for their purpose, which differed much from that of P^ 
 Linguistic comparisons, therefore, do not furnish a positive or conclusive argu- 
 ment. But they do furnish a very strong presumption against the theory 
 that the priestly laws were written in the golden age of Israelitish literature. 
 As long as P^ is regarded as a contemporary of Isaiah, the ever increasing 
 number of parallels must remain an enigma. A constantly recuiTing phe- 
 nomenon is not satisfactorily explained by accident or by very special causes. 
 It must rest on some general basis. If it should appear on other grounds 
 
 U 2 
 
292 
 
 The HexateiLch. [ § ' 5- 
 
 (n. 12 sqq.) that the legislation of PM3 post-exilian, it will also follow that 
 Giesebrechtis right in bringing the charaoteristios of the author's vocabu- 
 lary into connection with the period in which he lived, and that any other 
 explanation of it, though possible in the abstract, is incorrect in point of fact. 
 
 " r\^ST\ (on which of. Giesebrecht, p. 243-245) or 'jN-iiU' '31 my is P^'s 
 usual designation for the community of Israel. It occurs about a hundred times. 
 Primarilv the word signifies the Mosaic Israel, encamped in the desert, but 
 the condition, attitude and needs of his own contemporaries are always before 
 the legislator's mind as he speaks of the ms. What these are is indicated 
 negatively by the absence of such regulations as those 0! Deut. xvi. 18-20; 
 xvii. ; xviii. g-22 (on judges, kings and prophets) and positively by the 
 ordinances themselves, which — as Reuss expresses it in Ersch u. Gruber, 
 Encycl. Sect. II, Band xxvii. 337 — were obviously intended 'not for a, great, 
 far-spreading nation, but for a people drawn close together, within easy 
 survey, and to some extent evidently dwelling together at a single place, a. 
 people amongst whom private property in land and the rights of inheritance 
 based upon it were established, yet to whom, as to a nascent community, 
 agrarian laws that testify to certain theoretical principles, but are in conflict 
 with all experience, destined to secure equality of possessions and to avert 
 pauperism, might approve themselves in the abstract, though impossible to 
 carry out. Such conditions had never been realised either at Sinai or since 
 David's time. The laws were written for political conditions in which 
 communal autonomy existed but not national independence.' — The mi^, and 
 with it the age of the legislator, is further characterised by the regulations 
 [284] concerning the gerlm, who are subject to the same laws as the native members 
 of the community, or in other words are incorporated into it (Ex. xii. 49 ; 
 Lev. xxiv. 22 ; Num. ix. 14; xv. 29, etc.). 
 
 " ' Princes' or 'heads,' msn 'N'to: (on the word itself see Giesebrecht, 
 p. 237 sq.), appear as the representatives and leaders of the m» in P^, even 
 before they have been appointed by Moses in Num. ii. (Ex. xvi. 22 ; xxxiv. 
 31 ; XXXV. 27 ; Num. i. 16, 44) and frequently afterwards (Num. iv. 34, 46 
 and passim ; Josh. ix. 15, 18, 19, 21 ; xvii. 4 ; xxii. 30, 32). In the legislation 
 their continued existence is at least once assumed. Lev. iv. 22, but their duties 
 are nowhere defined. So much however is clear : that the High Priest is 
 placed above them, and takes the first rank in the community. In Lev. iv. he 
 precedes 'the whole community of Israel' and the nasi' (v. 3, 13, 22). Aaron 
 is always mentioned, during his life, together with Moses, and so is his son 
 and successor Eleazar after him (Num. xxvi. i, 63 ; xxvii. 2, 19, etc.), and when 
 Moses dies Eleazar takes the first place (Num.. xxxiv. 17 ; Josh. xiv. I ; xix. 
 51 ; xxi. i). In harmony with all this the law of the cities of refuge. Num. 
 XXXV. 9-34, mentions the death of the High Priest as the terminus ad quern of 
 the homicide's abode in asylum (v. 25, 28, 32 ; Josh. xx. 6). The law, as a 
 whole, is certainly an amplification oi Deut. xix. 1-13 (Ec. xxi. 13, 14) and 
 the regulation just referred to shows that it was written when the High 
 Priest was the chief magistrate, i. e. after the Babylonian captivity. But in 
 determining the date of P ^ we have to consider the High Priest's relation- 
 
n. 12-15.] Post-exilian Origin of Priestly Tor a. 293 
 
 ship to his colleagues, as well as his political signifioanoe. The evidence 
 concermng the pre-exilian organization of the hierarchy has been collected 
 and illustrated in § II, n. 15. The conclusion there arrived at that in the 
 kingdom of Judah the High Priest was no more than the head for the time 
 being of the priesthood (of Jerusalem), primus inter pares, is in perfect 
 harmony with the fact that he is never mentioned either in Deuteronomy or 
 by Ezekiel. The silence of the latter, more especially, is wholly inexplicable 
 if P^'s regulations date from before the captivity. P' is the first who dis- 
 tinguishes 'the priest who is greater tha,n his brethren' from the rest 
 attributing a higher degree of sanctity to him and making severer demands 
 upon him {Lev. xxi. i sqq., losqq.). P" goes still further. He gives the 
 High Priest a special official robe, which carries with it the exclusive privileo-e 
 of consulting fahwfe by the urim and thummlm {Ex. xxviii. 1-39, xxxix. 1-36 
 30, 31 ; on urim and thummim in the pra;-exilian period see my Godsdienst, 
 i. 99 sqq. IBd. Isr. i. 96 sqq.]) ; and to this robe he evidently attaches great 
 importance {Num. xxvii. 21 ; Lev. xxi. 10, interpolated from P'); moreover he 
 has the High Priest alone consecrated to his office with the holy oil {Ex. xxix. 7 ; 
 Lev.iY. 3, 5, 16 ; vi. 13, 15, [20, 22] ; viii. 12 ; xvi. 32 ; xxi. 10, 12 [probably 
 interpolated from P"] ; Num. xxxv. 25 ; cf. § 6, n. 13). This exaltation of 
 the High Priest corresponds to the rank given him in the state, and for that 
 very reason is only intelligible in a post-exilian system of legislation. 
 
 " The single priestly ordinance that expressly confines the offering of 
 sacrifices to the one sanctuary is due to P', Lev. xvii. 8, 9. P^ begins his 
 legislation with precepts about the 6hel moVd {Ex. xxv. sqq.) and takes for 
 granted that it is to be the only place of sacrifice. lUip iV"ip?D, 'holy or 
 religious assembly' {Ex. xii. 16; Lev. xxiii. 2-4, 7, 8, 24, 27, 35-37 ; [285] 
 Num. xxviii. 18, 25, 26 ; xxix. i, 7, 12), means an assembly of the people at 
 the one sanctuary. This is so completely a matter of course that it is not 
 even explained. The idea that P^ makes the pascal meal a domestic 
 celebration {Ex. xii. i sqq.) and is in this respect less centralising than 
 Deuteronomy (xvi. 1-8) is incorrect. Even in Ex. xii., where the special pass- 
 over of the exodus occupies the field, a, MJnp NTpn is enjoined on the first 
 and seventh days of Ma996th {v. 16) ; as soon as a sanctuary existed, the 
 slaughter of the pascal lamb (v. 6) had to be performed there ; this satisfied 
 the demands of unity, and the meal itself might then be enjoyed in the 
 private houses of the holy city; and indeed, it was only so that it could 
 be celebrated by every one at once. Dillmann's supposition {Ex. w. Lev. 
 p. 108 sq.), that P^'s pascal meal was only transplanted to the city of the 
 temple by the centralisation of a later period, is in conflict with Nam. ix. 7, 
 13, where the lamb is called mn> pip; for Dillmann will not seriously 
 maintain that such a korb^n could be made ' in any place.' 
 
 '* Cf. § II, 11. 14, and above u. 4. The progress of the legislation about 
 priests and Levites is really perfectly simple, and would have been taken in 
 the same sense by every scholar long ago, had not the traditional date 
 assigned to P^ opposed it. We take it as proved that Aaron does not 
 appear as the ancestor of the lawful priests in any one prte-exilian work, and 
 
294 
 
 The Hexateuch. [§i5- 
 
 that according to Deuteronomy the sons of Levi, without distinction, though 
 not all of them priests, are all of them qualified for the priesthood. Cf. § 3, 
 n 16. Tlie suppression of the bamdth, and the limitation of the cultus to 
 the temple of Jerusalem, which Josiah carried through in obedience to 
 Hilkiah's book of law, drove many priests, some of whom were Levites, from 
 their posts, and deprived them of their subsistence. If they had been dealt 
 with in the spirit of the deuteronomic precept, xviii. 6-8, they would have 
 been admitted to the service of the temple and placed on an equality with 
 the priests of Jerusalem. But this was not what really happened — at least 
 not altogether ; for though Josiah brought the bamdth-priests to Jerusalem, 
 yet they did not go up to the altar of Yahwe, albeit they ate their portion (of 
 the priestly revenues to wit) in the midst of their brethren (2 Kings xxiii. 
 8, 9; for nisn read nv3a after Geiger, Jild. Zeitschr., ii. 287-289). This 
 is not unnatural. The priests of the temple would have acted on lofty 
 principles indeed, had they shared all their own privileges with these brethren 
 from without, who had hitherto been their rivals. We have no express 
 information as to the position assigned to the former priests of the bam6th 
 during the years 620-,586 e.g. ; but we may take for granted that they, and 
 still more their sons, did not spend their lives in idleness, and live upon 
 charity, but began to do service in subordinate capacities. Then in 572 B.C. 
 (JEzeTc. xl. i), when Ezekiel drafted the scheme of the restored theocracy, he 
 laid it down in perpetuity that they were to rank beneath 'the sons of 
 Zadok,' i. e. the priests of the temple of Solomon, and were only to perform 
 the lower offices about the temple ; and he appealed to their trespasses while 
 the bam6th were yet standing to justify their degradation from the higher 
 functions (xliv. 10-16, and the parallel passages). Now although this 
 ordinance of Ezekiel's accords with the practice from 620 B.C. onwards, yet 
 [286] as a regulation it is, and purports to be, something new. Ezekiel knows 
 absolutely nothing of a primeval law underlying the distinction between 
 priests and under-priests. In other words, the laws of P' are unknown to 
 him. Should it be urged that the prophet excludes a portion of the 
 Aaronites from the priesthood, inasmuch as he only admits the Zadokites 
 as priests in the new temple, I answer that he never speaks of Aaron at all, 
 but expressly opposes the sons of Zadok to the rest of the Levites. He 
 does not say that the degraded priests are henceforth to take rank with 
 Levites who are not descended from Aaron, as he would have done had he 
 known of the distinction. Indeed Ezekiel's testimony can only be disposed of 
 by the sorriest shifts. See, for example, Ives Curtiss, The Leviiical priests, 
 •p. 68-79; Bredenkamp, Gesetz unci Propheten, p. 188 sqq. ; Delitzsch, 
 Stwclien, p. 279 sqq. and a, propos of the last named essay, my remarks on the 
 whole subject in Th. Tijihclir. 1883, p. 212-217. — But now observe that in 
 the lists of the exiles who returned from Babylon, the Levites appear 
 separately, after the priests {Ezr. ii. 36-39, 40 ; Neh. vii. 39-42, 43 ; cf. Ezr. 
 viii. 15 sqq.). Does not this show that these two classes had been recognised 
 as distinct before the captivity? And according to 2 Kinrjs xxiii. 8 sq. there 
 had in fact been, from 620 B.C. onwards, Levites in the temple who did not go 
 
n. 15.] Laws on Priests and Levites post-exilian. 295 
 
 up to tlie altar of Yahwfe, i. e, who were not priests. Why should not this 
 be the class referred to in TSzr. ii. and l^eh. vii. ? If ' the Levites,' without 
 further qualification, strikes us as an inadequate designation, we must re- 
 member that the list has not come down to us in its original form (cf. my 
 Godsdienst, ii. 84-89 [Rel. Isr. ii. i74-:82]) and we may well suppose that 
 its language in this particular has been brought into agreement with that of 
 P^, whose ordinances are of course assumed by Ezra himself (viii. 15 sqq.). 
 This hypothesis, however, is not necessary. Even without it the rubric 
 ' Levites ' is clear enough, and their very small number when compared with 
 the priests (74 against 4289) is incompatible with P^'s regulations, but is in 
 perfect harmony with our representation of the course of things. — The genesis 
 of P^'s conception hardly requires any fui-ther explanation. The difference 
 of rank and qualification, existing de facto, which Ezekiel had attempted to 
 justify historically, rests in P^ on a genealogical basis, and is thus for the first 
 time rendered thoroughly legitimate and unassailable. Aaron, who really 
 had served as priest, according to the tradition {Beat. x. 6, cf. Ex. xxxii. 
 I sqq.), becomes in P^ the first High Priest and the ancestor of all the legal 
 priesthood {Ex. xxviii., xxix. ; Lev. viii. sq., etc.) ; while the Levites, in their 
 tm-n, are chosen out by Yahwfe himself, but only for the lower offices of the 
 sanctuary {Num. iii. sqq., etc.) ; the limit of their qualifications is carefully 
 drawn, and the severest punishment threatened should they transgress it 
 {Num. xviii., cf. P^ in Num. xvi. 6 sqq.). As the result of the whole 
 antecedent development, this conception is perfectly clear and intelligible ; 
 it is only if we accept it as reflecting the reality that we get into difficulties. 
 Its harmony with the demands of the time was the measure of the readiness 
 with which it was accepted. After a time, stiU further advances were made 
 in the direction indicated by P^- The singers and porters, who are dis- 
 tinguished from the Levites in Ezr. ii. 40-42 ; Nek. vii. 43-45, and elsewhere, 
 have become Levites in the time of the Chronicler (i Chron. xxv. ; xxvi. [387] 
 1-19, and elsewhere), that is to say, they have been incorporated into the tribe 
 of Levi by means of fictitious genealogies (cf. my Godsdienst, ii. 105 sq. [Rel. Isr. 
 ii. 303 sq.])— a fact which confirms the historical character of our assumption 
 that the priestly lawgiver sought his end by the employment of similar 
 means. 
 
 In all that precedes we have assumed that Ezekiel and V\ though formally 
 differing, substantially agree, or in other words that P^'s Aaronites are iden- 
 tical with Ezekiel's Zadokites. But it is also conceivable that the Aaronites 
 might include priests from other sanctuaries besides that of Jerusalem, and 
 especially from Northern Israel, and that these latter together with the 
 Zadokites were called ' sons of Aaron' in view of the fact that the priesthood 
 of Northern Israel recognised Aaron as their ancestor. That they actually 
 did make such a claim is rendered highly probable by Ex. xxxii. i sqq. (cf. 
 above, p. 245 sq.), and if the same idea survived the fall of Samana and 
 retained its vitality at the sanctuary of Bethel, for instance, down to the 
 time of Josiah (cf. 2 Eings xxiii. 15, 19. ^°)' i* ^""l"! ^« ^^"^ ^^°°' "ii"^*'^'-^! 
 that it should be so modified and expanded as to include the Zadokites and 
 
296 The Hexateuch. [§i5- 
 
 some of the Judasan bamfith-priestg, and should then force its way into the 
 tora. This hypothesis is worked out in detail by or t in his essay on 'the 
 Aaronites' {TK. Tijdschr. xviii. 289-335), but it has not yet been so tested 
 and examined from every side as to justify us in substituting it for the 
 ordinary conception. 
 
 '6 The Levites received the tithes of corn, wine and oil, Nam xviii. 30-24, 
 and according to Lev. xxvii. 30-33 of cattle also; while the priests had » 
 tithe of these tithes (Hfum. xviii. 25-32), as well as the firstlings of clean beasts, 
 the ransom of the first-born of men and of unclean beasts, Nam. xviii. 15-18 ; 
 Lev. xxvii. 26, 27, the first-fruits, Num. xviii. 12,13; t^ie heave-ofierings. Num. 
 xviii. II, 19; things laid under the ban, Num. xviii. 14; the hide of the 
 burnt-offering, Lev. vii. 8 ; all the flesh of trespass and guilt-offerings, Lev. 
 vi. 24-26, 29 ; vii. 6, 7 ; Num. xviii. 9, 10 ; a part of the food-offering. Lev. 
 vi. 16-18; vii. Q, 10, 14; the breast and right shoulder of the thank-offerings. 
 Lev. vii. 28-34; .W^MiTi. xviii. 18. Cf. also Num. xv. 20, 21. How far all this 
 departs from the prae-exilian regulations appears from Deut. xviii. 3, 4, where 
 the priests have the shoulder, the jaw and the belly of the thank-offering, the 
 reshlth of corn, wine and oil, and the reshith of wool ; and also from § 3, xi. 1 7, 
 18, where the laws of tithes and firstlings are compared. Thus, without 
 reckoning the priestly and Levitical cities, of which more anon, the revenues 
 of priests and Levites have been notably increased in P^. This is enough in 
 itself to render the later origin of the legislation probable (cf. n. 4), and a 
 comparison with Ezekiel shows that it did not arise till after the captivity. 
 The prophet assigns to the priests the food-offering, the trespass and guilt-offer- 
 ing, things under the ban, and the best of the first-fruits, of the heave-offerings, 
 and of the dough (xliv. 29, 30 ; cf. Smend, p. 367 sq.). That is to say, he 
 does not venture to divert the tithes and the firstlings from their original 
 destination, still maintained in Deuteronomy, known to him from his own experi- 
 ence as an element in the life of the people, and very naturally regarded by 
 [288] him as incapable of being diverted. It was only when a fresh start was made, 
 after the return from the captivity, that the idea could be entertained of 
 makiag the people relinquish the ancient but now no longer unbroken usage, 
 and surrender to the priesthood — relatively increased in numbers and powers 
 what had before been consumed at the sacrificial feasts. 
 
 On the forty-eight priestly and Levitical cities, see § 3, n. 19. When we 
 consider the absolute silence of all the prs-exilian witnesses, and the indirect 
 but clear contradiction of Deuteronomy, we can but regard the legal precept in 
 Nuin. XXXV. 1-8, and the account of its execution. Josh. xxi. 1-40, as repre.. 
 senting a priestly demand that could have no immediate practical result, 
 but which might perhaps at some future time, under different circumstances, 
 be put into practice. In so far these regulations stand in line with those of 
 Ezekiel, xlv. 1-8 ; xlviii. 8-22, from which in other respects they diverge alto- 
 gether, for Ezekiel assigns the priests and the Levites a territory of their own, 
 where they all live together. Wellbausen shows, in a striking passage 
 {Prolegomena, 165-170 [159-164]), that Ezekiel's simple and lucid ordinance 
 is the original, which P" artificially modifies. P^ could not have an ordinary 
 
n.i6-i8.] Post-exilian originofP'^' s other regulations. 297 
 
 tribal district assigned to Levi in the Mosaic age. This would have been too 
 glaring a contradiction of the history to which he himself does homage by 
 adopting the deuteronomic formula ,in Num. xviii. 30, 33. And yet Levi 
 must not be allowed to rank below the other tribes, and so he receives a 
 heritage of his own in the territory of each of them, in those very cities in 
 which he had sojourned as a. stranger before the Captivity {Deut. xviii. 6, 
 and the parallel passages). In selecting these cities V was sometimes 
 guided by a tradition which pointed them out as the sites of ancient sanc- 
 tuaries, and therefore as asyla, but in other cases he chose them at his own 
 discretion. 
 
 " On this point of. § 11, n. 19-22, 25, 26, and above all, Wellhausen, 
 Prolegomena, 54 sqq. [53 sqq.] (Sacrifice), 85 sqq. [83 sqq.] (The Sacred 
 Feasts), whose brilliant demonstration must be read in its entirety and cannot 
 be repeated here ; also Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish 
 Church, p. 208 sqq., 379 sqq. The diiference of principle with regard to 
 sacrifices and festivals between the prse-exilian practice and Deuteronomy on 
 the one side, and the legislation of P^ on the other, can only be explained on 
 the supposition that this latter is something more than the codification of 
 perhaps primeval priestly rules and usages, that it expresses and introduces a 
 different fundamental conception from that which had been current before the 
 captivity, and that this difference is due to a temporary suspension of Israel's 
 national existence and its restoration on a new basis. In other words, the 
 phenomenon presupposes the deportation to Babylon and the return to the 
 fatherland. Thus, and thus only, can we explain the institution of a new 
 cultus — and this expression is no exaggeration — in which the ritual, and as 
 a consequence the priest who has charge of it and who conducts it, comes to 
 the front, and the initiative of the private Israelite retires into the background ; 
 and in which the modified conception of Yahwfe's being and Israel's relation to 
 him expresses itself in a changed estimate of the various kinds of sacrifice and 
 a new arrangement of the festivals. This complete revolution is already in 
 progress in Ezekiel, the prophet-priest of the captivity ; and in P' it is an 
 accomplished fact. On the sacrifices, cf. Ezelc. xlvi. 1-1,15 and Lev. i. sqq., 
 especially Ezeh. xlvi. 13-15 (daily morning burnt-offering with the food-offering [289] 
 that belonged to it), and Ex. xxix. 38-42 ; Num. xxviii. 3-8 (daily morning 
 and evening burnt-offering with food-offering). In this latter precept, and, 
 generally, in his regulation of the ritual, P^ goes further than Ezekiel. On 
 the festivals cf. Ezek. xlv. 18-25, and Lev. xvi., xxiii. ; iVimi. xxviii., xxix. 
 (Smend, Ezech., p. 377 sqq.). The purification of the sanctuary on the first 
 day of the' first and the seventh months {Ezeh. xlv. 18-30) is the germ from 
 which the great day of atonement. Lev. xvi., was developed. In fixing the 
 day of the month on which Ma996th and Tabernacles are to begin the prophet 
 leads the way (xlv. 21, 25), but P^ adds an eighth day to Tabernacles {Lev. 
 TTxiii. 36 [39]), and regulates the sacrifices to be ofi'ered on behalf of the com- 
 munity less simply and naturally than Ezekiel does. See further, u. 8. 
 
 " After the investigations of n. 13-17, t^^^e only remain =•■ few of P"s 
 laws, which can be compared with older ordinances, or the date of which can be 
 
298 The Hexateuch. [§iS- 
 
 otherwise determined, a. On JV«m. xxxv. 9-34 compared with Dent. xix. 1-13, 
 see n. 13. Apart from the place taken by the High Priest in the latter law, 
 it betrays itself as a later recension of Dsv.t, six. 1-13 alike by the minuteness 
 of its regulations and distinctions and by the dominant idea of cleanness. 
 — ft. On the year of jubilee, Lev. xxv. 8-55, see n. 4 g. The view I have there 
 expressed is opposed to the opinion most recently defended byJ.Fenton 
 {Early Hebrew Life, 1880, p. 70-74), that both the year of jubilee and the 
 ordinance of the sabbath year (op. cit., p. 64-70) rest upon the primitive 
 communal possession of the land and its periodical partition, which the great 
 land-owners had suppressed, but which the lawgivers attempted to revive in 
 modified forms (cf. Isaiah v. 8 ; Jer. v. 25-2S). From this it would follow 
 that the law in question, though not Mosaic, yet dated from the reign of the 
 first kings. But if so, how comes it that the prophets never appeal to any 
 such law in their denunciations of the grasping conduct of the gi'eat men ? 
 And even apart from this Fenton's hypothesis is wholly inadmissible. In 
 Lev. xxv. 8-55 there is not a trace of an attempt to restore the past, of com- 
 munal possession, and so forth. All this is arbitrarily called to the rescue 
 and forced upon the legislator into whose mind it never entered. The law 
 goes on the supposition that the individual is the owner of his land, and can 
 dispose of it freely. This power of free disposal it proceeds to take away from 
 him, on the ground that the land is Yahwfe's, and that the Israelites only havQ 
 the nse of it {Lev. xxv. 23), and because the interests of stability and of the equal 
 distribution of wealth amongst the people of Yahwfe require it. Like so many 
 other regulations in P^ this scheme could never have arisen while the national 
 existence flowed on without a break ; but when it had been violently inter- 
 rupted, and a new beginning was to be made, the introduction of a new social 
 order might be conceived. The character of the law, then, really leads ub to 
 the same date that, from our point of view, is necessarily involved in the 
 mention of the day of atonement (r. 9) and of the Levitical cities {v. 32-34). 
 — c. Num. xxxi. (the war with Midian and the precepts on military matters 
 and the division of booty that rise out of it) cannot well be compared with 
 [290] Bent. XX. The two laws have hardly a single point of contact. But the post- 
 exilian origin of the priestly law is obvious from its contents, especially from 
 the proportion of the Levites' share in the booty to that of the priests (». 
 28-47), viz. j-Tji. : jij;, which agrees with the assignment of the tithes to the 
 Levites and the tithes of the tithes to the priests. Num. xviii. 20-24, 2S-.32. 
 — d. Num. xxvii. i-i 1 ; xxxvi. must be looked upon as riders to the law of 
 the year of jubilee, to which an allusion is made in Num. xxxvi. 4, and acoord- 
 i ngly they must be at least as late as that law itself, on which see ft. 
 
 We have already seen that this priestly legislation is set in 
 a historical framework so closely connected with it that 
 the two must have a single author (§ 6, n. 11, etc.). And 
 accordingly this inseparable connection is all but universally 
 
n. 1 8.] Land-temire in P"-. His narratives. 299 
 
 recognised 1^; and, now that our detailed estaLlishment of the 
 date of the priestly laws has given it a new significance, it 
 must emphatically be maintained against the few who dispute 
 it. For it is incorrect to assert that the date we have arrived 
 at for the laws is inapplicable to the priestly narrative. Not 
 only the historical sections of P^ in Exodus, Numbers and 
 JosJiua, as to which indeed there is no dispute ^"^j but the 
 sections in Gen. i.—Ex. vi. which belong to P^ are post- 
 exilian. The evidence of language is^ to say the least, in no 
 way adverse to so late an origin of the passages in question ^^, 
 and it is unequivocally supported by their contents whether 
 taken by themselves or compared with the parallel narratives 
 in JE. The priestly author builds upon JE throughout. 
 He selects the main facts of his narratives, strips them of 
 anything that seems unsuitable or offensive from his own 
 point of view, and works up what remains in accordance with 
 a scheme which could not possibly have been conceived in the 
 period before the Babylonian captivity whilst ideas of the 
 past were still dominated by the living tradition ^2- 
 
 In all this we have assumed, what is indeed almost univer- 
 sally allowed, that P^ existed as an independent historieo- 
 legislative work before it was taken up into the Hexateuch. 
 The opposite opinion, that regards the narratives and laws of 
 P^ as mere additions to the deuteronomico-prophetic Hexa- 
 teuch^', is not chronologically impossible; for this older 
 Hexateuch was unquestionably in existence when P^ wrote 
 down his laws and narratives ; but it absolutely misconceives 
 the relation in which P- stands to his predecessors, and [291] 
 entirely fails to do justice to the mutual connection of the 
 several parts of his work and the systematic disposition of the 
 whole. Thousrh not unsuited, as the event showed, for com- 
 bination with the Hexateuch as it had previously existed, the 
 priestly work was certainly not designed by its author for 
 any such purpose^*. 
 
300 The Hcxatcuch. [§i5- 
 
 " In tlie first instance it was denied by Graf. In his GeschichtlicTie 
 Biicher lie only placed the priestly laws in the post-exilian period, and with 
 respect to the priestly narratives simply held by the then (1865) prevalent 
 opinion which regarded them as part of the ' Grundsohrift ' of the Hexateuch. 
 Subsequently he withdrew from this position, influenced partly byNoldeke's 
 ' Untersuchungen' and Kiehm'a review of the Geschichtliche Biicher, and 
 recognised the unity of the legislative and historical elements of P''- Cf. my 
 Godsclienst, ii. 96 sqq.; 201 sqq.[7fe?. Isr. ii, 192 sqq. ; 291 sqq.J and Th. Tijdschr., 
 iv. 407 sqq. The opinion he had relinquished was, however, long maintained by 
 Dr. Colenso, at least as far as Gen. i.-Ex. vi. is concerned (cf. § 6, n. 2-4); 
 and in a certain sense it is defended by Eyssel also, for we have seen in n. II 
 that he refers a portion of P', particularly its historical sections, and very 
 specially those that appear in Gen. i. to Ex. vi., to the first ' setas ' of the 
 Israelitish literature, thus separating them from the priestly laws which belong 
 to the second ' setas.' Against the distribution of the laws between two 
 ' setates,' see n. 11 ; and on the alleged gap between the laws and narratives, 
 which Ryssel assumes chiefly on grammatical grounds, see n, 20-22. 
 
 ^° Colenso, more especially, may be noted as agreeing with us in regard 
 to these historical sections; but not so Ryssel, who appears to refer them, 
 together with the priestly narratives in Gen. \.-E:i:. vi., to the first ' Betas ' 
 (cf. 11. II, 19). But he does not produce a tittle of evidence for their higher 
 antiquity, nor does he meet the difficulty which the intimate connection of 
 legislation and history in Exodus, Niimhers, and Joshua presents to any 
 attempt to sunder them. If Ex. xxv.-xxxi., etc. belong to the" second ' ffitas,' 
 so must Num. xx. 22-29 (which presupposes the delivery and execution of the 
 directions as to the high-priestly garments) ; Num. xxvi. ; xxvii. 15-23 (which 
 rest on the passage cited above and on Num. i. sqq.) ; Num. xxxi. (which 
 I suppose no one will maintain to be older than the laws of the second 'setas'), 
 etc., etc. The connection between the legislative and historical passages is in 
 any case close enough to justify us in assuming their unity as long as no single 
 objection to it has been produced. 
 
 ^' In drawing up the table already referred to (n. 11) Giesebrecht 
 assumes the unity of P^ ; and had the assumption been incorrect, then the 
 comparison of P^'s vocabulary with the other books of the Old Testament 
 would have yielded diiferent results with respect to the historical passages 
 and the laws. But this is not at all the case. Of the hundred words, or there- 
 abouts, included in Giesebrecht's list, some forty are either peculiar to 
 Gen. i.-Ex. vi., or occur both there and elsewhere in P*. They are here 
 given in alphabetical order : tind, in« Niph., nin«, nbax, njN, ')na Hiph., 
 in:i, NT3, i>i3, D'luo, NiDT Hiph. and subst., iV Hiph., nn'jin, niiffilQ, 
 iiL'in, T31, m'TO, toa, )'a, np^a, nap:, n'idj, »jd (Gen. xxiii. 8), pB, "[id, 
 [292] nip Niph., and mpa, nna D'pn, n:pD and pjp, mn, F]m, iddt verb and 
 subst., I'^pT, ni^to, -[3UJ, y-TUJ verb and subst., inn. To these might be 
 added TNO n>*n(3). Gen. vii. ig ; xvii. 2, 6, 20 ; Ex. i. 7 ; Num. xiv. 7, cf. 
 Ezek. ix. 9; xvi. 13 ; nD30, in Gen. viii. 13, as well as Ex. xxvi. 14 ; xxxv. 
 II, etc.; the formula Ninn iiJBjn nm3:i, in Got. xvii. 14, as well as .Ec. xii. 
 
n. 19-23.J Unity of P"-. 301 
 
 15, 19 and elsewhere in the laws of P^; T3: p, in Gen. xvii. 12, 27, as well as 
 £»;. xii. 43 ; ieu. xxii. 25; iiJBi, 'person,' Geji. xii. 5 ; xvii. 14; xxxvi. 6 ; xlvi. 
 15, 18, 22, 25-27 ; 'Ex. i. 5 and passim in the laws of P^; nin Dvn DS»; 
 Gen. vii. 13 ; xvii. 23, 26 in the laws of P^ and JSzek. ii. 3; xxiv. 2 ; xl. i ; 
 DninDiDO'?, Gen. viii. 19 ; x. 5, 20, 31 ; xxxvi. 40, as also in Ex. vi. 17, 25 ; 
 xii. 21 and passim in Numbers and Joshua. It is possible that some of these 
 words are only absent from the earlier literature accidentally ; others may 
 be averred to be ancient, and their use in the later writings may be attri- 
 buted to imitation of the Pentateuch. But taken together they prove con- 
 clusively that the language of P^ in (/ere. i.-i?a;. vi., as a whole, is most 
 closely related to that of the laws in P^, and stands perfectly in line with 
 it with reference to the successive periods of Israelitish literatui'e. 
 
 ^^ With respect to the naiTatives from P^ in Gen. i.-Ex. vi. two opinions 
 stand opposed. According to the one their comparative simplicity and sobriety 
 show them to be more ancient than the corresponding accounts in JE. The 
 former contain the historical kernel and the latter the subsequent amplification 
 and embellishment. The other opinion is the one briefly expounded in the text 
 of this section and more fully developed in my Godsdiemt, ii. 65-83, 96-102 
 \Jlel. Isr. ii. i67-i73) 192-201]. My position, as far as it refers to Gen. i.-Ej;. 
 vi., was controverted by Colenso, Pentateuch, vi. App., p. 116-144, '^^° '^^^ 
 answered in his turn by Kosters in Th. Tijdschr. vii. (1873) 28-59. Colenso 
 translated this article in his Contrihutions to the Criticism of the Pentateuch 
 (p. i.-xix.) and added a rejoinder (p. 1-22). Of. also Pentateuch, vii. App., 
 p. 129-139. Finally, Wellhausen has dealt with the mutual relations 
 of P^ and JE in his Prolegomena, 312-384 [297-362]. That P^ and 
 JE run parallel, even in details, is undeniable ; and hence it follows that 
 they did not spring up independently of each other. P'' is either the basis 
 of JE or an excerpt from it. The first hypothesis might be accepted if 
 P^ were really more historical, or at any rate closer to the living popular saga 
 than JE. But the opposite is the fact. P^'s genealogies are as unhis- 
 torical and artificial as those of the Chronicler. His chronology is obviously a 
 product of the later systematising spirit. His representation of historical 
 persons and events is bereft of all life and spontaneity and completely dominated 
 by his theory of the graduated progress alike of the history of mankind and of 
 the divine revelation. A nan-ative in which God appears successively as 
 Elohlm, El Shaddai, and Yahwfe ; which accurately registers the ages of the 
 primal race before the flood, and of the forefathers of Terah and the patriarchs, 
 together with the months and days of the flood ; which makes sacrifices to the 
 deity begin in the Mosaic age ; and from which every trace of hostility between 
 Abram and Lot, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his brothers, 
 has been carefully removed : — such a narrative is not only remote from its [293] 
 ultimate source but could not be so much as conceived as long as the original 
 meaning of the sagas still lived. But see, further, the works referred to 
 above. 
 
 '^ This hypothesis was defended by Graf, Die s. g. Grundschrift des Penta- 
 teuchs (in A. Merx, Archiv, etc., i. 466-477); combated by me in Th. 
 
302 The Hexatetich. [§i5' 
 
 Tijdschr., iv. (1870) 511-519 ; and brought forward again byMaybaum, Die 
 Entwickdung des altisr. P riesterthums (1880), p. 107-120. The last-named 
 scholar asserts that 'the priestly codex' contained ritual laws alone, and no 
 'history of origins.' These laws were united with JE + D by a redactor, who 
 at the same time supplemented and expanded the older narratives or added 
 historical statements of his own ; and since he was himself a priest these latter 
 show affinities with the ' priestly codex ' and sometimes coincide with it in 
 linguistic usage (e. g. Gen. xvii.). A portion of what we have assigned to 
 P^ seems to Maybaum properly to belong to B. This origin of the supposed 
 ' Grundschrift,' he thinks, explains its fragmentary character and its incon- 
 sistency with JE. 
 
 ^ Maybaum, as may be gathered from u. 23, has not worked out his idea. 
 Had he attempted to do so it would have become obvious at once that the 
 sections and verses usually assigned to P^ cannot in any way be regarded as 
 additions from the hand of K. However far we suppose R's activity to have 
 extended we can never make it probable or even conceivable that he enriched 
 the narrative of JE in Gen. i.-Ex. vi. with statements and details uncon- 
 nected with or even contradicting it, simply out of his own head and 
 without his documents supplying the smallest occasion for it. 
 How can the first narrative of the creation be regarded as an addition to 
 the second 1 Or Gen. v. as an addition to Gen. iv. ? Or P^'s portion of 
 Gen. vi.-ix. as a, series of supplementary amplifications of .JE's nari'ative of 
 the flood ? They do not present the smallest appearance of any such inten- 
 tion. How Maybaum can affirm that his view removes the running 
 contradiction between JE and P^ is simply inexplicable. It leaves it in 
 all its crudeness and makes it doubly perplexing by supposing that it was 
 wantonly introduced by one whom we should rather have expected to re- 
 move or veil the want of harmony already existing. To this we must add 
 Maybaum's failure to comprehend the mutual relations of these passages, 
 which he regards as additions with no independent cohesion or purpose. 
 Their true character need not be further illustrated after what has been 
 said in § 6. Are we really asked to believe that the systematic and con- 
 nected whole that is formed by the component parts of P^ in Gen. i. sqq. (cf. 
 Oolenso, Pentateuch, v. p. 197-211 ; Wellhaasen, Prolegomena, ibid.) is 
 nothing but a string of fragments, flowing from one pen indeed, but neither 
 written uno tenore nor conceived in mutual connection with each other? 
 It is nothing short of absurd. See, further, the very just remarks of Budde, 
 XJrgeschichte, p. 276 sqq. 
 
 We may take it as demonstrated, then, that the historico- 
 legislative work that we have called P^ really constitutes a 
 single whole and at first existed in an independent form. 
 But this was not the end. After its composition P^ under- 
 went a rather complicated literary process of which we know 
 
n. 24.J Unity and independence of P'^. lis histoiy. 303 
 
 nothing with certainty except the final outcome that lies [294] 
 before us in the present Hexateuch. Starting from this, 
 however, we may distinguish more than one stage in the 
 history of P^, such as its combination with D + JE; its 
 absorption of P^ and other priestly to roth which are now 
 worked into the context of P^ but formed no part of it 
 originally; and finally, the recensions and amplifications of 
 P^ and all that bad been added to it by later legislators and 
 narrators. Nothing is more natural than that the mutual 
 relations of the subdivisions of this process and consequently 
 the progress of the history of P^ should be only approximately 
 ascertainable. In any attempt to trace this history we must 
 return to the reformation of Ezra and Nehemiah, in 444 B.C. 
 or one of the years immediately following. The law-book 
 then introduced is closely connected with P- (§ 12, n. 10), but 
 what is the nature of this connection ? Setting aside for the 
 moment the later recension and expansion, to which we shall 
 return presently (p. 307), we may divide this question into 
 two others: (1) Was P^ combined with JE + D in Ezra's 
 book of law ? and (3) was P^, as contained in that book, 
 already amalgamated with P^ and other laws of priestly 
 character but of diverse origin ? The former question may be 
 answered with high probability in the negative, the latter in 
 the affirmative. For (i) the identification of Ezra or one of 
 his immediate predecessors with the redactor of the Hexateuch 
 finds no support in what we read concerning him^^, and (2) 
 the priestly laws which are not from the pen of P^, and, 
 more specifically, the ordinances of P^, were practically 
 indispensable parts of the book of law which he read, and 
 are directly required by Neh. viii. 14-18, compared with Lev. 
 xxiii. 39-43^''. Taken in connection with Ezra's fortunes 
 this would lead us to conjecture that some considerable num- 
 ber of years before he journeyed to Judsea, say between 500 
 and 475 B.C., P^ was compiled in Babylonia, and was afterwards 
 
304 The Hexateuch. [§ i5- 
 
 amalgamated there, either by Ezra himself or some other, with 
 Pi and other priestly toroth, and in this form was brought by 
 Ezra to Judiea in 458 B.C. But it is also possible that the amal- 
 gamation with pi and the other priestly laws was not effected 
 [295] till between the years 458 and 444 B.C., and took place in 
 Judsea. This hypothesis, in either form^ is commended by its 
 intrinsic probability, and there is not a single fact known to 
 us that militates against it^'. 
 
 ^^ Ezra is a reformer. He departs for Judsea in order to regulate all its 
 affairs in accordance with the Tora, and to secure its practical observance 
 {l^zr. vii. ro, 25, 26) ; his first task is the dissolution of the marriages with 
 foreign women {Jizr. ix., x.) ; and subsequently he renews his activity on the 
 same lines in conjunction with Nehemiah {Nell, viii.-x.). Now it is true that 
 this does not positively exclude such a task as the redaction of our Hexateuch, 
 but it is hardly probable, to say the least, that Ezra should have had the capacity 
 and inclination to accomplish it. The deeper we pierce into the character of 
 this redaction (cf. § i6), the less can we believe that it emanated from a man 
 of action. Cf. Eeuss, Vhist. sainte et la lot, i. 256 sqq.; GescJi. der heil. 
 Schr. Alt. Test., p. 460 sqq. 
 
 '^ We have seen already (§6) that in JExodiis-Nmnbera, side by side with 
 the laws and narratives that unquestionably belong to P^, there are a number 
 of sections,- likewise of priestly origin, which for one reason or another cannot 
 be regarded as original constituents of that work. Some of them must be 
 looked upon as later completions or corrections of P^, such as Hlx. xii. 14-20, 
 43-50 (§ 6, n. 7) ; XXX., xxxi. (n. 13); xxxv.-xl. (n. 15), etc. Others again are 
 less directly dependent upon P^. They treat their subject matter independ- 
 ently. They are in conflict with P^ on some perhaps minute points, or 
 they only half fit or do not fit at all into its plan and miss such characteristics 
 as the historical introductions with which its author is in the habit of pro- 
 viding his ordinances. Cf. Wurster in Zeitschr.f. alttest. Wissenschaft, 1884, 
 p. 112-118. In this category are Lev, i.-vii. (§ 6, n. 17-19) ; xi.-sv. (n. 22) ; 
 Nnm, v., vi. (n. 31, 32) ; some few other laws in Num, (cf. n. 38, 40) ; finally 
 and principally P' (see above, n. 5-10 ; § 6, n. 24-28). The question when 
 these passages were amalgamated with P^, which could not be answered in 
 § 6, must now be approached. 
 
 We have at least one witness in this matter outside the Hexateuch itself. 
 Neh, viii, 14-18 alludes to a law in which on the one hand the celebration of 
 the feast of the seventh month during eight days, viz. from the fifteenth to the 
 twenty-second, is prescribed (cf. ix. I), and in which on the other hand the 
 dwelling in tabernacles during the celebration of the festival is enjoined. The 
 reference therefore includes both Lev, xxiii. 33-36 (P^) and v. 39-43 (P', worked 
 over in the sense of P^ cf n. 8). Now Nek, viii. is not an exact official report 
 
n. 25-27.J P'^ combined with other Priestly Laws. 305 
 
 of what took place at Jerusalem ; nor are i). 1 4, 1 5 a literal citation of Lev. xxiii. 
 40, whicli they reproduce freely, though the difference between the two texts has 
 been much exaggerated by J, Hal^vy in the Htv. de I'hid. des rel., iv. 38 sqq, 
 and still more by Delitzsch, Studien, p. 177 sq. In the main, however, 
 Neh, viii, is perfectly trustworthy (§ 12, n. 12 sq.), and we may therefore 
 assume on the strength of v. 14-18 that P' was united with P^ in Ezra's 
 law-book, unless proof should be forthcoming from some other quarter that 
 this cannot be the case. No such proof, however, can be produced. On the 
 contrary the probability seems to be in favour of this combination. We can [296] 
 quite understand that P^ might conceive and execute the project of explaining 
 the religious institutions of his people historically, and at the same time un- 
 folding his ideal of the community consecrated to Yahwfe. But when it came 
 to the practical introduction of his scheme it was impossible not to see 
 how far from complete it was. It contained, as far as we know, no de- 
 tailed precepts as to sacrifices, no definitions as to the clean and the unclean, 
 as to matrimony, as to the privileges and duties of the high-priest and 
 other priests, the sabbatical year, and so forth. It is of course possible 
 that these subjects as well as others were originally dealt with in P^ and 
 that its precepts were forced to make way for those which we now possess 
 in Lev. i. sqq., xi. sqq., xvii. sqq. ; but it is not probable. For if that had 
 been so the chapters in question would have sometimes preserved P^ and 
 sometimes P' or some other priestly lawgiver, just as the redactor does 
 in Lev. xxiii., for instance. And since this is not the case we conclude that 
 these tor6th supply genuine gaps in P^, and thence again that their in- 
 corporation preceded the practical introduction of the priestly tora. Cf. 
 Wurster, op. cit., p. 128. — Of course this does not necessarily imply that the 
 amalgamation was effected just in the form in which we find it in our Penta- 
 teuch. The redaction was a long and continuous process (§ 16) and the later 
 amplifications and supplementings of P, on which more anon, extended to 
 those portions of it in which P^ was combined with passages drawn from else- 
 where {e.g. Lev. xxii. 29, 30; xxiv. 1-4, 5-8). All I mean to assert is that 
 in the year of the reformation the amalgamation, in one form or another, 
 had already taken place. 
 
 ^' The conjecture that T' was written in Babylonia, rests upon the close 
 connection between this document and Ezra which the accounts establish. At 
 the invitation of the people he produces the book of law (out of the temple 1) and 
 reads aloud from it {Neh. viii. i, 2). And though it is only in the spurious 
 edict of Artaxerxes, Ezr. vii. 14, 25, that we are told in so many words that 
 he had brought it with him from Babylonia, yet we may infer as much from 
 i';r. vii. 6, 10, II, and from the title iDon which is given him in Neh. viii. 
 2, s; xii. 36 (in the latter passage by Nehemiah himself). When Hal^vy 
 (op. cit., p. 35 sqq.) denies our right to infer from these texts that Ezra and 
 the law-book stood in any specially close relation to each other, he loses 
 sight of the mutual connection of the texts. If Lsr. vii. 6, 10 sq., etc. had 
 not been followed by Neh. viii.-x., or conversely if these latter chapters had 
 not been preceded by this description of Ezra's office and purposes, then, it 
 
 X 
 
3o6 The Hexateuch. [§i5- 
 
 might perhaps have been poBsible to regard him simply as one of many who de- 
 voted themselves to the study of the Tora, and strove to enforce its observance. 
 But as the case really stands, such an interpretation is simply a miscon- 
 ception of the historical evidence. — If, then, the law-book, which was 
 unknown in Judsa, cf. Neh. viii. 14-18, was brought out of Babylonia, then 
 it must have been written there. It would be a mistake to reject the idea aa 
 improbable. Ezekiel, too, sketched his ideal of the new theocracy, xl.-xlviii., 
 in Babylonia ; and it was there that the legislation of sanctity rose (cf. u. 9). 
 What is more natural than that such «. work as P'^ should also have been 
 written in the land of the captivity ? The school of Ezekiel did not die out ; 
 [297] nor was it transported bodily to Judaea in 536 B.C.; for other 'teachers' 
 (d'3'3d) came with Ezra to Jerusalem (i?zr. viii. 16). Possible lawgivers, 
 therefore, were not wanting, and the motives which had caused priestly tordth 
 to be committed to writing before 536 B.C. were still in force. Cf. my 
 Gotlsdienst, ii. 22 sq., 61-64 [-ReZ. Isr. ii. 117 sq., 153-156]. — As to the 
 moment at which P^ was reduced to writing we must, of course, be content 
 with conjectures. In taking the years 500-475 B.C., I am guided by the 
 consideration on the one hand that P* is later than P' (of. n. 12 sqq.), and on 
 the other hand, that time must be left for the amalgamation of the two. 
 Possibly we should even ascend a little higher. The present redaction of 
 Gen. i. i-ii. 4" was preceded by an older one, in which the (eight) creative 
 acts were not distributed over six days (cf. Dillmann andWellh., xxii. 
 455-458). But, again, our present redaction is itself comparatively old, for 
 it is presupposed in Ex. xx. 11 ; xxxi. 17. We must therefore distinguish 
 various stages in what I have called the reduction of P^ to writing. And 
 this becomes easier if we place the first composition sufficiently early, always 
 within the prescribed limits. — The years from 475 B.C. onwards remain 
 for the amalgamation of P' and P^, and I have left the alternative 
 between 475-458 and 458-444 B.C. open. The latter period covers the years 
 that elapsed between the events recorded in Ezr. ix. sq. and those in Neh. 
 viii.-x., during which, as far aa we know, Ezra did not take any active steps. 
 This inaction is connected with the political confusion that reigned in Judsea, 
 and its disastrous consequences alluded to in Neh, i. The conjecture that 
 Ezra availed himself of this period of enforced leisure to prepare the way for 
 the introduction of his Tora, and that its reduction to a suitable form was one 
 of the measures he took to this end, was formerly hazarded both by Graf 
 (Merx, Arohiv, i. 476) and by myself {Godsdienst, ii. 137 sq. [Rel. Isr. ii. 
 232 sq.]), and it is still capable of defence in the sense that the supplementing 
 of P^ by P^ may fall in this interval. But inasmuch as both collections 
 alike grew up in Babylonia, they may also have been welded together there, 
 and their union may have been the work of the circle from which Ezra came. 
 The introduction of the priestly laws was not the outcome of a momentary 
 impulse, but was planned and deliberated on beforehand. It may be 
 regarded as the final cause of the second return of exiles under the guidance 
 of Ezra, and if so, we may well suppose that the preparations for it were well 
 advanced before the departure from Babylon. 
 
n. 27.J Ezra s Laiv-book. 307 
 
 It yet remains for us to trace the subsequent history of 
 Ezra's law-book. Even in § 6 we saw that there are sundry 
 priestly passages, both legislative and narrative, which cannot 
 be regarded as originally belonging to P^ and must be later, not 
 earlier, than it. We afterwards discovered that here and there 
 in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah deviations from our present 
 Hexateuch may be observed, which can only be explained on 
 the supposition that in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah and 
 the oldest chroniclers of their doings some of the ordinances of 
 the Hexateuch were not yet in existence or at any rate were [298] 
 not yet accepted as binding (§ 11, n. 3). These two sets of 
 facts converge upon the conclusion that the priestly law-book 
 underwent very considerable modification and extension even 
 after the year of the reformation. There is nothing to 
 surprise us in this. On the contrary it lay in the nature of 
 the case that as soon as the priestly law was put into force 
 gaps would be revealed in it and the need of corrections and 
 additions would make itself imperatively felt. The oral 
 priestly tora, from which Ezra's law-book was largely drawn, 
 was still open as a source of these additions, and if it could 
 not give what was wanted, then for a time at least the 
 same necessity that defies law might in this instance create 
 it^*. There can be no doubt that it was the scribes of 
 Jerusalem, most of them of priestly descent, who undertook 
 this extension of the law-book 2". The question what pass- 
 ages they appended, or in other words what sections were 
 added to the priestly law-book after the year of the refor- 
 mation, can only be answered with perfect certainty in those 
 cases in which the critical analysis of the priestly components 
 of the Hexateuch (§ 6) and the evidence of the books of Ezra 
 and Nehemiah coincide. This is the case with respect to the 
 institution of a daily morning and evening burnt-ofiering {Ex, 
 xxix. 38-43 ; Lev. vi. 1-6 [8-13] ; Num. xxviii. 1-9), the poll- 
 tax of half a shekkel {Ex. xxx. 1 1-16) and the tithes of cattle 
 
 X % 
 
3o8 The Hexatetuh. [ § 1 5- 
 
 {Lev. xxvii. 32, 33)^". But even where the earlier post-exilian 
 literature yields no evidence, critical analysis alone liere and 
 there raises the later insertion of a section above all reason- 
 able doubt ^^. On the other hand the analysis does not lend 
 itself to the conclusion that might be drawn from Neh. viii. 
 14-18 (though not necessarily involved in it), that the whole 
 body of precepts concerning the day of atonement {Lev. xvi. 
 and the parallel passages) was absent from Ezra's law-book^^. 
 SjDecial difficulties surround the determination of the ter- 
 minus ad quern of this supplementing process. It must be 
 distinguished from the continued diaskeue, which will be 
 dealt with in § 16, inasmuch as it was exercised exclusively 
 on the priestly laws, and aimed at filling in the gaps that 
 experience had revealed in them ; but yet we must not 
 [299] suppose that it came to an end as soon as our present Hexa- 
 teuch was brought into existence by the interweaving of the 
 priestly law-book with JE + D. On the contrary it was 
 still possible, and, as a fact, it still continued, afterwards. 
 We must suppose, however, that the material and most 
 important additions had already been made before that date 
 (presumably about 400 B.C.), and that subsequently the 
 additions became gradually less important and more purely 
 formal in character 5^. This continued at any rate into the 
 third century b. c.^*; but the recension of the priestly laws, 
 together with the diaskeue as a whole, steadily declined in 
 significance till at last it debouched into those comparatively 
 innocent and insignificant alterations which are usually con- 
 sidered as falling under the history of the text ^^. 
 
 '^ The character of the later additions to the priestly law-book will be beat 
 explained by a few examples. In addition to those dealt with in n. 29, we 
 may here notice the following (cf. Th. TijdscJtr., iv. 1870, p. 487-511) : ■ 
 
 Niim. viii. 23-26, the service of the Levites extending from their twenty, 
 fifth to their fiftieth year, a later modification of the precept in Num. iv. 3, 
 23. 30. 36> 39; 43, 47> which made their thirtieth year the beginning of their 
 time of service. The small number of Levites (cf. E:r. ii. 40 ; Neh, vii. 43 ; 
 
n. 28, 29.J Addiiiofis to Ezras Law-book. 309 
 
 Hzr. viii. 15 sqq.) made this alteration necessary, and in still later timea 
 occasioned their entrance upon duty as early as in their twentieth year. 
 Since it was then no longer possible to introduce a new regulation into 
 the law, this last modification was attributed to David in i Chron. xxiii. 
 24-27 ; 
 
 Num. xxviii., xxix., the catalogue of the festival offerings of the community, 
 must certainly be regarded as a later supplement to the tora on the feasts, 
 in Lm. xxiii. If it had had the same origin as the latter, it would have 
 followed it immediately. The contradiction between Num. xxviii. 27-30, 
 and Leo. xxiii. 18, 19, would raise the matter above all doubt, were it 
 not due to the fact of the verses in Lei-iticns having been interpolated 
 from Numbers, in which process a very natural mistake crept in (§ 6, 
 n. 40) ; 
 
 Ex. XXXV. 1-3, and Num. xv. 32-36 (the prohibitions of kindling fire and 
 gathering wood on the sabbath) are novellce on Ex. xxxi. 12-17, where all 
 work, n3»<')0, is forbidden in general. They must have been intended to 
 remove an uncertainty as to the meaning of * work ' ; 
 
 Num. XV. 22-31, expanding and explaining Lev. iv. 13-21, 27-31. The 
 trespass-ofi'ering is extended on the one hand to peccata omissionis, and on the 
 other hand expressly limited to involuntary trespasses ; 
 
 Num. V. 5-10 provides for the case in which the oflTender, in the absence 
 of the Israelite whom he has injured, and of his goel, would not be able to 
 pay them the fine ; and it decrees that in this case he must pay it to the 
 priest. It is therefore a supplement to Lev. v. 14-26 [v. 14-vi. 7]. 
 
 See, further, § 6, n. 13 sqq., whence a whole string of examples may be [300] 
 taken. They are no more homogeneous than those we have cited, but all 
 alike may be explained by the practical requirements revealed or developed 
 soon after 444 B. c, and provided for either by the incorporation of a tora 
 which had previously only been delivered orally, or by the framing of a new 
 precept to meet the demands of the time. 
 
 '' According to the Jewish tradition I should have named the men of the 
 Great Synagogue as Ezra's helpers and successors. But I have shown 
 elsewhere ( Verslagen en Mededeelingen der K. Acad, van Wetenschaijpeny 
 Afdeeling Letterk., 2'^" reeks, vi. 207-248) that this designation was originally 
 applied to those who were present at the assembly described in Neh. viii.-x. , 
 at which the Tora was read and accepted, and that the later ascription to 
 them of an active part in the guidance of the people and the continuation of 
 Ezra's work is quite unjustified. The only real organs of the movement were 
 the priests and the scribes, and though in later times these two orders 
 diverged from and were often openly opposed to each other, yet originally 
 they frequently pulled together and in many cases, as in that of Ezra himself, 
 the two functions were combined in the same person. Nevertheless it was 
 not as priests but as scribes that they employed themselves on the Tora, 
 that they prepared copies of it and supplemented what was wanting in it. 
 But they worked in the priestly spirit, — not only in the sense of under- 
 standing religion in the priestly as opposed to the prophetic way, but also in 
 
3IO The Hexateuch. [§i5- 
 
 the sense of upholding the interests and privileges of the priests against 
 all others, including the Levites. See Num. xvi.-xviii , and compare 
 § 6, n. 37. 
 
 ^ Cf. my Godsdienst, ii. 2ig sq., 267-272 \_Rel. Isr. iii. 6 sq., 49-62]. I must 
 content myself now with touching upon the proofs that are there given at 
 greater length. 
 
 u. A doubt whether the morning and evening burnt-oflferings (with the 
 food-offering pertaining to them) were prescribed from the first in the 
 priestly law-book, is roused by EzeTc. xlvi. 13-15, where » morning burnt- 
 offering only is ordained. From 2 Kings xvi. 15 it appears that in the time 
 of King Ahaz, and presumably in that of the historian also, a burnt-offering 
 was made in the morning and a food-offering in the evening ; and apparently 
 Ezekiel wished to maintain this usage ; at any rate his precept in no way 
 interferes with it. On the other hand it might be gathered from I Kings 
 xviii. 29, 36 ; 2 Tvlngs iii. 20, that long before that time a food-offering had 
 already been instituted in honour of Yahwfe in the morning as well as the 
 evening (nn:Dn ni'ira, in the former passage of the late afternoon, in the 
 latter of the early morning). But in these passages 'mincha' is not 
 contrasted with the burnt-offering, and therefore signifies no more than 
 ' offering ' in general. Moreover, I agree with Robertson Smith {Encycl. 
 Brit., xiv. 85, n. 3), that the purity of the text, at any rate in 2 Kings iii. 20, 
 is very doubtful : irmin m'lya would be far more suitable. Be this as it may 
 the evening sacrifice was still known as nsn nnio after the captivity {Ezr. 
 ix. 4, 5), even on into the second century B.o. when the evening burnt-offering 
 was unquestionably established {Van. ix. 21). The survival of this name is 
 best explained on the supposition, suggested by 2 Kings xvi. 15, that the 
 mincha originally was, and throughout successive centuries ^continued to be, 
 the proper evening sacrifice. It seems that it remained so after the intro- 
 duction of the priestly law ; for in Neh. x. 34 [33] the people pledge 
 [301] themselves to contribute ' to the perpetual (daily) food-offering and the 
 perpetual burnt-offering.' The two offerings are therefore distinguished from 
 each other, and that too, since the food-offering is mentioned first, as evening 
 and morning sacrifice. Add to this that various considerations prevent our 
 regarding the three passages in which the two-fold burnt-offering is prescribed 
 as original components of the priestly code. Lev. vi. 1-6 [8-13] is a ritual 
 direction to the priest, that serves, like other torfith in Lev. vi., vii., to 
 supplement Ler. i.-v., and this is enough in itself to suggest its later origin; 
 Num. xxviii. 3-8 is included under the general verdict passed on Nam. xxviii. 
 sq. (cf. n. 28) ; Ex. xxix. 38-42, finally, is very strangely placed, is textually 
 later than Num. xxviii, 3-8 (cf. Popper, op, cit,, p. 190 sq.), and was 
 apparently inserted in Ex. xxv. sqq., from the passage in Numbers, because 
 the two-fold tamld is said in Nam. xxviii. 6 to have been 'ordained on 
 IVIount Sinai.' 
 
 h. On, fc. XXX, 11-16, cf, Graf, Geschichtliche Biicher, p, 63 ; Popper, op. 
 cit., p, 194 sqq. The section is misunderstood by the author of Ex. xxxviii. 
 21-31 (§ 6, u, 15), as Dillmann, too, confesses (Ex. u. Lev., p, 364 sq.). But 
 
n-3o-32.J Additions to Ezras Law-book. 311 
 
 the last-named commentator maintains (p. 317 sqq.) that the precept is only 
 intended for the special census to he held by Moses, and is out of place amongst 
 the ordinances concerning the tabernacle. This is a mistake. We ought 
 rather to take the position of the precept as an indication that the author was 
 not considering an isolated case, but the cultus in general, to which, of 
 course, Hx. xxv. sqq. refers ; and accordingly what he is giving us is a general 
 ordinance in the form of a direction given to Moses. He therefore 
 means to impose a yearly tax in support of the cultus (iria 'jn« maS"')?, «. 16) 
 upon every male Israelite, and so he was understood by the Chronicler 
 (2 Cliron. xxiv. 6, 9) and the Jewish tradition. But in 'Seh. x. 33 [32] the 
 people freely undertake to contribute a third of a shekkel per head for 
 the purpose, whence it follows that Ex. xxx. 11-16 was not yet incorpor- 
 ated in the law-book, but was subsequently inserted in it when the necessity 
 of raising the temple tax had become evident. 
 
 c. In Deuteronomy tithes of corn, wine, and oil, i.e. of the fruits of field 
 and tree, are the only tithes demanded (xiv. 22-29; x^Lvi. 12-15; "^^ '^'^• 
 19, 23). If V had intended to claim the tithes of cattle likewise for the 
 Levites, he must have said so expressly in Num. xviii. 20-24, 25-32. As 
 his ordinance stands it cannot be understood in any other sense than that 
 of Deuteronomy, except for the difference as to the destination of the tithes. 
 And we see from Neh. x. 38-40 [37-39] ; xii. 44-47 ; xiii. 6, 12 that it was so 
 understood at the time of the introduction of the book of law and immediately 
 afterwards. But in that case Lev. xxvii. 32, 33 can only be regarded as a 
 novella, increasing the revenues of the Levites by the tithes of oxen and 
 sheep. The Chronicler was acquainted with it, and therefore very naturally 
 supposed that it was observed under the pious King Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxxi. 
 6, 6). The choice between this view and Dillmann's (Ex. u. Lev., p. 637 
 sqq.) may safely be left to the reader. 
 
 "' No rule can be laid down here, for everything depends vipon the impres- 
 sion received from the analysis in question. Where such various criteria of 
 later origin as the unnatural position of a law, its more or less marked lin- 
 guistic divergency from the context, its conflict or imperfect harmony with the 
 unquestioned portions of the book, all coincide, then there can be no doubt in [302] 
 the matter. But even a single criterion may be conclusive, e.g. the departure 
 from Num. iv. in Num. viii. 23-26 (n. 28), etc. 
 
 '^ The inference in question is indicated by Zunz in Zeitschr. der deutsch. 
 Morgenl. GeselscK, xxvii, 682, and positively formulated by Eeuss, L'hist. 
 eainte et la loi, i. 260 sq. ; Gesch. der lieil. Sclir. Alt. Test., p. 475. In the 
 latter passage he sums up his proofs as foUows : ' A careful study of the 
 account of the promulgation of the law in Neh. viii. sq., which evidently 
 flowed from the pen of an eye-witness (x. i, 33), shows that the great fast of 
 the day of atonement, without any further ceremonies, is expressly fixed on 
 the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month, after the feast of tabernacles, and 
 immediately following the reading of the book of law. No room is left there- 
 fore for the feast of the tenth day (Lev. xvi.) ; after which indeed the feast of 
 the twenty-fourth-day would have been wholly superfluous . . . Add to this that 
 
3 1 2 The Hexateuch. [ § ' 5- 
 
 Ex. XXX. 10 speaks quite differently of the yearly day of atonement, and that 
 the very minute sacrificial code of i\%m. xxviii., xxix (see especially xxix. 7 sq.) 
 shows no trace aa yet of the highly significant ceremony of Lev. xvi. . . . The 
 fact that 2 Ghron. vii. 9 likewise excludes the festival of atonement is 
 a proof of its dependence upon some older docunisnt.' — The conflict here 
 spoken of between Lev. xvi. and the other priestly laws does not appear to 
 me really to exist. Ex. xxx. 10 alludes to the already existing tora upon the 
 day of atonement and supplements it by the direction that the High Priest 
 must also cleanse the altar of incense, which is not mentioned in Lev. xvi. 
 (§ 6, n. 23). Num. xxviii. sq. is the catalogue of the communal sacrifices 
 on holy days, and the rites of Lev. xvi. could not, therefore, be reimposed 
 in it, but the author's acquaintance with them appears from xxix. 7, 11, where 
 he speaks alike of the fasting and of ' the sin-oflfering of atonement,' in 
 conformity with Lev. xvi. Lev. xxiii. 27-32 ; xxv. 9, likewise presuppose 
 xvi. The question therefore is whether that chapter, together with all 
 the other passages that allude to it, was absent from Ezra's book of 
 law. Its position and its connection with the preceding laws would not throw 
 any suspicion on it (of. § 6, u.. 23), so that if we reject it it must be entirely 
 on the strengdih of NeJi. viii, 13 sqq. But now consider the character of 
 the assembly there described and the intention of those who presided over it. 
 The day of atonement was ti new institution, unknown alike to Ezekiel and 
 iP^, regulated for the first time in Lev. xvi. The book of law in which 
 this tora was embodied had still to be introduced. Could the reading of 
 the book of law be interrupted by the celebration of this very exceptional 
 ceremony ? Must not the ceremony itself, rather, be deferred until the 
 new order of things had been accepted by the people and thus come into 
 practice ? With the feast of tabernacles it was another thing. It was a 
 joyous, popular festival that had long been celebrated by all Israel, though 
 never before in accordance with Lev. xxiii. 40, and moreover it was in 
 perfect harmony with the character which the great assembly was to take, 
 according to Neh. viii. 9-12. But, says Keuss, there was a clay of humi- 
 liation held on the twenty-fourth of the month {Neh. ix. 1-3), and how is 
 that to be explained if the book of law had fixed the tenth for it ? I answer 
 that this day of humiliation was the special and immediate preparation for 
 entering into the covenant ; that it had little or nothing in common with the 
 day of atonement, and that its celebration has therefore no bearing either 
 [303] way on the question whether Lev. xvi. was contained in Ezra's book of law or 
 not. The argnnienia e sileatio on which I have myself relied from time to 
 time — most recently in n. 30 — are really quite different in character from any 
 that can be drawn fiom Neh. viii. 14 sqq. 
 
 ^^ The distinction here made is not absolutely essential. We may, if we 
 like, include all the alterations made at or after the amalgamation of Ezra's 
 law-book with JE + D under the name of the ' redaction ' or ' diaskeue,' espe- 
 cially since, as we shall see in § 16, the redaction in the narrower sense 
 (harmonising the heterogeneous elements of the Hexateuch) was likewise 
 conducted in the priestly spirit. But inasmuch as the priestly law-book 
 
n- 33-35-] Great Day of Atonement in Ezra's Book. 3 1 3 
 
 existed for a time, according to the view we liave taken, as an independent 
 work, and during that period was supplemented and extended, but was 
 not subjected to redaction in tlie narrower sense explained above, it seems 
 natural to distinguish between this completion or continuation, even in its 
 second period, and the redaction which was then going on contemporaneously 
 with it. And indeed there is an essential difference between additions to I" 
 and P^ such as ief . xxiv. 1-4, 5-9 on the one hand, and such a narrative as 
 that of JoA. xxii. 9-33 on the other, although sometimes of course the line is 
 diiEcult to draw. — I abstain from all attempts to arrange the additions to the 
 priestly law-book chronologically. AVe can generally determine with sufEcient 
 certainty what is and what is not primary, but it would be rash to attempt to 
 distinguish between the secondary, the tertiary, and the still later elements. 
 The supposition commends itself that the alterations of matter are earlier, as 
 they are certainly more important, than the alterations of form. The freedom 
 which the scribes allowed themselves in expanding the book of law must have 
 been gradually restrained, and as the number of copies increased it would limit 
 itself spontaneously. Merely formal completions, on the other hand, would 
 be regarded with less jealousy and might therefore be continued longer. 
 Such considerations would lead us, for instance, to regard Ex. xxxv. sqq. 
 as later than Ex. xxx., xxxi. (cf. § 6, n. 13, 15), etc. 
 
 ^* The terminus ad quern, is the work of the Chronicler, which presupposes 
 the Hexateuch in its present form (§ 11, n. 4). Now the date of the Chronicler 
 cannot be determined with certainty. But a comparison of the LXX. with the 
 Masoretic text, especially in Ex. xxxv.-xl., shows that the work of supple- 
 menting continued down into the third century B.C. Cf § 6, n. 15, and, further, 
 § 16, n. I sqq. 
 
 ^^ See the further development of this view, which is equally applicable to 
 the diaskeue of the Hexateuch and the supplementing of Ezra's law-book, in 
 § 16, n. I sqq. 
 
 § 16. The redaction of the Hexateuch. 
 
 Tlie results of the inquiry now completed (§ 13 sq. and 15) 
 show that in the year of the reformation of Ezra and Nehe. 
 miah (about 444 B.C.) the deuteronomico-prophetic sacred 
 history and the historico-legislative priestly work both existed 
 independently. The union of these two gave rise to the 
 present Hexateuch. The question when and how this took [304] 
 place must be answered in the present paragraph. 
 
 More than one consideration must have rendered an early 
 amalgamation of DJE with P urgent. Probably the authors 
 of P never intended to cancel or suppress the older laws 
 
314 The Hexateuch. [§i6. 
 
 and narratives. But yet their work departed notably from 
 that of their predecessors. As long as the two retained 
 their independence they challenged mutual comparison, and 
 the great difference between them could not but be observed. 
 If this difference were regarded as amounting to contradiction, 
 then the prestige of the two works alike must suffer under it 
 and the authority of the more recently introduced legislation 
 specially must be shaken. There was but one means of 
 averting this danger ; viz. to weld together these independent 
 but related works into a single whole which might then claim, 
 without fear of challenge, the place which Judaism assigned 
 to the documents of Yahwe's revelation to the fathers. It is 
 therefore highly probable that the Sopherim lost no time, and 
 that before the end of the fifth century they had 
 produced the Hexateuch. 
 
 Almost everything that we can establish with regard to 
 this work of redaction must be deduced from the Hexateuch 
 itself; but this makes it all the more incumbent on us 
 not to neglect the few hints that are presented us from 
 out.side. The combined evidence of the books of Chronicles, 
 the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Alexandrine translation 
 of the Hexateuch, prove that in the third century B.C. 
 the Hexateuch as we know it was in existence. They fix 
 a terminus ad qiiem which we must in no case overstep 1. But 
 at the same time the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Alexan- 
 drine translation, when compared with each other and with 
 our iexkis receptus, show that the Hebrew texts of the third 
 century did not agree with each other. They displayed, of 
 course, the usual type of variants, due to the carelessness or 
 caprice of the copyists ; but beyond these they manifested 
 [305] divergencies of far greater extent and significance which can 
 only be understood as the results of deliberate recension of 
 the text conducted with a relatively high degree of freedom 
 and in accordance with certain fixed principles^. Now in 
 
n. i.j The Three Recensions of the Text. 315 
 
 former times it was usual, if not universal, to hold the 
 Samaritans or the Greek translators, or the copyists of the 
 manuscripts they followed, responsible for these divergencies, 
 while our own fexfus recejitm — allowance being made for 
 subsequent corruptions — was regarded as substantially iden- 
 tical with the recognised text of the Scribes in the third 
 century B.C. and still earlier. But we have no a j)riori right 
 whatever to assume any such contrast, and a jiosteriori it is 
 contradicted by the prevalence of so-called Samaritan or 
 Alexandrine readings in Judaea itself^- The true conclusion 
 is rather that the text of the Hexateuch, not only here and 
 there but throughout, was handled with a certain freedom 
 in the third century, and yet more so previously, being 
 still subject to what its guardians considered amendments. — 
 Now this is perfectly natural if, but only if, we think of the 
 redaction of the Hexateuch not as an affair that was accom- 
 plished once for all, but as a labour that was only provisionally 
 closed at first and was long subsequently continued and 
 rounded off*. Even apart from the evidence borne by the 
 divergent recensions of the text, this view, as we shall 
 presently see, is supported by phenomena which appear in all 
 three recensions alike. The redaction of the Hexateuch, then, 
 assumes the form of a continuous diaskeue or diorthosis^ and 
 the redactor becomes a collective body headed by the 
 scribe who united the two works spoken of above into a single 
 whole, but also including the whole series of his more or less 
 independent followers. It is only in exceptional cases, how- 
 ever, that the original redactor can be distinguished with 
 certainty from those who continued his work. For the most 
 part we shall have to club them together and may indicate 
 them by the single letter R^. 
 
 '■ On the Chronicler see § ii, n. 4. The Alexandrine translation of the 
 Pentateuch waH made in the first half of the third century B.C., that of the 
 Book of Joshua later, but perhaps still within the third century. At what [3°^] 
 
3i6 The Hexateuch. [§i6 
 
 period the Samaritans adopted the Pentateuch from the Jews, and to what 
 date the text of their Pentateuch ascends — which is not exactly the same ques- 
 tion — cannot be determined with certainty. The terminus aqtio may be taken 
 as iixed by the secession of the priest Manasse, and by the building of the 
 temple on Gerizim (Flavins Josephus, Arcli. Jud., xi. 7, 2 ; 8, 2-4). But it 
 cannot be proved that the acceptation of the Tora was contemporaneous with 
 that event, nor, if it was, that the text thenceforth developed itself indepen- 
 dently of Jewish influence. The internal differences amongst their own manu- 
 scripts show that the Samaritans themselves did not leave the text unaltered. 
 Thus, in ranking the Samaritan Pentateuch with the Chronicles and the 
 LXX. as a witness dating from the third century, we can only plead 
 probability, not certainty. But the conclusion derived from the examination 
 of these three witnesses will hardly be combated. It is that generally 
 speaking and with the reservation of those divergencies to be further 
 examined in n. 2-4, it is one and the same Tora, divided into five books, 
 which is implied in the citations of the Chronicler and which lies before us now 
 in the Alexandrine, Samaritan, and Masoretic recensions; and further that 
 the book of Joslma employed by the Chronicler is likewise identical with the 
 Alexandrine and Masoretic book. The Samaritans, as is well known, adopted 
 the Tora only, so that the absence of the book of Joshua from their literature 
 has no critical significance whatever. Their own book of Joshua (ed. 
 Juynboll, Lug. Bat. 1848) dates from a much later period. 
 
 ^ On the Alexandrine version of the Pentateuch cf. T. C. Topler, De Pent, 
 inlerpr. Alex, indole crit. et herm. (Halle, 1830); H. G. J. Thiersch, De 
 Pent. vers. Alex, libri iii. (Erl. 1841); Z. Frankel, Ueher den Mnjluss der 
 paldst. Exegese auf die alex. Sermeneutilc (Leipz. 1851); J. Popper, Der 
 hihl. Bericht uber die Stifishiitte (Leipz. 1862), p. J24 sqq. ; J. C. Schagen 
 van Soelen, De oorsprong der Grieksche vert, van den. Penlateiidh volgens 
 de LXX. (Leiden, 1864 ; containing, on p. 14 sqq., a refutation of the 
 opinion defended by Graetz, Gesch. der Jiiden, iii. 615 sqq., as to the date of 
 the translation). On the book of Joshua in the Alexandrine version, cf. 
 J. Hollenberg, Der Character der alex. Uehers. d. B. Josua (Moers, 1876) ; 
 on the Samaritan Pentateuch, Gesenius, De Pent. Samar. origine, indole 
 et auctoritate (Halle, 1815) ; Popper, op. cit., p. 60-84; S- Kohn, De Pent. 
 Samar. eiasque cum verss. ant. nexu (Breslau, 1865); H. Petermann, 
 Yersuch. einer heir. Formenlehre nach der Aiissprache der heat. Samar. 
 (Leijjz. 1868), p. 219-326. 
 
 ^ The true conception and interpretation of the mutual relations of the 
 three texts is set forth by Geiger, Ursclirift und Ueberss. der Bibel, 
 p. 97-100, and passim ; cf. Zeitschr. d. deutsch. Morjjenl. Geselsch., xix. 611- 
 615 ; and Popper, op. cit. However natural it may have been to begin by 
 testing the Alexandrine and the Samaritan by the Masoretic text, and 
 regarding the divergencies of the two former from the later as the result, in 
 every case, of intentional or unintentional corruption of the texiiis receptus, 
 which was accepted as genuine, yet it is obvious, on a moment's reflection, 
 that we have no right to apportion light and darkness thus. The Alexandrian 
 
n. 2-5.] Conthmous Redaction of the Hexateiuh. 3 1 7 
 
 translators were believing Jews, just as much ag their contemporaries the 
 Palestinian Scribes ; and the Samaritan Pentateuch, which was derived from 
 Judaea, was at least as much revered in its new fatherland as amongst the 
 Jews themselves. A priori we should expect that the text would be subject 
 to essentially the same method of treatment in Egypt and in Samaria as in 
 Judsea ; or, if there were any difference, that it would only be one of degree, [307] 
 corresponding to the relatively greater purity which actually does 
 distinguish the Masoretic alike from the Greek and from the Samaritan text. 
 Add to this that any specific difference of treatment in Judaea on the one 
 hand, and in Alexandria and Samaria on the other, would not have escaped 
 the notice of the Scribes, and would have given rise to protests on their 
 part. But nothing of the kind appears, for the divergencies of the Alex- 
 andrine text mentioned in the Talmud (G-eiger, Urschrift, p. 439 sqq.) are 
 very insignificant, and the Samaritans are only reproached with having 
 substituted Gerizlm for Ebal in Deut. xxvii. 4, and the corresponding passages. 
 The significance of this silence is heightened by the fact that Flavins .Joseplius 
 usually follows the Greek text, in the Pentateuch as elsewhere, though he 
 was not unacquainted with the Masoretic recension (cf. my essay De stamboom 
 van denMasor. telcst des 0. T. in the Verslagen en Mededeelingen der K. Akad. 
 van "Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterk., 2de reeks, iii. 321 sqq.), and that the 
 chronology of the (Palestinian) book of Jubilees rests on the Samaritan text of 
 Gen. V. and xi. {ibid., p. 325 sqq. and Dillmann, Beltr. aus dem B. d. J. zur 
 Kritih des Pentateuch-Te.rtes, Sitzungsber. d. k. preuss. Akad. d. Wiss., 1883, 
 p. 323-340). Every attempt to erect a wall of partition between the Jewish 
 and the other recensions turns out to be futile. 
 
 * Had the redaction of the Hexateuch been effected simul et semel, the 
 guild of copyists would surely have confined itself strictly to its proper task, 
 and would not have taken the liberties to which the divergent recensions bear 
 witness. On the other hand, the method actually pursued is the natural 
 continuation of a diaskeue which long maintained its vitality, though in the 
 nature of the case it must have been gradually ebbing. Compare, for instance, 
 Gen. xlvii. 7-1 1 ; Josh. v. ii-p ; xx., in the Masoretic and in the Alexandrine 
 texts. The latter represents, throughout these passages, an earlier stage of 
 the harmonising diaskeue ; and on the other hand the Masoretic recension 
 of Gen. i. i-ii. 4" is earlier than the Greek. 
 
 '■ We have to assume a redactor or harmonist for the union of J and E, and 
 again of JE and D. But the redactor of whom we are now speaking differs 
 from both of them, for he had DJE and P before him, and he effected their 
 union in the spirit and in the interest of P. We may therefore call him Ep 
 in distinction from Ed (the deuteronomic redactor of D + JE) and Ej (the 
 redactor of J + E, whom we have also indicated by JE). Cf. Jiilicher, Die 
 Quellen von Ex., i.-vii. 7, p. 3 n. We have already remarked (§ 15, u. 33) that 
 Ep's task may be theoretically distinguished from that of P's continuators, 
 but that in point of fact it often coalesces with it. As a rule, however, the 
 manipulation of the text which in one way or another subserves the amalga- 
 mation of DJE and P, or at any rate might have been dispensed with had 
 
3i8 The Hexateicch. [§i6. 
 
 that amalgamation never taken place, may readily be distinguislied from the 
 completion or expansion of the priestly ordinances themselves. See the 
 remarks in n. 12, on iVio/i. xxxii. 5-15 ; xxxiii. 1-49 ; Josli. xxii. 9-34. 
 
 R's task has already been described, in general terms, as the 
 welding together of the two works that lay before him. His pur- 
 [338] pose, then, was at once to preserve his material virtually intact 
 and to combine it in such a way as to produce a veritable whole. 
 This account of R's objects at once explains certain details 
 noticeable in his work. After Gen. xvii. 5, 15 the names 
 ' Abraham ' and ' Sarah,' which are there substituted for 
 ' Abram ■" and ' Sarai,' are employed throughout, even in 
 passages which are not taken, as Gen. xvii. is, from P. In 
 the same way ' Israel ' might have superseded ' Jacob ' after 
 Gen. xxxii. iS~'i'i [24-32]. And the name of the successor 
 of Moses might have been given as ' Hoshea ' before Num. 
 xiii. 16 and as 'Joshua ' afterwards. But this is not found to 
 be the case. The motives which induced R for the most part 
 to leave these names as he found them cannot be determined 
 with certainty, but may be assigned conjecturally ^- In like 
 manner the use of ^5"|^T and "ij?] for both genders, which is 
 the rule in the Pentateuch (not in Joslina), though there are 
 exceptions to it, as well as the use of h\iT^ instead of the 
 customary n V^?!!, would have to be ascribed to R did it ascend 
 as far back as the period of his activityc But this cannot 
 be proved, nor indeed is it probable ; for in R's time the 
 masculine and feminine pronunciation of the third personal 
 pronoun and of the three consonants ~iy3 , and the two-fold 
 pronunciation of 7^n, were not as yet distinguished in 
 writing at all. It was not till the later time in which 
 Hebrew gradually ceased to be the language of the people 
 that ^n was replaced by i^ln or i^in as the case 
 might be, and the distinction made between "1^3 and TTSV^ 
 and between '?t^n and nV^^H. It is impossible to say for 
 certain why ^ifl and niJ^J were then avoided, at any rate 
 
n. 5.] The Redactors and their Work. 3 1 9 
 
 generally, in the Pentateuch, and 'ji^n occasionally 
 written for n^t^H. It is possible that b^in, "1^3, and 
 7t^n were regarded as older forms and were therefore used 
 by preference in the Tora, to which extreme antiquity was 
 assigned. But if so we must pronounce the idea mistaken, 
 for the forms in question are not archaisms. Nor can we 
 regard them as due to the redaction of the Pentateuch at 
 all, unless we take the word in its very widest signification 
 and make it cover the whole prge-Masoretie history of the texf . 
 
 In any case these matters are but of trifling and wholly [309] 
 subordinate interest. If we are to understand the work of R 
 as a whole we must not be content with the general descrip- 
 tion given above, but must arrive at a more sharply defined 
 conception of the real nature of his task. When he set his 
 hand to the work, the deuteronomico-prophetic sacred history 
 (DJE) had long been recognised and highly revered, where- 
 as the priestly historico-legislative work had only quite 
 recently been promulgated and put into practice. The 
 problem was how to make P share in the reverence that 
 DJE already commanded. In other words P must be in- 
 corporated with DJE. This was required in the interest of 
 P, and there can be no doubt that it was carried out by some 
 one imbued with the spirit of this document. R, then, 
 belonged to the school of Ezra, to the priest-scribes of 
 Jerusalem. And indeed they were the only men to whom it 
 could even occur to execute such a work, for no one else would 
 either feel called to it or be competent to undertake it*. 
 
 The Hexateuch itself must teach us whether this more 
 definite conception of R's activity, which seems to spring 
 from the nature of the case, is really the correct one. We 
 have to inquire, therefore, whether R actually follows the 
 rules which flow spontaneously from this view of his task, 
 i.e. (1) whether DJE is kept as far as possible intact, and 
 (a) whether, when unity of design imperatively demands some 
 
320 The Hexateuch. [§i6' 
 
 sacrifice, the changes are made in the spirit and in the interests 
 of P. 
 
 A survey of the Hexateuch, as a whole, is enough to justify 
 an affirmative answer to these two questions. It embraces a 
 great number of narratives and laws which the authors of P 
 cannot possibly have accepted with complete satisfaction, and 
 which they would not have combined with their own legisla- 
 tion and historiography of their own free choice"- It is true 
 that we need not suppose these writers to have been fully 
 aware of the inconsistency of their own conceptions with 
 those of D and his ' prophetic ' precursors. But that the 
 latter always attracted them is hardly conceivable ; and if, 
 [310] in spite of this, these older laws and narratives have found 
 a place in the Hexateuch, the fundamental explanation of the 
 phenomenon must be found in the fact that they were already 
 in possession of the field and only needed to maintain the 
 place they occupied. But it also shows that R, however 
 much he sympathised with P, did not absolutely identify 
 himself with the priestly view of things, but was content to 
 secure for it the place which it must take, but which it could 
 not transcend, when made a part of the whole. His conserva- 
 tism with respect to DJE, to which we owe the apparently 
 almost complete preservation of that work^", hardly admits of 
 any other explanation. But it is equally clear, even from a 
 general survey, that we were right in describing him as 
 belonging to the spiritual kindred of P ; for he scrupulously 
 inserts even the minor fragments of P in the places that seem 
 best to fit them when the more detailed notices of the older 
 documents might have seemed to a less zealous disciple to have 
 rendered them superfluous and warranted their omission ^1. 
 
 This general survey, however, really furnishes nothing 
 more than a presumption as to the method followed by the 
 redaction. To arrive at certainty we must examine the work 
 of the redactors in detail, and must make the phenomena 
 
n. 6, 7.] The Redaction. 'Archaisms! 321 
 
 which appear in connection with the amalgamation of DJE 
 and P the subject of a close inspection in view of the maxims 
 we have laid down. In the nature of the case there must be 
 many of these phenomena which bear no unequivocal testi- 
 mony and which might, at need, admit of some other interpre- 
 tation ; but whereas our view of the method pursued by the 
 redactors is directly confirmed and even demanded by a great 
 mass of the evidence, it does not appear to be contradicted by 
 any single fact^^. 
 
 ' We must bear in mind that the name of ' Jacob ' did not become obsolete, 
 like ' Abram ' and ' Sarai,' bo that even the writers who mention the change 
 of name, i.e. J {Gm. xxxii. 25-33 [24-32]) and P^ {Gen,, xxxv. 10), may still, 
 have used the name ' Jacob ' as well as ' Israel.' Whether they actually did, 
 so or not is a question which could only be decided if we possessed their works, 
 in the original form. In the sections compounded of J and E the way in which 
 'Jacob' and 'Israel' alternate raises a suspicion that the one name was [311! 
 occasionally substituted for the other when the two documents were combined 
 (e.g. Gen. xlv. 27, 28 ; xlvi. 2, 5 ; xlviii. 2). Itseems clear, on the other hand, 
 that P still uses the name 'Jacob,' even after Gen. xxxv. 10 {Gen. xxxv. 22- 
 29 ; xxxvi. 6 ; xxxvii. i, 2, etc. ; Ex, i. i, 5 ; ii. 24 ; vi. 3). In any case, there- 
 fore, E had precedent to follow in preserving the two names. — Num. xiii. i6 
 would, properly speaking, require that ' Joshua ' should be replaced by 
 ' Hoshea ' throughout Ex. xvii., xxiv., xxxii.. Num. xi., and conversely that 
 ' Joshua,' not ' Hoshea,' should stand in Beut. xxxii. 44. It is probable, 
 however, that ' Joshua ' was so firmly established as the name of the successor 
 of Moses that E did not venture on the strength of P in Num. xiii. 16 to sub- 
 stitute ' Hoshea ' for it. Dent, xxxii. 44 stands quite alone, and ' Hoshea ' may 
 perhaps be simply a clerical error (LXX., 'Itjo-oi/s; Samaritan, ynjirr). 
 
 ' There are eleven exceptions to the rule that Nin is used for the feminine 
 as well as the masculine {Gen. xiv. 2 ; xx. 5 ; xxxviii. 25 ; Lev. xi. 39 ; xiii. lo, ■ 
 21 ; xvi. 31 ; xx. 17; xxi. 9; Num. v. 13, 14). iS:, for 'girl,' occurs twenty-. 
 one times, viz. Gen. xxiv. 14, 16, 28, 55, 57 ; xxxiv. 3 (bis), 12 ; Beut. xxii. 15- 
 29 (thirteen times) ; mr: only in Dent. xxii. 19. The form 'jNn is found in 
 Gm. xix. 8, 25 ; xxvi. 3, 4 ; Lev. xviii. 27 ; Heut. iv.43 ; vii. 22 ; xix. 11, and. 
 never outside the Pentateuch ; ■?«, without the article, is read in i Chron. xx. 
 8 only. — As to the antiquity of these readings we may note that at any rate 
 Nin for «'n and n 3? 3 for ms: are mentioned in the Talmud (cf. Delitzsch, 
 Stud., p. 395) and therefore belong to the textus receptus. But the definitive 
 settlement of this text did not take place till aa late as the second century a.d., 
 and it cannot be shown that the manuscripts upon which it rested were much 
 older. In the Samaritan Pentateuch wn and my: and nisn are written 
 
32 2 The Hexateuch, [§i6. 
 
 throughout. This may be due to the correction of an apparently irregular 
 text, but should anyone maintain, on the other hand, that the departure from 
 the usual orthography is subsequent to the period at which the two recensions 
 parted, it would be impossible to show that he was mistaken. — As long as the 
 forms in question were regarded as genuine archaisms there seemed no room 
 to doubt that the textus receptus was the original ; but with respect to Nin as 
 a feminine this opinion is now generally abandoned (cf. Delitzsch, p. 393 
 sqq.) ; and although TJ>:, as an epicoen, is still regarded as a survival from the 
 ancient language (p. 398 sq.) the preliminary proof that such a usage ever 
 really existed at all, or in other words that 'girl,' though written ti' 3, was 
 ever pronounced otherwise than (nl'i!?.:, is not forthcoming; there is no 
 reason whatever to ascribe a high antiquity to 'jNH, and here again the 
 question rises whether it really differs from n^«n at all. Delitzsch allows 
 (p. 396) that in the ancient MSS. hsn was in all probability written, and that 
 it was left to the reader to supply the vowel H or i as the case might be ; and 
 in my opinion it is just the same with tb3. Cf. Chwolson, Die Quiescentes 
 'in in der atthehr. OrthograpMe, p. 10 sq. The simple fact, then, is that who- 
 ever for distinctness' sake inserted the quiescentes at some later date, departed 
 from the general rule in the Pentateuch. It is possible that the motive 
 of this breach of uniformity rested on an idea that in former times win and "is? 3 
 i were often used as feminines and that the vowel after ';«n was often omitted 
 
 (Delitzsch, Hid.). But what importance are we to attach to such an idea? 
 and what are we to think of the few passages in which mm occurs and of the 
 [312] unique my:? Does anyone seriously suppose that a tradition existed, with 
 respect to those divergent texts, prescribing the resolution of Nrt into N'n 
 and the writing of msJ in those special passages ? At the present stage of 
 our inquiry the only significance we can attach to these alleged archaisms 
 is derived fi-om the evidence they bear to the separation of the Tora from 
 the other books of the Old Testament, especially the book of Joshua, with 
 which in other respects it is so closely connected. Cf. n. 13, 14. 
 
 ' Cf. § 15, n. 29 on the sopherlm and the direction in which they worked' 
 —The position of affairs hardly seems to need further explanation. Even the 
 warmest upholders of P could hardly demand more than equality with DJE, 
 It is true that Haggai and Zechariah (i.-viii.) contain no references to ' the 
 book of the Tora,' i. e. Deuteronomy, and the last-named appeals to ' the former 
 prophets ' instead (i. 4-6 ; vii. 7, 12), but the fact remains that DJE had long 
 been recognised and was, as it were, in possession of the field. P could not 
 have been made to eject it from this position, even if anyone had wished it ; 
 and it is not probable that anyone did. Cf. n. 9-1 1. 
 
 " The contrast — sometimes sharp — between DJE and P hardly needs to be 
 pointed out again. We have only to recall the conflicting stories of the crea- 
 tion, the difference between the patriarchs of P and those of JE, the length of 
 the sojourn at Sinai and the contents of the Sinaitic legislation in the two 
 works, the regulation of the cultus in the Book of the Covenant and in P, the 
 numerous ordinances of D which could not be reconciled in practice with those 
 of P but must be superseded by them, the two conceptions of the paitition of 
 
^■_^~-^2.] ' Archaisms: Method of Redaction. 323 
 
 the land in Jo.Ua, etc. Indeed it is no exaggeration to say that P attempts 
 a running andunbroken rectification of D J E. 
 
 _ '» It is very improbable that any important part of DJE dropped out when 
 It was combined with P. D presupposes JE and alludes to most of the details 
 It contains, either expressly or incidentally; so that if any narrative has been 
 dropped out of JE, as offensive, the allusion in D must likewise have been ex- 
 cised, which is conceivable, no doubt, but does not approve itself as probable 
 And moreover there is a running parallelism between DJE and P (cf. Well, 
 hausen. Prolegomena, 312 sqq. [297 sqq.]), which implies that P reproduced 
 his own version of everything he found in DJE and thus had rendered its 
 expurgation superfluous. P has his manna {Ex. xvi., cf. Num. xi.), his 6hel 
 mo'^d {Ex. XXV. sq., cf. xxxiii. 7-11), his ark of the witness {Ex. xxv. 10-22, cf 
 Num. X. 33-36 ; J)eui. x. 1-5), his Balaam {Num. xxxi. 8, 16, cf. xxii.-xxiv.) Ind 
 BO on. Of course all this must be taken with due qualification. It was 
 impossible for E to include everything. A number of details which the two 
 documents had in common could not be given more than once, and the 
 contradiction was sometimes so palpable that one of the two notices must 
 be modified or shortened. But when we see what contradictions E aUowed 
 to stand, and therefore must have acquiesced in, we cease to fear that he was 
 often driven to violent methods of mutilation in order to give unity to his 
 compilation. A quicker critical perception on his part would have cost us the 
 
 irreparable loss of important narratives and laws from DJE. Abundant 
 
 specimens of E's conservatism will be furnished by n. 12. Is it not remark- 
 able, for instance, that in Gen. xxxiv. J's representation (massacre of the men [313] 
 of Shechem by Simeon and Levi) is supplemented and amended instead of 
 being replaced by E's own representation (the vengeance exacted by all the 
 sons of Jacob) ? Cf. Th. Tijdschr., xiv. 280 sq. 
 
 " "We may take, as specimens. Gen. xii. 4', 5; xiii. 6, iii>, 12"; xvi. 1, 3, 
 15, 16 (iudispensable now, but only because the corresponding accounts in JE 
 have been omitted) ; xix. 29 ; xxxi. 18, etc. ; Ex. xvii. i ; xix. i, 2" ; Num. 
 xxii. I ; Josh. iv. 19, etc. 
 
 '^ The method we must follow in this note is decided for us. We must run 
 through the whole Hexateuch and inquire where and how E has intervened. 
 Thus the principles he followed will reveal themselves spontaneously, and we 
 shall also see from time to time why we cannot suppose his work to have been 
 completed all at once, but are forced to think of it as a continuous diaskeue. 
 Where E has confined himself to intertwining the documents that lay before him 
 I shall abstain from any more detailed description of his work. I certainly 
 need not justify myself for now and then leaving the choice open between 
 several possible conceptions of the method followed by the redactors. 
 
 Genesis. If ii. 4" was originally the superscription of i. i-ii. 3 (n^K 
 nnMn is elsewhere a superscription, and "n n'jNl cannot be anything else), we 
 must suppose that E transplanted it, and so made it into a colophon destined 
 to separate the second story of the creation from the fast. This is more pro- 
 bable than that it stood as a colophon in P^ itself. The contents of the two 
 narratives required that i, l^ii, 3 should come before ii. 4'' sqq. E left the 
 
 y % 
 
324 The Hexateuch. [§i6- 
 
 Becond story as he found it, except that he altered ' Yahwfe ' into ' Yahwfe 
 Elohlm' (ii, i^, 5, 7-9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22; iii. i, 8, 9, 13, 14, 21-23), 
 thereby giving it to be understood that the Creator of man, Yahwt, in this 
 second story, was no other than the Elohlm of i. i-ii. 3 (' Yahwfe, who is 
 Elohlm '). — The recasting which iv. has undergone preceded E in point of 
 time (§ 13, 11. 26) ; the latter took this chapter as he foimd it, but omitted the 
 continuation and conclusion of the genealogy of Seth, except the explanation 
 of Noah's name, which he inserted (v. 29) in the list he had taken from P (v.). 
 ■ — In vi.-ix. 17 K united the two stories of the flood as well as might be 
 into a single whole. This working up of the two stories now and then pro- 
 duced a mixed text, i. e. resulted in the introduction of the language and 
 characteristic ideas of one narrative into a verse taken from the other. Thus 
 we find i<i3 and P^'s characteristic enumeration of the different kinds of 
 animals in JE, vi. 7 (of Dillmann on the passage); so too n2p:i iDl in 
 vii. 3 ; and conversely JE's distinction between the clean and unclean 
 beasts is introduced into P^, in vii. 8 ; and again in vii. 23 the two docu- 
 ments may both be recognised, Cf. Budde, Bihl. Vrgesch., p. 248 sqq. 
 . — Then, after taking ix. 18-26 from JE and v. 28, 29 from P' (where 
 these verses immediately followed a, 1-17) he gives us x. which is again 
 compounded from the two dociraients ; then JE's account of the tower of Babel, 
 in xi. 1-9 is followed by the genealogy of Shem, down to Abram, taken from 
 P', in xi. 10-26. V. 27-32, as already shown (§ 6, u. i), is taken partly from 
 JE and partly from P^. With respect to xii., xiii. we have only to remark that 
 R incorpoi-ated the continuation of P^'s narrative as successfully as was possible 
 under the circumstances. He was obliged to pass over for the time the notice 
 of Lot's deliverance from the destruction of the cities of the plain, that 
 [314] immediately followed xiii. ii*", I2» in P^ ; but he introduced it later on (xix. 
 29). — At this point K departed from his ordinary method ; and in xiv. 
 he has given us a fragment of a post-exilian version of Abram's life, a 
 midrash, such as the Chronicler likewise had amongst his authorities (2 
 Chron. xxiv. 27). Ch. xiv. does not belong to JE, from which it differs in 
 point of form, besides being excluded by xviii. sq. But neither can it be taken 
 from P^, for it falls outside the scope of the work and is written in a 
 wholly different style. Moreover, it is of very recent date, however 
 archaic it may be in form. The names »ii and HWM (p. 2) are symbolical. 
 Mamre and Eshkdl, and presumably Aner also {v. 13, 24), are transformed 
 from places into men. The previous inhabitants of the Transjordanio dis- 
 trict {v. 5, 6) appear to have been adopted from Deut. ii. 10-12, 20. V. 
 18-20 is intended to glorify the priesthood of Jerusalem and to justify their 
 claiming tithes. Affinities with P^ are betrayed in the use of MJIDT (v. 12, 
 16, 21), ffio: (v. 21), in'2 'Tb' {v. 14). This last phenomenon might, 
 indeed, be explained on the supposition of B's having worked up some 
 more ancient fragment ; but this could only be allowed if the antiquity of 
 the passage were really established, which is far from being the case. Cf. 
 Noldeke, Untersuchungen, p. 156-172; Zeitschr. f. wissensh. Theol., 1870, p. 
 213 sqq. ; Th. Tijdschr.j v. 262 sq., and on the historical value of the story,. 
 
n-i2.] Redaction of Gen. i.-xxv. 321; 
 
 %. Meyer, GewA. des AUerthums, i. 165 sqq.— In xv. E has again gone to 
 work more drastically than usual, though in another way. He has taken 
 the chapter in the main from JE, but has allowed himself to introduce 
 certain modiiications, as we see by the formulte T'son ns' thJn (v. a- of 
 xsxv. II ; xM. 26; Ex. i. 5) ; bMi ii)13T {v. 14, in P^ passim) ; naiD rii'to 
 {v. 15, cf. XXV. 8) ; nor can the very peculiar enumeration of the inhabit- 
 ants of Canaan (v. 19-21) be from JE, who usually mentions six nations 
 (§ 13, n. 29) ; it is probably very late. It is even a question whether the 
 chapter has not undergone more than one recension ; for the four hundred 
 years' slavery {v. 13, cf. Ex. xii. 40) harmonises ill with the return in the 
 fourth generation (y. 16), which latter, however, holds its ground in other 
 sections of late origin likewise {Ex. vi. 13 sqq. ; see below), presumably 
 because it is the earlier conception of the two {Ex. i. 8 sqq. ; ii. i 'the 
 daughter of Levi,' Moses' mother). — At this point E drops into his former 
 method again. In xvi. he took up P'^'s account of Ishmael's birth (cf. n. 11) • 
 xvii. he took, without alteration, from the same work (mn', v. i, is simply a 
 clerical error of later date for D'n')«) ; xviii., xix., he adopted unaltered from 
 JE, except that he found room, in xix. 29, for P^ 's notice of Lot's deliverance • 
 xx.-xxii. he also took from JE, except that he inserted xsi. 1-5, in the main 
 fromP^, but not without certain small modifications (§ 6, n. 1). The adop- 
 tion of xxiii. from P^ necessitated the omission of JE's notice of Sarah's death. 
 In xxiv. (JE), V. 6'j might be taken as referring to this latter — which in 
 that case must have come just before it — were it not that the form of this 
 verse shows it to have been modified by another hand. In JE n'jnun stood 
 alone, and the second half of the verse (io>< — on^'l) was wanting, unless 
 with "Wellhauaen, xxi. 41S, we suppose that in JE Abraham died before 
 Eebecoa's arrival and that the second half of v. 6'j ran, vaN — nnon. This 
 latter hypothesis is supported by the fact that according to v. 36' Abraham 
 had already ' given all that he had ' to Isaac, before the departure of the servant. 
 On this supposition E omitted the mention of Abraham's death from JE and [315I 
 altered u. 67 — clumsily enough — to suit the change, while leaving 36^ un- 
 altered because he took it simply as a promise. His reason for all this was that 
 according to P^ 's chronology Abraham did not die until a considerable time 
 after Sarah's death and Isaac's marriage, so that his death could not be men- 
 tioned till after xxiv. And there accordingly it stands recorded, in the words 
 of P^, XXV. 7-11". But before he comes to this E inserts yet another notice of 
 Abraham's descendants in v. 1-6, without concerning himselfabout the chrono- 
 logical difficulties created by this arrangement of the stories. In v. 5 he uses 
 the formula adopted by JE in xxiv. 36'' ; but ». 6, in which concubines in the 
 plural are mentioned, must be taken direct from the document that E is here 
 following. — V. 7-11" is followed in v. ii"" by a note which presupposes xvi. 
 14 and must either have been drawn from JE or supplied by E with JE in 
 view. Int!. 12-17 we have P^ again ; «. 1 8 which joins on badly to !>. 17 
 is brought from elsewhere by E and connected with xvi. 12, the literal ful- 
 filment of which it displays. The heading of Isaac's history {v. 19, 20) is 
 from P^, but the sequel {v. 21-34), ^U except v. 26", was taken from JE; 
 
226 The Hexatench. [§i6> 
 
 because it contained details which were wanting in P^ Wellhausen (xxi. 
 418 n. i) is of opinion that R here allowed himself to transpose the nar- 
 ratives of JE, in which xxvi. 1-33 must originally have preceded the birth of 
 Esau and Jacob. This is highly probable. In that case E keeps to the order 
 of events given in P^, where the birth of the twins follows at once on the 
 account of the marriage; and in taking over xxv. 27-34 as weU as v. 21- 
 26* from JB he failed to notice that the Eebeoca of xxvi. has no grown 
 up sons. Eor the rest, he left xxvi. 1-33 unaltered, and tacked on P^'s 
 account of Esau's marriages to it, v. 34, 35, thus preparing the way for Jacob's 
 departure for Padan-aram (cf. xxviii. i sqq.). Then he allows the reason 
 for that departure given by JE to follow in xxvii. 1-45. This elaborate 
 narrative having threatened to obliterate the recollection of xxvi. 34 sq. 
 R reproduces the substance of the latter in xxvii. 46, and makes it the 
 direct preparation for the despatch of Jacob as told by P*, xxviii. 1-9. 
 Aa to Jacob's journey to Laban, his abode with him and his return to 
 Canaan, R gives the preference in xxviii. lo-xxxiii. 20 to the detailed 
 narrative of JB rather than to the very brief notice of P^, from which 
 latter he merely borrows xxxi. 1 8, though using terms of P* 's and possibly 
 following him in xxxiii. 18 also. F. 19, 20 is from JB again — including 'father 
 of Sheohem' in t). 19 if the saga of Dinah and Shechem followed at this 
 point in JE, otherwise the words must have been added by R (Dillmann, 
 Genesis, 351). — On xxxiv. see TA. Tijdschr., xiv. 257-281 and the writers 
 there cited, together with Dillmann's criticism, op. cit., p. 348-55. But 
 Dillmann, too, believes that R has been hard at work on this chapter, 
 with two accounts before him, viz. P^'s, from which he boiTowed v. i", 4, 
 
 6, 8-10, 15 (i4)-i7, 20-24, b"* tl"® conclusion of which he omitted (?), so 
 that we cannot tell how it ran, and J's, from which he took v. 2', 3, 5, 
 
 7, 11-13 (14), 19, 25> 26, 30, 31, adding v. 27-29 of his own and making the 
 consequential formal alterations in v. 5 and 13. But I cannot see any pos- 
 
 [316] sibility of separating these verses, 27-29, and the corresponding expressions 
 in r. 5, 13 from the first mentioned account, and I must therefore assign 
 V. I and 2 in part, 4, 5, 6, 8-10, 13 in part, 14 in part, 15-17, 20-24, 25 
 in part, 27-29 to R, i. e. to one of the later diaskeuastae of the Hexateuch. 
 We may leave it an open question whether the original account that un- 
 derlies all this had itself represented the circumcision of Sheohem (not of 
 all the citizens, as Dillmann has it), as a condition laid down in good 
 faith by the sons of Jacob. In any case we must regard these later ele- 
 ments as intended to rectify the older account from JE, which agreed with 
 xlix. 5-7 in its representation of the affair. R now brings in xxxv. 1-4, 
 which completely ignores the events at Sheohem, whence it is clear that 
 they were not mentioned in the document (E) from which the passage was 
 originally derived, but v. 5 contains a reference to xxxiv. in its present 
 form and must therefore be regarded as an addition by R, who then allows 
 JE to resume the thread in i/. 6-8. Here he inserted P^'s account of 
 Elohlm's appearance to Jacob, and the change of the latter's name to Israel, 
 V. 9-15, but not altogether without alteration. In v. 9 he added nlS with 
 
n.tz.] Redaction of Geh. xxv.-xlviii. 327 
 
 reference to xxviii. lo sqq. ; «. 14, though perhaps suggested by JE, of. § 10, 
 n. 17, 13 due m its present form to the hand of E; the rearing of a maff^ba 
 and the libation of oil agrees with xxviii. 18, while -yD2 n<b» -JDM serves at 
 any rate partially to connect this action with the legally established cultus, 
 of. mm. xxTiii. 7 and the frequent use of -[D: in P=. Since v. 13" is a mere 
 repetition we may suppose that in P^, v. 15 followed v. 13" immediately.— In 
 ■u. 16-21 the narrative of Jacob's journey is continued from JE; and v. 22% 
 designed to explain xlix. 3, 4, is also borrowed thence. On the other hand 
 V. 22»'-29 is taken by E fi-om P=, in spite of its being superfluous on some points 
 after the chapters xxix. sqq., and inconsistent with them in others. It is certainly 
 rather surprising that directly after giving such proof of his close attachment 
 to P«, E should assert his independence of that document in xxxvi., by not 
 only supplementing its notices of the Edomites, but in some cases superseding 
 them by others (§6,u. i). He must have had his reasons for this, butwecan 
 only guess what they were. Meanwhile, the amplification of Esau's genealogical 
 tree testifies to his love of 'documentary' material, which will soon be still 
 further illustrated.— The heading of the next section of Genesis, xxxvii. i, 2», 
 was supplied to E by P^, but JE fui-nished him with the greater part of the 
 substance of the section itself. Ch. xxxviii., inserted between xxxvii. and 
 xxxix. in obedience to chronological propriety, is taken entu-ely from JE. 
 In the remaining chapters (xxxvii., xxxix.-l.), of which Joseph is the hero, 
 P^ 's narrative is again welded into the more elaborate accounts of JE. 
 The method here followed by E is simple. He inserted the verses which 
 have been indicated in § 6, u. i, as belonging to P^, wherever they seemed 
 best to fit, and this was no hard task since P^ presented little more than 
 an abstract of JE, constructed on quite the same model. But E did not 
 confine himself to this. We have already seen, § 13, n. 7, that in Gen. xxxvii. 
 14 he probably substituted Hebron for some other place as the abode of 
 Jacob ; and perhaps Qen. xlvi. 1-5 was also modified in some degree by him 
 for similar reasons (of. ibid^. In accordance with the tradition (of Deut. i. [317] 
 22), P^ had given the numerical strength of Jacob and his clan, at the time 
 of the migration to Egypt, at seventy souls {TSx. i. 5) ; and E thought fit 
 to draw out the list of these seventy and insert it in the most suitable place 
 (xlvi. 8-27). In xlviii. 7, again, we have an addition from his hand, for this 
 verse, though borrowed from xxxv. 16, 19, betrays acquaintance with P^ 
 also, by the use of the word pDa; that is to say it has passed through 
 the hands of E. It could only be ascribed to P^ himself, to whom the 
 immediately preceding verses (3-6) are due, if it really belonged to them ; 
 but so far is this from being the case that we are rather tempted to 
 ask how E could have inserted it in so inapposite a place. See the 
 answer to this question in Budde's essay, 'Gen. xlviii. 7 unci die tenach- 
 harten Absehnitte,' (Zeitschr. f. alttest. Wissenschaft, iii. 56-86) in which 
 it is shown to be highly probable that Gen. xlix. (i», 28'') 29-33 followed 
 straight after xlviii. 3-6 in P^ ; that v. 31'' then ran nN'j-nN 'm^p noiEl 
 ^m-n«l; that E struck out ' and Eachel' because of Gen. xxxv. 16 sqq., and 
 replaced it by xlviii. 7 ; that originally E placed the passage from P^ thus 
 
328 The Hexateuch. [§i6. 
 
 modified (xlix. 28-32 ; xlviii. 7), together witli xlviii. 3-6 after xlviii, 
 1, 2 ; and finally that when Qen. xlix. 29-32 was subsequently placed 
 after the blessing of Jacob (t>. i''-28''), xlviii. 7 was left where it 
 was and thus came to occupy its present very singular position. There 
 is not the smallest objection to this supposition of a second redactor 
 modifying (and indeed essentially improving) the order of the verses first 
 determined on. On the contrary, it is highly probable that such rearrange- 
 ments were far from unusual. It is only in exceptional cases, however, 
 that the originally selected and subsequently deserted order has left a trace, 
 as in this case, which enables us, at least conjecturally, to restore it. See 
 also § 6, 11. I on Gen. xlvii. 7-1 1 in the LXX. and Masoretic text. — No 
 other additions by R can be detected with certainty in xxxvii., xxxix.-l. 
 Giesebrecht {ZeiUchrift f. alttest. Wissensch., i. 237, 266, u. 2) believes that 
 R's hand was at least as busy in these chapters as in xiv., xv., xxxiv. A priori 
 it is far from improbable that the fascinating story of Joseph was much 
 read and was not left intact in the process. It seemed to court ampli- 
 fication and embellishment. And as a fact xxxix., for example, and xl.-xlii, 
 are more diffuse than the documents from which they are drawn, as other- 
 wise known to us ; and this may well be explained as due to E's revision, 
 unless we are to suppose that he had been forestalled by the Judseau 
 editors of E and J (of. above, p. 146-147). Moreover, we now and 
 then strike upon expressions which do not occur elsewhere in the prse- 
 exilian writings, and on traces of later constructions ; see xxxvii. 2 (first, 
 ' with his brothers,' then 'with the sons of Eilhah and the sons of Zilpah ;' 
 and at the end nsi onn, in which nm [Jer. xx. 10 and later writers] excites 
 less suspicion than the absence of the article before nsT ; and indeed Joseph's 
 tale-telling is likely enough to be a touch subsequently added the better to 
 explain his brothers' hatred); xxxvii. 18 Cia: is a late word; and ';33nn 
 followed by PN is strange) ; xl. 13 ; xli. 13 (j3 in the sense of 'post' or 
 'place,' only in Dan. xi. 7, 20, 21, 38 besides); xl. 20 (niVii, which 
 Giesebrecht, p. 236, connects with the really late T^in, but since it is 
 a Hophal form, I cannot regard it as conclusive, though it is certainly 
 [318] strange); xli. 8 (the Niphal of dsd, Dan. ii. i, 3; Psalm Ixxvii. 5 [4]; 
 but Piel in Judges xiii. 25, so that I cannot allow any evidential value 
 to this word either) ; xli. 46, 47 (here the datum as to Joseph's age — 
 borrowed from P^l — coincides with the use alike of P^'s formula, 'Pha- 
 raoh, King of Egypt,' and of a'snp'i; cf. Lev. ii. 2; v. 12; vi. 8 [15]; 
 Num. V. 26); xlii. 5, 6 (needless repetition; e''jii5, cf. Eccles. vii. 19; viii. 
 8 ; X. 5 ; and also EzeJc. xvi. 30 ; and Dan. passim) ; xlii. 19 ; xliii. 14 
 (ins or inw with D3'nN, a, late construction; in the last-named passage 
 'TCJ bn, which only occurs in P= elsewhere, and which we must there- 
 fore presumably refer to R) ; xlv. 19-21" ; xlvi. 5 (derived by Dillmann in 
 Genesis, 3rd edit., p. 447, from P^, but in 4th edit., p. 413, rightly assigned to 
 JE. The pual of ms, v. 19, would indicate P" or E [cf. Ex. xxxiv. 34 ; Lev. 
 viii. 35 ; X. 13 ; Num. iii. i6 ; xxxvi. 2], but the text is corrupt and should 
 probably be amended from the LXX. and the Samaritan; so that it is only 
 
n-i2-] Redaction of Gen. xlviii.-£';tr. vi, 329 
 
 in p itosM and in 'S-')» at most that the influence of E, who was ac- 
 quainted with P= and imitated him, can be traced) ; xlv. 23 (pia, elsewhere 
 only in 2 Chron. xi. 23 and in the Arameean Dan. iv. 9, 18 [12, 21]) ; xlv. 
 26 (31 D, ranked with the later words by Giesebreoht, p. 237 ; see, how- 
 ever, Hah. i. 4). But these passages are, after all, very few in number, 
 relatively to the extent of the stories of Joseph, and we must therefore regard 
 Giesebrecht's representation of R's influence as much exaggerated. 
 
 Exodus . E begins by inserting the shorter parallel notices of P^ into the 
 narrative of JE. The first section he takes up, i. 1-7, proves that we were 
 right in denying the list in Qen. xlvi. 8-27 to P^ and assigning it to E. The 
 writer of i. 1-7 cannot be fresh from the enumeration of the seventy souls that 
 made up the house of Jacob. Ch. i. 13, 14 ; ii. 23''-25, which followed i. 1-7 in 
 P^ easily found their place in JE's narrative. But at this point E was com- 
 pelled to sacrifice a portion of P' to JE, from which he took iii. i-vi. 1. Ch. vi. 
 2 sqq. is not the direct continuation of ii. 23''-25, for Moses appears as already 
 known to the reader. And the form of ii. 25 also indicates some omission, for 
 something more must have followed after D'n';« »T1. Jiilicher (A. p. 29- 
 34), starting from the very just observation that vi. 13-25 was not originally 
 a part of the context in which it now stands (see below), goes on to surmise 
 that in P^ these genealogical data preceded vi. 2 sqq., to which they served as an 
 introduction; E could find no room for them anywhere in iii. i-vi. i and there- 
 fore placed them after vi. 2 sqq., which latter section, he thought, best fitted 
 on to the preceding narrative of JE. Against this we must urge that alike in 
 vi. 1 3 and inti. 20 sqq., 26, 27 Moses and Aaron appear as Yahwfe's emissaries, 
 whereas in vi. 2 sqq. Yahwfe reveals himself to Moses alone, and the call 
 of Aaron is not hinted at before vi. 1 2 and is not announced until vii. i sqq. 
 P^, therefore, cannot have assumed, before vi. 2 sqq., that the two brothers 
 were to be the joint deliverers of Israel, nor is the necessary preparation for 
 vi. 2 sqq. to be found anywhere in vi. 13-25. All this, however, is negative 
 and we have not yet discovered the true view to take of the last-named section. 
 Dillmann {Mx. 11. Lev., p. 53 sqq.) is the most recent advocate of its ascrip- 
 tion to P^ ; but he would make it follow vii. 1-5, when Moses and Aaron have 
 both been brought upon the stage. This hypothesis overcomes the objection 
 urged just now against Jiilicher ; but it leaves the extraordinary position of [3'9J 
 the passage unexplained. Dillmann makes E responsible for it, and says 
 that he had already supplemented P^'s text from J, in vi. 6 sqq. and was now un- 
 willing to let vii. 1-5 follow ' because by doing so he would have completely 
 mixed up two distinct accounts, and moreover jj. 13, regarded as the immediate 
 answer to v. 12'' (in the spirit of C [ = J]), would have been severed from it by 
 too great an interval.' ' He contented himself therefore with simply adding 
 D'nDto 'jTS ':«! from V. 30, and then appending the objection of Moses and 
 God's answer to it from A [ = P^] (vi. so^-vii. 5) together with his own intro- 
 duction, V. 28-30''; but at the same time he indicated by the words Tan Di'3, 
 V. 28, how he thought the two accounts might be combined without subjecting 
 Moses to the reproach of renewed faint-heartedness ; all which is extremely 
 characteristic of E's remarkable conscientiousness.' On this I would remark 
 
330 The Hexateuch. [§i6. 
 
 (i) that certain expressions do no doubt occur in v. 6 sqq. whicli are not else- 
 where used by P'' (viz. ni'iiiD, Vsrr, ■;« N'ln, T Nto:). But it does not 
 appear that they are borrowed from J, nor have we any reason to suppose that 
 this latter narrator, who makes Midian the scene of the call of Moses, records 
 any confirmation of that call in Egypt. The more natural supposition is that 
 in V. 6 sqq. E supplements P' from some other priestly account of the summons 
 of Mosea, related to Ezekiel (cf. § 15, n. 5). But (2), however this may be, 
 we can in no case allow with Dillmann that the amalgamation of two texts 
 in v. 6 sqq. accounts for the transposition of 11. 13-27. A dislike of mixing 
 up two accounts is a most extraordinary motive to allege, since that is 
 exactly what E was ex liijpothesi engaged in doing in v, 6 sqq. Moreover 
 this intermingling is not averted by the interposition of v. 1 3-2 7, inasmuch 
 as after all the chief substance of 11. 12 is repeated in v. 28-30, and it is there- 
 fore no more appropriate for vii. 1-5 to follow the latter than the former. 
 Finally (3), vi. 13-27, whether placed before or after vii. 1-5, remains an 
 extraordinary passage which fits but ill into the framework of P^- If it 
 belongs there at all we must suppose that the clans, at any rate, of the 
 other tribes as well as of Eeuben and Simeon were enumerated, and that 
 E, after including Levi, omitted the rest. But there is nothing to support 
 any such idea. Judging by the evidence before us we can come to no 
 other conclusion than that the section was written for the sake of 
 being inserted here, and therefore by E, though probably not by the 
 first redactor, but by one of the later diaskeuasts who was less scrupulous 
 in preserving the connection of the narrative, and therefore thought he had 
 done enough when he had repeated the main purport of v. 10-12 in v. 28-30. 
 The details he communicates in v. 14-25 are for the most part derived from 
 the Pentateuch itself, and in the remaining cases (the name of Aaron's 
 wife, V. 23, and of Eleazar's fathei--in-law, v. 25), they are taken from 
 Levitical genealogies, a number of which were in circulation after the captivity 
 (cf. I Chron. v. 27-vi. 38 [vi. 1-52], etc.). The (unhistorical) figures in u. 16, 
 18, 20 are anything but inconsistent with this account of the origin of the 
 passage. — The way in which the two texts are amalgamated in vii.-xi. may 
 easily be gathered from § 6, n. 6. Nothing is more natural than that here, 
 too, — as in Gere, vi.-viii. for example — the characteristic terms of one document 
 should here and there be imported by E into a text borrowed from the other. 
 Thus we have yTffi (P^) in vii. 28 [viii. 3] (JE) ; nuilJlD (P^) in x. 23 (JE) ; 
 [320] cf. Giesebreoht, op. cit., p. 190, 197, 226 sq. ; also nOJO in ix. 14, a word 
 never used by JE, but occurring in P^, Num. xiv. 37; xvii. 13-15 [xvi. 48- 
 50] ; XXV. 8 sq., 18, 19 [xxvi. i] ; xxxi. 16; elsewhere only in Ezek. xxiv. 
 16 ; Zech. xiv. 15. Equally natural, from E's standpoint, is the repeated 
 introduction of Aaron (dictated by P', who always makes him accompany 
 Moses), in those sections of JE in which this alteration had not already been 
 made ; for we must remember that JE, in contradistinction to his documents, had 
 already initiated this process ( § 8, n. 1 1 ), so that E had only to follow in his foot- 
 steps in cases where the amalgamation of JE with P* made the mention of 
 Aaron seem desirable (viii. 4, 8 [8, 12] ; ix, 12, where Dn\^N, made necessary 
 
n. 12.] Redaction of Ex. vi.-xvi. 331 
 
 by o. 8-11, is due to E). — In xii. the verses 21-27 must have been introduced 
 by K; for we have already seen (§ 9, u. 4) that they are later than Deutero- 
 nomy and are related to P^, but form no part of the latter, with which they do 
 not completely agree. H may have considered them the complement of v. i— 
 13 and inserted them here on that account. This implies that he found v. 14- 
 20 — and in that case we must add v. 43-50 also — included in P^ ; and even 
 those who think that these verses originally stood elsewhere ( § 6, n. 7) must 
 admit the likelihood that their present position had already been assigned them, 
 on account of their affinity with d. 1-13, before the priestly tora was pro- 
 claimed. K could therefore confine himself to interweaving his texts, and only 
 seems to have dealt more drastically with v. 40, 41. The representation of the 
 abode of Israel in Egypt as lasting four hundi'ed and thirty years (cf. Oen. xv. 
 13, four hundred years), does not agree with the exodus in the fourth gene- 
 ration which P^ assumes everywhere and which is expressly mentioned in Gen, 
 XV. 16 ; Ex. vi. 13 sqq. This estimate, therefore, is apparently due not to P^ 
 but to the diaskeuastse, though probably not to the first of them, but to some 
 later redactor. The LXX., Samaritan, and other witnesses prove that the text 
 of xii. 40, 41 was still undergoing so-called correction long after the captivity. 
 Cf. Dillmann, Mx. u,. Lev., p. 120 sqq., and in the Siizungsb. der K. Press. 
 Akad. d. Wissens. 1883, p. 339 sq. — In xiii.-xv. E followed his usual method 
 (cf. § 6, n. 8) ; D'TDin in xiii. 12, 15, and all xv. 19 (parallel to xiv. 16, 21, 
 22, 29) may be from his hand. — In xvi. he allowed himself more freedom. It 
 is certain that the basis of this chapter is taken entirely from P^, not even 
 partially from JE (though Dillmann, p. 164 sqq., still defends this latter 
 hypothesis) ; but the version in P^ was shorter than the present form. Cf. 
 Th. Tijdschr.fXiv. 281-302; Jiilicher, B, p. 279-294. No agreement has 
 yet been reached as to the extent of the additions, and it therefore remains 
 doubtful whether the original narrative preceded the Sinaitic legislation in P'', 
 as xvi. now does, or came after it. For v. 22-30 presupposes the sabbatical 
 commandment, and «. 32-34 the construction of the tabernacle, so that if these 
 verses come from P^ the fii-st fall of manna was there represented as subse- 
 quent to the legislation. But if that be so then the fact to which the elaborate 
 chronological statement of v. i refers must have disappeared, whereas v. 35 
 makes it highly probable that it is rightly attached to the fall of the manna. 
 This is an additional reason for regarding the whole of v. 22-30, together with 
 V. 4, 5 and V. 32-34, as due to the recension of P' ; to which source we must also 
 refer v. 31 and 36, on account of the singular position they occupy; we must 
 likewise admit that only one of the two dates in i). 35 can be original ; and 
 finally the almost hopeless confusion of v. 6-12, in as far as it is not due to 
 corruption of the text, indicates repeated recasting and supplementing. All 
 these additions cannot be from the same hand; v. 4, 5, 22-27, 28-30 belong [321] 
 to each other and are evidently intended to enforce the rigid observance of the 
 sabbath ; v. 32-34 stands alone and is meant to stimulate admiration of the 
 manna or of Yahwfe's faithful care for his people ; neither of these supplements 
 appears to be due to the first redactor ; the free treatment of xvi., therefore, 
 must be attributed to the later diaskeuastse who are included under the letter 
 
332 
 
 The Hexateiuh. [§i6; 
 
 E. — In xvii.-xxiv., as we have already seen (| 6, n. lo), only a few traits from 
 P^ have been incorporated in JE's narrative. The method pursued by E, in 
 this section, needs no explanation, with the single exception of xx. II, our 
 judgment on which must partly depend on our conception of E's work in 
 Ex.. XXV. sqq. In general terms, it is obvious that E has inserted P's whole 
 Sinaitio legislation (Z4I1. xxv.-xxxi. ; xExv.-Num. x. 28) into the previously 
 existing narrative of the events at Sinai, without, however, bringing the latter 
 into agreement with the widely divergent representations of the former. And 
 this is why the repeated command to march for Canaan {Ex. xxxii. 34 ; xxxiii. 
 I, cf Deut. X. 11) is not acted upon, in our present Pentateuch, until far later, 
 Num. X. 29. It is equally clear that E availed himself of Moses' stay of forty 
 days on Mount Sinai, JSx. xxiv. 12 sqq. ; xxxii. i sqq. to make Yahwfe convey 
 the precepts concerning the tabernacle and the priests to him, and that in 
 order to do so he has detached xxv.-xxxi. from the account of the carrying out 
 of the injunctions (in xxxv. sqq.) and has inserted it between xxiv. and xxxii. 
 Now nothing could be more natural than to suppose that in thus combining P 
 and JE, the redactor so modified one or the other of his documents, if not 
 both, as to remove their most flagrant contradictions. With respect to these 
 modifications, we may note (i) that the mention of ' the testimony,' i.e. the 
 Decalogue, in Ex. xxv. 16, 21 ; xl. 20 is not one of them. This designation 
 occurs some forty times in P' and certainly raises no diificulty in itself Nor 
 can we say that the thought of Moses receiv^ing ' the testimony' on Mount 
 Sinai and afterwards depositing it in the ark is foreign to P^. When this docu- 
 ment was drawn up JE and D had long given currency to the idea in question, 
 and there was no reason whatever to reject it. It is even a question whether 
 P^ did not include ' the testimony ' in his own law-book, and whether it was not 
 dropped out by R when he united JE and P. In that case E must have been 
 indebted to this priestly recension of the Decalogue for the reference to Gen. ii. 
 1-4" with which he enriched the text of JE {Ex. xx. 1 1 ) which had already been 
 intei-polated from D when he adopted it. If on the other hand Ex. xxv. 16,21; 
 xl. 20 are to be regarded as allusions to the 'testimony' which the reader was 
 supposed to know simply by tradition, then Ex. xx. 1 1 must be regarded as an ad- 
 dition by E himself. (2) From what has just been said about msn it follows 
 almost of necessity that the designation msn nin'j in .Er. xxxi. 18 ; xxxii. 15 ; 
 xxxiv. 29 is not due to JE but to E. If the handing over of ' the testimony ' 
 was mentioned in P^ (see under (l)), then this notice (now lost) may have had 
 a direct influence on the form of xxxi. 18 ; xxxii. 15 ; but if not, then E must 
 [322] have followed the linguistic usage of P^ in xxxi. 18, as he intertwined his two 
 documents, and must then have brought the mention of ' the tables ' in JE, 
 xxxii. 15, 16, into conformity with the other passage. — (3) The last of the 
 texts mentioned under (2), xxxiv. 29, belongs to a section («. 29-35) which 
 was pronounced in § 6, n. 14, for very sufficient reasons, not to belong to P^, 
 but which we cannot assign to JE either. The combination of the character- 
 istics of both documents (see above, § 6, n. 14) makes it very probable that 
 the passage was written by some one familiar with them both, i.e. by one of 
 the younger diaskeuastse. Its contents quite agree with this origin. The 
 
n. 12.] Ex. xvii. sqq., xxxii. sqq., Ntim. x. 29 sqq. 333 
 
 reflection of Yahwfe's glory from the face of Mosea is a corollary from the 
 tradition about Yahwfe's intercourse with his servant that has left no trace 
 in the other Pentateuchal narratives (such as Num. xiii. sq., zvi.), and the 
 later we place its origin the easier it is to explain it. — (4) Ex. xxxiii. 7- 
 II is borrowed from E, but not without omissions. 'The ark of Yahwfe' 
 goes along with the 6hel mo'^d and was doubtless mentioned by E, but it 
 has dropped out of the narrative that lies before us. Cf. Th. Tijdschr., xv. 
 204-212 and the writers cited there. If the ark still held its place in JE 
 when P^ was united with it then E must have struck it out in considera^ 
 tion otEx. XXV. 10-22 ; xxxvii. 1-9. But it is far from improbable that before 
 the combination of D with JE, or on occasion of that combination itself, the 
 ark had had to give way (cf. Th. Tijdschr., ibid.), and in that case E had no 
 need to modify Ex. xxxiii. — Nor had he any occasion to modify £x. xix-xxiv. 
 and xxxii.-xxxiv. elsewhere. His hand has indeed been traced in xix. (i 3^) 
 20-25 ; xxiv. I, ^, g-ii, where Aaron is accompanied by 'the priests ' and his 
 sons Nadab and Abihu, who are supposed to be taken from P^. But P^ knows 
 of no priests before Lev. viii,, and there is no reason to assert that Nadab and 
 Abihu were only mentioned in P^. We may therefore refer the verses in 
 question to JE. Nor was any modification made in P, so far as we can 
 discover, when it was taken up into DJE. No doubt Ex. xxv. sqq. and 
 XXXV. sqq. have been amplified by later elements and worked- over more 
 than once (§ 6, n. 12-15 > '5' ^' 33) > ^° doubt, too, this process was at any 
 rate in part later than the insertion of P into DJE ; but it stands in no causal 
 or consequential relation to this insertion and we need not re-disouss it here. 
 For the same reason we pass in silence over 
 
 Leviticus and Num. 1. i-x. 28, 
 and may go on at once to 
 
 Numbers x. 29 sqq. The connection between x. 29-32, 33-36; xi. 1-3, 4-35 
 leaves something to be desired (cf. Wellhausen, xxi. 567 sqq.) ; but all these 
 pericopes come from JE and were taken thence,perhaps with abbreviations, by E. 
 He does not seem to have ventured upon any great alterations. Gi esebrecht 
 (p. 232-235) refers v. 33 in its present form to the later diaskeue. The word nn 
 in the sense of ' to spy ' is no doubt a characteristic term of P^'s {Num. xiii., xiv. 
 twelve times, xv. 39) and does not appear elsewhere except in later writers 
 {Job xxxix. 8 ; Eccles. i. 13 ; ii. 3, 6 ; vii. 25 ; in Judges i. 23 ; i Kings x. 15 
 [2 Chron. ix. 14] the reading is uncertain). But an earlier writer might use 
 the verb in the sense of ' track out,' ' search' which is demanded here ; and that 
 JE actually did so use it is rendered highly probable by the parallel passage [323] 
 in Deut. i. 33 ; the ' three days' journey ' between the ark and the camp is 
 astonishing enough, but it must be explained as a false reading, derived from 
 '"■ 33") where the words are in their place. — In xi. 10, vnnsMJo'; (cf. Gen. 
 viii. 19 and P^ passim) is perhaps an addition of R's, but in other respects 
 both that chapter and xii. were incorporated without alteration, unless we are 
 to ascribe xii. i, which is singular enough in itself, and does not agree with 
 1). 2 sqq., to E or one of his successors. The despatch of the spies was recorded 
 in JE as well as in P^, so that E had to weld the two accounts together in, 
 
334 
 
 The Hexatetuh. [ § i^- 
 
 'Nxim. xiii., xiv. (cf. § 6, n. 37). The denunciation in xiv. 26-35 ^^^ ''^^ 
 statement in v. 36-38, both which are derived from P^, were expanded either 
 by E himaelf or some later diaskeuast: 'nn'TS (w. 27); the oath in t>. 28; 
 T NteJ, V. 30; ni:i, u. 33, and other such turns of expression are not in 
 P^'s sober vein ; but at the same time they are so completely amalgamated 
 with his conception of the event that they can only be regarded as later 
 embellishments of it. — Between xiii. sq. and xvi. E placed certain priestly 
 ordinances (xv.) which are disconnected alike with what precedes and with 
 what follows them, but which could be inserted here just as well as anywhere 
 else. In xvi.-sviii., on the other hand, we have another composite passage 
 before us (5 6, n. 37). The account of the revolt of Dathan and Abiram in 
 JE furnished an opportunity for inserting P^'s somewhat similar narrative of 
 the contest of Korah and his followers with the tribe of Levi, together with 
 the laws that belonged to it. It is not absolutely demonstrable, but it is 
 highly probable, that the character of P^'s narrative was left unaltered on 
 this occasion, and that, accordingly, Korah and his band were still repre- 
 sented by E, not as Levites, but as Israelites sprung from diflFerent 
 tribes. In that case it was a later diaskeuast who made Korah and hie 
 followers Levites and transformed their contest with Levi for a share in the 
 ritual into a contest with Aaron and his descendants for the priestly dignity. 
 He gave the narrative this new turn by describing Korah in v. I as ' the son 
 of Yi9har, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi,' by adding v. 8-1 1 and by 
 working over v. i6-i8. The section xvii. 1-5 [xvi. 36-40] was also added by 
 him, or at least in his spirit. For details cf. Tli, Tijdschi\, xii. 139-162. — In 
 contrast to xviii., which is closely connected with P^'s portion of xvi. sq., 
 and is moreover united to it by xvii. 27, 28 [12, 13] (from E's hand?), xix. 
 stands entirely alone, and we must therefore regard its insertion in the same 
 light as that of xv. — It appears from § 6, n. 42 that E must have taken great 
 liberties with JE and P^ when combining them in xx. 1-13, but it is hardly 
 possible accurately to separate his share in the narrative that lies before US 
 from the contributions of his two sources. On the other hand he took over 
 XX. 14-21 from JE and v. 22-29 *^°™ ^^ unaltered, and hence the version of 
 the events at Kadesh alluded to in v. 24 differs from the one communicated 
 in V. 1-13. Ch. xxi., likewise, is largely borrowed from JE, and its compo- 
 site character is to be explained by the divergencies of J and E and the 
 additions made by their redactor. But to E himself we must attribute the 
 [324] insertion oiv. 10, 11 (a portion of P^'s narrative, cf. xx. 22-29 1 ^''ii- 1), and 
 also of V. 4", which is a reference to xx. 22-29. This latter section was 
 inserted by E in the midst of JE's narratives, and was thus brought at any 
 rate into some kind of connection with them. The case is much the same 
 with xxii.-xxiv. ; only xxii. I is taken from P^ and inserted here, in its most 
 fitting place, and a few touches are added in s). 2 sqq. to make it square with 
 P^ In JE's narrative Balaam was summoned by Balak alone and in the 
 exclusive interests of Moab (of. Beat, xxiii. 5, 6 [4, 5] ; Josh. xxiv. 9, 10). 
 Balak's deliberation with ' the elders of Midian ' (ti. 4) and the despatch of 
 Midianite by the side of Moabite elders («, 7) conflict with this, and are 
 
n- 12.] Redaction of Num. xiii. sqq, 335 
 
 ignored in the sequel, from xxii. 8 to xxiv. We can therefore only regard 
 them as a timid attempt to connect the representation of JE with Num. xxxi. 
 8, i6; Josh. xiii. 31, 22. The question whether this attempt was made by 
 the first redactor or one of his successors cannot be answered with certainty. 
 The latter supposition is supported by the feebleness with which the design is 
 carried out, and perhaps also by the fact that the texts followed are amongst 
 the latest portions of P. Or is it possible that Balaam really appeared as the 
 seducer of Israel as early as in P^ itself ? We should know the answer to this 
 question if the two accounts from which rxv. is compiled had come down to us 
 in their original form. But the end of one (taken from JE, v. 1-5) and the 
 beginning of the other, taken from P", v. 6 sqq., have been omitted. The 
 result is a singular patchwork which leaves the answer to the above question 
 doubtful. We may, however, regard it as probable that E would not have 
 sacrificed P^'s Balaam altogether, and that, accordingly, he cannot have been 
 mentioned in the verses that preceded xxv. 6 ; whence it would follow that K 
 had no occasion to modify JE's representation by the additions in xxii. 4, 7, 
 In this case xxv. 16-18 must also be denied to E' and assigned to a later 
 diaskeuast ; for these verses are the announcement of xxxi. and are inseparable 
 from it, so that if they had been taken fi-om P^ and incorporated by K' it 
 would foUow that P" contained an account of Balaam, to which xxxi. 8, 16 
 would then refer. — On xxvi. cf. § 6, n. 41, where it is noted that 11. g-ii ia 
 not P'^'s, but is due to the redaction which joined the two component parts of 
 Num. xvi. together. But on closer examination we see that these three verses 
 are not from a single hand. The author of v. 9, 10 includes Dathan and 
 Abiram amongst Korah's band, and therefore cannot have held this latter and 
 his followers to have been Levites. His position is that of the first redactor 
 of Num. xvi. On the other hand the writer of v. 11 (' and the sous of Korah 
 perished not ') goes on the assumption that at any rate Korah himself was a 
 Levite, and he wishes to explain how it could be that after the captivity there 
 was still a Levitical clan of the B'ne Korah. Hence it follows either that he ia 
 the author of Num. xvi. i", 8-1 1, etc., or that he is dependent on him. In 
 other respects E made no change in xxvi., and he likewise took up xxvii. 
 l-li, 12-23, ^iid the laws of xxviii. sq. ; xxx. just as he found them in P; 
 whence it happens that in xxvii. 14 reference is made to a version of what 
 occurred at Kadesh, differing from the one we now possess in xx. 1-13, and 
 showing Moses and Aaron in a less favourable light. Of xxxi. (and xxv. 16- 
 18) we have already spoken; there can be no doubt at all as to the secondary 
 or tertiary character of the chapter, but the possibility still remains that it [325] 
 may have been incorporated with P^ before E accomplished his task, though 
 the single reference to the war against Midian in Josh. xiii. 21, 22 does not 
 favour the hypothesis. — To what has been said in § 6, n. 42 on Num. xxxii. I 
 have nothing essential to add. The distinction there drawn between the first 
 redactor of the story (E), who here combined JE and P' more intimately 
 than was his wont, and the younger diaskeuast who added v. 6-15 under the 
 influence of Nwm. xiii. sq. in its present form (and attached his interpolation 
 to what went before by recasting v. 5) is now seen to be in complete analogy 
 
236 The Hexateuch. [§i6- 
 
 with the phenomena observed elsewhere in the Hexateuch. Nnm. xxxiii. 
 1-49 ^as likewise been dealt with already, § 6, n. 43. The number of the 
 stations reaches forty-two, or if the starting-point, Eamses, be not reckoned, 
 forty-one. This figure comes so near to forty that the question forces itself 
 upon us whether the author of the list did not intend to give just that number 
 of names (of. the number forty in Num. xiii. 25 ; xiv. 33, 34). In that case 
 there must be a mistake in one name, perhaps in Yam Suph, that appears so 
 oddly in a. 10, 11 (cf Ex. xv. 22 and Kayser, op. cit., p. 98). This use of 
 the number forty would then be a fresh proof of the unhistorical character 
 and the later origin of the list. Its ascription to Moses {v. 2) is easily ex- 
 plained if K did not draw it up independently, but based it upon a record he 
 found ready to hia hand and filled it up from the accounts he had himself 
 adopted. — On xxxiii. 6o-xxxvi. consult § 6, n. 39, where it will be seen that 
 E may have taken all this from P^ without alteration. Should it be thought 
 unlikely that P^ imitated P''s linguistic usage (xxxiii. 52, 55, 56), we may 
 suppose that R himself expanded the introduction to the law regulating the 
 partition of the land (as he certainly did Ex. vi. 6-8 and other sections 
 already mentioned). 
 
 Deuteronomy. Nothing was more natural than that when E approached 
 the deuteronomic portion of DJE he should wish to bring it into chrono- 
 logical connection with his preceding narrative. This is effected by the date 
 in Beut. i. 3, 4, which attaches itself to Nam. xxxiii. 38 (of. xx. 22-29) ^^^ 
 agrees in point of form with P^ (§ 7, u. 15). Whether E's hand has also been, 
 busy with v. i, 2, it is impossible, in the present corrupt condition of these 
 verses, to determine. From u. 6 onwards, E simply takes D as he finds him. 
 It would not be surprising in itself if here and there he had interposed, 
 whether in the historical preface (i.-iv.), or in the hortatory introduction 
 (v.-xi.), or in the law-book itself (xii.-xxvi., xxviii.), or, finally, in the ap- 
 pended pieces (xxvii., xxix. sqq.) ; for there was certainly no lack of incon- 
 sistencies with what had gone before for him to remove. But it appears, as a 
 fact, that he systematically abstained from any such attempts. The different 
 sections of Deuteronomy have come down to us, speaking generally, in their 
 original form, and have not lost their characteristics in the process of union 
 with P. It is only a passage here and there that raises a doubt whether the 
 diaskeuastEe have left things just as they found them : — 
 
 a. Ch. iv. 1-40. The points of contact with P' are more numerous here 
 than in any other portion of Deuteronomy. V. 3 might be understood as an 
 allusion to the chastisement described in Num. xxv. 6 sqq. ; but the writer 
 [326] may have had in view the continuation of Num. xxv. 1-5, which we no longer 
 possess. In v. 16, besides boD which only occurs elsewhere in Ezeh. viii. 3, 
 5; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 7, 15, we have nipjl T3i, a formula of P^; in v. 17, 18 
 n'iin {Ex. xxv. 9, 40 ; Eze7c, three times ; Isaiah xliv. 13 ; 2 Kings xvi. 10 ; 
 Josh. xxii. 28; Chronicles; Psalms); in v. 17, fi:3 T1D2 (with double by 
 Gen. vii. 14; Eze)c. xvii. 23 ; F]33-')3 "2, Ezeh. xxxix. 4; xxxix. 17; "3 "2 
 only Psalm cxlviii. 10); in v. 18 toDi (passim in P^; the substantive iom 
 also in Eos. ii. 20 [i8] ; Hah. i. 14; I Kinffs v. 13 [iv. 33]); in v. 25, T>iin 
 
"• I2.J Redaction of Deuteronomy. 337 
 
 (passim in P") and ]\23i: (elsewhere only in Lev. xiii. ii ; xxvi. lo) ; in v. 
 32, D'HiN «Ta (as in Gen. i. i, etc.). Now as far as I can see the sup- 
 position that these verses have been interpolated, finds no support in their 
 relation to the rest of iv. 1-40. The phenomena we have noticed must 
 therefore be explained in some other way. Seat. i. 6-iv. 40 is exilian (§ 7, 
 n. 22 under (4) and § 14, n. 12), and there is nothing to prevent our 
 supposing that it issued from Ezekicl's circle. In this case its approxi- 
 mation to the language of P^ may rest upon the same grounds as the similar 
 phenomenon in Ezekiel himself, and need not involve any direct dependence 
 upon the priestly codex. Beut. xiv. 3-21 (§ 14, n. 5) is another proof that 
 the priestly style is older than the priestly law-book. 
 
 6. Ch. iv. 41-43 could only be assigned to E on proof of acquaintance with 
 Num. XXXV. 9-34. And no such proof is forthcoming (§ 7, n. 17, under d). 
 Nor is the use of ';nnn a proof of K's workmanship, for this verb, though 
 exceedingly common in P^, is also found in Deut. x. 8 ; xix. 2, 7 ; xxix. 20. 
 
 c. Nor can x. 6-9 be assigned, even in part, to K. With regard to v. 8, 9, 
 which is deuteronomic ■ alike in form and substance, this needs no further 
 proof; and v. 6, 7 is inseparable from the rest. Its contents, moreover, 
 conflict with P^ (cf. Num. xs. 22-29 '> ^^'^ ^^^° xxxiii. 38) whom E is in the 
 habit of following. Eleazar ben Aaron figured in the older tradition concerning 
 the Mosaic age {Josh. xxiv. 33), and we need not be surprised that it should 
 present him, like Aaron himself, in the character of a priest. Cf. § 7< ^- *>- 
 
 d. On the other hand xxvii. 11-13, ^^'^ '"• 14-26, most certainly spring 
 from the later diaskeue (cf. § 7, n. 22, under (2), (3), and § 14, u. 11), either 
 of DJE or of the whole Hexateuch. The latter alternative is supported, in 
 the case of xxvii. 14-26, by the affinity of this interpolation with Lev. xviii.- 
 XX., and also by the fact that it was still unknown to the author of Josh. viii. 
 32-35. See p. 338. 
 
 It is only towards the end of Deuteronomy that E resumes his usual 
 method. He inserts the command to ascend Mount Nebo (xxxii. 48-52) 
 immediately before the account of the death of Moses (xxxiv.) — for xxxiii. 
 seems to have been inserted after the final redaction. "We cannot determine 
 whether this command was repeated once more in P^ itself, after Num. xxvii. 
 12-14, "^ whether E composed Deut. xxxii. 48—52, in imitation of the other 
 passage ; but the former alternative is the more probable, as the passage in 
 Deuteronomy is too independent for a mere copy, and moreover in 1). 51 it 
 presupposes Num. xx. 1-13, not in its present, but in its original form. It 
 still remains possible that E may have added a little himself, and specifically 
 the words ' the mountain of Nebo, which is in the land of Moab over against 
 Jericho,' ■». 49. — In the account of the death of Moses, likewise, a few traits [327] 
 from P* have been added by E (xxxiv. i", 7"', 8, 9, cf. § 6, u. 44). 
 
 Joshua. In tracing E's labours through this book, we must distinguish 
 between the first half, i.-xii., and the second, xiii.-xxiv. 
 
 In i.-xii. E might well be content, in general, with simply adopting the 
 detailed narrative of DJE and weaving in a few details from P^ viz. iv. (13?) 
 
 19; 
 
338 The Hexateuch. [§i6- 
 
 necessitated some small harmonising changes. Cf. § 6, n. 48. Beyond^tliia, 
 he now and then permitted himself deliberately to modify the language of the 
 accounts he took up, or involuntarily substituted more familiar terms for those 
 he found in them. Some such touches are probably due not to the first 
 redactor, but to his successors. This furnishes the true explanation of iv. 
 16, nnsrr JITn (for " "«; see above, on Mx. xxxi. 18, etc.); v. 4-7 
 (cf. § 7, n. 26), where the verses are not unjustly characterised as deutero- 
 nomic ; but this does not necessarily imply that they were already embodied 
 in DJE, — and that too in their present form (cf. LXX.) — when the latter was 
 united to P ; for the interpolation may be of later origin, and probably is. 
 In that case it dates from a period when the influence of P^ {Gen. xvii.) had 
 established the idea that circumcision was instituted by Yahwfe as the sign of 
 the covenant, and was faithfully observed as such in Egypt. Note that 
 in V. 4, nnsin agrees with P^'s usage) ; vii. i, 18 (niQD, follows the usage 
 of P^) ; vii. 25 (p« D3"i, as in iev. xxiv. 23 ; d^t is extremely common in 
 P^, but only occurs once in Deuteronomy (xxi. 21) ; -u. 25> is pleonastic, too, 
 which is another reason for regarding it as a later addition) ; viii. 33 (cf. § 7, 
 n. 30; one of the revisers of the passage betrays his dependence upon P^ 
 by the expression miNS T33); x. 27 (mn DIM D!?S"1» for nin DVn T» 
 is a reminiscence of P^) ; a. 28, 30, 32, 35, 37; xi. II (and x. 39, where the 
 reading should be the same ; ilJD:n after P'^'s usage) ; xi. 21-231, cf. § 7, u. 26. 
 E's task in compiling xiii.-xxiv. was harder. What has been said in § 6, 
 II' 51-53 ; § 7> II- 27, may be supplemented by the following remarks. E had 
 before him an account by P^, in which the partition of the land was repre- 
 sented as a single act, which took place at Shiloh. It was impossible to 
 follow this account without completely abandoning that of DJE, and to this 
 he could not make up his mind. He therefore accepted the version of DJE 
 so far as to divide the act of taking possession of Canaan into two stages, the 
 first referring to Judah and Joseph, and the other to the seven remaining 
 tribes. Accordingly he went to work as follows. He left the introduction 
 (xiii. 1-7) in the form into which D had brought it ; following it up by a 
 description of the Transjordanic district compiled from DJE and P^, xiii. 9- 
 33. V. 2\^, 22, — the connection of which with what precedes is unsatis- 
 factory, both grammatically and logically — is a later addition, after JVum. 
 xxxi. 8. The ' kings ' of Midian E changes to • princes,' so that they may 
 rank amongst the jn<D '3'D3 and be included in their defeat. He omits 
 the heading of P^'s introduction to the partition of the land (=xviii. i), or 
 rather postpones it, in order that the first act of the settlement of the tribes 
 may be played through in Gilgal, in accordance with the conception of DJE. 
 [328] The rest of P="s introduction he then takes up, xiv. 1-5, and follows on with 
 a section from DJE on the heritage assigned to Caleb, xiv. 6-15, in which 
 either E or some later reader has inserted, 'and concerning you,' v. 6, under 
 the influence of P', Num. xiii. sq. The account of Judah's and Joseph's 
 heritage that now follows, xv.-xvii., is a combination of the two documents ; 
 but, as already shown, it is not always possible to identify them severally. 
 P' is indicated by nnn in xv. i, 20, 21 ; xvi. 8 ; xvii. i ; while xv. 13-19 
 
n. I2.J Redaction of Joshua. 
 
 339 
 
 (oontaining an allusion to xiv. 6-15), 63 ; xvi. 9, lo ; xvii. 11-13, 14-18 are 
 certainly not taken from P^. K has been less successful here than elsewhere 
 in welding the two accounts together — at least, if we may judge by the text 
 as we now have it. Ch. xvi. 4 (P^), in which Manasseh precedes Ephraim, 
 should have been followed at once by the description of Manasseh'a heritage, 
 which, according to xvii. i% did actually occupy the first place in P^- But in 
 xvi. 5-8, it is Ephraim's territory that is dealt with. Can this really be the 
 original order ? In xvii. i sqq. there is likewise so much confusion that one 
 cannot but ask whether the text is sound. If 0. \° is regarded as a 
 parenthesis, then ' for the tribe of Manasseh' {v. i") is limited by 'for the 
 rest of the sons of Manasseh' {v. 3"), who are then enumerated in v. ■!", to the 
 number of six. In form v. 2 strikes us as belonging to P^, like i", but on 
 the other hand it confiicts with v. 3, 4, which is unquestionably from P^ 
 (of. Num. xxvii. i-ii). 7. 5, 6, is also diflScult. The number of ten 
 'portions' agrees with v. 3, 4, if the five daughters of (Jelopheohad received one 
 portion each and were thus placed on an equality with the brothers of their 
 grandfather Hepher, who were also five in number (v. 2) and would thus 
 make up the ten. But no motive is assigned for any such equal sharing, nor 
 is there any mention elsewhere in P^'s partition of the land of ' portions ' 
 being assigned to the several mishphachSth. Y. 6, in which ' the rest of the 
 sons of Manasseh ' balances Machir, who stands alone in v. i*, is also peculiar 
 and is perhaps best explained as a gloss on v. c,. These diificulties prevent 
 our pronouncing a definitive judgment upon R's work in xvi., xvii. It may 
 be that Wellhausen (xxi. 599) is right in detecting the hand of ' a redactor 
 hostDe to the Samaritans,' who is not to be identified with E'. — We have 
 already seen that at this point E took up xviii. i (P^) and why he did so. 
 For the rest the introduction, xviii. 3-10, is taken from DJE (p. 255) ; and the 
 description of the territory of the seven tribes, xviii. ii-xix. 51, is compiled 
 from the two documents (§ 6, n. 50). Ch. xx. and xxi. i-40 [42] come from 
 P^; V. 41-43 [43-45] on the other hand is a deuteronomic colophon that 
 followed xix. in DJE. The continuation of these three verses is found in 
 xxii. 1-6. In taking over this passage, R here and there modified the 
 language (u. i nco, v. 4 nin«, as in v. 9, 19). The whole of v. 7, 8, must 
 be assigned to him, or rather to a later diaskeuast. V. 7" is a very superfluous 
 renunder, which was probably added still later than v. 7^ 8 itself, for the 
 suffixes in the latter refer not to half or all Manasseh, but to the Trans- 
 jordanic tribes mentioned in v. 1-6, and the passage is intended to remove the 
 appearance of Joshua's having blessed these tribes, but sent them away 
 empty handed. Note that the word D>D3: seems to be very late (only [329] 
 occun-ing in 2 Chron. i. 1 1, 12 ; Scdes. v. 18 £19] ; vi. 2). The narrative that 
 follows next, v. 9-34, is wrongly regarded as composite by Knob el {Num., 
 Deut, Josh., p. 475 sqq.) and Kayser (op. cit., p. 106 sqq.), and may be 
 best compared with the recasting of Gen. xxxiv. (see above, p. 326) and 
 of Ex. xvi. (p. 331), and with Num. xxxi. and xxxii. 6-15. The writer 
 is dependent on P^, whose language he imitates, but not servilely. Cf. in« 
 Niphal, V. 9, 19; no verb and substantive, v. 19 (read mnn-bx I3ni><l): 
 
 Z 2, 
 
340 
 
 The Hexateuch. [§i6. 
 
 22, 29; n'Jin «. 28, etc., and see § 6, n. 53. His point of departure ia 
 V. 1-6, which belongs to DJE, and therefore, though one of P^'s epigoni, he 
 must be reckoned amongst the later diaskeuastse of the Hexateuch. — The close 
 of Joshua's history, xxiii., xxiv., is taken by E unaltered from DJE. There 
 must have been an account of Joshua's death in V likewise, but the more 
 elaborate statements of the older documents made it unnecessary to insert it, 
 — unless indeed xxiv. 29" is derived from it. On xxiv. 33, cf. § 6, u. 51. 
 The treatment of xxiv. 28-31, as a parallel to Judges ii. 6-9, and of the other 
 parallel passages in Joshua and Judges {Josh. xv. i3-i9,=jMrf. i. 10-15; 
 Josh. XV. 6$ = Jud. i. 21 ; Josh. xvi. lo^Jud. i. 29; Josh. xvii. 12 sq. = Jud. 
 i. 27 sq. ; Josh. xix. 4'j = Jud. xvii. sq.) belongs rather to the criticism of 
 Judges than of Joshua. 
 
 The redaction of the Hexateuch further includes the division 
 of the Tora into five books and its separation from the book 
 of Joshua. 
 
 As to the latter point, it was no part of the original 
 intention either of the prophetic narrators, or of the Deutero- 
 nomist, or of the priestly law-giver, to make the settlement 
 of Israel in Canaan the subject of an independent work. On 
 the contrary, they looked upon Joshua's activity as inseparable 
 from that of Moses, and regarded an account of it as the 
 indispensable complement of the narratives of the patriarchs, 
 the deliverance from Egypt and the legislation. But yet the 
 character of Judaism involved the ultimate separation of the 
 Tora if not from the history of the preceding and accom- 
 panying events with which it was quite inseparably bound 
 up-', at any rate from that of the succeeding ages, beginning 
 even with the conquest and partition of the land. The re- 
 daction therefore severed what had previously been regarded 
 as a single whole, and what we too have been perfectly 
 justified in handling as such. Whether the redactor of Joshua 
 is the same as the redactor of the Pentateuch may be left 
 undecided. If they were two then they were kindred spirits 
 and worked on one and the same method. And on the other 
 hand, even if the Redactor of the Tora included the book of 
 [330] Joshua in his labours, he nevertheless distinguished between 
 
n. 13, 14.J The Pentateuch and the Book ofjoshia. 341 
 
 these two works and it was part of his plan to separate 
 them 1*. 
 
 The dimensions given to the Tora by the combination of 
 DJE and P must suggest the desirability of breaking it up. 
 The Redactor took this view, and was easily led to five 
 as the proper number of books. Two of these, the first 
 and the last, fixed themselves. The central portion might 
 equally well have been split into two {Tix. i. i-Nmn. x. 10 
 and Num. x. i i-xxxvi.), bat in that case the two parts would 
 have been of very unequal length, and both alike would have 
 diflfered notably in this respect from Genesis and Deuteronomy. 
 Probably this was one of the considerations which induced 
 the Redactor to prefer a three-fold division of the central 
 portion of his work, and he proceeded to execute it in a 
 perfectly satisfactory manner. He marked the end of Leviticus 
 by a colophon and that of Numiers by another, but had no 
 need to accentuate the close of the other books ■'^ 
 
 '^ Attention has been called to this close connection in § i and subsequently 
 passim. It is not kept sufficiently in view by tbose who regard the present 
 existence of the separate Tora as a proof that it was never united with Joshua 
 Sit all, and who therefore object to the two being included under the single name 
 of 'the Hexateuch.' It is true that the work never existed as a single whole 
 split up into six parts, and to that extent the name in question is not 
 strictly accurate. But it is equally true that the legislation in all its stages — 
 and in the highest degree in the iirst and third — was combined with history 
 and in a way subordinated to it. Purely legislative writings did not exist, 
 and all the documents of the Pentateuch, though in different degrees, were 
 historico-legislative. The continuation of the history till after the settlement 
 in Canaan is in perfect keeping with this character ; and an attempt to change 
 that character and draw up a purely legislative work would have involved the 
 mutilation of the documents. But when the Tora came to be regarded as the 
 divine revelation, in the proper sense, it was possible to break off at the death 
 of the law-giver, where legislation and history ceased to be absolutely in- 
 separable, and to make an independent work of the rest of the history. 
 
 "We are speaking here, of course, of the first redactor. It lies in the 
 nature of the case that the later diaskeuastae did not cover the whole ground 
 and in some cases only dealt with a single passage. — Now, that this first 
 redactor separated the Tora from Joshua may be inferred at the outset, at 
 any rate with high probability, from his date ; for Judaism was established 
 
342 Pentateiuh and Book of Joshua. [§ i6. n. 14, 15. 
 
 [331] and had already assigned its special place and ita peculiar authority to 
 the Tora, when he undertook his task. Confirmatory eTidence is borne by 
 the differences between the Tora and the book of Joshua in details which 
 must be referred to the redaction. On the so-called archaisms of the Penta- 
 teuch, cf. n. 7, where we have seen that E is presumably not responsible 
 for these peculiar forms. The same may be said of other orthographical 
 distinctions: im' ia defective (inT') in the Pentateuch, and fall (in'T<) in 
 Joshua; for SO© {Gen. xxix. 13, etc.) and N3p {Ex. xx. 5 ; xxxiv. 14) we read 
 in Joshua snijj (vi. 27; ix. 9) and Nl3p (xxiv. 19); and the first distinc- 
 tion, at any rate, is not accidental but must be attributed to the wish on 
 the part of the punctuators to separate the Tora irom the other sacred 
 books. But it is more significant that ' Yahwfe, the god of Israel,' only 
 occurs twice in the Pentateuch {Ex. v. i ; xxxii. 27), and fourteen times 
 in Joshua {vii. 13, 19, 20; viii. 30; ix. 18, 19; x. 40, 42; xiii. 14, 33; 
 xiv. 14 ; xxii. 24 ; xxiv. 2, 23) ; for two of these passages in Joshua (ix. 18, 19) 
 are taken from P^, whence it follows that it was R, and not JE or D, who 
 introduced this formula, or at any rate applied it so freely, — and yet it is only 
 in Joshua, not in the Tora, that he did so. Finally, the redaction of Joshua 
 seems to allow itself greater freedom than that of the Tora. Such pheno- 
 mena as we have discovered in Josh, xiii., svi. sq., xviii., xxii. 7 sq., 9 sqq., 
 do not occur in the Pentateuch, or at any rate not quite in the same way. It 
 is therefore very possible that R is in some degree at least responsible for 
 the confusion which reigns in certain narratives in the first portion of Joshua, 
 viz. iii. sq., vi., viii. 30-35, xi. 21-23. This cannot be actually proved, for, 
 as we have seen, the traces of P's linguistic peculiarities are few, and perhaps 
 the copyists may be responsible for the relative corruption of the language. 
 The facts I have pointed out, however, tend to support on every side the 
 theory of a distinction between the redaction of the Tora and that of Joshua, 
 though only in the very limited sense explained above. 
 
 '^ Cf. § I, from which the explanation of the statements in the text can easily 
 be drawn. The happy choice of resting-places strikes us at once. Ex. i. opens 
 a veritably new division, viz. the history of the people of Israel. The com- 
 pletion of the sanctuary, Ex. xI,, naturally closes the second book. The laws 
 of Lev. i. sqq. divide themselves clearly from what precedes, I^um. i. i is the 
 first chronological statement after Ex. xl. 1 7 and at the same time the heading: 
 of a new book. Finally, the line between Num. xxxvi. and Deut. 1. is obvious 
 at a glance. Of the two colophons, the second. Num. xxxvi. 13, com- 
 pletely answers to our expectation: im' pT ^s anio niaisn, as in xxii. i ; 
 xxvi. 3, 63; xxxiii. 50; xxxv. I, all in P whence 'the commandments and 
 ordinances' referred to were taken. On the other hand the last words of Lev. 
 xxvii. 34, ' on Mount Sinai ' surprise us, for we want ' in the desert of Sinai,' 
 or more specifically ' in the ohel mo'^d (pitched in the desert) ' {ct.Lev. i. i). 
 Obviously the writer of Lev. xxvii. 34 is following Lev. xxvi. 46 (cf. xxv. i), 
 where 'Mount Sinai' is mentioned by P' as the place where Yahwfe made 
 his will known to Moses ; and he applies this statement to Lev. xxvii. also, 
 though this latter chapter was not taken from P^. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Op Principal Passages in the Hexatetich dealt with 
 IN THIS Volume. 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 i. sqq 66 sqq., 142 sqq. 
 
 i-ii. 4a..., 306, 323. 
 
 ii. 4b-iii 334, 324. 
 
 iv 234, 242, 252. 
 
 T. 29 324. 
 
 vi. 1-4 242. 
 
 6-ix. 27 142 Bq., 252, 324. 
 
 ix. 20-27 234, 238 sq., 242. 
 
 X 352- 
 
 xi. 1-9 242. 
 
 27-32 67,324. 
 
 xii. 10-20 143, 234 sq., 252. 
 
 xiv 143, 324- 
 
 XV 325- 
 
 xvi. I sqq 234- 
 
 xviii. 17 sqq 246. 
 
 XX 235. 
 
 xxi. 9sqq 234. 
 
 22 sqq 235. 
 
 xxii 244, 254. 
 
 xxiv. 36 b, 67 325- 
 
 XXV. 1-6 325- 
 
 xxvi. 1-5 259. 
 
 6-12 234sq. 
 
 25 b sqq 235. 
 
 xxviii. 10-22 147, 243, 254. 
 
 XXX. i4Bqq 235. 
 
 28sqq 235. 
 
 xxxii. 25-33 145. 249 sq- 
 
 xxxiii. 18-20 I45' 
 
 xxxiv., XXXV. 5 326. 
 
 XXXV. 14 185, 228, 326 sq. 
 
 xxxvii. 14 231. 
 
 xxxviii 232, 242. 
 
 xxxixsqq 327 ^q- 
 
 xxxix 234. 
 
 xlvi. 1-5 231. 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 xlvi. 8-27 327 sqq. 
 
 xlvii. 7-1 1 68. 
 
 xlviii. 7 68, 327. 
 
 xlix. 1-27 240. 
 
 28-32 328. 
 
 Exodus. 
 i. sqq 69 sqq., 149 sqq., 254, 
 
 329 sqq- 
 
 iii. I sqq 244. 
 
 vi. 13-25 71, 329- 
 
 xii. 21-27 168, 331. 
 
 40, 41 331- 
 
 xiii. 1-16 168. 
 
 XV. 1-18 239. 
 
 26 259. 
 
 xvi 331- 
 
 xvii. 14 14- 
 
 xix.-xxiv 152,259. 
 
 XX. 1-17 166 sq., 244. 
 
 II 332. 
 
 22-xxiii 50 sq., 167, 245. 
 
 xxiii. 20-33 261. 
 
 xxv.-xxxi 73 sqq. 
 
 XXV. 16, and parallel passages ... 332. 
 
 xxix. 38-42 310. 
 
 XXX. 11-16 3iosq- 
 
 xxxii.-xxxiv 153, 247, 251. 
 
 xxxii. I sqq 244, 347. 
 
 xxxiv. 10-26 158, 247, 261. 
 
 29-35 332- 
 
 xxxv.-xl 76 sqq. 
 
 Leviticus. 
 
 i. sqq 81 sqq 
 
 vi. 1-6 [8-13] 310 
 
 ;ji 86, 266 
 
 xvi." 86,312 
 
 1 xvii.-xxvi 87 sqq., 275 sqq. 
 
344 Index of Principal Passages, &c. 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 xvii 90, 266, 283 
 
 xxiii 90 sq., 281 sq 
 
 18-20 99, 309 
 
 XXV. 8-55 298, 
 
 xxvi. 3-46 88, 283, 
 
 xxvii. 32, 33 311 
 
 34 342 
 
 liiumhers. 
 
 i. sqq 91 sqq 
 
 V. 5-10 3°9 
 
 viii. 23-26 308 
 
 X. 29-32 242 sq, 
 
 33-36 242, 
 
 xi. 4-35 158, 247 sq., 253 
 
 xii 247 sq 
 
 xiv. 11-25 247 
 
 26-38 95, 334 
 
 XV 96 
 
 22-31 3°9 
 
 xvi.,xvii 96 sq., 334. 
 
 xviii. 18 30 
 
 sx. 1-13 100, 164 
 
 xxi.4b-9 246 
 
 12-20 154 
 
 21-31 236 
 
 32-35 253 
 
 xxii. 2-xxiv....i54sq., 235 sq., 239 sq. 
 246, 334 sq 
 
 xxiv. 20-24 ^* 239 
 
 XXV. 16-18 335 
 
 xxvi. 9-1 1 336 
 
 xxviii., xxix 309 
 
 xxviii. 1-8 310 
 
 27-30 99> 309 
 
 xxxi 99, 298 
 
 :«;sxii loi, 253, 264. 
 
 xxxiii. 1-49 102, 336 
 
 XXXV. 1-8 296, 
 
 9-34 292,2 
 
 Deuteronomy. 
 
 i-iv 117 sqq. 
 
 i- 1-5 120, 336. 
 
 iii. 13-16 47. 
 
 iv. i-40 336. 
 
 iv. 41-43 122 sq. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 v-xi "2 sqq. 
 
 V. 6-18 [6-21] 166 sq, 
 
 X. 6-9 II4> 172, 337 
 
 xii.-xxvi i°7 sqq.- 
 
 266 
 
 264, 
 
 xvi. 1-17 281 
 
 xvii. 3 218, 
 
 8-13 21,217, 
 
 14-20 117, 217 
 
 xviii. I sqq 28, 39, 294, 
 
 XX 264, 
 
 XIV. 1-2 1, 
 
 XV. 4, 5 . 
 
 xxii. 5, 9-1 1 
 
 268, 
 
 xxiii. 2-9 121, 21 
 
 XXV. 5-10 2' 
 
 xxvii.-xxxiv 133 sqq. 
 
 xxvii. 1-8 128 
 
 9, 10 126 
 
 11-13 128, 337 
 
 14-26 128, 337 
 
 xxxi. 9-13 I27sq, 
 
 14-23 155. 256 sq 
 
 xxxii. 1-43 125, 266sq, 
 
 xxxiii 240. 
 
 Jo&hiia. 
 i.-xii 103 sqq., 130 sqq., 168 sq., 
 
 337 sq' 
 
 iv. 13 104, 
 
 V. 2-9 133 
 
 10-12 104. 
 
 13-15 2 
 
 vi. 26 240, 
 
 viii. 30-36 133, 136, 271 
 
 ix. 15 b, 1 7 sqq 104, 
 
 23. 27 41 
 
 xiii- sqq 105 sqq., 134 sqq., 159; 
 
 337 sqq 
 
 I sqq 134 sq 
 
 xvi., xvii. 1-13 106, 339 
 
 xviii. 1 106, 
 
 2-10 255 
 
 ^^ 131 
 
 ^"- i-8 136, 339' 
 
 9-34 107, 339 sq 
 
 ^i'^ 136, 165 sq 
 
 32 157 
 
wmMmm^ 
 
 wm. 
 
 ^wmfm^^y, 
 
 '>/4mi/r 
 
 Y, >'.