-Y^ILIioWJMWEI^SflTY- ILniBI^i^IElf »

I£rs. Percy E. Shoemaker

BOOKS

BY THE SAME

AUTHOR

THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

i2mo.
Net, $1.00
PROPHECY AND THE PROPHETS
Crown 8vo.
Net, $1.50
MINOR PROPHETS
i2mo.
Net, $1.50; library edition, crown 8vo.
Net, $2.00
THE WORKER AND HIS BIBLE
i6mo. Net, 50 cents
Biblical Introduction Series
THE BOOKS OF THE
PENTATEUCH
THEIR ORIGIN, CONTENTS
AND SIGNIFICANCE

BY
FREDERICK CARL .EISELEN
Professor of Old Testament Interpretation
in Garrett Biblical Institute

THE METHODIST BOOK CONCERN
NEW YORK CINCINNATI

Copyright, 1916, by
FREDERICK CARL EISELEN

The Bible text used in this volume is taken from the American Standard Edition
of the Revised Bible, copyright, 1901, by Thomas Nelson & Sons, and is used by
permission.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
chapter page
Preface  7
I. Scope and History of Old Testament Introduction . . 11
II. The Books of the Pentateuch and Their Contents. . 25
III. History of the Pentateuchal Criticism  41
IV. Arguments in Favor of Mosaic Authorship
I. Indirect Evidence  61
V. Arguments in Favor of Mosaic Authorship
2. External Evidence  75
VI. Arguments in Favor of Mosaic Authorship
3. Direct Internal Evidence  93
VII. Arguments in Favor of Mosaic Authorship
4. Indirect Internal Evidence  105
VIII. The Composite Character of the Pentateuch
I. The Divine Names in Genesis  121
IX. The Composite Character of the Pentateuch
2. Repetitions and Discrepancies  137
X. The Composite Character of the Pentateuch
3. Differences in Theological Conception, Style,
AND Vocabulary  151
XI. Post-Mosaic Elements in the Pentateuch  167
XII. The Law Book of King Josiah  179
XIII. Chronological Order of the Pentateuchal Docu
ments
I. The Historical Situation Reflected  199
XIV. Chronological Order of the Pentateuchal Docu
ments
2. Theological Standpoint; Literary Parallels;
Vocabulary and Style; Mutual Relation. ... 213
XV. Chronological Order of the Pentateuchal Docu
ments
3. Dates of the Documents  231
5

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS
chapter page
XVI. Ancient Material Embodied in the Pentateuchal
Documents
I. Poetic Material  253
XVII. Ancient Material Embodied in the Pentateuchal
Documents
2. Legal Material  269
XVIII. The Growth of the Pentateuch  1  291
XIX. The Historical and Religious Value of the Penta
teuch  ;  313
Index  335

PREFACE
To some it may appear presumptuous on the part of
the author to offer to Bible students a new Introduction
to the Books of the Old Testament. The ground has
been covered often, even by English-speaking scholars,
and, what is far more significant, has been covered well.
To mention but a few books in English: the student
with adequate preparation may turn to the standard work
by the late Professor Driver, or to the admirable Intro
duction of Professor Cornill; the student interested in a
more popular presentation of the subject will find satis
factory guides in the Introductions of Professors Bennett,
McFadyen, and G. B. Gray. And yet the author has
felt for some time that there is room for another Intro
duction — an Introduction as complete, comprehensive,
and scholarly as the works of Driver and Cornill, but
written in less technical or more popular language and
style. The aim and purpose of the author to supply this want
will explain some characteristics of the present work.
Few abbreviations are used and relatively few footnotes
are given. Whenever possible, reference is made to
books written in English, and preference is given to books
or periodicals which may be expected to be within reach
of students removed from large libraries. The wisdom
of using in the place of the name "Jehovah," found in
the American Revised Version, the more accurate —
though probably not original — form, "Yahweh," may be
7

8 PREFACE
questioned ; but the author decided in favor of the latter
in order to avoid the confusion that might result from the
use of "Jehovah" in the body of the discussion and of
the other name in quotations from authors preferring the
latter ; only in quotations from American Revised Version
the more familiar form has been retained.
On questions regarding which scholars are not in
agreement the author tries to state his own view and to
present the reasons upon which his view is based. And
it may be stated in passing that he holds his views not
because they agree with the views of other scholars, but
simply because, to his way of thinking, they offer the
most satisfactory explanation of all the facts in the case.
At the same time he endeavors to be fair in presenting
the arguments used in support of divergent opinions, for
he believes that every student should have the oppor
tunity of estimating for himself the value of the argu
ments and of drawing his own conclusions.
In using a work of this character the student is some
times tempted to confine his study to the book on Intro
duction and to neglect the study of the biblical text.
This is a serious mistake. No one can understand and
appreciate the weakness or strength of an argument un
less he makes constant use of the book in which the
facts upon which the argument is based are found.
Therefore, the author would urge the student to base his
study upon the biblical text and to use the Introduction
simply as a guide to a clearer understanding of the facts
presented in the Bible.
It should further be noted that a work of this kind
cannot undertake a detailed interpretation of the message
of a book. It introduces the student to the book and the
book to the student ; and after furnishing the introduction,

PREFACE " 9
which is essential for an adequate comprehension of the
message, it urges him to pursue a more detailed study of
the contents.
The present volume is the first in a series of four
volumes devoted to the Old Testament. In the discus
sion the arrangement of the Old Testament books in the
Hebrew Bible is followed. Thus, the first volume deals
with the Books of the Pentateuch; the second will deal
with the books included among the Prophets in the
Jewish Canon, and the third with the Writings. The
fourth volume will be in two parts : the first will discuss
the formation of the Old Testament Canon and the con
dition and transmission of the Hebrew Text; the second
will consider the proper place of the Old Testament in
the light of the conclusions of modern scholarship re
flected in the preceding volumes.
The wisdom of devoting four chapters of this volume
to a consideration of the argurnents in favor of the
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch may be doubted by
some, but the author believes that there are still multi
tudes of serious Bible students who need and are entitled
to a fair and full discussion of these arguments.
Whether the student finds himself in agreement with
the conclusions of the author or not, he should remember
that the author has been prompted by the desire to know
the truth and to present the truth apprehended by him in
such a manner that the Bible student may be led to a
deeper and truer appreciation of the vital, divine character
of the message of the Old Testament books. How well
he has succeeded in this sincere and earnest attempt the
reader and student must decide. Frederick Carl Eiselen.
Evanston, Illinois,

CHAPTER I
SCOPE AND HISTORY OF OLD TESTAMENT
INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I
SCOPE AND HISTORY OF OLD TESTAMENT
INTRODUCTION
Scope of Old Testament Introduction. The Old Testa
ment is not a single book, the work of one man, but a
library consisting of many books. These books were
written by many authors, at different times and under
varying circumstances. At first they existed and circu
lated separately, and during this period of independent
existence some of them underwent considerable modifica
tions or received additions of various kinds. But gradu
ally they were brought together to form the collection
now known as the Old Testament.
During the centuries of separate existence and later, as
parts of the canon of Sacred Scriptures, the books were
copied and recopied until, after the invention of printing,
they assumed printed form. In the course of the fre
quent copyings the text suffered more or less serious
corruptions. Consequently, in different localities and at
different times, attempts were made to remove these
errors and to restore the text to its pristine purity.
With the exception of a few small portions, the Old
Testament books were written in Hebrew; and in this
language they were read for several centuries. As the
result of the dispersion of thousands of Jews among
Greek-speaking peoples a demand arose, even before the
opening of the Christian era, for a translation of the
13

14 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
Jewish Sacred Books into Greek. The substitution of
Aramaic for Hebrew as the vernacular of Palestine was
responsible for early translations or paraphrases into
Aramaic. The spread of Christianity, with its emphasis
on the Old Testament, caused similar demands to be
made by peoples speaking other tongues. To meet these
demands the Old Testament writings, indorsed and
adopted by the Christian Church, were translated into
numerous languages and dialects.
To trace these various fortunes of the Old Testament
as a whole and of its constituent parts is not only of
interest, but also of the greatest value for an adequate
understanding and appreciation of both contents and
teaching. It is the function of Old Testament Intro
duction to take the Bible student over this ground and
to furnish him the general information that will make
possible a proper understanding of the thought and mes
sage of the book. Old Testament Introduction, therefore,
may be defined as the scientific study of the origin,
original form, general contents, and intended significance
of the Old Testament writings, their collection into the
canon, and their transmission from the earliest times to
the present.^
Old Testament Introduction is commonly treated under
two heads: (i) General Introduction, and (2) Special
Introduction. With this arrangement, General Introduc
tion considers the Old Testament as a whole and has to
do (a) with the setting apart of the books into the coUec-

' Formerly it was customary to discuss a much greater variety
of subjects under the head of Introduction, such as the language
of the Old Testament, hermeneutics, history, geography, archaeology,
etc. There is, however, at present, quite general agreement on
limiting the study to the subjects enumerated above.

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 15
tion called the Old Testament; in other words, with the
extent, origin, and growth of the Old Testament canon;
(b) with the writing and transmission of the books in
this canon, the history of Hebrew MSS., recensions, trans
lations, revisions, etc. ; in other words, with the condition
and transmission of the Old Testament text. Special
Introduction deals with the separate books of which the
Old Testament consists, and discusses their authenticity,
integrity, authorship, contents, design, plan, form, style,
date, and other questions relating to their origin.
The division into General Introduction and Special
Introduction, though convenient, is open to criticism, be
cause neither canonicity nor the condition of the text can
be adequately discussed apart from a study of the separate
books. Setting aside, then, the above division, the sub
jects commonly included in Introduction may be arranged
under three heads: (i) Study of the origin, original
form, general contents and intended value of the separate
Old Testament books. (2) Study of the setting apart of
these books into the collection known as the Old Testa
ment Canon. (3) Study of the text of the Old Testament
and its fortunes from the time of the autographs to the
present. To these three subjects may be added (4) : A considera
tion of the significance of the Old Testament in the light
of modern knowledge. During the past century or two
the Old Testament has been subjected to tests of various
kinds. What are the results of these investigations?
What is their bearing on the place and significance of the
Old Testament in the thought and life of to-day? Or,
to put it in another way, What should be the attitude of
the thinking man to-day toward the Old Testament?
Many demand an answer to these questions before they

i6 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
will undertake a study of the book. It seems proper,
therefore, to consider, as a part of Introduction, the
results of scientific investigation, critical inquiry, archaeo
logical research, and the comparative study of religions
in their relation to the Old Testament, and their bearing
upon the trustworthiness, uniqueness, and permanent
value of the Old Testament writings.
History of Old Testament Introduction. Biblical
Introduction is a comparatively recent development.
True, some of the early church fathers* discussed ques
tions — linguistic, geographical, historical, etc. — which are
properly a part of Introduction, but no complete treatise
was produced. In the fifth century the Syrian monk
Adrian wrote an Introduction to the Divine Scriptures,
and in the following century similar books appeared;
but none of these, though containing valuable introduc
tory material, can be called Introductions in the modern
sense. Such treatises were practically unknown before
the period of the Reformation.
The Renaissance and the Reformation gave an impetus
to biblical studies of every kind. The revival of interest
in humanistic studies created a new interest in the Hebrew
language,^ and the controversy regarding the seat of
authority — the church, or the Bible as interpreted by the
individual — turned the attention of scholars toward the
contents and their meaning. This led to a discussion of
various questions of Introduction, such as the condition
and transmission of the Hebrew text, the canonicity of
the biblical books and the extra-canonicity of the

" Origen, Augustine, Jerome, etc.
' J. Reuchlin, 1455-1522, was the first Hebrew grammarian among
Christians ; he viras strongly influenced by the greatest Jewish scholar
of the age, Elias Levita, 1469-1549.

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 17
apocryphal books, the authorship, date, and relative value
of individual books. The Renaissance and Reforma
tion, therefore, may be credited with giving rise to the
modern, scientific discussions of questions of Intro
duction. The following are among the more prominent writers of this
period : Sixtus of Sienna,* a Roman Catholic convert from Judaism,
who distinguished between protocanonical and deuterocanonical
writings and discussed also matters relating to individual books.
An important work was produced by Karlstadt, the friend and co
worker of Luther." A. Rivetus" defined Scripture as that which
proceeds from God as the special author; he held an entirely
mechanical view of inspiration. One of the most influential writers
was Ludovicus Cappellus,' who maintained that the Hebrew vowel
points and accents were unknown to the biblical writers and that
they were introduced centuries after the opening of the Christian
era. Cappellus influenced John Morinus,* a convert from Protestant
ism to Catholicism, who wrote several volumes on subjects of
Introduction. In his zeal for the authority of the church he
declared that God caused the Hebrew Scriptures to be written
without vowel points, so that men would submit to the judgment
of the church instead of following their own private judgment.
Richard Simon," a man of great learning, published, in 1678, his
Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament, in which, among other
things, he denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
A new epoch was introduced in the eighteenth century
by the rise of rationalism, with its disregard of the
miraculous. The way had been prepared for this by
B. Spinoza,^'* a pronounced pantheist, who believed the
Scriptures to contain no divine revelation. The accounts

*Born 1520; his book was entitled Bibliotheca Sancta.
'Entitled De Canonicis Scripturis (1520).
• Born 1572.
' 1585-1658.
'Born 1591.
' 1638-1712.
" 1632-1677.

i8 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
of the miracles he considered legendary, and he was
ready to reject as untrue all that seemed supernatural.
He denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and
expressed the opinion that it, like the other historical
books, received its final form under Ezra. The his
torical portions of Daniel he considered to have been
written later than Daniel, on the basis of Chaldean
annals. Under the influence of this new tendency the Old
Testament came to be studied like any other literary
production, and scholars like Eichhorn, Miehaelis, De-
Wette, and others went at their task with the definite
purpose of explaining the several books entirely in the
light of the historical situation therein presupposed. On
the whole, the Introductions of the latter part of the
eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth century
were the outgrowth of this new point of view, and, as
may be expected, they set aside the traditional views in
many instances.
The more important works of this period are: J. G. Eichhorn,
Einleitung in die goeitlichen Schriften des Alten Bundes, 1787;
G. L. B3.ueT, Eniwurf einer Einleitung in die Schriften des Alten
Testaments, 1794; W. M. L. DeWette, Lehrbuch der historisch-
kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen und apokryphischen Buecher
des Alten Testaments, 1817; T. H. Home, Introduction to the
Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 1818; Hein
rich Ewald, 1803-1875, published no formal Introduction, but in his
numerous works he covered practically the whole range of Intro
duction; Friedrich Bleek, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, i860.
In the nature of the case, these Introductions, which
seemed to minimize the supernatural, aroused bitter oppo
sition, and several attempts were made to rehabilitate the
older traditional views, notably by Hengstenberg,
Haevernick, Keil, and, in America, W. H, Green.

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 19
E. W. Hengstenberg, Beitraege sur Einleitung ins Alte Testa
ment, 3 vols., 1831-1839; H. A. C. Haevernick, Handbuch der his-
torisch-kritischen Einleitung ins Alte Testament, 3 vols., 1836-1849;
C. F. Keil, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die
kanonischen Schriften des Alten Testaments, 1853; W. H. Green
has written no complete Introduction, but he has published a volume
on the Canon and one on the Text of the Old Testament, and
several volumes dealing with various aspects of the Pentateuchal
problem and other questions of Introduction; John H. Raven, Old
Testament Introduction, 1906.
Meanwhile scholars were at work studying the sub
ject of Introduction, especially as it related to the origin
of the Pentateuch, upon a broader basis. Earlier writers
had depended almost exclusively upon linguistic criteria,
but scholars like Reuss, Graf, Kuenen, Wellhausen, and
others realized the inadequacy of this method of pro
cedure; hence they sought and found additional support
for their views in what they conceived to have been the
political, social, and religious development of the Hebrew
people. Chiefly through the brilliant exposition of Julius
Wellhausen the newer views rapidly gained adherents in
all countries, though there were numerous scholars who
insisted that many of the conclusions which found ready
acceptance were without adequate support.
Edward Reuss set forth these newer views as early as 1834 in
lectures on Old Testament Introduction delivered at the University
of Strassburg, but they were not published until 1879 in L'Histoire
Sainte et La Loi, and 1881 in Geschichte der heiligen Schriften des
Alten Testaments. Two of Reuss's students followed out the sug
gestions thrown out in the lectures and published their results
before the above-mentioned books appeared; K. H. Graf, Die
geschichtlichen Buecher des Alten Testaments, 1866; August Kayser,
Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte Israels, 1874, Professor A.
Kuenen defended Graf's views in Godsdienst van Israel, 1869, and
expanded his investigations in the second edition of Historisch-
kritische Einleitung in die Buecher des Alten Testaments, translated
into German in 1887-1892, The most able of the earlier exponents

20 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
of the newer method was J. Wellhausen, who set forth his views
in various articles and books, notably in Prolegomena sur Geschichte
Israels, 1878, and in the fourth edition of Bleek's Einleitung in das
Alte Testament.
Among the followers of these pioneers two "schools"
may be distinguished. On the one hand are those who
accept Wellhausen's views, not only regarding the growth
of Israel's literature, but also regarding the development
of Israel's history and religion. On the other hand there
are many scholars who insist that, while the newer views
regarding the origin of the Old Testament books may be
correct, there is much more reliance to be placed upon
Hebrew tradition, and that there is more of the unique
and divine in Israel's religion than some modern scholars
are ready to admit.
The former point of view is reflected, for example, in the dis
cussions of questions of Introduction in B. Stade, Geschichte des
Volkes Israel, i88i. The other tendency appears most pronounced
in H. L. Strack, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1883 ; E. Koenig,
Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1893. By far the greater number
of scholars occupy intermediate positions, some leaning more in
the one, others more in the other direction : E. Riehm, Einleitung
in das Alte Testament, 1889; S. R. Driver, Introduction to the
Literature of the Old Testament, 1891 ; tenth new, enlarged, and
revised edition, 1910; C. Cornill, Einleitung in das Alte Testament,
1891; English translation, 1907; W. H. Bennett, A Biblical Intro
duction, 1899; Wolf Wilhelm Graf Baudissin, Einleitung in die
Buecher des Alten Testament, 1901 ; J. E. McFayden, An Intro
duction to the Old Testament, 1905; C. E. Steuernagel, Einleitung
in das Alte Testament, 1912 ; G. B. Gray, A Critical Introduction to
the Old Testament, 1913.
Generally speaking, the literary conclusions of the
Wellhausen school seem to hold the field at present,
though not without important modifications. For ex
ample, while Wellhausen showed a tendency to assign the

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 21
origin of a narrative to the period when it first assumed
literary form, it is now quite generally recognized that a
narrative may have been in existence long before it was
written down, and that it may have been preserved, with
few alterations, by oral tradition for generations and
even centuries. As a result many modern writers on
questions of Introduction admit the presence in the Old
Testament books of much more ancient material than
Wellhausen was ready to concede.
Of the many books reflecting this tendency may be mentioned,
in addition to those named in the preceding paragraph: E. Sellin,
Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1910 ; R. Kittel, Die alttestament-
liche Wissenschaft in ihren wichtigsten Ergebnissen, 1910; English
translation, 191 1; H, Gunkel, Genesis, 1902; the introductory section
of this Commentary has been translated into English under the
title The Legends of Genesis.
Moreover, the discovery of the civilizations and litera
tures of other Oriental nations has shown, in the first
place, the antiquity of literary efforts, and, in the second
place, the close relation existing between these civiliza
tions and that of Israel ; which again points in the direc
tion of greater antiquity for some of the customs and
practices recorded in the Old Testament.
This subject receives consideration in a great variety of dis
cussions, but general agreement has not yet been attained: F.
Hommel, Die altisraelitische Ueberlieferung in inschriftlicher
Beleuchtung, 1897 ; English translation, 1897 ; H. Winckler, Altorien-
talische Porschungen, iSgyH., and numerous other writings; E.
Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, especially
the third edition, prepared by H. Winckler and H. Zimmern, 1902;
A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orient, 1904;
English translation, 191 1; A. T. Clay, Light on the Old Testament
from Babel, 1906; and many more. The most recent and most
complete collection of cuneiform inscriptions throwing light on Old
Testament history and religion is contained in R. W. Rogers,
Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament, 1912.

22 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
However, while it is undoubtedly true that many recent
writers assign some Old Testament material that was
formerly considered late to earlier dates, the present
trend in purely literary matters is in the direction of the
views advocated by the so-called Graf -Wellhausen school.
All the Introductions mentioned in the preceding para
graphs have to do primarily with the origin of the Old
Testament books and their component parts; and in all
of them the discussions are based upon the books as they
appear at present in the Old Testament Canon. When
it was seen, however, that many of the biblical books are
compilations embodying material coming from different
periods, attempts came to be made to trace the origin and
growth of the Hebrew literary remains irrespective of
the form or forms in which they are found at present.
In other words, attempts were made to write histories
of the literature of the Hebrews similar to the histories
of the literatures of ancient Greece, Rome, India, Persia,
and more modern peoples. Such histories have their
place and value in the study of the Old Testament, but
they are not Introductions, for the latter must begin with
the books in their present form and must seek to deter
mine their origin, growth, and setting apart, in their
present form, into the collection of sacred writings known
as the Old Testament.
The more important literary histories are: G. Wildeboer, Die
Litteratur des Alten Testaments nach der Leitfolge ihrer Entstehung,
1894; E. Kautzsch, Abriss der Geschichte des alttestamentlichen
Schrifttums, 1897 ; English translation, 1898 ; Karl Budde, Die Israel-
itische Litteratur, 1906; H. T. Fowler, A History of the Literature
of Ancient Israel, 1912.
The other branches of Old Testament Introduction —
the formation of the canon and the condition and trans-

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 23
mission of the text — have not been neglected. Most of
the Introductions already named discuss these subjects,
at least briefly; but there are some volumes that are
devoted entirely to the consideration of one or the other
of these two topics.
G. Wildeboer, Die Entstehung des alttestamentlichen Kanons,
1891 ; English translation, 1895 ; F. Buhl, Kanon und Text des Alten
Testaments, 1891; English translation, 1892; H. E. Ryle, The Canon
of the Old Testament, 1892; C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the
Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, 1897; W. H.
Green, General Introduction to the Old Testament — The Canon,
1898; The Text, 1899; T. H. Weir, A Short History of the Hebrew
Text of the Old Testament, 1899; A. S. Geden, Outlines of an
Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 1909. Valuable material is
found also in C. A. Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of
Holy Scripture, 1899.
The bearing of recent research and investigation on
the permanent place and significance of the Old Testament
in religious life and thought has been discussed in a
multitude of articles and books.
Among the better known books, not previously mentioned, are
the following: J. E. McFadyen, Old Testament Criticism and the
Christian Church, 1903; J. P. Peters, The Old Testament and the
New Scholarship, 1902; G. A. Smith, Modern Criticism and the
Preaching of the Old Testament, 1901 ; C. F. Kent, The Origin and
Permanent Value of the Old Testament, 1906; R. W. Rogers, The
Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, 1908; A. W. Vernon, The
Religious Value of the Old Testament, 1907; W. G. Jordan, Biblical
Criticism and Modern Thought, 1909; S. R. Driver, Modern Re
search as Illustrating the Bible, 1909; M. Flinders Petrie, Egypt and
Israel, 191 1 ; F. C. Eiselen, The Christian View of the Old Testa
ment, 1912; A. S. Peake, The Bible — Its Origin, Its Significance,
Its Abiding Worth, 1913 ; M. Jastrow, Hebrew and Babylonian
Traditions, 1914; W. F. Bade, The Old Testament in the Light of
To-day, 1915.

CHAPTER II
THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH AND
THEIR CONTENTS

CHAPTER II
THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH AND
THEIR CONTENTS
The Name "Pentateuch." According to the common
Jewish arrangement the Hebrew Old Testament consists
of three parts, called Law, Prophets, and Writings.^ The
first of these consists of five books, sometimes called the
Five Books of Moses. This group of books is called
Torah, or Law, because it contains practically the entire
legal system of the Jews. While the Law was originally
a continuous whole, the five-fold division goes back to
very early times : the early rabbis speak of the five fifths
of the Law, while the early church fathers, beginning
with TertuUian, employ the term Pentateuch, which is
still in common use among Christians. In the Greek name
ij nevTdrsvxog, irevrdTevxog (five-rolled) is used as an ad
jective; the noun (H^Xog ("book") is to be suppHed.
rd TEvxog properly denotes the box or chest in which the
roll was kept, but in the course of time it came to be
used of the roll itself. Symmachus, who translated the
Old Testament into Greek during the latter part of the
second century A.D., used it as the equivalent of the
Hebrew word i^^afi, "roll."
The Fivefold Division. The five books in the Penta
teuch are named by the Jews after the opening words of
the several books. Thus the first book is called «T'^'*'!!'|

' Torah, Nebhiim, and Kethiibhim. 27

28 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
— bereshtth, "In Beginning"; the second, '^™1B or
ma«5 n'^Ni — shemoth, or weelleh shemoth, "Names," or
"And these are the Names" ; the third, *''^i?'^ — wayyi^rd,
"And he called"; the fourth, "^T}^?f—bemidhbar, "In
Wilderness" * or ^?T!! — wayedhabber, "And he said" f
the fifth, t^'^l?'?'? >^VN — elleh haddebharim, "These are the
words," or simply, ^""^^"^ — debharlm, "Words."
The names of the books in the English Bible are derived
through the Latin translation of Jerome, called the Vul
gate, from the early Greek translation known as the
Septuagint, and are meant to be descriptive of the con
tents. Genesis, yiveaig, "Generation" or "Origin" — de
rived from the Septuagint translation of Gen. 2. 4a,
aijTi] if pipXag yEveaeug ovgavov nal yfjg; Exodus, Ifodof,
"Coming out" — that is, from Egypt ; Leviticus, Xbvltikov,
"Levitical" ( "system" ) — found chiefly in this book; Num
bers, dpi^fiol, "Numbers" — suggested by the numbering
of the people recorded in the opening chapters; Deuter
onomy, devTepovofiiov, "Repetition of the Law" — derived
from 17. 18, where the Septuagint translated erroneously
rd devregovdfuov tovto, "this repetition of the law" ; the
true meaning is "a copy of this law."
The fivefold division is due to the nature of the con
tents. Genesis clearly forms a book by itself, and so
does Deuteronomy; Leviticus has characteristics of its
own, which separates it from the books on either side.
This leaves Exodus and Numbers, the opening words of
the former* and the closing words of the latter^ showing
that each is considered complete in itself.

' The fifth word of the first verse.
'The first word.
'Exodus I. 1-7.
' Numbers 36. 13.

THE BOOKS AND THEIR CONTENTS 29
The Hexateuch. Modern scholars add to the five
books of the Pentateuch the book of Joshua, because "its
contents, and still more, its literary structure, show that
it is intimately connected with the Pentateuch and de
scribes the final stage in the history of the Origines of
the Hebrew nation." ® Hence it has become customary
to speak of the first six books of the Old Testament —
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy,
Joshua — as the Hexateuch, that is, the six-roll book.
That there is justification for this arrangement may be
seen, for example, from this very simple consideration :
The divine promise that the descendants of Abraham
should occupy Canaan, repeatedly made in Genesis and
never lost sight of in the following books, is shown only
in the book of Joshua to have attained realization. The
reason for separating the material in the book of Joshua
from the Torah appears to be twofold : ( i ) Moses could
not be connected with this material as its author; (2) the
contents made it impossible to set it apart, with the books
of the Pentateuch, as an authoritative rule of life.
General Contents of the Hexateuch. Though there is
great variety of contents in the books of the Hexateuch,
it is possible to arrange all the material under two heads :
I. History: The historical portions of the Hexateuch
cover the period beginning with the creation of the world
and ending with the settlement of the twelve tribes of
Israel in Canaan. This period may be divided into three
epochs: (i) The beginning of all things — Gen. i. i to
II. 9; (2) The Hebrew Patriarchs — Gen. 11. 10 to 50.26;
(3) The organization of Israel as a national unit and its

* S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testa
ment, p. 103.

30 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
settlement in Canaan — the historical sections of Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua. Even in
these so-called historical sections no attempt is made to
furnish a complete history, many details important to the
historian are treated briefly or passed over entirely ; never
theless, the stream of narrative is never wholly inter
rupted, and though at times it is almost lost sight of, it
always reappears and flows on to the end. 2. Law:
The legal element in the first five books is so prominent
that, as has been stated, they are known as Torah, which
means, Law. The book of Leviticus consists entirely of
legal material; two others. Exodus and Numbers, are a
mixture of law and history; Deuteronomy is made up
largely of addresses embodying laws; and even Genesis,
which is chiefly narrative, mentions the laws of marriage
and of the Sabbath as given in primeval times, gives
regulations concerning food, in the days of Noah, and
relates the institution of circumcision in the time of
Abraham. Genesis
The book of Genesis falls naturally into two parts :
I. The Beginning of all Things, i. i to 1 1. 9. Almost
all ancient peoples sought answers to the questions,
Whence came the world? Whence came man? How
did sin come into the world? How did different
languages and nations arise? etc. Gen. i. i to 11. 9 con
tains the answers of Hebrew religious thinkers to these
questions. The chapters tell of the creation of heaven
and earth, man's original habitation, the entrance of sin
into the world, the beginnings of civilization, and the
growth of population. The spread of sin and wickedness,
following the development of civilization, was punished

THE BOOKS AND THEIR CONTENTS 31
by a Flood which destroyed the human race with the
exception of one family; the descendants of this family
repeopled the earth and gave rise to various nations and
races, II. The Stories of the Patriarchs. 11. 10 to 50. 26.
From the beginning of things in general the book passes
to the beginnings of the Hebrew people, in which the
author is primarily interested. The Hebrews possess
numerous characteristics common to the group of nations
called the Semitic race. The racial relations of the
Hebrews are briefly touched upon in 11. 10-26, which
traces the genealogy of Shem down to Abraham,' whose
migration from southern Babylonia to Canaan marks the
first beginnings of the Hebrew people. The rest of the
book consists of narratives centering around the three
patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and around Joseph,
the favorite son of Jacob. The lives of these are narrated
with considerable fullness, down to the descent of the
family of Jacob into Egypt, with an account of which
the book closes. The connecting bond throughout the
chapters is the promise to Abraham* and the covenant
based upon it, the unfolding of which is exhibited in the
lives of the patriarchs and in the rise of the twelve tribes.
The successive steps in the development are connected,
and the interest is concentrated, by the use of the formula,
"These are the generations of": Shem, 11. 10; Terah
(Abraham), 11. 27; Ishmael, 25. 12; Isaac, 25. 19; Esau,
36. 1,9; Jacob, 37. 2.

'Genesis gives "Abram" as the original name of the first patri
arch; the change to "Abraham" was due, according to the popular
etymology in 17. 5, to the promise that the bearer of the name was
to become the father of a multitude of nations.
' Gen. 12. 1-3.

32 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
I. The Beginning of All Things (i. 1-11.9)
I. The creation of all things (i. i to 2.25).
2. The beginning of sin (3. 1-24).
3. Early growth and corruption (4.1 to 6.8).
(l) The first murder (4. 1-16).
(2) The earliest civilization (4.17-24).
(3) The line of Seth (4.25 to 5-32).
(4) The apostate sons of God (6.1-8).
4. Noah and his times (6.9 to 9.29).
(i) The flood (6.9 to 9-i7)-
(2) Noah's prophecy (9.18-29).
5. The origin of nations and languages (10. i to 11. 9).
(i) The gradual dispersion (10. 1-32).
(2) The confusion of tongues (11. 1-9).
II. The Stories of the Patriarchs (ii. 10 to 50.26)
I. Abraham and Isaac (11. 10 to 25.18).
(i) Abraham's ancestry (11. 10-32).
(o) Genealogy of Shem (11. 10-25).
(6) Genealogy of Terah (11.26-32).
(2) Migrations of Abraham (12, 13).
(3) Abraham's victory over the kings of the East (14).
(4) Yahweh's covenant with Abraham (is).
(5) Birth of Ishmael (16).
(6) Covenant of circumcision (17).
(7) Destruction of Sodom (18, 19).
(8) Abraham and Abimelech (20).
(9) Birth of Isaac (21).
(10) Proposed sacrifice of Isaac (22).
(11) Death and burial of Sarah (23).
(12) Marriage of Isaac and Rebekah (24).
(13) Death of Abraham and Ishmael (25. 1-18).
2. Jacob and Esau (25. 19 to 36.43).
(i) Jacob and Esau (25.19 to 28.22).
(2) Jacob and Laban (29.1 to 32.1).
(3) Jacob's return to Canaan (32.2 to 36.43).
3. Joseph and his brothers (37.1 to 50.26).
(l) Joseph's betrayal and exaltation in Egypt (37. 1-36; 39. i to
41.57). (Story of Tamar and Judah, 38. 1-30.)
(2) Reunion of Joseph and his brothers (42. i to 45. 15).
(3) Descent of family of Jacob into Egypt (45.16 to 48.22;
49.29 to 50.26). (The Blessing of Jacob, 49.1-28.)

THE BOOKS AND THEIR CONTENTS 33
Exodus
The closing chapters of Genesis record how the Hebrew
nomads, after living in Canaan for several generations,
were driven by famine into Egypt and were settled by
the Pharaoh of Egypt in Goshen, a district in the eastern
portion of the Nile Delta. There they remained in
practical seclusion for many generations. This period is
passed over very briefly in the book of Exodus.® In the
course of time a new dynasty ascended the throne of
Egypt, under which a period of oppression set in, from
which the Hebrews were delivered under the leadership
of Moses. The opening verses of Exodus — i. i to 2. 22
— portray the the experiences of the Hebrews during the
closing years of the stay in Egypt ; then follows — 2. 23
to 12. 29 — an account of the events leading up to their
release from oppression. Chapters 12. 30 to 19. 2 con
tain a record of the departure from Egypt, the overthrow
of the pursuing Egyptians, and the march of the Israelites
until they reached Mount Sinai. The rest of the book —
19. 3 to 40. 38 — relates some incidents during the en-
campinent before Mount Sinai, but the greater portion is
devoted to the giving of the Law.
I. The Oppression in Egypt (i.i to 2.22)
I. Death of Joseph; increase of Israelites (i. 1-7).
2. Forced labor (1.8-14).
3. Murder of male children (1.15-22).
4. Birth, adoption, and flight of Moses (2.1-22).
II. Preparation for the Deliverance (2.23 to 12.29)
I. Call of Moses to be the deliverer (2.23 to 4.17).
2. Moses's return to Egypt (4. 18-31).
3. Increased burdens (5. 1-21).
•Exod. 1.7.

34 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
4. Yahweh's promise to Moses and Aaron (5.22 to 6.13; 6.28 to
^.^'). (Genealogy of Moses and Aaron, 6. 14-27.)
5. The plagues and the Pharaoh's stubbornness (7.8 to 12.29).

III. The Exodus and the March to Mount Sinai (12.30 to 19.2)
I. Institution of the Passover and departure from Egypt (12.30
to 13. 16).
2. From Succoth to Elim, through the Red Sea (13. 17 to 15.27).
3. From Elim to Mount Sinai (16. i to 19.2).
(l) Quails and Manna (16. 1-36).
(2) War with Amalek (17. 1-16).
(3) Visit of Jethro; appointment of judges (18. 1-27).
(4) Arrival at Mount Sinai (19. i, 2).

IV. Giving of the Law (19.3 to 40.38)
I. Establishment and ratification of the Covenant (19.3 to 24.18).
(i) Preparation of the people (19.3-25).
(2) The Decalogue (20. 1-21).
(3) The Book of the Covenant (20.22 to 24. 18).
(o) Prohibition of images ; building of altars (20. 22-26) .
(6) Laws concerning the protection of persons (21. 1-32).
(c) Laws concerning the protection of property (21. 33
to 22. 17) .
(rf) Miscellaneous laws connected with the civil and
religious organization (22. 18 to 23. 19) .
(«) Blessings of obedience (23.20-33).
(/) Ratification of the Covenant (24.1-8).
(s) Moses's return to the Mount (24.9-18).
2. Instruction concerning the sanctuary and the priests (25. i to 31. 18) .
(i) Ark, table of showbread, candlestick (25).
(2) Curtain, framework, veil, screen (26).
(3) Court, altar of burnt-offering (27).
(4) Vestments of priests, ritual of consecration (28, 29).
(5) Altar of incense, maintenance of public service, laver, oil,
incense (30).
(6) Selection of Bezalel and Oholiab; Sabbath observance (31).
3. Apostasy and renewal of the Covenant (32. i to 34.35).
(i) The golden calf and Yahweh's anger (32).
(2) Moses's intercession and Yahweh's response (33).
(3) Renewal of the Covenant (34).

THE BOOKS AND THEIR CONTENTS 35
4. Execution of the directions in chapters 25 to 31 (35. i to 40.38).
(l) Sabbath observance, contributions of people, appointment
of Bezalel and Oholiab (35. i to 36. 7).
(2) Curtains, framework, veil, screen (36.8-38).
(3) Ark, table of showbread, candlestick, altar of incense, oil,
incense (37).
(4) Altar of burnt-ofifering, laver, court, amount of metal
used (38).
(5) Vestments of priests, delivery of completed work to
Moses (39).
(6) Erection of tabernacle (40).
Leviticus
The book of Leviticus contains few passages cast in
narrative form; and in these few cases the narrative is
introduced not so much for the purpose of describing the
past as for the purpose of enforcing some provision for
the future. The book is almost entirely a collection of
laws, chiefly ceremonial or priestly in nature; hence its
name "Leviticus," which means, the Levitical book. An
even more appropriate title is found in the Talmud, "Law
of the Priests."
I. Laws Concerning Sacrifices and Offerings (i.i to 7.38)
I. Burnt-oflferings (1.I-17).
2. Meal-oflferings (2. 1-16).
3. Peace-offerings (3. 1-17).
4. Sin-oflferings (4.1 to 5. 13).
5. Guilt (or trespass) -offerings (5. 14 to 6.7).
6. Priestly functions in connection with these sacrifices, and other
regulations (6.8 to 7.38).
II. Consecration of the Priests; Sin of Nadab and Abihu
(8. 1 to 10. 20)
I. Consecration of Aaron and his sons (8).
2. Aaron offers sacrifices (9).
3. Sin and punishment of Nadab and Abihu (10. i-5r).
4. Priestly duties and portions (10.8-20).

36 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
III. Laws Concerning Cleanness and Uncleanness (ii. i to 15. 33)
I. Clean and unclean animals (11).
2. Uncleanness connected with childbirth (12).
3. Various forms of "leprosy" (13, 14).
4. Uncleanness from sexual secretions and discharges (is).
IV. The Day of Atonement (16. 1-34)
V. The Law of Holiness (17. i to 26.46)
I. Slaughter of animals; prohibition of eating of blood (17).
2. Prohibition of incest and other forms of impurity (18).
3. Religious and moral behavior (19).
4. Moloch worship, unlawful marriage and other offenses (20).
5. Regulations touching priests and offerings (21, 22).
6. Festivals and sacred seasons (23).
7. Light of the sanctuary, showbread, blasphemy (24).
8. Sabbatical year and year of jubilee (25).
9. Obedience and disobedience and their consequences (26).
VI. Appendix: Laws Concerning Vows, Things Devoted and
Tithes (27. 1-34)
Numbers
The book of Numbers contains an account of Israel's
wanderings from the encampment before Mount Sinai
to the settlement, in the region east of the Jordan. The
opening chapters give the census of the people who came
out of Egypt. Following a long legal section comes the
record of the wanderings during the period extending
from the second to the fortieth year: the survey of
Canaan, the refusal to enter the land, the march back to
the wilderness, and various rebellions. The important
events of the first ten months of the fortieth year are
narrated in detail : the march around Edom, the death of
Aaron, the conquest of the land of the Amorites and of
Bashan, the episode of Balaam, the sin of Baal-peor, the
second census, the slaughter of the Midianites, and the

THE BOOKS AND THEIR CONTENTS 37
settlement east of the Jordan. Interspersed with the
historical sections are laws of various kinds.
I. Events before Mount Sinai (i. i to 10. 10)
(A period of nineteen days, beginning one month after the setting
up of the tabernacle; compare 1. 1 with Exod. 40.17.)
I. Census, arrangement of camp, functions of Levites (i. i to 4.49).
2. Miscellaneous laws chiefly concerning purity and the Nazirites,
closing with the priestly blessing (5.1 to 6.27).
3. Laws regarding the services of the sanctuary (7.1 to 8.26).
4. The supplementary Passover (9. 1-14).
5. The cloud over the tabernacle and the silver trumpet (9. iS
to 10. 10).
II. From Mount Sinai to the Plains of Moab (10. ii to 22.1)
(From the twentieth day of the second month of the second year to
the fortieth year.)
I. Departure from Mount Sinai (10. 11-36).
2. Discouragements, murmurings, and Yahweh's displeasure (11. i
to 14.4s).
3. Various ceremonial laws (15. 1-41).
4. Rebellion and punishment of Korah and his company; vindi
cation of the tribe of Levi and its prerogatives (16. i to 18.32).
S. Laws of purification (19. 1-22).
6. From Kadesh, around Edom, to the Plains of Moab (20. 1 to 22. 1 ) .
III. In the Plains of Moab (22. 2 to 36. 13)
(The closing months of the desert wanderings.)
I. Israel and Moab; Balak and Balaam (22.2 to 24.25).
2. Apostasy at Shittim ; zeal and reward of Phinehas (25. 1-18) .
3. Second census (26.1-65).
4. Appointment of Joshua (27. 12-23)'.
(Law of inheritance, 27. i-ii).
5. Laws regarding various kinds of offerings (28.1 to 29.40;
Heb. 30. 1 ) .
6. Conditions of validity of a vow (30. 1-16).
7. Slaughter of the Midianites and division of booty (31.1-54).
8. Settlement of Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh east of the
Jordan (32. 1-42).

38 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
9. Israel's encampments after leaving Egypt (33. 1-49) .
10. Various laws relating to the conquest and the settlement of
Canaan (33. 50 to 36. 13).

Deuteronomy
The book of Deuteronomy consists chiefly of three
discourses purporting to have been delivered by Moses
in the Plains of Moab. The first contains a rehearsal of
the history from Mount Horeb (Sinai) to the Jordan.
Then follow long sections setting forth the laws which
the Israelites are to obey when they are settled in Canaan
and the spirit in which they are to obey them. The clos
ing chapters deal with the last days of Moses : his charge
to Joshua, the Song of Moses, the Blessing of Moses,
and the death and burial of Moses.
I. First Discourse: Yahweh's Providential Leadership a
Motive for Obedience (i. i to 4. 43)
I. Introduction: Time and place of the discourses (i. i-s).
2. Retrospect of Israel's history from Mount Horeb to the Jordan
(1.6 to 3.29).
3. Exhortation to obedience (4.1-40).
4. Cities of refuge east of the Jordan (4.41-43).
II. Second Discourse: Exposition of the Law
(4. 44 to 26. 19 ; 28. 1-68)
I. Introduction to the exposition of the Law (4.44-49).
2. The prophetic Decalogue, and a series of exhortations based
chiefly on the first commandment (5. 1 to 11.32).
3. Ceremonial and religious laws (12. 1 to 17.7).
4. Appointment and duties of officials (17.8 to 18.22).
5. Criminal laws (19. 1-21; 21. 1-9).
6. Military laws, to be observed in time of war (20. 1-20; 21. 10-14).
,7. Miscellaneous collection of civil, criminal, humane, and religious
laws (21.15 to 25. 19).
8. Presentation of the firstborn and the triennial tithe (26. 1-19).

THE BOOKS AND THEIR CONTENTS 39
(Instructions regarding the symbolical acceptance of the Law after
the crossing of the Jordan, 27. 1-26.)
9. Consequences of obedience and disobedience (28.1-68).
III. Third Discourse: Importance of Loyalty to Yahweh
(29. 1 to 30. 20)
I. Exhortation to accept the Deuteronomic Covenant (29. 1-29 ;
Heb. 29.2-30).
2. Promise of restoration (30. l-io).
3. Present choice between life and death (30. 1 1-20) .
IV. Appendix: The Closing Days of Moses (31.1 to 34.12)
I. Commission of Joshua; delivery of the Law to the priests
(31. 1-29).
2. The Song of Moses (31.30 to 32.44).
3. Final commendation of the Law (32.45-47).
4. Command for Moses to ascend Mount Nebo (32.48-52).
5. The Blessing of Moses (33.1-29).
6. Death and burial of Moses (34. 1-12).

CHAPTER III
HISTORY OF THE PENTATEUCHAL
CRITICISM

CHAPTER III
HISTORY OF THE PENTATEUCHAL
CRITICISM
Traditional View of the Authorship of the Pentateuch.
In the latest portions of the Old Testament it seems to
be assumed that the Law, or Torah, is the work of
Moses ;^ but it is by no means clear that in these passages
Torah is used of the entire Pentateuch; it may refer
simply to the legal system of the Hebrews embodied in
the Pentateuch.
In the late postexilic period Torah (Law) came to denote the
entire Pentateuch ; from this usage and from the occurrence of the
word in numerous Old Testament books outside of the Pentateuch
it has been inferred that the Pentateuch existed in complete,
written form at the time the books using the term were written.
Now, if Torah and Pentateuch were always synonymous, this
would be valid reasoning, but clearly such is not the case, for there
are many passages in which Torah cannot be identical in meaning
with Pentateuch, and cannot even refer to it. The etymology of
the word Torah is somewhat uncertain; but there seems good
reason for connecting it with a verb meaning "to throw'' or "to
cast," which is used of the casting of arrows, both in battle and,
religiously, for the purpose of casting the lot, which was done by
throwing arrows on the ground in the presence of the Deity. The
casting of lots was a primitive method of determining the will of
the Deity ;^ from which usage the noun received its primary sig
nificance : instruction received from the Deity by the casting of the
lot. When the primitive methods of determining the will of the

'Ezra 3.2; 7.6; 2 Chron. 34- 14-
''Ezek. 21.21; Jonah 1.7, etc. 43

44 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
Deity were left behind and more spiritual communion was estab
lished, the noun came to denote every expression of the will of the
Deity whatever the method or means of its revelation or apprehen
sion. When the separate expressions of the divine will came to be
collected and put in writing — at first probably in small collections —
the individual items as well as the collections were called Torah.
At a still later period, when it was seen that practically the whole
legal system of the Hebrews was contained in the books of the
Pentateuch, Torah came to be used to designate that group of
books.' The significance of the word in any given passage must be
determined from the context.
Whatever the significance of these Old Testament pas
sages may be, Philo of Alexandria* and Josephus® proceed
on the assumption that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch,
and the same seems to be true of some of the New Testa
ment writers.® The Babylonian Talmud^ states definitely :
"Moses wrote his own book, the section about Balaam and
Job." Only the last eight verses of Deuteronomy are
ascribed to Joshua, on the reasonable assumption that
Moses would hardly have written in his lifetime an
account of his own death in the words: "And he died
there." ^ According to the Gemara® exposition of
this passage, at least one rabbi .insisted that even the
closing verses came from Moses. He argued that
when it was said : "Take this book of the law," ^^
the book must have been complete, and consequently

' See lournal of Biblical Literature, xxiv, part i, pp. 1-16.
' c. B. C. 20 to A. D. 50; Vita Mosis, iii, 39.
° c. A. D. 37-100; Contra Ap., i, 18; Ant., iv, 8, 48.
° Matt. 8. 4; Mark 7. 10; Luke 20. 37; John 5. 45-47; 7. 19, etc.
'' Baba bathra, 14b.
' Deut. 34. 5.
•The Talmud contains the oral laws and traditions of the early
Jews; it consists of two parts, the Mishna, which contains the laws,
and the Gemara, which is in the nature of commentaries.
"Deut. 31, 26.

PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM 45
Moses must have written the Torah from beginning to
end.
The relevant section in the Gemara reads : "The author [of the
Mishna section] said : Joshua wrote his book and eight verses of
the Torah. This is taught according to him who says of the eight
verses of the Torah, Joshua wrote them. For it is taught: And
Moses the servant of the Lord died there. How is it possible that
Moses died and wrote : And Moses died there ? It is only unto this
passage that Moses wrote; afterwards Joshua wrote the rest.
These are the words of Rabbi Jehuda, others say, of Rabbi Nehe
miah ; but Rabbi Simeon said to him : Is it possible that the book
of the Torah could lack one letter, since it is written : Take this
book of the Torah? It is only unto this the Holy One, blessed
be He I said, and Moses said and wrote ; from this place and on
wards the Holy One, blessed be Hel said, and Moses wrote with

The closing verses of Deuteronomy have always
proved troublesome to those who were anxious to main
tain the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch in its
present form, with the possible exception of these verses.
If they insisted that Moses wrote the account of his own
death they were confronted, as Hobbes suggests,*^ with
the strange phenomenon that Moses, speaking of his own
sepulcher, declares that it was not found to that day
wherein he was yet living. On the other hand, if they
denied these verses to Moses, it could be only on the
basis of internal evidence; and if such evidence was ac
cepted as conclusive in this one case, there seemed to be
no good reason why it might not have to be considered
decisive in other cases.
Criticism to the Close of the Reformation Period.
The view that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch main-

" Compare C. A. Briggs, Introd. to the Study of Holy Scripture,
p. 253.
"Leviathan, iii, 33.

46 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
tained itself without serious opposition until the time of
the Reformation. The objectors were few, and they
exerted little influence. Some of the early heretics denied
the Mosaic authorship, in part on critical but chiefly on
dogmatic grounds.^^ In the tenth or eleventh century a
Spanish Jew, Rabbi Isaac ben Jasos, pointed out that
Gen. 36. 31 must be later than the founding of the
Hebrew monarchy, and he suggested that it may have
been written during the religious revival under Jehosha
phat.^* In the twelfth century the distinguished Jewish
scholar Ibn Ezra^® called attention to certain passages
which seemed difficult to harmonize with belief in
Mosaic authorship. His words, in which he skillfully
abstains from committing himself, read : "If you pene
trate the secret of the twelve,^® also of 'and Moses
wrote' ^'^ (Exod. 24. 4; Num. 33. 2; Deut. 31. 9, 22),
and 'the Canaanite was then in the land' (Gen. 12. 6),
and 'in the mountain of the Lord he appears' (Gen.
22. 14), and 'his bedstead was a bedstead of iron' (Deut.
3. 11), you will discover the truth." ^*
The Renaissance and the Reformation mark a new
epoch in biblical criticism. The Renaissance aroused
men's interest in literature and science, the Reformation
aroused men's interest in religion as a personal experi
ence. In the Renaissance men began to think for them-

"The philosopher Celsus, see Origen, Contra Cels., iv, 42; the
Nazaraeans, see Joann. Damasc, De haer., xix; Ptolemy, a Valen-
tinian Gnostic, see Epiphanius, Adv. haer., xxxiii, 4. The Clemen
tine Homilies also questioned the Mosaic authorship, iii, 47.
" Compare Studien und Kritiken, 1832, pp. 6396.
'°c. 1092-1167.
" Perhaps Deut. 34. 1-12.
" Use of the third person.
" Commentary on Deuteronomy, I. I.

PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM 47
selves in matters of science and literature; in the Refor
mation they began to think for themselves in matters of
religion. It was inevitable that the awakening of thought
and the substitution of reason for authority in science,
secular literature, and secular history should ultimately
affect sacred literature and sacred history as well. Some
of the men prominent in the Reformation movement
advanced views which later investigation has confirmed
and expanded. Karlstadt, the friend and coworker of
Luther, questioned the Mosaic authorship of the Penta
teuch. He called attention to the fact that the style of
narrative in the account of Moses's death was the same
as in the preceding chapter; from which he argued that
if Moses did not write the account of his own death, it
could not be considered unreasonable to conclude that he
did not write the entire Pentateuch.^® Luther admitted
the presence of post-Mosaic elements and apparently was
little disturbed by the claim that Moses may not have
been the author of the entire Pentateuch.^" Andreas
Masius, a learned Roman Catholic, maintained that the
Pentateuch, though containing Mosaic elements, received
its final form from Ezra or some other man of God.^^
From the Period of the Reformation to Astruc.
The general church, Protestant and Catholic, did not
adopt the liberal attitude of these leaders, but continued
to regard belief in^the Mosaic authorship of the Penta
teuch an essential article of faith. But the facts to which
earlier writers had called attention continued to assert
themselves; hence it is not strange that some thinkers
not in sympathy with the church or Christianity should

" De Canonicis Scripturis, p. 85.
" Preelectiones de Gen., on 36.31.
"Com. in Josuam (publ. 1574), Praef., p. 2.

48 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
select this article as a point of attack, thinking that by
its overthrow they could demolish the whole structure.
The pantheistic philosopher, B. Spinoza, who rejected
the orthodox view that the Scriptures contained a special
divine revelation, denied the Mosaic authorship; he sur
mised that the Pentateuch and the other historical books
attained substantially their present form under Ezra;
but he admitted that the text might have suffered cor
ruption even after his death.^^ Similar views had been
expressed a few years earlier by the English deist
Hobbes^* and by Isaac Peyrerius, the originator of the
Pre-Adamite theory.^*
In 1678 appeared A Critical History of the Old Testa
ment,'^^ by Richard Simon, a Catholic priest in Paris.*®
His theory as to the origin of the Pentateuch may be
summarized as follows : As was the case in other Oriental
states, the Hebrews had a class of official historiographers
since the days of Moses. These men, who were inspired
prophets, not only recorded what was of importance in
their own day, but altered, enlarged, or abridged the
works of their predecessors. All these writings were
collected by Ezra and his immediate successors; and
from the material thus brought together, the books of
the Old Testament were arranged in the form in which
they are now extant.
The book of Simon, a work of great learning and re-

" Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, 104-124 (publ. 1670). The spe
cific arguments advanced in favor of this view are those already
mentioned. ''Leviathan, iii, 33 (publ. 1651).
"Systema Theol. ex Prceadamitarum hypothesi, Av, 1-2 (publ.
165s). "Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament,
" 1638-1712.

PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM 49
search, was condemned and confiscated, but it produced
a lasting impression. The Arminian Clericus also ad
mitted the presence of post-Mosaic elements and for a
time held the view that the Pentateuch in its present form
was composed by the priest sent from Assyria to instruct
the colonists in Samaria in the religion of Yahweh. *''
Anton Van Dale distinguished between the legal and his
torical sections of the Pentateuch; the latter he believed
to have been composed by Ezra, the former by Moses,
and to have been inserted into the historical framework
by Ezra.*®
The permanent value of these and similar discussions
lies not in the theories proposed, but in their insistence
upon the facts, which demanded serious consideration by
scholars. Naturally, the attacks of the men named upon
the traditional positions called out defenders; the more
prominent among these were Huet, a Jesuit ; Heidegger,
a Calvinist; and Carpzov, a Lutheran. But these men,
Instead of meeting the problems squarely, spent most of
their energy in the futile attempt to explain away the
facts. Others, admitting the presence of post-Mosaic
elements, did not consider them sufficiently numerous to
militate against the belief in the Mosaic authorship of
the Pentateuch as a whole; they explained them as due
to interpolation and a later editing of the work by Ezra
and others.*®

"2 Kings 17.28, 29. Sentimens de quelques theologiens de Hol
land sur I'histoire critique du Vieux Testament, pp. 107, 129 (publ.
1685). Later he explained the elements which could not be har
monized with Mosaic authorship as due to interpolation.
'' De origine et progressu idolatria, p. 71 (publ. 1696); and
Epist. ad Morin., p. 686.
" Among these writers the more prominent were DuPin, Witsius,
Spanheim, Prideaut, Vitringa, Calmet.

so THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
Theory of Jean Astruc. Jean Astruc, physician of
Louis XIV, and professor of medicine in Paris, gave new
direction to critical theories regarding the origin of the
Pentateuch.^" Early in the eighteenth century several
writers had suggested that Moses used older sources in
the composition of the book of Genesis.^^ Following out
these suggestions Astruc maintained that Moses used
several sources, which he incorporated into his work
practically without alterations. Noticing, further, that in
some sections of Genesis the divine name "Elohim" was
used and in others, "Yahweh," he proceeded, on the basis
of this peculiarity, to analyze the book into two principal
sources — the Elohistic and the Yahwistic, or Jehovistic —
admitting, however, the presence of nine or ten additional
minor sources, of which only fragments were preserved.
Astruc did not deny the Mosaic authorship of Genesis or
of the other books of the Pentateuch; his view was that
Moses compiled the book of Genesis from the older
sources, and then wrote the remaining four books.
Modifications and Expansions of Astruc's Theory.
The investigations begun by Astruc were continued dili
gently by other scholars. J. G. Eichhorn^* called atten
tion to the fact that the two sources marked by the use
of different divine names were differentiated also by

"'He set forth his views in a book published in Brussels in 1753,
entitled Conjectures sur les memoires originaux dont il paroit que
Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre de la Genise.
''Abbe Fleury, Moeurs des Israelites, 6 (publ. 1701) ; Vitringa,
Observ. Sacra, IV, 2 (publ. 1722) ; Abbe Laurent Frangois, Preuves
de la Religion de Jesus Christ contra les Spinosistes et les Deistes,
I, 2 c. 3, art. 7 (publ 1751).
" Urgeschichte, in Repertorium, IV, V (1779) ; Einleitung in das
Alte Testament (1780-1783).

PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM 51
linguistic characteristics. W. M. L. DeWette,^^ in dis
cussing the origin of the documents embodied in the
Pentateuch, pointed out that Deuteronomy is shown by
its peculiar characteristics to be quite independent of the
preceding books, and he assigned it to the age of Josiah.
He also was the first to question, in connection with
critical conclusions, the historicity of some of the Penta
teuchal narratives. F. Bleek^* brought out the close con
nection between the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua.
H. Ewald*® showed that, though after Exodus 2 the
peculiar use of the divine names ceases, linguistic char
acteristics make it evident that the two main sources
were used also in the remaining books of the Pentateuch,
and F. Tuch*® insisted that the Elohim source was used
also in Joshua. K. D. Ilgen,*^ and later H. Hupfeld,*'
distinguished a second Elohim source in Genesis, and
K. H. Graf*® insisted that most of the legislation in
Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers was later than that in
Deuteronomy. These scholars and their successors, the
more important of whom are mentioned below, have
gradually established Pentateuchal criticism upon a firm,
scientific basis.
'^ Dissertatio Critica (1805) ; Kritischer Versuch ueber die Glaub-
wuerdigkeit der Buecher der Chronik (1806) ; Kritik der Mosaischen
Geschichte (1807) ; Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung
in die Bibel Alten und Neuen Testaments (1817-1826).
'* In Rosenmueller's Repertorium (1822) and in Studien und
Kritiken (1831). As early as 1792 Geddes expressed a similar
opinion. The Holy Bible, vol. i, p. xix.
°° Ewald's views were first expressed in Studien und Kritiken
(1831). ''Genesis (1838).
"Urkunden des J erusalemschen Tempelarchivs (1798).
"Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung
(1853). "Die geschichtlichen Buecher des Alten Testaments (1866).

52 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
In the course of the investigations various theories
have been proposed to account for the complicated facts
discovered in the Pentateuch :
I. The Fragment Theory. Even before Astruc
Peyrerius*" and Spinoza*^ had advocated views which
might be classed under this head ; but the so-called Frag
ment Theory was fully developed subsequently to Astruc,
when the literary analysis of the Pentateuch was carried
to extremes. This theory regarded the Pentateuch as
"an agglomeration of longer and shorter fragments, be
tween which no threads of continuous connection could
be traced." The arguments in support of the theory were
drawn chiefly from the middle books of the Pentateuch,
where the transitions are frequently very abrupt. Among
the advocates of the Fragment Theory A. Geddes,**- J. S.
Vater,** A. T. Hartmann,** and, for a time, W. M. L.
DeWette*^ are the more important.
2. The Supplement Theory. The better apprecia
tion of a common plan and purpose running throughout
the entire Pentateuch or Hexateuch made the permanent
acceptance of the Fragment Theory impossible. It was
superseded by the so-called Supplement Theory, which
seemed to do better justice to all the facts in the case.
According to this view, the Elohistic part of the Penta
teuch was the oldest portion, which served as ground-

^•See above, pp. 17, 18, 48.
*'¦ See above, p. 48.
''The Holy Bible, I (1792); Critical Remarks on the Hebrew
Scriptures, I (1800).
"Kommentar ueber den Pentateuch (1802-1805).
** Historisch-kritische Porschungen ueber die Bildung, das Zeit
alter, und den Plan der fuenf Buecher Moses (1831).
"Beitraege sur Einleitung in das Alte Testament, I (1806);
Einleitung in das Alte Testament (1817).

PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM 53
work for the whole. The Elohistic portion was revised
by a later editor, the Yahwist or Jehovist, who anno
tated the older work throughout and added to it a con
siderable number of new and independent sections.
Deuteronomy was thought to be the latest addition to the
work. Among the advocates and defenders of the Sup
plement Theory in some form were W. M. L. DeWette,*®
F. Bleek,*^ H. Ewald,*« F. Tuch,*® J. J. Staehelin,^"
A. Knobel,^^ and, for a time, F. Delitzsch.^* While
there are differences in details, generally speaking, the
composition of the groundwork was assigned to the period
of the Judges or to the beginning of the period of the
monarchy; the Yahwistic additions were variously dated
in the reigns of Saul, or of Solomon, or of Hezekiah;
Deuteronomy was commonly dated in the seventh century.
It must not be thought, however, that the Supplement Theory
always had the simple form here indicated. Sometimes it appeared
as a combination of the Supplement Theory with the Fragment
Theory plus elements taken from the Document Theory. Ewald,
for example, assumed in his Geschichte des Volkes Israel (l843ff.),
that the following sources were used: I, A few passages coming
from Moses; 2, the book of the Wars of Yahweh; 3, a biography
of Moses written soon after his death ; 4, the book of the Covenants
written in the days of Samson; 5, the book of the "generations,"
coming from the days of Solomon; 6, the book of a prophetic
narrator living in the days of Elijah; 7, the work of a second
prophetic narrator writing about 800; 8, a compilation of all these,
made about 750, by a third prophetic narrator, who added some
material of his own; 9, several additions, of which Deuteronomy,
in the first half of the seventh century, was the most important.

" In the later editions of his Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen
Einleitung, especially editions 5 (1840) and 6 (1845).
"Especially in De libri Gen. origine atque indole historica (1836).
*" Studien und Kritiken (1831).
"Kommentar ueber die Gen. (1838).
"^ Kritische Untersuchungen ueber den Pentateuch (1843).
"^ Die Genesis Erklaert (1852). "'Genesis (1852).

54 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
3. The Document Theory. The discovery by Hup
feld in 1853 of a second Elohim source necessitated a
modification of the Supplement Theory. Moreover, a
closer study of the interrelation of the different layers
in the Pentateuch showed that theory to be inadequate.
Its place was taken by what is generally known as the
Document Theory, because it considers the Pentateuch
in its present form to be the result of the compilation of
material coming from at least four documents, each of
which is thought to have had originally an independent
existence.®* The earlier advocates of the Document
Theory used a variety of symbols to designate the dif
ferent sources, but at present the four documents are
generally known as J — ^the Jehovistic document, that is,
the document characterized by the use of the divine name
"Jehovah" or "Yahweh" in the sections narrating events
preceding the call of Moses; E — the Elohistic document,
that is, the document using the divine name "Elohim"
in the corresponding sections; D — Deuteronomic Code,
furnishing the heart of the book of Deuteronomy; P —
Priestly Code, a document combining history and law,
written from a distinctively priestly standpoint. These
four documents in turn are thought to embody older
sources which had an independent existence either in
written or oral form.
4. The Graf-Wellhausen Theory. The Docu
ment Theory is the prevailing theory at the present time ;
" In a sense the theories already described might be called Docu
ment Theories, because they too recognize the presence of material
from several sources, but the names given to them are more
descriptive of their outstanding characteristics. The same is true
in this case: the use of the four originally independent documents
is the distinguishing feature of the compilation according to this
theory.

PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM 55
but in the course of its history it has passed through
various modifications."* The form in which it is most
widely accepted among scholars to-day is known as the
Graf-Wellhausen Theory, or the Development Theory.
In its general positions this theory was first advocated
in 1835 by W. Vatke"® and J. F. L. George,^® but as
presented then it exerted little influence, perhaps because
of its Hegelian point of view. But even before that date,
in 1833 or 1834, Edward Reuss, following somewhat in
the footsteps of DeWette, called attention in his lectures,
at the University of Strassburg, to the fact that the
history of Israel as outlined in Judges, Samuel, and Kings
contained much that seemed to conflict with the theory
that the laws of the Pentateuch were in force among the
people during the centuries described in those books. He
further maintained that the Mosaic Code was utterly
unknown to the prophets of the eighth and seventh cen
turies, that Jeremiah was the first prophet who shows
acquaintance with a written law (Jer. 2. 8; 18. 18, etc.),
and that his quotations are exclusively from Deuter
onomy. This book, or at least its central portion
(4. 45-28. 68), he thought to have been the book "found"
in the temple in the days of Josiah, and he looked upon
that code as the most ancient part of the codified legis
lation contained in the Pentateuch. According to his
view, Ezekiel lived prior to the redaction of the ritual

"This is true especially with regard to the order in which the
several documents originated. The earlier writers, Hupfeld, E.
Schrader — in DeWette's Einleitung, 8th ed. 1869, Th. Noeldeke —
Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments, 1869, and others,
considered P the oldest document; others, like A. Dillmann, gav?
first place to E.
"' Die aelteren Juedischen Feste.
"Pie Religion des Alten Testaments, i,

56 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
code and of the laws which were formulated by the
hierarchy. The views of Reuss were not published until 1879.
Meanwhile a former pupil of Reuss, K. H. Graf, had
published similar views, which were further developed
by A. Kayser, A. Kuenen, and most brilliantly of all, by
Julius Wellhausen. According to these scholars, the
four documents originated in the order J, E, D, P, and
their dates, not counting later additions, were approxi
mately: J, 850; E, 750; D, 650; P, 500-450."
Modern scholars, with few exceptions, accept in all
essentials the conclusions of the Graf-Wellhausen school
regarding the order and dates of the Pentateuchal docu
ments.^® The priority of P is universally given up;

^' The more important works of these pioneers are : E. Reuss,
L'Histoire Sainte et La Loi (1879) ; K. H. Graf, Die geschichtlichen.
Buecher des Alten Testaments (1866) ; A. Kayser, Das vorexilische
Buch der Urgeschichte (1874) ; A. Kuenen, Godsdienst van Israel
(1869, 1870) ; J. Wellhausen, Geschichte Israels, i (1878) ; Composi
tion des Hexateuchs, first in Jahrbuecher fuer Deutsche Theologie
(1876-1877), republished as vol. ii of Skissen und Vorarbeiten
(1885). Mention should also be made of J. W. Colenso, The
Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua Critically Examined (1862-
1879). "'Among the more prominent writers on Old Testament subjects
who accept the general literary conclusions of the Graf-Wellhausen
school may be named : Duhm, Stade, Smend, Marti, Budde, Cornill,
Baentsch, Bertholet, Kautzsch, Steuernagel, W. R. Smith, G. A.
Smith, Driver, G. B. Gray, Skinner, J. E. McFadyen, H. P. Smith,
G. F. Moore, J. P. Peters, W. R. Harper, and many more. Of
special discussions of the Pentateuchal criticism which represent
this theory, may be named, in addition to those already enumerated :
A. Westphal, Les sources du pentateuque (i888ff.) ; W. B. Bacon,
The Genesis of Genesis (1892), and The Triple Tradition of the
Exodus (1894) ; W. E. Addis, The Documents of the Hexateuch
(vol. i, 1893 ; vol. ii, 1898) ; H. Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hexa
teuch (1893) ; C. Steuernagel, Allgemeine Einleitung in den Hef;a-

PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM 57
but there are a few eminent scholars, among them
Kittel,'^® Graf Baudissin,®" and Koenig,®^ who consider
E older than J, and some who date P earlier than D.®*
There are also some who, while accepting the Document
Theory in some form, assign the documents embodied in
the Pentateuch to dates much earlier than those favored
by the Graf-Wellhausen school.®*
Recent Developments. The efforts to determine the
dates of the completed documents were followed by at
tempts to fix the age of the material embodied in these
documents. The earlier adherents of the Graf-Well
hausen school were inclined to assign not only the com
pleted documents but practically all the material embodied

teuch (1900) ; A. Merx, Die Buecher Mose und Josua (1907) ;
I. Benzinger, Wie wurden die Juden das Volk des Gesetses? (1908).
The English text of the Pentateuch, arranged according to the
principal sources, is found in J. E. Carpenter and G. Harford-
Battersby, The Hexateuch, vol. ii (1900) ; vol. i, which is devoted to
a discussion of the critical questions, is published separately under
the title, The Composition of the Hexateuch. A similar arrange
ment is found in C. F. Kent, The Student's Old Testament, especially
the volumes on Beginnings of Hebrew History (1904) and Israel's
Laws and Legal Precedents (1907).
'¦'Geschichte der Hebraer, I (1888).
"Einleitung in das Alte Testament (1901).
" Einleitung in das Alte Testament (1893).
" A. Dillmann, in his revision of the commentaries on the books
of the Hexateuch by A. Knobel (i88off.) ; R. Kittel, in the volume
mentioned in note (59), and in the Theologische Studien aus Wuert-
temberg (1881, 1882) ; but the latter approaches more nearly to the
Graf-Wellhausen school in the 2d ed. of the Geschichte (1909-1912) ;
W. W. Graf Baudissin in the volume mentioned in note (60), and in
Geschichte des alttestamentlichen Priestertums (1889) ; E. Riehm,
Einleitung in das Alte Testament, edited by A. Brandt (1889, 1890) ;
H. L. Strack, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (1883) ; and others.
"E. Koenig, for example, gives the dates: E, 1200; J, 1000;
D, 700-650; Sellin, J, 1000-950; E, 950, revised c. 850; D, c. 700,
the reform under Hezekiah; P, 500.

58 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
in them to relatively late dates. Later investigations have
clearly shown that much of the material, both historical
and legal, must have been handed down, orally or in
written form, from very early times.®*
It would be erroneous to think that no voices were
raised against the modem views in general, and against
the prevailing Document Theory in particular. Hengsten
berg, Haevernick, Keil, Green, and others did their best
to uphold or reestablish the traditional views.®® Others,
while admitting some truth in the newer views, proposed
rival theories, which, their authors believed, would ex
plain all the facts without departing so far from tradi
tional views. A. Klostermann,®® for example, followed
in many points by James Orr,®'^ holds that the ground-

" H. Gunkel, Schoepfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endseit (1895) ;
Genesis (1902) ; A. Merx, Die Buecher Mose und Josua (1907).
H. Winckler, in numerous publications, especially — in cooperation
with H. Zimmern — in the third edition of E. Schrader, Die Keilin
schriften und das Alte Testament (1902, 1903) ; A. Jeremias, Das
Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orient (1904; English trans
lation 191 1 ) ; R. Kittel, Die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft in ihren
wichtigsten Ergebnissen (1910; English translation 1910) and in the
2d ed. of his Geschichte ; and many others.
"The following are of greatest interest in this connection:
E. W. Hengstenberg, Die Authentie des Pentateuchs (1836-1839) ;
H. A. C. Haevernick, Handbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung
in das Alte Testament (1836- 1849) ; F. H. Ranke, Untersuchungen
ueber den Pentateuch (1834-1840) ; J. K. F. Keil, Lehrbuch der
historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Alte Testament (1853); A.
Zahn, Das Deuteronomium (1890), and Ernste Blicke in den Wahn
der modernen Kritik des Alten Testaments (i893ff.) ; W. H. Green,
The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch (1895) ; and The Unity of
the Book of Genesis (1895) ; E. Rupprecht, Das Raetsel des Fuenf-
buches Moses (1895-1897), and Wissenschaftliches Handbuch der
Einleitung in das Alte Testament (1898).
''Der Pentateuch (,1893, neue Folge, 1907).
" The Problem of the Old Testament (1906).

PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM 59
work of the Pentateuch is a Mosaic production, historical
and legal, which was regularly read before the people —
J. In the course of time this early document received
minor additions and underwent various modifications —
E; until there were current two distinct recensions of
the original work. Twice it received more extensive
additions, the first under Solomon, at which time were
added the Levitical regulations and the related historical
sections — P ; the other under Josiah, when Deuteronomy
was added — ^D.
A somewhat different theory is advocated by B. D.
Eerdmans.®* According to him, the kernel of the Penta
teuch is an Adam book — ^beginning Gen. 5. i — or a Jacob
recension of the same — compare Gen. 37. 2 — ^which was
originally polytheistic and arose before B. C. 700. Mean
while an Israel recension of the same work, also poly
theistic, had been made, which, before the discovery of
Deuteronomy, was interwoven with the Jacob recension.
After the finding of Deuteronomy the combined work
was revised from the standpoint of monotheism, and in
postexilic times it received further additions.
In part at least the opposition of these and other recent
writers to the generally accepted view is based upon the
alleged uncertainty of the critical analysis of the Penta
teuch underlying the conclusions of the Graf-Wellhausen
school. The findings of Astruc, which mark the first
stage in the development of the Document Theory, were
based upon the discovery of a significant alternation in
the use of the divine names "Yahweh" and "Elohim" in
different parts of the book of Genesis. Taking this "dis-

" Alttestamentliche Studien, i, Genesis (1908); ii. Die Vorge-
schichte Israels (1908); iii. Exodus (1910). For a criticism of
Eerdmans, see ZATW, 1910, pp. 245ff.; 191 1, pp. 44flf-

6o THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
covery" as a starting point, there have been various
attempts made in recent years to prove, chiefly from the
ancient translations, foremost among them the Septua
gint, that the accepted text oi the Hebrew Bible is so
uncertain that no analysis of documents can be based
upon it. It follows that if the critical analysis is faulty,
any theory resting upon it loses its chief support; and
the way is cleared for a new analysis and a new theory
or new theories.®®
In general, it may be said that these more recent
theories are a combination of the Supplement Theory and
a modified Document Theory. Unfortunately, as Pro
fessor Skinner has pointed out so clearly, the textual-
critical foundations so essential for the newer views are
rather insecure. It would seem, therefore, that, though
it may be admitted that many questions of Pentateuchal
criticism are still unsettled and that some of the opinions
now held may have to be modified, the Document Theory
as presented in its main outlines by the Graf-Wellhausen
school, has still the better of the argument.

"Klostermann called attention to the textual uncertainties in
1893 ; other authors following in his footsteps are : J. Lepsius,
several articles in Reich Christi (1903) ; J. Dahse, in Archiv fuer
Religionswissenschaft (1908) ; more fully in Die Gottesnamen in
Genesis (1912) and Wie erklaert sich der gegenwaertige Zustand
der Genesis? (1913) ; H. A. Redpath, in American Journal of
Theology, 1904; B. D. Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien (1908-
1910) ; A. Troelstra, De Naam Gods in den Pentateuch, translated
into English, The Name of God in the Pentateuch (1912) ; H. M.
Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism (1910) ; The Origin of
the Pentateuch (1910) ; Pentateuchal Studies (1912), and numerous
articles in the Bibliotheca Sacra. See also International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia, art. "Pentateuch." A thorough-going discus
sion of the views expressed by these writers is given by J. Skinner
in five articles in the Expositor (1913), published, with additions,
in book form under the title The Divine Names in Genesis (1914).

CHAPTER IV
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF MOSAIC
AUTHORSHIP
I. Indirect Evidence

CHAPTER IV
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF MOSAIC
AUTHORSHIP
I. Indirect Evidence
An adequate discussion of the authorship and origin
of the Pentateuch requires a consideration of the argu
ments which have been and are being advanced in favor
of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. For con
venience sake these arguments are here arranged in four
groups: I. Indirect Evidence. 2. External Evidence.
3. Direct Internal Evidence. 4. Indirect Internal Evi
dence.^ The present chapter is devoted to a considera
tion of the Indirect Evidence, which is presented under
three heads :
I. Lack of Unanimity among the Critics.* This lack
of unanimity, it is claimed, proves conclusively that the
working principles and methods of these scholars are
faulty; but if they use in their investigations faulty
methods and principles, their conclusions cannot be con
sidered well founded and, therefore, must be rejected.*
Now, assuming for the sake of argument that the
' Following, in a general way, the arrangement of the discussion
in F. E. Gigot, Special Introduction to the Old Testament, vol. i.
' That is, the scholars holding nontraditional views regarding
the origin of the Pentateuch.
' Perhaps no recent writer has made more ingenious use of these
alleged disagreements than Jaines Orr, in The Problem of the Old
Testament. 63

64 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
alleged disagreements are real, must they be traced to the
use of faulty methods and principles ? In investigations
of this sort lack of agreement in conclusions may be due
to one or the other of two causes: either to the use of
faulty methods and principles, or to a lack of a sufficient
number of decisive data on the basis of which the ques
tions must be settled. What, then, is the working prin
ciple and method of modern critical investigation? In
the words of J. E. McFadyen, it is "the free and reverent
study of all the biblical facts." * It is study, which means
careful investigation rather than superficial reading fol
lowed by hasty, unfounded conclusions. The investiga
tion is free, in the sense that, though it is not disrespectful
to traditional beliefs, it is not prevented by them from
marking out new paths if the facts so demand. It is
reverent, because it deals with a book that has played a
unique part in the religious life and thought of many
centuries and has been and is received as a book in which
the voice of God may be heard. It is primarily a study of
the facts presented in the book, not of theories or specu
lations, though in the study of the facts much may be
learned from the theories of the past, and the study may
give rise to new theories. In order to be thoroughly
scientific it must have due regard for all the facts in
the case.
In the question under consideration, then, the method
or principle of procedure is the careful, scientific exam
ination of all the facts that throw light on the authorship
and composition of the Pentateuch. Surely, this cannot
be a faulty method of procedure; and if there is dis
agreement in conclusions, it cannot be charged to the
use of faulty working principles.
*Old Testament Criticism and the Christian Church, p. 47.

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 65
On the other hand, disagreement in conclusions may
be due to a lack of sufficient decisive data. The facts to
be examined may be few in number or they may be
open to more than one interpretation. In such case it is
to be expected that the personal element — personal prefer
ence or prejudice — should make itself felt in the inter
pretation of the few or indecisive facts : a conclusion
appealing to one person as well founded may be rejected
by another as unwarranted. It is well to heed the words
of caution written by one of the most eminent Old Testa
ment scholars, recently deceased : "In the critical study of
the Old Testament there is an important distinction which
should be kept in mind. It is that of degrees of proba
bility. The probability of a conclusion depends upon
the nature of the grounds upon which it rests ; and some
conclusions reached by critics of the Old Testament are
for this reason more probable than others, the facts at
our disposal being in the former case more numerous
and decisive than in the latter. It is necessary to call
attention to this difference, because writers who seek to
maintain the traditional view of the structure of the Old
Testament sometimes point to conclusions which, from
the nature of the case, are uncertain, or are propounded
avowedly as provisional, with the view of discrediting all,
as though they rested upon a similar foundation." " And
again : "It is in the endeavor to reach definite conclu
sions upon the basis either of imperfect data, or of
indications reasonably susceptible of divergent interpre
tations, that the principal disagreements between the
critics have their origin. Language is sometimes used

° S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testa
ment, p. iv.

66 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
implying that critics are in a state of internecine conflict
with one another or that their conclusions are 'in a con
dition of perpetual flux.' Such statements are not in
accordance with the facts. There is a large area on
which the data are clear: here, accordingly, critics are
agreed, and their conclusions are not likely ever to be
reversed. And this area includes many of the most
important results criticism has reached. There is an area
beyond this, where the data are complicated and am
biguous; and here it is no more than natural that inde
pendent judges should differ." ® Wherever, therefore,
real differences of opinion are found they are due, not to
the use of faulty principles, but to the peculiar character
of the available evidence.
Points of Agreement. It should be noted, how
ever, that the disagreements have been greatly exagger
ated and overemphasized. As a matter of fact, on all
the main points under discussion, regarding which the
data are sufficiently numerous and decisive, there is
general agreement among scholars, even among those
representing what may be called different schools. There
is practical unanimity, for example, on points like these :
I. The composite character of the Pentateuch or the
Hexateuch, as, indeed, of all the so-called historical books
of the Old Testament. "In the light of all these facts,"
says McFadyen, "the general possibility, if not the prac
tical certainty, of the compositeness of the historicar
books may be conceded." ^ Even W. H. Green admits
the possibility of compilation. He says : "By the unity

' S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testa
ment, p. vi.
' Old Testament Criticism and the Christian Church, p. 143.

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 67
of the Pentateuch is meant that it is in its present form
one continuous work, the product of a single writer. This
is not opposed to the idea of his having had before him
written sources in any number or variety, from which he
may have drawn his materials, provided the composition
was his own." ®
2. The use of four principal sources, now commonly
designated J, E, D, P. Each of these is thought to have
reached its final form subsequently to the time of Moses,
but each of them is supposed to contain material con
siderably older than the time of the composition of the
document as a whole. E. Sellin, a very cautious and
conservative scholar, assigns the highest degree of proba
bility to the view which claims that the Pentateuch is a
compilation of material from four originally separate
historical-legal sources, the oldest of which, he thinks,
assumed written form, at the earliest, near the beginning
of the period of the monarchy.® Even* scholars who, like
Orr, question the existence of four independent docu
ments, recognize "evident signs of different pens and
styles, of editorial redaction, of stages of compilation." ^"
3. The presence in P, whatever its date, of an inde
pendent code of laws, found chiefly in Lev. 17 to 26.
Graf was the first to call attention to this unique group
of laws, and Klostermann furnished the appropriate title
"Heiligkeitsgesetz," which means "Law of Hohness,"

'Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, p. 59.
'Einleitung in das Alte Testament, p. 18. On p. 16 he uses these
emphatic words : "So ist das Eine ein absolut feststehendes wissen
schaftliches Fafctum: der Pentateuch ist erst in der nachmosaischen
Zeit aus einer Mehrheit in Palaestina geschriebener Quellen zusam-
mengewachsen. Das ist die unverrueckbare Basis auf der die
protestantische Pentateuchforschung von heute einmuetig steht."
"James Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament, pp. 36g&,\

68 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
because the fundamental requirement is that Israel should
be holy because Yahweh is holy.^^
4. The detailed analysis of the Pentateuch into P, D,
and the combined JE. The interweaving of J and E is
so complete that it is much more difficult to separate
them, though even on this point there is coming to be
greater unanimity.
5. The presence in the Pentateuch of three distinct
legal codes — ^the Book of the Covenant, the Deuteronomic
Code, and the Priestly Code — ^belonging to different
periods and representing different stages of political,
social, and religious development.
6. J and E are older than D ; and modern scholars are
also agreed that J and E are older than P.
7. Deuteronomy in some form, not the whole of the
Pentateuch, was the Book of the Law upon which the
reforms of Josiah were founded. Whatever the date of
its writing, it was then published for the first time.
Points of Disagreement. From the preceding sum
mary it would seem that agreement has been reached on
all essential points. The disagreements appear in matters
of detail, such as definite dates, regarding which decisive
data are lacking:
I. The relative age of D and P. The mooted question
is whether P is postexilic and so later than D, or, apart
from editorial additions, preexilic and, consequently,
earlier than D. A few scholars hold that P, with the
exception, perhaps, of H,^* was written before D,^* and
that H, though embodying earlier material, reached its
final form during the exile. These scholars, however.

"Lev. 19.2; 20. 7, etc.
"That is, the Law of Holiness.
" See above, p. 54.

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 69
admit that P received more or less extensive additions
during the postexilic period. On the other hand, most
modern scholars consider P a postexilic production ; they
admit, however, that H was compiled during the exile,
and that the laws of H and P are largely based on pre
exilic practice, ritual, and customs, some of which may
have reached the compiler in written form. It would
seem, therefore, that the difference between the two views
is, after all, not so very great. One side says: "P is
preexilic with postexilic additions" ; the other : "P is post
exilic, embodying preexilic material." Both might agree
on this statement of the case: P is a combination of
preexilic and postexilic materials.
2. The relative age and place of composition of J and
E. But here again there seems to be growing unanimity
in favor of Judah as the home of J, and of the northern
kingdom, the territory of the Joseph tribes, as the home
of E. The Graf-Wellhausen school places J before E,
but there are a few eminent scholars who reverse this
position.^* 3. The detailed analysis of JE into J and E. There
are several reasons why uncertainty should exist here:
( I )The similarity of subject ; both J and E cover the early
history of the Hebrews; (2) the similarity of point of
view; both reflect the prophetic point of view; (3) the
nearness in date and age ; both come from the golden age
of Hebrew prose writing; (4) the manner of combination ;
the interweaving of J and E is much more complete and
intricate than is the case with the other documents.
4. The presence of the Pentateuchal documents in
Judges, Samuel, and Kings, It is quite generally ad-

' See above, p. 57,

70 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
mitted that traces of some of them are found in Judges ;
it is also recognized that, if these sources were not used
in Samuel, the compiler made use of sources written in
the spirit of J and E ; there is more uncertainty regarding
Kings. 5. The exact process by which the several documents
were combined to form the present Pentateuch.
6. The analysis of the several documents into earlier
and later material, symbolized by the letters Ji, J2, J3,
Ei, E2, E3, etc. The general tendency among more
recent writers is to assign a considerable proportion of
the material to relatively early dates.
Concerning these six points on which disagreements
exist it may be noted : ( i ) They do not touch the central
question, Did Moses write the Pentateuch? (2) Uncer
tainty on these points cannot invalidate the conclusions
reached regarding other and more important questions.
(3) The disagreements are easily accounted for by the
absence of decisive data. Therefore, the charge that
the lack of unanimity is due to the use of faulty working
methods and principles is without support; and the dis
agreements in so far as they are real cannot be used
legitimately as an argument against the correctness of
the modern critical position.
II. The Manner of Literary Composition. Another
line of argument against the modern critical view, and
thus, by implication, in favor of the traditional position
is suggested in these words: "No other book was so
constructed; no book could be so constructed";^^ or in
the assertion of A. J. F. Behrends : "Was there ever such
a literary patch quilt? — It is simply incredible that Genesis

"Anti-Higher Criticism, p. 10.

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 71
was put together as the critics claim." *® In other words,
the claim is set up that the study of extra-biblical litera
ture shows the modern critical views concerning the
origin of the Pentateuch to be impossible.
It is rarely wise to call a thing impossible; and it is
never so, unless one is absolutely sure of his facts. Un
fortunately, the facts in the case do not warrant the
assertions quoted. The eminent archceologist H. A.
Sayce, often claimed as one of the chief supporters of
the traditional views, has made the statement : "Modern
research has shown that a considerable part of the most
ancient literature of all nations was of composite origin,
more especially where it was of a historical or religious
character. Older documents were incorporated into it
with only so much change as to allow them to be fitted
together into a continuous story, or to reflect the point of
view, ethical, political, or religious, of the later compiler.
The most ancient books that have come down to us are,
with few exceptions, essentially compilations." ^'' He
illustrates his statement by referring to the "Book of the
Dead" of Egypt and the epic literature of ancient Baby
lonia;^* and then concludes with the words: "The com
posite character of the Pentateuch, therefore, is only
what a study of similar contemporaneous literature
brought to light by modern research would lead us to
expect." ^®
It is not necessary, however, to go outside of the Old
Testament to find illustrations of the literary method,
which, according to modern scholarship, was used in

" The Old Testament under Fire, pp. 129, 133.
" The Higher Criticism and the Monuments, p. 3.
"Ibid., p. 31.
"/6«rf., p. 34.

72 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
the production of the Pentateuch. The books of Chron
icles, for example, which contain a "history" parallel to
the historical records from Genesis to Kings, were written
several centuries subsequently to the writing of the other
records. According to the testimony of the Chronicler
himself, he made use of earlier documents; and a com
parison with the earlier narratives shows that, in prin
ciple at least, he followed the same method which the
compiler of the Pentateuch is said to have adopted. In
some cases he simply transferred the statements in the
older writings to his own work ; in others he introduced
modifications or made abbreviations to satisfy his own
religious or theological ideas, while in still other cases
he introduced wholly fresh material.*"
In a later work, written by a Semite for Semitic
(Syrian) Christians, the same method of compilation can
be studied more fully, because in this case the original
documents, four in number, have been preserved. The
Diatessaron of Tatian*^ is a Life of Jesus composed by
piecing together passages from the four canonical Gos
pels. This compilation constituted the official gospel of
the Syrian Church for about two centuries, and but for
the interference of some Syrian bishops might have dis
placed the separate Gospels entirely from use in that
church. The following extract consists of twelve frag
ments from three different sources, only two of which
contain a whole verse: 'And the same day, when even
was come, he said unto them, Let us go unto the other

"Compare, for example, 2 Sam. 10. 1-5 with i Chron. 19. 1-5, and
2 Sam. 24. i-io with i Chron. 21. 1-8. Unfortunately, many of the
sources used by the Chronicler, if not all of them, have been lost;
hence it is impossible to study in detail the method of the Chronicler.
''Died c. ISO A. D.

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 73
side of the lake. And when they had sent away the
multitude (Jesus) went into a ship with his disciples;
and there were also with him other little ships. And
behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, and the
ships were near being swamped by the waves ; and (Jesus)
was in the stern being asleep on a pillow. And his dis
ciples came to him and awoke him, saying, Master, save
us, we perish ! Then he arose and rebuked the wind and
the raging of the water, and said unto the sea, Peace, be
still ! And the wind ceased and there was a great calm.
And he said unto them. Why are ye so fearful ? How is
it that ye have no faith? And they feared exceedingly
(and) wondered, saying one to another. What manner
of man is this? for he commanded the winds and water,
and they obey him." This brief paragraph consists of
extracts from the following sources : Mark 4. 35a, Luke
8. 22b, Mark 4. 36a, Luke 8. 22a, Mark 4. 36b, Matt.
8. 24a, Luke 8. 23b, Mark 4. 38a, Matt. 8. 25, Luke 8. 24b,
Mark 4. 39b-4ia, Luke 8. 25b. It is seen, therefore, that
"such a literary patch quilt" was not only possible, but
was actually produced and put to serious use.**
III. Unity of Theme and Plan. Another phase of
the same argument rests upon the alleged unity of the
Pentateuch; which, it is claimed, militates against the
assumption of diversity of authorship. Says W. H.
Green : "The unity of theme, and the unity of plan . . .

^ Compilations of a similar character are found in other ancient
and modern literatures. For Arabic literature see Revue Biblique,
1906, pp. 509-519, and the Essay on Historical Methods in the Old
Testament, in Cambridge Biblical Essays, edited by H. B. Swete
(1909). For other examples, even in early English literature, see
Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, The Hexateuch, vol. i, chap, i,
and H. T. Fowler, A History of the Literature of Ancient Israel,
pp. 46ff.

74 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
creates a presumption that these books are, as they have
been traditionally believed to be, the product of a single
writer." **
Now, no one can deny the essential unity of theme and
plan; but does such unity exclude the use of compilation
as a method of literary composition ? The same kind of
unity exists in Chronicles, where, according to the writer's
own testimony, it is perfectly consistent with compilation
from numerous sources. There is complete unity in the
Diatessaron; and there is a certain unity in students'
essays, though in many cases they consist largely of
extracts from other works. All that this kind of unity
proves is that the final product is dominated by the ideals
of one man or of one school ; and such domination is not
questioned in the case of the Pentateuch. Who this man
may have been or when he may have lived cannot be
determined from the unity of theme and plan.
To sum up this part of the discussion: The Indirect
Evidence, of which so much is made by some writers,
does not prove the case; it leaves the problem of the
origin and authorship of the Pentateuch an open question.

" The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, p. 29 ; compare also.
The Unity of the Book of Genesis, passim.

CHAPTER V
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF MOSAIC
AUTHORSHIP
2. External Evidence

CHAPTER V
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF MOSAIC
AUTHORSHIP
2. External Evidence
I. Evidence Based upon New Testament Statements.
This includes the testimony of Jesus and of the New
Testament writers. There are those who insist that the
words of Jesus place the Mosaic authorship of the Penta
teuch beyond question. In support reference is made to
passages like these: John 5.45-47; 7.19; Matt. 8.4;
Mark 7. 10; which, however, are all irrelevant, because
not one of them claims the authorship of the Pentateuch
for Moses. In the first "Moses" seems to cover the
entire Old Testament; in the second, "Did not Moses
give you the law?" there is no reference to the writing
of anything; and in the third and fourth certain laws
are ascribed to Moses, without implying literary author
ship of the Pentateuch or even of a part of it. Other
passages of a similar character and equally irrelevant are
quoted at times, which it is not necessary even to mention.
There are, however, a few passages in which the words
of Jesus seem to imply that Moses actually wrote some
things contained in the Pentateuch. In Mark 10. 5 these
words are placed in the mouth of Jesus : "For your
hardness of heart he [Moses] wrote you this command
ment"; or Luke 20. 37, "Even Moses showed in the place
concerning the Bush." These and similar passages, natu
rally interpreted, seem to imply that Moses wrote some
77

78 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
passages, long or short, in the Pentateuch. Do these
references settle the question of the authorship of the first
five books of the Old Testament for those who claim to be
followers of Jesus, the Christ? An emphatic affirmative
answer is given by W. H. Green : "For those who rever
ently accept him as an infallible teacher this settles the
question."^ He and other writers are one in charging that
denial of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch in the
presence of passages like those quoted is evidence of un
belief, an insult to the Christ, because a denial of his
authority. "If Moses did not write the Pentateuch," says
one, "or any portion of it, and the Highest Critics — Jesus
Christ and the Holy Spirit — declare he did, it would be a
lie. It would be none the less a lie, even though the
Jews held traditionally that Moses was the author of
these books. The testimony of the Highest Critics is
absolutely unerringly and eternally true, and he who
hesitates to receive it as against all other testimonies is
disloyal to the truth." *
Clearly these statements are based on the assumption
that Jesus gave and meant to give deliberate decisions
on questions of authorship, which assumption cannot be
substantiated. In the first place, it is well to note that in
only about one fifth of the New Testament quotations
from the Old Testament is a personal name connected
with the quotation. Jesus, himself, in quoting from the
Pentateuch or other Old Testament books, frequently
omits all reference to the alleged author, which seems to
imply that, in comparison with the truth taught, he con
sidered the question of authorship of no special sig
nificance.

' The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, p. 32.
' The Highest Critics vs. the Higher Critics, pp. 7, 8.

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 79
Moreover, in some cases at least, the exact form of
quotation is doubtful. Compare, for example. Matt. 15. 4,
"God said," with Mark 7. 10, "Moses said"; and Luke
20. 37, "Moses showed, in the place concerning the Bush,"
with Mark 12. 26, "Have ye not read in the book of
Moses, in the place concerning the Bush, how God spake
unto him," with Matt. 22. 31, which, referring to the
same statement, introduces it by "Have ye not read that
which was spoken unto you by God?" Which one of
the evangelists has preserved the actual words of Jesus?
But even admitting that in these and similar passages
Jesus used a personal name, does this imply a decision
respecting authorship ? No one would raise objection in
connection with extra-biblical literature to the use of the
name of a writer to designate a book without implying
that the man named was the author of the entire book in
its present form.* There is evidence of the same usage
in the New Testament. In the sermon of Peter "Samuel"
is used as equivalent to "book of Samuel," * for the
reference is to a statement in the Second Book of Samuel,
which is ascribed not to Samuel but to Nathan ; nor is it
probable that the speaker used the name to suggest the
authorship of the book in which the statement is found,
for the words were not spoken until after the death of
Samuel ; hence the latter cannot be the author of the book
in which it is preserved. In the Epistle to the Hebrews®
a psalm is referred to as "David," ® which is not even in

' Compare, for example, the universal reference to "Webster's
Dictionary." *Acts 3. 24; the passage in the mind of the speaker is 2 Sam.
7. 11-16. "Heb. 4. 7.
• Psa. 95.

8o THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
the title ascribed to the shepherd-king of Israel. May it
not be, therefore, that Jesus and the New Testament
writers used the name Moses as a convenient designation
of a book without any thought of authorship? This
seems to be the case in 2 Cor. 3. 15, "Whenever Moses
is read, a veil lieth upon their heart." ^
All these facts suggest that, while Jesus frequently
refers to the Pentateuch and in some instances connects
the name of Moses with a definite passage, he never does
so for the purpose of proving that Moses wrote the Penta
teuch or any portion of it. W. T. Davison describes
the situation correctly when he writes : "A study of the
whole use of the Old Testament made by Christ in his
teaching shows that the questions of date and authorship
with which criticism is chiefly concerned were not before
the mind of our Lord as he spoke, nor was it his object
to pronounce upon them." ®
But even admitting that the references of Jesus imply
in some cases a recognition of authorship, the question
still remains whether the few passages quoted carry with
them the authorship of the entire book from which the
quotations are taken. There are even some conservative
scholars who answer this question in the negative.
C. H. H. Wright, after enumerating the passages which,
he thinks, are referred to by Jesus as coming from Moses,
continues : 'All, however, that can be fairly deduced
from such statements is, the Pentateuch contains portions

' The origin of the designations Moses ^ Law = Pentateuch,
Samuel = Book of Samuel, David = Book of Psalms must be ex
plained and can be explained; but as the use of "Samuel" and
"David" in the above-mentioned illustrations shows, it cannot always
rest upon the fact of authorship, whatever the popular idea may
have been.
'James Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iv, p. 151.

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 8i
written by Moses. It does not follow that the five books
as a whole were written by that lawgiver." ®
Other scholars consider this explanation somewhat
forced and unnatural; therefore, they prefer a different
interpretation of the words of Jesus. Many hold that in
his references to the Pentateuch Jesus accommodated
himself to the usage of the Jews, without indorsing their
views or giving expression to his own, even though he
knew that the commonly accepted opinions regarding the
authorship of the Pentateuch were erroneous. Those who
advocate this view believe that their attitude in no wise
dishonors their Master or discredits his spiritual authority
and supremacy. Indeed, they say, one cannot easily see
what other course he could have taken. Jesus had come
to reveal the Father, to bring a sinful race into harmony
with a holy God. The task was great and difficult, and
there was but little time in which to accomplish it. If
he had turned aside from his chief purpose to settle
scientific and literary questions which were not under
discussion among the people, he would have aroused
popular opposition and thus hindered his chief work.
As has already been pointed out, in no case do his refer
ences imply that he desired to pronounce authoritative
critical judgment, and in no case does the value of the
quotation depend on the authorship of the passage quoted.
Looking, therefore, at the question from the pedagogical
standpoint, it would seem that in view of his important
mission in the world, Jesus was compelled to accommo
date himself to the view and usage of the people in all
matters not essential to his lifework.
Though this view appeals as perfectly satisfactory to

'Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 76.

82 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
many devout Christian believers, there are others who
maintain that it would not have been legitimate for
Jesus to accommodate himself to the usage of the people
if he had known that their views were not in accord with
the facts ;^" nevertheless, they insist that his utterances
do not settle purely literary questions. They believe that
Jesus shared the views of the people, that he actually
believed that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch, and
that this was due to a lack of knowledge on his part.
And they further insist that this attitude toward Jesus
in no wise affects the supreme and final authority of the
Christ over the lives of men. The entire life of the
Master, they say, shows that he regarded his mission as
spiritual ; he did not come to correct all errors, but merely
those touching religion and ethics ; and even here he did
not give specific rules. In most cases he simply laid
down great principles which in time might be worked
out and applied to the details of human activity. He did
not abolish slavery, he made no effort to correct errors
in science ; why should he correct erroneous views regard
ing critical and literary questions?
These were outside the sphere of his immediate inter
ests. His knowledge or ignorance in these secondary
matters does not necessarily affect his knowledge or
authority in essentials. Surely, the words of Marcus
Dods are not inapplicable here : "Ignorance of some de
partments of truth does not disqualify a man for knowing
and imparting truth about God ; in order to be a medium
of revelation a man does not need to be in advance of
his age in secular learning; intimate communion with

"J. E. McFadyen, Old Testament Criticism and the Christian
Church, p. 209.

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 83
God, a spirit trained to discern spiritual things, a perfect
understanding of and zeal for God's purpose are qualities
quite independent of a knowledge of the discoveries of
science." ^^
Again, the argument continues, while Christ was God
he was also truly man. The union of the divine with
the human, if real, must have brought some limitations.
And as a matter of fact, the New Testament teaches that
in some respects at least the divine powers of Christ were
limited, else he could not have felt hunger, weariness,
pain, etc. As strength was needed it was supplied. It
may have been there potentially but not actually. May it
not have been the same with omniscience? In one case
at least Jesus admitted that his knowledge was limited:
"But of that day or hour knoweth no one, not even the
angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." ^*
And, surely, that which, according to his own admission,
was hidden from Jesus was of infinitely greater import
ance than the authorship of a biblical book. It would
seem, therefore, that B. P. Raymond is right when he
says: "To affirm that he had knowledge of the critical
questions which agitate Christian scholars to-day is to
deny that he was made like unto his brethren. It is to
compromise the reality of his humanity and to start on
the road to docetism. Fairbairn's conclusions are just:
'The humanity of the Saviour must be absolutely real.' "**
There are, then, three explanations of the references
of Jesus to the authorship of the Pentateuch, each one
of which seems perfectly fair, natural and, above all,
scriptural; and each one of which implies that his utter-

" The Book of Genesis, p. 4.
"Mark 13.32.
" M. S. Terry, Moses and the Prophets, p. 194.

84 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
ances do not furnish an answer to the question: Did
Moses write the Pentateuch? This conclusion, since it
is in perfect accord with the New Testament, can in no
wise be construed as an insult to the Christ ; nor does it
affect in the least his authority in religious and ethical
matters. What has been said of the words of Jesus is equally
true of similar New Testament statements coming not
from Jesus directly but from the authors of New Testa
ment books. The New Testament has one distinct pur
pose — to make man morally and spiritually perfect. This
is clearly expressed in 2 Tim. 3. 15-17, in words referring
primarily to the Old Testament but applicable to all
scriptures "inspired of God." It seems to have been no
function of the inspired writers to give information on
purely scientific or literary questions. Nothing in the
New Testament warrants the inference that it seeks to
settle critical problems connected with the Old Testa
ment. "It nowhere claims that right for itself, and if any
man makes such a claim for it he must be prepared to
justify his claim. He must show that it was part of the
purpose of the writers of the New Testament to correct
traditional views of authorship and history, if these views
were mistaken. Further, he must show that they had
access to information which would enable them to correct
those views; or, in the absence of such information, he
must show that they were miraculously led to a knowledge
of these matters. Till these claims can be substantiated
the New Testament indorsement of a tradition of the
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch can have no more
value than the tradition itself; and that must be inde
pendently investigated. There need be no reason for
alarm at such a conclusion, unless it can be shown that

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 85
these questions are integrally bound up with the spiritual
function of Scripture." ^*
The general use of the Old Testament by the New
Testament writers also implies that their primary interest
was in the substance, not in the literary form. There
is not the slightest suggestion that they ever thought
about questions of authorship. They were concerned
with the teaching and the spirit of the Old Testament,
not with the letter or anything touching merely the ex
ternal form. All of which goes to show that the testi
mony of Jesus and of the New Testament writers does
not settle anything regarding the authorship and origin
of the Pentateuch.^ ^
2. The Tradition of the Jewish People and of the
Christian Church. In the preceding paragraphs it has
been pointed out that it was not within the sphere of
Jesus and of the New Testament writers to examine or
settle literary questions; nor is there any evidence that
they did. Neither is there any evidence that the early
Christian Church, or her leaders, ever took time to insti
tute such investigation. On the testimony of Jesus and
of his disciples the Old Testament writings were taken
over from the Jews as inspired Sacred Scriptures without
further questions; and with the books themselves came
the Jewish traditions concerning their authorship. This
fact robs Christian tradition of all independent value;
and if there is any weight in tradition at all, it is in the
traditions current among the early Jews.

"J. E. McFadyen, Old Testament Criticism and the Christian
Church, p. 198.
"<See further J. E. McFadyen, Old Testament Criticism and the
Christian Church, chap, viii; J. P. Peters,- TAe Old Testament and
the New Scholarship, chap. iv.

86 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
The official Jewish tradition regarding the authorship
of the Pentateuch has already received brief considera
tion.'® It may be well, however, in this connection, to
quote and consider somewhat more fully the classic
passage in the Talmud,''^ which embodies the rabbinical
idea of the origin of the Old Testament books. It reads :
"Moses wrote his own book and the section about Balaam
and Job ; Joshua wrote his own book and eight verses in
the Torah; Samuel wrote his own book and the books
of Judges and Ruth. David wrote the book of Psalms at
the direction of the ten elders : the first man, Melchizedek,
Abraham, Moses, Heman, Jeduthun, Asaph, and the
three sons of Korah; Jeremiah wrote his own book and
the book of Kings and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his
company wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs and
Ecclesiastes ; the men of the Great Synagogue wrote
Ezekiel, the Twelve, Daniel and the Roll of Esther;
Ezra wrote his own book and the genealogies in Chron
icles down to his own time. But who completed them?
Nehemiah ben Hachaliah." '* As has been stated,'®
there is another tradition assigning to Moses even the
account of his own death.
Concerning these traditions the following may be
noted :
I. They cannot be traced beyond B. C. i8o when the
book of Ecclesiasticus was written. In other words,
they first appear about looo years subsequently to the
time of Moses.
2. There is no evidence that the tradition is based

" See above, p. 44.
"Collected between A. D. 200 and 500.
"Babylonian Talmud, baba bathra, 14b, 15a.
"See above, p. 45.

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 87
upon any kind of scientific investigation, or that the
statement regarding the Pentateuch was handed down
uninterruptedly from anywhere near the time of Moses.
The intervening centuries were full of confusion and
barbarity. 3. A moment's thought will show that the traditions
prove too much. They are much nearer the time of the
prophets, yet no one has taken seriously their explanation
of the origin of the prophetic books. Is it credible that
Samuel wrote the books of Samuel when practically all
the events recorded in Second Samuel and some recorded
in First Samuel took place after Samuel's death? Evi
dently, the expression "wrote" cannot be interpreted as
having the ordinary meaning of the word. The tradition
must use the word loosely, either of preparing the final
edition, or of having some connection with a book, per
haps as its hero, or as the author of some part or parts
of the contents.
4. There are numerous indications in early Jewish
literature that in postexilic times the Jews manifested a
tendency to ascribe to the great men of the past institu
tions or literary activities with which they had little or
nothing to do. This tendency appears already in Chron
icles, as a comparison of that book with parallel narra
tives in Samuel and Kings clearly shows : David came
to be regarded as the author of practically all the Psalms
and the originator of an elaborate temple service, Solomon
the author of the Wisdom literature, Ezra the author of
the completed canon, and Moses the giver of the com
pleted legal system, from which it was only a step to
make him the author of the books that contained the legal
literature. In view of these facts is it not precarious to lay much

88 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
stress on Jewish tradition? About all that may safely
be inferred from it is that Moses did much for his people
as a leader, judge, and lawgiver. It certainly does not
prove that he wrote the Pentateuch in its present form.
3. Testimony of the Other Books of the Old Testament.
The expression "Book of Moses" is found in the Old
Testament only in 2 Chron. 25.4; 35. 12; Ezra 6. 18;
Neh. 13. I ; but expressions implying that the Law was
ascribed to Moses are numerous, especially in Kings and
Chronicles.*" In Josh. i. 7 Joshua is commanded to do
according to all the law which Moses commanded; and
in other passages it is noted with what fidelity he followed
the directions of Moses. Judges 3. 4 states that some of
the nations were left in the land "to prove Israel by them,
to know whether they would hearken unto the com
mandments of Jehovah, which he commanded their
fathers by Moses." Similar passages are found in some
of the prophetic books : Mai. 4. 4, for example, contains
this exhortation: "Remember ye the law of Moses my
servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all
Israel, even statutes and ordinances" ; but these and
similar passages, being of the same nature as those
already mentioned, carry little additional weight.
Do these statements prove that Moses wrote the Penta
teuch? In the first place, what was said concerning the
testimony of the New Testament writers may be repeated
here: There is no evidence anywhere to show that mat
ters relating to literary questions fall within the domain
of special divine revelation. Two questions, therefore,
need to be consideredj ( i ) Were the writers of the Old

"i Kings 2.3; 2 Kings 14.6; 18.6, 12; 23.25; i Chron. 15.15;
?2. 13; 2 Chron. 8.13; 30.16; 33.8; 34.14; 35.6, etc,

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 89
Testament books in a position to know who was the
author of the Pentateuch? (2) What is really claimed
in the passages quoted? The second question may re
ceive first consideration. What does the expression "law
of Moses" mean? Says Green: "It is to be presumed, at
least until the contrary is shown, that 'the law' and 'the
book of the law' have the same sense throughout as in
the New Testament, as also in Josephus and in the pro
logue to the Book of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus." Then
he continues : "The testimonies which have been reviewed
show that this was from the first attributed to Moses.
At the least it is plain that the sacred historians of the
Old Testament, without exception, knew of a body of
laws which were universally obligatory and were believed
to be the laws of Moses, and which answer in every
particular to the laws of the Pentateuch." *'
Do the facts warrant the statement of Professor Green?
Is the term "Torah," or "Law," when used in the Old
Testament, identical in meaning with "Pentateuch" ?
That the terms were used as synonyms in post-Old Testa
ment times no one denies ; it is equally certain, however,
that the word "Torah" is frequently used by the Old
Testament writers with a much more restricted meaning.
As has been pointed out in an earlier chapter, the word,
like many other theological terms, has a history and did
not retain the same meaning throughout the successive
stages of that history. Hence, the exact meaning of the

" The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, p. 35. The last
sentence does not necessarily imply what is definitely claimed in
the preceding sentence, that in Old Testament passages such as
have been quoted "Law" and "Pentateuch" are synonyms, or, what
Green wants to prove, that because the Law is ascribed to Moses,
therefore it follows that h^ is the author of the entire Pentateuch,

90 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
word in a given passage must be determined in the light
of its context; and there cannot be the slightest doubt
that in a multitude of passages the meaning of the author
would be destroyed by an interpretation of "Law" as a
synonym of "Pentateuch." In every Old Testament
passage the word may be explained with perfect fairness
as referring to a body of laws, of uncertain extent, which
was assigned to Moses; in no case is it necessary to
interpret it as synonymous with "Pentateuch." One thing
is certain, therefore, that "law of Moses" is not identical
with "Pentateuch of Moses." **
But does the ascription of this body of laws to Moses
necessarily imply that he was the author of every law in
the collection ? No doubt the phrase "law of Moses" may
be so interpreted, provided there is no reason for believing
otherwise. On the other hand, it may mean only that
the collection contains a Mosaic nucleus, which may have
been expanded at a later time in the spirit of Moses and
along the lines laid down by him. No one seriously
questions at present that Moses was the originator of the
movement and impulse which found literary expression
in the Pentateuch, or that the historical, religious, and
ethical development reflected in the Pentateuch progressed
in the spirit of Moses and along lines marked out by
him.**

^^For a discussion of the etymology and history of the word
torah, see above, pp. 43, 44 ; its various meanings may also be seen in
any Hebrew Lexicon. That in some cases the reference cannot be
to the Pentateuch will appear again below, pp. 97ff.
^To quote from two adherents of the Graf-Wellhausen school:
"The priests derived their Torah from Moses: they claimed only
to preserve and guard what Moses had left. . . . From the historical
tradition it is certain that Moses was the founder of the Torah"
(Wellhausen, History of Israel, p. 396) . "Though Moses was not the

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 91
Even at the present time it is not uncommon to use
personal names in referring to literary productions, with
out implying that the persons bearing these names are
the authors of these works. "French jurists and his
torians and preachers when speaking of the Code
Napoleon, usually and rightly, mean thereby a system of
laws which, every one of them knows fully, should not
be exclusively attributed to the first emperor bearing that
name." ** No one objects to calling one of the great
English dictionaries of the day "Webster's Dictionary"
or simply "Webster," though everyone knows that the
latest edition contains little that came from Webster
himself. Evidently, then, the Old Testament references to the
law or laws of Moses do not prove the Mosaic authorship
of all the laws covered by that term; much less do they
establish the Mosaic authorship of the larger work of
which they happen to be a part. That the three or four
passages which speak of "the book of Moses" may refer
to the Pentateuch in its present form need not be ques
tioned, for it is generally accepted that when these state
ments were written the Pentateuch existed in completed
form. The ascription of the entire work to Moses may be
due, either to an erroneous expansion of the postexilic
tradition that all law came from Moses, or to the recog
nition of a Mosaic nucleus in the book and the conviction
that the entire work was written in the spirit of Moses,
to record a movement inspired and guided in its early

author of the written law, he was unquestionably the founder of
that oral teaching, or Torah, which preceded, and became the basis
of, the codes of the Pentateuch" (Montefiore, Hibbert Lectures,
1892, p. 64).
" F. E. Gigot, Special Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 57.

92 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
stages by him. But whatever the explanation, the refer
ences do not prove that Moses Is the author of the entire
Pentateuch. The External Evidence, like the Indirect Evidence, Is
Inconclusive; the authorship of the Pentateuch is still an
open question.

CHAPTER VI
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF MOSAIC
AUTHORSHIP
3. Direct Internal Evidence

CHAPTER VI
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF MOSAIC
AUTHORSHIP
3. Direct Internal Evidence
The direct internal evidence consists of statements In
the books of the Pentateuch that Moses wrote something.
These passages are: (i) Exod. 17. 14, "And Jehovah
said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial In a book,
and rehearse It in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly
blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven."
(2) Exod. 24. 4, "And Moses wrote all the words of
Jehovah." (3) Exod. 34. 2y, 28, "Jehovah said unto
Moses, Write thou these words. . . . And he wrote upon
the tables the words of the covenant, the ten command
ments." (4) Num. 33. I, 2, "These are the journeys of
the children of Israel, when they went forth out of the
land of Egypt, by their hosts under the hand of Moses
and Aaron. And Moses wrote their goings out according
to their journeys by the commandment of Jehovah."
(5) Deut. 31. 9, 24-26, 'And Moses wrote this law, and
delivered It unto the priests the sons of Levi, that bare
the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, and unto all the
elders of Israel. (9) . . . And It came to pass when
Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law
In a book, until they were finished, that Moses com
manded the Levites, that bare the ark of the covenant of
Jehovah, saying, Take this book of the law, and put It by
95

96 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your
God, that it may be there for a witness against you."
Concerning these passages let it be noted : ( i ) Genesis
and Leviticus contain no passages which are said to have
been written by Moses. (2) If Moses was the author of
¦the entire Pentateuch, why Is there special mention made
of these passages as having been written by him? If
some one else wrote the larger work, the references could
be explained, in some cases at least, as due to a desire on
the part of the compiler to emphasize the fact that he is
embodying Mosaic materlaL (3) Moses is always spoken
of In the third person, which would be quite natural If
the statement had been written by another. No doubt
Moses might have used' the third person in speaking of
himself ; but It does not follow that he did use It or must
have used it.
But turning now to the five passages Involved, do they
prove, or do they make it even probable that Moses wrote
the entire Pentateuch? Passages i and 4 refer to his
torical narratives; the others, 2, 3, and 5, to legal por
tions. The latter may be considered first : What does the
statement In Exod. 24. 4, 'And Moses wrote all the words
of Jehovah" mean? A comparison with verses 3 and 7
suggests that "all the words of Jehovah" Includes at
most the Book of the Covenant, either In Its present or
In an earlier form. At present it extends from Exod.
20. 22 to 23. 33, while In Its original form it was probably
even less extensive. Exod. 34. 27, 28 also seems' to refer
to a limited portion. In verse 10 Yahweh is Introduced
as saying: "Behold, I make a covenant." In the suc
ceeding verses he sets forth what, in view of this covenant
relation, he will do for Israel, and what he expects Israel
to do for him. This part of the transaction closes with

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 97
verse 26. Then follows, in verse 2"], the statement:
"And Jehovah said unto Moses, Write thou these words :
for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant
with thee and with Israel." Here "these words" can
refer only to what immediately precedes, certainly not
more than verses 10-26. If "he wrote," In 28b, refers
to Moses the definite statement Is made that Moses carried
out the divine command : "And he was there with Jehovah
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 commandments." The context
favors the Interpretation that Moses is the writer; but
there are those who, chiefly on the basis of Exod. 34. i
and Deut. 10. 24, believe that the pronoun refers to
Yahweh. In either case less than one chapter Is Involved.
Deut. 31. 24-26 Is frequently Interpreted as proving
the Mosaic authorship of the entire Pentateuch. The
central question Is, Does the expression "this law" refer
to the entire Pentateuch? If not, what does it mean?
If it includes the entire Pentateuch, It follows that In
this passage the whole work Is ascribed to Moses. In
support of the claim that It means the entire Pentateuch
the following considerations are urged :
I. The exegetical tradition of the Jews so understood
It ; at any rate, such Is the Inference drawn from a com
parison of Neh. 8. 13-18 with Deut. 31.9, 10. This^
however. Is mere assumption, for there is no Indication
anywhere that "the words of the law" In Neh. 8. 13 is
to be identified with "this law" in Deut. 31. 9.
2. The assertion Is made that Deut 31. 9 must use the
expression "this law" with the same meaning as Deut.
1.5; then the claim Is added that In the latter passage the
reference Is to a law already In existence, because Moses

98 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
Is represented as about to expound It; from which the
further Inference is drawn that the reference Is to the
laws contained In the preceding books. However, a
careful reading of Deut. i. 5 and 4. 8 shows that In
these passages "this law" refers to the legislation Moses
Is about to proclaim, and not to what precedes. Assum
ing, then, that "this law" in Deut. 31. 9 is the same as In
the other passages. It cannot be interpreted as Including
more than Deuteronomy.
3. Deut. 4. 5, 14; 24. 8; 29. I recognize a prior legis
lation binding upon Israel. How this can prove that
"this law" In 31. 9 includes the entire Pentateuch or that
Moses wrote the entire work is not easily seen; for it is
just the modern view regarding the origin of the Penta
teuch which insists that there were laws and statutes In
Israel long before Deuteronomy was written. Only a
series of unwarranted assumptions can justify the use
of the passages mentioned as an argument in favor of
the traditional view.
4. "This book of the law" in Josh. i. 8 is said to
refer to the same Mosaic work as Deut. 31. 9, 24-26 and
to be coextensive with It. Now, the argument continues,
the contents of "the book of the law" spoken of in Josh.
I. 7ff. as comprising "all the law which Moses had com
manded" presuppose and Include the other books of the
Pentateuch — Josh. i. I3ff. ; 4. 12 ; 22. 2ff. are drawn from
Num. 32; Josh. 5. 2 from Gen. 17. 10; Josh. 5. 15 from
Exod. 3. 5; etc.; therefore, "this law" In Deut. 31. 9,
24-26 also Includes the other books of the Pentateuch.
The first part of the argument — ^that "the law" or "this
book of the law" in Josh. i. 7, 8 is identical with "this
law" in Deut. 31. 9, 24-26 — ^may or may not be true, for
It cannot be proved or disproved; but the second — ^that

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 99
this law is coextensive with the Pentateuch — rests upon
a misapprehension. Even the superficial reader can see
that Josh. I. 1-9 is in the nature of an introduction; that
the actual narrative of Joshua's exploits begins with
verse 10. Is it not precarious to argue that, because
"this book of the law" or "all the law which Moses my
servant commanded thee," In the introductory verses of
the book may be identical with "this law" in Deut. 31.9,
24-26, therefore every reference to a commandment or
law of Moses in any portion of the Book of Joshua must
refer to the same written work ? And is it not even more
precarious to continue : If the laws mentioned in the other
portions of the book are found In different books of the
Pentateuch, it must follow that these books were a part
of "this book of the law" mentioned In the introduction?
The author of the book of Joshua may have had at his
disposal several independent collections of laws or com
mandments attributed to Moses, or he may have used a
work embodying these collections other than the Penta
teuch or consisting of parts of the Pentateuch. But
whatever source the author of Joshua may have known,
no legitimate interpretation of the Joshua passages can
determine from them the extent of "this law" in Deut.
31.9, 24-26. It is seen, then, that the arguments com
monly depended upon fail to prove that "this law" in
Deut. 31.9, 24-26 Includes the entire Pentateuch, and
thus, that the passage credits the writing of the Penta
teuch to Moses.
On the other hand, there are many who insist that
"this law" can be made to embrace, at the most, the book
of Deuteronomy, and, in all probability, not even the
whole of this book. The more important reasons for
this limitation are :

loo THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
I. Deut. 29. I undoubtedly recognizes the existence
of an earlier legislation ; but it does something more : it
draws a clear distinction between the covenant made in
Moab and the covenant made in Horeb. The words of
the covenant made In Moab are found In the book of
Deuteronomy; those of the other covenant In the pre
ceding books of the Pentateuch. If, therefore. In Deuter
onomy the words "this law" are used, Is It not most
natural to Interpret them as excluding the words of the
other law or covenant?
2. The statements in Deut. 31 read very much like
statements made not by Moses himself but by a later
writer who, in rewriting the Deuteronomic discourses
of Moses, desires to give the sources from which he
secured his material.
3. In Deut. 4. 8 "this law" is described as containing
"statutes and ordinances." As already pointed out, the
relative clause, "which I set before you this day," implies
that the law Is not yet announced; on the other hand,
5. I introduces Moses as presenting "statutes and ordi
nances" to the people. May it not be reasonably Inferred
from this that "this law," both in 4. 8 and 31.9, included
the statutes and ordinances embodied In Deut. 5-30 and
nothing more ? But while some ordinances are found in
chapters 5-1 1, on the whole, this section impresses one as
little more than a review of the earlier covenant, an
account of some of the events connected with its estab
lishment, and a general introduction to the legislation
which follows. Moreover, 12. i reads like a formal
Introduction to the new legislation: "These are the
statutes and the ordinances which ye shall observe to do
in the land which Jehovah, the God of thy fathers, hath
given thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP loi
earth." For these reasons many think that "this law" In
31. 9 refers only to the legal section beginning with 12. i.
4. In Deut. 31. 1 off. appears the command regarding the
Instruction of the people in "this law." In Deut. 27. 2ff.
other provision is made for bringing It to the attention
of the people : 'And it shall be on the day when ye shall
pass over the Jordan unto the land which Jehovah thy
God giveth thee, that thou shalt set thee up great stones,
and plaster them with plaster : and thou shalt write upon
them all the words of this law, when thou art passed over;
that thou mayest go In unto the land which Jehovah thy
God giveth thee, a land flowing with milk and honey, as
Jehovah, the God of thy fathers, hath promised thee.
And it shall be, when ye are passed over the Jordan, that
ye shall set up these stones, which I command you this
day, in Mount Ebal, and thou shalt plaster them with
plaster. And there shalt thou build an altar unto Jehovah,
thy God, an altar of stones : thou shalt lift up no iron tool
upon them. Thou shalt build the altar of Jehovah thy
God of unhewn stones; and thou shalt offer burnt-offer
ings thereon unto Jehovah thy God: and thou shalt
sacrifice peace-offerings, and shalt eat there; and thou
shalt rejoice before Jehovah thy God. And thou shalt
write upon the stones all the words of this law."
Josh. 8. 30-35 seems to narrate how the two com
mands — to read the law before the people and to Inscribe
It upon the stones — were carried out : "Then Joshua built
an altar unto Jehovah, the God of Israel, in Mount Ebal,
as Moses the servant of Jehovah commanded the chil
dren of Israel, as it is written In 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 Jehovah, and sacrificed peace-^offerlngs.

102 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law
of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children
of Israel. And all Israel, and their elders and officers,
and their judges stood on this side of the ark and on that
side before the priests, the Levites that bare the ark of
the covenant of Jehovah, as well the sojourner as the
home-born; half of them in front of Mount Gerizim, and
half of them in front of Mount Ebal ; as Moses the ser
vant of Jehovah had commanded at the first that they
should bless the people of Israel. And afterward he read
all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse,
according to all that Is written In the book of the law.
There was not a word of all that Moses commanded which
Joshua read not before all the assembly of Israel, and
the women, and the little ones, and the sojourners that
were among them."
Is it probable that the writing upon the stones involved
the copying of the entire Pentateuch, or even of the
whole of Deuteronomy? KIrkpatrick may be right in
saying, "It is plain that the command to write all the
words of this law upon the stones which were to be set
up on Mount Ebal can only refer to a nucleus of the law,
perhaps no more than the Ten Commandments." ' But
whatever the contents of this law may have been, it is
quite safe to assert that Deut. 31.9 and 24-26 do not
prove that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch.
The same assertion may be made regarding the other
legal sections said to have been written by Moses. The
fact that they are ascribed to Moses may, perhaps. Imply
that some of the laws now In the Pentateuch were first
written down by him, but It fails to show the extent of
these Mosaic laws, and furnishes not the shghtest evi-
' The Divine Library of the Old Testament, p. 43.

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 103
dence that the entire Pentateuch came from the hand of
the great leader of Israel.
There remain, then, the two historical passages, Exod.
17. 14 and Num. 33. i, 2. Concerning the former, W. H.
Green, a staunch defender of the Mosaic authorship of
the Pentateuch, has this to say: "The fact that such an
Injunction was given to Moses in this particular instance
seems to imply that he was the proper person to place on
record whatever was memorable and worthy of preserva
tion in the events of the time. And it may perhaps be
involved In the language used that Moses had already
begun, or at least contemplated, the preparation of a con
nected narrative to which reference Is here made." *
Even if everything that the learned professor claims is
granted, the passage cannot be used to prove the Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch. At the most one may infer
that a Mosaic record, long or short, was used by the
compiler of the more extensive work, and that the latter
alludes here to one of his sources of information.*
The other passage, Num. 33. i, 2, states that Moses
wrote down the names of the successive encampments of
Israel. This passage also makes the impression that the
author of the narrative in Its present form was not Moses
but a later writer, who claims that he Is embodying a
Mosaic document in his own work. But whatever the
exact force of the words, the section claimed for Moses
does not extend beyond 33. 49. Surely, the writing of a
part of one chapter does not necessarily Imply the writing
of the entire Pentateuch. It requires a considerable
stretch of the imagination to conclude as does Green:

' The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, pp. 37, 38.
'It should be noted that there is no statement to the effect that
Moses actually wrote the account.

104 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
"There is no escape from the conclusion that the author
of this list of stations was the author of the entire Penta
teuchal narrative from the departure out of Egypt to the
arrival at the plains of Moab." *
The argument from the Direct Internal Evidence
clearly Is no more conclusive than are the arguments
discussed In the two preceding chapters : It leaves the
authorship of the Pentateuch in its present form an open
question.

* The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, p. 38.

CHAPTER Vll
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF MOSAIC
AUTHORSHIP
4. Indirect Internal Evidence

CHAPTER VII
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF MOSAIC
AUTHORSHIP
4. Indirect Internal Evidence
The Direct Internal Evidence having proved scanty
and unsatisfactory, there remains one other line of argu
ment that demands consideration, namely, the contents
of the book which, even apart from definite statements,
are said to point to Moses as the author of the entire
Pentateuch, or at least to the age of Moses as the time of
Its composition. This argument, based upon what may
be called Indirect Internal Evidence, is cumulative, and
may be presented under five heads: i. The Origin of the
Pentateuch in the Desert. II. The Influence of Egypt
Reflected in the Pentateuch. III. The Lack of Personal
Acquaintance with Palestine. IV. The Pentateuchal
Legislation and Israel's Nomad Life. V. Linguistic
Characteristics. I. The Origin of the Pentateuch in the Desert.
The claim Is made by the defenders of the Mosaic author
ship of the Pentateuch that both the legislation and the
history of the Pentateuch bear the impress of the desert
and, consequently, point to the desert as the place of
their origin. By way of Illustration attention is called to
facts like these :
I. As TO Legislation: (i) The central institution
of worship In the Pentateuch is the tent or tabernacle,
107

io8 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
around which the tribes are grouped in their encamp
ments.' The sanctuary being in the form of a tent, it
must have originated among a people living In tents. In
a settled community, where the people live In houses,
the sanctuary assumes the form of a house. Israel was
a nomadic people before entering Palestine ; the use of a
tent as the sanctuary must, therefore, have originated
during the period of desert wanderings.
(2) The material used in the building of the tabernacle*
was such as could be brought from Egypt or could be
found In the desert. The Shittim wood, for example,
could be found in sufficient quantities only In Egypt
and in the Arabian desert.
(3) The existence of the tabernacle implies the organ
ization of a priesthood to look after Its care and transport
and to assume responsibility for the public services. Why
were the members of the tribe of Levi selected for the
priestly office? Why not the descendants of Reuben, the
firstborn? The experiences of the desert furnish the
answer. The Levites were of the tribe of Moses; In a
serious crisis they proved more loyal to Moses than any
of the others; hence they were set apart by him, at the
command of Yahweh, for a position of special honor.*
And because this was done at the direction of Yahweh,
Reuben, who as the firstborn might have claimed the
honor, was content.
(4) In Egypt the priests were great landowners, whose
possessions were considered sacred. In Israel they were
left without property; they were dependent entirely on
the good will and generosity of their fellows. Is it not

" Num. 2. 1-34.
'Exod. 25-31.
'Num. i6ff.

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 109
remarkable that not a word of complaint fell from their
lips? The most satisfactory explanation of the whole
situation is found in the supposition that before the par
tition of Palestine, Moses, at divine direction, reconciled
the Levites, members of his own tribe, to their lot.
(5) If the facts are as here stated, it becomes necessary
to regard the laws regarding the Levites — ^their offices,
functions, and revenues — a part of the organization
begun and completed In the desert. Then Moses, being
the outstanding leader of the age, must be credited with
originating and formulating them.*
(6) The same claim may be made for the laws regard
ing different kinds of sacrifice.® They presuppose the
desert and the camp as the place of sacrifice,® and the
setting apart of Aaron and his sons as priests.'
(7) The ceremonial of the great Day of Atonement*
points to the desert as the place and the period before
the conquest as the time of its origin. It is the living
Aaron who is referred to again and again,® the scapegoat
is to be let loose in the wilderness,^'' the minister is to set
out with the goat from the camp,^'^ the bullock and goat
for the sin-offering are to be carried out of the cam,p^^
and the bearers are to return to the camp.^^
(8) In the same direction points further the assumed

'This includes the laws regarding Levitical revenues (Lev. 27.
1-33; Num. 18.8-32), and the laws concerning the transport of the
tabernacle and of its furniture by the Levites (Num. 3, 4), in which
occur frequent allusions to the camp (4. 5) in the desert (3. 23,
29, 35, 38).
'Lev. 1-7. "Verses 10, 21, 22.
'For example, 4. 12, 21; 6. 11. "Verse 26.
' 1.5, 7, 8; 2. 2, 3, 10, etc. "Verse 27.
'Lev. 16. "Verse 28.
• Verses 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, etc.

no THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
proximity of the tabernacle to every member of the
nation. Such proximity Is presupposed, for example, in
the laws regarding ceremonial uncleanness,'* the Nazir
ites,'* and purification after childbirth.'® Such proximity
was a reality only during the desert life.
2. As TO History. The defenders of the Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch claim that the narrator
reveals such intimate acquaintance with the desert of the
Exodus that the conclusion becomes Inevitable that he
was an eyewitness of the events recorded.
( I ) Only a man who actually passed through the terri
tory could have mastered so perfectly the peculiarities of
the land. This is the more remarkable because the de
scriptions are only incidental to the main story. More
over, the peculiarities of the SInaitic peninsula are so
striking that it Is quite Impossible to explain the author's
remarkable truthfulness to nature as due to coincidence or
to a vivid Imagination. One need but read the books of
modern travelers to realize how well he has performed
his task. Thus, the encampment at Marah, where the
waters were bitter,''^ evidently corresponds to Hamarah,
where a modern traveler found a spring "so bitter that
neither men nor camels could drink of it." '* The descrip
tions of Mount Sinai Itself, as given in the book of
Exodus, have been found so exact by modern travelers
that Dean Stanley, for example, considers the coincidences
"a strong internal argument of the scene itself having
been described by an eyewitness." ^®
"Lev. 15.2-33.
"Num. 6. 1-21.
"Lev. 12.
"Exod. I5.22ff.
" Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 37.
"Ibid., p. 42.

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP in
(2) The author reveals the same familiarity with the
products of the SInaitic peninsula. Whatever the nature
of the biblical manna may have been,*" manna Is the
Indigenous name In the Sinaitic peninsula for the tama
risk-gum of the Tarfa tree, and may have been so used
In the days of the Exodus. The enormous flight of
quails mentioned In the same connection is also In keep
ing with conditions In the desert, as ancient and modern
travelers have observed. The Shittim tree, whose wood
was used in the tabernacle. Is the one tree that Is found In
any numbers In the wadies of Sinai and the only solid tree
of sufficient size to furnish the boards as prescribed.
Again, the game of the desert, like the chamois, is in
cluded among the clean animals.
These and similar facts are brought forward to show
that the author of the Pentateuchal narratives was thor
oughly familiar with conditions in the desert through
which Israel journeyed, and that the laws in the Penta
teuch were better adapted to the desert period of Israel's
history than to any period subsequent to the settlement
In Palestine.
II. The Influence of Egypt Reflected in the Pentateuch.
The whole Pentateuch, It is claimed. Is "so strongly im
pregnated with Egyptian memories that nothing can
account for this peculiarity but Its origin among the full
ness of such reminiscences." *'
I. The foundation of the entire covenant law is the
fact that Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt,** an Idea
which reappears constantly throughout the whole legis-

'" Exod. 16.
" Adapted from a statement in Gigot, Special Introduction to the
Old Testament, vol. i, p. 70.
" Exod. 20. 2.

112 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
lation.** The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened
Bread are closely associated with the deliverance from
Egyptian bondage.** Appeal Is made to the bitter ex
perience in Egypt to enforce the kindly treatment of
strangers.*® Egyptian superstition may have Influenced
the wording of the law regarding Images and likenesses
of Yahweh.*®
2. Attention is also called to the similarities between
the Hebrew and Egyptian ceremonial institutions and
practices. The ark Is thought to have Its counterpart In
Egypt; there are similarities in the priestly dress, espe
cially In the high priest's garment. The Urim and
Thummim In the breastplate of the high priest, the holy
convocations, the form of the altar of burnt-offerings,
the provisions of the Day of Atonement, and other prac
tices, all suggest Egyptian customs and practices.
3. Turning from the laws and Institutions to the his
torical records, one^ Is immediately Impressed with the
accurate knowledge of Egypt manifested by the author,
I a knowledge such as could be gjalned only by one who
llyed for a long time in that land of excluslveness. The
author of Gen. 39 to Exod, 15, for example, reveals a
remarkable familiarity with the land — Its geography,
climate, products, etc. His allusions to all phases of
Egyptian life and customs — ^political, social, moral and
religious — are in perfect accord with the findings of
modern exploration and excavation regarding ancient
Egypt. Even greater importance attaches to the fact to
which attention has frequently been directed, that the

"Exod. 23. IS; 29. 46; Lev. 11. 45; 19. 36; Num. 15. 41, etc.
" Exod. 12. 12, 17, 23, etc.
2S T7  J  T -_-  .

x^.n.uu. i.... ±.^, i/, ^j, >,i,»,.
' Exod. 22. 21 ; Lev. 19. 34.
" Exod. 20. 4.

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 113
knowledge of the writer Is a "knowledge of Egypt In Its
condition under the Ramessides, that is, about the time
of Moses, and his minute accuracy Is Inconsistent -with
any later date." *''
4. Another evidence of close relationship with Egypt
Is seen in the fact that the only foreign woirds in the
Pentateuch are of Egyptian origin. .Moreover, the
writer's thorough knowledge of the language of Egypt
Is evidenced by the correctness of his orthography when
ever he uses Egyptian words. This is exactly what one
would expect of Moses, for he lived many years in Egypt
and was carefully educated in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians.** III. Lack of Personal Acquaintance with Palestine.
In striking contrast to the a^ccurate and thorough knowl
edge of Egypt and the desert stands a surprising lack of
acquaintance with Palestine, and evidently, the author
expects his readers to know even less.*®
I. Clearly, the author was not in Canaan when he
wrote, for ( i ) many of. the laws look toward the settle
ment in Canaan as something still in the future,*" and
(2) he frequently uses the phrase "in the land of Canaan"
when writing of places which must have been well known
to the Inhabitants of the land. He speaks, for example
of "Hebron, In the land of Canaan," *' precisely as Jacob
does when he is in Egypt ;** so also of "Shechem, which
Js In the land of Canaan." ** Surely, were the author in
" S. R. Poole, in Contemporary Review, 1887, p. 361.
"Acts 7.22.
"Gen. 14.2, 7, 17; 23.2, etc.
'"Exod. 12. 25-27; 13. S-14; 23. 20-33; Lev. 14. 34-57; 18. 3-30;
Num. 15. 2-41 ; 18. 20, 24, etc.
"Gen. 23. 2, 19.
" Gen. 49. 30. " Gen. 33. 18 ; compare 12. 6.

114 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
the land or were he writing primarily for the people
living there, he would not need to add the explanatory
words.
2. There is nothing in the entire work revealing the
kind of knowledge of the country that would Imply
personal acquaintance or examination. All the knowl
edge shown Is such as Moses might have obtained from
the oral or written traditions of his own people, from
private or official accounts of Egyptians, and from the
forty days exploration of the spies.** In confirmation
of this statement attention is called to the striking differ
ences between the boundaries of Canaan laid down in
Num. 34. I- 12, especially in giving the northern limit, and
the statements in Josh. 13. 4-6; 15. 1-5, 21-32, said to
have been written after the conquest.
IV. The Pentateuchal Legislation and Israel's Nomad
Life. In support of the preceding arguments it is further
claimed that the Pentateuchal legislation is the natural
outgrowth of Israel's nomad life during the period be
ginning with the night of the Exodus and ending with
the arrival on the eastern banks of the Jordan.
I. The Exodus. The starting point of the desert
life is the midnight experience preceding the Exodus.
This Incident is needed as the explanation of the Pass
over, of Yahweh's appropriation of the firstborn and of
the Feast of Unleavened Bread, — three institutions which
became fundamental In the Hebrew system.*®
2. The Second Passover. In the interval between,
the Passover celebrated in Egypt and the first one cele
brated In the desert, a law had been passed removing from
the camp those who were polluted by a dead body.*® In
'* Num. 13. 18-20.
"Exod. 12. 13. "Num. 5. 2.

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 115
consequence, some individuals In this condition were ex
cluded from the celebration of the first Passover in the
desert.*'^ The resulting conflict between two laws, one
requiring that all should participate In the Passover cele
bration, the other excluding some from participation, was
met by the Institution of a second Passover, to be cele
brated a month after the regular feast.**
3. Laws of Property. In connection with the general
provisions for the division of the land It was ordered that
the tribal divisions should be observed, and that the
number of families within the tribe should determine the
amount of land allotted to each tribe.*® No provision
was made for cases in which the head of the family had
died, leaving no sons but only daughters. When such a
case was discovered a new law was made for the benefit
of the daughters.*" But what would happen If these
daughters should marry Into another tribe? Would the
property go with them, and thus be alienated forever
from their own tribe ? This question having been raised,
a law forbidding marriage Into another tribe was
formulated.*' 4. Blasphemy. Blasphemy Is prohibited In Exod.
22. 28. However, when some one was convicted of blas
phemy it was found that no penalty for the transgressor
was provided; consequently, he was put in ward until
instruction might be asked of Yahweh.** The result
was the fixing of stoning as penalty for blasphemy.**
5. The Annual Feasts. In Exod. 23. I4ff. the
observance of three annual feasts Is enjoined. Nothing

" Num. 9. 6. " Num. 36. 1-9.
" Num. 9. 10-14. " Lev. 24. io-'^2.
" Num. 26. 52-56. " Lev. 24. 13-16.
"Num.27, i-ii.

ii6 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
is said about the place of observance, for the simple
reason that during their camp life the Israelites were
always within easy reach of the tabernacle; hence there
was no need of a command that the feasts should be
celebrated there. In Deut. i6. i6 the special provision is
added that the people should appear before Yahweh "in
the place which he shall choose," that is, the central
sanctuary. The addition may be traced to the fear that,
after the settlement In Canaan, the people, being farther
removed from the sanctuary, would be disinclined to
undertake the long journey.
6. The Slaughter of Animals. In Lev. 17. 3-5
the definite order is given that no animal Is to be slain,
Inside or outside of the camp, without bringing it to the
tabernacle and offering it there as an oblation to Yahweh.
This command could easily be carried out as long as the
people were encamped around the tabernacle, but It would
be quite Impractical after the crossing of the Jordan and
the scattering of the people. Therefore, In the legislation
intended for the people In Palestine, the provision for
presenting the animal to be slaughtered at the tabernacle
is removed.**
These and other similar Illustrations are depended upon
as supporting the assertion that the laws of the Penta
teuch were framed to meet conditions as they arose during
the desert life of Israel, and that they were modified or
expanded to meet new needs presenting themselves In the
course of the wanderings or In anticipation of the settle
ment In Canaan.
V. Linguistic Characteristics. A generation or two
ago linguistic arguments played a very prominent role
In critical discussions. It was alleged that the Pentateuch
" Deut. 12. 15.

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 117
contains numerous archaic words and grammatical forms,
which were taken to point to Mosaic, or at least to an
early, origin — especially since many of them are not
found even in the book of Joshua. It was pointed out,
for Instance, that the form jsin, the regular masculine
pronoun, stands in the Pentateuch one hundred and ninety
seven times for the feminine, and that ^s»5, a masculine
form. Is used nineteen times for both genders, etc. Atten
tion was further drawn to defective modes of writing,
unusual formations of stems, forms used subsequently
only in poetry, etc. Besides, many words and phrases
were said to occur only in the Pentateuch, never in the
later books, while many that are found In later books are
absent from the Pentateuch. There are also many words
that are used frequently In the Pentateuch but only rarely
in the other books and vice versa.
The author has tried to present in the preceding pages
a fair statement of the cumulative argument In favor of
the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, based upon
the Indirect Internal Evidence. If it were possible to
confine consideration fo the facts and phenomena empha
sized by the defenders of Mosaic authorship, and If the
conclusions reached by them could be accepted without
question, the argument might appear quite formidable.
If not overwhelming. However, before the value and
weight of the argument can be properly estimated, atten
tion should be given to the following considerations : *®

"A detailed discussion of the argument would involve the
presentation and consideration of facts and evidence that can be
discussed more adequately in the succeeding chapters and would,
therefore, mean a great deal of useless repetition. For this reason
the author contents himself here with calling attention to a few
important general considerations, reserving a full discussion of all
the facts for the succeeding chapters.

ii8 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
I, The method of the defenders of the traditional
view is neither fair nor scientific : only the facts that can
be Interpreted In favor of Mosaic authorship are taken
Into account; contradictory facts are passed over lightly
or are entirely ignored.*®
2. The only argument that has anything to do directly
with the writing of the Pentateuch is the linguistic argu
ment; but it has proved so unsatisfactory that it Is now
rarely urged by those who know Hebrew. Further study
has disproved the high antiquity of the alleged archaic
words and forms. It Is at present quite generally admitted
that the linguistic peculiarities are due to the special care
with which the Pentateuch was copied in later times.
Scrupulous regard for the letter of the Law prevented
modifications in the direction of later orthography, such
as were introduced into the books that were considered
less sacred and, therefore, were copied with less care.
3. The student of Hebrew legislation who confines
himself to a few well-chosen examples may conclude that
these originated In the desert, and that the desert experi
ences account for their modification In certain directions.
But it becomes an entirely different matter when the legal
system as a whole Is studied. It Is, to say the least, ex
tremely doubtful that the desert wanderings furnished to
the great leader the opportunity of framing the complete
and intricate criminal, civil, moral, and ceremonial codes
that are embodied In the Pentateuch. Moreover, there
are numerous modifications of laws which cannot be ex
plained as the outgrowth of the exigencies of the desert
life.*^

" See below. Chapters Vlllff.
" See below, pp. i43ff.

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 119
4. All that the facts presented by the defenders of the
traditional view may prove is that the Pentateuch con
tains elements going back to Mosaic times; which is
entirely different from saying that the entire Pentateuch,
with the possible exception of a few later interpolations
or additions, was written by Moses. They cannot even
prove that these Mosaic elements were preserved in writ
ing: oral tradition, faithfully preserved, would satisfy
all the facts in the case. Nor is It possible to point out
definitely any of the Mosaic elements ; for they may have
undergone alterations, either accidentally in the course of
oral transmission, or intentionally at the hands of later
editors or revisers.
5. Putting the case briefly, the facts Included in the
cumulative argument may be said to warrant the follow
ing conclusion, and nothing more : Whatever the time of
the final composition or compilation of the Pentateuch, It
contains elements, both historical and legal, that may
have originated In the days of Moses. These elements
were later modified and expanded in the spirit of the first
great leader, and the result of this development, con
tinuing throughout several centuries. Is embodied in the
Pentateuch In Its present form.
6. This, the only safe conclusion, is far different from
the claims of the defenders of the Mosaic authorship.
True, If there were no contradictory evidence, another
step might be taken and the entire work might be ascribed
to Moses; but even then this would be an inference and
nothing more. If, however, there are facts which seem
to militate against the acceptance of Mosaic authorship,
these too must be carefully examined before the final
verdict Is given. This examination is undertaken In the
chapters which follow,

I20 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
What, then, may be said regarding the different kinds
of argument advanced to prove the Mosaic authorship of
the Pentateuch? Simply this: the case is not proven;
the authorship of the Pentateuch is still an open question.

CHAPTER VIII
THE COMPOSITE CHARACTER OF THE
PENTATEUCH
I. The Divine Names in Genesis

CHAPTER VIII
THE COMPOSITE CHARACTER OF THE
PENTATEUCH
I. The Divine Names in Genesis
Over against the traditional view that Moses is the
author of the Pentateuch practically in its present form
stands the modern critical view, the more important
claims of which may be summarized as follows :
I. The Pentateuch Is a relatively late compilation of
material taken from written sources, all of which reached
their final form subsequently to the time of Moses.
2. The compiler depended chiefly upon four documents :
J — the Jehovistic document, traces of which are found
throughout the entire Pentateuch ; E — the Elohistic docu
ment, closely Interwoven with J and, like It, found
throughout the Pentateuch; D — ^the Deuteronomic Code,
found chiefly In the book of Deuteronomy, though traces
of it may be seen elsewhere ; P — the Priestly Code, which
served as the groundwork of the compilation. 3. D is
Identical with the Book of the Law that served as the
basis of Joslah's reforms in B. C. 621 and was in exist
ence separately at the time; hence the Pentateuch In its
present form cannot be older than that date, though some
of the material embodied In It may be considerably older.
4. J and E are both older than D. 5. The several
documents show such striking differences that, on the
whole. It Is quite easy to separate them.
123

124 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
From this summary it Is seen that a full discussion of
the modern critical view of the origin of the Pentateuch
involves the discussion of at least four points: i. the
Pentateuch Is a compilation of material from different
documents originating at different times. 2. The Penta
teuch contains some material that must have been written
subsequently to the age of Moses. 3. The Pentateuch
had not reached its final form when the Book of the Law
was found in the days of Josiah.' In other words, the
Book of the Law discovered in the days of Josiah was
not the completed Pentateuch but the book of Deuter
onomy In some form. 4. The Pentateuch In Its present
form Is the result of gradual growth during several cen
turies following the age of Moses.*
The first subject, then, that demands consideration Is
the Composite Character of the Pentateuch. Those who
hold that the Pentateuch Is in the nature of a compilation
base their opinion almost entirely upon Internal evidence,
which may be arranged so as to form a cumulative argu
ment. The present chapter deals with the first part of
this argument, the Peculiar Use of the Divine Names
"Yahweh" (Jehovah) and "Elohim" (God) in the Book
of Genesis, not because this argument is first in import
ance, but because it was the discovery of this peculiarity
that gave birth to the modern Document Theory ; chrono
logically, therefore, it is entitled to first place.
As has been previously stated,* Jean Astruc was the
first to call attention to the peculiar use of the divine
names in the Book of Genesis. He noticed that in large
sections in Genesis and in the opening chapters of Exodus

'2 Kings 22. 8ff.
' Gigot, Special Introduction to the Old Testament, vol. i, pp. 85ff.
' See above, p. 50.

COMPOSITE CHARACTER

I2S

the divine name "Yahweh" was systematically used, In
others, "Elohim," and he suggested that this peculiarity
could best be accounted for by assuming that the writer,
whom he thought to be Moses, used two principal docu
ments, which from their respective use of the divine
names might be called Jehovistic (Yahwistic) and Elo
histic. The facts discovered by Astruc and others who
continued this line of investigation are as follows:

Sl»mOH

No Divine
Name

EemarkB

Gen. 1. 1 to 2. 4a. .
2. 4b to 3. 24...
4 
5 
6.1-8 
6.9-22 
7. 1-9 
7. 10 to 8. 19..
8.20-22 
9.1-17 
9. 18 to 11. 9..
12,13 
14 
15, 16 
17 
18, 19 
20,21 
22.1-19 
24 
25. 1-18 
25.19-26 
26. 1 to 27. 40.
27. 46 to 28. 9.
28.10-22 
29. 31 to 30. 24.
30.25-43 
I 31 
32 
33,35 

41-50 
Exod. 1,2. 23-25.
3.1 to 4. 17...
4. 18 to 6.1...

35

Gen. 11. 10-32.

* Only in the conversa
tion between the serpent
and the woman.
bin the present text
Yahweh and Elohim are
combined into Yahweh-
Elohim, but originally
Yahweh alone was there.
"Probably only twice;
in 7. 9 Elohim is used,
but there is reason for
believing that originally
Yahweh was in the text.
Evidentljr, there is a
combination of sources.

Gen. 22. 20 to 23. 20

25. 27-34
27. 41-45

29. 1-30

34 36,37
40
Exod. 2. 1-22

Is there any significance in the facts here presented?
Can It mean anything that In Gen. i. i to 2. 4a, the
* Gigot, Special Introduction to the Old Testament, vol. i, p. 89.
Another table giving also the Septuagint variants may be seen in
Expositor, May, 1913, PP- 409-411.

126 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
account of creation, Elohim is used thirty-five times and
Yahweh not at all, while In 2. 4b-25, also dealing with
creation, Yahweh-Elohim is used exclusively? Or, that
in Gen. 12-16 Yahweh Is used twenty-seven times and
Elohim not at all? Or, that in Gen. 33-50 Yahweh
occurs but once, El, or Elohim, sixty-seven times? Is It
strange that even with only these facts before them
scholars should reach the conclusion that the peculiarity
In the use of the divine names points to the use of at
least two distinct documents In the composition of the
Pentateuch ?
It would seem almost inconceivable that one and the
same author should restrict himself to the exclusive use
of one or the other of these divine names in certain long
sections, while In others he was apparently careful to
avoid such partiality, using sometimes the one and some
times the other. On the other hand, the facts are easily
explained on the theory that two documents were used
and combined by the same methods of literary composi
tion as were used In the production of other books of the
Old Testament.® In some cases the compiler may have
embodied In his work, practically without any alterations,
entire sections taken from one or the other of the two
sources, thus preserving the divine names exactly as he
found them. In other cases he may have taken greater
liberties, merging Into one single paragraph passages
drawn from the two sources, and preserving the divine
name used in each source.® The combination Yahweh-
Elohim In Gen. 2. 4b to 3. 24 probably originated with a

'See above, p. 72.
° The exceptions to the general usage in a given passage may be
due to carelessness on the part of later copyists, or, in some cases,
on the part of the compiler.

COMPOSITE CHARACTER 127
later harmonizer who, after reading the two accounts of
creation, one making Elohim, the other Yahweh the
Creator, sought to teach by the combination that the two
are In reality one and the same God.
The facts presented in the above table are so clear that
there seems no escape from them; but Is it necessary to
adopt the Document Theory in order to find a satisfactory
explanation for them ? Naturally, scholars bent on main
taining the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch cannot
admit this ; and they have sought to show that the use of
the divine names is determined by a difference In the
meaning, which "made the one or the other more suitable
In a particular connection." In the words of Green:
"Yahweh denotes specifically what God is in and to Israel ;
Elohim what he is to other nations as well. That uni
versal agency which is exercised in the world at large,
and which is directed upon Israel and Gentiles alike Is by
Elohim, the God of creation and of providence. That
special manifestation of himself which is made to his own
people is by Yahweh, the God of revelation and of re
demption. The sacred writer uses one name or the other
according as he contemplates God under one or the other
point of view." ''
Now, It may readily be admitted that Elohim and
Yahweh are not synonymous : the former is the general
term for deity, the other the proper name of the God of
Israel ; but It is, to say the least, doubtful that the peculiar
usage pointed out can be explained in all cases as due to
such difference In meaning. For example. In Gen. 2 It is
Yahweh-Elohim who created the animals and man, In
Gen. I Elohim Is credited with the same creative act; in
Gen. 6. 5 It is Yahweh who sees that the world Is corrupt,
' The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, p. 103.

128 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
In verse 12 Elohim sees It; In Gen. 6. 22 It Is stated that
Noah did according to all that Elohim commanded him,
In 7. 5, according to all that Yahweh commanded him.
Does the explanation suggested by Green really explain
the use of the different divine names In these and similar
passages? Is It possible to discover a difference In the
point of view from which the divine manifestation is
described? On the other hand, the peculiarity receives
a natural and perfectly satisfactory explanation on the
assumption that the statements were taken from produc
tions of two different authors, one of them using Elohim,
the other Yahweh.
But why should there be this difference In the writ
ings of two authors covering the same general period?
A comparison of some statements In Exodus with others
in Genesis furnishes the answer. Exod. 6. 2, 3, reads:
"And Elohim spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I
am Yahweh; and / appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac,
and unto Jacob as El Shaddai, but by [^as to'] my name
Yahweh I was not known [/ did not make myself known]
to them." Which Is in perfect accord with the words
addressed to Abraham in Gen. 17. i, "/ am El Shaddai;
walk before me, and be thou perfect," and the statement
addressed to Jacob In Gen. 35. 11, "/ am El Shaddai, be
fruitful and multiply." However, there Is a contradiction
between the words addressed to Moses in Exod. 6. 2, 3,
and those spoken to Abraham in Gen. 15. 7,"/ am Yahweh
that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees," and to Jacob
in Gen. 28. 13, "/ am Yahweh, the God of Abraham thy
father, and the God of Isaac" (author's translation).
It Is, Indeed, conceivable that one and the same author,
knowing both names, should use them indiscriminately
in writing of the earlier period; but Is It reasonable to

COMPOSITE CHARACTER 129
suppose that he would thus use them and then place in
the mouth of Yahweh the assertion, "I never did use the
one during the patriarchal age"? Evidently, Gen. 17. i
and 35. II were written by one who held the view ex
pressed In Exod. 6. 2, 3, that the name "Yahweh" was
not applied to the God of Israel during the pre-Mosaic
age, while Gen. 15. 7 and 28. 13 must be ascribed to an
author who believed that the divine name "Yahweh"
was in use during the earlier period. This difference of
opinion regarding the use of the divine name "Yahweh"
is by no means confined to the few passages quoted; on
the contrary, it may be traced throughout the entire
section Gen. i to Exod 6. 3.
The facts here briefly outlined point so strongly to the
use of material from different sources In the composition
of the book of Genesis that even some of the defenders
of Mosaic authorship have become convinced of the jus
tice of the claim ; but they follow Astruc in insisting that
this admission in no wise Interferes with the belief that
Moses was the one who combined this material so as to
form the present book. In support of this contention
they call attention to the fact that after Exod. 6 the
peculiar use of the divine names practically ceases. That
being the case, it is quite possible to assume that In de
scribing the pre-Mosaic age Moses depended on sources
which he found already In existence, and that beginning
with his call to divine service he told. In his own words,
the story of Israel's experiences to the close of his activity,
just before the crossing of the Jordan. The discussion
In the succeeding chapters will show that this modified
Document Theory cannot be considered satisfactory,
chiefly for two reasons : ( i ) there Is abundant evidence
to prove that the same documents were used in the com-

I30 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
position of the other books of the Pentateuch, and (2)
all the books contain elements that cannot be dated as
early as the time of Moses.
Recent attacks upon the Document Theory seem to
have proceeded on the assumption that the peculiar use of
the divine names Is the sole argument in favor of the
theory. Therefore the attempt has been made to show,
by the use of textual criticism, especially by a comparison
of the commonly accepted Hebrew text with the Septua
gint translation, that the Hebrew textual tradition in
respect to the use of the divine names Is untrustworthy,
and that, consequently, any conclusions based upon it are
without adequate foundation. In other words, the claim
Is made that the original Hebrew text did not reveal the
peculiar use of the divine names upon which the Docu
ment Theory is based ; hence the entire Document Theory
falls to the ground.*
An exhaustive discussion of these claims would re
quire more space than is available In this Introduction.®
Here it may be sufficient to emphasize once more that
the Document Theory rests upon a much broader foun
dation, that the argument from the peculiar use of the
divine names Is only one of several, and that, though It
was the first to be used, it Is not necessarily to be regarded
as the strongest.^" True, if these recent claims could be
established, it would affect in a measure the detailed
analysis of J and E In the book of Genesis, though in

' See especially the articles and books mentioned on p. 60, note 69.
•An admirable treatment of the principal questions involved
may be found in a series of articles by J. Skinner in the Expositor,
1913, April to September, except August, repri^ted in book form
under the title. The Divine Names in Genesis.
"The assertion of Troelstra that the peculiar use of the divine
names is the base of biblical criticism is far from the truth.

COMPOSITE CHARACTER 131
many cases even this analysis could be carried through
and the separation of the combined JE and P would not
become any more difficult even in Genesis; in the other
books of the Pentateuch the effect would be nil.
It may be well, however, to inquire, Has the claim that
the Massoretic text, that Is, the commonly accepted
Hebrew text, is unreliable, been established? What
are the facts in the case? A divine name is found in
Genesis about three hundred and forty times; in the
Massoretic text Yahweh occurs one hundred and forty-
three times, Elohim one hundred and seventy-seven times,
and the combination Yahweh-Elohim twenty times."
Now, an examination of the Hebrew MSS. reveals the
fact that they are not In absolute agreement ;'* but when
the discrepancies are properly evaluated, that is, when the
investigation is confined to such MSS. as have a reason
able claim for consideration. It Is found that "there
remain but sixteen confusions of J, E and JE;'* that of
these eleven are supported by only one MS., and only
one by so many as three." In the light of these facts no
one can consider the testimony of the Hebrew MSS.
sufficient to discredit the general accuracy of the Masso
retic tradition.
A comparison of the Hebrew text with the recension
preserved In the Samaritan Pentateuch leads to the same
result. They are not in entire agreement — ^the Samaritan
text reads Elohim for Yahweh in three passages, Yahweh
for Elohim in five places, and adds Elohim In one ; but the
agreement In the great majority of cases, especially when
contrasted with their frequent variations in other matters.

" J. Skinner, Genesis, p. xxxv.
"A table of variants is given in Expositor, July, 1913, pp. 33, 34.
"Yahweh, Elohim, and Yahweh-Elohim.

132 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
is strong evidence in support of the substantial accuracy
of the Massoretic text.
The differences between the Hebrew text and the
Septuagint are much more numerous. In a considerable
number of cases the Septuagint translation has ^eog
where the Hebrew has Yahweh and nvpiog where the
Hebrew reads Elohim, though the normal Greek equiva
lents are Kvgiog for Yahweh and '&e6g for Elohim.
Skinner states the result of a comparison of the Masso
retic text with the Cambridge edition of the Septuagint,
which Is the best available standard text of the Septua
gint, In these words : "Making allowance for some doubt
ful cases, I find that there are about sixty passages where
the Cambridge edition reads a different name from the
Massoretic text. The number of relevant occurrences of
one or the other of the divine names in the Massoretic
text of Genesis is about 320 (In the Septuagint nearly
330) ; hence the cases in which the standard Septuagint
throws any doubt on the accuracy of the Massoretic text
number three sixteenths of the whole. Roughly speaking,
we may take It that that fraction expresses the extent of
the 'margin of uncertainty' with which criticism has to
reckon In the divine names of Genesis." '*
Even if In all these cases the Septuagint reading should
be considered original, the reliability of the Massoretic
text would not be overthrown. Surely, the agreement
in the remaining thirteen sixteenths cannot be overlooked.
True, Dahse, Wiener, and others extend the area of un
certainty, but they do this by an altogether unscientific
use of the critical apparatus available for the study of
the Septuagint text. What the investigations of these
scholars show Is the uncertainty of the Septuagint text;
"Expositor, September, 1913, p. 272.

COMPOSITE CHARACTER 133
and much critical work may have to be done before the
original form of the Septuagint text is determined. Mean
while It will be perfectly safe to accept the Cambridge
edition as giving, on the whole, the most satisfactory
text; at any rate, the critical material brought forward
in the course of recent textual discussions tends to In
crease rather than diminish confidence in that text.
Therefore the statement of Skinner may be regarded as
giving the relevant facts as nearly as they can be deter
mined at present.
It Is by no means certain, however, that in all the sixty
cases mentioned by Skinner the Septuagint reading is
preferable to the Massoretic text. The number of in
stances in which the Septuagint has preserved the original
reading can be determined only by a careful examination
of each Individual case; but In a majority of cases the
superiority undoubtedly lies on the side of the Massoretic
text — which means that the area of uncertainty Is In
reality much more restricted than would appear on first
sight. In other words, taking into consideration all the
facts known at present, there is still good reason for
believing that the Massoretic tradition has preserved the
original text of the Pentateuch, including the divine
names, with far greater accuracy than the Septuagint
translation. It would seem, therefore, that scholars have
been justified In attaching more value to the Massoretic
text than to the Septuagint translation.'®
In conclusion it may be confidently affirmed that, what
ever the future may bring forth, the Document Theory
as outlined at the beginning of this chapter furnishes a
more satisfactory explanation of the peculiar use of the
divine names than any of the other theories advanced
" See note at close of this chapter.

134 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
thus far. This applies to the theories of Klostermann,
Orr, and Eerdmans, to which reference has been made,^®
as also to the view of Redpath, who assumes the existence
of a double or triple recension of the Pentateuch, each
contributing something to the present text when the
others were damaged or illegible. The Pericope Theory
of Dahse, that Is, the attempt to connect the peculiar use
of the divine names with pericopes — Sedar divisions —
of the Jewish synagogue lectionaries Is equally unsatis
factory. Though developed with much ingenuity. It finds
so little support in facts and is so dependent upon the
results of an unjustifiable textual criticism that it can
hardly be considered an Important contribution to the
solution of a complicated problem.
If the argument from the peculiar use of the divine
names Is valid, it proves that in the book of Genesis the
compiler used at least two documents. This was the
Document Theory in its earlier form. But later investi
gations have shown that the Pentateuch contains also
extensive extracts from a third document,'^ which, In the
use of the divine names, agrees with the one whose point
of view Is reflected in Exod. 6. 2, 3. In other words, this
third document proceeds on the assumption that Yahweh
was not used during the pre-Mosaic age as the name of
the God of Israel. Its view regarding the origin of the
name "Yahweh" finds expression in Exod. 3. 13-15:
'And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto
the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God
of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall
say to me, What Is his name? What shall I say unto

" See above, pp. 58, 59.
" The view was first expressed by Ilgen and set forth in greater
detail by Hupfeld; see above, pp. 51. 54.

COMPOSITE CHARACTER 135
them ? And God said unto Moses, I am that I am : and
he said. Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel,
I am hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover
unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of
Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath
sent me unto you: this Is my name forever, and this Is
my memorial unto all generations." The significance of
these verses Is well expressed In the words of G. B. Gray :
"Exod. 3. 13-16 shows us the name [Yahweh], so to
speak, In the making." '* The linguistic, theological, and
other characteristics, which aid in differentiating the first
two documents discovered are of equal value in tracing
this third document throughout the entire Pentateuch.
The fourth document, D, is found mainly In the book of
Deuteronomy. -^^^^
The Massoretic Text and the Septuagint. Professor
John Skinner has given such an admirable summary of
the reasons why in doubtful cases the Massoretic text
should be preferred over a Septuagint variant that It may
be of value to the reader to have Skinner's statement
in full:'®
"(a) The Massoretic text Is the result of successive
transcriptions In one and the same language ; the Septua
gint is a translation from one language into another. It
Is not denied that a version may represent a purer text
than a recension in the original language; but in the
absence of proof that this is the case, the presumption is
all in favor of the original, because it is not subject to
the uncertainty which inevitably attends the mental
process of translation; especially when, as Is abundantly
" A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 29.
"Expositor, September, 1913, pp. 272ff,

136 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
clear In the case of the Septuagint, word-for-word trans
lation was not aimed at. (&) The Massoretic text Is the
lineal descendant of the official Palestinian recension of
the Old Testament; the Septuagint represents at best an
Alexandrian recension whose text was certainly not trans
mitted with the same scrupulous fidelity as that of Pales
tine. For (c) , as regards the divine names, the Samaritan
Pentateuch shows that the Palestinian text has under
gone practically no change from a time prior to (or at
all events not much later than) the separation of the
Palestinian and Egyptian recensions. The Septuagint
text, on the contrary, has been In a state of perpetual
flux as far back as Its history can be traced. It makes no
difference whether this be due to accident or to deliberate
revision : On either view the fact remains that the names
of God have been handled with a freedom which was not
allowed to Jewish scribes, (d) While the Septuagint
contains particular readings which are shown by internal
evidence to be superior to the Hebrew, yet an examina
tion of its general text proves that, on the whole, it Is
inferior to the Massoretic Hebrew. . . . The Massoretic
text is often emended from the Septuagint, but practically
never except for some superiority, real or supposed,
attaching to the reading presupposed by the Septuagint
in particular cases, (e) The liability to error is far
greater in Greek than In Hebrew. In the original text
we have the distinction, not easily overlooked, between
a proper name mtT' and a generic name D^mbN- in Greek
we have only the difference of two appellatives, Kvpiog and
&e6g (often contracted In MSS. to icg and ¦dg), a differ
ence without much significance to a Greek-speaking
writer, and therefore apt to be effaced through the natural
predilection for &e6g."

CHAPTER IX
THE COMPOSITE CHARACTER OF THE
PENTATEUCH
2, Repetitions and Discrepancies

CHAPTER IX
THE COMPOSITE CHARACTER OF THE
PENTATEUCH
2. Repetitions and Discrepancies
In support of the claim that the Pentateuch is the
result of compilation, attention may further be called to
the presence of alleged repetitions and discrepancies both
in the historical and In the lega| portions of the Penta
teuch. These, it is pointed out, would not appear In a
work coming directly and In all Its parts from the hand
and brain of one and the same author.
I. Repetitions and Discrepancies in Narrative Portions.
In the narrative portions of the Pentateuch repetitions
and discrepancies occur sometimes in narratives appearing
side by side, sometimes in paragraphs which, on first
sight, appear to be continuous accounts of a single event,
and sometimes In narratives found in different parts of
the Pentateuch. From the great number and variety of
cases a few typical illustrations may be selected :
The Account of Creation. Gen. i. i to 2. 4a and 2.
4b-23 give side by side what seem to be two accounts of
creation. If It Is said that only the first paragraph Is a
complete story of creation and that the second repeats a
few Incidents of creation by way of introduction to
chapter 3, It still remains a fact that certain acts of
creation are mentioned In both narratives. In so far
as this is the case, there are repetitions, for which the
139

I40 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
above interpretation may or may not furnish an adequate
explanation. Are there also differences and discrepancies
that make it difficult or Impossible to believe In unity of
authorship? There is, first of all, the use of the divine
names discussed in the preceding chapter : the first narra
tive always uses Elohim, the other, with the same con
sistency, Yahweh-Elohim. Moreover, differences in theo
logical conception may be noted: it does not require
profound study to discover that the conception of Deity
in chapter i Is more elevated and spiritual than that
reflected in chapter 2. But the consideration of these
theological differences and of the differences in vocabulary
and style must be postponed for the present.' In this
connection only a few general features can be taken up.
For instance, the arrangement of the acts of creation
according to the days of the week is not adopted in the
second account. The lack of arrangement, it Is true, has
been explained by saying that since the second narrative
is not intended to give a complete account of creation,
a repetition of the scheme was not necessary; this ex
planation, however, cannot remove the striking differences
In the order of the acts of creation in so far as they are
mentioned in both narratives. In the first account the
order is : Light, the firmament, separation of land and
water, vegetation, the heavenly bodies, fish and birds,
land animals and, last of all, man, who is created male
and female. In chapter 2 the order Is : Man, vegetation,
animals, woman. Is It probable that one and the same
author composed side by side two narratives that show
such marked differences In the order of the acts of crea
tion ? Add to this the differences in the use of the divine
names, in theological conception, and in style and vocabu-
' See Chapter x.

COMPOSITE CHARACTER 141
lary, and the conclusion becomes almost inevitable that the
two accounts must be traced to two distinct authors.*
The explanation of these phenomena offered by Green Is
not only vague but skillfully evades the real difficulties :
"Where the events referred to are the same they are
mentioned under a different aspect or adduced for a
different purpose, which accounts for the repetition.
Thus the renewed mention In Gen. 2 of the formation
of man and the lower animals, which had already been
spoken of in chapter i. Is no proof that they are by
separate writers; for each chapter has a design of Its
own, which is steadfastly kept in view, the second being
not parallel to, but the sequel of, the first." *
The Story of the Flood. Gen. 6-9 contains what to
the superficial reader appears to be a single, continuous
story of the Flood; but closer study reveals the presence
of repetitions and even discrepancies which seem to imply
that the narrative in Its present form is the result of
compilation.* There are, for example, two accounts of
man's corruption and God's consequent displeasure,® repe
titions in the statements concerning the entering Into the
ark,® the rising of the Flood,'^ the perishing of all living
creatures,* and the drying of the earth.® Some passages
speak of one pair of every kind of animals being taken
^ It is well to bear in mind that the several differences — use of
divine names, theological conception, vocabulary and style — always
go together.
"Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, p. no.
* See for a more detailed discussion J. E. McFadyen, Old Testa
ment Criticism and the Christian Church, pp. 143-152. Bennett and
Adeney, Biblical Introduction, pp. 27ff.
"6. 5-8 and 9-13.
"7. 7 and 13.
'7. 6, 10-12, and 17-20, 24.
' 7. 21, 22 and 23.
'8. 6-12 and 13, 14.

142 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
into the ark;'" others distinguish between clean and un
clean animals, and state that of the former seven pairs of
each were to be preserved." According to some verses,
the Flood continued for forty days,'* according to others,
one hundred and fifty.'* The defenders of the unity of
the narrative do scant justice to facts like these. Surely,
they are not explained in this statement of Green : "Noah's
entry into the ark is twice recorded, without, however,
any implication that two documents have been drawn
upon. After the general statement (7. 7-9) that he went
in with his family and various species of living things, the
writer wishes to emphasize more exactly that he went in
on the very same day that the Flood began (verses 13-16)
and so restates it with that view." '*
Duplicate Narratives in Different Parts of the
Pentateuch. In the first illustration the two parallel
narratives appeared side by side, in the second they were
closely Interwoven so as to form one continuous story;
now attention may be directed to a few parallel accounts
of the same events found in different parts of the
Pentateuch. Under this head may be mentioned:
Duplicate accounts of the origin of names like Beer
sheba,'® Bethel,'® Israel.''^ There are two accounts of
the promise of a son to Abraham.'* The father-in-law
of Moses is called in one place Reuel,'® and in another
"6. 19, 20.
"7.2,3.
"7.12,17. "7.24; 8.3.
"The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, p. in.
" Gen. 21. 31 and 26. 32, 33.
"28. 18, 19 and 35. IS.
" 32. 28 and 35. 10.
" 17. 16-19 and 18. 9-15.
"Exod. 2. 18.

COMPOSITE CHARACTER 143
Jethro.*" Exod. 16 contains an account of the sending
of the manna and of the quails; Num. 11 relates the
sending of the quails at a later period of the desert
wanderings, and the references to the manna*^ read as
if they came from an author who was mentioning them
for the first time.
2. Repetitions and Discrepancies in Legal Portions.
Here again a few typical Illustrations must suffice :
The Place of Sacrifice. It Is quite generally ad
mitted, even by those who defend the Mosaic authorship
of the entire legal system,** that the Pentateuch embodies
at least three clearly defined codes of law — the Book of
the Covenant,** the Priestly Code,** and the Deuter
onomic Code.*® In the first of these the following regu
lations regarding the place of sacrifice are laid down:
"An altar of earth shalt thou 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
record my^name I will come unto thee and I will bless
thee. And if thou make me an altar of stone, thou shalt
not build It of hewn stone; for If thou lift up thy tool
upon It, thou hast polluted It." *® Two points are empha
sized In this passage : ( i ) that Yahweh may be worshiped
In different localities — In every place where he may
record his name; and (2) that the altar must be built of
earth or unhewn stone.

» Exod. 3. I.
"Verses 6-9.
" For example, Green, Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, pp.
36, 37-
" See below, pp. 281 ff.
" See below, pp. 3o8ff.
" See below, pp. i8iff.
" Exod. 20. 24, 25.

144 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
The Deuteronomic Code prohibits repeatedly and em
phatically the worship of Yahweh at local sanctuaries,
and insists with the same emphasis that his worship
should be centered in one place : "Ye shall surely destroy
all the places wherein the nations that ye shall dispossess
served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the
hills, and under every green tree : and ye shall break down
their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and burn
their Asherim with fire; and ye shall hew down the
graven Images of their gods; and ye shall destroy their
names out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto Jehovah
your God. But unto the place which Jehovah your God
shall choose out of all your tribes, to put his name there,
even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou
shalt come; and thither ye shall bring your burnt offer
ings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and the heave-
offering of your hand, and your vows, and your free
will offerings, and the firstlings of your herd and of
your flock: and there ye shall eat before Jehovah your
God, and ye shall rejoice in all that ye put your hand
unto, ye and your households, wherein Jehovah thy God
hath blessed thee." *'' The differences between the pro
visions of the two codes cannot be explained by assuming
that one law was meant for the desert, the other for
Canaan, because both codes are looking forward to the
time of settlement beyond the Jordan.**
According to the Book of the Covenant, the altar of
sacrifice Is to be made of earth or unhewn stone; not so
according to the so-called Priestly Code. Exod. 27. i —
a part of the Priestly Code — records the command con
cerning the building of this altar, said to have been given,
" Deut. 12. 2-7 ; compare also 14. 23 ; 16. 2, 6, 7, etc.
"Compare Exod. 23. 2off and Deut. 12. i.

COMPOSITE CPIARACTER 145
like Exod. 20. 24, 25, on Mount Sinai : "And thou shalt
make the altar of acacia wood." This Is followed by
minute instructions concerning elaborate details of con
struction, which could not be carried out without the use
of tools strictly prohibited in the other passage. That
the altar of burnt-offering was meant, as in Exod. 20. 24,
Is definitely stated in Exod. 38. i, which narrates the
carrying out of the command in 27. iff. Is it at all
probable that these contradictory laws concerning the
place of sacrifice were given by one and the same man,
two of them, according to definite statements, on Mount
Sinai, and two of them Intended for the period after the
conquest ?
The Priesthood. The Book of the Covenant knows
no priestly race. It would be strange if there had been
no priesthood In early Israel ; but It seems that during the
early centuries of the nation's history the priests might
be taken from any tribe, and the heads of families were
permitted to offer sacrifice.*® The Deuteronomic Code
knows a priestly race or tribe, the Levites : "Thou shalt
come unto the priests the Levites." *" "The priests the
Levites, even all the tribe of Levi." *' "The priests the
sons of Levi." ** From these and similar expressions
scattered throughout Deuteronomy the following infer
ences may be drawn : ( i ) The priesthood was confined to
members of the tribe of Levi, and (2) all the members
of the tribe of Levi were priests.
The Priestly Code differs from the Deuteronomic Code
in that It limits the priesthood to a particular family of

" See below, p. 204.
" Deut. 17. 9, 18.
^ 18. 1.
"21.5.

146 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
the tribe of Levi, the sons of Aaron, assigning the lower
offices and tasks connected with the worship of Yahweh
to the other members of the tribe : "And bring thou near
unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him,
from among the children of Israel, that he may minister
unto me in the priest's office." ** The distinction between
the duties of the family of Aaron and those of the other
Levites is brought out In this command : "And Jehovah
spake unto Moses, saying: Bring the tribe of Levi near,
and set them before Aaron the priest, that they may
minister unto him. And they shall keep his charge, and
the charge of the whole congregation before the tent of
meeting, to do the service of the tabernacle. . . . And
thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron and to his sons:
they are wholly given unto him on the behalf of the
children of Israel. And thou shalt appoint Aaron and
his sons, and they shall keep their priesthood." ** And
again: 'And Jehovah said unto Aaron, Thou and thy
sons and thy fathers' house with thee shall bear the
Iniquity of the sanctuary; and thou and thy sons with
thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood. And thy
brethren also, the tribe of Levi, the tribe of thy father,
bring thou near with thee, that they may be joined unto
thee, and minister unto thee : but thou and thy sons with
thee shall be before the tent of the testimony. And they
shall keep thy charge, and the charge of all the Tent:
only they shall not come nigh unto the vessels of the
sanctuary and unto the altar, that they die not, neither
they, nor ye. And they shall be joined unto thee, and
keep the charge of the tent of the meeting, for all the
service of the Tent: and a stranger shall not come nigh
" Exod. 28. I.
** Num. 3. s-io.

COMPOSITE CHARACTER 147
unto you. And ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary,
and the charge of the altar; that there be wrath no more
upon the children of Israel. And I, behold, I have taken
your brethren the Levites from among the children of
Israel : to you they are a gift, given unto Jehovah, to do
the service of the tent of meeting. And thou and thy
sons with thee shall keep your priesthood for everything
of the altar, and for that within the veil; and ye shall
serve : I give you the priesthood as a service of gift." *®
Is it not clear that the three codes represent three
entirely distinct views of the personnel of the priesthood ?
If so, is it probable that all three reflect the view of one
single author ? Is It not more reasonable to interpret the
differences as due to the fact that the three codes mark
three stages In the development of Hebrew legislation?
Similar differences may be seen In the laws concerning
other matters connected with the ritual and religious
Institutions — the payment of tithes, the first-bom, the
cities of the priests, and many more.*®
Slavery. The Book of the Covenant contains the
following law regarding slavery : "If thou buy a Hebrew
servant, six years he shall serve: and In the seventh he
shall go out free for nothing. If he come in by himself,
he shall go out by himself : if he be married, then his wife
shall go out with him. If his master give him a wife,
and she bear him sons or daughters; the wife and her
children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by
himself. But If the servant shall plainly say, I love my
master, my wife, and my children ; I will not go out free :

"Num. 18. 1-7.
"The different laws are conveniently arranged in C. F. Kent,
Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents; the sections devoted to "Cere
monial Laws."

148 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
then his master shall bring him unto God, and shall
bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his
master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he
shall serve him forever." *^
A law relating to the same subject Is found In the
Deuteronomic Code : "If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or
a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six
years ; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free
from thee. And when thou lettest him go free from thee,
thou shalt not let him go empty : thou shalt furnish him
liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy threshing-floor,
and out of thy winepress; as Jehovah thy God hath
blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt
remember that thou wast a bondman In the land of
Egypt, and Jehovah thy God redeemed thee: therefore
I command thee this thing to-day. And it shall be, if
he say unto thee, I will not go out from thee; because
he loveth thee and thy house, because he is well with thee ;
then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust It through his ear
unto the door, and he shall be thy servant forever." **
The first of these laws was given on Mount Sinai,*® the
other In the land of Moab.*" The closing verses of the
Book of the Covenant*' suggest that the laws contained
therein were intended for the life In Canaan, which Is
definitely asserted of the laws of Deuteronomy.**
The Priestly Code has this to say on the subject : "And
if thy brother be waxed poor with thee, and sell himself
unto thee; thou shalt not make him to serve as a bond-
"Exod. 21. 2-6.
"Deut. IS. 12-17.
" Exod. 20. 21.
"Deut. I. I-S.
"Exod. 23. 20ff.
" Deut. 6. I ; 12. i, etc.

COMPOSITE CHARACTER 149
servant. As a hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall
be with thee; he shall serve with thee unto the year of
jubilee : then shall he go out from thee, he and his chil
dren with him, and shall return unto his own family,
and unto the possessions of his fathers shall he return.
For they are my servants, whom I brought forth out of
the land of Egypt : they shall not be sold as bondmen." **
Like the law In the Book of the Covenant this law was
given on Mount Sinai, and, like both the preceding laws,
it was Intended for life In Canaan.**
A comparison of the two laws said to have been given
on Mount Sinai reveals the following Important differ
ences : Exodus Leviticus
(l) Permits enslavement of He- Prohibits such enslavement.
brews. Hired service to continue to the
(2) Length of service — six years. year of Jubilee.
(3) Makes provision for perma- Permits no enslavement at all.
nent enslavement. The family goes with the liber-
(4) Under certain conditions the ated hired servant.
family remains with the
master.
In the light of these striking differences, Is it reason
able to suppose that the three laws were given by one
and the same lawgiver, two of them at practically the
same time, and all three to be put Into practice at the
same time and in the same place?
These and numerous other phenomena of a similar
nature, discoverable In all parts of the Pentateuch, must
be faced. And the question may well be asked : Can the
repetitions, differences, and discrepancies found in the

' Lev. 25. 39-42.
* Lev. 25. I, 2.

I50 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
narrative and legal portions of the Pentateuch be har
monized with the view that everything In the Pentateuch,
with, perhaps, a few minor exceptions, proceeded from
one and the same author, or that Moses is the author of
the Pentateuch in its present form?

CHAPTER X
THE COMPOSITE CHARACTER OF THE
PENTATEUCH
3. Differences in Theological Conception, Style,
and Vocabulary

CHAPTER X
THE COMPOSITE CHARACTER OF THE
PENTATEUCH
3. Differences in Theological Conception, Style,
AND Vocabulary
I. Differences in Theological Conception. The dif
ferences In theological conception revealed In different
parts of the Pentateuch constitute another phase of the
argument by which, it is thought, the composite char
acter of the Pentateuch can be established. The por
tions of the Genesis narrative which are bound together
by the use of the divine name "Yahweh" reflect a very
primitive and pronounced anthropomorphic conception
of the Deity, and the same characteristic may be traced
in portions of the remaining books of the Pentateuch.
Yahweh Is represented not only as forming human reso
lutions and as swayed by human emotions, which Is
common also in later books, but as performing his acts
in a human way. Thus he Is said to form or fashion
man and the animals,' and to breathe into man's nostrils
the breath of life;* he takes a rib from man's body and
closes up the opening;* he builds the rib Into a woman, "^
he plants the garden;® he takes man and sets him down
' Gen. 2. 7, 19.
^2.7.°2.2I. * 2. 22.
°2,8.

154 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
in it ;® he walks In the garden In the cool of the day f he
closes the door of the ark after Noah enters ;* he speaks
as If he were jealous of man;® he goes down to confound
the speech of the builders of the tower of Babel;'" he
appears in human form to Abraham and eats with him ;"
he goes to m,ake inquiry about the Iniquity of Sodom;'*
he wrestles with Jacob;'* he meets Moses and seeks to
kill him; etc.'*
The same sections abound In ethical and theological
reflection, introduced perhaps by a later reviser, who
sought to make the narratives embodied In the original
document vehicles of profound religious and ethical
teaching. In the words of Dillmann: "He [that is, the
author of these sections] deals with the problem of the
origin of sin and evil in the world, and follows its growth
(Gen. 2-4; 6. 1-8) ; he notices the evil condition of man's
heart even after the Flood (8. 21), traces the develop
ment of heathen feeling and heathen manners (11. iff.;
9. 22ff. ; 19. iff. ; 33ff.), and emphasizes strongly the want
of faith and disobedience visible even in the Israel of
Moses's days (Exod. 16. 4, 5, 25-30; 17. 2, 7; 14. 11, 12;
32. 9-14; 33. 12 to 34. 28; Num. 11; 14; 25. Iff.; Deut.
31. 16-22). He shows in opposition to this how God
works for the purpose of counteracting the ruin incident
to man, partly by punishment, partly by choosing and
educating, first Israel's forefathers to live as godlike men,
and finally Israel itself to become the holy people of God.
He represents Abraham's migration into Canaan as the

¦¦2. IS. "18. 1-8.
'3.8. "18.21.
'7.16. "32.24-32.
'3.22. "Exod. 4. 24.
"'n.6,7.

COMPOSITE CHARACTER 155
result of a divine call and promise (Gen. 12. 1-3; 24. 7) ;
expresses clearly the aim and object of this call (18. 18,
19) ; exhibits In strong contrast to human sin the divine
mercy, long-suffering, and faithfulness (Gen. 6. 8; 8. 21,
22; 23ff.; Exod. 32. 9-14; 33. i2ff.) ; recognizes the uni
versal significance of Israel in the midst of the nations of
the world (Gen. 12. 2, 3 ; 2"^. 29; Exod. 4. 22, 23 ; 19. 5, 6;
Num. 24. 9) ; declares In classical words the final end of
Israel's education (Num. 11. 29; compare Gen. 18. 19
R. V. ; Exod. 19. 5, 6) ; and formulates under the term
'belief the spirit in which man should respond to the
revealing work of God (Gen. 15. 6; Exod. 4. i, 5, 8, 9, 31 ;
14. 31; 19. 9; compare Num. 14. 11, and Deut. i. 32;
9. 23). And in order to illustrate the divine purpose of
grace, as manifested In history, he Introduces at certain
points prophetic glances into the future (Gen. 3. 15 ; 5. 29;
8. 21 ; 9. 25-27; 12. 2, 3; 18. 18, 19; 28. 14; Num. 24. 17,
18), as he also loves to point to the character of nations
or tribes as foreshadowed in their beginnings (Gen. 9.
22ff.; 16. 12; 19. 3iff.; 25. 25ff.; 34. 25ff.; 35. 22; com
pare 49. 9ff.)" '®
The same group of narratives shows less tendency than^
is seen in other parts of the Pentateuch to explain signifi
cant events by appeal to the extraordinary, miraculous, or
supernatural; there Is a more general recognition of the
play of natural forces. This appears, for example. In
the stories of the plagues of Egypt'® and of the crossing
of the Red Sea.'^
Somewhat different and more elevated theological ideas

"A. Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium, Josua, pp. 629, 630.
"Exod. 8. 1-4; 8. 20-32; 9. 1-7; etc.; compare these with 8. 5-7;
9. 8-12, etc.
" Exod. 14. 21.

156 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
appear in a group of narratives characterized. In Its
earlier parts, by the use of Elohim instead of Yahweh —
in other words, In the narratives generally assigned to
the Elohistic document. True, these narratives mention
the local sanctuaries and the "pillars" without a sign of
disapproval; but they lend no support to unspiritual
service, and the putting away of "strange gods" meets
the author's full approval.'* The God of these parts
appears not In bodily form but in dreams,'® and he carries
out his plans through the ministry of angels.*"
Closely connected with this higher view of the divine
manifestations Is the representation of Abraham as a
prophet, possessing the power of effectual intercession.*'
Moses, though not called a prophet. Is represented as
intrusted with a prophet's mission ;** and he appears as a
prophet in all essentials, holding exceptionally close com
munion with his God.**
Though the standpoint of the narratives in this group,
like that of the group previously discussed, Is prophetic,
there is less evidence of conscious ethical and theological
reflection. Thus, the prophetic or didactic purpose of the
long Joseph narratives is expressed In a single verse.**
The lesson to be taught Is the mysterious manner in which
God effects his purposes through human means, even
though it be without the knowledge, or contrary to the
wishes, of those who actually bring them to pass.
Both groups of narratives have much to say about the
"Gen. 35. 2-4; Jos. 24. 1-25.
"Gen. 20. 3; 31. 24; Num. 22. 9, 20.
""Gen. 21. 17; 22. 11; 28. 12.
" Gen. 20. 7.
^ Exod. 3.
"Exod. 33. II ; Num. 12. 6-8; compare Deut. 34. 10.
" Gen. 50. 20 ; compare 45. 5-8.

COMPOSITE CHARACTER 157
sacred sites of Palestine. The people loved to think of
their ancestors as frequenting the spots which they them
selves held sacred; and the traditions attached to the
localities are recounted by the two narrators.
The theological conceptions of a third group of narra
tives and laws, known as P, or the Priestly Code, inter
woven with the two groups already discussed — ^J and E —
present striking contrasts to those of the other two docu
ments. The representation of the Deity is much less
anthropomorphic, and there are no angels or dreams as
means of communication. Again in the words of Dill
mann : "Certainly, he [the author of this group of narra
tives] speaks of God as 'appearing" to men, and as 'going
up' from them (Gen. 17. i, 22, 23; 35. 9, 13; 48. 3;
Exod. 6. 3) at important moments of the history, but he
gives no further description of his appearances : usually,
the revelation of God to men takes with him the form of
simple speaking to them (Gen. i. 29; 6. 13; 7. i ; 8. 15;
9. I ; Exod. 6. 12, 13, etc.) ; only in the supreme revelation
on Sinai (Exod. 24. 16, 17; compare 34. 29b), and when
he is present in the Tent of Meeting (Exod. 40. 34, 35),
does he describe him as manifesting himself In a form
of light and fire C^''-^?), and as speaking there with Moses
(Exod. 25. 22; Num. 7. 89), as man to man, or in order
that people may recognize him (Exod. 16. 10; Lev. 9. 6,
23, 24; Num. 14. 10; 16. 19, 42; 20. 6). Wrath also
proceeds from him (Num. 16. 46), or destroying fire
and death (Lev. 10. 2; Num. 14. 37; 16. 35, 45ff.;
25. 8, 9). But anthropopathic expressions of God he
avoids scrupulously; even anthropomorphic expressions
are rare (Gen. 2. 2, 3; compare Exod. 31. 17b), so that
a purpose Is here unmistakable. It may be that as a priest
he was accustomed to think and speak of God more

158 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
strictly and circumspectly than other writers, even those
who were prophets. On the other hand, he nowhere
touches on the deeper problems of theology. On such
subjects as the justice of the divine government of the
world, the origin of sin and evil, the Insufficiency of all
human righteousness (see on the contrary. Gen. 5. 24;
6. 9), he does not pause to reflect; the free divine choice,
though not unknown to him (Num. 3. 12, 13; 8. 16;
17. 5 ff.; 18. 6), is at least not so designedly opposed to
human claims as in J. His work contains no Messianic
outlooks Into the future; his Ideal lies In the theocracy,
as he conceives it realized by Moses and Joshua." *®
The Influence of this Ideal is seen In the promises made
to the patriarchs, which, unlike those reported by J, are
restricted to Israel.*® "The substance of these promises,"
says S. R. Driver, "Is the future growth and glory of the
Abrahamic clan ; the establishment of a covenant with Its
members Implying a special relation between them and
God (Gen. 17. 7b; Exod. 6. 7a), and the confirmation of
the land of Canaan as their possession. The Israelitish
theocracy is the writer's Ideal; and the culminating
promise Is that In Exod. 29. 43-46, declaring the abiding
presence of God with his people Israel." *^
In the legal sections belonging to this group religion Is
defined largely in terms of ritual and form, which Is at
variance with the spirit of J and E. There is an elaborate
ritual for the offering of sacrifice, and great prominence
is given to the sin and trespass offerings, which are not
even mentioned In other parts of the Pentateuch. A
sharp distinction Is made between the priests, the sons of

'Numeri, Deuteronomium, Josua, p. 653.
'Gen. 17. 6-8; 28. 3-4; 35. 11, 12; Exod. 6. 4, 6, 7.
'Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, p. 129.

COMPOSITE CHARACTER 159
Aaron, and the Levites ; only here is Introduced the high
priest with a full description of his dignity and privileges,
and ample provision Is made for the support of both
priests and Levites.
D, hke the other documents, has Its own peculiar theo
logical conceptions. Its fundamental theological truth Is
expressed in these words : "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our
God is one Jehovah";** and Its fundamental law, reiter
ated again and again, upon which all other requirements
rest, assumes this form: "Thou shalt love Jehovah thy
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with
all thy might." *® While J and E make much of the old
sacred places by connecting them with the history of the
patriarchs and the appearances of Yahweh and his
angels,*" D will have nothing to do with them; while J
and E seem to consider the "pillar" a perfectly legitimate
symbol of Hebrew religion,*' D contains this prohibition :
"Thou shalt not plant thee an Asherah of any kind of tree
beside the altar of Jehovah thy God, which thou shalt
make thee. Neither shalt thou set up a pillar, which
Jehovah thy God hateth." **
D differs from the Book of the Covenant, which is
closely connected with JE, regarding the place of sacri
fice : the latter permits the bringing of sacrifice In different
places;** D insists again and again that there Is but one
legitimate place of public worship, "the place which
Jehovah thy God shall choose out of all the tribes." **

" Deut. 6. 4.
"Deut. 6. 5; 10. 12; II. I, 13, 22; 13. 3.
'"Gen. 12. 6; 21. 33; 28. 18-22; 31. 13, 49, etc.
" Gen. 28. 18-22; 31. 13, 45; Josh. 24. 26.
" Deut. 16. 21, 22.
" Exod. 20. 24.
"Deut. 12. Si II, 14, 18, 21, 26; 14. 23-25; 15. 20; 16. 2, 6, 7, etc.

i6o THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
It differs from P regarding the personnel of the priest
hood : the Priestly Code limits the priesthood to the sons
of Aaron;*® D recognizes all the sons of Levi as priests.*®
The marked differences In theological conception re
vealed by the several groups of narratives and laws stand
out much more prominently when the several groups are
read consecutively; but even this brief outline may be
sufficient to show that the differences cannot easily be
harmonized with a belief in unity of authorship.
. 2. Differences in Style. The force of the argument
drawn from differences in style cannot be fully appreci
ated without a knowledge of Hebrew ; nevertheless, even
the English student can at least "feel" certain differences
In the style of different sections of the Pentateuch. As
in other matters, the differences between J and E are
not as great as those between JE on the one hand, and
D or P on the other; which Is due to the fact that the
former come from approximately the same age — ^the
creative age of prophetic narration. However, a few
differences between J and E may be noted : J dwells less
than E upon concrete particulars; but he excels in the
power of delineating life and character. He is, indeed,
the best narrator In the Bible. "His touch," says Driver,
"Is singularly light : with a few strokes he paints a scene
which, before he has finished, Is Impressed Indelibly upon
his reader's memory. In ease and grace his narratives
are unsurpassed; everything is told with precisely the
amount of detail that Is required; the narrative never
lingers, and the reader's Interest Is sustained to the end.
His dialogues especially (which are frequent) are remark
able for the delicacy and truthfulness with which char-

"Exod. 28. i; Num. 3. 5-10; 18. 1-7.
"Deut. 17. 9. 18; 18. i; 21. 5.

COMPOSITE CHARACTER i6i
acter and emotions find expression In them." *'' E Is
perhaps a little more terse in style, but Its narratives are
on the whole so well told that it Is not easy to see wherein
they fall short of J, except that at times they lack the
spontaneous charm and strength of the other.
The style of the P sections is altogether different.
Again, In the words of Driver : "If JE — and especially J
— be free, flowing, and picturesque, P Is stereotyped,
measured, and prosaic. The narrative, both as a whole
and In Its several parts, is articulated systematically;
the beginning and close of an enumeration are regularly
marked by stated formulae (Gen. 5. 6-8, 9-1 1, 12-14,
etc.; or Gen. i. 5b, 8b, 13, etc.). The descriptions
are methodical and precise. When they embrace de
tails, emphasis (Gen. i. 29; 6. 17; 9. 3) and complete
ness (Gen. 10. 5, 20, 31; 36. 40; 23. 17; 36. 6; etc.) are
studied; hence a thought Is often repeated in slightly
different words (Gen. 2. 2, 3; 23. 17-20; Exod. 12. 18-20;
etc.). There Is a tendency to describe an object in full
each time that it is mentioned (compare Gen. i. 7 beside
verse 6; verse 11 beside verse 10; 8. 18, 19 beside verses
16, 17) ; a direction Is followed, as a rule, by an account
of Its execution, usually In the same words (Gen. i. 6, 7;
II, 12; 24, 25; 6. 18-20; 7. 13-16; etc.). Sometimes the
circumstantiality leads to diffuseness, as In parts of Num.
4 and (an extreme case) Num. 7. Metaphors, similes,
etc., are eschewed (Num. z'j. 17b Is an exception), and
there Is generally an absence of the poetical or dramatic
element, which Is frequently conspicuous in the other
historical books of the Old Testament (including J and
E). To a greater extent than in any other part of the
Old Testament Is a preference shown In P for standing
" Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, p. I19.

i62 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
formulce and expressions; some of these recur with great
frequency, and are apparent In a translation. Particularly
noticeable Is an otherwise uncommon mode of expression,
producing a peculiar rhythm, by which a statement is first
made In general terms, and then partly repeated, for the
purpose of receiving closer limitation or definition (Gen.
I. 27; 6. 14; 8. 5 ; 9. 5 ; 23. 11, etc.). It seems as though
the habits of thought and expression, which the author
had contracted through his practical acquaintance with
the law, were carried by him Into his treatment of purely
historical subjects." **
In a comparison of style D might almost be left out of
consideration because, while J and E are chiefly historical,
D represents the legal literature, a difference In subject
matter that would produce differences in style and ex
pression, though the author were the same. Since P
contains much legal material, It Is easier to institute com
parisons between it and D. Comparing, now, the style
of the legal portions of P with D, even the reader of an
English translation can notice this difference: P is cold,
legal, formal, and precise ; D is rhetorical and hortatory ;
the style of the latter closely resembles that of the great
prophets. The stylistic peculiarities of the several documents are,
indeed, so marked that they fully justify the claim of
C. A. Briggs: "There is as great a difference In style
between the documents of the Hexateuch as there is
between the four Gospels." *®
3, Differences in Vocabulary. It is exceedingly difficult
to present this part of the argument in any sort of popular
form, hence all that Is attempted here Is to enumerate a
" Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, pp. 129, 130.
" The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, p. 75.

COMPOSITE CHARACTER 163
few of the characteristic expressions of each document
which seem to point in the direction of diversity of
authorship :*"
The following words are characteristic of the portions
assigned to J : Yahweh Is the name of the God of Israel
even in pre-Mosaic times ;*' Sinai, not Horeb, Is the name
of the mountain on which the law was given; Israel, not
Jacob, Is the name of the third patriarch from the birth of
Benjamin on. The Inhabitants of Palestine are called
Canaanites; the regular name of Mesopotamia is Aram
Naharaim; Egypt Is used as equivalent to Egyptian. The
longer form of the pronoun of the first person anokht is
used, not am. Characteristic phrases are : To find favor
or grace in the sight of . . . ; to call on the name of. . . .;
to run to meet. . . .; took him a wife. . . ; to preserve
seed alive. . . .; to dwell in the midst of. . . .; the
particle no, with the Imperative, etc.
As characteristic of E may be noted: The use of the
divine name Elohim in Genesis; the pre-Israelitish In
habitants of Palestine are called Amorites, not Canaan
ites ; the mountain of God Is called Horeb, not Sinai ; from
Gen. 32 on Jacob Is used in preference to Israel ; the name
of Moses's father-in-law is Jethro. Characteristic ex
pressions are also : the man Moses, and to bring up from
the land of Egypt, where J uses to bring out.
The linguistic peculiarities of P are very numerous.
Driver enumerates fifty expressions characteristic of the
narrative portions of P, many of which occur never or
rarely In other books, some of them only again in
" See, further, art. "Hexateuch," in Hastings, Dictionary of the
Bible; S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old
Testament, pp. 998., etc.; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexa
teuch, pp. i85ff.
" See above, chapter VIII.

i64 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
Ezekiel.** Of these may be mentioned : The use of the
divine name Elohim in Genesis; Paddan Aram Is the
regular name for Mesopotamia; the mountain of God Is
called Sinai, as in J, never Horeb. The shorter form of
the pronoun of the first person singular am is used 130
times, the longer form anokhi only once. The Hebrew
ammim, meaning peoples. Is used In the sense of kinsfolk,
especially In the two phrases "that soul shall be cut off
from his kinsfolk" and "to be gathered unto one's kins
folk." Other peculiar expressions are : To be fruitful and
multiply . . .; this selfsame day [literally "the bone of
this day"] . . . ; after their families . . .; soul [nephesh]
in the sense of "person" . . . ; throughout their genera
tions . . .; congregation of the Israelites . . .; accord
ing to the mouth [^command] of . . .; etc.
D also has its characteristic words and phrases : Horeb
Is used, not Sinai, as the name of the mountain on which
the law was given; that your days may be long . . .; a
mighty hand and a stretched out arm . . .; the stranger,
the fatherless, and the widow . . .; and remember that
thou wast a bondman in Egypt . . .; to do what is right
[or evil] in the eyes of Yahweh . . .; with all the heart
and with all the soul . . .; to observe to do . . ., etc.
The differences in style and vocabulary — and they are
much more numerous than this brief list would seem to
indicate — cannot be explained, as has been attempted, on
the basis of differences In theme or subject matter, be
cause In many cases the differences appear in sections
dealing with one and the same theme. Moreover, while
It Is undoubtedly true that arguments from language and
style, when standing alone, are not conclusive. In this case
the linguistic and stylistic evidence does not stand by
"Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, pp. 13 iff.

COMPOSITE CHARACTER 165
Itself; It appears In connection with the differences in
theological conception, repetitions, and discrepancies, and
the peculiar use of the divine names — the latter being in
a sense a part of the linguistic evidence — and strikingly
confirms the conclusions as to diversity of authorship
which have been drawn from the other peculiarities.
In the light of the facts presented in chapters VIII-X
and others of a similar nature, it would seem that the view
which regards the Pentateuch as a compilation of ma
terial taken from different sources, written by different
authors, is not the result of unwarranted speculation, but
is developed upon the basis of actual facts presented In
the Pentateuch from beginning to end.

CHAPTER XI
POST-MOSAIC ELEMENTS IN THE
PENTATEUCH

CHAPTER XI
POST-MOSAIC ELEMENTS IN THE
PENTATEUCH
If only the first part of the Pentateuch, the book of
Genesis, were a compilation, Moses might, perhaps, be
regarded as the compiler, and the author of the remaining
books.' But If, as has been shown in the preceding chap
ters, the entire group of books is in the nature of a com
pilation, this fact in Itself makes belief In Mosaic author
ship practically impossible, as some time must have
elapsed between the last event recorded — ^the death of
Moses — and the production of the compilation in its
present form. There are, however, some additional,
specific considerations that have convinced scholars that
Moses cannot have been the author. The present chapter
deals with one of these: the presence of references and
passages which by their very contents Imply that they
were written subsequently to the time of Moses. The more
important of these may be enumerated here :
I. Literary Considerations. ( i ) The use of the third
person when speaking of Moses. No doubt, Moses might
have referred to himself in the third person, but it does
not necessarily follow that he actually did. Num. 33. 2,
for example, reads : "And Moses wrote their goings out
according to their journeys by the commandment of
Jehovah; and these are their journeys according to their
'See above, p. 129. 169

170 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
goings out." This statement sounds much more like the
introduction to a quotation from a record of Moses than
an introduction by Moses to something whjch he Is about
to write. Or take Exod. 6. 26, 2'j. "These are that
Aaron and Moses, to whom Jehovah said. Bring out the
children of Israel from the land of Egypt according to
their hosts. These are they that spake to Pharaoh king
of Egypt, to bring out the children of Israel from Egypt :
these are that Moses and Aaron." Naturally Interpreted,
these words must be regarded as a reference to Moses
and Aaron written by some one other than Moses.
(2) Deut. 34. 1-8 records the death and burial of
Moses. A large part of Jewish tradition and practically
all Christian tradition accepting the Mosaic authorship of
the Pentateuch, ascribes these verses to Joshua.* This is
done not because of any external evidence pointing to
Joshua as the author, but exclusively on the basis of In
ternal evidence : It does not seem reasonable to believe that
anyone would report as a fact of history his own death
and burial. But chapter 33 cannot be considered the close
of the Book of , Deuteronomy ; chapter 34 forms a literary
unit with the preceding chapters. Now, if it is permissible
to deny one passage to Moses solely on the basis of
Internal evidence, why not others, provided the internal
evidence is sufficiently decisive?
2. Geographical References. (l) "Beyond Jordan."
The Book of Deuteronomy opens with these words:
"These are the words which Moses spake unto all Israel
beyond the Jordan" ; to which should be added the state
ment in I. 5, "beyond the Jordan, in the land of Moab." *
From this it would seem that in the narrative portions of
' See above, pp. 44, 45, 86.
'Compare also 4. 41, 46, 47, 49; Num. 22. i.

POST-MOSAIC ELEMENTS 171
the Pentateuch the territory east of the Jordan is called
beyond the Jordan, as if the author were a resident of the
territory west of the Jordan, which, the records assert,
Moses never entered.* The natural inference would be
that Moses was not the author of these and similar pas
sages in the Pentateuch. To escape this Inevitable Infer
ence it has been suggested that "beyond the Jordan" was
a geographical term for the country east of the Jordan
and was used irrespectively of the location of the speaker.®
If this assertion could be proved, the phrase would throw
no light on the question under consideration; but, un
fortunately for those who make that claim, It is unwar
ranted; it is contradicted by the fact that in the speeches
which are said to have been delivered east of the Jordan
the same phrase is used of the territory west of the river.®
(2) Stereotyped expressions denoting "south" and
"west." The common Hebrew word for "south" Is ^.?5
neghebh;'' the same word Is used as a geographical term
denoting the southern portion of Judah. But the Negeb
lay southward only to the Inhabitants of western Pales
tine ; hence the use of the term with the meaning "south"
presupposes residence west of the Jordan, which was
never attained by Moses. The word for "west" is fi;
yam,* a word meaning also "sea." Now the sea — the

* Deut. 34. 4. According to the later historical books, the inhabi
tants of Palestine west of the Jordan referred to the east Jordan
territory in the same way (Josh. 2. lo; 7. 7; 9. 10, etc.; Judg. 5. 17;
10. 8.
' Compare Gallia Transalpina.
'Deut. 3. 20, 25; II. 30; an exception is found in 3. 8, where the
author seems to have forgotten himself; compare also Num. 32. 19,
where it is used of both sides; and see on both passages. Driver,
Deuteronomy, p. xliii.
' Gen. 12. 9 ; 20. I ; 24. 62 ; etc.
'Exod. 27. 12; Num. 2. 18; 3. 23, etc.

172 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
Mediterranean Sea — was immediately west of Palestine,
not of the desert or of Mount Sinai.
(3) The name "Hebron" seems to be of post-Mosaic
origin. Josh. 14. 15 contains the statement: "Now the
name of Hebron beforetime was KIriath-arba ; which Arba
was the greatest man among the Anakim"; and 15. 13
implies that the change in name was not made until
after the city had been assigned to Caleb. But Hebron
Is named several times in Genesis® and at least once In
Numbers.'" Does this Imply that Genesis and Numbers
were written after the name was changed, that is, after
the conquest of Canaan? If not, what is the explanation?
(4) The occurrence of the name "Dan" In the Penta
teuch points in the same direction. The name Is said to
have originated In the age of the Judges: "They [the
Danites, who had been driven northward during the
period of the Judges] called the name of the city Dan,
after the name of Dan their father, who was born unto
Israel: howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the
first"" Since the author of the Pentateuch knew the
new name,'* the question naturally arises, Did he live
subsequently to the period of the Judges?
(5) Deut. 3. 14 narrates the conquest of a part of the
east-Jordan territory in these words: "Jair the son of
Manasseh took all the region of Argob, unto the border
of the Geshurites and the Maacathites, and called them,
even Bashan, after his own name, Hawoth-jair [towns of
Jair], unto this day." '* The words "unto this day" are
meaningless if written Immediately after the naming; they
"Gen. 13. 18; 23. 2; 37. 14.
" Num. 13. 22.
"Judg. 18. 29.
"Gen. 14. 14; Deut. 34. i.
" Compare also Num. 32. 41.

POST-MOSAIC ELEMENTS 173
would seem to imply the lapse of a considerable period
of time.'* In Judg. 10. 3, 4 seems to be another narrative
explaining the origin of the name : "And after him [Tola]
arose Jair, the Gileadite; and he judged Israel twenty
and two years. And he had thirty sons that rode on
thirty ass colts, and they had thirty cities, which are
called Havvoth-jair unto this day, which are in the land
of Gilead." Were the stories written so late that the
origin of the name had been forgotten?
(6) In Gen. 40. 15 Canaan is called "the land of the
Hebrews." Would this designation be used before the
Hebrew people had taken possession of the land, so that
it could come to be known as their land ?
In each of the cases mentioned the most natural inter
pretation requires that the passage be assigned to a date
subsequent to Moses.
3. Historical Statements, (i) Gen. 36. 31 states:
"And these are the kings that reigned in the land of
Edom, before there reigned any king over the children
of Israel." The last clause presupposes the establishment
of the monarchy In Israel, for the words certainly imply
that the author knows something of kings In Israel.
There is nothing anywhere to support Green's assumption
that the Edomite kings were pre-Mosaic.'®
(2) The expression "the Canaanite was then in the
land" '® has meaning only at a time when the Canaanites
had disappeared, at least as an independent people ; which
"The name is used in Josh. 13. 30, in the narrative of the
division of the land.
"Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, p. 51. If Belah the son of
Beor (verse 32) is the same as Balaam the son of Beor (Num.
22. 5), as is quite probable, the list of eight kings might well reach
to the beginning of the Hebrew monarchy.
"Gen. 12. 6; 13. 7.

174 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
would point, at the earliest, to the reign of Solomon, of
whom it is related : As for all the people that were left of
the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the HIvItes, and
the Jebusites, who, were not of the children of Israel ;
their children that were left after them In the land, whom
the children of Israel were not able utterly to destroy,
of them did Solomon raise a levy of bondservants unto
this day" '^
(3) Deut. 2. 12 reads: "The Horites also dwelt In
Seir aforetime, but the children of Esau succeeded them ;
and they destroyed them from before them, and dwelt
in their stead; as Israel did unto the land of his possession,
which Jehovah gave unto them." This reads as if the
writer were looking back to the conquest as an accom
plished fact.
(4) In several passages occurs the expression "unto
this day." Deut. 10. 8, for example, reads: "At that
time Jehovah set apart the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark
of the covenant of Jehovah, to stand before Jehovah to
minister unto him, and to bless In his name, unto this
day." '* True, In some cases the expression might have
been used in the days of Moses; In others, however, as
In the passage quoted, It would be more Intelligible if the
statement had been written In a subsequent age. And In
the light of the facts already pointed out, this is the more
natural view in all cases.
(5) The triumph song In Exod. 15, In its present form,
seems to presuppose the establishment of Yahweh's sanc
tuary on Mount Zion, or at least his rule In Palestine :
Thou in thy lovingkindness hast led the people that thou hast
redeemed :

' I Kings 9. 20, 21.
' Compare also Gen. 32. 32 ; 35. 20 ; Deut. 3. 14, etc.

POST-MOSAIC ELEMENTS 175
Thou hast guided them in thy strength to thy holy habitation. .
Thou wilt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine
inheritance,
The place, O Jehovah, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in.
The sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established."
(6) Num. 21. 14 names "the Book of the Wars of
Jehovah" as the source from which a song or fragment
of a song was taken. The wars of Yahweh can hardly
be anything but the wars leading to the conquest of
Canaan, which the Hebrews carried on under the leader
ship and direction of their God. But the existence of a
collection of songs describing these struggles almost cer
tainly presupposes the close of the struggles or, at least,
a more advanced stage than had been reached even at the
death of the great leader. The most severe fighting began
after the crossing of the Jordan.*" Moreover, the song
quoted Is used to prove that the Arnon marked the
boundary line between Israel and Moab. Did the con
temporaries of Moses need such proof when they them
selves had established the boundary?
(7) If Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch, is It not
strange that he was in doubt regarding the name of his
own father-in-law, calling him, in some passages, Reuel,*'
in others, Jethro ?** The difference is easily explained on
the assumption that different traditions as to the name of
Moses's father-in-law were current in Israel subsequently
to the time of Moses, and that the contradictory tradi
tions were preserved In the different documents.
(8) The characterization of Moses In certain passages
reads as If it came from some one other than Moses :

'Exod. 15. 13, 17.
'Compare the Book of Jashar, Josh. lo. 13; 2 Sam. i. 18.
'Exod. 2. 18 (J) ; Num. 10. 29 (J).
'Exod. 3. i; 18. I (E), corrupted in 4. 18 (also E) to Jether.

176 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
"Moreover the man Moses was very great In the land
of Egypt, In the sight of Pharaoh's servants, and in the
sight of the people." ** Or again : "Now the man Moses
was very meek, above all the men that were upon the
face of the earth." ** And again : "And there hath not
arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom
Jehovah knew face to face." *^
(9) The book of Exodus contains two accounts of the
call of Moses.*® If both came from Moses himself, it
seems very strange that the second should contain no
reference whatever to the first.
4. Archaeological References, (i) The expression
"shekel of the sanctuary" *'^ presupposes the sanctuary
and a systematized ritual, for the reference takes it for
granted that everyone knows what the shekel of the
sanctuary is.
(2) The reference to the bedstead of Og In Deut. 3. 11
reads as if the author looked upon it as a well-known
relic. Is It probable that Moses would speak of it in that
manner, since his listeners or readers had conquered and
slain Og that very year ?**
5. Legislative Enactments. Many of the legislative
enactments in the Pentateuch presuppose a background
other than that of the desert.
(i) Exod. 23. 19, for example, presupposes agricul
tural pursuits and, perhaps, the existence of the temple:
"The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring
into the house of Jehovah thy God."

''Exod. II. 3.
"Num. 12. 3.
"' Deut. 34. 10.
"Exod. 3. I to 6. I (E), and 6. 2 to 7. 7 (P).
" Exod. 30. 13, 24 ; 38. 24-26.
"Compare verses 1-3; Num. 21. 33.

POST-MOSAIC ELEMENTS 177
(2) Deut. 19. 14 looks back to the settlement in Canaan
as something belonging to the far distant past: "Thou
shalt not remove thy neighbor's landmark, which they of
old time have set, in thine inheritance, which thou shalt
Inherit, In the land that Jehovah thy God giveth thee to
possess it."
The list of passages quoted and referred to in this
chapter Is by no means exhaustive, and only such passages
have been included as seem to imply definitely a post-
Mosaic date. At any rate, each passage finds a natural
interpretation on the assumption that it was written sub
sequently to the time of Moses or by some one other than
that great leader of Israel.
What, now, is done with these and similar passages
by the defenders of the Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateuch ?
Frequently the assertion Is made that there Is no good
reason for denying them to Moses, and that practically
all of them can be Interpreted as coming from him. But
if there should be discovered a few passages that cannot
be assigned to him, they must be explained as later inter
polations. In the words of Green : "Even if it could be
demonstrated that a certain paragraph or paragraphs were
post-Mosaic, this would merely prove that such paragraph
or paragraphs could not have belonged to the Pentateuch
as it came from the pen of Moses, not that the work as a
whole did not proceed from him. It is far easier to
assume that some slight additions may here and there
have been made to the text, than to set aside the multi
plied and invincible proofs that the Pentateuch was the
production of Moses." *®
Other passages are passed over In silence, or are dis-
" The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, p. 51.

178 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
posed of without serious attempt to meet the problems
raised by them.
Now, while it is true that Moses might, perhaps, have
written some of the passages enumerated, others cannot
possibly come from him; and In every case the only
natural interpretation is that which ascribes the passage
to another author. Again, while some of the passages
might, perhaps, be thrown out as Interpolations, others
are so closely bound up with their context that they would
carry with them large sections of the Pentateuch, and the
resulting breaking up of continuity In narration would
increase rather than diminish the difficulties. On the
other hand, all the difficulties disappear if It Is ad
mitted that the narratives In which the alleged post-
Mosaic elements are found were written In the periods to
which modern scholarship assigns them.

CHAPTER XII
THE LAW BOOK OF KING JOSIAH

CHAPTER XII
THE LAW BOOK OF KING JOSIAH
One of the most significant events in Hebrew religious
history is that recorded in 2 Kings 22, 23 and 2 Chron.
34, 35. The substance of the narrative Is as follows:
King Josiah, who ascended the throne when eight years
of age, determined, in the eighteenth year of his reign,
to repair the temple of Yahweh. The supervision of the
work was placed In the hands of a commission of which
Hilklah, the chief priest, and Shaphan, the king's secre
tary, were members. One day Hilklah reported to
Shaphan : "I have found the book of the law In the house
of Yahweh." He gave the book to Shaphan, who read
it and reported the find to the king. When, at his request,
the book was read before the king, he was so deeply Im
pressed with the nature of the contents that he sent
Hilklah, Shaphan, and others to inquire of Yahweh "con
cerning the words of the book that is. found." They
consulted the prophetess Huldah, who affirmed that the
book was an expression of the will of Yahweh. Where
upon the book was read In the presence of the people, and
the king "made a covenant before Jehovah, to walk after
Jehovah, and to keep his commandments, and his testi
monies, and his statutes, with all his heart, and all his
soul, to confirm the words of this covenant, that were
written In this book: and all the people stood to the
covenant." In accordance with this vow, and on the basis
of the newly found law book, Josiah Introduced such
far-reaching reforms In Judah that the narrator could
ISI

i82 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
write of him: "And like unto him was there no king
before him, that turned to Jehovah with all his heart,
and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to
all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any
like him."
Was the Law Book of Josiah the Pentateuch? Until
recent times the law book of Josiah was almost univer
sally Identified with the Pentateuch, which was thought to
have been completed centuries before and to have been
deposited by the side of the Ark of the Covenant.' In
the course of time it was lost sight of, but finally, in the
days of Josiah, it was recovered and identified as the Law
of Moses.
Most modern scholars, however, believe that there are
good and sufficient reasons for believing that the book
found was not the completed Pentateuch : ( i ) The Penta
teuch as a whole would hardly be described as a "book of
the law," * much less as a "book of the covenant," * a
term applicable only to Exod. 20-23* and to Deuter
onomy.® (2) A book as large as the Pentateuch could
not have been handled as freely as is suggested in the
narrative. It was read at least twice on the same day;®
it seems to have been no special hardship for the people
to have the entire book read to them, apparently at one
service.' (3) If the book found had been the entire
Pentateuch, it would be difficult to explain why Josiah
based his reforms upon one small portion — Deuter
onomy.* (4) A book as heterogeneous In contents as Is
the Pentateuch as a whole, and containing romantic

'Deut. 31. 9, 24-26. "Deut. 5. 2; 29.1,21.
' 2 Kings 22. 8. * 2 Kings 22. 8, 10.
' 2 Kings 23. 2. '2 Kings 23. 2.
* Exod. 24. 7. * See below, p. 185.

THE LAW BOOK OF KING JOSIAH 183
stories like the patriarchal narratives would hardly have
made the swift and terrible impression which the book
found by Hilklah Is said to have produced upon king
and people.® (5) Another difficulty Is suggested In the
words of R. Kittel: "It is utterly Impossible that the
whole Pentateuch should have vanished without leaving
a trace of its existence. The older and, consequently,
the better known It was, the greater the Impossibility.
Even if the one copy deposited In the temple had dis
appeared, there must always have been others In exist
ence in the priestly circles." '"
W. H. Green seeks to weaken the force of the last
argument by directing attention to the fate suffered by
the code of Charlemagne after that emperor's death.
The situation Is described by Sir J. Stephen In these
words: "When the barbarism of the domestic govern
ment — under the Carlovingian dynasty — had thus suc
ceeded the barbarism of the government of the state,
one of the most remarkable results of that political change
was the disappearance of the laws and Institutions by
which Charlemagne had endeavored to elevate and civilize
his subjects. Before the close of the century in which
he died the whole body of his laws had fallen Into utter
disuse throughout the whole extent of his Gallic do
minions. They who have studied the charters, laws, and
chronicles of the later Carlovingian princes most dili
gently are unanimous In declaring that they Indicate either
an absolute Ignorance or an entire forgetfulness of the
legislation of Charlemagne." ^^

•2 Kings 22. 11-13; 23. 3ff.
^"History of the Hebrews, vol. i, p. 59.
^^ Lectures on the History of France, iv, p. 94; W. H. Green,
Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, pp. 155, 156,

i84 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
There is, however, one Important difference between
the two cases, which destroys the parallelism and, there
fore, makes Green's objection of no effect. The succes
sors of Charlemagne make no claim that they are carrying
out the principles laid down by that wise and great
emperor; on the other hand, the great religious leaders of
Israel insist that they are simply trying to put into prac
tice the principles of Yahweh religion, as proclaimed from
the Exodus on. A change of policy on the part of the
Prankish kings may explain their disregard of Charle
magne's code of laws; but no such change In policy is
admitted by the religious leaders of Israel : their claims,
teaching, and practice all Imply that they are seeking to
recall the people to what they consider the policy laid
down by the first great prophet. And It remains a fact
that the nature of these claims and the character of their
teaching and practice cannot be harmonized with the view
that the Pentateuch as a whole was In existence, as an
embodiment of the will and law of Yahweh, at or before
the time of Josiah. Modern scholars, therefore, seem
justified in claiming that the Law Book of Josiah was
not the Pentateuch as a whole.'*
The Deuteronomic Code the Law Book of Josiah.
If the law book of Josiah was not the completed Penta
teuch, can Its extent and contents be determined? The
suggestion has been made that it was "the Book of the
Covenant" In Exod. 20. 22 to 23. 33. Now, though the
law book of Josiah Is called "the book of the covenant," "
"All the arguments given in the succeeding pages to determine
the contents and extent of this law book prove at the same time
that it was not the entire Pentateuch.
"2 Kings 23. 2, 21. S. A. Fries, in Die Gesetsesschrift des Koenigs
Josia, has attempted to prove that the law book of Josiah was
identical with Exod. 34; but his arguments are not convincing.

THE LAW BOOK OF KING JOSIAH 185
there Is, aside from other considerations, one fundamental
objection to identifying It with the Book of the Covenant
In Exodus : The central requirement of the law of Josiah
was the prohibition of the worship of Yahweh at the
local sanctuaries and the centralization of public worship
in one place; on the other hand, the Book of the Covenant
specifically permits the multiplicity of sanctuaries.'* Evi
dently, the latter did not serve as the basis of Joslah's
reforms. There Is only one collection of laws In the Pentateuch
that meets all the requirements of the narrative In
2 Kings 22, 23, namely, the so-called Deuteronomic
Code.'® The reforms carried through under the direc
tion of Josiah are exactly those advocated In Deuter
onomy : 2 Kings 23 Deuteronomy
(l) Centralization of worship  8-20 12. 2-0 ; 16. 2, 6, 7, etc.
(2) Abolition of the worship of the
heavenly bodies  4, 5, 1 1 17-3
(3) Condemnation of high places,
pillars, Asherahs, etc  4, 5, 14, 15 16. 21, 22
(4) Prohibition of religious pros
titutes  7 23. 17, 18
(S) Maintenance of priests ejected
from the local sanctuaries... 8,9 18.8
(6) Abolition of Moloch worship.. 10 18.10
(7) Celebration of the Passover in
a new style  21-23 16. 1-8
(8) Ejection of diviners and sooth
sayers  24 18. 10, II

"Exod. 20. 24.
" While the general view has been that the Law Book of Josiah
was the entire Pentateuch, its identification with Deuteronomy is
not an entirely new discovery. Chrysostom, i ad Cor., Horn. VII, 3,
and Jerome, adv. Jovin. i, 5, identified the law book of Josiah with
Deuteronomy.

i86 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
Other references pointing to Deuteronomy are: (i)
The law book of Josiah contained denunciations and
curses such as are found in Deut. 28;'® (2) it made
mention of a covenant between Yahweh and the people ;''^.
(3) the consulting of the prophetess Huldah'* may have
been suggested by Deut. 18. 18, 19.
All the Information, therefore, that may be gathered
from the biblical narrative itself points to Deuteronomy
In some form as the law book underlying the reforms
of Josiah in B. C. 621. The original extent of the
Deuteronomic Code Is a matter of dispute. It may be
that In the days of Josiah It included only chapters 12-19
and 26, plus the blessings and curses In chapter 28, though
the latter, perhaps. In simpler form.'®
Origin and Date of the Law Book of Josiah. When
was the law book of Josiah, or the Deuteronomic Code,
written? There Is, first of all, the traditional view that
Moses wrote it along with the rest of the Pentateuch.
Naturally, the scholars who deny the Mosaic authorship
of the Pentateuch Include In this denial Deuteronomy;
and most of them are agreed that the book was written
a comparatively short time before Its discovery by
Hilklah. There are, however, differences of opinion as to the
exact date. Some hold that It was written during the
early years of Joslah's reign;*" others that It was the
product of Manasseh's apostate reign ;*' still others assign
"2 Kings 22. II, 13, 19.
" 2 Kings 23. 2, 3, 21 ; compare Deut. 29. i ; 26. 17-19, etc.
"2 Kings 22. 14.
"See, further, below, p. 302.
" Reuss, Kuenen, Cheyne, Cornill, Holzinger, Carpenter and Har
ford-Battersby, Kent, etc.
"¦ W. R. Smith, Kittel, Ryle, Driver, Kautzsch, Steuernagel, etc.

THE LAW BOOK OF KING JOSIAH 187
it to the reign of Hezekiah,** and consider It the basis
of the reforms instituted by him.** More recently the
claim has been put forward that it was composed during
the early years of Solomon's reign and was deposited by
him in the foundation stone of the temple, where it re
mained hidden until Its accidental discovery In the days
of Josiah.**
The last mentioned view grew out of the discovery of
the ancient Egyptian custom of placing the law of a
sanctuary somewhere into the building at the time of its
erection. It Is claimed that the narrative in 2 Kings 22
suggests a similar custom in connection with the temple
of Yahweh in Jerusalem. Since, now, the temple in
Jerusalem was erected by Solomon, It Is thought that he
had prepared a written statement of the law of the
proposed sanctuary, in order that it might be placed into
the foundation wall of the new building. That law Is
then Identified with the Deuteronomic Code.*®
Regarding this view, it may be noted that nowhere in
the Old Testament Is there any suggestion of walling a
code of laws Into the foundation walls of the temple or
of any other sanctuary; nor Is there even the slightest
Indication in 2 Kings 22. 5, 6, that in the course of the
repairs the foundation stone or the foundation walls of
the temple were torn out. Moreover, there is no hint in
the narrative of the dedication of Solomon's temple that
a copy of the Jerusalem law was deposited In the founda
tion wall. On the other hand, the sanctuary may well have

"Riehm, Koenig, Westphal, Oettli, G. A. Smith, Sellin, Fries.
"2 Kings 18. 3-6.
" E. Naville, La Decouverte de la Loi, passim.
" I Sam. 10. 25 and Deut. 31. 26 are urged in support of the
view that the custom was known in Israel,

i88 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
been considered the proper place for the preservation of
official documents, including law codes, because, being a
holy place, it would be a safe place. Hence, there is noth
ing inherently impossible or improbable in the view that a
copy of the law of Israel, whatever its contents may have
been, was deposited by Solomon In the new temple of
Yahweh. However, there are, in addition to the reasons
for a later date given below, two considerations which
make the composition of the Deuteronomic Code In the
days of Solomon or under his direction highly improb
able: (i) his utter disregard of the prohibition of
polygamy,*® and (2) a similar disregard on his part of
the law against the multiplication of horses. *''^ It is much
more probable that the author of the Deuteronomic Code
was familiar with the disastrous results of Solomon's
reign, and formulated the laws in Deut. 17. 14-20 with
his conduct In mind.
The facts in the case point strongly to the eighth or
seventh century as the time when the Deuteronomic Code
was formed:**
(i) The differences between Deuteronomy and the
Book of the Covenant suggest a period considerably re
moved from the conquest; they presuppose a decided
change In the social condition of the people.*®
(2) The law of the kingdom*" Is colored by reminls-

" Compare i Kings 11. 1-3 with Deut. 17. 17.
" Compare i Kings 10. 28 with Deut. 17. 16.
" The arguments here presented are chiefly those of Driver,
Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, pp. 87ff. ;
Commentary on Deuteronomy, pp. xlvff.
" For the conditions reflected in the Book of the Covenant, see
below, pp. 28iff.
°° Deut. 17. 14-20,

THE LAW BOOK OF KING JOSIAH. 189
cences of Solomon's reign. This does not mean that
Moses may not have made provision for the establish
ment of a monarchy In Israel, but simply that the form
and character of the provision In Deuteronomy bears
traces of a later date.
(3) The forms of Idolatry alluded to, especially the
worship of the "host of heaven," *' point to the middle
period of the Hebrew monarchy. True, the worship of
Sun and Moon is very ancient, and was known In the
territory through which the Hebrew tribes passed and
In which they settled, as may be seen from place names
preserved In the narratives;** but the Old Testament
references to the "host of heaven" are all relatively late.**
It Is not Improbable that It was the contact with Assyria
during the eighth century that led to the prevalence of
this form of idolatry.**
(4) The earlier prophets, Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah,
show no certain traces of the Influence of Deuteronomy.
It Is altogether otherwise with later writers. Jeremiah
exhibits marks of it on almost every page, and Ezekiel
and Isaiah, 4off., give abundant evidence of It. A date
for Deuteronomy between Isaiah and Jeremiah would
account for these facts.
( 5 ) The language and style of Deuteronomy, clear and
flowing, free from archaisms, but purer than that of
Jeremiah, would suit the same period. Dillmann Is un
doubtedly right when he says : "The style of Deuter
onomy Implies a long development of the art of public

"Deut. 4. 19; 17.3.
'^Beth-shemesh, Sinai, Wilderness of Sin; Shemesh ^ Shamash,
the Sun-god, Sin, the Moon-god.
"2 Kings 17. 16; 21. 3, 5, etc.
" Compare 2 Kings 23. 12 with 16. 18.

190 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
oratory, and is not of a character to belong to the first age
of Israelitish literature." *®
(6) Deut. i6. 22 contains the prohibition: "Neither
shalt thou set thee up a pillar; which Jehovah thy God
hateth." If Isaiah had known of that law — and if it had
been In existence ignorance on his part would be difficult
to explain — he would hardly have adopted the pillar as a
symbol of the conversion of Egypt.*®
(7) The terms of Deut. 17. 8-13; 19. 17, In which the
constitution of the supreme tribunal Is not prescribed but
represented as already known, seem to presuppose the
existence of the judicial system said to have been Insti
tuted by Jehoshaphat.*''
All the evidence presented thus far appears to point to
the closing years of the eighth or to the seventh century
as the most probable age of Deuteronomy. Can the date
be determined more definitely ? Now, It may be admitted
that "the data showing Deuteronomy to be post-Mosaic
are more definite and distinct than those which we
possess for fixing the precise part of the century before
B. C. 621 to which it is to be assigned";** nevertheless,
the subject Is of sufficient Interest and importance to
warrant at least an attempt to determine the date more
exactly. Many scholars hold that Deuteronomy was written by
a contemporary of Josiah, with or without the knowledge
of Hilklah; that it represents a well-wrought-out com
promise between priests and prophets ; and that the story

"Numeri, Deuteronomium, Josua, p. 611.
"Isa. 19. 19.
"2 Chron. 19. 8-1 1.
"S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testa
ment, p. 87.

THE LAW BOOK OF KING JOSIAH 191
of the finding of the law book In the temple was devised
for the purpose of bringing the king Into more active
sympathy with the reform movement planned by the
author and his associates. This view Is open to the fol
lowing criticisms : ( i ) It Is not In accord with the view
of the narrator of Joslah's reforms, who cannot have
lived very long after the events recorded took place, and
may have been an eyewitness. (2) Deuteronomy con
tains some laws which cannot be explained as a compro
mise entered Into by the priests in Jerusalem. It is
difficult to believe that they would Indorse the provision
in 18. 7, which places the Levites at the local sanctuaries
on an equality with those serving In the temple In Jeru
salem. Indeed, it may have been due to the opposition of
the Jerusalem priests that the law was not carried out by
Josiah.*® Moreover, there are numerous laws that appear
out of place In a code representing primarily a com
promise between prophets and priests.*" Deuteronomy
reveals a wider outlook; it Is Interested in all things
affecting the welfare of the people. , (3) If Deuteronomy
originated as claimed, why was it that the advocates of
the reform movement waited until the eighteenth year
of Joslah's reign ? He appears to have been in sympathy
with Yahweh religion from the very beginning,*' and it
would be only natural to suppose that It might be easier
to convince a boy than a man. (4) On the theory that
Deuteronomy was a contemporary production It would
be difficult to explain why Josiah responded so readily
to the book presented to him, a book full of denuncia-

*• 2 Kings 23. 9.
" Chapter 20 ; 22. 8, 10 ; 25. 4, etc. Some of these laws, however,
may be later additions to the original code.
"¦2 Chron. 34. 3; compare also 2 Kings 22. 11-13.

192 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
tions affecting him, his house, and his people. Why did
he not feel free to disregard or even destroy It ? ** May
his attitude not have been due to the fact that the manner
of the finding of the book convinced him that he was face
to face with a relatively ancient sacred book ?
Whatever, therefore, the date of the book may be,
unless the biblical narrative is entirely disregarded, it must
be admitted that the book had been lost and recovered as
related In 2 Kings 22. Moreover, "there is force In the
argument that it could hardly have been lost during the
early years of Josiah, . . . while this might easily have
happened during the heathen reaction under Manasseh."
No doubt a date In the reign of Manasseh is. in more
perfect accord with the biblical story. "A man of pro
phetic character," says Kittel, "faithful to Yahweh,
stirred by Hezekiah's attempted reform and by Manas
seh's idolatry, wrote the book in the reign of the latter.
The troubles of the time and the hostile disposition of
the king deterred him from publishing it. He had no
wish to risk his own safety and the usefulness of his
work. Hoping for better days, he concealed It In the
temple. The author may not have survived the long
reign of Manasseh, or he would soon have come forward
with his work after Joslah's accession. It appears to
have been thus forgotten and only found by a fortunate
accident In the eighteenth year of Josiah. Hilklah and
Shaphan are thus exculpated from every kind of dls-
ingenuousness." **
The objections raised against the view that Deuter
onomy was written by a contemporary of Josiah do not
hold here. There would be time for the loss of the book
" Compare Jer. 36. 23ff.
"History of the Hebrews, vol. i, p. 64.

THE LAW BOOK OF KING JOSIAH 193
and Its recovery, In accord with the narrative in 2 Kings
22. Moreover, the reign of Manasseh furnished a suit
able occasion : the reactionary policy of the king silenced
the preacher-prophets; hence if they desired to continue
their teaching, they must do so by the use of the pen.
The spirit and contents of the book also would be ac
counted for If it had been written at that time. The
failure of the eighth century prophets to accomplish per
manent results must have led many prophetic souls to
think that, perhaps, their predecessors had gone too far
In their disregard of the forms and institutions that
meant so much to the religious life of the common people.
They concluded that the time to discard these forms had
not yet arrived; It would be better to retain them and
to give them a new and higher significance, in accord
with the spiritual and ethical ideals of the eighth-century
prophets. This new ideal of religion found expression
in the Deuteronomic Code. Deuteronomy, therefore, Is,
in a sense, a compromise, fostered by the prophets,
between the lofty spiritual teaching of the eighth-century
prophets and the Insistence on religious forms and insti
tutions advocated by the priests.
Against this view also some objections have been
urged : ( I ) The expression "the book of the law" Is said
to imply that Hilkiah knew of the previous existence of
a law book, though he did not know Its contents; and
(2) the tone of the entire Deuteronomic legislation is
said to preclude the Idea that it was a private production ;
evidently, it was an official work, meant to regulate the
conduct of the entire people.** (3) It is further sug
gested that, If the book had been written in Manasseh's
reign. It would show traces of the opposition and perse-
" E. Sellin, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, p. 41.

194 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
cution to which the faithful Israelites were then ex
posed.*® It Is thought that these difficulties are removed by
assigning the book to the reign of Hezekiah, and inter
preting It as the basis of Hezekiah's reforms,*® as subse
quently It became the basis of Joslah's reforms. Koenig
believes that it originated among the faithful Yahweh
priests in Jerusalem, under the Influence of the terrible
calamity that fell upon the idolatrous and wicked northern
kingdom In B. C. 722, that it served as the basis of the
reforms of Hezekiah, that It was lost sight of during
the reactionary reign of Manasseh, and was found again
in the reign of Josiah, as described In 2 Kings 22.*''
Sellin finds support for the view that Deuteronomy was
the law book underlying the reforms of Hezekiah in the
ancient Egyptian custom, which is thought by Naville
and others to favor a date during the reign of Solomon.**
From this custom and the statements in Deut. 31. 26 and
I Sam. 10. 25 he draws the Inference that at the time of
the last dedication of the temple in the spirit of the
Mosaic Law — which was the dedication under Hezekiah
— a copy of the law of the sanctuary was placed into
the foundation walls. The copy retained by the priests
was destroyed during the bloody reign of Manasseh.
The only remaining copy was that Ifi the foundation
walls, which was found in the course of the repairs
ordered by Josiah in B. C. 621.
If Deuteronomy is dated before B. C. 700, the ap-

*' G. A. Smith, Critical Review, 1895, pp. 34iff.
¦" Described in 2 Kings 18. 3-5.
"Einleitung in das Alte Testament, pp. 218, 219; Geschichte der
alttestamentlichen Religion, pp. 360, 361.
" See above, p. 187.

THE LAW BOOK OF KING JOSIAH 195
parent disregard of Deut. 18. 6, 7 at the time of Joslah's
reform,*® may be explained as due to a change In condi
tions during the Intervening century. In the eighth cen
tury the worship at the local sanctuaries was, In name at
least, worship of Yahweh, the God of Israel ; hence, when
Deuteronomy was written the priests at the local sanc
tuaries could be treated as priests of the legitimate Yah
weh religion. When, however, during the apostate reign
of Manasseh, all kinds of heathen practices were Intro
duced there. In which the priests participated, the same
consideration could no longer be shown to them.
It does not seem possible to determine exactly and
absolutely the date of Deuteronomy. The choice seems
to lie between the dark days of Manasseh's reign and
the years Immediately preceding the reforms of Heze
kiah. The objections raised against the former date
possess little weight, nor are the arguments In favor of
the latter date conclusive. On the contrary. If Deuter
onomy had been the basis of Hezekiah's reform, it would
be very singular that no appeal was made by him to the
book sanctioning his reforms, as was done a century
later by Josiah. It, surely, is only natural to suppose
that, had the book been In existence, the king would have
sought to reenforce his efforts by such an appeal. On
the whole, therefore. It seems preferable to date the book
subsequently to the reforms of Hezekiah, and to regard
the latter as giving a strong impulse to the movement
which found Its culmination and literary expression in
the Deuteronomic Code.
In either case the author, be he priest or prophet, was
influenced by the lofty ideals of the eighth-century
prophets ; for the spirit of the entire book Is preeminently
" 2 Kings 23. 9.

196 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
prophetic. Service Is ever placed above sacrifice. To
love and to serve Yahweh and one's fellows with all the
heart and soul is its supreme demand. The detailed laws
are presented simply as the means by which this love
may find concrete expression.
The Permanent Significance of Deuteronomy. "Deu
teronomy," says J. E. McFadyen, "Is one of the epoch-
making books of the world." ®" Does it lose this position
if it can be shown that It is not the work of Moses but of
a prophetic mind in the eighth or seventh century B. C. ?
The claim has been made that If the book was not written
by Moses, it is nothing but a forgery, because the author
sought recognition and authority for his book by hiding
behind the name of Moses ; and that a book thus palmed
off does not deserve the respect and confidence of intel
ligent people. In this connection It may be well to
remember that the value and significance of a book does
not depend upon Its authorship or literary history, but
upon Its Inherent quality. It Is not difficult, therefore, to
imagine that a book the author of which seeks to secure
recognition for It by hiding behind the name of another
man might contain teaching of the greatest spiritual and
ethical value.
In the case of Deuteronomy, however. It Is well to
bear In mind, that the book never claims to have been
written by Moses; the only claim it makes is that it
contains the parting message of the great leader, which
Is something entirely different. The author seems to keep
himself distinct from Moses; he introduces the latter as
speaking and purports to give the contents of his farewell
address. In other words, the author adopts a well-known
ancient literary custom, followed again and again In the
"Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 51.

THE LAW BOOK OF KING JOSIAH 197
historical books of the Old Testament, especially In Kings
and Chronicles, and by extra-biblical writers, namely, the
custom of placing In the mouths of their heroes utter
ances which, the authors believe, their characters might
have uttered at a particular time or under particular cir
cumstances. Thucydides, a very cautious and painstaking
historian of antiquity, describes the principle adopted by
himself in these words : "As to the various speeches made
on the eve of the war or in its course, I have found It
difficult to retain a memory of the precise words which I
heard spoken; and so It was with those who brought me
reports. But I have made the persons say what it seemed
to me most opportune for them to say in view of each
situation; at the same time I have adhered as closely as
possible to the general sense of what was actually said." ®'
From this admission it would seem that among the
ancients "the conditions of historical veracity were satis
fied if the speech represented the spirit of the speaker."
If, then, the author of Deuteronomy reproduced the spirit
and Ideals of Moses, he observed principles of literary
composition recognized as perfectly sound and legitimate
in his own day.
That Deuteronomy is true to the spirit and ideals of
Moses no serious reader can doubt. The laws of Deuter
onomy are not the author's invention; three fourths of
them are reproduced from earlier legislation; the others
represent an attempt to apply the principles embodied In
the older laws to the needs and conditions of the author's
age. These principles, in the last analysis, go back to the
first great prophet of Israel, Moses;®* hence the charge
of fraud and forgery Is entirely unwarranted. Deuter-
"¦ 1, 22.
•' See above, p. 90.

198 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
onomy, therefore, Is rightly described as "the prophetic
reformulation, and adaptation to new needs, of an older
legislation," in the spirit of Moses and upon principles
laid down by him. Moreover, there may have been a
tradition In Israel, oral or written, of a final legislative
address delivered by Moses before his death ; upon which
traditional basis the author may have developed the
Deuteronomic Code.
The conclusion of the whole matter Is admirably stated
by Driver in these suggestive words: "The bulk of the
laws contained In Deuteronomy Is undoubtedly far more
ancient than the time of the author himself : and In deal
ing with them as he has done, in combining them Into a
manual for the guidance of the people and providing them
with hortatory Introductions and comments, conceived in
the spirit of Moses himself, he cannot ... be held to
be guilty of dishonesty or literary fraud. There Is
nothing in Deuteronomy Implying any interested or dis
honest motive on the part of the (post-Mosaic) author:
and this being so, its moral and spiritual greatness re
mains unimpaired ; Its Inspired authorship is in no respect
less than that of any other part of the Old Testament
Scriptures which happens to be anonymous." ®*

"Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, p. 91.

CHAPTER XIII
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF THE
PENTATEUCHAL DOCUMENTS
I. The Historical Situation Reflected

CHAPTER XIII
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF THE
PENTATEUCHAL DOCUMENTS
I. The Historical Situation Reflected
Several times in the preceding chapters dates have
been suggested for the documents used in the composition
of the Pentateuch, but no evidence in support of these
suggestions has as yet been presented. In this chapter
and in the chapters immediately following this lack Is
supplied : the attempt Is made to determine the chrono
logical order of the Pentateuchal documents, to fix, as
nearly as possible, their dates, and to trace the process of
compilation, culminating in the completed Pentateuch.
As In the preceding discussions, the evidence may be
presented in the form of a cumulative argument, which
does not form "a chain which Is worthless if one link
Is broken," but is, rather, "like an array of pillars sup
porting a roof — the roof will stand, even though some
of the pillars are weak or rotten": i. The historical
situation reflected In the documents. 2. The relation of
the Pentateuchal documents to other Old Testament writ
ings. 3. Peculiarities of vocabulary and style. 4. The
mutual relation of the Pentateuchal documents.'

'This outline, but not the discussion, is taken in substance from
W. H. Bennett and W. E. Adeney, A Biblical Introduction, pp. 33ff.
Though the arrangement may necessitate some repetition, it makes
possible a logical discussion, and for that reason is here adopted,
201

202 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
The argument based upon the historical situation
reflected In the Pentateuchal documents may be considered
first. The Book of the Covenant* was at one time a part
of the combined JE, and probably, before the combina
tion was made, of the document E. If, therefore, the
date of the Book of the Covenant can be fixed, the earliest
possible date of the combination of J and E, or even the
earliest possible date of E can be determined.
The biblical record assigns the Book of the Covenant
to the period spent by Israel before Mount Sinai,* but
internal evidence seems to point to a later date :
I. The laws In the Code are addressed not to nomads
dwelling In tents but to agriculturists living in houses;
the people are spoken of as having fields and vineyards
and standing grain; mention Is made of their fruits and
the outflow of their presses; regulations are given con
cerning the tilling of the soil, and the observance of the
agricultural feasts of harvest and of ingathering is pre
scribed.* Thus it would seem that the conditions reflected
presuppose at least the conquest, and that the code did not
originate prior to the age of the Judges; and there are
many scholars who believe that the state of society pre
supposed Is more orderly than, judging from statements
In the book of Judges, It was during that age ; hence they
prefer to assign it to the period of the early monarchy.
This does not Involve a denial of the presence of earlier
elements ; on the contrary, the Book of the Covenant may
be described as a collection of Mosaic decisions, modified
and expanded to meet the needs of the people subse
quently to the settlement in Canaan.

' Exod. 20. 22 to 23. 33.
' Exod. 20. 18.
* Exod. 22. 5, 6, z^ ; 2^. ipff. ; 16, etc.

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 203
2. The Book of the Covenant recognizes and sanctions
the multiplicity of altars and sanctuaries. The command
in Exodus 20. 24 provides for the building of altars and
the offering of sacrifice "in every place where I record
my name." The reference seems to be to localities like
Bethel,® Beersheba,® Gllgal,'" and others that were conse
crated by the appearance of Yahweh to the patriarchs or
to the people during their early history. Moreover, there
are some regulations which could not be carried out
unless sanctuaries were scattered throughout the land.*
These regulations reflect not only the practices of the
patriarchs but also the conditions prevailing, according
to the biblical records themselves, during the period of
the Judges and of the early kings. Thus, during the
period of the Judges sacrifices were offered at Shiloh,®
Bochim,'" and Bethel;" Samuel offered sacrifice at
Ramah'* and at Mizpah;'* other places of sacrifice In
his day were a city In the land of Zuph'* and Gilgal.'®
Saul offered a burnt-offering at Gilgal'® and built an
altar at Aijalon;''^ and during the period of the United
Kingdom sacrifice Is said to have been offered at Beth
lehem,'* Hebron,'® and Gibeon.*" Even after the com
pletion of the temple, sacrifices continued to be offered in
places outside of Jerusalem. Elijah repaired an altar of
Yahweh on Mount Carmel,*' and he makes complaint

' Gen. 28. 16-19. " I Sam. 9. 12.
"Gen. 21.33. "i Sam. 11. 15.
' Josh. 4. 20-24. " I Sam. 13. 9.
' For example, Exod. 21. 13, 14. " i Sam. 14. 35.
•Judg. 21. 19; I Sam. i. 4. " i Sam. 20. 28, 29.
"Judg. 2. S. "2Sam. 15. 7.
" Judg. 20. 26. *¦ I Kings 3. 4.
" I Sam. 7. 17. " I Kings 18. 30.
" I Sam. 7. 9.

204 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
that "the people of Israel have thrown down the altars of
Jehovah." ** Even some of the pious kings, who are
said to have done that which was right In the sight of
Yahweh, made no effort to abolish the "high places," **
and the prophets Amos and Hosea attacked the local
sanctuaries only because the Yahweh worship practiced
there had become so mixed with Canaanite elements that
in reality it was nothing more than the worship of local
Baals. Down toward the close of the eighth century
there seems to have been no serious attempt at limiting
the public worship of Yahweh to one place, though the
eighth-century prophets began to notice conditions at the
local sanctuaries which ultimately might lead to their
abolition. 3. The Book of the Covenant knows no elaborate
ritual or official priesthood. This again reflects conditions
during the earlier periods of Hebrew history. During
the period of the Judges and of the early monarchy the
offering of sacrifice was not confined to the priests. The
heads of families were permitted to offer sacrifice;**
Gideon brought a burnt-offering at the command of
Yahweh,*® and the same was done by king Saul*® and
king Solomon.*'' Neither Samuel, a prophet,** nor
Elijah, another prophet,*® appears to have been acquainted
with any provision limiting the offering of sacrifice to

" I Kings 19. 14.
"Joash, 2 Kings 12. 2, 3; Amaziah, 14. 3, 4; Uzziah, 15. 3, 4;
Jotham, 15. 34, 35.
"Manoah, Judg. 13. 19; Jesse, i Sam. 20. 29.
"Judg. 6. 26, 27.
" I Sam. 14. 33.
" I Kings 3. 4.
" I Sam. 7. 17.
" I Kings 18. 30ff.

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 205
priests of the tribe of Levi. Moreover, during these
early centuries the ritual seems to have been the simplest
Imaginable. On the other hand, by the middle of the
eighth century it had become so complex and was so
overemphasized by priests and people that the prophets
felt Impelled to protest against the prevailing formalism.*"
All the available evidence goes to show that the period
preceding the seventh century offers the most suitable
background for the Book of the Covenant, and that it
must have been written before B. C. 700. But from the
attitude of the eighth-century prophets toward the local
sanctuaries it may further be inferred that a law sanction
ing these could not have been formulated among the
religious leaders of their day. The latest possible date,
therefore, for the Book of the Covenant would be B. C.
750. In all probability, however. It belongs to a much
earlier age. There Is, indeed, nothing In the laws It
contains which would make It Impossible to assign the
code, aside from minor modifications, to the age of the
Judges; and In all essentials it may go back to Mosaic
decisions, which were adapted to later conditions and,
when collected and codified, served as a legal guide until
its place was taken by a more advanced code of laws.
The historical documents J and E, of which the Book
of the Covenant at one time formed a part, were written
from the standpoint of the same early age; hence they
too must be placed earlier than B. C. 750.
A different situation Is presupposed In D. As has been
stated in another connection,*' two characteristic points
In the legislation of D are : ( i ) the limitation of public
worship to a single sanctuary, which thus becomes the
""Amos S. 21-23; Isa. i. 10-15, etc.
"See above, pp. 159. i6o.

2o6 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
only legitimate dwelling place of Yahweh; (2) the limi
tation of the priesthood to the tribe of Levi, with the
recognition of the right of every Levite to become a
priest. The practice In Israel prior to B. C. 750 Is not In accord
with these provisions; even the eighth-century prophets
seem to have been unconscious of their existence. But
Amos,** Hosea,** and Micah** attacked the high places
because of the immorality and superstition connected with
the worship there. Perhaps as a result of prophetic
teaching,*® Hezekiah made an attempt, toward the close
of the century, to purify the worship in the temple and
to break down the high places.*® Moreover, Isaiah's
Insistence on the inviolability of Zion and the consequent
deliverance of Jerusalem from the attack of Senna
cherib,*'' greatly increased the prestige of the temple.
Thus from the middle of the eighth century on there
came to be an evergrowing conviction, on the one hand,
that the worship of Yahweh at the local sanctuaries was
proving a hindrance to pure religion and, on the other,
that Yahweh was taking a special interest in the temple
on Mount Zion, where the worship may have been purer
than at the local shrines.
This conviction found expression In the legislation of
D, which made its first public appearance in B. C. 621,
when it served as the basis of Joslah's reforms.** With
the northern kingdom gone, the centralization of worship

" Amos 4. 4, 5.
" Hos. 10. 8.
'*Mic. 1.5,6.
"Jer. 26. 18, 19.
"2 Kings 18. 3-5.
"2 Kings 19. 20-37; Isa. 37. 2-38.
" See above, pp. i8iff.

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 207
could be carried out much more easily than would have
been possible a century before. The background reflected
In D, therefore, is the religious movement inspired by
the eighth-century prophets and culminating in the re
forms instituted by King Josiah.
In D the centralization of worship is insisted upon as
something to be reached but not yet attained ; in P it is
presupposed as a universally accepted principle of Yahweh
worship. This would seem to point to a later date for P.
The reforms of Josiah were short-lived; his successors
reverted to the religious practices of Manasseh,*® and
their political blunders led to the downfall of the southern
kingdom in B. C. 586. Many of the Jews who were
carried into exile apostatized; those who remained loyal
to the religion of their fathers returned to their former
home as soon as opportunity offered. The returned exiles
settled In or near Jerusalem, where they, with the Jews
who had been left behind, worshiped on the mountain
of Yahweh, so dear to former generations, which hence
forth was the only sanctuary recognized by the Jewish
community. This postexilic ideal is reflected through
out P.
Other distinctive features of P are the limitation of
the priesthood to the house of Aaron,*" the assignment
of the menial tasks of the sanctuary to the non-Aaronic
Levites,*' and the establishment of the high priesthood.**
There is no trace of any distinction between priests and
Levites In D;** nor Is such distinction suggested In the

"2 Kings 23. 32ff.
*° Num. 18. 1-7.
" Num. 3. 3-10.
'^Exod. 28; 29. 1-9; Lev. 21. 10-15, etc.
" 18. I ; 24. 8, etc.

2o8 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
narrative of Joslah's reforms;** nor Is It recognized by
the contemporary prophet Jeremiah,*® nor in any other
preexilic document.
The first to make a distinction between the priests and
other Levites Is the priest-prophet Ezekiel, during the
exile. In chapter 44 he lays down regulations concerning
the new temple and Its services. From verse 7 It would
seem that the menial tasks of the sanctuary had been
allowed to fall into the hands of foreigners, which prac
tice, the prophet declares, is an abomination to Yahweh,
and must be discontinued : "No foreigner, uncircumcised
In heart and uncircumcised In flesh, shall enter into my
sanctuary, of any foreigners that are among the children
of Israel." *® This is followed by regulations regarding
the practice of the future : "But the Levites that went far
from me, when Israel went astray, that went astray from
me after their Idols, they shall bear their iniquity. Yet
they shall 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 shall stand before them to minister
unto them. Because they ministered unto them before
their Idols, and became a stumbling-block of iniquity unto
the house of Israel; therefore have I lifted up my hand
against them, saith the Lord Jehovah, and they shall bear
their iniquity. And they shall not come near unto me,
to execute 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 shall bear their shame, and their abomina
tions which they have committed. Yet will I make them
" 2 Kings 23.
"He uses the expression "the priests the Levites," or "the
Levites the priests," 33. 18, 21, etc.
" Ezek. 44. 9.

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 209
keepers of the charge of the house, for all the service
thereof, and for all that shall be done therein. But the
priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the
charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went
astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister
unto me ; and they shall stand before me to offer unto me
the fat and the blood, saith the Lord Jehovah : they shall
enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my
table, to minister unto me, and they shall keep my
charge." *''
This passage agrees with P in making a definite dis
tinction between the priests and other Levites ;** it differs
from P In admitting to the priesthood only the sons of
Zadok, while P recognizes all the sons of Aaron as
priests.*® This fundamental difference, taken with the
whole tenor of the Ezekiel passage, makes it evident that
Ezekiel did not know the provisions of Num. 18. 1-7 and
similar passages in P. Ignorance of such a law — If It
had been In existence — on the part of a member of the
priesthood would be Inexplicable; hence it may be quite
safe to infer from the nature of Ezekiel's legislation that
the law embodied in P did not exist in his day, and that
his provision marks a step In advance of D in the direc
tion of P.
The significance of the Ezekiel passage is fairly stated
by Driver In these words : "It seems to follow Incontro-
vertibly that the Levites generally had heretofore (in
direct conflict with the provisions of P) enjoyed priestly

"Ezek. 44. 10-16.
^'Compare Num. l8. 1-7.
"Compare Ezek. 44. 15 with Num. 18. i, 7; 3- 1°, etc. The sons
of Zadok had been priests in Jerusalem since the days of Solomon,
I Kings 4. 2, 4.

210 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
rights (verse 13) : for the future, however, such as had
participated In the Idolatrous worship of the high places
are to be deprived of these rights, and condemned to
perform the menial offices which had hitherto been per
formed by foreigners (verses 10, 11, 14); only those
Levites who had been faithful in their loyalty to Yahweh,
namely, the sons of Zadok, are henceforth to retain
priestly privileges (verses 15, 16). Had the Levites not
enjoyed such rights, the prohibition In verse 13 would be
superfluous. The supposition that they may have merely
usurped them, is inconsistent with the passage as a whole,
which charges the Levites, not with usurping rights
which they did not possess, but with abusing rights which
they did possess. If Ezekiel, then, treats the Levites
generally as qualified to act as priests, and degrades them
to a menial rank, without so much as a hint that this
degradation was but the restoration of a status quo fixed
by Immemorial Mosaic custom, could he have been ac
quainted with the legislation of P ?" ®"
Naturally, the legislation of Ezekiel did not appeal to
the Levites. And If their assignment to a subordinate
position was a recent innovation, It is easy to understand
why at the time of the first return over four thousand
priests returned from Babylon to Jerusalem, but only
seventy-four Levites,®' and why at a later time Ezra
experienced great difficulty in inducing Levites to accom
pany him.®*
A postexilic date would explain the prominence given
to the high priest In the legislation of P. The Jewish
community was without kings from B. C. 586 to the age
'"Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, pp. 139, 140.
" Ezra 2. 36-40.
" Ezra 8. 15-20.

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 211
of the Maccabees in the second century. Moreover, the
Interests of the postexilic community were almost ex
clusively religious or ecclesiastical; hence it was only
natural that the supreme authority should come to center
in the person of the ecclesiastical head — ^the high priest.
To the same period point other considerations : According
to Neh. 8. 18 the Feast of Tabernacles was kept for
eight days, as Is prescribed In P,®* as against the seven
days of D ;®* according to Neh. 10. 37, 38 the people paid
tithes to the Levites, and the Levites to the priests, fol
lowing the legislation of P,®® but not of D.®® In all these
and other matters the historical situation reflected In P
Is later than that presupposed in D or even In Ezekiel ; on
the other hand. It must be earlier than Ezra-Nehemiah,
for P seems to underlie at least some of the reforms
advocated by them.
The whole situation as it relates to the historical back
ground reflected in the several Pentateuchal documents
may be summed up in these words: "The legislation of
JE Is In harmony with, and. In fact, sanctions, the practice
of the period of the Judges and of the early Kings, with
its relative freedom, for instance, as to the place of
sacrifice and the persons authorized to offer It; during
which, moreover, a simple ritual appears to have pre
vailed, an.d the Ark was guarded, till it was transferred
by Solomon to the temple, by a small band of attendants,
in a modest structure, quite in accordance with the repre
sentation of JE. The legislation of D harmonizes with
the reforming tendencies of the age In which It was pro-

" Lev. 23. 39.
'*Deut. 16. 13-15.
"Num. 18. 21-26.
"Deut. 14. 22-29; 26. 12-15.

212 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
mulgated, and sanctions the practice of the age that imme
diately followed: it inculcates a centralized worship, In
agreement with a movement arising naturally out of the
existence of the temple at Jerusalem, strengthened, no
doubt, by the fall of the northern kingdom, and enforced
practically by Josiah ; its attitude toward the high places
determines that of the compiler of Kings, who wrote In
the closing years of the monarchy; It contains regulations
touching other matters (for example, the worship of the
"host of heaven") which assumed prominence at the same
time; the revenues and functions of the priests are more
closely defined than In JE, but the priesthood Is still open
to every member of the tribe of Levi. The legislation of
P is In harmony with the spirit which shows itself In
Ezekiel, and sanctions the practice of the period beginning
with the return from Babylon; and the principles to
which P gives expression appear (at a later date) in a
still more developed form, as forming the standard by
which the Chronicler consistently judges the earlier his
tory. The position into which the legislation of P appears
to fall is thus intermediate between Deut. and the
Chronicler." ®^

" S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testa
ment, pp. 138, 139.

CHAPTER XIV
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF THE
PENTATEUCHAL DOCUMENTS
Theological Standpoint; Literary Parallels;
Vocabulary and Style; Mutual Relation

CHAPTER XIV
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF THE
PENTATEUCHAL DOCUMENTS
2. Theological Standpoint; Literary Parallels;
Vocabulary and Style; Mutual Relation
I. The Theological Standpoint Expressed or Implied
in the Pentateuchal Documents. The theological differ
ences discoverable in different parts of the Pentateuch
have been considered In an earlier chapter.^ Do they
throw any light on the chronological order of the prin
cipal Pentateuchal documents ? No doubt there are diffi
culties In the way of using this kind of evidence : ( i ) The
successive stages in the development of Hebrew theology
are not easily determined, because It seems to have de
veloped not along a straight line but In zigzag fashion;
hence the time when a theological idea first became a part
of the thought life of the Hebrews cannot always be
fixed. (2) Chronological landmarks are more difficult
to find in the case of doctrines than In the more concrete
matters of the sanctuary and the priesthood. (3) In the
study of the development of doctrine it Is necessary to
reckon with the unusual spirits, men In advance of their
age, who may see, accept, and formulate a truth long
before any considerable number of people become familiar
with It.

' Chapter X. 21. S

2i6 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
But even when making every allowance for these diffi
culties, the student will soon find that the facts presented
in Chapter X and others of a similar nature reveal a
definite chronological development in the theological
thinking of the Hebrews, which makes It possible to
arrange the documents giving expression to these dif
ferent ideas In chronological order. ^Without going into
details, attention may be called, by way of Illustration, to
the differences In the conception of Deity.* No doubt
all popular representations of Deity are more or less
anthropomorphic, but It requires no expert training to
see that the anthropomorphisms of J and, to a less degree,
of E are much more numerous and pronounced than
those of P. The conception reflected In J and E is the
more primitive; and a comparison with the teaching of
the eighth-century prophets shows that It Is earlier than
their day.
On the other hand, D presupposes the activity and
teaching of these prophets. Their attacks upon the cor
rupt Yahweh worship at the local sanctuaries contributed
much toward the formulation of the law of a single,
central sanctuary; but It affected theological thinking In
an even more fundamental manner, which shows Itself In
D's Insistence upon the unity and uniqueness of Yahweh :
"Hear, O Israel : Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." *
This Idea Is the sequel of the prophetic teaching in the
eighth century, and. In turn, prepares the way for the
theological arguments In Isa. 40-55.
A further advance In the conception of Deity Is seen
In P. For example, the transcendence of God above
nature Is conspicuous throughout the entire P narrative
'For details see Chapter X.
•Deut. 6. 4,

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 217
of creation ;* there are no anthropomorphisms as In the J
narrative;® God does his work, so to speak, from the
distance. The elaborate system of minute, external re
ligious observances, which is a part of P, also points to a
late date. True, early ritual is often elaborate, but there
are passages in the Old Testament which show that this
was not so In early Israel.® On the other hand, there Is
abundant evidence In the post-exilic writings to show
that after the exile all the religious leaders, Including the
prophets, laid great stress on ritual and external form.
2. The Relation of the Pentateuchal Documents to
Other Old Testament Writings. Arguments based upon
alleged literary parallels must be used with a great deal of
caution and discrimination, otherwise the conclusions
reached may be found to rest upon rather insecure foun
dations :
(i) The occurrence of the same or similar ex
pressions in two documents does not necessarily prove
dependence of one upon the other. Only characteristic
features may be used as evidence. Thus the statement
In Neh. 8. 18, that eight days were given to the observance
of the Feast of Tabernacles "according unto the ordi
nance," may legitimately be used to prove that P was
known and recognized as authoritative In the days of
Nehemiah, because the law prescribing an eight-day
feast Is characteristic of P,'' and is not in accord with the
earlier practice.* On the other hand, the reasoning of
Hommel is faulty when he writes: "From a single In-

* Gen. I. I to 2. 4a.
' Gen. 2. 4b-25.
' For example, Amos 5. 25 ; Jer. 7. 22, 23, etc
¦' Lev. 23. 39.
'Deut. 16. 13-15.

2i8 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
stance, namely, the passage In Deut. 28. 68, I am able to
prove that Deuteronomy must have been known to the
prophets at least as early as 740. In this verse there Is a
threat that 'the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again
with ships.' This passage Is twice quoted by Hosea
(8. 13 and 9. 3). . . . The only possible deduction from
this Is that Deuteronomy must have been In existence at
least long before Hosea." ® The passages in Hosea read :
"They shall return to Egypt," and, "Ephralm shall return
to Egypt." Neither thought nor language Is exactly the
same as In Deuteronomy; and the occurrence of these
words In Hosea proves nothing as to the date of
Deuteronomy. (2) Modern scholars do not claim, as seems to be
erroneously assumed by some, that the contents of the
Pentateuchal documents were invented by the authors of
these documents, or that the laws embodied In them or
the institutions mentioned by them were created at the
time the documents were written. On the contrary. It
is universally admitted that some of the traditions which
form a part of the narrative sections may have been
handed down from an early age and that some of the laws
and Institutions may go back to very early days. ^ Only
the exact form and the historical and literary setting are
assigned to later periods. This being the case, a refer
ence in early literature to institutions or practices which
occupy a prominent place in an alleged late document
may establish an early date for these Institutions, without
throwing any light whatsoever on the date of the docu
ment To illustrate: Amos 5. 21-23 and Isa. i. 10-15
presuppose the practice of an elaborate ritual and of a

" F. Hommel, Ancient Hebrew Tradition, pp. 10, 11.

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 219
very complete system of sacrifices. The same sacrifices
play a prominent role In P.'" From this It has been
inferred that the eighth-century prophets knew the entire
Pentateuch." But this Inference Is not warranted. No
doubt the eighth-century prophets knew certain sacrifices
and rites that are frequently mentioned and prescribed In
some parts of the Pentateuch, and this familiarity may
prove that these rites and sacrifices were known and
practiced In Israel as early as the eighth century, or even
earlier; but from this admission no legitimate inference
can be drawn regarding the date of the Pentateuch, or
of any part of the same.
(3) In some cases In which the similarities between
two documents are striking enough to Imply literary
dependence of some sort It is exceedingly difficult to
prove which of the two Is the borrower. For instance,
the resemblances between Ezekiel and Lev. 26. 3ff. are
so numerous and so striking that it Is quite generally
agreed that there Is some kind of literary dependence.
Nevertheless, after years of discussion, scholars are not
yet agreed as to what is the exact nature of the relation
and whether the priority lies with Ezekiel or with Lev.
26. 3ff.'*
(4) If a literary work Is a compilation from several
sources, a literary parallel to material taken from one of
these sources affords no evidence as to the dates of the
other sources. If, for example, there should be refer
ences In Amos or Hosea to Incidents recorded In J or E,
these might prove that J or E was in existence at that

" See, for example. Lev. 1-7.
" W. H. Green, The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, pp. S4ff.
" See Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testa
ment, p. 147.

220 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
time, but nothing could be Inferred as to the date of
D or P.
(5) If a writing shows numerous parallels to a body
of literature that is known to belong to a certain period,
it may be legitimate to conclude that it belongs to the
same general period, even though mathematical demon
stration may not be possible. Thus the numerous simi
larities between the prophecies of Ezekiel and the Law
of Holiness'* may be used as evidence to prove that the
latter, In its final form, was written during the early years
of the exile.
With these cautions In mind, the alleged literary paral
lels between the Pentateuchal documents and other Old
Testament literature may be considered for the purpose
of determining. If possible, the chronological order of
these documents. The books of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah,
and Micah, whatever additions they may have received
at later times, undoubtedly contain material coming from
the eighth century. Now, because these early portions
show points of contact with J and E, the claim has been
made that the prophets named were familiar with the
Pentateuch In Its present form.'* This Inference Is un
warranted. All that may, perhaps, be Inferred is that
they knew J and E, because all the points of contact
discoverable are with these documents; there are none
with D and P. But even this much is not necessarily
implied in the prophetic references; It cannot be proved

"Lev. 17-26.
"Amos refers to the law concerning pledges (2. 8; compare
Exod. 22. 26) ; Hosea to Jacob's wrestling with the angel (12. 2-6;
compare Gen. 32. 22-32) ; Amos and Isaiah to the overthrow of
Sodom and Gomorrah (Amos -4. 11; Isa. I. 9; compare Gen. 19);
Micah to the land of Nimrod (5. 6; compare Gen. 10. 8, 9) and to
the story of Balak and Balaam (6. 5; compare Num. 22-24), etc.

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 221
that any part of the Pentateuch was known to them in
written form; all the facts would receive a satisfactory
explanation on the assumption that much of the material,
historical and legal, now found in the Pentateuch was
common property — but not necessarily in written form — i
of the people in the eighth century B. C. At the same
time It may safely be assumed that literary documents
were In existence In Israel at -that time; If so, there Is
nothing to militate against the further assumption that
the prophets were familiar with them. But if they knew
any of the documents which now form a part of the
Pentateuch, they must have been J and E; there is not
the slightest indication that they knew D or P. If these
facts mean anything, It Is that J and E are earlier and
D and P later than the eighth-century prophets.
The literature that originated prior to the reform
movement of Josiah reveals no knowledge of D ; on the
other hand, the books written subsequently, especially
during the closing years of the monarchy and during the
Babylonian exile, give evidence of its influence on almost
every page. The language and style of Jeremiah show
such close resemblances to D that Colenso reached the
conclusion that Jeremiah was the author of D. Though
this opinion has found no favor with modern scholars,
the similarities are so striking that on this ground alone
the two books might be assigned to the same general
period.'® The editor of the book of Kings, who was
active at this time, wrote from the point of view of D;
he assumed throughout that the temple in Jerusalem Is

" It may be noted, for instance, that the phrase "the priests, the
Levites," which is not found in earlier literature, is characteristic
of both.

222 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
the only legitimate sanctuary. Even in the postexihc age
the Influence of D was felt.'®
P has affinities with the earlier and Influences the later
postexilic literature. H — the Law of Holiness — which
is embodied In P, is even more closely connected with
Ezekiel than Is D with Jeremiah;''' and the resemblances
between the two are so great that Graf, Colenso, Kayser,
and others ascribed the code to Ezekiel, either as Its
collector or Its redactor. At any rate, Ezekiel shows an
intimate acquaintance with It, and in Its final form It
may well have come from the same priestly circles to
which the prophet belonged ; which would make it several
decades later than D.
That P is later than D is suggested by the fact that
Deut. II. 6 evidently was written without regard for the
story in Num. i6. iff., which is a part of P; the latter
names Korah, Dathan, and Ablram as participants in the
rebellion against Moses and Aaron; the former seems
to know only Dathan and Ablram. The distinction be
tween the priests and Levites, which is characteristic of
P, cannot be separated from Ezek. 44. 10-15; but the
manner In which the distinction is referred to in P —
Ezekiel considers the menial functions a degradation, P a
long-established privilege — makes It probable that a con
siderable interval separates P from Ezekiel — evidently
P Is later than Ezekiel. Neh. 8. 18; 10. 37, 38 reveal
the influence of P, and the Chronicler seems to have
known not only P, but the Pentateuch In completed form.
The literary parallels, therefore, would place the origin

"Neh. I. 5ff.; Dan. 9.
"Compare Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old
Testament, p. 145.

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 223
of P between Ezekiel and Chronicles, not later than the
middle of the fifth century B. C*
3. Peculiarities of Vocabulary and Style. The linguistic
evidence has been used both to prove'® and to disprove*"
the traditional views of the origin of the Pentateuch.
As a matter of fact, standing by Itself the linguistic argu
ment is rarely decisive; in most cases it can be appealed
to only as corroborating a position justified by other
considerations. Regarding the use of the argument made
by Keil and other defenders of the traditional view. It
may be said that the Impressive lists of expressions col
lected by them are by no means conclusive, for the simple
reason that there Is no proof of the antiquity of the words
and phrases other than the assumption that the books in
which they occur were written at an early date.
That the linguistic characteristics of different sections
of the Pentateuch suggest diversity of authorship has
been pointed out in another connection;*' but It Is quite
Impossible to determine from these characteristics the
dates of the several documents. This is especially true of
J and E which, as the earliest Hebrew documents of any
length In existence, cannot be judged by other literature.
However, the general history of the Hebrew language
shows that the vocabulary of these documents fits the
period to which they are assigned for other reasons. In
the case of the other documents external criteria are
furnished by writings whose dates are fixed. Thus the
resemblances between D and Jeremiah, while not proving
"It must be remembered, however, that this refers only to the
final literary form; the writer embodied much material, both his
torical and legal, that had been handed down from earlier days.
"See above, p. ii7-
*" See above, pp. 162-164.
" See above, pp. 164, 165.

224 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
that D was written In the age of Jeremiah, certainly do
not prohibit Its assignment to that period. In the same
way, the linguistic resemblances between P and books that
are known to be exilic or postexilic, while not sufficiently
numerous to establish an exilic or postexilic date for P,
at least prove that an exilic or postexilic date Is in perfect
accord with the linguistic peculiarities of that document.
Turning now to the matter of style, there are enough
differences between tbe narrative portions of J and E on
the one hand, and of P on the other, to warrant the
assertion that J and E are earlier than P.** "In JE," says
Driver, "the patriarchs are men of flesh and blood; the
incidents of their history arise naturally out of their ante
cedents, and the character of the circumstances in which
they are placed. Moreover, in the topics dwelt upon, such
as the rivalries of Jacob and Esau, and of Laban and
Jacob, or the connection of the patriarchs with places
famed in later days as sanctuaries, the interests of the
narrator's own age are reflected ; In P we have a skeleton
from which such touches of life and nature are absent,
an outline in which legislative, statistical, chronological
elements are the sole conspicuous feature. There Is also a
tendency to treat the history theoretically, which Is Itself
the mark of a later age." **
4. The Mutual Relation of the Pentateuchal Docu
ments. A study of the mutual relation of the Penta
teuchal documents, or of provisions contained in them,
confirms the conclusions stated In the preceding para
graphs, namely, that J and E are earlier than D, and D
" Compare, for example, the genealogies in Gen. 4 (J) with those
in Gen. S (P) ; the former gives them in a fresh and lifelike form;
the latter has removed all imaginative coloring, leaving nothing but
a bare list of names.
"Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, p. 141.

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 225
earlier than P. Support. for this assertion may be found,
for instance, In the development of the ceremonial law,
as reflected in the several documents : J and E take little
interest In ritual ;** more attention is given to it In D ;*®
H*® lays still more stress on ceremonial requirements;
and the ritual and ceremonial are almost the sole interest
of the legal sections of P.*''
The laws regarding the priesthood pass through similar
stages of development : According to J and E any Israelite
may perform priestly functions ;** D limits the priesthood
to the tribe of Levi;*® the Levites are not named in H,
the priests are the sons of Aaron,*" and the high priest
appears for the first time in Hebrew law.*'^ In P a sharp
distinction is drawn between the priests, the sons of
Aaron and the Levites,** and the exceptional sanctity and
authority of the high priest receive elaboration.**
A similar gradual advance may be noted In the provi
sions for the support of the priesthood and of the sanc
tuary. The Book of the Covenant, embodied In JE,
provides for the presentation of first-fruits and first
lings,** and E makes mention of tithes. In connection
with Bethel.*® D gives more detailed Instruction regard-
" See above, p. 204.
" See above, p. 206.
"Lev. 17-26; earlier than P, and embodied in P, see below,
pp. 287ff.
"See above, p. 158.
" See above, p. 145.
" See above, p. 145.
" Lev. 21, 22.
" Lev. 21. 10. Undoubtedly, even before this time the priesthood
at the temple in Jerusalem and other sanctuaries had, as a practical
arrangement, a head or chief; but from now on the high-priesthood
appears as a divinely ordained institution of special sanctity.
"See above, p. 146. '*Exod. 22. 29-30.
"Exod. 28; 29. 1-9, etc. "Gen. 28. 22.

226 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
Ing tithes: it recognizes an annual tithe to be spent in
sacrificing and feasting at the central sanctuary, and a
triennial tithe to be given to the Levites and to the needy
in the community.*® The legislation of P is much more
complete and complex : It orders every individual twenty
years of age and older to pay to the sanctuary half a
shekel; moreover, the people are to pay tithes to the
Levites, and in turn the Levites are to pay tithes on their
Income to the priests; in addition, thirty-five cities are
assigned to the Levites and thirteen to the priests; and
further provision is made for priests and sanctuary by
ordering the presentation of firstfruits and firstlings, and
by allowing the priests to take considerable portions of the
offerings and sacrifices brought to the sanctuary.*^
The same chronological order of the documents is
suggested by the regulations regarding the slaughter of
animals for food or for sacrifice : According to J and E,
animals may be slaughtered and offered In various
places ;** according to D they may b^ killed anywhere,*®
but sacrifice may be offered only at the central sanctuary.*"
Similarly, in the course of the centuries feast days became
more numerous, the rituals provided for them became
more complex and more clearly defined, and in some
Instances they were observed for a longer time.*'

"Deut. 14. 22-29; 26. 12-15.
"Exod. 30. 11-16; Lev. 7; 27; Num. 15; 18; 35; Josh. 21, etc.
" Exod. 20. 24.
"Deut. 12. IS.
"Deut. 12. 5-7.
"For the earliest legislation see Exod. 23. 14-17; 34. 22-24; for D,
Deut. 16. 1-17; for P (H), Lev. 23; note especially that while D
directs that the Feast of Tabernacles shall be observed seven days,
P adds an eighth day (Num. 29. 35) ; P also adds the Feast of
Trumpets and the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23).

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 227
Thus far attention has been given only to the evidence
furnished by the legal codes, and only a few Illustrations
have been cited. These might be greatly multiplied, but
the results would remain the same: the Book of the
Covenant Is clearly the most primitive code and served as
the basis of the Deuteronomic legislation; D, on the other
hand, shows no acquaintance with P** and seems to mark
an intermediate stage In the legal evolution beginning
with the Book of the Covenant and culminating In P.
Driver describes the relation of D to the other legal codes
in the Pentateuch In these words: "Deuteronomy Is an
expansion of that in JE (Exod. 20-23) > it is In several
features parallel to that In H (Lev. 17-26) ; It contains
allusions to laws such as those codified In some parts of
P, while from those contained In other parts Its provisions
differ widely." ** And again : "Hebrew legislation took
shape gradually; and the codes of JE (Exod. 20-23;
34. 10-26), Deuteronomy, and P repreisent three suc
cessive phases of It." **
A comparison of the historical portions of the several
documents or of the historical references and allusions
in the legal portions, leads to the same conclusions re
garding their relative antiquity. D, for instance, contains
numerous references and allusions to events narrated
more fully In other parts of the Pentateuch.*® Now, It

" Though it contains parallel requirements ; see Driver, Intro
duction to the Literature of the Old Testament, pp. 73-75.
"Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament,
pp. 76, 77-
"Ibid., p. 143,
" Especially in i. 6 to 3. 22 ; 9. 6 to 10. 11 ; although these sections
probably were not a part of D in its earliest form, but were prefixed
at an early date as a suitable historical introduction, the significance
of the facts remains the same.

228 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
is a significant fact that In its history as in its law, both
In allusions and actual expressions, D seems to be de
pendent on JE, with a complete disregard of the narra
tive portions of P. From this only one conclusion may
be deduced: "Inasmuch as, in our existing Pentateuch,
JE and P repeatedly cross one another, the constant
absence of any reference to P can only be reasonably
explained by one supposition, namely, that when Deuter-r
onomy was composed JE and P were not yet united into
a single work, and JE alone formed the basis of Deuter
onomy." *®
The argument based upon the mutual relation of the
Pentateuchal documents evidently favors the arrangement
of these documents In the chronological order suggested
by the other lines of evidence — ^JE, D and P.
To sum up, the discussion in Chapters XIII and XIV
seems to lead naturally and inevitably to the following
conclusions regarding the chronological order of the
Pentateuchal documents :
I. J and E reflect the historical situation of the period
of the Judges and of the early kings ; D that of the later
kings, especially conditions presupposed In the account of
Joslah's reforms and Jeremiah's prophecies; P that of the
exilic and postexilic period, especially the age of Ezra-
Nehemlah. 2. The theological standpoint of each docu
ment agrees with what Is known of Hebrew theological
thinking during the period to which the document Is
assigned by the historical background reflected In it.
3. J and E have points of contact with other Old Testa
ment writings known to have originated before B. C. 650;
D with the literature that can be dated between 650 and
"Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament,
p. 81.

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 229
the exile ; P with that of the exilic and postexilic period.
D appears to have been unknown during the period of the
early monarchy, P before the exile. 4. The vocabulary
and style of each document are just what they might be
expected to be if the documents were written during the
periods to which the historical background points. 5. In
their legal as In their historical sections, JE, D, and P
represent three successive stages of development; P im
plies the prior existence of D, D the prior existence of
J and E.

CHAPTER XV
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF THE
PENTATEUCHAL DOCUMENTS
3. Dates of the Documents

CHAPTER XV
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF THE
PENTATEUCHAL DOCUMENTS
3. Dates of the Documents
In Chapters XIII and XIV the aim has been to deter
mine, in a general way, the chronological order in which
the four principal documents used In the compilation of
the Pentateuch originated. The present chapter deals
with the more specific Inquiry, Can the dates of the several
documents be determined more exactly?
In the preceding discussion J and E have been grouped
together, because the relation between these two docu
ments Is much more Intimate than that between the com
bined JE, and D or P, or between either J or E and D or
P. The difficulties in the way of separating the two are
Indeed so great that some scholars have doubted the
Independent existence of the document symbolized by E;'
and they have been inclined to explain the passages
assigned by others to E, as additions to or modifications
of the document J. But, though J and E do not differ
from one another In diction and style as either differs
from P, and though they are so welded together that the
lines of demarcation between the two frequently cannot
be determined with absolute certainty, the facts presented
by JE receive the most satisfactory explanation on the
assumption that it consists of two originally independent

'Sec above, p. (:f7. *3S

234 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
documents. The similarities between the two strands of
narrative are easily explained by the fact that their
subject matter Is practically the same and that both
originated In the same general period of Hebrew literary
history. Nevertheless, there are numerous sections In the
parts of the Pentateuch commonly Included In JE which,
on the one hand, are separated from J by the use of
Elohim Instead of Yahweh, by theological conceptions,
by linguistic peculiarities and by their view of the early
history,* and which, on the other hand, are so closely
bound together among themselves by these same charac
teristics, that It seems most natural to regard them as
fragments of one continuous narrative, which at one
time had an Independent existence.
Can J be assigned to a definite date In the period of
the Judges or of the early kings, during which, according
to Internal evidence. It must have been written? Evi
dently, JE Is earlier than D;* If so, J cannot have been
written after B. C. 650. Again, If the eighth-century
prophets knew JE or the Independent J and E, which,
however. Is not certain,* J cannot be dated later than
B. C. 750. To a date earlier than the eighth-century
prophets points also the fact that the prophetic tone and
point of view of J Is less pronounced than In the pro
phetic messages of that century; though, on the other
hand, the general religious attitude is not unlike that of
the line of prophets beginning with Elijah.^ These and
similar facts have led most modern scholars to decide
' See above, Chapters VIII-X, and below, pp. 297-299.
• See Chapters XIII and XIV.
* See above, p. 220.
'The fact that the prophetic tone is less pronounced may, perhaps,
be due to the difference in the nature of the productions — the one is
narrative, the Pth?r represents prophetic discourses.

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 235
upon the age of Elijah, that is, about the middle of the
ninth century B. C, as a suitable place for J, or at least
of the earliest layer of J, If, as there seems ground for
believing, the original J underwent one or more later
revisions or expansions. A few scholars favor a date a
century or more earlier ; thus Schultz, Koenig, and Sellin
assign it to the latter part of David's or the earlier years
of Solomon's re;ign.
Whatever the differences of opinion regarding the
exact date, practically all modern scholars are agreed
that J cannot have been written earlier than the time of
David. In support of this view, attention may be called
to facts like these: (i) The central thought of the narra
tive from beginning to end is that Yahweh has chosen
Israel out of all the nations of the earth, to be his
peculiar people, that he has blessed It more than other
nations and has appointed It to become a blessing to all,
and that from the beginning he has appointed Canaan to
be the exclusive possession of his people. The confident
tone of the narrative with regard to these promises Is
thought to Imply: (a) That the author knew a united
Israel, such as was not found during the period of the
Judges or even under Saul. (6) That Judah was a real
and prominent part of the nation. During the period of
the Judges Judah was separated from the tribes In the
center and In the north by a line of Canaanite cities, of
which Jebus-Jerusalem was one.® (c) That the historical
situation in the days of the author warranted the convic
tion that Israel would completely overcome the native
population. The final conflicts between the Israelites and
Canaanites belong to the reigns of David and Solomon.
•Deut. 33. 7. In the Song of Deborah (Judg. s), Judah is not
even mentioned among the tribes of Israel.

236 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
(d) There are passages which Imply that the Exodus Is
in the past, that Israel has subjected the Canaanites, and
is firmly established In the land.'^ (2) Moreover, J Is
acquainted with the mon^-chy as a reality In Israel,* and
with kings of the tribe of Judah,® which makes the reign
of David the earliest possible date. These facts may not
amount to a mathematical demonstration, as the available
facts rarely do in Investigations of this sort ; at the same
time, what evidence there Is seems sufficiently strong to
give at least a high degree of probability to the view that
J was written at the earliest during the reign of David.
If the age of David offers the earliest possible date
for J, are Koenig, Sellin, and others right in assigning
it to the reign of David or that of his Immediate suc
cessor Solomon, or Is It necessary to follow the majority
of scholars and date It a century or more later? Sellin
puts forward several arguments In favor of the former
alternative :'" ( i ) The document contains not the slightest
reference or allusion to the division of the kingdom; the
entire narrative is permeated by the consciousness that
the whole nation is the people of promise. Such assur
ance would be inexplicable after the death of Solomon.
(2) The conception, implied again and again in J, that
the Canaanites, though not entirely destroyed, yet had
been transformed from masters to slaves, evidently is a
reflection of a situation brought about under Davld.'^

^ Gen. 12. 6 ; 13. 7 ; 40. 15 ; compare Num. 32. 41 with Judg. 10. 4.
•Gen. 36. 31.
'Gen. 49. 8-12.
"Einleitung in das Alte Testament, p. 31.
"Compare Gen. 9. 25; 12. 6; 13. 7; Judg. i. 28, 29 with 2 Sam.
S. 6ff.; 24. i8ff. From i Kings 9. 15, 21 it has generally been
inferred that forced labor, a sign of complete subjugation, was not
imposed upon the Canaanites until the reign of Solomon. This,

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 237
(3) J contains no traces of any acquaintance with the
new administrative scheme of Solomon;'* which would
exclude a date during the latter part of Solomon's reign.
(4) The absolute, firm faith in Yahweh as the God of the
whole universe, which is characteristic of the document,
proves that the author did not know of the cleavage In
the religious consciousness which appeared In Israel dur
ing the latter part of Solomon's reign.'* (5) The con
viction that Israel was more blessed than any other nation
and the unshaken confidence in the divine choice and
providence, which is expressed in J'* Is reflected also in
the narratives of the reigns of David and Solomon.'®
(6) The religious conditions and practices presupposed
in J,'® in contrast with the form of worship introduced
by Jeroboam I, all point to the reign of David or
Solomon. Sellin admits that these arguments are not conclusive

Sellin insists, cannot be the meaning of the passage, because (i) an
officer who was "over the men subject to taskwork" is mentioned
under David (2 Sam. 20. 24) ; and (2) it is inconceivable that David
should have carried on campaigns against outside nations without
being master in his own territory. 2 Sam. 4. 2, 3 and 21. 2 also
imply successes against the natives.
" I Kings 4. 7ff.
"i Kings n.
"For example. Gen. 12. 1-3.
"l Sam. 18. 17; 25. 28; 2 Sam. 5. 12; 8. 14; 14. 13; 21. 3;
I Kings 5. 1-5; 10. iff.
"Such as the multiplicity of sanctuaries (see above, p. 143), the
silence concerning the temple in Jerusalem (Exod. 34. 26 refers to
any tribal sanctuary, and Josh. 9. 23, 27, if from J, may refer to
the Yahweh sanctuary at Gibeon — i Kings 3. 4; compare 2 Sam.
21. 9), the references to the consulting of Yahweh (Gen. 25. 21;
Judg. I. i), a practice common with David, the absence of prophets
as mediators of divine revelations, and the constant assumption that
Yahweh is to be worshiped without external representation.

238 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
but thinks that. In the absence of all evidence pointing to
a later date, they may be sufficient to establish the origin
of J In the period suggested by him. The reasoning of
Sellin Is based, at least in part, upon the assumption that
the traditions and stories embodied in J were formulated
at the time the document preserving them was written.
He evidently fails to maintain the distinction, carefully
observed by him In other instances, between the origin
and the writing down of a story; he forgets that a story
once fixed may be handed down in oral form, with but
slight modifications, for generations and even centuries.
With these facts in mind, it Is easily seen that not a single
argument of Sellin throws light on the date of the actual
writing of the document.''' All the facts enumerated
would receive a satisfactory explanation on the assump
tion that some of the traditions embodied In J assumed
a more or less fixed form during the period of the United
Monarchy; which Is far from proving that J, or even
individual traditions or stories, assumed written form at
that time.'*
On the other hand, it is equally difficult to prove that J
was written In the ninth century. In the absence of

" The facts noted in argument 2 would be true at any time
subsequent to David ; regarding 3, it may be asked if there was any
occasion why the writer should have referred to the scheme;
regarding 4 : if the document had been written in Judah, subsequently
to Solomon, by a firm believer in Yahweh, would he have taken a
different attitude? Is the confidence to which reference is made in
5 less pronounced in later ages? The references to conditions and
practices, enumerated in 6, would be possible at any time during a
century, or even more, following the death of Solomon. This leaves
only the first argument ; and the silence concerning the division may
easily be explained on the assumption that the traditions in J were
fixed in their essential point of view before the division.
" Steuernagel, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, p. 209.

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 239
decisive data, "we can only argue upon grounds of
probability derived from our view of the progress of
the art of writing, or of literary composition or of the
rise and growth of the prophetic tone and feeling in
ancient Israel, or of the period at which the traditions
contained In the narratives might have taken shape, or
of the probability that they would have been written
down before the impetus given to culture by the monarchy
had taken effect, and similar considerations, for esti
mating most of which, though plausible arguments on
one side or the other may be advanced, a standard on
which we can confidently rely scarcely admits of being
fixed." Thus while a date In the ninth century would
explain the facts presented In J, and would satisfy all
that is known regarding Hebrew history, civilization,
religion, and literature, no dogmatic statement can be
made. Without fixing a definite date It may still be
necessary to be content with Driver's conclusion: "All
things considered, both J and E may be assigned, with
greatest probability, to the early centuries of the
monarchy." '®
Though there Is no unanimity among scholars regard
ing the place of origin of J, by far the great majority are
inclined to look to the southern kingdom, Judah, for its
home; only a few, and these chiefly among the earlier
defenders of the Document Theory,*" favor a northern
origin. On this point again the evidence Is rather incon
clusive, but what little there Is points to the south:
( I ) Hebron, a sanctuary of Judah, instead of Beersheba,
frequented by Israel, plays a prominent role in the patri-

" Introduction to the Literature of the Old T^estament, p. 125.
""For example, Schrader, Reuss, and Kuenen.

240 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
archal narratives.*' (2) In the Joseph narratives Judah,
not Reuben, the first-born. Is the spokesman.** (3) J
furnishes Information regarding the earliest history of
Judah.** (4) The choicest blessing of Jacob is reserved
for Judah.** (5) In the account of the conquest J's
chief Interest is in Judah.*® (6) The north-Israelite
hero Joshua receives slight consideration.
E, on the other hand, would seem to have come from
the northern kingdom, more specifically, from the terri
tory occupied by Ephralm-Manasseh : (i) Localities be
longing to the northern kingdom are the more prominent
in E : the principal residence of Abraham is not, as In J,
Hebron, which belonged in later times to Judah, but
Beersheba, a sanctuary frequented by the people of the
north,*® and its Immediate neighborhood.*'^ Bethel Is
frequently named,** and Shechem plays such a prominent
role*® that some have thought that E originated there.*"
Mention is made of the burial places of famous persons
of antiquity which were shown In the north, Deborah,*'
Rachel,** Joshua,** Joseph,** Eleazar.*® (2) Persons
connected with the northern tribes play the principal roles
''Gen. 13. 18; 18. i; 37. 14.
"Gen. 37. 26; 43. 3, 8-10; 44. 14-34.
" Gen. 38.
" Gen. 49. 8-12.
"For example, Judg. i. 1-21.
"Amos 5. S; 8. 14.
"Gen. 20. i; 21. 14; 22. 19.
"Gen. 12. 8; 13. 3; 28. 19, 22; 31. 13; 35. i, 3, 7, etc.
"Gen. 33. 18-20; 35. 4; Josh. 24. i, 25, 32.
" E. Sellin, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, p. 35.
"Gen. 35-8.
"Gen. 35. 19, 20.
"Josh. 24. 30.
"Josh. 24. 32.
"Josh. 24. 33.

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 241
in the narratives of E: Joseph, the ancestor of Ephraim-
Manasseh, Is the favorite of his father and even of God,*'
so that Jacob pronounces special blessings upon the sons
of Joseph.*'^ Joshua, the Ephraimlte, Is the companion
and coworker of Moses,** and after the latter's death
becomes his successor as the leader of Israel.*® In the
Joseph narratives Reuben, not Judah, Is the spokesman of
his brethren.*" Thus everything seems to point to the
northern kingdom as the home of E;*' but the evidence
connecting E specifically with Shechem Is hardly decisive.
Another important question, on which there Is still some
difference of opinion among scholars. Is the relative age
of J and E. Earlier advocates of the Document Theory
were inclined to give priority to E;** In their footsteps
followed, among others, A. Dillmann and E. Riehm, and
among Old Testament scholars now living, this view Is
strenuously defended by E. Koenig.** Most modern
scholars, however, accept the priority of J. In support
of his position Koenig depends mainly on four argu
ments; but none of these can be considered in any sense
conclusive: (i) The construction of QiinbN — Elohim —
God — with a plural verb. Why this should weigh heavily
in favor of an early date is difficult to comprehend, when,
according to Koenig's own admission, the same con-
"Gen. 37.3ff.
"Gen. 48. 14-20.
"Exod. 33. 11; Num. ii. 28, etc.
"Deut. 31. 23; Josh. I. I, 2.
"Gen. 37. 21, 22; 42. 37.
" See also C. Steuernagel, Einleitung in das Alte Testament,
pp. 2I7ff.
" For example, Noeldeke, Schrader, Kayser, Reuss.
"Einleitung in das Alte Testament, pp. 203, 240. Geschichte der
alttest. Religion, p. 12. R. Kittel formerly held the same view; but
see above, p. 57.

242 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
struction Is found In passages belonging certainly to a
relatively late date.** (2) The use of "Elohim" rather
than "Yahweh" in the earlier portions.*® The same
argument would prove the early date of P. (3) The
earnest appeal of Joshua, to serve Yahweh,*® seems to
indicate that the age of Moses is not far removed. But
why? Are not the appeals of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and
the other prophets equally earnest? (4) The mention
of the "pillars" in E, while J is silent concerning them,
shows that when E was written they were still in use,
and that they were abolished prior to the writing of J.
Following out this reasoning, since Koenig dates E In the
period of the Judges, he would have to assign a passage
like Isa. 19. 19 to the same age or earlier.
On the whole, the evidence favors the priority of J :
(i) Many of the narratives in J appear to be older and
more original than the parallel stories in E. The J
narratives are more simple, natural, and lifelike; the play
of human emotions and of natural forces Is made to
explain successive steps In the development of the inci
dents recorded, while the writer of E depends much more
extensively upon the supernatural as a moving cause.
As Illustrations may be mentioned the stories of Abraham
or Isaac at Gerar,*^ the birth of Issachar,** the wages of
Jacob;*® Indeed, the whole early history of Israel — the

"For example, i Kings 12. 28; 19. 2.
" See above, pp. I2sff.
"Josh. 24.
"Compare Gen. 20. 1-17; 21. 22-32 (E), with Gen. 26. 1-33 (J).
"J connects it with Reuben's mandrakes (Gen. 30. 14-16), E
makes it an act of divine grace (verses 17, 18).
" According to J, it was Jacob's trick that gave him the advantage
over Laban (Gen. 30. 28-43), according to E, an angel interfered in
Jacob's behalf (Gen. 31. 9-12).

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 243
separation from polytheistic surroundings, the deliverance
from Egypt and the conquest of Canaan — Is represented
as much more miraculous in E than in J. (2) The
religious and theological conceptions of E are in advance
of those expressed In J. For Instance, the latter repre
sents Yahweh as a big man, he eats, drinks, is jealous,
repents, etc. ; the God of E speaks from heaven, he does
not appear in human form.®" It may be due to this more
elevated conception of Deity that the author of E gives
to his God no proper name such as is borne by other
gods. Hence, even after he has Introduced the explana
tion of the name of Israel's God, Yahweh,®' he uses It
but rarely, preferring the more general "Elohim,'-' which
to him is much more significant.
This kind of evidence may not be conclusive. The
difference In point of view, which is due, fundamentally,
to differences In religious conceptions, might, perhaps,
be explained as due, not to difference In time of compo
sition, but to origin In different circles or parties, each
having its own peculiar religious views, within one and
the same community. Nevertheless, if one studies the
two documents in their entirety, he cannot escape the
impression that E Is younger than J.
Numerous attempts have been made to fix the exact
date of E. If It originated in the northern kingdom, as
Is generally thought, it must have been written before
B. C. 722; but how long before cannot easily be deter
mined. Most modern scholars favor a date between
B. C. 850 and 750,®* but there are a few who lean toward
°°Gen. 21. 17; 22. 11; see further, above, p. 156.
" Exod. 3. 14.
"At least for the groundwork of E; practically all scholars hold
that the original E was expanded at later times down to the seventh
century.

244 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
a much earlier date; thus Sellin decides In favor of the
later years of Solomon's reign, and Koenig In favor of
the period of the Judges. Koenig's view as to the date
of E is dependent on his other theory that E Is earlier
than J, which cannot be established by the arguments he
adduces, and has been seen to have little in its favor.®*
If E Is later than J, and If J cannot be dated earlier than
the reign of David, which Is regarded as certain by
Koenig,®* E cannot be assigned to a date earlier than that
suggested by Sellin, namely, the latter part of Solomon's
reign. But the majority of scholars seem to be convinced that
even this date is far too early: (i) They claim, for
instance, that Gen. 37. 8 and Deut. 33. 13-17 imply the
existence of the northern kingdom, In which the Joseph
tribe, Ephralm, was supreme. But what is there to hinder
the counter claim that these passages reflect conditions
during the early period of the Judges, when Ephralm
occupied a position of considerable prominence? It
should be remembered that E represents the Ephraimlte
hero Joshua as the successor of Moses. (2) Gen. 31.
48ff. is said to be a reflection of the Syrian wars in the
ninth century. This may or may not be true ; It certainly
cannot be proved, since the passage contains no reference
to war. (3 ) Josh. 15. 2ff. implies that Edom is no longer
a part of Judah. This Is true; but Edom was lost to
Judah during the reign of Solomon;®® and if this hap
pened during the early years of Solomon's reign, as Is
Implied In the narrative,®® might not a writer during the

" See above, pp. 241, 242.
'* Einleitung in das Alte Testament, p. 206.
"i Kings II. I4ff.
"Especially verse 21.

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 245
latter part of Solomon's reign represent Edom as lost to
the Israelites? (4) The assertion is made that the more
general use of "Elohim" throughout the document pre
supposes the struggles of Elijah and Ellsha, which created
a more deep-seated monotheistic consciousness in Israel,
which, naturally, would lead to the use of the more
general "Elohim" — God — In the place of the more par
ticular and specific "Yahweh." This would be a most
satisfactory explanation of the use of "Elohim" if the
same practice were seen, for example. In the prophetic
messages of the eighth century. But Amos and Hosea,
prophets of Israel, like Elijah, and certainly no less
monotheistic than he, constantly use "Yahweh." It
would be quite as easy to prove that the process was the
reverse : Before the days of Elijah "Elohim" was widely
used, but the designation of "Yahweh" as "Elohim"
created a tendency of reducing him to the level of the
Baals of the land; hence upon the rise of a deeper mono
theistic sense the use of the ambiguous "Elohim" was
discouraged. (5) Josh. 6. 26 is thought to presuppose
the rebuilding of Jericho in the days of Ahab.®'' But,
why not turn it the other way? May not the act of Hiel
presuppose a knowledge of the curse uttered by Joshua?
All this simply means that, while E may have been written
later than the age of Solomon, In the ninth or in the
eighth century, arguments like these can never demon
strate the truth of this theory, probable though it may be.
Equally Inconclusive are the arguments urged in favor
of the earlier date: (i) Attention Is called to the fact
that E contains not the slightest reference or allusion to
the division of the kingdom subsequently to the death of
Solomon. Throughout Israel Is represented as a united
"' I Kings 16. 34.

246 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
whole. In response to those who Interpret Deut. 33. 7, 16
as reflecting conditions under the Divided Kingdom, it is
suggested that these verses may well reflect conditions
during the age of the Judges. (2) Exod. 23. 31, In
giving the extent of Israel's territory. Is said to reflect
conditions under David and Solomon. (3) While J does
not know Jerusalem as a sanctuary of Israel — which Is
thought to prove that J was written before the building
of the temple by Solomon — E recognizes it as a place of
divine revelation, along with Bethel, Shechem, etc.®*
These arguments have little force: (i) Anyone capable
of writing E, though living a century or two after Solo
mon, would know that the division was a comparatively
recent event, that formerly the two kingdoms formed
one national unit; hence, when writing of the earlier
history, he would represent Israel as one united people.®®
(2) The- conquests of David, more extensive than those
of any other Israelite ruler, continued to live in the
memories of his people. Naturally, ever afterwards, In
the tenth century, as in the eighth or seventh, anyone
desiring to state the widest extent of Israel's territory
would refer to the boundaries established by David.
(3) While the mention of Jerusalem as an Israelite sanc
tuary may preclude a date prior to David or Solomon,
it certainly does not make Impossible a date in the ninth
or eighth century.
Again, as in the case of J, there Is Insufficient specific
evidence to fix the exact date of E; again the student is
compelled to rely upon such general considerations as are
enumerated on p. 239. These make it quite certain that E
was written later than J, but still during the "early cen-
" Gen. 22. 2 ; Moriah=the temple area in Jerusalem,
" See also above, p. 238.

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 247
turies of the monarchy" ; and they make it very probable
that at least the first edition of E antedates, though,
perhaps, not by many decades, the appearance of the
eighth-century prophets.
The origin of D having received sufficient attention In
a previous chapter,®" the discussion may pass immediately
to a consideration of the date of P. The evidence already
examined®' has shown that the date of P must be sought
somewhere between Ezekiel and the Chronicler, that is,
between about B. C. 550 and 350. The books of Ezra
and Nehemiah narrate that in B. C. 458 Ezra, a descend
ant of Aaron, and therefore a priest, and "a scribe of
the words of the commandments of Jehovah," went up
from Babylon "to Inquire concerning Judah and Jeru
salem according to the Law of God," which was in his
hand.^"^ After a short period of activity Ezra disap
peared from view, and was not heard of again until after
the arrival of Nehemiah in B. C. 445. In the following
year a great popular assembly was held, before which
Ezra read out of "the book of the law of Moses." ®* That
this law book contained P Is beyond question, for the
account contains several unmistakable references to
passages in P.®*
There are many scholars who hold that P by Itself, not
as a part of a larger work, was the Law Book of Ezra.®®
"Chapter XII.
"¦ In Chapters XIII and XIV.
" See Ezra 7. 1-26.
" Neh. 8-10.
"'Neh. 8. 15 evidently refers back to Lev. 23. 40; Neh. 8. 18 to
Lev. 23. 36 (compare Deut. 16. 13-15) ; Neh. 10. 36-40 to Num. 18.
12-32. " In his splendid Einleitung, published in 1912, C. Steuernagel
again argues strongly in favor of this view, pp. 264, 265, but hi?
arguments appear, to the present writer, inconclusive.

248 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
This Is by no means certain, for the law read on that
occasion contained some provisions not found in P but
only In other parts of the Pentateuch.®® It would seem,
therefore, that the law read before the assembly contained
all the law codes of the Pentateuch; and there Is no good
reason for doubting that the reformers used the Penta
teuch, substantially In its final form. The objection
urged against this view that the entire Pentateuch could
not have been read in so short a time Is met by the text
Itself, which nowhere states that Ezra read the entire
book, but that he read in the book, that Is, selections
from the book; nothing is said about the extent of the
portions read.®'' Moreover, the Deuteronomic law, intro
duced by Josiah, must have been known at least to the
leaders of the postexilic community; and it is difficult to
believe that these would be ready to accept an entirely
new code of laws and by so doing practically discard the
old one ; on the other hand, they might be quite willing to
reaffirm their loyalty to the old code and accept with it
an expansion which, they must have realized, met more
adequately the spirit and the needs of their age. Condi
tions were different In the days of Josiah : prior to B. C.
621 no law had been pubHcly promulgated or accepted
by the people, hence there could be no fear on the part of
the people or their leaders that the public acceptance of a
law would result In the discarding of an older legislation.
There is still another consideration in favor of the view
that the book from which the law was read was the entire

"For example, intermarriage with natives (Neh. 10. 30; Heb.,
verse 31) is forbidden only in Exod. 34. 16 (JE) and Deut.
7. 3 ; the release of a debt in the sabbatic year (Neh. 10. 31 ; Heb. 32)
is ordered in Deut. 15. 2.
" Neh. 8. 3, 8, 18,

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 249
Pentateuch, namely, the fact that P contained the history
of Israel to the division of Palestine among the tribes.
The account of the conquest and the division, that Is, the
closing section of P, is now not a part of the Pentateuch
but of the book of Joshua. But if, in B. C. 444, the whole
of P had been accepted as the law of Yahweh,®* would It
have been possible, within a few decades, at the most, to
cut off a part and exclude it from the Torah? Thus,
while there is no conclusive evidence that the entire Penta
teuch was before the assembly in B. C. 444, what evidence
there is points strongly in that direction.
If the entire Pentateuch — aside from minor additions
and editorial changes — was in the hands of Ezra in 444,
then his silence between 458 and 444, which has appeared
so inexplicable to many scholars, may receive a satis
factory explanation. The law which he brought from
Babylon In 458®® and which he Intended to promulgate in
Jerusalem was P; but when he became familiar with
conditions In the postexilic community the conviction
grew upon him that he could never secure the acceptance
of P at the expense of the older codes. But being equally
sure that the older laws were inadequate under the new
conditions, and that the people needed the modifications
and adjustments Introduced in P, he set about to unite the
new code with the older material In a manner that would
preserve the good In all and yet give to P the place of

"The case would not be essentially different if it were assumed
that the historical sections became a part of P subsequently to the
assembly in 444. Whenever they would be added to a book regarded
as unique, they would be accepted as an integral part of that book,
and it would be exceedingly difficult to remove them again either in
whole or in part.
" Ezra 7. 14.

250 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
prominence, which he accomplished by making the latter
the groundwork of the new production.''"
According to this view, then, P became public property
for the first time In B. C. 444, not as an Independent
document but as a part of the larger work now known as
the Pentateuch ; after having been brought, as a separate
document, from Babylon in B. C. 458. If this is correct,
it must have been written, probably among the descendants
of the exiles still living In Babylonia, some time prior
to that date. It has been suggested that Ezra himself
was the author, but that Is not probable. True, he knew
the document Intimately, and its spirit had permeated his
whole thinking, but the reverence with which he treated
it makes It more than probable that it was the work of
another. How long before 458 and by whom it was
written cannot be determined; but, as has been stated,'"
internal evidence favors a date some distance removed
from Ezekiel, perhaps about B. C. 500, which is, approxi
mately, the date accepted by most modern scholars.
The discussion in the preceding paragraphs has pro
ceeded on the assumption, which,, the present writer
believes, has still much In Its favor, that the books of
Ezra and Nehemiah give an essentially correct picture of
the reform movements in which Ezra and Nehemiah
are said to have been the leaders. If, however, It should
be demonstrated, as Is now widely held, that Ezra did not
precede Nehemiah, and that he did not cooperate with
him until the latter's second administration, In B. C. 432,

™It may well be that the reference to interpretation in Neh. 8. 8
is an allusion to the efforts of Ezra to harmonize provisions in
different parts of the Pentateuch and to point out the superiority
of P.
'"¦ See above, p. 222,

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 251
the main positions advocated above would remain un
affected. The date of the public reading of the law
would have to be brought down a few years, and a new
explanation would have to be provided for the uniting of
P with the other codes, but these changes would in no
wise affect the view that the Law read and expounded In
the public assembly — whenever held — was taken from the
entire Pentateuch and that P was written In Babylonia
about B. C 500. The same would be true if Ezra were
placed in the fourth century, and even if his existence
were denied. True, In such case, Ezra could not have
played the Important role In the promulgation of the Law
assigned to him in Ezra-Nehemiah or In the above dis
cussion ; more credit would have to be given to Nehemiah
and the unnamed leaders of the age, but the date of P
would not be affected thereby.''*
Summing up, then, the entire discussion, the following
conclusions may be regarded as resting upon secure foun
dations: (i) The chronological order In which the
Pentateuchal documents originated is J, E, D, and P.
(2) The approximate dates at which the several docu
ments were written are : J, during the early centuries of
the monarchy, perhaps in the ninth century B. C. ; E,
somewhat later, but still during the period of the early
monarchy, perhaps a generation or two preceding the
appearance of the eighth-century prophets ; D, during the
reactionary reign of Manasseh, about B. C. 675; P,
among the descendants of exiles In Babylonia, about
B. C. 500.

" The question of the reliability of the Ezra-Nehemiah narratives
is discussed more fully in the chapter on Ezra-Nehemiah in vol. Ill
of this Introduction, which is to appear in the near future.

CHAPTER XVI
ANCIENT MATERIAL EMBODIED IN THE
PENTATEUCHAL DOCUMENTS
1. Poetic Material

CHAPTER XVI
ANCIENT MATERIAL EMBODIED IN THE
PENTATEUCHAL DOCUMENTS
I. Poetic Material
The view that the Pentateuch in Its present form is
essentially a compilation of material taken from four
originally distinct documents — J, E, D, P — may be re
garded as firmly established. It is equally certain that,
whenever these documents may have been written, all of
them contain material handed down Independently, in oral
or written form, throughout generations and, In some
instances, centuries, before It found a place In one of the
four documents. In many cases the form In which the
material reached the authors of the documents can no
longer be determined, but In others so few alterations
were made that even now the passages taken from earlier
sources can easily be separated from their contexts. This
Is true more especially of poetic and legal material, for
which the compilers simply furnished a suitable historical
framework. In this chapter the poetic fragments pre
served In the Pentateuch are brought together for the
purpose of discovering, if possible, the time and occasion
of their origin.
. I. The Song of Lamech or Of the Sword.' The
context in which this "song" is now found suggests that

' Gen. 4. 23, 24. 255

256 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
the six lines of this poem express the fierce joy of primi
tive man at the discovery that the possession of metal
weapons gives a decided advantage as compared with
other means of defense, the possessor of such weapons
can do more for himself than even the Deity can do for
the one not thus protected. Nothing is known of the
origin of the poem. It may be, as has been suggested,
that it did not originate among the Israelites at all but
among the Kenites,* a nomadic tribe that joined the
Hebrews at the time of the Exodus.* At any rate, Marti
is right when he calls the song "an echo from the old
times of the Bedouins" ;* and there is nothing improbable
in the suggestion of A. R. Gordon, that the cry, "Cain
shall be avenged sevenfold," may have been an old Kenite
war cry.® The date of the poem cannot be determined.
It may be older than the time of Moses, and may have
become an Israelite possession at the time of the amalga
mation of the Kenites with the Israelites; then, at a later
time, it was Introduced in its present place by the author
of the prose narrative as an Illustration of the advantages
of metal weapons.
2. The Curse of Canaan.^ Though the passage pro
nounces blessings upon Japhet and Shem, on account of
Its dominant note It Is generally known as the "Curse of
Canaan." It reflects a situation in which Canaan is
oppressed by peoples represented by the other two names,
but the exact historical background Is not easily deter
mined. Some have seen in the poem a reference to the
' The names "Cain'' and "Kenites'' are closely related ; in Hebrew
they have the same root.
'Judg. I. i6.
* The Religion of Israel, p. 46.
' The Early Traditions of Genesis, pp. 188-191.
"Gen. 9. 25-27.

ANCIENT MATERIAL 257
final subjugation of the Canaanites by Solomon,'' but It
might equally well refer to the struggles during the period
of the Judges, when Israel was getting the upper hand.*
With either Interpretation the reference to Japhet re
mains obscure. The pre-Mosaic period would offer a
more suitable occasion — the attacks upon the Canaanites
by Semitic tribes, called Habiri in the Tel-el-Amarna
tablets,® and by sea- faring tribes coming from the Islands
of the Mediterranean and the south coast of Asia Minor
that made themselves masters of the territory later known
as Phllistla.'" Whatever the date of the poem. It Is Intro
duced Into the biblical story to show that the subjugation
of the Canaanites by the Israelites and other nations was
due to a curse pronounced In very early times upon their
ancestor, Canaan.
3. Oracles Concerning the Patriarchs." The origin
of these brief sayings is obscure. It Is very probable,
however, that In the course of the oral tradition the divine
promises and blessings, by which It was sought to explain
the superiority of Israel and the powerful faith concern
ing the future, gradually assumed poetic form, which
would make them more easily remembered by the people.
When this took place cannot be determined. Generally
speaking, the utterances reflect the conditions and expec-

' I Kings 9. 20, 21.
•Judg. 4, 5.
'See F. C. Eiselen, The Christian View of the Old Testament,
p. 126.
"These tribes might be designated Japhet, for, according to
Gen. 10. 2-S, Japhet is regarded as the ancestor of the tribes in the
north and northwest.
"Abraham, Gen. 12. 2, 3; 13. 14-17; Isaac, Gen. 26. 4; Jacob,
Gen. 27. 27-29; 28. 13, 14; Joseph, Gen. 48. 20; compare also Esau,
Gen. 25. 23; 27. 39, 40.

258 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
tations of the generations during which Israel acquired
possession of Palestine.
4. The Blessing of Jacob.'* Gen. 49 contains a series
of blessings, or, in some Instances, curses, upon the
tribes of Israel. The patriarch Jacob is introduced as
the dispenser of the blessings to his sons, the ancestors
of the tribes ; but the fact that at least some of the tribes
are represented as already in Canaan, shows that the
poem originated subsequently to the time of Moses. The
mention of Simeon'* favors an early date — in the age
of the Judges, because that tribe lost Its identity soon
after the settlement in Palestine; on the other hand, the
special blessing pronounced upon Judah seems to pre
suppose the reign of David. It is, Indeed, possible that
the several sayings originated independently and at dif
ferent times, and were collected subsequently, suffering
such modifications as the purpose of the collector would
demand. The poem assumed its final form not later
than the period of the United Monarchy.
5. The Triumph Song Over the Destruction of the
Egyptians.'* This ode of triumph commemorates the
wonderful deliverance of the Israelite hosts at the Red
Sea. That an experience of this sort should Inspire a
poetic outburst is not unnatural; at the same time, the
song in Exod. 15, in its present form, seems to be of
later date. Verse 17,'® for example, seems to presuppose

"Gen. 49. 2-27.
"Verse 5-
"Exod. 15. 1-18.
" Compare also verse 13 ; and verse 15 seems to imply acquaintance
with subsequent events :
"Then were the chiefs of Edom dismayed,
The mighty men of Moab, trembling taketh hold of them:
All the inhabitants of Canaan are melted away."

ANCIENT MATERIAL 259
the building of the temple by Solomon, or, at least, the
selection of Jerusalem as the religious center:
.... the mountain of thine inheritance.
The place, O Yahweh, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in,
The sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established."
True, the present poem may be the expansion of a shorter
poem composed at the time the event commemorated took
place ; but If so, there is no way of determining the extent
of this earlier poem.
6. Poetic Fragments in Numbers 21. Numbers 21 con
tains poetical passages, which are obviously older than
the prose narrative In which they are embodied: (i) A
Song concerning the boundary line between Moab and
Israel.''' Of this only a fragment has been preserved,
the meaning of which Is not altogether clear.'* It Is
said to have been taken from a collection of songs called
"The Book of the Wars of Yahweh," or, if Schmidt's
emendation Is correct, "The Book of Wars." The origin
of the poem is obscure. (2) The so-called Song of the
Well,'® an ancient folk-song, the origin and occasion of

" To escape the conclusion that the poem originated subsequently
to the building of the temple, and thus to save an earlier date,
even though it might be later than Moses, the words have been
interpreted as referring to the land of Canaan in contrast with the
desert (compare Deut. i. 7, 19, 44; Isa. 11. 9; Ezek. 28. 16, etc.),
or to some other sanctuary, such as Shechem or Shiloh; but these
interpretations seem forced ; a natural interpretation must admit
that the poet is thinking of the sanctuary in Jerusalem; and if this is
the case, then the poem in its present form cannot be earlier than
David or Solomon.
"Verses 14, 15.
" G. B. Gray, Numbers, pp. 284, 285 ; N. Schmidt, in Messages of
the Poets, p. 223, suggests a reconstruction of the text, with satis
factory results.
"Verses 17, 18.

26o THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
which are uncertain. The words are addressed to a well,
and may form a song by which "the Hebrew women, as
they stand round the fountain waiting their turn to draw,
coax forth the water, which wells up all too slowly for
their impatience." *" (3) The Song of SIhon's Con
quests.*' Like the other poetic fragments In the chapter,
this poem presents difficulties. The text has suffered, the
purpose Is obscure and, as a result, the date is uncertain.**
On the whole, Schmidt's interpretation** seems the most
reasonable : He believes the poet to have been a citizen of
Heshbon, living soon after the conquest of the city by
the Israelites. The purpose of the poem he Interprets In
these words: "The poet exhorts his hearers to come to
Heshbon to build up and establish SIhon's city taken from
him by the Israelitish tribes. For from this city the fire
had gone forth that had consumed all of Moab down to
the Arnon and beyond. So completely had Sihon de
stroyed the Moabltish strongholds that Chemosh's people
seemed to have perished from Heshbon In the north to
Dalbon in the south. Now that the land of Sihon had
been taken from him, let the city where he reigned and
which had suffered during the siege at the hands of the
Israelites be built up and established."
7. The Oracles of Balaam.** Three chapters in
Numbers are devoted to the Interesting story of Balak,
king of Moab, and Balaam, the son of Beor, a seer of
great renown. Alarmed by the advance of the Israelites,
*" G. B. Gray, Numbers, pp. 288ff. ; Schmidt, Messages of the Poets,
pp. 324f. interprets the poem as a song commemorating the capture
of the city of Beor.
'^Verses 27-30.
"G. B. Gray, Numbers, pp. 299ff.
"Messages of the Poets, pp. 326, 327.
" Num. 23, 24.

ANCIENT MATERIAL 261
Balak sends for Balaam and asks him to pronounce a
curse upon the Invaders, so as to deliver them Into the
hands of Moab. But Balaam, driven by an Irresistible
divine Impulse, blesses them Instead, and announces the
ultimate conquest of Moab by the newcomers.
The prose narrative*® furnishes the historical setting
for the utterances of Balaam, which are In poetic form.
There are seven poems, four longer ones centering around
Israel, and three shorter ones containing threats against
other nations : (i) Israel's exaltation;*® (2) Israel's con
quering power;*'' (3) Israel's prosperity and strength;**
(4) Israel's conquering king;*® (5) Destruction of
Amalek;*" (6) Devastation of the Kenite territory;*'
(7) An oracle of uncertain meaning.** It has been sug
gested, with some degree of probability, that 24. 1-19 Is
not the continuation of chapter 23 but a duplicate account
of the same Incidents. If so, poems (3) and (4) may be
simply different recensions of (i) and (2), the former
representing the tradition current In the south, the latter
that current In the north.
As to the date of the poems there exists much uncer
tainty. For the poems centering around Israel, Gray
considers a date prior to Saul out of the question, and
a date earlier than David improbable;** they may well
have originated during the period of the early monarchy.
Of the shorter poems the first, against Amalek, may
reflect conditions In the age of David;** but the other

" Chap. 22 is in prose, chaps. 23 and 24 are partly in prose and
partly in poetry.
"23. 7-10. '^24. 21, 22.
"23. 18-24. "24. 23, 24.
"24. 3-9. "Numbers, p. 314.
"24. 15-19. "Compare i Sam. 30.
"'24. 20.

262 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
two are generally considered of a later date ; that against
the Kenites seems to presuppose the rise of Assyria, and
the last oracle the dawn of Greek power.
8. The Song of Moses.*® Deut. 32 Is a didactic poem
seeking to exemplify "the rectitude and faithfulness of
Yahweh as manifested in his dealings with a corrupt
and ungrateful nation." In carrying out this purpose
the poem gives a retrospective survey of Israel's early
religious history : ( i ) Yahweh's goodness In establishing
the people;*® (2) Israel's base ingratitude and idolatry,
with the consequent judgments which brought the nation
to the verge of destruction;*'' and (3) Yahweh's deter
mination to deliver his people from their distress.**
Internal evidence forbids the assignment of the poem
to the age of Moses. Evidently, the Exodus and the
occupation of Canaan are in the distant past,*® Israel Is
settled In Palestine,*" there' has been time for apostasy
from Yahweh,*' and even for the calamities sent as
punishments which have brought the nation to the verge
of ruin.** All these things are In the poet's past ; the only
thing still In the future Is the deliverance from utter
annihilation.** That It Is a relatively late poem is further
shown by the theological conceptions reflected in the song,
which seem to presuppose the teaching of at least some of
the great prophets. The prophetic tone is so marked that
Cornill calls the poem "largely a compendium of the
prophetical theology, steeped from end to end In remi
niscences of the older prophets" ; and he concludes that it
cannot be assigned "to an earlier period than the end of
"Deut. 32. "Verses 13, 14.
"Verses 1-14. "Verses 15-19.
"Verses 15-26. "Verses 20-30.
"Verses 27-43. "Verses 36-43.
"Verses 7-12.

ANCIENT MATERIAL 263
the Babylonian exile, If we should not indeed come down
to a still later date." ** Other scholars favor an earlier
date, but the song can hardly be much earlier than Jere
miah and Ezekiel, In other words, about B. C. 600.*® In
all probability the poem was added to the original D by
the same editor who Inserted the material from JE, but
who took the song from another source.*®
9. The Blessing of Moses.*'' The Song of Moses has
been made an integral part of the Deuteronomic narra
tive; not so the Blessing of Moses. It appears as an
Independent poem, the introductory verse connecting It
but loosely with the rest of the book. The introduction**
describes the advent of Yahweh, the giving of the law
and the establishment of the kingdom; the main part*®
consists of a series of eulogistic sayings®" concerning
eleven of the tribes, Simeon being omitted; the conclu
sion®' emphasizes the uniqueness of Yahweh and the
blessedness of his chosen people. The "blessings" char
acterize each tribe by some salient feature In its history,
situation, or character.
In many respects the poem resembles the Blessing of
Jacob,®* but it seems to reflect a more advanced stage in

"Einleitung in das Alte Testament (English translation), pp. 123,
124; N. Schmidt, Messages of the Poets, p. 343.
"Driver, Deuteronomy, pp. 345ff.; H. T. Fowler, History of the
Literature of Ancient Israel, p. 231; the date suggested by Sellin,
Einleitung, p. 21, the age of Ahab, when, he thinks, a disciple of
Elijah wrote the poem, is less probable.
" Driver, Deuteronomy, p. Ixxvii.
" Deut. 33.
"Verses 2-5.
"Verses 6-25.
*" There are no curses, as in Gen. 49.
''Verses 26-29.
"Gen. 49.

264 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
the historical and theological development of Israel.
Simeon had disappeared as a tribe, Reuben was on the
decline,®* Judah was separated from his brethren,®* Levi
was recognized as the priestly tribe,®® the house of Yahweh
seems to have been in the land of Benjamin,®® Joseph
occupied the most prominent position,®'' Zebulun and
Issachar were commercially prosperous,®* Gad seems to
have enjoyed some special blessing In the recent past;®®
the northernmost tribes, Dan, Naphtall, and Asher, are
named in last place.®"
Again, as In the case of the Song of Moses, internal
evidence makes It Impossible to consider Moses the author
of the poem;®' but It is not easy to determine Its exact
date. Koenig, Sellin, and others are quite confident that
it originated in the age of the Judges; the majority of
scholars, however, look for a suitable occasion in the
centuries subsequent to the division of the kingdom; but
there Is no agreement as to the exact period. Kuenen,
Moore, Steuernagel, Cornill, and others favor the pros
perous reign of Jeroboam II ;®* others — Dillmann, Driver,
Westphal, etc. — assign it to the age of Jeroboam I, that
is, soon after the division. No doubt some of the utter
ances, such as the reference to Levi as the priestly tribe.

"Verse 6.
'* Verse 7.
"Verses 8-ii.
"Verse 12; compare Josh. 12. 10; Judg. i. 21.
"Verses 13-17.
"Verses 18, 19.
"Verses 20, 21.
"Verses 22-25.
" Note especially the reference to Moses in verse 4, and the
reference in verses 27-29 to the conquest as a thing of the past and
to the peaceful life of Israel in Palestine.
"Approximately, B. C. 780-740.

ANCIENT MATERIAL 265
point to the later period;®* others might have originated
In an earlier age, though the description of Judah as
apart from the rest of the people, seems to presuppose the
division. Perhaps, as was suggested in connection with
Gen. 49, the several utterances originated independently,
In different places and at different times. Later they
were collected, probably in the northern kingdom;®* If
so, the poem must be dated earlier than B. C. 722, the date
of the dissolution of the northern kingdom. The favor
able comments on the tribe of Levi have led some scholars
to conclude that the author or collector was a member of
that tribe.
10. Miscellaneous Poems. In addition to the poems
discussed in the preceding paragraphs, there are found
In the Pentateuch a few other poetic fragments which,
undoubtedly, had been in existence for some time when
the prose narratives embodying them were written.
(i) The Song of Miriam®® Is a repetition, with a slight
change, of the first two lines of the triumph song over
the destruction of the Egyptians.®® The verse may be
regarded as the E recension of the original song, the
longer poem being embodied In J. (2) The Oracle of the
Altar Fire.®'' This is an ancient oracle, of uncertain date,
quoted by the author to enforce the lesson which he
sought to draw from the catastrophe that befell Nadab
and Abihu. Schmidt thinks that it reflects the low
opinion which the Jerusalem priests had of the priests at
the sanctuaries in the north, and that It was written subse-
"See above, p. 145.
"This may be inferred from the fact that the most prominent
position is assigned to Joseph.
"Exod. 15. 21.
"Exod. 15. i; see above, p. 258.
"Lev. 10. 3.

266 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
quently to the fall of Samaria, in B. C. 722.®* (3) The
Priestly Benediction.®® Though embodied in the Priestly
Code, this benediction undoubtedly originated much
earlier than the date of its Incorporation In P. Very
probably It Is of pre-exllic origin; and It may have been
used as a part of the temple ritual in Jerusalem before
the exile; but its date cannot be determined.''" (4) The
Song of the Ark.'" The first two lines of this poem were
probably addressed to the ark,''* when It was carried Into
battle, the rest when It was brought back to the sanctuary.
The principal objection to assigning It to the period of
the desert wanderings arises from the fact that then the
people advanced to overtake the ark; the ark did not
return to the people.''* On the other hand, the custom
of carrying the ark Into battle seems to have been dis
continued after It had been deposited In the temple In
Jerusalem. It would seem, therefore, that the words
reflect conditions In the pre-Solomonic era, when the
home of the ark was at Shiloh, Nob, or some other
sanctuary. Two other passages may be noted which, though not
In the Pentateuch, were at one time a part of JE. (5) The
Curse of Jericho.''* Joshua Is said to have tried to pre
vent the rebuilding of Jericho by uttering this curse upon
anyone attempting to do so. In 1 Kings 16. 34 It is

''Messages of the Poets, p. 319.
"Num. 6. 24-26.
'° G. B. Gray, Numbers, pp. 71, 21 ; Schmidt, Messages of the
Poets, p. 320.
" Num. 10. 3S, 36.
" The ark being considered the symbol of the presence of Yahweh,
words addressed to it were in reality addressed to Yahweh.
"This is certainly implied in verses 33^-
"Josh. 6. 26.

ANCIENT MATERIAL 267
reported that when, after the lapse of centuries, the city
was rebuilt the builder suffered the calamity threatened in
the curse.''® The relation of the two passages Is variously
Interpreted. Some assume that the disaster which befell
Hiel gave rise to the curse ;''® others believe the curse to
be much more ancient and the account in Kings to have
been colored by a knowledge of the curse, which came
to be connected with Joshua because of his share in the
destruction of the city.'''' (6) The Standing Still of
Sun and Moon.''* The celestial bodies, exhorted to aid
in the destruction of Israel's enemies, heeded the request
and continued to shine; until the Israelite armies had
completed the slaughter.''® The poem was taken by the
narrator from a collection of songs called "The Book
of Yashar," or "The Book of the Upright," or "Brave."
Its date cannot be definitely fixed ; probably it was written
while the battle was still fresh in the memory of the
people, and yet sufficiently removed to allow the story of
a miraculous prolongation of the day to arise.

"It should be noted, however, that Judg. 3. 13 and 2 Sam. 5. 10
presuppose the existence of the city during the intervening centuries.
" Schmidt, Messages of the Poets, p. 351.
" Steuernagel, Joshua, in loco.
"Josh. 10. 12, 13.
" Compare Judg. 5. 20.

CHAPTER XVII
ANCIENT MATERIAL EMBODIED IN THE
PENTATEUCHAL DOCUMENTS
2. Legal Material

CHAPTER XVII
ANCIENT MATERIAL EMBODIED IN THE
PENTATEUCHAL DOCUMENTS
2. Legal Material
The Origin and Contents of the Legal System of the
Hebrews.' In the course of the critical study of the
Pentateuch the origin of the legal portions has received
considerable attention; and, as In the case of the narra
tive sections, questions have arisen regarding the relia
bility of traditional views on the subject. "The tradi
tional view of the religion of Israel represented Moses as
the giver of an ethical and ritual law of a highly developed
and complex nature, centuries In advance of his time, a
law so high in Its ethical character that, for the most
part. It Is applicable to-day, In spite of the wonderful
advance In morals since Moses's time; a ritual law so
complicated that, even after the nation turned into a
church, In the period following the exile, there were still
portions of that ritual which were Impracticable of
execution." *
There appears to be no good reason for doubting that,
whatever the Inheritance from other ages and peoples
may have been, the beginnings of the distinctively Hebrew
' Practically the entire legal system of the Hebrews is embodied
in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy;
outside of the Pentateuch the most important piece of legislation
is Ezek. 40-48.
'J. P. Peters, The Religion of Moses, in Journal of Biblical
Literature, XXI, ii, p. loi. Compare also The Religion of the
Hebrews, p. 81. 271

272 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
system of laws, in all Its aspects — judicial, moral, and
religious — may be traced to the activity and Influence of
Moses. It was he who proclaimed Yahweh to be the
one and only God of Israel, and Israel to be the peculiar
people of Yahweh; and in order to maintain and per
petuate the new relationship It became incumbent upon
him somehow to regulate the relation of the people, as a
religious unit, to their God, and of the Individual mem
bers of the nation to one another and to the community
as a whole. Out of this need grew a demand for the
creation or adaptation of a ceremonial system, moral
precepts, and judicial laws, by which the life and conduct
of the people could be governed.* But while there Is
general agreement that Moses was the originator of the
law-giving or law-making movement that culminated In
the legal system — if it may be called such — in the Penta
teuch, scholars are also agreed that this system In Its
present form cannot come from him. While engaged In
the study of the Pentateuch as a whole, they discovered
in the legal portions, as in the narrative sections, repe
titions and discrepancies, and differences in religious con
ception, language, style, and scope, which led them to con
clude that the complicated legal system embodied in the
Pentateuch was In reality a compilation of material taken
from several originally Independent codes, formulated in
successive periods of Hebrew history. This conclusion
was confirmed by a more searching analysis of the history
of Israel and of the other Old Testament books, which
study also furnished the means of tracing through Its suc
cessive stages the gradual development of Hebrew law.*

' For the opinion of scholars that Moses is the originator of
Hebrew Torah, see further, above, p. 90.
?See further, above, Chapters IX, X, XIII-XV.

ANCIENT MATERIAL 273
Five distinct groups of laws or commandments may be
discovered in the Pentateuch: (i) The Decalogue; (2)
the Book of the Covenant; (3) the Deuteronomic Code;
(4) the Holiness Code; (5) the Priestly Code. Allowing
for the possibility of minor additions at later times, these
codes are commonly thought to have been compiled during
the following periods :
The Decalogue — in some form. In the age of Moses.
The Book of the Covenant — in the period of the
Judges or of the early monarchy; certainly before the
appearance of the eighth-century prophets.
The Deuteronomic Code — during the seventh century,
preceding the reform movement under Josiah.
The Holiness Code — in the early years of the exile.
The Priestly Code — In the closing years of the exile
and the early post-exilic period.
The origin of the Deuteronomic Code is discussed In
Chapter XII, and that of the Priestly Code, which, joined
with the Priestly History, represents one of the four
Pentateuchal Documents, In Chapters XIII-XV, In con
nection with the chronological order and date of the
other documents. The remaining three codes, however,
came Into the Pentateuch only as parts of larger
documents; they were in existence as completed codes
when these documents were written ; they and their origin,
therefore, must be considered In the discussion of the
legal material embodied In the Pentateuchal Documents.
The Decalogue. The Decalogue, in some form,
probably represents the earliest attempt among the
Hebrews to formulate a brief and easily remembered
legal code, In which were included the precepts forming
the basis of their religious and community life. Nor Is
there any reason for doubting that such a Decalogue was

274 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
given to the people by Moses. "Tradition," says C. P.
Kent, resting probably on an ultimate basis of fact,
assigns their® origin to Moses and the mount of revela
tion" ;® and again, "There is no reason for doubting that
through Israel's first great prophet there was transmitted
a primitive Decalogue — and possibly several — which
defined In ten brief sentences the nation's obligations to
its God." ¦'
Differences of opinion arise as soon as the inquiry
turns to the contents of the Mosaic Decalogue. The
group of commandments commonly designated the Deca
logue appears In two recensions, differing In details, the
one In Exod. 20. 1-17, the other In Deut. 5. 6-21 (Heb.
6-18). In both cases some of the commandments have
received certain hortatory additions. In its original form
the Decalogue reproduced In the two passages may have
read: I. Thou shalt have no other gods beside me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven Image.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of Yahweh, thy God,
In vain. 4. Remember the sabbath day to hallow It.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother.
6. Thou shalt do no murder.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness.
10. Thou shalt not covet.
Is this the Mosaic Decalogue ? Kent is convinced that
"the famiHar prophetic Decalogue of Exod. 20. 1-17 was

' He is referring to the origin of the "original ten words."
° Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents, p. 23.
''Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents, p. 29.

ANCIENT MATERIAL 275
substituted by a late prophetic editor for the older Deca
logue of Exod. 34."* Moreover, he believes the Decalogue
In Exod. 34® to have been preceded by an earlier one,
and this earlier one to have originated during the period
of the United Monarchy, which would mean a relatively
late date for the Decalogue in Exod. 20 and Deut. 5.
And Kent assigns the latter Decalogue to a late date,
for he holds that the teaching of Amos, Hosea, and
Isaiah underlies "this noble prophetic Decalogue" ;'" and
this opinion Is shared by many modern scholars." The
evidence upon which this conclusion is based is chiefly
internal, as may be seen from the statement of Addis:
"The Elohist document (perhaps a later edition of it) is
our earliest external witness, and that does not carry us
back beyond the middle of the eighth century B. C. Nor
does Internal evidence point to a much earlier time. The
character of the Decalogue, which Is not ritual, but almost
purely moral; the prohibition of Images, apparently un
known to Elijah and Elisha ; the refinement which forbids
thoughts of covetousness (the Hebrew cannot fairly be
taken otherwise) all lend support to the view that the
Decalogue Is grounded on the teaching of the great
prophets of whose discourses we have written records.
It has been compared with the loftier teaching In Mic.
6. 6-8, and may belong to the same age ; that is, at earliest
that of Manasseh." '* W. R. Harper and other scholars
maintain that, historically Interpreted, the Ten Command-

' Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents, p. Vj.
' See, further, below, p. 278.
"Beginnings of Hebrew History, p. 182.
" See articles on Decalogue in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible,
and in Encyclopedia Biblica, where numerous authorities are cited.
"Encyclopedia Biblica, art. "Decalogue."

276 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
ments do not necessarily presuppose so late a date; he
believes that the "prophetic" Decalogue In Its completed
form may be assigned to "a period not much later than
B. C. 750."'* Another group of scholars Insists that there
is really nothing in the "ten words" — as preserved in
expanded form in Exod. 20 and Deut. 5 — that would
militate against belief In Mosaic authorship.'*
It is generally admitted that the chief, though perhaps
not the only, difficulty arises in connection with the second
commandment, "Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven
Image." Says E. Kautzsch: "There would be no vaHd
reason for refusing to attribute to Moses himself a
primitive, concise form of the Decalogue, were it not
for the formidable difficulty presented by the prohibition
of the use of images. Down to the eighth century no
one seems to be acquainted with so categorical a com
mand that images of Yahweh are not to be made." '®
But even this difficulty does not seem to be Insurmount
able. Koenig, for example, after a lengthy discussion of
the whole subject reaches the conclusion that there is
abundant evidence to prove that from the very beginning
the legitimate Yahweh religion was opposed to the use
of Images as representations of Yahweh; and he can
see no reason whatever for denying the Decalogue of

"Amos and Hosea, p. Ixii.
"J. P. Peters, Journal of Biblical Literature, XXI, ii, pp. loiff. ;
The Religion of the Hebrews, chap. IV ; E. Sellin, Einleitung in das
Alte Testament, p. 23 ; E. Koenig, Gesch. der alttest. Religion, p. 148,
where other authorities advocating the same view are named.
" Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, extra vol., p. 634. Eerdmans
escapes the difficulty by assuming that only seven of the ten words
came from Moses (Theo. Tidjschrift, xxxvii, pp. i8ff.) ; but there is
insufficient ground for believing that the original collection con
tained only seven words.

ANCIENT MATERIAL 277
Exod. 20 and Deut. 5 In its original form to Moses.'®
Internal evidence, therefore, does not seem to be decisive.
Another serious difficulty arises from the presence in
Exod. 34. 10-28 of what appears to be another Deca
logue ; at any rate, the precepts In that chapter are called
"the words of the covenant, the ten words," and are said
to have been written upon two tables.''' The Decalogue
In chapter 34 is a part of J; and is thought by some to
correspond to the Decalogue In Exod. 20, which Is
thought to have been preserved by E. Which means that
those who assign the latter Decalogue to the seventh
century cannot connect It with the original E, written a
century earlier, but at most with a later recension or
revision of E, leaving the original E without an organ
ized Decalogue. Now, further investigation has led to
the discovery within the Book of the Covenant of re
quirements corresponding to those in Exod. 34, from
which the inference has been drawn that these laws,'*
though widely separated at present, originally constituted
the Decalogue preserved by E. In other words, Exod. 34
is thought to contain the J recension and the verses
Indicated in Exod. 20, 22, 23, the E recension of an
early Decalogue. The Decalogues in Exod. 20: 1-17
and Deut. 5 would, then, be still later developments in
spired by the teaching of the great eighth-century
prophets.'®

"Geschichte der alttest. Religion, pp. 20off.; he is supported in
this by other scholars, some of whom are named on p. 222. Compare
also R. Kittel, History of the Hebrews (English translation), i,
pp. 248, 249.
"Verse 28.
"Exod. 20. 23; 22. 29-31; 23. 12-19,
" See J. P. Peters, The Religion of the Hebrews, chap, iv, espe
cially pp. 97, 98.

278 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
The exact wording of the Decalogue in Exod. 34 Is
not easily determined, for the code as there preserved
contains at least twelve precepts. J. Wellhausen suggests
the following arrangement :*" which is accepted by many
scholars, 1. Thou shalt worship no other God.
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten God.
3. Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread.
4. All the first-born are mine.
5. Thou shalt keep the feast of weeks.
6. Thou shalt keep the feast of Ingathering at the
end of the year.
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with
leaven. 8. Thou shalt not retain until the morning the fat
of my feast.
9. Thou shalt bring the best of the firstfruits of the
field to the house of Yahweh thy God.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.
This reconstruction Is based exclusively on Exod. 34;
Kent, on the basis of Exod. 34 and the relevant verses
In the Book of the Covenant, seeks to restore the Deca
logue underlying the J and E recensions; which differs
slightly from the above:*'
1. Thou shalt worship no other God.
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou observe.
4. Every first-born Is mine.
5. Six days shalt thou toil, and on the seventh thou
shalt rest.**

" Composition of the Hexateuch, p. 333.
'^Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents, p. 21,
" Omitted by Wellhausen.

ANCIENT MATERIAL 279
6. Thou shalt observe the feasts of weeks and in
gathering at the end of the year.**
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with
leaven. 8. The fat of my feast shall not be left until morning.
9. The best of the firstfruits of thy land shalt thou
bring to the house of Yahweh.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in Its mother's milk.
This Decalogue undoubtedly bears a more primitive
aspect than the one In Exod. 20; moreover, its precepts
are In perfect accord with what is known of the nature
and character of primitive religion In general. G. F.
Moore, therefore, calls the Decalogue in Exod. 34 "the
earliest attempt with which we are acquainted to embody
in a series of brief Injunctions formulated as divine
commands the essential observances of the religion of
Yahweh. . . . Religion seems to be as yet untouched
by the prophetic movement whose burden was that what
God demands Is not worship but righteousness." ** The
background of at least some of the precepts being clearly
agricultural,*® the origin of this Decalogue In written
form is assigned by most scholars to the period after
the settlement In Canaan; but there is no agreement re
garding the exact date. Kent expresses the opinion that
"it was promulgated at least as early as the days of the
united monarchy," *® and more specifically, that "the
primitive ten words were not put in written form until
the reign of Solomon and In connection with the royal
sanctuary reared by him" ;*'' others date it as late as the
" A combination of 5 and 6 in Wellhausen's arrangement.
'* Encyclopedia Biblica, art. "Exodus."
" See especially 5, 6, 9 in Wellhausen's listj 6 and 9 in Kent's,
"Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents, p. 21,
"Ibid., p. 23.

28o THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
eighth century.** The commonly accepted theory is that
this primitive Decalogue was inserted in both J and E;
subsequently, under the influence of prophetic teaching
the "prophetic" Decalogue was formed, taking as its
starting point the earlier ten words ; at a still later time,
the "prophetic" Decalogue was substituted in E, perhaps
by a Judahite redactor, for the older Decalogue, after
Exod. 19. 20-25, while the provisions of the older Deca
logue were transferred to their present positions within
the limits of the Book of the Covenant.
While this explanation of the origin and mutual rela
tion of the several Decalogues Is reasonable and In accord
with the general development of the theological and
ethical thought of the Hebrews, the case of the defenders
of the Mosaic authorship of the Decalogue In Exod. 20 —
aside from the hortatory additions — is by no means as
hopeless as some appear to think. True, the suggestion
that the requirements In Exod. 34 are nothing more than
recollections of some of the precepts In the "prophetic
Decalogue and In the Book of the Covenant," *® fails to
do justice to the facts ; nevertheless, it must be admitted
that the available data are hardly sufficient to answer all
questions and solve all problems connected with the origin
and the mutual relation of the several Decalogues.
Moreover, the existence of the "prophetic" Decalogue as
the original charter of the covenant between Yahweh
and Israel would furnish an adequate explanation of
the physical and spiritual vigor and vitality that gave to

"As has been stated, the requirements themselves and the deca
logue form may go back to Moses, but in the beginning they were
"simply inscribed on the popular memory."
"Sellin, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, p. 25; compare also
Peters, Religion of the Hebrews, p. 97, note 2.

ANCIENT MATERIAL 281
the Hebrews final victory over the Inhabitants of Canaan
and of the distinctively ethical tone of Hebrew religion
as proclaimed by its leaders from the time of Moses on.
It may be wise, therefore, to heed the words of R. L.
Ottley: "The facts as they stand are perplexing, and
justify a suspension of judgment. It is reasonable to
suppose that the Decalogue in Its present form bears
traces of expansion In prophetic times ; at the same time
it lays down principles of morality which are so elemen
tary as to be strictly consistent with what we know of
the condition of Israel in Mosaic times. It is difficult to
see what other precepts could have been better adapted
to lift the Hebrews above the degraded nature religion of
their heathen neighbors, to teach them the true character
of their divine Deliverer, and to educate them In the
rudiments of social justice and humanity." *"
The Book of the Covenant.*' This group of laws owes
its title to Exod. 24. 7, which, In referring to it, uses the
expression "book of the covenant." That it Is meant to
serve as the charter of a covenant Is suggested also by the
promises made to those who obey Its provisions.** The
laws contained In the collection comprise two elements:
"the words" and "the ordinances" or "judgments" of
Yahweh.** They deal with a variety of subjects; as
they stand at present the transitions are frequently abrupt.

" The Religion of Israel, p. 36.
"The law code proper extends from Exod. 20. 22 to 23. 19; in
cluding the exhortations and promises it extends to 23. 33.
"^23. 20-33.
"Exod. 24. 3. The "ordinances," all stated hypothetically, are
found in 21. l to 22. 17, 25a, 26; 23. 4, S; the "words," in the nature
of direct commands, occupy the rest of the book down to 23. 19;
the succeeding verses, as already stated, containing promises to those
who live in harmony with the preceding commandments.

282 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
and numerous adjustments are necessary to make a
systematic arrangement possible. Many modern scholars
hold that originally the Book of the Covenant was
arranged on the principle of the Decalogue; that Is, the
code in Its original form is thought to have consisted,
not, like the Decalogue, of ten Individual commandments,
but of ten complete Decalogues, each divisible into two
groups of five individual laws. Corresponding to the two
tables of the Decalogue, the Book of the Covenant has
further been divided into two groups, each consisting of
five related Decalogues: (i) Judgments — dealing with
civil and criminal cases; (2) ReHglous and Humane
Laws.** By transferring a few verses from Deuter
onomy It becomes possible to reconstruct the five Deca
logues of the first group; of the second only four
Decalogues can be found, and though traces of a fifth
may be discovered, there is no way of restoring it.
Kent's outline of the code Is as follows:
I. Judgments
First Decalogue: The Rights of Slaves
First Pentad — Males, Exod. 21. 2, 3a, 3b, 4, 5-6.
Second Pentad — Females, Exod. 21. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
Second Decalogue: Assaults
First Pentad — Capital Offenses, Exod. 21. 12, 13, 14,
15, 16.
Second Pentad — Minor Offenses, Exod. 21. 18-19, 20,
21, 26, 2y.
"A full discussion of this rearrangement is found in C. F. Kent,
Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents, pp. 26ff., where mention is
made of some of the scholars who h^iv? contributed to the develop
ment of the theory,

ANCIENT MATERIAL 283
Third Decalogue : Laws Regarding Domestic Animals
First Pentad — Injuries by Animals, Exod. 21. 28, 29,
30. 31. 32.
Second Pentad — Injuries to Animals, Exod. 21. 33-34,
35, 36; 22. 1,4.
Fourth Decalogue: Responsibility for Property
First Pentad — In General, Exod. 22. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
Second Pentad — In Cattle, Exod. 22. lo-ii, 13, 14,
15a, 15b. Fifth Decalogue: Social Purity
First Pentad — Adultery, Deut 22. 13-19, 20-21, 22,
23-24, 25-27.
Second Pentad — Fornication and Apostasy, Exod. 22.
16, 17, 18, 19, 20.
II. Ceremonial and Humane Laws
First Decalogue: Kindness
First Pentad — Toward Men, Exod. 22. 21a, 22-23,
25a, 25b, 26-27.
Second Pentad — Toward Animals, Exod. 23. 4 (Deut.
22. i) ; 22. 2, 3; 23. 5 (Deut. 22. 4) ; 22. 6-7.
Second Decalogue: Justice
First Pentad — Among Equals, Exod. 23. la, ib, 2a,
2b, 3.
Second Pentad — On the Part of Those In Authority,
Exod. 23. 6, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8.
Third Decalogue: Duties to God
First Pentad— Worship, Exod. 20. 23a, 23b, 24, 25, 26.

284 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
Second Pentad — Loyalty, Exod. 22. 28, 29a, 29b,
30, 31-
Fourth Decalogue: Sacred Seasons
First Pentad — Command to Observe them, Exod. 23.
lo-ii, 12, 15a, 16a, 16b.
Second Pentad — Method of Observing them, Exod.
23. 17, i8a, i8b, 19a, i9b.*®
The date of the Book of the Covenant Is a matter of
dispute. The statements in Exod. 23. iff. Imply Mosaic
authorship,*® and this Is accepted by some recent writers.*''
But since it Is generally admitted that chapter 24 reflects
simply the view of the later editor who Is responsible for
the present position of the code, Its testimony cannot be
considered absolutely final. Even Sellin feels at liberty to
reject the statement that the code was given on Mount
Sinai ; he interprets it as the law given by Moses shortly
before the crossing of the Jordan; and he thinks that at
one time It preceded Deut. 27, from which position it
was displaced subsequently by the Deuteronomic Code.
In the absence of sufficient external evidence the ques
tion must be decided on the basis of internal evidence
and other more general considerations. Now it seems
incredible that Moses should have settled all disputes

" If the whole of chap. 20 could be included in the Book of the
Covenant, the "prophetic" Decalogue in verses 1-17 would supply
the missing Decalogue; but this Decalogue is so different from the
rest of the book and offers so many parallels to it, that it cannot
be so regarded. It is not impossible, however, that its presence may
be responsible for the omission of one Decalogue from the Book
of the Covenant, and thus, for the practical substitution of this
one for the other.
" Though, perhaps, only in the sense discussed above, p. 90.
"Sellin, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, pp. 23, 24; Koenig,
Geschichte der alttest. Religion, p. 148.

ANCIENT MATERIAL 285
brought before him simply by reference to the Decalogue,
whatever Its original form and contents may have been;
he must have made his decisions more specific; and if so.
It Is very probable that at least some of these decisions
were written down for the guidance of succeeding genera
tions. Moreover, some of the provisions now In the
Book of the Covenant are quite suitable for that early
age. On the other hand, the code as a. whole seems to
reflect a somewhat more advanced stage of civilization.
"The society contemplated In it Is of very simple struc
ture. The basis of life Is agricultural. Cattle and agri
cultural produce are the main elements of wealth; and
the laws of property deal almost exclusively with them.
The principles of criminal and civil justice are those still
current among the Arabs of the desert, namely, retalia
tion and pecuniary compensation. Murder Is dealt with
by the law of blood revenge ; but the distinction is drawn
between murder and manslaughter, and the Innocent man-
slayer may seek an asylum at God's altar (21. 13, 14).
With murder are ranked man-stealing, offenses against
parents, and witchcraft. Other Injuries are occasions of
self-help, or of private suits to be adjusted at the sanc
tuary (22. 9). Personal Injuries fall under the law of
retaliation, just as murder does. A blow for a blow is
still the law of the Arabs; and in Canaan, no doubt, as
In the desert, the retaliation was usually sought In the
way of self-help. Except In this form, there Is no pun
ishment, but only compensation, which in some cases
is at the will of the injured party, but In general is
defined by law. Degrading punishments are unknown,
and loss of liberty is inflicted only upon the thief who
cannot pay a fine (22.3). Definite rights are secured for
the slave. He recovers his freedom after seven years.

286 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
unless he prefers to remain a bondman, and seals soleninly
his determination at the door of the sanctuary. His
right of blood revenge against his master is, however,
limited (21. 20, 21); though Instead of the lex talionis
for minor Injuries, he can claim his liberty (21. 26, 2y).
Women do not enjoy full social equality with men.
Women slaves are slaves for life, but were often, it may
be inferred, married to members or servants of the
family (21. 4, 7-9). The daughter was her father's
property (21. 7), who received a price for surrendering
her to a husband; and so a daughter's dishonor was
compensated by law as a pecuniary loss to her father
(22. 16, 17)."**
Evidently, the state of society reflected In the code is
exceedingly simple; and yet it seems In advance of con
ditions In the days of Moses. True, It Is not Impossible
to think of Moses as giving laws suitable for an environ
ment more advanced than the one in which he lived,
especially since he must have looked forward to the
settlement in Canaan, when the people's mode of living
would necessarily undergo a change;*® nevertheless, it
Is unquestionably more natural to explain the laws as
arising out of present needs of the people for whom
they were intended. This being the case, the Book of
the Covenant may be described as a collection of Mosaic
decisions, modified and expanded In accord with the
needs of later generations.
But It is difficult to say at what period subsequently
to Moses It assumed the form In which It was embodied
In one of the Pentateuchal documents. That it was

"W. R. Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 2nd
ed., pp. 336ff.
" Koenig, Geschichte der alttest. Religion, p. 149.

ANCIENT MATERIAL 287
prior to the time of Amos is beyond question;*" but it
is no easy task to locate it more definitely between the
age of Moses and the age of the eighth-century prophets.
There is no convincing reason for bringing it down
beyond the age of the Judges; nevertheless, Kent,
followed by other scholars, believes that he has excellent
reasons for saying: "These*' represent, therefore, the
growth of Israel's laws and institutions from the early
period, about 11 50, to about B. C. 750, when Amos
and Hosea and Isaiah appeared as the heralds of a new
era In the political and religious life of the Hebrew
race." **
The Law of Holiness.** Peculiarities of form, con
tents, and expression have convinced modern scholars
that Lev. 17-26 existed at one time as an independent
code.** The designation "Law of Holiness," *® first
suggested by Klostermann, finds justification In the
fact that the central theme of the whole code Is holiness,
moral and ceremonial. Its motto Is: "Ye shall be holy:
for I Jehovah am holy";*® and one of its striking char
acteristics is the impressive refrain, "I am Jehovah,"
which occurs forty-six times.

"W. R. Harper, Amos and Hosea, p. Ixviii.
"Exod. 20. 23 to 23. 19; 34.
"Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents, p. 30.
"Lev. 17-26.
"It is not improbable that originally the code was more exten
sive than it is now. Some of its laws may have been omitted by
the redactor who made H (=Law of Holiness) a part of the
Priestly Code; others may have been transferred to other parts
of the Pentateuch; for example, the food laws in Lev. 11, and the
law concerning fringes, in Num. 15. 37-41.
"Heiligkeitsgesetz; see Zeitschrift fuer Lutherische Theologie,
1S77, pp. 401 ff.
"19. 2; compare 22. 31-33.

288 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
As in the case of the Book of the Covenant, attempts
have been made to subdivide the Law of Holiness into
a series of Decalogues,*'' but such an arrangement neces
sitates in many instances a disregard of the present order.
The code deals with a variety of topics ; it is noteworthy,
however, that It lays much less stress upon civil and
criminal laws than upon moral and ceremonial require
ments. The more important subjects covered In the laws
are: The slaughter of animals and sacrifice,** unchastity
and Moloch worship,*® religious and moral behavior,®"
penalties for Moloch worship, unlawful marriage, and
other offenses,®' regulations touching priests and offer
ings,®* the sacred seasons,®* the lights of the sanctuary,
the showbread, the blasphemer and his punishment,®*
the sabbatic year and the year of jubilee.®® The code
closes with a hortatory address, emphasizing the funda
mental duty of loyalty to Yahweh and his commands.®®
It Is within the bounds of the Law of Holiness that
Old Testament legislation reaches Its noblest expression,
in the command: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself." ®^
The individual laws did not originate with the com
piler of the code. Internal evidence — for example, dif
ferences In the form of laws dealing with the same or
kindred subjects — makes it probable that the author of
the code had access to earlier collections, which may
have been made at different times and places and In
different priestly circles. No doubt he may have formu-
"L. B. Paton, Journal of Biblical Literature, 1897, pp. 31-37.
" Chap. 17. " Chap. 23.
"Chap. 18. "Chap. 24.
" Chap. 19. " Chap. 25.
" Chap. 20. " Chap. 26.
"Chaps. 21, 22. "'19. 18,

ANCIENT MATERIAL 289
lated and inserted new laws, but, on the whole, his work
was that of adapting older laws to present conditions, of
bringing them into harmony with his own point of view,
and of reen forcing them by supplying suitable motives.
Kent Is undoubtedly right when, in speaking of these
laws, he says, "Their roots are probably to be traced to
the Mosaic and nomadic periods of Israelitish history." ®*
In language, thought, and general aim the Law of
Holiness resembles Ezekiel.®® The similarities are.
Indeed, so striking that some scholars have considered
Ezekiel the author, or at least the redactor, of the code.
That there are remarkable resemblances cannot be denied ;
it is equally true, as other scholars have pointed out,
that there are such obvious differences between the two
that It is almost Impossible to believe that they came
from one and the same author. Nevertheless, the simi
larities are so numerous and striking that they cannot be
regarded as coincidence. There seems to be some rela
tionship, but it Is not easy to answer the inquiry. Was
Ezekiel Influenced by the Law of Holiness, or did the
compiler of that code write under the influence of the
thought and language of Ezekiel ? The available evidence
is so slight that there exists wide diversity of opinion
on this point among scholars; some hold to the priority
of Ezekiel, especially in view of the exhortations in
Lev. 26; others, and they are in the majority, favor the
priority of H. G. F. Moore assigns the code to the half
century before Ezekiel,®" and Driver thinks that the
"Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents, p. 41.
"Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament,
pp. I45ff.; A. T. Chapman, Introduction to the Pentateuch, Appen
dix V; Carpenter and Harford, Composition of the Hexateuch,
pp. 26gS.; Encyclopedia Biblica, art. "Leviticus."
"" Encyclopedia Biblica, vol. iii, col. 2791.

290 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
author or compiler may have been a priest-prophet living
toward the closing years of the monarchy.®'
That would bring the date of H very near to the date
of D. Now Lev. 17. 4 might be interpreted as Implying
that the author recognized only one legitimate sanctuary,
which would favor the priority of D ; but, unfortunately,
the word translated "the tabernacle (abode) of" is gener
ally considered a later addition; If so, the original "before
Yahweh" would be in perfect accord with the earlier
recognition of a multiplicity of sanctuaries. On the
whole, however, the evidence points to the priority of
D; the priestly Interest Is more prominent In H than
In D, and the former places much more emphasis on
the ritual than the latter. Hence there Is good support
for the view that "in subject matter and aim H stands
midway between the prophetic codes of Deuteronomy
and the priestly codes of Ezekiel and the later writers
who place the emphasis chiefly upon the ceremonial. . . .
It Is probable, therefore, that the original draft of this
code was made between the first and final captivity
(B. C. 597-586), a period In which the more enlightened
leaders, like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, saw clearly that the
state was doomed, and that Israel's laws and Institutions,
if they were to be preserved, must be put Into written
form." ®*

"¦Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, p. 151.
" C. F. Kent, Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents, p. 41 ; see also
below, p. 305.

CHAPTER XVIII
THE GROWTH OF THE PENTATEUCH

CHAPTER XVIII
THE GROWTH OF THE PENTATEUCH
The earliest literary period In Israel, as among other
peoples, was preceded by an age of song and story. Some
of the songs considered in Chapter XVI may be assigned
to that early age,' and others, not preserved in the Old
Testament, may have been in existence.* These songs,
dealing with significant Incidents and events In the history
of the clan, tribe, or nation, and with the heroic deeds
of Individuals, were highly prized and frequently re
peated both by the common people and by professional
singers. In the course of time collections of these songs
were made, two of which are referred to In the Old
Testament "The Book of the Wars (of Yahweh),"*
mentioned In Num. 21. 14, was a collection of songs
commemorating the mighty deeds of Yahweh and of his
people In connection with the struggles for the possession
of Palestine; "The Book of Yashar" or "the Upright"
Is mentioned two or three times.* It Is not quite clear
whether Israel or Yahweh Is to be regarded as the Up-
'The Song of the Sword, Gen. 4. 23, 24; the Curse of Canaan,
Gen. 9. 25-27; the Blessing of Jacob, Gen. 49. 2-27; the Triumph
Song over the Downfall of the Egyptians, Exod. 15. 1-18; the poetic
fragments in Num. 21; the Oracles of Balaam, Num. 23, 24; the
Song of Moses, Deut. 32 ; the Blessing of Moses, Deut. 33.
'This is a safe inference from the frequent allusions to songs
accompanying banquets and other festal occasions; for example.
Gen. 31. 27; 2 Sam. 19. 35; Amos 6. S; Isa. 5. 12; 16. 10, etc.
'See above, p. 259.
'Josh. iq. 13; 2 Sam. i. 18; and, perhaps, I Kings 8. 53,
293

294 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
right; In either case, this collection, like "the Book of
the Wars," seems to have contained songs Inspired by
Incidents In the early history of the people.
Unfortunately, only a few of the early songs have
been preserved, and some of these In fragmentary form.
The abbreviations and other alterations — aside from
textual corruptions — may, perhaps, be traced to two
causes : ( i ) As long as the individual songs or the collec
tions were known to the people It was not necessary to
embody the songs In their entirety in the historical
records ; brief references or quotations would be sufficient
to recall the whole of the poem as found in the song
book. (2) The later literature was written from the
standpoint of religion; hence everything that could not
be accommodated under the later religious point of view
was omitted.®
Alongside of these songs existed stories and legends
centering around important persons and events. "We
must ascribe," says E. Kautzsch, "to an actual tradition,
handed down from the prellterary period, the largest
part of the matter furnished by the ancient documentary
sources in the Pentateuch and Joshua.® Some of this
material goes back to early pre-Mosaic times. For in
stance, as soon as men learned to observe the phenomena
of nature they sought answers to the questions : Whence
came the world? Whence came man? How did evil
and death come Into the world? etc. The early Semites,
long before there was a Hebrew people, furnished answers
to these Inquiries. When the ancestors of the Hebrews
separated from the common stock they carried these

' E. Kautzsch, Literature of the Old Testament, p. 3.
'Ibid., p. 6.

GROWTH OF THE PENTATEUCH 295
traditions with them; then, in their new home, they
developed them and impressed upon them the stamp of
their own national and religious characteristics. In this
manner may have originated and grown some of the
stories In Gen. i-ii.
As among other peoples, so among the families, clans,
and tribes out of which developed the Hebrew nation,
stories and even cycles of stories grew up, centering
around prominent ancestors, especially such as distin
guished themselves in battle or in connection with other
epoch-making events. These stories would be handed
down from father to son, or from family to family, and
they might be told and retold by professional story
tellers on various occasions, even outside of the immediate
circles In which they originated. Some of the patriarchal
stories may be of this nature. The most significant event
In early Hebrew history was the Exodus from Egypt,
which furnished an immense mass of new material to
the story-teller: the life and activity of Moses, the
Exodus and the events connected with it, the desert
wanderings, the entrance Into Palestine and the subse
quent conflicts under the leadership of the champions
known as the Judges. After the occupation of Palestine
the Hebrews assimilated a large part of the native popu
lation and rededlcated to Yahweh many of the local
shrines and sanctuaries. Is It not at least probable that
with the sanctuaries many of the traditions that had
grown up around the sacred places were taken over by
the invaders until gradually they became a part of their
own popular traditions?
But in time the new religion introduced by Moses
permeated all the earlier stories, whatever their origin
and original home may have been, and caused various

296 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
modifications that brought them Into line with the newer
and higher religious conceptions. In all probability much
of this material continued to be preserved and handed
down In oral form ; on the other hand, It Is not Impossible
that even at this early time some of the stories assumed
written form.
Moses did two things for his people: (i) He suc
ceeded In combining the heterogeneous elements Into a
national unity; and (2) he gave to this unity a practical
monotheism; all of which finds expression in the watch
word: "Yahweh the God of Israel, Israel the people of
Yahweh." But to place this work upon a permanent
basis it was necessary to establish a political organization,
however simple, to formulate or adapt laws for the pur
pose of regulating the relation of the people to their God,
and of the individual members of the new nation to
one another, and, further, to Introduce various Institu
tions that were essential for the maintenance of the
religious, social and political life. Some of the laws
and regulations given by Moses may well have found
a place In the later, and more complete, legal system of
the Hebrews.
The entrance into Palestine transformed a considerable
number of the Hebrew nomads and seminomads Into
agriculturists. The new mode of living produced far-
reaching social changes and consequently necessitated the
adaptation of older laws to the new conditions and the
formulation of new laws. Moreover, with the general
advance in culture and civilization reading and writing
became more common ;'' and, perhaps, efforts were made,
especially at the sanctuaries, to preserve in more per
manent form the songs and stories of the past. There
' ^udg. 8. 14 implies the wide prevalence of the art of writing.

GROWTH OF THE PENTATEUCH 297
too attempts may have been made to codify the legal
decisions handed down from earlier times. The Book
of the Covenant may represent such a collection.
During the period of the United Monarchy further
advances in civilization were made. There were new
poetic outbursts; and now, for the first time, traces of
connected prose writing appear. The earliest efforts
dealt with events of the recent past, especially with those
centering around Saul and David. But the literary
interest, once awakened, continued to flourish even after
the division of the kingdoiVi subsequently to the death
of Solomon. The royal annals, begun under the United
Kingdom, were continued, and the broader literary
Interest manifested itself among the prophets in the col
lection of ancient songs and stories, and their compila
tion — after impressing upon them the conceptions and
Ideals of the collectors — into extensive narrative works,
which endeavored to trace history back to the beginning
of man's life on earth.* Several compilations of this
kind may have been undertaken, both in the southern
kingdom and in the north; but only two of them, the
Yahwist, written In Judah, and the Elohist, written In
Israel, exerted any marked influence on later literary
developments affecting the growth of the Pentateuch.
The Jehovistic or Yahwistic document was written
first.® It opened with an account of creation, the origin
of sin, and the Introduction of Important occupations
and Institutions known to the writer. Through the story
of the tower of Babel he sought to account for the dis
persion of mankind, and the rise of nations and languages.

'The compilers seem to have made no attempt to harmonize
traditions derived from different sources,
'See above, p. 2ip.

298 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
Then followed the patriarchal narratives, accounts of
Israel's experiences In Egypt, the Exodus, the desert
wanderings, the settlement In Canaan, and perhaps, the
early decades of the monarchy, down to the accession of
Solomon. Here and there brief legal sections were em
bodied. The original document was expanded at different
times by the addition of other narratives and of archaeo
logical or explanatory notes. These additions can be
distinguished from the original work by variations In
vocabulary and point of view; but the work In its final
form was dominated by the same essentially prophetic
tone and spirit that characterized the earliest portions.
Within the century following the compilation of the
Yahwistic history in Judah the prophets in the northern
kingdom undertook a similar task, and they produced a
history resembling In many respects that written In the
south. There are, however, some very marked differences
between the two. Though there Is abundant evidence of
a pronounced religious and ethical purpose In J, the his
torical interest is at least equally marked. Evidently, the
author made a serious effort to trace the development of
Israel as a race and as a nation. "The great crises and
their significance are graphically portrayed. The Interest
in the heroes of the nation and their valiant achievements
is that of a devoted patriot. The origin of Israel's social
and religious institutions also commands attention. But
a still broader and deeper purpose Is everywhere evident,
which reveals not only the patriotic historian but the
prophet. Israel's history is recounted, not because It was
glorious, but because it effectively illustrates God's
gracious attitude toward men, and the Inevitable conse
quences of right or wrong acts." '" This emphasis Is to
" C. F. Kent, The Historical Bible, i, p. 24.

GROWTH OF THE PENTATEUCH 299
some extent reversed in the northern history. It reveals
less Interest In the history of the nation as such; Its
primary concern is the development of the theocracy, in
which the prophet occupied the commanding position.
Consequently, direct divine . interferences in Israel's his
tory are much more frequent than In J. The author's
interest centering in the theocracy, he began his narrative
with Abraham, who was the first to receive the theocratic
promise. It too may have continued the story well Into
the period of the United Monarchy.
The next significant step In the development of the
Pentateuch was the combination of these two documents,
the Yahwistic and the Elohistic, into one continuous his
tory. When the northern kingdom was dissolved In B. C.
722 many pious Israelites who escaped deportation emi
grated to Judah, where they hoped to enjoy a more con
genial religious atmosphere than among the colonists
brought from the east. Naturally, these emigrants car
ried with them the literary treasures of the north, or at
least some of them, among them the Elohistic history.
The circulation of this history by the side of the Judsean
narrative might prove confusing; at the same time it was
so full of valuable didactic material that Its suppression
would mean a decided loss to the religious life of the
south. A great. Inspired, prophetic soul, recognizing the
value of the northern document, decided to combine the
two narratives. When this was done cannot be definitely
decided; the era of reaction during the reign of Manasseh
would seem to offer a most suitable occasion, for it was
then that the very lessons taught In and by these histories
needed to be impressed upon the people.
As might be expected, the native history was made the
basis o.f the compilation; material from the other source

300 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
being Introduced In suitable places. Sometimes two ac
counts of the same Incident were fused Into one; some
times the parallel accounts were retained side by side ; In
other Instances only one account, usually that of J, was
retained; when there was but one version of a story It
was reproduced, whether It came from the northern
or the southern document. In this manner the most
valuable elements In both histories were preserved; but,
as Is natural, minor Inconsistencies and abrupt tran
sitions abounded In the composite narrative. Legal ele
ments found In J and E were embodied In their proper
places ; and It Is not Impossible that some laws not found
In either were Introduced at this time. There Is no good
reason for thinking that after the completion of the com
pilation efforts were made to destroy the two Independent
narratives ; they may have continued to be read for gen
erations, or even centuries; but in the end they were
entirely superseded by the composite work.
During the same general period another Pentateuchal
document, the Deuteronomic Code, assumed literary
form. After the establishment of the monarchy, and
especially beginning with the reign of Solomon, the life
and society of Israel became Increasingly complex. Inter
course with foreign nations opened the way for the
introduction of foreign beliefs, customs and institutions,
which, in turn, affected the religious and ethical Ideals of
the people, until the uniqueness of Yahweh religion was
seriously threatened. The crisis became acute In the
eighth century. On the one hand, external prosperity led
to moral and religious corruption ; on the other, the suc
cesses of Assyria threatened to destroy belief In the
power and supremacy of Yahweh as the God of Israel.
The severity of the crisis called forth four prophets of

GROWTH OF THE PENTATEUCH 301
unusual insight and spiritual power — Amos, Hosea,
Isaiah, and Micah." Their teaching established new
ethical and religious standards, and under king Hezekiah
a serious attempt was made to put the prophetic teaching
Into practice throughout the whole of Judah.
The era of reform under Hezekiah was followed by the
reactionary reign of Manasseh, during which the voice
of prophecy was silent. For half a century or more the
anti- Yahwistic party was supreme. The old Canaanite
cults and the newly Introduced Assyrian beliefs and prac
tices commanded the devotion of the people, while the
sublime teaching of the eighth-century prophets was for
gotten. It was the very seriousness of the situation that
opened the eyes of the spiritually-minded to the needs of
the hour. The spirit of Isaiah still lived in his disciples,
Yahweh was still watching over his people. Prevented
from preaching, the prophets were compelled to devise
other and better means to accomplish the desired results.
They resorted to writing, and endeavored to put their
teaching Into a form more permanent and, at the same
time. Intelligible to all. They realized that In order to
reach the masses they must put even the loftiest principles
into concrete form; hence they adopted, so far as pos
sible, previously existing forms, usages, and traditions,
eliminated the lower, unspiritual elements, and poured
Into them a deeper and more spiritual significance. The
noblest results of this activity found expression in the
Deuteronomic Code.
The laws of Deuteronomy do not represent a break
with Israel's past ; they mark, rather, a development and
expansion of earlier legislation In the spirit of the eighth-
century prophets. The spirit of D Is preeminently pro-
" F. C. Eiselen, The Minor Prophets, pp. 2ioff.

302 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
phetic, not priestly; service Is ever placed above sacrifice.
To love and to serve Yahweh with all the heart and soul
and might Is the supreme demand.'* The specific laws
are presented simply as means whereby this love may
express Itself. Three fourths of the laws In the earlier
codes are reproduced In some form In D. The omission
of some of the others is to be accounted for by the pur
pose of the new code: it was intended for popular use,
while the omitted laws were primarily for the guidance
of those who administered the law. The omission or
alteration of other earlier laws and the addition of new
ones are to be traced to changes in the political, social,
and religious conditions and to the teaching of the eighth-
century prophets. In the words of Kent: "The lofty
ideals of justice and social righteousness that permeate
the book of Deuteronomy are clearly traceable to the
sermons of Amos and Isaiah, and Its distinctive spirit,
that of love to God and man, is the clear reflection of the
central doctrine of Hosea." '*
The extent of D In Its original form is a matter of
dispute. Many hold that it contained only what cor
responds In the present book to chapters 12-19 ^^'^ 26,
plus the blessings and curses In chapter 28, though the
latter In a simpler form than they now have. But even
if the original D was as short as is claimed, the whole
legal section, chapters 5-28, must have been completed
before the exile in B. C. 586. The original document
probably opened with a brief historical Introduction,'*
which was later expanded, on the basis of either the
independent J and E, chiefly the latter, or the combined

'Deut. 6. 4ff.
' C. F. Kent, Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents, p. 32.
'Deut. 4. 45-49.

GROWTH OF THE PENTATEUCH 303
JE, into the lengthy introduction now filling chapters 1-4.
Chapters 29-34 also contain later additions made at dif
ferent times and from different sources.'®
After the acceptance of D as the law of the land the
desirability of combining the new law code with the
earlier documents that had come to occupy a unique place
In the thought of the people was soon felt. This feeling
received a new Impetus after the dissolution of the
national life, when the few remains of national literature
came to be highly prized. The exact process or processes
of combination can no longer be traced. If it were certain
that the narrative sections In D were based on the com
bined JE, it might be assumed that during the exile In
Babylonia a religious patriot, or a school of such men,
set about the task of combining D with JE. In doing
this they introduced but few modifications in the narra
tive portions to the close of what Is now the book of
Numbers. At this point they Introduced the Deuter
onomic Code, which may have necessitated other modi-

" In its present form the book of Deuteronomy consists, aside
from the introductory historical section (chaps. 1-4), and the fare
well speeches, exhortations, blessings, curses, etc. (chaps. 27-34) of
seven loosely connected groups of laws :
(i) The prophetic Decalogue, followed by a series of exhorta
tions based chiefly on the first command (chaps. S-ii).
(2) Ceremonial and religious laws (12. i to 17. 7).
(3) Appointment and duties of the officials in the theocracy —
judges, kings, priests, and prophets (17. 8 to 18. 22).
(4) Criminal laws (19. 1-21; 21. 1-9).
(S) Military laws, to be observed in case of war (20. 1-20;
21. 10-14).
(6) A miscellaneous collection of civil, criminal, humane, and
religious laws, many of which are closely related to laws in the
other groups (21. 15 to 25. 19).
(7) Presentation of the first-born and the triennial tithe (26. i-
19). Compare Kent, Israel's Laws and Legal Precedents, p. 34.

304 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
fications and additions.'® As was first suggested by
Kuenen,''' the Book of the Covenant may originally have
occupied this place, and was transferred to Its present
position In order to make room for D. Another sugges
tion is that for a time two editions of D were current,
one consisting of chapters 12-26, with chapters 5-11 as
Introduction, the other consisting of chapters 12-26, with
1 . I to 4. 40 as introduction.'* According to this theory,
the task of the compiler would have been twofold : ( i ) the
combination of the two recensions of D, and (2) the
combination of the result with JE. A still different
theory is advanced by E. Sellin, namely, that a short
time; before the exile D was combined with E, and that
during the Babylonian exile this combination ED was
united with JE, the result being JED.'® Whatever the
exact method of procedure may have been, It seems clear
that at some time during the sixth century D was united
with JE, the compiler or compilers introducing into the
older work such modifications as were necessary to main
tain or establish a logical arrangement.
The efforts of the Deuteronomic editor or editors did
not confine themselves to the sections of JE dealing with
the periods preceding the death of Moses, though it is not
improbable that they introduced a definite and well-
marked division at the point where the close of Moses's
activity was recorded. They edited or revised, from the
standpoint of D, the sections of JE that contained the
later history and also the historical documents Inde
pendent of JE, which traced the national history beyond

" C. Steuernagel, Deuteronomium, Sec. 5.
"Hexateuch, pp. 258ff.
" Bennett and Adeney, Biblical Introduction, p. 51.
"Einleitung in das Alte Testament, p. 49.

GROWTH OF THE PENTATEUCH 305
the United Monarchy. In doing this they made the Ideals
of D the criterion by which they judged the whole course
of the history. The result was what may be called a
Deuteronomic history from creation to the exile, parts of
which are found, outside of the Pentateuch, in Joshua,
Judges, Samuel, and Kings.
The Deuteronomic Code, though recognizing the value
and Importance of priestly Institutions, was written from
the prophetic standpoint. Now, while there Is no good
reason for thinking that the priests placed any obstacles
in the way of Joslah's reforms, or expressed dissatisfac
tion with the code upon which they were based, it may
well be that the publication of the "prophetic" code,
intended for the Instruction and guidance of the people,
caused the priests to feel that their own Interests and the
interests of the phase of religion they represented de
manded the collection Into one, easily accessible, code of
at least the more fundamental laws or toroth, which had
grown up at various priestly centers and which dealt more
particularly with priestly Interests and ideals. The result
was the so-called Law of Holiness, which Internal evi
dence, especially its close affinity with the literature of
the latter part of the seventh and the early part of the
sixth century, such as Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, and
especially Ezekiel, proves to have been compiled shortly
before the exile of B. C. 586.*" Even a superficial study
shows that the laws of H reflect primarily priestly Inter
ests and practice. At any rate, the parts which have been
preserved*' "deal largely with subjects In which the
priesthood had a peculiar interest — ^the physical quallfica-

"See above, p. 290.
" The original code may have been more extensive than the body
of laws embodied in the Pentateuch.

3o6 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
tions of priests, restrictions on mourning and on mar
riage, conditions which prevent their eating sacrificial
food, the examination of animals for sacrifice, and the
celebration of the feasts.** After Its completion the code
may have been carried to Babylonia by a member of the
priestly circles to which Ezekiel belonged. At any rate.
It exerted a profound Influence on the latter's thinking
and preaching, as Is attested, for Instance, by the fact
that the principle underlying the laws of Ezekiel Is the
same kind of holiness as Is Insisted upon In the Law of
Holiness — the supreme holiness of Yahweh and the cor
responding obligation of the people to reflect this holiness.
The work of Ezekiel and the Babylonian exile in
general proved of the greatest significance In the develop
ment of Israel's literature and religion. With the pro
mulgation of D began the reign of written law; the Law
of Holiness and the laws of Ezekiel marked a further
step in the same direction; but the highest development
of the legalistic tendency during the Old Testament period
may be seen In the Priestly Code. Self-examination and
contrition for past sins led many of the exiles Into a new
and higher religious experience and life; they came to
understand — In large part as a result of the activity and
teaching of Jeremiah and Ezekiel — ^that true religion did
not depend on the existence of the state, the sacred city,
or the temple, but on the relation of the Individual to
his God.
While this spiritualizing process was going on, the
question seems to have arisen In the minds of some of the
religious thinkers: Having reached the higher stage of
religion, how may the people avoid the lapses of the past ?
Apparently, the prophetic method had not proved a com-
"G. F. Moore, Encyclopedia Biblica, art. "Leviticus."

(GROWTH (DF THE PENtATEUCH 30^
plete success; generation after generation these cour
ageous preachers of righteousness had done their best
to create a pure and holy nation; but after the lapse of
centuries the people seemed to be still far short of the
Ideal. Then the thought suggested Itself that, perhaps,
the method of the prophets was not the one best adapted
to the needs of the time. Perhaps the people had not yet
reached the stage of mental and spiritual development
when they might be trusted to apply the lofty, spiritual
principles of religion to the ordinary affairs of everyday
life. It might be safer and more effective to lay down
definite rules and urge the people to observe these, and
thus avoid the failures of the past.
It was this kind of reasoning that gave birth to the
legalism of the postexilic period, already foreshadowed
In the Law of Holiness and In the work of Ezekiel.**
The movement was hastened by the profound sense of
guilt created within the people as a result of the experi
ences of the exile. In the attempt to propitiate Yahweh
new festivals were introduced, new forms of sacrifice
were instituted, and older Institutions, sacrifices, and festi
vals assumed a new and deeper significance. With the
feeling of unworthiness came an almost overpowering
sense of the awful holiness of Yahweh, who, It came to
be thought, could be approached only by means of an
elaborate and beautiful ritual and ceremonial. Moreover,
the Jewish exiles could not remain uninfluenced by the
magnificent temples and splendid forms of worship of
the pious Babylonians. In the light of all these facts is
it any wonder that among the religious leaders of the

"In the beginning the movement was permeated by a spirit of
intense moral earnestness; the exaggeration of the letter is a later
development.

3o8 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
Jews the conviction grew that the supreme need of the
hour was an elaborate and beautiful ritual and a legal
system comprehensive enough to regulate every detail of
hfe? The new Ideals found concrete expression in the
elaborate system of laws and regulations which con
stitutes the so-called Priestly Code.** Underlying the
entire body of laws Is the conviction reflected also In
the earlier collections, that Israel Is ordained to be a holy
community, sanctified by the presence of Yahweh himself.
Consequently, the nation Is treated as a religious com
munity, whose chief mission is to live for the service of
God; and the whole legislation is meant to maintain the
right kind of relation between Yahweh and his people,
or. If In any way It should be Interrupted, to restore it.
The legislation of the Priestly Code was not a new
creation; on the contrary. It reproduced many laws and
legal precedents that had been handed down from the

" Provisions taken from this code are found principally in
Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. That it deals almost exclusively
with the external, ceremonial aspect of religion may be seen from
the following brief survey of the more important laws in the Code :
Law of circumcision (Gen. 17).
Law of the Passover (Exod. 12).
Regulations regarding the tabernacle and its furniture, the dress
and consecration of the priests, the law of the daily burnt-offering,
etc. (Exod. 25-31; 35-40).
Ritual of various kinds of sacrifice (Lev. i. i to 6. 7).
Regulations relating to the priests, their dress, perquisites, etc.
(Lev. 6. 8 to 10. 20).
Laws of purification and atonement (Lev. 11-16; Num. s, 19).
Commendation of tithes and vows (Lev. 27; Num. 30).
Law of the Nazirite (Num. 6).
Duties and revenues of priests and Levites (Num. 18), the
Levitical cities (Num. 35. 1-8). A more detailed analysis may be
found in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iii, p. 70.

GROWTH OF THE PENTATEUCH 309
earliest days of Hebrew history. However, many of
these early laws had undergone various modifications,
and the priestly compiler or editor embodied them in his
collection In a form which, he believed, would meet the
religious needs of the age for the guidance of which he
was compiling the new code. It Is not Improbable that
the Law of Holiness served as the nucleus around which
the material taken from different sources was arranged;
at any rate, It seems to have been a part of the new code
from the beginning.
As long as the religious leaders of the Jews retained
the spirit and moral earnestness of the prophets the de
tailed legal system might prove a valuable means of
religious education, to "develop and deepen the sense of
sin, and to awaken in devout souls religious affections —
trust, devotion, self-surrender, thankful love, the long
ing for divine grace." Nevertheless, through its excessive
emphasis of external forms and ceremonies It would
prove an ever-present danger to true religion, for it would
be very easy to define religion In terms of ritual and
form, to drift Into a spirit of formalism, and to confuse
technical holiness with moral purity. Unfortunately,
later generations yielded to the temptation, until the
religion of the great mass of people became an empty
form, lacking all vitality and power. Thus, estimating
the significance of the Priestly Code in the light of later
happenings, one Is compelled to regard It as a step back
ward In the religious thought and life of Israel.
The new law, having behind it the authority of the
name of Moses, soon came to be accepted and revered
as final authority In all matters of faith and conduct.
In other words, the seat of authority was transferred
from the present experience of communion with God to

310 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
laws thought to have been given when God was much
nearer to his people. The greater emphasis on the
presence of Yahweh In the past, and the resulting under
estimate of the spiritual privileges of the present, created
an entirely new Interest In the events of the past. With
It came a tendency to Idealize the early stages of Israel's
histpry, and to trace back to the better days In the long
ago many of the Ideas and Institutions that bulked so
largely In the post-exilic Judaism. This new Interest In
the past Impelled some priest or priests, who were under
the Influence of the new point of view, to rewrite the early
history of Israel — tracing It back to creation — perhaps
for the specific purpose of providing a fitting historical
setting for the laws In the Priestly Code. The writers
may have known the earlier histories J and E, or the
combined JED, and they may have had access to other
material, oral or written; but wherever they secured the
material, they brought it all under their own peculiar
point of view, giving abundant evidence that their
primary interest was not in the history as such, but in
the origin of legal and ceremonial practices and Institu
tions. The Priestly Code was not the work of a few months
or years; In all probability the compilers and editors
worked on it for several generations, beginning In the
days of Ezekiel and ending about the middle of the suc
ceeding century. The place of their activity was Baby
lonia, where they formed an Important element In the
Yahweh community among the exiles. If Ezra returned
from there In B. C. 458,*® the Code may have been
brought by him to Jerusalem; indeed, he may have put
" See above, pp. 250, 251, and vol. iii of this Series, chapter on
"Ezra-Nehemiah," soon to be published.

GROWTH OF THE PENTATEUCH 311
the finishing touches to the work. But whether Ezra had
any connection with the Priestly Code or not, before the
middle of the fifth century practically all the material that
ultimately found Its way into the Pentateuch had assumed
literary form.
The necessity of amalgamating the two parallel his
tories of the Mosaic and pre-Mosaic ages — JED and P —
must have been felt soon after the completion of the
Priestly Code. As long as the two existed side by side,
as separate works, they would appear to compete for
recognition as the authoritative law of Moses or of
Yahweh. Such controversy could be averted only by
uniting the two into one continuous work. The task of
fusing JED with P may have been undertaken by Ezra,
the scribe. But If he must be excluded from considera
tion,*® It is perfectly safe to assume that It was done by
some one who, though not blind to the religious value
of the earlier work, yet was in hearty sympathy with the
ideals of P. Consequently, he made the document that
had originated in the priestly circles of the Immediate
past the groundwork of the compilation. Introducing In
their proper places extracts from the older work, with
such modifications as the changed conditions and Ideals
seemed to make Imperative. Some material found In
neither document may have been added from other early
sources or may have been supplied by the compiler.*^

"See references given in note 25.
" Since the priestly writers were interested primarily in the age
of Moses, because to it was assigned the origin of the entire legal
system, the composite work, like the earlier compilation, was made
to close with an account of the death of the great lawgiver. This
left in the hands of the priestly conservers of the national literature
the closing section of the Priestly Code, dealing with the conquest

312 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
Thus, aside from minor alterations, made at a still
later period, the Pentateuch reached Its completed form
before B. C. 400.** The finished product received the
designation Torah, or Law. Subsequently It was divided,
at natural dividing points, into five parts or books, so
that the whole came to be known as the "Five-fifths of
the Law." From this title Is derived the name Penta
teuch, meaning "Fivefold Treatise," which was coined
by Greek writers, from whom It passed Into Latin and
other western languages.

and division of the land of Canaan. This was fused at a later time
with the remaining portions of the Deuteronomic history of Israel,
to which reference has been made on pp. 304, 305.
"See above, pp. 250, 251.

CHAPTER XIX
THE HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS VALUE
OF THE PENTATEUCH

CHAPTER XIX
THE HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS VALUE
OF THE PENTATEUCH
Professor W. H. Green, In discussing the historical
and religious value of the Pentateuch from the tradi
tional point of view, uses these words : "If the Pentateuch
is what It claims to be, it Is of the greatest Interest and
value. It professes to record the origin of the world
and of the human race, a primitive state of innocence
from which man fell by yielding to temptation, the history
of the earliest ages, the relationship subsisting between
the different nations of mankind, and particularly the
selection of Abraham and his descendants to be the chosen
people of God, the depositaries of divine revelation, in
whose line the Son of God should In due time become
incarnate as the Saviour of the world. It further con
tains an account of the providential events accompanying
the development of the seed of Abraham from a family
to the nation, their exodus from Egypt, and the civil
and religious institutions under which they were organ
ized In the prospect of their entry Into, and occupation of,
the land of Canaan. The contents of the Pentateuch
stand thus In Intimate relation to the problems of physical
and ethnological science, to history and archaeology and
religious faith. All the subsequent revelations of the
Bible, and the gospel of Jesus Christ Itself, rest upon
the foundation of what Is contained in the Pentateuch, as
they either presuppose or directly affirm Its truth.
315

3i6 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
"It is a question of primary importance, therefore,
both in Itself and in its consequences, whether the Penta
teuch Is a veritable, trustworthy record, or Is a hetero
geneous mass of legend and fable from which only a
modicum of truth can be doubtfully and with difficulty
elicited. Can we lay It at the basis of our Investigations,
and Implicitly trust its representations, or must we admit
that Its unsupported word can only be received with
caution, and that of itself It carries but little weight? In
the settlement of this matter a consideration of no small
consequence is that of the authorship of the Pentateuch.
Its credibility Is, of course, not absolutely dependent
upon Its Mosaic authorship. It might be all true, though
It were written by another than Moses and after his
time. But If it was written by Moses, then the history
of the Mosaic age was recorded by a contemporary and
eyewitness, one who was himself a participant and a
leader in the scenes which he relates, and the legislator
from whom the enactments proceeded; and It must be
confessed that there is in this fact the highest possible
guaranty of the accuracy and truthfulness of the whole." '
Though Professor Green admits that the denial of
the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch does not neces
sarily destroy the historical value of the book. In another
connection he Insists that such denial not only robs the
Pentateuch of all value but actually tends to destroy the
historical basis of biblical religion. He says : "Here Is no
question merely of the strict Inerrancy of Scripture, of
absolute accuracy In unimportant minutiae, of precision In
matters of science. This Is not the issue raised by the
theorizing of that class of biblical critics with which we
^Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, pp. 31, 32.
'"The most conservative of the divisive critics" (p. 162).

HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS VALUE 317
contend.* And It Is no mere question of the mode of in
spiration. But it Is the question whether any dependence
can be placed upon the historical truth of the Bible;
whether our confidence in the facts recorded in the Penta
teuch rests upon any really trustworthy basis ; facts, be it
observed, not of mere scientific or antiquarian Interest, but
which mark the course of God's revelations to the patri
archs and to Moses. It Is the certainty of facts which are
vital to the religion of the Old Testament, and the denial
of whose truth weakens the foundations on which the
New Testament itself Is built. The critical theory which
we have been examining Is destructive of all rational cer
tainty of the reality of these truths; and thus tends to
overturn the historical basis of the religion of the
Bible. ... It Is no merely literary question, then, which
this style of criticism raises. It Is not simply whether
the Pentateuch was written by one author or another,
while its historic truth and its divine authority remain
unaffected. The truth and evidence of the entire Mosaic
history are at stake. And with this stands or falls the
reality of God's revelation to Moses and the divine origin
of the Old Testament." *
If the fears of Professor Green were well founded,
the situation would seem to be a serious one. But is it
true that the modern view of the origin of the Pentateuch
has destroyed Its value and threatens to undermine "the
historical basis of the religion of the Bible" ? There are
thousands of serious-minded and devout students of the
Bible who can subscribe to the testimony of Professor
A. S. Peake : "I may truthfully say that my sense of the
value of Scripture, my Interest in it, my attachment to
it, have been almost indefinitely enhanced by the new
' Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, pp. 163, 164.

3i8 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
attitude and new mode of study which criticism has
brought to us." * Equally clear and definite are the
words of Professor Driver: "It Is not the case that
critical conclusions are in conflict either with the Chris
tian creeds or with the articles of the Christian faith.
Those conclusions affect not the fact of revelation but
only its form. They help to determine the stages through
which it passed, the different phases which It assumed,
and the process by which the record of It was built up.
They do hot touch either the authority or the inspiration
of the Scriptures of the Old Testament. They Imply no
change in respect to the divine attributes revealed In the
Old Testament, no change in the lessons of human duty
to be derived from It, no change as to the general position
(apart from the interpretation of particular passages)
that the Old Testament points forward prophetically to
Christ. That both the religion Itself and the record of
its history embodied in the Old Testament are the work
of men whose hearts have been touched and whose minds
illuminated, in different degrees, by the Spirit of God, is
manifest." ®
It Is generally admitted that the element which gives
to the Pentateuch, or to the entire Bible, Its unique value
is what Is commonly called its Inspiration, that Is, the
presence In Its message of a peculiar divine element.
Now, It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the con
clusions of the modern Pentateuchal criticism have not
the slightest tendency of denying the Inspiration of
* Proceedings of the Fourth Methodist Ecumenical Conference,
p. 243. ° Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, pp. viii, ix.
Both quotations refer to the criticism of the Old Testament as a
whole; but everything that is said is equally true of Pentateuchal
criticism in particular.

HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS VALUE 319
Moses or of any one else who may have had even the
smallest share In the building up of the Pentateuch. The
reality of Inspiration does not depend upon the fact that
a certain definite Individual Is responsible for a writing.
A book is believed to be the result of Inspiration because
God is seen to be back of It and In it, and not because a
certain man wrote It. Nor does behef in Inspiration
depend upon a knowledge of the human author, else how
could men believe In the inspiration of the men who
wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, the book of Jolj, the
books of Samuel, and other biblical books whose authors
are not named? Moreover, an inspired book does not
lose its inspiration because it Is discovered that the human
author inspired Is one different from the man to whom
tradition has been accustomed to assign the book. Green
and other believers In the traditional views regarding the
origin of the Pentateuch are needlessly alarmed ; for It Is
not true that modern criticism "tends Invariably ... to
absolute rationalism and the discrediting of inspiration."
Turning from these general considerations to the con
tents of the Pentateuch, what is the value and significance
of this group of books In the light of modern knowledge?
For the sake of convenience and clearness, the question
may be considered under three heads: 1. The narratives
dealing with the beginning of things, Gen. i. i to 11. 9.
2. The patriarchal narratives. Gen. 11. 10 to 50. 26;
3. The narratives relating the events from the Exodus
to the settlement east of the Jordan.
I. Gen. I. I to II. 9. In former days these chapters
were thought to give an absolutely accurate account of
creation and of the earliest history of mankind. But as
the result of various lines of investigation this view of
the purpose of the narratives in Gen. i-ii Is now con-

320 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
sidered untenable.® "We are forced, therefore," says a
recent writer, "to the conclusion that, though the writers
to whom we owe the first eleven chapters of Genesis
report faithfully what was currently believed among the
Hebrews respecting the early history of mankind, yet
there was much they did not know, and could not take
cognizance of. These chapters consequently contain no
account of the real beginnings, either of the earth Itself,
or of man and human cIvIHzation upon it" '' This is
easily accounted for by the fact that the primary purpose
of the biblical writers was religious, not historical and
scientific;* hence, in these opening chapters of Genesis
"the only care of the prophetic tradition Is to bring out
clearly the religious origin of humanity." ®
If anyone Is In search of accurate information regard
ing the age of this earth, or Its relation to the sun, moon,
or stars, or regarding the exact order In which plants and
animals have appeared upon it, he should go to recent
textbooks in astronomy, geology, and paleontology. It
Is not the purpose of the writers of Scripture to Impart
physical Instruction, or to enlarge the bounds of scientific
knowledge.'" So far as the scientific or historical infor
mation imparted In these chapters is concerned, It Is of
little more value than the similar stories of other

' For a detailed discussion of the significance of these chapters,
see, for example, S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (Westminster
Commentary Series) ; John Skinner, Genesis (International Critical
Commentary Series) ; H. E. Ryle, The Early Narratives of Genesis;
A. R. Gordon, The Early Traditions of Genesis.
' S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, p. xiii.
° F. C. Eiselen, The Christian View of the Old Testament,
pp. 12; 54ff.; 235ff.
"A. Westphal, The Law and the Prophets, p. 43.
"F. C. Eiselen, The Christian View of the Old Testament,
chap. ii.

HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS VALUE 321
nations;" and yet the student of these chapters can see
a striking contrast between them and extrabiblical stories
describing the same unknown ages, which were also
handed down from prescientific centuries. The extra-
biblical traditions are of Interest only as relics of a by
gone past; not so the biblical narratives; they are and
ever will be of inestimable value, not because of their
scientific teaching, but because they embody sublime reli
gious truth in the crude forms of primitive science.
Consequently, if any one. Instead of searching for accu
rate scientific information, wishes to know what con
nection the world has with God; if he seeks to trace back
all that now Is to the very fountain head of life; if he
desires to discover some unifying principle, some illumi
nating purpose In the history of the earth, he may turn
to these chapters as a safe guide to the information he
seeks. The purpose of the narratives being primarily religious.
It Is only natural that the lessons reflected in them should
be religious lessons. The one supreme truth taught
throughout the entire section is "In the beginning God."
But each separate narrative teaches its own characteristic
lessons. The more important of these are summarized
by Driver in the following sentences : "The narrative of
creation sets forth, In a series of dignified and impressive
pictures, the sovereignty of God; his priority to and
separation from all finite material nature; his purpose to
constitute an ordered cosmos, and gradually to adapt
the earth to become the habitation of Hving beings; and
his endowment of man with the peculiar, unique posses
sion of self-conscious reason, in virtue of which he
became capable of Intellectual and moral life, and is
"/Wd., pp. 201 ff.

322 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
even able to know and hold communion with his Maker.
In chapters two and three we read, though, again, not in
a historical but In a pictorial and symbolic form, how
man was once Innocent, how he became conscious of a
moral law, and how temptation fell upon him and he
broke that law. The fall of man, the great and terrible
truth which history not less than Individual experience
only too vividly teaches each one of us, is thus im
pressively set before us. Man, however, though punished
by God, Is not forsaken by him, nor left in his long
conflict with evil without -hope of victory. In chapter
four the increasing power of sin, and the fatal conse
quence to which, if unchecked, it may lead, is vividly
portrayed In the tragic figure of Cain. The spirit of
vindictiveness and the brutal triumph in the power of
the sword is personified in Lamech. In the narrative
of the Flood God's wrath against sin and the divine pre
rogative of mercy are alike exemplified : Noah Is a stand
ing illustration of the truth that 'righteousness delivereth
from death,' and God's dealings with him after the Flood
form a striking declaration of the purposes of grace
and good will with which God regards mankind. The
narrative of the Tower of Babel emphasizes Jehovah's
supremacy in the world, and teaches how the self-exalta
tion of man Is checked by God." '*
2. The Patriarchal Narratives, Gen. ii. lo to 50. 26.
In any consideration of the historical value of the patri
archal narratives, it must be borne In mind that they do
not claim to have been written by participants In the
events recorded or by eyewitnesses. If Moses was the
author, there was, according to the biblical record Itself,

" The Book of Genesis, p. Ixx.

HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS VALUE 323
an interval of about 400 years between the latest events
narrated, the descent into Egypt and the death of Jacob,
and the time of writing; several centuries have to
be added In the case of the earliest event, the migration
of Abraham. If the narratives did not assume literary
form until centuries after the time of Moses, the interval
becomes even greater. In either case, the stories probably
were handed down for several centuries by word of
mouth, exposed to all the dangers that threaten narratives
thus transmitted from generation to generation. It may
readily be granted that among peoples without written
records the memory is exercised more and thus becomes
more tenacious than among highly cultured peoples at the
present time, and that popular stories once enshrined in
the memory of a clan or tribe may be transmitted prac
tically unaltered for many generations; nevertheless, the
possibility of their becoming materially modified, must be
reckoned with. These modifications may be accidental,
due to failure of the memory, or Intentional, for the
purpose of bringing the stories into more complete accord
with the ideas, conditions and practices of a later age.
Hence It Is exceedingly difficult to prove that the patri
archal narratives are historical authorities in the strict
sense of the word.
At the same time, there is insufficient ground for doubt
ing the substantial accuracy of the narratives. On the
contrary, the modern critical view has furnished a strong
argument in support of their general trustworthiness.
Leaving aside the late P, the older documents J and E
furnish two distinct descriptions of the patriarchal age,
one written in Judah, the other in Israel, which, though
differing in details, are in fundamental agreement in
their representation of the early events. In other words.

324 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
the traditions of both north and south appear to go back
to what R. Kittel has called "a. firm nucleus of consistent
tradition." "The value of this nucleus," says the same
author, "is by no means small, for it supplies the funda
mental condition of real history. If the traditions were
confusedly intermixed, this would stamp them as arbi
trary creations, or the products of popular fancy. Their
not being so, though far from proving them positively to
be historical, justifies the presumption that we may per
haps succeed in finding a historic core In the patriarchal
narratives." '*
Moreover, the later history of Israel presupposes a
nomadic stage In the development of the people, such as
Is described In the book of Genesis; and there Is good
reason for believing that, in the main, the narratives
furnish a truthful picture of general conditions In the
patriarchal age. There is nothing in the older strata of
the narratives that appears historically Improbable, and
archaeology has shown them to be accurate In portraying
the general character of the times. This much Is true,
though It may be admitted that the significance of the
archaeological testimony has at times been exaggerated.
There is, for Instance, no justification for the claim of
Professor A. T. Clay, that "the Increase of knowledge
gained through the inscriptions of this period has in
every Instance dissolved conclusions arrived at by those
critics who maintain that the patriarchs are not to be
regarded as historical." '* Archaeology has not one
whit of direct proof to offer In support of the personal
existence or character of the patriarchs. All that can
confidently be asserted Is that archaeology has estab-
" R. Kittel, History of the Hebrews, i, p. i68.
"Light on the Old Testament from Babel, p. 143.

HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS VALUE 325
lished the possibility of the main outlines of the patri
archal narratives In Genesis being correct.
On the other hand. It Is at least possible that In the
course of time the growing traditions Idealized the fore
fathers of the Hebrew race, and Impressed upon them,
to some extent, later religious and ethical conceptions.
"The view which, on the whole, may be said best to
satisfy the circumstances in the case Is the view that the
patriarchs are historical persons, and that the accounts
which we have of them are In outline historically true,
but that their characters are Idealized, and their biog
raphies not infrequently colored by the feelings and asso
ciations of a later age." '®
The recognition of facts and possibilities like these has
no terror for the student who holds the scriptural view of
the Old Testament,'® that the primary purpose of the
ancient writers, even when relating historical incidents,
was not to write history In the modern sense of the term,
but to show the hand of God In the lives of individuals
and of nations. And there can be no doubt that the hand
of God may be seen In the early history of Israel as
clearly on the acceptance of the modern critical view of
the Pentateuch as in the days when the narratives were
accepted as absolutely accurate in every detail. The
records have lost not one iota of their value for purposes
of religious Instruction because they have been found to
contain historical Inaccuracies and discrepancies, or even
legendary elements. In the words of Driver : "Abraham
Is still the hero of righteousness and faith; Lot and
Laban, Sarah and Rebekah, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, in
their characters and experiences are still In different
" S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, pp. Ivii, Iviii.
" F. C. Eiselen, The Christian View of the Old Testament, chap. i.

326 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
ways types of our own selves, and still in one way or
another exemplify the ways in which God deals with the
individual soul, and the manner In which the individual
soul ought, or ought not, to respond to his leadings."
Then he continues: "What if some of these figures pass
before us as on a stage, rather than in real life? Do
they on that account lose their vividness, their truth
fulness, their force? On the contrary, not only do they
retain all these characteristics unimpaired, but, if it be
true that the figures in Genesis, as we have them, are
partly, or even in some cases wholly, the creations of
popular imagination, transfigured in the pure, 'dry' light
which the inspired genius of prophet or priest has shed
around them, the book of Genesis is really more sur
prising than If It were even throughout a literally true
record of events actually occurring. For to create such
characters would be more wonderful than to describe
them." ''' The same conviction regarding the permanent
religious value of the patriarchal stories finds expression
in the words of J. E. McFadyen: "If It should be made
highly probable that the stories were not strictly his
torical, what should we then have to say? We should
then have to say that their religious value was still
extremely high. The religious truth to which they give
vivid and immortal expression would remain the same.
The story of Abraham would still illustrate the trials and
the rewards of faith. The story of Jacob would still
Illustrate the power of sin to haunt and determine a man's
career, and the power of God to humble, discipline, and
purify a self-confident nature. The story of Joseph would

" The Book of Genesis, pp. Ixviii, Ixix. The succeeding para
graphs give a summary of the religious teaching of the patriarchal
stories,

HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS VALUE 327
still illustrate how fidelity amid temptation, wrong, and
sorrow Is crowned at last with glory and honor. The
spiritual value of these and similar tales is not lost, even
when their historical value is reduced to a minimum, for
the truths which they illustrate are truths of universal
experience." '* Both historically and religiously, there
fore, the patriarchal narratives are of the highest value.
3. From Egypt to the Jordan, Exodus to Deuteronomy.
The closing chapters of Genesis record how the Hebrew
nomads, after living in Canaan for some generations, were
driven by famine into Egypt, where the Pharaoh settled
them in the land of Goshen, a district in the eastern Nile
Delta. There they remained in practical seclusion for
many generations, retaining to a considerable extent their
tribal customs and beliefs.'® In the course of time a new
dynasty arose in Egypt; under It began a period of op
pression, from which the Hebrews were delivered under
the leadership of Moses. The book of Exodus relates
the closing events of the stay in Egypt, the Incidents con
nected with the Exodus, and the march of the Israelites
until they reached Mount Sinai. The book of Numbers
continues the account of the wanderings, to the settle
ment east of the Jordan. The book of Deuteronomy
consists mainly of addresses; the first of these contains
a rehearsal of the history from Mount Horeb (Mount
Sinai) to the Jordan. The book closes with a description
of the death of Moses.
As to the substantial accuracy of these accounts there
can hardly be any doubt. At any rate, what we know of
conditions in Palestine and Egypt makes it quite easy to

"Old Testament Criticism and the Christian Church, p. 335.
"This period is passed over very briefly in the Old Testament,
compare Exod. 1. 7.

328 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
believe that at least some of the Hebrew clans were
driven by famine to the Nile Delta, and that a member
of one of these clans rose to prominence at the court of
Egypt. True, archaeology has discovered no evidence of
Israel or of Joseph in Egypt, no definite reference to the
oppression of Israel or to the Exodus; but it has fur
nished numerous Interesting Illustrations of statements
and allusions In the Genesis and Exodus narratives, which
make it evident that the principal events recorded are
quite within the possibilities of the age.*" Archaeology
has shown, for Instance, that Intercourse between Pales
tine and Egypt was not unknown in the days of Abraham ;
and that on several occasions parties of foreigners re
ceived permission to settle In Egypt, as Is told of the
family of Jacob. The story of the exaltation of Joseph
assumes a new significance In the light of archaeology.
About B. C. 1675 there poured from Asia into the Nile
Delta a horde of Semites, which In a short time secured
control of Egypt, and whose kings, known as the Hyksos
kings, that Is, kings of the countries, continued supreme
for about a hundred years. If, now, the Exodus Is dated
about B. C. 1220, the most probable date In the light of
Egyptian history and of the Old Testament story, and the
biblical statement is accepted that the stay in Egypt lasted
approximately four hundred years, the descent would
have taken place during the period of Hyksos supremacy
in Egypt. The Hebrews belonging to the same race as
the Hyksos, is it Impossible to believe that a shrewd and
farseeing Hebrew should make himself Indispensable to
the rulers, and should be rewarded with the honors said
in Genesis to have been heaped upon Joseph, or that a
clan related to him should be permitted to settle In Egypt ?
"D. G. Hogarth, Authority and Archceology, pp. 47ff.

HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS VALUE 329
Famines of long duration, due to the Nile failing to
overflow, were not unknown In Egypt In the days when
the Hebrews are said to have been in southern Palestine.
For Instance, a famine lasting several years is attested for
approximately the age of Joseph. An Inscription in the
tomb of a certain Baba, at El-Kab In Upper Egypt,
represents the deceased as saying: "I collected corn as a
friend of the harvest god; I was watchful at the time of
sowing; and when a famine arose lasting many years, I
distributed corn to the city each year." Of an earlier
official a similar statement is made: "In my time there
were no poor, and none were hungry in my day. When
the years of famine came, I plowed all the fields In the
district ; I kept the inhabitants alive and gave them food
so that not one was hungry."
As has been stated, there Is no reference in the In
scriptions to the oppression of Israel In Egypt ; but again
archaeology has shown the possibility, if not the proba
bility, of such oppression. According to the biblical
account, the oppression was Instigated by a king who
"knew not Joseph." Now, as has been suggested, the
king under whom Joseph rose to distinction may have
been one of the Hyksos kings. The rule of the latter
came to an end with the seventeenth dynasty, which was
followed, about B. C. 1575, by the strong eighteenth
dynasty. If Joseph rendered the efficient service to Egypt
with which he is credited In Genesis, it could not be
overlooked by the new dynasty coming upon the throne so
soon after his time, and the privileges accorded to his
countrymen by the earlier dynasty might be continued.
When, however, about B. C. 1350, the nineteenth dynasty
came to the throne, enough time had elapsed to obscure
the remembrance of Joseph; hence the new kings, afral(i

330 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
of the growing numbers, may well have adopted a policy
of oppression and extermination. The oppression is said
to have assumed the form of forced labor, which was a
familiar institution in ancient Egypt.
If the aforementioned events took place, the fact of
an Exodus cannot be doubted; and a unique personality
like Moses at the very beginning of the nation's life is
needed to explain the subsequent national and religious
development of Israel. And Moses loses none of his
glory because he is no longer considered the author of
the Pentateuch. On the contrary, the vital significance of
Moses and his work can be appreciated only In the light
of modern critical study. In the words of one who Is In
full sympathy with modern views regarding the origin
of the Pentateuch: "Moses was the man who under
divine direction 'hewed Israel from the rock.' Subse
quent prophets and circumstances chiseled the rough
bowlder into symmetrical form, but the glory of the
creative act is rightly attributed to the first great Hebrew
prophet. As a leader he not only created a nation but
guided them through Infinite vicissitudes to a land where
they might have a settled abode and develop Into a staple
power; In so doing he left upon his race the Imprint of
his own mighty personality. As a judge he set in motion
forces which ultimately led to the incorporation of the
principles of right In objective laws. As a priest he
first gave definite form to the worship of Yahweh. As
a prophet he gathered together all that was best in the
faith of his age and race, and fusing them, gave to his
people a living religion. Under his enlightened guidance
Israel became truly and forever the people of Yahweh.
Through him the Divine revealed himself to Israel as
their Deliverer, Leader and Counselor — not afar off, but

HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS VALUE 331
present ; a God powerful and willing to succor his people,
and, therefore, one to be trusted and loved as well as
feared. As the acorn contains the sturdy oak in embryo,
so the revelation through Moses was the germ which
developed into the message of Israel to humanity." *'
From this Investigation it appears that all the im
portant Incidents In the early history of Israel as recorded
In the Pentateuch remain unaffected by the conclusions
of modern criticism regarding the origin of this group of
books. Nor Is the religious value of the narratives
affected; they still reveal the hand of God in the events
culminating In the organization of a Hebrew national
life, and they still furnish striking illustrations of the
reality of a Divine Providence.
On turning from the historical records to the legal
sections, a moment's thought will convince the student
that the inherent value of the laws embodied In the
narrative portions remains the same whether they come
from Moses, or were, as modern scholars believe, the
product of the nation's experience from Moses to Ezra.
The latter view does not alter the fact that the Hebrews
were the first to learn and to teach that the supreme goal
of life Is righteousness and to give expression to pure
and lofty ethics in objective law. The principles of
Hebrew legislation, whether they were established by
Moses or by some other man or men of God, remain to
this day the bone and marrow of the world's greatest
legal systems. Whenever the Decalogue assumed literary
form, "the marvelous perfection of this summary of
moral law, its intrinsic excellency, the universal applica
bility of its several precepts, and their abiding and un
changing nature, place these commandments in advance
" C. F. Kent, A History of the Hebrew People, vol. i, pp. 44, 45.

332 THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH
of anything to be found elsewhere in the annals of
human legislation." ** Thus It Is with the entire legal
system. Modern criticism does not tend to deny or doubt
that the laws of Israel are permeated by a divine spirit,
for the important question is not, when, where, and by
whom were these laws written, but, Do the character
and spirit of the laws bear witness to the presence of
God? The conclusion of the whole matter may be stated in
the words of the Oxford Hexateuch : "The structure of
the Pentateuch may be compared to the fabric of a great
cathedral whose external history is Imperfectly recorded.
The origins of the church which first stood upon its site
may be irrevocably lost, though fragments of Its stones
may still be lodged In the foundation walls. The plan
of the building may have been again and again enlarged;
the transepts may now stand where once the west front
was erected; the nave may have been converted from
Norman to Perpendicular, or may be a wholly fresh
construction. Under successive bishops portions may
have been pulled down and rebuilt, the style changed
with the century; yet here a Norman arch remains con
tiguous with a piece of early English, or the ancient
vaulting has been preserved unharmed. Chapels may
have been added, windows enlarged, chantries Inserted,
and by perpetual small adaptations the new has been
combined (though not always harmonized) with the old.
It may happen that the cathedral archives or the chron
icles of the adjacent abbey have preserved some mention
of the completion of a tower, or the dedication of an
altar, yet the real history Is Inscribed upon the venerable
walls. By the comparison of the parts among themselves,
" M. S. Terry, Moses and the Prophets, p. 28.

HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS VALUE 333
and with other edifices of known date, it becomes possible
first to relate them to each other, and then to establish
their probable order In time within tolerably exact limits.
The mind that planned and the hands that executed the
chief features of the design may have passed away, to
remain forever obscure ; but we may still know who were
their contemporaries, and under what Influences they
wrought the soaring arch, or lifted pinnacle and spire
toward heaven. Not dissimilar in method is the process
which seeks to trace in the growth of the Pentateuch
through succeeding centuries the rise of the sanctuary of
Israel's faith and life. And just as the devotion of many
generations remains unaffected by the discovery that the
history of the church fabric may have been misread in a
less discerning age, so if the venerable work here con
sidered be now seen to embrace the main courses of the
development of the religion of Israel, It still stands with
unimpaired grandeur as the stately introduction to the
great series of sacred writings which find their chmax
in the New Testament." **

'Vol. i, pp. 16, 17.

INDEX

INDEX
I. Subjects Discussed

Altar Fire, oracle of, 265
Ancient material, 21, 58, 2S5ff.,
293-295
Anthropomorphisms, 153, 216
Archaeology, 21; and Genesis,
324ff. ; archaeological refer
ences, 176
Ark, song of, 266
Astruc, theory of, 50, 59; modi
fications and expansions, 51
Atonement, day of, 109
Balaam, oracles of, 260, 261
"Beyond Jordan," 170, 171
Blasphemy, 115
Book of the Covenant, 202,
28iff.; contents, 282ff.; date,
202ff., 284ff.
Building material, 108
Canaan, curse of, 256, 257
Canon, 15, 23; Jewish division,
27
Centralization, of worship, 206,
207
Christian tradition, 85
Chronicles, composition of, 72
Chronological order, of Penta
teuchal documents, 201 ff.
Composite character, of Penta
teuch, 66, 70, I24ff.; of ancient
religious literature, 71
Creation, story of, 30, I39ff.
Criticism, meaning of, 64; prob
ability of conclusions, 65, 66;
resuhs of, 317, 318; c. and in
spiration, 318, 319
Critics, lack of unanimity, 63ff. ;
points of agreement, 66ff.

Dan, 172
Decalogue, 273ff. ; contents, 274,
278, 279; date, 280, 281
Deity, conception of, I53ff., 216
Desert, origin of Pentateuch in,
I07ff.; familiarity with, no,
III
Deuteronomic Code, = D, 159,
164, 216 ; = Lawbook of Josiah,
i84ff.; extent, 186, 302; origin,
300; date, i86ff., 205ff., 301;
combination with JE, 303-305
Deuteronomy, name, 28; con
tents, 38, 39, 303; significance,
I96ff.
Development theory, S4ff>' mod
ern attacks, 59, 60, i3off.
Diatessaron, 72, 73
Direct internal evidence, gsff.
Discrepancies, I39ff.
Divine names, I23ff.
Document Theory, 54ff.
Documents, in Pentateuch, 66,
67; dates, 56, 57, 68, 69, 70,
233ff. ; chronological order,
20iff. ; mutual relation, 224ff.
Duplicate narratives, 142, 143
Egypt, influence of, liiff.
Elohim, so, 59, I24ff.; signifi
cance of, 127
Elohistic t)ocument, = E, 69,
I53ff., 163, 233, 298; date,
24lff.; home, 240, 241
Evidence, favoring Mosaic
authorship : indirect, 63ff. ;
external, 77S.; direct internal,
9Sff. ; indirect internal, I07ff.
Exile, significance of, 306, 307

337

338

INDEX

Exodus, name of book, 28; con
tents, 33ff. ; from Egypt, 114;
triumph song, 174, 258, 259;
value of Ex. narratives, 327-
330
Ezekiel, 208
Ezra, 247, 250, 251 ; Lawbook of,
248, 249
Feasts, 115, 116, 211
Flood, narrative of, 141, 142
Folk stories, 295
Fragment Theory, 52
Gemara, 44, 45
Genesis, _ name, 28; contents,
30ff. ; significance of narratives
in Gen. i-ii, 319-322
Geographical references, l7off.
Graf-Wellhausen Theory, S4ff.
Hebron, 172
Hexateuch, name, 29; contents,
29
Hezekiah, I92ff.
High places, 204
Historical background, 20iff.
Historical statements, I73ff.
Holiness, Law of = H, see Law
of Holiness
Host of heaven, 189
Indirect evidence, general, 63ff.;
internal, I07ff.
Introduction, scope, I3ff. ; divi
sions, 14, 15; history, l6ff. ;
modern schools, 20
Jacob, blessing of, 258
Jair, 172, 173
JE, combination of, 299, 300
Jehovah, see Yahweh
Jehovistic Document, = J, see
Yahwistic Document
Jericho, curse of, 266, 267
Jesus, testimony of, 77^.
Jethro, 175
Jewish tradition, 44, 45, 86
Josiah, reforms of, i8iff., 185;
Lawbook of, 68, i8iff.; = D,
i84ff.
Lamech, song of, 255, 256

Law, deposited in sanctuary,
i87ff.
Law of Holiness, 67, 287ff.; con
tents, 288; date, 288ff.; origin,
305, 306
Law of Moses, 89ff.
Legal Codes, 68, I43ff., is8ff.,
27iff.; origin, 271, 272; con
tents, 273; value of, 331, 332;
ancient legal material, 271 ff.
Legal enactments, I76ff.
Levites,- 108, 109, 145-147, 207-
210, 225, 226
Leviticus, name, 28; contents,
, 35, 36
Linguistic characteristics, 116,
117, i6off.
Literary composition, manner of,
_7off.
Literary histories, 22
Literary parallels, 2i7ff.
Literary peculiarities, 169, 170
Manna, in
Massoretic Text, and Septuagint,
i3Sff.
Miracles, 155
Miriam, song of, 265
Moab, boundary line, 259
Modern knowledge, 15, 16, 23
Monarchy, 297
Mosaic authorship, 18, 43, 49,
58, 63ff.; indirect evidence,
63ff.; external evid., 77^.;
direct internal evid., 95ff.;
indirect internal evid., I07ff.
Moses, 17s; Law of, 89ff.; song
of, 262, 263; blessing of, 263-
265; work of, 296; significance
of, 330, 331
Multiplicity of altars, 203
Mutual relation of Pentateuchal
documents, 224ff., 227
New Testament, statements,
77^.-, 84; purpose, 84, 85
Nomad life, ii4ff.
Numbers, name, 28; contents,
36-38
Og, 176
Old Testament, testimony of,
88ff.

INDEX

339

Palestine, lack of knowledge of,
113, 114; conquest of, 296
Parallels, 2i7ff.
Passover, 114, 115
Patriarchal Stories, 295, 296;
historical value, 322-325; re
ligious value, 325-327
Patriarchs, 31 ; oracles concern
ing P., 257
Pentateuch, name, 27; division,
27, 28 ; contents, 29ff. ; analysis,
59, 68; unity, 73, 74; auithor-
ship, testimony regarding,
95ff. ; traditional view, 43, 63ff. ;
modern view, 123; composite
character, 66, 70, i24ff. ;
growth, 29311. ; permanent
value, 3i5ff.
Poetic material, 2S5ff.
Post-Mosaic material, i69ff.
Priesthood, 108, 109, 14S-147,
204-209, 225, 226
Priestly benediction, 266
Priestly Code, = P, 68, 69, iS7ff-,
163; contents, 308; origin, 308-
312 ; date, 247ff. ; inherent dan
ger, 309; combination with
JED, 311
Property laws, I IS
Reflection, 154
Reformation, influence of, 16,
46, 47
Renaissance, influence of, 16, 40,
47
Repetitions, 139".
Reuel, 17s
Ritual, 204, 224, 225
Sacred sites, 157
Sacrifice, place of, I43, I44. 226
Samaritan Pentateuch, 131
Septuagint, i3off.; and Masso
retic text, I35ff.

Shekel of sanctuary, 176
Sihon, song of, 260
Slaughter of animals, 116
Slavery, I47ff.
Solomon, and Deuteronomy, 188
South, 171
Style, i6off., 224
Sun and moon standing still, 267
Supplement Theory, 52, 53
Talmud, 44
Tent, 107, 108
Text, Hebrew, 15, 23; uncer
tainties, 59, 60
Theological conceptions, I53ff.,
2isff.
Torah, 43, 44, 89, 90
Tradition, Jewish and Christian,
85ff.
Traditional views, 18, 43ff-, Ssff. ;
defenders of, 18, 49, 58, 59, I34,
315-317 ¦ , ,
Translations, demands for, 13,
14
Unity, of Pentateuch, 73, 74
Vocabulary, l62ff., 223
Wars, of Yahweh, 17S
Well, song of, 259, 260
West, 171
Worship, centralization of, 206,
207
Yahweh, 50, 59, I24ff-, 1531
significance of, 127; wars of,
'75 _ , .
Yahwistic Document, = J, 09,
iS3ff., 163, 233, 297, 298; date,
234ff. ; home, 239, 240

II. Biblical Passages
''Ti-2.4a  125,127.139-141,217
I i—ii. 9  29, 30, 3i9ff.
2 A  28
2:4b-2s  '4 127, 139-141,217
2. 4b— 3- 24  '26
2. 7, 8, IS, 19, 21, 22  153

340 INDEX
Genesis 3. 8, 22  154
4  224
4. 23, 24  2SS, 293
5  224
S. 1  59
6. 5, 12  127
6. S-13  141
6. 19, 20  142
6. 22  128
7. 5  128
7. 7-24  141, 142
7. 16  154
8. 3  142
8. 6-14  141
9. 25-27  236,256,293
10. 2-S  257
10. 8, 9  220
II. 6, 7  IS4
II. 10  31
II. 10—50, 26  29-31, 322ff.
II. 12-26  31
II. 27  31
12. 1-3  31. 237, 257
12. 6  46, 113, 159, 173, 236
12. 8  240
12. 9  171
13. 3  240
13. 7  173, 236
13- 14-17  257
13. 18  172, 240
14. 2  113
14- 7  113
14. 14  172
14. 17  113
15. 7  128, 129
17. I  128, 129
17. 5  31
17. 6-8  158
17. 10  98
17. 10, II  308
17. 16-19  142
18. I  240
18. 1-8  154
18. 9-iS  142
18. 21  IS4
19  220
20. I  171, 240
20. 1-17  242
20. 3, 7  156
21. 14  240
21. 17  156, 243
21. 22-32  242

INDEX
Genesis 21-31  142
21. 33  159, 203
22. 2  246
22. II  156, 243
22. 14  46
22. 19  240
23.2  113, 172
23.19  113
24. 62  171
25. 12  31
25. 19  31
25. 21  237
25. 23  257
26. 1-33  242
26. 4  257
20. 32, 33  142
27. 27-29, 39, 40  257
28. 3, 4  158
28. 12  156
28. 13  128, 129, 257
28. 16-19  203
28. 18, 19  142
28. 18-22  159, 225, 240
30. 14-18  242
30. 28-43  242
31. 9-12  242
31. 13,45,49  159, 240
31.24  156
31. 27  293
31. 48ff  244
32. 24-32  154, 220
32. 28  142
32,32  174
33. 18  113
33. 18-20  240
35. I, 3, 7  240
35. 2-4  156, 240
35.8, 19, 20  240
35. 10  142
35. II  128, 129
35.15  142
35.20  174
36. I  31
36.9  31
36. 31  46, 173, 236
36- 32  173
37.2  ,  31, 59
37- 3ff  241
37. 8  244
37. 14  172, 240
37. 21, 22  241
37. 26  240

341

342 INDEX
Genesis 38  .240
40. 15  173, 236
42. 37  241
43. 3, 8-10  240
44- 14-34  240
45.5-8  156
48. 14-20  241
48. 20  257
49- 2-27  ,  258, 263, 293
49. 8-12  236, 240
49.30  113
SO. 20  ,  156

Exodus I. 1-7  28
1.7  327
2. 18  142, 17s
3  156
3.1  143, 175
3. I— o. I  176
3. 5  98
3. 13-1S  134
3. 14  244
4.18  175
4.24  154
6.2,3  128, 129, 134
6. 2 — 7. 7  176
6. 4, 6, 7  158
6. 26, 27  170
8. 1-4, i-7, 20-32  iSs
9. 1-12  155
II. 3  176
12, 13  114, 308
12. 12, 17, 23  112
12. 25-27  113
13. 5-14  113
14-21  ISS
IS. I  265
IS. 1-18  258, 293
IS. 13, 17  175
15.21  26s
15. 22ff.  no
16  Ill, 143
17. 14  95, 103
18. I  I7S
19. 20-25  280
20. 1-17  274ff.
20. 2  Ill
20. 4  112
20. 18  202
20. 21  148

INDEX 343
Exodus
20. 22—23. 33  96, 183, 184, 202, 227, 28lff.
20. 23  277
20. 24, 25  143, 14s, 159, 203, 226
21.2-6  147, 148
21. 4, 7-9  ...286
21. 13, 14  203, 28s
21. 20, 21  286
21, 26, 27  286
22. 3, 9  28s
22. 5, 6, 29  202
22. 16, 17  286
22. 21  112
22. 26  220
22. 28  IIS
22. 29, 30  225
22. 29-31  277
23. loff  202
23. 12-19  277
23. I4ff  IIS, 226
23. 15  112
23. 16  202
23. 19  176
23. 20-33  "3, 144, 148, 246
24.4  46, 95, 96
24. 7  183, 280
25-31  108, 308
27. I  144
27. 12  1 I
28  207, 22s
28. I  146, 160
29. 1-9  207, 22s
29. 43-46  158
29. 46  112
30. 11-16  226
30. 13, 24  176
33.11  IS6, 241
34  184, 227, 275ff
34. 16  248
34. 22-24  220
34.26  227
34. 27, 28  95, 90, 277
35-40  308
38.1  145
38.24-26  170
Leviticus 1—7  109, 219
I. 1—6. 7  308
1.5  i°9
I. 7, 8  109
2. 2, 3  109

344 INDEX
Leviticus 2. 10  109
4. 12  109
4. 21  log
6. 8 — 10. 20  308
6. II  109
7  226
10. 3  265
II  287
II— 16  308
II. 45  112
12  no
14-34-57  113
IS- 2-33  no
16  109
17—26  67, 220, 225, 227, 287ff.
17. 3-5  116
17. 4  290
18. 3-30  113
19. 2  68, 287
19. 18  288
19- 34  112
19. 36  112
20. 7  68
21, 22  225
21. 10-15  207, 225
22. 31-33  287
23  226
23. 36  247
23.39  211, 217
23. 40  247
24. 10-16  IIS
25. I, 2  149
25. 39-42  149
26. 3ff  219
27. 1-33   109, 226, 308.
Numbers 2. 1-34  108
2. 18  171
3. S-io  146, 160, 207, 209
3-23  109, 171
3. 29, 35, 38  109
4-5  109
5  308
S-2  114
6  308
6. iff  108, no
6. 24-26  266
9-6  IIS
9- 10-14  IIS
10. 35, 36  266
II  143

INDEX 345
Numbers 11.28  241
12.3  176
12. 6-8  156
13- 18-20  n4
13.22  172
15. 2-41  113, 226
15. 37-41  287
15.41  112
16. iff  222
18  308
18. 1-7  146, 147, 160, 207, 209
18. 8-32  109, 226
18. 12-32  247
18. 20, 24  113
18. 21-26  211
19  308
21. 14, 15  175, 259, 293
21. 17, 18  259, 293
21. 27-30  260, 293
21. 33  176
22 — ^24  220, 260, 261, 293
22. I  170
22. 5  173
22. 9, 20  156
26. 52-56  IIS
27. I-II  ns
29. 35  226
30  308
32. iff  98
32. 19  171
32. 41  172, 236
33. 2  46, 95, 103, 169
34. 1-12  114
35  226, 308
36. 1-9  115
36. 13  28

Deuteronomy I. I-S  I4S
I. 5  97, 170
I. 7, 19, 44  259
2. 12  174
3- 1-3  176
3.8  ...171 ^
3. II  46, 176
3. 14  172, 174
3. 20, 25  171
4. 5  98
4. 8  98, 100
4. 14  98 /
4. 41-49  170, 302

346 INDEX
Deuteronomy
5. I  100
5. 2  182
5. 6-21  274ff.
6. I  148.
6. 4ff  302
6. 4, 5  159, 216
7-3  248
10. 8  174
10. 12  159
II. I, 13, 22  159
II. 6  222
II. 30  171
12. I  100, 144, 148
12. 2-7  144, 185, 226
12. 5, II, 14, 18, 21, 26  159
12. IS  116, 226
13. 3  159
14. 22-29  211, 226
14. 23  144, 159
15. 2  248
IS. 12-17  145
IS- 20  159
16. 1-8  185
16. 1-17  226
16. 2, 6, 7  144, 159, i8s
16. 13-15  211, 217, 247
16. 16  n6
16. 21, 22  159, 185, 190
17-3  i8s
17- 8-13  190
17-9  14s, 160
17. 14-20  188
17- 16, 17  188
17- 18  28, 145, 160
18. 1  145, 160, 207
18. 6, 7 ...;  191, 195
18. 8, 10, II  :  185
19- 14  177
19- 17  190
20  191
21. 5  14s, 160
22. 8, 10  191
23. 17, 18  185
24. 8  98, 207
25-4  191
26. 12-15  211, 226
26. 17-19  186
27. 2ff  100
28  186
28. 68  218
29. I  98, 100, 182, 186
29. 21  ,  182

INDEX 347
Deuteronomy
31- 9 - -  46, 95, 97ff-, 182
31. loff  100
31-22  46
31- 23  241
31- 24-26  95, 97ff., 182, 187, 194
31-26  44
32  262, 293
33  263, 293
33-7  23s, 246
33- 13-17  244, 246
34-1  172
34- 1-12  46, 170
34-4  171
34- S-12  44
34-6  45
34-10  156, 176
Joshua 1. 1, 2  241
I- 1-9  99
I. 7  88, 98
I. 8  98
I. I3ff  98
2. 10  171
4. 12  98
4. 20-24  203
5- 2  98
s- 15  98
6. 26  24s, 266
7-7  171
8. 30-35  loi
9. 10  171
9- 23, 27  237
10. 12, 13  267
10. 13  17s, 293
12. 10  264
13. 4-6  114
13- 30  173
14. IS  172
IS. I-S  "4, 244
IS- 13  172
15. 21-32  114
21  226
22. 2ff  98
24  156, 242
24. I, 25, 30, 32, 33  240
24. 26  159
Judges I.I  237
I. 1-21  240
I. 16  256

348

INDEX

Judges I. 21  264
I. 28, 29  236
2. S  203
3-4  88
3-13  267
4. 5  257
5  23s
5. 17  171
S. 20  267
6. 26, 27  204
8. 14  296
10. 3, 4  173,236
10. 8  171
13. 19  204
18. 29  •  172
20. 26  203
21. 19  203
I Samuel1.4  203
7- 9, 17  203, 204
9. 12  203
II. IS  203
13-9  203
14-35  203, 204
18. 17  237
20. 19  204
20. 28, 29  203
25. 28  237
30  261
2 Samuel
I- 18  17S, 293
4- 2, 3  237
5. 6ff  ;  ..236
5. 10  267
5. 12  237
7. 11-16  79
8. 14  237
10. I-S  72
14. 13  237
IS. 7  203
19. 35  293
20. 24  237
21. 2, 3, 9  237
24. i-io  72
24. i8ff  236
I Kings
2. 3  88
3-4  203, 204, 237
4. 2, 4  209

INDEX
I Kings
4. 7ff  237
S-i-S  237
o. 53  293
9. IS, 21  236, 257
9. 20, 21  174
10. iff  237
10. 28  188
II  237
II. 1-3  188
II. I4ff  244
12. 28  242
16. 34  24s, 266
18. 3off  203, 204
19. 2  242
2 Kings 12. 2, 3  204
14- 3, 4  204
14.6  88
15, 3, 4, 34, 35  204
16. i8  189
17. 16  189
17. 28, 29  49
18. 3-6  187, 194, 206
18.6  88
18. 12  88
19. 20-37  206
21. 3, 5  189
22. 8ff  124, 181, i83ff.
22. n-13  191
23. Iff  i83ff., 208
23.2  183
23.9  191, 195
23. 12  189
23. 25  88
23. 32ff  207
I Chronicles
IS. IS  88
19- I-S  .72
21. 1-8  72
22.13  88
2 Chronicles8.13  88
19. 8-11  190
25.4  88
30. 16  88
33.8  88
34,35  181
34.3  191
34. 14  - . .43, 00

349

350

INDEX

2 Chronicles
35.6  88
35.12  88
Ezra 2. 36-40  210
3. 2  43
6. 18  88
7. 1-26  247
7. 6  43
7. 14  249
8. 15-20  210
Nehemiah I. Sff  222
8—10  247
8. 13  97
8. IS  247
8. 18  211, 222, 247, 248
10. 30, 31  248
10. 36-40  247
10. 37-38  211, 222
13. I  88
Psalm 95  79
Isaiah 1.9  220
I. 10-15  205, 218
5-12  293
n. 9  2S9
16. 10  ....293
19. 19  190, 242
37. 2-38  206
Jeremiah 2.8  55
7. 22, 23  217
18. 18  55
26. 18, 19  206
33. 18, 21  208
36.23ff  192
Ezekiel 21. 21  43
28. 16  259
44. 9-16  208, 209, 222
Daniel 9  222

INDEX
Hosea
8. 13  218
9.3  218
10. 8  206
12. 2-6  220
Amos 2. 8  220
4.4, 5  206
4. II  220
S- 5  240
S. 21-23  205, 218
5.25  217
6. 5  293
8. 14  240
Jonah 1-7  43
Micah
I. 5, 6  206
5. 6  220
6. 5  220
6. 6-8  27s
Malachi 4.4  88
Matthew 8.4  44, 77
15.4  79
22. 31  79
Mark 7. 10  44, 77, 79
10.5  77
12.26  79
13.32  80
Luke 20. 37  44, 77, 79
John 5.45-47  44, 77
7. 19  44, 77
Acts 3. 24  79
7. 22  113
2 Corinthians
3. IS  80
2 Timothy3. 15-17  84
Hebrews 4.7  79

351

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 7777