t. .- ¦¦¦

-n0
^"¦^sm
/Jii:-::
.^nl
YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

CLAHK^S

FOREIGN

THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.

VOLUME XVIII.

?tatJetn{(6'B Introirttctton to ilie ^tnum^.

EDmBUKGH :
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
LONDON : SEELEY AND CO. ; WARD AND CO. ; JACKSON AND WALFORD.
DUBLIN : JOHN ROBERTSON.  NEW YORK : WILEY AND PUTNAM.
PHILADELPHIA : J. W. MOORE.

MDCCCL.

HISTORICO-CRITICAL
INTRODUCTION TO /THE i PENTATEUCH^

BY H. A. CH. HAVERNICK, /
DR. AND PB0FE8S0B OF THEOLOGY irf'THE UHIVEBSITY CfF KONIGSBEBG.

TBAN8LATED BY
ALEXANDEE THOMSON, A.M.,
PB0FE8BOB OF BIBLICAL LITEBATUBE, GLASGOW THEOLOGICAL ACADEMY.

EDINBUKGH :
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
LONDON : HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO. ; SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, & CO. ;
SEELEY & CO. ; WARD & CO. ; JACKSON & WALFORD.
DUBLIN : JOHN ROBERTSON.

MDCCCL.

EREATA.
P. 3, 1. 5. — For nation read notion,
P. 59, bottom. — Transpose the position and numbers of the notes.
N,B, — The numbering of the sections is different from the original, where the num
bering is continued from the previous part of the work. Hence our § 1 is § 105 in the
German work. By adding 104, therefore, the number of any section may be ascertained
according to the original.

THE TRANSLATOE'S PEEFACE.

The work, of which the present volume is a translation, is a portion
of a larger work, entitled " Handhuch der historisch-kritischen
Einleitung in das Alte Testament," a Manual of Historioo-critical
Introduction to the Old Testament ; and forms the first part of the
Special Introduction.^ Tt is the puhlisher's intention to hring out,
in the latter part of this year, a translation of that division of the
ahove work which relates to the General Introduction to the Old
Testament, including in one volume the discussion of such topics
as the formation of the Oanon of the Old Testament, the history
of the Hebrew Language, the Ancient Versions, &c. This, it is
hoped, will he found extremely serviceable for use as a class-book
in our Theological Institutions. The translation, which will he
executed by Dr W. L. Alexander of Edinburgh, will be accom
panied by an introductory notice of the merits of Haveenick as a
critic and commentator, which relieves the present translator of the
task of attempting to do very imperfectly what will be satisfactorily
performed by an abler hand.
With respect to the present work, the translator would only add
that, while it is occupied almost exclusively with a discussion ofthe
question, so much debated of late in Germany, as to the genuine
ness of the Pentateuch — treating both of the Mosaic authorship and
of the historical credibility of the work, points that are essentially
connected ; it would be wrong to regard its publication as superseded
by the previous appearance of Hengstenberg's valuable Disserta
tions on the same subject. It is at once a more complete and me
thodical, and also a more compact work, answering to ils title of a
Manual, The principles also on which it is based, and of which it
presents a thorough and masterly exposition in its treatment of the
different sections ofthe Pentateuch as they come under review, are, in
the translator's opinion, ofthe highest importance, such as alone will
lead to a satisfactory and consistent apprehension of the peculiar
character, spirit, and bearing ofthe Old Testament writings. They
will prove the surest antidote to the rationalistic and infidel spirit,
which is now seeking to diffuse itself amongst the educated and
leflecting classes in this country. We see it here encountered, on
its native soil, by an able antagonist, and foiled with the right
weapons. ^ THE TRANSLATOR.
Glasgow, April 29. 1850.
* Published at Erlangen, 1837, being only the year after the appearance of the first
volume of Hengstenberg's Dissertations on the Pentateuch, which aocoucta for our
work containing no reference to the latter.

EEMAEKS.

P. 20, 1. 18. " Maphariono." This is the Syriac form ofthe word
which Assemani gives in his Latin version as Maphriarms. Mis note
on the passage referred to, explanatory of the title, is as. foUows :—
" Dignitas apud Jacobitas Patriarchali inferior, Metropolitica major :
Primatem recte vertas. Orienti prsesidet, hoc est, Chaldse* et Assy-
riae, necnon extremis Mesopotamisepartibus, sub Antiocheni Jucobitarum
Patriarchs potestate." It was therefore a dignity peculiar to the
Syrian Monophysites or Nestorians, who were called Jacobites fi-om
Jacobus Baradseus.
P. 118, 1. 2. " The moraUty of t'he advocates of a carnal outward
reformation." In the original it stands, " die Moral der Rehabilita-
toren des Fleisches," which it would have been better to render, "the
morality of the rehabilitators of the flesh," or " the Morality of the St
Simonians," for the term is descriptive of that school. It may be better
understood by the following passage, from a paper of Joseph Mazzini's
in the People's Journal, vol. ii. p. 363, in which he traces a connec
tion between the opinions of Bentham, and the views of the school re
ferred to.
" Like Bentham, the writers of the Simonian Producteur concen
trated their labours chiefly on material interests ; like Bentham also,
their gait, their first tendencies were rather irreligious and devoid of
ideality. When at a later period these changed, utility or produc
tion did not the less remain the dominant idea. Their religion was
the religion of enjoyment ; they desired less to raise earth towards
heaven, than to bring heaven down to eai'th ; and there, in fact,
their dogma ended. Everywhere, in what they somewhat coarsely
called the rehabilitation of the flesh, in their appreciation of art
and artists, in their theories of woman and love, in their valua
tion of accomplished works not by the purity of the motives or
the inward sufferings of the agent, but only by the degree of utihty
produced by them, the idea that proceeded from Bentham shows
itself more or less disguised, but always visible. I am convinced
that those who shall seriously study St Simonianism will not con
tradict me."
It may be well to mention that the expression occurring in the
same sentence, "our opponenU," is used hy the translator there
and elsewhere through the work, instead of the more exact trans
lation of die Oegner, " the opponents" sc. of the genuineness of the
Pentateuch. The idea conveyed is equivalent in point of fact and the
latter expression sounds awkwardly in English in most connections
and indeed would often have been ambiguous or obscure. It has been
occasionally used where these objections did not apply. The same
remark holds good of the translation generally given here of " die
gegnerische Ansicht."

PREFATORY REMARKS

CONNECTED WITH THE

SPECIAL INTEODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT.

§ 1. DIVISION or the old TESTAMENT BOOKS.
The threefold division of the Canon of the Scriptures arose out
of the nature of the canonical literature, and the position which its
authors occupied in the Theocracy. Since it consequently owes its
origin in no way to accident or arbitrary arrangement, but rests on
deeper internal grounds, we must regard it as of great importance
in the treatment of the separate portions of the Canon. But we
shall facilitate the scientific representation and review of these books
by keeping in our eye their contents and formal composition, class
ing together those that are the same in these respects ; and thus we
shall distinguish more clearly the different modes in which the
powers of the different authors were exerted. Accordingly, the
first division we make is between the poetical literature and the
prose. With the former, however, we must join the peculiar class
of the prophetic writings, so that only the historical books remain
as prose.

§ 2. ON THE historical BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
IN GENERAL.
The contents of the historical books of the Old Testament are as
far as possible from being of a general and indefinite character.

PREFATORY REMARKS.

The object they exhibit is one on the contrary that is very strictly
limited and exactly marked. As the subject of ancient histoncal
composition is in general purely national, so Hebrew history also
does not rise ahove this ancient, simple conception. The particular
nature of its object, also, must therefore be determined by the pecu
liar character of the nation. The Old Testament historiography
makes no claim to the character of a universal history; it is
throughout the special history of the people of God, of the kingdom
of God in the earth in a definite form, the Theocracy. The sub
ject of its records is the internal development of this people in their
covenant-relation to Jehovah, with which every thing external is
connected only as the outward and visible form, requiring a con
stant reference to that inward and essential principle. Hence arises
the necessary limitation, that it is only where the covenant-people
come in contact with other heterogeneous elements and tendencies,
meeting with other nations, that any thing foreign is brought into
the circle of Old Testament history, and always in such a way as to
appear accessory and incidental.^ Hence also the circumstance,
which is certainly not to be attributed to chance or arbitrary choice,
that the history becomes silent or defective' whenever the theocratic
idea recedes as a fact into the back-ground ; where the history of
the covenant-people as such leaves off, owing to their peculiar con
dition and circumstances, there gaps are found in the historiography,
as well as in the history itself. Thus the periods of the sojourn in
Egypt and in Babylon are only very briefly treated; for the proper
element of the life of the Theocracy is Canaan, at a distance fi:om
which the people ceases to be historical in the sense we have men
tioned. Thus the period of the Judges, and the reigns of many
kings, are treated only in very hmited sketches, and apparently in
a firagmentary manner. The completeness of the historical ac
count, which in itself is always relative, can accordingly be rightly
estimated in every case only by a reference to its aim and plan as
compared with its contents.^
The idea which forms the foundation of these contents, and which
is everywhere either supposed or fully expressed, is that of the ma
nifestation of Jehovah amongst, and to, his people. This is not an
1 Augusti justly remarks, § 84, that the book of Genesis itself forms no exception to
this. S Comp. Augusti, § 86.

PREFATORY REMARKS. 3
abstraction, but the display of a purely actual condition. Here
we find, namely, not an undefined enquiry of man after God ; on
the contrary, here God seeks after man. Man has found his God
in the divine commonwealth, and that assuredly by no means as a
mere nation, but after a thoroughly concrete mode in a living rela
tion to himself, even to his whole and innermost being.^ In this
way the condition here exhibited is one essentially diverse from
that of all other nations ; even as the idea of the Theocracy,
in this sense and in opposition to a mere Hierarchy, with which,
however, it has often been confounded,^ is one quite pecuhar, and
found nowhere else, since it has its origin truly in and from God,
and therefore is a unique idea. Hence also the pecuharity of the
theocratic life can be conceived only as a continual contest, either
for God and along with him, or against God ; as either a firm
adherence to him and his revelation, or a self-seeking s.truggle,
apostacy from him ; Jehovah, however, invariably, in the midst of
every contest, showing himself righteous and merciful.
In complete accordance with this subject of the history is the
representation and treatment of the same. On the one hand there
reigns in these documents a spirit of lofty, noble simplicity. The
mode of narration is yet hardly advanced beyond the simph-
city of oral relation ; it is everywhere destitute of any attempt at
elegance or external ornament of expression : the primitive beauty
of this historical form lies only in the object presented, the impor
tance and nature of which here meet us as displayed in its original
shape.* Along with these traces which are everywhere to be found
of ancient genuine simplicity (such as are to be seen, for instance,
in the loose connection of facts, the want of transitions, the numer
ous repetitions, &c.), there breathes on the other hand a spirit,
deeply penetrating and vigorously animating the whole, which is,
1 So early as Gen. iii. 8, 9, this main thread, which stretches through the whole Old
Testament history, is pointed out.
2 On this point Steudel speais excellently, Glaubenslehre p. 398 and foil,, where
amongst other things it is justly said ; " it is indeed to be wondered at, with what confi
dence the ignorance of our day sets up the assertion as unquestionable, and speaks with
out consideration, as if the distinguishing feature ofthe Old TestaIa^nt were the doctrine
of God as an abstraction, standing at a distance from man," &c.
3 E. g. in Heeren, Ideen vol. ii. 3, Appendix iv. On the other hand, see a more cor
rect opinion in Leo, Lehrbuch des Universal-Geschichtea i. p. 16, and foil. (Compen
dium of Universal History.)
i Comp. Pareau, Instit. interp. V. T. p. 881 — 354.
A»

PREFATORY REMARKS.

at the same time, the necessary subjective condition of the nght
apprehension, the true understanding of the theocratic history.
Yet it did not escape the ancient profounder method of histoncal
composition, that, unless aproesens numen -vfere recognized m the
march of history, history itself is incomplete ; and if Herodotus,
for instance, does not forget, in speaking of misfortune, to remark,
that it is an e« eeov ve/xeai,?,^ Diodorus Siculus and Plato agree
with him, the former claiming for the historian that he should be
regarded as the servant of Providence, the latter exclaiming : o
debt; irdvra yecofierpel.^ Even a Livy must confess, in opposition
to a frivolously minded age : non sum nescius, ab eadem negh-
gentia, qua nihil deos portendere vulgo nunc credunt, neque nun-
tiari admodum ulla prodigia, neque in annales referri. Ceeterum
et mihi vetustas res scribenti, nescio quo pacto antiquusjit animus
et qucedam religio tenet, qu83 ilii prudentissimi viri publico susci-
pienda censuerint, ea pro dignis habere, quae in meos annales re-
feram (xliii. 13.) " With winged swiftness Adrastea moves through
the histories of the Greeks ; but Judaism and Christianity are the
first to exhibit, in connection with the occurrences of the world, a
guiding, providing, and loving God. And what is all history, if
we look not back to the fountain, from which flows down the cata
ract of ages ?" (Tholuck Hid.) This problem was well under
stood by the old historiographers of the Hebrews ; in them it ap
pears solved in the clearest and completest manner. Never has any
other nation imposed on the historian such a condition with so
unrelaxing strictness, as that all occurrences are to be placed in so
peculiar a point of view, the light cast upon them from one centre,
and all the individual parts to have their importance measured by
the essential connexion they have with the Theocracy as a whole.
However diverse the books may be in what appears their external
aim, as the historical accounts in the books of Kings, Chronicles,
and the Prophets, yet this fundamental view extends through all
with wonderful unity. Hence the Hebrew historian is as far as
possible from recognizing in his history anything like accident and
1 Hence the sacred historians also were called Prop/wis (a^s^as) : see Winer, Real-
lexicon I., p. 484, Anmk,
2 I, 34, comp. Bahr ad i. 83, i. p. SI.
3 Comp. Tholuck, Apolog. VPinke f. d. Studium d. A. T. (Apolo etic hints for the
study of the Old Testament) p. 10 and foil.

PREFATORY REMARKS. 5
arbitrary choice; on the contrary, the higher interference of the
divine hand is everywhere revealed to the childlike faith of his
mind. Thus no situation was so dark and perplexing as not to re
ceive in this way its full clearness and importance (comp. e, g..
Judges iii. 1, 4, vi. 7, 8, &c.) ; and as in the sacred songs of the
Temple, the history, both as a whole and in single features of par
ticular prominence, was the theme of praise to Jehovah's name, so
in its composition it must always have come before the people in
imposing grandeur, ns a sacred representation, pervaded by the
Spirit of God.
This conception of the history has been called Theocratic Prag
matism, but there has been connected with the name the bad idea
of a very confined, partial, and therefore untrue circle of vision.^ As
to this view of the history, it is of less consequence what derivation
it gives of that theocratic pragmatism (referring it perhaps in
general to oriental notions of history, though that point may very
well be disputed) ; but what deserves most attention is, that it repre
sents a purely subjective idea, as being exalted to a general objec
tive historical view, and maintaining an uncompromising isolation
from every mode of treatment that goes beyond that idea. This
view,^ however, assumes in general such a position as scorns all
true historical inquiry ; for if history in general cannot be conceived
without a constant reference to God's procedure in it — (without
which it would be a mere game of chance ; and then the very thing
which this view wishes to avoid, namely the constant reference to
an immediate cause in history, meets us in a strangely confused
and aggravated degree, in a host of immediate causes, while on the
other side only one immediate cause is spoken of) — far less can
sacred history, considered in reference to this its object, dispense
with that conception. " Church history (says Herder), without
the spirit of God, is the figure of Polyphemus, with his eye ex
tinguished." And as the Theocracy itself was truly an actual in
stitution, like the Church of the New Testament, it could be as
little understood in its historical development, if regarded without
1 Comp. e. g. Bauer, Introd. § 199 ; Bertholdt iii. p. 749 ; Meyer, Hermeneutics of the
Old Testament ii. p. 224 and foil.; and thus even historians, ns Schlosser, Universalh.
Uebers. i. p. 198.
2 [That is, the view of the history mentioned at the commencement of the previous
sentence. — Tn.]

6 PREFATORY REMARKS.
that spirit, as the church without the 'Trpevfia of the Lord. ut
the more serious fault in all this Ues in the misapprehension ot the
kingdom of God itself; which falsely degrading it into a mere ex
ternal, poUtical commonwealth, would here imperiously require the
theocratic life to be conceived of in the ordinary, trivial fashion.
The conception of it, however, is only a reflection of this higher
life itself; it is a mere illusion to think the former can be thrown
aside as an entirely isolated phenomenon, for it is itself but the re
flection that still remains to us of the concrete light and Ufe of the
Theocracy. But, were this conception of the theocratic history to be in
truth such as confined it, and fixed for it certain definite aims,
yet it ought not therefore to be called a narrow conception. It
rather supposes a higher point of view, which, while it gives the
particular subject a Umited character, is itself by no means parti
cular and subordinate, but rather the truly universal one, from
which all the rest receives its true Ught. Where the thought—
" God reigns in his kingdom" — is firmly held and carried out in all
its clearness and distinctness, in the actual existence of this his
kingdom, there necessarily the fate of other nations also must be
conceived as standing in relation to God's sacred everlasting ar
rangement. Hence the theocratic historical point of view is one
truly universal ; even as the institution itself, as a temporary, mun
dane, and transitory form, already includes, in its everlasting de
sign, the germ of that higher system which embraces the world.
The peculiar nature of the Theocracy is still more misunder
stood, when modern theology applies to the introduction of the
divine agency, in the form of revelations and miracles, the appel
lation of theocratic mythology,^ and assigns it to the region of the
fabulous, as being unworthy of God, and therefore untrue ; on
which hypothesis the mythical interpretation of the historical
Scriptures is based. We feel it to be a point of subordinate im
portance, whether it is thought possible, after a fashion that has
now become obsolete, to make a distinct separation of the histo
rical ground-work in this mythic fabric, while the mythic element is
stripped off as mere clothing and envelopment; or whether, as
1 Comp. De Wette, Introd. § 136 ; ajid for the literature of the subject, in particular
Hartmann, on the Pentateuch, p. 837, aud foil. ; Bauer, Hebrew Mythologie, i. p. 1 and
foil.

PREFATORY REMARKS. 7
desired by the new tendency which has gained strength, especially
since De Wette wrote, the historical element is looked upon in
general as dubious, and to be left in suspenso, while endeavour is
solely directed to point out the fiction, and the idea that lies at the
bottom of it.
The idea of the Theocracy is that of the glorification of God in
his kingdom : the initial and ultimate point of that glorification is
the founding of such a kingdom itself : aU the rest is only the
farther development and disclosure of what is thus supposed, the
necessary series of divine acts, founded on that first act of his free
love. This is the primary principle of the divine revelation and
agency ; with the admission or denial of this stands or falls all
that is secondary and derived. That first wonder displayed by God
in this temporal sphere is, however, so far from being expUcable
as the mediate result of ordinary changes, that it rather stands out
indisputably as a creative act of the divine majesty and compas
sion, and must be regarded as an immediate result of these attri
butes. We have a proof of this in the isolation in which it stands
in the midst of a world, that knows not this kingdom, to its own
dishonour ; and in the effect of it, the subjective result that arises
in the form of a new life that is called forth, with blossoms and
fruits springing up from the ever-fresh and vigorous root.
A mythus can be spoken of only where a mythology exists ; for
the mythus has its root in the ideal mythological belief of the
people. As long as the attempt to construct a mythology of the
Hebrews proves unsuccessful, single mythological representations
may indeed be spoken of, but not a mythological system ; and still
less successful wiU be the attempt to point out a certain series of
mythi, such as we find in every other nation.i For even the latest
religious view of the Old Testament, while assuming natural reli
gion as necessarily supposed in the Hebrew system,^ has yet partly
rested content with those historical proofs for it which are most
defective and easily set aside ; partly has left unexplained the tran
sition from that natural religion to the monotheism of the Hebrews
(its apprehension of which, besides, is very partial) ; and has made
the violent leap only the more startling by finding itself com-
1 Comp. Pai-eau, de Myth. cod. s. interp. p, 104, sq.
2 [Der Hebraismus, lit. Hebraism.]

PREFATORY REMARKS.

polled to acknowledge the pecuUar character ofthe latter. But cer
tainly Hebraism is seen at once to be most decidedly opposed to all
mythology, in its recognizing the only God, as well as the living God,
and the right relation of the world to this only true God, in opposition
to every false relation which is peculiar to heathenism in that respect,
The proper essential distinction which obtains between the heathen
mythi, and those which one has wished to find in the Hebrew his
tory, lies therefore in the essentially different relation of the fact to
God as he appears in it ; so that here the question everywhere is
concerning the one true scriptural idea of God. A just concep
tion of this, however, cannot be formed from mere individual parts,
but only from the mode of revelation as a whole ; and thus again
each individual part will receive its right estimation, only as it is
recognised in the relationship it holds in the entire system of the
divine manifestation, the divine purpose and the ordinances and
arrangements arising hence, this test being established as the highest
criterion of its internal truth.
But what completely annihilates the mythical interpretation is,
that it quite does away with the position in which the mythus
stands to history. The mythic element stands at the beginning of
all history, invariably precedes it, and is superseded by it, as soon as
the spirit of historical inquiry gains ground among a people. Hence
likewise the division of periods into the uStjXov, /j,v6ikov and ia-ro-
ptKov was quite allowable among the Greeks,2 but not with the He
brews. Such a division would here he the more impossible, as
mythic elements are supposed to be found not only in the histories
of Genesis, but just as much in the history of Elijah and EUsha,
and in the book of Daniel, consequently in the latest productions of
Hebrew literature. The mythus always has its root, in the far
distant past ; for there alone does its ideal aspect find its real ex
pression and image,* for which the present, lying near in point of
time, presents nothing adequate. Consequently we should have no
1 Comp. Vatke, Bibl. Theol. vol. i. p. 700, where it is even said, that it is remarkable
that the Hebrews were quite devoid of originality in the sphere of natural religion— that
the history ofthe Hebrew natural religion has more an accidental character, &c. Let
the author consider how he can bring this into accordance with his earlier arbitrary
notions concerning the old deeply-rooted natural worship of the Hebrews.
2 Comp. Vai-ro ap. Censorin. de die nat. c. 21 j and Pai'eau thereon, 1. cit. p. 76 sqq
3 Comp. e. re., the explanation given by Hartmann, s6M. p. 310,ff. '
4 [ie., It is only the scenes and events of remote antiquity that are suited to be the
vehicle of the thought contained in the mythus. — Tn.]

PREFATORY REMARKS. 9
history at all among the Hebrews, if we were to admit the truth of
the mythical view. It is true it also calls to its aid the results of
a so-called criticism, which are to determine that the time of the
occurrences themselves, and the recording of them, lie at a greater
or less distance from each other. But then the circumstance just
mentioned would here again require that all the historical books
should be referred to the most remote age. With the fulfilment,
however, of this requisition will arise the great dilemma, how his
tory could here act so uncritically as to adopt all that was trans
mitted by tradition in this its uncertain and fabulous form, without
bringing it into harmony with an altered age.i In short, the inter
nal inconsistency of the mythical interpretation is thus made still
more evident.
Let us, however, examine more closely the hermeneutical side of
the mythical explanation. Because of the scornful violation of all
hermeneutical principles, De Wette justly decided against the arbi
trary separation, or rather the dragging in of what was natural and
ordinary into the miraculous and extraordinary part of the histori
cal documents, as this practice had been pursued to an extreme by
G. L. Bauer, Eichhorn, &c. The inconsistency of treating these
documents partly as history, and partly as mythology, became most
strikingly observable, just as the arbitrary method had reached its
culminating point. It was, therefore, a new and important step in
advance, when the historical basis in one of the most important
parts of the Old Testament, the Pentateuch, was declared to be
completely buried over, and in place of that foundation an epic one
was put forth in preference, so that in this theory we find every
where the free play of fancy, united with a certain learned treat
ment, but nowhere ascertained historical points to lay hold of. It
is besides an important circumstance that the same motive which
constrained to this explanation with regard to the Pentateuch,2
must necessarily urge to a like opinion in the case of almost all the
historical books of the Old Testament. The view taken of the
Pentateuch has thus a deeper interest, affecting the historical repre-
The historical pragmatism sets aside whatever is marveUous aud fanciful, changes
mythi into history, and supplies principles such as suit its own time, to the facts thus
presented, so as to connect them together. See Otfried Miiller, Prolegomena to a scien
tific mythology (German) p. 97. Lachmann, de fontibus histor. Livii i. p. 34, sq.
2 " To the cultivated understanding (so says De Wette, Einleitung, ^ 145) it is at the
least doubtful whether such marvels really happened."

10 PREFATORY REMARKS.
sentation as a whole. In it the unavoidable consequence shews
itself of course. If the mythical view is once admitted, and shewn
to be essentially adherent to the document, no alternative remains
but to pronounce the records falsified and disfigured, and to seek
in them, instead of history, only poetry and poetic fiction. But the
reproach cast by De Wette on his age, of giving the documents a
most heterogeneous character, falls back here precisely on himself,
and the tendency to which he gave rise. For it is hermeneu-
tically impossible to demonstrate that these authors intended to
produce poetry, however much the notion may be pressed that
we have here to do with the Hebrew, not the Greek, Epos, — that
the poetry appears not in its pure form, but mixed with other
elements ; in this way the confusion only becomes still greater, in
deed truly chaotic. In respect of form as weU as matter, the most
essential requisites of poetry are wanting; yea, the documents
themselves distinguish so carefully between poetical and historical
description, that we have not the least trouble in seeking to discover
the transition. We may leave altogether out of account the general
consideration, how we can conceive of such an epic representation
arising put of Hebraism, which appears to have possessed of its
own only a lyrical poetic element ; and the fact, that this lyric poetry
bears a constant reference to the history, presupposes it, and assumes
it as its theme, but according to laws of treatment quite different
from those which are here attributed to it.i By such a procedure,
however, hermeneutics can never be securely established ; and the
demand made by that science, that we should recognize in the
historical documents the definite intention which they exhibit of
giving a plain and simple historical account, can in nowise be set
aside. Among other nations of antiquity, such as the Indians, Greeks,
and Eomans, the poetic element has constantly preceded the histori
cal. Among them for the most part a jejune style of history is the
first to develope itself out of the epic poem. There, antiquity with
its sacred mist having left only a faint remembrance in the national
mind, the poet feels the impulse to call up again the splendour of
the past as a living and present thing. Hence the obscurity which
rests on the first history of all the ancient nations, and the contra-
1 See Pareau, loo. cit., p. 96, sq.; also; comp. Meyer, Apology for the historical com--
position of the histor. books ofthe Old Testament (German) p. 62 sqq.

PREFATORY REMARKS. 1 1
dictory legends which defy connection, through which we have a
glimmering of no more than the most general outlines of a certain
historical foundation.'' A glance at the earUest Hebrew history
presents quite a different scene. This people, the whole of whose
pecuUar existence depends upon, and derives its conditions from, the
events of its earUest age, has this age itself fully presented to its
view, in clear and definite details, with all the completeness of a
living reality. The history gives precise information concerning
the beginning of the nation, its spread, its wanderings, and the
deeds of its fathers. The sacred original tradition has pursued no
erring track with manifold crossings, has assumed no diversified
forms. It appears closely connected with one race, by which it is
most carefully preserved, forming at an early period an integral
part of its sacred Uterature. However much stress may be laid on
the hints that the ancient records themselves supply, concerning the
mode in which a sure historical memorial was kept of remarkable
occurrences by external means, such as the erection of stones, a local
reference to trees, &c. f still the main fact that serves to explain
that circumstance, must be a faithful tradition maintaining its
existence in the midst of a closely associated raCe shut up in itself,
and subsequently the early consignment of that tradition to written
documents. And if we look at the qualifications required in the
theocratic historian, as these did not lie in the department of an
artistic ability directed rather to what was external, but as to their
essence consisted in an inward genuine theocratic sentiment, and
the assistance of the divine Spirit ; they must only have favoured
and facilitated the accomplishment of this undertaking. Hence,
the suppression in the history of the author's subjectivity explains
also the fact, that the greater part of the historical hooks have come
down to us anonymous, so that it is only from internal grounds that
we are able to discover the time of the composition, and sometimes
also the author. In the same higher objective tendency must also
chiefly be sought the explanation of the circumstance, that in the
Hebrew records, especially the later ones, we meet with frequent
instances of compilation ; or rather with extracts from other sources,
and the elaboration of them with a definite intention, and for a
certain end. The authors, following the Pentateuch as their pattern,
1 Comp. Pareau, loc. cit., p. 65, sqq. ,
2 See Winer, Real-Worterbuch i., p. 483, sqq.

12 PREFATORY REMARKS.
look on themselves as being only the servants and instruments of
the Theocracy. It is their most sedulous care to keep this every
where in view as their highest concern. Thus, in the later de
velopment of the people, the mere keeping of annals appears widely
separated from the theocratic historiography. Hence it is a vain
undertaking to seek the origin and culture of historical composition
in the rise of the schools of the prophets :^ its origin lies far higher,
even in the mode in which the exertions of Moses were put forth
for his nation. There, in the inspiration of the same spirit, lies the
necessary continuation of that kind of agency, and also the peculiar
form of historical composition connected with it.
1 As is done by Augusti, § 87 ; Hartmann, 4d., p. 319, sqq.

NAME AND DIVISION OF THE PENTATEUCH. 13

THE PENTATEUCH.

§ 3. APPELLATION AND DIVISION OF THE PENTATEUCH.
The name given by the Jews to this work as a whole, is that
taken from the work itself, nTi]r)j-j ; but in its complete form, with
reference to the division of the same, ITViinn ""tiSTD*)!! ntZJtsrT' ^¦^¦'
" the five quintals of the Law," while they also use 'jlttJj^'in simply
for the whole, and ^iJQ'irj for a single book.' Hence the Greek
name 6 w/io? is interchanged with Trevrtirevxp^, compounded of
¦jrevTe and reirxp^, which in the later Alexandrian usage signifies a
volume. 2 The division into five books is found in Josephus and
Philo,^ and appears to owe its origin to the Alexandrians.* Traces
of a sevenfold division are also found among the Jews, which, how
ever, has certainly remained merely ideal.^ The names in use
among the Jews for the separate books are taken from the initial
words of each book (n'^tij^'^a JTi!DttJ Tlh^> '^<'-). besides which,
however, many others are found ;* among the Christians, from the
Greek names significant of the contents.
1 See Hottinger, Thes. philol. p. 460.
2 See Passow's Greek Lex. on the word. On the mode of composition, see Lobeck
ad Phryn. p. 412, sq. The word is feminine in Greek, n /3i/3\os being supplied
(Orig. T. xiv. in Joan. p. 218) ; in Latin, it is masculine, liber being understood.
Stange incon'ectly takes it to be neuter (in the Anall. of Keil and Tzschirner i. 1, page
22, foil.)
3 Cont. Apion. i. 8, ical ToiTuiv irivrt fiiu itrri to Mojutrems.— Philo de Abrah. p.
274, ed. Col. tuiv lipSiv vontuv iv nrivTE pipXai^^avaypatjiivTutii fl irpiiiTi] KaXctTat xal
ciriypitpfrai yiuttni. He regards this as a Mosaic appointment, de migrat. Abr. p.
305, F. : irayKaXios oiv o UpotpdvTiii p.iav t^s i;o/toe£<7ias.oXi)i/ hpav ^ipXov If oymyiji/
av£ypa4rsv. On the other hand, 1 Cor. 14, 19 does not refer to this, as Jerome (ep.
108 ad Paulinnm) will have it (see Palau:et. abso. philol. p. 405 sq.).
4 Comp. Leusden. philol. Hebr. p. 45, sq. Otherwise J. D. Michaelis, Einl. i. p.
303. It is a strange opinion of Bertholdt's, iii. p. 759, that the division reaches as far
back as the origin of the Pentateuch.
5 See tr. Shabbath, f. 116, 1 ; Chagigah, f. 16, 3 ; Jarchi, ad Prow. 9, 1 ; and Breitbaupt
upon it.
6 See Hottinger, ns above, p. 456 sq. ; Wolf, Bibl. Hebr. ii. p. 72.

14 INTERNAL TESTIMONY

§ 4, THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH CALLS HIMSELF MOSES.
' We set out with that question which has the greatest influence
on the entire form and character of the critical investigations which
are to be developed in what follows, and which alone can properly
introduce them according to their principle : what our work says
concerning its own composition ? If we received from it on this
point no answer at all, or an unsatisfactory one, it would then re
quire as .an anonymous production to be taken up on an entirely
different footing from what is the case when it assigns itself with
positive decision to a definite time, and gives itself out as the work
of a definite person. This question must therefore be taken up
simply by itself, and not be by critical caprice confused unmanage
ably with others, as has even recently been done.^
Frequent mention is certainly made in the Pentateuch of certain
matters being written and recorded by Moses ; but the passages
that are of that nature require close examination, since their mean
ing, and the consequences deducible from it, cannot be established
without paying regard to opposing views. Of such a kind, for in
stance, is the following. In Ex. xvii. 14, after the victory over
the Amalekites, Moses receives the divine command to record the
fact in the "^SD- The reason of this command was, that that re
markable deed should be a memorial (rt'^^f), to wit for Joshua,
that the remembrance of Amalek should be destroyed. Accord
ingly this special command of Jehovah appears sufficiently ac
counted for. Judging from this passage, Moses at first seems to
be the recorder only of this fact ; but it deserves attention that he
was to write it in the Booh — ("^SB^) • Hence it is clear that this
record was meant to form a part of a more comprehensive book,
presupposed as well known.
It has been thought, however, that this passage should be re
stricted simply to the recording of that fact, consequently to a
1 See von Bohlen, die Genesis hist. krit. eriaut. Einl., p. xxxvii. foil. ; by whom this
purely internal question relating to the work itself is confounded with the external and
archoBological one, whether, according to the history of the art of writing, Moses, as
author, can have been able to write ? In our days this removal of the right critical
point of view — at an earlier time a very favourite method — deceives no longer, but only
serves to evidence the superficiality of its author.

TO THE MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP. ] 5
single composition of Moses, and that on the following grounds.^
1. The translation in the (known) hook rests simply on the
pointing ; and besides, supposing it were correct, we might still
translate : " in the book which thou shalt prepare, " not " which
thou hast begun to write;" and in general it cannot be supposed
that Moses had continued the Pentateuch just thus far, and
was here commanded to annex this occurrence. But the cor
rectness of the pointing is clear from the other passages, which
will immediately be adduced, where the article is constantly
found even among the consonants ;^ and it is clear also from the
word -^QO itself. If we learned nothing farther concerning the
book and its contents, this solitary instance would be dubious ; but
the contrary is decidedly the case. Besides, it is evident from the
words ^ 2]i3, that it is the insertion of a matter in a larger work
that is here treated of. If it stood simply "^qd^I' the addition
would be quite superfluous. To what purpose were the remark
that this composition was to form a proper history, complete in
itself ?8 Much rather may we say that the addition has a satisfac-
tory'sense only when read "^qB^, in the hook, i, e., the one known
to Moses, his book. And we cannot see why it should not be sup
posed that Moses had such a book already in hand. 2. " It is
evidently introduced as a peculiar circumstance that Moses recorded
ofthe history of the journey through the wilderness a single occur
rence of that kind, which was also very remarkable and wonderful
in its character. Now this would not readily have been done, if
he had written a connected history of ..the whole journey." This
objection rests on a misunderstanding of the passage in question.
It it not to the recording of the act that the narrator gives im
portance, but to the permanency of the fact, as a monument that
" the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to genera
tion" (ver. 16.) Only in case the writing down had here been
mentioned by itself, and without being specially accounted for,
would the objection have any significance.
Accordingly the meaning of "^q^ in that passage receives its
complete elucidation from a comparison with other passages. This
1 So Bleek most acutely, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1831. No. 3, p. 511.
2 Comp. J. D. Michaelis, Einl. p. 164, foil.
3 This is the signification that must constantly be attached to ^B6.

1 6 INTERNAL TESTIMONY
is the case with the very next passage in Exod. xxiv. 4, 7. Here
it is said that Moses had written out all the words of Jehovah, and
then that he had taken " the Book of the Covenant," and read out
of it to the people. If we compare this passage with Ex. xxxiv.
27, 28, an important difference immediately presents itself: in the
former place it is " the Book of the Covenant" in general that
is spoken of; in the latter it is " the words of the covenant, the
ten words." Thus in the latter it is evidently a special expression
relating to an individual part ; in the former a larger, more com
prehensive work is spoken of.
Bleek, however (p. 5,12), would have the "Book of the Cove
nant" also to bear a special reference to chaps, xx. — xxiii. This
is impossible, I. because of the context. For, according to xxiv. 3,
Moses told the people all that immediately preceded, and the people
vowed allegiance to Jehovah. Then, after recording the same,
Moses takes the Book of the Covenant, reads out of it, and the
people again vow allegiance. If the act has a meaning in this its
double reference, the former appUes to that which was special, which
had shortly before been spoken by Jehovah (comp. xix. 7, 25) ; the
latter to what was general, what God had done and intended to do
for Israel. For, " according to all these words (last read to them),
Jehovah makes a covenant with the people" (ver. 8) — which evi
dently refers to xix. 5 (" ye shall keep my covenant"), which pas
sage, however, has the closest connexion with xix. 4 as the historical
foundation of this covenant. Hence this " Book of the Covenant"
cannot possibly have contained only that which immediately pre
cedes. 2. The same is clear from the words themselves, fi^'y^.
Covenant stands here in a general sense, and must therefore be
understood according to those definitions, which the Pentateuch
itself assigns to the idea. Now in the Pentateuch mention is made
as frequently of " the covenant with the fathers" (see Levit. xxvi.
42 — 45; Deut. iv. 31) as of the covenant with Israel; yea, the
former covenant forms the basis of that which was made with Israel,
so that together they constitute a great whole (Deut. v. 2, 3.) With
the indefinite form of expression, this point of view must be main
tained throughout. Accordingly ni"i2;-f '^QO must always desig
nate the recorded statement of this covenant-relationship in general,
as its basis is found in Genesis, and not a particular covenant-act.
That every Hebrew must have taken this view of it, is plain from the

TO THE MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP. 17
passages 2 Kings xxiii. 2 — 21, where the same designation is
manifestly employed in the wider sense.
According to this, we should have in Exodus even, a testimony
to the entire composition of the " Book of the Covenant" by Moses,
as far as such evidence in the nature of the thing could have ad
vanced at that period ; and we must regard it as a continuation
thereof, when it is remarked, in mentioning the places of encamp
ment, that they were recorded by Moses (Num. xxxiii. 2.). But
in Deuteronomy, most especially, we meet with the more frequent
mention of the work composed by Moses, and, after what has been
remarked, we cannot admit that this mention " is of another kind
than in the earlier books."
Here, in the first place, in most cases it is the " written book of
the Law" that is spoken of; and both the connection and the
express assertion, Deut. xxxi. 9, 24 foil., attribute the writing of it
to Moses ; comp. xvn., 18 foil., xxviii., 58 foil., xxix. 19, 20, 27.
But these passages (it seems) are chargeable with " great obscu
rity," so that one cannot see what is really to be understood by that
" book of the Law, written by Moses." The proper book, however,
the writing, completion, and tradition of which are now in question,
is not to be thought of; for " we should then be obliged to suppose
that Moses had anticipated all this in the historical narrative before
it happened." That would be an extraordinary thing, and we must
therefore regard these statements as additions by a foreign hand ;
in which case we no longer have the testimony of the work con
cerning itself.
But a simple and just interpretation exposes the whole of this
argument as having nothing in it whatever. We begin with the
commencement of Deuteronomy. There it is said i. 5 : " in the
land of Moab Moses began to write down the following Law.'^
From this we conclude that the Lawgiver came before the assem
bled people, having in his hand the volume of divine revelations,
contained in Deuteronomy, already written — apiece of information,
1 This is the only correct interpretation of the passage, which even by the LXX. was
misunderstood {Siatraipfitrai.) from a false notion of nsS, into which error they were pro
bably led by the "lasV following. But this refers back to ver. 3, "lii fiffltt "(S'T. The
signification eay&inarc (see Gesenius and Winer lexx., s. v.), which in Heftrejo usage is
unheard of, has been invented for ijsa, only with a view to this passage, while Deut.
xxvii. 8, Habak. ii. 2, speak decidedly against it. B

18 INTERNAL TESTIMONY.
which is completely intelUgible and natural, only on the supposition
that at an eariier period a recording of the Law had taken place, to
the completion of which Moses now proceeded. In this way this
testimony is closely connected with the notices found in the earher
books of the writing out of particular parts, which form a whole, a
sepher. There is then also no difficulty in understanding the ex
pression in iv. 8 : "as this Torah which I set before you this day,"
(comp. xvn. 18, foil.), and the passages where it is said, "the words
of the Law which at-e written in this book," as xxviii. 58.
Thus then runs the reference throughout, according to the nature
of the subject, even to the close of the discourses of Moses xxxi.
8. There we read a statement that stands in connection with the
fact i. 5, that Moses had written out this Torah, and delivered it
to the priests with the command to read it before the whole people
every Sabbatic year. Here, again, the passage i. 5 brings us to
that point of view that is perfectly correct. Moses writes^»-s< the
Law, and what was done and should be done in connection
with it, then the matter of fact, the delivering over of the Law
which followed ; but then Moses received a new divine command,
to compose the " Song" which the children of Israel were to learn
(xxxi. 19.) Upon this Moses writes out the Song "on the same
day," and then follows the close of the whole, xxxi. 24 : " when
Moses had made an end of writing the words of this Torah in a
Sepher, until they were finished (completely) ;"^ but the proper
close could not come in here, since the Song of Moses was an
nounced, but not yet communicated ; hence, for the introduction
of it, the addition xxxi. 25 — 30 was required, which, however, by
its close (Q^^^'"^i?)' plainly points back again to the earUer one.
" As the conclusion of the treatise," says Eichhom, iii. p. 233,
" the place of the Song was after the subscription ofhis (Moses')
name — a proof that the Song has continued to be what it was in
tended for, an appendix to the history of what Moses did and said,
after reading to the people the compendium of his laws."
But if Moses himself may, in this way, have suitably attached
1 As it is the general custom of oriental authors to name themselves at the end, as
well as at the beginning of their works. Comp. Sirach 1. 27 (which example also is
so far' interesting in reference to the present case, as the author after that conclusion
¦goes on farther with the narrative ; comp. Bretschneider ad h. 1. p. 677, sq.) AbdoUatiph.
compend. memor. .ffig, p. 157, ed. Paulus; and de Sacy in the Relation de I'Eg. par.
Abd. Allatif, p. 453.

OB,TECTIONS EXAMINED. 19
his own subscription to his work, we are obUged by this form of
conclusion to admit, that the work demands to be regarded as pro
ceeding from Moses, as to its written origin ; nor is there any
reason why we must adopt the opinion that, in that subscription,
¦we have the work of a foreign hand ; so that we must decide from
the conclusion, as to the whole of the Pentateuch, even if earlier
passages did not expressly affirm the same, that it claims to be con
sidered as written by Moses.

§ 5. EXAMINATION OF THE PRETENDED " OPPOSING FACTS."
Where we find so express a testimony to the composition of a
work by a certain author, as is the case in the Pentateuch, it would
be the more to be wondered at, if testimonies to the contrary effect
were found in the same works, shewing that the real author had
no wish to conceal the fact that the subscription and other intima
tions concerning the composition were a mere deception — that the
pretended and the real authors were indeed two totally different
persons. Those positive testimonies, when placed by the side of
the others that were directly opposed to them, would then be enig
matical ; and who, then, could have had the shamelessness to sub
join them in this general manner ? So strange a contradiction in
the same work — where shall an analogy to it be found in literary
history, except in the work ofthe most impudent and senseless im
postor ? Just hear how the view of the later school of critics gets
itself off on this point ! Hartmann (Forsoh. lib. d. Pent. p. 538
foil.) thinks that " the author of the four last books wishes to be
taken for Moses," but from p. 544 foil, he remarks it as " an unin
terruptedly continuous phenomenon that the person of the writer is
separated from the person of Moses as two different beings." Or,
as Von Bohlen thinks (p. xxxvni.), it may be the writer's view
that those pieces (?) were really written by Moses — " but the nar
rator everywhere betrays that he is distinct from Moses." That
latter modification has, however, a certain sense : it is only parti
cular portions that the Pentateuch represents as having their writ
ten origin with Moses,i but as a whole it proclaims itself not to
1 Comp. also Bertholdt, Einl. iii. p. 766, ff. But the unity of the Pentateuch, here
after to be proved, declares to the contrary.
B 2

20 OBJECTIONS EXAMINED.
have been written by Moses. In Hartmann's assertion we must
confess we can discover no sense whatever.i
Yet let us examine the opposite grounds more closely. It is
said : " the Pentateuch everywhere speaks ot Moses in the third
person, as of an individual quite separate from it and remote, covers
him with praise and expressions of honour, and in its traditions
assigns Moses quite an objective place (Deut. xxxiii. 4, 5.)^ With
this is joined the confident assertion that an historiographer must
constantly speak of himself in the first person. It is true that,
e. g. Bohaddin, the contemporary of Saladin, in the biography of
that prince, on every occasion that he mentions himself, employs the
first person — for a reason easily intelligible, because he plays an
insignificant subordinate part in relation to the chief hero of his
history. On the contrary, Barhebraeus, in the third part of his
Chronicle, which contains the history of the Patriarchs of the East,
where he speaks of the period of his own primacy, constantly speaks
of himself in the third person, chiefly by the designation of his dig
nity as " Maphariono ;"^ for this was conformable to the style re
quired hy the continuous course of his historical narrative. And
that Ceesar, in his Commentaries, invariably uses the third person, is
certainly not to be explained by " the fashion" of his time* — for the
style of Ceesar is distinguished precisely by remarkable simplicity
and inartificial naturalness,' — but by the whole spirit and aim, the
peculiar plan of his work : as Xenophon also on one occasion falls
into the same form (Mem. Socr. i. 3, 9, ff.). This shows clearly
that the manner and custom of a people must in this question be
taken into the account, as well as an author's aim and mode of
thinking. We discover here, in the next place, by the comparison
of passages, such as Is. vu. with c. viii., where the prophetic and
historic styles stand beside each other, that speaking in the third
person is quite peculiar to the historic style. So we find it Is. xx.
36 — 39, Amos vu. 12, ff., &c.^ Besides, the very interchange of
the persons, that occurs in Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, serves
I As De Wette also intimates, Einl. p. 210.
2 Comp. Hartmann especially, p. 545, ff.
8 Comp. Assemani, Bibl. Orient, ii. p. 348, sq.
* Which is Hartmann's opinion, 1. c.
5 Comp. Bahr, Gesch. d. Bom. Liter, p. 264.
6 See Kleinert, iiber d. Aechth. d. Jes. p. 483 ; Hitzig, Comment, zu Jesaias. p. 69;
Heugstenberg, Beitr. i.p, 237, ff.; Keil. iib. d. Chron. p. 107, ff. 122, ff.

OBJECTIONS EXAMINED. 21
only to show how the old, simple, purely objective style of histori
cal narration everywhere struggles with a more subjective represen
tation, the latter forcing its way here and there. In the Penta
teuch, accordingly, we have the ancient form purely maintained
throughout, and it remains for us only to show how that form is
connected with the nature, contents, and intention of the work.
This connection is not less evident here than in the Gospels of
Matthew and John : that the subjectivity of the apostles is thrown
into the back-ground, is a proof how absorbed was their whole inner
being by the objective phenomenon, which they bring before their
readers in its entire pureness and majesty.^ In the same manner
also is the whole appearance and procedure of Moses presented in
its objective form to the people : it is not a particular individual
that will here treat with Israel and make a covenant ; but Jehovah
himself everywhere speaks and acts, Moses is only the servant, the
instrument in the hands of the Lord. Hence the expression must
not here be moulded by a subj ective view ; the opposite would have ill
corresponded with the whole legislatorial character of the Penta
teuch : we have here to do with what was done and spoken obj ectively :
as the divine word, it must be to Israel a constant clue to direct
them ; the laws must form a sacred institution, the history a deeply
searching admonition and powerful encouragement. Occupying
this position, the author would require to give no place to egotism ¦?
he looks upon himself as only one with the history ; in it he lives ;
in clear and definite outlines the will of the Lord stands unveiled
before his eyes ; nothing is farther from his desire than to glorify
himself; the wonderful ways and deaUngs of the Lord are alone
the subject of his work.
But here those passages are brought forward against us, in
which commendations of the Lawgiver are to be met with, as Ex.
xi. 3, Num. xii. 7, or a characteristic of him, as Num. xii. 3.
That in the passages adduced these observations are quite in their
appropriate place, no one who regards the context can fail to see.
The context shows that it was Jehovah who caused the miracles to
be wrought in Egypt by the hand of Moses ; indeed in Ex. xi. 3
1 Comp. Olshausen, Comment, i. p. 32, 315 [Olshausen on the Gospels, vol. i. p. 24
of Creak's translation, p. 38 of Loewe's.]
3 [Literally : " to the I."— Te.]
3 Comp. Hartmann, p. 548.

22 OBJECTIONS EXAMINED.
it is expressly said, that Jehovah gave his people favour in the
eyes of the Egyptians, and that his servant Moses was distinguished
above all, was very great in the eyes of that nation. This is no
more than was required by historical fidelity ; it is the same in
tegrity that does not allow John to suppress the fact, that he was
the disciple whom the Lord loved. In such an acknowledgment
there is not vain glorying and pride, but only admiration of the
grace of God, and praise to him who proves himself glorious and
faithful to his own. Indeed, on the contrary, the exhibition given
of the character of Moses is such as could proceed only from him
self, not from an encomiast of a later period. The admission which
Cicero makes in reference to autoMographers : verecundius ipsi de
sese scribant necesse est, si quid est laudaudum, et prmtereant, si
quid reprehendendum est {ad div. V. 12, 18), does not apply to
our work. Here no concealment whatever is made of the weakness
which the man of God felt when he received his call, of his infir
mities, or of his sin, for which he was excluded from Canaan. By
this the author only proves how faithfully he kept to his proposed
aim, namely to produce a purely objective historical representation,
A truthful impartiality and freedom from every egotistical tendency
are in this way most nobly maintained. Holding such an opinion,
we should indeed be surprised, were the historical narration to bear
another character than it does ; and still more so, when we direct
our attention to the divine purpose, to that which, according to the
will of God, his revelations by Moses were intended to be to
Israel. There is still less force in the remark, that the Pentateuch looks
back upon the Mosaic era as a period long since elapsed. (Hart
mann, p. 550 ff.) We should be obUged to copy out the Penta
teuch, if we wished to show that every occurrence of the time of
Moses moves before the author's mind as that which is present.
In passages such as Ex. xiii. 8, ff.. Lev. xxu. 33, xxv. 55, &c., in
stead of that time being spoken of as one long past, the reverse
may be shown to be the case by a closer examination. But it is
most surprising to see such passages as Deut. vui. 2, ff., xxxii. 7,
ff., V. 3, where the Fathers are spoken of, with whom God made a
covenant, &c., adduced in support of that remark. Or does the
time of fulfilment, of the wandering in the wilderness, perchance
not belong to the Mosaic period ? Could Moses in Deuteronomv,

THE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 23
according to the time, speak otherwise of the period which lay be
hind him, and of the generation which had perished in the wilder
ness, to the new body of people which was on the eve of pass
ing into Canaan ?
There is accordingly nothing left, but to declare with Von Boh
len, p. xxxviii., that the narrator has simply imagined the record
ing ; that is, in other words, he has presented his readers with the
fiction, the lie, of its being Moses from whom it proceeds. This
is decidedly cutting the knot of the argument ; the concession is
certainly important that the writer wishes to pass for Moses ; but
his assertion is at once rejected as untrue. We must then examine
more narrowly, whether there are grounds discoverable to decide
this question, which is of vital importance to our work, so much to
its disadvantage.

§ 6. UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH. POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF IT.
With the question, whether the author of the Pentateuch men
tions his own name, is naturally connected the following : Whether,
in that case, he can be regarded as author of the whole, or whether
its internal constitution, from the heterogeneous nature of its
component parts, allow to him only a certain share in its composi
tion ?
The general character of an historical work, with respect to its
plan, is shown most readily by its chronological arrangement. If
unity prevails in that respect, then at least the scheme of the
whole, the formal unity, is a favourable sign for the unity of its
authorship. The chronology of the Pentateuch is very definite
and exact, maintaining a close coherence. It is at first chrono-
logico-genealogical, connecting the computation of time with the
lifetime of the Patriarchs of Israel, reckoning from the commence
ment of the same to the birth of the first-born. The account is
thus free from all uncertainty, which otherwise was unavoidably
connected with the ancient idea of a ^^evea ¦} and thus this simple
mode of reckoning could be continued throughout the patriarchal
age with as much ease as accuracy, without the genealogical state-
1 See Bahr ad Herod, i. 7.

24 POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF
ments containing gaps or perplexities, as e. g. is the case with the
Arabian family registers. This chronological plan, which is exactly
followed as far as Jacob's history extends, then gives place to
another, arising out of the event which forms an epoch in Israel
itish history, the removal of Jacob into Egypt, which forms again
a firm chronological foundation,^ that is here all the more neces
sary, as now it is no longer the history of single families, or of one
family that is treated of, but that of a whole people. Then, join
ing on to this, we have the reckoning according to the second great
event, which is related to the former, viz., the departure of the
Hebrews ; and this chronology is invariably continued through the
four last books of the Pentateuch.^ This method has on its side
the analogy of the oriental historians, which also connects the
chronology with certain memorable events as the initial points of an
era.3 It now appears, however, on the comparison of this chronology,
precise in itself, with the historical contents of the Pentateuch, that
the Pentateuch admits of a natural division into certain groups or
separate masses, since considerable portions of time are quite passed
over in the historical account, and others are treated with a greater
extension of details. This circumstance in itself may lead us to
conclude, that the sources of information consisted of fragmentary
materials, but it may also arise from a designed mode of represen
tation, arranged according to a fixed plan. To ascertain this, the
analysis of the particular parts in their relation to the whole is ne
cessary, and that will decide the point.
The internal unity of the Pentateuch, however, when taken in
conjunction with its own notices concerning its composition by
Moses, can consist in nothing else than in this, that its entire con
tents refer to the Mosaic period, indeed to the covenant made
through Moses between Jehovah and his people, so that every
thing in it before the time of Moses shall he shown to be a pre
paration for that fad, and all the rest to le the developtnent
of it.
This requisition is completely fulfilled in Genesis in the first
1 Comp. Gen. xlvii. 9; Exod. xii. 40; comp. Gen. xv. 13.
2 Comp. Eanke, Untersuchungen iib. d. Pent. i. p. 10, ff, 30, 32, ff. (Researches con.
cerniog the Pentateuch.)
3 Comp. Ideler, Handb. d. Chi-ouol. ii. p. 501 (Manual of Chronology.)

THE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 25
place. With the history of the world's origin begins the history
of Israel. That might be thought to arise from the fashion of the
East, which is fond of commencing its special history ab ovo.
Therefore it must here be shown, whether that commencement is
only loosely prefixed from regard to custom, or stands connected
with the whole by a deeper reason. Now, the work of creation, in
its fundamental plan, at once proclaims itself as intimately con
nected with the Theocracy. It is not any sort of isolated law,
insignificant in relation to the whole, that is brought out by the
consecration here conferred on the number of seven ; but the whole
of the formal structure of the Theocracy itself, in its consistent
carrying out of this sacred cycle of time, is closely conjoined with
it. Viewed from its internal side, the fundamental idea of the
Theocracy, to be holy like to the holy God, and the consecration
of the people, the priestly family, &o., arising thence, can be ap
prehended only in their relation to the beginning of the human
race, and its original relation to God ; so that the Theocracy is
connected with Gen. i. 27, as the restoration of that which formerly
subsisted. Apart from the original destination of man, the rise of the
Theocracy is inexplicable; but it is not less enigmatical apart
from the account of the transgression, and the subjection of the
race to sin. Again, the first transgression of man is incompre
hensible, while the possibility of sin in his case is not imagined,
which Gen. ii. brings out, representing man as " dust of the earth,"
and thus prepares the way for Gen. iii. (comp. iii. 19 with ii. 9.)
But how the external natural life of man is in perfect harmony
with his higher origin, is shown also by the same chapter, which
is thus closely connected with i. 28 — 30. He also cultivates the
ground, but so that it is entirely subject to him, the Lord of crea
tion, and the keeper of Eden (ii. 5, 15, comp. with i. 28, ff.).
The human race in its origin is a unique thing, related in its
unity to God. Through sin it becomes severed from him, violently
rent away. Thus the history of Cain and of his family shows the
progress of sin, and the ever increasing severity of the curse upon
it (comp, iv. 11 with in. 17) ; and in the internal, even as in the
external Ufe, the separation goes on widening. But beside the
Cainites who dweU on the east of Eden, there rises up another race,
possessed of an inward principle of unity, closely united by the

26 POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF
worship of Jehovah, and therefore above all significantly pointing
back to the original condition and faU of Adam (iv. 26, v. 1, 3.).
The more that mutual separation goes on among the members
of the human race, the more is the true reUgion concentrated in a
particular family ; which religion from its nature is but one, even
as God is one. The reason of that disseverance is the opposition
that has taken place between God and man : the schism is always
growing wider (vi. 1, ff.), and can be ended only by the annihila
tion of the one party. Thus in the account of the deluge we have
the opposition carried out to its extreme point ; and it would prove
absolute, were it not removed by the interposition of the divine act,
the covenant of the Lord with Noah. That covenant in its entire
exhibition stands forth as the fact, without which the Theocracy
was impossible ; therefore in it also we find already a partial anti
cipation of the law of Israel."^
Man, though he is evil from his youth up, is yet now blessed
anew, and that with an everlasting promise. But again, the ali
enation and separation of the human race manifests itself, practi
caUy testified by the surrender of the One Truth (Gen. x., xi.
1 — 9) ; and hence the divine truth again becomes, from its nature,
associated with one family, so that all now hastens on to the
history of the Shemite (xi. 10, ff.) Abraham, with which the primi
tive religion of Hebraism first comes into a position that is properly
preparative for Mosaism. Here, on the one hand, we no longer
meet with general promises, but with the special blessing through
the Son (Isaac), and through a land assigned to him ; on the other
hand, we meet with the peculiar sentiments of the Father of the
faithful, the subjective effect of the peculiar character of the objec
tive blessings, The entire character of the Patriarch is therefore
peculiar and typically theocratical : in him the offices of the Theo
cracy appear united in one person, according to the primitive
simplicity of ancient times. He appears as Prophet (Nabi), to
whom the word of Jehovah comes (xx. 7, comp. xxii. 16) : he is
Priest, building his altars on the holy places of the land, and upon
Moriah not only fulfilling the obedience of faith, but also pointing
to the future destination of the mountain and the sacrificial wor
ship : he is the King of the land, which God grants to him in per
petual possession, and there he has his hereditary burying-place ;

THE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 27
there Melchizedec, the possessor of Salem, does solemn homage
to him. Thus the history of Abraham is a history written in the
genuine theocratic spirit ; marking an important epoch in the pre
paration of the divine commonwealth, and therefore it is, indeed,
" in the narrow compass of the history of one family, an everlast
ing history of the individuals as of the nations."^
On that account we have much of Abraham's history communi
cated to us, and little of the quiet domestic life of Isaac ; but the
few incidents that are given of the latter, his residence in Gerar
and his relation to Abimelech (chap, xxvi.), all have a national
Hebrew reference : he follows with evident fidelity and dependence
the footsteps of his father (xxvi. 18.) The narrative, therefore,
hastens on the more to the Patriarch of Israel, Jacob, the founder
of the ten tribes ; showing how he receives the blessing of God,
how passing through sin and adversity, he yet holds fast the word
of God, and, contrary to all expectation, returns richly blessed to
the land of his fathers, and is named Israel. At his entrance into
it, and while dwelling there, he constantly receives the most re
markable proofs of divine compassion ; and he passes through the
land in all directions, raising altars to Jehovah, and humbly prais
ing his name. The history of Jacob is written precisely for that
people, which required to be encouraged to return out of Egypt and
take possession of the promised land.
Once more the narrator gives the names of the twelve sons of
Jacob, who were in the land and buried Isaac there (xxxv. 23, ff.).
This race preserved itself unmixed with the collateral line of Esau
and his race, the Edomites. But Esau also has his promise that
he should be the patriarch of a people (xxv. 23) ; and this the nar
rator shews, remarking at the same time, the mixture of Esau with
the Canaanites.
The history of Joseph, which follows next, prepares us for the
removal of the Israelites into Egypt, and thus immediately intro
duces the establishment of the Theocracy. As the movements of
1 Leo Lehrbuch der Univ. Gesch. (Grammar of Universal History), i. p. 564.
2 " It is manifest, what importance those memorials and names from the times of the
patriarchs must have had for the people, who, standing at the very gates of the land, were
about to attempt tha decisive passage over the Jordan. They were voices to them
from the olden time, inciting them to the conflict for the land of their fathers ; a writ
ing, whose traces, graven in the soil itself, spoke the more intelligibly. They must
have been not less delightful and admonitory to later generations." Eanke, as above,
p. 52.

28 POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF
divine Providence were wonderful at the departure, so were they
also at the entrance of Israel into that land. It is this connecting
bond of dealings, mysterious in themselves, but clear when viewed
as a whole, that Uuks the histories of Joseph and Moses intimately
together. The position of the IsraeUtes in reference to the Egyptians
in the time of Joseph and in that of Moses, forms a startUng con
trast ; and it is here to be shown how Jehovah acts with his people
in their relation to the heathen, blessing the latter when they treat
his people kindly, and destroying them when they prove persecutors.
But it is thus he prepares for himself a peculiar people, by declaring
them to be such in the midst of the heathen, and everywhere mani
festing his own glory.
The only interruption to the history of Joseph is Gen. xxxvui.
It relates to the family -history of Judah, the important head of a
tribe (xlix. 8, ff.), and was necessary in order to account for the
precise character of the promise bestowed upon him.
The history of the patriarchs closes with the most comprehensive
blessing, the prophetic announcement of the possession of Canaan
by the twelve tribes, to which the blessing and adoption of Joseph's
children are apreparation and introduction. The book then closes
with the burial of Jacob in the promised land, and Joseph's com^
mand that his bones also should be carried there ; and his last ex
pression, " when God shall visit you and bring you back," includes
the essence of the object of the book of Genesis,
With Joseph the preparatory part of the theocratic history ceases.
The history passes over a large space of time until Moses ; a his
tory of Egypt and its rulers is not suitable to a narrative whose
purpose is so much more exalted. How the people at this time re
ceived a negative preparation for the great counsel of God, is suf
ficiently indicated by the notices in Exodus. But here again the
narrator has to do only with the history of the race of Israel, as
the elect of God, and he therefore begins once more with the signi
ficant and blessed names of the twelve patriarchs. Only in this
way could Genesis and Exodus stand in close relation to one
another. The condition of the people, sketched in a few striking outlines,
is here the history of the people ; but in the history of Moses from
his earliest childhood, the intervention of the Lord's hand is again
wonderfully displayed. The instrument by which the Theocracy

THE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 29
was to he estabUshed, must now be set forth ; above all his calling
must be clearly recognized, even as all that went before was a pre
paration for it, while it exercised the most essential influence on .all
that followed. It was not human will and choice, but only a call
immediately proceeding from Jehovah that could here decide.
Jehovah makes himself known to him by his significant name,
while previously only the significant names of patriarchs and places
of memorial had pointed to this centre -of the revelations ; and he
gives him power to work miracles, which he had given to none
before. Hence a detailed description of the manner in which Moses
demeans himself in reference to these divine directions, was here
unavoidably necessary, that we might know that the internal call of
Moses was throughout opposed to his own natural disposition, and
that nothing but subjection to the divine will impelled him to un
dertake his mission. The external position of Moses in relation to
his people must also be clearly set before us, in order to give full
proof and sanction tq his office as well as that of Aaron, and the
arrangement arising out of it for all future times ; for which reason
the genealogy is given, Ex. vi. 14, ff.i
The book then dwells not less fuUy on the mode in which the
Lord glorifies himself in reference to Israel, and delivers them out of
the land of bondage. Every day here becomes an everlasting evi
dence of divine grace, justice, and majesty. The fulfilment is still
more glorious than the promise. The close is the reception of Israel
as the covenant-people in the Feast of the Passover, which is the
most solemn confirmation ofthe destruction of every God-opposing
element, and of the reception of all who take his covenant upon them
with a believing heart. In no other way could Israel obtain de
Uverance from Egypt, even as in no other way could they gain ad
mission into Canaan. The Theocracy was the placing of a people
immediately under the dominion of God as King ; hence its funda
mental thought is that of the immediate and real manifestation of
God in the midst of his kingdom. Such a manifestation, however,
is primarily antagonistic, rigidly annihilating everything that op
poses its holy nature, Hence it is a point of essential importance
to the Theocracy, that this opposition is practicaUy expressed.
This is done in the conquest and utter destruction of the heathenish
1 See on this the excellent remarks of Eanke, p, 72, ff.

30 POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF
element, as that which is conceived to be in direct opposition to
Jehovah, so soon as Israel, as the covenant-people, comes in con
tact with it.
Everything, therefore, now hastens on to the manifestation of
God in the midst of his covenant-people. The development of
this accordingly is introduced by the narrative. We do not here
meet with a detailed catalogue of the stations of the people (Exod.
XV. 22, ff.), but only those where Jehovali gave them a special
mark ofhis care; and in the narrative Exod. xviii., which antici
pates the course of the history, we have human arrangements mark
edly distinguished from the divine legislation which then begins,
and the historical development of which thenceforth demands the
greatest extent of the work.
Here follows now the promulgation of the Law itself, in which the
adoption of the people as a nation of kings and priests is presup
posed as the fundamental thought. In order to comprehend this
development of the Law, its idea again must first be firmly laid
Iiold of, which is then verified in the historical series of events.
The opposition in which it has been shewn that Jehovah, as king
of the Theocracy, stood to all that was untheocratic, could not re
ceive the same practical eKWoiivya. in the Theocracy as out of it,
for that would involve the destruction of the Theocracy itself. It
could not here take effect in any other way than in word, i.e., in
the Law, the will of God objectively presented to man, which can
not, however, appear reaUsed to that extent that the divine word
and the divine act should coincide. But again, on the other hand,
the divine word can never be conceived of as apart from the act,
and hence this supposes another act of God limiting and restrain
ing the rigorous character of the Law. This is the other side of
the divine theocratic manifestation, the removal of the opposition
that is called forth by the Law. Without being itself the fulfilment
of salvation, the theocratic institution was the anticipation of this
salvation by means of the act, that is, by emblem and type. The
old covenant was therefore a real ordinance of salvation. The divine
act is no mere appearance, but a communication full of life and
power ; it is this that connects this institution with the future, and
makes it in its fulfilment an eternal one, as God himself is eternal.
1 See Eanke, as above, p. 83.

THE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 3 I
Hence flows the internal and necessary combination of th", moral
and ceremonial law, the principle of which is expressed even in the
Decalogue. Thus the ethical and dogmatical element mutually
pervade each other. As they advance in an equal degree, the one
could be represented only in its concrete unity with tbe other.
Since the Decalogue as the fundamental law stands at the head of
the rest, the objective nature of the Law, as well as its subjective
character, is shewn to be the agreement of the sentiment with the
action. Accordingly we have now to do with the practical carry
ing out of this principle, by which it was made to circulate through
all the veins of the national life. This is done in the laws that
immediately follow (Ex. xx. 19, xxiii.), which indeed at first affect
only individual departments of the life of the people, but supply
sufficient proof to what an extent the basis of the Law would form
the root of a tree full of noble boughs and precious fruits.
This plan on which God proceeded with his people is of a ge
nuine pedagogic character. He knows the deepest recesses of their
heart, their stiff untractable disposition. A select deputation of
the people must draw near to the manifested majesty of Jehovah,
and a solemn sacrifice ratifies on both sides the covenant that has
been concluded ; and now for the first time Moses remains forty
days with Jehovah, to receive his commands (c. xxiv.). The com
munication which he here receives relates to God's dwelling in the
midst of the people, as was required by the theocratic institution,
to verify the act of God as a permanent one. Here the internal
unity of the Theocracy must come into view, its principle must ap
pear in visible symbolic display. It receives a prominent exhibi
tion also in the course of the description of the Tabernacle (c. xxv.
ff.). First, the Holiest of all, uniting in itself the accusing Law, and
the atoning symbol of divine grace, the middle-point of the whole,
realising the reconciUation of God with the people, and exhibiting
it immediately in its centre ; — then, the Holy Place, representing the
blessings obtained for the Theocracy by the HoUest of all and its
atonement, a perpetual memorial of Israel's high destination, and
signifying the means by which it must be reached ; — the Forecourt,
signifying the participation of the people in these blessings, and
symbolizing their holy access to the Lord,
Thus this account begins with the Sanctuary, describing it from
its middle- point (xxvi,, xxvii.), and then passes on to the personal

32 POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF
agency employed, the Priesthood ; and here again it is first shewn,
according to its pennanent symbolical character, as related to the
Temple, what kind of vestments should be worn (c. xxviii.), then
follows the form and manner of consecration to the office (c. xxix.).
The description then proceeds to treat of the kind of worship that
arises out of the preceding, the service of the priests in the sanc
tuary, of which the elementary outlines and proper nature are here
indicated, as well as the two altars, that of burnt-offering (xxix.
36, ff.), and the altar of incense (xxx. 1 — 10), the former repre
senting what is preparatory and inferior, the latter the complete
and higher department of the priest's business. And in this all the
people also must take part, giving their contributions and gifts for
the ordering of it, which forms an appropriate close to the personal
agency (xxx. 11 — 16.).
The nature and arrangement ofthe utensils leqnired for the ser
vice of the priests appropriately follows next, such as the brazen
bason for sacred ablutions, the preparation of the ointment and the
incense (xxx. 17 — 38.). The appointment of those men might now
take place, who were endowed with the Spirit of God to construct
every thing belonging to the arrangements of the holy Tabernacle
(xxxi. 1—11.).
After the sanctuary, the priesthood, and the worship, comes now
the last requisite, the sacred time ; which is here defined only in
its fundamental principle, the Sabbath, which contains the rudi-
mental conception of all the rest (xxxi. 12, ff.).
God having delivered the tables of the law to Moses, the execu
tion of the building and the arrangement of the Tabernacle should
now have begun. But the carrying out of this object isinterrupted
by the account of the idolatry of Israel and its punishment (xxxii.
— ^xxxiv.) In opposition to that which is objectively performed on
the part of Jehovah in the sight of Israel, the fearful subjective
apostacy is now exhibited, a fact of prophetic significance, which
is constantly repeated throughout the history of succeeding gene
rations. This narrative is thus most intimately connected with the
preceding: Jehovah's grace, the base ingratitude of the people,
Jehovah's compassionate faithfulness, are so closely conjoined, as
to form the fundamental thought of the whole theocratic history.
The ample detail with which the occurrence is given is justified by
this its internal significance, which invests it with an importance

THE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 33
far exceeding what it has in its immediate connection. Not tiU
after this, therefore, does the execution of that which was histori
cally subsequent, suitably come in, viz., the completion of the
building of the Tabernacle (xxxv. — xl.) ; in which part the constant
affirmation that every thing was done according to the commands
of Jehovah, points to that which precedes, and that which follows
is at the same time prepared for, since only the erection of the
sanctuary is spoken of, so that the ordination and consecration of
the priests, and the arrangement of the worship, must form the
sequel. With this then Leviticus begins. The laws of sacrifices form
the commencement (ch. i.— vii.) ; in the first place we have their
general nature ; hence the division into bloody and unbloody of
ferings necessarily came in here (ch. i., ii.) Then comes the de
scription of these offerings according to their objects {thank-offer
ings, sin-offerings, iii. — v.), and the time, place, and manner of
their presentation (vi., vii.) This is followed by tho actual con
secration of Aaron and his sons to the priesthood, and they are
solemnly confirmed as mediators between Jehovah and his people
by the manifestation of the divine glory (viii,, ix.) But as formerly
the people had been fearfuUypunished for their ingratitude, the same
is now the case with the priests for disobedience ; the account of
which is followed by several laws relating to the requirements of
the priestly office.
The fundamental law of the Theocracy, the theocratic holiness
of the people, was essentially connected with the sanctuary, which
was Jehovah's established residence in the midst of the people,
" sanctified by His glory :" this testified by an external token the
actual fellowship of God with his people. So must also all the ac
cessories surrounding the sanctuary practically verify the strict dis
tinction of holy and unholy arising out of it ; the whole theocratic
life must consist in a separation, consistently carried out, of all that
was unclean from that which was clean, consecrated to God, and
which, therefore, needed not avoid the neighbourhood of his sanc
tuary. Hence the description of the sanctuary, and what belongs
to it, is followed by the laws concerning cleanness and unclean
ness. Nature and all animal Ufe in it must here, equally with
man, fumish a testimony of their defilement by sin,,^fled'^5f=^i^

34 POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF
opposite to that, the hoUness of Jehovah (ch. xi. — xv.) This col-
kctive purity of the people had, however, its central point in the
great sacrificial solemnity, when the whole people were to be
purified, the sanctuary itself consecrated anew, and all sins taken
away. Neither the offerings, which were before commanded, nor
the laws concerning cleanness and uncleanness, could be repre
sented as sufficient, nay, not *even as practicable, were there not
the day of atonement, the day of the general forgiveness of sins.
The necessity, therefore, of such a day is pointed out by all that
precedes, and thus ch. xvi. is quite in its proper place (comp. es
pecially verses 30 — 34.) The sanctuary was now in a positive
form made the centre of the whole nation, and it farther required
only a negative admonition that all worship must maintain its re
lation to the sanctuary. Hence no offering must be slain, no
bloody sacrifice, feast, &c., be prepared, except in the Temple,
The root of all heathenish disorder was thus cut away, as everything
was required to stand in immediate connexion with Jehovah and
his worship (ch. xvii.)
The danger, however, of turning aside from the worship of Je
hovah, was hot so imminent while the people were secluded in the
wilderness, as would especially be the case when they took up their
residence in Canaan, in the midst of surrounding heathenism.
Hence what follows in Leviticus refers to this important relation
in which Israel would afterwards be placed ; and thus the objection
to the law, so far as delivered, namely, the impossibility of prac
tically carrying it out in the new circumstances of Israel's position,
is beforehand deprived of all force. At the same time it included
positively the motive cause of Israel's separation from the Ca
naanites, the necessity of their extirpation, and consequently a
clear representation of the whole position of the people of God in
reference to heathenism. With this reference, the account in ch.
xviii. begins with those transgressions affecting the whole people,
in which it was chiefly exposed to heathenish influence, lewdness,
contempt of parents, idolatry, &c. (ch. xviii. — xx.) But the priests
in their private Ufe should set the example in this, maintaining the
strictest conscientiousness, and thus evidencing their connection
with Jehovah, which involved an abhorrence of all impurity (xxi.
— xxii. 16.) Hence also the freedom of offerings from every

THE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 33
blemish, always with a reference to heathen customs^ around them,
is inculcated (xxii. 17 — 33.) But the Israelites would find the
most powerful check to any such tendency in the occurrence of
solemn religious assembUes, which, governing the mind of the
people, gave to the whole of civil life a direction to the central
point of their religion, and thus imparted to all their business and
engagements the higher theocratic consecration. Hence the feasts
(calculated properly only for Palestine), the appointment of which
we find in Levit. xxiii., dividing the year into sacred epochs, and
Conferring on agricultural life, by their reference to the history of
Jehovah's deeds, the peculiar character of theocratic consecration, in
stiiking opposition to all heathen worship, which being directed
solely to natural life, sought in that its principle and mystery.
Then follows the law concerning the purity of the oil, and the
faultless preparation of the shew-bread, whose contents connect it
most naturally with ch. xxii. 17, ff,, but which is here introduced
more suitably after ch. xxiii., since it refers to what was there
treated of, the agricultural circumstances of the Israelites in their
reference to Jehovah (ch. xxiv. 1 — 9.)^
As on former occasions the Uving divine power of the law, in
its practical execution, was exhibited in opposition to all self-willed
resistance on the part of men, so also here. The opposition to
everything in heathenism, and the injurious consequences of any
kind of mixture with it, are practically displayed in the case of a
man, the offspring of a mixed marriage (an Egyptian and an
IsraeUtess) : he curses Jehovah, and JeUovah gives command to
stone him (xxiv. 10 — 24.)
In close connection with the appointments which are interrupted
by this occurrence, only because of chronological order, stands the
law of the sabbatic year and year of jubilee. This is the fulfil
ment of the declaration, that Jehovah is the possessor of Canaan,
and that the whole people, as weU as the land, is his inviolable, ex
clusive property* — again presented in contrast to all heathenish pos
session of the land. To this solemn announcement is fitly joined
1 Comp. especially xxii. 24, " in your land ye shall not do so," with reference to the
castration, connected with idolatry, prevailing there, Comp. vv. 25, 32, 33.
2 Kanke (as above, pp. 108, 109) takes another view of the connection of these pas.
sages, which appears to me, however, too loose and unsatisfactory.
3 Comp. xxv. 23, and Carpzov, appar. crit. p. 467.
C 2

36 POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF
the fundamental element of the whole law : Jehovah, the one only
true and living God, blessing his people who are faithful to him
and who lay his law to heart, and cursing all who despise him and
transgress his laws. Thus the decided opposition, extending now
through a series of laws, is here brought to its highest point — the
most impressive inculcation of all that goes before (ch. xxvi.)
When in this way the fundamental idea, how far the IsraeUtes,
in accordance with their pecuUar position towards Jehovah, should
be possessors and lords of the land, had been defined and com
pletely laid down, a closer definition might now be given of the
law relating to individual possessions, which were vowed to Jehovah
or already belonged to him (such as the first-bom) ; hence now
come the law of vows, devoting by a curse, and tithes, in which
again we cannot avoid recognizing the reference, on the one hand,
to the preceding (comp. xxvii. 17, 18, 21, 23, 24), and, on the
other, to the future circumstances of the nation (comp. xxvii. 28,
29, and Josh, vi.)
Thus far every thing in the legislation had maintained a refer
ence to the central point of the theocratic revelation, and had at the
same time been sanctioned as the idea that should embrace and
rule the future. The history now turns back again to the present,
to the changes which the divine appointments had rendered neces
sary in the encampment. With this the book of Numbers begins.
A numeration of the people is undertaken, and that with the special
intention of separating the Levites and the men who were fit to bear
arms from the rest, and 'thus to carry into effect the occupation of
the land, as well as the divine appointment regarding the first-born,
the property of Jehovah, in whose place the tribe of Levi was sub
stituted. Hence the numeration here is undertaken with a precise
reference to lineal descent ; then the order of encampment is settled,
and then the appointment and official duties ofthe Levites (ch. i. — '
iv.) ; in which the preceding enactments are not only in general pre
supposed as already made, but there is likewise a special connec,-
tion with the last chapter of Leviticus (comp. iii. 47 with Levit-.
xxvii. 6.)
The camp being thus set in order, must now be cleansed from
every thing impure in accordance with the previous laws of purifi
cation. The command, therefore, follows to exclude lepers, persons
having an issue, and those defiled by the touch of a dead body.

THE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH, 37
The execution of this command, resting as it did on the previous
legal principle, that Jehovah's abode and its environs must be holy,
could now for the first time he performed (Num. vf 1 — 4.) After
the life of the citizens and that of the priests had in this way re
ceived their just Umits and position, some laws founded thereon
might be carried into effect, touching the interference of the priests
in the affairs of civil Ufe. To this belong the cases, in which there
was no near relative after the death of the person against whom a
trespass had been committed, and then the restored property fell to
the priests : the divine ordeal (or trial) in the case of the wife sus
pected of adultery, in which the priest exercised the intermediate
judicial functions : the condition of the Nazarite, and the form
which the priests were to use in blessing the people (v. 5 — vi. 27.)
These institutions presuppose the whole of the previous organiza
tion, and the benediction beautifully forms the conclusion of these
laws, as a significant symbol showing that, through the whole in
stitution of the consecrated caste, only salvation, grace, and peace
should accrue to the people.
The people also display a willing heart to present the required
gifts, which at Jehovah's command must be delivered to the Le
vites ; hence it is only here that this narration also can first find
its proper place in its historical connection. Jehovah then shows
his faithfulness by speaking with Moses from the Holiest of all
(ch. vii.), in accordance with the promise which he made, Ex.
xxv. 22.
Not less significantly now, before the Levites enter on their
office, is the manner of lighting the lamps in the sanctuary repeated
(viii. 1, ff.), and by this the communication of divine grace in the
Theocracy is powerfully recalled to the minds ofthe people, as that
grace had now been glorified again in the selection of this tribe.i
Then follows a description of the feast of the Passover, which
here occupies its chronological place, but required particular men
tion on account of its leading in this instance to special pre
cepts concerning the participation of unclean persons, which could
not be delivered till after the definitions that follow of theocratic
cleanness and uncleanness (ix, 1 — 14.)
The narrative now passes on to the removal of the IsraeUtish
1 Comp, with this the recognition of that significance in the symbol in Zechariah iv.,
and Hengstcnberg upon it, Christol. ii, p. 65, ff.

38 POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF
camp from Sinai (ix. 15 — x.), the detailed account of which is
justified by the mention made of the wondrous manner in which
the host was guided by the cloudy pillar (ix. 15, ff. — x. 11), and
of the sacred directions, giving the signal of removal and battle;
which were of such importance to succeeding times, because of the
divine promises connected with them.
We might now look for a description ofthe march of Israel into
the promised land, the event for which the preceding circumstances
are the preparation. As on the one hand the farther account
plainly has this object in view, it was on the other hand the more
necessary to show what was the cause of their not entering at this
time. Accordingly our book now informs us with great exactness,
how, in spite of the unceasing forbearance of Jehovah, the people
directly give another proof of their old stiff-necked insolence, and
are guilty of insurrections against Jehovah in which even Miriam
and Aaron take part, while Moses in all this is still faithful to his
God, yea comes out of the painful conflict with more iUustrious
distinction (chs. xi., xii.)
Spies have been already despatched into the land, and it is here
shown, just when every thing externaUy is ready for the seizure of
Canaan, how little ripe the people are for so important a step. The
tumult excited by the report of the spies is related very fully, as
being the turning point of the theocratic history ; and while on
the one hand these chapters presuppose a knowledge of the whole
preceding history, even to remarkable detail (as in xiv. 22, and see
the expositors on that passage), on the other hand, by the declara
tion that the people should wander forty years in the wilderness, they
embrace aU that follows, and thus evidence the wonderful unity of
this history.*
Immediately after this follow laws given in the wilderness. Even
the frame, that encloses them, is remarkable and peculiar, owing
to the apparently tautological repetition of the theocratic principle
(comp. XV. 2, 13 — 16, 22, 23, 37, ff.) It impressively shows the
unbelieving people, who had been condemned to a severe punish'
ment, that the main present object of these laws was, to fiU them
with a lively conviction, that they did not on that account cease to
be the covenant-people of Jehovah, but that they still continued to he
1 See Eanke, as above, p. 119, ff,

THE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH, 39
the depositary of his revelation. AU these commands, however,
refer also to the future as well as the present, which not only testi
fies the truth of the divine promises, but imparts to the commands
themselves an internal relation to the whole of the Torah, so that
they appear integral parts of it. But especial importance belongs
to the practical execution of the law, as is proved by the examples,
Num. XV. 32—36, and ch. xvi., testifying the majesty of God
which presides over his covenant-law, and the continued ingra
titude of the people. These facts are then followed by new strin
gent laws, but all resting on the old ground, which, with a reference
to the revolt of Korah, bear expressly on the priests and Levites
and their mutual relation, the ground of which became clearly ap
parent, chiefly through a distinct apprehension of theocratic clean
ness and uncleanness (see ch. xix.)i
The time of Israel's punishment in the wilderness certainly pos
sesses a significant theocratic importance, but properly only when
viewed in its entire aspect, not in its separate subjective parts. It
is only God's deaUngs towards his people at this time that are im
portant for the history of the Theocracy, the preservation of which
rather than its development is here treated of These are presented
clearly and definitely enough in the five chapters that give the his
tory of the thirty-eight years of Israel's wanderings in the wilderness ;
a larger space must not be expected for the generation that perished
there. So much the more is the time of the fulfilment of the di
vine promises to be regarded as the most splendid conclusion of
the Torah, the point that, imparts to the history a truly theocratic
interest. But here the most important facts are crowded together
in such a way as to make it clear that no strength and power of
Israel's own, but the same God who had promised it, had also
obtained for them the land of promise as a possession by his grace
and might.
By this time Miriam had died in the wildemess, and the fortieth
year is completed. Israel has again come in sight of the promised
land to the borders of Edom, where Moses and Aaron also fall into
transgression, and soon after the latter dies. Eleazar succeeds in
his place. Israel despatches ambassadors to the king of Edom,
requesting a free passage, and receives a scornful refusal (ch. xx.)
1 Comp. Eanke, as above, p, 126—132.

40 POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF
All this is exactly accounted for by what has preceded : the dying
out of the old generation, by the divine decree ; Moses' own unbe
lief, by the long space of time, in which the mind might well sink
and the hand become slack ; the insolence of Edom, by its appear
ing as if Jehovah had forsaken his own people, (comp. xiv. 14, ff.)
Israel, however, must go though all this experience that they may
become strong in their God. This is immediately shown to be the
case at Arad, a royal city of the Canaanites ; Israel solemnly de
votes the cities of this people to Jehovah, and Jehovah gives them
the victory (xxv. 1 — 8) ; Edom's borders must be avoided, and
the thoughts of Israel directed exclusively to Canaan. No testi
mony is more striking than that which is now given to the murmur
ing people, the significant emblem of the serpent ; reminding them
of man's original sin and guilt, and Jehovah's victory over these ;
pointing invariably to Canaan, the land of Jehovah. Israel now
marches on with courage, even to the borders of the Amorites,
singing songs of praise in honour of Jehovah, and through his
power slaying the kings of Heshbon and of Bashan (ch. xxi.) But,
in the plains of Moab, a still greater display of Jehovah's glory
awaits the people ; the heathen prophet of Mesopotamia, hired by
the prince of Moab, must here, overcome by Jehovah, instead of
cursing Israel, bless them and point to the ancient promises, which
were given to the fathers : the bitterest enemies of the Theocracy
must here, even in its lowest condition, pay their tribute to the
renown of its king (xxii. — xxiv.)
Israel's God was not overcome by Balaam (ch. xxv., comp.
xxxi. 16), but the people certainly were, whose own nothingness
is clearly displayed in the narrative that follows of their being se
duced into the impure idolatry of the Moabites and Midianites.
The first assault of the people must therefore be directed against
their seducers (xxv. 1 7, ff.), and the occupation of the land be thus
effected. The land is, therefore, first divided among the several
tribes, and in reference to this the people are numbered once more,
and Joshua is appointed their leader ;' but in this division Jehovah
expressly reserves to himself his own rights, and Israel is required
not to forget the sacrifices of the Lord, his Sabbath, his feasts and
vows, which are therefore briefly repeated, enforced anew, and
1 See Eanke upon this, as above, p. 136, ff.

THE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 41
completed (ch. xxx.) Now for the first time the struggle with
Midian begins ; everything here is done in prescribed legal order
with the trumpets of the priests, the sacred purification, and the
free-will offering of the booty to the sanctuary of Jehovah (ch.
xxxi.) That was the last work of an external nature in which Moses
engaged (comp. xxxi. 2) ; his attention is now directed only to the
internal concerns of his people, after having prepared everything for
the completion of his work. The entrance into the land is now
effected, and accordingly he divides it between Eeuben, Gad, and
the half tribe of Manasseh (ch. xxxii.) Pie then gives command,
after once more significantly reminding them of the way in which
God had led them in the wilderness, and of the forty years that
were now finished (xxiii. 1 — 4), as to how they should take posses
sion of the land (for which ch. xxxii. was a preparation) ; directs
the extermination of the Canaanites and their idolatrous worship ;
fixes the extent of the land to be conquered, the mode of division,
the cites ofthe Levites and those of refuge ; and lastly, from a special
historical occasion, gives the law, so important for the preservation
of the property assigned, that female heirs must marry always in
their own tribe (ch. xxxvi.)
Thus the eleventh month of the fortieth year had arrived, and
now that the second generation was on the point of crossing the
Jordan, the hour of Moses' departure was come, — since the promul
gation of the law on Sinai, the most solemn moment of his life.
He, the instrument of God at that time for the declaration of his
will, could not depart hence, without completing this work of his.
Therefore once more his last word, as a sacred legacy, goes forth
to tlie people — but it is another than that which was uttered at
Sinai. A prophetic spirit pervades these last discourses from the
beginning to the end ; the man of God is quite transported in
spirit into the futurity of his people, and their fate stands disclosed
before him. He commences with the mention of the wonderful
leadings of Jehovah, which now come before his mind in the most
lively manner ; with the punishment of the people for their unbeUef
and obduracy, with the faithfulness of Jehovah in reference to all
his promises, the fulfilment of which had now arrived ; but know
ing the way of this people and foreseeing their apostacy, he con-
iures them most earnestly to adhere to the statutes of the Lord, and
•* 3

42 POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF
not to forget how he had revealed himself, otherwise instead of the
blessing the curse would Ught upon them (Deuter. i — iv.)
In a second discourse, the subjective side of the law, its reception
into the heart, is represented, both positively and negatively, with a
masterly hand which, in a psychological respect, cannot be surpassed.
The first effect of the law is fear, and that also is the intention of
it ; therefore, as Israel heard the fundamental law of the Theocracy
with sacred dread, so should also each individual receive from it a
lively impression of the divine holiness and majesty (ch, v.)
But the essence of the law is love to Jehovah, the one true God;
hence the incitement to be mindful of the divine compassion as
testified by deeds, and thus it is this sentiment of love that first
leads to aright and faithful performance of the law (ch. vi.) There
were, however, two deviations by which the people were most likely
to be led aside from the right path. . The rigorous strictness of the
law might easily incline them to a departure from Jehovah, and a
compliance with that which was condemned even to the most secret
emotions of the heart, namely, idolatry, that they might get rid of
the hard and oppressive yoke of the law. Therefore, they are warned
in the most impressive manner against the inhabitants and the idols
of Canaan, with the assurance that, should Israel demean themselves
like the heathen, they should be subjected to the same fate in being
thrust out from the presence of Jehovah (chap, vii., viii.) The
other not less dangerous path of error was that of self-righteousness,
the vain-glorious idea that their own merit had achieved all that
Jehovah had done for them. Therefore Jehovah says, " Not
through thy righteousness and the purity of thine heart hast thou
inherited the land of the heathen ;" it is the free grace of Jehovah,
and the sins of the people admonish them only too well how little
it ought to be ascribed to themselves (ch. ix.) The history of
the people, before and after the exile, represents these two forms of
declension on a large scale ; and while in the former period their
idolatry, and in the latter their self-confident pride^ bear witness to
the deep truth of those warnings, they may be justly considered as
embracing in a prophetic spirit the whole future history of the
Theocracy. " Therefore," continues Moses, " turn to that which Jehovah did for
you, when he gave you the tables of the law, and instituted the ark
1- [Or: "proud spirit of self-dependence"— der pnrtikularistischeHochmuth.]

THE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 43
of the covenant and the priesthood, a significant symbol for you
' to circumcise the foreskin of your heart,' (x. 16), and to cherish
his love in your inmost soul. Be mindful of Jehovah, the merci
ful and righteous God, whose blessing and curse shall be set before
your eyes on Ebal and Gerizim, as an abiding memorial" (xi. 29.)
By the mention of this fact, the Lawgiver was especially led to the
life of the people when settled in their home. Eegulations are
therefore laid down for that life in laws which necessarily form, in
accordance with this their intention, the supplement and. completion
of the earlier laws. Jehovah (they are told) will there point out to
them a certain place for a permanent sanctuary, but every spot
assigned to idolatrous worship shall be destroyed : in that place all
sacrifices must be offered, though free permission was now given to
slaughter animals in every place, as these were appointed for the
food of the clean and the unclean (comp. Deut. xii. 14, ff., with
Levit. xvii.) ; the earlier regulations concerning the eating of blood,
and that which belonged to Jehovah, remaining however in full
force. In general, the sanctuary must be constantly regarded as
the central point for all sacred purposes ; and on that very account
too must the Canaanites be rooted out, and every idolatrous abomi
nation utterly destroyed, for nothing may be added to the divine
law or taken from it (ch. xii.) For the same reason, also,
no false prophets and soothsayers, who turn away the minds of
the people from the law, by setting up another law, must be suf
fered ; nor is any city, which gives itself up to idolatry, to be
spared, but destroyed with the edge of the sword (ch. xiu.) In
like manner, they must not imitate any of the customs of the
heathen in mourning, nor taste unclean animals, but faithfully fol
low in this the divine commands, and by a wilUng payment of the
tithes, give proof of their attachment to Jehovah and his worship
(ch. xiv.) ; for the same reason, they should also carefully observe
the year of release, and the feasts of Jehovah (which, in reference
to their celebration in the new sanctuary that should be chosen,
receive more exact prescriptions ; ch. xv., xvi.), and present none
but unblemished offerings ; for all idolaters should be inexorably
subjected to the punishment of stoning. The land must therefore
be governed by just judges, but the supreme tribunal shall be in
the place of Jehovah's selection,, consisting of the priests and the
Shophet of the land : should a king be chosen by the people, he

44 THE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH.
should, above all, be directed by the divine law, and not Uve in
heathen fashion. Along with the royal or judicial office, the
priestly office should exist in its full rights, and along with this
again the prophetic (ch. xvii., xviii.) But with all this the duties
of the Judges are strictly defined ; for Jehovah will not in his
land suffer the right of the innocent to be perverted, or indul
gence to be shown to the evil-doer (ch. xix.) Then come the laws
of war for Israel, delivered with reference to what was immediately
at hand, the conflict with the Canaanites, as the most important
of all wars with the heathen, and at the same time the rule for all
future wars (ch. xx.) ; and then follows a series of laws, which,
presupposing those that were earUer given, refer chiefly to difficult
judicial decisions, and represent the whole of civil life as pervaded
by the strictest application of the ideas of theocratic law and duty.
Hence that form of prayer is finely introduced as the close of the
whole, which, at the presentation of the first fruits and the tithes,
expressed the theocratic confession of faith, by which every Israel
ite should know and acknowlege himself to be that which his God
had called him to be. This conclusion gives a noble completeness
to the pecuUar character of Deuteronomy as relating to the sub
jective life of the individual (ch. xxvi.)
That contrast which the whole of the law contains, namely, the
blessing and the curse of Jehovah, previously only alluded to, but
requiring to be powerfully brought home to the consciousness of
the people at their entrance into Canaan, is now set forth exactly
in its particulars, as that solemn covenant-act which was just about
to be performed. With this is connected the description of the
delightful fulness of these blessings, and all the fearfulness of the
divine anger. The prophetically alluring and warning voice of the
greatest of the prophets of the Old Covenant puts forth still more
energy, the prospect extends still farther into the more distant
future of the consecrated nation, until at last, in the most wonder
ful flight of inspiration, surmounting lamentation and complaint,
and rising to the most elevated announcement of the divine salva
tion, it closes in a genuine song of triumph.
The history of the law concludes with an appendix concerning
the end of him, who was deemed worthy to deliver it to Israel,

DOCUMENT AND FRAGMENT HYPOTHESES. 45
§ 7. ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS AND FRAGMENTS IN THE PENTATEUCH.
HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE HYPOTHESES RESPECTING THESE.
Whether the author of the Pentateuch has founded his work on
written documents or oral tradition, has been a question possessing
particular interest in reference to that part of the history which pre
cedes the age of Moses, consequently to the whole book of Genesis,
and was thus early brought under discussion. Vitringa brought
forward the opinion, " schedas et scrinia patrum, apud Israelitas
conservata, Mosem collegisse, digessisse, ornasse, et ubi deficiebant,
complesse." In reference to this, he laid particular stress on the
superscriptions jm^^n n7t^' "^DD Ht' •^"•j ^'^^ appealed to such
passages as Gen. xviu. 17, 18 (Obss. S. i. c. 4, p. 36, sq.) To this
general supposition of originals, belonging to the ante-Mosaic pe
riod, which the author of Genesis had before him, other enquirers,
even till very recently, were contented to adhere, without attempting
a more exact indication of them. Others, however, sought to define
more exactly the nature of the originals, and thus a wide field was
opened for the indulgence of the love of hypothesis. In general two
ways were chosen. 1. Some, thinking it improbable that written
documents should previously have existed, conceived they would
be enabled at once to comprehend and explain better the mode of
narration, by substituting in place of written documents, hierogly-
phical monuments and ancient picture-writing.* This view was
applied especially to the first chapter of Genesis, and its supporters
went so far as to give exactly the original form of the ancient me
morial, and to find the author guilty of incorrect interpretation,
&c.^ 2, The rashness and arbitrariness of this hypothesis, which
may now be considered as quite exploded, could not but be soon
remarked. Through a closer consideration of the contents of Ge
nesis in particular, other enquirers set about examining whether the
original form of these documents might not be made out from the
1 Comp. Eichard Simon, hist. crit. V. T. i. c. 7, Clericus. diss, de script. Pent, % 2, who
says, Qualia et quot fuerint ea scripta ii demum dixerint, qui iis temporibus vivebant, si
advitam revocarentur ;— Jahn, Introd. ii. p. 95, ff.; Rosenmiiller, soholl. p, 44, sq.
Pareau de myth, c 5, intp. p. 172, sq. instit. p. 112.
2 Comp. especially Otmar (Nachtigall) in Henke's Magazin ii. p. 513 ff. On tbe
other side Eckermann, Beitr. v. i. p, 155 ff. Vater, Comment, on the Pent, iii. p. 688 ff.
8 See the literary notices in Hartmann, p. 76, ff.

46 HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE
way in which they were put together, and from their tenor. In
reference to this, the production of Astruc^ in particular made a
great noise. According to him, two main originals are to be dis
tinguished in Genesis, which may be known from one another by
their respective employment of the names Jehovah and Elohim
in speaking of God. But, in addition to these, ten other documents
also are found, which, being foreign to the first two, must he proved
to be interruptions of the history, interpolations, &c. These dif
ferent portions were not originally connected, but were first mingled
together by the fault of transcribers. J. D. Michaelis in particular
gave much countenance to this hypothesis, and adopted it under
certain modifications.* But it was Eichhorn principally who was
led by it to subject the component parts of Genesis to a more care
ful examination.^ Setting out with the discovery of single inde
pendent documents, he strives to show that the greatest part ofthe
composition is made up of the pieces of two historical works,
which, proceeding from two different authors, are to be known
by their variation in the names applied to God. This view
was received by his contemporaries with the greatest approba
tion, and gained advancement through the work of K. D. Ilgen,
" The original documents in the archives of the Temple at Jeru
salem. First part, Halle 1798. 8," which took up the supposition
of two Elohistic documents and one Jehovistic, the second Elohist
frequently approaching the Jehovist in language and character.
This document-system was carried still farther more recently by
Gramberg (libri Geneseos secundum fontes rite dignoscendos adum-
brationova. Lips. 1828), which proposes to distinguish three com
ponent parts of Genesis, one Jehovistic, and one Elohistic, which
however have been more or less arbitrarily worked up and enriched
with additions by the compiler (as in xix. 29, xx. 18. &c.)
Stahelin also (in " Critical enquiries concerning Genesis. Basil,
1830), still holds to the notion of two documents, which have
been brought into agreement by the reviser ; except that where
the statements of facts have differed, he* gives them from both
1 Conjectures sur les memoires originaux, dont il parait qui Moyse s'est servi pour
composer le livre de la Genfese. Brux. 1753. 8 (in German, Frankf. 1783.)
2 Introd. i. § 52, p. 267, ff,
• 3 Introd. iii. % 407—417.
4 [i. e. The supposed reviser or editor of the documents — Tr.]

DOCUMENT AND FRAGMENT HYPOTHESES. 47
authorities, and in such a way that it is clear he regarded them as
giving an account of different occurrences.
Meanwhile, subsequently to the hypothesis of Eichhorn, the view
entertained of the Pentateuch in general had become decidedly
opposed to the belief of its genuineness. It was thought suitable
to place the document-hypothesis in connection with this view,
which was done by a two-fold modification of it. The unity of
Genesis was given up ; the separation of its parts, however, was
confined to the distinction of certain narratives running on parallel
to one another : there was only one step farther to be taken in
giving up even this connection, to have instead of documents only
fragments, mere abrupt isolated pieces, possessed of no internal
connection, but strung together with verbal exactness. It is not
Genesis only, however, that has met with this treatment, but it has
been said that every book of the Pentateuch is composed of several
separate pieces unconnected with one another ; and that in all of
them we have to do with several authors, and their pieces produced
at different periods.^ This supposition accordingly is closely allied
with the earlier document-hypothesis ; it shares also the same argu
ments with it, and gives them only another turn. Hence it need not
seem strange that De Wette, according to his complete view of the
Pentateuch, has formed a kind of compromise between the two
schemes, inasmuch as recognizing the fragmentary conjunction
he supposes an original plan and connection in the Elohistic por
tions, while the Jehovistic do not admit of being easily joined into
a certain unity, and are perhaps derived from several sources.*
Hartmann also (1, c. p. 169, ff.) attempts to point out an in
ternal disconnection of parts in the Pentateuch — dismembered
pieces proceeding from different authors.
It cannot surprise us that the endeavour which had been car
ried so far, to resolve the Pentateuch in part even into the smallest
constituent portions, should, even where it was opposed, be followed
in this its aberrarion from the truth by fresh aberrations. To these
belong particularly KeUe's supposition of an original well-connected
1 So Vater, as above, p. 421, ff., following in the steps of an unknown writer in
Henke's Magazine vi., p. 321 , ff.
2 Beitrage z. Einleitung in d. A. T, Bd. 2 (Contributions to the Introduction to the
Old Testament, vol. 3nd) ; Introd. § 150, ff. With this Ewald also very much agrees,
Studien und Kritiken ; 1831, 3, p. 697, ff.
3 " Unprejudiced estimation of the Mosaic Writings." Freiberg, 18'12, 3d No,

48 FRAGMENT-HYPOTHESIS EXAMINED.
document, which, however, at a later period was enlarged by mani
fold interpolations ; and Bertholdt's opinion that the section, ch.
V. — xxxiii., forms the original substance of Genesis, but that this
has undergone subsequent enlargement, while the rest ofthe books
were brought into their present form by various collectors.' But,
on the other hand, there has been no lack of solid and well-grounded
opposition to the modern rage for hypothesis : in this respect par
ticular distinction is due to Ewald, " Composition of Genesis,
Brunswick, 1 823" (which has since, however, been partially retracted
by the author), Eanke, "Eesearches concerning the Pentateuch.
1st vol. Erlangen, 1834." These researches have also produced
an undeniable reaction upon the latest enquiries ; so that e. g.,
Schumann (Gen. Hebr. et Gr. Prolegg. p. Ixviii.) supposes as
sources of Genesis, " traditio scripta, trad, ore propagata, ingenium
auctoris ;" and even Von Bohlen, though he favours the view that an
original Elohistic source has been re-touched by a later -reviser, yet
declares that it is not allowable for us to dismember the text and
separate the original writing from it (p. cliii., viii., ff.) ; while that
which was so much the subject of earlier discussion has evidently
lost for him almost all weight and interest.

§ 8. GENERAL EXAMINATION OF THE FRAGMENT- HYPOTHESIS.
If we examine more closely the reasons by which it has been at
tempted to support this view, the following present themselves as
the principal.
1. " The superscriptions, the forms of commencement -^gp j^f
^^-|l^ii|ji^, j_^i^-|J^^j^ n'^K ^^^ ^"•'^ 'i^"' ^^ signs that something
new commences, are evidences ofthe disjunction of certain parts in
the Pentateuch. The forms of conclusion, shewing the end of a
piece, lead to the same result. Levit. vu. 87, 38, xxvi. 47, &c."*
(a.) The concession is made, however, that the mere use of the su
perscriptions does not in itself warrant any such conclusion. But
the custom of all simple historiographers, and especially the total
want of art in the style ofthe Pentateuch, speak too evidently against
1 Introd. iii p, 834—847.
2 See Vater, p, 397, 398, Hartmann, p. 169—181.

FRAGMENT-HYPOTHESIS EXAMINED. 49
such a supposition, since superscriptions of this kind are here quite
in their proper place as transitions,! The argument is then given up
when it is added that the nature of the passage, at the head of
which the superscription stands, must also be taken into account in
order to decision ; recourse is thus had to a new ground, so that
the other is voluntarily abandoned.
{b.) Every superscription or form of conclusion certainly marks
the commencement of a new passage in the narrative ; the atten
tion of the reader is thus fixed on a definite object which he is firmly
to retain in its distinct and separate individuality. But it is not
at every important occurrence, as a rhetorical form, that the Pen
tateuch employs its superscriptions and forms of conclusion : the
use of them is restricted to two cases, (a.) One is in relation to
chronology ; which, as we have already seen, is connected with
genealogy and memorable occurrences : now each genealogy de
mands diplomatic exactness, provided it lays claim to historical
fidelity, and still more if it professes to supply the thread or
scaffolding of the historical account. Hence the author repeats
those formulas most frequently in the genealogies themselves.
Num. iii. 1 — 5 the ^ihi^ ^^ ^^'^se times repeated before riTrVin
and jilQ^j ; the same is the case Ex. vi, 14 — 25, Gen. x,, xxxvi.,
xlvi. This serves to make the' genealogies more clear and intelli
gible. But at the same time also their importance thus appears in
relation to what goes before and follows, as points of support for the
whole history. Through the narrator's having given in Exod. vi, 14,
ff., the genealogy ofthe three eldest sons of Jacob with such exact
ness, he can then expressly continue : " This is that Moses and
Aaron" (according to their descent), vi. 26, 28. In Genesis this
is of still more importance. There all the genealogies stand in
exact chronological connection ; one is the continuation of the
other. Had the author joined them together, as the chronicler
has done, 1 Chron. i,, ff., he would in Uke manner have begun
straightway: li^'^J^, pl^, Ol^' ^nd might have satisfied himself
with the internal connections of the famiUes ; but now he was con
cerned to link them with the history ; how then could he dispense
with the indication supplied by the superscription, when a gene
alogy as such can never continue the narrative, but rather inter-
1 See the examples in Ewald, Compos, of Gen. p. 133 : Stahelin, Researches, p. 10,
D

50 FRAGxMENT-HYPOTHESIS EXAMINED.
rupts it ? (/3.) With this use of them another is connected, not
less of a diplomatic nature : we call it the juridical use. A law
requires to be stated with particular clearness and distinct promi
nence, that it may be apprehended in its definite aim, be exposed
to no misinterpretation, and receive close attention. In this also
we see a certain connection with the chronological intention of the
formulas, Levit. vn. 37,38 (comp. xxvii. 34, iv. 30, xxxvi. 1 3 ; Deut.
iv. 45), where the close of the ordinances given at Sinai is spoken
of But much more frequently this reference is abandoned, and
the form is turned into a simple announcement that a law fol
lows or concludes there. Hence the forms that are so current,
*p'1p n'j, '*']TTi]-) rit^t' "^C' Tli^se forms then everywhere display a
definite and well-known intention on the part of the author, stand
ing in exact relation to their object : consequently we have here
the very opposite of disorder, dismemberment, or fragmentary ar
rangement. ((?.) This is clear also from the nature of the superscriptions
themselves. From such passages as Num. i. 5, ff., where the Ji'j^
niiOtt? stands in the middle of a speech of Jehovah, it is plainly
apparent how little apprehension the author has that the unity, the
internal conjunction of the whole, would be destroyed by it. Be
sides, could he otherwise begin with a simple Ji'ji^l, as in Gen.
X. 1, xxxvi. 1, xlvi. 8, so plainly indicating by the copula the
transition and conjunction ?
Farther, the expression JTTiTiin signifies history of the origin,^
hence the reference to genealogy prevails in it equally with the re
ference to historical description. The word never stands for
history or memoir in general,* for then it could not be applicable
to genealogies ; nor simply for families, generations, for Gen. ii.
4 can only mean, " The history of the origin of the heavens and
the earth." By this very expression the narrator points our atten
tion to the circumstance that he intends everywhere to give the
origines rerum, and constantly to go back to them ; hence he
begins at once with the creation as the first ^TilVlJ^, with which
all the rest have their commencement, and to such primary be
ginnings in accordance with the pecuUar object of his plan he must
1 Just as ye'i/eirts does. The word is thus distinguished from m^W, in the same way
that HKS'ih and ssift are related to each other.
2 As Hartmann (1. u. p. 171) however will have it.

FRAGMENT-HYPOTHESIS EXAMINED. 51
reduce every thing else. Thus he connects his history by this ex
pression in a peculiar manner : in Genesis this was everywhere
necessary ; for there nothing else is, spoken of but the preservation
of the original race, and the exclusion of all the rest ; but he also
continues in this way. Mention has long been made of Moses and
Aaron ; but the author must come back to their origin, and hence
he gives quite consistently their nilViri' Num. in. 1. Thus here
also the expression has the effect of connecting, just in the same
way as pf^jyiji, D''tt?N1' CTlpD show that names, heads of tribes,
reviews, of the mention of which the preceding history suppUes
the occasion, are to be the subjects of discourse. Hence the author
also at the beginning of his nn'^in declares that now a "^q^
"'\j-\ commences v. 1, since he goes back again to the primitive liis-
tory, beginning with Adam.^ This expression accordingly embraces
all that precedes as forming a connected cycle of occurrences,
attaching these occurrences to the most important persons, an4
bringing them once more into view — (the author could not give
this information sooner, for he would then have been unintelligible) ,
— and as the statement opens thus, " now begins the book of the
origin of Adam," and this genealogy is continued as far as to
Noah, it conjoins in the fittest manner the events of ch, vi. with
those that go before. Besides, the author in this way gives an ex
cellent indication of the plan and disposition of what follows, since
he continues the "-^p -^qq in additional new rniVlJl' which,
according to his aim, should form a whole, a ^QQ-
2, An appeal is made to the isolation of those portions of the
Pentateuch, which appear to be inserted without any connection
with the preceding or following context.
This mode of procedure also bears internal evidence of a want
of critical judgment. If we should take it upon us to pro
nounce a decision according to a purely objective and absolute
standard, on the mode and fashion in which the historian must
work up his matter in a proper way, and give it the internal connec-
1 Hence the express addition : " on the day that God created man." The ToUoth of
the creation are accordingly here taken up again. Hartmann has quite misunderstood
the passage, p. 174, when he translates : " this is a (written) family register." We may
then certainly ask : " were not also the other sections of Genesis written memorials ?"
A question which just shows the impropriety of that explanation.
2 See Vater, p, 397. Hartmann, p. 181, ff.
n 2

52 FRAGMENT-HYPOTHESIS EXAMINED.
tion that belongs to it, so that the unity of his person and his work
may be deduced from it, we should unquestionably go wrong. We
should also have to pay regard in the first place to the custom of
his age and country ; and in the case of the Pentateuch neither of
these admits of that view. For while the East in general is little
concerned^ about that connection in an historical account that is ex
ternally manifest, being expressed in the verbal composition, still
more must this be affirmed in general of a writing w'hich reaches back
into so high an antiquity as ours does. We willingly concede that
in the matters related, in the subject itself, this connection of the
individual parts must necessarily appear, and hence that even where
a formal connection is wanting, a material one must be shown.
This requirement, we believe, we have already satisfied by pointing
out the internal connection of facts. Farther, along with this, the
nature ofthe historical materials themselves must be regarded. In
ihe Pentateuch this is in general of two kinds ; the one consisting
of facts, and containing narrations of events, the other legislative.
In the case ofthe former, we must evidently make stricter demands
than in that of the latter. Abrupt facts thrown together without
regard to the chronology, and without the statement of causes to
account for them, certainly speak against the unity of an historical
work. But we find just the opposite of this in the Pentateuch. It
is incontrovertibly certain that its collective narratives refer to a
definite idea which lies at the foundation ofthe whole ; and that they
are properly connected, may likewise be pointed out. This is
manifest from the relation of the legislative part to the historical.
The law, from its nature, is a separate thing, distinctly marked
off : its character is precisely that of a certain isolation ; yet we
have seen above that the element of fact is here most intimately
conjoined with the legal element, so that the explanations supplied
by the former are frequently the vouchers that verify the latter,
which itself in turn is not presented as a body or code of laws, but
advances in historical development. But, lastly, it should also not
be forgotten what was the origin of an historical work, — under
what circumstances it was called forth. These also in the case of
the Pentateuch are of a peculiar kind. According to its own state
ments, the work cannot have been produced at one time. It rather
required a series of years for its completion. In speaking of the
1 Compare remarks on this by Ewald, L c. p. 139, ff.

FRAGMENT-HYPOTHESIS EXAMINED. 53
time of its production, we wish to guard against arbitrary em-
beUishment in reference to the composition and the author, as e. g.
much has been said of disturbances and interruption caused by his
labours. But it is incontestably manifest, that as the representa
tion must stand in a certain harmony with the course of events, a
degree of isolation in certain parts of the narrative must be the
necessary consequence.
Principal stress, however, is laid on the breaks which are found in
the historical account. But how if it may be shown that just those
periods of time of which no notice is taken, such as the private
life of Moses, and the sojourn in the wilderness, did not belong to
the plan of the narrator ? Or is it not of much more consequence
to see whether the section, where the break begins, and a new
commencement of the narrative occurs, does not stand in close re
lation to what goes before, as e.g. Exod. i. joins on closely with
the conclusion of Genesis ? Such breaks, on the contrary,
are rather proofs of the plan, which the narrator kept before him
through the whole of his work without ever abandoning it. It is
just in this that his combination of the events is manifestly shown
and verified ; he gives us nothing that does not belong to his sub
ject, and therefore nothing that is isolated, but only what is mu
tually related.
3. The repetitions also are adduced, which are to be found in
the accounts given of the same matter, and are taken as a proof
that the author worked upon various authorities that lay before him,
and put them together.^
That which was brought forward by way of example to this
effect, required the exercise of careful discrimination ; but instead
of that, the most heterogeneous instances imaginable have been
brought together. A considerable part of them belongs to the
essential nature of Hebraism, to the oriental method of writing
history ; so that, before such an assertion can be maintained, the
Hebrew style of narration must be totally mistaken. Sometimes
we have the animated discourse rising even to poetical flights ;
sometimes the interruption of the discourse, and its re-connection
with the preceding ; sometimes the purpose is to direct the reader's
attention continuously to a certain object ; sometimes the repeti-
1 See Vater, p. 308. Hartmann, f. 188, ff.

54 FRAGMENT-HYPOTHESIS EXAMINED,
tion is founded in the nature of the thing, and to be explained on
internal grounds ;j e.g. psychological, Exod. vi., or historical, as
in the case of the oft-repeated promises and laws.
4. Of still less importance is the last ground, which is derived
from the diversity of the statements given of the same occur
rence.* Here also it is in fact only the examination of indivi
dual instances that can lead to a conclusion. But it merits ob
servation that this argument really abandons the proper ground
of discussion, and passes over to another, namely, that of the
history itself, and its whole character. Hence recent writers, as
Von Bohlen, exercising a clearer perception in respect to this, put
that diversity to the account of the inaccuracy, and the mythical
or traditionary character ofthe narrative. For the mythus or tra
dition is in its nature manifold ; it is a plant of rank growth,
spreading in all directions, which assumes the most multifarious
forms ; while history, on the other hand, has the characteristic of
unity ; it is the one true thing, with which, as the permanent
foundation, all the rest is joined only as that which does not be
long to it, and must be sifted from it. The charge therefore im
mediately affects not the representation, but that which is repre
sented, the thing itself that is narrated. In doing so, however, the
strange blunder has been committed of deciding beforehand : " these
occurrences are one and the same," — without considering the
contradiction involved, when it is added: "but they are diversely
related," for it is just this diversity that may easily be reconciled
with the similarity of the facts, but not with their identity. And
it is precisely the proof of the identity of the occurrences, which is
the real main-point ofthe argument, that has always been supposed,
but not demonstrated.
To turn, however, from these main points of support, let us con
sider in what way and manner the maintainers of the fragmentary
formation imagine the work has originated. For though Vater
goes no farther than the mode of collection, in which the collector
or collectors of the fragments have discharged their task, this
plainly cannot satisfy us. As little will Hartmann's notion suffice,
who conceives the whole has originated in the most external cir-
1 Comp. Rosenmiiller, scholl. i, p, 48, Ewald as above, p, 144, ff.
2 See Vater, p, 408, 428, and alib. Hartmann, p, 199, ff.

FRAGMENT-HYPOTHESIS EXAMINED. 55
-cumstances, through pure caprice of the collector, mere chance
(one roll perhaps having been left partially empty!) association of
ideas, &c. It may be that the persons who devoted themselves to
such an employment, went to work in this arbitrary and thoughtless
manner, — but how then can we explain the plan, which all the
recent writers also concede is found, in Genesis especially ? And
where can a similar proceeding be pointed out in any oriental his
toriographer (who must be one belonging to a literary period long
subsequent) ? But. the chief matter is, whence have we those
separate constituent parts, from which the collection has arisen ?
Those who have advanced this hypothesis have never considered
what violent and extensive suppositions are involved in it. For
we can hardly conceive that those larger pieces from which the
fragments were taken, treated only single and abrupt portions of
history ; neither can each have left off exactly where another be
gan : we are required to suppose that there was the most vigorous
activity in the composition of primitive history among the Hebrews,
— at some literary epoch, for which it is impossible to assign a
place anywhere in the history, a phenomenon that is the more
puzzling, as the literature that is known to us is linked in its collec
tive form with the historical narrative that is known to us,i And
now for the period of the collection itself It can only have been
after that independent literary activity, which no one will be so in
considerate as to refer to the Mosaic age, had long ceased. If we
fix perhaps on the time of the exile, how can it be reconciled with
the circumstance that the men who are then so much engaged in
collecting, as the Chronicler must necessarily have been one of
them, know nothing more than what the Pentateuch presents to us in
its present form ? How can we charge that age generaUy with the
boldness of arbitrarily cutting out, adding, and reconstructing so
much ? How shall we explain it to ourselves that the collecting
historians of that later age constantly cite their sources of information
with exactness, but never do this in the most important part of their
national history ?
But according to the assertion of a recent enquirer,* Vater's
view is only the deteriorated form of an earUer, simpler, and more
1 Comp. also the remai-ks ot Sack, Apologetik, p, 1S8, ff.
2 Ewald, Studien und Krit. 1831, 3, p. 697.

56 DOCUMENT-HYPOTHESIS EXAMINED.
correct one, the document-hypothesis : from that then we may per
haps succeed in obtaining more satisfaction.

§ 9. GENERAL EXAMINATION OF THE DOCUMENT-HYPOTHESIS.
ITS FOUNDATION : THE NAMES OF THE DEITY.
Before we examine in detail the possibility of resolving the Penta
teuch into its separate elements, we must form a general estimation of
the view, according to which we possess in Genesis and Exodus conti
nuous and subsequently interwoven documents. Considered in itself,
it is quite a natural idea that in giving an account of former times a
writer keeps to ancient documents and borrows his matter from
them. Supposing that, as far as Genesis is concerned, the histo -
rical matter of that primitive period may and must be regarded as
derived principally from the faithful tradition of tribes and families,
it is yet only natural to think that some individual writings of that
period lay before the composer of the work. However poor we
may regard the literary stores of that period, however much fidelity
and weight we may attribute to oral tradition, that supposition is
still not excluded by it. For the need of written tradition is felt
most powerfully when we are threatened with the loss of oral tra
dition, or with its falling into uncertainty. We cannot, however,
point out an epoch in the history, when the patriarchal traditions of
the family of Jacob were threatened with danger in that respect by
a mental revolution among them, earlier than the commencement
of the new period of the theocratic legislation. For the transition
of the family into a people cannot be looked upon as such, since
the change was certainly a gradual one ; while the nation itself
existed in a constant state of separation from others, and was as
far as possible from losing the consciousness of its nationality. Thus
the a priori probability as to that being the epoch does not in any
way amount to certainty.
But where external data are wanting, internal signs may perhaps
decide all the more surely. But in this also it is an important
distinction which has long been less regarded than it ought, that a
history may very well be represented in general as taken from writ
ten sources, without our being therefore in a condition to point out
these sources in individual detail, to separate them, and definitely

THE NAMES OF GOD, 57
describe their character. For our part we keep the two investiga
tions quite distinct and apart from each other ; and while the latter
entangles us in the labyrinth of hypotheses, the former might be
very well calculated to lead us out of it without the risk of partia
lity. There is, besides, one circumstance which appears to demand
the exercise of all the more caution. Nowhere in the whole of
Genesis do we find any kind of trace of quotations from any source
whatever. This circumstance in itself might appear insignificant ;
but it acquires particular importance from the comparison of the
other monuments of the historical literature of the Hebrews, In
the course of our investigations in reference to this we shaU always
find it a safe canon, that the written sources of information, where
such formed the groundwork, are everywhere named by the authors ;
but where such intimations are wanting, we have to do with contem
porary accounts. This circumstance gains more weight from our
remarking, that in Num. xxi. 14, the author of the Pentateuch
expressly names another work, from which he adduces a passage.
If he did so in this one case, why not on other occasions ? But
when considered more closely, even this circumstance is not deci
sive. For we might certainly have here not verbal extracts from
works, but merely the employment of them, an adaptation of them
to a definite end, so that on that account the compiler might not
only think it unnecessary to name any authorities, but even feel
himself under the necessity of naming none. Thus a similar course
is pursued, certainly at a much later period — but in this the East
has doubtless remained very much the same — by the Chronicler, 1
Chron. i, — ix., where he certainly borrows his genealogies, but
adapts them to a definite purpose. But then the difficulty presents
itself in a still higher degree, of deciding concerning the authorities
employed, since a sure result can be obtained only where we meet
with these in their exact and verbal authenticity. At the same time,
however, the question then becomes of less consequence, since we
must feel more interest in the matter that Ues before us in its de
finite adaptation, than in its original relation to its sources.
If these sources are to be more exactly defined, their internal
character must be strictly apprehended. The diversity of the
names of GoA, Elohim ani Jehovah, is brought forward as one of
the most important of these criteria. By the proposal of such a
principle, the investigation acquires a deeply interesting importance.

58 DOCUMENT-HYPOTHESIS EXAMINED.
Viewing the matter in general, it might certainly be regarded as a
divergence indicative of two authors, to use one appellation of God
with a marked preference. We might, for example, think of the
peculiarity which distinguishes Isaiah, in the use of the name jjJTip
7i^^to'' ^^^ "1^2S applied to God.^ Yea, we might be reminded
in reference to these very names, Jehovah and Elohim, of the later
books of the Old Testament, in which partly the former name is
rarely found,* and where this very usage is the proof of a pecuUar
difference between certain books, as those of Ezra and Nehemiah.8
In general, therefore, we could not regard it as quite improbable
that one ancient document should employ the name Elohim, and
another, the name Jehovah, with particular preference.
But we should err, were we to be satisfied with this purely empi
rical view. The names of God are as far as possible from being
arbitrary appellations ; they are the expression of religious convic
tion, and represent the relation of man to the Deity in general.
Hence the use of them also constantly bears the stamp of a certain
peculiar standing-point of the period or of the individual, which is
unquestionably the case in the later books of the Old Testament,
If we look exactly to the signification of these names of God, it is
likewise impossible to overlook a definite usage of the language,
and a diversity of sense in them ; and the bare empiric assertion
that both names are promiscuously employed, entirely leaves out of
view that, in addition to all the fundamental difference contained in
the original application of those words, both may be alternately
used according to the different views taken by the author ; and ne
glects also to make any enquiry into these views, which alone can
furnish a result, since no proper meaning can be given to the use
of two names of God in the same language that are quite synony
mous, and their diversity is certain a priori. Now, in this respect
the/orm of the two words is of special importance. The significa
tion of the root of Q^Hvi^ ^^Y remain disputed, but the form of
the word, at any rate, clearly exhibits the relation of the Godhead
to that which is plural, the expression of the Godhead in a plura
lity, its conception in that manner ; which, however, by no means
contains Polytheism as such, for this plurality can never have for
1 See Kleinert, on the genuineness of Isaiah, i. p. 221, ff, 231,
2 See Gesenius, Thes. hng. Hebr. i, p. 97,
3 See Kleinert, in the " Dbrpt'sche Beitr. i, d. theol, Wissensoh." i. p, 133, ff.

THE NAMES OF GOD. 59
its basis but a concrete unity, while Polytheism always presents in
pluraUty the single individuals and the exaltation of each to a con
crete unity, thus effecting its own destruction. But it must also be
said that the idea of this word does not express the direct positive
opposite of Polytheism. The true unity of God does not con
sist in a mere abstraction from plurality to unity : this unity
must assume a concrete form, and the idea of God become
that of a personal subsistence, the living God. This is brought
fully into view in the idea of Jehovah ; a name which conse
quently denotes the essence of the Godhead in its concrete rela
tion to mankind, the revelation of the living God himself, which is
as much unique as its object is unique : an appellation which is so
far from having come into Hebrew from an extrinsic quarter, that,
on the contrary, it contains in itself the proper objective ground of
the theocratic institution, thus finding its etymology only in the
Hebrew language and mode of thought, to which it has been im
parted as the revelation of the divine nature in this name.
If we now take into connection with this significance possessed
by the names of God, the whole system of reUgious views belonging
to the primitive age of the Hebrews, it is manifest at once that we
must not regard the idea of Jehovah as one that would naturally be
developed from the bent of the people's mind. The natural ten
dency of man's mind is, partly to lose itself in a plurality of Gods,
partly to unite this plurality again, i. e., to form an abstraction out
of it. The concrete idea of God is found only where there is a
living revelation of God, where man is conscious of personal com
munion with HIS God. Now, that is the characteristic of Hebrew
antiquity, that in it the Godhead is i)-j \'^, a living God,"* who
stands in the most definite relation to one race (y^'f), which ac
quires and maintains its internal unity only through this relation.
This antiquity, indeed, appears as the preparation for the institutions
of later origin, which are certainly an advance upon it ; but it also
necessarily contains the special revelation of God, as Him who is
the proper theocratic king of Israel; and from this point of view
we cannot admit of a mere conception of God as Elohim being en
tertained, without perverting the very nature and distinctive mark
of that primitive period,
1 Gen, xvi. 14, xxiv. 26, xxv. 11.
2 [The ohject here means, the oijecl revealed, i.e., God.— Tn.]

bO DOCUMENT-HYPOTHESIS EXAMINED.
In this also lies the questionable character that attaches to the
supposition of an original document, which represented God from
an exclusively Elohistic point of view. It would thus assume a
position so entirely different, that the whole of the primitive age
would be presented in it in quite another light than in the Jehovistic
document; and theu comes the difficulty of comprehending how
they should be made to form in the hands of a collector so beauti
ful a whole. Yet there is so much truth in the hypothesis, that,
before the establishment of the Theocracy, as it was founded by
Moses, a more extensive and frequent use of the name Elohim
might very well obtain, and indeed in a certain degree must have
done so. But all this is still far from leading us to a belief in
particular documents, exclusively containing that name.
To this must be added, that, in an historical respect, the Penta
teuch itself puts us sufficiently in a condition to decide concerning
the early use and signification of the name Jehovah, which is a
point of consequence with regard to the rest of the names of God.
In Exod. iii,, on the occasion of the solemn calling of Moses, God
names himself the God of the Patriarchs (ver, 6), whom the author
immediately names Jehovah (ver. 7). He promises Moses to be
with him {'rny;^ HTlt^' ^®^- ^^)' ^^^' when Moses hesitates, he
adds, Ji'^rit^ "ItlJN HTlt^' '^^'^- 1^' *• ^¦' "I wi'l shew myself to be
(while I am with thee) what I am,^ and it is significantly added,
" he who has spoken this pj'^ni^' ^^^ TP'ntk ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^•" "^^^
name of God Jehovah is here evidently presupposed as already in
use, and is only explained, interpreted, and applied. In what fol
lows, likewise, the discourse is constantly of Jehovah, the God of the
Patriarchs, vers. 15, 16, 18 ; and therefore it was only the signifi
cance of this ancient name that had to be brought before the
people, that they might know how much they possessed in it. It is
certainly not a new name that is introduced ; on the contrary, the
pj^pjj^ ^'^'^ rr^nW would be uninteUigible, if the name itself were
not presupposed in it as already known. The old name of anti
quity, whose precious significance had been forgotten and neglected
by the children of Israel, here as it were rises again to life, and is
again brought home to the consciousness of the people. If we look
now at the meaning of the name, we readily perceive that the
1 The expression contains the idea of the Absolute one ; see Tholuck upon it, aud the
other expositors of Ep. to Rom. ix. 15.

THE NAMES OF GOD, 61
author does not assign it so much the abstract idea of eternal
existence, as that rather of the concrete existence of God, and his
disposition towards Israel, his permanent close relationship to them.^
Hence for one thing it follows, that as the author of the Penta
teuch had distinctly in his view the full sublimity of the meaning
of the word, we accordingly must necessarily expect from him a
use of it conformed to rule ; and also that in an historical respect he
should have a clear discernment of the relation of this name to anti
quity. In the latter respect, the connection between the former
passage and ch. vi. 2, ff., is very important. The more evident it
is, that this passage has a retrospective reference to the former, and
presupposes the explanation there given of the name of Jehovah
(without which supposition its pregnant brevity would render it
quite uninteUigible), the less shall we dare to believe ourselves justi
fied in determining that there is a contradiction between the two.
The meaning of the latter is, that God revealed himself to the
Patriarchs as El Shaddai, and as such entered into a covenant-
relation with them, but " as to my name Jehovah, by that I was
not known to them ;" i. e., the signification of that name was by no
means known to them in the way that it is known, now that it has
been disclosed. And indeed that revelation was far from being a
merely theoretical one : it went hand in hand with the practical re
velation, the new glorification of God in his people. (Comp. Hos.
xiu. 4.) Not until that fact had an historical existence could it
clearly appear what that name contained in it ; not till then could
its proper complete sense be apprehended. From this then it
follows, that even here it is by no means denied, that the name was
in use in the time of the Patriarchs, but this is conceded in a li
mited sense, inasmuch as the full compass of its meaning could not
be presented sooner than the Mosaic period.
But if it should be thought that the Mosaic period received the
name first from a foreign quarter, an error would be committed.
For. should we perchance fix on Egypt, as was formerly done, all
the historical data* that should prove it are in that case wanting ;
1 As appears from vers. 7 and 8, and especially the expression in ver. 13, wliich has
not been enough regarded ^ay n^ns: comp. Banmgarten-Crusius Bibl, Theol., p. 168.
Nitzsch, System d. chr. Lehre, %61, What mistakes have been produced by overiooking
this idea, is shown by Vatke, Bibl. Theol. i,, p, 672,
2 Comp. Tholuck, in the Liter. Al2, 1832, Nr. 28—30, with whom Vatke, 1, c. p. 669,
agrees.

62

EXAMINATION IN DETAIL

and those traces of an origin of the name elsewhere, which it has
been attempted to find, turn out to be still more defective.^ But
what is most opposed to aU this is, that the name, according to
the derivation given in Exod. iii., is of thoroughly Hebrew
origin ; and that we must here also necessarily take into account
the principle, so essential in all mythological inquiries, that the
native and national home of a deity should be assigned to that peo
ple, whose language suppUes the readiest explanation of his name.«
On the whole, we can hardly conceive of a document, which,
according to its entire decided aim, is occupied with the subject
of the manifestation of Jehovah, without containing this charac
teristic name of God. If there even had been such a writing,
then, supposing it formed a consistent whole in agreement with
this fundamental view, it would have been totally unsuitable for
our author's purpose. Whether, in that case, he revised it, is in
fact a matter of indifference to us, since, by undergoing such a
change, it would become his own, and the indication of the
veritable original would then belong to the class of impossibilities.

§ 10. EXAMINATION IN DETAIL OF THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE
DIVISIBILITY OF THE PENTATEUCH INTO SEPARATE
DOCUMENTS.
(a) GENESIS.
Turning away from the entirely arbitrary attempts at minute
separation made by Ilgen on ch. i., we find, on the other hand,
the view widely spread, that ch. i.— rii. 3; forms a distinct narrative
of the Creation, which is to be definitely separated from the follow
ing piece, ch. ii. 4 — iii.
If we pay attention, in the first place, to ii. 4, which verse is
made to form the superscription of a new piece, the impropriety of
this view soon appears. In ii. 1 we have a form of conclusion for
1 As is strikingly evinced by Vatke's proceeding, who imagines an upper-Asiatic
origin, in which certainly the rage for hypothesis has indulged its capricious play with.
out restraint.
2 Concerning its correct derivation from nirt, see Ewtdd, Gr, p. 216. Hitzig on
Isaiah, p. 4.
3 See Baur, Symbolik, i. p. 287.

OF THE DOCUMENT-HYPOTHESIS. 63
the six days' work of creation : the important and particularly
prominent account of the seventh day is attached to it in addition,
and here we miss a similar form of conclusion. Why should not
ii, 4 be that form ? No certain conclusion can be drawn from '^^i^
rrnVlH' ^^^ ^^^^ ^^Y equally well be a form of commencement (see
V. 1, vi. 9, X, 1), or aform of conclusion (x. 5, 20, 31, 32, xxxvi. 29,
43.) The contents ofthe verse then must decide. Now a " creation of
the heavens and of the earth" is not spoken of in what foUows, but
only in what precedes. In order then to join the passage with
what follows, it would require the arbitrary supposition that this
has here been left out -j^ and setting aside every preconceived opi
nion, why should not this part that is left out be just the part that
precedes ? The view we oppose would deserve regard, only in case
the preceding and subsequent portions stood in contradiction to
one another.
We find the same use of words in the verse as in the preceding
context, j,^"^^ and ntoj^ having here the same relation to one ano
ther, as they have throughout in ch. i., comp. ii. 3, where ^^i^
constantly signifies the accomplishment of the divine will ;* so that
on that account those writers are in error, who would begin a new
sentence with Q^^^, and connect it with what follows ; which also
produces in fact a strange sense, since it is necessarily understood
that at that time no plants, &c., were as yet in existence. Stress
is laid, however, on " Jehovah Elohim," which now becomes the
writer's standing expression, as being a diversity of verbal usage.
But light is at once thrown on the use of Jehovah, by remarking
that what is here spoken of is the completion of the work of crea
tion on the seventh day, the Sabbath. For it is impossible not to
recognise the reference to the theocratic legislation in that sketch,
ii. 2, 3 ; and thus the theocratic king Jehovah is quite in his pro
per place here.
We must, however, admit that this leaves still unexplained the
remarkable use of the title Jehovah Elohim. The expression is
the more remarkable, as in historical writing it is exceedingly rare ;
and it is found there only in addresses to Jehovah, in the mouth of
1 Comp, Gabler, in Eichhorn's Urgesch. ii. 1, p. 18, ff., elsewhere p. 588, ff.
2 Comp. very good remarks concerning the relation of KI3, ^Si, and nto in Reimarus,
de differ. Vv. Hebr. Eosenm., Comment, theol. iv. p. 294.

C4 EXAMINATION IN DETAIL
the speaker,;i emotion in general leading to a multiplication of the
names of God. But it soon becomes clear that the singularity of
this use in a purely historical style is by no means explained by
the supposition of another document, for this does not answer the
question, but only puts it out of the way farther back. We are
certainly justified in again putting the question, how any one came
to employ this uncommon name. The remark that Jehovah desig
nates the Supreme Deity, and Elohim the inferior subordinate
gods,* however often it may be made, explains nothing. It does not
explain the conjunction of the two ; for such a fusion of Mono
theism and Polytheism is in itself incomprehensible ; and how could
that idea be expressed at all in this manner, when Q^n^i^ ^^ '^^'
nifestly the predicate to X^ST^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^ genitive, as is every
where else indeed the case with this combination ; or how could a nar
rator thus express himself, with the intention of giving his readers
the idea that Jehovah works by his Elohim ? Nor does it ex
plain the use of the terms, since it still remains a strange thing that
Jehovah is not represented sooner, in ch. i,, as the higher all-go
verning Deity in the background, and Elohim as his mediating
principle. We gain as Uttle by the view, that the author here
meant to say that the God, who is the Creator of the universe, is
no other than Jehovah, the tutelary and national God of the He
brews ;' for, though this observation is far from being exactly false,
it is still unsatisfactory, since we must still put the question why
God is not so named in ch. i. as well, and for what reason this sec
tion contains so frequent a use of the form ? Hence it follows
that the reason must be sought in the peculiar character of the
narrative— in its contents. As the creation, taken in its visible
appearance, is a revelation of God in general, a reflection of his
majesty and glory ; this relation became altered after the fall, and the
curse, pronounced by God on man and the earth. The revelation of
God is now one that is to train man, viewed in reference to his
sinful condition. This special guidance and training is connected
with a particular race (j^'^f) ^^^^ confined to it. With the fall is
given the commencement of the development of the Theocracy,
1 Comp. Ewald, Compos, of Gen. p. 93.
2 See Gabler, 1. c. p. 4, ff. Ewald, 1. c. p. 95. Schumann, p, 31. Von Bohlen, p. 22, ff.
3 Comp. e. g. Rosenmiiller, scholl. p. 93, Schott, opusc. ii. p. 60. Eanke p. 163.

OF THE DOCUMENT-HYPOTHESIS. 65
since God here shews himself to be one who will not abandon fallen
man in his helplessness and misery. Therefore God reveals him
self specially as Jehovah. By the help of Jehovah, Eve bears a
son (iv.. 1) ; Jehovah speaks with Cain, and drives him out from
his presence ; the name of Jehovah is invoked by the pious race of
the Sethites (iv. 26). Thus chapters ii. and iii. manifestly form
the transition from ch. i. to ch, iv. How then could that part
which is intermediate between the two conditions of man, be more
appropriately marked than by the conjunction of the two names of
God ? Elohim the creator, and Jehovah the protector, deUverer,
and redeemer, are not two different Gods — they are one and the
same; but the mode ofhis manifestation was and must be different,
according to the altered condition of man. Thus the condition of
man in Paradise, with all that belongs to it, will be seen to stand
quite apart from all the preceding and the subsequent history, if we
keep in our eye the religious point of view assumed by Genesis, —
that regard to the relation of man to God which every where prevails
in it. Subsequently, the expression may certainly be used, formed
by a purely theocratic view, that " Jehovah hath cursed the ground"
(ver. 29), that He is the Creator (Exod. xx. 11), &c. But here,
because of the previous narrative, the position assumed [der Stand -
punkt] was necessarily quite different. The whole life of man stood
in the most intimate relation to the creative God (hence also
Elohim alone is used in ch. iii. 1, 3, 5) ; but this God begins even
here to prove himself Jehovah, and to provide for the salvation of his
chosen race ; see particularly iii. 1 5, where the separation of the
seed of the woman from the seed of the serpent, is the fundamental
thought that receives its further development in Genesis. But
where all is so closely connected as in this narrative, the author
could not suitably employ Elohim at one time, and Jehovah at
another. The want of analogy which marks the contents of this
portion of the narrative, as compared with all the rest, justifies him
in using this peculiar name of God, and thus he accomplishes his end
admirably, of connecting it with what goes before and what comes
after. This circumstance is particularly important, in reference to
ver. 4 . While this verse, on the one hand, stands in the closest con
nection with the preceding context, it is plainly joined to the fol
lowing also by means of the " Jehovah Elohim," yet in such a way
as to mark the transition. E

66 EXAMINATION IN DETAIL
Let us now see whether we can find in the following context
contradictions otthe preceding. It has been remarked^ that in ch.
ii. 5, ff., there reigns a certain want of plan, with a confused and
unconnected style of narration. If we investigate the point more
closely, the observation will certainly appear unfounded, for it does
not apply to ch. iii., which yet necessarily has the same author ;
but, in reference to ch. ii., it contains a measure of truth. That
chapter is unintelUgible without taking in what goes before. The
narrative is there laid out in groups ; but these separate paragraphs
refer partly to the preceding context, partly stand in a certain con
nection with one another, partly form a preparatory introduction
to ch. iii.
It was requisite, in the first place, to state how man was formed,
so that the earthly nature of the Lord of creation might be known,
and the fall, and the curse connected with that fact, be understood
(ii. 6 — 7, comp, i. 28, iii. 19). The vegetable kingdom had not
yet bloomed forth in its complete beauty, when man was formed ;*
but it was prepared by the mist that watered the ground. It is not
the creation of the vegetable world that is spoken of, for that would
, require to be expressed in ver. 6 ; but the springing up of the plants.
In ch. i. 12 the earth produces them (j^^^ni)' ^^^e their perfect
formation is mentioned \ the latter, therefore, necessarily presup
poses the former, just as ->jjiiv ver. 7, reminds us that the author
does not intend to state the fact of formation, but only the manner
of it. But the reason why the vegetable world is mentioned, is to
show in what circumstances the first man found himself placed.
It was in a garden full of beautiful trees, and these trees have at
the same time a reference to the fall (ver. 8, 9). The author has
spoken of the garden in Eden, and he does not omit to give a more
exact definition of the country, so as to be able at the same time
to describe its magnificence (ver. 10 — 15). But the question
occurs, what capacity does Adam hold in that country ? Unques
tionably that of its lord (ver. 15, comp. i. 28), but limited at the
same time by the divine command, which again explains to us his
1 See Eichhorn, Urgesch. ii. 2, p, 32.
2 [Ver. 5 of ch. ii. must not be rendered as in our C.V.,but : " Now no plant of the field
was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up," &c.; and thus stands
quite independent of ver. 4, referring rather to ver. 7.— See Eosenm. scholl. in loc— Tb,]
3 Hence both expressions hito and h»3i are used. Comp, in reference to the former
the Syriac cognate, Castelli Lex. Syr, p. 898, Mich.

OF THE DOCUMENT-HYPOTHESIS, G7
fall (ver. 16, 17.) Adam also dwells not here alone; it had only
been said that they were created male and female (i. 27) ; but their
relative position to one another, which again is so important for
ch. iii., had not been mentioned. This cannot be stated by the
author without representing the relation in which Adam stood to
the rest of the animal world, and the relation, essentially different
from the former, in which he stood t.o bis wife. Here also it was
not the formation ofthe woman in itself that came under considera
tion, but the mode of it, for in that consisted the difference esta
bUshed by God. Therefore, in -^jj^i*'!. in ver. 19, the author again
begins concerning the animal world. They were formed out of the
ground, which again is in agreement with i. 24 ; only here, in ac
cordance with the author's object, the manner of their origin is more
exactly defined ; not, however, in such a way that the retrogression
should be marked by proper formulae.' It is simply impUed in
the matter itself. The word "^jjl makes it plain enough that the
previous fact and the further carrying out of it are here treated of
After this repetition of the account of the irrational creation, the
creation of Adam should properly follow, but this has already been
spoken of, so that the author can now immediately introduce the
mode of the woman's creation. For to show that she is one with
the man, and most intimately connected with him, is to him the
main point of the narrative ; with which is then joined, in ver. 25,
as the^transition to ch. iu., the short but expressive description of
their mutual situation.
As ch. iv. is closely connected by its general contents and special
reference (iv. 7, comp. ui. 16) with what precedes, it is on that ac
count important to observe that in ver. 25 Elohim, and in ver. 26
Jehovah, is used. Nothing is left for the defenders of the documen
tary origin in this case but, after Astruc's example, to affirm that
ver. 25 is interpolated, or to alter the reading. The reverse is the
case in ch. v. 29, where Jehovah occurs instead of the other name
of God elsewhere employed, and nothing but the same violent cri
ticism can smooth the difficulty. This, however, is unadvisable,
the more so as it is evident that the author uses the one name or
the other with a perfect knowledge of what he is doing ; e. g, in
the account of Abel's sacrifice and Cain's, in the invocation or wor-
1 The nan'ation continues always to make historical progress; hence 1S''i1 must on
no account be taken, ungrammatically, as the pluperfect.
E 2

68 EXAMINATION IN DETAIL
ship of the divine name, in the curse pronounced on the earth, and
the deliverance through Noah, we have constantly the name Jeho
vah, Ch. v., accordingly, is anything but an isolated fragment.
In ver. 1 and 2, there is a reference to i. 27, 28 ; ver. 3 refers to
ch. iii., the fall of man, to which there is here only a brief and em
phatic allusion in the words, "he begat in his own Ukeness," which
thus presuppose the more detailed narration ; and ver. 6 connects
again with iv. 25, 26. Then we have in ver. 29 a stiU clearer re
ference to iii. 17. And the close of the genealogy, as it extends
to Noah, connects the chapter with what follows.
By ^n'''!' c^- ¦^*- i^ closely joined with the preceding. It is the
moral condition of Noah's time that the author means to describe.
The document-hypothesis is here obliged at once to take out ver.
3, but, not knowing what place to assign it, joins it in the most ar
bitrary manner with iv. 26,' which certainly does not suit. The
less weight should be laid on the expression Qin'^S "'iH' ^i'^''^ the
entire Hebrew idiom left the author no choice of another expression.
In short, if it is granted that vi. 3 stands in its proper place, we
then have here again precisely the same regular change of the name.
Jehovah will withdraw his Spirit from man ; for his own specially
beloved race, that ofthe Sethites, has not kept itself pure from sin
ful commixture. Then, in accordance with this declaration, Jeho
vah also forms the resolution utterly to destroy the human race
(ver, 5-r-7).
Only Noah found favour with God, vi. 8. For the important
statement that this patriarch would occupy a position of such con
sequence in the history, we were prepared by the significant predic
tion V. 29. His person is so important in the author's view that
he must name his family once again, his three sons, though men
tioned already (v. 32) ; for they also are of the greatest consequence
in the history of the flood. He therefore begins with an n^N
rm^in' which must not be taken for the superscription of a new
section, but is only intended to draw the attention to this particu
larly remarkable family. But hardly has the author introduced the
name of Noah, when he must at the same time state the reason why
he found favour with God, and describe his godly life, in doing
which he adds, not without meaning, liDITll' ^o^' the contrast be
tween him and the accursed race is strikingly present to his view ;
1 Eichhorn, Einl, 3, p. 125.

OF THE DOCUMENT-HYPOTHESIS, (;9
hence once more, for the sake of the contrast, he must depict their
depravity (vi. 1 1, 12). It was, in particular, this and other repe
titions that disposed the critics to their dismemberment of the
history of the flood. But how admirably is this first one explained
at once by the author's purpose to bring before us a complete pic
ture of the marked opposition referred to ! How well is Q^n^^il
joined closely by the article to what precedes, so that the author by
no means forgets his use of Jehovah (ver. 9, 11, comp, ver, 8) !
How manifest is the advance in the heightened description of the
guilty earth, from evil imaginations (vi, 5) to downright deeds of
violence and outbreaks of sin (vi. 11, 12) ! How could the uni
versal spread of this corruption be better marked than in this im
pressive manner !
Two discourses of God follow; vi. 13, ff.,andvu. 1 — 4, These,
it seems, must not only be, the one the repetition of tbe other ; the
one distinguished by the name Elohim, the other by that of Je
hovah ; but they must also be in contradiction to one another.
Now the one discourse is before the building of the ark, the other
subsequent to it. In the latter, therefore, the building is supposed
as completed : " go into the ark," (n^nn) '' '^ ^^^^> '^"- ^- ^^^
we imagine that a writer who so plainly connects his statement
with what immediately precedes, would be guilty of falling into a
contradiction ? It is manifest that Jehovah is only defining with
more exactness, considering the nature of the animals according to
their cleanness, the number of those that were to be taken in ; a
command which now, at their actual entrance into the ark, first
became of importance. As might be expected, it is Jehovah that
speaks here ; for the position assumed is entirely theocratic. The
reference to the later Levitical laws is here too plainly prominent
to permit at all that name of God to be wanting in this place.
On the other hand the reference to the earlier appointment is not
omitted, for the animals came to Noah in pairs (vii. 9). Here
also Jehovah is exchanged for Elohim (vii. 9), as soon as the re
ference to the theocratic appointment retires into the back-ground.
We have already directed attention to the fact, that the author,
occupied with the exalted nature of his subject, loves to present the
most important points of it in many favourite turns of expression,
dwelling upon them with pleasure. This mode of writing is parti-
pularly observable in the description he gives of tho constantly in-

70 EXAMINATION IN DETAIL
creasing mass of waters of the flood, laying all waste before them,
vu. 13, ff. Here also he cannot often enough bring forward the
wonderful and safe deliverance of the Noachides in opposition to
the destruction of the human race. In this he only continues the
contrast which he had previously marked. It was stated before
that Noah had gone into the ark (vii, 7) ; but the narrator wishes
farther to show the astonishing care that Jehovah took of those that
were thus concealed, and how he kept them secure from all injury.
The words, " Jehovah shut him in," vii. 16, are too important,' as
contrasting with the fate of those who are surrendered by Jeho
vah to destruction, for the author to deny himself a second descrip
tion of the act of entrance. The earlier account, which was a good
deal interrupted by chronological statements, was for the purpose
of pointing out the faithfulness of Noah in fulfilling the divine
commands. Here the object changes, and the repetition accord
ingly is quite in its place. The description of the flood, accord
ingly, commences in the way of marked contrast, with all possible
expressions that can paint the rising of the water ; but to this part
necessarily belongs, because of that contrast, the mention of the
preserved family (vu. 23), and then the writer again begins con
cerning the waters (vii . 24). The same change, therefore, of the
name of God, as in the previous sections, is here very significant ;
and it is with the greatest difficulty we can get rid of it, and only
by again having recourse to a supposed interpolation.
Ch. viii. 1 — 19 describes Noah's deliverance in its completion,
the exit from the ark ; here also we remark quite the same style
delighting in heightened repetitions (viii. 11, ff.) ; hut no one would
propose a separation here. There is, however, the more readiness
to consider, vin. 20 — 22, and ix. 1 — 17, the sacrifice of Noah, and
his covenant with God, as two documents that run parallel to each
oLher, and which are again to be distinguished by the use of the
divine names. It certainly appears at first sight, as _if ix. 1, ff,,
might be joined immediately with viii, 19 ; but on closer conside-

1 Short as this sentence may appear, so much the more weight belongs to the thing
itself, and to the name niil% which here is so significant, rendering all farther detail
needless, since of itself it expresses the utmost that divine love could do for Noah,
Where this immediate interference of God is less prominent, and where the narrative
gives a more detailed description ofthe movements of divine providence, as in viii. l,ff.,
the author at once suitably resumes the use of DTiVn.

OF THE DOCUMENT-HYPOTHESIS. 71
ration viu. 20 — 22 appears by no means so unconnected and separ
able. For the expression, "Jehovah determined with himself"
(127 7i^ "1^!f^''V "^er. 21), by no means signifies a promise of God,
imparted by him to Noah ; but we rather look for such a promise
to foUow it. That Jehovah, however, should be named in this
passage, is necessary because of the description of the sacrifice.
On the other hand Elohim now begins ix. 1 to pronounce a bles
sing. And with propriety. It is only to Jehovah that Noah
can sacrifice, and only Jehovah can graciously accept the of
fering ; but the blessing is one that extends to Noah and his
sons, and the remark is even now (ver. 19) made by the writer
that they are to be the patriarchs of the whole new race of
mankind, in which he makes a reference that is entirely pre
paratory to the selection' of one family. Here begins now a
new creation as it were ; and as the earth, coming forth from the
waters, has renewed its youth, no other blessing but- that which is
appropriate to creation can here be repeated. The covenant, the
blessing, the promise of God, the sign of the covenant itself, are
quite of a universal character, which appears most plainly, where
the author makes known through Noah the special curse and bless
ing pronounced on his sons. Here the God of Shem is expressly
called Jehovah ; the more, since, instead of Ham, Canaan is cursed
(ver. 25, 26) ; Japhet shall be enlarged by Elohim. An historian
cannot express more clearly than this, how strongly he wishes to
distinguish in this respect the point of view which he assumes in
the composition of his narrative. The two accounts of Noah's
sacrifice and God's blessing bear exactly the same relation to one
another, only in a larger extent, as the blessings of Shem and Ja
phet. We are in no wise justified in arbitrarily rending asunder
the larger section any more than the smaller.
If we have observed how the dispersion of Noah's sons over the
whole earth has been already made prominent, we shall not be sur
prised to find the same fact more exactly stated in ch. x. ; cer
tainly for the most part in mere names, for they have no more in
terest for our history, which is concerned only about the position
of the Shemites in relation to the rest of the nations. The dis-
1 lAussclieitluHg : lit. Separation; and the meaning here may be Exclusion, and the
" one family" may intend that of the Canaanites (see last clause of ver. 18). The clause
iu the original is both obscure and ambiguous,- Tb.]

72 EXAMINATION IN DETAIL
covery, however, is said to be made that ch. x, is an independent
piece, having its parallel in xi, 10 — 26. The two pieces unques
tionably are of a different character and bearing, the one cosmo-
graphical, the other genealogical ; in the former we have a 'general
indication of the relative descent of the different nations, in the
other a special preparation for the history of Abraham by the
statement of his pedigree. The latter again rests so much for sup
port on that general basis, that it must necessarily be preceded by
it, as is expressed by the narrator himself in the words "^ji^
SllttH' ^'- 10. As everywhere in Genesis, so here also the author
takes notice of the collateral lines, so as to set them forth clearly
in their relation to the main line, which he treats in fuller histo
rical detail, and to distinguish them from it. At the same time
the genealogy in ch. xi. must serve a chronological purpose, which
was quite wanting in ch. x. The author proceeds here also, as he
did in ch. v., in his statements concerning the age of the father at
the birth of his first son. Such statements could be given only as
to the main-line. But ch. xi. 1 — 9, since it accounts for ch. x.,
pointing out the way in which the nations were separated and dis
persed, must necessarily precede xi. 10; and is therefore connected
not merely with what goes before, but also with what follows, as
that supplies the statement of the unity of the race that was faith
ful to Jehovah, amidst all the division of the nations.
It has been proposed to look on xi. 27 — 32 also, as an indepen
dent, isolated piece, though Eichhorn (p. 115) dared pass no deci
sion upon it : this too is purely impossible. As soon as the gene
alogy comes to Terah (xi. 25), it diverges, for in ver. 26 it names
three sons ofhis, not one only. By that the author shows at once,
as previously in the case of Noah, that he means to speak of this
family at greater length, and to bring us into closer acquaintance
with its circle. Therefore he gives more exactly the frn'^'i]-)
of Terah, in ver. 27, for Lot also belongs to the subsequent his
tory. Thus it is no superfluous repetition. The contradictions be
tween this piece and what follows are hardly worth regarding ;
Von Bohlen even has affirmed that the most important, viz., be
tween xii. 4 and xi. 32, cannot be made out.*
The nearer that the narrative draws to that which is its great
1 See this stated in more detail by Eanke, 1. c, p. 181—192.
2 P, 157. Comp. partioulariy Eanke, p. 192, ff.

OF THE DOCUMENT-HYPOTHESIS. 73
object, and the more splendidly in this respect that a new epoch
for the covenant-people begins with Abraham, the more promi
nently also does Jehovah now appear in his glorious manifestation.
In the events of Abraham's history, his departure from his home,
and his life in Canaan and in Egypt, Jehovah everywhere reveals
himself as the God who is present with him. The close connection
of ch. xii. and ch. xiii. has not been overlooked. Yet it has been
attempted to tear ch. xiv. out of its connection, and to declare it to
be Elohistic, though the name of Jehovah is by no means wanting
in it, ver. 1 9 — 22. But certainly there also occur in it designa
tions of God that are quite peculiar. These, however, arise so out
of the given historical causes, that care and intention are every
where obvious (see farther on) . The connection of xiv. 1 certainly
seems to be loose, but the difficulty here is purely of an historical
nature, and it is only in that respect that we have to remonstrate with
our author, while it is just here that exact chronological statement
is of no consequence to him, as is plain from the indefinite ex
pression in XV. 1, n^t^n D'^'inPF "irtN- -A-S Uttle will it do to
separate ch. xvii. and ch. xx., by insisting partly on the names of
God, partly on the similarity to previous events presented by the
occurrences. The first assertion is incorrect, since Jehovah is
found in both chapters ; see xvii, 1, xx, 18, comp. also xix. 29,
The reason of the change of name is also quite clear from the con
text. The one time, it occurs in the vision of Abraham, (where it
is only a divine revelation in general that is spoken of, in which the
Deity testifies that he will be Abraham's God) ; the other time, in
the history of Abraham when at the court of a heathen king, we
find Qiri'^N quite in its place ; but both times the author does
not omit to testify that this Deity is no other than Jehovah himself,
the one time at the beginning, the other at the close of the state
ment. The second assertion is quite inappUcable. How could it
anyhow lead us to the supposition of fragments or different docu
ments ? It affects simply the historical character of the narrator ;
it supposes him destitute of the qualifications of an historian, treat
ing of the same fact in different forms, which forms have come into
his hands in a detached condition. This is manifestly a supposi
tion which cannot be properly examined till afterwards, on which
consequently a new hypothesis must not be founded.
How wretched is the failure of the document-hypothesis in ch.

74 EXAMINATION IN DETAIL
xxi. ! In ver. 1 and 33 we read Jehovah, who shows himself
gracious to Sarah, and whose name Abraham invokes ; on the
other hand, in the fepisode of Hagar, and the transactions with
Abimelech, the name Elohim is quite in its place. But here the
context shows as clearly as possible, that no separation must be
attempted. Thus Jehovah is here everywhere the central point, to
which the history always comes back, in all its digressions never
leaving him out of view, and thus making true historical progress.
This becomes quite plain in ch. xxii. where the expression pnil"'
l-j^"^"! is as it were the centre of the whole, to which the narrator,
setting out from a more general point of view, gradually leads us.'
But, farther on, it will be made particularly evident how in ch.
xxiv., the difference of the two names is exactly regarded and ex
pressly stated, so that one is obliged to admit that a single chapter
of that kind destroys the hypothesis from its foundation. But above
all ch. xxv. shows how well the author brings the Ufe of Abraham
to a close, and rounds it off as a whole, and with what nicety the
transition is made to the life of Isaac. The previous history is
here brought before us as in a recapitulation. Abraham takes an
other wife, and by this the history is closely connected with ch. xxiv.,
where information is given of the death of Sarah. He dismisses,
however, all his sons, and separates them from Isaac, in which
there is a plain reference to the history of Hagar. Abraham dies
and is buried in his hereditary sepulchre, comp. ch. xxiii. The
blessing of God then passes to Isaac. According to custom, the
related Une of Ishmael is also genealogically explained (comp. xvii.
20) ; and the author then passes on to Isaac himself, and introduces
the commencement of this new history with a genealogical glance
of retrospect to what had happened already in Abraham's Ufe-time
(xxv. 19, ff., comp. ch. xxiv.). It is thus a mere impossibility to
divide the piece, as has so unsuccessfully been attempted. A similar
relative connection is found in chs. xxvi., xxvii., xxviii,, where a
constant reference to the earlier part prevails (see the passages in
Schumann pp. 386, 396) ; indeed, the farther we advance in the
narrative, the more is the following portion a continuation of that
which precedes.
The document- hypo thesis separates ch. xxvii. 1 — 45 from xxvii.
46 — xxviii. 9, as two parallel accounts of the occasion of Jacob's
1 Comp. on Hitzig's attacks on this chap, Eanke, p, 211, ff.

OF THE DOCUMENT-HYPOTHESIS. 75
journey. But a single verse destroys the hypothesis ; in xxviii, 7
it is said, "And Jacob obeyed his father and his mother, and went
to Mesopotamia." So then that command proceeds as much from
Eebecca (xxvii. 43) as from Isaac, and the two so-called original
documents cannot run parallel, since they refer to one another.
Again it is said that in ch. xxx. 23 two different etymologies of
the name Joseph are given, and therefore ch. xxx, 1 — 23 must
form another separate document. Now here it is just the beauty of
the expression in the two verses that is completely missed : joy on
account of the son received (hDk^)' ^""^ a longing for more pro
geny (hD'') '^^6 intermingled in the heart of Eachel, and the same
verb is employed as most fitly uniting both ideas, thus also binding
the verses together most closely. With ch, xxxi. a still more
arbitrary procedure is adopted. The hypothesis here tears ver. 3
out of the connection ; but in order to account for the thought, it
must also separate ver, I, and with equal violence declare ver, 49
to be interpolated.
Attempts have been made on ch. xxxv. to separate it both into
documents and into fragments. It is evident, that by the arrival
of Jacob at Shechem (xxxiii. 18), the scene of occurrences is sup
pUed, and by that not only ch. xxxiv., but also ch. xxxv. are
brought into close conjunction. It is true, that here the name of
Jacob is once more appointed by God to be Israel (comp. xxxii.
22, ff.), but this is manifestly the simple confirmation of the name
already given, standing in the same relation as the fresh announce
ment of the significant name Bethel, For we see that this writer
knows very well, what information he has already given about that
place (xxxv. 3, 6, 7), and yet he does not hesitate to say,- " he
called the place Bethel (properly El-Bethel)." Can a narrator
tell us more plainly than in this way, that he is fully aware of the
repetitions, that he has by no means blindly huddled together docu
ments and fragments, but that he regards facts of that kind as
having really occurred more than once ? We may then quarrel
with this history for being such a history, but we cannot possibly
assail the identity of its narrator. The author concludes xxxv. 23, ff.
with the genealogy of the sons of Jacob. But this is evidently
done with a two-fold intention : in the first place, to recapitulate
what goes before, and to direct the reader's attention to the fact,
that the twelve patriarchs of Israel were now in existence, and on

76 EXAMINATION IN DETAIL
that account expressly we are reminded by the writer of Mesopo
tamia, and the memorable occurrences there (xxxv. 26) ; they are
so vividly present to him, that he takes no farther notice of the
circumstance that Benjamin was not born there, plainly supposing
that this will be known from what precedes. At the death and
burial of Isaac, which are then mentioned, Esau and Jacob are
present ; and we are thus led both by the genealogy and by the
history to the genealogy of the collateral line of Esau (ch. xxxvi.)
This is the second intention, to introduce what follows. It is about
the last time that we find the brothers together ; their families now
part asunder into two distinct nations, standing at a later period
in mutual hostile opposition. However peculiar the genealogy in
ch. xxxvi. may be, its character is completely explained by what
precedes, the object being to show the increase of this family to a
great and mighty people. How then can it be thought that this
document was formerly an independent one, much less a mutilated
fragment ? What then could occasion the peculiar plan of it ?i
The very intimation that Esau's wives were women of Canaan,
should have suggested the observation, that the preceding part,
where mention is made of this circumstance, is supposed to be
known. Instead of that, from a partial diversity of names, the con
clusion is drawn of a diversity of documents, in place of taking the
trouble to give an historical explanation of the difference, which
is the only explanation that can be given. Instead of recognising
in xxxvi. 6 an agreement with xxxii. 3, 4, as to the abode of Esau
in Seir, the conclusion is drawn of a chronological contradiction,
although the information could not possibly be furnished by the
genealogy in any other way, the proper nature of which conse
quently ought first to have been examined,*
The history of Joseph also is affirmed by recent criticism to be
a composition made up from sources that are quite diverse.^ The
passages in ch. xxxvii. that apparently betray confusion are no
proof at all of want of connection ; they affect merely the character
of the narration, so that we might designate it as defective or in
exact, in which case, indeed, the demands which we make in
general on ancient historiography, would require to be of a very
1 See on this, Ewald, comp. d. Gen. p. 25 1, ff.
2 Comp. Eanke, 1. o. p. 243, ff.
3 See e. g. De Wette, Einl. pp. 194, 196.
2

OF THE DOCUMENT-HYPOTHESIS. 77
peculiar kind.' The place assigned to ch. xxxviii. is quite appro
priate, as being the history of the sons of Jacob, who remain in
Canaan, in opposition to that of Joseph, who was led into Egypt :
hence also the chronological plan is here adhered to only in a
general way (xxxviii. 1). In this arrangement we see a writer,
who does not arrange his history so as to follow only a mere
external principle, such as a purely chronological method, but is
fully concerned for its sesthetic representation and its higher as
pects, and displays in this the art of a master. The difficulties
that have been found in ch. xxxix. and xl., are insignificant, aris
ing from not understanding the fact that Potiphar, as captain of
the body-guard, was at the same time the chief overseer of the
prison ; or from adducing it as a contradiction between ch. xlviii.
and ch. xlix. that in the former place thirteen tribes must he spoken
of, while in the latter only twelve are named, although everywhere
in the Hebrew records mention is made of only twelve tribes
(Eanke, p. 275). We shall come afterwards, however, to consider
what are brought forward as historical inaccuracies in this docu
ment. We shall here only add the remark that those pieces which
De Wette specifies as being " without doubt" Elohistic, are by no
means convincing. Thus in the very first piece, xlvi. 1 — 7, the
name Elohim appears to be only appropriate, since it is a vision
that is spoken of, in which the divine appearance informs Jacob
that he is the God of his fathers ; where the document itself conse
quently points to the name Jehovah, which, however, from the
nature of the case, is not mentioned . As little can the supposition
be maintained in ch. xlviii., since here also Jacob constantly speaks
of a certain definite God (Qin'^^n)' ^^° ^^'^ ^® ^^ other than
Jehovah. In ch. xlix., however, ver. 18 must be assumed to be
another interpolation, in order to support the hypothesis.

§ 1 1. THE RESULT WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCES OF GENESIS.
According to what has been remarked above, the criteria that
have been hitherto proposed for the separation of the supposed
originals ofthe work do not stand a closer examination. The de-
I Comp, Schumann, p. 536, Von Bohlen, p. 353. Ranke, p. 258, ff.
2 Scs the admirable exhibition of this in Ranke, p. 263.

78 EXAMINATION OF THE
viation of each originator or defender of this hypothesis from the
others shows the purely subjective character which the investigation
has assumed in their hands. Ewald gave a very excellent exhibi
tion of the untenableness of this thoroughly empiric procedure, by
showing how it might be applied to another Old Testament book,
that of Judges, and thus at the same time pointed out its uncritical
character by striking evidence. All these hypotheses fail us just
where they lay claim to the greatest probability, while in the
other parts of Genesis it is quite impossible to carry them out at all.
These investigations, as hitherto conducted, have deserved the
general reproach of not setting out from the only position that
could lead to more accurate results, namely, the recognition of the
unity of the plan, and the harmonious conjunction of the individual
parts of the work, but constantly directing research only to the dis
covery of un connectedness and isolated parts. But if that unde
niable fact were placed at the outset of the inquiry, as it certainly
ought, we then at once recognise in the book a mode of historical
composition, which by no means proceeds in the way of awkward
compilation, or strings fragments together inconsiderately without
proper connection, but everywhere follows a definite order and re
gularity in drawing out the thread of the history. Put where
there is no compilation, there may still be a working up of pre
vious materials, supposing that these really exist and are not an
arbitrary fiction. The question consequently arises, how can we
with most certainty explain the working up in Genesis of the his
torical matter that previously existed ? If an historical sul ject
had already received a fixed and definite form, given to it by
written documents, it would certainly be difficult, from the cha
racter of oriental historical composition, to explain how it should
come to be worked up into another peculiar and entirely indepen
dent form ; though the conception might be admitted, that the in
fluence of theocratic views produced this independent character in
Hebrew historiography. But the question recurs, cannot a more
natural explanation be furnished of that adherence to plan and
harmony of parts, which we meet with in Genesis, in some other
way than by the supposition of certain written documents, which
must set limits to that organic form, and necessarily impress a
unity upon it. No kind of intimation is anywhere supplied con
cerning a written record belonging to that period, and vet. com-

DOCUMENT-HYPOTHESIS. 79
pared with the other historical books, there was no want of oppor
tunities for such allusions. E, g. in the case of the songs that are
interwoven in the narrative, as in ch. iv. 23, 24, ch. xUx,,and the
transactions of ch. xxiii. (comp. on the other hand the passages of
the Pentateuch quoted in § 4), &c. To this must be added, that
Genesis itself appears to allude to what must appear probable in
itself, considering the subject and the time, namely, to an old
traditional mode of information, which the author presupposes
as existing in that age. We have a special instance of this
in xviii. 19, where the deUvery of the promises to Abraham is
not regarded as an advantage belonging to himself only as an
individual, but as an inheritance to be made over by him
to his house and his posterity. The passage xxii. 20 deserves
not less attention, where the author means. to communicate in
formation concerning the family of Nahor, but introduces this
communication with no sort of appeal to a written record, but
with the remark that it was told Abraham, thus evidently re
ferring to traditional knowledge preserved within the circle of
the Abrahamic race. To a like kind of thing allusion is also
sometimes made by the tone of the narrative : " Moses some
times presupposes a thing as already known from ancient tales,
e. g. the giants, those renowned heroes of the old world,
vi. 4, and the fame of Nimrod, x. 8 — 12. He must there
fore have been acquainted with more ancient accounts, which were
certainly known to his readers." (Michaelis. Einl. i. p. 277).
But other books also present an agreement in this respect. We
read notices in 1 Chron. [iv. 21 — 23] relating to the tribe of Judah
at the time of their abode in Egypt, and the author makes the
remark upon them . Qpini^ Q'^'^nn- '"^ opposition to the 'i-^^f
Q>i^l>-j, referring however certainly to orally propagated tradition,
the "^30' ^y whic^ ^^ is elsewhere guided, here failing him (Esth.
vi. 1, 1 Chron. xxvii. 24). The notices also, which we find in
cidentally given in the later prophets, and which relate to the
ancient Mosaic time, where the Pentateuch contains no special
information (Amos v. 26, 27), belong perhaps to such a tradi
tion. The statement also in Josh. xxiv. 2, 14, is evidence that
in the period immediately subsequent to Moses, a very distinct
knowledge was possessed of the patriarchal age ; and it alludes
to a tradition that endured to a still later time, as we may

80 EXAMINATION OF THE
naturally suppose that it would not undergo a sudden and total ex
tinction.! The question, how far this tradition may lay claim to historical
truth and internal worth, cannot be satisfactorily answered till after
wards. We shall here meanwhile only make some remarks, that will
serve clearly to show the suitableness of such a tradition to such an
age. In that age we find not only a simplicity in the entire mode
of life, and a duration of life, which must have facilitated in a high
degree an oral transmission, but likewise the unity of one race
which has a firm internal connection, and keeps itself uninterruptedly
separate from foreign elements. Now what preserves this race in
its internal union is nothing else than its history itself, which as
signs it a wholly peculiar position, from which its existence receives
both its origin and its conditions. Here tradition must have been
maintained only in a unique and connected form, and the need of
preserving it pure by writing must have been less felt, since there
was no danger of its being mixed with other traditions. In
this respect we should regard it as an important fact, that the
tradition ceases to be preserved to us just when the life of the
people, through the residence in Egypt, comes in the place of
the family-life of the patriarchs. It is only the latter mode of
Ufe that forms the proper foundation of faithful and sure trans
mission. On the other hand, however, the subject also of this
tradition must not be overlooked. This, in its whole nature, is of
a religious character ; it is a sacred revelation of God in a series of
memorable occurrences, which by this their internal purport could
not fail to exert as great an influence on those who received those
manifestations, as they would produce a permanent impression on
their posterity. Thus, then, with regard also to the subject ofthe
tradition, we find unity prevailing, which conducted the individual
step by step from a certain principle to fixed aims, who, as he
found in the object thus presented to him, ever fresh animation
and excitement, must, on the other hand, have felt himself as much
constrained to leave that which had thus been committed to him as
a sacred inheritance to his race.

1 In the old world, even long after authorship had been practised, living oral nar
ration continued in general to be the chief means of the transmission of history. Comp.
Deut. xxxii. 7 ; Joel i, 3; Ps. Ixxviii. 2." Bleek, Stud. u. Krit. 1831, 3, p. 500.

DOCUMENT-HYPOTHESIS. 81
If our narrative, then, according to many indications, has its
origin primarily in oral tradition, the question still occurs, how
another consideration can be reconciled with this, which seems to
contain that portion of truth that must be allowed to lie at the
bottom of the inquiries after original records ? This respects a
number of peculiarities that belong to our book, which, without
belonging exactly to the peculiar nature of the subject treated in
it, distinguish it from the rest of the Pentateuch. A particular
usage of words prevails in it, containing a considerable number
of expressions that are not only not found elsewhere in the Penta
teuch, but are even exchanged for others. E.g. frequently as men
tion is made in the Pentateuch oi possession, property, and heirship
yet nowhere do we find the expression belonging to these j^ty'D"'!!'
XV. 2 ; the military term pi-^n, xiv. 14, does not occur again ; in
stead of n3^3, xvi. 2, xxx. 3, we have elsewhere in''! JlN HJl'
Deut. xxv. 9 ; instead of rirm?Di^' ^l''- ^^> ^^ &Vib., elsewhere
p^, Levit. xi. 32 ; instead of q-^^ pQ, so frequent in Gen., else
where D''"in3 fflb^' Deut. xxiii. 5, comp. Num, xxii, 5 ; in
stead of ;-fp^2Jj-|, iii. 16, iv. 7, elsewhere niWl > '^It' ^^^- ^^> '^
never found again in the sense of concumbere, or the phrase pe
culiar to Gen. nin"! Q^y^i ^-^p, iv. 26, xn, 8, et al. 'riJQ^ pi3|-r
^Y}, xiii. 9, XX. 15, xxiv. 51, xxxiv. 10, xlvii, 6. Since these
peculiarities, which besides are found in both the sources dis
tinguished by the critics,' can hardly be laid to the account of the
style in which the traditions were expressed, since they are of too
great an extent for that," and cannot either be properly explained
from the endeavour to reproduce and represent in the Style the an
tiquity of the period referred to, which rather gives rise to the occa
sionally rhetorical and elevated style, and a certain poetical colour
ing ; this circumstance must with great probability lead us to the
supposition that in the time of the writer apart of the oral tradition
hadT already been committed to writing. From this also we obtain
a good explanation of the custom that prevails in Genesis, of sub
joining an interpretation to the older and less common expression ;3
which shows that the author makes use of certain older monumenta
with fidelity, but at the same time with freedom. This occurs not
1 As Stahelin a]so,p, 89. observes on two certainly very remarkable phrases.
2 Comp. the collection in Schumann, proU. p, xlvi. sq.
3 Comp. Michaelis 1. 1;. p. 274. r

82

EXAMINATION OF THE

only with the names of places, with regard to which, indeed, it might
possibly be the case that both names were still in use in the time
of the author, but with other expressions also. Thus the author
explains tho very old word ^"^^Q ^Y '^^ addition of QiQ, Gen. vi.
17, ff. (comp. Ewald, Gr. § 518) ; the word li^i^n' '^^'^- ^^' ^Y
'\T\*i'2. ^T'7'^ ; comp, also xv. 2 with xxiv. 2, where, as soon as the
author himself speaks, the plainer phrase is given, which explains
the more obscure expression previously occurring in the discourse
of another ; so in the history of Joseph he explains JiHriDi^ ^7
pto, and -inDn n^in '^y -,1:2, xi. 15.'
But these considerations are still very far from proving the pos
sibility of a distinct separation of the original sources. This is at
once prevented by the circumstance, that the author certainly holds
to tradition as well as to written documents, so that he was thus
quite raised above the need of any careful arrangement of those
sources. But above all the peculiar plan ofthe author must be re
garded. Genesis is so far from being a book concluded and com
plete in itself, that the proper understanding of it is to be obtained
only by means ofthe following parts of the Pentateuch. It is they
that must confer on the whole of the primitive history an entirely
independent importance : in all its parts there must be brought
out clearly and definitely the reference to the time of Moses, which
must be displayed as an epoch that gives an entirely new consti
tution to Israel. This primitive theocratic feeling then, as we might
call it, pervades the whole book, so that the fact of its unity ought
now the less to be given up. Thus the enquiry into the sources of
Genesis will receive the more satisfactory an answer, according as
it is demonstrated that, whatever the author found of old traditions
and histories, was combined by him into a higher whole, so that in
its present form a higher spirit, an elevated idea and reference, per
vade and animate it.

§ 12. CONTINUATION, (b) EXODUS.
The most important subject with which our historian has to deal
at the commencement of this book is unquestionably the calling of
1 A similai' method prevails among the Arabian authors, e. g, Abulf. hist. Aiiteisl. p.
116, 1. Fleisch.

DOCUMENT-HYPOTHESIS. 88
Moses, and the solemn fact of the DeUverance ; all else is only
preparatory. Hence the information is here but brief and more in
the way of aUusion, (Ch, i. and ii.) But from ch. iii. onwards,
fragments are said to be found. According to De Wette iii. 1 — 4,
18 runs parallel with vi. 2 — 8, which latter joins immediately with
ch. i., ii. So in iv. 19 — 26 and iv. 27 — 31 a fragmentary style
of composition must be recognized. Now let attention be paid in
the first place to the chronological progress which is exactly ob
served in the facts : the call of Moses (iii. iv. 1 — 18), his depar
ture, the occurrence by the way (iv. 19 — 26), the meeting with
Aaron, and the interview with the children of Israel (iv. 27 — 31)
— these unquestionably are occurrences that belong together.
Along with this we have to consider, how at once from the first
conversation of Jehovah with Moses we acquire a knowledge of
the latter, as a man who timidly draws back from the mighty un
dertaking, and a knowledge of Jehovah as not ceasing patiently to
bear with him, while he shames his pusillanimity and strengthens
his faith. Hence also we shall not be surprised to see these traits
repeated. Jehovah does not cease to strengthen him by new and
more powerful exhortations, iv. 21, 22, which should give him a still
firmer conviction that the work of liberation will prove as certain
in its accomplishment, as it is one that proceeds only from Jehovah.
Scarcely has Moses gone to Pharaoh, and the people become discou
raged, when God's ambassador shrinks back again (v. 22, 23). But
again Jehovah rouses and Ufts him up, directing his attention as well
to his promise of what he would do to Pharaoh, as above all to his
covenant relation to Israel. Thus Moses knows what he has to say
to his people, but from them again he obtains no hearing (vi. 12).
It now appears as if Moseshad an excuse ; he can appeal to the ex
ample of the Israelites, and may well say that he is deficient in
eloquence, so that his address would have still less success with
Pharaoh. But the will of God remains unalterable ; Moses and
Aaron must go to Pharaoh (vi. 13). The brief way in which this
last fact is related, just proves that the writer, after all the detail
into which he had gone in those discourses of God with Moses,
now expects ofhis readers that they wiU be able to understand this
brief indication. And thus we can here recognise only a history
that is carried out with exact psychological truth, but by no means
separate fragments. As criticism has paid no regard to this psy-
F 2

84 EXAMINATION OF THE
chological point of view which here explains everything, it cannot
fail to misunderstand the necessary repetitions which are founded
on it, and which indeed in other respects are of particular interest.
The history is here indeed somewhat singularly interrupted by a
piece of genealogy, vi. 14 — 27, which to oriental historiographers.
however, is as intelligible as it is full of meaning. It is a notice
corresponding with that which we subsequently have concerning
the age of the two brothers, vii. 7. The more important that these
individuals now become in the history, the more does the author
hold it to be his duty to make the reader acquainted with what
relates to their persons. We should accompany such a notice with
remarks, and thus perhaps introduce it more adroitly. Our author
is satisfied with the simple, as it were parenthetic, introduction of
it. How little he believes the context interrupted by it, is shown
in vi. 28, ff., which joins on exactly by way of supplement with the
narration vi. 13, that was broken off, the continuation of which is
recognized only by the result and the general subject. The pro
gress of the narrative, and the advance in the discourses of Jehovah,
are here quite visible. The simple command to go to the king, is
followed by the more emphatic direction : " I am Jehovah, speak
unto Pharaoh," &c., where the power and significance of that name
are supposed as already known. For the third time Jehovah de
clares the relation in which Aaron shall stand to Moses, whom he
thus deprives of any further pretext for fresh excuses. God also
adds the new assurance that the hardness of the king's heart should
give occasion to the execution of divine punishments, that should
furnish the most splendid proofs of Jehovah's majesty ; so that all
this contains throughout no contradiction of what goes before (De
Wette, Beitr. p. 191).
The law of the Passover and what stands in connection with it,
ch. xii., xiii., are affirmed to consist of very detached pieces. But
we shall point out the internal connection of these laws afterwards.
The supposition of a parallel " legislation at Marah" (xv. 22 —
26), and " at Sinai" (xix,)' is still more arbitrary ; for who could
well describe the former section as properly the giving of a law,
when it manifestly contains only the preparation for such ; the
whole account of the event, which is the occasion of it, suggesting
the object to be that the people should be convinced that Jehovah
1 See the review in De Wette. Einl, n. 19fi-

DOCUMENT-HYPOTHESIS. 85
intended their good, and so become willing to receive and follow
his law. In every respect ch. xvUi. is important for the connection.
Here ver, 3 refers back to u. 22, and it ought not to be said that
the introduction is of such a kind as if no previous statement had
been made. For the name ofthe one son is repeated because of the
other's being given in ver. 4 ; and in both the names of Moses'
sons, his own history, and that of the people which was connected
with it, were strikingly expressed. That Moses had sent Zippo
rah back again to her father, is not expressly said, iv, 20, although,
after that, Moses alone, comes before us. Here now in xviii. 2 the
supplementary statement is given that he had sent her back, which
has been regarded as a contradiction, instead of a reference to the
earlier part being seen in it. But it ought theless to have been
overlooked, that xviii. 1, 8 ff., has a retrospective regard to all the
preceding history, since that chapter thus recognises it most dis
tinctly as a connected whole. But that Num, xi, does not contradict
this passage, is allowed by Vater himself (iii. p. 442) ; but the
historical relation in which they stand to one another cannot be
shown till afterwards.
That the portions which treat of the Tabernacle do not contain
duplicate records or fragments, has been already made clear by
§ 6. Vater and De Wette will have it that xxxiii. 7 — 1 1 is an
Elohistic account, which stands quite isolated and complete in it
self. What sort of sense, then, can be given to the whole procedure
of Moses there described ? The context that immediately precedes,
mentioning the idolatry of Israel, gives only a partial and very
incomplete explanation. It is only the previous statement of the
promise of God to dwell in a certain tent that explains it to us.
The tent (^Ht^n) ^^^ ^^en named before ; Moses now takes it and
places it outside the polluted camp. In ch. xxxv. ff. also the
existence of such a tent is supposed, and it is only the additional
fabrication of what belonged to it that is spoken of. Thus the
section in question forms precisely a suitable middle part to both
narratives. It is right to call to mind also that in ch. xxxiv. 34,
ff,, a tent is supposed to be already in existence, and thus that chap
ter too serves only to confirm our view. The law ofthe Sabbath in
xxxv. 1 — 3 is said to be quite a detached fragment. But it stands
in close relation to what foUows, inasmuch as the fundamental
thought of the entire system of worship required again to be in^

Htj EXAMINATION OF THE
culcated -at the erection of the Tabernacle. Thus that law had
already been communicated to Moses (xxxi. 12, fi'.,) and it was his
duty accordingly now to repeat the communication of it to the
people. So that here also exact reference is had as well to what
precedes as to what follows.
Vater admits that in Exodus there is more connection than in
Genesis (p. 448) : had he paid more regard to the entire grand
structure of this book in its positive aspect, he would have recog
nised more than a " faint thread" of connection as extending through
the whole of it.

^13. CONTINUATION. (c) LEVITICUS.
That this book has arisen out of separate treatises of diverse
character, is said to appear,!
1. From the subscriptions vii. 37, ff., xi. 46, ff,, xiv. 57, xv,
32, ff. On the other side, see § 8.
2. From the appendix in ch. xxvii., and the double subscription
of the book in xxvi. 46, and xxvii. 34. For proof that ch. xxvii.
is not out of connection with the foregoing, see § 6 ; but as relates
to the subscriptions, it is certainly a law subsequently promulgated
that is given in that chapter, which can by no means be regarded as
" a separate and different kind" of composition. These subscrip
tions, which are employed with a certain regularity in the designa
tion of the sections connected with them, have a general import
ance, inasmuch as they form external marks of the historical
development of the giving and promulgation of the laws. No one
can suppose that all these laws had their origin at once. The
present passage then bears an intended reference to sections of that
character ; it supphes an historical remark, to the effect that these
also were commands given at Sinai ; and if we transport ourselves
into the condition and circumstances of the time, we shall be con
vinced that a writer could express himself in no other way, if he
wished to unit^ exactness of statement with equal simplicity of
style. 3. An appeal is made to the independent completeness of many
1 Seo Dti Wette, Einl. § 16J, Comp. Vater, iii. p. 449, ff.

DOCUMENT-HYPOTHESIS. 87
portions, especiaUy ch. xix. and ch. xxiii. We need only compare
the commencement of dh. xviii. with that of ch. xix., to discover
the connecting fundamental thought, which extends also through
ch. XX. Ch. xxiu., however, can stiU less be regarded as standing
apart, if it is compared with the continuation concerning sacred
seasons that follows, comp. § 6.
4. An objection is derived from the want of connection in such
pieces as xxiv. 1—9, 10—23, xxvi. 1, 2. Certainly the first two
pieces have no immediate reference to one another, the subject of
the one being law, and that of the other history ; but the law mani
festly refers to the preceding chapter, and of the narrative no one
can affirm, any more than of Ex. xxxii. ff., that it does not fit into
the plan ofthe whole ; its position, however, was assigned it in this
place on chronological grounds. That xxvi. 1, 2, again expresses a
general thought that is often repeated elsewhere, need surprise no
one, considering the contents of the chapter.
5. The repetitions are adduced, which are suppUed by comparison
of the different portions of the book with one another, as well as
with those, of the preceding: comp. xvii. 15 with xi. 40, xix. 26
with xvn. JO, ff., iii. 17, vn. 26, xx, 27 with xix. 31, &c. This
argument rests on the general incorrect view entertained of the way
in which the Mosaic law originated. For we must not look upon
it as a work composed according to a systematic arrangement of
matters, and delivered to the people as a whole ; this is plainly .con
tradicted by the history of the legislation ; on the contrary, the pro
mulgation of it advanced with the history of the people, aud arose
progressively in a manner conformable to their internal condition.
Thus repetitions are in themselves unavoidable, even as in the
instructions of our Saviour we unquestionably pieet with the same
thought, expressed on several occasions and in different connections.
This is especially true of certain fundamental thoughts, which the
people required always to have in view as points of connection for
the rest, and which hence called for a more frequent reiteration,
e. g., the law of the Sabbath, of the eating of blood, &c. Besides,
the precision of the juridical style in these laws requires the same
thought to be taken up again in the same form, where it appeared
necessary to bring it again to remembrance. To this, finally, it
should be added that these repetitions mutually supplement one
another, so that tho later statements stand in close relation to tbe

88 EXAMINATION OF THE
earlier. Thus e. g., the direction concerning the shew-bread is
given only briefly in Ex. xxv. 30, but more exactly, and so as to
complete the earlier •announcement, in Lev. xxiv. 5 — 9 ; so in xix.
31a prohibition is given, aud in xx. 27 the mode of punishment
for those who transgress it ; so xix. 9 and xxiii. 22, and similar
instances, are negative and positive complements of each other.
6. Lastly, the diversity of style is appealed to, Here such sup
positions as those of Vater are most arbitrary; that the law con
cerning the sin-offering and the trespass-offering differ simply in
the expressions J-\^ton ^'^^ D<25i^' "^^s. iv. and v. But it is no
better for De Wette e. g. to adduce particularly the forms of intro
duction (xxv. 1, and i. 1, &c,) as being such diversities; for it is
in the nature of the thing that manifold turns must prevail there,
De Wette himself, to a certain extent, gives up his own hypo
thesis by the following admission : " It seems as though the his
tory of the transactions at Sinai should conclude with the second
book (xl. 31, ff., 36^38), but many portions of law, referring to
it, still remained, or there was much matter still to be treated at
greater length, &c." {ibid. § 153). A glance at the passages ad
duced from Exodus shows that they present no trace of those
transactions being closed. But when it appears, on De Wette's
admission, that our book stands in such a relation to the preced
ing, then its author cannot possibly have composed it otherwise
than according to a definite plan well known to himself This
plan, however,i»was no other than to write the remaining portion of
the people's history, and that of the law delivered to them at Sinai.
This idea at once conducts us, on the one hand, to the full per
ception of the untenableness of De Wette's arguments against the
unity of the work, since they pay no regard whatever to that plan
of the author's ; and, on the other hand, to the opinion that the
work has au internal connection, which can be discovered only by
the method of genuine historical inquiry.

§ 14. CONTINUATION, (d) NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY,
It is maintained with great confidence that the book of Num
bers is a collection of fragments ; " no one" (says De Wette, §
154) " can deny the want of connection in its parts." With this.

DOCUMENT-HYPOTHESIS. 89
however, his other assertions do not very well agree. In the same
section it is said : " This book evidently has been collected, or at
least brought into its present form, later than the book of Leviti
cus ; — and if we compare the chronological data that occur in it,
we shall not hesitate to assign it a relatively later composition."
But for what precise reason was it collected and brought into this
shape ? The answer is : " what was forgotten in the former,* was
here to be supplied." A strange conclusion this. The book is
closely connected with the preceding ; consequently, in that some
thing has been forgotten : is every continuation of the history then
to be explained in this way ?
We are referred to the sections, ch. i. — x., xv, 1 — 31, 32 — 36,
37 — 41, xix. 28 — 30, through all of which we have shown an
evident thread of connection running (§ 6), which our opponents
certainly have wanted inclination to trace, though such an inves
tigation is the first hermeneutical requisite in the treatment of any
work. We are referred to the chronological statement, i. 1, com
pared with ix. i, which certainly do not agree ; but if we look to
ix. 11 and x. 11, we cannot fail to discover the exact chronologi
cal progress, and at the same time the reason why ix. 1, ff., has
its place just there. But, it is said, in xxi. 14, ff,, the collector
has betrayed the mode of his procedure. Shall we say then that,
where one authority is quoted, the whole of a work consists of
fragments. The opposite conclusion would be more correct : if
the author quotes his authorities exactly, then where he quotes
none, he records facts as an eye-witness, and therefore we ought
beforehand not to expect any confused account from him.
Much stress is laid on the instances in which this book is said
to be at variance with itself and with the previous books. But this
argument again is inconsistent with the supposed later composition
of the book. Could our author have been so stupid and thoughtless
as not to observe these differences ? But this view has a meaning
that leads us still further : it destroys at the same time the historical
worth, the credibility of the book. We must therefore reserve its
closer examination till afterwards.
" Deuteronomy also does not form a whole, proceeding from one
effort, though it has more unity than the other books. Ch. i. 1 —
iv. 40, is separated not only by the insertion iv. 41 — 43, but espe
cially by iv. 44 — 49, a superscription similar to ch. i, 1 — 4, but

90 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
yet varying both from it and from in. 9, and introducing as a sepa
rate piece, by a fresh announcement, the discourse which extends to
xxvi. 19." Thus De Wette, § 155. It is, however, conceded at
once that the section is most strikingly related to what follows in
thought and language. To what- then should the attempt at sepa
ration lead us ? To decide that what foUows from ch. v. was
spok'en subsequently ? That is surely affirmed plainly enough.
The adduced insertion is an historical remark, and no superscription.
Does it follow from this that the passages may be divided ? I^et
it then be proved that the historical fact narrated here does not be
long to this place, and the argument might then deserve some
attention. It is said, however, that the blessing of Moses cannot have pro
ceeded from the same author. Whoever has obtained a just percep
tion of the prophetical spirit that pervades the book, and the rhetori
cal element which thence prevails init, will see, in ch. xxxii. xxxiii.
only the heightened transition of the rhetorical into the poetical style,
and will thus discover an admirable advance in the composition. But
the proof should first be adduced that, from their internal nature,
these chapters could not be the work of the same author. Con
cerning the assumed disagreements of this book with the others, see
what follows.

§ 15.  INTERNAL TRUTH OF THE PENTATEUCH. CRITICISM OF THE

If the Pentateuch would fully maintain its right to the position
which it claims, as the work of Moses and the commencement of the
sacred records of the covenant-people, it must fulfil tbe requisition of
showing itself to be a work Iiistorically true, — containing a history
which shall vindicate itself by critical examination as maintaining
invariably the character of perfect truth in reference to the assumed
period of its composition. This demand must be answered by the
account of the Pre-Mosaic period in the first place. This, however,
is so connected, as part of an inseparable whole, with the history of
1 Comp, especially LUderwald, die allegorische Erkl. d. 3 ersten oapp. Mos.— in ihrem
Ungrunde dargest. 1781. Cramer, Nebenarbeiten z. Theol. Liter, St, 2. — Werner, ges-
chichtliclie Auffassung rler ersten capp. des ersten B. Moses. 1S29.
3

OF GEN. I.  III. 9 I
the proper Mosaic period, forming indeed the very foundation of the
Theocraoy, that if it gives way, that which is built upon it shares a
like fate. If then we find even ij> the primitive Hebrew history
obscure, disfigured, and confused tradition prevailing ; if, instead of
an independent narrative, pursued in the true theocratic spirit, we
have a mythology of external origin formed under a later foreign
influence ; and, instead of objective truth, poetry and philosoJ)hy,
the later production of manifold causes ; we are then driven from
historical ground, and deprived of the possession of a genuine me
morial of the Mosaic age. But if the primitive history ofthe Theo
cracy is in the most proper sense that which it professes to be, it
must be shown in the first place to be original, and secondly,
through its being so, to contain real occurrences : its truth then lies
in its historical originality. This again is made out, partly by
a close examination of the contents of the sacred record, partly by
the external process of comparing with it that which assumes a place
at its side as related or similar to it, and which must at the same
time be shewn to be secondary and derived.
It could hardly be supposed that what we call the primitive his
tory of the Hebrews could be designated precisely as " un-Mosaic ;"
for, even by those who had long been prepared to give up its purely
historical character, it was still admitted to proceed indubitably
from the founder of the Theocracy.i But this involved the internal
inconsistency of not comprehending the necessary connection of
what is " Mosaic' and what is "historical." Here then the consis
tency of critical scepticism could not fail to break through, and it
came to this, that the first eleven chapters of Genesis were first ac
counted to be at least non-Mosaic in their origin, though still with
a certain regard for their deep reUgious import, but to have been
composed earUer than the other books of the Pentateuch ;* and then
were referred to the period of the Assyrian or even the Babylonian
exile.^ Let us here first examine this view in itself In its full
extent, as it contradicts the express testimonies of the later Hebrew
books, it must receive its complete refutation in the subsequent
sections. 1 Comp. Eichhorn, Einl. iii. p, 65, ff,
2 Comp.De Wette, Einl. § 158, b. and Vater 1, c, p. 897, ff.
3 Comp. Hartmann, Aufklar, ijb. As. i. p, 19, ff. (ub. d. Pent. p. 794, ff.) Pustkuchen.
hist. crit. Unters. d. bibl. Urgtsch. p, 19, ff. ; Schumann on Genesis, p. Ixix. sq.; Von
Bohlen, Genesis, p. cxciv. ff., and others.

92 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
Three narratives stand at the head of the early Hebrew history
closely connected with one another, and forming the initial point of
the theocratic history : the creation of the world, the original con
dition of man, and the fall (Gen, i. — iii.). The different explana
tions, which they have received, may be divided in general into
two classes ; that which holds to the verbal sense, and that which
abandons it. We have here to do only with the former, as that
which alone is hermeneutically true. It again is twofold, the
mythical, which takes for granted the historical untruth of the
record, and the strictly historical, which is opposed to that.
The histories of every known people, and of the Asiatic nations
in particular, bear in their commencement a greater or less resem
blance to that which we find in the Biblical account. Now the rela
tion of the former to the latter may be either that of original state
ments, or of derived : in the latter case indeed a twofold supposition
again is possible ; it has either arisen in the Pre-Mosaic period,
and in that case by transference from a foreign quarter, or it pro
ceeds from the Post-Mosaic period. In the former case, however,
it would at any rate stand ill with the mythical character of these
narratives. For, since we regard the mythus not as a pure inven
tion (which it has never been), but as a given thing previously
existing, the time of its origin and that of its subject stand in evi
dent disproportion ; for if these accounts were indigenous amongst
the Hebrew patriarchs, it is an important step towards the proof of
their credibility, which destroys the mythical character assigned
them. •But both these cases are at the outset equally embarassed by an
important difficulty. The case of one nation borrowing the mythi
of another is not merely conceivable in itself, but has been actually
proved. In the Grecian mythology e, g. the acquaintance of that
people with foreign nations affords not only the proof of the influ
ence of the latter on the former, but even pretty certain traces of
the origin of the Grecian mythi according to historical data.' But
how did this happen, as relates to its more general and deeper
ground of explanation ? It is in the internal unity of heathenism
with itself, and in the syncretic tendency which is deeply rooted in
it, that we have to seek for the source of this appropriation of that
1 Comp. K. 0. Miiller, Prolegom. zu, e, wissenschaftl. Mythol. p. 173,ff.

OF GEN, I,  III. 93
which was cognate and aUied. From a consciousness, however, of
the diametrical opposition of the fundamental idea of the Theocracy
to the heathen element, the attempt is made to employ the favour
able inclination of the Israelites to heathenism as the explanatory
reason of the fact referred to. But is it among that portion of the
people who served Baalim that we are to seek the idea of the Theo
cracy ? That lies precisely in the element that is directly opposed
to idolatry. But now comes the question, how, at the foundation
of the Theocracy or subsequently, the untheocratic element which is
opposed to it, gained such a preponderance as to be placed at the
head of the theocratic idea ? To the present time this problem
remains unsolved, nay, its nature and extent have not even been
comprehended ; but, from the nature of the subject, it will and
must remain for ever insoluble to the modern anti-theocratic
tendency. The traditions that have survived, exclusive of the Scriptures,
concerning the original state of the earth and of man, bear as great
a similarity as dissimilarity to the scriptural account. The expla
nation of both these phenomena depends on the decision to which
we come concerning the mythical, or historical, character of that
account. The mythus, however, as well as history, has both its
ideal and its real side : in the one, the idea is so interwoven with
the fact, that it appears itself a fact ; in the other, the idea Ues at the
bottom of the fact and is deducible from it. We shaU then have
to establish the comparison between them with regard to both these
points, in order to obtain a sure result; since the ideal elements
ofthe mythus and the history have invariably an essential and spe
cific difference (as in the one case they give possibiUty to the his
tory, in the other to the mythus), while the amount oifact must be
discussed in its single details in an effective manner, as every my
thus has an element of fact in it, but history contains nothing else
but what is fact.
1. If the idea of the Bible cosmogony is not only different from
that of all other cosmogonies, but at the same time also such as
to account for the origin of all the rest, while the. reverse cannot
be established, this marks it as the original, AU these cosmo
gonies are founded on the non-recognition of the existence and Ufe
of God in relation to the existence and life of the creature; hence
the idea of emanation, in various modifications, pervades them aU ;

94 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
being found in its most spiritual form in the Indian and Persian
cosmogonies, and in one more rude and grotesque in the Phoenician,
Babylonian, Egyptian, &c, traditions, which suffer Hylotheism
[the deification of matter] to appear more plainly. To tlie idea
of a creation out of nothing no ancient cosmogony has ever
risen, neither in the mythi nor in the philosophemata of the old
world.' Hence it follows, that, in describing the origin of the
world, heathenism made no distinction, and could make none,
between divine and created existence ; its fundamental charac
teristic is the reference which it makes to the element of life iu
nature, which it accordingly regards ns a concrete living thing,
while it never conceives of the divine {das Gottliche) as a person
aUy concrete living God, The peculiarity belonging to the Bible
cosmogony, it having as its fundamental idea acreation out of no
thing, places it at once in an entirely different category from all
other ancient mythi. Hence most recently there appears to be a
disposition above all, to deny the existence of that statement in the
history of creation ;* but certainly without success.
But then it is established also with the most perfect certainty,
that all that is extra-biblical may be explained by this idea of its
own from the biblical element, but not vice versa ; for it is truth
and not falsehood that is original, as the latter is only a growth
upon the former : the biblical account therefore necessarily occupies
the place of the original, occasioning and accounting for the exis
tence ofthe other, which appears only as the secondary and derived
account. 2. Every non-bibUcal cosmogony also proves itself to be a national
one, peculiar to one or another people, by its connection partly with
the entire mythological system pecuUar tothe same, partly with the
1 Comp. Schelling, The Deities of Samothracia (German) p. 68 ff. Gbrres, Mythen.
gesch. p. 633, ff. Von Bohlen, d. A. Ind. i.p. 162, ff. Miinter, Eel. d. Babylon, p,
44, &c.
2 It is only by the most violent exegetical methods that this idea can be banished
from Gen. i. 1. For the word fT^iBs'l3 evidently denotes the beginning of created exis
tence, (the creation in and with time) in opposition to the everlasting existence of
the Creator (v. Gabler, Urgesch. i., p. 183. ff.) ; and so sia (in Kal) constantly means to
call a new thing into being, as in this respect also it is expressly distinguished from
nto, ii, 3. — " omnis creatio est effectio, sed non omnis effectio creatio," De Dieu ad h. 1. ;
— comp. the excellent remark of Gesenius, Thes, i,, p. 236. Hence Johannsen (Kos-
mogonische Ansichten der Inder und Hcbraer. Altona 1833.) could only by a perversion
of the meaning of s^a find the Indian idea of emanation in Hebraism ; or Schumann e, g,
seek to help himself by the following truly ntirrn-in.minilvd nViooiroHnr, • „„„„,.<, „.„,i:v,;i..

OF GEN. I. — III. 95
characteristics ofthe localityi and climate.2 But amidst this mani
fold diversity there reigns a higher unity, referring back the whole
to a common centre ; the additions, rising upon one another in ever
new formations, thrown up by a peculiar active power from the soil
of each region, have in them an old primitive form, which is the
animating principle of those deUneations. But their whole forma
tion is thus of a character always limited and closely confined ;
and when transplanted to i\ foreign soil, and there undergoing a
mixture with new formations, maintains a difficult existence, ceas
ing to possess spontaneous freedom and vigour. The truth there
fore lies only in that which is general and common to them all,
not in the special shape which they have. It is, therefore, only this
general fundamental idea that can be taken into consideration, when
we attempt to combine the biblical and non-biblical cosmogonies.
The mythological is always national, particular, and limited ; to
the theocratical alone belongs true universality, as in that it has its
commencement and completion ; and it is this connection that gives
the character of pecuUar truth to the historical form of the Theo
cracy. Consequently, the reference of the history of the creation
to the Theocracy, and in its forms and outlines as well as its essen
tial principle (as we have evidence of this in the seven days of
creation, the attributing what was made to Jehovah, and the an
thropological representation), is of such a nature as likewise to
impress upon it the stamp of historical truth, from the Theocracy
being in a peculiar manner historically true. Without that refer
ence it also would be mythology, and thus merely particular, and
therefore also not true in its concrete shape ; but its theocratic aim,
far from rendering it suspicious and uncertain, imparts to it on the
contrary objective truth.
Thus, on the one hand, we see that what appears a singularity
in the history of the creation, is no other than an element of true
est, auctorem cujus in is ceter tanta cernitur philosophandi infantia, hie de mundi origins
ea cofitasse, quae non cogitabant vel sagacissimi Graecorum philosophl (assuredly they
least of all !), cf. Cic. de nat. deorum. i. 12, S(i,, et nulla antiqua cosmogonia-manifestavit:'
1 Compare «. g, the cosmogony of the Egyptians calculated wholly for Egypt (in
Diod. Sic. i, 7) ; that ofthe Babylonians made entirely for Mesopotamia : Munter, 1. u.
p. 37, ff.
2 Upon the local aud independent character of the mythi 0. Miiller, in the work al
ready quoted, has made some very fine remarks, without overlooking their universal
character and connection, v. especially p. 281, ff.

96 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
universaUty, which therefore removes it from the category of all
the other non-biblical,cosmogonies, and places it on firm ground of
its own. But hence, on the other hand, what we find as a general
principle in these cosmogonies — the chaos, the relationship of
man's nature to God, &c. — must not be explained from the pecu
liarity of each, since it is an element common to them all ; though
in the special ingredients associated with this generality we meet
with what is purely subjective and national, which, as being untheo
cratic and therefore not universal, is also untrue. Hence it fol
lows, from a comparison of it with the heathen cosmogonies, that
the Mosaic maintains an altogether peculiar position amongst
them, and therefore cannot be what they are. Tradition and My
thus, but stands related to both these as the original i.e. as
History. 3. It is quite plain, that the history of the creation claims to be
regarded as history, and not either as poetry or as philosophy.
It is only by internal reasons that it could be shewn to be one of
these two. For such a view could be vindicated only by carrying
it out with consistency, and determining to take up the whole
theocratic history as a theocratic poem, or as theocratic philosophy ;
by doing which it would destroy itself, since it would thus do away
with the general distinction between history, and poetry or philo
sophy. But the history ofthe creation has just this peculiar dis
tinction, that it handles its theme neither in an abstract form nor
from a subjective point of view, but in the method of concrete his
torical treatment ; thus rendering the abstract and the subjective
possible, as to their fundamental idea, as well as its historical re
presentation, while it disclaims identity with them. Both the ab
stract philosophic conception ofthe theme and the subjective asthetic
conception of it, are deductions from history, and each is true only
so far as it is rooted, and has its concrete truth in the history ;
which shows the history itself not to be the derived, but the original
thing. But were the history as such untrue, so also would be that
which is deduced from it and rests upon it; and, in place of objec
tive historical truth, we should have heterogeneous sitbjective no
tions. 4. But, again, it may easily be discerned that the idea of a crea-
1 As e. g. Von Bohleu does, d. alte Indien i. p. 215, ff, ; certainly the most perverted
of all the modes of mythological treatment !

OF GEN. L — III. 97
tion out of nothing, which lies at the foundation of this history, can
alone lay claim to historical truth; since all other systems, as
they invariably assume one of two forms, that of Hylozoism or
Dualism, and that of the pantheistic doctrine of emanation or evo
lution, involve a contradiction of history, i.e. of what has happened,
since they substitute for the notion of time that of eternity. Hence
it belongs only to the Scriptural account, by the right definition of
the temporal existence of the world in relation to God the Eternal,
and ofthe specific distinction between the Creator and the creature,
to deliver to us a history of created being, while the opposite view
is excluded from the rank of history by the very fact referred'to.
According to this character of peculiar internal independence
which the Mosaic record possesses, we must give an unconditional
rejection to the view of those, who regard it as a production that
came into the hands of the Hebrews from a foreign quarter, and
underwent a revision with them,' For apart from the circumstance
that it carries in itself its own contradiction,^ this argument confines
itself simply to pointing out a foreign colouring'^jn the narrative.
Even in this, assertions that are decidedly false are brought forward,
such as that of the foreign character of the Cherubim, while they
unquestionably belong to the class of sacred symbols found in the
theocratical worship. But apart from this, all that is only what is
secondary and external, — the historical clothing : the fundamental
element shows itself to be decidedly theocratical. Even those parts
of the narrative, however, are evidence that our history is not of a
limited cast, transplanted from without into the domestic soil, other
wise it would have assigned to those historical traits of the descrip
tion of Eden, its geographical situation, &c., the national character
and point of view belonging to Canaan. Here, therefore, the
record, with all its theocratic design, is raised far above a narrow
historical exhibition of it ; which could only be, because it has set
out from the central point of the Theocracy, otherwise it would have
become pure mythology. But through laying hold of the principle
1 Comp. Hartmann, 1. c.fp. 788, ff,, who regards the Phoenician cosmogony as the
source of the Hebrew, and Von Bohlen, pp, 46—50, who maintains the Upper Asiatic
Parsee origin of it.
3 0. iv., according to Von Bohlen (p. 53), must be'written with a^hostile feeling, pre
cisely against the principles of the Zend religion concerning agriculture, &c,— and we are
to suppose that the primitive traditions were derived by the Hebrews from the religious
system here assailed, aud found among them a willing reception. G

98 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
of the Theocracy, it becomes a record which truly embraces a uni
versal interest, to which it thus gives the stamp of truth.
The view, which disputes the historical character of this account,
contains, according to its common form, this contradiction also,
that it takes for granted, on the one hand, the artificialness of the
plan of the whole, and, on the other hand, the simplicity of this
conception of the world, employing the latter in accounting for the
internal contradictions, and consequently the unhistorical character
of the document, and the former for the late fabrication of part of
the contents.i Now an artificial plan is manifestly at variance
with the supposition of contradictions, which in that case would
certainly have been avoided ; while the simplicity that we discover
in going through the work, loudly protests against admitting the
fact of later invention. Hence no view but such as that of De
Wette was consistent,^ who discovers here the " Introduction to the
theocratic Epos of the Hebrews," retaining only the artificial plan
of the whole and its genuine theocratic design. Then, however,
all that is required is to show that the idea " Theocratic Epos" in
volves a contradiction, — inasmuch as the Theocracy was so far from
being a form of the fancy, that, on the contrary, it is the truest
historical phenomenon of all the facts of antiquity, and we are
placed on the only right standing point (the theocratic = the his
torical) .
In the consistent carrying out of the view that opposes the his
torical character of the account, the removal of the pretended con
tradictions in the work is as binding on the supporters of it as
upon us, because these destroy the artistic unity quite as much as
the historical. And in fact all contradictions of that kind (ex
clusive of those that are said to occur in Gen. i. and ii. as two
different documents) rest partly on philological mistake ;^ partly
on a shallow dogmatic mode of treatment, as it was not considered
agreeable to reason that God had made the creation in six days,
or that he had rested;'^ — this mode of treatment, however, has
1 Comp. e.g. Gabler in der Urgesch. Th. i., Bauer, Hebr. Mythol. I, p. 63, ff. et al.
2 Beitrage, Th. ii. p. 36, ff.
3 As in the pretended difference between ver. 4 and ver. 14, where simply, in the right
apprehension of lis and "ilstt, we have the key to the reconciliation of the two pas-

4 Of this description we may read examples in Ammon's Bibh Theol. i. p. 266, ff.,
where these views are very justly designated as Mohammedan, i, e, purely deistic.

OF GEN. I.  III. 99
not been extended to the Ji'^ti^^'^ of the history of creation, since
there it finds its full refutation : the commencement, the fact that
time receives its existence through the creation, determines the
creation as being in time, which thus obtains its reality ; and the
real existence of time is therefore precisely that which our record,
according to its given fundamental idea, must take for granted and
carry out ; — partly, in fine, on a perverted and partial view of the
natural science of our record, which overlooks the essential nature
both of that science, as being one that attains to purely negative
results,' and of the record also, which certainly may be the foun
dation of natural science, as religion in general may be of life, and
the church of the state, but not vice versa.
As with the history of the Creation, so is it also with the account
of the Fall. Here also there can properly be but two opposite
views ; the mythical, which asserts the historical impossibility of
the narrative, and the historical view. The former, as before, but
here more particularly, rests on dogmatic prejudices that are^quite
subjective. Thus the question is put by Hartmann (p. 381, ff.) ;
whether it be reconcileable with God's omniscience and love, to
entice the first human beings to evil ? — of which there is nothing
in the record, and which no truly inteUigent expositor has ever
found in it. The introduction of the serpent is made an objection,
as if it were possible for us, suppcsing the Fall to be actually true,
to pronounce respecting that fact, while the objection rests only on
the basis of a supposition that no fall has actually taken place, and
thus reasons in a circle. The sentence pronounced is regarded as
involving a false conception, since the punishments are not " real
evils," but " are entirely natural effects of appointments of nature,
which have God alone for their author," — thus denying the actual
existence of evil, and attributing it in the grossest manner to God.
That the threatening of death is not fulfilled, is another objection,
which arises out of a wrong understanding of the passages that
refer to it, &c.
If the Creation is the first wonder of time, the second is the origin

1 Comp. the excellent essay, " Theology and Natural Science" (by Carl von Raumer),
in the Evang. K. Zeitnng, 1830, Nr. 50, ff. See also for this and what follows the many
hints in the Essay: Was ist das Eesultat d. Wissensch. in Bezug auf dieUrweh?
[VPhat are the conclusions of science in reference to the primitive world ?] in Thol.'s
Lit. Anzeig. 1833, Nr. 67, ff.
G 2

100 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
of that new element, which extends through aU generations, the
entrance of evil into the pure creation, the defilement of that which
was formed good by the first sin. As the history of creation can
possess complete truth, only where the idea of the Creator and the
creature is a true one, so also can the history of the Fall, only where
the idea of good and evil may be discovered in its true form, where
the history proves itself to be true in its idea. If we observe how
the sacred record accounts for the introduction of evil, we find
everywhere in it the direct opposition of Good and Evil, the holy
and unspotted character of God, and the good brought into being by
him, in opposition to that which has become evil, — to the apostacy
from God of the original life in God, as an historical event. In
the accounts of antiquity, apart from the BibUcal element, sin ap
pears in its origin either as an eternal thing,' or as an unreal thing ;
a view, which no more than the later Manichseism and Pelagianism,^
can have or gain an historical foundation, which indeed it voluntarily
renounces. It is only where the statement of the creation possesses
truth, where the finitude and the individual life of man are appre
hended as they are in Gen. ii. 7, that the first sin is possible : it is
only where, coming to man from without, it appears not founded in
himself, that the nature of sin is recognized, its introduction repre
sented as at once possible and real; and, therefore, its history
estabUshed as true.
But whoever should be disposed to doubt that the character of
positive fact belongs to the historical account of the first sin, because
it contains something miraculous, would show his ignorance of the
nature of the fact itself ; whoever should desire that the first sin
should come about in a natural manner, would have the first sin
itself regarded as a natural thing, while, on the contrary, it was just
that kind of thing which is unnatural, and which has only become
natural. But those who would understand a part of the fact sym-
boUcaUy and another part in its proper sense, are guilty of an
arbitrary hermeneutical procedure, not considering that there is
nothing whatever in the text to justify such an interpretation; for
1 Dualism is deeply rooted in the nature of the oriental mythi, and there assumes the
most various forms. V. Gorres, Mythengesch. p. 635, ff. Creuzer, Symbolick ii. p. 4, ff.
2 E.g. the Egyptian, Phoenician, and Babylonian Iraditions relative to this were of
a Pelagian character (v, Miinter. 1. c, p, 43) ; those of Parsism and Brahmaism, Mani-
chsean. 3 Which e. g, is the strain of the whole of Gabler's deduction. Urgesch. ii. 1, p. 73, ff.

OF GEN. I.  in. 101
to question the reality of a " tree of life" and of " the knowledge
of good and evil," because of that ethical appellation, can be vindi
cated only by the demonstration of the inadmissibility of the con
nection of the ethical element with the physical, which are, however,
mutually related as spirit and body.
As the account of Paradise in its external facts has generally
been preserved in the form of a traditionary tale, apart from Scrip
ture, without a profound dogmatic-ethical significance,' so also has
the Fall in its historical representation lost in heathenism the purity
of the truth that is stamped upon the narrative of the Bible ; but
traces of the form are still remarkably discernible in all the mythi.
" Almost all the nations of Asia," says Von Bohlen (A. Indien i,
p. 248) " assume the serpent to be a wicked being, which has
brought evil into the world." And indeed it is remarkable what a
similarity is observable between the traditionary tales of Egypt,
India, Persia, and even of the northern nations (which are again
met with in the Orphic mysteries of the West), and the old Hebrew
narrative. Where, then, is the original in the case ? To this the
answer is given : it is to be found there, where at the present time
every year these contests with serpents are repeated, to prevent the
destructive reptile from gaining the upper hand ; and this takes
place in Northern Persia, Bactria, and India.^ In point of fact, a
more paltry view could not well be given, and even in our day it
can hardly count on more extended approval. Or — to touch here
on only one historical fact — how would one explain it according
to this view, that in the Asiatic religions the serpent appears as
often as ar/aOoBaifiav as it does as KaKoSaip,mv ? Again the
answer is ; from the locality. Well ; but then let the necessary
consequence be admitted, that the locality may indeed be capable
of modifying the general element, but never of producing it ; that
the variety of that which we find native to the different places,
supposes a higher unity, from which it has received its existence
and conditions. This, however, can never be found in the indivi-
duaUty which is confined to nature and the worship of nature,
but in the higher religious element which gives rise to that, which
1 This is most plainly shown in the geographical description of Paradise when com
pared with the tales of other nations.
2 So Von Bohlen, 1. c p. 249 ; Genes, p, 37, ff., 48, ff. It is the same with the trees of
Paradise, only not to so great an extent in the range of mythi known to us. V. Von
Bohlen, p, 39.

102 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY OF GEN, I. — III.
shows its influence in the separate forms as a common principle
deeply implanted in the breast of man, along with the impression
of the pecuUarity ofthe individual, the race, and the people. Hence,
on the contrary, the local religious conception, the more it appears
in its most proper sense as such, is only a transference of the
general to the local, the conjunction of the general higher element
of Ufe with all the ingredients of the native soil. And as he would
have a very imperfect understanding of the circle of a people's reli
gious belief, who was acquainted simply with the nature and climate
of their country, and conceived of their spirit as a thing of merely
passive formation, instead of acquiring a knowledge of their whole
mode of thinking and feeling and acting ; as little would he, who
knew the peculiar form of a single nation's faith merely in its separate
characteristics, without placing it in connection with another com
mon and cognate form. But it is this very circumstance, that in
the Hebrew narrative no such local modification is found, that it
contains not a physical or any kind of subordinate element, but one
of a purely dogmatic-ethical nature ; which takes away from it a
local character, and gives it that which is general, thus marking it
as the original.
Hence also the more recent expositors have felt above all the
necessity of endeavouring to attach a false and partial explanation
to this peculiar element of the Biblical record.' Now there are
two fundamental ideas exhibited in the record : that of sin, which
is represented by the tempter, according to its nature, as the endea
vour to be like God (iii. 5), its rise is the questioning of God's
word (iii. 1), its consequence, alienation from God and death (ii.
17, iii. 8, 16, fi.), all moral and physical evil ; a truth which Ues at
the bottom of the history, giving it such internal unity, that this
narrative i-n truth forms the initial point of all that follows, and
were it to fall, the whole history in general would be destroyed.
Contrasted with the sin in its initial point, stands the salvation ;
and the prediction of the seed of the woman has so close a connec
tion with the whole subsequent development of the idea of salvation,
that here also we should be perplexed, if this record did not enable
us to trace that back to its earUest commencement.
1 Von Bohlen has gone fai-thest in this : according to him it is the meaning of the
record, that the fruit did man good (p. 39), that man now becomes as it were (?) of age ;
the text seeks only to explain the first external institutions of human society (p, 40), &c.

HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY OF GEN. IV. — IX. l03

§ 16. CONTINUATION. GEN. IV.  IX.
The first records of Genesis place us at once on a sure historical
standing-point, since they enable us to understand the relation of
man to God, the basis of all true history, which must begin, not
with nature, but with God. In this way we are furnished with the
principle of the subsequent history, bearing on the relation of men
to the Deity, to one another, and to nature. All these relations
are expressed in the history of Cain and Abel : there we have the
rite of sacrifice in its commencement, its character represented in
its two-fold form, and the expression of the idea' lying at the bottom
of that in the different mode of life of the two brothers : the discord
connected with this ; the fratricide ; the contest of man with nature,
and the civilization introduced by it ; the consequent increase of
impiety, the apostacy from the living God, the abandonment of
man to a natural mode of life in opposition to the simple and pious
worship of Jehovah,
There is certainly an opposite, and really heathenish view of
history, which represents man in the contrary way as advancing
from a condition of brutish savageness to civiUzation, the corrup
tion and moral perversion of which it does not understand, but
regards as the noblest aim of humanity. This view cannot possibly
see anything else in our history than " a violent leap ;" it might
even very well, from its narrow-minded subjective point of view, find
a main proof in it of the mythical contents of the narrative.^ This
view readily suppUes its own refutation, as it rests on a doctrinal
falsehood ; but it claims experience as its chief support, and sup
poses it has found in that an impregnable position.
Accordingly it argues in the following strain. "Agriculture
supposes an advanced state of civilization, and so does the series of
1 The unbloody offering of Cain stands in a remarkable agreement with the expres
sion: "my sin is greater than can be taken away" (iv. 13), Comp. concerning the
primitive idea of atonement in sacrifice, Miiller, 1. c, p. 258, ff.
2 Comp. Vater, Comment, i., p. 39. Hartmann, p. 392, ff. Von Bohlen, p, 51, ff.
The latter most strangely imposes his view even on Scripture : " Man came out of a
brutish condition to the possession of knowledge." If it really stood thus in Gen. i. — iii.,
certainly Gen. iv, could not follow ; but the proof it still remains for this author to
supply.

104 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
arts and inventions that are here mentioned ;' the building of cities
also, and the working in metals, are equally unsuitable to so early
a period." In opposition to this, what say the testimonies of the
ancients ? According to the Phoenician tradition, the invention of
agriculture and the arts with the discovery of metals, &c,, is referred
to their early mythic period, and ascribed to the first men (San-
choniathon in Euseb,, Pr. Ev. i. 10) ; so the Egyptian tradition.
places the origin of music and metallurgy in the time when Osiris
ruled (Diod. Sic. i. p. 15. Plato delegg, ii, p, 577) ; and it is well
known that among the Greeks these events were entirely attributed
to the mythic age.^ If we enquire of the investigators of history,
they completely agree with these accounts. " The history of the
Cainites and Sethites is at bottom nothing but an authentication of
the two most ancient modes of life, which are called in the Arabic
language that of the Bedouins and that of the Kabyles, and which
to this day in the East are distinguished from each other by their
contrary tendencies." (Herder, Werke iv, p. 330). "The origin
of agriculture — says Link, (die Urwelt [the Primitive World] 2nd
Ed,, 1834, i, p, 399, ff.^) — is lost in the mythic age; in an age,
of which nothing but traditionary tales have reached history ; and
there is nothing strange in that, for agriculture, fixed settlements
and houses, precede the rise of history ; the external condition
must first be established, before the attempt is made to perpetuate
the memory of the internal condition. Everywhere we find that
it was a deity who taught men to till the ground, and pointed
out to them those fruits the cultivation of which would be especially
useful to them," &c. From this " it foUows," (says the same
learned writer, p. 450), " that the discovery of the breeding of
cattle, of agriculture, and of the preparation of metals, belongs to
an ante-historic period ; and besides, that in this historic period
they have made comparatively no great advances. The spread
and origin of these departments of knowledge is almost as re
markable as the origin of the different forms of plants and their
spread, or as the origin and spread of the specific varieties of the
1 " A greater ignorance and confusion of history can hardly be imagined, than here
obtrudes itself on our view on every side," says Hartmann, p, 394.
2 As the Mythus of Vulcan and the Telchines shows ; v. Buttmann, Mythologus i.,
p. 164, ff. Creuzer, Symb, ii., p. 304, ff., and so that of Ceres, Apollo, &c.
3 Comp. also Schlosser, Universalhist. Uebers, [German translation ofthe Universal
History], i,, p. 39, ff.

OF GEN. IV,  IX, 105
human race." Thus Schlosser likewise (I. c. p. 49, ff.) declares
himself very decidedly in favour of the opinion that there existed
an art of architecture in primitive antiquity, and against the notion
of men being originally Troglodytes, &c. This, then, will make it
evident how partial and biassed theologians are in their decision,
as it agrees only with their aims, in comparison with the investi
gators of nature and with historians, who otherwise stand on a like
ground with them !
But the narrative in Gen. iv. must also contain manifest traces
of a mythical character. In ver, 14, Cain's fear must be unfounded,
" since besides his parents there was no human being dwelling on
the wide earth." To this Clericus supplies the appropriate answer :
"Designat Adami familiam quee ei infensa erat.'' Indeed, it is in ge
neral clear from the account itself, that the record supposes Adam to
have had a larger family (ver. 17), with which ch. v. 4 also is in exact
agreement. Why then continually borrow from ^\a% fictions such
truly silly objections to the sacred history ? But the song of Lamech,
and the " elevated consideration which in ver, 7 is put in the mouth
of Jehovah," must be looked upon as inadmissible for so early an
age. The former, however, is so obscure, and to us enigmatical
(as even Von Bohlen, p. 61, is obliged to confess), that it rather
supplies a striking testimony to the antiquity of the record ; nothing
of the like sort is fabricated in a later age, as Hartmann thinks
(p. 396), and the examples which he adduces should have demon
strated the opposite of that assertion,^ So ver. 7 also is quite in the
spirit of the period, the figure being drawn from pastoral life?
Lastly, it is affirmed that the object of that narrative proves it to
be mythical ; for it is directed against the nations of Upper Asia
that did not respect the worship of Jehovah, and against their
agrarian mode of Ufe, arising out of the unfavourable disposition
entertained by the IsraeUtes towards it. Along with this we have
the Levitical character ofthe narrator, who, accustomed to his own
animal sacrifices, looks down slightingly on offerings of the fruits
1 « It cannot be denied that wsal OiJa there may denote children born before Seth,
quite as weU as such as were born after hun."— Hensler, Bemerkk. iib. St. d. Pss. und der
Gen, [Remarks on passages of the Psalms and Genesis], p. 268. Winer also, Eeallex.
i,, p. 758, gives a more unprejudiced decision here.
2 This example at the sametime shows, how cai'efuUy our author maintains the dis
tinction between history and poetry, V. Pareau, de myth. S. C. int., p. 214.
3 V. Hensler, 1, u,, p, 271, ff. 3

106 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
and flowers of the earth. (Von Bohlen, p. 53, ff.) Now in this
there is a dishonest contradiction. As the Theocracy in its external
reference to the land of Canaan was essentially based on agriculture,'
it is in fact impossible to see how a writer living amidst these rela
tions, and (according to the opposite view) completely devoted to
them, could here, all at once, be so inconsistent with his part, when
there was besides no occasion for his belying himself here. This
circumstance is a very striking proof, that the author was concemed
with the pure objective representation of the ante-theocratic history,
and that in this respect he quite assumes an ante -theocratic posi
tion, as if it were natural to him. Besides, his object is anything
but an external one of a national and geographical character. This
is clearly shown by iv. 26, which can be referred only to the deeply
pious disposition of the Sethites ;^ and no one can deny that a
nomadic race could preserve that thoughtful simplicity much better
than could be done in the opposite mode of life ; and that in that
ancient mode of sacrifice which Abel exemplified, a deeper rehgious
view is displayed than in that of Cain.^
Let us add now to this historical character of the narrative,
which is in itself so well supported in every view, the traditionary
tales of the Phoenicians concerning the enmity of the brothers
Hypsuranios and Uson (Sanchon, in Euseb. 1. c) ; those of the
Greeks about Apollo, and the ideas connected with him relating to
the invention of music, but above all, those relating to atonement
hy hlood ; and even of the Tschudi, among whom is found a sort
of reversed tradition of Cain ; and we cannot hesitate to affirm
that our history is verified beyond doubt as being the original, and
that it alone throws a clear light on the dark and confused mass of
the traditions of antiquity, from which we can elicit only single
sparks. The contents of ch. v. are attacked on several grounds. The
1 Comp. Michaelis, Mos, Recht [on the Laws of Moses], i. p. 249, ff.
2 Comp. Heugstenberg, Christol. ii., p, 345.
3 In which it appears to us every way worthy of observation, that the earliest period of
heathenism seems to have held chiefly to unbloody offerings. Comp, Porphyr. de abstin.
ii, 5, ff. Creuzer, Symb. i,, p. 172 ; ii,, p. 129, 137, ff. How was it possible for a later
age to set forth with such simplicity and truth, as is done here in Genesis, this idea,
certainly a very early one in the East, which was opposed to n bloody sacrificial ritual
that degenerated into what was abominable ?
4 V. E. 0. Miiller, Prolegg. p. 304.
5 V. Fr. von Schlegel, Philos. d. Gesch. i, p, 51, ff.

OF GEN, IV,  IX, 107
great age of the patriarchs is remarked, in the first place, as an in
dication of the mythical. These representations, it is said, ought
not to be banished from the text by arbitrary suppositions, but they
are shown to be unhistorical by physiology and history} As re
lates to physiologists, they have by no means expressed themselves
with such confident assumption on this point as theologians : Haller
discovers here a " problema oh paucitatem datorum insolubile"
(Elem. Physiol, viii. § 21), Buffon regards it as possible (Hist.
Nat. iv. p. 358), and lastly. Link also, whom no one will reproach
with partiality to revelation, declares that we have at least gained
" clearer insight" into the physiological constitution of the men of
the primitive world by the discoveries that have recently been made
(Urwelt, i. p. 81), In such circumstances we prefer, with Pareau,^
to listen to what history says. There the Bible account finds its
most splendid confirmation. When Josephus found the accounts
of the Egyptian, Phoenician, Babylonian, and Grecian historians,
whom he adduces by name, in agreement with that of Scripture,
and made the assertion fLaprvpovat, Se ijlov t& X07&) Trai/re? 61,
Trap' "EXKrjo'i, Kal irapa /3apl3dpoi,<; aviytypaylrdfievoi, ra<; ap'^aio-
Xoyiat;,^ he had good need (and we not less) to say in opposition to
his sceptical age : fj,7]Sel<; Be tt/jos toi' vijv ^iov Kal rrjv ^pa-xvTrjra
T&v erwv a ^S>p,ev avfi/SaXcov Trjv t&v TraXaicbv, '^p'evBfj vofu^erco ra
Trepl eKelvav Xeyo/ieva. To these testimonies it must be added that,
in Genesis itself, in the life of Jacob (xlvii. 9), a complaint is made
ofthe decreasing length of man's life, as also again in the Mosaic
psalm (Ps. xc. 10).* The greatest importance also belongs to the
passage Gen. vi- 3, which supplies an explanation of this point in
1 So e. g, Bredow, Untersuchungen etc. i. p. 1, ff. Bauer, Hebr. Myth. i. p. 197, ff,
Hartmann, p. 401, ff. Von Bohlen, p. 65. Winer Eeallex. i. p, 626, &o,
2 " Tu qui illud hodie ita esse ex anatomicis observationibus merito coUigas, quo tan
dem jure affirmes, nunquam id aliter fuisse ? — Ego certe qui hoc non ex hodiernis medi-
corum observationibus calculisve sestimandnm, sed historice dijudicandum esse, nullus
dubito, non video quare in ilia longsevitate magnopere offsndamus, gme veritatis historic^
satis perspicua Imbet indicia." De my th. int, p. 144, sq.
3 Eudoxus, Varro, Diodorus, Pliny, and Plutarch, make the ancient years ofthe Egyp-
tians to consist on that account of one month. " This account, however, appears to rest
on no information, but on a mere hypotliesis which they invented to explain tlie long
duration of life, attributed to the gods and earliest men, mentioned in early Egyptian
lustory." Ideler, Handbuch d. Chronol. i. p. 93. That Josephus also knew of this is
clear from his words : Trepl 5e toutoh/, iis tzu kKaarot^ p iptXov, outws tyKO'jr&lTtotrav.
* The meaning of the passage is very well given by Ewald, in such a woy as to com
bine the internal inference with the external : die Pss. p. 34.

1 08 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
particular, as it expressly states the greatest age of man to have
been fixed by a special divine decree at 120 years, as the conse
quence of the increasing depravity of the world : so that our record
thus expressly directs attention to the fact, that the definite decree,
influenced by divine justice on the one hand, and, on the other, by
divine compassion, alone furnishes the complete explanation of that
fact of the lengthening and shortening of the period of life.' No
other old tradition, which informs us of the fact Hself, has in this
way given the reason that accounts for it, and i nresented it in
this its higher necessity; which again confirms the E' ble version as
the only true one.
Farther, traces of the historical falsehood of this genealogy are
said to he found in the nature of the thing, the inadmissibility of
an exact chronology at so early a period, which can be no credible
parent of such a chronology. (Vater i. p. 50.) Here again is an
assertion, which is a direct contradiction of history, which shows
us that astronomy and the division of time have their origin among
all nations in an age entirely mythical ; so that we must here again
apply quite another standard than such poor ideas as the "inven
tion," " advances," and " civilization" of our modern era. Where
the division of time is so closely connected with religion and wor
ship, as astronomy and astrology were in antiquity, the former as
well as the latter is a sacred primitive tradition, whose origin is as
much involved in mystery as that of the other.
It is farther said that it is surprising that so few historical notices
are here given us (Hartmann, p. 399), as if we had anything of
the sort to expect in a genealogy, or were in general justified in
making such a demand, when we ought rather to regard it as a
mark of genuine history, that no more is communicated than what
just arose out of, and was suitable to, the purpose of the narration as
a whole. It was mentioned, however, in iv. 26, as the statement
there is true of all these patriarchs, that they remained faithful to
Jehovah. A good proof of the antiquity of this section lies in the nearly
1 V. excellent remarks on this in Fr. von. Schlegel 1, c. p. 62, ff.
2 V. besiBes Josephus, the collections in Mitscherlich ad Hor. Od. i, 3, 32; Bahr ad
Ctesiam, p, 311, ad Herod, iii. 23, p. 43.
3 Comp. also Jahn, Einl, ii, p. 119, ff.
* The interruption caused by the account of Enoch's end was necessary, since the
genealogist could not here repeat the constant expression TftS^^,

OF GEN. IV.— IX. 109
identical and similar names of the persons mentioned in the family
series both of the Cainites and the Sethites.' This circumstance
finds its appropriate explanation in the small number of the names
that were in use in the old world ; since many differ from one ano
ther only by a slight change, and many are quite the same. Over
looking this, the rash hypothesis has been built on that analogy of
the names, that Genesis iv. and v. are one and the same family-
register, and that the names of the Cainites and Sethites are simply
interchanged in " confused order," and transferred to the one
piece out ofthe other.2 On the other hand consider, 1. The vio
lence of this hypothesis, since to gain its obj ect it must partly leave
out names, and partly quite reverse their order. 2. The eiTor that
lies at the bottom of it, as if the names were quite alike, while on
the contrary several are not so at all, as Adam and Enosh, t^'i
and "l"^i^, and others have only a partial similarity, as Methu-
shael and Methushelach, Mahalaleel axiAMechuyael ; and the ge
neral uncertainty that prevails in a similarity of names of that kind.s
3. That it is quite impossible to imagine that any one who wished
to give a loose and arbitrary representation of this matter, should
have sought to obtain his object in this way, when it would have
been much easier freely to invent, than to borrow from that family-
register which formed a direct contrast to the other.
But the narrative of Enoch, v. 21-24, is chiefly laid hold of by
more recent theologians as the most evident mythus, the princi
pal support of which assertion is sought in the cognate traditions
of Eomulus, Ganymede, &c,4 If we examine the propriety of this
comparison, we shall find, 1, in reference to the sources, this great
diversity, that here we have a simple, slight genealogy, there poetic
tales, which therefore are partly the subject of further elaboration
and adornment by later writers,® but are contradicted by the histo-
1 Compare the names Chanoch— Lamech — Cainan (Cain,)
2 So Buttmann, Mythologus, i, p, 170, ff. Von Bohlen, p. 59, ff.
3 " Besides, especial caution must be used in employing the similarity of names for
clearingup obscure points of antiquity. Suppose, e, </,, that the obscure period of his.
tory reached as far as to the birth of Christ, how plausibly might it be made out that
Crsesus and Crassus were one and the same person," Pustkuchen, Urgesch, i. p. 257.
1 Comp. Ruperti in Henke's Magazin vi, p. 174, ff, Winer, Reallex, i. p. 560, ff.
Hartmann, p. 402. Schumann, V. Bohlen, &c.
5 Comp. e. g., concerning the mythus of Ganymede, taken up in a purely artistic Greek
spirit, and worked into different forms, Heyne ad ApoUod. obss. p. 294. Hug iiber den
Myth. p. 213;

110 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
rians.' 2. In reference to the fundamental idea, there is the dis
tinction between them, that here we have a pure piety, a " walking
with God," there the beauty of the mortal is the cause of his glo
rification {tov dvTjpel^avTo Oeol — KaXkeo^ eiveica Sio, Hom, II-
XX, 234,) or the august eminence of the first ruler of Eome ; here
there is a simple removal from the earth, there the fundamentally
different idea of an apotheosis, 3. In reference to other confirma
tory testimonies ; while the heathen parallels show themselves to
be indigenous tales constructed according to the popular taste, here
not only do we not meet with an analogous occurrence in the do
mestic history till a far later period in the account of EUjah, but
foreigti testimonies also, quite independent of the Scriptures, add
their confirmation ; to which belongs especially the very old tale,
found in Phrygian authors, and extensively spread in that region, of
Annakos or Nannakos, with which Buttmann very suitably com
pares the Greek tale of ^acus, tales which afford a fine proof of
their being founded on the simple groundwork of the Bible fact.
We cannot therefore understand how one could here, with an utter
want of criticism, jumble together things of the most different kind,
and regard them as being of the same kind.
If we compare now with this genealogy the tradition, which we
find among the Indians, the Chinese, the Egyptians, but in its
plainest form among the Babylonians of ten ante-diluvian rulers,
exalted by the mythology into gods (v. Von Bohlen, p. 67), we can
not hesitate to adopt the opinion, that history and mythology are
here very plainly distinguished from one another, and that from
the historical standing-point [= Scripture account] of the history
of the fiood, we may very well explain, how this mythical deifica
tion ofthe old world might be developed from that historical basis,
but never the reverse, how the latter could be developed from the
former : comp. Perizonius, Origg. Bab, et Aeg, ii., p. 25.
The opinion is very decidedly held that a mythus is contained in
Gen. vi. 1 — 8, and certainly not without reason, if the " theogonic"
and " mythologic" idea of " sons of gods," and the " widely-spread
dogma of the theogony in the polytheistic religions of the ancient
world," also found support in this passage. It is strange that the
1 As was the case with the Annalists in reference to Eomulus ; v. Niebuhr, Rom. Gesch,
i. p. 261.
2 Comp. Buttmann, Mythol, i. p. 176, ff,
2

OF GEN. IV,  IX. 1 1 1
sobriety elsewhere evinced by our modern expositors is here ex
changed for a willing "acquiescence in the silliest whims of the
Alexandrian Gnostics and Cabbalistic Eabbins, in order to make an
attempt from that quarter to pervert and throw suspicion on Scrip
ture truth. There is no trace of any such notion in our text. The
artijle in D^nVt^n^^Sl shows that it is not " sons of the^orfs" that
are spoken of; it must therefore be at least " sons of Jehovah^'
who is also expressly referred to by that name in vers. 3, 5, 7, 8.
Are these then " begotten by Jehovah," or is it in a moral sense that
they are thus called "^sons of Jehovah ?" But where should we
find in Scripture a single analogous example of a theogonic view of
that kind ? The application of the idea " sons of God" is every
where a moral one (except where the contrary is expressly stated,
Ps. ii. 7) ; why then should this passage form an exception ? But
it may be easily shown from the context also, that it is not super-
terrestrial beings, angels or such like, that are here at all to be
thought of ; and unquestionably the indefinite phrase 0'in7i^il~'^2n
must receive its definition in the first place from the context. In
vers. i. it is expressly the multipUcation of men in general that is
spoken of, and so also in v. 3 ; so that we can hardly avoid sup
posing " the sons of God," and "the daughters of men," in v. 2,
toj be two species of the genus referred to in the preceding and
following verses. If we look now to the other part of the connec
tion, we must evidently pass over the genealogies in ch. v., which
interrupts the history, and join the passage with iv. 26. Here^^it
is the progeny of Seth that is spoken of, and the worship of
Jehovah which they practised ; by which the narrator has evidently
made sufficient preparation for the Din7Nn~''21> especially when
in ver. 25 they are designated as a whole, a ^-^f (comp. Deut.
xiv. 1, Exod. iv. 22, 23). It is certainly not correct to take the
phrase Q"7Npy r\1i3. exactly in the sense in which it was commonly
taken by the earlier defenders of our view — the daughters of sinful
men, the descendants of Cain — but the expression naturally signi
fies — the daughters of the rest of mankind. " But (it is said) from
the union of the two proceeds the race of the giants," which it is
thought necessarily leads to the supposition of beings of a higher
nature. This is decidedly incorrect. There is nothing in vi. 4 of a
race of giants springing from this union. " In those days were the
(well-known) Nephilim in the earth," cannot without violence re-

112 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
ceive such a reference, especially when what follows is taken into
connection : " also after that, the sons of God went in unto the
daughters of men," i. e,, at that time there were men of that kind,
and they continued even till a later period. The author, to wit,
clearly proves the corruption of the age from two characteristic cir
cumstances ; in the first place, from the mixture of the pious j'ace
of God's faithful people with the rest, and the apostacy of the for
mer from Jehovah arising thence (just as in the case of Israel, " God's
first-born son," it was the greatest sin to contract licentious and
idolatrous connections with the Midianitish or other foreign women) ;
secondly, from the violence (comp. vi. 11, the earth was not only
corrupt, but also full of violence 5Q]n) practised by that insolent
T T .
race, forgetful of God, whose bodily strength (Di~)^£;i'' D'^Tlli)
answered to their pride (ot^Jj-j ifij^i^ comp. xi. 4).
The history of the flood is also looked upon as mythus, which
some refer entirely to the class of purely inventive tradition, giving
up the attempt to make out any sort of historical element in it
(comp. especially De Wette, Beitr. p. 70, ff.) ; others assign it a
physico-astrological foundation, and accordingly take it for a foreign
local tradition, springing up on the soil of India, and brought to
the Hebrews through Babylon, after having first received a new
colouring there. Here, if anywhere, everything is combined which
can give the Bible-narrative the stamp of the highest credibility.
Consider only the following points : 1. The exact statement concern
ing the ark, and the mode of its construction, where we have not
the slightest trace of mythical ornament, as we have e, g, in the
HeUenic traditions of the Argo, ApoUod. i. 9, 19, ff. The sim
pUcity of this vessel is sufficiently clear from the account, vi. 14, ff.,
and it is quite in accordance with that period, as its colossal size
also is quite in harmony with the primitive age and with the strength
and duration of its erections, to us enigmatical. If we had not
the monuments still partially before us, we should regard the state
ments of the ancients respecting them as hardly credible ; and it
1 I confess that the common derivation from Vbs irruere does not appear to me a na
tural one. At any rate that from the mutually related roots shs, hbti, V\'S seems more
probable, according to which the fundamental meaning would be ingens, of great distin
guished stature, which at least very well suits Num. xiii. 32, 83.
2 Comp. Hartmann, p. 795, ff. Von Bohlen, p. 78. ff. Buttmann, Mythol. i. p. 190,
200, ff.

OF GEN IV. — IX. ] 13
would then appear to what lengths we should be carried by that art
of calculation that is founded on the contracted and diminutive
standing- point of the present : were it not in our power still to view
with our eyes the ruins of Thebes, the narratives of the royal city
of a hundred gates would undoubtedly be referred to the region of
the fabulous. Yet the relation of these monuments to those that
are recent, is quite the same as of this Bible fact to the modem art
of ship-building, especially as our narrative says nothing of a ship,
but only of an ark (j-j2]^)- I<^ '^ only the scoffing frivolity of the
enemies of revelation that would think of doubting the accomplish
ment of such an undertaking. Add to this, that the calculations
made by excellent mathematicians in reference to it, show that the
size of the ark bore a suitable proportion to the number of the
beasts contained in it, as it is demonstrated that more than 6600
kinds of animals would have had room in it.^ This fact has re
mained till now unrefuted, as from its nature it cannot be otherwise.
So also it is not merely an hypothesis, adopted by enqufrers into
nature, but it is proved by facts, that the chmate of the antedi
luvian age was one different from ours, in respect to the variety of
changeable zones, as an equable, tropical climate prevailed through
the whole earth ; and from that, the reception of the different kinds
of beasts in the ark, which in itself is quite conceivable and pro
bable, obtains practical confirmation.* 2. The exact statement of
the natural causes that concurred in the Deluge, is a circumstance
which certainly in nowise removes the miraculous nature of the
whole fact — who has unveiled the mysteries of Nature ? — but which
certainly shows, how exact was the attention paid to the external
phenomena of the Deluge ; v. Pareau, 1. c. p, 149, 3. The state
ments (exactly agreeing with what has been observed of the remains
and traces of a deluge) of the universality of the Flood, though not
of such an effect resulting from it, as a change of firm land into
sea and the reverse ; the fearful might of the flood, exactly har
monizing with the statement of the height of the waters, &c. ; prov?
1 Celsus formerly scoffed at it, and in recent times Voltaire, and with these " thinking
heretics " Von Bohlen joins,
2 Comp, Temporarius in Heidegger Hist. s. patriarch, p, 338, sq,, and particularly
Lilienthal, die gute Sache d. gottlich. offenb. Th. v.
3 Comp. K. Von Eaumer's Lehrb. d, allgem. Geographie, p. 411, 427. 2te Ausg.
H

114 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
how fully our information is founded on facts,' and when compared
with the slight and shallow objections against it, make the littleness
of these very manifest. 4. The careful statement ofthe chronology,
which marks with such exactness day and -month in the course of
this occurrence, puts all suspicion of the history to shame.
To these are added some important circumstances that remark
ably confirm this genuine historical character, {a) If we reckon tho
days and months, as they are stated in the time mentioned in the
history of the flood, which embraces exactly the space of a year,
we obtain 384 days, which statement of time suits only if we regard
that year as a complete intercalary year of lunar months? Now
such a year must also be supposed in the Mosaic legislation, if the
cycle of feasts is to receive its explanation, but nowhere in the
promulgation of the Law is mention made of this arrangement of
the year, though it is besides so closely connected with the cele
bration of the feasts ; which can be explained only by its being
known to the Israelites, so that with them it was necessarily pre
supposed. Thus the subsequent history casts a brilliant light on
this part, giving it confirmation ; and we have thus a very just de
monstration of its truth. Add to this (6) that here the months are
simply numbered, and not named ; now names were given to the
months by the Hebrews evidently long before the Exile : indeed,
so early as the time of Moses a name was given to the first month
of the year (Abib, Ear-month, Exod. xiii. 4, xxiii. 15, xxxiv- 18 ;
Deuter. xvi, 1) ; while here, on the contraryj the same appears
simply as the first month, which is another trait that exactly suits
the order of time in these facts. Hence it is clear how thankless
are the labours of those who, from the chronological statements
here given, would draw the conclusion that the account belongs to
a later age, as Von Bohlen does, p, 105 — 110; who, reckoning
here incorrectly a year of 365 days, discovers that the Hebrews
were not acquainted with it before the Exile, and then places the
commencement of the year of the Flood at the autumnal equinox,
in the month Tisri, for which latter opinion there is no foundation

1 Comp, Von Eaumer's work quoted above, p, 395—431, which no theologian who gives
unqualified belief to geologists and enquirers into nature can read without profit,
2 Oomp. the exact and excellent calculation in Tiele, die Genesis iibers. und comment.
i. p. 149, with p. 209, ff. : \. also Ideler, Handb. d. Chronol. i, p, 68:
3 V. the complete proof of this in Ideler, 1. c. p. 487, ff.

OF GEN IV, — IX. 115
whatever in the text, unless we call to our aid the purely airy hy
pothesis, that the author here gives a true description of the year,
which, however, is immediately after destroyed by the admonition
that we are " not to lay- stress on the poetical exaggeration," and
therefore not to expect any true description of the year. But, be
sides, with all this there is no proof given that the Hebrews, during
the time of the Exile, adopted all at once a different mode of reckon
ing the year, from that which was in use at an earlier period ; a
view that is at least very much opposed by the old method of reck
oning being found in the first book of the Maccabees ; and it is not
improbable that in the period before the exile as well, and even in
the Mosaic age, the autumnal equinox was considered, if not as the
commencement of the year, yet as an important division of the year,'
The evidence of fact, at any rate, extends only to the change of the
names of the months as having taken place in the Exile, but in
other respects the continuance of the ancient calendar is probable
on more grounds than one. 5. An especial confirmation of these
Hebrew accounts is suppUed by those traditions of antiquity con
cerning a flood, that are everywhere to be found. Considered in
itself, it would be strange if these tales did not arise out of a com
mon tradition, but, as has even recently been represented as very
probable, had come to the Hebrews from an external source. For
what interest could they well have had in taking up tales of that
kind ? Certainly their climate could not have led them to do it,
since Palestine, as is well known, does not suffer from inundations.
Besides, this view, that the tale of the flood had its origin in the
peculiarities of climate, proves an utter failure in this very case with
respect to the Egyptians, who speak of their own land as having
been spared by the flood, while the whole of Atlantis perished by
it (Diod, Sic. i, 10), — a striking proof of the accommodation of the
universal tradition. Everywhere do we thus find the fundamental
elements of history agreeing surprisingly as before in single circum
stances with the Bible-history, only with a diversified national
colouring. The subject has been thus worked into many different
forms in Indian tradition ; but in its simplest form (in the Epic
Mahabharata) appears so much affected by mythical additions and
conformity to poetic interest, that it pre-supposes an original history
1 See Ideler, 1. c. p. 493, ff,
h2

1 !0 HISrORICAL CREDIBILIIY
of a simpler character, our entire ignorance of which certainly does
not justify the conclusion, that " the conception has sprung up in
so pure a form on the soil of India, that it may be firmly denied
that any external influence has operated on it" (Von Bohlen, p.
81) ; though certainly the ideal side of the mythus can be attributed
to no other source. The same tale meets us in a purer and more
historical form among the Chaldeeans, according to the information
supplied by Berosus and Abydenus. But here, also, abstracting
the pure mythological colouring, there occur such important points
of agreement, that we see that in the mouth of this primitive people,
— for such Scripture also recognises them to be — the tradition had
been more faithfully preserved, and a greater importance had been
ascribed to the subject itself than was elsewhere the case, as the
feast celebrated in reference to it shows. The characteristic agree
ment consists in the statement of the proposal of Cronos to Sisu-
thros to build a ship, the landing of the latter in Armenia, and the
sending out of the birds,^ In this it is worthy of remark, that with
reference to the end of Sisuthros, of whom it is said that he and
his family were taken up to the gods because of their piety, and
thus suddenly disappeared — we have a new and splendid testimony
to the original character of our history : that mythical glorification
could find a place only where the tradition of primitive times had
already become dark and confused. That traditions of the deluge
were maintained in anterior Asia, is proved not so much by the
coins of Apamea, which indeed are of very late origin,* as by the
Grecian tales whose origin is to be traced to that quarter. The
pecuUar family traditions of Ogyges and Deucalion are proofs (v.
Buttmann upon them, p, 194, ff,, 205, ff,), how early this tale was
taken up by that mythology, which however at the same time lo
calized it also most of all, and, according to the Hellenic fashion,
interwove it with Grecian genealogies.'' Thus we have no need to
adduce any American or other cognate traditions, since these testi-
1 V. Miinter, Eehg. d. Babyl. p 67.
2 Comp. Miinter, 1. c. p, 119, ff.
3 In which case Buttmann, Mythol. p. 191, is incorrect in asserting that there is an
interchange with the end of Enoch (Annakos) ; for that mode of expression is the
prevalent one concerning the mythical glorification of heroes, so that we find just the
same said of Belus, Nebuchadnezzar, &c.
* Comp. Buttmann, Mythol. i. p. 192, ff. Pustkuchen, Urgesch. p. 273, ff.
§ Comp. Heyne, obss. ad Apollod. p. 38, sq. 0. Miiller, Prolegg. p. 179, ff.

OF GEN IV. — IX. 117
monies sufficiently prove that they collectively suppose a common
fact, and that, with respect to the credibility and purity of the ac
count, none can be at aU compared with that of the Bible ; yea,
the more historical the form assumed by the non-bibUcal narrative,
the closer does its relationship to the Biblical one appear.
We have a very clear proof of the exclusion of every mythologi
cal as well as poetic element from our narrative, in the passage ix.
12, ff., concerning the rainbow. It is simply Jehovah's sign of the
covenant between himself and men. It is otherwise among the
Greeks, where Iris is not only closely connected with the mytho
logy, hut in Homer is on that account employed in poetical repre
sentation as a purely poetical figure. As in the Scriptures that
symbol contains a purely ethical view, so in mythology it contains
a physico-theogonical one ; and hence it is quite incorrect to find
tbe same fundamental view in the former (Von Bohlen, p. 99.)
But the attacks of later writers are principally directed against
the "odious legend," the "production of Israelitish national hatred,"
in ix. 21 — 27.^ It cannot, however, be denied that here again the
associated historical circumstances are entirely accordant with his
torical research, as in the point of the early cultivation of the vine
(comp. Link, I, c. p, 433.) Besides, the facts of the narrative ad
mit of no denial ; the actual execution of the curse denounced on
Canaan cannot be denied. In him — such is the meaning of the
history — is concentrated the execration pronounced upon Ham ;
the shameful conduct ofthe father of the race received its punish
ment from the living God principally in this family, which stood
in most immediate contact with the covenant-people ; even as the
blessing given to Shem was concentrated in the covenant-people, so
was the curse of Ham in Canaan, In this lies the high ethical
significance of our narrative, in which, no more than anywhere else,
does the objective sentence of rejection admit of separation from
the subjective guilt (comp. Tholuck, on the Epistle to the Romans
V. 1 6), the existence of which in the present case is strongly corro
borated by history, showing that the sins of the Canaanites, eved
before the theocratic punishment, brought down upon them extra
ordinary divine judgments. This mode of regarding it is certainly
1 v. Hesiodi Theog. 266, Apollod. i. 2.
3 V. De Wette, Beitr. p. 75. ff. Hartmann, p. 406. Von Bohlen, p. 103, ff.

1 18 CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE TABLE OF NATIONS.
superior, indeed diametrically opposed to that which reminds us only
too much of the morality of the advocates of a carnal outward re
formation, which is here applied as a standard to the Bible history
by our opponents, as Von Bohlen here speaks not only of the
" tasteless [mention of] intoxication," but also of an "insignificant
transgression of Ham, committed against his will" (sic !). A mo
rality, which from this point of view wantonly assails the Word of
God, is the noblest testimony on behalf of Scripture, which does
not gloss over sin, but inexorably denounces its woe,- against all
who transgress the law of the Holy One of Israel.
We have a clear proof how little reason there is to suspect
the account as fictitious, in the circumstance that it is not Canaan,
but Ham that commits the sin. Now an Israelite who was influ
enced by mere " national hatred," would hardly have made use of
this apparent incongruity, (which was not first discovered by modern
criticism, but was remarked at an early period, as some MSS, of
the Septuagint, ix. 25, read instead of " Canaan" " Ham," as
Saadias also does) — in the endeavour to give credibility to what
was a pure " fiction ;' for with the least trouble it might have been
so contrived, that the incidents should have had another occasion
assigned them. And as to the doubts that one has sought to cast
in general on the Hamitic origin of the Canaanites, they rest on the
error of making no distinction between relationship in language
and national relationship,'

§ 17. CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE TABLE OF NATIONS,  GEN. X.
As this section contains very full geographical and ethnographi
cal information, it is of the greatest importance carefully to follow
these indications, since we shall thus best ascertain whether the
historical testimonies compel us to conclude that the work belongs
decidedly to a period subsequent to that of Moses, or not. This
can be made out only by an historical examination of the separate
parts. We previously remark, however, as two characteristics that
distinguish this genealogy, the following points: — 1. The list pro
poses to point out the origin ofthe different nations, giving special
1 Compare on this point the author's General Introduction to the 0, T, (of which it
is intended to publish atranslntion in thisserics), S 18.

GEN. X. 119
reference and prominence to the Semitic branch, which is of chief
importance here. The question then arises, whether all the proper
names mentioned in this place by the author are to be considered
as real progenitors, or as gentile nouns. The chapter itself sup
plies us with the correct view. The author's intention is to give
" the generations, i. e., families of the sons of Noah" (x. 5, 20,
31, 32,) which expression of itself leads us to suppose that the author
meant to give not solely names belonging to individuals, but also
collective designations. This is confirmed by the comparison of
the plurals used by the writer (vers. 13, 14), as well as by the gen
tile designations (vers, 16 — 18.) Now when in these latter cases
also "xy^, to beget is used, it is clear that we are to seek in it only
the general idea of derivation, with which also the usage of Scrip
ture elsewhere in genealogical statements agrees (comp, 1 Chron,
ii. 24, iv, 3, viii. 29 ; Michaelis, Spicil. Geogr, h. ext, i, p. 4, sq.)
Thus it follows that' there is a two-fold point of view to be taken in
reference to these statements : in some names the author evidently
has in his eje persons as progenitors (comp. especially ver. 8, ff.),
in others, on the contrary, the races, the families of the nations
themselves ; and it is this also that is expressed in the statement
of his intention, not only to give the sons born to the sons of Noah
(ver. 1), but also to define them according to their families. This
brings out an element that is of importance to the historical cha
racter of the genealogy. We see, namely, that the principle that
obtains in it is by no means such as lies at the bottom, e, g,, of
the later Greek genealogical traditions, which contain a genuine
mythical mode of expression, the personification of the people, the
city, &c., animated by the form attributed to them of human rela
tionship to one another, such as marriage and parentage.' It is,
therefore, with a total disregard of criticism that later critics have,
in spite of this characteristic distinction, compared our table of
descent with the " ethnographic mythology" of the HeUenes, in
which the individual is epicaUy introduced for the people.^ 2. We
have in this specification a genealogical tradition, preserved in the
Plebrew nation, among whom it could be preserved in its purity,
because that people continued more faithful than any other to their
1 V. the excellent remarks iu 0. Miiller's Prolegonema, p. 178, ff.
2 E.g., Winer, Reallex, i, p, 399. Geseniusin the Halle Encyc, on Ancient Bib. Geo
graphy. Von Bohlen, p. Ill, &c.

120 CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE TABLE OF NATIONS,
original family-unity, and kept themselves free from commixture
with other nations and races. The exact distinction and separa
tion of each national branch from the other, is a mark unmistakeably
impressed upon the table ; and that is a truly theocratic standing-
point. Compare with this the manner in which Hellenic tradi
tion, treating history with freedom, brings foreign nations in its pro
cess of mythical fabrication into the circle of the legends of
the Hellenic race, and groups together into one whole both
what is Grecian and what is foreign.' In close connection
with this stands another characteristic of the free mythical forma
tion : its genealogies were subject to change from the same cause,
in which they had their origin ; far from meeting with unity in
them, we find the most manifold diversity and disfigurement. But
here, on the contrary, we possess in the recapitulation of our gene
alogy in 1 Chron. i, a striking evidence of the opposite. In the
time of the Chronicler nothing more was known from antiquity
concerning the origin of nations than what Genesis supplied : sup
posing then that some inquiring mind composed this table of
nations, from merely reflecting on the nations that happened to
exist at the same period, and attempting to give them a systematic
arrangement, how could it possibly happen that his tum of mind
should be in such complete harmony with that of the other ? This
could arise only from the one recognizing the decided superiority
ofthe other's account, which here lies in nothing else than the
historical truth itself belonging to it. But in general also no ethno
graphic mythus has had its origin in the fictitious invention of an
arbitrary division and arrangement of nations. Though Heyne
¦ indeed declared the Grecian genealogies to be simply " conatus
origines populorum investigandi " (obss. ad ApoUod. p, 105), and
traced them to a " communis error hominum," such a view might
be excused in that period when the study of mythology was still in
its infancy ; but its want of truth can no longer escape any really
inquiring mythologist. These parallels, therefore, should not have
1 V. 0. Miiller, hu. p. 182, ff.
2 Comp. e. g. 0. Miiller, die Dorier i, p, II. A similar cause led to falsifications in
Homer, V. Wilh. Miiller, Homer, Vorschule, p, 89, ff,
3 " If we consider this belief, we shall also cease to regoi-d the genealogies, which
arose still iu the age of the later Epic writers, and perhaps even of the JLogographers, as
being properly pure invention ; these also must have arisen through gradual enlarge-

GEN. X. 121
led to the denying our passage its claim to the certainty of original
facts, since the possibiUty of their purer preservation Ues in the
peculiarity of the theocratic spirit. We must regard it as even still
more strange, if we otherwise rightly understand the traditions of
all other nations, looking only to these, that this chapter could be
reckoned among the latest portions of the canon, and be looked
upon as a production of the Exile (comp. Von Bohlen, p. 1 14), If
inventions of such a kind are in general to be admitted, it is neces
sary above aU to be able to point out the occasion and purpose
of them, which always become apparent in such circumstances as
the disfigurations, to which we have referred, of the Hellenic gene
alogies. The occasion of them has been considered to be the
acquaintance which the Hebrews at that later epoch formed with
other distant nations. Yet we certainly cannot see in what precise
way this mere external acquaintance should have given occasion
to such a genealogy ; but even supposing this, why should the
ante- Mosaic period stand contrasted in this respect with the later
one ? " Was it indeed — asks Eichhorn, iii. p. 88 — not till after
the time of Moses that the world became acquainted with itself?"
Assuredly not ! Let us only look into the history of Abraham
which immediately follows, and we shall find the countries that Ue
far to the east coming in contact with anterior Asia (c, xiv,) ; while
the patriarchs collectively stand in connection with Mesopotamia,
Egypt, Arabia, and Phoenicia ; and so forth — indeed looking to
Genesis, it is just in that period that we should expect a much
closer acquaintance, and one of a more extensive character, with
foreign countries than at a later time ; a circumstance which is
founded entirely on the nature ofthe case, and has a close connec
tion with the life and simple manners of antiquity. But perhaps
the purpose of the chapter may be easier to discover, De Wette
acted prudently in his "Beitrage" [Cotttributio9is'], in not going
into it at all ; Hartmann, p, 244, and Von Bohlen, p, 113, express
themselves more clearly upon it. According to them, it was the
national pride of the Hebrews to trace their descent from Shem,
Noah's first-born son, " that their rights might appear to have a
superior foundation to those of other nations," that was the purpose
ment and inferences, that possessed in that age gejieral evidence," 0. Miiller, Prolegg,
p. 179.

122 .. CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE TABLE OF NATIONS,
*
of our author. But unfortunately there are not wanting among the
Shemites either Assur or Elam ; and when we try to imagine how
the vain national prejudice of ancient hostility towards Assur and
continued enmity with Elam, against which the Prophets of the
Exile utter the most threatening oracles, should suddenly have
become forgetful, and made them belong to the same family:stock
as the Hebrews, — and this, be it observed, by a pure fiction ! —
we willingly confess that such an aimless purpose surpasses our
comprehension, and may well be charged on the arbitrary pro
cedure of our pseudo-critics, but certainly not on Scripture.'
To pass on now to details, we find the name of the patriarch of
1 In connection with this, however, it must be observed, that it is at least a disputed
point, whether Shem or Japhet be the first-born, a matter which Von Bohlen indeed does
not appear to have regarded as of importance to the enquiry. Viewed apoi-t from preju
dice, there is most to be said in favour of the primogeniture of Japhet, which would
leave the hypothesis that we have contested but the smallest appeai-ance of probability.
For (1.), as relates to the order of sequence in which the sons of Noah usually stand in
Genesis, it is evidently selected, as Ham's position shows, not according to the order of
birth, but from the peculiar theocratic point of view; the old theologians called it ordo
graticB, non naturce, not quite properly. Thus it is explained (a) why Shem takes prece
dence, as the immediate holder of the divine promises; (T>) why Ham follows next,
whose posterity was most important to the Theocracy. That such a mode of position is
the custom in Genesis is clear from such passages as xxxviii. 5, xlviii. 20. (2.) The
chronology (comp. v. 32 with xi, 10) evidently speaks against the primogeniture of
Shem, and ou account of the latter passage it is a subterfuge that cannot be allowed, to
suppose that the definition of the time when Noah began to beget children is an indefi
nite statement adopted for the sake of a round number (see particularly Schelling in
Repert, f, bibl. u. M. Lit. xvii. p. 20, ff.). The year in which Noah began to have chil
dren is no more a round, indefinite number, than the statements concerning the irrup
tion of the Deluge that follow immediately after, where the statements of time are so
exact as to make such a supposition impossible, (3.) The passage Gen. x, 21, rightly
understood, favours only our opinion. The words blijfi TV "'hs may certainly be trans
lated, " Japhet's eldest brother" (comp e. j, Jud. i. 13, ix. 5), but they may be taken
gi-ammatically just as well, "the brother of Japhet, the eldest;" comp, Ewald, Gr, § 496,
2te Ausg. The context, consequently, must decide the point. Now, the pre-eminence
given to Shem— this is a circumstance often overlooked— does not lie iu those words, but
in these: "the father of all the sons of Eber," in which a reference is made to ch. ix.
{quemadmodum, ad infamandum Chamum, supra eum vocaverat patbem oanaanis, a
Noa maledicti, ita Semum nunc dicit patrem omnium filiorum Heber sive Hebrceorum,
ad eum nobilitandum, Rosenmiiller, p. 225) ; consequently it lies in the promise that
was made to him, not in his natural rights. We have here, therefore, the actual fulfil
ment of that declaration pointed out. But to Japhet also a salvation, though an inferior
one, was announced (v, Heugstenberg, Christol, i, 1, p. 47, ff.), and it is only the refer
ence to ix. 27 that explains why Japhet is here mentioned in connection with Shem.
This passage then appears to be a closer confirmation by facts of the prophecy; Japhet is
' the first-born, and obtains accordingly a numerous posterity, extensive districts of
country, and his blessing bears precisely the same relation to Shem's as that of Esau does
to Jacob's, xxv. 23.

GEN, X. 123
the first class of nations occurring again in the mythology of a Ja
phetic people. Tt is the name larreTot;, the explanation of which
is hardly to be found in Greek,, but is found in Hebrew in the re
cord itself, in an easy and natural manner, which refutes the sup
position that our author had the foreign name in his thoughts (Von
Bohlen, p. 113), Whatever confusion has been introduced into
the mythus of the Titans by the different editions it has gone
through, and the various elements with which it has become inter
mixed, yet we can plainly discern, in all the allegorical and mytho-
logico-hellenic constituents of it, that it possesses an ethnographic
value. This is clear from the connection of lapetus with Deuca
lion and Hellen ; with regard to which it must also not be over
looked, that in the most ancient poetry a simpler form of the
mythus is as unquestionably presented,^ as the later form bears ex
press evidence of a foreign influence being exercised on the farther
(dogmatico-physical) development of it.^ The circumstance, also,
that in a form of the tradition preserved by ApoUodorus, Asia is
the consort of lapetos (comp. Heyne obss. p. 10), might serve as
an additional proof, that this connection effected by lapetos had not
disappeared from the recollection of the people ; at least it confirms
the ancient ethnographic character of the mythus.
Among the Japhetites (x. 2 — 5), the Cimmerians ("^J^'^) are first
distinguished as an original people, and as such they were regarded
by the Greeks, as is shown by the mention of them in Homer (Odyss.
xi. 14, ff.),, but principally in Herod iv, 11 : ttjv jap vvv (sc. jfjv)
vifiovrat, SkvOui, dvrri Xejerai to -rraXaiov hvai Kifi/jteplcov ; as
in iv. 12 also he makes mention ofthe Cimmerian monuments still
remaining among the Scythians. Beside Gotoer stands Magog,
the mention of whom is the more important, because of the com
parison of Ezek. xxxvin., xxxix. Here we have a very striking
exhibition of the difference between the time of the composition of
this piece, and the time of Ezekiel's, however much some may be
inclined, because of the recurrence of the names, to regard both as
contemporary (Von Bohlen, p. 114). Here, observe, the name
1 The notion that 'laTETo's is connected with Java and Jovis (Buttmann Mythol. i.
p. 224) is certainly incorrect, and highly artificial.
2 Comp, particularly Hom, Ih viii. 478, ff. with the Theogony of Hesiod; see O,
Miiller, Prolegg, p, 374, ff,
3 Comp, especially Diod, Sic. i. 97 (comp. Pausanias viii. 37).

124 CRITIC.U, REVIEW OF THE TABLE OF NATIONS.
Magog still appears as that of a real national race, as the ancient
name of a distant Asiatic class of nations : in Ezekiel, on the con
trary, it represents a purely ideal people, the symbol and substra
tum ofthe violent power of the heathen nations in their conflict
with the kingdom of God (comp, Zech, xiv, ; Eevel, xx. 8, 9 ;
Heugstenberg, Christol. ii. p. 347, ff.) That Ezekiel thus employs
the name of Magog is plain : 1. From the article (^^ilsn xxxviii.
2), by which the name is treated rather as an appellative than as
a proper name : see Ewald, Krit. Gram, p. 568, ff. 2. From the
king's name, formed in analogy with the name Magog (with the
^ loci), Gog, the prince of Magog; on which the Apocalypse
makes an additional change, by treating Gog and Magog as two
nations {eOvrj), comp. Ewald, ad Apoc. p. 304, Now as the
Apocalypse here presupposes the passage in Ezekiel, so with Uke
necessity does Ezekiel that in Genesis : the ideal treatment of the
subject by that prophet supposes a real, historical foundation,
which can be found nowhere else than in Genesis. — Madai is the
ancestor of the Medes. It is singular that in this simple notice a
proof has been discovered of the late composition ofthe piece. The
name Madian, says V. Bohlen, p, 117, signifies middle, madhya,
since, as Polybius 5, 44 remarks, in their opinion, their position
is irepi p,k(j'r)vri]v'A(7Lav. It is farther the opinion of the same
learned man, that the nation must have first assumed this name,
after it took through Dejoces (b. c. 710) an independent position
in the history of the world. But Polybius makes that remark as
to the situation of Media entirely from his own judgment : t) yap
MijSeia Kelrai fiev trepl fiearjv rrjv 'Aaiav — so that it was a name
founded on the geographical situation ofthe country, of which alone
that writer is speaking, and not at all on its historical importance.^
But there are so many historical testimonies to be shown in favour
of the very early existence of the Zend nation as an independent
people, which ,is the point here in question, especially after the
recent investigations concerning the Zend-avesta (comp. also Diod.
Sic. ii, 1), that no doubt can prevail respecting it. It is here,
however, particularly worthy of notice, that nothing is said of tho
1 Yet certainly the other primitive name of this people was Ceri "Apioi (Herod, vii.
62, 66), which, according to V, Bohlen (de orig, ling. Zend. p. 51, d. a. Indien i. p. 47),
signifies the honowrable, distinguished ; which thus, miich more than the other, pos
sessed historical importance, and is yet indisputably older than tbe period of Dejoces.

GEN. X. 125
subsequent division of this stock, which could not be unknown to
a writer of the time of the Exile, who was so well informed as ours
(comp. Herod, i. 101) ; so that the Zend people here appears in its
primitive unity, to which we are led also by the ancient native
accounts of the Vendidad. — It is certainly as^deserving of conside
ration, that among the following names, Meshech, Tubal, Tiras,
the stock connected with them in Ezekiel, Rosh, is wanting ; while
on the other hand, Tiras is mentioned nowhere else in Scripture,'
— a striking confirmation'of the proper independence of this section.
As relates to the mention of Javan and the nations descended
from him (x. 4), it has long been remarked (v. Eosenmiiller, scholl,
p, 197) what an exact agreement with this we find in the state
ment of Herodotus conceming the lonians and Dorians, the des
cendants of Hellen (i. 56, ff.). In this, the circumstance that Tar
shish is here represented as proceeding from Javan, is of especial
importance. Let us consider, namely, how this place had the
closest mercantile connection with the Phoenicians as early as the
age of David and Solomon, so that the error, shared by so many
Greek authors, of considering Tartessus as a Phoenician colony,
was certainly a natural one. But it is the original inhabitants of
Tarshish that are here intended (ttj^t2j"iji j-Q, Is. xxiii. 10), who
Uved in an oppressed condition under Phoenician tyranny (v, Ge
senius on Is. i, p. 733, ff.). Indeed, in reference to their descent
from Javan, there appears to have been preserved among the notices '
of Herodotus no indistinct trace of it, since he narrates of the Pho-
cseans, who in the time of Cyrus sailed to Tartessus, that they had •
formed a friendly relation of the most intimate kind with the inha
bitants of that country,^ — a circumstance which leads us to sup
pose that there was an original relationship between the stocks. A
similar remark holds good ofthe Kittim who are joined with Tar
shish, — the Cyprians, who before the age of Solomon were already
subject to the Phoenicians (v. Heugstenberg, de reb. Tyr. p. 55),
having indeed been violently subjugated (comp. also Is. xxiii. 12),
Their Grecian descent is testified also by Herod, vii. 90, according
1 To combine that name with Thrace, which has been the common practice since
Bochart, appears to me attended with violence. 1 should suggest the name Tyras,
known to the ancients as the name of a river, a city, and nations among the Scythian
national stocks. V. Herod, iv. II, 52. Plin. hist. nat. iv. 26. Pomp. Mela, ii, 1, 74.
2 V. i. 163, King Arganthonius invited them tKKiirovrai Twn'tji/  t^s kiovTou
\tiipt}^ 6iK7Jtrai oKov ^ovXovTai,

126 CRITICAL REVIEW 0? THE TABLE OF NATIONS,
to declarations of the Cyprians themselves, comp. Diog. Laert,
vit. Zenon init,, who speaks of Citium as 'jro\icrp,aro'; iWrjvtKoO,
(jioiviKats eiroiKov; eayrfKoro'i. The introduction of the Dodanim
(which appears to be the correct reading), leads us again to one of
the oldest seats of Grecian civilization, Dodona, where a sacred
race of priests had settled in primeval times (Strabo, vii, p. 328, sq.
p. 506), which was afterwards obliged to yield to foreign (Pelas
gic) influence ;' and in that case we should here evidently have the
most ancient notice of that primitive Hellenic settlement.
•While, turning to the descendants of Ham, whose name Ukewise
appears to have been preserved among his posterity (v. Buttmann,
i. p. 224, ff,), we pass over the Cushite nations, x. 7, that never
appear again in Scripture in this manner and extent — which suffi
ciently proves the primitive antiquity of the information ; the con
nection of Cush with Babylon, stated in ver, 8, ff,, through the des
cent of Nimrod from the former, is the more important for our
purpose. Now, a remarkable confirmation of this statement is
found in foreign authors. In the first place, the origin of Babel
itself is traced back into the remoteness of a dim antiquity. The
one opinion respecting it was that which was spread by Ctesias
among the ancients (v. Ctes. p. 397, ed. Bahr,) : that Semiramis
bmlt the city. This is sufficiently explained by the particular pains
which this author takes to do honour to Semiramis. This was the
^easier to do, since, according to Herodotus, it was many kings of Ba
bylon 61 TO, Tei')(ed re e-jreKoa/iTjaav Kal rh Ipd (i. 184). On the
contrary, the native tradition of the Babylonians ascribes the foun
dation of the city to Belus, and Berosus expressly opposes the opi
nion of the 'EXKrjviKol a-vyt^ panel's, that Semiramis was the builder
of the city (in Jos. con, Ap. i, § 19) ; and with him Abydenus in
Euseb. preep. evan, ix, 41, agrees, according to whom Belus sur
rounded the city with a wall. This information, more credible in
itself, as being native, commended itself also to learned historians
of antiquity,^ and is confirmed by the closer consideration ofthe my-
1 It is at least, in any case, of importance that Herod, ii. 52, ff,, mentions sacred wo-
mere, but Strabo mc», as being in possession of this oracle. Comp. Kreuser, Torfr. iib-
Homeros i.p. 267, ff.
2 Comp. Ourtius v. 1: Semiramis earn (Babylonem) condiderat, •vf:\,ut plerique credi^
dere, Belus, cujus regia ostenditur." — Ammian. Marcell. xxiii. 6 : " Babylon, cujus
masnia bitumine Semiramis struxit : arcem enim antiquissimus rex condidit Belus," See
other passages in Bochart, Cau. p. 263,

GEN. X. 127
thus of Belus itself Hero-worship was certainly indigenous in Baby
lon, as has been weU pointed out by Munter (p. 29, ff.) ; and that Be
lus was such a hero we are made certain, by the grave of Belus being
in the temple of Belus.' The native tradition expressly recognized
him as such ; in Abydenus, 1, c. Nebuchadnezzar says : 6 B^Xo?
o 6/tos Trpoyovo^ ¦jjTe ^acrlXeia B'PjXti,<;. — Even antiquity, however,
assigned this Bel an Egyptian descent. Diodorus Siculus relates
that 'Belus, the son of Poseidon and Libya, led colonists to Ba
bylon, and that the Chaldeans were descendants of the Egyptians
(i. 28, 81). This account, or old tradition, is confirmed by ancient
authors. Pausanias also, iv. 23, 5, says : o ev Ba^vXibvt EjjXo?,
6 fj,ev ttTTO dvBpbt; 'Aityviniov Bij'Xov tov AijBvo'; ovofia ea-^ev ;
and Hestieeus, in Joseph. Ant, i, 6, considers the Babylonians at
least to have been colonists, who immigrated with the shrines oiZeix;
'EvvdXio^. Now the mythology of Babylon, which stands in
striking harmony with the-Egyplian, and its worship also through
out, agree with this,3 In this it is also worthy of remark, that
the last-named author speaks of a Zev^ {i. e. Belus) 'EvvdXiot;,
which leads us to view him as the God of War (comp. Sel den de
diis Syris, p. 213, Creuzer, Symb. ii. p. 610), and again confirms
our earUer conclusion that Belus was a deified hero. Then the
analogy between Nimrod and Belus is the more striking — confirmed
also by the astronomical part of the mythus, according to which
Nimrod is Orion (Hitzig on Is. p. 159) — especially when we see,
that both names are properly only appellatives, inasmuch as Nimrod
1 Comp, Gorres, Mythengesch, p, 269, ff, Miinter, p, 19, ff.
2 Comp. Servius ad Virg. Mn. i, 73. " Primus Assyriorum regnavit Saturnus, quern
Assyrii Deum nominavere Saturnum," Ad Mn. i. 646: " Apud Assyrios Bel dioitur
quadam sacrorum ratione et Saturnus et Sol."
8 Comp. my Comment, on the Book of Daniel, p, 45, ff,, 144, ff. With this result Leo
also (Lehrb, d. Univ. Gesch. i. p. 105, ff.) agrees. That which Von Lengerke on Dan.
p. 44, referring to Ideler, Handb. d. Chronol. i. p. 198, ff,, observes to the contrary, is
very weak. The testimony of Josephus, Antiq, i. 8, receives its explanation from a
combination of the history of Abraham with the tale (adopted among the Greeks) that
astronomy had come to Egypt from Babylon— a supposition which, moreover, as this
fact belongs to the most remote antiquity, remains still a, possible one, and by no means
contradicts that other tradition. Besides, I think it can easily be shewn that it was only
a partial Grecian mythical view, that gave the foreign tradition a new form in that re
spect. This plainly appears from ApoUodorus ii. I — 4, who says that only Agenor
emigrated (see further on this in seq.), but Belus remained in Egypt; which plainly
proves that the other foreign tradition, of the derivation of the Babylonian Bel from
Egypt, had reached the ears of the Greek Mythographers, who, however, did not regard
it as probable and agreeable, and accordingly gave it that modification.

1 28 CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE TABLE OF NATIONS,
can hardly be made to signify the rebel, but should be taken in the
wider sense oi ruler, sole ruler {Tvpavvoi)}
The historical truth of our information concerning the begin
ning of Babel is thus strikingly confirmed, and we may pass over
the conjecture of Von Bohlen (p. 126, ff.), which has no founda
tion, that, by Nimrod, Merodach Baladan is intended, the rash
ness of which is hardly equalled by any other hypothesis ; the
more, as it is supported by explanations, such as that Cush means
Upper Asia, which are alone sufficient for its entire rejection with
thorough historians.
The account of the beginnings of the Assyrian kingdom is equally
verified. Assur is a Semite (x. 22), but goes forth from Babel (Sin-
ear) X. 1 1 , and founds the capital city Eesen, and the cities Nineveh,
Eechoboth, Ir, and Calach. All the accounts yie have from other
quarters reach only to that form of the Assyrian kingdom, when
Nineveh is its chief city, and the extra-Biblical traditions relate to
it and its foundation by Ninus. " Who does not here recognize
the man (says Eichhorn, 1. c, p. 89) who wrote before Nineveh
had yet reached that greatness, which we find it possessing in Jonah
and among the Greeks ? Another writer, some centuries later,
would have made Nineveh, which was so amazingly great in the
last centuries of the Assyrian monarchy, the greatest city.'' In
addition to this, express testimonies, though they are those, of later
chronologers, make Ninus the son of Belus. The tribes of Miz
raim, introduced in ver. 13, 14, are almost all entirely unknown
to us, as even Josephus has said (Ant, i. 6) : irepl t&v ovofidrcov
ovBev 'ia-fjbev. But from the mention of Pathros, the nomos of
Thebais (v. Is. xi. 11, and expositors ad loc), it is probable that
the author here, as below, in the case of Canaan, intended to give
the various primitive Egyptian states. Josephus has remarked
that their memory was destroyed in the Ethiopic war. This view
agrees very well also with later inquiries, which have made it cer
tain that Egypt, in the earliest period, consisted of a number of
single independent states ; in connection with which it deserves
attention, that the number given in the accounts we have from
Manetho, oi five old contemporary dynasties, nearly agrees with
1 So that the name finds its closer explanation in the following -ihaj and n|is ":..
Comp. the Arabic and Syriac usus loquendi in Michaelis, Spicil, i. p, 212.
2 See Beck, Weltgesch. i. p. 194.

GEN. X. 129
the number of the six tribes mentioned in our record.' According
to this, we also regard the Casluchim, ver. 14, not as Bochart does,
as Colohians, into which land Egyptian colonists may certainly
have been led (but, as it seems, not at least till a later period^), but
likewise as an ancient Egyptian nomos. This is the more neces
sary, since the Philistines are derived from them as colonists, whoso
name (LXX, dWo^vXoi) marks them as immigrants. Along with
the Philistines the Caphtorim also are named as an Egyptian co
lony. By Caphtor recent writers have rightly understood Crete.
For (1), from its geographical position, and according to history,
Crete was one of the most ancient places of connection between
Egypt and the East : v. Creuzer, Symb. iv. p. 13, ff, (2,) Traces of
the name also have been preserved on the island ; in the temple
which Strabo calls o JlTepwo? (ix. p. 644), according to Pau
sanias, from a Delphian colonist {ovofia Se avTti) IlTepav elvai),
trom which the inhabitants of the city Aptera took the name '.^tt-
repaloL (x. 5, 5), comp. PUn, H. N. iv. 20. Add to this (3) the
expressions of Scripture, that the Philistines were descended from
Caphtor ; but from this very descent the Philistines have the ap
pellation of Cretans, and, according to the well-grounded investi
gations of Lackemacher,' there is no doubt that the later names
Krethi and Plethi refer to two different tribes of Philistsea. With
this the statement in Deut. ii. 23 agrees well, that the PhUistines
had received a colony from Caphtor, by whom the nomadic Avites,
who belonged to the older Philistine stock (comp. Josh, xiu, 3),
were driven out and destroyed. This notice consequently has a
complete historic foundation, as in the age of David we meet with
both the national stocks, which again throws Ught also upon Ge
nesis, inasmuch as the latter knows only of the ancient Egyptian
origin of the people, and mentions the perhaps contemporary colony
in Crete, which at a later time, but still in the Mosaic age, sent out
colonies to the continent; where again we find an exact agreement
with the notices ofthe ancients, who refer the maritime dominion of
the Cretans to the mythical period of Minos, to whom also they
1 Comp. Heeren. Ideen ii. 2, p. 103, ff,, 4te Ausg.
2 Comp. Herodot. ii. 104, and Perizonius upon it, Origg. jEgypt. p. 337, sq. Heeren,
1. u. i. 1, p. 405, ff. Eitter, Vorhalle Europ. VoUcersch. p, 36, ff.
3 Obserw. philolog. ii, p. 11—44, comp. Ewald, Krit. Gr. p. 297.

180 CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE TABLE OF NATIONS,  GEN. X.
ascribe the foundation of colonies,' even calling Gaza the city of
Minos.^ However much some may be inclined at present to question the
Hamitic origin of the Canaanites,^ as a purely individual view of
the Hebrew narrator ; yet it has in its favour no despicable amount
of external testimony. The Grecian mythical tradition gives as the
brother of Belus, the ancestor of Babel, Agenor, son of Poseidon
and Libya ; and this king of Phoenicia, to whom the name Xva
(Canaan) is also expressly given,* is accordingly referred to a com
mon origin with Babylon, Egypt, and Phoenicia.* But the follow
ing is still more important in reference to the national tribes of
Canaan : (1.) The mention of Sidon, and the omission of Tyre.
Sidon is also mentioned again in Genesis xlix. 13 ; Tyre, on the
contrary, first occurs in the book of Joshua (xix. 29), and this
latter notice receives historical confirmation from a multitude of
testimonies (Hengstenb. de reb. Tyr. p. 6, 7.). But it is also plain,
at the same time, from the book of Joshua, as well as from that of
Judges, that Sidon at that time was the more considerable and
therefore certainly also the older city, which is confirmed by its ho
nourable designation ;-[^"^ in Joshua, and other notices (v. Hitzig
on Is. p. 286 ; Schlosser, Universalhist. Uebers, i. p. 201) ; while
in later authors Tyre, having cast Sidon into the shade by its splen
dour, is always named first — Tyre and Sidon (de VignoUes, Chro
nol. de I'hist. s. ii. p. 17, sq.). It may therefore safely be supposed
that the foundation of Tyre was subsequent to that of Sidon, though
still in the ante- Mosaic period, which shows that our information
goes back to the most ancient times. (2.) Importance also attaches
to the original ancient definition of the boundaries of the Canaan
ites, ver. 19 : " as far as Sodom, Gomorrha, Admah and Zeboim
unto Lasha,"^ which leads us to a period when all these cities were
1 Comp. Hoeck, Creta ii. p. 201, sq.
2 V. Stephanus Byz. s, v. yctja.
3 Y. e. g. Winer Reallex. i. p. 244. Von Bohlen, p. 133.
4 V. Buttmann Mythol. i. p. 233.
5 Comp. Apollodor. ii. 1, 4 (where it is said : 'Ay-nvtap fiiv oiv iis ^oivU-iiv airaX-
Xayfils kj3at7L\£viTs, KtiKei t^s fj.£yd\t}^ pl^V^ iyivt.'ro y£V£izp')(ij^) v. Heyne obss,
p. 212, also Curtius iv. 4 : utramque urbem (Tyre and Sidon) Agenorem condidisse
credebant. 6 »<D^ is unquestionably the most ancient name of Dan, the northernmost border.city of

HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY OF GEN. XI.  XVI, 131
Still standing, the last of which appears nowhere else, not even in
the Pentateuch again. Hence this notice admits of explanation,
only on the admission that this section belongs to a primitive period,
since the supposition that its name may have been preserved by
tradition, has no sufficient support here, as later authors, while they
certainly mention those first four cities, yet do it in such a way,
that it is plain they have everywhere in their eye the account in the
Pentateuch concerning their destruction.
Thus there are found in the present section the clearest traces of
a primitive history recorded by Moses, which must by no means be
ascribed to his own invention, but as to its origin must belong to
a far earlier period.

§ 18, THE HISTORY OF THE PATRIARCHS.  GEN. XI.  XVI,
While, in defence of the historical truth of Gen. xi. 1 — 9, we
refer to what has been said in the General Introduction to the Old
Testament, § 26, we pass on to the genealogy in xi. 10, ff., which
introduces the history of Abraham. In spite of its plain and simple
character, it also has been charged with showing traces of fiction.
These are discovered, first, in its " intentional symmetry," since
like the earlier genealogy in ch. v., it consists of ten members, and,
as that ended with the three sons of Noah, so this concludes with
the three sons of Terah. This shows the epic character of the ac
count (De Wette, p. 48 and 69 ; Schumann, p. 208 ; Von Bohlen,
p. 154.). There is certainly nothing stranger than this mode of
employing a genealogy as epic poetry. Of its rhythmical style,
which Schumann here recognizes, we must confess we cannot dis
cover the faintest traces ; but we do admit that such a peculiar
formal treatment may indicate the poetic character of a composi
tion. For what purpose, then, could the free imagination of the
writer have had recourse to this symmetry ? No end indeed can be
seen, for which he should in both cases employ the number ten. StiU
less what could occasion him to make the two genealogies equal ?
Palestine, not Callirrhoe, as Hieron. will have it (see also Von Raumer, Palast. p. 21.).
In Joshua its name is Bffl^ (xix, 47), commonly vh. So in our record, ver. 11, 12,
nVs is still found for the later hbn, 2 Kings xvii. 6 ; in ver, 10 ns^S, which was after
wards contracted into n», Ezek. xxvii^23, l2

132 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
This is the point which onr opponents' criticism cannot explain,
though they are evidently bound to show the reason of that sym
metry, affording a discovery of the " intention," which is attributed
to the "studied symmetry." The mere indication ofthe symmetry
itself does not authorize the conclusions that have been deduced
from it. But is this symmetry indeed of the kind that is supposed ?
Terah certainly has three sons as well as Noah, but Terah is tho
ninth member of the genealogy, Noah, on the contrary, the tenth.
And what analogy can be pointed out between the sons of Noah,
and those of Terah? This remark is sufficient to destroy the
symmetrical character of those genealogies, and to show it to be
merely illusory, an arbitrary construction of the critics, forced upon
the text without reason.
Hartmann proceeds differently (p, 244,). According to him,
" the national pride wished to know, what place among the des
cendants of Shem belonged to the ancestor of the Israelites, a
people consecrated to God." To us that wish appears quite na
tural in every one who regards the person of Abraham as impor
tant, dear, and honoured, and therefore in every Christian. But is
there indeed no other reason for it than impure pharisaical pride ?
Hear, however, a little more. " But here also ignorance could
subjoin nothing more to the fabricated names than such arbitrary
statements as are in ch, v." Singular logic I Why is the " na
tional pride" so "ignorant?" It may, however, be said, with
equal justice, that it preserves what it has received with remarkable
fidehty. The invention of names, lying, is certainly what a sinful
national pride can do. But if it is so devoid of shame as to in
vent the names, why can it not, in addition to the names, invent
also a history 1 Truly bare names are a very poor gratification
to empty vanity, when they are not accompanied by that which
flatters it most. These names are just a proof how far the author
was from giving more than he knew, and consequently prove on
his part the opposite of ignorance as well as oi prejudice.
But still an appealis made to the peculiarity of the names ad
duced. They are full of meaning, it is said ; from them alone a
whole history might be composed.' We are by no means disposed
1 This is attempted particularly by Von Bohlen, p, 155 : " Shem lives in Arapachitis
till an emigration (hV<!i) occurs; from the ancestors of the Hebrews ("laS) proceeds a
division (jVs): Bhages (w^) is peopled: from it farther down t^ovaea Serug (j'iliB),
and after some ^arrj/in^ (Mlti), the city ChTrrr; i."-\" &,»

OF GEN. XI. — XVI. 133
here to overlook the symbohc meaning of several names in this
genealogy ; such a one is expressly given in the case oiPeley x.
25 ; but does it follow from that, that in those names there is only
fiction ? Is a significant name, because it is such, to be regarded as a
fictitious one ? Now, on closer examination, we find two classes of
names : the one, names which those persons have in common with
localities ; the other, names which refer to historical occurrences. Tn
the case of the former, the name of the place is evidently the memo
rial, which is connected with that personal name ; but how did
the narrator happen to name these cities exactly in this order ?
How did it here occur to him to adduce the same as persons ?
Many as are the names of places contained in Genesis, we can
fully perceive how far it is removed from making such interchanges
in this matter. Gen. x. furnishes examples enough to show how
distinctly it separates the one from the other. But the statements
of numbers, which are so exact, would then have no meaning here
at all, since they also must have been exposed to transposition in
the history in the same way as the names. It is impossible, how
ever, to see why those places should not be regarded as the traces
of the men who founded or formerly inhabited them. That this
really was the case is both a fact involved in the simplicity of
those ancient times which are here spoken of, and is also ex
pressly confirmed in the present instance in Charan, which is
called, xxiv. 10 (Tini 1''i^)' " '1^^ •^'''7 °^ Nahor," since Nahor
had dwelt there. Thus the local names here exactly demonstrate
the truth of the narrative. But as relates to the other class of
proper names, it is to be well considered, that in the East and in
antiquity in general, the significance of the name was firmly retained,
— it was constantly understood in its intimate reference to the per
son bearing it ; hence arose its connection with important events
of the time, with which the birth and life of a person coincided, as
also a change of name with the altered relations of Ufe."^ It
is therefore only a thing deeply founded in the custom of the age,
that we here meet with, of which the whole of Genesis, yea aU the
historical books of the Old Testament give evidence ; and were the
I " Semper usitatum id fuit, ut nomina a factis historicis formata imponantur pueris
eodem tempore natis." Perizonius- Origg. Babyl, p. 388, sq. " Solebant Arabes viros
principes ab aliquo nobili vel facto vel dicto insigniro." Schultens, Monum. p. 12, cU.
p. 14.
2 Sec my Commentary on Daniel, p 30, ff.

184 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
argument good that is thence deduced against the historical exist
ence of the persons mentioned, we should have equal ground for
doubt in the case of narratives such as 1 Sam. iv. 21, 22 ; indeed,
by this kind of view, which is a most narrow-minded one, and pro
ceeds from a merely modern standing-point, we are deprived of any
historical knowledge in the whole of our department.
As relates to the history of the Patriarchs, it brings us into a
peculiar series of historical narratives. The full detail with which
they are given, places us in a condition to examine as closely as
possible the historical character of the information : the manifold
statements we have concerning the life and action of that period,
give us so vivid a picture of it, that we are competent to estimate
it in all its aspects. Everywhere we meet with that simple dignity
that is worthy of patriarchal life, which is nowhere found again in
the later periods of the history. Was it on the whole possible to
give a life-like reproduction of such a picture in a later age, which
was quite a stranger to that kind of life ? If Plato marked the
traces of Ionic life in Homer (de legg. iii. p. 680), we also may
with perfect justice celebrate the patriarchal Ufe in Genesis ; but
the description of that life, no more than the Homeric poems, be
trays a later hand, belonging to a time when the historical remem
brance of that period had vanished. Let us take such an age as
that of David, when the Uterary spirit was in active exertion, —
which, however, to most of our recent critics, must needs seem still
too ancient for our history, — it ought not to be difficult to point
out the difference in the mode of life which then prevailed from what
appears here ; and every literary production can be comprehended
only as taken in connection with the life of the age to which it be
longs. Now, every period of Israelitish history bears a character
of its own so marked and definite, — as that of the Judges, of David
and Solomon, of the subsequent kings, and of the Exile, — that we
can nowhere find a point, where the analogy of the circumstances
of the time permits us to affirm decisively that the Patriarchal his
tory was written then, because there we find again the ancient
patriarchal mind and the primitive mode of life.
But it is properly upon another principle that the claim of these
documents to the possession of an historical character is to be rested.
The Patriarchal history begins with miraculous divine acts, A
divine covenant is made with Abraham, and connected with this

OF GEN, XI.  XVI. 135
fact is a multitude of others, all equally miraculous, and compre
hending not merely the present, but even, in the way of preparation,
the farthest future. To this is first opposed the meagre view of
those, who placing these facts in the rank of natural occurrences,
leave them an historical foundation indeed, but fix that arbitrarily,
and ascribe the representation of the fact to the embellishing genius
of the composer. From this point of view they think they have
vindicated the historical character of the persons here introduced.
They represent the history of Abraham as that of a simple Bedouin
chief who, according to the way of thinking in his age, believed that
he heard the voice of the Deity in all his most important deter
minations, and especially in dreams ; who by the contemplation of
nature was led to form the idea of one God, and regarded himself
as being, in all the dependent circumstances of a nomadic life, con
stantly dependent on him, &c.i Closely connected with this view,
though standing in very decided opposition to the former, is that
which assigns this history only to the domain oi poetry ; the pious
fancy of a poet created these forms and their actions, unconcerned
about the truth of the same, only induced by a sense of religious
need, from regard to. the same need of his contemporaries. De
Wette, who has supported this view with particular consistency and
energy (p. 60, ff.), may at the same time show in our behalf, how
very much the fundamental view in both hypotheses is the same :
" Was it possible that God — says he — could speak with Abraham,
make a covenant with him, give him another name, and promise
him the possession of the land of Canaan ?" — " It is almost (?)
inconceivable that Abraham should have had such ideas and hopes."
He then accounts it to be " almost ridiculous," that we should
really attribute to Abraham such " fanatical hopes, by which he
must have made himself a subject of ridicule to all."
We must in the first place charge this mode of criticism with
the reproach of forming decisions in a dogmatical and arbitrary
manner, and resting on dogmatical suppositions ; but this charge
does not expose all that is involved in it, or represent its complete
worthlessness. For it manifestly has a still more extensive mean
ing, which is connected indeed with that first supposition ; we mean
an historical meaning. With regard to the view which laboriously
1 Comp. e, g, Eichhorn Bibl, i, p. 41, ff. Bauer. Gesch. d, hebr. Nation, 108, ff., and
even Winer himself, Eeallex. i. p. 14.

136 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
endeavours to put a natural construction on the history of the Pa
triarchs, imposing upon it its own conceptions and its own mode of
life, as well as that which with sesthetic feeling sees in it a poetic
picture ; there lies at the bottom of both a certain historical view,
which is the same in the one as in the other, only in the latter case
it is more concealed ; so that the harsh strictures made by De
Wette on the arbitrary treatment of Scripture on the part of histo-
rianizing {historisirend) expositors, may again be exactly applied to
his own procedure. (1.) In both cases alike, that which is invented
is placed at the commencement of Israelitish history in opposition
to that which is given : in the one instance, by going to work po
sitively ; in the other by risking the assertion that, at the least, that
age could tiot have been such as it is represented. In reference to
our object, therefore, they are quite identical. On such a view the
opinion is positively and decidedly maintained, that the life and
action of that age must be quite in accordance with the common
daily course of things. The peculiar character of each period is
thus shamefully denied recognition ; and while it is the first requi
site of an historian to enter into this peculiarity, and vividly to
reproduce it in himself, in the present instance it is entirely left
out of view. Besides, the reasoning of our opponents necessarily
brings us to this issue ; since a certain period has a peculiar cha
racter of its own, it cannot be comprehended from the more gene
ral historical point of view, and therefore it either was such as it is
described, or we know nothing concerning it. And thus we should
be cheated out of modern history in general, as well as that which
is ancient and most ancient. (2.) Should the truth of the Patriar
chal history in the Bible be disputed, it could be done only by
means of analogy. It could only be in case that we were in a con
dition to supply in that way something definite, that criticism would
possess a safe, because an historical, foundation ; since it would then
only require to point out the credibility of the one account in com
parison with the other, to come forward as the opponent of our
representation. But such an analogy is entirely wanting. This
account must consequently be confined to itself as its own criterion,
and only what is founded in itself can serve as evidence of its un
historical character, not that which is external to it, lying at a far
distance from it, which furnishes no suitable standard. (3,) But this
want of analogies might seem to tend to the disadvantage of the

OF GEN, X. — XVI. 137
defence of the strict historical apprehension also. The question
accordingly is asked, how may it be shown that the general stand
ing-point of the Patriarchal history, as fixed by itself, is one histo
rically true ? The answer lies in the peculiarity of this history as
preparatory to the theocratical institution. This idea contains
the subjective side of the belief, as well as the objective side of the
self-testificationor self-manifestation, of God as a living God; both
of which, when taken in their concrete unity, constitute the idea of
the covenant, as our history bears actual witness of it. If it is
regarded from this point of view, the whole of its wonderfully pecu
liar character follows as a necessary consequence. Even as the
Theocracy itself had nothing analogous to it in the history of man
kind, but finds a higher confirmation of its truth in this very
uniqueness that belongs to it, so is it with this its anticipation or
preparation. But as this preparation is not to be conceived of as
having merely a negative character — as a state of things left to take
its own course, which would sink it into the category of the heathen
element of life {irapeSooKev avToii^ 6 deb's, Eom. i. 24), so that it
would cease to be an integral part of the theocratic institution, —
but only as having a positive character ; the more peculiar must be
our conception of the effect upon the individual mind of the objec
tive manifestation of God, since both here occupy a position which
is as incapable of recurring at a later period, as it is essentially pre
supposed. Consequently the Theocracy affords a retrospective con
firmation of the historical phenomenon of the Patriarchal history,
just as the Theocracy again is presupposed by Christianity ; and in
this way not only may the fundamental character of that history be
understood, but it may be shown to be one arising from internal
necessity. If we take the narrative accordingly as furnishing a faithful
account, we shall understa,nd how to estimate^ the acts of God, as
well as the subjective character of those who were called to be the
holders of that revelation. The procedure of both in that case be
comes plain to us : whatever unfaithfulness may be chargeable on
the latter, the name of Jehovah stiU remains ever holy and glorious,
while in all their fideUty and righteousness, it is he again who
makes such excellencies possible, by his making himself known to
them. But if, on the other hand, we imagine an author who freely
embeUishes his subject, and who merely invents it, led by Ecsthetic

138

HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY

feeling ; it was impossible that he could relate things in such a
way. Or what then prevented him from relating the history of
Jacob in a manner analogous to Abraham's ? Why did he not
then represent him, the Patriarch of the twelve tribes of Israel, as
the first-born, if all he had to do was to maintain the honour ofhis
nation in that matter ? Why then are the spots in Abraham's his
tory no more concealed from us than the gross sins of the sons of
Jacob, among whom even Levi forms no exception ? Or, in gene
ral, how can this be well reconciled, that from the same author,
who is so much blamed in Jacob's history because of the moral
view on which it is based, there should proceed the picture of com
plete moral greatness that we have in the history of Abraham ?
Can it indeed have occurred to his mind, to excite that interest in
his readers at which he aimed, by assuming this purely natural
position ? Thus let this criticism, which presumes in so unhallowed
a manner to censure the sacred history, consider how it succeeds
with the merely human standard which it applies to it, heaping the
unintelligible on the unintelligible so as to annihilate itself !
Let us now attempt to prove the historical character of this history
in detail." The family of Abraham removes from Ur in Chaldeea,
with the intention of going to Canaan, yet arrives only at Haran.
It may easily be understood, how the nomadic family, leaving the
high- lying northern parts of Mesopotamia, which were poorer in
pastures, sought other places. In this it is worthy of remark, that
Terah had the intention of going to Palestine (as in that primitive
age the migrations of nations moved from east to west, see ch. xiv.) :
it is by no means concealed that there existed here at first the
human and natural occasion for that journey, which received its
higher consecration and significance only by the manifestation of
the divine counsel. With as little solicitude does the author relate
the marriage of Abraham with Sarah, his sister, without regard to
the Mosaic prohibition of this' to which he must have had regard,
if he freely invented what he wrote in the spirit of the subsequent
theocratic statutes.^ Now the fact of Abraham's emigration is re-
1 Comp. J. D. Michaelis, On the Marriage Laws of Moses, p. 150, ff.
2 Among the Patriarchs we find the custom prevailing throughout, of marrying among
their relatives as much as possible. Michaelis 1. o, p. 175, Connected with this, it is
interesting to mark the paraUel of the old Arabians before Muhammed, who were ac-
• quainted only with the prohibition of marriage with a mother or a daughter ( Abulfedn,
Hist. Anteisl, p, 180, Fleischer), till the Koran forbade also marriaeewith a sister (Snr.

OF GEN. X.  XVI. 139
markably confirmed by bibUcal, and also by foreign notices. First,
by Josh. xxiv. 2, where it is said of Abraham's fathers, that they
practised idolatry. From this we see that, in the age immediately
succeeding that of Moses, certain traditions concerning that pre
vious period were still preserved, the internal truth of which is
all the better authenticated, the'less that they tend to the honour
and glory of Israelitish antiquity. Even if the name -^i)^ does not
lead us to conclude with certainty as to the prevalence of light and
fire-worship in that country, to which, besides, the cUme itself and
many analogies lead us ;i yet, in the circumstance mentioned, there
is expressed a complete agreement with Gen. xii, 1, as the reason
of the divine command to Abraham to separate himself from his
family. But among the Chaldeans also the memory of Abraham
was preserved. The passage of Berosus, given in Josephus, Ant.
i, 7, stands in remarkable agreement with Scripture : /tera tov
KaTaKXva-fjbbv SeKaTj} tyevea, "irapd XaXBaloi<; tk ^v BiKalot;
dvr/p Kal rb, ovpdvta e/iTretjoo?. Here also the last words are im
portant, since the Chaldean tradition traced its astrology so far
back as that age, which says still more in favour of the statements
adduced from Scripture. It ought also not to be overlooked, that
Berosus is here speaking of the Chaldeans, not of the Babylonians,
and from them accordingly the tradition was derived. The chro
nological statement however is especially remarkable ; and here, as
in the antediluvian chronology, there is exhibited in Berosus a re
markable fidelity in the preservation of the ancient traditional his
tory.
iv. 27, Hinckelm.) Among other nations, on the contrary, we find the more ancient
custom to have been the prohibition of marriage with a sister, which was done away with
only by subsequent laxity of morals. So it was among the Persians before Cambyses
(Herod, iii. 31, oiiSapw^ yap itadEtrav irpoTepov T^trt AdeXtpsytri truvoiKinv Jleptrai) ;
but such man-iages were prevalent among the Egyptians in the time of the Ptolemies, and
certainly even earlier, Pans, i, 7, 1 ; Diod, Sic, i, 27 ; the latter of whom, however, fails not
to remark, that this was contrary to the custom of most nations. This explains why, in
Genesis, the Egyptians and Philistines do not believe that the sisters of the Patriarchs
are their wives.
1 We remark here only on one point, the appellation, Ur of tlie Cluddeans. That the
Chaldeans were even then a primitive priestly nation, is clear from the position which
they afterwards occupied in Babylon. With this agrees the statement, important here,
of Eupolemus in Euseb. Praep. Evan. ix. 17 (which is here the more deserving of credit,
as it harmonises well with that which is to be adduced from Berosus, and Eupol. himself
appears to have had no understanding of it) — that the name of the city was 'K.ap.aplvt]
i. «,, unquestionably City of priests (comp. the Hebrew niias), and the constancy of the
East in reference to such sacred localities,is shown most plainly by the instance of Meroe.

140 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
We find Abraham again, after his arrival in Canaan, in the
quarter of Sichem and the grove of Moreh, while the land is already
possessed by the Canaanites (xii. 6) ; from which, directiug his
course farther to the south, he pitches his tents between Bethel and
Ai. The district about Sichem belongs to the most fertile in Pa
lestine. " Mountains and vales, wells and fountains, a rich soil,
pure air, fertilizing rains, abundance of fruits through the greatest
part of the year, distinguish this district as far as the neighbourhood
of Jerusalem" (Kitter, Erdkunde ii. p, 392.). At the same time
the difficulty of approach to the country here affords it particular
security against sudden invasions (Eitter, ibid.). This explains to
us the selection of this locality on the part of Abraham, which is
significantly hinted at by the reference to the Canaanites, about
security against whom the stranger must have been most concerned.'
On the other hand, there is no proof for the assertion of recent
writers, that the author here gives an arbitrary geography, for the
purpose of supplying a derivation of the origin of sacred and re
markable places. This also is the reason they give for naming in
this place Sichem and Bethel (De Wette, p, 84, ff,). But how does
it admit of being reconciled with that intention, that the author in
connection witli those places still speaks of the grove of Moreh,
which even in the book of Judges appears only as the hill of Moreh
(vii. 1), and gained indeed no renown at all, nor the city of Ai
either ? (Comp, Josh. viu,). Or how it can be explained in the
case of Bethel, that this city, — which after the division of the king
dom was a constant seat of idolatry, while the Prophets speak of it
with the greatest abhorrence (comp. Hos. iv, 15, x. 5), — subse
quently became all at once such a subject of poetical honour, that
the unholy city had now of a sudden the greatest sacredness attri
buted to it ? Let him understand that who can !2 It may here
1 That view therefore is the more ridiculous, which holds that the reference to this
circumstance supposes the expulsion of the Canaanites to have taken place, as we find
it StiU given in Von Bohlen, p. 162 : on the contrary, this circumstance is the motive
that leads Abraham to select that place— exactly from a similar reason to that which has
led to the insertion of the notice in xiii. 7 ; and accordingly the author must subjoin
mention of the tribes with which the Patriarch now had to do. Besides, the author of
Genesis evidences iu this a knowledge of the Canaanites, and presupposes their nature
and character to be known, in such a way as a late writer could not do. This is parti
cularly clear from such passages as Num. xiv. 45.
2 There is yet less foundation for the objection, which is still made indeed by the
most recent writers, that the name of Bethel was but a later one, and that Luz was the

OF GEN. XL — XVL 141
be just mentioned in passing, as a frightful sample of this pseudo-
criticism, how the history of these cities has been disfigured. Ac
cording to Von Bohlen, p. 164, Sichem appears " in history sloiag
with Jeroboam, who built it {beautified is not proved), and raised
it to the dignity of being his own residence, 1 Kings xii. 25." Did
the man really not know, that according to 1 Kings xu. 1, Sichem
already existed at that time ? and that Jeroboam's building it was
simply the restoration of the city after its destruction mentioned in
Judges ix. ? And this is history and historical research !
Being led by a famine to go down to Egypt, Abraham is there
in danger of losing his wife; but by the help of Jehovah she is
rescued and preserved to him. Here, in the first place, the cir
cumstance of Abraham himself going to Egypt is genuine history,
"In the- time of Abraham, no corn trade as yet existed between
Palestine and Egypt ; he was therefore obliged, when a scarcity set
in, to determine on travelling to Egypt in person along with his
household ; but in Jacob's time an active trade in corn was carried
on by land on the part of Palestine with .Egypt (xli. 57), and, to
facilitate it, caravanserais were established on the way thither (xlvii,
27)." Eichhorn ii. p. 334. This internal advance, belonging
altogether to the nature of those histories, and not at all sought for,
is so striking as powerfully to disprove every charge of invention
here. Here already we find the custom observed, as it is through
out the Pentateuch, of not caUing the kings of Egypt by their indi
vidual names, but only designating them by the general title of
honour Pharaoh, in which the Pentateuch is distinguished from
the habit prevailing in the later books. If we compare, for instance,
the next period, in which, subsequently to Moses, the Hebrews and
¦Egyprians come in contact, and the record that gives an account
of it,' a great difference wiU be observed in this point. In 1 Kings
iii. 1, we read : Ql-iaO ^yi TO")Q' a^d '" ' Kings xi. 40, p^ji^?
Q>,-^jj^-.^!-,j2, The^ Pentateuch never introduces an Egyptian ruler
in' that manner ; a circumstance which is satisfactorily explained
more ancient name, which is grounded on Josh, xviii. 13, but without considering that
Joshua is here only taking up again the older sacred names of the places, and also that
not one passage can be adduced where the name Bethel is designated at a later period as
one newly come into use. See also what is remarked below on Hebron.
1 The statement in the books of Kings refers for the history of Solomon to the IE©
nttVi ¦'¦^aT «s its source, 1 Kings xi. 41.

142 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
only by the fact that the author living in Egypt, and acquainted
with the manner of the Egyptian court, which was under the con
straint of the strictest formalities, thought and wrought as an
Egyptian subject.i In like manner also it is here the j-jy^Q i"ito'
Princes of Pharaoh, who appear as his courtiers and servants (xii.
15), quite in accordance with the ancient custom of Egypt, that no
slave should dare approach the consecrated priestly person of Pha-
roah, but the court and the royal suite consisted of the sons of the
principal priests. (Diod. Sic. i. 70.).
On the other hand it has been regarded as an " inaccuracy and
a blunder" in reference to Egypt (Von Bohlen, p. Iv. and 164),
that our record here assigns to Abraham animals of Palestine,
which he could not have kept in Egypt ; sheep and camels did not
thrive in Egypt, and asses were the objects of an extraordinary
hatred. It is at all events certain, that only such presents must
have been made to Abraham, as were particularly valuable to him
as a nomade ? hence it is exceedingly strange that Von Bohlen
should be surprised that no horses were given to him — simply be
cause these were properly indigenous to the valley of the Nile ! —
and it is still more strange to find the same writer believing that,
because the ass had such ameaning in the Egyptian religion, it could
not here have been made a present to a nomade, who, of course,
could not be affected by such a notion at all. To this we may add
the excellent remark of Heeren : " Eeligion appears to have had
less infiuence on the breeding of cattle than might have been ex
pected, in a nation where the worship of animals formed so essen
tial a part of their religious observances" (Ideen ii. 2, p. 363), to
which the same inquirer subjoins : "the breeding of asses and
mules was always a domestic practice in Egypt — even on the mo
numents we meet with mules : they had spread over the whole of
Northern Africa' (p, 365.). The same is true ofthe breeding of
camels in Egypt ; they also appear on the monuments, and sheep
also, not only single, but in droves (Heeren, p. 365, ff.).
1 We have quite an analogous instance to that mentioned in the text in Barhebreeus,
who, when speaking of the Mongolian kings, constantly employs their title of honour,
" King of kings," Chron. p. 530, sq. ed. Bruns et Kirsch., even when the name is not
given at all in what goes before. (Michaelis, Syr. Chrestom. p. 83, 4.)
2 " Hae potissimum Orientalium, praesertim Nomadum opes," says Clericus, quite cor
rectly. 3 How well the ass thrives in that country, may be seen in Abdollatif, p. 140 and 155
ed. De Sacy.

OF GEN. XI.^XVI, 143
As relates to the narrative itself, it must " contain an adventure, on
which the popular legend dwelt with great delight, since, with a change
of persons, it is recorded not less than three times." (Von Bohlen, p.
159.). " Most probably — says Vater iii. p. 430, comp. i. p. 222 — it
is the same fact, presented by the variations of tradition in three dif
ferent forms" (comp. xx. and xxvi.) . This assertion at once supposes
what is not true, that the three events were attended with " the same
tircumstances and consequences" in the case oiF the father and the
son. But this is decidedly incorrect. In each instance we have
diversities of a local nature, and in other respects, and it is only
the general circumstance, the threatened danger of the loss of a
wife, that is common to them. But why should this general fact
be a fictitious one ? We have examples numerous enough of the
same or a similar kind from the earliest antiquity (comp. Heidegger,
Hist. s. patr. ii. p. 101) ; and the thing is one so entirely founded
in the character and relations of the East, that, viewed on this side
indeed, no doubt can remain as to its frequent occurrence. The
frequent mention of the same matter then ought as little to surprise
us, as the narration of similar accounts of miracles in the New
Testament,' if it can only be shown that the fact was of such im
portance in the patriarchal history, that the author evidently had
sufficient reason to incorporate it with it. For the intention cannot
possibly have been merely to show, that the Patriarchs in this way
gained themselves wealth and consideration, and thus in a corrupt
mode to do their persons honour. In that case, if the author were
one living at a late epoch, who freely invented and embellished
histories of that sort, he could reckon but Uttle indeed on the ap
probation of his contemporaries, to whom so much moral feeUng
must certainly be attributed, as to know that the persons of the
Patriarchs were not quite honoured in this way. Jehovah assuredly
was honoured by it, inasmuch as he did not allow the promises he
had made to fail — but this brings us to the important theocratic
standing-point of the history, to that which completely supplies the
1 From which circumstance in the case of Matthew likewise, it is well known, a worth
less ai-gument against the genuineness of his gospel has been drawn ; see Tholuck,
Bergpredigt. p. 16, ff.
2 The finest remark on Abraham's transgression is that of Calvin on c. xii. 11, which
he gives as the result of investigation: " Quamvis temerarii sint judices qui praecise
damnant hoc factum Abrae, particularis tamen lapsus non negandus est, quod ob mortem
propinquam trepidans discriminis eventum non commisit Deo, ue uxoris pudicitiam male
proderet."

144 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
reason of its communication. "Acceperat Abrahamus promis-
sionem — Heidegger, p. 109, excellently says — primo simpUcem,
postea etiamfoedere testamentario atquejurejurando sancitam, quod
Deus ipsi atque semini ejus esse velit in Deum, Ne vero infirmi-
tate sua fidem atque veritatem promissionum divinarum infringi
posse putaret Abrahamus ejusque posteri fideles, tum Deus per-
mittere hunc raptum, in quo et infirmitas Abrahami et Dei Veritas
certis documentis notata est, tum Moses eum diUgentissime de*
scribere voluit."
No trace of invention of any kind can be pointed out in the
simple narrative of ch. xiii. The dealings of the Lord with Abra
ham, and the new promise (ver. 14, ff,), as on the one hand they
take up again the earlier revelations, are on the other hand com
pletely involved in the connexion of the history, A dispute sepa
rates the two relatives, who had hitherto lived in peaceful harmony
with one another ; but this separation is subservient to a higher
plan of Jehovah's. It is not the posterity of Lot, but that of
Abraham, that must obtain possession of the land ; and while the
latter, with a noble freedom from selfishness, offers Lot the selection
of the best part, he must at the same time have remained convinced
of the call, to which he was appointed by his God. Nowhere in
this does the divine revelation appear as a deus ex machind, but
as a real education of man, and therefore in closest harmony with
his life. Let us imagine a writer, living at a later period, who
had only Lot's posterity in his mind, and was disposed to dis
play in his account of them the strongest national hatred (ch.
xix. v., seq.) ; was it possible for such a one, to give here such a
picture of the tender and intimate relation between Abraham and
Lot, as his subsequent description exhibits ? Would it have been
possible for him — supposing for a moment that his standing-point
was such a narrow-minded one — thus to satisfy himself, or to produce
the intended effect on his readers ? He would necessarily have
been obliged, in case he was acquainted through tradition with such
an earlier relation as this, either to pass it over altogether, or to
give it an opposite turn and clothing ; or we make him such an in
consistent narrator, that he becomes quite an enigma to us. To
what then shall we refer it, that our record gives us just such an
account as we have ? Solely to its historical fidelity and credi
bility ; but this demands most decidedly that we should go back to
a

OF GEN, XI. — XVI. 145
the earliest period for the composition of so faithfully preserved a
history. To such a period also are we transported by the description of a
district which subsequently wore quite a different aspect ; our author
knows exactly what was the appearance of the district of the Dead
Sea before the destruction of the cities that existed there, ver. 10, ff.,
comp. xiv. 10 (see on that farther on).i — The age of the document
is evidenced not less by the notice that Abraham dwelt in the grove
of Mamre beside Hebron (xiii. 18.), The very objections that
have been raised against the congruity of that notice,2 testify here
to the truth of the Mosaic record. It is a well-known custom of
antiquity, in particular, that every city, whose name referred to the
peculiar relations of the nation possessing it at the time, changed
its name when it came into the possession of another party. Es
pecially is it the case that, in the East, cities easily receive sur
names, referring to particularly remarkable occurrences connected
with a certain place. Now, in Genesis we find Hebron at first in
the possession ofthe Amorites and" Hittites, and Mamre the Amo
rite gave it its name of Mamre (comp. Gen. xiii. 18, xiv. 13, 24,
with xxiu, 19 — p'^in t^in t^"l)OQ — xxxv, 27.). This name of
the place occurs only in Genesis, from causes easy to comprehend.
The name p'^iH appears as early, signifying " Place of alliance,"
and if we compare with that name the fact that is mentioned in xiv.
1 3,^ that Abraham was allied with the chiefs of the Amorites, among
whom he dwelt peacefuUy, the name will appear quite a suitable
one. This name accordingly continued to be to the Hebrews the
characteristic appellation, referring as it did to circumstances con
nected with their history. At a later period the Anakim came into
possession of the place. From Arba, a powerful chief of this tribe
1 We shall here only add the remark, that our author in xiii. 10 employs Egypt as an
illustration in comparisons (comp. Numb. xiii. 22 ; Deut, xi, 10, II, 12.). That country,
therefore, was supposed to be one quite well known in the author's time: no writer could
express himself thus after the age of Moses : the comparisons of the later writers are con
stantly derived from Palestine, Lebanon, Hermon, &c.
2 V. Vater, iii, p, 631. Hartmann, p 691, ff, Stahelin, p. 108, Von Bohlen, p, 167,
ff., &c. On the other side, though in different ways, Eichhorn iii. p. 165, ff. Jahn ii.
p. 65. Kanne, 1, o. p, 104, ff,
V 3 B'i3K-n'''i3 ¦'bya Bn. The name of the place might certainly be referred also to
the relations ofthe Amorites and Hittites; but from xxiii, 6, ff, it rather seems that the
Hittites, who there have only Aea)-d of Abraham, bad at a later time forcibly seized pos
session of the place; and besides, the derivation given in the text is manifestly quite a
simple and obvious one, K

140

HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY

(Josh. xiv. ] 5), the city took the name of Kirjath- Arba, Arba's
city. This happened in the period anterior to Moses, for the spies
whom Moses despatched find the posterity of Arba then in posses
sion of the place (Num. xiii. 22, comp. Josh, xv. 14.). Conse"
quently, in the Mosaic age the Anakite name of the city must have
been in use, and well known. We nowhere find it said that Arba
built the city ; he simply gave it the name ; and its earlier name
might very well, according to the circumstances mentioned, be the
twofold appellation of Hebron and Mamre. At the division of the
land by Joshua, the city recovered its ancient consecrated theocra
tic name. The uncommonly precise statement in Num. xin. 22,
that Hebron was seven years older than Zoan, i. e. Tanis in Egypt,
suffices to show how exact was the knowledge that the author of
these records had of Egypt as well as of Palestine, and such a no
tice can be looked for only from Moses.'
Hence it follows, that only as being a Mosaic composition could
the Pentateuch mention together the three names Mamre, Kirjath-
Arba, and Hebron ; comp. xxxv, 27.^ — In the age immediately
succeeding Moses, we find merely Kirjath and Hebron, see Josh.
xiv. 15, XV. 13, Judges i. 10, while the remark is made, that for-
merly (d^2Q~>) the name of the city had been Kirjath-Arba, but
in the Pentateuch, on the contrary, it is the contemporaneous name.
In later writers, on the contrary, Hebron is the only name ofthe
place, as 1 Sam. ii. 1. In still later writers the ancient name Kir
jath-Arba alone occurs (Nehem. xi. 25.).^ In all these periods
no place is found for the appellation that is proper to the Pentateuch ;
and this peculiarity is the most decided evidence of its authenticity.
But on what support now does the argumentation of the opposers
of the authenticity rest ? On the bare postulate, " Caleb gave the
city the name of Hebron." But not the slightest trace of this is
found in the historical books ; it is a purely invented fact. On the
contrary. Josh, xiu, 10, xiv. 13, 14 is rather a proof that the Is
raelites, even before their occupation of the city, called it Hebron,
and hence the other name was wholly a Canaanitish one. As Chris
tian feeUng could not be reconciled to the heathenish name .^lia
1 Comp. Studer, Comment, iib. d. B. der Richter, p. 21, ff.
'i Thus Debir also has three names in the Old Testament ; Kirjath-sepher and Kiijath^
sauna. So Rosenmiiller, Bibl. Alterthumskunde ii. 2, p. 305. So also the three names of
Medinah ; see Rommel, Abulf. descr. Arab, p . 73 ; or of Tagrit. see Dopke, ad Michaelis
chr. Syr, p. 156, &c.
3 On this custom of the later writers, con :. ... - ^

OF GEN. XI,  XVI. 147
CapitoUnia, no more could theocratic feeUng at the time of the oc
cupation of Canaan tolerate the heathen names of the land and the
cities ; here, likewise, the memory of an ancient sacred past aoquired
necessarily the preponderance over the fashion of the present.
But it is then said' that the narrative has a religious- antiquarian
object : Hebron was a sacred place (2 Sam. xv. 7, ff,), the sacred
ness of which the narrator wished to trace up to Abraham (de Wette,
p. 85, ff.), to which Gramberg (krit. Gesch. d. Eelig. Id. d. A. T.
i. p. 7) also adds that David once resided there. But it is by no
means evident that there resulted thence any peculiar " sacredness"
to the place : besides, in the passage 2 Sam. xv. it is only a vow that
is spoken of, and for this all that was required was the presence of
the priests (Levit. xxvii.), and Hebron was a city of the priests
(Josh. xxi. 11.). That it became such, however, as well as a free
city in the age of Joshua (xx. 8), is a proof of the great importance
which even then was assigned it. " Of what particular conse
quence," Studer well remarks (1. c, p. 23), " the possession of this
city must have been regarded as being, we leam from the circum
stantiality with which the right of Caleb's family to it was justified
and explained, comp. Josh. xiv. 6, ff., xv. 13 ; Judg. i. 20." How
can we explain the fact of the city possessing such importance in
that age ? Let the statements of the book of Joshua be questioned,
then again the books of Samuel become unintelligible. Thus we
are driven back again upon the information here given of the occur
rences that transpired at this place in the patriarchal age : these
alone sufficiently explain the importance assigned to Hebron in Is
raelitish history, and place us in a condition to give it unity, instead
of confusion and enigmatic perplexity. — But besides, how could the
supposed religious- antiquarian object be well admitted, in accord"
ance with the whole contents ? In that which is quite a passing
observation. We should hardly thus discover the main object of the
narrative ; and how can the preceding part, which is closely con
nected with this, be then explained ?
The account ofthe expedition of Abraham in ch, xiv. transports
us into a period so purely patriarchal, that we find nothing similar
to it in Hebrew literature, and are rather completely reminded of
the old Arabian age, as it is presented to us in the ancient heroic
songs of that people. Here we have a remarkably copious number
of indications of a record as faithful as it is early. In the first
E 2

148 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
place, we have the local appellations, quite peculiar and of primi
tive antiquity : Bela for Zoar, Hazazon-Tamar iov'Engedii (comp,
2 Chron. xx, 2), under which latter name the place appears in the
age immediately subsequent to that of Moses, — Josh. xv. 62 ;
Cant. i. 14 ; 1 Sam. xxiv. 1, 2 ; Emek Shaveh, Valley of the
Plain, for the King's Vale, xiv. 17. The author is acquainted
with the ancient name D1'^\y p7DJ^> ^i^- 3, as the name ofthe place,
where the Dead Sea afterwards arose, of which district he gives a
description exactly agreeing with its local character, xiv, 10. In
connection with this, however, the mention of Dan, xiv. 14, is said
to be a " gross mistake," since the name did not come into use till
a much later period (Josh. xix. 47 ; Judg. xviii. 29 ; comp. also
Deut. xxxiv. 1.). This requires a closer examination. The Dan
we are now speaking of was rightly sought by Josephus (Ant. i. 10,
1), at the sources of the Jordan : tveplAdvov, ovroitydp rj erepa toO
lopBdvov irpoaayopeiieTai -nriyrj. Josephus here also recognizes a
place named Dan, Ant. v. 3, 1, viii, 8, 4, which according to Euse
bius lay four miles west of Paneas, Reland Palest, p, 489, 502.
Now this place Dan was unquestionably much more ancient than
the other, which is unmistakeably evident from the passage 1
Kings XV. 20, comp. 2 Chron. xvi. 4, where, from its situation, as
a city belonging to the tribe of Naphtali, it is only this Dan that
can be intended. The same must also be understood in the pre
sent passage, and thus the combination which Josephus makes is
quite correct : Abraham pursues the hostile kings up the vale of
Jordan as far as the sources of the river, and drives them back
thence into the district of Damascus (a miUtary road went from
Paneas to Damascus, Jos. de BeU. Jud. 3, 18) ; precisely as, in
the contrary case, the Damascene king Benhadad immediately took
possession of this territory — 1 Kings xv. 20. The name of Dan
in this quarter is referred by the common supposition to the set
tlement of the Danites here. But that this cannot be the case, is
plain beyond dispute {a) from Josh. xix. 32, according to which, the
district of the sources of the Jordan belonged to the tribe of Naph
tali (see Clericus ad h. 1.) ; so that the Danite wanderers could
never settle there. (5) The district of the new colony is also (Judg.
xviu. 28) so defined as to be quite at variance with that supposi
tion. According to that passage Laish (Leshem) lay in the valley
1 Comp. especially Gesenius on Burkhardt, Eeise i. p. 494, ff.

OF GEN. XI. — XVI. 149
of the city Beth-Eehob, which belonged to the tribe of Asher. This
is the valley which led from Beth-Eehob to Hamath, Num. xin. 21,
and consequently no other than the great valley separating Le
banon and Anti-Lebanon, named at present al Bekaa,^ Coelesyria
in its more restricted sense (Eitter, p. 306.). (c.) The designation
of Dan as the northernmost city of Palestine in the phrase, " from
Dan to Beersheba," does not allow us to think of Dan in the tribe of
Naphtali, which that character does not agree with at all, but suits
very well with that which lay in the above-mentioned quarter. Thus
we have the existence of two Dans in the Old Testament proved,
and by that also the truth of the statement in Genesis sustained.
In the same section there appear also other historical notices,
that afford evidence of its high antiquity. The way in which it
begins ; " in the days of Amraphel, &c," by which the war receives
its chronological definition from the time of the reigns of those
kings (see Hitzig, Begr. d. Krit. p. 149), supposes a writer, to
whom that fact was so well known, that he could in this way bring
it chronologically before the minds of his contemporaries.^ Among
the hostile ranks Elam stands foremost, which agrees well with
what we know from history of the character of that nation.' Among
the conquered people appear nations, that must have belonged to
the primitive history of Canaan ; thus the Rephaim, mentioned
as a nation only in the Pentateuch (see Deut, in. 13), in the
book of Joshua as being but a weak remnant (Josh. xiii. 12),
and employed in the later books only in poetical description,
connected indeed with the old tradition, but assigning the word
a different sense :* — so also the Zuzim, Emim, Chorim, who also
appear only in the Pentateuch (Deut. u. 10, 12,). So likewise
tbe manners and customs here are quite peculiar. Abraham
arms his warriors lia^ian^nb* pi"*"!' ^''^- 1^' ^ military expression
that is found only here. But the description of the person of
Melchizedek is most remarkable of all. " None of those forms of
the old world are to be found more grandly and purely preserved,
 gays Creuzer, Symb. iv, 378. — The Greek fictions are far inferior
1 Comp. Abulfeda, Tab. Syr. p. 155 ed. Kbhler; Ritter, Erdk, ii. p. 435, Burkhardt
i. p, 79, 377,
2 It is therefore truly absurd of Von Bohlen to say, p, 170 : " to him also (the narra
tor) the period was one ancient and long past !"
3 See my Comment, on the book of Daniel, p. 543, ff.
1 V. Vitringa ad Jes. xiv, 9. Pareau de immortalit. notit, etc. p. 125.

150 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
to him." According to this enquiser, the memory of a patriarchal
antiquity, wherein royalty and priesthood appear in close'union,
became hut a child's tale in the mouth of the loquacious Hellenes.
" Simple, calm, and great does the priestly King of the divine
history come before us and depart." And regarded even in the
simple subUmity of the description, we ask, could a later Theo-
crat represent an object in such a way from his own invention?
That combination of priestly and kingly dignity was something
not at all given or founded in theocratic relations ; hence the later
Psalmist, when wishing to represent in prediction such a combina
tion, is obliged to go back to that extra-theocratic historical circum
stance, Ps. ex. 4. Farther, this priestly king, although his pious
disposition is clearly expressed in the blessing which he pronounces
on the patriarch, is yet by no means a priest of Jehovah : his God
is y"^t^1 Q'^DttJ r^^p \yh^ 'ri^ (comp. with that, ver. 22), and these
designations of the Deity we find again in the Phoenician religions,i
from which it is clear that we have here in a purer state the original
element of a religion and worship that became afterwards more cor
rupt. Abraham gives the tithe to Melchizedek according to an
ancient widely-spread usage (Dougtsei anal. sac. p, 15, sq.). How
could an occurrence so peculiar be described by an author, who had
before his eyes only an entirely different form of the idolatry by
which Palestine was encompassed ? how could it even come into his
mind to idealise this person in such a way ; and how should he
then cause Abraham here to pay the dues that were afterwards as
signed to the priests ? How is all this to be reconciled with the
"national hatred" to Canaan, which is attributed to the author as
his design, and which he must then likewise, as a consequence, have
indulged by strictly following such a mode of representation as
should serve for a defence of it ?
Tn spite of this character which the present section possesses, re
cent criticism has ventured the assertion, that the narrative cer
tainly has not so much as one traditional event as its foundation (V.
Bohlen, p. 168.), " It is a suspicious story, (it is said), that the *
1 Comp. Miinter, Belig, d. Karthager, p, 5, 6, 7 : see also Schelling, d. Gotth. v.
Samothr. p. 83.
2 Jewish narrow-mindedness, which could not rise to the magnanimous view pre
sented in our record, at an early period made out of Melchizedek, Shem, &o. y. Deyling
obss. s ii., p, 75, sq.

OF GEN, XI,  XVI. J 51
powerful rulers of Upper Asia, should marchin person with combined
forces against a revolted district only some miles in extent." What
an assertion ! With inexplicable rashness " powerful rulers of
Upper Asia" are here talked of of whom our informant expresses
no knowledge in any way, but who are supposed, because — an
acquaintance with the histprical relations of a later period must be
attributed to him (V. Bohlen, p. i 70, ff.). Could there be a stranger
instance of reasoning in a circle? And was it then the object of
Chedorlaomer only to subjugate again the rebellious kings ? Ac
cording to ver. 5, ff., it is evident that he was incited as much by the
heedless love of conquest. That also is wilfully overlooked, and to
so futUe an argument a second is added, which, if possible, even
exceeds the first. " The district, which they endeavour to conquer,
did not so much as exist." How so ? because " the submerged
ciries have no existence but in traditional story, and the Dead Sea
was known to the Hebrews as such from the earliest period." Here
again is a miserable instance of reasoning in a circle. Our narra
tive — which, observe, is the only one that from the nature of the
case could be acquainted with the Dead Sea not as such [i. e. before
it became such] — is a traditional story, consequently, &c. Our
record is of late origin, consequently since the earliest period the
Dead Sea was known as such to the Hebrews. Such wanton proce
dure has never been attempted with a narrative of Livy, or any other
profane author ; but the word of God must submit to every kind of
wanton criticism. " Besides, later political relations are here sup
posed to exist in antiquity." Is it those of Palestine ? No ; these
are again passed over in wilful ignorance ; but those of Upper Asia.
" Elam or Media here takes the lead." But where in all the world
do we find Elam and Media synonymous ? The Old Testament
writers, and even our record in ch. x., constantly make an exact
distinction between the two lands. But the narrator is also " un
concerned about the more exact political definitions," hence our
critic makes him on the one hand represent Media as having ex
tricated itself from the Assyrian dominion, and on the other hand
liave an earUer period in view with respect to the Assyrians and
Chaldeans (sic !). In this way, indeed, every absurdity and con-
tradicrion may be attributed to an author. " At length pure fiction
appears in Abraham's defeating the united hosts with 318 men and
i,hree allied Amorites, and pursuing them the distance of twenty

152 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
milesi through aU the Canaanitish tribes." Here also our critic
acts as if he knew precisely the strength of the hostile army, so as
to be able, accordingly, to judge of the disproportion ; he wilftiUy
leaves out of view also, that the narrative, in speaking of the defeat
of the inhabitants of the vale of Siddim, makes express mention of
the unfavourableness of the ground for them (xiv. 10) ; and in the
same manner he takes no notice of Abraham's victory being con
nected with a nocturnal surprise, after he had divided his band into
separate parties (xiv, 15); and he aihitra.Til'y invents the circum
stance of Abraham's pursuing them those twenty miles ; while here
all that is spoken of is that he pursued and overtook them at Dan
(xiv. 14, 15.).
Passing on to ch. xv., we there first meet with a remark that is
quite cursory and unintentional, in ver. 3, but which discloses a very
ancient custom, that afterwards had nothing corresponding to it.'^
According to that, in case of childlessness, a slave was heir ; but
this slave here appears under the very peculiar appellation, referring
to special nomadic relations : ^J-)12 p^JD^ll- — N°* ^^^^ peculiar is
the covenant-sacrifice that is here described, which is especiaUy re
markable in its relation to the theocratic covenant-sacrifice, which
differs very much from it in its rites : see Exod. xxiv. This very
circumstance stands directly opposed to every supposition of fiction
in the present passage, which, were it fiction, would certainly prove
a mere copy here. Add to this, that tbe present rite is evidenced as
being the more ancient and original, representing completely the
symboUcal action ; but on the contrary, Ex. xxiv., where the blood
is only sprinkled on both sides, without the covenanting parties
passing actuaUy between the slaughtered victims, appears as a mo
dified usage, abbreviating that ancient complete form, as is wont
generally to be the case with rites of that kind. Besides, it ought
not to be overlooked, that the rite mentioned in Genesis wears more
of a universal character, connected with heathen usages, while, on
the contrary, that which is described in Exodus has a more parti
cular and theocratic character (see Winer, p. 236) ; indeed, accord
ing to a statement, which is certainly of late date, being that of
Ephraem Syrus, the same custom was found among the Chal-
1 German miles, of course ; equal to ninety English miles,— Tr,
2 Unde coUigere licet, moris tunc fuisse, ut si quis sine prole decederet, verna familia;
prsefectus hseres ipsi fieret. EoseniLviller, p. 2".;. ;:,;..,...,".'.'.,, !?,..''. .. .- — -.

OF GEN. XI, — XVI. 1,53
deans, which leads that Father to explain this passage as being con
nected with an ancestral custom of Abraham's ; see C. de Lengerke,
de Ephr. Syri arte herm. p. 13,^
This section shows how, in connection with divine promises of
the most remarkable nature, exceeding all human expectation, the
faith of Abraham, however frequently and greatly it might be in
danger of wavering, was confirmed and strengthened on the part of
Jehovah in a truly peedagogic method ; so that he persevered in the
same faith as a true servant of his God. Hence a sign is now
given him in a solemn manner, by which he may learn that Jeho
vah enters into quite a peculiar relation to him, as he does with no
other inhabitant of the earth. Associated with this sign, however,
there is a constant reference to the one great promise which reaches
far into the future ; which here appears, where a new animation of
his much assailed faith is concerned, not as the mere repetition of
what was previously announced, but as a still more exact definition
of it, so that the friend of God may know that the counsel of God
is as precisely defined and unchangeably certain as it is wonderful
and glorious. Hence the promise has here a twofold reference, to
time and place ; but always in peculiarly prophetic style describing
the outlines of the object : a foreign land in general, — 400 years
as the time of servitude, from which the fourth generation shall
escape, — limits from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates, are an
nounced by the prediction ; — all so genuinely prophetical, and at
the same time so accordant with Abraham's point of view, that we
are here obliged to recognize entire historical truth.
It is the more strange that this historical character has been re
fused to this section, and that it has been determined to explain it
as poetry. According to De Wette Beitr. p. 77, ff,, a comparison
of ch, xvii. should make this especially clear, since the poet proves
himself to be an imitator of this latter piece, who here embeUishes
at greater length the subject that is there reported in a simpler man
ner. Certainly in both places it is a covenant-relation that is spoken
of as the basis of the narrative ; but the narratives themselves are
'quite distinct from one another. In ch. xvu.it is not the founding
of such a relation that is spoken of at all ; but such a connection is
1 The passage Jer. xxxiv. 18, 19 may very well be taken as only an allusion to the
present (comp. ver. 13), even because of the expression hns, which in this reference is
peculiar to Genesis ; Bochart, Hieroz. i. p. 333. Eosenm,

151 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
there rather presupposed as estabUshed, and it is only a new token
of it that is given ; so that what there was in it to imitate, cannot
be discovered. De Wette should rather have satisfied himself with
affirming, that the simple idea of God's making a covenant with
Abraham, is in this way embelUshed by the poet ; but he says not
a syllable to touch or to prove the point that the detailed form of
that idea here is an inadmissible, or, in the way in which it is re
presented, an impossible one. Von Bohlen indeed is of opinion
(p. 178), that the defenders of the Mosaic origin are here involved
in a dilemma by the prophecy in xv. 13, ff., since it must then be
looked upon as a vaticinium post eventum — a conclusion which is
not obvious, since just on the contrary, if that prediction was really
a previous one, it is indisputable, that at the time of its fulfilment
it must have possessed a special importance for the Mosaic period,
but afterwards by no means so ; hence it is strange, that a much
later writer should have hit on the thought of inventing such a
prophecy, which for him and his era had not at all that interest and
importance. The mention of the Kenites in verse 19, is also re
garded as speaking against the Mosaic composition, who according
to Judges i. 16, iv. 11, sprung first from the brother-in-law of
Moses : Von Bohlen, p. 182 ; Stahelin, p. 110. But the contrary '
is plain from Num. xxiv. 21, where mention is made of this people.
In the passages of the book of Judges, besides, Moses' father-in-
law is called " the Kenite ;" how can he then have first given this
people their name ?i
The narrative of Hagar (ch. xvi.) has such a colouring, answering
to the patriarchal Ufe, and to the spirit of the East in general, that
even Winer (Eealw. p. 532) here and in ch. xxi. was led to recognize
in it a purely historical tradition. At bottom, also, it is only what
is miraculous in this history, that makes recent writers find a mythus
here, as is openly expressed, e. g. by Hartmann, p. 411, ff. Von
Bohlen beheves that everywhere in the narrative an intentional aim
is manifest, and that in this way the inventor betrays himself He
desired to explain the origin of two Arabian tribes, the Hagarenes
and the Ishmaelites, and at the same time to illustrate a well-
known local name. This is a strange sort of intention ! The first
people was one small individual branch of the many Arabian tribes,
1 I see no sufficient reason to correct, with Studer (Comment, p. 32, ff.) the passage
in Judges i. 16 : the textus receptus gives the good sense, well suited to the connection :
» the sons of a Kenite," namely the father-in-lav of Moss.-,

OF GEN. XI.  XVI, 165
hut the name of Ishmaelites a more general appellation of a greater
number of tribes : how came it about that from the former name
that of the mother should be borrowed, but from this collective ap
pellation that of the son ? Farther, if we consider, that the Israel
ites lived only in hostile coUision with these their neighbour-nations,
so that in Ps, Ixxxiii. 7, they appear among the hereditary foes of
Israel, a narrative of this kind can still less be conceived of as a later
invention. Certainly " the whole representation tends to attach a
sUght stain to the Arabians." (Von Bohlen, p. 183.). But with
this the divine assistance, imparted to Hagar according to this ac
count, will badly agree. Still less, however, does it then appear
explicable, how it is even Abraham, and particularly Sarah, who
are here represented as deficient in faith and as acting ungratefully
towards the divine promise. An especial stain here falls on them ;
let that circumstance be explained, if it was not the historical fidelity
of the writer that led him to do homage to truth by giving precisely
such an account and no other. In fine, also, the coUisions of the
Israelites with the Hagarenes and the Ishmaelite Arabians, belong
to the earlier periods of the history of this people ; v. Judg, viii.
24, 1 Chron. v. 18 — 21, comp. v. 10, and Keil ub. d. Chron. p.
178 : afterwards they disappear altogether from Israelitish history.
Why then should those names here obtain all at once so surprising
an importance ? As relates to the local name, this again is one of
the strongest proofs of the truth of the narrative. How in all the
world came one to give a place the strange remarkable name of "^^3,
1^-^ ij-j*^ ? It is indeed proposed to change the vowels, in order to
bring out another sense than that given in the text ; but apart from
the violence of that procedure, and the still stranger interpretatioUj^
arising out of it, how could the writer then arrive at this explanation
of it ? This gives evidence as clear as the sun of the accuracy of
the Masoretic punctuation. But then let another explanation of
this Masoretic text be furnished than that which is given in this
document ! The attempts at this that have hitherto been made, and
which are always obliged to take refuge in alterations of the reading,
prove clearly that it is impossible- But if the explanation in
Genesis is correct, the fact connected with it is also at the same
time amply vindicated,
1 Which led Von Bohlen in connection with ¦'Xi to think of thejGreek port ;— truly an
act of desperation I

1 50 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
§ 19, CONTINUATION, GEN. XVII.  XXV.
While De Wette, in a purely dogmatic method, sets out prima
rily from the idea of the impossibility of a covenant-relation be
tween God and Abraham, and of his cherishing the faith that God
would fulfil the promise of a posterity to him, and decides accord
ingly on ch. xvii. being a poetic fiction ; on the other hand his
torical grounds have been sought, on which to attack the truth of
this narrative. Two hypotheses of this character have been pro
posed, agreeing in this point, that circumcision is a foreign rite
borrowed from a heathen people, while some regard the Egyptians,i
and others the surrounding heathen nations in the neighbourhood,
with their custom of castration,2 as its originators ; but placing its
age later at least than that given here. But, in the first place, it is of
no consequence in a critical respect whether tbe custom was bor
rowed or not ; for, supposing that it was, how shall it be shown
that this might not take place quite as well in the time of Abraham
as at a later period ? That there were other nations, who, as far
as the external part of the custom went, were acquainted with it in
an unconnected and independent form, such as the inhabitants of
America or of the South Sea Islands, proves only that, in examin
ing the agreement in this custom, we must have regard, not to its
external and material part, but to its internal significance in rela
tion to its origin. There, however, the peculiarity of the Hebrew
rite is strikingly brought out. It has here an intimate relation
to the covenant of Jehovah with Abraham and his people — comp.
especially xvn. 10, 11. This relation stamps on the rite so pecu
liar a character, that it cannot be deduced from a foreign idea,
such as that of ascetic castration, &c., but forms rather the pure
original substratum, with which all the rest is connected only as
corruptions belonging to a lower and narrow sphere. As far as the
idea of such a covenant is removed from being a mere human one,
instead of a truly divine self- testification to humanity, so far also,
consequently, must the expression of that idea, its external symbol,
be removed from the same. Now it is just this covenant-relation
that forms the fundamental principle of the then future Theo-
1 So, supported chiefly by Herodotus ii. 37, 104, most recent writers, as Winer, Realw.
p. 186. Ammon, Fortbild. d. Christenth, i. p. 114. Von Bohlen, p, 191, ff., &c.
2 So e, g, Vatke, Bibl, Theol, i. p. 381, 682.

OF GEN XVII, — XXV, 157
cracy ; so that along with it the previous existence of that sym
bol is likewise necessarily supposed. Hence it is only the ex
ternal necessary consequence of that early appointment of cir
cumcision, that it appears as the indispensable mark of distinc
tion given to the instruments which God had called and intended
to prepare for the realizing of the theocratic institution ; comp. Gen.
xxxiv. ; Ex. iv. 24, ff. Thus the whole subsequent Theocracy, its
history and organization, cannot be understood without the pre
vious existence of that rite ; nowhere is it enjoined anew, but ra
ther everywhere presupposed ; comp. Ex. xu. 44, 48 ; Levit, xu. 3.
And as it is with the Mosaic age, so is it also with the following
one. Immediately after the entrance into Canaan, it is Joshua's
first care to attend to the circumcision of the people. And against
those who seek to throw suspicion on this statement of the book
of Joshua also (Von Bohlen, p, 193), the book of Judges maybe
brought, where in the age immediately following we meet with a
like view ; Judg. xiv. 3, xv. 18. Thus one testimony here sup
ports the other, and a person must declare all the records to have
been falsified, to be able arbitrarily to decide the dispute in a way
agreeable to his prejudices.
Among the Egyptians, according to their own statements, the
custom of circumcision was one of primitive antiquity : see Herod,
ii. 104. Why then should we dispute to the Hebrews the same an
tiquity in this matter? The Egyptians certainly affirmed also that the
neighbouring nation of the Hebrews had adopted the custom from
them ; at any rate the acquiescence of the Greek authors in this
saying was connected with their opinion that the Jews were des
cended from the Egyptians. (Diod. Sic, i. 28 ; Strabo xvu. p.
824.). Tbe Phenicians, however, declared that circumcision was
derived from Kronos, so that they also transfer it to mythical times
(Sanchon. p. 36 ed. Orelli.). Herodotus also admits that all the
Phenicians did not practice circumcision, but only those dwelling
in Palestine, i.e. the Jews (Bahr ad Herod, i. p. 716.). Accord
ingly the national Phenician tradition conceded to the usage, in re
ference to that part of the nation that was acquainted with it, an
origin falling wholly within the limits of the hoariest antiquity ;
and thus by an impartial examination of the statements of ancient
times, we are brought back to the Bible-ground as that which has
the firmest foundation.

1 58 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
Let us see noW, whiether the mythical point of view bias more iu
its favour in thenarrative ofthe destruction of Sodom, ch. xviii. xix.
Four points, in reference to this, demand our especial attention^
There is, in the first place, the fact here reported of the visit of
Jehovah as a guest, accompanied by two angels, to the tent of
Abraham. That Abraham was honoui-ed with special revelations of the
Lord, is so closely connected with the whole pecuUarity of his po
sition, that, in order to deny the former, the latter must itself be
altogether set aside. It is, thereforej merely the peculiar form of
those revelations in the present passage that we have to do with,
an inquiry which is of the greatest importance in reference to our
views of the patriarch's Ufe and conduct in general. Jehovah
associates with him, as one friend with another, as the most tender
father with his dearest child : the revelation of Gt)d here assumes a
character of freedom from restraint, and bears evidence of being one
that pervaded the whole life of the patriarch, in a manner that we
do not find elsewhere, either earlier or later, in the history of Israel.
The reason of this peculiarity is supplied to us in the words of Je
hovah, xviii. 18, ff. Abraham is, on the one hand, the person, in
whom all the nations of the earth are to be blessed : on the other
hand, he appears subjectively as the most believing recipient, the most
faithful guardian, of the divine blessings, training up for Jehovah a
truly devoted race; hencein a special sense he is "the friend of God."
But it is not merely the peculiar subjective character ofthe patri
arch, but principally the peculiarity of his divine appointment to be
the father of a new economy of God (Eom. iv. 9 — 12), that gives
those revelations such a special distinction, that we must not apply
to them as a rule and measure the conclusions we might be dis
posed to draw from the analogy of other revelations in other circum
stances. Every revelation of God, as a testimony of salvation, is
guidance, a fact that educates. Hence, in the case of Abraham
also, we must derive the ground of our decision from the infancy
of mankind (of course in a higher sense than the recent theology is
accustomed to do), from the commencement of the divine e'liXoyla
as connected with a certain individual. Where man, moving in the
simpler circumstances of the life of ancient times, has preserved
more of the simple and childlike feeUng itself there the Deity also,
when reveaUng himself, displays especial condescension ; indeed he

ON GEN, xvn. — Xxv. 150
can appear, speak, and act, only in the way that the God of Abra
ham here does. In no other way could the patriarch attain the
elevated position, in which he could embrace and survey the glo
rious promise in all its importance and grandeur. Hence the revela
tion of God to Moses in Exod. ui. 5, ff., is from the very commence
ment quite of another character : the standing-point of the law is
there clearly defined by the words, " draw not nigh hither," and is
thus essentially distinct from the procedure with Abraham, as in
that the standing-point of the gospel has chief prominence.
From this it is evident how little to the purpose are such decla
mations, as that these revelations are unworthy of God, &c.,' since
they rest on this broad foundation. The opponents of the reality
of these revelations should rather occupy themselves chiefly with
showing, that the peculiarity of this mode of revelation stands in
disa,greement with, and opposition to, the peculiar circumstances
of the patriarch's life. But these, as they can be comprehended
and estimated only as the result of the former, prove exactly the
necessity and truth of the revelation of Jehovah, as the supposition
which they imply. To point out therefore the disagreement re
ferred to is a pure impossibility, and nothing is left for the op
ponents, but to retreat to arbitrary common-places, and tobe content
with dictatorial assertions, such as the simple dictum : " it cannot
and must not have been so," leaving unanswered the question,
" why not ?"
From this point of view, then, we know also how to estimate
properly the parallels that have often been adduced from heatheri
mythi, such as that of Philemon and Baucis.^ In this, the altered
form (which in the present case however is highly probable^), given
to the same fact in the heathen mythology, can have only a
subordinate importance to us. The pecuUarity of the idea, exhi
bited in the covenant-relation of Jehovah to Abraham, is entirely
wanting in the mythological element ; this very comparison shows
it to be unique in its kind, an evidence that it is not derived from
man, but is one truly divine. Now on this idea the theocratic fact
rests wholly and solely. Thus at the most we can admit no more
1 Thus e. g, Hartmann, p. 412, ff,, who wUl have all this to be the invention of " na
tional pride !"
2 Comp. especially Bauer's Hebr. Mythol. i. p. 238, ff.
3 Comp. Clericus, App. Comm. in. Genes., p, 369, sq: Gelpke, Symb. ad int. 1. Act.
xiv, 8—18, in the Comment, Theol. ed, Eosenm, ii. 2, p. 302—313.

160 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
than a merely external similarity, which however is no true simila
rity, since the historical vindication of the fact depends on its higher
internal significance.
Yet the example of the Old Testament itself may show us how
little reason there is to suppose that invention has place here. While
Jehovah enters Abraham's abode as a guest, and partakes of the
food that is set before him ; in the history of Manoah, on the con
trary, (Judges xiii. 15, 16, comp. vi. 21) " the angel of Jehovah"
expressly declines to do so. How shall we explain this difference ?
Certainly not from an " advancement of reUgious conceptions ;"'
for, supposing that the religious conception of the Hebrew took
offence at such an intercourse of Jehovah with men, it would then
have avoided this offensive matter the one time as well as the other :
besides, that we cannot make out how this agrees with the view of
Genesis having so late an origin as it is thought justifiable to
assign it. But we shall gain a complete and satisfactory compre
hension of the difference, if we pay regard to the time and the per
sons in each case, as Jehovah places himself in a different relation
to them according to the peculiar diversity between them. In
Abraham's case, so intimate a relation subsists between him and his
God, that he obtains a distinction which, in accordance with his
exalted vocation, he only could obtain ; but another relation comes
before us, where the standing-point of the theocratic law had re
vealed the alienation between God and man, and the majesty of
God is there, even as on Mount Sinai, a majesty fenced around
with bounds that may not be passed. Thus the later theocratic
history by its peculiarity affords a remarkable confirmation of the
earlier life of primitive times, which diverges from it ; and thence it
appears at the same time, that from that later standing-point it was
really impossible to transfer one's self by the mere force of inven
tion into a state of things that existed earlier, but had now given
way to an entirely different one.
Jehovah does not stay in Abraham's tent, without giving him
a testimony of his favour. He gives him a new solemn promise in
reference to the birth of a son. De Wette, Beitr. p. 86, ff., here
discovers a contradiction of xvii. 15-21, as well as of xxi. 5-7 ;
compare also Hartmann p. 269. The etymology of the name
1 So Studer ou the book of Judges p. 183.

OF GEN. XVII.  XXV. 161
pnj}'' is represented as having given occasion to these narratives,
which are irreconcilable with one another. This is a very incorrect
observation. The passage xxi. 5, ff. has necessarily a retrospective
reference to the earUer passages : God, says Sarah, has prepared
laughter for me, {i.e. joy, v. Ps. cxxvi. 2.). When the promised
event has occurred, the name of the child is made to harmonize as
much with that, which must then be the case, as with what had
previously taken place. " That at which I formerly laughed (such
is the sense of this passage), has now been so turned by God that
it has become to me the subject of laughter, of joy." Thus does the
thought first receive the whole of its true meaning. Now how can
there be a contradiction here of what goes before ? How can De
Wette conclude from this passage, that this narrator appears to
have known nothing ofthe previous promise of Isaac's birth ? Abra
ham and Sarah had now both given up the hope of that announce
ment being fulfilled. The thought is weU expressed by the narrator
both times by means of a paronomasia, and an allusion to the name
of the child ; both of them laugh. The child is born : in truth, he
adds, it is a subject of laughter and rejoicing. Thus all the three
narratives are closely and correctly connected together. In our re
cord there is no thought of a proper strictly so- called " derivation
of the name of Isaac," (De Wette, p. 89) : it is the simple najive ori
ental mode of narration, which delights in a pregnant style of ex
pression. This might come about the more readily, since because
of the first laugh of Abraham God had commanded him to call his
son pnjji, xvii. 19. Besides, there is a remarkable exempUfication
in the announcement of Isaac, which becomes always more special
and definite (comp. xvii. 16, 19, with xviii. 14), of what we have
already remarked of the psedagogic advancement in the divine pro
cedure with Abraham. The farther he believes himself to be from
his desired object, the more is it brought home to his heart, and with
the greater impressiveness, that the ways and counsels of God are not
his. That is the best internal criterion of the truth of our history.
With regard now to the fact of the origin of the Dead Sea in the
manner stated in our document, it is that statement precisely that
recent writers have been most disposed to charge with traditionary
embellishment and poetical invention. While De Wette contents
himself in proof of this view with appealing to the commencement
of the narrative, the " fiction of the three divine guests," (p. 91) ;
L

102 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
others have laboured to seek out more reasons, perhaps from a feel
ing of the insufficiency of the grounds that have been adduced
from doctrinal prepossessions. Thus Hartmann (p. 416) is of
opinion that the mythus betrays itself by the "purposely aggravated
delineation of the violent and profligate conduct practised by the
inhabitants of Sodom ;" and that the author is inconsistent in not
making a similar statement concerning the rest of the cities in the
region of Jordan. But in what goes before, repeated notice had
been taken of the sins of "Sodom and Gomorrha," comp. xiii. 13,
xviii. 20, where the comparison with xviii. 24, ff., shows very
clearly, that we have hexe pars pro toto : Sodom, as the chief of
those cities, embraces them also as belonging to it, and hence also
it is in it, on' the entrance of the angels, that the most open display
of the wickedness of those inhabitants is presented to us. But that
their criminal conduct (xix. 5, ff.) is by no means a fiction, is shown
by the history in Judg. xix., where we meet with the same thing
in the case of the Benjamites, who had adopted those enormities of
lewdness from the Canaanites, see Levit. xviii. As, according to the
last passage, paederasty had become a custom with those nations,
one should be the farther from thinking that we have here a
" purposely aggravated delineation." It is still stranger to find De
Wette of opinion, that to that historical event in the book of Judges,
the narrative in Genesis is to be traced as a copy of it (p. 92.). Yet,
with the exception ofthe common sin of lewdness, there is not even
the least analogy to be discovered between the two occurrences !
Let it however be admitted, that, from the historical knowledge that
we otherwise possess of the Canaanites, we have evident confirma
tion bf the crime being naturaUzed among them, so that it need not
surprise us to see it make its appearance here. At the same time
this suppUes a striking testimony to the historical credibility of the
present account, which completely shields it from every charge of
" exaggeration." An especially bold turn has been given by Von Bohlen to these
objections to the historical truth ofthe narrative (p. 202, ff.). He
proceeds on the supposition, that the destruction of those cities as
found in all the Hebrew writers, is reported only from the popular
tradition, which had almost become a kind of proverb ; but such a
tradition readily cleaves to districts, where a previous revolution of
nature has continued in remembrance, &c. In that case we ought

OF GEN. XVII.  XXV, 1 63
to have in the Old Testament not a tradition, but traditions con
cerning the event. We should then be surprised, at any rate, that
we meet with unity in them. Bu tnow we discover not only this,
but the origin of them also it is quite impossible to mistake. If we
bring together all the later (incidental) expressions of the prophets
concerning the fact, we shaU find that, in the first place, they sup
pose it to be a well-known thing. Isaiah requires only to say,
" We should have been as Sodom, we should have been Uke unto
Gomorrha," and, " Ye rulers of Sodom, ye people of Gomorrha,"
i. 8, 9 ; and the sins as well as the punishment of those cities stand
in their complete detail before tiie eyes of the prophet and his
readers also. But wherever such references occur, it is this account
that is taken as the foundation, not merely in general, but in its very
words. Thus Is. ui. 9 unquestionably refers to Gen. xix, 5, on
which Hitzig p. 36 remarks : " this reference shows that Isaiah had
the narrative Gen. xix. before him in a written form ;" so also Ps.
xi. 6 comp. Gen. xix. 24. From Gen, xix. 25, 29 (comp. Deut
xxix. 22) are derived the peculiar expressions used only of these
cities 'narr ^'^^ nDSrr?^' comp, is, l. 7, xUl. 19 ; Amos iv, 11 ;
Jerem. xlix. 18, I, 40 Hitzig on Is,, p, 8.i This shows that all
the knowledge that later writers possessed concerning the event,
rested solely on the statement in Genesis, as it stands thus at the
head of all that was known respecting the matter among the Hebrews,
bearing evidence of being the original account. Besides, the only
book which furnishes a somewhat more detailed statement concern
ing the destruction of those cities, is the Pentateuch itself, in Deut.
xxix. 22, where certainly the reference to Genesis is unquestionable,
but still Sodom, Gomorrha, Admah, and Zeboim are spoken of as
destroyed cities, according to the contents of Gen. xix. 25, comp.
X. 19, xiv. 2,8; and to that Hos. xi. 8, refers ; a sure proof that
at that time nothing more was known of the event, than what the
Pentateuch related.
In the next place. Von Bohlen asserts that the occurrence should
be explained differently from what is done in Genesfsr Owing to
the nature of the soil, the plain, being impregnated with salt and
brimstone, continued burning when it was once kindled, like the
1 In Abulfeda an equivalent Arabic phrase is used, signifying terra inversa. Tab,
Syr. p. 12 Kobler.
L 2

ICl HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
so-called burning fields at the Caspian Sea, till at length the crust
of the earth sunk in, and water came in its place, while here and
there crystalUzed rocks of salt remained standing (p, 203.). Whe
ther this hypothesis, which, however, is far enough from being a new
one, explains the wholly pecuUar character of the Dead Sea, and of
this region in general, admits of being tested by the judgment of one
who has a knowledge of this department. " As the Jordan — says
Eitter, Erdk. ii. p. 342, 343 — is like no other river, so is this sea
like no other sea in the world ; it is only the external appearance of
the collection of waters — the mathematical dimension — that causes
it to be reckoned with the other seas ; its nature is entirely diffe
rent from theirs." — " Useless hypotheses, belonging to the region
of possibilities, in explanation of this event (Gen, xix.), without
local knowledge, have at all times not been wanting. They go no
farther, however, than the oldest of all, that of Eratosthenes, who
traced the formation of the Dead Sea to Cyclopean forces bursting
forth from a subterranean basin, on which the mountain strata
lying above fell together again ; an hypothesis which, at least in the
district of the cavernous Jura limestone, is not a mere groundless
fancy, and perhaps will go as far in the way of explanation as any
of the others." Besides this, there is here an exegetical reason that
requires the entire rejection of the proposed hypothesis. Eeland
(Pal. p. 254, sq.) has already satisfactorily shown that the vale of
Siddim, in the place of which the Dead Sea subsequently arose
(xiv. 3), is not that where the situation of Sodom, &c., lay, but that
the opposite rather is manifest from the words, ftJ^V-'^^ l*^!lin
CllZJil.^ Accordingly, Genesis supplies no information at all con
cerning the origin of the Dead Sea, as is commonly supposed ; and
a submersion by water is not at all spoken of here (comp. also Eitter,
1. c), but rather, on the contrary, it is everywhere a destruction by
fire and confiagration. " The land is burnt with brimstone and
salt" — it is said, Deut. xxix. 22. This circumstance completely
1 Reland was opposed particularly by J. D. Michaelis, De Mari mortuo, § xiii. But his
reasons in no way weaken those of Reland. Supposing, however, that it were even so
that those cities lay in the vale of Siddim, still their sinking into the sea remains a fact
foreign to Genesis, of which it takes no farther notice, probably because the formation of
water was a later fact, which, as a simple occureeuce in nature, had nothing more to do
with the patriarchal history. So far is our record from being concerned only with the
explanation of physical singularities, in which it is remarkably different from the local
mythi ofthe heathen, its aim is always a higher dogmatico-ethical one.

OF GEN. xvn. — XXV. 165
annihilates the view which represents the popular tradition as
readily attaching itself to dangerous "bays ofthe sea-coast, inland
seas," &c. If this really were all, then the character of the Dead
Sea, the accounts of which appeared even to Aristotle fabulous and
doubtful (Meteorol. ii, 3, Eeland, p. 250), must above all have at
tracted remark from tradition ; but the kind of information that we
find here, is on that view incapable of explanation.
Let it then only be granted, what cannot be concealed by denial,
that in the present narrative there is a rare openness and fidelity of
communication. The narrator knew nothing more than what he
states, and the information he gives is also shown by all physical
observations to be as far as possible from being false. What then
is it properly that interpreters have to reject in the present account,
as incredible and unimaginable ? Our author no more passes over
the pecuUar local character of the soil, which must have contributed
to increase the fearfulness of that conflagration (xiv. 10),' than he
fails, on the other hand, to represent the extraordinary nature of the
divine judgment as such, xix. 84, ff. But it is this very circum
stance that exhibits the writer's pure love of truth, which in fact
does not consist in producing a hollow and defective hypothesis,
but in acknowledging, as the conscientious enquirer must even now
do, that " this region still remains full of wonders." (Eitter, p, 342.).
Such also is the case with the fact mentioned in xix. 26, which is
frequently pointed out as a strange one. The simple idea of the
writer in this matter, as Vater i. p. 219, reminds us, is that Lot's
wife became that which the whole district became, a pillar of salt,
of which there are very many to be found in this region. Here also
the natural side of the matter is closely connected with the higher
ethical object, the transgression of the divine command and the
punishment following upon that : a metamorphosis such as belongs
to heathen fiction and fancy, can as little be imagined in such a
connection as a real metamorphosis of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel
iv. (see against that my Comment, p. 125, ff.). For it is just to
these circumstances, that accompany the fact (which is certainly
communicated with genuine antique pregnant brevity, comp. the
very similar passage 1 Sam. xxv. 37), that close regard must neces-
1 That this involves no contradiction of the statement xiii. 10 (Von Bohlen, p. 204)
is sufficiently proved by similar asphaltic districts (comp. Michaelis,!, c. § xiv. sq.), and
is also quite agreeable to the nature ofthe country; see Clericus, 1, o, p, 363, sq.

106 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
sarily be paid in both cases ; as in the one case to the nature of the
madness, so in the present case to the peculiar character of the de
vastation ; and thus the fact is entirely divested of that colouring
ofthe magical, accidental, arbitrary and unaccountable, which is the
characteristic mark of popular fable (according to which view e. g.
Ovid treats the mythus). i The comparison of this narrative with
the heathen tales of Niobe, &c., should therefore be regarded as by
no means admissible ; and we are thus also at the same time fr-eed
from all those hermeneutically incorrect interpretations, by which this
passage has been defaced in very abundant measure.
Our author Ukewise has made Abraham offer to the Lord an in
tercession for the cities, which had fallen under the vengeance of
Jehovah, xviii. 23, ff. The moving tenderness, which is exhibited
in this conversation of the patriarch approaching his God with
genuine childUke confidence, could not be represented, except from
an entire ignorance of the nature of faith and prayer, as resting on
" unworthy, defective, and childish notions ofthe Deity" (so Hart
mann, c. p. 414), or with blasphemous rudeness reproached as " a
haggUng with Jehovah, an indication of the later Jewish character"
(so Von Bohlen, p, 208.). But even those who remain strangers to
the deep religious element of this section, must yet acknowledge at
least, what tenderness is here expressed, what deep compassion for
the people who were sunk in sins. Shall we say now that the same
" poet" is the author of (xix. 38, ff.) that " fiction of a very tasteless
and odious kind" (De Wette, p. 94), for the immoral tendency of
which our critics cannot find sufficiently strong expressions (Hart
mann, p. 268, 417. Von Bohlen, p. 215, ff.). Here the unnatural-
ness and senselessness of the mythical view are very clearly dis
played ! What a perverted psychological view, to attribute to the
same author two kinds of sentiment so directly opposed to each other,
as this deep compassion for Sodom, and that embittered hatred to

1 Comp. Baur, Symb. und Mythol, i, p. 53, ff. See also Pareau, de myth, interp, p,
301, sq.
2 The God who is " the Judge of the whole earth," Gen. xviii. 25, but at the same
time does not scorn to listen, full of compassion, to the prayer of his servant — that is
the God of Abraham, the same God, who, having become man in Christ, will judge the
living and the dead. There is not a more exalted idea that can absorb the human spirit,
than this only true and living God of Abraham and of the Gospel. But the wretched
idol that our critics are accustomed to represent as their ideal, is in the most proper sense
&— childish notion, an empty imagination.

OF GEN. XVII. — XXV, 167
Moab and Ammon ! He, who should suffer himself to be influ
enced at one time, in an account foUowing so closely on the other,
by bitter national hatred, and at another by the most profound
pity, remains from such inconsistency a psychological riddle to us,
the solution of which our opponents with blameable carelessness
hurry over. Farther, what a strange fabrication the tale would be,
if its author intended by it to throw deep disgrace on those nations,
induced by mere national interest, since yet in the person of Lot
he makes them related to the same stock as the Plebrews. We do
not find it to be here, as Hartmann says (p. 417), that " the form
of Lot, as a renowned collateral shoot of the consecrated family of
Abraham, has the same enchanting splendour thrown around it,
as encircles the head of the patriarch himself (sic !)" we rather
think that the supposed poet has here been guilty of a new incon
sistency ; for why did he not rather deny every such disgraceful
relationship for his own nation ? He must still however be apoet,
and no lack shall be permitted of fabrications and arbitrary treat
ment ! Farther, this legend must belong to the times, when "the ani
mosity of the Hebrews was carried to its height, and their hatred
was inextinguishable," the later age of Josiah (Von Bohlen, p. 216.).
As proof of this, the predictions ofthe prophets against those nations
are adduced. The prophets certainly, in the name and by the com
mission of their God, denounce calamity and punishment to those
nations. But the same Isaiah, who utters the woe concerning
Moab, says with deep feeling : " my heart crieth out for Moab"
(xv 5) ; he weeps and waters with his tears the cities of Moab
(xvi. 9, 10), his heart is moved like a harp for the fate of Moab
(xvi. 11) ; and Jeremiah expresses like emotions, xlviii. 36, 39.
Is that also national hatred ? It is just the opposite of all personal
or merely national revenge that is displayed in such language : it is
such a genuine pm'e love, as victoriously scorns those accusations.
And will one ascribe to this the most odious legends, as pure fabri
cations, i. e. mendacious calumnies ? " Doth a fountain send forth
at the same place sweet water and bitter ? Can the fig-tree bear
olives, or a vine figs ?" We have next necessarily to connect with
this narrative the passage, Deut. ii. 9, 19, where it is said that
Israel should have no inheritance of the country of the Moabites
and Ammonites, because their territory was assigned them as the
descendants of Lot. This passage, as weU as that in Deut. xxiii.

1(

HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY

4 (comp. V. 1, and Levit. xviu), evidentiy has a reference to the
present, and we find accordingly that, in the Mosaic age, this cir
cumstance had an important influence on the conduct of the
Israelites. It is strange that Von Bohlen (p. 217) should say,
that this was dictated by fear ; for it is just a later age, which had
seen these nations conquered and made tributary by Israel, that
could least be afraid of them : indeed, that passage can be compre
hended only as being committed to writing in the Mosaic age, and
under the circumstances mentioned in the Pentateuch. The motive
there adduced must consequently be the correct one ; and then we
have a memorable testimony of the Uvely influence, which the infor
mation given in Genesis still actually exercised in the time of
Moses. How shall we explain that circumstance ? Let it be
granted that the Mosaic age had a peculiar interest in the preser
vation and recording of this narrative ; yet the mode, in which this
interest is expressed, testifies only to the truth of our narrative.
Finally, however zealously the etymological definition of the names
Moab and Ammon, given in Genesis, may be disputed,' it is yet
surprising that none of all our recent critics has brought forward a
single etymology, which they have ventured to substitute for the
Bible one. Concerning 'fyf^'^ Gesenius himself says, that the expla
nation liaj^-'r^ is ^^^ contrary to analogy (Lehrgeb. p. 513), and
this concession confirms at the same time the other etymology.
For that ^^'1)3 is compounded of "^j^ ^^^ It^' ^^^ ^^^^ *^^ former
is an old and more obscure expression, still retained in the nomen
proprium, for ^J^J^ (^i^- ^6), ought certainly not to surprise us
(Ewald. Gr. p. 215, sec, ed,). In what other way, then, we may
here confidently ask, diall the singular names of these two tribes
be explained ? If our etymology, be correct and the proof suffi
cient, so also is the narrative which is closely connected with it ;
and let one henceforth beware, as long as nothing better than the
Scripture statement can be brought forward, of reproaching it with
being a " tasteless imposture," as Hartmann does, p. 269, otherwise
the harsh censure will fall back on him who makes it.^
1 " The names Moab and Ammon are wretchedly twisted, to bring them into connec
tion with this nasty fiction," says De Wette, p. 95.
2 Rosenmiiller says, without prejudice, Alterthumsk. 3. p. 38 : " There is nothing in the
affair itself, as it is told, which is not correspondent with the circumstances of that time,
as well as with the way of thinking and acting in remote antiquity." There is therefore
no sufficient reason for supposing it to be a fiction.

OF GEN. XVII, — XXV, 109
We have already made some general remarks on the fact men
tioned in ch. XX. ; we would here direct our attention only to some
special objections. The first relates chiefly to the great age of
Sarah, which does not agree with the beauty for which she is here
renowned. Little is gained as to this point, if with several exposi
tors we suppose that this occurrence took place at an earlier period
of Abraham's history, immediately after his joumey to Egypt.
Even then Sarah is made sixty years of age. The natural grounds
of explanation adduced here by many are as far from being satis
factory. " Ceterum neque ese — is Heidegger's excellent remark on
this, ii. 97 — sufficiunt, cum Sarse formam supra communem mul-
tarum aliarum foeminarum formam non extoUant." He therefore
justly adopts the remark previously made by Calvin : " insolita Dei
gratia excelluit Saree venustas inter ahas ejus dotes." But along
with this we by no means overlook the circumstance, that the fact
has also a point of connection with what is natural. " The diffi
culties attending the age of Sarah, says Ewald, Kompos. d. Genesis,
p. 230, may be removed by similar examples, one of which is sup-
Ued by the Travels of Bjomstahl, Th. v, p. 78." We have also a
case quite analogous to this in Dan. i. 15, where it is as foolish as
here to believe that medicinal or physical considerations alone ex
plain the whole, and to overlook the higher assistance, the over
ruling management of the Lord, who is and remains with his people
in a wonderful manner in his promises. — Still less to the point is
the objection drawn frcm xx. 18, that the circumstance there re
corded of the unfruitfulness of the women, cannot have been remark
able during the short stay of Sarah with Abimelech. But what
hinders us from assigning to Sarah's stay the duration of some
months, which completely nullifies the objection ? Farther, the
excellent remark of Musculus applies here : " Poena quam Domi-
nus domui Abimelech inflixerat, erat omnium convenientissima.
Quid enim convenientius esse poterit, quam ut amittat, qui ad se
rapit aliena ?" in addition to which we must also take into considera
tion the view which prevailed in ancient times with regard to this
matter, barrenness being regarded as one of the greatest curses
(Hesiod. Op. et D. 240, sq.). — The appeUation of Abraham as a
Nahi is said also to point to a later period, as well as the repre
sentation of the pecuUar efficacy of the prayer of a Prophet (Von
Bohlen, p. 221. Hartmann, p. 718.). But, as relates to the for-

1 70 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
mer assertion, we have seen (General Introd. to 0. T. § 11) that
Nahi was the proper name given to the office by the theocratic
legislation, and that the passage 1 Sam. ix. 9 treats only of the re
storation of this earlier-sanctioned appeUation. But the second
has, if possible, still less foundation. We need not here once more
reproach our opponents with entirely setting aside the truth as such
which is expressed in the passage ; and as the nature of it, which
has a deep foundation in revelation, quite escapes them, falling out
with the truth itself altogether, so that they are constrained by con
sistency to look upon the most express declarations of our Lord (as
in Matt. vii. 7, ff.), and of the aposties (as James v. 16), as con
taining superstitious ideas. But even their own admissions, that
the view of " the miraculous hearing of prayer" pervades the whole
Old Testament, testifies here sufficiently against them, as, e, g., a
glance at the section on " External Usages" in Gramberg, Gesch.
d. Eel. Id. i; p. 323, ff,, is enough to show. This leamed man,
e, g., remarks on the book of Judges : "Thus there prevails here
also the same superstitious belief in the hearing of prayer presented
by persons favoured by Jehovah, as we have remarked in the poets
of Genesis and Exodus." Considering this internal contradiction,
we may dispense with pointing out more exactly how that which was
here announced in a divine vision might find, and must have found,
its confirmation in the heathen conscience of Abimelech, and what
high significance prayer in general is here shown to have had to
those of more thoughtful minds, so that the language occurring here
may be called a very appropriate appeal to the heart and conscience
of the heathen king.
It is adduced as the main reason against the truth of the history
in ch. xxi. 1-21, that Ishmael,' who must then have been at least
fifteen years old, is introduced as a little child still carried by his
mother. (Schumann, p. 317, 321. VonBohlen, p. 224.). But this
latter assertion, however confidently put forward, is decidedly incor
rect. It should, in the first place, strike us as singular, that accord
ing to that assertion the section is made to contradict itself in the
directest manner. In verse 9, an act is evidently ascribed to Ishmael
in his mocking Isaac, which is plainly inconceivable on the part of a
child " three years old." How absurd to suppose, that the narrator
should immediately have quite forgotten this, wilh a thoughtlessness
[1 In the German it is " Isaac," which is manifestlv an erratum.— Tn.l

OF GEN, XVII,  XXV, 171
that is hardly inteUigible! The explanation of verse 14, as if
Abraham had laid the leathern bottle of water along with the boy
on Hagar's shoulders, is manifestly incapable of proof; for the
words n?23ttJ by Dto necessarily refer only to the preceding p^^H
Qi^, and to l^in ]-\i,^1 belongs only the general notion 'Vp^*\
tradidit, and we cannot see that this construction is exposed to the
shghtest objection. Verse 15 is translated: "she laid the lad
under one of the bushes." But is that really the meaning of
Tj'^HJjm, when it is said of persons? It rather signifies: dimit-
tere, demittere in the wider sense ; comp. e. g. Jerem, xxxviii. 6;
Besides, we have complete evidence here in proof of the opposite of
that assertion, in the expression — " take the lad and hold him by
the hand," verse 1 8, which Clericus rightly explains : " pergas
manu eum sustentare."
It is made to tell particularly against xxi. 22-34, that the same
Abimelech, who is here introduced with his captain Phicol, appears
again long afterwards in the history of Isaac, ch. xxvi. 26, ff., which
isincredible (Schumann, p. 3 17,' comp. VonBohlen, p. 226) ; — as if
from this reference a chronologically exact calculation by means of
definite statements concerning the age of Abimelech, &c,, were so
much as possible. Between the two occurrences there lies an inter
val of perhaps seventy years. Thus the same persons may very
suitably appear in both, as is clear also from the character of this
narrative (see on this subseq.).
If we now cast a look back on ch, xx. and xxi,, we shall remark
as a characteristic trait in them, the way and manner in which the
Philistine king is there introduced as speaking and acting. In his
case there is presupposed, as even Von Bohlen p, 220, observes, a
purer veneration of God, of which subsequently we find no farther
trace. This circumstance is so far worthy of note, as it agrees in
general with the course of the historical development of those na
tions. We meet here with a fear of God and a recognition of the
wonderful operation of his favour (comp especiaUy xxi. 22), which
transports us altogether into a better early period of this people's
history. Accordingly along with tbe exhibition of a Sodom and
Gomorrah, our author allows us to have a glance of the remnants
of purer tribes which had remained free from such grosser and
1 " Hebc omnia non poteris explicare nisi mythi, vai-ia ratione tractati naturam cou-
tueris, neque desideras nostras tetatis disciplinam historicam," says this learned man.

172

HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY

deeper immersion in sin. This shows how faithful must be the
picture given us of that age ; at least no author could invent such
things who saw around him an entirely altered scene. In addition
to this we have here two usages that are in the highest degree wor
thy of notice. The peculiar kind of oath which Abraham and
Abimelech mutually swear to one another, xxi. 28, ff., never occurs
again in Old Testament history ; but that the custom existed in the
primitive Hebrew times, is shown by the word j^^t^Jj, which had
early passed into the language, and which would be inexplicable'
without the existence of such a custom. Now how came the author
to make this statement, which is here evidently mentioned only by
the way ? How came he to the knowledge of this peculiar usage,
so as to make Abraham select seven lambs (Herodotus 1. c. speaks
of seven stones) ? Just as in the case mentioned of Abraham's
planting tamarisks in Beersheba and calUng there on the name of Je
hovah, xxi. 33, so in the present case it is evidently a pre-theocratic
usage we have before us, which (as it afterwards might easily have
seduced to idolatry) was rejected by the law and the prophets as an
idolatrous symbol of worship ; but that religious observances of
this kind prevailed in primitive times is testified by many passages
in the classics,^ and while this notice is thus historically justified, it
is an evidence at the same time that it could not possibly have been
derived from subsequent invention, limited by the conditions of the
Mosaic code.
Does the narrative in xxii, 1 — 19 contain traces of its high an
tiquity, or does it afford evidence that it is the production of a later
attempt founded on legends ? This involves a more exact defini
tion of the entire meaning and purpose of it, and according to the
different ways of apprehending this, have different critical decisions
been pronounced. The narrative has in the first place a subjec
tive side referring to Abraham. In yielding unconditional obedi
ence to the divine command as such, without doubt or murmuring,
he performs an act of that faith, which was counted to him for right
eousness; the effects of divine grace, verified in a glorious and
triumphant manner, aire manifested in him. Viewed in this sub
jective aspect, the fact occupies an important place in the history ;
1 Sometliing similar was found among the old Arabians, Herod, iii, 8. Koster, Eriaut.
ff.p.l54ff, 2 r, Dougtaei. Anal. S, p. 24, sq, Winer, Realw. i, p, 509, 634.

OF GEN. XVII, — XXV, 173
but this by no means brings us yet to a complete insight into the
nature of it. Why is it just this sacrifice that is demanded of
Abraham ? Why is it just this place that is significantly pointed
out to him for offering it ? Why is the sacrifice prevented and
altered just in this way ? Why is so solemn a renewal of earlier
promises connected with this act ? Only so far as we succeed in
comprehending this objective side of the history in its totality does
the true understanding of it become possible. According to a cer
tain view, indeed, we are immediately transported to a mythical
standing-point by the expression, " God tried Abraham."i The
view then attributed here to the original is certainly a very " nar
row" one, but it is one not indicated by a single word in it, but
purely invented. The idea of divine trial here presented is, on the
contrary, quite the same as is found in the whole of the Scriptures,
representing it as a means to strengthen faith and consequently as
a divine benefit, since it is the Lord, who does not try us beyond
our strength and gives us the victory (comp. Tholuck, Sermon on
the Mount, p. 432, ff.).^ From this correct, because Scriptural
point of view, no other question can arise but this. How the offer
ing up of his son could be required of Abraham ? This circum
stance has frequently been employed for the purpose of proving
that there is here a reference made to the savage custom of the in
habitants of Palestine of offering their children to idols, which (it
is asserted) was also at an earlier period in use among the Hebrews.'
Eecent inquirers, however, have inclined against their will to the
more correct point of view, by giving prominence to the theocratic
y\e'^ oi the first-born — for Jephthah's offering does not belong
here — and stating that as the point of support for their view, with
out however recognizing the deeper reason of human sacrifices in
general. In these we see man's consciousness of guilt on the one
hand expressing itself in the most violent manner, and displaying
its irrepressible impulse towards the atonement of sin, and on the
other hand falling into the frightful perversion of the substitution
for the guilty of associates in guilt : human sacrifice must conse-
1 In this there is found " the narrow view, that the Omniscient must first convince
himself by a special proof of the faithful attachment of Abraham." Hartmann, p. 420.
2 [On Matt. vi. 13.]
3 Thus the English Deists, against whom see Warburton, Legation of Moses, iii, p.
342, ff.
* Comp. e. g. Von Bohlen, p. cv. 230, ff. Vatke, 1. c, p, 275, ff.

174 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
quently mark the fullest expression of the surrender of the indivi
dual will [lit. of the I] to the Deity. This class of sacrifices there
fore has its deeper internal reason founded in the nature of man,
and only by this can we explain the fact of their existence among
aU the known nations of antiquity (Baur, Symb. ii, 2, p. 293, ff.).
Hence the fuU recognition of what truth there is in that idea, is to
be found only in the theocratic institution, while its proper refer
ence is to be discovered only in this passage : Israel is the property
of Jehovah in the highest sense of the expression, and therefore
the first-born as the representative of the whole people is specially
his ; and that also is his which he appointed to be consecrated to
him as the substitute for the first-born, namely, the Levites and
the institution of sacrifices. It is, therefore, firmly estabUshed as
a fundamental principle in the Mosaic code, that the first-born is
consecrated to Jehovah (Ex. xiii. 2, xxii. 28) ; and in the history
of Abraham it is only the same fundamental thought that again
makes a prominent appearance, expressed there with the same truth.
Jehovah having entered into a real covenant-relation with the pa
triarch, this idea could not be wanting, as it takes the lead in the sub
sequent theocratic legislation. Then also the substitution of the
animal victim in the place of the son is put in the right Ught ; for
this adoption by God of the imperfect instead of the perfect is
precisely the peculiar meaning of the Mosaic system. In the
history of Abraham, therefore, we behold a preparation for the Law,
(which is exhibited in it in its principle), carried out in a genuine
historical form : we have here represented in its commencement, —
to which the subsequent institution is related as the farther develop
ment — the arrangement afterwards established among Abraham's
posterity.' We find ourselves here quite in the pre-Mosaic state of
things. On a closer examination ofthe place, we are confirmed in
regarding this as being the just view ; for, taken apart from what
follows at a later period, everything here is mysterious and dark.
1 On the other hand our opponents can make nothing out of the narrative, which is
best shown by the makeshift of supposing a more ancient nan-ative, according to which
Abraham really sacrifices his son, &c. See V. Bohlen. But it is only in the manner
stated above that the substitution of the ram receives its proper sense ; and thus the
parallels of Iphigenia, Theseus, &c.— as signifying the mitigation of earlier barbarity by
later humanity (see Baur, p. 194)— fail, presenting only so far a general analogy, as
they also express the impossibility of the perfect realization of the idea that demanded
human sacrifices.

OF GEN. XVII.  XXV. 175
Abraham must joumey into the land of Moriah ; this never ap
pears again in the history ; Jehovah wiU there show him a mountain ,
which he caUs God seeth^ — (ni^'T' nilT^) • ^^^ memorial of the
event is still maintained as a proverb in the mouth of Israel (xxii,
14.). Moses also knows the mountain of Israel's inheritance (Ex.
XV. 17), and gives the people a prophetic promise of it as the place
of the sanctuary. The order is given to David that the Temple
should stand there (1 Chron, xxii. 18, ff.), in a way that necessarily
presupposes a memorable distinction as attaching to it, and shews
it to be no other than this same one, 2 Chron. iii, 1. Thus we find
the narrative of Genesis to be fully accordant with the object of the
whole section : we find the reference to the future sacrificial ritual
conjoined with that to the locality where it should afterwards be
established in its glory ; and farther, the following history becomes
an enigma to us, if we set aside the supposition that such an oc
currence as this preceded. But every thing here that gives a sym
bohc indication of the future is so completely true to its enigmati
cal character, that to us without the subsequent fulfilment it would
be obscure, while to Abraham it must have remained devoid of
meaning, had there not been joined with it the divine promise, xxii.
15, ff., unveiling its meaning as to the general outUnes of it,
which must also have placed the patriarch in the right position for
a general survey of the future ; while the separate details did not
receive their right significance until the time of the fulfilment.
We must accordingly regard that view as a completely perverted
one, which seeks to find in the reference to the mountain Moriah, a
proof that the passage was not written earlier than the age of
Solomon.2 Supposing we had here such a late mythus originating
in the object of explaining the etymology of the name Moriah, it
would, as Bleek has weU shown, (Stud, u, Kritik. 1831, p. 520,ff.),
in the first place be impossible to see how the author should have
employed that name for his object, and not the subsequently com
mon name of Zion ; and in the second place, how he should speak
here, instead of a mountain Moriah, of a Land of that name ; and
farther, he gives no etymology of the name Moriah, but caUs the
1 [The writer should have said " Jehovah seeth ;" the theocratic name of God is of
special importance here. — Tn.]
2 Comp. e, ff. De Wette, p. 100. Gesenius de Pent. Sam. p. 30, Hartmann, p. 430.
Schumann, p. 326. Von Bohlen, p. 232.

176 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
mountain, in allusion to ver. 8, n^Ti niiT'. 1° addition, it
cannot be explained how a later writer from pure invention should
have succeeded in giving the narrative its remarkably simple, and at
the same time deeply significant character, which quite transports
us to a primitive age, from which we survey the future according to
so peculiar a conception of it. It is precisely here that we should
find the most unnatural supposition demanded of us. On the other
hand, we cannot assent to Bleek in his conjecture, that it was not
the name Moriah that stood here originally, but another, such as
;-|-^'^53. This is not only an arbitrary connection, and unsuited to
the evident object ofthe passage as developed by us ; but it is also
decidedly contradicted by 2 Chron. in. 1, which passage certainly
proves' our reading to be more ancient then the Samaritan-Alex
andrian. And what is there strange or surprising in the circum
stance, that the ancient name of the district was afterwards trans
ferred to the mountain exclusively, the latter having acquired a
special importance, both from this ancient occurrence, and also
from the building of the Temple upon it, while the name of the dis
trict naturally disappeared ? That Moriah besides was regarded
as a part ofthe (higher) hill of Zion, and comprehended under its
designation, is very clearly proved by Isaiah xxxi. 4, (see Eeland,
Pal, p. 854,)
This fact receives a striking confirmation from that which Sanch-
oniathon mentions concerning Kronos, whom the Phoenicians named
Israel, that in a season of peril he sacrificed his only son (Euseb.
prsep. evang. i. 10.). The adduction of this evidently has a refe--
rence to the old custom mentioned a little before by the same writer
{edof^v TOKirdXaioh), of presenting one's dearest child as a sin-
offering in dangerous emergencies {Xiirpov rots Ti/McopoK BaljJbocn) ;
being intended as a kind of historical justification or foundation for
the custom. This was a mystic sacrifice (/carecr^aTToi'To oi Bi^o-
jjLevoi /iva-Tiicm), that is, in imitation ofthe sacrifice which had been
presented by a God, from whom it had its institution and received its
higher sanction (Munter, Eel. d. Karth. p. 26.). In connection with
this it must not be overlooked, that it is to I^onos also that cir
cumcision is traced in Sanchoniathon ; and thus we have here a
very early corruption of this fact in primitive Hebrew history, and
1 Since it was certainly not written without intention or without reference to
Genesis.

OF GEN. XVII.  xxv. 177
an interweaving of it with heathen worship. This very circum
stance gives at the same time to Sanchoniathon's statement the
stamp of authenticity, which it otherwise clearly bears ; and it was
not till a later age that, in order to justify that kind of sacrifice, it
was represented as having a reference to the course of the sun (see
Munter, p. 18.).
Chap. xxii. 20 — 24 contains a genealogy of the family of Nahor.
In general, the invention of genealogies must appear an incompre
hensible undertaking, since the author might have employed here a
much simpler means of showing that Isaac married in his own
family. But the history itself here sufficiently precludes every such
suspicion by the simple remark, " it was told to Abraham," so that
we here know exactly what support the information had, namely, a
statement communicated to the Patriarch. "The information then
had been preserved in the family, whose history here occupies the
writer ; it is traced back to them as its source ; would it be possible
for one to state his sources with less prepossession and pretence ?
Von Bohlen, however, represents this genealogy also as invented.
(a) " There are exactly twelve sons given, as in the case of Jacob ;
a contrived symmetry, the intentional character of which cannot be
mistaken," (p. 236.). But " the intentional character" is here far
from being obvious. What particular interest should our author
have had in equalising the number of Jacob's twelve sons with that
of Nahor's sons ? Nothing is easier than at once to deduce from
such a correspondence, this "intentional character;" but this in
fact is not enough ; for it remains a thing inconceivable, what in
tention the narrator should have connected with it ? The reply to
this question assumes quite a different position, if we connect with
it the notice that has just been taken of the Abrahamitic tradition
that is indicated here. It may then admit of easy explanation how
the round number of twelve, associated with a well-known parallel
case, and easily retained by the memory, was employed to hand
down to posterity the most important of Nahor's sons. Yet we
cannot positively decide that Nahor did not actually have just that
number of sons, since similar cases of that kind may so often be re
peated in the course of history, and we should then be justified in
throwing suspicion on a multitude of the most authentic facts,
charging them with an arbitrary symmetrical conformity. StiU tiie
former supposition appears to us the more natural, (b) " Besides
M

1 78 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
(continues Von Bohlen), it is only some of the names that are
known, and for the most part they have been put down at random."
A strange argument ! So then, because in the later books we do
not again meet with the names of these persons (NB. as proper
families), the narrator has here fictitiously invented them. If the
later books are not acquainted with this matter, and cannot give
information of it, that is surely a proof that we have here before us an
earlier record, which is famihar with those circumstances. That the
Uz here mentioned is different from the one spoken of in x. 23, is
evident ; and the very circumstance that in xxxvi. 28, we meet with a
still later Uz amongthe descendants of Edom is a proof not against,
but for the credibility of our document. Later writers are acquainted
with only one districtof this name ;'consequently from that standing-
point only one Uz could have been mentioned here : thus our ac
count here of itself goes farther back than that period, which will
by no means afford us a key to the understanding of it. Von Boh
len, however, conjectures that. Buz, which should certainly be sought
for in the neighbourhood of Uz, is taken from Jerem. xxv, 23, but
contradicts himself by subjoining the remark : " who (Jeremiah)
connects the name with Dedan and Tema." How then do these
come to be wanting here ? This throws as little Ught on the origin
of the genealogy as the foUowing name Kesed, which, it is affirmed,
shows that the narrator " suddenly passes to Mesopotamia :" how
then did he happen to take that direction, if he proceeded simply
from the suggestion of later circumstances ? It is silly to say that
the remaining names must have been borrowed from statements that
bear an entirely different character, simply because they are found
elsewhere — where they appear also in connection with other names
of a different kind, as Shephatiah (1 Chron. xxvii. 16) and Shiph
tan (Num. xxxiv. 24) ; particularly as we have a remarkable his
torical confirmation of something here, namely, that Maachah is
mentioned in Deut. iii. 1 1 as a Syrian people and country (see
Eosenm. Alterthumsk. i. 2, p. 251, ff,). We regard our record,
therefore, as reaching back so far that we find it possible to explain
it only by supposing it to contain information of a higher antiquity
than any other can equal.
Ch. xxiii. is a document of especial importance in relation to our
1 Job i. 1 ; Jerem, xxv, 20 ; Lament, iv. 21 ; comp. Rosenmiiller, Prolegg. ad Job, p.
.26, sq.

OF GEN. XVII.  xxv, 179
object. There are individual traits in it that confirm the truth of
the narrative. Of these a very marked one is the mode in which
the social constitution of the Canaanites is here represented (comp,
ch. xxxiv.) ; the transference of the possession of the cave of Mach
pelah could be accomplished only in the presence and with the con
currence of the Hittites, to which circumstance, therefore, the his
torian gives particular prominence (ver. 10, 13, 16, 18, 20.). When
we observe farther that special stress is laid ou " those that went in
at the gate of the city," we have principally to think of persons of
consideration, the elders and magistrates, who, according to the man
ner of the East, are accustomed to assemble on public occasions.
No farther notice is taken in the Old Testament of this poUtical con
stitution ; we only know concerning the Phoenicians from other ac
counts, that their monarchical form of government was limited, and
that they had assemblies of council (Heeren, Ideen i. 2, pp. 20, 21.).
Our account thus shows an intimate acquaintance with the circum
stances ofthe Canaanites. Besides, the mode of contracting the bar
gain as here described, how suitable to a people like the Canaanites !
" In Mesopotamia, where there are no Canaanites carrying on trade,
silver and gold are of rare occurrence, even in the time of Jacob :
everything is procured by barter. — On the contrary in Canaan, in
the neighbourhood of the Phcenicians, who had the trade of the
World in their hands, even so early as Abraham's time barter is no
longer practised, but silver is employed as pretium eminens, not,
however, in the form of coined pieces, but by weight, xxiii. 16."
Eichhorn, iii. p: 155. How suitable, accordingly, does the dis
course attributed to Ephron xxiii. 1 5 appear in his mouth, and how -
striking the expression inD*? "^15^ tnD3 '"^ ^^'^- ^^ ' ^"^ ''^^ ^®
especially struck with the precise, solemn manner of this purchase,
which is described with a circumstantiality that can be explained
only by our possessing here a document transmitted to us by a
faithful hand. At any rate we leam from it what importance was
attached to this fundamental possession. Now, when De Wette
says (p. 105) that it could not be tiU a subsequent period that the
need could be felt of rescuing such transactions from uncertain tra
dition, and perpetuating them in writing ; we ask him, at what
epoch chiefly must we suppose this need to have been expe
rienced ? The purchase of the cave of Machpelah, he says, had
an especial interest to the Hebrews : it was a verification of the
M 2

180 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
Hebrews' right of possession to Canaan, Certainly : but when was
the desire to get that right acknowledged, or when must it have
been, greatest and most pressing ? — at the period when their taking
possession of the land was agitated, or when the actual possession
of it had long been enjoyed ? Still, however, that does not explain
the importance attributed to this burial place ; no farther mention
is anywhere made of it in the post-Mosaic history ; but it is of the
greatest consequence in the patriarchal and Mosaic history (Gen.
xxv. 9, 10, xlix. 29—32, 1. 12, 13 ; Exod. xiu. 19.). We are in
this way placed at the same time in the right point of view for
forming a judgment of our history. It does not mean to-give what
would be properly an apologetic justification of that claim to Ca
naan, the deeper reason of which lies in the divine counsel and
promise ; and we have here only Abraham's appropriation of these
— his faithful fulfilment of the will of God as revealed to him ; and
accordingly a practical seal attached by Jehovah to his promises by
means of his servant. The monument was a permanent sacred pos
session, as De Wette remarks, and the memorial it presented was
partly such as could very easily be preserved, and partly must have
been an external representation to the people of the plainest kind,
as to what was the will of Jehovah in reference to Israel's taking
possession of Canaan. We may say with perfect justice, that the
paragraph is unintelUgible, on the supposition that it is not the
composition of Moses.
Ch. xxiv. Here our opponents themselves confess, " one might
be tempted to take the narrative in the historical sense'' (De Wette,
p. 113.), Here we meet also with many ancient customs, such as
the peculiar form of benediction, ver. 60 (comp. Euth iv. 11, 12),
but especially the mode of taking an oath by putting the hand under
the thigh (comp. xlvii. 29), ver. 2, 9, to which nothing analogous
is found or could be found afterwards (see Winer, Eealworterbuch,
p. 359.). How any one could conceive of this latter trait, which
has not been explained by any real parallel, as invention, is quite
an enigma ; how can it even be imagined that the author should
intentionaUy have interwoven in his account a trait like that, to give
a kind of confirmation to it ?
It is precisely those circumstances, which have been charged
with improbability, that form here the warrant for the full authen
ticity of the account. De Wette remarks especially on the confi-

GEN. xvn. — xxv. 181
dence of the servant, that Jehovah would procure tlTe right damsel
for him ; and next, on the similarity of the tale to the history of
Jacob, and on the circumstance that Eebekah immediately resolved
to go with the slave. But how characteristic is it in the servant of
Abraham, that he openly expresses his doubts (ver. 5) ; and then,
when referred by Abraham's firm confidence in his God to His aid,
obeys; expects a guiding sign from Jehovah (ver. 15), and even
then is dumb with astonishment, waiting with anxious surmise
as to whether Jehovah had really prospered bis way or not (ver. 21) ;
but when he sees the soUcited omen fulfilled, appropriates it and
executes his purpose I What a faithful, vivid picture ! And must
not the same circumstances that produced so deep and powerful an
impression upon this slave, have produced the same in a still
higher degree on the damsel who was especially interested in them,
so that when even Laban and Bethuel were obliged to recognise
the providence of Jehovah in Eliezer's narration (ver. 50), she also
had no hesitation in submitting to the higher will which had thus
made itself known ? Who can fail to see in all this the simple-
mindedness of ancient times depicted in the truest colours ? The
similarity to the history of Jacob (ch. xxix.) we do not perceive,
since all the main circumstances are different, except the identity of
the locaUty, and the meeting with the damsels at the well, which
however arises out of the circumstances of the East itself, that being
the place of general meeting for society, where betrothmeuts are
generally contracted, as Von Bohlen, p. 244, says.
De Wette next remarks on the religious tone that prevails among
the personages introduced, the religious language of the slave, his
praying to Jehovah, his kneeling down, and Laban's salutation and
answer, in reference to all which he proceeds on the supposition, J,hat
Abraham's religious character must at all events be regarded as
mythical. This assumption might be taken as having a measure
of foundation, if it could be shown that the religious language (and
so the religious ideas and convictions also) of all the persons was
the same, which would be styled unhistorical. But we find just the
opposite in this document, as the hesitation of the slave, already
alluded to, and his whole behaviour prove. In his case we see
throughout such a view, as is more objective in its nature, disclos
ing itself in its relation to the faith of Abraham : thus Abraham
is obliged to give him a more exact definition of Jehovah as " the

182 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
God of heaven and earth '' (ver, 3) ; while he prays constantly to
Jehovah, " the God of his master Abraham," and speaks of him as
such to Laban and Bethuel (ver. 33, ff.). Apart from the circum
stance that we do not know how much knowledge of Jehovah,
the God of Abraham, had been preserved in Nahor's family,
Laban might very well, after what had previously happened, all of
which had been reported by Eebecca (ver. 28), employ the address
" blessed of Jehovah," even if we regarded him as occupying an
entirely heathenish position. But to any one who can bring in
question the expression (ver. 50), " the thing proceedeth from
Jehovah," to him the best established facts of Bible history, the
internal reason of which he fails to seize from want of a deeper
psychological apprehension — we may instance Luke xxiii. 47 — may
appear inexplicable and therefore fabulous.
But it is said that the object of the narrative betrays itself as a
national one, by the national feeling expressed in it, namely in op^
position to marriage with Canaanitish women. This involves a
double false supposition. In the first place, that it should be
doubtful whether Abraham could be so decided against the marriage
ofhis son with a Canaanitish woman (De Wette, p. 116), a doubt
which is supported only by questioning the reality of the earlier
part of the history of Abraham ; so that one doubt is built upon
another. But granting its reality, Abraham could not but have
been opposed to sanctioning his son's connection by marriage with
the Canaanities, since he possessed the most definite knowledge
that the land should not belong to the inhabitants of Canaan, but
to his own seed.' Hence he is equally decided in refusing his
permission to Isaac's returning to his native land. Thus Abra
ham's procedure on this occasion is connected in the closest man
ner with the previous actions of his life, and this his faithful adher
ence to Jehovah's word and will exactly proves and seals the
truthfulness and objective reaUty of the revelations and promises
that had been made to him. Another unfounded supposition is,
that marriage with the Canaanites did not become the subject of a
1 " Quia sacro fcedere Deus ipsum a Canaueeis diviserat, merito timet ne Isaac affi-
nitate cum Ulis Dei jngum excutiat. — Et quamvis apud eos tranquille habitaverit ad
tempus, non tamen sobolem habere potuit cum illis communem, quin confunderet quae
Dei mandate distincta erant. Ergo integer hac in separatione manere voluit, et sues
servare integros." — Caivin.

GEN, XVII,  XXV. 183
prohibition among the Hebrews until times much later than those
of Moses. But not only do the Mosaic laws on this subject (Exod.
xxxiv. 16; Deut. vii. 3) prove the contrary, but also the circumstance,
that in the period immediately subsequent to that of Moses, wehave
indeed the transgression of that prohibition exhibited, but at the
same time its destructive consequences are shown, while it is re
buked also with an evident reference to the Mosaic law. Judges iii. 6, ff
In ch. xxv. 1 — 4, 12 — 18, we find the genealogy of Arabian
tribes and heads of tribes, descended from Abraham, partiy by
his marriage with Keturah, partiy through Ishmael, his child by
Hagar. The sons of Keturah are: Zimran, Jokshan, Medan,
Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. It is only in Genesis that a distinc
tion is made between the two tribes, of cognate appellations, Me-
danim and Midianim, which appear, however, to have been closely
connected (comp. Gen. xxxvii. 28, 36), so that later authors have
preserved only the one name. That book is here no less exact in
making a distinction between the .Ishmaelites and the Midianites.
At a later period — so early as the time of Moses — the name Ish
maelite had, on account of the active traffic of these Arabian tribes,
received the general signification oi Arabian merchants (qI'^HD)'
which, in a wider sense, comprehends the Midianites also.' In like
manner our author is acquainted with two tribes, Sheba and Dedan,
derived from Jokshan, which are to be distinguished from Ham's
descendants of the same name, ch. x. 7, and from Sheba, the son
of Joktan, x. 28 ; so that thus Genesis makes mention of three dis
tinct persons of the name of Sheba, and their three different genea
logies.'' That in these we have the same ancestor introduced, only
with a different genealogy, is a conjecture utterly unfounded, which
is refuted by the very circumstance that it is not applicable to Gen.
x,, where we should then find this diversity in the same chapter
(comp. Eosenmiiller, 1. c. p. 34) ; and the mere similarity of names
is far from being sufficient to support such an hypothesis. (Eanke,
Untersuch. p. 255.). Our author mentions three tribes in verse 3
(the Ashurim, Letushim, and Leummim), which appear early to
have become mingled with others, and thus to have lost their names

1 Comp. Genes, xxxvii. 25, 27, 28. Judges viii. 24. Ewald, Compos, d. Gen. p. 55.
Rosenmiiller, Alterthumsk. iii. p. 23, 24.
2 As Vater i. p. 243, De Wette, p. 1 17, Gesenius, ». v. saw. Von Bohlen, p. 125, ai-e
of opinion.

184 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
(Eosenm. p. 35) : a plain sign that wehave here to do with a docu
ment that displays the closest acquaintance with the hoariest anti
quity. Our document displays the same exactness in the statement it
gives of the sons of Ishmael. There appear among them Nebayoth
and Kedar, the Arabians whom Pliny (H. N. v. 12) designates Ced-
rei and Nabatcei, The only other place in which these two appear
united, is Is. Ix. 7. Hitzig, however (on Isaiah p. 253), makes
the just remark : " In the authors previous to the Exile, with the
exception of Genesis, it is the Kedarenes exclusively that are men
tioned, just as at a later period it is almost only the Nabateans —
1 Mace. ix. 35, v. 25. Diod. Sic. 3, 42, 19, 94, ff."— so that here
again we meet with the peculiarity by which Genesis is character
ized. It is worthy of remark, what exact knowledge the author
possesses of the original relations of the Ishmaelitish Arabians,
especially of their original dodecarchical constitution, which has its
analogy in similar institutions of other oriental nations,' Its ana
logy with the like division into tribes among the Israelites need not
therefore surprise us,2 especially when we consider that the author
says that these twelve sons had become princes, heads of tribes,
(xxv. 1 6 according to the prophecy xvi. 20) ; so that, taking this
statement in its strict meaning, the supposition remains unconfuted,
that Ishmael may have had other sons, who did not however attain
to the rank of phylarchs. How shall we now explain this state
ment in any way as a piece of fiction ? What kind of sufficient
motive can we ascribe to the author, that should have led him to
assign such a dodecarchy to the Ishmaelites ? He certainly could
not have deduced it from later circumstances connected with these
tribes, which, as is necessarily the case with such nomadic nations,
most probably soon assumed a different formation. The Hebrew
monuments also maintain a profound silence on this point where
they speak of the princes of Arabia (as Jerem. xxv, 24 ; Ezek.
xxvii. 21) : it is indeed scarcely to be supposed, that, considering the
1 Comp. Eosenmiiller, A. u. N. Morgeul. iv. p. 345. The Egyptian Dodecarchy also
rested on a like earlier division of names ; Heeren, Id, ii. 2, p. 396, Seyffarth, de astron.
Aeg- geographia, p. 90, sq. Leo, Univers. Gesch, i. p, 88, We meet with a similar case
in Homer among the Phcenicians, Odyss, viii. 390, in ancient Attica, Thucyd. ii. I5_
See Leo, 1. c. p. 167 ; and among the Etruscans — see Miiller, Etr. i. 344, ff.
2 De Wette, p. 117 : " It excites suspicion to flnd Ishmael with twelve sons like Israel,
who are the ancestors ofthe same number of tribes."

GEN. XVII. — XXV. 185
great dismemberment which these tribes underwent, they were all
exactly known to them. Or shall we suppose that a great charm
lay in representing Israel and Ishmael as being similarly divided into
tribes ? How does this comport with the imputation of national
prejudice ? Why then did he assign the Edomites quite a different
constitution (ch. xxxvi.) ? The only supposition then which is
left for us is, that this record, owing to the time when it was written,
was able to give an historical account of these circumstances, a con
clusion to which we are also led by the names of those who are
mentioned as heads of tribes, many of which occur nowhere else.
Ch. xxv. 19 — 34, which treats ofthe birth of Esau and Jacob,
and the transference of the birthright from Esau to his brother, is
likewise regarded by recent critics as " an entertaining popular
tale." Let us examine it more closely, Eebecca is barren, but
Isaac's prayer is heard by Jehovah ; his wife is with child of twins,
which struggle together in the womb, and Jehovah being enquired of
respecting that circumstance, answers, that it is a pre-indication of
the nations that should be descended from the two sons, and of their
future discord. The first thing that is remarked as strange is, that
Eebecca had recourse to Jehovah about so insignificant a matter.'
But this is an opinion which agrees neither with the way of think'
ing that generally prevailed in ancient times,^ nor with the particu
lar condition of Eebecca. For we must conceive of her as having
at any rate her attention directed through the proceedings of Jeho
vah, which certainly were not unknown to her, to the intentions of
Abraham's God respecting her family ; especially as she had just
received a testimony in her husband's prayer having been heard,
that Jehovah was with him and his seed. It is also clear from the
expression employed (l^^'^ni), that the movement of the children
was an unusual and extraordinary one ; and to the mind of anti
quity nothing of that kind was without a meaning. Compare also
the very similar fact Luke i. 41, ff. In Uke manner it is thought
unsuitable that Eebecca should here " enquire of an oracle," and
this is regarded as a mark of later times which were subject
to Levitical influence.' Certainly the enquiry could not be made
1 " Any midwife would have satisfied Eebecca as to this struggling, and tbe motions
of twins are not more surprising than those of a single child." De Wette, p. 118.
2 Comp. Apollodor. bibl, ii.2, 1. Cic, de divin. i. 53.
3 " That this oracle is fictitious is manifest. ¦ At that time there was, generally speak
ing, no oracle as yet." De Wette comp. Hartmann p. 719, Von Bohlen p. 202,
3

186 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY.
after the mode of later times ; especially not by the Urim and
Thummim, and Von Bohlen supposes that this was the only
means by which the Deity was enquired of On the contrary
comp. e. g. 2 Kings iii, 11, viii. 8, where the addition ^^^ nt^T2
shows that there were several ways of enquiring of Jehovah. But
the wider sense of the phrase xyS\V flW IZJTl '^ ^1^° incontestably
clear from Exod. xviii. 15, and still more decidedly from 1 Sam.
xxviii. 6, where three methods of enquiring of God are enu
merated, by Dreams, by Urim, and by Prophets (comp. Gen. In
trod. to Old Testament, p, 57 § 11.). How can we then in this
place avoid thinking of a dream, as the medium by which Eebecca
received the divine answer,- which suits very well, first, with the fact
that such is the form of revelation which frequently occurs in Genesis,
and which is thus, as it appears, peculiar to a primitive age (see chs.
XV., xxviii., xxxvii., xl., xli,, xlvi. ; comp. Job. iv. 13, xxxiii. 15) ;
and also, with the circumstance that that form is not connected
with any later theocratic appointment; and farther, with the nature of
the oracle given as communicated to Eebecca, which can hardly be
imagined as communicated in any other way. It is farther asserted
to be quite impossible that at his birth, Jacob should have laid hold
of his brother's heel (De Wette,p, 118; Schumann, p, 881), although
there is a multitude of similar surprising phenomena connected
with births ; but with respect to that, since our opponents bring
forward no evidence to support their assertion, we satisfy ourselves
by saying with Eosenmiiller : " de qua re judicium esto penes artis
obstetriciae peritos." On the other hand, there is more importance
in the charge oi falsity, which is brought against the derivation of
the names Jacob, Esau, Edom, It is impossible to see what
grammatical objections can be brought against these derivations ;
other and better etymologies are not adduced ; and thus we find
ourselves still obliged to fall back on Genesis. But that Esau
should have received the surname of Edom from the occurrence
.specified is completely according to the mind and spirit ofthe East,^

1 De Wette even speaks of the etymology as " silly," p, 119, comp. Von Bohlen. p. 259.
2 The Arabians also are fond of giving surnames of that kind (see Willmet, Prolegg.
ad Ant. Moall. p. 6) to famous persons. There is a great similarity to the present in
stance in the surname which Hodjr, king of the Kendites, received— Akil al Murar—
owing to his wife in a passion saying, " He is like a camel that devours bushes." Abulf.
Hist. Anteisl,, p. 130, ed Fleischer. The exactness with which even modern oriental

OF GEN. XXII,  XXV, 187
and is the more natural, if we conceive of a reference (Hos. xii. 3)
to the other remarkable fact [Jacob's birth] as being a current ex
pression in the mouth of the people. It is just in this way that a
permanent appellation arises out of individual traits of that kind.
But De Wette's chief reason is the following : " Even if the
birthright had been an actual privilege, wliich one could transfer to
another, and even if this transference could have been any advan
tage to Jacob, Esau could not have dared to barter it for the smok
ing dish of lentiles, and the father's sanction must have been re
quired to confirm the bargain. And indeed we find no farther
consequences arising out of this strange exchange, as the following
myth (ch. xxvu.) shows, whose object and improbabiUty are the
same with this, so' that the one tale confutes the other, and they
both betray themselves as groundless fictions.'' That the first-born
in tbe patriarchal age enjoyed peculiar privileges, is put beyond
doubt by the importance which is everywhere attached to that dis
tinction, and is plain also from the subsequent appointments ofthe
Theocracy (Deut. xxi. 15 — 17.). In the present case, however, the
right is shown to be quite an actual one by the divine oracle, which
deprives the first-born of the right of being the chief head of his
people. This circumstance of itself explains how Jacob endea
voured to obtain possession of these privileges by sinful means.
It was God's decreed purpose that his promises should have their
fulfilment in Jacob, and not in Esau : the personal character of
Jacob also is such as shows him to have a special attachment to them,
in contrast to Esau's mind, which is attached only to sensible things
(xxv. 27.). This serves to explain sufficiently the conduct of both
of them. The promises which God had connected with Isaac's first
born were, in their prevailing character, of a spiritual nature, and
of these promises Jacob must be the recipient. Esau cared little for
them. The divine word was fulfiUed in Jacob's case, in spite of his
sin, not by means of it : a protracted series of troublous days is his
punishment for it ; but the calling of God in its nature and essence
remains the same, " Quod si in re procuranda infirmitas Jacobi
admixta fuit, eo major fuit gratia Dei quod indulserit tam benign^,
ut ostenderet totum id ab electione pendere, non ab operibus, quod
custom preserves such epithets, which to us seem even ridiculous and quite trivial, is
shown for instance by the passage in Michaelis, Syr. Chrestom. p. 9, 11, ff.
1 Vitringa speaks admirably on this point, Obss, n, 1, p. 287, sq.

188

HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY

unus alii prseferretur" (Heidegger, ii. 245.). Thus this account is
full of the deepest psychological tmth ; and it is only by entirely
overlooking this that questions can be started as to how Esau
could have done this or that ? The point of view which the narra
tive itself presents, furnishes a sufficient explanation of the whole.
But that ch. xxvu. is in perfect accordance with it will be shown by
what follows.
The impossibility of explaining this narrative by the national
hatred of the Jews (see especiaUy Von Bohlen, p. 260, ff.), is proved
by this character which it bears. If the narrator had been influenced
by views of so external a nature, that he was concerned only for the
vindication of the honour of his nation, he could not have repre
sented its ancestor in such a light as this, which could not fail to be
injurious to him. It is useless to maintain that the Hebrew writer
had different moral sentiments and views from the ethical ideas of
our age. In what other place, either in the whole of the Pentateuch,
or in all the books of the Old Testament, do we find sin taken
under protection ? So far from this being the case, we have seen that
this narrative is pervaded by what is truly the profoundest ethical
principle, inasmuch as we see in it the mercy of God, and that alone,
substituting the display of grace for the execution of justice ; and
in an ignorance of this truth we have just a most striking exhi
bition of the perverted ethical views connected with unbelief' The
narrative would otherwise stand, as to its ethical character, in strange
conflict with itself, inexplicable either by hermeneutics or psychology.
Indeed, if we conceive of the relation of the Hebrews to the Edom
ites, as it is legally established in the Pentateuch (Deut. ii. 5, 8,
xxiii. 7), we can discern no trace of the hostile disposition referred
to ; on the contrary, the rules there prescribed are founded on the
originally fraternal relation of the two nations. Thus, when consi
dered also on this side, the present narrative is fully entitled to take
its place at the very commencement both of Israel's and Edom's
history ; and it is only thus that we come to the complete under
standing of it.
1 This explains such sentiments as that of De Wette : " The Greeks also have their
crafty iUlysses, but how much nobler and more exalted is his form than that of Jacob
here !"' P. 123.

OF GEN. XXVI. — XXXVUI, 189

§ 20. CONTINUATION. GEN. XXVI.  XXXVIII.
We may with the greatest justice overlook the " confusion" that
is attributed to the narrative in ch. xxvi., since the author of this
charge himself appears to lay no great stress upon it.' But some
weight must be assigned to the similarity which it bears to the
occurrences in the life of Abraham, and to the new etymology that
is given of the name Beersheba. But that similarity is what our
author is quite aware of, as he makes express mention of it, and as
the persons that are actors here are evidently introduced with a re
ference to what happened at an earlier period. Isaac employs the
same means as his father for the protection of his wife. " At every
place whither we shall come, say of me. He is my brother," is Abra
ham's language, xx. 13 ; a proof how much he reckoned on this
resource. Consequently, Isaac believes himself obliged to employ
the same means. It is likewise by no means Abimelech himself,
now grown old, who desires Isaac's wife ; it is rather " the people
of the place ;" but Abimelech is already acquainted with Isaac
through Abraham, and knows that Jehovah is with this family. As
relates, however, to the discrepancy of this narrative with the earlier
one in xxi. 22, ff., mentioned by Von Bohlen, in respect of the
origin of the name Beersheba, it has been already remarked (see
Eanke, p. 225) that xxvi. 23 supposes the previous existence of
this name, and that in verse 15 it is expressly stated that Isaac re
stored their old names to the wells which had been stopped up. Here
also he forms a covenant by oath with Abimelech : he had thus a
particular occasion to adopt the name as well as his father ; both
of them, as the record plainly indicates, met here with almost the
same lot, and followed a similar course of conduct. (See Schu
mann, p. 394,). Von Bohlen then asserts, that the wealth for which
the Patriarchs are here and elsewhere said to be famous, is a mere
poetical embeUishment. His reasons are : {a) the herds of Abraham
and Isaac disappear in Jacob's case, Uke a Fata Morgana ; a reason
1 Von Bohlen, p. 265, ff. Among these " lesser improbabilities" he reckons, e. g., that
of a herdsman dwelling in the royal residence of a settled people so near to the prince;
forgetting that Abimelech also appears as a pastoral prince, and Isaac as a distinguished
emir of his age;— Abimelech granting him his full protection (ver. II), and presently
without reason refusing him an abode (ver. 16) ; where the author appears not to have
read ver. 15, &c.

190 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
deserving of no regard, since the cause of their disappearance is
plainly accounted for in Genesis by circumstances, namely, the se
cret flight of Jacob, {h) Jacob again of a sudden becomes wealthy ;
where again we have an exact statement given us as to how he at
tained to these great possessions, — {c) But if the object ofthe tale
required it, the fancy of the narrator could as willingly make an
effort in the way of descent, as Joseph's history clearly shows ; an
argument, to which we shall afterwards return.
As relates to the wives of Esau (xxvi. 34), the statement con
tinues to be charged, as by V. Bohlen (p. 273), with containing
inexplicable contradictions, as compared with xxviii. 9 and xxxvi.
2. Esau first marries Judith, daughter of the Hittite Beeri,
who in xxxvi. 2 is called the daughter of Anah, the daughter of
the Hivite Zibeon,' and named OhoUbamah, a change of name,
which need the less surprise us, as the orientals in general frequently
connect a change of name with a change in the relations of life,
which is particularly the case with women.^ Esau's second wife is
Bashemath, Elon's daughter, a Hittitess, who, for the same reason,
is called Adah in xxxvi. 2. The third wife is called, xxviii. 9,
Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael, the sister of Nebayoth, and
she is named Bashemath in xxxvi. 3. When we compare the
many alterations of name which the age of the Patriarchs presents
us with (Eanke, p. 247), so insignificant a difference will no longer
surprise us.
The objections that may be urged against the history in ch. xxvii.,
have particular prominence given them by De Wette (p. 120, ff.).
(1.) The blessing, says he, cannot have been viewed as being so
objective a law, having actual force if it were but uttered ; neither
can it have been a testamentary disposition, for then Isaac might
have retracted it. Granting that this view of Isaac's patemal bless
ing were the just one, it must still be admitted that it is unique of
its kind, and throughout betrays no dependence on later ideas, but
appears, on the contrary, in the highest degree peculiar and inde
pendent. But such a view is by no means that of the record. Ja
cob certainly acts a deceitful part (xxvii. 35) : Isaac blesses him,
1 Just as Dinah is called sometimes Leah's and sometimes Jacob's daughter. Ranke,
p. 246.
2 Comp. Eosenmiiller, A,u, N. Morgeul. i.p, 63, and my owu Commentary on Daniel,
p. 30.

OF GEN, XXVI,  XXXVIII. ]91
but, on coming to know what he has done, he is alarmed on ac
count of it (ver. 33) : he has bestowed the blessing contrary to the
inclination of his heart. Unquestionably he must now have had
the divine oracle recalled to his mind, which he himself had con
firmed against his will. Must he not, looking but to this one cir
cumstance, have felt a hesitation to withdraw the blessing ? The
paternal blessing had certainly great importance attached to it at
that time (xlix. 26) ; should he now treat the important transaction
as a mere sport of chance, and not rather pay regard to the higher
divine determination in this event ? He had intended to make the
elder brother ruler over the younger ; should he venture, in the
express designation of the privilege of primogeniture, to go in
opposition to the divine prediction, vvhich was so definite ? Such
a case would, even in heathenish antiquity, have been thought
very strange and surprising. Add to this, that Isaac knows that
Esau has already transferred his right to Jacob (xxvii, 36) ; how
then upon this new occurrence could he do otherwise than hesi
tate to sin against God's will by an obstinate adherence to his
own ? This completely explains the change of his feehngs to
wards Jacob, xxviii. 1, ff. But we may now on our part ask,
how we can here again admit the supposition that a later writer,
influenced by the desire to glorify his own nation, should give
such a portraiture of the two patriarchs, Isaac as well as Ja
cob ? His object is manifestly a far higher one — to set forth the
honour of Jehovah, the majestic display of which prevails here
throughout ; but the persons themselves are all the more brought
before us in their entire human weakness and sinfulness ; showing
that the writer must be one who regards only the truth of history,
without following any selfish aims, (2,) The benedictions, De
Wette farther says, are evidently invented ; the relation of the two
nations is so plainly expressed in them (comp. 2 Sam. vi. 14, 2
Kings viii. 20), that we must assign this mythus to the period sub
sequent to Joram. But, if we apply this principle consistently, to
what period shall we have to refer the predictions, in which it is
announced to Abraham, that all nations should be blessed in him ?
The prediction here, however, is evidently a recapitulation of those
made to Abraham : that theocratic blessings of a spiritual kind
are also spoken of is clear from the words, " cursed be those who
curse thee, &c." xxvii. 29 ; so that the blessing given to Jaocb em-

192 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
braces not merely a single fact in the history of Edom or Israel, but
the whole theocratic history according to its internal nature and
profoundest signification, by which Jerusalem is made the queen of
all cities, and Canaan the head of all lands. Thus the declaration
concerning Edom's fate contains a representation of the essential
nature and character of the people, in which they resembled their
founder, and in that also should Ue their success, which should be
merely of an external kind : ""by thy sword shalt thou support thy
self — and it shall come to pass, because thou art restless,' thou
shalt shake off his yoke." Thus this prediction also has a univer
sal character, and an individual fact in the history of this people
appears only as a necessary consequence flowing from their radical
tendencies. Eegarding the prediction from this point of view, we
must admit that it occupies here the most suitable position. (3.)
The intrigue, says De Wette, is improbable : it is a very clumsy
piece of masquerade. Granting the latter part of the assertion, the
improbabiUty of the circumstance by no means follows. The de
ception practised on the father appears so well accounted for, and
his doubts are so little concealed, that none but the most arbitrary
hypercriticism could attack this portion of the narrative. De
Wette^ also contradicts himself: e. g. here he regards it as impro-
b.{ible, that Esau was rough, but at p. 118, on the contrary, he de
clares this to be a frequent pecuUarity of red-haired men. (4.)
"An etymology also is not wanting: i'^J^i is here derived from
2hv-" This derivation is one given previously ; it is not a new
etymology that is spoken of, but merely an allusion to the name
Jacob : comp, e. g. 1 Sam. xxv. 25, where a similar paronomasia
occurs. Ch. xxviii. One incident in this narrative forms a sufficient
pledge of its high antiquity ; the erection of a stone as a sacred me
morial (niJflD)' ^""^ the anointing of it (ver. 18.). No where else
T " —
in the Old Testament do we find this usage countenanced ; but the
law prohibiting nil2J?2 i" general, as belonging to heathen wor
ship (comp. Ex. xxui. 24, xxxiv. 1 3 ; Lev. xxvi. 1 ; Deut. xii. 3,
xvi. 22) confirmed the practice of employing the word n!l2D' "o^"
1 Comp. with this the characteristic description of the disposition of the Edomitish
people in Josephus DeB, Jud. iv. 15: 0opu/3w5£s koX aTaKToi/ £0i/o5, a'sl te puTitupov
wpAs T& Kiv^fiaTa Kal jLtETO/SoXaTs ')^aXpov, Trpifi oXiy-rtv 6k KoXaKslaif Ttitv SiOfiivtau
T& oirXa Kivoip xal KtiBiiirip e£s koprriv sis xds iropaTaJeis lirayontvov, *

OF GEN. XXVI. — XXXVIII, 193
stantiy in a bad sense (Hos. iii. 4.). The custom itself besides,
receives its explanation from the heathen rite of the consecration of
sacred stones, which, from being general in the East — as the name
BatTTjKia is of Semitic origin, and is certainly not found in the
narrative by accident ('^^^-^1^) ; comp, Sanchon, ap, Euseb, Pr.
Ev. i. 10 — spread thence into Greece.' With regard to the He
brews, therefore, that sacred usage belongs entirely to the patriarchal
age, which alone completely explains the freer character which it
exhibits, in contrast to the necessary legal restrictions belonging to
a later period, while it is impossible to conceive how a later age in
general could come to attribute an act of that kind to the Pa
triarch, by which it would have been making him an idolater.
Farther, we shall also find the name Bethel here employed to be
quite appropriate, as one, which in this sense had already obtained
a much more general reception. Thus we have no occasion to
think of a peculiar etymological object, which in itself would be
suspicious (De Wette, p. 124) : on the contrary the name was al
ready of so common occurrence, that it excludes the thought of
laborious invention, and we shall see farther on, that xxxv. 1, ff.
is in perfect harmony with it. It is besides to be remarked that the
narrator here speaks of Jacob lighting only on aplace, not on any
city ; yet he adds, that it was the situation of the city whose name
had long been known in his time as Luz (ver. 19.). This gives us
a remarkable glimpse of the time of the Patriarch, when the city
Luz, which certainly lay in the neighbourhood of Bethel (taking
that appellation in its narrower sense),"' was not yet in existence ;
and of the time of the narrator, at which there was here the an
cient Canaanitish city of Luz, which we meet with in this place in
the age of Joshua ; so that we are here led quite to the standing-
point of the Mosaic composition of the book.
De Wette, however, is of opinion that the dream is too " beauti
fully ingenious," " clever," and " philosophical" to be attributed to
Jacob, and not rather to a later Hebrew poet. But Von Bohlen,
p. 283, on the contrary, regards the fiction as a purely sensuous
one ; and Hartmann, p, 430, calls the whole conception utterly un
worthy. But we would only put this question, in the first place :
1 Comp. e.g, Pausan. x. 24, 5 : XiOos iffrli/ oxi p.iya^ (in Delphi) toutou ual kXatov
otTitnipai KOTaxiovtri. Theophr. char. Eth. 17,
2 See Josh, xvi, 2. Rosenmiiller, Alterthumsk, ii. 2, p. 140. Gesenius, Thes. p. 194.
N

191 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
Is the idea which undeniably lies at the foundation of it (see ver, 1 5),
" behold I am with thee" &c,, the intimate conjunction in which
Jehovah stands with his own people, the race beloved and chosen
by him, one that is foreign to Genesis ; is it not rather the funda
mental thought of this book, as is expressly declared in ver. 13?
and secondly. Is the clothing of this idea, God's connection with
the earth by means of his messengers (angels) novel, and foreign
to what we discover in all the more ancient documents of the He
brew faith ? Here also we require only to inspect the present
book, as well as all the books of the following period, to recognise
the complete accordance of this passage with that belief which
is common to them all. It is then incomprehensible how it should
be objected to on this ground. Farther, it has been already shown
that the whole of De Wette's view as to this being a mythus in
vented for giving distinction to Bethel, must be set aside as
groundless, Chs. xxix. — xxxi. Our record now informs us vrith a simple can
dour, which is an additional pledge of its historical truth, of the
events that transpired during Jacob's abode in Mesopotamia. The
author sketches for us the manners and mode of life of that age in
such a way, as admits of no suspicion of his having added fictitious
decorations. It would therefore be an undertaking of some diffi
culty to show why the narrator should represent Jacob as acquiring
the possession of considerable wealth in this particular way. At
first, indeed, Jacob's conduct strikes us as being somewhat sur
prising : ch. xxx. displays the prudential side of his character, and
it is not till we come to ch. xxxi, that we are in a condition to esti
mate his conduct properly. But this never is the mode of narration
pursued by an author, who is anxiously concerned about an apolo
getic object in what he writes. Our record gives an exact ac
count of the means, involved in the nature of the thing, which Jacob
employs, but as little is it silent concerning the active agency of God
in the matter. It is only by taking both into account that the
meaning of the narrative becomes quite clear to us : it is quite in
telligible in its natural connexion (for the means employed by
Jacob are by no means " doubtful," but well sustained by facts,
and known in ancient times, which Bochart has already thoroughly
proved), but at the same time it is also justified by God's impor
tant procedure, which shows it to be worthy of its place in the in-

OF GEN. XXVL  XXXVIII. 196
troductory part of Israelitish history. Apart from this latter fact,
it does not appear how the history in general could be sustained ;
but from that it derives high importance, while it tells us of the
sufferings of Jacob, of his patience, and of the aid afforded him by
God. But the particular manner in which this divine blessing is
revealed to Jacob, is quite in agreement with the life of patriarchal
times, and hence is so pecuUar, that invention, which must also be
marked by a connexion with later times and customs, cannot here
be thought of
Again, how should an inventive writer, supposing it was his in
tention to dignify the primitive history of his nation, come to
mention here that the sons of the Patriarch, the ancestors of the
twelve tribes, were not all alike descended from his proper wives ?
Would he have allowed that to pass without alteration ? Josephus
e. g. finds himself not a little annoyed by this fact : he calls
Bilhah and Zilpah depaTratvlBe'i, and says, BoijXai, fiev ovBa/MW,
viroTeTay/xivai, Be aurat? (Ant, i. 19,), With like impartiality he
mentions the use of the Dudaim (xxx, 14, ff.), on which Eosen
miiller (p. 463) remarks : " sanctitatem autem et verecundiam
Eachete non multum laudarit, qui ejus historiam sine partium
studio legerit, — Mores certe a patre non meliores edocta erat,
quippe qui filiam suam virginem inscio Jacobo prostituebat," He
even makes as little concealment of thefact that this family already
practised idolatrous worship, as the story of the abstraction of the
Teraphim shows ; comp. xxxv. 2 — 4. There among the objects
serving this purpose express mention is made of the Earrings
(qij2U)> which were employed as Talismans, but which occur no
where else in the Old Testament in this special sense. These then
are plainly indications which cannot be explained as recorded in a
later age than the Mosaic.
The only ground of any importance against this historical view
is the following : " the etymologies affixed to the names of Jacob's
sons are partly very forced, and all of them certainly invented."
De Wette, p. 128. The only example which he adduces of defec
tive etymology is the name ^nj^-^, which should naturally be ex
plained — " behold a son !" not considering that this very explana
tion is one that agrees exceedingly well with the words of Leah,
. 1 As e. g, Eosenmiiller, p. 456, correctly explains it : " videte ut mihi filium Deus
dederit et hoc me signo ostenderit non esse a se abjectam." N 2

196 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
This conclusion therefore is quite an over-hasty one. For that in
some of these names uncommon words should occur, is a thing not
to be wondered at, considering our Umited knowledge of the He
brew tongue, and affects a large number of proper names, by which
the stores of the Hebrew language may be enriched. Thus the
etymologies here only go to prove the exactness of the narrative.
Still stranger is the way in which it has been attempted to throw
su,spicion on the passage xxxi. 44—54. This is alleged to have
for its object the explanation of the name Gilead, which would be
more correctiy deduced from Gilead, a descendant of Manasseh's
(De Wette, p. 131) ; and the conferring honour on Mizpah (Von
Bohlen, p. 311.), But apart from the geographical errors of the
last-named learned writer, the contrary may here, with littie trouble,
be demonstrated from the text itself The mountains of GUead
are here plainly enough distinguished from the place of the cove
nant : the latter is called Gated, and appears nowhere else in the
Old Testament under that name. It must even be a matter of
doubt whether the name of this Mizpah, derived from that occasion,
is likewise found subsequently in the Old Testament, since nsjjj^
and nS!^ are appUed to so many localities, and according to the
present passage the name of this place would require to have the
article (j-js^aj-j). At any rate no other author makes mention of
a place, bearing at once both names of Galed and Mizpah. At
the same time this passage, by the description which it gives of
the covenant in a peculiarly ancient fashion, affords a new proof of
its antiquity.
In ch. xxxii. the advocates of the mythical explanation are still
more at a loss. It is certainly a remarkable section, but how mea
gre does it become when deprived of its deeper meaning. That
Mahanaim is not mentioned simply for the sake of the etymology,
as De Wette thought, has been recognized by Ewald (comp, d.
Gen. p. 245) : " the mention of the city (he says) is indispensable
for the understanding of what follows ; the etymology is a mere
incidental matter." Besides, we are not told what should have
induced the fictitious writer of a late age to seek to give distinction
to this particular city here ; he had in fact no such purely ideal
object in view ; he regarded it as his highest theme to give a faith
ful report of history. The same remark applies to the local name
Peniel (the face of God) : who indeed can sunnose that a nlace

OF GEN. XXVI.— XXXVIII. 197
which brought such disgrace upon itself in Gideon's time (Judg.
viii.), and which was subsequently raised by Jeroboam to be one
ofthe chief cities of the revolted kingdom of Israel (1 Kings xii.
25), supplied any matter for arbitrarily connecting such fictions
with it ?' It must be confessed the mythical explainers here find
themselves in a strange dilemma, from which they can escape only
by admitting the historical nature of the thing. In proof of the
truth of the fact that Jacob wrestled with God, the author himself
adduces an old custom which derived its origin from it ; could he
here also have ventured to indulge invention without the fear of
being detected ? For the fact is one with which the oldest prophets
are acquainted, and which bears the highest significance (Hos. xii.
4, 5.). The prophet would have shown little experience in address
ing such admonitions to Israel, had he referred to newly-invented
tales, which were not warranted to every one as primitive sacred
history. And how is the fact itself assailed ? Analogies and par
allels are here too unsuitable to be employed in explanation of it ;
for it is possessed of a very pecuUar importance in Israelitish his
tory in general. Eecourse is therefore had to some such shift as
Hartmann employs : " Who does not see in the device by which
there is brought out of the name of Israel, Jacob's contest with the
invisible Jehovah, who is likewise represented*as being seen face to
face (which embellishment is squeezed out of the name of a place),
a similar invention of human conceit and senseless conceptions of
the supreme being ?" This pseudo-exegesis of our age might well
be put to shame by the words of Herder, (which remain true, even
when the objective character of the nan'ative is maintained, as by
us, throughout) : " That which is most beautiful in the occurrence,
however, is its internal meaning : the anxious patriarch was to be
convinced how little occasion he had to be afraid of Esau, since he
had overcome Jehovah by prayer, and Elohim by his arm." In
deed, to discover conceit and absurdity in this idea, betokens a
shallowness of dogmatic judgment that is almost incomprehensible.
Chaps, xxxiii. and xxxiv. The more closely that these two
chapters are shown to be connected, the more difficult must it prove
for those who regard them as consisting of pure invention, to make
1 It is quite absurd of Stahelin, p. 110, to suppose that the city was not built till after
the division of the land, because it is not mentioned in the book of Joshua ; and still
more so to suppose that in ver, 81 a city of that name is already spoken of.

198 " HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
out a common ideal principle from which these narratives have pro
ceeded. But we find ourselves deceived in this expectation. Von
Bohlen, though decidedly devoted to that view, says nothing of ch,
xxxiii., but that the author attempts to prove the lawful claim to
Sichem, while the giving of a name to Succoth is interwoven with
the account. Nothing farther is stated as to what connection with
this object that part of the section has which treats of Jacob's rela
tion to Esau, and forms evidently a chief point in it : it is merely
said, that the author is unable to conceal a certain fear ofthe neigh
bouring Edomites, Strange ! How does this same alleged fear
agree at all with the juridical object displayed in the claims to Si
chem ; and, in general, what connection is there between Edom and
Sichem or Samaria ? According to p. 325, however, ch, xxxiv. is
expressive of an animosity towards that city, and also of its reli
gious importance, as a Levitical and free city : its inhabitants were
of heathen descent (where is this so much as hinted ?) — they were
not proper Jews by birth, but had been subsequently circumcised,
and had been severely punished at that time by the ancients. Not
to remind one how well such an " animosity" towards the city, on
the one hand, and, on the other, the defence of its honour, can be
conceived as being both united in the object of the writer, we have
a contradiction of th^ above in the remark of Von Bohlen, p. 326,
that this narrative has been invented to explain the expressions of
an older poem concerning Levi and Simeon, Gen. xUx. 5, 6, .and
that it is pervaded by the most violent reUgious intolerance of the
latest age. Here, again, is contradiction upon contradiction ! For
the object of the narrator would then necessarily be one opposed to
the two patriarchs, Simeon and Levi, whose violation of the com
pact and perjury are here rebuked, and not to the Sichemites, who
here appear besides in a favourable Ught — but how then can there
be an expression of religious intolerance here ? How is this at all
imaginable, especially in connection with the mention of Levi ?
But, in particular, the poetical passage in Gen, xUx. 5, 6, that
has been alluded to, forms a striking confirmation of the narrative.
For it necessarily presupposes such a fact as the present. In ad
dition to this, the main point of the fact contains an internal proof
of its truth. The brethren of Dinah ground the reason of their
rage and their cruelty to Sichem, on Sichem's having dishonoured
their sister. The only punishment attached to this by the subse-

OF GEN, XXVI. — XXXVIII. 199
quent Mosaic enactment was, that the seducer must marry the se
duced (Michaelis, Mos. Eecht v. p. 296, ff.). Now, since Sichem is
not only eager to do this, but offers also the purchase-money and
the bridal present, as well as submits to circumcision, we have evi
dently a custom here which stands independent of that legal appoint
ment, and on that account cannot be considered as the later inven
tion of an author who was guided by the enactments of the theocratic
law ; for the brethren regard the act of Sichem as a deed of infamy
(^-j'^^j, see Clericus on Deut. xxii. 21.). If we compare now with
the view that is here attributed to the brethren that of the East, and
of the Arabians in particular,' it is plain that the former, in this
case, occupy as yet a similar standing-point, which must appear
quite in conformity with their age. — Another part of the historical
character ofthe document lies in the following circumstance. When
Abraham came into this district, there was as yet no city in it (xii.
6), and the first mention of the city is in Jacob's time, on this occa
sion ; and since the son of Hamor was called Sichem, it is not im
probable, as Eosenmiiller, Alterthumsk. ii. 2, p. 1 1 9, remarks, that
Hamor founded this city, and named it after his son. This re
ceives a remarkable confirmation from Judges ix. 28, where Gaal
says to the Sichemites — " why do ye not rather serve the descend
ants of Hamor, the father of Sichem ?" from which it is plain that
this family, which had certainly still maintained itself here, along
with other Canaanitish inhabitants of the land, as appears from the
prevalence of the worship of Baal, was regarded as the renowned
ruling hereditary family of the place f and hence Hamor is there
expressly designated the father of Sichem. When the accounts we
have agree together so well, there appear no grounds whatever for
the doubts of De Wette (p. 135), and Von Bohlen (p. 326.). They
serve also to explain much in our document, which otherwise would
startle us, but now tends to verify it still further. This is especially
true of the circumstance, that we must represent to ourselves the
place as an insignificant one, just in its rise, since Simeon and Levi
with their adherents venture to attack it in the manner described ;8
1 Comp. Abulf. Hist. Anteisl. p. 120. Fleischer. Schultens, Monum. vet. Ar. p. 35.
Koran Sur. xvi. 59—61. Rosenmiiller, A. u. N. Morgenl. i. p. 170.
2 The explanation of the passage given by Studer (Comment, p, 252, ff,) is vei-y
forced, and abandons the sunple sense without sufficient reasons.
3 Which is besides designated, verse 25, a bold undertaking (has), so that it is an
erroneous assertion of Von Bohlen that the writer had the tribes in his view.

'iOO HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
connefcted with which also is the easy explanation which this af
fords of the prompt acquiescence of a small city in the desire to have
themselves circumcised, and their carrying this so quickly into ef
fect ; in which, besides, is to be taken into account, that that reli
gious custom must readily as such have obtained admission among
the Sichemites, according to the mode of thinking prevalent in anti
quity. Finally, the remark of Ewald (Kompos. d. Gen. p, 248)
that our author in verse 7 transfers the colouring of his own times
to that of Jacob's sons, is quite correct, since the phrase referred to
— "wrought folly in Israel" — is a Mosaic one (Deut, xxii. 21),
aud to its introduction here is to be ascribed its frequent use in the
later books.
Ch, xxxv. Here, it is said, we have " local legends refiecting
the age of the narrator" (Von Bohlen, p. 332) : we are curious to
learn what age this may be. Leaving Succoth, Jacob arrives at
Sichem, where he puts away the foreign gods : the tree, under which
he buried them, should be one well known in the subsequent history.
And, in fact, the next occasion on which we meet with Sichem and
its oak, is Joshua xxiv. 26, which passage certainly stands in the
closest connection with the present. Joshua admonishes the people
to put away from them the gods, which their fathers had served in
Mesopotamia (verse 14j 23), and the locality suppUed him with the
most significant occasion for this. As Jacob here put away from
his house the idolatry of Mesopotamia, so should it now be done by
Israel. Thus this latter narrative necessarily presupposes ours : an
important fact occurring immediately after the time of Moses is
founded upon it. This again brings us back by like necessity to
the Mosaic composition of the passage ; at that time it had fuU
significance to the people of God. The identity of this tree with
" the oak of the enchanters"' Jud. ix- 37, is a point hard to be de
fended : if admitted, it is still less intelUgible how this narrative was
made out of it ; but at Sichem there was certainly an oak-grove
(Gen, xn, 6 ; Deut, xi. 30), and idolatry was there quite at home
even in the time of the Judges : but how does it follow, then, that
it is the same tree that is referred to ?
At Bethel Deborah dies, and is buried under " the oak of mourn
ing" (jnlDS ^I^TN)' verse 8, This tree is mentioned nowhere else
[I Called in our version " the plain ofMeonenim.—TR,]

OF GEN. XXVI. — XXXVIII. 20 1
in the Old Testament ; so that no particular distinction appears to
have been connected with it in later times ; perhaps it became quite
unknown. Von Bohlen, however, p. 334, thinks that " the oak of
mourning" was identical with " the palm tree of Deborah," Jud. iv.
5, which may also have suggested a name for the nurse. What
must the arbitrary genius of fiction have done, even to make oaks
out of palm-trees !
From Bethel, Jacob arrives at Bethlehem. Now Von Bohlen is
of opinion, p. 336, that Bethlehem acquired importance for the first
time as David's birthplace, and that on that account memory will
ingly dweUs upon it. If we look to 1 Sam. x. 2, we find that, pre
viously to David Eachel's grave appears as a place universally
known ; we are thus referred back again to the present passage,'
as the earUer one. In addition to this, the prophecies of Micah
(iv, 8, V. 1, 2), as well as those of Jeremiah (xxxi. 15) refer exactiy
to this passage, and have regard to this occurrence of antiquity.'^
How can that circumstance be explained ? It is manifest that with
the later writers the reminiscence connected with the patriarchal age
far exceeds in weight and importance that relating to David's origin.
Thus we are quite thrown back on the very earliest accounts, which
later writers here had before them. The situation of the " tower
ofthe flock" {Edar v, 21) is quite unknown to us. Jacob's first
born here commits the deed of infamy. Why does the so-called
fictitious writer lay the scene of this act just at this place? Be
sides, how comes he at all to " invent" such an occurrence ? " To
account for the paternal curse (xUx. 3)," says Von Bohlen, p. 332,
But what gave rise to that ? Whence this dislike to the Eeuben
ites in general, supposing it belonged; to a later period ? We see
that this pseudo- criticism abandons us just where we most desire a .
solution. Every circumstance in the subsequent history points to
a fact which shall account for it. Here we have such a fact, sim
ply and briefly presented : let the attempt be made to prove the im
possibility of its occurrence,
Ch. xxxvi. We have here a particularly important section, which
gives us an account of Edom's most ancient history, and the critical
examination of which leads at the same time to an important
1 Comp. ver. 20. It is to be considered how, in ancient times, graves generally were
spared and held in honour, Winer, Eeallex, i. p, 522.
2 See on Micah, Heugstenberg, Christol, 3, p. 276,294, 330.

5202 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
conclusion as to the genuine historical character of tiie present book.
( I .) In the first place, the whole character of this genealogy speaks
for its truth, since every attempt to point out an artificial plan iu
the invention of it, must be an utter failure. Even Von Bohlen, p.
343, says : " With regard to most of tho names through the whole
ofthe chapter, no reason at all appears for the invention of them."
But still more than the names, tho scattered historical notices,
which have no light thrown upon tliem by any subsequent history,
and in part are very obscure, as in vers, 24, 35, are incomprehen
sible, supposing them to be the work of invention ; or such state
ments as, that the sons of Oholibamah, and not the grandsons, as in
the case of the rest, became princes of tribes ; or so careful a dis
tinction as that which is made between tho heads of tribes appointed
immediately by Esau himself, and those who subscquenUy raised
themselves to that honour, (2,) The only knowledge we have of tiio
Horites is from the Pentateuch, from which we hero loarn, in accor
dance with Deut. n. 12, 22, that they wore the original inhabitants
of the land, and were subsequently, but still in the aute-Mosnio
period, expelled by the Edomites. Hero now we have an exact
account of the primitive constitution of this people, which subse
quently fell altogether into obhvion. (3,) Tho lineal constitution
of the Edomites is not less pecuUar. They are first under princes
of tribes, and then under kings, without however recognizing au
hereditary dynasty, which agrees perfectly with the character of
this race (see EosenmuUer, Alterthumsk. 8, p, 70,). Tho princes of
tribes appear here under the very peculiar name Q'^o'^M' which in
its present sense is known only to the Pentateuch,^ and this dis
tinguishes them exactiy from others, tiie it^^^ 'h'^'tA'^ .Exod. xv.
15, in conjunction with whom mention is also made of the kings of
Edom (Num. XX. 14.), If we look now to thenoxt subsequent period,
in which the Hebrews carac in contact with tiie Edomites, wo find
them then with a totally different political constitution : under So
lomon a hereditary dynasty already exists in l^dom (Tj'^Jin yrp),
1 Kings xi. 14. Farther, the number of tho Edomitish kings
1 Comp, Ewald, Komp, d. Gen, p, 204, 256.
2 The meaning ofthe word was afterwards quite mistaken. Soo Ilongstonberg, Clirls-
tol, 2, p. 282,
3 LXX, correctly, nrX'"'T" M{ua;3(T(ui/, Afterwiirds tbiH expression Is found in an
other sense, See my Commout, on the nunli of Daniel, p. 20.

OF GEN. XXVI. — XXXVIII. 203
here mentioned is one that is quite suitable, so that J. D. MichaeUs
justly calls the opposite assertion rash and wild (Einl. p. 161.).
Yet the expression : " before there reigned any king over the chil
dren of Israel," ver. 31, is said to lead us unquestionably to a post-
Mosaic period ;' the answer frequently made to this, that the
document here refers to earlier promises, being treated as a mere
make-shift. " Is it at all imaginable (says Stahelin), that in a
purely historical account an appeal should be made to a previous
prophecy, and that the time, at which that should receive its fulfil
ment, should be assumed as a point from which to reckon back."
But how can that be regarded as being in itself unimaginable, which
is the general custom of the Hebrew historians, and of our author
in particular, who lays so much stress on the divine promises ? But
here in the very account of Esau's prosperity, we have an unmis-
takeable reference to the earlier announcement xxv. 23, for it is
plainly its object to point out the greatness of Edom, and his
growth into an important nation. Why should it then surprise us,
if regard is had to the promises given to Israel ? This was almost
unavoidably necessary, after what had immediately preceded. Jacob
was deeply humbled before Esau ; his heart was then cheered anew
by fresh divine consolation, and his attention was directed to what
Jehovah had formerly declared, that kings should spring from him,
xxxv. 1 1 . Thus the author might well say here ; — before, accord
ing to that divine promise, a king reigned over his people, Edom
was already a powerful state, governed by kings. Indeed if we
keep more closely in our view the prophecy xxv. 23, the remark of
Musculus wiU appear, in reference to the Mosaic composition, very
much to the point : " Dictum erat a Deo, major serviet minori. At
dum minor servit in jEgypto, major regnat in Seir. Sic com-
paratae sunt divinse promissiones." This is certainly an important
consideration for the right estimation of our author, who everywhere
pays attention to the course ofthe divine promises, and accords them
unconditional belief. It is also at bottom the opposite of that be
lief, which leads our opponents to make such an assertion : they
regard the promises as concocted post eventura, and thus one error
proceeding from dogmatic prejudice and a contemptuous rejection
1 Comp. e, g. of the most recent writers, Stahelin, p, 109, Von Bohlen, p, 69, and
others

HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
Ofthe divine plan of education, necessarily brings after it another
resting on a Uke basis.
4. Again, both the credibihty and the Mosaic composition of the
document are partioulariy confirmed by ver. 39. The author names
Hadar as the last king of Edom : he not only does not mention
his death, but he gives us also exact information as to his wife's
descent. Thus this king is clearly discovered to be a contemporary
of the historian. Von Bohlen, p. 342, thinks that the fourth-
named king here is Hadad, a contemporary of Solomon's (1 Kings
XI. 14), and that our document thus betrays its age certainly in a
very simple manner.' But Hadad's attempt to make himself master
again of the throne of his fathers, was most probably a fruitiess
one, at any rate its consequences lasted but a very short time.
This conclusion is rendered necessary because of 1 Kings xxu. 48,
where it is expressly said, that there was no king in Edom, but
only a (tributary) Satrap (under-king) ; comp. EosenmuUer, 1. c.
p. 71. Our author could not possibly have said in that case,
" Samlah reigned in his stead," ver. 36, This tben makes it clear,
that the section in general was not composed in tbe age of David
and Solomon ; but, on the contrary, as the only instance, in which
the Israelites came in contact with am independent king of Edom at
an earUer period, was in the age of Moses, king Hadar must indis
putably have been a contemporary of Moses.
Chap, xxxviii. Here also we have testimonies in abundance of
the internal truth of the history. We do not at all understand,
how Von Bohlen, p. 363, who calls every thing here, even to the
genealogy, a fiction, can represent the design of it to be the intro
duction of the ancestors of the royal line of David into the earUest
age, as being sprung from the tribe of Judah. The episode, in his
opinion, is conceived in a genuine Jewish spirit. This, however, is
evidently contradicted by the consideration that, if such a fiction is
to be explicable as betraying a " genuine Jewish" spirit, it must ap
pear, as in all cases of the kind where the glory of a favourite objgct
is sought, in the pedigree assigned to David. But how shall we rc"
concile this with a main incident in the narrative, Judah's Canaan
itish marriage ? It is plainly in our author's intention to show how
~l This combination is the more rash, as that name was certainlyoneof frequent occur
rence, being the name of a Syrian deity. See Hitzig on Isaiah, p. 2(,5.

OP THE HISTORY OF JOSEPH, 205
hateful such a marriage was to Jehovah, hence it is punished in the
most decided manner,' Is it a false partiality that appears in this,
or is it not rather a trae and unprejudiced narration ?
The law concerning the Levirate, Deut. xxv. 5, was entirely
founded on ancient family usage ; and the supposition of such
usage is the more necessary because it is only thus that it admits of
being properly conjoined with the rest of the Mosaic marriage-laws :
comp. Benary, 1. cit. p. 16, sq. We have then in this history an
instance of a usage deeply founded in family -relations, the antiquity
of which is also evidenced by the fact, that the marriage of the
widow appears here to be a matter of unconditional necessity, and
in no way to be dispensed with, which it might, at a subsequent pe
riod, according to the Mosaic ordinance. The same high antiquity
is not less evidently displayed in the way in which Judah here brings
Tamar to trial. " Vix est dubium (remarks Eosenmiiller, Schol. p.
590) fuisse ante constitutam Hebreeorum rempublicam judicia in
liberos penes patres familias, ut olim apud Eomanos, v. Liv, ii. 41.
Prseterea Scenitee sen Nomades, quales Jacobus et fiUi, non pare-
bant Phceuicibus, sed liberi prorsus suique juris illos tractus pera-
grabant, ut igitur Juda, familiae suae princeps et summus ejusdem
magistratus, ultimum suppUcium in Thamarem nurum ipse decernere
potuerit ; cf Michaelis, de Nomad. Pal, § 3, comment, i. p, 213,

§ 21, CONTINUATION. THE HISTORY OF JOSEPH. GEN. XXXVII. 
XXXIX, — XLVII,
The tradition of the Hebrew nation having at one time been in
Egypt gave occasion, it is said, to this fiction, in which no other
portion of truth need be recognized, than simply that undeniable
tradition. This is the judgment passed by the latest school of cri
tics on this section (Von Bohlen, pp, 349, 412, 419, ff.). What was
the object of tbe fiction ? " That it might seem that it was not in
the character of wandering shepherds, and by mere accident, that
the children of Israel travelled down into the fruitful valley of the
Nile ; but, to give their march a resemblance to a triumphal entry,
as they were invited there by one of their own relatives, the favourite
of his father." The fictionist's object was apologetical ; he wrote to
1 Comp. Benary, De Hebraeorura leviratu, p. 16,

206 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
advance the glory of his nation, embeUishing their history with the
marvels of his fancy.
If we take as an historical basis the fact ofthe descent into Egypt,
in this its simplest (as alleged) fundamental element, important
concessions are at once involved in it, which lead us to regard it as
an inconsistency that our opponents should have beUeved themselves
obliged to retain this fundamental historical element as such. There
lies, indeed, at the bottom of this inconsistency, the truth, which
forces itself irresistibly into view, that without such a basis the whole
of IsraeUtish history is so completely annihilated, that it must be
consigned to the domain of fancy, while the historian, if he wishes
to exhibit positive results, must play the part of a romance- writer.
Hence even such investigations as those of Vatke, Bibl. Th. i. p.
1 84, come back to the admission of this fact, since otherwise they
must look round in vain for any historical point of support.
But then there arises here precisely this important question, how
did Israel come into Egypt ? — a question which has been evaded,
indeed, but a reply to which must, on our part, be as decidedly in
sisted on. How comes it that a poor pastoral people, who from
their mode of life were regarded with contempt, meet with a willing
reception in this foreign state, which was already well-organized ?
How is it to be explained that they should continue there such a
long space of time, and that too not in such a way as to surrender
their own pecuUar existence, by mingling themselves with the in
habitants of the country into one nation, but persevering in the pos
session of their independent nationality ? Since in general to a
constitution such as the Egyptian was fi'om the most ancient times,
the nomadic life and pursuits constantly formed an antagonist ele
ment, which it could never quite adopt into itself (Strabo, p, 1 142,
Casaub. Heliodor. Aeth. i. 5), such a connection as that of the Is
raelites with the Egyptians becomes the more remarkable and
surprising. Hence Hartmann (p. 433) also confesses that it is impossible,
if we would not annihilate all historical belief, to deny that Joseph
was in a state of slavery in Egypt, from which he gradually (? ?)
rose to the dignity of Grand Vizier. A series of facts such as are
here related, is necessary in order to explain to us that one fact,
the abode in Egypt. But still it is thought impossible that they
could have that form which they bear in the narrative ofthe Pen-

OF THE HISTORY OF JOSEPH. 207
tateuch. Attempts have been made to represent the history as in
correct, partly in general, and partly in its details.
Von Bohlen commences his argumentation on this subject with
suppositions of a very strange kind. The names of the patriarchs
are to be viewed as pure abstractions, which a later period turned
into persons, and introduced as acting : this must more espe
cially be the case with Joseph, because " he is only the father of
two tribes, which the writer has present to his mind in all their
importance, and views with an overweening regard." This import
ance may certainly be admitted in reference to Ephraim, but by no
means in respect of Manasseh ; while it is difficult to explain such
a regard in an author, who is said to be guided by partial Levitical
principles, and would thus be inimically disposed to Ephraim : be
sides it is not they, the founders of these tribes, but Joseph their
father, who is brought forward in our history ; so that the narrator
is charged with an intention of which he gives no indication. And
what a conclusion it is ; Joseph's sons are the names of two tribes,
consequently Joseph himself is a mere abstraction ! There is cer
tainly also a difficulty overlooked here, which presses upon our op
ponents. It must be regarded as a fact with which the nation at
large was necessarily well acquainted, that Ephraim and Manasseh,
being the grandsons of Jacob, did not possess as tribes an origi
naUy equal right with his sons : — how should they then have been
satisfied in reference to our record in general, on the one side, to
admit such rights as belonging to a divided family line, and, on the
other side, to allow their rights, supposing them to be differentiy
founded, to be accounted for and represented in this manner ?
Von Bohlen next makes the remark here, which he frequentiy
does (comp. pp, 351, 339, 370), that the chronology betrays the
fiction ; observing that the sexagenarian Joseph is here made a
youth of seventeen years of age- This calculation assuredly rests
upon a supposition, which proves the writer's animosity to our
book, and at the same time equally proves him to be wanting in
regard for tbe truth. The only chronological statement in our
book, which can guide us here, is that in xlvii. 9, that Jacob was
130 years old when he stood before Pharaoh, and from that we
must reckon backwards, in order to obtain a safe date. From this
it results that Joseph was born in Jacob's 91st year, for thirty nine
years had elapsed since then, which is the only computation that

S08 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
agrees also with xxxvii. 2, and since Jacob remained twenty years
in Mesopotamia, and Joseph was bom there, it must have been a
considerable time after Esau's marriage, which took place in his
fortieth year, that Jacob left Canaan (xxvi. 34), which every
thing here also tends to shew (xxvi. 35, and the occurrence ch.
xxvii.). But our chronologer reckons differently. According to
him, Jacob must have been forty years of age when he went out of
Canaan into Mesopotamia, of which nothing is mentioned ; he
must have been sixty when he left it again ; and since Isaac died
180 years old (xxxv. 29) Jacobmust have spent on thejourney from
Charan to his father — the period of sixty years. In this way it
is possible everywhere to discover the most nonsensical chronology,
if one invents for himself the most arbitrary dates.'
Von Bohlen farther complains of the way in which events are
accounted for by dreams and their interpretation. " These, how
ever, are undeniably shown to be fictitious, by their repetition, their
symbolical nature, and the numerical regularity of eleven stars and
sheaves, three vines and baskets, seven kine and ears of corn." Do
Wette, p. 158, ff,, thinks that Joseph's own dreams may very well
be explained as the offspring of his own aspiring mind, but that we
must regard the more doubtfully his skill in expounding dreams,
which is made the lever of the entire history, such a foreknowledge
of the future not being expUcable in a natural way. If this view is
meant to affirm in general, that a revelation from God by dreams
can have no real existence, it takes up a position that is altogether
uncritical, as it abandons the examination of the facts by which
alone the reality of such a thing can be made out, and opposes them
by an a priori argument, which is quite destitute of value, because
it cannot show that there exists a contradiction between divine re
velation in general, and this particular form of revelation ; and con
sequently issues in the denial of divine revelation in general. We
can, therefore, pay no regard here to the denial of a revelation by
dreams, and the possibility of understanding such a revelation, but
only to the particular way in which those dreams are here intro
duced. The theocratic idea of dreams is quite a peculiar one, as it
makes a strict distinction between true and false dreams,^ and hence
it wants those notions which among the heathens are most essen-
1 Comp. on the contrary Eanke, 1. c. pp. 28, 29.
2 Comp. Num, xii, 6; Deut, xiii 2, ff.; Jerem. xxiii: 20 : ff.. xxix, 8 : Zech, x. 2.

THE HISTORY OF JOSEPH. 209
tiaUy connected with that kind of prodigy.^ In our narrative, how
ever, it is the less possible to overlook this idea, since on the one
hand all the occurrences connected with Joseph, both in his con
dition, and, in particular, his enlightenment in reference to the fu
ture, are traced to the aid of Jehovah, the living God (xxxix. 2 ;
xl. 8; xU. 16, 28, 32, 39 ; xiv. 5-9 ; 1. 19, 20) ; and, on the other
hand, this divine procedure, this special providence, relating pri
marily to one individual, includes a higher meaning of more general
range, connected with the preparation of the Theocracy. It is this
characteristic that gives our narrative its complete truth in the won
derful supernatural relations involved in it, since its truth is de
pendent on, and involved in, that of the Theocracy itself, that also
being a fact of an entirely supernatural order. Every attack upon
the former must at the same time be an attack upon the reality of
that divine institution. But as relates to the form oi the dreams,
that is certainly to be viewed as allied with, and subject to, the his
torical circumstances in which they appear. Each dream discloses
a pecuUar kind of symbols, invariably marked with the impression
of the national or individual mind, to which also the divine reve
lation attaches itself in the way of condescension and illustration.^
It is from this point of view, therefore, that we ought to estimate
the formal construction of these visions ; and it is impossible to
explain how Von Bohlen can have performed this business, since
he speaks of their " symbolical nature" as throwing suspicion upon
it. We shall presently see reason for a contrary view, which will
show how every vision here answers exactly to the circumstances
and relations with which it stands connected.
The next charge advanced is against the particular details of the
history, as guilty of historico-geographical inaccuracies and errors,
as well as of improbable statements, that should clearly show it to
1 These include particularly the peculiar mythical view of dreams themselves, so far
as they are connected with mythical personages, and are even raised to the class of
mythi (by personification, &c.) — See Baur, Symb. ii. 2, p. 15, ff. ;— and also the view
that was held of the explanation of dreams, a faculty which, being mechanically attributed
to certain persons, was practised by them according to certain rales, like all magic
(dveipoiroXoL, dvetpocTKo-Troi), so far as men^concerned themselves to master the thing and
turn it to their own profit ; while, according to the theocratic view, dreams and their
interpretation are regarded as the free gift of divine grace, and in no way capable of being
confined by the narrow fetters of man's arbitrary will. Comp. Pareau, De myth, interpr.
p. 137, sq,
2 Comp. my Comment, on Daniel, p. 137, ff. O

210 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
be fiction. So the history of Joseph's youth (ch. xxxvii.) has been
harshly assailed on like grounds.
Hartmann, p. 435, remarks that the account of Joseph's conduct
to his brethren (xxxvii. ver. 2, ff.), is irreconcilable with the noble
and pious character of Joseph. For such criticism this is an im
portant concession ! For presently after this the " ideal " por
traiture of character forms a ground for the deduction that there is
a want of historical truth. But the combining of both classes of
phenomena by a just criticism would have led to the conclusion,
that our author is by no means attempting here (any more than in
the case of the other patriarchs) to set ideal delineations before us,
but makes his personages speak and act conformably to history.
V. Bohlen, however, has attempted to give the reason of this in
vention : " it may perhaps have contained an obscure reference
(sic !) to the mutual relations of the tribes and their political po
sition at the time (?) :" — only this " obscure reference" is quite ob
scure to us too, whereas we ought to expect a " clear reference"
in cases where an inventive writer is zealously pursuing certain
definite objects. Thus this criticism is shipwrecked — as its indefi
nite phrase, " it may perhaps, &c,," shows — on the rock of an en
deavour to point out the writer's object ; and we cannot explain to
ourselves this commencement of the narrative at all, unless we re
ceive it as an historical account.
It will be admitted by every one that Joseph's dream of the ho
mage paid him by the sheaves is well explained from the mode of
life belonging to that age ; but we must claim the same admission in
behalf of the vision of the sun, moon, and stars. That we should
regard it, however, as having to do with astrological notions, and with
the signs of the zodiac, can certainly hardly be justified, since it is
only single stars, not constellations (j-)1^J2 ^ Kings xxiu. 5 ; Job
xxxviu. 32) that are here spoken of, besides that the mention of
the sun and moon would not be suitable in that case. We should
rather adduce the representation, — widely spread in the most an
cient Oriental, as well as Grecian, system of symbols, — of distin
guished noble personages, princes, &c., under these figures, which
have become quite current and almost trivial in the later usage of
the East (comp. Num. xxiv. 1 7) ; and then this terminology
amongst a nomadic people, living constantly under the open sky,
as the Hebrew Patriarchs did, will not surprise us, especially when

OF THE HISTORY OF JOSEPH. 211
we have to regard the nomadic Arabs as the authors of the names
of the stars and of astronomical nomenclature, though certainly in
its most simple and primitive state (Ideler, iib. Urspr. u. Bed. d-
Sternnamen, p. 423, ff.). Again, on the opposite side, an unchro
nological statement is pointed out in the circumstance that the
dream requires the mention of his mother, which can refer only to
Eachel already deceased (V, Bohlen, p. 355.). But we are not
even at all necessitated to introduce Bilhah, as some expositors do,
in order to explain this circumstance : the mention of the moon
was demanded by the symboUcism of the dream; and as to Ja
cob, in his doubt and displeasure at it, asking whether indeed he
and the mother and brethren of Joseph should bow down to him,
that is merely the expression of the improbability which he attri
buted to the vision ; the question is therefore to be explained sim
ply by his adoption of the symboUcism of the dream : in the proper
historical account no mention is anywhere made of Eachel.
No confutation is needed of such an objection, as that the ac^
count appears inexact and confused, in Joseph's making a journey of
twenty [German] miles [about eighty EngUsh miles] to his breth
ren through all the native tribes of Canaan, and in his being
rightly directed by a stranger, without so much as telling him his
name (V. Bohlen, p. 353) — for it is impossible to determine what
amount of difficulty and danger the journey at that time had for
Joseph;' and it is evident that, in ver. 15 — 17, we have not the
whole of Joseph's conversation with the man who directs him aright,
the necessary filUng up being understood of itself; and cases of
that kind are to be found in every work of history. Not less
foolish is the remark on the narrator, that he makes Eeuben
not to have heard his brethren's proposal, without mentioning his
absence, which is necessarily implied in that fact, and therefore did
not require to be stated by itself (see Eanke, p. 259.). The mention
of the Ishmaelites and Midianites has been regarded as strange,
since they could not as yet be regarded as proper trading nations
(Hartmann, p. 436 ; Von Bohlen, p. 357,). Now, in the first
place, it is not an important nation at all that is here spoken of :
we do not so much as know how large the caravan was. But the
1 Besides it appears from the record itself that Canaan must not be thought of as be-
ing nearly so well peopled at that time as subsequently : see ver. 22, and Clericus
upon it.
0 2

S12 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
very circumstance, that the names IshmaeUtes and Midianites are
here used interchangeably, can be sufficiently explained only by the
fact, that the narrator here does not mean to lay any weight upon
the nation (as that could also be of no importance for his object),
but merely says that there were merchants (Ql"^nD ^^- ^®) *'°'^"
ing out of Arabia ; and it hardly admits of dispute that these nations
were known and famed in that character among the Hebrews in the
time of Moses : in particular they are introduced in Judg. viii. 24 as
such. Our author thus employs the current names of these nations,
as being most given to traffic, to denote Arabian merchants in
general, just as 12^23 ^° occurs in this wider sense (Job xl. 30 ;'
Prov. xxxi. 24 ; Hos. xii. 7 ; Is. xxiii. 8), without our being at all
warranted to infer thence the existence of the Canaanites in their
ancient condition.
It is thought improbable that the brethren should, " in so exces
sively rude and unfeeling a manner, send their father the blood
stained garment, and afterwards come to comfort him." (Von
Bohlen, p. 353.). We for our part take just the very opposite view
of this trait : the brethren continue true throughout to the character
hitherto assigned them. The way in which they act at Sichem, the
way in which Judah exhibits himself in the history of Tamar, Eeu-
ben's criminal connection with his father's concubine — these are
plainly such traits as give a faithful picture of the rudeness, and
even cruelty, displayed by the sons of Jacob. And even supposing
that we were not acquainted with those facts, that argument, as
resting on the mere supposition of a certain character, would prove
nothing. Von Bohlen's remark also on xxxvii. 36 deserves consideration.
He thinks that the statement concerning Potiphar may very well
have been borrowed by the writer from his own native institutions,
and intimates oftener than once that the existence of such an in
stitution in Egypt has first to be proved. He shows, in the first
place, that at the Hebrew court eunuchs had constantiy been em
ployed. The use of '^'v^q for courtier, in which sense it occurs in
this passage, as it does almost everywhere in the Old Testament,
could certainly not have arisen, had not the custom of castration
been previously known. For the primitive signification of the word
1 [In the Hebrew : in our English Bibles, xli. 6.]

OF THE HISTORY OF JOSEPH. 213
is undoubtedly an emasculated person, .^ That this custom was
known in the time of Moses, is plain from those passages in the
law that prohibit castration (Deut. xxiu. 2, comp. Levit. xxu. 24) ;
and its extensive spread in the East, as well as the referring of its
origin to Semiramis, testify to its high antiquity (Brissonius, De reg-
Pers. princ, p. 504.). The special office of this courtier is that of
captain of the body-guard; and though VonBohlen here also speaks
of this being an institution that requires to be proved, he has for
gotten that it belonged to the duties of the warrior-caste, to form
the body-guard of the king. A thousand Calasirians and Hermoty-
bians were annually required to perform this service at court, where
they enjoyed free support (Herod, ii. 30, 168 ; Heeren, Id., ii. 2,
p. 135, ff. 139.). Herodotus says : eVt Se eV e^tteS Kal Uepa-ecov
KUTa TaiiT^ al cjivXaical e'xpvatv, and this easily remarked simi
larity explains how, at a later time, the same expression was used of
foreigners, when invested with that dignity.2
Von Bohlen has nothing to bring against ch. xxxix. to prove it a
fiction, except the alleged unchronological statement conceming
Joseph's age, which has already been refuted. For the far-fetched
parallel of the story of Bellerophon must be declared by every in
teUigent enquirer, as by Winer, Eeal-WB, i,, p. 712, to be one that
leads to nothing. It is only in Hartmann, p. 438, that we find the
objections brought forward, that " it testifies against the truth of
the Uteral sense," that according to ver. 1 1 the people in Potiphar's
house were absent, and according to ver. 14, they were called for.
We should hke to know, in what other way the author should have
expressed himself; for a person who is present can hardly be called
for, and besides the people could not have been present. Farther^
n^iQ (i° '^*^ house) is especially the Gynoeceum, considered as a
particular part of the house, and on that account called even j-)i^
as is weU-known ; see 1 Kings vii. 8 ; Esth. U. 9. He also regards
it as an improbable thing, that Potiphar did not have Joseph im
mediately punished with death, instead of putting him in prison,
which we regard as remarkably natural, since Joseph was Potiphar's
1 The root 8^8 is related to Vfi eradicare, as 111IB and ¦\'i''^a See Hitzig, Heidelb.
Jahrb. 1830. 8, p, 821,
2 For it is never used of native captains of the body-guard ; comp. 2 Sam, viii, 18, xx,
23; 1 Kings iv. 4,

214 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
favourite. And what means have we at all of knowing the character
of the latter, so as to venture such a decision ?
There is much more speciousness in the objection, which is
particularly adduced by VonBohlen, p, 374, against ch, xl, (comp.
Vatke. Bibl. vol. i., p. 283), that the butier's dream contains an
important date for proving the recent age of the narrative, since it
supposes the existence of the vine in Egypt ; whereas it was not
till after Psammetichus, which was exactly about the time of
Josiah, that the cultivation of the vine was sparingly attempted
in the valley of the Nile, and it was not till after Psammetichus
that they began to drink wine in Egypt, Plutarch, de Is. et Osir.
6. As to the first assertion, it is decidedly altogether incor
rect. Herodotus indeed says ov yhp a-tjii elcn ev tt} X'^PV dp,ire-
Xot, ii. 77; but were we to take this' expression in its absolute
sense, he would be made to contradict himself (comp. ii. 37, 60),
and the context also evidently shows that he is speaking only of
one part of Egypt {Trjv aTreipofiivriv 'Alr^viTTov, ii. 77, init.) ; and
Heeren says correctly (1, cp, 362), " certainly however the vine must
have been confined to single high-lying districts." With this Strabo
also (xvii,, p. 799) and Diodorus Siculus (i. 36) agree; the latter
of whom makes the Egyptians ascribe the introduction of the cul
ture of vines to Osiris (comp. Tibul. Eleg. i. 8, Martian. Cap. u,,
p, 39), and so Pliny H. N. xiv. 9, and Athenaeus^i., p.'^33, who
even speak of several kinds of wine and praise it. So we find
representations on the monuments of vines and grapes, and of the
labours of gathering and treading the grapes (Heeren I. c. and Leo,
Universal- Gesch. i,, p, 437.). That the culture of the vine has
been very much neglected during the Mohammedan period can
readily be understood ; yet it is still to be found in abundance espe
cially about Lake Moeris (Belzoni, Narrative of the operations,
&c., p. 381), and excellent wine is to be had (Maileet, Descr. Ep.
8, p. 293, sq.). Thus then in Num. xx. 5, the vine rightly
appears among the productions of Egypt, and is also reckoned
among them in Ps. Ixxviii. 47,' cv. 33. It must certainly however
1 Where De Wette makes the following incorrect remark, p. 432, " the poet here
offends against history." Since, however, wines are not mentioned in Exodus in con
nection with the occurrences referred to, we might certainly also adopt the opinion that
there is here a transference to Egypt of agricultural circumstances proper to Palestine
(see Credner on Joel, p. 132.).

OF THE HISTORY OF JOSEPH. 215
be admitted to be probable that, in a country where wine is not ex
actly one of the most abundant productions, its use also should be
limited. The people drank a liquor prepared from barley (Her. ii.
77, and Bahr upon the passage, p. 657), and at a later period they
also used a sort of wine made of the fruit of the mulberry fig-tree
(AbdaUat., p. 1 9, De Sacy.). On the other hand, it appears to have
been a privilege of the priestly' order, that wine {oho<i a/.tTreA.w'o?)
was given to them \Jler, U. 37) ; indeed it was aUowed only to
them and to the king (who belonged to the priesthood), and itwas
only on certain feasts (Her. ii. 60) , and with express restriction to a
certain quantity (Creuzer, Fragm. Hist. Gr. Ant. p, 28, sq,), that
the people were permitted to taste it. In the present passage,
therefore, it should appear quite suitable, to find mention made of
the king's cup-bearer ; and the drinking of wine as must and
mixed with water,' as was commonly done in ancient times, agrees
very well with that moderate use of it. Now as to the passage
of Plutarch, which says, that the Egyptians drank no wine be
fore the time of Psammetichus, nor even used it in libations,
for they believed that it was hated by the gods, and that it
made men frantic; an historical element may be at the bottom of
it ; but we cannot affirm it to be exactly true in the face of those
accredited notices. We have a complete solution of the point in a
passage of Chaeremon (see Creuzer upon him. Symbol, i, p. 383)
on Porphyry De Abstin. iv. 6, where it is said of the Egyptian
priests, o'lvov yhp ol fiev ovBev 6Xq)<;, ol Be oXuyio'Ta iyevovTo. A
distinction, therefore, had subsequently been introduced among the
1 The expression Bhto in ver. 11, as it appears to me, necessarily leads to that view.
[The author takes the word t:nto, which occurs only here, iu the sense "dilute with
water," contrary to the rendering of the LXX,, which is ticSiXitui, aud tlie traditional in
terpretation of the Rabbius, which from its accordance with the former, desei-ves regard.
The considerations which he states are, however, deserving of attention, though Gesen.
in his Thes, takes no notice of them, nor even mentions this other rendering, — Tr,].
The signification — to press out, to crush— is quite incapable of proof. For the Arabic
lat^Aw and la^M [sabliat and shahhat] has not that signification (Freytagii., p. 291,
and p. 399), and the Rabbinic BhS owes that signification, as Schultens (animadvv. phib
ad h, 1,) perceived, to this interpretation of the present passage. The, tropical apphcation
of words of like signification to the mixing of wine, is however well-known; see
Schultens 1. 1. ; Gesenius on Is. p. 167, ff. ; Dbpke ad Mich. Chr. Syr., p. 152. That
grapes (n'^ass) are here put for wine, is easily explained, since it is freshly-pressed wine
that is spoken of: comp, Horat. Od, i, 20, 10— tu bibes uvam : mea nee Falernse temperant
vites, neque Formiani pocula coUes. The way in which uhto is written, is then very
well explained, while orilfl [in the sense of alloy2 is used only of metals, as being the
stronger formation ; comp, Ewald, Gr., p. 39, and part Ist, p. 164.

216

HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY

priests in that respect, which we can very weU explain in part by a
later asceticism, as we meet with such also among other nations,i
and the reasons adduced by Plutarch point plainly enough to later
ascetic ideas of that sort, which obtained a hold among the Egyp
tians, and thence perhaps passed over to the Therapeutae (Philo De
vita contempt, p. 692, 696.). But in Plutarch's remarking on the
times of Psammetichus in connection with this, there is certainly in
volved the truth, that after that period asceticism came forward
prominently in opposition to the Grecian customs which were find
ing an entrance ? and one would in these circumstances very natu
raUy venture the assertion, that such had been the earlier habit of '
the genuine priests.^ That there was at least a decided expression,
in this respect also, of the opposition felt to what was foreign, is
shown by the passage of Chaeremon, 1. cit., where among other
things it is said : t&v piev eKrbs 'Ai^yvrrTov yiyvop,eva}v ^paspd-
T(ov re Kal iroTUV ov difiK ^v dirTeadat.
At any rate it is a rash procedure to represent entire abstinence
from all wine, even if (which is by no means credible) it was main
tained by all the Egyptian priests in the time of Plutarch, as prac
tised in times so early as those which here come under review.
What we find here agrees with the state of a nation which, even at
an early period, was well regulated, and had fixed manners and
rules ; but not with the subsequent extravagance and perversion of
the old simpUcity of manners, partly on the one hand into disso
luteness, and partly on the other into the rough opposition of an
ascetic rigour. Indeed, taken strictly, the drinking of wine does
not follow at all from this passage, as it is only the fresh juice of
grapes that is spoken of, which we may suppose was drunk in Egypt
in a similar way to what is the case amongst the Mohammedans,
Thus every difficulty on this point is completely removed.
1 As among the Nabataeans, and others. Comp. -Elian V. H. ii. 37, and the in
terpreters on the passage; Wesseling, Obss. ii. u 2. Jablonski, Panth. jEg. i. p. 131,
sq, 2 Especially after the Greek and Phoanician trade introduced a quantity of wine
(Herod, iii, 6), which led to a corruption of manners; see Schlosser, Univers. Uebers. i.
1, pp. 183 and 187.
3 [Just as certain Teetotal fanatics have had the folly to assert that the use of fer
mented wine, that is real wine, is not sanctioned in Scripture.— Te.]
4 [What Hengstengberghas written on the above subject is well deserving of attention.
See his work entitled " Egypt and the books of Moses, illustrated by the Monuments of
Egypt" (trnns. with additional notes, and published by the publisher of the present
work), pp. 13 -18.]

OF THE HISTORY OF JOSEPH. 217
The symboUcal appearances in Pharaoh's dreams are particu
larly characteristic (ch. xli.) : they are so genuinely Egyptian, that
we find ourselves here quite on their domestic soil. While stand
ing by the Nile, Pharaoh sees kine come up out of it — then fol
lowed the ears of corn. The Nile is the physical cause of Egypt's
fertility : it is likewise a symbol of the year :'' out of it comes up the
cow, the symbol of Telluric- agrarian Ufe, and of the productive
power of nature, the most sacred of all animals ; connected with
which is the ear of corn, a connection also recognized elsewhere in
the old system of symbols.. The dream contained that which was
so extraordinary, that none of the priests was able to explain it.
The dream indeed indicates, on the one hand, the natural origin of
the remarkable occurrence, but, on the other hand, the fact itself
was an incredible one, not to be ascertained by mere human con
jecture. " Verisimile est (Bochart excellently says, Hieroz. i. 435,
Eosenm.) per septem annos fertiUtatis Nilum ultra solitum exun-
dasse. Et contra, per annos famis, aut intra limites suos se conti-
nuisse prorsus aut eos parum excessisse. Quod naturae non tribu-
erim sed miraculo. Ita enim suadent Josephi verba, xxxi. 28 :
' Deus ostendit Pharaoni quod facturus est.' Quippe utut naturae
opera Deo etiam tribuantur, tamen extraordinaria virtus his videtur
significari. Quin ipsa visio satis docuerat, aliquid hie futuram
praeter naturam. Neque enim bovi naturale est, ut alter alterum
voret." Hence it is absurd of Von Bohlen, p. 421, to charge our docu
ment with the view that, from ignorance of Egyptian circumstances,
it deduces the origin of the drought from want of rain ; and it is
also strange that he should say, contrary to the fact, that the pe
riodical inundation of the river may very well now and then pro
duce a less fertile year, but never fail entirely and for several years
together ; while Winer (Eeallex. p. 712) has very justly remarked,
that at that time the inundations of the Nile had not yet been pro
fitably conducted and divided by means of canals and sluices. How
much a " less productive" year mattered, may be seen in the.histo-
1 Comp. Creuzer, Symb. i. pp. 276, 483.
2 As Plutarch says of the Nile : oiUv Sutm tiji^ 'A tyuTrTioit ws 6 NeiXot, De Iside et
Osir, c. 32 ; so Herodotus says of the sacred animal of Isis, rds (iot-s tos driXia^ 'AiyCv-,
Tioi -iraVTti ofioluit t7iPt)iiTai wpo^aTuiv irai/Twi' fiuXitna flti/fpf, ii. 41,
3 Creuzer, iv. p. 70.

218 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
rical descriptions of the fearful distress arising hence ;i and not less
incorrect is the expression " now and then,'' for Eosenmiiller justly
remarks, " The history of Egypt is full of examples of the sad
consequences of an incomplete inundation." (Alterthumsk. iii, p.
214.). But the knowledge of this event has been also preserved among
the Egyptians, in the strange tradition of Busiris, which as yet has
hardly been properly estimated. That Busiris is not the name of
a person, of a king, was known even to the ancients ? Diod. Si
culus assures us, that the name signifies a grave of Osiris? It
was the Greek Logographi that first personified and nationalized
him, by giving him a proper genealogy.* In his time, so ran the
tradition, there were offered bloody sacrifices of red-complexioned
men in honour of Typhon, whose colour is the same ; and this sub
ject was represented and decorated by the Greeks in many different
ways, principally indeed in the Heraclean games, for Hercules was
said to have overcome Busiris. We have here, at any rate, a con
trast to Osiris : the dominion of death, instead of life : lamentation
and mourning, instead of joy and pleasant Ufe. At one time there
prevailed a great drought and famine in the valley of the Nile, —
this is expressly stated as the physical foundation of the mythus,
and the traditions even speak of a drought in Egypt that lasted
nine, according to others, eight years.^ And we must necessarily
suppose some historial occasion of the above, in order to explain
the tradition, which otherwise is quite obscure, and stands out of
the circle of Egyptian mythi. " We might well believe, — says
Creuzer, p. 358, — in the occurrence of some period of plagues in
Egypt in very ancient times, in consequence of which those sacri
ficial feasts were appointed." It must be well considered, that our
first knowledge of this mythus is derived from very confused sources ;
hence in its Greek garb Herodotus would give no credit to it (ii.
1 Comp. e. g, Dschemaleddin. Rer. &%. anu, p. 11, sq. ed. Carlyle. Abdollatif, p. 860.
De Sacy- Volney, Reis. i. p. 150, ff.
2 Erastosthenes in Strabo, xvii. p. 862.
3 I, 88. Comp, Creuzer, Symb. i, p. 3S5, ff.
4 V. Apollod. ii, 5, 1 1, according to Pherecydes; comp. Sturz, Pherec. fragm.p. 141, sq,
5 'Eiri'sa yb.p £Tij itfiopia T^y 'AiyviTTOu KaTcXojSs. Apoll. 1, c.
Dicitur Aegyptus caruisse juvantibus arva
Imbribus atque annis sicca fuisse novem.
Ovid. Art. Amat, i, 647. Comp. Hygin. Fab. 56, ibique intpp.

OF THE HISTORY OF JOSEPH. 219
45) ; but in its Egyptian form it must necessarily have a local phy
sical foundation ; and as according to the reaUstic view of the
Egyptian wisdom, the life and sufferings of the god Osiris are
identified with those of Nature, so that according to Plutarch Osiris
is no other than the Nile,-' the mythus of Busiris must also be em
braced within the same range of view, as the continued suffering
and dying of Nature, the unusual duration of the Typhonic dominion.
The connection which this tradition has with that of the Egyptian
hatred of foreigners, is also remarkable ; but of what moment this
is, will appear first in the sequel.
We shall here bring together some of the abundant traces that
show the intimate acquaintance of the writer with Egyptian manners
and institutions, and as these have no appearance of intention, or of
beiug sought out, but come before us in incidental and interspersed
notices, the credibility of tbe record is certainly not a little height
ened by them. Thus he forgets not to remark, that Joseph was
shaved when he was brought to the king, for so the Egyptian cus
tom required (xli. 14, comp. Her. ii. 36, ibiq. Bahr, p. 558) ; and
the expression comes so readily to our author, that he does not
subjoin to the word pj*^^ another to define it more closely, as is
elsewhere constantly done in Hebrew, knowing well that his readers
would be familiar with the term even in this elliptical mode of ex
pression. The advice which Joseph gives to Pharaoh (xli. 38, ff.),
is entirely founded on the Egyptian constitution. The royal re
venues, the payments to Pharaoh's treasury, depended wholly (and
in this modern Egypt at the present day has remained much the
same as ancient Egypt in her customs) on the produce of the soil.
The payment of the fifth (the tiji^p?) ^^ productive years, and the
officers (D'^*15s) appointed to attend to it, are therefore quite in
order. Diodorus mentions this as a primitive custom : it must also
have prevailed at any rate previously to Sesostris, since it was he
who gave the system its more practical form ; see Heeren, p. 138,
ff. The ceremony of exalting Joseph to his dignity is quite pecu
liar. This exaltation is the more explicable, where there existed a
body of priests, which on account of its great wisdom was an ob
ject of the highest admiration to all antiquity : wisdom and so
uncommon a gift of prophetic foresight must here have met with a
1 Comp. Baur, Symb, ii, 2, p, 171, ff.

220 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
reception of no ordinary kind, and produced an especially deep im
pression. Joseph's dignity, however, is altogether of a priestly kind,
for only in that way can he come near to Pharaoh in power and im
portance. He is clothed in vestments of byssus ; for that is the
peculiar dress of the priestly caste of Egypt : " vestes ex gossypio
sacerdotibus Aegypti gratissimse," says Pliny, H. N. xix. 1. 2 :^ he is
also adorned with the royal chain for the neck, which appears Uke
wise on the monuments as a royal ornament : Pharaoh himself gives
him a priest's daughter of HeUopolis to wife (see Heeren, p, 1 28) ;
he rides in the second chariot, which is another genuine Egyptian
custom, for on the monuments the king constantly appears in his
war-chariot:^ he receives a particular Egyptian name, the meaning
of which has never yet been satisfactorily explained, but which ap
peared to the author to require no explanation to his contem
poraries. It is urged by V. Bohlen (p. 381) as a gross error regarding the
nature ofthe climate in Egypt, that according to xli. 6 the ears of
corn were blasted by the east wind, a statement which admits of
being appUed only to the circumstances of Palestine. We might in
deed adopt the explanation, that the word Q^~yp might be employed,
even in the Hebrew of that age, as the appellation of a hot wind
driving in from the desert, and that in a vision all the less stress
should be laid upon the expression. But the remark is quite in
correct. The south-east wind, which is here called the east wind,'
blowing in the months of March and April, is one of the most in
jurious winds, and of longest continuance, while the shelter that
Egypt has from it by means of the Mokattem chain of moun tains is
only partial, and by no means extends to the whole country.
The whole position of the Egyptians in reference to foreigners is
strikingly described in ch. xiii. In the company of a larger caravan
of foreigners (ver. 5), the brethren travel to Egypt. Joseph himself
is here expressly designated as he that conducted the sale of the
1 Comp. Heeren, p. 133. Bahr ad Her. v. 1, p. 565. Judge hence, how erroneous is
Von Bohlen's assertion, that Dan. v. 7 is to be regarded as an imitation of this passage.
2 Comp.c. g. Heeren, pp, 224, 237, 247, &c.
¦ 3 Just as the expression ''ataip ni {Eastern Seo) for the Dead Sea (Joel ii. 19 ; Ezek,
xlvii, 18; Zech. xiv. 8) could be properiy used only by an inhabitant of Judea, but was
certainly emploj-ed also by every Israelite.
1 Comp. Hai-miir, Beob.i.jp. 04, ff. Rjsenmuller, Alterthumsk, 3, p. 220, ff.

OF THE HISTORY OF JOSEPH, 221
grain.i on which Eosenmiiller, Scholl, p. 634, makes the appro
priate remark, that it is not the retail corn-trade that is here spoken
of, which the sequel also shows was by no means attended to by
Joseph himself,^ but the fixing of the price of the large quantity
of grain which was to be sold to foreigners, and the examination of
the purpose for which they came, whether they were to be sus
pected or not. (" ^gyptii enim prse aliis gentibus diffidere sole
bant peregrinis.") Joseph's charging his brethren with being spies
receives the more internal probabiUty from the fact that this was a
natural suspicion, as Egypt is particularly exposed to attacks on
the side of Palestine (Her. iii. 5.). Farther, we find here an in
terpreter, quite in accordance with that character of separation,
which subsequently gave rise to the formation of a proper caste of
epfi7]vel<i (Heeren, p. 145.). It has been thought strange that so
small a quantity of corn should have sufficed so long for Jacob's
family, since it certainly seems as if mention were made only of ten
asses laden with grain. But on a closer view of the whole, this
very circumstance appears a very suitable one, quite in agreement
with the course of the history as here narrated, which has been in
part correctly recognized by Clericus. "Primum est (he says)
.^gyptios nisi vellent horrea sua exhauriri, non debuisse ingenti
copia simul triticum peregrinis potissimum vendere, ne procul
aveheretur ; satis enim iis frumenti non fuit; ut remotissimas etiam
regiones sustentarent. Itaque ut in fame fieri solet, magnum
frumenti numerum uni viro simul non vendebant : quo factum ut
seepius ad eos esset redeundum. Alterum est, quamvis fames
maxima fuerit, tantam tamen per septennium integrum non fuisse,
nihil ut prorsus terra ederet frugum nulleeque sererentur. Annus
quo frumenti exigua copia provenit, hordei aliarumque segetum
interdum ferax est, aut saltem iis non prorsus destituitur. Itaque
in jEgyptum altero famis anno descendisse videntur Jacobi filii, ut
frumentum dumtaxat coemerent, eoque seepius erant ituri cum
aliundeseque commode nancisci aut majore simul copia non possent,"
This last remark, that the famine should be understood, especially
as to Canaan, only in a very relative sense, is confirmed in the most
definite manner by the narrative. Such passages as xliii. 1 1 show,
1 -psn ay-lsalj "iiaaian sin.
2 So that V. Bohlen's assertion, who finds in this a proof of fiction, p. 390, is quite
absurd.

222 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
that grapes, pistacio nuts, almonds, &c., were still to be had ; but
there was a deficiency in corn. Thus, so far from supposing, as V.
Bohlen (pp. 395, 420) does, the existence of a very silly contra
diction in that statement, and concluding thence the whole to be a
fiction, we should regard it as demonstrating how far removed our
document is from all arbitrary extravagance, giving by such indi
vidual traits, a delineation of the whole that is quite clear and sa
tisfactory. That such a contradiction is far from supposable here,
is sufficiently evident also from the close relation in which the
eighth and the eleventh verses of ch. xliii. stand; he must have been
the most thoughtless of narrators, who would have betrayed his
arbitrary procedure, in passages that come so close the one upon
the other, expressing himself thus at random.
In ch. xliii. also we find Egyptian costume exactly observed.
For, when V. Bohlen regards it as an error, p. 397, that the nar
rator represents Joseph as having animal food prepared and eating
of it, because " the Egyptians at farthest ate only the consecrated
flesh of sacrifices, and the higher castes, especially the Priests, with
whom -Joseph had contracted affinity, abstained from all animal
food," he is guilty of a gross mistake, which receives most decided
contradiction from Herodotus (comp. e.g., ii. 37, 40) and Diodorus.
More precise laws relating to food are mentioned also by Cheeremon
in Porphyr. de Abstin. iv. § 6, and it is incomprehensible how so
thoroughly ascetic a custom should be ascribed without any reason
to the Egyptian priests. — Joseph eats apart from his brethren,
keeping strictly to the Egyptian mode ; and the history does not
omit to remark that in this point he adhered exactly to the custom
of the country.^ It is also a peculiar custom which he follows, in
setting before Benjamin a portion of honour five times larger than
the rest. . This must have been especially Egyptian, for elsewhere
a similar thing is found,^ but not quite the same ; comp. also xiv.
1 This is the simple and natural explanation of the passage xliii. 32. In a similar
manner the same remark is repeated xlvi, 34, in order to explain the fact of the Hebrews
dwelling apart by themselves. We see that the remark could not have been; dispensed
with ; it was every way necessary for understanding the fact. We do not then require
either to suppose that the author's contemporaries were less acquainted with the pecu
liarities of Egypt — for it is not the custom in itself, but its application to these particular
cases that is treated of— (V. Bohlen, p. 399) or to have recourse to the forced solution,
that Moses wished to signify that the Egyptian habit of separation ' from all shepherds
existed even in Joseph's time four centuries prior to his own (Hensler, Bemerkk. p. 403.).
2 See the coUection in Dougtaeus, Anall. s. p. 50. Koster, Erlauter. p. 197.

OF THE HISTORY OF JOSEPH. 228
22. But the mention of Joseph's cup in xliv. 5 is especially re
markable. The sacred cup is a symbol of the Nile, into whose
waters a golden and silver patera were annually thrown: the Nile
itself — both the source and the river — was called "the cup of Egypt"
(Plin. H. N. vin. 71, Hug ub. d. Mythus, p. 137.) There was
the beneficent cup, productive of all blessings, and at the same time
displaying as a universal mirror the forms of all things ; and in
this character the Greeks also were acquainted with it (Athen. xi,
55, Creuzer, Dionysus, p. 25, sq.). The cup here also is described
as such a prophetic one, imparting knowledge of the future : it is
of silver, while in other cases the Egyptians drank out of brazen
cups (Hecatseus in Athen. xi, 6, Herod, ii. 37.). The stress laid
on the possession or the loss of it, shews the great religious import
ance it had among the Egyptians, There appears nowhere in
Scripture any mention of this custom, and it is here interwoven in
the narrative in so free and unconstrained a manner, that we can
explain it only by supposing a very particular acquaintance with
Egypt on the part of the writer and his age.
Pharaoh's enquiry, " What is your occupation ? xlvii. 2, comp.
xlvi. 33, is characteristic, and can be understood only from peculiar
Egyptian circumstances ; for it was only the strict distinction of
castes that made, that enquiry after their BtKalrj ^oij oi particular
importance ; comp. Diodor, i. 77 ; Herod, ii. 177 ; and Bahr on the
passage p. 882. But especial importance belongs to the measures of
Joseph, mentioned xlvii. 18, ff., in reference to the possession of land
in Egypt. Our document speaks of a period in that country, which
without it would be wholly unknown to us, when the possessors of
estates were as yet free landholders. It mentions also the cause that
led to the alteration of that state of things, so that afterwards, with
the exception of the priestly caste, the king became superior pre
prietor of all landed estates. Thus it continued to the author's
time, ver. 26 ; and as to the priests, even Herodotus and Diodo'
rus speak of them as being quite independent possessors of the
rents of free estates (Heeren, p. 130, ff.). With reference to this
the history of Sesostris is particularly instructive, for to him the
Egyptians ascribed the division of equal portions of land among
all the inhabitants in retum for the payment of a land tax (Her. u.
109), which plainly implies according to Heeren's remark, that he
considered himself as the superior proprietor of the whole land.

224 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
Subsequently the wanior caste appears to have acquired a more
considerable claim to their estates, for Diodorus places them in the
same category with the kings and priests, with regard to the pos
session of land (i. 73), with which Herodotus also (i, 168) agrees.
Thus we have here at any rate the older constitution, by which the
right of landed property was still confined to king and priest, and
so this statement evidently appears to have been derived only from
authentic and exact accounts. Every attempt to discover here
some object to be served by the contrivance of fiction, has wretchedly
failed, e.g., the supposition that the author wished to represent
the payment of tithes in the Levitical system as so much more
tolerable ; for an impost that should be paid to the priests and
the temple is not spoken of here at all.
But, on the whole, Joseph's conduct towards his brethren, his
putting them to the proof, and his investigation of their disposi
tions, when regarded from the mythical point of view, become quite
inexplicable. V. Bohlen has wisely avoided pointing out any kind
of idea, such as would betray fiction, as lying at the foundation of
this : he himself indeed — though everywhere else " transparent
myths" meet his penetrating eye — is obliged to make the confes
sion, p. 401 — " In this examination no reason can be discovered
unless it were intended to account for the union still maintained
between Judah and Benjamin' (ch. xliv.) — and then in spite of this
hypothesis so violently introduced and unworthy of a refutation, he
talks away in the next breath of " unbounded power of invention,"
&c. Supposing even he had succeeded in making good this asser
tion by more plausible reasons as to the one section ch. xliv., to
which alone the hypothesis can apply, how would it stand then
with the chief element of the whole narrative ? how should we then
explain to ourselves Joseph's person and conduct as the result and
combination of the separate incidents ? Here the mythical hypo
thesis must suffer complete shipwreck ; for, if its supporters were
to carry it out consistently, they would lose themselves in a bot
tomless abyss.
We have now in ch. xlvi. the register of the tribes, introduced
with genuine historical fidelity to truth. The comparison of it
with the statements respecting the tribes in Num, xxvi., and with
the genealogies in Chronicles, puts its credibility and its antiquity
beyond doubt. For each of these genealogies rests upon the other :

OF THE HISTORY OF JOSEPH. 225
that which is contained in Genesis is expressly presupposed and
has been made use of in the two later ones. In connection with
this it is a circumstance not to be overlooked, that in Genesis we
possess the completest Ust of Jacob's family. The deviations from
It in the other genealogies are mainly confined to the omission of
certain names. Thus, of the sons of Simeon, Chad is afterwards
wanting ; of those of Asher, Joshua ; of those of Benjamin, Be
cher and Eosh, &c. This circumstance admits of a sufficient ex
planation, only on the supposition that the sons who were subse
quently omitted left no posterity behind them, on which account it
would be intelligible that they should be passed over in the book of
Numbers, where it is only families and races that are spoken of.
Our document is thus acquainted only with the original relations
of Jacob's family, at the time that he went down into Egypt, and
is quite unconcerned about its later formation. Thus the view de
veloped by V. Bohlen, p. 413, is completely refuted by the narrative
itself. He supposes that the author wished to heighten the splen
dour of the descent into Egypt ; and that therefore he had selected
the ancient families of each tribe, so that he could reckon the more
surely on their approbation, by placing their origin in the highest
antiquity. But then, in order to render himself deserving of that
approbation, he must necessarily have proceeded upon the circum
stances and relations of his own time ; but these had assumed quite
another form even in the age of Moses, and still more so at the
time when the (in part, fragramentary) genealogies of the chroni
cler had their origin. Should we then take up that position, we
are deprived of all satisfactory explanation of the nature of our do
cument. But V. Bohlen will also have it that he has made the
discovery, that, at the date insisted on, there existed a diversity of
opinion concerning the precedence of certain families, and even
frequently concerning their names. The whole of his argument
amounts only to this, that, as in all family registers, and not un-
frequently also elsewhere, we find occasionally different names for
the same person. But here now such names as Zephon and Zi
phion show quite evidently that this variation consists in a more or
less altered later pronunciation, or change of the same name, and is
thence to be explained : the smaller and more insignificant diver
sity leading us to such a conclusion as the proper one in reference
to the more important. But how should we explain this diversity,

226 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
supposing those genealogies had their origin simultaneously at a
later period ? Supposing such a thing in general can arise of it
self, nothing but uniformity can be expected in the names. But
if we firmly adhere to the separate historical existence of these
genealogies, as stated in these books, the diversity is naturally ex
plained by the interval of time between them. For the difference
of appellations can hardly be conceived as proceeding from the same
period and firmly established in it. Thus the very circumstances
brought forward by our opponents of there being such diversities
is a pledge of the credibUity of the document.

§ 22. — CONTINUATION. GEN. XLVIII. — L,
At the close of Genesis we meet with two prophetic sections
which form a very appropriate conclusion to a book which in its
essential nature is of a deeply prophetic character : we have here
the beautiful completion of the series of predictions with which the
patriarchs were honoured. Unless we are influenced by a dogma
tic prejudice, that protests against all predictions in general, we
must recognise therein only a new necessary development of the
Theocracy in its preparatory stage.
The situation of Jacob's fainily had become quite a peculiar one
by the removal to Egypt. CaUed to the exalted position, to be the
bearer of the glorious revelations of Jehovah, and for that purpose
to inherit the land of promise as a pledge of Divine grace and
truth, it had been brought nearer to the object of those promises by
that event. Here now there occurred a turning point in the history
of this family thus appointed to the highest destiny. It was not as a
family, but as a nation (xlvi. 3) that it should attain to that posses
sion ; but a nation requires a different preparation and training, and
one more powerful and influential, than the single head of a tribe
with his dependents. Egypt with its alluring pomp, its body of
priests, and its idolatry, was not to be the domestic soil of this
people : it was to depart from the land of bondage, led by the hand
of God. In the midst of a heathen land and people, which occupied
a prominent place in the world at that time, the victory and triumph
of the Theocracy should be proclaimed : as everything in the theo
cratic Ufe became represented also in external reaUty, and pene-

OF GEN. XLVIII,— L, 227
trated through the opposite in a rugged concrete form, the initial
point of the theocratic history must do so also. The departure of
the Hebrews from Egypt has therefore a character of profound im
portance in reference to the whole structure of the Theocracy ; and
their entrance also has no less, on the same account. On the death
of Jacob, the people, deprived of a common family head, remained
in a certain degree left to itself The consciousness of its higher
unity could be preserved in it alive and active, only on the one
hand negatively, by that which should be a contrast to the foreign
and undomestic country, on the other hand positively, by a definite
impressive tradition exercising a concentrating power. The end of
the patriarch, therefore, when viewed in this light, is associated with
what is lofty and important. That he appears endowed with an
eminent gift of prophecy, is closely connected with tbe importance
belonging to his person and character; which can be properly com
prehended and estimated only from the peculiar theocratic point of
view. There is therefore no suitableness at all in the so-called parallels,
which have been heaped together here by a misapplied industry, as
if the standing-point and object of our record were identical with
and explicable on that principle of heathenism — " facilius evenit
appropinquante morte ut animi futura augurentur," Cic. De Div. i.
30. For whatever can be adduced here from that quarter, belongs
partly to mere poetic fiction, partly to the particular philosophic
view of antiquity connected with that, according to which this de
partment received the peculiar position which it held in the com
plete system of divination.^
But as the fundamental idea of ch. xlviii., xlix. is so firmly
rooted in the soil of history, its exhibition is also carried out in
a strictly historical manner. The prophetic outlines are kept quite
general, receiving their more defined signification only from the
course of events. The distinguished appointment of Joseph to be
the founder of two tribes, and the transference of Eeuben's right as
the first-born to him, could be declared in no other way than by
his first receiving a special blessing from his father. The mythical
view is here evidently brought into a strait. It finds in ch. xlviii.
1 Comp. Horn. 11. -tt', 851, <^' 356. Virg. -En, x. 470. Halbkart, Psychoh Homer, p,
41, sq.
2 Comp. e, g. Diod. Sic, xviii. p. 586. Wessel, Cic. De Div. i. 30, 64.
P 2

228 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
only " a priestly idea," which never had any proper reality : the
intention being to remove back to an early epoch the double here
ditary right, because the advancement of the priestly body and its
hierarchical aims required this.^ The object of ch. xlix., on the
contrary, is quite different, being an anti-hierarchical one. And yet
the two chapters are so closely connected together ! But how will
a hierarchical Levitical prepossession, especially of the time when it
actively displayed itself in all its greatness, explain the blessing as
it appears in xlviii. 16 — 20 ? No stiff Levitical fanatic, such as
the spirit of the age depicts in its theology, could thus have ho
noured apostate tribes with so rich a blessing ! How could the
merely outward greatness of the tribe of Ephraim so impose on
such a one, that he should find occasion to invent promises so
grand ? How can we imagine that the mutual jealousy of the
tribes at a later period would so much as admit of the thought of
such a limitation in reference to the others ? Besides everything
here appears specially connected with the person of Joseph :" it is
said in xlvni. 15, "Jacob blessed Joseph." Thus the blessing
itself can be understood only from the historical circumstances of
that time.
Expositors have been particularly led astray by that view of Gen.
xlix., which regards it as a production of art that is to be appre
hended from a purely sesthetic point of view. We are by no means
disposed to underrate the worth of the poem ; only it should be
mentioned, at the same time, that the contents and thoughts have
here a prominent importance ab"6ve the form, and throw the latter
quite into the background. This makes it clear that it is quite
impossible to associate this benediction with the poetry of the Da
vidic age, as V. Bohlen however does : one must cherish strange
ideas of the latter, to be able to make such an assertion. The
poetry herenot only belongs, as decidedly as anything can, to an ante-
Davidic and less cultivated form, but cannot for a moment be
placed in the same category with such compositions as Ex, xv. and
Judg. v.j which are subject to more formal rules and are adapted
to Uturgical objects. Had more careful regard been paid to this,
the worthlessness of the assertion that Jacob cannot have sung
thus, would have been exposed ; when, on the contrary, it is ottly
thus that the poetry of that age can have been expressed.
1 See De Wette, p. 163. V. Bohlen, p. 489, ff. 484. Comp. Vatke, Bibl. vol. i. p. 221, ff.

OF GEN. XLVIII. — L. ^ 229
The short sentences, the sententious character of this benediction
explains, at the same time, what has frequently been called in ques
tion, the possibility of its faithful preservation. With reference to
this also we need only recollect the traditionary poems among the
Arabians and other ancient nations,^ and it will plainly appear
with what facility the East in particular, which has so much taste
for poetry, takes up and faithfully preserves such compositions.
Here, however, besides the peculiarity of the benediction as pro
phecy, as a valuable legacy to the children of Israel, has to be well
considered. With these blessings are connected the position in
which the different members of the family were to stand to one an
other, and their entire destiny ; and even the earlier portion of the
history makes us acquainted with the importance that was attri
buted to this paternal benediction.
But it is especially the internal character of this composition that
proves its authenticity ; which is of the more consequence here, as
on the one hand it refers to the earlier history in such a way, and
so includes it in itself, that that history stands or falls with it ; and,
on the other hand, it forms the basis on which the Mosaic benedic
tion in Deut. xxxiu. is founded.'' We shall not in this lay particu
lar weight on the pecuUar symbolism of the song, although its
figures belong to a special order that has as yet been by no means
fully appreciated. But there is at any rate a characteristic feature
in the manner in which the prophecy, while its delineations are
quite general, reflects with perfect accuracy the far distant future in
which it was to be realized. It is also general circumstances, as
viewed quite on a large scale, that are here regarded. Along with
this, we must necessarily take into account the remarkable combi
nation of this general standing-point with particular individual cir
cumstances in each case. The personal character of the patriarchs,
as the first and immediate recipients of this prophecy, has such re
gard here paid to it, that it is assumed as the point of view for that
which is more distant. The person of the founder and the tribe
are, as it were, equalized with one another ; that which is prominent
as the characteristic peculiarity of the former, finds its reflection in
his posterity. As this happens in the case of several of them,
1 Comp. Hartmann, 1. u, p, 292, ff.
2 For to suppose the reverse (as Bleek would do, in Rosenmiiller's Repert. i. p. 31,
ff.), — that Jacob's benediction arose out of the latter, — does not admit even of plausible
proof.

230

HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY

where the historical foundation is known to ns (as with Eeuben,
Simeon, Levi), we are led the more decidedly to the same conclu
sion, where such a foundation is not known to us, especially as it is
only thus that we obtain a real understanding of the whole. E. g.
it cannot otherwise be satisfactorily explained, why that announce
ment is made to Issachar in particular, which appUed to other tribes
also ; and why with Naphthali prominence is given to the i"iJ2t,^ \fSl
IQttJ. ^sr. 21 (which is certainly to be understood according to the
Masoretic readingi), since this might certainly be said of others
also. This circumstance is important, inasmuch as it shows that
the starting-point of the prophecy is not the tribes, but on the con
trary the persons, from which point the tribes are exhibited to the
view of the seer. This could not be the case in such a way were not
this section authentic ; and its partial obscurity also arises from the
obscurity in which the circumstances of that age are involved ; but
how a later age could have had so much as a faint notion of them,
it is impossible to see.
And as it is with the whole, so is it also with the separate parts.
Ver. 18 can be understood only as it is authentic, forming, as it
does, a genuine lyrical interruption : could this have been the imi
tation of a later period ? Certainly as little as it can be pronounced
an interpolation. A sentence of that kind, especially occurring in
the middle of such powerfully epic language, can have arisen only
from an immediate gush of feehng, flowing out of the fulness of
deep emotions. We have such another in the mention of Eeuben ;
xlix. 4 is quite of lyrical construction.^ No other could have
1 [That is, the pointing of the common or Masoretic text, which gives the sense ex
pressed in our English version. Bochart proposed a different pointing of the text, so as
to bring out the rendering, " Naphtali is a spreading terebinth, putting forth boughs of
beauty," which is countenanced by the LXX., and followed by Lowth, Pool, Michaelis,
Herder, Dathe, Knapp, Geddes, Boothroyd, Horeley, &c, ; but rejected in favour of the
common translation by Patrick, Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, Lee, Schumann, and, as above,
by Havernick, for reasons which are best stated by Patrick. — Tb.].
3 " Patrem mihi videre videor —says Stahelin, Animadvv. iu Jac. vatioin. p, 5 —primo .
geniti adspectu gaudentem, deinde criminis ipsius memoria ira commotum, ita tamen ut
ne in commotiore quidem animo non agnoscere possimus animum paternum : nam
nonnisi invitus maledixit, ideo brevi tempore intermisso adjecit, nVs, utique ascendit,
baud aliter ac si significare voluisset, se non injuria dirafilio natu maximo imprecatum
esse," On the contrary, it is ridiculous that one should attempt to give the verse an
explanation from later political circumstances, as when Von Bohlen conjectures, p 447,
that the tribe of Reuben latterly on some occasion made au attempt to seize the chief
power, &c.

OF GEN. XLVIII.  L. 231
spoken thus of Jacob's first-born. It is also only in general terms
that the loss of the birth-right is here spoken of ; so that upon this
declaration, which at the time was fully understood by Eeuben, an
evident advance is made in Deut. xxxiii. 6, where it is announced
that he shall remain unimportant.^ So also it is only from the cir
cumstances of that time that we can explain how Joseph should ap
pear here as Vllbi l^ti' ^^^- ^^ > ^^^ i' ^^^ ^^^J ^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^'¦i"'''
he was properly such, especially if we think of him as adorned with
a diadem ("Tpj), according to the custom of the Egyptian grandees :
StaheUn, I. cit. p. 27. Everything else of pov/er and dorninion
that was afterwards displayed in Ephraim, was but a faint re
flection of the dignity that was then united in Joseph's person,
to which all his brethren bowed down in homage. The dig
nity of Judah, as the one who assumes precedence, in consequence
of the three elder brethren losing their rights, is here described with
traits of the most comprehensive nature. Neither his occupation of
the first rank, as leader in thejourney through the wilderness, nor
the royal house that afterwards proceeded from him, is sufficient to
embrace the whole of this description. His royal right is described
as one that shall remain inviolate, and comprehend within it whole
nations, being accompanied by the greatest blessings. This pas
sage can neither have been written in the time of David ; for then
its juxtaposition with Joseph's dignity would be inexpUcable (see
Bleek, 1. c, p. 33) ; nor in the subsequent period of the division of
the kingdoms, for then certainly Judah's dominion was far from
being so extensive a one ; nor in the'times of the Judges, for the
delineation is far too ideal for that. Thus we are here also driven
back to the epoch that is given by historical tradition. But to
this we are led particularly by the way in which Simeon and Levi
are here spoken of In this case also, the immediate cause of the
curse is their crime against Sichem. Both the sons are therefore
made completely equal, as being allied in that deed. They are to
meet with the same fate. The patriarch foresees in spirit only the
dispersion of these tribes. That also takes place. He has no
blessing for Levi : his priestiy dignity is not yet thought of We
are here by no means involved in the dilemma (as V. Bohlen,
p. 454, thinks) of being obliged either to deny the fulfilment ofthe
] For in this sense only is the word -lEsa there to be taken (a subject of numbering,
numerable = small in number) ; see Hitzig, on Isaiah, p. 132.

232 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
prediction, or to regard the dispersion of Levi as an unfortunate fate.
In itself, indeed, Levi's lot stood on the same level as Simeon's
— it was a calamity. The appointment of the tribe to the priest
hood was a subsequent accedens, without which Levi would have
remained in the same condition as Simeon. That here only the
one side of his future lot is predicted, by no means does away with
the subsequent divine arrangement and favourable turn given to it.
Levi's good fortune did not consist at all in the division of the tribe ;
but in its exalted appointment to represent the nation in the sanc
tuary of Jehovah ! It was not however granted to Jacob to an
nounce that to him : Moses must first arise out of this line to
announce his benediction to it, Deut. xxxiii. 9, ff. Simeon then
is quietly passed over ; for what the patriarch had announced to
him remains unaltered. But now let one explain how such ex
pressions could be used of Levi, subsequently to the estabUsh
ment of that Une as the tribe of priests ! Or if one goes so far as
to assign to the whole priestly tribe as such a far later origin, or to
deny it any original title to reckon as a tribe, which Vatke does in
defiance of all history ; let him explain how any thing of this sort
could obtain a general reception by the side of such blessings as
those of Moses. This curse must indeed have been regarded as
established on a far higher authority, if it could keep its ground in
the midst of such presumptuous endeavours on the part of the
priestly caste ; but it would then have been impossible that it should
be faithfully preserved in this form.^
Chap. 1. presents us with a very exact picture of Egyptian man
ners and funeral solmnities, which is particularly fitted to afford us
an insight into the author's wonderfuUy exact acquaintance with
that country. Jacob being dead, Joseph commands his servants,
the physicians, to embalm him. The persons to whom this duty
belonged were men acquainted with the art, who were charged ex
pressly with this business {rexylTai, ttjv emaTripiriv Tavri^v etc
yhov<s irapeiXrj^oTe'}, Diod. Sic. i. 91), belonging probably to the
inferior priesthood, the Pastophori,^ who also practised medicine,3
and therefore suitably designated here as servants. They are here
called physicians {Q'^^Q'y'n) with the same propriety, and as
1 See Sack, Apologetik, p. 232.
2 Comp. Creuzer, Commentt. Herod., p. 13. Bahr, ad Her. i., p. 681.
' According to Clemens Alex. Comp. Creuzer, Symbolik i., p. 247, ff.

OF GEN. XLVIII.  L. 233
characteristically, as they were styled by the Greeks TapfyevTai.^
The mourning or lamentation for the dead, and the funeral, the
former as the preparation for the latter, appear closely conjoined.^
The proper embalming lasts forty days, the whole time of mourn
ing seventy days (1. 3.). The statements of the ancients also agree
with this, as Diodorus, I. c, says, that more than thirty days were
spent in the embalming {¦^/x.epa'i irXelov; rj TpidKovra — according to
other copies TeTTapdKovra) ; according to Herodotus, they let the
body lie altogether seventy days in mineral-alkaline salt, which was
the case indeed in all the three kinds of embalming (ii. 86, 87, 88),
after which lapse of time it was either immediately interred, or still
farther filled with spices.g It is not Joseph himself that applies
immediately to Pharaoh with the request, to be permitted to bury
his father in Canaan ; but he seeks first to win for himself the fa
vour of Pharaoh's house, i. e., the priesthood by whom Pharaoh
was surrounded. This circumstance can hardly be explained by the
mourning having hindered Joseph from applying (Esth. iv. 2) ;* for
we have no definite knowledge as to whether the Persian custom
existed in Egypt also, though, on other grounds, we should be very
much disposed to doubt it. But it must be particularly kept in
view here, that Egypt was full of cities of the dead, in which the'
mummies were carefully laid up. It cannot fail to strike us as a
remarkable thing, that the mummy, having been prepared according
to the Egyptian rite, was now not interred in a manner accordant
with that. As this interment of the dead was closely connected
with the religious belief of Egypt, it may be very well understood
that Joseph was obUged to act prudently in this matter. It is quite
natural that he should here first put himself on a good understand
ing with the house of Pharaoh, the priesthood, and thus convey
his petition through them to the king, who was bound to a strict
observance of the priestly statutes. This also completely explains,
why the Egyptians take part of course in the lamentation, and ac-
1 Creuzer, Commentt., p. 10, sq. On the medical art ofEgypt, which was entirely sub
servient to the objects of the priesthood, see Heeren,p. 165, ff. Creuzer, Symb. i., p. 395.
2 isa'^l * • • • 1BJh^^ 1. 2, 3. dpijmt Kal -ratpal, Herod, ii., p. 85.
3 The peculiarly Egyptian BnK-ti, in which the corpse was laid (Creuzer, Commentt.
p. 67), is also mentioned by our document, xlix. 26, by a name that designates it well
•i-:,s, oomp. the Arabic \ \, VuUers ad Tarafae Moall. p, 39,
* As Rosenmiiller and Schumann suppose.
5 See Creuzer, Commentt. cap, ii., De primariis-urbibus sepnlcralibus per JSgyptum
consecratis.

234 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
company the body as far as a place situated beyond Jordan, ver. 10 ;
for the period of mourning lasted until the time of interment.i All
Joseph's brethren pass over Jordan, and bury their father ; the place
of the mourning and that of the burial are therefore accurately dis
tinguished.^ In the latter the Egyptians could take no part at all,
as it was not in agreement with their usages. The circumstance,
however, thus becomes especially remarkable to the inhabitants of
Canaan, and they give the place of mourning the characteristic
name — The mourning ofthe Egyptians ; for the mourning usages
of that country were in general peculiar, and such as appeared sin
gular to other nations.'

§ 23. CONTINUATION. CRITICISM OF THE HISTORY IN EXODUS.
CHAPS. I, — XIX.
The farther that the history advances onwards, the more plainly
do the traces of its internal truth appear ; for the region of analogies
now becomes more extensive, and criticism gains more certain posi
tions. But at the same time we now encounter more zealous attacks,
threatening to undermine the historical foundation of these accounts.
The present book commences with the description of Israel's con
dition in Egypt. The objection is immediately raised upon this,
that our accounts should pass over the long period of that sojourn
in utter silence.* This is a remark which, in the first place, is not
pertinent here, as it is directed not so much against the historical
character ofthe document, as against the historian's plan and ob
ject. Instead of saying that in this or the other connection, we
ought to have solutions of our difficulties, the enquiry should rather
have been made, whether such communications belonged to the plan
of the writer of the history, and were agreeable to it ; but we have
already demonstrated the opposite of this, in a previous section
(§ 6.). The question, therefore, which has to be proposed is this ;
seeing it is only the condition of the people that this historical work
1 'Ot nkv tTuyyevsii Kal tpiXoL 7r(iyT«s KaTWjratrdfjttvoi -ttijXw Ttis KEt^aXds irepUp-
^ovTat Tijv TToXiv dpijvovVTE^, Ews &t/ Ta0^s Tv^V ^"6 tTtofxa. Diod. Sic. 1, c,
2 Comp. Ewald, Komposit. der Genesis, p, 48.
3 Comp. Her. ii. 36 : Toltrt aXXottn txvQptjjTrottri v6p.ot SLfna h-n^ti — ' AiyiirrioL Sk
etc., ii. 85.
< See De Wette, Beitr, p, 169,

OF EXODUS I.  XIX. 235
is concerned with, does the author exhibit to us such a clear and
certain view of that, as admits of historical verification ?
But here again we Ught upon fresh objections. It is said that,
from the brief and indefinite account in our book, we do not know
the causes of these strange political measures pursued by the Egyp
tian kings; while that which has been adduced from Egyptian
history relating to this matter is mere hypothesis.^ With regard
to this, we must take a view of Egyptian history, so far as it be
longs to our subject, and examine more closely the series of Pha
raohs, as presented to us by name in Manetho and upon the mo
numents. We must, for that purpose, go back to a period that is
certainly very obscure, the period before Sesostris, whose age we
are obUged to fix at the latest 1500 b.c.^ That the age of Moses
goes further back, falling into the time oflnachus (thus 1800 B.C.),
is not only certain from the chronology of the Bible, but is also in
agreement with a multitude of other testimonies from ancient au
thors. 3 Now the remarkable account of the expulsion of the
Hyksos falls into__the 18th dynasty of Manetho ; and, according to
Manetho, into the reign of the first king of that dynasty, called
Amosis I., or Tuthmosis, at which time Julius Africanus also
places the departure from Egypt, though Syncellus, contradicting
him, places it somewhat later in the time of Amosis II., also of the
18th dynasty . While the chronological statements here are neces
sarily such that they can make no claim to complete exactness,
and we must be satisfied if they are found to have only a general
accordance; the greater is the importance that belongs to the in
formation given by Manetho himself concerning the Hyksos,
and especially concerning their expulsion. Much as has been said
on this subject, it has yet always been made to give way very
much to arbitrary hypothesis, without receiving a truly impartial
examination in itself as an ancient Egyptian tradition. It re
quired, however, only such an examination to recognise beyond
dispute in the tradition of the Hyksos, the sojourn and departure
ofthe Hebrews, The important passage of Manetho in Jos, con.
Ap. i. p. 1039, begins thus : eyevero ^a<nXev<; rjplv Tlp,ao<i ovopa.
1 See De Wette, p; 170. Von Bohlen, p, Ixxix. sq,
2 Comp, Heeren, ii, 2, p. 305. Keil, .iib. d. Chron, p. 331,
3 Comp: Perizonius, Origg, Bab. et jEg. ii, p, 362, sq.
* See Leo, Universal-Gesch. i, p. 94, 95.

236 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
'Eirl TO'UTOV oiiK olB' ottw? 6 deb's avTewevae, Kal TrapoBo^o)'; eK
tS>v TT/aos dvaroXrjv fiep&v avOpanroi, Tb yivo<; darj^oL KaraQap-
arrjaavTe's eVt ttjv x^pav dveaTpdTevaav, Kal paBi(o<; dfjiaxv^^
TavTrjv Kara, KpaTo? elXov. That in this account we have the
Egyptian exhibition of the incidents of the IsraeUtish immigration,
can be disputed by no one : every circumstance agrees ; the com
ing from the East, the despised shepherds, the possession of a
province following without a struggle, the wonderful nature of the
event — requires only the remark, that even in this introduction the
authentic and antique complexion of the tradition is manifest.
Manetho continues : Kal Tot's rfyepovevaavTat; iv avry %6tjO(a-
a-dpevoi,, Tb Xoiirbv ras re 7ro\et? ro/iw? eviirprja'av koI to, lepd twv
de&v KaTia'Ka'>^av. Ildai Be toi? eVtjj^wpiots e-^dpoTaTd ttms
expTjcavTO, TOU? fiev a'<j>d^ovTe<;, toov Be Kal to TeKva Kat yvvdtKa<i
eh BovXeiav dyovTe<s. IIepa<s Be Kal ^aaiXea eva ef avTmv
eirovrja'av, at ovofia fjv XaXans. Kal ovto? ev Trj Mep<j}tBi /care-
ylvero, ttjv Te dvto Kal KdTo) ympav Baap,oXoyS)V, &c. If we look
at these descriptions of the oppression to which the Egyptians were
subjected, we shall readily find them explained, even with their
hyperboUcal colouring, by the view which the Egyptians would
take of Joseph's measures, which are very plainly referred to in the
particular circumstances of the imposition of tribute and religious
opposition. Besides, the thoroughly Semitic name ^dXaTi<i
(comp. Gen. xiii. 6^) is a still more decided indication. Ma
netho then removes them to the Typhon-city of Avaris (comp.
Jos. 1, 1. p. 1052), and represents Egypt as being for 511 years
under the dominion of these Hyksos, a period by no means too
strikingly at variance with the 4303 years of the Bible, when we
consider the uncertainty prevailing here in respect of statements of
numbers. The n&meHyksos, according to some, signifies Shepherd-
kings (consequently Nomades, a nation following the patriarchal mode
of life), according toothers Captives; and Josephus has rightly re
minded us that both significations are exactly suited to the IsraeUtes,
and allude perhaps to the history of Joseph himself (p, 1041.). But
principal importance belongs to the circumstance, that, according to
1 [Where Joseph is designated " the governor a'' Vffl'n over the land,"]
2 [But the Hebrews sojourned in Egypt only for the half of that period, 215 years, —
Tb.]

OF EXODUS I. — XIX, 237
Manetho, this people went away with an astonishing force through
the wilderness to Judea, where they founded a city named Jerusa
lem, which cannot be explained otherwise than of the Israelites.
Manetho says, indeed, that according to some, they were Arabians
{nvets Be Xeyovcriv avToii^" A papa's elvai). But that remark, with
the view contained in it, has certainly been too hastily taken up
by some^ without qualification as an historical statement, especially
as, according to another notice of Manetho's, they were dBeX<f>ol
<^otViK6s (Creuzer, comm. Her. i. p. 192,)2 The only argument
that with any plausibility can be brought forward in opposition to the
foregoing has been already well refuted elsewhere.^ It rests on the fact
that Manetho expressly distinguishes the Hyksos from the Israelites
(iu Jos. c Ap. ii. p. 1052, sq.), placing at a far later epoch — that
of the Trojan war — the departure of a horde of lepers under the
conduct of a certain Asarsiph, or Moses, priest of HeUopolis. But
the object of that statement which has been adopted from him by
other authors, is plainly a polemical one directed against the Jews,*
as is proved by the mention of leprosy. The chronological error
shows how much the Egyptians were concerned to obliterate and
remove the dishonour to which they were subjected in the period
of the Hyksos. But the statement that the Israelites called to their
aid the tribes of the Hyksos who had emigrated at an earlier time,
and that, after devastating Egypt, they were beaten back along with
these allies and driven into Syria, shows above all that the self-
flattering tradition of the priests sought here to roll away the dis
grace that Egypt had suffered from Moses, and to veil it with a web
of fictions, that betray themselves as such by internal inconsistency,
as Josephus has well pointed out.
With these accounts from Manetho are joined other testimonies
1 As Heeren, 1. c. p. 116, ff,
[2 Our author's view ofthe identity ofthe Hyksos with the Hebrews— originally ad
vanced by Josephus, and sustained byjPerizonius and others — is now generally rejected.
But recent writers, though united in rejecting that view, are quite'at variance in their
suppositions respecting the time of the Hyksos' invasion, and their nationality. Jahn
(Heb. Coramonw. c. i. g 6) regards them as Arabian Amalekites, of the same race as the
Canaanites : Dr Kitto (Pict. Hist, of Palestine, vol. i. p. 85) again has a theory that they
were identical with the Philistines, which seems improbable. — Tr.]
3 See Perizonius, 1. cit. p. 378, sq. Comp. also Jablonski, Voce. -Egypt, p. 346.
4 We may leave it undecided whether Manetho here gives us his owu invention, which
the circumstances of the time might certainly have led him to do, or whether he met
with the tradition already existing in that form.

238 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
in reference to the monuments. Josephus (Aut. 2, 9) would re
gard the Israelites as the builders of tbe Pyramids. His view in
fact deserves much more consideration than is commonly beUeved.
The high antiquity of the Pyramids is evidenced by the conflicting
statements on that point given by the Egyptians themselves (Diod.
i. 64, Plin, H. N. 36, 12) ; and Herodotus's account of Cheops as
the first builder of them may certainly be decidedly rejected, for
the very reason that in that case we should have more certain in
formation concerning them. That the Israelites should have exe
cuted structures of this kind will appear the more likely, when
we consider that the building of the cities mentioned in the Penta
teuch comes within the last period of their stay, and certainly pre
supposes a still earlier oppression. We are confirmed in this by
the circumstance that the Egyptians in general appear to have em
ployed foreigners for their huge structures, as is clear from the
statements made by the ancients conceming the buildings, which
Sesostris caused to be raised by prisoners taken in war (Diod. i. 56 ;
Her. ii. 1 08) ; and we may leave the question out of view, whether
we ought to explain by that the notice in Pliny 1. cit, : " vestigia
complurium inchoatarum exstant." It is of importance also to mark
the district in which we meet with the Pyramids, in the neighbour
hood of Memphis (Heeren. p. 74), and the building materials which
according to Herodotus were required for them, were to be got in
the neighbourhood of Goshen (Her. ii. 8, 124 ; Perizon. p. 444,
sq.). This circumstance has continued to be the subject of per
plexity even to the present time; and the similarity which they
have been discdvered to have to Ethiopic monuments may cer
tainly go to prove the hypothesis of Heeren that the Pyramids
have an Ethiopic origin ; provided it is confined to this, that the
style of architecture leads to such a conclusion, without our deciding
however anything by that, as to who must have executed those struc
tures, but only who supplied the idea of them. Heeren also however
rightly recognized (p. 118) that Herodotus' sketches ofthe kings and
of the period to which the Pyramids owed their origin, must neces-
1 See Perizonius, p. 439. Heeren, p. 118.
2 Quid vero tanto temporis intervallo tot milUa hominum perfecerunt, non reperiinus
nisi munitionem duarum vel trium urbium quae ab iis intra paucissimos annos faciUime
perfici potuit. Debuerunt etiam aliud quid maximae molis, laboris, temporis praestitisse
quodque conveniens esset aliquot centenis millibus hominum longissimo et continue
tempore ad opus adactis. Perizonius, p. 441.
3 See Heeren, ii. 1, p. 405 ; ii. 2, p 118, 198, ff. Ritter, Erdkunde i. u. 640.

OF EXODtJS I. — XIX. 239
sarily refer to the period of the Hyksos, as being an epoch to which
the Egyptians gave principal prominence as a time of disgrace.
To this effect is the remarkable passage in Her. ii. 128 : tovtov?
VTro fila-eo'i ov Kdpra deXovtri 'Ai/yvirTioi ovopd^eiv, dXXd Kal ra?
irvpaixlZoM KaXiovat •Kotpevo<s ^iXltUovo^, o? tovtov Tbv ypovov
eve/jbe KTijvea KaTo, Taiha tcl x'^pta. However obscure the name
^iXirlcov here is, and however much the tradition appears here to
have assumed a certain epic formation (see Bahr ad h. 1,), yet the
reference to the Israelites who once lived in Egypt cannot be over
looked. It is interesting to observe the concurrence of the pictorial repre
sentations on the monuments with these accounts. Through the
recent discoveries, in particular, it has been concluded, with great
probability, that the reUefs on the great palace at Karnak represent
the history of the expulsion of the Hyksos, and indeed in the very
way that Manetho relates it : a proof how far the endeavour of an
cient Egypt was carried, constantly to present in a lively manner to
the people their famous history in the national version of it ; and
showing also that Manetho must rather be regarded as repeating
the tradition of the priests, and not as the inventor of it. Here now
the peculiar delineation of the nation, which is represented as van
quished, attracts our particular attention. They aU have beards and
long clothes, and their physiognomy is quite distinct from that of
the Egyptians. They are evidentiy Nomades, who flee along with
their herds into the woods and morasses. In addition the whole
has a heterogeneous appearance, and seems to betray the infancy of
the art.^ We require only to add to this Heeren's conjecture, that
they might be Arabians, to confirm still more their identity with
the Israelites, which the preceding has made so probable.
After these accounts, we shall be in a condition to understand
better the reason of the measures pursued by the Egyptian kings.
The recollection of Joseph and his services was extinguished (Ex.
i, 8), and had given place, therefore, to the ancient hatred to the
shepherds of Goshen which was deeply founded in reUgion. We
find expressed throughout in the Egyptian tradition, a branding of
that epoch, when the Israelites found a favourable reception with the
Pharaohs-;, and a concern on the part of the priests to maintain their
1 Comp, Heeren, ii. 2, p, 121, 253, ff.

240 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
national and religious peculiarities. Along with this we see a dread
of insurrection, and of warlike inroads,^ which, with a people at that
time so martially disposed, and so soon to reach an epoch splendidly
distinguished by warlike deeds, might easily turn into the tradition
of conquering and driving out the shepherd-people.
This tradition, at the same time, confirms the increase of the Is
raelites to so considerable a multitude of people as we find them in
the age of Moses. But to this our recent critics have paid so little
regard, that they have rather sought to draw an argument thence
for the mythical character of the narrative. The number of the
Israelites at the Exodus amounted to 600,000 men of war, which
supposes the nation to have numbered two millions and a half in
dividuals.* Now, while expressly regarding this extraordinary in
crease as a special divine blessing, and recognizing in it also, in
surveying the history from a higher point of view, the undeniable
working of Providence, which in this manner would cause the hbera
tion of Israel to appear the more splendidly as a divine act ; yet na
tural causes also admit of being stated as concurring to its produc
tion, and serving to explain the circumstance. The ample period
of 430 years must certainly be regarded in the first place. We
must next take into the account the uncommon fruitfulness of
Egypt, on which all the ancient authors are agreed, while they extol
the peculiarly prosperous births of the Egyptian women. 6 This
must especially be supposed to have been the case in the districts
inhabited by the Hebrews, since there was there the fruitfulness of
the ground in addition. There is no force at all in the objection
that so many men could not have found room there. In the time
of Josephus, Egypt, exclusive of Alexandria, numbered seven mil
lions of inhabitants (De B. Jud. u. 16), and yet at that time the
population of the interior must have been considerably diminished,
1 Ex. i. 10, comp. Schumann, De inf. Mos. in the Commentt. Th. ed. Ros. et Maurer
ii. 1, p. 217.
2 See Hartmann, p. 440. Von Bohlen, p. Ix. *
3 See J. D, Michaelis on Exod. xii. 37. Siissmilch, Gottliche Ordnung u. s. w. ii.p.
337, ff. That there is in this no contradiction of Num. iii. 41, ff,, as Von Bohlen thinks,
has been well shown by J. D. Michaelis, De censibus Hebrssorum, § iv. v.
i [This certainly appears to be an error. — Tr.]
5 Comp. Strabo, xv. p. 478. Aristot. Hist. Anim. vii. 4. Plin. H. N. vii. 3. Seneca,
Qn. Nat, iii. 25. Colum. De re rust. iii. 8. Maillet, Descr. i. p. 18. Schlosser, i. 1, p.
186, ff.
* Comp. de la Roziere in the Dcscript. del' Eg, xx, p, 328,

OF EXODUS I.  XIX. 24 1
if we compare the accounts of the ancients concerning Thebes in
particular !
A contradiction has been pointed out in the measures of Pha
raoh, who, on the one hand, will not let the people depart, and on
the other attempts to extirpate them altogether.^ A wretched
misunderstanding ! Pharaoh's object evidently was as much to
make use of the Israelites for his own purposes, to make them la
bour as slaves and employ them usefully, as to guard against the
danger that threatened him on their side. A total extirpation
therefore is not to be thought of at all. Equal improbabiUty has
been charged on the mention of two midwives, which were cer
tainly not sufficient for so large a number of people.^ This charge
would stand good, if it were only so in the text ! But the king
evidently wished to compass his end, in the first place, in a con
cealed way, by this method, which besides is quite accordant with
the customs of the East.^ Could he have assembled before him all
the midwives ? Must he not have first made the attempt with
some of them, and striven to win them over to his measures ?
Must he not have proceeded so all the more with Hebrew mid-
wives, which those here mentioned certainly were ? And, on
the other hand, does not the introduction of these women by
name* afford a particular guarantee for the accuracy of the narra
tive ? His first project not succeeding, the king tries a new
method. This command also, in Exod. i. 22, is treated as impro^
bable, because the Egyptians can have executed it only imperfectiy^
as is shown indeed by the great numbers of the multitude of the
people at their departure. As if the absurdity of a measure did
away with its reality ! But what then would these critics say to
similar measures on the part of other nations — to the conduct of the
Lacedemonians towards the Helots, to that of Mithridates towards
his Eoman subjects,® to that of the Caliph Hakem to the Egyptians
(Barhebr. Chron. x., p. 219), and a hundred similar cases in ori
ental history ? But just because the king's order could be but
1 So Bauer, Hebr. Gesch. i. p. 246.
2 Bauer, p. 247. De Wette, p. 171. Hartmann, p. 441.
3 See Rosenmiiller, A. u. N. Morgenl. i. p. 255.
4 How V. Bohlen can say that the names are invented to suit their profession (sic !)
is incomprehensible, since the meaning of the names has no relation to it at all. What
etymologies can this critic have been thinking of!
S See Cicero pro 1. Manil. c, 3. Pro Flacoo, c. 25, Valer, Max. ix. 2, Q

242 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
defectively executed, and in general because his plan was to effect
a diminution, but by no means an extirpation, of the people ; we
can easily explain it as quite accordant with probability, that we
should subsequently meet with the mention of so numerous a mul-
tiude of people. We may also suppose with certainty that the
Hebrews adopted every possible plan, to render the king's measure
as ineffective as they could.^
The objections that have been brought against the earliest
part of Moses' personal history, rest on the supposition of its
being mythus, although the very analogies that have often been
adduced of the birth and preservation of Eomulus, Cyrus, and
Semiramis, should have exhibited just the contrary, the want
of similarity in this slight and simple history to those tradi
tions. No one, for instance, will regard it as any thing better
than a bold assertion, to affirm that the way in which Moses was
rescued is inconceivable, because the daughter of the Egyptian king
would not have ventured to do such a thing, &c. The contrary
argument has here its full force, that it is impossible to see why a
writer of fiction should have selected just this mode of his being
rescued. De Wette, however, p. 174, ff., has also attempted to
answer this question, by saying that the mythus is of etymological
origin, arising from an endeavour to explain the name of Moses.
But this view meets its refutation, when we remark that the etymo
logy, if regarded strictly as such, is not correct, since ^1^ cannot
mean extracius. How then can such an argument be built upon
it ? In that case the inventor would certainly have given the my
thus a different turn, for the remark referred to is one that would
necessarily be made by every reader upon the passage. The name,
however, is evidently Egyptian, for the child receives this name
from an Egyptian princess, and the word finds. a simple explana
tion in the Egyptian language, from which also the LXX. and
others of the older authors, acquainted with that tongue, have ex
plained it.^ Our author explains the name by a fine paronomasia,
and thus shows himself certainly to be well acquainted with the
Egyptian language, without however betraying himself in any way
as indulging in free invention. But the mode of explanation which
1 See Schumann, 1. cit. p, 232, sq.
2 Comp. Schumann, 1. cit. p. 261 — 266.

OF EXODUS I. — XIX. 243
fixes on the etymologies as the reason and occasion of the mythi,
errs still farther ; for in u. 22 it finds such another case (De Wette,
p. 176), though the name Gershom is quite correctly explained,
the Hebrew form mjj being simply turned into the Arabic QjjJ,
T
which only speaks for the authentic character of a narrative whose
scene is laid in Arabia ; and when De Wette in ch. iii. goes back
to an etymology of the word 125 from ^35 a thorn (p. 186), he
falls into tbe same fault that he charges upon the natural meaning
of this history ; for there is nothing of it in the text.
It is thought strange that from ch. ii. 1 1 Moses does not appear
as the adoptive son of the Egyptian princess, but as a powerful
young Hebrew.^ But we are expressly informed that Moses had
gone back to his brethren from the royal court, as soon as he was
grown up. Must he not here have again adopted their mode of
life ? But who could decidedly say what circumstances were the
occasion of that return ? The more probabihties that we have here,
the less should suspicion be thrown on what is fact, but as little
should we demand the express mention of a certain matter, which
the author has not regarded as sufficiently important to specify it.
Hence the expectation that Moses should have been received at a
later time as a royal prince, is absurd ; — or may we not suppose
that Moses had surrendered those claims, and now wished to appear
only as what he was, and what had now become his highest voca
tion, a Hebrew ?
While the narrative describes the way in which Moses was called
with extraordinary psychological accuracy (see § 12), and in this
characteristic delineation cannot be invented — any more than Ts.
vi., Jerem. i., Ezek. i. — the account given of the conduct of Moses
in the matter is particularly surprising. It is clear that the impar
tiality with which he is here portrayed cannot possibly have pro
ceeded from a feeUng which has been designated as a " triumph of
pride for the prejudiced son of Abraham.'"' There is therefore no
other resource but to fall back on the simple assertion, that Moses
cannot have formed his resolution for the liberation of his country-^
men in such a way as this,* i. e., to decide dogmatically, instead of
critically ; for that very consideration which may form a ground of
1 See Hartmann, p. 444, ff.
2 Expressions of Hartmann's, p. 448.
3 See De Wette, p. 188, ff.
Q 2

244 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
attack ou the narrative, viz,, the subjective character of the chief
personage here, speaks in favour of it : the higher objective incite
ment applied to him, and his appointment, lie beyond the jurisdiction
of criticism. In like manner, in the account that is given of the
miracles wrought in Egypt, our attention is first drawn to the cir
cumstance, as one deserving remark, that the narrative admits a part
of them to have been imitated by the priests. Nothing similar to
this occurs again in the Old Testament ; and, while on that account
we must banish altogether the idea of its being copied, we meet here
on the other hand with an ancient mysterious magic, whose compass
and depth we are the less able to discover because of its antiquity.
But how can such a statement be explained, which is an admission to
a certain extent on behalf of the Egyptian priesthood, supposing
that wehave here to do with traditions and legends of a later date ?
Assuredly, self interest would have dictated a different procedure.^
These miracles are certainly singular in their character of subli
mity and power ; but wherever we turn our gaze, — whether to the
epoch of the Theocracy, as such, — to the disposition of a people de
generate, yet called to so high a destiny, — or to the obstinacy and
defiant attitude of Egypt and her king ; everywhere we find such
peculiar circumstances, that with regard to the miracles also we
should expect only the like peculiarity. Moses is the first instru
ment employed by God for the performance of miracles, which is a
most significant circumstance in itself. Where the words of the
Lord do not suffice, their sound dying away unheard, the deeds of
the Lord speak in loud proclamation of his majesty. The hour of
Israel's deliverance is made glorious by powerful testimonies from
Jehovah ; but still more glorious is that which is given by the re
moval of the bondage : this testimony outshines all the preceding,
which are but the vestibule, the approach to that Holiest of all.
Absurd as it is to place these wonders under a purely natural
point of view, which is quite opposed to the object of the narrator,
and which, after all the exegetical perversions that can be adopted,
by no means serves to explain them all ; it is as incorrect, on the
1 6iaV, Ex. vii. 11, 22, viii, 3, 14. — Compare with that the turn which Artapanus, in
Euseb. Prsep. Ev. ix. 27, gives the subject.
2 De Wette, p. 193, says it is quite a ridiculous contradiction to find the magicians,
after the water had been previously changed to a red colour, here introduced as doing
the eame. But it is understood, of course, that this imitation took place after the subse
quent removal of the plague, and was probably exhibited also on a smaller sr.ale.

OF EXODUS I.  XIX. 245
other hand, to overlook the natural points of connection which these
plagues have with the natural condition of the country on which
they are sent. In this there lies at the same time a consideration
of particular force against the mythical treatment of the miracles,
which would refer them purely to the domain of fancy. They are
as Uttle natural wonders, as they are merely invented and arbitrary
wonders : the natural here stands in such close connection with the
supernatural that the one bears and supports the other. Had the
author purposed merely to give a poetical embellishment of the na
tural plagues ofthe country, he would hardly have made the Egyp
tian priests partly associates in bringing them down, and still less
would he have added other things not belonging to them, such as
the death of the first-born, and the circumstance of the district of
Goshen remaining untouched ; but as little are the wonders severed
from all connection with natural relations, and on that account they
are quite suited to the circumstances of the time.
What an impression it must have made upon the Egyptians, in
the first place, to see that Jehovah's power was directed against
what was not only of particular material utility, but also was most
sacred in their eyes — the sacred water of the Nile, the sacred ani
mals, the priesthood, ix. 11. Nothing that they have can escape
the avenging and punishing hand of Jehovah. How accurately
psychological is the fact that Pharaoh, when he sees that the art of
the priests is exhausted, and that they themselves are obliged to
acknowledge the finger of Jehovah, acquiesces, and even desires
that the IsraeUtes should sacrifice in the land (viii. 21, ff.) ; and
again, the circumstance that there is no concealment of the fact,
that the king convinced himself by messengers of the wonderful
preservation of the land of Goshen, ix. 7. These are traits that
testify the exact accuracy of the account, being just such as we
should expect from a contemporary writer. But the order in which
these wonders follow one another is especially worthy of remark in
our investigation, for that order as little excludes a natural mode
of considering them, as such a mode on its part is by no means
alone sufficient to explain them completely. The water which has
been destroyed, and made putrid, especially by the dying of the fish,
must have produced, as a natural consequence, a multitude of ver
min ; and so in like manner the air, being contaminated by the
dying of the frogs (vui. 10), must again on its part have brought

246 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
a multitude of other kinds of vermin, and with that again the des -
tractive murrain of the cattle must be connected, and by all that
had preceded the loathsome disease (ix. 9, ff.) would be produced.
And in the destruction of everything that remained to be destroyed
by the hail and the locusts, there is also evident a close connection
with what happened before, though in this instance the physical
causal conjunction is more removed from view. But these miracles
also have their correlative conditions, founded in the physical nature
of the country, no less than the darkness which at last covered the
land.^ Taken altogether, the total impression produced by them
must evidently have been a powerful one : Jehovah, in opposition
to all worship of nature, exhibited himself in them as the supreme
and only ruler of nature in the entire circle of its active energies.
Hence Eichhorn's question here still stands good, though proceeding
in him from a false method of explaining away what was miraculous :
" Had the proceedings of Moses with Pharaoh been recorded simply
from tradition, by an Israelite, who was not accurately acquainted
with Egypt by personal experience, — by one who had not been a
witness of those terrible natural occurrences ; could he well have
been in a condition to give so exact a narrative, agreeing with the
natural history of Egypt even to the smallest minutiae ?'"'
There is in addition to this among other things a remarkable
circumstance, which refers to a primitive Egyptian usage. The
symbolical procedure employed by Moses, ix. 8, ff., is striking,
and has never yet been satisfactorily explained. It is, however,
made completely inteUigible to us by a statement of Manetho in
Plutarch. De Is. et Osir. p. 380 : Kal yhp ev 'EtXr/dvla'} nroXet
^rnvTat; dv6pdrjrov<; KaTeirlptrpaa'av, a)S MaveOwv io'ToprjKe, Tv-
t^mvlov; KcikovvTet; Kal ttjv Te^pav avT&v XiKpS)VTe<s Tjt^dvi-
i^ov Kal BieKyrretpov. In respect to this we may leave it unde
cided how far this statement should be connected with the residence
of the Hyksos, a conclusion which there is much to fatour -.^ here .
we have only to do with the striking rite mentioned in the notice,
which was certainly an ancient mode of expiation, indicating puri
fication, which in antiquity was often symbolized by ashes.* We
1 Comp. Rosenmiiller, Bibl. Alterthumsk. iii. p. 219, 221, 225.
2 Einleit. § 435, u, p. 254.
3 Oomp. Tablonski, Panth. Mg. ii p. 68, sq. Creuzer, Symbol, i, p. 354, ff,
i V. Spencer, De legg. rituall. 1, iii, diss, 3. c. 1,

OF EXODUS I.  XIX. 247
shall thus understand the entire significance which the procedure
had for the Egyptians, inasmuch as a rite which they regarded as
sacred in the sense referred to, was here followed by the contrary
effect, pollution, as is so expressively indicated by our text.^ We
have at the same time to observe, that this usage belonged to au
age which was decidedly one of primitive antiquity, so that not only
is its existence disputed by Herodotus, though indeed incorrectiy
(ii. 45), but even Manetho represents it as having already fallen
into disuse under king Amosis.^ Hence we here meet with a know
ledge of Egypt, which we should by no means expect from a fo
reigner, and as Uttle from a later author.
The influence by which the opponents of the historical truth of
the narrative have been swayed, in the case of these miracles, is
very clearly displayed in De Wette. He incessantly repeats the
assertion, that, if we would retain any degree of " probability" at
all, we must give up the previous announcement and the performance
of them by Moses, and their cessation upon his intercession ; that
it is "improbable" that the land of Goshen remained unharmed,
and that the death of all the first-born is " quite incredible." Pro
bability may be opposed to probability, and such an assertion does
not properly express anything at all ; how from the idea of impro
bability we arrive at that of incredibility, is still less clear ; nor is
it any clearer why the former should be affirmed ofthe one wonder,
and the latter of the other; but it is evident on what supposition
here again the " incredibility" rests, so that to whoever regards that
supposition as invalid, the whole argument is quite devoid of force.
Bare assertion here can hardly be raised to the level of absolute
objective truth.
Several attacks have been made upon the way in which the rite
of the Passover is said to have been introduced. The mythical
fiction, it seems, is here very plainly discoverable, and the whole
must be a very late attempt to explain the origin of the ceremony,
and to refer it to the Mosaic period.^ It is thought, in the first
1 As it is remarked, that even the priests, on whom cleanliness was so strictly biudin g
(Her. iii. 37), were smitten with the boils ; ix. 11.
2 KareXuffC — t&v t^b avQptairoKTovtav vSfiov "AfitotTiV, cue fiaprvpeX Mqi/eOuv.
Porphyr, De Abstin. ii. 55. Euseb. Prsep. Evang. iv. 16. The only additional remark
that we shall make here, is on the opposite Egyptian tradition of the leprosy ofthe He
brews, adduced above : what connection it has with this fact may, however, be left out
of view.
3 Comp. De Wette, Beitr. i., p, 392, ff, ; V, Bohlen, p, cxxxix,, ff, ; Vatke, Bibl. Th, i.

248 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
place, that in the later laws relating to the Passover, traces have
been discovered of a simpler and therefore more original observ
ance [Cultus'], which in the account in Exodus also still partially
betrays itself but was subsequently very much enlarged in its sig
nificance and extent. It has accordingly been supposed, that the
Passover was originally a harvest-feast, a feast of the first-bom, at
which at first only unbloody offerings, but subsequently bloody
offerings also were presented ; or, again, that it was a spring-time
feast, celebrating the entry of the sun into the sign of the ram, on
which account also an animal of that kind was sacrificed, symbol
izing the triumph of the sun over winter, and his renewed strength.
The supposition, therefore, is that its original signification at
any rate was that of a festival of nature, with which the ethical
signification only came to be associated as a later supplement.
We must here express surprise, that the former idea should be
represented so unconditionally as the original one, and the latter
be regarded as its result. Now it is the reverse in all ethnic ordin
ances of worship, where regard to the ethical element of the reUgion
has been foUowed by giving it support in nature, and even by its
issuing in nature ; so that the whole of the worship of nature can
be understood only as a subsequent formation, an apprehension of
the ethical in the lower sphere of the natural. The natural is in
this relation not a productive thing, but a thing produced, and in its
particular form is to be referred to the religious sentiment ; but the
form is a thing fixed by a higher impulse, and nature in general is
itself only the form, symbol, imprint, and refiection of a higher
original. But if among the Hebrews every feast, and their whole
system of worship, are decidedly penetrated by such an ethical and
deeply religious element, — what justifies us here in determining all
at once on the existence of such an irregularity ? Farther, how
shall we explain the circumstance, that all the laws laid down for
the feast of the Passover after the first celebration of it, by no
means point out its origin, but presuppose the feast as instituted
and well established ? To take up the opinion that these laws
again are also presented to us in a later revision, is manifestly most
arbitrary : we have thus anew to do with falsified documents. In
p. 486, ff.; George, Die alteren Jiid. Feste, p. 85, ff,, 222, ff, Comp. also Baur on the
original meaning ofthe Paschal feast, and circumcision, in (he Tiibinger Theol. ,Zeitr
schr. 1832, H. i., p. 40, ff.

OF EXODUS I.^ — XIX, 249
such a state of things, who can presume to pronounce a decision as
to what is original and what derived ? But above all, is it possi
ble that from such a hypothetic original, such an idea of the his
torical origin ofthe feast could be formed, as we meet with in Exod.
xii. 13 ? For, according to the view of our opponents, the Pass
over originally occupied qnite a natural position in the series ofthe
other so-called feasts of nature ; how then did it of a sudden come
to be torn out of its position, which was quite a natural one, so as
to be assigned a place so very pecuUar previous to the institution
of all the other feasts ? It could not possibly in this way receive
explanation — yet this is hypothetically assigned as the cause ofthe
fiction — but the obscurity and confusion would only have been in
creased. Besides, there is an essentially new idea in the first Pass
over, which does not appear again afterwards, and indeed according
to the appointments recorded in Exodus itself, ought not to appear
again. The first Passover is a sacrifice, presented to Jehovah as
an atonement, in consequence of which his favour is displayed
towards Israel, while every thing that comes in hostile collision
with the Theocracy, — here represented by Egypt's first-born, — falls
a victim to his justice. This first sacrifice is also quite of a peculiar
kind : it is the streaking of blood upon the houses, that here very
peculiarly represents the atonement. This sacrifice has a meal con
joined with it, likewise of a peculiar kind, and it is only this meal
that remains and is celebrated as a memorial- sign (^I'^^'j, comp.
Ex. xii. 14 ; Deut. xvi. 3) in future. Now, it is difficult to per
ceive how one should have arrived at the first-mentioned idea from
that just specified, while the former decidedly appears as a product
of the latter.
But the principal appeal is made to the want of internal connec
tion, which is said to prevail in the narrative of Exodus. We, on
our part, have therefore to show that such a law could be given
only at this time. The solemn epoch of the departure from Egypt
required especially to have the significance that belonged to it recog
nized. This month must therefore form the commencement of the
year. That the reckoning in the Pentateuch is always dated from
this month, is known ; but there are also as well traces occurring
in it that point us to the very ancient existence of a commencement
of the year coincident with harvest,^ which also serves to explain
1 Conjp. Ideler, Handb. d. Chron. i. p, 491, ff, Winer, Reallex, i, p. 627,

250 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
how this latter mode of reckoning could again find an entrance
during the Exile. Must it not also be regarded as probable that
the Egyptian reckoning of time^ (even as the Babylonian during
the ExUe) exercised an infiuence at that time upon the Hebrews,
and was adopted by them ? This notice can all the less have had
its origin subsequently to the Exile (as George, p. 91, will have it),
as it then occurred to no one to^doubt about the ecclesiastical com
mencement of the year, which, as is well known, still formed the
date of reckoning even in the period of the Maccabees. It is pre
cisely this remark that transfers us so completely to the standing-
point of that age (viz., of the Exodus), that only by that age can
we explain it. A new epoch was now to commence for Israel : —
with this declaration is naturally connected the second, which shows
how that epoch is to be celebrated. The idea of the atonement
very naturally is here brought forward first : annexed to the sacrifice
follows the mode of the sacrificial meal, and then the signification
of this atoning sacrifice (ver, 3-13-). Nothing but great prejudice
could lead one to assert that the connection is here interrupted
(George, pp. 92, 93^) ; the whole theory of sacrifice must then be
assailed in general, and the superfiuousness of the rite be maintained,
as e. g, Vatke does, in which case, indeed, a theocratic point of view
can no longer be spoken of. Or if the destruction of the first- born be
pronounced untrue dpriori, the Passover also must certainly have a
mythical character ; and thus this latter assertion also rests on a mere
empty supposition. To the significant command ofthe sacrifice is
very naturally annexed the notice, that it was to retain its importance
not merely for the present, but also for the future (ver. 13-20.). It
is certainly of consequence here to understand the theocratic import
ance of that event, and of the rite connected with it, in order to
perceive why so permanent a memorial feast was here commanded.
But, on the other hand, it is also clear that this command must
have possessed importance in reference to that age ; for it showed
Israel, on their leaving Egypt, to what they were called ; their de-
1 See upon it Ideler, 1. c. p, 124, ff.
2 This writer asserts, among other things, that there is a contradiction between Ex.
xii. 9 and Deut. xvi. 7 ; for according to the one passage, the paschal lamb was to be
roasted, according to the other to be boiled. But this rests on a misunderstanding of
the verb Viia, to which fflsa may be supplied as well as B'^as. The passage in Deute
ronomy thus plainly refers back to the more precise definition in Exodus, and not vive
versa, as George thinks.

OF EXODUS I. — XIX. 251
Uverance was nothing little or insignificant in the eye of God : as
its celebration was to be commemorated even to the most distant
generations, the people must have seen in that an indication of the
great destiny which the Lord had in view for them at that moment ;
and their gaze was elevated from the- present to the future.^ Far
ther, it is also to be considered, that here it is only the eating of the
Passover in their houses that is spoken of, and a holy assembly
(tlJlp i^1pl2 ^ii- 16), a circumstance that quite transports us to a
time when as yet they had no sanctuary. How much artful revision
and reconstruction must have been employed, supposing a later
author transferred himself to this standing-point !
It is quite in order that Moses should now give more exact di
rections as to how the people should perform the ceremony of con
secrating their houses with the blood ; nor, along with this, is it
omitted to inculcate upon the people that they should maintain the
remembrance of that act ; they were faithfully to inform their chil
dren of it (xii. 2 1 — 28.) . This again is quite agreeable to the state
of things at that time. There follows next an historical statement
of the punishment inflicted on Egypt's first-born, and of Israel's de
liverance, with their hurried departure from Egypt (ver. 29 — 42.).
Here also objections have been made. In the first place, it is
treated as a contradiction that, according to xii. 1 1 , the Israelites
must already have been in a condition of readiness for travelling,
and yet, ver. 39, they were so taken by surprise, that they were
obUged to leave Egypt thus hurriedly. It agrees ill with this ob
jection, what De Wette (ii. p. 202) maintains, that the hurried de
parture of a whole nation in one night is impossible. It follows,
therefore, from this last assertion, that the Israelites must be re
garded as previously on their departure : now this also is expressly
said, since some days before (xii. 3) they were told to be ready for
the journey. Yet no one will be surprised that, with so great a
1 It is incomprehensible how one can urge that xii. 17—" for on this very day Ilead
your hosts out of Egypt"— points to a late epoch, when it is this very epoch that is
spoken of, and that therefore it was of late composition (George, p. 95.). So also this
learned man is wrong in thinking that Deuteronomy contains only a command in refer
ence to the feast of the seventh day, but Exodus to that of the first and the seventh.
That the first day's feast also is understood in Deuteronomy, is clear from xvi, ), where
it is just the beginning of the feast that is intended ; only briefly stated, indeed ; and the
closer definition concerning the seventh day is purely supplementary. From the passage
in Deuteronomy, taken singly aud in itself, no definite idea whatever can be formed of the
feast : we are thus necessarily referred to the eoilier statement.

252 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
multitude, the departure must have been in haste. Accordingly,
there results from those very objections the correct view of the fact.
Yet it is also said that it is a contradiction, that in xii. 8 the eating
of the unleavened bread is commanded, while this circumstance
afterwards results of itself from the hasty departure ; comp. Deut.
xvi. 3. How is there any real contradiction in this ? It was pre
cisely in accordance with the divine will that they should eat the
unleavened bread, which was then rendered necessary also by the
circumstances in which they were placed. But the reason why the
command was given just in that place concerning the unleavened
bread, was because of its higher reference to the Passover as a sa
crifice. How this point must gain additional importance from that
circumstance being associated with it, is clear ; and hence also the
appellation of the feast as niJJQil 3(1 becomes intelligible to us,
which necessarily required such a circumstance to make it so. But
as to the additional general objection that at that unsettled period
Moses cannot have been thinking of the future continued celebra
tion of the feast in Canaan, it is here in so far correct as it follows
thence that all the appointments concerning it could not be given
immediately in this place — and this also is actually the case ; —
but it is false, if we are with this required to suppose a total over
looking of this future appointment ; for that would be as much as
to say that the Lawgiver himself knew nothing of the destiny of his
own nation, but only acted at random, thus setting the pecuUar cha
racter of Moses himself altogether aside.
After the historical account of the feast of the Passover, there
follow in addition two commandments that are essentially connected
with the former injunctions. They are consequent on what goes
before, and throw light in tum upon it. In the first place the feast
was specially a Hebrew, a theocratic feast ; this had been clearly
exhibited in the destruction of the first-born of the Egyptians :
it is therefore quite accordant with the circumstances, that a com
mand follows, as to who alone could properly take a part in tho
celebration of it ; a new Torah must be introduced for foreigners,
which is the more to be expected here, as Egyptians were certainly
to be found among the people (xii. 43 — 51,). Next, there results
thence a sacred character for the first-born of the Hebrews, as those
who were spared (xui. 1, 2.). Here also it is tobe remarked that,
in the present passage, that sacredness is as yet established only in

OF EXODUS I. — XIX. 253
general. It was a point that required to be taken notice of as much
because of what went before, as for the sake of subsequent appoint
ments. From this fundamental principle arose the other appoint
ment ofthe redemption ofthe first-born (xiii. 11, ff.). This, how
ever, could not be properly understood, unless the significant
character which this feast possessed for all futurity were recognized :
hence this is again inculcated (ver. 3—10.). The redemption of
the first-born again is here stated with so little of detail, nothing
but its general principle being laid down, that we find ourselves
anew on the standing-point of the commencement of the legislation.
That George should conclude from the forms of expression in Ex.
xiii. 9 — 16, cognate with those in Deuteronomy, that our fragment
is l^ter than that in Deuteronomy (p. 106), is strange, for it by no
means admits of Jbeing proved, that the meaning which the expres
sion afterwards bears, relating to what is sensible, belongs to it here.
But the signification that is given of the name HDS is considered
as the chief difficulty in the narrative of Exodus. This is said to
have a much more suitable reference to the departure from Egypt,
or to the feast of the Spring {transitus sc. soils) ; but the forced
nature of the signification here given is said to be plainly shown
by this, that the verb has the sense of to spare only when joined
with the prep. ^^. But both a comparison of the related verb
n^Q, and also the analogy of the Arabic ^wi, and the Syriac
cognate shows, that the fundamental meaning of n^Q cannot
possibly be transire ; for how then could those cognate verbs
have their meaning in any way derived from it? The radical
meaning is rather laxare, laxationem praebere} to deliver and
protect, whence results the sensible idea — amplo diductoque pas-
su ingressus est ; hence j-jDD ^^° means to halt, he lame, and
then takes the wider meaning transivit, whence |-iDDri> Pl^ee of
passage. Thus the relation in which the word stands to ^'yy with
^V in the sense of to spare is precisely the reverse, inasmuch as
that signification is in the former the original, and in the latter
the derived one. It then becomes clear that ^DD' ^^^^ when not
construed with ^^}, may signify to spare. Thus our narrative jus
tifies itself in every respect as accredited history. It is felt, how-
1 Compi Schultens, ad Prov. p. 350, sq. Rosenmiiller, ad Bochart. Hieroz. i. p. 630,
ed. Lips.

254 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
ever, by our opponents how much must be conceded, if the ancient
institution and celebration of the Passover be true; the circum
stances conjoined with it must then be admitted as having no less a
claim to credibihty ; and their aversion to the miraculous in history
is too strong for them to adopt this opinion.
Following the Hebrews farther on their march through the wil
derness to the Eed Sea, we find the line of march very exactly
stated. .The stations are Succoth, Etham, and Pihahiroth. The
first is unknown to us ; , of the second it is highly probable that we
should understand by it the so-called Bir Suez, where the Eed Sea
describes a curve, and the wilderness appears to terminate. The
notice in E-x; xiu; 20 is therefore one that admits of being explained
only by hjoal inspection on the part ofthe author : the spot is even
at the present day a usual resting-place of the caravans.'' . Tn this
it is farther surprising, that, according to these statements, the
Hebrews must have turned northwards to Colsum, and have
passed; thTough the Eed Sea there. By modern discoveries it has,
however, been ascertained beyond -dispute, that the gulf formerly
extended higher up towards the north, and has subsequently re
treated farther to the ¦south. The statement in xiv. 2 is equally
exact: " they encamped before Pihahiroth, between Migdol and
the sea, before Baal-zephon, over against which they encamped on
the shore of the sea :" in reference to which we have only to wonder,
that instead of recognizing in this the accuracy of the narrative, the
statement itself has been thought a strange one,8 which is certainly
an involuntary confession, that our old author knew far more of
Egyptian geography than his modern opponents do.
We certainly also meet with astonishing facts in these narratives. It
need not surprise us after what goes before, to see Jehovah now,
who had so graciously taken up the cause of his people, at the
head of them as their leader through the wilderness. After aU the
promises that had been given to Israel by their God, we may ex
pect nothing else bdt what is great and glorious ; the contrary
would agnify that Jehovah had abandoned his people ; the deliver
ance from Egypt would then be an incredible fact. Thus the one
tiling bears out and verifies the other. But the more that the mind
1 Comp. Burckhardt, Reise nach Pal. ii. p. 766. Eosenm. Alterthumsk, iii. p. 257, ff.
2 Oomp. EosenmiiUer, 1. c. p. 263, ff. Eitter, Erdkunde ii. p. 832, ff., 1st ed.
3 See Von Bohlen, 1. u. p. Ixvii.

OF EXODUS I.  XIX. 255
of the people, sunk in material things, required spiritual incitement
and preparation, the more must regard be had to this condition
which they were in, and the more must the gracious condescension
of God be testified by deeds such as would make their way and
prove impressive to minds so rude, elevating them also at the same
time and making them susceptible of higher impressions. Hence
when we see the glory of Jehovah here displayed in a pillar of
cloud and fire, the circumstance may remind us of the oriental cus
tom, to carry poles with fire before the host or caravan, which
afford guidance in the day-time by their smoke, and in the night
time by the light ;^ which, however, by no means explains the mi
racle itself, but only proves its connextion with a certain custom,
as an indication that nothing is too mean for the Divine condes
cension to employ and to consecrate, as a means for the accom
plishment of the highest object. But as this very custom appears
not to have been without a higher significance in antiquity,^ it is also
by no means without meaning that Jehovah expressly professes these
to be symbols of his holy and glorious being. This is the higher as
pect of the symbol, and its proper psedagogic character is displayed
in these two references : as the living God in all his condescension
to man constantly lifts man up to himself, by making himself
known to man, and leading man in turn to the acknowledgment of
Him. In a similar manner the miraculous passage of the Israel
ites through the Eed Sea has its point of connection with nature
which our author also by no means conceals,* (Ex. xiv. 21.). The
supposition of a purely natural occurrence indeed is no more suffi
cient here than in Josh, ch, iii. But the very circumstance that the
author equally refrains from being silent as to the display here
given of Divine Omnipotence, and from omitting candidly to men
tion the natural means which that Omnipotence employed, is a
pledge of the truth of the miracle, even apart from its farther con
nection with this theocratic history. Besides, the full historical ac
curacy of this historyis confirmed by several incidents and statements
1 Oomp. the expositors on Ex. xiii, 21, 23.
2 Comp. Clem. Al. Strom, i. 0. 24, p. 418. Potter. Creuzer, Symb. i. p. 777.
See my Commentary on Daniel, pp. 72 and 242.
4 " Trajecti ab Jsraelitis— maris rubri historia sic est descripta, ut hac in re extraor-
dinariam providentiam agnoscere oporteat : at in eadem tamen causis naturalibus sive
ventis vehemeutioribus qui aquas pellerent, usum esse Deum, ipsa rei relatio diserte
deelarat." Pareau, De Mytjiica Int. p. 308.

256 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
occurring both in it and elsewhere. 1. That the Egyptian king
led out a warlike expedition against the Israelites, finds its confir-
tion iu Manetho's account of conflicts with the Hyksos, though he
indeed has given the fact in a version that is more honourable to
the Egyptians (see above). We have here only to take a closer
view of the way in which this expedition is described in Exodus.
Mention is made of war-chariots, which are evidently regarded as
the most important part of the army, and farther of chosen war-
chariots ("nni 13"l)' ^^^ °f t^^ array being led by the king in his
own person. All these circumstances are confirmed by the monu
ments and the writers of antiquity as Egyptian customs. The
Pharaohs everywhere appear on the monuments as valiant warriors,
heading their armies in person ; the art of war among the Egyp
tians recognizes principally only chariots and infantry; but how
numerous were the former, and how closely attached to the per
son of the King as commander, is plain not only from Homer's
statement concerning Thebes, but also the account of Diodorus,
that in the vall.ey of the Nile from Memphis to Thebes there stood
100 royal stalls with 200 horses in each, 2. The song annexed
to the historical account (Ex. xv.) completely confirms the fact.
The supposition would be absurd, that the song first arose at a
later period out of the embeUished version of the fact ; for no poem
has such an origin, but this very song would then be the embel
lishment of the fact. Tt would, however, be quite as strange if we
were to suppose the historical account copied from the song ; for
then the appearance of both original and copy here close beside
each other would be in the highest degree surprising, and would
have an utterly abnormal appearance. Thus the song cannot be
taken otherwise than as a contemporary composition, and the whole
of its antique poetry, with the imitation of that in the later Psalms,
evidences this clearly. The reasons also that are given for the
supposed spuriousness of the song are weak. It is thought partly
too leng, and partly too much marked by a love of the marvellous.
The former assertion is contradicted by a multitude of much longer
Temple psalms, and as relates to the delivery of our hymn, it is
also clear, that but very little of it was sung in chorus (xv 21), so
1 Comp. Heeren, ii. 2, p. 351, ff. This also serves as an answer to Hartmann's ques
tion. How could the king have " conjured up" so large an army in so few days ? (p. 458).
2 See De Wette, 1. c. p. 216, ff., and comp. Hartmann, p. 742.

OF EXODUS I.  XIX. 257
that it cannot exactly be charged with a want of simpUcity.^ The
second assertion, however, is only a result of the view that regards
the occurrence itself as bearing a marvellous, and therefore unhis
torical, character ; and, as such, it is a petitio principii. But the
reference to the Temple in ver. 13, is also urged, as well as that the
writer towards the end speaks of the Israelites in the third person.
But as to that reference, it is so general that we have here only the
idea of a mountain set apart for the divine honour, and consecrated
as the habitation of Jehovah ; an expression, which in the mouth of
Moses should surprise us the less, as tbe whole system of laws in its
ceremonial part relates to such a definite sanctuary of Jehovah, and
we must therefore unquestionably attribute to him such a previous
knowledge of the Divine counsel. The change of person, however,
is so frequent in poetry, and is here so well accounted for by the
turn in ver. 16, that only prejudice can draw such a conclusion
from it. In a multitude of the Psalms the singer's circle of view is
enlarged in this manner, and gives a more objective character to
his language. 3. There is besides another foreign tradition, inde
pendent of our history, which was preserved among the dwellers by
the Eed Sea, relating to the miraculous retreating of the sea. We
must certainly take the account that Strabo and Diodorus give of
this, as a popular tale arising out of the event we are treating of,
of which it affords a remarkable confirmation.
We must here say one word more of the assertion, that the pas
sage was impossible because of the nature of the Eed Sea itself^ It
is certainly not probable that the place of passage can have lain
considerably to the south of Suez, partly because of the coral-reef
that is found there, and partly because the geographical statements
of the Pentateuch itself are in favour of a place lying farther to the
north. There however the character of the ground is quite suit
able. Eecent discoveries have made us acquainted with the re
markable fact, that the ancient depressed bed of the Eed Sea still
extends to the length of 90,000 paces, and an average breadth of
from 18,000 to 22,000 paces northwards, into the centre of the
Isthmus, as far as the ruins of the Serapeum.* This bed is now
1 See Vater, in his Comment, ii. p. 57.
2 Comp, Clericus, De maris Idum. traject. in his Commentary, p. 619. See also Tro-
gus Pompeius in Justin xxxvi. 2: Artapanus in Euseb. Pr.Ev. ix. 27.
3 See in particular V. Bohlen, p. Ixxxii. sq.
* See Eitter, 1. c. p. 232. R

258

HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY

" covered by a singular layer of recent soil, composed of masses of
sand, chalk, and salt, with strata of clay and mud, and quite white
with a crust of salt," &c. (Eitter, p. 233.).i Now when besides sea-
water is to be found beneath this layer, and every thing here indicates
a prolongation of the Arabian gulf at a former period, it is strange to
seek to decide that the Israelites could not have passed through
here, because of the bottom of the sea and its pecuUar nature ;
while yet we merely know the present condition of the locality, a
locality that still furnishes in general many unsolved enigmas, and
are certain only of thus much, that its present condition was not
its condition at that time.
If we follow still farther the information given in this book con
cerning the joumies of the people on the other side of the Eed Sea,
while much certainly still remains for us to know concerning the
physical and geographical character of that remarkable peninsula,
which is now called Bar al Tor Sina ; yet recent careful investiga
tions have only served, partly to afford excellent explanations ofthe
accounts given by Moses, and partly to verify them. Observe only
with what accuracy Burckhardt, who was certainly as unprejudiced
as he was careful and conscientious, was able to ascertain his posi
tion according to these accounts. " From Ayun Musa to the Well
of Howara — he writes, ii. p. 777^ — took us 15|- hours' journey.
With regard to this distance, it is probable that this is the wilder
ness of three days' journey through which, according to the Scrip
ture narrative, the Israelites went immediately after their passage
through the Eed Sea, and at the end of which they came to Ma
rah,"^ As it is the journey of a whole nation, changing its resi
dence, that is in question, we may reasonably suppose that it lasted
for three days ; and the bitter well of Marah, the water of which
was sweetened by Moses, answers exactly to Howara? This is
the usual way to Mount Sinai, and was therefore most probably
that which was chosen by the Israelites on their departure from
Egypt ; that is, admitting what Niebuhr with good reason conjec-
1 Concerning the origin and formation of these salt-lakes, however, geologists are not
agreed , Comp, Ritter, p. 234, ff,
2 Comp. Ex, XV. 22, 23 (Num. xxxiii. 8.).
3 " The water of the well of Howara is so bitter than men cannot drink it, and even
camels will not, unless they are very thirsty," says Burckhardt. Comp. with this the
almost verbal accordance of Ex. xv. 23.

OF EXODUS I. — XIX. 259
tures, that they passed the Eed Sea in the neighbourhood of Suez.
There is no other road hy the way from Suez to Mount Sinai, that
would amount to three days' journey ; there is also on the whole of
this coast, as far as Eas Mohammed, no other well that is quite
bitter. Complaints like those which the Israelites, accustomed to
the sweet water of the Nile, made of the bitterness of the water
here, may be heard daily from Egyptian Bedouins and peasants,
travelling in Arabia. Accustomed from their youth up to the ex
cellent water of the Nile, there is nothing which they miss so much
in foreign lands : Ihere is also no nation in the East so readily
sensible of the want of good water as the present natives of Egypt.
Importance also attaches to the fact, of which Niebuhr (Beschr. v.
Arab. p. 403), as well as Burckhardt, informs us, that notwith
standing all their enquiries they could not learn from the Bedouins
that there were any means which persons employed to sweeten the
taste of the water. Though such have been discovered among
other nations,-' this statement still proves with how much truth our
book informs us, that God showed Moses a tree or a kind of wood
{v-v) for sweetening the water ; and it is at the least very remark
able that no such natural means are known to the inhabitants of
those districts.
Three hours' joumey to the south of Howara, we come upon the
valley of Wadi Ghirondel, in which our writers of travels unani
mously recognize the Elim of the Bible, which is still a very con
venient and usual halting-place for travellers. For abundant water
is still found in that quarter, and abundant shade in the richly
wooded valley.^ Then follows the wilderness of Sin " between Elim
and Sinai" (xvi. 1), and our travellers recognize in that Wadi
Asscheik, to which the circumstances also fit exactly (Burckhardt,
1 Comp. Michaelis, N. Orient. Bibl. v. p, 51, ff, Eosenmiiller, A, u. N. Morgenl. ii
p. 28.
2 Comp Ex. XV. 27, and with that Shaw, Journey, p. 272. Pococke, Description of
the East, i. p. 234, ff. Niebuhr, 1. u. p. 403. Burckhardt, p, 779 ; the last of whom says
 "that there are no twelve wells now to be found in Ghirondel cannot be brought as a
proof against the conjecture that has been proposed, for Niebuhr says that his compa
nions here, if they only dug a little, obtained water ; and when 1 travelled through it, there
was water there in abundance. Indeed, in every fertile valley of Arabia, water is very
easily found on digging, and in that way wells very easily spring up, which, however, aie
also soon choked again by the sand." Comp, with this the levity of Von Bohlen's
decision, p. Ixvii. : " Elim, where in genuine mythical fashion there were twelve wells
aud seventy palm-trees."
R 2

200 HISTORICAL CREDIBILIIY
p, 797, ff,). Von Bohlen indeed represents the author as here
guilty of the absurdity of intending the wilderness of Pelusium (p.
Ixvii,), an opinion that certainly does not now require any detailed
confutation (comp. only Num. xxxni. 10, 11.).
We now come to the occurrences narrated in Ex, xvi., xvii., — the
manna, the quails, the water from the rock, the victory over the
Amalekites. As relates to the miraculous sustentation of the people,
those who deny it, entangle themselves again in the greatest diffi
culties. For De Wette's remark — " that the IsraeUtes were not
starved in the wilderness, the sequel shows : liow they appeased
their hunger, what they boiled and roasted, we cannot tell" — is a
mere evasion of the difficulty, no more satisfactory than Eichhorn's
supposition that the Israelites dispersed into separate hordes, and
that only their chiefs remained together.' Since the whole penin
sula cf Sinai, according to Burekhardt's estimation, contains no
more than a population of 4,000 souls, and even this number fre
quentiy suffers want in years of drought, it must remain a matter
difficult of comprehension how the Hebrews could support them
selves there for forty years.^ This very fact also is then brought by
our opponents as an argument against the truth of this account,^
without seeing that it is precisely this circumstance that renders
necessary an extraordinary interposition of Divine Providence for
the preservation of the people. If we Ukewise take into account the
stiff and obstinate disposition of the people, as here depicted to us,
how shall we explain the fact of their accommodating themselves
so as to continue their residence in the wilderness, unless they were
enabled to do so by a miraculous intervention on the part of God ?
Why do they neither go back again to Egypt, nor press forwards
to Canaan ? The more important these questions are, the more
must we press for a satisfactory answer to be given to them. It is
only our text that satisfies this demand. The simpler that the
means are which Jehovah employs for the preservation of his people,
— the more that we perceive that it is the simple productions ofthe
wildemess, which the hand of God blesses, so that they are poured
forth in abundance, — the more will the truth of this answer be ap
parent. What other reasons are there, on the contrary side, but the
very same that have been brought forward against the miracle of
I Ailgem. Biblioth. i. p. 81. 2 Rosenmiiller, Alterthumsk. iii. p. 1 13.
3 See V. Bohlen, p. Ixvii.

OF EXODUS I.— XIX. 261
feeding the five thousand, and which admits also of the same refu
tation ?i
We have, however, still to remark on some particular objections
against ch. xvi. (1.) That the name of the manna is incorrectly
explained, xvi. 15 ; that w^ ^¦s a pronoun is Chaldaic : — but does
the derivation of it from the Arabic then come any nearer to the
Hebrew than that fi'om the Chaldee ? The Hebrew -jj^ has, as
is well known, a different signification, which is not admissible here.
And why may not 'iq have belonged to the popular idiom, a sup
position that agrees well with the circumstance of that form appear
ing in the Aramaean dialect ? (2.) It is objected that in Num. xi.
we have another narrative of the bestowment of the quails, that quite
does away with this first one. But why should not the bestowment
of them have occurred oftener than once ? Why might not the
people murmur again, and Moses express doubt ? This, however,
exactly agrees with their previous conduct ; while Num. xi. 23 is
evidence that Moses had already received similar proofs of the
Divine Omnipotence. (3.) The position of this section here is as
sailed as unchronological, mention being made of the Sabbath,
though not yet instituted, and of the ark of the covenant (xvi. 33,
34), which was first constructed at Sinai. But as relates to the
Sabbath, it is just on this occasion that the law of it is given, being
by no means presupposed (xvi. 22-30) : a Divine command is im
mediately annexed to a Divine benefit, which introduces a speaking
instance of the ingratitude and disobedience of tbe Israelites, who
even at such moments transgressed the holy law ; comp. ver, 28.
This case is at the same time of importance, as showing the way
and manner in which the law was delivered in general. Its develop
ment among the people is throughout historical ; there is always a
certain historical occasion, with which its statutes are connected.
This is evidence of its historical truth. Had our author been one
belonging to a later age, seeing that we certainly cannot charge
him with any want of acquaintance with the solemn promulgation
of the Law at Sinai ;¦ could he have prevailed with himself to
transfer such an important and sacred fundamental law as that
concerning the Sabbath to the position, in which we now find it ?
Could the fact of the bestowment of the manna belonging so far
1 See Olshausen, Comment, i, p, 480, ff.

262 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
back to the past, have been viewed by him as possessed of such
especial moment ? Farther, the idea of the Sabbath is already in
some measure contained in the law ofthe Passover, xn. 16, which
thus prepares the way for the present command. Finally, the ap
pointment permitting the preparation of food (xvi. 13, comp.
George, ibid. p. 108), manifestly shows that the law is an early
one, general as yet in its form, aud intended afterwards to re
ceive a more exact definition, — Verses 33 and 34 are certainly
an addition, referring to a later period, which however need not
surprise us in an author, who wished here to give some im
portant connected notices concerning the manna at once, on the
first occasion of its being bestowed. That this however is really
our author's intention, is clear from verses 35, 36, which contain
two remarks, concerning the manna's being eaten for forty years,
and the definition of an Omer. Both these, however, may pro
ceed from the same author, as well as the former ; i. e. be of
Mosaic origin. For this last definition will be found in perfect
harmony with the many other definitions of measures and weights
in the Pentateuch ¦} the author is accustomed to give definitions of
that kind. But as relates to ver. 3S, we may quote what has been
already remarked by Carpzov (Introd. i. p. 83) in opposition to
Spinoza, who believed that he had discovered in it a distinctive
mark of its post-Mosaic composition : " Quo vero non potuerint
prius et ab ipso Mose exarari, sub finem forte vitae suae, cum jam
terrae Canaan proximo populus immineret, et ultimus oberrationis
in deserto annus laberetur ? Quid prohibet quominus prophetico,
quo gaudebat, spiritu, Deoque ipsi revelante, ista praeviderit et in
litteras retulerit ? Cum enim Mosi et Aaroni patefactum divinitus
esset, totis quadraginta annis per deserta erraturos Israelitas, ante-
quam Canaanis adirent possessionem. Num. xiv. 33, quidni prae-
significatum Mosi fuisse credatur, forte cum Manna depluere coepit,
IsraeUtas annis totidem mirabili illo cibo alendos esse ?"^
As to what relates besides to the miraculous bestowment of
water from the rock, xvii. 1 — 7, the whole of our opponents' reason
ing rests on the supposition of the identity of this narrative with
1 See Michaelis, Mos. Eecht iv. p. 377, ff.
2 Besides, as affording a characteristic of the author, the comparison of the manna
with coriander seed is worthy of remark : Ex. xvi. 31 ; Num. xi. 7. For the coriander
is pre-eminently an Egyptian production ; comp. Plin, H. N. xx. 82. Winer, Rcall. i. p.
792, ff.

OF EXODUS I.  XIX. 263
that in Num. xx. Though the place, the circumstances, and what
followed are so different, it is decided that they must be but two
different embeUishments of the same fact, and then indeed the arbi
trariness of the tradition becomes evident. But the less that criti
cism can sanction so arbitrary a proceeding, the more are we sur
prised at the following confession : " who must have imposed and
perpetuated the name ? The nation ? would they have set up a
memorial of their own shame ?" (De Wette, p. 226.). Now this
is perfectly true, inasmuch as there necessarily follows also from
this, that what we here read is not a later invention. For would
any one have invented a fiction so discreditable to his own nation,
to their utter disgrace ? Who then would have given credit to it,
or approved of it ? Thus we cannot understand the narrative, un
less we have here before us real facts, transmitted to us from im
partial hands.
The narrative of the conflict with the Amalekites receives full
confirmation from the subsequent history both of the Pentateuch
(comp. Num. xxiv. 20 ; Deut. xxv. 17, ff.), and also of later times
(1 Sam. XV. 2, 3.). But it is said plainly to betray its mythical
character by the representation of the answer given to ppayer (De
WettCj p, 227, ff,). Certainly the view of prayer that lies at the
bottom of it is no rationalistic one ; let it be proved, however, that
this conception belongs only to a later period, and did not have its
foundation of old, deep in the Hebrew faith, Gramberg at least
finds the " superstition" of miraculous answers to prayer in all the
books of the Old Testament (Krit. Gesch. d. Eel, Id, des A. T,
vol, i,) ; so that this reason cannot hold good as a critical argu
ment. In ch, xviii. we find an institution, appointed by Moses at the
suggestion of Jethro, relating to the civil constitution ofthe Israel
ites. The passage is important in several respects. In the first
place, because it shows with^ what exactness information is furnished
in the Pentateuch, since it distinguishes between divine and human
institutions. We find the people, while in Egypt, subject to
" elders," according to the analogy of all simple, and especiaUy
oriental, polities ; this established form had suffered a certain shock
from Moses' coming forward and assuming his peculiar relation
to the people. The people were referred to him and to the law he
1 See Winer, Eeallex. i.p, 88.

264 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY OF EXODUS I.  XIX.
pi'omulgated. This relation of immediate dependence was how
ever such as Moses himself must have sunk under. He therefore
gives the people overseers of their own choice, — chiefs, according to
a decimal system ; by which he himself by no means surrenders his
independent immediate relation to the people, while he yet renders
the whole institution easier of management. It has been objected
against this,i that the matter is obscure, since the relation of heads
over thousands, hundreds, &c., would lead to a subordination and
judicial arrangements of a compUcated character, and introduce an
immense multitude of judges. But such an appointment is just
the only one that can appear suitable under the circumstances then
existing. With the promulgation of so many separate laws, where
the business was to bring them home to the popular knowledge and
feelings, so considerable a number of men was necessarily required.
The supremacy of Moses' authority prevented anything complicated
arising out of this : on the contrary the whole institution thus re
ceives an exceedingly simple character. At the same time this re
sult certainly follows, that it could be only provisional, since it bore
reference, and could be applied, only to the circumstances of that
time. Least of all could it be maintained in Canaan, when the peo
ple had fixed residences. A change therefore was necessary after
wards, and is to be seen in this, that Moses partly has regard in his
laws to another form of government, and partly at the command of
God himself adopts a new arrangement on another occasion (Num.
xi.). Even our opponents themselves recognize here an historical
groundwork. It is however for the reason " that here for once
everything proceeds naturally" (De Wette, p. 23 1 .). But how so ?
Do not ver. 1 and 8 ff. precisely confirm all that had previously
happened in Egypt, the wonders which the Lord had performed
for Israel ? Farther, do we not find Moses occupied with " laws and
ordinances," which he delivers to the people, and for the appUca
tion of which he takes care (ver. 13, 16, 17, 19), and are not these
Ukewise caUed here QTf^Kn '^pH ('^^r. 16) ? Hence we find
what a confirmation this history affords of the earlier events, and of
those that are subsequently related, and of the multitude of laws,
&c, ; what a view it gives us ofthe interior of the life ofthe people,
1 See Vatke, Bibl, Th, i,p. 206.

THE SINAITIC LEGISLATION. 265
and of Moses' personal agency, exhibiting to us the objective ele
ment, that series of Divine acts and ordinances, now reflected in its
influence and results in the subjectivity [the character and proceed
ings] of the people and the lawgiver. Thus we now see that God's
deeds and laws are no dead thing, but a living good deposited with
the nation, such as cannot be imagined or explained apart from
that objective basis.
"But then indeed this narrative — since it is quite natural — must be
at variance with the other " mythical" accounts : reference, it seems,
is made in it to later appointments, such as the Tabernacle (ver.
12, 15, 19), and the giving ofthe law (De Wette, p. 232.). But
where then is it that Jethro meets with Moses? According to ver.
5 at Sinai, and thus after they had left Eephidim. The document
affords no more precise information as to the time of their meeting.
All that we can plainly discover from it is, that the date of the
event is here anticipated, and certainly for good reasons that are
easily explained, since it did not belong to the subsequent history
of the legislation. Why then should not whatever was requisite be
presupposed ? No one, however, would say that the whole of the
Sinai legislation is here alluded to as already in existence.

§ 24. CONTINUATION. THE GIVING OF THE LAW AT SINAI.
GENERAL REMARKS.
To subject the Mosaic institutions and laws to a closer examina
tion as to their systematic connection, as well as to their historical
promulgation, is what we now propose to do. The more unsafe
and perilous that the ground here is for the exercise of criticism,i
the more comprehensive and decisive are the results obtained ; they
have the greatest influence on the treatment of the whole subsequent
Jewish history : they concern the basis and main pillar of the
Theocratic system.
The question to be answered is this : what was effected by Moses
and his period, and what mode of thinking, what course of life and
action, should we attribute to them ? Either that which is pre
sented to us in the Pentateuch, or another, perhaps of an opposite
1 [The author must refer to Neological criticism only, which assumes to itself that
name par excellence,— Tb..^

266 THE SINAITIC LEGISLATION.
kind. The earlier school of criticism, however willing to deny
Moses any share in the Mosaic law, even in the Decalogue, and to
regard it as a development of later times, yet completely overlooked
the positive side ofthe question, and was satisfied with the negative
endeavour to divest the Pentateuch as much as possible of Mosaic
elements. The latest critical investigation has treated this subject
with greater consistency, and to Vatke^ especially belongs the merit
of having united the negative critical side with its positive detail,
showing what we ought to imagine to ourselves, on that supposition,
as the true picture of the Mosaic period. The ideas, expressed by
De Wette for instance in this respect, were so indefinite and vague,
as to display no sort of internal unity and connection. But on
the other hand a more consistent carrying out of the critical en
quiry has led to the conclusion, that, supposing the Israelites were
not such a nation as they are described in the Pentateuch to have
been, they must have passed through an entirely different course of
development, to reach that condition, which we see transferred by
priestly feeling to the earliest times of their existence : that they
must then have been like all their neighbour nations in anterior
Asia, and rising out of this condition, not until a later period, by
impidses they received, and mental contact with others in many
ways, have become what we afterwards perceive them to have been.
The nation was devoted to the worship of nature, and particularly
to that star-worship which was spread, through the whole of ante
rior Asia and Egypt; and honoured Saturn especially as their
supreme deity. Moses confirmed amongst them a regard for the
more ancient national God, endeavoured to banish the worship of
other gods, spiritualized the natural elements of their conceptions
and worship, and laid the foundation of a purer moral life. At
that time, however, they were as yet unfitted for a poUtical consti
tution, and the reUgious ideas also, that we meet with in after
times, were only in the bud. The result of the labours of Moses
was not a finished whole, but only the commencement and starting-
point of a higher development : the elements of the popular mind
were not yet harmonized, not even in the conceptions of Moses
himself; their conflict therefore required to continue, and it was
only by degrees that their conceptions, worship, and moral life
1 Bibl, Theol, i„p, 181-261.

THE SINAITIC LEGISLATION. 267
could perfectiy bring out their ideal principle. This is the result
to which Vatke has come, with regard to the amount of verified
historical facts belonging to this period.
What we question first, is the fundamental supposition involved
in this view. It lies at the bottom of a mtiltitude of recent critical
investigations, only less decidedly insisted on and carried out, and
affects the relation of the Old Testament theocratic principle in
general to all those tendencies and forms of Ufe which are not Old
Testament in their character. For the whole Mosaic institution
with all its enactments might be the system of the later age, falsely
transferred to earlier times, and still the question to be put would
always remain the same. Can this theocratic principle be deduced
from the elements of that worship of nature which is regarded as
prevailing earlier, and as deeply rooted in the popular mind ? Ts this
nothing more than an idealization and development ofthe former?
The belief in the personal and living God, and the belief in the
powers of nature, — the theocratic worship, and the most refined form
of the worship of nature, — stand in a relation of distinction from and
opposition to one another, that is by no means comparative, but
specific. If we conceive of all the elements of natural reUgion in
their mutual contact with one another, the process of development
thence arising will always be followed by a result specifically dis
tinct from the theocratic principle ; and history shows that the for
mation of mythologies is a process of mutual commixture and
reciprocal impulse, excited by the collision of many various ele
ments, but the product here has always been of an essentially
different character. The pecuUarity and originality of the Israel
itish faith and life have remained in the midst of all these move
ments ; yea the greater that the mental impulse from without has
been, the more firm and consoUdated has been the form, even to
one of external ossification, that the Old Testament principle has
assumed. The nature of the spirit that is here at work, is quite
different from that which is supposed in the other case : it is not
one that raises developments out of itself, but a definite and com
pleted form, so peculiar, that what is contained in it does not ap
pear as a something produced, but as the appropriation of a given
objective thing. Were we now at Uberty even to limit this ori
ginahty of the Old Testament principle to this, that we only " con
cede to the Hebrews the merit of having acknowledged and ho-

268 THE SINAITIC LEGISLATION.
noured the supreme God as the only God, to the exclusion of all
inferior deities, and all mythology,"i this at once involves us in an
admission which we cannot explain as a mere process of develop
ment from a preceding natural religion. For how has it happened
that this natural reUgion has been brought to that point nowhere
else? But it is clear that that definition of the Old Testament principle
is a mere negation. This, however, supposes something positive,
prompting the negation, which is not defined, but which is all that
is of consequence. How this impulse was given to overcome that
opposition, is stated only in the most indefinite manner. The pro
duction [genesis] of what is " great and peculiar" in the Old Tes
tament principle is certainly thus described : " the awakening ofthe
monotheistic belief is an absolute act, supposes a prophetic state of
mind, and can be rightly comprehended only as a Eevelation" (p.
707.). But what we are to understand by this we learn afterwards,
where it is said : " an Upper- Asiatic principle was cast on the agi
tated soil of Canaan, torn asunder by opposite principles ; it pre
pared the way here by the confiict which it excited for the revelation
of the pure Idealism, which the later Parsee faith did not reach ;
gained the victory over Eealism through its identity with the de
vouring spirit of the Canaanitish natural religion, unfolded itself
then in a milder formation, and gradually enriched itself with the
glorified forms of nature's aspect, by which it was brought nearer
to the general apprehension and feeling, and at the same time
made an advance to a more concrete perfection" (p. 709.). With
this author the Eevelation is no other than the spirit, which, in its
conflict with different opposite systems, penetrates and overcomes
them ; but from what quarter it derived strength to penetrate them,
and ability to overcome them, we are not told This is also only
a modification of the older view, according to which the adoration
of Jehovah was developed from a previously prevalent Polytheism,
a view rejected by this author (p. 705) ; without, however, our being
advanced a single step farther, or learning the mode of that deve
lopment. Everything which Vatke regards as preparation and pro
gress belongs to the sphere of generalities, with which the particu-
1 So Vatke, 1. c. p, 700,
2 [Perhaps rather, the contemplation of nature : but the passage is for from clear,
-Tb,]

THE SINAITIC LEGISLATION. 269
larity of the Hebrew faith has no coincidence ; but rather by this
subjective particularity the particularity of these preparations and
proceedings is made evident, which faU therefore under an entirely
new department of spiritual action, and appear in their subjective
character not as an inward striving and longing, but as the posses
sion of a given thing objectively presented.
It is only the supposition of a Divine training of a real and his
torical kind, by which the Hebrew nation was guided in a wholly
peculiar manner to their exalted destiny of being the people of God,
that explains the relation in which the reUgion of the Old Testa
ment stands to all the religions that are independent of it. It was
not the nation that made itself what it was, but it was elevated and
educated so as to become that ; — this is the necessary supposition
without which it is impossible to comprehend the principle and life
of the Theocracy. This supposition is as much sustained by the
internal nature and peculiar worth of the Old Testament religion,
as it is indicated by the historical development of the nation ; so
that we must place ourselves in twofold opposition, both to that pe
culiarity, — since the dogmatic and ethical contents of the Old Tes
tament will have their depth and importance misunderstood in a
manner that runs counter to all true exposition, — and also to all
history, if we explain this history as a fable. As we are obliged
then to reject our opponents' hypothesis as to the former point, be
cause it regards the peculiar distinction of the Old Testament reli
gion as being only the product of opposite systems and the victory
over them, but leaves its positive element out of sight ; we must now
enter more minutely into the historical reasons given in support of
that hypothesis.
Here, then, with regard to the Mosaic period, we are in the first
place given to know, that at the outset the traditions concerning the
reUgion of the Patriarchs are to be set aside, for no positive histo
rical elements can be drawn from the narratives in Genesis (p. 184.).
Thus then we are bereft violently enough of the historical foreground,
and arbitrary decision may now carry on its rash game with less
impediment. The first step is now taken to raise up another foun
dation in the place of that which has been thoughtlessly rejected,
such as shall approve itself to be historical. We, on the contrary,
on our side can regard the agency of Moses only as founded on a
more ancient covenant of Jehovah with the ancestors of Israel ; and

270 THE SINAITIC LEGISL.iTION.
the whole mode of the Legislation becomes obscure, if not founded
on such an antecedent ; for the Legislation is most intimately con
nected with the fact of the departure from Egypt ; and that again
is so much connected with the patriarchal life, that we here meet
everywhere with the earlier and the later standing in the closest
causal conjunction. Great weight, however, is laid on the unani
mous testimony of tradition, that, in the Mosaic period, the nation
was^devoted to idolatry. Here again the most arbitrary treatment
of history meets us everywhere. The mode of the representation
given in the Pentateuch is said to be govemed by priestly influence ;
hence the description there presented of the idolatrous practices of
the people is not the pure truth : the character of truth belongs
more to the expressions ofthe prophets, such as Amos v. 25, 26.
But as this prophet, in the passage quoted, immediately speaks of the
forty years' wandering in the desert, we cannot on those principles see
there either any true historical information,' and thus we are again
thrown into the abyss of uncertainty. That the statement in question,
however, is any contradiction of the Pentateuch is not to he'supposed,
for thisjeason, that Amos everywhere proceeds on the supposition of
the Pentateuch being known and admitted ; and the less so, as the
Pentateuch also speaks of Canaanitish idolatry as already existing
among the people (Num. xxv.), and the prophet intends to point
out the identity of the character of his own age with that of the
Mosaic; in reference to the practices of the idolaters, and therefore
he attributes the form of the idolatry of his own time to the Mosaic.
Ezekiel's statements (xx. 7, 8, xxiii, 3, 8) are however in as exact
accordance with those of the Pentateuch, and the positive efforts in
opposition to the worship of idols are described with express refe
rence to the accounts of the Pentateuch. We are far from denying
the constant inclination of the people to idolatry ; but we ask
whether their long residence in Egypt does not supply historically
a sufficient ground of explanation for that, even though the purer
light of the patriarchal faith was not unknown to them ? The nar
ratives of the Pentateuch allude to Egyptian, and afterwards to
Canaanitish, idolatry. This plainly shows how little any definite
form of heathen idolatry and worship had become the property of the
1 As Gramberg says : " The prophet's statement cannot be called purely historical, as
he joins with it the tradition ofthe forty years' journey through the wilderness." Gesch.
d. Eelig, Id, i. p. 473.

THE SINAITIC LEGISLATION., 271
nation; it adopts every form that is presented to it; it is subject to
external influences. Hence it is clear, that in spite of all their na
tural incUnation to idolatry, a higher element always prevailed
among the people, which did not permit that tendency to be the
exclusive one, and to maintain its ground alone. That tendency
however could not be combated by idealization, — the victory of the
opposite system, which was founded in the nature of the case, was
not of that kind, — but by the opposite principle itself and the decided
impressive exhibition of it. It has always been thus in the king
dom of God, which rejects all syncretism, as running counter to its
essential nature, and leaves it to heathenism. Or how would it have
been possible for tbe prophets, supposing they found in existence only
that syncretistie worship of Jehovah,'^ which the theology of Vatke
represents it to have been, to have directed their polemical assaults
on the people and their idolatry, on the ground of the ancient cove
nant relation ? Nothing in fact could then be more foohsh than such
polemics, which may also be assailed, as being of too early a date,
with the same weapons that have been employed against what are
indeed the more practical polemics of Moses. The conduct and
proceedings of the prophets can be explained only as they are
sustained by a previous transaction, serving as a foundation — only
as presupposing a covenant, that has been shamefuUy violated by
the nation. However rude and uncontroUed we may conceive
the idolatry in the wildemess to have been, it certainly was not so
to a greater degree than in the times of the revolted and godless
kingdom of Israel ; and the ministry of the prophets, on the prin
ciple that a revelation is to be admitted according to the measure
of men's capacity to receive it, or according to the entire moral
standing of an age (p. 230), isjust as inexplicable as that of Moses :
we should then act most advisedly to bring theirs into question also.
It is now indeed also said (p. 226) that the agency of the pro
phets is to be conceived of as in the closest connection with that
(professedly) of Moses : " the idea of legislation by the prophets
precedes, from the nature of the case, the external objective form,
1 Comp. e. g., p. 250 : " Moses introduced the worship of his Jehovah, the concep
tion of whom was certainly quite different from the Jehovah of the mass ofthe people, not
as something quite different and new ; and hence he did not oppose the worship of nature
in the same way as the later prophets, but proceeding from what already existed, he
sought to transform and enlighten from within the entire mind of the nation."

272 THE SINAITIC LEGISLATION.
especially since that appears as a well-digested system." But
does this give us any sort of explanation of the polemics of the
prophets ? Granting even that the prophets appear as lawgivers —
which Vatke by no means proves — how could they appear in this
character before a nation, which was as yet unacquainted with any
fixed rule [Norm], that asserted a jurisdiction over it, and accord
ing to which also the prophets administered decisions and rebukes ?
We must then adopt the supposition of such facts as contain far
more positive substance in them, than the mere idealization of a
rude idolatrous worship and Ufe.
Let us proceed, however, more closely to particulars. Moses,
it is said, gave the nation no ne'w political constitution as a state :
the Pentateuch itself does not entitle him to that distinction ; but
we must rather regard the older tribal-constitution, which, however,
can make no claim to that name, as stUl continuing, and the dif
ferent tribes as united, as they were subsequently in the period of
the Judges, only by the personal authority of an individual (p.
204, ff.). This circumstance, rightly apprehended, might have con
ducted the author to the true understanding of the case. Was it
really the object of the Torah, to found an outward political con
stitution ? How often, in the history of the people, has that been
changed, and yet the Torah has always remained the same ! The
latter part of the history, after the captivity, is here the more instruc
tive to us,, as the principle of stability in reference to the ypd/ifia
oi the Law was then most predominant. But while the Law
is far removed from making any such attempt to establish as a
fixed thing a mere political form of the state, there prevails in
it, on the other hand, the higher view of being suited to all
forms of polity, and of conforming and bringing them into har
mony with itself, supposing they were not in direct positive oppo
sition to it. Hence it follows then, — as the Law constantly keeps
in view the internal department of the reUgious life, and seeks to
penetrate, sanctify, and transform all that is outward only from this
highest standing-point, — that that also, which Moses found already
in existence, whether we call it a tribe -constitution or a state-con
stitution, had no such direct opposition to the Law. We^ cannot
obtain a satisfactory explanation of this circumstance, however,
unless by supposing the Mosaic age to have been preceded by such
a system of life as fitted men for the promulgation of the Law.

THE SINAITIC LEGISLATION. 273
Such a Law could never have been given in the midst of a state of
society, which was heathen both as to its political form and the
character of the people, being pervaded by that anti-theocratic
principle ; for its necessary conditions would have been wanting.
Thus we are again referred to the primitive history of the Hebrew
people as the only ground of explanation that can here help us
thrpugh : we may conceive of the beneficial influences of the patri
archal age on the Mosaic, as being even to a great extent weakened
and lessened, yet absolutely to deny their existence, considering
the nature of that primitive age, were impossible. But what does
the whole argument in general amount to, when the influence of
personal authority is admitted ? If Moses was, what according to
our records he must have been, that which is called" an organic
state- constitution could have no application to the case of the He
brews. From the Lawgiver's occupying such a position, and hav
ing that particular relation to Jehovah ;'' from the immediate con
nection of the Deity with the people, so that we find the latter
everywhere under direct divine guidance and guardianship ; the
Hebrew constitution acquires the entire peculiarity that renders the
name of Theocracy befitting it, in the proper meaning of the term.
The author quoted treats all this indeed as a mere abstraction, a
general view, which was first deduced from relations actually exist
ing (p. 211, comp. p. 541.). This mere postulate of the non-
reality of that relation, is also the proper ground of the whole
of our opponent's reasoning. The constitution which the Penta
teuch exhibits is no constitution, for what it proposes as the su
preme principle of it, never existed in that manner, at least in the
time of Moses. The circle of proof is clear enough : going on
such a supposition indeed, the whole history must have its form
completely altered ; but ^happily this inversion of things falls to
the ground along with the supposition.
The arguments against the Mosaic Law that have been already
adduced, follow next. The Mosaic poUty is founded on the sup-
1 " Moses was as little a priest as he was a king ; and from his time all these men of
desire, as they are called from the first circumstance that forms the foundation of their
character, or men of the desert also, because being themselves prepared in the seclusion
and loneliness ofthe desert, they were to command and conduct the people also through
the desert again in one sense or another, were the only men and leaders who were ap
pointed by God, without any other title or insignia than the staff, which they had brought
with them as pilgrims out of the wilderness, and only by immediate divine power did
they govern and lead the people." Fr. von Schlegel, Philos, d. Gesch. i, p. 224.
S

274 THE SINAITIC LEGISLATION.
position of the existence of agriculture and a settled mode of Ufe :
such a law therefore could not have originated with Moses, who
knew nothing of the natural condition of Canaan, who could not
foresee the issue of the invasion, and who could not in his legisla
tion presuppose the existence of such relations, as are formed gra
dually and spontaneously (?), and have never been general (p.
212, ff.). Tt must be already plain from what goes l?efore, that
the way in which our opponents view things, not only sets aside
altogether the particular government and agency of God in his
kingdom, but also that, with regard to the more human and general
relations of society, it by no means keeps up the distinction, re
quired by the truth of history, between the different and entirely
separate modes of apprehension and development peculiar to the
East and the West respectively, but confounds them throughout,
Tt must be plain, how little adapted such a way of viewing things,
as that now before us, would be to explain e.g, the relation of Mo
hammed and the Koran with its abrupt legislation to the prevail
ing state of society. It involves a complete overlooking of the
fact that, among the Orientals, law arises in quite another way than
among the Greeks. History affords sufficient proof that, in the
Eastern world, law, in its original appearance, assumes a more
abstract form, and a rigorous, because purely divine and immediate
character ; and the less that it recognizes in law a human production,
as the Grecian world does,' but sees in the creative and constructive
power of law its divine element, the less can we admit the supposition
of such a principle, as that of a custom gradually arising and being
elevated into a law. Besides, in this assertion, everything de
pends on the question : Did the Israelites, and Moses in particular,
propose Canaan as the firm immoveable goal of all their en
deavours and undertakings, or not ? We make the whole history
of the Hebrews a mere game of chance and blind accident, if we
dispute the fact of the lawgiver's being well aware of that ultimate
aim. But if that is firmly estabUshed, it is plain how little reason
there is to deny the Mosaic origin of a law, on account of its referr
ing to the sure possession of the land of Canaan, as well-considered
enquiry has at aU times admitted.^ The disobedient and obstinate
1 Leo has spoken well on this point, Universal-Gesch. i. p. 162, ff.
2 Comp. Eiohhovn, Einl. .3, p. 263. Bleek, in Rosenmiiller's Eepertorium i, p; 13.
Winer, Eeallex. i. p. 494.

THE SINAITIC LEGISLATION. 275
spirit of the people must have induced the more exact regulation
of these future circumstances, rather than the abstaining from doing
so. And was there then for the Israelites no point of connec
tion in existence at all, so as to justify the assertion that an agri
cultural Ufe was at that time an entirely foreign element to the people,
and opposed to their habits ? Is the transition in general
from the nomadic to the agricultural mode of life so difficult, and
not rather one that follows of itself, as soon as a firm possession
of land is Secured ? Must not their residence in Egypt have
made the people already familiar with the thought of it, and accus
tomed them to this kind of Ufe ? And do we not find, so early
as the patriarchal age, the disposition towards it (Winer, Eeallex.
i. p. 22), so that the ground must be regarded as being at any rate
levelled and prepared in many respects for the Mosaic legislation ?
This argument however is encountered with annihilating force by
the fact, that a considerable number of ordinances in the law relate
primarily to the circumstances and mode of life in the desert (see
on this subseq.) ; whence we may conclude with certainty both the
mediating transition-character ofthe Mosaic constitution, as between
the Egyptian and the Canaanitish mode of life, and also the new
sphere of social existence into which the people were transported
by their abode in the wildemess. Had the tendency ofthe people
even really preponderated at an earlier time towards nomadic life,
this must now have been abated to indifference by the new sphere
into which they were cast; so that the new generation that had grown
up and been educated in it, accustomed to the gifts of the Lord in
a waste and barren land, must now have looked with longing de
sire for the completion of those gifts by the possession of Canaan,
and must also have complied with the divine will in the occupation
of that country with a more willing and accommodated spirit.
We have then the argument drawn from the nature of the wor
ship and the ritual law taken up again by Vatke also, and made
still stronger. The history of tbe worship is said to compel us here
to the supposition " that Moses founded no combined system of
worship, and consecrated no proper tribe of priests for the perform -
1 "jCn ne doit pas s'en etonner : ils sortaient de 1' Egypte, oti V arpentage, comme le dit
Mr Girard (desc. de 1' Eg. i. p. 326) etait une des principales fonctions des pretres. Par-
mi les livres hermetiques il y en avait deux consacres a la description detaillee de ce
royaume et du conrs dn Nil, c' etait k proprement parler, une espace de cadastre, dont les ;
pretres etaient depositaires, Salvador, Hist, des instit. do Moise i. p, 242. /v S

276 THE SINAITIC LEGISLATION.
ance of it" (p. 218.). The argument taken in this form will re
ceive due atteption afterwards; yet even here the facts and difficul
ties opposed to that opinion appear to have presented themselves
directly to the author ; for he seeks to have this result regarded as
brought " to complete certainty," simply by the examination of that
portion of the legislation which belongs to this place.
" The ritual law (says Vatke) embraces a multitude of forms,
accidental in themselves, which might at first grow up gradually,
and then subsequently have been combined into a system. The
combination of these usages is only a product of long mental de
velopment: the stiff mechanism ofthe form is never the immediate
phenomenon, and on account of its finality must also not be re
garded as divine revelation. To what purpose are statutes and
symbols, if the consciousness of sin is not powerfully awakened,
and the higher significance of the symbols at the same time dis
closed ?" The ritual part of the Pentateuch is so conjoined with
the moral and judicial portion, that the one is always found placed
beside the other, and the one casts light on the other, inasmuch
as it shows, that in the ritual and juridical element also there dwells a
profound ethical meaning, a relation that appears even in the Deca
logue in its original form ; without this entire theocratic symbolism,
however, having the meaning which it contains developed. Tn this
respect the Psalms present thestrongest contrast to the Pentateuch, for
in them we observe the subjective effect of that symbolism in all its
fulness and excellency. On the other hand, while the Pentateuch
sets out from the fundamental thought, that Israel is a holy nation of
priests, it comprehends under this a purely objective exhibition to
the people of the ethical as well as of the ritual and juridical ele
ments. Thus the whole law is essentially Act : the ethical ele
ment, so soon as it comes forward, appears immediately incorporated
again, by a symboUcal representation. It is, however, this actual
form that necessarily is the thing which immediately comes before us,
and it is through this that all else, which is derived and secondary,
can have existence : it was the objective representation of divine
righteousness and love in the Law that could first excite and com
municate subjective love and righteousness, but not vice versa.' It
is the same in the case of our Saviour's work : he dies, witiiout his
disciples knowing and receiving the impression of the meaning of
bis death, the practical completion of divine righteousness and Iovr ¦

THE SINAITIC LEGISLATION. 277
our Lord's expressions on the subject are almost forgotten by the
disciples — and yet this act must first be set forth in all its objective
significance, in order that it may inspire the church with faith and
Ufe. So it is also with the Law : it must be delivered, that its in
ternal worth may be known, felt, and experienced, and delivered
indeed in its immediate objective form ; for only thus could it bear
the fruits, which it was intended to yield and has yielded. — But now
to the ritual and symbolical part ofthe Law, the more peculiar and
unique that its subjective effects are, belongs the peculiarity of its
excluding all reflection, and aUowing its voice to be heard only in
what is practical. It has justly been remarkedi that in this Mo
saism is the precise contrast to Prophetism, the latter being the
establishment of the ritual element in the inner man, and the sub
ordination of the external symbol to the internal signification.
Now, as it may be shown that the efforts of the prophets must have
been directed as much to the observance of the ritual Law, as they
certainly were mainly directed to the internal relation of the life to
Jehovah, which the mode of worship was merely the means to bring
about, we are thus referred by the Pentateuch itself to a time when
the external objective act is still treated as harmonizing with that
which is internal and subjective ; and it is very well said by Bauer,
that this absence of reflection throws the Pentateuch back beyond
the period of prophecy into a higher antiquity. — But, even supposing
that the Law had arisen as the result of a spiritual excitement of
mind and of reflection, so as to be a dead and externally ossified
prophecy, how could it have assumed the appearance that it has at
present ? Every thing Uke a systematic form is here entirely ne
glected : the development of the Law in historical facts is that
which alone prevails ; this linking of individual particulars to a great
whole is what alone furnishes a sufficient explanation of the con
tradictions that occur in particular details, and the subsequent ab
rogation or closer definition of earlier portions. Our opponents'
hypothesis, on the other hand, necessarily demands that the whole
should have a systematic construction : the spirit of stiff abstraction
which fashioned and gave its complete form to such a law, setting
1 Comp. the essay by Bauer, containing much that is excellent, on the Mosaic origin
of the legislation of the Pentateuch, in his Journal of Speculative Theology, i. p. 140.
ff. That fundamental thought is also involved in the theory of an oral tradition of the
Law, given along with the Law at Sifiai, which wo find in Jewish theology.

278 THE SINAITIC LEGISLATION.
it forth with abstract consistency, might certainly employ the his
tory as far as to represent the external form of its introduction ; but
it would then be obliged to confine itself to remarking simply the
fact of the Mosaic origin, treating the manner (the how ?) of that
origin as an entirely foreign question, for the solution of which it is
impossible to imagine any influence that can have led to it ; while
the historical development of the Law would then be farthest of all
from the point.
" The many casuistical and positive external, i. e., accidental ap
pointments of the ritual Law, most plainly betray its later age :
they are dependent on accidental circumstances, and arise only out
of prolonged experience and continued reflection ; while the diffe
rent parts that compose the Pentateuch themselves suppose a
difference of religious sentiments, requiring several centuries for
its completion." (Vatke, p. 219.). Now, this separation of
the casuistical from the general legal appointments is arbitrary.
They have rather both that necessary internal connection, that what
is general cannot be brought into operation without a special ap
pointment ; the special appointments are the necessary consequences
of the general ones ; the latter would have had no significance,
force, or effect at all, but must have remained mere abstract propo
sitions, had they not immediately received a concrete application to
society and individual cases. In this way the Law has maintained
a concrete character, opposed to aU later abstractness, an indication
that directly points us to an ancient origin, not to later Jabours, the
result of refiection.'' If the Law was to have force, it required to
have as the constant object of its actual contemplation, the Ufe of
the people in its concrete exhibition ; and it is an evidence of the
true wisdom of the lawgiver, that he does not treat e. g. the Deca
logue as a mere abstract generality, biit as such enactments as must
at once be consistently carried out in practical application. The
same is the case with the Sermon on the Mount : but there, on the
contrary, even on the principles of our opponents, the speciality of
the decisions admits of vindication ; yet here also," even as there, the

1 " Falsa est sententia, leges origine tonus apud omnes populos generates fuisse, geni-
oque antiquitatis contraria. Ex singularibus orta sunt generalia ; en historiam priscse
legislationis ! NuUo non tempore ea quae non accurate definita sed abstracta tantum
erant, odit prisca aetas, improbavit Oriens," Herbst, " Obss, de Pent, IV. librorum pos
ter, auctore et editore," in the Comment. TheoU. ed, Eosenmiil ler, etc. i. p, 15,

THE SINAITIC LEGISLATION. 279
same truly divine idea predorninates, that there is no commandment
of God that must- not, as an evidence of his holiness, at once become
the property of man in its entire truth and fulness, its life and in
ternal advantage.
Finally, as to the remark that most of the laws relating to the
ritual and the priesthood have the interests of the priests more in
view than those of the people, and thus betray their partial origin,
it rests on the one-sided hypothesis of the later organization of the
priesthood in general (Vatke, p. 221, ff.), which indeed destroys
the idea of the relation of the priesthood to the people at large, an
idea that represents every thing connected with the former as pro
moting the interests of the latter also. This, however, involves a
contradiction, that can be solved only by an admission in favour of
the Mosaic origin of the Law. The interest of the priesthood must
be regarded here as being as much an element as an object of the
constitution. Such a condition is possible only where the priest
hood itself comes before the people as a new thing, and derives from
its entire position the title to assume such privileges. We search
in vain for such a state of things in the whole of the post-Mosaic
period : by the rise of the royal power that of the priests was still
more confined, being directed to what already existed and was fixed
by appointment, so that it could maintain itself, and, so to speak,
prolong its existence, only by keeping close to that. On the con
trary, in the Mosaic age, the position of the priestly order is quite
different. Moses and Aaron themselves belong to it ; by the for
mer, it is estabUshed in its new privileges. However little we know
concerning the primitive origin of the priestly races among other
nations, their whole position evidences a period that laid a firm
foundation of that superiority, that spiritual as well as political pre
ponderance. In the present case the manner in which it was founded
is manifest, and certainly cannot be explained in any other way
than by the consideration of the whole of Moses' ministry, and all
that he was to the people, and not simply by the mere personal dis
tinction of the lawgiver. The fact that the tribe of Levi, to whidi
Moses belonged, was the bearer of the Law in its external realiza
tion, is expUcable only on the admission of its Mosaic origin : every
other view must change the history here into a mere game of chance.
Thus all these objections only lead us to seek in the age of Moses
for a legal code, which must certainly be verified also in aU its par-

280 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
ticulars as necessarily belonging to that period. How this code
now, on the one hand, shows its genuine historical character, as
being one arising out of that age and suited to its circumstances ;
and, on the other hand, shows itself as truly prophetical also, having
regard by actual contemplation to the future history of the people ;
is the investigation which we now propose to follow out.

§ 25. CONTINUATION. EXODUS XX.— XL.
The Decalogue stands at the head of the collective body of laws.
The conclusion of modern criticism in reference to it is, that, in the
form at least in which we have it, it does not proceed from Moses,
but, as shewn by the comparison of Ex. xx. and Deut. v., has been
derived from a simpler portion preserved by tradition, and para-
phrastically enlarged.^ We here pass over such reasons as have no
meaning at all in a critical inquiry, such as that the Decalogue
could not be written on two tables (comp. on the other hand Ex.
xxxii. 15), and shall pay regard to only two principal objections.
There is no sort of evidence, it is said, of the famed simpUcity of
the Decalogue, such as we should expect to find in such legislative
outlines ; but, on the contrary, there prevails in it a regard to the
disposition of the mind — a command that all worship should be
without images, while such worship had at that time no existence
— a copception nearly approaching to the Eabbinical idea of the
sacredness of the divine name, &c. This argument is certainly
good against those who adhere to the merely apologetic point of
view of the simpUcity of these ordinances, and sufficiently exposes
the bareness of that. For that simplicity should evidently re
ceive a more exact definition in accordance with the contents of
those commandments. Their brevity is the mere formal circum
stance ; but their meaning shows that here in a few touches we
have an uncommonly rich principle for the formation of new laws.
If we sever the Decalogue from those appointments which are called
into existence by it, then we certainly have reason to be surprised,
as we cannot see how a people, possessing in these commands such
a mine of profound ethics, did not advance farther. But if we con-
i Comp. Fulda, in the Neues Repertor., 3, p. 204, ff. De Wette, Beitr, p, 253, ff, Einl.
19 1, George, p. 79. Von Bohlen, clxxiii. Vatke, p. 203, ff, 239.

OF THE DECALOGUE. 281
ceive it in its productive intention and conjunction with the rest of
the Law, then the one here sustains the other. The Law supposes
a higher ethical conviction, the basis of which appears in the De
calogue. Simplicity and brevity have thus been incorrectly confounded.
As some of the commandments are longer than others, the idea
hence arose of later additions or revisions, and the deviations of
Deuteronomy from Exodus appeared also to favour this notion.
The so-called paraphrastic additions, however, are, for the greater
part, historical reasons for the commandment, references to the
history of creation, the departure from Egypt, the abode there, and
the future possession of Canaan. What do these prove ? They
cannot be called enlargements of the Law, for they are rather an
introduction to it. Neither can they be of later origin ; because,
for one thing, they refer to the historical condition of the people at
that time, and, again, if we suppose as their date such a period as
one at which the referring of the command to Moses would give it
sufficient authority, an additional reason would then be superfluous.
But those additions rather show us the living mode, directly op
posed to every thing mechanical, of the introduction of those fun
damental principles of the Theocracy. This has its root not in
a dead abstraction, but in the full and powerful consciousness
of a living God, who testifies his presence by acts of salvation.
None but such a fundamental thought could have produced the
other commandments, and the more we keep in view this produc
tive fulness of the first command, the more shall we cease to see in
those that follow, only abrupt and insulated thoughts. But from
him who brought such fundamental principles to bear on the life of
the people, we are also fully warranted in* expecting a farther
perfecting and carrying out of what was thus laid down.
The book of Deuteronomy unquestionably refers to the first
promulgation ofthe Decalogue in ch. v. 12, 15, 16. The author,
though acquainted with that legal form, indulges in a certain free
dom, as he makes reference, especially once, to the circumstances on
which the Israelites were now entering.^ How should we explain
this freedom, if we were to adopt the opinion of the later origin of the
present form of the Decalogue ? Would a later author have per-
1 Observe the addition VTW in v. 21.

282 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
mitted himself such an alteration of what he himself in the most
decided manner attributes to Moses, and with the sacredness and
invioIabiUty of which he is deeply impressed, and not rather have
observed the most conscientious exactness in the repetition of the
Mosaic form ? Nothing is gained by the supposition of an original
traditional formula of a simpler kind ; for as soon as that had been
once consigned to writing — in which case, that it should already
have received a paraphrastic enlargement is hardly imaginable — that
form must then have been preserved. Thus the very construction
of the Decalogue, considered both in itself and in its twofold form,
necessarily leads us to the belief of its Mosaic origin.
The following laws as far as ch. xxiii. are closely connected with
the Decalogue (§ 6), and this very connection assures their equal
antiquity. Eespecting these, however, it is of particular import
ance, that they refer for the most part to ancient usage, so that
their immediate promulgation appears evident, when considered in
reference to the fundamental principles of the Theocracy, as well as
the state of society then existing. Thus there is a reference to
earUer customs in the ordinances, xx. 21, ff. (comp. Winer, Eeallex.
i,, p. 57) ; xxi. 1, ff. (comp. Gen. xxix.) ; xxi. 7 (only a tempor
ary law and subsequently abrogated, Deut. xv. 17, which indicates
a gradual modification of old customs — see Michaelis, Mos. E.
ii.,p. 371); xxi. 1 3 (comp. Gen. x. 14, xxvii. 45); xxi. 20 (where
the indefinite expression Qp^i can be well explained only by the sup
position of a custom) ; xxi. 24 (see Eosenm. Schol. ad h. 1,).
From these examples we may draw a conclusion for the others,
where the usage is obscure and unknown to us ; but the promul
gation of such laws at this time must be recognized by every one
as not accidental and arbitrary. Farther, we find also an exact
regard paid to the circumstances of the time themselves, and some
things referable only to them : thus the erection of merely provi
sional altars, xx. 21, ff., to which xxi. 14 also refers; thus the ex
pression xxi. 13, "I will appoint thee the place to which he shall
flee" (comp. Num. xxxv. 6) ; thus xx. 28, " thou shalt give
unto me the first-born of thy sons," supposes the appointment of
the Passover, but contains nothing more than that fundamental
thought ; thus also the impressive reference to the abode in Egypt,
xxii. 20, xxiii. 9 ; thus the brief, though here quite necessary,
statement concerning the feasts, which contains only a general

OF THE DECALOGUE. 283
sketch of them, a general indication of the duty of the people
in this respect, xxiii. 20, ff., &c. De Wette^ confines himself
to stating some passages in these laws, which have regard to
circumstances belonging to Palestine — the possession of fields, —
which, according to what was observed, § 24, proves nothing.
That pnJTi j-\^'2, xxui. 19 should be employed concerning the Ta-
bemacle also, and that the lawgiver should already refer to its erec
tion, neednot surprise anyone) forit only shows the intimate connec
tion of the entire legislation. The more general question, which
De Wette puts (p. 258) in reference to all the laws given at Sinai
after the Decalogue, is a strange one, — why these also were net
placed by Moses on the tables of stone ? The reason of the
graving of the Decalogue on tables of stone, arose from its being in
tended to serve as a brief compendium and statement of the chief
contents of the Law, and to be distinguished also symboUcally by
its form, as by the mode of its preservation, as a fixed inviolable
holy Law ; so that by the constant reference to those ftindamental
appointments the people were referred to the summary ofthe Law,
and taught to comprehend it in its simpUcity, while at the same
time they received an impression of the importance and worth of
the whole Law by these its fundamental appointments.
We pass on to the objections that are brought against the Mosaic
origin of the Tabernacle. An appeal is made,2 1. to the mythical
form in which its origin is introduced to us, especially in its being
said that Jehovah himself showed Moses the model of it (xxv. 9,
40), and endowed the workmen with special divine wisdom and skiU,
&o. The description certainly represents Moses to us as a prophet
in the proper sense of the term ; he beholds (internally) the sacred
tent in prophetic vision. If we should employ this circumstance as
a critical argument against the Mosaic origin, in doing so we ques
tion neither more nor less than the whole of Moses' prophetic re
lation to the Deity. We have here an analogy that is quite decisive
in a critical respect. The prophet Ezekiel likewise beheld in " the
visions of God" the temple which he describes (xl. 1, ff.) ; but who
in our day would think of denying him the authorship of that sec-
1 Beitr. p, 256, ff. Vater iii,, p, 657. Comp. Vatke, p. 428, ff. (" The treatise Exod.
xxi.— xxiii. 19, unquestionably contains the oldest laws ofthe Pentateuch,";
2 Comp. De Wette, Beitr. p. 259, ff. Hartmann. Hebraerin am Putztisch, ii, pp, 3, ff.
iii. p, 163, ff. Von Bohlen, p, cxii,, ff.

284 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
tion on that account ? 2. Particular stress is laid on the contrast
which the condition of the IsraeUtish nation at that time presents to
the splendour and speedy completion of the tent. Tn this one pro
ceeds on equally incorrect conceptions concerning the nature of the
sacred tent, as concerning the condition of the people at the time.
That tent was certainly splendid, but, in point of fact, exceedingly
simple in its construction. If we compare it with the monuments
of Egyptian architecture, which the Hebrews certainly could not be
unacquainted with, since they were themselves employed in the
erection of them, its relative simpUcity must strike us in a much
greater degree. As to the materials that were required for it, it
admits of proof that the Israelites might very well be in possession
of them at that time. The wilderness even might supply them with
many of these things, such as the skins of animals, especially those
of the tljnri' ^ ^°^^ °f sea-dog, which abounds in the Arabian gulf,
and whose skin is particularly well suited for the purpose men
tioned.'^ The most important material, the wood for the tent, is
just that which is found here most plentifully, while Palestine is
deficient in acacia trees.^ With respect to other things, the metals,
precious stones, purple, and spices, we must keep in view the con
dition of a people that had just come out of Egypt. History de
scribes that country as having mercantile connections with Asia even
from the earliest times, and we have to regard Egypt, especially
Arabia and Phoenicia, as the states that took most part in this
traffic.^ The Phoenicians commenced their trade by the exportation
of Assyrian and Egyptian wares ; they took an active part in the
primitive caravan-trade of eastern Africa, as well as the nations of
that part of the world itself* Let it not however be objected, that
a nation which was quite nomadic like the Hebrews, must have
remained unaffected by that traffic. It was just such nations that
in ancient times took an essential part in mercantile affairs : those
Arabian tribes of the desert that were quite nomadic carried on the
Tyrian and Phcenician land traffic most eagerly, and this connection
1 V. Eichhorn, Einl. 3, p. 266, ff. Gesenius, Hand- WB., sub voce isnn.
2 Comp. Theophrast. Hist. PI. iv. 8. Prosper. Alpinus, De Plant. Mg. c. i. : " acacise
arbores copiosissime in montibus Sinai penes rubrum mare positis proveniunt. Hier-
onymus ad Joel Iv. : " quae ligna in locis cultis et in Romano solo absque Arabiae soli-
tud ne non inveniuntur." Forskal, Flora -i5Eg. Arab. p. Ivi.
3 Comp. Heeren's Ideen ii. 2, p, 354 — 393.
i Comp. Heeren, i. 2, p. 41, ff., p. 118, ff.

OF THE DECALOGUE. 285
reaches back to the oldest periods of history.i Besides, the entire
relation in which the Hebrews had stood to the Egyptians, requires
that we should not think of them as being in a wholly wild condition,
which would even place them beneath the nomads of Arabia. The
people had acquired property, in part at least, in Egypt; the descrip
tion in Ex. xxxii. leaves us no doubt as to the possessions and even
wealth that they had gained there. They had not gone empty-handed
out ofEgypt, but richly provided with silver and gold (xn. 36.).
So also it was impossible but that the skill of the Egyptians in the
working of metals and leather, in weaving, in architecture, &c.,^ must
have had an improving influence on the Hebrews. Wehave an ex
press testimony to this effect, out ofthe Pentateuch, in 1 Chron. iv.
21, which is of the more importance here, as it is connected with a
genealogy, and speaks of certain families being exclusively devoted
to the art of manufacturing byssus. Neither is there any kind of
artistic skill that can be named as requisite in the construction of
the Tabernacle, which cannot also be shown to have been the pos
session of the Egyptians. But as to the time of completing the
whole of it, it is foolish, in reference to that, to compare the long
period that Solomon's Temple was in building, with the time the
Tabernacle was. The distinction between the two cases is mani
fest ; we have only to take into account the material of cedar wood as
compared with that of acacia wood, and the circumstance that in the
one building foreign artizans were employed, and in the other Israel
itish, at once to recognize the difference. In general, the adduction
of this argument as a demonstrative one can only cause surprise, as
we know nothing as to how many workmen were employed on the
Tabernacle, how great their skill was, how simply or with how
much art the work itself was performed, &c. It has also been ad
vanced as an argument, that Solomon, was obUged to send for
Phoenician workmen, which supposes the prevalence, even in the
age of Solomon, of a great deficiency as to skill in architecture, so
that such a structure as the Tabernacle can hardly be attributed to
the efforts of the Hebrews. Here again the influence of Egypt,
1 Comp. Gen, xxxvii. 28 ; Num. xxxi. 47, S. ; Judg. viii. 21, ff. ; Ezek. xxvii. 16. See
Heeren, i. 2, p 105, ff.
2 See thereon Heeren, ii. 2, p. 367, ff. Schlosser, Universal-Gesch, i. p. 189, ff.
MuUer, Archaol. d. Kunst, § 219, ff. Hirt, Gesch. d, bild. Kiiuste b. d, Alten, p. 7, ff.
3 Comp. on the worthlessness of this objection, Herbst, 1. cit. p. 21, sq.

286 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
and the difference of the two structures, are quite left out of sight.
And what hinders us to suppose that the Hebrews subsequently
feU back in architecture ? Or does Solomon's proceeding presup
pose in general such a want of cultivation among the Hebrews, as
it is thought to do ? " Si reges Persarum (Herbst appropriately
remarks, p. 23) magna sedificia exstraenda curabant, architectos
Bactrios adsciebant ; nemo vero inde conjecerit Persas penitus
fuisse rudes artis, sedifici'a minoris molis et tentoria fabricandi."
Besides, from such passages also as 1 Kings vii. 13, ff, ; 2 Chron.
ii. 8, ff., the express opposite of that assertion is evident. 3. It
is a problem in exposition, it is said, to understand the structure
and combination of the parts of this building. Vater, to whom De
Wette appeals on this point, by no means decides so hastily as at
once to ascribe to the author a " forgetfulness of mechanical laws,"
the imaginary plan of a " miraculous structure." He remarks very
justly, on the contrary, that we are not in a condition to form
always a clear idea of the connection of the various parts, because
of the obscurity of the greater part of the architectural expressions
that occur here.' When this admission is made beforehand, all
«uch deductions as have been referred to are exceedingly arbitrary,
and, in the department of criticism, the argument itself must en
tirely fall to the ground. 4. The argument that charges the Pen
tateuch with two different representations of the Tabernacle would
be the most important and decisive contribution in favour of the
mythical view, supposing it were better founded than the others.
It is in Ex. xxxiii. 7, ff., that this anomalous view of a simpler
kind of Tabernacle is said to be found, and this peculiarity of the
narrative is said to be plainly pointed out by the unconnected and
isolated position in which it stands. Now that which gave occa
sion to this arrangement was the idolatry of the people, their obsti
nacy. To form an aid then to the people, and to afford them a
suggestion of the fiiture revelation of the glory of Jehovah in the
Tabemacle, so that they should by this means be preserved fi-om
fi-esh attempts at idolatry, that preliminary tent was erected by
Moses. Its object is stated in the words : "every one that sought
Jehovah, went forth to the tent of the congregation," which was
consequently different from the Tabernacle, as is proved by the
1 Comment, i., p. 107,

OF THE DECALOGUE. 287
total absence of sacrifices; and the means of obtaining that object
in receiving answers from Jehovah, was the mediating ministration
of Moses, to whom divine revelations were here communicated. That
tent was therefore only the continuation of the external representa
tion of God's revelation by Moses ; and it was so far a fresh step in
advance, as circumstances made it advisable that Moses should not
be longer absent from the people. At the same time there was
certainly involved in it a reference to the Tabernacle, though not
immediately and primarily ; but the act rather appears to be the
intermediate step for bringing about both things, the revelation
of God to Moses, and Jehovah's dwelling in the Tabernacle. It is
thus quite in its proper place here.
If we enquire now into the object which the so-called inventor
must have associated with the plan of the Mosaic Tabernacle, we
receive for answer, that he wished to represent the pattern of the
Temple of Solomon, as that was ascribed, together with all the ar
rangements of divine service, to the great subject of religious patri
otic fictions, Moses. Such a pretended object, however, is even
when considered in itself an utterly absurd idea. For if we would
conceive of such an apologetic design being earnestly cherished, we
cannot think of any other author than one belonging to the age of
Solomon itself : none but such a one could feel an inducement
and interest, to wish to justify and honour the new institution of his
time. But such a one, supposing there was really no such pattern
of the Temple, would have made himself ridiculous in the eyes of
all his contemporaries. To suppose an author of a later date, how
ever, is what we cannot venture to do, even for this reason, that to
such a one the Temple of Solomon itself must have been a suffi
cient ideal, so that he could not have gone beyond that given his
torical standing-point. In that case we could only expect some
thing still more glorious, Uke what Ezekiel's prophecy describes,
but not such a descent to the first defective beginnings. How could
that have afforded any gratification to the national vanity that is
supposed to have influenced him ?
With that pretended object of the author, however, the criticism
of our opponents has lost a point more than they themselves appear
to think. If the Temple was really a copy of the Tabemacle, and
the latter was the pattern, it stands related to the former as its his
torical supposition just as much as that again does to the Temple

288 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
of Ezekiel. The progressive relation in which the Tabernacle and
Solomon's Temple stand to one another, is evident ; the latter is
the more advanced form, the grander embelUshment of the more
simple tent erected in the desert.' On the other hand, less weight
would require to be laid on the Egyptian origin of the Tabernacle.
Tt must indeed be acknowledged that there exists an analogy with
Egyptian customs in the plan and division of the tent, in the in
ternal arrangement, and also in the shew-bread, the ark of the
covenant, the cherubim, &c. This is still more distinctly exhibited
in many of the things pertaining to the Sanctuary, such as the dress
of the priests, and the relation of a high priest to the rest of the
priests. But it is also not to be overlooked, on the other hand,
that the peculiar theocratic idea could appropriate for this purpose
only the general outline, since in this case also the form stood in
the closest connection with the mythological idea; hence, while
modern criticism acknowledges the influence of Egyptian symboUsm
on the Hebrew arrangement of the Tabernacle only in a restricted
sense,' it has certainly been guilty of the same partiality, since what
was hitherto considered to be Egyptian influence, it wiU now have
regarded as Phoenician. But it negatives itself, since it must ad
mit that even from that quarter every thing can by no means be
derived. It should thus have been led to advance consistently to
the only correct idea, that what may be regarded equally well as
Phoenician or Egyptian property, bears in it a more general cha
racter, the cause and origin of which can only be known from the
peculiar idea, to which all that was formal was subordinated. The
inconsistency of Vatke's criticism becomes very manifest, in the
discussion concerning the cherubim particularly. He sees himself
there compelled to think of the Upper- Asiatic ideas of griffins, and
very arbitrarily disputes the existence of any analogy with Egyptian
mythology. That mythology, however, is no less to be taken into
account as well as that of all the other nations of antiquity ; and
such a limitation is so arbitrary, that it is rather by a combined
view of the whole of Heathen antiquity that a complete funda
mental theory, exhaustive of the subject, concerning those com
pound animal forms, can be arrived at. Tt is therefore only in a
1 Comp. Von Meyer, Der Tempel Salome's, p. 8, ff,
3 Comp, Heeren, Id. ii. p. 801, ff.
3 See Vatke, 1, c. p. 323, ff.; comp. p 681. ff.
3

or THE DECALOGUE. 289
general respect that this circumstance is of importance in reference
to the erection of the Tabernacle, and everything belonging to tho
sanctuary ; as it involves at any rate the supposition of a period in
the history of the IsraeUtes, when it was possible for the heathen
element to obtain a formal adoption into the theocratic system, so
as to appear pervaded and transformed into a nobler shape by the
theocratic principle. Now, in this respect the age of Solomon lies
under an essential disadvantage in comparison with that of Moses.
Tt was only at a time when the formation of the internal constitu
tion of the people as a covenant-people was still going on, that there
was room to represent what was theocratic as related on an equal
footing to what was simply human and universal ; but this was im
possible after the arrangements of society had assumed a fixed form,
when all that remained was to carry out farther the institutions given
at an earUer period.
But we must maintain the Mosaic origin of the history of the
ancient sanctuary, because of its internal character likewise. If
the idea of a later author having undertaken to draw out a sketch
of the original pattern of Solomon's temple must in itself seem
startling, it must appear all the more strange from the way in which
that author has then executed his idea. 1. Our author betrays
not the least trace that he is presenting to his readers a form of his
fancy. The plan of the whole proves this most conclusively.
Were it sheer invention, we should hardly have here such a combi
nation, wrought out in exact historical progress according to the
execution of the work, so that the matter is now evidently broken
into fragments, and united only by the progress of the undertaking
itself. 1 This is most distinctly evident from the conjunction of the
plan given with the execution of it. This form is suitable only on
the supposition that we have before us an authentic description of
the fact. " The description that is given in the account of the
execution (Eichhorn remarks) is more exact and precise, while that
given in the plan is more indefinite and prolix, as nothing else
could be expected from a writer who was not himself an artist."
This is plain e. g. from the comparison of xxviii. 5, 6 with xxxix.;
3, of xxx. 18 with xxxviii. 8, of xxviii. 36, ff., with xxxix. 30,
3.1 . Tt is also because of this very circumstance,^ that we cannotj
1 Comp, Eichhorn, 3, p, 270, ff,
2 See Bleek, Stud, u. Krit. 1831, 8, p. S07, Anmk.

290 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
accede to the view, which regards the plan as being the produc
tion of Moses, but refers the account of the execution of it to other
authorship. We should then certainly be surprised at those dis
crepancies, and should rather expect an exact verbal repetition.
The objections of Bleek are removed by what has already been re
marked. 2. But the description is also of such a character, as
bearing a precise reference to the condition of things at that period
— to the circumstances of the abode in the desert-^that we must
on that account assign it the rank of a true historical narrative.
It has been justly remarked that, supposing it were a later writer
who. occupied the ground of subsequent circumstances, his plan
would necessarily involve an allusion to these. To this department
belongs the fact, that the writer nowhere forgets to let us know that
the Tabernacle was a portable fabric, comp. xxv. 27, xxvn. 6, 7,
xxx, 4, and how it was to be protected against the weather, xxvi.
7, ff. Nowhere does there appear the slightest trace that the writer
is thinking of any other structure than this tent, and accordingly
such important ornaments as those in the temple of Solomon are
here never once hinted at. To this belong also the passages where
the priests and their official services are spoken of: they constantly
receive special mention as " Aaron," or as " Aaron and his sons,"
but nowhere the general appellation of priests : see xxvii. 21, xxviii.
xxix. xxx. 7, 1 9, 30. " It is clear that these regulations concern
ing the priests refer properly only to Aaron and his sons, who acted
as priests in the time of Moses. As they stand here, they could
not bear an immediate reference to the later temple service, but
Could be referred to it only by means of an accommodating inter
pretation, which would also require to define more exactiy, how
much of this was applicable to the High Priest, and how much to
the other priests ; for neither of these points is here distinctly de
fined."^ Tn addition to this, there are also allusions which admit
of explanation only from an exact acquaintance with the condition
of things at that time, especially the mention of those artists who
were employed in the construction of the Tabernacle (xxxv. 30, ff. ;
xxxviii. 22, ffi. ; xxxvi. 1, ff-), of whom Bezaleel and Aholiab have
even their lineage given. Here then the writer must certainly have
at least exercised pure invention : it would at any rate argue a pe
culiar eccentricity both in him and his readers.
1 Bleek, 1. c. p. 506.

OF THE DECALOGUE. 291
The opponents ofthe historical truth of the Pentateuch having,
in the portion that we have hitherto been discussing, imagined to
themselves an author who writes under priestly iufluence, must
directly find themselves involved by this hypothesis in no Uttle em
barrassment, when we examine more closely the remainder of the
historical statements in Exodus. The narrative in ch. xxxu. is
certainly by no means written under the influence mentioned : what
it says concerning Aaron's participation in the idolatrous worship
is little adapted to serve as evidence of hierarchical influence on the
origin of this history, and the way in which the later Jews endea
vour here to screen the High Priest of Israel from blame,^ shows
plainly how unfavourable this book is to any such perverted object.
Yet here also recent writers have been determined to find a mere
mythus, invented forsooth with the specific aim (by a prophet ?)
of forming an opposition to that worship of Apis in the kingdom
of Israel, which was the prevailing custom there from the time of
Jeroboam 1? But here our opponents involve themselves in worse
perplexity. For surely it might also be asserted with equal justice,
that the narrative was written as an apology for a worship of such
antiquity, in which Aaron himself took part ; for this very point, to
which such prominence is given in the history (comp, xxxii. 21, ff.),
is entirely passed over by cur opponents. For it cannot be said
that, by the close of the narrative, this is explained in a hierarchical
light ; since Moses at any rate represents the prophetic, and Aaron
the priestly principle ; and thus the history constantly remains
anti-hierarchical. We must accordingly ascribe to this account the
character of impartiality, and consider the ground of a mythical
explanation, advanced by our opponents;^ as totally inadmissible.
With regard to their objections respecting what is incredible in
the present narrative, it all amounts in the main to the question,
how Aaron and the people could apostatize so suddenly to idola
trous wor-ship ? and this question renders necessary a closer inves
tigation of the idea that Ues at the foundation of this worship.
That idea, however, is most clearly stated in the section itself : it
is a ionging for the fulfilment of the promise of Moses, that the
God of Israel would go in a visible appearance before them and
1 See Bochart, Hieroz, i. p. 339, sq. Rosenm.
2 Comp. De Wette, p. 244, ff. Gramberg. Gesch, d. Eel, Id, i. p, 442, ff. Von Boh
len, p. cviii, Comp, Vatke, p, 186.
T 2

292 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY OF THE DECALOGUE,
conduct them, that moves the people, Jehovah it is who must be
that God ; it is He who delivered Israel out of Egypt ; it is his feast
that they intend solemnly to celebrate. But, being devoid of the
thought of the true presence of God, the people seek to supply its
place by devotion to the worship of nature, and arbitrarily to secure
of their own will what Jehovah only in his truth and holiness could
grant them. Thus this narrative throws an important light upon
the earlier history. The revelation of the living God appears as a
fact that was certainly deeply impressed on the mind ofthe people ;
even in these acts of apostacy we see it to be so : and so great is
the prevalence of this conviction, that they are not anxious for any
particular form of worship, but their only desire is, " make us a
deity." Thus the less that a special heathen element had taken
root among them, the more would they be disposed to regard the
most sacred symbol of Egyptian mythology, the form of the ox
(welcome to them in their present circumstances), as best adapted
to answer their wishes, since in it the highest view of the religion
of nature appeared most concentrated. How naturally did the
people, as soon as they lost the sense of their higher destiny, always
in their longing turn back to Egypt ! The present .history ac
cordingly testifies, on the one hand the special transgression of the
command, to make no Ukeness of the Deity, and, on the other
hand, it supplies as the source of this disobedience the identifica
tion of Jehovah with the deities of the religion of nature ; and thus
it gives evidence in this very departure from the true and Uving
God ofthe conviction of the existence of such a God, though in a
darkened and perverted form. Now such a position is altogether
suited to that period, and it is so far fi'om involving any thing
isolated andinexplicable, that there is none in which the mind of
the people could more naturally be drawn away from the idea of
the religion of nature, and be gradually elevated in spirit and in
truth to the conception of a God diametrically opposed to that idea.
This leads us to see also how the contrast between the two ideas
now receives a practical exhibition of the most decided order, evi
dencing itself according to the character of the Old Testament
law in the annihilation and punishment of the opposition.^ The
1 It is quite unhistorical, for Bauer in the Zeitsch. f. spek. Theoh i, p, 172, to speak
here of Kronos, the ancient national God (?) of the Hebrews. There is certainly no
avoiding such arbitrary notions, when instead of allowing history and historical investi
gation to speak, we content ourselves with a oriori theories

HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF LEVITICUS. ^93
people could not have been punished in the way here related,
a revolt would have followed the attempt to carry such a punish
ment into effect, had they not still been under the influence of that
conviction of the Jehovistic principle which we have remarked :
but that makes the proceeding of Moses, as well as the conduct ofthe
people, alike consistent and intelligible. The way in which the idol-
image was destroyed is characteristic, ver. 20. The general meaning
ofthe symboUcal act is clear. The idol-image is flrst melted down,^
and then reduced to powder : it is quite destroyed as to its form and
nature, and the people are required to drink the water with which
the powder has been mingled ; which according to the notions of
that reUgion of nature to which they had done homage on this oc
casion, must have proved the abolition of that very religion, being
the greatest offence against it.^ The casting of the powder into the
water refers however likewise most probably to an Egyptian cus
tom,' which would confirm in no small degree the importance of
the symbolical acts, which thus appropriately completed the process
of annihilation directed against the reUgion of nature.

§ 26. CONTINUATION. HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF LEVITICUS.
Amongst the laws of this book ch. i. to vii. stand in close con
nection. If we find then in this section traces, pointing decidedly
to the Mosaic origin of separate parts, the conclusion must by no
means be restricted to these individual portions : we are compelled
to deinand the same acknowledgment on behalfof the whole. Here,
as already in the earUer laws of Exodus, we meet in the first place
with the peculiarity, that wherever Priests are spoken of, Aaron
and his Sons are almost everywhere named.* Farther, the Taber
nacle is always represented as the central point ofthe sacrifices, &c. ;
everything is referred to that place, and no allusion is made to
any other sanctuary. The following are standing phrases : 'iJq'^
1 S)1'!B does not exactly bear the meaning of tiomburere, but the mode of burning must
be regarded as defined according to the object, comp. Gen. xi. 3. The proper word for
applying to metals is the cognate f)is, which does not occur till the later books.
'-I Comp. Plutarch, de Is. et Osir. p. 362. Clericus, ad Ex. xxxii, 20.
3 Comp. Herod, ii. 41 : ^ttTTova-i dk Tot/s ttiro^initTKovTai ^ouv Tpoirov tovSe. Tac
uEv driXkai ev tov iroTafiov airiatn, &c.
* Comp. e. g, ch. i. 4, 7, 8, 11 ; li. 3 ; iii. 13 ; vi. 2, 7, 9, 1 1, 13 ; vii, 34, ff. &c.

294 HISTORICAL CRITICISM
IVff^ vHM' or '"q j,^ f7j-|2 and the Uke.i The IsraeUtes are intro
duced as a certain assembly, which is gathered together ('^npil)
(comp. iv. 13, ff.) : their heads are mentioned as the J-jlJ^n ""Spt
(iv. 15) or i^^l^jji iv. 22.^ Again we meet with forms of expression
which refer especially to the abode of the Israelites in the camp
and the desert.g The circumstances of the period are attended to
with equal exactness in other matters. Thus in v. 15, 18, 25
(in Eng. Bible, vi. 6) where valuations are spoken of, these are
committed to Moses in the special formula 1^3'^y^,* which not
until a later period could be transfeired and applied to other per
sons, as the Priests, to whom this business likewise was assigned
along with it. So also in vi. 13, ff. (Eng. Bib. vi. 20), where
after some directions concerning the daily sacrifices, it is said :
" This is the offering of Aaron and his Sons, which they shall
present unto Jehovah on the day of the anointing," &c., and then
only in ver. 15 (22) " and the Priest of his Sons that is anointed
in his stead shall offer it," &c. This mode of expression cannot
be explained on the hypothesis of a post- Mosaic composition : the
thought of what should be done on the approaching day of the
priestly consecration, prevails throughout ; and it is only on this
genuine historical standing-point that an explanation is furnished
ofthe otherwise strange expression '^]-)^ nil^Dtl DT^l' ^^^- ^'^-^
The character of the section being so decided, we can only re
gard it as a fair admission of what we have asserted, when the
opinion is expressed, " that it is certainly not so very improbahle
a thing that a later writer should have succeeded in transporting
himself into the exact historical position."6 For even this suppo
sition is not sufficient, where a subsequent alteration of the earlier
law becomes necessary (comp. e.g. chaps, xiv. xvii.) : since, if the
law in its later form was to obtain credit by the Mosaic origin,
1 Comp. e. g. i. 3; iii. 8, 13 ; iv. 7, 14 ; vi. 9, 23, &c.
2 Comp. Num. xvi. 2. Michaelis, Mos. R. i. § 45. j
3 Comp. iv. 12, 21, vi. 4. Bleek, in Rosenmiiller's Repertorium i. p. 7.
4 Comp. Rosenmiiller and Vater on Lev, v. 15. Gramberg alpo, Gesch. der Eel. Id, i.
p. 131, remarks : " Thus the poet remains true to the costume ofthe age 1 !"
5 Hence the Arab. Polyglott corrects the expression thus — H^jm.^ f^ tXL«
" from the day of his anointing." Thus also Rosenmiiller explains it, but ungramma
tically. Better Geddes iu Vater, p. 175.
6 De Wette, Einl. ^ 149. Anmk. h. Comp. also George, 1. c. p. 41,

OF LEVITICUS, 295
which was falsely attributed to it, this very form turns out to be
quite a perverted one, whereas the only object should have been to
exalt the present mode as being the fac simile of the past. In the
case supposed, the writer must have made for himself a Mosaic
period, but the only imaginable motive for doing so could be no
other than the endeavour to identify that with the present. Far
ther, there is by this a character attributed to our book, which is
in general foreign to the habits of the Oriental world, namely
the reproduction of the past in a form so entirely objective.
And supposing even that it was an imaginative writer that we
had here to do with, yet it is only dry legal institutions that are
here in question, which besides are supposed to have assumed this
shape by degrees ! How then did this unity in the mode of pre
senting them come to be introduced ? Finally, such a view could
be entertained, only if sufficient reasons for its later composition
were deducible from the section itself; but any such reasons are
wholly wanting in it,-' and one is contented with general arguments,
which are altogether unsatisfactory, in order to bring these laws,
with at least some appearance of a claim, within the general cate
gory of later Levitical institutions.
The following section, chaps, viii. to x., which is for the most
part historical, is as Uttle to be taken as an invented legend. This
is true in particular of the act of the consecration of the Priests, and
the instructions given them for their office. The full detail of this
narration is sufficiently explained by the circumstance, that it is a
contemporary who gives the information. But if we should sup
pose, that priestly conceit had invented this solemn ceremony to
enhance the importance of the order, that which immediately fol
lows would be at once quite in opposition to it. There we are told
of the offence of Nadab and Abihu : the object of this " fictionist '
must consequently have been the reverse. Besides, in more than
1 We must, it seems, accept as something of this kind, what Hartmann, page 741, re-
mai-ks on vi. 5, 6 (12, IS), that the appointment there mentioned could not have been
fulfilled before the foundation of the Temple, because of— the removal of the Tabernacle
from place to place. This is an argument no better than Gramberg's, 1. c. p. 128, that
the Israelites cannot have had wood enough to keep up the fire ! ! Did not theu the
Persians also in their marches constantly have their ever-burning sacred fire with them
(Curt. iii. 3 ; Ammian. Marcell. xxiii, 6) ? This vei-y part of the service, however, is
that which has its high antiquity confirmed by tbe accordant practice of all the ancient
nations; comp. e. y. Pausan. v. 27, 3; 16, 5; viii. 9, I; 37, 8. .Slian. H. A, a, 50.
Dougtaei anall. ss, p, 79, sq.

296 HISTORICAL CRITICISM
one instance Aaron neglected what was prescribed in the Law (comp.-
X. 16, ff. with iv. 22, ff,), which excites the displeasure of Moses,
who is satisfied, however, with Aaron's exculpation of himself Does
not this throw utter discredit on every hypothesis of a mythical ac
count ? What object could this narrator have had, and what unity
is it possible to discover in the presumed mythi ? There is, there
fore, also no justification for concluding from the miracle in ix. 24
that that also is a mythus,^ especially as it is a case which has an
abundance of analogies on its side in Hebrew history, which none
but the same dogmatical prejudice has ventured to treat as untrue
and embellished accounts.^
In ch. xi. — xiv. the laws relating to purification follow. These
also are closely connected together, and here again our decision
must be given in favour of the whole, if we meet with the same re
ference, that we did previously, to the circumstances of the Mosaic
period. Such in particular is the nature of the law concerning
leprosy, in which every thing refers to the abode of the people in
the desert (comp. xiii. 46, xiv. 3, 8), and that condition appears
distinguished from their future residence in Canaan, xiv. 33, ff.
Thus the author looks forward from a genuine historical standing-
point to the future affairs of his nation.^ In the same way others
also of these legal appointments bear the decided mark of being
framed at a time, " when all the individuals of the nation were so
situated as to be at no great distance from the Tabernacle of the
congregation."* Uncleanness by an issue of blood, or continued
gonorrhoea, and that of women in child-bed, require to be removed
and atoned for by the personal presentation of offerings in the
sanctuary: however insignificant the offering might be, it must still
be presented by the giver himself. In such cases would a later
age have invented such a law ? A law that had no other than an
ideal sanction could in reason neither profit the Priests who invented
it, nor impose the yoke of obedience on the people. Such a law
could be sanctioned only by an ancient sacred custom ; nothing but
a period, when it had its fulfilment, and of which a Uvely remem
brance was StUl maintained amongst the people, could admit of such
1 As De Wette does, Beitr, p. 301, ff.
2 Comp. Judg. vi. 21 ; 1 Kings xviii. 38 ; 1 Chron. xxi. 26 ; 2 Chron. vii. 1.
3 Comp. also Bleek, 1, o. p. 11, 12.
4 Bleek, in the Stud, n. Krit. 1, c. p. 497.

OF LEVITICUS. '297
nn appointment. Its origin at a later period is altogether incom
prehensible. By thus transporting our minds in a vivid manner to the time of
the origin of these laws, and recognizing its complete adaptation to
their fulfilment, we do away also with the objection of the artificial
structure and hierarchical spirit^ that is attributed to them. But we
must also give attention here to the nature of the laws themselves,
and to the principle in which they originate, and which connects
them with the Mosaic system, in order to be convinced, that these
laws, when they have once taken root amongst a people, and when
the principle they involve has been established as the supreme rule,
must from their nature bear that character of a seemingly pedantic
and artificial speciality. According to the law, the prescription of
Levitical purity flows immediately from the idea of Jehovah as being
a holy God (xi. 44, xx. 24, ff,) ; the holiness of the people of
Israel, as a kingdom of priests (Ex. xix. 6), is most intimately con
nected with the holiness of their king. Even as the nation was
established and called by God to assume that character, the problem
which it had to solve was that of the representation of the divine
holiness by purity in all external relations, as the stamp of a mind
devoted to God, and consecrated by him. That is the peculiar
principle of Hebraism : namely, to represent the internal unity of
the life consecrated to God ; and to carry it out in the department
of external things, so that the latter should be the copy of the in
ternal.^ Now, although this principle belongs exclusively to Heb
raism, yet something analogous to its fundamental idea has been
maintained amongst the nations of antiquity, and especially in the
East. The Scriptures themselves point out the original source of
that idea, since they speak of the distinction of clean and unclean
animals as existing long before Moses, and as known in the earliest
age. And it is also this very knowledge that we find again to have
been most indubitably the common property of other nations;
though with them indeed its form is so far perverted, that the con-
1 De Wette, Beitr. p, 278, ff. Bertholdt, Einl. 3, p. 776.
2 Cicero also takes such a view ofthe Roman law, caste divos adeunto, that he says :
" Animo videlicet, in quo sunt omnia. Nee toUit castimoniam corporis ; sed hoc oportet
intelligi; quum multum animus corpori praeatet, observeturque ut casta corpora adhi-
beantur, multo esse in animis id servandum- magis. Nam illud vel adspersione aquae vel
dierum numero toUitur: animi labes neo diuturnitate evauesoere, nee amnibus ullis elui
potest." De Legg, il. 10, 24.

298 HISTORICAL CRITICISM
templation of nature is that which is most prominent in it, — the
divine is conceived as being presented immediately in nature, in the
animal world, which is identified with Deity itself The pro
found ethico-dogmatical root of this conception is accordingly the
peculiar excellence of the Mosaic system, and on that account we
must not regard the conception as one which the people had derived
from an external source ;^ on the contrary, its fundamental spiritual
idea bears the most decided marks of originality. We can, how
ever, very well conceive how the contact into which Israel was
brought with other nations must have had an influence so far as to
render necessary, not only the prominent assertion of the theocratic
principle, but also the carrying out of it in the department of prac
tical life. But then the residence of the people in Egypt becomes
an event of the utmost importance, especially from the position in
which Egyptian customs stood to the principle of Hebraism. In
Egypt, the idea of purification was principally restricted to the
Priests ; and indeed the strictness and conscientiousness with which
they attended to the ceremonial of their purification, the laws re
lating to food, &C-, formed in the opinion of Herodotus a proof of
their Qeoae^eiM? Hence there arose very properly a necessity for
defining this idea in its relation to the theocratic idea. This defi
nition, however, can, no more than the Egyptian, be of an abstract
character. Thus we are in this way also led to the necessity of ad
mitting concrete definitions, consisting in the carrying out of the
principle in the separate departments of life ; and the more that
there existed of these appointments previously, the more compre
hensive must be the circle of particular objects on which they were
now brought to bear. In treating these details, however, we cannot
from our standing-point insist on a coincidence with or a deviation
from Egyptian customs, since both the one and the other may be
regarded as alike existing and combined in the present subject ;
but our business is simply with the general principle of the neces
sity of these theocratic institutions, and their agreement with the
fundamental principle of the Theocracy.''
1 As Von Bohlen, p. 88, and Vatke, p, 549, take up the notion of Persian influence,
and suppose the idea to have received its form during the Exile,
2 Comp. Herod, ii, 37, Cbseremon m Porphyr. de abstin. iv. ^ 7. Heeren, Id. ii. 2,
p. 132, ff. 166.
8 We would here subjoin tlie remark, tliat many of the animals mentioned in Lpvit,
xi. appear to be such a? are discoveruble only in Egypt or Arabia; and tbe translation of

OF LEVITICUS. 299
The same form, as found in the description of the day of atone
ment, is worthy of remark. Everything there bears a reference
to circumstances in the desert,^ and the transplanting of the law to
the soil of Palestine necessarily introduced a more exact definition
and modification of it.^ In addition to that there is an Egyptian
rite, which stands in a remarkable, and certainly not an accidental,
relation to the Hebrew rite ; according to the ancients, the Egyp
tians cursed victims in a similar manner, and threw the heads of
those that had thus been cursed into the Nile.' But when De
Wette, Einl. p. 191, remarks that the difficult word ^tt'^ti^^ ^^^t
have been obscure to the author himself, the very parallels adduced
by him, the distinction between the sin-offerings and the trespass-
offerings, the Urim and Thummim, only go to prove so much the
more clearly the precise character of the Pentateuch, in not giving
minute explanations of individual parts of the ritual, but are no evi
dence whatever of the uninteUigibleness of the rite at the time of
the writer. His supposition here, however, rests -only on the as
sumption, that Asasel was the appellation of a demon, which can
hardly bejustified either linguisticaUy or dogmatically.'' When the
word is regarded as an appellative noun, all suspicion of its being
unintelligible is removed. Particular importance belongs also to
the command concerning the killing of animals before the sanc
tuary, ch. xvii. Here an express distinction is made between ani-
their names given in the Alexandrine version would appear on that account to deserve
particular consideration : e, y. the rendering of pjIBS", ver, 17, by tfin in the LXX,,
which must be coraect from the connection, where only water.fowl are spoken of, while
iu Isaiah xxxiv, II the word appears to denote quite another sort of bird (see Ge
senius in loc. p. 914 ; comp. also Tychsen, Phys. Syr, p, 102.). So as, LXX., xpoKo-
SstXot -j^cptiaim, ver. 29, the lizard of the Nile, Arab. i_\,^ (comp. Gesenius on Bnrck-
hardt, ii. p. 1076, ff. Rbdiger. Gloss. Loom p. 11), with ita different species (inJitoV);
comp, Abdollatif, Mem, -ffigyp. P- 42, ed. Paul. So hB3S, ver. 19, LXX., xapa-
Spio9, indigenous in Egypt, see Rosenmiiller, Scholl. ad h. 1.
1 Comp. xvi. 10, 21, 22,26, 27, 23. Bleek, in Repert. I.e. p. 8, ff.
2 In leferenoe to the above, the Talmudic prescription concerning the expulsion of the
goat, &c., ie instructive: see Tr. Joma, p. 147, ed, Sheringham.
3 Her, ii, 39 : KstftaX^ &k KEtvrj iroXXd Kwrapritrdfitvot (j}kpoutTi, etc. Plutarch, De
Is. et Os, p. 363 : Sid t^ /xcv KttpaX-o tov Upclov KaTapacrdp,tvoi koi oTroKo'ijfoBTis eis
TovJroTafjLOv k^piiTTouv irdXaijVvv Sk Tots ^evots diroSiSovTat, We find this lite re
presented on the monuments also ; comp. Dcscript. de 1' Eg. t, i. p. 73.
* Comp. Tholuck, Das A. T. im N, T. (Beil. z. Comm, ub, d. Hebr, Br.) p. 79, SO.
[Tholuck's Essay, entitled the Old Testament in the New, in the Appendix to his Com
mentary on the Hebrews; translated iu Clark's Biblical Cabinet.]

300 HISTORICAL CRITICISM
mals that should be slain in the camp and out of the camp (ver, 3).
and it is forbidden to kill an animal any where else than in the
camp before the sanctuary ; that which was killed there should be
eaten as a peace-offering in honour of Jehovah. The reason of this
law, however, is found in the worship of the Goats, with which the
Israelites became acquainted in Egypt,i to which they might be espe
cially tempted to present sacrifices in the desert, as the abode of those
demons who had the shape of a Goat (Satyrs, Q'l'^iJ^JZJ ver. 6, 7.).
The law could not in this form be made applicable in Canaan, and
accordingly required to undergo a subsequent alteration, Deut. xii.s
It is certainly not clear that Ex, xx. 21 leads to the conclusion that
the law there given could not be Mosaic,' for that appointment also is
but a temporary one, as being given before the erection of the Taber
nacle, which is made plain enough by the introduction ofthe latter
fact ; and hence as that command in Exodus cannot have been
post-Mosaic, so neither can the one in Leviticus, which is Ukewise
temporary. The Mosaic constitution having thus far been clearly proved to
rest on a genuine historical foundation, we have to institute a simi
lar examination of the next section of Leviticus, chaps, xviii. — xxvii.
We here encounter at once an important consideration, namely, the
emphatic reference that is made to the possession of the promised
land. No inference indeed can be drawn from this, taken by itself,
either for or against the Mosaic composition of the piece. But our
business is with the mode in which this reference to Canaan is put
forth, whether it proceeds from the standing-point of the residence
in that country, or from that which contemplates the residence in it
as future ? Tn the latter case, the standing-point is evidently the
Mosaic. For the Lawgiver having led the people as far as that
point, which we have hitherto been viewing, could not possibly stop
short there : that which had already been fulfilled was too great,
not to require that the final aim of this legislation should now he
brought more closely before the eyes of the people. But the great
fact, from which all these laws proceed as their starting-point, and
which they present to the people as their strongest motive for their
1 Comp. Marck, Exercitt, Scriptur.p. 452, sq. Bochart, Hieroz. i. 2, 43. Jablonski,
Panth. -iBg. i. p. 272, sq. Gesenius and Hitzig on Is. xiii. 21.
2 Comp, Bleek's excellent remarks in the Stud, u. Krit, 1. c. p, 492, ff.
3 So De Wette, Einl, p. 191.

OF LEVITICUS. 301
fulfilment, is the deliverance from Egypt : comp. e. g. xix. 34, 36 ;
xxii. 33 ; xxiii. 43 ; xxv. 38, 55, &c. The proper standing-point
of the whole is most clearly exhibited by xviii. 3, " After the doings
of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do ; and after
the doings of the lahd of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye
not do," &c. And while the Lawgiver thus directs the people's
attention to the land left behind them, and represents their depar
ture from it as the most practical proof of the divine purpose, that
Israel should be a nation like no other amongst the heathen, he ex
tends his glance at the same time to the future. Evidence must
be afforded in Canaan likewise, that Israel was a holy nation, and
Jehovah a holy God. Thus the people must be firmly convinced,
on the one hand, that this land was their inheritance, because of the
divine promise ; and, on the other hand, that it must be taken pos
session of in the name of Jehovah, and that the conflict of the di
vinely elected people with the nations " which the land should spue
out," should begin. Such is the aim of every thing in these laws ; the
abominations and sins of the Canaanites, and their extirpation on
that account determined by God, are kept before the people, comp.
xviii. 24, 27 — 30 ; the land is ordinarily described in these terms,
" the land is full of wickedness" (naf) '> their abhorrence of the
possessions of the Canaanites was to go so far, as that they should
consider the trees that were planted during the first three years to
be unclean, xix. 23 — 25 (qi^'^J^, properly uncircumcised) ; but
Jehovah would lead his own people into a fair inheritance, where
the people should live separate from all others, xx, 22 — 27, &c.
Now this point of view is such as we can ascribe only to the Mo
saic period, and to the Lawgiver himself For the whole of the
command refers here primarily only to the entrance into Canaan.
The encouragement of Israel to war with the nations, on which the
anger of God rests, and the stipulation of their own safety and
prosperity, secured to them by Jehovah, are the main points of
view to wliich the series of laws constantly returns. Such a pro
ceeding, however, cannot be imagined in a later writer. To what
purpose should he invent fiction with such a view, at a time when
Canaan had long been held in possession ? To what purpose
should he have made all these laws bear this kind of reference to
the occupation of the land ? We should rather say, that no other
person can write in this manner than one who is himself just about

302 HISTORICAL CRITICISM
to attempt the great achievement, in firm faith in the God of Israel,
the rock of Jacob.
When we have sufficiently ascertained this general fundamental
view, the details of these laws will also have light enough thrown
on them. This is especially the case with the mention that is made
of the idolatry of the Canaanites. The prohibition of it is not only
insisted on in general (xix. 4, xxvi. 1), but also particular idola
trous practices (xix. 27, 28, xxi. 5), the worship of Molech espe
cially (xviu. 21, XX. l,ff.), and of Astarte (xix. 29), are forbidden.
In disputing the Mosaic authorship, it will not do to be satisfied
here with the general counter observation, that these superstitions
did not exist till after the time of Moses.^ For, in the first place,
we should here bear in mind the truth of the proverb. In pravitati-
bus insignis est generis humani similitude — an expression which
may be especially applied to the worship of nature and idolatrous
observances. As the Israelites had become acquainted with these
in Egypt, and had themselves sunk into many idolatries, the lan
guage here employed could by no means be unintelUgible to them,
even though it referred to a differently modified form of such wor
ship. This must the more certainly have been the case, since, as
we have previously remarked, the form of idolatry was always a
matter of comparative indifierence to them, owing to theknowledge
of Jehovah and his worship, which they had derived from their
fathers ; it was consequently to the impressions of idolatry in ge
neral that they were exposed, without having adopted it in any par
ticular mode, or having allied it with their whole existence. The
history in the Pentateuch itself shows how necessary these com
mands were for the people, who so- readily attached themselves to
what was foreign, and thoughtlessly cast away the blessing en
trusted to them.
The people were to live with all their thoughts in the future, in
the land of promise. It was only thus that they could be able to
endure the hardships of the present time, and to regard these in
their trae light. But they were to cherish this longing in a right
manner, by concentrating their thoughts upon the one point of
God's grace and truth, Hence the law concerning the circle of
feasts in ch. xxiii. acquires so special an importance from the com
bination of civil agricultural matters with religious. The latter point
1 Comp. De Wette, Beitr. p. 280, Einl. ^ 159.

OF LEVITICUS. 303
of view is plainly made prominent in it. It is quite a perversion
to seek to discover the original meaning of the feasts in their con
nection with the former, regarding e.g., the feast of first-fruits as
the original feast of the Passover, i This would be to misapprehend
entirely the whole contents of the chapter. We here receive no in
formation at all as to the proper meaning of e.g. the Passover, any
more than where the day of atonement is spoken of: that is evi
dently presupposed ; and while the passage thus regards the moral
reference of these popular observances as being defined by what pre
cedes, it brings that into harmony with their external life and physical
existence. Thus the Lawgiver here also maintains an historical
position towards the people : the earthly possession appears pre
cisely as a subordinate thing, whose worth lies solely in its relation
to Jehovah, and speciaUy to the display of his glory in the nation.
In this respect the account of the feast of Tabernacles at the close
of ch. xxiii. is particularly important. The mind of the Law
giver is completely occupied with the thought of the deliverance
from Egypt : this :^ast must have a reference to the abode in the
desert ; the proofs that God has given of himself there must not
be forgotten by future generations. Here also we stand wholly on
the ground of the Mosaic period, and the standing-point of Moses.
This point of view, however, receives its proper completion by the
consideration of ch. xxv. and xxvi. For the standing-point hitherto
occupied by the Lawgiver cannot be understood in its full extent,
without our conceding to him a truly prophetic mode of contem
plation, by means of which he transfers himself to the future times
of the nation. We could hitherto only show how this prophetic
Stan ding- point has its point of departure in the present (the Mosaic
period), and originates in that. But here we have now the most
striking evidence of the higher prophetical point of view, which
alone made it possible to bring the present and the future in such
a way into their right relation to one another. The consecration
of the whole law, its sublime appUcation to the entire department
ofthe life ofthe nation as a nation set apart for God, is the law re
lating to the Sabbatical year andthe year of Jubilee (ch. xxv,). Even
there the language of legal appointment passes into the prophetic
style of promise, xxv. 1 8, ff. But the Lawgiver is also fully aware, that
1 As for instance George does in the writings already referred to ; see on the other side
also §23,

304 HISTORICAL CRITICISM
the people will not adhere to these his commandments, and that
Jehovah himself will fulfil his law of the Sabbath in his own way,
when it is violated by the people (xxvi. 34.)^ Thus in the law itself,
prominence is given to the important prophetic aspect of it. But
at the same time the language embraces the entire future condition
of the people ; their exile on account of their disobedience, their
sufferings and deliverance from them, xxvi. 41, ff. Modern criti
cism here will have it, because mention is made of the exile, that
there is an oraculum post eventum, and on that account denies that
it belongs to the age of Moses.^ But this involves, in the first
place, a complete misunderstanding of the section itself Amongst
the misfortunes that were to befall the disobedient and rebellious
nation, there is certainly mentioned their dispersion and their loss
of the holy land ; but this threatening forms only a part of the mass
of calamities denounced ; comp. xxvi. 19, ff. It would be only in
case that single divine punishment received exclusive prominence,
that the partiality of the mode of treatment could supply a reason for
the opinion referred to ; but, as it is, we have to do with a descrip
tion that embraces the entire history of the nation. Consequently,
if that view is to be consistently carried out, it cannot stop short
with the event ofthe exile. For the return from the exile is also
included in this prediction ; and on the above hypothesis that also
must be regarded as an oracle written after the event. This, how
ever, would be overreaching one's object indeed. Hence one pre
fers to stop short half way, which is certainly the easiest mode of
evading a difficulty. Finally, in every prophetic portion the ac
counts and descriptions of the present, and those of the future, must
be well distinguished. Nothing but arbitrary dogmatical assump
tion and prejudice can affirm that the latter should be taken as the
standard, by which to determine the date of the composition of a
prophetical piece. Thus it is when one here sets out with the
principle, that the Hebrews first learned the possibility of an exile
by experience, and therefore that all the prophetic announcements
1 This is at the same time the most striking proof, that, however we may recognize
the ideal character of that law — for such it must have from its entire position — it was no
" enthusiastic fancy," as De Wette thinks, Beitr. p. 285.
2 Comp. Vater, iii. p. 639, 640. Gesenius, de Pent. Sam. p. 6. De Wette, Einl.^ 159,
&c. — Bertholdt, Einl. iil. p, 794, ff., has very well shown thal^ it cannot be said, that
Moses could not have mentioned such a punishment from ignorance of it, since it was
a very ancient measure of oriental despotism.

OF LEVITICUS. 305
of it must invariably have arisen only from the experience that had
been had of it. This would be to declare war against all prophecy
in general, and to deny the very existence of it as such, consequently
to abandon the domain of criticism. It is only the description
given of the present, only the starting-point of the prophecy as de
termined by that, which can supply a just criterion of the date of
its composition. On that, however, the section furnishes clear
enough information. According to it, the nation is one that has
been led out of Egypt, xxvi. 13, and that is alUed with Jehovah,
partly by the ancient covenant formed with the Patriarchs, partly
by the adoption of the people at their departure (xxvi. 42, 45.).
This account of the circumstances of the time leads us unquestion
ably to the Mosaic age.
We have yet another proof of the historical basis of the sec
tion in ch. xxiv. 10, ff. De Wette himself confesses that " this
fragmentbearsthestamp of locality and originality." (Beitr. p. 308.).
We find here a man, whose genealogy is exactly stated, give utter
ance to blasphemies. He is born of a mixed marriage, a circum
stance which contributes not a little to account for his offence.
The prohibition of blasphemy had been delivered (Ex. xxii. 28),
but the punishment had not been fixed, which is done in conse
quence of this fact. These, however, are most decisive features,
which could not be looked for except in a faithful historical narra
tive. But, on the other hand, it is urged — 1. that in connection
with this matter, laws that are quite foreign to it are introduced,
vers. 1 7 — 22, On several accounts the repetition of these laws, part
of which had previously been pubUshed (Ex. xxi. 12), was not ir
relative. Partly, because the prohibition of self-revenge, that is,
murder, which was nearly connected with this occurrence (ver. 10),
was inculcated in them; partiy, because they presented the punish
ment and the crime of blasphemy in their proper relation to crimes
committed against men an'd beasts ; lastly, because this case made
clear the common law respecting foreigners and born Hebrews
(comp. ver. 16 with 22.). Hence this circumstance serves to recom
mend especial caution in forming conclusions concerning the irre-
lativeness of laws, which is a still more rash proceeding, where the
special historical occasion of them is not mentioned. 2. It is
urged that in Num. xv. 32, -ff., a similar " anecdote " occurs ; such
then, it is conjectured, was the author's manner of introducing his

806 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
laws. The diversity of the two histories is clear enough. Their
agreement in this point, that the Israelites ask counsel of Moses ip
doubtful instances, is founded in the nature of the case. It is only
when one thinks it dubiouSj as De Wette does, that Moses should
here wait for a divine revelation, and allow it to decide, and not his
own will, that one can be disposed to look with suspicion on the
account. To imagine a reason, however, for that special kind of
invention is quite impossible.

§ 27. CONTINUATION. CRITICISM OF NUMBERS I.  XX.
At the very commencement of this book we have the most deci
sive evidence of its being a Mosaic document. The first thing we
meet with here is a numbering of the people. If we refer to what
precedes, we shall find the command for this in Ex. xxx. 12, ff.
The result of the census that was taken in the first year is stated in
Ex. xxxvui. 26. The total which is there brought forward agrees
exactly with the present. Num. i. 46. This plainly shews that the
census must have been one and the same. This, however, appears
inadmissible, because of the different chronological statements.
But when the matter is more closely considered, we discover a
complete agreement between the two accounts. The census in the
first year was required in order to levy the impost for the erection
of the Tabernacle ; the other, to decide the order of the encamp
ment and march. The latter object did not require a census pro
perly so called. All that was necessary was, to have a review of
the tribes, and, as the former census was made the basis, it is evi
dent that it was only a review of the numbers of each tribe that was
designed. Tt is clear from the text itself that this is no arbitrary
opinion.^ Prominent expression is here given to the fact, that the
new numbering was made Dnilt* IT'lV'DiinSttJO^' i- ^> J 8. This
was the only necessary addition to the first numbering. But that the
latter was made use of, is both probable in itself, and is confirmed by
the agreement of the sum total in each. We have here at bottom
a census, only suited in its plan to different objects. — If we
look farther to the second numbering that was instituted towards
the end of the abode in the desert, we. meet there with a remark-
V Comp. Michaelis, De ceus. Hebr. % 2. Eichhorn 3. n. 286. ff.

OF NUMBERS 1. — XX, 307
able difference. Some tribes have increased, others have diminished.
The difference in the entire body amounts to about 800. With re
spect to this also we must regard it as maintaining a suitable pro
portion, when we take into account the continued abode of the
people, and their destruction in many ways. Thus its general po
sition fully sustains the historical character of this section ; any
thought of invention being practised here is merely ridiculous : an
inventor would certainly not have paid such strict regard to the
historical relation of the three numberings to one another, espe
cially when the exactness of the account is discoverable only by a
careful examination of circumstances.
In general, no imaginable ground of explanation whatever can
be adduced here, where mere numbers are in question, on the hypo
thesis of a fictitious composition.'^ For as to De Wette's saying,
that " one wished to give details, and genealogies had a great in
terest for the Israelities ;" yet that is no motive for such a fiction ;
for the object and the fulfilment have here no sort of proportion to
one another. We must then suppose that the writer had a mere
delight in fictions of the sort, that he took a pleasure in amusing
himself, as Eichhorn says, with something that was purely fictitious.
But that were absurd. It is opposed also by another circumstance.
The numbers that we find here are undoubtedly round numbers ;
as the units constantly, and the tens even for the most part, are
wanting. This has been regarded as a mark of arbitrariness, a con
jectural distribution of the main sum. But, on the contrary, a
fictitious writer, such as the present is represented to have been,
would have here attempted to give his deception some colour of
probability by an opposite proceeding, passing himself off as pos
sessed of exact information. If he arbitrarily invented the hundreds
and the thousands, he could do the same with the tens and the
units. He must, however, at least have had a good understanding
of the art of calculation. A sufficient explanation of his proce
dure here is supplied only by supposing that we possess here an
authentic list. Detail was here regarded as being not so impor
tant ; a general computation of the whole was all that was proposed,
and therefore Moses gives the more exact number only where some
thing depends upon it, see iu. 39, 43. Thus the difficulties of the
section confirm its authentic character. A deceiver must neces-
1 Comp. Vater, 3, p. 551, ff. De Wette, Beitr. p. 323,;ff. Von Bohlen, p. Ixxviii.
V 2

308 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
Sarily have tried to conceal these difficulties as much as possible,
so as not to betray himself This is especially true of the propor
tion of the first-born to the total sum. According to the state
ment iii. 43, there must have been only one first-born computed
in forty-two males. The proper solution of this difficulty is that of
J. D. Michaelis,^ that this statement supplies a proof that at that
time polygamy must have prevailed to an unusual extent amongst
the Israelites, and alike conclusion is supplied by the genealogies in
Chronicles-^ For in that case the proportion of the first-born to
the other children, is regulated by the Hebrew usage that the first
born must be such on the father's, as well as the mother's side : see
Gen, xlix. 3, 4 ; Deut. xxi. 15, ff. ; Ps. cv. 36; Num, i. 20, That
this also related to the purchasing of exemption from priestly ser
vice, is clear from Ex. xxii. 28, xxxiv. 20, where it is said Ti^^
^12^ " the first-born of thy sons," where of course only one of tho
sons can be thought of as the primo genitus. This meaning must
also not be restricted by the phrase that is frequentiy subjoined "^j^D
Q)-|>^, Num. iii. 12, for this addition is to give prominence to primo
geniture on the maternal side. This latter, however, alone could
not make one the first-born of the family ; for that, being the first
born on the father's side also was an essential requisite.^ Accord
ingly, it is only from this passage that a conclusion can be drawn
as to the historical condition of the people, which is confirmed also
by notices elsewhere. This is the opposite of every thing like
arbitrary invention. Farther, the statement of the number of the
Levites in iii, 39, at 22,000 men, does not agree with that of the
numbers of the three Levitical famiUes, which gives the sum of
22,300 men, ui. 22, 28, 34. Consequentiy the 300 Levites must
not have been appropriated to the redemption of the rest (comp. v.
46.). This is a very important circumstance. If there were an im
position here, the numbers would naturally have been made alike,
so as not to give occasion to the question, in so close proximity, as
to the difference of those sums. At any rate this circumstance,
which may yet be most naturally explained by the supposition, that
1 De censibus Hebr. § iv. v.
2 Comp. especially 1 Chron. vii. 4, and J.D.Michaehs, ou the laws of Moses respect
ing marriage, p. 308, ff.
8 Comp, Gesenius, Thes. i. p. 206. Consequently Vater's reasoning, which has little
weight in general, ia incorrect, 3, p. 12, ff.

OF NUMBERS I. — XX. 300
those 300 Levites were themselves first-born,i speaks only in favour
of the genuineness of that narrative. To contemporaries, and even
at a somewhat later period, there could be no obscurity on the
point, which is here presupposed as known.
But De Wette charges the whole account concerning the selec
tion of the Levites with being of a mythical character ; according
to him, everything stated in the Pentateuch both concerning the
revenues and rights of this tribe, as well as its functions, is doubt
ful, various, and uncertain tradition.^ The practical document
which bears the strongest evidence against the view that such ob
scurity prevails respecting the origin of the priestly tribe, is the
distribution of the Levitical cities. Num. xxxv. (comp. Jos. xxi,).
This is acknowledged and admitted even by De Wette. But he
will then have it that there are other passages of a contradictory
nature concerning the revenues of the Levites. Let us here ex
amine everything in the Pentateuch that relates to. that matter.
Leviticus contains many appointments as to the share of the Priests
in the sacrifices, shewbread, &c., but the Levites are referred to in
this connection only in xxv. 32, 33, where their cities are spoken
of. This involves the requirement that the sequel should supply
more precise appointments respecting attention to the Levites.
Now this is done in Numbers. Those appointments also could
not be delivered before the actual establishment of the Levites in
their office, and their adoption as a ransom for the first-born
(Num. viii.). Now in Lev. xxvu. 30, the general appointment
was made, that the tenth should be sacred to Jehovah, which
then receives its more precise explanation in Num. xviii. It
is there fixed what revenues should be assigned to the tribe of
Levi instead of a certain inheritance (p7)T tl'TTJi)' ^^^^ ^^
the other tribes received, and those revenues were the tithes.
Now it is clear that this cannot imply that the Levites were to pos
sess no distinct habitation at all ; for every where that which is
spoken of is only a separate portion of their own as a tribe, such
as the other tribes obtained. Consequently the declaration referred
to of the earlier law respecting the habitations of the Levites, re
quired a more precise definition. This too is given in ch. xxxv.
1 Comp. Lilienthal, Gute Sache der Offenb. 3, p- 103. Rosenmiiller, Scholl, ad, iii, 39.
2 Beitr. 2, p. 327—338, comp. Vater 3, p. 500 ff.

310

HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY

That this was not regarded as a regular inheritance, is plain at once
from the command that the Israelites should give the Levites " cities
to dwell in of the inheritance of their possession," and Ukewise for
the support of their cattle, from the defined territory which was ac
knowledged to be their own. With this Deuteronomy exactly agrees.
There also it is distinctly mentioned that the tribe of Levi possesses
no inheritance (x. 9, xiv. 27, xviu. 1), but that the Levites should
dweU in their own cities amongst the rest of the Israelites.^ No
farther mention is made of the revenues of the Levites, which is
quite natural, as they had been sufficiently defined already in pre
vious laws : there is only a general injunction, in accordance ¦with
the character ofthe book, not to forsake the Levite ; xn. 19, xiv.
27. But in Deut. xii. 15, in reference to the earlier command in
Lev. xvii., an alteration is made respecting the killing of cattle, by
which the priests were deprived of an important portion of their
income : by the abrogation of the first ordinance the Israelites were
released from the obligation of presenting every animal as a thank-
offering. Hence as an indemnification for that, it is now prescribed
that in Canaan a tenth should be applied to common sacrificial
feasts, to which the poor in particular, and also — quite in accord
ance with what has been already remarked — the Levites, were to be
invited.^ These passages, as it is very clear, do not treat at all of
fixed revenues, but only of an act of kindness that was to be shown
as well to the poor, to strangers, to widows and orphans. No con
tradiction of the preceding is indicated by a single syllable : the
circumstance rather leads us to the supposition that there were two
tenths, the first assigned to the Levites for their support, and the
second devoted to feasts, in which the Levites also must participate
in accordance with the whole of their position. But it is said that
1 Hence the expression — "The Levite that is within thy gates" (xii. 12, xiv. 27),
i. e. in thy cities, comp. "^ilSB ihSia, xvi. 5, and the Lexx. s. v. "4HB. De Wette, on the
contrary, is of opinion that the expression refers to their dwelling together in the same
cities I !
2 Comp. Deut. xii. 17— 19; xiv. 22— 29; xxvi. 12— 15.
3 This also was the way in which that law was understood by the Jews in every age ;
comp. Nehem. xiii. 10 ; Tob. i. 7 — rfjv SsKdTrjv kSlSovv rots uiots Aeui — Kat t^w Sev-
Tepav SsKdTttv awEirpaTiX,dp.t}v, &c. So also the Talmudists. Comp. Selden, de
decimis, in Clericus, Comment, append, p. 628, sq. Reland, Antiqq. Sac. p. 354, sq.
De Wette's idea (p. 334) is truly ridiculous, that the above were too enormous advan
tages for the Levites to possess. Yet we shall see that, in point of fact, the Levites were
poor, if we compare the revenues and possessions of the nriestlv castes amnno ntbpr

OF NUMBERS I.  XX. 3 1 1
contradictions are discoverable also relating to the functions of the
Priests : that in Deuteronomy the appellations Levites and Priests
have the same import, which is deduced from the designation Qi^riin
Qi'n")'ji-j ; that there the Levites are not represented as the servants
and guard of the sanctuary, but that the whole tribe of Levi is re
presented as a priestly tribe. This assertion does not well agree
with the previous one, which described Deuteronomy as employing
a very subdued tone respecting the claims and revenues of the Le-
vites.i But modern criticism is very little troubled about such
self-contradictions. But do not the Levites appear in Deuteronomy
also as servants of the Sanctuary ? Deut. x. 8, xxxi. 9, ff., ex
pressly affirm it. It is true that there the distinction between the
functions of the Levites, and those that were properly the Priests',
is not explained, but is presupposed ; for it was set forth with suffi
cient precision in preceding portions. As to the meaning of the
phrase Qll'^'^ Q^inSi it cannot possibly be " the Levites who are
Priests," but only " the Priests who are Levites.'' Had the author
regarded the two words as synonymous, he would not have joined
them together. His intention, on the contrary, is to mark the le
gitimacy of the Priests in opposition to all Priests who were not
Levitical, and thus the expression Levitical Priests is exactly in
its place in Deuteronomy ; for there the whole tribe of Levi had
assumed a definite relation to the Priests who had been selected out
of it ; while, before the adoption of the whole tribe, it was only the
sons of Aaron that could be spoken of But that the author
knew well the distinction between the two, is clear from xviii. 1,
where the Qi^l^ D''Jn3 appear in connection with the t2nttj~73
*f^, and are expressly distinguished from it ; xviii. 3, 6. But in
Numbers, also, it is said that all the statements concerning the
Levites are not in accordance ; comp, iv, 2, 3 with viii. 24. Now,
the one passage treats of the transportation of the Tabernacle, for
which service the attainment of the thirtieth year was requisite ; the
second treats in general of service in the sanctuary, where the pe
riod of service was to begin with the twenty-fifth year. Are not
these statements perfectly accordant ?
nations, especially the Egyptians : comp. Heeren. ii. 2, p. 130, ff., or the Hellenes ; see
Kreuser, der Hell. Priesterstaat, p, 22, ff,, &c.
1 Hence George also, 1. c, p. 45, ff,, considers the legislation of Deuteronomy as of
earlier date ; which is certainly the greatest blunder into which modern criticism could
fall, in its arbitrary decisions.

312 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
Thus the statements of the Pentateuch concerning the Levites
bear throughout the stamp of unity, and it only remains that we
should examine the view, that the passage Num. i. — x. is only a
supplement to the books of Exodus and Leviticus.i Tt has been
shown above that this is not proved by the numbering of the peo
ple, which, on the contrary, is an advance in the history. But
the portions chs. iii, iv. must " perhaps " belong to the time of
Levit. viii., and ch. vii. be joined " immediately" to Ex, xl. But
chs. in. and iv. belong to Num. i. and ii., for the numbering of the
Levites stands in close connection with the numbering of the en
tire nation, and the injunctions respecting the transportation of the
sacred Tent bear an intelligible sense, and find their proper place
only here, where the decamping is mentioned. Ch. vii. certainly
refers back to the previous erection of the Tabernacle, and informs
us of the gifts in waggons and oxen, which the princes of the tribes
presented at that time. But the application of these could not be
introduced until now that the decamping is treated of, and the ser
vice of the Levites in connection with it is exactly defined (ch. iv.).
Thus the section occupies quite its proper place.
If we review once more the whole section, ch. i. — x,, with re
spect to its entire object and contents, we shall find Eichhorn's
judgment to be thoroughly well founded. " On the whole (he
says), no intelligible motive can be assigned, that should have in
duced one in later times to go into these details concerning the
conveyance of the Tabernacle and its sacred furniture, had not
complete materials for the account been at his hand. After the
land was taken possession of, the whole of this part of the service
of the Levitical families as good as ceased. The Tabernacle re
mained permanently where the place of the Sanctuary was ; the
Ark of the Covenant, it is true, sometimes accompanied the army
in the camp, but this was not the case long, when the danger of
doing so was experienced, as on one occasion, it fell into the hands
of the Philistines. What purpose now could it have served, to in
vent so circumstantial an account of the services of the Levitical
families ? Had one even followed tradition in it, would not the
information supplied have been merely of a general kind ? — would
it have gone so deeply into particulars ? All the circumstances
t De Wette, Beitr p. 310.

OF NUMBERS I,  XX. 313
lead us to conclude that the whole was recorded during the march
through the desert." (Einl. 3, p. 292.). With this Bleek also
agrees, inasmuch as in Num. i. ii. iv,, he discovers evidences of its
Mosaic composition in the contents of the information, and recog
nizes its character as marked by great accuracy and historical
fidelity. He adds very properly, that no detailed explanation is
necessary to show, " how much such sections serve to prove the
general historical character of the contents of these hooks."^
Even Bertholdt feels himself here compelled to admit the force of
the historical truth (Einl. p. 787.).
Unsuccessful, however, as are the efforts made by the advocates
of the mythical explanation to show the necessity of having recourse
to it here, they are equally so in their application of it. In ch. x.
29, ff., Hobab is requested by Moses to give them assistance in
their march through the desert. Here — exclaims De Wette (p.
343) — we have for once quite a natural narrative ; which shows the
difference between an historical relation and a mythus. But then
immediately after this narrative follows the mention of the cloudy
piUar (ver, 34),^ so that there again we encounter a mythical foun
dation. To what does this criticism now have recourse ? To a
"perhaps." " Perhaps (it is said) it is only the compiler that has
jumbled these heterogeneous things together." It was felt that it
would not do to represent an author as in the same breath invent
ing things that are apparently most fabulous, and then suddenly
affording us true historical information. Hence one's readiest shift
is to frame a new hypothesis, or rather to have recourse to the old
one of a fragmentary compilation. But even a compiler could not
have acted so thoughtlessly as to join together what is so heteroge
neous, especially he whose only object elsewhere is to " mytbolo-
gize." Hence that ominous "perhaps," This circumstance, how
ever, will lead us to a different conclusion ; namely, that we have
here to do with an author who, with the greatest discretion, distin
guishes the human and natural from the supernatural and miracu
lous, and who is firmly convinced that the introduction ofthe former
cannot be prejudicial to his statements where they contain what is
of the latter character ; whose object consequently is not to relate
1 Stud. u. Krit. 1. c. pp. 508, 509.
2 That there is no contradictiou in that of tlie preceding, see proved iu Rosenmiiller,
Scholl, ad X. 3L

314 HI STORICAL CRE DIBILITY
miracles only for their. own sake; and this characteristic of the his
torical narrative distinguishes it most decidedly from everything
like mythical description.
But a still more exact definition has been given of the mythical
element in this book : it is represented as bearing in relation to
Exodus a different and later mythical character, that of a later my
thology which deUghts in miracles and embellishments, and thps
proving itself to be a subsequent addition to Exodus.-^ As the chief
proofs of this, ch. xi. and xx, as compared with Ex. xvi. xvii., are
adduced. Now, as respects the narrative of the quails, we may be
surprised, considering the spirit ascribed to the author, not to find
him likewise embellishing the account of the manna which in Ex.
xvi. stands associated with it. Besides, it would be difficult to
show that that narrative of the manna is less wonderful than what
is here given respecting the quails. Farther, there is certainly an
important difference between the two narratives ; a difference con
sisting not so much in the mere exaggeration of the miracle as in
the entire object of the account, which here is to show the people
how little they understand making a wise use of the gracious bene
fits of God ; for the sensual principle that predominates in them,
lust, is here displayed, and along with that, at the same time, their
unfitness to take possession of the land of promise.^ The narra
tive of bringing water out of the rock is still more instructive. In
Numbers, the language of the people's murmuring is much stronger,
which it must have been, for even Moses and Aaron participate in
their unbelief; and the insurrection was much greater. In Exodus
Moses prays, and Jehovah answers him, but here Moses and Aaron
go before the Tabernacle, &c,, — this, which could not have been
done before the erection of it, must necessarily have been the case
after that. In the former passage the performance of the miracle
is simply stated, here it is given at much greater length ; which
likewise is quite necessary, for it is in this particular that the two
narratives are most essentially distinguished from each other ; as in
the one the faith of Moses is displayed, but here his and Aaron's
unbelief Accordingly we find just those particulars of differ
ence that in every case serve to transport us exactly into the dif-
1 De Wette, Beitr. p. 314, ff.
2 The passage xi. 5 affords a striking evidence of the writer's accurate acquaintance
with Egypt.

OF NUMBERS I, — XX. 315
ferent historical condition and circumstances, and which cannot be
explained at all by a mere embellishment of previous miracles —
if we will make the writer a fictionist, why give him so little credit
for invention ? — and this is precisely a guarantee of their internal
historical truth.
But though according to these views of the critics, the author
of this book must have had Exodus before his eyes, yet directly
after this assertion, they affirm that there is a contradiction between
the two books, namely, in the statement respecting the seventy
elders, ch, xi,, comp. Ex. xviii,, xxiv. 1, 9.* This also would then
be irreconcilable with the other ; but such an intentional contradic
tion is a thing quite inconceivable. But how stands the case as to
the contradiction itself ? The elders mentioned in the book of
Numbers are by no means a standing magisterial authority. They
are selected from the elders of Israel (ver. 24), whose existence in
that capacity is consequently presupposed. The call which they
received was intended to shew the rebellious people the power of
the Lord, who pours out his Spirit upon them in a wonderful
manner, and to bring the people back within the Umits of order.
But their merely temporary appointment is expressly stated (ver.
25) ¦? hence we find no farther reference to them in the Scriptures.
Thus the history here presents no analogy with later circumstances,
and the assertion of its being invented has consequently no sense at
all. Chap, xii, is represented as mythical, and as having for its object
the exaltation of Moses, and the description of God's justice in
punishing. The only proof given of its being mythical is the mira
culous portion of the narrative.' The chapter certainly affords
confirmation of the dignity of Moses as a divine ambassador.
Instead of enquiring whether Moses was really such, whether he
was possessed of all the quahfications for that office, the opposite
is at once presupposed, and proof thence derived of the mythus.
But would the fictionist, who simply aimed at doing honour to
Moses, have given such a reason, as is mentioned in ver. 1, for
Aaron and Miriam's quarrel with him? Could this have been
the case, when the law expressly permitted marriage with foreign
1 De Wette, Beitr. p. 345.
2 The ouly correct reading here is USB'', according to which also the LXX,, the Peshito,
and the Arab, translate ; comp. Gesenius, De Pent. Sam., p, 41.
» De Wette, 1. c, p. 346.

316 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
women, and prohibited it only with the Canaanites ? It would be
strange then had any one hit upon this idea.
Chaps, xiii. xiv. contain that turning-point in the whole of the
history in the Pentateuch, namely, the statement ofthe cause ofthe
forty years' wandering in the desert. It has been beheved' that the
narrative consists of two disconnected portions : — that xiv. 26 — 38
is only another version of ver. 11 — 24. But the former is mani-
festiy an enlarged continuation of what had been expressed ; God's
first address commands the Israelites to turn back into the wilder
ness, the second announces to them their abode for forty years in
it. That the two are closely connected, is proved by the circum
stance, that according to xiv. 6, ff. both Joshua and Caleb endea
vour to, appease the people, while in ver. 24 it is to Caleb alone
that a promise is given, which is not made to them both till ver. 38.
But Caleb's being named singly in ver. 24 is explained partly by
xiu. 30, because Caleb had spoken first, partly by the speciality
of the promise given him. There is as little contradiction between
the section and Deut, i. 20, ff,, but the two passages mutually ex
plain each other; and Vater (p. 62) even must admit that the
account in Deuteronomy presupposes that in Numbers. Thus
according to that, the sending out of the spies originates with the
people, who prepare the severe temptation for themselves, but
Moses does not accede to their request without having obtained
God's sanction of the plan : then at his command the spies are
despatched. We find, however, in xiii, 22 a particular and not unim
portant proof of the Mosaic composition. Not only is the notice
respecting the primitive Anakite tribes uncommonly exact, but that
also relating to the building of Hebron has much weight. For
Zoan (Tanis) is here evidently assumed as the object that was
known, and Hebron as that which was unknown ; this is suited only
to a nation that was coming out of Egypt, and was famiUar with
its antiquities ; and hence the passage in this its peculiar form does
not admit of being treated as a native and indigenous tradition.
But if the fact does not admit of being challenged in the above
respect, De Wette insists the more strenuously on that which is
miraculous and incomprehensible in the account, namely, that
Jehovah should announce such a punishment to the people. He calls
1 Vater, iii, p. 70. ff,, 45.5. De Wette, p. 347.
3

OF NUMBERS I,  XX. 317
this arbitrary. But here again the unsatisfactoriness of the my
thical hypothesis may be very strikingly exposed. The fact of the
Israelites wandering in the wilderness for forty years, is confirmed
by testimonies from the whole of Scripture ; all the chronological
statements of the Pentateuch agree with it ; and the assertion that
the number of the years is a round one has no certain analogy on
its side. Now this being firmly established, we are justified in
asking, what gave occasion to that long period of sojourning ?
How came Moses to give up the plan of taking possession of
Canaan ? De Wette admits the problem, and is aware of the in
sufficient character of the ordinary solutions of it. " It is hard
(he says) to give up the execution of a plan to which one has de
voted half a life-time. Such an act of resignation, performed volun
tarily, and in addition, arising from a false want of self confidence, is
not human.'' Gothe remarks, that the picture of a man like Moses is
quite disfigured, by representing such a person — whose natural cha
racter was one of the loftiest aspirations, and distinguished by energy,
promptness, and boldness in action — as roving about for forty years,
without sense or nceessity, with a vast multitude of people in a
space too small for them, in sight of his great object. The way
in which Gothe tries to solve the problem, we shall leave for future
examination ; only remarking that nothing can be more arbitrary
than to change the forty years into hardly two full years. De Wette
has another shift. He remarks the gap in the history, subjoins
a significant query — who knows what happened in this period ?
— and thus arrives at the conclusion, that concerning the most
important part of the history we know nothing. Thus he has
tied his own hands. For whence arises that gap in the his
tory ? If what was so remarkable took place in this period,
how should no trace of that have been preserved, were it only
a perverted tradition ? And how was it tben that a later age,
which otherwise was acquainted with so much, also knew no
thing in this place concerning " the most important part of this
history ?" The case stands precisely thus, that the gap admits of
explanation only from the history itself The only thing that
serves to explain it is that so little transpired during that long space
of time, that was sufficiently remarkable and important to deserve
1 Comp. Keil, in the Dbrptsch. Beitr. z, d. Theol. Wissench, ii, p. 327, ff.

318 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
mention, or of which even a remembrance was preserved. Thus
then we are again thrown back on an extraordinary fact, which ex
plains the circumstance in question. The resignation of Moses
and the continuance of the people in the wilderness, can be ex
plained only by acts displaying the divine power and glory. Hu
man ingenuity and skill in explanation are in this case thoroughly
put to shame. It is the present section alone that enables us to
cast a glance into the secret of the divine purpose : God com
mands and the faithful servant of God follows, the disobedient
people perceive that they can effect nothing without their God ; so
that it is only this one thing, the will of God in its fixed and
righteous purpose, that solves the otherwise inexplicable problem.
The mythical explanation has no firmer support in the narratives,
ch. xvi. and xvii., which, on the contrary, contain, a striking proof
of their high antiquity. For while xvu, 6 ff. is represented to us
as being invented to confer honour on the priestly office, we find
in ch. xvi. the offence of Korah and his adherents, and their punish
ment. On that supposition, however, it would certainly be sur
prising that a fictiohist, who wrote in such a hierarchical spirit,
should designate no other than a Levite as the chief instigator to
such a crime. This circumstance has its difficulty enhanced, when
we recollect that the descendants of this very man (Num. xxvi. 11),
were one of the most distinguished Levitical families in the time of
David,! so that it would be unintelligible how even at that period,
and still more at a later, it could have come into the mind of any
person to attribute such a crime to the ancestor of that family.
What evidence do we find there of the hierarchical tendency, which
is professedly perceived everywhere else here ? This characteristic
sustains the credibility of the narrative in the highest degree; and,
this admission being made, it must have been written in the Mo
saic age.
1 Comp. 1 Chron. vi. 33, ff; ix. 19, xxvi. 1 ; 2 Chron. xx. 19. On this Calvin makes
the excellent remaik : " Certe hoc non vulgare fuit misericordiae specimen non modo
eos a clade servare, sed ex radice maledicta surculos postea excitare, in quibus fnlgerent
spirituales ejus divitiae in communem ecclesise usum."
2 Gramberg indeed is put in such a dilemma by this, that he will not allow that the
later Korahites were descended from this Korah, 1. c, i, p. 138. De Wette also has felt
this; Beitr. p. 371, he remarks— quite in opposition to xvi. 33 — that Num. xxvi. 11 is
contradictory of the present passages, and soys ; " This second account, which is so
different, may very likely have been framed from regard to the race of the Korahites,
which subsequently became so renowned."

OF NUMBERS XXI. — XXXVI. 3 1 9
In exact agreement with the character of the sacrificial laws
mentioned in Leviticus, is that respecting the red heifer in ch, xix. ;
a circumstance which, as everything in it points to an abode in the
camp, secures to it its well-founded place among the laws of Moses.^
The contradictions, which as one will have it, are discoverable be
tween ch. XX. 14, ff. and Deut. ii. 9, 29, xxiii. 4, 5, are easily re
moved. But it is a mistake to suppose that, according to Numbers,
the Edomites refused the Israelites a passage through their terri
tory, and accordingto Deuteronomy, on the contrary, conceded it.
In Deut. ii. 4 — 8 we are told, that the Edomites supplied the Israel
ites with provisions for money (comp. ii. 29), but not that they
permitted them to march through their land. On the contrary,
the opposite is plainly stated in ii. 8 : i^y 'i^^ liTl^^ nt^?D "lli^il-
which agrees exactly with Num. xx. 21 : li^j;?^ 7t^"lto^ tD''V -^^
little does Deut. ii. 29 contradict Num. xxiii. 4, 5 ; for in the one
it is said that the Moabites gave the Israelites provisions for
money (just as the Edomites did), while the other affirms that
they did not come to meet them (ij^'lp t^^) ^''^ provisions, pre
senting these as friendly gifts. Still less foundation is there for
alleging a contradiction between Num. xx. 22-29, and Deut. x. 6,
which could be made out only in case we had any where more pre
cise information respecting the situation of the place Moser men
tioned in the latter passage. How easily may the name of Hor
have been a general name, and the other a special one !
Thus, as far as we have gone, we may recognize the entire credi
bility of the statements of this book, which present no grounds for
suspicion as to their Mosaic authorship.

§ 28. CONTINUATION.  NUMBERS XXI. — XXXVI.
In ch. xxi. we find abundant traces of its ancient composition.
That the IsraeUtes should call the first place, which they took from
the Canaanites, Hormah {proscription) xxi. 1 — 4, we may regard
as very intelUgible. Tt is worthy of remark that it is the king of Arad
1 See Bleek, in the Repert. 1; c. p. 9.
2 Compare the attempts of Buxtorf, Anticr, p. 933, sq. ; Lilienthal, die gate Sache, etc.
vii. p. 650, ff ; Buddeus, Hist, Eccl, v,t.i. p. 641, sq,, to explain the difficult passage,
Deut. X. 6—9.

320 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
that is here named as vanquished ; but this conquest and the occu
pation of his territory must have been only partial, for we find
Joshua overcoming the king of Arad and Hormah (Josh, xu, 14) ;^
at that time, therefore, two kings must have had dominion in this
district. Another part of thjs district, called Zephath, was likewise
conquered at a subsequent time, and also named Hormah, Judg. i.
17 : perhaps with a reference to that old achievement of Moses.
Thus this relation bears an exact reference to the following later
ones, and we now also comprehend why the Israelites did not fol
low up this conquest and try to invade Canaan on this side, which
however was connected with other additional difficulties.^
The remarkable passage concerning the erection of the brazen
serpent, xxi. 5-10, affords equal evidence of its Mosaic origin,
especially when compared with 2 Kings xviii. 4. The facts, that
Hezekiah destroyed, along with other objects of heathen worship, the
brazen serpent, to which the Israelites offered incense, thus making
it an object of idolatry, and that the general opinion at that time
was that Moses had erected that serpent, supply much in favour of
the present passage. Had the serpent been from the very com
mencement an object of worship in the manner described, Hezekiah
could not have destroyed it like heathen practices ; but. his proceed
ing is in perfect accordance with the account in the Pentateuch,
inasmuch as that makes no mention of an idolatrous worship, but
is expressly directed against any such tendency. But neither can
this account contain a priestly legend, having for its object to give a
fairer colouring to the matter ; for since the act of Hezekiah at least
must have been well known to those who might frame such a story,
they could not possibly mean to countenance the popular notion, but
must in that case have represented Moses in the same relation to
this matter as to the erection of the golden calf (Ex. xxxii.). But
if the proceeding of Hezekiah be explicable on his admission, that
he had a firm foundation of established authority for it, and hence
must have been acquainted with the account in the Pentateuch, then
1 [The two passages appear to me to refer to the same fact. Yet that there were two
kings in the district, a king of Arad and a king of Hormah, is plainly affirmed by the
passage in Joshua. — Tb,].
2 The right view of Num. xxi. 1— 4,'was perceived by Clericus ad b. I. Later writers,
as Rosenmiiller (Alterthumsk. ii. 2, p. 313, ff.), Studer on the Book of Judges, p. 34, ff.,
incorrectly identify this occurrence with what is related in Judg. i. 16, 17, and then take
Num, xxi. 3, 4, to be a later addition (so at least Rosenmiiller),

OF NUMBERS XXI.  XXXVI. 32 I
indeed the question arises, how this proceeding on the part of Moses
is accordant with Monotheism, and whether the Lawgiver must not
manifestly have given encouragement by it to idolatry .^ But it is
expressly from Jehovah that the people expect deliverance, hence
it is Jehovah that institutes this symbol, and there is not a single
syllable that indicates any kind of identity between the symbol and
Jehovah. On the contrary, the symbol has a meaning only when re
garded as setting forth the overcoming and defeat ofthe serpent and
its noxious bite. In this way, however, the symbol points expressly
to Jehovah as the God who delivers, and is as far as possible from
conveying a magical idea, that should attribute to the symbol, as
such, a value not belonging to it. Now, if we enquire more nar
rowly into the historical circumstances of the Israelites at that time,
viewed in that relation also the symbol will appear to be quite in
telUgible and suitable in the sense we have mentioned. The people
are in a district that abounds particularly in noxious serpents ¦?
these become in the hand of Jehovah a means of punishing the Is
raelites ; the heathen perversion of the truth, which made the ser
pent itself the symbol of immortality, and the conveyer of healing
power, must have been known to the Israelites from an Egyptian
quarter \ hence there was great propriety, the more so especially as
the primitive tradition of the nation was in unison with such a me
thod, in presenting to their view the right aspect of the symbol, and
confirming their behef that the same God, who brought that inflic
tion upon them, was alone able to remove and overcome it by his
almighty power. Thus, in this light also, we are justified in re
garding the history as suited to the Mosaic age.
The following portion informs us of additional events ; in con
nection with which mention is also made of ancient songs, having
their origin in that age. The Israelites press on to the Arnon :
to this reference is made in a passage in " the book of the wars
of Jehovah," which is quoted by the author ; it is a geographical
notice, obscure indeed, because severed from its connection, but
of importance at the time, as stating the ancient boundaries of the
Moabitish territory, xxi. 14, 15. But while it is apparent on
the face of such a passage that it cannot he invented, it shows
1 Comp. Vatke in particular, Bibl. Theol. i, p; 199, ff.
2 Burckhardt, Reise ii. p. 814.
3 Comp. Creuzer, Symbolik i. p, 626, ff. X

>i^^ HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
at the same time how much concerned the writer is to com
municate the truth of history. It shows great inconsiderateness
to suppose, that a book bearing such a title could not have existed
as yet in the time of Moses, because the wars of the people had
then only just commenced.^ Yet certainly it is not necessary that
the book should have come into existence at the very moment these
enterprises were undertaken. That the wars of Moses supplied
matter enough, to give a book relating to them even in the time of
Moses, the name of " the book of the wars of Jehovah," can be
denied by none. This section makes it evident, in particular, that
Israel at that time had men possessed of poetical talent (qi^^JJ^,
ver. 27), and it may also be supposed that the two other songs,
mentioned in this chapter, were to be found in that same collection.
Now why should not the collection have been undertaken even in the
age of Moses ? So likewise do these two other songs — ver- 17, 18,
and ver. 27 — 30 — bear the stamp of originality,^ while at the same-
time they place the author in a very favourable Ught, as one pos
sessed of such exact sources of information, and confirm the occur
rences with which they stand in connection. For should we assume
the occurrences to be invented, but the poems to be genuine, we
should give admission to the view, that a later age (whether by oral
or written communication) was in possession of distinct information
relating to the Mosaic period ; in which case the introduction of
fiction becomes at least highly improbable ; and still less can we
consistently imagine an author, who on the one hand gives evidence
of so much regard to history, and on other hand gives the rein
without restraint to the arbitrary inventions of his fancy. These
very songs are a proof that we are not here in the domain of fiction.
Ch. xxii. — xxiv. Balaam's history and prophecies also confirm
us in the conclusion to which our researches thus far have led us.
In a critical respect, the first question that presents itself here is,
whether this portion forms a separate fragment, having an indepen
dent existence.' But the proofs in support of that opinion are un
satisfactory. The divine names Elohim and Jehovah are not em
ployed hy turns in the prophecies, as Vater will have it^ similarly
i Vater, 3, p. 643.
2 See Bleek, in Repert. L c. p. 3— 6. De Wette, Einl p. 191, On the other hand
we have wholly erroneous opinions e.g, in Fulda, 1. c, p. 201, ff.
3 This is maintained by Vater, 3, p. 118, ff. De Wette, n. 362. ff.

OF NUMBERS XXI. — X.VXVI. 323
to what they are in Genesis : it is only the name Jehovah that is
found in them, and once that of Elohim, but with the pronoun,
xxiii. 21. We are next called to observe the contradiction between
the present narrative, and xxxi. 8, 16. In the one passage it is
said, that Balaam was slain by the Israelites ; which can be no con
tradiction of this section, as it was an event of subsequent occur
rence, and there is nothing against the supposition that Balaam
afterwards returned back from his native country (xxiv. 25) to the
Midianites, with whom he must at any rate have maintained a con
nection. This passage rather presupposes that Balaam has been
previously a subject of discourse ; otherwise it could not introduce
the mention of his death in that manner. The second passage in
forms us that Balaam counselled the Midianites to seduce the Is
raelites to idolatry. But this likewise presupposes the contents of
this section. Balaam must have received an impression of the
power of Jehovah ; he must have attained the conviction that the
only means of overcoming Israel was to induce them to abandon
their God (comp. Deut. xxui. 5, 6.). It is true that this section
has much that is poetical in its representation, and that even the
historical account itself takes a higher flight, such as we do not find
elsewhere in this book. But this circumstance also is sufficiently
explained by the matter, and by the subject, which is truly poetical
in its nature, while the oracles that are interspersed must have led
still more to such a mode of representation.* The author is carried
away, as it were, by his subject, he lives in it, and depicts the won
derful occurrence with powerful and elevated animation. We can
not think but that such a circumstance is highly favourable to the
view that the writer was a contemporary. Were we, however, to
insist on much that is peculiar in the language of the section, the
supposition would still be left us, that our author found it already
recorded in writing, perhaps in the book of the wars of Jehovah,
mentioned in ch. xxi., and then embodied it in his own work in a
revised form (comp. xxii. 1, ff.). That book may very well have
contained original compositions like the oracles, especially when we
find it probable that the two other songs in ch. xxi. were extant
in it.
A second critical point of view respecting this section, is the
1 Comp., besides, the author's General Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 97, ff., of
the German original.
2 X

324 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
question as to its historical or mythical character. The ordinary
reasons advanced against its historical truth are of little weight ;'^
they rest partly on a misunderstanding of its contents, partiy on
doctrinal prejudice.^ The whole weight of the argument here
centres in the view taken of the oracles of Balaam. These form
the foundation and substance of the whole history; if they are ficti
tious, we are no longer at liberty to decide respecting the history
what in it is true, and what is not so : we must then give it up alto
gether, as having no internal support or substance. This has also
been fully recognized by recent critics, and therefore the discourses
of Balaam have received special attention from them. It has also
been agreed upon respecting them that the form in which they ap
pear is not their original one, and their fictitious character is said
to be evidenced by the definiteness of the predictions representing
the details of future events.^ For the view that pronounces a por ¦
tion of these prophecies to be interpolated, viz., ch. xxiv. 14 — 24,*
is in the first place an unsatisfactory one, since it does not recog
nize the remaining portion to be immediate prophecies of Balaam's ;
and again, from its arbitrary character it is self- destructive ; but at
bottom it is identical with the first-mentioned view, as it refuses to re
gard these oracles as original productions. Let us now proceed on the
admission of the unity of the oracles, and enquire whether the data
here predicted admit of being reconciled with a distinct hypothesis
of the fictitious nature of the prophecy. The first expressions,
which have a more general form, represent Israel as being blessed
of God, and as dwelling by themselves among the nations ; the seer
beholds the tents of Jacob — the people has been led out of Egypt,
and has marched through the wilderness, and will now display its
might as a conquering band (xxiii. 7 — 10, 18 — 24, xxiv.5.). All
these traits are suited only to a prophecy of the Mosaic age. Then
the nations, which are introduced by the seer into the foreground
ofhis prophecy, are the Amalekites, Edomites, Moabites and Ke
nites, and this too we must admit to be in accordance with the
1 Comp. e. g, Bauer's Hebr. Mythol. i. p. 306, ff. Hartmann, p. 496, ff.
2 Oomp. the treatises of Steudel, Tiib. Zeitschr. 1831, H. ii. Liter. Anzeiger v. Tho
luck, 1832, Nr. 78, ff.
3 So De Wette, Beitr- p. 364, ff. Bleek, in the Repert, 1. cp 34, ff, Gesenius, De
Pent. Sam. p. 6. Von Bohlen, p. cxxxv., &c.
4 Bertholdt, Einl. 3, p, 792, ff,

OF NUMBERS XXI.  XXXVI, 325
assigned age ; the omission of the Philistines, when contact with
those nations is prominently referred to, being of special import
ance. But then, with respect to Amalek there is the special state
ment, that the king of Israel should be greater than Agag, (xxiv.
7), — that Amalek should perish (xxiv. 20) ; and of Edom it is said
that Israel should take possession of it. This statement is accord
ingly referred, as to its date, to the time of Saul, who conquered king
Agag. Now, should we give this prophecy so special an applica
tion, even then, supposing it was recorded post eventum, the con
trast it presents to the preceding at once excites surprise, as that
shows an exact regard to the age and circumstances of Moses. But
it is also clear, that this hypothesis does not suit the case ; for Saul
by no means effected the complete destruction of the Amalekites,
Edom also was not taken possession of by that king, but first of
all by David (2 Sam. viii. 14.). Thus it must have been under
David that the prophecy was composed ; but in that case we can
not see how Saul's dominion, whose race was rejected, could receive
the notice it is here said to have ; for Bleek correctly remarks, p.
36 : "it could not have been written subsequently to Saul's time,
since no one would have thought (in another age) of giving such
a description ofthe greatness of [the Israelitish king, or of making
special mention of Agag. Thus then the prophecy, so far con
sidered, and regarded as written post eventum, is completely inex
phcable. But it becomes still more so, when we look at what fol
lows. There Asshur is named, and that too as carrying the Ke
nites into captivity (xxiv. 22.). If by Asshur we are to understand
Assyria or Babylonia, either of these kingdoms, in their victorious
supremacy, could no more be known and mentioned by a seer of
the age of Saul or David, through his own unaided ability and fore
sight, than by one of the Mosaic age. We might rather ask, whe
ther we should not sooner expect a knowledge of Asshur from
Balaam, a native of Mesopotamia, than from an Israelite living in
the reigns just mentioned. But how is the particular prominence
that is here given to the Kenites, to be explained at all ? Modern
criticism finds it necessary to separate these verses from the pre
ceding, and to assign them to a later age ; which brings us to no
thing else than Bertholdt's arbitrary method. But he who cannot
help himself here without the supposition of interpolation, volun
tarily gives up his cause. But this criticism is involved in stUl

326 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
greater difficulties by the expression respecting Asshur, that the
Kittseans (Chittim) should humble Asshur and Eber, and that Eber
also should be destroyed (xxiv. 24.). Now here again it is evidently
insufficient to suppose a poet of the Assyrian period as the author.
For if we should understand the appellation of Kittseans, of the
islands and countries of the west in general, in which sense the
name occurs also in Jerem, ii. 10, Ezek. xxvii. 6, or in a more
restricted sense, of a particular nation of the continent ; let it be
considered, how impossible it is to fix this prophecy as one written
post eventum. It is a supposition unavoidably necessary, that the
fulfilment of the prophecy can belong only to the Macedonian age ;
for supposing it were, as Bleek will have it, that the humiliation of
Asshur were but a general prediction, what then becomes of the
humiliation of Eber ? But above aU how comes it, that the des
truction of Eber is here predicted ? Is that to be referred to the
period of the Exile ? The prophets, however, unanimously an
nounced the return from the exile : how then have we such an ex
ception here ? Thus we see that this prediction has a still more
remote reference, which brings us only to the highest point of the
proof, that it cannot possibly have been written after the event. This
view has also by no means been shown to be untenable, but has only
gained additional confirmation from the latest attempt* to refer the
prophecy respecting the Kittseans to the irruption of the Greeks
into CiUcia, about B.C. 710.^ For, admittirig that the Hebrews were
acquainted with that occurrence ; admitting that there is an agree
ment between this fictitious prediction, and the allusions in Micah
(vi. 5) and Amos (vi. 1), it is still to be observed, — 1. That As
shur was by no means humbled by that invasion, but after great
loss was successful in vanquishing the enemy, and Sanherib (Senna
cherib) celebrated his bravery and warlike prowess by several vic
torious trophies ; consequently it was a fresh triumph of the As
syrian power.^ 2. Eber and Asshur were to be humbled by the
Kittseans ; but where do we find the slightest trace of Palestine
being affected, or even so much as threatened, by that invasion ?

1 Comp. Hitzig. Begr. d. Kritik, p. 54, ff.
2 Comp. Berosus in Euseb. Chron, Arm, i, p, 42,43, ed. Anchor, Gesenius on Isaiah,
i,p. 999,ff.
S v. Bohlen, Ond., indeed represents the Assyrians as having been driven hack, of
which there is nothing in the place referred to I

OF NUMBERS XXI, — XXXV^. 327
Hitzig indeed thinks that the Hebrews had felt afraid, and that the
fear had perhaps begun to realize itself; but this is a mere fanciful
notion ; and how could this oracle be then expressed as it is ? and
what then becomes of its being written after the event ? Consider
in addition, 3, that the passage, Dan. xi. 30, Qini Q'^'^^J "Q, It^ll'
decidedly refers to the present passage, and indicates the fulfilment
of that more general prediction, according to which nations of the
West were to make an end of Asshur (which is also used here in
the more extended sense of — "powers of the East") ; being the
application of it to a special case, which falls under this general
category. Thus at the time of the Exile this prediction was re
garded as being still unfulfilled, and as receiving its accompUshment
from the Grecian period onwards. The same is also evident from
Jeremiah, who likewise refers to the present prediction (xlviii. 45.).
Consequently the prophecy will gain an inteUigible character, just
as it is referred in a wider sense to the far remote periods of Grecian
and Eoman dominion.
But even as the prediction becomes unintelligible in that part of
it, unless it is regarded as genuine prophecy, and its origin conse
quently admitted to be authentic, so is it also with the historical
portion of this and the following sections. There is such a vivid
ness in the narrative contained in the history of Balaam, and such
an exact representation of the localities, that, when viewed even in
that respect, it cannot be regarded as invention. In addition to this,
there are individual historical notices, which could hardly have been
preserved by a later age ; such as particularly, that the Moabites
and Midianites were then in close alliance, which is plain also from
ch. XXV., where the Moabites are spoken of ver. 1, ff., and in ver.
6, ff. a Midianitess, while xxxi. 16, 17, the same thing is said of
the Midianites, as is here said of the Moabites.^ Thus it is clear
that this part was written with the immediate impression and dis
tinct view of the time, as present to the mind : in such a case
fiction is quite impossible. We have, besides, such particulars as
the narrative of the act of Phinehas, xxv. 7, ff., and the statement of
the genealogy of the man and the woman, whom he slew (xxv. 14',
ff.). We have already remarked, in § 27, on the congruity in the re
lation of the census or numbering in ch. xxvi., to that which occurs
in ch. i., ff. We would only add, that, as the difference in the sums
1 Consequently, Da Wette's remarks, Beitr. p. 369, ff., are incorrect.

328 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
total is found to be quite suitable (" ratio inter natos et mortuos,
omnibus probe ponderatis, bene convenit caleulis recentioribus,
Siissmilchianis imprimis." Eosenm. ad xxvi. 51), so it might be
expected, that, when we come to particulars, the difference in the
case of each tribe would be much greater, which would then be
equalized only in the entire sum. And this is decidedly the case,
as e, g. the number of the tribe of Keuben had decreased to the
amount of 2770 men, while that of Judah, on the contrary, had
increased about 1900.
The case of which we read in xxvii. 1, ff., namely the legal claim
of the daughters of Zelophehad, is regarded by De Wette himself
at " tradition" — so that here for once the pure mythical position is
abandoned — and he thus explains it: "It may be a jurist [pro
fessor of laws] that has taken up and treated this case, which is one
of great importance in pubUc law, as we have it here, with the laws
that follow from it (vers. 1 — 11.)" But who can this jurist have
been ? The passage is by no means an isolated one : it is closely
connected with the preceding; comp. xxvi. 33, ch. xvi. (xxvu. 3.).
The same writer must consequently have been the author ofthe rest
as well ; and then it will not agree very well, that the same writer
should have treated the one case as a pure myth, and the other
with such juridical accuracy. Thus the whole hypothesis is one
that is entirely arbitrary ; a bare assertion, made simply to avoid
yielding the admission, which presses itself powerfuUy upon him,
that we stand here on purely historical ground.
The observations in opposition to the mention of the appoint
ment of Joshua as the successor of Moses (xxvn. 11 — 23) are no
better.* The chief argument here is, that we meet with different
accounts in the Pentateuch respecting the preparation made by Moses
for his decease. The difference as to time, which is said to exist in
reference to that matter between the statements in Numbers and in
Deuteronomy, is particularly urged. But in this the passage Num.
xxxi. 2 is overlooked, in which it is expressly said that, not till
after the victory over the Midianites, should Moses be gathered to
his fathers. But that this had been already announced earlier to
Moses, is evident from Deut. iii. 23, ff., especially v. 28. The re
petition of this divine command in .Deut. xxxu. 48, ff., arises from
the nature of the case, since the former instance was but the pre-
1 Beitr. p, 372, Comp, Vater, p, 166.

OF NUMBERS XXI. — XXXVI, 329
paration for the hour of death, which in the latter has actually
arrived.! De Wette also regards the account of the campaign against the
Midianites in ch. xxxi. as being suspicious. " According to the
representation here given, the whole Midianitish nation appears to
have been annihilated ; yet we find the Midianites again in Judges
vii. as a powerful people, from whom the Israelites suffered oppres
sion" (Beitr. p. 374.). To suppose that the whole Midianitish na-
tion'was extirpated, is a strange idea in itself considering the mode
of life of such entirely nomadic tribes. But it is expressly re
marked that they were divided into single tribes, governed by
separate princes, and that only five of these were destroyed.^ Tt
follows also from the small numbers of Israelites who marched to
the war, as well as the small number of the captives taken,' that it
could not possibly have been the whole Midianitish nation, that
this expedition was directed against. On the contrary, it was only
those tribes that lay in the neighbourhood ofthe Israelites, and that
had sought to seduce them to idolatry, (xxv. 16, xxxi. 2.). It
cannot be precisely shown from history how powerful the Midian
ites afterwards again became. For in Judg. vi. 3, they appear
united with the Amalekites and other nomadic hordes, which made
irruptions into Palestine, and excited consternation- by their preda
tory expeditions. No one, therefore, upon an unprejudiced exami
nation, can discover a contradiction here. " It is also surprising
that in ch. xxxu. Moses, in dividing the conquests on this side
Jordan, makes no assignment of the country of the Midianites."
This difficulty also is easily removed by what has been already re
marked. The war -with the Midianites had no other object than
that of taking vengeance on them for the wickedness they had prac
tised on Israel : its aim was not conquest, that being restricted in
general to the Canaanitish nations. Hence it was only the district
of Sihon and Og that was divided (xxxii. 33) ; in connection with
1 The names of the mountains Abarim, Pisgah, Nebo, are thus related to one another :
Abarim is the name of the entu:e chain, of which Pisgah is a particular mountain, and
the highest peak of that was named Nebo. Comp. especially Deut. xxxii. 49, Num.
xxxiii. 47.
2 See Num. xxxi. 8, Josh. xiii. 21, from which passages it is clear that these princes
were vassals of Sihon. See Maurer in loc.
3 Comp. xxxi. 5, and Rosenmiiller upon it; xxxi. 40.

330 HISTORICAL CREDIBILII'Y
which the supposition might indeed be made, that the territory
of the former included that of the Midianites, which however is not
probable for the reason just stated. " The hierarchical reference ap
pears in the division of the spoil : perhaps it is only on that account
that the narrative has been given." But it necessarily follows from
the whole nature of the war, that, on this occasion more than on
any, a part of the spoil must be reserved for Jehovah, The objec
tion itself, however, rests upon the groundless supposition of the
gradual development at a later period of tbe rights of the priest
hood. " In ver. 49 we have a remark that is worthy of the whole
narrative, and confirms its character, namely, that in the campaign
against the Midianites, who are said to have suffered a complete
defeat, the Israelites did not lose so much as a single man." Simi
lar instances, however, are not uncommon in history ;! the parti
culars of the expedition itself are not stated ; and, in the fact re
ferred to, the Israelites themselves recognise a special act of the
divine favour. This was shown to be particularly effectual on the
present occasion, when the matter in question was the magnifying
of Jehovah in opposition to idolatry : the issue of the conflict, in
accordance with the promises of the Lord, was a complete victory,
which was due to Jehovah alone.
In ch. xxxii. a very full narrative is given of the division of the
Trans-Jordanic territory. While this prolixity in the account is
evidence of a feeUng of interest which was founded only in the
circumstances of that age, and could not be excited at a time when
all were in quiet possession of their own territories, so as to lead to
the invention of accounts of this kind — as to which any arbitrary
hypothesis will only involve itself in so much the more contradic
tion ; this holds good especially of the circumstance, to which most
prominence is here manifestly given, that the inhabitants of the
apportioned territory were required to give their aid to the rest of
the trib es in the conquest of their inheritance. Should we conceive
ofthe narrative as being invented, this form could have been given
1 Rosenmiiller on xxxi, 49 adduces two instances from Tacitus, Annal. 13, 39, aud
Strabo xvi., p, 1128. Geddes remarks, that the Midianites must have been taken by sur
prise, and must have been effeminate. The above argument is as weak in a critical
respect, as if one were to dispute the genuineness of the life of Saladin, because it
contains almost in the same words a like statement respecting the issue of a battle;

comp, p,

127, f>'^l '^'J ^* <^="' |^.;V»Xv**H (J.O tXKJL) *])

OF NUMBERS XXI. — XXXVI. 331
to it only in the age immediately succeeding : no other age would
have felt such a command of Moses to be of consequence : but in that
age least of all is one at liberty, or disposed, to seek for the origin of
such flctions. But it is said that the narrative also represents such
times as are far removed from accredited history. " The cities which
are enumerated in vers. 34-38, as built by the Gadites and Reuben
ites, were certainly not built at that time, but subsequently at different
dates. "i From ver. 3 it is quite clear, that the greater part of these
cities were in existence previously, and hence the 12^1'^ in ver. 34,
must be understood of a rebuilding and restoration ofthe cities. This
is also quite evident from the fact that the new inhabitants changed
the old names ofthe cities (ver. 38.). But the account concerning
the villages of Jair (vers. 41, 42), has been especially regarded as
an occurrence that did not take place till a later period (Judg. x.
4), and therefore its being transferred to the Mosaic age is adduced
as a mark of the non-authenticity and arbitrariness of our infor-
toant.^ It is only a make-shift to have recourse here to the sup
position of an interpolation, which some have believed themselves
obliged to adopt,^ especially as we should then have to regard Deut.
iii. 14 also as interpolated, in order to be consistent. But the cor
rectness of the statements in the Pentateuch admits here of as com
plete proof as is possible. Jair was descended on the mother's side
from Manasseh, on the father's side from Judah. Segub, Jair's
father, was a son of Hezron, the father of Caleb, and of a daughter
of Machir, the son of Manasseh ; comp. 1 Chron. ii, 21", 22 ; Judg.
i. 12. Segub was thus a contemporary of Moses, and died in the
wilderness ; so that Moses could transfer the inheritance which he
conquered only to his son Jair. It is said, indeed, that Moses gave
it to Machir (ver. 40) ; but ver. 39, where the sons of Machir are
spoken of shows that the name is here employed only as a collective
appellation. At the same time, however, the appeUation has also
a special reference to what follows. It suppUes the reason why Jair
could have his inheritance in the Trans-Jordanic territory. It was
through Machir that he was descended on the mother's side from
1 De Wette, Beitr. p. 376.
2 Vater, 3, p. 635, ff. De Wette, p. 376. Winer, Real-WB. i. p. 629. Studer on
Judges, p. 367, ff.,&c.
3 Comp. Clericus, de script. Pent. ^ 17. Faber, ArchaoL d. Hebr. i. p. 160. Jahn,
Einl. ii. p, 63, &c.

332 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
Manasseh. That Jair was a contemporary of Moses appears also
from Num. xxvi. 29, ff., where the male line of Machir is given ;
according to which, Zelophehad also must have stood in the same
relation as Segub, as a contemporary of Moses. This then being
established, the question arises, what does the Pentateuch represent
Jair to have received as his possession ? According to Numbers,
the sons of Machir took possession of Gilead, that is, that part of
Gilead which fell to Manasseh. Of Jair it is only said that he
" took the small towns" (j-)^n) of the Amorites, which were caUed
Jair's towns.^ This required a more precise definition, which we
find in Deut. iii. 13, 14. In this last passage also it is said that
Machir, that is, his descendants, received possession of Gilead.
But Jair's possession is stated with more exactness, as situated not
in Gilead, but in Bashan, and as consisting of the whole district
of Argob, which was Havoth-Jair, Now, Argob lay in the north
of the East- Jordanic district, at the sources of the Jordan, as far
as the boundary of the Geshurites and Maachathites, as it is said
even to the foot of Hermon, Argob, which means " stone-heaps'
or " stony-land," may have received its name from the basaltic
formations, which are found in the whole of Hauran, and which are
among the most remarkable characteristics of this East-Jordanio
district,' The only question that can arise is, whether Argob in
cluded the western half of Hauran, Gaulanitis (Golan), now Dsholan,
or the eastern half, Trachonitis, now Ledsha ? But the boundary
mentioned in the place referred to, namely, the territory of the Ges
hurites and Maachathites, decides for the former district.^ Maac-
hath lay, according to Hieronymus, at the foot of Hermon, indeed
at the sources of the Jordan, and therefore on the western side.
The Old Testament also is in favour of this view ; comp. Josh.
xiu. 1 1 .
With the passage in Deuteronomy, as thus explained, the state
ments of the book of Joshua are in full agreement. They state that
the sons of Machir received the half of Gilead, with Ashtaroth and
Edrei (xui. 31) ; that the towns of Jair lay in Bashan, and con-
1 studer, 1. c. therefore, incorrectly concludes from the passage, that the villages of
Jair here mentioned were transferred to Gilead. That this is not done either in 1
Kings iv. 13, and 1 Chron, ii. 22, as the same writer supposes, we shall see farther on.
2 Comp, Ritter, Erdk, ii, p, 354, ff. Von Raumer, Palaestina, p. 62.
3 Studer, 1. c, therefore is incorrect. Von Raumer, I. c. p. 157, is correct; and in the
Liter, Anz, by Tholuck, 1834, Num. 1, 2.

OF NUMBERS XXI. — XXXVI, 333
sisted of sixty cities (xiii. 30, comp. Deut. iii, 4.). The boundary
also is here described in the same manner, and the remark is made
that the Geshurites and Maachathites were not driven out, but
" dwell amongthe Israelites until this day" (xiu. 11 — 13.). — If we
now go to the ancient genealogical register of the First book of
Chronicles, in which many historical notices are preserved, it is
there said that Jair, Segub's son, lost thirty cities to the Geshurites
and Aramaeans^ (1 Chron. ii. 23.). From what has been previously
remarked respecting the situation of Argob, it is clear that this
must have been the same district, and the information already ad
duced concerning the Geshurites only confirms this notice. This
is indicated also by the circumstance, that one of these cities was
Kenath, in the Pentateuch called Nobach (Num. xxxu. 43), situ
ated on the northern boundary of Dsholan, where Burckhardt found
the most considerable village in Dsholan, under the name of Nowa,
with important ruins.^ But the chronicler also speaks of twenty-
three cities besides, which Jair the son of Segub possessed. But
these cannot be identical with the former ; for it is expressly said of
them, that they were situated in the land of Gilead (1 Chron. ii.
22,). Gilead, however, must here necessarily be taken in a more
restricted sense, since the whole of Gilead certainly did not belong
to the tribe of Manasseh, but only the northern portion of it, which
is here spoken of How Jair came to have this possession we
know not; but probably it was in the way of conquest, since
it was here also that his relatives, the descendants of Machir,
possessed their inheritance, with whom he may have allied himself.
Of these twenty-three cities the Pentateuch and the book of Jo
shua make no mention. On the other hand, we have an account
in the book of Judges x. 4 respecting the Gileadite Jair, the judge
of Israel, x. 3, 4. " He had thirty sons, and thirty cities, which
1 [The author appears here to have committed a mistake, which I hardly know how
to unravel. The passage in the Hebrew, however, is somewhat ambiguous and difficult.
— Tb.]
2 I. p. 443. Abulfeda, Tab. Syr. p. 97, assigns this place to the district of Dshedur,
the former habitation ofthe Geshurites. Modern writers, therefore, as Rosenmiiller, Al
terthumsk, ii. 1, p. 283 ; Gesenius on Burckhardt ; Reis, 1, p. 505 ; Winer, Reallex. I, p.
772, are wrong in taking this place to be identical withKanuat, which Burckhardt found
not far from Sueida.
8 Studer, 1. c, therefore makes a wrong apphcation here of the distinctions between
Gilead, in its narrower and wider meaning, in understanding the latter to be intended
here. 2

334 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
are called Jair's towns [Havoth-Jair] unto this day, which are in
the land of Gilead." From this notice it is plain : a, that the
district of this Jair in Gilead is by no means identical with Argob,
which lay in Bashan. h. From a comparison of the account in
Chronicles, however, we see that this district had increased by
seven cities. Thus the statement in the book of Judges, which
otherwise is somewhat puzzling, now becomes quite clear and in
telligible. It appears that a younger descendant of the older Jair
increased the inheritance of twenty-three cities by the addition of
seven, and that these on that account received the name of Jair's
towns. This was the more suitable, as thirty of the other Jair's
towns had fallen into the hands of the enemy. With this result
now, 1 Kings iv. 13 is also in complete agreement. In the age of
Solomon Ben Geber possessed the towns of Jair in .Gilead (]-nn
-j^'^^ "Ittj^^ nttJJD"''!^ T^W)' *°<i besides them, the district of
Argob in Bashan, sixty great fortified cities. From this account
it follows, that in the age of Solomon the territory which had
been conquered by the Geshurites had again become the possession
of the IsraeUtes ; an account, which in itself lays claim to the cha
racter of the highest credibility. Consequently it only requires a
closer examination to remove the difficulty in the statement of the
Pentateuch, and at the same time to support in the strongest
manner the authenticity of its historical accounts.
The list of the encampments in ch. xxxiii. now claims our atten
tion as a very exact document. We must first examine what was
the author's object in giving it. On the one hand it appears not to
name all the places that we have previously found mentioned,
while, on the other hand, it contains very many more. This fact is
most suitably explained by supposing that the catalogue was in
tended to present a review of the whole route of the journey, and
hence to contain the names of individual places only so far as they
were those where the Israelites had remained a considerable time ;*
so that it must as a whole be fuller, while it is also more brief in
particular details. That the author intended to give such general
statements, is evidently clear from ver. 47, comp. Num. xxi. 12, ff, :
1 This appears also from the words in ver. 2, BrtiyosV taMissiS. " Nam non omnia,
in quibus substiterunt aliquantnm Israelitas, loca Moses hic notat, sed ea duntaxat, in
quibus diutiuB costra habuerunt, ut cibum caperent aut requiescerent." Rosenm, Scholl.
ad. h. 1,

OF NUMBERS XXI,' — XXXVI. 335
that only those places. which had really been stations for some
length of time to the Israelites, are named, is clear from the omis
sion of Tabeerah (Num. xi. 3.).
It is evident at least, from such being its character, that this
catalogue does not profess to be a compilation, composed with
anxious care; but an independent document, composed for a par
ticular object. In the same way the contradictions of other state
ments, which it has been said to contain, admit of being easily
removed. Take, for instance, the most important of them all, that
between xxxiii. 30, 31, and Deut. x. 6 ; according to which latter
passage, the Israelites journeyed from Bene Jaakan to Moserah,
while in Numbers, on the contrary, it is from Moseroth to Bene
Jaakan. Here it may be the case that one part of the camp occu
pied the one. place, and another the other at the same time; but
the difference may also be occasioned by a more enlarged and a
more restricted use of those names (which may be indicated by the
very fact of the interchange of the singular and plural terminations) ;
but while we cannot come to a demonstrative decision on the
point, it is certain that an author, who merely dealt in free inven
tion,^ would not by any possibility have here admitted such mani
fest discrepancies with the other portions. Here assuredly discre
pancy could only be decidedly injurious : there was at least no room
here to explain it as arising from an arbitrary sport of the fancy.
There are in addition the brief historical notices which are in
serted (vers. 4, 9, 14, 38) ; " singularities," as De Wette calls
them, which are certainly hard to be understood on the mode of
explanation adopted by him. The author evidently intends by
these, partly, to remind us of individual facts previously mentioned
of a particularly remarkable character ; partly, to supply an appen
dix to the previous historical narrative (so in ver. 4.). The agree-
ment of verse 40 with xxi. 1, is remarkable ; and is a circumstance
which admits of sufficient explanation, only by supposing that we
have here to do with a contemporary writer, who, still full of the
occurrences of his own time, could not refrain from stating them,
and felt himself prompted to point out at least their remarkable
nature. That this statement of names and things could not pro
ceed from a later author than Moses, almost all critics have felt
1 DeWette,Beitr. p. 377,ff, Gothe, Westbstl. Divan, p, 488, ff. Von Bohlen, p. 66, ff.

836 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
themselves pressed to recognise as the truth. Even De Wette
finds himself compelled to call in the aid of tradition, which, how
ever, does not account for the partially great agreement that ap
pears with the other portions. No one, however, has yet suc
ceeded in evidencing here, even with a show of probability, the
pretended revision of the old Mosaic tradition. To this we must
add, that no occasion can be stated that should have led a later
author to invent such a fiction. Tt is supposed, indeed, that he
wished to supply an authentication of the truth of the tradition con
cerning the forty years' residence in the wilderness ; and that for
that purpose he invented the catalogue of stations. But does this
object any where manifestly appear, and in such a way that the
character of the register at once betrays it ? In that case,
more precise chronological statements at least could certainly not
be wanting ; and then, least of all, would any places have been
omitted, — the endeavour would have been to multiply them.i
Even Bertholdt came to a very true decision here, as follows. " The
list of the journeying-stations (Num. xxxiii.) is not only given us
as the written composition of Moses himself by the declaration it
contains at the commencement, but even without that we should
be obliged to believe it to be so. Such catalogues of the journey
ing-stations of armies on their march were the custom of old
among the ancient Oriental nations, and are so even to this day.
To suppose that this was recorded from tradition is inadmissible,
as well as in the case of the lengthy genealogical tables, and the hsts
ofthe numbering of the people ; while to regard it as a later inven
tion is absurd, since an occasion for it may indeed perhaps be
imagined, but certainly not a reasonable object. We should then
be obliged to attribute to the inventor the highest degree of cun
ning contrivance, of geographical abihty, and skUl in historical
calculation ; since, by avoiding all round numbers (the common
mark of invention in such literary attempts), by paying regard to
the most exact deUneation of local peculiarities, and by maintain
ing such a relation in his numerical statements, as is correctly ad
justed to the later dates of fully authenticated history, he has con
trived to remove every suspicion of spuriousness from his impo
sition. But that is in truth demanding more than is involved in
1 Comp. also Rosenmiiller's Alterthumsk. 3, p. 137, ff.

OF NUMBERS XXL  XXXVI. 337
requiring that we should regard these documents as Mosaic,"
(Einh 3, p. 788.).
The following chapters (xxxiv. — xxxvi.) refer collectively to the
division of the land. Here again we can only repeat the remarks
already made, that this section could have that special interest,
which alone would account for its origin, only at the time that the
occupation of the land was in question.^ Here also ch. xxxv. has
been assailed in particular as being written with a Levitical feeling,
the refutation of which is also supplied hy our previous remarks re
specting the Levites. Some pretended contradictions, however, of
subsequent statements are charged on this portion. This passage
speaks of three cities of refuge beyond Jordan, and three on this
side ; an appointment which is said to contradict Deut. iv. 41, ff. ;
Josh. XX. But, in Numbers, Moses gives the general appoint
ment with reference to the cities of refuge ; in Deuteronomy he
appoints the three beyond Jordan, while the others naturally re
ceive their appointment afterwards from Joshua. In Deut. xix.
we read the ordinance referring to the three cities of refuge that
were to be fixed upon in Canaan proper, with some special ap
pointments. In all this, therefore, we can discover nothing but
the most complete agreement : the existence of contradictions can
not be admitted at all.^
§ 29. CONTINUATION. CRITICISM OF DEUTERONOMY.
De Wette's judgment respecting this book is, that it may be
proved " to rest entirely on fiction, and indeed so much so that,
while the preceding books amidst myths contained traditional data,
here tradition does not appear in a single instance to have supplied
any materials." The reason given for this truly monstrous asser
tion is principally a general one.* The collector of the fourth book,
it is supposed, intended to conclude his collection, embracing in it
the whole of the last enactments of Moses (xxxvi, 13), and at the
same time to bring the history of Moses also to its close (xxvii.
1 [By " the occupation (die Besitznahme) of the land," here and elsewhere, " the tak
ing possession of the land" is to be understood, — Tr.]
2 De Wette, Beitr. p, 383, ff.
3 Consequently, there appears no need either for the arbitrary notion of Herbst, 1. cit.
p. 18, sq.
4 Comp. Beitr. ii,, p. 385, ff., i. p, 268, ff, Einl. ^ 157, Y

338 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
12 — 23.). This view contains as much truth as falsehood. The
history of the preceding book, in the last point which it reaches,
contains the preparation of Moses fcr his decease : mention how
ever is not yet made by any means of his departure from the people,
and the history of his death is wanting, which alone, when sub
joined as an historical appendix to the foregoing, forms the com
plete close of the entire life of Moses. No one can be of opinion,
on closer inspection, that the fourth book bears the character of
historical completeness, furnishing a complete conclusion of the
Mosaic period.^ And this receives the clearest confirmation from
the close of the book. That close asserts nothing more than that
the author has completely recorded the commandments and statutes
(D^tODtlJOm mjJJDn)' which were published by Moses in the plains
of Moab on the east side of Jordan. On the other hand, the fifth
book professes as distinctly to have for its object, the communica
tion of the discourses (Q'l'^i'l)' 'which were deUvered to the people
by Moses in the locality just mentioned. Both statements accord
ingly may be reconciled with one another ; and the only thing to
be asked is, whether the distinction thus stated actually appears in
this form in the two books ? The designation of the distinction, of
itself, supposes in our author a general impression [consciousness]
of it : but whether the name is only a name, and whether the dis
tinction is actually carried out, requires a closer examination.
When Deuteronomy is brought under our notice as a series of
discourses, and indeed of farewell discourses, from the Lawgiver to
his nation, the first expectation which such a designation justifies
us in forming is, that we should find in it a particular prominence
given to the personal views and feelings [the subjectivity] of the
speaker, so that by this it will be distinguished from the strictly
objective form of the law, which he has hitherto been engaged in
promulgating. Now that the present book is marked by this sub
jective mode of presentation as its prominent characteristic, has in
general been recognised and expressed by critics, though in differ
ent ways, and not always in a clear and definite form.^ In Deuter-
" 1 As is recognized also by Bleek, in the Report. 1, c, p. 46, who however deduces in
correct conclusions from the fact.
2 Comp. e. g,, Jahn, Einl. ii., p. 15. Vater, iii. p. 622 (" but the warmth of delivery,
which has just been sketched, distinguishes it remarkably.''^ George, 1, c. p. 18, ff.

OP DEUTERONOMY. 339
onomy there is a preponderating prevalence of the parsenetic ele
ment : instead of the rigorous objective command, we find here the
most impressive exhortation ; instead of the letter, with its legal
obligation, adverse to all development, which finds in itself the
ground of its higher necessity, refiection upon the lavir here prevails,
and even the latter is in this way brought home more to the heart.
. The book has so much of a prophetical colouring ; what we pre
viously saw brought forward at the close of Leviticus in the germ,
has here attained greater compass and decided importance. The
book is a model of prophetic discourse, and from its nature in this
respect we may explain, how a later prophetisni especially (Jere
miah and Ezekiel) connected itself in particular with this model-
This character of the composition is what the author also is fully
conscious of Moses himself here appears as a prophet (i^i;i3 xviu.
15, ff.), andthe prophetic body which succeeded him is regarded as
simply carrying on his work, as an institution standing in intimate
connection with it.
Thus we have in this book the monument of a certain prophetico-
parsenetic activity [i. e. of certain prophetic labours of a hortatory
kind,]. This, however, requires a more exact definition. The re
presentation here is a fruit produced on the soil of the Law ; it is
the result of that Law which had been exhibited to the people, ap
prehended in its subjective importance. Hence it follows that it
has not only an external connection with the previous legislative
appointments, and a reference to these ; but the supposition on
which it rests, has also at the same time a more profoimd internal
confirmation of a general kind. As all prophecy has its root in
the Law, and takes its point of departure from it, so also does this.
The Law — the objective divine act, comes first: Prophecy — ^which
is the subjective reflection ofthe Law, the application of it in its
importance to the life of the individual as well as the Ufe ofthe
nation, to the present as well as to the future — and consequently
Deuteronomy also, comes afterwards. But along with this also we
must not overlook the peculiar character of the prophecy in this
book, so as to learn from it that Moses in his higher prophetic
dignity, even as in his relations elsewhere, designates himself as
standing in special communion with the Deity. Moses is at the same
1 Comp. Bauer, in the Journal {Zeitschrifl) that has been cited, i, p, \i$, ff.
Y 2

340

HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY

time both Lawgiver and Prophet. As Mediator of the New Covenant,
he stands at the head of all theocratic prophecy : hence the peculi
arity of his prophetic agency is this, that it not only treats of the
Law itself in its subjective application,! but carries it out farther,
developes, and completes it. Hence there is found in his case such
an interpenetration of the legal and the prophetical elements, as we
find nowhere else. But this mutual interpenetration is so intimate,
that the prophetic element itself has received at least partially a
legal colouring, and the legal element a prophetical colouring. From
this relation of the legal to the prophetical in Deuteronomy, there
follows accordingly, on the one hand, the later composition of the
book as compared with the other books of the Pentateuch ; and on
the other hand, the right of Moses to be considered the author
of it.Criticism, however, has not been led by recognizing the difference
"in its whole spirit and character," .which marks the present book
as compared with the preceding, to give a deeper consideration to
this difference and its explanation, so 'as to refer the individual
phenomenon to the deeper reason just mentioned ; but, keeping to
certain 'individual details, has not gone beyond the perception of
" deviations" and ," contradictions" in Deuteronomy in relation
to the rest of the Pentateuch ; and, recognizing the dependence of
this bookmen the preceding books merely in such an external man
ner, has adopted the opinion of its later composition, ascribed it to a
separate author, and assigned its origin to a very late post- Mosaic
period.2 ,This conclusion can receive its full refutation only by ex
amining the particulars in detail.
The commencement of the book contains a parsenetic sketch of
the previous history of the people, the reason of which is to be
found in that history. The prophetic standing-point in relation to
the history, is here exactly maintained : it is not with the objective
representation of it that the author is concerned, but with the vivid
exhibition of the fundamental truth, that Jehovah is the God of
Israel; that He has displayed his glory to the people in a series of
miraculous facts — has chosen them for his covenant- people — and
1 Thus e.g, in this book there is given (ch. xxvi.), as the completion of the laws re
lating to sacrifices, the subjective expression to be used at their presentation, and the
prayers which were then to be offered.
2 Comp. De Wette, Einl, § 156, 157, 160.

OF DEUTERONOMY. 34 1
is now leading them on to thek appointed destination, to inherit
the land of proihise. To discover contradictions here, where the
previous history is so necessarily presupposed, must be particularly
surprising. We have already, in the preceding part of the work,
removed some of these ; it is therefore only the remainder of these
apparent discrepancies that can now come under discussion.
We encounter then the bold assertion, that the treatment of the
history here is quite of an arbitrary character : the discrepancies and
agreements found in the section, ch. i. — iii., with the previous
books, admit of explanation only by supposing that use has been
made of their contents from memory. The way in which the Mo
saic history is here treated, is said to transport us quite to a late
period.! The geographical notices in i. 1, 2, 5 at once display "a
man who is very unacquainted with the Mosaic geography :'' there
is found indeed a general agreement with Num. xxxvi. 13 ; but
what is the object sought by the names of places, and the statement
of distance here given, it is difficult to say. When it is said that
Moses delivered these discourses in the wilderness situated on the
east bank of the Jordan, i. 1,^ and this general statement is more
precisely defined as follows : " over against Suph, between Paran,
Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Dizahab," the only place of the
whole that is exactly known is Paran. Modern geographical re
searches appear, however, not to have been unattended with advan
tage here. Thus Suph undoubtedly must be the t— iy*, Suf men
tioned by Burckhardt, situated not far from Dsherash, being the
largest village in the district of Moerad, and very suitable as the
northern boundary-point (Eeise, i. p. 397, ff.). The place Tophel
is equally suitable, if it is held to be identical with the Thofila or
Thafile of the moderns.^ Dizahab and Paran must be the southern
points of boundary, and while the former is confirmed by the name
<  *i>j, Dahab, a place found by Burckhardt,* it appears an
ciently, to have been a district that may have extended more to the
1 Comp. De Wette, Stud. u. Krit. 1830, ii. p. 303, ff.
2 The alleged discrepancy, that 2^s1a y"iS occurs more frequently in Deuteronomy than
asl» ni3l5>, insignificant in itself, is of still less moment, as it is not decidedly preva
lent (xxxiv. 1, 8, comp, Vater, 3, p. 494.),
8 Comp. Seetzen, in Zach, Monatl. Corresp. xviii. p. 390. Burckhardt, ii. p. 676,
1067. 4 See ii. p. 847, particularly 1075,

342 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
north up the mountains. But that the Paran of the Old Testa
ment is to be sought more to the north than was formerly supposed,
is a decided point,^ Of still less consequence are the questionable
geographical statements in ii, 8, i, 44. How mistakes could have
found an entrance here, it is hard to say : had the author possessed
only so superficial an acquaintance with the " Mosaic geography,"
he would scarcely have entered on those more precise definitions,
but have satisfied himself with general statements.
Greater differences are said to be found from ch. i. 6 onwards.
" The order to remove the encampment is placed too soon, before
the appointment of the captains. The author appears to have con
founded this appointment with the, institution of the seventy elders
(Num. xi,). Yet he appears to have had present to his mind
Exod. xviii., though there appears no trace of Jethro's co-opera
tion," &c. We might here at the outset be satisfied with. Eich
horn's answer, that an orator is no chronologer, but is rather li
censed by the excitement under which he speaks, to give but a
general definition of the time of the occurrences of which he treats,
and to put things together that are separated in time, provided
they stand in a real or personal connexion,2 But there is in fact
no chronological inaccuracy at all ; for it is only after the appoint
ment of the Judges that the departure from Sinai really takes
place. The order and its fulfilment are here clearly and definitely
distinguished ; while the time, at which the appointment of the
judges took place, is also defined in Ex. xviii. only in general as that
of the abode at Sinai. It is quite natural that in Deuteronomy the
influence of Jethro on that appointment of Moses does not appear.
The Lawgiver is here addressing the people ; and so it is naturally
only the transactions that took place between these two parties that
are referred to : what may have exercised an influence on Moses'
1 Comp. Burckhardt, ii. p. 974, ff,, 1080,
2 Einl. 3, p. 228, ff.
3 As relates to the difference ofthe names Sinai and Horeb, which has also been as
serted to be a point of discrepancy in this book, as compared with the preceding, we
have to observe here too that the name Horeb is by no means exclusively peculiar to
Deuteronomy ; and, farther, that it can easily be explained how, before the people were at
Sinai, it is Sinai that is spoken of, because this is the more general name for the mountain,
while afterwards, on the other hand, the'expression becomes more exact and is changed
into the appellation of the'one peak, called Horeb (Gesenius, on Burckhardt ii., p. 1078,).
It is quite accordant with the present and the subsequent period to admit such a differ
ence in the use of local appellations.

OF DEUTERONOMY. 343
resolution did not here come under consideration, and therefore the
demand that mention should here be made of the influence of
Jethro's advice, is quite out of place.
" In ch, i. 22 it is said that the sending of the spies was pro
posed by the Israelites, while in Num. xiii, 2 it is Jehovah that
gives the command for it : in ver. 42 Jehovah says what, in Num.
xiv. 41, is said by Moses ; and, in ver. 44, Amorites are named
where in Num. xiv. 45, we have Amalekites ."^ It is easy to be
seen that in these places no real discrepancies are to be found ; for
the commands of Jehovah existed for the people only through their
announcement by Moses : hence it was a matter of indifference
whether the original author or the instrument were named, since
the relation of both had been sufficiently defined by all that pre
ceded. There is as little of mutual contradiction in its being as
serted, in the one place, that the sending of the spies proceeded
from the people, and in the other, from Jehovah ; without Jehovah's
consent and commission Moses dared not have despatched them at all.
Accordingly, in Deuteronomy, we have only more particular informa
tion respecting what occasioned the sending of them : itwas wished
for by the people, and granted by Jehovah, who then commanded
what persons should be sent (Num. xiii. 1, 2), on which Deuteronomy
is silent. To be able to point out a contradiction between Deut. i. 44
and Num, xiv. 45, we should require to have an exact knowledge of
the relation of the Amorites to the Amalekites at that time. But
this we have not (comp,, however. Gen. xiv. 7.). It is, however,
also expressly said in Num. xiv. 45 : " The Amalekites and the
Canaanites who dwelt on that mountain." In this we shall perceive
only a complete agreement with Deuteronomy, if we consider how
great was the extent of the dominion of the Amorites at that time,
" Ch. ii. 24^ is in contradiction with Num. xxi. 21, ff., and the
author contradicts himself in ver. 26." All we have to do here is
to have a right apprehension of the passage in ii. 24. God here
promises to give the land of Sihon into the hand of the Israelites ;
which is actuaUy fulfilled, inasmuch as on that king's refusing them
1 With regard to the above I do not comprehend, how De Wette (p. 355), while fully
recognizing the verbal agreement even in expression that appearsrin single places, can
yet maintain that these discrepancies arise from not keeping close to the written form of
the Mosaic documents. How then was the latter accordance possible ? Would the
author, who could appropriate such minutiae, have overlooked such important differences ?
2 On Deut. ii, 3, ff. ; comp. Num. xx, see ^ 27,

344 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
a passage through his territory, they overcame him. That promise
might properly be given, without thereby excluding the measure of
making peaceable proposals, a thing which is by no means expressly
prohibited ; and the same God, who knew that Israel should con
quer, foresaw also the king's refusal.
" The narrative in ch. iii. 18, ff., is briefer than Num. xxxii. 4,
ff., and different from that. The author has no scruple in giving
a different representation of the circumstances of the matter. In
ver. 26 (comp. i. 37), it is stated as the cause why Moses is not
permitted to enter the land of Canaan, that God was angry with
Moses because of the Israelites, while in Num. xxvii. 14, and even
in Deut. xxxu. 51, a transgression of Moses himself is named as
the cause." Here also the discrepancies are violently deduced.
The sin of Moses was occasioned by the people. Their multiplied
complaints and ever-renewed revolt drove even him, who had hitherto
faithfully withstood temptation, to a departure from his God. It
was therefore on Israel's account that he fell into this sin ; and the
people also, on a retrospect, had justly to accuse themselves of the
transgression of their Lawgiver, while he himself could not but
candidly and unreservedly confess that the offence was his own.
While we must accordingly decidedly dispute the occurrence of
historical contradictions at the commencement of Deuteronomy, we
must at the same time admit, that there prevails here a great free
dom in the treatment of the historical matter ; by which partly
more particular explanations and precise statements are given of the
previous history, and partiy it is shown that the author has quite
an independent command of his subject, and treats it as one that
is quite current with him and familiar. Thus this critical point of
view now assumes a higher importance, and shows us that we are not
to conceive of the author as one who is obliged carefully to follow
a tradition that has already been moulded into a definite form, but
as a writer who lived at that very time, and having lived through.
the history himself, was able to apprehend and represent it in all its
aspects. The mode of representation, which thus at once gives
evidence of being genuinely historical, remains true to this cha
racter throughout, even in particulars. We find just such obser
vations, as can be explained only on the admission that it is a
contemporary that speaks. To these belong especially the remarks
respecting the nations with which the IsraeUtes came in contact.

OF DEUTERONOMY, 345
which are here very numerous ; but which at a later period could
not have been preserved, at least not in such abundance. Such is
the information respecting the two residences ofthe kings of Bashan,
Ashtaroth, and Edrei, i. 4, comp. Josh. xiii. 31, ix. 10 ; the appel
lation " Mountain of the Amorites" is found prevailing throughout
(i. 7, 19, 20, 44), while even in the book of Joshua, immediately
after the occupation of the land, the name " Mountain of Judah"
came into use (xi. 16, 21-). In chap. ii. 10, it is said, that the
Emims had formerly dwelt in the Moabitic plain, and that they
were a tall people Uke the Anakims, which accords with Gen. xiv. 5.
In chap. ii. 11, the author gives us exact information respecting
the Horites, and their relation to the Edomites. In chap. ii. 20,
21, we have an exact account respecting the Zamzummims, which
also was a primitive national race of Canaan : that people is men
tioned only in the present passage. The author shews at the same
time that he is accurately acquainted with the Eephaim, as is still
more evident from iii. 3, ff. King Og was the last of the race of
the Eephaim ; the two other remaining Eephaite tribes had been
previously destroyed, the Emims by the Moabites, the Zamzum
mims by the Ammonites : Moses extirpated the rest.^' The descrip
tion of the cities of Bashan, as having " high walls, gates, and
bars" (iii, 4, 5) is characteristic. These cities must have appeared
thus remarkable to the IsraeUtes, as they had been travelUng
hitherto only through limestone districts, where the Troglodyte
mode of life prevails, as the limestone is adapted for being hewn
out into artificial caves. But they had now come to regions, where
the hard basalt does not admit of this, but gives occasion for
the building of strong cities. The immense number of walled cities
in the district of ancient Bashan, is a matter of surprise to travel
lers even at the present day.^ Perhaps the basalt also may have
been employed for that purpose : it is too, according to PUny—
" ferrei coloris atque duritie, unde et nomen ei dedit ;"^ and at least
the sarcophagus of king Og (iii. 1 1) must surely have been of that
1 Comp. Rosenmiiller, Alterthumsk, ii. 1, p. 248, ff.
2 Comp. Von Raumer, Palaestina, p. 64, ff.
3 Hist. Nat. xxxvi. 7. Eitter, Erdkunde, ii., p. 363. The Arabians also still regard
that stone as being iron; Burckhardt, ii., p. 637.
4 That isis may be taken in that sense, is shown by the usage of Arabic and Syriac.
It is incomprehensible how expositors, as Dathe, Geddes, Vater, &c., could find a diffi
culty here, and pronounce the passage to be non-Mosaic. Could not the Israelites at

346 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
substance, for modern travellers, as Seetzen, have discovered there
sarcophagi of that kind of basalt. We have an indication of a con
temporary, who reports the novelties that he meets with in the land,
in the notice : " the Sidonians call Hermon Sirion, and the Amo
rites call it Senir," in. 9, According to iv. 48 it is also called
Sion. In a subsequent age Hermon and Sirion were distinguished
from one another ; comp. Cant. iv. 8, 1 Chron. v. 28. We find a
notice in ii. 23 of the Avites, and their destruction by the Caphtorites.
They appear otherwise even in the age of Joshua, among the
princedoms of Philistia, Josh. xni. 3.
We make the Uke observation elsewhere also, where we meet in
this book with what is historical. The historical matter is every
where adroitly interwoven : without the occurrence of tedious de
tailed explanations, we are brought to the point of view which must
be assumed in connection with the individual facts, and from which
alone the whole receives its just importance : comp. e. g. ix. 7, 8,
ff., 27, 29. That the freedom which has been remarked in the
treatment of the historical matter is displayed here also, only speaks
in favour of the authentic character of that matter. Such a freedom
we do not at least find anywhere in the later prophetic writings or
the Psalms. From the misunderstanding of this characteristic,
contradictions have been pointed out also in the following portion
of the book, where on closer inspection the result educed is only a
higher accordance. Thus ch, x. 1 is said to be in contradiction to
Ex. xxxiv. 1,, and x. 6, ff,, to Num. iii. &c.,i the indefinite phrase
t^'^nn ni^i being arbitrarily pressed. The whole passage is marked
throughout by the subordination of the historical narrative to the
rhetorical object; and if the latter be overlooked, it is quite im
possible to pass a critical judgment on the former.
But what holds good of the historical element, is still more to be
maintained respecting the legal. As Deuteronomy everywhere pre
supposes the historical contents of the other books, and constantly
refers to them, the same is the case also with its legal institutions. 2
that time have got knowledge of that monument ? Yet their territory extended even to
Aroer, Josh. xiii. 25. It was just at that time that every thing of the kind must have had
a peculiar interest for them, as it was something quite new.
1 Vater, iii, p, 494, ff. De Wette, Einl. p, 200.
2 Hence nothing is more unhistorical aud arbitrary than to regard Deuteronomy as
the earlier book, and the rest as having been derived from it, as George does in the
writings ofhis we have referred to. This critic pays no regard at all to the circumstance,

OF DEUTERONOMY, 347
The Israelites are expressly introduced as in possession of a multi
tude of laws and statutes : we find also express reference to parti
cular preceding laws, comp, Deut, xviii. 2, {'^ '-\'y\ "^tim^. Num.
xvui. 20), xxiv. 8, 9, (Levit, xiii., xiv.), xn. 11, 14, That God
gave commandment at Sinai as to every thing that Israel should do
(i. 18), is the fundamental thought of the whole of these discourses.
A consideration of the particulars is also accordant with this. Thus
the laws of the feasts in ch. xvi. are so far from being given com
pletely ; properly they are only brought forward by name, and the
appointments respecting them are all given only for a certain place,
" which God should choose as a sanctuary." This reference is that
which prevails generally throughout Deuteronomy. The unity of
the sanctuary is a constantly recurring thought in it. This has also
been correctly recognised by modem criticism, but it has thence
drawn a conclusion as to the later hierarchical character of the book.^
But when here also we again meet with the acknowledgment,^ that
the preceding books also recognize this unity of the nation in its
relation to Jehovah, and maintain it partially in a still stronger
sense (Levit. xvii.) ; this must lead us to adopt an era, that will
enable us to give a satisfactory explanation of the relation of these
appointments to one another. Now this is decidedly the Mosaic
period. By their residence in the wilderness, the people had been
practically familiarised with the idea of their theocratic separation
and unity ; that idea in its higher necessity had been impressed
upon the nation : it was now of importance, on their entrance into
Canaan, to give prominent exhibition to this idea as that which
alone could conduct them to their true destination. This unity of
the people certainly admitted of being set forth as necessary, at a
later epoch also ; but then a point of connection in the form of
fact, an historical basis for that unity, was wanting. The .Exile
might indeed be regarded as such a fact ; but it is one, the effect
of which was merely negative : it is deficient in a positive respect,
wanting a definite rule, a lawgiving personaUty, which that period
was unable to exhibit.
that the other books contain the historical matter, which is presupposed in this ; which
is the more surprising, as he admits the unity of at least the greater part of Deuteronomy.
1 Comp. De Wette, Beitr. i, p. 285, ff.
2 George, 1, c. p. 38, ff,
3 [This must simply mean, that the period of the Exile did not produce a person who
was a legislator, like Moses.— Tb.]

348 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
Deuteronomy throughout goes on the supposition of the occu
pation of the land. But it nowhere loses the point of view, that
the IsraeUtes are now for the first time just about to effect that
ocoupatioii. Its laws indeed have that occupation in view as a
whole : they do not bear on a certain period, or one particular ob
ject, but have regard to the relations of the life of the people in
general : they proceed from the nearest time, the present, and reach
even to the most distant future. The criticism of our opponents
has with partiality^ given prominence to the references of the laws
to the more distant time, and has founded thereon a proof of the
composition belonging to a later age. These, however, are balanced
by others, which have their ground of explanation only in the ad
mission that the origin ofthe work is far earlier. Indeed, the pre
sent forms here the constant basis of the future. When the land
into which the Israelites are to march is described, and the blessing
of God promised on its cultivation, it is said very characteristically :
this is not a land like Egypt, which is artificially watered (xi. 10) ;
which clearly shows that the writer was thinking of Egypt as the
better known object, which he employs to give a more exact de
scription of the land to be possessed. He describes the fruitfulness
and the productions of that land (viii. 7, ff.) in a way that could
not have occurred at all to a later writer, when the thing was com
monly known. It is most earnestly inculcated that, on taking pos
session of the land, the idolatrous places and rites of the Canaanites
were to be utterly destroyed, xii. 1 , ff. The laws of war also relate
entirely to that event, comp. xx. 1, 17, 18; and some things have
no meaning, except as occurring in a Mosaic law, as, xx. 19, the
prohibition to injure the fruit-trees, " for thou mayest eat of them"
— a reason which could have no force in subsequent wars, carried on
elsewhere.^ So the highest magisterial office here appears com
mitted to a Shophet, along with the priests, xvii. 9 ; exactly as on
a previous occasion the relation of Eliazar to Joshua was esta
blished by a special ordinance (Num. xxvn. 20, 21.). On the
other hand, the choice of a king is introduced as hypotheti-
1 Comp De Wette, Einl. % 160. The other reasons there adduced have already re
ceived their refutation.
2 So the passage xix. 14 (which Vater, p. 636, adduces for the opposite purpose) ex
actly supposes that the land was not yet taken possession of; see Staeudlin, in the Krit.
Jour. d. neuesten th. Lit. 3, p. 389. Herbst, 1. cit. p. 16, sq. This is shown also by the
very expression d'^MSI, not S''Sili8ii as it would require to be on the opposite view.

OF DEUTERONOMY, 349
cal, xvii. 14. Now, if these appointments had originated im
mediately in the condition of a later age, the form of the repre
sentation here remains incomprehensible ; for how then could
the power of the Shophet appear here chiefly as the only normal
one ? The wish of the nation to have a king, clearly appears here
as one not accordant with that of the Lawgiver,'- but an appoint
ment is laid down respecting the choice of one : the people were
not to make any foreigner king, but Jehovah himself must at the
same time select the king for them ; and then he and his children
should thus rule over Israel by hereditary descent. All these ap
pointments can be properly conceived of only as published at a
time, when as yet the kingly power had not been introduced in the
nation ; when the subject of concern was the general principles on
which they should proceed in the case of the future choice of a
king. The objections against the genuineness of the law relating
to the king,2 rest only on the general supposition, that Moses
could not have spoken of kings, because he could not approve of
the kingly power ; while it may be said with equal justice that he
must on that very account have been sensible of the duty of laying
down regulations respecting it. But on the supposition of the
non-authenticity, there is no explaining how these appointments
appear in this particular form,^how they contemplate the regal
authority not as in existence, but as what should arise at a future
time, and enlarge on the mode of its origin.
This reference to the Mosaic age extends also to the prophetic por
tion ofthe book. The passage xxviii. 68 is here particularly import
ant : " Jehovah shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the
way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again ; and
there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bond
women, and no man shall buy you." These words form the conclusion
of a longer prophecy, descriptive of the curse that should light upon
1 Ex verbis : d dixeris (cogitaveris) constituam super me regem sicut hdbent omnes
pir circuitum nationes, patet ilium qui banc dedit legem, rem supposuisse, quam nun
quam fieri exoptabat, et prsmonuisse quid fieri oporteret, si id contingeret, quod ne con-
tingeret metuebat." Herbst, 1. cit. p. 18.
2 Comp. e. g. Ilgen, Dissert, de notione tituli Filii Dei (in Paulus, Memorab. St. vii.),
§ 7. Vater, 3. p. 257, ff, 638.
3 Any more than the remark in xvii, 16, that the king should not keep too many
horses, " that he may not lead the people back again to Egypt," &c. ; on which Staeudlin,
1. c. p. 362, justly reminds us that the passage is just expressed, as it would be by a law
giver, who had himself been along with the people in Egypt.

360 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
the nation, if it became disloyal to God's law : they are especially
threatened with a dispersion among all nations (ver. 64) ; yet no
nation with which Israel had yet formed acquaintance as such is
named, with the exception of the land of bondage. That country
alone is adduced by name, as that which should anew have the
mastery over Israel. Egypt appears here as the Representative
of all the future oppressors of Israel. A fictionist of a later age,
who was here only attributing to Moses his own feelings ficti
tiously, could not possibly have spoken thus. As to that, he must
have been too plainly taught by the history of a worthier author,
that at a later period there were other enemies much more to be
feaired than the Egyptians. Besides, he represents Egypt here as
working the destruction of Israel, so that the latter should be ir
retrievably ruined thereby. This indeed has been thought to refer
to the time of Josiah, who was himself slain in a battle against the
Egyptians.! But, in that very age, the people had already become
acquainted with Assyria as the enemy, that had already accom
plished upon them a part of those predictions. At that period
Egypt could not possibly have still been viewed in such a light, —
neither by a writer Uving before the death of Josiah ; for that Egypt
was not then such an object of dread, is proved by the very cir
cumstance, that Josiah ventured to engage in battle with Pharaoh :
— nor subsequently, for Egypt then became humbled by Babylon,
and Israel was menaced by quite another enemy than Egypt. Let
us admit it, that tbe way in which Egypt is here designated, does
not permit us to suppose that the prophecy was composed in any
age but the Mosaic. — ^We are conducted to this conclusion also by
chaps, xxix. and xxx. Here also the author speaks of a disper
sion of the nation, and announces it as the culminating point of the
sufferings that should befall them ; but at the same time he pro
mises a divine deUverance from this distress, if the people repented,
and a renewed blessing for them. At what conclusions must we
arrive, supposing that these expressions contain only vaticinia ex
eventu ? We must not regard the period previous to the Babylonian
Captivity as the time of composition, for the representation is too
plain of the, whole land as given up to desolation (n;^")^-^^, xxix.
1 See George, h a. p. 71. '
2 So Bleek, in Rep. 1. c. p, 24, De Wette, Einl. p, 206.

OF DEUTERONOMY. 351
22) ; neither can we fix on the period of the Captivity itself,^ for
there is certainly a clear announcement of the Eeturn from it, and
the state of things consequent on that. Thus, according to the
principle of our opponents, we are obliged to transfer this prophecy
to the period after the Captivity, or at least to that of the Cap
tivity ; and so are landed in an extreme view, which leaves us
unable to explain at all the relation of this section to the rest, at
least to the chapter immediately preceding, ch. xxviii. But the
view that we are opposing, is completely demolished also by chaps.
xxxu. and xxxiii. There the author represents Israel as possess
ing a fixed inheritance (xxxii. 8), but as losing it in consequence
of their disobedience, and as being thus humbled to the lowest point,
brought back to a recognition of Jehovah, and then again crowned
with victory over their foes. The starting-point of the oracle also
is the Mosaic age, the occupation and division of the land : the
writer has the miracles in the wilderness present to him : the whole
nation stands before him according to its tribes (xxxii. 8.).
But ch. xxxiii. brings us still more into the details of that time.
The separate tribes here receive a blessing, with the exception of
Simeon, This circumstance is explained only by the circumstances
of that age. That tribe. had lost most in point of numbers, and this
loss is certainly not to be regarded as being accidental, but as the
consequence of that tribe's particular disobedience and apostacy
(comp. Num, i. 23, with xxvi. 14) ; hence it is wholly passed over
in the blessing,2 The song expresses a wish respecting Judah, that
he may take possession of his inheritance^ : — could a later poet,
after the occupation, have expressed such a wish, and no greater,
for this tribe ? Levi is praised, and Aaron in particular, because
of their faithful adherence to Jehovah, which had been illustriously
displayed by that tribe in the age of Moses : at a later time, it
could not have been commended for the like. The blessing of
Joseph is a mere continuation of Gen. xlix. 21, ff., on which the
present passage entirely rests; but the prominence given to the
1 So 6. g. Gesenius, de Pent. Sam, p. 7. Hartmann, p, 804,
2 This at least appears the ouly admissible cause of that omission : comp. Ewald, ad
Apoc. p. 165.
3 This must be the only meaning of the phrase liK^afi IttS-Vs, " let him soon drive
out his nation," (*. e. the one assigned him to subdue and succeed) — as is proved also
by the addition 1^ 31 1''Ti. This will not in any way suit the time ofthe Captivity (as
Gesenius, 1. cit. p. 7, and Hoffmann, Comm. in Mos. bened.. Anal. f. d. Stud, d. exeg, u.
syst. Theologie, iv, 5, p, 6, suppose), for then it must have been ISIS-^S 1S2''<IJn.

352 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
tribe of Joseph can be explained, especially in relation to Judah,
only by the composition being anterior to the times of the Davidic
government.^ The rest of the tribes also appear as in quiet pos
session of their power, and as sharing in prosperity and wealth,
particularly Zebulon, Issachar, and Naphtali- This also agrees
with early times, and not with the distracted times of the kingdom
of the ten tribes. Eespecting Gad, the poet mentions particularly
the manner in which his inheritance is portioned out to him ; the
transaction, by which his district is assigned to him, is vividly
before the writer's view. Eeference is also made to Gad's warlike
deeds ; comp. 1 Chron. v. 18, ff. These circumstances, however,
could appear deserving of mention only to a contemporary poet ;
with a later writer, one does not understand how he should go into
such a description, which besides, by its pregnant brevity, presupposes
a knowledge of the historical circumstances, and is obscure from
its merely making allusions to them. The existence of a temporary
object in Deuteronomy is very visibly manifest also in ch. xxvii,
(comp. xi. 26, ff.), in the detailed description ofthe covenant with
Jehovah, which was to be renewed on Ebal and Gerizim, It con
tains so much of the details of this ceremony, that there is no see
ing how an inventive writer, living at a much later period, could
feel an inducement to give such an account of a transaction long
since past, Tn particular the passage itself contains much, which
a later age could have no interest in inventing, such as the erection
of an altar on Mount Ebal, and the offering of sacrifices upon it,
which can be explained only as being a command given at a time,
when there was no established holy place.* The way, too, in which
this altar was to be built, is quite antique : comp. Exod. xx. 22.
If we give now just one glance more at the legislation of Deuter
onomy in its relation to that of the preceding books, we shall find
it a circumstance deserving of attention, that many earlier ap
pointments appear hereunder certain modifications. The Law every
where expressly enj oins, that nothing shall be taken away from it nor
added to it ; and nowhere do we find in a later vreiter, any kind of
appointments elevated to the rank of laws.^ Thus the book, re-
1 Comp. Bleek, 1. c. p. 29. This critic also admits the Mosaic origin of this portion.
2 A late author also, since he prohibits sacrificing in other places than that selected
by God, xii. 13 (Levit. xvii. 8, ff,), would have at least avoided giving here apparent
countenance to what was forbidden.
3 Ezekiel, ch. xl., ff., must not be appealed to (Michaelis, Mos. Recht. i. § 9) ; as we

OF DEUTERONOMY. 353
yarded as originating at a later period, would be an incomprehensible
enigma, if on the one hand it sanctioned that principle (comp. iv.
2, xiii. I), and yet itself contained nothing else than a gradual
continued formation of the Law, proceeding from mere rights of cus
tom, which it now suddenly sought to clothe in that stationary form.
In that case also, it would not have admitted of being placed in
any sort of analogous relation to the rest of the Hebrew literature.
In particulars likewise it is purely impossible to carry out the oppo
site view, even with any appearance of probability. Thus in ch,
xii. there is no making out, how any one who found the strict
appointments in Lev. xvii., given as Mosaic, should have under
taken to design a modification of them. If the Law in Leviticus
aimed at nothing but an ideal indication of the unity of the sanc
tuary, then that indication might also have been sufficient for a
lateT age ; and where was the need of such alterations ? Or if the
law in Deuteronomy was the original, how came one to have the
foolish thought of giving it a more intensified shape, while the ful
filment of it in that form was quite impossible for his contempor
aries ? And so, it is not easy to understand why a later author
repeated these laws respecting clean and unclean animals in this
way. Compare Deut. xiv. with Levit. xi. Supposing he wished
to complete what Leviticus contained on that point, this will per
haps suit Deut. xiv. 4, 5, but not the remaining portion ofthe law.
We cannot show any particular advancement of the law here, the
development of a legislative principle. We can explain the repeti
tion of the law regarding food only by a different additional occa
sion, that rendered a renewed inculcation of it necessary. But we
cannot properly imagine, or state such a thing, as occurring in a
later age. So we cannot discover, why the law respecting the
manumission of female slaves in Deut. xv, 17 can abrogate that in
Exod. xxi. 7, unless both enactments had their origin in the
Mosaic age. Would not the same author, who dared to risk the
attempt of giving out a command of his own for a Mosaic one,
have much rather altered and tried to falsify what was already
recognized as Mosaic, instead of exciting the greatest suspi-
there have the future only as the subject of prediction, but not by any means the pre
sent regulated according to a certain rule. The prophet does not at least represent his
appointments as law, but as a condition of things which he brings into connection and
harmony with the supposed law. A future form of the Theocracy is, however, quite
another thing from a law that comes into force from the moment of its being established.
Z

354 HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY OF DEUTERONOMY.
eion against himself by such a contradiction ? So also the
ordinance regarding the year of release (ch. xv.) has a close refe
rence to the earlier appointments respecting the Sabbatic year, and
the year of Jubilee. Every seventh year no debts were to be ex
acted, and the servants were to be let go free. This law must be
grounded on a reason lying in the nature of the seventh year. In
this its peculiar nature it appears previously, to wit, as the expres
sion and development of the idea of the Sabbath. Now here the
important practical aspect of that theocratic principle comes parti
cularly into view. It is a beneficent law, conferring advantage on
the poor and on servants, so that the benefits of the Sabbath-day,
as well as of the Sabbatic year, as days and years of rest, were
particularly displayed in the case of those, who were the most op
pressed classes in the nation. But, reversing this connection, one
has sought to regard the ordinance in Deuteronomy as the earliest,
since the simple principle of beneficence (it is thought) has given
rise to those more extended and more abstract developments,^ But
the Sabbath itself, in its original appointment, by no means origi
nated in a mere principle of beneficence ; such an institution must
have had a higher cause,2 to be able to maintain itself as one that
laid hold of the entire life of the people, which was simply the con
sequence of such an institution, — an institution most intimately con
nected with the theocratic principle, and the idea of a nation con
secrated to God ; and which, existing as a truly sacred ordinance,
because of its characteristic reference to the highest destination of
the people, was capable of extending to the practical life of the
nation, and developing itself there. When Deuteronomy, therefore,
lays stress on this practical element of the law, the theoretical
grounds of the law itself are presupposed; it. must be capable of
being proved to be a sacred institution, founded on Jehovah's cha
racter and the nature of the nation's calling ; for only in that case
could the demand made in Deuteronomy be the subject of require
ment. Besides, the reason that is here subjoined to this prescrip
tion, that the people of Jehovah should rule over many nations and
get possession of them (xv. 6, ff,), arises most appropriately from
the views of the Mosaic period; when the large evidence of the
1 SeeGeorge, 1. u. p. 28,ff.
2 As George himself also must admit, p. 196, ff.

CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE FOREGOING. 355
goodness of the Lord even in earthly gifts, most impressively de
manded that the same disposition should be shown towards one's
neighbour. Thus the internal characteristics of Deuteronomy also, indicate
very decidedly the Mosaic age as the period of its composition.

§ 30. CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE HISTORICAL CREDIBILITY
AND MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH.
Were the result of our researches thus far to amount simply to
this, that the Pentateuch contains nothing contradictory of the
opinion of its Mosaic authorship, we should even then be obliged
to yield credence to the testimony of the work respecting its own
composition. Whoever gives due consideration to the difficulty
attending the positive internal evidence of a work for its own
authenticity, especiaUy in the present instance, in the case of laws
in particular, will not think himself justified in demanding more.
Besides, a closer examination of the work leads to a far more im
portant conclusion than that which is merely negative. The mythi
cal view cannot be carried out in its application to the book ; it
breaks down altogether. That which modern criticism has adduced
as peculiarities in the mode of narration pursued in the Pentateuch,
when rightly apprehended, forms only a proof of the strictly ob
jective historical character of the work. Of this nature, in the first
place, is the want of completeness complained of in the accounts,i
which points us everywhere to a definite plan of the narrator, whose
ideas of completeness were certainly essentially different from those
of modern critics. His representation will, and must, be regarded
as complete, if his object be considered, which was to represent the
historical preparation and foundation of the theocratic institution.
His strict adherence to this object shows that his whole personal
views and feelings were absorbed in that idea — that he lived in it ;
that there is here an overpowering of the subjective life by the ob-
j ectivity, produced by facts, circumstances, and proceedings — a course
of exertion confined to a certain strictly limited sphere, and main
tained with the greatest possible certainty on this standing-point.
Thus then we are not led to the conclusion that there was a " de-
1 De Wette, Eiul, § 144.
2z

356 CONCLUDING REMARKS
ficiency in information," but to the very opposite view ; namely,
that the writer had such a knowledge ofthe time, and of its higher
significance, as we could expect to find only in a contemporary,
who possessed a truly commanding comprehension of his age, and
saw far beyond it. We are brought to the same conclusion by an
examination of the second peculiarity that has been remarked,
which relates to the pragmatism and mythology of the work.'' " The
causes that lie in the divine will (it is said) are pointed out with
great precision, but the natural causes — human motives, and the
natural connection of events — are given very imperfectly. Connected
with this is the fact, that so many of the occurrences narrated are
in contradiction to the laws of nature, and presuppose an im
mediate interference of divine agency," If we consider this view,
in the first place, in its relation to the subject, the peculiarity
that has been remarked will only appear perfectly in accordance
with it. If it was the object of this work, to give the biography
of a single man (as that of Moses) in extenso ; then the remarks
just quoted are quite well founded, and we should then be obliged,
however great the events in the life of such a man, to regard
the narratives as defective and incomplete, and thus to call in
question tbe authenticity of the account given of it. But that
most certainly is not the case. The subject of the work is the
kingdom of God on the earth, certainly a peculiar, and, indeed,
quite a unique subject, which must, however, because of this pecu-
larity attaching to it, claim for itself the character of being marked
by what our opponents themselves rightly designate, as the imme
diate interference of the divine agency. Thus by this argument
we are brought precisely to the conclusion, that the subject of our
narrative is found faithfully refiected and carried out in it, and that
the narrative, with unbroken consistency, presents a clear exhibition
of its ultimate object. But, in the next place, that remark of our
opponents is important also in relation to the individual character
of the narrator. He gives himself out as one who can state " with
great precision the causes that lie in the divine will" — as one who
is wonderfully distinguished by his acquaintance with the divine
plan of salvation. If he then really communicates what we are
justified in expecting from such a profession, we are obliged to re-
1 De Wette, § 145. Comp. Bertholdt, 3, p.779, ff.

ON THE FOREGOING. 357
cognize him as a partaker of special divine iUumination, which ren
dered him capable, not only of reporting single miraculous facts, but
also of connecting them in such a way that we can behold vividly
introduced into the subject the administration of God in the midst
of his kingdom, as a whole, and on a large scale.
But, instead of that, our neological criticism calls to its aid a
strange premise, and thus comes to different conclusions. Thus
far the description given by De Wette of the character of the
narrative, has been correct, that is, historically true and faithful.
But on proceeding to a closer examination of it, he no longer ad
heres to the facts of the case. " Since (he proceeds to say) it is at
least a matter of doubt to the cultivated understanding, whether such
miracles really took place," &c. Here we have " the cultivated un
derstanding" suddenly introduced as the highest court of appeal :
now, it denies miracles in general — yet for all this the matter is not
meant to be brought to so serious an issue. In the earUer editions
of his Introduction, the expression was, " it is a decided point," but
this is now changed into " it is at least a matter of doubt ;" so that
the tribunal of the " cultivated understanding" has thus voluntarily
abdicated its sovereign authority, and professes to be merely a sub
jective opinion. There is no more precise description given of the
peculiar nature of the miracles of the Pentateuch : thus one does
not perceive at all, why just such miracles as it reports must be
matters of doubt. But the cultivation of the understanding has
merely got so far, as to doubt the miracles, viewed as single facts ;
it has not obtained a perception of their higher unity ; for what he
previously designated in general as " the divine will," is precisely
the centre, from which those facts are derived. That divine will,
however, is as much a unique as a concrete thing ; and, as such, it
is the realization of the idea of the divine kingdom. But this first
miracle, which also comprehends in itself all the rest as its develop
ment, being and remaining such as has been said, the origin of the
documents that contain an account of it may be regarded as being
contemporary with it, or may be assigned to a later period; and
thus the cultivated understanding has gained no advantage by its
denial of miracles.
In these remarks we have pointed out the fundamental error of
modern criticism, which consists in breaking up the entire idea of
the miraculous origin of the Theocracy into single isolated- occur-

358 CONCLUDING REMARKS
rences, which contradict the common course of nature. Hence the
decision is passed — " that it is not a contemporary narration, nor
derived from contemporary sources ; and that the miraculous por
tion of the contents is to be ascribed to the fancy of later narrators."
In that case we should have in the Pentateuch only separate con
tradictory traditions, mutually refuting one another — single de
tached extraordinary facts, having no higher reference ; some frag
ments, rescued from antiquity, mixed with the ideas of a far later
present time, and therefore destitute of internal unity. The exegeti
cal error has here produced the dogmatical error, which in turn has
exercised an influence on the former. But if, on the contrary, we
firmly hold to the fundamental thought of the whole book, we shall
find that thought not to be a later idea ; since in general, from its
nature, it is not and cannot be a mere idea, an empty abstraction,
but can have its existence only where the fact has given rise to the
idea. Thence follows the internal identity of the actual and the
ideal in the contents of the Pentateuch : the author, living in the
idea of that book, cannot have occupied a position that would place
him at a distance from the facts, since otherwise he must have been
an inventor — which, however, is impossible in the nature of the
case ; he must have lived amidst the facts, and thence have acquired
those higher feelings that animate his writings : in short, he must
have been a contemporary.
We have endeavoured to point out in detail not only the unten
ableness of the mythical view, but also the internal historical truth
of the statements of the work, showing that the particulars also
bear evidence throughout that they are not invented and fabulous.
Our opponents even make concessions here, which testify best
against themselves. It has been several times remarked, that even
sceptical critics, such as De Wette and Von Bohlen, have not been
able to make out their case by the supposition of mere fiction, and
have felt themselves compelled to recognize a traditional element.
Vater also admits this in general, in a remarkable manner. " A
sober sense of truth (he says) is expressed, for the greater part, in
the contents of these books" (p. 597.). " Concerning the following
earUer ages also, even that of Abraham, the authors of these books
display no such exact knowledge, that the most of them might not
have been written in the times of the kings, according to the tra
ditions that still remained." (p. 599,), Such expressions as " the

ON THE FOREGOING. 359
most of them," " according to tradition," " might," show the uncer
tainty here of the critical opinion. This opinion, however, is also
completely refiited by the fact, that, on the supposition of the tra
ditional preservation, those ingredients cannot be pointed out, which
are wont to be interspersed in an embellished version of the tale,
and are proofs of its later origin.
The proof of the genuineness of the Pentateuch, derived from its
internal structure, has certainly not been conducted always by its
defenders with proper acuteness and consistency. The point of the
proof is just this, that the structure of the Pentateuch — viewed both
in general and in particulars, both in a literary -historical respect,
and also in a religious respect — is an inexpUcable enigma, suppos
ing Moses was not the author of it.- Tn order to maintain the
theory of its later composition, it is necessary to suppose an author,
who wrote just as Moses would have written, a supposition truly
fabulous ! Instead, however, of taking into view the whole of the
Pentateuch, its historical accounts, relating both to domestic and
to foreign history, as well as its legislative and prophetical contents,
one has improperly kept to separate particulars and urged these.
It is only in the totality and the harmonious agreement of all the
single points, that the force of the evidence lies.
Thus especially, the " Egyptian spirit" ofthe book has, with too
great partiality, been prominently brought forward, as showing that
the author's knowledge of Egypt is such as cannot be attributed
to a later age. In our own criticism also we have adduced
several traits of that kind, to which we have given weight, and have
shown that there is no foundation for the view that the Pentateuch
contains mistakes as to the customs and the history of Egypt.
But it is then objected by our opponents^ that such an acquaintance
with Egypt might have been obtained in consequence of the poli
tical and mercantile connection with that country, which existed in
later times. Now here the possibility is certainly admitted, of a
later author furnishing himself with this information, so as to make
a certain learned display with it, and to interweave it adroitly with
the context, and thus to reproduce the Mosaic age (comp. e. g.
Gen, xiu. 10, xlvii. 20, ff. ; Num. xiu, 23 ; Deut. xi. 10, ff., and §
22, 23.) But by this admission our opponents have not gained
1 See especially Hartmann, p, 726, ff. V. Bohlen, p, li,, ff. De Wette, Einl, p. 190.

360 CONCLUDING- REMARKS
the slightest advantage. For this is allowing that what we here en
counter is such an acquaintance with Egyptian antiquity, as a later
writer was capable of acquiring only by means of learned researches
into it, since the notices in the Pentateuch are partly of an histo
rical nature, and could therefore be obtained in a later age only in
that manner. In order therefore to justify the view of our oppo
nents, much more must be proved, than merely the existence at a
later epoch of an external connection with Egypt : this kind of
literary intercourse, amounting to a learned study, must be shown
by analogies to have had a place among the Hebrews. But, above
all, it must be proved, that we are driven by every other conside
ration with unavoidable necessity to that very remote supposition ;
and, therefore, that there is no admitting the opinion that would
most readily occur to us, that this knowledge of Egyptian affairs is
the result of a long and close early cohabitation on the part of the
people with the Egyptians, Taken thus, however, in its general
reference, the argument of our opponents is seen to be an opinion
utterly inadmissible, since, as has been shown, everything on the
contrary leads us to the adoption of the Mosaic age as the true
epoch. This inadmissibility becomes very manifest, when we ob
serve the worthlessness of the subterfuge to which they have re
course, when the exact acquaintance exhibited in this work with
the ancient condition of Canaan, and the accounts it contains of the
primitive nations of that country, &c,, are brought against them.
Nothing then remains for them but to affirm, that these accounts
" are very defective and contradictory,"^ the contrary of which we
have shown in the previous discussion.
As the defence of the Mosaic authorship was thus taken up for
merly on a one-sided position, so positive mistakes also were comr
mitted in the maintenance of it. To these belongs, in particular,
the opinion that was formerly entertained by Eichhorn, in reference
to the book of Numbers especially, of the existence of a diary of
Moses, in which different sections were inserted beside one another,
in chronological disorder, without regard- to their contents. Here
all that remained for the opposite party was indeed an easy task,
namely, to set hypothesis against hypothesis, and to represent these
1 De Wette, Einl, p, 190. Vater, p. 600, ff., to whom De Wette refers, hesitates be
tween the supposition of tradition and that of invention ; in either case, however, tbe
character given by De Wette would be the necessary consequence of such a supposition ,

ON THE FOREGOING, 361
sections of diverse contents as proceeding from different authors
and partly in very late times, and to recognize only single ele
ments as being Mosaic.^ But the very thing which is made the
foundation of these hypotheses, namely, the confusion and diver
sity in the contents of the sections, has been shown to be unsafe
and untenable.
The defenders of the genuineness of the Pentateuch conceived
on the other hand that they would be more successful in maintain
ing the opinion, that interpolations were to be met with in the
work, the assertion of which, however, by no means miUtated
against its genuineness.''^ By the other side this procedure has
justly been charged with the reproach of arbitrariness, inasmuch as
this critical operation has cut away really integral portions, and is
supported solely by the supposition that this or that passage cannot
have been written by Moses. We also maintain, that the text of
the Mosaic books is no lesss free from interpolation than the other
books of the Old Testament, and forms no singular exception in
this respect ; and that the hypothesis of interpolations was a mere
pillow for the negligence or incapacity of critics, in order to get rid
of the trouble of proving the genuineness of the disputed passages.
From the idea of interpolation to that of revision is so short a step,
especially if we conceive of the latter according to the sense and
spirit of the East, that we should find it impossible to oppose any
barrier to the latter supposition, if the former could be proved. But
the assertion that interpolations are to be found in the Pentateuch,
is just as arbitrary as that which is set up against it, which regards
those passages indeed as original component portions of the work,
but draws from them the conckision of its later composition. Thus
the formula* — " even to this day" — is no more a sign of interpola
tion than it is of a later authorship. The only question in connec
tion with the meaning of the formula, (which is wholly relative,^) is,
lSeeVater,3, p. 543, ff.
2 Comp, e. g. Jahn, p, 60, ff, Ch. Fr, Fritsche, Pruf. d, Gruude u. », w. p, 135.
Rosenmiiller, Prolegg. p. 36. Eichhorn, in many places. Herbst, 1. cit, p, 52, sq, et
alibi. 3 Comp, particularly Von Bohlen, p, Ixxxiv. ff.
* Comp. De Wette, Einl, § 147, n.
6 Comp. upon it, Konig, ATliche Studien, Erstes Heft, S. 94, ff., where it is also well
pointed out that the notion of " a long time" (D13I V'li''') is employed by Hebrew writers
respecting the most different spaces of time, so that these modes of expression are quite
of a relative nature, 2

362 CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE FOREGOING.
whether the passages where it is found could have been written by
Moses or not, with an application of that formula, Eespecting the
passages in Genesis, where it occurs most frequently (xix. 38, xxvi.
33, xxxii. 32, xxxv. 20, xlvii. 26), no one can maintain that the
formula is un-Mosaic, since they all relate to that ancient history,
with reference to which an author of the Mosaic age might justiy
so express himself So also in Deut. ii. 22, x. 8, xxix. 3, the for
mula refers to the occurrences in the wildemess, which at that time
were long past. It is only iii. 14 that bears upon a fact which
happened only in the latter part of Moses' time ; but evidently
Moses might as well say that the name Jair's villages, which ori
ginated at the time there spoken of had been preserved even to the
time when he recorded the statement, as a later writer might so ex
press himself Thus the so-called " archaeological explanations,"
as well as the twofold names of cities, &c,, have in like manner
been misunderstood : the notice, considered by itself can here be
no criterion at all : all depends in each case on the particular nature
of the passage, and when viewed in this respect we have not been
able to discover in any of the passages, in our criticism of them, a
non- Mosaic element.
There is only one passage that requires to be more particularly
settled, as to this point ; to wit, the statement respecting the death
of Moses in Deut. xxxiv. Not only do the contents of this section
fix it as being written after the death of Moses,"^ but its relation also
to the foregoing shows it to be a separate piece from that. For as
ch. xxxi. contains the conclusion of the work, where Moses desig
nates himself as the author of the preceding matter, as well as of
the song in ch. xxxii. (to which belongs also the blessing in ch.
xxxiii,) ; and thus the whole is represented as a work complete in
itself as far as ch, xxxiii, (comp, § 4) ; it follows decidedly that
ch. xxxiv. is a distinct piece, plainly separated from the foregoing.
Besides, this section is very closely connected with Josh. ch. i., and
both these chapters have manifestly a mutual conjunction (comp.
Deut, xxxiv, 9, Josh. i. 1, and the in'i'i in Josh. i. 1), which only
gives greater force to the opinion, that this chapter, which properly
does not belong to the Pentateuch, should be regarded as being
1 This has also always been recognized by sound criticism : comp. Carpzov, Introd.
p, 137 ; " Pervulgata omnium est confessio, cap. 34, integrum, vel a vs. 0 saltem ad finem,
ab auctore alio aequo tamen SeoTrviio-Tif — fuisse profectum,"

THE PENTATEUCH AS A LITERARY AND RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT. 363
simply the transition to the book of Joshua, and therefore as no
doubt written by one and the same author. Ch, xxxiv, should
accordingly be viewed as an appendix ^io Deuteronomy, which,
however, while it plainly characterizes itself as such, is not to be
placed in the same category with interpolations of the work. This
would betray a like confusion of ideas, as if one were to caU the
eighth book of Ceesar's Commentaries De Bello Gallico an inter
polation, while it forms a supplement to the work from the pen of
another author.^

§ 31. THE PENTATEUCH CONSIDERED AS A LITERARY AND RELIGIOUS
DOCUMENT OF ITS AGE.
We have already shown with reference to the history of the art
of writing, that the Pentateuch admits of being regarded with pro
priety as a work that was actually written by Moses' own hand (see
section 43, ff. of Gen. Introd.), In a Unguistic respect also it ap
peared, that this book justly has its place at the head of Hebrew
literature, and admirably verifies its character of antiquity and origi
nality. (Section 31 of Gen. Introd.), It might therefore seem
that, after having proved the internal structure of the book to be in
complete harmony with those conclusions, enough has been done
to justify the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. But the external
relation of this book to its time deserves still a somewhat more ex
act explanation.
The Pentateuch is, in the first place, a piece of authorship, the
production of its own age ; and, viewed in this light, the question
arises respecting it, what explanation we are to give of its relation
to that same age, and to the following period. De Wette's opinion
(Einl, § 163) is, that " It is absurd to suppose, that one man should
have created in advance, the epico-historical, rhetorical, and poeti
cal styles of writing in their entire compass, as well as these three
departments of Hebrew literature, in their contents and spirit ; and
have left nothing for all succeeding authors, but to follow in his
steps," This assertion involves a twofold supposition, which on a
1 Comp. Suetonius, Vit. Caes, c, 56 : " Alii Oppium putant, alii Hirtium, qui etiam
Gallici belli novissimum imperfectumque hbrum svppleverit," Bahr, Rom. Lit, Gesch.
§182,

364 THE PENTATEUCH AS A
closer examination is seen to be untrue. Tn the first place, the
book is regarded as one that has arisen wholly from that age's stage
of culture, while the age again, on its side, is regarded as presenting
quite a rough and barbarous condition. The idea of culture must
certainly, first of all, be taken here in the more confined sense of
religious- ethical culture, since the Pentateuch, as being quite a reli
gious document, can come under consideration only as to that.
Now then, on the one hand, our book makes no concealment of the
fact, that, viewed in reference to the mass of the people, the condi
tion of the age could by no means be called an elevated one. Ac
cordingly, neither does it connect itself with that age, but it goes
back to a better anterior time, from which the present had greatly
deteriorated — even to the ancient history ofthe Israelitish patriarchs,
to which it then immediately annexes the history of the present.
But where such a primitive age has preceded, there, when it is vividly
apprehended, a lofty spiritual excitement exists already, which, when
transplanted to the soil of the present, can but produce again new
fruits. In this way the Pentateuch at once appears as a work rising
to an elevation far beyond its time, and we can then proceed to
speak only of the infiuence which it has exercised again upon its
age. And there we discover that not only are individuals among
the people affected with prophetic inspiration (Num, xi,), but a li
terary life proper to the age is also formed. Mention is made of
"men speaking in proverbs," Qi^^jQ (Num, xxi, 27), belonging to
the age, whose songs are sung by Israel (xxi, 17) ; and " the book
of the wars of Jehovah," which is referred to in that very place in
ver. 14, indicates the existence of a collection of poetical productions
of that kind. At that time there already existed in connection with
public worship a class of sacred poems, to which a multitude of
passages bear reference (see Gen, Introd. § 31, near the beginning.).
Now, when we thus see, on the one side, the point of connection
with its age, and on the other the influence and excitement exer
cised upon its age by a literary document, we are justified in recog
nizing it as one that stands in close connection with that period.
It also follows, however, that, such being the case, the literary
labours of a Moses must not be conceived of after that abstract dis
junctive fashion, which ranges beside each other the historical, the
rhetorical, and the poetical departments as different branches. For
that age no such division can as yet be spoken of least of all in the

LITERARY AND RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT OF ITS AGE. 365
case of the exalted divine ambassador. His discourse, even when
expressed in those different forms, is animated and pervaded by
only one spirit : this essentiaUy religious theocratic spirit is the
internal point of union, the strong bond, which keeps together
those different forms of literary labour, and presents them as the
work of one man. It was the very peculiarity of the vocation of
the Lawgiver, that he swayed a dominating influence over the theo
cratic system in this manner, came in contact with all its relations
and bearings, and united in himself that which a later period dis
joined, its vocation being to advance and develope that in its sepa
rate particulars. After a concrete, and therefore a genuinely living
mode, the historical element here pervades the legal, and both these
again pervade the rhetorical, while the poetical element stands in
the closest relation to the history ; and thus we see in this concrete
unity, not something that is arbitrarily to be severed, but just a
distinctive mark of that writer, of whom alone under the Old
Covenant it could be said, that no other had stood in so immediate
a relation to God as he. Hence there is not in fact any imitation
on the part of later writers ; at least that would be a most defective
designation for the necessary historical connection, which all the
later theocratic life must have with its original foundation.
In thus considering the Pentateuch solely as a religious docu
ment, we also find its character as such sufficiently confirmed by
the expression it contains respecting itself Nowhere does it
appear as the private record of its author, but its pubhc ecclesi
astical destination is expressed in the plainest terms. It is the
object of a number of special regulations, to represent the work as
one fully possessed of pubUc authority. According to Deut. xxxi.
it is committed in the first place to the hands of the priests and the
elders, Deuteronomy several times contains the command, that
the Law is to be kept free from additions and adulterations {e. g,,
iv. 2) ; to which divine injunction that measure bears a reference.
In xvii. 18 the priests were represented as guardians of the Law;
then we have the fulfilment of this expression given us in xxxi. 9.
In addition to this, there is a twofold injunction ; the Law was
enjoined to be read to the people once in every seven years, and
farther, the entire book was to be deposited at the side^ of the Ark
1 [This is a better translation of the Hebrew I'llS las, than "inthe side of the ark,"

366 THE PENTATEUCH AS A LITERARY AND RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT.
of the covenant (comp. Gen. Introd. § 6.). As Deuteronomy
everywhere goes on the supposition that the other books are Mosaic
documents, the greater is the necessity we are laid under not to
restrict the expressions, "all the words of this Law" (v. 12), and
" the book of this Law" (v. 26) to a particular portion of the Pen
tateuch, but to recogize them as bearing a reference to the whole.
This however frees the work from all suspicion of subsequent adul
teration or interpolation, A work which contains these require
ments, has by them given its readers the possession of such a cri
terion with respect to itself, that its claims may with little trouble
be either recognized or rejected. It could not have originated out
ofthe circle of the priesthood ; for then it never could have spoken of
itself as being extant in their possession. But as little could it
have originated within that circle ; for it is expressly said, that it was
to be a witness against the priests : a witness consequently which
might certainly be despised or thrust aside, but which dared not, as
a novel production, seek to support itself by their recognition.
Supposing it was not found at the side of the Ark of the Covenant,
and that the requirement of such being the proper place assigned to
it, was unknown, — how then could it have been pretended that its
place was there : this was putting one of the most dangerous wea
pons against itself, in the hands of those for whom the book was
intended. Or, supposing that the prescription, that the Law should
be publicly read every seven years, had been disregarded ever so
long, that prescription certainly delivered a strong and valid testi
mony as to the negligence and degeneracy of the priests as weU as
of the people ; but had not such an institution been otherwise well
sustained as having a sacred authority, its non-observance would
have been a sufficient proof that it was the production of a falsarius
(forger), and it would by no means have been associated with such
a requirement, especially as the priests would then be only con
cerned to regard such a statute as not binding.
Our opponents also are sufficiently sensible of the force of this
proof, and Vater in particular has only strengthened it still more
by a, number of mere assertions. Thus he remarks, relying on his,
fragment-hypothesis, that these passages of Deuteronomy refer only
as our E.V. has it, and is followed by Havernick in his Gen. Introd. 1. c. The fact that
only the two tables of stone were foundm the ark, when it was brought into the Temple,
1 Kings viii. 9, is accordant with this. — Tn.].

HISTORY OF THE PENTATEUCH FROM MOSES TO SOLOMON. 367
to single portions of that book, with which this author was ac
quainted (p. 563) ; — that the ordinance respecting the public sep
tennial reading of the Law, is joined with the institution of the year
of release, which stands quite isolated in Deuteronomy (p. 565 —
see on the other hand § 9) ; — that it is not plainly said in the text,
whether this proclamation of the Law was prescribed only for the
next seven years, or for every seven years (xxxi. 10), while usage
and the context most decidedly lead us to understand a reading that
was to take place every seven years ; and that history, till we come
to Nehem. vui., says nothing of a fulfilment of this appointment,
which, as has been shown, is the very thing that makes its later
origin so much the more inexplicable. On the contrary, Jahn's
opinion of the case remains fully sustained by evidence, that we
shall not easily find another book, the publication of which has
been attended with so great publicity, and the authorship of which
must have been so generally and so certainly known, that must
have been transmitted to posterity so easily, indeed so unavoidably,
in a state of correctness. (Einl. ii.p. 24.).

§ 32. HISTORY OF THE PENTATEUCH. TESTIMONIES TO ITS
EXISTENCE, FIRST AGE : FROM MOSES TO SOLOMON.
If we endeavour to elicit the history of the Pentateuch itself from
the history of the Israelitish nation, and its sacred literature, its
internal structure certainly justifies us at the outset in making no
small demands. This book professes to be nothing less than the
basis ofthe entire system of theocratic life and action ; its testimonies
relate to the grandest miraculous acts of God, by which he glorified
himself amongst Israel's ancestors ; its laws impose the strictest
requirements on the individual, as well as on the people collectively ;
its promises and threatenings embrace the whole future history of
Israel. The more sensible that we are of the weight of these de
mands, the more delighted must we be, to be able to satisfy them
here in as complete a manner, as is in any way possible with so
ancient a document.
In the following history we meet with the completest confirma
tion of the fact of the existence of the Pentateuch, subsequentlv
to its composition by Moses, Seldom has a book been able to

368 HISTORY OF THE PENTATEUCH
shew such complete external testimonies of its existence, as this.
The force of the proof has been felt even by the opponents of the
genuineness themselves ; and the way in which they labour to
evade the proof furnishes just so much the more valid an evidence
in its favour. Some particularly striking examples may suffice
here. Thus Hartmann (p. 583) professess to have made the
"agreeable discovery" (sic !) that " from the age of Solomon down
wards, the allusions and references to the historical parts of the
Pentateuch constantly increase, and the Mosaic reUgious worship
assumes still more evidently the form prescribed by the Pentateuch."
But then, according to him, all the documents ofthe ante-Solomonic
period belonged to the Babylonian exile (p. 559, [ff.). Thus it is
also quite inconsistent to recognise traces of the Pentateuch as oc
curring in the age of Solomon. The mode in which De Wette
(Einl. p. 161) tries, by means of restrictions, to weaken the force
of that proof is still more interesting. These restrictions are the
following : 1 , " If we leave out the suspicious testimonies of the
Chronicles." This we might consent to for the present: if the
books of Chronicles formed a special exception in regard to the
pre-supposing of the Pentateuch, and the constant referring back
to it, then it might be that we could not employ it here as a critical
authority ; but we should then require to insist all the more on the
condition, that the remaining witnesses should be left uncurtailed.
We should also expect as much, after such a reference to the
Chronicles as a work forming an exception; but what immediately
follows, shews, that the predicate " suspicious" is attached to the
other historical documents, only with some alteration of phrase ;
so that properly there remains no testimony at all, nor in general
is there any possible, as it is then indeed out of our power to dis
cover where there remains a criterion, or any sort of objective stan
dard, by which the utterance of that decision shall be regulated,
and which shall furnish a reason to account forit. 2. "If the
account given by the narrators^ is distinguished from the history it-
itself and they are only admitted as witnesses for their own
time." How arbitrarily that distinction between " history" and
" the account of the narrators" is employed by this criticism, so
that in fact no history at all is left, has been sufficiently shown in
our critical examination of the Pentateuch. According to it, true
I [" Den Vortrag der Erzahler."!

FROM MOSES TO SOLOMON. 369
testimonies, and such as are at all authentic, are no where to be
found ; for, when we ask what it is that justifies that criticism in
regarding this or that as belonging only to the proposed account of
the narrator, we discover the reason to be just this, the existence of
a reference to the Pentateuch. Thus it is constantly reasoning in
a circle, 3. " And if one does not too hastily regard references to
Mosaic expressions, ideas, legislation, and history, as evidences of
the existence of our Mosaic books themselves ;" — a distinction
which would be demonstrative, only in case the proof here really
consisted merely in particulars, whereas here more than ever it is
the totality that must decide ; or, in case the Pentateuch admitted
of being broken up into separate portions, which we must most de
cidedly deny.
If we search now for testimonies to the Pentateuch in the period
immediately subsequent to the Mosaic, we meet first with the book
of Joshua. This book rests so entirely on the basis of the Penta
teuch, is so completely pervaded by its spirit, and constantly refers
back to it, that the attempt has been made to assign the origin of
both writings, at least of Deuteronomy and Joshua, to one and the
same author.^ It is also conceded, that such references to the
Pentateuch are to be found in it ; yet an attempt has been made to
detract somewhat from the force of this evidence by the following
remarks. 1 . It is said, that this book does not testify to the whole
of the Pentateuch, but only to single passages that are quoted in it :^
but this is said partly in accordance with the supposition of the
correctness of the Fragment-hypothesis, partly without paying re
gard to the passages in which unquestionably the Book of the Law,
the Book of Moses, &c., is considered as a whole (Josh. i. 7, 8,
viii 31, 34, xxiii. 6.). 2. It is said, that the passages xxiv. 26,
and iv. 10, show that the Book ofthe Law, which is cited in the
book of Joshua, contained additional memoirs not found in the
Pentateuch, so that the book there intended is not properly our
Pentateuch.* But the passage xxiv. 26, "Joshua wrote these
words in the Book of the Law of God," manifestly supposes the
previous existence of such a -^qq (as throughout the whole of Jo-
1 Comp. De Wette, Beitr. i. p. 137. Bleek, Report, ibid. p. 49, ff. Stahelin. Stad. u.
Krit. 1836, No. 2, p. 472, ff. et al. +
2 Vater, 3, p. 569, ff.
8 Comp. De Wette, Beitr. i. p. 151, ff. Einl. p. 208, ff. Maurer, Comm. on the book
of Joshua, p. 9,
2 A

370 HISTORY OF THE PENTATEUCH
shua it is quoted in a similar manner), and annexes to it the his
tory of its own age. How Maurer can say, that the author had
met with a document in the Book of the Law, which is not extant
in it now, is incomprehensible. The text certainly says not a word
of such a thing. The passage, on the contrary, refers to Deut.
xxxi., and means to say, that Joshua also followed the example of
Moses and annexed to the Book of the Law what he had himself
recorded ; even as it is clear from the context, that he likewise de
posited it in the holiest of all, beside the Ark of the Covenant (comp.
Gen. Introd. § 6.). The passage iv. 10 occasions still less difficulty,
if correctly understood. Joshua, it is said, caused the passage over
the Jordan to be performed " as Jehovah commanded him," and
" as Moses gave him (Joshua) command." Thus it is evidently
special orders, given to Joshua, that are spoken of But the Penta
teuch also mentions, that Moses not only consecrated Joshua to be
his successor by the imposition of hands, but also furnished him
with commands and instructions (Num. xxvii. 23 ; Deut. iii. 28,
xxxi. 23), without however communicating the latter. The exact
obedience, with which Joshua fulfilled these directions, is plainly
what is here spoken of; and thus all appearance even, in favour of
the interpretation of our opponents, vanishes.
If it is then firmly established, that the book of Joshua shows an
acquaintance with the whole of the Pentateuch, as a book of
the Law written by Moses, and delivered to the people as a sacred
and inviolable authority ; critics have here no other resource than
to maintain the late composition of the book of Joshua.' " The ac
quaintance of the book with the Pentateuch," indeed, forms again an
important argument for the latter opinion ; but as other additional
reasons have also been adduced on its behalf we must leave this
point alone in the meanwhile, until we take up subsequently the
more thorough discussion of it. But it may be shown, however,
that our opponents, even on the admission of their view of the
time when the book of Joshua was composed, gain iiothing, but
only lose by it. For, after all, we still have in this book a
memorial, which, if composed later than the Pentateuch, yet
rests only upon it, so that the Pentateuch receives a complete
recognition from this, book. Supposing the Pentateuch is not
a genuine Mosaic writing, then the deception which has been
1 Comp. e..^. Vater, p. 567, ff. De Wette, Beitr. i. p. 137, ff, Bertholdt, p. 762. Hart
mann, p. 558 et al.

FROM MOSES TO SOLOMON, 371
practised with it is an unheard-of deception, and one that extends
much farther. Another book has then formed the continuation of
its untrue and suspicious history : the spirit of falsehood has then
spread epidemically, and has not been satisfied with imposing on
the world one of its productions, biit has continued to build syste
matically on such a foundation. This makes the supposition of
our opponents more extensive and more enigmatical : it must then
be explained, how that which, according to them, was brought out
in so weak and wretched a way, could assume for itself and main
tain the force of truth with such victorious power, that immediately
after its origin it meets with such recognition as truth only can
have, — such as falsehood, even when most cunningly contrived,
never can secure : which makes our book an enigma in the history
of all books.
From the book of Joshua we turn to that of Judges, which de
mands indeed the closer examination, as our opponents here main
tain " that it does not contain the slightest trace of a reference
to the Mosaic books." But this changeable criticism cannot, here
either, exhibit by any means a uniformly constant judgment : ac
cording to Hartmann, it must candidly be confessed that the ar
ranger of this book " was well acquainted with the Pentateuch
in its entire extent ;" — while he does not then omit remarking, in
deed, that this book too owes its origin to the same period as the
book of Joshua. As both these opinions are sustained by equally
weak grounds on both sides, it will be necessary to go into the
matter more closely.
The book of Judges certainly has for its subject a very disordered
political and religious condition of the nation : it also does not give
by any means a complete history of it, which in a certain respect is
hardly possible, but only individual portions, single remarkable
occurrences of that period. Considering the matter in both these
respects, therefore, we are almost unavoidably necessitated to ex
pect to find but little regarding the Mosaic institutions, and but
few references to the Pentateuch. The less that such a result should
surprise us, the more must it produce a favourable impression for
the genuineness of the Pentateuch, to meet even here with such a
number of references to itasmay be said proportionally to heconsider-
1 The words of De Wette, Beitr. i. p. 152, with whom Bertholdt, p, 762, V. Bohlen, p.
cl, comp, CXX., agree,
2 a2

372 HISTORY OF THE PENTATEUCH
able. Let us look first at the constitution of the nation : we still
find in the times soon after Joshua a popular community (mj;).
governed by the elders, as in the Pentateuch. Judah has the
rank of precedence among the tribes, and the chief command (i. 2 ;
XX. 18, comp. Numb. U. 3, x, 14, Gen. xlix. 8, ff.) ; although the
other tribes on the north, especially Ephraim, already display
jealousy, and promote division. The office of the judge j^Qtt?' ^^°
is entrusted with the supreme power, appears as early as Deut.
xvii. 9, ff,, comp. Judg. ni. 10. On the other hand Gideon re
fuses, both for himself and for his sons, to be king, because Jeho
vah alone is king of Israel (viii. 22, ff.) ; which agrees exactly
with Deut. xvii. 14,' Exod. xix. 5, 6, Deut. xxxiii. 5, and Deut.
xvii. 20. The accounts given respecting the public worship and the
priesthood during this period, carry us still farther. Even amidst
all the confusion prevailing in Israel, we are still able to show, that
whatever existed relating to those departments, was plainly derived
from the Mosaic law. We meet with general mention of the Sanc
tuary (Q^ri7Nn n^l) atShUoh xviii. 31 ; and disapproving men
tion is made of the private sanctuary of the Danites, which was
separate from it. Ever since Joshua's time, Shiloh was the com
mon locality of the Sanctuary ; yet on solemn occasions, assemblies
of the nation, &o., when sacrifice had to be offered, the Ark of the
Covenant was conveyed also to other places, so as to fulfil the law,
that sacrifice should be presented only before Jehovah (Deut. xii.
6, ff.). The passage xx. 26, ff. is here of particular importance,
where we find that the Israelites go to Bethel, and " fast and weep
before Jehovah-^ the Ark of the Covenant was there, and Phinehas
the High Priest attended upon it (1133'^ 'TOV' comp. Deut. x. 8,
where there is quite the same expression :* and there they offer
burnt-offerings and peace-offerings)^ (xx, 26, xxi. 4.). We
1 See XX, 21, xvi. 22, Comp, Studer, Comment, on the book of Judges, p. 461, ff.
On the other hand, we have Vatke's authoritative assertion : " The interference of real
law was a singular thing, aud the people formed no community." Bibl. Th. i. p. 262.
2 See Gesenius, Comment, on Isaiah i. p. 436, ff.
3 For the addition — "like all the heathen nations" — points to the difference of their
polities from the Theocracy, of which Jehovah was sole king. Vatke, on the other hand,
rejects the statement of the book of Judges at once as being " unhistorical," p. 263.
t That passage certainly does not agree very well with the views of De Wette (Beitr.
i. p. 233), and Gramberg; hence they explain it at once as being a gloss ! (Gesch. d.
Bel. Id. i. p. 181.).
s It -is true that in the mention of BiuVi here, one has professed to detect a non-

FROM MOSES TO SOLOMON. 373
meet in this book with mention of the Angel of Jehovah, who
reveals himself to the people quite in the same manner, as in the
Pentateuch, in the journey through the wilderness (comp. ii. 1,
2, ff., where everything is verbally borrowed from the Pentateuch
itself) . The Israelites on several occasions enquire of Jehovah, and
do so according to the Law, by enquiring of the High Priest, who
gives an answer by means of Urim and Thummim (i. 1, xx. 18, 27) ;
and how strongly this idea was held, is shown by the magical notion
that was entertained of the efficacy of the High Priest's vesture,
the Ephod (l^Qi^), and the idolatrous use that was made of it; out
of which it has been attempted by a very arbitrary exegesis: to make
an " Idol," a meaning which t^qj,^ nowhere bears, or will admit
of ^ The Levites nowhere in the book appear as possessors of a
particular portion of territory, which is agreeable to the regulation
in the Pentateuch (comp. ch. i. and ii,), but they appear dispersed
among the different tribes ; yet, what is remarkable, they also ap
pear as the only legitimate priests, to obtain whose services was an
object of most solicitous endeavour even to those who practised
idolatry. We find mention inade of Prophets also, though of few (iv. 4,
vi. 8,). In the Song of Deborah there is found a great number of
allusions to the Pentateuch, particularly to the blessings of Jacob
and of Moses : comp. v. 4, 5 with Deut. xxxiii. 2 ; — v. 8 with Deut.
xxxii. 17 (where the obscure expression t3'i2j'7n ^^ explained only
by the reminiscence of that in Deuteronomy) ; — v. 16 with Gen.
xlix. 14 ; — V. 17 with Gen. xlix. 13. The speech of the other pro
phet is full of allusions to the Pentateuch, vi. 8 — 10, Gideon also
is acquainted with Jehovah's miraculous deeds in Egypt (vi. 13.).
Attention is paid to the Anathema (0*^)7' eurse or devotion to
destruction), at the capture of the Canaanitish cities, according
to the Law, and the custom relating to that is recognized as well-
Mosaic element, because the occasion of those sacrifices was a mournful one (see Gram
berg, 1. c. p. 107); but this ai-ises from a misunderstanding of the expression B"'ts^»,
which included by no means merely Thank-offerings, but Supplicatory offerings as well.
Comp. Reland, Antiqq. Sac, p. 317, sq, Tholuck, Appendix to the Comm. on Ep. to
Heb. p. 71, ff. (vol. ii. p. 253, ff, of the Translation in Clark's Bib. Cab,). So even in
the Pentateuch also the conjunction of niVw and Bia^ui is quite current.
1 As has been againasserted,last of all,by Vatke, p. 267,ff.,buton very weak grounds.
See the correct view, in Hengstcnberg in particular, Christol. 3, p. 137, ff.
2 Comp, ch. xvii,, xviii.; Studer, Comment, p, 372.

374 HISTORY OF THE PENTATEUCH
known ; i. 17. In Judg. i. 20 the appointment of Moses respect
ing the inheritance of Caleb is quoted (see Num. xiv. 24, Deut. i.
36.). In ii. 15 it is remarked, that the threatenings deUvered by
the Lord, in reference to the transgression of the Law and Idolatry,
were fulfilled upon Israel. In Gideon's battie with the Midianites,
he employs trumpets (vii. 18, ff,), and evidently expects effective
help from the use of them ; and in the Law it is prescribed that the
Israehtes should employ them in battle with their enemies, and Je
hovah would then remember his people (Num. x. 9.). — Ch. xi. is
of special importance, containing the account of the transaction
between Jephthah and the king of the Ammonites. The latter
makes the complaint that, when the Israelites came up out of
Egypt, they had taken away from him his territory (ver. 13.). But
Jephthah shows him, in the most positive manner, that this com
plaint is not true, and at the same time enters into a detailed state
ment respecting the taking of the land, which agrees so exactly
with the Pentateuch, that we can hardly suppose any other source
for it than the employment of the Pentateuch ; while its authentic
character is all the less to be questioned, as the proceedings here
spoken of are such as possess diplomatic accuracy (comp. Num.
xxi., Deut. ii.). It has been incorrectly remarked,^ that Jephthah's
answer (ver. 15 — 27) is not appropriate, as it does not point out
the non-violation of the territory of the Ammonites, as well as that
of the Moabites. This is a misunderstanding. The earlier pos
sessions of the Ammonites had been taken from them by the power
ful Amorites, at the time of the conquest of Palestine, and it was
only with the latter that the Israelites engaged in war, while they
did not touch the borders of the Ammonites at all (comp, Deut. ii.
19.). Thus it is the positive side of the state of the facts that is
here brought forward, from which it necessarily appeared all the
more evidently how little cause for complaint the Ammonites had
against the Israelites, since these had had to do with the Amorites
only. Thus from this transaction we must draw the conclusion,
that in the time of the Judges very exact and authentic accounts
were possessed regarding the Mosaic age, agreeing so closely with
those of the Pentateuch, as to suppose an acquaintance with the
latter.2 1 See Studer, Comment, p, 288.
2 Only Gramberg, 1. cit. ii, p, 181, ff,, is guilty here of such shocking arbitrariness

FROM MOSES TO SOLOMON. 375
The narrative of Jephthah's vow also (xi, 30 — 40) deserves here
a more particular discussion. That vow, in the first place, cannot
be regarded, as has often been done, as being exactly anti- Mosaic :
it was only a rash vow. Jephthah vowed to offer up as a sacrifice
to Jehovah whatever should come out of his house to meet him.
It is quite an arbitrary opinion, that he must have intended only
men [human beings],'^ which is by no means implied in the ex
pression 'ij^t^'^rt") t^JJ"!, which indeed cannot possibly mean, " what
comes to meet me, to receive me!' The vow, " I will offer it up
as a burnt-offering," made the thing so vowed, however, a 0"^^'^ ^°
that it could no longer be redeemed : it must at least die (Levit.
xxvii. 29.). Here then lay the rashness of the vow. But the fact
of Jephthah's afterwards recognizing this shows rather an adherence
to the law. " He did not act contrary to the law of Moses, as far
as concerns the letter. On the contrary, he acted quite in accord
ance with the letter of it. He had pronounced his vow. It had
gone out of his mouth. Such a vow, according to the law of
Moses, was not remissible : Num. xxx. 3, 7, 9, 13 ; Deut. xxiu. 24.
And this is the view that Jephthah also took of his vow."^ Thus
the last thing which this passage should be adduced to prove, is
the non-existence at that time of the Mosaic law.^ But it also
affords as little proof in support of the general custom of human
sacrifices, with which we have nothing at all to do in connection
with circumstances like those here ; and in that case, to be con
sistent, ,the practice of devoting by a curse would also require to be
so viewed (as Vatke also does) ; but then indeed, as the custom of
human sacrifices would thus be regarded as being a legal institu
tion, of which the Pentateuch consequently treats, the present pas
sage could not serve to evidence the non- authenticity of the latter.
In ch, xiii., in the history of Samson, mention is made of the
as to propose for an explanation, that the accounts in the Pentateuch first arose and were
formed out of those of the book of Judges. Yet he will not even admit the latter to be
" tradition," but explains them as productions of the imagination !
\ So Studer, Comment, p. 292.
2 That this was reckoned as belonging to the class of vows, is shown not only by
Levit. xxvii., but also by Num. xxi. 2. It is well said by Dathe : " Lex intelligenda est
pro ratione ipsarum rerum, quae erant devotee. Si res ejusmodi non poterat sac-rificio
offerri, tamen interfici debebat, e. g. camelus, equus. Sic etiam homo morte erat affici.
endus, non immolandns."
3 Eckermann, Theol. Beitr. y. 1, p. 62,
< As Vatke also, p, 275, last supposes.

376 TESTIMONIES TO THE PENTATEUCH
vow of the Nazarite (comp. Num. vi.), certainly in an extraor
dinary manner, arising out of special divine intervention and ap
pointment ; but in such a way that the general idea of a Nazarite,
as defined by the Law, is presupposed, and the consecration ofthe
hair of the head, to which prominence is given there as being par
ticularly essential, is referred to in that way here also. In xiii. 4,
14, mention is made of unclean meats, which supposes certain laws
respecting meats. Circumcision is likewise mentioned as a reli
gious mark of distinction for the Hebrews, in xiv. 3, xv. 18. In
XX. 6, the crime of lewdness, perpetrated by the Benjamites, re
ceives precisely the same appellation as in the Pentateuch (j-jQt
7t^'^to''l n^l3l)' comp. Lev. xviu. 17, Deut. xxii. 21 ; and the
punishment annexed to it by the Israelites is likewise defined by
an exact legislative formula ('^^¦^to''?2 PIJ^'^ 1V1' comp. Gen. In
trod. § 31 — in the German original, p. 192, ff.).
Hence we see that in the book of Judges also, a large number,
in proportion, of references to the Mosaic institutions may be
pointed out. But complaint is made of the want of express cita
tions of the Pentateuch ; yet, from its frequent verbal agreement
with the Pentateuch, the opinion is held, that it supposes the exist
ence of the Pentateuch as a written document. But instances also
occur where express mention is made of that work, as, iii, 4, ]-\lJjJ2
Tmi Tn cinii« nt^ ni2 nu5« Tr\'rc^ '> i- 21, -n-r -mj^n
iH25J3.^ Thus the narrator not only remarks, that Israel had re
volted from the divine commandments, but also when they acted in
accordance with the Mosaic appointments. This, therefore, cannot
be adduced as a distinguishing mark, to sustain the proof of this
book being an exception from the other books, in regard to tbe
mention ofthe Pentateuch.

§ 34, CONTINUATION. THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL,
Since we have arrived at so favourable a conclusion as to the
previous existence of the Pentateuch, even from the single and de
tached histories of the book of Judges, we must maintain the same
1 These and like citations are just related, as the formulae .JotJ" U V and
t5XAl! M '.• are, by which the Arabians indifferently cite the Koran; comp, e. <7.
Vit, Saladini, ed, Schult, p. 16,18, 24, et al.

IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL. 37 7
thing still more decidedly as to what is supplied by the far more
complete accounts given in the books of Samuel. The accounts
at the commencement of these books, at once supply us with a mul
titude of references to Mosaic institutions. We find here Eli, as
High Priest of the race of Aaron, but of the family of Ithamar, not
of Eleazar (1 Chron, xxiv. 5, ff.). But mention is also made im
mediately of threatenings of punishment against the posterity of
Eli, which were fulfilled in the reign of Solomon (1 Kings ii. 27.).
Thus the truth of God's promise is sustained, that the High Priest
hood should remain in the family of Eleazar, Num. xxv. 10, ff.
The sanctuary, besides, has its priests, among whom the sons of
Eli are brought forward by name, with the intimation indeed that
they alone present the sacrifices (i. 3, ii. 11, ff.). The book says
of them, that they knew not Jehovah, nor the right of the Priests
with the people (E.V. " priests' custom with the people" t^rj^jj^
Di^n^Jlt^ D'^JTO' i^- 13-) • If ^c look at the context, we shaU see
that it is the laws respecting sacrifices that are intended, Lev. vi. 7,
Num. xviii., by which a share of the sacrifice was assigned to the
priests; which laws are repeated once more in Deut. xviii. 1, ff.,
with an express reference to the previous appointment on the sub
ject, and in the latter passage it is said : Qi^TOn tSDtl^Q nTT' nt
DJ^ri nWD' ^^^ ^- Here then we have in Samuel a verbal quo
tation from the Pentateuch, and exact regard is had here to the
prescription, that the fat should first be burned, and then the priest
should have his portion, which the sons of Eli here demand to
have first.^ The expression 'y^-^ "hpUfi, HnS nii^l!!?!!' "• 2^'
comp. Exod. xxxviii. 8, is quite as much verbally taken from the
Pentateuch ; whether we nnderstand it to refer to women who were
keepers of the Temple, or to women who came to sacrifice and wor
ship. At the same time the narrative shows that the sanctuary was
much frequented, and that sacrifices were presented therein abund
ance. The Ark of God stands in the sanctuary, and its cherubic
figures are incidentally mentioned (iv. 4, comp. 2 Sam. vi. 2) ? and
the lamp of God burns there (iii. 3) ; which proves the existence
1 Hence there is nothing strange in the statement, that they demanded to have the
flesh raw, whereas it was commonly given cooked, since in general the sacrifices were
frequently concluded with common meals. Gramberg, on the other hand, discovers here
that they presented flesh already cooked, as a sacrifice, and finds accordingly that we
have here a non-Mosaic usage ! Gesch. d. Rel. Id. i. p. 109.
2 Oomp. Num, vii, 89 ; and De Dieu, Crit, Sac. pp. 61, 68.

378 TESTIMONIES TO THE PENTATEUCH
of the law mentioned in Ex. xxvu, 20, 21 ; Levit. xxiv. 2, 3. Ee
ference is made in the discourse of a prophet, ii. 27, ff., to the acts
of Jehovah in Egypt, to the selection of the priestly family, and the
publication of the law of sacrifice.
But the narrative in 1 Sam. vi. is of particular importance, relat
ing to the fetching away of the Ark of the Covenant from Beth-
shemesh, to which place it had been sent back by the Philistines
with gifts. The inhabitants of this city had looked into the sacred
Ark (vi. 19), which no one, not even the Levites, was permitted to
do (Num. iv. 15, ff.) ; and the Levites of the Levitical city of Beth-
shemesh carry the Ark, according the Law^ (vi. 15.). 2 Even the
fact mentioned in vii. 1, that Eleazer, the son of Abinadab, was
nominated to be the keeper of the Ark, certainly involves nothing
illegal, when the circumstances are considered. The two sons of
Eli, and EU himself, had fallen shortly before ; the Tabernacle was
at a distance ; and therefore the Ark is brought to the Levitical
town of Gibeah.^ Now here again the house of Abinadab was un
questionably that of a Levite. Hence Eleazar's remaining here as
keeper of the Ark, is quite in order ; he is by no means nominated
to be priest, but all that is done is to commit to him in extraordi
nary circumstances an extraordinary Levitical duty.* This, how
ever, appears presently to have given rise to a proper priestly func
tion, since there were now properly two sanctuaries — yet, in spite
of the uncommon circumstances, there still remains a remarkable
attention to order : for the two High Priests, wlhotP we meet with
in David's time as connected with the two sanctuaries,® namely,
Zadok and Abiathar, are both of the family of Aaron. When we
see that the descendants of Aaron were so well aware of their rights
even in such times of oppression andcc.jfiision, as to maintain them
even in contradistinction to the Levites, while the Levites again
maintained theirs with regard to the laics ; we must conclude that
1 [There appears to be something defective in this sentence, arising perhaps from
oversight. — Te,].
2 See the justification of this fact, in opposi^ien to De Wette and Gramberg, in Keil,
iib. d, Chr. p. 342, ff
3 For Gibeah and Gibeon are identical : comp. Josh. xxi. 17 ; Movers, iib. d. Chr. p.
293, ff.
4 Which is not contradicted by I Chron, xv. 13, which passage simply refers to the
illegal mode of conveying the Ark ofthe Covenant.
5 Comp. Movers, 1, cit, p, 291, ff. 3

IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL. 379
all these institutions had in fact a very sure objective foundation,
which we cannot possibly trace to any thing else than to the Law
of Moses.
Samuel is a striking phenomenon of this age. The way in which
he offers sacrifices at different places, and builds altars, appears at
the first glance to be contrary to the Mosaic Law. But if we look
more closely at the life of this man, as presented to us in the sacred
history, we shall discover in it, not only satisfactory solutions in
explanation of that phenomenon, but we shall also meet with a re
markable confirmation in it of tbe fact of an adherence to the Mosaic
Law. Towards the end of his life he declares before all the people,
that he takes Jehovah to witness, who " appointed (n^j^; — E.V.
"advanced") Moses and Aaron, and who brought the fathers out
of Egypt. When Jacob had gone into Egypt, then the fathers cried
to Jehovah, and he sent Moses and Aaron," &c, (1 Sam. xii. 6, ff.).
On that solemn occasion the man of God thought nothing of more
urgent importance, than to point the people to the known, but for
a long time not sufficientiy acknowledged, displays of the divine
righteousness (nipiu)' ^^ narrated in the Pentateuch, in connec
tion with the residence of the people in Egypt. It would then
indeed be more than surprising to discover in the other parts of this
man's life and conduct, an open contradiction of the Law of Moses,
whom, along with Aaron, he regarded as being a divine messenger,
and an instrument of Jehovah. But the vocation of Samuel is one
so peculiar, that we necessarily perceive in it sufficient reasons to
explain to us his mode of procedure. He is consecrated to the ser
vice of Jehovah from his youth up. The statement respecting this
matter pre-supposes as known (1 Sam. i. 11) not only the law of
Nazariteship (Num. vi.), but also the law respecting the age of
service for the Levites, which began with the twenty-fifth and ended
with the fiftieth year (Num. viii, 23-25) ; hence the extraordinary
character of the vow here consists in this, that the boy was to be a
minister of Jehovah "all the days of his Ufe" (1 Sam. i. 11.).
Thus Samuel was not only a Nazarite, but also a Levite, and as
such specially consecrated to God.^ As such he performs the
services proper to the Levites in the Tabernacle,^ and wears a
1 We find it so according to the family-registers in Chronicles, the credibility of which,
with reference to this very point, is excellently shown by Movers, 1, cit, p. 275, ff.
2 Observe the agreement of 1 Sam, ii, 11, ¦jUaH 'h'i '^JB ns — nTiita rt^n with Num.
viii, 26, iins-ns nisi.

380 TESTIMONIES TO THE PENTATEUCH
linen ephod,^ in distinction from the costly ephod of the high
priost (comp. 1 Sam. u. 18, 19, with U. 28.). But besides this
his priestiy vocation, Samuel has also a prophetic vocation, and is
universaUy recognized as a Nabi (iv. 20, 21.). By uniting in him
self this twofold vocation, Samuel's position in the nation is pro
perly that of a reformer of the priesthood and of religion. But it
would be wrong to regard his agency as being in opposition to the
Law. He is engaged throughout in destroying the worship of
foreign deities, and insists on the sole recognition of Jehovah as the
rightful King of Israel. The extraordinary circumstances of the
time, the deeply rooted apostacy from Jehovah, the equally great
unfaithfulness of the people and of the priests, urgently demanded
such an extraordinary man, who appears as an intercessor for sin
ful Israel with Jehovah (vii. 9, xii. 19, ff,), and whose extraordi
nary vocation is proved and justified by his whole procedure. But
as such he must also at that time employ extraordinary means, the
object of which was to accustom the mind of the people again to
the legal regulations of Jehovah's service in sacred offerings. Hence
we frequently find Samuel performing sacrifice, and building altars
in honour of Jehovah. But that the prophet does so by an extra
ordinary command of Jehovah, and will in this matter only admit
of obedience to such commands, is clear from the account of the
unseasonable sacrifice of Saul (ch. xiii.). If then Samuel's conduct
in this respect can by no means be regarded as " un-Levitical," we
are required to maintain this all the more as We also see him in
other things strictly adhering to the Law of Moses. This is espe
cially shown in 1 Sam. viii. — x. The remark has previously been
made, that the law in Deut, xvii, respecting the kingly office is so
expressed as to convey a disapproval of it, while it still permits
its introduction. Now this is also the very character of Samuel's
procedure here, inasmuch as he agrees to the people's desire only
upon receiving an express command from God. Then again the
law required, that the new king should be selected by Jehovah, ancT
this also is exactly what is done. Farther it is expressly said,
that Samuel should declare to the people the " legal right^ of the
1 Like the common Levites (I Sam. xxii. 18), and even private persons on solemn
occasions of divine service, 2 Sam. vi. 14.
2 [By the circumlocution of " Legal right," I have tried to represent the word Beeht,
which answers to the Latin Jus, and may often be rendered by our word Law, which in
this place however might mislead. Privilege or prerogative might have been better

IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL. 381
king," 1 Sam, viu. 9, ff., respecting which we are then informed
that Samuel inserted it in the book, and laid it up before Jehovah
(x. 25.). Here also we have a clear reference to the Pentateuch,
since Samuel deposits this public document by which he bears wit
ness of this occurrence, in the place where the book of Jehovah's
covenant with the people was already laid. This then quite sets
aside as inadmissible the requirement, that here at any rate men
tion should have been made of the book of the law.^ For that which
was prescribed in the law was observed on this occasion, as has
been shown. The proper " legal right (taSUjo) "^ ^^c king"^ was
not stated in the Pentateuch ; which contained, beside what has
been mentioned, merely prescriptions for the moral conduct of the
king. Consequently, it is impossible to see how the law should
have been particularly cited here. Another important circumstance
is that which is mentioned in 1 Sam. xv. How exactly Samuel
here insists on the fulfilment of the law, is shewn in his prophetic
message, in which he gives orders for the war against the Ama
lekites. There is in this~ the most unmistakeable reference to the
passages Ex. xvii. 8, ff. ; Deut. xxv. 1 9, 20. Saul recognizes this
obligation ; he even knows that such a punishment does not attach
to the Kenites (xv. 6, ff.). What can be the source of this acquaint
ance with what had happened more than 400 years before in the
wilderness ? What can be the origin of that command of Samuel's,
the unconditional execution of which he requires, and the disre
garding of which he considers so decided an act of apostacy from
Jehovah ? It is incomprehensible how modern criticism can here
complain of the want of a " matter-of-fact reference to the Penta
teuch ;"8 for it is just here that we have only matter-of-fact refe
rences to it, which therefore deserve quite a different treatment at
the hands of this kind of criticism, from what they receive.*
Samuel's reformatory endeavours had a very favourable influence :
the ancient mode of worship, which had been so generally for
gotten, again met with a response in the hearts of the people.
This is shewn aihong other things by the frequent mention of
still. Our E. V. renders the Hebrew word by manner, meaning thereby such a custom
as amounts to law. — Te.]
1 De Wette, Beitr. i. p. 152.
2 Comp. on that, Buddeus, H. E. Vet. Test, ii., p. 266.
3 See De Wette, Einl. p. 207.
4 In Samuel's speech xv, 29, there occurs a reminiscence from Num. xxiii. 19,

382 TESTIMONIES TO THE PENTATEUCH
sacrificing in these books : — indeed it is particularly worthy of
remark that even Saul formally practices a certain display as
to sacrifice, and at the same time exhibits a self-righteous plea
sure in it, so that Samuel is obUged to remind him, in genuine
prophetic fashion, of the internal signification of sacrifices, and of
the obedience which he owes to God, and which is better than sa
crifice and the fat of rams, xv. 22, ff. There cannot well be any
description of sacrifices, that is not mentioned in these books.
Burnt-offerings frequently occur ; comp. 1 Sam. vii. 9 (here is
the expression '7175, comp. Deut. xxxiii. 10) ; x. 8, xiii. 9, xv.
22, et al. ; — so also peace-offerings, '^lyy^, which are presented
voluntarily on solemn occasions (as on concluding the Covenant
with Jehovah, Ex. xxiv. 5), comp. 1 Sam. xi. 15; xiii, 9 ; 2 Sam.
ri. 17; — -the gifts oi first-fruits j^^j^T^f^, which required tobe
paid at the Tabernacle and to the priests, are mentioned 2 Sam.
L. 21 (m^Slin '^^to) '¦> — sin-offerings are likewise mentioned, in-
ieed it appears that even the priests of the PhiUstines were aware
:hat these were presented to the God of Israel as an atonement, 1
3am. vi. 3, ff. ; — meat-offerings (mnjJD) ^''c found mentioned, 1
3am, ii. 29, iii. 14, xxvi. 19 (where also the expression j-jniJ^lTT^
reminds us of Lev. ii. 2, 9, 12), and the chief parts of all meat-
)fferihgs, 1 Sam. ii. 29, comp. Levit. ii. 12, ff. ; — we have a de
scription of the privileges of the priestiy race in 1 Sam. ii. 28, to
vit, that God had selected them from among all the tribes, to offer
lacrifice on his altar (which therefore appears as the particular
iltar whieh was at the Sanctuary), to burn incense (comp. the same
vords, Ex. xxx, 9), to wear the Ephod before Jehovah, and to at-
end to all the offerings made by fire (i^Jj^ — the proper expression
if the Pentateuch) of the children of Israel,
After what has been remarked, it must at least be admitted
rithout contradiction, that the Law of sacrifice appears here as
ompletely formed, as it is presented to us in the Pentateuch, while
t must at the same time certainly be observed, that in these books
t is only extraordinary occasions, on which sacrifices were pre-
ented, that, from the nature of the case, are referred to ; but these
he more necessarily admit of our drawing a conclusion as to the
ommon presentation of sacrifices and the administration of reli-
ious worship, in the mode prescribed by the Law. This also
learly shows the arbitrariness of the opinion held by those, who

IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL. ,383
think they discover in these books the greatest errors on these
points in relation to^the Mosaic Law. Thus it has been affirmed,
that there are stiU to be found traces here of human sacrifices being
offered as part of Jehovah's worship, and 2 Sam. xxi. has been
adduced in evidence of it • — ^a strange sort of sacrifice (of which, in
the first place, the narrative says not a word), in which seven men
are hanged up ; an act, besides, which is performed by the Gibeon
ites. The expression before Jehovah hardly admits of being re
ferred to a sacrifice at least, which was presented to him, since it
refers to the presence of the Tabernacle in Gibeah, and the narrator
rightly' gives prominence to the fact, that it was in sight of it that
the punishment was executed on the descendants of Saul, Besides,
the whole case is quite an extraordinary one, as is indicated by the
narrative itself xxi. 1, 2. But chief stress has been laid on the
circumstance, that the kings here offer sacrifice in person,^ as to
which an appeal would hardly require to be made to the expression,
that the king offered sacrifice, since that expression by no means
denotes the performance of sacrificial service [der Opferdienst] ;
while the other marks that are adduced as indicative of the assump
tion of a priestly character by the kings, do not prove the point.
For the Ephod was certainly by no means a priestiy ornament in
itself; it was only the Ephod proper to the High Priest, that could
be worn by no other person — but where do we find the occurrence
of such a thing mentioned ? Nor, when it is said that David
blessed the people (2 Sam. vi. 18), is it possible to see how in
doing so he was guUty of a despotic intrusion into the functions of
the priesthood, since every member of the Theocracy was certainly
at Uberty to do it. As to the king's offering sacrifice on the field,
again, there is no want of express testimonies, that they had with
them priests and the Ark of the Covenant : comp, 1 Sam. xiv. 18.
The passage 2 Sam. viu. 18 has still less to do with the point;
where David's sons are called Qi^nD '< ^^"^ there the signification of
Priests is quite inadmissible.^
Instead of correcting here at still greater length this wanton
criticism, we shall satisfy ourselves with pointing out some other
traces that furnish positive testimonies to the existence at the time
1 See e. g. Gramberg, 1. c, i. p, 1 14, ff, V. Bohlen, p, ex. Vatke, p. 355.
2 So Vatke also last, p. 311.
3 Comp, Keil, iib, d, chr, p, 346, ff. Movers, p, 301, ff.

384 TESTIMONIES TO THE PENTATEUCH
of our book of the Law, In 1 Sam. xiv. 32, ff., we read of a viola
tion of the prohibition of eating blood, which is considered by Saul
as a sin against Jehovah. In 1 Sam. xxi. we find the Sanctuary
in Nob, in the tribe of Benjamin. There is here likewise a high
priest, Ahimelech, of the race of Eli. Here we meet with mention
of the Shewbread (v. 7), which was regularly deposited and taken
away according to the Law (Lev. xxiv. 8.). Here is the High
Priest's Ephod, xxi. 10, which, being subsequentiy carried off
hence and worn by the fugitive priest Abiathar, is enquired at
by David as an oracle (xxiii. 9, xxx. 7.). Here there are eighty-
five priests, whom Saul causes to be put to death (xxii. 18),
and none of the Israelites dares to execute the bloody mandate of
the king : it is only the Edomite Doeg, who is ready to lay his
hand on the priests of Jehovah (xxii. 17) — an incidental testimony,
but on that account the more important a testimony of the respect
in which the priestiy office was held. In xxvui. 6 it is said, that
Saul sought counsel of Jehovah in vain, and that Jehovah gave him
no answer, neither in dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets. We
have here a statement of the three different ways,^ by which the
Lord revealed himself to the people, which had its foundation in the
Mosaic law, and existed in the Theocracy at aU times. A diffi
culty indeed has been found in this, as it is said, Saul could not
enquire of the Urim, since the High Priest who wore it was not pre
sent. But this difficulty is removed by observing, that at that time
there were two Sanctuaries and two High Priests. The Ark of the
Covenant too had constantly been carried about by Saul in his
campaigns, and he could thus easily apply to the priest who waited
upon it. David frequently enquires of Jehovah on important em
ergencies, 2 Sam. ii, 1, v. 19, ff., xxui. In Hebron he makes a
covenant with the elders before Jehovah, which shows that the Ark
of the Covenant had been brought there.^ According to 2 Sam.
vi., the Ark of the Covenant is brought in solennn procession to

1 Comp. Gen. Introd. to Old Testament, § 11, where the agreement of this passage
with the other writings ofthe Old Testament is pointed out.
2 That the expression nini i3S^, denotes the special manifestation of the divine ma
jesty in the Tabernacle, and by means of the Ark of the Covenant, has been shown by
Movers, 1. u. p, 290. Other important passages in the books of Samuel, on this point, are
2 Sam. vii. 6, where Jehovah, speaking through Nathan, expressly calls the Tabemacle
his dwelling-place; and 2 Sam. vi. 2, where the Ark is distinctly mentioned as the seat
of the divine majesty, where Jehovah was invoked.

IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL, 385
Jerusalem, On this occasion, Uzzah meets with sudden death,
because of daring to touch the Ark, and David recognises in this
event an admonition to cause the Ark to be carried, not driven, up
to Jerusalem (v. 13.). From what source should-the king have got
the knowledge of this, or the priests, of whom he enquired respect
ing the occurrence according to the statement in Chronicles (1
Chron. xv.) ? Certainly in the brief narrative given in the books
of Samuel, the " bearers of the Ark" are not more precisely desig
nated as Levites ; but for no other reason but because every one
knew, who were the persons that were charged with this duty.
We have therefore no right to speak of that act of the transporta
tion of the Ark as being " unpriestly and illegal : the accordance ^
with the Pentateuch, as to the carrying of the Ark, is here also
plainly enough brought out, and no more was required to show the
legaUty of the transaction. But certainly the narrative, which is so
brief, receives its proper explanation only by having recourse to the
Mosaic Law ; it is quite unintelUgible, if we put that out of view :
that which forms the proper central point of the narration, the dif
ference between the first unfortunate procession, and the second
one, which succeeded prosperously, then remains, quite inexplica
ble as to its cause.
David erects a tent for the Ark of the Covenant, and has two priests,
Zadok and Abiathar (vi. 1 7, vui. 17.). This account exactiy agrees
with the history, inasmuch as, after Eli's death, and the carrying
away of the Ark by the Philistines, it never returned to the Taber
nacle. Thus two High Priests were necessary. On this it appears
needful to remark, that the two High Priests were descended from
two different houses, the family of Eleazar and that of Ithamar, be
tween which there may very likely have existed a relation of rivalry.
This division of the sanctuary was certainly not according to the
law, but it owed its introduction to the circumstances which had
brought about such an urgent case ; and in particular, the peculiar
relations of the two priestly famiUes, by which the one had posses
sion of the dignity de facto, and the other dejure, must have con
tributed their share to it. But this condition of things can be ex
plained only by supposing the previous existence of the um'ty of
tbe sanctuary, and thence deducing the division, not vice versa.
1 See De Wette, Beitr; i. p. 244, ff.
as

886 TESTIMONIES TO THE PENTATEUCH
For otherwise why was not a new Ark constructed for the empty
Tabernacle ? Why did both the Tabernacle and the Ark, even
when separate, remain quite in their ancient condition ?
Ch. vii. contains a multitude of references to the Pentateuch.
Vers. 21 — 24 are expressions taken almost verbally from the Pen
tateuch ; comp. e. g. Deut. iv. 7, ff., xxi. 8. Even the words in
ver. 1 9, Qlt^n nTin ni^t' appear to involve such a reference ;
" this (to wit, the promise of God) is a law for men," i. e., a firm,
irreversible statute, as in the Pentateuch the formula ;-)T);-| Jit^f
"^'^Wtl' "^c-' ^^ ^° common.^ Tn viii. 4 we have a fulfilment of the
command Deut. xvii. 16, relating to the keeping of many horses by
the king. In xii. 9 the prophet Nathan says to David — " where
fore hast thou despised the word of Jehovah, in that thou hast
done what is evil in his sight" — likewise with a plain reference
to the law.2 In xi 4 there is an allusion to the law of purification
from concutitus, Levit. xv. ; and in xii. 6 a reference to Exod.
xxii. 1. In XV. 7, ff. we read of a vow of Absalom's, which he
paid in Hebron, and offered sacrifices on the occasion. This was
certainly an illegal procedure ; but, with regard to David's conduct
in the matter, it is sufficiently explained by the inviolable character
which the Law gave to a vow. In xv. 24, ff., we find the Ark borne
and accompanied by the priests and Levites ; a passage which also
throws light on 2 Sam. vi. and is in harmony with 1 Sam. vi. Tn
xix. 12, ff. we have the priests introduced, giving directions to the
people, and admonishing them to fidelity to their rightful ruler ;
and the people obey their voice. In xxii. 23, David says : " all
his judgments {Rechte, iJ^gtZJo) ^'^^ before me ; and as for his com
mandments (l^nipn)' I ^'^^ ^ot depart from them," (Ps. xviu. 23)
— where by a mode of expression derived from the usage of the
Pentateuch, as frequently elsewhere, the Mosaic legislation, and
that too as a whole (^5), is denoted. In xxiv. 18, ff,, David, at
the divine command, builds an altar on the floor of Araunah, and
there offers burnt-offerings and peace-offerings.
The book of Euth also, that we may bring it likewise forward
here, as belonging to the period which we have been reviewing,
contains several references to the Pentateuch. Thus the statement
1 Oomp. Schnurrer, Dissert. Philol. p. 263,
2 " Veibum Jehovts, legem divinam, quse adulterium et caedem vetat." Clericus.
8 Comp, Movers, iib. d, Chr, p. 272.

IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL. 387
respecting Euth's marriage presupposes the law of Levirate, Deut.
xxv. ; and the obligation mentioned in this book as incumbent on
the relative, who was not the brother-in-law of the widow, to marry
her, must have subsequentiy arisen out of that law. Euth iv. 11,
12, has a reference to Gen. xxix. 31, ff., xxxviu. 29.
What has been said supplies us with the following results as to
the history of the Pentateuch : — 1. In the first place, the books of
Judges and Samuel suppose the previous existence of the Penta
teuch ; for the frequent verbal citations from it, and the express
introduction of mention of the work, can be explained only by the
faOt, that the authors of these books were in possession of it as a
written document. These books consequently form no exception
in this respect to the rest of the sacred literature of the Hebrews.
But the object of these books, as well as the nature of the subject
they treat of, sufficiently explains the circumstance, that a refer
ence to the Pentateuch is not of such frequent occurrence in them,
as it is particularly in the books of Chronicles which were composed
with another object.
2. Although the condition of the nation after Joshua's death was
one of intemal distraction, yet we find a multitude of relations so
established, as admits of explanation only from the precedence of
an age like the Mosaic, and from a fixed rule which had been
handed down from that age. Were that supposition not sustained,
the degeneracy of the people must have been quite different from
what we find it to have been in the times of the Judges. An act
so great in a moral respect, as the union of the tribes for the |)un-
ishment of the crime of the Benjamites, supposes a high degree of
ethical consciousness, which is explained only by such a fact, as
the Mosaic legislation, viewed in its influence on the collective con
sciousness of the nation. It is only by a reference to the same
fact, that we can remove the enigmatical character that would
otherwise attach to the zeal of a Gideon, the hymn of a Deborah,
and the reformation of a Samuel. Along with the normal condi
tion there certainly occur irregularities, such as Samuel's mode of
procedure, and the separation of the Ark from the sanctuary ; —
but they are quite justified hy the extraordinary nature and urgency
of the circumstances which occasion them ; while their very occur-
Comp. Benary, De Hebraeorum leviratu, p. 19, sq. 2 B 2

388 TESTIMONIES TO THE PENTATEUCH
rence appears explicable only from the precedence of a higher con
dition, and only brings us back at last to that which is legal. The
idolatry ofthe nation, however, has its analogy even in the Mosaic
age. As it appears there, as the opposing element to the Law, as
the natural principle that is in opposition to the higher divine prin
ciple, so also it appears in the following age. But when we see a
man like Samuel, able in such circumstances to succeed in bringing
the whole of Israel to serve Jehovah alone (1 Sam. vii. 4) ; it sup
poses, both in him and in the people, such a knowledge of the
normal condition of things, as shews that they knew the theoreti
cal representation of that condition to be one that was properly
founded and developed.
3. The view of the opponents of the genuineness rests upon the
un-historical premise, which is in contradiction to the most express
testimonies of our narratives, that until the time of David there
was no national sanctuary in existence, nor was the ceremonial
law observed.-' All that is true in that supposition is, that the cere
monial law was applied in an imperfect manner. But the reason
of this also lies in the nature of the Mosaic institutions themselves.
The proper centre of the Mosaic establishment was the Tabernacle,
the sanctuary and the revelation of the divine glory in it. This
central point was merely a provisional one : in its designation and
form, it was adapted and intended only for the period of sojourn in
the wilderness. For the time when the land should be occupied,
there was appointed in the Law itself " the place which Jehovah
should choose ;'' but the condition absolutely required for this, was
the occupation of the land and its purification from aU idolatry.
The non-fulfilment of this condition through the sin of the people^
gave rise likewise to a provisional and unusual state of the Theo
cracy,^ until it was fulfilled, and the divine promise fulfilled along
with it ; which state of things again must objectively have had an
injurious influence on the observance and general maintenance of
the Law. Not till David's time, who expelled the Jebusites, was
there a beginning made of a fulfilment of the divine command, and
a way opened for the proper theocratic central-point of the nation
(2 Sam. xxiv.) ; and by the building of the Temple the foundation
1 Comp. De Wette, Beitr. i. p. 254, ff.
2 Hence it is said also in 1 Kings iii. 2, that the people sacrificed iu the high places
in the time of Solomon, because there was as yet no Temple built.

IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL. 389
was laid of a better ordered state of things in the nation, in a moral
and religious respect. Thus then it is clear, for instance, that the
very celebration of the feasts, which were connected with a particu
lar sanctuary, supposes special regulations of life in the Theocracy.
It is true that here also we meet with feasts, in particular the ob
servance of the New Moons, and probably also the'feast of Taber
nacles ;'¦ but it is both probable in itself, and is also confirmed by
express testimonies,^ that this observance was very irregular and far
from being exactly according to the arrangements of the Law. Thus
the one thing here introduced the other, and they exercised a mutual
influence on one another. The neglecting to effect the extirpation
of the Canaanites prevented the complete severance of the Theocracy
and Idolatry : the non-fulfilment from this cause of the Lord's pur
pose, to give the people a common fixed sanctuary, which was itself
a consequence of the unfaithfulness and sin of Israel, brought out
those evils again, and thus the state of the people in a theo
cratic respect, and of their position towards the Law, was constantly
a provisional one.
4. The description which is given us of the condition of the
people in the documents of the post-Mosaic period that relate to
that subject, bears a reference throughout to the Pentateuch. The
book of Judges, for instancCj at once regards the aberration of the
people as a forsaking of Jehovah and his commandments, and a
tuming aside after Baal, &c. The opponents lay stress upon the
retrogradation,' that must have been made by the people in this
period, as compared with the Mosaic ; going on the supposition, in
the first place, that the whole of the Mosaic Law, in case it is really
regarded as deserving that name, must be traced to the national
spirit and life of that age, while these were just in opposition to the
Law even in the time of Moses. In the next place, there is just
as little attention paid to the return of the people to a better state,
which took place under Samuel ; while this very fact supposes the
existence of an objective rule, as a foundation for reformations of
that kind. But what we have principally to remark, is, that the asser
tion of the opponents is in contradiction to the history of the post-
1 Comp. 1 Sam. xx. 5, 19. Judg. xx, 21, George, Jud. Feste, p. 150. That ih is
used to denote this feast principally, is acknowledged also by Gesenius, Jes, i, p, 878,
2 See 2 Kings xxiii, 22 (2 Chron, xxxv, 18) ; Nehem. viii. 17.
3 Comp. Vatke, Bib. Th. i, p. 252, ff.

390 TESTIMONIES TO THE PENTATEUCH
Mosaic period in general as deUvered to us. This historical account
also must be viewed, according to the admission of the opponents
themselves, as pervaded by a Mosaic spirit, and — must have been
disfigured. The attack therefore must be directed, not only against
the author of the Pentateuch, but also against the authors of the
Books of Judges and Samuel ; but these were unable to conceive
of their own times otherwise than as marked by a declension,
as compared with the Mosaic age. And this very conclusion, to
which that criticism is driven, involves its own destruction : it is
compelled to declare war on all historical documents ; it has not
a single positive testimony to adduce in its own favour.^

§ 34. CONTINUATION, THE AGE OF SOLOMON ACCORDING TO THE
BOOKS OF KINGS.
An important testimony to the existence of the Pentateuch is
found in 1 Kings ii. 3, where David on his death-bed admonishes
his son and successor " to keep Jehovah's statutes, and his com
mandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written
in the Law of Moses." But here too the criticism of our opponents
immediately comes forward with the assertion, that this passage
proves nothing as to the Pentateuch ¦? for, 1 . " the discourse can
not be literally true, as appears also from ver. 4, where the stamp
of a later age is found in the tone of sympathy with Messianic ex
pectations." But as relates to the late Messianic expectations, not
only is that a mere supposition, but ver. 4 also refers to 2 Sam. vii..
and cannot therefore be assailed on critical grounds. On the other
hand, De Wette himself declares, vers. 5 — 9, and therefore the
greater portion of the discourse to be " not the work of invention ;"
as indeed it cannot well be otherwise, considering the historical re-
1 This admission is brought out by Vatke in a particularly naive manner. " It cannot
be enough lamented (says he, p. 390), that tradition has preserved to us no literary
work, written from the standing-point of the worship of Nature." Then the excuse that
is adduced for this, is, that " the spirit of the times subsequent to the Exile was not fa
vourable to the preservation of such works." But that being the case, we have then no
authentic annals at all, and the criticism of the opponents of the genuineness has no sort
of objective justification, grounded ou documents.
2 Comp. particularly De Wette, Beitr. i. p. 159, ff.

IN THE AGE OF SOLOMON. 391
ference in ii. 29, ff.^ Thus the only part of the discourse that wouM
remain charged with being invented, would be ver. 3. But ver. 8
is not less closely connected with ver. 4, than ver. 4 is with ver. 5,
so that the whole discourse, from its structure, does not admit of
such a violent division. Such a procedure is also opposed by the
character for faithfulness in the use ofhis sources, which the author
of the book otherwise has ; and in the case of so important a dis
course, as that here, we cannot reconcile it with the character of
" even the most honest historian," as De Wette thinks we may, " to
embellish a little.'' In short, the reasoning referred to, amounts to
the uncritical remark, that that verse must be spurious, because it
contains a citation of the Pentateuch.
2. But it is also said, that the citation itself does not so much as
prove that the whole of the Pentateuch is intended : De Wette
maintains, that we may understand by the expressions here, merely
the foundation of the Law, the Ten Commandments. This argu
ment is contradictory of the first. For if ver. 3 is the work of the
collector of the Pentateuch, as De Wette will have it, then there
can be no doubt that by these appellations he meant the Pentateuch
itself for this very reason, that it is under those different appellations
that the Pentateuch communicates its laws and institutions, and
thus it is that it designates itself^ And so David also did, if he
deUvered this discourse to Solomon. Otherwise the repeated de
signations given to the Law would be inexpUcable. The author
intends by these to designate every thing then extant of that kind,
in fact that whole [or totality], which was then known by the de
finite name ntiJD JTTIjI- Consequently, it cannot be shown that
these refer to any thing else than our Pentateuch, and proof to that
effect would require to be adduced by our opponents ; since we know
only one such book, to which that appellation would be applicable.
3. Finally, the remark is also made, that until the time of David
no trace of our Pentateuch can be pointed out as an existing work.
But apart from the untenableness of this opinion, as already de
monstrated, we have a testimony which is a most convincing con
futation of it, in the passage 2 Sam. xxii. 23, adduced in § 33
where David introduces the Law in a manner perfectly analagous.
Now modern criticism has not ventured to impugn ihe genuine-
1 See also Bertholdt, Einl. p. 762.
2 Comp. c, g. Gen, xxvi, 5 ; Deut. v. 28, viii, 11.

392 TESTIMONIES TO THE PENTATEUCH
ness of that Davidic song/ and thus has tied its own hands as to
the present passage. So the one testimony here affords the most
conspicuous confirmation of the other.
But in the course of this history also, there is no lack of allusions
to the Pentateuch, which agree exactly with the passage just
quoted. Tn ch. vi. 12, God appears to Solomon and promises
him, to perform his word in reference to the new Temple, " if thou
wilt walk in my statutes (ij-|1pn)> ^^^ execute my judgments
(^tODttJD)' ^^^ keeT^ all my commandments" (iJllSJi-bs)- ^^^
analogy of the expressions allows us here to think only of what the
author had previously named as " the Law of Moses." Tn ch. viii.
9 mention is made of the Ark of the Covenant ; and, with a mani
fest reference to the Pentateuch, the author remarks that there was
nothing in it but the tables of stone, which Moses delivered to the
people at Horeb (comp. Gen Introd. § 6 ). What led him, how
ever, to make this remark ? Evidently to point out the identity of
this Ark with the Mosaic one, as the most essential part of the
whole ritual. For it is just in this way that he also describes in
vers. 10, 11, the revelation of the divine glory in the same words
as occur in Exod. xl. 34, 35, with a manifest allusion to that pas
sage. But shall we suppose that he was ignorant, that the Law
was deposited before the Ark ? He certainly gives too good evi
dence of his acquaintance with the Law, to charge him with such
ignorance. But is this at all the place, where we must expect, as
a matter of inevitable necessity, that mention should be made of
the Torah ? By no means ; for all that the writer has chiefly to
do with, is the description of the divine glory, which was connected
with the Ark, not with the Torah. And why may not the Torah
be understood as included among all the " holy vessels ' which
were brought out of the old Tabemacle into the new Temple (vui.
4.) ?^ But whether that was the case or not, we may certainly re
gard the argumentum a silentio as being here particularly unfor
tunate. The whole preceding description of the Temple, however,
1 Comp. e. 3. De Wette, Psalms, p, 179, 4th German edition. Hitzig, on the Psalms,
ii. p, 21, ff. Ewald, Psalms, p. 52, ff,, et al,
2 This indeed is disputed by De Wette, i.* p. 166, but only on the ground that i^3
(ijipri denotes articles for sacred use ; but was not the object for which Moses deposited
the Law in that place, a sacred use of it ? Was not the Law appointed for the sacred pur
pose of delivering a testimony in honour of God before all the people, and either for or
against them ?

IN THE AGE OF SOLOMON. 393
presupposes that of the Tabernacle in the Pentateuch ;j for it is
only thus that we can explain what is defective in the delineation,
as well as its pecuUarity, since it manifestly gives prominence to
what was new and diverse in the Temple of Solomon, as compared
with the Tabernacle. But we have also still more definite and ex
press references to the Pentateuch. Tn ch. viii, 12 Solomon de
clares, that " the Lord said that he would dwell in the thick dark
ness." This is a clear citation of God's expressions in the Penta
teuch, in which he declares the fact of his dwelUng in the cloud ;
comp. particularly Exod. xx. 18 ; Levit. xvi. 2. Solomon, in his
speech to the people, considers the Temple as the place for the
Ark of the Covenant, " wherein is the Covenant of the Lord,
which he made with our Fathers, when he brought them out
of the land of Egypt " (viii. 21, comp. Exod. xxi. 13 ; xxv.
16.). He describes the object of the Temple, which was the ex
piation of the sins of each individual as well as of the nation,
quite in the words of the Pentateuch; comp. viu. 31, ff., with
Lev. V. 1, ff. ; xxvi, 17; Deut. xxviii. 25; xi. 17, et al. In
short, the whole of this discourse is tp be read and to be ex
plained only with the constant aid of the Pentateuch ; even as
the king expressly appeals to it, " as thou spakest by the hand of
Moses thy servant," viii. 53, comp. Ex. xix. 5. There has not
failed one word of all the precious words which the Lord spake by
his servant Moses — it is said vui. 56 ; and even as faith in the di
vine promises of the Pentateuch here receives confirmation, so does
the same king also give an impressive admonition to abide by the
statutes of Jehovah, and to keep his commandments (viii. 61.).
Tn short, it requires the greatest degree of blindness not to recog
nize the fact, that this discourse presupposes the existence of the
Pentateuch, as much as the book of Joshua and the Chronicles do.
The author, in seeking to give an account of the origin of Solo
mon's idolatry, knew not how he could do it in another or a better
way, than by going back directly to the Law, and tracing the king's
idolatrous conduct to his violation of the prohibition of marriages
with the Canaanitish women (xi. 2, ff.). This circumstance, how
ever, has also another important bearing on the Pentateuch. Tt
shews in the case of an individual what we so frequently see realized
1 As even Gramberg, Gesch. d, Rel. Id, i, p, 60,is obliged to acknowledge.
o

394 TESTIMONIES TO THE PENTATEUCH IN THE AGE OF SOLOMON.
in the history of the nation, and which is here of particular im
portance with reference to the relation of the period of the Judges
to the preceding period ; namely, the quick transition from the wor
ship of Jehovah to an apostacy from him. We are indeed able in,
this case to perceive also, even in the previous life and character of
Solomon, the traces of such an incUnation ; and to note the con
currence of several circumstances, such as his love of pomp, his
striving after external splendour, and so forth, which form the point
of connection with the actual apostacy into which he subsequently
fell. But the same thing is also true of the history of Israel as a
whole ; and as that history constantly exhibits the incitement to
apostacy, springing from external things, so in it, as well as in So
lomon's case, we shall succeed in combining all that is required for
a true understanding of the history, only by having recourse to the
internal aspect of the matter, — the natural lust of the mind, which
is directed, not to Jehovah, but to that which lies away from him,
— and from that point of view apprehending the whole as effect and
counter- effect."^
Eeferences to the Law in matters oifact are not wanting in this
period. We hardly require to advert to the sacrifices which are
here constantly designated according to the Mosaic mode. We
shall mention only the feasts. In 1 Kings viii. 2, the feast that
was kept on the occasion of the dedication ofthe Temple, is spoken
of; it is called " the feast of the seventh month," subsequently
simply " the feast" (^nH' ^"i* 65) ; and we are thus necessarily
led, especially considering the mention of its being kept for seven
days, to regard it as the feast of Tabernacles, which fell in that
month, and was kept just so many days. Even if the Chronicler
did not expressly indicate as much (2 Chron. vii. 8, ff.), we should
necessarily adopt that view.^ But how comes it that the author
1 In connection with this it deserves attention also, that the idolatry which Solomon
permitted his wives to practise appears to have been quite undefined, and not to have
received any kind of limited form from him. " Thus he did for all his foreign wives"—
it is said 1 Kings xi. 8. This then necessarily supposes a certain religious view, which
was connected syncretistically with these different kinds of worship, and endeavoured to
harmonise them with itself; aud hence leads to the conclusion of a proper idolatry in
Solomon's own case. So much at the same time in confutation of Vatke, p. 361 ff.
2 Comp. Movers, 1. cit. p. 223. Even George admits, that the author of the book of
Kings certainly held the view that it was the feast of Tabernacles ; but to get out of the
dilemma, he declares the aha, viii. 2, to be — not genuine (1. cit. pp. 156, 157.). This
however, is of little advantage him ; for then viii. 65 must also be spurious.

TESTIMONIES FROM THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO SOLOMON. 395
here throughout says nothing of any kind of new institution by So
lomon, and that he presupposes that his readers are quite well
acquainted with the feast ? The presupposition that is here made
can decide only in favour of the Pentateuch. In ch. ix. 25, it is
said that Solomon kept great sacrificial feasts three times in the
year. This was natural, for so the Law commanded, Ex. xxiii.
17. Here too the author could not have expressed himself so, had
it not been that every member of the Theocracy knew, or might
know, that the reference here was to the three principal feasts.^
Thus, even looking merely at that one of our historical sources,
which has not for the subject of its representation at all religious
worship and the inward theocratic life ; it can be satisfactorily
shewn that the Pentateuch existed in the age of Solomon.

§ 35. TESTIMONIES TO THE PENTATEUCH FROM THE PERIOD
SUBSEQUENT TO SOLOMON.
While, in the age of David and Solomon, we meet with a newly
awakened life in the Theocracy, which had been produced by Sa
muel's reforms, developing itself and advancing vigorously under
the pious government of David, — a government that adhered with
exclusive strictness to the service of Jehovah, — and finding in the
Temple of Solomon its principal outward point of support ; yet even
already under Solomon, the transition to a more corrupt condi
tion must have had the way prepared for it by his syncretistie
courses. Already in his time we observe that pliability, that false
universalist tendency, which, while it tolerates falsehood and sin, is
disposed to forgive the truth nothing, and thus identifies it with
the former. Since political views and the love of external show
were perhaps the primary occasions of marriage with foreign
women, it cannot he said that there was exactly involved in that an
incUnation to idolatry, but only a violation of the Law, in practising
which one may perhaps have thought to avoid the consequence in
dicated by the Law, namely the worship of false gods (Deut. vii, 3,
1 Even George admits that there is here a manifest reference observable to the three
great feasts, prescribed in Deuteronomy (p. 159.). But he represents the matter as if
Solomon had instituted this religious observance. For the first time, does he mean ?
That can hardly be shewn from the text.

396 TESTIMONIES FROM THE
4), but was driven, however, by this first step, and the carnal secu
rity accompanying it, to that consequence. But what we here find
only in the bud, comes out with far greater strength after Solomon's
time. The greater part of the people then lose the Temple, the
centre of their religious worship. The division of the nation into
two kingdoms, which was itself the consequence of sin, gives rise on
its part to new sins.
It is an interesting question, what relation the new kingdom of
Israel now held to the national worship, and what was its religious
theocratic positiop in reference to the kingdom of Judah. As,
even in Solomon's time, th* syncretistie tendency which we re
marked supposes a certain prevalent religious consciousness,^ and
an objective rule, which the subjective consciousness endeavoured
to equalize and bring into harmony with foreign elements ; it is all
the more the case in the present instance, since the difficulty en
countered in constituting the kingdom of Israel a theocratic state,
almost inevitably led to that endeavour. The new institutions
of Jeroboam the First (1 Kings xii. 25, ff.) are of the greatest
importance in reference to this question. This king rebuilds
Sichem and Penuel, and raises the former city to the rank of his
residence. What can have been his motive for conferring distinc
tion in this way just at once on those cities ? The history of the
Pentateuch shows us a multitude of sacred reminiscences which were
connected with them. These at once make Jeroboam's procedure
perfectly intelligible to us. That such was the true motive, is stiU
more plainly seen from what follows. The people had been accus
tomed to go to Jerusalem to present their sacrifices in the house of
the Lord ; but the king considers these journeys as favourable to
the dominion of the house of David,^ and on that account seeks to
prevent them. He erects two golden calves at Bethel and Dan.
The very choice of the former of these places — (the second was
chosen, perhaps, because of the disloyal worship of God, which had
been established there in the times of the Judges, Judg. xvui.) —
and still more, the words he employs, 1 Kings xii. 28, which ex
actly agree with those of Aaron, Ex. xxxii. 4 ; as well as the whole
1 [By co7isciousness here and elsewhere is meant, a class of views and feelings.— Tn.]
2 In the same way as the Caliph Valid Abdulmelek regarded the pilgrimages to Mecca
as tending to injure the dynasty ofthe Ommiades, and on that account sought to en
courage the pilgrimage to Jerusalem : Abulfeda, Tab. Syr. pp. 10, 11, Kbhler.

PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO SOLOMON. 397
mode of the formation and institution of that worship, evidence a
careful endeavour after a connection with the Pentateuch.^ The
king evidently sought by this appeal to the example of Aaron to
free the innovation from the appearance of being such, and there
fore to restore that figurative representation of Jehovah under the
symbol of the religion of Nature, which had been set up before in
the wildemess. Jeroboam's residence in Egypt, which has been
commonly given as the reason of this measure, is not sufficient to
account for it ; as it does not explain how the expedient adopted
met with such an accordant reception from the people ( 1 Kings xii.
30,). We might suppose that something else would have had a
much more imposing effect upon them ; but the old custom, with
the appeal to the expression of the first High Priest, was indisput
ably the most effective means, powerfully to strengthen the inclina
tion, for which even Solomon's time had proved preparative, to bring
down the worship of Jehovah to the same level with that of heathen
religions. Jeroboam regards as necessary, not only a sanctuary,
but also priests expressly appointed to their office ; and as the tribe
of Levi had forsaken the kingdom of Israel, he saw himself com
pelled to nominate others (vers. 31, 32, xiii. 33.). Here we are
al?o necessitated to explain the conduct of the Levites, the surrender
of their whole existence, and their taking no part in Jeroboam's
system of worship, solely from the influence of the Pentateuch, and
the recognition of it as a Law of inviolable sacredness. Tt may
be said, indeed, that the preceding period still exerted this bene
ficial influence, as a subsequent effect ; but this can never be pro
posed as being the chief or only cause, since that age showed itself
to be in no sort the epoch of original appointment and regulation,
but only of restoration. Besides, were we to regard mere usage or
introduced custom, as the principle which guided and determined
the Levites on this occasion, it would be impossible to explain how
such a motive, when it came into the most decided conflict with
their own interest, controlled that feeling in so general a manner ;
a far more powerful lever, and a more decisive authority was de
manded for that. Neither is it possible in this way to account for
Jeroboam's conduct, in his adherence to the worship of Jehovah,
and the peculiar kind of form that he gave to it. Since the king
1 Comp. Bochart, Hieroz. i, p. 367, sq.

398 TESTIMONIES FROM THE
must have thought it to be a matter of the utmost importance, to
effect as decided a separation of Israel from Judah as possible, one
cannot see why he should not have at once'broken in pieces the bur
densome fetters; while, on the contrary, he expressly acknow
ledges the legal propriety of going to Jerusalem to present sacri
fices, and is manifestiy puzzled as to how he should give, not
merely this custom, but this command, a tum more favourable to
his own interest (1 Kings xU. 27, 28.). Farther, an institution
also of Jeroboam's speaks in support of this. He instituted " a
feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the same, like
to the feast which was in Judah," (ver. 32.). The king must then
have had a reason for regarding the celebration of the feast in
Judah, as foriiiing a rule for his own feast,i and for only venturing
to order the slight alteration with reference to the time of the ob
servance of the feast of Tabernacles ; for which the circumstance,
that in the northem part of Palestine the harvest is later than in
the southern districts, might furnish a welcome pretext. " Eo oon-
silio omnia, ut substantiam quidem et corpus quasi religionis com
mune cum Judeeis Israelitse retinerent, ne riimia novatione animi
turbarentur; in circumstantiis tamen notabilis esset diversitas, quee
utriusque regni populos, quod optandum Jeroboamo erat, magis
magisque a se invicem alienaret."2
Although the institutions of Jeroboam thus deviate from those
of the Pentateuch, and stand in opposition to it, yet they are proofs
ofthe existence ofthe original, just because they form the caricature
of it. Had it been possible to overthrow the binding force and autho
rity of the Pentateuch, this was certainly a period that was quite
adapted to effect that ; but an adherence to it was the only sup
port that the apostate kingdom could gain for itself The rulers
of Israel knew this so well, that they all, with the easily explained
exception of Ahab and his family, held fast by this support, though
1 As here lies that point of the history, that is most decisive as to the Pentateuch, it
is to no purpose for George, 1. cit. p. 160, to lay stress on the notion, that it was only
in the opinion of the narrator that the alteration was an illegal proceeding.
2 Witsius, ./Egyptiaca, p. 316. That the Pentateuch was followed iu other parts like
wise of the religions worship of the kingdom of Israel, and that the attempt was made to
accommodate one's self to it, at least as far as possible, is shown also by such passages
as 1 Kings xviii. 29 ; 2 Kings iii. 20, iv. 23, which prove the presentation of the daily
sacrifice, and the observance of the Sabbath, and of the New Moons. Evenunderthe
reign of an Ahab, the law is adduced (Lev. xxiv. 10, ff.), by which blasphemy was punished
with stoning, 1 Kings xxi. IS.

PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO SOLOMON, 399
transformed and modelled indeed after their own fashion. How
can it be explained that the zeal of a Jehu, when destroying the
worship of Baal, was directed unsparingly against the adherents
of that idolatry, but yet at the same time retained Jeroboam's
system of worship (2 Kings x, 29, 31,) ? He discerned what
was injurious, on both sides : on the one side, the declension
of the popular mind into a purely heathen element, and their
consequently ceasing to be Jehovah's covenant-people; but on
the other hand, according to the views of that pohcy, every true
and decisive reform must have appeared detrimental to the con
tinued independent existence of the kingdom of Israel. There
remained therefore only the perverted middle way, by which,
avoiding both disadvantages, one believed himself sure of the ad
vantage of being the covenant-people, Jehovah's peculiar posses
sion, though not in the sense of that strictness which marked the
ancient legislation, but in a way which reconciled things wholly
opposed to one another. To halt between two opinions, and to
commingle Jehovah and Baal — the method adopted in all similar
periods, was that which human perversity followed on this occasion
too. What expedient was hit upon throughout to give a fair ap
pearance to this procedure, we have not been informed : Scripture
represents this evasion also of the divine commands, according to
its plain and simple meaning, as being an apostacy from them and
their author. It is undeniable, however, that this procedure pre
supposes the acknowledgment and the possession of the Penta
teuch : the abuse here bears witness to the existence of the Law.
It is only if one will dare, in contempt of all historical truth, to
maintain the gross assertion, that " in general the spirit of older
times was preserved in Israel, which even in the age of David
formed the prevalent state of feeling ;" it is only on that view, we
say, that no retrogression can be affirmed, as compared with that
past period ; and then it follows, that the view taken by all the He
brew historians is pervaded by the grossest spirit of falsehood.
Whoever, from aversion to such distortions of history, goes here
into an unprejudiced examination of the matter, will not fail to
remark the obvious disappearance of a better antecedent age in
Israel ; for, being once drawn into the way of destruction, it
1 Comp. 1 Kings xviii. 21 ; Hos. ii. 16. Hengstcnberg, Christol. 3, p. 8, ff.
3 Vatke, 1. c. p. 393,

400 TESTIMONIES FROM THE
is urged onwards without stop to the abyss of ruin. But if such
a declension is manifestly to be acknowledged, then, where a halt
is thus made half way, the restraining principle must be pointed
out, which throughout so long a period prevented a complete apos
tacy, and produced in some measure a balance ; while it even gave
rise to energetic attempts at reformation in the midst of this career,
and hindered it from assuming a more decided character.
If now in addition to these considerations we also take into ac
count the fact, that even in the times of Elijah a considerable num
ber of such men still remained in the nation, who took no part in
idolatry, and that too at a time when certainly there were connected
with such a participation, not less important external advantages
than in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes (comp. 1 Kings xix. 18) ;
we are led to adopt the conclusion of a like ground of explanation
for this fidelity to Jehovah. But in connection with this, the agency
of the Prophets in the kingdom of Israel comes particularly under
consideration. As matters stood there, they must necessarily have
been able to appeal for themselves to an objective right, and it must
have been by a legal appointment that they enjoyed such an autho
rity, as left no man at liberty to make any opposition to their burn
ing zeal, but made him feel weak and powerless against it. Yet
none of those apostate rulers dared to lay hands on these men of
God, except when the purely heathen element had gained so decided
a preponderance, as in Ahab's reign ! And yet their number was
so considerable, that it may justly be said, that what this kingdom
had lost as to priests and lawful worship, must have been supplied
through divine Providence by Prophets, so that the name of the
Lord should not be completely forgotten, nor a testimony be want
ing in honour of Him.^ Thus they at once come forward, at the
institution of the new mode of worship, in opposition to it, and call
down a woe on Jeroboam and his deeds (1 Kings xiii. 1, ff.). Their
1 This also shews the right which EUjah had to offer the sacrifice, of which we have
an account in 1 Kings xviii. : an act which has frequently been regarded as anti- Mo
saic. For apart from the fact, that what is there mentioned has properly nothing at all
to do with any of the sacrifices prescribed in the Law of Moses, as the transaction is
qnite a peculiar and uncommon one ; it must also be remembered that there were no
lawful priests left in the kingdom of Israel to perform the sacred rite. Thus here at
any rate was a case of necessity, in which Elijah had certainly a far greater right to
shew for himself, than those unlawful priests. On the other hand, in 1 Kings xix. 21,
there is no sacrifice spoken of at all, and nothing but want of understanding would lead
one to think of such a thing there. (Gramberg, Gesch. d, R, Id. i. p, 149.)

PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO SOLOMON. 401
dignity is so great, that Jehu, when anointed by them, is immedi
ately acknowledged as the rightful kit^g of Israel (2 Kings ix.).
But we have the most special positive proofs of the introduction
and recognition of the Pentateuch in the kingdom of Israel, in those
discourses ofthe prophets of this country which have been preserved
to us. The prophet Ahijah, under Jeroboam the First, testifies
that because the king had not obeyed the commandments of Je
hovah, he should fall into misfortune (comp. 1 Kings xiv. 8, ff.,
where there is a plain allusion to Deut. vi. 5.). So EUjah also
says to Ahab, that he has forsaken the commandments of Jehovah
and gone after Baalim (1 Kings xviii. 18.). Thus the prophets
themselves point out to us the rule, according to which they fear
lessly rebuked the sins of their contemporaries, and justified their
rigorous conduct. This appears still more plainly from the dis
courses of Hosea and Amos, who are of particular importance here
as prophets of Israel, since their longer discourses present us with
a more complete picture of the labours of the prophets and their
objective foundation (vid. on that subject § 36.).
If we turn now to the kingdom of Judah, we shall find there
another condition of things, which will also lead us, however, to the
same conclusion. Tt need not surprise us, that we should here
discover at once the traces and subsequent effects, in a religious re
spect, of the reign of Solomon stiU remaining. The foreign influ
ence still continues (1 Kings xiv. 21, ff.), and along with that also
the introduction of heathen customs, especially of the voluptuous
rites of anterior- Asia, the removal of which by Asa first favours
the renewed development of a better life (xv. 13.).
It is a remarkable circumstance here, that all the kings of Judah,
even those who were most theocraticaUy disposed, failed to go far
ther in the extirpation of idolatry, than the destruction of the wor
ship of idols and images, while the high places still remained. Heze
kiah was the first who succeeded in putting an end to these also.
This circumstance deserves a more particular examination. The
first thing in it that surprises us is, that such sacred high places did
indeed exist in the period before the building of the Temple as well,
but were not then regarded as objects connected with idolatry, or
even leading to it. On the contrary, this mode of worship appears
at that time to have been as widely spread as it was innoxious,^
1 Comp. c. g., 1 Sam, ix, 16 ; 2 S^m. xv, 32 ; 1 Kings iji 2
8 0

402 TESTIMONIES FROM TIIE
This condition is sufficiently explained by the general exigency
which prevailed at that time with regard to the Sanctuary. So long
as the Tabernacle was a moveable sanctuary, and the Ark of the
Covenant, and the sacred tent, were separated from each other, while
every national assembly was held, either by conveying the former
to it, or by meeting before the latter ; the offering of sacrifices, &c.,
could be performed only at different places, which must in that
way have received, especially when they were Levitical cities, a cha
racter of peculiar sacredness in the eyes of the people. Now
although the institution regarding the unity ofthe Sanctuary, com
manded in the Law and only deferred, had done away with that
provisional state of things ; yet the mind of the people had become
too much accustomed to it, remembrance was too closely linked
with those sacred places of antiquity, and the strict enforcement of
the new institution in its entire consistency was too much at variance
with the convenience and interest of many, to make it possible to re
solve on an entire abolition of that earlier mode which the Sanc
tuary had superseded. It is therefore quite false, what moderns
have often repeated, and Geseniusi agrees in asserting, that the
choice, consecration, and importance of those national sanctuaries
appear to reach back to a period, and to have been established,
when the worship of Jehovah and Polytheism as yet existed together.
This cannot at all be thought of as having been the case in the
period of Samuel. On the contrary, those places were originally
consecrated to the worship of Jehovah exclusively ; but the Law
prohibited them, as they threatened great danger to strict Mono
theism (because they were prejudicial, to the idea of the living
God, as revealing himself in a certain concrete unity) ; and as,
especially because of the similar custom of the neighbouring hea
then nations, they were easily turned aside to an idolatrous use, as
was also actually the case in later times. Hence, after the erection of
the Temple, that strictviewof the case which was founded on the Law
required to be introduced altogether, and we find it everywhere pre-
vaiUng in the books of Kings,
While there was then this essential distinction between the wor
ship of the high places, and that image-worship which was practised
in the kingdom of Israel ; we must also regard the attempts at re-
1 Preface to Gramberg's Gesch, d. Rel. Id. i., p. xvii.
/* Vifi. Gesenius, 1. c. p, xv. Thes. L, Heb, i,, p, 188.

PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO SOLOMON. 403
formation, undertaken by pious kings, even when they were not
successful in abolishing the irregularity referred to, as still giving
the kingdom of Judah a great pre-eminence above its related
neighbour-state. But we may here affirm even more than this. It
is quite a false assertion,^ that the religious worship connected with
the high places was not held to he wrong. The contrary is shown
by the efforts of Asa, Jehoshaphat, and Joash, aU of whom had the
intention of remedying the evil, but were not able to carry that in
tention into effect.^ Now this circumstance cannot be explained,
without admitting the existence of the Levitical Law, which strictly
prohibited the high places (Lev. xxvi, 30, Deut. xu.). An ancient
hallowed custom, which in appearance at least was sanctioned by the
consideration due to distinguished men of God, and which besides
must have been so closely accordant with natural views and feel
ings, as this was ; could be assailed, or abolished, only by such a
preponderating authority, as irresistibly demoUshed all doubts and
subterfuges. But there are other facts also by which we can show that, the
Pentateuch was in existence in this period. We refer in the first
place to the reign of Joash, which is particularly deserving of note
in this respect. Everything here appears mainly pervaded by the
Levitical spirit, and inexplicable apart from the existence of a
Mosaic code. The priests are instructors, even instructors of the
king (2 Kings xii. 3) ; the Levites keep watch and ward at the
Sanctuary (xi. 6, xu. 10,).^ The Sabbath is mentioned, and in
such a way, that the exact observance of the law respecting it may
be recognized; for the plan of enthroning the young king is car
ried into effect on that day, when such a thing was least ex
pected, and opportunity was given for precautions.* Ch. xii. 5
pre-supposes the laws respecting the revenues of the priests (p|03
D'^tZjIpn)' ii^ ^ ^^y remarkably accordant with the Pentateuch.
That money, to wit, is here classified in a threefold manner.s First,
as the money of those who were numbered in the census, according
1 See De Wette, Beitr. i. p. 256.
2 Comp, Keil, iib. d Chronik, p, 290,
8 Oomp, Keil, 1. c. p. 365, ff,
4 Gramberg, 1. c, i. p. 303, draws indeed an opposite conclusion from the passage ; with
the same justice as one might perchance deduce the same from 1 Macct ix.43, ff.
5 So the passage is correctly understood by Abarbanel, Vatablus, and other older ex
positors,
2 C 2

404 TESTIMONIES FROM THE
to Ex. xxx, 12, ff.^ Next, as the money of the valuation of every
soul, according to Levit. xxvii. with which also the expression ex
actly agrees. Lastiy, as free-will gifts ; a circumstance which is so
far of importance as it supposes that the interest felt in the Temple,
the worship, and the priests, was by no means cool and inconsider
able. In xn. 17 mention is made, not only of the sin-offerings
and trespass- offerings, but there is also a special statement of the
money to be given for them,^ which was to go to the priests. — But
ch, xi. 12 comes principally under consideration here. The High
Priest, it is said, delivered to the young king the diadem and
j-I'l^j^pf. There is here an unmistakeable reference to the Law in
Deut. xvii, 18 — 20, But the question is proposed, what it was
that, according to that Law, was to be deUvered to the king. The
connection in Deuteronomy shews, that it is the whole Pentateuch
that is spoken of For, in the first place, the preceding law
relating to the king is not spoken of as a proper Torah^ (iT^in
jlpj^, as Ex. xii. 49) ; secondly, the words, " he shall read in it
aU the days of his life," evidently point to a larger work, which is
also indicated by the expressions, " all the words of this Law, and
these statutes" (comp. Deut, xxviii, 58), as weU as by the circum
stance that the Torah of the king should be a copy of the book
which the Levites had ("^QO bj^)- Then too the expression
rmj^rT' ^^^ (weU-known) testimony, is plain; for the Law in ge
neral was designated as XT^ 'V' ^^' ^^^- ^" That the Pentateuch
is here intended, is made still more plain by the sequel of the
narrative. The covenant- relation which the Priest had here re-
1 This money was so much the more required, as it was precisely what was appointed
to be given to the building of the Sanctuary, according to the Mosaic institution, Ex.
xxx. 16. With this 2 Chron, xxiv. 9 also exactly agrees. Comp. J. D. Michaelis, De
Censibus Heb. § 2. —The explanation is quite false, and also philologically inadmis
sible, by which -laW r|OS is rendered, " current.money !' which must necessarily be ex
pressed tvh laiy, Gen. xxiii. 16; for the passages Cant. v. 5, 13 do not relate to this.
But, on the other hand, the expression laW here is quite intelligible from the context,
and because of the law, which is pre-supposed as 'known.
2 Mention is made of this in Lev. v. 16, Amends had to be made for the harm
that had been done in the holy thing, and the fifth part had to be added to it; which be
longed to the priest. On the other hand. Lev. v, 15 is of doubtful interpretation, see
Clericus in loc. Gramberg, however (1. c. p. 151;, has so little knowledge of the former
passage, that he concludes from the present passage, that the sin and trespass-offerings
were at that time ouly money offerings, not offerings in cattle — and he then calls that
non-Mosaic !
3 Comp, respecting this usus loquendi, Herbst, I, cit, p, 29, sq.

PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO SOLOMON.

405

newed between Jehovah, the king, and the people, ver. 17, ff., has
a manifest reference to the first covenant- relation, as established
by Moses, Exod. xix. and xxiv., and the words Qy'^ ]TT>(17
nin''^ expressly point to it (comp. Deut. iv. 20, xxvii. 9.). From
this it is likewise seen how, on all occasions when the distress of
the times and the influence of the better class of the nation made
themselves felt, the people in returning to the Lord knew no other
ground for so doing than that of the divine Law. The difficulty
in which our opponents find themselves is, finally, the best testi
mony here that can be given to the sole admissibility of our
opinion. 2
In 2 Kings xiv. 6, it is said of Amaziah that he did not put the
children of those who murdered his father to death, according to
the enactment of the Law, Deut. xxiv. 16. This is commonly said
to be the narrator's individual view, which he has here introduced.^
But it is hardly possible to make out an exegetical justification of
that opinion ; for the text clearly enough attributes this motive to
the king himself But it may be justified perhaps by the custom
of the narrator, as proved by other instances. For one thing, how
ever, the narrator follows his ancient authorities with great fide
Uty ; and for another, it is not his habit to cite the book of the
Law so frequently as to give ground for that suspicion. But how
stands it with the fact as considered in itself ? It is a general
Oriental custom to subject the families of criminals to the
same punishment as the criminals themselves,* Here then we
ask, how the king, against all custom, came to perform an act
which Gramberg calls a surprising one? (ii. p. 176.). When the
matter is regarded in this aspect, the motive which is attributed to
him by our historian, manifestly appears the simplest and most
natural. That the laws relating to leprosy (comp. Levit. xiii ;
Num. V. 1, ff., xii. 14, ff.) were observed, is shewn by the passages
1 In spite of that, Vatke, p. 409, asserts that in this case the laws of the Pentateuch
exerted no iufluence, so that the Pentateuch cannot be intended.
2 Thus Vatke thinks that we should perhaps read filiS, Royal ornament, but that
would require to be ¦>!», comp. Bbttcher, Proben, p. 132. De Wette says, Einl. p, 207
(4te Ausg. — in the earlier editions otherwise !), "the nny may (sic !) be the contract
of election mentioned in ver, 17, or an older Law-book incorporated in tlie Pentateuch."
According to Gramberg (ii. p. 175) the reference is to the Law of the kingdom as given
by Samuel, &c. What arbitrariuess !
3 Comp. e g. De Wette, Beitr, i, p. 167,
* Comp, instances in the author's Commentary on Daniel, p. 224,

406 TESTIMONIES FROM THE
2 Kings vn. 3, xv. 5. A very important reference to the Penta
teuch is contained in xviii. 4, where an account is given of the
total destruction of every thing connected with idolatry by Heze
kiah, and mention is made at the same time of the brazen serpent
(comp. § 28), with respect to which Hezekiah removed the idola
trous abuse into which the people had fallen. This fact has a par
ticular interest, inasmuch as it shews, how the pure Mosaic belief
had become darkened and mingled with foreign elements in the
popular conceptions of that period ; while these also here pre-sup
pose the former, and the more necessarily as the king would hardly
have dared suddenly to remove a custom which had been confirmed
by length of time, if he had not been able to adduce an authority,
before which every thing else must give way ; so that this one in
stance serves as a conspicuous confirmation of the opinion, that
Hezekiah bound himself strictly by the prescriptions of the Penta
teuch (xviii. 6.).
Our opponents lay particular stress upon the idolatry of Ahaz :
the compliance of the priest Urijah especially (2 Kings xvi.) is
regarded as very scandalous.i It may be so, but his conduct is not
by any means inexplicable on that account, and affords no ground
for caUing in question the recognition ofthe authority of the Mosaic
Law, or the fact of its existence at that period. Or shall we say
that examples of a similar falsely compliant course of conduct
towards kings are really so rare, that even the strictest law must
not in such a case be put to shame ? Besides Ahaz had previously
distinguished this priest as his favourite,^ which explains his plia
bility so much the better. In addition, we must by no means
think of Ahaz as being, so far as externals went, a prince that
completely abandoned Jehovah, but only that the anti- theocratic ele
ment gained a predominant influence over his conduct.^ Then,
however, a pretext will all the less have been wanting to the priest,
to enable him to give such a fair colour to his proceedings as to
deceive himself and others. Even the example of Solomon, in his
employment of foreign artificers in the building of the Temple, &c.,
might be used in justification of these measures. Besides the very
passage xvi. 15 also supposes a very exact observance of the cere-
1 Dr Wette, Beitr. i., p. 253.
2 Comp, Gesenius, Comment, ou Isaiah viii. 2.
3 Comp, Hitzig, Comment, on Isaiah, p, 83.

PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO SOLOMOX, 407
monial law up to this time, and consequentiy does away with all
doubt in reference to the book of the Law,
The passage 2 Kings xxii., however, on which so much has been
said, stUl deserves most attention. The question here is, whether
it is in accordance with our conclusions so far, or not. Two infer
ences are drawn by the criticism of the opponents from the finding
of the book of the Law in Josiah's reign by the priest Hilkiah :
the one is, that up to this time that book was unknown ; and the
other, that the book which was discovered was not in fact our Pen
tateuch in its present form.
The first assertion is propounded with great confidence. " The
whole narrative loses its force if this was not the first occasion of
the appearance of the book of the Law." (George, p. 14.). De
Wette, proceeding on the uncritical rejection of all the testimonies
to an earlier existence of the Pentateuch, has come to the conclusion,
which all the recent critics of this school have subscribed after him,
that " in the discovery of the book of the Law in the Temple,
which made a great noise, the first certain trace of the existence
of a Mo'saic book" is to be found.^ But the following considera
tions speak most decidedly against this, {a,) The very words, " I
have found the hook of the Law" (ver. 8), clearly show the con
trary. How could the High Priest use these words in delivering
the book to Shaphan, supposing the latter knew nothing at all of
it ? Both individuals, on the contrary, are so well acquainted with
it that it only requires to be designated by this its known name for
one to know what it is.^ It is a very strange conclusion to say :
" Since it is found, and that, too, as a hook {i. e. as to its contents),
it could not have been there before!' (De Wette, p. 170). What
logic ! Does De Wette, perchance, use the vioiA.find in the sense
of invent ? When something known is found, it is found again, or
discovered, and ^^KJ ^^Y signify this as well as |-J3^, to build,
may be used for to rebuild, build up again ; or 'tj^^, dare, for
reddere, &c. Indeed, the language has no other word for this
idea. Our opponents, therefore, must evidently bring in here an
IBeitr. i,, p. I68,ff. Einl. §161.
2 De Wette's argumentation rests on the wholly ungrammatical translation a book of
the Law. Hence the words he uses, "If, however, he had said, 1 have found the book
of the Law, (which we have missed so long)" p. 173. In his translation of the Bible
(sec. ed.), the same learned writer has, however, given tho correct translation, — " the
book of Ihe Luio."

408 TESTIMONIES FROM THE
additional idea, of which the text says nothing ; the book is a
supposititious invention, the matter looks not unlike " a concerted
scheme," &c,, (De Wette, p. 179,);^ and, " I have found the book
of the Law," is consequently a mere euphemism for, " I have
forged the book." An exegesis which bids such defiance to all
the rules of sound hermeneutics is indeed undeserving of any
farther refutation, (b.) The conduct of the king and of the
court is inexplicable, supposing they now for the first time heard
news of this book. We find no sign in the narrative of mistrast
or astonishment on their part at the existence of such a book.
Would the king have been seized with such terror, when he heard
the words of this book; would he immediately have adopted such
energetic measures, if he had not recognised it at once as au
thentic ? Farther, the narrative says not a word of the king's
astonishment respecting the existence of the book, but only
respecting its contents, and the long non-observance of the Law,
and the refractory opposition shown to it (vers. 11 — 13.). When
he complains that their fathers had not acted according to it,
it is evident that he must have been convinced that the Law was
known and accessible to them.^ It would also assuredly be a de
cidedly false conclusion to infer a general non- acquaintance with
the Pentateuch, from the circumstance of the king's betraying an
ignorance of its contehts. In such a court as must have existed
during the long reign of Manasseh, does not such an ignorance
appear quite probable, and admit of being so explained ? But the
opposite of this conclusion may be proved convincingly from the
narrative itself The king sends a message to the prophetess
Huldah, and makes inquiry of her respecting the book and its de
clarations. She then at once confirms the truth of those words by
a prophetic declaration, and evidently knows the book that is
spoken of, for she says : " all the words of this hook, wherein
the king hath read, shall be fulfilled." Hence the prophetess HuL
dah also must have had a share in the " concerted scheme." But
Wfi meet here with a fresh confirmation of our own view. Not only
does this prophetess give confirmation to the book that has been
1 See also Bleek, in the Repert, p, 60, ff. Hartmann, p. 570. T. Bohlen, p. clxiv, &c.
2 Hence Vatke also, p. 508, is obliged to suppose, that the narrative is defective here
that there are middle terms wanting, &c. This supposition, however, is quite arbitrary
in a narrative that is so detailed, and that gives a perfectly complete picture ofthe oc
currence.

PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO SOLOMON, 409
discovered, but it is also read out of in presence of the priests, the
prophets, and the whole people (xxiu. 2.). What a conjoint plot
must this concerted scheme have been ! Who are the persons de
ceived here ; since all appear to have nothing else in view than to
deceive ? The relation between the priests and prophets in that
age was not exactiy of the kind that will aUow us to imagine such
a combination (comp. e. g. Jerem. viii. 8), in which both parties
joined hands in favour of falsehood, which the prophets on other
occasions so unsparingly expose and rebuke, {d?) We must ac
cordingly suppose that in the time of Josiah, even according to our
narrative, the book of the Law was by no means generally unknown,
and that it is only the king in particular that betrays an ignorance
of its contents, without showing however a total ignorance of the
existence of the book. This circumstance rises to still greater cer
tainty, when we consider that, even before the finding of that book,
the king had made reforms with regard to the idolatry, which had
prevailed to a great extent.^ Even De Wette says : " He appears
to have been religious even before the discovery of the book of the
Law, for he attends to the repairing of the Temple ; the books
of Kings also characterise him at the very commencement as a
king of genuine Davidic piety (xxii. 2)." (p. 172.). The inference
also is quite correct which he deduces from this observation : " It
may thus perhaps be thought that he might have known the book
of the Law,' if it already existed." Josiah does know tiiat there is
a book of the Law, and he is partiaUy acquainted, probably by
tradition, with the matter of its contents ; as is shewn by his
obeying its commandments. But now by a remarkable occurrence,
the discovery of the Temple-copy, his knowledge of it is not only
made complete, but a powerful impression is also produced on his
heart : it now becomes the purpose of his Ufe to Uve as far as pos
sible according to such a Law in its entire extent. In this way the
whole history of the occurrence and the life of the king stand in
perfect accordance with each other.
But, apart also from all these arguments, if we only consider
the matter more seriously for a moment, as it appears when viewed
in itself, the inadmissibility of the hypothesis advanced by the op
ponents of the genuineness, is clearly exhibited, A book, which
penetrates so deeply into the whole Ufe of the nation, impressing on
1 Comp, the evidence for this in Mover's, ibid, p, 334, ff.

410 TESTIMONIES FROM THE
it the most pecuUar character ; which comes forward with the most
direct opposition to an age sunken in idolatry, and unsparingly
denounces a woe against it ; which is promulgated at a time, when
the prophets even (as Jeremiah) were exposed to the mockery of
frivolous contemporaries, from whom both Law and Prophecy aUke
could reckon Uttle on receiving recognition ; — this book is said to
make its appearance suddenly, being a deceptive fabrication of the
priests, announcing to the people their punishment, and producing
the deepest impression upon them, without any one raising the cry
of deceit and falsehood, without a voice being raised against it, when
it appears to be the interest of all to detect and expose the false
ness of the book, and the deception which had been practised with
it ! Yet there was nothing more simple and easy than the adduc
tion of proof in such a case, which besides could not but reckon
on the accordance and sympathy of numbers ! It is not so, how
ever: — the pious in Judah may again rejoice that Jehovah's Law
is honoured, and. the mouth of the impious is shut, so that he must
involuntarily contribute to that glorification ; which shews the
presence of an authority, which could be silenced by nothing, the
appearance of which puts aU complaints to shame, and which, in
the very midst of all its enemies, celebrates its surest and noblest
triumphs. The opponents also are very sensible of this, and not satisfied
with the assertion which has been already rejected as groundless,
they also stand upon the diversity of that book from the Penta
teuch in its present form. The very chaos of their views which
constantly contradict one another, is evidence of the arbitrary
nature of this opinion. Thus De Wette (p. 175) understands by
the book that was found, Deuteronomy ; Gramberg (i. p. 306),
Exodus; Vater (p. 585) and Von Bohlen (p, clx,), a short abridg
ment ofthe laws, or at most Deuteronomy ; Hartmann (p, 566),
combined passages and sections from the four last books of the
Pentateuch ; Vatke (p. 505), the substance of the older legislation,
which we have, a little altered ; in the second book, and which is
given in the fifth in a revised form, &c. The fact of the re-dis
covery of the Law must here evidently serve as the substratum of
the various hypotheses, which every one has constructed, in a more
or less arbitrary manner, respecting the origin of the Pentateuch.
A supposition, however, that is common to them all, is the frag-

PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO SOLOMON. 411
mentary nature of our work. With the assumption of the contrary
of this last view, the whole of that representation also faUs back
into its own nothingness. This too is recognised by the more able
of the opponents themselves. That Deuteronomy is here included
in the reference, is too evident from the mention of the matter of
the contents, ever to have been questioned. As that book, how
ever — says Bleek, 1. c. p. 59 — certainly never existed as a separate
composition, we cannot well adopt any other opinion, than that the
book discovered was our Pentateuch.
That the book, farther, is plainly designated as the Pentateuch
is clear from the name n"linn 'IDD' ^^"' ^> which appellation the
whole Pentateuch receives even in Deuteronomy, as it does also in
the later writers (comp. Ezra vii, 6 ; Nehem. viii, 3) ; and that
°f JT'lin "IDD xxiu. 2, comp, Sirac, xxiv, 22, 1 Mace. i. 57. Now
Israel knew of but one such book, that justly bore that name. But in
xxiu. 25 also it is expressly the whole Law of Moses that is spoken
of as being obeyed by Josiah, so that every doubt as to this point
must vanish. But how difficult is it also to harmonize the view
held by the opponents, with the statements of the narrative respect
ing the contents of the book! The book contained curses on the
transgressors of the Law, just as we read them in Leviticus and
Deuteronomy, and there occurs even a verbal reference to the latter,
(comp. xxu. 17, with Deut. xxxi. 29.), But where punishments of
that kind are proclaimed, the Law itself will not be wanting. But
the book also really contained the history of a Covenant made with
the nation, for this Covenant is renewed by Josiah on the ground
of that book (xxiii. 3) ; and a multitude of ordinances (ibid,).
Farther, it contained prohibitions of all kinds of idolatry, service on
the high places, &c,, which the king abolished ; and his procedure
in this matter (xxiii, 4, ff.) is only an imitation of that of Moses
with respect to the idolatry in the wilderness (Ex. xxxii,). It con
tained laws relating to the Passover, the celebration of which is
then regulated according to them ; others relating to the unity of
the Sanctuary (xxiu. 8), and to the priests (xxui. 9.),^ Can more
1 Here it is said that the priests of the high places did not come up to the Sanctuary,
" but they ate of the unleavened bread among their brethren," Compare thereon Cleri
cus :— " inter emolumenta sacerdotalia erant azymi panes, sen placentae azymse, de quibus
Lev. ii. 4, 5, 11. Sed sub hoc nomine contineri etiam videntur reliqui omnes sacerdotii
fi-uctus, sine quibus vitom tolerare non potuissent. Hi sacerdotes, iUicitis hostiis im-

412 TESTIMONIES FROM THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO SOLOMON,
evidences as to its contents be required than these, for us to decide
that it must necessarily be our Pentateuch that is intended ? For
were we even to confine the contents to those portions that are ex
pressly mentioned, it would by no means serve the purpose, as they
again are of such a nature that they necessarily pre-suppose a larger
work. But so arbitrary a limitation would also be opposed to all
the rules of sound criticism.
The copy found in the Temple was beyond dispute the Temple-
copy. Tt is quite a useless question, whether it was the autograph
of Moses, or a later transcription instead of it ; for even in the latter
case it should be regarded as being as good as the autograph, with
as much justice as we should say that the Temple when repaired
by Josiah, still remained Solomon's Temple.^ Now that such a
copy was in existence, has already been shown elsewhere from other
grounds (Gen. Introd, § 6, p. 17, ff. of the original) ; and our
opponents' view is founded solely on the passage that is presumed
to be contradictory to this, 1 Kings viii. 9 (comp.p)e Wette, p.
178.). It is also manifest how easily such a copy might remain
unobserved, especially as it did not lie in the Ark itself, and be ne
glected ; how easily even, under such priests, (who, to please the
kings, favoured rather than hindered idolatrous practices), especially
under Josiah's immediate predecessors, the obnoxious testimony of
Jehovah against his people might be intentionally put aside ; as,
on the other hand, it is manifest that just such a copy as this
must also have made a remarkable impression, when it was found.
The only thing concerning which we are left in the dark by the
history that is specially occupied with the sequel of this occurrence
is the way and manner in which the copy had been lost. This cir
cumstance, however, is so little essential, and may so easilv and na
turally be explained from the preceding accounts, — those of the
practices of Manasseh in particular (ch. xxi.) — that any unpre
judiced writer might suitably enough pass it over. But on that
account it is also inadmissible, to attempt to settle how long that
copy had been missing or unknown ; and the main point of the
purati, habiti sunt veluti immundi, et instar eorum qui vitio aliquo corporis laborabant
quos vetuerat Moses accedere ad offerendum cibum Dei sui, Levit, xxi. 17, 21 sed qui
bus tamen fas erat, cibum Dei sui ex sacrosanctis aut sacris comedere."
1 Hence the objection of that copy's having beeu damaged by age, &c, (V, Bohlen, p,
clxii.) should never have been made.

TESTIMONIES TO THE PENTATEUCH IN CHRONICLES, ETC. 413
whole narrative must still be regarded as this, that a particularly
remarkable copy of the book of the Law was found in the Temple,
the discovery and reading of which produced an exceedingly bene
ficial impression on the king and the nation, because it was re
cognised by all as a sacred obligatory book, and as the Mosaic
Law. The critical conclusion from this passage, accordingly, is no other
than that it serves to prove, equally with a multitude of passages
already considered, the previous existence of the Law, and a more
general acquaintance with it.

§ 36. CONCLUDING REMARKS REGARDING THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.
We have purposely excluded the books of Chronicles from our
examination thus far : we have been willing to make this subtrac
tion, because there exists with respect to them on the part of our
later critics, a false supposition regarding the difference between
them and the other books, as well as an admission as to these books
themselves. As to the supposed difference, our opponents have
here too already retraced their steps. When Von Bohlen admits,
that " the books of Kings shown a knowledge of the written Law
in its entire extent" (p, cliv,), this is denying any difference between
them and the Chronicles with reference to the Pentateuch. Hence
we must regard it as only an inconsiderate self contradiction, when
we find the same critic elsewhere expressing himself as if the con
firmation of the opinion of the previous existence ofthe Pentateuch
depended solely on the testimonies in Chronicles. When the ad
mission, however, is made, that the books of Chronicles assume
throughout, in their statements, the existence of the Pentateuch, and
cannot be understood without that being supposed ; it is done only
in conjunction with the remark, that the credibihty of these books
is very much to be suspected. But this suspicion again has for its
first and chiefest pre-supposition — the non-authenticity of thePenta-
teuch.i Thus the reasoning of our opponents here revolves in
cessantly in a circle, and is therefore destitute of any firm foun
dation. From our comparison thus far of the historical books it has ap-
1 Comp, De Wette, Beitr. i. p. 6. Qn the other side, Keil, ibid, p, 262, ff.

414 TESTIMONIES TO THE PENTATEUCH
peared, not only that they are all composed in a spirit Uke that of
the Pentateuch, censuring or commending whatever it characterises
in the one way or the other,^ but also that they contain a very con
siderable proportional number of traces in matters of fact of the
existence of that legal basis of the Theocracy. The demand made
by our opponents, particularly when viewed in reference to this, must
appear just as preposterous as their assertions which have been
quoted, in denial of the existence of those traces. What caution
the critic would require to exercise in inquiries of this sort, having
regard in every instance to the object and plan of each work, in
order to draw such bold conclusions from them, may be shown, for
instance, by a comparison of the book of Esther ; the composition
of which belongs indisputably to an age, in which even the boldest
scepticism must allow that the Pentateuch existed. If we were to
draw conclusions from that book, and from the fact that it appears
not to be acquainted with so much as the name Jehovah, in the same
way as the fashionable criticism has done from the book of Judges,
&c. ; how should we mistake ! But the Pentateuch itself appears
as forming with the books that treat of the subsequent history an
inseparable whole, no individual part of which must be regarded as
forming an exception ; and it would be a difficult matter to break
through this strong bulwark, did not the criticism of the moderns
often act with as much wantonness and self-illusion as scepticism.
With the historical writings of the canon already considered, the
books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which take up again the history
subsequent to the captivity, are closely connected. Here also we
find not only frequent citations of the Pentateuch, but also sure
traces of its existence in its present form ; compare especially Ne
hem. ix. " After the exile — saysDe Wette, Einl. p. 208 — the whole
political and ecclesiastical life of the Jews is founded on the Mosaic
book of the Law, and the mention of our present Pentateuch is
as certain as it is frequent. Ezra is the first who is called a
scribe' well acquainted with the Law of Moses (Ezr. vii. 6.)."
The incorrectness of the last assertion will appear from the fol-
1 See Jahn, Einl. ii. p. 40.
2 Com. e. g. Ezra iii. 2, vi. 18. Nehem. viii. 14, x. 36, et al. See De Wette, Beitr. i.
p. 180, ff.
3 De Wette's expression is — " Ein Gelehrter"— a learned man, for which I have sub ¦
stituted the more familiar term.

IN CHRONICLES, EZRA, &C. 415
lowing section. Here we shall only add the remark that even
these testimonies, which are so surely established, have also, notwith
standing, been exposed to suspicion from criticism. And how could
it well have been otherwise, when the force of the evidence which
Ues in these testimonies was clearly presented to the mind ? What
gave rise to that remarkable change which we see in the people on
their return from the captivity, so that they now embrace altogether
this one political and religious system ; so that, far from going
aside after those foreign peculiarities, of which, however, they had
gained a sufficientiy thorough knowledge, they only preserve their own
still more firmly, and at once turn to the Law as their only and
highest refuge, binding themselves firmly to it ? These are pheno
mena, indeed, which we cannot explain without admitting not only
the existence of the Pentateuch, but also the general acknowledg
ment of it as a sacred book and an unassailable authority. " Quae
loca," says Eosenmiiller, Prolegg,, p. 10, " etsi in iis libris exstent,
quae plurimis post Mosen seculis sunt scripti, tamen hoc probant,
fuisse ista aetate, id est sexto a. Ch. n. sec. libros, e quibus leges,
promissiones et minee — afferuntur, communi gentisHebreEsejudicio
pro talibus habitos, qui a Mose essent conscripti. Jam vero si
cogitaveris, tale judicium non paucorum quorundam hominum
opinione formari sed niti debere eo, quod majoribus acceptum per
plures aetates propagatum esset, loca ilia — argumentum neutiquam
leve Mosaicse Pent, originis prsebent." How comes it also that,
while in such times and amidst such distracted circumstances the
individual commonly asserts his preponderance above the mass
with the most successful issue, here the very persons, who are men
of distinction, feel, without exception, so deep a concern in nothing
as in going back to that higher authority, and re-organising
everything in the new state according to it ? Evidently, because
this was the firmest ground on which they could stand, and of
which they had gained a knowledge.
But one would persuade us that even here " the influence of the
Pentateuch is exhibited for the first time, in its origin," and for
this reason that prescriptions are now %.xst found in it (Neh. viii. 14
ff., xni. 1, ff.), and the conclusion is thought to be obvious, if this
fact is combined with others, that " a general sanction of it came
about only gradually even up to the time of Christ."^ This is the
1 Von Bohlen, p. civ. Comp. Herbst, 1. cit., p. 59, sq.

41 U TESTIIUONIES TO THE GENUINENESS
purport of the monstrous issue to which this reckless criticism is
resolved to come; and that the case must stand so, if its premises
held good, who could deny ? But could it really be the origin of
its influence that is here for the first time spoken of, when the first
Jewish colony, immediately after their arrival in Palestine, present
their sacrifices and celebrate the feast of Tabernacles " as it is
written in the Law of Moses the man of God" (Ezr. iii. 2) ? And
for that purpose no additional special means and arts were required
to gain this mode an entrance among the people, as must necessarily
have been the case, supposing the opposite assertion were true : on
the contrary, their participation in it is as general as it is cordial,
of which we do not know a more vivid picture than that which is
presented to us in the book of Ezra itself (iii. 12, 13.). But cer
tainly the exile was a period in which the Law with its sacred usages
could be fulfilled only in the most imperfect manner ; none but the
elders had seen the glory of Solomon's Temple, and retained a lively
remembrance of it; circumstances which formed a very intelligible
occasion for searching the Law, in order to follow it faithfully in
all its parts. But when there is such searching, there is also^wrf-
ing, and the passages that mention this testify accordingly only to
the zeal and fidelity with which the Mosaic Law was followed.
But when we see every effort put forth to make the Law accessible
to the people ; when we see every advantage so decidedly traced
solely to an adherence to this Law, and every calamity to the aban
donment of it (Neh. ix.) ; we cannot possibly speak of a gradual
influence or sanction of the Law, for we should then be obUged to
understand by the terms something quite different from what they
are commonly used to signify.

§ 37. TESTIMONIES TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH IN
THE PROPHETS.
We shall now give, from the other writings of the Old Testament,
facts supplementary to the conclusion which we have thus far de
duced from the historical books. As the prophetic Uterature stands
first in connection, as to the time of its origin, with the period sub
sequent to Solomon, it exhibits in another point of view, owing to
its pjccuUar character, the extent of the book of the Law, known to

OP THE PENTATEUCH IN THE PROPHETS, 417
those writers, and its contents, so that in these respects our Penta
teuch is proved to be the same as theirs. This enquiry has at the
same time a particular interest, with regard to certain assertions of
our opponents, " It awakens a very injurious prejudice against
the genuineness of our Pentateuch (says De Wette, Beitr. i, p. 183,
ff.), that the Prophets, whom we take as infallible witnesses as to
tbe age and its character, both because of the historical certainty of
their age (for they are the only writers of the Old Testament (? ?)
whose age can be fixed, and that too by the surest marks, namely
their internal character), and also particularly because of their cha
racter, which was free from all prejudices, candid, and uncon
strained by positive fetters, as they appear isolated, without a party
and against every party, simply as witnesses of the truth, contend
ing particularly against the hierarchy ; — that the Prophets, I say,
do not speak at all of the Mosaic book of the Law, do not recom
mend it, do not use it to authenticate their instructions. They
constantly introduce the Law in their discourse, but not the book
of the Law. If it did indeed exist, it must have been of little ac
count with them and their contemporaries." Hence we see what
great weight is attributed to these testimonies ; and as they must
consistently, upon the grounds that have been assigned, continue to
retain this in the eyes of the critics, even supposing a closer exa
mination should conduct us to a different conclusion as to the
bearing of the evidence, it is the more worth the trouble to make
that examination. Our opponents, however, are certainly very
confident as to their discovery. Von Bohlen, agreeing with De
Wette, expresses his decision thus, p. cUi : " They (the Prophets)
never inculcate a precept with the words of the Pentateuch (sic !),
by which they might have considerably heightened the effect of
their rebukes, as the Moslem moral preachers do by the words of
the Koran ; and the argumentum a silentio is here so cogent, that
it may at once be estabUshed as an axiom, that these older pro
phets knew not the Pentateuch." George, 1. c. p, 15, says : " The pro
phets are acquainted with the historical mythi ofthe Pentateuch [so
that here is one admission !], and not unfrequently make mention of
them. But they never exhibit an acquaintance with the divine book
of the Law ; they never appeal to it, as we should necessarily ex
pect, had such a work been in existence ; it is always only the
divine voice in themselves that they give forth." »
2 D

418 TESTIMONIES TO THE GENUINENESS
In commencing the refutation of such views with the earliest
prophets, it is necessary to remark that Hosea and Amos, citizens
of the kingdom of Israel and sent to it, are not only particularly
fitted to introduce us to the internal condition of that kingdom,
but also supply the most striking proofs of the introduction and
authority of the Pentateuch in it. We shall make a beginning
with some of the chief passages of the prophet HosEA. In an ad
dress to the rebellious priesthood he says : " thou rejectest the
knowledge (of God, iv. 1), and I will reject thee from my priest
hood ; and as thou forgettest the Law of thy God, so wiU I also
forget thy children," iv. 6. This passage supposes that the obUga
tion lay principally on the priesthood, to occupy their attention
with the Law ; hence their greatest offence here is called a for
getting of the Law, the contempt of it, chiefly in a practical respect.
The sin of the people is represented in vi. 7 as the violation of a
covenant, and what the Prophet understands by that is shewn by
viii, 1 : " they transgress my covenant and they trespass against
my Law!' The central point of the Law, and of this book of the
covenant, could not be more suitably referred to than as it is here.
But that the Prophet understands a written Law, he states likewise
in viii. 12 : "I write to them the multitude"^ of my laws, they are
counted as a strange thing."
But references to the Pentateuch are of such frequency in Hosea,
that we adduce only the most important, among which there are
found many so close as to the words, that we can explain them
only by supposing that he used a written copy of the Pentateuch.
At the same time all the books of the Pentateuch without excep
tion are here equally made use of In ch. ii. 2, 1 7 the Prophet
refers to Ex. i. 10 and Deut. xvii, 15 ; in ii. 10 to Deut. vii. 13,
xi. 14.2 In oh. ii. 19 the law in Ex. xxiu. 13 is cited just as in
Zechar. xiii, 2, Ch. iii. 1 contains verbal reminiscences from
1 Sa-i, according to the reading of the text, which is not to be altered, a great multi
tude, a myriad, as naa'n elsewhere. The Prophet regards the prophets as the men who
continued the divine Law, maintained its living infiuence in the mind (vi. 6, comp, 2
Kings xvii. 13 ; Ezr. ix. 11) ; hence the second modus of the verb is employed, aWSS,
comp. Ewald, Gr, § 264. b. Sec. German ed. Hartmann must have paid very little at
tention to the passages adduced in the text, where he says, p. 575, that from this impor
tant passage we may at least conclude, that at that time there were many written collec
tions of laws in existence. The Prophet manifestly knows but one such collection.
2 Comp, HengsKinberg, Christol. iii, pp. 59, 80, ff.

OF THE PENTATEUCH IN THE PROPHETS. 419
Deut. VU. 8, xxxi. 18 ; as iv. 10 does, from Lev. xxvi. 26 (comp.
Micah vi. 14), as the words, •)j}"^Qi J^^l, are completely explained
only by attending to the threatening in Lev. xx. 20, 21. The diffi
cult expression, p^ "'I'l'^Ta^ (iv. 4), " as they that strive with the
priest," can be explained only by an allusion to the law in Deut.
xvu, 12, according to which the Prophet makes the people them
selves decide their own punishment as there denoted, and the pas
sage has light thrown upon it by the custom of this Prophet ;
compare v, 10, " the princes of Judah are hke them that remove
boundaries," in which regard is had to the Law in Deut, xix, 14 ;
xxvii. 17. Sacrifices are frequently mentioned, and in such a way
that it is evident that there was no defect as to the number of them,
and the external observance of the Law, but rather as to right in
ternal feeling. Almost all kinds of sacrifices appear here, as the
Mosaic Law designates them ; Burnt- offerings (vi. 6), Drink-
offerings and slain sacrifices (ix. 3, 4), Peace-offerings (xiv. 3),
Sin-offerings and Trespass-offerings (iv. 8).^ Feasts are named in
n. 13 (E.V. ver. 11), and particularly the Sabbath, the New- Moon
and the festive assemblies,^ comp. v. 6, Oh. xu. 10 (E.V. ver.
9) relates to the feast of Tabernacles, and its observance in memory
ofthe sojourn in the wilderness.
In ch. viii. 6 the Prophet announces the like fate for the
calf of Samaria, as befel the same object of idolatry in the wil
derness, with an evident reference to Exod. xxxii. 20 ; Deut.
ix. 21.8 The prohibition of unclean meats is touched on in ix. 3.
An almost verbal aUusion to Deut. xxvi. 14 occurs in ix. 4. In ix.
] 0, we have, " I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness (refer
ring to Deut. xxxii. 10 — but they went after Baal-peor, and
consecrated themselves to the idol" (]-\\jJi^ "i-^tji comp. Num. xxv.
3' h^'lh hiVyii)^ "TCj^J'^V* These references are particularly fre
quent from ch. xi. onwards, where the Prophet, looking back upon
1 Comp. also in reference to the last, the use of was, v. 15, just as in Lev. iv. 13, v. 5
et. al.
2 Comp. on that Heugstenberg, 1. c. p. 85, ff.
3 The difficult word nia''a<S is perhaps most probably to be rendered by Fuel, material
for burning, for the Arabic root (__^;i signifies to burn (Ibn. Doreid, vers. 130. Schul
tens, Animadvv. ad, h. 1. exc. Ham, p. 380, sq.), and hence y^Mi (Job. xviii. 5) aflame.
The sense consequently is, it should be burnt.
4 The expression l^tJi is purposely selected, so as to point expressly at the same time to
the law of the Nazarite iu Num, vi. ,
2 D 2

420 TESTIMONIES TO THE GENUINENESS
the early history of his nation, compares it with the present. Thus
xi. 1 is derived from Ex. iv. 22 ; xi. 4 aUudes to the miraculous
feeding of the people ; xi. 8, to the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah in Gen. xix. In xu. 4, 5, the Prophet represents Jacob's
history as an example to the people, as to how they should turn
to God, aud what they might obtain from him. The reference to
these narratives of Genesis is, according to the Prophet's manner,
so brief and merely allusive, that it supposes, both in him and in his
readers, a very exact acquaintance with them. Proof is supplied
also that the Prophet had a written document before him, by such
expressions borrowed from the Pentateuch as ^pj;, n"lto- ^^ ^er.
13 aLso he comes back again to the same history. The commence
ment of the Decalogue is in current use with the Prophet as aform
of introduction : comp. xii, 10, xiii. 4. In xii. 12 there is an
allusion to Genes, xxxi. 46, 47. Moses is spoken of as a Prophet,
who led the people out of Egypt, and preserved them, xii. 14 ;
with a reference to the passages, where the Pentateuch itself thus
designates Moses, Num. xii. 6, ff. ; Deut. xviii. 18, ff. Ch. xiii.
6, adverts to the sojourn in the wilderness, and the divine benefits
conferred there.
In the same way Amos has regard to the Pentateuch ; and it has
been justly said, that in his case such a knowledge is the more sur
prising, as he was of inferior condition, and not even educated ih
the schools ofthe prophets (vii. 14,)^ Amos also denounces against
Judah the destruction that should overtake it, because of rejecting
the Law of Jehovah and his statutes, ii, 4. In ch. ii. 8, he makes
reference to the requirement to restore a deposited pledge before
evening (Ex. xxu. 26 ; Deut. xxiv. 12, 13.) The expression
Q'^'lZJIJi^ also is one derived from the Law, Ex, xxi. 22 ; Deut. xxii.
1 9. Ch.U. 9, refers to Num, xiii. 32, 33. The author appears also
to be acquainted with no other primitive nations of Canaan than
the Amorites, whom he puts for them all here, using the ap
pellation after the manner of the Pentateuch, in the more gene
ral sense (comp. Gen. xv. 16; Deut. i. 20.). With ch. n. 10
compare Deut. xxvui. 4. Ch. ii. 11, 12, supposes the existence of
the law ofthe Nazarite^ (Num, vi,), and refers likewise to Deut.
1 Comp. Liter. Anz, of Tholuck, 1833. Nr. 40, p. 313, ff.
2 I cannot, however, recognize here an allusion to Gen. xix. 82, 34 (see Lit. Anz.
xUd., p. 314.).

of THE PENTATEUCH IN THE PROPHETS. ^^1
xviu. 5. Ch. iii. 2 has reference to such passages as Ex. xix. 5,
Deut. xiv. 2. Tn ch. iv. 4, morning sacrifices are spoken of (Num,
xxviii. 3), and the tithe which was to be paid every three years
(Deut. xiv. 28, xxvi. 12.), Thus both these ordinances of Moses
were observed in the kingdom of Israel also. Ch. iv. 5 has to do
with the prohibition in Levit. vii. 12, 13, of offering leavened
bread along with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and at the same
time the freewill offerings (mn2' ^^^v. xxii. 18, ff.; Deut. xu. 6)
are mentioned. In ch. iv. 9, 10, the punishments which should
befal Israel are described quite according to the threatenings ofthe
Pentateuch. " I smite you l-ip-^in pDlU)!-" stands exactiy thus
also in Deut. xxvin. 22, as what follows refers to Deut. xxviii, 38,
ff., which cannot by any chance be regarded as accidental. " I
send among you the pestilence after the manner of Egypt," is de
rived from Lev. xxvi. 25 ; Deut. xxvin. 27 (Qi-iao pnUJiy ' '^^
what follows compare Lev, xxvi. 25. — Ch. iv. 11 refers to Gen.
xix. and Deut. iv, 11, from which last the very expression is bor
rowed. In V. 6 Jehovah is compared to a consuming fire, probably
in imitation of Deut. iv. 24. In v. 8 there occurs an allusion to
the Deluge, The feasts and solemn assemblies (jT^'^^jy), the burnt-
offerings, meat-offerings, and peace-offerings, are mentioned in v.
21, 22. In V. 25, 26, the Canaanitish idolatry, with which the
people were infected even in the wilderness, is touched upon. The
Prophet had been indignant with those who thought to allay the
anger of Jehovah by an external fulfilment of the Law. Tn order
to give them a striking example that this could not be done, that
Jehovah was to be satisfied not by works, but solely hy internal
conversion and righteousness (vers. 6, 14, 24), he appeals to the
state of the nation in the wilderness. " Did ye (he says), serve me
there exclusively during the forty years, in the manner prescribed ?"
(Thus the passage pre-supposes the institution of the ceremonial
Law in the wilderness.). " On the contrary, even at that time, ye
practised the idolatry of Canaan (Num. xxv.) even as now," That
this latter reference is necessarily to be retained in the text, appears
from what immediately follows ; " I lead you into captivity," &c.
(ver. 27.). That a constant idolatry is spoken of here, cannot be
shown from the text at all : on the contrary, the addition, " during
I Hence the reference to Exod, ix, (Lit. Anz. ibid, p. 316, where this passage in ge
neral is not correctly understood), is more remote.

422 TESTIMONIES TO THE GENUINENESS
the forty years," must just mean, " Ye did not serve me faithfully
tiiroughout the whole time ; and therefore ye shall likewise meet
with chastisement as your fathers did then." Compare also section
24. In ch. vi. 1, the expression Qi'^^n M^lWi'^"! '^ borrowed from
Num, xxiv, 20. Tn ix. 3 aUusion is made to Num. xxi, 6 ; in ix.
8 to Deut. vi. 15. In ix. 13 the promise. Lev. xxvi. 3-5, is again
taken up.
What we have in this way found to be the case with the prophets
of the kingdom of Israel, we may even before hand expect to meet
with in those of Judah Ukcvise. Yet here too it ihay be well to
show by some particularly striking examples, how customary
are these allusions and references to the Pentateuch. We shall
select Joel first, whose prophecy, from its age, as well as its small
extent, supplies a particularly convincing proof of the assertion.
Even the entire subject of his discourse, the representation of a
power that should devastate Israel' [?] under the figure of locusts,
rests here, as in Amos, on those expressions of the Pentateuch
which threaten the Israelites with such plagues. "The commence
ment of his prophecy also reminds us vividly of Deut. xxxu. i. 7.
In what honour the Prophet holds the ceremonial Law, is shown by
its being represented as a principal punishment for Judah, that the
sacrifices can no longer be presented, and that the priesthood, Je
hovah's servants, must mourn (i. 9.), — In i, 10 he says also in
reference to that, that the supplies of corn, wine, and oil, the first
fruits of which belonged to Jehovah, should cease, with an evident
reference to Deut. xxvin. 51.^ — Hence he calls upon the priests to
put on mourning apparel and lament, " for the meat-offering and
the drink-offering is withholden from the house of your God" (i.
13.). Tn all these passages with the following context, the exist
ence of a splendid Levitical ritual is presupposed : the reference to
the laws of sacrifice and worship contained in Joel is of a decisive
character. — Ch, u. 2 is verbaUy derived from Exod. x. 14. The
Prophet makes an application of the plague, there described as be
falling Egypt, to that which was now to befal the rebellious cove
nant-people.^ — Ch. n, 3, " the land is as the garden of Eden before
1 [Is this not a mistake for Judali ? or possibly the author here uses the name as a
general appellation,]
2 Comp. Credner, Comment, on Joel, p, 128, ff,
'^ Comp, Hengstcnberg, Christol. 3, p. 158. On the other hand, Credner, p, 173, and
Von Bohlen, p, Ivi., suppose that we have in Exodus an imitatinn nf fiio r,c=„„„, j„
Joel.

OF THE PENTATEUCH IN THE PROPHETS, 423
them and behind them a desolate wilderness," refers to Gen. xiii.
1 0. The Prophet compares the state of his own country to the fate
of the vale of Siddim. — Ch. ii. 13 is a citation, introduced with i^,
from Ex. xxxiv. 6, xxxu, 14.^ — Ch. u, 17 refers to Deut. xv. 6.
The passage ii. 23 stands in a particularly remarkable connection
with Deut. xi. 13, 14, as does the passage in. 3 with Deut. vi. 22,
and alludes to the miracles in Egypt in general.^
Not less numerous are the instances of reference to the Penta
teuch which occur in Micah, Ch, i, 7 points to the Law, Deut.
xxiii. 19, by which the hire of a harlot was not to be brought into
the Temple. — Ch. v. 5 (E, V. ver. 6) Babylon is called " the land
of Nimrod," with a reference to Gen, x. 10. — Ch. v. 6 (E. V. ver.
7) the words y^^ ^^^ Qil''l"l3 ^^^ ^ reminiscence from Deut.
xxxii. 2. — Ch. vi. 4, " For I brought thee up out of the land of
Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of bondage (Deut. vii.
21) ; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam," refers to
the events of Exodus. In ch. vi. 5 mention is made of the history
of Balaam, and the people are admonished to remember him ; a re
quirement that would have been absurd, supposing written documents
respecting the matter had not existed. In the same place allusion
is made to the occurrence in Num. xxv., which is thus the most
exact citation of our Pentateuch which can be imagined. In
vi. 6 it is said, " Shall I come before Jehovah with burnt-offerings,
with calves of a year old ?" comp, Levit. ii. 1,15, ix. 2, 3. In vi.
14, 1 5 we have threatenings that are simply extracted from the Pen
tateuch. In particular, comp. Deut. xxviii, 39, nn^Jn N^? l''"'' ^^^
xxviu. 40, ijion ilh tattjl (where the use of the verb 'rpg is also
quite peculiar.). — Oh. vii. 15 has reference to the miracles in Egypt.
— Ch. vii. 17, refers to the Fall, Gen. in. 14. — In ch. vn. 20 the cove
nant-relation, into which God entered with the patriarchs, is alluded
to, as it existed in the early times of the nation.
Isaiah frequently makes reference to the historical events of the
Pentateuch ; indeed so frequently that it must be numbered
amongst the peculiarities of that prophet, as the liberation from
1 Here too Von Bohlen, p, cliii., consistently represents the Pentateuch as imitating
Joel, At the same time tbe remark of Hartmann, p, 575, deserves correction here,
when he says that definite citations from the Pentateuch are not to be found in that
propiiet. 2 Comp Hengstcnberg, ibid. p. 160, 170, 180, ff.

424 TESTIMONIES TO THE GENUINENESS
Egypt, for instance, is introduced by him with extraordinary fre
quency, with the mention of many individual circumstances. That
the Prophet is equally acquainted with the Law is shown by such
adductions as i. 11, 13, xxx. 29 (where the passover is mentioned)
et al. We shall bring forward besides only some verbal citations
from the Pentateuch. Oh. ui, 9 refers to Gen. xix. 5, on which
Hitzig correctly says : this reference shows, that Isaiah had the
narrative Gen. xix. before him in writing. In vi. 5, Ex. xxxiii. 20
is adduced; compare Hitzig. Ch. xi. 15, 16, not only refers to the
event in Ex, xiv., but the song of thanksgiving in ch. xii. is also a
reference to Ex. xv. Here also, says Hitzig, p. 151, the parallel
with the departure from Egypt is kept up, as the rescued fugitives
at that time likewise praised Jehovah in a hymn (Exod. xv.) ; and
not only does the expression XW'^ Hli^i ''S ™ "^^^ ^ allude to Ex.
XV. 1, but the whole sentence also in ver, 2 is taken from Ex. xv.
2. On xxx. 9 Vitringa says very correctly : " Criminatio desumta
est ex cantico Mosis," Deut. xxxii. 6, 20. On xxx. 17 even
Gesenius confesses that Lev. xxvi. 8, Deut. xxxii. 30, are " almost
verbal parallels." Ch. xxiv. 18 is taken from Gen. vii. 11. On
xliv. 2, Deut. xxxii. 15, xxxiii. 5, 26, are to be compared. He also
refers expressly to the Law of Jehovah (xxx. 9), where the Pen
tateuch is the more decidedly to be understood, as the passage even
alludes to its expressions.
We may rest satisfied here with these single quotations for our
object, since a more particular exegesis of the prophets will present
still more and verify their proper conclusiveness, if it sets out with
the principle of considering the Pentateuch as the basis of the ex
pressions and ideas of the prophets. Here only the more general
remark requires to be added, that the prophets invariably, and the
earUest of them perhaps most impressively, exhibit that mode of
viewing the Law, which we discovered previously in the period of
Samuel ; which speaks most emphatically against the fulfilment of
the Law as an opus operatum. The period of the prophets is de
cidedly one that displays, in its full extent, the abuse that was
practised with the Mosaic Law. An essential portion of the po
lemic and didactic labours of the prophets is directed against the
perverted inclination, which, as an effect of the Law, already influ-
1 Comp, the examples in Kleinert, on the Genuineness of Isaiah, i, p. 292 ff.

OF THE PENTATEUCH IN THE PROPHETS. 425
enced their contemporaries in its fuU strength. Although this re
mark has by no means escaped the observation of the critics, yet
there has been deduced from it the decidedly distorted conclusion,
that the prophets " made the whole frame-work of the priestly ser
vice to shake ;" so that the prophets have the credit of originating
the development of the Law, and so far from its being a knowledge
of the divine appointment of the ceremonial Law that forms the
back ground of their convictions, it is, on the contrary, a rejection
of that law itself^ This view rests indeed as much on a superficial
apprehension of the Law, as on a like apprehension of the position
of the contemporaries of the prophets with regard to it. For since
the Pentateuch itself closely combines both the internal and the
external relations, in such a way that in the concrete they are both
completely one, and the external form appears only as the living
reflection of the internal spirit ; it was the greatest offence against
the Law to make an abstract severance of these two things. Now
while, on the one hand, the efforts of the prophets were directed
against the destruction of the externals of the Law, as they combated
idolatry, and thus showed that they regarded the former as by
no means a merely human or arbitrary institution ; on the other
hand, they opposed the mere external maintenance of the Law,
which stands fundamentally on the same level as the idolatrous
tendency. The greatest profanation of the Law is the mere external
observance of it ; for it makes God himself and his Law the minis
ters of sin : to honour Jehovah in that way is simply to serve one's
self — it is idolatry in the most refined sense, — it is a human insti
tution (Is. xxix, 13,). Accordingly, the ministry of the prophets
proves precisely their Uving comprehension ofthe Law, as a totality,
a concrete whole. But as from this cause prophecy itself cannot
be conceived of without the pre-supposition of the Law, neither can
the age connected with it. For that age exhibits both those aber
rations, which can be understood only as one effect of the Law,
produced in accordance with human nature. Hence both the aban
donment of the Law as shown in gross transgressions of it, and the
stiffening of it in external forms, afford evidence that the prophetic
literature, when viewed on this side also, cannot be comprehended
apart from the Pentateuch as its antecedent element.
1 Comp, e.g. Von Bohlen, p. clii. ; George, p. 172 ; Vatke, p, 481, ff.

426 TESTIMONIES TO THE GENUINENESS
In the older prophets we discover, amidst all the manifold refer
ences to the Pentateuch, a certain freedoni still prevaihng in the
employment of its expressions, which, in the later age, and in such
prophets as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, loses this independent character,
and becames more of a verbal use of the work, binding itself down
to theletter. Thereason of this fact Ues in that course of development
which the prophetical literature pursued ; and is explained by the
general want of an independent character, which in other respects
also is displayed by Hebrew literature. The more that the Theo
cracy was alienated from its proper central-point, the more promi
nently must an adherence to its positive and objective foundation
appear in those who were trully theocraticaUy minded, while the
individual character retired more into the back-ground. This re
mark is of particular importance in reference to Jeremiah, in whose
case the often remarked affinity to Deuteronomy, — which appears
in a multitude of even individual expressions, turns of thought, &c.,
that are reproduced in his writings, — has led to misconstructions.
For apart from the fact, that the entire style of expression in Deu
teronomy is demonstrably the original, the way in which that book
is here employed has its profound and principal reason in the pecu
Uar nature of Deuteronomy and its relation to the Prophet's time.
For, as the character of Deuteronomy is mainly subjective and pro
phetical, and as its prophecy came to be fulfilled very remarkably
iu the time of Jeremiah, while the career of the covenant-people was
now drawing near, in the manner there stated, to an essentia] part
of the threatened punishment ; it may be conceived how that book,
as associated with the tender and resigned character of the Prophet,
must have had such a significance to him and his time, as was ac
tually the case. Deuteronomy, however, is also as much the com
pendium of what the rest of the legislation contained in fuller de
tail, as it is the peculiarly subjective apprehension of the Law and
reflection upon it ; so that from its very nature it stands as the ne
cessary type of later prophecy, and it could not but appear strange
were we not to find it employed in this way. But at the same time
this employment of it appears also not to have arisen merely from
the Prophet's individual character, but Ukewise from the necessities
of the time. Several considerations lead us to regard the Law as
having been at that period a subject of study and research. Jere
miah speaks of the priests, as those who handle (toon) the Law ;

OF THE PENTATEUCH IN THE PROPHETS. 427
ii. 8. They think themselves wise in their exposition of the Law,
while through the expositions and interpretations of the scribes
(Q>,^fj.^p) Jehovah's Law was turned into falsehood (viu. 8.).
They held firmly to the Law, indeed as firmly to it as to their per-
vei-ted view of it (xvui. 18.). They did violence to the Law (iDDn
minn)' ^^V^- i"- ^> ^^^^' ^^"' ^^- ^° '¦^^y taught and in
structed the people.^ Thus we see that even then the Law had he-
come in an increasing degree the subject of reflection ; and no
doubts prevailed as to its authority, though there very likely were
doubts as to the understanding of it. Here too it appears how
Deuteronomy was best adapted, from its nature, to introduce one
into the intemal character and the profound significance of the Law.
Hence the frequent allusion to that book.
This then also overturns from its very foundation the view that
regards the age of Jeremiah as that of the origin of the Pentateuch,
or at least of its earliest portions. Not only is such a spirit as this
age betrays (when in every departure from the Law everything ex
ternal still revolves around it), incapable of producing such works
inventively ; but, on the contrary, the age marks itself as distin
guished, in comparison with earlier periods, by a still more ad
vanced degree of stiffenedness in the forms of the Law. Tt was in
opposition to such an age that Jeremiah could utter the bold ex
pression, that God gave no commandment to their fathers, when
he led them out of Egypt, respecting sacrifices (vii. 22), because
the age made that the initial and central point of the Mosaic sys
tem, which was only its inference, and did not comprehend the
covenant-relation (ver, 23) — the intimate connection with men into
which God had entered by the declaration, that he would be the
God of the people. But from him who does not know the initial
and ultimate point, or the principle of a system, its consistency also
will be equally concealed. Thus sacrifices, taken in that manner,
had not been prescribed to the people : it was better to neglect
them altogether than to perform them hypocritically. But modem
criticism has misunderstood this passage, as if it contained a con
tradiction of the divine authority and Mosaic origin of the sacri
ficial law ; or proceeded from an author who knew not the Sinaitic
legislation.2 On the other hand, more consideration has been paid
1 Comp. Ezek, vii, 26, xxii. 26, xliv. 23. Movers, 1. c. p. 300.
2 Comp. De Wette, Beitr. i. p, 185. But ver. 23 is even a verbal quotation from the
Pentateuch, so that the above is at any rate the worst possible view of the passage.

428 TESTIMONIES TO THE GENUINENESS
by this criticism to the important bearing of the use of Deuter
onomy in Jeremiah, and the previous existence of Deuteronomy on
that account has been maintained, on the supposition that the Pro
phet was acquainted with that book only, while he is thought to
show here, as well as everywhere else, a complete non-acquaintance
with the other books of the Pentateuch.^ A marveUous assertion !
As if Deuteronomy contained not a word about tbe sacrificial law
— or perhaps the portions relating to it are spurious ? But it may
be shown even to excess by several striking passages, how well the
Prophet is acquainted, not only with Genesis, to which he fre
quentiy refers, but with the other books also; In Jerem. xlvui.
the oracle Num. xxi. 28, ff., is quoted even to the words. In
Jerem. xxxiv. 17, ff., reference is made to that very chapter of
Leviticus, ch, xxv., which the opponents of the genuineness are
accustomed to regard as the latest portion of that book. And, on
the whole, what is the use of this argument, when, even with the
greatest possible scepticism, and by the admission of the opponents
even,^ it cannot be disputed as to Ezekiel that he shows the most
exact acquaintance with the whole of the Pentateuch ? Are we
to suppose that the Prophet in Babylon knew more of the extent of
this work, than he who lived in Palestine ?

§ 38. TESTIMONIES TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH
FROM THE OTHER WRITINGS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
If we give one glance more to the remaining documents of
Hebrew antiquity, it is evident at once that the writings belonging
to the age of David and Solomon must have most weight and in
terest in relation to the criticism of the Pentateuch. As we have
already found in that period, in another department, evidences of
the existence of the Pentateuch, we must regard these writings
again as only serving to supply supplementary testimonies. Here
also it may be shown anew very completely, that the poetry of the
Psalms in particular, the flourishing epoch of which we are obliged
to assign to the age of David, pre-supposes the Pentateuch, both
1 So George, ibid, p, 16, ff. V. Bohlen gives quite a confused account of the rela
tion between Jeremiah and the Pentateuch, p. clxxviii., sq.
2 Comp. e. g. Hartmann, p. 574,

FROM THE REST OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 429
in its general and special character. In the first place, that whole
class of poetry in general, and the pecuUar form of mental excite
ment displayed in it, can be satisfactorily explained only by that
circumstance. For the very expression of thought, whether it
assumes a more subjective and individual character, or is supported
by something objective, leads to such a supposition. The peculi
arity ofthe mental characteristics [Subjektivitat] here displayed, is
the reflection of the Law : the prevailing consciousness of sin, the
lamentation over it which lays hold of everything, and the com
fortable certainty of forgiveness and of the divine anger being ap
peased, — as occurring in the so-called penitential Psalms, and
forming the fundamental tone in them ; all this, in its very pe
culiarity, being found no where else as it is here, is only the opera
tion, the subjective echo of the Law. The most decisive testimony
to the trath of this is, that the authors of the Psalms can all agree
together in the sentiment of the first Psalm, that their whole soul
is moved by delight in the Law and meditation upon it. This
opinion, however, is raised to complete certainty by the fact, that in
every instance, where this poetry enters the domain of the objective,
it does not proceed there capriciously and arbitrarily, but always
takes up and treats a given subject. There is no class of Psalms
that does not in this respect present a definite subject. Thus the
Psalms on creation are only the echo of the history of the creation
in the Pentateuch, to which they make verbal reference not unfre
quently. The historical matters relating to the people of God,
and the glorification of Jehovah in them, refer altogether to the
Law, the covenant, the conducting of the people, as presented in
the Pentateuch. No important subject in that book can be named,
that is not celebrated in the Psalms more or less expressly or
fully ; and it is therefore obvious that they must contain no small
number of special references to the Pentateuch.
Thus the history of the creation is touched upon in many of the
Psalms.^ Ps. viii. is an express and fuU adduction of Gen. i. 26,
ff. ; Ps. xix. has regard to Gen, i. 7 ; Ps. xxiv. 1, 2, to Gen. i. 2,
9, 10, 22; Ps. xxxiu. 6, to Gen. U. 1 ; Ps. xxix. 10, xxxiii. 7, et
al. are references to the Deluge. The history of the patriarchs is
referred to in Ps. xlvu. 10 ; Ix. 9 (Gen. xUx. 10, comp. Num. xxi.,
1 Comp. Jahn, Einl. ii. p. 28, ff. ; see also J. D, Michaelis, Einl. p. 196, ff.

430 TESTIMONIES TO THE GENUINENESS
18) ; CV., CX. 4, et al. Allusion is made so frequentiy to the his
tory of the Mosaic period, that almost every single remarkable
occurrence of it is mentioned here (see Jahn, ibid. p. 32, ff.). The
Law is frequentiy introduced in a general way (Pss. i. xix., cxix.,
et al.), and in particular as a written document in Ps. xl. 8. In
dividual laws are brought forward not less frequently, as the pro
hibition to take usury, Ps. xv. 5 ; the law of purification, Levit.
xiv. 4 — 7 (comp. Num, xix. 6, 18), see Ps. li. 9 ; the sacrifices
are frequently mentioned, xl. 14, xlvi. 13, li. 18, Ixvi. 13 — 15,
cxvi. 14, 18, et al., and the feasts also in the songs for the feasts,
and those for the Temple, &c.
Since the Psalms then present us in so decided a manner with
these references to the Pentateuch, the criticism employed by our
opponents in reference to this matter need disturb us the less, espe
cially as that criticism cannot receive its complete confutation till
afterwards. But it makes us at once regard it with suspicion, that,
in order to maintain the non-authenticity of the Pentateuch, hypo
theses that are quite uncritical, which would now hardly gain a
hearing with judicious expositors, are proposed with respect to the
Psalms as weU. De Wette, Beitr. i. p. 155, ff,, at once sets it
down as a point incapable of proof, that a Psalm is by David,
affirming that the only criticism that is possible in reference to the
Psalms, is that which follows the principles of aesthetics in judging
by tho internal worth of a Psalm, &c. Thus here again every his
torical ground is shaken, and from this purely negative point of
view the criticism respecting the Pentateuch is also handled.
But these learned writers wholly mistake and overlook the main
question. That which ought properly to be pointed out on their
view of the matter is prudently evaded. In the first place, suppos
ing a part of the Psalms was composed prior to the origin of the
Pentateuch, it must be pointed out that these same Psalms neces
sarily require to be viewed as antecedent to it in point of time.
With reference to this, that which the opponents designate as an
unlevitical spirit,^ found in some old Psalms, and which they there
fore call anti-Mosaic, is only an external superficial conception ;
since with respect to every song it may be shown that it is com
posed from the point of view proper to the Israelites ; the deter-
1 Comp. e, g. Von Bohlen, p, cl.

FROM THE REST OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, 431
mination of which flows solely from the Law, Thus, for instance,
the idea of justice which Ps. in. exhibits as chastising all that is
anti-theocratical, and rewarding aU the godly, is by no means one
that has arisen separate from the Law, but one that is precisely
founded upon it. From what other source should the poet know
that Jehovah blesses his own people, that his enemies are likewise
God's enemies and exposed to his vengeance, that help comes from
Jehovah's holy hill ; — if we do not here hold to that positive foun
dation, which explains to us the existence of such remarkably dis
tinct and sure religious convictions. The problem, therefore, is to
prove, that, in the Hebrew mind, the period of that subjective reU
gious development which we meet with in the Psalms, was the
earher. But this would be taking such a view of it as would make
it a simply natural thing, while it is the opposite of that, the sub
jugating of the natural element, and the apprehension ofthe natural
mode of hfe as ungodly ; and in this way falls under a new category,
which finds its solution only in the peculiarly new element which
appears in the Hebrew people of this period.
Besides, it would form a second problem for this criticism, not
only to point out what is un-Mosaic and anti-Mosaic in the old
poetry of the Psalms, but also to explain the composition, subse
quently to the supposed origin of the Pentateuch, of those songs in
which undoubted and express reference is made to it. But so far
is it as yet from the solution of that problem, that it has not made
so much as a beginning in definitions of the kind, so that its deci
sions can be combated only in individual detail.
The same thing is true of Proverbs also, and of the Song of So
lomon. But it would require a special examination of these writ
ings themselves, to comprehend their proper relation to the Penta
teuch ; for which therefore we refer to a following part of the work.

^ 39. THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH.
The apocryphal literature follows in order the canonical Uterature.
Here we find, however, only one opinion generally prevalent, re
specting both the writer and the authority of the Pentateuch. Among
all the sacred writings there is none that is so generally and so un
qualifiedly regarded as a divine and immutable rule. " However

432 EVIDENCE AFFORDED BY
true it may be, says Sack (Apolog. p. 171), that criticism in the
scientific sense of the word was not the business of antiquity, yet
we know from later proofs that in no nation was the faculty of pre
cise enquiry and distinction so completely cultivated by the learned,
as among the Jews ; and after the return from the exile, this faculty,
especially amidst so many doctrinal divisions that were to be pro
moted by it, would easily have discovered arguments against the
age of the Pentateuch or single divisions of it, if tradition had but
suppUed some matter for it to work upon. But, instead of this, we
find both Pharisees and Sadducees agreed as to the reception of the
Mosaic writings."
Considering how numerous the opposite parties were, into which
the Judaism of the period subsequent to the exile was divided, this
fact is the more surprising. We would refer only to the Alexan
drine Judaism which arose after that epoch, the opposition of which
to the Judaism of Palestine was in some measure softened and con •
coaled by the special importance which even the former assigned to
the Pentateuch. One interesting fact is the reception of the Penta
teuch among the Samaritans, which deserves a more particular
examination, on account ofthe different judgments that have been
passed respecting it. After the kingdom of Israel had been deprived
by .Esarhaddon of its last inhabitants, and had received new colon
ists in their stead,'' there arose among them a sense of their need to
serve the God of the land (2 Kings xvii. 26) ; and they obtained
some of the priests who had been carried away to instruct them in
the new reUgion. Thus there arose in this part of Palestine a
syncretistie mode of worship, in which the deities of Assyria and
Babylonia received conjoint honours with Jehovah. In particu
lar, the services of the high places, as they had existed in the
kingdom of Israel, were established at the suggestion of those
priests, and priests of the high places were appointed from amongst
the new heathen colonists. These circumstances existed even in
the time of the author of the books of Kings. From the view which
he takes of that mixed people, we obtain a pretty vivid picture of
their practices and their relation to the covenant-people. They
paid indeed a certain reverence to Jehovah ; but he distinctly de
nies their adoption ofthe Law (ver. 40.). He expresslv makes a
1 Comp. 2 Kings xvii. 24, sq, ; Hengstcnberg, Beitr, z. Einl. i. p. 177.

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 433
contrast between them and the c"hildren of Jacob, who knew the
written Law of Jehovah ; and will not admit that these nations, as
completely involved in heathen fashions and adhering to them, are
to be counted among the Israelites (vers. 34 — 38.). The infiuence,
therefore, which the priestly instruction referred to had had, can
have been only quite superficial. We cannot in this case conceive
of a proper communication of the Pentateuch, the less so as the
heathen element maintained a most decided preponderance, so that
the Israelitish element, already weak in itself, was almost entirely
lost in it. The latter had yet to receive its last blow from the act
of Josiah, who destroyed the worship on the high places, which
had been again renewed in the land, and slew the priests who had
heen appointed in connection with it (2 Kings xxui. 15, 16.). But
still this did not root out the disposition, mentioned in the book of
Kings xvii. 33, to combine the worship of Jehovah with idolatry.
That disposition, as it was deeply rooted in the nature of hea
thenism, would be sure to show itself again on the first opportunity.
This opportunity was the more alluring, as with the religious con
cern to form a part of the covenant-people in a religious respect,
there were also external advantages associated ; and the prospect of
these excited them to assert their claims to that fellowship. Yet
they had also — especially regarding the matter from their point of
view — much that was plausible on their side to sustain these claims.
When the Jews on their return from the exile commenced the
building of the Temple, the moment of reunion appeared to them
to have arrived, and they made an offer to take part in the build
ing of the Temple. The readiness with which they then made ap
plication to the Jews, shows that they had themselves no regular
worship or priests as yet, and that their whole condition must have
had a very unsettled character, as it hardly could have been ex
pected to be otherwise after the previous occurrences. At the same
time they expressly described themselves on this occasion as of hea
then origin (Ezra iv. 9, 10), and made no use of any sort of
Israehtish relationship, and were as little recognised as having any
such relationship by the Jews, who on the contrary firmly main
tained against them the rigid exclusiveness of theocratic separation.
Subsequently, they also made an attempt to hinder the Jews in
1 See De Wette, Beitr. i, p. 210, ff-
2 E

434 EVIDENCE AFFORDED BY
building the walls of Jerusalem (Nehem. vi.), which only shows
the provocation they felt at the previous refusal and their own un
successful machinations.
We can by no means regard the Samaritans up to this time as
having been in possession of the Law. Had that been the case,
they would have brought it forward in support of their claims, and
would have appealed to it before every thing in opposition to the
Jews. The possession of the Pentateuch, and the recognition of
it as a religious rule, formed in this case the most decisive argu
ment, and the most effective means, to obtain what they desired of
the' Jews. But their own words, so utterly indefinite: "We will
seek your God as ye do" (Ezr. iv. 2), plainly expressed the con
trary. On the other hand, we find that under Nehemiah Jewish
fugitives betook themselves to Samaria.^ These Levitical priests
established there a Jewish form of worship, the final result of which,
namely, the erection of the Temple on Gerizim, built in imitation
of the Jewish, was at length effected under Alexander.
That the introduction of the Pentateuch among the Samaritans
belongs to the time when those fugitives went among them, is even
in itself in the highest degree probable. The new estabUshment of
the worship, the eager adoption of it, the subsequent building of
the Temple, the whole way in which the Levitical priests conducted
themselves in the case, are circumstances that presuppose the re
ception of the workby that^ieople at the time referred to. This
conjecture, however, would still remain only a conjecture, having
only itself to support it, were it not raised to certainty by a notice
in Josephus. The notice is this : the Samaritans apply to Alex
ander with the petition, that he would remit theih the taxes in the
seventh year, because they did not sow their fields that year, —
consequently they observed the Sabbatic year (Antiq. xi. 8.).
" Hinc recte colUgitur legis Mosaicae in aUis quoque capitibus
apud eos in usu fuisse observantiam" — says Buddeus, H. E. 2, p.
1042. They could also hardly have given themselves out at once
for Hebrews at that time, had not external appearances been in
favour of their assertion, and seemed to support their wish to pass
for such. That they were not indeed much in earnest in this wish,
1 Comp. Nehem. xiii. 28, 29, with Josephus, Antiq. xi. 7. The latter indeed places the
occurrence later under Darius Codomannus, but certainly by mistake, ns we shall see
more particularly afterwards.

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 43."l
we see from their history in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when
they denied this Jewish origin of theirs, as it threatened to involve
them in danger ; but this proves nothing more than the external
and hyprocritical manner in which Samaritanism accommodated
itself to Judaism.
It must therefore be regarded as estabUshed at least, that by the
time of Alexander the Great, the Samaritans had become possessed
ofthe Pentateuch, and that it had been transmitted into their hands
by Jewish agency. The concern betrayed by the Samaritans in this
as weU as in other things, to cUng closely to the basis of the Jewish
state, namely the Law, and to claim it on their behalf, proves at
the same time with what jealous strictness the Judaism ofthe times
subsequent, to the exile watched over its preservation, and the vindi
cation of it for itself. The Law here forms, both with fidend and
foe, the central point of aU effort and all development.
But the subsequent course of Samaritanism must the less be
overlooked in connection with this formation of it, as it unques
tionably exercised an influence on their reUgious development.
Already under Alexander, Samaritans had been transplanted to
Egypt (Ant. xi. 8.). Ptolemy Lagi did the same, transplanting a
multitude of them to Lower Egypt and Alexandria (Ant. xii. 1,).
The important bearing of this circumstance appears from the con
sideration, that Samaritanism in its endeavour to approximate to Ju
daism must have found opportunity for this in particular amongst
the Alexandrine Jews, who held less ffi-mly to the Law and to stiff
Judaism. Here too the account of Josephus (Ant. xiu. 3) — which
informs us of the dispute which arose between the Samaritans and
the Alexandrine Jews respecting the building of the Temple in
LeontopoUs, in which both parties appealed to the Law, and wished
the dispute decided according to it, — suppUes us with as certain a
testimony to the existence of the Pentateuch among the Samaritans,
as to the contact into which the two parties came with one another
at that time. There must have been persons then among the Sa
maritans, who occupied themselves by profession with the Penta
teuch and the study of it. The pecuUar character, however, of
Alexandrine Judaism must have impressed itself upon them all the
more, as they themselves came to it, devoid of a firm point of sup
port and a fixed reUgious character. Thus they took up many
dogmas and principles, such as the avoidance of anthropomorphisms,
2e 2

436 evidence afforded by
the pure spirituality of the angels {Svvd/iei<;, Qi'^'in)' *^"^ doctrine
of the resurrection, the special prominence given to Moses and the
Pentateuch above all the other persons and writings of the Old Tes
tament,^ These things were communicated to their Pentateuch,
and they certainly introduced into it alterations of that sort with so
much the more freedom, as in this too they had only to follow the
example of the Alexandrine Jews. In this way arose that recen
sion ofthe Pentateuch, which even still possesses force and validity
among the Samaritans as the document of their religion ; the strik
ing .agreement of which with the Alexandrine recension can be suf
ficiently explained only by this external and internal contact of the
two parties. This revision, however, as the nature of the case and
the condition of the Samaritan Pentateuch also show, is. to be con
ceived only as a gradual one, undertaken according to different cir
cumstances and objects; and this circumstance also leads to the
adoption of our previous conclusion, that the Samaritans must have
brought the Pentateuch with them into Egypt.^
The enquiry relating to this subject has been considerably em
barrassed by writers asserting, or rather taking for granted what had
little foundation, as to the origin of Samaritanism and its connection
with the Israelitish religious constitution. It was thought that the
Samaritans had received the Pentateuch from those who formed the
kingdom of the Ten Tribes, as they were considered to be their
descendants. The Samaritans would never have received that work,
it was supposed, from the hatred which prevailed betweem them and
the Jews, had it not previously existed in the kingdom of the Ten
Tribes ; and even there it could not have been found, had it not
been introduced before the separation of the two kingdoms.^ In
this way some believed they had gained a proof of the genuineness
of the Pentateuch ; others again* believed they acted more cau
tiously, in drawing from it the conclusion that the Pentateuch was
1 Comp. Gesenius, De Samarit. theologia ex fontibus ined. com. — Halee, 1822.
2 Compare with this the essay on the Liter. Anz. 1833. Nr. 38, ff. with which I am
quite agreed as to the negative part ; but the positive side of it I can adopt only with the
modifications that have been stated.
8 So Eichhorn, 3, p. 199. Eckermann, Beitr. ibid. p. 33, ff. Jahn, Einl. ii. p. 71, ff.
Ch, Fr. Fritzsche, ibid. p. 83, ff. Rosenmiiller, Prolegg. p. 38, sq. Steudel, in Bengel's
Archiv. 3, p, 626, ft', Mazade, sur I'origine I'nge et I'etat crit. du Pent. Samar. Geneve
1830, et al. '
4 So Bertholdt particularly, iii, p. 814, ff.

THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 437
composed shortiy before the separation of the two kingdoms. In
this argument truth and falsehood are strangely intermingled. The
foundation of the hypothesis is an assumption that is quite incapa
ble of proof namely, the identity of the Samaritan Pentateuch with
that of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes. But the connection of the
two parties was purely imaginary : even if the Israelites had long
been in possession of the Pentateuch, it would by no means follow
from that, that they transmitted it to the Samaritans. The heathen
origin of the latter, and their long adherence to heathenism, are,
however, directly opposed to the opinion.'^ On the" other hand,
the kingdom of the Ten Tribes was justiy regarded as in possession
ofthe Pentateuch, as we have also already shown.
The opponents of the genuineness of the Pentateuch, on the con-
traiy, denied the existence of the Pentateuch in the kingdom of
Israel ; and as they assigned the date of its composition to the pe
riod just before the captivity, or to the time of the captivity itself,
they maintained the opinion, as supported by other historical facts,
of its introduction among the Samaritans in the age of Manasses,^
[the fugitive priest, son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite, see
Nehem. xiu. 28.J. They had also an object in regarding the Sa
maritans as Jews, apostate Israelites, and in this way gaining one
argument more against the genuineness of the Pentateuch from the
book not being in existence among them at an earlier period. On
the other hand, these writers have the unquestionable merit of having-
first directed attention to a more historical examination of that fact
of the introduction of the Pentateuch. The premises of their view
must necessarily fall to the ground, but it certainly gives a correct
account of the historical fact, even though all that is comprehended
in the fact he not completely recognized.^
1 See the proof of this well brought out in the Liter. Anz. ibid.
2 So Fulda, in Paulus Memorab. vii. p. 21. Paulus, Comment, z. N. T. iy. p. 252, ff.
Vater, p. 623, ff, De Wette, Beitr. i. p. 214, ff. Gesenius, de Pentat. Samar. p. 9, sq.
Bleek, in the ibid. p. 63, ff. et al.
' Other hypotheses, such as that Josiah gave the Samaritans the Pentateuch (Von
Colin, iu the Hall. Lit. Zeit. 1828. Erganz. Bl. Nr. 13), are destitute of all historical
foundation.

438 TESTIMONY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
§ 40. THE TESTIMONY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TO THE
GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH.
That which we meet with as a firm conviction in the whole of
Judaism and even in the case of Christ's contemporaries,^ namely,
the recognition of the Pentateuch as a sacred work composed by
Moses under divine direction, is not only never contradicted by
Christ and his apostles, but they even confirm that view as being
quite their own and the only true one. This may be shown by a
multitude of passages. The Lord himself testifies that Moses wrote
of Christ : belief in the writings of Moses and in his own words are
joined together in the most intimate connection, John v. 46, 47.
In reference to a discourse in which the relation of Christ to Moses
is so distinctly indicated as it is there, and in which the divinity of
the Eedeemer's mission is represented as connected with the divine
authority ofthe Law, and as constituting with it one whole, there can
be no thought of any kind of misunderstanding ; and the reference
to the Law would have been decidedly inadmissible and wrong, if
our Lord had not intended to recognise the Law in its full and
well estabUshed claims. With this other analogous expressions of
Christ are quite accordant ; comp, Luke xxiv. 27, 44 ; Mark xii.
26. Quotations from all the books of the Pentateuch are found in
the New Testament. Its history is constantly adduced as a true
history, which stands essentially related to the Gospel ; and its
laws are equally regarded as divine laws delivered by Moses to the
people in the Pentateuch (comp. e. g. Eom. x. 5 ; Acts xv. 21 ;
Hebr. xiu. 12, 13, &c.) ; its predictions are represented as ful
filled in Christ, and have accordingly a real divine origin assigned
them. It is manifest that the view which takes Christ and his aposties
to be what they give themselves out for, can recognise nothing but
truth in these expressions, and find in them the higher sanction of
that conclusion to which true critical inquiry also will constantly
lead, namely the genuineness ofthe Pentateuch. As for a book, fuU
of institutes proceeding from the late inventions of priests, com
piled from corrupt popular legends, without any historical founda-
1 Comp. f, g. Matth. xix. 7 ; Mark xii, 19 ; John i. 46 ; Josephus, Antiq, xvii, 6,3.

TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 439
tion ; we cannot tell why it should deserve a preference above the
irapaBoa-eig oi the Pharisees, which indeed had arisen only on that
basis : we should be compelled to inflict the severest censure on
such a proceeding as would leave untouqhed the deeper root of the
corruption, while with such partiality the lesser evil was marked as
an evil, but that which was far greater passed over in silence.
An endeavour was made even by Clericus^ to get rid of this
troublesome authority, with the remark that Christ and the apostles
did not come into the world to instruct the Jews in criticism ; and
the most recent ofthe opponents also think they have obviated that
objection, by observing that faith in Christ cannot set limits to cri
tical enquiries, otherwise it would prove a hinderance to the know
ledge of the truth.^ But an older theologian justly replied to this :
" Enim vero non fuere Christus et Apostoli critices doctores, quales
se haberi pQstulant, qui hodie sibi regnum litterarum in quavis vin-
dicant scientia ; fuerunt tamen doctores veritatis, neque passi sunt
sibi per communem ignorantiam aut procerum astum imponi. Non
certe in mundum venere ut vulgares errores foverent, suaque aucto-
ritate munirent, nee per Judseos solum sed et populos unice a se
pendentes longe lateque spargerent."^ It must at least be granted
that, if our opponents' view of the Pentateuch holds good, our view
of the Eedeemer with regard to his veracity is not to be adopted
without quahfication ; and that He who designates himself as the
Truth, can say so only in a limited sense, so that even that expres
sion does not so much as admit of the appUcation He gave it to the
saving truth itself, since (as we have seen) in reference to that truth
He regarded his personal position to the Old Testament Law and
its author as being as far as possible from a non-essential point.
The conflicting nature of such a view of the Pentateuch with the
view given in the New Testament, shows then where the rejection
of the Pentateuch leads, and in what opposition the assertion re
ferred to places itself If a belief in Christ really stands in such close
connection with a belief in Moses as the Saviour testifies, then the
consequence follows, to which the criticism of the opponents of the
genuineness is necessarily driven, namely the rejection of the au
thority of Christ. "And thus," says Sack, Apol. p, 170, "the
, 1 In the Sentimens de quelques theologiens, etc, p, 126,
2 De Wette, Einl. § 163.
3 Witsius, MisccUan. Sac. i, p, 117,

440 HISTORY OF ATTACKS ON THE
dawning of literature in its oldest productions, which are otherwise
from the nature of the case involved in obscurity, may be proved by
the words of Him who claimed the name of the Truth, to be even
stiU the first and surest testimony for all enquiry which retains con
fidence in the words of Christ."

§ 41. HISTORY OF THE ATTACKS MADE UPON THE GENUINENESS
OF THE PENTATEUCH.
A great agreement has at all times prevailed in the whole of the
Jewish and the Christian church, in the assertion of the genuine
ness of the Pentateuch. The few exceptions that occurred in
ancient times, and the nature of the reasons that led them to an
opposite assertion, only serve to confirm the point. As an instance
from the most ancient period of Christianity, Ptolemy the Gnostic
is commonly adduced, as a disputer of the genuineness. But
his attack is properly directed only against the divine origin of the
Law.^ He asserts it to have been given, partly by Moses, partly
by the elders of the nation — an opinion that cannot surprise us, con
sidering the arbitrary sentiments of that party, occasioned by their
dogmatic tendencies. Of as little critical worth are the accounts
we have relating to the Nazarenes and the Clementines, which in a
similar manner bring forward doubts of the divine authority of the
Mosaic Law.^ Those histories contained in the Pentateuch, which
they regarded as offensive and unworthy of Scripture, principally
formed with thern a welcome subject of polemic attack, which
appeared likely to prove most efiective, when directed against that
book of the Old Testament which was accounted the most sacred.
Opponents of Christianity, such as Celsus and JuUan, went farther,
as they at once represented the historical portions of the work as
mythi, and paralleled them with the heathen fables.'
The passage in Hieronymus [Jerome] contra Helvidium has
still less connection with the question ; where he says, " sive Mosen
1 In his Epistola ad Floram, in Epiphanius, Haeres. xxxiii. 3.
2 Comp. Job. Damasc. De haer. § 18. Clement. Homil. ii. 38, 40, iii. 47 ; with which
compare Neander, Gnost. Systems, p. 280, 286. Credner, in Winer's Wissensch. Zeit.
schr. i. 2, p. 256.
3 Comp. Von Colin, Lehrb. d. Dogmengesch. i, p. 117, ff.

GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 441
dicere volueris auctorem Pentateuchi, sive Esram ejusdem instaura
torem operis, non recuse." The father is here referring to the
Jewish tradition of the restoration of the Old Testament writings
by Ezra. Now this tradition by no means disputed the authenti
city of the Pentateuch, but represented Ezra as its restorer, who by
inspiration had been enabled to replace the authentic text as it ex
isted previously to the captivity. This Jewish fable had spread
very much and gained some importance among the fathers ; hence
the tone of recognition in which Jerome here speaks of it, although
he certainly discerned its intrinsic untenableness.
Thus we do not meet with properly critical doubts in ancient
times; we can still appeal to the constancy and complete unanimity
of general ecclesiastical tradition in the assertion ofthe genuineness ;
and it was the Eabbinism of the middle ages, in the representatives
of its freer tendencies, that first made a certain attempt towards
questioning the authenticity. But even here the doubts advanced
are still so much concealed, that it may be seen what authority was
felt to be arrayed against one. Isaac ben Jasos, in the beginning
ofthe 11th century, propounded the opinion (in his commentary,
which is known only from quotations), that some sections of the
Pentateuch were composed far later than Moses; e.g.. Gen. xxxvi.
in the reign of Jehoshaphat. Abenezra, who mentions the asser
tion referred to, and emphatically disapproves of it, appears to have
taken up the opinion, not so much of the non- authenticity ofthe
Pentateuch, as of single interpolated passages rather ; yet he too
speaks on this point with great obscurity.
For the honour of being commonly named as the first assailant
cf the genuineness, the last mentioned Eabbinical writer has pro
perly to thank Spinoza, who in his Tractatus Theologico-poli
ticus, ch. viii., appeals to his authority. Spinoza brings out not
without acuteness* particular reasons, in favour of the late com
position of the work, and thinks it probable that the Pentateuch
received its present form from Ezra. He found among others an
able opponent in the Dutch writer. Franc. Cuper, Arcana Atheismi
refutata, Rotterod. 1676, quarto.
1 See on that J. D. Michaelis. Einl, i, p. 174, ff.
2 Comp. Maier, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1832. H, 3. p. 639, ff.
3 Comp. Maier, ibid, p, 634, ff. ; also Rosenmiiller, Prolegg. p. 21.
* It is remarkable that he regards Deuteronomy as the book that was first composed.

442 HISTORY OF ATTACKS ON THE
But even previously to Spinoza, some learned men had come
forward maintaining the non- authenticity, though certainly without
stating much in support of the opinion. To these assaults belong
Carlstadt's assertion (De canon, scriptt.) : " defendi potest Mosen
non fuisse scriptorem quinque librorum;" A, Masius (in Comment.
ad libr. Jos.), who decided that the separate portions of the Penta
teuch were subsequently put together ; Is. Peyrerius, who attacked
the historical portions in a frivolous manner, in the Syst. Theol.
ex Prseadamit. hypoth. ; Hobbes, who declared, " Videtur Penta-
teuchus potius de Mose quam a Mose scriptus." (Leviathan, c, 33.).
The subject was handled at greater length afterwards by Eichard
Simon, Clericus, and Van Dale, who however differ more or less
from one another in their conclusions. The best refutation of
these views is to be found in Heidegger, Exercitat. Bibl. t. i. p;
246, sqq. Witsius, Miscell. Sacr. t, i,, p, 103, sq. Carpzov. In
trod. i. p. 38, sq. Clericus, in a subsequent treatise De scripiore
Pentateuchi, retracted the greater part of the views he had formerly
expressed. After the frivolity of English, French, and German Deism had
sufficiently exhausted itself in scoffing at the Pentateuch, the time
came when it was thought well to throw concealment over the wan
tonness formerly shown by a more scientific array of reasons, and
to impress a more serious character on the doubts advanced. Among
the attempts of greater importance that were now made, the follow
ing may be distinctly mentioned. Fulda' proceeded on the view,
that Hebrew literature, from its linguistic character, pointed to one
and the same period as that of its origin ; so that the Pentateuch
in its present shape is a revision of older compositions presented in
a later form. Tt is only single pieces that give evidence of being
ancient : the whole existed only in fragments until the time of
David : then a collection of laws began to be made, which was still
different, however, from our Pentateuch. The latter was first com
pleted about the time of the Babylonian Captivity. Nachtigall's
(Otmar) view^ was also similar to this, in which he came to the
conclusion, that the Pentateuch was compiled (perhaps by Jeremiah)
about the time of the Captivity, fi'om many ancient, and partiy also
1 In the Neues Repert. of Paulus, Part iii., and Memorabiliou St. 7.
3 In Henke's Magazin, vol. ii, and vol. iv,
2

GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 443
genuine Mosaic collections. Schuster' again would have the com
position of the Pentateuch referred to the age of David and Solo
mon ; but he also conceded to Moses a considerable share in it,
especially in the legal portions. Similar opinions were held by
Paulus (Comment, z. N. T. iv. p. 230, ff.), Bertholdt, and others.
But, while these writers impugned the genuineness, there were
not wanting able defenders of it. Along with productions of a more
compliant character, and written under the influence of the spirit of
the age, such as those of Jerusalem and Liiderwald, J.D. Michaelis
(Einl. ins A. T., Part I.) still stands forth as far superior in learn
ing to the opponents. But he very much lacks acute judgment.
Eichhorn's defence still remains remarkable and unique of its kind.
This highly-gifted man unquestionably brought to the task not only
talent, but also a great sense of the simple, sublime, and venerable
character of the work. There are acknowledgments made by him
in reference to that point, which are as deserving of esteem as of
consideration. It is true, we often flnd more of declamation and
rhetoric in him, than of pointed and relevant reasons. He rather
turns the opponents into contempt and scorn, than refutes them.
There is also manifest in him in the latter period of his life, a greater
tendency to compliance with the opinions of the age. False no
tions, and defences that take up the Deistical point of view, and the
natural mode of explanation, frequently deprive his apologetic la
bours of their proper force and truth. However much these apo
logetic labours were at variance with the author's doctrinal system,
yet they had so much that was fascinating and winning about them,
and of an imposing character from the authority of the man, that
they exerted the greatest infiuence on contemporaries, who were
more or less like-minded with him, as Corrodi, Eckermann, Bauer,
and others ; so that no one ventured to make a decided attack on
the Pentateuch.
In 1805 Vater's Commentary appeared. The germs, which
Eichhorn's Document-hypothesis contained, as matter for disputing
the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, were there developed and mo
dified. The non -authenticity of the Pentateuch was now grounded
ou the Fragment-hypothesis, and every single portion was assigned

1 " Aelteste Sageu der Bibel nach ihrem historischen und praktischen Geholte."
Liineburg, 1804,

444 HISTORY OF ATTACKS ON THE PENTATEUCH.
to a different age, most of them to the Captivity. Augusti, in his
Introduction, agreed with him as to the main point. By De
Wette, with whom Gesenius agreed, this opinion was developed
further, and more precisely defined. According to him, Genesis
and Exodus belonged to the period from Samuel to Joram, Le
viticus and Numbers are to be assigned to that of the Assyrian cap
tivity, and Deuteronomy to that of the Babylonian. Volney 's' view
of the origin of the present Pentateuch is that it was a work com
pUed by Hilkiah, Shaphan, comp. 2 Kings xxii., and the prophet
Jeremiah. Schumann, Prolegg. p. xxxvi. sq., represents Ezra, on
the ground of Jewish tradition, as elaborating and completing the
Law. Hartmann will have it that the separate pieces came into
existence gradually, even into the period of the Captivity, without,
however, fixing the origin of the whole more exactly. Ammon
(FortbUdung des Christenthums i. p. 123, ff.) considers the Penta
teuch as a work planned by Moses, continued up to the times of
Solomon, quite forgotten during the prevalence of idolatry, disco
vered again by Hilkiah, and restored under the name of Moses by
him or one of his followers. Von Bohlen points to the fact men
tioned in 2 Kings xxii. as explaining the origin of .Deuteronomy,
but regards other portions as far later, and even subsequent to the
Captivity, so that, referring the origin of the work as a whole to
that period, he represents the Pentateuch as being gradually deve
loped even down to the time of Christ. Vatke (see his Bibl. Theol.
i. p. 542, ff.) maintains that the legislation was not completely
finished even in the Captivity ; that then also many of the mythi
and ideas in the Pentateuch were adopted and received their full
form — while the whole was probably completed by the zeal of Ezra.
These opponents of the genuineness, however, of whom we have
only named the chief, who deserve special regard, have also been
met by refutations that are in part very thorough. Among them,
Jahn is distinguished by thoroughness and learning. Single va
luable contributions have proceeded from Staudlin, in defence of
the Mosaic laws ; Kanne, Bibl. Untersuch. und Auslegg. (Parts I.
IL), Ch. Fr. Fritzsche, Scheibel, &c. The most important is the
defence by EosenmiiUer (Scholia, third ed.), which, though it does
not exhaust the subject, has excited great attention on account of
1 Recherches nouvelles sur I'histoire ancienne, t. i. Compare the extract by Rosen
miiller, in Bertholdt's Krit. Journal, viii, 1, pp. 69 — 80.

GENEEAL CONCLUDING REMARKS. 445
the high standing of the author, who formerly maintained the oppo
site view. Herbst, in the treatises which we have frequentiy quoted,
indulges in very arbitrary hypotheses, which contain however single
remarks of great worth. Pareau has with much learning assailed
in particular the mythical hypothesis of the opponents ; and his
Institutio interpretis Vet. Test, also contains much that is deserv
ing of attention in defence of the genuineness in general. Sack
(Apol. p. 151, ff.), has with seriousness and effect again directed
attention to the weakness of the dogmatic ground on which the
views ofthe opponents rest, and has presented the arguments for
the genuineness in a concise and conclusive form. It is also of im
portance, that Bleek more recently has again begun to claim a con
siderable portion of the Mosaic books for their true author.
Among English and French writers. Home and Cellerier have un
dertaken the defence of the authenticity, without however contri
buting much that is their own. Tn general it must be confessed, that
the defenders for the most part occupy too much the standing-
point of the opponents, instead of surveying and mastering it, and
thus subjecting it to a proper estimate ; hence we frequently desi
derate an exposure and contesting of the opposite principles ; by
adopting which in their criticism, that criticism itself has been put
in fetters, from which it can be set free, only by a decided and con
sistent adherence to the positive fundamental principle.

§ 42. GENERAL CONCLUDING REMARKS.
1. If we look now at these various views of the opponents, the
first thing about them that must excite our surprise, is their total
want of all positive unity. Tn spite of all their protestations,' this
circumstance shows the great arbitrariness of the principles on which
they have gone to work in their criticism. Bertholdt himself makes
the just remark, that the only thing of consequence is the fixing of
the date at which the Pentateuch in its present extent was certainly
in existence. But it is just as to this point that the important
difference referred to prevails ; and as the recent school of criticism
also took up the opinion of the Pentateuch's consisting of single
Comp. e. g. Bertholdt, iii, p. 809,

446 GENERAL CONCLUDING REMARKS,
separate pieces, it had provided a still wider field for giving a freer
and stronger exhibition of that difference. The confusion that has
arisen in this way, has undeniably inflicted the greatest injury on
the quarter whence it proceeded. No one among all these recent
critics has given so much as any kind of clear delineation of the
mode of this book's origin ; which is the more surprising, consider
ing the great confidence with which the age of single pieces is de
cided. 2. If the Pentateuch is not the work of him, who names himself
in it as its author, it is the work of deception. The history is then
an untrue history ; the laws are falsely ascribed to Moses ; the pre
dictions have been invented post eventum. It is difficult to say,
who can have been the inventing party in this case. If single
pieces were in circulation among the Israelitish people under the
name of Moses, nothing else can be supposed than that there
existed a feeling of interest regarding them. How they should
then have been arbitrarily multiplied, it is not easy to see, espe
cially when we consider the character of the Law itself It is
so far from flattering either the people, or their rulers the priests,
that it rather delivers a valid testimony against them. Had
it been possible, they would rather have destroyed the Penta
teuch, than have brought it out in its present accusatory form. The
history sufficiently shows what endeavours were made to get rid of
the Law, to evade it and to destroy its power ; and what disobedi
ence was shown towards it. Least of all did the Law, especially this
Law based on holiness, originate in the spirit of the age, the inclina
tion of the natural man : to that spirit its oppressive yoke is most of
all opposed. From the opposite quarter, the party that was truly
theocraticaUy minded, we cannot expect a work of deception : it
should first be shown that that party had recourse to such means,
in order to confirm its power and importance ; and if the declara
tion be true, " by their fruits ye shall know them," this fruit would
at once exhibit the corruptness of its author. But such a deception
as would then have been practised with the Pentateuch, is also qiute
inconceivable for this reason, that the forgery was in this case most
easy of discovery, as it related to nothing else than the foundation
ofthe entire national and poUtical system. The number of the
persons deceived and led astray in this case would have beeu in
finitely great. This was much less true of the poems of Homer,

GENERAL CONCLUDING REMARKS. 447
as to their importance to Greece, yet even Herodotus (ii. 117, iv.
32) propounds doubts respecting their genuineness. And this was
the case not merely with learned enquirers, and among educated
nations ; even Boeotians, according to Pausanias, were in their
fashion such critics, as he says of them : Boicot&v Be ol Trepl Tbv
'EXtK&va oltcovvTet; TrapeiX'qpfieva Bo^rj Xeyovcrtv, w? dXXo 'Hcrio-
80? iroirjaai ovBev rj to, epya' Kal tovtuv Be to es ras Movaa<;
atpaipoOffi, '7Tpoolp,i,ov, dp'^ijv Trji Trotr)ae<i3<i elvai Tb es ras "EptBa<;
'Keyovre^ (ix. 31,4.). The Uterary history of Homer, ofthe Orphic
poems, of Museeus, &c., might supply a still larger number of such
instances, if so plain a matter required any farther proof Suffice
it that even antiquity gives sufficient evidence of having been sen
sitive to such impositions ; and the religious feeling, however often
it may have been led astray by priestly dominion and superstition,
yet has never allowed itself to be treated with such wanton mockery,
that one could dare to use with it what was most sacred for a cloak
of deception. If any where, it was pre-eminently so in Israel. The
propensity to forgery first took root there, when the ancient sacred
Uterature had become merely a subject for imitation, and when a
degenerate age, that had become intimate with foreign habits, was
incompetent to reproduce what was ancient except in a dull and
spiritless manner ; and therefore not in the period when its litera
ture was vigorous and flourishing. Both people and priests, pro
phets and wise men, must have lost all feeling and taste with
respect to their literary property, if they could have been prevailed
upon to place at the head of their literature a work, which, as the
production of forgery, would have been the most unworthy consti
tuent portion of it,
3. The more that a nation becomes divided into important reli
gious and political factions, the more difficult an undertaking does
it become, to deceive it in such a way as must have been the case,
in foisting the Pentateuch upon it. Such opposite parties can most
convincingly be shown to have existed among the Israelites, in
smaUer as well as larger circles. We do not even require to make
mention of the different courses pursued by the prophets, the kings,
and the priests ; each of whom, foUowing separate aims, not unfre
quently came into violent and hostile collision with the others.
There are other opposite parties that we may here refer to, which
at the same time supply still more striking proofs in reference to

448 GENERAL CONCLUDING REMARKS.
our object. If the Pentateuch were a work that had its origin in
or after the Captivity, it would be quite incomprehensible how it
should then have found its way into Egypt and Samaria, and been
able to assert such consideration for itself there, as was the case.
Nobody strives to obtain possession of a novel thing, as the Sa
maritans strove for it ; though one may for an ancient and vener
able sacred object. And just as in that case the ground of the
contention cannot have been an empty advantage, standing besides
on the weak support of a fiction ; neither can such have been the
bond that was capable of holding together in some degree two par
ties of such divergent tendencies, as those of the Egyptian Judaism
and the Judaism of Palestine. The same thing holds good also of
the age prior to the Captivity, as of that of Josiah for instance, as
well as of the period after Solomon in general ; for we then find
Judah and Israel standing in such direct opposition, that the fact of
the most important religious document existing as the common
property of both, can be explained only by the fact of its earUer
existence. This tells also, however, against the origin of the Pen
tateuch in the times of David and Solomon, according to the re
mark of Eichhorn : " In particular, it is incomprehensible why
Jeroboam, who shortly after that introduced the worship of the
Calves in his newly-founded kingdom, did not expose the fictitious
composition of the books which were opposed to his own religious
institution ; since the deception must have been easy of discovery,
from the shortness of the time that had elapsed" (p. 21 1.). Still
less can it be regarded as at all comprehensible that it should have
taken place in the period of the Judges, when the distracted state
of things divided tribes and families still more from one another.
4. There is also this additional consideration, that we are in pos
session of literary documents belonging to all those periods, the
comparison of which with the Pentateuch shows but too plainly,
that its peculiar character is so Uttle in accordance with that of the
post-Mosaic literature, that we cannot possibly regard such a kind
of literary labour as belonging to the later period. " We see (says
Leo, Univers. Gesch. i. p. 570, with reference to the period of the
Judges) from the comparative poverty of the records in the book of
Judges, that this was impossible." That the times of David and
Solomon were affected by a totally different tendency requires no
proof: that, on closer examination, we cannot attribute to them

GENERAL CONCLUDING REMARKS. 449
even the poetical portions of the Pentateuch, is shown by the formal
structure of the latter. The prophetic literature is as far from pre
senting a suitable analogy : indeed the prophetic element of the
Pentatejich is by no means the only or preponderating element in
it. But in the memorials of the Captivity and the subsequent pe
riod a far greater difference is discernible. Even from this general
review it appears, that the whole compass of subsequent literary
productions rests on the Pentateuch, which includes them in itself
in their germ and commencement. Therefore, if the Pentateuch
as a whole is to be comprehended and expounded, it can be done
only by regarding it as a genuine work of the Mosaic age.

Exegetical aids. — In Patristic literature, the following are of
special service for the study ofthe Pentateuch : Hieronymus (Quaest.
in Gen. t. 3, 1, ed. Vallars), Chrysostomus (Homill. in Gen.),
Cyrillus Alex. (Com. in Pent, t. i. p. 2, ed. Paris,), Augustinus
(De Genesi ad literam.). — Of the special commentaries of the Eab
bins, Abarbanel's exposition (ed. Van Bashuysen, Hanov. 1710)
deserves to be mentioned. See others in Carpzov, Intr, i. p. 51.
sq. — Of the older Protestant expositors, Calvin, Mercerus, Drusius,
Osiander ; and of the CathoUcs, Bonfrerius ; are still very deserving
of attention. The historical matter has been best illustrated by
Clericus, from whom principally Eosenmiiller's Scholia borrow
what they contain in that department. In more recent times, it is
properly only Vater's work, which embraces the whole Pentateuch,
that is of importance. The commentary, however, is so defective,
and also full of particular arbitrary notions, that it can now hardly
satisfy the most moderate requirements. Schumann has commenced
a commentary on the Pentateuch, with one on Genesis ; and Tiele
has begun one on Genesis. The former contains single phUolo
gical remarks that are of value, but as a whole extremely littie of
original matter. The latter may be recommended for practical
use. There is also, besides these; Von Bohlen's Exposition of
Genesis, which, considered as a Commentary, is a performance of
no value. The Literature of the Pentateuch, particularly of Ge
nesis is very rich in works containing observations on particular
passages. The chief of these are : J. Marck, Comm. in prsecipuas

450 GENERAL CONCLUDING REMARKS.
quasdam Pent, partes, Lugd. Bat. 1721.. Sterringa, Obserw.
Phil. Sac. in Pent. Ludg. 1721. Hackmanni Praecidann. Sac.
t. i. Ludg. Bal. 1735. Haitsma, Curse philol. in Gen. Franeq.
1753. Hensler, Bemerkk. ub. St. d, Pss. und der Genesis, 1791.
Gaab, Beitr. z. Erkl. der 1. 2. 4. Biicher Mosis, Tiib, 1796, &c.

PRINTED BY
M'COSH. PARK, AND DEWARS,
PDNDEB.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03918 5948

' •i'lVi