b'H \n\n\n\n\'\xe2\x96\xa0\';\xe2\x80\xa2:\xe2\x80\xa2;\xe2\x80\xa2 flf \n\n\n\nLIBRARY OF CONGRESS. \n\n\n\n%P~t- Ccptjrigljl !}o...- \n\nShelf%.7..4 \n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA. \n\n\n\nIN UNIFORM BINDING \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS \n\nBy WILLIAM HENRY GREEN, D.D., LL.D. \n\nProfessor of Oriental and Old Testament Literature in \n\nPrinceton Theological Seminary \n\n\n\n8vo, $3.00 \n\n\n\nTHE HIGHER CRITICISM OF \nTHE PENTATEUCH \n\n\n\nTHE HIGHER CRITICISM OF \nTHE PENTATEUCH \n\n\n\nWILLIAM LTENBY GEEEX, D.D., LL.D. \n\nPROFESSOR OF ORIENTAL AND OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE IX PRINCETON \nTHEOLOGICAL SEMINARY \n\n\n\n\n\n\nkiyl^OUX. \n\n\n\nNEW YORK \n\nCHAELES SCEIBNEE\'S SONS \n\n1895 \n\n\n\n\n\n\nCOPYRIGHT, 1895, BT \n\nCHARLES SCRIBNER\'S SONS \n\n\n\no \n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE \n\n\n\n<" The Higher Criticism has been of late so associated \nwith extravagant theorizing, and with insidious attacks \nupon the genuineness and credibility of the books of the \nBible that the very term has become an offence to seri- \nous minds. It has come to be considered one of the \nmost dangerous forms of infidelity, and in its very nature \nhostile to revealed truth. And it must be confessed that \nin the hands of those who are unfriendly to supernatural \nreligion it has proved a potent weapon in the interest of \nunbelief. Nor has the use made of it by those who, \nwhile claiming to be evangelical critics, accept and de- \nfend the revolutionary conclusions of the antisupernatur- \nalists, tended to remove the discredit into which it has \nfallen. \n\nThis is not the faidt of the Higher Criticism in its \ngenuine sense, however, but of its perversion. Prop- \nerly speaking it is an inquiry into the origin and char- \nacter of the writings to which it is applied. It seeks to \nascertain by all available means the authors by whom, \nthe time at which, the circumstances under which, and \nthe design with which they were produced. Such inves- \ntigations, rightly conducted, must prove a most important \naid to the understanding and just appreciation of the \nwritings in question. \n\nThe books of the Bible have nothing to fear from such \ninvestigations, however searching and thorough, and how- \never fearlessly pursued. They can only result in estab- \nlishing more firmly the truth of the claims, which the \n\n\n\nVI PREFACE \n\nBible makes for itself, in every particular. The Bible \nstands upon a rock from which it can never be dislodged. \n\nThe genuineness and historical truth of the Books of \nMoses have been strenuously impugned in the name of \nthe Higher Criticism. It has been claimed as one of its \nmost certain results, scientifically established, that they \nhave been falsely ascribed to Moses, and were in reality \nproduced at a much later period. It is affirmed that the \nhistory is by no means reliable and merely records the \nuncertain and variant traditions of a post-Mosaic age ; \nand that the laws are not those of Moses, but the growth \nof centuries after his time. All this is demonstrably \nbased on false and sophistical reasoning, which rests on \nunfounded assumptions and employs weak and inconclu- \nsive arguments. \n\nIt is the purpose of this volume to show, as briefly and \ncompactly as possible, that the faith of all past ages in \nrespect to the Pentateuch has not been mistaken. It is \nwhat it claims to be, and what it has always been be- \nlieved to be. In the first chapter it is exhibited in its \nrelation to the Old Testament as a whole, of which it is \nnot only the initial portion, but the basis or foundation \nupon which the entire superstructure reposes ; or rather, \nit contains the germs from which all that follows was \ndeveloped. In the second, the plan and contents of the \nPentateuch are unfolded. It has one theme, which is \nconsistently adhered to, and which is treated with or- \nderly arrangement and upon a carefully considered plan \nsuggestive of a single author. In the third it is shown \nby a variety of arguments, both external and internal, \nthat this author was Moses. The various forms of oppo- \nsition to this conclusion are then outlined and separately \nconsidered. First, the weakness of the earlier objections \nfrom anachronisms and inconsistencies is shown. In the \nfourth chapter the divisive hypotheses, which have in \n\n\n\nPKEFACE vil \n\nsuccession been maintained in opposition to the unity of \nthe Pentateuch, are reviewed and shown to be baseless, \nand the arguments urged in their support are refuted. \nIn the fifth chapter the genuineness of the laws is de- \nfended against the development hypothesis. And in the \nsixth and last chapter these hypotheses are shown to be \nradically unbiblical. They are hostile alike to the truth \nof the Pentateuch and to the supernatural revelation \nwhich it contains. \n\nPrinceton, N. J. , August 1, 1895. \n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS \n\ni \n\nPAGE \n\nThe Old Testament and its Structure, 1 \n\nThe Old Testament addressed in the first instance to Israel \nand in the language of that people ; the New Testament to \nall mankind and in the language of the civilized world. The \nformer composed by many writers in the course of a thousand \n3, 1 ; not an aggregate of detached productions, but pos- \nof an organic structure, 2 ; of which each book is a \nconstituent element, 3, with its special function. The three- \nfold division of the Hebrew Bible, 4, resting on the official \nposition of the writers, 5. The Lamentations an apparent ex- \nception, 6. Two methods of investigating organic structure, \n7. First, trace from the beginning. The Pentateuch, histor- \nical, poetical, 8, and prophetical books, 9. Second, survey \nfrom the end, viz., Christ ; advantages of this method, 10. \nPredictive periods, negative and positive ; division of the Old \nTestament thence resulting, 11-13. Two modes of division \ncompared, 14. General relation of the three principal sec- \ntions, 15-17. \n\nII \n\nThe Plan and Contents op the Pentateuch, 18 \n\nNames of the books of Moses, origin of the fivefold divis- \nion, 18. Theme of the Pentateuch ; two parts, historical and \nlegal, 19 ; preliminary portion, 20 ; its negative and positive \naim, 21. Creation to the Flood, primeval holiness and the \nfall ; salvation and perdition ; segregation, 22 ; divine insti- \ntutions. The Flood to Abraham, 23. Call of Abraham. Two \nstages in the development of Israel. The family ; Abraham, \nIsaac, Jacob, 24. The nation ; negative and positive prepa- \nration for the exodus ; the march to Sinai. The legislation ; \nat Sinai 25, in the wilderness of Paran, in the plains of Moab, \n26-28 ; one theme, definite plan, continuous history, 29, sug- \ngestive of a single writer. Tabular view, 30. \n\n\n\nX CONTENTS \n\nIII \n\nPAGE \n\nMoses the Authok op the Pentateuch, 31 \n\nImportance of the Pentateuch, 31. Mosaic authorship as \nrelated to credibility. (1) Traditional opinion among the \nJews ; testimony of the New Testament, 32, not mere accom- \nmodation to prevailing sentiment. (2) Testimony of the Old \nTestament, 33-35. (3) Declarations of the Pentateuch ; the \nBook of the Covenant ; the Priest code ; the Deuteronomic \ncode, 36 ; two historical passages ascribed to Moses, which \nimply much more, 37, 38 ; intimate relation of the history to \nthe legislation. (4) The language of the laws points to the \nMosaic period, 39, 40 ; indicates that they were written then. \nMoses\'s farewell addresses, song and blessing, 41. The laws \ncould not be forged ; locality of these enactments. (5) The Pen- \ntateuch alluded to or its existence implied in the subsequent \nbooks of the Bible, 42. (6) Known and its authority admitted \nin the kingdom of the ten tribes, 43 ; no valid argument from \n.the Samaritan Pentateuch, 44 ; proof from the history of the \nschism and the books of the prophets. (7) Elementary char- \nacter of its teachings. (8) Egyptian words and allusions, 45. \nAssaults in four distinct lines, 46. The earliest objections ; \nancient heretics ; Jerome misinterpreted ; Isaac ben Jasos ; \nAben Ezra, 47 ; Peyrerius ; Spinoza ; Hobbes ; Richard \nSimon, 48 ; Le Clerc ; answered by "Witsius and Carpzov, 49. \nThe alleged anachronisms and other objections of no account, \n50, 51. Note : Testimony of Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 52 ; 2 \nSamuel, Kings, 53; Joel, Isaiah, 54 ; Micah, Jeremiah, 55; \nPsalms. Allusions in Hosea and Amos to the facts of the \nPentateuch, 56 ; to its laws, 57 ; coincidences of thought or \nexpression, 58. \n\nIV \n\nThe Unity op the Pentateuch, 59 \n\nMeaning of unity, 59 ; illustration from Bancroft ; the \nGospels, 60. The Document Hypothesis ; Vitringa, 61 ; As- \ntrue, Eichhorn, Gramberg, 62. (1) Elohim and Jehovah, 63. \n(2) Each class of sections continuous. (3) Parallel passages, \n64. (4) Diversity of diction and ideas, 65, 66. At first con- \nfined to Genesis ; not conflict with Mosaic authorship until \nextended to the entire Pentateuch, 67 ; even then not neces- \n\n\n\nCONTENTS \n\nsarily, unless the documents are post-Mosaic ; Ex. vi. 3, 68. \nJehovist suspected of anachronisms, inaccuracies, and contra- \ndictions, 69 ; inferred from parallel passages, 70. Fragment \nHypothesis, Vater, Hartmann, 71 ; supported by similar \narguments, 72 ; the Document Hypothesis reacting against it- \nself, 73 ; titles and subscriptions, 74. But (1) The extensive \nliterature assumed. (2) The continuity and orderly arrange- \nment of the Pentateuch, 75. (3) The numerous cross ref- \nerences. Refuted by Ewald and F. H. Ranke. Supplement \nHypothesis, Bleek, Tuch, Stahelin, De Wette, Knobel, 76, 77. \nThis accounts for certain evidences of unity but not for \nothers. Inconsistent relation of the Jehovist to the Elohist, \n78, 79 ; attempted explanations destructive of the hypothesis, \n80. Refuted by Kurtz, Drechsler, Havernick, Keil, Hengsten- \nberg, Welte. Crystallization Hypothesis of Ewald, 81, 82. \nModified Document Hypothesis of Hupfeld ; Ilgen, Boehmer, \nSchrader, 82, 83. But (1) The second Elohist destroys the \ncontinuity of the first. (2) The first Elohist almost ceases soon \nafter Gen. xx. where the second begins, 84. (3) Intricate \nblending of Jehovist and second Elohist. (4) First Elohist \nalleged to be clearly distinguishable ; without force as an ar- \ngument, 85. (5) Capricious and inconsistent conduct attrib- \nuted to the redactor, 86 ; undermines the hypothesis. Bur- \ndensome complexity inevitable, 87. Critical symbols. The \ngrounds of literary partition considered, 88. I. The divine \nnames ; their alternation not coincident with successive sec- \ntions, 89 ; this fundamental criterion annulled by unsettling \nthe text, 90. Elohim in J sections ; Jehovah in P and E \nsections, 91. Examples given, 92-98. Ex. vi. 2, 3, 99. \nMisinterpretation corrected, 100. Not written with an anti- \nquarian design ; neither was the patriarchal history, 101. \nGen. iv. 26. Signification and usage of Elohim and Jehovah, \n102, 103. Hengstenberg\'s theory, 103, 104. That of Kurtz, \n105. Liberty in the use of the divine names. II. Continuity \nof sections, 106. But (1) numerous chasms and abrupt tran- \nsitions, 107. (2) Bridged by scattered clauses. (3) Apparent \nconnection factitious, 108. (4) Interrelation of documents. \n(5) Inconsistency of critics. III. Parallel passages. But (1) \nOften not real parallels, 109. (2) Repetition accounted for, \n110. (3) Summary statement followed by particulars, 111. \n(4) Alleged doublets, 112. IT. Diversity of diction and \nideas. But (1) Reasoning in a circle, 113. (2) Proofs facti- \ntious, 114. (3) Synonyms, 115. (4) Criteria conflict. (5) An \nindeterminate equation, 116. (6) Growing complexity, 117. \n\n\n\nCONTENTS \n\n\n\nArguments insufficient, 118. Partition of the parables of the \nProdigal Son, 119-122, and the Good Samaritan, 122-124. \nRomans Dissected ; additional incongruities, 125, 126 ; mar- \nvellous perspicacity of the critics, 126, 127 ; critical assault \nupon Cicero\'s orations and other classical productions, 127 \nand 128, -129 note; Prologue of Faust, 130; agreement of \ncritics, 130, 131 ; Partition Hypothesis a failure, but the labor \nspent upon it not altogether fruitless, 132, 133. \n\n\n\nGenuineness of the Laws, 134 \n\nCritical revolution, 134 ; diversities of literary critics, two \npoints of agreement, 135 ; Development Hypothesis, 136, 137 ; \nits fallacy, 138 ; dates assigned to the several codes, 139, 140 ; \nGraf, 140 ; Kuenen, Wellhausen, 141 ; works for and against, \nnote 141-143 ; Supplement Hypothesis overthrown, 142, 143 ; \nScriptural statements vindicated, 144-146 ; no discrepancy be- \ntween the codes, 147-149 ; alleged violations of the" law, 150, \nin respect to the place of sacrifice and the priesthood, 151, \n152 ; Deuteronomy, 153 ; the Priest Code, 154 ; incongruities \nof the hypothesis, 155 ; the laws of Charlemagne, 155, 156. \n\nVI \n\nThe Bearing op the Divisive Criticism on the Credibil- \nity op the Pentateuch and on Supernatural Relig- \nion, 157 \n\nPartition Hypotheses elaborated in the interest of unbelief, \n157 ; credibility undermined ; not a question of inerrancy, \nbut of the trustworthiness of the history, 158 ; facts only \nelicited by a critical process ; incompleteness of the docu- \nments ; w T ork of the redactors, 159, 160 ; effect upon the \ntruthfulness of the Pentateuch, 161, 162 ; the real issue; un- \nfriendly to revealed religion, 163 ; iu both the Old and the \nNew Testament, 164 ; the religion of the Bible based on his- \ntorical facts ; revelations, predictions, and miracles discred- \nited by the authors of these hypotheses, 165, 166 ; Mosaic or \ncontemporary authorship denied, 167 ; falsity of the docu- \nments assumed, 108 ; they represent discordant traditions ; \nScripture cannot be broken ; criticism largely subjective, 169 ; \n\n\n\nCONTENTS : \n\nerrors of redactors, 170 ; no limit to partition, 171 ; deism, \nrationalism, divisive criticism ; literary attractions of the \nBible, 172 ; the supernatural eliminated, 173 ; deism, 174 ; \nrationalistic exegesis, 174, 175 ; method of higher criticism \nmost plausible and effective, 176 ; hazardous experiment of \nthe so-called evangelical critics, 177 \n\n\n\nTHE HIGHER CRITICISM OF \nTHE PENTATEUCH \n\n\n\nTHE OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS STEUCTUEE \n\nThe Old Testament is the volume of God\'s written \nrevelation prior to the advent of Christ. Its complement \nis the New Testament, which is God\'s written revelation \nsince the advent of Christ. The former being immedi- \nately addressed to the people of Israel was written in the \nlanguage of that people, and hence for the most part in \nHebrew, a few chapters in Daniel and Ezra and a verse in \nJeremiah being in the Jewish Aramean, 1 when the lan- \nguage was in its transition state. This earlier dispensa- \ntion, which for a temporary purpose was restricted to a \nsingle people and a limited territory, was, however, pre- \nparatory to the dispensation of the fulness of times, in \nwhich God\'s word was to be carried everywhere and \npreached to every creature. Accordingly the New Testa- \nment was written in Greek, which was then the language \nof the civilized world. \n\nThe Old Testament was composed by many distinct \nwriters, at many different times and in many separate \nportions, through a period of more than a thousand years \nfrom Moses to Malachi. It is not, however, an aggre- \n\n1 Jer. x. 11 ; Dan. ii. 4^vii. 28 ; Ezra iv. 7-vi. 18, vii. 12-26 are in \nAramean. \n\n1 \n\n\n\n2 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\ngate of detached productions without order or method, \nas the seemingly casual circumstances connected with the \norigin of its several parts might tempt some to imagine. \nNor, on the other hand, are the additions made from time \nto time of a uniform pattern, as though the separate value \nof each new revelation consisted merely in the fact that \nan increment was thereby made to the body of divine \ntruth previously imparted. Upon the lowest view that \ncan possibly be taken of this volume, if it were simply \nthe record of the successive stages of the development of \nthe Hebrew mind, it might be expected to possess an \norganic structure and to exhibit a gradually unfolding \nscheme, as art, philosophy, and literature among every \npeople have each its characteristics and laws, which gov- \nern its progress and determine the measure and direction \nof its growth. But rightly viewed as the word of God, \ncommunicated to men for his own wise and holy ends, it \nmay with still greater confidence be assumed that the \norder and symmetry which characterize all the works of \nthe Most High, will be visible here likewise ; that the \ndivine skill and intelligence will be conspicuous in the \nmethod as well as in the matter of his disclosures ; and \nthat these will be found to be possessed of a structural \narrangement in which all the parts are wisely disposed, \nand stand in clearly defined mutual relations. \n\nThe Old Testament is a product of the Spirit of God, \nwrought out through the instrumentality of many human \nagents, who were all inspired by him, directed by him, \nand adapted by him to the accomplishment of his own \nfixed end. Here is that unity in multiplicity, that single- \nness of aim with diversity of operations, that binding to- \ngether of separate activities under one superior and con- \ntrolling influence, which guides all to the accomplishment \nof a predetermined purpose, and allots to each its par- \nticular function in reference to it, which is the very con- \n\n\n\nTHE OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS STRUCTURE 3 \n\nception of a well-arranged organism. There is a divine \nreason why every part is what it is and where it is ; why \nGod spake unto the fathers at precisely those sundry \ntimes and in just those divers portions, in which he \nactually revealed his will. And though this may not in \nevery instance be ascertainable by us, yet careful and \nreverent study will disclose it not only in its general out- \nlines, but also in a multitude of its minor details ; and \nwill show that the transpositions and alterations, which \nhave been proposed as improvements, are dislocations \nand disfigurements, which mar and deface the well-pro- \nportioned whole. \n\nIn looking for the evidences of an organic structure in \nthe Scriptures, according to which all its parts are dis- \nposed in harmonious unity, and each part stands in a \ndefinite and intelligible relation to every other, as well as \nto the grand design of the whole, it will be necessary to \ngroup and classify the particulars, or the student will lose \nhimself in the multiplicity of details, and never rise to \nany clear conception of the Avhole. Every fact, every \ninstitution, every person, every doctrine, every utterance \nof the Bible has its place and its function in the general \nplan. And the evidence of the correctness of any scheme \nproposed as the plan of the Scriptures will lie mainly in \nits harmonizing throughout with all these details, giving \na rational and satisfactory account of the purpose and \ndesign of each and assigning to all their just place and \nrelations. But if one were to occupy himself with these \ndetails in the first instance, he would be distracted and \nconfused by their multitude, without the possibility of \narriving thus at any clear or satisfactory result. \n\nThe first important aid in the process of grouping or \nclassification is afforded by the separate books of which \nthe Scriptures are composed. These are not arbitrary or \nfortuitous divisions of the sacred text : but their form, \n\n\n\n4 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\ndimensions, and contents have been divinely determined. \nEach represents the special task allotted to one partic- \nular organ of the Holy Spirit, either the entire function \nassigned to him in the general plan, or, in the case where \nthe same inspired penman wrote more than one book \nof different characters and belonging to different classes, \nhis function in one given sphere or direction. Thus the \nbooks of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Malachi exhibit to us that \npart in the plan of divine revelation which each of those \ndistinguished servants of God was commissioned to per- \nform. The book of Psalms represents the task allotted \nto David and the other inspired writers of song in the \ninstruction and edification of the people of God. The \nbooks of Moses may be said to have led the way in \nevery branch of sacred composition, in history (Genesis), \nin legislation (Leviticus), in oratorical and prophetic \ndiscourse (Deuteronomy), in poetry (Ex. xv., Dt. xxxii., \nxxxiii.), and they severally set forth what he was en- \ngaged to accomplish in each of these different directions. \nThe books of Scripture thus having each an individual \ncharacter and this stamped with divine authority as an \nelement of fitness for their particular place and function, \nmust be regarded as organic parts of the whole. \n\nThe next step in our inquiry is to classify and arrange \nthe books themselves. Every distribution is not a true \nclassification, as a mechanical division of an animal body \nis not a dissection, and every classification will not ex- \nhibit the organic structure of which we are in quest. \nThe books of the Bible may be variously divided with \nrespect to matters merely extraneous and contingent, \nand which stand in no relation to the true principle of \nits construction. \n\nThus, for example, the current division of the Hebrew \nBible is into three parts, the Law, the Prophets, and \nthe K\'thubhim or Hagiographa. This distribution rests \n\n\n\nTHE OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS STRUCTURE 5 \n\nupon the official standing of the writers. The writings \nof Moses, the great lawgiver and mediator of God\'s cove- \nnant with Israel, whose position in the theocracy was \naltogether unique, stand first. Then follow the writings \nof the prophets, that is to say, of those invested with the \nprophetical office. Some of these writings, the so-called \nformer prophets \xe2\x80\x94 Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings \xe2\x80\x94 \nare historical ; the others are prophetical, viz., those de- \nnominated the latter prophets \xe2\x80\x94 Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, \nand the twelve minor prophets so called, not as though \nof inferior authority, but solely because of the brevity of \ntheir books. Their position in this second division of \nthe canon is due not to the nature of their contents but \nto the fact that their writers were prophets in the strict \nand official sense. Last of all those books occupy the \nthird place which were written by inspired men who \nwere not in the technical or official sense prophets. \nThus the writings of David and Solomon, though inspired \nas truly as those of the prophets, are assigned td* the \nthird division of the canon, because their authors were \nnot prophets but kings. So, too, the book of Daniel be- \nlongs in this third division, because its author, though \npossessing the gift of prophecy in an eminent degree, and \nuttering prophecies of the most remarkable character, \nand hence called a prophet, Mat. xxiv. 15, in the same \ngeneral sense as David is in Acts ii. 30, nevertheless did \nnot exercise the prophetic office. He was not engaged in \nlaboring with the people for their spiritual good as his \ncontemporary and fellow- captive Ezekiel. He had an \nentirely different office to perform on their behalf in the \ndistinguished position which he occupied at the court of \nBabylon and then of Persia. The books of Chronicles \ncover the same period of the history as 2 Samuel and \nKings, but the assignment of the former to the third \ndivision, and of the latter to the second, assures us that \n\n\n\n6 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nSamuel and Kings were written by prophets, while the \nauthor of Chronicles, though writing under the guidance \nand inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was not officially a \nprophet. \n\nAs classified in our present Hebrew Bibles, which \nfollow the order given in the Talmud, this principle of \narrangement is in one instance obviously departed from ; \nthe Lamentations of Jeremiah stands in the Hagiogra- \npha, though as the production of a prophet it ought to \nbe included in the second division of the canon, and \nthere is good reason to believe that this was its original \nposition. Two modes of enumerating the sacred books \nwere in familiar use in ancient times, as appears from \nthe catalogues Avhich have been preserved to us. The \ntwo books of Samuel were uniformly counted one : so \nthe two books of Kings and the two of Chronicles : so \nalso Ezra and Nehemiah : so likewise the Minor Proph- \nets were counted- one book. Then, according to one \nmode of enumeration, Buth was attached to Judges as \nforming together one book, and Lamentations was re- \ngarded as a part of the book of Jeremiah : thus the en- \ntire number of the books of the Old Testament was \ntwenty -two. In the other mode Ruth and Lamentations \nwere reckoned separate books, and the total was twenty- \nfour. Now the earliest enumerations that we have from \nJewish or Christian sources are by Josephus 1 and Ori- \ngen, who both give the number as twenty-two : and as \nthis is the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, \nwhile twenty-four is the number in the Greek alphabet, \nthe former may naturally be supposed to have been \nadopted by the Jews in the first instance. From this it \nwould appear that Lamentations was originally annexed \n\n1 Josephus adopts a classification of his own suited to his immediate \npurpose, but doubtless preserves the total number current among his \ncountrymen. \n\n\n\nTHE OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS STRUCTURE 7 \n\nto the book of Jeremiah and of course placed in the \nsame division of the canon. Subsequently, for liturgical \nor other purposes, Ruth and Lamentations were re- \nmoved to the third division of the canon and included \namong the five small books now classed together as Me- \ngilloth or Rolls, which follow immediately after Psalms, \nProverbs, and Job. \n\nThere are two methods by which we can proceed in \ninvestigating the organic structure of the Old Testament. \nWe must take our departure either from the beginning \nor the end. These are the two points from which all the \nlines of progress diverge, or in which they meet in every \ndevelopment or growth. All that which properly be- \nlongs to it throughout its entire course is unfolded from \nthe one and is gathered up in the other. Thus the seed \nmay be taken, in which the whole plant is already in- \nvolved in its undeveloped state, and its growth may be \ntraced from this its initial point by observing how roots, \nand stem, and leaves, and flowers, and fruit proceed \nfrom it by regular progression. Or the process may be re- \nversed and. the whole be surveyed from its consummation. \nThe plant is for the sake of the fruit ; every part has its \nspecial function to perform toward its production, and \nthe organic structure is understood when the office of \neach particular portion in relation to the end of the \nwhole becomes known. \n\nIn making trial of the first of the methods just sug- \ngested, the Old Testament may be contemplated under \nits most obvious aspect of a course of training to which \nIsrael was subjected for a series of ages. So regarding \nit there will be little difficulty in fixing upon the law of \nMoses as the starting-point of this grand development. \nGod chose Israel from among the nations of the earth to \nbe his own peculiar people, to train them up for himself \nby immediate communications of his will, and by manifes- \n\n\n\n8 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\ntations of his presence and power in the midst of them. \nAnd as the first step in this process, first not only in the \norder of time but of rational arrangement, and the foun- \ndation of the whole, he entered into special and formal \ncovenant with them at Sinai, and gave them a divine \nconstitution and laws containing the undeveloped seeds \nand germs of all that he designed to accomplish in them \nand for them. The first division of the Old Testament \nconsequently is the Pentateuch, which contains this law \nwith its historical introduction. \n\nThe next step was to engage the people in the observ- \nance of the law thus given to them. The constitution \nwhich they had received was set in operation and al- \nlowed to work out its legitimate fruits among them and \nupon them. The law of God thus shaped the history of \nIsrael : while the history added confirmation and enlarge- \nment to the law by the experience which it afforded of \nits workings and of the providential sanctions which at- \ntended it and by the modifications which were from time \nto time introduced as occasion demanded. The histori- \ncal books thus constitute the second division of the Old \nTestament, whose office it is to record the providential \napplication and expansion of the law. \n\nA third step in this divine training was to have the \nlaw as originally given and as providentially expanded, \nwrought not only into the outward practice of the people \nor their national life, as shown in the historical books, \nbut into their inward individual life and their intellect- \nual convictions. This is the function of the poetical \nbooks, which are occupied with devout meditations or \nearnest reflections upon the law of God, his works and \nhis providence, and the reproduction of the law in the \nheart and life. These form accordingly the third divis- \nion of the Old Testament. \n\nThe law has thus been set to work upon the national \n\n\n\nTHE OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS STRUCTURE 9 \n\nlife of the people of Israel in the course of their history, \nand is in addition coming to be wrought more and more \ninto their individual life and experience by devout medi- \ntation and careful reflection. But that this outward and \ninward development, though conducted in the one case \nunder immediate divine superintendence, and in the \nother under the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, might \nnot fail of its appointed end, there was need that this end \nshould be held up to view and that the minds of the peo- \nple should be constantly directed forward to it. With \nthis view the prophets were raised up to reiterate, un- \nfold, and apply the law in its true spiritual meaning, to \ncorrect abuses and misapprehensions, to recall a trans- \ngressing people to fidelity to their covenant God, and to \nexpand to the full dimensions of the glorious future the \ngerms and seeds of a better era which their covenant \nrelation to Jehovah contained. They furnish thus what \nmay be called an objective expansion of the law, and \ntheir writings form the fourth and last division of the \nOld Testament. \n\nIf, then, the structure of the Old Testament has been \nread aright, as estimated from the point of its beginning \nand its gradual development from that onward, it con- \nsists of four parts, 1 viz. : \n\n1. The Pentateuch or law of Moses, the basis of the \nwhole. \n\n2. Its providential expansion and application to the \nnational life in the historical books. \n\n3. Its subjective expansion and appropriation to in- \ndividual life in the poetical books. \n\n4. Its objective expansion and enforcement in the \nprophetical books. \n\nThe other mode above suggested of investigating the \n\n1 This is substantially the same as Oehler\'s division first proposed in \nhis Prolegomena zur Theologie des Alten Testaments, 1845, pp. 87-91. \n\n\n\n10 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nstructure of the Old Testament requires us to survey it \nfrom its end, which is Christ, for whose coming and sal- \nvation it is a preparation. This brings everything into \nreview under a somewhat different aspect. It will yield \nsubstantially the same division that has already been ar- \nrived at by the contrary process, and thus lends it addi- \ntional confirmation, since it serves to show that this is \nnot a fanciful or arbitrary partition but one grounded in \nthe nature of the sacred volume. At the same time it is \nattended with three striking and important advantages. \n\n1. The historical, poetical, and prophetical books, \nwhich have hitherto been considered as separate lines of \ndevelopment, springing it is true from a common root, \nyet pursuing each its own independent course, are by this \nsecond method exhibited in that close relationship and \ninterdependence which really subsists between them, and \nin their convergence to one common centre and end. \n\n2. It makes Christ the prominent figure, and adjusts \nevery part of the Old Testament in its true relation to \nhim. He thus becomes in the classification and struct- \nural arrangement, what he is in actual fact, the end of \nthe whole, the- controlling, forming principle of all, so that \nthe meaning of every part is to be estimated from its re- \nlation to him and is only then apprehended as it should \nbe when that relation becomes known. \n\n3. This will give unity to the study of the entire Script- \nures. Everything in the Old Testament tends to Christ \nand is to be estimated from him. Everything in the \nNew Testament unfolds from Christ and is likewise to be \nestimated from him. In fact this method pursued in other \nfields will give unity and consistency to all knowledge \nby making Christ the sum and centre of the whole, of \nwhom, and through whom, and to whom are all things. \n\nIn the first method the Old Testament was regarded \nsimply as a divine scheme of training. It must now be \n\n\n\nTHE OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS STRUCTURE 11 \n\nregarded as a scheme of training directed to one definite \nend, the coming of Christ. \n\nIt is to be noted that the Old Testament, though pre- \nparatory for Christ and predictive of him everywhere, is \nnot predictive of him in the same manner nor in equal \nmeasure throughout. Types and prophecies are accumu- \nlated at particular epochs in great numbers and of a strik- \ning character. And then, as if in order that these lessons \nmight be fully learned before the attention was diverted \nby the impartation of others, an interval is allowed to \nelapse in which predictions, whether implicit or explicit, \nare comparatively few and unimportant. Then another \nbrilliant epoch follows succeeded by a fresh decline ; pe- \nriods they may be called of activity and of repose, of in- \nstruction on the part of God followed by periods of com- \nprehension and appropriation on the part of the people. \n\nThese periods of marked predictive character are never \nmere repetitions of those which preceded them. Each \nhas its own distinctive nature and quality. It emphasizes \nparticular aspects and gives prominence to certain char- \nacteristics of the coming Redeemer and the ultimate \nsalvation ; but others are necessarily neglected altogether \nor left in comparative obscurity, and if these are to be \nbrought distinctly to view, a new period is necessary to \nrepresent them. Thus one period serves as the comple- \nment of another, and all must be combined in order \nto gain a complete notion of the preparation for Christ \neffected by the Old Testament, or of that exhibition of \nMessiah and his work which it was deemed requisite to \nmake prior to his appearing. \n\nIt is further to be observed that Christ and the coming \nsalvation are predicted negatively as well as positively. \nWhile the good things of the present point forward to \nthe higher good in anticipation, evils endured or foretold, \nand imperfections in existing forms of good, suggest the \n\n\n\n12 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nblissful future by way of contrast; tliey awaken to a \nsense of wants, deficiencies, and needs which points for- \nward to a time when they shall be supplied. The cove- \nnant relation of the people to God creates an ideal which \nthough far from being realized as yet must some time \nfind a complete realization. The almighty and all holy \nGod who has made them his people will yet make them \nto be in character and destiny what the people of Jeho- \nvah ought to be. Now since each predictive period ex- \npresses just the resultant of the particular types and \nprophecies embraced within it, its character is determined \nby the predominant character of these types and proph- \necies. If these are predominantly of a negative descrip- \ntion, the period viewed as a whole is negatively predic- \ntive. If they are prevailingly positive, they constitute a \nprevailingly positive period. \n\nIf now the sacred history be considered from the call \nof Abraham to the close of the Old Testament, it will be \nperceived that it spontaneously divides itself into a se- \nries of periods alternately negative and positive. There \nis first a period in which a want is developed in the ex- \nperience of those whom God is thus training, and is \nbrought distinctly to their consciousness. Then follows \na period devoted to its supply. Then comes a new want \nand a fresh supply, and so on. \n\nThe patriarchal, for example, is a negative period. Its \ncharacteristic is its wants, its patient, longing expecta- \ntion of a numerous seed and the possession of the land \nof Canaan, which are actualty supplied in the time of \nMoses and Joshua, which is therefore the corresponding \npositive period. \n\nThe period of the Judges, again, possesses a negative \ncharacter. The bonds which knit the nation together \nwere too feeble and too easily dissolved. This was not \nthe fault of their divine constitution. Had the people \n\n\n\nTHE OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS STRUCTURE 13 \n\nbeen faithful to their covenant God, their invisible but \nalmighty sovereign and protector, their union would \nhave been perfect, and as against all foreign foes they \nwould have been invincible. But when the generation \nwhich had beheld the mighty works wrought under the \nleadership of Moses and Joshua had passed away, the in- \nvisible lost its hold upon a carnally minded people, and \n" every man did that which was right in his own eyes." \nThey relapsed from the worship of God and obedience to \nhis law, and were in turn forsaken by him. Hence their \nweakness, their civil dissensions tending to anarchy and \ntheir repeated subjugation by surrounding enemies con- \nvincing them of the need of a stronger union under a \nvisible head, a king to go before them. This was sup- \nplied in David and Solomon, who mark the correspond- \ning positive period. \n\nThen follows another negative period embracing the \nschism, the decline of the divided kingdoms, their over- \nthrow and the captivity, with its corresponding positive, \nthe restoration. \n\nIf the marked and prominent features of the history \nnow recited be regarded, and if each negative be com- \nbined with the positive which forms its appropriate com- \nplement, there will result three great predictive or pre- \nparatory periods, viz. : \n\n1. From the call of Abraham to the death of Joshua. \n\n2. To the death of Solomon. \n\n3. To the close of the Old Testament. \n\nAll that precedes the call of Abraham is purely pre- \nliminary to it, and is to be classed with the first period \nas its introduction or explanatory antecedent. \n\nIf these divisions of the history be transferred to the \nOld Testament, whose structure is the subject of inquiry, \nit will be resolved into the following portions, viz. : \n\n1. The Pentateuch and Joshua. \n\n\n\n14 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\n2. The recorded history as far as the death of Solo- \nmon, and the sacred writings belonging to this period. \nThese are, principally, the Psalms of David and the Prov- \nerbs of Solomon, the great exemplars of devotional lyr- \nics and of aphoristic or sententious verse, which gave \ntone and character to all the subsequent poetry of the \nBible. The latter may accordingly be properly grouped \nwith them as their legitimate expansion or appropriate \ncomplement. These echoes continue to be heard in the \nfollowing period of the history, but as the keynote was \nstruck in this, all the poetical books may be classed to- \ngether here as in a sense the product of this period. \n\n3. The rest of the historical books of the Old Testa- \nment, together with the prophetical books. \n\nThis triple division, though based on an entirely dis- \ntinct principle and reached by a totally different route, is \nyet closely allied to the quadruple division previously \nmade, with only divergence enough to show that the \npartition is not mechanical but organic, and hence no \nabsolute severance is possible. The historical books are \nhere partitioned relatively to the other classes of books, \nexhibiting a symmetrical division of three periods of di- \nvinely guided history, and at the close of each an imme- \ndiate divine revelation, for which the history furnishes \nthe preliminary training, and, in a measure, the theme. \nThe history recorded by Moses and consummated by \nJoshua has as its complement the law given at Sinai and \nin the wilderness. The further history to the death of \nSolomon formed a preparation for the poetical books. \nThe subsequent history prepares the way for the proph- \nets, who are in like manner gathered about its concluding \nstages. \n\nThere is besides just difference enough between the \ntwo modes of division to reveal the unity of the whole \nOld Testament, and that books separated under one as- \n\n\n\nTHE OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS STRUCTURE 15 \n\npect are jet united under another. Thus Joshua, accord- \ning to one method of division and one mode of conceiving \nof it, continues and completes the history of the Penta- \nteuch ; the other method sees in it the opening of a new \ndevelopment. There is a sense, therefore, in which it \nis entirely legitimate to combine the Pentateuch and \nJoshua as together forming a Hexateuch. The promises \nmade to the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt, and the \nmarch through the wilderness contemplate the settlement \nin Canaan recorded by Joshua, and are incomj)lete with- \nout it. And yet in the sense in which it is currently \nemployed by modern critics, as though the Pentateuch \nand the book of Joshua constituted one continuous liter- \nary production, the term Hexateuch is a misnomer. They \nare distinct works by distinct writers ; and the func- \ntion of Joshua was qiute distinct from that of Moses. \nJoshua, as is expressly noted at every step of his course, \nsimply did the bidding of Moses. The book of the law \nwas complete, and was placed in his hands at the outset \nas the guide of his official life. The peiiod of legislation \nended with the death of Moses ; obedience to the law \nalready given was the requirement for the time that fol- \nlowed. Again the reign of Solomon may be viewed un- \nder a double aspect. It is the sequel to that of David, \ncarrying the kingdom of Israel to a still higher pitch of \nprosperity and renown ; and yet in Kings it is put at the \nopening of a new book, since it may likewise be viewed \nunder another aspect as containing the seeds of the dis- \nsolution that followed. \n\nAs to the general relation of these three divisions of \nthe Old Testament there may be observed : \n\n1. A correspondence between the first and the follow- \ning divisions. The Pentateuch and Joshua fulfil their \ncourse successively in two distinct though related \nspheres. They contain, first, a record of individual \n\n\n\n16 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nexperience arid individual training in the lives of the \npatriarchs ; and secondly, the national experience and \ntraining of Israel under Moses and Joshua. These \nspheres repeat themselves, the former in the second \ngrand division of the Old Testament, the latter in the \nthird. The histories of the second division are pre- \ndominantly the record of individual experience, and \nits poetry is individual in its character. Judges and \nSamuel are simply a series of historical biographies; \nJudges, of the distinguished men raised up from time to \ntime to deliver the people out of the hands of their op- \npressors ; Samuel, of the three leading characters by \nwhom the affairs of the people were shaped in that im- \nportant period of transition, Samuel, Saul, and David. \nRuth is a biographical sketch from private life. The \npoetical books not only unfold the divinely guided re- \nflections of individual minds or the inward struggles of \nindividual souls, but their lessons, whether devotional \nor Messianic, are chiefly based on the personal experi- \nence of David and Solomon, or of other men of God. \n\nThe third division of the Old Testament, on the other \nhand, resembles the closing portion of the first in being \nnational. Its histories \xe2\x80\x94 Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and \nNehemiah \xe2\x80\x94 concern the nation at large, and the same may \nbe said to a certain extent even of Esther. The commu- \nnications of the prophets now given are God\'s messages \nto the people, and their form and character are condi- \ntioned by the state and prospects of the nation. \n\n2. The number of organs employed in their communi- \ncation increases with each successive division. In the \nfirst there are but two inspired writers, Moses and the \nauthor of the book of Joshua, whether Joshua himself or \nanother. In the second the historians were distinct from \nthe poets, the latter consisting of David, Solomon, and \nother sacred singers, together with the author of the \n\n\n\nTHE OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS STRUCTURE 17 \n\nbook of Job. In the third we find the greatest number \nof inspired writers, together with the most elaborate ar- \nticulation and hence an advance in organic structure. \n\n3. There is a progress in the style of instruction \nadopted in each successive division. The first is purely \ntypical. The few prophecies which are scattered \nthrough it are lost in the general mass. The second di- \nvision is of a mixed character, but types predominate. \nWe here meet not a simple record of typical facts and \ninstitutions without remark or explanation, as in the \nPentateuch and Joshua ; but in the poetical books types \nare singled out and dwelt upon, and made the basis of \npredictions respecting Christ. The third division is also \nof a mixed character, but prophecies so predominate that \nthe types are almost lost sight of in the comparison. \n\n4. These divisions severally render prominent the \nthree great theocratic offices which were combined in the \nRedeemer. The first by its law, the central institution \nof which is sacrifice, and which impresses a sacerdotal \norganization upon the people, points to Jesus as priest. \nThe second, which revolves about the kingdom, is prog- \nnostic of Jesus as king, although the erection of Solo- \nmon\'s temple and the new stability and splendor given \nto the ritual show that the priesthood is not forgotten. \nIn the third, the prophets rise to prominence, and the \npeople themselves, dispersed among the nations to be the \nteachers of the world, take on a prophetic character typ- \nifying Jesus as a prophet. While nevertheless the re- \nbuilding of the temple by Zerubbabel, and the prophetic \ndescription of its ideal reconstruction by Ezekiel, point \nstill to his priesthood, and the monarchs of Babylon and \nPersia, aspiring to universal empire, dimly foreshadow \nhis kingdom. \n\n\n\nII \n\nTHE PLAN AND CONTENTS OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nThe books of Moses are in the Scriptures called " the \nlaw," Josh. i. 7 ; "the law of Moses," 1 Kin. ii. 3 ; "the \nbook of the law," Josh. viii. 34 ; " the book of the law \nof Moses, Josh. viii. 31 ; " the book of the law of God," \nJosh. xxiv. 26, or " of the Loed," 2 Chron. xvii. 9, on ac- \ncount of their predominantly legislative character. They \nare collectively called the Pentateuch, from nrevre,five, and \nreO^o?, originally signifying an implement, but used by \nthe Alexandrian critics in the sense of a hook, hence a \nwork consisting of five books. This division into five \nbooks is spoken of by Josephus and Philo, and in all \nprobability is at least as old as the Septuagint version. \nIts introduction has by some (Leusden, Havernick, Len- \ngerke) been attributed to the Greek translators. Others \nregard it as of earlier date (Michaelis), and perhaps as \nold as the law itself (Bertholdt, Keil), for the reasons : \n\n1. That this is a natural division determined by the \nplan of the work. Genesis, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy \nare each complete in itself ; and this being so, the five- \nfold division follows as a matter of course. \n\n2. The division of the Psalms into five books, as found \nin the Hebrew Bible, is probably patterned after the \nPentateuch, and is most likely as old as the constitution \nof the canon. \n\nThe names of these five books are in the Hebrew Bible \ntaken from the first words of each. Those current among \nourselves, and adopted in most versions of the Old Tes- \ntament, are taken from the old Greek translators. \n\n\n\nPLAN AND CONTENTS OF THE PENTATEUCH 19 \n\nThe Pentateuch has one theme, which is consistently \npursued from first to last, viz., the theocracy in Israel, \nor the establishment of Israel to be the people of God. \nIt consists of two parts, viz. : \n\n1. Historical, Gen. i. \xe2\x80\x94 Ex. xix., tracing the successive \nsteps by which Israel was brought into being as a na- \ntion chosen to be the peculiar people of God. \n\n2. Legal, recording the divine constitution granted to \nthem, by which they were formally organized as God\'s \npeople and brought into special relation to him. The \nlaw begins with the ten commandments, uttered by God\'s \nown voice from the smoking summit of Sinai, in Ex. xx., \nand extends to the close of Deuteronomy. The scraps of \nhistory which are found in this second main division are \nnot only insignificant in bulk compared with the legisla- \ntion which it contains, but they are subordinated to it as \ndetailing the circumstances or occasions on which the \nlaws were given, and likewise allied with it as constitut- \ning part of the training by which Israel was schooled into \ntheir proper relation to God. Of these two main sections \nof the Pentateuch the first, or historical portion, is not \nonly precedent to, but preparatory for, the second or legal \nportion ; the production and segregation of the people of \nIsrael being effected with the direct view of their being \norganized as the people of God. \n\nIt will be plain from a general survey of these two \nmain sections, into which the Pentateuch is divided, that \neverything in it bears directly upon its theme as already \nstated ; and the more minute and detailed the examina- \ntion of its contents, the more evident this will become. \nThe first of these two great sections, or the historical \nportion, is clearly subdivided by the call of Abraham. It \nwas at that point that the production and segregation \nof the covenant people, strictly speaking, commenced. \nFrom the creation of the world to the call of Abraham, \n\n\n\n20 TPIE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nwhich is embraced in the first eleven chapters of Gene- \nsis, the history is purely preliminary. It is directed to \nthe negative end of demonstrating the necessity of such \na segregation. From the call of Abraham to the law \ngiven at Mount Sinai, that is to say, from Gen. xii. to \nEx. xix., the history is directed to the positive end of \nthe production and segregation of the covenant people. \n\nThe preliminary portion of the history is once more \ndivided by the flood ; the first five chapters of Genesis \nbeing occupied with the antediluvian period and the next \nsix with an account of the deluge and the postdiluvian \nperiod. Each of these preliminary periods is marked \nby the formation of a universal covenant between God \nand the two successive progenitors and heads of the hu- \nman race, Adam and Noah, which stand in marked con- \ntrast with the particular or limited covenant made with \nAbraham, the progenitor of the chosen race, at the begin- \nning of the following or patriarchal period. The failure \nof both those primeval covenants to preserve religion \namong men, and to guard the race from degeneracy and \nopen apostasy, established the necessity of a new ex- \npedient, the segregation of a chosen race, among whom \nreligion might be fostered in seclusion from other na- \ntions, until it could gain strength enough to contend \nwith evil on the arena of the world and overcome it, in- \nstead of being overcome by it. The covenant with Adam \nwas broken by his fall, and the race became more and \nmore corrupt from age to age, until the Lord determined \nto put a sudden end to its enormous wickedness, and de- \nstroyed the world by the flood. Noah, who was alone \nspared with his household, became the head of a new \nrace with whom God entered into covenant afresh ; but \nthe impious attempt at Babel is suggestive of the ungod- \nliness and corruption which once more overspread the \nearth, and it became apparent, if the true service of God \n\n\n\nPLAN AND CONTENTS OF THE PENTATEUCH 21 \n\nwas to be maintained in the world, it must be by initiat- \ning a new process. Hence the call of Abraham to be the \nfather of a new people, which should be kept separate \nfrom other nations and be the peculiar people of the \nLord. \n\nThese two preliminary periods furnish thus the justi- \nfication of the theocracy in Israel by demonstrating the \ninsufficiency of preceding methods, and the consequent \nnecessity of selecting a special people to be the Lord\'s \npeople. But besides this negative purpose, which the \nwriter had in view in recording this primeval portion of \nthe history, he had also the positive design of paving the \nway for the account to be subsequently given of the \nchosen people, by exhibiting and inculcating certain \nideas, which are involved in the notion of a covenant \npeople, and of describing certain preliminary steps al- \nready taken in the direction of selecting such a people. \n\nThe idea of the people of God involves, when con- \ntemplated under its negative aspect, (1) segregation from \nthe rest of mankind ; and this segregation is not purely \nformal and local, but is represented (2) both in their in- \nward character, suggesting the contrast of holiness to sin, \nand (3) in their outward destiny, suggesting the contrast \nof salvation to perdition. The same idea of the people \nof God contemplated under its positive aspect involves \n(4) direct relation to God or covenant with him, the ob- \nservance of his laws and of the institutions which he im- \nposed or established. Something is effected in relation \nto each of these four particulars in each of these prelimi- \nnary periods, and thus much, at least, accomplished in the \ndirection of the theocracy which was afterward to be in- \nstituted. \n\nGenesis begins with a narrative of the creation, because \nin this the sacred history has its root. And this not only \nbecause an account of the formation of the world might \n\n\n\n22 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OP THE PENTATEUCH \n\nfitly precede an account of what was transacted in it, \nbut chiefly because the sacred history is essentially a his- \ntory of redemption, and this being a process of recovery, \na scheme initiated for the purpose of restoring man and \nthe world to their original condition, necessarily presup- \nposes a knowledge of what that original condition was. \nHence the regular and emphatic repetition, after each \nwork was performed, in Gen. i., of the statement, " and \nGod saw that it was good ; " and at the close of all, " God \nsaw everything that he had made ; and behold it was \nvery good." Hence, too, the declaration made and re- \npeated at the creation of man, that he was made in God\'s \nimage. The idea of primitive holiness thus set forth is \nfurther illustrated, by contrast, in the tree of the knowl- \nedge of good and evil, which stood in the midst of the gar- \nden, and was made the test of obedience, and especially in \nman\'s transgression and disobedience which rendered \nredemption necessary. The contrast of salvation and \nperdition is suggested by paradise and the tree of life on \nthe one hand, and by the curse pronounced upon man \nand his expulsion from Eden in consequence of the fall \nupon the other ; by Cain\'s being driven out from the \npresence of the Lord, and by Enoch, who walked with \nGod and was not, for God took him. The idea of seg- \nregation is suggested by the promise respecting the seed \nof the woman and the seed of the serpent, by which the \nfamily of man is divided into two opposite and hostile \nclasses, who maintain a perpetual strife, until the serpent \nand his seed are finally crushed ; a strife which culmi- \nnates in the personal conflict between Christ and Satan, \nand the victory of the former, in which all his people \nshare. These hostile parties find their first representa- \ntives in the family of Adam himself \xe2\x80\x94 in Cain, who was of \nthe evil one, and his righteous brother, Abel ; and after \nAbel\'s murder Seth was raised up in his stead. These \n\n\n\n\n\n\nPLAN AND CONTENTS OF THE PENTATEUCH 23 \n\nare j>erpetuated in their descendants, those of Seth being \ncalled the sons of God, those of Cain the sons and \ndaughters of men. In conformity with the plan, which \nthe writer steadfastly pursues throughout, of tracing the \ndivergent lines of descent before dismissing them from \nfurther consideration in the history, and proceeding with \nthe account of the chosen line itself, he first gives an ac- \ncount of the descendants of Cain, whose growing degen- \neracy is exhibited in Lamech, of the seventh generation \n(Gen. iv. 17-24), before narrating the\' birth of Seth (Gen. \niv. 25, 26) and tracing the line of the pious race through \nhim to Noah, ch. v. By this excision of the apostate line \nof Cain, that narrowing process is begun, which was finally \nto issue in the limitation to Abraham and his seed. And \nin the fourth and last place, the divine institutions now \nestablished as germs of the future law, were the weekly \nSabbath (Gen. ii. 3), and the rite of sacrifice (Gen. iv. 3, 4). \nIn the next period the same rites were perpetuated, \nwith a more specific mention of the distinction of clean \nand unclean animals (Gen. vii. 8), and the prohibition \nof eating blood (Gen. ix. 4), which were already involved \nin the institution of sacrifice, and the annexing of the \npenalty of death to the crime of murder (Gen. ix. 6) ; and \nthe same ideas received a new sanction and enforcement. \nThe character of those who belong to God is repre- \nsented in righteous Noah, as contrasted with the un- \ngodly world ; their destiny, in the salvation of the former \naud the perdition of the latter. Segregation is carried \none term farther by the promise belonging to this period, \nwhich declares that while Japheth shall be enlarged and \nCanaan made a servant, God shall dwell in the tents \nof Shem. And here, according to his usual method, al- \nready adverted to, the writer first presents a view of the \ndescendants of all Noah\'s sons, which were dispersed \nover the face of the earth (Gen. x.), prior to tracing the \n\n\n\n24 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nchosen line in the seed of Shein, to Terah, the father of \nAbraham (Gen. xi. 10-26). He thus exhibits the rela- \ntionship of the chosen race to the rest of mankind, while \nsingling them out and sundering them from it. \n\nEverything in these opening chapters thus bears di- \nrectly on his grand theme, to which he at once proceeds \nby stating the call of Abraham (Gen. xii.), and going on \nto trace those providential events which issued in the \nproduction of a great nation descended from him. \n\nThe preparation *of the people of Israel, who were to \nbe made the covenant people of God, is traced in two \nsuccessive stages : first, the family, in the remainder of \nthe book of Genesis (Gen. ch. xii.-L), secondly, the nation \n(Ex. i.-xix.). \n\nThe first of these sections embraces the histories of \nthe patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God made \nchoice of Abraham to be the father of his own peculiar \npeople, and covenanted with him as well as with Isaac \nand Jacob severally to be their God, promising to them \xe2\x80\x94 \n(1) a numerous seed, (2) the possession of the land of \nCanaan, and (3) that a blessing should come through \nthem upon all mankind. During this period the work \nof segregation and elimination previously begun was car- \nried steadily forward to its final term. The line had al- \nready been narrowed down to the family of Terah in the \npreceding chapter. Abraham is now called to leave his \nfather\'s house (Gen. xii.), his nephew Lot accompanying \nhim, who is soon, however, separated from him (ch. xiii.), \nand his descendants traced (xix. 37, 38). Then in Abra- \nham\'s own family Ishmael is sent away from his house \n(ch. xxi.), and the divergent lines of descent from Keturah \nand from Ishmael are traced (ch. xxv.), before proceeding \nwith the direct line through Isaac (xxv. 19). Then in \nIsaac\'s family the divergent line of Esau is traced (ch. \nxxxvi.), before proceeding with the direct line of Jacob \n\n\n\nPLAN AND CONTENTS OF THE PENTATEUCH 25 \n\n(xxxvii. 2), the father of the twelve tribes, after which no \nfurther elimination is necessary. \n\nThe history of this sacred family and God\'s gracious \nleadings in Canaan are first detailed, and then the provi- \ndential steps are recorded by which they were taken down \ninto Egypt, where they were to be unfolded to a great na- \ntion. One important stage of preparation for the theocracy \nin Israel is now finished : the family period is at an end, \nthe national period is about to begin. Genesis here ac- \ncordingly breaks off with the death of Jacob and of Joseph. \n\nExodus opens with a succinct statement of the im- \nmense and rapid multiplication of the children of Israel, \neffecting the transition from a family to a nation (Ex. i. \n1-7), and then proceeds at once to detail the preparations \nfor the exodus (i. 8-ch. xiii.), and the exodus itself (ch. \nxiv.-xix.). There is first described the negative prepara- \ntion in the hard bondage imposed on the people by the \nking of Egypt, making them sigh for deliverance (i. 8-22). \nThe positive preparation follows, first of an instrument \nto lead the people out of Egypt in the person of Moses \n(ch. ii.-vi.) ; second, the breaking their bonds and setting \nthem free by the plagues sent on Egypt (ch. vii.-xiii). \nThe way being thus prepared, the people are led out of \nEgypt, attended by marvellous displays of God\'s power \nand grace, which conducted them through the Eed Sea \nand attended them on their march to Sinai (ch. xiv.-xix.). \n\nIsrael is now ready to be organized as the people of \nGod. The history is accordingly succeeded by the \nlegislation of the Pentateuch. This legislation consists \nof three parts, corresponding to three periods of very un- \nequal length into which the abode in the wilderness may \nbe divided, and three distinct localities severally oc- \ncupied by the people in these periods respectively. \n\n1. The legislation at Mount Sinai during the year that \nthey encamped there. \n\n\n\n26 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\n2. That given in the period of wandering in the wil- \nderness of Paran, which occupied the greater part of the \nforty years. \n\n3. That given to Israel in the plains of Moab, on the \neast of Jordan, when they had almost reached the prom- \nised land. \n\nAt Sinai God first proclaims the law of the ten com- \nmandments (Ex. xx.), and then gives a series of ordi- \nnances (ch. xxi.-xxiii.) as the basis of his covenant with \nIsrael, which is then formally ratified (ch. xxiv.). The \nway is thus prepared for God to take up his abode in \nIsrael. Accordingly directions are at once given for the \npreparation of the tabernacle as God\'s dwelling-place, \nwith its furniture, and for the appointment of priests to \nserve in it, with a description of the vestments which \nthey should wear, and the rites by which they should be \nconsecrated (ch. xxv.-xxxi.). The execution of these \ndirections was postponed in consequence of the breach \nof the covenant by the sin of the golden calf and the re- \nnewal of the covenant which this had rendered necessary \n(ch. xxxii.-xxxiv.). And then Exodus is brought to a \ntermination by the account of the actual construction and \nsetting up of the tabernacle and God\'s taking up his \nabode in it (ch. xxxv.-xl.). \n\nThe Lord having thus formally entered into covenant \nwith Israel, and fixed his residence in the midst of them, \nnext gives them his laws. These are mainly contained \nin the book of Leviticus. There is first the law respect- \ning the various kinds of sacrifices to be offered at the \ntabernacle now erected (Lev. i.-vii.), then the consecra- \ntion of Aaron and his sons by whom they were to be \noffered, together with the criminal conduct and death of \ntwo of his sons, Naclab and Abihu (ch. viii.-x.) ; then the \nlaw respecting clean and unclean meats and various kinds \nof purifications (ch. xi.-xv.), and the series is wound up \n\n\n\nPLAN AND CONTENTS OF THE PENTATEUCH 27 \n\nby the services of the day of atonement, effecting the \nhighest expiation known to the Mosaic ritual (ch. xvi.). \nThese are followed by ordinances of a more miscellane- \nous character relating to the people (ch. xvii.-xx.), and \nthe priests (ch. xxi., xxii.), the various festivals (ch. \nxxiii.), the sabbatical year and year of jubilee (ch. xxv.) ; \nand the whole is concluded by the blessing pronounced \non obedience and the curse which would attend upon \ntransgression (ch. xxvi.), with which the book is brought \nto a formal close (xxvi. 46). A supplementary chapter \n(xxvii.) is added at the end respecting vows. \n\nNumbers begins with the arrangements of the camp and \npreparations for departure from Sinai (Num. i.-x.). The \npeople are numbered (ch. i.), the order of encampment \nand march settled (ch. ii.), and duties assigned to the sev- \neral families of the Levites in transporting the tabernacle \n(ch. iii., iv.). Then, after some special ceremonial regu- \nlations (ch. v., vi.), follow the offerings at the dedication \nof the tabernacle, including oxen and wagons for its \ntransportation (ch. vii.) ; the Levites are consecrated for \ntheir appointed work (ch. viii.), and as the final act be- \nfore removal the passover was celebrated (ch. ix.), and \nsignal trumpets prepared (ch. x.). Then comes the actual \nmarch from Sinai, with the occurrences upon the journey \nto Kadesh, on the southern border of the land, where \nthey are condemned to wander forty years in the wilder- \nness on account of the rebellious refusal to enter Ca- \nnaan (ch. xi.-xiv.). Some incidents belonging to the \nperiod of the wandering and laws then given are re- \ncorded (ch. xv.-xix.). The assembling of the people \nagain at Kadesh in the first month of the fortieth year, \nthe sin of Moses and Aaron, which excluded them from \nthe promised land, and the march to the plains of Moab, \nopposite Jericho, with the transactions there until the \neleventh month of that year, including the conquest of \n\n\n\n28 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nthe territory east of tlie Jordan occupy the remainder of \nthe book (ch. xx.-xxxvi.). \n\nDeuteronomy contains the last addresses of Moses to \nthe people in the plains of Moab, delivered in the eleventh \nmonth of the fortieth year of Israel\'s wanderings, v in \nwhich he endeavors to engage them to the faithful ob- \nservance of the law now given. The first of these ad- \ndresses (Deut. i.-iv. 40) reviews some of the leading events \nof the march through the wilderness as arguments for a \nsteadfast adherence to the Lord\'s service. Then after se- \nlecting three cities of refuge on the east side of the Jor- \ndan (iv. 41-43), he proceeds in his second address with a \ndeclaration of the la-^v, first in general terms, reciting the \nten commandments with earnest admonitions of fidelity \nto the Lord (ch. v.-xi*), then entering more into detail in \nthe inculcation of the various ordinances and enactments \n(ch. xii.-xxvi.). This law of Deuteronomy thus set before \nthe people for their guidance is properly denominated \nthe people\'s code as distinguished from the ritual law in \nExodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, which is denominated \nthe priests\' code, being intende\'d particularly for the \nguidance of the priests in all matters connected with the \nceremonial. The latter develops in detail under symbolic \nforms the privileges and duties springing out of the cove- \nnant relation of the people to Jehovah in their access to \nhim and the services of his worship. The former is a \ndevelopment of the covenant code (Ex. xx.-xxiii.), with \nsuch modifications as were suggested by the experience \nof the last forty years, and especially by their approach- \ning entrance into the land of Canaan. His third address \nsets solemnly before the people in two sections (ch. \nxxvii., xxviii., and ch. xxix.,xxx.), the blessing consequent \nupon obedience and the curse that will certainly follow \ntransgression. \n\nProvision is then made both for the publication and \n\n\n\nPLAN AND CONTENTS OF THE PENTATEUCH 29 \n\nsafe-keeping of the law, by delivering it to the custody of \nthe priests, who are directed to publish it in the audience \nof the people every seven years, and to keep it safely in \nthe side of the ark (ch. xxxi.) ; next follow Moses\'s ad- \nmonitory song (ch. xxxii.), his last blessing to the tribes \n(ch. xxxiii.), and his death (ch. xxxi v.). \n\nThe Pentateuch accordingly has, as appears from this \nbrief survey, one theme from first to last to which all \nthat it contains relates. This is throughout treated \nupon one definite plan, which is steadfastly adhered to. \nAnd it contains a continuous, unbroken history from the \ncreation to the death of Moses, without any chasms or \ninterruptions. The only chasms which have been al- \nleged are merely apparent, not real, and grow out of the \nnature of the theme and the rigor with which it is \nadhered to. It has been said that while the lives of the \npatriarchs are given in minute detail a large portion of \nthe four hundred and thirty years during which the chil- \ndren of Israel dwelt in Egypt is passed over in silence ; \nand that of a large part of the forty years\' wandering in \nthe wilderness nothing is recorded. But the fact is, that \nthese offered little that fell within the plan of the writer. \nThe long residence in Egypt contributed nothing to the \nestablishment of the theocracy in Israel, but the develop- \nment of the chosen seed from a family to a nation. This \nis stated in a few verses, and it is all that it was neces- \nsary to record. So with the period of judicial abandon- \nment in the wilderness : it was not the purpose of the \nwriter to relate everything that happened, but only what \ncontributed to the establishment of God\'s kingdom in \nIsrael; and the chief fact of importance was the dying- \nout of the old generation and the growing up of a new \none in their stead. \n\nThe unity of theme and unity of plan now exhibited \ncreates a presumption that these books are, as they have \n\n\n\n30 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nbeen traditionally believed to be, the product of a single \nwriter; and the presumption thus afforded must stand \nunless satisfactory proof can be brought to the contrary. \n\nSCHEME OF THE PENTATEUCH. \n\n\n\nHistory, \nGen. i.- \nEx. xix. \n\n\n\nPreliminary, \\ Antediluvian, Gen. i.- \nGen. i.-xi. | Noachic, Gen. vi.-xi. \n\n\n\nPreparatory, \nGen. xii- \nEx. xix. \n\n\n\nThe family, Gen. xii.-l. \n(Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.) \n\n\n\nThe nation, \nEx. i.-xix. \n\n\n\nTransition from family, Ex. i. 1-7. \n\nf Negative. \nPreparation for fe^ 011 \' L S ~ 22 \' \nthe exodus, i. instrument, Mo . \nb-xm \' ses, ii.-vi. \n\n[ The plagues, vii.-xiu. \n\nExodus and march to Sinai, xiv.-xix. \n\n\n\nLegislation Is- \nrael in wilder- \nness, Ex. xx- \nDeut. xxxiv. \n\n\n\nIn Paran, Num. x. \n11-xxi. \n\n\n\nf From giving law to setting up tabernacle. \nAt Sinai, Ex. xx.- J Ex. xx.-xl. \nNum. x. 10. | Ordinances at Sinai, Lev. i.-xxvii. \n\nI Preparations for departure, Num. i. 1-x. 10. \n\nFrom Sinai to Kadesh, x. 11-xiv. \nForty years\' wandering, xv.-xix. \nKadesh to plains of Sloab, in fortieth year, \nL xx.-xxxvi. \n\nf Moses\'s first address (history), i.-iv. 40. \n\nIn plains of Moab, J M \xc2\xb0\xc2\xab\xc2\xbb\'? second address ] fpTcialJxf^ \nDt. i.-xxxiv. I Uaw - 1 \' { xxvi. \n\n! Moses\'s third address (blessing and curse), \n[ xxvii.-xxx. \n\nConclusion, xxxi.-xxxiv. \n\n\n\nin \n\nMOSES THE AUTHOK OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nIf the Pentateuch is what it claims to be, it is of the \ngreatest interest and value. It professes to record the \norigin of the world and- of the human race, a primitive \nstate of innocence from which man fell by yielding to temp- \ntation, the history of the earliest ages, the relationship \nsubsisting between the different nations of mankind, and \nparticularly the selection of Abraham and his descend- \nants to be the chosen people of God, the depositaries of \ndivine revelation, in whose line the Son of God should in \ndue time become incarnate as the Saviour of the world. \nIt further contains an account of the providential events \naccompanying the development of the seed of Abra- \nham from a family to a nation, their exodus from Egypt, \nand the civil and religious institutions under which they \nwere organized in the prospect of their entry into, and \noccupation of, the land of Canaan. The contents of the \nPentateuch stand thus in intimate relation to the prob- \nlems of physical and ethnological science, to history and \narcheology and religious faith. All the subsequent rev- \nelations of the Bible, and the gospel of Jesus Christ it- \nself, rest upon the foundation of what is contained in the \nPentateuch, as they either presuppose or directly affirm \nits truth. \n\nIt is a question of primary importance, therefore, both \nin itself and in its consequences, whether the Pentateuch \nis a veritable, trustworthy record, or is a heterogeneous \nmass of legend and fable from which only a modicum of \ntruth can be doubtfully and with difficulty elicited. Can \n\n\n\n32 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nwe lay it at the basis of our investigations, and implicitly \ntrust its representations, or must we admit that its un- \nsupported word can only be received with caution, and \nthat of itself it carries but little weight ? In the settle- \nment of this matter a consideration of no small conse- \nquence is that of the authorship of the Pentateuch. Its \ncredibility is, of course, not absolutely dependent upon \nits Mosaic authorship. It might be all true, though it \nwere written by another than Moses and after his time. \nBut if it was written by Moses, then the history of the \nMosaic age was recorded by a contemporary and eye- \nwitness, one who was himself a participant and a leader \nin the scenes which he relates, and the legislator from \nwhom the enactments proceeded ; and it must be con- \nfessed that there is in this fact the highest possible guar- \nanty of the accuracy and truthfulness of the whole. It \nis to the discussion of this point that the present chapter \nis devoted : Is the Pentateuch the work of Moses ? \n\n1. It is universally conceded that this was the tradi- \ntional opinion among the Jews. To this the New Testa- \nment bears the most abundant and explicit testimony. \nThe Pentateuch is by our Lord called " the book of \nMoses " (Mark xii. 26) ; when it is read and preached \nthe apostles say that Moses is read (2 Cor. iii. 15) and \npreached (Acts xv. 21). The Pentateuch and the books \nof the prophets, which were read in the worship of the \nsynagogue, are called both by our Lord (Luke xvi. 29, \n31) and the evangelists (Luke xxiv. 27), " Moses and \nthe prophets," or " the law of Moses and the prophets " \n(Luke xxiv. 44 ; Acts xxviii. 23). Of the injunctions of the \nPentateuch not only do the Jews say, when addressing \nour Lord, " Moses commanded " (John viii. 5), but our \nLord repeatedly uses the same form of speech (Mat. viii. \n4 ; xix. 7, 8 ; Mark i. 44 ; x. 3 ; Luke v. 14), as testi- \nfied by three of the evangelists. Of the law in general \n\n\n\nMOSES THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 33 \n\nbe says, " Moses gave the law " (John vii. 19), and the \nevangelist echoes " the law was given by Moses " (John \ni. 17). And that Moses was not only the author of the \nlaw, but committed its precepts to writing, is affirmed by \nthe Jews (Mark xii. 19), and also by our Lord (Mark x. \n5), who farther speaks of him as writing predictions re- \nspecting himself (John v. 46, 47), and also traces a nar- \nrative in the Pentateuchal history to him (Mark xii. 26). \n\nIt has been said that our Lord here speaks not author- \nitatively but by accommodation to the prevailing senti- \nment of the Jews ; and that it it was not his purpose to \nsettle questions in Biblical Criticism. But the fact re- \nmains that he, in varied forms of speech, explicitly con- \nfirms the current, belief that Moses wrote the books \nascribed to him. For those who reverently accept him \nas an infallible teacher this settles the question. The \nonly alternative is to assume that he was not above the \nliability to err ; in other words, to adopt what has been \ncalled the kenotic view of his sacred person, that he com- \npletely emptied himself of his divine nature in his incar- \nnation, and during his abode on earth was subject to all \nthe limitations of ordinary men. Such a lowering of \nview respecting the incarnate person of our Lord may \nlogically affect the acceptance of his instructions in other \nmatters. He himself says (John iii. 12), " If I have \ntold you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye \nbelieve if I tell you of heavenly things ? " \n\n2. That the Pentateuch was the production of Moses, \nand the laws which it contains were the laws of Moses, \nwas the firm faith of Israel from the beginning, and is \nclearly reflected in every part of the Old Testament, as \nwe have already seen to be the case in the New Testa- \nment. The final injunction of the last of the prophets \n(Mai. iv. 4) is, " Beineniber ye the law of Moses my ser- \nvant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Is- \n\n\n\n34 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE T\xc2\xabENTATEUCH \n\nrael, with the statutes and judgments." The regulations \nadopted by the Jews returned from captivity were not \nrecent enactments of their leaders, but the old Mosaic in- \nstitutions restored. Thus (Ezra iii. 2) they built the \naltar and established the ritual "as it is written in the \nlaw of Moses." After the new temple was finished they \nset priests and Levites to their respective service, " as it \nis written in the book of Moses " (Ezra vi. 18). When \nsubsequently Ezra led up a fresh colony from Babylon, \nhe is characterized as " a ready scribe in the law of \nMoses " (Ezra vii. 6). At a formal assembly of the people \nheld for the purpose, " the book of the law of Moses " \nwas read and explained to them day by day (Neh. viii. \n1, 18). Allusions are made to the injunctions of the \nPentateuch in general or in particular as the law which \nGod gave to Moses (Neh. i. 7, 8 ; viii. 14 ; ix. 14 ; x. 29), \nas written in the law (vs. 34, 36), or contained in the \nbook of Moses (Neh. xiii. 1). \n\nIn the Captivity Daniel (ix. 11, 13) refers to matters \ncontained in the Pentateuch as " written in the law of \nMoses." After the long defection of Manasseh and \nAnion, the neglected " book of the law of the Lord by \nMoses " (2 Kin. xxii. 8 ; xxiii. 25 ; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 14 ; \nxxxv. 6, 12) was found in the temple, and the reformation \nof Josiah was in obedience to its instructions. The pass- \nover of Hezekiah was observed according to the pre- \nscriptions of " the law of Moses" (2 Chron. xxx. 16), and \nin general Hezekiah is commended for having kept the \n" commandments which the Lord commanded Moses " (2 \nKin. xviii. 6). The ten tribes were carried away captive \nbecause they "transgressed " what "Moses commanded " \n(2 Kin. xviii. 12) ; king Amaziah did (2 Kin. xiv. 6 ; 2 \nChron. xxv. 4) " as it is written in the book of the law of \nMoses," Deut. xxiv. 16 being here quoted in exact \nterms. The high-priest Jehoiada directed the ritual " as \n\n\n\nMOSES THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 35 \n\nit is written in the law of Moses" (2 Chron. xxiii. 18), \nwhile appointing the singing as it was ordained by \nDavid ; a discrimination which shows that there was no \nsuch legal fiction, as it has sometimes been contended, \nby which laws in general, even though recent, were at- \ntributed to Moses. David charged Solomon (1 Kin. ii. \n3 ; 1 Chron. xxii. 13) to keep what " is written in the law \nof Moses," and a like charge was addressed by the Lord \nto David himself (2 Kin. xxi. 7, 8 ; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 8). \nSolomon appointed the ritual in his temple in accordance \nwith " the commandment of Moses " (2 Chron. viii. 13 ; \n1 Chron. vi. 49). When the ark was taken by David to \nZion, it was borne " as Moses commanded " (1 Chron. xv. \n15 ; cf. 2 Sam. vi. 13). Certain of the Canaanites were \nleft in the land in the time of Joshua, " to prove Israel \nby them, to know whether they would hearken unto the \ncommandments of the Lord, which he commanded their \nfathers by the hand of Moses " (Judg. iii. 4). Joshua was \ndirected " to do according to all the law which Moses \ncommanded," and was told that " the book of the law \nshould not depart out of his mouth " (Josh. i. 7, 8). And \nin repeated instances it is noted with what exactness he \nfollowed the directions given by Moses. \n\nIt is to be presumed, at least until the contrary is \nshown, that "the law" and "the book of the law" have \nthe same sense throughout as in the New Testament, as \nalso in Josephus and in the prologue to the book of \nSirach or Ecclesiasticus, where they are undeniably \nidentical with the Pentateuch. The testimonies which \nhave been reviewed show that this was from the first at- \ntributed to Moses. At the least it is plain that the sacred \nhistorians of the Old Testament, without exception, knew \nof a body of laws wdiich were universally obligatory and \nwere believed to be the laws of Moses, and which answer \nin every particular to the laws of the Pentateuch. \n\n\n\n36 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\n3. Let us next inquire what the Pentateuch says of \nitself. It may be roughly divided for our present pur- \npose into its two main sections : (1) Genesis and Exo- \ndus (i.-xix.), historical ; (2) Ex. xx.-Deuteronomy, mainly \nlegal. The legal portion consists of three distinct bodies \nof law, each of which has its own peculiar character and \noccasion. The first is denominated the Book of the \nCovenant and embraces Ex. xx.-xxiii., the ten command- \nments with the accompanying judgments or ordinances, \nwhich were the stipulations of the covenant then for- \nmally ratified between the Lord and the people. This \nMoses is expressly said (Ex. xxiv. 4), to have written \nand read in the audience of the people, who promised \nobedience, whereupon the covenant was concluded with \nappropriate sacrificial rites. \n\nBy this solemn transaction Israel became the Lord\'s \ncovenant people, and he in consequence established his \ndwelling in the midst of them and there received their \nworship. This gave occasion to the second body of laws, \nthe so-called Priest Code, relating to the sanctuary and \nthe ritual. This is contained in the rest of Exodus \n(xxv.-xl.), with the exception of three chapters (xxxii.- \nxxxiv.) relating to the sin of the golden calf, the whole \nof Leviticus, and the regulations found in the book of \nNumbers, where they are intermingled with the history, \nwhich suggests the occasion of the laws and supplies the \nconnecting links. This Priest Code is expressly declared \nin all its parts to have been directly communicated by \nthe Lord to Moses, in part on the summit of Mount \nSinai during his forty days\' abode there, in part while \nIsrael lay encamped at the base of the mountain, and in \npart during their subsequent wanderings in the wilderness. \n\nThe third body of law is known as the Deuteronomic \nCode, and embraces the legal portion of the book of \nDeuteronomy, which was delivered by Moses to the peo- \n\n\n\nMOSES THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 37 \n\npie in the plains of Moab, in immediate prospect of \nCanaan, in the eleventh month of the fortieth year of \ntheir wanderings in the wilderness. This Moses is ex- \npressly said to have written and to have committed to \nthe custody of the Levites, who bore the ark of the cove- \nnant (Deut. xxxi. 9, 24-26). 1 \n\nThe entire law, therefore, in explicit and positive \nterms, claims to be Mosaic. The book of the Covenant \nand the Deuteronomic law are expressly affirmed to have \nbeen written by Moses. The Priest Code, or the ritual \nlaw, was given by the Lord to Moses, and by him to \nAaron and his sons, though Moses is not in so many \nwords said to have written it. \n\nTurning now from the laws of the Pentateuch to its \nnarratives we find two passages expressly attributed to \nthe pen of Moses. After the victory over Amalek at \nRephidim, the Lord said unto Moses (Ex. xvii. 14), \n" Write this for a memorial in a book." The fact that \n\n1 " This law," the words of which Moses is said to have written in a \nbook until they were finished, cannot be restricted with Robertson \nSmith to Deut. xii.-xxvi., as is evident from iv. 44, nor even with \nDillmann to v.-xxvi., as appears from i. 5 ; xxviii. 58, 61 ; xxix. \n20, 27. It is doubtful whether it can even be limited to Deut. i.-xxxi. \nIn favor of the old opinion, that it embraced in addition the preceding \nbooks of the Pentateuch, may be urged that Deuteronomy itself recog- \nnizes a prior legislation of Moses binding upon Israel (iv. 5, 14 ; xxix. \n1; xvii. 9-11; xxiv. 8.; xxvii. 26, which affirms as \'\'words of this \nlaw" the antecedent curses (vs. 15-25), some of which are based on laws \npeculiar to Leviticus) ; and the book of the law of Moses, by which \nJoshua was guided (Josh. i. 7, 8), must have been quite extensive. Comp. \nJosh. i. 3-5a, and Deut. xi. 24, 25 ; Josh. i. 5b, 6, and Deut. xxxi. 6, \n7 ; Josh. i. 12-15, and Num. xxxii. ; Josh. v. 2-8, and Ex. xii. 48 ; \nJosh. v. 10, 11, and Lev. xxiii. 5, 7, 11, 14; Josh. viii. 30, 31, and \nDeut. xxvii ; Josh. viii. 34, and Deut. xxviii. ; Josh. xiv. l-3a, and \nNum. xxxiv. 13-18 ; Josh. xiv. 6-14, and Num. xiv. 24 ; Josh. xvii. \n3, 4, and Num. xxvii. 6, 7 ; Josh. xx.. and Num. xxxv. 10 sqq. ; Josh. \nxx. 7, and Deut. iv. 43; Josh, xxi., and Num. xxxv. 1-8; Josh. xxii. \n1-4, and Num. xxxii.; Josh. xxii. 5, and Deut. x. 12, 13. \n\n\n\n38 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nsuch an injunction was given to Moses in this particular \ninstance seems to imply that he was the proper person \nto place on record whatever was memorable and worthy \nof preservation in the events of the time. And it may \nperhaps be involved in the language used that Moses \nhad already begun, or at least contemplated, the prepara- \ntion of a connected narrative, to which reference is here \nmade, since in the original the direction is not as in the \nEnglish version, "write in a book," but "in the book." \nNo stress is here laid, however, upon this form of ex- \npression for two reasons : (1) The article is indicated \nnot by the letters of the text, but by the Massoretic \npoints, which though in all probability correct, are not \nthe immediate work of the sacred writer. (2) The arti- \ncle may, as in Num. v. 23, simply denote the book \nAvhich would be required for writing. \n\nAgain, in Num. xxxiii. 2, a list of the various stations \nof the children of Israel in their marches or their wan- \nderings in the wilderness is ascribed to Moses, who is \nsaid to have Avritten their goings out according to their \njourneys by the commandment of the Lord. \n\nThis is the more remarkable and important, because \nthis list is irreconcilable with any of the divisive theories \nwhich undertake to parcel the text of the Pentateuch \namong different writers. It traverses all the so-called \ndocuments, and is incapable of being referred to any \none ; and no assumptions of interpolations or of manip- \nulation by the redactor can relieve the embarrassment \ninto which the advocates of critical partition are thrown \nby this chapter. There is no escape from the conclusion \nthat the author of this list of stations was the author of \nthe entire Pentateuchal narrative from the departure out \nof Egypt to the arrival at the plains of Moab. 1 \n\n1 See Hebraica viii., pp. 237-239 ; Presbyterian and Reformed Review, \nApril, 1894, pp., 281-284. \n\n\n\nMOSES THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 39 \n\nNo explicit statements are made in the Pentateuch it- \nself in regard to any other paragraphs of the history than \nthese two. But it is obvious from the whole plan and con- \nstitution of the Pentateuch that the history and the leg- \nislation are alike integral parts of one complete work. \nGenesis and the opening chapters of Exodus are plainly \npreliminary to the legislation that follows. The histori- \ncal chapters of Numbers constitute the framework in \nwhich the laws are set, binding them all together and \nexhibiting the occasion of each separate enactment. If \nthe legislation in its present form is, as it claims to be, \nMosaic, then beyond all controversy the preparatory \nand connecting history must be Mosaic likewise. If \nthe laws, as we now have them, came from Moses, by \ninevitable sequence the history was shaped by the same \nhand, and the entire Pentateuch, history as well as \nlegislation, must be what it has already been seen all \nafter ages steadfastly regarded it, the production of \nMoses. \n\n4. The style in which the laws of the Pentateuch are \nframed, and the terms in which they are drawn up, cor- \nrespond with the claim which they make for themselves, \nand which all subsequent ages make for them, that they \nare of Mosaic origin. Their language points unmistak- \nably to the sojourn in the wilderness prior to the occu- \npation of Canaan as the time when they were produced. \nThe people are forbidden alike to do after the doings of \nthe land of Egypt, wherein they had dwelt, or those of \nthe land of Canaan, whither God was bringing them (Lev. \nxviii. 3). They are reminded (Deut. xii. 9) that they had \nnot yet come to the rest and the inheritance which the \nLord their God was giving them. The standing desig- \nnation of Canaan is the land which the Lord giveth thee \nto possess it (Deut. xv. 4, 7). The laws look forward to \nthe time " when thou art come into the land, etc., and \n\n\n\n40 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nshalt possess it " (Deut. xvii. 14 ; Lev. xiv. 34, etc.) ; or \n" when the Lord hath cut off these nations and thou suc- \nceedest them, and dwellest in their cities " (Deut. xix. 1), \nas the period when they are to go into full operation \n(Deut. xii. 1, 8, 9). The place of sacrifice is uot where \nJehovah has fixed his habitation, but " the place which \nJehovah shall choose to place his name there " (Deut. \nxii. 5, etc.). Israel is contemplated as occupying a camp \n(Num. v. 2-4, etc.) and living in tents (Lev. xiv. 8), and \nin the wilderness (Lev. xvi. 21, 22). The bullock of the \nsin-offering was to be burned without the camp (Lev. iv. \n12, 21) ; the ashes from the altar were to be carried \nwithout the camp (vi. 11). The leper was to have his \nhabitation without the camp (xiii. 46) ; the priest was to \ngo forth out of the camp to inspect him (xiv. 3) ; cere- \nmonies are prescribed for his admission to the camp \n(ver. 8) as well as the interval which must elapse before \nhis return to his own tent. In slaying an animal for \nfood, the only possibilities suggested are that it may be \nin the camp or out of the camp (xvii. 3). The law of \nthe consecration of priests respects by name Aaron and \nhis sons (viii. 2 sqq.). Two of these sons, Nadab and Abi- \nhu, commit an offence which causes their death, a cir- \ncumstance which calls forth some special regulations \n(Lev. ch. x.), among others those of the annual day of \natonement (Lev. xvi. 1) on which Aaron was the cele- \nbrant (ver. 3 sqq.), and the camp and the wilderness the \nlocality (vs. 21, 22, 26, 27). The tabernacle, the ark, and \nother sacred vessels were made of shittim wood (Ex. \nxxxvi. 20), which was peculiar to the wilderness. The \nsacred structure was made of separate boards, so joined \ntogether that it could be readily taken apart, and explicit \ndirections are given for its transportation as Israel jour- \nneyed from place to place (Num. iv. 5 sqq.), and gifts of \nwagons and oxen were made for the purpose (Num. \n\n\n\nMOSES THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 41 \n\nvii.). Specific instructions are given for the arrangement \nof the several tribes, both in their encampments and their \nmarches (Num. ii.). Silver trumpets were made to direct \nthe calling of the assembly and the journeying of the \nhost (Num. x. 2 sqq.). The ceremonies of the red heifer \nwere to be performed without the camp (Num. xix. 3, 7, \n9) and by Eleazar personally (vs. 3, 4). The law of puri- \nfication provides simply for death in tents and in the \nopen fields (vs. 14, 16). \n\nThe peculiarity of these laws carries with it the evi- \ndence that they were not only enacted during the so- \njourn in the wilderness, but that they were then com- \nmitted to writing. Had they been preserved orally, the \nforms of expression would have been changed insensibly, \nto adapt them to the circumstances of later times. It is \nonly the unvarying permanence of a written code, that \ncould have perpetuated these laws in a form which in \nafter ages, when the people were settled in Canaan, and \nAaron and his sons were dead, no longer described di- \nrectly and precisely the thing to be done, but must be \nmentally adapted to an altered state of affairs before they \ncould be carried into effect. \n\nThe laws of Deuteronomy are, besides, prefaced by two \nfarewell addresses delivered by Moses to Israel on the \nplains of Moab (Deut. i. 5 sqq. ; v. 1 sqq.), which are pre- \ncisely adapted to the situation, and express those feel- \nings to which the great leader might most appropriately \nhave given utterance under the circumstances. And the \nmost careful scrutiny shows that the diction and style of \nthought in these addresses is identical with that of the \nlaws that follow. Both have emanated from one mind \nand pen. The laws of Deuteronomy are further followed \nby a prophetic song (Deut. xxxii.) which Moses is said \nto have written (xxxi. 22), and by a series of blessings upon \nthe several tribes, which he is said to have pronounced \n\n\n\n42 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nbefore his death (xxxiii. 1), all which are entirely appro- \npriate in the situation. \n\nThe genuineness of these laws is further vouched for \nby the consideration that a forged body of statutes \ncould never be successfully imposed upon any people. \nThese laws entered minutely into the affairs of daily life, \nimposed burdens that would not have been voluntarily \nassumed, and could only have been exacted by compe- \ntent authority. That they were submitted to and obeyed, \nis evidence that they really were ordained by Moses, in \nwhose name they were issued. If they had first made \ntheir appearance in a later age, the fraud would inevi- \ntably have been detected. The people could not have \nbeen persuaded that enactments, never before heard of, \nhad come down from the great legislator, and were in- \nvested with his authority. \n\nAnd the circumstance that these laws are said to have \nbeen given at Mount Sinai, in the wilderness, or in the \nplains of Moab, is also significant. How came they to be \nattributed to a district outside of the holy land, which \nhad no sacred associations in the present or in the patri- \narchal age, unless they really were enacted there ? and if \nso, this could only have been in the days of Moses. \n\n5. The Pentateuch is either directly alluded to, or its \nexistence implied in numerous passages in the subse- \nquent books of the Bible. The book of Joshua, which \nrecords the history immediately succeeding the age of \nMoses, is full of these allusions. It opens with the chil- \ndren of Israel in the plains of Moab, and on the point of \ncrossing the Jordan, just where Deuteronomy left them. \nThe arrangements for the conquest and the subsequent \ndivision of the land are in precise accordance with the \ndirections of Moses, and are executed in professed obe- \ndience to his orders. The relationship is so pervading, \nand the correspondence so exact that those who dispute \n\n\n\nMOSES THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 43 \n\nthe genuineness and authenticity of the Pentateuch are \nobliged to deny that of Joshua likewise. The testimony \nrendered to the existence of the Pentateuch by the books \nof Chronicles at every period of the history which they \ncover, is so explicit and repeated that it can only be set \naside by impugning the truth of their statements and al- \nleging that the writer has throughout colored the facts \nwhich he reports by his own prepossessions, and has \nsubstituted his own imagination, or the mistaken belief \nof a later period, for the real state of the case. \n\nBut the evidence furnished by the remaining historical \nbooks, though less abundant and. clear, tends in the same \ndirection. And it is the same with the books of the proph- \nets and the Psalms. We find scattered everywhere allu- \nsions to the facts recorded in the Pentateuch, to its insti- \ntutions, and sometimes to its very language, which afford \ncumulative proof that its existence was known, and its \nstandard authority recognized by the writers of all \nthe books subsequent to the Mosaic age. (See note 1, \np. 52.) \n\n6. Separate mention should here be made, and stress \nlaid upon the fact, which is abundantly attested, that the \nPentateuch was known, and its authority admitted in the \napostate kingdom of the ten tribes from the time of the \nschism of Jeroboam. In order to perpetuate his power \nand prevent the return of the northern tribes to the sway \nof the house of David, he established a separate sanctu- \nary and set up an idolatrous worship. Both the rulers \nand the people had the strongest inducement to disown \nthe Pentateuch, by which both their idolatrous worship \nand their separate national existence were so severely \ncondemned. And yet the evidence is varied and abun- \ndant that their national life, in spite of its degeneracy, \nhad not wholly emancipated itself from the institutions \nof the Pentateuch, and that even their debased worship \n\n\n\n44 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nwas but a perverted form of that purer service which the \nlaws of Moses had ordained. \n\nIt was at one time thought that the Samaritan Penta- \nteuch supplied a strong argument at this point. The \nSamaritans, while they recognized no other portion of \nthe canon of the Old Testament, are in possession of the \nPentateuch in the Hebrew language, but written in a \npeculiar character, which is a more ancient and primitive \nform of the alphabet than that which is found in any \nHebrew manuscript. It was argued, that such was the \nhostility between Jews and Samaritans, that neither \ncould have adopted the Pentateuch from the other. \nIt was consequently held that the Samaritan Pentateuch \nmust be traced to copies existing in the kingdom of the \nten tribes, which further evidence that the Pentateuch \nmust have existed at the time of the revolt of Jeroboam, \nand have been of such undisputed divine authority then \nthat even in their schism from Judah and their apostasy \nfrom the true worship of God they did not venture to \ndiscard it. Additional investigation, however, has shown \nthat this argument is unsound. The Samaritans are not \ndescendants of the ten tribes but of the heathen colonists \nintroduced into the territory of Samaria by the Assyrian \nmonarchs, after the ten tribes had been carried into cap- \ntivity (2 Kin. xvii. 24). And the Samaritan Pentateuch \ndoes not date back of the Babylonish exile. The mu- \ntual hatred of the Jews and the Samaritans originated \nthen. The Samaritans, in spite of their foreign birth, \nclaimed to be the brethren of the Jews and proposed to \nunite with them in rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem \n(Ezr. iv. 2, 3) ; but the Jews repudiated their claim and \nrefused their offered assistance. The Samaritans thus \nrepulsed sought in every way to hinder and annoy the \nJews and frustrate their enterprise, and finally built a \na rival temple of their own on the summit of Mount \n\n\n\nMOSES THE AUTHOE OF THE PENTATEUCH 45 \n\nGerizim. Meanwhile, to substantiate their claim of be- \ning sprung from ancient Israel, they eagerly accepted \nthe Pentateuch, which was brought them by a renegade \npriest. \n\nWhile, therefore, in our present argument no signifi- \ncance can be attached to the Samaritan Pentateuch, Ave \nhave convincing proof from other sources that the books of \nMoses were not unknown in the kingdom of the ten tribes. \nThe narrative of the schism in 1 Kin. xii. describes in \ndetail the measures taken by Jeroboam in evident and \navowed antagonism to the regulations of the Pentateuch \npreviously established. And the books of the prophets \nHosea and Amos, who exercised their ministry in the ten \ntribes, in their rebukes and denunciations, in their de- \nscriptions of the existing state of things and its contrast \nwith former times, draw upon the facts of the Pentateuch, \nrefer to its laws, and make use of its phrases and forms \nof speech. (See note 2, p. 56.) \n\n7. A further argument is furnished by the elementary \ncharacter of the teachings of the Pentateuch as compared \nwith later Scriptures in which the same truths are more \nfully expanded. The development of doctrine in re- \nspect to the future state, providential retribution, the \nspiritual character of true worship, angels, and the Mes- \nsiah, shows very plainly that the Pentateuch belongs to \nan earlier period than the book of Job, the Psalms, and \nthe Prophets. \n\n8. The Egyptian words and allusions to Egyptian cus- \ntoms, particularly in the life of Joseph, the narrative of the \nresidence of Israel in Egypt and their journeyings through \nthe wilderness, and in the enactments, institutions, and \nsymbols of the Pentateuch indicate great familiarity on \nthe part of the author and his readers with Egyptian \nobjects, and agree admirably with the Mosaic period ; \nMoses himself having been trained at the court of \n\n\n\n46 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nPharaoh and the long servitude of the people having \nbrought them into enforced contact with the various \nforms of Egyptian life and taught them skill in those arts \nwhich were carried in Egypt to great perfection. \n\nThese, briefly stated,, are the principal arguments of a \npositive nature for Moses\'s authorship of the books \nwhich bear his name. They are ascribed to him by unan- \nimous and unbroken tradition from the days of Moses \nhimself through the entire period of the Old Testament, \nand from that onward. This has the inspired and au- \nthoritative sanction of the writers of the New Testa- \nment and of our Lord himself. It corresponds with the \nclaim which these books make for themselves, corrob- \norated as this is by their adaptation in style and charac- \nter to their alleged origin, and by the evidence afforded \nin all the subsequent Scriptures of their existence and \nrecognized authority from the time of their first pro- \nmulgation, and that even in the schismatical kingdom of \nJeroboam in spite of all attempts to throw off its control. \nAnd it derives additional confirmation from the progress \nof doctrine in the Old Testament, which indicates that \nthe Pentateuch belongs to the earliest stage of divine \nrevelation, as well as from the intimate acquaintance \nwith Egyptian objects which it betrays and which is \nbest explained by referring it to the Mosaic age. \n\nThe assaults which have been made in modern times \nupon the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch have \nbeen mainly in one or other of four distinct lines or in \nall combined. It is alleged that the Pentateuch cannot \nbe the work of Moses, because (1) It contains anach- \nronisms, inconsistencies, and incongruities. (2) It is \nof composite origin, and cannot be the work of any one \nwriter. (3) Its three codes belong to different periods \nand represent different stages of national development. \n(4) The disregard of its laws shows that they had no exist- \n\n\n\n\n\n\nMOSES THE AUTHOE OF THE PENTATEUCH 47 \n\nence for ages after the time of Moses. The first of these \nis the ground of the earliest objections ; the second is \nthe position taken by most of the literary critics ; the \nthird and fourth represent that of those who follow the \nlead of Graf and Wellhausen. \n\n\n\nTHE EARLIEST OBJECTIONS. \n\nCertain ancient heretics denied that Moses wrote the \nPentateuch, because they took offence at some of its con- \ntents ; 1 apart from this his authorship was unchallenged \nuntil recent times. The language of Jerome 2 has some- \ntimes been thought to indicate that it was to him a mat- \nter of indifference whether the Pentateuch was written \nby Moses or by Ezra. But his words have no such \nmeaning. He is alluding to the tradition current among \nthe fathers, that the law of Moses perished in the de- \nstruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, but was mi- \nraculously restored word for word by Ezra, who was di- \nvinely inspired for the purpose. Its Mosaic authorship \nwas unquestioned ; but whether the story of its miracu- \nlous restoration was to be credited or not was to Jerome \nof no account. \n\nIsaac ben Jasos in the eleventh century is said to have \nheld that Gen. xxxvi. was much later than the time \nof Moses. 3 Aben Ezra, in the twelfth century, found \nwhat he pronounces an insoluble mystery in the words \n"beyond Jordan" (Deut. i. 1), "Moses wrote" (Deut. \nxxxi. 9), " The Canaanite was then in the land " (Gen. \nxii. 6), " In the Mount of Jehovah he shall be seen " \n(Gen. xxii. 14), and the statement respecting the iron \n\n1 Clementine Homilies, iii. 46, 47. \n\n2 Contra Helvidium : Sive Mosen dicere volueris auctorem Penta- \ntenchi, sive Esram instauratorem operis, non recuse \n\n3 Studien und Kritiken for 1832, pp. 639 sqq. \n\n\n\n48 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nbedstead of Og in Deut. iii. 11, from which it has been \ninferred, though he does not express himself clearly on \nthe subject, that he regarded these passages as post-Mo- \nsaic interpolations. Peyrerius 1 finds additional ground \nof suspicion in the reference to the book of the wars of \nthe Lord (Num. xxi. 14), to the Lord having given to \nIsrael the land of their possession (Deut. ii. 12), and \n" until this day " (Deut. iii. 14). He also complains of \nobscurities, lack of orderly arrangement, repetitions, \nomissions, transpositions, and improbable statements. \nSpinoza 2 adds as non-Mosaic " Dan " (Gen. xiv. 14, see \nJudg. xviii. 29), "the kings that reigned in Edom before \nthere reigned any king in Israel " (Gen. xxxvi. 31), the \ncontinuance of the manna (Ex. xvi. 35), and Num. xii. 3, \nas too laudatory to be from the pen of Moses ; and he \nremarks that Moses is always spoken of in the third per- \nson. His opinion was that Moses wrote his laws from \ntime to time, which were subsequently collected and the \nhistory inserted by another, the whole being finally \nremodelled by Ezra, and called the Books of Moses be- \ncause he was the principal subject. Hobbes 3 points to \nsome of the above-mentioned passages as involving an- \nachronisms, and concludes that Moses wrote no part of \nthe Pentateuch except the laws in Deut. xi.-xxvii. Rich- \nard Simon 4 held that Moses wrote the laws, but the his- \ntorical portions of the Pentateuch were the work of \nscribes or prophets, who were charged with the function \nof recording important events. The narratives and gene- \nalogies of Genesis were taken by Moses from older writ- \nings or oral tradition, though it is impossible to distin- \nguish between what is really from Moses and what is \n\n1 Systema Theologicum ex Praeadamitarum Hypothesi, 1655. \n\n2 Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, 1670. \n\n3 In his Leviathan, 1651. \n\n* Histoire Critique du Vienx Testament, 1685. \n\n\n\nMOSES THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 49 \n\nderived from later sources. Le Clerc x maintained that the \nPentateuch was written by the priest of Samaria sent by \nthe king of Assyria to instruct the heathen colonists in \nthe land of Israel (2 Kings xvii. 26) ; a baseless conject- \nure, which he subsequently abandoned. He increased \nthe list of passages assumed to point to another author \nthan Moses, claiming that the description of the garden \nof Eden (Gen. ii. 11, 12) and of the rise of Babylon and \nNineveh (Gen. x. 8) must have been by a writer in Chal- \ndea; that "Ur of the Chaldees " (Gen. xi. 28, 31), "the \ntower of Eder " (Gen. xxxv. 21, see Mic. iv. 8), " He- \nbron " (Gen. xiii. 18, see Josh. xiv. 15), " land of the \nHebrews " (Gen. xl. 15), the word ions " prophet" (Gen. \nxx. 7, see 1 Sam. ix. 9) are all terms of post-Mosaic ori- \ngin ; and that the explanation respecting Moses and \nAaron (Ex. vi. 25, 26) and respecting the capacity of the \n"omer" (xvi. 36) would be superfluous for contemporaries. \nHe thus deals with the argument from the New Testa- \nment : 2 "It will be said, perhaps, that Jesus Christ and \nthe apostles often quote the Pentateuch under the name \nof Moses, and that their authority should be of greater \nweight than all our conjectures. But Jesus Christ and \nthe apostles not having come into the world to teach the \nJews criticism, we must not be surprised if they speak in \naccordance with the common opinion. It was of little \nconsequence to them whether it was Moses or another, \nprovided the history was true ; and as the common opin- \nion was not prejudicial to piety they took no great pains \nto disabuse the Jews." \n\nAll these superficial objections were most ably an- \nswered by Witsius 3 and Carpzov. 4 \n\n1 Sentimens de qnelques Theologiens de Hollande, 1685. a Ibid. , p. 126. \n\n3 Miscellanea Sacra, 2d edition, 1736, I., ch. xiv., An Moses auctor \nPentateuclii. \n\n4 Introductio ad Libros Canonicos Veteris Testamenti, Editio Noya, \n1731, I., pp. 57sqq. \n\n\n\n50 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\n" Beyond Jordan " (Deut. i. 1), said of Moses\'s position \neast of the river, does not imply that the writer was in \nthe land of Canaan, as is plain from the ambiguity of \nthe expression. In Num. xxxii. 19 it is in the very same \nsentence used first of the west and then of the east side \nof the Jordan ; elsewhere it is defined as " beyond Jor- \ndan eastward " (Deut. iv. 47, 49 ; Josh. i. 15 ; xii. 1 ; xiii. \n8, 27, 32), and " beyond Jordan westward " (Deut. xi. 30 ; \nJosh. v. 1 ; xii. 7 ; xxii. 7) ; and in the addresses of \nMoses it is used alike of the east (Deut. iii. 8) and of the \nwest (vs. 20, 25). This ambiguity is readily explained \nfrom the circumstances of the time. Canaan was " be- \nyond Jordan " to Israel encamped in the plains of Moab ; \nand the territory east of the river was " beyond Jordan " \nto Canaan, the land promised to their fathers, and which \nthey regarded as their proper home. \n\n" The Canaanite was then in the land " (Gen. xii. 6) \nstates that they were in the country in the days of Abra- \nham, but without any implication that they were not \nthere still. " In the Mount of Jehovah he shall be seen " \n(Gen. xxii. 14) contains no allusion to his manifestation \nin the temple, which was afterward erected on that very \nmountain, but is based on his appearance to Abraham in \nthe crisis of his great trial. The bedstead of Og (Deut. \niii. 11) is not spoken of as a relic from a former age, but \nas a memorial of a recent victory. " The book of the \nwars of Jehovah " (Num. xxi. 14) was no doubt a contem- \nporaneous production celebrating the triumphs gained \nunder almighty leadership, to which Moses here refers. \nAs the territory east of the Jordan had already been con- \nquered and occupied, Moses might well speak (Deut. ii. \n12) of the land of Israel\'s possession, which Jehovah \ngave to them. The words " unto this day " (Deut. iii. 14) \nhave by many been supposed to be a supplementary \ngloss subsequently added to the text ; but this assump- \n\n\n\nMOSES THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 51 \n\ntion is scarcely necessary, when it is remembered that \nseveral months had elapsed since the time referred to, and \nHavvoth-jair proved to be not only a name imposed by a \nsuccessful warrior in the moment of his victory, but one \nwhich had come into general use and promised to be per- \nmanent. There is no proof that the " Dan " of Gen. xiv. \n14 is the same as that of Judg. xviii. 29 ; or if it be, \nthere is no difficulty in supposing that in the course of \nrepeated transcription the name in common use in later \ntimes was substituted for one less familiar which origi- \nnally stood in the text. The kings of Edom who are \nenumerated in Gen. xxxvi. were pre-Mosaic ; and Moses \nremarks upon the singular fact that Jacob, who had the \npromise of kings among his descendants (Gen. xxxv. 11), \nhad as yet none, and they were just beginning their na- \ntional existence, while Esau, to whom no such promise had \nbeen given, already reckoned several. There is nothing in \nEx. xvi. 35 which Moses could not have written ; nor \neven in Num. xii. 3, when the circumstances are duly \nconsidered (cf. 1 Cor. xv. 10 ; 2 Cor. xi. 5 ; xii. 11). And \nthe additional passages urged by Le Clerc have not even \nthe merit of plausibility. His notion that our Lord and \nhis apostles accommodated their teaching to the errors \nof their time, refutes itself to those who acknowledge \ntheir divine authority. Witsius well says that if they \nwere not teachers of criticism they were teachers of the \ntruth. \n\nIt should further be observed, that even if it could be \ndemonstrated that a certain paragraph or paragraphs were \npost-Mosaic, this would merely prove that such para- \ngraph or paragraphs could not have belonged to the \nPentateuch as it came from the pen of Moses, not that \nthe work as a whole did not proceed from him. It is far \neasier to assume that some slight additions may here and \nthere have been made to the text, than to set aside the \n\n\n\n52 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nmultiplied and invincible proofs that the Pentateuch was \nthe production of Moses. \n\nNote to page 43. \n\n1. The book of Judges records a series of relapses on the part of the \npeople from the true worship of God, ii. 10-12, aud the judgments inflict- \ned upon them in consequence by suffering them to fall under the power \nof their enemies, ii. 14, 15, as had been foretold Lev. xxvi. 16b, 17. \nThis extraordinary condition of things led to many seeming departures \nfrom the Mosaic requirements, which have been alleged to show that \nthe law was not then in existence. That no such conclusion is war- \nranted by the facts of the case will be shown hereafter, see pp. 150 sqq. \nFor other points of contact with the Pentateuch, comp. i. 1, 2, xx. \n18, and Gen. xlix. 8, Num. ii. 3, x. 14; i. 5, Gen. xiii. 7 ; i. 17, Deut. \nvii. 2 ; i. 20, Num. xiv. 24. Deut. i. 36; ii. 1, Gen. 1. 24, xvii. 7 ; ii. 2, \nEx. xxxiv. 12, 13, Deut vii. 2, 5, Ex. xxiii. 21 ; ii. 3, Num. xxxiii. 55, \nEx. xxiii. 33, Deut. vii. 16 ; ii. 17, Ex. xxxiv. 15, xxxii. 8 ; iii. 6, Ex. \nxxxiv. 16. Deut. vii. 3, 4 ; v. 4, 5, Deut. xxxiii. 2 ; v. 8, Deut. xxxii. \n17 ; vi. 8, Ex. xx. 2 ; vi. 9, Ex. xiv. 30 ; vi. 13, Deut. xi. 3-5; vi. 16, \nEx. iii. 12 ; vi. 22. 23. xiii. 22, Ex. xxxiii. 20 ; vi. 39, Gen. xviii. 32 ; \nvii. 18, Num. x. 9 ; viii. 23, Deut xxxiii. 5, the government established \nby Moses was a theocracy, the highest civil ruler being a judge, Deut. \nxvii. 9, 12 ; viii. 27, superstitious use of the ephod comp. Ex. xxviii. 4, \n30 ; xi. 13, Num. xxi. 24-26 ; xi. 15, Deut. ii. 9, 19 ; xi. 16, Num. xiv. \n25, xx. 1 ; xi. 17-22, Num. xx. 14, 18, 21, xxi. 21-24 ; xi. 25, Num. xxii. \n2 ; xi. 35b, Num. xxx. 2, Deut. xxiii. 24 (E. V. ver. 23) ; xiii. 7, 14, \nxvi. 17, Num. vi. 1-5, Deut. xiv. 2; xiv. 3, xv. 18, Gen. xvii. 11 ; \nxvii. 7-9, xix. 1, Num. xviii. 24, Deut. x. 9 ; xviii. 31, Ex. xl. 2, Josh. \nxviii. 1 ; xx. 1, xxi. 10, 13, 16, 7X1$ a word claimed as peculiar to the \nPriest Code ; xx. 3, 6, 10, Gen. xxxiv. 7, Lev. xviii. 17, Deut. xxii. 21 ; \nxx. 13, Deut. xvii. 12 ; xx. 18, 27, Num. xxvii. 21 ; xx. 26, xxi. 4, Ex. \nxx. 24; xx. 27, Ex. xxv. 21, 22; xx. 28, Num. xxv. 11-13, Deut. x. 8 ; \nxx. 48, UTta "Py as Deut. ii. 34, iii. 6. \n\nComp. Ruth iii. 12, iv. 3, 4, and Lev. xxv. 25 ; iv. 5, 10, Deut. xxv. 5, \n6 ; iv. 11, 12, Gen. xxix. , xxx., xxxviii. The obligation of the levirate \nmarriage has in the course of time been extended from the brother of \nthe deceased to the nearest relative ; as in the case of Samson and Sam- \nuel the Nazarite vow is for life instead of a limited term. \n\n1 Samuel. Comp. i. 11 and Num. vi. 5 ; ii. 2, Ex. xv. 11, Deut. \nxxxii. 4, 31 ; ii. 6, Deut. xxxii. 39 ; ii. 13, Deut. xviii. 3 ; ii. 22, Ex. \nxxxviii. 8 ; ii. 27, Ex. iv. 27-v. 1, etc.; ii. 28, Ex. xxviii. 1, 4, xxx. 7, \n8, Num. xviii. 9, 11 ; ii 29, iii. 14, sacrifice and meal-offering, x. 8, \netc., burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, vi. 3, trespass-offerings, vii. 9, \n\n\n\nMOSES THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 53 \n\nwhole burnt-offering as Deut. xxxiii. 10 (2 Sam. i. 21, heave-offerings), \nimplying a fully developed ritual ; iii. 3, iv. 4 (2 Sam. vi. 2), Ex. xxv. \n10, 18, 37, Lev. xxiv. 3 ; iv. 3 (2 Sam. xi. 11), Num. x. 35 ; vi. 15, 19, \n(2 Sam. vi. 13, xv. 24), Num. iv. 15; viii. 3, Deut. xvi. 19; viii. 5. \nDeut. xvii. 14 ; x. 24, Deut. xvii. 15 ; xii. 14, Deut. i. 43, ix. 23 ; xii. \n6, 8, Ex. iii. 10, vi. 13 ; xii. 3, Num. xvi. 15 ; xiii. 9-13, Num. xviii. \n4 ; xv. 2, Ex. xvii. 8, 14, Deut. xxv. 17-19 ; xv. 6, Num. x. 29, 30, \nsee Judg. i. 16, iv. 11 ; xv. 29, Num. xxiii. 19; xiv. 33, 34, Gen. ix. \n4, Lev. iii. 17 ; xxi. 9, xxiii. 6, 9, xxx. 7, Lev. viii. 7, 8 ; xxviii. 3, \nEx. xxii. 17 (E. V. ver. 18), Deut. xviii. 10, 11 ; xxviii. 6, Num. xii. \n6, xxvii. 21. \n\n2 Samuel. Comp. vi. 6, 7, and Num. iv. 15 ; vii. 6, Ex. xl. 19, 24 ; \nvii. 22, Deut. iii. 24; vii. 23, Deut. iv. 7, ix. 26, x. 21, xxxiii. 29 ; vii. \n24, Ex. vi. 7 ; viii. ; 4, Deut. xvii. 16 ; xi. 4, Lev. xv. 19 ; xii. 6, Ex. \nxxi. 37 (E. V. xxii. 1) ; xii. 9, Num. xv. 31 ; xv. 7-9, Num. xxx. 2 ; \nxxii. 23, Deut. vi. 1. \n\nThe books of Kings, it is universally conceded, exhibit an acquaint- \nance with Deuteronomy and with those portions of the Pentateuch \nwhich the critics attribute to JE. It will only be necessary here, there- \nfore, to point out its allusions to the Priest Code. The plan of Solomon s \ntemple, 1 Kin. vi., vii., is evidently based upon that of the Mosaic \ntabernacle, Ex. xxvi., xxvii., xxx. ; the golden altar, vii. 48, the brazen \naltar, viii. 64, the horns of the altar, i. 50, ii. 28, the lavers, vii. 43, 44, \nthe table of shew-bread andthe candlesticks, with their lamps, vii. 48, 49, \nthe cherubim upon the walls and in the holiest apartment, vi. 27-29, the \ndimensions of the building, and of each apartment, vi. 2, 16, 17, its being \noverlaid with gold, vi. 22, and all its vessels made of gold, vii. 48-50, and \nthe Mosaic ark, the tent of meeting, and all the vessels of the tabernacle \nwere brought by the priests and Levites and deposited in the temple, \nviii. 4. The feast was held in the seventh month, viii. 2, on the fifteenth \nday, xii. 32, 33, for seven days and seven days (twice the usual time on \naccount of the special character of the occasion), viii. 65, and the people \nwere dismissed on the eighth day, ver. 66, comp. Lev. xxiii. 34, 36. They \nhad assembled from the entering in of Hamath unto the river of Egypt, \nviii. 65, Num. xxxiv. 5, 8. The glory of the Lord filled the temple, \nviii. 10, 11, as the tabernacle, Ex. xl. 34, 35; patrimony inalienable, \nxxi. 3, Lev. xxv. 23 ; blasphemer to be stoned, xxi. 13, Lev. xxiv. 16 ; \nevening meal offering xviii. 29, morning meal-offering, 2 Kin iii. 20, \nEx xxix. 39-41 ; new moon hallowed, 2 Kin. iv. 23, Num. x. 10, \nxxviii. 11 ; laws concerning leprosy, 2 Kin. vii. 3, xv. 5, Lev. xiii. 46 ; \nhigh priest, xii. 10, xxii. 4, xxiii. 4, Lev. xxi. 10, Num. xxxv. 25; tres- \npass-offering and sin-offering, xii. 16. Lev. iv., v. 15 (Deut. xiv. 24, 25) ; \nthe money of every one that passeth the numbering ... by his \n\n\n\n54 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nestimation, xii. 5 (ver 4, see marg. R. V.), Ex. xxx. 13, Lev. xxvii. 2 ; \nmeal-offering, drink-offering, brazen altar before the Lord, xvi. 13-15 ; \nunleavened bread the food of priests, xxiii. 9, Lev. vi. 16-18. \n\nThe books of the prophets also contain repeated allusions to the Pen- \ntateuch, its history, and its institutions. \n\nJoel shows the deepest interest in the ritual service, i. 9, 13, 10, ii. \n14-17 ; and recognizes but one sanctuary, ii. 1, 15, iii. 17 (Heb. iv. 17; ; \ncomp. i. 10 and Deut. xxviii. 51 ; ii. 2b, Ex. x. 14b ; ii. 3, Gen. ii. 8 ; \nii. 13, Ex. xxxiv. 6, xxxii. 14; ii. 23, 24, Deut. xi. 14. \n\nIsaiah uses the term " law " to denote, or at least as including, God\'s \nauthoritative revelation through the prophets, i. 10, ii. 3, v. 24, but also \nas additional to the word of God by the prophets, xxx. 9, 10, and of \nhigh antiquity, xxiv. 5, and the test of all professed revelations, viii. \n16, 20, since there are prophets that mislead, ix. 15, xxviii. 7, xxix. 10. \nTo a people strenuous in observing the letter of the Mosaic law, but dis- \nregarding its spirit, he announces the law of God to be that the union \nof iniquity with the most sacred rites of his worship was intolerable to \nthe Most High, i. 10-14. There is in this no depreciation of sacrifice, \nfor like language is used of prayer, ver. 15, and of worship generally, \nxxix. 13 ; and acceptable worship is described under ritual forms, xix. \n21, lxvi. 20-23, in contrast with vs. 1-3. The terms of the ceremonial \nlaw abound in i. 11-13 : sacrifices, burnt offerings, oblations (meal-offer \nings), incense ; fat, blood ; rams, bullocks, lambs, he-goats ; appear \nbefore me ; court ; new moon, Sabbath, calling of assemblies (convoca- \ntions), solemn meeting (assembly), appointed feasts; abomination. \nThe vision of ch. vi gives the most explicit divine sanction to the tem- \nple, its altar and its atoning virtue. Other allusions to the law of sacri- \nfice, implying that it is acceptable and obligatory, xxxiv. 6, xl. 16, xliii. \n23, 24, lvi. 7, lx. 7 ; Messiah the true trespass-offering, liii. 10. \n\nIsaiah enforces the law of the unity of the sanctuary, Deut. xii. 5, 6, \nby teaching (1) That Zion is Jehovah\'s dwelling-place, ii. 2, 3, iv. 5, \nviii. 18, x. 32, xi. 9. xii. 6, xiv. 32, xxiv. 23, xxviii. 16, xxix. 8, xxxi. \n4, 9, lx. 14. (2) The proper place for Israel\'s worship, xxvii. 13, xxix. \n1, xxx. 29, xxxiii. 20, lxiv. 11. lxvi. 20; no other place of acceptable \nworship is ever mentioned or alluded to. (3) Worship elsewhere, as in \ngardens, on lofty places, and under trees, is offensive, i. 29, 30, lvii. 5-7, \nlxv. 3, 4, 11. (4) Altars of man\'s devising are denounced, xvii. 7, 8, \nxxvii. 9. (5) All such were abolished in Hezekiah\'s reform, xxxvi. 7. \n(6) No objection can be drawn from the altar and the pillar in the land \nof Egypt, xix. 19 ; for the pillar was not beside the altar, nor intended \nas an idolatrous symbol, so that it was no violation of Lev. xxvi. 1, \nDeut. xvi. 21, 22 ; and an altar in Egypt as a symbol of its worship \npaid to Jehovah is more than counterbalanced by pilgrimages to Zion \n\n\n\nMOSES THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 55 \n\npredicted from other lands, ii. 3, xviii. 7, lvi. 7, lxvi. 20, 23. So that \nit is not even certain, whether in the conception of the prophet the re \nstriction of the law in this particular was one day to be relaxed ; much \nless is there reason to imagine that this restriction was unknown to \nhim. \n\nIn addition to these recognitions of the laws of the Pentateuch Isaiah \nmakes allusions to its language and to facts recorded in it. Thus comp. \ni. 2, and Deut. xxxii. 1 ; i. 7, Lev. xxvi. 33 ; i. 9, 10, iii. 9, Sodom and \nGomorrah, Gen. xix. 24, 25, Deut. xxix. 23 (overthrow as i. 7) ; i. 17, \n23, Ex. xxii. 21 (E. V. ver. 22), Deut. x. 18, xxvii. 19 ; xi. 15, 16, lxiii. \n11-13, passage of the Red Sea and the exodus from Egypt ; xii. 2, Ex. \nxv. 2 ; xxiv. 18, Gen. vii. 11 ; xxix. 22, xli. 8, li. 2, lxiii. 16, Abraham \nand Sarah ; xxx. 17, Lev. xxvi. 8, Deut. xxxii. 30. \n\nMicah. Comp. i. 3b, and Deut. xxxiii. 29b ; ii. lb, Gen. xxxi. 29, \nDeut. xxviii. 32b ; ii. 9, Ex. xxii. 21 (E. V. ver. 22) ; ii. 12, iv. 6, 7, \nvii. 19, Deut. xxx. 3-5 ; ii. 13b, Ex. xiii. 21 ; iii. 4, Deut. xxxi. IS, \nxxxii. 20 ; iv. 4, Lev. xxvi. 6; v. 5 (E. V. ver. 6), land of Nimrod, \nGen. x. 8-12 ; vi. 1, 2, Deut. xxxii. 1 ; vi. 4a, Ex. xx. 2, Deut. vii. 8 ; \nvi. 4b, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam ; vi. 5, Num. xxii.-xxv. 3, xxxi. 16 ; \nv. 6 (E. V. ver. 7), Deut. xxxii. 2 ; vi. 6, 7, exaggeration of legal sacri- \nfices ; vi. 8, Deut. x. 12 ; vi. 10, 11, Deut. xxv. 13-15, Lev. xix. 35, \n36 ; vi. 13, Lev. xxvi. 16 ; vi. 14, Lev. xxvi. 26 ; vi. 15, Deut. xxviii. \n38-40 ; vii. 14, Num. xxiii. 9, Deut. xxxiii. 28 ; vii. 15, miracles of the \nexodus ; vii. 16, Ex. xv. 14-16 ; vii. 17a, Gen. iii. 14 ; vii. 17b, Deut. \nxxxii. 24b ; vii. 18a, Ex. xv. 11 ; vii. 18b, Ex. xxxiv. 6; 7. \n\nJeremiah\'s familiarity with Deuteronomy is universally conceded; \nit will accordingly be sufficient to show that his book of prophecy is \nlikewise related to other portions of the Pentateuch. Comp ii. 3, and \nLev. xxii. 10, 15, 16 ; ii. 20, Lev. xxvi. 13 ; ii. 34 (see Rev. Ver.), Ex. \nxxii. 1 (E. V. ver. 2) ; iv. 23, Gen. i. 2 ; iv. 27, Lev. xxvi. 33 ; v. 2, \nLev. xix. 12 ; vi. 28, ix. 4, Lev. xix. 16 ; vii. 26, Ex. xxxii. 9, xxxiii. \n3, 5, xxxiv. 9 ; ix. 4, Gen. xxvii. 36 ; ix. 16, Lev. xxvi. 33 (Deut. xxviii. \n36) ; ix. 26 (see Rev. Ver.) Lev. xix. 27, xxi. 5 ; ix. 26b. Lev. xxvi. \n41 ; xi. 4, Ex. xix. 5, Lev. xxvi. 12, 13 ; xi. 5, Ex. iii. 8, Num. xiv. \n23 ; xiv. 13, Lev. xxvi. 6 ; xiv. 19, 21, Lev. xxvi. 11, 44 ; xv. 1, Ex. \nxxxii. 11; xvi. 5, Num. vi. 26; xvii. 1, Ex. xxxii. 16 ; xvii. 22, Ex. \nxx. 8-11; xxi. 5, Ex. vi. 1, 6; xxviii. 2. 4, Lev. xxvi. 13; xxx. 21, \nNum. xvi. 5, 9 ; xxxi. 9, Ex. iv. 22 ; xxxi. 15, Gen. xxxv. 19, xxxvii. \n35, xlii. 36 ; xxxi. 29, Ex. xx. 5 ; xxxi. 35, 36, Gen. i. 16, viii. 22 ; \nxxxii. 7, 8, Lev. xxv. 25, 49 ; xxxii. 17, 27b, Gen. xviii. 14 ; xxxii. \n18, Ex. xx. 5, 6, xxxiv. 6, 7; xxxii. 27, Num. xvi. 22, xxvii. 16 ; xxxiii. \n22, Gen. xiii. 16, xv. 5, xxii. 17 ; xxxiii. 26, Abraham, Isaac, and Ja- \ncob ; xxxiv. 13, Ex. xx. 2, xxiv. 7; xxxiv. 18, 19, Geu. xv. 17 ; xxxvi. \n\n\n\n56 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\n14, Ex. xxi. 2 ; xlviii. 45, 46, Num. xxi. 28, 29; xlix. 16, Num. xxiv. \n21 ; xlix. 18, 1. 40, Gen. xix. 25. \n\nPsalm xc, which is in its title ascribed to Moses, abounds in allu- \nsions to the statements of the Pentateuch and in coincidences of lan- \nguage ; see the Commentary of Delitzsch. The following may be noted \nin those Psalms of the first three books, which are in their titles \nascribed to David (the number of each verse in the English version is \ncommonly one less than in the Hebrew). Comp. iii. 4, and Gen. xv. \n1; iv. 6, li. 21, Deut. xxxiii. 19 ; iv. 7, Num. vi. 25, 26 ; iv. 9, Lev. \nxxv. 18, 19, Deut. xxxiii. 28 ; vii. 13, 14, Deut. xxxii. 23, 41, 42; viii. \n7-9, Gen. i. 26 ; ix. 6, Deut. ix. 14 ; ix. 13, Gen. ix. 5 ; ix. 17, Ex. vii. \n4b, 5; xi. 6, Gen. xix. 24; xiii. 2, Deut. xxxi. IS ; xiv. 1, Gen. vi. 11, \n12 ; xv. 5, Ex. xxii. 25, xxiii. 8 ; xvi. 4, Ex. xxiii. 13 ; xvi. 5, Num. \nxviii. 20, Deut. x. 9; xvii. 8, Deut. xxxii. 10; xviii. 16, Ex. xv. 8; \nxviii. 27b, Lev. xxvi. 23b, 24a ; xviii. 31a, 32, Deut. xxxii. 4a, 37, 39 ; \nxviii. 34b, Deut. xxxii. 13a, xxxiii. 29b ; xviii. 45b, Deut. xxxiii. 29b ; \nxix. contrasts the glory of God as seen in the heavens with that of the \nlaw, testimony, statutes, commandments, and judgments of Jehovah, \nLev. xxvi. 46, xxvii. 34, Ex. xxv. 16; xx. 6, Ex. xvii. 15, Jehovah my \nbanner ; xxiv. 1, Ex. ix. 29b, xix. 5b ; xxiv. 2, Gen. i. 9 ; xxv. 4, Ex. \nxxxiii. 13; xxvi. 6, Ex. xxx. 19-21; xxvii. 1, Ex. xv. 2; xxviii. 9, \nDeut ix. 29 ; xxix. 6, Sirion, Deut. iii. 9; xxix. 10, flood, Gen. vi. 17; \nxxxi. 9a, Deut. xxxii. 30 ; xxxi. 16, Num. vi. 25 ; xxxiv. 17, Lev. xvii. \n10 ; xxxv. 10, Ex. xv. 11 ; xxxvii. 26, Deut. xxviii. 12 ; xxxvii. 31, \nDeut. vi. 6 ; xxxix. 13b, Lev. xxv. 23b; xl. 7, Ex. xxi. 6?; xl. 8, the \nvolume of the book is the law, which in requiring sacrifice intends \nmuch more than the outward form of sacrifice, ver. 7 ; it lays its real \ndemand upon the person of the offerer himself ; li. 9, hyssop, Lev. xiv. \n4, Num. xix. 6, 18 ; lv. 16, Num. xvi. 30 ; lx. 9, Gen. xlix. 10 ; lx. 14, \nNum. xxiv. 18 ; lxiii. 12, Deut. vi. 13 ; Ixviii. 2, Num. x. 35 ; lxyiii. \n8, 9, 18, Sinai ; lxix. 29, Ex. xxxii. 32 ; lxxxvi. 8, 10, Ex. xv. 11, \nDeut. xxxii. 39 ; lxxxvi. 15, Ex. xxxiv. 6. \n\nOn the traces of the Pentateuch in later books see Havernick, Ein- \nleitung in das Alte Testament (Introduction to the Old Testament), I. \n\xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 136-142. Keil, Einleitung in A. T. \xc2\xa7 34. Caspari, Beitriige zur \nEinleitung in Jesaia (Contributions to the Introduction to Isaiah), pp. \n204 sqq. Caspari, " Ueber Micha," pp. 419 sqq. Kueper, Jeremias \nLibrorum Sacrorum Interpres atque Vindex, pp. 1-51. \n\nNote to page 45. \n\n2. Allusions in Hosea and Amos to the facts recorded in the Penta- \nteuch: Comp. Hos. i. 10, and Gen. xxii. 17, xxxii. 12; xi. 8, Deut. \nxxix. 23 ; xii. 3a, Gen. xxv. 26 ; xii. 3b, 4a, Gen. xxxii. 28 ; xii. 4b, \n\n\n\nMOSES THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 57 \n\nGen. xxviii. 12-19, xxxv. 6-13; xii. 12, Jacob fled to Padan-aram, \nserved for a wife, and kept sheep ; ii. 15b, xi. 1, xiii. 5, exodus from \nEgypt and life in the wilderness ; ix. 10, Num. xxv. 3 ; the places of \nidolatrous worship were such as were made sacred by events in the his- \ntory of their fathers, iv. 15, Josh. iv. 20, Gen. xxviii. 19 (Bethel the \nhouse of God is converted into Beth-aven, house of wickedness) ; xii. \n11, Gen. xxxi. 48 ; Amos, v. 8, Gen. vii. 11 ; iv. 11, Gen. xix. 24, 25 ; \ni. 11, Edom, Israel\'s brother, Gen. xxv. 27, Deut. xxiii. 7; iv. 4, v. 5, \nplaces of idolatry hallowed by events in the time of their forefathers ; \nii. 10, iii. 1, v. 25, 26, exodus from Egypt, and forty years in the wil- \nderness, and idolatry there, Deut. v. 6, xxix. 5, Lev. xvii. 7 ; iii. 2, \nDeut. xiv. 2 ; vi. 14, Num. xxxi v. 5, 8 ; ii. 9, stature of the Amorites, \nNum. xiii. 32, 33, Deut. i, 20, 28. \n\nReferences to its laws : Hosea constantly sets forth the relation between \nJehovah and Israel under the emblem of a marriage, comp. Ex. xx. 5, \nxxxiv. 14-16, Lev. xvii. 7, xx. 5, 6. Israel is an unfaithful wife, who \nhad responded to her lord in former days, when she came up out of \nEgypt, ii. 15, Ex. xxiv. 7, but had since abandoned Lira for other lov- \ners, ch. i.- iii., Baal and the calves, xiii. 1, 2 ; she has broken her cov- \nenant, has dealt treacherously, v. 7, vi. 7 ; has backslidden, iv. 16, xi. \n7, xiv. 4 ; is repeating the atrocity of Gibeah, ix. 9, x. 9 ; is shamelessly \nsacrificing on the hills and under shady trees, iv. 13, Deut. xii. 2 : \nIsrael had an extensive written law, Hos. viii. 12 (see a discussion of \nthis passage in the Presbyterian Review for October, 1886), which they \nhad disobeyed, iv. 0, viii. 1 ; the annual feasts, new-moons, sabbaths, \nand festive assemblies were observed in Israel, aud held in high esteem, \nand occupied a prominent place in the life of the people, so that their \nabolition would be reckoned a serious disaster, Hos. ii. 11, ix. 5, xii. 9, \nAm. v. 21, viii. 5 ; they had burnt-offerings, meal offerings, peace- \nofferings, Am. v. 22, Hos. viii. 13 ; thank-offerings, free-will-offerings, \nAm. iv. 5 ; drink-offerings, Hos. ix. 4 ; the daily morning sacrifice, Am. \niv. 4 ; Hos. iv. 8, alludes to the law of the sin-offering ; Hos. ix 3, 4, \nto the law of clean and unclean meats; viii. 11, xii. 11, the sin of mul- \ntiplying altars implies the law of the unity of the sanctuary, Deut. xii. \n5,6 ; v. 10, removing landmarks, Deut. xix. 14, xxvii. 17; iv. 4, the \nfinal reference of causes in dispute to the priest, refusal to hear whom \nwas a capital offence, Deut. xvii. 12 ; viii. 13, ix. 3, penalty of a return \nto Egypt, Dent, xxviii. 68 ; ix. 4, defilement from the dead, Num. xix. \n14, 22, Deut. xxvi. 14 ; x. 11, the ox not to be muzzled when treading \nout corn, Deut. xxv. 4 ; vi. 9, Sl/27 is a technical word of the Holiness \nLaws, Lev. xviii. 17 ; xiv. 3, mercy for the fatherless, Ex. xxii. 21, 22, \n(E. V. vs. 22. 23), Deut. x. 18 ; vi. 11, Am. ix. 14, God returns to the \ncaptivity of his people, Deut. xxx. 3 ; Amos, though delivering his \n\n\n\n58 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nmessage in Bethel, knows but one sanctuary, that in Zion, i. 2 ; ii. 7, \nthe law of incest, Lev. xx. 11, Deut. xxii. 30 ; ii. 11, 12, Nazarites, \nNum vi. 2, 3, and prophets, Deut. xviii. 15 ; iv. 4, triennial tithes, \nDeut. xiv. 28, xxvi. 12, for which in their excess of zeal they may sub- \nstitute tithes every three days ; viii. 5, falsifying the ephah, shekel, \nand balances, Lev. xix. 36, Deut. xxv. 13-15. \n\nCoincidences of thought or expression : Comp Hos. ii. 17, and Ex. \nxxiii. 13 ; iii. 1, look to other gods, Deut. xxxi. 18 (Heb.) ; v. 14-vi. 1, \nDeut. iv. 29, 30, xxxii. 39 ; iv. 10, Lev. xxvi. 26 ; xi. 1, Ex. iv. 22, 23 ; \nxii. 5, Ex. iii. 15 ; xiii. 6, Deut. viii. 12-14 ; Am. ii. 7, to profane my \nholy name, Lev. xx. 3 ; iv. 6, 8, Deut. xxviii. 48 ; iv. 9, Deut. xxviii. \n22; iv. 10, Deut. xxviii. 60 ; iv. 6, 8, 9, 10, Deut. iv. 30; v. 11, ix. \n14, Deut. xxviii. 30, 39 ; vi. 12, gall and wormwood, Deut. xxix. 18 ; \nix. 13, Lev. xxvi. 5. \n\nFor traces of the Pentateuch in the kingdom of Israel, whether in \nHosea, Amos, or the Books of Kings, see Hengstenberg, " Authentie \ndes Pentateuches," I. pp. 48-180. \n\n\n\nIV \n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nThe second objection which has been urged, against \nthe Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, affects its form \nrather than its contents. It is affirmed that such is the \nconstitution of the Pentateuch as to evince that it is not \nthe continuous composition of any one writer, but that it \nis compacted of parts of diverse origin, the products of \ndifferent writers, themselves long posterior to the Mosaic \nage; and consequently the Pentateuch, though it may \ncontain some Mosaic elements, cannot in its present \nform have proceeded from Moses, but must belong to a \nmuch later period. This objection is primarily directed \nagainst the unity of the Pentateuch, and only seconda- \nrily against its authenticity. \n\nIn order to render intelligible the nature of the parti- \ntion hypotheses, with which we shall have to deal, the \nnomenclature which they employ, and their application \nto the Pentateuch, it will be necessary first to state pre- \ncisely what is meant by the unity for which we contend, \nand then give a brief account of the origin and history of \nthose hypotheses by which it has been impugned, and \nthe several forms which they have successively as- \nsumed. \n\nBy the unity of the Pentateuch is meant that it is in its \npresent form one continuous work, the product of a sin- \ngle writer. This is not opposed to the idea of his having \nhad before him written sources in any number or variety, \nfrom which he may have drawn his materials, provided \n\n\n\n60 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nthe composition was his own. It is of no consequence, \nso far as our present inquiry is concerned, whether the \nfacts related were learned from pre-existing writings, or \nfrom credible tradition, or from his own personal knowl- \nedge, or from immediate divine revelation. From what- \never source the materials may have been gathered, if all \nhas been cast into the mould of the writer\'s own \nthoughts, presented from his point of view, and arranged \nupon a plan and method of his own, the work possesses \nthe unity which we maintain. Thus Bancroft\'s " History \nof the United States " rests upon a multitude of author- \nities which its author consulted in the course of its prep- \naration ; the facts which it records were drawn from a \ngreat variety of pre-existing written sources ; and yet, as \nwe possess it, it is the product of one writer, who first \nmade himself thoroughly acquainted with his subject, \nand then elaborated it in his own language and accord- \ning to his own preconceived plan. It would have been \nvery different, if his care had simply been to weave to- \ngether his authorities in the form of a continuous narra- \ntive, retaining in all cases their exact language, but in- \ncorporating one into another or supplementing one by \nanother, and thus allowing each of his sources in turn to \nspeak for itself. In this case it would not have been \nBancroft\'s history. He would have been merely the \ncompiler of a work consisting of a series of extracts \nfrom various authors. Such a narrative has been made \nby harmonists of the Gospel history. They have framed \nan account of all the recorded facts by piecing together \nextracts from the several gospels arranged in what is \nconceived to be their true chronological order. And the \nresult is not a new Gospel history based upon the several \nGospels, nor is it the original Gospel either of Matthew, \nMark, Luke, or John ; but it is a compound of the whole \nof them ; and it can be taken apart paragraph by para- \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 61 \n\ngraph, or sentence by sentence, and each portion as- \nsigned to the particular Gospel from which it was \ndrawn. \n\nNow the question respecting the unity of the Penta- \nteuch is whether it is a continuous production from a \nsingle pen, whatever may have been the sources from \nwhich the materials were taken, or whether it is a com- \nposite production, made up from various writings woven \ntogether, the several portions of which are still capable \nof being distinguished, separated, and assigned to their \nrespective originals. \n\n\n\nDOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS. \n\nThe not improbable conjecture was expressed at an \nearly period that there were ante-Mosaic records, to \nwhich Moses had access, and of which he made use in \npreparing the book of Genesis. The history of such a \nremote antiquity would seem to be better accredited if it \nhad a written basis to rest upon than if it had been drawn \nsolely from oral tradition. Thus the eminent orthodox \ntheologian and commentator Yitringa, expressed the \nopinion in 1707, in the interest of the credibility of Gen- \nesis, that Moses collected, digested, embellished, and \nsupplemented the records left by the fathers and pre- \nserved among the Israelites. The peculiarity of the \ncritical hypothesis, with which we are now concerned, \nhowever, is the contention that Genesis was not merely \nbased upon pre-existing writings, but that it was framed \nout of those writings, which were incorporated in it and \nsimply pieced together, so that each section and paragraph \nand sentence preserved still its original style and texture, \nindicative of the source from which it came ; and that \nby means of these criteria the book of Genesis can be \ntaken apart and its original sources reproduced. The \n\n\n\n62 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nfirst suggestion of this possibility and the first attempt \nactually to realize it by decomposing the book into the \nprior documents supposed to have been embedded in it, \nwas made in 1753 by As true, a French physician of con- \nsiderable learning, but of profligate life, in a treatise en- \ntitled " Conjectures Concerning the Original Memoranda \nwhich it appears Moses used to Compose the Book of \nGenesis." 1 This hypothesis was adopted and elaborated \nwith great learning and ingenuity by Eichhorn, 2 the dis- \ntinguished professor of Oriental literature at Gottingen, \nto whose skilful advocacy it owed much of its sudden \npopularity. \n\n1 Conjectures sur les Memoires Originaux, dont it paroit que Moyse \ns\'est servi pour composer le Livre de la Genese. Avec des Remarques, \nqui appuient ou qui eclaircissent ces Conjectures. This was published \nanonymously at Brussels. For an account of the life and character of \nthe author see the Article Jean Astruc, by Dr. Howard Osgood, in \nThe Presbyterian and Reformed Beview, for January, 1892. Astruc \nassumes two principal documents, which were used throughout, and are \ndistinguished by the employment of Elohim and Jehovah respectively ; \nalso ten minor documents relating chiefly to foreign nations, and not \nimmediately affecting the Hebrew people, in which no name of God is \nfound. These may have been of considerable extent, though Moses \nonly had occasion to make one small extract from each. With these he \nclasses likewise the story of Dinah, ch. xxxiv., and the extra document \nto account for the triple repetitions in vii. 18-20 and 21-23 in the nar- \nrative of the flood. The advantages which he claims for his hypothe- \nsis are that it will account for the alternation of the divine names as well \nas for the repetitions and displacements in the narrative. Occasional \ndepartures from the exact chronological order are in his view attributa- \nble, not to any negligence on the part of Moses, but to the mistakes of \ntranscribers. These documents were, as he supposes, originally ar- \nranged in parallel columns after the manner of Origen\'s Hexapla ; but \nthe transcribers, who copied them in one continuous text, sometimes \ninserted paragraphs in the wrong places. \n\n- Einleitung in das Alte Testament, von Johann Gottfried Eichhorn. \nFirst edition, 1782 ; 4th edition, 1823. He steadfastly insists that \nMoses is the compiler of Genesis, and the author of the rest of the Pen- \ntateuch, some interpolations excepted. Gramberg, whose Libri Gene- \nseos secundum f ontes rite dignoscendos Adumbratio Nova was published \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 63 \n\n1. The primary basis of this extraordinary hypothesis \nwas found in the remarkable manner in which the divine \nnames Elohim (the Hebrew term for God) and Jehovah \nare used, particularly in the earliest portions of Genesis, \nwhole paragraphs and even long sections making almost \nexclusive use of one of these names, while the alternate \nsections make a similarly exclusive use of the other. \nThus in Gen. i. 1-ii. 3, Elohim occurs in almost every \nverse, but no other name of God than this. But in ii. \n4-iii. 24, God is with few exceptions called Jehovah \nElohim, and in ch. iv. Jehovah. Then in ch. v. we find \nElohim again ; in vi. 1-8, Jehovah, and in the rest of ch. \nvi., Elohim, and so on. This singular alternation was \nremarked upon by some of the early Christian fathers, 1 \nwho offered an explanation founded upon the Greek and \nLatin equivalents of these names, but which is not ap- \nplicable to the Hebrew terms themselves. Astruc\'s as- \nsumption was that it was due to the peculiar style of \ndifferent writers, one of whom was in the habit of using \nElohim, and another in the habit of using Jehovah, when \nspeaking of God. All those paragraphs and sections \nwhich exclusively or predominantly employ the name \nElohim were accordingly attributed to a writer denomi- \nnated from this circumstance the Elohist ; and when \nthese paragraphs were singled out and put together, they \nconstituted what was called the Elohist document. The \nother writer was known as the Jehovist, and the sections \nattributed to him made up the Jehovist document. It \n\nin 1828, substitutes for this faithful compiler an unknown Redactor, \nwho in combining the Elohist and Jehovist makes frequent changes and \nadditions of his own. \n\n1 Thus Tertullian adv. Hermogenem, ch. 3, remarks that the Most \nHigh is simply called " God" until the world was made, and his intel- \ngent creature, man, over whom he had dominion, after which he is \nlikewise called " LORD. " See also Augustin, De Genesi ad Literam, \nviii. 11. \n\n\n\n64 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nwas accordingly held that Genesis consisted of sections \ntaken alternately from two distinct documents by authors \nof known proclivities, so far at least as their preference \nfor or exclusive use of one or other of the divine names, \nand which existed and circulated in their separate state \nuntil they were combined as they are at present. This \nhypothesis is hence known as the document hypothesis, \nsince it assumes as the sources of Genesis distinct and \ncontinuous documents, which are still traceable in the \nbook from the beginning to the end. And the first ar- \ngument adduced in its support, as already stated, is the \ninterchange of divine names, each of which is erected \ninto the criterion of a separate document. \n\n2. A second argument was drawn from the alleged \nfact that when the Elohim sections are sundered out and \nput together, they form a regularly constructed and con- \ntinuous narrative without any apparent breaks or chasms, \nwhence it is inferred that they originally constituted one \ndocument distinct from the intercalated Jehovah sections. \nThe same thing was affirmed, though with more hesita- \ntion and less appearance of plausibility, of the Jehovah \nsections likewise ; when these are singled out and sev- \nered from the passages containing the name Elohim, they \nform a tolerably well-connected document likewise. \n\n3. A third argument was drawn from parallel passages \nin the two documents. The same event, it is alleged, is \nin repeated instances found twice narrated in successive \nsections of Genesis, once in an Elohist section, and \nagain with some modifications or variations in a Jehovist \nsection. This is regarded as proof positive that Genesis \nis not one continuous narrative, but that it is made up \nfrom two different histories. The compiler instead of \nframing a new narrative which should comprehend all \nthe particulars stated in both accounts, or blending the \ntwo accounts by incorporating sentences from one in the \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 65 \n\nbody of the other, has preserved both entire, each in its \nintegrity and in its own proper form, by first giving the \naccount of the matter as it was to be found in one docu- \nment, and subsequently inserting the account found in the \nother. Thus Gen. i. 1-ii. 3 contains the account of the cre- \nation as given by the Elohist ; but although this states how \nthe world was made, and plants and animals and men were \nformed upon it, the Jehovist section, ii. 4, etc., introduces \na fresh account of the making of the man and the wom- \nan, the production of trees from the ground, and the \nformation of the inferior animals. This repetition be- \ntrays, it is said, that we here have before us not one ac- \ncount of the creation by a single writer, but two separate \naccounts by different writers. So in the narrative of the \nflood ; there is first an account by the Jehovist, vi. 1-8, \nof the wickedness of man and of Jehovah\'s purpose to \ndestroy the earth ; then follows, vi. 9-22, the Elohist\'s \nstatement of the wickedness of man and God\'s purpose to \ndestroy the earth, together with God\'s command to Noah \nto build the ark and go into it with his family, and take \nsome of all living animals into it ; in vii. 1-5, the Jeho- \nvist tells that Jehovah commanded Noah to go with his \nfamily into the ark, and to take every variety of animals \nwith him. \n\n4. A fourth argument is drawn from the diversity of \nstyle, diction, ideas, and aim which characterize these \ntwo documents. It is alleged that when these compo- \nnent parts of Genesis are separated and examined apart, \neach will be found to be characterized by all the marks \nwhich indicate diversity of origin and authorship. It is \nconfidently affirmed that, wherever the Elohim sections \noccur throughout Genesis, they have certain peculiarities \nof diction and style which clearly distinguish them from \nthe Jehovah sections ; and these again have their own \ndistinctive characteristics. The preference for one di- \n5 \n\n\n\n66 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nvine name above another, which has already been spoken \nof as a criterion, does not stand alone. There are be- \nsides numerous words and phrases that are currently \nused by the Elohist which the Jehovist never employs, \nand vice versa. Thus the Elohist, in ch. i., uses the \nphrase " beast of the earth," and speaks of the earth \nbringing forth plants, while the Jehovist, in ch. ii., says \n" beasts of the field " and " plant of the field." The Elo- \nhist, in ch. i., repeatedly uses the word " create " ; he \nspeaks of God creating the heavens and the earth, creat- \ning the whales, and creating man. The Jehovist, in ch. \nii., speaks instead of Jehovah forming man and forming \nthe beasts. The Elohist (ch. i.) speaks of man as male \nand female ; the Jehovist (ch. ii.) says instead the man \nand his wife. The style of the two writers is equally \nmarked ; that of the Elohist is formal, verbose, and repe- \ntitious ; that of the Jehovist is easy and flowing. In ch. \ni. the same stereotyped phrases recur again and again, \nand particulars are enumerated instead of including all \nunder a general term. Thus ver. 25, " God made the \nbeast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their \nkind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the \nearth after his kind." And ver. 27, " God created man \nin his own image, in the image of God created he him ; \nmale and female created he them." The Elohist gives \nGod\'s command to Noah in detail (vi. 18), " Thou shalt \ncome into the ark ; thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and \nthy sons\' wives with thee ; " the Jehovist simply says, \n(vii. 1), " Come thou and all thy house into the ark." \n\nAlong with these peculiarities of diction and style, and \ncorroborating the conclusion drawn from them, is the di- \nversity in the ideas and scope of the two writers. Thus \nthe Jehovist makes frequent mention of altars and sacri- \nfices in the pre-Mosaic period; the Elohist is silent re- \nspecting them until their establishment at Sinai. It is \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 67 \n\nthe Jeliovist who records the primeval sacrifice of Cain \nand Abel, of which the Elohist says nothing. The Elo- \nhist speaks, in v. 22, of Enoch walking with God, and vi. \n9, of Noah walking with God, but though he gives (ch. ix.) \na detailed account of God\'s blessing Noah, and his cove- \nnant with him after he came out of the ark, he says noth- \ning of Noah\'s sacrifice, which the Jehovist records (viii. \n20, etc). The divine direction to Noah to take animals \ninto the ark is given by the Elohist only in general \nterms ; God bade him take two of every sort (vi. 19, etc.). \nBut the Jehovist informs us more minutely of the dis- \ntinction of clean and unclean animals which then ex- \nisted, and that Jehovah bade Noah take two of each spe- \ncies of the latter, but seven of the former, vii. 2. \n\nThese arguments, derived from the alternate use of the \ndivine names, from the alleged continuity of each docu- \nment taken separately, from parallel passages, and from \nthe characteristic differences of the two writers, appeared \nto lend so much plausibility to the Document Hypothe- \nsis that it speedily rose to great celebrity, and was very \nwidely adopted ; and many able and distinguished critics \nbecame its advocates. As at first propounded it did not \nconflict with the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. \nIts earliest defenders, so far from impugning the author- \nship of Moses, were strenuous in maintaining it. So long \nas the hypothesis was confined to Genesis, to which it \n"was at first applied, there was no difficulty in assuming \nthat Moses may have incorporated in his history of that \nearly period these pre-existing documents in any way \nconsistent with his truth and inspiration. \n\nIt was not long, however, before it was discovered that \nthe hypothesis was capable of being applied likewise to \nthe remaining books of the Pentateuch. This extension \nof the hypothesis brought it for the first time into colli- \nsion with the traditional belief of the Mosaic authorship ; \n\n\n\n68 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nand this, with its various modifications, has since been one \nof the favorite and principal weapons of those who deny \nthat it was written by Moses. If the entire Pentateuch \nis a compilation from pre-existing documents, it was \nplausibly inferred that it must be post-Mosaic. For the \ndocuments themselves, inasmuch as they contained the \nrecord of Moses\'s own times, could not have been older \nthan the Mosaic age. And if the Pentateuch was sub- \nsequent to them, and framed out of them, it seemed nat- \nural to refer it to a still later period ; though, it should \nbe observed, that this by no means necessarily follows. \nEven if the composite character of the Pentateuch could \nbe established on purely literary grounds, we might still \nsuppose that the memoranda from which it was pre- \npared were drawn up under Moses\'s direction and with \nhis approval, and were either put together in their pres- \nent form by himself, or at least that the completed work \npassed under his eye and received his sanction ; so that \nit would still be possible to vindicate its Mosaic origin \nand authority, unless indeed the primary documents \nthemselves belong to a later time than that of Moses, \nwhich can never be proved. \n\nThe critics who have held this hypothesis, however, \ncommonly do regard them as post-Mosaic; and hence \nthey claim that it affords ocular demonstration that the \nbooks traditionally ascribed to Moses are not his. And \nto corroborate this conclusion they appeal to Exodus vi. \n3, where God says to Moses, "I appeared unto Abraham, \nunto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my \nname Jehovah I was not known to them." They under- \nstand this to be a distinct declaration that the name Je- \nhovah was unknown to the patriarchs, being of later date \nthan the time in which they lived, and that it first came \ninto use in the days of Moses. It hence followed as a \nlogical necessity that the Jehovist document, according to \n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 69 \n\nthe testimony of this passage, was certainly not prior to \nthe time of Moses, for it employs a name which had no \nexistence previously. And it was plausibly urged that \nthis document was probably post-Mosaic, for it is charge- \nable with the anachronism of putting into the mouths of \nthe patriarchs the name Jehovah, which did not then \nexist. This was thought to be contradictory to the Elo- \nhist statement above cited, and to betray a writer be- \nlonging to a period when the name Jehovah had become \nso familiar and so universal that its recent origin was \nforgotten, and he unconsciously transfers to patriarchal \ntimes a designation current in his own. \n\nThis anachronism of the Jehovist led to the suspicion \nof others ; and since, as has already been stated, it is \nthis document which makes mention of patriarchal altars \nand sacrifices that are never referred to by the Elohist, \nit was suspected that here again he had impro\xc2\xa3)erly trans- \nferred to the patriarchal age the usages of his own time, \nwhile the Elohist gave a more accurate representation of \nthat early period as it really was. This was esteemed, if \nnot a contradiction, yet a contrariety between the two \naccounts, a diversity in the mode of conceiving the pe- \nriod whose history they are recording, which reflects the \ndifferent personality of the two writers, the views which \nthey entertained, and the influences under which they \nhad been trained. \n\nThese diversities between the Jehovist and the Elo- \nhist took on more and more the character of contradic- \ntions, as the credit of the Jehovist for veracity and accu- \nracy was held in less and less esteem. Every superficial \ndifficulty was made the pretext for fresh charges of \nanachronisms, inaccuracies, and contradictions. The \ntext was tortured to bring forth difficulties where none \nappeared. An especially fruitful source was found in \nalleged parallel passages in the two documents. These \n\n\n\n70 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nwere greatly multiplied by pressing into the service nar- \nrations of matters quite distinct, but which bore a general \nresemblance to each other. The points of resemblance were \nparaded in proof that the matters referred to were iden- \ntical ; and then the diversities in the two accounts were \npointed out as so many contradictions between them, \nwhich betrayed the legendary and unreliable character of \none or both the narratives. Thus because some of the \ndescendants of Cain, whose genealogy is recorded by the \nJehovist (Gen. iv. 17-22), bear the same or similar names \nwith descendants of Seth recorded by theElohist (ch. v.), \nEnoch, Trad, Methusael, and Lamech of one table cor- \nresponding to Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, and Lamech of \nthe other, it was concluded that these are only variants \nof the same identical genealogy, which one writer has at- \ntached to one of the sons of Adam, and the other to an- \nother ; and that every divergence in the two lists is a \ndiscrepancy involving an error on one side or on the \nother, if not in both. So in ch. xii. the Jehovist tells how \nAbram, apprehensive that the monarch of the country in \nwhich he was would be attracted by his wife\'s beauty, \nprevaricated by saying that she was his sister, what per- \nils thence arose to both, and how they were finally extri- \ncated. In ch. xx. the Elohist relates a similar story of \nprevarication, peril, and deliverance. The same event, it \nis alleged, must be the basis of both accounts, but there \nis a hopeless contradiction between them. The former \ndeclares that the occurrence took place in Egypt, and \nthat Pharaoh was a party to the transaction ; the latter \ntransfers the scene to the land of the Philistines and the \ncourt of Abimelech. And to complicate the matter still \nfurther, the Jehovist gives yet another version of the \nsame story in ch. xxvi., according to which it was not \nAbram but Isaac who thus declared his wife to be his \nsister, running an imminent hazard by so doing, but \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 71 \n\nmaking a fortunate escape. According to the Elohist \n(xxi. 22-32), Abraham had a difficulty with Abimelech in \nrespect to a well of water, which was amicably settled by \na covenant, in memory of which he gave name to Beer- \nsheba. The Jehovist (xxvi. 17-33) relates a similar story \nof strife concerning wells, a visit by Abimelech, an agree- \nment with him, and the naming of Beersheba in conse- \nquence ; but he says that it was not Abraham but Isaac \nwho was concerned in it. \n\n\n\nFRAGMENT HYPOTHESIS. \n\nMeanwhile a more extreme disintegration found favor \nwith Vater 1 (1805), Hartmann 3 (1831), and others, who \nadvocated what is known as the Fragment Hypothesis. \nThis may be fitly characterized as the Document Hypo- \nthesis run mad. It is a reductio ad absurdwn furnished \nby the more consistent and thorough-going application \nof the principles and methods of its predecessor. In- \nstead of two continuous documents pieced together, para- \ngraph by paragraph, to constitute the Pentateuch as we \nnow have it, each paragraph or section is now traced to \na separate and independent source. The compiler was \nnot limited to two writings covering alike the entire \n\n1 Cominentar iiber den Pentateuch von Johann Severin Vater. 1st \nand 2d Part, 1802 ; 3d Part, 1805. This embodies many of the Explan- \natory Notes and Critical Remarks of Rev. Alexander Geddes, with \nwhose views he is in entire accord. Vater finds that Genesis is com- \nposed of thirty- eight fragments, varying in length from four or five \nverses to several chapters The other books of the Pentateuch are \nsimilarly disintegrated. In fact, the legislation is the favorite domain \nof the Fragment Hypothesis, as the history furnishes the principal \nmaterial for the Document Hypothesis. \n\n2 Historisch-kritische Forschungen tlber die Bildung, das Zeitalter \nund den Plan der fiinf Bticher Mose\'s, nebst einer beurtheilenden \nEinleitung und einer genauen Charakteristik der hebraischen Sagen \nund My then, von Anton Theodor Hartmann. \n\n\n\n72 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nperiod that he proposed to treat, but had before him \nall that he could gather of every sort relating to his sub- \nject, some of which possibly were mere scraps, others of \nlarger compass, some recording, it may be, but a single \nincident, others more comprehensive, and he adopted \none passage from one, another from another, and so \non throughout. Sometimes two or more fragments may \nhave been taken from the same original work, but this \ncannot be positively affirmed. And it would be vain to \nattempt to inquire into the extent, character, and aim of \nthe writings from which they were severally extracted. \nAll that we know of them is derived from such portions \nas the compiler has seen fit to preserve. \n\nThe arguments adduced in support of the Fragment \nHypothesis were substantially identical with those which \nhad been urged in favor of the Document Hypothesis. \nAnd assuming the soundness of those arguments, this is \nthe inevitable consequence. Admit the legitimacy of \nthis disintegrating process, and there is no limit to which \nit may not be carried at the pleasure of the operator ; \nand it might be added, there is no work to which it \nmight not be applied. Any book in the Bible, or out of \nthe Bible, could be sliced and splintered in the same way \nand by the same method of argument. Let a similarly \nminute and searching examination be instituted into the \ncontents of any modern book. Let any one page be com- \npared with any other, and every word, and form of ex- \npression, and grammatical construction, and rhetorical \nfigure in one that does not occur in the other be noted \nas difference of diction and style ; let every incident in \none that has its counterpart in the other be paraded as/a \nparallel section evidencing diversity of origin and author- \nship, and every conception in one which has not its \ncounterpart in the other as establishing a diversity in \nthe ideas of the authors of the two pages respectively; \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 73 \n\nlet every conclusion arrived at on one page that does not \nappear on the other argue different tendencies in the \ntwo writers, different aims with which, and different in- \nfluences under which, they severally wrote, and nothing \nwould be easier, if this method of proof be allowed, than \nto demonstrate that each successive page came from a \ndifferent pen. \n\nThe very same process by which the Pentateuch is de- \ncomposed into documents, can with like facility divide \nthese documents, and subdivide them, and then subdi- \nvide them again. Indeed the advocates of the Docu- \nment Hypothesis may here be summoned as witnesses \nagainst themselves. They currently admit different \nElohists and Jehovists, and successive variant editions \nof each document, and a whole school of priestly and \nDeuteronomic diaskeuasts and redactors, thus rivalling in \ntheir refinements the multitudinous array of the fragmen- \ntary critics. And in fact the extent to which either may \ngo in this direction is determined by purely subjective \nconsiderations. The only limitation is that imposed \nby the taste or fancy of the critic. If the repetitions \nor parallel sections, alleged to be found in the Penta- \nteuch, require the assumption of distinct documents, \nlike repetitions occurring in each individual document \nprove it to be composite. The very same sort of con- \ntrarieties or contradictions which are made a pretext for \nsundering the Pentateuch, can furnish an equally plausi- \nble reason for sundering each of the documents. And if \ncertain criteria are regarded as characteristic of a given \ndocument, and their absence from sections attributed to \nthe other is held to prove that they are by a different hand \nfrom the former, why does not the same rule apply to \nthe numerous sections of the first-named document, from \nwhich its own so-called characteristic words and phrases \nare likewise absent ? \n\n\n\n74 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OE THE PENTATEUCH \n\nThe titles and subscriptions attached to genealogies \nand legal sections supplied an additional argument, of \nwhich the advocates of the Fragment Hypothesis sought \nto avail themselves. Such titles as the following are \nprefixed to indicate the subject of the section that fol- \nlows : " These are the generations of the heavens and \nof the earth," Gen. ii. 4. " This is the book of the gen- \nerations of Adam," v. 1. " These are the names of the \nsons of Levi according to their generations," Ex. vi. 16. \n" This is the law of the trespass-offering," Lev. vii. 1. \n" This is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings," ver. \n11. " These are the journeys of the children of Israel," \nNum. xxxiii. 1. Or subscriptions are added at the close \nsuggestive of the contents of the section that precedes, \nsuch as " These are the families of the sons of Noah \nafter their generations in their nations," Gen. x. 32. \n"These be the sons of Leah," xlvi. 15. "These are the \nsons of Zilpah," ver. 18. " These are the sons of Rachel," \nver. 22. " This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the \nmeal-offering, and of the sin-offering," etc., Lev. vii. 37 3 \n38. "This is the law of the plague of leprosy," etc., xiii. \n59. These indicate divisions in the subject-matter, and \nmark the beginning or end of paragraphs or sections, \nand contribute to clearness by brief statements of their \ngeneral purport, but they do not prove that these sec- \ntions ever had a separate and independent existence \napart from the book in which they are now found, or that \ndifferent sections proceeded from different authors, any \nmore than a like conclusion could be drawn from the \nbooks and chapters into which modern works are di- \nvided. \n\nThe extravagance and absurdity of the Fragment \nHypothesis could not long escape detection, for \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n1. It involves the assumption of a numerous body of \nwritings regarding the Mosaic and ante-Mosaic periods \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 75 \n\nof wliicli there is no other evidence, and which is ont of \nall proportion to the probabilities of the case. Every \nseveral paragraph or section is supposed to represent a \ndistinct work, implying a literary activity and a fertility \nof authorship which is not only assumed on slender and \ninadequate grounds, but of which not another fragment \nsurvives, to which no allusion is made, whether in the \nPentateuch itself or elsewhere, and not a hint or a trace \nis anywhere preserved of its ever having existed. \n\n2. A congeries of fragments borrowed from diverse \nquarters could only form a body of disconnected anec- \ndotes or a heterogeneous miscellany. It could not possi- \nbly result in the production of such a work as the Pen- \ntateuch, which is a coherent whole, possessing orderly \narrangement in accordance with a well-devised plan, \nwhich is consistently carried out, with a continuous and \nconnected narrative, with no abrupt transitions, and no \nsuch contrasts or discords as would inevitably arise from \npiecing together what was independently conceived and \nwritten by different persons at different times, and with \nno regard to mutual adjustment. As in oriental writings \ngenerally the successive portions are more loosely bound \ntogether in outward form than is customary in modern \noccidental style ; but the matter of the record is through- \nout continuous, and one constant aim is steadfastly pur- \nsued. The breaks and interruptions which are alleged \nto exist in the narrative, such as the failure to record in \nfull the abode in Egypt, the private life of Moses, or the \nforty years\' wandering in the wilderness, are no indica- \ntions of a lack of unity, but the reverse ; for they show \nwith what tenacity the writer adhered to his proper \ntheme, and excluded everything which did not belong- \nto it. \n\n3. Still further, the Pentateuch is not only possessed \nof a demonstrable unity of structure, which renders its \n\n\n\n76 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nfragmentary origin inconceivable, but there are through- \nout manifest allusions from one part to another, one sec- \ntion either referring in express terms to what. is con- \ntained in others, or implying their existence, being based \nupon those that precede and unintelligible without them, \nand presupposing those that follow. The minute exam- \ninations to which this very hypothesis has driven the \nfriends of truth have shown that such explicit or tacit \nallusions are traceable everywhere ; and wherever they \noccur they make it clear that the writer must have been \ncognizant of the paragraphs alluded to, and have felt at \nliberty to assume that his readers were acquainted with \nthem likewise. Of course this is quite inconsistent with \nthe notion that each of these paragraphs came from a \ndifferent source, and was written independently of the \nrest. \n\nIt was refuted by Ewald 1 in his earliest publication, \nwhich still deserves careful study, and still more thor- \noughly by F. H. Eanke. 2 \n\n\n\nSUPPLEMENT HYPOTHESIS. \n\nEepelled by the inconsistencies and incongruities of \nthe Fragment Hypothesis, Bleek, Tuch, Stahelin, De \nWette, Knobel 3 and others advocated what is known as \n\n1 Die Composition der Genesis kritisch Untersucht, von Dr. H. A. \nEwald, 1823. \n\n\' 2 Untersuchungen fiber den Pentateuch, von Dr. Friedrich Heinrich \nRanke, Pfarrer. Vol. i., 1834; Vol. ii., 1840. \n\n3 The matured views of Bleek are given in the posthumous publica- \ntion, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1860. In his opinion, "after \nEx. vi. 2-8, the determination of Elohistic constituents, if not impos- \nsible, is incomparably more difficult and uncertain than in the preceding \nhistory." 4th Edit., p. 92. He maintained that there was much in the \nPentateuch that was genuinely Mosaic, and especially that many of the \nlaws proceeded from Moses in the form in which they are there pre- \nserved, and were committed to writing by Moses himself, or at least in \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 77 \n\nthe Supplement Hypothesis. This . is a modification of \nthe Documentary, not on the side of a still further and in- \ndefinite division, but on the opposite side of a closer \nunion. It was consequently a reaction in the right direc- \ntion ; a confession that what had been sundered without \nlimit, as though its several parts were void of all coher- \nence, really do belong together ; it is an admission, so \nfar as it goes, of the cogency of the arguments, by which \nthe various parts of the Pentateuch can be shown to be \nlinked together. \n\nThe Supplement Hypothesis retained the Elohist and \nthe Jehovist of the older theory ; but, instead of making \nthem the authors of distinct and independent documents, \nwhich were subsequently combined and pieced together \nby a different hand, it supposed that the Elohist first pre- \npared his treatise, which lies at the basis throughout of \nthe Pentateuch, and constitutes its groundwork. The \nJehovist, who lived later, undertook to prepare an en- \nlarged edition of this older history. He accordingly re- \ntained all that was in the earlier work, preserving its \nform and language, only introducing into it and incor- \n\ntlie Mosaic age. Kommentar liber die Genesis, von Dr. Friedrich \nTuch, 183S. Kritische Untersucliungen iiber den Pentateuch, die \nBiicher Josua, Richter, Samuels und der Konige, von J. J. Stahelin, \n1843. Stahelin is peculiar in beginning his literary analysis with the \nlaws, and then applying the results to the historical portions of the Pen- \ntateuch and the Book of Joshua. De Wette, who at first seemed to \nwaver between the Fragment and Document Hypothesis, finally fell in \nwith the supplementary view. His latest views are given in the sixth \nedition of his Lehrbuch der Historisch-kritischen Einleitung, 1845. Die \nGenesis erklart von August Knobel, 1852. This was followed in suc- \ncession by commentaries on the remaining books of the Pentateuch and \non Joshua. Knobel endeavored to remove the difficulty arising from the \nlarge number of passages in which the characteristics of the Elohist and \nJehovist were blended, by assuming that they belonged to the Jehovist, \nwho in them drew from two antecedent sources, which he denominated \nthe Recktsbuch and the Kriegsbuch. It is the same difficulty that Hup- \nfeld sought to relieve by his assumption of a second Elohist. \n\n\n\n78 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nporating with it sections of his own, supplying omissions, \nand amplifying what needed to be more fully stated, \nthus supplementing it by means of such materials as were \nwithin his reach, and making such additions as he es- \nteemed important. \n\nThis form of the hypothesis not only provides, as the \nold document theory had done, for those evidences of \nunity which bind the various Elohim passages to one \nanother, and also the various Jehovah passages. But it \naccounts still further for the fact, inexplicable on the \ndocument theory, that the Jehovah sections are related \nto the Elohim sections, presuppose them, or contain direct \nand explicit allusions to them. This is readily explained \nby the Supplement Hypothesis ; for not only would \nthe Elohist and Jehovist be aware of what they had re- \nspectively written, or of what they intended to write in \nthe course of their work, but in addition the Jehovist is \nsupposed to have the treatise of the Elohist in his hands, \nto which all that he writes himself is merely supplement- \nal. It is quite natural for him, therefore, to make allu- \nsions to what the Elohist had written. But it is not so \neasy to account for the fact, which is also of repeated oc- \ncurrence, that the Elohim passages allude to or presup- \npose the contents of Jehovah passages. Here the theory \nsignally breaks down. For by the hypothesis the Elo- \nhist wrote first an independent production, without any \nknowledge of, and, of course, without the possibility of \nmaking any reference to the additions which the Jeho- \nvist was subsequently to make. \n\n. Another halting-place in this hypothesis was the im- \npossibility of making out any consistent view of the rela- \ntion in which the Jehovist stood to the antecedent labors \nof the Elohist. The great proof, which was insisted upon, \nof the existence of the Jehovist as distinct from the Elo- \nhist, and supplementing the treatise of the latter, lay in \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 79 \n\nthe diversity of style and thought which are alleged to \ncharacterize these two classes of sections respectively. \nHence it was necessary to assume that the Jehovist faith- \nfully retained the language of the Elohim document un- \naltered, and that his own peculiarities were limited to the \nsections which he introduced himself, and that there they \nwere exhibited freely and without reserve. It is fre- \nquently the case, however, that the ideas or diction which \nhave been represented to belong to one of these classes \nof sections are found likewise in the other class. Thus, \nElohim passages are found to contain those words and \nphrases which have been alleged to characterize the Jeho- \nvist, and to contain ideas and statements which are said \nto be peculiarly Jehovistic. Here it is necessary to affirm \nthat the Jehovist, instead of faithfully transcribing the \nElohim document, has altered its language and inserted \nexpressions or ideas of his own. Again, Jehovah pas- \nsages are found in which those characteristics of style \nand thought appear which are elsewhere claimed as \npeculiar to the Elohist. This is explained by saying \nthat the Jehovist in such cases has imitated the style or \nadopted the ideas of the Elohist, and has sought to make \nhis own additions conform as far as possible to the char- \nacteristic style of the work which he is supplementing. \nAgain, while it is alleged that the Elohim and Jehovah \npassages are for the most part clearly distinguishable, \nthere are instances in which it is difficult, if not impos- \nsible, to draw a sharp line of demarcation between con- \ntiguous Elohim and Jehovah passages, and to determine \nprecisely where one ends and the other begins. Here \nthe Jehovist is thought to have used art to cover up his \nadditions. He has fitted them with such care and skill \nto the work of his predecessor that the point of junction \ncannot be discerned, and it has been made to look like \none continuous composition. Instead of allowing, as in \n\n\n\n80 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nother instances, his insertions to remain visibly distinct \nfrom the original document, he has acted as if he desired \nto confuse his additions with the pre-existing work, and \nto make their separation impossible. \n\nNow, apart from the fact that these attempted explana- \ntions of phenomena at variance with the primary hy- \npothesis are merely shifts and subterfuges to evade the \ndifficulty which they create, and that this is bringing \nunproved hypotheses to support a hypothesis, every \nfresh addition making the superstructure weaker instead \nof confirming it, the view which is thus presented of the \nJehovist is inconsistent with itself. At one time we \nmust suppose him to allow the most obvious diversity of \nstyle and ideas between the Elohist sections and his own \nwithout the slightest concern or any attempt at producing \nconformity; at others he modifies the language of the \nElohist, or carefully copies him in the sections which he \nadds himself in order to effect this conformity, though \nno special motive can be assigned for this difference in \nhis conduct. He sometimes leaves his additions uncon- \nnected with the original work which he is supplement- \ning ; at other times he weaves them in so adroitly as to \ncreate the appearance of continuity, and this again with- \nout any assignable motive. A hypothetical personage, \nwho has to be represented by turns as artless and artful, \nas an honest reporter and a designing interpolator, as \nskilful and a bungler, as greatly concerned about a con- \nformity of style and thought in some passages, of which \nhe is wholly regardless in others, and of whose existence \nwe have no other evidence than that afforded by these \ncontradictory allegations respecting him, can scarcely be \nsaid to have his reality established thus. And a hy- \npothesis which is reduced to the necessity of bolstering \nitself up in this way has not yet reached firm foot- \ning. \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 81 \n\nKurtz furnished the best refutation in detail of the \ncritical analysis adopted by the advocates of the Supple- \nment Hypothesis. The unity and Mosaic authorship of \nGenesis were also ably defended by Drechsler, and that \nof the entire Pentateuch by Havernick and Keil. The \nmost complete thesaurus in reply to objections is that of \nHengstenberg, upon whom Welte is largely dependent. 1 \n\n\n\nCEYSTALLIZATION HYPOTHESIS. \n\nThe simplicity of the Supplement Hypothesis, which \nwas its chief recommendation, proved inadequate to re- \nlieve the complications which beset the path of the divi- \nsive critics. Attempts to remedy these inconveniences \nwere accordingly made in different lines by Ewald and \nby Hupfeld, both of whom, but particularly the latter, \ncontributed to smooth the way for their successors. \nEwald\'s maiden publication, in 1823, was directed against \nthe extreme disintegration of the Fragment Hypothesis. \n\n1 Beitrage zur Vertheidigung und Begnindung der Einheit des Pen- \ntateuches, von Job. Heinr. Kurtz, Erster Beitrag, Nachweis der Einheit \nvon Gen. i.-iv., 1844. This preliminary essay was followed in 1846 by \nhis complete and masterly treatise Die Einheit der Genesis. Unfort- \nunately Kurtz was subsequently induced to yield the position, which \nhe had so successfully maintained, in his Geschichte des Alten Bundes, \nand to admit that the Pentateuch did not receive its final form until \nthe generation succeeding that of Moses. Die Einheit und Aechtheit \nder Genesis von Dr. Moritz Drechsler, 1838. Handbuch der historisch- \nkritischen Einleitung in das Alte Testament, von H. A. Ch. Havernick, \nPart I., Section 2, 1837. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Ein- \nleitung in die kanonischen Schriften des Alten Testamentes, von \nKarl Friedrich Keil, 1853. Die Authentie des Pentateuches erwiesen \nvon Ernst Wilheim Hengstenberg, vol. i., 1836 ; vol. ii., 1839. Nach- \nmosaisches im Pentateuch, beleuchtet von Dr. Benedikt Welte, 1841. \nAlso his important additions and corrections to Herbst\'s Einleitung, \nwhich he edited, and of which the first division of the second part, con- \ntaining the Introduction to the Pentateuch, appeared in 1842. \n\n\n\n82 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nHis own scheme, proposed twenty years later, 1 lias been \nappropriately called the Crystallization Hypothesis. \nThis is a modification of the Supplementary by increasing \nthe number engaged in supplementing from one to a series \nsuccessively operating at distinct periods. The nucleus, \nor most ancient portion of the Pentateuch, in his opinion, \nconsisted of the remnants of four primitive treatises now \nexisting only in fragments embedded in the various \nstrata which were subsequently accumulated around \nthem. This was followed in the second place by what \nhe calls the Book of the Origins, and this by what he \ndenominates the third, fourth, and fifth prophetic nar- \nrators, each of whom in succession added his accretion to \nwhat had been previously recorded, and the last of whom \nworked over all that preceded, together with his own ad- \nditions and alterations, into one continuous work. Then \nthe Deuteronomist wrote Deuteronomy, which was first \nissued as an independent publication, but was sub- \nsequently incorporated with the work of his predeces- \nsors. And thus the Pentateuch, or rather the Hexateuch, \nfor the Pentateuch and Joshua were regarded by him, as \nby the majority of advanced modern critics generally, as \none work \xe2\x80\x94 thus the Hexateuch slowly grew to its present \ndimensions, a vast conglomerate, including these various \naccessions made in the course of many centuries. \n\n\n\nMODIFIED DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS. \n\nHupf eld 2 undertook to remove the obstacles, which \nblocked the way of the Supplement Hypothesis, in a \n\n1 Heinricli Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis Christus, vol. i. , p. \n60 sqq. 1843. \n\n2 Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammeusetzung von \nneuem untersucht, von D. Hermann Hupfeld, 1853. The existence of a \nsecond Elohist had been maintained long before, and a partition made \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 83 \n\ndifferent manner ; not by introducing fresh supplements, \nbut by abandoning the supplementing process altogether, \nand falling back upon the Document Hypothesis, of which \nhe proposed an important modification. He aimed \nchiefly to establish two things : First, that the Jehovist \nsections were not disconnected additions to a pre-exist- \ning document, but possessed a continuity and indepen- \ndence, which shows that they must have constituted a \nseparately existing document. In order to this he at- \ntempted to bridge over the breaks and chasms by the aid \nof scattered clauses arbitrarily sundered from their con- \ntext in intervening Elohim sections, and thus made a \nshift to preserve a scanty semblance of continuity. In \nthe second place, he maintained the composite character \nof the Elohist sections, and that they constituted not one \nbut two documents. The troublesome passages, which \ncorresponded neither with the characteristics of the Elo- \nhist nor the Jehovist, but appeared to combine them both, \nwere alleged to be the product of a third writer, who \nwhile he used the name Elohim had the diction and other \npeculiarities of the Jehovist, and whom he accordingly \ncalled the second Elohist. Upon this scheme there were \nthree independent documents ; that of the first Elohist, \nthe second Elohist, and the Jehovist. And these were \nput together in their present form by a redactor who \nallowed himself the liberty of inserting, retrenching, \n\non this basis by Ilgen in Die Urkunden des ersfcen Buchs von Moses in \nihrer Urgestalt, 1798 ; but it met no approval at the time. Eduard \nBoehmer, in Das Brste Buch der Thora, adopted the scheme of Hupfeld, \nthough differing materially in many points in the details of the analysis. \nE. Schrader, in editing the eighth edition of De Wette\'s Introduction, in \n1869, follows the same general scheme, with some modifications of the \nanalysis. He designates the authors of the documents as the Annal- \nistic, the Theocratic, and the Prophetic Narrators, corresponding sever- \nally to the first and second Elohists and the Jehovist of Hupfeld\'s no- \nmenclature. \n\n\n\n84 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nmodifying, transposing, and combining at his own pleas- \nure. All references from one document to the contents \nof another, and in general any phenomena that conflict \nwith the requirements of the hypothesis, are ascribed to \nthe redactor. \n\nThere are several halting-places in this scheme of Hup- \nfeld. (1) One is that the creation of a second Elohist \ndestroys the continuity and completeness of the first. \nThe second Elohist is supposed to begin abruptly with \nthe twentieth chapter of Genesis. From that point on- \nward to the end of the book, with the exception of ch. \nxxiii. which records the death and burial of Sarah, the \ngreat body of the Elohim passages are given to the second \nElohist, and nothing reserved for the first but occasional \ndisconnected scraps, which never could have formed a \nseparate and independent record, and which, moreover, \nare linked with and imply much that is assigned to the \nother documents. So that it is necessary to assume that \nthis document once contained the very matter which has \nbeen sundered from it. These scattered points simply \noutline the history, apart from which they have no value \nand no meaning. Severed from the body of the narra- \ntive to which they are attached they are an empty frame \nwithout contents. This frame only exists for the sake of \nthe historical material, to which it is adjusted and indis- \nsolubly belongs. \n\n(2) It is also a suspicious circumstance that the first \nElohist breaks off almost entirely so near the point where \nthe second Elohist begins. All Elohist passages before \nGen. xx. are given to the first Elohist ; all after that, with \ntrifling exceptions, to the second Elohist. This looks \nmore like the severance of what was once continuous, \nthan the disentangling of documents once separate which \nthe redactor had worked together section by section in \ncompiling his history. \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 85 \n\n(3) Another suspicious circumstance is the intricate \nmanner in which the Jehovist and second Elohist are \nthought to be combined. In many passages they are so \nintimately blended that they cannot be separated. And \nin general it is admitted to be impossible to establish \nany clearly defined criteria of language, style, or thought \nbetween them. This has the appearance of a factitious \ndivision of what is really the product of a single writer. \nThere is no reason of any moment, whether in the dic- \ntion or in the matter, for assuming that the Jehovist and \nthe second Elohist were distinct writers. \n\n(4) It is indeed claimed that the first Elohist is \nclearly distinguishable in diction and in matter from the \nJehovist and the second Elohist. But there are several \nconsiderations which quite destroy the force of the \nargument for distinct documents from this source, a. If \nthe Elohim sections prior to Gen. xx. are thought \nto have a diction different from that of the Jehovist; \nand the great body of the Elohim sections after Gen. xx. \nhave a diction confessedly indistinguishable from that \nof the Jehovist, the presumption certainly is that the \ndifference alleged in the early chapters rests on too \nlimited an induction ; and when the induction is carried \nfurther, it appears that the conclusion has been too hasty, \nand that no real difference exists, b. Again, the great \nbulk of the narrative of Genesis, so far as it concerns \ntransactions in ordinary life, is divided between the \nJehovist and the second Elohist. The first Elohist is \nlimited to genealogies, legal sections, extraordinary \nevents, such as the creation and flood, or mere isolated \nnotices, as of births, deaths, ages, migrations, etc. That \nmatter of a different description should call for the use \nof a different set of words, while in matter of the same \nsort like words are used is just what might be expected ; \nand there is no need of assuming different documents in \n\n\n\n86 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\norder to account for it. c. Still further, when, as in Gen. \nxxxiv., a narrative is for special reasons assigned in part \nto the first Elohist, it is as impossible to distinguish its \ndiction from that of the other documents as it elsewhere \nis to distinguish the diction of the second Elohist from \nthat of the Jehovist ; and other grounds of distinction \nmust be resorted to in order to effect a separation. All \nthis makes it evident that the variant diction alleged is \ndue to the difference in the matter and not to diversity \nof documents. \n\n(5) The function assigned to the redactor .assumes \nthat he acts in the most capricious and inconsistent \nmanner, more so even than the Jehovist of the Supple- \nment Hypothesis. At times he is represented as scrupu- \nlously careful to preserve everything contained in his \nvarious sources, though it leads to needless and unmean- \ning repetition ; at others he omits large and important \nsections, though the document from which they are \ndropped is thus reduced to a mutilated remnant. Where \nhis sources disagree he sometimes retains the narrative \nof each unchanged, thus placing the whole case fairly \nbefore his readers ; at others he alters them into corre- \nspondence, which is hardly consistent with historical \nhonesty. Variant narratives of the same event are some- \ntimes harmonized by combining them, thus confusing \nboth ; sometimes they are mistaken for distinct and even \nwidely separated events and related as such, an error \nwhich reflects upon his intelligence, since critics with \nthe incomplete data which he has left them are able to \ncorrect it. He sometimes reproduces his sources just as \nhe finds them; at others he alters their whole com- \nplexion by freely manipulating the text or making addi- \ntions of his own. Everything in diction, style, or ideas \nwhich is at variance with the requirements of the hypo- \nthesis, is laid to his account, and held to be due to his \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 87 \n\ninterference. The present text does not suit the hy- \npothesis, therefore it must have been altered, and the \nredactor must have done it. \n\nIt is evident how convenient it is to have a redactor \nalways at hand to whom every miscarriage of the hypoth- \nesis can be attributed. But it is also evident that the \nfrequent necessity for invoking his aid seriously weakens \nthe cause which he is summoned to support. It is \nfurther evident that the suspicions cast upon the ac- \ncuracy with which the redactor has transmitted the \nvarious texts which he had before him undermines the \nentire basis of the hypothesis. For it undertakes to es- \ntablish the existence of the so-called documents, and to \ndiscriminate between them, by verbal criteria, which are \nnullified if the original texts have been tampered with. \nAnd it is still further evident that the opposite traits of \ncharacter impliedly ascribed to the redactor, the utterly \ncapricious and irrational conduct imputed to him, and \nthe wanton and aimless manipulation of his authorities, \nfor which no motive can be imagined, tend to make this \nmost important functionary an impossible conception. \n\nBoth Ewald and Hupfeld were regarded at the time as \nhaving made a retrograde movement instead of an ad- \nvance, by falling back from the simplicity of the then \ndominant Supplement Hypothesis into a greater complex- \nity than that of the original Document Hypothesis. The \nfact is, however, that the complexity inevitably grows, as \nthe critics aim at greater precision, and enveavor to adapt \ntheir scheme more exactly to the phenomena with which \nthey have to deal. The multiplication of machinery, which \nis necessary before all can work smoothly, so overloads \ntheir apparatus that it is in danger of breaking down by \nits own weight. They find themselves obliged to pile \nhypothesis upon hypothesis in order to relieve difficul- \nties, and explain diversities, and account for irregulari- \n\n\n\n88 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nties by subdivided documents, and successive recensions, \nand a series of redactors, and unfathered glosses, and \nvariegated legal strata, and diaskeuasts in unlimited pro- \nfusion, until the whole thing reaches a state of confusion \nworse confounded, almost equivalent to that of the ex- \nploded Fragment Hypothesis itself. \n\nFor the sake of brevity the Pentateuchal documents \nare commonly denoted by symbols. Dr. Dillmann em- \nploys the first four letters of the alphabet for the pur- \npose ; he calls the Elohist A, the second Elohist B, the \nJehovist C, and the Deuterononiist D. Others use the \nsame symbols, but change the order of their application. \nIn the nomenclature that is now most prevalent the \nterm Elohist is applied exclusively to what used to be \nknown as the second Elohist, and it is represented by E ; \nthe Jehovist by J. J and E are alleged to have ema- \nnated from prophetic circles, J in the southern kingdom \nof Judah, and E in the northern kingdom of Israel. The \nsecond Elohist having been separated from what used to \nbe known as the Elohist document, the remnant was by \nWellhausen fancifully called Q, the initial of quatuor = \n4, because of the four covenants which it contains. \nOthers prefer to designate it as P, the priestly writing, in \ndistinction from the prophetic histories J and E. The \ncritics further distinguish J 1 and J 2 , E * and E 2 , P 1 , P 2 \nand P 3 , D 1 and D 2 , which represent different strata in \nthese documents. Different Redactors are embraced \nunder the general symbol E, viz., Ej who combined J \nand E, Ed who added D to JE, and Eh who completed \nthe Hexateuch by combining P with JED. \n\nTHE GROUNDS OF LITEEAEY PARTITION CONSIDERED. \n\nWhile these various hypotheses, which have thus arisen \neach on the ruins of its predecessor, are, as has been \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 89 \n\nshown, individually encumbered with insuperable diffi- \nculties peculiar to each, the common arguments by which \ntheir advocates seek to establish them are insufficient \nand inconclusive. \n\n1. The first argument, as already stated, in defence of \nthese several partition hypotheses, is drawn from the \nalternate employment of the divine names Elohim and \nJehovah. It may be observed, however, that so far as \nthere is any thing remarkable in the alternation of these \nnames in the Pentateuch, it is confined almost entirely to \nthe book of Genesis, and chiefly to the earlier portions \nof that book. It cannot, of course, be maintained that \nthe same writer could not make use of both names. \nThey are intermingled in various proportions in almost \nevery book of the Bible. The occurrence of both in the \nsame composition can of itself create no suspicion of its \nlack of unity. The special grounds which are relied \nupon in this case are, (1) the regularity of their alterna- \ntion in successive sections ; and (2) the testimony of \nEx. vi. 3, which is understood to declare that the name \nJehovah is not pre-Mosaic and was not in use in the \ndays of the patriarchs, whence it is inferred that P, by \nwhom this is recorded, systematically avoided the use of \nJehovah prior to the time when God thus revealed him- \nself to Moses. \n\nAs to the first of these points, remarkable as is the \nalternation of the divine names, particularly in the earlier \nchapters of Genesis, it does not coincide so precisely \nwith sections or paragraphs as the advocates of these \nhypotheses would have us imagine ; for with all the care \nthat they have taken in dividing these sections to suit \ntheir theory, each of these names is found repeatedly in \nsections mainly characterized by the other. The diver- \ngence between the hypothesis and the facts, on which it \nis professedly based, is so great that it cannot give a \n\n\n\n90 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nsatisfactory explanation of them; and the arbitrary \nmethods to which its advocates are forced to resort, in \norder to remove this divergence, are absolutely destruc- \ntive of the hypothesis itself, as can be readily shown. \n\nFor the critics are obliged to play fast and loose with \nthe text in a manner and to a degree which renders \nall their reasoning precarious. The alternation of the \ndivine names Elohim and Jehovah is made by them the \nkey of their whole position. This is the starting-point of \nthe partition, and of the entire hypothesis of the separate \ndocuments. All the other criteria are supplementary to \nthis ; they are worked out on this basis, and find in it \nwhatever justification and proof of their validity they \nhave. All hinges ultimately, therefore, on the exact trans- \nmission of these fundamental and determining words. \nAt the outset the lines of demarcation are run exclu- \nsively by them ; and an error in these initial lines, by \nconfusing the limits of the documents, would introduce \nerror into their respective criteria as deduced from the \ninspection of these faulty passages. If there is anything \nthat must be absolutely fixed and resolutely adhered to, \nif the document hypothesis is to stand, it is the accuracy \nof these divine names, which are the pillars on which the \nwhole critical structure rests. And yet the critics, in re- \npeated instances, declare them to be incorrect or out of \nplace. They are, in fact, forced by the perplexities of \ntheir situation thus to cut away the ground from beneath \ntheir own feet. The divine names are made the prime \ncriteria for distinguishing the so-called documents. It is \nsaid that J (the Jehovist) characteristically uses Jehovah, \nE (the Elohist) Elohim, and P (the priestly writer) Elo- \nhim as far as Ex. vi. 2, 3, and Jehovah thereafter. But \nthe trouble is that with their utmost efforts the critics \nfind it impossible to adjust the documents into conform- \nity with this proposed scheme ; though their alleged cor- \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 91 \n\nrespondence with it is the sole ultimate warrant for their \nexistence, the supreme criterion, on which all other cri- \nteria depend. In the first place, Elohim is repeatedly \nfound along with Jehovah in sections attributed to J. \nHere the critics explain that the author of this document \nused both names as the occasion demanded. But this is \nputting the use of these names on an entirely different \nground from that of the distinctive usage of separate \nwriters. If J could use both of these names, and in so \ndoing was governed by their inherent signification and \nby the appropriateness of each to the connection in which \nthey are severally employed, why might not P and E do \nthe same ? or why, in fact, is there any need for J, P, or \nE, or for any other than the one author to whom a uniform \nand well-accredited tradition attributes all that it has \nbeen proposed to parcel among these unknown and un- \ndiscoverable personages ? The appropriate use of these \ndivine names, as ascertained from the acknowledged em- \nployment of them by J, taken in connection with the ex- \nplicit statement of Ex. vi. 3, not in the perverted sense \nput upon it by the critics, but in its true signification, as \ndetermined by the numerous parallels in the book of Ex- \nodus, and throughout the entire Old Testament, will ex- \nplain their alternation in Genesis in a satisfactory man- \nner, which the hypothetical documents have not done, \nand cannot do. \n\nAgain, Jehovah occurs repeatedly in sections attributed \nto P and E, where, by the hypothesis, only Elohim should \nbe found. Every possible evasion is employed to get \nrid of these unwelcome facts. Where the facts are at \nvariance with the hypothesis, the invariable assumption \nis that the hypothesis is right and the facts are wrong, \nand require correction. The redactor has for some un- \nimaginable reason been at fault. He has inserted a verse, \nor a clause, or simply the unsuitable divine name of his \n\n\n\n92 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nown motion, without there being anything in the original \ntext that corresponded to it ; or he has erased the divine \nname that was in the text, and substituted another for it ; \nor he has mixed two texts by inserting into the body of \none document a clause supposed to be taken from another. \nAnd thus the attempt is made to bolster up the hypoth- \nesis by an inference drawn from the hypothesis. And \nthe effect is to unsettle the text at those crucial points \nwhere accuracy and certainty are essential to the validity \nof the hypothesis, not to speak of the corollaries dedu- \ncible from it. \n\nElohim occurs inconveniently for the critics in Gen. \nvii. 9 ; hence Kautzsch claims that it must have been \noriginally Jehovah, while Dillmann insists that vs. 8, 9 \nwere inserted by R (the redactor). The critics wish to \nmake it appear that two accounts of the flood, by P and \nJ respectively, have been blended in the existing text ; \nand that vs. 7-9 is J\'s account, and vs. 13-16 that by \nP. But unfortunately for them, this is blocked by the \noccurrence in each one of the verses assigned to J, of ex- \npressions foreign to J and peculiar to P ; and to cap the \nclimax, the divine name is not J\'s but P\'s. The repe- \ntition cannot, therefore, be wrested into an indication of \na duplicate narrative, but simply, as its language clearly \nshows, emphasizes the fact that the entry into the ark \nwas made on the self-same day that the flood began. \n\n" And Jehovah shut him in " (vii. 16b), occurs in the \nmidst of a P paragraph ; hence it is alleged that this sol- \nitary clause has been inserted from a supposed parallel \nnarrative by J. But this overlooks the significant and \nevidently intended contrast of the two divine names in \nthis verse, a significance to which Delitzsch calls atten- \ntion, thus discrediting the basis of the critical analysis, \nwhich he nevertheless accepts. Animals of every species \nwent into the ark, as Elohim, the God of creation and \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 93 \n\nprovidence directed, mindful of the preservation of what \nhe had made ; Jehovah, the guardian of his people, shut \nNoah in. \n\nIn xiv. 22, Jehovah occurs not in a J section, and is \ndeclared spurious for that reason ; though it is the name \nof God as known to Abram, in distinction from him as \nhe was known to Melchizedek (ver. 19). \n\nCh. xvii. is assigned to P because of the exclusive use \nof Elohim in it after ver. 1 ; hence it is claimed that Je- \nhovah in ver. 1 is an error for Elohim, notwithstanding \nthe regular recurrence of Jehovah in all that preceded \nsince the call of Abram (xii. 1), the identity of the phrase \nwith xii. 7 ; xviii. 1, and the obvious requirements of this \npassage. Jehovah, the God of Abram, here reveals him- \nself as God Almighty and Elohim, to signalize his power \nto accomplish what nature could not effect, and to pledge \nthe immediate fulfilment of the long-delayed promise. \n\nCh. xx. records the affair with Abimelech, and the \nname of God is for this reason Elohim, until the last \nverse, where Jehovah\'s interference for the protection of \nSarah is spoken of. The significance of this change of \nnames is lost upon the critics, who assign the chapter to \nE because of Elohim, and then can account for Jehovah \nin no other way than by imputing ver. 18 to R. \n\nIn xxi. 1, 2, there is a curious specimen of critical dis- \nsection. Each verse is split in two, and one sentence \nfashioned out of the two first halves, and another out of \nthe two second halves. The critical necessity for this \ngrows out of the need of finding the birth of Isaac in \nboth J and P. The alleged equivalence of the two \nclauses in ver. 1 is made a pretext for sundering them, \nand assigning to J " And Jehovah visited Sarah, as he \nhad said ; " and to P the rest of the verse, " And Jehovah \ndid unto Sarah as he had spoken," which last is then \nfilled out by ver. 2b, " at the set time of which Elohim \n\n\n\n94 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nhad spoken to him." But as it is inadmissible for Jehovah \nto stand in a P clause (ver. lb), it is assumed that it must \noriginally have been Elohim. This is all built upon the \nsand, however ; for ver. 1 does not contain two identical \nstatements. The second is an advance upon the first, \nstating that the purpose of the visitation was to fulfil a \npromise ; and what that promise was is further stated \nin ver. 2. All is closely connected and progressive \nthroughout ; and it cannot be rent asunder as the critics \npropose. Jehovah, the God of Abraham, visited Sarah, \nand fulfilled his word to her, and Sarah bare her son at \nthe set time that Elohim, the mighty Creator, had said. \nThe names are in every way appropriate as they stand. 1 \n\nIn Abimelech\'s interview with Abraham, resulting in \nthe naming of Beersheba, the name of God is appropri- \nately Elohim (xxi. 22, 23) ; but when Abraham wor- \nshipped there he called, with equal propriety, on the \nname of Jehovah (ver. 33). The critics, ignoring the true \nreason of the interchange of names, tell us that ver. 33 is \na fragment of J inserted by R in a narrative of E. \n\nIn ch. xxii. Elohim puts Abraham to the trial, the an- \ngel of Jehovah interposes and blesses him. The de- \nmand of the Creator for the surrender of the dearest and \nthe best is supplemented by the God of grace and salva- \ntion, who approves and rewards the mental surrender, \nand in the substituted animal supplies for the time then \npresent an accepted type of the true sacrifice. This ob- \nviously designed and significant change of names is lost \nupon the critics, who find only the unmeaning usage of \ndistinct writers, and can only account for Moriah, 2 (ver. \n\n1 Kautsch seems to be alone in venturing to split xxxix. 3 and 5, in a \nsimilar manner, and giving the second clause in each verse to E, with \nits Jehovah converted into Elohim. \n\n2 A compound proper name with an abbreviated form of Jehovah as \none of its constituents. \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 95 \n\n2), or Jehovah (ver. 11), as textual errors, and for the re- \npeated occurrence of Jehovah subsequently by making \nvs. 14^18, an interpolation by K, or an insertion from J. \nBut the alleged interpolation is plainly an essential part \nof the narrative ; the story of such a trial, so borne, is \npointless without the words of commendation and bless- \ning. \n\nIsaac\'s blessing of Esau (xxvii. 27, 28) is torn asunder \nbecause Jehovah in the first sentence is followed by Elo- \nhim in the second. \n\nSo Jacob\'s dream, in which he beholds the angels of \nElohim (xxviii. 12), and Jehovah (ver. 13) ; although his \nwaking (ver. 16) from the sleep into which he had fallen \n(vs. 11, 12) shows that these cannot be parted. Jacob\'s \nvow (vs. 20, 21) is arbitrarily amended by striking out \n" then shall Jehovah be my God," because of his previous \nmention of Elohim when referring to his general provi- \ndential benefits. \n\nThe story of the birth of Leah\'s first four sons (xxix. \n31-35), and that of the fifth and sixth (xxx. 17-20), are \ntraced to different documents notwithstanding their \nmanifest connection, because Jehovah occurs in the \nformer and Elohim in the latter. \n\nElohim in xxxi. 50, in a so-called J paragraph, is for \nthat reason summarily pronounced spurious. \n\nSince Elohim occurs in xxxiii. 5b, 11, these are de- \nclared to be isolated clauses from E in a J section. \n\nThe battle with Amalek (Ex. xvii. 8-13) is assigned to \nE because of Elohim, ver. 9 ; but the direction to record \nit, the commemorative altar, and the oath of perpetual \nhostility to Amalek (vs. 14^16), which stand in a most in- \ntimate relation to it, are held to be from another docu- \nment, because of Jehovah. \n\nIn Jethro\'s visit (Ex. xviii.) Elohim (eleven times) \nnaturally preponderates in what is said by or to one not \n\n\n\n96 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nof the chosen race ; and yet Jehovah is used (six times) \nwhere there is specific allusion to the God of Israel. \nBut each Jehovah clause must, according to the critics, \nhave been inserted in E\'s narrative by E from an as- \nsumed parallel account by J. \n\nEx. xix. is maiuly referred to E ; but the repeated oc- \ncurrence of Jehovah compels the critics to assume that \nE has in several instances substituted it for Elohim, and \neven made more serious changes in the text. \n\nEx. xxiv. is divided between E and J ; but the division \ncannot be so made as to correspond with the divine \nnames in the current text. \n\nNo critic pretends to follow the indication of the di- \nvine names in dissecting Ex. xxxii. \n\nDr. Harper, in the " Hebraica," vi. 1, p. 35, says of the \ncritical analysis of Ex. i. 1-vii. 7, " the language is but \na poor guide, owing probably to E\'s interference ; not \neven the names of the Deity are to be relied on implic- \nitly, being freely intermingled." And p. 47, on Ex. vii. \n8-xii. 51 : " In this section the name of the Deity is ex- \nclusively Jehovah, which must have been substituted by \nE in all the E passages." In the " Hebraica," vi. 4, p. 269, \nhe confesses that Jehovah runs " all through E\'s material " \nin the section Num. x. 29-xvii. 28 (E. V. ver. 13) ; and p. \n287 complains in regard to Num. xx. 1-xxvii. 11, of "the \nunsatisfactory use of the names of the Deity ; Tahweh is \nthe prevailing name, Elohim occurring but nine times in \nthe entire section ; this is, however, more easily explained \non the E hypothesis than by any other." That is to say, \nthe use of the divine names runs athwart the critical hy- \npothesis to such an extent as to be quite unsatisfactory to \nits advocates. And the easiest way out of the difficulty is \nto assume that E has altered the name wherever the \nexigencies of the hypothesis require such a supposition. \n\nFor the striking significance of the divine names in the \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 97 \n\nhistory of Balaam (Num. xxii.-xxiv.) the critics have no \nappreciation, but seek to resolve all by their mechanical \nrule of blended documents. The occurrence of Elohim \nfour times in xxii. 2-21 is urged as determining it to \nbelong to E ; but Jehovah also occurs four times, where \nit is assumed that the word was originally Elohim, but it \nhas been changed by R. Jehovah predominates in vs. \n22-35 J, but Elohim is found in ver. 22, for which R is \nagain held responsible. The next two chapters are di- \nvided between the same two documents, but with some \nuncertainty to which each should belong. Wellhausen \nassigns ch. xxiii. to J, and ch. xxiv. to E ; Dillniann re- \nverses it, giving ch. xxiii. to E, and ch. xxiv. to J. But \nhowever they dispose of them, the divine names will not \nsuit, and R must be supposed to have manipulated them \nhere again. \n\nThe real facts are these. Balaam only once uses Elo- \nhim (xxii. 38) ; and then it is to mark the contrast be- \ntween the divine and the merely human. Apart from \nthis he invariably uses the divine name Jehovah, whether \nhe is speaking to Balak\'s messengers (xxii. 8, 13, 18, 19), \nto Balak (xxiii. 3, 12, 26 ; xxiv. 13), or uttering his prophe- \ncies (xxiii. 8, 21 ; xxiv. 6). He thus indicates that it was \nJehovah whom he professed to consult, and whose will he \nundertook to declare. And it was because of his sup- \nposed power with the God of Israel that Balak desired \nhis aid. Hence Balak uses Jehovah in addressing \nBalaam (xxiii. 17 ; xxiv. 11) ; only once Elohim (xxiii. 27), \nas non-Israelites commonly do. When the writer speaks \nof God in connection with this heathen seer, he stead- \nfastly uses Elohim at the outset. Balaam regularly pro- \nposes to tell the messengers of Balak what Jehovah will \nsay to him, but the writer with equal uniformity says \nthat Elohim came to him, and spoke to him (xxii. 9, 10, \n12, 20, 22). He is not recognized as an accredited prophet \n7 \n\n\n\n98 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nof Jehovali. But while it is only Elohim, the general \nterm denoting the Deity, which is pat by the sacred \nwriter in relation to Balaam considered as a heathen \nseer, it is the Angel of Jehovah who comes forth to con- \nfront him on his unhallowed errand, and Jehovah the \nguardian and defender of Israel who constrains him to \npronounce a blessing instead of a curse. Hence from \nxxii. 22 onward, wherever the writer speaks, he uses the \nname Jehovah, not only in the encounter by the way but \nafter his arrival, as determining what he shall say. To \nthis there are but two exceptions. In xxiii. 4, when Ba- \nlaam had gone to look for auguries, " Elohim met him," \nreminding us that he was but a heathen seer still ; yet it \nwas Jehovah (vs. 5, 16) who put the word in his mouth. \nIn xxiv. 2, "the Spirit of Elohim came upon him," ex- \npresses the thought that he was divinely inspired, and \nspoke by an impulse from above and not from prompt- \nings of his own ; but his conviction that it was Jehovah\'s \npurpose to bless Israel kept him from seeking auguries \nas at other times (ver. 1). The partition hypothesis ob- \nliterates this nice discrimination entirely, and sees noth- \ning but the unmeaning usage of different writers coupled \nwith K\'s arbitrary disturbance of the text for no imagin- \nable reason. \n\nThis rapid survey of a few prominent passages suffi- \nciently shows the character of the evasions by which the \ncritics seek to cover up the lack of correspondence be- \ntween their hypotheses and the textual phenomena of the \ndivine names. This want of correspondence betrays it- \nself in numerous signal instances. The attempts to \nrelieve it are based on arbitrary assumptions, which are \nmere inferences from the hypothesis which they are ad- \nduced to support. In this process passages which are \ninseparable are rent asunder, and in many cases the real \nsignificance of the divine names is ignored or marred. \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 99 \n\nAnd as a further consequence the main point above in- \nsisted upon is fully established. The current hypothe- \nsis of the critics is built on minute verbal distinctions, \nwhich imply an accuracy and certainty of text which \nthey themselves unsettle by their frequent assumptions \nof errors and of manipulations by the redactor. If he \naltered the divine names, and inserted or modified clauses \ncontaining them in the instances and to the extent alleged, \nwho is to vouch that he has been more scrupulous else- \nwhere ? The hypothesis is self-destructive ; for it can \nonly be defended by arguments which undermine its \nfoundations. And even if it were not possible, as in \nfact it is, to account satisfactorily for the interchange of \ndivine names on other grounds, the proof is ample that \nthe hypothesis of distinct writers will not explain it. \n\nHere, however, the testimony of Ex. vi. 2, 3, is ad- \nduced to show that P carefully and designedly avoided \nthe use of the name Jehovah in all that he had pre- \nviously written, but regularly employed this name from \nthat place onward. The passage reads : " God spake \nunto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah : and I ap- \npeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob as God \nAlmighty ; but by my name Jehovah I was not known \nunto them." The critics interpret this to mean that the \nname Jehovah was then first revealed to Moses, and that \nit had not been in use in the time of the patriarchs. \nThey hence regard all prior sections containing the \nname Jehovah as in conflict with this statement, espe- \ncially as Jehovah is used not only in the language of the \nwriter himself, but when he is reporting the words of those \nwho lived long before Moses\'s time. Such sections, it is \nsaid, imply a different belief as to the origin and use of \nthis sacred name, and must, therefore, be attributed to \nanother writer, who held that it was known from the \nearliest periods, and who has recorded his idea upon \n\n\n\n100 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nthat subject (Gen. iv. 26) that men began to call upon \nthe name of Jehovah in the days of Enosh. \n\nBut the sense thus put upon Ex. vi. 3, is altogether in- \nadmissible. For \n\n(1) It is plain, upon the critics\' own hypothesis, that \nthe redactor, to whom in their view the Pentateuch and \nGenesis owe their present form, did not so understand it. \nAfter recording the history of the patriarchs, in which \nfree use is made of the name Jehovah, he is here sup- \nposed to introduce the statement, from the mouth of \nGod himself, that they had never heard this name, and \nthus to have stultified himself completely. \n\n(2) It is equally plain that it could not have been so \nintended by the writer. The statement that God was not \nknown by his name Jehovah unto the patriarchs is ex- \nplained by the repeated declaration that Israel (Ex. vi. \n7 ; x. 2 ; xvi. 12 ; xxix. 46), the Egyptians (vii. 5 ; xiv. 4, 18), \nand Pharaoh (vii. 17 ; viii. 6, 18 (E. V. 10, 22) ; ix. 14, 29, \ncomp. v. 2) should know that he was Jehovah ; not that \nthey should be told that this was his name, but that they \nshould witness the manifestation of those attributes which \nthe name denoted. That he was not so known by the \npatriarchs can only mean, therefore, that while tokens of \nGod\'s almighty power had been vouchsafed to them, no \nsuch disclosure had been made of the perfections in- \ndicated by his name Jehovah as was now to be granted \nto their descendants. \n\n(3) The uniform usage of Scripture proves the same \nthing. A true apprehension of the divine perfections, \nand not a mere acquaintance with the word Jehovah, is \nthe constant meaning of the phrase " to know the name \nof Jehovah " (1 Kin. viii. 43 ; Ps. ix. 11 (E. V. 10) ; xci. 14 ; \nIsa. Hi. 6 ; Ixiv. 1 (E. V. 2) ; Jer. xvi. 21 ; Ezek. xxxix. 6, 7). \n\nIt is important to observe here precisely what these \narguments prove, viz., that Ex. vi. 3, was not written with \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 101 \n\nan antiquarian interest, nor from an antiquarian point of \nview. It does not concern itself about the history of the \nword Jehovah, and cannot with any fairness be regarded \nas affirming or denying anything about it. Its sole de- \nsign is to declare that Jehovah was about to manifest him- \nself in the character represented by this name as he had \nnot done to the patriarchs. Since, then, the writer did \nnot intend to assert that the word was unknown to Abra- \nham, Isaac, and Jacob, there is no reason why, in relating \ntheir history, he might not consistently introduce this \nword in language uttered by them or addressed to them. \n\nNeither, it should also be observed, was the patriarchal \nhistory written in the spirit of a verbal antiquary, so as \nto make a point of rigorously abstaining from employing \nany word not then in current use. Even if the name \nJehovah were not in use prior to the days of Moses, the \nGod of the patriarchs was the very same as Jehovah, and \nthe writer might properly adopt the dialect of his own \ntime in speaking of him for the purpose of asserting the \nidentity of the God of Abraham with the God who ap- \npeared to Moses and who led Israel out of Egypt. It is \ncustomary to speak of the call of Abraham and of the \nconversion of Paul, though the patriarch\'s name was \nAbram when he was called, and the apostle\'s name was \nSaul at the time of his conversion. \n\nWhether the name Jehovah was ante-Mosaic is a legiti- \nmate subject of inquiry. But it is not answered cate- \ngorically in the negative by Ex. vi. 3, nor inferentially in \nthe affirmative by the use of this word in the patriarchal \nhistory. That question lay out of the plane of the \nwriter\'s thoughts in the one place as well as in the other, \nand no express utterance is made regarding it. Much \nless have contradictory answers been given to it. The \ninconsistency which the critics affirm does not exist. \nThere is consequently no difficulty from this source in \n\n\n\n102 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nsupposing that the author of Ex. vi. 3, may likewise have \npenned the Jehovist sections in Genesis. This passage, \nthough one of the pillars of the partition hypothesis, \nreally lends it no support. \n\nNeither does Gen. iv. 26 : " Then began men to call \nupon the name of Jehovah." This is understood by the \ncritics to affirm that in the belief of J the name Jehovah \ncame into use in the days of Enosh the son of Seth. \nThis might seem to accord with Eve\'s use of Elohim (iv. \n25) at the birth of Seth, and in her conversation with the \nserpent (iii. 1-5), but does not agree with her mention of \nJehovah (iv. 1) at the birth of Cain, long before the time \nof either Seth or Enosh. Reuss says that the writer here \ncontradicts himself. Dillmann can only evade the diffi- \nculty by a transposition of the text. All which simply \nproves that their interpretation of iv. 26 is false. It fixes \nthe origin not of the word Jehovah, but of the formal in- \nvocation of the Most High in public worship. \n\nIf we may take a suggestion from Ex. vi. 3, it implies \nthat different names of God have each their distinct and \nproper signification ; and this inherent signification of the \nterms must be taken into the account if any successful \nattempt is to be made to explain their usage. The me- \nchanical and superficial solution of two blended docu- \nments offered by the critics will not answer. Ex. vi. 3, \ninstead of contradicting the book of Genesis, affords the \nkey to the phenomena which it presents. \n\nThe derivation and primary signification of Elohim \nare in dispute ; according to some authorities the radical \nmeaning is that of power, according to others it denotes \none who is the object of fear and adoration. It is the \ngeneral name for God, and is applied both to the true \nGod and to pagan deities. Jehovah is not a common but \na proper noun. It belongs to the true God alone and is \nhis characteristic name, by which he is distinguished \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 103 \n\nfrom all others, and by which he made himself known to \nIsrael his chosen people. Accordingly Jehovah denotes \nspecifically what God is in and to Israel ; Elohim what \nhe is to other nations as well. That universal agency \nwhich is exercised in the world at large, and which is di- \nrected upon Israel and Gentiles alike, is, by Elohim, the \nGod of creation and of providence. That special mani- \nfestation of himself which is made to his own people is \nby Jehovah, the God of revelation and of redemption. \nThe sacred writer uses one name or the other according \nas he contemplates God under one or the other point of \nview. Where others than those of the chosen race \nare the speakers, as Abimelech (Gen. xxi. 22, 23) or \nPharaoh (xli. 38, 39), it is natural that they should say \nElohim, unless they specifically refer to the God of the \npatriarchs (xxvi. 28), or of Israel (Ex. v. 2), when they \nwill say Jehovah. In transactions between Abraham or \nhis descendants and those of another race God may be \nspoken of under aspects common to them both, and the \nname Elohim be employed ; or he may be regarded under \naspects specifically Israelitish and the name Jehovah be \nused. Again, as Elohim is the generic name for God as \ndistinguished from beings of a different grade, it is the \nterm proper to be used when God and man, the divine \nand the human, are contrasted, as Gen. xxx. 2 ; xxxii. \n28 ; xlv. 5, 7, 8 ; 1. 19, 20. \n\nHengstenberg 1 maintained that Elohim denotes a lower \nand Jehovah a higher stage of the knowledge and appre- \nhension of God. The revelation of God advances from \nhis disclosure as Elohim in the creation (Gen. i.) to his \ndisclosure as Jehovah in his covenant with Israel at \nSinai ; and in the interval between these two extremes \nhe may be designated by one name or the other, accord- \ning to the conception which is before the mind of the \n! Die Autlieutie des Peutateuches, I., p. 286, etc. \n\n\n\n104 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nwriter at the time. In any manifestation surpassing \nthose which have preceded he may be called Jehovah ; \nor if respect is had to more glorious manifestations that \nare to follow, he may be called Elohim. The names ac- \ncording to this view are relatively employed to indicate \nhigher or lower grades of God\'s manifestation of himself. \nThere seems to be a measure of truth in this representa- \ntion of the matter, at least in its general outlines. The \nname Jehovah shines out conspicuously at three marked \nepochs, while in the intervals between them it is dimmed \nand but rarely appears. Jehovah is almost exclusively \nused in the account of our first parents, recording the \ninitiating of God\'s kingdom on earth (ch. ii. 4-iv. 16), in \nits contrast with the material creation described in ch. i. ; \nin the lives of Abraham and Isaac, recording the setting \napart of one among the families of mankind to found the \nchosen people of God in its contrast with the preceding \nuniversal degeneracy (Gen. xii.-xvii. 1 ; xxvi.) ; and God\'s \nrevelation of himself to Moses as the deliverer and God \nof Israel, fulfilling the promises made to their fathers, in \ncontrast with the antecedent period of waiting and for- \neign residence and oppression. From this time onward \nJehovah is the dominant name, since the theocratic re- \nlation was then fully established. The general corre- \nspondence of Hengstenberg\'s theory with the marked \nprevalence of the name Jehovah in the sections indicated, \nand its comparatively infrequent occurrence in the inter- \nvening portions of the history is manifest ; but there \nare exceptional cases, which cannot be accounted for on \nthis sole principle, such as the occasional occurrence of \nJehovah in the narrative of the flood, or in the lives of \nJacob and Joseph, or of Elohim in Gen. xvii., which is \none of the crowning passages in Abraham\'s life. Here \nHengstenberg found himself obliged to resort to unsatis- \nfactory and far-fetched explanations, which have brought \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 105 \n\nhis whole theory into unmerited discredit. These, how- \never, merely show, not that his principle was incorrect, \nbut that it was partial and was in certain cases limited \nby other considerations, which must likewise be taken \ninto the account in order to a just view of the whole \nsubject. \n\nKurtz 1 regards Elohim as denoting almighty power \nand Jehovah progressive self-manifestation, which, prop- \nerly understood and applied, furnishes the needed cor- \nrective to the view just considered. For a right concep- \ntion of the omnipotent energy of Elohim in creation and \nprovidence, and of Jehovah as unfolding, guiding, and \nsustaining his scheme of grace, and hence standing in a \nspecial relation to the chosen race and out of relation to \nGentiles, to whom he has not made himself known and \nwho are suffered to walk in their own ways, supplies the \nsolution of the exceptional cases above referred to. But \nunfortunately Kurtz\'s antagonism to Hengstenberg pre- \nvented his combining his own suggestion with that of \nhis predecessor. And his fondness for theorizing led \nhim into unpractical refinements. Thus he explains \nJehovah according to its derivation (Ex. iii. 14) to mean \nnot the great I AM, the Being by way of eminence, the \nself-existent God, the source of all existence, but he who \nwill become, is ever becoming, the self-developing God, \nan expression which taken strictly savors of the pan- \ntheistic philosophy, for which Kurtz had no affinitry, \nthough in this borrowing its terminology. He further \nexplains Elohim to be the God of the beginning and of \nthe end, and Jehovah the God of all that intervenes \nbetween these two extremes. Elohim is the creator and \noriginator, imparting the initial potency, Jehovah con- \nducts the development, and Elohim is the final judge \nwhether the development has miscarried through the \n1 Einheit der Genesis, p. xlix. sqq. ; see also p. xxxi., note. \n\n\n\n106 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nabuse of human freedom, or has reached its proper end \nso that God is all in all. This might account for the \npredominance of Elohim in the flood which overwhelmed \nthe guilty world ; but it was Jehovah who overthrew the \nflagitious cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and swept their \nabominations from the holy land. \n\nIt should further be observed that while in certain \ncases one of the divine names is manifestly appropriate \nto the exclusion of the other, there are others in which \neither name might properly be used, and it is at the \ndiscretion of the writer which he will employ. When an \nevent is capable of being viewed under a double aspect, \neither as belonging to the general scheme of God\'s uni- \nversal providence or as embraced within the adminis- \ntration of his plan of grace, either Elohim or Jehovah \nwould be in place, and it depends upon the writer\'s con- \nception at the time which he will employ. It is not \nnecessary, therefore, in Genesis any more than in other \nbooks of the Bible, to be able to show that there was a \nnecessity for using that divine name which is actually \nemployed. It is sufficient to show, as can invariably be \ndone, that the writer might properly use the name which \nhe has actually chosen. This fully refutes the purely \nmechanical view, which overlooks the difference in the \nmeaning and usage of these names, and their appropri- \nateness to the connection in which they are found, and \nsees in their alternation nothing but the unmeaning \npeculiarities of style of different writers. \n\nII. The second argument in favor of the various par- \ntition hypotheses is drawn from the alleged fact that \nwhen the several sections or paragraphs, respectively \nassigned to the supposed writers separately, are put to- \ngether they form a continuous and connected whole. \nBut\xe2\x80\x94 \n\n(1) The allegation is not well founded. It is only \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 107 \n\nthey who have a theory to support who can fail to see \nthe chasms and abrupt transitions which are created by \nthe partition, and which require in order to fill them the \nvery passages which have been abstracted as belonging \nto another document. Thus in ch. i. P gives an account \nof the creation, and declares that God saw that everything \nthat he had made was very good. And then in vi. 11, 12, \nwithout the slightest explanation, he suddenly announces \nthat the earth was corrupt before God and was filled with \nviolence so that he was determined to destroy it. This is \nquite inexplicable without the account of the fall, which \nhas been sundered from it and given to J. In xix. 29 \nP tells what happened when God destroyed the cities of \nthe plain, without having before alluded to such a de- \nstruction as having occurred ; the account of it is only to \nbe found in J. In xxviii. 1-5 P tells that Isaac sent \nJacob to Padan-aram to obtain a wife. But his entire \nresidence there, eventful as it was, is in P an absolute \nblank. In sxxi. 18 he is said to be returning with goods \nand cattle, and in xxxv. 22-26 his twelve children are enu- \nmerated, though no previous intimation had been given \nby P of his having either property or a family. How all \nthis came about is related only in the other documents. \nNumerous gaps and chasms of this nature are found in \neach of the so-called documents, and are in every case \ncreated by the critical partition. The critics undertake \nto account for all such cases by saying that the redactor, \nhaving given the narrative from one of his sources, de- \nsignedly omits what is contained in the others to avoid \nneedless repetition. And yet in other cases we are told \nthat he scrupulously retains the contents of his different \nsources, even though it leads to such superfluous repeti- \ntions as the double mention of Noah\'s entry into the ark \nand of various particulars connected with the flood \nas given both by J and P. They are besides perpetu- \n\n\n\n108 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nally drawing inferences that imply the completeness of \nthe documents, as when they attribute to P the notion \nthat sacrifice was first introduced by Moses ; or when \nthey interpret passages at variance with their context on \nthe assumption that nothing had been joined with them \nlike that from which the so-called critical analysis sepa- \nrates them. It is thus that the most of the alleged con- \ntrarieties are created. In fact critical partition would \nlose its chief interest and importance in the eyes of its \nadvocates if they were not allowed in this manner to alter \nand even revolutionize the meaning of the sacred text. \n\n(2) In many cases where continuity is claimed it is \nonly accomplished by bridging evident gaps by means of \nscattered clauses sundered here and there from their \nproper connection, as is done for J in the account of the \nflood, and for P in the early history of Abraham. Or \nby alleging that the texts of two documents have been \nmixed, and because a paragraph attributed to one docu- \nment contains occasional words or phrases which are \nassumed to be peculiar to another, inferring that these \nmust have been taken from some imaginary parallel pas- \nsage in that document, which is necessary to make out \nits continuity, as in both J and E in the history of \nJoseph. \n\n(3) The apparent connection produced by bringing \nseparated passages together and removing the interven- \ning paragraphs or sections is altogether factitious. This \nmay be so adroitly done that such passages will read con- \ntinuously as though there had been no omission. But \nany other book can be subjected to the same mode of \ntreatment with a like result. Paragraphs of greater or \nless extent can be removed from any piece of writing \nwhatever without the reader suspecting it, unless he is \ninformed of the fact. \n\n(4) The proofs are abundant that each of the so-called \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 109 \n\ndocuments either directly alludes to, or presupposes, what \nis contained in the others. This is, of course, quite incon- \nsistent with the hypothesis of their independent origin. \nThe utmost pains have been taken by the critics to con- \nstruct their documents so as to avoid this inter-relation ; \nbut it has been impossible for them to prevent it alto- \ngether. Hence they are compelled to acknowledge their \nintimate connection. Kayser regards J as the redactor of \nJE ; Dillmann thinks that J possessed and often borrowed \nfrom E ; Julicher that P drew from JE. Both the same- \nness of plan and the reciprocal relation of the narratives \nin all the so-called documents throughout the entire Pen- \ntateuchal history implies a dependence of one upon the \nother. This is admitted even by Wellhausen. \n\n(5) The critics are in the habit of playing fast and \nloose with the criterion of continuity, which at times is \ntheir sole or chief dependence, and at others is disre- \ngarded entirely. While they profess to trace documents \nin a great measure by the connection of their several \nparts, they in numerous instances sunder what is most \nintimately bound together by necessary implications or \nexpress allusions, thus nullifying their own principal \nclew aDd invalidating their own conclusions. \n\nIII. The third argument in favor of the partition hy- \npothesis is drawn from parallel passages, which are al- \nleged to be separate accounts of the same thing taken \nfrom different documents. But \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n(1) In many instances what are claimed as parallel \nsections are not really such, but relate to matters quite \ndistinct, which, however, bear some resemblance to each \nother. Thus, to refer to an instance previously adduced, \nthere is nothing surprising in the fact that Abraham \nshould on two occasions have been betrayed into a pre- \nvarication respecting his wife. His having done so once \nin apprehended peril might easily incline him to do so \n\n\n\n110 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nagain in similar circumstances. And that Isaac, when \nsimilarly situated, should imitate the error of his father, \nis not at all incredible. All history would be thrown \ninto confusion, if a mere general resemblance in differ- \nent events were to lead to their identification. How \neasy it would be for some future historian to claim that \nthe accounts of the different battles at Bull Run, in the \nlate war of the rebellion, all issuing in one way, were \nmerely varying traditions of one and the same. To infer \nthe identity of the facts from . the points of agreement in \nthe narratives, and then the discrepancy in the state- \nments regarding it from their disagreement in other \npoints, which simply shows the facts to be distinct, is to \nconstruct a self-contradictory argument. Moreover, the \nassertion that what are recorded as distinct events are in \nreality valiant accounts of one and the same thing, is \nmade without the semblance of proof or evidence of any \nsort. It is simply based on the prior assumption of the \nuntrustworthiness of the sacred historian. His explicit \nstatement is set aside as valueless beside the arbitrary \nconjecture of the critic. This is not a conclusion estab- \nlished by the divisive criticism, but is assumed in advance \nas a basis on which the divisive criticism is itself built. \nThis reveals the unfriendly animus of the current critical \nanalysis, which is inwrought in it, and inseparable from \nit, and is one of the determining influences by which it \nhas been shaped. \n\n(2) Where the events referred to are the same, they \nare mentioned under a different aspect or adduced for a \ndifferent purpose, which accounts for the repetition. \nThus the renewed mention in Gen. ii. of the formation \nof man and the lower animals, which had already been \nspoken of in ch. i., is no proof that these are by separate \nwriters ; for each chapter has a design of its own, which \nis steadfastly kept in view, the second being not parallel \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 111 \n\nto, but the sequel of, the first. Noah\'s entry into the ark \nis twice recorded, without, however, any implication that \ntwo documents have here been drawn upon. After the \ngeneral statement (vii. 7-9) that he went in with his fam- \nily and various species of living things, the writer wishes \nto emphasize more exactly that he went in on the very \nsame day that the flood began (vs. 13-16), and so restates \nit with that view. \n\n(3) In the simple style of Hebrew narrative it is usual \nto make a summary statement at the outset, which is \nthen followed by a detailed account of the particulars in- \ncluded under it, and in recording the execution of a com- \nmand to restate the injunctions to which obedience is \nrendered. ^The critics seize upon such passages and en- \ndeavor to turn them to the advantage of the partition \nhypothesis, but in so doing sunder what evidently \nbelongs together. Thus in Gen. xxviii. 5, it is said that \nIsaac sent away Jacob and he went to Padan-aram, unto \nLaban, the brother of Rebekah. His actual journey is \ndescribed in xxviii. 10-xxix. 13. The critics rend these \nasunder, giving the former to P and the latter to JE. In \nlike manner xxxi. 18 is a summary statement of Jacob\'s \nleaving Padan-aram to go to Isaac, his father, unto the \nland of Canaan. This is followed by the details of his \njourney (xxxi. 20-xxxiii. 17), all which is given to JE, \nwhile the preliminary statement is assigned to P. So \nthe account of Jacob\'s funeral (1. 4-11) is given to J, \nthe summary statement of the burial (vs. 12, 13) to P. \nA like severance of what is closely related is made where \ndirections are given and carried into effect. Thus Sarah \nproposes to Abraham that he should take Hagar as his \nwife, to which he consents (xvi. 2) ; this is given to J. \nBut the carrying of this proposal into effect (ver. 3) is \ngiven to P. The Loed bids Moses tell the children of \nIsrael how to observe the passover (Ex. xii. 2-20) ; this is \n\n\n\n112 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\ngiven to P. In obedience to this direction Moses sum- \nmons the elders and explains the observance to them (vs. \n21-27) ; this is given to J. \n\n(4) "VVellhausen and Dillmami have pushed the parti- \ntion by means of alleged parallels to the most extrava- \ngant lengths by what they call doublets. This brings \nthe subdivision down in many cases to minute para- \ngraphs, or even single clauses. In a transaction which \nis accomplished by successive steps or stages, any one of \nthese steps may be regarded as the doublet of another at \nthe pleasure of the critic ; that is to say, they may be \nconsidered as variant statements of the same thing by a \ndifferent writer and accordingly assigned to distinct doc- \numents. Or any repetition of the same thought in va- \nried language, by which the writer would emphasize his \nstatement or more fully explain his meaning, may be \nreckoned a doublet, and the clauses partitioned accord- \ningly. Thus in Gen. xxxvii. two things are recited which \nawakened the hatred of Joseph\'s brethren ; first (vs. 3, \n4), his father\'s partiality for him, secondly (vs. 5-11), his \ndreams, which he related to them. These statements \nsupplement each other, and must be combined in order \nto a complete view of the grounds of their hostility. \nBut they are converted into two different modes of ac- \ncounting for the same thing, the former being the con- \nception entertained by J, the latter that of E. Again, a \ndoublet is found in the two clauses of xxi. 1, " The Loed \nvisited Sarah as he had said, and the Loed did unto \nSarah as he had spoken." These are reckoned equiva- \nlents, and are divided between J and P, whereas the \nsecond is additional to, and explanatory of, the meaning \nof the first. \n\nThe alleged doublets, incoherences, and inconsisten- \ncies, by which the attempt is made to bolster up the \nweakness of other arguments for the original separate- \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 113 \n\nness of J and E, are capable of being set aside in detail. \nThey are for the most part hypercritical cavilling, mag- \nnifying molehills into mountains, and measuring ancient \noriental narratives by the rules of modern occidental \ndiscourse. \n\nIV. The fourth argument is based upon alleged differ- \nences of diction, style, and ideas. The process by which \nthese are ascertained is that of instituting at the begin- \nning a careful comparison of two sections, supposed to \nbe from different documents, such as the first two sec- \ntions of Genesis. All differences of thought and lan- \nguage between them are minutely noted, and the com- \nparison is then extended to contiguous sections, and so \non, gradually and guardedly, to the remaining portions \nof the Pentateuch, all being assigned to one or the other \ndocument on the basis of the criteria already gathered, \nand which are constantly accumulating as the work pro- \nceeds ; the utmost pains being taken so to adjust the \nsections that all references from one to the other shall \nfall within the limits of the same document, and that the \nintervening passages which are given to the other docu- \nment shall not be missed. But notwithstanding the \nseeming plausibility of this method, and the apparent \nscientific caution and accuracy with which it is con- \nducted, it is altogether fallacious. For \xe2\x80\x94 \xe2\x96\xa0 \n\n(1) The argument is simply reasoning in a circle. \nThe differences are first created and then argued from. \nThe documents are first framed to correspond with cer- \ntain assumed characteristic differences, and then their \ncorrespondence with these characteristics is urged in \nproof of their objective reality. All paragraphs, clauses, \nand parts of clauses, in which a certain class of alleged \ncriteria occur, are systematically assigned to one docu- \nment, and those having another class of criteria are, \nwith like regularity, assigned to another document ; and \n\n\n\n114 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nwhen the process is complete, all the criteria of one class \nare in one document, and those of the other class are in \nthe other document, simply because the critic has put \nthem there. The documents accord with the hypothesis \nbecause they have been constructed by the hypothesis. \n\n(2) The proofs relied upon for diversity of diction are \nfactitious, and can be applied with like effect to any \nbook of any author. All words in one of the so-called \ndocuments which do not chance to be found in the oth- \ners are carefully gathered out and strung together in a \nformidable list. Any one treatise of an author can in \nthis way equally be made to prove that any other of his \ntreatises was not written by him, or any part of one to \nprove that the remaining portion came from another \nhand. That certain words which occur in one series of \nparagraphs or sections do not occur in another proves \nnothing unless it can be shown that the writer had oc- \ncasion to use them. Especially is this the case when \nthe words adduced are in familiar and common use, or \nare the only words suited to express a given idea ; these \nobviously cannot be classed as the peculium of any \none writer. 1 Also when they are of infrequent occur- \nrence, and so give no indication of a writer\'s habitual \nusage, or are words belonging to one particular spe- \ncies of composition. It is not surprising that poetic \nwords should not be found in a document from which \npoetic passages are systematically excluded ; or that \nlegal words and phrases should be limited to the docu- \nment to which the legal passages are regularly assigned ; \nor that words appropriate to ordinary narrative should \n\n1 My friend Professor McCurdy. of Toronto University, pertinently \nsuggests in a private note that much of the critical argument from dic- \ntion would prove too much if it proved anything. If words of this de- \nscription furnish a criterion, it would imply not merely a diversity of \nwriters, but writers using different dialects or languages. \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 115 \n\nchiefly abound in those documents to which the bulk of \nsuch narrative is given. Since the entire ritual law is \ngiven to P, and the great body of the history, together \nwith all the poetical passages, to JE, a corresponding- \ndifference of diction and style must necessarily result \nfrom this diversity of theme, and of the character of the \ncomposition, without being by any means suggestive of a \ndifference of writers. When the words alleged to be \ncharacteristic of one of the documents occur but rarely \niu that document, and are absent from the great majority \nof its sections, this must, on the critical hypothesis, be \nregarded as accidental ; so may their absence from the \nsections of the other document be. \n\nIt must also be remembered that a writer who has a \nreasonable command of language may vary his- expres- \nsions in conveying the same idea. It is not a safe as- \nsumption that he cannot use words or phrases in any \nplace which he lias not used elsewhere. Thus Dillmann \n(" Die Biicher, Exodus und Leviticus," p. 619), argues \nthat a peculiar diction is not always indicative of separate \nauthorship. After saying that the passage of which he \nis speaking has some of the characteristics of J, but \n" much more that is unusual and peculiar," he adds, " The \nmost of this nature may be accounted for partly by the \npoetic and oratorical style, and partly by the new and \npeculiar objects and ideas that were to be expressed, \nand it can scarcely suffice to justify the conclusion of an \naltogether peculiar writer, from whom we have nothing \nbesides." \n\n(3) "When synonymous expressions are used to con- \nvey the same idea this does not justify the assumption \nthat they have been taken from different documents, and \nthat they severally represent the usage of distinct writ- \ners. They are not to be explained in this superficial and \nmechanical manner. Synonyms are not usually exact \n\n\n\n118 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\ncounterparts. There is commonly a distinction, more or \nless clear, which may be observed between them, some \nslight difference in their meaning or their association, \nwhich governs their employment and leads to the use of \none rather than another in particular connections. \n\n(4) The alleged criteria frequently conflict with each \nother, and with the criteria derived from the divine \nnames. Words or phrases said to be characteristic of \none writer meet in the same section, or even in the same \nsentence, with those that are said to characterize the \nother. In such cases the critics resort to various sub- \nterfuges to relieve the situation. Sometimes they admit \nthat what has been considered characteristic of one docu- \nment is found likewise in another, which is equivalent to \na confession that it is not a distinctive criterion at all. \nAt other times they claim that two texts have \'been \nmingled, and that expressions or clauses from one docu- \nment have been interpolated in the other, whereas these \nblended criteria simply prove that the same writer freely \nuses both in the same connection. Again, at other times \nthey claim that such passages belong originally to \nneither document, but are insertions by the redactor, \nwho is always at hand to account for phenomena at vari- \nance with the hypothesis, when no other mode of escape \nis possible. It is obviously possible by such devices to \ncarry through any hypothesis, however preposterous. If \nall opposing phenomena can be set aside as interpola- \ntions, or as the work of the redactor, the most refractory \ntexts can be tortured into accordance with the critic\'s \narbitrary presuppositions. \n\n(5) The critic is engaged in solving an indeterminate \nequation. The line of partition depends upon the \ncriteria, and the criteria depend upon the line of parti- \ntion ; and both of these are unknown quantities. Of \nnecessity the work is purely hypothetical from first to \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 117 \n\nlast, and the liability to error increases with every step \nof the process. A mistake in the criteria will lead to a \nwrong partition, and this to further false criteria, and so \non indefinitely ; and there is no sure method of correct- \ning or even ascertaining the error. The critic resembles \na traveller who without guide or compass is seeking to \nmake his way through a trackless forest, so dense as to \nshut out the sight of the heavens. He will inevitably \ndiverge from a straight course, and may gradually and \nimperceptibly be turned in the opposite direction from \nthat in which he started. Or he may prove to be only a \ndreamer, whose beautiful creations are but airy phan- \ntoms. \n\n(6) The complexity of the problem with which the \ncritic has undertaken to deal becomes more obvious the \nfurther he proceeds. At the outset his work is compara- \ntively simple ; the fewer the criteria the more readily \nthey are applied. By the aid of such ingenious devices \nas have already been indicated he makes his way \nthrough Genesis with tolerable ease. But in the middle \nbooks of the Pentateuch difficulties crowd upon him, as \nis shown by the wide divergence of the critics in their \nefforts to cope with them, and in the book of Joshua it \nbecomes a veritable medley. It is the natural result of \nan attempt to apply criteria gathered elsewhere to fresh \npassages for which they have no affinity. Partitions are \nmade which find no sanction in an unbiassed examina- \ntion of the passages themselves, and are merely forced \nupon them for the sake of consistency with a previously \nadopted scheme of division. This is repeatedly con- \nfessed by the critics themselves. Thus Wellhausen, 1 in \nbeginning his discussion of Gen. xxxvii.-l. says : " The \nprincipal source for this last section of Genesis also is \n\n1 Jahrhiicher fiir Deutsche Theologie, 1876, p. 442, or in the sepa- \nrate reprint, Die Composition des Hexateuchs, p. 52. \n\n\n\n118 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nJE. It is to be presumed that this work, here as else- \nwhere, is compounded of J and E ; our former results \nconstrain to this assumption, and would be shaken if this \nwere not capable of proof." \n\nThe various arguments urged in support of the divi- \nsive hypothesis in its different forms have now been suc- \ncessively examined and found wanting. The alternation \nof divine names can be otherwise explained,- and more- \nover it can only be brought into harmony with the parti- \ntion hypothesis by a free use of the redactor, and the \nassumption of repeated changes of the text. Ex. vi. 3 \nhas not the meaning that the critics attribute to it. The \ncontinuity of the documents is broken by serious chasms, \nor maintained by very questionable methods ; and it is \nnecessary to assume in numerous instances that the \ndocuments originally contained paragraphs and sections \nsimilar to those which the critics have sundered from \nthem. The alleged parallel passages are for the most \npart falsely assumed identifications of distinct events. \nAnd the diversity of diction, style, and ideas is made \nout by utterly fallacious and inconclusive methods. But \nwhile the attempted proof of lack of unity signally fails, \nthe positive evidence of unity abides and never can be \nnullified. The great outstanding proof of it is the un- \nbroken continuity of the history, the consistent plan \nupon which the whole is prepared, and the numerous \ncross-references, which bind it all together as the work \nof one mind. Separate and independent documents \nmechanically pieced together could no more produce \nsuch an appearance of unity as reigns throughout the \nPentateuch than a faultless statue could be formed out \nof discordant fragments of dissimilar materials. \n\nThe futility of the methods by which the Pentateuch \nhas been parcelled into different documents may further \nbe shown by the readiness with which they can be ap- \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\n\n\n119 \n\n\n\nplied, and with equal success, to writings the unity of \nwhich is indisputable. The fact that a narrative can be \nso divided as to form from it two continuous narratives, \nis reckoned by the critics a demonstration of its compo- \nsite character, and a proof that the parts into which it has \nbeen severed are the original sources from which it has \nbeen compounded. This may be tested by a couple of \npassages selected at random \xe2\x80\x94 the parables of The Prodi- \ngal Son and of The Good Samaritan. \n\n\n\nThe Pkodigal Son, Luke xv. 11-32. \n\n\n\n11. A certain man had two \nsons : 12. and the younger of \nthem said to his father, Father, \ngive me the portion of thy sub- \nstance that falleth to me. . . . \n13. And not many days after the \nyounger son gathered all to- \ngether, . . . and there he \nwasted his substance with riot- \nous living. . . . \n\n\n\n14b. and he began to be in \nwant. \n\n\n\n16b. And no man gave unto \nhim. \n\n20. And he arose, and came to \nhis father ; . . . and he ran, \nand fell on his neck, and kissed \nhim. 21. And the son said un- ! \nto him, Father, I have sinned I \n\n\n\nB \n\n\n\n(A certain man had two sons :) \n\n\n\n12b. and he divided unto \nthem his living. \n\n13b. And (one of them) took \nhis journey into a far country. \n. . . 14. And when he had \nspent all, there arose a mighty \nfamine in that country. . . . \n15. And he went and joined him- \nself to one of the citizens of that \ncountiy ; and he sent him into \nhis fields to feed swine. 16. And \nhe would fain have been filled \nwith the husks that the swine \ndid eat. . . . 17. But when \nhe came to himself he said, How \nmany hired servants of my fath- \ner\'s have bread enough and to \nspare, and I perish here with \nhunger ! IS. I will arise and go \nto my father, and will say unto \n\n\n\n120 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\n\n\nagainst heaven, and in thy sight : \nI am no more worthy to be called \nthy son. 22. But the father said \nto his servants, Bring forth \nquickly the best robe, and put it \non him ; and put a ring on his \nhand, and shoes on his feet: . . . \n24. for this my son was dead, \nand is alive again. . . . And \nthey began to be merry. 25. \nNow his elder son was in the \nfield : and as he came and drew \nnigh to the house, . . . 28. he \nwas angry, and would not go in : \nand his father came out, and en- \ntreated him. 29. But he an- \nswered and said to his father, Lo, \nthese many years do I serve thee, \nand I never transgressed a com- \nmandment of thine : and yet \nthou never gavest me a kid, that \nI might make merry with my \nfriends : 30. but when this thy \nson came, which hath devoured \nthy living with harlots, thou \nkilledst for him the fatted calf. \n31. And he said unto him, Son, \nthou art ever with me, and all \nthat is mine is thine. 32. But \nit was meet to make merry and \nbe glad : for this thy brother \nwas dead, and is alive again. \n\n\n\nB \n\n\n\nhim, Father, I have sinned \nagainst heaven, and in thy sight : \n19. I am no more worthy to be \ncalled thy son : make me as one \nof thy hired servants. .\xe2\x96\xa0 . . \n20b. But while he was yet afar \noff, his father saw him, and was \nmoved with compassion : . . . \n23. and (said) Bring the fatted \ncalf, and kill it, and let us eat, \nand make merry. . . . 24b. he \nwas lost, and is found. . . . \n25b. (And the other son) heard \nmusic and dancing. 26. And he \ncalled to him one of the ser- \nvants, and inquired what these \nthings might be. 27. And he \nsaid unto him, Thy brother is \ncome ; and thy father hath killed \nthe fatted calf, because he hath \nreceived him safe and sound \n. . . 32b. and he was lost \nand is found. \n\n\n\nThere are here two complete narratives, agreeing in \nsome points, and disagreeing in others, and each has its \nspecial characteristics. The only deficiencies are en- \nclosed in parentheses, and may be readily explained as \nomissions by the redactor in effecting the combination. A \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 121 \n\nclause must be supplied at the beginning of B, a subject \nis wanting in ver. 13b, and ver. 25b, and the verb " said " \nis wanting in ver. 23. As these omissions occur exclu- \nsively in B, it may be inferred that the redactor placed A \nat the basis, and incorporated B into it with only such \nslight changes as were necessary to adapt it to this pur- \npose. \n\nA and B agree that there were two sons, one of whom \nreceived a portion of his father\'s property, and by his \nown fault was reduced to great destitution, in consequence \nof which he returned penitently to his father, and ad- \ndressed him in language which is nearly identical in \nboth accounts. The father received him with great ten- \nderness and demonstrations of joy, which attracted the \nattention of the other son. \n\nThe differences are quite as striking as the points of \nagreement. A distinguishes the sons as elder and \nyounger ; B makes no mention of their relative ages. In \nA the younger obtained his portion by solicitation, and \nthe father retained the remainder in his own possession ; \nin B the father divided his property between both of his \nsons of his own motion. In A the prodigal remained in \nhis father\'s neighborhood, and reduced himself to penury \nby riotous living ; in B he went to a distant country and \nspent all his property, but there is no intimation that he \nindulged in unseemly excesses. It would rather appear \nthat he was injudicious ; and to crown his misfortunes \nthere occurred a severe famine. His fault seems to have \nconsisted in having gone so far away from his father and \nfrom the holy land, and in engaging in the unclean occu- \npation of tending swine. In A the destitution seems to \nhave been chiefly want of clothing ; in B want of food. \nHence in A the father directed the best robe and ring and \nshoes to be brought for him ; in B the fatted calf was killed. \nIn B the son came from a distant land, and the father saw \n\n\n\n122 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nhim afar off ; in A he came from the neighborhood, and \nthe father ran at once and fell on his neck and kissed \nhim. In B he had been engaged in a menial occupation, \nand so bethought himself of his father\'s hired servants, \nand asked to be made a servant himself ; in A he had \nbeen living luxuriously, and while confessing his un- \nworthiness makes no request to be put on the footing of \na servant. In A the father speaks of his son having been \ndead because of his profligate life ; in B of his having \nbeen lost because of his absence in a distant land. In A, \nbut not in B, the other son was displeased at the recep- \ntion given to the prodigal. And here it would appear \nthat B, has slightly altered the text. The elder son must \nhave said to his father in A, " When this thy son came, \nwhich hath devoured thy substance with harlots, thou \ndidst put on him the best robe." The redactor has here \nsubstituted the B word "living " 1 for " substance," which \nis used by A ; and with the view of making a better con- \ntrast with " kid " he has introduced the B phrase, " thou \nkilledst for him the fatted calf." \n\nThe Good Samaritan, Luke x. 29-37. \n\n\n\nA \n\n\n\nB \n\n\n\n29. But he (the lawyer, ver. \n25) desiring to justify himself, \nsaid unto Jesus, And who is my \nneighbor ? 30. Jesus made an- \nswer and said, A certain man was \ngoing down from Jerusalem to \nJericho ; . . . and they beat \nhim, . . . leaving him half j \ndead. 31. And by chance a cer- \ntain priest was going down that \\ * Omitted by R. ( ). \n\n1 No scholar will need to be informed that "living "ver. 13, has a \ndifferent sense and represents a different word in the original from \' \' liv- \ning," ver. 12. \n\n\n\n30b. And (a certain man) * fell \namong robbers, which both \nstripped him . . . and de- \nparted. . . . \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\n\n\n123 \n\n\n\nway : and when he saw him, he \npassed by on the other side. . . . \n\n33. But a certain Samaritan, \nas he journeyed, came where he \nwas : . . . \n\n34. and came to him, and \nbound up his wounds, pouring \non them oil and wine, . . \nand took care of him. \n\n\n\n36 Which of these [three]*, \nthinkest thou, proved neighbor \nunto him? ... 37. And he \nsaid, He that showed mercy on \nhim. \n\n\n\nInserted by \n\n\n\n32. And [in like manner] * a \nLevite, [also] * when he came to \nthe place, [and saw him, passed \nby on the other side.] * \n\n33b. and when he saw him, \nwas moved with compassion. . . . \n\n34b. And he set him on his \nown beast, and brought him to \nan inn. ... 35. And on \nthe morrow he took out two \npence, and gave them to the \nhost, and said, Take care of him ; \nand whatsoever thou spendest \nmore, I, when I comeback again, \nwill repay thee. \n\n37b. And Jesus said unto him \n. . . that fell among the rob- \nbers, . . . Go, and do thou \nlikewise. \nE[ ]. \n\n\n\nBoth, these narratives are complete ; only a subject \nmust be supplied in B, ver. 30b, the omission of which \nwas rendered necessary by its being combined with A. \n"Three" is substituted for "two "in A, ver. 36, for a \nlike reason. R has tampered with the text and materi- \nally altered the sense in ver. 32, from his desire to put the \nLevite on the same plane with the priest in ver. 31, the \nlanguage of which he has borrowed ; the genuine text of \nB will be restored by omitting the insertions by B, which \nare included in brackets. He has likewise transposed a \nbrief clause of B, in ver. 37b, and added it at the end of \nver. 36. These changes naturally resulted from his mak- \ning A the basis, and modifying what he has inserted \nfrom B into accordance with it. Hence the necessity of \nmaking it appear that it was not the Levite, but the \nSamaritan, who befriended the injured traveller, and that \n\n\n\n124 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nJesus spoke not to the traveller, but to the lawyer. In \nall other respects the original texts of the two narratives \nremain unaltered. \n\nBoth narratives agree that a man grievously abused \nby certain parties was treated with generous kindness by \na stranger ; and that Jesus deduced a practical lesson \nfrom it. But they differ materially in details. \n\nA relates his story as a parable of Jesus in answer to \na lawyer\'s question. B makes no mention of the lawyer \nor his question, but seems to be relating a real occur- \nrence. \n\nThe spirit of the two is quite different. A is anti- \nJewish, B pro-Jewish. In A the aggressors are Jews, \npeople of Jerusalem or Jericho or both, and a priest piti- \nlessly leaves the sufferer to his fate ; while it is a Samar- \nitan, with whom the Jews were in perpetual feud, who \ntakes pity on him. In B the aggressors are robbers, \noutlaws whose nationality is not defined, and it is a Le- \nvite who shows mercy. \n\nBoth the maltreatment and the act of generosity are \ndifferent. In A the sufferer is beaten and half killed, \nand needs to have his wounds bound up and liniments \napplied, which is done by his benefactor on the spot. \nIn B he was stripped of all he had and left destitute, \nbut no personal injury was inflicted ; accordingly he was \ntaken to an inn, and his wants there provided for at the \nexpense of the Levite who befriended him. \n\nThe lesson inculcated is different. In A it is that the \nduty of loving one\'s neighbor is not limited to those of \nthe same nation, nor annulled by national antipathies. \nIn B it is that he who has been befriended himself \nshould befriend others. \n\nIt is not worth while to multiply illustrations. Those \nnow adduced are sufficient to give an idea of the method \nby which the critics undertake to effect the partition of \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 125 \n\nthe Pentateuch ; and to show how they succeed in creat- \ning discrepancies and contradictions, where none really \nexist, by simply sundering what properly belongs to- \ngether. The ease with which these results can be ac- \ncomplished, where obviously they have no possible sig- \nnificance, shows how fallacious and inconclusive this \nstyle of argument is. No dependence can be placed upon \na process that leads to palpably erroneous conclusions in \nother cases. An argument that will prove everything, \nproves nothing. And a style of critical analysis which \ncan be made to prove everything composite is not to \nbe trusted. \n\nThe readiness with which a brief, simple narrative \nyields to critical methods has been sufficiently shown \nabove. That extended didactic composition is not proof \nagainst it is shown in a very clever and effective manner \nin " Romans Dissected," by E. D. McEealsham, the pseu- \ndonym of Professor C. M. Mead, D.D., of Hartford \nTheological Seminary. The result of his ingenious and \nscholarly discussion is to demonstrate that as plausible \nan argument can be made from diction, style, and doc- \ntrinal contents for the fourfold division of the Epistle to \nthe Romans as for the composite character of the Penta- \nteuch. \n\nTwo additional incongruities which beset the partition \nof the Pentateuch may be briefly mentioned here, as \nthey are illustrated by the specimens above given of the \napplication of like methods to the parables. The first \nis, that the narratives into which the critics resolve the \nPentateuchal history, and from which they claim that \nthis has been compounded, are, as a whole and in all \ntheir parts, inferior in symmetry and structural arrange- \nment to the history as it lies in the existing text. On \nthe critical hypothesis precisely the reverse should be the \ncase. If the history is a conglomerate, in which hetero- \n\n\n\n126 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\ngeneous materials have been compacted, the critical sev- \nerance which restores the component parts to their orig- \ninal connection and exhibits each of the primary narra- \ntives in its pristine form, and purged of all interpolations \nand extraneous matter, must remove disfigurements and \nreunite the broken links of connection designed by the \nearly narrators. The intermingling of goods of different \npatterns has a confusing effect. It is only when they are \nseparated, and each is viewed by itself, that its proper \npattern can be traced and its real beauty discerned. \nBut when the separation spoils and mars the fabric, we \nmust conclude that what has taken place is not the reso- \nlution of a compound into its primary constituents, but \nthe violent rending asunder of what was really a unit, \nthe breaking of a graceful statue into misshapen frag- \nments. \n\nThe second incongruity to be alluded to here concerns \nwhat the critics consider the restored original narratives, \nnot taken separately, each by itself, but in their relation \nto one another. The critics take what in its present \nform, as it lies before us in the Pentateuch, is harmoni- \nous, symmetrical, and complete, and they deduce from it \ntwo or more narratives, between which there are discrep- \nancies, contrarieties, and contradictions ; and these are \nproduced simply by the putting asunder of what in the \nexisting text to all appearance properly belongs together. \nAnd it thereby writes its own condemnation. Harmony \ndoes not arise from combining the incongruous, but dis- \ncord naturally follows upon the derangement of parts, \nwhich properly fitted into one another are harmonious. \n\nA word may further be added concerning the marvellous \nperspicacity, verging on omniscience, claimed by the crit- \nics, who undertake to determine with the utmost assurance \nthe authorship not merely of books, or large sections or \nparagraphs, but of individual sentences and clauses, and \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 127 \n\nfragments of clauses. They undertake to point out to \nthe very last degree of nicety and minuteness not only \nwhat J and E and D and P have separately written, how- \never involved these may be with one another, but what \nprecise changes each of a series of redactors has intro- \nduced into the original text of each, and what glosses \nhave been added by a still later hand, and what modifi- \ncations were introduced into the successive editions \nthrough which the priucipal documents have severally \npassed before or since their combination. They further \nprofess to be able to distinguish the primary and some- \ntimes discordant elements which entered into the orig- \ninal constitution of the principal documents, and what \nbelongs to the various stages by which P was brought \nby a series of diaskeuasts to its present complexity and \nelaboration. One would think that the critics would be \nawed by the formidable character of the task which they \nhave set for themselves. But they proceed with un- \ndaunted front, as though they had an unerring scent \nwhich could track their game through the most intricate \ndoublings and convolutions ; and as though positive as- \nsertions would compensate for the dubious nature of the \ngrounds upon which their decisions often rest. \n\nIf further proof were needed of the precarious character \nof the methods and results of this style of subjective \ncriticism, it is abundantly supplied by similar exploits \nconducted in other fields, where they can be subjected to \nthe sure test of ascertained facts. The havoc wrought in \nthe writings of Homer, belonging to a remote antiquity, \nor in the " Nibelungenlied," produced in the obscurity of \nthe Middle Ages, is not so much to our present purpose \nas the systematic onset upon Cicero\'s orations against \nCatiline, of whose genuineness there is indubitable proof. \nMadvig\'s account of the matter, to which my attention \nwas directed by Professor West, of Princeton University, \n\n\n\n128 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nand of wliich he has obligingly furnished the translation, \nis here given in a note. 1 \n\n1 "Let us relate the history of the discussion. It began with F. A. \nWolf,* who cast doubt in a general way upon several of Cicero\'s Ora- \ntions. Following Wolf came Eichstaedt, who reviewed Wolf\'s book in \n1802, and took the position that at least one of the Catilinarian Orations \nought to be included in the condemnation bestowed upon other orations. \nWolf quickly followed Eicbstaedt and condemned the Third Oration, \nand in subsequent comments and remarks stated the question in such a \nway as to leave it uncertain which oration he meant, or whether it was \none of two orations, and so, in 1826, Clude, thinking he was following \nout the opinion of Wolf, proved to his own satisfaction and the satisfac- \ntion of some others, that it was the Second Oration which was spurious. \nBut shortly afterward (in 1827) Benecke, by producing the very words \nof Wolf from one of his letters showed that Wolf meant the Third Ora- \ntion. In the meantime the Fourth Oration had fallen under the dis- \npleasure of other critics, notably Zimmermann and Bloch, and so Ahrens, \nin 1832, passed sentence on the unfortunate oration, embracing the \nThird Oration at the same time in his condemnation. Finally came \nOrelli, in 1836, and fearing, I suppose, that such inconsistencies of opin- \nion would end in contempt and ridicule, decided that all three were \nspurious. \n\n"In addition to other evidence from ancient writers which was easily \nanswered, there stood opposed to this conclusion the authority of Cicero \nhimself, who in the First Epistle of the Second Book of his Letters to \nAtticus makes abundant reference to his own consular orations, and \nenumerates one by one the four Orations against Catiline. \n\n" And so no other course was left the critics except to come to the in- \ncredible conclusion that genuine orations of Cicero, delivered on a most \nfamous occasion, had so faded out of remembrance by the time of Au- \ngustus (for Ahrens admits that the orations we possess are as old as this) \nthat spurious orations could be put in their place and meet with accept- \nance, without any contemporary objection, in spite of the fact that one \ngenuine oration out of the four still remained, and was put together \nwith the three false ones. Orelli met the emergency heroically (forti \nremedio), for he cut oiit the whole of this passage from the middle of \nCicero\'s Letter to Atticus. Consequently no statement remained regard- \ning the various Catilinarian orations published by Cicero himself. \nThereupon Orelli excogitated a pleasant hypothesis (fabulam lepidam) \nto the effect that a forger first supplied the three orations, and then, in \norder to insure their acceptance, inserted in the Letter of Cicero a forged \n\n* The critic of Homer and father of the destructive literary criticism. \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 129 \n\nMy colleague, Dr. Warfield, has also pointed me to an \ninstructive instance which is still more recent. It is \nthus described by Dr. Heinrici : * " How easily one is \nled astray by assuming a course of thought supposed \nto be requisite, is shown in a very instructive man- \nstatement in regard to these same orations. But inasmuch as Cicero\'s \nLetters were then in circulation, we might ask, How was it that this \nforger inserted his forgery not only in his own copy of Cicero\'s Letters, \nbut in the copies of all other readers whom he wished to deceive, and \nso managed it that no other copy of this Letter should remain extant \nwritten in any other manner ? But the same critical shrewdness helps \nthe critics at this juncture. The forger is that very man who edited \nthe volume of Letters after Cicero\'s death, namely, Marcus Tullius Tiro, \nthe freedman. What ! Tiro, the faithful freedman to whom Cicero en- \ntrusted his Letters, and who wrote the life of his dead patron accurately \nand affectionately, and upon whom no suspicion ever fell, was he a \nforger ? \'Yes, indeed,\' they answered, \'and he did it with good in- \ntention.\' Orelli says, \'He thought that he would honor his noble pa- \ntron most if Cicero\'s illustrious performance were made celebrated not \nmerely by one but by four orations.\' What a marvellous license of \nimagination and credulity of doubt! So, then, Tiro did not think the \nmatter would be famous by reason of his narrative of Cicero\'s life, but, \nalthough he had never uttered a word in a public assembly, or written \neven a short oration, he yet thought that the glory of his patron, the \ngreatest orator of Rome, would be increased by Tiro\'s forging orations \nunder Cicero\'s name. Yet why not ? For the very critic, who is every- \nwhere finding fault with the wretched inconsistencies of Tiro\'s writings, \nyet in former times had actually admired Cicero on account of these \nfalse orations." \xe2\x80\x94 Madvig : Opuscula Academica, Hauniae, 1887, pp. 671 \nsqq. \n\nDr. West adds: "Madvig\'s reductio ad cibsurdum is complete. \nThere are numerous other instances in Latin criticism that are in- \nstructive. Ribbeck\'s youthful venture at the text of Juvenal, Peerl- \nkamp\'s exploits in Horace, the discussion forty years ago regarding the \ntreatise Be Trinitate, ascribed to Boethius, and the treatment of Caesar\'s \nCommentaries on the Gallic War, ought not to be forgotten. Schoell\'s \nslashing editing of Plautus in our own time is also a case in point. \nHappily the spirit which at present rules Latin studies is historical and \ninductive. The other reminds us of the old proverb about the Sabines \n\xe2\x80\x94 Sabini quod volunt somniant.\'" \n\n1 Meyer\'s Kommentar iiber den 1 Cor., seventh edit., 1888, Vorrede. \n9 \n\n\n\n130 THE HIGHEE CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nner by Scherer\'s ingenious analysis of the Prologue \nof Faust in his Goethe-Studies. It should set up a \nbeacon to warn classical philologists against overhasty \ninterpolation-criticism, since it shows how in a piece of \nwriting, whose composition by one author is beyond \nquestion, profound diversities of style and inner contra- \ndictions exist. Scherer proposes to explain them from \ndifferences in the time of composition and subsequent \ncombination. And now the oldest manuscript of Faust \nhas been published by Erich Schmidt, which proves that \nit was the \' young Goethe \' who wrote the prologue at \none effort essentially as it now stands. It is the same \n\' young Goethe \' who speaks both in the ferment of \nyouth and in a disillusioned old age." \n\nIt has been claimed that the general agreement among \ncritics of various schools in regard to the partition is such \nas to establish in the main the correctness of their con- \nclusions. Where not only avowed antisupernaturalists \nlike Wellhausen, Kuenen, and Stade, but Dillmann, who \nopenly antagonizes them, and believing scholars like \nDelitzsch and Driver are in accord, are we not con- \nstrained to yield assent to their positions ? To this we \nreply : \n\n1. That this is not a question to be decided by author- \nity but by reason and argument. \n\n2. The consensus of divisive critics settles, not the \ntruth of the hypothesis, but what they consider its most \nplausible and defensible form. The partition of the \nPentateuch is a definite problem with certain data, to \nwhich any solution that is offered must adapt itself. \nExperiments without number have been made to ascer- \ntain the practicability of this partition, and what lines of \ndivision offer the best chance of success. The ground \nhas been surveyed inch by inch with the most scrupulous \ncare, its possibilities ascertained, and diligent search \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OP THE PENTATEUCH 131 \n\nmade for the best methods of guarding weak points, \nprotecting against assault, overcoming difficulties, clos- \ning up gaps, and dealing with intractable passages. \nAnd the present agreement of critics, so far as it goes, \nindicates what is believed to be the most practicable \nmode of carrying out the hypothesis that has yet been \ndevised. \n\n3. The agreement of the critics is by no means per- \nfect. While at many points there is a general consent, \nat others there is wide divergence. Dillmann differs \nfrom Wellhausen, and he from Kuenen, and Julicher \nfrom them all. Many are content to follow the promi- \nnent leaders more or less implicitly, but critics of inde- \npendence and originality continue to propose new expe- \ndients and offer fresh conjectures. Difficulties gather as \nthe work proceeds. In large portions of Genesis there is \ncomparative agreement ; in the middle books of the Pen- \ntateuch the diversities greatly multiply ; and in Joshua, \nthe crown of the Hexateuch, there is the most discordant \nmedley. \n\n4. A large number of eminent scholars accept the \ncritical partition of the Pentateuch in general, if not in \nall its details. It has its fascinations, which sufficiently \naccount for its popularity. The learning, ability, and \npatient toil which have been expended upon its elabora- \ntion, the specious arguments arrayed in its support, and \nthe skill with which it has been adapted to the phenom- \nena of the Pentateuch and of the Old Testament gener- \nally, have given to it the appearance of great plausibility. \nThe novel lines of inquiry which it opens make it attrac- \ntive to those of a speculative turn of mind, who see in \nit the opportunity for original and fruitful research in \nthe reproduction of ancient documents, long buried un- \nsuspected in the existing text, which they antedate by \ncenturies. The boldness and seeming success with \n\n\n\n132 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nwhich it undertakes to revolutionize traditional opinion, \nand give a new aspect to the origin and history of the \nreligion of the Old Testament, and its alliance with the \ndoctrine of development, which has found such wide \napplication in other fields of investigation, have largely \ncontributed to its popularity. And those who have a \nbias against the supernatural or the divine authority of \nthe Pentateuch see in this hypothesis a ready way of \ndisposing of its Mosaic origin and of the historic truth \nof whatever they are indisposed to accept. \n\nThe various forms of the partition hypothesis and the \nseveral arguments by which they are supported have \nnow been examined. The arguments have been found \ninadequate and it will elsewhere be shown in detail that \nthe hypothesis cannot be fitted to the phenomena of the \nPentateuch. 1 Its failure is not from the lack of ingenuity \nor learning, or persevering effort on the part of its advo- \ncates, nor from the want of using the utmost latitude of \nconjecture, but simply from the impossibility of accom- \nplishing the end proposed. While, however, the hy- \npothesis has proved futile as an attempt to account for \nthe origin of the Pentateuch, the labor spent upon it \nhas not been entirely thrown away, and it has not been \nwithout positive advantage to the cause of truth. (1) It \nhas demonstrated the impossibility of such a partition. \nThe experiment has been tried in every way that the \nutmost ingenuity could devise, but without success. (2) \nIt has led to the development of a vast mass of positive \nevidence of unity, which would not otherwise have been \nso diligently sought for, and might not have been \n\n1 Its incompatibility with the book of Genesis is demonstrated in a \ncompanion volume, The Unity of the Book of Genesis. The reader \nis likewise referred to the discussion of the remaining books of the \nPentateuch in articles by the author in the Hebraica for 1890 and sub- \nsequently. \n\n\n\nTHE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH 133 \n\nbrought to light. (3) It has led to the elucidation and \nbetter understanding of the Pentateuch from the neces- \nsity thus imposed of minute and thorough investigation \nof the meaning and bearings of every word and sentence, \nand of the mutual relations of every part. It verifies \nthe old fable of a field which was dug over for a chimeri- \ncal purpose, but the labor thus expended was rewarded \nby an unlooked-for harvest, sprung from seed which lay \nunsuspected in the soil. \n\n\n\nV \n\nGENUINENESS OF THE LAWS \n\nThe first and second stages of opposition to the Mo- \nsaic authorship of the Pentateuch have now been re- \nviewed. There yet remain to be considered the third \nand fourth lines of objection, which are based upon the \ntriplicity of the legal codes and the non-observance of \nthe laws. This brings us to the third and last stage of \nopposition. \n\nThe next phase of the critical movement, which issued \nin the present reigning school of divisive criticism, \nwrought as sudden and complete a revolution in the \nideas of scholars of this class as the speculations of Dar- \nwin effected in Natural History, when the denial of the \nunity of the human race collapsed on the instant, and it \nwas held instead that all animated being had sprung from \ncommon germs. And the lever which effected the over- \nthrow was in both cases the same, that is, the doctrine \nof development. This at once exalted the speculations \nof Ewald and Hupfeld to a prominence which they had \nnot previously attained, and made them important factors \nin the new advance. From Ewald was borrowed the \nidea that the composition of the Pentateuch was not \naccomplished at a stroke by one act, whether of supple- \nmenting or of combining pre-existing documents, but \ntook place in successive stages by a series of enlarging \ncombinations. From Hupfeld were derived the two pil- \nlars of his scheme \xe2\x80\x94 the continuity of the Jehovist docu- \nment and the composite character of the Elohist \xe2\x80\x94 or, in \n\n\n\nGENUINENESS OF THE LAWS 135 \n\nother words, that the Jehovist did not merely make addi- \ntions to a pre-existing work, but wrote an independent \nwork of his own, and that there were two Elohists instead \nof one. Thus both Ewald and Hupfeld, without intend- \ning or imagining it, smoothed the way for the rise of a \nschool of criticism with ideas quite diverse from their \nown. \n\nThe various attempts to partition the Pentateuch had \nthus far been based on exclusively literary grounds. \nDiction, style, ideas, the connection of paragraphs and \nsentences supplied the staple arguments for each of the \nforms which the hypothesis had assumed, and furnished \nthe criteria from which all conclusions were drawn. \nNumerous efforts had been made to ascertain the dates \nto which the writers severally belonged. Careful studies \nwere instituted to discover the bias under which they \nrespectively wrote, as suggesting the influences by which \nthey might be supposed to be surrounded, and hence \ntheir historical situation. They were diligently searched \nfor historical allusions that might afford clews. But with \nall the pains that were taken no sure footing could be \nfound, and the critics agreed not together. Conjectures \nranged ad libitum through the ages from the time of \nMoses, or his immediate successor, Joshua, to that of \nJosiah, eight centuries later. And while the internal cri- \nteria were so vague, there was no external support on \nwhich the whole hypothesis could rest, no objective \nproof that the entire fabric was not a sheer figment of \nthe imagination. Amid all diversities, however, two \npoints were universally agreed upon, and regarded as \nsettled beyond contradiction : (1) The Elohist was the \ngroundwork of the Pentateuch ; it supplied the scheme \nor general plan, into which the other parts were fitted. \nAnd as it was the oldest, so it was historically the most \nreliable and trustworthy portion. The Jehovist was \n\n\n\n136 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nmore legendary, depending, as it was believed to do, \nupon later and less credible traditions. (2) Deuteronomy \nwas the latest and the crowning portion of the Penta- \nteuch, by the addition of which the whole work was ren- \ndered complete. \n\nDEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS. \n\nHere the Development Hypothesis came in with its \nrevolutionary conclusions. It supplied the felt lack of \nits predecessors by fixing definite dates and offering ob- \njective proof of their correctness. The conclusions de- \nduced from the examination of the Pentateuch itself are \nverified by an appeal to the history. Arguments are \ndrawn, not as heretofore, from the narratives of the Pen- \ntateuch but from its institutions ; not from its historical \nportion but from its laws. The principle of development \nis applied. The simplest forms of legislation are to be \nconsidered the most primitive. As the Israelites devel- \noped in the course of ages from rude nomadic tribes to a \nsettled and well-organized nation, their legislation natu- \nrally grew in complexity and extent. Now the Pentateuch \nobviously contains three distinct codes or bodies of law. \nOne is in Exodus xx.-xxiii. which is called in the original \ntext the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xxiv. 7). This Moses \nis said to have written and read to the assembled people \nat Mount Sinai as the basis of the covenant relation there \nformally ratified between Jehovah and Israel. Another \nis the Deuteronomic Law, which Moses is said to have \nrehearsed to the people in the plains of Moab, shortly \nbefore his death, and to have delivered in writing to the \ncustody of the priests, to be laid up alongside of the ark \nof the covenant (Deut. xxxi. 24-26). A third is the Kitual \nlaw, or Priest code, contained in the later chapters of \nExodus, the book of Leviticus, and certain chapters of \n\n\n\nGENUINENESS OF THE I/AWS 137 \n\nNumbers. This law is declared in the general and in all \nits parts to have been communicated by God to Moses. \n\nThe advocates of this hypothesis, however, take issue \nwith these explicit statements, and affirm that these \ncodes could not have had the origin attributed to them. \nIt is maintained that they are so diverse in character and \nso inconsistent in their provisions that they cannot have \noriginated at any one time or have proceeded from any \none legislator. The Book of the Covenant, from its sim- \nplicity and brevity, must have belonged to an early stage \nin the history of the people. From this there is a great \nadvance in the Deuterononiic code. And the Ritual law, \nor Priest code, is much the most minute and complicated \nof all, and hence the latest in the series. Long periods \nmust have elapsed, and great changes have taken place in \nthe condition of the people to have wrought such changes \nin their institutions. \n\nThe Book of the Covenant makes no mention of a \npriesthood, as a separate order of men alone authorized \nto perform sacred functions. The Deuteronomic code \nspeaks of priests, who are constantly designated " the \npriests, the Levites," from which it is inferred that the \nsacerdotal prerogative inhered in the tribe as such, and \nthat any Levite might be a priest. The Priest code lim- \nits the sacerdotal office to the family of Aaron : other \nLevites were simply their servants and attendants, per- \nforming menial functions at the sanctuary, but not al- \nlowed to offer sacrifice. \n\nIn the Book of the Covenant sacrifices are not regu- \nlated by statute, but are the free, spontaneous gift of the \nofferer unto God, in grateful acknowledgment of the di- \nvine benefits. In Deuteronomy certain kinds of offerings \nare specified, but with no fixed requisition of number \nand quality, and these are to be joyously partaken of by \nthe offerer and his family and friends before the Loed. \n\n\n\n138 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nIn the Levitical code additional kinds of sacrifice are re- \nquired, not mentioned elsewhere, and everything is rigor- \nously fixed by statute \xe2\x80\x94 what particular animal is to be \noffered in each species of sacrifice or on any given occa- \nsion ; its sex .and age, and sometimes even its color ; its \naccompaniments and the precise ceremonies to be ob- \nserved are specified. The whole has become a matter of \nritual, an affair of the priests, who absorb as their per- \nquisites what had previously fed the devotion of the \nofferer. \n\nAll this, and much beside, is urged as indicating the \nprogressive development in the Israelitish institutions \nas represented in these codes, which are hence regarded \nas separated by long intervals of time. The fallacy lies \nin putting asunder what really belongs together. All \nbelong to one comprehensive and harmonious body of \nlaw, though each separate portion has its own particular \ndesign, by which its form and contents are determined. \nThat the Book of the Covenant is so brief and element- \nary in matters of worship is because of its preliminary \ncharacter. It was intended simply to be the basis of \nGod\'s covenant with Israel, not to develop in detail the \nduties growing out of that covenant relation. That Deu- \nteronomy does not contain the minute ceremonial require- \nments to be found in Leviticus is no indication that the \nlatter is the subsequent development of a more ritualistic \nage. It is simply because there was no need of repeat- \ning details which had already been sufficiently enlarged \nupon elsewhere. The Priest code was for the guidance \nof the priests, in conducting the ritual ; Deuteronomy for \nthe people at large, to whom the great lawgiver addressed \nhis earnest warnings and exhortations as he was on the \npoint of being taken from them. The differences and \ndiscrepancies alleged in these laws are for the most part \ncapable of being satisfactorily harmonized. If a few \n\n\n\nGENUINENESS OF THE LAWS 139 \n\npuzzles remain insoluble by us, they are not more than \nmight be expected in matters of so ancient date, so \nforeign from modern ideas and usages and in regard to \nwhich we are so imperfectly informed. If we had more \nknowledge our present difficulties would doubtless vanish, \nas others once considered formidable have long since dis- \nappeared. \n\nThe Book of the Covenant, primitive as it is, neverthe- \nless could not have been enacted in the desert ; for it has \nlaws respecting fields and vineyards and olive-yards and \nstanding grain and grain in shocks (Ex. xxii. 5, 6 ; xxiii. \n11), and offerings of first-fruits (xxii. 29, xxiii. 19), and six \nyears of tillage with a sabbatical year whose spontaneous \nproducts should be for the poor and the beasts of the \nfield (xxiii. 10, 11), and harvest feasts and feasts of in- \ngathering (xxiii.). All these have no application to a \npeople in the desert. They belong to a settled people, \nengaged in agriculture. Such a law, it is alleged, could \nonly have been given after the settlement of the people \nin Canaan. \n\nThe law of Deuteronomy, while greatly expanded be- \nyond the Book of the Covenant in its provisions, has one \nmarked and characteristic feature which serves to define \nthe period to which it belongs. The Book of the Cove- \nnant (Ex. xx. 24), sanctions altars in all places where God \nrecords his name. Deuteronomy, on the other hand (ch. \nxii.), strictly limits the offering of sacrifice to the one \nplace which Jehovah should choose. Now, it is said, the \nperiod of the judges and the early kings is marked by a \nmultiplicity of altars and worship in high places in ac- \ncordance with the Book of the Covenant. But in the \nreign of king Josiah, more than eight hundred years \nafter the settlement in Canaan, the high places were \nabolished and sacrifice was restricted to the altar in Jeru- \nsalem. And this was done in obedience to the require- \n\n\n\n140 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nments of a book of the law then found in the temple (2 \nKin. xxii. 8). That book was Deuteronomy. It was the \nsoul of the entire movement. And this is the period to \nwhich it belongs. \n\nThis new departure, though successful so long as the \npious Josiah lived, spent its force when he was taken \naway ; and under his ungodly successors the people re- \nlapsed again into the worship on high places, the popu- \nlar attachment to which had not been eradicated. This \nwas effectually broken, however, by the Babylonish cap- \ntivity, which severed the people from the spots which \nthey had counted sacred, until all the old associations \nhad faded away. The returning exiles, impoverished and \nfew in number, were bent only on restoring the temple in \nJerusalem, and had no other place at which to worship. \nIt was then and under these circumstances that Ezra \ncame forth with a fresh book of law, adapted to the new \nstate of things, and engaged the people to obedience \n(Neh. viii.). This book, then first produced, was the \nBitual law or the Priest code. It also limits sacrifice to \none place, as was done by Deuteronomy ; but in the lat- \nter this was regarded as a new departure, which it would \nbe difficult to introduce, and which is, therefore, reiter- \nated and insisted upon with great urgency (Deut. xii.). \nIn the Priest code, on the contrary, it is quietly as- \nsumed as a matter of course, as though nothing else was \nthought of, and this had been the established rule from \nthe time of Moses. \n\nIt had been customary for critics to attribute the Priest \ncode to the Elohist, and the Book of the Covenant to the \nJehovist ; so that the former was considered the first, and \nthe latter the second legislation. Graf, who in his fa- \nmous essay on the " Historical Books of the Old Testa- \nment," in 1866, undertook to reverse this order in the man- \nner already indicated, felt it necessary to separate the \n\n\n\nGENUINENESS OF THE LAWS 141 \n\nhistorical from the legal portion of the Elohist document, \nand to maintain that, while the former was the oldest \nportion of the Pentateuch, the latter was the latest. It \nwas promptly shown, however, in opposition to Graf, that \nsuch a separation was impossible. The connection be- \ntween the Elohist histories and the ritual legislation was \ntoo intimate to be severed. Kuenen, Professor in Ley- \nden, then boldly grasped the situation, accepted the \norder of the legislation proposed by Graf, and intrep- \nidly contended, against the unanimous voice of all ante- \ncedent critics, that the entire Elohist document, history \nand legislation, was the latest constituent of the Penta- \nteuch. This reversal of all former beliefs on this subject \nrendered necessary by the Development Hypothesis, met \nat first with determined opposition. It was not until \n1878, seventeen years ago, that Julius Wellhausen as- \nsumed its advocacy in the first volume of his " History of \nIsrael." His skilful presentation won for it a sudden pop- \nularity, and it has since been all the rage in Germany. \nSeventeen years of supremacy in that land of speculation \nis scarcely sufficient, however, to guarantee its permanence \neven there. The history of the past would rather lead \none to expect that in no long time it will be replaced by \nsome fresh novelty. 1 \n\n1 For further details in respect to the history of Pentateuch Criticism \nsee the Nachwort, by Merx, to the second edition of Tuch\'s Commentar \niiber die Genesis, pp. lxxviii.-cxxii. \n\nWellhausen\'s Ubersicht iiber den Fortgang der Pentateuchkritik seit \nBleek\'s Tode in Bleek\'s Einleitung in das Alte Testament, fourth edi- \ntion, pp. 152-178. \n\nKuenen"s Hexateuch (English Translation), Outline of the History of \nthe Criticism of the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua during the last \nQuarter of a Century, pp xi.-xl. \n\nThe following additional works may here be named, which are writ- \nten in the interest of the Development Hypothesis : \n\nKayser : Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte Israels und seine \nErweiterunaren, 1874. \n\n\n\n142 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nThis reversal of the order of the Elohist and the Jeho- \nvist at once put an end to the Supplement Hypothesis. \n\nWellhausen : Die Composition des Hexateuchs, in the JahrMcher fur \nDeutsche Theologie, 1876 and 1877 ; also reprinted separately in his \nSkizzen und Vorarbeiten, vol. ii. \n\nReuss : Geschichte der h\'eiligen Schriften des Alten Testaments, 1881. \n\nCornill : Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1891. \n\nHolzinger : Einleitung in den Hexateuch, 1893. \n\nWildeboer : Die Litteratur des Alten Testaments, 1895. \n\nThe latest form of the partition of Genesis adopted by this school of \ncritics is very conveniently exhibited to the eye by a diversity of type \nin Kantzsch und Socin, Die Genesis mit ausserer Unterscheidung der \nQuellenschriften, second edition, 1891. This is reproduced for English \nreaders, in a diversity of colors, in Dr. E. C. Bissell\'s Genesis Printed in \nColors, showing the original sources from which it is supposed to have \nbeen compiled, 1892. In B. W. Bacon\'s The Genesis of Genesis, 1892, \nthe supposed documents are first indicated by a diversity of type, and \nthen each is in addition printed separately. \n\nThis hypothesis is antagonized by Dillmann, in his Commentaries on \nthe Pentateuch and Joshua, in one of its main positions, that the Priest \ncode was posterior to Deuteronomy. \n\nIt was still more decidedly opposed by \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nD. Hoffmann in a series of articles in the Magazin fur die Wissen- \nschaft des Judenthums, 1876-1880. \n\nFranz Delitzsch in articles in Luthardt\'s Zeitschrift fur Kirchliche \nWissenschaft und Leben, 1880, 1882. \n\nBredenkamp : Gesetz und Propheten, 1881. \n\nF. E. Konig : Die Hauptprobleme der israelitischen Religions \ngeschichte, 1884. \n\nE. Konig : Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1893. \nAlso on still more thoroughly evangelical ground by \xe2\x80\x94 \nA. Zahn : Das Deuteronominm. \n\nE. Rupprecht ; Das Ratsel des Fiinfbuches Mose und seine falsche \nLosung, 1894. Des Ratsels Losung, 1895. \n\nThis hypothesis was introduced to the English public and advocated \nby- \n\nW. Robertson Smith in several articles in the Encyclopedia Britan- \nnica, and in The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 1881 ; second \nedition, 1892. \n\nS. R. Driver : An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testa- \nment, 1891. \n\nC. A. Briggs : The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, 1893. \n\nAmong the replies made to it in Great Britain may be named \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nR. Watts : The Newer Criticism and the Analogy of the Faith. \n\n\n\nGENUINENESS OF THE LAWS 143 \n\nFor the Jehovist could not have made additions to the \nElohist document if that document did not come into \nexistence until centuries after his time. It thus became \nnecessary to assume that the Jehovist passages, however \nisolated and fragmentary, constituted a separate docu- \nment ; and the continuity was made out, as proposed by \nHupfeld, by using scattered clauses torn from their con- \nnection to bridge the chasms. The second Elohist of \nHupfeld also became a necessity, though now supposed \nto antedate the first. The passages in the patriarchal \nhistory alluded to by Hosea and other early prophets \nmust be eliminated from the Elohist document before \nthis can be reckoned postesilic. The great bulk of the \nhistory is accordingly made over to the second Elohist, \nand so this argument of early date is evaded. In this \nmanner the way is smoothed for turning all former con- \nDeuteronomy the People\'s Book, its Origin and Nature (by J. Sime, \nEsq. , published anonymously). \n\nJ. Sime, Esq. : The History of All-Israel. \n\nA. Cave : The Inspiration of the Pentateuch, inductively considered. \n\nBishop Ellicott : Christus Comprobator. \n\nJ. Robertson : The Early Religion of Israel (Baird Lecture for 1889). \n\nLex Mosaica, or the Law of Moses and the Higher Criticism (Essays \nby various writers), edited by R. V. French, 1894. \n\nThe following may be mentioned among those that have appeared in \nAmerica : \n\nE. C. Bissell : The Pentateuch, its Origin and Structure, 1885. \nG. Vos : The Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuchal Codes, 1886. \nC. M. Mead : Christ and Criticism. \n\nEssays on Pentateuchal Criticism, by various writers, edited by T. W. \nChambers. 1888. \n\nAnti-Higher Criticism (articles by various writers), edited by L. W. \nMunhall. 1894. \n\nT. E. Schmauk : The Negative Criticism and the Old Testament, 1894. \n\nF. R. Beattie : Radical Criticism, 1895. \n\nW. H. Green : Moses and the Prophets. 1883. The Hebrew Feasts \nin their Relation to Recent Critical Hypotheses, 1885. \n\nThe following able work in defence of the authorship of Moses and in \nopposition to the development hypothesis has recently appeared in Hol- \nland : Hoedemaker, De Mozaische Oorsprong van de Wetten iu Exodus, \nLeviticus en Nunieri, 1895. , , \n\n\n\n144 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nceptions of the critics regarding the formation of the \nPentateuch upside down. The Elohim document, from \nbeing the oldest and most reliable, becomes the latest \nand the least trustworthy. It is even charged that its \nfacts are manufactured for a purpose ; that the author \nmakes statements not because he has evidence of their \ntruth, but because they correspond with his ideas of \nwhat ought to have occurred, and what he therefore \nimagines must have occurred. Instead of representing \nthe Mosaic age as it really was he gives, as Dr. Driver \nexpresses it (" Literature of the O. T.," p. 120), " an ideal \npicture " of it. \n\nSCRIPTURAL STATEMENTS. \n\nIt has already been remarked, as is indeed obvious \nupon its face, that the Development Hypothesis flatly \ncontradicts throughout the account which the Pentateuch \ngives of itself. The laws are all explicitly declared to \nhave been Mosaic, to have been written down by Moses, \nor to have been communicated to him directly from the \nLord. And there is no good reason for discrediting the \nbiblical statements on this subject. The three codes be- \nlong precisely where the Scripture narrative places them, \nand they are entirely appropriate in that position. The \nelementary character of the Book of the Covenant is ex- \nplained not by its superior antiquity, but by its prelimi- \nnary purpose. It was a brief body of regulations intended \nto serve as a basis for the formal ratification of the cove- \nnant between Jehovah and the people of Israel. Accord- \ningly all that was required was a few simple and com- \nprehensive rules, framed in the spirit of the religion of \nJehovah, for the government of the people in their rela- \ntions to one another and in their relation to God, to \nwhich in a solemn act of worship they were to pledge \nassent. After this fundamental act had been duly per- \n\n\n\nGENUINENESS OF THE LAWS 145 \n\nformed, and the covenant relation had thns been insti- \ntuted and acknowledged by both the contracting parties \nthe way was open for a fuller development of the duties \nand obligations involved in this relation. Jehovah as \nthe covenant God of Israel would henceforth take up his \nabode in the midst of his people. This made it neces- \nsary that detailed instructions should be given, for which \nthere was no occasion before, respecting the construction \nof the sacred Tabernacle, the services to be performed in \nit, the officiating priesthood, the set times for special \nsolemnities, and in general the entire ritual to be ob- \nserved by a holy people for the expression and perpetu- \nation of their communion with a holy God. All this was \nembodied in the Priest code, in which the scanty general \nprovisions of the Book of the Covenant regarding divine \nworship were replaced by a vastly expanded and minutely \nspecified ceremonial. This was not a development imply- \ning the lapse of ages with an altered civilization and a cor- \nresponding advance in the popular notions of the Divine \nBeing, and of the homage that should be paid to him. \n\nAt the close of the forty years\' wandering, when the \ngreat legislator was about to die, he recapitulated in the \naudience of the people the laws already given in the Book \nof the Covenant, with such modifications and additions as \nwere suggested by the circumstances in which they were \nplaced, the experience of the past, and the prospects of \nthe immediate future. The Deuteronomic code thus en- \nacted Avas a development, not as the Priest code had \nbeen, on the side of the ritual, but considered as a code \nfor popular guidance in civil and religious matters. The \nenlargement, which we here find, of the simple regula- \ntions of the Book of the Covenant implies no longer in- \nterval and no greater change in the condition or consti- \ntution of the people than is provided for in the Scripture \nnarrative. And at the same time the fact that we do not \n10 \n\n\n\n146 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nfind in Deuteronomy a ritual so elaborate and minutely \ndetailed as in Leviticus, is not because Leviticus is the \nfurther development of a still later period, when cere- \nmonies were more multiplied and held in higher esteem, \nbut simply because Leviticus was a professional book, \nand Deuteronomy was a popular book. Leviticus was \nfor the guidance of the priests who were professionally \ncharged with the oversight and direction of the cere- \nmonial, and Deuteronomy for the guidance of the people \nin matters more immediately within their province. \nMedical works for the instruction of physicians must \nnecessarily be more minute than sanitary rules for popu- \nlar use. And if it would be absurd to say that the same \neminent physician could not produce both a professional \nand a popular treatise on medicine, it is equally so to in- \nsist, as the critics do, that Deuteronomy and Leviticus \ncannot both be from the same age and the same legislator. \nIt is further to be observed that the agricultural allu- \nsions in the Book of the Covenant are not in conflict with \nits Mosaic origin, and its delivery at Sinai. The people \nwere on their way to Canaan. This land had been prom- \nised to their fathers, and the Lord had renewedly prom- \nised to give it to them. It was with this expectation \nthat they left Egypt. For this they were marching \nthrough the desert. Canaan was their anticipated home, \nthe goal of their hopes. They confidently trusted that \nthey would soon be settled there in full possession. \nThat there was to be even so much as a delay of forty \nyears, and that the entire adult generation was to pass \naway before this hope was fulfilled, never entered the \nmind of the leader or the people ; since neither could \nhave imagined such an act of gross rebellion as that for \nwhich they were sentenced to perish in the wilderness. \nIt would have been strange, indeed, if the law given under \nthese circumstances did not look beyond the desert as \n\n\n\nGENUINENESS OF THE LAWS 147 \n\ntheir abode, and took no note of what was in immediate \nprospect. It was quite appropriate for it to contemplate \ntheir expected life in Canaan, and to give regulations \nrespecting the fields and vineyards and olive yards, \nwhich they were shortly to possess. \n\nNO DISCREPANCY. \n\nAnd there is no such difference as is pretended be- \ntween the Book of the Covenant and the other Mosaic \ncodes in respect to the place of legitimate sacrifice. It \nis not true that the former sanctioned a multiplicity of \naltars, and that this was the recognized practice of pious \nworshippers of Jehovah until the reign of Josiah, and \nthat he instituted a new departure from all previous law \nand custom by restricting sacrifice to one central altar in \ncompliance with a book of the law then for the first time \npromulgated. The unity of the altar was the laAv of \nIsrael\'s life from the beginning. Even in the days of \nthe patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, no such thing \nwas known as separate rival sanctuaries for the worship \nof Jehovah, coexisting in various parts of the land. They \nbuilt altars and offered sacrifice in whatever part of the \nland they might be, particularly in places where Jehovah \nappeared to them. But the patriarchal family was a \nunit, and while they worshipped in different places suc- \ncessively in the course of their migrations, they never- \ntheless worshipped in but one place at a time. They \ndid not offer sacrifice contemporaneously on different al- \n. tars. So with Israel in their marches through the wilder- \nness. They set up their altar wherever they encamped, \nat various places successively, but not in more than one \nplace at the same time. This is the state of things which \nis recognized and made legitimate in the Book of the \nCovenant. In Exodus xx. 2-4, the Israelites are author- \n\n\n\n148 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nized to erect an altar, not wherever they may please, \nbut " in all places where God records his name." The \ncritics interpret this as a direct sanction given to various \nsanctuaries in different parts of Palestine. There is no \nfoundation whatever for such an interpretation. There \nis not a word here nor anywhere in Scripture, from which \nthe legitimacy of the multitudinous sanctuaries of a later \ntime can be inferred. An altar is lawful, and sacrifice \nupon it acceptable, and God will there meet with his \npeople and bless them only where he records his name ; \nnot where men may utter his name, whether by invoca- \ntion or proclamation, but where God reveals or manifests \nhimself. He manifested himself gloriously on Sinai amid \nawful indications of his presence. This was Moses\'s \nwarrant for building an altar there (Ex. xxiv. 4). When \nthe tabernacle was erected, and the ark deposited in it as \nthe abiding symbol of the divine presence, that became \nthe spot where God recorded his name, and to which all \nsacrifices were to be brought (Lev. xvii. 5). So that \nwherever the tabernacle or the ark was stationed, an altar \nmight properly be erected and sacrifices offered. \n\nAnd Deuteronomy xii. looks forward to the time when \nIsrael should be permanently settled in the land which \nJehovah their God was giving them to inherit, and he \nshould have given them rest from all their enemies round \nabout so that they should dwell in safety ; then he would \nchoose a place out of all their tribes to put his name \nthere, and that should thenceforth be his habitation and \nthe sole place of legitimate sacrifice. These conditions \nwere not fulfilled until the peaceful reign of Solomon, \nwho by divine direction built the temple as Jehovah\'s \npermanent abode. Here the Most High placed his name \nby filling it with his effulgent glory at its dedication, and \nthenceforward this was the one place whither the people \nwent up to meet with God and worship him by sacrifice ; \n\n\n\nGENUINENESS OF THE LAWS 149 \n\nthither they directed their prayers, and from his holy hill \nof Zion God sent forth his help and his salvation. \n\nThere is thus the most entire concord between the sev- \neral codes in regard to the place of sacrifice. It was from \nthe beginning limited to the place of divine manifestation. \nAs this manifestation was on all ordinary occasions re- \nstricted first to the Mosaic tabernacle, and then to the \ntemple of Solomon, the language of the Book of the \nCovenant no less than that of the Levitical and Deuter- \nonomic codes demanded that sacrifice should ordinarily \nbe restricted to these sacred edifices. Only the Book of \nthe Covenant, which lays down the primal and universal \nlaw of the Hebrew altar, is wider in its scope, inasmuch \nas it embraces those extraordinary occasions likewise for \nwhich there was no need to make express provision in \nthe other codes. If God manifested himself by an imme- \ndiate and supernatural appearance elsewhere than at the \nsanctuary, that spot became, not permanently indeed, \nbut so long as the manifestation lasted, holy ground, and \na place of legitimate sacrifice. And on the other hand, \nif the Most High at any time withdrew his ordinary pres- \nence from the sanctuary, as when the ark was captured \nby the Philistines, the sanctuary ceased to be the place \nwhere God recorded his name, the restriction of sacrifice \nto that spot was, ipso facto, for the time abolished ; and \nin the absence of any definite provision for the regular seat \nof God\'s worship, the people were left to offer sacrifice as \nbest they might. To the extent of these two exceptional \ncases the Book of the Covenant is more comprehensive \nthan the other codes. But it lends no sanction what- \never to that irregular and unregulated worship which \nthe critics would make it cover. \n\nAfter the capture of the ark, and during the period of \nits seclusion in a private house which followed, the wor- \nship on high places had a certain sort of legitimacy from \n\n\n\n150 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nthe exigencies of the situation, as is expressly stated (1 \nKin. iii. 2) ; as it had also at a later period in the apostate \nkingdom of Israel, where the pious among the people \nwere restrained from going to the house of God in Jeru- \nsalem. But apart from these exceptional cases worship \nat other altars than that at the sanctuary was in violation \nof the express statute. \n\nALLEGED VIOLATIONS OP THE LAW. \n\nThe critics argue the non-existence of the law from its \nrepeated violation. It is claimed that the history shows \nthat the laws of the Pentateuch were not in fact obeyed : \nwhence it is inferred that no such laws were then known. \nIt is admitted, of course, that there were numerous de- \npartures from God and repeated open violations or con- \ntinued neglect of his laws. The history records such in- \nstances again and again, but it brands them in every \ncase as wilful transgressions against God and his known \nlaw. It does not follow from the perpetration of murder \nand theft that such acts were not regarded as criminal, \nnor that the sixth and eighth commandments were un- \nknown. When it is over and over charged that the \npeople forsook the Lord and worshipped Baal and Ash- \ntaroth, this can be explained in no other way than as \nan apostasy from Jehovah to these foreign deities. For \nif there is anything that is obvious, it is that Jehovah \nwas Israel\'s God from the beginning. Such open de- \nclensions from the true God have no bearing, therefore, \non the present subject. They were plain offences against \nknown and acknowledged obligation. \n\nBut it is affirmed that good men at different periods \nacted habitually at variance with the requirement of the \nritual laws without incurring censure and apparently \nwithout being sensible that they were doing wrong or \ntransgressing any commandment. \n\n\n\nGENUINENESS OF THE LAWS 151 \n\nThus, while the law required that sacrifices should be \noffered only at the sanctuary and only by priests, the \nsons of Aaron, repeated mention is made of sacrifices \nbeing offered to the Lord, and, so far as appears, with ac- \nceptance, though it was elsewhere than at the sanctuary, \nand the offerer was not a descendant of Aaron. Thus \nthe children of Israel offered sacrifice at Bochini (Judg. \nii. 5), in a penitential spirit when rebuked for their neg- \nlects of duty by the angel of the Lord. Gideon built \ntwo altars in Ophrah and offered a bullock upon one of \nthem to the Lord (Judg. vi. 21-27). Manoah offered a \nkid in sacrifice upon a rock to the Lord (Judg. xiii. 19). \nThis it is said, is in direct violation of the law of Deuter- \nonomy xii. 6, 13, 11, Xumbers xviii. 7, though it accords \nwith the prescriptions of the Book of the Covenant, which \nrecognizes no separate order of priests, and permits sacri- \nfices (Ex. xx. 21), in all places where the Lord records his \nname. It is hence inferred that the laws of Deuteronomy \nand the Priest code were not in existence, but only the \nBook of the Covenant. \n\nIt has already been shown, however, that there is no \nvariance between these laws in respect to the place of \nsacrifice ; and the Aaronic priesthood was not yet insti- \ntuted when the Book of the Covenant was framed. The \nsacrifices at Bochim, and those that were offered by \nGideon and Manoah are readily accounted for by the ex- \ntraordinary circumstances that called them forth. On all \nordinary occasions the sanctuary was the place for sacri- \nficial worship and this was to be offered only by the \npriests, who were specially charged with this service. \nBut when God manifestecL^himself in an extraordinary \nmanner in any place remote from the tabernacle, that \nplace became for the time a sanctuary, and the person \nto whom he thus manifested himself became for the time \na priest. The special prerogative of the priest is that he \n\n\n\n152 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nis authorized to "come near" unto God, Num. iii. 10, \nxvi. 5, 40, Ezek. xliv. 15, 16 ; lie, to whom God visibly ap- \npears and thus brings him near to himself, is accordingly \ninvested temporarily with a sacerdotal character. God \nmust be worshipped wherever he appeared, and by \nwhomsoever he honored by such special manifestation. \nAccordingly, whenever throughout the book of Judges \nthe Loed or the angel of the Lord appeared to men, \nthey offered sacrifice on the spot ; and no sacrifices were \noffered elsewhere than at the sanctuary or by any other \nthan a priest, except upon the occasion of such a special \nmanifestation of the divine presence. \n\nIt is further to be observed that sacrifices might be \noffered anywhere in the presence of the ark of the cove- \nnant. The ark was the symbol of the Lord\'s presence. \nIt was the ark in the tabernacle which made the latter a \nholy place. And when the ark was taken from the tab- \nernacle, it was still the throne of God, who dwelt between \nthe cherubim. "Wherever the ark was, there was the sym- \nbol of God\'s presence ; and hence when the ark was \npresent at Bethel (Judg. xx. 26, 27), or when it came \nback from the Philistines to Beth-shemesh (1 Sam. vi. \n14), sacrifices were offered to the Lord. And so when \nDavid was transporting the ark to Zion, oxen and fatlings \nwere sacrificed before it (2 Sam. vi. 13). \n\nBut we find the prophet Samuel offering sacrifice (1 \nSam. vii. 9, 17) away from the ark and the tabernacle, \nand without any special divine manifestation having been \nmade. This was again because of the peculiar circum- \nstances of the case. In consequence of the sins of Eli\'s \nsons, and in general the wickedness of both priests and \npeople, God suffered the sacred ark to be taken captive \nby the Philistines. The removal of the symbol of his \npresence was significant of God\'s forsaking Shiloh and \nforsaking his people (Ps. lxxviii. 59-61, 67, 68 ; Jer. vii. \n\n\n\nGENUINENESS OF THE LAWS 153 \n\n12; xxvi. 6, 9). The Philistines were compelled by the \nheavy plagues sent upon them to return the ark. But \nthe ark was not taken back to Shiloh, which the Lord \nhad so signally rejected as his abode. It was hid away \nin the seclusion of a private house until the favor of \nthe Lord should again return to his people. God had \nabandoned the sanctuary, and there was thenceforth no \nlegitimate sanctuary in Israel until the ark was taken to \nZion and the Lord chose that for his abode. During \nthis period, when Israel was without a divinely sanctioned \nsanctuary, Samuel, as God\'s prophet and representative, \nby divine authority, assumed the functions of the de- \ngenerate priesthood, and sacrifices were offered on high \nplaces. This state of things continued, as we are told \n(1 Kin. iii. 2), until the temple of Solomon was built, \nwhen that became God\'s dwelling-place ; and as that was \nthe spot which God had chosen to place his name there, \n(1 Kin. viii. 29), it henceforth was the only lawful place of \nsacrifice. We do indeed read after that of offerings made \non high places, but they were illegal and were regarded \nas such, and pious princes endeavored to suppress them, \nwith varying success, until at last Hezekiah, and more \neffectually still, Josiah, succeeded in abolishing them. \n\nIt is confessed, accordingly, that sacrifices were in \nrepeated instances offered elsewhere than at the sanctu- \nary; but whether these were justified by extraordinary \ncircumstances, or whether they were irregular and con- \ndemned as such, they cannot disprove the existence of \nthe law restricting sacrifice to one common altar in all \nordinary cases. \n\nIt has been maintained on such grounds as have now \nbeen recited, that the law of Deuteronomy was unknown \nuntil the time of king Josiah ; that the worship on high \nplaces continued until his reign \xe2\x80\x94 that the prophetic and \npriestly party then became convinced in consequence of \n\n\n\n154 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OE THE PENTATEUCH \n\nthe idolatrous taint which infected the worship on high \nplaces, and the abuses and excesses prevalent there that \nthe purity of religion demanded that they should be \nabolished and sacrifice restricted to the temple at Jeru- \nsalem. Accordingly the book of Deuteronomy, which \nstrenuously insists upon the overthrow of the high places \nand the confining of sacrifice to the place which the Lord \nshould choose, was prepared with the view of legalizing \nthis measure and paving the way for its enforcement. \nThis was attributed to Moses in order to give it a higher \nsanction. A copy was deposited in the temple, where it \nwas found, as it was intended that it should be, by Hil- \nkiah, the high-priest, and taken to the king, who carried \nthe projected reform into effect (2 Kin. xxii. 8 ff.). Others, \nwho are more reverential, seek to explain the discovery \nof the book and its enforcement as the work of Mosses \nwithout involving fraud, but with very indifferent suc- \ncess. \n\nThe Priest code, it is alleged, is later still. That was \nthe work of Ezra, and was prepared with reference to the \nneeds of the period after the exile, and the ritualistic \nspirit which then prevailed. This is the book of the law \nproduced by Ezra the scribe and read to the people, as \nrecorded in Nehemiah viii., to which they solemnly en- \ngaged to render obedience. This code, however, it is con- \ntended, was not complete even in the days of Ezra. Ad- \nditions were subsequently made to it, and continued to be \nmade for some time thereafter. The day of atonement is \nnot mentioned in either Ezra or Nehemiah, and its pecul- \niar services were introduced at a later date. The altar \nof incense, with the special sacredness attached to the \noffering of incense, indicates, it is said, one of the later \nstrata of the Priest code. And from some peculiarities in \nthe Greek and Samaritan text of the description of the \nMosaic tabernacle, it is confidently affirmed that changes \n\n\n\nGENUINENESS OF THE LAWS 155 \n\nand alterations in the Hebrew text continued to be made \nuntil after the time when those versions were prepared. \n\nThis whole theory of the successive origin and gradual \ngrowth of the different codes of the Pentateuchal law is \nnot only directly in the face of the explicit statements of \nthe Pentateuch itself, but is utterly inconsistent with the \nhistory on which it is professedly based. Both the book \nfound in the temple in the reign of Josiah and that \nbrought forward and read by Ezra after the exile, are \nexpressly declared to have been not recent productions \nbut the law of Moses. The assumption that laws were \nfraudulently attributed to the great legislator is gratui- \ntous and without foundation. The idea that such a fraud \ncould be successfully perpetrated is preposterous. It is \nutterly out of the question that a body of laws never \nbefore heard of could be imposed upon the people as \nthough they had been given by Moses centuries before, \nand that they could have been accepted and obeyed by \nthem, notwithstanding the fact that they imposed new \nand serious burdens, set aside established usages to \nwhich the people were devotedly attached, and conflicted \nwith the interests of numerous and powerful classes of \nthe people. And it further involves the incongruity of \nassuming that three codes, which were at variance in \ntheir provisions, the first having been superseded by the \nsecond, and the second in turn superseded by the third, \ncame subsequently to be regarded as entirely harmoni- \nous, and as one body of law which had been united from \nthe beginning and was all alike obligatory. \n\nMy friend, Professor Zenos, of McCormick Theologi- \ncal Seminary, has directed my attention to the following \nsignal instance in modern times of the total oblivion of a \nnoted code of laws previously in force. It is thus de- \nscribed by Sir J. Stephen in his " Lectures on the History \nof France," Lecture IV., p. 94 : " When the barbarism of \n\n\n\n156 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nthe domestic government (under the Carlovingian dynasty) \nhad thus succeeded the barbarism of the government of \nthe state, one of the most remarkable results of that po- \nlitical change was the disappearance of the laws and insti- \ntutions by which Charlemagne had endeavored to elevate \nand civilize his subjects. Before the close of the century \nin which he died the whole body of his laws had fallen \ninto utter disuse throughout the whole extent of his \nGallic dominions. They who have studied the charters, \nlaws, and chronicles of the later Carlovingian princes \nmost diligently are unanimous in declaring that they \nindicate either an absolute ignorance or an entire forget- \nfulness of the legislation of Charlemagne." Will the \ncritics apply the same rule to Charlemagne that they do \nto Moses, and infer that he never gave the laws attributed \nto him ? \n\n\n\nVI \n\n\n\nTHE BEARING OF THE DIVISIVE CRITICISM ON THE \nCREDIBILITY OF THE PENTATEUCH AND ON SU- \nPERNATURAL RELIGION \n\nIt is noteworthy that the partition hypotheses in all \ntheir forms have been elaborated from the beginning in \nthe interest of unbelief. The unfriendly animus of an \nopponent does not indeed absolve us from patiently and \ncandidly examining his arguments, and accepting what- \never facts he may adduce, though we are not bound to \nreceive his perverted interpretation of them. Neverthe- \nless we cannot intelligently nor safely overlook the palpa- \nble bias against the supernatural which has infected the \ncritical theories which we have been reviewing, from first \nto last. All the acknowledged leaders of the movement \nhave, without exception, scouted the reality of miracles \nand prophecy and immediate divine revelation in their \ngenuine and evangelical sense. Their theories are all \ninwrought with naturalistic presuppositions, which can- \nnot be disentangled from them without their falling to \npieces. Evangelical scholars in Germany, as elsewhere, \nsteadfastly opposed these theories, refuted the arguments \nadduced in their support, and exposed their malign ten- \ndencies. It is only recently that there has been an at- \ntempt at compromise on the part of certain believing \nscholars, who are disposed to accept these critical the- \nories and endeavor to harmonize them with the Christian \nfaith. But the inherent vice in these systems cannot be \neradicated. The inevitable result has been to lower the \n\n\n\n158 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nChristian faith to the level of these perverted theories \ninstead of lifting the latter up to the level of a Christian \nstandard. \n\nCREDIBILITY UNDERMINED. \n\nAccording to the critical hypothesis, even in the most \nmoderate hands, the situation is this : The Pentateuch, \ninstead of being one continuous and self-consistent his- \ntory from the pen of Moses, is made up of four distinct \ndocuments which have been woven together, but which \nthe critics claim that they are able to separate and re- \nstore, as far as the surviving remnants of each permit, to \ntheir original condition. These severally represent the \ntraditions of the Mosaic age as they existed six, eight, \nand ton centuries after the Exodus. 1 When these are \ncompared they are found to be in perpetual conflict. \nEvents wear an entirely different complexion in one from \nthat which they have in another; the characters of those \nwho appear in them, the motives by which they are actu- \nated, and the whole impression of the period in which \nthey live is entirely different. \n\nIt is very evident from all this why the critics tell us \nthat the doctrine of inspiration must be modified. If \nthese Pentateuchal documents, as they describe them, \nwere inspired, it must have been in a very peculiar sense. \nIt is not a question of inerrancy, but of wholesale mutual \ncontradiction which quite destroys their credit as truthful \nhistories. And these contradictions, be it observed, are \nnot in the Pentateuch itself, but result from the mangling \nand the mal-interpretations to which it has been sub- \njected by the critics. \n\nOn the critical hypothesis the real facts of the history \n\n1 J and E are commonly referred to the eighth or ninth century B.C.; \nD to the reign of Josiah or shortly before it ; P to the period after the \nBabylonish exile. \n\n\n\nTHE BEAEHSTG OF THE DIVISIVE CRITICISM 159 \n\nare not what they seem to be to the ordinary reader. \nThey can only be elicited by an elaborate critical process. \nThe several documents must first be disentangled and \ncarefully compared ; the points in which they agree and \nthose in which they differ must be noted. And from this \nconflicting mass of testimony the critic must ascertain, as \nbest he may, how much can be relied upon as true, how \nmuch has a certain measure of probability, and how much \nmust be rejected altogether. \n\nAnother element of precariousness enters into the criti- \ncal attempts to distinguish what is reliable from what is \nnot, in the Pentateuchal narratives. By the confession \nof the critics themselves, and by the necessity of their \nhypothesis, the documents which they fancy that they \nhave discovered are by no means complete. By singling \nout the paragraphs and clauses which are regarded as \nbelonging to each of the documents severall}\', and putting \nthem together, they undertake the reconstruction of the \noriginal documents, which are supposed in the first in- \nstance to have circulated separately as distinct and in- \ndependent publications, but to have been subsequently \nfused together into the Pentateuch, as we now possess it, \nby a series of redactors. First, the two oldest docu- \nments, J and E, were combined, and the combination \nwas effected, it is supposed, by the following method : \nsections or paragraphs, longer or shorter, were taken \nalternately from J and from E, and pieced together so \nas to form one continuous narrative. It was the purpose \nof the redactor to make the best use that he possibly \ncould of these two sources at his command in preparing \na history of the period of which they treat. In some \ncases he made full extracts from both his sources of all \nthat they contained, and preserved the language of each \nunaltered, making no additions or modifications of his \nown. Frequently, however, it was necessary to adjust \n\n\n\n160 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nwhat was thus taken from different works, in order to \nmake it read smoothly, or to render it harmonious. \nHence, upon occasion he introduced explanatory remarks, \nor made such changes as seemed to be required in what \nhe borrowed from J or from E. Sometimes his sources \nwere so nearly parallel that it would lead to needless \nrepetition to use them both. In such cases, accordingly, \nhe confined himself to the account given in one of the \ndocuments, either omitting the \'corresponding statements \nof the other altogether, or weaving in a clause or a sen- \ntence here and there when it seemed to him distinctive \nand important. Again, cases occur in which the narra- \ntives of J and E were in real or apparent conflict. Here \nhe does the best that he can. He either undertakes to \nharmonize their accounts, where this is possible, by in- \nserting some statement which seems to reconcile them, \nby so changing the order of the narrative as to relieve \nthe difficulty, or by converting inconsistent accounts of \nthe same event into two different transactions. Where \nnone of these methods is practicable, and reconciliation \nis out of the question, the redactor adheres to one of his \nsources and disregards the other. \n\nD, which was composed some time after this union of \nJE, existed for a while as an independent work, and was \nthen combined with JE by a new redactor, who, besides \nattaching D to this previously existing work, retouched \nJE in several places, and introduced a number of pas- \nsages from his own point of view, which was different \nfrom that of the older historians. \n\nFinally the document P was prepared, at first as a \nseparate publication, but at length it was interwoven by \na third redactor with the pre-existing triplicate treatise \nJED, the process being substantially the same as has \nalready been described in the case of JE. \n\nThis is in general the method by which the critics sup- \n\n\n\nTHE BEARING OF THE DIVISIVE CRITICISM 161 \n\npose that the Pentateuch was gradually brought to its \npresent form. It will be seen at a glance how the com- \nplexity of the critical problem is increased by the succes- \nsive editorial labors which are supposed to have been \nbrought into requisition in the course of the construction \nof the Pentateuch. The several documents must not only \nbe distinguished from each other, but also from the vari- \nous redactional additions and insertions which have at \nany time been made. \n\nLet us assume that this delicate and difficult analysis \nhas been effected with unfailing accuracy notwithstand- \ning the liabilities to error vitiating the result, which in- \ncrease at every step. But waiving this, what is the situa- \ntion when the analysis has been accomplished ? and what \nis its bearing upon the historical character of the Penta- \nteuch ? \n\nThe critics have undertaken to reproduce for us the \ndocuments J, E, D, and P, which are our primary sources \nfor both the Mosaic and the patriarchal history, and \nwhich date respectively six, eight, and ten centuries after \nthe Exodus. These documents are not only at variance \nwith each other in their statements respecting numerous \nparticulars, thus invalidating each other\'s testimony and \nshowing that the traditions which they have severally \nfollowed are mutually inconsistent ; but they are besides \nvery incomplete. Numerous gaps and omissions occur \nin each. Matter which they once contained, as is evident \nfrom allusions still found in them, is now missing ; how \nmuch it is impossible to tell. \n\nBut what is more serious, the parts that yet remain \nhave been manipulated by the various redactors. The \norder of events has been disturbed ; events really distinct \nhave been confused and mistaken for one and the same ; \nand narratives of the same event have been mistaken for \nevents altogether distinct ; statements which are mislead- \n11 \n\n\n\n162 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\ning have been inserted with the view of harmonizing \nwhat cannot in fact be reconciled ; when traditions vary, \ninstead of being recorded in their integrity to afford some \nopportunity of ascertaining the truth by comparison, \nthey have either been mingled together, thus disturbing \nboth, or one only has been preserved, thus leaving no \ncheck upon its inaccuracies. All this and more, the \ncritics tell us, the several redactors have done with their \nmaterials. No charge is made of dishonest intentions. \nBut surely it is most unfortunate for the historical value \nof their work. There is no way of ascertaining how far \nthese materials have been warped from their proper orig- \ninal intent by the well-meant but mistaken efforts of the \nredactors to correct or to harmonize them. That their \nmeaning has been seriously altered in repeated instances, \nwhich are pointed out by the critics, creates a very \nnatural presumption that like changes have been freely \nmade elsewhere which can now no longer be detected. \n\nIt is difficult to understand in what sense the redac- \ntors, whose work has been described, can be said to have \nbeen inspired. They certainly had no inspiration which \npreserved them from error, or even from making the \ngravest historical mistakes. They had no such inspira- \ntion as gives any divine attestation to their work. The \nPentateuchal history gathers no confirmation from having \npassed through their hands. \n\nUpon the theory of the most conservative of the divi- \nsive critics, for it is this with which we have been deal- \ning, what dependence can be placed upon the historical \nstatements of the Pentateuch ? These are, as they allege, \ninaccurate and inconsistent with themselves not in the \npatriarchal period merely, but throughout the lifetime of \nMoses, when the foundation was laid of the Old Testa- \nment religion and those signal miracles were wrought \nwhich gave it undeniable divine sanction. The real facts \n\n\n\nTHE BEARING OF THE DIVISIVE CRITICISM 163 \n\nare not those which appear upon the surface. They can \nonly be elicited by an elaborate critical process which \nshall detect and remove the mistaken additions and at- \ntempted emendations of each of the redactors, and shall \nthen restore the four documents to their pristine condi- \ntion, so far as what remains of each will allow. This \nAvill put the critic in possession of a mutilated record of \nfour variant traditions of the Mosaic age, as these existed \nsix, eight, and ten centuries after that date. And now it \nis by the help of such materials in the way of compar- \nison, correction, and elimination that he must sift out \nand ascertain the real facts. Must we not say that \nthe history of the Mosaic age, if this be the only way \nof arriving at it, rests upon a quicksand? and that \nnothing of any consequence can be certainly known re- \ngarding it ? \n\nHere is no question merely of the strict inerrancy of \nScripture, of absolute accuracy in unimportant minutiae, \nof precision in matters of science. This is not the issue \nraised by the theorizing of that class of biblical critics \nwith which we contend. And it is no mere question of \nthe mode of inspiration. But it is the question whether \nany dependence can be placed upon the historical truth \nof the Bible ; whether our confidence in the facts re- \ncorded in the Pentateuch rests upon any really trust- \nworthy basis ; facts, be it observed, not of mere scientific \nor antiquarian interest, but which mark the course of \nGod\'s revelations to the patriarchs and to Moses. It is the \ncertainty of facts which are vital to the religion of the Old \nTestament, and the denial of whose truth weakens the \nfoundations on which the New Testament itself is built. \nThe critical theory which we have been examining is de- \nstructive of all rational certainty of the reality of these \ntruths ; and thus tends to overturn the historical basis of \nthe religion of the Bible. \n\n\n\n164 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \nUNFRIENDLY TO REVEALED RELIGION \n\nIt is no merely literary question, then, which this style \nof criticism raises. It is not simply whether the Penta- \nteuch was written by one author or another, while its his- \ntoric truth and its divine authority remain unaffected. \nThe truth and evidence of the entire Mosaic history are \nat stake. And with this stands or falls the reality of \nGod\'s revelation to Moses and the divine origin of the \nOld Testament. And this again is not only vouched for \nand testified to by our divine Lord and Saviour Jesus \nChrist and his inspired apostles, but upon this the Lord \nJesus bases his own claims. Moses wrote of him. The \npredictions uttered and recorded by Moses speak of \nChrist. The types, of which both the Pentateuchal his- \ntory and the Mosaic institutions are full, point to Christ. \nBut if the predictions are not genuine, and the history is \nuntrue, and the institutions were not ordained of God, \nbut are simply the record of priestly usage, what becomes \nof the witness which they bear to Christ ? And must \nnot the religion of the Old Testament sink in our esteem \nfrom a religion directly revealed of God to one which is \nthe outgrowth of the Israelitish mind and heart, under an \nuplifting influence from above, it may be, but still pro- \nceeding from man, not from God ? It is then based not \non positive truth authoritatively communicated from God \nto man, but on the aspirations and reflections, the yearn- \nings and longings and spiritual struggles of devout and \nholy men seeking after God, with such divine guidance \nand inward illumination as good men in every age may \nenjoy, but that is all. There is no direct revelation, no \ninfallible inspiration, no immediate and positive disclos- \nure of the mind and will of God. \n\nThe religion of the Bible is not merely one of abstract \ndoctrines respecting God. It does not consist merely in \n\n\n\nTHE BEARING OF THE DIVISIVE CRITICISM 165 \n\nmonotheism, nor in right notions of the being and per- \nfections of God as abstract truths. Nor does it consist \nmerely in devout emotions and aspirations toward the \nDivine Being. But both its doctrines and its practical \npiety are based on positive disclosures which God has \nmade of himself in his dealings with men and his com- \nmunications to them. It is a historical religion based \non palpable outstanding facts, in which God has mani- \nfested himself, and by which he has put himself in liv- \ning relation to men. Appeal is throughout made to the \nmighty deeds and the great wonders wrought by his \nuplifted hand and his outstretched arm in evidence that \nit is the almighty God who has acted and spoken and \nrevealed himself, and no mere human imaginings. To \ndiscredit these biblical statements is to discredit the \nbiblical revelation. And this is what is done through- \nout the entire Mosaic period, not by Kuenen and Well- \nhausen and Stade and Cornill merely, who are avowed \nunbelievers in a supernatural revelation, but by those \nlikewise who claim to be evangelical critics. \n\nIt is notorious that the long succession of distinguished \nscholars, by whom the divisive hypothesis has been elab- \norated in its application to the Pentateuch, have been un- \nbelievers in an immediate supernatural revelation. And \nthey have not hesitated to avow their want of faith in the \nreality of prophetic foresight and of miraculous powers. \nThe ready method by which these have been set aside \nis by dexterous feats of criticism. Bevelations of truth \nand duty are brought down to such a period in the his- \ntory as may fit in with some imagined naturalistic scheme \nof development. Predictions which have been too accu- \nrately fulfilled to be explained away as vague anticipa- \ntions, shrewd calculations, or lucky guesses, must, as \nthey claim, have been uttered, or at least committed to \nwriting, after the event. Miracles cannot have* been \n\n\n\n166 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OP THE PENTATEUCH \n\nrecorded by eye-witnesses or contemporaries, but are \nregarded as legendary exaggerations of events that are \nentirely explicable from natural causes. It is therefore \nassumed that they necessarily hnply a sufficient interval \nbetween the occurrence and the written narrative to ac- \ncount for the growth of the story. A hypothesis wrought \nout on the basis of these principles, which are through- \nout covertly assumed, and the critical phenomena most \ningeniously adjusted into conformity with them, can lead \nto no other result than that with reference to which it \nwas shaped from the beginning. While the discussion \nseemingly turns on words and phrases and the supposed \npeculiarities of individual writers, the bent of the whole \nthing is to rivet the conclusion which the framers of the \nhypothesis have tacitly though steadily contemplated, a \nconclusion irrefragable on their philosophical principles, \nviz., that the supernatural must be eliminated from the \nScriptures. And hence the hypothesis is at this time \none of the most potent weapons in the hands of unbelief. \nSupernatural facts, which stand unshaken in the Mosaic \nrecords like granite mountains, impregnable to all other \nmethods of attack, dissolve like wax in the critics\' cru- \ncible. \n\nKeal discoveries are not, of course, to be discredited \nbecause of false principles that are entertained by the \ndiscoverers, or wrong motives that may have influenced \nthem. If unbelievers in divine inspiration by their \nlearned investigations can assist us in the elucidation or \nmore correct appreciation of the sacred writings in any \nrespect, we welcome their aid with all our hearts. But \nall is not gold that glitters. And there can be no impro- \npriety in subjecting novelties to careful scrutiny, before \nwe adopt conclusions at war with our most cherished con- \nvictions and with what we hold to be well-established \ntruths. The apostle\'s maxim applies here, "Prove all \n\n\n\nTHE BEARING OF THE DIVISIVE CRITICISM 167 \n\nthings ; hold fast that which is good." The recent ac- \nceptance of this hypothesis by men of high standing in \nevangelical circles does not rob it of the pernicious ten- \ndencies inwrought in its whole texture, and will not pre- \nvent the full development of these tendencies, if it shall \never gain prevalence. \n\nOne very momentous consequence of the adoption of \nthis hypothesis is palpable upon its surface. It nullifies \nat once the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and \nsubstitutes anonymous documents of late age in an im- \nperfect state of preservation, which have been woven \ntogether, and to some extent modified, by anonymous re- \ndactors. It is at once obvious what a vast diminution \nhence results in the external guarantee of the truth of \nthe record. If Moses himself committed to writing the \nevents in which he bore so conspicuous a part, and the \nlaws and institutions enacted by him, and this product \nof Moses\'s own pen has been preserved to us in the Pen- \ntateuch, we have a voucher of the very first order of the \naccuracy of the narrative, in every particular, proceeding \nas it does not only from a contemporary and eye-witness \ncognizant of every detail, but from the leader and legis- \nlator whose genius shaped all that he records, and who \nwas more than any other interested in its true and faith- \nful transmission. \n\nIt would be a relief if these anonymous sources were \nthe work of contemporaries and participants in the events \nrecorded. If, as Delitzsch assumed when he first suffered \nhimself to be captivated by the hypothesis, Eleazar or \nJoshua, or men of like stamp with them, were the authors \nof the documents, and these were put together in the age \nimmediately succeeding that of Moses, it might seem as \nthough this would afford abundant assurance of the truth \nof their statements. But who is to assure us that Elea- \nzar or any of his compeers had a hand in these records ? \n\n\n\n168 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nIf we abandon the Mosaic authorship, which is so explic- \nitly and repeatedly certified by the earliest tradition \nthat we are able to summon, we are out upon the open \nsea with nothing to direct our course. Nothing can dis- \nprove its composition by Moses which does not disprove \nits origin in the Mosaic age. All thought of its proceed- \ning from the pen of contemporaries must then be aban- \ndoned. We go blindly groping along the centuries in \nquest of authors. All is unwarranted conjecture ; there \nis no firm lodgement anywhere. The notion that the \nauthors of these so-called documents, or the redactors \nwho compiled the Pentateuch from them, can be identi- \nfied in the absence of any ancient testimony pointing to \nanother than Moses is utterly groundless. \n\nBut if the authors of the several documents were infal- \nlibly inspired, and if the redactors were likewise divinely \nguarded from error, would we not then have a perfectly \ntrustworthy record, as much so though it were produced \nin a comparatively late age, as if it had been contempo- \nraneous with the events themselves ? This fond fancy is \ndispelled the moment we come to examine the actual \nworking of the hypothesis, as this has been abundantly \nexhibited in the preceding pages. It is constructed on \nthe assumption not merely of the fallibility but the fal- \nsity of the documents, whose accounts are represented to \' \nbe not merely divergent but contradictory ; upon the as- \nsumption likewise of the incompetency of the redactors, \neven if they are charged with nothing worse. They mis- \nunderstand their authorities, and, to say the least, unin- \ntentionally pervert them, ascribing to them a meaning \nforeign to their original and proper intent. The Penta- \nteuch is thus held to be based upon conflicting narratives, \nwritten several centuries after the occurrences which \nthey profess to relate, and embodying the diverse tradi- \ntions which had meanwhile grown up respecting them. \n\n\n\nTHE BEARING OF THE DIVISIVE CRITICISM 169 \n\nThese the redactors have undertaken to harmonize, \nthough they were, so the critics affirm, mutually incon- \nsistent. They have done this by rearrangements and \nadditions of their own that obscure and alter their real \nmeaning. The critics accordingly tell us that the Pen- \ntateuch on its face yields a very incorrect representation \nof what actually took place in the time to which it re- \nlates. The only way to reach the real facts is to undo \nthe work of the redactors, eliminate their misleading ad- \nditions, and restore, as far as possible, the documents \nto the condition in which they were before they were \nmeddled with. This will put us in possession of the \ndiscordant traditions which had arisen in the course of \ncenturies respecting the events in question. The com- \nparison of these traditions will yield a modicum of truth \nupon the subject, and the rest must be left to con- \njecture. \n\nAnd this, be it remembered, is a part of the canon of \nScripture, the part, in fact, which lies at the foundation \nof the whole, that Scripture, which according to our \nblessed Lord cannot be broken, and which according to \nthe apostle Paul is given by inspiration of God. Is \nit surprising that they who accept this hypothesis insist \nthat the current doctrine of Scripture and of divine \ninspiration requires revision ? \n\nThe extent to which the Mosaic history crumbles \naway under such treatment as has been illustrated above, \nvaries with different critics. To Kuenen and Wellhausen \nit is utterly untrustworthy. Others recoil from such un- \nsparing demolition, and allow more or less to stand un- \nchallenged. But this difference of result is due to the \nsubjective state of the critic himself, not to any clear \nand intelligible ground in the nature of the case. The \nwhole process is vicious. The claim is preposterous that \na consistent and continuous narrative may be rent apart \n\n\n\n170 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nad libitum, and meanings assigned to isolated portions, \nwhich the words might admit if viewed independently, \nbut which are impossible in the connection. Yet this \nlies for the most part at the basis of the divisive criticism, \ndetermines generally the line of fracture, and imparts to \nthe whole subject nearly all of its interest and importance \nin the view of its adherents. Even if the partition hy- \npothesis were well founded and the documents, of which \nthe critics speak so confidently, had a real and separate \nexistence, the redactors who had them in their orig- \ninal completeness were much more competent to judge \nof their true meaning than modern critics, who by their \nown confession possess them only in a fragmentary and \nmutilated condition, and so blended together that it is \nextremely difficult, and often quite impossible, to disen- \ntangle them with certainty and accuracy. Under these \ncircumstances to deal with the Pentateuch in its present \nform in a manner which implies either mistake or mis- \nrepresentation on the part of the redactors is gratuitous \nand inadmissible unless on the clearest and most unmis- \ntakable evidence. \n\nIt is nevertheless a fundamental assumption in the lit- \nerary partition of the Pentateuch, that the redactors have \nmisunderstood or misrepresented their sources ; that nar- \nratives, which were but varying accounts of the same \nthing, were supposed by them to relate to distinct occur- \nrences, and they have treated them as such, wrongly as- \nsigning them to different occasions and perhaps different \npersons ; that they have combined their sources in such \na way as to give a wrong coloring to their contents, so \nthat they make a false impression and convey a mean- \ning quite different from that which properly belonged to \nthem in their original connection. And the chief value \nand interest of the critic is thought to be the new light \nwhich he brings into the narrative and the altered mean- \n\n\n\nTHE BEAEHSTG OF THE DIVISIVE CRITICISM 171 \n\ning which he discovers by undoing the work of the redac- \ntors, who are supposed to have cut away much precious \nmaterial from their documents that is now irrecoverably \nlost, and to have modified even the mutilated remnant \nwhich they have handed down to us. Unless this be so, \nwhat is gained by the partition ? If everything means just \nwhat it did before, what good has been accomplished ? \nIf, on the other hand, the meaning has been altered, the \nquestion returns, Which is right and which is the bet- \nter entitled to our confidence, the redactors who had \nample means of knowing what they were doing, or the \nmodern critic who relies upon his conjectures for his \nfacts? \n\nA yet more serious aspect of this literary partition is \nthat there is no limit to it. If the door be opened even \non a crack to admit it, all is at the mercy of what there \nis no means of controlling ; and nothing can prevent the \ndoor being flung as wide open as the hinges will allow. \nThe appetite for division and subdivision grows by every \nconcession made to quiet it. The analysis of Wellhau- \nsen, of Dillinann, of Julicher, and of Stade shows that \nwe have not yet reached the beginning of the end. \nFresh seams are constantly discovered in what critics \nthemselves have previously regarded as indivisible ; \nfresh errors and mistakes are discovered in the narra- \ntive that were never suspected before ; and the whole be- \ncomes the plaything of the critic\'s fancy. The advocates \nof literary partition among us at present may stand on \ncomparatively conservative ground under the influence \nof their own past training and of cherished principles, \nwhich they are unwilling to abandon. But what is to \nhinder their followers, who are not similarly anchored, \nfrom pursuing this partition to its legitimate conse- \nquences ? It is the first step that costs. And the ini- \ntial step in this partition is the admission of the un- \n\n\n\n172 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\ntrustworthiness of the sacred record as it now stands, \nand the necessity of transposition, alteration, and recon- \nstruction in order to reach the real truth. After this in- \nitial admission has been made, everything further is but \na question of degrees. The Scripture is no longer relia- \nble in its present form. The inspiration of its writers \nhas been surrendered. We have lost our infallible guide. \nAnd distrust may be carried to any length that the in- \nward disposition of the operator inclines him to indulge \nit. In yielding the principle everything has been con- \nceded that is involved in it and follows from it. The \navalanche cannot be arrested midway in its descent. \n\nThe Pentateuch in its unity and integrity is impregna- \nble to hostile assaults. But accept the partition of it \nwhich the critics offer, and the truth and inspiration of \nthis portion of Holy Scripture no longer rest upon any \nsolid basis. \n\nDEISM, RATIONALISM, DIVISIVE CELTICISM. \n\nThe study of the Bible on its purely literary side has \nmany and strong attractions for men of letters. It re- \ncords the history and the institutions of a most remark- \nable people. It gives an insight into their character and \nusages, into their domestic, social, and political life ; \nparticularly it exhibits their religion in its spirit and its \noutward forms, a religion altogether unique in the ancient \nworld, and the influence of which has been deep and \nwide-spread in later times. It contains all that has been \npreserved of their literary products through a long series \nof ages, including narratives of tender and touching in- \nterest, of deeds of heroic valor, of wise administration, of \nresolute adherence to right and duty under trying cir- \ncumstances ; poetic effusions of rare beauty, of exalted \ngenius, on the most elevated themes, wise sayings, the \n\n\n\nTHE BEARING OF THE DIVISIVE CRITICISM 173 \n\nutterance of sages or embodying profound and extensive \nobservation ; the discourses of the prophets, haranguing \nkings and people in great critical conjunctures with im- \npassioned patriotism and the noblest impulses, inculcat- \ning and enforcing the loftiest principles of action. There \nis much in all this to stir the enthusiasm and excite the \ninterest of those who are engaged in literary pursuits. \n\nIt is not strange, then, that in the revival of letters, \nwhen the stores of ancient learning were thrown open to \nthe gaze of the modern world, and men sat delighted be- \nfore the masterpieces of Greece and Rome and the Orient, \nthey should be charmed likewise by the fascinations of \nHebrew literature. Scholars were drawn with equal rel- \nish to the songs of Horace, of Pindar, and of David ; \nthey listened admiringly alike to the eloquent and burn- \ning words of Cicero, Demosthenes, and Isaiah. The \nBible was scanned with avidity as the extant body of \nIsrael\'s literature ; just that and nothing more. It was a \nmost engaging study. It was expounded and illustrated \nand commented on from professors\' chairs and in numer- \nous volumes, precisely as the works of historians, poets, \nphilosophers, and orators of other lands. But, with all \nthe admiration that was bestowed upon it, the unique \ncharacter of its claims was lost sight of. Its inspiration \nand divine authority did not enter into the account. The \nimmediate voice and hand of God, which rule in the \nwhole, were overlooked. \n\nIt is easy to see how the study of the Bible thus pur- \nsued would necessarily be warped. Treated as a purely \nhuman product, it must be reduced to the level of that \nwhich it was esteemed to be. The supernatural must be \neliminated from it, since it was regarded as the resultant \nof purely human forces. And stripped of the super- \nnatural, the Bible becomes a totally different book. \nThere are three evident indications of God\'s immediate \n\n\n\n174 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\npresence, which pervade the Scriptures from beginning \nto end, and are inwrought into its entire structure, and \nwith which they must reckon who recognize in its con- \ntents merely that which is natural and human. These \nare miracle, prophecy, and revealed truth. The pages of \nthe Bible are ablaze with recorded facts involving the \nimmediate exercise of almighty power, with predictive \nutterances unveiling the future hid from mortal view, \nand with disclosures which quite transcend the reach of \nthe human faculties. No man can undertake the study \nof the Bible, however superficially, without encountering \nthese, which are among its most prominent features. \nAnd if it is to be comprehended from a naturalistic point \nof view, they must in some way be disposed of. \n\nThree different methods have been devised for getting \nrid of these troublesome factors. One is that of a scoff- \ning deism, which sets aside the supernatural by imputing \nit to deception and priestcraft. It is all held to be trace- \nable to impositions practised upon the credulity of the \nuninstructed vulgar in order to exalt the ministers of \nreligion in their eyes, perhaps for the promotion of selfish \nends, perhaps with the worthier motive of obtaining sanc- \ntion for useful institutions or gaining credence for valu- \nable teachings, which they could not otherwise have been \ninduced so easily to receive. It is only men who are \ndevoid of moral earnestness themselves, and cannot \nappreciate moral earnestness in others, who can rest \nsatisfied with such an explanation. It is so manifestly \nopposed to the whole spirit and tenor of the sacred writ- \nings, and to the character of the great leaders of Israel, \nthat it has never had any prevalence among those who \nhad any sympathy with, or a just conception of, the men of \nthe Bible. It was soon cast off,^ therefore, by those who \nmade any pretension to real scholarship, and left to \nfrivolous scoffers. \n\n\n\nTHE BEARING OF THE DIVISIVE CRITICISM 175 \n\nA second mode of dealing with the supernatural, with- . \nout admitting its reality, is that of the old rationalistic \nexegesis. This regards it simply as oriental exaggera- \ntion. It is looked upon as the habit of the period to \nthink and speak in superlatives, and to employ grandilo- \nquent figures and forms of expression. In order to as- \ncertain the actual meaning of the writer these must be \nreduced to the proportion of ordinary events. Thus \nEichhorn, the father of the higher criticism, had no dif- \nficulty in accepting the Mosaic authorship of the Penta- \nteuch, and defending its credibility, while at the same \ntime he discarded the miraculous. This work, he con- \ntended, must be interpreted in accordance with the spirit \nof the age to which it belonged. Its poetic embellish- \nments must not be mistaken for plain prose, and its bold \nfigures must not be converted into literal statements. \nWhen the oriental imagery is duly estimated, and the \nelaborate drapery in which the imaginative writer has \ndressed his thought is stripped off, it will be found that \nhis real meaning does not transcend what is purely nat- \nural. There was nothing miraculous about the plagues \nof Egypt ; it was only an annus mirabilis, a year of ex- \ntraordinary occurrences, remarkable in their number and \nseverity, but wholly traceable to natural causes. There \nwas nothing miraculous in the passage of the Red Sea, \nor the events at Sinai, or in what took place during the \nforty years in the desert. The apparently miraculous \nfeatures belong merely to the style of description, not to \nthe facts described. There was in this no intentional \nfalsehood, no attempt to deceive. It was the well-under- \nstood way of writing and speaking in that age. And \nthus the supernatural is evaporated by hermeneutical \nrules. But this unnatural style of interpretation could \nnot long maintain itself. The attempt to reduce heathen \nmyths to intelligible history, and to bring down the mir- \n\n\n\n176 THE HIGHEE CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\nacles of the Bible to the level of ordinary occurrences, \nproved alike abortive. The hypothesis of rhetorical ex- \naggeration, fashionable as it was at one time, was accord- \ningly abandoned. The rule of common-sense must be \napplied to Scripture as to any other book, that the writer \nmust be understood to mean what he says, not what some \ninterpreter may fancy that he ought to have said. \n\nThe third mode of banishing the supernatural from the \nBible is by subjecting it to the processes of the higher \ncriticism. This is the most plausible as well as the most \neffective method of accomplishing this result. It is the \nmost plausible because the animus of the movement is \nconcealed, and the desired end is reached not by aiming \nat it directly and avowedly, but as the apparently inci- \ndental consequence of investigations pursued professedly \nfor a different purpose. And it is the most effective be- \ncause it supplies a complete antidote for the supernatural \nin each of its forms. Every reported miracle is met by \nthe allegation that the record dates centuries after its \nsupposed occurrence, leaving ample time for the legend- \nary amplification of natural events. Every prediction \nwhich has been so accurately fulfilled that it cannot be \nexplained away as a vague anticipation, shrewd conject- \nure, or fortunate coincidence, is met by the allegation \nthat it was not committed to writing till after the \nevent. Revelations of truth in advance of what the un- \naided faculties of men could be supposed to have at- \ntained to must be reconstructed into accordance with \nthe requirements of a gradual scheme of development. \nThe stupendous miracles of the Mosaic period, the far- \nreaching predictions of the Pentateuch, and its minute \nand varied legislation are all provided for by the critical \nanalysis, which parts it into separate documents and as- \nsigns these documents severally, to six, eight, and ten \ncenturies after the exodus from Egypt. \n\n\n\nTHE BEARING OE THE DIVISIVE CRITICISM 177 \n\nThese critical results are based professedly on purely \nliterary grounds, on diction and style and correspondence \nwith historical surroundings. And yet he who traces \nthe progress of critical opinion will discover that these \nare invariably subordinated to the end of neutralizing the \nsupernatural, and that they are so managed as to lead up \nto this conclusion. The development of critical hypothe- \nses inimical to the genuineness and the truth of the books \nof the Bible has from the beginning been in the hands \nof those who were antagonistic to supernatural religion, \nwhose interest in the Bible was purely literary, and who \nrefused to recognize its claims as an immediate and \nauthoritative revelation from God. These hypotheses, \nwhich are largely speculative and conjectural, are to a \ngreat extent based upon and shaped by unproved assump- \ntions of the falsity of positive scriptural statements. \nThey are in acknowledged variance with the historical \ntruth of much of the Bible, and require, as is freely con- \nfessed, the complete reconstruction of the sacred history. \nThey require us to suppose that the course of events \nand the progress of divine revelation mnst throughout \nhave been very different from the representations of the \nBible. \n\nWithin a very few years professedly evangelical men \nhave ventured upon the hazardous experiment of at- \ntempting a compromise in this matter. They propose \nto accept these hypotheses in spite of their antibibli- \ncal character, in spite of their incompatibility with the \nhistorical truth of the Bible, in spite of their contraven- \ning its explicit statements, in spite of the grave questions \nwhich they raise respecting the fallibility of our Lord\'s \nown teaching ; and they expect to retain their Christian \nfaith with only such modifications as these newly adopted \nhypotheses may require. They are now puzzling them- \nselves over the problem of harmonizing Christ\'s sanction \n12 \n\n\n\n178 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH \n\ngiven to false views respecting the Old Testament with \nimplicit faith in him as a divine teacher. And some of \nthem in their perplexity over this enigma come perilously \nnear impairing the truth of his claims. Would it not \nbe wiser for them to revise their own ill-judged alliance \nwith the enemies of evangelical truth, and inquire whether \nChrist\'s view of the Old Testament may not, after all, be \nthe true view ? \n\n\n\nINDEX \n\n\n\nAbex Ezra, 47 \n\nAbraham, 24 \n\nAgreement of critics not a proof \nof their correctness, 130, 131 \n\nAmos, allusions to the Penta- \nteuch, 56-58, note \n\nAnachronisms alleged, 47-49 ; \nanswered, 50, 51 ; suspected in \nthe Jehovist, 69 \n\nAncient heretics, why they de- \nnied Moses\'s authorship, 47 \n\nAntediluvian period, the aim of, \n20, 21 \n\nAramean, Jewish, in the Old \nTestament, 1 \n\nArguments in support of the \ndivisive hypotheses, 63-67; \nshown to be fallacious, 88-118, \n132 \n\nArk of the Covenant, sacrifices \nlegitimate where it was pres- \nent, 152 \n\nAstruc, 62 and note \n\nAugustin, 63, note \n\nBacon, B. "W., 142, note \nBalaam, divine names in the his- \ntory of, 97, 98 \nBancroft, illustration from, 60 \nBeattie, Professor P. R, 143, \n\nnote \nBible studied merely as liter- \nature, regardless of its divine \nauthority, 173 \nBissell, 142, note, 143, note \n\n\n\nBleek, 76 and note \n\nBoehmer, 83, note \n\nBoethius, 129, note \n\nBook of the Covenant, 36, 136- \n139, 144, 146, 147, 149 \n\nBooks of the Old Testament, the \nfunction of each, 4 ; triple di- \nvision of, 4, 5 \n\nBredenkamp, 142, note \n\nBriggs, Professor, 142, note \n\nCaesar\'s Commentaries, 129, \nnote \n\nCain and his descendants, 22, 23 \n\nCarpzov, 49 \n\nCaspari, 56, note \n\nCave, Dr. A., 143, note \n\nChambers, Dr. T. W., 143, note \n\nCharlemagne, early oblivion of \nhis laws, 155, 156 \n\nChasms in the so-called docu- \nments, 107, 108, 161 \n\nChrist\'s testimony to Moses\'s au- \nthorship, 32 ; depreciated by \ncritics, 33, 177 ; by Le Clerc, \n49 \n\nChronicles, why in the third di- \nvision of the canon, 5, 6 \n\nCicero\'s orations pronounced for- \ngeries, 127, note, 128, 129 \n\nComplexity of the critical prob- \nlem, 117 \n\nConflicting criteria, how evaded, \n116 \n\nContinuity of documents as an \n\n\n\n180 \n\n\n\nINDEX \n\n\n\nargument for partition, 64 ; \ndiscussed, 106-109 \n\nCornill, 142, note, 165 \n\nCredibility of the Pentateuch as \naffected by its authorship, 32, \n167 ; undermined by the par- \ntition hypotheses, 158-163, 169 \n\nCrystallization hypothesis, 81, \n82 \n\nDaniel, why in the third divi- \nsion of the canon, 5 \n\nDeism, 174 \n\nDelitzsch, 130, 142, note, 167 \n\nDeuteronomic code, 36, 37, 136- \n139, 145, 148, 153 ; its preface \nand sequel, 41 \n\nDeuteronomj 7 , analysis of, 28 ; \nextent of the law to which it \nalludes, 37, note \n\nDevelopment hypothesis, 136- \n155 ; revolutionized critical \nopinions, 143 ; antagonizes \nstatements of Scripture, 144- \n146 ; assumes discrepancies \nwhich do not exist, 147-149 ; \nbased on violations of law \nwhich are otherwise explained, \n150-153 ; involves gratuitous \nassumptions of fraud, 154, 155, \nand other impossible supposi- \ntions, 155 \n\nDe Wette, 76, 77, note \n\nDiction, diversity of, 65, 66, 113- \n117 \n\nDillmann, 109, 112, 115, 130, \n131, 142, note, 171 \n\nDistinct events wrongly identi- \nfied, 109, 110 \n\nDiversity of style, diction, and \nideas made an argument for \npartition, 65-67 ; discussed, \n113-117 \n\nDivine institutions in the antedi- \n\n\n\nluvian and postdiluvian pe- \nriods, 23 \n\nDivine names made an argument \nfor partition, 63 ; discussed, \n89 sqq. ; their alternation not \nexplicable by the partition hy- \npotheses, 89-99 ; but by their \nsignification and usage, 102- \n105 ; and the discretion of the \nwriter, 106 \n\nDivisive criticism inimical to \n\n\xc2\xab credibility and to supernatural \nreligion, 157-177 \n\nDocument hypothesis, 61-71 ; \nhow related to Moses\'s author- \nship, 67, 68 ; tendency to sub- \ndivision, 72, 73, 171 ; modified \nby Hupfeld, 82, 83 \n\nDocuments, so-called, not con- \ntinuous, 106-108, 161 ; mutu- \nally dependent, 109 ; alleged \nto be inconsistent with each \nother, 161, 162 ; not infallibly \ninspired, 168 \n\nDoublets, so-called, 112 \n\nDrechsler, 81 and note \n\nDriver, Dr., 130, 142, note \n\nEgyptian allusions in the Pen- \ntateuch, 45 \n\nEichhorn, 62 and note \n\nElementary character of the \nteachings of the Pentateuch, \n45 \n\nEllicott, Bishop, 143, note \n\nElohim in Jehovist sections, 91 \nsqq. ; its signification and us- \nage, 102-105 \n\nEwald, 76 and note, 81, 82, note, \n87, 134, 135 \n\nExodus, analysis of, 25, 26 ; chj, \nvi. 3, 68, 99, 100 \n\nForged codes of laws could not \n\n\n\nINDEX \n\n\n\n181 \n\n\n\nhave been imposed on the peo- \nple, 42, 155 \n\nFragment hypothesis, 71-74 ; its \nabsurdity shown, 74-76 \n\nFrench, Dr. R. V., 143, note \n\nGenesis, analysis of, 21-25 ; ch. \n\niv. 26, 100, 102 \nGenuineness of the laws, 134- \n\n156 \nGoethe\'s Faust, prologue of, 130 \nGospel harmony, illustration \n\nfrom, 60 \nGraf, 140, 141 \nGramberg, 62, note \nGreek, the language of the New \n\nTestament, 1 \nGrounds of literary partition \n\nconsidered, 88-118 \n\nHartmann, 71 and note \n\nHavernick, 56, note, 81 and note \n\nHebrew, the language of the Old \nTestament, 1 \n\nHeinrici, 129 \n\nHengstenberg, 58, note, 81 and \nnote, 103, 104 \n\nHexateuch, in what sense appro- \npriate, 15 \n\nHigh places illegal, 153 \n\nHigher criticism as a mode of \neliminating the supernatural, \n176, 177 \n\nHistorical books, their place in \nthe plan of the Old Testament, \n8, 9, 14 \n\nHistorical passages attributed to \nMoses, 37, 38 \n\nHistory of the Pentateuch pre- \nparatory for the law, 19 ; be- \ngins with the creation, 21 ; \nchasms only apparent, 29 ; by \nthe same author as the law, \n\n\n\nHoedemaker, Dr., 143, note \n\nHoffmann, 142, note \n\nHolzinger, 142, note \n\nHomer, 127 \n\nHorace, 129, note \n\nHosea, allusions to the Penta- \nteuch, 56-58, note \n\nHupfeld, 82 and note, 87, 134, \n135 \n\nHypothesis bolstered up by in- \nferences from itself, 92 \n\nIdeas, diversity of, as an argu- \nment for partition, 65-67, 113 \nsqq. \n\nUgen, 83, note \n\nIncongruities in the partition of \nthe Pentateuch, 125, 126 \n\nInerrancy in minutiae not the is- \nsue raised by divisive critics, \n163 \n\nInspiration, a new doctrine of, \ndemanded by the critics, 169 \n\nIsaac ben Jasos, 47 \n\nIsaiah, allusions to the Penta- \nteuch, 54, 55, note \n\nJehovah in Elohist sections, 91 \nsqq. ; the name alleged to be \nunknown to the patriarchs, 99- \n101 ; its signification and us- \nage, 102-105 \n\nJehovist of the supplementary \nhypothesis self-contradictory, \n78-80 \n\nJeremiah, allusions to the Pen- \ntateuch, 55, note \n\nJerome, not indifferent to Moses\'s \nauthorship, 47 \n\nJoel, allusions to the Pentateuch, \n54, note \n\nJosephus, canon of, 6 \n\nJoshua, its place in the plan of \nthe Old Testament, 15 \n\n\n\n182 \n\n\n\nINDEX \n\n\n\nJudges, allusions to the Penta- \nteuch, 52, note \nJiilicher, 109, 131, 171 \nJuvenal, 129, note \n\nKautzsch und Socin, 142, note \nKayser, 109, 141, note \nKeil, 56, note, 81 and note \nKings, Books of, allusions to the \n\nPentateuch, 53, note \nKnobel, 76, 77, note \nKonig, 142, note \nKuenen, 130, 131, 141 and note, \n\n165, 169 \nKueper, 56, note \nKurtz, 81 and note, 105 \n\nLamentations, its place in the \n\norder of the Hebrew Canon, 6 \nLaws, their language points to \n\nMoses as their author, 39, 40 ; \n\nwritten in the wilderness, 41 ; \n\ncould not be a forgery, 42, 155 ; \n\ntheir locality significant, 42 \nLe Clerc, 49 \nLegislation in three localities, 25, \n\n26 \nLeviticus, analysis of, 26, 27 \nLiterary attractions of the Bible, \n\n172 \nLiterary critics, their diversities \n\nand points of agreement, 135 \n\nMcCurdy, Professor, 114, note \n\nMadvig, 129, note \n\nMead, Professor, 125, 143, note \n\nMerx, 141, note \n\nMicah, allusions to the Penta- \nteuch, 55, note \n\nMiracles denied or explained \naway, 165 \n\nModified document hypothesis, \n82, 83 ; its difficulties, 84-87 \n\nMoses the author of the Penta- \n\n\n\nteuch, 31 ; traditional belief, \nsanctioned by the New Testa- \nment, 32 ; testimony of the \nOld Testament, 33-35; claim \nof the Pentateuch itself, 36- \n39 ; confirmed by the language \nof the laws, 39-41 ; allusions \nin later books of the Bible, \n42, 43 ; authority in the Ten \nTribes, 43 ; elementary char- \nacter, Egyptian allusions, 45 \nMunhall, Dr., 143, note \n\nNegative types, 11 \n\nNew Testament, its universality, \nwritten in Greek, 1 ; testimony \nto Moses\'s authorship, 32, 33 \n\nNibelungenlied, 127 \n\nNumbers, analysis of, 27 \n\nObjections to Moses\'s author- \nship classified, 46 ; the earliest, \n47~ \n\nOehler, 9, note \n\nOld Testament addressed to Is- \nrael, in their language, by \nmany writers, 1 ; its organic \nstructure, 2, 3 ; its testimony \nto the authorship of Moses, \n33-35 \n\nOrganic structure of the Old \nTestament, 2, 3, 9 ; two meth- \nods of investigating it, 7 ; ad- \nvantages of the second method, \n10 ; their results compared, \n15-17 \n\nOrigen, canon of, 6 \n\nOsgood, Dr. Howard, 62, note \n\nParallel passages made an ar- \ngument for partition, 64 ; and \nfor contradictions, 70 ; dis- \ncussed, 109-112 \n\nPartition hypotheses futile, yet \n\n\n\nINDEX \n\n\n\n183 \n\n\n\nserviceable to the cause of \ntruth, 132, 133 ; elaborated in \nthe interest of unbelief, 157, \n165 ; acceptance by evangelical \nscholars does not neutralize \ntheir pernicious tendencies, \n166, 177 \n\nPatriarchal period, 20 \n\nPentateuch, its position in the \nplan of the Old Testament, 8, \n9, 13 ; its plan and contents, \n18 sqq. ; how denominated, \nderivation of the word, antiq- \nuity of the quintuple divi- \nsion, names of the several \nbooks, 18 ; its theme, two prin- \ncipal sections, 19, 36 ; tabu- \nlated, 30 ; its importance, 31 ; \nwritten by Moses, 32-46 ; \nclaims to be from Moses, 36- \n39 ; alluded to in later books \nof the Bible, 52-58, note ; its \nunity, 59 sqq.; process of its \nformation according to the \ncritics, 159, 160 \n\nPeople of God, ideas involved in, \n21 ; two stages, the family and \nthe nation, 24 \n\nPerspicacity claimed by the crit- \nics, 126, 127 \n\nPeyrerius, 48 \n\nPlautus, 129, note \n\nPoetical books, their place in the \nplan of the Old Testament, 8, \n9, 14 \n\nPositive types, 11 \n\nPostdiluvian period, its aim, 20, \n21 \n\nPredictions denied or explained \naway, 165 \n\nPredictive periods negative and \npositive, 12, 13 \n\nPriest code, 36, 136-140, 145. 146, \n148, 154 \n\n\n\nProdigal son, parable of, parti- \ntioned, 119-122 \n\nPromises to the patriarchs, 24 \n\nProphecies in the Old Testament, \ntheir distribution, 11 \n\nProphetical books, their place in \nthe plan of the Old Testament, \n9, 14 \n\nPsalms, allusions to the Penta- \nteuch, 56, note \n\nRanke, F. H., 76 and note \n\nRationalistic exegesis, 174, 175 \n\nRedactor proposed by Gramberg, \n63, note ; inconsistencies im- \nputed to him in Hupfeld\'s hy- \npothesis, 86, 87 ; deals arbitra- \nrily with the text, 91 sqq., 161, \n163, 168-170 ; his mode of com- \npiling the Pentateuch, 159, \n160 ; not infallibly inspired, \n168 \n\nReligion of the Bible based on \nhistorical facts, 165 \n\nRephidim, narrative of the bat- \ntle there recorded by Moses, \n37, 38 \n\nReuss, 142, note \n\nRevealed religion antagonized by \ncritical hypotheses, 164 sqq. \n\nRevelations of truth denied or ex- \nplained away, 165 \n\nRobertson, Prof essor J. , 143, note \n\nRomans Dissected, 125 \n\nRupprecht, 142, note \n\nRuth, its position in the order of \nthe canon, 6, 7 ; allusions to \nthe Pentateuch, 52, note \n\nSackifices elsewhere than at the \nsanctuary and by others than \npriests, 150-153 \n\nSamaritan, the Good, parable of, \npartitioned, 122-125 \n\n\n\n184 \n\n\n\nINDEX \n\n\n\nSamaritan Pentateuch, 44 \nSamuel, Books of, allusions to \n\nthe Pentateuch, 52, 53, note \nSamuel, offering sacrifice, 152, \n\n153 \nSchmauk, Professor, 143, note \nSchrader, 83, note \nScriptural statements regarding \n\nthe Pentateuchal Codes, 144- \n\n146 \nSecond Elohist of Hupfeld, 83- \n\n85 \nSegregation of the chosen race, \n\n20,24 \nSeth and his pious descendants, \n\n23 \nSime, J., Esq., 143, note \nSimon, Richard, 48 \nSinai, laws given there, 26 \nSmith, Dr. W. Robertson, 142, \n\nnote \nSpinoza, 48 \nStade, 130, 165, 171 \nStahelin, 76, 77, note \nStation-list attributed to Moses, \n\nits significance, 38 \nStyle, diversity of, as an argu- \nment for partition, 65, 66, 113 \n\nsqq. \nSubscriptions made an argument \n\nfor the fragment hypothesis, 74 \nSummary statements followed by \n\nparticulars made a pretext for \n\npartition, 111 \nSupernatural in the Bible, 173 ; \n\nthree modes of getting rid of \n\nit, 174-177 \nSupplement hypothesis, 76-78 ; \n\n\n\nencumbered with difficulties, \n78-80 ; overturned by the de- \nvelopment hypothesis, 142, 143 \n\nSymbols used in Pentateuch crit- \nicism, 88 \n\nSynonyms, no proof of different \nwriters, 115 \n\nTertullian, 63, note \n\nTextual changes arbitrarily made \n\nby critics destructive of their \n\nown hypothesis, 90, 98, 99 \nTitles made an argument for the \n\nfragment hypothesis, 74 \nTuch, 76, 77, note \nTypes, negative and positive, \n\ntheir distribution, 11 \n\nUnity of the Pentateuch, 59-133 \n\nVater, 71 and note \n\nViolations of the law, no proof \n\nof its non-existence, 150-153 \nVitringa, 61 \nVos, Professor, 143, note \n\nWarfield, Dr., 129 \n\nWatts, Professor R., 142, note \nWellhausen, 109, 112, 117, 130. \n\n131, 141 and note, 142, note. \n\n165, 169, 171 \nWelte, 81 and note \nWest, Professor, 127, 129, note \nWildeboer, 142, note \nWitsius, 49 \n\nZahn, A., 142, note \nZenos, Professor, 155 \n\n\n\n\n\n\nfrr \n\n\n\nLIBRARY OF CONGRESS \n\n\n\n\n014 329 174 1 \n\n\n\n'