Botm

^m^

3AmiM/i

s»^

mm

^^m

»'*!^!

¦!iliiriJiJMiii»iiilJ*JI"l<ff

'EsmKiis:

m

trnrnm

USA i.

wmm

iiwm

"I give theft Boaks
ffer Uie- founding of a College in this Colony'

' YiaLIl<'¥MII¥lEI^Sflir¥'' " ILIlIBI^^mf "

Bought with the income
of the
Ellen Battell Eldridge Fund
l^QCl   

TRescarcbea in Biblical Hrcbacologi?

ISSUED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE ORIENTAL SOCIETY OF
THE WESTERN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

EDITED BY
OLAF A. TOFFTEEN, Ph.D.

THE HISTORIC EXODUS

Books by the Same Author

Ancient Chronology, Part I
( Researches in Biblical Archaeology, Vol. I )
Price: $2.50
Postage extra, 20 cents

Researches in Assyrian and Babylonian
Geography, Part 1
Price: $1.00
Postage extra, 4 cents

The Historic Exodus

BY
OLAF A. TOFFTEEN, Ph.D.
PROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE
WESTERN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

PUBLISHED FOR THE
ORIENTAL SOCIETY OF THE WESTERN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

CHICAGO
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
1909

Copyright 1909 By
OLAF A. TOFFTEEN

Composed and Printed By
The University of Chicago Press
Chicago, Illinois, U. S. A.

to
THE REV. WILLIAM OTIS WATERS, S.T.D.
President of the Oriental Society
of the
Western Theological Seminary

PREFACE
Scarcely two years have passed since I published, in
this series, my Ancient Chronology, Part I. In that vol
ume I treated biblical chronology solely on the basis of
dates furnished by the Bible, taking them at their face
value, and without any inquiry either into the age of the
documents in which they occurred, or into their historicity.
I promised then that these questions would be taken up
in a future volume, to be called Side-Lights on Biblical
Chronology. This is that volume. It has been found
advisable to confine it more closely to the Exodus than
was originally purposed, and consequently the title has
been changed, the more closely to fit the contents.
The reception of my former book has been most grati
fying to me. In a work of so broad a scope, and in a field
so uncertain and unexplored, it was not to be expected
that all my conclusions should meet with unanimous
approval. What I did hope for was that critics might
recognize the earnestness of purpose which I had in pre
senting it, and the great care which I had taken to be
accurate and scholarly in both my views and my methods.
It is with the greatest pleasure that I record that, with
two exceptions, the book was received in that spirit. Per
haps the most gratifying thing that has ever been said of
my work was the criticism of Professor Lieblein of the
University of Christiania, who, although he disagreed
with me on some points, which was, as I have said, to be
expected, nevertheless was kind enough to say of my
book, "The author is a serious and conscientious scholar,

X PREFACE
who, without having become partisan in favor of any one
more or less erroneous school, seeks the truth in sincerity."'
And, indeed, on the Continent my book has everywhere
met with the kindest appreciation.
I wish to record my thanks and appreciation of the
letters which I have received from many of the most
distinguished scholars in regard to my former book.
Among these have been: Professor C. H. W. Johns of
Cambridge, Professors D. S. Margoliouth and S. R. Driver
of Oxford, Dr. E. A. Wallis Budge of the British Museum,
Professor Ad. Erman of Berlin, Professor Fritz Hommel
of Munich, Professor P. Rost of Konigsberg (Pr.), Pro
fessor J. A. Ejiudtzon of Christiania, Professor Ernst
Andersson of Upsala, Professor Ejiut Tallqvist of Helsing-
fors. Professor Le P. Ronzevalle of Beyrouth, M. F.
Thureau-Dangin, of Paris, and Professor C. Fossey of
the College de France. I am especially grateful to
those of this number who have offered me their suggestions.
Many of my conclusions, which seemed astonishing
at the time of publication, have now been generally
accepted by the scholarly world. I do not mean to imply
that it was entirely because of my book that these conclu
sions have been reached. I only state that scholars have
reached the same results. It is some gratification to feel,
however, that I was first in the field. For example, the
date for Sargon of Akkad, which I placed ca. 2550 B. c,
has since been placed by Eduard Meyer at the same
date. The eminent Assyriologist, M. Thureau-Dangin,
has not only given the same date for the Hammurabi
Dynasty as I did, but has also shown that there was a
lacuna between this and the Kassite Dynasty, and that
I sphinx. Vol. XII, p. 249.

PREFACE xi
the Second Dynasty was partly contemporary with both
of them, both of which conclusions I reached first. Pro
fessor Bennett has likewise accepted my date of Ham
murabi. '
As for Egyptian chronology. Professor Lieblein has
shown that Dynasties VIII and IX were contemporary,
just as I asserted. Eduard Meyer and Breasted- have both
corrected themselves in their interpretation of the Turin
papyrus, regarding the succession and number of kings
in Dynasty XI, coming to practically the same conclusions
as I. Mr. Griffith has shown that the reign of Amen-
hotep II was very short, say three to five years. I sug
gested three for his independent reign.
These examples may suffice to show that, although 1
was working on independent lines, I was still, in my former
book, well within the bounds of legitimate research.
I stated in my book that many of the dates could
only be approximated. Later discoveries have caused
me to modify my opinions in regard, to some of them.
These instances will be treated in an appendix to this
volume. In this present volume I have refrained from cumber
ing my text with multitudinous notes referring to individual
scholars. But this must not be taken as evidence that I
am not acquainted with the literature that has appeared
on this subject. The appended bibliography represents
merely those books which have constantly been at my
hand in the preparation of this volume. The "Hibbard
Egyptian Library," which has been placed at my disposal,
has given me a splendid opportunity to consult all the best
works in all branches of this science. I claim to be
I Exodus ("The New Century Bible"), p. 28g.

xn PREFACE
thoroughly cognizant of the views of all the more promi
nent writers bearing upon this work.
But sometimes nomina sunt odiosa. By bringing in a
number of names of scholars whom I highly respect and
by whose labors I have greatly profited, but with whom
I feel constrained to disagree, some readers might be led
to suppose that I was criticizing individuals. Nothing
could be more foreign to my purpose. Like them I am
searching for truth, and this present work is merely an
honest and sincere endeavor to add something to our
knowledge of a very important subject. If it be found that
I have utterly failed, I shall feel, nevertheless, that I have
rendered service to the cause of truth by showing what
can not be accepted. If, on the other hand, this book con
tain anything of value, anything worth considering, I
trust that the minds of scholars will not be so prejudiced
as to refuse it their consideration, even if this imply, as
the acceptance of my theories certainly will imply, a total
reconstruction of the Evolutionary Hypothesis of modem
higher criticism. It is my wish that all might be ready
and willing to look questions such as are raised in this
book squarely in the face. Our purpose should ever
be, not the support of any theory, but solely the search
for truth. Truth wUl, in any case, prevail.
It may be surprising to some of my readers that the
Exodus and not the patriarchal period is treated first in
this series. The reason for this is the fact that the dating
of the patriarchs depends quite definitely upon the dating
of the Exodus, which, therefore, I have had to treat first.
The patriarchal period will be the subject of a future
volume. In treating of the Exodus, I have totally ignored the

PREFACE xiii
theory, held by some radical critics, that there never was
a Hebrew exodus out of Egypt. Although I certainly
admit that there was a land Muzur in PhUistia or southern
Palestine, which is a great question by itself, still there
has never been advanced a single scrap of competent
evidence in favor of the theory which connects the Exodus
with that land. The whole hypothesis is a pure assump
tion, lacking both scientific basis and common-sense.
The "Jerakhmeel" theory, which is an outgrowth of this
Muzur hopothesis, and acording to which about two-thirds
of the biblical names of this period are wholesale corup-
tions of the one word "Jerakhmeel," deserves no notice.
The corruptions are not in the Bible, but rather in the
mind of the scientist who originated the theory. The
"pan-Babylonistic" view, which sees in all these names
and events merely sun, moon, and zodiacal motives, has
also been deemed unworthy of consideration. The
present work seeks to establish the historicity of the
Exodus out of Egypt. If that be established all the other
theories disappear.
In discussing the dates of the documents I have paid
no attention to the hypothesis advanced by Dillmann,
Schrader, and others of that school, namely that the
P(riestly) document was written in the period of theDavidic
or Solomonic monarchy. Although this comes surpris
ingly near the date which I have myself suggested, I have
been loath to use the conclusions of these scholars, because
they assume that this document is the oldest. With the
Wellhausen school I still feel constrained to regard P as
the latest of the Hexateuchal documents.
Several scholars have lately revolted against many
tenets of the higher criticism. Much of their feeling and

XIV PREFACE
argument I accept, of course, but in no case have I been
able to accept them in toto. With Baentsch I agree that
Moses must have been a historic personality. In chaps.
ii and iii the reader will find that my views often coincide
with those of Eerdmanns, although in his reconstruction
I find myself as far apart from him as from the Wellhausen
school. Orr has certainly rendered great service to the
cause of biblical criticism, but I cannot help feeling that
he has underestimated, in several important particulars,
the critical arguments in regard to contradictions between
P and J, E, and D. And as Orr seems unwilling to admit
even the existence of independent documents in the
Hexateuch, of course I could not make any extensive use
of his arguments. Consequently, agreement between
myself and Orr or Eerdmanns is limited to some of the
negative arguments. In my reconstruction I dare claim
an entirely independent line of thought, both in regard
to the documents and in regard to the history of the period
treated. Professor Burney of Oxford has lately argued in favor
of the Mosaic origin of the Decalogue. His reconstruction
of religious conditions in the period of the Judges had in
substance been presented by myself a year earlier, and
the present volume is only an enlargement of what I then
presented. Perhaps, too, some of my readers may be surprised to
find that in the great majority of cases I adopt the reading
of the Greek texts in preference to that of the Massoretic
Hebrew, which is the basis of our English text. I do this
because I have become convinced, after minute study of
the Greek codices, that they are not only translations of
an archet)^e much older and more accurate than that from

PREFACE XV
which our text has been derived, but also that, represent
ing, as they do, manuscripts over five hundred years older
than any we have in Hebrew, they have escaped centuries
of Massoretic tinkering.
What is here presented is the fruit of many years of
thought and labor. I have taken care not to present
anything which has not a bearing on the question of the
Exodus. The chapters dealing with the documents are
necessary, as I think wUl be clear, for a basis on which
to study the Exodus in the later chapters.
Before closing this preface, I wish to thank most sin
cerely Rev. H. L. Cawthorne of Chicago, through whose
earnest efforts and interest in this work I was enabled to
obtain the services of a secretary in the preparation of
this volume.
I wish also to thank two of my pupils for their help.
One of these, my secretary, Mr. Bernard Iddings Bell,
has had a large share in the preparation of this volume,
not only in his careful work in taking my dictation and
preparing the volume for the press, but also in many
valuable suggestions and helpful criticism which he has
offered on questions presented in the book.
Mr. Walter Blake Williamson, the other of these pupUs,
has prepared the map, under my direction, with a care
which I very much appreciate. In studying this book,
my readers will, I believe, find this map useful.
Again I take pleasure in recording my deep apprecia
tion of the generosity and the interest which a member of
our Oriental Society has shown by guaranteeing a large
part of the cost of publishing this volume.
Olaf a. Toffteen
Western Theological Seminary
September i, 1909

PAGES 1-7
9-16

CONTENTS
Bibliography
Abbreviations, i; Books, 2.
Chapter I. Introduction
Documents of the Hexateuch, 9; The Evolutionary Hypothesis
10; Critical Results, 11; Inspiration of Holy Scriptures, 13;
Purpose of the Hexateuch, 14; Reconsideration of the Criti
cal Hypothesis, ij.
Chapter II. The Date of the P Document . 17-44
a. Internal Evidence, 17-42.
I. Geographical Considerations, 17; (o) Persia, 17; (J)
Elam, 18; (c) Tirash, 18; (d) Gomer, 19. II. Chronol
ogical Considerations (a) Solar, not Lunar Year in P, 20;
(6) Hebrew, not Babylonian Month Names in P, 20; (c)
The Hebrew, not the Bablylonian New- Year in P, 20;
Note on the Biblical Calendar Systems, 21.
III. The Nature and Names of God (a) Elohim in the
Creation Story, 22; (b) Elohim in the Deluge Story, 22;
(c) Ancestor-Worship at Machpelah, 24; {d) El Shaddai, 24;
(e) El Elyon, 25.
rV. Religious Institutions (a) The Central Sanctuary of P,
25; (b) The Pre-exilic Sacrifices of P, 26; (c) Priests and
Levites in P, 29.
v. Historical Determinants of the Date of P (a) P and
Ezekiel, 30; (i) P and Deuteronomy, 31; (c) P and Josiah's
Reforms, 32; (d) 7 and Hosea, 33; (e) P and Solomon, 33;
(/) P and Saul, 33 ; (g) P and the Kings of Edom, 34.
VI. "Law of Yahweh" a Technical Term for P (_a) In time
of Hezekiah, 35; (6) Josiah, 36; (c) Jeremiah, 37; (d) Isaiah,
37; W Amos, 38; (/) Jehu, 39; (g) Jehoshaphat, 39; {h)
Asa, 40; (J) David, 40.
B. External Evidence, 42-44.
(a) The Elephantine Papyri, 42; (6) D Added to the Com
piled JED, 44.
C. Conclusion, 44.
Chapter II. Unity and Contents of the P Document 45-56
I. Fragments and Doublets in P, 45.
II. Change of Names, 47; El Shaddai and Yahweh, 47; Abram
and Abraham, 48; Jacob and Israel, 48.

xvm CONTENTS
PAGES
III. The Four Covenants, 49.
IV. The Ten Toledoth, 50.
V. The Framework of the Hexateuch, 52; (a) The Toledoth
Book, 52; (b) The P Document Proper, 55.
Chapter IV. The Language of the P Document . . 57-62
Not the Language of the Exilic Age, 57; Hebrew Dialects, 59;
The Dialect of Levi, 60.
Chapter V. Conclusions in Regard to the P Docu
ment. ... . . . . 63-64
Early Date of P, 63; Documents of P, 63; Language of P, 64.
Chapter VI. The Date of the D Document . 65-88
A. External Evidence, 65-69.
Finding of the Book of Deuteronomy, 65; The Reform of
Josiah, 67; D Not Written in the Time of Josiah, 68.
B. Internal Evidence, 69-88.
I. D and Josiah's Reform, 69; (a) The Chemarim, 69;
(b) Hangings for Asherah, 70; (c) High-Places of the
Satyrs, 70; (d) The Priests of the High-Places, 70; (e)
Molech-Worship, 70; (/) The Horses of the Sun, 70; (g)
High-Places near Jerusalem, 70; (h) The High-Place of
Bethel, 70; (i) Worship at the Tombstones of Bethel, 71;
(j) Teraphim-Worship, 71.
II. D and the Age of Josiah, 71; (a) Canaanites and
Amalekites, 71; (6) Military Service, 71; (c) Foreign
King in Israel, 71; (d) Esau, 71; (e) Anakim, 72.
III. D and the Early History of Israel, 72; (a) Amaziah,
72; (b) Solomon, 74.
IV. "Law of Moses" a Technical Term for D, 76; (o) In
the time of Joshua, 78; (6) At Ebal, 79; (c) Joshua's
Farewell, 79; {d) David, 80; (e) Jehoiada, 80; (/)
Hezekiah, 81; (g) Manasseh, 81.
V. D and the Central Sanctuary, 82; No Mention of Jeru
salem in D, 83; Other Sanctuaries Permitted, 83.
VI. D and the Priests the Levites, 84.
VH. Finding of the Document, 85; The Disappearance of
D, 8s; The Repairs in the Temple, 86; Egyptian Pre
cedents, 87.
VIII. Conclusion, 88.
Chapter VII. The Date of the E Document . 89-100
I. The E Code Precedes D, 89.
II. "Law of Elohim" a Technical Term for E, 90; In Time of
Hosea, 90; In Time of Joshua, 91.

CONTENTS xix
III. The Book of the Covenant, 91; The First Covenant at
Horeb, 92; The First "Tables of Covenant," 95; The
Second "Tables of Covenant," 97; The Second Covenant
at Horeb, 98.
IV. The Date of the E Document, 99.
V. Conclusion, 99.
Chapter VIII. The Unity and Contents of the E
Document  101-118
I. Unity of the E Document, loi.
II. Unity of the E Code, loi; The Statutes, 102; The Judg
ments, 102; The General Priesthood, 103; The Levitical
Priesthood, 105.
III. The History of the E Code, 107; Early Existence, 107;
Non-Levitical Sacrifices, 107; E in the Northern Kingdom,
108.
IV. The E Code and the Code of Hammurabi, no; Patricide,
in; Manstealing, in; Quarrels, in; Miscarriage, 211;
"ie» talionis," 112; Goring, 112; Theft of Animals, 113;
Burglary, 113; Unlawful Pasturage, 113; Deposit, 114;
Storage, 114; Herding, 114; Sorcery, 115; Perjury, 115;
Bribery, 116.
V. Conclusion, 117.
Chapter IX. The Relation Between the E and D
Documents  ... 119-134
Rebellion at Kadesh, 119; The First Conquest, 120; Judah,
121; House of Joseph, 122; Rebellion of Dathan and
Abiram, 125; The Covenant in Moab, 126; Stay at Gilgal,
127; The Second Conquest, 129; Reunion of Joshua and
Caleb, 130; War with Jabin, 131; Covenant in Shiloh, 132;
Conclusion, 134.
Chapter X. The Language of the E and D Docu
ments  .' 135-136
Language of E, 135; Language of D, 135.
Chapter XI. The J Document  137-140
I. Date, 137; II. Unity, 137; III. Language, 138; Addenda on
Hebrew Dialects, 139.
Chapter XII. Differences Between P and JED. —
The Settlements in Egypt  142-147
Not Variant Traditions, but Variant Events, 142; Reconstruction of
the Text, 142; Land of Goshen, 144; Land of Raamses, 145.

XX CONTENTS
PAGES
Chapter XIII. Differences Between P and JED. —
The Servitudes in Egypt  148-152
Building of Pithom and Raamses, 148; Northern Heliopolis,
150; The Wilderness East of the Red Sea, 152.
Chapter XIV. Differences Between P and JED. —
The Going-out from Egypt  153-165
I. The P Route, 158; Succoth, 158; Wilderness of Etham or
Shur, 158; Pi-Hahiroth, 159; Migdol, 160; Baal-Zephon,
161; The Sea, 161.
II. The JED Route, 165; The Red Sea, 165.
Chapter XV. Differences Between P and JED. —
The Routes of the Exodus  166-168
The Route According to JED, 166; The Route According to P,
166; Kadesh-barnea, 166; Elim, 167; Zared, 167.
Chapter XVI. Differences Between P and JED. —
The Length of the Wandering  169-173
According to P, 169; According to JED, 170.
Chapter XVII. Differences Between P and JED. —
Horeb and Sinai  174-177
Horeb, 174; Sinai, 176.
Chapter XVIII. Differences Between P and JED. —
The Sets of Tables AND the Arks . . . 178-187
I. The Two Sets of Tables, 178; Tables of Covenant, 178;
Tables of Testimony, 178.
II. The Two Arks, 180; History of the Ark of Covenant, 180;
History of the Ark of Testimony, 182; The Altars at Gibeon
and Jerusalem, 183.
Chapter XIX. Differences Between P and JED. —
The Legislations at Horeb and Sinai . . . 188-192
I. Laws of P Contrary to Laws of E, 188; II. Laws of P Not
Found in E, 190; III. Laws of E Not Found in P, 191;
IV. Similar Laws in E and P, 191.
Chapter XX. Differences Between P and JED. —
The Priesthoods  193-222
Definition of the Term, 193; Moses a Priest in JED, 193; Aaron
"the Priest," 193; "Priest" a Technical Term in P, 193;
Early History of the Aaronic Priesthood, 195; Mustering at

CONTENTS XXI
PAGES
Sinai, 197; Rebellion of Korah, 198; Mustering-in of
Levites, 199; The Aaronic Priesthood in Joshua and
Judges, 201; The High-Priesthood of Eli, 202; The High-
Priests, 202 ; Identity of Eli and Eleazar, 205 ; Confusion of
Eliezer and Eleazar, 207; Confusion of Ahimelech and
Abimelech, 208; The Priesthoods in the United Monarchy,
210; The Priesthoods in Judah and Israel, 214; Ezekiel's
Proposed Reform, 218; The Priesthood in Time of Ezra,
219; Summary, 220; Note on the Ephods, 221.
Chapter XXI. The Dates of the Exodi .... 223-27
I. The Date according to P, 223; The Tale of the Two Brothers,
224; Report of a Frontier Official, 224; The Israel Stela,
228; Papyrus Harris, 229; Ramses III, Pharaoh of the
Oppression, 233; Ramses IV, Pharaoh of the Exodus,
234.
II. The Date according to JED, 234; I Kings 6:1, 234; The
JED Settlement in Egypt, 235; Khnumhotep II, 236;
Ishmaelites Sell Joseph, 237; Stela of Sebek-khu, 237;
Zaphenath-Paneah, 240; Funeral of Jacob, 241 ; Scarabs of
Jacob, 243; Jacob and Israel, 244; Later Career of Sebek-khu,
245; Reign of the Hyksos Kings, 247; Exodus of JED, 249;
Hatshepsut, 249; Thutmose III, Pharaoh of the Oppres
sion, 250; Amenhotep II, Pharaoh of the Exodus, 250;
The Conquest and the Amarna Period, 253; The Qabire,
254; Mut-Baal, 256; Judge Addi, 260; Deborah, 265;
The Midianites in JED, 268; Artatama II, 269; Cushan-
Rishathaim, 269.
III. Conclusions, 270.
Chapter XXII. Similarities in the Two Stories . . 271-276
I. The Intrinsic Possibility of Two Exodi, 272; II. The Simi
larity of the Routes, 273; HI. The Similarity of the Law-
Givings, 273; IV. The Similarities in the Plagues, 274;
V. The Similarity in the Names of the Leaders, 275.
Chapter XXIII. Conclusion  ¦ 277-282
Dates of the Documents, 277; Number of Documents, 278;
Differences in Language and Style, 280; Doublets and
Triplets of Texts, 280; Similarity or Divergence in Laws and
Law-Codes, 281; Different Historical, Geographical, and
Biographical Statements, 281; Differences in Religion,
Morals, and Ceremonies, 281.

xxii CONTENTS PAGES
Appendix I. The Jews and Their Temple at Elephan
tine  285-293
Bibliography, 285; The Euting Papyrus, 285; The Assuan
Papyri, 286; The Jewish Quarter in Elephantine, 287;
The Elephantine Papyrus, 288; Note on Bagobi, 291;
Note on the Temple at Elephantine, 292.
Appendix II. Ancient Chronology  294-317
Bibliography, 294; Introduction, 297; Biblical Chronology,
299; Chronology of the Book of Judges, 299; Babylonian
Chronology, 303; Egyptian Chronology, 304; Synchronistic
Table, 308.
Indices  319-339
Index of Biblical References, 321; Index of Names and Subjects,
326.

bibliography
I. Abbreviations
ARM= Ancient Records of Egypt, Vols. I-V, by J. H. Breasted.
A. V.= Authorized Version.
BA.=Beitrage zur Assyriologie.
BC. =Bihlischer Commentar.
BE. = Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania.
CBSC.=Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges.
HAT.=Handkommentar zum Alten Testament.
HOC. = Historical and Critical Commentary.
ICC. = The International Critical Commentary.
J A. = Journal asiatique.
JBL.=Journal of Biblical Literature.
JHS. —Journal of Hellenic Studies.
JQR.= Jewish Quarterly Review.
KEH.=Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handhuch.
KHC.=Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament.
KK. =Kurzgefasster Kommentar.
LOT. = An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, by
S. R. Driver.
LXX =Septuagint, The Greek Version of the Old Testament.
MAFC.=Memoires publies par les membres de la Mission Archeo-
logique Franfaise au Caire.
MDOG.=Mittheilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft.
MOS .=Mittheilungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen der Kdnigl
Museen zu Berlin.
MSI.=Monumenta Sacra Inedita, by C. Tischendorf.
MSP.=Monumenta Sacra et Prof ana, by A. M. Ceriani.
MVG.—Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft.
NCB.-^The New-Century Bible.
OLZ.=Orientalistische Literatur-Zeitung.
PEFQS. = Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement.
PSB A. = Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology.

2 BIBLIOGRAPHY
RAO.=Recueil d'archeologie orientate.
RB.=Revus biblique.
RE. = Revue igyptologique.
RT.=Recueilde travaux relatifs h la philologie et d. I' archeologie egyp-
tiennes et assyriennes.
R. V.=Revised Version.
SBOT.=Sacred Books of the Old Testament.
VAB. = Vorderasiatische Bibliothek.
WZKM.=Wiener Zeitschrift fur Kunde des Morgenlandes.
ZA.=ZeitschriftfUr Assyriologie.
Z A. = Zeitschrift fur Agyptische Sprache.
II. Books
C. A. Briggs. General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scriptures.
New York, 1900.
C. Cornill. Introduction to the Canonical Books of the Old Testament.
Eng. transl. by G. H. Box. London, 1907.
S. R. Driver. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament.
12th ed. New York, 1906.
J. G. Eichhom. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Vols. I-V.
Gottingen, 1823-24.
E. E. Gigot. General Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scrip
tures. New York, 1905.
H. A. C. Havernick. General Historico-Critical Introduction to the
Old Testament; Eng. transl. by W. E. Alexander. Edinburgh,
1852.
E. Konig. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Bonn, 1893.
W. M. L. de Wette. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung
in die kanonischen und apokryphischen BUcher des Alten Testa
ments; neu bearbeitet von E. Schrader. Berlin, 1869.
C. H. H. Wright. An Introduction to the Old Testament. New York,
1905.

E. Buhl. Kanon und Text des Alten Testaments. Leipzig, 1891.
M. Dods. The Bible, Its Origin and Nature. New York, 1 907.
A. K. Fiske. The Jewish Scriptures. New York, 1896.

BOOKS 3
W. H. Green. General Introduction to the Old Testament; the Canon.
New York, 1905.
H. E. Ryle. The Canon of the Old Testament. London, 1904.

E. Watson. Inspiration. London, 1906.

W. E. Addis. The Documents of the Hexateuch. Vols. I, II. Lon
don, 1892-98.
C. A. Briggs. The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch. New York,
1897.
J. E. Carpenter. The Composition of the Hexateuch. London,
1902.
C. F. Kent. Narratives of the Beginnings of Hebrew History. New
York, 1905.
J. J. Lias. Principles of Biblical Criticism. London, 1893.
O. Procksch. Das nordhebrdische Sagenbuch, die Elohimquelle.
Leipzig, 1906.
H. Winckler. Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen. Leipzig, 1892.
Wellhausen, Prologomena to the History of Israel. Eng. transl., 1885.
 . Composition des HexateuchSjiSgg.

W. Bacher. Die exegetische Terminologie der judischen Traditions-
literatur. Leipzig, 1905.
Bacon. The Triple Tradition of Exodus.
L. W. Batten. The Old Testament from the Modern Point of View.
New York, 1901.
C. A. Briggs. The Papal Commission and the Pentateuch. London,
1906.
T. K. Che3me. Bible Problems. London, 1904.
 . Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel. London, 1907.
J. D. Davis. Genesis and Semitic Tradition. London, 1894.
R. B. Girdlestone. Deuterographs. Oxford, 1894.
A. R. Gordon. The Early Traditions of Genesis. Edinburgh, 1907.
H. Gunkel. The Legends of Genesis. Eng. transl. by W. H. Carruth.
Chicago, 1907.
 . Schopfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit. Gottingen,
1895.

4 BIBLIOGRAPHY
R. H. Kennett. In Our Tongues. London, 1907.
A. F. Kirkpatrick. The Divine Library of the Old ¦ Testament.
London, 1906.
P. Koch. Die Mythen und Sagen der Bibel. Berlin, 1907.
J. E. McFadyen. Old Testament Criticism and the Christian Church.
New York, 1906.
H. Mcintosh. Is Christ Infallible and the Bible True ? Edinburgh,
1902.
J. B. Mozley. Ruling Ideas in Early Ages. London, 1900.
R. L. Ottley. Aspects of the Old Testament. London, 1904.
H. E. Ryle. The Early Narratives of Genesis. London, 1904.
G. A. Smith. Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testa
ment. New York, 1902.
W. R. Smith. The Old Testament in the Jewish Church. London,
1902.
Studia Biblica. Vols. I-IV. Oxford, 1885-96.
A. W. Vernon. The Religious Value of the Old Testament. New
York, 1907. ^ 
W. L. Baxter. Sanctuary and Sacrifice: a Reply to Wellhausen.
London, 1896.
E. C. Bissell. The Pentateuch, Its Origin and Structure. New
York, 1 906.
B. D. Eerdmans. Alttestamentliche Studien, Parts I, II. Giessen,
1908.
W. E. Gladstone. The Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture. Phila
delphia, 1896.
W. H. Green. The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch. New York,
1903.
 . Tlte Unity of the Book of Genesis. New York, 1 901 .
D. S. Margoliouth. Lines of Defense of the Biblical Revelation,
London, 1903.
J. M. McMuUen. The Supremacy of the Bible. Toronto, 1905.
J. Orr. The Bible under Trial. New York, 1907.
 . The Problem of the Old Testament. New York, 1906.
G. H. Rouse. Old Testament Criticism in New Testament Light.
Philadelphia, 1905.

BOOKS 5
T. K. Abbott. Essays on the Original Texts of the Old and New
Testaments. London, 1891.
E. G. Kenyon. Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts. London,
1898.
P. de Lagarde. Mittheilungen, Vols. I-IV. Gottingen, 1884-91.
E. Nestle. Urtext und tlbersetzungen der Bibel. Leipzig, 1897.

B. Baentsch. Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri {HAT). Gottingen, 1903.
W. E. Barnes. Chronicles (CBSC). Cambridge, 1899.
W. H. Bennett. Genesis (NCB) .
 . Exodus (NCB).
 . The Book of Joshua iSBOT). New York, 1899.
F. Delitzsch. Neuer Commentar iiber die Genesis. Leipzig, 1887.
A. Dillmann. Die Genesis (KEH). Leipzig, 1892.
S. R. Driver. The Book of Genesis (WC).
 . The Book of Leviticus (SBOT). New York, 1898.
 . Deuteronomy (ICC). New York, 1906.
J. R. Dummelow. The One-Volume Bible Commentary. New York,
1909.
G. B. Gray. Numbers (ICC). New York, 1903.
H. Gunkel. Genesis (HAT). Gottingen, 1902.
W. R. Harvey- Jellie. Chronicles (NCB).
H. Holzinger. Genesis (KHC). Leipzig, 1898.
M. M. Kalisch. Genesis (HCC). London, 1858.
E. Keil. Genesis und Exodus (BC). Leipzig, 1878.
A. R. S. Kennedy. Samuel {NCB).
A. F. Kirkpatrick. Samuel, I, II {CBSC). Cambridge, 1905.
R. Kittel. Die BUcher der Konige {HAT). Gottingen, 1900.
 . Die BUcher der Chronik {HAT). Gottingen, 1902.
A. Klostermann. Die BUcher Samuelis und der Konige {KK).
Nordlingen, 1887.
J. J. Lias. Judges {CBSC). Cambridge, 1902.
J. R. Lumby. Kings {CBSC). Cambridge, 1903.
G. F. Maclear. The Book of Joshua {CBSC). Cambridge, 1904.
A. H. McNeile. The Book of Exodus {WC) .
G. F. Moore. Judges {ICC). New York, 1903.
 . The Book of Judges {SBOT). New York, 1898.

6 BIBLIOGRAPHY
W. Nowack. Richter, Ruth und BUcher Samuelis {HAT). Got
tingen, 1902.
S. Oettli. Das Deuteronomium, die BUcher Joshua und Richter {KK) .
Miinchen, 1893.
H. W. Robinson. Deuteronomy and Joshua {NCB).
Skinner. Kings {NCB).
H. P. Smith. The Books of Samuel {ICC). New York, 1904.
H. L. Strack. Die Genesis {KK). Miinchen, 1905.
C. Steuernagel. Deuteronomium und Joshua {HAT). Gottingen,
1900.
G. W. Thatcher. Judges and Ruth {NCB).
E. Tuch. Commentar Uber die Genesis. Halle, 187 1.
G. W. Wade. The Book of Genesis. London, 1896.

H. J. D. Astley. Prehistoric Archaeology and the Old Testament.
Edinburgh, 1908.
L. Benziger. Hebrdische Archaeologie. Tiibingen, 1907.
H. Brugsch. Die biblischen Sieben Jahre der Hungersnoth. Leipzig,
1891.
 . L'exode et les monuments egyptiens. Leipzig, 1875.
W. St. G. Boscawen. The Bible and the Monuments. London, 1896.
A. T. Clay. Light on the Old Testament from Babel. Philadelphia,
1907.
F. Delitzsch. Babel and Bibel. Eng. transl. by C. H. W. Johns.
London, 1903.
J. G. Duncan. The Exploration of Egypt and the Old Testament.
New York, 1908.
G. Ebers. Aegypten und die BUcher Moses. Leipzig, 1868.
E. W. Hengstenberg. Egypt and the Books of Moses. Eng. transl.
by R. D. C. Robbins. Edinburgh, 1845.
D. G. Hogarth. Authority and Archaeology. London, 1899.
E. Hommel. The Ancient Hebrew Tradition. London, 1897.
A. Jeremias. Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients.
Leipzig, 1906.
R. A. S. Macalister. Bible Side-Lights from the Mound of Gezer.
New York, 1906.

BOOKS 7
J. F. McCurdy. History, Prophecy, and the Monuments. Vols.
I-III. New York 1898-1906.
A. Michaelis. A Century of Archaeological Discoveries. Eng.
transl. by Bettina. New York, 1908.
W. Nowack. Lehrbuch der Hebraischen Archdologie. Leipzig,
1894.
Th. G. Pinches. The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical
Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia. London, 1903.
A. H. Sayce. The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monu
ments. London, 1901.
 . Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments. London, 1885.
E. Schrader. Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament. 3te
Auflage von H. Zimmem und H. Winckler. Berlin, 1903.
E. Stahelin. Israel in Aegypten. Basel, 1908.
G. St. Clair. Buried Cities and Bible Countries. London, 1892.
Olaf A. Toffteen. Ancient Chronology, Part I. Chicago, 1907.
 . Researches in Assyrian and Babylonian Geography,
Part I. Chicago, 1908.
D. Volter. Aegypten und die Bibel. Leiden, 1907.
W. M. L. de Wette. Lehrbuch der Hebrdisch-judischen Archdologie.
Leipzig, 1 81 4.

CHAPTER I
Introduction
To Professor Wellhausen belongs the distinction of
having pointed out that the Hexateuch is made up of
four great documents, and subsequent scholars have devel
oped this hypothesis and have endeavored to distinguish
these documents more certainly in the text. There is now
a general agreement among critical scholars as to the
extent of these documents, although there still remain
large scope and variety of different opinions in regard to
minor details, such as in assigning certain sections to one
document or to another. Documents of the Hexateuch
Critical scholarship has agreed to designate these
documents by the letters J (Jahvistic), E (Elohistic), D
(Deuteronomic), and P (Priestly).
The division of the text into these documents is the
result of the following considerations :
a) Differences in vocabulary and style ;
b) Doublets and triplets of texts;
c) Several divergent or sometimes parallel law-codes;
d) Different historical and geographical statements;
e) Differences in divine names and conceptions of
religion, morals, and ceremonies.
The careful student of the Old Testament cannot help
acknowledging that the principles on which this Docu
mentary Hypothesis is built are reasonable, and are not
to be disregarded by anyone who desires to understand
9

ID INTRODUCTION
the sources of the text. The process by which modern
criticism has reached these results has been tedious.
Modifications have been constantly admitted. And they
are still to be expected. The time has not yet come for
us to put such a comparatively new and important theory
into a stereot3^ed form. But although scholars have
differed and still do differ on certain details, it must at
least be admitted that in the Hexateuch we have several
documents. That this number should be confined to
four is at present the accepted creed of critics. The cor
rectness of this limitation is, however, open to grave sus
picion. But even though we may have to admit a larger
number of documents as sources of our text, still the text
itself bears witness that it is a compilation, made from
several sources.
; The Evolutionary Hypothesis
But modern criticism has not been satisfied with merely
pointing out the existence of four great documents in the
Hexateuch. It has also undertaken to assert when these
documents themselves were written. The basis for this
determination has been sought for in the history of Israel,
and each document has been fitted into a period when
history might seem to warrant its appearance. A docu
ment representing simpler or more naive forms of reli
gion and society is placed earlier, and one which presents
more complex forms later. The older Documentary
Hypothesis has thus been modified into an Evolutionary
Hypothesis, according to which the J document should
represent the religious and social condition of Israel ca.
850-800 B. c , the E document a somewhat later develop
ment, say ca. 800-750 b. c, the D document the conditions

CRITICAL RESULTS il
surrounding the reforms of Josiah, 621 b. c, and the P
document those conditions which prevailed under Ezra
and Nehemiah and their promulgation of the "book of
the law" in 444 b. c. In regard to this last, however,
scholars differ considerably, some of them assuming that
at least the earlier sections of the P document, and others
that the whole of it, date from the time of Ezekiel, ca.
585 B. c, and that Ezra's law-book represents our whole
Pentateuch. But even according to these men, the whole
Pentateuch is not thought to have reached its present form
before ca. 400 b. c. A few of the radical critics have
not hesitated to assign some sections of Exodus to
even as late as the Maccabean period.' But these
forget that the sections they so date were translated,
with the rest of the Pentateuch, into the Greek
Septuagint, about one hundred years before the
Maccabean period, and that they are also to be
found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, which can hardly
be of a later date than 432 b. c.
Whatever we may think about the dates assigned to
these documents we are bound to recognize as valid the
principle underlying modern critical research that the
Hexateuch is composed of several documents. This
principle seems so evidently correct and so necessary
for gaining an understanding of this portion of the
Scriptures that we are constrained to accept it.
Critical Results
But the conclusions which modern criticism has reached
by working on this principle may not be so certain. They
I See the earnest protest by Eb. Nestle against this kind of reckless criticism,
OLZ, 1908, pp. 240-42.

12 INTRODUCTION
are summed up, broadly speaking, in the two following
statements: I. The Hexateuch consists of four great documents,
and four only, which documents are to be found complete,
if only scholarship is keen enough to detect traces of them,
and to assign them to their respective places. The use of
the word "document" presupposes that we deal here with
a complete document, and not with mere fragments.
The Documentary Hypothesis stands in contrary position
to the Fragmentary Hypothesis, according to which the
Pentateuch is composed of a number of fragments.
2. These documents were compiled at or about the
times given above. This presupposes that the institu
tions mentioned in these documents and codes were codi
fied — perhaps in most cases came into existence — first
at the time when the particular document containing them
was written. The peculiarities of language in the docu
ments are supposed to reflect the language of the various
times in which they are alleged to have been written.
By means of these documents and their alleged dates
the critical hypothesis ordinarily undertakes to explain
the apparent difficulties, inconsistencies, contradictions,
and peculiarities which are supposed to exist in the Hexa
teuch. There were different traditions, say the critics
as a rule, lying back of and leading up to the peculiar
statements found in each document. When a tradition,
institution, or law, promulgated in a later document, is
unknown to an earlier document, we must assume, say
the critics, that such a particular tradition, institution, or
law has arisen after the earlier document was compiled.
In regard to religious, civil, and social institutions, we
must also assume, so they say, that those mentioned only

INSPIRATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURES 13
in a later document and not in previous documents, per
haps even contrary to those mentioned before, must have
been instituted after the preceding documents were com
posed. The Documentary Hypothesis places thus vividly before
us the apparent discrepancies in the different documents
and gives some explanation thereof, however unsatisfac
tory such explanation may prove to be; but it does not
remove the difl&culties, contradictions, or inconsistencies
which seemingly do exist. It is therefore no wonder that
many devout persons who wish to retain a belief in the
inspiration and the integrity of Holy Scripture are slow
to accept the results of modern criticism. For its main
feature seems to be a focusing of attention upon inconsis
tencies already quite prominent enough to the adherent
of the older method, who looks on the Hexateuch, or at
least the Pentateuch, as one continuous document.
Inspiration of Holy Scriptvires
Now, it is to be admitted that, even though inconsisten
cies and contradictions may exist in Holy Writ, that fact
does not nullify its inspiration. For inspiration is the
self-revelation of God through the Holy Ghost to man,
and Holy Writ is the record of that self -revelation. The
fact of that self-revelation in itself, even though errors in
detail may have crept into the record thereof, is evident
in the Hexateuch, even as modern scholars conceive it,
and this fact alone is amply sufficient to establish the truth
of its inspiration. Supposed errors in the Hexateuch are
not necessarily to be attributed to an erroneous revelation,
but should be attributed, rather, to other causes. The
man or agent to whom a revelation was originally made

14 INTRODUCTION
may, we have every right to believe, have received and re
corded it correctly. But a revelation may have been made
to two or more individuals, and the resulting accounts
may have been colored by their respective viewpoints and
various modes of expression. It is not contrary to any
orthodox belief in the doctrine of Plenary Inspiration to
admit the human factor in the composition of Holy Writ.
In later periods, too, when the various documents of an
earlier age came to be incorporated into one, it is but
natural that the lapse of centuries should have caused
more or less confusion. Records of different events which
were similar may easily have been regarded as but differ
ent accounts of the same event. Conversely, different
accounts of a single event may have become so separated
as to have been regarded as records of distinct events.
All this is natural, indeed inevitable, if the books of the
Old Testament were compiled, under the inspiration of
God the Holy Ghost, solely for the purpose of recording
God's revelation of himself.
Purpose of the Hexateuch
Now, the Hexateuch in its present form bears on its
face the evidences of having been compiled for the sole
purpose of recording God's deahngs with man. It does
not assume to be a treatise on history, geography, biog
raphy, or any other science. We cannot, therefore, expect
to find in it exact scientific terminology and method. A
historical and geographical misunderstanding in our
Hexateuch may thus be admitted, where the avowed pur
pose is solely to record the transactions which have hap
pened between God and man. '
' Torah, the Hebrew term for the Pentateuch, means originally "teaching,"
that is, par excellence, the teaching of God's self-revelation to man, as recorded
in that book.

RECONSIDERATION OF THE CRITICAL HYPOTHESIS IS
Still, however, after having admitted these necessary
definitions of the scope and purpose of the Hexateuch,
readers of the Bible will wonder why, in a self-revelation
of God and of his transactions with man, there should
have been so little of historical and geographical correct
ness as modern critics apparently would have us believe.
Conservative readers are beginning to wonder if there
may not be some scientific and historical hypothesis by
which more of historic fact may be admitted in the Bible
than most modern students assume.
Reconsideration of the Critical Hypothesis
There is the possibiUty that the results reached by
modern criticism on the general principle of the evolu
tionary theory are not legitimate. And surely the time
has not yet come when that theory and its alleged results
are so certain that they can be put into stereotyped form.
That they can be so put is a delusion into which many of
the most distinguished of modern scholars seem to have
fallen. The theory is of comparatively recent date ; and
the divergent opinions of almost all the critical scholars
on a very large number of points are not especially reas
suring to us, and do not give us perfect confidence that
all questions in regard to the Hexateuch have been for
ever settled. It may be claimed, and with much truth,
that these differences are now confined to only the minor
details, but some of the details on which differences of
opinion still exist are so important that the whole fabric
of the modern critical structure is affected thereby.
This assumption of perfect certainty on the part of
some critics is especially to be deplored when we consider
the fact that our present knowledge of the Hebrew and

i6 INTRODUCTION
kindred languages, in which the Old Testament was
originally written, is as yet very imperfect, and is growing,
in fact, with each passing day, and when we remember
further that aU of our lower or textual criticism has not
as yet enabled us to determine what reaUy was the original
text of these Hebrew scriptures.
At any rate, the time is not yet past for further inquiry
into the alleged results of the Evolutionary Hypothesis.
Are there only four documents in the Hexateuch? Can
these documents have been written at the times which
modern criticism generally postulates for them? Is there
no hypothesis which will enable us to believe that the docu
ments are themselves historical, and that they were written
at the time they themselves seem to imply ? In attempting
to answer these questions, let us begin with the P docu
ment and code.

. CHAPTER II
The Date of the P Document
Although some critics are willing to date the P docu
ment as far back as 585 b. c, most of them are inclined
to date it 444 b. c. They do this because, so they say,
the institutions and the religious ideas therein set forth
are not to be found in the history of the children of Israel
up to that time. If this be so, we must expect that the
geography set forth in P will be the geography known at
that time. If history or chronology is dealt with, it must
be the history or chronology known at that time. If there
are intimations of the character of God, or of religion, or of
religious institutions, these must all be such as would be
natural to those living at that time. Let us examine the
bibhcal records, and test the P document and code from
these standpoints, to see whether or not the facts substan
tiate the theory.
This evidence we wiU divide for convenience into two
sorts: internal evidence, and external evidence.
A. INTERNAL EVIDENCE
I. Geographical Considerations
a) It seems quite impossible that a man in the time of
Ezra (444 B. c), or more especially Ezra himself, if he
were the author of the P document,- could have written
a table of nations,' particularly one of the Aryan nations,''
without mentioning the Persians, who were in his day rulers
of Asia. It is to be remembered that Ezra himself stood
I Gen., chap. 10. ^ Gen. 10:2-5.
17

1 8 THE DATE OF THE P DOCUMENT
in special favor with the Persian king, that Nehemiah,
his associate, was a special ambassador from the Persian
court, and that they had the support of that court in the
reforms which they carried out. The document mentions
Media and Ionia, ' which were at this time merely subject
nations to the Persians. Now the Persians appear on the
Assyrian inscriptions as early as 837 b. c.,' and it seems
improbable, therefore, that this document should have
been of a much later date. For if the author knew of
Media, which was farther away, why should he not have
mentioned Persia, which lay near his own land ?
b) In Gen. 10: 22 Elam is described as a son of Shem.
But in the time of Ezra every Jew living in Babylonia knew
that the Elamites were not related to the Semites, either
ethnically, geographically, or politically. The latest
discoveries in Susa have shown, however, that prior to
the Hammurabi D)masty a Semitic people lived in Elam
and Semitic governors ruled in Susa, the capital of Elam.
We must then have here a document, or a fragment em
bodied in the P document, which goes back to a time when
the relations between the Semites and the Semitic inhabi
tants of Elam were real, or at least well known.
c) In Gen. 10:2-5 ^^^ of the sons of Japheth is called
Tirash. He is undoubtedly identical with a people called
Teresh, who appear on the Egyptian monuments in com
pany with the Philistines when they invaded Palestine
ca. 1 180 B. c. Shortly after this the name disappears from
these monuments. We are inchned to identify this Teresh,
I Javan.
' mdt Par-su-a, Shalmaneser II, Annals, 11. 120 bis. 172, 173 bis, 185.
This people had at this time a large number of fortified cities, and twenty-
seven city-kings of theirs are mentioned. This presupposes that at that time
the northern Persia had already been settled for a long period.

GEOGRAPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 19
not only with the biblical Tirash, but also with the Etrus
can people of Italy. Now, the Etruscan migration into
Italy can hardly be placed later than iioo b. c. This
accounts for its total disappearance, both from the monu
ments of Egypt and from the narratives of the Bible.
After IIOO b. c. the Hebrew people did not come into
contact with this nation, and consequently could not have
known of it. At least this portion of the P document
must depend upon a written document which is not later
in origin, or at least not very much later, than this date.
d) In Gen. 10: 2 we find a mention of Gomer, which of
course is a name for what are generally known as the
Cimerian people. The Assyrian for them is Gimirrai.
Now these people appear first on the Assyrian monuments
in the Sargon period, i.e., ca. 720 b. c. Assyriologists
have assumed, since they have their first Assyrian mention
at this date, that therefore the P document with its men
tion of them cannot possibly have been written before
this time. Modern critics have seemed inclined to agree
with them in this. This custom of dating a bibhcal docu
ment by the mere mention of a geographical name on an
Assyrian monument is very precarious. This is especially
true in this case, for the political horizon of the Assyrians
up to the time of Sargon was very narrow indeed, and
there was no occasion for them to mention the Gimirrai
before his time. That the people were known before his
time is seen from Homer's Odyssey, where we are told that
Odysseus, fleeing from Troy, visited the Cimerians. It
does not matter much when the Odyssey was actually
composed. The tradition embodied in it affirms the
existence of the Cimerians on the horizon of the Greek
peoples as early as the Fall of Troy, 11 83 B.C. Thus

20 THE DATE OF THE P DOCUMENT
Gomer was known in Palestine at the same time that
Tirash, mentioned above, was known there. And this
is the very time when the entrance of the Aryan race into
Asiatic politics commenced to cause immense upheavals
there. '
II. Chronological Considerations
a) In Gen. 7 : 24; 8 : 3, 4 are references to the solar year
(150 days, equal to five months of thirty days each). In
the exilic and post-exilic periods the Jews used Babylonian
chronology, based on the lunar year. The use of the solar
year must have ended before the Exile. The date of
the P document must then be earher than 587 b. c, when
the Exile and the change in the chronological system
commenced. b) If the P document and code were composed in the
exilic or post-exilic period we should expect that it would
use the names of months that then were usual, namely
the Babylonian month names, such as Nisan, Ijjar, Sivan,
etc. But the P document does not give us one instance
of the use of these Babylonian names. It has a system
of its own. It refers to the months as the first, the second,
the third, etc. Now, we find that this same system was
in vogue as early as the establishment of the monarchy.
It is utterly inconceivable, if its origin was exilic or post-
exilic, that P should show no trace of the use of the Baby
lonian system.
c) And further, it is assumed, or claimed at least, that
the author of P had accepted and reckoned by the Babylo
nian custom of beginning the civic year in the spring instead
of in the autumn and that this custom was introduced
among the Jews in the exilic period. But if this be true
I Toffteen, A ncient Chronology, Part I, p. 209.

CHRONOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 21
the Utter absence of Babylonian month names in P becomes
still more difl&cult to explain. Further, the Holiness
Code,' which is a part of P, contains the law on the Feast
of Trumpets, which was celebrated, as we know, at the
autumnal equinox. We know also that it was a celebra
tion of a Hebrew new year. It seems, therefore, very
singular that we should here have a law promulgated
under the Exile or afterward, establishing a new-year
festival in the autumn, when in fact everyone, including
the promulgators, began the year in the spring — and this
without a single reference to the Babylonian calendar, then
universally observed among the Jews. In view of these
facts, the unprejudiced mind can hardly help assuming
that this law, at least, was written and promulgated at a
time when the Hebrew year began in the autumn, i. e.,
long before the Exile. ^
I Lev. 23:24, 25; cf. Num. 29:1-6 (P).
' The Old Testament knows of and uses four calendar systems:
a) The Canaanitic calendar, in which the word for month is yerakh
( = 29^ days), and has a lunar year of 354 days. Only three of the month
names are known in the Bible, Ziv, Ethanim, and Bui; but the Phoenician
inscriptions have added seven other names of months. This system was
adopted by the early Hebrew settlers in Canaan, and was still the official calendar
in the time of Solomon (I Kings, chaps. 6-8.)
In the Deluge story is a trace of this system. Thus, if we compare Gen.
7:11 with 8:4 Noah stayed in the ark one year and ten days, according to the
Hebrew text, but an even year according to the Greek text. These ten days
mark the difference between the Canaanitic and the Egyptian years. The two
texts do, therefore, really agree, indicating that Noah stayed in the ark a full
year of 365 days.
b) The Egyptian calendar, in which the word for month is khodesk,
( =30 days). It was a solar year, consisting of 5 intercalary days and 12 months,
each of 30 days, making a year of even 365 days. The months are therefore
moveable. Only one month name is known in the Old Testament — Abib,
corresponding to the Egyptian Epiphi. This system underUes the JED
codes (Exod. 23:16 [E]; 34:22 [J]; Deut. 16:13-16 [D]). The word, "end
of year'' (Exod. 23:16 [E]; "revolution of year," Exod. 34:22 [J]) should be
translated, "beginning of year," because the word yazah, "to go out," is the

22 THE DATE OF THE P DOCUMENT
III. The Nature and the Names of God
a) In 444 B. c. no pious Jew could have written Gen.
1:26, which is plainly polytheistic. "Let us make man
in our image" certainly implies a recognition of more than
one God.
b) A strict monotheistic Jew, such as that of the time
of Ezra, could not have written Gen. 5:22, 24 and 6:9,
where Enoch and Noah "walked with Elohim," i. e.,
"had dealings with Elohim," because the language here
used is as anthropomorphic as in any J story in the
Pentateuch. Even though we admit that the compiler of P depended
on earlier traditions which made use of such expressions
as these, we cannot admit that he would consent to pro
mulgate views so radically different from his own. A man
technical term for the beginning of some definite period of time. It was origi
nally applied to the sun-god going out from his bridal chamber in the morning,
i. c, of the dawn (Ps. 19:4-6). It is therefore a calendaric term, and should
be understood here in this technical sense. When the Hebrews adopted this
system, the civil new year was celebrated in the fall. The "feast of ingather
ing" (later "feast of tabernacles") was therefore, originally, a new-year festival.
c) The Hebrew calendar, in which the word for month is khodesh (30 or
31 days). It was a solar year of 365 days, beginning with the vernal equinox,
and distinguished the months by numbering them. This system is used
in P. When this system was introduced (Num., chaps. 28, 29; Lev., chap. 23),
the autumnal equinox came 1 5 days before the New-years' Day of the Egyptian
calendar then used ; and a ne^y feast — that of trumpets — was introduced to
mark the beginning of the civil year, while the Feast of Tabernacles ("ingather
ing") was kept as a survival of the old Egyptian New-year's festival. The
New-year's Day of the Hebrew or P system was celebrated at the vernal equinox
and came to mark the beginning of the ecclesiastical year.
d) The Babylonian calendar. It had a lunar year of 12 months, and an
intercalary month. Each month had a separate name, like Nisan, Sivan,
Elul, etc. The year began at the vernal equinox, and was introduced among
the Hebrews in the exilic and post-exilic periods. This system is known,
therefore, in Zechariah, Nehemiah, Ezra, Esther, and the Apocrypha. Not
a trace of this system is found in P, or in any other document of the
Hexateuch.

THE NATURE AND THE NAMES OF GOD 23
who wrote the history of God's dealings with man after
the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel had been
proclaimed, would certainly have adapted his traditional
material to suit the religious beliefs of his time.
It is assumed that the author of P is a strict monotheist,
to whom God is the exalted, supra-mundane being, of
whom all anthropomorphic expressions are unworthy.
We have already called attention to the fact that Gen. i : 26
uses Elohim in a polytheistic sense. We are willing to
admit that possibly some Trinity-idea' may lie behind it,
but even this idea is utterly foreign to the time of Ezra.
The same use of Elohim in a plural sense occurs, either
explicitly or implicitly, in Gen. 6:13 and 9:16. And with
these we should compare the Jahvistic sections of Gen.
3:22 and 11:7. We cannot be very much mistaken if
we say that in the earlier sections of Genesis the biblical
Elohim often approaches the Babylonian expression,
Ilctni-RabiUi, "the great gods." This becomes still more
apparent when we refer to the expression Yahweh Elohim
in Gen., chaps. 2 and 3, which can hardly mean anything
else than "Yahweh of the Gods," or "Lord of the Gods."
And this expression occurs again and again throughout
Genesis, in both J and P sections, at least if we may rely
upon the evidence furnished by the Septuagint.
We have also called attention to Gen. 5:22, 24, and
6:9, where Enoch and Noah are said to have transacted
business with Elohim. The anthropomorphism of these
expressions is so evident that it is hard to see any difference
between P and J, the document which critics claim is
the most anthropomorphic of all. Similar ideas meet
: Like the Babylonian Anu, Bel, and Ae; or the Greek Zeus, Poseidon, and
Hades; Vedic Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva; Icelandic Odin, Vilir, and Vei.

24 THE DATE OF THE P DOCUMENT
us once more in P expressions, when God is said to "arise"
from Abraham and Jacob. '
c) Still more significant are the references to the cave
of Machpelah, which contained the tombs of the patri
archs.^ The patriarchs are said to be "gathered to their
fathers" when they die, and this presupposes some sur
vival of ancestor- worship.
But waiving for the present the question of the date of
the composition of P, we must at least admit that P con
stantly uses material dating from a time when the strict
monotheism of the exilic and post-exilic periods was
unknown. d) In view of the religious beliefs prevailing in the time
of Ezekiel and from then on down to that of Ezra, it does
not seem probable, in fact it seems quite impossible, that
a document should be put forth by men, both priests and
prophets, very zealous in their worship, which promulgates
the worship of El-Shaddai. It is also almost incredible
that it should have been received by a people which had
been so severely chastened in the Exile . We cannot deny
that this name was an epithet for Yahweh; but the true
God is here presented to the people in a local aspect.^ In
referring to God as El-Shaddai the author of P has identi
fied him with a local divinity. This is impossible for
Ezra's time, for the henotheistic conception certainly did
I Gen. 17:22; 35:13.
2 Gen. 25:8,9; 49:29-32; 50:12-13.
3 The name came from northern Syria. The same god was introduced
into the Egyptian pantheon under the name of Set or Sed, which should prob
ably be pronounced Saddai. The center of this worship was in Tanis and
Avaris, and the god's totem was the ass, which connects him with the worship
of Hadad of the Amurru or Amorite people of Syria, the Amorite name itself
being the older Canaanite name of Chamor or "he-ass."

RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS 25
not last longer than to the great prophets of the eighth
century. e) There is another similar name used in P, in Gen.,
chap. 14, where Melchizedek is said to worship El-Elyon,
who is the local God of Salem," and the religion is certainly
sanctioned and considered perfectly proper, for Abraham
receives a blessing from him.
Thus in certain sections of P we find the religious views
entirely dissonant with the theology of Ezra or Ezekiel.
Sometimes God is looked at in a polytheistic or at least,
possibly, a trinitarian way. In other cases he is worshiped
as a henotheistic or local god, under special and local
names. In stfll other cases, the document acquiesces in
ancestor-worship, and in other peculiar forms of worship,
as, for instance, when it introduces the rite of circumcision.
These sections of the document must antedate the period
of the great prophets. IV. Religious Institutions
a) It is assumed by modern critics that the D docu
ment is the one which introduces the central sanctuary,
and that, although the P document and code do not men
tion such a sanctuary, they do presuppose it. Ergo, say
the critics, the P document is later than D. It is to be
deplored that critical research undertakes to read so much
into the Bible that never was there. If the P document
or code does not mention a single central sanctuary, we
should not attribute to it any such institution unless we
have further evidence. If the document does not mention
it, it may be supposed that quite possibly it neither knew
of it nor intended to refer to it.
I Gen. 14:18.

26 THE DATE OF THE P DOCUMENT
On closer examination of the P code, though, we find
that it both knows of and acquiesces in more than one
sanctuary.' Now, the P code was written in the wilder
ness of Sinai, if we may believe its own statements, and
there, of course, the people had only one sanctuary, the
Tent of Meeting. In it, therefore, we could hardly
expect references to more than one sanctuary. But the
passage just alluded to implies that in the future more than
one sanctuary was to be expected. But such a thought
as this would be entirely impossible in the time of Ezra,
or even in the time of Ezekiel.
In Ps. 43:3; 46:4, and 84:1" are references to several
"dwelling-places of Yahweh." The word for "dweUing-
place" is purely a P expression. But the tone of the
references makes it necessary to believe that in the time
they were written more than one sanctuary was not only
permitted but extolled. Incidentally, too, it may be
remarked that none of these psalms can possibly be
assigned, on this account, to a post-exilic date.
i' ^ b) In assigning the P document and code modem
criticism has given as its reasons the statement that the
characteristic institutions of this code are not known to
the history of Israel until the time of Ezra. References
to such institutions in the poetical books are explained
by the assumption that such books belong to the exilic
or post-exilic periods. The chief trouble with this hypoth
esis is the fact that after the time of Ezra Hebrew history
becomes a blank. We know almost nothing about it.
Consequently it can quite easily be claimed, though even
more easily denied, that several of these P institutions
were never put into effect, and that they represent merely
" Lev. 26:31; cf. Ps. 68:35. ' Cf. Ps. 132:5.

RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS 27
the pious hopes of the poverty-stricken priests of Jerusa
lem, hopes which were never to be realized.
The case is, however, not so clear as, on a first glance,
it might appear to be. The preceding history of Israel
is not, as is claimed, entirely free from reference to these
P institutions. On the other hand, we could hardly
expect that some of them should be so mentioned. Much
weight is attached to the fact that the institutions, so promi
nent in P, of the sin-offering, the meal- and peace-offer
ings, and the thank-offerings, although so prominently
featured in Leviticus,' are not referred to in. the historical
books. It is claimed that these sacrifices could not have
been in existence in the time of these books. But it must
be observed in this connection that the laws on these
sacrifices in P were made for private cases. They are all
private sacrifices. Even the law in Leviticus on the
holocaust,^ refers to a private sacrifice. They provide
for an individual making a sacrifice, not for a people.
And therefore we ought not to expect that these sacrifices
should be mentioned in the historical books. There were
other sacrifices of a public nature, and the law for them is
to be found in Num., chap. 28. In this place the P code
confimes itself to the holocaust, with regulations as to
offering it on every week-day, on the Sabbath, and on
the new-moons. The offering of public holocausts is,
however, not unknown to the earlier history of Israel,
which refers frequently both to public holocausts and to
public peace-offerings. Deuteronomy also legislates about
these two sacrifices. Isaiah knows not only of the great
feasts,^ but also of oblations, incense, new-moons, solemn
convocations, and calling of assemblies," all of them P
' Lev., chaps. 2-5. " Lev., chap. i. 3 Isa. 29:1. 4 Isa. 1:13.

28 THE DATE OF THE P DOCUMENT
institutions, which, on the assumption of the critics,
should be unknown to his time. But his references to
them indicate a regular observance, and presume a codi
fied law.
But these institutions, of which we have seen traces in
the time of Isaiah, are visible through all of Hebrew history.
The meal-offering, for instance, is mentioned at least
in Judg. 13:19, 23; I Kings 8:64 (the time of Solomon);
II Kings 3:20; 16:13,15; Amos. 5:22, 25; Zeph.3:io.
Of course no one can dispute the authority of Amos, at
least. The peace-offering is not only known to E and D,
but is mentioned in all the historical books, and in Amos, '
who speaks of it as a regular sacrifice. The thank-offering
is also well known to Amos.^ The trespass-offering is
mentioned in I Sam.^ Incense was a part of Eli's wor
ship. Solomon offered it also. And it was regularly used
in the times of Isaiah and Jeremiah. Calling of assem
blies is testified to by Isaiah.'' The new-moon festivals
were celebrated regularly in the time of Elisha, Hosea,
Amos, Isaiah, and Ezekiel. '
Many critics are willing to admit that these customs
may perhaps have existed, but they qualify their admission
by saying that there were no codified laws regulating them.
But anyone who recognizes the truth that in aU other lands
the temple rituals were carefully regulated by ceremonial
codes finds it hard to believe that the Hebrew temple
ritual was any exception to the rule. But, after all, we
are not dealing with the question of codes just here. We
are merely controverting that argument which says that
the absence of these institutions before the Exile and their
I Amos. 5:22. 3 I Sam. 6:3, 4, 8, 17. s Ezek. 45:17; 46:1, 3, 6.
"Amos. 4:5. 4 Isa. 1:13; 4:5.

RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS 29
presence in P is good reason for dating the latter during
or after the Exile. We have felt constrained to decline
the conclusion. The first premise is a mere assumption,
and one contrary to the evidence which the Bible itself
furnishes. c) Much stress has been laid upon the different ways
in which the D and P codes regard the priests and Levites.
It is undoubtedly true that the D document represents all
Levites as priests, while the P document and code recog
nize as priests only the sons of Aaron, and regard the
Levites generally as belonging to an inferior order.
Modern criticism seeks to explain the discrepancy by
assuming that a degradation of idolatrous priests into
Levites took place after D was published in 621. Critics
seek to base this degradation on the code of Ezekiel,'
where Ezekiel suggests that only priests coming from
Zadok ("sons of Zadok") should be permitted to offer
sacrifices in the temple, and that all the other Levites
should perform the menial ofl&ces in the temple.
The theory seems plausible, but is so only on the
surface. For one thing, the P code and document do not
know of "sons of Zadok;" they speak of "sons of Aaron."
And these terms cannot be made equal. Further, if the
degradation of the Levites was based on Ezek. 44:4ff.,
its first promulgation was, of course, made at the great
Feast of Tabernacles in 444 b. c, when Ezra read his
law-book to the people. Is it not somewhat remarkable
that all the people, including the Levites themselves,
accepted these new laws with shouts of joy, and that not
one single murmur of objection was made by those who
now heard that they were degraded from priests into mere
I Ezek. 44 ; 4 ff.

30 THE DATE OF THE P DOCUMENT
temple menials? Up to the arrival of Nehemiah, Ezra
had not been much in the favor of the people, but he had
done nothing toward degrading the priests. He had not
even mentioned anything of the kind. And are we to
believe that now, when he puts forth a law-book in which
a very large proportion of his own Levitical tribesmen
are degraded, this act establishes him firmly in their good
graces ? And would we not expect that this stupendous
change in priestly arrangements might have some effect
upon the people, who now hear of it for the first time ?
Still, they display not a trace of surprise. They take it
quite as a matter of course. They are highly and unani
mously satisfied. That this degradation took place in
Ezra's time is to the highest degree improbable. Eze
kiel's suggestion that the high-priesthood be confined to
the sons of Zadok may have been carried out by Ezra,
but this much is certain, that the P code knows not one
thing about it. In the later chapter on the priesthoods
we shall consider this more fully.
V. Historical Determinants of the Date
a) It is admitted by a large number of conservative
critics that Ezekiel was acquainted with the Holiness Code"
in the form that we now have it. This means, then, that
in 585 B. c. at least the following institutions were known
and in operation: the Aaronic priesthood,^ the high-
priest, ^ the sin- and trespass-offerings, '* the Day of Atone
ment, ' the three great festivals,* the Feast of Trumpets,'
the oil for the lamps, ^ the shewbreads,' the sabbatical
-Lev., chaps. 17-26. 4 Lev. 19:21, 22; 23:19. 7 Lev. 23:23-25.
2 Lev. 17:2; 21:1, 17, 21. sLev. 23:27-32; 25:9. « Lev. 24:1-4.
3 Lev. 21:10-15. 6 Lev. 23:1-44. ¦; Lev. 24 : 5-9.

HISTORICAL DETERMINANTS OF THE DATE 31
year,' the year of Jubilee," and Levitical cities.^ And
further, this means that these laws must have been in
operation before the Exile began.
b) Leviticus contains a law on clean and unclean ani
mals." The same law is found in Deuteronomy. ^ The
verbal agreement and the order of enumeration of the
animals is so closely parallel that the two codes must have
known of one another, in this point at least, and the one
must have borrowed from the other. It might perhaps be
assumed that both had borrowed from a common source.
But the language is not Deuteronomic but priestly.
Most critics admit that, in this case, D must have borrowed
from P. This means, then, that a part of P existed in its
present form before Deuteronomy was published, or at
least in the same time ; and as the promulgation of Deuter
onomy cannot be placed later than 621 b. c, at least this
chapter of the P code must be earlier than that date. And
as this law belongs, not to the Holiness Code, but to those
general laws of P which are assumed to be the later strata
of that code, we conclude that not only the Holiness Code,
but the whole P code probably — most probably — existed
before 621 b. c.
The connection between the D and P codes is further
emphasized by a number of institutions similar in both
codes: the year of release* and the sabbatical year,'
uncleanness* and ceremonial impurity,' the laws on lep
rosy,'" the laws on incest," and the laws in regard to the
Levites.'"
I Lev. 25:1-7. 4 Lev. 11:2-19. ' Lev., chap. 25.
2 Lev. 25:8-13. 5 Deut. 14:4-20. * Deut. 23:9, 10.
3 Lev. 25:32, 33. * Deut. 15:1 ff. ' Lev., chap. 15.
1° Deut. 24:8; Lev., chaps. 13, 14.
" Deut. 22:13; Lev., chaps. 18, 20. ^^ Deut. 18:2; Num. 18:20 ff.

32 THE DATE OF THE P DOCUMENT
c) That the P code was known ca. 621 b. c. can be
further demonstrated, and this time to a certainty. It is
admitted on aU hands that Josiah's reforms were carried
out after the Book of Deuteronomy was found in the
temple, in 621 b. c. It cannot be denied that these
reforms were called forth by the Book of Deuteronomy.
But it is misleading to claim that all of his reforms were
based solely on that book. The following facts should be
taken into consideration:
I. Josiah broke down the "high-places of the sat5T:s."'
The law on satyr- worship is found only in the P code."
2. When Josiah destroyed the high-places of Judah,
their priests were not permitted to serve at the altar in
Jerusalem. But he permitted them to receive their por
tion of the unleavened bread of the temple. ^ The law
on the priest's portion of the unleavened bread is found
only in the P code."
3. Josiah destroyed the high-places of Judah, ^ Jeru
salem,* and Bethel.' But Deuteronomy has no law
whatever on high-places, and the word (in this technical
sense) does not occur in a single instance in the whole
D code. The P code, however, has a law forbidding
them.^ 4. Josiah put away those who had familiar spirits,
and the wizards. These are the only two kinds of witch
craft mentioned in the reform.' The P code has a law
confined to these two kinds of witchcraft.'" It is true that
I II Kings 23:8. The Hebrew reads "gates," but the same word with
different points means "satyrs," and as satyr-worship was very common, the
text should be so pointed.
'Lev. 17:7. s II Kings 23:8. 8 Lev. 26:30.
3 II Kings 23 : 8, 9. « II Kings 23 : 13. 9 II Kings 23 : 24.
4 Lev. 6:14-18. 7 II Kings 23 : 15. i° Lev. 20:27.

HISTORICAL DETERMINANTS OF THE DATE 33
Deuteronomy has a law on witchcraft, but it mentions
not less than eight different kinds. The wording in II
Kings most naturally identifies the reform with the law
in Leviticus. 5. Josiah forbade Molech-worship. ' Molech is not
mentioned in D. But the P code has two laws forbidding
his worship."
d) We have already called attention to the reference
by Isaiah to certain institutions of the P code regularly
observed in his time. It is then interesting to notice that
Hosea also^ puts into the mouth of Yahweh the words,
"Although I write for him my law in myriads of precepts."
This indicates that the written law of Yahweh existed
in the time of Hosea (ca. 730 b. c).
e) According to I Kings," Solomon offered a meal-
offering at the consecration of the temple. The meal-
offering is an institution of the P code,^ and is found only
in that code. This carries us back to the time of the united
kingdom (ca. 960 b. c).
/) In I Samuel* we read that before Saul visited the
witch at Endor he had put away all those who had familiar
spirits. As it evidently was an innovation on his part to
do this, we cannot suppose that he would have dared to
take so important a step unless he had behind him a law
recognized as valid among his people. Now, the E code
has a single law on sorcery.' As for D, the passage
in I Samuel betrays no afi&nity either in thought or in
language with it. But I Samuel does come very close
indeed to the provisions of the law regarding witchcraft
I II Kings 23 : 10. 4 I Kings 8 : 64. * I Sam. 28:3-9.
= Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5. s Lev., chap. 2. 7 Exod. 22:18.
3H0S. 8:12.

34 THE DATE OF THE P DOCUMENT
in P, ' where, as we have seen, only two kinds of witches
are forbidden, those having familiar spirits and wizards.
The conditions of the time, as we know from contemporary
history, so strongly favored astrology and aU kinds of
witchcraft that Saul would not have dared undertake his
reform except with the explicit support of a weU-known
law. And the law, in this case, could only be the one
found in what we now call the P code.
g) Gen. 36:31 says that eight kings of Edom ruled
before there reigned one in Israel. This gives a terminus
a quo for this P portion in Genesis. This terminus
is the reign of Saul, the first king of Israel (ca. 1050
B. c.)." If Gen. 36:31-39, which gives the history of the
kings of Edom, was written in the time of Ezra or of
Ezekiel, it is impossible to explain why only eight Edomite
kings should be mentioned, and this history end abruptly
with Hadar. In the case of the first seven kings, it is
stated that each one of them died, but no such remark
is added about Hadar. The only legitimate inference
is that this history of Edom was written, when Hadar was
yet reigning, either before or in the early part of Saul's
(or David's) reign. But there is no reason why the P
codes should not have existed before the P document, and
no reason why this statement should not be regarded as a
redactorial note. VL "Law of Yahweh"
Thus far we have found instances throughout the his
torical books indicating that the laws of the P code were
in operation as far back as the time of Saul. We have
• Lev. 19:31; 20:6, 27.
2 It should be noted, however, that the Greek here reads "Jerusalem"
for "Israel," which would put the terminus forty-seven years farther on.

"LAW OF YAHWEH" 35
seen that reforms were carried out on the basis of this
code, and that in the nature of the case such reforms must
have been based on codified laws, since the practices that
were reformed were the things that naturaUy rested upon
traditions. A reform is, then, something new, and pre
supposes, not a tradition, but a definite law which enables
a ruler or a priesthood to overrule traditions and bring in
a new order of things. As surely as the reforms of Josiah
were based upon written laws, so were the reforms of
Hezekiah, Jehoshaphat, and Saul based upon written
laws, laws which the people must have bound themselves
to obey. At this late day it cannot possibly be objected
that written laws were not possible at so early a date.
The Amarna letters (1400 b. c.) are more than enough
evidence for the universal use of writing at that time.
Writing in the time of Saul must have been as common
as in the time of Josiah.
The Bible furnishes, however, evidence that the P
code existed in written form long before the time of
Ezekiel :
c) In II Chron.' we read, "He [Hezekiah] appointed
also the king's portion of his substance for the burnt-
offerings, to wit for the morning and evening burnt-offer
ings, and the burnt-offerings for the Sabbaths, and for
the New-moons, and for the set feasts, as it is written in
the Law of Yahweh. Moreover, he commanded the peo
ple that dwelt in Jerusalem to give the portion of the
priests and the Levites, that they might give themselves
to the Law of Yahweh."
Here we have two references to the Law of Yahweh.
And it is obvious that here the phrase is a technical term
'- II Chron. 31:3, 4-

36 THE DATE OF THE P DOCUMENT
for a law that was written. What law could this have
been? The mention of "priests and Levites" points to
the P code. So does the mention of the morning and
evening burnt-offerings, the Sabbaths, the New-moons,
and the set festivals. In fact the whole passage betrays
evidences of the language and institutions of P. Refer
ring, then, back to the P code, we find that the first refer
ence of our quotation gives the substance of the law in
Num., chap. 28. No similar law is found elsewhere
in the Hexateuch. The second reference refers us to
Num. 18:8-24. Nor is this law found elsewhere in the
Hexateuch. The term. Law of Yahweh, may then be
assumed to be the technical term for the P code in the
time of Hezekiah.
The objection that this passage is found in Chronicles,
which came from priestly hands, cannot be much regarded,
for it is impossible to show that the matter referred to is
not historically true. And, furthermore, we shall pres
ently show that the same technical term is used in the
same sense by other authors of whom no one would dream
of saying that they belonged to the priestly school. More
over, in this passage we have the confirmatory evidence
of Kings, which says of Hezekiah that "he kept (or
enforced) the commandments which Yahweh commanded
Moses." ' The language here points to the P code.
b) In II Chronicles we read, "Now the rest of the acts
of Josiah, and his good deeds, according to that which is
written in the Law of Yahweh, and his acts, first and last,
they are written in the Book of the Kings of Israel and
Judah."" Again we deal with the same technical term, the Law
- II Kings 18:6. = II Chron. 35:26, 27.

"LAW OF YAHWEH" 37
of Yahweh. The expression, "good deeds" or "bene
factions," presents to us unmistakably the language and
spirit of the P code. We noticed above that the reforms
of Josiah were based both on the D and P codes. We
know that the D code existed then in written form. What
more likely than that the P code did also ?
c) Jeremiah was a contemporary of Josiah. He refers
also to this law, the Law of Yahweh, although he accuses
the scribes of making changes in it, even at that early
time. The charge was undoubtedly well founded, and
is one which should be constantly remembered in consid
ering the manuscripts transcribed by the scribes from
600 B. c. onward. He says, "How do ye say, We are wise,
and the Law of Yahweh is with us? But, behold, the
false pen of the scribes hath wrought falsely."'
Wilful corruptions of the text, then, date back at least
to the days of Jeremiah!
d) We noticed above that the P code was known by
the technical term. Law of Yahweh in the time of Heze
kiah. This, of course, is the time of Isaiah. And he,
too, knew of the Law of Yahweh. He says, "Because
they have rejected the Law of Yahweh of Hosts, and
despised the word of the Holy One of Israel."" Yahweh
of Hosts belongs to the language of P, and Holy One of
Israel, while characteristic of Isaiah, has for its basis, too,
the language of the P code, especially that of the Holiness
Code. Again he says, "For it is a rebellious people, lying
children, children that will not hear the Law of Yahweh."^
And in another place, "Seek ye out of the Book of
Yahweh."*
' Jer. 8:8. '133.5:246. 3X33.30:9. 4X33.34:16.

38 THE DATE OF THE P DOCUMENT
Here is an explicit reference to a Book of Yahweh
which must have been well known to the people. It
occurs in a prophecy in which Isaiah predicts the doom
of Edom for its unkindliness toward Israel. The prophet
desires to call the people's attention to the fact that Edom
had always been treacherous to the children of Israel, and
he gives for proof a reference to the Book of Yahweh. It is
in the P document' that we find proof of Isaiah's veracity.
The Book of Yahweh, then, it would seem, is the P code
and document, and is identical with the Law of Yahweh,
except that we here find it referred to as a book, while
the Chronicler merely says that it was written. The
Hebrew word for "book," Sepher, means a complete, inde
pendent treatise. It is possible that the Law of Yahweh
in the Book of Yahweh was merely the P code of our
Exodus-Numbers, but it is not improbable that at this
time the P sections of Genesis already belonged to it.
e) The home of Amos was south of Jerusalem. There
fore, if the P code, which evidently belonged to the priests
in Jerusalem, existed in his time, he would probably know
of it. He prophesied in Bethel, a city of the Northern
Kingdom, where we would not expect to find traces of
the P code. Nor does Amos allude to it, save in a single
paragraph, which, significantly enough, is his oracle
against Jerusalem, where he says, "Thus says Yahweh,
For three transgressions of Judah, yea for four, I will not
turn it away, but because they have rejected the Law of
Yahweh, and have not kept his statutes, and their lies
have caused them to err, after the which their fathers did
walk, . . . .""
Is it not significant that of all his oracles Amos should
I Num. 20:14-21. 2 Amos 2:4.

"LAW OF YAHWEH" 39
make mention of the Law of Yahweh only in that against
Judah? We are almost forced to admit, as a logical
consequence, that the Law of Yahweh is a technical
term for a law-book existing in Judah and Jerusalem, and
that this book existed there in the time of Amos.
/) II Kings refers us again to the Law of Yahweh.
"But Jehu took no heed to walk in the Law of Yahweh,
the God of Israel, with all his heart ; he departed not from
the sins of Jeroboam, wherewith he made Israel to sin."'
Here it is not the Chronicler, but the Deuteronomic
compiler of Kings, who uses this term, the Law of Yahweh.
Now Jehu was in the Northern Kingdom, and therefore,
if we have been correct in our conclusions, not under
the Law of Yahweh. But the editor, living in Jerusalem,
judged him to have been a bad king simply because he
did not accept the law-book of Judah. At any rate, the
term is not one coined by the late Chronicler.
g) Going back to the time of Jehoshaphat, we read
again, "And they taught in Judah, having the book of
the Law of Yahweh with them; and they went about
throughout all the cities of Judah, and taught among the
people."" The reference is to Levites who are teaching "the
book" of the Law of Yahweh. And here we get the wel
come information, which we anticipated when examining
the passage from Isaiah, that the "Book of Yahweh"
was "the book" of the Law of Yahweh. Now, this teach
ing began in the third year of Jehoshaphat (873 b. c).
We must admit that the term, the Law of Yahweh, seems
to be a technical term, with the same meaning as in other
passages in Chronicles.
I II Kings 10:31. = II Chron. 17:9.

40 THE DATE OF THE P DOCUMENT
It is of great importance that we here find the Levites
out on missionary work, introducing the Law of Yahweh
to the people of the cities of Judah. This preaching pre
supposes two things: first, that before this time it had not
been well known outside of Jerusalem proper, and second,
that the Aaronic priesthood, whose code this was, were
now in the ascendancy, eager to propagate the peculiar
tenets of their creed.
h) Asa, father of Jehoshaphat, was equally a zealous
supporter of the P code. We read, "And he [Asa] com
manded to seek Yahweh, the God of their fathers, and
to do the law and the commandments."' And again,
"Now for a long time Israel had been without the true
God, and without a teaching priest, and without Torah.""
The "teaching priest," "law," "commandments,"
are all well-known expressions of the P code. Torah
may mean "teaching," as so many modem scholars would
have us believe, and in many cases it undoubtedly does
mean this; but when it is used in a technical sense, as it evi
dently is here, it can refer only to a coUection of oracles or
laws. Furthermore, we must assume from the nature of the
case that it was in written form. We have no warrant for
the assumption that Torah may mean an oral tradition,
when used in a technical sense. If the P document was,
as we have seen, in book form in the time of Jehoshaphat,
it would be unwarranted to assume that it was only oral
tradition in the time of his immediate predecessor, Asa.
i) The dying David prays for his son, Solomon, saying,
"Only Yahweh give thee discretion and understanding,
and give thee charge concerning Israel; that so thou
mayest keep the Law of Yahweh, thy God."^
' II Chron. 14:4. = II Chron. 15:3. 3 I Chron. 22:12.

"LAW OF YAHWEH" 41
The phrase, "Yahweh thy God," looks Deuteronomic
at first glance, and we might suppose that possibly the
reference was to the D code; but this code is never else
where referred to as "the Law of Yahweh." This refer
ence may not be pressed as a certain reference to the P
code, but this seems the most likely explanation. But
we have another instance recorded in regard to David.'
In this other case, David assigns different orders of priests
to the different sanctuaries: Asaph and his brethren to
minister before the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh in
Jerusalem, as every day's work required, and Zadok the
priest and his brethren, before the Tabernacle of Yahweh
in the high-place at Gibeon, these latter "to offer burnt-
offerings morning and evening, even according to aU that
is written in the Law of Yahweh, which he commanded
unto Israel."
This passage is of the utmost importance if we desire
to understand the religious situation of the time. Here
we have the Ark of the Covenant, with a certain priesthood,
set up in Jerusalem, and the Tabernacle of Yahweh, with
another priesthood set up in Gibeon. The Ark of the
Covenant is peculiarly the expression of the E and D
codes, while the Tabernacle of Yahweh is peculiar to the
P code. In this passage they are plainly distinct. More
over, the ceremonies before the Ark of the Covenant are
simple and undefined, just as the D code leaves them.
The ceremonies before the Tabernacle of Yahweh, on
the other hand, are those defined in the P code." And
before this Tabernacle, it is explicitly stated, the daily
morning and evening holocausts were offered, "according
to all that is written in the Law of Yahweh." Further-
I I Chron. 16:37-40. = Num., chap. 28.

42 THE DATE OF THE P DOCUMENT
more, it is said that this law was in written form in the
time of David. We must understand that the Law of
Yahweh here, as elsewhere, means the P code.
We found above that Saul carried out reforms based
upon the P code. And here we find that this code exists
in written form a few years after Saul's death. The
origin of the book of the P code can hardly be placed later
than the reign of Saul. On the other hand, we have no
warrant whatever, derivable from the Bible, for placing
the codification of the laws of P very much earlier. It is
true that there is a reference to the Law of Yahweh in
Exod. 13:9, but critical scholars seem to prefer that this
and the preceding verses be assigned to the D document
and it is thought that these verses have strayed in, in quite
lonely fashion, among P and J sections. The passage
has probably been misplaced.
There are three more references to the Law of Yahweh,
in Ezra,' in Nehemiah," and in Daniel.^ These, however,
are quite late, and are of no use, therefore, in determining
the terminus a quo for P. What we have already shown
is, we think, superabundant evidence that the Law of
Yahweh is the technical term for the P code and document,
and that that code and document existed in written form,
a book, as early as the time of David, and, most probably,
in the days of Saul.
B. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
a) To this internal evidence we are now able to add
some of an external sort. In 1907 Dr. Rubensohn dis
covered at Elephantine three documents written in 408
B. c. by a certain Jedoniah, a priest of the temple of Yah-
I Ezra 7:10. = Neh. 9:3. 3 Dan. 9:10.

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 43
weh in the city of Elephantine, in southern Egypt. One
of these documents is a letter, or the copy of a letter,
addressed to the governor of Jerusalem, asking his per
mission to rebuild the Jewish temple in Elephantine. In
this letter it is stated that this temple had existed when
Cambyses came to Egypt to conquer it, in 525 b. c. It
adds that when Cambyses destroyed all the temples of
Egypt, he left this one alone standing. The temple later
on, through the influence of Eg)rptian priests, had been
destroyed. The Jews now wished to have it rebuilt.
In this letter there are several remarkable statements in
regard to the temple ritual, by which it is plain that the
services were conducted according to the elaborate ritual
of the P code. References are made especially to the
burning of incense, holocausts, and meal-sacrifices. The
tone of the whole letter indicates that these services had
been carried on ever since the temple had been founded.
Now, it was existing in 525 B. c, and the probability
is that it had existed a long time before that. Isaiah'
speaks about a "pillar of Yahweh" on the border of Egypt,
and of worship in the Canaanite tongue (Galilean Aramaic)
in five cities of Egypt. Four of these places are mentioned
by Jeremiah, ' and the fifth city may, perhaps, have been
Elephantine. If the temple was founded in the time of
Isaiah (ca. 700 b. C.) it was probably by fugitives from
Galilee, fleeing after the conquest of Zebulun and Naphtali
by Tiglath-pileser IV. This is perhaps the most probable
date for the beginning of Jewish services in Egypt. We
have here, then, a welcome testimony to worship with a
P ritual in pre-Josianic times. ^
: Isa. 19:19. = Jer. 44:1-
3 For the contents of the Elephantine letter, see Appendix I.

44 THE DATE OF THE P DOCUMENT
b) The Documentary Hj^othesis assumes that the P
document and code is later than D, and that the compila
tion of the four documents, J, E, D, and P, took place in
the time of Ezra. Is it not strange that in this compilation
no notice is taken of Deuteronomy ? The first four books
of the Hexateuch are closely fused, with hardly a trace
of Deuteronomy, which latter is hung on to the completed
JEP document in such a manner that the Greek title,
"the Second Law," or Deuteronomy, becomes especially
fitting. The fact that J, E, and P are combined and D
added to the result seems to point to a date for the com
pilation of the JEP documents before the D document
was discovered in 621 b. c. And if at that time P was
combined and sometimes fused with J and E, it must, of
course, have existed at that time.
C. CONCLUSION
In view of all these considerations it seems almost
impossible to agree with those advocates of the Docu
mentary H)rpothesis who assign the P document to the
time of Ezra, or indeed to any late date. The evidence,
on the contrary, all seems to point unmistakably to a very
early date, most probably to about the time of Samuel,
Saul, and David.

CHAPTER III
The Unity and Contents of the P Document
I. FRAGMENTS AND DOUBLETS
The P document should, according to the Documentary
Hypothesis, be one complete document. Still it gives,
in many places, no complete story whatever. For
instance :
o) Gen. 19:29 must be placed immediately after Gen.
13: 12 in order to give it any meaning that is reasonable.
The P redactor is thus charged with a wilful mutilation
of the document. But even if this be admitted, P has no
story of the overthrow of Sodom, and Gen. 19:29 pre
supposes such a story in the document. This story must
have been omitted from the P narrative when that narra
tive was incorporated into the Hexateuch.
b) Gen. 25:19, 20, 26c cannot be understood by them
selves, because the P document nowhere tells of the birth
of Esau and Jacob.
c) P does not know that Jacob ever came to Laban.
Still, it is said, it informs us that Laban gave Zilpah as
handmaid to Leah,' that he gave Rachel to Jacob as wife,"
and Bilhah as handmaid to Rachel. But the document
nowhere teUs us that Leah was the wife of Jacob. These
two verses do not fit together, nor do they give the same
meaning. d) It is impossible to understand Gen. 30: 21 otherwise
than that Dinah is a daughter of Bilhah, if we read the
P document by itself; but when we read the passage as a
I Gen. 29:24. ' Gen. 29:286, 29.
45

46 THE UNITY AND CONTENTS OF THE P DOCUMENT
whole, as it stands in the Bible, she appears to be the daugh
ter of Leah. The best way to explain this is on the h)^oth-
esis that that portion of the P document which dealt with
Leah has been lost.
e) Gen. 31:186 does not fit together with Gen. 30:21,
which precedes it immediately in the P document, so
called. /) Gen. 37:2a shows no connection with Gen. 41:46,
which is supposed to follow it in the document.
g) Gen. 47:5-11 cannot be understood without the
preceding history of Joseph in Egypt, which, however,
is not to be found in this document.
Gen. 26:34; 28:9; and 36:1-14 cannot all have
come from the same document. Modern criticism assigns
these sections dealing with the genealogy of Esau all to
the P document, nevertheless. As they contradict one
another, and as the same author should hardly have felt
the need of recording the genealogy three times in three
different ways, such an assignment seems very improbable,
if there be but one P document.
Lev., chaps. 18 and 20, contain similar laws, on the
same subject, but in detail quite divergent. It is not easy
to see how these laws could both have been promulgated
at the same time and belong to the same document.
Nor is it easy to see why the same code should con
tain such a large number of laws on the Sabbath.
In Lev. 1 : 3 — 6 : 7 is a code dealing with the sacrifices.
In Lev. 6:8 — 7:34 the same code is given again, covering
the same ground.
These examples could be multiplied many times over,
but they are sufl&cient to show : first, that the P document
as we have it now is not complete; second, that there must

CHANGE OF NAMES 47
have been more than one P document, or several docu
ments, similar in language and contents, from which the
P document was made up. Several portions of this P
document were then left out when it was compiled with
the other documents, wherever these other documents
presented the more complete story on a given point.
II. CHANGE OF NAMES
It is assumed on the basis of Exod. 6:2 that when God
revealed himself in a theophany under a new name, that
new name should constantly be applied to him until
another new name was given. Now, in Gen. 17:1, God
revealed himself to Abraham and announced that his
name was El-Shaddai. The significance of this name
formed the basis for the covenant of circumcision which
was then commanded. Again, in Exod. 6:2, El-Shaddai
appeared to Moses and told him that he had revealed
himself to the Patriarchs under the name of El-Shaddai,
but that his real name was Yahweh; and he further told
him that this was to be his everlasting name. The P
document, consequently, uses Yahweh after Exod. 6:2.
But how does this correspond to Gen. 17:2 — Exod. 6:1 ?
We would certainly expect that the P document should
here constantly use El-Shaddai. But we find on exami
nation that this is not the case. On the contrary, this
name is used only four times.' Otherwise, the name
used is Elohim, in exactly the same way that it was used
of him before the theophany of the seventeenth chapter.
This observation is of importance for a better under
standing of the P document in Genesis. Either our inter
pretation of Exod. 6 : 2 is faulty, or else there are several
I Gen. 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3.

48 THE UNITY AND CONTENTS OF THE P DOCUMENT
P documents in Genesis, only one of which knows of the
El-Shaddai theophany. We shall presently see that the
latter assumption is quite probable.
This change of name applies not only to God, but also
to some of the patriarchs. Abram's name was changed
to Abraham,' and we find that from this time on this
patriarch is known by this name. Jacob's name, too,
was changed to Israel. Genesis gives a double account
of this. In the J document this patriarch is known from
this time on by the latter name." The P document is
generally supposed to relate the same event ;^ but here
we find, as a matter of fact, not a single instance after
the change of name of the use of the name Israel. Again,
we may suppose that we have two P documents to deal
with, the one of which knows of the change, the other of
which does not. We must not, in this connection, lose
sight of the fact that in ancient times the bestowing of a
new name connoted elevation to a higher office. On the
Egyptian monuments we find not only that a king at his
coronation received a "throne name," but also that indi
viduals, when they were taken into favor by the king,
received a second or "beautiful" name. A glance at
Egyptian inscriptions will inform us that kings sometimes
call themselves by their throne names, sometimes by
their birth names, and that they are so addressed by
others. Favored individuals also could be addressed either
by their birth names or by their beautiful names. Thus
we might assume that the J document uses the beautiful
name or the throne name perhaps, if Israel is to be
regarded as a king, while the P document uses the birth
name. I Gen. 17:5. = Gen. 32:28. 3 Gen. 35:10.

THE FOUR COVENANTS 49
Thus we may admit that in the case of Jacob-Israel
there was but one P document. StiU, however, the difl&-
culty with the names El-Shaddai and Yahweh is such that
we are almost forced to assume two P documents. It
seems improbable that the Hebrew text, the Samaritan
text, and the Septuagint version should aU have undergone
such wholesale corruption that the name El-Shaddai
should be changed to Elohim in every case in P from Gen.
17:2 to Exod. 6:2, with only the four exceptions noted
above. III. THE FOUR COVENANTS
When the Development Hypothesis was first advanced,
Wellhausen assumed that the P document was arranged
according to four great covenants, one in Gen., chap, i, a
second in Gen., chap. 9, a third in Gen., chap. 17, and a
fourth at Sinai (Exod., chap. 34). There is, however, no
covenant at all in Gen., chap. i. There could not be,
for there was neither a theophany nor a divine promise.
There is no mention in the chapter of anything resembling
a covenant. Nor is there any theophany recorded in Gen.,
chap. 9. Further, it seems very uncertain that there is
any covenant at Sinai recorded in the P document. J and
P are here hopelessly fused, and it seems more than prob
able that the covenant was a part of J. If so, there was no
P covenant at Sinai, and Lev. 26:9, which could be the
only reference applicable here, refers to a covenant to
come in the future. Furthermore, if a new covenant was
vouchsafed at this time, it should have been mentioned
in Exod. 6:2, where Yahweh revealed his new name to
Moses. Most modem critics, in view of all these facts,
have given up the idea that P is based on four covenants.

50 THE UNITY AND CONTENTS OF THE P DOCUMENT
IV. THE TEN TOLEDOTH
More important is the assumption that the P document
should consist of ten toledoth, each introduced by the for
mula, "These are the generations of  " The word
toledoth, or "generations," corresponds somewhat to our
idea of historical records, or genealogies, and the formula
does occur ten times in Genesis. But it is important to
note that it does not occur elsewhere in the books of the
Hexateuch. Of equal importance is the fact that the
histories of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses, the most im
portant personages mentioned in the P document, are
none of them introduced by this formula. It has been
assumed that in P this formula stood at the beginning
of the history of each patriarch, or el'se as a title over each
section of the document. But the formula is not found in
Gen. I :i in introducing that section which tells of the cre
ation. This omission is significant. Modern criticism
assumes that it has been misplaced by a later redactor, and
put at the beginning of the Paradise story in Gen. 2 : 4, a
story which belongs to the J document. The case is not so
simple, however. The Septuagint reads in this latter place,
"This is the book of the generation of Heaven and Earth."
The word "book" presupposes that we deal here with an
independent document, a volume by itself. The Hebrew
word sepher, Assyrian shipru, English "book," can only
be so used. The most likely explanation is that the P
document did have a Paradise story, of which this was
the superscription, which was crowded out by the J story
of the Paradise when the P and J documents were in later
times combined. The superscription of the old P story,
therefore, now stands over the J story. If this be so, of

THE TEN TOLEDOTH 51
course it was not transferred from Gen. 1:1, where, by the
way, it does not fit.
The second toledoth section is to be found in Gen.,
chap. 5. Here the formula reads, even in Hebrew,
"This is the book of the generations of Adam." Again
we remark the word sepher as evidence that once this sec
tion was an independent work. We can no longer speak
of the P document, but rather of the P documents or the
P fragments. In the case of the history of Jacob, the toledoth formula
appears only when the patriarch is old, when all his chil
dren have been born, and when over half of his history
has already been given.' No satisfactory explanation
of this phenomenon has as yet appeared. One would
certainly expect the formula to appear where the story
of Jacob begins."
The toledoth section introducing the genealogy of the
sons of Shem 3 cannot possibly be a continuation of that
toledoth section which introduces the sons of Noah,"
because the sons of Shem have already been given. ^ If
the latter genealogy belongs to the toledoth of the sons of
Noah, then the P document has a useless repetition, which
is entirely contrary to the theory according to which P is
generally supposed to have been composed. Not more
than one of these genealogies of Shem can have belonged
to the toledoth sections. Either the genealogy given among
the sons of Noah is not a part of the P document, or else
there was a P document outside of the toledoth book. As
the section under discussion is evidently to be identified with
the P style, the latter alternative seems the more probable.
I Gen. 37:2. 3 Gen. 11:10. s Gen. 10:22-31.
2 Gen. 27:46. 4 Gen. 10:1.

52 THE UNITY AND CONTENTS OF THE P DOCUMENT
V. THE FRAMEWORK OF THE HEXATEUCH
It is generally assumed that the P document forms the
framework of the Hexateuch. This is but partly correct.
In the book of Joshua the P sections are so few and so
insignificant that they cannot possibly be regarded as
forming the framework of the book. In Exodus and
Numbers the P sections are more prominent; but most
modem critics admit that even here P does not supply
the framework. There remains, then, Genesis; and here
it is evident that P is the framework into which the other
sections, those of J and E, have been fitted.
But it is in this same book of Genesis that we find a
number of toledoth sections. It seems, therefore, that it is
not the whole P document, but merely the toledoth sections
that furnish the framework for this book.
We come now to the important question, "Were these
toledoth sections originally a part of what we call the P
document?" The answer is, "No." Let us see why.
A. The Toledoth Book
Wherever we meet in Genesis with the formula, "These
are the generations of," we find a peculiarity of language
that is only rarely to be observed elsewhere in P. It is
positively to be affirmed that the toledoth sections do belong
to the P or Levitical style of writing. But their vocabu
lary, phraseology, and historical viewpoint show a marked
divergence from the rest of P. And, on close examination,
we find a difference in religious conceptions between the
toledoth sections and other P sections, even others contained
in the same book, Genesis. The toledoth sections — or let
us call them, for the present, the toledoth Book — ^pay

THE TOLEDOTH BOOK 53
minute attention to chronological dates of a genealogical
sort, of which none is to be found in other P sections.
Both the J and P documents do give genealogies, but they
are always introduced with the formula, "These are the
names of," or, "These are the sons of;" and nowhere in
them do we find the expression, "These are the generations
of." The style and language of P is admittedly so peculiar,
and offers such a marked contrast to the language of other
sections of the Hexateuch that there can hardly be much
well-founded doubt as to what are and what are not P
sections. But even in the P document we find differen
tiations of language and style which can hardly be
accounted for on any other h)^othesis than the one which
ascribes our P document to at least two different sources.
In the toledoth Book, for instance, we find expressions like,
"establish a covenant," here a technical term, while in
the other sections of the P document we meet with the
formula "give a covenant." In the toledoth Book we meet
the word rekush, "substance," and, if we may trust the
Septuagint, this word was not used outside that book.'
The differentiation is apparent in words used both in the
toledoth Book and in other sections of P, but with different
meanings. Thus, in the toledoth Book," the Hebrew word
kabod signifies "honor," while everywhere else in P it is
the technical term for the presence of Yahweh, and is
rendered, in our versions, "glory."^ Again, the toledoth
- In Gen. 15:4; 46:6; Num. 16:32; 35:3 the Greek is aposkeve and
ktene, which presuppose Hebrew miqneh. When these passages have been
corrected the word rekush occurs nowhere outside of the toledoth sections.
2 Gen. 49:6.
3 The J document uses the same word (Gen. 31:1; 45:13), in the sense of
"property."

54 THE UNITY AND CONTENTS OF THE P DOCUMENT
Book uses for "handmaid" the Hebrew shiphchah in
agreement with J.' The P document outside these sec
tions, however, uses amah,' in agreehient with the E and
D documents. Many other instances of these linguistic
differences between the toledoth Book and the rest of P
might be noted. Perhaps one of the others worth par
ticular mention is the use of Elohim, which is used in a
plural sense frequently (perhaps always) in the toledoth
Book, but always in the singular in the rest of the document.
We mentioned above that the P document contains two
or three contradictory statements in regard to Esau's
wives. ^ The style of the sections where these are given
is admittedly that of P. But Wellhausen himself has
admitted that if the Documentary Hypothesis be correct
not more than one of these statements can rightly belong
to P. The way out of the dilemma is to assign the latter
of these statements" to the toledoth Book, with which it
agrees in language, and the former^ to the P document
proper. In a similar manner the two genealogies of Shem in
Gen., chaps. lo and ii, can be disposed of. In Gen.,
chap. II, we have the language and characteristic formula
of the toledoth Book. In Gen., chap. lo, the style is that
of the P document proper.
Likewise the genealogies of the sons of Jacob who
went down to Egypt* are to be explained. The former
of these, with its reference to Paddan-Aram, betrays the
language of the P document proper; the latter, although
I The only exception is Lev. 19:20, which in other respects offers a pecu
liarly ancient language.
= Lev. 25:6, 44. s Gen. 26:34; 28:9.
3 Gen. 26:34; 28:9; 36:1-14. 6 Gen. 46:8-25; Exod. 1:2-5.
4 Gen. 36 : 1-14.

THE P DOCUMENT PROPER 55
it has not the characteristic formula of the toledoth Book,
nevertheless belongs to it.
It certainly seems plain that there is not much internal
unity between the toledoth sections and the rest of P.'
The language of the toledoth Book and its religious
views, as well as its historical and archaeological notes,
mark it as older in origin than the rest of P, and show it to
have more affinity to the age and conditions of life set
forth in the J document.
This toledoth Book seems originally to have been com
posed of a number of documents, still distinguishable by
the references" to "the book" of generations. This
being so of these documents where this phrase occurs in
superscription, it is perhaps not unfair to assume that all
the toledoth sections were originally independent docu
ments. And we may even assume that, when these docu
ments were compiled into one book, the toledoth Book,
this resultant document contained the "generations" of
Abraham, Moses, and Joseph, as well as those which we
stfll have, sections which were later crowded out when
J and P proper were combined with it.
B. The P Document Proper
The sections of the P document which remain after
the removal of the toledoth Book show an unmistakable
unity of thought and agreement in language. They con
tain, also, most of the laws of the P code. These laws
in their present form are in the language of the P docu-
I The latest attempt of the critics to escape the difhculties in P is their
theory that P is the product of a school and not of an author. This simply
goes to show how inadequate the Documentary Hypothesis in its fulness has
proven to be. It also shows how far from settled all these matters are.
2 Gen. 2:4; 5:1.

56 THE UNITY AND CONTENTS OF THE P DOCUMENT
ment proper, although it is to be admitted that certain
sections of them, especially the so-caUed "statutes" and
parts of the Holiness Code, seem to have been only older
laws, probably pre-Aaronic, which were recast, fitted into
the language of the P people, and embodied in the P
document. We have referred to the book of the Law of Yahweh,
and we found that it was the technical term for the P code.
This code was at some time combined with the P docu
ment and with the toledoth Book. The resulting complex,
then, made up of three originals at least, is our P "docu
ment," so called.

CHAPTER IV
The Language of the P Document
Some further consideration must here be paid to the
language of the P document or documents.
It is assumed by many critics that P is a product of
the age of Ezra, even though parts of it may go back to
as early as the age of Ezekiel.' But if P had been written
at that time it would surely represent the language of
Ezra's age. Whfle there are a number of simflarities in
vocabulary, phraseology, and thought between P and
Ezekiel, simflarities which the critics have greatly magni
fied, it should not be forgotten that there are almost as
large a number of dissimilarities between them. The
language of Ezekiel is rugged, and bears everywhere the
imprint of the exflic period. Malachi belongs to the time
of Ezra, and his style too shows affinity with the disin
tegrated language which came in with the Exile. The
books of Ezra and Nehemiah, probably written a hundred
years later, but stiU the product of the post-exflic period,
add their witness to this disintegration. But when we
turn to the P document and code not a trace of this dis
integration is to be found. The vocabulary is in some
respects simflar to that of Ezekiel and Malachi. But
the document moves in precise and stately expressions.
The style is pure. The forms used are correct. Here
and there are preserved archaisms. Not a single hint of
exflic or post-exflic disintegration meets our eye. P
belongs to an age of a purer language.
' Attention has been called to the apparent agreement in thought and
expression between Ezekiel and P. 57

$8 THE LANGUAGE OF THE P DOCUMENT
Stfll we must account in some way for the extreme
difference in style and vocabulary between P and D. If
we assume that the dates usually assigned by the critics
for these documents are correct, how can we account for
such an enormous change in language between 621 b. c,
when, it is said, D was first promulgated, and 585 B. c,
when Ezekiel began to prophesy, and the Holiness Code,
at least, was in existence ? We would have here a phe
nomenon with hardly a parallel in the history of language,
at least so far as Semitic phflology can offer us comparative
criteria. But a far easier and a far more probable expla
nation of the differences between the codes is possible.
Usually these documents are assumed to reflect differ
ent stages in the life of the Hebrews. Each stage is sup
posed to have produced its peculiar document, with its
peculiar style, vocabulary, etc. This principle may in
itself be sound. But it is most unsound to deduce from
these premises the dates of compflation of any of these
documents, say of D and P, because there is not at our
disposal any external literary standard by which we can
determine their respective ages. There are no remains'
of the Hebrew tongue outside of the Old Testament.
We have no other literature with which we can compare
any of the documents, and so establish a terminus a quo
for its date.
Because of this lack the critics have employed analogy,
and have constructed a scheme for the development of
the Hebrew language, according to which they pass judg
ment upon the respective ages of the various documents.
' The Siloah inscription, dating from ca. 700 B. c, is too short to be of
any appreciable help to us. Other inscriptions are from the exilic and post-
exilic periods. The Mesa inscription is in the dialect of Moab, and therefore
cannot help us.

HEBREW DIALECTS 59
This scheme may seem attractive, but it is, none the less,
based purely upon supposition. Hebrew Dialects
It is far simpler, and more probable, to suppose that
these various documents differ in language and style, not
because they represent different periods of development,
but because they represent different contemporary, or nearly
contemporary, dialects. These dialects may have been
spoken by neighboring peoples at the same time, and the
language of one dialect may have progressed or decayed
rapidly. Therefore they may vary greatly from one
another. This principle of dialects is so well known, and
established by comparative phflology with such certainty,
that there can be no dispute concerning it. Such pheno
mena mark the history of every cultivated language of
the globe. It was so in Greece and Rome. It is so today
in England, Italy, Germany, and Sweden — even in the
United States. The modern Arabic dialects show that
the sam.e principle applies among the Semites. And that
dialects were in use among the Hebrews we know from
the fact that in ancient times the Ephraimitic pronuncia
tion differed from that of the Gileadites. The Gfleadites
said Shibboleth, the Ephraimites said Sibboleth.' This
change from sh to 5 is common between the Babylonian
and the Ass5Tian, and between the Hebrew and the Arabic.
It indicates that dialectic differences existed between the
east-Jordanic tribes and the tribe of Ephraim.
Further, it can be shown that some of the tribes used
Hebrew words in quite different senses from those given
them by other tribes. Thus, e. g., Ish-bosheth and Mephi-
bosheth in the Benjaminite dialect correspond to Ish-baal
I Judges 12:6.

6o THE LANGUAGE OF THE P DOCUMENT
and Meri-baal in the Jemsalemite dialect. Although
Bosheth means otherwise "shame" or "confusion,"
among the Benjaminites it was used for Baal, meaning
"lord" or "master."'
Again, we know of a Galflean dialect at the time of
Christ." This dialect existed, in all probabflity, from
very early times. The Song of Deborah, ^ the Book of
Jonah, and the Song of Songs are aU of Galflean origin,
and the peculiarities of style in them should be explained
as peculiarities of the Galflean dialect, rather than as
"Aramaisms." Their use of sh for the relative pronoun,
instead of the Hebrew asher, is not an Aramaism at aU.
The Aramaic uses invariably d for the relative. The
sh shows relationship with the Phoenician 5 or asse, and
is doubtless a mark of the ancient Galflean dialect.
It is, therefore, more than possible that a certain docu
ment may have been the property of some one tribe, speak
ing its own dialect. The peculiarities of vocabulary and
style of a document may then be ascribed to the peculiar
dialect of the tribe which owned it. And if this is the case
we have in the language of the documents no criterion what
ever of the comparative ages of those documents. The
differences in language and expression between the D and
P documents, then, furnish absolutely no evidence in
regard to the date of the P document.
Dialect of Levi
To what dialect are we to assign P ? The document
and code is a product of the Aaronic priesthood. The
language, therefore, is naturaUy the language of the priests.
I Cf. I Sam. 20:30, where the same word is used by Saul, the Benjaminite.
'Mark 14:70; Luke 22:59; 23:6; Acts 2:7.
3 Judges, chap. 5.

DIALECT OF LEVI 6i
Now the Aaronic priests form a clan of the tribe of Levi.
The language of the P code, then, it would seem, is that
of the tribe of Levi. The language of the Toledoth Book
is closely related to that of the P document proper, and is
therefore also to be assigned to the tribe of Levi. Its
minor differences from the rest of P indicate only a differ
ent age in the development of the dialect. In this case we
must assume that it is the older of the two. The prophet
Ezekiel was also a priest, perhaps of the Zadokite family.
His language would then be that of the Levitical tribe.
This explains sufl&ciently the connection and simflarity
between his prophecies and the P document. The differ
ences between them are equally well accounted for, by
the assumption that Ezekiel's language shows a later and
more disintegrated stage in the development of the Leviti
cal dialect. Ezra and Malachi belonged to this same
tribe of Levi, and both their afl&nity with the P language
and their evidences of disintegration receive adequate
explanation. If this assigning of the P document to the dialect of
Levi is correct, other phenomena of this document can
more easfly be explained. The religious institutions,
for instance, mentioned in the P code, may then rest on
the traditions of the tribe of Levi, and the P code may be
looked upon as the product of the religious development
of that tribe. As the Levites in D, and the sons of Aaron
with Levites in P, were put in charge of the worship and
the sanctuary, we would expect that the traditions and
laws of the tribe of Levi would exert a most pronounced
influence upon the thought and literature of aU Hebrew
tribes that came to worship at the sanctuaries where they
ofl&ciated.

62 THE LANGUAGE OF THE P DOCUMENT
In view of all these facts the most reasonable way to
account for the linguistic peculiarities of the P document
is to assign the document to the dialect and to the religious
conceptions, not of the exflic, the post-exflic, or any other
period, but rather of a patticular tribe, the tribe of Levi.

CHAPTER V
Conclusions in Regard to the P Document
In view of the facts that we have adduced in the three
previous chapters, the following conclusions in regard to
the P document have been deduced:
Early Date of P
In regard to the document's date, we have found that
it cannot be assigned either to the exflic or the post-exflic
periods, that it was in part the basis of the reform of
Josiah, 621 B. c, that it was appealed to in the time of
Hezekiah, ca. 700 b. c, and was well known to the pro
phets of that time, Amos and Isaiah, that it was the basis
of a missionary propaganda by the Levites in the time of
Jehoshaphat, ca. 873 b. c, that it was well known to his
father, Asa, that Solomon and even David worshiped on
the basis of its ritual, and finally, that Saul carried out a
reform on the basis of its laws. The conclusion seemed
inevitable that the P document and code existed in a
written form as early as the time of Saul and Samuel.
Documents of P
We have further pointed out that the P document, as
embodied in our Hexateuch, has no claim to be regarded
either as complete or as a unit — admitting that the Docu
mentary H5rpothesis is correct. Here and there it is only
fragmentary, and so fragmentary that it gives no sense
if read by itself. We found that it contains doublets, in
the genealogies of the sons of Shem and of the sons of
63

64 CONCLUSIONS IN REGARD TO THE P DOCUMENT
Jacob, and in its statements regarding the wives of Esau.
Our conclusion from these premises was that the P docu
ment, as we have it, is only a collection of fragments. A
consideration of the Toledoth Book, with its distinguishing
marks, confiirmed us in this conclusion.
Language of P
Again, in considering the language of the document,
we found that certain sections differed in vocabulary and
phraseology, as well as in characteristic formulas, from
other portions. We saw that this phenomenon ran
through all of Genesis and parts of Exodus and Leviticus.
Analyzing these sections, we found that we had in them
fragments of an old Toledoth Book, and that in addition
to this there was in P another document, known in the Old
Testament as the Book of the Law of Yahweh, or, more
briefly, as the Law of Yahweh. We considered further
the peculiarities of the Toledoth Book and of this other
document or documents, comparing them with the later
priestly writings, and this led us to conclude that these pe
culiarities pointed to a literary product of the tribe of Levi,
written in that tribe's dialect, and further, that the laws
and institutions of our P collections were the property,
and were based upon the traditions, of the people of the
tribe of Levi. From all these considerations, we conclu
ded that the peculiarities of the P document could best
be accounted for by assigning them, not to the exflic or
post-exflic periods, but to this particular tribe of Levi.

CHAPTER VI
The Date of the D Document
A. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
Critical scholars who believe in the Development
Hypothesis, and several scholars of the old school, agree
that the Book of Deuteronomy was the law-book found in
the eighteenth year of Josiah, 622-621 b. c. It is a part
of the Critical Hj^othesis that the D document is older
than the P document. And all internal evidence seems
to point that way. ' In regard to the date for D just given,
however, we must remember that the Bible states, not that
D was then composed, but merely that then the book was
"found in the temple.""
I. Finding of the Book of Deuteronomy
Before entering upon the question of the real date of
D, let us briefly review the story of the fimding of the Book
of the Law of Moses in the temple in the eighteenth year
of Josiah. It seems that King Josiah had ordered some repairs of
the temple to be carried out under the direction of Hflkiah,
the high-priest. One day the king sent his scribe, Shaphan
with an order to Hflkiah to count the money that had been
taken in at the doors of the temple, and to pay it over to
the workmen, namely, the carpenters, buflders, and
masons, and to buy, too, timbers and hewn stones with
- In religion, institutions, etc., but not necessarily in language. The
Toledoth Book, however, is seemingly as old_as D.
- II Kings 22:8. 65

66 THE DATE OF THE D DOCUMENT
which to repair the breaches of the temple. It would
seem, therefore, that the repaurs were already under way.
Certainly, the workmen had to be paid. When Shaphan
came to the temple, Hflkiah informed him in the following
words, "I have found the Book of the Law in the house
of God."' Hflkiah then gave the book to Shaphan and
he read it. On his return to the palace, Shaphan told
the king of his discovery, and read the book before him.
When the king had heard the words of the book, he rent
his clothes, and ordered Hflkiah and Shaphan and two
other men to go and inquire from Yahweh in regard to
the contents of the book. These men went to the prophet
ess Hulda and communed with her. She answered and
told them, "Thus says Yahweh, Behold I wfll bring evfl
upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even
all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read :
because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense
unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with
all the work of their hands."" When the king heard the
answer from the prophetess, he gathered the elders of
Judah and of Jerusalem to the temple and read there in
their ears, "all the words of the Book of the Covenant,
which was found in the house of Yahweh. "^ The Book
of Kings then continues, saying, "And like unto him there
was no king before him that turned to Yahweh, with aU
his heart, and with all his soul, and with aU his might,
according to all the Law of Moses.""
This book, thus found, is referred to as the Book of
the Covenant^ and the Law of Moses. In the reforms by
- II Kings 22: 8. 3 II Kings 23:2.
= II Kings 22:16, 17. 4 II Kings 23:25.
5 So called because it contained the "Ten Words," or Decalogue (Deut.,
chap. 5.)

REFORMS OF JOSIAH 67
him undertaken it is fair to assume that Josiah was guided
by the Book of Deuteronomy, for there are specific refer
ences in this book on which he could have based his
reforms. II. Reforms of Josiah
a) Josiah destroyed aU the vessels made for the wor
ship of the host of Heaven.' The law forbidding this
worship is found in Deut. 17:3.
b) He destroyed the Asherah in the house of Yahweh."
The law on Asherah worship is found in Deut. 16:21, 22.
c) Josiah broke down the house of devotees. ^ The
law on devotees is found in Deut. 23:17.
Attention has often been drawn by the critical scholars
to the fact that Josiah destroyed the "high-places" of
Judah." Now it is tme that Deut., chap. 12, forbids
idolatry, but, to be precise, we must observe that in this
chapter the word "high-place" does not occur. Nor does
it occur in any other place in Deuteronomy. As we stated
above, the law on high-places is in Leviticus.
It has also been emphasized by modern critics that
Josiah refers to the "abominations" of Judah, ^ and that
this is peculiarly a Deuteronomic expression. They
have thereby attempted to show that Deuteronomy exclu
sively was the basis of the reform of Josiah. Now it is
tme that the word "abomination" occurs some eighteen
times in Deuteronomy, and some sixteen times in the
original code of Deuteronomy, but it must not be forgotten
that the P code in Leviticus uses the same term not less
than six times. The term is not, therefore, exclusively
the property of Deuteronomy. It is impossible to base
any argument on this term.
I II Kings 23:4. , 3 11 Kings 23:7. 5 II Kings 23 : 24.
- II Kings 23 : 6. 4 XX Kings 23 : 8.

68 THE DATE OF THE D DOCUMENT
As a matter of fact, as we have already seen, Josiah's
reforms were based, in the greater number of cases, on
laws found, not in D, but in P. Nevertheless, the fact
remains that in certain of his reforms he enforced laws
found solely in Deuteronomy. From this we must con
clude that D is at least as old as his time.
HI. D Not Written in Time of Josiah
But modem critics go farther than this and assume that
the book was written at this time, or, at the earliest, in the
time of Manasseh, or, possibly, Hezekiah. But there is
no reason to believe that such a book should have been
composed in the times of the idolatrous Manasseh. It is
equally improbable that it was composed in the time of
Hezekiah. For why should a man go to the trouble to
write a book, only to lay it away in a comer of the temple
where perhaps it might by chance be found, a century
after it was written ? There remains, then, to be con
sidered, the h3npothesis that it was composed in the time
of Josiah, at the time of its supposed discovery.
There is not a single statement in the Bible that can
be used as the basis for such a belief. Indeed, such a
hypothesis is at complete variance with the facts as there
set forth, unless we are to suppose that Hflkiah or some
of his friends deliberately forged the book, and that this
fact was completely unknown, indeed unsuspected,
both by the king and by the author of the Book of
Kings. It is true that we are told by many critics that for a
man to write a book himself, and then to claim that it was
written by an ancient author, somewhat in the fashion of
the author of the Book of Mormon, would not have been

D AND JOSIAH'S REFORM 69
considered dishonorable in those days, as it is in ours.
But those who advance these views have yet to adduce an
instance from the records of ancient times of such an
imposture being perpetrated and the action being justified.
The assumption has originated solely in their imaginations.
It is absurd to claim that the author of Deuteronomy, that
book of highly exalted moral claims, could have lent him
self to such dishonesty.
Furthermore, is it not remarkable that King Josiah,
the scribe Shaphan, and the prophetess Hulda could all
of them have been so completely deceived as to believe
and claim that this was in very truth the Law of Moses,
which the predecessors of the king had disobeyed ? It is
impossible to believe that such a book would have been
accepted without the most severe scrutiny by both the
civfl and the ecclesiastical authorities. And yet they all
pronounced it a genuine discovery of an older law. The
imposture h)^o thesis is in the highest degree improbable,
when examined with the usual care used in historical
investigation. B. INTERNAL EVIDENCE
I. D and Josiah's Reform
In the conclusion just reached, that the D code was
not written in Josiah's time, we are supported by the inter
nal evidence. For if it had been, there would have been
contained in it laws designed to fit the conditions prevalent
in that time. This is not the case in at least the following
instances :
a) Josiah deposed the idolatrous priests known by the
name of Chemarim. ' These priests were known as early
I II Kings 23:5.

70 THE DATE OF THE D DOCUMENT
as the days of Hosea,' and had been ordained by the
kings of Judah. But Deuteronomy does not know of
the existence of any such sort of priests, although it
takes great pains to enumerate different kinds of
idolatrous priests.
b) Josiah drove out the women that wove hangings
for Asherah." But Deuteronomy does not know of the
existence of any such women.
c) Josiah broke down the high-places of the sat)T:s.^
But Deuteronomy has no law on sat)T:- worship. P, as
we have seen, is the only code which mentions it."
d) Josiah permitted the priests of the high-places of
Judah to get their portion of unleavened bread from the
temple in Jerusalem. ' The law on this, too, is found, not
in D, but only in P.*
e) Josiah forbade Molech-worship.' Deuteronomy
does not mention Molech once, although it forbids passing
chfldren through the fire.* It is the P code which men
tions Molech and forbids his worship.'
/) Josiah took away the horses of the Sun, which the
kings of Judah had given. '° Deuteronomy has no law on
the subject.
g) The high-places near by Jerusalem, dedicated by
Solomon to Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Mflcom, were
destroyed by Josiah." These gods are not mentioned
in Deuteronomy.
h) Josiah destroyed the high-place at Bethel, buflt by
- II Kings 10:5. Cf. Zeph. 1:4. = II Kings 23:7.
3 II Kings 23:8, where we should read "satyrs" instead of "gates." The
change involves only a slight alteration in punctuating the Massoretic text.
4 Lev. 17:7. 7 II Kings 23:10. 1° II Kings 23:11.
s II Kings 23:9. 8 Deut. 18:10. " II Kings 23:13.
'Lev. 6:i4ff. 9 Lev. 18:21; 20:2 ff.

D AND THE AGE OF JOSIAH 71
Jeroboam I.' As we have seen, Deuteronomy has no
law on high-places.
i) Josiah deffled the sepulchres at Bethel, where the
Northern Kingdom had offered ancestor worship at the
gravestones." Deuteronomy does not prohibit or even
mention ancestor worship.
j) Josiah forbade the Teraphim worship.' Deuter
onomy knows nothing of Teraphim.
II. D and the Age of Josiah
Furthermore, Deuteronomy does contain laws which
could not have applied to the time of Josiah, laws of which
he took absolutely no notice.
a) There is in Deuteronomy an injunction to destroy
Canaanites" and Amalekites.' But neither of these
nations existed in the time of Josiah, nor had they existed
for three hundred years before him.
b) Deuteronomy has precise rules for mflitary service,*
for besieging foreign cities,' and for the arrangement of
the camp,* all of them utterly unsuitable for the time of
Josiah. c) Deuteronomy warns the Israelites against choosing
a foreigner for their king.' This would be, to say the
least, needless, when the house of David, to which Josiah
belonged, had reigned almost four hundred years.
d) Deuteronomy cultivates a warm friendship for
Esau.'° It does not mention Edom" once. Now Edom
- II Kings 23:15. * Deut. 20:1-9.
" II Kings 23:16-20. 7 Deut. 20:9-15, 19, 20.
3 II Kings 23:24. * Deut. 23:10-14.
4 Deut. 7:1, 2; 20:17, 18. 5 Deut. 17:15, 16.
5 Deut. 25:17-19. 1° Deut. 2:2-8.
" It mentions " Edomite " once (23: 7), which shows that the Edomites were
then entering Mount Seir, but had not yet dispossessed Esau of his land.

72 THE DATE OF THE D DOCUMENT
had driven away Esau long before Josiah's time. In his
time the prophet Jeremiah' denounces Edom, as do Oba-
diah, Joel," and Isaiah. ' And even if, as some suppose,
Edom and Esau are to be considered as two names for
one people, there was not a people more hated in Judah
in Josiah's time than were the Edomites.
e) Deuteronomy enjoins the Israelites to destroy the
Anakim." Joshua and Caleb really destroyed them.'
They are not known to have existed from that time onward.
On the contrary Deuteronomy does not once mention the
Phflistines, who for 450 years before Josiah had been
harassing the Israelites and who were stfll a thorn in their
side. In these first two sections of the internal evidence we
have seen that Deuteronomy agrees neither in what it
does contain nor in what it does not contain with the con
ditions prevalent in the time of Josiah. As the book could
not have been written later than his time, we must look
farther back to discover its origin.
III. D and Early History of Israel
Some conservative modem critics concede that the
institutions and the laws contained in our Deuteronomy '
may have existed for some time before the age of Josiah,
but they maintain that these laws were not codified untfl
his time. We can find strong evidence, however, to the
contrary. a) In II KLings 14:6 we read, "But the chfldren of the
murderers he (Amaziah) put not to death: according to
that which is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, as
I Jer. 49:8. '. Deut. 1:28; (2:10, 11, 21; 9:2.)
"'Joel3:i9. ^ s Josh. 11:21, 22; 14:12-15.
3 Isa. 63 : 1-6.

D AND EARLY HISTORY OF ISRAEL 73
Yahweh commanded, saying, The fathers shaU not be put
to death for the chfldren, nor the chfldren be put to death
for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin."
The last part of this passage is an exact quotation from
Deuteronomy. ' The passage has been explained as a late
addition to the Book of Kings by the Deuteronomic editor.
But the fact remains that Amaziah did not put the chfldren
of the murderers to death, which was contrary to the usual
procedure in those times. He must, therefore have had
a law which restrained him. All traditions would have
encouraged him to kfll them. Furthermore the editor of
Kings claims that Amaziah foUowed the written law of
the Book of Moses. If such a book did not exist in the
time of Amaziah, our author of Kings has told a plain
untruth. That he has done so remains to be proved.
The author of Kings refers again and again to a number
of books or documents which he used in compfling his
history of the kings of Judah and Israel. No one has as
yet been able to show that he falsified his material. What
errors there are seem to have been in his sources. Nor
has it been shown that these source-documents were non
existent. Fair-minded scholarship accepts their existence
in his time, and acknowledges that he made use of them.
Now this Book of the Law of Moses was really one of these
documents, and we have no reason to doubt that the author
is correct here, as in other places, in his statement of the
source of his quotation.
The authenticity of this passage is made stfll more plain,
however, when we compare it with the Book of Chronicles.
We know that the source used by the author of the Book
of Kings for the reign of Amaziah was a book called. The
- Deut. 24:16.

74 THE DATE OF THE D DOCUMENT
Chronicles of the Kings of Judah. ' The Book of Chronicles
for this same period uses another authority, namely, The
Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. " Yet the statement
in Chronicles' is identical with that quoted from Kings,
and here again there is the reference to the law in the Book
of Moses. Critics are agreed in saying that the editor
of Chronicles neither had Deuteronomic tendencies nor
used Deuteronomic m^aterials. We have, then, in Chron
icles, true corroboration of Kings in the statement that
Amaziah refrained from killing the chfldren of the mur
derers because of a written law, a law which we know to
be contained only in Deuteronomic legislation.
b) In I Kings, chap. 8, we have the prayer which Solo
mon offered at the consecration of the temple. It not
only breathes the spirit of Deuteronomy through and
through, but its very phraseology from verse to verse is
that of Deuteronomy. Compare the characteristic phrases
in the following, for example :
I Kings 8: 24 and Deut. 8: 18; 10: 15
8:23 " 4:39
8:25 " chap. 15
8:27 " 10:14
8:32 " 25:1
8:33 " 28:25
8:3s " 11:17
8:37 " 28:22,38
8:37 " 28:52
8:40 " 12:1; 31:13
•- II Kings 14:18.
' Of course the Chronicles referred to in II Kings 14: 18 is not our Book of
Chronicles, nor is the Book of Kings referred to in Chronicles our book of
that name. Both references are to earlier documents used by the authors. See
II Chron. 25:26.
3 II Chron. 25:4.

D AND EARLY HISTORY OF ISRAEL 75
I Kings 8:41 and Deut. 29:21

8:42 "

11:2

8:43 "

28:10

8:44 "

21:10; 20:1

8:46 "

7:2, 23; 23:14

8:47 "

30:1

8:48 "

30:2

Modern critics assume, of course, that the Deuteron
omic author of our Kings modeled this beautiful prayer as
he wished, according to the tenets of the Deuteronomic
code, and that it is not at all the one which Solomon
really offered. Of course Solomon must have offered
some prayer at the consecration of the temple. Again
the charge brought against the author of Kings is one of
falsifying records. But in this case, as in the one just
discussed, the fallacy of such a charge becomes apparent
when we compare the record of the event contained in
Chronicles. In II Chron., chap. 6, the same prayer is
given as is contained in I Kings, chap. 8, exactly the same,
not only in thought, but even in mode of expression.'
Again, we must emphasize the fact that the author of
Chronicles is not accused of having had Deuteronomic
leanings. Now the author of Kings gives as his authority
in compfling his history of Solomon, The Book of the Acts
of Solomon.'' The author of Chronicles gives as his
authorities for the same period the following: The History
of Nathan the Prophet, The Prophecy of Ahijah the Shi-
lonite, and The Visions of Iddo the Seer.^ If then from
his source the author of Kings derived a prayer of Solomon
I There are a few unimportant differences, such as the omission of an
"and" or of an article, but there are none which would not be natural between
two copies made by different hands from one and the same original.
2 I Kings 11:41. 3 II Chron. 9 : 29.

76 THE DATE OF THE D DOCUMENT
exactly the same, even in language, as that derived by the
editor of Chronicles from his three quite different sources,
it seems indisputable that this prayer given by both is the
product of neither, but that it is derived from contemporary
records made at the time the prayer was delivered — in other
words, that it is actuaUy the prayer which Solomon
offered. But there are some critics who maintain that this prayer
was merely the product of certain Deuteronomic tenden
cies or traditions which were indeed current in Solomon's
time, but which were not written down untfl the time of
Josiah. How, though, can those who hold this view
explain the fact that this prayer of Solomon exhibits not
only the thought, but also the language, of that written
Deuteronomy which we know ?
Back in Solomon's time, then, the code of Deuteronomy
certainly seems to have been extant, and that in a written,
definite form. IV. "Law of Moses"
We have already noticed that in II Kings 23 : 25 there is
a reference to the Law of Moses. We found, as indeed is
admitted by everyone, that the phrase there referred to
Deuteronomy, which was supposed to have been foimd in
the temple just at that time. Again, in both Kings and
Chronicles we found that Amaziah' s sparing of the chfldren
of the murderers was due to a law contained in the Book
of the Law of Moses. And in this case, too, we found that
the reference was to Deuteronomy. These facts point
to a belief that the Book of the Law of Moses was the tech
nical term for Deuteronomy. Let us see what other
references there are which point the same way.

"LAW OF MOSES " 77
First, in the Book of Deuteronomy itself,' we read,
"Beyond Jordan, in the land of Moab, began Moses to
declare this law," and again," "And this is the law which
Moses set before the chfldren of Israel; these are the
testimonies and the statutes and the judgments which
Moses spake unto the chfldren of Israel, when they came
forth out of Egypt, beyond Jordan, in the valley over
against Beth-Peor." These words are taken from the
introduction to the code. In chap. 28, which is the con
clusion of the code and an inseparable part of the same,
we read, 3 "If thou wflt not observe to do all the words of
this law, that are written in this book," and again," "Also
every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in
the book of this law, them wfll Yahweh bring upon thee
untfl thou be destroyed." Here, then, Moses asserts
that he himself has written this book, for as the introduc
tion tells us, all these are the words which Moses purports
to speak. Chaps. 29-31 are not a portion of the original D code,
but are contemporary with it, and may possibly be sup
posed to have been written by Joshua. Here we read,'
"These are the words of the covenant which Yahweh
commanded Moses to make with the chfldren of Israel,
in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which he made
with them in Horeb." The author then continues, and
says,^ "And Moses wrote this law and delivered it unto
the priests, the sons of Levi, which bare the Ark of the
Covenant of Yahweh, and unto all the elders of Israel."
And again,' "And it came to pass, when Moses had made
1 Deut. 1:5. 4 Deut. 28:61. * Deut. 31:9.
2 Deut. 4:44. 5 Deut. 29:1. ' Deut. 31:24-26.
3 Deut. 28:58.

78 THE DATE OF THE D DOCUMENT
an end of writing the words of this law in a book, untfl
they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites,
which bare the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh, sayuig.
Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the
Covenant of Yahweh your God, that it may be there for
a witness against thee." We can easfly see how, from
these passages in Deuteronomy, the name Law of Moses,
might easfly and naturafly come into use as the title of
the work. This is especiaUy tme when we consider that
in no other code is Moses put forward as the author of
the law-book. In other codes we are told either that
Yahweh himself wrote the laws, or that Moses proclaimed
them in Yahweh' s name. But in D we are specificaUy
informed that Moses himself wrote and promulgated
them. What more natural, therefore, than that the tech
nical term. Law of Moses, should have been applied to the
D code, just as we found Law of Yahweh to be the technical
term for the P code ?
But by further references this assumption can almost
certainly be proved.
a) In Josh, i : 7, 8, we are told that Yahweh committed
to Joshua the charge of being the successor of Moses with
the words, "Only be strong, and very courageous, to
observe to do according to all the law which Moses, my
servant, commanded thee: turn not from it to the right
hand or to the left, that thou mayest deal wisely whither
soever thou goest. This book of the law shall not depart
out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and
night, that thou mayest observe to do according to aU that
is written therein." Here we find that Joshua received
in charge a written book, called the Book of the Law, of
which Moses, not Yahweh, is given as the author.

"LAW OF MOSES" 79
b) When Joshua had finished the subjection of the
eastem part of the land, he gathered the tribes of Israel
to Mount Ebal and there' "Joshua buflt an altar unto
Yahweh, the God of Israel, in Mount Ebal, as Moses
the servant of Yahweh commanded the chfldren of Israel,
as it is written ui the Book of the Law of Moses, an altar
of unhewn stones, upon which no man had lifted up any
iron: and they offered thereon burnt-offerings unto
Yahweh, and sacrificed peace-offerings. And he wrote
there upon the stones a copy of the Law of Moses, which
he wrote in the presence of the chfldren of Israel." The
law mentioned as being written in the Book of the Law of
Moses is found exclusively in Deut. 27 : 5-8, where we read
that Moses said, "And there shalt thou bufld an altar
unto Yahweh thy God, an altar of stones : thou shalt lift
up no iron upon them. Thou shalt build the altar of
Yahweh thy God of unhewn stone; and thou shalt offer
burnt-offerings thereon unto Yahweh thy God, and thou
shalt sacrifice peace-offerings, and shalt eat there; and
thou shalt rejoice before Yahweh thy God. And thou
shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very
plainly." Here we have then a reference to the Book of
the Law of Moses which plainly is a reference to the Deu
teronomic legislation. "
c) When Joshua bade farewell to his people, he said,^
I Josh. 8:30-32.
' Some critics are inclined to regard Deut., chap. 27, on which this passage
in Joshua is so evidently based, as not an integral part of the D code. The
objection is based mainly on the blessings and cursings contained in it. But
this is a mistaken notion, for the Code of Hammurabi has shown us that blessings
and curses were an integral part of ancient codes, as a proper affirmation of
their tenets. The blessings and curses in this chapter in Deuteronomy are a
necessary part of the conclusion of the D code, just as the threats in Leviticus
(chap. 26) belong to the conclusion of the P code.
3 Josh. 23:6.

8o THE DATE OF THE D DOCUMENT
"Therefore be very courageous to keep and to do all that
is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, that ye turn
not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left."
Although there is nothing in this passage to point out what
book it is that is known by this name, the simflarity m
phraseology between this and the passage from Joshua
just cited above makes the assumption justifiable that
what is referred to here is the same as that referred to in
other parts of Joshua, i. e., the D document.
d) The dying David charged his son, Solomon, saying, '
"Be thou strong, therefore, and show thyself a man; and
keep the charge of Yahweh thy God to walk in his ways,
to keep his statutes, his commandments, and his judg
ments, and his testimonies, according to that which is
written in the Law of Moses, that thou mayest deal wisely
in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou tumest
thyself." The tone of this passage is decidedly Deuter
onomic, and resembles closely our quotation above from
Joshua 1:7. It is worth remarking that the prayer which
Solomon made when he came to dedicate his temple was,
as we have seen, entirely Deuteronomic. David, then,
knew of a written Law of Moses, and when he spoke of it
used definitely Deuteronomic language.
e) In II Chron. 23:18 we have another reference to
the Law of Moses. "And Jehoiada appointed the offices
of the house of Yahweh under the hand of the priests the
Levites, whom David had distributed in the house of
Yahweh, to offer the bumt-offerings of Yahweh, as it is
written in the Law of Moses, with rejoicing and with sing
ing, according to the order of David." The expression,
" the priests the Levites" is Deuteronomic, and not priestly
- I Kings 2:26, 3.

" LAW OF MOSES " 8i
as we might naturaUy expect in Chronicles, the product
of the priestly school. And these priests the Levites are
definitely said to be fulfilling their functions " as it is written
in the Law of Moses. ' ' The identification of Deuteronomy
with the Law of Moses seems to be plain here, too, in the
reign of Joash, at the time when he became king, 837 b. c.
/) Something simflar seems to be implied in II Chron.
30: 16, where, at the great Passover of Hezekiah, the order
of the priests is again referred to as being "according to
the Law of Moses." The "order" refers, of course, to
the arrangement made by David, who divided the priests
into classes when he established his worship of Yahweh,
a worship which, as we have seen above, seems to have
been on a Deuteronomic basis, or at least worship around
"the Ark of the Covenant," an ark which, as wfll be fuUy
shown later, belonged to the D code.
g) Further references to the Law of Moses are to be
found in II Kings 21:8 (the time of Manasseh), Ezra 3:2;
7:6, Nehemiah 8:1; 9:14, Daniel 9:11, 13. Malachi
admonishes the people, "Remember ye the Law of Moses
my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for
all Israel, even statutes and judgments."' A law referred
to Horeb would at first glance seem to be E, but the term
"statutes and] judgments " must refer to D." As late as
the time of Malachi, therefore, the term Law of Moses
seems to refer to Deuteronomy.
We have thus seen that probably in the time of Malachi,
and certainly in the times of Josiah, Amaziah, Joash
(Jehoiada), Solomon, David, and Joshua, that is to say,
in every reference to the Law of Moses where anything
I Mai. 4:4.
- Deut., chap. 5-11, refers exclusively to the legislation at Horeb and the
events between Iloreb and Moab.

82 THE DATE OF THE D DOCUMENT
at all is implied as to what is meant, there is implied that
the law which we call the D code is meant. It seems in
the highest degree probable that such a book did exist
from the time of Joshua down. And if it existed this
early, as the evidence persuades us to admit, there is no
reason to doubt that Moses wrote the D code at the cove
nant in the land of Moab, just as Deuteronomy itself
asserts. In concluding this section in regard to the Law of Moses
just one other fact needs to be observed. The D code
ordains,' "And it shall be, when he [the king] sitteth upon
the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy
of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests
the Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shaU read
in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear
Yahweh his God, to keep all the words of this law, and
these statutes, to do them." This explicit order to write
a copy of the law in a book implies that the law existed
in codified form, for a copy could not be made of mere
traditions. If we now tum to the historical books, we
find that this law was strictly obeyed when Israel came
to choose a king. As soon as Saul was chosen, and Samuel
had consecrated him, Samuel told the people God's
ordinance for the kingdom, and wrote it down in a book,
which was laid up before Yahweh."
v. D and the Central Sanctuary
Against all these facts which seem to argue for an early
date for D, critics advance the plea that D must be late
I Deut. 17:18, 19.
2 I Sam. 10:25. Instead of saying with Dr. Driver (LOT, p. 87f.), that
the Law of the Kingdom (Deut. 17 : 14 ff.) is colored by reminiscences of the
monarchy of Solomon, it is equally possible to say that the monarchy of Solomon
reflects the Law in Deuteronomy.

D AND THE CENTRAL SANCTUARY 83
because it is the only code which teaches "a central sanc
tuary," by which phrase they mean "a single sanctuary."
The argument is that since up to the time of Josiah there
were many sanctuaries, and it was he who abolished them
aU save the one at Jerusalem, D could not have been in
effect before his time. This argument is based upon the
substitution in the minds of the critics of "Jemsalem"
for the phrase in Deuteronomy," the place for the dwelling
of my name." This argument seems at first glance very
plausible, but it is not nearly so strong when examined
carefuUy. First of aU we must observe that not in one single
instance does Deuteronomy mention Jemsalem, and the
implication that it means Jerusalem is a reading into the
Bible of a personal opinion merely. It does speak, again
and again, about the place which Yahweh shall choose
for causing his name to dwell in. But that place may be
anywhere. And, as we know, it was moved about to
different places up to the time of David. In the time of
the Judges the principal sanctuary certainly moved about
from place to place. Yahweh' s oracle to Nathan the
prophet clearly shows that this was the case.'
Furthermore, Deuteronomy does not prohibit other
sanctuaries. This statement may appear startling, but
it is, nevertheless, true. It ordains that there shall be
only one place for his name to dwell, and that is all. And
this phrase is a technical term for Yahweh's presence at
the central sanctuary. It does not prohibit other places
and altars for "sacrifices," so long as those sacrifices are
made to Yahweh. Deuteronomy may be searched from
one end to the other without fimding a single prohibition,
- 1 Chron. 17:2-6; XX Sam. 7:5-7.

84 THE DATE OF THE D DOCUMENT
denunciation, or even reproof of altars of this sort. On
the contrary, Deuteronomy, in the code itself, ' orders the
people to go to Ebal and ratify the covenant made in Horeb
and Moab. And in Joshua we- read that Joshua carried
out this command by buflding an altar to Yahweh and
sacrificing thereon, and writing the law of Deuteronomy
upon twelve stones placed around the altar. Thus we
see that D deliberately ordained at least one altar of sacri
fice apart from Jerusalem or the ark.
The twelfth is the great chapter in Deuteronomy for
bidding idolatry, and it is on this chapter chiefly that critics
base their contention about the "single central sanctuary
of the D code." But in this very chapter, in vss. 15 and
21 we find permission given for the kflling of animals out
side the sanctuary. At first glance it might appear that
this kflling was just ordinary slaughtering. But the
Hebrew word here is zabach, which never has meant, and
never can mean, anything else but a sacrifice. The
Revisers have thus made themselves liable to the charge
either of wflful misrepresentation or of almost unpardon
able ignorance in translating this word with "kfll" merely,
because in both these verses we are dealing with sacrifices
and sacrificing. Thus we see that, even in the very pas
sage most cited against other altars than that of Jerusalem,
Deuteronomy permits sacrificing to Yahweh at any and
every place in which his people see fit to do it.
VI. D and the Priests the Levites
It is further objected by critics that a date as early as
we have postulated for D is impossible because in the early
history of Israel anybody was permitted to offer sacrifice,
whfle the D code confines the sacrificing to the priests
: Deut. 11:29; 27:4-13.

FINDING OF THE D DOCUMENT 85
the Levites. Of course it is true that D prescribes a
Levitical priesthood, that it includes as priests the sons
of Levi,' and that these sons of Levi are to be identified
with the whole tribe of Levi." But here again critics
have been reading into the Bible something which it does
not contain. Deuteronomy nowhere confines the right to
sacrifice to members of the tribe of Levi. All that Deuter
onomy does insist upon is that the Levites shall serve at
that sanctuary where the Ark of the Covenant is, or, to
use the technical term, "the place where Yahweh's name
is dweUing."^ VII. Finding of the D Document
We have seen that there is every reason for believing,
and none for disbelieving, that the D document originated
at a very early date, and that the document was known
right down through Hebrew history, at least down to the
time of Hezekiah. What then was meant by the state
ment that the book was "found" in the temple in the
eighteenth year of Josiah? The word for "find," maza,
points to a discovery, not by any means to an invention.
The book seemingly had been unknown to Josiah up to
the time of its discovery. Shaphan, Hflkiah, and Hulda,
seem aU of them to have been equaUy surprised when they
saw it. And indeed we cannot expect that it should have
been otherwise. The historical books show no trace of
it since the time of Hezekiah, nearly a century before.
Now it wfll be remembered that, when we were discussing
the P code, we noticed that in the time of Jehoshaphat,
873 B. c, the Levites went through the cities of Judah on
: Deut. 21:5; 31:9. = Deut. 18:1.
3 For the distinction between the D term, "the priests the Levites," and
the P term, "the priests and Levites," see below, p. 195.

86 THE DATE OF THE D DOCUMENT
missionary work to teach the Law of Yahweh, i. e., the
P code. May we not see in this an organized effort on
the part of the Aaronic or P priesthood to undermine the
D code in favor of that more particularly its own ? If this
be so, it is not hard to imagine a gradual decrease in influ
ence on the part of the D code, untfl, some time in the
reign of the idolatrous Manasseh, ca. 685 B. c, it sank
entirely into disuse and finally disappeared from the com
mon knowledge of the people.
At the same time we should expect that there would be a
copy of this important law in the oracle place of the tem
ple. Here only the high-priest could enter, and that only
once in each year, with the blood that was to be sprinkled
on the ark. This oracle place was completely dark. The
high-priest could see nothing inside it, nor could he touch
anything there. We have noticed above that in D itself
there is an order that a copy of it be laid up before Yahweh,
at the side of the Ark. This copy might very well, then,
be in the oracle place in Josiah's time, and have been there
since Solomon buflt the temple. For we have no good
reason to doubt that Solomon complied with the law and
placed the copy there as it required. It may have been
quietly resting there those 340 years, whfle the people,
and even the high-priest himself, may have been in these
later times utterly ignorant of its existence.
Now, there were masons, carpenters, and buflders
making extensive repairs of the breaches of the temple.
It is not too much to assume that these repairs extended
to the oracle place. We are told, mdeed, that the repairs
were to breaches in "the house," i. e., in the temple bufld
ing proper, consisting of the holy place and the oracle
place. Since we have no reason to assume that the repairs

FINDING OF THE D DOCUMENT 87
extended over the two-thirds of the house devoted to the
holy place but not to the other third, the oracle place, we
have indeed every reason to assume that the repairs did
extend to the latter. It is only natural that whfle this work
was going on the book should have been found and turned
over to the high-priest.
Navflle has lately suggested that the book may have
been found by the workmen under the walls of the temple. '
He calls attention to the fact that in several temples of
Egypt deposition documents have been found which had
been placed there when the temples were buflt. When
such temples were repaired, these documents were taken
out, augmented with additions regarding the repairs, and
then laid back in their places in the foundations. He
suggests that Deuteronomy may have been found in this
manner. Professor Grimme, using Naville's suggestion as a
basis, believes that there is a statement in the code itself
to that effect. His view seems very plausible." It is not
necessary that the book should have been laid in the wall
or in the cornerstone, however. His argument applies
equally well if it had been hidden away in the oracle place.
The passage which Grimme cites reads, "That which was
hidden away unto Yahweh our God and which has been
revealed to us and to our chfldren forever, that we may
do all the works of this law."^
The D code proper ends with the twenty-eighth chapter..
The next chapter is doubtless a later addition. Whether
it was made by Joshua or by some other person is hard to
^PSBA, Vol. XXIX, pp. 232-42.
'OLZ, 1907, pp. 610-15; 1908, pp. 188-93.
3 Deut. 29:29.

88 THE DATE OF THE D DOCUMENT
decide. But in thought and language it corresponds very
closely with the code itself. It was probably there when
the book was discovered in Josiah's time. This verse
which Grimme notes may then have been added at the
time the book was discovered.'
VIII. Conclusion
All these facts in relation to the finding of the document
only go to corroborate what we have concluded from the rest
of the evidence, both internal and external. The early date
which we have determined, namely, at least as early as the
time of Joshua, seems not only plausible, but extremely
probable. I The contents of the verse seem to point to this meaning rather than to
the rather pointless one of the R. V. translation, "The secret things belong unto
the Lord our God: but the things which are revealed belong to us and to our
children forever, that we may do all the works of this law.'' This passage,
thus translated, shows no logical connection either with the preceding or with
the following chapters.

CHAPTER VII
The Date of the E Document
I. The E Code Precedes D
Almost all modem critics admit that the E document
precedes the D document in date. Indeed, it is a part of
the Critical Hypothesis that this should be so, for the laws
and institutions of the E code seem, at first glance, to
belong to quite a primitive state of society, and to be both
fewer in number and less minute than those of D. The
argument is weU taken. E is older than D. Now we
found above that D is to be dated from the legislation in
Moab. The Bible asserts that the E code was given
forty years before that, at Horeb. May this statement
be accepted ?
It may be objected that this time is too short to allow
for a change in culture so great as that shown by a com
parison of the two codes. But two answers may be
advanced to meet this objection :
a) First, it is not certain that we have the whole E code
in our Hexateuch today.' Further, the J code, fl there
be one, claims to belong to the same time and occasion,
but it is only one-sixth the length of the E code as it now
stands. We cannot therefore certainly say that the E
code as it was originally was either much shorter or much
simpler than the D code.
b) Second, even under the Critical Hypothesis there is
assumed only a little more than a century between these
two codes. If such a change could have taken place in
' In Exod., chaps. 21-23. 89

9° THE DATE OF THE E DOCUMENT
SO short a time in the later monarchy, with its settled state
of society, how much easier would have been such a change
and how much quicker, in the years between the legisla
tions of Horeb and Moab, during which time we have
the graphic story of not less than four rebeUions, numerous
trials, and the unparalleled training of a stubborn and
stiff-necked people.
When we have admitted, then, that our date for E
depends upon our date for D, it might seem as if there
were nothing further to say on the date of this document
and code. But there are some few points that need to
be touched on.
II. " Law of Elohim "
We have already seen that the Bible has technical
terms for the D and P codes. We have observed that the
Law of Yahweh meant P, and that the Law of Moses
meant D. Simflarly, we might expect that the E code also
would have a technical term to denote it. Is this the case ?
Modern critics claim that the E code had its origin in
the Northern Kingdom. And whether or not it arose
there, there can be little doubt that that was where it was
more particularly in force. Now Hosea was a prophet
to the Northern Kingdom, and when he reproved the
people of Samaria he did it in the following language:
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because
thou hast rejected knowledge, I wfll also reject thee, that
thou shalt be no priest to me; seeing that thou hast for
gotten the Law of thy God [Elohim], I also wfll forget thy
chfldren."' Here we have a reference to a Law of God
or Elohim. This law must have been one known to the
people, else Hosea could not very well have cited it in
: HOS. 4:6.

THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT 91
rebuking them. Now the E document contains a code
which might very well have been in operation in Samaria,
with its low ideas of Yahweh. At this time fl seems that
even the simple laws of the code which had been in effect
were set aside for idolatrous practices. The prophet
therefore rebuked the people for having no knowledge,
i. e., of Yahweh as presented in this simple code, because
they had "forgotten the Law of Elohim."
In Joshua we read,' "And Joshua wrote these words
in the Book of the Law of Elohim; and he took a great
stone, and set it up there under the oak that was by the
sanctuary of Yahweh. And Joshua said unto all the peo
ple, Behold this stone shall be a witness against us; for
it has heard all the words of Yahweh, which He spake
unto us: it shall be therefore a witness against you, lest
ye deny your God." The words referred to were the
parting address of Joshua to Israel by the sanctuary of
Shfloh," where Joshua and the people made a covenant
with Yahweh, that they should be his people and worship
him only. When the people had agreed to this, Joshua
informed them that he would write their words and answers"
in the Law of Elohim, to be a witness against them forever.
There was, then, a Law of Elohim m. existence at this
time, and it must have been in codified form, capable of
receiving an addition, else Joshua could not have added
in writing the covenant agreement.
III. The Book of the Covenant
We have now seen that there was probably a Law of
Elohim, known in the time of Joshua at the time when he
made the covenant at Shfloh, and that this law was in
I Josh. 24:26, 27. ^ See p. 132.

92 THE DATE OF THE E DOCUMENT
written form and so capable of receiving written additions.
We wfll now see that at least a portion of the code was in
written form before the covenant at Shfloh.
In Exod. 24:7 we have a reference to the Book of the
Covenant: "And he took the Book of the Covenant, and
read in the audience of the people : and they said, All that
Yahweh has spoken wfll we do, and be obedient." It is
to be noted that this document is a book, and therefore
in written form. Let us now inquire what this Book of
the Covenant contained.
Modern critics agree that the Book of the Covenant
contained Exod. 21:1 — 23:19, i.e., the judgments at
Horeb. This they cafl the Greater Book of the Covenant,
whfle Exod. 34:13-26 they call the Lesser Book of the
Covenant. This is a reading into the Bible which cannot
be admitted. The laws in Exod., chap. 34, are not, and
never have been, a part of the Book of the Covenant. We
have only one Book of the Covenant. In order to deter
mine just what was its original extent, let us review briefly
the history of the theophanies at Horeb.
In Exod. 19:3 we are told that Moses went up unto
God, and that Yahweh called to him out of the mountain.
We find afterward that this mountain is Mount Horeb.
God at this time commanded Moses to speak to the chfl
dren of Israel, and remind them how he had brought
them out of Egypt, and promised that if they would keep
his commandments the kingdom of Israel should become
a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. The covenant
mentioned' is, of course, the covenant which Yahweh is
about to establish with the people. Moses then came
down from the mountain, called for the elders of the people
! Exod. 19:5.

THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT 93
and set before them the words of Yahweh, i. e., that he
intended to make a covenant with them. The people
answered that afl that Yahweh had said they would do.
Moses then returned to the mountain and reported the
words of the people to Yahweh.'
Yahweh then informed Moses that he was going to
appear in a thick cloud, and himself speak to the people.
He therefore ordered Moses down from the mountain
to sanctify the people, that they might be ready by the
third day, on which Yahweh was going to speak from the
mount. On the third day Yahweh appeared on the moun
tain, and called Moses up to him. There he gave instruc
tions that bounds should be set around the mountain so
that the people should not come near it. Moses objected,
because he had already taken these precautions, but Yah
weh ordered him down just the same, telling him that he
and Aaron should come up afterward."
When Moses had come down to the people, God spake
to them the Words, i. e., the ten commandments contained
in Exod. 20:2-17. The people heard the voice, saw the
lightnings, trembled, and asked Moses that he, and not
God, might speak with them, that they might not die.^
The Ten Words or commandents, then, are represented
as being, not the words of Moses, or the words of God as
delivered through Moses, but the words of God himself,
which he spoke with his own voice to the Israelites from
Horeb. At this request of the people, Moses went up once more
into the mountain and drew near the thick darkness where
God was, whfle the people all drew away from the mount."
Yahweh then spoke to Moses the words contained in
: Exod. 19:8. 2 Exod. 19:24. 3 Exod. 20:19. 4 Exod. 20:21.

94 THE DATE OF THE E DOCUMENT
Exod. 20 : 22&-26. Then he commanded the "judgments "
contained in Exod. 21:2 — 23:19. Yahweh then contin
ued to speak to Moses, informing him how he would send
an angel before them to bring them into the land of Can
aan.' When these words had been spoken, Yahweh told
Moses that he, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the
elders of Israel should come up to the mountain, but that
only Moses should come near unto Yahweh." "Moses
then came down and told the people all the words of Yah
weh, and all the judgments: and aU the people answered
with one voice, and said. All the words which Yahweh
has spoken wfll we do. And Moses wrote aU the words
of Yahweh, and rose up early in the morning, and buflded
an altar under the mount, and twelve stones, according
to the twelve tribes of Israel."^
"All the words of Yahweh" must include all that
Yahweh had spoken to the people (Exod. 20:2-17), but
not the judgments in Exod. 21:2 — 23:19. Having writ
ten down these things, Moses sent his officers who pre
pared for a sacrifice.
At this sacrifice they took half of the blood and
sprinkled it upon the altar. Then Moses read the Book
of the Covenant in the ears of the people. Again they
answered, "All that Yahweh has spoken, we wfll do, and
be obedient."" Thereupon Moses took the other half
of the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said,
"Behold the blood of the covenant which Yahweh has
made with you concerning all these words."' The cove
nant at Horeb was thus marked by a sacrifice, at which
the people formally accepted the Covenant Book.
•- Exod. 23:20-33. 3 Exod. 24:3, 4. s Exod. 24:8.
"Exod. 24:1, 2. 4 Exod. 24:7.

THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT 95
Moses, Aaron, and the seventy elders then presented
themselves unto the God of Israel on the mount, and
there they beheld God, and did eat and drink.' The
covenant sacrifice was thus continued in the very presence
of God.
The Book of the Covenant was so called because it con
tained the covenant between God and the people, and this
covenant is contained in the "ten words," i. e., the Deca
logue. The Book of the Covenant is then an exact parallel
to the Tables of Covenant, which, as we know, contained
only the "ten words." The difference in name refers,
then, to the different kinds of material, on which the cove
nant-words were recorded. Being called a "book,"
the covenant-words must have been written down by
Moses, exactly as the Bible itself asserts."
"Judgments" is a technical term for civil law. The
analogy of usage at this time, as evidenced by the Code
of Hammurabi in Babylonia and the Laws of Haremhab
in Egypt — both of which were civfl law-codes — requires
us to assume that the "judgments" in Exod., chap. 21-23,
must have been written and thus made accessible not only
to the people, but for the judges that had been appointed
a few days before.
When the covenant was thus consum^mated, God ordered
Moses to come up into the mountain to receive tables of
stone, and the law, and the commandment.^ We have
here new terms, and we have no right to assume that these
new revelations have anj^hing to do, either with the words
of God to Moses, or with the "judgments." They are
technical termiS for various laws which Yahweh now was
about to give.
I Exod. 24:11. = Exod. 24:4. 3 Exod. 24:12.

96 THE DATE OF THE E DOCUMENT
Moses and Joshua, his minister, then went up, as com
manded, and God wrote on the tables. Moses stayed this
time upon the mountain for forty days and forty nights.
Suddenly Moses was ordered by God, to go down, for the
people had made a calf and were worshiping it.' Moses
and Joshua therefore descended, and when Moses found
out what the people had done, in anger he broke the two
tables. Moses rushed to the people, and, finding them in
rebellion, he placed himself in the gate of the camp, and
said, "Whoso is on Yahweh's side, unto me!""
The sons of Levi immediately left the rebellious hosts,
and joined him. Moses ordered them to take swords and
restore order in the camp.^ After a heavy slaughter,
peace was restored. The members of the faithful tribe
of Levi were ordered to consecrate themselves, and when
they had been blessed Moses returned to the mountain
to intercede for the people.
Yahweh was angry, but he finally acceded to Moses'
request, and followed him to his tent — which is now called
the Tent of Meeting — outside the camp. Yahweh ordered
Moses to hew two more tables, like unto the first ones,
with the promise that he would write on them the words
which the first ones had contained." The next morning
Moses presented himself yet again on the mountain, and
again stayed forty days, fasting. He pleaded that Yahweh
would pardon the iniquity and the sin, and take the people
for his inheritance.' Yahweh agreed to this, and said,
"Behold, I am making a covenant: before all thy people
I wfll do marvels, such as have not been created in aU the
earth, nor in any nation : and aU the people among which
- Exod. 32:8. 3 Exod. 32:27. s Exod. 34:9.
2 Exod. 32:26. 4Exod. 34:1.

THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT 97
thou art shaU see the work of Yahweh, for it is a terrible
thing that I do with thee. Observe that which I command
thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite,
and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and
the Hivite, and the Jebusite.'" There follows a section
of commandments," and then the text continues, "And
Yahweh said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for
after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with
thee and with Israel. And he was there with Yahweh
forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread nor
drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of
the covenant, the Ten Words. "^
We thus see that there was a second covenant made at
Horeb, but that we have no record of the second covenant
possessing anything like a Covenant Book. Yahweh had
promised Moses "tables of stone," and "the law," and
"the commandments."" From Exod., chap. 34, we found
that Moses received the two "tables," inscribed with the
Ten Words, and also some "commandments," contained
in Exod. 34:12-26. As for "the law," the word used
means also "instruction," and we have an instruction
- Exod. 34:10, II. - Exod. 34:12-26.
3 Exod. 34:27, 28. From the account given in Deuteronomy we know
that the words spoken at Mount Horeb by Yahweh, i. c, the Ten Words
(Exod. 20:2-17) were identical with the words written on the two tables (Exod.
34:38). In Deut. 5:22 we read, "These words Yahweh spake unto all your
assembly, in the mount, out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the
thick darkness, with a great voice: and He added no more." From Deut. 9:9
we know that these tables were called the Tables of the Covenant: "When I
was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the Tables of
the Covenant, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights; I did
neither eat bread nor drink water." The last clause identifies these tables
with Moses' last visit to the mountain (Exod. 34:28). For further references
on the Tables of the Covenant, cf. Deut. 9:10, 11, 15, 17; 10:1-5.
4 Exod. 24:12.

98 THE DATE OF THE E DOCUMENT
given in Exod. 34:10, 11, quoted above. The law
and the commandment are, then, the records contained
in Exod. 34:10-26, together with the Ten Words, which
are not repeated here because they evidently were identical
with those spoken by Yahweh himself, and recorded in
Exod., chap. 20. ,
According to Exod. 34:27 Yahweh commanded Moses
to "write down all these words," which may refer only to
the "law and the commandments." We have no reason
to assume that Moses did not comply with this command.
The laws of Exod., chap. 34, were then written down.
Thus, after this long divergence into the records of the
Horeb covenants, we see that there existed a book, called
the Book of the Covenant, containing Exod. 20:2-17,
which was made at Horeb, and also "judgments" (Exod.
21-23), and a law and a commandment, written at the
same place, containing Exod. 34:10-26. The E code
must then have contained both the Covenant Book and
the laws in Exod., chaps. 21-23, and 34, the last of which
is so generally considered as a J code.
But, however this may be, there can be no doubt that
the Covenant Book (Exod. 20:2-17) is a portion of the E
document. This document generaUy addresses God
under the name of Elohim, and would quite naturally be,
therefore, a part of the Law of Elohim. We have seen
before that the Law of Yahweh is the P code, given at
Sinai, and likewise that the Law of Moses is the D code,
given in Moab. We shall therefore probably be not far
wrong in assuming that the Law of Elohim is the E code,
given at Horeb.'
I The confusion of the names Sinai and Horeb in Exod., chaps. 19, 24, 34
of J took place when J and P were combined. See p. 138.

CONCLUSION 99
IV. Date of the E Document
We believe, therefore, that the E code extends back
in written form to the covenant at Horeb. The question
then remains as to whether any of the document outside
of the code existed at that early time. In Exod. 17:14
we read, "And Yahweh said unto Moses, Write this for
a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua :
that I wfll utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek
from under heaven."
The passage refers to the war with Amalek in Rephidim,
and the account of that war is given in Exod. 17 : 8-16. It
would seem, then, taking the internal evidence of the docu
ment itself, that at least this much of the E document was
written down in a book as early as the events in Horeb.
V. Conclusion
We have seen that there existed in the time of Hosea,
at least in the Northern Kingdom, a code cafled the Law
of Elohim. Again, we found this same technical term
used as early as the time of Joshua, and used in a way that
denoted a code. As the Hexateuch has only three codes,
and two of them have already been identified, we suggested
that this Law of Elohim was the technical term for the
only other one, the E code. We found, further, that a
part of the E code was known as the Book of the Covenant,
and that this included the first legislation at Horeb.
This was cafled a "book," and had therefore been written
down. We found, too, that the later legislation at Horeb
was also written down. It seemed obvious, then, that
the part of the E code which we now have existed in
written form as far back as the time of the Horeb covenant.
We found, too, that at least one part of the E document

100 THE DATE OF THE E DOCUMENT
outside the code seems to have existed in written form from
the same time as the code. We shall probably not err very
gravely in concluding that the whole E document, with
the code, existed from a very early age, not later than the
time of Joshua. This last we concluded because the
document was capable of receiving an addition in his time
at the covenant at Shfloh.

CHAPTER VIII
The Unity and Contents of the E Document
I. Unity of the E Document
The Documentary Theory presupposes, as in the case of
P, that the Hexateuch contains a complete E document, if
only we are able correctly to disengage it from the other
material. It is held, however, by most critics that no
certain traces of E are to be found earlier than Genesis,
chap. 20. ' It is evident, though, that we have no complete
history in the E document, even from the time of Abraham
to that of Joshua, which is the period that E is generally
supposed to cover. If we did not have the history of the
J document and the Toledoth Book of P, the E document
would be mere fragments, often utterly unintelligible.
This applies especially to the Exodus story. It is not to
be denied that there was once a complete E document.
although of it we have only fragments preserved in our
Hexateuch. II. Unity of the E Code
But it is not only the document that is fragmentary.
The code is undoubtedly fragmentary too. In Exod.
15:25-26 we read, "There he (Yahweh) made for them a
statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them; and
he said, If thou wflt dfligently hearken unto the voice of
Yahweh thy God, and wflt do that which is right in his
eyes, and wflt give ear to his commandments, and keep
all his statutes, I wfll put none of the diseases upon thee,
which I have put upon the Egyptians: for I am Yahweh
I Some critics think that a few verses in chap. 15 and chap. 16 belong to it.

102 THE UNITY AND CONTENTS OF THE E DOCUMENT
that healeth thee." The passage belongs to E. It refers
to the mcident of the sweetening of the bitter waters at
Marah. Now a "statute" was given to the people at
Marah, and a "statute" means origuially, in Hebrew,
"something engraved," either on stone or on metal. A
"statute" cannot be a mere oral law; it must be a written
law. The term "statute" became technicalized in the Old
Testament, and meant a "canonical" or "church" law.'
In contrast with the "statutes" are the "judgments," a
term which denotes a code of "civfl and criminal laws.""
Now the E code contains several "judgments," but not a
single "statute," although, as we have seen, a statute was
given at Marah.
A day or two later, when the people were encamped
at Rephidim, at the foot of Mount Horeb, Moses received
a visit from his father-in-law, Jethro. This happened
before the legislation at Horeb took place. Of this visit
we read that Moses was sitting and judging the people
¦ The following laws in the Hexateuch are called "statutes": Day of
Atonement, Lev. 16:29, 31, 34; 23:31; sacrifices to he-goats. Lev. 17:7;
sheaf of firstfruits. Lev. 23:14; Pentecost, Lev. 23:21; Festival of Booths or
Tabernacles, Lev. 23:41; shewbreads. Lev. 24:9; use of the silver trumpets,
Num. 10:8; the tithe, Num. 18:23: water of separation, Num. 19:2-21; vows.
Num. 30:16; purification of spoil, Num. 31:21; the Passover, Exod. 12:14
ff.; 13:10; the lamp, Exod. 27:20, 21; Lev. 24:3; the breeches of the priest.
Exod. 28:42,43; the priesthood, Exod. 29:9; the heave-offering, Exod. 29:28;
Num. 18:8-19; the laver, Exod. 30:21; fat of blood. Lev. 3:17; sacrifices
at consecration of priests, Lev. 6:22; 7:36; the wave-offering. Lev. 7:34;
10:13-15; and the temperance of the priest. Lev. 10:9.
2 The only place where the term "judgments" is used as the title of par
ticular laws is in Exod. 21: 1, where it is in the superscription to the laws con
tained in Exod. 21:2 — 23:19. The term "judgments" corresponds exactly to
the term danitu used in the Code of Hammurabi (col. 40, 1. 31), as the technical
term of that code. In Babylonian the word danu, meaning "to judge," corre
sponds with the Hebrew Saphai. From the Code of Hammurabi we know
that such codes did exist in written form. The Hebrew word miipat, "judg
ment," must be similarly understood.

UNITY OF THE E CODE 103
who were coming ui large numbers to plead their cases
before him. Jethro asked Moses why he was doing all
this judging himself. "And Moses said unto his father-
in-law, Because the people come unto me, to inquire of
God : when they have a matter, they come unto me ; and
I judge between a man and his neighbor, and I make them
know the statutes of Elohim, and his laws."' Then
Jethro counseled Moses to become only the supreme jus
tice, taking the cases before God, and to appoint other
judges to be a court of first instance: "Be thou for the
people as Elohim, and bring thou the causes unto Elohim :
and thou shalt teach them the statutes and the laws, and
shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the
work that they must do."" How could he teach them
"statutes," if he had none to teach? How could the
judges of these lower courts decide if they had no basis
for making decisions ? It is necessary to hold well in mind
the fact that a "statute" means something "engraved."
The answer to these questions is plain when we consider
what was stated above, that a "statute" had been given,
two days before, at Marah. And still our E code has not
one trace of a "statute," for its "judgments" on the festi
vals, in Exod. 23:14-17, belong to civfl and not at all to
canonical regulations.
How can such a disappearance be accounted for ? Let
us see.
The General Priesthood
After these "statutes" had been delivered, on the first
day that God stood on the mountain, he said to Moses,
"Now therefore, if ye wfll obey my voice indeed, and
keep my covenant, then ye shaU be a peculiar treasure
I Exod. 18:15, i6- " Exod. 18:19, 20.

I04 THE UNITY AND CONTENTS OF THE E DOCUMENT
unto me above afl peoples : for all the earth is mine : and
ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy
nation."' Whether the statutes already given were to
this effect, or whether there were other statutes given three
days later, we can never know; but it seems certain, at
any rate, that a statute was given to this effect." It was
certainly the intention to make the whole nation a priest
hood, and every man a priest. Yahweh based this remark
able statement on the condition that the people should keep
his covenant which he was about to make with them. The
covenant was established, the people accepting all the con
ditions of Yahweh: "All that Yahweh hath spoken, we
wfll do."^ Then Moses told the people aU the words and
the judgments of Yahweh, after they themselves had heard
him proclaim the Ten Words, and the people again
answered, and said with one voice, "All the words which
Yahweh hath spoken, we wfll do."" The people thus
complied with the conditions of Yahweh. The Covenant
was established ; the words and the judgments were given
to them as their law. The whole people thus became a
priesthood, appointed by Yahweh himself, and every
Israelite, or at least every firstborn Israelite, of the Assem
bly, not only had a right, but was de facto constituted by
Yahweh himself, to perform priestly functions. Con
sequently we read, "And Moses rose up early in the morn
ing, and buflded an altar under the mount, and twelve
stones [so the LXX, but the Hebrew has "pfllars"], accord
ing to the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men
of the chfldren of Israel, which offered burnt-offerings, and
- Exod. 19:5, 6.
' If this be denied, it is certain at least that God proclaimed it to Moses.
3 Exod. 19:8. 4 Exod. 24:3.

UNITY OF THE E CODE 105
sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen to Yahweh."' These
young men were not Levites, nor were they heads of their
fathers' houses, but were evidently picked, one out of each
tribe. The twelve stones were in this case, as so often
else, sacrificial places, corresponding to the later high-
places. A general priesthood, consisting of all Israel,
was thus inaugurated. The Levitical Priesthood
When this covenant was established, Moses, Aaron,
Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy elders went up into the
mount, and Moses staid there forty days. Aaron and
the elders returned. In the meantime the people fell
away into idolatry, requesting that Aaron would make
them a golden calf to worship. Aaron complied with the
request, and this gave Yahweh occasion to tell Moses to
go down to the people. When Moses came down he
found the people in revolt." He then stood in the gate
of the camp and called for volunteers. The sons of Levi
presented themselves unto him. Moses ordered them
to go out into the camp and put down the rebellion. They
did so, slapng some 3,000 men.' Moses then turned
to the Levites (for it is to them he is speaking in this pas
sage), "and Moses said, Consecrate yourselves today
to Yahweh, yea, every man against his son and against
his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing
this day.""
This passage is not translated perfectly, either in the
A. V. or in the R. V. The LXX reads, "FiU your hands
this day to Yahweh, every one against his son and against
his brother, that a blessing may be bestowed upon you."
I Exod., 24:4, 5. 3 Or perhaps better, "three clans."
= Exod. 32:25. 4Exod. 32:29.

io6 THE UNITY AND CONTENTS OF THE E DOCUMENT
This is not only the Greek, but it is a perfect translation
of the Hebrew text as we have it in the Massoretic version
today. Now "fill the hands" is in Hebrew a technical
term for "ordain to the priesthood." Up to this time
all the people had been priests, but now, after the rebeUion
with its worship of the golden calf, the people had for
feited their priesthood in the eyes of Moses. The tribe
of Levi alone had turned to the side of Yahweh and fought
for him. As a reward, Moses at that time constituted
the whole tribe of Levi as the priesthood of Yahweh, to
take the place of that of all the people, now forfeited. It
is worth noticing that Moses did this without any express
command from Yahweh. We have therefore, now, two
ideas of the priesthood, one based on the covenant at
Horeb, consisting of all the people, the other consisting
of the Levites exclusively, constituted by Moses at this
time. The first priesthood is that of the E code; the
second, that of the D code!
The Levitical priests thus resulting received, forty
years later, numerous "statutes" regulating their ritual,
which are embodied in our Deuteronomy. When the
old E code came to be compfled with the other codes, in
later centuries, its "statutes," providing as they must have
done for a general priesthood, were so radicaUy different
from the "statutes" of the other codes that they were
omitted from the compflation. This seems a probable
explanation of how the "statutes" came to be missing
from the E code as it is today in our Hexateuch.
At any rate, as we have seen, there were "statutes"
in the original code, and these "statutes" have suice dis
appeared. The E code then, as it stands today, is not a
complete code; it is fragmentary.

THE HISTORY OF THE E CODE 107
III. The History of the E Code
The point made above, that the E code provided for a
priesthood which consisted of all Israel, has a very great
and important bearing on two things: first, on the con
tention of many critics by which they seek to show that aU
codes, and the E code among them, were late; and second,
on the restoration of the history of the E code.
a) It is maintained by critics that neither the E code
nor any other code was in operation before 800 b. c, or
perhaps even 750 b. c, or 700 b. c, because the history
of Israel does not show us any traces of the operation of
any code before this time. In proof of this it is asserted
by the critics that up to the time of 950 B. c, at least,
sacrifices were made in different places in Israel by men
who were neither priests nor Levites, and that, moreover,
not a single protest was made against it. The authors
of Judges, Samuel, and Kings record such instances as
commonplace matters of fact. Such actions, the critics
claim, are contrary to the codes. Therefore, when such
things were allowed, the codes could not have existed.
But, as we have seen above, such a practice is not in con
tradiction to all the codes; it is in exact accordance with
the E code. By the simple hypothesis that each of the
non-Levites who sacrificed was a foUower of the E code,
which, as we have seen, ordained him a sacrificing priest,
we solve the difficulty, and remove the force of the argu
ment. The E code provides that every Israelite is a
priest,'' and every place where Yahweh has caused his
name to be remembered is a legitimate place of worship. "
b) But let us examine these various instances of non-
I Exod. 19:6.
2 Exod. 20 : 24

io8 THE UNITY AND CONTENTS OF THE E DOCUMENT
Levitical sacrifices, and so gaui the outlines of the history
of the E code.
I. In Judg. 6:19-26 we are told that Gideon, a man
of the tribe of Manasseh, offered a sacrifice under the oak
in Ophrah, in the presence of the "angel of Yahweh,"
who not only permitted it but received it favorably. Of
course Gideon was not a Levite. In the tribe of Manasseh,
then, it would seem that the E code was observed ca.
1300 B. c.
2. In Judg. II : 34-39, Jephtha offered a sacrifice, even
of his daughter. Now Jephtha was a "Gfleadite," prob
ably of the tribe of Eastern Manasseh, certainly not of the
tribe of Levi. Again we find that in the east-Jordanic
territory non-Levites made sacrifices with the full approval
of their people. The E code must have been in force
there ca. 1210 B. c.
3. In Judg. 13:19 we read of Manoah, the father of
Samson, of the tribe of Dan. He too offered a sacrifice
to Yahweh, although not a Levite. In the tribe of Dan,
too, the E code seems to have been observed ca. 1150 B. c.
4. In I Sam. 6: 14, the people of Beth-Shemesh offered
up kine for a burnt-offering to Yahweh. They belonged
to the tribe of Judah. They did this, moreover, although
there were Levites present, handling the ark. At least
this portion of the tribe of Judah seems to have observed
the E code, ca. 1075 b. c.
5. Of Saul it is recorded, in I Sam. 14:34 f., that he
buflt an altar to Yahweh, around which both he and afl
the people slew sheep and oxen in a great propitiation
sacrifice.' Now Saul was a Benjammite. In Benjamui,
I This sacrifice was really a compromise of the E and P codes. E per
mitted Saul and all the people to sacrifice, but P restricted them from eating
the flesh with the blood. This shows again Saul's anxiety for the P code.

THE HISTORY OF THE E CODE 109
too, the E code seems to have been recognized, ca. 1025
b. c. 6. In I Sam. 20 : 6 we read that it was the custom of the
famfly of David to offer a yearly sacrifice at Bethlehem.
David and all his famfly belonged to the tribe of Judah.
This was about the same time as Saul's great sacrifice
noted above, ca. 1025 b. c.
7. This was no novelty for David. In II Sam. 6:13,
18, we find David sacrificing oxen and fatlings as burnt-
offerings and peace-sacrifices when the ark was brought
to Jerusalem. And again, in II Sam. 24:25 we find
David buflding an altar in Jerusalem, where he offered
burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. In this case, though,
it must be admitted that possibly there were Levites pres
ent, who offered the sacrifices at the command of the king.
This was ca. 975 b. c.
8. In I Kings i : 9 we find a pretender to the throne, a son
of David, offering oxen and fatlings by the stone of Zohe-
leth. He too was, of course, of the tribe of Judah. In
this case, however, it may have been the Levites who
sacrificed at the pretender's command. This was in
971 B. c.
9. About the same year Solomon offered sacrifices at
Gibeon, as is recorded in I Kings 3:4. And again, he
offered sacrifices at the consecration of the temple, as we
know from I Kings 8:63. In both these cases, though,
the possibflity of Levitical sacrifices must be admitted.
This was in 960 B. c.
These instances of non-Levitical sacrifice cover the
entire period from Judges down to the kingdom of Solo
mon. They come from north, south, east, and west.
Nowhere are the practices condemned. On the contrary

no THE UNITY AND CONTENTS OF THE E DOCUMENT
they seem in many cases to have the divine approval.
Now these practices are authorized in the E code. It
would seem, then, that during this period the E code was
the one in use, at least among the majority of the people.
But we are able to carry the history of the E code, not
only up to the monarchy, but also on from the division of
the kingdom after the death of Solomon. Jeroboam was
the first king of the Northern Kingdom. One of the
charges brought against him by the late Deuteronomic
editor of Kings is that "he made priests from among all
the people, which were not of the sons of Levi."' This
is, as we have seen, only in strict accord with the provisions
of the Horeb covenant, as recorded in the E code.
At the same time that this was going on in the Northern
Kingdom, we weU know the history of the Southern King
dom. Under Rehoboam, their first king, they feU into
idolatry, from which they were restored in the time of Asa
and Jehoshaphat. These kings gave their preference to
the Aaronic priesthood and therefore the P code.
It would seem then that after the separation of the king
doms the E code found its home in the Northern Kingdom,
whfle it was neglected in favor of the P code in the Southern
Kingdom. IV. The E Code and the Code of Hammurabi
Another thing worth noticing about the E code is its
remarkable simflarity to the Code of Hammurabi. Of
aU the Hebrew codes the E code is the only one which
can be directly connected with the Hammurabi law-book.
The foUowing instances wfll make quite plain the con
nection between the two:
- I Kings]i2:3i.

THE E CODE AND THE CODE OF HAMMURABI in

E Code

Code of Hammurabi

Patricide
Exod. 21:15: And he that smiteth 195. If a son strike his father,
his father or his mother, shall surely they shall cut off his fingers.
be put to death. Manstealing
Exod. 21:16: And he that stealeth 14. If a man steal a man's son,
a man, and selleth him, or if he be who is a minor, he shall be put to

found in his hand, he shall surely
be put to death.

death. 16. If a man harbor in his house
a male or female slave who has fled
from the palace or from a freeman,
and do not bring him forth at the
call of the commandant, the owner
of that house shall be put to death.
19. If he detain that slave in his
house and later that slave be found
in his possession, that man shall
be put to death.
Quarrels

Exod. 21:18, 19: And if men
contend, and one smiteth the other
with a stone, or with his fist, and
he die not, but keep his bed; if he
rise again, and walk abroad upon
his staS, then shall he that smote
him be quit: only he shall pay for
the loss of his time, and shall cause
him to be thoroughly healed. Miscarriage

206. If a man strike another man
in a quarrel and wound him, he
shall swear, "I struck him without
intent," and he shall be responsible
for the physician.

Exod. 21:22, 23: And if men
(strive together and) hurt a woman
with child, so that her fruit depart,
and yet no mischief follow: he shall
be surely fined, according as the
woman's husband shall lay upon
him; and he shall pay as the judges
determine. But if any mischief
follow, then thou shalt give life for
Ufe.

209. If a man strike a man's
daughter, and bring about a mis
carriage, he shall pay ten shekels
of silver for her miscarriage.
210. If that woman die, they shall
put his daughter to death.
211. If, through a stroke, he
bring about a miscarriage to the
daughter of a freeman, he shall pay
five shekels of silver.

112 THE UNITY AND CONTENTS OF THE E DOCUMENT
E Code Code of Hammurabi
212. If the woman die, he shall
pay one-half mana of silver.
213. If he strike the female slave
of a man, and bring about a mis
carriage, he shall pay two shekels
of silver.
214. If that female slave die, he
shall pay one-third mana of silver.
Lex talionis
Exod. 21:24, 25: Eye for eye, 196. If a man destroy the eye
tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot of another man, they shall destroy
for foot, burning for burning, wound his eye.
for wound, stripe for stripe. 197. If one break a man's bone,
they shall break his bone.
198. If one destroy the eye of a
freeman, or break the bone of a
freeman, he shall pay one mana of
silver. 199. If one destroy the eye of a
man's slave, or break a bone of a
man's slave, he shall pay one-half
his price.
200. If a man knock out the tooth
of a man of his own rank, they shall
knock out his tooth.
201. If one knock out a tooth of a
freeman, he shall pay one-third
mana of silver.
Goring
Exod. 21:28: And if an ox shall 250. If an ox, when passing
gore a man or a woman, that they through the street, gore a man,
die, the ox shall be surely stoned, and brings about his death, that case
and his flesh shall not be eaten; but has no penalty.
the owner of the ox shall be quit. 251. If a man's ox were wont to
Exod. 21:29: But if the ox were gore, and they have testified to
wont to gore in time past, and it him his habit of goring, and he have
has been testified to his owner, not protected his horns, or have
and he hath not kept him in, but he not tied him up,

THE E CODE AND THE CODE OF HAMMURABI 113
E Code Code of Hammurabi
hath killed a man or a woman,
the ox shall be stoned; and his owner
also shall be put to death.
Exod. 21:30: If there be laid
on him a ransom, then he shall give
for the redemption of his Ufe what
soever is laid upon him.
Exod. 21:31: Whether he have
gored a son, or have gored a daugh- and that ox gore the son of a man,
ter, according to this judgment shall and bring about his death, he shall
it be done unto him. pay one-half mana of silver.
Exod. 21:32: If the ox gore a 252. If it be the servant of a man,
man-servant or a maid-servant, he he shall pay one-third mana of silver.
shall give unto their master thirty
shekels of silver,' and the ox shall
be stoned. Thejt of animals
Exod. 22: i: If a man shall steal 8. If a man steal ox or sheep, ass
an ox, or a sheep, and kiU it, or sell or pig, or boat — if it be from God
it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox, or palace, he shall restore thirty-
and four sheep for a sheep. fold — if it be from a freeman, he
shall render tenfold. If the thief
have nothing wherewith to pay, he
shall be put to death.
Burglary
Exod. 22 : 2 : If the thief be found 22. If a man practice brigandage,
breaking in, and be smitten that he and be captured, that man shall be
die, there shall be no blood-guiltiness put to death.
for him. Unlawful pasturage
Exod. 22:5: If a man shall cause 58. If, after the sheep have gone
a field or vineyard to be eaten, and up from the meadow, and have
shall let his beast loose, and it feed crowded their way out of the gate
in another man's field, of the best into the public common, the shep-
of his own field, and of the best of herd tum the sheep into the field,
- Equals J mana, but the Phoenician mana equals f of a Babylonian, and
the value of the penalty is therefore identical in the two laws.

1X4 THE UNITY AND CONTENTS OF THE E DOCUMENT

E Code
his own vineyard shall he make
reparation.

Code of Hammurabi
and pasture the sheep on the field,
the shepherd shall oversee the field
on which he pastures, and at the
time of harvest he shall measure
out sixty Our of grain per ten
Can to the owner of the field.

Deposit

Exod. 22:7: If a man shall deliver
unto his neighbor money or stuff
to keep, and it be stolen out of the
man's house, if the thief be found,
he shall pay double.
Exod. 22:8: If the thief be not
found, then the master of the house
shall come near unto God, (to see)
whether he have not put his hand
unto his neighbor's goods.

125. If a man give anything of
his on deposit, and at the place of
deposit, either by burglary or pillage
he suffer loss in common with the
owner of the house, the owner of
the house who has been negligent
and has lost what was given to him
on deposit shall make good (the
loss), and shall restore (it) to the
ovmer of the goods. The owner of
the house shall institute a search
for what has been lost, and take it
from the thief.

Storage

Exod. 22:9: For every matter
of trespass, whether it be for ox,
for ass, for sheep, for raiment, (or)
for any manner of lost thing, whereof
one saith. This is it, the cause of
both parties shall come before God;
he whom God shall condemn shall
pay double unto his neighbor.

120. If a man store his grain in
bins in the house of another, and an
accident happen to the granary
or the owner of the house open a
bin and take grain, or if he raise
a dispute about the amount of grain
which was stored in his house, the
owner of the grain shall declare his
grain before God, and the owner of
the house shall double the amotmt
of the grain which he took and
restore it to the owner of the grain.
Herding
Exod. 22:10: If a man deliver 263. If he lose an ox or sheep
unto his neighbor an ass, or an ox, which is given to him, he shall
or a sheep, or any beast, to keep, restore to their owner ox for ox,
and it die, or be hurt, or be driven sheep for sheep.

THE E CODE AND THE CODE OF HAMMURABI liS

E Code
away, no man seeing it, ii. the
oath of Yahweh shall be between
them both, whether he hath not put
his hand unto his neighbor's goods;
and the owner thereof shall accept
it, and he shall not make restitution.
12. But if it be stolen from him, he
shall make restitution unto the
owner thereof. 13. If it be torn in
pieces, let him bring it for witness;
he shall not make good what was
torn. Exod. 22:14: And if a man bor
row aught of his neighbor, and it
be hurt, or die, the ovmer thereof
not being with it, he ghall surely
make restitution. 15. li the owner
thereof be with it, he shall not make
it good: if it be an hired thing, it
Cometh into its hire.

Code of Hammurabi
266. If a visitation of God happen
to a fold, or a lion kill, the shepherd
shall declare himself innocent before
God, and the owner of the fold shall
suffer the damage (cf. 244).
245. If a man hire an ox and
cause its death through neglect
or abuse, he shall restore an ox of
equal value to the owner of the ox.

Exod. 22:18: Thou
suffer a sorceress to Uve.

shalt

Sorcery
not

2. If a man charge a man with
sorcery, and cannot prove it, he who
is charged with sorcery shall go to
the river; into the river he shall
throw himself. And if the river
overcome him, the accuser shall
take unto himself his house. If the
river show the man to be innocent,
and he come forth unharmed, he
who charged him with sorcery shall
be put to death. He who threw
himself into the river shall take to
himself the house of his accuser.

Perjury
Exod. 23: i: Thou shalt not take 3. If a man, in a case, bear false
up a false report: put not thine witness, or do not establish the
hand with the vncked to be an un- testimony that he has given, if that

ii6 THE UNITY AND CONTENTS OF THE E DOCUMENT

E Code
righteous witness. 2

Thou shalt
not follow a multitude to do evil;
neither shalt thou bear witness in
a cause to tum aside after a multi
tude to wrest judgment; 3. neither
shalt thou favor a poor man in his
cause. Bribery

Code of Hammurabi
case be a case involving life, that
man shall be put to death.

Exod. 23 : 6: Thou shalt not wrest
the judgment of thy poor in his
cause. 7. Keep thee far from a
false matter; and the innocent and
righteous slay thou not; for I will
not justify the wicked. 8. And thou
shalt take no gift: for a gift blindeth
them that have sight, and perverteth
the cause of the righteous.

4. If a man bear witness for grain
or money, he shall himself bear
the penalty imposed in that case.
5. If a judge prononnce a judgment,
render a decision, deliver a verdict
duly signed and sealed and after
ward alter his judgment, they shall
call that judge to account for the
alteration of the judgment which
he had pronounced, and he shall
pay twelve-fold the penalty which
was in said judgment; and, in the
assembly, they shall expel him from
his seat of judgment, and he shall
return, and vnth the judges in a
case he shall not take his seat.
The simflarity between the two codes, which the
examples given above serve to fllustrate, has been noticed
by many scholars, and some of them have consequently
drawn the conclusion that the E code was based on the
Code of Hammurabi, and that therefore the time when
the former code was written must have been a time when
Babylonian influence exerted itself in Palestine. This
argument, it may be remarked, goes against the date
usually assigned by critics to this code. For if the E code
were written in the eighth century, Babylonian law codes
could have influenced it little if at afl. At that time Baby
lonia was a very weak state, and the history of Israel at

CONCLUSION 117
that time shows how impossible any considerable Baby
lonian influence could have been.
But we have ventured to claim that the E code was
delivered at Horeb, in the time of Moses, sometime in
the fifteenth century. At this time there was a close
connection between Babylonia, then in great power, and
Egj^t which the Israelites had so lately left and from which
Moses had received his education. Intermarriages had
taken place between the two royal houses.' Caravans
were constantly passing from the one land to the other.'
A Babylonian influence upon the E code would at this
time have been quite possible.
But, in spite of the many simflarities between the two
codes, it is true that there are differences. These are
accounted for by two things: (i) Over seven hundred
years had elapsed since the time when the Code of Ham
murabi as we have it today had been published in Baby
lonia, during which time, as we know, it had been modified
even in Babylonia itself; (2) in promulgating a Babylonian
code among the Hebrews it was of course necessary so to
modify it as to fit the surrounding conditions and the
Hebrew temperament. V. Conclusion
We have seen in this chapter that the E document is
not a document, but a collection of fragments of what was
once a document; that the code too is not a complete
code, but also fragmentary, and especiaUy wanting in the
"statutes" which once belonged to it but which have been
lost; that the E code provided for a non-Levitical priest-
I Cf. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, Nos. i-14.
2 Ibid., No. 8, II. 11-41.

ii8 THE UNITY AND CONTENTS OF THE E DOCUMENT
hood ; that in the period of the judges and the early mon
archy the presence of this non-Levitical priesthood shows
the general use of the E code aU over Israel; that it is
probable that at the division of the kuigdom the E code
with its non-Levitical priesthood became peculiarly the
law of the Northern Kingdom; and that the E code shows
a remarkable simflarity to the Code of Hammurabi. In
all of these things we can find no contradiction, but on
the contrary confirmation, of the theory reached in the
last chapter, that the E document is to be assigned to a
date much earlier than that generally given by the critics,
and that quite probably it belongs to the time when it
purports to have been delivered, namely the stop at Horeb
when Moses and the people received it at Yahweh's hands.

CHAPTER IX
The Relation Between the E and D Documents
Everyone admits that D is later than and dependent
upon E. Our analysis has shown that it is later, nor can
it be denied that it is dependent upon it. But the inter
relations of the two are worthy of more than a merely
passing reference.
The Bible itself gives the reason for the simflarity
between the two, when it says that D was promulgated in
the land of Moab forty years after E had been given in
the Horeb mountain, and to the same people. Moses and
Joshua are represented as acting together in both cases.
We saw in the last chapter that after the rebellion at
Horeb had been put down there were two priesthoods,
one authorized by the code and consisting of all the sons
of Israel, the other authorized by Moses and consisting
only of the tribe of Levi, which he wished to reward. But
did the new order take effect immediately and over the
whole army? The Rebellion at Kadesh
Shortly after the events at Horeb the assembly started
on its northward march. After a short stay in Hazeroth
the assembly reached Kadesh-barnea. Here Yahweh
commanded Moses to send out twelve spies to search the
land, and Moses accordingly appointed one from each
tribe, among them Caleb and Joshua. '
I This appointment of the spies is generally assigned to P, although the
critics themselves are not agreed. If it be P, it belongs to the older Toledoth
Book, or else it is a P redaction of an older document.
119

I20 RELATION BETWEEN E AND D DOCUMENTS
These spies went as far as the valley of Escol, and, after
forty days, returned. Ten of them gave a most discourag
ing report, whfle Caleb and Joshua tried to encourage
the people to go in and to take the land. The assembly,
however, murmured and was dissatisfied. Yahweh,
enraged, ordered Moses to tell the people to stay in the
wfldemess for forty years, untfl those who had murmured
were dead.
When Moses promulgated this commandment of Yah
weh, a great rebellion broke out. " They rose up early
in the morning and got them up to the top of the mountain,
saying, Lo, we be here, and wfll go up unto the place
which Yahweh has promised, for we have sinned."'
Moses tried to persuade them to desist from this under
taking, but in vain. "But they presumed to go up to the
top of the mountain; nevertheless the ark of the covenant
of Yahweh, and Moses, departed not out of the camp."'
Thus we see that there were now two camps of the chil
dren of Israel, one which went up into the highlands, the
other which remained at Kadesh with Moses and the ark.
These two parties were never entirely re-joined during the
entire forty years between this and the conquest.
The First Conquest
The party which went up into the highlands suffered
a crushing defeat at the hands of the Amalekites and
Canaanites.^ They were not, however, destroyed, but
finaUy made a second stand at Zephat, where they routed
the Canaanites, and in memory of their victory called
the place Hormah.'* This story is agaui given in Judg.
1:17 as a part of the story of the conquest of Canaan.
1 Num. 14 : 40. The sin had been their not going up when ordered to do so.
2 Num. 14:44. 3 Num. 14:45. 4 Num. 21:1-3; 14:45.

THE FIRST CONQUEST 1 21
It is significant that it is a conquest in which Joshua takes
no part.
It is to be noted that it is Judah and a part of Skneon
which make this conquest in the Judges story. The
punishment received at the hands of the Canaanites was
sufficient to send many of the rebels cringing back to Moses
at Kadesh.' Judah, however, did not come back. We
conclude this from at least two circumstances.
In the first place, Moses, when blessing the people in
Moab, at the slopes of Pisgah, prayed to Yahweh in the
foUowuig words, "Hear, Yahweh, the voice of Judah, and
bring him in unto his people : with his hands he contended
for himself; and thou shalt be an help against his adver
saries."' This shows that at the death of Moses Judah
was stfll separated from his brethren.
In the second place, after Joshua had conquered a
portion of Canaan, written the laws at Shechem, and
located the Ark of the Covenant at Gflgal, "then the chfl
dren of Judah drew nigh unto Joshua in Gflgal : and Caleb
the son of Jephunneh, the Kenizzite, said unto him, Thou
knowest the thing that Yahweh spake unto Moses the
man of God, concerning thee and concerning me, in
Kadesh-barnea."^ In the history as told by the E docu
ment, Caleb, son of Jephunneh, does not appear once
between Kadesh-barnea and this present occasion. Here
at last, in Gflgal, according to E, the prayer of Moses is
fulfiUed, and Judah again takes its place in the confederacy
of the tribes. In the meantime, apparently, the tribe
had been living a free-booter life in the mountainous wflds
of Judaea. I Deut. 1:44-46. 3^Josh. 14:6.
2 Deut. 33:7.

122 RELATION BETWEEN E AND D DOCUMENTS
But was Judah the only tribe which seceded at Kadesh
and did not return ?
In Judg. 1 : 22-26 is a story about "the house of Joseph"
which went up and occupied Bethel. It has been assumed
that this house of Joseph was merely another name for
the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. Some have
included Benjamin in it, basing this upon I Sam. 9:21.
In the time of David it is true that the name was applied
to these three tribes. But originally the house of Joseph
seems to have occupied middle Palestine, before the tribes
of Ephraim and Manasseh had come into the country
at all. This is quite the simplest way to explain Judg.,
chap. I, where Ephraim and Manasseh and their conquests
are mentioned directly after those of this house of Joseph.
We see that the house of Joseph conquered Bethel.'
And from Judg. i :34, 35 we learn that, when the Danites
had been driven away by the Amorites, the house of Joseph
came and subdued the conquerors and made them tribu
tary. These two are the only mentions of any conquests
on the part of the house of Joseph.
The conquests made by Ephraim and the half-tribe
of Manasseh are told of, however, not only in Judg.,
chap. I, but also in Josh., chaps. 16, 17. The same is
true of Zebulon, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan, which are told
of in Josh., chap. 19. We are told in Judg. i : 27-34 that
none of these six tribes was able to effect a settlement at
this time in Canaan. On the other hand, both Judah and
this house of Joseph are said to have effected settlements
and to have maintained strong positions.
What then is more reasonable to suppose than that this
house of Joseph, like the tribe of Judah, was a Hebrew
¦ The Judges' account is the only account of this conquest in the Bible.

THE FIRST CONQUEST 123
tribe long established and thoroughly at home in Canaan
some time before Joshua and his invading confederacy
appeared on the scene? And if this be tme, what can
be more likely than that it too was a tribe which seceded
at Kadesh-barnea, not to rejoin the confederacy untfl after
the conquest of Canaan had begun ?
From the account in Numbers we are not able to say
just what tribes seceded at Kadesh. All we can say is
that of those which did secede some stragglers came back
after the battles with Amalek and Canaan.' That any
whole tribe came back we have no record. If, however,
no whole tribe did come back, we must suppose that the
remnants of the old tribes would reorganize on the basis
of the old tribal lines and resume their place in the con
federacy. We must also suppose that the portions which
had left would do the same thing in the lands whither
they had gone. Thus it is perfectly possible that after
Kadesh there should have been the same number of tribes
about Moses as before, whfle at the same time there were
Hebrew tribes, bearing the same names, in Palestine,
whither the rebels had fled.
Does not this throw some light upon that difficult
passage, Judg. 1:1 — 2:5? This portion of Judges is
conceded by scholars to be of a different source than the
rest of the book. It describes several conquests, namely
those of Judah, Simeon, Benjamin, the house of Joseph,
Western Manasseh, Ephraim, Zebulon, Asher, Naphtali,
and Dan. With what period of time does this passage deal ?
It has been assumed that the reference corresponds to
Josh., chaps. 7-21. But this cannot be admitted. The
I And this we learn from Deut. 1:45. No mention of any return is
contained in Numbers.

124 RELATION BETWEEN E AND D DOCUMENTS
history in the two passages is vitally different. In Judges,
in the first place, Joshua is not mentioned. He does not
appear.' Secondly, in Judges the six tribes, Manasseh
Ephraim, Zebulon, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan, do not
effect a settlement. In Joshua,' on the other hand, these
same tribes do effect a settlement.
It is far more reasonable to suppose that the two pas
sages refer to quite different events, and to quite different
periods. What can be more likely than that in Judges we
deal with attempts at settlement on the part of those portions
of the tribes which had seceded at Kadesh and gone north,
while in Joshua we have the record of the later and more
effective settlements made by those portions of the same
tribes which had remained at Kadesh under Moses'
guidance ?
We left Moses and the Ark of the Covenant at Kadesh-
barnea. Let us go back for a whfle and foUow the adven
tures of those with him. We are stfll in the first year of
the wandering, at least so far as E tells us. We know
that neither Judah nor the house of Joseph is longer with
him. Both have gone north and have settled in Palestine.
Of the other six tribes mentioned in Judg., chap, i, por
tions at least remain around Moses, holding the old places
in the confederacy of the tribes. The three so-caUed
"east-Jordanic tribes," Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh,
since they are not mentioned in Judg., chap, i, at afl, seem
to have remained intact at the secession and to have con
tinued with Moses. ^
I The mention of his name in Judges i : i is, of course, due to a redactor
who wished to connect Judges with the preceding book. This is conceded
by all. " Josh., chaps. 16, 17, 19.
3 The omission seems unexplainable on any other theory.

THE FIRST CONQUEST 125
And it ife these three last-mentioned tribes which play
the most important part after Kadesh. The next event
told of in E is the rebellion of Dathan and Abham, which
happened at Kadesh, after the great insurrection, but
before the army had moved on. Both Dathan and
Abiram, the leaders in this rebellion, are Reubenites.
After this, except for a brief notice of the death of
Miriam, we have in E a blank of thirty-eight years.
When the curtain again rises we find the people in the
land of Moab. Here we have the great battles against
Sflion, king of the Amorites, and Og, king of Bashan.
Both of these the Israelites under Moses slew, and con
fiscated their lands. Then follows the incident of Balaam
and his prophecies, as a result of which Balak, king of
'the Moabites, left the Israelites in undisputed possession
of the lands which they had conquered. '
The Israelites were then abiding on the border of Moab,
in Shittim. There they committed a sin by joining them-
- In Num., chap. 26, is recorded a "numbering" of the people in Moab.
This is the second "numbering" known in the Book of Numbers, the first
(Num., chap, i) having taken place at Kadesh. Both of these "numberings
are allotted to the P document by most critics. The first undoubtedly does
belong there. But the second "numbering," the one here in Moab, although
evidently edited by a P redactor, shows urmiistakable traces of an E original.
Not only do we have here the names of Dathan, Abiram, Eliab, and Miriam,
which are certainly E names, but the abrupt beginning of Num. 26:4 shows
that the P editor used a document of another source. Without going farther
into a discussion of the linguistic marks of this section, we can say that it is
evident that we have here an older source which knew of a "numbering" in
the land of Moab. Our translation, "numbering," of the Hebrew paqad is,
however, inadequate. The word really means "mustering," "enroUing," or
"passing in review." It is a military term. This mustering can imply only
that a people, a company of soldiers, here were joined to Moses' army, i. e.,
mustered in. In this mustering were peoples from all tribes. These were
probably deserters from other allied tribes round about, from those portions,
possibly, of the tribes which had deserted at Kadesh. At any rate they were
surely of Hebrew descent.

126 RELATION BETWEEN E AND D DOCUMENTS
selves to Baal-Peor, the god of the mountain of Peor. For
this they were afflicted with a plague. But the offenders
were promptly punished, and the plague was stayed.'
It was at this point that Moses allotted the lands con
quered from Sflion and Og. It is significant that he gave
them to the three tribes which had apparently remained
intact with him, namely Reuben, Gad, and Eastern Manasseh.
He did this with the proviso that the men of these tribes
should accompany their brethren of the other tribes over
the Jordan, and assist them to conquer the west-Jordanic
lands. With these words ends the E document in the
Pentateuch. We have no more of it untfl we get to the
Book of Joshua. The Covenant in Moab
The history between the aUotment of the lands and
the march over the Jordan is given in the D document.
From this we learn that Moses delivered a new law,
the law of Deuteronomy, and died. In this new code the
priesthood was definitely confined to the tribe of Levi,
all of whom were made priests. Thus we see that the
decision made by Moses after the rebellion at Horeb had,
during the forty years of wandering, become so engrafted
into the lives of the people that now it could be included
even in their official law-book. This becomes easier of
explanation when we consider that a great portion of the
tribes to whom the E code had been given had left Moses
at Kadesh, and that the remainder had been overawed
both by the awful catastrophe to Dathan and Abiram
when they had ventured to question Moses' authority,
and by his great victories over Sihon and Og. In the
people's eyes Moses had become the mouthpiece of God.
I Num. 25:1-5.

THE STAY AT GILGAL 127
And SO they were now wiUing to accept without question
the new code given in Moab.
In essentials, outside of the question of the priesthood,
it differs little from the E code. It simply amplifies and
interprets it from a humanitarian viewpoint, and does it
so beautifully that D has become the model for the codes
of the civflized world. And even in regard to the priest
hood, the old custom of the E code does not entirely dis
appear. For it is only the holocausts that are restricted
to "the priests the Levites;" the other sacrifices, i. e., the
peace-offerings, are stfll to be offered by any of the people.
The D code becomes, then, the code of Joshua and of
the people who crossed the Jordan with him. That this
is tme is shown by the fact that the E passages in Joshua
breathe the spirit of the D document.'
The stay at Gilgal
The first halting-place after the crossing of the Jordan
was at Gilgal, a city between that river and Jericho.'
^ A few examples may sufiSce: "He is God," in Josh. 2:11 and Deut. 4:39;
"the Living God," in Josh. 3:10 and Deut. 5:26; "Lord of all the earth,"
in Josh. 3:11 and Deut. 10:14; "the seven peoples," in Josh. 3:10 and Deut.
7:1; "in time to come," in Josh. 4:6, 21 and Deut. 6:20. More important
is the fact that the punishment of Achan for stealing the devoted things at
Jericho was based on a law found in Deuteronomy. Cf. Josh. 7:15 and Deut.
13: I?. '' Joshua was here commanded to circumcise the people. The text here
shows that we are dealing with the fusion of two accounts. In Josh. 5 : 2 we
read," At that time Yahweh said unto Joshua, Make thee knives of flint, and
circumcise again the children of Israel the second time." As we have not heard of
a circumcision the words "again "and "the second time" deserve notice. The
original account or accounts must have contained a distinct record of two events
dealing with circumcision of Israelites in Gilgal. The text as it stands not only
is an enigma to us, but was so to the D redactor, who added vss. 4-7, attempt
ing to explain the passage by saying that circumcision had not been practiced
in the wilderness. But this does not explain why the text says that the opera
tion was performed a second time. The first circumcision must, of course.

128 RELATION BETWEEN E AND D DOCUMENTS
At this point it is necessary to notice a remarkable passage
in Judg. 2:1-5. Here we are told that a messenger of
Yahweh came up from Gflgal to Bochim at Bethel. He
reprimanded the inhabitants of Bochim for having vio
lated the laws, contained in the E code, regarding the
destruction of heathen worship. This moved the people
so much that they began to weep, and then they made a
sacrifice to Yahweh. In doing this they acted, it may be
remarked, according to the E, and not according to the
D code. How is this passage to be explained ?
First of all it is to be remembered that we left the
"house of Joseph" at Bethel. They of course had never
received the D code. And this messenger is represented
a^ speaking to a Hebrew people, one under the E and not
the D code, and one which lived in Bethel. What can be
more reasonable than to suppose that it is to this "house
of Joseph" that the messenger spoke ?
There is nothing in the Hebrew to indicate that this
"messenger of Yahweh" was Yahweh himself, or indeed
a supernatural being at all. He may have been, for aU
we are told, a mere man acting in the name of Yahweh.
He may have been sent from Joshua's army to this near
kindred people. He may have been Joshua himself.
The sacrifice implies that there was some agreement
made between this messenger and the people of Bochim.
Why not suppose that this agreement was an aUiance
between the people at Bethel and Joshua's army?'
It is to be noted that, whfle these people did make some
have been of the peoples who had joined Moses' army. Now, of course, people
cannot be circumcised twice. Therefore, since there are two great circumcisions
implied in the text, there would seem certainly to have been another accession
of new people to the Israelite army. -^^
' This new alliance naturally explains the "second" circumcision at Gilgal.

THE SECOND CONQUEST 129
sort of an agreement with the "messenger of Yahweh,"
they did not abandon their E-code sacrifices. If our sup
position be correct, then, we have a portion of the Israelite
army which was not under the D code at afl, but which,
nevertheless, was in active alliance with that portion which
was. The Second Conquest
From Gflgal the army started out to conquer the land.
The sequence of events in this conquest is perfectly plain
through the conquest of Jericho and Ai, the alliance with
Gibeon, and the war with the five kings, headed by the
King of Jerusalem. From this place on everyone agrees
that we have only fragments, and those not placed in
chronological order. For example, the war against Jabin
of Hazor, recorded in Josh. 11:1-15, belongs to the close
of Joshua's life, whfle the meeting with Caleb,' and the
conquest of the south country" are dated in the fifth year
after the crossing of the Jordan. The conquest of middle
Palestine is not mentioned at all in the Book of Joshua.
Stfll, it must have taken place, because Joshua went up
to Mount Ebal and erected there the altar and the twelve
stones. There his people ratified and accepted the D
code.^ This event took place before he met Caleb. Con
sequently we are able to date the conquest of middle
Palestine at some time before the fifth year of the conquest.
Directly after this conquest of middle Palestine, and
before the meeting with Caleb, the Ark of the Covenant
was settled in Gflgal. Of course this Gflgal cannot be
the one between the Jordan and Jericho. It is doubtless
the one in Ephraim,southeast of Shfloh and north of Bethel.
I Josh. 14:6. 2 Josh. 11:16. 3 Josh. 8:30-35.

I30 RELATION BETWEEN E AND D DOCUMENTS
This Gflgal is a central place and was well adapted for
a base for the operations of Joshua. Further, it belonged
to the territory of Joshua's own tribe, Ephraim.
The Reunion of Joshua and Caleb
Here, in the fifth year of the conquest, Joshua received
Caleb, son of Jephunneh, and the tribe of Judah. Now,
as we have observed, this is the first mention of Caleb
since the secession at Kadesh. What more natural, then,
than that Caleb's very first words should have referred
to this event of forty-five years ago ? "Then the chfldren
of Judah drew nigh to Joshua in Gflgal, and Caleb, the
son of Jephunneh, the Kenizzite, said unto him, Thou
knowest the thing that Yahweh said unto Moses the man
of God, concerning me and concerning thee, in Kadesh-
barnea. Forty years old was I when Moses the servant
of Yahweh sent me from Kadesh-barnea to spy out the
land ; and I brought him word again as it was in my heart.
Nevertheless my brethren that went up with me made the
heart of the people melt: but I wholly foflowed Yahweh
my God. And Moses sware on that day, sa)dng, Surely
the land whereon thy foot has trodden shall be an inherit
ance to thee and to thy chfldren forever, because thou
hast whoUy followed Yahweh my God. And now, behold,
Yahweh has kept me alive, as he spake, these forty and
five years, from the time that Yahweh spake this word
unto Moses, whfle Israel walked in the wflderness: and
now, lo, I am this day fourscore and five years old. As
yet I am as strong this day as I was in the day that Moses
sent me : as my strength was then even so is my strength
now, for war, and to go out and to come in. Now, there
fore, give me this mountain, whereof Yahweh spake in that

THE WAR WITH JABIN 131
day; for thou heardest in that day how the Anakim were
there, and cities great and fenced ; it may be that Yahweh
will be with me, and I shall drive them out, as Yahweh
spake. And Joshua blessed him, and he gave Hebron
unto Caleb, the son of Jephunnah, for an inheritance."'
The passage has been worth quoting in full. It is
very evidently just the speech that a man would make
who, "while Israel walked in the wfldemess," had been
living apart from Joshua. He now reminds Joshua, his
old friend, of events in which, forty-five years before, they
had borne their part together, calling his attention even
to small detafls. He asks Joshua to assist him in keeping
possession of the land granted him so many years before
by Moses. And Joshua, touched, and perhaps only too
wflling to conciliate this powerful tribe of Judah and to
amalgamate it into his own confederacy, consents, and
grants him permission to occupy Hebron. No mention is
made, however, at this time, of Judah's accepting the D
code. It is to be supposed that the tribe stfll retained the E
code, with which it had seceded at Kadesh.
The War with Jabin
After this, we know that Joshua went on conquering
land after land, untfl finally he succeeded in overcoming
Jabin, king of Hazor. In this conquest Joshua is repre
sented as meeting his enemy in northern Palestine
near the waters of Merom.' But we know that he
was not alone in this war. Another army of Israelites,
under the command of Deborah and Barak, met another
army of this king Jabin of Hazor under the command of
his general Sisera, in the vafley of Jezreel. ^ In both battles,
I Josh. 14:6-13. ' Josh. 11:7-16. 3 Judg. 4:1—5:31.

132 RELATION BETWEEN E AND D DOCUMENTS
that in the north and that m the south, the hosts of Israel
were successful, and Jabin was utterly routed.
It is to be noted that in this second army, under
Deborah and Barak, there were not complete tribes, but
only "remnants" of tribes. These remnants, moreover,
were of Ephraim, Benjamin, Machir (a clan of Manasseh),
Zebulon, Issachar, and Naphtali. Moreover, in the Song
of Deborah, Dan and Asher are reproached for not coming
up to help in the battle. Now all of these tribes, with the
exception of Issachar, are mentioned in that passage in
Judges' which, as we have seen, probably refers to Pales
tinian conquests after Kadesh but before the arrival of
Joshua. Does not the suggestion naturafly follow that
most of the army of Deborah and Barak may have con
sisted of those Hebrew peoples which had been in the land
before Joshua came ?
The Covenant in Shiloh
This war with Jabin of Hazor completed the conquest
of Canaan. It would be the most natural thing in the
world if, after such an event, the various Hebrew peoples
of the land should meet together to form a more perfect
coalition, both political and religious. The next thing
we find in the E document is that such a meeting actuaUy
did take place.' The people met together at Shfloh,'
which was an old sanctuary and at this time had a temple.*
ijudg. i:i — 2:5. 2 Josh. 24:1-320.
3 Josh. 24:1, 25. It is true that the Hebrew text says Shechem. But
all the old Greek texts give Shiloh, and as they are hundreds of years older
than our Hebrew, they are, in a matter like this, to be accepted. We can see
just when the corruption arose in the Hebrew text, for the version of Lucian,
which may go back to a text as late as the time of Christ, is the first to have
Shechem in this place. The Syriac Peshitta, of the same period as the Lucianic
text, also gives the later reading.
4 Josh. 24:26.

THE COVENANT IN SHBLOH 133
Here Joshua gathered together all the tribes of Israel,
and recited for them their history from the departure of
Abraham from the old Hebrew home in Eber-hannahar,
telling of Abraham's conversion to the Yahweh worship,
his settlement in the land of Canaan, his descendants,
Isaac, Jacob, and Esau, Esau's taking possession of Seir,
and how Jacob and his chfldren went down into Egypt.
Then he told how God sent Moses and Aaron, who plagued
Egjrpt, and at last brought their fathers out of the land of
bondage. He recounted how they came to the Red Sea,
where Yahweh saved them. He then reminded them of
the events of the conquest of the east-Jordanic lands, of
the capturing of Jericho, and finally of the subduing of
the Canaanitic peoples.
He then demanded of the people whether they would
serve Yahweh or some heathen God. Now, we have no
intimation of any lapse from faith on the part of the people
who came in with Joshua. But we have seen that the
people of Bochim had lapsed from their faith,' and that
these people were probably among the seceders at Kadesh.
If this were tme of one of the seceding tribes, it may weU
have been true of the others.' If this be true, it gives
additional point to Joshua's cry, "As for me and my
house, we wfll serve Yahweh !"
The people with one accord accepted Yahweh's reli
gion, and agreed to tum from then: heathen gods. Joshua
and the people thereupon made a covenant to that effect.'
Then we read that Joshua "set them a statute and an
ordinance" in Shfloh. Now a "statute," as we have seen,
is a religious or ceremonial law. The word "ordinance"
here is not a correct translation. The original is mishpat,
I Judg. 2:1-5. ' Cf. Judg. 4:1-3- ^ Josh. 24:25.

134 RELATION BETWEEN E AND D DOCUMENTS
meaning a "judgment," or a civfl law. Joshua wrote
these, though, not in the Book of the Law of Moses, i. e.,
Deuteronomy, but in the Book of the Law of Elohim,
i. e., the E code.
It is easy to see why this should have been the case,
for it is hard to believe that the tribes which seceded at
Kadesh would ever have agreed at this time to accept the
D code, which had been given long after they had left
the tribes in the wflderness, and which had thus been given
to only a portion of the original confederation.
The E code, then, became the law for afl the confed
erated peoples which made the covenant at Shfloh, and
it remained so at least for the rest of the period of the
judges, as was observed in our consideration of the non-
Levitical sacrifices. The D code was for the time dis
carded. It remained written on the stones at the moun
tain of Ebal, and certainly other copies of it were in exist
ence, but for the people as a whole it fell into disuse, at
least for the time being. Conclusion
We have now brought down the history of the E and D
codes from the leaving of Egypt to the death of Joshua.
We have seen that, for a large portion of the people —
those who seceded at Kadesh — the E code was the only
code acknowledged in this period, and that it was to the
other portion only — those who remained with Moses —
that the D code was given. Lastly, we have seen that
after the conquest of Canaan, when afl the tribes were
reunited, it was on the basis of E, and not of D, and that D
sank into disuse throughout the period of the judges,
during which time the E code, non-Levitical sacrifices
included, was in force among the people.

CHAPTER X
The Language of the E and D Documents
The E sections of the Hexateuch have a distinct voca
bulary. We have postulated for the P document a P or
Levitical dialect. The arguments then given for the
existence of a dialect peculiar to the tribe of Levi will
serve equally well here for the language of E. We find
that Joshua, who had much to do with the E code, was
of the tribe of Ephraim. The code was finally ratified
in Shfloh, which was in the territory of Ephraim. In the
E sections of Genesis and Joshua particular attention is
paid to the enumeration of the cities of Ephraim. After the
split of the kingdom, as we have seen, the E code was in
force in the Northern Kingdom, and especially in Ephraim.
These facts all point to one conclusion, namely, that the
language of the E code was the tribal dialect of the tribe
of Ephraim.'
Not only is the D code based upon the E code, but its
I Some sections of the E document are not so distinct in language as critical
scholars generally assume when they assign them to E. This applies especially
to Genesis, e. g.. Gen. 20:1-18; 21:22-34; 26:1,6-23; 26:26-33; 35:8; the
E sections of chap. 37; 40:15; 41:38-40; 45:16-21; 45:27; 46:5; 50:15-21.
It applies also to Joshua 24:326, 33. In none of these sections is scarcely a
word that is not found in the later P document and code, although some of
the words may not be so common in P as in E. It is, however, evident that
this E language was known to P. There seems to be no cogent reason, there
fore, why these so-called E sections should not be ascribed to P. If they are
to be called E, they ought at least to be separated from the early E, and called
E2 sections. An exception to this must be made in the case of three words:
the word for "pray," in Gen. 20:7, 17; the word for "on account of," in
Gen. 21:25; 26:32; and the word for "dream,'' in Gen. 20:3, 6. These
three words alone, of course, are not enough to separate these documents from
the late P, or from the late E document. ^35

136 THE LANGUAGE OF THE E AND D DOCUMENTS
language, too, comes nearest to that of E. We found that
the D code was finally recorded on the stones at Ebal and
Gerizim, i. e., at Shechem. May not the language of D
be a local variation of the Ephraimite dialect, peculiar
to the Shechem region?

CHAPTER XI
The J Document
It may be that there is no J code in the Hexateuch, but
only fragments of a J document. The sections which
have been ordinarfly considered as making up that code,
Exod., chap. 34, really seem to belong, as we have seen,
to the E code. It is perfectly possible that there was a J
code originally, but that it was so simflar to the E code
that it was dropped in favor of the latter at the time of the
compflation. What little there is to be said about the
J document may be divided into three heads : date, unity,
and language. I. Date
Modern critics generally assign the J document to ca.
850-800 B. c. It may, they say, have been a century
earlier than this. It cannot, however, so they claim, have
preceded the time of David, because there is, in a J section
in Num. 21:14, iS) a quotation from the "Book of the
Wars of Yahweh," and in the Book of Samuel there is a
quotation from the same book regarding David. But
this is reaUy not conclusive, for this quotation may have
been added from the "Book of the Wars of Yahweh" at
the time when the documents were combined. There is
no reason why J cannot be as early as E, namely the time
of the Covenant at Horeb. There is nothing to show that
it is earlier or later. II. Unity
It cannot be denied that there was an original J docu
ment, but from the remains which we have of that docu-
137

138 THE J DOCUMENT
ment in our Hexateuch we are forced to say the same thing
of it as we have already said of E and P, namely, that there
have been only fragments preserved to us. It is admitted
on aU hands that in large sections of Genesis, Exodus,
Numbers, and Joshua, J and E have been so fused together
that it is now impossible ever to divide them. Nor is this
necessary, for J and E relate the same history and the same
events. Any attempt completely to divide these docu
ments can only be for the satisfaction of a literary curiosity.
It is a fact of greater importance that we find J fused
with later P passages, and borrowing from P, e. g., when J,
in Exod. chaps. 19, 24, 34, uses Sinai for Horeb. It wfll be
shown in a later chapter that these two mountains are not
identical and cannot be considered as one. The occur
rence of Sinai in a J document can be explained only on
the supposition that the priestly redactor, in compfling
J sections with P, assumed that any reference in J to the
mountain of the law-giving must be to the Sinai of the P
document. Other cases of the same sort, but of less
importance, wfll be noted below.
III. Language
First of afl, the language is the dialect of Judah. We
have already seen that P represents the dialect of Levi,
and E and D the dialect of Ephraim. J centers itself
around places in Judah, especiaUy around Hebron. That
city was the first capital of David . Caleb, prince of Judah,
received it as his inheritance and capital. At a later time
it was granted to Aaron's famfly as a Levitical city. This
last fact may account for a compflation of J and P m
Hebron, and a fusion of those documents. Besides afl this,
the language is so distinct that it seems certainly a tribal

DIALECTICAL DENOTATIONS OF WORDS 139
dialect. We cannot go far wrong in assuming it to be
the tribal dialect of Judah.'

The difficulty that the study of the Hebrew language offers to
beginners is well known. The explanation of this difficulty is not
to be found in its peculiar alphabet, because that is soon mastered.
Nor is it to be found in the flexion of the words, nor in the syntax, in
both which respects the Hebrew is far simpler than either Greek or
Latin. Nor does Hebrew possess a large vocabulary. The real
difficulty lies in the many and varied meanings that Hebrew words
possess. A close study of this difficulty reveals the fact that it arises from
the fusion into one book of the literary products of many and varied
dialects. This is the case, not only in the Hexateuch, but in most of
the historical books, especially in Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chron
icles, which we know were compiled from a large number of original
documents. It is also the case in some of the prophets, Isaiah and
Zechariah especially. Proverbs and Psalms belong to the same class.
They are compiled from a large number of documents, which origi
nated in several tribes, and which bear, therefore, the dialectic pecu
liarities pertaining to those tribes.
By caUing attention to these dialectic peculiarities we do not desire
to be construed as denying the continuous development of the Hebrew
language. But this law of development may be extended to dialects
as weU. The study of these linguistic peculiarities in the Hexateuch seems
to reveal the following facts:
I. Dialectical Denotations of Words
A single Hebrew word has often several denotations, each of which
belongs to a different tribe; as, e. g.:
Yarek. In Judah (J and the Toledoth Book) it signifies "thigh"
I Some sections of the J document in Genesis difier from the other J sec
tions in much the same way that we saw prevailing in the E document. As
these sections, however, contain the name of Yahweh, they must come from
a J source, but belong to later strata of the J literature

14° THE J DOCUMENT
(euphemistic for membrum virile.)'^ In Benjamin it meant "side"
or "loin."'' In Levi it denoted "base," "seat," or "standard."
Paqad. In Judah it meant "pay attention to," "attend to,"
"observe;" in Ephraim, "visit," "visit upon," "punish;" in Levi,
"appoint," "muster," "pass in review."
Minha. In Ephraim it signified "present;" in Judah, "offering;"
in Levi, "meal-offering." II. Modifications of Meaning of Words
Words common to all the tribes are modified in their denotations
in the course of the development of the language; e. g.:
Hatdt. In JED it equals "sin;" in P, "sin" and "sin-offering."
Maqom. In JED, "sanctuary;" in P, "place."
Miipe^ah. In Judah (J and P'), "kindred" (Greek o-wyevna);
in Levi (F'), "clan" (Greek <i>v\r)).
Yaral. In Ephraim (E'), "take possession of," "drive out;" in
Levi (P^ EO, "inherit."
'Ahaz. In Ephraim (E' J' ?), "seize;" in Levi, "to possess."
MiSpat. In P' and JED, "judgment;" in P% "manner," "cere
mony. III. Tribal Vocabulary
Each tribe has in a number of cases its own peculiar word to
express a common idea; e. g. :
"Handmaid." In Judah (J and P'), Uphhah; in Ephraim and
Levi (EDP^), 'amah.
"Raiment." In Judah and Levi (J and P), beged; in Ephraim
(E), salmah and simlah.
"I." In JEDP', anoki; in P^ 'ani.
"Prince." In JED, iar; in P, naiV.
"Tribe." In JED, hbet (as also in P in the sense of a subdivision
of a tribe) ; in P, matte.
"Dwell." In J, yaUb; in D, {le)^akken; in P, Ukan.
"Thigh" (euphemistic). In J, yarek; in P, halasayim.
' Exod. 1:5.
= Judg. 3:16, 21.

CHAPTER XII
Differences Between P and JED. — The Settlements in
Egypt
Most critics claim, of course, that the discrepancies
between the four documents are due to their being variants
of one and the same story, due to different traditions.
Whfle this is doubtless sufficient explanation of such differ
ences as exist between J, E, and D, it wfll not at all suffice
to explain those between P and the other three documents.
In a comparison of these four documents, such as we are
about to undertake, it is impossible to commence before
the thirty-ninth chapter of Genesis, because the D docu
ment begins properly only with the settlement in Eg3^t.
Comparisons of the three documents visible before that
time are not to be a part of this study, which from this
point on wfll deal more particularly with the events of the
Exodus and the conquest of Canaan.
The differences between what we may assume to be the
composite narrative of JED and the narrative of P are of
such a radical nature as to demand careful consideration.
Some of the .discrepancies are due, doubtless, to errors
and interpolations which have crept into the modern
Hebrew Massoretic text during the ages. This may be
seen clearly when comparisons are made with the ancient
versions, such as the LXX, the Sjriac, and the Aramaic
translations. But even this is not sufficient to explain
the greater number of discrepancies. Let us see what
some of these differences are. And, first of all, let us
examine the accounts of the settlements in Egypt.
141

142 THE SETTLEMENTS IN EGYPT
These are given in Gen. 46:28 — 47:12. It is almost
impossible to accept our Hebrew text as it stands. Quite
evidently there have been corruptions. The most accurate
text which lower criticism is able to afford us is based
chiefly on the LXX. For the sake of convenience the
two accounts, according to divisions of this reconstructed
text, are here presented side by side.
J P
Gen. 46:28: And he sent
Judah before them, unto Joseph,
into the land of Raamses.
29. And Joseph made ready his
chariots, and went up to meet Israel
his father, at Heroo-polis; and he
presented himself unto him, and fell
on his neck, and wept on Ms neck a
good while. 30. And Israel said
unto Joseph, Now let me die, since
I have seen thy face, that thou art
yet alive. 31. And Joseph said
unto his brethren, and unto his
father's house, I wiU go up, and will
tell Pharaoh, and will say unto him.
My brethren, and my father's house,
which were in the land of Canaan,
are come unto me; 32. and the
men are shepherds, for they have
been keepers of cattle; and they
have brought their flocks, and their
herds, and all that they have. 33.
And it shall come to pass, when
Pharaoh shall call you, and shall
say, What is your occupation?
34. that ye shall say, Thy servants
have been keepers of cattle, from
our youth even until now, both we
and our fathers: that ye may dwell
in the land of Goshen of Arabia; for

THE SETTLEMENTS IN EGYPT

143

J
every shepherd is an abomination
unto the Egyptians. 47:1: Then
Joseph went in, and told Pharaoh,'
and said. My father and my breth
ren and their flocks and their herds,
and all that they have, are come out
of the land of Canaan; and behold,
they are in the land of Goshen.
2. And from among his brethren he
took five men, and presented them
vmto Pharaoh. 3. And Pharoah
said imto the brethren of Joseph,
What is your occupation? And
they said unto Pharaoh, Thy ser
vants are shepherds, both we and
our fathers. 4. And they said unto
Pharaoh, To sojourn in the land
are we come, for there is no pasture
for thy servant's flocks; for the
famine is sore in the land of Canaan :
now, therefore, we pray thee, let
thy servants dwell in the land of
Goshen. 5. And Pharaoh said im
to Joseph, In the land of Goshen let
them dwell; and if thou knowest
any able men among them, then
make them rulers over my cattle.

6. And Jacob and his sons came
into Egypt to Joseph. And Pha
raoh, the king of Egypt heard
(thereof). And Pharaoh spake un
to Joseph, saying. Thy father and
thy brethren are come unto thee;
behold, the land of Egypt is before
thee; in the best of the land make
thy father and thy brethren to
dwell. 7. And Joseph brought in

I Codex Alexandrinus (Greek) reads,
Joseph."

'And Pharaoh went in and told

144

THE SETTLEMENTS IN EGYPT

Jacob, his father, and set him before
Pharaoh: and Jacob blessed Pha
raoh. 8. And Pharaoh said unto
Jacob, How many are the days of
the years of thy Ufe? 9. And
Jacob said unto Pharaoh,

Few and evil have been the days
of the years of my life.

The days of the years of my pil
grimage are an hundred and thirty
years;'

but they have not attained unto the
days of the years of the life of my
fathers in the days of their pil
grimage.' 10. And Jacob blessed Pharaoh,
and went out from the presence of
Pharaoh. 11. And Joseph placed
his father and his brethren in the
land of Egypt, in the best land, in
the land of Raamses, as Pharaoh
had commanded.
12. And Joseph nourished his
father, and his brethren, and all his
father's household with bread, ac
cording to their families.
These, then, are the stories of the settlement in Egypt.
According to J and its kindred documents, Israel and his
sons were settled in the land of Goshen. In P the settle
ment of Jacob is confined to the land of Raamses. These
two districts are not by any means the same.
Land of Goshen
Goshen was the capital of the twentieth nome of Egypt,
Arabia, and was that part of the Delta east of the Nfle
I This passage, while P in character, evidently belongs to the Toledoth Book,
because of the exactness of the date and its quaint language. We have shown
above that this book is an early document.

LAND OF RAAMSES 145
and bordering on it, i. e., the district in the vicinity of
Belbeis, Saft el-Henneh, and Abu Hamad.'
Land of Raamses
But in P it is not in Goshen, but in "the land of Raam
ses" that the people are settled. "The land of Raamses,"
of course, means the land around the city of Raamses,
just as "the land of Goshen" means the land around the
city of Goshen. We know that Ramses II buflt a city
named after himself.^ This city was rebuflt by Ramses
III, though it was stfll called after the name of the former
buflder.^ Petrie has advanced the suggestion that this
city of Raamses was located at the modern Tel el-Rota-
bieh,'' but his suggestion seems to be on not very sufficient
grounds. In the manuscript of Gamurrini a pious woman
relates that she left Heroo-polis to go to Goshen, which
was sixteen miles away, and that on her journey she passed
1 Pe(r)-Soped was the ancient name of the modern Saft el-Henneh, and
was the old capital of the nome of Arabia. Cf. Naville, Saft el-Henneh, p. 15.
In Coptic, Goshen, LXX Gesem, is called Kos, which the Greeks rendered Pha-
Kusa, Latin Phacusa. Pha is the definite article. Kos or Kusa is an abbrevia
tion of Kesem, which latter is found in Egyptian inscriptions. Gesem and
Kesem are, of course, variants of the same name. Consequently Goshen,
or Kesem, or Gesem, is the city-land of Kesem known in the monuments, i. e.,
the capital of the twentieth nome. Moreover, in the Arabic version of Saadiah
Gaon, Goshen is rendered Sadir, which Quatremfere locates at Abbaseh, in the
region of the modern Saft el-Henneh. With this Abu Said agrees. Macrizi
states that Belbeis is in this land.
= The city of Ramses II existed in the twenty-first year of that king, for the
ambassadors of the Hittite king were received by him there in that year. Cf.
Lepsius, Denkmaler, III, pi. 146, 1. 2. According to Lepsius, Denkmdler, Text,
Part rV, pi. 49, this city, "House of Ramses (II) — Meriamon " was again
referred to in Ramses II's twenty-ninth year.
3 Ramses III states, in Papyrus Harris, pi. 60, 1. 2, " I rebuilt the great temple,
(and) laboriously enlarged the same, in the House of Sutekh of Ramses (II) —
Meriamon." 4 Cf. Hyksos and Israelite Cities, p. 28.

4
1

4^

I

I

15

^

^ ^1

i

LAND OF RAAMSES 147
through the city of Raamses, which was four mfles from
Goshen, the capital of Arabia. This would correspond
to the location of the modern Tel el-Kebir, a great mound
which has not yet been explored. Here we feel inclined
to locate the city and "land" of Raamses. This location
would taUy perfectly with all the data in the monuments,
the classical authors, and the Bible. If this prove to be
correct, the city of Raamses must have belonged to the
Nome of the East, the eighth nome of Lower Egjrpt, the
capital of which was Pithom. At any rate, Raamses is
not the same as Goshen.
Now if, as we have seen good reason for believing, the
documents were composed within forty or fifty years
after the leaving of Egypt, it is hard to believe that their
authors should have been so confused and so forgetful
that they confounded two city-lands so distinct and sepa
rate as Goshen and Raamses, and were ignorant as to
which was reaUy the Israelite habitat when in Egypt.
There suggests itself at once the hypothetical question.
Were there two exodi, one from Raamses and the other from
Goshen ?

CHAPTER XIII
Differences Between P and JED. — The Servitudes in
Egypt
In the story of the oppression, the following sections
should be assigned to P: Exod. i : 1-7,' 11&-14; 2 : 23-25.
The other sections of the five first chapters of Exodus
belong to JE.
In the JE account there are taskmasters appointed over
the Israelites, and these force them to do field labor and
to make bricks without straw. In the P document, they
are forced to do a simflar kind of serf labor, but there is
nothing mentioned of anything like making bricks without
straw. The P account further mentions — ^which is not
touched on in JE — that they buflt store-cities for Pharaoh,
Pithom, and Raamses.^ Now the store-city of Pithom
has been discovered by Navflle at the modern Tel el-
Maskhutah.^ It is a city which, although dating from
early times, was really buflt by Ramses II and rebuflt by
I This section, while P in character, belongs to the Toledoth Book: see
above, pp. 54 f.
- Exod. i:iiJ.
3 Pithom, originally Pe(r)-Tum or Pe(r)-Atum, meaning "House of Tum,"
or "House of Atum," the city of the sun-god Tum or Atum, who was the prede
cessor of Re, the sun-god of Heliopolis, was the capital of the eighth nome of
Lower Egypt, the civil name of which was the Eastern Nome. In later times
the nome was also called "the Heroopohtan." ' On the eastern border of this
nome was a city and a land called Succoth, the ancient name of which was " Door
of the East." This city was located on the northern end of Lake Timsah,
"Crocodile Lake." Naville has identified Pithom and Succoth, but on insuffi
cient grounds. Succoth was several miles east of Pithom. Nor did Lake Tim
sah, on which Succoth was situated, extend west as far as Pithom in the Nine
teenth Dynasty. The marsh land to the east of Pithom was, in the time of Mer-
148

THE SERVITUDES IN EGYPT 149
Ramses III. There is nothmg to show that the bricks
of the city were made without straw. Raamses we have
already located at the modern Tel el-Kebir.' To these
neptah, called "The Pools of Pithom," but this was a region quite distinct from
Lake Timsah.
Naville assumes also that Heroo-polis, the Roman Ero, is identical with
Pithom, because the Red Sea is called the " Heroopolitan Gulf." And indeed
in the Bohairic version Heroo-polis is rendered Pithom, not because they were
identical but because Pithom was the capital of the nome. It is certain that
Heroo-polis was located on the shore (clusma), of that gulf. But it is not prob
able that the gulf extended up to Pithom at this time. Ptolemy the geographer
asserts twice that Ero was only one-sixth of a degree from the head or upper end
of the Arabian Gulf. Pliny and Strabo assert likewise that Heroo-polis was
located on the Arabian Gulf. But when Ptolemy dug his soft-water canal,
connecting the Nile with the Eastern Nome, it passed by Arsinoe, and still was
not connected with the Bitter Lakes. This makes it impossible that the Arabian
Gulf should have extended to Pithom in the time of Ptolemy. Furthermore,
Herodotus says that it was one thousand stadia from Mount Casius. As we
must admit that Herodotus used the shorter stadium (ninety-eight meters), his
statement places the head of the Arabian Gulf near the northern end of the pres
ent Bitter Lakes. Here then Heroo-polis was located. It was here, according
to the JE document, that Joseph met his father when he came into Egypt. It is
of great importance that we bear in mind that the Arabian Gulf extended up to
this point, and included the Bitter Lakes, which at this time stretched a little
farther north than they do at present.
I It is interesting to note that in the Arabic version of Saadiah Gaon the
land of Raamses, in Gen. 47:11, and the city of Raamses, in Exod. i:ii, are
rendered as "the Well of the Sun" (Ain-Semes). Now the Egyptian monuments
know of a canal called "Water of Re " or "Water of the Sun." The name
implies that it may have run close by the city of Heliopolis. This canal is not
known before the eleventh year of Ramses III, when he slew the Libyan army
on Its banks. The same canal is again mentioned by the same king in Papyrus
Harris (pi. 10, 1. 8, and pi. 62a, 1. 2). This canal can be nothing else than the
old canal of Wady Tumilat, where lately the Ishmalieh Canal was dug. It started
near Cairo, passed Heliopohs, Northern Heliopolis, and Belbeis, turned westward
at Abbaseh, passed {Raamses (Tel el-Kebir), Tel el-Rotabieh, Pithom (Tel el-
Maskhutah), and flowed into Lake Timsah at its northern end. "The Water
of the Sun" thus flowed through all the land where in P we find traces of the
Hebrew settlements. Furthermore this canal supplied water for all of the East-
em Nome, which Ramses II reclaimed for cultivation, and in which he built his
magnificent cities, mentioned in P, cities which were afterward rebuilt by Ramses
III, ostensibly because they had been destroyed in the period of anarchy which
intervened between the Nineteenth and Twentieth dynasties.

150 THE SERVITUDES IN EGYPT
the LXX adds the name of On, or Heliopolis. This, of
course, cannot be the old city of Heliopolis, the history of
which goes back to the time of the Fifth Dynasty. It
must be the northern Heliopolis, modem Tel el-Jehudieh,
the Roman Vicus Judaeomm.' At the time these cities
were being buflt '^ there is not a mention in the monuments
of Goshen, except in the geographical lists. It seems to
have been favored neither by Ramses II nor by Ramses
III. Merneptah seems to allude to it, only to-say that it
had been abandoned since the time of the ancestors and
given up to pasturage. This implies, of course, that once,
in the past, it had been a cultivated land.
The period of the servitude in Egypt, then, as known
to the author of the P document, can clearly be determined.
The people settled in the land of Raamses and helped
bufld the cities of Raamses and Pithom. Before the
reign of Ramses II no land of Raamses existed, for it
was he who reclaimed the land from the swamps. And
it was Ramses III who rebuflt these cities, so the monu
ments clearly say, and he did it with serf labor from Asia !
And, of course, if they settled in Ramses II's reign, he
could hardly have been the Pharaoh of the oppression.
This Pharaoh must have been Ramses III. The date of
the servitude, then, according to the evidence derived from
P itself, seems to have been the reign of Ramses III, i. e.,
1181-1150 B. c.
I We know from Papyrus Harris (pi. 29, 11. 8-12) that Ramses III built a
temple in "the House of Re on the north of Heliopolis.'' This northern Helio
polis is not known on the monuments before the reign of this king, although it
still existed in the time of Sheshonk I (Lepsius, Denkmdler, III, 2530, 1. 12
This city has been identified with the modern Tel el-Jehudieh, the Roman
Vicus Judaeorum, near Belbeis. This Vicus Judaeorum is not to be confused
with another Tel el-Jehudieh, which in Latin is called Scenae Veteranorum, the
place where Onias built his temple.
2 I. e., the Nineteenth and Twentieth dynasties.

PAPYRUS HARRIS, PI. 29, 11. 8-12

152 THE SERVITUDES IN EGYPT
But what of the oppression in the JE document ? In
it there is no mention of the buflding of these great store-
cities of Raamses and Pithom. Now if, as we have seen
from our dating of the documents, there is no reason to
doubt that JE was written forty years after the departure
from Egypt, or less, can it be supposed that in this very
short time all memory of the slaving on these cities, in
which the people had suffered so grievously, should have
utterly perished from the mind of the JE author? It
seems fair and conservative to assume that the people
among whom the JE document arose had had no connec
tion whatever with the store-cities of Pithom and Raamses.
Furthermore, if the JE exodus came from the land of
Goshen, as it did, it must have passed by these cities on
the way to the Red Sea, if they were then existent. But,
although we have full mention of the cities they passed
from the Red Sea to Horeb, there is no mention at all of
any cities before the Red Sea. Does it not seem likely,
then, that the Exodus told of in JE must have taken place
at a time before these cities were buflt, when the later
"land of Raamses" was a waste marsh, uninhabited?
And this probable conclusion is made practically certain
by the remark, in Exod. 13:18, "But God led the people
about, by the way of the wilderness, unto the Red Sea."'
We are forced, then, from evidence furnished by JE, to
date the servitude and exodus of which it tefls before the
time of Ramses II, who reclaimed the wflderness and
buflt the cities.
- In R. V. this phrase is rendered "by the Red Sea." The Hebrew may
mean either "of the Red Sea" or "to the Red Sea." It cannot be "by the Red
Sea." The LXX, the Targum Onkelos, the Syriac version, and the Arabic
version all unite in rendering it "to the Red Sea." The inaccurate Vulgate
alone, outside of the English versions, renders it "by."

CHAPTER XIV
Differences Between P and JED. — The Going-out from
Egypt
Even if we felt inclined to think that the exodus of P
were not different from that of JED in time, we would find
it hard to believe that they were not different in locality
and route.
Again we place the two accounts of the route out of
Egypt in parallel columns:

JE

(They were) about 600,000 (or 600
clans) on foot that were men, be
sides children, 38. and a mixed
multitude went up also with them;
and flocks and herds, even very
much cattle 
13:17: And it came to pass,
when Pharaoh had let the people go,
that God led them not by the way
of the land of the Philistines, al
though that was near; for God
said. Lest peradventure the people
repent when they see war, and they
return to Egypt; 18. but God led
the people about by the way of the
wilderness to the Red Sea: and
the children of Israel went up armed
out of the land of Egypt 

Exod. 12:37: And the children
of Israel journeyed from Raamses
to Succoth;

20. And they took their journey
from Succoth, and encamped in
Etham, in the edge of the vnldemess.

^53

154

THE GOING-OUT FROM EGYPT

JE
21. And Yahweh went before
them, by day in a pillar of cloud,
to lead them the way; and by night
in a pillar of fire, to give them light;
that they might go by day and by
night. . . .

5. And it was told the king of
Egypt that the people were fled;
and the heart of Pharaoh and of his
servants was changed toward the
people, and they said. What is this
we have done, that we have let
Israel go from serving us ? 6. And
he made ready his chariot, and took
his people with him: 7. and he took
600 chosen chariots,

14:1: And Yahweh spake unto
Moses, sa5ring, 2. Speak unto the
children of Israel, that they tum
back and encamp before Pi-Hahi
roth, between Migdol and the Sea,
before Baal-Zephon; over against
it shall ye encamp by the Sea. 3.
And Pharaoh vnU say of the children
of Israel, They are entangled in the
land; the wdldemess has shut them
in. 4. And I will make strong
Pharaoh's heart, and he shall fol
low after; and I will get me honor
upon Pharaoh and upon all his
host and the Egyptians shall know
that I am Yahweh. And they
did so.

8. And Yahweh made strong the
heart of Pharaoh, king of Egypt,
and he pursued after the children
of Israel: for the children of Israel
went out with an high hand. 9.
And the Egyptians pursued after
them, all the horses and chariots

THE GOING-OUT FROM EGYPT

155

JE

10. And when Pharaoh drew
nigh the children of Israel lifted
up their eyes and behold, the
Egyptians marched after them; and
they were sore afraid: and the
children of Israel cried out unto
Yahweh. ii. And they said unto
Moses, Because there were no graves
in Egypt, hast thou taken us to die
in the wilderness ? Wherefore hast
thou dealt thus with us, to bring us
forth out of Egypt ? .... 15. And
Yahweh said unto Moses, Where
fore criest thou unto me ?

16. (And) lift thou up thy rod;

19. And the angel of God, which
went before the camp of Israel,
removed and went behind them;
and the pillar of cloud removed
from before them, and stood behind
them; 20. and it came between
the camp of Egypt and the camp
of Israel; and there was the cloud
and the darkness, yet gave it Ught

of Pharaoh, and his horsemen and
his army; and he overtook them,
encamping by the Sea, beside Pi-
Hahiroth, before Baal-Zephon.

Speak unto the children of Israel,
that they go forward.
And stretch out thy hand over the
Sea, and divide it, and the children
of Israel shall go into the midst of
the Sea on dry ground. 17. And
I, behold, I will make strong the
hearts of the Egyptians, and they
shall go in after them: and I will
get me honor upon Pharaoh, and
upon all his host, upon his chariots,
and upon his horsemen.

156

THE GOING-OUT FROM EGYPT

JE
by night: and the one came not near
the other, all the night.

24. And it came to pass in the
morning watch, that Yahweh looked
forth upon the host of the Egyptians
through the pillar of fire and of
cloud, and discomfited the host of
the Egyptians. 25. And he bound
their chariot wheels, and made them
to drive heavily: so that the Egyp
tians said. Let us flee from the face
of Israel; for Yahweh fighteth for
them against the Eg)rptians.

And the Sea returned to its strength
when the morning appeared; and
the Egyptians fled against it;
and Yahweh overthrew the Egyp
tians in the midst of the Sea.

21. And Moses stretched out his
hand over the Sea, and Yahweh
caused the Sea to go back by a
strong east wind all the night, and
made the Sea dry land, and the
waters were divided. 22. And the
children of Israel went into the
midst of the Sea upon the dry
ground: and the waters were a wall
unto them, on their right hand and
on their left. 23. And the Egjrp-
tians pursued, and went in after
them into the midst of the Sea, all
Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and
his horsemen.

26. And Yahweh said unto
Moses, Stretch out thy hand over
the Sea, that the waters may come
again upon the Egyptians, upon
their chariots and upon their horse
men. 27. And Moses stretched
forth his hand over the Sea,

THE GOING-OUT FROM EGYPT

157

JE

30. Thus Yahweh saved Israel
that day out of the hand of the
Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyp
tians dead upon the sea-shore. 31.
And Israel saw the great work which
Yahweh did upon the Egyptians,
and the people feared Yahweh, and
they believed in Yahweh and in his
servant Moses 
15:22: And Moses led Israel
onward from the Red Sea.

28. and the waters returned, and
covered the chariots, and the horse
men, even all the host of Pharaoh
that went in after them into the
Sea; there remained not so much
as one of them. 29. But the chil
dren of Israel walked upon dry
land in the midst of the Sea; and
the waters were a wall unto them
on their right hand and on their left.

And they went out into the wilder
ness of Shur; and they went three
days in the wilderness and found
no water.

Another account of the P joume)ang at this time is
given in Num. 33:5-8c: "And the chfldren of Israel
journeyed from Raamses and pitched in Succoth. They
journeyed from Succoth and pitched in Etham, which is
in the edge of the wfldemess. And they journeyed from
Etham, and turned unto Pi-Hahiroth, which is before
Baal-Zephon: and they pitched before Migdol. And
they journeyed from before Hahiroth, and passed through
the midst of the Sea into the wfldemess: and they went
three days' journey into the wfldemess of Etham."

IS8 THE GOING-OUT FROM EGYPT
The P Route
In the P account, the Israelites, after having left
Egyptian territory, came to "the Sea." In no place in P
is this cafled ' ' the Red Sea. ' ' When we attempt to identify
it with "the Red Sea," we are reading into the P account
something not contained there. Now, from both the
Hebrew and the Greek usages, "the Sea," without further
limitation, can mean only "the Mediterranean Sea."
And the P document gives evidence that this is the meaning
here. When the Israelites had come to Succoth, they were
told to turn and go to Pi-Hahiroth, between Baal-Zephon
and Migdol. Now Succoth was on the northem end of
Lake Timsah, and was located where now stands the
vfllage of Ishmaflieh. From Lake Timsah to Lake
Balah there was a line of Eg3^tian fortresses, cafled in the
inscriptions "the Wall," and in Hebrew "Shur" (the Wafl
of Eg5rpt). At the northern end of this "wall" was a great
fortress called in the inscriptions "Tharu," which is an
exact equivalent of "Shur," being the wafl or fortress
par excellence. The word in Egj^tian for fortress is khetem.
This is rendered in Hebrew etham'. When, therefore,
the Bible speaks of "the wflderness of Etham," it means
"the wflderness of the fort." This wflderness is, then,
the same as that called "the wflderness of Shur," as,
indeed, becomes quite plain when we compare with Exod.
15:22. Now we know from a number of other references
in the Bible ^ that Shur was the wflderness to the east of
the Egyptian border, between Lake Timsah and the Medi-
I Exod. 13:20; Num. 33:6, 7, 8. Egyptian kh corresponds sometimes to
the Hebrew aleph. Cf. Brugsch, Diet. Geog., p. 647.
3 Gen. 16:7; 20:1; 25:18; I Sam. 15:7; 27:8.

PI-HAHIROTH 159
terranean. If, then, the children of Israel passed through
this wflderness, when they turned it must have been to
the north from Succoth, i. e., north from Lake Timsah.
From the inscriptions of Merneptah we know that the
fortress of Succoth was very strong. It is then easfly seen
that the turn to the north was made to avoid this powerful
obstacle in the way. But the fortress of Tharu or Etham
was even stronger, and so they had to continue their march
yet farther to the north. They could not safely get
between the fortresses, because the district between them
was very thoroughly patrolled. This we know because
the commanders of the fortresses were required to send
dafly reports to Pharaoh of all who went into or out of
Egypt at and around their posts. '
Pi-Hahiroth
Continuing northward, they encamped at Pi-Hahiroth,
between Baal-Zephon and Migdol. Fortunately we are
quite able to locate these three places. Pi-Hahiroth
means "mouth of the hiroth," and this word Hiroth,
Greek eiroth, means "lagoons." As Brugsch has shown,
this can refer, properly, only to the lagoons of the Delta,
and in our account can mean only the lagoons of Lake
Menzaleh. The "mouth of the lagoons" would then be
the place where Lake Menzaleh connects with Lake Balah.
Between these two lakes there is now dry land, except for
the artificial slip which starts the Suez Canal. But for
merly they were connected by shallow water, as geologists
have been able to determine. This place is indeed
between Migdol, which lay to the east, and Baal-Zephon,
which lay to the west.
I Cf. ARE, Vol. Ill, pp. 270-72.

l6o THE GOING-OUT FROM EGYPT
Migdol
Migdol means in Hebrew "fortress," and it has been
supposed by some that the Migdol mentioned here may
have been any Egyptian fortress. But this is not the case.
There was a fortress, evidently founded by Semites, to
the east of Pi-Hahiroth. When it was taken over by the
Egyptians they retained the Hebrew word for "fortress,"
by which it was called, as its proper name. Thus Migdol
to the Eg3^tians meant, not any fortress, but this particu
lar fortress. Both Ezekiel and Jeremiah mention Migdol
in such a way as to imply, not only that it was a definite
place, but also that it was the first Egyptian city to be met
on a journey into that country.' In the classical refer
ences, we may call attention especially to the itinerary
of Antoninus, which says that Magdolum was twelve
Roman mfles south of Pelusium.'' Bir-Maqtal is its
modern name. It is situated twenty-three mfles northeast
of Ishmaflieh, in the desert. Some scholars, anxious to
locate the Exodus in the south, say that there may have
been a Migdol near Suez. In this regard it is necessary
to remember that there never has been the slightest scrap
of evidence advanced in support of this supposition. It
is an assumption, pure and simple. From all the excava
tions, in the Delta and in other places in Egypt, and from
all the inscriptions so far found, not one statement, not
one intimation has been discovered of any Migdol near
Suez, or anywhere else, for that matter, except south of
Pelusium and east of Pi-Hahiroth. And this location
answers every requirement both of the Bible and of the
inscriptions. ! Ezek. 29:10; 30:6; Jer. 44:1; 46:14.
2 "A Serapio Pelusio mpm LX Thaubasio VIII Sile XXVIII Magdolo
XII Pelusio XII."

i62 THE GOING-OUT FROM EGYPT
Baal-Zephon
The name Baal-Zephon has never been discovered,
exactly as it stands, in the Egyptian uiscriptions. The
name means "Lord of the Northland." But we know
that Ramses III buflt a city in the northeastem Delta,
which he called after his name and dedicated to "Amon
of the Northland.'" This name Zephon is changed by
Ezekiel and Jeremiah to Tahpanhes." This is identical
with the name the Greeks gave to the city of "Amon of the
Northland," i. e., Daphnai, the modern Tel el-Defenneh.
This city Petrie has excavated.^ We know its exact
location, and that it was founded by Ramses III. It is
a few mfles to the west of where the Suez Canal begins,
i. e., a few mfles to the west of where we have located
Pi-Hahiroth. An examination of the map wfll show that the only
place where the Hebrews could hope to penetrate the
natural and artificial fortifications on the border of Egypt
and so pass out into the desert was across the shallow waters
between Lake Balah and Lake Menzaleh. And it is not
at all unlikely that a strong eastem wind'' could so have
driven back the waters from this narrow strip that the
place would have become passable. The two lakes,
Balah and Menzaleh, would then have been the two
metaphorical "waUs of water on either side," of the bib
lical account. Furthermore Lake Menzaleh is reafly
I Papyrus Harris, PI. lo, 1. 12. Cf. PI. 8, 11. 2-8.
'Jer. 2:16; 43:7, 8, 9; 44:1; 46:14; Ezek. 30:18. Hebrew tsade often
becomes t or d in Greek. Cf. Hebrew Zoan and Greek Tannis. Cf. again
Typhon the God of Avaris, the Hyksos stronghold.
3 Cf. Tanis II.
4 On the other hand, an eastern wind on the Red Sea would rather increase
than diminish the water at its northeastern end. An eastern wind on Menzaleh
would have just the effect desired.

14

<3

4^ ^

^ I

P4

i64 THE GOING-OUT FROM EGYPT
not a lake at all, but a bay, an arm of the Mediterranean,
and it therefore is quite properly cafled "the Sea."
Finally that this was the route of the P account is made the
more plain by the statement that after leaving "the Sea"
they came into the wflderness of Shur, which is, as we have
seen, to be found in this locality and nowhere else.
The JED Route
The JED account, on the other hand, places the going-
out quite definitely at the Red Sea. And furthermore,
the JED account nowhere states that there was any pas
sage through the Sea. The easiest explanation of the
JED account, which may again be referred to in the
parallel columns, is this. The Egyptians, pursuing the
Hebrews, followed them out over the sand and mud flats
uncovered by the ebbing tide, where the sand was moist
and the chariots drove heavfly, so that they could make
little progress. There nightfall overtook them. Toward
morning the tide rapidly returned, and, although they
fled, overwhelmed them in the sea. And the Hebrews
saw their bodies washed up on the shore. There is no
supernatural phenomenon necessarfly implied.
This Red Sea of JED cannot be placed in the north,
any more than "the Sea" of P can be placed in the south.
It is of course a mistake to place the Red Sea so far to
the south as Suez, for Heroo-polis is mentioned as being
on its shores, and we know that this city was north of
what we now know as the Bitter Lakes. But though it
extended this far north, it can never be confounded with
the Great Sea or with Lake Menzaleh.
Only on the hypothesis of two exodi, one to the south,
the other to the north, do the two accounts of the route
out of Eg5^t become explainable.

Pi <
WCO Pi
>^<

CHAPTER XV
Dififerences Between P and JED. — The Routes of the
Exodus
From the JED documents we must route the journey
of the Israelites as follows: (i) Red Sea; (2) Marah
(3) Elim; (4) Rephidim; (5) Horeb; (6) Taberah
(7) Kabroth Hattavah; (8) Hazeroth; (9) Kadesh-barnea
(10) Ezion Gaber; (11) Beeroth-bene-jaakan ; (12)
Moserah; (13) Gudgodah; (14) Jothbatha; (15) Zared
(16) Arnon; (17) Beer; (18) Mattanah; (19) Nahaliel
(20) Bamoth; (21) Pisgah; (22) Heshbon; (23) Jaazer
(24) Kedemoth; (25) Jahaz; (26) Edrei; (27) Beth-
Peor; (28) Shittim in Moab.
From the P document we derive the following route:
(i) Raamses; (2) Succoth; (3) edge of Etham; (4) Pi-
Hahiroth; (5) the Sea; (6) the Wflderness of Shur; (7)
Elim; (8) the Red Sea;' (9) the Wflderness of Sin; (10)
the Wflderness of Sinai; (11) Sinai; (12) the Wflderness
of Paran; (13) the Wflderness of Zin; (14) Meribah;
(15) Kadesh-barnea; (16) Hor; (17) Oboth; (18) Ijje-
Abarim; (19) Zared; (20) Plains of Moab; (21) Mount
Nebo. In these two routes there are only three places after
Egypt was left behind that are the same : Kadesh-barnea,
Elim, and Zared.
Of these Kadesh-barnea is the gateway for entrance
into Canaan from the south, and any large number of
people that wished to enter Canaan between the Phflistine
- Here Gulf of Aqabah. 166

THE ROUTES OF THE EXODUS 167
country and Mount Seir would find this spot the only
convenient place to penetrate.
The second name, Elim, is one that occurs as the desig
nation of several places in Palestine. The word is a
plural form, and means "trees," especially oaks or tere
binths. ' In the itinerary according to JE, '' Elim is placed
between Marah and Rephidim. It had twelve wefls of
water, and three score and ten palms. These trees were
undoubtedly regarded as sacred, and had given their
name to the place. Probably it is to be identified with the
modern Wady Gharandel, stfll known for its good water
and its palm trees. The Elim of P,^ on the other hand,
can hardly be regarded as the same place. There was a
place called by the feminine form, Elath, on the Eleanitic
Gulf, which seems to fit well into the route as given in
this document."
Zared, the third point of agreement, is a brook or valley
mnning westward into the Dead Sea through the land of
Edom. Any army entering the east-Jordanic land from
the south would have to cross this brook. It by no means
follows that in the two accounts the crossings were at
the same place. In other words, Zared is reafly not a
point of agreement at all. In fact, from the routes
I Instead of the masculine Elim we often have the feminine Elath. The
forms are used interchangeably.
2 Exod. 15:27. 3 Exod. 16:1.
4 Cf. Deut. 2:8, II Kings 16:6, and II Chron. 26: 2. In all three places the
Greek reads Ailam or Ailon, instead of Elath. In the two last instances we have
a Greek form agreeing with the Hebrew plural Elim. In the first is used the
Arabic masculine plural Ailan. The Eleanitic gulf has received its name from
this Arabic form. The passages cited show that the name could be given either
as a masculine or as a feminine. Pliny locates the place ten miles east of Petra
and 150 miles southeast of Gaza (Pliny, V, s> n. 12). It is identical with
El-Paran in Gen. 14:6. Jerome and Eusebius know it by the name of Ailam
(the biblical Elim).

i68 THE ROUTES OF THE EXODUS
described, it seems very unlikely that the two armies did
cross the brook at the same spot, for in P the route is far
to the west of that in JED.
The other names of stopping-places are entirely diBfer-
ent. It is a hopeless task to seek to identify them. We are
not warranted in assuming that they describe the same
route. Such an assumption cannot be aUowed at afl,
for some of the principal names can be identified today,
and the routes lie far apart.

CHAPTER XVI
Differences Between P and JED. — The Length of the
Wandering
In the P account the avaflable data for time consumed
in wandering through the wflderness are as follows:
(i) The congregation of the chfldren of Israel left Raam
ses on the day after the Passover, i. e., on the fifteenth day
of the first month of the first year. The next day they
marched from Succoth to Etham, and the next from
Etham to Pi-Hahiroth.' (2) They then spent three days
in the wilderness of Shur without finding water. ^ (3)
They arrived in the Wflderness of Sin on the fifteenth day
of the second month. ^ (4) They reached the wfldemess
of Sinai in the third month.'* The day has fallen out of
the text, but tradition has it that it was on the Day of
Pentecost, fifty days after the Passover, the fifth day of the
third month. (5) This is made the more probable by the
next date. Moses was called up into the mountain on
the seventh day,' which would be the last day of the Pente
costal festival. (6) Moses spent forty days on the mount.*
This brings us to the twenty-second day of the fourth
month. (7) The ordinance regarding the Passover was
promulgated in the first month of the second year.' (8)
The people were mustered in the wflderness of Sinai on
I Exod. 12:37; 14: 2.
= Exod. 15:22. According to Num. 33: 8 this wilderness is called the Wilder
ness of Etham.
3 Exod. 16:1. 4 Exod. 19:1.
3 Exod. 24 : 16. This would then be the twelfth day of the third month.
6Exod. 24:18; 32:15, 16. 7 Num. 9:1.
169

I70 THE LENGTH OF THE V^^ANDERING
the first day of the second month of the second year.'
The tabernacle had been made and was now being put up.
(9) The journey from Sinai to the wfldemess of Paran
began on the twentieth day of the second month of the
second year.^ (10) The spies were sent from the Wflder
ness of Paran to spy out the land as far as the Pass of
Hamath.3 After their return the congregation journeyed
and arrived in the wfldemess of Zin in the first month."
The year has here fallen out, but the event is so closely
connected with what has just gone before that the inference
cannot but be that we now start the third year of the wand-
dering. After this time no more dates are given in P,
except that the people mourned thirty days for Aaron in
Mount Hor, ' and that they wept a simflar period for Moses
in the plains of Moab.* As no new year is given in P, and
as we remember the carefulness of the author in record
ing dates, we must assume that the arrival in the plains of
Moab took place in the same year, i. e., the third. There
is absolutely nothing in P to indicate that the journey
from Egypt to Canaan took more than three years. But
even though some may be inclined to doubt the certainty of
this conclusion, there is no room for doubt in regard to
the P chronology of the Exodus up to the arrival in the
wflderness of Zin.
Now, what is true of the chronology of the JED
account ?
(i) The people left Egypt on the fourteenth(?) day of the
month Abib.' (2) During the night of that same day they
passed the Red Sea. (3) Outside of Egypt the first stop-
I Num. 1:1. 4 Num. 20:1. 7 Exod. 13:4.
' Num. 10:11. 3 Num. 2'o:29.
3 Num. I3:2r. * Deut. 34:8.

THE LENGTH OF THE WANDERING 171
ping-place was Marah. The second was Elim.' The
third was Rephidim." They were now at the foot of
Mount Horeb. We know this because whfle they were
at Rephidim Moses was ordered to smite the rock of Horeb
in order to get water for the people.^ The joumey up
to this point would seem to have occupied three days. It
wfll be remembered that when Yahweh appeared to Moses
for the first time, the theophany took place at this same
Mount Horeb.'* There God commanded him, saying,
"When thou hast brought forth the people out of 'Egypt,
ye shaU serve God upon this mountain."' The first object
ive point of the march, then, would be this mountain, in obe
dience to this command. And, further, when God com
manded Moses to bring the people out, he said to him, "And
thou shalt go, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of
Egypt, and ye shaU say unto him, Yahweh, the God of the
Hebrews, has met with us: and now let us go, we pray
thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that] we may
sacrifice unto Yahweh our God."* And again we read
that when Moses did appear before Pharaoh that was the
request he made.' It would seem, then, that the distance
from Egypt to the appointed place of sacrifice, Horeb,
was three days' joumey; and we have found that Rephi
dim, at the foot of Horeb, was the third station on the way.
The stations so far, then, would seem each to have marked
a day's joumey. (5) When the people had left Rephidim,
they were attacked by the Amalekites. After the battle
Jethro visited Moses and offered a holocaust and a sacrifice
at which Aaron and all the elders of Israel came to eat
I Exod. 15:27. 4 Exod. 3:1. 7 Exod. 8:27.
= Exod. 17:1. 3 Exod. 3:12.
3 Exod. 17:6. * Exod 3:18

172 THE LENGTH OF THE WANDERING
bread with him. The next day Moses spent judgmg the
people. It is of course possible that these events took
more than three days, but there is no indication to that
effect in the context. The people were now encamped
before the Mount of Yahweh, i. e., Horeb,' and had been
on the way six days in all. (6) The third day Yahweh
spoke to the people." (7) Then Moses and the twelve
chosen men performed the sacrifice in Horeb. ^ Next
day Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the elders,
went up into the mountain." Moses stayed there forty
days.' He then returned from the mount, put down the
rebellion, and consecrated the Levites.* He then returned
to the mount and stayed another forty days.' (8) The
people then marched three days from the Mount of Yah
weh.* The stations are mentioned as Taberah, Kibroth-
Hattavah, and Hazeroth. This goes to substantiate
our contention that in this narrative a single station means
normally a single day's journey. (9) On account of
Miriam's leprosy the people stayed for seven days at
Hazeroth.' (10) It was eleven days' joumey from Horeb
to Kadesh-barnea. ' ° As Hazeroth most probably belonged
to the Horeb mountain-chain, this period is probably
the time consumed from Hazeroth to Kadesh. Num.
33 : 18-30 seems to indicate that there were twelve stations
from Hazeroth to Moseroth, but as we are not absolutely
certain in identflying the names of the stations in that
list, and as it was made up from the combined E and P
- Exod. 19:2. 6 Exod. 32:29, 30.
2 Exod. 19:16. 7 Exod. 34:28.
3 Exod. 24:4-8. 8 Num. 10:33.
4 Exod. 24:9-11. 9 Num. 12:3-15.
5 Exod. 24:12-150; Deut. 9:9-11. i°Deut. 1:2.

THE LENGTH OF THE WANDERING 173
lists at a late time, it is of minor value. (11) On arriving
at Kadesh the twelve spies were sent to Escol. They
returned after forty days. ' (i 2) When the spies made their
report the rebellion of Kadesh took place, and in punish
ment for it the people were condemned to a forty-years'
wandering in the wflderness. Up to this time the period
which had elapsed was about 183-190 days, i. e., about
half a year.
The forty-years' wandering belongs to this JED story.
It occurs in E sections; in Num. 14:33-34; 32:13;''
33 : 38, ^ and Josh. 5:6. D knows of nothing else than a
forty-years' wandering." Of the prophets, only Amos
refers to it,' and he was the prophet of the Northern King
dom, whose peculiar property, after the division of the
kingdom, the E code was. In Ps. 95:10 there is also a
reference to it. And these are all the references to such
a wandering that there are in the Old Testament. Knowl
edge of such an event is confined to the JED account.
The P account and its followers in their writings imply
a three-years' wandering, and no more.
It is as impossible to reconcfle the two chronologies
of the wandering as it is to identify the two geographies.
I Num. 13:25; 14:34.
2 A section redacted by P.
3 An E statement recorded by a P editor.
4 Deut. 1:3; 2:7; 8:2, 4; 29:5.
3 Amos 2:10; 5:25.

CHAPTER XVII
Differences Between P and JED. — Horeb and Sinai
Are Horeb and Sinai merely different names for the
same place ?
We have already seen that in the JED account it took
the people three days to march from Egypt to Horeb,
where the Decalogue, the giving of the E code, and the
institution of the Levitical priesthood afl took place. We
have also seen that in the P account it took at least forty-
five days for the people to joumey from Egypt to Sinai,
where the Testimonies were given, the P code delivered,
and the Aaronic priesthood instituted.
Horeb
Mount Horeb must then be sought in the immediate
neighborhood of the Red Sea. Tradition has pointed
out the Sinaitic peninsula, and especially Mount Serbal,
as the place where the Decalogue was given and the theo
phany seen, a mount stfll called by the Arabs Et-Tur,
"the Mount," the name being an exact equivalent for the
Hebrew zur, used for Mount Horeb in the JED account.
In the fifth century A. d. the Christian monks were driven
from their monastery on Mount Serbal, and received
a new monastic home from Justinian in Gebel Musa, a
peak to the south of Serbal. The monks now stationed
on Gebel Musa claim that this is the mount where the
Decalogue was given ; but their contention has no support
from the old tradition. Mount Serbal has been singled
out as the true mount by Jewish, Mohammedan, and
174

HOREB 175
Christian tradition. It was a sacred mountain far back
in ante-Christian tunes. Pflgrimages were made to it by
the people living nearby, as the Nabathean inscriptions
from the mount itself plainly testify. At the north end of
it, l)mig at its foot, stretches the beautiful valley or Wady
Firan, which would be the biblical Rephidim. A short
distance to the north of this wady is Serbut el-Khadem,
where Petrie in 1906 excavated and described' the great
temple buflt by Queen Hatshepsut, which, perhaps,
became the model for the Jewish temple idea. It is the
only temple yet excavated which is like the Hebrew tem
ples. There there were altars for holocausts and sacrifices,
otherwise scarcely known to Egyptian temples, but well
known to Hebrew rituals. There Petrie discovered a
number of cow-knages, from seeing which the people may
have been inspired with their desire for the golden calf.
The location of Mount Serbal fits perfectly the distance
which could have been traversed in three days from Egypt.
The biblical Marah, with its bitter waters, would be the
present Ayn Musa, with its sweet and bitter springs.
It lies a little to the south of the present Suez. If the
E exodus took place to the south of Lake. Timsah, it would
then be just a day's journey from the passage of the Red
Sea to this Ayn Musa. Another day would bring the
army to Wady Gharandel, which we feel inclined to
identify with Elim, stfll noted for its trees and good
water. A short journey of half a day would bring them
from there to Wady Firan, or Rephidim, on the north
side of Mount Serbal. We shaU not go far wrong if
we identify Horeb with Mount Serbal, even as tradition
urges us.
I Petrie, Sinai.

176 HOREB AND SINAI
Sinai
As for Sinai, we have already noticed that it took
forty-five, or perhaps fifty days for the army to reach it
from Raamses. Although we may admit that some time
was spent resting at Elim or Elath, nevertheless it is plain
that we deal here with a mountain at a considerable dis
tance from Egypt, and not, as was Horeb, at a distance
of three days only.
Two passages in the Old Testament give clues as to
the location of Sinai. In Deut. 33:2 we read, "Yahweh
came from Sinai, and rose from Seir unto them; he shined
forth from Mount Paran, and they came from the myriads
of Kadesh: at his right hand was a fire, a law unto them."
Again we read, in Judg. 5:4, 5, "Yahweh, when thou
wentest forth out of Seir, when thou marchedst out of the
field of Edom, the earth trembled, the heavens also
dropped, yea, the clouds dropped water. The mountain
quaked at the presence of Yahweh, even yon Sinai, at
the presence of Yahweh, the God of Israel." In both
passages Mount Seir and Mount Sinai are equalized.
The parallelism peculiar to Hebrew verse presupposes
that in these passages Seir and Sinai are to be regarded
as one. Sinai is brought into connection with the fields
of Edom. Ancient tradition has here located Sinai.
And whfle this tradition has pointed out Mount Seir
as Sinai, it has never identified it with Horeb. When
afl these facts are taken into consideration, the location
of Sinai as a peak of Mount Seir is not only possible but
probable. '
I The wilderness of Sin and the wilderness of Sinai are the oases of the
Arabah, between the Seir ranges, from Ezion-Gaber to Petra. The wilderness
of Zin is the oasis of Kadesh, and the wilderness of Paran is the great plateau

SINAI 177
It seems conclusive, then, that Horeb and Sinai
were two distinct and separated places.
south of Kadesh, west of Seir, north of Tih (northem mountain range of the
Sinaitic peninsula), and east of the Wilderness of Shur.
Midian was the land on the western or southwestern slopes of Mount Seir.
Madian (Greek Madiam) was the land on the western shore of the Gulf of
Aqabah. The Amalekites lived in the wilderness of Paran, west of Midian.
While reading page-proof, the author received the last instalment of R.
Weill's article, "Le sejour des Israelites au d&ert et le Sinai dans la relation
primitive, revolution du texte biblique et la tradition christiano-moderne"
{Revue des Etudes Juives, July, 1909, pp. 23-60). The author cannot but admire
M. Weill's solid arguments for locating Sinai in the land of Edom. His criti
cism of some wild-cat theories of radical crijics is also to the point and well
taken. But when Mr. Weill proceeds to identify Horeb and Sinai, locating it in
Edom, by totally discounting the value of the whole E Document on this point,
we have in it only a new reminder of the narrow limitations within which modern
biblical science labors. When facts do not fit theories, throw the facts away.
Now, if anything is certain it is the fact, that in the JE Document, Horeb or
"Mount of God" was situated at the distance of three days' journey from
Goshen. But it is absolutely impossible for any army of 6,000 (or 600,000) men
encumbered by women, children, and cattle, to march from Goshen in Egypt to
Mount Seir in Edom in three days.

CHAPTER XVIII
Differences Between P and JED. — The Sets of Tables
and the Arks
The Two Sets of Tables
At Horeb God gave Moses two Tables of Covenant.'
These were broken by Moses, when he saw that the people
were worshiping the golden calf." But he was ordered
to prepare new tables,^ and on these God wrote the words
of the covenant, "the Ten Words."" Deuteronomy
knows of no other tables save these of the Covenant.'
When Solomon buflt his temple, he placed in it these
same Tables of the Covenant. "There was nothing in
the ark, save the two tables of stone which Moses put
there at Horeb, where Yahweh made a covenant with the
chfldren of Israel, when they came out of the land of
Egypt."* The priestly writer of Chronicles records the
same fact.'
At Sinai, on the other hand, in the P account, Moses
received two Tables of Testimony. "And Moses turned,
and went down from the mountain with the two tables
of the testimony in his hand; tables that were written
on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were
they written."* Are these Tables of Testimony identical
with the Tables of Covenant ? We know that the latter
contained the Decalogue. But there is no hint anywhere
I Exod. 24:12. 3 Exod. 34: t.
" Exod. 32:19. 4 Exod. 34 : 28.
5Deut.4:i3; 5:22; 9:9,10,11.15,17; 10:1-5.
6 I Kings 8:9. 7 II Chron. 5:10. 8 Exod. 32:15.
178

THE TWO SETS OF TABLES 179
in P of the promulgation of any decalogue. Further, it is
explicitly stated that the Tables of Testimony were written
on both sides, which would presuppose quite an extended
document. It would hardly be necessary to use so much
space for the short Ten Words. Furthermore, the Tables
of Testimony must, of course, have contained "testi
monies." The word is a technical one, denoting the
theophany of Yahweh at a given place. The Tables of
Testimony would therefore deal with Yahweh's theo
phany, or, more particularly, with the place where he
would appear. Now immediately after the return of
Moses from the mount with these tables,' we have a
minute description of the pattern of the tabernacle which
Moses buflt, and in which Yahweh dwelt." Moreover
we find that the instmctions concerning the buflding of
the tabernacle had been given to Moses whfle on the
mount.' This section of instructions ends with these
remarkable words, "And he gave unto Moses, when he
had made an end of communing with him on Mount
Sinai, the two tables of the testimony, tables of stone,
written with the finger of God."" The inference is that
God's communication to Moses on the mount was recorded
in these tables, the "testimonies" of which were the ordi
nances on the tabernacle and the priesthood. From a
consideration of the P code itself (the only way we have
a right to consider the code historicaUy) this is the only
inference which can be drawn.
The tables delivered at Sinai, then, and those given at
Horeb appear to have been two different things.
I Exod. 34:29.
¦ Exod. 35:1 — 40:38.
3 Exod. 25:1 — 31:18.
4 Exod. 31:18.

i8o THE SETS OF TABLES AND THE ARKS
The Two Arks
In Deut. io:i-8 Moses relates that he was directed
at Horeb to make not only the two tables of stone, but
also an ark. He made it of acacia wood, and put into it
the Tables of the Ten Words, elsewhere known as the
Tables of Covenant. This ark, from that time onward,
was known as the Ark of the Covenant.' This became
its usual name, evidently because the Tables of Covenant
were inside it.
In the P code, on the other hand, we read that Moses
was ordered at Sinai to make an Ark of the Testimony,"
and that he did so.' It is to be assumed that this name
was derived from the fact that the Tables of Testimony
were kept within it.
The h)^othesis may be advanced that these two arks
were really one and the same. But this is dflficult to
believe in view of their subsequent history. Let us
observe this briefly. The History of the Ark of the Covenant
In the first place, in the march through the wfldemess,
according to the E document, the Ark of the Covenant
was carried in front of the army," whfle in the P document
we constantly read that the Ark of the Testimony was
borne in the midst of the host.' Why the difference ?
When, according to E, the people broke up camp and
set forth from Horeb, the Ark of the Covenant went before
them, and at the secession at Kadesh, it remained with
Moses by the camp.* It was stfll with Moses and his
- Deut. 10 : 8.
"Exod. 25:16, 21, 22; 26:33,34; 27:21; 30:6,26; 31:7.
3 Exod. 39:3s; 40:3. S, 20. 21; Num. 4:5; 7:89.
4 E. g.. Num. 10:33. 5 E. g.. Num. 10:11-28. * Num. 14:44.

THE HISTORY OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT i8i
people, the "priests the Levites" bearing it, when Moses
delivered the D code in Moab.' When Joshua passed
over the Jordan with his army, the Ark of the Covenant
was carried over before them untfl they reached the midst
of the river, where it was held untfl the army had passed
over." When Jericho was captured, the Ark of the Cove
nant was carried by the priests before the army in the
march around the city.' It remained with the camp at
Jericho untfl the whole army went up to take Ai." When
Joshua and his people went up to Ebal and Gerizim to
read and record the D code, the Ark of the Covenant was
with them.'
From I Chron. 17:5, 6 we learn that the Ark of the
Covenant* was not placed in any permanent house of its
own at this time, but that it was continually moved about
from sanctuary to sanctuary, and from tent to tent. We
know of the following stations where it was placed at
different times: Bethel;' Shfloh^ (in the time of Eli);
the battle of Eben-ezer;' in the hands of the Philistines;'"
Ashdod in the temple of the Philistine god, Dagon;"
Gath;'" Ekron;'' Beth-Shemesh'" (where it was restored
to the Hebrew people) ; Kirjath-Jearim;" the house of
Obed-Edom (whither David removed it);'* Jerusalem, the
City of David, at the threshing-floor of Araunah or
•- Deut. 31:9, 25, 26. 8 I Sam. 4:3, 4.
2 Josh., chaps. 3, 4. « I Sam. 4: 5.
3 Josh. 6:4-13. 1° I Sam. 4:11.
4 Josh. 7:6. II I Sam. 5:1.
¦ s Josh. 8:33. 12 I Sam. 5:8.
i5 1 Chron. 17:1. '3 I Sam. 5 : 10.
7 Judg. 20:27. 14 1 Sam. 6:13-15, 18, 19.
IS I Sam. 6:21; 7:1, 2; II Sam. 6:2-9; I Chron. 13:3-9.
iiSIISam. 6:10-12; I Chron. 13:13, 14'

i82 THE SETS OF TABLES AND THE ARKS
Oman;' the temple at Jerusalem (whither Solomon re
moved it)." In every one of these cases it is the Ark of
the Covenant, not the Ark of the Testimony, with which
we are dealing. It was this same Ark of the Covenant
which, after all these wanderings, fimally found rest in
the position of honor in the temple of Jemsalem.
The History of the Ark of the Testimony
Meanwhfle the Ark of the Testimony had a very differ
ent history.
In Num. 4:5 the ordinance is given for the service of
the Levites in taking care of the Ark of the Testimony, and
in Num. 7:8, 9 we are told that Yahweh spoke to Moses
from upon this ark. In Josh. 4: 16 we are told that this
ark was carried up from the Jordan when the P people
entered Canaan. Here all mention of the Ark of the
Testimony ends in the Old Testament.
Instead, there are frequent mentions of the Tent of
Testimony and the Tabernacle of Testimony, in which
the Ark of the Testimony was lodged. And instead of
the language, Tent of Testimony, we have, in a large
number of places, the term, Tent of Meeting. But this
latter term is not to be found in the Greek, which trans
lates the places where the Hebrew has it with the term,
Tent of Testimony. And in this the Greek is probably
correct. In three places the term is used for the tent in
which the Ark of the Covenant was kept. But in P the
term in the original is different, the word being mishkan,
meaning "tabernacle" or "dwelling-place." By these
I II Sam 6:15-17; 15:24, 25, 29; I Kings 3:15; I Chron. 6:31; 15:1 —
17:1; II Chron. 1:4.
"I Kings 6:19; 8:1-9; I Chron. 22:19; 28:2, 18; II Chron. 5:2-10;
6:11, 41; 8:11; 35:3.

THE HISTORY OF THE ARK OF THE TESTIMONY 183
terms we are able to trace the history of the Ark «f the
Testimony. Now, we read in Josh. 18:1, "And the whole congre
gation of the chfldren of Israel assembled themselves
together at Shfloh, and set up the tent of meeting there,
and the land was subdued before them." The words
"congregation" and "tent of meethig" are expressions of
the P document. We find, then, that when the conquest
of Canaan described in P was over, the tent of meeting
was set up at Shfloh. From Judg., chap. 21, and from I
Sam., chaps. 1-4, we know that there was a temple or
house of Yahweh in this place. Even though this temple
may have been in Shfloh before the Tent of Meeting was
set up there, we are not debarred from believing that the
Tent of Meeting was placed there as well. It is to be
noted, however, that nothing is said in this passage about
the holocaust altar. In I Sam. 2:22 there is another
reference to the Tent of Meeting in Shfloh. It is true,
as has often been pointed out, that this statement is lack
ing in the Vatican codex of the Greek. This, though,
does not necessarfly mean that the statement contained
in the Hebrew and the Alexandrian codex is incorrect.
But even in these nothing is said about the holocaust altar.
All we know is that at the end of the conquest the Tent
of Meeting was at Shfloh, and, too, in the time of Eli.
The altar of the holocaust, the "Altar of Yahweh" as it
is cafled, may not, however, have been set up there. There
are indications that it was placed among the Gibeonites.
Later, in I Sam. 14: 18 we are told that the Ark of God
was at that tune in Gibeah. ' The Ark of God referred
I The Greek in this passage, it is true, reads "ephod" instead of "ark," but
both readings should be admitted, for where the ark was there naturally an ephod
would be also.

1 84 THE SETS OF TABLES AND THE ARKS
to here can be only the Ark of the Testimony, because we
know that the other ark, the Ark of the Covenant, was at
that time m Kirjath-Jearim. Gibeah and Gibeon are
probably the same place, the modern Jeba. ' In Gibeah-
Gibeon, therefore, we find under the priestly care of Ahi
jah, great grandson of Eli, the Ark of God, i. e., the Ark
of the Testimony.
When David arranged the courses of the priesthood,
he ordained as follows: "And Zadok the priest, and his
brethren the priests, before the tabernacle of Yahweh,
in the high-place that was at Gibeon, to offer burnt-offer
ings unto Yahweh upon the altar of burnt-offering con-
tinuafly, morning and evening, even according to afl that
is written in the Law of Yahweh, which he commanded
unto Israel."" Here then we have an explicit reference
which states that the Tabernacle of Yahweh, as wefl as
the altar of burnt-offerings, was located in Gibeon.
And this is amply substantiated by the later history of
David and Solomon.
When David had numbered the people, his act dis-
I In the Old Testament we have three local names, Geba, Gibeah, and
Gibeon, which are often confounded. Gibeah and Gibeon were located close
by one another, possibly were the same place, Gibeah denoting the "hill-top,"
and Gibeon the city on the slopes of it. Saul is said to have resided at all three
places (I Sam. 10:26; 11:4; I Chron. 8:29-35; 9:35-41). The place is called
Gibeah of Saul (I Sam. 11 :4), and again Geba of Elohim (I Sam. 10: 5). Ahijah,
son of Ahitub, great-grandson of Eli, had an ephod there, which he as a priest
consulted (I Sam. 14:3). It was in Gibeah that Saul built an altar to Yahweh
(I Sam. 14:35), but Gibeon had a stone, and the probability is that this was the
altar which Saul consecrated (II Sam. 20: 8). While Gibeah was Saul's capital,
Gibeon is referred to as the capital of Ish-bosheth, his son (II Sam. 2:12-24).
When David executed the seven sons of Saul in Gibeah, the Greek reads Gibeon
(II Sam. 21:6). Without denying that there may have been a Geba or Gibeah
farther west, the modern Jib, it seems certain that the Gibeah, Gibeon, and Geba
of Saul and his sons were but different names for the same place.
2 I Chron. 16:39, 40.

THE HISTORY OF THE ARK OF THE TESTIMONY 185
pleased Yahweh, and ati angel with sword drawn appeared
before him in the threshing-floor of Araunah.' This
angel prevented David from going to Gibeon to make
sacrifices there. Because of this, David bought the place
where the angel had stood, and consecrated there an altar
of burnt-offerhig for Israel. "At that time, when David
saw that Yahweh had answered him in the threshing-floor
of Oman the Jebusite, then he sacrificed there. For the
Tabernacle of Yahweh, which Moses made in the wilder
ness, and the altar of burnt-offering were at that time at
Gibeon. But David could not go before it to inquire of
God, for he was afraid, because of the sword of the angel
of Yahweh. Then David said, This is the house of the
Lord God, and this is the altar of burnt-offerings for
Israel."" We have thus two altars of burnt-offerings,
one at Gibeon and the other in Jerusalem. The latter
statement is verified by II Sam. 24:25. We have also a
Tabernacle of Yahweh in Gibeon, at the same time that
the Ark of the Covenant rested in the city of David in
Jerusalem, in a dwelling-place which David made espe
cially for it.
That there was one Ark, that of the Testimony, with
its tent and altar at Gibeon, whfle another, that of the
Covenant, with its tent and altar, was placed in Jerusalem,
is plain from an incident in Solomon's reign. In I Kings
3:4, 5 we are told that when he became king he left the
city of Jemsalem and went up to Gibeon "to sacrifice
there; for that was the great high-place. A thousand
burnt-offerings did Solomon offer upon that altar. In
Gibeon Yahweh appeared to Solomon in a dream by
I II Sam. 24:16; I Chron. 21:15.
»I Chron. 21:28 — 22:1.

1 86 THE SETS OF TABLES AND THE ARKS
night." Then follows the story of Solomon's dream and
the gift of wisdom. Then we read, " And Solomon awoke,
and behold, it was a dream, and he came to Jemsalem,
and stood before the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh,
and offered peace-offerings, and made a feast to afl his
servants."' This account is also contained, a little more fully, in
Chronicles." "So Solomon, and all the congregation
with him, went to the high-place at Gibeon; for there
was the Tent of Meeting of God, which Moses the servant
of Yahweh had made in the wfldemess. But the Ark
of God David had brought up from Karjath-Jearim to
the place that David had prepared for it: for he had
pitched a tent for it at Jemsalem. Moreover the brazen
altar that Bezalel, the son of Uri, the son of Hur had
made, was there' before the Tabernacle of Yahweh: and
Solomon and the congregation sought unto it. And
Solomon went up thither to the brazen altar before Yah
weh, which was at the Tent of Meeting, and offered a
thousand holocausts upon it." Then foflows the same
account of the dream, and of the return to Jerusalem."
The historicity of this account in Chronicles has been
doubted, on the plea that the author was of the late priestly
school, and so untrustworthy, But this can hardly be
maintained in the face of the fact that the author of Kings,
a man of the Deuteronomic school, and using quite differ
ent sources, gives us substantially the same account.
The passage is valuable, for it gives us quite plainly
the information that in Solomon's time there were two
arks. We are told that the Ark of the Covenant was in
I I Zings 3: 15. 3 I. e., in Gibeon.
2 II Chron. 1:3-6. 4 II Chron. 1:7-13.

THE HISTORY OF THE ARK OF THE TESTIMONY 187
Jemsalem. Yet we are informed that the brazen altar
at Gibeon was "before Yahweh," a phrase which can
mean, and does mean, only " before the Ark of Yahweh."
As we know of only two arks among the Hebrews, and
as the Ark of the Covenant was at Jemsalem, and as there
was evidently another one at Gibeon, this latter must have
been the Ark of the Testimony. And this is made the
more certain by the use of the word "tabernacle" in the
passage, a word found only in P, the document wherein
this latter ark was given to the Hebrews.
When Solomon built his temple, it was the Ark of the
Covenant which he placed there.' It is explicitly stated
that "there was nothing in the Ark save the two tables
of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, when Yahweh
made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they
came out of the land of Eg}'pt."" Nothing is mentioned
of the Ark of the Testimony at the consecration of this
temple. What was the further history of this latter ark
is not pertinent to this present inquiry. Perhaps it may
be taken up in some later study.
The point which we have endeavored to prove is that the
Ark of the Covenant and the Ark of the Testimony are two
different things, with two different histories, that they can
not be considered as identical, and that they form one of the
great differences between the Exodus of JED and the
Exodus of P.
I I Kings 8:6.
- 1 Kings 8:9.

CHAPTER XIX
Differences Between P and JED. — The Legislations at
Horeb and Sinai
If, now, we turn to the laws promulgated at Horeb and
Sinai, i. e., the laws of the E and P codes, we find not only
a great difference in phraseology, which might be
accounted for as the result of varying traditions, but a
great difference in content. The enactments are often
so contradictory, so divergent in tone, purpose, and word
ing, that it seems impossible that more than one of the
codes could have been given or accepted at one time.
I. Laws of P Contrary to Laws of E
First of all let us compare some of the laws which differ
from one another:
a) In regard to the place of sacrifice the E code ordains,
"An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt
sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings and thy peace-offer
ings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in every place where I
cause my name to be remembered I wfll come unto thee
and I wfll bless thee.'-" The P code says, "And thou
shalt say unto them. Whatsoever man there be of the house
of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them,
that offers a burnt-offering or sacrifice, and bringeth it
not unto the door of the tent of meeting, to sacrifice it
unto Yahweh, even that man shall be cut off from his
people."" These laws are so entirely contrary to each other that it
seems almost impossible that they are variants of one
I Exod. 20:24. - Lev. 17:8, 9.

LAWS OF P CONTRARY TO LAWS OF E 189
original commandment. Even though we may be wflling
to admit that the P law refers to the wandering in the
wflderness, and the E law to conditions after the settle
ment, the laws cannot have developed out of one original,
common to both.
b) The E law on Hebrew slaves' differs so radically
from the P law on the same subject" that it is hard to see
how they could once have been the same.
c) In E' any sanctuary ("place") or altar is acceptable
as an asylum, but in P" certain cities are appointed for
that purpose.
d) The* law in E on sorcery' is quite different from
those in P.*
e) The offerings in the E code belong to Yahweh, ' but
in P they are handed over to Aaron. ^
/) In E every Israelite is forbidden to eat the flesh of
an animal that has been torn. Such flesh must be thrown
to the dogs.' But in P the Israelite is permitted to
eat such flesh, but it is provided that if he does he shall
be ceremonially unclean untfl even.'°
g) Other laws like those on the Sabbath and the Pass
over show the same marked differentiation.
It is argued that discrepancies and contradictions
such as these are to be accounted for by the lapse of time
between 800 and 444, when the two codes are said to have
been promulgated. But that hypothesis is impossible
to us, who have seen that both these codes were in opera
tion at least three hundred years earlier than either of
- Exod.- 21:2-11. ^ Lev. 19:266, 31; 20:6, 27.
2 Lev. 25:39-46. 7 Exod. 22:290; 23:190.
3 Exod. 21:13, 14. 8 Num. 18:12, 13.
4 Num. 35:9-29. 9 Exod. 22:31.
s Exod. 22:18. 1° Lev. 17:15; cf. Lev. 11:40.

190 THE LEGISLATIONS AT HOREB AND SINAI
these dates, and have concluded that they were most
probably promulgated during the wandermgs in the wfld
erness, even as they themselves say. It would seem then
that the legislations of Horeb and Sinai were two different
things. II. P Laws not Found in E
Admitting the faUacy of the argument from sflence,
it is nevertheless worth noting that P has a large number
of laws not found in E. We have shown above that E
has lost its "statutes" or ritual laws,' and so a comparison
of the codes in this realm cannot be undertaken. But
even the "judgments," or civfl laws, are found to be less
complete in E than in P.
For instance, although the E document knows that
Moses' hand became leprous, and that Miriam was so
smitten with the disease that the camp was delayed for
seven days," stfll E has no law on leprosy; but P has a
very complete law covering the subject.'
E has no law on Nazirites, but P defines that order
minutely. " P has laws, too, on clean and unclean animals, '
on disfigurement in mourning,* tithes,' mazzebas and
stones,* rights and revenues of the tribe of Levi,' Molech-
worship,'" admixtures overstepping the boundaries of
nature," tassels,'" adultery," incest,'" cleanliness in
camp," vows,'* gleanings," just weights,'* etc., of none
of which we have a trace in E.
I Pp. 101-103, 106. 10 Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5.
= Num. 12:15. "Lev. 19:19.
3 Lev., chaps. 13, 14. 1= Num. 15:37-41.
4 Num. 6:1-21. 13 Lev. 18:20; 20:10.
s Lev. 11:2-47. 14 Lev. 18:8; 20:11.
'Lev. 19:28. IS Num. 5:1-4.
7 Lev. 27:30-33. i' Num. 30:2 ff.
8 Lev. 26:10. 17 Lev. 19:9,10; 23:22.
9 Lev. 7:32-34; Num. 18:1-20. 18 Lev. 19:35, 36.

SIMILAR LAWS IN E AND P 191
III. Laws of E not in P
On the other hand, E has the Decalogue, of which P
has not a trace. This law was such an important factor
in the life of the Jews that it is hard to see how P could have
omitted it from the code, if the code were the same as that
of Horeb. In like manner, E has laws on seething a kid in mother's
mflk,' straying animals," seduction,' pledges," and man-
stealing,' of none of which P shows any trace. Some of
these laws we have already found to be very old, as old
as the Code of Hammurabi. But why should they be
left out of P, otherwise so circumstantial and full, which
so often repeats one law over and over ?
IV . Similar Laws in E and P
It is also tme that there are a number of laws in which
E and P agree, and where P certainly seems to record the
same legislation as E does. Compare, e. g., the laws on
idolatry,* manslaughter,' cursing of parents,* lex talionis,^
lying with beasts,'" strangers," usury,"' perjury,'' the
sabbatical year,'" annual pilgrimages," and the Feast
of Unleavened Bread.'*
- Exod. 23:196; cf. 34:266. 4 Exod. 22:26, 27.
= Exod. 23:4, 5. 5 Exod. 21:16.
3 Exod. 22:16, 17.
6 Exod. 20:23 (E); 20:4 (E); 34:17 (J); Lev. 19:4 (P).
7 Exod. 21:12 (E); Lev. 24:17, 216 (P); Num. 35:16 (P).
8 Exod. 21:17 (E); Lev. 20:9 (P).
9 Exod. 21:23-25 (E); Lev. 24:19, 20 (P).
10 Exod. 22:19 (E); Lev. 18:23 (P); 20:15 (P).
II Exod. 22:21 (E); 23:9 (E); Lev. 19:33,34 (P)-
12 Exod. 22:25 (E); Lev. 25:35-37 (P).
13 Exod. 23:1-3 (E); Lev. 19:15, 16 (P).
14 Exod. 23:10, II (E); Lev. 25:1-7 (P).
IS Exod. 23:14-17 (E); 34:186, 22-25 (J); Lev., chap. 23 (P); Num.,
chaps. 28, 29 (P).
16 Exod. 23:15 (E); 34:18 (J); Lev. 23:6 (P).

192 THE LEGISLATIONS AT HOREB AND SINAI
But we have pointed out above' that some of the laws
of P have both the viewpoint and language of the Toledoth
Book, and if we assign that book to the period of the JE
code or codes, we may wefl assume that there were older
P laws, which indeed were promulgated at Horeb and
which descended through certain Levitical clans (the
Mosaic) and were finally merged with the Aaronic laws
of Sinai. ^ p. 56-

CHAPTER XX
Differences Between P and JED. — The Priesthoods
To be able to conclude that a man was a priest it is
not necessary to rely alone on the fact that he was called
a priest. If we find him performing the acts of a priest,
we may safely conclude that he was one.
Now in the E code there are mentioned two men, Moses
and Aaron. The latter is neither called a priest, nor do
we find him performing any priestly acts, except in the
worship of the golden calf, which was admittedly iflegal.
But we do fimd that Moses, though not called a priest,
does perform priestly acts. For instance, it is he, not
Aaron, who offers sacrifices;' it is he who inquires from
Yahweh;" it is he who intercedes for Miriam in her lep
rosy,' as well as at other times;" all of these were priestly
acts. That they were all the priestly acts of the E code we
cannot say, because, as we have seen, the ritual laws of this
code have been lost. This much, however, is certainly
true, that in E it is Moses, not Aaron, who acts as the
priest. And the same thing is true of D and J. Inci
dentally, it may be interesting to note that in this tradition
Aaron is the younger brother of Moses.
In the P code, on the contrary, Aaron is the elder
brother of Moses. Moses ordains him to the priest
hood, whereupon Moses ceases to perform priestly func
tions. Aaron from this time onward is the priest. And
not only does he perform the priestly acts, but from the
I Exod. 24:5-8. 3 Num., 12:13.
2 Exod. 33:7-11. +E. g., Exod. 32:30-34.
193

194 THE PRIESTHOODS
time of his ordination onward he is spoken of as "the
priest," and his sons and successors are called "the sons
of Aaron, the priests." This is plainly a very different
state of affairs from that we found existing in JED.
Possibly this, by itself, might be explained as a mere
difference in tradition. If, though, we were to find that
there were two distinct priesthoods among the Hebrews
in later generations, it would throw confirmatory light
upon the hypothesis that it is a difference in fact, and
not in mere tradition, that exists between the two stories.
And since we have already found so many differences
between them which can hardly be explained as due to
mere varying traditions, the search for such distinct
priesthoods is quite legitimate. What, then, do we find
to be true of the priesthood in later generations ?
"Priest," a Technical Term in P
First of all we wish to emphasize — as has already been
noted — that in the P document the title "the priest" is
affixed to Aaron's name, and this so uniformly that it
becomes almost a part of the name itself. Further, when
Aaron dies, and Eleazar, his son, is ordained to the high-
priesthood, to his name also the title of "the priest" is af
fixed. And this name, as a title, we find never used in JED.
In E, of course, afl the people are spoken of as priests when
they perform priestly acts, and in D all the Levites are so
spoken of when performing their official duties; but the
name is not used as the title of any one man. When,
then, in later periods we find men bearing this title affixed
to their names, it is only natural to associate them with
the priesthood of which Aaron was the founder.
In the P document and code we find, again and again,

EARLY HISTORY OF THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD 19S
in vital connection with this Aaronic priesthood, the
expression, "priests and Levites." It is indeed so common
that whenever we find the expression we are safe in assum
ing that the passage has at least been influenced by a P
author or editor. In the D code we find the expression,
"the priests the Levites," i.e., "the Levitical priests."
When we find this phrase we may with equal certainty
assume a D author or editor. It has long been felt that
the two expressions are by no means synonjnmous, and
that in all probabflity they stand for quite different ideas
and institutions. We have already seen how the Levitical
priesthood in D had its origin and development. It is
now to be our attempt to trace the origin and development
of the Aaronic priesthood, in its triple order of high-priest,
priest, and Levite. Early History of the Aaronic Priesthood
According to the P document, the army that left Egypt
seems to have been exceedingly small. In fact we do not
know of how many men it was composed, because the
second half of Exod. 12:37 belongs, apparently, to E.
There it is stated that there were about six hundred clans
on foot, but the expression "about" betrays no connection
with those of the early compfler of P. We are therefore
left entirely without data in regard to the size of the P
army. We do know that there were three tribes repre
sented in this exodus,' Reuben, Simeon, and Levi. It is
possible that these made up the great bulk of the army.
We need not, however, understand this passage as imply
ing that all the people of these tribes at this time came out
of Egypt. The P editor takes great pains to enumerate
just what famflies of each of them had been in Egypt. Of
: Exod. 6:14-26.

196 THE PRIESTHOODS
the tribe of Levi there had been only three famflies, Ger
shom, Kohath, and Merari. Of these Gershom and
Merari had but two clans each. The famfly of Kohath
had four, the oldest of which was Amram. To this clan
of Amram belonged Aaron and Moses, the latter of whom
became the leader of the people, whfle the former was
chosen to head their priesthood.
Aaron had four sons: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and
Ithamar. The P editor, and later P writers, including
the Chronicler, say that both Nadab and Abfliu died
early in life. It might even possibly be supposed that
these two were not the sons of Aaron according to P at all.
The JE document mentions them as sons of its Aaron, but
knows nothing of either Eleazar or Ithamar.
It was this people that came to Sinai and received the
ordinance to bufld the Ark and Tent of the Testimony.
Aaron was appointed high-priest, and placed in charge
of the worship which was conducted in that tent. His
two sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, but no other Levites, were
appointed to the second order, the priesthood, with a
right for the firstborn of succession to the high-priesthood.
The Levites as a whole were given the menial offices
connected with keeping up the worship.
In the second year of the Exodus, then, according to P
the hierarchy of the Aaronic priesthood consisted of one
high-priest, Aaron, two priests, Eleazar and Ithamar, and
a few Levites from the other nine Levitical clans. We
know that the Levitical clans of Izhar and Uzziel had
only three members each. Thirty Levites would then be a
fair estimate of the number of the third order, this being
probably about as many Levites as there were in the
army. The dimensions of the court around the Tent of

THE MUSTERING AT SINAI 197
Meeting, 50 x 100 cubits, presuppose that there was a very
smaU number of people to be muiistered to. A church
80x160 feet would hardly hold more than, say, 1,500
people, after allowance was made for the brazen altar and
for the Tent of Meeting. Three priests could very well
have handled the service's for a congregation of such a
size, and thirty odd Levites could easfly have taken care
of the tent and its furniture. The Mustering at Sinai
Just after the ordination of Aaron and his sons, and
when the Tent of Meeting had been reared in the wflder
ness of Sinai, Yahweh ordered Moses to take the sum of
the congregation of the chfldren of Israel. Aaron and
Moses complied.' This "numbering" was not a mere
"numbering," but, as the Hebrew word invariably means,
a "mustering-in" of an army. Since there would have
been no point in mustering in an army already in active
service, there must have been new forces to be enrolled.
In other words, Moses' army must have been augmented
at this time.
From whence did these new troops come ? We can,
of course, state that they were Hebrews, and that they
belonged to eleven tribes of the chfldren of Israel. How
many of them came ? We must, of course, discard at the
outset the absurd statement of the P compfler that there
were 603,550. Petrie has shown satisfactorfly' that the
word translated "thousands" should here be rendered,
as in many other places it is, "clans" or "tents." Accord
ing to this, undoubtedly the correct exegesis, afl the people
now numbered 598 clans, or 5,550 soldiers. In the
I Num., chap. 1. » Sinai, pp. 207-15.

198" THE PRIESTHOODS
original P document it stated how many clans and how
many fighting men each tribe had fumished. The com
pfler, taking the word alaph, "clan," ui its other meaning
"thousand," added the number of "thousands" and the
original number of men together, and got 603,550.'
Among these tribes which were "mustered in" were
some Levites, fugitives, we conceive, from Palestine.
They were not numerous enough to make up a tribe, and
so, when the other tribes were "numbered," they were
not included.^ But later on' the Levites had so increased
that they could be "mustered in." Then they included
21 clans — 1,300 persons. The Rebellion of Korah
These Levites we assume had a hereditary right to the
priesthood. But when they placed themselves under
Moses they were put in the charge of Aaron and his sons,
the priests, on a standing equal to that of the Levites who
had been in the army from the beginning. Thus they were
stfll concerned with the worship, but were reduced from
their strictly priestly functions. At first they seemed
content to acquiesce in this arrangement, apparently
satisfied to receive the protection which Moses and his
army afforded them. But this state of content did not
last long, and soon there were murmurs because they had
been reduced to their menial position. This discontent
was headed by one Korah, a Levite. He approached
Moses and Aaron, saying, "Ye take too much upon you,
seeing all the congregation is holy, every one of them, and
I The fact is that in the older books of the Bible numbers of people are
everywhere spoken of by the use of the word meaning "clans'' instead of
"thousands." » Num., chaps, i, 2. 3 Num. 3:15.

THE MUSTERING-IN OF LEVITES 199
Yahweh is among them. Wherefore, then, Ifft ye up
yourselves above the assembly of Yahweh ?" '
Now, as we have seen, this conception of the entire
people as a consecrated priesthood was a part of the E
idea. Consequently this demand of Korah and the two
hundred and fifty princes who were with him, may be
explained as nothing more than a demand that the nation
revert to a regime previously in force and under which the
people, or a considerable portion of them, had long been
living. Now, when we remember that there was no sign
of such murmuring untfl after the mustering-in, what is
more natural than to suppose that these ideas were propa
gated by the new portions of Moses' troops, and therefore
that these recruits came from people then living under the
E code ?
The demand was refused by Moses, and the resulting
rebeUion was put down. Korah and his company at
length perished in a plague. Thereafter the Levites fell
back unquestioningly into that place to which Moses wished
to relegate them. They became the temple servants,
under the control of the Aaronic priesthood so lately
established at Sinai. They were "joined to" the Aaronic
priesthood." The Mustering-in of Levites
It is not to be assumed that afl Levites then existing
joined Moses and Aaron in the wflderness of Sinai and
were thus reduced to this lower grade of ministrations.
We mentioned above that when the eleven tribes were
mustered in there were few Levites among them. Shortly
after, these Levites were enroUed. They had grown to
- Num. 16:36.
" Num. 18:2. The word nilwah is a pun on the name Levi.

200 THE PRIESTHOODS
the number of 21 families, 1,300 persons.' These Levites
were enrolled from a month old, and upward. They were
accepted to redeem the firstborn'' of the other tribes from
serving at the Tent of Meeting.
A few days later there was a new mustering of Levites.
Here the text uses the word for "muster"" instead of the
phrase "enroll by numbering" with which we have been
dealing. This time the mustering is concerned with men
from thirty to fifty years of age, and is evidently for mflitary
purposes. They comprise at this time seven clans, 1,580
soldiers. The difference between the numbers of the
Levites here and at the previous "numbering" is remark
able. The great increase can be accounted for only fl we
assume that between the two there was another large
increase of Moses' forces.
But, large as is this number of Levites who joined
Moses and Aaron at Sinai, we stfll have every reason to
suppose that the greater portion of the Levitical tribe stfll
remained in Palestine, never accepted the Sinaitic code,
and therefore stfll remained Levitical priests. We have
no reason to assume that afl the tribe of Levi ever accepted
the P code.
After the rebellion of Korah, the P document gives but
a scanty record of the proceedings in the wflderness, untfl
the people left the plains of Moab. The only exception
to the general sflence is the record of the death of Aaron
the priest at Mount Hor and the investiture of Eleazar
the priest as high-priest in his father's stead.' In the
- Num. 3:22-43.
' The underlying idea of the universal priesthood in E presupposes that the
firstborn son of each family is to be regarded as the priest of that family.
3 Num. 4:36-48. 4 Num. 20:22-29.

AARONIC PRIESTHOOD IN JOSHUA AND JUDGES 201
plains of Moab this Eleazar the priest led the princes of
the congregation and the army in the war against the
Midianites. Since we saw that the Levites were "mus
tered in,"' we would naturally expect to find them doing
military service; and here we find the leader of the Aaronic
Levitical priesthood in truth the leader of the army.
The Aaronic Priesthood in Joshua and Judges
In the early part of the Book of Joshua we have only a
fragment of the P document, enough to indicate that the
Ark of the Testimony, carried by the priests, passed over
the Jordan with the army, and that the people encamped
and celebrated the Passover. This encampment took
place on the tenth day of the first month, in, as far as we
know, the fourth year of the wandering. Later in Joshua
we have an account of the alliance of this people with the
Gibeonites, by which these Gibeonites became hewers
of wood and drawers of water to all the congregation."
The latter part of Joshua describes the division of the land
under the oversight of Eleazar the priest and Joshua,
son of Nun. Just as Aaron is so often mentioned in the
P document before Moses, so now we find that Eleazar
the priest seems to take precedence over the civfl governor.
Then we are told that the whole congregation of the chfl
dren of Israel assembled themselves together at Shfloh,
and set up the Tent of Meeting there.' In an addition
to the Book of Joshua we are informed that "Eleazar
the son of Aaron died; and they buried him in the hfll
of Phinehas, his son, which was given him in the hfll-
country of Ephraim.""
I Num., chaps. 3, 4. 3 Josh. 18:1.
a Josh. 9:156, 17-21. ¦: Josh. 24:33.

202 THE PRIESTHOODS
The Book of Judges gives us only a few traces of the
institutions of the P code, and those all in the latter part.
At the time of the war against the Benjaminites at Gibeah,
we are told, Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron,
stood before the Ark of God at Bethel.'
The High-Priesthood of Eli
The first four chapters of I Samuel give us the history
of Eli and his two sons, Phinehas and Hophni. This
Hophni is unknown, save in these chapters." Eli also
is unknown outside of them, except in I Sam. 14:3, where
Phinehas is again named as the son of Eli the priest, and
in I Kings 2: 27, where Solomon deposed Abiathar and
thereby cut off the house of Eli from being priests. The
reason for this deposition was that they had greatly
abused the office, and had thereby provoked the anger of
Yahweh against the whole house.
The High-Priests
Who is this Eli ? The Book of Chronicles knows noth
ing of him. We have three lists of the high-priests in
Jerusalem: one in I Chron. 6 : 50-53; another in I Chron.
6 : 3-1 5 ; and a third in Ezra 7 : 1-5. The lists by no means
agree, and there is a serious question as to whether any
of them is worthy of our entire reliance. But in none of
them does the name of Eli appear.
The lists are as follows:

I Chron.

6;

: 50-53

I Chron.

6;

¦3-

-15

Ezra 7:1-5

Aaron

Aaron

Aaron
Eleazar
Eleazar
Eleazar
Phinehas
Phinehas
Phinehas
Abishua
Abishua
Abishua
1 Judg. 20:28. The Greek says "ephod" instead of "ark." Both agree
that Phinehas was there in Bethel at that time.
2 1 Sam. i:y, 2:34; 4:4, 11, 17.
THE HIGH-PRIESTS

203

IChron. 6:sc3-53

I Chron. 6: 3-15

Ezra 7: 1-5

Bukki

Bukki

Bukki

Uzzi

Uzzi

Uzzi

Zeraiah

Zeraiah

Zeraiah

Meraioth

Meraioth

Meraioth

Amariah

Amariah (I)

Ahitub

Ahitub (I)

Zadok

Zadok (I)

Ahimaaz

AhimaazAzariah (I)
Johanan

Azariah (II)'
Azariah
Amariah (II)
Amariah
Ahitub (II)
Ahitub
Zadok (II)
Zadok
Shallum
Shallum
Hilkiah
Hilkiah
Azariah (III)
Azariah
Seraiah
Seraiah
Jehozadak^
Ezra
The third list has two evident lacunae. Six names are
lacking betwen Meraioth and Azariah (II), and one
between Seraiah and Ezra. In this list Ezra comes next
to Seraiah, whfle in the second list Jehozadak is placed
there. Now Jehozadak went into captivty, not later than
587 B. c, whfle Ezra came to Jerusalem at the end of the
captivity, 458 b. c. There is, then, in this place in the
third list a lacuna of ca. 130 years.
In the second list, which seems to be the most complete,
we notice the repeated recurrence of the same names.
There are three Azariahs, two Amariahs, two Ahitubs,
I I Chron. 6 : 10 states that this Azariah executed the high-priestly office in
the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem. But as his son, Amariah, was high-
priest in the time of Jehoshaphat, ca. 870 B. c, this Azariah cannot have been
identical with Azariah, son of Zadok, in the time of Solomon (I Kings 4:2).
' I Chron. 6:15 remarks that Jehozadak went into captivity when Yahweh
destroyed Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadrezzar.
204 THE PRIESTHOODS
and two Zadoks. There is no reason to doubt the cor
rectness of these names. They only go to show that the
same names were often repeated in a given famfly, a phe
nomenon which we might expect from common Semitic
practice.' This fact is to be emphasized, for it is to be
supposed that in later times scribes, finding lists with the
same names, may often have mixed them up, and identi
fied entirely different persons merely because they were
called alike. We shall presently revert to this fact, in
the case of the descendants of Eli, and the priests in the
time of David and Solomon.
But the name of Eli, as we have said, occurs in none of
these lists. It is necessary here for a moment to anticipate
the conclusions reached in the next chapter, and to state
that in our opinion the evidence in P conclusively points
to a date ii 44-1 141 b. c, for the Exodus and entrance
into Canaan therein described. Now the priesthood and
judgeship of Eli took place 11 18-1079 b. c." A compari
son of these dates shows that between the arrival of the
P migration and the beginning of the Eli period there was
a period of only 23 short years.
Now 20 of these are to be set down, according to our
theory, to the judgeship of Samson, a period of the great
est disorder, during which the chaos caused by the entrance
of the P people, as well as the Phflistines, was gradually
being resolved into order. At the end of the period we
find that the land was subdued, and that the ark was
I Cf. the Gospel of Matthew, in re John the Baptist's name.
' We can hardly allot Samuel a shorter judgeship than twelve years, and as
he died, an old man, in the time of Saul, and as it seems necessary to give Saul
forty years, Samuel's birth must have been at least seventy years before Saul's
death. And thus the dates assigned above to Eli's priesthood do not seem at all
improbable.

IDENTITY OF ELI AND ELEAZAR 205
placed at Shfloh, in the charge of Eleazar. But we know
that Eli was priest, in charge of the ark, also at Shfloh.
It is our contention, and we think not an unreasonable
one, in view of what we are convinced is an identity of
chronology, that Eli and Eleazar were one and the same
priest. Identity of Eli and Eleazar
The chief reasons for this identification, aside from the
assumed identity in chronology, are these :
I. Both Eli and Eleazar, son of Aaron, had sons by
the name of Phinehas. This in itself would not indicate
an identity of the fathers, it is true, but the identity becomes
more probable when we note that Phinehas is an Egyptian
name.' It hardly seems probable that an Eg5^tian name
would have been bestowed upon the son of one of the
leaders of a people who had been three hundred years out
of Egypt, as Eli and his son have conventionally been
supposed to have been. It is even more improbable when
we remember that Eli was high-priest, and that Phinehas
is a heathen name. In the case of Eleazar, son of Aaron,
these objections would not apply, for he might have named
the son Phinehas, assuming, as is perfectly possible, that
the latter was born in Egypt before the Exodus began. If
we conclude that Eli and Eleazar were one, afl difficulty
in regard to the name disappears.
2. Furthermore, we read in I Sam. 2 : 27-31 that "there
came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him. Thus
says Yahweh, Did I reveal myself unto the house of thy
father, when they were in Egypt, in bondage in Pharaoh's
house? And did I choose him out of afl the tribes of
Israel to be my priest, to go up unto mine altar, to burn
- 1, e., Pa-nekhsi, "the negro."

2o6 THE PRIESTHOODS
incense, to wear an ephod before me? And did I give
unto the house of thy father afl the offerhigs of the chfldren
of Israel made by fire ? . . . . Behold, the days come that
I wfll cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father's house,
that there shall not be any old man in thine house." And
this prophecy was fulfilled in I Kings 2:27: "So Solomon
thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto Yahweh; that
he might fulfil the word of Yahweh which he spake con
cerning the house of Eli in Shfloh." Now this Abiathar
was a great-great-grandson of Eli, the genealogy mnning
Eli, Phinehas, Ahitub, Ahimelech (LXX, Abimelech),
Abiathar. As the text stands we have no reason to reject a hteral
interpretation. The father of Eli had been in Egypt, in
bondage to Pharaoh, and had been chosen by Yahweh
as his priest. But the house which had been chosen in
Egypt by Yahweh was, as we know, the house of Moses
and Aaron. It was Aaron, the father of Eleazar, who,
in the P document, was chosen to be Yahweh's priest. It
is only the P document which knows of any caUing in
Eg)^t. The JED document knows of one only in Horeb,
and in that it is Moses, not Aaron, who is caUed to be
priest. It is true that in the Old Testament the word "father"
sometimes stands for what we would translate "fore
father." But there is nothing in the passage which would
seem to indicate that this is the meaning here.
From the considerations of chronology, from the simi
larity in the name of Phinehas, and from the prophecy
against the house of Eli, with its reference to the father
called in Egypt, we feel it safe to assume that Eli and
Eleazer were one and the same man.

CONFUSION OF ELEAZAR AND ELIEZER 207
The fact that in the Hebrew the name Eli begins with
a different radical from that which stands at the beginning
of the name Eleazar can hardly be taken as a good argu
ment against this identification. We know that in the
Galflean and Samaritan dialects aU gutturals except h
were treated as in Ass3Tian, i. e., they were practicaUy
unpronounced. The difference in spelling might then be
explained as due to slight dialectic differences. Nor can
there be any legitimate objection raised to the shortening
of the name from Eleazar to Eli. Such abbreviations are
not an uncommon thing in Hebrew.
If Eli and Eleazar were the same, then we know that
the house of Eleazar was the one cut off from the high-
priesthood in the time of Solomon, when Abiathar was
deposed. But this seems to be contrary to all the priestly
lists, which go back to Phinehas, Eleazar, and Aaron.
Confusion of Eleazar and Eliezer
Now we know that the Moses of the E document had
a son whose name was Eliezer, and since he was the son
of the man who in this document is the priest, it is but
natural to suppose that he was a priest as well. This
Eliezer had a brother, Gershom, whose son, Jonathan,
became high-priest in Micah's house, and later in the
sanctuary of Dan. ' We know that in the ancient Hebrew
script the vowel letters were very seldom written out, and
in these old documents there would be absolutely no differ
ence whatever between the appearance of the names
Eliezer and Eleazar.
A later tradition, therefore, promulgated chiefly by the
priests, who knew very well about Eleazar, son of Aaron,
I Judg. 18:30.

2o8 THE PRIESTHOODS
and very little if anything about Eliezer, son of Moses,
would naturafly identify the descendants of these two men.
It is our contention that in the priestly lists of the Chronicler
the names from Abishua down are not those of Aaronic
priests descended through Eleazar and Phinehas, but of
descendants of Moses, priest according to JED, through
Eliezer and his descendants, and that the confusion of the
two lines was due either to ignorance on the part of the
Chronicler, or, as seems more probable, to a desire on
the part of the later priests to connect themselves
with Aaron the high-priest, to whom greater privfleges
had been given than to the priesthood of the JED exodus.
That in this case the Chronicler should have been so
confused as to be utterly unreliable is not improbable
when we consider how mixed he is in other portions of
his priestly lists. In fact, in the later periods the succes
sions and genealogies of the priests and high-priests seem
to have been pretty weU mixed up in all the historians'
minds. Perhaps a portion of these confusions is due to
the mistakes, either wflful or accidental, of those who
transcribed the original writings of such books as Samuel,
Kings, and Chronicles. Confusion of Ahimelech and Abimelech
In one case, at least, we can see that this is so, and even
point out the time when the confusion arose. In many
cases in our Samuel and Chronicles we read of an Ahime
lech. Sometimes he is the son of Ahitub and a descendant
of Eli, and has a son by the name of Abiathar. At other
times he is a son of Abiathar, and has a son by the name
of Jonathan. There seems at first glance a hopeless con
fusion here, and modern critics have advanced aU sorts

CONFUSION OF AHIMELECH AND ABIMELECH 209
of ingenious guesses to explain it. But when we look at
the Greek text we find that this confusion has come into
the Hebrew smce the time that the LXX was translated.
When "Ahimelech" in the Greek is spoken of as the son
of Ahitub, he is always caUed "Abunelech." When the
son of Abiathar is mentioned, the name "Ahimelech" is
retained. Thus there are seen to have been two men who
have, since the translation of the LXX, become confused
in our Massoretic text. And this distinction becomes the
plainer when we note that, whenever the one called in
Greek Abimelech is mentioned in our Hebrew, the title
"the priest" is affixed to the name, and whenever the one
caUed in Greek Ahimelech is mentioned in the Hebrew,
the title is omitted. -i
And this is the more significant when we remember
that "Abimelech the priest" is a descendant of Eli — ^his
great-grandson. As we have seen, the title "the priest"
is a P title and reserved for the high-priesthood of Aaron
and his sons. This Abimelech was a high-priest, although
he is not mentioned in the list in Chronicles. This seems
to show that the high-priestly line of Eli was left entirely
out of consideration by the Chronicler.
At any rate, if confusion such as this between Abime
lech and Ahimelech could arise in later years among the
transcribers of Samuel and Chronicles, why need we wonder
that the high-priestly lists in the latter book should show
as one line a composite of what were originaUy two lines ?
This h}7pothesis alone explains the mysteries involved in
the lists as they stand.
It wfll be seen, then, that there is nothing in the history
of the times of Samuel and Eli which interferes with the
h)rpothesis that there were two lines of priests among the

2IO THE PRIESTHOODS
Jews, that of Aaron (P) and that of Moses (JED). In
fact it may even be said that the history of these times
seems to point in that direction. Let us now pass on to
the priesthood in the time of David and Solomon.
The Priesthoods in the United Monarchy
Most modern critics admit that the division of the
priesthood into courses by David, as recorded in I Chron.,
chaps. 23, 24, is a correct bit of history. For not only is
this division attested by Josephus, but by both Ezekiel
and Nehemiah, who each bear witness to a pre-exflic
division.' David divided the priests as follows :
THE SONS or ELEAZAR ( ?) THE SONS OF ITHAMAR
16 courses 8 courses
Over each course a "prince of the Over each course a "prince of
sanctuary." Elohim."
Over these princes a superior priest, Over these princes a superior priest,
Zadok. Ahimelech.
Over all these priests we must conclude that there was
appointed by David a supreme high-priest, Abiathar, son
of Abimelech." It is tme that in the accoimt of the
division the Chronicler makes no mention of such a high-
priest; and consequently most critics have assumed that
Zadok and Ahimelech were co-ordinately high-priests at
this time. But this seems highly improbable in view of
what happened when Solomon came to the throne. One
of the first things that he did was to depose from the high-
priesthood Abiathar son of Abimelech' (who, as we have
seen, was the great-grandson of Eli). It was at this point
I Neh. 12:1-7, 12-21.
2 Thus the name in the Greek.
3 I Kings 2 : 26.

THE PRIESTHOODS IN THE UNITED MONARCHY 211
that Zadok was raised to the high-priesthood, in Abiathar's
place. Even the Chronicler seems to imply that this was
the case, for he says that at the time Solomon was anointed
to be king Zadok was anointed priest. This certainly
means that he became priest at this time in a sense
that he had not been before, i. e., that he became
high-priest. Moreover, the Chronicler knows of only
one high-priestly line. If he meant to imply that in
David's time both Zadok and Ahimelech were high-
priests, why did he not include them both in his high-
priestly lists?
In view of afl these circumstances, it is our belief that
the two lines of priests systematized by David were by
him made subject to the high-priestly line of Eli or
Eleazar, and that this state of things lasted untfl this
line was abolished by Solomon, and the line represented
by Zadok advanced to the high-priesthood in its
stead. If this be the case, we must suppose that when the
Chronicler calls the line of which Zadok was the head
"the sons of Eleazar," he has again merely fallen victim
to his usual false identification of Eleazar and Eliezer, son
of Moses, and that the line was properly called "the
sons of Eliezer." In other words, we are convinced that
this line of Zadokite priests, advanced by Solomon to the
high-priesthood, was not of Aaronic descent at all, but was
of the Mosaic priesthood of JED.
We then conclude that under David's arrangement of
priests the Mosaic line — that of Eliezer — and the younger
branch of the Aaronic line — that of Ithamar — ^were both
placed in subjection to the elder Aaronic line — the house
of Eli or Eleazar.

212

THE PRIESTHOODS

Our uivestigations have led us to suggest the following
genealogies of priests as probable:

II

Moses

Eliezer

(several generations probably)
Abishua
Bukki
Aaron
(high-priest)
Uzzi
(high-priests)
Zeraiah
Eli (Eleazar)
Ithamar
Amariah
Phinehas
?
rthen:)
Ahitub
?
Ahitub
Abimelech
Abiathar
Zadok (high-priest)
Abiathar
Ahimelech
Ahimaaz (high-priest)
Abiathar
Azariah (high-priest)
Jonathan
and so forth, as in the Chronicler's
high-priestly list.'
But why, it may be asked, should David have united
these various lines of priests ? > The answer is to be found
by a consideration of the circumstances involved in the
history of the beginning of the monarchy.
We know that the home of King Saul was at Gibeah
or Gibeon, and that both of these were Levitical cities.
In this city was located, as we have seen, the Tabernacle of
the Testimony and the altar that Moses and Bezalel made
at Sinai, both of them P institutions, and therefore con-
I The only objection which could possibly be raised to the intrinsic proba
bility of this arrangement is the similarity in names in the different lines of priests.
But of course we must remember that, so far as the two Aaronic lines are con
cerned, similarities in names are only natural. We know of many families where
certain names were regarded as peculiarly the favorites of the whole clan.
Between the Aaronic priesthoods and that of Moses there is only one likeness in
names. There is an Ahitub present in each. But Ahitub we know to have been
axommon priestly name. There is a high-priest of that name, for instance,
much farther down in the Chronicler's list. The names of the various lines.
should cause no difficulty.
THE PRIESTHOODS IN THE UNITED MONARCHY 213
nected with the Aaronic priesthood. On this account we
should expect that Saul was an adherent by residence and
inheritance of the P code and its mstitutions. We have
shown above that m regard to the witches and other
matters it was the P code which he carried out.
There came a breach between Saul and David, and
the latter fled. It is probable that, if there were any other
priestly line than that of P, it would, not bemg m the favor
of the court, aUy itself with those opposing the reigning
king. It is only natural, then, that we should find among
David's adherents, whfle yet he was a freebooter and
pretender to the throne, the priesthood which was headed
by Zadok. This priesthood woifld probably have become
the sole favorite of David, had it not been for an event
which complicated matters. Saul, in rage against the
Eli line, which had aided the fleeing David with some
shew-breads, caused Abimelech, the high-priest in that
line, to be kflled. His son Abiathar saved his own life
only by precipitate flight to David, with whom he
proceeded to make common cause. Thus David had
two priesthoods on his hands.
When at length Saul was overthrown and David had
been king for seven years, the latter succeeded in capturing
Jemsalem, and thus in pacifying his entire kingdom. In
order that this peaceful state of things might be made more
secure it was necessary that he concfliate the various
factions of his people. With all ancient peoples religious
union or faction has had a large influence upon political
union or faction. David, recognizing this, proceeded to
unify the religious life of the people. To do this it was
necessary to recognize in some fashion all the different
lines of Levitical priests that there were. He found the

214 THE PRIESTHOODS
Eliezer line, from Moses, and two Aaronic lines, that of
Ithamar and that of Eli. He found, moreover, that the
last named had always advanced the claim of being sole
high-priests. He acknowledged the integrity of each of
the three lines, and persuaded the Eliezer line and the
Ithamar line to acknowledge a nominal precedence to
the Eli or Eleazar line. In the light of our records of
those times, this seems plainly to have been the course of
events. The amalgamation of the priesthoods was made stfll
more close in the time of Solomon by the deposition of
Abiathar and his, the Eli line, and the advancement of
the Zadokite line to the high-priestly position, a move far
more easy than it would have been in the time of David
because of the greatly increased strength of the monarchy.
Afl of this, of course, had become confused in the time
of the Chronicler, and he remained under the impression
that the line raised to high-priesthood in Solomon's day
was the original Aaronic line of high-priests. Conse
quently he took it that Eliezer, the ancestor of the high-
priests of his day, was the same as the Eleazar, who was
son of Aaron and really the ancestor of the line deposed
by Solomon. The mistake seems natural and easy.
The Priesthoods in Judah and Israel
Let US now consider the history of the priesthood after
the death of Solomon. In this consideration it is impor
tant that there be borne in mind the distinction that exists
between "the priests the Levites," which is the D way of
designatmg its priests, and "the priests and the Levites,"
which is the P way of pointmg out those in charge of the
services. It is further to be considered that these terms

THE PRIESTHOODS IN JUDAH AND ISRAEL 215
were simultaneous, and that the one did not succeed the
other. At the dismption of the kuigdom Jeroboam I, in the
north, established religion on the basis of the E code, as
we have noticed, adding thereto certain innovations.
The fact that any man could become a priest in the north
left the Aaronic priesthood there in a very gloomy state.
Consequently we find that "the priests and the Levites,"
i. e., the P or Aaronic priests, left there and settled in
Judah, under ICing Rehoboam.'
But Rehoboam and his kingdom fell practically into
idolatry." His son, Abijah, followed in his footsteps.
The priesthoods naturally suffered.
In the time of Asa we perceive a religious awakening
in Judah, and we find that Asa made a covenant with the
people on the basis of the P code.^ His son, Jehoshaphat,
continued his policy with even greater zeal for Yahweh
and for the P code.'' The Aaronic priesthood was thus
at this time entirely in the ascendancy in Judah, and it is
to be assumed that the high-priests, being politic, supported
this trend of things, even though they themselves were not
of Aaronic descent. Anyone who carefuUy compares the
P and D codes realizes how much the former is the inferior
in spirituality. It is largely ceremonial in character.
Consequently, when we consider how weak in spiritual
vigor a religion based solely on ceremonial is, it is not to
be wondered at that the religion of these times in Judah
Tas a demoralizing and deteriorating one. No wonder,
I II Chron. 11:13, ^4> ^3'9-
2 II Chron. 12:1; I Kings 14:21-24.
3 II Chron. 15:12-15; I Kings 15:11-15.
4 11 Chron. 17:6-10; 19:4, 8.

2i6 THE PRIESTHOODS
then, that soon after this we find King Jehoram, and the
people with him, turning away from Yahweh, as is related
in II Chron. 21:6.
This apostasy continued down to the reign of Athalia
and Joash. The overthrow of Athalia was entirely
planned by a priest, Jehoiada. It would seem that this
man was not a high-priest, for his name is lacking in the
high-priestly lists, nor is he so cafled in our records. His
royal funeral may point, though, to his having been a high-
priest, and if so, then in this place, too, the Chronicler's
lists are incomplete. At any rate, his reforms were based
on the Law of Moses, or D, and not on P. '
And now begins a period of spiritual awakening which
extends down to the time of Amaziah, during which we
can trace continually the influence of the D code. After
the death of Amaziah, the Aaronic priesthood with its P
code again resumed the ascendency, and irregularities
became noticeable. King Uzziah undertook to enter the
¦temple himself to offer incense. He was withstood and
defied by the high-priest Azariah (HI), who appealed to
the law, which, in this case, could have been only the P
code. "
In the time of Ahaz, grandson of Uzziah, the religion of
Judah was at such a low ebb that Ahaz even closed the
temple and buflt a heathen altar, copied after one in
Damascus, where he sacrificed. The Chronicler himself
attributes this to the low state of the priests. He means
the Aaronic priests, for immediately afterward he cafls
them "the priests and Levites."^
^ II Kings 11:4 ff., 16; II Chron. 23:1 ff., 17.
3 II Chron. 26:16-20.
3 II Chron. 29:34; 30:15.

THE PRIESTHOODS IN JUDAH AND ISRAEL 217
Seeing the dangers besetting his kingdom, and attribut
ing the same to the religious lethargy on the part of his
people, and guided by such men as Isaiah, King Hezekiah,
Ahaz' successor, started a religious reform. He repaired
and reopened the temple, and invited the people both from
the north and from his own kingdom to celebrate the
Passover in Jerusalem in the second month. His zeal for
D institutions is evident everywhere. At this opening
celebration the P priests were considered so far inferior
and so degraded that they were not permitted even to take
part in it untfl they had sanctified themselves, for they
"were ashamed.'" These Levites must, then, have been
a portion of the D priesthood. The reason why "the
priests and the Levites" were thus humfliated can only
have been because they had been serving at the heathen
altars which Hezekiah had just caused to be overthrown."
At this celebration, then, the priesthoods were again
temporarfly united, and the Aaronic priests, who had
become apostates, were forgiven. This we know, for
we read that, during the service, "the priests and the
Levites" rejoiced that they had been healed, whfle at the
same time "the priests the Levites" took their part too,
rising and blessing the people in a manner acceptable to
Yahweh. ^
The next important reign is that of Josiah, Hezekiah's
great-grandson. The impulse of his reform was the
rediscovery of the D code in the temple, although some
of the reforms were, it is true, based on P. This was
in 621. I II Chron. 30:15-17.
2 II Chron. 30:14.
3 II Chron. 30:18-20, 22, 25, 27.

2i8 THE PRIESTHOODS
Ezekiel's Proposed Reform
In 598, Ezekiel was carried away into captivity in
Babylonia, and in 585 he began to write his book of prophe
cies. In this book there are four passages which have
a bearing on the question of the priesthood.
I. "Thou shalt give to the priests the LeAdtes that be of
the seed of Zadok, which are near unto me, to minister
unto me, says the Lord God, a young bullock for a sin-
offering."' 2. "But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that
kept the charge of my sanctuary when the chfldren of
Israel went astray from me, they shaU come near unto m.e
to minister unto me ; and they shall stand before me to offer
unto me the fat and the blood, says the Lord God: they
shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come in unto
my table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my
charge."" 3. "But the Levites that went far from me when Israel
went astray, which went astray from me after their idols,
they shall bear their iniquity. Yet they shafl be ministers
in my sanctuary, having oversight at the gates of the house,
and ministering in the house. They shall slay the burnt-
offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shafl
stand before them to minister unto them  But
they shall not come near unto me, to exercise the office of
priest unto me, nor to come near to any of my holy things,
unto the things that are most holy, but they shafl bear
their shame, and their abomination, which they have
committed."^ 4. "It shall be for the priests that are sanctffied of
the sons of Zadok, which have kept my charge, which
I Ezek. 43:19. ' Ezek. 44= iS-
3 Ezek. 44:10, II, 13.

THE PRIESTHOOD IN THE TIME OF EZRA 219
went not astray when the chfldren of Israel went astray
as the Levites went astray."'
Modern criticism is wont to explain these passages by
sajdng that Ezekiel here tells of the degradation of certain
of the priests because they had been idolatrous. In this
we are wflling to concur, with the further statement that
the priests who were to be degraded were probably of that
line who had been so shamefully lax in their duties in
Judah during the various apostasies of that people, namely
the P priesthood. It will be remembered that when
David divided the courses he had two sets of them, one
headed by Zadok, the other by Ahimelech. The former,
we saw, were of JED origin, the latter of P origin. And in
the former, the line of Zadok, was vested the high-priest
hood after Solomon's deposition of the line of Eli. Now
all that Ezekiel desired was the continuance of this Zadok
ite line, which had proved faithful, and the rejection
of the line of Ahimelech, which was Aaronic, and which
had apostatized. It was the prophet's desire that what
priests there were of that line should be degraded to the
condition of the greater number of the Levitical tribe,
i. e., that they should become what we call technically,
"Levites," or temple servants.
One more thing it is necessary to note in regard to
these words of Ezekiel, i. e., that whatever is written in
his prophecies in this regard cannot be looked on as records
of historical fact, but only as expression of his desires. We
have nothing to show that the thing he advocated was ever
carried out. The Priesthood in the Time of Ezra
The next period to receive attention is that of the return
from exfle. In 537 b. c. there returned 42,000 people.
I Ezek. 48:11.

220 THE PRIESTHOODS
Of these 4,289 were priests, or, practically, one out of
every ten. But there were in this band only 74 Levites
who were not priests!' These 4,289 priests belonged
to only 4 of the Levitical famflies. The number of these
famflies was increased in the high-priesthoods of Jeshua
and Joiakim to 22 famflies. Ezra brought 2 more famflies
with him, one of the line of Eleazar (?), the other of the
line of Ithamar." He succeeded by direct entreaty in
persuading 38 other Levites to accompany him.^ We
have then 112 Levites not priests in Jemsalem. In the
time of Nehemiah there sojourned in the city 1,192 priests,
but only 284 Levites and singers. The rest of the priests
who had com^e from Babylon, of course, were resident
outside the city proper. The Levites, though, had, all
of them, to live in the city in order to care for the temple.
How are we to account for this large number of priests
and this small number of non-priestly Levites ? To our
knowledge no one has advanced any adequate explanation
of this remarkable situation. We venture, therefore, to
advance ours, that the greater number of priests in Jeru
salem and vicmity at this time were not P priests at afl,
i. e., were not of the Aaronic line, but were descendants of
"the priests the Levites" of the Zadokite Ime, i. e., were
priests of the JED code, which had no provisions for non-
priestly Levites. During this whole chapter we have seen
that there never was any reason to suppose that the Aaronic
priests and the Aaronic "Levites" were existent in any
great numbers. Summary
In this chapter we first of all examined the accounts
in the Hexateuch of the instflution of the priesthood, as
! Ezra 2:40; Neh. 7:43. ' Ezra 8:2. 3 Ezra 8:15-19.

SUMMARY 221
contained m the various documents. We found that there
are apparent two distinct priesthoods, one, cafled "the
priests the Levites," in the E and D documents, the other,
caUed "the priests and the Levites," in the P document.
We then concluded that possibly there may have been
two institutions of the priesthood, and not one. We then
took this hypothesis and tested it m the light of the later
history of the Hebrew people. We exammed the history
of the priesthood from the end of the Exodus to the return
from Babylon. We considered the records of: (a) the
time of the Judges; (b) the period of Eh and Samuel;
(c) the reigns of David and Solomon; (d) the period of
the later monarchy from Solomon to Josiah; (e) the period
of the Exfle, as fllustrated by the prophecies of Ezekiel;
and finally (/) the return from Babylon. In every
one of these periods we found that the evidence was
in favor of the h3^othesis of the double priesthood, and
that the distinction seemed to be plainly recognizable
between "the priests the Levites" and "the priests and
the Levites."' In view of all these facts, we venture to
I In connection vrith the question of the priesthoods should be mentioned
the question of the ephods.
In Exod. 28:4 f., a P passage, God commanded Moses to make holy gar
ments for Aaron and his sons. Among these was the ephod, a distinctive mark
of the high-priesthood, or at least of the chief officer of a temple. This ephod was
to be made of gold, blue, purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen (Exod. 28:6).
From Exod., chap. 39, we leam that Moses carried out this command, and from
Lev. 8:7 we find that when Aaron was consecrated high-priest he was clothed
with this ephod. At a later time we find this ephod worn by the high-priesthood,
and referred to simply as "the ephod." Thus Ahimelech had such an ephod,
and so did Abiathar (I Sam. 21:9; 23:6-9).
Besides this ephod we find another mentioned, called "the linen ephod."
Samuel, for instance, was girded in such an ephod (I Sam. 2:18). When the
Ark of the Covenant was brought up from the house of Obed-Edom to Jerusalem,
David was robed in one of these linen ephods (II Sam. 6 : 14; cf. I Chron. 15 : 27).
This latter circumstance connects the linen ephod directly with the worship of

222 THE PRIESTHOODS
present as our conclusion that the hypothesis of a double
exodus, elsewhere so strongly suggested, gains an emphatic
indorsement from the history of the development of the
priesthoods. the Ark of the Covenant, which belongs to JED. The seventy-five priests of
Nob, slain by Saul, were also robed in linen ephods, if we are to trust the Hebrew
text. The Greek reads simply "ephods" (I Sam. 22:18).
A third kind of ephod seems to have been made by Gideon and Micah
(Judg. 8:27; 17:5; 18:14-20). These were of gold, and seemingly differed
from the other two kinds of ephods. Were these the ephods of the missing
"statutes" of E?
With the ephod went the Urim and Thummim stones. These determined
by lot what was the divine will, and they seem to have been used by the chief
priest in each temple (Num. 27 : 21 ; Deut.33:8; ISam.28:6; Ezra2:63; Neh.
7 : 65). It is probable, too, that the Urim and Thummim were used in Judg. 1 : 1.
The breastplate described in Exod. 28 : 29 seems to have belonged exclusively
to the Aaronic priesthood (cf. Lev. 8:8).

CHAPTER XXI
The Dates of the Exodi
In treating of the dates of the exodi, we need great care
in dividuig the text. We have already cafled attention
to the fact that J and E cover the same history, and that
D, written forty years after them, treats of the same
series of events. To this same period undoubtedly belong
those early P records which we cafl the Toledoth Book.
The testimony of all of these documents enables us to
determme the date of the Exodus according to JED.
The P document proper stands by itself. Those sec
tions commonly ascribed to J and E which agree with P
in everything except the use of the divine name, which
critics are growing more and more inclined to regard as
an uncertain criterion, wfll be treated together with P in
determining the date according to that document.
We wfll take up, first of all, the P document and its
chronological testimony. A. The Date According to P
We have already seen that the people in this docu
ment could not have come into Egypt untfl there was a
land of Raamses. We have seen that the city-land known
by this name is not known before the time of Ramses II,
who reclaimed it from the swamps and gained it for cul
tivation. He reigned from 1310 to 1244 B. c' We
know that the city of Raamses was in existence in his
twenty-first year, because he then received the Hittite
I See Appendix II for the chronology of the Nineteenth Dynasty
223

224 THE DATES OF THE EXODI
ambassadors there. We have, then, in his reign a definite
terminus a quo for the settlement of the Hebrews in Egypt.
Even if the settlement was in the reign of Ramses II,
the Oppression, too, could not have been in his reign, for
it is intrinsicaUy improbable that a Pharaoh should, with
out apparent reason, change his attitude from extreme
favor toward the Hebrews to extreme opposition and
oppression. The common critical opinion that Ramses
II was the Pharaoh of the Oppression is one that seems
impossible to hold.
Although we may admit that Joseph came to Egypt
in the reign of Ramses II, it is our belief that probabflity
points to the reign of his successor, Memeptah, as the
time when the settlement proper was made. There are
several lines of circumstantial evidence which seem to
point that way.
We have in Eg5^tian a story, known as "The Tale of
the Two Brothers." It is written on the Papyrus Orbiney,
which belongs to the time of Seti II, last kmg of the Nine
teenth Dynasty, when he was stfll crown-prince. It has
often been observed that this story of Anpu and Bata
shows remarkable simflarity to the story of Joseph, when
he was tempted by his master's wife. What could have
been more natural, if, indeed, the elevation of Joseph
had taken place only some thirty years before the story
was written ?
Now we know that in the time of Merneptah there
were settlements from southern Palestine made in Egypt,
and that these were being made because of lack of food
in the land whence the people came. Papyrus Anastasi
VI, pi. IV, 1. 13, to pi. V, 1. 4, is a letter or report from a
frontier official at the fortress of Merneptah-Hotephirma

Wwo

— W 2'

o =
<: _!
O ^
^-f i-T

-ii W'

Pi

li oop^H0^

REPORT OF A FRONTIER OFFICIAL TO KING MERNEPTA-Continued
{Papyrus Anastasi VI, PI. V, 11. 1-4)

THE DATE ACCORDING TO P 227
in Succoth, and reads as follows: "Another matter for
the satisfaction of my lord's heart: We have finished
passing the tribes of the Shasu of Edom through the
fortress of Merneptah-Hotephirma in Succoth, to the
pools of Pithom, of Merneptah-Hotephurma in Succoth,
in order to sustain them and their herds in the domain of
Pharaoh, the good Sun of every land  I have
caused them to be brought  Other names of days
when the fortress of Memeptah-Hotephurma was passed.
• . . ." In the P document Jacob and his sons come from
Hebron, a land on the border of Edom, from which these
people in the mscription are said to have come. The
Egyptian name "Shasu" refers to the people of southern
Palestine, mcluduig Edom. The word "to sustain"
indicates that they were suffering from famine. There
was then a famine in Palestine in Memeptah's reign,' and
a people from southem Palestine settling because of it
in Egypt.
After Merneptah there were three short reigns, totaling
twenty-three years, or thereabouts, and then a period of
what Ramses III cafls "anarchy." Probably this
"anarchy" began before the twenty-three years mentioned
were over. According to the Osarsiph story, as given by
Josephus, who quotes from Manetho, the disturbance
started in the reign of Amenophis (Amenmeses), under
the leadership of one Osarsiph. This latter became the
mler of a "polluted people," called "lepers" by Manetho,
and he got assistance from people who were his kindred
and who lived in or about Jerusalem. If this revolt were
put down by the Pharaohs who succeeded the period,
f%'i ' For the evidence of a famine in Palestine, yea in Israel, at this very
time in the beginning of the reign of Memeptah, see illustration on next page.

„ ,„  ^^'^^'^^^¦^^'^^^•m)}m>:i>sm
THE ISRAEL STELA OF MERNEPTAH, II. 26-28
(From W. M. Flinders Petrie, Six Temples at Thebes, PI. XIV)
J<.««^ a ™-d»^/<. Egypt. All laJs are l^SZtl^tTl '^Tt "'" '"'"""'^' ^' '"'' "" ^''^''= '"^ ^""'^ ^^-^ ^
pving life like i, evfyday. ' ^^ "'' ^'^'^^^ ^"''^ ""^ '^"^ " '^'^^ " ^"^rti by King Merneptah,

THE DATE ACCORDING TO P 229
namely Nakht-set, who reigned one year, and his son
Ramses III, there would be every excuse for treatuig the
revolters as a subdued people and inaugurating an
oppression. This anarchy, and his puttuig it down, are attested by
Ramses III himself, ui his great Papyrus Harris.' The
quotation follows:
"Said King Usermare-Meriamon (Ramses III), the
great God, to the princes and leaders of the land, the infan
try and chariotry, the Sardinians, the numerous archers,
and afl those living in the land of Egypt :
"Let us hear, when I am informing you of my bene
faction, which I did whfle I was king of the people. The
land of Egypt was overthrown from without, and everyone
was deprived of his rights; formerly they had no superior
for many years, untfl other times (came). The land of
Egypt was in the hands of chiefs and town rulers; one
slew the other, both great and small. Other times came
after it, with empty years, and Osir-siw" (Osarsiph), a
certain man from Kharu,^ was chief among them. He
placed the whole land under tribute to him; he united
together his companions, and plundered their (the Egyp
tians') possessions. They made the gods like men, and no
offerings were presented in the temple.
"Then the gods inclined themselves to peace, and
gave the land its right, according to its accustomed man
ner; they established their son, who came forth from their
limbs, to be mler of all the land, upon their great throne:
I Papyrus Harris, PI. LXXV, 1. i to PI. LXXVI, 1. 6.
a Breasted, ARE, Vol. IV, p. 199, reads yarsu; but see Toffteen, Ancient
Chronology, Part I, p. 208.
3 The Horite land.

^ J f
5^

THE DATE ACCORDING TO P 231
(namely) Userkare-Setepnere-Meriamon, son of Re,Nakht-
set-Mererre-Meriamon. He was Khepri-Set, when he is
enraged. He set in order the enture land, which had been
rebeUious; he slew the rebels who were in the land of
Egypt; he cleansed the great throne of Egypt; he was
ruler of the Two Lands on the throne of Atum. He
restored those ready of face, which had been tumed away.
Everyone recognized agam his brother, after having been
waUed in. He re-established the temples to receive divine
offerhigs, for sacrfficing to the Ennead, according to their
customary stipulations.
"He appointed me to be hereditary prince in the place
of Keb. I became superior prmce of the lands of Egypt,
and commander of the whole land united in one. He
(Nakht-set) went to rest in his horizon like the gods. The
same rites that were performed for Osiris were performed
for him: he was rowed in his royal barge upon the river
and laid to rest in his eternal house in western Thebes.
"Then my father, Ammon-Re, lord of gods, Re-Atum,
and Ptah, beautiful of face, crowned me as lord of the
Two Lands, on the throne of him who begat me. I
received the office of my father with joy. The land rested
and rejoiced, in the possession of peace, being jo}rful over
seeing me as ruler of the Two Lands, like Horus when he
was called to mle the Two Lands on the throne of Osiris.
I was crowned with the Etef crown, bearing the Uraeus.
I assumed the double-plumed diadem, like Tatenen. I
sat upon the throne of Harakhte. I was clad in the regalia
like Atum.
"I organized Egypt into many classes, consisting of
butlers of the palace, great princes, numerous infantry,
chariotry by the hundred-thousand, Sardinians, mnum-

lO \o

00 a>

i

t

III 3 U I
i Jif ill
til III 1
I S 1 J J ^;^ #
5^ 'lID rw) sTf Jl F si\

(34

^ '
^
•^
I 1
@ ^
# ^
THE DATE ACCORDING TO P 233
erable qeheqs, attendants by the ten-thousands, and serf
laborers of Egypt."
Putting the letter to Memeptah, the Osarsiph story
according to Manetho,' and Papyrus Harris together, we
feel that there is every reason for the following historical
reconstruction :
A people from southem Palestine settled in Egypt,
in the most eastern Delta, whfle Merneptah was king,
being driven there by a famine. Under Merneptah's
weak successors, this people arose in rebellion, under the
leadership of Osarsiph, thus precipitating a condition
of general anarchy in the kingdom. This anarchy lasted
for about a generation, when it was put down by Ramses
III and his short-lived predecessor. The leaders in the
anarchy were naturally the ones most severely punished.
And this people who rebelled and were punished,we believe,
may well have been those Hebrews who, according to P,
sojourned in Egypt at this time. And the beginning of
the reign of Ramses III, we are convinced, was the begin
ning of the Oppression according to the P account. This
was in 1181 b. c.
Ramses III reigned thirty-one years, or untfl 1150 b. c.
In his inscriptions there are numerous passages which
state that he used serf labor for the rebufldmg of temples
and cities, among which latter were Raamses, Pithom, and
Northern Heliopolis. Very often we are told that these
serf laborers were Palestinian captives. Ramses III
was succeeded by Ramses IV, who reigned for six years.
Then the records cease very abruptly, and for a long time,
up to the reign of Ramses IX, we know hardly anything
about affairs in Egypt.
I Toffteen, Ancient Chronology, Part I, pp. 159-64.

234 THE DATES OF THE EXODI
It is a remarkable fact that a people called Apwriw,
or Apriw, which a large number of Egyptologists identify
with the Hebrews, is mentioned frequently on the monu
ments in the reigns of Ramses III and Ramses IV; and
then utterly disappears.
We believe that the reign of Ramses IV marks the end
of the Oppression, and that the Exodus took place at the
end of his reign. We date the going-forth from Egypt,
therefore as ca. 1144 b. c.
We then allow three years for the wandering in the
wflderness, for reasons stated above. This brings us to
1141 B. c, which is the beginning of the judgeship of
Samson. And here we call attention to the remarkable
fact that in the Book of Judges the first clear evidence of
the existence of the P code and its institutions is to be found
in the judgeship of this very man.'
The Date According to JED
This date which we have seen made necessary by the
internal evidence of P, absolutely disagrees both with
the statement in I Kings 6 : i that the temple of Solomon
was founded 480 years after the Exodus, and with the
internal evidence furnished by the JED documents.
We know that the temple of Solomon was founded in
the year 968 b. c." According to Kings the Exodus was
480 years before this.^ This would carry us to 1447 ^- ^^
1 E. g., Samson is the first Nazarite known in the Bible; but the law on
eNazaritism is found only in P (Num. 6:1-21).
2 See evidence for this in Toffteen, Ancient Chronology, Part I, pp. 7, 8.
3 The Greek (both A and B) states that it was 440 years. All other ver
sions, however, say 480, except, of course, those based on the Greek. This
difference, at first glance, is very annoying, but can, it seems, be satisfactorily
explained. In the time of Josephus, and, indeed, in the whole Hellenistic

THE DATE ACCORDING TO JED 235
We must note here, that this date is found in an admit
tedly early document, written most probably in the reign
of Solomon, and based on the Canaanitic calendar system
then in use. '
The JED Settlement in Egypt
According to Exod. 12:40 the entrance into Egypt was
430 years before the Exodus. This statement belongs
to the JE document, which uses the Egyptian calendar
system, which has a year of 365 days. The text empha
sizes the fact that the Exodus took place on the very same
day of the month and year that the entrance had taken
place. This would indicate that the text had taken
account of the 107 days that would be the difference
between Julian and Egyptian years in this space of time.
But even if this be not conceded, the difference amounts
to hardly a third of a year, and need therefore not be
taken account of. If the Exodus took place,then, in 1447,
the settlement in Egypt took place in 1877 B. c.
The going into Egypt took place in the third year of a
famine, which began, therefore, in 1880-1879 b. c. Before
this famine there were seven good years, at the beginning
of which Joseph had become governor of Egypt. This
event must have been, then, in 188 7-1 886 B. c. If we could
establish the historicity of Joseph at this time, which we
period, the Jews assumed that the Exodus was identical with the expulsion of
the Hyksos. (See Toffteen, Ancient Chronology, Part I, pp. 155 ff.) If we
now add together the reigns of the kings of Judah from Rehoboam to Zedekiah
inclusive, as given in the Book of Kings, we find that in the Massoretic Hebrew
text the period is 394^ years, but in Greek B (Codex Vaticanus) 429^ years,
and in Greek A (Codex Alexandrinus) 449J years. According to the latter
text the Exodus took place in 1513 which falls within the reign of Thutmose I.
" This is shown by the use of the Canaanitic month-names, and the word
yarakh for month.

236 THE DATES OF THE EXODI
have deduced from the Bible, the statement in Kings
would then become historically very probable.
a) If Joseph became govemor ini887-i886, he must have
been bom in 1917-1916 b. c, for he was raised to power
in his thirtieth year.' As he was sold in his seventeenth

THE REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF KHNUMHOTEP II
Dated in the sixth year of Sesostris II, and announcing the arrival of " 37 Asiatics
of the desert, who are bringing eye-cosmetics."
(From Rosellini, Monumenti Storici, PI. XXVI)
year," his going into Egypt must have been in 1902-1901
b. c. This would be in the reign of Sesostris II (1906-
1887). The monuments acquaint us with the fact, that
in the sixth year of this king, i. e., 1901 b. c, there was a
caravan of thhty-seven Palestinian people, under the
leadership of one Abishah, which visited Khnumhotep II,
a prince or under-king of the nome of Oryx (Benfliassan).
They brought with them eye-cosmetics and other beauti
ful presents, which they presented to the prince. A slave
boy was also m their company. The representations on
I Gen. 41:46. = Gen. 37:2.

THE DATE ACCORDING TO JED 237
the monuments show that these Asiatics possessed a
very highly developed culture. This is shown by then-
gorgeous costumes, their musical mstruments, their
boomerangs and spears. The culture seems equal, if
not superior, to that of Egypt itself.
Now, accorduig to the Bible, the Ishmaelites of the
J story also carried cosmetics down to Egypt.' And
even if it was not in this very caravan that Joseph
was carried as a slave, it is of great value to know
that caravans at this time, even in this very year of 1901
b. c, were passmg from Palestme to Egypt, bearing
down spices and cosmetics and slaves, even as the J
account states. Further, Joseph is said to have been the
possessor of a coat of many colors, i. e., a variegated
coat, and the monument shows that such coats were
the usual wear of these people, at least of the rich
merchantmen." b) We have a stela of Sebek-khu, discovered at Abydos,
and published by Mr. John Garstang in El- Arabah, plate
IV, which throws important light upon the history of this
very time. This stela was erected beside the staircase
of the temple of Osiris at Abydos as a memorial of Sebek-
khu and six of his nearest relatives. His figure appears
on the stela with the superscription "son of Jaqp."^
Before him is an altar with offerings. Then, in two rows,
are the figures of his relatives, three figures to a row.
The name of the last figure in the second row is that of
^£1 Gen., chap. 37.
S\.' ¦'^" '" t^^ monument have them on, except, of course, the slave boy.
^ 3 According to the photograph, this is the reading, and not Yata, as New
berry reads it. Furthermore, the determinative is evidently kp (or kp), not
Tawy.

238 THE DATES OF THE EXODI
his "wife" or "lady," and reads "Is-nt."' The inscrip
tion then reads as foflows:"
"His majesty proceeded northward to overthrow the
Mentiu-Sati. His majesty led the good way in proceeding
to the palace. Sekmem, it had fallen, together with the
wretched Retenu. I was forming the rear guard when
the Ankhu of the army joined in combat with the Aamu
(Palestinians). I captured an Aam, and I caused his
weapons to be seized by two Ankhu of the army, for one
did not tum back from the fight, but my face was to the
front, and I did not give my back to the Aam. As Sesos
tris lives I speak the truth. Then he gave me a staff of
electmm into my hand, a bow, and a dagger wrought with
electrum, together with his weapons.
"The hereditary prince, count, firm of sandal, satisfied
in going, treading the path of him that favors hun, whose
plenty the lord of the Two Lands has fumished, whose
seat his love has exalted, the great commandant of the
city, Zaa, he says, I have made for myself this splendid
tomb, and established its place at the staircase of the Great
God, Lord of Life, Presider over Abydos, at the bend.
Lord of Offerings, and at the bend. Mistress of Life, that
I may smell the incense that com.es forth from this ....
as divine dew.
"The great commander of the city, Zaa, he says, I was
born in the year twenty-seven, under the majesty of the
king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Nub-kau-Re (Amenem-
het II), triumphant. The majesty of the king of Upper
I Newberry reads Nebt-An-nt. But the ire-sign appears below in the
inscription, and is quite different. The sign here comes nearest to the w-sign.
Nebt need not be a part of the name, and from the analogy of the other names
on the stela it is a title, signifying "wife" or "lady."
^ El- Arabah, PI. IV, a reproduction of which is given in PI. I.

PLATE I

', t

U.L :. f_'

* -\ ' '-Et'

- ^' /. »w - .'^ ' ,-; , 'rr, ^c-- -^ i I r /^ ,_" -/'

^'' . :  .• ^' M • i --»~ • I

1

>, ij^ y 'x*'^^ -^:(\,s ':^ »_i - <

STELA OF SEBEK-KHU
(From Gaestang, El- Arabah, PI. W)

THE DATE ACCORDING TO JED 239
and Lower Egypt, Khe-kau-Re (Sesostris III), triumphant,
appeared with a double diadem upon the horus-throne
of the living. His majesty caused that I should render
service as a warrior, behind and beside his majesty, with
five men of the court.
"I was ever ready at his side, and his majesty promoted
me to be a foUower of the ruler. I fumished sixty men,
when his majesty proceeded southward to overthrow the
Troglod)^es of Nubia. I captured a negro .... along
side my city. Then I proceeded northward, following
with six of the court; then he appointed me commander
of the attendants, and gave to me one hundred men as a
reward." In this inscription we have an Egyptian official who
was born in the year twenty-seven of Amenemhet II,
i. e., 1917 b. c. This, it wfll be noted, was the same year
in which Joseph was born, according to the JED account.
In the inscription he passes by entirely the reign of Sesos
tris II. According to the biblical account, Joseph was at
the time of his reign in prison. This officer, Sebek-khu,
got his great promotion at the accession of Sesostris III,
i. e., 1887 b. c. According to JED, this is the same year
in which Joseph was made govemor.
In Gen. 41 : 41-43 we are told that at this time, imme
diately after this elevation, the people started to say before
Joseph, ' ' Abrek. ' ' The proper translation of this is not yet
certain, but it probably means "Bend the knee," or "Bow
the knee," as it is translated in our English versions. It
is worth noticing that the chief title of Sebek-khu, when he
was raised to office, was in Egyptian Wertu which probably
means "commandant," the sign for which, in Egj^tian,
is the sign of a bended knee.

240 THE DATES OF THE EXODI
The name of the father of this Sebek-khu we render
Jaqep. The resemblance between this and Jacob, which
in Hebrew is spelled Jaqob, is so remarkable as to need
no comment.
In Gen. 41 :45 we are told that Joseph received a second
name, "Zaphenath-Paneah." Egyptologists are as yet
unable to agree just what could have been the original
from which this name could have come. But Sebek-khu
also received a second or "beautflul" name, Zaa, which
is an exact equivalent of the first part of this second name
of Joseph's. Joseph's wffe in the JED account is cafled Asenath.'
The wife of Sebek-khu had the name Is-nt, which, vocal
ized, is Asenat.
The most remarkable fact recorded on this tablet of
Sebek-khu's is the expedition to Palestine against the
Retenu and the Aamu of Sekmem. This is the first cer
tain account in the monuments of the Middle Kingdom of
an expedition to this land. The text indicates that there
had been a rebeUion in Sekmem, and that the Retenu had
fallen away. Stfll, from the monuments, we do not know
that Eg3^t had any possessions in Palestine at this time.
And this absence of mention of such territory is the more
remarkable when we remember that the monumental
records of this period are exceedingly fufl. At any rate,
we know that at this time a great mflitary expedition was
sent out to Sekmem. Some scholars have sought to
identify this place with Shechem. But this is probably
incorrect. In the Greek versions there are two words
both of which are rendered in the Hebrew text Shechem,
two words so different as to presuppose different originals.
I Gen. 41:45,50.

THE DATE ACCORDING TO JED 241
One of these is Sychem; the other is Sikima (a neuter
plural). The Hebrew equivalent of the former is Shech
em; of the latter, Shikmim. The Egyptian Sekmem is
an exact renderuig of this latter. A study of the Greek
text shows that Sikima (Shikmim) is a name of the terri
tory around Mount Gerizim, or possibly south thereof,
whfle Sychem (Shechem) was originaUy a personal name,
given to the son of Hamor (the Amorite), who settled in
middle Palestine ui the region afterward cafled Shechem.
The Hebrew text has confounded and identified the two
names. Sebek-khu went down, then, to this Shikmim or Sek
mem and conquered a people cafled the Aamu, who had
rebeUed. Now these Aamu correspond to the biblical
Amorites. When we remember this, Gen. 48 : 22 becomes
significant: "Moreover I have given to thee Sikima
(Shikmim) as a portion above thy brothers, which I took
out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with
my bow." These are the words of the dying Israel to
Joseph. Now, since Joseph had become a subject of the
Egyptian king, his lands had become subject territory
to that king. Further, these Aamu are mentioned as
having fallen in connection with the Retenu, whose land,
at this early time, was the land east of the Jordan, that
land which in the Bible is called the possession of Lot.
Just before Israel died, he requested that he be buried
in the land of Canaan; and after his death Joseph set
out with an expedition to fulfil this dying request. But he
took with him a great army. "With him went up afl the ser
vants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders
of the land of Egypt, and aU the house of Joseph, and his
brethren, and his father's house  And there went

242 THE DATES OF THE EXODI
up with him both chariots and horsemen: and it was a
very great army.'" Why all this force for a mere funeral
expedition? Evidently there were battles to be fought
before that land could be used for burying in which Israel
had asked to be interred.
The funeral expedition proceeded to "the threshing-
floor of Atad, beyond Jordan," and there Israel was buried. "
Now we know that when Israel had settled in Canaan, years
before, he had fixed his habitation in Succoth, south of
the Jabbok, and east of the Jordan.^ A little later he
removed to "beyond the tower of Eder."" This Eder is
identical with the city known elsewhere as Edrei, a city
of Bashan east of the Jordan. It seems probable, then,
that the name of the threshing-floor of Atad is a corruption
of the name of the threshing-floor of Eder, d and r being
exceedingly much alike in Hebrew. This place, and
indeed all this land east of the Jordan, is located in the
land which the Eg3^tians cafled the land of the Retenu.
Nothing is more possible, in view of all these facts, than
that the expedition against the Aamu in Sekmem and
the Retenu is identical with that great warlike expedition
on which Israel was buried. It is true that the Bible
speaks of no great battles fought by this mflitary expedi
tion. But it must be remembered that the biblical writer
is interested here merely with the patriarchal bearing of
the expedition, and not at all with its importance from
the point of view of Egyptian history.
Was this Sebek-khu the man whom we know as Joseph ?
Of course we are not able absolutely to affirm it. But
it is rare indeed that so remarkable a paraflel is found
I Gen. 50:7-9. 3 Gen. 33:17.
2 Gen. 50:10, II. 4 Gen. 35:21.

THE DATE ACCORDING TO JED 243
between biblical narratives and those of the monuments.
Both men are born in the same year, of fathers of the same
name. Both marry wives of the same name. Both are
raised in the same year to an office the title of which in
both cases is the same, at which time both are given "beau
tiful" names that are very simflar. And they both lead
expeditions against the same peoples in the same lands
in the reign of the same king.' This remarkable coinci
dence demands explanation from those who claun that an
Exodus at this early date, which we have deduced from
Kings and the evidence of JED itself, is impossible.
c) Among the scarabs of the Twelfth Dynasty which
have been discovered there are several which bear the
name of Yakeb," and several others with the name Yakeb-
her, which means "the God Yakeb," which corresponds
to the title "King Yakeb." And that this is to be the
meaning attached is plain from the fact that the title
"Son of Re" is on these scarabs, a title which is reserved
for royal personages. Petrie has suggested^ that the
name of this king, who was admittedly not an Eg3^tian,
is derived from that of "the Syrian God Yakeb" (or
Jacob). This might be plausible if there were any evi
dence of the existence of such a God. But unfortunately
there is no such evidence, and his existence is merely
hypothetical. Who then is this king, Yakeb or Yaqeb ?
He cannot be one of the Twelfth Dynasty, for we know
who aU of them were. And moreover, as we have said,
I According to the Bible, Jacob died and was buried ca. i860 b. c. This
is within the reign of Sesostris III (1887-1854 B. c).
' Some read Yakeb, others Yaqeb{p). At this early time there was little if
any distinct difference between k and g. The same thing is true in the early
Babylonian inscriptions.
3 Petrie, History of Egypt, Part. I, p. xxi (4th ed.).

SCARABS OF JACOB
"Son of Re, Yakeb"

SCARABS OF JAQOB-EL
"User-Re, the beloved Son of Re, Ya'=qeb-el, giving life."

(From Newberry, Scarabs, PI. XXII, Nos. 7-12, 27-30; PI. XXIII, Nos. 1-3)

THE DATE ACCORDING TO JED 245
the name is non-Egyptian. Stfll, he lived in Egypt at
this very time. May he not have been the sheik Jacob
of the Bible story ?
Yet one more circumstance remains to be noted con
cerning these scarabs. In the J and E documents Jacob
has two names, Jacob and Israel, corresponding to the
birth name and the throne name of the Egj^tian kings.
Now there is a scarab published by Professor Petrie in
which the birth name is given as Yakeb-her (King Jacob),
and the throne name is Wser-Re. Any Egyptian or non-
Hebrew name beginning in w by the phonetic laws of
Hebrew must be changed to y. In Hebrew, then, this
throne name would be Yser-Re. Now the Egptian Re,
whfle properly the name of the Sun- God of Heliopolis,
was often used for denoting god. This Re then is equiva
lent to the Hebrew El. Thus we get the name Yser-El,
which, of course, is an exact equivalent for Israel. We
have then the record of a non-Egyptian king (of course
an under-king), resident in Egypt in the Twelfth Dynasty,
whose birth name was King Jacob, and whose throne
name was Israel. This is either evidence of the tmth
of the Biblical story, or else it is a most remarkable
coincidence. J) Let us refer back for a moment to Sebek-khu. The
stela that we have discussed was erected in the reign of
Sesostris III, and does not pretend to give his later career.
We know, however, from another monument,' that he
was stfll living in the ninth year of Amenemhet III, i.e.,
1846 B. c. At that time he must have been seventy-one
years old. We find him engaged in superintending the
king's observations of the height of the inundation, with
- Lepsius, Denkmaler, II, 1396.

/VVi-VN

<^^ I
III .

j — IKJ^^frry Q ^i — -A<:=^iiiiOi — fhwoi/ — > o X /-~vv imof

^llhi£Mz:3^ll€^m'^'<^l

I
a I

'.A

INSCRIPTION mentioning;;.sebek-khu
Dated in the 9th Year of Amenemhet III.
(From Lepsius Denkmaler, II. 1396).

THE REIGN OF THE HYKSOS KINGS 247
the title "Commander to the Ruler." Of the end of his
career, or of an)^hing other than this in his later career,
the monuments teU us nothing. There is, then, nothing
in the monuments to contradict any later history of Joseph
which we may find in the Bible, if indeed he and Sebek-khu
are the same man. The Reign of the Hyksos Kings
The Bible tefls us that Joseph died at the age of one
hundred and ten years,' i.e., in the year 1807 B.C.
Strangely enough, this is the date of the death of the first
of the Hyksos or Shepherd Kings.
Manetho, as quoted by Josephus, asserts that the Hyk
sos ruled two hundred and fifty-nine years and ten months.
From the monuments and from Josephus both we draw
the date for the expulsion of these Hyksos from Egypt,
and find that it is ca. 1566 B. c." The beginning of the
Hyksos rule is, then, about 260 years before this date, or
ca. 1826 B. c. This falls within the reign of Amenemhet
III, the successor of Sesostris III. And Josephus indeed
states that he was the ruler at the time.^ This, it wfll be
seen, places the beginning of the Hyksos rule in the nine
teen last years of the Ifle of Joseph as given by the JED
documents in the Bible.
The name of the first Hyksos king was Salitis or Salatis.
This name is a perfectly good Semitic word, and means
"ruler." Our "sultan" is derived from it. The Hyksos
were certainly a Semitic people from the beginning.*
I Gen. 50:26.
2 Toffteen, Ancient Chronology, Part I, p. 192.
3 Toffteen, Ancient Chronology, Part I, p. 153, n. 2.
4 It may be only a coincidence, but it is perhaps worth noting, that Joseph
received the title "governor" in Egypt (Gen. 42:6), which is rendered in
Hebrew with salet, of course, an exact equivalent of Salitis, the first Hyksos
king.

248 THE DATES OF THE EXODI
The second king of this Hyksos Dynasty was caUed
Bnon. He mled for forty-four years after the death of
the first king, Salitis. And Eusebius tefls us that these
two kings were brothers, and adds the interestmg note
that it was in these times that Joseph was in Egypt and
began to mle there. The name of this second king is
surprisingly simflar to Benoni, the name given by Rachel
to her youngest chfld, a name which was changed, by the
father, accordmg to the tribal idea, to Benjamin.' Not
only was Benoni, or Benjamin, Joseph's brother, but he
was his younger brother, and his favorite brother. The
question comes naturafly, "Was Salitis (the mler) Joseph,
and was Bn6n his younger brother Benoni ?"
The latter part of the reign of Amenemhet III was, as
the monuments show, one of perceptibly decreasing
power. And after him one weak king and one weak
queen brought the Twelfth D)masty to an inglorious close.
Meanwhfle the Hyksos, starting, as we have seen, in the
middle of Amenemhet Ill's reign, grew stronger and
stronger, untfl at the close of the Twelfth Dynasty they
were the supreme overlords of Egypt. Is it too much to
suppose that Joseph, as Amenemhet Ill's great minister,
in the latter part of his life grew so strong that he was
able to throw off his allegiance to his weakening lord and
to found a d)masty of his own, that which we cafl the
Hyksos?" There is a blank in the records of the Bible from the
death of Joseph to the birth of Moses. Meanwhfle untfl
Ahmose I's reign, the monuments teU us that Semitic
kings, these Hyksos, ruled in Egypt.
I Gen. 35:18.
' For the relations of the Hyksos to the Twelfth Dynasty, cf. Toffteen,
"Ancient Chronology, Part I, pp. 150, 219.

THE EXODUS OF JED 249
The Exodus of JED
e) FinaUy, under Ahmose I, ca. 1566 b. c, these Hyk
sos were overthrown. They may have been expeUed in
part from Egypt. The monuments, contrary to general
belief, do not give explicit evidence of this expulsion, but
in view of the statements in Josephus it seems probable.
The monuments do imply that many of them were cap
tured and made slaves. And from this time on Semitic
slaves are not uncommon in the inscriptions. That
among these Semitic slaves there were Hebrew slaves is
not hard to believe. May this, then, the overthrow of
the Hyksos, not be the beginning of the enslavement
of the people of which the J and E documents give
evidence ?
It is not hard to calculate the date of the birth of Moses.
He died at the end of the forty years' wandering, forty
years, that is, after the date of the Exodus. This was, of
course, 1407 b. c. He was then one hundred and twenty
years old.' Consequently, he was born about 1526 b. c.
At that time Thutmose I was king of Egj^t.
This king had a daughter named Hatshepsut, one of
the truly remarkable women of all time. She was bom
about 1540-45 b. c. She must, then, have been between
fifteen and twenty years of age when Moses is said to have
been born. The events of Moses' early life and the history
of this Hatshepsut fit together most remarkably. She
became co-regent with her father in 1522 B. c, and, after
his death, became sole ruler of Egypt in 1508 b. c. She
would indeed make a powerful patroness for a humble
Hebrew. She died in i486 B. c, and was succeeded by
her half-brother, Thutmose III, who hated her so that he
= Deut. 34:7.

25° THE DATES OF THE EXODI
erased her name from aU the monuments which he could
lay his hands on. Her partisans, doubtless, aU fled. If
they had not done so, theh deaths must soon have resulted.
Now, if the biblical dates are to be tmsted, this must have
been m Moses' fortieth year, seeing that he was bom in
1526 B. c, and this death took place in i486 B. c. And
Josephus, indeed, states that Moses did flee from Egypt
in his fortieth year.
We know of Thutmose III that he used Asiatic serf
labor for brick-making and for buflding his numerous
temples. So states explicitly his vizier Rekhmhe.' We
know also that he had Hebrews in his army." The cmel,
grhn Thutmose III fits beautifuUy with the Pharaoh of
the Oppression, according to JED.
Thutmose III died in 1450 B. c. If the Exodus took
place in 1447 b. c, then it must have happened in the
reign of Amenhotep II, three years after Thutmose Ill's
death. And indeed the Bible says that Pharaoh the
Oppressor died, and that then it was that God appeared
to Moses and sent him back to lead out the people. Now
Amenhotep's constant title on the monuments is "Ruler
of Heliopolis," which indicates that that was his residence
city. And Heliopolis is only a few mfles distant from
Goshen, where, according to JED, the people were cen
tered. Thus the frequent visits of Moses to Pharaoh were
neither inconvenient nor improbable. And perhaps
the utter absence of aU record of a Hebrew exodus at this
time is due to the fact that most of the inscriptions and
monuments of Heliopolis have been forever lost from the
face of the earth.
. ARE II, 758, 759.
2 Papyrus Harris 500.

PART I
REKHMARE, VIZIER OF THUTMOSE III, INSPECTS THE
BRICKMAKERS
(From Newberry, The Life of Rekhmara, PI. XXI)

PART II
REKHMARE, VIZIER OF THUTMOSE III, INSPECTS THE
BRICKMAKERS
(From Newberry, The Life of Rekhmara, PI. XXI)

THE EXODUS OF JED 253
The Conquest and the Amarna Period
/) Following the Exodus, according to JED, there
was a forty-years' wanderuig in the wfldemess. The
absence of all monumental evidence of this is not surpris
ing, for monuments do not as a rule mark the path of
nomadic tribes. Some forty years after leaving Egypt,
they entered Palestine, i. e., ca. 1407 b. c.
Now at this time Amenhotep III was king of Egypt.
He reigned from 1438 to 1402, and was succeeded by his
son, Amenhotep IV, who mled from 1407 to 1370. During
these two reigns falls the so-called Amarna period, for
during it the Amarna letters were written.
Most of these letters were unearthed in 1888, in the
modern city of Tel el-Amarna. Three hundred and ten
were found at this time. Now there have been discovered
about 350 in all. They are despatches and reports. A
few are written by kings of Babylonia, Assyria, Mit^ni,
the Hittites, and Arzawa, to the kings of Egypt, Amen
hotep III and Amenhotep IV. By far the larger number,
however, are reports to the Egyptian kings, ladies of the
court, and high officials, from Canaanitic princes and
governors. These letters are very important to us in this
our survey, for they expose to view the conditions in all
parts of Canaan at the very time, when, if the biblical
dates are correct, the Hebrew people were entering that
land. At the beginning of the period of these letters it
is plain that Egypt is sovereign over all Canaan. But
it becomes increasingly apparent that the Egyptian power
is in this region a graduaUy declining one. This decline
is seen to be due to two causes, one internal, the other
external. The intemal cause is that several of the tribu-

254 THE DATES OF THE EXODI
tary princes are apparently determined to revolt, whfle
others are equally determined to remain faithful to Egypt.
Thus intrigues are astonishingly frequent and complex,
whfle the most remarkable lies are being continually
passed around in a most unscrupulous diplomacy. Whfle
this internal disruption is weakening their defensive power,
the Egyptian provinces in Canaan are being harassed by
three external trouble-makers.
In the north the Hittites are making conquests, and
moving southward. AU over the land are roving bands,
called sa-gaz, which seems to mean "the robbers," a
people whose origin is unknown, but who may have some
connection with that portion of the Hyksos which had
been driven out of Egypt, ff Josephus be correct, some
century and a half before. In the south, in the vicinity
of Jemsalem, there are two peoples entering from a south
easterly direction, one caUed Ha-bi-re, the other caUed
Sutu. Who were these invaders cafled Ha-bi-re? By
Winckler, and stiU more by Knudtzon, ' they are thought
to have been either precursors of the biblical Hebrews,
or else the biblical Hebrews themselves. It is our firm
conviction that ICnudtzon's supposition is correct, that these
are none else than the biblical Hebrews. Those who
express doubts concerning this seem to do so because of
unwfllingness to accept the biblical dates, and for little
other reason. The names are exactly the same, and the
chronologies fit perfectly.
And even the acts which these Ha-bi-re are represented
as doing are the same, in many instances, as those of the
biblical records. For instance, they attack the city of
I Die El-Amarna-Tafeln, pp. 45-63.

THE EXODUS OF JED 255
Jerusalem.' The Bible, in both Judges" and Joshua, ^
says the same thing.
Again there is a letter'* from a certaui Mut-Baal to
Yanhamu, Egyptain captam-general in Palestine. In it
he reports that a certaui Aiab has fled; that the king of
Bi-ti-lim^ has also fled; that there are three men, Bi-en-e-
ni-(ma), (i)-ud-du-a,* and Ja-shu-ia, whom he thinks
Yanhamu ought to call to account for the defection of these
kings; that some sub-kuig has been driven out of the city
of Astarte; that U-du-mu, A-du-re, A-ra-m, Me-ish-tu,
Ma-ag-da-lim, Hi-ni-a-na-bi, and Za-ar-(ki), all cities of
the land of Ga-re, are in revolt, and that two cities,
Ha-pi-ni' and Ja-bi-shi, have been captured.
How does this fit in with the biblical records of the time
of the conquest ? Aiab, who had fled, may be identified
with the biblical Hobab (which in the Greek is written
- Knudtzon, VB, II, Nos. 285-91. 3 Josh. 10:1-11.
' Judg. 1:21. 4 Winckler, No. 237.
3 The name is generally read Bi-hi-si. Such a local name is otherwise
unknovpn in Palestine, both in the Bible and in the monuments. But the
signs can also be read Bi-ti-lim. Except for the use of t (Hebrew teth) the
name is an exact equivalent of the biblical Bethel. Nor can this be regarded
as an insuperable obstacle, in view of the fact that at this time we not infre
quently find emphatics used where we expect spirants, and vice-versa.
Later. While reading proof of this section, the present writer received
Bohl's Die Sprache der Amarnabriefe (Leipzig, 1909), in pages 18 and 19 of which
are numerous examples of the indiscriminate interchange of d, t, and t in these
letters. Of special interest to us is the use of ti (sign hi) for ti. The identifi
cation of this name Bi-ti-lim, with the biblical Bethel is thus absolutely certain.
6 Only the two last signs are plain in the photograph of this letter. Both
Knudtzon and Winckler read it Ta. The latter part of the sign is, however,
clearly ud, and there are traces of a preceding /-sign.
7 The name Qa-pi-ni, which can also be read Ha-wa-ni, is a geographical
name unknown in eastern Palestine, or in all Palestine, for that matter. I as
sume, therefore, that the scribe has left out the aif-sign, which consists of a single
horizontal wedge, and that the name should be read Ila-aS-pi-ni. This is an
exact equivalent of the biblical Heshbon.

COOI

10

Obvebbe.
m T m -+ g< T- Til m^
-^T £iTtT T?f T TT <<^ H( -rJl ^R
J^ ^ ^ET ^ -T ;^ T-
?=^ fcTT :=: ^ <r- c^TT -gET I
:!= 45= ^ T"«< £U ;4 -TTI^ ^ SIT 4* J5:
^^ -TT<T Til JT litT^ BnT © 4io
-=^ <in -rflL sr? «tT4 tinT m 4
?=^ <!LT -f Zl Bn ^>H t=T? H <T-
T R ^r? tCT &£T ^TT ^ 4 <T-
^jf- ^ ^ri m* 4n gy? ^^ 3r
Revekse.

20

20

25

30

¦^H m-sS T i!- Ml ^
ST H!:T ^^ -+ S^T
jETT - ?K- HL< f^J: 4;: -TT<T
^ ^ H f T -T^Te <in :t<j
0T — ^T? "^ ^TT* -TT<T
eTT "^ J^ -S SfT T? s^ ?TT<T
^TT T? ^T <iLr fcTT T- s=qT 4
^TT H -TtTc H<T <T- fcTT -4 .5= T? f T .:^
^T W <T-TT<T ^m W "i^T -s^TT^ *=1T
j^TT g< .^- 4? ^n ^- .:4 <T- H
H^ 4;: ^T ^Hf- ./ ^ cilT «1T l ^^
ST^ 8^ -TT<T 3T::T J^TIf ^ Tl£T -S ^ 30
£06B.

25

^T^T

•f HL< T{f T 2T^ £T
T? 4eT STtT ST-<r 4!?= 3TtT*

LETTER OF MUT-BAAL
Bu. 88-10-13, 15
(From the Tell El-Amarna Tablets, No. 64)

PLATE II
Obverse

Reveri

1:^' ?-'?^'?;'iiW-

t-ij

LETTER OF J\[rT-BA.\L
(From the Tell El-Amarna Tablets)

THE EXODUS OF JED 257
Aiab), who had been living near Jericho, but who left there
and went up to settle in the highlands of Judah.' The
king of Bi-ti-lim, who also fled, is probably to be identified
with the ruler of the people of Bethel, the house of Joseph
which Joshua persuaded to join his army.'' The letter
places the blame for these defections upon three men. One
of these is (I)-ud-du-a, who may be identified with Ehud,
the judge who lived in Jericho at this very time. ^ Another
of them is Ja-shu-ia, which is so simflar to the biblical
Joshua as to make identification almost instinctive. The
third of the men, Bi-en-e-ni-(ma) may be Beon (or Meon)
of Num. 32 : 3, 38, and the name is identical with the com
mon Hebrew name Benoni. Seven cities of the land of
Ga-re the letter declares to be in rebellion. This is the
same as the Biblical land of Gerah,'' (which name, save
for the late Massoretic pointing, can just as well be read
Gareh), a land in the southem portion of the older land of
Benjamin. Of the seven cities six can be identified with
out much difl&culty with six biblical cities, all in this land,
namely Admah, Eder, Aroer, (Meshah ?), Migdal, Anab,
and Zoar. The sub-king, so says the letter, has been
driven out of the city of Astarte, which, of course, is the
biblical Ashtaroth, captured by Moses. ^ Finally, Ha-pi-ni
and Ja-bi-shi are said to have been captured. These cities
are to be identified with Heshbon captured by Moses, ^
I Judg. 4:11, with which cf. Judg. 1:16 and Num. 10:29.
2 Cf. p. 128. 3 Cf. Appendix II, p. 300.
4 Gera is a "son" of Benjamin. But, as both Ehud and Saul are descen
dants of this Gerah, or Gareh, it is evident that "son" stands here for people
or land. sDeut. 1:4; Josh. 9:10; 12:4; 13:12,31.
6 Num. 21 : 25-34; 32:3, 37; Deut. 1:4; 2:24, 26, 30; 3:2, 6; 4:46;
29:7; Josh. 9:10, etc.

258 THE DATES OF THE EXODI
and Jabesh, a city near-by,' which must also have been
captured by Moses, since he took the whole coimtry round
about.'' According to this letter, then, cities east of the Jordan
have been captured, the land around the Dead Sea and
the lower Jordan is in anarchic revolt, the governor has
fled from Astarte, and, influenced by certain men, several
of the governors have deserted the Egyptian cause. Noth
ing could harmonize better with the events of the last year
of Moses and the first of Joshua, as given us in the JED
accounts in the Bible.
One of the names in Mut-Baal's letter we have read
(I)-ud-du-a. If the reading may be accepted, the iden
tification with the biblical Ehud lies close at hand. It
would seem that this man was quite important, if a num
ber of the letters ascribed to a certain judge Addi belong
to him. The name in these letters is written Si-ip-tu(ti)-
Addi. The first part of the name thus read, Si-ip-tu, is
an equivalent of the Hebrew Sophet,^ meaning "judge."
This much, then, is not a part of the name, but is a title.
This is made the more probable by some other letters
from, we are convinced, the same man, where the name is
written Addi-dan or Addi-siptu. Here the second part
of the name is expressed ideographically with the sign for
"judge."" The important fact is that in these letters
siptu follows after Addi, which in the other letters it pre
cedes, thus showing that it is not an integral part of the
I Judg. 21:8-14.
2 Deut. 2:36; 3:10-16; 4:43; 34:1-4.
3 This is certain, because in one letter, Knudtzon, No. 333, 11. 5, 9, the
name is written with the ideogram for "judge."
4 As the letter comes from Canaan, this second part should evidently be
read as the Hebrew Si-ip-tu or Sophe}, not the Babylonian daian.

Obverse.

10

16

20

T <T-
<T-m^

T t^ ^TH Hfll 3:TI
VtlT -J< -Hf- ^-TT >^^T ^T^T
BT -TT<T H4 ^^ i^^ -TT<T
HfM. 3tT? T?^T *^ J^= -n<T Jfll ^-]} 5
<T-:&* -4- T^ -^ 3-TI <T-^ -+ ^i ^^T?

;??* <T-;^ ^5? <tt >-:et* ^r \

i:^ T£T ^ "tm ^^ ^^
<T>-a*(?)4^4tT <cj:'^^<nT
Hfir ^tT? ^ 7^ H
£^(?) ^T <tt IlrfT ^^

T? 4-

^^T

-TT<T

-n<T- -Til 3::T

=::T?

10

Edge.

Reverse.

.^Jir 3tT? h4 ^ T? ^^ <tt*
T 3tT? -Hf- !i< H >^^T iBi ><T<
-^ -TH <T-m tuT -TH 15
H4 ^ ^^ -TT<T
H^ -^T 4- ^J^T <^5:

¦5=^ <in "TU B^T? —
t^TT ^£T "s^^ -TT<T 
H^ S^T ^T< 3:T?

20

LETTER OF SIPTI-ADDI
Bu. 88-10-13, 36
(From the Tell El-Amarna Tablets, No. 65)

10

m

.w-ff

m

Rs.

20

LETTER OF SIPTI-ADDI
{MOSB, I-IV, No. 200)

Ob'verse
If '^ ^ rrJJ ,Sjf
JdiJ -^^4 £fHT Tr <t.>y cid^
t^j^ «f -4 <T ^ m ^
f "^^H ^ -^ fer *57
tSlA '^ '^>*T if ^
•?^ rrir ^ -f^ET "^fT ,^
'J^r *«^ .^ t^t, 'y^>£ vr A.
IT <p- »f ;^^ fs? »»~ 3?
»" •# ^ <^ ^ ^ .^
•^a^ T^X •»*? ft '<= '^
-? "s^r tin ^^ If K- »?

LETTER OF ADDI, THE JUDGE
Rostovicz 1900
(From Schiel, MAFC, Vol. VI, p. 298)

Reverse
•^ -T^ M -m ^V44^ i^
bf K-^ r^iE 5S»rt ^i<f ^g^ 'T^ 5^
. .Wf^ T •rJt '^ ^T '^ |f< *f ^<
-^ *^ ^r If -^ T Hf4 if '^ RT
.^ *Sf i^ ^ 4- .^ "J^ '^
•5 # ^ J^ ^ Tf ^ 4 ^,
4T^ s^ ->!?? »^ ^^ T^ iffl^
<4 ^^ ^ ^ ^11
,^T ^ -^T if^^m'
rt ,^ P^ ^ -Pifl-
if ^^]Y ^>f^ ^ r^.^
LETTER OF ADDI, THE JUDGE
Rostovicz 1900
(From Scheil, MAFC, Vol. VI, p. 298)

CDCI

Obveksb.

10

15

>^ »
T IlJ
JMf
^ r
tT**

TT
W tH

20

25

30

T?£T T -^^ Til 3j:T? -+ T^ 3tT? I
-Hh 4 S^Tf iET* s^^tT* 3T* I
¦^TtTST^T '^m^m>4:*0) -^] 2T-T
T][£T ^ T^ (?) ^^ rU* Z-T^ -+ T^ lE^T?
-+ 4 StT?* ?J? <T-©*(?) ^5? ¦!=II4T? ->f 5
t^ TET*iT '^^TT* ^T <tt T? ^- ^T T^
ST^ -p^^ T«L :EtT? ST^ "^^TT ^- IH
T?£T »^T JT <T- <tt <tt T?£T
T?£T ^ «^,{ 2T^T <T-Sf -4^ a

4T? ST4* -^^t^XST^t

10

B^ S^T -l< 2T^T Tf ^ ST
¦^T STT* <m T? 4- -^ST H4
-T a* -^^'tZI S-T? T][£T StT7 <I-
<T-m(?) 4- t^^II ST -^^T
- rll Zi^ T?fT >^T M] 15
( St S^Tf Edge.

TU?) im

' t!iT <T- T ^
T^^ -gT ^T

I

Revekse.

:tT? Tf£T I
S^T? i!^" 20

Si;S::Tr <T- ;:?S^T<^ S
ST^* 4^T <T- .w^ -l<
IM sn i^T S££T ^TT
<T-m T?£T £T {? ?TT<T |
fceT -l< ^ .IT ^ 4< -^^ rZl S^T?
<T-© -^LT l^-tS t^^n. ^pT JT -v^
T ;:<< Sj: S^T? .It ^^* -ST -;<
<T-m -^- t^II ST -^^T -P^ rll StT? 25
T? ^T- "^IT -^n .IT -+ v^ 4 1
:e>ST it] StT? t^/ -<T- £<1^ ^-
-^^ T«. StTI T^£T StT? <T- I
-^T -TTi!^ m <tt tTT ^ET 2TtT
t^TT «gT «5N 4: T >:l St StT?30
^11 -^1 2TtT <T-m m"s?p

IH ^U ^T<T -^^ Til StT?

Edge.

LETTER OF ADDA(?) THE JUDGE
Bu. 88-10-13, 1
(From the Tell El-Amarna Tablets, No. 71)

264 THE DATES OF THE EXODI
name, but rather a title. We have thus the welcome
news that in the Amarna period there was a man,
bearing the title ¦ of judge in the same sense that the
word is used in the Book of Judges, at the time when,
according to biblical chronology, Ehud should have
been in that position.
The name of this judge has been read by Winckler
and most other Assyriologists as Addi or Adad. It is
written with the ideograph for Hadad or Adad, An-Im,
and the reading seems to be correct. Knudtzon's reading
of Baal seems to rest on insufficient grounds, for An-Im
most certainly is the ideograph for Adad.
At any rate, in one of these letters' Judge Addi writes
to Eg5^t that his city of Tu-mur(-ka)^ has been taken away
from him, and that there is discontent — even rebellion —
in the city. Now tumur is the Arabic plural of tamar,
meaning "palm-tree," and corresponds to the Hebrew
plural temarim, meaning "palm-trees," which at this time
was the name of Jericho, Ehud's home. This judge, then,
writes that Jericho is in rebellion, and the governorship
has been taken away from him. But at this time, if we
may trust the Bible, Ehud is judge in Jericho, and at this
very tune Joshua with his army is drawing near to take
the city.
Now there was a captain of the army of Yahweh who
visited Joshua a few days before the siege of Jericho began. ^
May not this captain have been the captain of a people
who worship Yahweh, instead of the supernatural, super-
I See inscription on p. 262, 1. 4.
= Knudtzon reads, "from the mountain." The signs are not absolutely
certain, but we prefer Winckler and Scheil's reading, as given.
3 Josh. 5:13, 14-

THE CONQUEST OF JED 265
human agent which people ordinarily suppose him to have
been ? May he not have been even Judge Ehud himself,
who was a Yahweh worshiper and a Hebrew, who, after
his deposition from the governorship of Jericho had
decided to make common cause with Joshua's forces
against the city ? And if this be so we can easily under
stand how the walls of Jericho fell to the invaders at a
shout, a shout which was merely the prearranged signal
for co-operating revolt by a party within the city.
Two letters are written by a certain woman, whose
name has been read in various ways but is not certainly
to be determined.' Her position is so unique that a
number of Assjriologists have compared her with the
biblical Deborah. Possibly the name in this letter should
be read Deborah. But more probably Deborah is a mere
title held by a woman who held the ofl&ce of prophetess,'
whose name has been lost from the biblical records. At
any rate, we have seen above ^ that Deborah belongs to
this very Amarna period, that she was a contemporary
of Joshua, and that she was one of the commanders in the
war with Jabin of Hazor and one of those who thus enabled
the Hebrew peoples to unite permanently.
These examples serve very well to illustrate the bearing
these Amarna letters have on the historicity of the JED
account. The historical situation which they present
as existing in Palestine at this time is exactly that which
the biblical account, from its pomt of view, presents.
I Kundtzon, Die El-Amarna Tafeln, No. 273, reads the name amUtu Belit-
Ur-Ma^Mes, and interprets it "lady of lions."
a Deborah may be connected with Hebrew dabar, "to speak," and debir,
"oracle-place." 3 P. 131; cf. Appendix II, p. 300.

Vs. fFffr^-fr^ rf^

Rs. ^^ ^ #r
ao ffv^ -^r rF ^F ^^
<c^rF^.^rfr <-^ w -^^^ rF
^WM0^ rr ^ K<^
LETTER FROM A LADY IN PALESTINE {Belit-Ur-Mal^-MeS).
V.A.Th, No. i686
(From MOSB, I-IV, No. 137)

Vs. rF;^r -p^r ^ ^E=rF
M^P^ ^pvF ^^
6 V^ '^|:r M Vf^

10

its. .6 tr % -^f^
^r ff ^-^^

¥.

#r tfC^TF

LETTER FROM A LADY IN PALESTINE
(From MOSB, I-IV, No. 138)

268 THE DATES OF THE EXODI
The Midianites in JED
g) The Bible says that, when Moses and his army drew
nigh to Moab, Balak, king of Moab, asked "the elders of
Midian" for aid.' The context indicates that these
Midianites were neighbors of Moab. It is impossible
to assume that Moab was here dealing with the Midianites
of the northem Sinaitic peninsula, or with the Midianites
proper of the land of Mitani in Mesopotamia. Apparently
on the advice of these elders of Midian, Balak sent for
Balaam, a Midian priest. He sent for him clear up to the
city -of Pethor, which is on the upper Euphrates, in the
land of Mitani. This passage has greatly puzzled com
mentators, for a land of Midian in the immediate vicinity
of Moab has been felt to be impossible. The accuracy
of the biblical story has therefore been impugned.
In the summer of 1907, however, Winckler excavated
the ruins of the modern Boghaz-koi, located in Cappodocia,
which proved to be the old capital of the Hittites. Not
only Hittite inscriptions were found, but also some in
Babylonian cuneiform script and language. The history
of the Hittites from the time of Amenhotep III of Egypt
down to the end of the Nineteenth Egyptian Dynasty has
by these excavations been considerably cleared up. It was
in this period that the Hittites began to expand and to go
south to conquer Palestine. There are, consequently,
a number of references to kings and events in Syria and
Palestine. In particular, a good deal of light has been thrown upon
the land of Mitani in Mesopotamia. We knew before,
from the Amarna letters, the names of a few of their great
kings, e. g., Artatama (I), Suttarna, and Dushratta. The
I Num. 22:4.

THE CONQUEST OF JED 269
last was contemporary with Amenhotep III, and lived
a few years into the reign of Amenhotep IV. From these
new inscriptions we learn that there was a branch of the
kingly line, headed by Artatama (II), contemporary with
Dushratta, and surviving him, i. e., in the time of the
Amarna letters, and, if the Bible be correct, the time of
the Hebrew conquest. This Artatama (II) was not king
of the land of Mitini on the upper Euphrates, but ruled
over a people called the Harre, a people which the Hebrews
knew as the Horites, and which we know, both from the
Egyptian inscriptions and from the Bible, lived south and
west from Edom toward the border of Eg5^t. The infer
ence is that this Artatama (II) had come down with some
Mitani followers from the land on the Euphrates, and had
conquered some Horite clan in southern Palestine. There
was, then, a MitS,ni people, a Midian people, who lived
as neighbors to Moab at the time when, according to JED,
Balak of Moab wished to consult them. And the con
nection between these Midianites and those of the parent
land of Mitani is plain in the Bible itself, when we remem
ber that after consulting the elders Balak sent to the home
land, to Midian, or to MitS,ni, up in the north, for a priest
to curse his enemies.'
' MDOG, No. 35, pp. 32 and 37. Another part of the biblical history of
this time receives confirmation and elucidation from these newly discovered
monuments. In Judg. 3:7-11 we are told that "the anger of Yahweh was
kindled against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Cushan-Rishathaim,
king of Mesopotamia." The children of Israel then served this king for
eight years, until Othniel delivered them from him. Who was this Cushan-
Rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia ? The Hebrew name here for Mesopotamia
is Aram-Naharaim, which is the equivalent of the Egyptian Naharina, a part
of which at this time was known by the name of Mitani. The name of the
king himself, Cushan-Rishathaim, is rendered in the Greek, which, as we
have now often said, is usually more accurate than our mutilated Hebrew,
with Cus-Arsathaim. The latter halt of this name is an exact equivalent of

270 THE DATES OF THE EXODI
III. Conclusions
We find, then, that the P account of the Exodus, when
taken by itself, is perfectly authenticated by the monu
ments of the Nineteenth and Twentieth dynasties. We
find, also, that the JED account, when considered apart
from P, and in connection with the statement in I Kings 6 :
I in regard to the Exodus, is authenticated, too, by: (i)
the monuments regarding the Israelites who visited Egypt
at the time of Joseph's being sold; (2) the Sebek-khu
stela; (3) the Jacob and Jacob-Israel scarabs; (4) the
records of the Hyksos; (5) the monuments of Hatshepsut
and Thutmose III; (6) the Amarna letters; and (7) the
newly discovered Hittite inscriptions.
The evidence is so strong that it is without hesitation
that the h)^othesis of two exodi is advanced, and the
following dates assigned to them:
JED
The settlement in Egypt .... 1877 b. c
The beginning of the Oppression . . ca. 15668. c.
The Exodus .... . • i447 b. c.
The beginning of the conquest . . . 1407 b. c.

The settlement in Egypt . . ca. 1340-24 b. c.
The beginning of the Oppression . . . 1183 b. c.
The Exodus  ca.ii44B. c.
The arrival in Palestine . . . ca. 11 41 B.C.
the name Artatama. (When Hebrew sh is a palatal sibilant it is invariably
rendered in Aramaic with a t.) Now, in the inscriptions found at Boghaz-koi,
there is mentioned a city in Mitani called Ku-us-sar, which seems the same as the
first half of the biblical name, i. e., Cus(ar). The name of this king, then, long
so mysterious, means simply Artatama of Ku-us-(sar). There is no doubt that
this "Cushan-Rishathaim" was Artatama, the Midianite king who ruled over
the Horites of southern Palestine (MDOG, No. 35, p. 17).

CHAPTER XXII
Similarities in the Two Stories
The only valid ground of objection to the hypothesis of
the two exodi seems to be that the stories are too similar
to be anjrthing more than different versions of the same
history. Even allowing for the confusion which was
current in the minds of those who in later times combined
the accounts, a fact which must not be underestimated, it
may well be asked, "How can these remarkable similari
ties be explained on this new double-exodus basis ?"
For instance, is it intrinsicaUy probable that there
should have been two exodi of nearly related Semitic
peoples, or even two distinct sojoumings in Egypt ? How
does it happen that the two routes are so similar, and that
they have, practicaUy, the same starting-point and the
same point of arrival ? How can the two very similar
law-givings, the one at Horeb and the other at a different
mountain, Sinai, be explained ? Why are the two sets
of plagues so similar ? FinaUy, and most of all, how does
it happen that both exodi were led by a trio of men of the
same names, Moses, Aaron, and Joshua ?
Of course all these objections are natural, and do
demand an answer. And we must admit that they seem
to us very real and important. On account of them there
was for a long time great hesitancy on our own part about
accepting the suggested h}rpothesis. We recognize the
feeling that is doubtless in the minds of many readers,
the impression that the theory is preposterous, the unwil
lingness to consider it as eveij possible. The plausibility
271

272 SIMILARITIES IN THE TWO STORIES
and value of the theory remain to be considered in the
last chapter. Let us now take up these more prominent
similarities which have occurred to us, and doubtless to
many, if not most, of our readers, and see if their admitted
difficulties are so great as to be insurmountable.
I. The Intrinsic Possibility of Two Exodi
It must be remembered that each of the migrations into
Egypt, if there were two, is accounted for by a famine in
Palestine. It is not to be forgotten that Egypt, especiaUy
the Nile VaUey, was the natural storehouse or granary of
western Asia. It seems probable, then, that there should
have been continual migrations from western Asia into
and out of Egypt, according as the food supplies in these
neighboring countries waned or increased.
And from examination of the monuments we see that
there were many migrations from time to time both into
and out of Egypt from the lands to its east. For example :
(i) in the Xlth Dynasty a Mentuhotep fights Tsdth Asiatics
in the neighborhood of Thebes;' (2) the very large number
of Semitic names found in the monuments of the Xllth
Dynasty show that there must have been numerous Asiatic
settlements in Egypt at that time; (3) the Hyksos people,
from the Xlllth to the XVIIth dynasties, are admittedly
Asiatic; (4) in the XVIIIth Dynasty we have an express
statement by Haremhab that he gave pasture lands to
famine-striken Asiatics; (5) in the XlXth Dynasty we
have another statement, to the effect that Merneptah also
gave pasture lands to other Asiatics, and especiaUy to
Edomites from Mount Seir: (6) in the time of the XXVIth
Dynasty both Greeks and Semites settled in large numbers
in Egypt; and (7) in the Persian period, from Cambyses
I Cf. Toffteen, Ancient Chronology, Part I, p. 234.

THE SIMILARITY OF THE LAVi^-GIVINGS 273
onward, Semites were mustered into the Persian armies
in Egypt, and, as the Asuan-Elephantine papyri attest,
the Jews were numerous in the region of the first cataract.
Prior to this time, the prophecies of Jeremiah testify that
large numbers of Jews settled in Egypt at the FaU of
Jerusalem. Further, the distance from Jerusalem to the border of
Egypt, by way of the PhUistines, was only about two
hundred mUes, and by way of Shur, through the wilderness,
even shorter. Why, in those seminomadic times, should
we deem it improbable that Jewish bands, impelled by
hunger or other causes, wandered down to Egypt and
back again, not two only, but half a dozen times ? The
objection, which may seem at first glance so insurmount
able, reaUy has little force.
II. The Similarity of the Routes
We have shown that the two routes are an)^hing
but identical. Nevertheless it may be urged that their
general outline is suspiciously the same. This may be
granted. The geographical conditions made it possible
to go by land from Egypt to Judaea in only two ways, by
way of the Philistines or by way of Shur. If a man wishes
to take an eighteen-hour train from Chicago to New York,
he has the choice of only two routes. If a traveler takes
two trips on one of these lines, say the Pennsylvania, are
we necessarily to assume that they are not really two trips,
but only one ? The routes taken out of Egypt could not
have been anything else than similar.
III. The Similarity of the Law-Givings
It is urged that both law-givings were on mountains.
But among ancients the mountain was often regarded as

274 SIMILARITIES IN THE TWO STORIES
peculiarly the abode of divinity, and this is especiaUy true
among the Semites. Moreover, Yahweh, the Hebrew
God, was regarded as essentially a mountain-god.
In both cases tables of stone, written with the finger of
God, were deUvered. Stone and clay, though, were only
the common writing materials of that time, as the monu
ments of the Hittites, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the
Babylonians, and the Amarna letters, aU testify. That
in both cases God should be said to have written the laws
is not remarkable or pecuUar to these law-givings. All
laws in those times were supposed to have been given
directly by God. And is it not true that, in the Ham
murabi code, Shamash, the great judge of Heaven, holds
the stylus in his hand as the code is deUvered ?
IV. The Similarities in the Plagues
It may be thought that certainly the plagues are too
much the same for there to have been two sets of them.
But let us see what the plagues are in each of the accounts.
In JED we have: (i) water tumed to blood,' (2) frogs, ^
(3) flies,' (4) Murram,'' (5) haU,^ (6) locusts,^ (7) dark
ness,' and (8) death of the first-born.* In P we find;
(i) water turned to blood,^ (2) frogs,'" (3) lice," and (4)
boUs and blains.'^ It may be considered that the presence
of the Passover presupposes the death of the firstborn in
P. But if our theory be correct this does not necessarily
' Exod. 7:14-18, 2ob-2iab, 226-25.
2 Exod. 8:1-4, 8-1506. s Exod. 9:13-35.
3 Exod. 8:20-32. 6 Exod. 10:1-20.
4Exod. 9:1-7. 7 Exod. 10:21-29.
8 Exod. 11:1-10; 12:11-13, 21-23, 25-27, 29-42.
9 Exod. 7:19, 200, 2ic~P2a. "Exod. 8:16-19.
10 Exod. 8:5-7, ISC. "Exod. 9:8-12.

THE SIMILARITY IN THE NAMES OF THE LEADERS 275
foUow, for at the time of the P exodus the IsraeUtes might
have already the custom of celebrating the Passover intro
duced at the time of the JED exodus long before. The P
account shows only a slight modification in the mode of
celebrating the feast.
There are but two plagues, then, which are the same,
and a third case where they are similar, namely, the fUes
and the lice. The two identical plagues are frequent in
Egypt, even to this day. The reddening of the water is
not unusual, often being due to the decay of vegetable
matter. This rotting assists the rapid production of frogs.
As for the fUes or lice, these are natural where there is
superabundance of animal and vegetable decomposition.
The similarity of the plagues, then, is by no means an
insurmountable difiiculty.
V. The Similarity in the Names of the Leaders
It is true that our Massoretic text calls the leaders of
both exodi by the same names, Moses, Aaron, and Joshua.
But the more ancient and reliable LXX throws some
further light. In that text the name of Moses is generally
written Mouses, but not less than 107 times we find it
written Moses. Upon this, we cannot, of course, buUd too
much. But the presence of these two spellings in the
Greek presupposes an ancient Hebrew in which there were
also two spellings. Is it impossible to assume that these
were originaUy two distinct though similar names, that
they were present in the different documents which were
in the final redactor's hands, that he had forgotten, as
we must admit that he had, the distinction between the
two exodi, and that he hopelessly confused the speUings ?
This hypothesis might be sufficient to solve the diffi-

276 SIMILARITIES IN THE TWO STORIES
culty, but there is still another possible. We learn, in
Exod. 6:9; Num. 3:20; I Chron. 6:19, 47; 23:21, 23;
24:26, 30, that there was a Levitical clan called Mushi,
which is a gentilic of the name Mouses. This was a whole
Levitical clan, any one of which might be called Mouses.
There may have been a thousand Levites, or. almost any
number one chooses to name of Levites, called by this
name. In view of all these facts the explanation advanced
seems to us anything but impossible.
In regard to Aaron the problem is a little more difl&cult.
In all the Old Testament the name appears only in con
nection with the man who figured in the Exodus. But
we venture to suggest there is no positive proof that the
name was not frequent in the older time. Mere silence
does not make a valid argument. Moreover, the name,
as Redslob suggests, may mean nothing more than "the
one who is concerned with the Ark," in which case it was
not a personal name at all, and might have been applied
to many different people.
The name of Joshua remains to be considered. In
Num. 13:8, 16, and in Deuteronomy 32:44, we read
that the name of the Joshua of these documents was
not originaUy Joshua, son of Nun, but Hoshea. In Num
bers 13:16 we are told that "Moses called Hoshea the
son of Nun Joshua."
The names of the leaders, it must be admitted, do pre
sent difl&culties, but perhaps not such great ones as might
at first be supposed.

CHAPTER XXIII
Conclusion
This study of the historicity of the Exodus has now been
completed. What the value of the theory of the double
exodus may be, of course the author cannot determine.
At all events he is certain that it will only prove valuable
as it may prove to be true. It is the result of a great many
years of study and of consideration of the evidences fur
nished both by the Hebrew documents and by the monu
ments and inscriptions of the period. It is not at all from
a desire to obtain notoriety that he has here presented
his behefs. It is not from a desire to oppose or overthrow
the valuable critical endeavors of the past. Least of all
is it from a desire to destroy the traditional interpretations
which for ages have prevailed. It is merely from a wish
possibly to throw some light on what is admittedly one
of the most difficult problems connected with Holy Writ.
The author beUeves that the theory explains satisfactorily
the great majority of the difl&culties and apparent contra
dictions, geographical, historical, chronological, biographi
cal, as weU as most of the variations in religious concep
tions and religious institutions, which are so apparent in
the Hexateuch when interpreted in any other way.
Dates of the Documents
At the beginning of our inquiry we stated two sets of
principles which serve as bases of the Evolutionary Hypoth
esis of modern higher criticism. The first set dealt with
the evidences for the existence of several complete docu-
277

278 CONCLUSION
ments in the Hexateuch. The second dealt with the
hypothesis according to which these documents are to
be dated. In chaps, ii, vi, vii, and xi, we have given
reasons why we cannot accept these usually advanced
dates. We have found that these documents seem to have
been composed at the time, or nearly subsequent to the
time, when the events they record took place. The argu
ments for this, we feel, are of such a nature that a mere
categorical denial of them wiU not sufl&ce. Even though
in all cases our evidence may not be direct testimony, even
though it may seem to some readers to be in places merely
circumstantial, stUl the evidence is such that it must be
regarded, it must be proved to be in many cases irrelevant,
before it can be conclusively shown that our dates for the
documents are too early. Nor do we feel that this Une
of evidences has been exhausted. A large part of it,
dealing with the problems of Genesis, has been reserved
for the volume on the patriarchs, which, it is hoped, may
in the future be issued. But however much this evidence
in Genesis confirms our early dates, the arguments derived
from the exodus stories alone seem to us ample to demand
a reconsideration of the dates of the documents.
The Number of Documents
Chaps, iii, ix, and xi deal with the number of documents
in the Hexateuch. We came to the conclusion that the
Hexateuch contains not four, but at least seven different
documents, and that none of them, except the original D,
is contained complete in our Hexateuch. Though the
integral existence of these documents at some past time
may be conceded, we concluded that they appear now as
fragmentary. And we further ventured to doubt whether

THE NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS 279
many of the parts now designated as portions of J, E, and
P, were ever parts of those documents at all. The evi
dence seemed to show that often they were rather to be
regarded as stfll other originally independent documents or
fragments. But we found that these numerous documents or
fragments seemed to group themselves naturaUy into two
sections, each centering and clustering about an exodus
from Egypt. The first set, the Toledoth Book, and JED,
told the story of the Exodus from Goshen, and the legisla
tion at Horeb and in Moab. The second set, P proper and
small sections which we have called ]', E', and D^, told
of the Exodus from Raamses and the legislation at Sinai.
In each set the documents differed from one another in
viewpoint and mode of expression; but, aside from this,
the documents within a set offered no contradiction, no
real discrepancy, not even a divergent tradition.
We venture, therefore to believe that the Hexateuchal
stories of the Exodus are reliable even to the most minute
details, except where the later compfler of the documents
has misunderstood and changed his material, and where
the copyists of later ages have miscopied the text or anno
tated it with their own explanations. The Bible, we are
convinced, in dealing with the Exodus, is absolutely his
torical, in the best sense of that word, and trustworthy
in its evidence, even to details, contrary to the usual
modern hypothesis.
It will be seen that the theory we advance requires no
upheaval of the fundamental principles of higher criticism.
But the historical viewpoint which we have attained offers
us new and valuable criteria for a proper division of the
documents and a new dating of them.

28o CONCLUSION
We venture, then, to take up in turn each of the methods
of dividing the text, and examine them in the light of this
new viewpoint. I. Diflerences in Language and Style
The differences in language and style in the different
documents are by no means to be under-rated or denied.
They are most certainly present and deserve attention
and study. As we have seen in chaps, iv, x, and xi, they do
not help in the dating of the documents. But they assume
the greatest importance in the study of the Hebrew lan
guage in that they show us the presence in that language
of several dialects, each of which was developing and
decaying through the centuries. By means of this new
method of observing the differences in language and
style, this discovery, if we may venture so to term it, it is
possible to study all Hebrew literature and resolve it into
its constituent dialects and literary epochs.
II. Doublets and Triplets of Texts
There is no evidence of triplets in the story of the Exo
dus. Still the presence of these need not be categoricaUy
denied. In the nature of things we should rather expect it.
But the available data seem to indicate that in the com
pilation of the documents, when the Toledoth Book and
the older J and E documents offered three accounts of
the same event, only one was selected, or else two stories
were worked together into one in such a way that only one
story remains.
But in the stories of this period there are a large number
of doublets, doublets so absolutely divergent as to be
genuine contradictions. But these doublets, in the new
way of looking at the records, do not undermine in the
least the historicity of either of the conflicting records.

THE NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS 281
For the doublets are not genuine doublets. They do not
refer to the same event or series of events, but to different,
though similar, ones.
III. Similarity or Divergence in Laws and Law-Codes
From the new viewpoint, all the history of Israel ad
vances its evidence that the three or four law-codes are not
by any means contradictory. They are the products of the
times and surroundings which they seem to reflect, they
originated at an early epoch in the life of the people, and
they had a profound influence upon the development of
Israel from the exodi down to exilic and post-exilic times.
IV. Different Historical, Geographical, and Biographical Statements
The numerous historical, geographical, and biographi
cal statements with which the Hexateuch abounds, espe
cially in the stories of the Exodus, are to us no longer con
tradictory, nor do they demand as explanation the theory
of a faulty oral tradition. The "contradictions" quietly
disappear as soon as they are fitted into that series of events
which each of the documents purports to describe. We
deal no more with contradictions but with varying histori
cal verities. And not only in the Hexateuch itself do the
difficulties vanish in the light of this theory of ours. The
Book of Judges, too, long considered as contradicting the
evidence of the books of Numbers and Joshua, emerges
as historical and reliable. Even its long-despised chron
ology is found not only not to contradict, but even to
support the documents of the Hexateuch.
y. Differences in Religion, Morals, and Ceremonies
Finally, the contradictions in the realm of religion
which these early historical books have been thought to
contain, also disappear, and with them all the insuperable

282 CONCLUSION
objections to the unity of the Hexateuchal records and
the early date of the documents which they have been
thought to prove. We have tried to show that Israel was
not a harmonious unity in religious belief and practice untfl
a very late date, and that side by side varying priesthoods
and institutions existed in a state of mingled toleration
and rivalry. We have further endeavored to show that
there was not one of the religious beliefs or institutions of
the Hebrews which was not accounted for either by ante
cedent history or by the legislations of Horeb, Moab, and
Sinai; that they were not mushroom growths springing
up apparently out of nothing in a night; but that none of
them came into existence without a law to shape and
define it. A large number of questions, dealing with
divine names and religious institutions, belong to Genesis
and have therefore not been treated here, or, if they have,
have only been touched upon. But, so far as we can now
see, there is not one of these but can be explained con
sonantly with our present hypothesis.
The author recognizes that this theory may, and prob
ably will, have to be modified on future investigation. He
hopes, however, that he has suggested a line of investiga
tion which scholars may deem worthy of their careful
attention, a line of investigation which may, perhaps, aid
them in clearing up problems which are puzzles to us aU,
and, most of all, a line of investigation which may serve
to more firmly establish the historicity of at least this por
tion of God's revelation. May He who gave that revela
tion prosper all in this book which is in accord with His
will, and pardon all things which are against it.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I
The Jews and Their Temple at Elephantine
Bihliography
J. Barth. "Zu den Papyrusurkunden von Elephantine," ZA, XXI,
pp. 188-94.
Clermont-Ganneau. EAO, VIII, fasc. 6-9.
S. R. Driver. Guardian, November 6, 1907.
Fraenkel. Theologische Literaturzeitung, November 23, 1907.
G. Hoffmann. "Bemerkungen zu den Papyrusurkunden aus Ele
phantine." WZKM, XXI, pp. 413-15.
J. A. Kelso. "The Unity of the Sanctuary in the Light of the Ele
phantine Papyri," JBL, XXVIII, pp. 71-81.
Lagrange. "Les nouveaux papyrus d'Elephantine," RB, XV, pp.
325-49-
D. H. Miiller. "Die Korrespondenz zwischen der Gemeinde von
Elephantine und den Sohnen Sanabalats," WZKM, XXI, pp.
416-19.
Th. Noldeke. "Neue Judische Papyri," ZA, XXI, pp. 195-205.
E. Sachau. Drei Aramaische Papyrusurkunden aus Elephantine.
Berlin, 1907.
Sayce and Cowley. Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assuan. Lon
don, 1906.
Staerk. Die JUdisch-Aramdischen Papyri von Assuan. Bonn,
1907- 
In the year 1901 a strip of papjrrus was offered for sale in
Luxor, Eg3^t. It was written on both sides, but the text was badly
damaged. Shortly afterward the Imperial Library of Strassburg
came into possession of it, and it was found to be written in the Old
Aramaic script and language of the Persian period. Professor
Euting undertook, in 1903, the difficult task of editing and translating
it, and succeeded in extracting a generally correct meaning of the
same. He found that it dealt with a complaint about a revolt or
some mischief, instigated by a certain Wi . . . g. He failed, how-
28s

286 APPENDIX I
ever, in identifying the locality, with which it dealt, and in appreci
ating the real character of the document.
Professor Clermont-Ganneau then took up the questions, left
unsolved by Dr. Euting. He perceived that the locaUty was here
called JB, which could be nothing else but the Egyptian Jeb, the
Greek Elephantine. Still more remarkable was his penetrating
insight into the character of the document. He reasoned that it
could not have been written by a native Egyptian because it was a
complaint against Egyptian officials and priests. Neither could it
be of Persian or Babylonian origin, because it failed to designate
Khnub, god of Elephantine, as a god. He argued, therefore, that the
man who made complaints against the priests of the god Khnub,
without calling Khnub a god, must be a Jew. His hypothesis seemed
daring, but it was built on sound principles, and later discoveries
have confirmed it in every detail.
About the same time a new find of Aramaic papyri was placed on
sale in Assuan, a city on the eastem bank of the Nile, opposite the
island of Elephantine, and just below the First Cataract. Professor
Sayce acquired one of them for the Bodleian Library, two went to
the British Museum, a large number to the Cairo Museum, and still
others have been acquired by other museums, while there is reason
to believe that some of these papyri are now in private ownership.
Professors Sayce and Cowley published, in 1906, not less than
sixteen of these papyri. Almost all of them were in perfect preserva
tion, undisturbed and uninjured since the day they were laid aside
some 2,350 years ago. The strings were still tied around them, and
the old clay-seals were still fastened to the string-knots. Their script
and language is also that of the old Aramaic. They deal with busi
ness transactions in the city or fortress Elephantine, and there seems
to be good reason for assuming that all the Assuan papyri as well as
the Euting papyrus have come originally from that city.
The chief interest in these papyri centers about the fact, that they
present us with a vivid picture of a prosperous Jewish community
in that city in the fifth century b. c. And the picture is so vivid that
we can not only follow these Jews in some details of the daily routine
of their life but we know even how they built their homes and where
their houses were located. The Jews of Elephantine had quarters

THE JEWS AND THEIR TEMPLE AT ELEPHANTINE 287

of their own in the northwestern part of the city; they had their own
court, besides a Hebrew tribunal in Assuan, making their oaths in
the name of Yahu (Yahweh), an oath which was as valid in Egyptian
MAP OF THE JEWISH QUARTER IN ELEPHANTINE, SHOWING
THE LOCATION OF JEWISH PROPERTY AND THE
TEMPLE OF JAHU

Peft6nJt, saylor

2.
Espemet, son of
Peftonit, saylor

Street

IS-

Maliseiah, son of
Yed6niah

4.
Qoniah son of
Zadok

5-
Mibh- tayah

6.
Dargman, son of
Harshin

Zechariah, son of
Nathan

8.
Yezaniah, son of
Uriah

9-
Hoshea, son of
Uriah

Street

boC
13

14.

10.
Temple of
Yahu

II.
Mibh-
tahyah

12.
Ye'^or
son of
Penuliah

Street

t/3
16.

13-
Gadol,
son of
Hoshea

law as an oath made in the name of Khnub and Sati, the ancient
gods of Elephantine.
But even a minute description of ancient property would not be
particularly novel at the present time, since several monuments have
lately been discovered in Egypt and Babylonia, acquainting us with
similar documents of a far higher age. Not even the fact that the
agents are Jews in this case, is extraordinarily novel, for we have found
from the Babylonian documents that Jews possessed property and
conducted large business transactions in several cities of Babylonia

288 APPENDIX I
at this very time. The all-absorbing interest in these Assuan deeds
is the fact that two of them locate properties as adjoining the "chapel"
of Yahu. Now the Aramaic word used here for "chapel" is Egitra',
which otherwise denotes "temple" in the Assyrian, Babylonian, and
Aramaic languages. But it seemed improbable to Professors Sayce
and Cowley, that there could be a Jewish temple in Elephantine, and,
therefore, they translated it with "chapel," "synagogue." For who
could dream that there existed a Jewish temple in Egypt in the fifth
century b. c. ? Happily, all this is now changed.
The assured fact, however, that a "chapel," or a "synagogue,"
consecrated to the worship of Yahweh, existed in Egypt at that time,
awoke the keenest interest among scholars all over the world. Within
a few months, a considerable literature of learned treatises had sprung
up around this splendid publication of Professors Sayce and Cowley.
While this was going on Dr. Rubensohn was busy with excavations
on the island of Elephantine, and in the spring of 1907 he discovered
three Aramaic papyri, found in a house that probably had belonged
to the original owner of them, the chief priest Yedoniah. All three
papyri were well preserved and they were written in the Aramaic
script and language. They were immediately brought to Germany
and tumed over to Professor Sachau. He undertook to read them,
and at the session of the Philosophical-Historical Department of the
Royal Pmssian Academy of Sciences in Berlin on the 25th of July,
1907, he presented an able and scholarly translation of these docu
ments, together with notes and explanations of the more important
points. This was immediately ordered to be printed, and was pub
lished on the loth of October, 1907.
Of the three Elephantine papyri, two are concepts, drawn up for
a petition to the governor of Jerusalem. The third is a memorandum
of an order, issued by the governor of Jerusalem and sent to the Jews
of Elephantine in answer to their petition. The two concepts cover
essentially the same ground, but as only one of these is published in
facsimile, we shall confine our translation to the same. It contains
thirty lines and reads as follows:
I. To our Lord Bagohi, Governor of Judah, thy servants,
Yedoniah and his companions, the priests in the fortress Ele
phantine, {send)

^mmim

•mm

HHi^^jfi,: fj.-tlii-
«~*\
je
^^ ^
5^
r-^t,!
~y^^
U^
-^
3^^.3?-J*^^
^Ife^^
mA
K s
O -2
Pi 2
PC
2

THE JEWS AND THEIR TEMPLE AT ELEPHANTINE 289
Greeting I
May our Lord, the God of heaven, grant abundance at all time,
3. and place thee in favor before King Darius and the sons of the
palace. Prosperity, one thousand-fold more than now, and long
life may he give thee, and may there be joy and gladness at all tinwl
4. Now, thy servant Yeddniah and his companions, we speak
thus: In the month of Tammuz, in the fourteenth year of King
5. Darius, at the time when Arsham had departed and gone to the
King, the priests of god Khnub, which were in the fortress Ele
phantine, made a league with Waidrang, who was chief comman
der here, saying:
6. " The temple of God Yahu, which is in the fortress Elephan
tine, let them take {it) away from thence!"
7. Thereupon that accursed Waidrang sent a letter to Naphdydn,
his son, who was commander of the garrison in the fortress
Assuan, saying:
"Let them destroy the temple, which is in the fortress Elephan
tine!"
8. Thereupon Naphdydn ordered the Egyptians together with
the other forces; they came to the fortress Elephantine with their
9. weapons of destruction, entered into this temple, destroyed it to
the ground, and the pillars which were there they brake asunder,
they discomfited.
10. Furthermore, there were five stone-gates, built of hewn stone,
which were in this temple; them they destroyed, and their doors
II. they removed, and their copper-hinges, which {were fastened) in
marble-blocks, and the covering {made) of cedar-beams, all of
12. which, together with the rest of the equipment and other things
which were there, all they burnt with fire; and all the golden
13. basons, and tJie silver, and whatsoever there was in this temple,
all they took, and appropriated for themselves.
Now, in the days of the King{s) of Egypt our fathers had
14. built this temple in the fortress Elephantine. And when Camby
ses entered Egypt, he found this temple built. Although they
overthrew all the temples of the gods of Egypt, no one injured
anything in this temple.

290 APPENDIX I
15. But since tliey did thus, we with our wives and our children
have put on sackcloth, and we have fasted and prayed to Yahu,
16. the Lord of heaven, who has vindicated us on Waidrang, that
dog — they have laid^ his feet in fetter{s), and all the property
17. which he acquired has perished, and all the men who had wished
evil against this temple are slain, and we have seen our desire
upon them.
18. Furthermore, before this, at the time when this evil was done
to us, we sent a letter {to) our lord, and to Jehohanan, the high-
priest, and to his companions, the priests which are in Jerusalem,
19. and to his brother Ostan, i. e., Anani, and to the nobles of the
Jews, {but) not a single letter did they send to us.
Furthermore, from the Tammuz-day of the fourteenth year
20. of King Darius and until this day we have put on sackcloth and
2 1 . fasted; our wives have become like widow {s); we have not anointed
ourselves with oil, nor drunk wine.
Furthermore, from that time until this day of the fourteenth
year of King Darius they have not offered in this temple a meed-
offering, or frankincense, or a holocaust.
22. Now, thy servants Yeddniah and his companions, and the
Jews, all the citizens of Elephantine, say thus:
23. If it seem good to our lord, think upon this temple, that it may
24. he rebuilt! Look upon the recipients of thy bounty and goodness,
who are here in Egypt! May a letter be sent from thee unto them
25. concerning the temple of God Yahu, that it may be rebuilt in the
fortress Elephantine, as it was built informer times. Then they
26. shall present meal-offerings, and incense-offerings, and holocausts
upon the altar of God Yahu in thy name; yea, we will pray for
27. thee at all times, we and our wives and our children and the Jews,
all who are here, if they do thus, until this temple is rebuilt; yea,
a legitimate portion shall belong to thee, before Yahu, the God of
28. heaven, from any one who shall present to Him a holocaust and
sacrifices, in value equivalent to a sum of 1,000 talents. And in
29. regard to the gold — concerning that we have {already) sent
information.
I Orig. "established," used also of a decree, that "went forth," i. e., "was
established."

BAGOHI 291
Furthermore, we have sent concerning all the{se) matters in a
letter to Delayah and Shelemayah, sons of Sanballat, Governor
of Samaria.
30. Furthermore, Arsham has no knowledge of all that which
has been done to us.
On the [twentieth] day of Marcheswan, in the seventeenth
year of King Darius.
NOTE
I. Bagohi
This govemor of Jerusalem and Judah is known from Josephus
{Antiquities, xi, 7:1). Josephus calls him Bagoas, and mentions
him as serving in the time of Artaxerxes II (404-359 b. c). The
high-priest of Jerusalem at this time was Jehonan, called Jehohanan
in this document.' Joshua, a brother of Johanan, was an intimate
friend of Bagoas, and had been promised by the latter the high-priestly
office at his brother's death. This seems to have made him so aggres
sive, and his conduct so offensive, that his brother Johanan, the high-
priest, one day killed him in the temple. This crime was so out
rageous and so heinous, that it gave Bagoas an excellent opportunity
for entering the temple and punishing the offender, in spite of the
protests of the Jews. Bagoas vindicated the death of his friend by
imposing a heavy fine on Johanan, consisting of a large share of all
the sacrifices offered in the temple for the following seven years. This
punishment affected the high-priest and the people alike.
It is evident from these documents that Bagoas or Bagohi was
appointed govemor of Judah by Darius II, and not by Artaxerxes II.
Since the first letter of the Jews of Elephantine was addressed to him
in 411 b. c, it follows that he was governor of Judah at that time, and
that his appointment, therefore, could not have been made by Artaxer
xes II, as some scholars have inferred from Josephus. It is, of course,
possible that he was succeeded by another Bagoas, appointed by
Artaxerxes II, but it is more natural to interpret Josephus as saying
that Bagoas got his appointment as general in the reign of Artaxerxes
II, but that he became governor of Judah in the tune of Darius II.
It is possible, indeed, that the murder of Joshua took place in the
interval of 411-408 b. c. When the Jews appealed to Jerusalem for
I Cf. above, 1. 18.

292 APPENDIX I
help in the year 411 b. c, their petition was addressed both to the
govemor and the high-priest. Now, in 408 the high-priest is ignored
and the govemor of Samaria, whom we should expect to have been
abhorred by every Jew, takes his place. It is possible, therefore,
that the murder of Joshua had taken place in the meantime. The
Jews of Elephantine were evidently well posted on affairs in Jemsa
lem, and knowing the disgrace into which the high-priest had fallen,
were well aware that they would only weaken their cause by men
tioning him in this second petition. Consequently they passed him
by entirely. This strategem may even have been one of the reasons
that inchned the governor to grant them the favor they asked for.
The name Bagoas seems to have been common among the Per
sians. Thus we find a Persian nobleman bearing this name in the
service of Darius I.' The eunuch general Bagoas served under the
sixth Persian king.^ Even among the Jews this name became com
mon in the Persian period. A certain Bigvai sealed the covenant
of Nehemiah,3 but Bigvai should undoubtedly be pronounced Bagoy
or Bagoas. One of the princes of the returning exiles was called
Bigvai,4 and another Bigvai appears in Ezra's caravan. s
II. The Temple at Elephantine
The Jewish temple at Elephantine was not simply a synagogue
or an altar-house, but a real temple, because our papyrus designates
it as a temple by the same word that it uses for the Egyptian temples.
This temple had a naos with columns in front of it, and an altar of
incense and a seven-branched candlestick* within it. It was sur
rounded by a court which contained the holocaust-altar, and which
was girdled by a wall with five gates.
There is nothing in this pap)rrus to show that the naos contained
more than one room — the Holy Place. It had no Holy of Holies. Nor
did the Jewish community of Elephantine have a high-priest. Jed6-
niah was their chief-priest, equal with his "companions," but he was
I Herodotus, iii:i28. * Ezra 2:2, also mentioned in Neh. 7:7.
' About 342 B. c. s Ezra 8 : 14.
3 Neh. 10:16.
* A Jewish ostracon, found by Professor Maspero at Elephantine, shows a
seven-branched candlestick.

THE TEMPLE AT ELEPHANTINE 293
not a high-priest. The high-priest of Jerusalem was high-priest of
the Jews in Elephantine, and all other Jews as well. The Holy of
Holies in the temple at Jerusalem was the oracle-place of all Jews,
both in Elephantine and elsewhere.
Thus we see that the temple at Elephantine was in strict accord
with Deuteronomy, which restricted the "dwelling-place of Yahweh's
name" to one central sanctuary, now established at Jerusalem, but
permitted sacrifices ever)rwhere. The Jews of Elephantine were,
then, worshiping in entire accord with Deuteronomy, and the utter
ances of Isaiah.'
Further, this papyrus shows us that the Jews of Elephantine con
ducted their worship according to the strict regulations of the whole
P code — the holocausts, peace-sacrifices, meal-offerings, incense,
fasting, prayers, all point to the laws of the P code, which thus must
have been in operation in Egypt not later than 525 b. c, and probably
from the beginning of the seventh century.
I Isa. 19:19.

APPENDIX II
Ancient Chronology'
Bibliography^
E. Am^lineau. "Chronologie des rois de I'dpoque archaique,"
RE, XII, pp. 185-204.
W. E. Beecher. The Dated Events of the Old Testament. Philadel
phia, 1907.
A. Bosse. "Die chronologische System im Alten Testamente und
bei Josephus,'' MVG, 1908, pp. 101-76.
J. H. Breasted. A History of the Ancient Egyptians. New York,
1908.
A. T. Clay. "The Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Persian Periods,"
BE, Ser. A, Vol. VIII, Part I, pp. 3-5.
S. A. Cook. "Babylonian Chronology," PEFQS, 1907, pp. 318 ff.
 . "Notes on the Dynasties of Omri and Jehu," JQR, Vol.
XX, pp. 597-631.
G. Cormack. Egypt in Asia. London, 1908.
H. Dhorme. "Sargon, Pfere de Naram-Sin," OLZ, 1909, pp. 53-63.
F. C. Eiselen. Sidon, a Study in Oriental History. New York, 1907.
W. Erbt. "Das Jobeljahr," OLZ, 1907, pp. 636-38.
Folkeringham. The Chronology of the Old Testament, Cambridge,
1906.
I. A. Galvao. "Note sur la IVe et la Ve dynasties," RE, XII, pp.
120-22.
A. B. Gardiner. "Mesore as First Month of the Egyptian Year,"
ZA, XLII, pp, 136-44.
F. K. Ginzel. Handbuch der Mathematischen und Technischen
Chronologie. I Band. Leipzig, 1906.
F. LI. Griffith. "The Length of the Reign of Amenhotep II,"
PSBA, XXXI, pp. 42, 43.
I Supplement to the author's Ancient Chronology, Part I, Chicago, 1907.
2 This bibliography represents merely the books and articles that have
come to the notice of the author since the publication of his Ancient Chron
ology, Part I. 294

ANCIENT CHRONOLOGY 295
H. R. Hall. "The Discoveries in Crete and Their Relation to the
History of Egypt and Palestine," PSBA, XXXI, pp. 135-48.
 "Mursil and Myrtilos," JHS, XXIX, pp. 19-22.
H. V. Hilprecht. ' ' Der Zwolfte Konig der ersten Dynastie von Isin,"
OLZ, 1907, pp. 385-87.
C. Hirschenzohn. Yamim Miqqeden. Hoboken.
E. W. Hollingworth. "The Hyksos and the Twelfth Dynasty,"
PSBA, XXX, pp. 155-58.
F. Hommel. "Die Genealogie des Kassitenkonigs Agum des Zweit-
tens," OLZ, 1909, pp. 108, 109.
M. Jastrow, Jr. "Uramus," ZA, XXI, pp. 177-82.
C. H. W. Johns. "On the Length of the Month in Babylonia,"
PSBA, XXX, pp. 221-30.
 . " The First Year of Samsu-Iluna. PSBA , XXX, pp. 70, 7 1 .
 . "The Babylonian Chronicle of the First Dynasty of Baby
lon," PSBA, XXIX, pp. 107-11.
 . "Note on the Chronicle of the First Dynasty of Babylon,"
PSBA, XXIX, pp. 108-10.
 . "Some Further Notes on the Babylonian Chronicle of the
First Dynasty," PSBA, XXXI, pp. 14-19.
"The Chronology of Ashurbanipal's Reign," b. c 668-

626, PSBA, XXIX, pp. 74-84.
F. A. Jones. "The ancient Year and the Sothic Cycle," PSBA,
XXX, pp. 95-106.
L. W. King. "Sargon I, King of Kish, and Shar-gani-sharri, King
of Akkad," PSBA, XXX, pp. 238-42.
J. A. Knudtzon. "Die El-Amarna Tafehi," VAB, II, pp. 25-42.
F. X. Kugler. "Darlegung und Thesen iiber altbabylonische
Chronologie," ZA, XXII, pp. 63-78.
St. Langdon. "Sumerians and Semites in Babylonia." Baby-
loniaca, II, pp. 137-62.
F. Legge. "Was Khasekhmui called Mena?" PSBA, XXXI,
pp. 128-32.
C. F. Lehmann-Haupt. "Die Sothis-Periode und der Kalender
des Papyrus Ebers," Klio, VIII, pp. 213-26.
 . "Berossos' Chronologie und die keilinschriftliche Neu-
funde," Klio, VIII, pp. 227-51.

296 APPENDIX II
C. F. Lehmann-Haupt. "Zur Aufnahme der Israeliten in Gosen,"
Klio, IX, pp. 260 ff.
J. Lieblein. "The Exodus of the Hebrews," PSBA, XXIX, pp.
214-18.
 . "Le nom royal et la date du Papyrus Ebers," Sphinx,
XII, pp. 155 ff.
E. Lindl. "Ein Datum Libit-Istars, Konigs von Isin," OLZ, 1907,
pp. 387, 388.
G. Maspero. Ancient Egypt, Eng. transl. by E. Lee. New York,
1909.
B. Meissner. "Lipit-Istar," OLZ, 1907, pp. 113-15.
L. Messerschmidt. "Zur altbabylomschen Chronologie," OLZ,
1907, pp. 169-75.
Ed. Meyer. Nachtrdge zur Agyptischen Chronologie. Berlin, 1908.
 . "Neue Nachtrage zur agyptischen Chronologie," ZA,
XLIV, p. 115.
M. A. Meyer. History of the City of Gaza. New York, 1907.
Miketta. Der Pharaoh des Auszuges. Freiburg i. B., 1903.
E. Newberry and J. Garstang. A Short History of Ancient Egypt.
London, 1907.
E. E. Reiser. " Synchronistische Geschichte und Chronik P,"
OLZ, 1908, pp. 7-10.
 . "Die Dynastie von Pase," OLZ, 1907, pp. 615-18.
W. M. Flinders Petrie. "The Stmcture of Herodotus, Book II,"
JHS, XXVII, pp. 275 ff.
A. Poebel. "Der Zehnte Konig der Dynastie von Isin," OLZ, 1907,
pp. 461-64.
 . "Das zeitliche Verhaltniss der ersten Dynastie von Babylon
zur zweiten Dynastie," ZA, XX, pp. 229-45.
-. "Das zeitliche Verhaltniss der zweiten Dynastie der

grosseren KonigsUste zur dritten Dynastie," ZA, XXI, pp.
162-75.
H. Ranke. "Immerum von Sippar," OLZ, 1907, pp. 207-10.
 . "Zur altbabylomschen Datierungsweise," OLZ, 1907,
pp. 231-34.
 . "Zur Konigsliste aus Nippur," OLZ, 1907, pp. 109-13.

ANCIENT CHRONOLOGY 297
H. Radau. "The Genealogy of the Kassite Kings," BE, Ser. A,
Vol. XVII, Part I, pp. 59-71.
A. H. Sayce. "Notes on Assyrian and Egyptian History," PSBA,
XXX, pp. 13-19.
P. Schnabel. "Erba-Adad und Karaindas." OLZ, 1909, pp.
54-58.
 . "Studien zur babylonisch-assyrischen Chronologie," MVG,
1908, pp. i-ioo.
Fr. Thureau-Dangin. " Un nouveau roi de Hana/' OLZ, 1 908, p. 93.
 . "La gdndalogie d'Agum-kakrime," OLZ, 1908, pp. 31-33.
 . "Damiq-ihsu contemporain de Sin-muballit, " OLZ, 1907,
pp. 256, 257.
 . " L'emplacement de Kis," OLZ, 1909, pp. 204-7.
 . "Notes pour servir k la chronologie de la dynastie kassite,"
JA, dix. ser.. Tome XI, pp. 117-34.
 . "La deuxifeme dynastie du canon royal et la date de la
fondation du royaume babylonien," ZA, XXI, pp. 176-87.
 . "Les synchronismes de I'^poque d'El-Amama," OLZ,
1908, pp. 445-47.
 . "Kuri-galzu et Buma-burias," OLZ, 1908, pp. 275, 276.
"Sargon I'Ancien," OLZ, 1908, pp. 313-15.

A. Ungnad. "Sumerer und Akkader," OLZ, 1908, pp. 62-67.
 . "Zur Chronologie der Kassiten-Dynastie, OLZ, 1908, pp.
11-17.
 . "Bel-simanni, ein neuer Konig Babylons und der Lander,"
OLZ, 1907, pp. 464-68.
 . "Die Chronologie der Regiemng Ammiditana's und Ammi-
saduga's," BA, VI, 3, pp. 1-53.
"Hallusu," OLZ, 1907, pp. 621, 622.

R. Weill. "Le sejour des Israelites au desert et le Sinai dans la
relation primitive," REV, LVII, pp. 19-54, 194-238.
E. H. Weissbach. "Zur Chronologie der Bisutun-Inschrift," OLZ,
1908, pp. 485-91-
H. Winckler. "Ausgrabungen in Boghaz-Koi im Sommer 1907,"
MDOG, No. 35. 
In the two years that have passed since the manuscript for
Ancient Chronology, Part I, was sent to the press, a surprisingly large

298 APPENDIX II
number of articles and books have been written on the subject.
About seventy-five such articles have been observed by the author.
And during these two years some really important discoveries bearing
on this subject have been made. All these, together with reviews on
Ancient Chronology, Part I, alfid several private letters from eminent
Assyriologists and Egyptologists, have been carefully considered and
weighed by the author; and it is a pleasure to state that in no case
has he deemed it necessary to change or deviate from the principles
laid down in that work as those used in building up the chronology.
It is equally pleasant to record that the results reached, the dates
given, in that volume, although often only approximate, still remain
within the Umits of high probability. That some modifications are
necessary after this lapse of time is, of course, to be expected. The
author is quite willing here to record them, wherever the evidence
seems to require.
Many of the new hypotheses offered in this field are such that he
finds himself unable to accept them. Space forbids him even to
discuss most of them. It is with regret that he cannot accept the
scheme of ancient chronology which Professor Petrie, the brilliant
Egyptologist, advocates, inserting, as he does, a whole Sothic cycle,
(1,460 years) between the Xllth and XVIIIth Egyptian dynasties.
Not only is this against bibhcal evidence, but the scarcity of monu
ments of this period in Egypt precludes the elapsing of so long a
period. The parallel and simultaneous development of culture in
Egypt and Crete is so important and of such a nature that the 250
years which the author postulated for this period fulfil all the require
ments of archaeology for this important age. The contention
advanced in the fonner book that we deal here with a number of
contemporary dynasties is too important to be overlooked or ignored
by any scholar wishing to grasp the significance of the Hyksos rule.
With equal regret is recorded the inability to accept the brilliant
hypothesis advanced by Professor Lieblein for the interpretation of
the Sothic dates in Egypt, and the chronology which he endeavors
to build thereupon. With Professor Knudtzon the present author
agrees that considerations of contemporary Babylonian chronology,
especially that of the Amarna period, make it necessary to set it aside.
Nor is Professor Lieblein convincing in his reading of the name on

BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY 299
the verso of Papyms Ebers. The writing is pecuHar, it must be
admitted. But why may it not represent the throne-name of Amen
hotep I ?
Here and there, however, it has become apparent that some modi
fication of the dates assigned to reigns and events in the earlier book
are necessary. This was anticipated and emphasized several times
both in preface and text too, when periods were being treated where
material was as yet too scanty for dogmatic certainty. It is, therefore,
surprising to find how correct or how nearly correct most of these
approximations were. Of course, even as yet there are no final and
certain results on these points. Let us, however, examine and enum
erate the principal items of what in these two years has been added
to our store of knowledge and incidentally treat some of the questions
that in the former book were openly and purposely passed by.
A. Biblical Chronology
In Ancient Chronology, Part I, it was definitely stated that in
treating of the biblical chronology of the period there was to be no
discussion of the dates nor of the veracity and historicity of the docu
ments. The data and dates were merely recorded and it was shown
where such dates landed us if applied to some certain historical date
like the founding of Solomon's temple. In regard to this date there
has as yet arisen no necessity for changing it. The present volume
may indicate somewhat why there could not there be a discussion of
previous bibhcal dates. Nor is it as yet the author's wish to express
any opinion upon the historicity of any Bibhcal dates therein given,
except those which have been treated in this volume. Neither a
categorical affirmation nor a categorical denial of their historicity is
sufficient. Each date, and each document, must be treated separately
and treated with the utmost care and consideration.
The Chronology of the Book of Judges
In regard to the Book of Judges it is hoped that the present volume
has shown that the contention made in regard to its dates was correct.
It needs qualification, however, in the following ways:
I. The even numbers of 20, 40, and 80, may in some cases, pos
sibly in all, be round numbers merely. Still, the summary of dates
up to Deborah shows that they are approximately correct, for the

300 APPENDIX II
victory of Deborah and Barak over Jabin belongs to the time of
Joshua, just subsequent to the Amarna period, and this is just where
-the chronology of Judges places it. If, then, one of these round
numbers be found to exceed the actual number of years by one, two,
or more, we may assume that the reverse prevails in others of them,
and that their sum is correct or approximately so.
2. We have found in this present volume' that it was only after
the conquest of Jabin by the co-operating forces of Joshua and
Deborah that the Hebrews of Canaan were united into one people,
into one political unit, if such a term may be used in deaHng with
those times. The conquest recorded in Judges was carried on by
each tribe separately. It would seem, then, that the judges living
before Deborah, i. e., Othniel and Ehud, were not judges of all Israel,
but only of their respective tribes. And if this be so, these two men
may have been contemporary. Othniel was judge of that Israel
which hved in the land of Judah, with Kiriath-Sepher as his
capital. Ehud was judge in Benjamin, with Jericho as his place
of abode. 3. The Book of Judges affirms that Cushar-Arshataim ruled the
sons of Israel for eight years, and that then Othniel became judge
for forty years. This makes a period of about forty-eight years. But
we have already identified Cushar-Arshataim with Artatama II of
Mitani, who was, therefore, of Aram-Naharaim. The identity of
Mitani and Midian can scarcely be questioned. Now these Midia
nites were settled in the south in the Horite land, before the death of
Moses, because Balak, king of Moab called in their elders for assist
ance, when Moses and his army camped on the border of Moab.
Artatama and the Midianites, we must assume, would have been
there for some time prior to this event, at least two or three years,
because they seem to be firmly settled, when Balak calls upon them.
It lies near at hand to assume that it was this Artatama and his
Mitani people in Mount Hor that deprived Caleb of Hebron and made
Judah tributary to him. This would then be the eight years' oppres
sion under Cushar-Arshataim. Now Caleb came to Joshua at
Gilgal, ca. 1402, asking his assistance to repossess Hebron, which
Joshua agreed to, and shortly after we find Joshua marching south-
I Cf. p. 131.

BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY 301
ward to conquer Judah and the Negeb. He was successful in this
campaign, and this means, then, that the Mit^ans or Midianites in
Mount Hor were overpowered. The Bible says indeed that Joshua
conquered a king of Arad, or a King Arad, and it is possible that this
name may be an abbreviation of Artatama. Anyhow, the oppression
of Cushar-Arshataim lasted, then, from about 1410 to 1402, which,
viewed in this Hght, seems extremely probable. After the conquest
of the south, it would be quite natural that Othniel, the renowned
nephew of Caleb, should be appointed governor or "judge" over
this territory. As he was judge for forty years, his judgeship would
then extend from ca. 1402 to ca. 1363 b. c. This is only a few
years after Deborah's victory over Jabin, 1366, and it was shortly after
this victory that the tribes gathered at Shiloh, when Joshu?, estab-
hshed with them the well-known covenant, and the tribes were
reunited. Soon after this Joshua died at the age of no years. If
he died in 1363, he would have been born in 1473, and would have
been about twenty-five years old, when he was with Moses at Horeb.
And indeed the Bible says that Joshua was then a young man.
Othniel's judgeship would thus partly cover the period of Jabin's
oppression. Even this is probable. Of all the tribesmen that gathered
about Deborah and Barak in the battle agamst Sisera, none came
from Judah. Evidently because Jabin's dominion did not extend
that far south. For the same reason none came from the trans-
jordanic tribes, except Machir who was at this time settled in
Western Manasseh. Othniel continued, therefore, as governor of
the south until the reunion covenant at Shiloh was estabhshed.
4. Eglon, king of Moab, mled Israel for eighteen years, until
Ehud killed him, when the land had rest for eighty years.' It is not
stated that Ehud was judge for eighty years, nor should we assume
it. The eighty years of peace merely indicate eighty years of Hebrew
supremacy around Jericho. This period must have preceded Jabin's
oppression, because Benjamin took part in the war against him.
Ehud's murder of Eglon would then come about 1465 b. c, and
Eglon's conquest about 1483 B. c. Both these dates come before
the Exodus. The Annals of Thutmose III assert that he conquered
the lands of Jacob-el and Joseph-el, both situated in Canaan. If these
I Judg. 3:30.

302

APPENDIX II

names mean anything, they affirm the fact that there were Hebrew
tribes and Hebrew possessions in the land of Canaan not only in pre-
Joshuanic, but even in pre-Mosaic times. These people may have
been among the Hyksos who had been expelled from Egijrpt, or they
may have been descendants of the Hebrews of the days of Jacob-
Israel, Hebrews who had not gone down to Egypt at all.

YA'^QEB-EL (Jacob)

II

am

i

YASAP-EL
(Joseph)

(From W. Max Miiller, Die Palastinaliste Thutmosis III).

In any case the Rahab story shows that the people of Jericho
when Joshua besieged it were acquainted with the Yahweh worship,
while her name shows affinity with Egyptian culture as we would
expect at this time when Canaan was made up of dependencies of
Egypt.' I Shamgar, son of Anath, was also a judge at this time. Several scholars
Identify him with Gershom, son of Moses. This is possible, especially if the
record was taken from a cuneiform tablet, on which the name was written with
two signs Gir-Sam. If this be so, "Son of Anath" denotes "inhabitant of
Anath." This Anath we would identify with Anathoth, a city a few miles north
of Jerusalem. Nearby lived the seventy-five priests that were murdered by Saul.
These priests wore linen ephods and were therefore under the Deuteronomic
Code. The establishment of this code in this vicinity would be quite natural,
if Gershom ( = Shamgar), son of Moses, had been judge there. Jeremiah
was born in Anathoth and had his home there. Would not this account

BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY 303
B. Babylonian Chronology
a) Thureau-Dangin has shown that the Kassite name Bi-til-ia-shu
should be read Kas-til-ia-shu.
b) Clay has shown that the divine name En-lil was pronounced
En-lil, and not Bil. Proper names compounded theremth should be
read so.
c) Hommel has reached the conclusion advanced for the first
time in Ancient Chronology, Part I, that the name Su-li-li is a later
abbreviation or reading of Sumu-la-ilu.
d) Eduard Meyer has agreed with the date the present author
advanced for Sargon of Akkad, placing him ca. 2550 b. c.
e) Thureau-Dangin has confirmed our argument that there was
a lacuna between Dynasties A (of Babylon) and C (Kassite), and he
has placed Dynasty B (of Sea-land) contemporary with both the
dynasties A and C, and independent in the interval between these
two dynasties.
f) Winckler has discovered at Boghaz-koi a Hittite tablet, written
in Babylonian, in which Hattusil, king of the Hittites, informs a
Babylonian king who is the successor of Kadashman-Turgu that he
(Hattusil) has concluded a treaty with the king of Egypt. This
Babylonian king is evidently Kudur-Enlil, although his name does
not appear in this letter,' and the letter was evidently written in his
second or third year. Now we know, from the Egyptian monuments,
that this treaty between Egypt and the Hittites was closed in the
twenty-first year of Ramses II. We have here, then, a most welcome
sjTichronism. The twenty-first year of Ramses II is the second or
third year of Kudur-Enhl. This makes necessary the placing of the
Kassite dynasty a few years later, some ten to twenty years, than was
done in Ancient Chronology, Part I. When that book was written
there was no evidence whatever to show that Dynasty C (Kassite)
did not wholly precede Dynasty D (of Pashe). The date of the latter
for the many similarities in language between Jeremiah and Deuteronomy,
even in such parts of Jeremiah (e. g., chap. 7) that were delivered before Deuter
onomy was discovered ? The peculiarities in language and thought of Jeremiah
reflect the dialect and traditions of Anathoth and Nob.
I The beginning of the letter, where we would naturally expect to find the
name, has been broken away.

304 APPENDIX II
is certain, but judging from the Kudurru inscriptions of the dynasty,
dealing, as they do so frequently, with property in southem Babylonia,
it is safe to conclude that this dynasty began to mle at first only in
southem Babylonia, or, more definitely, over Isin. It may therefore
have been easily contemporary with the last twenty years of D3masty
C, when we know the Kassite kings to have been very weak. From
considerations which we shall take up in a moment it seems probable
that Ramses II should be placed some years later than was done in
Ancient Chronology, Part I, and this fact, together with the synchro
nism just discussed, makes it necessary to place the Kassite d3masty
of Babylon some twenty years later than was before proposed.
g) Thureau-Dangin has proposed the same date as was given
in Ancient Chronology, Part I, for the beginning of Dynasty A of
Babylon, i. e., 2233 b. c. There could be no better affirmation than
that of this eminent Assyriologist, especially as his conclusions were
reached by entirely independent research, only a few months after
Ancient Chronology, Part I, was published.
h) Thureau-Dangin and King have shown that the kings known
as Sharru-gi and Shar-gani-sharri were not identical. The former
was King of Kish. The latter was father of Nar§m-Sin, and king in
Agade. In later times the two names were confused, and the two
kings identified, precisely as we have suggested was the case with
Mouses and Moses or with Horeb and Sinai.
Furthermore, Thureau-Dangin has shown that Kish was located
west of the Euphrates, and we beUeve that it was the predecessor of
the Kash-di or Kal-di land.
C. Egyptian Chronology
a) Eduard Meyer has accepted Sethe's reading of the Turin
Papyrus in regard to the last king of the Xlth Dynasty. Breasted
has later accepted the same interpretation. These scholars have
thus changed their views and reached the same result in regard to
the close of that dynasty as was presented in Ancient Chronology,
Part I. Naville had assumed that Neb-hepet-Re-Mentuhotep and
Neb-hm-Re-Mentuhotep were identical. This seemed reasonable.
But Naville has later changed his view, and Hall and Meyer regard
them as two different kings. This is possible, of course. But the
Turin Papyrus asserts that there were only six Theban kings of

EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY 305
Dynasty XI. There is, as yet, no reason to doubt this. Of course
Manetho says there were sixteen kings of this dynasty, and Eduard
Meyer enumeraties five Intefs and six Mentuhoteps. But it is not
certain that all of them Uved in Thebes, and the Turin Papyrus
may be quite correct in its statement that there were but six who ruled
in Thebes. May not some of them have Uved in Gebelen ? The
Turin Papyrus says that the Xlth Dynasty lasted 160 years, while
Manetho accords it only forty-three years. Breasted insists upon the
160 years, and dates the Xth Dynasty of Heracleopolis back of these
160 years of the Xlth Dynasty. This cannot be correct. There
is no question that the Turin Papyms is correct in giving 160 years
to the dynasty in Thebes, but it is yet to be shown that the dynasty
reigned over all Egypt for any such period. On the contrary, as was
pointed out, it is practically certain that it was the next to the last
king of the dynasty, Neb-hru-Re-Mentuhotep, who overthrew
Dynasty X of Heracleopohs. The forty-three years of Manetho are
ample time for the period from the fall of the Xth Dynasty to that of
the Xllth. Meyer's and Breasted's chronologies should therefore
be lowered 117 years for dates back of the Xlth Dynasty. This
can hardly be disputed, and it is important enough to demand con
sideration. b) A. Gardiner has shown that the Egyptian month-names are de
rived from the names of the chief festivals occurring in those months.
He has further shown that Mesore, formed from Meswt-Re, "Birth
of Re," was in the Middle and New empires, the first month, not the
last month of the year. There was, therefore, a calendar reform in
Egypt sometime between the beginning of the XlXth Dynasty and
the Ptolemaic period.
In the Middle and New empires the civil new-year began, then,
with Mesore.
c) Professor Petrie has suggested that the 36 years which Man
etho and Josephus ascribe to Oros, may designate the duration of
the Aton-faith, and not the length of reign of Amenhotep IV. This
seems possible, especially as his seventeenth year is yet the highest
on the monuments. It may, therefore, be that he did not reign
longer than 17 years, and of that period the 6 years at the beginning
of his reign was a coregency with his father Amenhotep III. The

3o6 APPENDIX II
36 years which Josephus ascribes toOros would then begin with the
accession of Amenhotep IV (Ikhnaton) in 1407, and extended to
1 3 7 1 . The latter date comes two years before the death of Tutanekh-
amon, and we know that this king changed from the Aton to the
Amon-religion shortly before his death. The reign of Haremhab,
extending over all Egypt would, on this account, have lasted for
twenty-four years, 1345-21 b. c.
d) In Ancient Chronology, Part I, we assumed, following Jose
phus, - that the reign of Seti I was included in that of Ramses II.
We called attention also to some indications of this on the monu
ments of Ramses II. It is, however, possible, that this means only
that Ramses II was appointed crown-prince in early childhood.
The monuments of Seti seem to show that his reign was entirely
independent of that of Ramses II. Still he could not have reigned
for any considerable length of time. His ninth year occurs on the
monuments, and nine years were probably the duration of his reign,
131 9-1 310 B. c. This makes it necessary to lower the succeeding
dates of the Nineteenth Dynasty with nine years.
For more minute details of this reconstmction, reference is made
to the synchronistic table, hereto appended.'
I Professor Erman, in a private correspondence, has called the author's
attention to the statement on p. 259 of the Ancient Chronology, Part I, in regard
to the two ancient Egyptian legends. Of course it was not meant that these
legends appear on the Egyptian monuments, but merely that they dealt with
the early history of Egypt. However, the expression is liable to misunderstanding
and the opportunity is here taken to call attention to it.

SYNCHRONISTIC TABLE

3o8

APPENDLX II
SYNCHRONISTIC TABLE

Sea-Land

Babylonia

Assyria

I
2
3

Sharru-gi

Dynasty of Ki-en-gi
Enshagkushanna

Dynasty of Kish
Ma-an-ish-tu-su ca. 3050
Utug
Sharru-gi MesilimLugal-tar-zi Ur-zag-e
Lugal 
Uru-mu-ush

4 56789
10II12
Dynasty of Telloh
Engilsa Urukagina I, ca. 3050
Lugal-shag-engur Ur-Nind
Akurgal
EannaduEnannadu I, ca. 2800
EntemenaEnannadu II
EnlUtarzi Lugalanda Urukagina II, ca. 2675
Lugalushumgal Ur-ba-u
Ur-gar
Nam-makh-mi Urninsun
Gudea Urningirsu
Ur-ab-ba
Assyria settled by
13 14i617
Dynasty of Gishkhu
E-abzu Ush
Enakalli Ur-lummaUkush
Semites
i8 19
202122
23242526272829
30
Dynasty of Erech
Lugalzaggisi, ca. 2675
Lugalkigubnidudu
Lugalkisalsi
Dynasty of Agade
Shar-gani-Sharri,ca. 2550
Nardm-Sin, ca. 2525
Bingani-Sharri, ca. 2485
Ubil-Ishtar
Kikia
31
3233
Dynasty of Ur
Ur-Engur, 2477-59
Dungi, 2459-01
Aushpia
SYNCHRONISTIC TABLE
SYNCHRONISTIC TABLE

309

Bible

Egypt

Miscellaneous

Birth of Arpachshad,

Predynastic Kings

I

^^24

\J-J T^
Dynasties I-IV
2
Birth oi Cainan, ca. 3191
ca. 3285-2729
34
Birth of Shelah, ca. 3062
5678
Birth of Eber, ca. 2933
9
10
II
12
13
Beginning of Sothic
14
Birth of Peleg, ca. 2800
Cycle, 2781-4
IS
Dynasty V
16
Userkaf, 2729-2701
17
Sahure, 2791-2688
18
Birth of Reu, ca. 2671
Nefererkare, 2688-2668
Temple of Baal at Tyre,
ca. 2730
19
Shepseskare, 2668-2661
20
Akauhor, 2661-2641
21
Nuserre, 2641-2597
22
Menkauhor, 2597-88
23
Dedkare, 2588-44
24
Birth of Serug, ca. 2540
Unas, 2544-11
Lasirab of Gutium
25
Dynasty VI
26
Teti, 251 1-2497
27
Userkaf, 2497-81
28
Pepi I, 2497-44
Anu-Banini of Lulubu
29
30
3132
Mernere I, 2444-37
33
3IO

APPENDIX II
SYNCHRONISTIC TABZE— Continued

Sea-Land

Babylonia

Assyria

343536

Bur-Sin I, 2401-2392
Gimil-Sin, 2392-85
Ibi-Sin, 2385-60

Galu-ka-zal Ur-lama
Al-la
Arad-Nannar

373839
404142
43 44454647

Dynasty of Isin
Ishbi-Ura, 2360-28
Gimil-ilishu, 2328-18
Idin-Dagan, 2318-2297
Ishme-Dagan, 2297-77
Libit-Ishtar, 2277-66
Ur-Ninib, 2266-38
Bur-Sin, 2238-17
Iter-ka-sha, 2217-12
 , 2212-05
Sin{?)  , 2205-04
Bel-bdni, 2204-2180
Zambia, 2180-77
 , 2177-72
Ae  , 2172-68
Sin-mdgir, 2168-57
Ddmiq-ilushu, 2157-35

Dynasty A of Babylon
Sumu-abi, 2233-18
Sumu-la-ilu, 2218-21 83
Zabu, 2183-69
Apil-Sin, 2169-51
Sin-muballit, 2 151 -31
Sin-muballit, vassal,
2131-21
Hammurabi, vassal,
2121-09
Hammurabi, king, 2109-
2066
Samsu-iluna, 2066-31

Ilu-shuma, ca. 2250
Erishum, ca. 2230
Ikunum, ca. 2200

4849 50 5152
53

Dynasty of Belatares
Shar-Mn-kdte-A shir
Bel-tdbi, ca. 2150

54

Sin-muballit, 2135-31

Btl-kabi ca. 2130,

55

Eri-Aku, 21 31-2079

565758
Dynasty B of Sea-Land
Ilu-ma-ilu, 2079-2019
Shamshi-Adad I, ca.
2100
SYNCHRONISTIC TABLE
SYNCHRONISTIC TABl.'E.— Continued

3"

Bible

Egypt

Miscellaneous

Birth of Nahor, ca. 241 1

Pepi II, 2437-2343
Mernere II, 2343-42
Nitokris, 2342-30

Kudur-Nankhundi of
Elam
Ninus and Semiramis
Belus conquers Assyria
Kudur-Mabug, ca. 2140
Chedor-Laomer of Elam
First Hyksos settlement,
ca. 2084
Kassites in Babylonia,
ca. 2058

343536 3738

Dynasty VII, 2330

39

Dynasty VIII
of Memphis, 2330-2230

4041

Dynasty IX
of Heracleopohs, 2330-
2230
4243
Birth of Terah, ca. 2233
Dynasty X
of Heracleopohs, 2230-
2043
44454647 4849
Birth of Abram 2165
Abram in Canaan, 2090
Abram in Egypt, ca.
2084-81
Dynasty XI
Wahanekh-Intef, 2162-
2112
Nakhtneb-Tepnofer- Intef, 2 II 2-2086
Sanekh-ib-tawi-Mentu- hotep, ca. 2100-2086
Nebhapetre-Mentuhotep, ca. 2086-77
50 51525354 555657 58
312

APPENDIX II
SYNCHRONISTIC TABL.E— Continued

Sea-Land

Babylonia

Assyria

Ki-an-ni-bi, 201 9-1 963

Damqi-ilishu, 1963-37
Qadushshi, 1937-22
Milkipal, 1922-1898

Gidkishar, 1898-43

Kir-gal-dara-bar, 1843-
1793

Abeshu, 2031-06

Ammi-ditana, 2006-1 981
Ammi-zadugga, 1981-60

Samsu-ditana, 1 960-2 9

A dara-kalama, 1793-65
E-kur-ul-anna, 1765-39
Melamma, 1739-31

Dynasty 0 of Kassites
Gandish, 1762-45
Agum, 1745-25
Kashtiliash I, 1724-02

Ishme-Dagan I

Ishme-Dagan II, ca.
1850

Shamshi-Adad II, ca.
1830

SYNCHRONISTIC TABLE
SYNCHRONISTIC TABl^E.— Continued

313

Bible

Egypt

Miscellaneous

Battle of Dan, ca. 2080
Birth of Ishmael, 2078

Nebtawire-Mentuhotep, ca. 2077-62
Neb-hrure-Mentuhotep, ca 2062-12
Sanekhkare-Mentuhotep ,
ca. 2012-02

Dynasty XVI
Shepherds, ca. 2084-1566

5960

Birth of Isaac, 2065
Marriage of Isaac, 2046
Death of Sarah, 2022

Fall of Dynasty X, 2043

61 62 63

Birth of Jacob, 2006
Death of Abraham, 1990
Marriage of Esau, 1967

Dynasty XII
Amenemhet I, 2006-1986
Sesostris I, 1986-40
Amenemhet II, 1944-02
Sesostris II, 1 906-1 887
Sesostris III, 1887-54
Amenemhet III, 1854-06
Amenemhet IV, 1806-
1797
Sebeknefrure, 1797-93

Dynasty XIII
of Diospolis, 1 986-1 533

64 656667

Death of Ishmael, 1943

Dynasty XVII
of Thebes, 1944-1793

68

Jacob in Haran, ca. 1931
Marriage of Jacob, ca.
1924
Birth of Joseph, 191 7
Jacob in Canaan, ca.
1911
Joseph sold to Egypt,

Hittites in Babylonia
Birth of Sebek-khu, 191 7
Asiatics visit Khnutn-
hotep II, 1 901

69 70717273

Josephgoveinoi in Egypt
1887
/aco6 in Egypt, 1877
Death of Jacob, i860
Death of Joseph, 1807

Dynasty XV
of Memphis, 1887-1569

747576 7778 79

Hyksos Kings
Salatis, 1826-07
Bnon, 1807-1763
Apakhnan, 1763-26

Dynasty XIV
of Sebennitos, 17 93-1 569

80 81

Dynasty XVI
of Iliopolis, 1 793-1 5 79

8283
.84

314

APPENDIX II
SYNCHRONISTIC TAB1.E.— Continued

Sea-Land

Babylonia

Assyria

8586

Ae-gdmil, 1731-11

Du {?)-shi, 1 709-1 693
Abi-rattash, 1694-
Tashshigurumash
Agum-kakrime

8788

8990

91929394 95
Kadashman-kharbe I
Kuri-galzu I
96
Meli-shipak I
Ashur-btl-nisheshu
97
Kara-indash I
A shur-nddin-akhe
9899
Kadashman-Enlil I
[- -]- buriash
100
Kuri-galzu II
Puzur-Ashur
lOI
Burna-buriash, ca. 1386-
61
Erba-Adad
102103
104 105
Kara-indash II, ca. 1361-
S8
{Nazibugai, usurper, ca.
1358)
Kuri-galzu III, 1358-34
Nazi-maruttash, 1334-08
Ashur-uballitBel-nirari Arik-din-ili
106197108 109
Kadashman-turgu, I 308-1 291
Kadashman-Enlil II,
1291-85
Kudur-Enlil, 1285-77
Shagarakti-Shuriash, 1277-64
Adad-nirariShalmaneser I
Tukulti-Ninib I
SYNCHRONISTIC TABLE
SYNCHRONISTIC TABJJE.— Continued

315

Bible

Egypt

Miscellaneous

Dynasty XVII
of Hermopohs, 1793-
1533 

Dynasty XVIII
Ahmose, 1579-^554

Apophis, 1726-1665
lannas, 1665-15

Aseth, 1615-1566
Expulsion of Hyksos, ca.
1566 

Birth of Moses, ca. 1526
FHght of Moses, ca. i486
Eglon of Moab, 1483-65
Ehud, 1465-1385
Exodus, 1447
Cushar-Arshathaim, 1410-02
Death of Moses, 1407
Conquest begins, 1407
Meeting of Joshua and
Caleb, 1402
Othniel, ca. 1 402-1 363
Jabin, 1385-65
Deborah, 1365
Covenant at Shiloh, ca.
1364
Death of Joshua, ca. 1363

Amenhotep I, 1554-33
Thutmose I, 1533-08
Thutmose II, 1522-09
Hatshepsut, 1 509-1486
Thutmose III, 1486-
1473
Thutmose III, whole
reign, 1504-1450
Amenhotep II, 1473-47
Thutmose IV, 1447-38
Amenhotep III, 1438-
02
Amenhotep, IV (Ikhna
ton) 1407-1390
Sakare, 1390-78
Tutanekhamon, 1378-69
Ai, 1369-57
Akerkheres, 1357-45

War in Syria
War in Syria
Kings of Mitani
Artatama I
Shutarna Dushratta: Mattiuaza

Dynasty XIX
Haremhab, 1345-21
Ramses I, 1 321-19
Seti I, 1 319-10

Artatama II

Hittite Kings
Supliliuma Mursil: Arandas

Mutallu

3i6

APPENDIX II
SYNCHRONISTIC TAB-LE.— Continued

Sea-Land

Babylonia

Assyria

no

Kashtiliash II, 1264-56

III

Enlil-nddin-shum, 1256-
54
Ashur-ndzir-pal I
112
Kadashman-kharbe II,
1254-53
Tukulti-Ashur
"3
Adad-shum-iddin, 1253-
47
BU-kudur-uzur
114
Adad-shum-uzur, 1247-
17
Meli-shipak II, 1217-02
Ninib-apil-Ekur
115
Dynasty D of Pashe
116
Marduk  , 1 205-1 187
Marduk-apil-iddin, 1 202-1189
117
Zamama-shum-iddin, 1189-88
118
Enlil-shum-[iddin] ,
1188-85
Ashur-ddn
119
120
121
 , 1187-81
Mutakkil-Nusku
122
----)
123
 > ii8i-ca. 1146
Ashur-rtsh-ishi
124
----)
125
Nebuchadrezzar I, ca.
1146-30
126
Enlil-nddin-aplu, 1 1 30-1.6
Tiglath-pileser I
127
Marduk-nddin-akM, I II 6-1 094
ca. 1125-1085
128
Marduk-akhe-erba, 1094-93
129
Marduk-shapik-zer-mdti, 1093-81
Ashur-bel-kala
130
{Adad-apil-iddin, 1081)
131
NabH-nddin, 1081-73
132
Dynasty E of Sea-Land
133
Simmash-shipak, 1073-
55
134
Bel-mu-kin, 1055-54
135
Kashshll-nddin-akM, 1054-51 •
Shamshi-Adad III
SYNCHRONISTIC TABLE
SYNCHRONISTIC TABEE.— Continued

317

Bible

Egypt

Miscellaneous

Midianites, 1325-18
Gideon, 1318-1278
Abimelech, 1278-75

Ramses II, 131 0-1244
Merneptah, 1244-25
Amenmeses, ca. 1225-08
Siptah, ca. 1208-02
Seti II, ca. 1202^1200
Thouris, 1 200-1 183

Hattusil: Hittite treaty,
1290
Dudchalia Armanta

no
III112

Tola, 1275-52
Jair, 1252-30

Hebrew settlement in
Egypt

"3114

Invasion, 1230-12
Jephthah, 1212-06

Kidinkhutrash of Elam

115116

Ibzan, I 206-11 99
Eton, 1199-89

Asiatic rule in Egypt

117118

Fall of Troy, 11 83

119

Djrnasty XX
Nakhtset, 1183-81
Ramses III, 11 81 -50
Ramses IV, 1150-44
Ramses V, 1144-ca. 11 34
Ramses VI \
Ramses VII i ca. 11 34-
1113
Ramses VIII '
Ramses IX, ca. 1113-
1092
Ramses X )
„ ,,.,. f ca. 1092-77
Ramses XI ) ^ "
Ramses XII, ca. 1077-50

120

Abdon, 1 189-81
Philistines, 1 1 8 1 -4 1
Samson, 11 41 -21

Herachdes in Lydia, ca.
1190^
Heb. oppression in Egypt
PhiUstine migration
Exodus of Hebrews from
Egypt, ca. II44-
Heb. conquest of Canaan

121 122123124125
tl26

Eli, 1121-1081
Philistines, 1081-61
Samuel, 1061-49

Shadi-Teshup, ca. 1125

127
[128[129 130131132133134135

INDICES

INDICES

A.
BIBLICAL REFERENCES
enesis
Genesis
Genesis
I
49 bis
25: 8, 9
24
47:11
149
i: I
5°
18
158
48: 3
47
26
22, 23
19
45
22
241
2: 4
55
20
45
49: 6
53
3 ¦•22
23
26c
45
29-32
24
S
51
26: I
135
50: 7-9
242
S-- I
55
6-23
135
10, 11
242
22
22, 23
26-33
135
12, 13
24
24
22, 23
32
13s
15-21
135
6: 9
22, 23
34
46, 54 bts
26
247
13
23
27:46
51
7:11
21
28: 3
47
Exodus
24
20
9
46, 54 bis
i: 1-7
148
8: 3,4
20
29:24
45
2-5
54
4
21
30:21
45, 46
5
140
9
49 bis
31: I
S3
II
149
9:16
23
186
46
116
148
10
17, 54 bzs
32:28
48
2:23-25
148
10: I
51
33:17
242
3: I
171
2-S
17,18
3S: 8
13s
12
171
2
19
10
48
18
171
22
18
II
47
6: I
47
22-31
: SI
13
24
2
47 *»J, 49
II
54 &w
18
248
bis
11: 7
23
21
242
9
276
10
SI
36: 1-14
46, 54 bis
14-26
194
13:12
4S
31-39
34
7 : 14-18
274
14
25
31
34
19
274
14: 6
167
37
135, 236
200
274
18
25
37: 2
SI, 236
206-2106
15: 4
S3
20
46
274
16: 7
158
41:38-40
135
21C-220
17
49
II
240
274
17: I
47
41-43
239
226-25
2
47,49
45, S° 240
274
S
48
46
46, 236
8: 1-4
274
22
24
42: 6
247
S-7
274
19:29
45 Ms
43:14
47
8-1506
20: 1-18
135
45:13
53
274
c
158
27
135
15c
274
3
135
46: S
13s
16-19
274
6
13s
6
S3
20-32
274
7
13s
8-25
54
27
171,
17
13s
28-34
142
9: 1-7
274
21:22-34
13s
47: 1-12
143, 144
8-12
274
25
13s
S-ii
46
13-35
274
321
^22

INDICES

Exodus

Exodus

Exodus

lo: 1-20 274
21:15 III
28: 4
221
21-29 274
16 III, 191
6
221
II : i-io 274
12:11-13 274
17 191
18, 19 III
42,
29: 9
43 102
lOI
14 102
22, 23 III
28
102
21-23 274
23-25 191
30: 6
180
25-27 274
24, 25 112
21
102
29-42 274
28, 29 112
26
180
37, 38 153, 169,
30-22 113
31: 7
180
195
22: I 113
18
179
96
[6 169, 178
178
96i°S
96
105, 172
4 193
I 193
49, 92, 98
96, 178
9697, 98
98
13: 4 170
10 102
17, 18 153
18 152
20 158
20, 21 153, 154
14: 1-7 154
2 i6g
8, 9 154
10, II 155
15-17 ISS
19-31 155-157
2 113
5 ^ 113
7, 8 114
9 114
10-12 114
14 115
16, 17 191
18 Zi, lis, 189
19 191
21 191
25 191
26, 27 191
32: 8
IS, ]
1920
25
27
29
30-3
33: 7-1
34
34: 1
9
1011
15:22 157, 158,
169
29 189
31 189
27 167, 171
23: I-;? IK. 116.
T2
16: 1 167, 169
191
13-26 02
17: I 171
6 171
14 99
18:15, 16 103
4 191
6-8 116
10, 11 191
17
1822
19119121 bis
14-17 103, 191
26
191
3 97, 98, 172.
178
179
19, 20 103
19: I 169
IS 191
16 21 bis
27, 2i
28
2 172
19 189, 191
29
3 92
20-33 94
35
179
5 92, 104
6 107
8 93, 104
16 172
2A
[-. I 94
39:3s
180
3 94, 104
40: 3
180
4 95, 104
5
180
4-8 172
20, 21
: 180
24 93
5-8 193
20: 2-17 93, 94, 97,
7 92, 94
Leviticus
98
8 94
I
27
4 191
9-11 172
i: 3—6
•.^
19 93
II 95
46
21 93
226-26
12 95, 97, 178
12-150
2-52
27
33
94
172
3:17
102
23 191
16 169
6: 8—7
:34
24 107, 188
18 169
46
32, 70
21 89, 92, 94,
38 97
14-18
98, 102
25
179
22
102
21: 1 102
2-11 189
25
: 16 180
21, 22 180
7:32-34 34
190
102
12 191
26;
:53, 34 180
36
102
13, 14 189
27;
:20, 21 102, 180
8: 7
221 ;
INDICES

323

Levitieus Q . Q

Leviticus

Numbers

o: 0
222
24: 1-4 30
16:32
<.¦).
lo: 9
102
3, 4 102
18: 1-20 100
13-
-15 102
5-9 30
2
IQQ
11: 2-
-19 31, 190
9 102
8-24 36,' 102
40
189
17 191
12, 13 180
fi.'^'
14 31, 190
19, 20 191
20
31
16:29
102
21 191
23
102
31
102
25 31
19: 2
102
34
102
25:1-7 31, 191
26: I
I70
17-
-26 30
6 54
14-21 38
17: 2
30
8-13 31
22-29 200
7
32, 70, 102
9 30
29
170
8,
9 188
32, 33 31
21: 1-3
120
18^^
18: 8
189
35-37 191
14, i:
? 1.^7
31, 46
39-46 189
25-34 257
190
44 54
22: 4
268
20
190
26 79
25:1-5
126
21
33, 70, 190
26: I 190
26: 4
125
23
lOI
9 49
27:21
222
19: 4
191
30 32
28
27, 36, 41,
9,
10 190
31 26
191
IS
191
27:30-33 190
28:29
22
19
190
29: 1-6
21
21
30
Numbers
30: 2
190
22
30
I 125, 197,
16
102
26
189
198
31:21
102
28
190
i: 1 170
32: 3
257
31
34, 189
3, 4 201
13
173
33,
34 191
3:1s 198
37
257
35,
36 190
20 276
33: 5-8c
157, 158,
20
31, 46
22-43 200
169
20: 2-
S 33, 70, 190
4: 5 180, 182
38
173
6
34, 189
36-48 200
35: 3
S3
9
191
5: 1-4 190
9-29
189
10
190
6: 1-21 190, 234
16
191
II
190
7:89 182
15
191
9: I 169
Deuteronomy
27
32, 34, 189
10: 8 102
i: 2
172
21: I
3°
II 170, 180
3
173
lo-iS 30
29 257
4
257
17
30
33 172, 180
5
77
21
30
12: 1-15 172
28
72
23
22, 191
13 193
44-46
121
23: 1-44 30
15 190
45
123
6
191
13: 8 276
2: 2-8
71
14
102
16 276 bis
7
173
19
30
21 170
8
167
21
102
25 173
10, 11
72
22
190
14:33, 34 173
21
72
23-25 3°
40 120
24, 26,
24, 25 21
44 120, 180
3°
257
27-3
12 30
45 120
36
258
31
102
15:34-41 190
3: 2, 6
257
41
102
16:3 199
10-16
258
324 INDICES
Deuteronomy Deuteronomy Joshua
4:13 178 23:14 75 8:30-3279,129
39 74, 127 17 67 33 181
43 258 24: 8 31 9:10 257
44-46 77 16 72 15 201
46 257 25: I 74 17-21 201

5 66, 81 17-19 71 10: i-ii 25s
5:22 97, 178 27 79 11: 1-15 129
26 127 27: 4-13 84
6:20 127 5-8 79

7 131
21, 22 72
7: I 71, 127 28:10 75 12: 4 257

I

75 22 74 13:12,31,257
23 75 25 74 14: 6 121, 129,
2 173 38 74 131
4 173 52 74 12-15 72
8 74 58 77 18: I 183, 201
9: 2 72 61 77 19 122, 124
9 97,172,178 29-3177 21:16 129
10:11 97 29: 1 77 23: 6 79
IS 97, 178 S 173 24: 1-320
17 97, 178 7 257 132
10: i-s 97, 178 21 75 I 132
8 180 29 87 25 132, 133
14 74, 127 30: I 75 26 91, 132
15 74 2 75 326,33
11: 2 75 31 : 9 77, 85, 181 135
^7 74 13 74 33 201
20 84 24-26 77, 181
12: I 74 32:44 276 Judges
IS 84 33: 2 176 i: 1—2:5
21 84 7 121 123, 132
13:17 127 8 222 I 124, 222
14:4-20 31 34: I 258 16 257
15 74 7 249 21 255
15: I 31 8 170 22-26 122
16:13-16 21 2y_34 J 22
21, 22 67 Joshua 34, 35 122
^7: 3 67 i: 7,8 78 2: 1-5 128,133
14 02 2:11 127 13
IS, 16 71 3 181 3: 7-11 269
18,1982 3:10 J 2y bis 16 140
18: I 85 II 127 21 140
^ 31 4: 1—5:31 3° 301
10 70 131 4: 1-3 133
20: 1-9 71 6 127 II 257
I 75 16 182 5 60
lo-iS 71 21 127 5: 4, s
17, 18 71 5: 2 127 5: 4, 5 176
19, 2071 4-7 127 6:19-26 108
21: 5 85 6 127 8:27 222
^° 75 13, 14 264 11:34-39 108
22:13 31 6: 4-13 181 12: 6 59
23= 7 71 7 123 13:19 28, 108
9-14 71 7: 6 181 23 28
9, 10 31 15 127 17: 5 222

H H
4^ CM

Samuel
2:12-24
6: 2-9
10-12

to M
K) VO

HHH00 00 00

^ w to H a.
Cn 4»> K) H g w o OOcra

VO

OOVO O 0\^ in i^ bbOJ .(^ Ono; ui h h 00^ .(^ Oj 00^^ OJO0OH^Htn+.ai+»-SM Sow ^ 00 H &-ij o .2
„ H Ji C*J H 10
VO Ov 4^ O
StJS S S 0° <S, « O op OOOOOOMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMO --^ —^ -^ -^

0

en 4*- to H

C^S3vOOO^Ov<^4^SvOOOOOvcSc:;^ONaONSv-^'^ai8cS t^ J^ H tl ^C?cS vO H C
"^11 II
W H 10 41. vO
~-^ en +1. 00
5^-3a-s:S:S^-?vg^^g;<?ff'&&&3s:S-S ss^-ss, KSt^^s>s:2-3 5>i
-a ^ Os^ ov -^ ONOV 0,010 ^vo-^OO^-
00--I0 Ov OJ^^J

On

CM

to H

1'

to to
4^ H
to0
H
en*-J
Ov
C/5
H
H
to
to
M
to
to
H
H
vO
H Cn 4^
^J
to vO
CM
Ui
en
Ov On OOVO 4^. Cn
en
00 Cn H
hH
b
H
to
H H
to
to
00 H
H
H H
H
H
H 00 H
H
1— t
n
OOCM
00 0
H
0
0 0
0
00 00 00 00 OOCm
0
00
(0
4^
JO NO
0
JO
VO
¦p Cn ^ 4*
to
to
VO
to
H
CO
en 4*' CM to H VO 00
*-^tOtOtOlOtOHHHH O
^ J 004^ Cm toH ^JOvenCwvono n\!-r-
tr
OvcnCwvooo ONtr Cj^
II!¦£;2^^..^^¦.rv.'.r! ^ S.'*,'^^'~'Si.*^ cmcmm H CMtoen4*OJlHHH"o tOtOHHp'
HHHONOto--J4^CMO OOtOONHCMvOto QOCn CntOHsO-J-<tHCMCMenvOO'^HvOenOCMC3 (^41^ OvCn Oq
^l v^Ol OlOlOl WMM OObJOvWOv (OWOvOvOM OrOlM M4^ K)WMl-l4i.^SkWOvK> OvOJ OJ » ^ "
Co to
320

INDICES

II Chronicles

Psahns

Daniel
21 : 6
216
19: 4-6
22
9:10
42
23: I
216
43: 3
26
II
81
17
216
46: 4
26
13
81
18
80
68:3s
26
25: 4
74
84: I
26
Hosea
26
26:2 l6-2C
74
¦167
1 216
132: 5
Isaiah
26
4: 6
8:12
90
33
29:34
216
1:13
27, 28
Joel
30:14
217
4: S
28
IS
216, 217
5:246
37
3:19
72
16
81
19:19
43, 293
18-20
1 217
29: 1
27
Amos
22
217
30: 9
37
2: 4
38
25
217
34:16
37
10
173
27
217
63: 1-6
72
4: S
28
31: 3,4
35
5:22
28 bis
35: 3
182
Jeremiah
25
28, 173
26, 27
36
2:16
162
Ezra
8: 8
H
Zephaniah
43: 7-9
162
i: 4
70
2: 2
4063
7: 1-5
292
220222202
44: I
46:1449: 8
43, 160, 162
160, 162
72
3:10
Malachi
28
6
81
4: 4
81
10
42
Ezekiel
65
222
8:16-18
210
Mark
8:14
292
29:10
30: 6
160160
14:70
60
Nehemiah
18
162
Luke
7: 7
292
43:19
218
22:59
60
8: I
81
44: 4
29 bis
23: 6
60
2
220
10, 11
218
15-19
220
13
218
Acts
9: 3
42
IS
218
14
81
45:17
28
2: 7
60
10:16
292
46: I, 3,
6
12: 1-7
210
28
12-21
210
48:11
219
B. INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS
Aamu, 238, 24off.
Aaron, 271, 276, et passim; older
brotherof Moses, 138, 193; younger
brother of Moses, 93 f., 105, 133,
171 f., 193; sons of, 29, 61.
Aaronic priesthood, 30, 60, 86, 174,
19s ff., 212, 215.
Abbaseh, 145.
Abbreviations of names, 207.
Abiah, 215.
Abiathar, 202, 206, 208, 210, 212, 222.
Abib, month-name, 21, 170
Abihu, 94, 105, 172, 196.
Abimelech, 206, 208 ff., 212.
Abiram, 125.
Abisha, "Ruler of the Highlands,"
236.
Abishuah, 202, 208, 212.
Abominations, in P and D, 67
Abraham, 47, 50, 55, 133.
Abrek, 239.
INDICES

327

Abu Hamad, 145.
Abu Said, 145.
Abydos, 237 If.
Accacia wood, ark made of, 180.
Adad, Syrian divinity, 264.
Adam, "Generations" of, 51.
Addi, the judge, 258 ff.
Admah, 257.
Admixtures, law on, 190.
Adultery, law on, 190.
A-du-re, 255
Ae, Babylonian divinity, 23.
Agade, 302.
Ahaz, 216.
Ahijah, the Shilonite, prophecy of,
75; the priest, 184.
Ahimaaz, 203, 212.
Ahimelech, 206, 212, 219, 222; name
confused with Abimelech, 208 ff.
Ahitub, 184, 203, 206, 212.
Ahmose I, king of Egypt, Dyn.
XVIII, 248 f.
Akkad, land in Middle Babylonia,
30-
Ai, 129, 181.
Aiab, 255 ff.
Ailam, 167.
Ain Shemes, 149.
Alexandrinus, Greek Codex, 143, 183,
235-
Altar, 32, 193; law on, 188 f.; at
Damascus, 216; Ebal, 79, 83, 129;
Horeb, 94, 104, 175; Jerusalem,
109, 185.
Amalek, 99, 123; Amalekites, 71, 120,
171.
Amarna Letters, 253-268, 270, 274,
298.
Amaziah, 72 ff., 81, 216.
Amariah, 203, 212.
Amenemhet II, king of Egypt, Dyn.
XII, 238.
Amenemhet III, king of Egypt, Dyn.
XII, 245 ft
Amenhotep I, king of Egypt, Dyn.
XVIII, 299.
Amenhotep II, king of Egypt, Dyn.
XVIII, 250.
Amenhotep III, Idng of Eg)rpt, Dyn.
xvm, 253, 268 f., 305.
Amenhotep IV, king of Egypt, Dyn.
XVIII, 253, 269, 305. See also
Ikhnaton.
Amenmeses, king of Egypt, Dyn.
XIX, 227.

Amenophis, 227.
Amon, Egyptian divinity, 162; Amon-
Re, 231.
Amorites, 97, 122, 241; divinity of,
24.
Amos, 38, 63.
Amram, 196. j
Amurru, 24. ,]
Anab, 257. '
Analdm, 72, 131.
Anani, 290.
Anarchy in Egypt, 227, 229.
Anath, 302.
Anathoth, 302.
Ancestor-worship, survivals of in P,
24; at Bethel, 71.
Angel, 94, 185; of Yahweh, 108, 128.
Animals, clean and unclean, laws on,
31-
Anpu, 224.
Anthropomorphisms in P, 22 f.
Antoninus, itinerary of, 160.
Anu, Babylonian divinity, 23.
Apocrypha, calendar system in, 22.
Apwriw, 234.
Aqabah, Gulf of, 166, 177.
Arabah, in Mount Seir, 176.
Arabia, nome of Lower Egypt, 142,
144 ff., 147.
Arabic, dialects, 59; language, 59,
265; version of the Bible, 152
Arad, 301.
Aram-Naharaim, 269, 300.
Aramaic, language, 60, 270, 285^ff.;
Galilean dialect of, 43; Papyri,
285 ff.; versions of the Bible ( = the
Targums), 141.
Aramaisms in the Bible, 60.
Araunah, threshing-floor of, 181, 185.
A-ra-^u, 255.
Archaisms in P, 57.
Ark, 86; of God, 202; of the Coven
ant, 41, 77, 81, 85, 108 f., 121, 124,
129, 180 ff., 222; of Testimony, 180,
182-187, 201; of Noah, 21.
Arnon, River, 166
Aroer, 257.
Arsham, Persian governor in Egypt,
289, 291.
Artatama I, king Mitani, 268.
Artatama II, king of the Horites,
269 f., 300.
Artaxerxes II, king of Persia, 291.
Aryan people, 17, 20.
Arzawa, city of Syria, 253.

328

INDICES

Asa, 40, 63, 215.
Asenat, wife of Joseph, 240.
Asher, tribe of, 122.
Asherah, worship of, 67, 70.
Ashtoreth, goddess, 70.
Asiatics in Egypt, 236 f., 272.
Askalon, Philistine city, 228.
Assemblies, 27 f.
Assuan, city of Upper Egypt, 286,
289; papyri from, 273.
Assyria, 253; inscriptions of, 18 f.,
274; language of, 59.
Assyriologists, 19, 264 f.
Astarte, city in Bashan, 255 ff.
Asylum, laws on, 189.
Atad, threshing-floor of, 242.
Atonement, Day of, 30, 102.
Aton-faith, a new religion introduced
into Egypt by Amenhotep IV, 305.
Atum, ancient divinity of Heliopolis,
148; throne of, 231.
Autumnal equinox, 21.
Avaris, Hyksos city of Egypt, 24.
Azariah, 203, 212, 216.
B
Baal, Canaanite divinity, 264.
Baal-Peor, Moabite divinity, 125.
Baal-Zephon, city of the eastern Delta,
154 f-, 157, 159, 162.
Babylonia, 253; captivity in, 2i8,
220 f.; Jews in, 18, 20; lunar year
of, 20 f . ; month-names of, 20;
calendar of, 21 f.; year of, 22;
language of, 59 ; laws of , 1 16 ; mana
of, 1 13; inscriptions of, 243, 268, 274.
Bagoas, Persian governor of Judah,
291.
Bagohi, 289. See preceding.
Balaam, 268.
Balah, lake on border of Egypt, 158,
162.
Balak, king of Moab, 125, 268 f., 300.
Bamoth, 166.
Barak, 131 f., 300.
Bashan, 125, 242.
Bata, 224.
Beautiful names, 48, 238.
Beer, 166.
Beeroth-bene-Jaakan, 166.
B6I, Babylonian divinity, 23.
Belbeis, 145, 149.
Benihassan, modern name of the
capital of the Oryx nome of Egypt,
236.

Benjamin, 248; dialect of, 59; tribe
of, 108, 122, 132, 300.
Benoni, 248, 257. See also preced
ing.
Beon, 257.
Bethel, 38, 122, 129, 181, 202, 257;
high places of, 32, 70; sepulchers of,
71; sacrifice at, 128.
Bethlehem, 109.
Beth-Peor, mountain in Moab, 77,
166.
Beth-Shemesh, 108, 181.
"Beyond Jordan," 77, 242.
Bezalel, 186, 212.
Bi-en-e-ni-ma, 255 ff.
Bigvai, 293.
Bilhah, 45.
" Birth of Re," 305. •
Bi-ti-lim, 255 ff.
Bitter Lakes, on border of Egypt, 149,
164.
Blood of the Covenant, 94.
Bnon, 248. See Benjamin.
Bochim, near Bethel, 128.
Boghaz-koi, in Cappadocia, 268, 303.
Bohairic Version, 149.
Boils and Blains, plague of, 274.
Book, meaning of, 50.
Book of the Acts of Solomon, 75.
Book of the Covenant, in D, 66; in
E, 91-98; contents of, 92-97; date
of, 98 f .
Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah,
36.
Book of the Kings of Judah and
Israel, 74.
"Book of the Law," promulgated by
Ezra and Nehemiah, 11.
Book of the Law of Moses, 73, 76.
Book of the Law of Yahweh, 39, 64.
Book of Mormon, 68.
Book of Moses, 74.
Book of the Wars of Yahweh, 137.
Book of Yahweh, 37 f.
Book of Toledoth, 52 ff.
Brahma, Vedic divinity, 23.
Breastplate, 222.
Breeches, law on, 102.
Bribery, law on, 116.
Brick-making, 250 ff.
Bukki, high-priest, 203, 212.
Bui, Canaanitic month-name, 21.
Burglary, law on, 113.
Burnt-offerings, 35, 79, 104, 109,
184 ff., 188. See also Holocausts.

INDICES

329

Caleb, 72, 119 f., 129, 138, 198, 300.
Calendar, Canaanitic, 21, 235; Baby
lonian, 22; Egyptian, 21; Hebrew,
22.
Calf-worship, 96, 105, 175, 178, 193.
Cambyses, king of Persia, 43, 272, 289.
Camp, law on arrangement of, 71.
Canaanites, 97, 120, 123,228, et passim;
calendar of, 21, 235; law on destruc
tion of, 71; language of, 43.
Canonical law, 102.
Cappadocia, 169.
Caravans, 117.
Casius, Mount, 149.
Cataract, the First, 286.
Central Sanctuary, in P, 25 ff., in D.
82-84.
Ceremonial impurity, 31.
Ceremonies, 281; of P, 41; of D, 41.
Chamor, 24.
Change of names, 47-49.
Chemarim, 69.
Chemosh, 70.
Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, 74.
Chronology, Biblical, 299 ff. ; in P,
20 f., 170; in JED, 170 f.; Baby
lonian, 20, 303; Egyptian, 304 ff.
Cimerian people, 19.
Circumcision, 25; covenant of, 47;
at Gilgal, 127 ff.
Civil law, 95.
Civil year, 22.
Clans, 277; = "Thousand," 105, 151,
192, 194, 196 ff.
Clean and unclean animals, laws on,
31-
Cleanliness in camp, law on, 190.
Codes, 281; of P, 34 ff.; of D, 31,
76 ff.; of E, 90 ff.; of Ezekiel, 29;
Holiness, 21, 30, 31, 56, 58; Ham
murabi, 102, 110-117, 191, 274;
Blessings and Curses in, 79, 95.
Commandments, 40, 80, 95.
Conclusions in regard to date of P,
44; unity of P, 56; language of P,
62; document of P, 63 f.; date of
D, 88; date of E, 99 f.; Unity of E,
117 f.; relation of E to D, 134;
priesthoods, 220 f.; exodi, 271;
similaiities, 177; Documentary Hy
pothesis 277-82.
Confusion of, Sinai and Horeb, 138;
Eli and Eleazar, 205 ff. ; Eleazar
and Eliezer, 207 f . ; Ahimelech and

Abimelech, 208 ff. ; Mouses and
Moses, 275; Sharru-gi and Shar-
gani-sharri, 304; Hoshea and
Joshua, 276; Shechem and Shik
mim, 241; Atad and Eder, 242.
Conquest of Palestine, 270; the first,
120 ff. ; the second, 129 f.
Consecration of the Temple, 33 ; sons
of Levi, 96, 105 f. ; priests, 102.
Contents of P, 45-47 ; of Book of the
Covenant, 92-97; of E, 101-18.
Convocations, solemn, 27.
Cosmetics brought to Egypt, 236.
Courts of law, 103.
Covenant of circumcision, 47; in
Moab, 77, 82, 84, 126; at Horeb,
77, 84, 92 ff. ; 97, et passim; atShiloh,
91, 100, et passim; the Four-,
49.
Cow-images, 175.
Crete, 298.
Critical results, 11.
Crocodile Lake, 148.
Cursing of parents, law on, 191.
Cushan-Rishathaim, 270.
Cush-Arshathaim, 269, 300.
D
D. See Deuteronomic Document.
Dagon, Philistine divinity, 181.
Damascus, 216.
Dan, tribe of, 108, 122; sanctuary of,
207.
Daphnai, 162.
Darkness, plague of, 274.
Darius II, king of Persia, 289 ff.
Date, of documents, 12, 278!; D
document, 11, 65-88; E document,
10, 98-100; J document, 10, 137;
P document, 11, 17-44; exodi, 223,
270.
Dathan, 125.
David, 34, 40 f., 44, 63, 80 f., 109,
122, 137, 181, 184 ff., 204 ff., 210 ff.
Day of Atonement, 30, 102.
Dead Sea, 167, 258.
Deborah, 131 f., 265 ff., 299 f.; Song
of, 60.
Decalogue, 174, 178.
Delayah, son of Sanballat, 291.
Deluge story, 21.
Deposit, law on, 114.
Determinants, historical, 30.
Deuteronomic document (D), 9, 31;
date of, II, 65-88; finding of, 65 ff.;

330

INDICES

relation to E, 119-38; language
of, 135 f-, 303-
Development Hypothesis, 65. See
also Evolutionary Hypothesis.
Devotees, house of, 67.
Dialects, 139 f. ; of Judah, 138; Levi,
52, 60-62; Gilead, 59; Ephraim,
59; Jerusalem, 59; Shechem, 136;
Benjamin, 59; Hebrew, 59; Canaan
itic, 43; Galilean Aramaic, 43, 60;
Moabitic, 58.
Dinah, 45.
Discovery of Deuteronomy, 65-69,
85-88.
Disfigurement in mourning, law on,
190.
Documents, criteria of, g, 12; num
ber of, 8, 278 f.
Documentary Hypothesis, 9 f., 12 f.,
54, 63; conclusions in regard to,
277-82.
Door of the East, 148.
Doublets, 280; in P, 46.
Dream, 135; of Solomon, 185 f.
Dushratta, king of Mitani, 268 .
Dwelling-place, 26, 182 ff. ; of "His
Name," 83.
Dynasties A, B, C, and D of Baby
lonia, 303.

E. See Elohistic Document.
E^ 135-
Eastern Nome, 148 f.
Ebal, 79, 129, 181; altar at, 79; in
scribed stones at, 136.
Eben-ezer, 181.
Eber-hannahar, 133.
Ecclesiastical year, 22.
Eder, east of Jordan, 242; in Judah,
257-
Edom, 167, 176, 227; kings of, 34;
hated by Israel, 71 f.; Edomites,
71 f., 272.
Edrei, 166, 242.
Eglon, king of Moab, 301.
i,gilra, 288.
Egypt, 43, 46; monuments, 19;
priests, 43; calendar, 21; year, 21;
month names, 21; beautiful names
in, 48; inscriptions of, 146, 151,
161, 163, lis, 225 f., 228, 230, 232,
236, 244, 274, 302.
Ehud, judge, 257 ff., 265 f., 300 ff.
Ekron, Philistine city, 181.

Eleazar, 194, 196, 200, 202 ff.; iden
tical with Eli, 205 ff.; confused with
Eliezer, 207 f.
El-Elyon, 25.
El-Shaddai, 24, 47, 49.
Elam, 18.
Elath, 167.
Elders, of Israel, 77, 94, 171 f.; of
Judah, 66; of Jerusalem, 66.
Eleanitic Gulf, 167.
Elephantine, 2875.; temple of Vah-
weh at, 43, 87 ff. ; papyri from, 288 ff.
Eli, 28, 181, 184, 202 ff., 219.
EUab, 125.
Eliezer, 207, 212.
Elim, 166 f., 171.
Elisha, 28.
Elohim, 47-49; in a plural sense, 23,
54-
Elohistic Document (E), 9; date of,
89-100; unity of, 101-118; relation
to D, 119-134; language of, 135.
El-paran, 167.
Elul, month-name, 22.
Elyon, 25.
Endor, witch of, 33.
England, dialects of, 59.
En-lil, Babylonian divinity, 303.
Enoch, 22.
Ephraim, 59; dialect of, 135; tribe of,
122, 132, 201; Gilgal of, 129
Ephod, 183, 202, 221 f.
Epiphi, Egyptian month-name, 21.
Equinox, 21.
Ero, 149.
Esau,45 1, 64, 133; frienashipfor, 71.
Escol, 120, 173.
Etef -crown, 231.
Etham, 153, 157 ff., 166, 169.
Ethanim, Cannanitic month-name, 21.
Etruscans, 19.
Eusebius, 248.
Evolutionary Hypothesis, 10, 15 f.;
conclusions in regard to, 277-82.
Exile, 20, 31, et passim.
Exodus, starting-point of, 153-65;
routes of, 166-68; dates of, 223-70.
External evidence, for date of P, 42-
44; date of D 65-69.
Ezekiel, 11, 28 ff., 34, 57; code of, 29;
language of, 61; proposed reform
of, 218 f.
Ezion Gaber, 166, 176.
Ezra, II, 17, 29 f., 34, 44, 57, 203;
language of, 61.

INDICES

33^

Familiar spirits, law on, 32.
Fasting, of Moses, 97 ; in Elephantine,
290.
Feast, 30, 35; of Trumpets, 21 f.,
30; of Tabernacles, 22, 29; of
Ingathering, 22; of Unleavened
Bread, 191; of New Year, 22; of
New Moons, 27 f., 35.
"Fill the hands," 105 f.
Eiran, Wady, 175.
Flesh torn by beasts, law on, 189.
Firstborn son, priestly rights of, 104;
plague of death of, 274.
Flies, plague of, 274 f.
Flint-knives, 127.
Fragmentary Hypothesis, 12.
Fragments, in P, 45 f. ; in E, loi ; in
E Code, loi ff.
Framework of Hexateuch, 52 ff.
Frogs, plague of, 274.
Frontier officials, 2 24 ff.
Funeral expedition, 242.
G
Gad, tribe of, 124, 126.
Galilee, dialect of, 43, 60, 207; fugi
tives from, 43.
Gamurrini, manuscript of, 145.
Ga-re, 255 ff.
"Gates." 5ee Satyrs.
Gath, Philistine city, 181.
Gaza, PhiHstine city, 167.
Geba, 184 f.
Gebelen, city of Upper Egypt, 305.
"Generations," 50 f.
Geography of the Bible, 14; in P,
17-20.
Gerah, 257.
Gerizim, 136, 181.
Germany, dialects of, 59.
Gershom, son of Moses, 196, 207, 302.
Gesem, 145.
Gezer, 228.
Gharandel, Wady, 167, 175.
Gibeah, 183 ff., 212; of Elohim, 184;
of Saul, 184.
Gibeon, 41, 109, 129, 182 ff., 212;
Gibeonites, 183, 201.
Gideon, 108, 222.
Gilead, 108; dialect of, 59.
Gilgal, of Benjamin, 121, 127; of
Ephraim, 129, 300.
Gimirrai, 19.
Gleanings, law on, 190.

Gomer, 19, 20.
Good deeds, 36 f.
Goring, law on, 112.
Goshen, land of, 142 ff. ; city of, 145,
147-
Greater Book of the Covenant, 92.
Greece, dialects of, 59; peoples of,
19, 272.
Gudgodah, 166.
Gulf of Aqabah 166, 177.
H
^a-{aS)-pi-ni, 225.
^a-bi-re, 254.
Hadad, 264.
Hadar, king of Edom, 34.
Hades, Greek divinity, 23.
Hail, plague of, 274.
Hamath, pass of, 190.
Hammurabi, 18; Code of, 102, iio-
17; 191, 274.
Hangings for Asherah, 70.
Harakhte, sun-god of Heliopolis, 231.
Haremhab, king of Egypt, Dyn. XIX,
272, 306; laws of, 95.
I^arre, 269.
Hatshepsut, queen of Egypt, Dyn.
XVIII, 17s, 249, 270.
Jlattusil, Hittite king, 303.
Hazeroth, 119, 166, 172.
Hazor, 129, 131, 265.
Heave-offering, 102.
Hebrew, language, 59-61, 139 f.; see
also Massoretic text; calendar, 22;
year, 21; New-year's Day, 21; text,
49, 132, 141, 240; Hebrews, 21, 181.
Hebron, 138, 227, 300.
He-goats, sacrifices to, 102.
Heliopolis, 148 f., 245, 250; northern,
149.
Henotheistic worship, 25.
Heracleopolis, 306.
Herding, law on, 114.
Herodotus, 149.
Heroo-polis, 142, 145, 148 ff., 164;
Heroopolitan Gulf, 149.
Heshbon, 166, 255 ff.
Hexateuch, 36, 89, 101, 138, 220; do
cuments of, 9, 44, 63, 279, 281;
framework of, 52 ff.
Hezekiah, 68, 85, 217; reforms of,
35 f., 63; Passover of, 81.
High-places, of satyrs, 32; of Judah,
32, 67, 70; Jerusalem, 32, 70;
Bethel, 32, 70; laws on, 32.

332

INDICES

High-priest, 30, 65, 86, 194 ff.
High-priestly lists, 202 f., 212, 216.
Hilkiah, 65 ff., 85, 203.
ffi-ni-a-na-bi, 255.
Hiroth, 159.
History of Nathan the Prophet, 75.
Historical determinants, 30.
Historical Hypothesis, 15, 277 ff.
Hittites, 97, 228, 253 f.; inscriptions
of, 268, 270, 274; king of, 303;
ambassadors of, 145, 223.
Hivites, 97.
Hobab, 255.
Holiness Code, 21, 30, 31, 56, 58.
Holy Scriptures, inspiration of, 13.
Holocaust, 27, 41, 43, 175, 290. See
also Burnt-offering.
Holy of Holies, 292 f. See also
Oracle-place.
Homer's Odyssey, 19.
Hophni, 202.
Hor, Mount, 166, 170, 200, 298.
Horeb, 102, 152, 166, 171!, 178 ff.,
299; legislation at, 90, 119, 188-
192, 271, 282; location of, 174 ff.;
covenant at, 77, 84, 92 ff., 97, 106,
137; confused with Sinai, 138.
Horites, 228, 269 f., 300.
Hormah, 120.
Horses of the sun, 70.
Hosea, 70.
Host of Heaven, worship of, 67.
House of Joseph, 122, 128, 257.
House of Re, 150.
House of Ramses II, 145.
House of Sutekh, 145.
Hulda, 66, 85.
Hur, 186.
Hyksos, 23s, 247, 270, 272, 302;
expulsion of, 249.
I
Iddo the Seer, visions of, 75.
Idolatry, 69, gi; laws on, 191.
Ijjar, month-name, 20.
Ijje-Abarim, 166.
Ikhnaton, 305. See also Amenhotep
IV.
Ildni RabAti, 23.
Impurity, ceremonial, 31.
Incense, 27 f., 43, 289.
Incest, laws on, 31, 190.
Ingathering, Feast of, 22.
Inscriptions. See Amarna Letters
Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, Hittites

Mesa, Nabatheans, Phoenicia, Si
loah.
Inspiration, 13.
Institutions, religious, in P, 25 ff.
Intermarriage, 117.
Intemal evidence, for date of P, 17-
42; of D, 69-88; of E, 99.
Ionia, 18.
Isaac, 133.
Isaiah, 37, 63.
Ishbaal, 59.
Ishbosheth, 59.
Ishmaelites, 237.
IshmaiHeh, 158, 160; canal, 149.
Is-nt, 238, 240.
Israel, 48, 228, 241; funeral of, 241 f.
Israel Stela, 228.
Issachar, tribe of, 132.
Italy, Etruscan migration into, 19;
dialects of, 59.
Itinerary, of Antoninus, 160; of JED
166 f.; of P, 166.
Ithamar, 196, 212, 214, 220.
I-ud-du^a, 255 ff.
Izhar, 1 96. J
J. See Jahvistic Document.
Jaazer, 166.
Jabbok, river, 242.
Jabesh, 258.
Jabin, Canaanitic liing, 129, 131, 265,
300 f.
Ja-bi-shi, 255.
Jacob, 45, 48 f., 64, 133; scarabs of
243 ff.; sons of, 54.
Jacob-el, 244, 301.
Jahaz, 166.
Jahvistic Document, 9, 23, 50; anthro
pomorphisms in, 23; date of, 137;
language of, 53, 138; unity of, 137.
Japheth, sons of, 18.
Jaqep, 240.
Ja-shu-ia, 255.
Javan, 18.
Jeb ( = Elephantine) , 284.
Jeba, 184.
Jebusites, 97, 185.
Jeddniah, 42, 284 ff.
Jehohanan, 290.
Jehoiada, 80 f., 216.
Jehonan, 292.
Jehoshaphat, 39 f., 63, 85, 203, 215.
Jehoram, 216.
Jehozadak, 203.

INDICES

333

Jehu, 39.
Jephtha, 108.
Jephunneh, 121, 130.
Jeremiah, 37, 303.
Jericho, 129, 133, 257, 2641, 302.
Jeroboam I, no, 215.
Jerusalem, 32, 41 f., 109, 129, 181 f.
203, 213, 220, 227, 273; high-
places of, 32; governor of, 43;
dialect of, 60.
Jeshua, 220.
Jethro, 102 f., 171.
Jews, in Babylonia, 18, 20; in Ele
phantine, 284 ff.
Jezreel, 131.
Jib, 184.
Joash, 81, 216.
Johanan, 203.
John the Baptist, 204,
Joiakim, 220.
Jonah, book of, written in the GaUlean
dialect, 60.
Jonathan, 208, 212; son of Gershom,
207.
Jordan, 77, 181, 241 f., 258.
Joseph, 46, 50, 55, 224, 235 ff.; house
of, 122 f., 257.
Joseph-el, 301.
Josephus, 227, 247, 291.
Joshua, 72, 78, 96, 257, 271, 276, et
passim.
Josiah, 36, 65, 81, 85, 217; reforms
of, II, 63, 67.
Jothbatha, 166.
Jubilee, year of, 31.
Judah, high-places of, 32; tribe of,
108, 121; language of, 138; gover
nor of, 288, 291.
Judge Addi, 258 ff.
Judgments, 77, 80 f,, 94 f., 102, 134.
Justinian, 174. K
Kadashman-Turgu, king of Baby
lonia, Djm. C, 303.
Kadesh, 120 ff., 133, 173, 176, 180.
Kadesh-barnea, 166, 172; rebellion at
119, 121, 123, 130.
Kaldi, land of, 304.
Kashdi, land of, 304.
Kassites, 303.
Kastiliashu, 303.
Keb, Egyptian divinity, 231.
Kedemoth, 166.
Kenizzites, 21, 30.

Kesem, 145.
Khe-kau-Re, 239.
Khepri-Set, 231.
Khetem, 158.
Khnub, Egyptian divinity, 286, 288.
Khnumhotep II, 236.
Kibroth Hattavah, 166, 172.
King, law on manner of choosing, 71,
82.
Kingdom of priests, 104.
Kiriath-Jearim, 181, 184.
Kiriath-Sepher, 300.
Kish, 304.
Kohath, 196.
Korah, rebellion of, 198 f.
Kos, 145.
Kudur-Enlil, king of Babylonia, Dyn.
C, 303, 306.
Kudurru Inscriptions, 304.
Kusa, 145.
Ku-us-sar, 270, 300.

Laban, 45.
Lagoons of the Delta, 159.
Lamp, 30, 102.
Language, Hebrew, 58, 281; of Tole
doth Book, 53, 61; of P, 57-62; of
E, 135; ofD, 135 f.; of J, 138 f.
Laver, 102.
Law, 95, 97, 282.
"Law of Elohim," go f., 98, 134
"Law of Moses," 66, 76-82, 90, 98,
134-
"Law of Yahweh," 34-42, 64, 78, 86,
90, 98, 184.
Laws of Hammurabi. See Code of
Hammurabi.
Laws of Haremhab, 95.
Leah, 45 f.
Lepers, 227.
Leprosy, laws on, 31, 190; of Miriam,
172.
Levi, tribe of, 195; dialect of, 52, 60-
62,138; institutions of, 61; sons of,
77, 96-
Levites, 29, 218 ff.; laws on, 31;
revenues of, 190.
Levitical priesthood, 85.
Lex talionis, 112, 191.
Libya, 149.
Lice, plague of, 274 f.
Locusts, plague of, 274.
Lord of the Northland, 162.
Lower Egypt, 145.

334

INDICES

Lucianic text, Greek, 132.
Lunar year, in Babylonia, 20.
Luxor, 283.
Lying with beasts, law on, 191.
M
Ma-ag-da-lim, 255.
Maccabean Period, 11.
Machir, clan of Manasseh, 132, 301.
Machpelah, cave of, 24.
Madian, 177.
Makrizi, 145.
Malachi, 57, 81; language of, 61.
Mana, 113.
Manasseh, tribe of, 68, 81, 86, 108,
122; eastern, 126; western, 301.
Manetho, 227, 233, 305.
Manoah, 108.
Manslaughter, laws on, igi.
Manstealing, laws on, in, 191.
Marah, 102!, 166 f., 171, 175.
Marcheswan, month-name, 291.
Massoretic text, 70, 106, 141, 209, 257.
Mattanah, 166.
Mazzebas, law on, 190.
Meal-offering, 27 f., 33, 43.
Media, 18.
Me-ish-tu, 255.
Melchizedek, 25.
Mentiu-Sati, 238.
Mentuhotep, 272, 304.
Menzaleh, Lake, i5g, 162, 164.
Mephi-bosheth, 5g.
Meon, 257.
Meraioth, 203.
Merari, ig6.
Meriamon. See Ramses II.
Meri-baal, 60.
Meribah, east of Kadesh-barnea, 166.
Merneptah, king of Egypt, Dyn. XIX,
148, 224, 227, 233; Israel Stela of
228.
Merneptah-Hotephirma, fortress of,
224, 227.
Merom, 131.
Mesa inscription, 58.
Meshah(?), 257.
Mesopotamia, 268 f.
Mesore, month-name, 305.
Micah, 207, 222.
Midian, 177, 270; Midianites, 201,
268.
Migdal, 257.
Migdol, 154, 157, 160.
Migrations into Egypt, 272.

Milcom, 70.
Military service, law on, 71.
Miriam, 125, 172, 193.
Misplacement of texts, 42, 50.
Miscarriage, law on, in.
Missions conducted by Levites, 39 f.,
85-
Mitani, 253, 269 ff., 300.
Moab, 166, 268 f.; dialect Of, 58;
covenant in, 77, 82, 84, 181; legisla
tion in, 89 f., 119, 282; plains of,
166, 170, 201.
Molech, 33; law on worship of, 33;
70, 190.
Monotheism, 24.
Month-names, in Babylonia, 20, 32;
in Canaan, 21; in Egypt, 21; in
JED, 21; in P, 20; Hebrew, 21, 22.
Morning and evening burnt-offerings,
35 f-, 41.
Moserah, 166.
Moseroth, 172.
Moses, 36, 47, 49, 50 f., 55, 92 f., 271,
2^ s, ^t passim; birth of, 249; priest,
193 ff.; Law of, 66, 76-82.
Mourning, law on, 190.
Mouses, 275 f.
Murrain, plague of, 274.
Musa, Gebel-, 174; Ain-, 175.
Mushi, clan of, 277.
Mustering, 125, 169; at Sinai, 197;
of Levites, igg ff.
Mut-Baal, 258; letter of, 255 ff.
N
Nabathean inscriptions, 175.
Nadab, 94, 105, 172, 196.
Nahaliel, 166.
Nahrina, 269.
Nakht-Set, king of Egypt, Dyn. XX,
229, 231.
Name of Yahweh, dwelhng-place of,
83, 107-
Names, change of, 47-49; beautiful,
48, 240; throne, 48; birth, 48.
Naphayan, 287.
Naphtali, tribe of, 122, 132; con
quest of, 43.
Nar^m-Sin, king of Agade, 302.
Nathan, history of, 75.
Nazarites, 234; law on, igo.
Neb-hepet-Re-Mentuhotep, king of
Egypt, Dyn. XI, 304.
Neb-tjru-Re-Mentuhotep, king of
Egypt, Dyn. XI, 304 f.

INDICES

335

Nebo, Mount, i66.
Nebuchadrezzar (II), king of Baby
lonia, 203.
Negeb, 301.
Nehemiah, 11, 18, et passim.
New-moon festivals, 27 f . ; burnt-
offerings for, 35.
New-year's Day, feast of, 22.
Nine Bows, 290.
Nisan, month-name, 20, 22.
Noah, ark of 21; walking with
Elohim, 22; "generations" of, 51.
Nob, 222.
Northern Heliopolis, 149, 233.
Northern Kingdom, 38; home of the
E Code, 39, go, 99, no, 118, 135, 173.
Northland, lord of, 162.
Nubia, 239.
"Numbering," 125.
Nub-kau-Re, 238.
Nun, father of Joshua, 201.
O
Oak, sacred, at Shiloh, 91; at Oph
rah, 108.
Oasis, 176.
Obed-Edom, 181, 222.
Oblations, 27.
Oboth, 166.
Odin, Scandinavian divinity, 23.
Odysseus, ig.
Odyssey, ig.
Offerings, law on, i8g.
Og king of Bashan, 125 f.
Oil, holy, 30
On, -( = Heliopolis), 150.
Onias, temple of, 150.
Ophrah, 108.
Oppression in Egypt, 233 f., 250, 270.
Oracle-Place, 86, 293.
Ordinance, loi, 133.
Oman, 182, 185.
Oryx nome, 236.
Osarsiph, 227, 229, 233.
Osiris, 231, 237.
Ostan, 290.
Othniel, 269, 300.

P. See Priestly Document.
Paddan-Aram, 54.
Palestine, 20, 116, 129, 227, et passim.^
Papyri, Aramaic, 284 ff.; Anastasi
VI, 224-226; Harris, 154 f-, 149 ft,

161 ff., 165, 229-233; Harris 500,
250; Orbiney, 224; Turin, 304.
Paradise story, 30.
Paran, wilderness of, 166, 170; mount
of, 176 f.
Pashe, Babylonian Dynasty of, 303.
Passover, 169; of Hezekiah, 81, 217;
statute on, 102; laws on, i8g.
Pasturage, law on, 113.
Patriarchs, 47.
Patricide, law on, in.
Peace-offerings, 27 f., 7g, 105, 109.
Pelusium, 160.
Pentateuch, n, et passim.
Pentecost, 102, 162.
Perizzites, 97.
Pe(r)-Atum, 148.
Pe(r)-Soped, 145.
Pe(r)-Tum, 148.
Perjury, law on, 115, 191.
Persia, 17; Persian Period, 272, 283,
292; Persians, 17 f.
Peshitta, Syriac Version, 132.
Pethor, 269.
Petra, 167, 176.
Phacusa, 145.
Pharaoh, 142 ff., 205, et passim; of
the Oppression, 224.
Philistines, 18, 153, 166, 273; gods of,
181.
Phinehas, 201, 206, 212.
Phoenician inscriptions, 21; language,
60; mana, 113.
Pi-Hahiroth, 154 f., 157 ff., 162, 169.
Pilgrimages, 175; laws on the annual,
igi.
Pillar, of Yahweh, 43; sacred, 104 i of
cloud and fire, 154 f.
Pisgah, 121, 166.
Pithom, 147 ff., 227, 233; pools of,
149.
Plagues, 274 f.
Pledges, law on, igi.
Pliny, 149, 167.
Pools of Pithom, 149.
Portion, priest's, 32, 70; king's, 35.
Poseidon, Greek divinity, 23.
Post-exilic period, 20, et passim.
Poljrtheism, survivals of, in P, 22.
Prayer, of Solomon, 74 ff.; of Moses,
121.
Priesthood, 102, 193-222; Aaronic, 30,
86; Levitical, 85, 105 ff.; general,
103 ft
Priestly Document, 9, 16, 551, 63;

336

INDICES

date of, 17-44, 63 ; anthropomorph
isms in, 22 f.; code of, 16, 216;
unity of, 45-47 ; contents of, 45-47 ;
language of, 57-62, 64; fragments
of, 45, 63; doublets of, 46, 63.
Priests, 70; et passim; kingdom of,
g2; portion of unleavened bread
for, 32; definition of title, ig3 f.
Priests and Levites, 29, 36, 195 ff.,
214 ff., et passim.
Priests, the Levites, 29, 80, 64 f.,
195 ff., 214 ff., 220, et passim.
Private sacrifices, 27.
Psalms, pre-exilic, 26.
Ptah, Egyptian divinity, 231.
Ptolemy, 149 ff.
Ptolemy the geographer, 149.
Purpose of the Hexateuch, 14.

Quarrel, law on, in.
R
Raamses, land of, 142, 144; city of,
145, 147 ft, 153, 157, 166, 169, 176,
223, 233.
Rachel, 45, 248.
Rahab, 303.
Ramses II, king of Egypt, Dyn. XIX,
145, 148, 223 f., 303, 306.
Ramses III, king of Egypt, Dyn. XX,
145, 149, 162, 227, 229 ff., 233 f.
Ramses IV, king of Egypt, Dyn. XX,
233 f-
Ramses IX, king of Egypt, Dyn. XX,
233-
Re, Egyptian sun-god of Heliopolis,
148, 228, 245; Re-Atum, 231.
Rebellion, at Horeb, 96, 105; at
Kadesh, 119 f., of Dathan and
Abiram, 125; of Korah, igS.
Reforms, of Josiah, n, 32, 67; of
Saul, 33 ff.; of Hezekiah, 35.
Red Sea, 133, 152 f., 157, 162, 164,
166, 170.
Rehoboam, no, 215, 235.
Rekhmire, 250 ft
Release, year of, 31.
Religious institutions, 281; of P, 25 ff.
Repairs of the Temple, 65, 86 f.
Rephidim, gg, 102, 166 f., 171, 175.
Reports, of a frontier official, 2246.;
of the secretary of Khnumotep II,
236.
Retenu, 238, 240 ff.

Reuben, tribe of, 124, 126, igs.
Revenues of Levites, law on, igo.
Reunion of Joshua and Caleb, 130.
Ritual, Temple, 43, 175.
Rome, dialects of, 59.

Saadiah Gaon, Arabic version of, 145,
149.
Sabbath, burnt-offerings for, 35; laws
on, 189.
Sabbatical year, 30 f. ; laws on, 191,
Sacrifices, 175; to he-goats, 120.
laws on, 188 f ; private, 27 ; public,
27, 94; at Gilgal, 127 f.; at Horeb,
94; non-Levitical, 107-110, 134.
Sadir, 145.
Saft el-Henneh, 145.
Salem, 25.
Salitis, 247 f.
Samaria, 90 f., 292.
Samaritan Pentateuch, n; text of,
4g; dialect, 207.
Samson, 108, 204, 234.
Samuel, 44, 204.
Sanballat, 291.
Sanctuary, at Shiloh, gi; at Dan, 207;
central, in P, 25 f.; in D, 82-84.
Sardinians, 227, 231.
Sargon, king of Aikad, 303.
Sargon, king of Assyria, ig.
Satyrs, 70; high-places of, 32.
Saul, 32 f., 44, 60, 108, 184, 204, 212;
reforms of, 34 f., 42, 63.
Scarabs, 243 ff., 270.
Scenae Veteranorum, 150.
"Schools" of compilers, 55.
Sea (=the Mediterranean), 154 ff.,
158, 164.
Sebek-khu, 237-48, 270.
Sed. See Set.
Seduction, law on, 191.
Seer, Iddo the, 7 5.
Seething of kid, law on, igi.
Seir, Mount, 71, 133, 176 f., 272.
Sekmem, 240 f.
Semites, 273, et passim.
Separation, water of, 102.
Sepher, significance of, 38, 50.
Septeuagint, n, 4g f., 53,104 f., 132,
141 ff., 152, 202, 206, 2og, 222, 234
240, 275.
Sepulchers, worship at, 71.
Seraiah, 203.
Serapeum, 160.

INDICES

337

Serbal, Mount, 174 f.
Serbut et-Khadem, 175.
Serf-laborers in Egypt, 233.
Servitudes in Egypt, 148-52.
Sesostris II, king of Egypt, Dyn. XII,
236, 23g.
Sesostris III, king of Egypt, Dyn. XII,
238 ff., 247.
Set, Egyptian divinity, 24.
Seti I, king of Egypt, Dyn. XIX, 303.
Seti II, king of Egypt, Dyn. XIX, 224.
Settlements of Hebrews in Egypt, 141-
47, 270.
Shaddai, 24.
Shallum, 203.
Shalmaneser II, king of Assyria, 18.
Shamash, Babylonian sun-god, 274.
Shamgar, 302.
Shaphan, 65 ff., 85.
Shar-gani-sharri, king of Agade, 304.
Sharru-gi, king of Kish, 304.
Sliasu, 227.
Shechem, 121, 132, 240 ff.; dialect of,
136.
Shekel, 113.
Shelemayah, 291.
Shem, 18; "generations" of, 51, 54, 63.
Shepherd kings, 247 f.
Sheshonk I, king of Egypt, 156.
Shewbreads, 30, 102.
Shibboleth, 59.
Shiloh, 129, 135, 181 f., 205 ff.;
temple of, 132; covenant at, gi, 100,
132, 301; sanctuary of Yahweh at,
91; sacred oak at, 91; sacred stone
at, 91, legislation at, 133.
Shilonite, Ahijah the, 75.
Shittim, 125, 166.
Shiva, Vedic divinity, 23.
Shur, Wilderness of, 157 ff., 164, 166,
169, 177; way of, 274.
Sibboleth, 59.
Siege of foreign cities, law on, 71.
Sihon, 125 f. .
Sikima, 241.
Siloah inscription, 58.
Simeon, tribe of, 123, 195.
Similarities in the Exodi stories, 272-
77-
Sin, Wilderness of, 166, 169, 176.
Sinai, 166, 178 ff., 212, et passim;
location of, 176 ff.; legislation at
188-92, 271, 282; Wilderness of,
26, 166, 169; mustering at, 197 ff.;
confused with Horeb, 98, 138.

Sinaitic peninsula, 174, 177, 268.
Sin-offering, 27, 30.
Singers, 220.
Sisera, 131, 302.
Sivan, month-name, 20, 22.
Slave, laws on, 189; Joseph a, 237.
Sodom, 45.
Solar year, in P, 20.
Solomon, 21, 28, 33, 40, 63, 70, 80 f.,
86, log, 178, 184 ft, 204 ff., 214;
founding of temple of, 334, 300;
prayer of, 74 ff., 80; Book of the
Acts of, 75.
Son of Re, 243 f.
Song of Deborah, 60.
Song of Songs, 60.
Sorcery, law on, 33, 115, 189.
Sothic dates, 197.
Spies, 119, 170.
Spoil, purification of, 102.
Statutes, 38, 56, 77, 80 f., loi f., 106,
133, 222.
Stela of Sebek-khu, 237 ff., 245.
Stones, unhewn, used for altars, 79;
sacred, gi, 94; law on, 190; at
Horeb, 104; of Zoheleth, 109; at
Ebal, 136.
Storage, law on, 114.
Strabo, 149.
Strangers, law on, 191.
Straying animals, law on, 191.
Succoth, east of Jordan, 243.
Succoth, in Egypt, 148, 153, 157, 159,
166, 169, 227.
Suez, I5g f., 162, 164, 175.
SuHh, 303.
Sumu-la-ilu, king of Babylonia, Dyn.
A, 303-
Sun, horses of, 70.
Superscriptions, 50.
Supreme justice, 103.
Susa, 18.
Sutekh, Egyptian divinity, 145.
Suttarna, king of Mitani, 268.
Sutu, 254.
Sweden, dialects of, 5g.
Sychem, 241.
Syria, 26g; Syriac version, 132, 141,
152.

Taberah, 166, 172.
Tabernacle of Yahweh, 41, 170, i7g,
185; of testimony, 182, 212.
Tabernacles, Feast of, 22, 102.

338

INDICES

Table of Nations, 17.
Tables, of Covenant, 95, 97, 178 ff.;
of Testimony, 178 ff.
Tahpanhes, 162.
Tale of the Two Brothers, 224.
Tamar, 265.
Tammuz, month-name, 289 f.
Tanis, 24, 162.
Targum Onkelos, 152.
Tassels, law on, igo.
Tatenen, Egyptian divinity, 231.
Tehenu, 228.
Tel el-Amarna, 253.
Tel el-Defenneh, 162.
Tel el-Jehudieh, 150.
Tel el-Kebir, 147, 149.
Tel el-Maskhutah, 148.
Tel el-Rotabieh, 145, 149.
Temperance of priests, 102.
Temple of Yahweh, Egyptian proto
type of, 175; at Elephantine, 43, 283-
gi.
Tent, of meeting, 26, g4, 182 ff., 186,
196 ff. ; of testimony, 182.
Teraphim, worship of, 71.
Teresh, 18.
Testimonies, 77, 80, 174, 179.
Thank-offering, 27 f.
Tharu, 158.
Thaubasium, 160.
Thebes, 231, 272, 305.
Theft of animals, law on, 113.
Theophanies, 47, 49, 92.
"Thousand," 197 f.
Throne names, 48.
Thummim, 222.
Thutmose I, king of Egypt, Dyn.
XVIII, 235, 249.
Thutmose III, king of Egypt, Dyn.
XVIII, 249 ff., 270.
Tiglath-pileser IV, king of Assyria, 43.
Tih, Mount, 177.
Timsah, Lake, 148, 158, 175.
Tirash, 18, 20.
Tithes, 102; law on, 190.
Toledoth Book, 50, 52 ff., 64, 119,144,
192, 223; language of, 61.
Tombstones, worship at, 71.
Torah, 14.
Trespass-offering, 28, 30.
Tribal dialects, 49 ff., 139 f.
Trinity, primitive ideas of, 23.
Troglodytes, 239.
Troy, fall of, ig.
Trumpets, silver, 102; Feast of, 21, 30.

Tum, sun-god of Heliopolis, 148.
Tumilat, Wady, 149.
Turin Papyrus, 304.
Two Brothers, Tale of, 242.
Two Lands (=Egypt), 231, 238.
U
U-du-mu, 255.
Uncleanness, 31.
United States, dialects of, 49.
Unity, of P, 45-47; of E, 101-118;
of J, 137 f.
Unleavened bread, priest's portion of
32,70; Feast of, igi; laws on, 191.
Upper and Lower Egypt, 238.
Uraeus, 231.
Uri, 186.
Urim, 222.
Userkare-Setepnere-Meriamon, 23 1.
Usermare-Meriamon ( = Ramses III),
229.
User-Re, 244.
Usury, laws on, 191.
Uzzi, 203, 212.
Uzziah, 216.
Uzziel, 196.

Variegated coats, 237.
Vaticanus, Greek Codex, 183, 235.
Vei, Scandinavian divinity, 23.
Versions of the Bible, Arabic, 152;
Bohairic (Coptic), 149; Peshitta.
(Syriac), 132; Targums (Aramaic)
141; Vulgate (Latin), 152.
Vicus Judaeorum, 150.
Vilir, Scandinavian divinity, 23.
Vishnu, Vedic divinity, 23.
Visions of Iddo the Seer, 75.
Vows, 102 ; law on, igo.
Vulgate, Latin version, 152.
W
Wady Firan, 175.
Wady Gharandel, 167, 175.
Wady Tumilat, 149.
Waidrang, 283, 289.
Wall of Egypt, 158.
Wandering, length of, i6g-73.
"Wars of Yahweh," 137.
Water of Re, I4g.
Water turned to blood, plague of,
274 f.
Wave-offering, 102.
Weights, law on, igo.

INDICES

339

Well of the Sun, 149.
Wertu, 239.
Wilderness, west of Red Sea, 152 f.;
of Sin, 166, 169, 176; of Sinai, 26;
of Shur, 157; of Zin, 170, 176.
Witch of Endor, 33 f.
Witchcraft, 32 ft
Wizards, laws on, 32.
Words, the Ten, 93 ff., 97 ff., 103,
178 ff.
Worship, of satyrs, 32, 70; of Molech,
33, 70, igo; of Asherah, 67, 70;
of host of heaven, 67 ; of ancestors,
24, 71; of Teraphim, 71; calf-, g6
105, 17s, 178, 193; of tombstones,
71; of sepulchers, 71.
Written laws, 33, 35-42.
Wser-Re, 245.

Yahu, 289 ff.
Yahweh, abiding on mountains, 274;
law of, 34; pillar of, 43; Yahweh
Elohim, 23.
Yakeb, 243.
Yanhamu, 253.
Yazah, 21.
Year, Sabbatical, 30; Jubilee, 31;

end of, 21; revolution of, 21; He
brew, 21; lunar, 20 f.; Eygptian,
21; solar, 20; Canaanitic, 21;
Babylonian, 22.
Yedoniah, 289 ff.
Yenoam, 228.
Yerakh, 21.

Zaa, 238.
Za-ar-ki, 255.
Zabafi, 84.
Zadok, 184, 203, 210 ff.; sons of,
29 f., 61, 218 f.
Zephenath-Paneah, 240.
Zared, 166 f.
Zebulon, tribe of, 122, 132; conquest
of, 43-
Zedekiah, 235.
Zephat, 120.
Zeraiah, 203, 212.
Zeus, Greek divinity, 23.
Zilpah, 45.
Zin, Wilderness of, 170, 176.
Ziv, month-name, 21.
Zoan, 162.
Zoar, 257.
Zoheleth, stone of, 109.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 5903