BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME FROM THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF 1891 A,,^.xo..i.o xs: <^A Cornell University Library BS1215 .B85 1893 Higher critcism of the Hexateuch olln 3 1924 029 286 750 The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029286750 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE HEXATEUCH DR. BRIGGS' WORKS AMERICAN PRESBYTERIANISM. Its Origin and Early History, together with an Appendix of Letters and Documents, many of which have recently been dis- covered. Cr. 8vo, with maps $300 MESSIANIC PROPHECY. The Prediction of the Fulfil- ment of Redemption through the Messiah. A critical study of the Messianic passages of the Old Testament in the order of their development. Cr. 8vo, . $2.50 BIBLICAL STUDY. Its Principles, Methods, and Histor3- of its Branches. Fourth edition. Cr. 8vo, . $2.50 WHITHER? A Theological Question for the Times. Third edition. Cr. 8vo, $1.75 THE AUTHORITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. An Inaugural Address. Third edition. Cr. 8vo, paper, 50 cts. THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON. The Three Gre&t Fountains of Divine Authority. Cr. 8vo, $1.75 BIBLICAL HISTORY. Cr. 8vo, paper, . . . 30 cts. THE CASE AGAINST PROFESSOR BRIGGS. Cr. 8vo, paper, 50 ct3. THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS. Cr. 8vo, paper, 50 cts THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE HEXATEUCH BY CHARLES AUGUSTUS BJ^IGGS, D.D. EDWARD ROBINSON PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 1893 A. ^S'on 1 art:r* ^•% Copyright, 1892 and 1893, by CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS. PRESS OF EDWARD O. JENKINS' SON, NEW YORK. • TO FRANCIS BROWN D.D. DAVENPORT PROFESSOR OF HEBREW AND THE COGNATE LANGUAGES IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY NEW YORK PUPIL COLLEAGUE SUCCESSOR AND TRUE YOKE-FELLOW Ql\)\Q Book IS DEDICATED IN TRUST AND LOVE PREFACE. Ten years ago the author undertook to write a little book upon the Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, and at that time he advanced some distance in its prepara- tion. But on reflection he turned aside from it, with the opinion that the times were not yet ripe for it. He accordingly prepared the volumes entitled Biblical Study ^ in 1883, and Messianic Prophecy^ in 1886. He has written a number of papers upon the Hexateuch in several different periodicals, and has ever kept in mind the ultimate accomplishment of his original plan. But it was his desire to wait until the completion of the new- Hebrew Lexicon in order to use all the wealth of its fresh study of Hebrew words in the documents of the Hexateuch. It was also his desire to wait until he had completed his preparatory studies in the Higher Criti- cism of the Psalter, and in the Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. These studies are not in that state of forwardness which was anticipated before the publica- tion of the present book. And yet they have gone so far as to produce a considerable amount of fresh evi- dence which now appears for the first time in this volume. The circumstances in which the author is now placed make it necessary for him to define his position on the (vii) viii PREFACE Hexateuch. For this reason he presents to the public the result of his studies so far as they have gone. The only reason for any further delay in publication would be to make the evidence for his conclusions more com- prehensive, more exhaustive, and entirely complete. But he is assured that the evidence is already so varied and comprehensive that there can be no reasonable doubt as to the answers which must be given to the chief questions which arise in the Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch. The author has been engaged for many years in the study of this subject, since first he began original work upon it, in the University of Berlin, in 1866, under the instruction of Hengstenberg. He has advanced steadily and slowly, by constant revision and rectification of his opinions, until he has attained the results stated in this volume. He is glad that he is able to say that these results correspond in the main with the opinions which have been formed independently by leading Biblical scholars in all parts of the world. The book has been written for the general public, rather than for Hebrew students. Accordingly the text has been made as free from technical matters as possi- ble, and a large amount of material has been put in the Appendix, which thus becomes a volume by itself. It is evident that these questions of the Higher Criticism can no longer be confined to theological schools and professional circles. The people desire to consider them and to know the answers to them. It is the earnest desire of the author to contribute to the removal of traditional prejudices, to the readjustment of opinions in accordance with facts, and to a better understanding and higher appreciation of the most an- cient documents of our Holy Religion. CONTENTS. I. The Problem, p. i. (i) The Lines of Inquiry, p. 2 ; (2) The Lines of Evidence, p. 4. II. The Testimony of Holy Scripture, p. 6. (i) The Testimony of the Hexateuch, p. 6 ; (2) The Testimony of the Prophets, p. 13 ; (3) The Law Book of Josiah, p. 15 ; (4) The Testimony of the exilic and post-exilic Literature, p. 20 ; (5) The Testimony of the New Testament, p. 25. in. The Traditional Theories, p. 31. (i) The Rabbinical Theory, p. 31 ; (2) The Views of the Fathers, p' 33 ; (3) The Position of the Reformers, p. 34. IV. The Rise of Criticism, p, 36. (i) Carlstadt, Masius, and Hobbes, p. 36; (2) Objections of Peyrerius and Spinoza to Mosaic Authorship, p. 36 ; (3) Richard Simon's Historical Criticism, p. 40; (4) The Scho- lastic Resistance, p. 42; (5) Witsius, Vitringa, and other mediating divines, p. 43. (ix) X CONTENTS V. The Documentary Hypothesis, p. 46. (i) Jean Astruc, p. 46 ; (2) The Evidence from the Divine Names, p. 48 ; (3) Eichhorn and his School, p. 49 i (4) Marsh and Home defend the traditional opinion, p. 54; (5) Geddes, Vater, and their Fragmentary Hypothesis, p. 57 ; (6) Taylor and Edward Robinson, p. 58. VI. The Supplementary Hypothesis, p. 60. (i) De Wette and his School, p. 60; (2) Hengstenberg and his followers, p. 61 ; (3) Hupfeld, Knobel, and Ewald, p. 63 ; (4) Noeldeke and Schrader, p. 65 ; (5) Samuel Davidson, Pe- rowne, and Stanley, p. 66 ; (6) Dclitzsch, Kurtz, and Kleinert, p. 67. VII. The Analysis of the Hexateuch, p. 69. (i) The Argument from Language, p. 69; (2) Differences of Style, p. 74; (3) Parallel Narratives, p. 75. VIII. The Date of Deuteronomy, p, 81. (i) Argument for the Composition of Deuteronomy shortly be- fore the reform of Josiah, as stated by Riehm, p. 81 ; (2) As enlarged by Driver, p. 83 ; (3) The supposed Obstacles to this Theory tested, p. 85 ; (4) The old Mosaic Code and its re- codification in Deuteronomy, p. 89. IX. The Development Hypothesis, p. 90. (1) Edward Reuss and his school, p. 90; (2) Colenso, Kuenen, and Kalisch, p. 92; (3) Wellhausen's analysis and its conse- quences, p. 94 ; (4) The newly discovered facts, p. 96 ; (5) The new theory, p. 96. CONTENTS xi X. The Development of the Codes, p. 99. (i) The differences in point of view, p. 100; (2) The Judaic code and its parallels, p. loi ; (3) The Ephraimitic code and its parallels, p. loi ; (4) The code of Deuteronomy and the code of Holiness, p. loi ; (5) The altars, p. loi ; (6) The sacred tent, p. 103 ; (7) The priesthood, p. 104 ; (8) The sacrifices, p. 104; (9) The purifications, p. 106; (10) The feasts, p. 106; (11) The order of the codes, p. 107; (12) The argu- ments against the post-exilic composition of the Priest-code, p. 108. XL The Witness of the History, p. no. (i) Discrepancy between the codes and the history, p. no; (2) The witness of the Literature to the non-observance of the Law, p. 118 ; (3) The religious development of Israel, p. 124 ; (4) The historians and the codes, p. 126 ; (5) Ezekiel and the codes, p. 126. XIL The More Recent Discussions, p. 129. (i) The case of W. Robertson Smith, p. 129 ; (2) The discussion in the Presbyterian Review, p. 130 ; (3) Dillmann, Baudissin, and Delitzsch, p. 131 ; (4) Cornill and Driver, p. 134; (5) The objection that the analysis makes the Hexateuch patchwork, answered from Tatian and St. Paul, p. 137; (6) The objection that the critics differ answered by proof of their concord, p. 142. XIIL The Argument from Biblical Theology, p. 146. (i) Mode of divine revelation, p. 146 ; (2) Theophanies, p. 146 ; (3) Miracles, p. 147 ; (4) The covenants, p. 149; (5) Prophecy, p. 150; (6) The divine Spirit, p. 150; (7) The divine attri- butes, p. 151 ; (8) The doctrine of sin, p. 153; (9) The doc- trine of divine judgment, p. 154; (10) The doctrine of re- demption, p. 154. xii CONTENTS XIV. The Result of the Argument, p. 156. (i) The four documents and the five codes, p. 156; (2) Driver's statement, p. 157 ; (3) The final summary, p. 160. APPENDIX. I. The two Narratives of the Revelation of the Divine Name Yahweh, p. 165. II. The Characteristic Words and Phrases of D, H, AND P according TO Canon Driver, p. i68. III. The Genesis of the Ten Words, p. 181. IV. The two Narratives of the Pestilence in Egypt, p. 188. V. The Decalogue of J and its Parallels in the other Codes, p. 189. VI. The Greater Book of the Covenant and its Par- allels IN the later Codes, p. 211. VII. Variations of D and H, p. 233. VIII. The several Representations of the Theophanv, p. 236. INDEXES, p. 239. I. THE PROBLEM. The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch is a phrase which conveys little if any meaning to the general public. It is however a technical phrase with a definite meaning which, so soon as it is explained, becomes plain and evi- dent and serves to fix the attention upon the problem in hand much better than any paraphrase could do. The Hexateuch is composed of the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua. The Pentateuch comprehends the five books which in the Hebrew Canon constitute the Law, embracing Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Modern criticism has shown that the book of Joshua originally was an essential member of the group and therefore criticism has to deal with the Hexateuch. The Higher Criticism is named Higher to distinguish it from the Lower Criticism. The Lower Criticism deals with the Text of the Scriptures. It searches all the versions and manuscripts and citations in order to ascertain the genuine original Text as it came from the hands of its authors and editors. It has to do with let- ters, words, and sentences, as such, without regard to their literary form or meaning. The Higher Criticism builds on the Lower Criticism as its foundation. It takes 2 THE HEXATEUCH the Text of Scripture from the hands of Lower Criticism and studies it as literature. This distinction between the Higher and the Lower Criticism was not made by Biblical scholars, but by classical scholars in their studies of the great monuments of Greek and Roman literature. So soon as Biblical scholars began to study the Holy Scripture with scientific methods, they adopted this terminology with its distinctive meanings. The Higher Criticism has four different lines of in- quiry. (i). Integrity. Is the writing the product of one mind as an organic whole, or composed of several pieces of the same author ; or is it a collection of writings by different authors? Has it retained its original integrity or has it been interpolated? May the interpolations be discrim- inated from the original ? The Pentateuch is ascribed by the prevalent tradition to Moses, and the book of Joshua to Joshua. The Higher Criticism of the Hex- ateuch traces this tradition to its sources, examines the references to the Hexateuch in other writings, and then searches the Hexateuch itself, in order to learn whether this tradition corresponds with the facts of the case or not. It finds that the tradition has no sound historical basis, that the references to the Hexateuch in other writ- ings and the testimony of the Hexateuch itself tell a different story, and show conclusively that the Hexateuch embraces Mosaic originals, several different codes and historical documents and the handiwork of a number of editors at different epochs in the history of Israel, and that the unity of the Hexateuch is the result of a final redaction of all the earlier elements. (2). Authenticity. Is the author's name given in con- nection with the writing? Is it anonymous? Can it be pseudonymous? Is it a compilation? The Higher THE PROBLEM 3 Criticism of the Hexateuch finds that the Hexateuch is anonymous and that it is a compilation. (3). Literary Form. Is the writing poetry or prose? Is the prose historic, didactic, rhetorical, or statistical? Is the poetry lyric, dramatic, epic, pastoral, or compos- ite ? What is the style of the author and what are his distinctive characteristics in form, method, and color ? The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch finds four great historical narratives, of different styles and methods of historical composition. It finds a large number of ancient poems embedded in the narratives, so many indeed as to make a collection nearly as large as the Psalter, if they were gathered together in a separate book. It finds several law codes, differing in method of codification and style as well as in bulk and con- tents. (4). Credibility, Is the writing reliable ? Do its state- ments accord with the truth, or are they colored and warped by prejudice, superstition, or reliance upon in- sufficient or unworthy testimony ? What character does the author bear as to prudence, good judgment, fairness, integrity, and critical sagacity? The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch vindicates its credibility. It strength- ens the historical credibility (1) by showing that we have four parallel narratives instead of the single narrative of the traditional theory; and (2) by tracing these narratives to their sources in the more ancient documents buried in them. It traces the development of the original Mosaic legislation in its successive stages of codification in accordance with the historical development of the kingdom of God. It finds minor discrepancies and in- accuracies such as are familiar to students of the Gospels ; but these increase the historic credibility of the writings, as they show that the writers and compilers were true to 4 THE HEXATEUCU their sources of information even when they could not harmonize them in all respects. The Higher Criticism has several lines of evidence upon which it relies for its conclusions. (i). The writing must be in accordance with its sup- posed historical position as to time and place and cir- cumstances. (2). Differences of style imply differences of experience and age of the same author, or, when sufficiently great, differences of author and of period of composition. (3). Differences of opinion and conception imply differ- ences of author when these are sufficiently great, and also differences of period of composition. (4). Citations show the dependence of the author upon the author or authors cited. (5). Positive testimony as to the writing in other writ- ings of acknowledged authority is the strongest evi- dence. (6). The argument from silence is often of great value. If the matter in question was beyond the scope of the author's argument, it either had certain characteristics which excluded it, or it had no manner of relation to the argument. If the matter in question was fairly within the scope of the author's argument, he either omitted it for good and sufficient reasons, or else he was unconscious or ignorant of it, or else it had not come into exist- ence."^ These lines of evidence are used in the Higher Criti- cism of all kinds of literature. They were tested and verified in the study of Greek and Roman literature, and of the ecclesiastical writers of the Church, long before ■^ See Biblical Study, pp. 87-91. THE PROBLEM 5 any Biblical scholar used them in his studies of Holy Scripture. Our problem is the Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch. We shall first consider the evidences from Holy Scrip- ture, then test the traditional theory, and finally trace the history of the Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, and use the six lines of evidence for the solution of the four great questions, as to the Integrity, the Authentic- ity, the Literary Forms and the Credibility of the Hexa- teuch. II. THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. I. — The Testimony of the Hexateuch. We shall consider first those passages of the Hexa- teuch which give evidence as to authorship. (i). "And Moses came and told the people all the words of Yahweh, and all the judgments : and all the people answered with one voice and said, All the words which Yahweh hath spoken will we do. And Moses wrote all the words of Yahweh, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the mount, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Is- rael .... And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people : and they said. All that Yahweh hath spoken will we do, and be obedient." (Ex. xxiv. 3, 4, 7.) This passage speaks of the Book of the Covenant in which Moses wrote all the words of Yahweh. These words of Yahweh were evidently those which Yahweh said unto Moses at Horeb, and which are given in Ex. XX. 22-26, and probably also the judgments of chapters xxi.-xxiii. There can be little doubt that the editor of the Hexateuch designed to give the essential contents of the Book of the Covenant in that series of pentades and decalogues which seem to have been the original contents of this code of the Ephraimitic writer. A critical study of this code shows that there have been (6) THE TESTIMONY OF HOLT SCRIPTURE Y omissions, insertions, transpositions, and revisions ; but the substance of this original code of the twelve deca- logues is there.* This passage proves that Moses wrote a Book of the Covenant ; but it does not prove that he wrote the Pentateuch, of which this Book in its present form takes less than four chapters. (2). "And Yahweh said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel." (Ex. xxxiv. 27.) These words written at this time by Moses refer with- out doubt to the words which precede, that is the deca- logue, which may be called the Little Book of the Covenant. This decalogue of the Little Book of the Covenant is parallel for the most part with one of the decalogues of the Greater Book of the Covenant. The one of these books is mentioned by the Ephraimitic writer, the other by the Judaic writer. The question thus arises whether there were two law codes in two dif- ferent books, given within a few weeks of each other, or whether these are two different codifications of one and the same Book of the Covenant. At all events, this pas- sage proves no more than that Moses wrote the deca- logue of the Little Book of the Covenant, and by no means implies that he wrote the chapter which contains this narrative, still less the entire Pentateuch.f (3). " But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandment, and the statutes, and the judg- ments, which thou shah teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it." (Dt. v. 31.) This passage proves no more than that Moses spoke at Mt. Horeb, commandments, statutes and judgments. * See Appendix VI. t See Appendix V. g THE HEXATEQCH No mention is made of committing any of these to writing. It is probably a parallel statement to Ex. xxiv. 12. (4). "And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests, the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, and unto all the elders of Israel." . . . . " Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the cove- nant of Yahweh your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee." (Dt. xxxi. 9, 26.) Verse 26 tells us v^hat precisely it was which Moses wrote, namely, the book of the Thorah, the book of in- struction. This law book, as all modern Biblical schol- ars recognize, is what we call the Deuteronomic code. The code comprehends the laws in Deuteronomy xii.- xxvi. This code is in the rhetorical form and not in the form of decalogues and pentades as are the covenant codes. The question then arises whether this rhetorical form belongs to the original code or whether the origi- nal code of this law book has not been put in this rhetorical form by the Deuteronomist.* Whatever opinion we may form on this question, it is evident that the most that you can prove from this passage is that Moses wrote a law book which for substance is given in the legal chapters of Deuteronomy. It does not prove that Moses wrote Deuteronomy, still less that he wrote the other four books of the Pentateuch. (5). " Only be strong and very courageous, to observe to do ac- cording to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee : turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest have good success whithersoever thou goest. This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shall meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein : for then thou shall make * See p. 85 seq. THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 9 thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success." (Josh. i. 7, 8.) *• As Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded the children 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 Yahweh, and sacrificed peace offerings," (Josh. viii. 31.) These passages evidently refer to the lav^ book al- ready mentioned in Deuteronomy. They confirm the evidence as to the composition of that law book by Moses, but they do not give any additional evidence. There is nothing in them that implies that Moses wrote anything else. From all these passages it is plain that Moses wrote one or more codes of law, but they give no evidence that Moses wrote all the laws of the Pentateuch con- tained in the other codes, and those which are embedded in the historical narratives. (6). " So Moses wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel." (Deut. xxxi. 22.) The song referred to is given in Deut. xxxii. and it is one of the finest pieces of poetry in the Old Testament, called by Schultz the Magna Charta of prophecy. Whether the song in its present form came from the pen of Moses is doubted by many evangelical scholars ; but, whether it did or not, the most we can prove from this passage is that Moses wrote a song which the com- piler of the Hexateuch proposes to give in Deuteronomy xxxii., in the form in which he knew of it. (7). "And Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of Yahweh : and these are their journeys according to their goings out." (Num. xxxiii. 2.) This passage definitely states what it was that Moses 10 THE BEXATEUCH wrote, namely, the list of stations of the journeys of Israel from Egypt to the valley of the Jordan. It re- quires one to spring over too wide a stretch of reasoning to conclude from this list of journeys contained in a single chapter that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch. (8). " And Yahweh said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua : that I will ut- terly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven." (Ex. xvii. 14.) Here it is distinctly stated what Moses was to write, namely, the words, *' I will utterly blot out the remem- brance of Amalek from under heaven." The Revised Version correctly renders ** in a book " taking the Mas- soretic pointing as giving the generic article in accord- ance with usage elsewhere (cf. Job xix. 23). But the American revisers insisted on giving the article a definite force " in the book" in order to support the theory that Moses kept a journal in which he wrote down from time to time the events recorded in the Pentateuch. This crude conceit as to the method of the composition of the Pentateuch may now be regarded as antiquated. The passages usually cited from the Pentateuch to prove its Mosaic authorship have been examined. Such statements in any other historical writing would imply that the author or compiler was referring to some of the written sources from which he derived the materials for his own work. When the author of the Pentateuch says that Moses wrote one or more codes of law, that he wrote a song, that he recorded a certain memorandum, it would appear that having specified such of his mate- rials as were written by Moses, he would have us infer that the other materials came from other sources of infor- mation. But it has been argued the other way, namely. THE TESTIMONY OF HOLT SCRIPTURE H that, because it is said Moses wrote the codes of the cove- nant and the Deuteronomic code, he also wrote all the laws of the Pentateuch ; that because he wrote the song Deut. xxxii., he wrote all the other pieces of poetry in the Pentateuch; that because he recorded the list of stations and the memorial against Amalek, he recorded all the other historical events of the Pentateuch. It is probable that no one would so argue did he not suppose it was necessary to maintain the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch at every cost. All that the Pentateuch says as to Mosaic authorship we may accept as valid and true ; but we cannot be asked to accept such a compre- hensive inference as that Moses wrote the whole Penta- teuch from the simple statements of the Pentateuch that he wrote out the few things distinctly specified. We shall now consider some passages of the Hexa- teuch which tell a different story. (9). In Josh. xxiv. 26, it is said that Joshua wrote the words of his last discourse in the book of the instruction or law of God. The name of this book differs from the name of the book containing the Deuteronomic code only by the substitution of Elohim, God, for Yahweh. This statement in the Ephraimitic writer seems to imply that there was an official divine law book to which Joshua made this addition. But what has become of it? If it was the same book as the Deuteronomic code, why are not these words in that code at the present time ? Is not the view more reasonable on the basis of this passage, that this old law book was used for the most part by the Deuteronomist in the book of Deuter- onomy, but by the Ephraimitic writer in the passage Josh. xxiv. 26, and that the compiler of the present Hexateuch has given us both extracts from this same original law book in the words of these two different 12 THE HEXATEUCM authors? Will any now argue from the statement, that Joshua wrote his last discourse in this law book, that Joshua wrote the whole of the book which bears his name ? It used to be so argued. The day is not distant when we shall say ** it used to be so " for the argument for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. (lo). In Num. xxi. 14, a piece of poetry is cited from the Book of the Wars of Yahweh. This book, which, like Joshua's law book, is no longer in existence, was prob- ably an anthology of national Hebrew poetry. Its other contents are unknown. Possibly some of them are to be found among the other poetic extracts in the Hexa- teuch. It is not said who was the author or compiler of this book. Is there any reason to think of Moses? Or shall we not rather conclude, in accordance with the methods of reasoning of the anti-critics, that because this piece of poetry was taken from the Book of the Wars of Yahweh the whole Pentateuch was taken from that book, and was written by its author? (11). In Josh. X. 12, 13, a strophe is cited from the book of Jasher, describing the theophany at the battle of Beth-Horon. " Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon ; And thou, moon, in the valley of Aijalon, And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, Until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies." This book seems to have been another collection of poetry. Two other extracts from this book are given in the Old Testament. The one, 2 Sam. i. 18, is the lament of David over Jonathan and Saul, a dirge of won- derful beauty and power; the other is a little piece of four lines in i Kings viii. 12, 13, which, according to the LXX. was also taken from the book of Jasher, although THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 13 this reference to the book of Jasher, and one line of the poem, is missing from the Massoretic text. "The sun is known in the heavens, But Yahweh said he would dwell in thick darkness. I have built up a house of habitation for thee ; A place for thee to dwell in forever." This passage is cited in the words of Solomon at the dedication of the temple. If now the book of Jasher contains, besides the ode of the battle of Beth-Horon of the time of Joshua, a dirge of David, and a piece of poetry of Solomon, that book could not be earlier than the dedication of the temple of Solomon. The compiler who cites from that book could not have compiled the book of Joshua before the book from which he cites was written. Therefore, the book of Joshua could not have been compiled in its present form before the dedication of the temple. If now the book of Joshua is insepara- ble from the Pentateuch and makes with it a Hexateuch, and if the four documents from the Pentateuch run right on through the book of Joshua, then it is evident that the Pentateuch could not have been compiled by Moses, but must have been compiled subsequent to the dedication of the temple of Solomon. But this connec- tion of Joshua with the Pentateuch can be established by indubitable evidence from the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua,"^ therefore it is the evidence of the Hex- ateuch itself that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. II. — The Testimony of the Prophets, We are surprised by a lack of reference to the Mosaic law in the prophets of Israel. The most important pas- sage in the discussion is Hos. viii. 12. This is rendered * See pp. 61 , 68, 70 seq. 14: THE HEXATEUCH by the Revised Version correctly : *' Though I write for him my law in ten thousand precepts, they are counted as a strange thing." The American revisers would translate, *' I wrote for him the ten thousand things of my law." The American revisers wish to hold to the traditional interpretation of this passage, that it refers to the ten thousand precepts contained in the Pentateuch. This would imply a very extensive body of law or doctrine written in or before the time of Hosea, and here referred to by him. But unfortunately for the American revisers, the tense of the verb is against them. It is the Hebrew imperfect tense. It is incorrect to render that tense as an aorist referring it to the Mosaic legislation. It is possible to render it as a frequentative. But this would refer it to a series of divine laws reaching up to the prophet's time, and that would not suit their purpose. The English revisers give the translation which is best suited to the Hebrew tense and the context of the passage, in rendering it as hypothetical. In this case there is no more than a general reference to the fact that divine laws were recorded, and that if such laws were given to an indefinite extent so as to run up to myriads of laws, they would only multiply the transgressions of a rebellious people. The laws were really prophetic in- structions, including those of Hosea himself. That this is the true interpretation, we see from the usage of other prophets. Jeremiah viii. 8 refers to a law of Yahweh as coming through false prophets. Thorah is indeed divine instruction or doctrine, rather than divine law, and hence in the usage of the Old Testament it refers to any divine instruction, any teaching from God. It was not until the reign of rabbinical tradition that the law became a technical term for the Pentateuch. As De- litzsch says: "The recognition of this fact opens the THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 15 eyes and delivers from the bondage of prejudice." The older scholars were blinded by the technical usage of rabbinical theology to the historic usage of Holy Scrip- ture ; and unfortunately the same veil heth upon the heart of some modern scholars whensoever Moses is read. III. — The Law Book of Josiah. The most important passages in the Old Testament in evidence for the composition of the Pentateuch are 2 Kings xxii. 8, ii ; xxiii. 2, 2i, 25 ; and their parallels 2 Chron. xxxiv. 14, 15, 19, 30, xxxv. 3, 6. II. Chronicles xxxiv.-v. "And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of Yahweh, II. Kings xxii.-xxiir. " And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of Yahweh. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan, and he read it." (xxii. 8.) " And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes." (ver. 11.) • • « • • • "And the king went up to the house of Yahweh, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great : and he Hilkiah the priest found the book of the law of Yahweh given by Moses. And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of Yahweh. And Hilkiah deliv- ered the book to Shaphan." (ver. 14, 15.) "And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes." (ver. 19.) • • • • • • "And the king went up to the house of Yahweh, and all the men of Judah and the in- habitants of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people, both great and small : and he read in their ears 16 THE HEXATEUCH read in their ears all the words all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of Yahweh." (ver. 30.) "And he said unto the Le- vites that taught all Israel, . . . . kill the passover, and sanctify yourselves, and prepare for your brethren, to do accord- ing to the word of Yahweh by the hand of Moses." (xxxv. 3, 6.) of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of Yahweh." (xxiii. 2.) "And the king commanded all the people, saying, Keep the passover unto Yahweh your God, as it is written in this book of the covenant." (ver. 21.) » • • • • * "And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to Yahweh 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." (ver. 25.) Critical scholars are agreed that this law book was the Deuteronomic code. The older view was that it was the entire Pentateuch. There are a few anti-critics who adhere to this traditional theory as they do to all others. It is sufificient to cite the careful statement of the Hul- sean professor of divinity at Cambridge, England, Her- bert E. Ryle : "When we enquire what this 'Book of the Law' comprised, the evidence at our disposal is quite sufficiently explicit to direct us to a reply. Even apart from the knowledge which we now possess of the structure of the Pentateuch, there was never much probability in the supposition, that the book discovered by Hilkiah was identical with the whole Jewish ' Torah,' our Penta- teuch. The narrative does not suggest so considerable a work. Its contents were quickly perused and readily grasped. Being read aloud, it at once left distinct impressions upon ques- tions of national duty. Its dimensions could not have been very large, nor its precepts very technical. The complex character THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 17 of the Pentateuch fails to satisfy the requirements of the picture. Perhaps, too (although the argument is hardly one to be pressed), as it appears that only a single roll of the Law was found, it may not unfairly be remarked, that the whole Torah was never likely to be contained in one roll ; but that, if a single roll contained any portion of the Pentateuch, it was most probably the Deu- teronomic portion of it ; for the Book of Deuteronomy, of all the component elements of the Pentateuch, presents the most unmistakable appearance of having once formed a compact in- dependent work. ''But, there is no need to have recourse to arguments of such a doubtful kind. For while the evidence shows that a completed Torah could not have existed at this time, we seem to have convincing proof that * the Book of the Law * was either a por- tion of our Deuteronomy or a collection of laws, Deuteronomic in tone, and, in range of contents, having a close resemblance to our Book of Deuteronomy. The evidence is twofold, (i). The description which is given of the book found in the Temple shows, that, in its most characteristic features, it approximated more closely to portions of Deuteronomy than to any other section of the Pentateuch. (2). The historian, from whom we obtain the account, appears, when he speaks of 'the law,' to have in view the Deuteronomic section, and scarcely to be acquainted with any other. These arguments have been frequently and fully discussed in other works, so that we need not here do more than summarize them very briefly. " (i). The description of the book shows that, in its most con- spicuous features, it was in close agreement with the contents of Deuteronomy. " (a). The book contained denunciations against the neglect of the covenant with Jehovah. (2 Kings xxii. 11-13, '6, 17). '* Now the Pentateuch contains two extensive passages describ- ing the fearful visitations that should befall the people of Israel for following after other gods (Lev. xxvi. ; Deut. xxviii.-xxxi.). Of these, the passage in Deuteronomy is the longest, and while the passage in Leviticus would be calculated to produce a very similar impression, it may be noticed that the words of Huldah, in referring to the curses contained in the ' Book of the Law,' possibly contain a reference to Deut. xxviii. 37, xxix. 24 (cf. 2 Kings xxii. 19). It cannot be doubted that one or other, or 18 THE HEXATEUCH both of these denunciations, must have been included in Josiah's 'Book of the Law.' " {b). The reforms carried out by the king and his advisers, in order to obey the commands of 'the Book of Law/ deal with matters all of which are mentioned, with more or less emphasis, in the Deuteronomic legislation, (i.) The principal religious reform carried out by Josiah was the suppression of the worship at the high places, and the concentration of worship at the Temple. No point is insisted on so frequently and so em- phatically in the Deuteronomic laws as that all public worship is to be centralised at the one place which Jehovah himself should choose (Deut. xii. 5 and passz'tn). (ii.) Josiah took measures to abolish the worship of the heavenly bodies, a form of idolatry distinct from the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth. His action is in obedience to the commands of Deuteronomic laws (Deut. iv. 19, xvii. 3). There alone in the Pentateuch this particular form of idolatry is combated. For, although it had existed in an earlier time, it does not seem to have infected the religion of Israel until late in the monarchical period (cf. 2 Kings xxi. 3, 5, xxiii. 4, 5, II, 12). (iii.) Josiah celebrated the Feast of the Pass- over (2 Kings xxiii. 21-23) in accordance with 'the Book of the Law' : — we find the Law of the Passover laid down in Deut. xvi. 1-8. (iv.) Josiah expelled the wizards and diviners from the iand in express fulfilment of 'the Book of Law' (2 Kings xxiii. 24): we find the prohibition of this common class of impostor in Oriental countries expressed in strong language in Deut. xviii. 9-14. " It is not, of course, for a moment denied that laws, dealing with these last two subjects, are to be found elsewhere in the Pentateuch. But as in all four cases Josiah's action was based upon 'the law,' whatever 'the law' was, it must have dealt with • feasts ' and with * wizards ' as well as with ' concentration of worship ' and * star-worship.' In the Deuteronomic laws all four points are touched upon. "(r). The book found in the Temple is designated 'the Book of the Covenant' (2 Kings xxiii. 2, 21), and it appears that it contained a covenant, to the observance of which the king sol- emnly pledged himself {zd. 3). In the Pentateuch we find, it is true, a mention of * the Book of the Covenant ' (Ex. xxiv. 7), by which the substance of the Sinaitic legislation (Ex. xx,-xxiii.) THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 19 seems to be denoted. But it is clear, from the fact that the section, Ex. xx.-xxiii., contains no denunciation; from the fact that it contains only the very briefest notice of the Feast of the Passover, and then under another name ' the Feast of Un- leavened Bread' (Ex. xxiii. 15) ; from the fact that it makes no mention of either wizards or star-worship ; — that this portion of the Israelite law cannot be * the covenant ' referred to in 2 Kings xxiii. On the other hand, an important section at the close of our Book of Deuteronomy is occupied with a * Covenant ' ; and it can hardly be doubted, that a ' Book of the Law,' which was also ' the Book of the Covenant,' must have included such pas- sages as Deut. xxix. i, * These are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel ' ; ver. 9, ' Keep therefore the words of this covenant ' ; ver. 14, * Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath '; ver. 21, 'According to all the curses of the covenant that is written in the book of the law ' ; vers. 24, 25, ' Even all the nations shall say, Wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto this land ? . . . . Then men shall say. Because they forsook the cove- nant of the Lord.* '* (2). The historian who has preserved to us the narrative of the finding of * the Book of the Law' himself quotes directly from * the law ' in two passages, and in both instances from Deu- teronomic writing. In i Kings ii. 3, * And keep the charge of the Lord thy God to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes and His commandments and His judgments and His testi- monies, according to that which is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest and whither- soever thou turnest thyself,* the words used are characteristically Deuteronomic, and the thought is possibly based on Deut. xvii. 18-20 (cf. Josh. i. 8). In 2 Kings xiv. 6, * But the children of the murderers he put not to death ; according to that which is writ- ten in the book of the law of Moses, as the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children/ the citation is taken almost word for word from Deut. xxiv. 16. In numerous characteristic expressions and phrases the compiler of the Books of Kings shows a close acquaintance with the Deu- teronomic portion of the Pentateuch, though nowhere, perhaps, so frequently as in i Kings viii., ix., e.^. viij. 51 (cf. Deut. iv. 20), ix. 3 (cf. Deut. xii. 5), ix. 7, 8 (cf. Deut. xxviii. 37, xxix. 24). 20 THE HEXATEUCH Generally speaking, where reference is made to ' the law * in the Books of Kings, the allusion can only be satisfied by a reminis- cence of a Deuteronomic passage. Thus, exclusive of the two passages already quoted, may be noted i Kings viii. 9 (cf Deut. X. 5, xxix. I), 53 (cf. Deut. iv. 20), 56 (cf. Deut. xii. 9, io,xxv. 19), 2 Kings X. 31, xviii. 12, xxi. 8, xxii. 8, xxiii, 25. " If, therefore, the compiler of the Books of Kings identi- fied ' the law of Moses ' and ' the book of the law ' with Deu- teronomy, or, at least, with a Deuteronomic version of the law, we may nearly take it for granted, that, in his narrative of the reign ot Josiah, when he mentioned ' the Book of the Law ' without further description, he must have had in his mind the same Deuteronomic writings with which he was so familiar." {Canon of the Old Testament, pp. 48-53.) This long extract gives the critical argument com- pactly and thoroughly, and in the course of it gives the true meaning of the several passages in the book of Kings bearing on the composition of the Pentateuch, making it clear that these give no proof of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Jeremiah, the great prophet of the age of Josiah, makes reference to this law of Yahweh, and it is admitted that he is full of the spirit and ideas of the book of Deuteronomy. But he shows no knowledge of those parts of the Pentateuch which are now generally attrib- uted to a priestly writer, and presents no evidence of the existence of a Pentateuch in his day, still less of a Pentateuch written by Moses. IV. — Tke Testimony of the Exilic and Postexilic Literature. In the Psalter the only sacred writing referred to is the roll of the book concerning the king, Ps. xl. 8. This doubtless points to the law contained in Dt. xvii. 14 sq,^ and gives evidence of a knowledge of the Deutero- THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 21 nomic code by the writer of this exilic psalm. " Law " in the Psalter is for the most part used in psalms of a very late postexilic date. We have thus far found no recognition of a Mosaic Pentateuch in any writing prior to the restoration from exile. We have found nothing more than the Pentateuch itself gives us in the passages cited, a Mosaic law book of limited dimensions, a covenant code and the code of Deuteronomy. I shall first refer to a passage from the last of the prophets : " Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I com- manded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and judgments." (Malachi iv. 4.) This reference to the law of Moses coupled as it is with the name Horeb, if it imply a written law, refers to the Deuteronomic code where Horeb is used for Sinai of the priestly document of the Hexateuch. It seems probable that in the time of Malachi, the Deu- teronomic code still existed as a separate writing. The Chronicler is a late writer, not earlier than the Greek period, some considerable time subsequent to the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah, when it is admitted that the Pentateuch existed in its present form. What then is the evidence of the Chronicler on this subject ? It is evident that a great variety of phrases is used for law by the Chronicler. We shall divide them into groups. {a). Words of the Law. Neh. viii. 9, 13. Portions of the Law. Neh. xii. 44. The Law of Yahweh. Ez. vii. 10; i Chron. xvi. 40 ; 2 Chron. xii. i, xxxi. 3, 4, xxxv. 26. The Law of God. Neh. x. 29, 30. The Law of Yahweh thy God. i Chron. xxii. 12. 22 THE HEXATEUCH Book of the Law. Neh. viii. 3 ; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 15. Book of the Law of Yahweh their God. Neh. ix. 3. Book of the Law of God. Neh. viii. 18. Book of the Law of Yahweh. 2 Chron. xvii. 9, xxxiv. 14. Written in the Law. Neh. x. 34, 37. In the Book in the Law of God. Neh. viii. 8. It is evident that Mosaic authorship cannot be proven from these phrases. {b). In the Law which Yahweh commanded by the hand of Moses. Neh. viii. 14. The Word that thou commandest thy servant Moses. Neh. i. 8. All that Moses the servant of God had com- manded. I Chron. vi. 34. There is nothing in these statements which is not con- tained already in the Pentateuch itself with regard to the matters referred to. They do not prove the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, but only the connection of Moses with certain things in the way of law and pre- diction recorded in the Pentateuch. {c). The third group needs more careful consideration : Law of Moses, 2 Chron. xxx. 16; Ez. vii. 6. Book of the Law of Moses. Neh. viii. i. Written in the Law of Moses. 2 Chron. xxlii. 1 8 : Ez. iii. 2 ; Dan, ix. 11, 13. Written in the Book of Moses. 2 Chron. xxxv. 12 ; Ez. vi. 18. Written in the Law in the Book^ of Moses. 2 Chron. xxv. 4. THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 23 The question here arises whether the attachment of the name of Moses to this law book implies Mosaic au- thorship of the book and all its contents, (i). Is it certain that it refers to our Pentateuch ? Delitzsch, who has resisted the progress of the Higher Criticism as an honest, God-fearing man, and who has yielded only when convinced by irresistible arguments, says no. In his last volume on Genesis, he says : " Nowhere in the canonical literature of the Old Tes- tament do the terms 'the law,' *the book of the law,* ' the law of Moses,' cover the Pentateuch in its present form, not in the history of Joshua, Jos. i. 8, or Jehosh- aphat, 2 Chron. xvii. 9, not altogether even in the history of Ezra and Nehemiah, Neh. viii. lb. " * But admitting that it refers to the priestly document, orto the whole Pentateuch, does it imply Mosaic author- ship in all respects? We urge that it does not imply this. If the Chronicler had known the historic origin and successive stages of development in the composition of the Hexateuch as we know them, e, g, that we have in our Hexateuch a Mosaic code written by Moses in a book of the covenant which appears in one form in Ex. XX -xxiii., and in another form in Ex. xxxiv., and in a book of law in Dt. xii.-xxvi., and which lies at the basis of the code of Holiness in Leviticus and the priest's code in the middle books of the Pentateuch ; and that these codes existing in four different historic writings had been compiled in the more comprehensive codification of our Pentateuch ; would he not have been justified in speaking of the Pentateuch as the' book of Moses, the law of Moses, the book of the law of Moses ? So it seems to some who have carefully considered the whole ^ P. 13. 24 THE HEXATEUCH subject. Others may think differently, but have they any right to force their interpretation upon us? The critics base their opinion upon important considerations. There is a sufficient number of parallels in the Old Testament. Take for example the name David in the titles of the Davidic psalms. The older theory was that David wrote the entire Psalter, then the theory was pro- posed that David, in the titles of the psalms, implied the Davidic authorship of those particular psalms. But this theory has to be abandoned because many of these psalms which bear the name of David are postexilic. It seems altogether probable that these psalms were all taken from the earliest of the minor psalters, which were collected under the name of David because David was the traditional master of sacred song. The Psalter of David in this ancient collection did not imply that David wrote all these psalms, but that his was an appropriate name under which to compile them. The same is true with regard to that ancient collection of distichs which bears the title *' Proverbs of Solomon." (Pr. x.-xxii. i6.) Who can believe that Solomon was the author of them all? He was the master of sacred wisdom and under his name it was appropriate to compile a collection of wis- dom. Why may we not conclude that the Chronicler, who wrote after these three compilations had been made, of the minor psalter of David, the proverbs of Sol- omon, and the laws of Moses, used these three names in exactly the same way ; and that he knew that no one of the three implied authorship, but only that Moses was the father of the law, as David was the father of the psalmody, and Solomon the father of the wisdom ? Some may not be able to explain these things as we do, but if they do not, have they any right to force their interpretation of these facts upon us? All these THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 25 phrases refer to the law. But what about the history? If the book is called the law of Moses, the book of the law of Moses, does that imply that all the history in the book was written by Moses? Are we cornpelled to con- clude that nothing could have been written in the book except what came from Moses or was compiled by Moses? Those who insist upon interpreting such- phrases in such a way as to force belief in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, when they are capable of another interpretation and are given that explanation by Christian scholars of the highest rank, and by those pre- eminent in Biblical learning, should beware lest they risk the canonicity of the writings of the Chronicler by bringing him in conflict with the mass of evidence that may be presented from the Pentateuch itself to show that, if the Chronicler held their opinion, he was alto- gether mistaken. V. — The Testimony of the New Testament. The evidence from the New Testament may be dis- tributed in five sections and summed up as follows: (i). Jesus speaks of the law of Moses, Luke xxiv. 44, John vii. 23 ; and the book of Moses, Mark xii. 26. Moses is used for the Pentateuch, Acts xv. 21 ; 2 Cor. iii. 15. These are all cases of naming books cited. These passages must be interpreted in accordance with usage. It is the custom in literature to name anonymous writings after the name of the chief character in it, or the theme of it ; and then in that case it is quite common to personify the book and represent it as saying or teach- ing this or that. When Jesus uses Moses as another name for the Law or Pentateuch, it is by no means certain that Jesus meant to say that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. The Book of Esther is named Esther not because any 26 THE HEXATEUCH one ever supposed that she wrote it ; but because she is the heroine, the theme of the book, and when one says, as it is often said, " Esther never uses the name of God, or teaches any doctrine of faith," you understand him as using Esther for the book Esther. No one ever supposed that Ruth wrote the book of Ruth, or would suppose that she was regarded as its author if one should say, as it has often been said," Ruth teaches a doctrine different from Deuteronomy and Ezra in rep- resenting that even a Moabitish woman may enter the kingdom of God." The usage of the New Testament is also sufficiently clear at these points. Thus the epistle to the Hebrews iv. 7 uses David as a name of the Psalter. It was a common opinion until the i8th cen- tury that David wrote all the psalms, but no Biblical scholar at present, so far as is known, thinks that the epistle to the Hebrews forces him to hold that David is the author of the entire Psalter. Why then should any one insist that when the name Moses is given to the Pentateuch, it implies that Moses wrote all the writings attributed to him by tradition? (2). Jesus represents Moses as a law-giver, giving the Ten Commandments, Markvii. 10; the law of the lepers* offering, Mark i. 44, etc.; the law of divorce, Matt. xix. 7-8 ; the law of raising up seed for the brother's wife, Luke XX. 28: the law in general, John vii. 19. The epistle to the Hebrews represents Moses as giving the law of priesthood, Heb. vii. 14, and as a law-giver whose law could not be disobeyed with impunity, Heb. x. 28. These passages all represent Moses to be the law-giver that he appears to be in the narratives of the Penta- teuch, but do not, by any means, imply the authorship of those narratives that contain these laws, any more than the reference in i Cor. ix. 14, to the. command of THE TESTIMONY OF HOLT SCRIPTURE 27 Christ in Luke x. 7, and the institution of the Lord's supper by Jesus, i Cor. xi. 23 seq., imply that Jesus was the author of the gospels containing his words. (3). Jesus represents Moses as a prophet who wrote of him, John v. 46, 47, so Philip, John i. 45, Peter, Acts iii. 22-24, Stephen, Acts vii. 37, Paul, Acts xxvi. 22 ; and in Rom. x. 5, 19, the apostle refers to the address in Deut. XXX., and the song, Deut. xxxii. These passages may prove that certain prophecies came from Moses, but do not prove that the Pentateuch as a whole, or the narratives in which these prophecies occur, were written by Moses. (4). Certain historical events narrated in the Penta- teuch in which Moses takes the lead are mentioned in Luke XX. 37; Heb. viii. 5; ix. 19, xii. 21, etc., but these simply teach the historical character of the trans- actions, not the exclusive Mosaic authorship of the writings containing these historical incidents.* (5). In Acts iii. 24, it is said, " All the prophets from Samuel and them that followed after, as many as have spoken, they also told of those days." But Samuel uttered no Messianic prophecy in the book of Samuel. The name Samuel is used as the name of the book, and the name of the book is personified and represented as speaking the prophecy which in the book is attributed to the prophet Nathan. If now Samuel as the name of the book may be represented by the apostle Peter as speaking the prophecy of Nathan, why may not Moses as the name of the book of Moses be represented as giving the exhortations of an unknown prophet con- tained in the book which bears his name? It is quite true that an ancient Jewish tradition in the * See Biblical Study ^ pp. 192-193. 28 THE HEXATEUCH • Talmud represents that Samuel wrote his book, but a later writer in the Talmud itself comments on the statement that Samuel wrote his book thus: "' But it is written there: and Samuel died, and they buried him in Rama.' Gad the seer and Nathan the prophet finished it.'* In other words, the book was begun by- Samuel and completed by Nathan and Gad. It may be that there are some persons at the present time who would accept this Talmudic comment on the older Talmudic tradition, but certainly no one believes that Samuel recorded Nathan's prophecy delivered long after Samuel's death, and this is just the prophecy that Peter represents Samuel as speaking. But some one will say, " Was it not the common opinion in the days of our Lord that Moses wrote the Pentateuch ?" We answer that, so far as we know, it was the common opinion that David wrote the Psalter. As to the Pentateuch, opinion was divided whether it was lost when the temple was destroyed by the king of Babylon, and restored or recast by Ezra, or not. If you insist upon interpreting the New Testament by the opinion of the Jews at the time as regards the Penta- teuch you must follow it also as regards the Psalter. But wh}*- should we interpret Jesus and His apostles by the opinions of the Jews of His time? Why should we suppose that He shared with them all the errors He did not oppose and refute? Jesus either knew that Moses wrote the Pentateuch or He did not know. {a). If we should say Jesus did not know whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch or not, we would not go beyond His own saying that He knew not the time of His own advent. Those who understand the doctrine of the humiliation of Christ and the incarnation of Christ, find no more difficulty in supposing that Jesus did not know THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 29 the author of the Pentateuch than that He did not know the day of His own advent. As Charles Gore says: " When he speaks of the * sun-rising ' He is using ordinary language. He shows no signs at all of transcending the science of His age. Equally He shows no signs of transcending the History of His age. . . . The utterances of Christ about the Old Testament do not seem to be nearly definite or clear enough to allow of our supposing that in this case He is departing from the general method of the incarnation, by bringing to bear the unveiled omniscience of the Godhead to anticipate or foreclose a development of natural knowledge." {^Ltix Mundi, p. 360.) {J}\ If on the other hand any one should say Jesus must have known all things and He ought not to have used language that might deceive men, we respond that His language does not deceive men. Literary usage in all ages and in the Bible itself shows that it is equally true and good language for the critics as for the anti- critics. The question is, shall we interpret the words of Jesus by the opinions of His contemporaries? This we deny. Jesus was not obliged to correct all the errors of His contemporaries. He did not correct their false views of science. He was the great physician, but He did not teach medicine. He was greater than Solomon, and yet He declined to decide questions of civil law and politics. He never rebuked slavery. Is He re- sponsible for slavery on that account? The Southern slaveholders used to say so. But even they are now convinced of their error. The signs of the times indi- cate that in a few years the anti-critics will disap- pear as completely as the slaveholders. The attempt to bar the way of the Higher Criticism of the Old Testa- ment by interposing the authority of the New Testa- ment is an unworthy attempt to make our Lord and 30 THE PIEXATEUCH His apostles responsible for those conceits and follies of ancient tradition which modern traditional dogma has with great unwisdom accepted and endorsed. We have gone over the evidence from Holy Scripture and have found no direct testimony sufficiently explicit to prove the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. But we have found indirect evidence to show that much of the Pentateuch is of a date considerably later than Moses. III. THE TRADITIONAL THEORIES. We shall now consider the evidence from Tradition. The earliest Rabbinical theory of the Old Testament Literature known to us is contained in the Tract Baba Bathra of the Talmud. The Beraitha reads as follows : " Moses wrote his book, the chapter of Balaam, and Job ; Joshua wrote his book and the eight verses of the Law ; * Samuel wrote his book and Judges and Ruth ; David wrote the book of the Psalms with the aid of ten ancients, with the aid of Adam the first, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Jeduthun, Asaph and the three sons of Korah ; Jeremiah wrote his book, 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, and the twelve (minor proph- ets), Daniel and the roll of Esther; Ezra wrote his book and the genealogy of Chronicles until himself."* Thus this tract assigns writers to all the Biblical books. But it is very clear that " write " in this passage does not mean compose of authorship, but commit to writing, whether by the author himself or others. Thus only can we explain the writing of Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes by Hezekiah and his company ; and of Ezekiel, the minor prophets and the roll of Esther, * See Biblical Study ^ p. 176. (31) 32 THE HEXATEUCH by the men of the great synagogue. If this be true in these cases we cannot be sure that it is not true in the other cases also. This statement of the Mishna is enlarged upon by the Gemara. "The author (of the Beraitha) said, Joshua wrote his book and the eight verses of the law ; this is taught according to him who says of the eight verses of the law, 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 Moses wrote, afterwards Joshua wrote the rest. These are the words of Rabbi Jehuda. Others say of Rabbi Nehemiah. But Rabbi Simeon said to him : Is it possible that the book of the law could lack one letter, since it is written : Take this book of the law ? It is only unto this the Holy One, blessed be He ! said, and Moses said and wrote. From this place and onwards the Holy One, blessed be He ! said, and Moses wrote with weeping." The Talmud elsewhere contains other conflicting state- ments, which cannot, however, claim the antiquity or authority of the passage cited above. The ordinary Jewish view is that Moses also wrote the last eight verses by divine dictation.* A still more ancient and higher authority in some respects is the Apocalypse of Ezra f from the first Christian century, printed among the Apocryphal books in the English Bible, and preserved in five versions, and used not infrequently by the Fathers as if it were in- spired Scripture. This tradition represents that the Law and all the holy books were burned at the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and lost ; that Ezra under divine inspiration restored them all, and also com- posed seventy others to be delivered to the wise as the * See Wogue, Nistnire de la Bible ^ 1881, p. 21, sq. ; Josephus, Antiquities^ iv. 8, 48 ; Philo, Life 0/ Moses ^ iii., 39. t xiv. 19-46. THE TRADITIONAL THEORIES 33 esoteric wisdom for the interpretation of the twenty- four. This view of the restoration of the Old Testament (vritings by Ezra was advocated by some of the Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria,* Tertullian,t Chrysos- tom,J in an anonymous writing wrongly attributed to Augustine,§ and the Clementine Homilies.] Another common opinion of the Fathers is represented by Ire- nseus.T " During the captivity of the people under Nabuchadnezzar, the Scriptures had been corrupted, and when, after seventy years, the Jews had returned to their own land, then in the time of Artaxerxes, King of the Persians, (God) inspired Esdras, the priest of the tribe of Levi, to recast all the words of former prophets, and to re-establish with the people the Mosaic legis- lation." With him agree Theodoret ** and Basil.ft Jerome j^X says with reference to this tradition : '* Whether you wish to say that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch, or that Ezra restored it, is indifferent to me." Bellarmin §§ is of the opinion that the books of the Jews were not entirely lost, but that Ezra corrected those that had become corrupted, and improved the copies he restored. Junilius, in the sixth century, author of the first extant Introduction, II II a reproduction of a lost work of his instructor, Paul of Nisibis, of the Antiochian school of Exegesis, makes the wise discrimination between those Scriptures having their authors indicated in their titles and introductions, and those whose authorship rested * Stromata^ i., 22. t De cultu foeminarum^ c. 3. X Horn, viii., in Epist. Hehraeos^ Migne's edition, xvii., p 74. § De Mirabilihus Sacra ScripturcB^ ii., 33. \ iii., c, 47. \ Adv. HaereseSy iii., 21, 2. ** Praef in Psalmos. ++ Epist. ad Chilonem^ Migne's edition, iv , p. 358. W Adv. Helvitium. §§ De Verbo Dei^ lib. 2, || InstituLio regularis Divina Legis. 34 THE HEXATEUCH purely on tradition, in the latter including the Penta- teuch and Joshua.-'^* This position of Junilius is the true scholarly position. It puts the authorship of the Pentateuch on the same level as the authorship of the other historical books of the Old Testament. This work of Junilius held its own as an authority in the Western Church until the Reformation. It would be difficult to define a consensus of the Fathers in regard to the authorship of the historical books of the Old Testament. Little attention was given to such topics in the six- teenth century. How the Reformers would have met these questions we may infer from their freedom with regard to traditional views in the few cases in which they expressed themselves. Luther denied the Apocalypse to John, and Eccle- siastes to Solomon. He maintained that the epistle of James was not an apostolic writing. He regarded Jude as an extract from 2d Peter, and asks what it matters if Moses should not himself have written the Pentateuch.f Calvin denied the Pauline authorship of the epistle to the Hebrews and doubted the Petrine authorship of 2d Peter. He held that Ezra or some one else edited the Psalter, and regarded Ezra as the author of Malachi, Malachi being his surname. He also constructed a harmony of the Pentateuchal legislation after the model of the Harmony of the Gospels. Questions of human authorship and date of Biblical writings troubled the Reformers but little. They had to battle against the Vulgate for the original text and popular versions, and for a simple grammatical exegesis over against traditional authority and the manifold * See Kihn, Theodor von Mopsuestia^ ss. 319-330, §viii'., 2. t Vorreden in Walch's edition of Luther's Werken^ xiy., pp. 35, 146-153, Tischreden^ I., p. 28. THE TRADITIONAL THEORIES 35 sense. Hence it is that on these literary questions the symbols of the Reformation take no position whatever except to lay stress upon the sublimity of the style, the unity and harmony of Scripture, and the internal evi- dence of its inspiration and authority. The Westminster standards are in entire accord with the other Reformed Confessions and the faith of the Reformation on these subjects. They express a devout admiration and profound reverence for the holy, majes- tic character and style of the divine Word, but do not define the human authors and dates of the various writ- ings. As Prof. A. F. Mitchell, of St. Andrew's, well states : " Any one who will take the trouble to compare their list of the canonical books with that given in the Belgian Confession or the Irish articles, may satisfy himself that they held with Dr. Jameson that the authority of these books does not depend on the fact whether this prophet or that wrote a particular book or parts of a book, whether a certain portion was derived from the Elohist or the Jehovist, whether Moses wrote the close of Deute- ronomy, Solomon was the author of Ecclesiastes, or Paul of the Epistle to the Hebrews, but in the fact that a prophet, an in- spired man, wrote them, and that they bear the stamp and im- press of a divine origin." Minutes of the Westminster Assembly^ p. xlix. And Matthew Poole, the great Presbyterian critic of the seventeenth century, quotes with approval the fol- lowing from Melchior Canus : " It is not much material to the Catholick faith that any book was written by this or that author, so long as the Spirit of God is believed to be the author of it ; which Gregory delivers and explains : For it matters not with what pen the King writes his letter, if it be true that he writ it." Blow at the Root, 4th ed., 1671, p. 228. IV. THE RISE OF CRITICISM. The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was first ques- tioned in modern times by Carlstadt,* who left the author undetermined. The Roman Catholic scholar Masius, and the British philosopher Hobbes distinguished between Mosaic originals and our present Pentateuch, but the Roman Catholic priest Peyrerius,t and especially Spi- noza,:]: first arranged the objections to the Mosaic author- ship in formidable array, the latter reviving the doubts of Aben Ezra. They presented evidence against the Mosaic author- ship from 1 8 different passages as follows. We shall classify them and test them. I. — Historical Objections, (i). Gen. xii. 6. " The Canaanite was then in the land " implies a time when this was not the case, that is centuries after the conquest by Joshua. (2). Gen. xiv. 14. **And pursued as far as Dan." But Dan did not receive this name until long after the death of Moses; for Judges xviii. 29 tells us that the * De Scriptor. Canon^ § 85, 1521. t In his Syst. Theo. Praead.y 1660, liv,, cap. i. X In his Tract, Theo. Poll/., 1670, c. 8. (36) THE RISE OF CRITICISM 37 Danites in the times 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." (3). Gen. xxxvi. gives a list of kings reigning in Edom : " before there reigned any king over the chil- dren of Israel." (Ver. 31). This implies an author living after the establishment of kings in Israel not earlier than the Hebrew monarchy. (4). Ex. xvi. 35. "And the children of Israel did eat the manna forty years, until they came to a land in- habited ; they did eat the manna, until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan." This passage im- plies the entrance into Canaan after the death of Moses and the author's knowledge of the event described in Jos. V. 12. (5). Deut. i. J. "These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel beyond Jordan " implies an author who was in Palestine, for only such an one could write "beyond Jordan." (6). Deut. ii. 12. The children of Esau destroyed the Horites and dwelt in their stead "as Israel did unto the land of his possession which Yahweh gave unto them." This implies the conquest of Canaan. (7). Deut. iii. 11. "For only Og, king of Bashan, remained of the remnant of the Rephaim ; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron ; is it not in Rabbah of the children of Ammon?" This implies a writer look- ing back upon the story of the conquest of Bashan from a date much later than Moses. (8). Deut. iii. 14. "And called them after his own name Havvoth-jair unto this day." This implies a day long after this naming which was made in the last days of Moses. 3g THE HEXATEUCH (9). Deut. xxxiv. 10. '' And there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel Hke unto Moses." This implies a time long subsequent to Moses. These are all historical statements which are incon- sistent with Mosaic authorship. Either then they are notes of later editors, or else the writings which contain them must be later than the history implied in them. Two other instances have not altogether stood the test of criticism. (10). Gen. xxii. 14. Mt. Moriah is called the mount of God, which could not be so called until the erection of the temple. This objection rests upon a mistake. It is not called the Mount of Yahweh, but the place is called *' Yahweh sees." As it is said to this day, *' in the mount where Yahweh appears." This proverbial expression, however, implies a long sojourn in the Holy Land, and, therefore, a period long subsequent to Moses. (11). Deut. ii. 5. "Not so much as for the sole of the foot to tread on," when compared with I Chron. xviii., where David conquers Edom, shows an inconsist- ency, and doubtless implies a time when Israel was friendly with Edom, but does not in itself imply a later date than Moses. II. — Indications of Special Authorship, (12). Num. xxi. 14. The citation of the book of the wars of Yahweh implies another author than Moses. (13). Deut. xxvii. 2 seq., comp. Jos. viii. 30 seq., where the law was written on an altar, implies a law much less extensive than the Pentateuch. It is now generally agreed that the reference here is to the Deuteronomic code. THE RISE OF CRITICISM 39 III. — Inconsistencies, (14). Deut. X. 8, which narrates the separation of the Levites at Jotbathah is inconsistent with their separa- tion before the death of Aaron as reported in Leviticus and Numbers. (15). Ex. iv. 20, which represents that Moses took his family with him to Egypt, is inconsistent with Ex. xviii. 2 seq.^ which states that they remained with his father-in-law in Midian. Modern critics explain these variations as due to the different stories of the same thing recorded in different documents. IV. — Personal Considerations, (16). Ex. xxxiii. II. **Yahweh spake unto Moses face to face." (17). Num. xii. 3. "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth." (18). Deut. xxxi. 9. "And Moses wrote this law." Several other passages — Num. i. i ; ii. 2 ; v. i ; xxxi. 14; Deut. xxxi. I ; xxxiii. i, where Moses is spoken of in the third person and sometimes in flattering terms. Some of these might be accounted for after the anal- ogy of the classic historians as a variation of style, but the laudatory references are not to be explained in this way and therefore count against the Mosaic authorship of them. We are therefore compelled either to take them as editorial notes, or, as this is difficult if not impossible in many of these cases, to regard them as from documents written by other persons than Moses. These objections of Peyrerius and Spinoza are of an external character. A few of them have been satisfac- torily explained and their force dulled ; others have been 40 THE HEXATEUCH admitted as implying the work of later editors. The most of them have maintained their validity. Soon after Spinoza, Richard Simon, a Roman Catholic, published his work on the Historical Criticism of the Old Testament.* He first began to apply historical crit- icism in a systematic manner to the study of the books of the Old Testament. He represented the historical books as made up of the ancient writings of the proph- ets, who were public scribes, and who wrote down the history in official documents on the spot, from the time of Moses onward, so that the Pentateuch in its present shape is not by Moses. Simon distinguished in the Pentateuch between that which was written by Moses, e.g., the commands and ordinances ; and that written by the prophetical scribes, the greater part of the history. As the books of Kings and Chronicles were made up by abridgments and summaries of the ancient acts preserved in the archives of the nation, so was the Pentateuch. f The later prophets edited the works of the earlier proph- ets and added explanatory statements. Simon pre- sents as evidences that Moses did not write the Penta- teuch: (i). The double account of the deluge. (2). The lack of order in the arrangement of the narratives and laws. (3). The diversity of the style. It is evident that the Roman Catholic scholar goes deeper into the subject than the philosopher Spinoza had gone. He presents another class of evidences. These three lines were not sufficiently worked by Simon. He fell into the easy temptation of expending his strength on the elaboration and justification of his theory. The facts he discovered have proved of perma- nent value, and have been worked as a rich mine by later * Histoire Critique de Vietix Testament ^ 1678. \i. c, p. 17, seg. THE RISE OF CRITICISM 4.\ scholars, but his theory was at once attacked and de- stroyed. The Arminian Clericus, in an anonymous work,* assailed Simon for his abuse of Protestant writers, but really went to greater lengths than Simon. He dis- tinguishes in the Pentateuch three classes of facts, those before Moses, those during his time, and those subse- quent to his death,f and represents the Pentateuch in its present form as composed by the priest sent from Babylon to instruct the inhabitants of Samaria in the religion of the land, 2 Kings xvii.J Afterward he gave up this theory and took the ground § of interpolations by a later editor. Anton Van Dale,|| distinguishes between the Mosaic code and the Pentateuch, which latter Ezra composed from other writings, historical and prophetical, inserting the Mosaic code as a whole in his work. This was also essentially the view of Semler.^ These various writers brought to light a most valuable collection of facts which demanded the attention of Biblical scholars of all creeds and phases of thought. They all made the mistake of proposing untenable theories of various kinds to account for the facts, instead of working upon the facts and rising from them by in- duction and generalization to permanent results. Some of them, like Spinoza and Hobbes, were animated by a spirit more or less hostile to the evangelical faith. Others, like Carlstadt and Clericus, were heterodox in other matters. The most important investigations were '*' Sentimens de quelques theologiens de Holland sur PHistoire Critique^ Amst., 1685. + /. f., p. 107. X P. 129. § Com. on Genesis^ introd. de Scriptore Pent.^ § ii. Simon replied to Cle- ricus in Riponse au Livre intitule Sentimens^ etc. Pax Le Preur de BoUeville, Rotterdam, 1686. I De origine et progressu idol.^ 1696 (p, 71), and epist. ad Morin. (p. 686). ^ Apparatus ad Liberalem Vet, Test. Inter p. ^ 1773 (p. 67). 42 THE HEXATEUCH those of the Roman Catholics, Masius and Simon. These authors, in a Church noted for its adherence to tradition, felt that they were free on this question of the author- ship of the Pentateuch, there being no consensus of the Fathers against them. The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was de- fended by Huet, a Jesuit;* Heidegger, a divine of the Reformed Church of Switzerland ;t the Dutch Re- formed, Maresius,:]: and the German Lutheran, Carpzov.§ These scholastic divines, instead of seeking to account for the facts brought to light by the critics, proceeded to defend the Mosaic authorship of the entire Pentateuch and to explain away these facts. Thus, Huet is unwill- ing to admit that Moses did not write the account of his own death. Maresius insists that the testimony of Christ decides the matter for us. Heidegger argues that the whole Pentateuch was found by Hilkiah in the temple in the time of Josiah, that Christ and His apos- tles ascribe the Pentateuch to Moses as author, and he follows the Rabbinical tradition, rejecting the traditions prevalent with the Christian fathers. He admits that the last verses of Deuteronomy were added by Joshua or some one else, but explains Gen. xxii. 14 as a proph- ecy of the temple or of seeing Christ in the flesh, and the kings of Edom prior to kings in Israel, Gen. xxxvi. 31, as a line of kings prior to Moses as king. He meets the argument from diversity of style by the remark that the Holy Spirit might inspire the same author to use a * Demonstratio Evangelica, 1679, iv., cap. xiv. t Exercitiones Biblica^ 1700, Dissert, ix. \ Praef. apol.pro authentia script.^ pp. 23-36. And in his Re/utatio Fabula Prceadainitica^ Grontpc-e, 1656, he meets the various arg^uments of Peyrerius. %Introductio ad Lihros Canonicos^ Bib. Vet. Test.^ Edit, 2, Lipsae 1731. See also Du Pin Dissert, prelim. Bib. des auteurs ecci.y Paris, 1688. THE RISE OF CRITICISM 43 variety of styles.* He meets the argument from defect- ive arrangement by representing it as a charge against the Holy Spirit.f Carpzov calls in the spirit of prophecy to account for the kings of Edom (Gen. xxxvi. 31), and the account of the continuation of the manna until the conquest (Ex. xvi. 35). Such special pleading and arbi- trary conjectures were as hurtful from the scholastic side as were the hasty and ill-adjusted theories from the other. There were, however, in those times, other divines who looked the facts in the face and took a better way. Thus Witsius :j: admits fo7ir interpolations, after care- fully considering the objections that were urged to the Mosaic authorship, and is followed by Dr. Graves,§ who admits six additions by a later hand, and also by Adam Clarke,] who, in general, admits additions by Ezra. Prideaux^f represents Ezra as editing the Penta- teuch and making additions in a number of places — illustrating, connecting and completing the narratives.''*'* * " In Spiritus s. quinetiam calamus dirigentis arbitrio fuit, verba et verborum ordinem sugg^ere, prout ipsi, visuum est. Sicut diversos Scriptores diversi modo ita inspiravit, ut diverse stylo uterentur: ita eundem Scriptorem quo minus diversi modo inspiraret, nihil vetabat equidem," p. 269. t Nam spiritus prophetiie et infallibilitatis si in uno, veluti scriba, revisore pec- care, abberrare potest, poterit etiam in altero, puta in Mose," p. 270. \ Misc. SacrOy 1692, pp. 104, 130. § Lectures on the Four Last Books 0/ the Pentateuch^ 1807, 4th Edit., 1831, p. 439 sq. \ Holy Bible, 1810-26. H Old and New Testaments co?inected, 1 716-18, Part I., Book V. (3). ** "The third thing which Ezra did about the holy Scriptures in his edition of them was, that he added in several places throughout the books of this edition what appeared necessary for the illustrating, connecting, or completing of them ; wherein he was assisted by the same Spirit by which they were at first wrote. Of this sort we may reckon the last chapter of Deuteronomy, which, giving an account of the death and burial of Moses, and of the succession of Joshua after him, it could not be written by Moses himself, who undoubtedly was the pen- mem of the rest of that bogk. It seems most probable that it was added by 44 THE IIEXATEUCH Vitringa^ gave a more careful consideration to the facts, and taught that Moses collected, digested, and embel- lished the documents of the patriarchs and supplied their deficiencies. This, he argues, does not destroy the authority of the book, for Moses was aided by the Holy Spirit. So Luke prepared his history of the Gospel from the narratives of others and annotations of eye- witnesses, and these are of no less authority than the narratives of Matthew and John. The aid of the Holy Spirit was given to them, whether they composed as eye-witnesses or digested the narratives of others. This view of Vitringa was advocated by Calmet,t Bishop GleigyX and others. About the same time several Ro- man Catholic divines took ground independently in favor of the theory of the use of written documents by Moses in the composition of Genesis, namely, Abb4 Fleury,§ and Abb6 Laurent Fran90is.ll Prideaux, Calmet, Vi- tringa and their associates represented the true schol- Ezra at this time. And such we may also reckon the several interpolations ■which occur in many places of the holy Scriptures." He refers especially to Gen.xii.6; xiv, 14; xxii. 14; xxxvi. 3; Ex. xvi. 35; Deut. ii. 12; iii. 11, 14; and concludes : " Of which interpolations undoubtedly Ezra was the author, in all the books which passed his examination, and Simon the Just of all the rest which were added afterward, for they all seemed to refer to those latter times. But these additions do not detract anything from the divine authority of the whole, because they were all inserted by the direction of the same Holy Spirit which dictated all the rest." * Observ. Sacra, c. IV,, 2, 1722. t Corn. Litterale^ 1722, torn. I., p. xiii, \ Stackhouse's History of the Bible^ corrected and improved, 1817, Vol I., p. XX. § Moeurs des Israelites^ p. 6, Bruxelles, 1701. This was translated into Eng- lish and enlarged by Adam Clarke ; 3d edition, 1809. \ Preuves de la Religion de Jesus Christ, contra les Sptnosistes et les Deistes, 1751, I. 2, c. 3, art. 7. "11 est plus que vrai-seniblable que dans la lign^e, ou s'est conserv^e la connoissance de Dieu on conservit aussi par 6crit, des mdmoires des ancicns temps ; car les homnies n' ont jamais dt6 sans ce soin." THE RISE OF CRITICISM 45 arly position. They presented a reasonable solution, in view of the facts then adduced. They laid the founda- tions for Evangelical Criticism in the great revival of Higher Criticism^ -which. vj2iS dchowi to begin and run a long and successful course. We shall divide the history of this movement of Higher Criticism into three stadia : the documentary, supplementary, and development hy- potheses. V. THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS. Jean ASTRUC, a Roman Catholic physician, opened a new era for the study of the Pentateuch. In 1753 he made it evident that Genesis was composed of several docu- ments. He presented to the learned world, with some hesitation and timidity, his discovery that the use of the divine names Elohim and Yahweh divided the book of Genesis into two great memoirs and nine lesser ones, as follows : viio 20-23 ; xiv., xix. 29-38 ; xxii. 20-24 ; XXV. 12-18; xxvi. 34-35; xxviii. 6-9; xxxiv., xxxv. 28-xxxvi. The advantages of this discovery are ad- mirably presented: (i). It explains the singularity of the use of these two divine names. (2). It explains the repetitions of the same subject by distributing these among the memoirs. (3). It excuses Moses from neg- ligence in composition by the supposition that he arranged these memoirs in four different columns, as Origen did the ancient versions in his Hexapla and as Harmonists arrange the four Gospels. This was a real discovery, which, after a hundred years of debate, has won the consent of the vast ma- jority of Biblical scholars. His analysis is in some respects too mechanical, and, in not a few instances, is defective and needed rectification, but as a whole it has (46) THE DOCUMENTARr HYPOTHESIS 47 been maintained. He relies also too much upon the different use of the divine names, and too little upon va- riations in style, language, and narrative. Since his date his line of argument has been more thoroughly worked out. Every use of the divine names throughout the Hebrew Bible, has been carefully examined in the prep- aration of the new Hebrew Lexicon, edited by Dr. Brown, with the co-operation of Canon Driver and the author, and a fresh and exhaustive investigation has been made of the whole subject. These are the facts : In Ex. vi. 2-3 it is written : "And Elohim spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Yahweh : and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob as 'El Shadday^ but by my name Yahweh I was not known to them." Turning now to Genesis we find 'El Shadday used in connection with the covenants made with Abraham and Jacob ; but we also find that the divine name Yahveh is placed in the mouth of the antediluvians and patriarchs from Genesis, chap, ii., onward. Here is a glaring inconsistency not invented by critics, but on the surface of Genesis itself. The discovery of Astruc, that this inconsistency is due to a usage of different documents, removed the diffi- culty. Criticism has found that the priestly writer who wrote Ex. vi. never uses the divine name Yahweh in his document prior to Ex. vi., when he states that it was revealed to Moses for the first time. The use of the divine name Yahweh in Genesis is in the Judaic document, which nowhere mentions or seems to know anything about the revelation of the name Yahweh to Moses. He uses it as the name of God from the begin- ning. The early analysts were confronted with the dif- ficulty that there was a very singular and apparently capricious use of the divine name left in the Judaic doc- ument after the Elohistic document had been eliminated, 48 THE HEXATEUCH This led to a more thorough study of that document which resulted in the discovery that it had been closely connected with another document which uses the divine name Elohim. This discovery was made by Ilgen in 1798 ; * but the discovery was ignored until a much later date when it was rediscovered by Hupfeld. Looking now at Exodus iii.,we observe that it tells of a revelation of the divine name Yahweh to Moses, at Horeb. This is a parallel narrative to chapter vi., and is now recognized by criticism as from the Ephraimitic author. Thus the whole difficulty of the use of the divine names is solved. The critics did not make the difificulty. They have removed the difficulty by the science of criticism. This Ephraimitic author not only uses the divine name Elohim, but it is his style to use it with the definite article, and it is also his style to use it by preference, even after the divine name Yahweh was revealed ; whereas the priestly writer seldom uses Elohim after he tells of the revelation of Yahweh to Moses. f In the book of Deuteronomy we find a fourth docu- ment which also extends through Joshua, and appears occasionally in the earlier narratives. It is the style of this writer to use the terms Yahweh thy God, or Yahweh your God. He uses Yahweh thy God 238 times. This phrase is used elsewhere in the Hexateuch, 5 times in the Ten Words ; 3 times in the ancient law of worship, in the covenant codes and in two passages Gen. xxvii. 20, Ex. XV. 26, in verses which present other reasons for being considered editorial seams. Other peculiarities in the use of divine names may be mentioned here. Adonay, '* my Lord," as applied to God, is used in J 13 times, elsewhere in the Hexateuch only Urkimden des Jerjisaletner Tempel-ai'chivs. \ See Appendix I. TEE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 49 in Gen. xx. 4 ; (E ?) and Ex. xv. 17, (Song of Red Sea, where the Samaritan codex has Yahvveh). Adonay Yah- weh is used only in Gen. xv. 2, 8 ; Jos. vii. 7 (J) and Dt. iii. 24 ; ix. 26 (D). " God of Abraham " is a phrase of J. " Israel's God " is a phrase of E, used 9 times. It is also used in Ex. xxxiv. 23 (covenant code of J) and Jos. vii. 13, 19, 20, where JE are so mixed that it is dif- ficult to disentangle them, and by R in Num. xvi. 9 ; Jos. ix. 18, 19, xxii. 24 ; x. 40, 42; xiii. 14, 33. "God of the Hebrews" is a phrase of JE, used 5 times. " Other gods " is a phrase of D, used in the Hexateuch besides only in the Ten Words, in the Deuteronomic expression Ex. XX. 3=Dt. V. 7 ; and in the covenant code of E, Ex. xxiii. 18= "other God," of the covenant code of J, Ex. xxxiv. 14, possibly by editorial change ; and Jos. xxiv. 2, 16 (E); Dt. xxxi. 18, 20 (JE). Elohim is construed with the plural verb only in E, Gen. xx. 13, xxxv. 7, Jos. xxiv. 19. The attention of German scholars was called to this discovery of the use of the divine names by Jerusalem. Eichhorn was independently led to the same opinion. In 1780 he published his Introduction to the Old Tes- tament. Eichhorn combined in one the results of Simon and Astruc, embracing the various elements in an organic method which he called the Higher Criticism. In the preface to his 2d edition, 1787, he says : ** I am obliged to give the most pains to a hitherto entirely unworked field, the investigation of the intern?! condition of the particular writings of the Old Testameut by help of the Higher Criticism (a new name to no Humauist). Let any one think what they will of these efforts, my own consciousness tells me, that they are the result of very careful investigation, although no one can be less wrapt up in them than I their author. 50 THE HEXATEUCH The powers of one man hardly suffice to complete such investi- gations so entirely at once. They demand a healthful and ever cheerful spirit, and how long can any one maintain it in such toilsome investigations ? They demand the keenest insight into the interaal condition of every book ; and who will not be dulled after a while ?" Eichhorn separated the Elohistic and Jehovistic docu- ments in Genesis with great pains and wonderful success, recognizing besides as separate documents ii. 4-iii. 24; xiv. ; xxxiii. i8-xxxiv. 31; xxxvi. ; xlix. 1-27. This analysis of Eichhorn has been the basis of all critical in- vestigation since his day, and notwithstanding the sub- sequent distinction of a second Elohist and Redactor, the results of Eichhorn have been maintained.* The great advantages of this analysis are admirably stated by Eichhorn (ii., p. 329) : ' ' For this discovery of the internal condition of the first books of Moses, party spirit will perhaps for a pair of decennials snort at the Higher Criticism instead of rewarding it with the full thanks that are due it, for (1) the credibility of the book gains by such a use of more ancient documents. (2) The hannony of the two narratives at the same t^me, with their slight deviations, *Thus Prof. Henry P. Smith, in his article in the Presbyter ia7i Review^ iii., P- 375. ^n showing the present consensus of the critics, says : "If we find, how- ever, that the recognized leaders, though far apart on the question of the * order of production ' of different documents, are substantially agreed as to what makes up each document, we ought to recognize that the unanimity here is so much the stronger on account of the diversity there. An examination shows that in the first thirty chapters of Genesis the following passages are unanimously accepted by Hupfeld, Noldeke, Dillmann, Wellhausen, ajid Kayser, els making up one of the documents called by Dillmann A ; by Wellhausen Q ; to wit : i. i — ii. 3 ; v. 1-28, 30-32; vi. 9-22; viii. 1-4, 13-19; ix. 1-17, 28, 29; xi. 10-26, 32; xii. 4, 5; xiii. 6, II, 12; xvi. 3, 15, 16 ; xvii, 1-27 ; xix. 29 ; xxi. 2-5 ; xxiii. 1-20 ; xxv. 7- II, 17, 23, 26; xxvi, ZA\ 35 . xxviii. 1-9(1 have disregarded fractions of averse)." Now iL shows the keenness and accuracy of Eichhorn as well as the invincible strength of the evidence that in his first elTort, his F.lohist embraces all of the passages given above except the detached verses, xii. 4, 5 ; xiii. 6, 11, 12 ; xvi. 3, 13, 16 ; xxv. 26, THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 5I proves their independence and mutual reliability. (3) Interpre- ters will be relieved of difficulty by this Higher Criticism which separates document from document. (4) Finally the gain of Criticism is also great. If the Higher Criticism has now for the first distinguished author from author, and in general charac- terized each according to his own ways, diction, favorite expres- sions, and other peculiarities, then her lower sister who busier herself only with words, and spies out false readings, has rules and principles by which she must test particular readings." * Eichhorn regarded Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers as having grown from the collection of particular writ- ings which the redactor connected by historical narra- tives : Exodus and Leviticus composed at Mt. Sinai ; Numbers in the land of Moab. He thought that Moses was the author of Deuteronomy, except the last chap- ter. Deuteronomy is characterized as the law book for the people, and the legislation of the other books as the priests' code. He remarks that the Pentateuch only claims Moses as the author of particular sections, and that the middle books are not cited in the Old Testa- ment under the name of Moses. He explains it from the fact that they constituted the priests' code over against Deuteronomy, the people's book. This import- ant distinction of Eichhorn was also a valuable discovery for Higher Criticism. Long neglected, it has in recent times again come into play, as we shall see further on. Eichhorn also admits many glosses by a late hand, but in general abides by the authorship in the Mosaic period, and chiefly by Moses himself. * See also UrgescJiichte in the Repertorium^ "^11% v., p. 187. We cannot help calling attention to the fine literary sense of Eichhorn, as manifest in the following extract : " Read it (Genesis) as two historical works of antiquity, and breathe thereby the atmosphere of its age and country. Forget then the century in which thou livest and the knowledge it affords thee ; and if thou canst not do this, dreani not that thou wilt be able to enjoy the book in th§ spirit of its origin." 52 THE llEXATEUCII Eichhorn carried his methods of Higher Criticism into the entire Old Testament with the hand of a master, and laid the foundation of views which have been maintained ever since with increasing determination. But we do not find that in all cases he grasped the truth. He some- times chased shadows, and framed, in some cases, vision- ary theories in relation to both the Old and the New Testaments, Hke others who have preceded him and fol- lowed him. He could not transcend the limits of his age, and adapt himself to future discoveries. The labors of a large number of scholars, and the work of a century and more were still needed, as Eichhorn modestly an- ticipated. Eichhorn *s Higher Criticism swept the field in Ger- many in his day, meeting but feeble opposition. Even J. D. Michaelis, one of the chief scholars of Germany, *' the pillar of supernaturalism," who sought to modify some of the positions of Eichhorn,^' although he was willing to accept the analysis of Astruc and Eichhorn with cer- tain modifications,! met with little favor. He died, leaving his work incomplete. :j: As J. G. Gablcr, the father of Biblical Theology, says : § The analysis of the two documents by Astruc, Jerusalem, and especially by Eichhorn, is so masterly, and the combination of the various documents in one by Moses has been made so * Einleit. in d. gottlichen Schriften d. Alt. Bundes^ 1787. t P. 267. \ Michaelis denies that Ex. i.-ii. can belong to the Elohist. '• I suppose that what Moses wrote of himself he took from no books " (p. 269) ; and claims that Genesis i., the account of the Creation, must have been given to Moses by inspi- ration directly from God (p. 269). He objecls to the artificial analysis of Astruc, but claims that when D\*l7X and nilT' are used throughout entire chapters, a difference of style is evident (p. 277). He recognizes that Moses must have used written as well as traditional and monumental sources. § In his Introduction to his edition of Eichhorn's Urgeschichte, 1790. THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 53 evident that, ^' in our day it can be regarded as settled and presupposed without fear of any important opposi- tion." G. L. Bauer, in 1794,* followed Eichhorn in his anal- ysis, but held that the Pentateuch was composed in the time of David. t Rosenmiiller j;. also followed Eichhorn, but subsequently § changed his view, influenced chiefly by J, G. Hasse,|| and the overdoing of the analysis by Ilgen. Jahn^f also followed Eichhorn in part. Fulda** distinguishes between law codes, and Pentateuch, and puts the codes first, in the time of David, the present Pentateuch in the Restoration. Ottmar (Nachtigal),tt makes Jeremiah the last collector and arranger of the Pentateuch. These discussions produced little impression upon Great Britain. The conflict with Deism had forced the majority of her divines into a false position. If they had maintained the internal divine evidence for the authority of Holy Scripture and the evangelical critical position of the Reformers and Westminster divines, they would not have hesitated to look the facts in the face, and strive to account for them ; they would not have committed the grave mistakes by which Biblical learning was almost paralyzed in Great Britain for half a century. Eager for the defence of traditional views, they, for the most part, fell back again on Jewish Rabbinical tradition and ex- ternal evidence, contending with painful anxiety for authors and dates, and so antagonized Higher Criticism itself as Deistic Criticism and Rationalistic Criticism, * Entwurf eine7' Einleit.^ 3d Edit. Entwurf ein. hist, -kr it. Einleit.^ i8o6. t P. 328. X Scholia^ i795i i-i PP. 7-12. § In Edition iii., 1821. \ Entdeckungen im Felde der allesten Erd-u.-MenschengescJiichte. ^ Int. ad Vet. Foed. 1793, pp. 209-224. **Paulus, Repert. iii., p. 180. tt Uber d. allmdhlige Bildung^ etc, in Henke's Magazin^ ii., 433, iv. 1-36 (p. 30). 54: THE HEXATEUCH not discriminating between those who were attacking the Scriptures in order to destroy them, and those who were searching the Scriptures, in order to defend them. Mozley says : * ** There was hardly such a thing as BibH- cal Criticism in this country (Great Britain) at the begin- ning of this century. Poole's Synopsis contained all that an ordinary clergyman could wish to know. Arnold is described as in all his glory at Rugby, with Poole's Synopsis on one side and Facciolati on the other." Thus Bishop Marsh, in 1792, in a brief address at Cambridge,! takes the position : "The Pentateuch contains a system of ceremonial and moral laws which, unless we reject the authority of all history, were observed by the Israelites from the time of their departure out of Egypt till their dispersion at the taking of Jerusalem. These lawSy therefore, are as ancient as the conquest of Palestine. It is also an undeniable historical fact that the Jews in every age believed their ancestors had received them from the hands of Moses, and that these laws were the basis of their political and religious institutions as long as they continued to be a people. We are therefore reduced to this dilemma, to acknowledge either that these laws were actually delivered by Moses, or that a whole nation, during fifteen hundred years, groaned under the weight of an imposture, without once detecting or even suspecting the fraud " (p. 7). This statement is, in part, quoted and approved by Home in his Introduction.:]: But it is a weak position ; indeed, the chief fault of the traditional theory, as we shall have occasion hereafter to show. The evidence from the Scriptures is all to the effect that these laws were not observed, and any argument for the composition of the Pentateuch that rests upon their observance " from the * Reminiscences^ 1882, American edit, ii , p. 41. t The Authenticity of the Five Books 0/ Moses ^ 410, p. 16. \ Vol. ii. 19, ist edit. 1818. THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 55 time of the departure out of Egypt till their disperse- ment," is an insecure argument. Bishop Marsh acknowl- edges a few alterations in the Pentateuch, " a circum- stance at which we ought not to be surprised, when we reflect on the many thousands of transcripts that have been made from it in the course of three thousand years/'* Faberf says : *'At any one epoch during the whole existence of the Hebrew Polity, it would have been just as impossible to introduce a new and spurious Pentateuch, as it would be now impossible to introduce a new and spurious Bible. In each case the reason is the very same, the general publicity of the book'' \ *' The general publicity" of the Pentateuch from the conquest to the exile is opposed by strong evidence to the contrary, as we shall see hereafter. T. Hartwell Home, in 1818, issued his Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowl- edge of the Holy Scriptures^ which passed through many editions,§ and has been highly esteemed for its many excellent qualities by several generations of students. Home's statement in the Preface to the second edition of his work shows how far Great Britain was behind the continent at that time. He says : "It (the work) originated in the author's own wants many- years since, .... when he stood in need of a guide in reading of the Holy Scriptures At this time the author had no friend to assist his studies, — or remove his doubts, — nor any means of procuring critical works. At length a list of the more eminent foreign Biblical critics fell into his hands, and directed him to some of the sources of information which he was seek- ing. He then resolved to procure such of them as his humble means would permit, with the design in the first instance of sat- *Page 16. ^ Hora MosaiccB, 1801, 2d edit., 1818. X An unknown reader of the copy we have examined, writes on the margin ; ** ? 2 Chron. xxxiv. 14." § 4th, 823 ; loth, 1856. 56 THE HEXATEUCH isfying his own mind on those topics which had perplexed him, and ultimately of laying before the public the results of his in- quiries, should no treatise appear that might supersede such a publication." It is evident from Home's work that he wrote it be- fore he had fully read the literature of his subject, and before he had mastered its principles and its details. Home passes lightly over the views of Eichhorn, simply- remarking : " On the Continent the hypothesis of Calmet was adopted by M. Astruc, who fancied that he discovered traces of twelve different ancient documents from which the earlier chapters of Exodus as well as the entire book of Genesis are compiled. These, however, were reduced by Eichhorn to two in number, which he affirms may be distinguished by the appellations of Elohim and Jehovah, given to the Almighty. The hypothesis of Eichhorn is adopted by Rosenmuller (from whom it was bor- rowed by the late Dr. Geddes), and is partially acceded to by Jahn. To this hypothesis there is but one objection, and we apprehend that it is a fatal one, namely, the total silence oi Moses as to any documents consulted by him Should the reader, however, be disposed to adopt the hypothesis of Calmet without the refinements of Eichhorn and his followers, this will not, in the smallest degree, detract from the divine authority of the book of Genesis." (vol. ii., p. 31, first edition.) He also makes the following argument : •' Moreover, that the Pentateuch was extant in the time of David, is evident from the very numerous allusions made in his psalms to its contents ; but it could not have been drawn up by him, since the law contained in the Pentateuch forbids many practices of which David was guilty." (4th edit., vol. i., p. 54.) Little did he anticipate how soon the arguments from silence and from violation of law upon which he relies, would be turned against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and prove so dilficult to answer. Little did he and Bishop Marsh imagine that their main argument, THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 57 *^ the observance of the law from the conquest till the exiled' would prove the special weakness of the traditional theory. Home refers above to the Roman Catholic divine, Dr. Alex. Geddes, as holding the view of Eichhorn ; but in fact Geddes differs radically from Eichhorn and his school, and is the real father of a variant theory of the compo- sition of the Pentateuch, which has been called the frag- mentary hypothesis. Thus Dr. Geddes says : * " It has been well observed by Michaelis that all external tes- timony here is of little avail ; it is from intrinsic evidence only that we must derive our proofs. Now, from intrinsic evidence, three things, to me, seem indubitable : (i) The Pentateuch in its present form was not written by Moses. (2) It was written in the land of Chanaan, and most probably at Jerusalem. (3) It could not be written before the reign of David, nor after that of Hezekiah. The long pacific reign of Solomon (the Augustan age of Judea) is the period to which I would refer it ; yet I con- fess there are some marks of a posterior date, or at least of posterior interpolation. But although I am inclined to believe that the Pentateuch was reduced into its present form in the reign of Solomon, I am fully persuaded that it was compiled from ancient documents, some of which were coeval with Moses, and some even anterior to Moses. Whether all these were writ- ten records or many of them only oral traditions, it would be rash to determine." Also p. xxi. : "To the Pentateuch I have joined the book of Joshua, both because I conceive it to have been compiled by the same author, and because it is a necessary appendix to the history contained in the former books." The fragmentary hypothesis of Geddes was introduced into Germany by Vater.f Vater's view is that the Pen- * The Holy Bible ; or. The Books Accounted Sacred hy yews and Chris- tians^ etc. ^faithfully translated^ etc. London, 1792, vol. i., p. xviii. t Commentar Uber den Pentateuch niit Einleitungen zu den einzelnen Ahschnitten^ der eingeschalteten Ubersetzung von Dr. Alexander Geddes^ s merkwUrdigeren kritischett und exegetischen Anmerkungen, etc. Halle, 1805. 58 THE HEXATEUCH tateuch and Book of Joshua are composed of a great number of separate fragments of different authors, loosely joined by a collector.* He puts the greater part of Deuteronomy at least as early as the Davidic age, but the composition of our Pentateuch toward the time of the exile.f Calling attention to the discrepancies in the codes of legislation and the non-observance of them in the history of Israel, he makes the important statement: " Still in later times we find the most important laws of the Mosaic constitution either unknown or at least unobserved, so that the conclusion may be drawn therefrom that either the Pentateuch was not there, or at least not yet in its present ex- tent the book of religion that was regarded as generally obliga- tory, which it must have been if it had been esteemed as such from the times of Moses." III., p. 652. Vater takes the first alternative of the non-existence of the books. His other alternative was not sufficiently considered by himself or by others. The fragmentary hypothesis was also advocated by A. T. Hartmann,:f Von Bohlen,§ and others. It was a radical and destruc- tive theory, that called forth the determined opposition of all earnest men, and it was soon overthrown. Comparing this fragmentary hypothesis of Geddes and others with the documentary hypothesis of Eichhorn's school and the Rabbinical view as advocated by Marsh and Home, we remark that the documentary hypothesis of the school of EicHhorn, notwithstanding serious de- fects, is in the midst of two extremes. It gave the best solution of the facts that had been discovered in those times. The documentary hypothesis found representa- * III., p. 504. +111., p. 680. X Histo7'ischkrit. Forschung€7t^ 1831. § Die Genesis hisiorisch-krit, erldutert^ 1835. THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 59 tion in Great Britain and America in Taylor's edition of Calmet's Dictionary of the Holy Bible,* and in the American edition by Edward Robinson in 1835. Tay- lor's statement, as revised by Robinson, is the following : " It may be admitted, for instance, (i) that the Book of Gene- sis contains various repetitions or double narratives of the same early events ; (2) that these duplicate narratives,when closely com- pared, present characteristic differences of style ; (3) that these differences are too considerable and too distinct to admit of any other explanation than that of different originals, taken into association." * Edition of 1832. VI. THE SUPPLEMENTARY HYPOTHESIS. This stadium is characterized by the effort to deter- mine the ^^;/^^2.f of the various documents constituting the Pentateuch. De Wette is the man who chiefly influ- ences the discussion. "^ Reviewing the previous stadium Merx properly re- marks that both the fragmentary and documentary hypotheses — ** have this in common that they seek to attain their aim chiefly by the way of Literary Criticism, and neglect or use only as a subsidiary help, the realistic, antiquarian and historical crit- icism of the contents of the Pentateuch. This element De Wette chiefly brought into the scientific investigation in his Kriiik der israelitischen Geschzchte, Halle, 1807." — P. Ixxxii. of 2d Aufl. of Tuch's Com. iiber Genesis, Halle, 1871. At first hovering between the documentary hypothe- sis of Eichhorn and the fragmentary hypothesis of Geddes, recognizing the features of truth and of error in them both, De Wette at last rises above them and presses for the unity of the Pentateuch in its present * For an excellent account of the criticism of this stadium see the valuable articles of Prof. F. A. Cast, D.D,, on Pentateuch Criticism, in the April and July Numbers of the Re/or77ied Quarterly Revieiv^ 1882 ; also Nachwort, by Merx in 2d Aufl, of Tuch's Genesis^ 1^71, p. Ixxviii. sg., etc. (60) THE SUPPLEMENTARY HYPOTHESIS Ql form as the p/an of one mind. He first stated that Deu- teronomy is an independent part of the Pentateuch, composed in the age of Josiah.* He subsequently- adopted into his system the improvements suggested by other Biblical scholars who followed in his footsteps.f In 1824 BleekJ adopted the view of Geddes and Vater, that the death of Moses was not the proper close of the history begun in Genesis, but that it aimed at the occu- pation of the Holy Land, and that the Book of Joshua therefore belonged with the Pentateuch, so that these should rather be considered as a Hexateuch. Bleek v/as the first to give shape to what has been called the supple- mentary hypothesis. He made the Elohist original and fundamental, the Jahvist the supplemented Bleek also advanced in his position by subsequent investigations of himself and others. His final statement is presented in his posthumous Lectures on Introduction, i86o.§ In 1823 Ewald | also insisted upon the unity of Gene- sis over against the fragmentary hypothesis, and in 1831,1^ showed that the Elohistic and Jahvistic docu- ments extended through the entire Pentateuch. Soon after, the same was found to be the case with Joshua, and the unity of the Hexateuch in the midst of the diversity of documents was made manifest. Over against these critical investigations the tradi- tional theory was advocated by Ranke,"^* who sharply and successfully attacked the fragmentary hypothesis, * 1805, Dissert, zur Deut. ; 1806-7, Beitr. zur Einleit. ; 181 7, Lehrb. d. hist, krit. Einleitung. 2d edition, trans, by Theo. Parker, Boston, 1843. + 6th Aufl. Einleit. 1844. 7th, 1852. X Rosenm., Bib. Exeget. Repert. I. § The 2d edition was translated into English by G. H. Venables, 1865. \ Composition der Genesis^ 1823. Tl Stud, und Krit. in a review of Stahelin on Genesis, 602 sg. ** Untersiichungen^ 1834-40. ^2 THE HEXATEUCH but did not squarely meet the position of the school of De Wette. Hengstenberg * made war upon the dis- tinction of documents and sought to efface the differ- ences by his theory of an intentional change of the divine names in accordance with their essential meaning and the circumstances of the case. Kurtz also f took a similar position, which, however, he subsequently aban- doned.:]: Drechsler§ also sharply attacked the methods of the Higher Criticism. But the ablest work on the scholastic side was produced by Havernick.|| Havernick sturdily maintained the Rabbinical view after Carpzov and Heidegger, and declined to make concessions as to variety of documents in the Pentateuch. This revival of traditional views was very strong, and powerful efforts were put forth to overcome the advancing critics, but in vain, for it died away essentially with these distin- guished champions. Kurtz soon went over to an inter- mediate position. Keil, in 1854, took up the work of Havernick, but without any appreciable effect upon the discussion so far as Germany is concerned. In 1866 it was the author's privilege to study with Hengsten- berg in the University of Berlin. His studies were at first chiefly on the traditional side. He can say that he worked over the chief authorities on that side, and they had all the advantages of his predilections in their favor. But Hengstenberg himself convinced him in his own lecture-room that hewas defending a lost cause. He then turned away from the study of the Pentateuch and * Beit rage zur Einleitung i7is Alte Testament : Bd, ii.-iii., Die Authentie des Petit ateuc/is, 1836-39. t Beit rage ^ 1844, and Einheit o'er Genesis, 1846. X Gesc/i. d. Ait. Buiides, 1848, "** Commentary on Genesis, American 4th edition, 1870, p. 98. Commentary on Exodus and Leviticus^ 1876, p. 10. g3 THE HEXATEUCH the methods and styles peculiar to the German scholar- ship of our century. Whatever may have been the mo- tives and influences that led to these investigations, the questions we have to determine are : (i) What are the facts of the case ? and (2) do the theories account for the facts ? (i). Looking at the facts of the case we note that the careful analysis of the Hexateuch by so large a number of the ablest Biblical scholars of the age has brought about general agreement as to the following points: {a) An Elohistic writing extending through the Hex- ateuch, written by a priestly writer, commonly therefore designated by P. (d) A Jahvistic writing, also extend- ing through the Hexateuch, designated by J. (c) A second Elohistic writing in close connection with the Jahvist, designated by E. (d) The Deuteronomic writ- ing, chiefly in Deuteronomy and Joshua, with a few traces in the earlier books, designated by D. (/) These writings have been compacted by redactors who first combined J with E, then JE with D, and at last JED with P. Notwithstanding the careful way in which these documents have been compacted into a higher unity by these successive editings, the documents may be distin- guished by characteristic differences, not only in the use of the divine names, but also in language and style ; in religious, doctrinal and moral conceptions ; in various interpretations of the same historic persons and events, and in their plans and methods of composition ; dif- ferences which are no less striking than those which characterize the four Gospels. VIL THE ANALYSIS OF THE HEXATEUCH. We shall pause at this stage of the historical develop- ment of the Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, in order to present some of the arguments for the differences of documents. We would refer to the valuable work of Prof. Kautzsch, of Halle, who presents all these docu- ments and the work of the several editors, so far as they can be determined, by differences of type throughout the Hexateuch.* I. — The Argument fro7n Language. The argument from language may be found in the de- tailed examination of the whole Hexateuch in the com- mentaries of Professor Dillmann of the University of Ber- lin ;f and in the Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament^ recently published by Canon Driver, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, in the International Theological Library. Canon Driver gives a list of 41 characteristic phrases of D; 50 characteristic phrases of P ; and 20 characteristic phrases of H, the code of holi- * Die Heilige Schrift des Alien Testaments. Erster Halbband, Freiburg, 1892. f Kurzgcfasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alien Testaynent ^ Die GaneHs^ 5te Aufl., 18S6. Die Biiclter Exodus und Leviticus, 2te Aufl., 1880, DieBUcher Numeric Deuteronomium und Josua, 2te Aufl., i8S5. (69) YO THE HEXATEUCH ness which was eventually taken up into P, but for the most part remaining apart in the middle chapters of Leviticus. In the exhaustive word-study, necessary to the preparation of the new Hebrew Lexicon, evidence of this kind is constantly disclosing itself. It is im- practicable to use such a vast amount of evidence in this volume. It will suffice to give a number of speci- mens of the usage of J E, and a few of the usage of the other documents. In the Appendix the word lists of Driver may be seen, showing the characteristics of D, H, and P.* (i). The month Abib is used in JED, Ex. xiii. 4, xxiii. 15, xxxiv. 18, 18; Dt. xvi. i, i ; — but not in P, which uses instead " the first month,'' Ex. xii. 2, 18, xl. 2, 17; Lev. xxiii. 5 ; Nu. ix. 1, xxviii. 16, xxxiii. 3 ; for which Nisaii in Ne. ii. i, Est. iii. 7. (2). !1)2"I5^ is a characteristic word of J, used very ' T T -; often for the ground as tilled and yielding sustenance, as landed property, as material substance out of which things are made ; as territory, and of the earth as inhab- ited. In these senses it is used less frequently by E D ; but never by P, who uses V"!^ instead. P uses ,1?3^i< only four times, and in these passages of the earth's visible surface, Gn. i. 25, vi. 20; Lev. xx. 25 ; Nu.xvi. 30. (3). bDi^ food is used by JED, and by P in Lev. xi. 34, xxv. 37, but nbpi^ is used only by P and Ezekiel. (4)- T\)ysti. handmaid is used in E 16 t, H 3 t, D 8 t, for which nnSiLJ is used by J and P. (S)- n!)?2i^ and "Qyiy^ verily are used by J E, for which D and P use 1>2&^» (6). Amorite^ as the general name of the ancient pop- * See Appendix II. THE ANALYSIS OF THE HEXATEUCH Yl ulation of both West and East Palestine, is used by E, Gn. XV. i6, xlviii. 22; Nu. xxi. 21, 31 f., Jos. xxiv. 8, 12, 15, 18, for which J prefers Canaanite, Gn. xii. 6, xiii. 7, xxiv. 3, 37, xxxiv. 30. (7). The first personal pronoun iD^i^ is used in D, ex- cept twice; in J E by preference (""D^i^ 81 times, i^i^ 48 times), due in large measure to E, which prefers it. But the shorter form ^^^^ is used in H and P about 130 times (always except Gn. xxiii. 4). This corresponds with Ezekiel, who uses it 138 times and i^^n^ only xxxvi. 28 ; the Chronicler, who uses it 30 times and "•DDi^ only I Ch. xvii. i ; and Daniel, who uses it 23 times and 135^^ only in x. it. These exceptions are doubtless due to scribal error. (8). "^'^'2 with finite verb only in Gn. xxxi. 20 (E). (9). bV^. oivner^ husband^ lordy and as noun of relation, and Baal^ the Canaanitish god, is often used by E and D, but never used by J H P. (10). ^3?^ to be brutish, twice in E and ^^3/2 brute , 5 times in E, not elsewhere in Hexateuch. (i i). *ib2 in the meaning of body, is used only in P of the Hexateuch, elsewhere in Ecclesiastes, and in Poetry. (12). 'QJi!\ to drive out, in J E not elsewhere in the • « • • Hexateuch. (13)- t1i< y^ speak with, in P 10 times, E 5 times, D ft • once, in J never used. J uses instead Q3? *\^*7, so in J E II times, D twice, but P never uses it. (14). tlTTD'^ likeness, similitude, is used in P and Eze- kiel, elsewhere in the Bible only in the exilic Isaiah, xiii. 4, xl. 18; 2 K. xvi. 10; 2 Ch. iv. 3; Ps. Iviii. 5; Dan, X. 16, Y2 THE IIEXATEUCH (15). ■^ii'^ a fltnving, libei'iy, only in P of the Hexa- teuch, Ex. XXX. 23 ; Lv. xxv. 10; elsewhere Jer. xxxiv. 8, IS, 17; Is. Ixi. I ; Ez. xlvi. 17. (16). ntn behold, is only in E in the Hexateuch ; else- TT where chiefly in Job, Psalms, and Isaiah. (M\ XVSii\l,T^ ^^^h Gn. XX. 9 (E) ; Ex. xxxii. 21, 30, 31 (J) ; elsewhere only 2 Kings xvii. 21 ; Pss. xxxii. i ; jcl. 7, cix. 7. (18). ^n ni3? Gn. xxv. 6, xliii. 7, 27, 28, xlv. 28, xlvi. 30 (J); Gn. xlv. 3, 26] Ex. iv. 18 (E) ; Dt. xxxi. 27;— but not in H or P ; elsewhere only i Sam. xx. 14; 2 Sam. xii. 22, xviii. 14 ; i K. xx. 32. (19). ni"" ^^s^i tJirozv, shoot y only in JE of Hexateuch, Gn. xxxi. 51; Ex. xv. 4, xix. 13; Nu. xxi. 30; Jos. xviii. 6; but as Hiphil, to teacJi, in all the documents. (20.) The shorter form ^b is always used in J and P, the longer form ^^b is always used in the law codes of T" D and H. In E the usage is mixed. (21), n5^'1)2 in the meaning, vision^ in the Hexateuch only in E, Gn. xlvi. 2 ; Nu. xii. 6 ; elsewhere i Sam. iii. 15 ; Ez. i. I, viii. 3, xl. 2, xliii. 3, Dn. x. 7-16. (22). The phrases HZSi^.Tg riS""? Gn. xii. ii,xxix. I7(J); 2 Sam. xiv. 27 ; Hi^n^Cri) ^iS\ Gn. xii. 2, 4 ; Hfi^n^D HS"^, • • • • • « Gn. xxxix. 6, i Sam. xvii. 42 ; Ji^^i)3 £l^itO> Gn. xxiv. 16, xxvi. 7 (J) ; 2 Sam. xl. 2, Est. i. 11, ii. 2, 3, 7; n^n)D 'init)' Dn. i. 4; nN:n>3b n:on5, Gn. ii. 9 (j), not ' . . • T . . found elsewhere. (23). HDi^b^p in the meaning, business, oecupation, is ■ • • used in Gn. xxxix. ii (J); in the meaning /r«?/^r/;/, Ex. xxii. 7, 10 (E), Gn. xxxiii. 14 (J); but in the sense of THE ANALYSIS OF THE HEXATEUCH ^3 work^ it is frequent in P and the Chronicler ; elsewhere in the Hexateuch only in the reason of the Fourth Commandment, Ex. xx. 9, io,=Dt. v. 1 3, 14, and Dt. xvi. 8. (24). n)3M breath, Gn. ii. 7, vii. 22 (J) and n)D^"5(n)"iD T T : T T : T every breathing thing, Dt. xx. 16; Jos. x. 40, xi. 11, 14 (all D) ; neither elsewhere in the Hexateuch. (25). li^i!i serve, 3 times in P, not elsewhere in Hexa- teuch. fc^n^ war, 13 times in P, ^|n^ i^^;c1 15 times in P, 5 T T times in Chronicles ; service, P, 8 times; elsewhere in Hexateuch only Dt. xxiv. 5, Jos. iv. 13 (D) ; in the meaning army, host, 47 times in P, 23 times in Chroni- cler ; elsewhere in Hexateuch, Gn. xxi. 22, 32 (E), xxvi. 26 (J), Jos. V. 14, 15 ; of heavenly bodies, twice in P; of the entire creation, Gn. ii. i (P). (26). ntp)3 tribe, is used by P about 100 times : J uses toitl) instead. « • • • (27). J uses the Qal ^b^^ beget ; but P uses instead the Hiphil 1^b"in 60 times. (28). The Mount of the Lawgiving is called Horeb in E and D, but Sinai in J and P. (29). E uses a large number of archaic words such as 1^5 Nu. XX. 21 for ii^STi ; v^j^? Gn. xxxi. 28, ntD3? Gn. 1 • .... ^» ... / • • • • . 1. 20, :)nir>i; Ex. xviii. 18 for riib2?» iniri3?.; ihr\ Ex. iii. 19, Nu. xxii. 13, 16, for fi^b » XVr\ Gn. xlvi. 3 for » • • • n"ii ; x\^^ Ex. ii. 4 for r)2?n- T** These are only specimens of a vast array of words. Many others will appear when we come to the argu- ment from Religion and Doctrine.* * See pp. loi seq.y 149 seq. 74 THE HEXATEUCH Each of the four writers has his favorite words and phrases. They all use essentially the same vocabulary, because they use the same language and the same dia- lect, with the exception of E, who shows traces of an oc- casional use of the Ephraimitic dialect; but there are certain terms and phrases which are characteristic of each. Dr. Green, in his recent book on the Hebrew Feasts, misrepresents this line of argument. He thinks that he has disproved the difference of style between the several authors compacted in Ex. xii.-xiii., by point- ing to an occasional use of the favorite words of one au- thor by another author. But this is an avoidance of the question at issue. Those who are in the habit of using the methods of the Higher Criticism, whether in the study of the classics, of the Vedas, of the ecclesias- tical writers, or of Shakespeare, know very well that there is an ascending scale in the use of words and phrases when we compare author with author in any language, (i). The great majority of words and phrases are the common stock of the language used by all. (2). The same theme leads to the use of similar words and phrases. (3). Differences begin in the percentage of use of certain words and phrases. That which is occasional with one writer is common with another, and the re- verse. (4). There are a few words and expressions which are peculiar to certain authors, used by one author and avoided by other authors. n. — Difference of Style, It is agreed among critics that E is brief, terse, and ar- chaic in his style. J is poetic and descriptive — as Well- hausen says, "the best narrator in the Bible." His imagination and fancy are ever active. P is annalis- tic and diffuse — fond of names and dates. He aims at THE ANALYSIS OF THE HEXATEUCH 75 precision and completeness. The logical faculty prevails. There is little color. D is rhetorical and hortatory, practical and earnest. His aim is instruction and guid- ance. This difference of style was noted by Simon, and has been carefully traced by criticism in our day. There are those who try to explain away this difference as oc- casioned by the difference of theme, but this does not account for the difference of style in the parallel treat- ment of the same theme. And then the differences of style are alongside of the differences in the use of words and phrases and the divine names. There is as great a difference in style between the different documents of the Hexateuch as there is between the four Gospels. Kautzsch and Socin have recently presented the differ- ent documents of Genesis in different kinds of type.* Bacon has exhibited them apart by themselves.f III . — Parallel Narratives. Another line of evidence is the very large number of doublets and triplets, (i). There are two accounts of the creation which have recently been discovered to be two ancient poems. In the Pentameter poem. Gen. i., God creates by speaking. He is conceived as a com- mander of an army, summoning his troops into the field, line upon line, until they all stand before him for review, an organized host. In the Trimeter poem, Gn. ii., there is a rapid change of image. God uses His hands in cre- ation. He plants the garden in Eden as a gardener. He moulds the forms of men and animals out of the soil of the ground like a sculptor. He builds the form of Eve from a piece of the body of man like a builder. In the Pentameter poem the divine Spirit is conceived * Die Genesis niit dusserer Unterscheidung der Quel^enschri/ten^ 1888, t TJte Genesis c/ Genesis y 1891, Y6 THE HEXATEUCH as a bird hovering over the original chaos with creative energy. In the Trimeter poem God's breath, proceeding from the divine nostrils into the nostrils of the creatures, imparts the breath of life. In the Pentameter poem a waste, an empty abyss, is conceived as prior to the first creative word, and light appears as the first of God's creations to fill this abyss with illumination. In the Trimeter poem a rainless ground without vegetable and animal life is conceived as prior to the first divine activity which was forming a single man, Adam. The order of creation is different. In the Pentameter poem six orders of creation appear instantaneously in obedience to the creative word on the mornings of six creative days: (i). Light, (2). Ex- panse, (3). Dry land and vegetables, (4). The great luminaries, (5). Animals of water and air, (6). Land animals and mankind. In the Trimeter poem, the ground is conceived as al- ready existing, the great luminaries are left out of consideration, and the order is (i). Adam; (2), trees; (3), animals; and (4), Eve. The result of the divine inspection differs greatly in the two poems. In the Pentameter poem, as each order appears, it is recog- nized as '' good " and is then assigned its service. The review concludes with the approbation, " very excellent." In the Trimeter poem, which proposes to give the origin and development of sin, we notice a striking antithesis to the '' good " and '' very good " of the six days' work. Thus it was not good to eat of the prohibited tree of knowledge of good and evil. '' It was not good that the man should be alone. " And the animals were not eood for man. '' But for man there was not found an help- meet for him. " The time of the Pentameter poem was 3ix creative days. The time of the Trimeter was a day, THE ANALYSIS OF THE HEXATEUCH 77 unless we conceive that "day" has the more general sense of the time when. In the Pentameter, mankind was created male and female, a species alongside of the spe- cies of animals. In the Trimeter, first a man, then after the trees and animals a woman, and a plurality of men and women only after two great tragedies of sin. When God reviews His organized host, according to the Pen- tameter poem, He looks approvingly on mankind, male and female, a race whom He had just created, and pro- nounces them at the head and crown of all His creations, "very excellent." But according to the Trimeter poem, God looks upon mankind, male and female, as a race, only as very evil, after Adam and Eve have sinned, after Cain has killed his brother Abel, after mankind has become a race in the Sethite line of redemption and in the accursed line of Cain. Add to these material facts, this additional one that the verb bdrd^ in the Pentameter poem, is a word seldom used except in P, and the second Isaiah in the Qal species. The Trimeter poem uses dsah for it in accord- ance with the usage of J elsewhere, and of all the earlier writers. To these evidences we might add the evi- dences from vocabulary and style which may be found in the critical commentaries. How any one can look these facts in the face and say that these two accounts of the creation came from one and the same writer, Moses, it is difficult to understand. (2). There are two narratives of the Deluge, also two poems of different movements skilfully compacted by the redactor from J and P, so that both pieces are preserved almost complete. These give variant accounts of the deluge and differ in style, poetical structure and their descriptions ; and they agree in general in vocabu- lary and style with the corresponding poems of J and P relating to the creation. 78 THE riEXATEUCH (3). There are two versions of the Ten Words, the one in Deuteronomy, the other in Exodus, with import- ant differences. The version in Exodus may be analyzed and the reasons distributed among E, J and P. The version in Exodus also bears traces of the use of the Deuteronomic version, showing that it is the latest and fullest version, made by the redactor of J, E, D, and P, from the versions in the four documents. E calls these tables, tables of stone ; J, tables of stone ; D, tables of the covenant ; P, tables of the testimony.* (4). E and J give three stories of the peril of the wives of the patriarchs at the courts of Pharaoh and Abimelek : Gen. xii. 10-20 (J); xx. 1-13 (E) ; xxvi. 6-1 1 (J). These stories, apart from persons and places, are so alike that they may be, two of them, parallel accounts of what transpired at the court of Abimelek, the one story referring to Isaac, the other to Abraham. And it may be that the story of Abraham at the court of Pharaoh is only a third variation of the same story. With similarity of theme, there are characteristic differ- ences in the language and style of the different narrators. (5). Among the Egyptian plagues J reports a mur- rain, a cattle-pest (Ex. ix. 1-7). This seems to be a parallel plague to the "boils breaking forth with blains " of P (Ex. ix. 8-12), which come upon man and beast. These narratives exhibit the characteristic differ- ences of these two narrators.f (6). There are three accounts of the insect pest. The narratives of J and E are mingled in Ex. viii. 16-28. P stands by itself in Ex. viii. 1 1^-15. In J E this pest is ^^5?, a swarm of insects. In P it is t5D, lice. Psalm Ixxviii. gives the insect swarm of J, but omits the lice of P, but Psalm cv. uses both of these terms. * See Appendix III. + See Appendix IV. THE ANALYSIS OF THE HEXATEUCH fjg (7). There are several versions of the call and blessing of Abraham in Gen. xii. 1-3 (J) ; xv. 4-5 (E) ; xvii. 1-8 (P); xxii. 15-18 (R), which show the distinctive characteristics of the narrators. (8). According to E, Joshua set up twelve stones in the bed of the Jordan as a memorial of the crossing. (Jos. iv. yd, 9). According to J, the stones from the bed of the Jordan were set up at GilgaL (Jos. iv. 20.) (9). The rebellion of Dathan and Abiram, the Reuben- ites, is referred to in Dt. xi. 6. But no mention is made of the rebellion of the Levitical Korahites. These two rebellions are combined in the narrative Num. xvi. Critical analysis, however, shows that the redactor has here combined a narrative of J E, which gives the rebel- lion of the Reubenites and is the basis of the story of D, with a narrative of P, which gives the story of the Korahites, which is unknown to J E, and therefore to D. (10). There are two reports of the bringing of the water from the rock. The one, Ex. xvii., is in the wilderness of Sin, early in the wanderings ; the other. Num. xx., is in the wilderness of Zin, forty years after. The former is in the narrative of J E, the latter in the narrative of P. The question thus arises whether these are not va- riant accounts of the same miracle, occasioned by an unconscious mistake of Sin for Zin. This is a case very much like the two stories of the cleansing of the temple by Jesus, the one in the synoptists at the last passover of Jesus, the other in the Gospel of John at the first passover. There is room for difference of opinion re- garding both of these events ; but whether they are different events or not, the stories being about the same essential thing, the differences between J E and P, in the report of the water from the rock, are just as great 30 THE HEXATEUCH as those between John and the synoptists in the stor>' of the cleansing of the temple. Many other instances might be given, but so many are reserved for the discussion of the development of the legislation and for the argument as to the date of the documents, that these may suffice for the present. VIII. THE DATE OF DEUTERONOMY. Having given some of the evidences for the Analysis of the Documents we shall now consider the question of the date of Deuteronomy. The supplementary hypothe- sis tried to determine the order and fix the time of the genesis or production of these various documents. The pivot of the whole is the theory of De Wette, that Deu- teronomy was composed shortly before the reform of Josiah. This theory is based on the statements of 2 Kings xxii. 3 f,,* as to discovery of the lost law book. The arguments in support of this theory, as stated by the late Prof. Riehm, of Halle, are as follows : He argues (i) that Deuteronomy was not written until some time after the conquest, by the expression "within thy gates**; the statement, ii. 12, "as Israel did unto the land of his possession, which Yahweh gave unto them"; and the ancient landmarks, xix. 14. The first and last are often explained from the prophetic point of view of the Deuteronomic code which looks forward to the prolonged occupation of the Holy Land and shapes the legislation accordingly. The middle one is explained as a redactor's note of explanation. But while these * *See p. IS seq. (81) 82 THE HEXATEUCH explanations might satisfy if there were no other reasons against Mosaic authorship, they more naturally indicate a long occupation of the land when the code was framed in its present form. (2). The book is pushed down to the reign of Solomon by the law of the king (xxviii. 36 ; compare xvii. 14-20), and its prohibition of horses and chariots and many wives. We cannot deny to Moses the conception of a future kingdom in Israel. In view of the fact that the Israelites had just come out of bondage to the king of Egypt, and that they were surrounded by nations having kings ; it was natural to think of kings for Israel likewise. The subsequent pro- vision of temporary judges or rulers called by God and endued with His Spirit, is not contemplated in the Deuteronomic code. A king would be the likely thing in the subsequent times after the conquest. If the Deuteronomic code had this ideal, such a law in the code might be regarded as appropriate. The reproof by Samuel of a subsequent desire for a king might be in view of the altered circumstances. The nation was not ripe for the kingdom, as the history of Saul clearly indi- cates. It was premature on the part of the people, pre- sumptuous, and overriding the divine provision of the temporar}^ judges or saviors. And yet while all this speculation may be true, it is not so natural an interpre- tation as that the law was made in view of the historic occasions for it which were first in Solomon's time, and that the law of the king was given when Israel had ripened into a kingdom. (3). Riehm presses the composition of Deuteronomy down to the time of Jehoshaphat, by the law of the su- preme judiciary at one place, Deut. xvii. 8 seq.^ which did not exist till the time of Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. xix. 8-1 1. (4). He presses it down to the time of Hezekiah on THE DATE OF DEUTERONOM"? g3 account of the one only central altar which was not realized till the time of Hezekiah, 2 Kings xviii. 4 ; 2 Chron. xxxi. i ; Isaiah xxxvi. 7. The facts are that the one place of judgment and the one exclusive altar were not realized until the times mentioned, as the ideal of the king was not realized until the Davidic dynasty; but do these facts disprove the promulgation of the Deuter- onomic code in the land of Moab? These facts prove the non-observance of the code, the disregard of it, and possibly also ignorance of it ; they favor its non-exist- ence, but do not entirely prove it. If we could present good and sufficient reasons for the opinion that the Deuteronomic code is a prophetic ideal code, given before the conquest in view of a long sojourn of the nation in Palestine, these facts might be explained. But the difficulty is to find such reasons. Who can prove it ? (5). Riehm fixes the composition in the time of Ma- nasseh and the reign of Psammeticus on account of the going down to Egypt in ships, Deut. xxviii. 68. The author of Deuteronomy^ the People's Book^ (Lon- don, 1877), has referred to The Records of the Past, (vi., p. 37,) for a statement from the time of Rameses III., which shows the equipment of fleets on the Med- iterranean at that time. This was therefore quite pos- sible for Moses to conceive of. But if the other reasons for a late date are valid this helps to give the date more closely. Canon Driver gives additional reasons as follows : (6). " The forms of idolatry alluded to, especially the worship of the '* host of heaven " (iv. 19 ; xvii. 3), seem to point to the middle period of the monarchy. It is true, the worship of the sun and moon is ancient, as is attested even by the names of places in Canaan ; but in the no- SI THE HEXATEQCH tices (which are frequent) of idolatrous practices in Judges to Kings, no mention occurs of " the host of heaven " till the period of the later kings. That the cult is pre- supposed in Dt. and not merely anticipated propheti- cally, seems clear from the terms in which it is referred to. While we are not in a position to afifirm positively that the danger was not felt earlier, the law, as formu- lated in Dt., seems designed to meet the form which the cult assumed at a later age." (7). "" The influence of Dt. upon subsequent writers is clear and indisputable. It is remarkable, now, that the early prophets, Amos, Hosea, and the undisputed por- tions of Isaiah, show no certain traces of this influence ; Jeremiah exhibits marks of it on nearly every page ; Zephaniah and Ezekiel are also evidently influenced by it. If Dt. were composed in the period between Isaiah and Jeremiah, these facts v^ould be exactly accounted for." (8). " T\\Q prophetic teaching of Dt., the point of view from which the laws are presented, the principles by which conduct is estimated, presuppose a relatively ad- vanced stage of theological reflection, as they also ap- proximate to what is found in Jeremiah and Ezekiel." (9). "In Dt. xvi. 22, we read, 'Thou shalt not set thee up a mazzebah (obelisk or pillar), which the Lord thy God hateth.' Had Isaiah known of this law he would hardly have adopted the mazsebah (xix. 19) as a symbol of the conversion of Egypt to the true faith, the sup- position that heathen pillars are meant in Dt. is not favored by the context (v. 21b) ; the use of these has, moreover, been proscribed before (vii. 5 ; xii. 3)." * Riehm f represents the Deuteronomic code as a liter- "^ Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, pp. 82, 83. tin /. r., p. W2. THE DATE OF DEUTERONOMY §5 ary fiction. The author lets Moses appear as a pro- phetic, popular orator, and as the first priestly reader oi the law. It is a literary fiction as Ecclesiastes is a lit- erary fiction. The latter uses the person of Solomon as the master of wisdom to set forth the lesson of wisdom. The former uses Moses as the great lawgiver, to promul- gate divine laws. We shall now adduce on the other side what seem to be the chief obstacles to the composition of Deuter- onomy in the age of Josiah. (1). The statement of 2 Kings xxii. 3 f. is to the effect that a law book was dis- covered which had for a long period been neglected, and whose commands had been so long disobeyed that the nation was rejected by Vahweh on that account. The Deuteronomic code had been lost sight of by kings and princes and the priesthood, the entire official class of the nation. This neglect was a national and a terrible sin that involved the extreme penalty of the exile of the nation. Under these circumstances a law bopk issued as a legal fiction would be most extraordinary. How could the nation incur such a penalty for trangressing laws which were now promulgated for the first time? A long series of violations is presupposed. The laws can- not, therefore, date from a period shortly before this Re- form. The code was presented as an ancient and long- neglected law book. This argumentation makes it evi- dent that an ancient law book was discovered, but it does not prove that that code is the same as the present rhe- torical Deuteronomy. If an ancient law book of Moses had been found and its legislation was put in a rhetorical form in the time of Josiah, this reasoning would be satis- fied. As Canon Driver says: " The new element in Dt. is thus not the laws, but their /^rpen Mosaischer Ge^etze^ 1840, even finds such decalogues in the middle books, but does not make it evident save in the two books of the Covenant. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODES ^Ql The evangelical men of our time naturally feel the force of the philosophical theory of development, and other things being equal, will accept it to account for the phenomena, if they can do it without peril to their faith. We shall look at the differences and inquire how they may be harmonized. (i). When we compare the decalogue of the covenant code of J, with the corresponding parts of the covenant code of E, and then the laws corresponding to this decalogue in the codes of D, H, and P; the develop- ment of this decalogue in intension and extension is so clear in the constant order J, D, H, P, that it seems impossible to dispute it.* (2). When now we take the decalogues of the covenant code of E, so far as they have not yet been used in the previous study, and trace them in their corresponding laws through the codes D, H, P, it becomes clear that the laws in the covenant code of E " form the founda- tion of the Deuteronomic legislation.''f (3). There is also an apparent development between the codes of D and H, which may be seen in the laws common to these codes.J (4). There is an evident development in the laws respecting altars. JE narrate that altars were built by Noah after leav- ing the ark Gn. viii. 20 ; by Abraham at Shechem Gn. xii. 7, Bethel Gn. xii. 8, Hebron Gn. xiii. 18, Mt. Moriah Gn. xxii, 9 ; by Isaac at Beersheba Gn. xxvi. 25 ; by Jacob at Shechem Gn. xxxiii. 2o,§ at Bethel Gn. xxxv. 7 ; by Moses at Rephidim Ex. xvii. 15, Horeb Ex. xxiv. 4; by * See Appendix V. + Driver /. c p. 70. See Appendix VI. X See Appendix VII. § Yet thii perhaps a mistake for n^^D, being obj. of DJi^"3^1i not elsewhere with riDtD, ct. also Dillmann. 102 THE HEXATEUCH Balak at Bamoth Baal, Pisgah & Peor Nu. xxiil. i, 14, 29; by Joshua on Mt. Ebal Jos. viii. 30; the prophetic histories narrate that altars were built by Gideon at Ophra Ju. vi. 24; by a man of God at Bethel Ju. xxi. 4 ; by Samuel at Ramah i S. vii. 17 ; by Saul after Mich- mash I S. xiv. 35 ; by David on the threshing floor of Oman 2 S. xxiv. 25 = 1 Ch. xxi. 18, xxii. i; that Sol- omon sacrificed on the altar at Gibeon i K. iii. 4 and built altars in the temple at Jerusalem I K, vi. 20, viii. 64; that Jeroboam built an altar at Bethel i K. xii. 32 (which was destroyed by Josiah 2 K. xxiii. 15); and that Elijah repaired an ancient altar on Carmel I K. xviii. 30. An altar in Egypt is predicted Is. xix. 19. All this accords with the law of the Covenant code Ex. XX. 24-26 which recognizes a plurality of altars and pre- scribes that they shall be built of soil or unhewn stones, and without steps ; so of stonesDt. xxvii. 6, of whole stones Jos. viii. 31 dSii^oi twelve stones i K. xviii. 30, 32, cf. Is. xxvii. 9. The altar was also a place of refuge Ex. xxi. 14 (JE) I K. i. 50, 51, ii. 28. (2). D prescribes one central altar Dt. xii. 27, but no attempt to enforce this law ap- pears until Josiah who destroys all other altars besides the one in Jerusalem 2 K. xxiii. 8-20. (3). P limits sacrifices to the altars of the tabernacle. A great altar was built East of the Jordan, but it was according to P only as an ^5? after the pattern of the altar before the Tabernacle Jos. xxii. 10-34. P describes two altars: a. the altar of burnt offering Ex. xxx. 28, xxxi. 9, xxxv. 16, xxxviii. I, xl. 6, 10, 29, Lv. iv. 7, 10, 25, 25, 30, 34= brazen altar Ex. xxxviii. 30, xxxix. 39, made of acacia wood plated with brass 5x5x3 cubits having four horns and a network of brass, upon which all sacrifices by fire were made Ex. xxvii. 1-8, xxxviii. 1-7; b. altar for the THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODES 103 burning of incense, made of acacia wood plated with gold 1x^x2 cubits, with four horns and a crown of gold, Ex. XXX. i-6=the altar of incense Ex. xxx. 27, xxxi. 8, XXXV. 15, xxxvii. 25=the altar of gold Ex. xxxix. 38, xl. 5, 26, Nu. iv. il=the altar of sweet incense Lv. iv. 7 ; these altars are known elsewhere only in Chr.; i Ch. vi. 34, xvi. 40, xxi. 29 ; 2 Ch. i. 5, 6. (5). There is also a development of the sacred tent. This is named, The tent of meeting of God with his people (tent of congregation or assembly Ges. M.V. al.). Accord- ing to E, Moses so called the tent which he used to pitch without the camp, afar off, into which he used to enter, and where God spake with him face to face, Ex. xxxiii. 7-«ii, Nu. xii. 5, 10, Dt. xxxi. 14, 15. J seems to have some conception of a tent of meeting outside the camp, Nu, xi. 24, 26 ; D has no allusion to such a tent ; P men- tions it 1 3 1 t. as *' the tent of meeting "; 19 1. as " the tent '* (cf. Ez. xli. i) and tent of the testimony Nu. ix. 15, xvii. 22, 23, xviii. 2 (as containing ark and tables of the testimony) cf. 2 Ch. xxiv. 6, this tent sometimes confounded with the tabernacle, but distinguished in "tabernacle of the tent of meeting" Ex. xxxix. 32, xl. 2, 6, 29, cf. i Ch. vi. 17 ; "the ta'bernacle and the tent " Nu. iii. 25 ; "the taber- nacle and the tent" Ex. xxxv. 1 1. The tent was of three layers of skins, goatskins, ramskins, and tachash skins, each layer of eleven pieces stretched in the form of a tent, covering and protecting the tabernacle, which was in the form of a parallelopip. (Ex. xxvi.). A tent of meeting was at Shilo i Sam. ii. 22 (omitted in LXX., Vulg.) cf. Ps. Ixxviii. 60, called " tent of Joseph" v. 6j. The tent of meet- ing was later at Gibeon 2 Ch. i. 3, 6, 1 3 ; courses of ministry were arranged for service at the " tent of meeting " i Ch. vi. 17, xxiii. 32, cf. i Ch. ix. 19 (the tent) v. 2 [, 21 " house of the tent "; David erected a tent for ark on Mount 104 THE HEXATEUCH Zion 2 Sam. vi. 17, i Ch. xv. i, xvi. i, 2 Ch. i. 4; Joab fled for refuge to the tent of Yahweh i K. ii. 28-30 ; sacred oil was brought from the tent i K. i. 39 ; the tent of meeting was taken up into temple i K viii. 4=2 Ch. v. 5 ; Yahweh had not previously dwelt in a house, but had gon^ from tent to te7it, from one to another, i Ch. xvii. 5, cf. 2 Sam. vii. 6. (6). There is development in the conception of the priesthood. In the blessing of Moses the tribe of Levi was chosen to bear the Urim and Thummin, to teach Is- rael, to burn incense and sacrifice. (Dt. xxxiii. 8-1 1.) According to E, in the covenant of Horeb, Israel became a kingdom of priests. (Ex. xix. 5, 6.) At the covenant sac- rifice Moses selected young men to assist him, showing that there were no official priests at that time. (Ex. xxiv. 5.) But priests bore the ark and the sacred trumpets at Jericho. (Josh. iv. 9; vi. 4.) According to J, priests draw near to Yahweh at Sinai (Ex. xix. 22), showing a priesthood at that date, an important difference of con- ception from E. At the conquest priests bear the ark. (Jos. iii. 6; iv. 3.) According to D, the tribe of Levi was separated to be the priestly tribe to bear the ark, to stand before Yahweh, to minister in his name, and to bless the people. (Dt. x. 8, 9 ; xxxi. 9 ; Jos. iii. 3 ; vi. 6; xiii. 33 ; xviii. 7.) P has an entirely different legisla- tion respecting the priesthood. It gives an account of the consecration and ordination of the Levites as priests, in substitution for the first-born sons, and then of the consecration of an Aaronic priesthood ; and of a high priesthood, each of the three grades with its distinguish- ing dress, and correspondingly discriminated duties. (7). The sacrificial system shows a development in sev- eral stages. JE in their codes and histories frequently use the whole burnt-offering, and the peace-offering, the THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODES I05 fundamental sacrifices, also the first fruits and firstlings. E gives an account of the national sacrifice at the ratification of the covenant at Horeb (Ex. xxiv.), and mentions the drink-offering of Jacob. (Gen. xxxv. 14.) J distinguishes between the clean and the unclean of animals as dating from the sacrifice of Noah, uses Minchah as a general name for both the sacrifice of sheep and fruit in the story of Cain and Abel, but in the covenant code as a name for the offering of unleavened bread. J also gives a law for the passover victim which seems unknown to E. D enlarges the scope of the offerings mentioned in J E. It uses the whole burnt-offering, peace-offerings and firstlings of J E and the passover victim of J. But in addition it uses the term " offerings of Yahweh made by fire," and gives the votive offerings, free-will offerings and heave-offerings. It also prohibits the offering of children in whole burnt-offering, a prohibition apparently unknown to J E and the earlier history. P now gives an elaborate system of sacrifices and pre- cise rules for their observance. All the terms of the offerings of JED appear, and many new ones. (1) IH'Hp is commonly employed for offerings of material things. (2). The sin-offering is in three stages as it purifies the three altars in its gradations of access to the divine pres- ence. (3). The trespass-offering is in three varieties for the ordinary person, the Nazarite, and the leper. (4). The development of the peace-offerings into the votive offering, the free-will offering, the thank-offering, is evi- dent as well as the ordinary peace-offering. (5). The spec- ial sacrifice of the ram of consecration at the installation of the priesthood is mentioned. These sacrifices, peculiar to the priest-code, involve an extensive list of phrases which are unknown to the other codes.* g. KlSn is used in Gen. xxxi. 39 (E), in the primitive meaning; of "bear 106 THE HEXATEUCH (8). According to the covenant code the men of Israel are holy and are not to eat of flesh torn off beasts in the field, they are to cast it to the dogs. (Ex. xxii. 3r.) In D an animal that died of itself might be given to the stranger to eat, and sold to the foreigners. (Dt. xiv. 21.) In H these carcasses could not be eaten by home- born or stranger. (Lev. xvii. 15, 16.) In P the distinc- tion between home-born and stranger has passed away, and the prohibition is universal. (Lev. xi. 39, 40.) Sev- eral generations are necessary to account for such a series of modifications of the same law. This is only an incident of the development of the legislation under the head of Purifications. The Deuteronomic code forbids to cut oneself, distinguishes the clean from the unclean animals (xiv. 3-21), and prescribes washing with water for uncleanness (xxiii. 10 sq,). The priest-code gives an extended series of purifications in the varied use of pure water, and by the use of ashes of the red heifer (Lev. xii., XV., Num. xix.), and of various ingredients in the healing of the leper (Lev. xiii.-xiv.). (9). The Feasts, The Covenant-code ordains the Sab- bath, feasts of unleavened bread, harvest and ingather- ings, and the seventh year. (Ex. xxiii. 10-17.) The Deuteronomic code mentions the Passover, feast of un- leavened bread, feast of weeks, feast of tabernacles, and year of release. (Deut. xv., xvi.) The priest-code gives a complete cycle of feasts (Lev. xxiii. ; Num. xxviii.), new moons. Sabbaths, the seven great Sabbaths, Pass- over and unleavened bread, day of first fruits, feast of loss," but in P it means only to make a sin-offering or to purify from sin or un- cleanness. It is characteristic of H and P that D^D!?tJ^ defines n^T in the con- struct singfular or plural in a number of phrases used with great frequency. In P it is distinguished from nil J and D^"nJ but not from \XWT\y and therefore prob- ably is interchangeable with miD- THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODES IQY trumpets, day of atonement, tabernacles, the seventh year's feast, the year of Jubilee, — a most artistic system.^ It will be observed that these variations are in the ^/^^V/" features of the ceremonial system. They present the appearance of development from the more simple to the complex, and in the order, Covenant codes, Deu- teronomic code, code of Holiness, and priest-code. The traditional theory is certainly at fault here in regarding the Deuteronomic legislation as secondary over against the priest-code as prunary. The Deuteronomic code is secondary to the Covenant codes, but not to th^priest- code. This fault of the traditional theory had not been overcome by the theories of Eichhorn, Geddes or De Wette. Here is an advantage of Reuss' theory over all previous ones. We must admit the order of develop- ment. A code for the elders and judges of tribes or clans in their various localities, a code for the instruction of the nation as a whole in rhetorical and popular form, and a code for the priests from the holy place as a centre, in the nature of the case will show a progress from the simple to the more and more complex and elaborate in matters of ritualistic observance. The Covenant code of E is a series of decalogues for the elders in the administration of justice in various localities. It is based on the covenant at Horeb and lies at the root of the Pentateuchal legislation. It is claimed that Moses wrote such a book of the Covenant. The Deuteronomic code is a people's code in a prophetic form to instruct and stimulate the people of Yahweh as an organic whole. It is based on the experience of the wandering in the wilderness, it looks forward to a prolonged occupation of the promised * See Appendix VI. 108 THE HEXATEUCH Jand, and is based on a new covenant in the plains of Moab. We would expect to find progress and develop- ment here especially on the practical side. It is claimed that Moses gives a law code at this time ; and we can see no sufficient reasons for doubting it. The priest- code is from the priestly point of view in connection with the tabernacle and its institutions. It will neces- sarily exhibit progress and development on the technical side in the details of the ritual. This code is scattered in groups in the middle books, and broken up by in- sertions of historical incidents, but when put together exhibits an organic whole, a unity and symmetry which is wonderful in connection with the attention given to details. This code is represented as given by Yahweh to Moses or Aaron, or both, but it is not represented as written down by Moses as is the case with the two other codes. It claims to be Mosaic legislation, but if we should suppose that later priests gathered the de- tailed laws and groups of laws into codes at any times subsequent to the conquest, this claim would be satis- fied. This collection of laws contains an earlier separate code called the code of Holiness. It may also contain other such codes yet to be determined by criticism, all constituent sources of the present priest-code and going back through several codifications to primitive times. There are several obstacles which have been proposed to the composition of the priestly legislation in the post- exilic period : (i). The language of the Elohist and the priest-code is classic. The discussions respecting the language of the Elohist have proved marked differences from the other documents, but they have not proved any such deflection in the syntax of the ivazv consec, and the multiplication of nouns formed by affixes as charac- terize Ezekiel. And yet the word-lists show closer re- THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODES 109 semblance between the priestly code and Ezekiel than between that code and any earher writer. (2). The priest-code is a unit in its wonderful variety of detail. Given the ark of the covenant as the throne of Yahweh, the King of Israel, the holy God, and all the institutions, and the ritual, seem to be the most ap- propriate elaboration of that one idea. They are wrapt up in the idea itself as a germ. Why should it require centuries for the development of the germ into its legiti- mate flowers and fruit ? An idea like that would be more than seed-corn to Israel in the wilderness. We would expect some such practical development as we do find in the priest's code at the time. Such a specu- lative development is possible. But is it so probable as a practical development, finding expression in appro- priate legislation? The unity may come from the priestly compiler and express the unification of historic experience. (3). The priest-code is realistic, and its realism is that of the wilderness, of the wanderings and the nomadic life. This is so inextricably involved with the ideal in all parts of the legislation, so simple, artless, and inartistic, that it seems unlikely that it should be pure invention, or the elaboration of an ideal which could not escape anachronisms in some particulars. But if the funda- mental legislation is Mosaic, why might not the priestly compiler, taking his stand in the wilderness of the wan- derings, have been true to his historic and ideal stand- point ? And then there are apparently anachronisms as has been pointed out by several critics.* * See Westphal, Les Sources des Pentateugue^ ii. pp. 321 seq. XL THE WITNESS OF THE HISTORY. I. — Discrepancy between the Codes and the History, It must be admitted by the candid investigator of the Scriptures that there is a discrepancy between the Pentateuchal legislation and the history and literature of Israel prior to the exile. It extends through the most important laws of the ritual. It is two-fold : that of silence on the one side, and that of unconscious and uncondemned violation on the other. In the period of the Judges there are many altars besides the altar at Shiloh, where the ark and the tent of meeting were situated. These altars were erected in places conse- crated by Theophanies in accordance with the Covenant code and in violation of the Deuteronomic code and priests' code. The sacrifices were offered by laymen, such as Joshua and Gideon at Ebal (Jos. viii. 30) ; at Mispeh in Perea (Judges xi. 11); at Bochim (Judges ii. 5); at Ophra (vi. 24); at Mispeh in Benjamin (xxi. 8); and elsewhere (Judges xiii. 19). This is a violation of the Deuteronomic code and priest-code, but not of the covenant code. Dr. Green explains these violations thus : " In every such instance sacrifices were offered on the spot by those to whom the Lord thus appeared ; and in the absence (no) THE WITNESS OF THE HISTORY m of such a Theophany, sacrifices were never offered except at Shiloh or in the presence of the ark and by priests of the house of Aaron." This explanation does not satisfy us for these reasons : (r) These transactions are no more than the Covenant-code requires. (2) They indicate a practice identical with that of the patriarchs. The Deu- teronomic code and priest-code required a change in the earlier practice. Why were these two great codes trans- gressed by the judges under the influence of the divine Spirit ? (3) The ark of the Covenant, according to the priest-code, was the permanent place of divine Theoph- any. Why was this forsaken by Yahweh Himself in violation of His own law, and why did He encourage the chiefs of the nation to violate the law? Why did Ydhweh Himself permit His one altar and sanctuary and the legitimate Aaronic priesthood to be so neglected and dishonored ? (4) The statement that the sacrifices were never offered except at Shiloh or in the presence of the ark and by priests of the house of Aaron, except at the times specified, rests upon no other evidence than silence^ which may count equally well on the other side, since that which is mentioned as having been done sev- eral times may be presumed, with no evidence to the contrary, to have been done at other times. Moreover, the silence of the history as to any national habitual wor- ship at Shiloh as the one only legitimate altar in accord- ance with the Deuteronomic code and priest-code, seems rather to count against such a thing. For the neglect of the sanctuary at Shiloh does not seem from the narra- tives extraordinary or abnormal. According to the history of this period the sacrifices are peace-offerings and burnt-offerings of the Covenant code, but no offerings peculiar to the Deuteronomic code, no sin and trespass offerings of the priests* code. 112 THE HEXATEUCH There are simple ceremonial washings, but none of the peculiar Levitical purifications. The Passover was once kept (Josh. V. lo) and an animal feast at Shiloh (Judges xxi. 19), but there is no mention of any of the feasts peculiar to the priests' code. The ark of the Covenant, the tent of meeting, and the Nazarite vow^ are dif- ferent from these things as presented in the priest-code. In the time of Samuel a similar state of affairs is dis- covered. Sacrifices are offered by Samuel, tribal chiefs, and Saul at various places: at Mispeh (i Sam. vii. 5), at Ramah (i Sam. vii. 17), at Gilgal (i Sam. x. 8, xi. 15, XV. 21-33), ^t Zuph (t Sam. ix. 12 sq.)y at Bethlehem (i Sam. xvi. 4-5), at Michmash(i Sam. xiv. 35). The sac- rifices are burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. The puri- fications are by simple washing with water. The only feast mentioned is an annual one at Bethlehem (i Sam, XX. 6). On the other hand, the ark of the Covenant comes into prominence as vindicating its sanctity wher- ever it was carried. It was captured by the Philistines and taken from Shiloh into their own country, but sub- sequently returned and placed under the charge of Le- vitical priests at Kirjath-Jearim, where it remained twenty years (i Sam. v.-vii.). This hill is called the hill of God, and had its high place, whither pilgrimages were made (i Sam. X. 5). Nob also was a holy place where the priests dwelt, having the tent of meeting, shew-bread, and ephod (i Sam. xxi. 9). The Urim and Thummim was also consulted. These are sacred things of the * The Nazarite Samson abstains from wine, and from eatinjj unclean thinp's, and from cutting the hair (Ju. xiii. 4-5), but he uses the jawbone of an ass as a weapon to destroy his enemies (Ju. xiv. 15-20), in violation of the law of the Nazarite in the priests' code, which forbids the Nazarite from coming in contact with a dead body. It is sufficient to read the law of Num. vi. to see that Sara- son was a very different kind of Nazarite from that contemplated in the priests code. THE WITNESS OF THE HISTORY H^ priest-code. They imply a use of these things at this time, but do not imply a use of the priest-code ; for they are in a different form and of a different character from that in which they appear in thepriest>code. Sam- uel and the nation as a whole neglected the ark of the Covenant, the tent of meeting, and the priesthood at Nob, in violation of the priest-code and Deuteronomic code. Dr. Green thus explains these things : " During all this period of sad degeneracy and earnest labors for Israel's reformation, Samuel prayed for the people and pleaded with them and led their worship. He sacrificed at Mis- peh, at Gilgal, at Ramah, at Bethel (possibly), and at Bethlehem, but never once at Kirjath-Jearim. He never assembled the people at or near the house of Abinidab. He never took measures to have the ark present at any assembly of the people or upon any occasion of sacrifice. The Lord had not indicated His will to establish another sanctuary where He might record His name in place of Shiloh, which he had forsaken."* This explanation seems to us invalid for these rea- sons: (i) According to the priest-code the ark of the Covenant was the throne of Yahweh, and it alone gave the place where it rested sanctity. Shiloh was a holy place only so long as the ark was there. Wherever it went it made a holy place. So the hill Kirjath-Jearim became holy and the house of God so long as the ark was there. As we interpret i Sam. x., this place is called the hill of God and house of God, and pilgrimages were made thither for worship by bands of prophets. But if Dr. Green's interpretation of this passage be cor- rect and Bethel is the hill of God, then, according to this passage, it is a place of pilgrimage and worship rather * Moses and the Prophets^ 1882, p. 150. l\4t. THE HEXATEUCH than the place of the ark, a still more flagrant violation of the priest-code. And if we do not find worship at Kirjath-Jearim here, what evidence is there save silence^ that Samuel and the people did not resort thither for worship as well as to other places ? (2) But why did Samuel, the fearless reformer, so neglect the priest-code and Deuteronomic code while the ark remained for twenty years within easy access at Kirjath-Jearim ? Advancing into the period of the Kings we find the worship at the high places continues. David brought up the ark of the Covenant to Zion and erected a new tent for it (2 Sam. vi. 1-17). He also erected an altar, and sacrificed on Mt. Moriah, the site of the temple. The offerings are whole burnt-offerings and peace-offer- ings. The purifications are not indicated ; the feasts are the Sabbaths, new moons, and other festivals not speci- fied. We note the presence of the brazen altar, the tabernacle of Yahweh, the tent of meeting and the shew- bread, of the priest-code, in the Chronicler (i Chron. xv. 17, xvi. 39, 40, xxi. 29, xxiii. 29); but the other writers knew nothing of these things. The erection of the temple of Solomon concentrated the worship of the people at Jerusalem, but did not do away with the worship on high places or bring about a general recognition of the Deuteronomic code. The offerings are confined to whole burnt-offerings and peace- offerings. The Levitical purifications are not mentioned. The Chronicler mentions the celebration of the Sabbath, new moons, and three great feasts, (unleavened bread, feast of weeks, and especially tabernacles 2 Chron. vii. 8-10; viii. 3.); and that the temple and its priesthood were organized in accordance with a plan given by God to David (i Chron. xxviii. 19); but these things are un- known to the prophetic histories. THE WITNESS OF THE HISTORY 115 Taking our stand here by the temple of Solomon and looking back through the previous history to the con- quest, we note a constant transgression of the Deuter- onomic code and priests' code, or rather an apparent unconsciousness of their existence. And yet some of the most essential things of the priest-code are mentioned by the Chronicler. These cannot be explained by the theory of the school of Reuss. The way that Kuenen and Well- hausen meet the difficulty is hardly creditable to their fairness and good judgment. We cannot consent to the denial of the historical sense of the Chronicler for the sake of any theory. We might conceive that the tabernacle was an idealizing of the temple in accordance with the difference between the nomadic life and the settled life of the holy land, if there were any propriety in this idealization under the circumstances. We have a brill- iant example of the power of the imagination of a prophet in such an artistic elaboration and detailed rep- resentation in Ezekiel xl.-xlviii. Ezekiel's imagination goes forth into the future and from the river Chebar to the Holy Land. We cannot therefore deny the possi- bility of such a prophet as Ezekiel constructing an ideal of legislation in the wilderness with all its details. And yet it seems arbitrary for the school of Reuss to make Ezekiel's legislation a programme and that of Exodus an idealization. There is propriety in the representation of Ezekiel in taking the Holy Land as the site of his temple and institution. But there is no propriety in the supposed post-exilic author of the middle books tak- ing the wilderness and the nomadic life as the scene of his legislation. He would rather from the necessities of the case have followed the Deuteronomist and Ezekiel, and have legislated in his programme for the Holy Land. There must be some substantial basis in the his- 116 THE HEXATEUCH tory for his representation. This, however, does not force us to think of the antiquity of our present priests' code, but only of the antiquity of those laws and insti- tutions in it which are ascribed to the earlier times. The Davidic legislation and the organization of the temple service point backward to the simpler Mosaic legislation of which it is an elaboration. The temple of Solomon is easier to explain on the basis of the tabernacle of Moses than the latter on the basis of the former. But notwithstanding all this concentration of worship, the Deuteronomic code is not fulfilled by the doing away of high places and sacrifices thereon. The sacri- fices of sin and trespass-offerings, the purifications and the feasts of the priest-code do not appear. The Da- vidic legislation is thus at an angle with the Penta- teuchal ; being on the one side an advance, and on the other a remarkable falling behind the requirements of the Deuteronomic code and priest-code, which cannot be accounted for if they were taken as the basis of the Davidic constitution, or if they had been in general ob- servance since the conquest. The rupture of the nation after the death of Solomon rendered the observance of the Davidic constitution as well as the priest-code and Deuteronomic code an im- possibility for the northern kingdom. Ancestral worship on high places is conducted by Elijah on Carmel and by others at various altars. In Judali itself it continued as the prevailing mode of worship, save for the spas- modic efforts of Hezekiah and Josiah, until after the exile of the northern kingdom. This worship on high places even survives the destruction of the temple at Jerusa- lem, and we find a company of pilgrims resorting to the ancient sanctuary at Mispeh (Jer. xli. S sq.) after the THE WITNESS OF THE HISTORY 117 overthrow of the nation. Dr. Green explains these things thus : '' The worship on high places was irreg- ular and illegal after the temple was built ; but the fact that they were tolerated by pious princes, who contented themselves with abolishing the emblems and practice of idolatry found there, only shows that they did not do their whole duty — not that the law which had ruled ever since the days of Moses did not exist. They may very easily have persuaded themselves that the spirit of the law was maintained if only the abuses were recti- fied ; that if God was sincerely and piously worshipped in these local sanctuaries, there could not be much harm in suffering them to remain.'* This explanation is not satisfactory. For (i) it is an unlikely supposition that these pious princes so neglected a well-known duty. (2) It assumes that the law ruled from the days of Moses, which is the reverse of the facts. (3) It assumes that these pious princes presumed to please God by neglect- ing the prescriptions of the law and recognizing true worship against the law. Looking now at the testimony of Hebrew Literature with reference to the offerings, the purifications, and the feasts of the priest-code, these are conspicuous by their absence prior to the exile The sin-ofTering first and alone appears in the pre-exilic history in the reform of Hezekiah according to the Chronicler (2 Chron. xxix. 20-24). It is not found in the pre-exilic prophets, or in the entire Psalter save possibly the exilic Ps. xl. ; or in the ethical writings. In pre-exilic writings the trespass- offering is not found. It first occurs in the exilic Isaiah liii. ; the Levitical purifications are not mentioned ; the feasts of the priest-code do not appear.* *With reference to this sin-offering of Hezekiah, one can see no evideivce that it was offered in accordance with the ritual of the sin-offering:, Lev. iv. 13, sg, 118 THE HEXATEUCH What, then, are we to conclude from these facts ? The traditional theory was not designed to account for them. The theory of Reuss was constructed in order to account for them on the ground that the codes did not come into existence until they are recognized in the literature and the history of Israel. The traditional theory is against the facts so far as it is claimed by Marsh, Home, and others, that the Pentateuchal legislation was ob- served in Israel from the conquest to the exile, the in- fractions being only occasional. On the other hand the evidence is invincible from silence and repeated instances of infraction in unconscious innocence and uncondemned, that the Mosaic legislation was not so observed. II. — The witness of the Literature as to non-observance of the Law, There is also abundant evidence from positive state- ments in the literature of the Old Testament that the where the blood must be sprinkled before Yahweh, ajid put some of it upon the horns of the altar of incense and all the rest poured out at the base of the altar of burnt-offering. The ritual seems rather to be similar to that of the burnt- offering (Lev. i.), where the blood is scattered upan the altar (comp 2 Chron. xxix. 22 and Lev. i. 5). We find in (2 Kings xii. 16) in the reign of Joash that sin and trespass money was given to the priests as a fine or compensa- tion for neglected duties, which corresponds with the law of the sin-offering that the flesh goes to the priests, but there is no victim here, and hence no cor- respondence with the priest-code. The attempt of Delitzsch {Pent. Krit. iitu- dien^ p. 9), to find a sin-offering in Hos. iv. 8 (followed by Keil, Com. Ezek. 2d Auf., p. 21), is a novel «_xpIanation of the passage and against the context. The same is true of the passage, Micah vi . 7 . They are properly rendered in the A . V. : *'sinof my people," parallel with '• iniquity," and "sin of my soul," parallel with "my transgression." The supposed sin-offering of the Psalm xl., is amis- taken rendering of a noun which here as everywhere else should be rendered "sin." The trespass-offering of Isaiah liii. 10 is the sacrifice of the Messianic servant consisting of himself. This undoubtedly presupposes a victim in the tres- pass-offering, but inasmuch as all critics agree that the second half of Isaiah is exilic, that passage cannot help us to prove it a pre-exilic trespass-offering. THE WITNESS OF THE HISTORr II9 Legislation of the Pentateuch was not observed in the historic life of the Hebrew people. (i). The prophet Amos (v. 25) represents that during the forty years wanderings, Israel did not offer burnt- offerings and peace-offerings to Yahweh. This corre- sponds with the statement Josh. v. 5, that circumcision had been neglected so that an entire generation had to be circumcised at Gilgal, after the entrance into Pales- tine. Then the Passover was kept which had likewise been neglected. The neglect of those essential things carries with it the non-observance of the entire priests* code, for according to that code an uncircumcised man or one who did not keep the Passover was cut off from the congregation. The period of the Judges is character- ized by the failure to exterminate the Canaanites and by a series of captivities under foreign oppressors, dur- ing which tribal chieftains and local judges assumed the place assigned to the Levitical priesthood and to the kings by the Deuteronomic code. How could there be one sanctuary in the midst of in- dependent, hostile, and warring tribes ? The observance of the Deuteronomic code and priest-code was impos- sible even if they had been in existence. The rally of the nation under Phinehas against Benjamin (Judges xx.), to avenge the wrong of the Levite, was the last until the revival of Samuel, and this is narrated in one of the latest documents of the Book. Indeed, there was no nation as such under Samuel and Saul. It was not until David established his throne in Jerusalem and moved the ark of the Covenant thither that a political and relig- ious unity became possible. Then again we see a great rally of the nation about the ark and the priesthood, but it would have been impossible to overcome the worship on high places and ancestral modes of worship, even if 10(^) THE HEXATEUCH an attempt had been made to execute such legislation as is found in D, H, and P. That which could not be ac- complished by David and Solomon became impossible when Jeroboam tore away the mass of Israel from the house of David. Nor could weakened Judah, under its most pious kings, such as Jehoshaphat and Joash, do more than overcome, in part, idolatry at the high places. It was not until the reforms of Hezekiah and especially of Josiah, that Israel for brief periods could be brought to the acceptance of the Deuteronomic code. (2). And here we meet the statement that the Deuter- onomic code, thrown aside and neglected in the temple, was providentially discovered and brought to light as the basis of the reform. If the Deuteronomic code could thus be lost sight of, how much more the elaborate and techni- cal priests' code if such a code were in existence ? We also meet the statement that the Passover had not been ob- served in accordance with the law from the time of the observance of the Passover by Joshua and Israel on their entrance into the holy land (Josh v.) If such an important institution as the Passover could have been so neglected from the conquest to the days of Josiah, how much more other institutions of Deuteronomy of less funda- mental importance? (3). After a brief period of reform under Josiah, Judah went into exile, and it was not until the return from exile under the more favorable circumstances of a small, compact and select population, that Ezra and Nehemiah could reform the nation on the basis of the priests' code. Here, again (Neh. viii. 17), we have the statement that the feast of tabernacles had not been observed accord- ing to the priest-code from the time of Joshua onward, until that occasion. If this be true of this great feast. THE WITNESS OF THE HISTORY 121 how much more of other feasts and institutions of the priest-code ? (4). If we compare the statement of the Chronicler 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21 with Jer. xxv. 11, 12, and Lev. xxvi. 34 seq., it is impossible to escape the conclusion that the non-observance of the Sabbatical year of the priest- code is assigned as one of the chief reasons of the exile, and that the seventy years of its duration have a certain proportion of retribution in relation to a long-continued series of non-observances. If now we compare the law of the seventh year in the three codes, we find a devel- opment from the more simple provisions of Ex. xxiii. 10, II, through Deut. xv. 1-3, to Lev. xxv. In this latter passage the Sabbatical feasts reach their culmina- tion in the year of Jubilee. The neglect of the seventh year carries with it the neglect of the Jubilee year. In- deed, this elaborate Sabbatical system required for its fulfilment a people and a land in an entirely different situation from that of Israel in the entire period from the conquest to the exile. (5). The most sacred day of the Mosaic calendar was the Day of Atonement. On this day the sin-offering attained its culmination. The sin-offering of the ritual for the new moons and the double sin-offerings for the great feasts reached their climax in the goat for Azazel and the goat for Yahweh — expressing the two sides of expiation by blood and of forgiveness by entire removal. It is here a most singular fact that in the priest-code (Lev. xvi.) we have the institution of the Day of Atone- ment and its peculiar sacrifices, but nowhere in the Pentateuch or elsewhere in the Old Testament any account of the observance in fact. There is no allusion, direct or indirect, to its most solemn services in Hebrew history or prophecy, in sacred song or sentence of wis- 122 THE HEXATEUCH dom. It seems not to have formed a part of the historic life and experience of the people. The omission of the sin-offering in its simpler form shows very clearly that the people of Israel had not in their historical life at- tained the religious experience that was indispensable for an apprehension of the Day of Atonement and its deep religious lessons. The historical realization first appears in the first century before the advent of our Saviour."^ Thus comparing the codes with the history, we must regard them as ideals in an ascending series from the Covenant codes through the Deuteronomic code to the priests'-code, which could not be realized in the historical experience of the nation. If the Covenant code of E was based upon the idea that Israel was a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, and the Deuteronomic code was pervaded with deep spiritual conceptions of faith, love, and absolute devotion to God, and if, in the priests* code, the idea of holiness is wrought out from the holy throne of the ark into all the details of the national life ; then these were beyond the experience of the tribes who entered the Holy Land. In order to its execution, the priests* code required a holy land under the absolute control of a holy people, all the alien nations exterminated, and every impure influence banished. It required a united, homo- geneous people, living in a land under the protection of the continued presence of God in the form of a the- ophany enthroned in the throne room of the Holy of * Prof. Delitzsch discusses this subject in an admirable manner in Zeitschri/t f. Kirchliche IVissenscha/t ^ 1880, IV. We agree with him that the passages, i Kings viii. 27, seq.\ Ezra iii. 1-6; Neh. vlii. 13-17; Ezekiel xlv. 18-20; Zech. vii.-viii., do not necessarily exclude the Day of Atonement, but we must go further and conclude -that the most natural explanation of this silence under the circumstances of these passages is that the Day of Atonement was not observed. THE WITNESS OF THE HISTORY 123 Holies on the cherubic throne above the ark. It re- quired a strict attention to all the details of the life as to personal purity and ministry. The spirituality of the Deuteronomic code in its grand ideal was as far above Israel as a nation, as the discourses of Jesus in John's gospel are above the Church of Christ. The perfect sanctity of the priests' code was as far above the experience of Israel as a nation as our Saviour's Sermon on the Mount, and His parables of the kingdom of heaven are above the experience of our life as Chris- tians to-day. This ideal and prophetic element of the Pentateuchal legislation has been buried under the traditional theories of the Pharisees, which have come down as a yoke of bondage and a dark cloud of supersti- tion to the Christian Church. Stripping these off, we behold in the Pentateuch vastly more than it has been the custom to find there. We find not only the Deuter- onomic prediction of a prophet Hke Moses fulfilled in Jesus Christ, but that the whole law is prophetic of the Gospel. To this the interpretation of the apostles, and especially the epistle to the Hebrews, pointed the Chris- tian Church ; but Christian exegetes have been halting on the threshold and have not entered into this grand tabernacle of prophecy. Do these codes lie at the basis of the history of Israel as ideals to be realized in the experience of the nation, as the gospels lie at the basis of Christian History? This is the theory which was proposed in 1883. But a more thorough study shows that this theory does not account for all the facts of the case. There are evidences of the presence from time to time in the history and liter- ature of certain laws of D before Josiah, and of certain laws of P before Ezra, but not of these codes and writ- ings as such. In general there is silence as to these 124 THE HEXATEUCH codes and there is unconscious infraction of them. The history knows nothing of the code of D before Josiah and of the code of P before Ezra. No attempt was made to enforce the codes of D or P until these dates. There is silence on the one hand, and there is infraction on the other. There seems no room for them in the times of Moses or Joshua or Samuel or David. The providential historical circumstances did not admit of obedience to such elaborate codes before we find them in the history of the times of Josiah and Ezra. A priestly code seems to require its historical origin in a dominant priesthood. A prophetic code seems best to originate in a period when prophets were in the pre-eminence. A theocratic code suits best a prosperous kingdom and a period when elders and judges were in authority. Is it the most natural supposition that the Deuteronomic code remained buried from Moses until Josiah and the priest-code from Moses until Ezra? Is it not more reasonable to suppose that the Deuteronomic code was a recodification of an ancient code discovered in the temple in Josiah's time, and that the priest-code is a recodification of older codes and priestly traditional customs and ritual for the purpose of Ezra's reform ? Would God inspire holy men to codify these codes of legislation centuries before they could be used } The ideal prophetic character of these codes best explains itself when the law like the prophets and the wisdom literature and the psalmody springs out of the historic development of the kingdom of redemption. III. — The Religious Development of Israel, It is clear from the Literature that there is a develop- ment in the worship of Israel as well as in doctrines and morals. The traditional theory is at fault in inter- THE WITNESS OF THE HISTORY 125 preting the history chiefly as a series of apostasies. 1 his pessimistic view of the reHgion of Israel is against the facts of the case. In morals and in faith there is manifest progress. There must have gone along with progress in these things religious progress also. Doc- trinal and ethical progress is indeed impossible without a progress in the religion that underlies and shapes doctrines and morals. The ancient congregation of Israel no more went on declining until the exile than the Christian Church has been declining or will continue to decline till the Second Advent. There were tem- porary declensions, but in every case in order to a new advance. Rather as the Church in her historic life has been appropriating more and more the faith of the gos- pel, so did Israel in her experience appropriate more and more of the law of Moses. Thus we can trace in the history of Israel a religious progress in remarkable ac- cordance with the codes. It is not surprising that the school of Reuss put the Covenant code in the reign of Jehoshaphat. It would be difficult to find it in all respects in the previous history, and there seems to have been a progress in the line of the Covenant code up to the reign of Jehoshaphat and beyond, with a realization of some features only of the laws of the other codes. It seems most probable that the greater code of the Cov- enant represents the Mosaic code, as it had been codi- fied in the northern kingdom of Israel. The Deutero- nomic code is certainly the basis of the reform of Josiah and enters into the literature of the time in the book of Jeremiah and the Books of Kings. The priests* code was certainly the basis of the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah and enters into the literature of the Chronicler. These reforms show successive stages of appropriation of the Pentateuchal legislation. Was there not a development 126 THE HEXATEUCn of that legislation in successive codifications in order to facilitate that appropriation ? IV. — The Histories and the Codes. The fact that the author of Kings is familiar only with Deuteronomy and the author of Chronicles with the priest-code, does not of itself prove that the priest-code was not in existence at the time of the compiler of Kings, but only that it was not at hand ; it was not known to him or used by him. But if it were in existence why was it not discovered and brought to light by the pious Josiah, Jeremiah and their associates? Did they not search the temple where if anywhere such a priest-code would be found ? They certainly were anxious to obey God's law. The theory of the school of Reuss that the Chronicler so greatly colors the history from his point of view as to falsify it, cannot be justified. It was natural that each should examine the history from the point of view of the code most familiar to him ; and that the author of Kings and the Chronicler should therefore occupy different planes of judgment. We could not reasonably demand that they should be colorless. These differences do not show any intentional misinterpretation on the part of either of them, or that the Chronicler undertook to invent the history. But it suggests the natural supposition that the priests' code was subsequent in origin to the Book of Kings. V. — Ezekiel and the Codes, The relation of the code of Ezekiel (xl.-xlviii.) to the priest's code is justly regarded as the key of the situa- tion. The school of Reuss represents the code of Ezekiel as designed for the returned exiles ; and that it was a preparation in development for the priests' code. The THE WITNESS OF THE HISTORY 127 intermediate position of the code of Ezekiel between the Deuteronomic code and the priests* code is in dispute ; but if it be intermediate it is no more necessary in this case, than in the others, to explain the fact by a historical development of the one into the other. But rather the changes are in the nature of an idealization, Ezekiel's construction of the temple, the division of the holy land among the tribes, the wonderful river of life, and tree of life, mingle, in a most magnificent prophetic ideal of the imagination, the representations of the garden of Eden, the temple of Solomon, the division of the land at the conquest, and the great works of architecture on the Euphrates, — in their combination, impossible of realiza- * tion in fact. When the offerings and feasts of Ezekiel are considered from this point of view they seem to be intentionally diverse from those of the Mosaic legisla- tion in Deuteronomy, and no less incapable of actual realization. It is not natural to think of them as a legal programme for the restoration. This whole legislation of Ezekiel is a symbol, tremendous in extent and in power; and it is to be compared with the symbols of the Resurrection (xxxvii. 1-14), the union of the two sticks (xxxvii. 15-28), the marvellous growth of the cedar twig (xvii. 22-24), and the battle with Gog and Magog (xxxviii.-ix.) ; for Ezekiel is the master of symbolical prophecy. On the other hand it is worthy of note, that Ezekiel is in very close connection with the code of Holiness (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.). This section has certain features peculiar to itself, as we have seen. Graf, Kayser, and others ascribed it to the prophet Ezekiel himself, Horst re- garded it as a codification of more ancient laws by Eze- kiel prior to the composition of his own code. Kloster- mann calls it the '' Heiligkeitsgesetz!' It is now agreed 128 THE HEXATEUCH that it is a distinct code. We designate it by code of Holiness (H). Reuss, Wellhausen, and Kuenen nnake this code later than Ezekiel, but prior to the rest of the Priests* code. Questions of relative priority and dependence are among the most difficult in the field of Higher Criticism. Ezekiel's resemblance to it in many respects implies a knowledge of its legislation whether he knew it in its present form of codification or not. It is probable that Ezekiel knew of it, but it is difficult to prove the existence of the code prior to Ezekiel. We have now gone over the arguments relied upon by the school of Reuss for their theory of the development of the Hexateuch. These sustain the theory so far as the codification of the legislation in its present literary forms is concerned ; but not so far as to disprove earlier tradi- tional Mosaic legislation and earlier Mosaic codes which have been used by holy men with historic reverence and under the influence of the divine Spirit in their codiBca- tion of ancient laws and their composition of the historic documents into which the codes were taken up. XIII. THE MORE RECENT DISCUSSIONS. The development hypothesis of Reuss soon gained the mastery over the older theories of the composition of the Hexateuch and assumed various forms in the dif- ferent schools of criticism. The discussion of the devel- opment hypothesis of the school of Reuss was opened in Great Britain by W. Robertson Smith in his article on the Bible in the Encyclopcedia Britannica, Smith fol- lowed the school of Reuss with great boldness and thoroughness. He was opposed by Principal Douglas of Glasgow, who advocated the traditional theory. W. Robertson Smith, in defence, delivered his lectures on the Old Testament in the Jewish Church, and the Pi'ophets of Israel "which, have exerted a vast influence in English- speaking lands. Charges of heresy were made against him before the Free Presbytery of Aberdeen and the case was carried by appeal to the General Assembly of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland which decided in his favor so far as his ministerial right, to hold such views under the Westminster Confession, was concerned ; but deprived him of his professorial position at Aberdeen, in order to the peace and harmony of the Church. The contest in this case gained liberty of opinion in Great Britain. His teacher, Prof. A. B. Davidson of Edin- (129) 130 THE HEXATEUCH burgh, who held essentially the same views, was undis- turbed, and the General Assembly of the same Church, May, 1892, chose Dr. George Adam Smith, who holds similar views, to be the successor of Principal Douglas at Glasgow. The discussion was opened in America by an article by the author * in the Presbyterian Review in 1881, and it was continued in a series of articles in the same Review. He was sustained by Prof. Henry P. Smith of Cincinnati and by Prof. Francis Brown of New York. Prof. W. Henry Green of Princeton defended the tra- ditional theory and was sustained by Drs. A. A. Hodge and F. L. Patton of Princeton. Prof. S. Ives Curtiss of Chicago and Prof. Willis J. Beecher of Auburn took a middle position. The discussion was closed by articlesf by Prof. F. L. Patton and by the author if in 1883. Since the close of that discussion Profs. Bissell and Osgood have supported the traditional theory ; but Profs. Gast, W. R. Harper, George F. Moore, J. P. Peters and many others have advanced to the support of the analysis of the Hexateuch. Pres. W. R. Harper has carried on a long discussion with Prof. W. Henry Green in the He- braica^ going over the greater part of the Hexateuch. The school of Reuss has been strongly opposed by Dillmann, Baudissin, and Delitzsch in their more radical conclusions. These have been strengthened by younger scholars such as Strack and Kittel. These all make a very careful analysis of the documents, are agreed as to the order of development of EJ and D, but think that the legislation of P is in the main pre-exilic and that a considerable portion of it very ancient. They magnify the amount of ancient and original documents used by P. * " Right ^ Duty, and Limits of Biblical CriticismJ*^ i- Critical Study of the History of the Higher Criticism. X The Dogmatic Aspect of Pentatetichal Criticism, THE MORE KECEMT D1S0US81ONS J[3X The school of Reuss agree with Dillmann as to the date of Deuteronomy, but differ from him as to the date of the priest's narrative. They hold it to be post-exilic, but Dillmann maintains that it was pre-exilic, and that it was written in the kingdom of Judah in the ninth cen- tury B.C. Dillmann in this has measurably advanced in the direction of the school of Reuss, but he stoutly re- sists their main thesis. Dillmann also differs from the school of Reuss as to the relation of JE, They make J the earlier document, but Dillmann holds that E was written in the northern kingdom in the first half of the ninth century B.C., and that J was written in the south- ern kingdom not earlier than the middle of the eighth century. There is also difference of opinion as to the work of editing the documents. Dillmann denies that E and J were first compacted and then D added to it and finally P. He holds that P, JE and J were three in- dependent documents, and that they were compacted at one editing just before the exile, and that during the exile they were attached to Deuteronomy. One of the most important and successful parts of the analysis of Dillmann is his work upon that section of the priest-code, which he names the Sinai Code (S). This includes the code of Holiness in Leviticus, and other parts of the priestly legislation which share its peculiari- ties. Kuenen recognizes this as an earlier stage of P, and distinguishes it as P\ But Dillmann holds that it is later than P, although it contains many laws of great antiquity. These had been handed down in the circle of priests and were codified shortly before the exile, pos- sibly even before the composition of Deuteronomy. This code was, however, revised during the exile and en- larged. Other laws were also collected during the exile apart from this codex. These together with S 132 THE HEXATEUCH were incorporated in JEDP by an editor of the priestly circle among the exiles. This view of Dillmann is also an approximation to the school of Reuss, for it makes a considerable portion of the priest-code later than the priestly narrative, and thus removes many of the objec- tions to the older view of Ewald, De Wette, and others, that the priestly narrative was the fundamental writing of the Pentateuch. We think that Dillmann has done great service in the analysis of the Sinai code, but we cannot agree with him in his view of the date of it, and of its relation to the priests' narrative. Here is a field where, as Dillmann admits, the difficulties are very great. It is reserved for future investigators to solve this problem. It seems to us that Dillmann has shown that many of these laws of code S are in the very ancient form of the Pentade, and that the priest-code is really a complex of laws of different origin. Baudissin* has rendered a real service to the Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch by his investigation of the genesis and the history of Priesthood in the Old Testa- ment. He takes his stand with DiUmann, Delitzsch and Kittel over against the school of Reuss, and yet he is entirely independent in his methods, and has not a few opinions of his own. He holds that E was the most ancient of the documents. This was united with J by an editor who compacted them so tightly that it is often difficult to separate them. In the priestly document, he distinguishes P' and P'' by differences in their views of the ministry of the Levites. He thinks that the legis- lation of P is the result of a long legislative development in priestly circles at Jerusalem. From time to time separate codes of priestly rules were written down. In * Die Geschichte des Altlestamenilichen Priesterthums . Leipzig. THE MORE RECENT DISCUSSIONS I33 the first half of the seventh century, shortly before the reign of Josiah, a priest collected these, with the excep- tion of the code of Holiness(Lev.xvii.-xxvi.), into a larger work with historical and genealogical frames. This doc- ument was a private code for the priesthood at Jerusa- lem. It elaborated the priestly legislation far beyond existing circumstances. The ideal in it is so prominent that many of its laws have never been realized in fact. The private priestly character of this document is the reason why it was unknown to the author of the Deuter- onomic code, or disregarded by him. For the author of D wrote a people's book in view of the conditions and circumstances of his times. This code was composed shortly after P, and reflects the religion and doctrines of the times of Jeremiah. When discovered in the temple, it became the basis for the reform of Josiah. But the priests' code did not become a public code until after the exile, in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah. The code of Holiness remained as a document by itself until late in the exile, when it was incorporated in P. Ezekiel used it as his favorite law book, while it was a code by itself. Baudissin argues that the neglect to use P by D, together with the use of J E by D, implies, not the non- existence of P, but only that at that time JE was a document by itself. He aims to prove the pre-exilic conoposition of P, by showing that the legislation of Ezekiel is an advance upon it in several particulars, such as the limitation of the priesthood to the line of Zadok ; the slaying of sacrificial victims by Levites instead of by the offerers as in P ; the partial substitution of the prince for the high priest and the ignoring of the latter ; the enhanced sanctity of the priesthood, and the ex- treme precautions for guarding the approaches to the divine presence. He also shows an advance of the 134 THE HEXATEUCH Chronicler, who writes in the late Persian period or early- Greek period with the use of older documents from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, beyond P ; and that the legislation of P does not suit the circumstances of the new community in Jerusalem at the Restoration in many important respects. He does not hesitate to re- gard P and D as written at about the same time. The documents were compacted during the last years of the exile by the Deuteronomist, who united P with JE and then used D as the closing legislation. Baudissin thinks that this order that was followed by the Deuteronomist who edited them, favors the priority of P to D. Bau- dissin agrees with all critics in the analysis of the Hex- ateuch, except that in a few cases he suggests im- provements and modifications. The difference between him and other critics is in the date of the document P, and the time and method of compacting the four great documents. He adds to the investigation of Dillmann important materials for that work which is so greatly needed, the detailed analysis of the document P; for, after the separation of the code of Holiness, to which all critics are agreed, there still remain different layers of legislation which must be analyzed and arranged in historical order before the problem of the Hexateuch can be entirely solved. Cornill, on the other hand, works in the lines of the school of Reuss. He goes into a detailed analysis of E, J, D and P, and throws fresh light upon their sources. He shows that D uses J E, but knows nothing of P. He regards E as an Ephraimitic writing, and places E' in the reign of Jeroboam II., about 750 B.C., and E'^ soon after the exile of the Northern Kingdom, J is a Judaic writing, originating in its different stages be- tween the reign of Jehoshaphat, 850 B.C., and 625 B.C. P THE MORE RECENT DISCUSSIONS I35 is an exilic law-book. A very important part of Cor- nill's work is the special consideration of a number of independent documents, which the great documents have taken up into themselves as older sources, and which have come in through the redactors, such as the ancient poems, the story of Balaam, Genesis xiv., the Covenant Code, the Code of Holiness, etc. The Cov- enant Code he regards as older than E, coming from the ninth century ; the Code of Holiness, as a prepara- tion for the Priest's Code. J and E were first com- bined by Rj ; then these were combined with D by Rd. JED were then compacted with P by Rp ; but ad- ditions of various kinds were made to our Pentateuch even as late as the third century B.C. A very important part of the work of Cornill is his ef- fort to trace the documents of the Hexateuch, JED, through the prophetic historians, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. Budde had already done valuable work in this department of investigation. If this theory can be worked out with any degree of certainty, then the date of the documents will speedily be determined within quite narrow limits. Here is a splendid field for Higher Criti- cism, in which the results will be of immense importance. Canon S. R. Driver, in his invaluable work,* has massed the evidence for the analysis of the Hexateuch from language and style beyond any previous writer. He is not as strong in the historical and theological evi- dence, although he makes valuable contributions in these departments also. His analysis of J E from P, and of H from P, and D'' from D, is masterly ; but he halts in his separation of E from J. The date of Deuter- S>-^-^- onomy is not precisely determined, but it is said to be not later tifian the reign of Manasseh. ** All things con- * TAe Literature of the Old Testame7it. 136 THE HEXATEUCH sidered, a date in the early centuries of the monarchy would seem not to be unsuitable both for J and for E ; but it must remain an open question whether both may not in reality be earlier." " The laws of H were ar- ranged in their present parenetic frame-work by an au- thor who was at once a priest and a prophet, probably towards the closing years of the monarchy." " These arguments are cogent, and combine to make it probable that the conipleted Priests* Code is the work of the age subsequent to Ezekiel. When, however, this is said, it is very far from being implied that all the in- stitutions of P are the creation of this age. The contra- diction of the pre-exilic literature does not extend to the zvJiolc of the Priests' Code indiscriminately. The Priests' Code embodies some elements with which the earlier literature is in harmony, and which indeed it presupposes: it embodies other elements with which the same literature is in conflict, and the existence of which it even seems to preclude. This double aspect of the Priests' Code is reconciled by the supposition that the chief ceremonial institutions of Israel are in their ^^^ was made, not from the original, but mainly from the Latin and German, being based on the Zurich Bible." — {The Psabns, vol. i., p. i88.) And thus for centuries this compilation has been sung all over Christendom as if it were a portion of a Psalm of David. In view of such facts as these, is it not time that these American professors should have scholarship sufficient to deter them from calling the compiler's work in our Hexateuch a piece of patchwork? As Eichhorn said at the beginning, the documentary- hypothesis improves the evidence for the fidelity of the records. The editor of the Pentateuch, instead of writ- ing a new narrative and making a new code, collects and compacts the several narratives and codes. He does it not by patchwork, but by the skilful use of the docu- ments. Sometimes they are given side by side, some- times they are interwoven, sometimes they are entirely worked over, and the pieces are skilfully seamed to- gether. The work of the inspired editors is more import- ant for us than the work of the original writers. The anti-critics find fault with the differences of the critics in certain verses and sections, and neglect to see the won- derful concord of the critics in the analysis as a whole. But the disagreements of the critics are where they must be from the nature of the case, namely, in the seams, where the material of the different narrators is wrought over in order to make the narrative harmonious. The differences do not exist to any extent elsewhere. This is rather an indirect evidence of the success of the analysis, and is not a valid argument against it. Dr. Green's favorite method of argumentation is to throw the critics of the last two centuries into an indis- criminate mass, and then point to their discord as an THE MORE RECENT DISCUSSIONS I43 evidence of the unsoundness of their conclusion. This is the method of an advocate, and not of a scholar. If the critics are ranged in their historic order, it will be manifest that the differences are chiefly between the critics of the several different stages of the work of criti- cism. As the work of criticism has advanced since the time of Astruc, the concord of critics has increased steadily, and differences have disappeared with every fresh effort. This is as it ought to be, from the very nature of the case. It is so in all science, in all* search after truth. The truth-loving scholars advance step by step, one after another, and remove one difficulty after another as they advance. The differences among the critics in the analysis of the Hexateuch are surprisingly few. We now have accessible to us the analyses of Dillmann, of Kuenen, of Wellhausen, and of Reuss, of Driver, and of Kautzsch, and they are essentially agreed. These are some of the scholars who hold to the critical analysis of the Hexateuch. Dillmann, Kleinert, Schrader, and Strack of Berlin, Kittel of Breslau, Kautzsch and Meyer of Halle, Noldeke, Budde and Nowack of Strassburg, Baudissin and Jiilicher of Mar- burg, Stade of Giessen, Konig of Rostock, Bathgen and Giesebrecht of Greifswald, Schultz, Wellhausen, Smend of Gottingen, Socin, Guthe, Fred. Delitzsch and Buhl of Leipzig, Merx and Lemme of Heidelberg, Cor- nill of Kdnigsberg, Schiirer, Klostermann and Breden- kamp of Kiel, Kamphausen of Bonn, Grill of Tubingen, Kohler of Erlangen, Hommel of Munich, Siegfried and Stickel of Jena, Orelli, Duhm and Marti of Basle, Oettli of Bern, Ryssel of Zurich, Montet of Geneva, Vuilleumier and Gautier of Lausanne, Volck of Dorpat, Bruston and Montet of Montaubon, Reville, Carriere, 144 THE HEXATEUCH Vernes, Darmstetter, of Paris ; Castelli of Florence, Tiele and Oort of Leiden, Valeton of Utrecht, Wildeboer of Groningen, De La Saussaye and Knappert of Amster- dam, Lotz and Floigl of Vienna, Cheyne, Driver and Cooke of Oxford, Kirkpatrick, W. Robertson Smith, Ryle and Stanton of Cambridge, Drummond and Car- penter of the Manchester New College, Davison of Richmond, Whitehouse of Cheshunt, Duff of the York- shire Congregational College, Davidson of Edinburgh, Kennedy of Aberdeen, Adam Smith and Robertson of Glasgow, Wright and Spurrell of London, Harper and Addis of Melbourne. On what other subject can you find such agreement among specialists the world over ? Where are the professors in the Old Testament department in the universities and colleges in Europe, who hold a dif- ferent view? They cannot be found. Is it credible that all these specialists should be in error in their own departments, and that a feAV American Hebrew professors should have the right of it ? Even in our country we may point to Toy and Lyon of Harvard, Ladd and Curtis of Yale, Peters and Jastrow of the University of Pennsyl- vania, W. R. Harper, Hirsch and S. Ives Curtiss of Chicago, Haupt of Johns Hopkins, George Moore of Andover, Gast of Lancaster, Henry P. Smith of Lane, Francis Brown of Union, Bartlett, Batten and Kellner of the Episcopal Divinity schools, Schmidt and Brown of the Baptist schools, and many others who agree with them, but who have not yet published their conclusions. Such men, sustained as they are by the unanimous voice of the Hebrew scholars of Europe, cannot be overcome by such appeals to popular prejudice as have thus far constituted the staple of all the arguments against them. In the field of scholarship the question is settled. It THE MORE RECENT DISCUSSIONS I4.5 only remains for the ministry and people to accept it and adapt themselves to it. The evidence sustaining the analysis of the Hexa- teuch and the late date of the composition of some of its documents, and the weight of scholarly authority which accepts it, are so great that it is difficult to see how any candid mind can resist them. That there are a few professorial Hebrew scholars who still resist them, is due, as it appears, solely and alone to ^^/r^'^r/ dogmatic considerations. They think it necessary to defend the traditional theory in order (i) to conserve their doctrine of the inerrancy of Holy Scripture, (2) to protect their doctrine that only a well-known prophet like Moses can write an inspired book, and (3) to secure their interpre- tation of the New Testament that Jesus Christ has decided this matter for us and that therefore the veracity and divinity of Jesus Christ are imperilled unless we recognize his testimony as decisive, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. They, holding these dogmatic views, are incapable of being influenced by any arguments of criticism or by any weight of authority however great. The science of the Higher Criticism is resisted by spec- ulative dogma and the supposed authority of Jesus, in precisely the same way that the other sciences have been resisted, each in its turn, by the same class of minds. XIII. THE ARGUMENT FROM BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. There are a number of arguments from the field of Biblical theology which guide to the determination of the dates of the documents of the Hexateuch. (i). Divine revelation in dreams is frequent in E (Gen. xxviii. 12-15; xxxvii. 5-10; xl. 5-8; xli. 1-15; xlii. 9.) It is mentioned in D, Deut. xiii. 2, 4, 6 ; but is not known to J. Revelation in the ecstatic state is mentioned by E and J, but P knows nothing of dreams or visions. He thinks of a direct communi- cation by God to the soul of the prophet. Does not this indicate a later stage of reflection ? (2). There is a different conception of theophanies in these writers. E narrates frequent appearances of the theophanic angel of God. J reports appearances of the theophanic angel of Ya/nveh. These theophanic ap- pearances are mentioned in the Ephraimitic and Judaic documents of the prophetic histories. But neither D nor P knows of such a theophanic angel. When God reveals Himself, in the Ephraimitic documents, He speaks to Moses face to face, and Moses sees the form of God in the pillar of God standing at the door of his tent. In the great theophany granted to Moses in the Judaic document Ex. xxxiii. 20-23, Moses is permitted (146) THE ARGUMENT FROM BIBLICAL THEOLOGY I47 only to see the departing form of God, and it is repre- sented that it would be death to see God's face. In Deuteronomy it is said that the voice of God was heard, but His form was not seen. In the priestly docu- ment it is the light and fire of the glory of God which always constitutes the theophany. How was it possible for the same author to give four such different accounts of the methods of God's appearance to Moses and the people ? * (3). There is a different conception of miracles. The miracles of E were always wrought by means of some external instrument. The chief of these is the rod of God, which is used by Moses in working the plagues of Egypt (Ex. vii. 17; ix. 2^a \ x. 13; xiv. 16) and in the victory over Amalek (Ex. xvii. 8-13). A branch of a tree works a miracle at Mara (Ex. xv. 25), a brazen ser- pent was erected on a pole for healing (Num. xxi. 8-9), and the seven sacred trumpets were used at Jericho (Jos. vi. 5). The miracles of J were wrought without any instruments, by the wind (Ex. x. 13^^, 19; xiv. 21^) by the hand of God (Ex. iii. 20; ix. 3, 15) ; by his strong hand (Ex. iii. 19; xiii. 3, 9, 14; xxxii. 11); by com- mand (Ex. iv. 2-9) ; and without human mediation (Ex. iv. 1-9; viii. 17-19; xvi. 27-30; Num. xi. 18-33), and before the ark (Jos. iii. 15-17). The miracles of D were wrought by the strong hand and the outstretched arm of Jahveh without human mediation (Deut. iv. 34 ; Jos. iv. 24). They are gifts of Jahveh (Dt. viii. 3-4, 15-16 ; xxix. 1-4). The miracles of P were wrought by the finger of God (Ex. viii. 15), the hand of God (Ex. vii. 4-5). Aaron's rod takes the place of Moses' rod of E (Ex. vii. 9, 19-20; viii. 1-3, 12-13 ; Num. xvii. 21-25; * See Appendix VIH, 148 THE IlEXATEUCH XX. 8-17). A handful of ashes was once used (Ex. ix. 8-12). The miracle.s of the narratives of the Hexateuch are referred to in such a way in the Psalter and the prophets as to give evidence of value as to their composition. The Egyptian Plagues. E. J. (and P. Psalm cv. Psalm Ixxviii.) I. Bloody wa- I. Bloody wa- I. Bloody wa- 2. Bloody wa- ter. ter. ter. ter. 2. Frogs. 2. Frogs. 3- Frogs. 3- Swarms of insects. 3- Lice or gnats. 4. Swarm of in- sects and 4. Pestilence. 4. Ulcers. gnats. 2. Hail. 5. Hail. 5. Hail. 3. Locusts. 6. Locusts. 6. Locusts. 4. Darkness. I. Darkness. 5. Death of 7- Death of 5- Death of 7. Death of First-bom. First-born. First-born. First-born. Psalm Ixxviii. mentions the seven plagues of J, the manna and quails of J, and the miracles of cleaving the sea and the water from the rock of E ; but none of the miracles of P. It seems evident that when this psalm was composed J and E had not been compacted, else why were the plagues of E omitted ? P was appar- ently unknown, for why should all its miracles be ig- nored ? On the otlicr hand, Psalm cv. gives the plagues of Egypt from the combined narratives of E, J and P, the water from the rock of E, and the quails and manna THE ARGUMENT FROM BIBLICAL THEOLOGY J 49 of J, showing that when this psahn was written our present Pentateuch had been compacted. Ps. cvi. gives the v/ater from the rock and the quails from the nar- rative of P, and the crossing of the sea from J, showing a preference for the story of P. Ps. Ixxiv. mentions the cleaving of the sea and of the rock of E, and the drying of the Jordan of D, making it evident that the Psalm was written after the composition of D. The reference to the crossing of the Red Sea in the prophets Is. X. 26] xi. 15-16; the exilic Isaiah xliii. 16, 1. 2, 11. 10; the earlier, Zech. x. 11, are all based on JE, making it probable that P was unknown to them. (4). There is a difference in the doctrine of the Cove- nants. E knows of two covenants, the one with Israel at Horeb (Ex. xxiv. 3-8), the other at Shechem (Jos. xxiv. 25). J reports a series of promises to our first parents and the patriarchs, but only two covenants, the one with Abraham (Gen. xv. 18), the other with Israel at Sinai (Ex. xxxiv. 10-27). D reports a covenant with Israel at Horeb, agreeing with E (Dt. iv. 13), and a sec- ond covenant in the land of Moab, unknown to the other writers (Dt. xxviii. 69, xxix. 20). P gives a series of great covenants : (i) the covenant with Noah and its sign the rainbow (Gen. ix. 1-17) ; (2) the covenant with Abraham and its sign circumcision (Gen. xvii.) ; (3) the covenant with Israel at Sinai and its sign the Sabbath (Ex. vi. 4, xxxi. 16-17); (4) the covenant with Phinehas (Num. XXV. 12-13).^ * The terms used on these documents are very different. ri^l3 ni3 is used 9 times in JED, but not in P, who uses n^n D''pn [establish a covenant] 8 times, a phrase used elsewhere only in Ez. xvi. 60, 62, and in the sense of con- firming a covenant Lev. xxvi. 9 (H) and Dt. viii. 18. So also " remember the covenant " is used only by P 4 and H Lev. xxvi. 42, 45, Ez. xvi. 60, i Chron. xvi. 15, and in the late Psalms cv. 8, cvi. 45, cxi. 5. The phrases '• everlasting 150 THE HEXATEUCH (5). In I Sam. ix. 9, it is said : " Beforetime in Israel when a man went to inquire of God, thus he said, Come and let us go to the seer : for he that is now called a Prophet was before time called a Seer." This is an histor- ical note by the editor of Samuel, stating that the Nabi of his time was anciently called a Roeh. This passage is an explanation of the fact that in this document Samuel was called a seer. The most natural interpretation of it is, that prior to the time of Samuel, and for some time afterwards, Nabi was not used. How then shall we ex- plain the usage of Nabi with reference to Abraham and Moses in the Hexateuch ? Are we justified in suppos- ing that the writers of these documents, who use this term in the Hexateuch, wrote subsequent to Samuel and after the term Nabi had supplanted Roeh ? It is noteworthy that P does not use this term, doubt- less because he was cognizant of this historical fact, writing with this note of Samuel before him. There ap- pears to be a growth in the conception of a prophet. In ancient times the prophets were called ^' seers J' from the ecstatic state in which they prophesied. The term " man of God'' then came into use in the times of Elijah, and is commonly used in the Ephraimitic sources of Kings. At a later date *' Nabi " was used to indicate prophets of a higher order who were the preachers or spokesmen of Yahweh. The fact that E J D use this term would indicate that these documents were not composed before the age of Elijah. (6). The doctrine of the divine Spirit is not found in E. The Spirit of God in Gen. xli. 38 is the spiritual en- ergy in man imparted by God to enable him to act. The covenant" and "covenant of peace" are also confined to P in the Hexateuch. The former was not earlier than Jeremiah, except in the poetic passag;e 2 Sam. •jcxiii. 5 ; the latter, elsewhere only in Ezekiel and the exilic Isaiah. THE ARGUMENT FROM BIBLICAL THEOLOGY l^l divine Spirit in J rests upon Moses and the elders, en- dowing them with the power to prophesy in the ecstatic state (Num. xi. 25-29). The only other passage in which there is reference to the Spirit of God is Gen. vi. 3, where it refers to the spirit breathed into man by God, according to Gen. ii. 7. This doctrine of the Spirit, as coming upon men and endowing them with gifts of prophecy and government, is common in the earlier nar- ratives of the prophetic historians and the earlier proph- ets. But P gives a doctrine of the divine Spirit which is vastly higher. In Ex. xxxi. 3 the divine Spirit fills the architect, who constructed the tabernacle and its furniture, with wisdom and understanding, and in Gen. 1. 2, the divine Spirit hovers over the primeval abyss with creative energy. Such an exalted doctrine of the divine Spirit is found elsewhere in the literature no earlier than the second Isaiah. The poem which contains it must be of late date. (7). The attributes of God are only indirectly taught in E, but in J they appear in several important pas- sages, as Ex. xxxiv. 6-y, where the divine mercy is un- folded, and the song Deut. xxxii. 3-4, where the divine righteousness is set forth, each in a number of synony- mous terms. It is worthy of mention that the phrase* "mercy and faithfulness " is only in the Judaic writer in the Hexateuch, both as applied to men and to God ; elsewhere chiefly in the Psalter and Proverbs. The doctrine of Holiness is characteristic of H and P. As Driver says of H : " The principle which determines most conspicuously the character of the entire section is that of holiness — partly ceremonial, partly moral — as a quality distinguishing Israel, demanded of Israel by * now non. 152 THE HEXATEUCH Jehovah (Lev. xix. 2 ; xx. 7, 8, 26 ; xxi. 6-8 ; xv. 23 ; xxii. c, 16, 32), and regulating the Israelite's life. Holi- ness is, indeed, a duty laid upon Israel in other parts of the Pentateuch ; but while elsewhere it appears merely as one injunction among many, it is here insisted on with an emphasis and frequency which constitute it the lead- ing motive of the entire section. In consequence of this very prominent characteristic, the present group of chap- ters received from Klostermann in 1877, the happily chosen title of Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, or * The Law of Holiness,' which it has since retained."* The segholate noun Qodesh is used in the song of the Red Sea, Ex. xv. 11, of the holiness of God, where it is a synonym of majesty and exaltation, and of the place of the divine habitation Ex. xv. 13. J E uses it of the place of a theophany, Ex. iii. 5, Jos. v. 15, and of consecrated spoil, Jos. vi. 19. D uses it of the heavenly abode of Yahweh, Dt. xxvi. 15, and of consecrated things, Dt. xii. 26, xxvi. 13. But H and P use it about 217 times, and especially in a large number of phrases peculiar to them. The adjectivef '* Holy " is used in E of Israel as a holy nation, Ex. xix. 6 ; and of God as a holy God, Jos. xxiv. 19; by D also of Israel as a holy people 6 times; of the camp of Israel as holy, Dt. xxiii. 15. But H and P use it of the holy place 8 times, of the holy people 7 times, of the holy priesthood 5 times, of holy water once, of the Nazarite twice, and above all of Yah- weh's words, " I am holy," 5 times. Glory:j: is used in JE of the honor and gloryof men,Gen. xxxi. I ; xlv. 13 ; xlix. 6 ; Num. xxiv. 1 1 ; and of the glory of God in the theophany, Ex. xxxiii. 18, 22 (J), Dt. v. 21 ; * Literature of the O. T., p. 44. f '« Holy," K^np. t" Glory," nUO. THE ARGUMENT FROM BIBLICAL THEOLOGY I53 and of the glory or honor due to Yahweh, the God ot Israel, Jos. vii. 19. In the mixed narrative Num. xiv. 21-22 (ascribed by Dillmann to R), the manifested glory of God is presented in an oath of God which reappears in Ps. Ixxii. But in P this word becomes characteristic. It is used twice of the glory of the high priest's gar- ments, Ex. xxviii. 2,40 ; and 13 times of the theophanic glory in some form of light and fire. It is noteworthy that it is used in Ezekiel 17 times in the same sense, showing that a close relation exists between Ezekiel and P. (8). There are striking differences in the doctrine of sin. Sin is mentioned in E only in general terms and in connection with special acts of evil-doing. J unfolds the doctrine of sin in a graphic manner from the point of view of personal relation to God. Evil is first presented to man in the divine prohibition of the tree of knowl- edge, then in the animal serpent, used by the evil intel- ligence who deceives the woman. The attractions of the sensuous good excites her desire, she partakes of the evil fruit, she tempts her husband and he sins with her. They both experience the blush of shame, they fear God and hide from His presence. When called to ac- count they excuse themselves and blame others. Sin knocks as a wild beast at the door of Cain's heart ; once admitted it rages in anger, revenge and murder. Sin develops in the race through the intercourse of evil spirits with the daughters of mankind, until mankind be- comes totally corrupt. Sin unfolds in Babylon in a cen- tralization of power and tyranny, and in Sodom and its sisters in sins of uncleanness until they become exceed- ingly wicked. Sin is a forsaking God, a violating his covenant, and a whoring after other gods. D conceives of sin as turning away from God, rebel- 154: THE HEXATEUCH ling against Him with a stiff neck, murmuring against Him and tempting Him. P conceives of sin chie^y as a violation of the law ; he does not attempt to describe its origin or develepment. He distinguishes technically between sin as an error, and as high-handed transgression. He represents sin in the use of a characteristic term,* both, noun and verb, to act treacherously, and treachery, 13 times, which term is un- known to the other narrators, is not found in the pro- phetic histories, but in Dan. ix. 7, Ezekiel 7 times and elsewhere chiefly in the Chronicler. This characteristic use of such a late word favors the exilic or post-exilic origin of P. It should be noticed here that H has important phrases "to bear sin "or ''his sin" or *' their sin " or ** iniquity " or "their iniquity " or " iniquity of another." These are used chiefly by H. Elsewhere in the Hex- ateuch only by P. Ezekiel frequently uses them. Elsewhere they are seldom found, but compare the exilic Isaiah liii. 12. (9). The divine judgment of sin is commonly expressed in the Hexateuch by hardening the heart. But the doc- uments have different expressions for it.f (10). The doctrine of redemption in E is simply re- demption from evil and not from sin. The only refer- ence to the latter subject is in the warning at the close of the covenant code lest they should not be forgiven, Ex. xxiii. 21. In J it is the nature of God to forgive t E uses the term ^)> p^fPI Ex. iv. 21, x. 20, 27; also D2 in Jos. xi. 20; D uses nn nti'pn and 22^ Y^^ Dt. ii. 30 ; J uses the term n^ ^UDH Ex. viii. II, 28, ix. 3/1, X. I ; 2? 122 Ex. vii. 14, ix. 7 ; P uses 2? n^\>r\ Ex. vii. 3, and 2^ pTH Ex. vii. 13, 22, viii. 15, ix. 35 ; 2^ ptn Ex. ix. 12, xi. 10, xiv. 4, 8, 17. THE ARGUMENT FROM BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 155 sin, Ex. xxxiv. 6-9 and Num. xiv. 18-20; when Moses intercedes for the people then sin is covered over with- out sacrifice, Ex. xxxii. 30-34. In D Yahweh chooses Israel and enters into a relation of love with them. P conceives of redemption either as the removal of sin from the persons of the sinners or the sacred places, or as the covering it over at the divine altars by the blood of the sin-offerings. There is an interesting usage of terms in the documents.* The relation of love between God and man is charac- teristic of D." God's love to His people is in Dt. iv. 37 ; vii. 8, 13; X. 15; xxiii. 6; not elsewhere in the Hexa- teuch, but first in Hosea the prophet. Love to God is in Dt. vi. 5 ; vii. 9 ; x. 12 ; xi. i ; xiii. 22 ; xiii. 4 ; xix. 9; XXX. 6, 16, 20; Jos. xxii. 5; xxiii. 11. Elsewhere in the Hexateuch only Ex. xx. 6=Dt. v. 10 [a Deuter- onomic addition to the Ten Words], These examples from the field of Biblical Theology are sufficient for our purpose at present. They might be increased to an indefinite extent. They show the same order of development that we have found in the legislation and in the language, and indicate that the documents were composed at such epochs as best ex- plain this development. *PSJ is used in poetic passages of E of the redemption of Jacob, Gn. xlviii. 16, and of Israel's redemption by God, Ex. xv. 13 and Ex. vi. 6 (RP), but it is used by HP only in the lower sense of redemption of things by payment of a fine, Lv. xxvii. 13, 15, 19, 20, 31. It is used in the sense of acting as a kins- man chiefly in DHP and Ruth, not in JE. niQ is used for the redemption of Israel by D, but by JE and P only in the lower sense. XtJ^J forgive is used in E ; nPD in DP ; both terms in J. XC^J is used in Hos. xiv. 3 ; Mic, vii. iS ; Is. ii. 9, xxxiii. 24 ; Jb. vii. 21 ; i Sam. xv. 25 ; but is unknown to Jeremiah, Kings the second Isaiah, Daniel, Lamentations, and the Chronicler, who use n^D. It is found only in the earlier and the latest Psalms. XIV. THE RESULT OF THE ARGUMENT. We have gone over the several lines of argument usu- ally employed in Higher Criticism in order to gain their witness to the composition of the Pentateuch. The sev- eral lines of evidence converge to the same results. These may be stated as follows : The document E is known to Hosea, it resembles the Ephraimitic prophet and also the Ephraimitic writers in the books of Samuel and Kings. It is the most archaic of the documents in language, style, and historical and doctrinal conceptions. It shows great interest in the sacred places of Northern Israel. It appears therefore that E was the narrative of the Northern kingdom of Israel, and that its law code, the greater book of the covenant, was the Mosaic law in its Ephraimitic codification. It is possible that J was known to Hosea, but this is not certain. It was evidently known to the prophet Isaiah. Its interest in the sanctuaries in Judah and its resemblance with the Judaic writers of the histories of David and Solomon in the books of Samuel and Kings, make it altogether probable that we have in this writing the Judaic recension of the history. The only legisla- tion it attributes to Moses is the moral law of the Ten Words, the decalogue of worship (the little book of the (156) THE RESULT OF THE ARGUMENT 157 Covenant) and a special law of the Passover, its style is the very choicest and best. The author probably lived at the centre of Jewish affairs, in the holy city, Jerusalem, where he had access to the best sources of information and where he had acquired the best literary culture. Deuteronomy cannot be traced earlier than the reign of Josiah. It then comes into full recognition and use in the work of the compiler of the Book of Kings and in the prophecy of Jeremiah. It was a recodification of the old covenant code of Moses infhe" Judaic recension, and thus the code shows parallelism with the covenant code of E. "The prophetic codifier shows by his method and style that he had back of him a long history of prophetic oral and written discourses. The code of Holiness comes into the historic field first in connection with Ezekiel. It is a codification of the immemorial practice of the priests of Jerusalem going back to Aaron and Moses. The priest-code and the document which contains it cannot be proven till Ezra's time. It was a larger codir fication of the priestly ritual and customs coming down by tradition from Moses and Aaron in the priestly circles of Jerusalem, which had been carefully con- served as holy relics in the priestly families among the exiles, as bearing in them sacred memories and holy promises. Driver makes this moderate and cautious statement : "It cannot be doubted that Moses was the ulti- mate founder of both the national and the religious life of Israel ; and that he provided his people not only with at least the nucleus of a system of civil ordinances (such as would, in fact, arise directly out of his judicial func- tions, as described in Ex. xviii.), but also (as the neces- 158 THE HEXATEUCH sary correlative of the primary truth that Jehovah was the God of Israel) with some system of ceremonial observ- ances, designed as the expression and concomitant of the religious and ethical duties involved in the people's relations to its national God. It is reasonable to sup- pose that the teaching of Moses on these subjects is pre- served, in its least modified form, in the Decalogue and the " Book of the Covenant " (Ex. xx.-xxiii.) It is not, however, required by the view treated above as probable to conclude that the Mosaic legislation was limited to the subjects dealt with in Ex. xx.-xxiii. ; amongst the enactments peculiar to Dt. — which tradition, as it seems, ascribed to a later period of the legislator's life — there are many which likewise may well have formed part of it. It is further in analogy with ancient custom to sup- pose that some form of priesthood would be established by Moses : that this priesthood would be hereditary ; and that the priesthood would also inherit from their founder some traditionary lore (beyond what is con- tained in Ex. xx.-xxiii.) on matters of ceremonial observ- ance. And accordingly we find that JE both mentions repeatedly an Ark and " Tent of Meeting " as existing in the Mosaic age (Ex. xxxiii. 7-1 1, Nu. xi., 24fl, xii. 4ff, Dt. xxxi. I4ff), and assigns to Aaron a prominent and, indeed, an official position (Ex. iv. 14, "Aaron the Le- vite ;'' xviii. 12; xxiv. I, 9); further, that in Dt. (x. 6b) a hereditary priesthood descended from him is expressly recognized ; and also that there are early allusions to the " tribe of Levi " as enjoying priestly privileges and exer- cising priestly functions (Dt. xxxiii. 10; Mic. iii. 11 ; cf. Jud. xvii. 13). The principles by which the priesthood was to be guided were laid down, it may be supposed, in outline by Moses. In process of time, however, as na- tional life grew more complex, and fresh cases requiring THE RESULT OF THE ARGUMENT 159 to be dealt with arose, these principles would be found no longer to suffice, and their extension would become a necessity. Especially in matters of ceremonial observ- ance, which would remain naturally within the control of the priests, regulations such as those enjoined in Ex. XX. 24-26, xxii. 29-31, xxiii. 14-19, would not long con- tinue in the same rudimentary state; fresh definitions and distinctions would be introduced, more precise rules would be prescribed for the method of sacrifice, the ritual to be observed by the priests, the dues which they were authorized to receive from the people, and other similar matters. After the priesthood had acquired, through the foundation of Solomon's temple, a permanent centre, it is probable that the process of development and sys- tematization advanced more rapidly than before. And thus the allusions in Dt. imply the existence of usages beyond those which fall directly within the scope of the book, and belonging specially to the jurisdiction of the priests {e.g. xvii. 1 1, xxiv. 8) : Ezekiel, being a priest himself, alludes to such usages more distinctly. Al- though, therefore, there are reasons for supposing that the priest-code assumed finally the shape in which we have it in the age subsequent to Ezekiel, it rests ulti- mately upon an ancient traditional basis ; and many of the institutions prominent in it are recognized, in various stages of their growth, by the earlier pre-exilic literature, by Dt. and by Ezekiel. The laws of P, even when they included later elements, were still referred to Moses, — no doubt because in its basis and origin Hebrew legislation was actually derived from him, and was only modified gradually."* The conclusions of our argument may be stated as follows : Literature 0/ the Old Testament^ pp. 145, 146. 160 TUE ITEXATEUCH (i). We have-not one narrative, but a fourfold jiarra- tive of the origin of the old covenant religion, as we nave a fourfold gospel giving the narrative of the origin of the new covenant religion. There is, indeed, a re- markable correspondence in these four types or points of view. The Ephraimitic writer may be compared with Mark, the Judaic writer with Matthew, the priestly writer with Luke, and the Deuteronomist with John. The difference between the Pentateuch and the Gospels IS that the four narratives of the Pentateuch have been compacted by a series of inspired Redactors ; whereas the Gospels have to be harmonized by uninspired teach- ers in the Church. This unity in variety strengthens the credibility of the Pentateuch. As the four Gospels contain the gospel of Christ, so the narratives of the Pentateuch contain the law of Moses. As our Saviour is set forth by the Evangelist as the mediator of the new covenant, Moses is set forth by the narratives of the Pentateuch as the mediator of the old covenant. (2). The Pentateuch does not give us one Mosaic code, but several codes of Mosaic legislation, a deca- logue of worship, a judicial code of several decalogues, a people's code, a code of holiness, and a priest-code, contained in the narratives, somewhat as the Gospels present us the discourses of Jesus in the varied types peculiar to Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. As we harmonize the Gospels for a complete and symmetrical statement of the doctrine of Jesus, so we harmonize the codes of the Pentateuch for a complete and symmetrical exposition of the law of Moses. The law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (3). The Mosaic legislation was dehVered through Moses, the great prophetic law-giver of Israel, and then THE RESULT OF THE ARGUMENT IQl unfolded in historical usage and interpretation in a series of codifications by inspired prophets and priests; but it was in several stages of advancement in the his- torical life and experience of Israel from the conquest to the exile. It was a divine ideal, a supernatural revealed instruction, to guide the people of Israel throughout their history, and lead them to the prophet greater than Moses, who was to fulfil and complete his legislation. The law was the true light of Israel until the first Ad- vent, even as the Gospel is the light and guide of the Church until the Second Advent. Israel appropriated more and more the instruction of the law, as the Church has appropriated more and more the doctrine of the Gospel. The history of God's people under both cove- nants has been essentially the same — a grand march for- ward under the supernatural light of a divine revelation. (4). Law and Prophecy are not two distinct and sepa- rate modes of revelation, but the same. The law of Moses was as truly prophetic as legal. Moses was even more a prophet than a law-giver. The prophets of God that followed him all give divine law as well as divine prophecy. As the apostles in the new covenant were not merely expositors of the Gospel, but came forth from the risen and glorified Christ with new revelations, enlarging and completing the Gospel ; so the prophets were not mere expositors of the law, but came forth im- mediately from the presence of Jahweh as really as Moses did, with new revelations enlarging and complet- ing the old. The distinction between law and prophecy in the Bible is a fluctuating one, so that the whole divine revelation may be called law, and also prophecy, accord- ing to the usage of the Bible itself. (5). There is in the law, as in the Gospel, a divine transforming power which shaped the history of Israel, 162 THE HEXATEUCH as the Gospel has shaped the history of the Church in successive stages of appropriation. Not without some reason have many recent Christian scholars after Nean- der divided the history of the Christian Church after the names of the chief apostles as indicating the various types of Christianity. With even more reason might we divide the history of Israel into stages of progress in ac- cordance with the several law codes. The Christian Church may look forward to a time when the unity and variety of the gospel of Christ shall be fully manifested in her historic life. The people of Israel also reached a stage when in her historic life the several codes har- monized, and the whole bent of the nation was in the study of the law and a conscientious fulfilment of it, and then in the fulness of time Christ Jesus the Messiah came. The deeper study of the unity and variety of the Hex- ateuchal narratives and laws, as we defend their his- toricity against Reuss, Kuenen, and Wellhausen, and advance in the apprehension of their sublime harmony, will fructify and enrich the theology of our day, just as the deeper study of the unity and variety of the gospels by the school of Neander, in the defence of them against Strauss, Renan, and Baur, has been an unspeakable bless- ing in the past generation. This having been accom- plished, we may look forward to a time when our eyes shall be opened as never before to the magnificent unity of the whole Bible in the midst of its wondrous variety. Then the word of God, as one supernatural divine revelation, will rise into such a position of spirit- ual power and transcendent influence, as shall greatly advance the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and hasten the realization of that most blessed hope of both the Old and New Testaments, the coming of the Messiah in glory. APPENDIX. I. The two Narratives of the Revelation of the Divine Name Yahweh, p. 165. II. The Characteristic Words and Phrases of D, H, AND P according TO CANON DRIVER, p. l68. III. The Genesis of the Ten Words, p. 181. IV. The two Narratives of the Pestilence in Egypt, p. 188. V. The Decalogue of J and its Parallels in the other Codes, p. 189. VI. The Greater Book of the Covenant and its Par- allels IN the later Codes, p. 211. VII. Variations of D and H, p. 233. VIII. The several Representations of the Theophany, p. 236. (163) I. THE TWO NARRATIVES OF THE REVELATION OF THE DIVINE NAME YAHWEH. Ex. ///. 12-15 {E). And he said, Verily / shall be with thee (-jDy n\1«) and this shall be the sign to thee that I ODJX) have sent thee : when thou hast brought forth the people from Egypt, ye shall serve God (D^n^Nn) upon this mountain. And Moses said unto God (D'^ni^KH), Behold I ODJN) am going to come unto the children of Israel and say to them, the God of your fa- thers hath sent me unto you. If they say to me, what is his name, what shall I say unto them ? And God said (DM^JN) unto Moses, / shall be the one who will be (e. g. with thee n'-HN ntJ^X .Tn&<). And he said. Thus shalt thou say to the chil- dren of Israel, / shall be (e. g. with thee n\nX) hath sent me unto you. And God (D^n^X) said again unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel Jahveh {^V\'' He who will be with thee), the God of your fathers, the God of Abra- ham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob hath sent me unto you. This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial to all generations. Ex. vi. 2-7 (/*). And God (DTl^X) spake unto Moses and said unto him, I am Yahweh (niH^ ^JN). I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac and unto Jacob as 'El Shadday, but as to my name Jahveh I was not known to them. And I have also established my cove- nant onnn ns* ^nopn) with them to give to them the land of Canaan, the land of their so- journings (DHnilD), in which they sojourned. And I Ojx; have also heard the groaning (npKJ) of the children of Israel whom the Egyptians keep in bondage and have remembered my covenant (n"''i3 "IDT). Where- fore say to the children of \?>- x2Lt\, I afnYahwehiSWXV^ T^), and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage and redeem you with a stretched-out arm and with great judgments ; and take you to me for a people and be to you for a God (DMi'K^ Dd!? n^n), and ye shall know that I am Yahweh your God OJt^ ""D Dnyn^ DDTI^N mn"*), who bringeth you forth from under the burdens of the Egyptians. These parallel passages not only give different accounts of (165) 166 APPENDIX the same revelation of the divhie name, Jahveh, but they also ex- hibit the differences in style between E and P. I shall not men- tioH all of these differences, but only some of the more striking ones. (i). establish a covenant n''*)! D"'pri is used by P 8 times, and in Ez. xvi. 60, 62, in this sense ; but by Lev. xxvi. 9 (H the Holiness code of P) and Deut. viii. 18 (D) in the sense con- firm a covenant. It is not used elsewhere. (2). remember a covenant D^ll ^DT is used by P 4 times and by H in Lev. xxvi. 42, 45 ; elsewhere, Ez. xvi. 60, i C. xvi. 15, Ps. cv. 8, cvi. 45, cxi. 5 ; Am. i 9. It is not used in J E D. (3). / am Jahveh (niiT ""JX) is used by J, Gen. xv. 7, xxviii. 13 ; Ex. vii. 17, viii. 18, x. 2;andxv. 26 (R) ; elsewhere in the Hex- ateuch in P 35 times and H 40 times, often in the emphatic sense I Jahveh, It is never used by E or D. (4). ^Jt^ is always used by P (130 times) for /, except possibly Gen. xxiii. 4 ; whereas ''DiJ<, the longer form, is commonly used in E and D. The usage in J varies. (5). DwXn is used as subject or object 33 times in E, and as an absolute defining a preceding construct J 2 times in E. It is used by P only Gen. xvii. 18, Jos. xxii. 34 (?), and in his sources Gen. v. 22, 24, vi. 9, 11. (6). Cod of the fathers n^3K^■^^X is a phrase used 12 times by E and 8 times in D ; by J thrice, but never by P. (7). D^'^^N^ iTH is used 10 times by P, 6 times by Jeremiah, 6 times by Ezekiel, by D in Deut. xxvi. 17, xxix. 12 ; else- where in 2 Sam. vii. 24, i C. xvii. 22, Zech. viii. 8, and in Gen. xxviii. 21, which is a redactor's insertion in the docu- ment E. (8). ^IJD is used by P 7 times ; elsewhere Job xviii. 19, Ez. XX. 38, Ps. Iv. 16, cxix. 54, never in the other documents of the Hexateuch. (9). npXJ is used by P here and Ex. ii. 24 ; elsewhere Judges ii. 18, Ez. XXX. 24. (10). """nC'^K is used in the blessing of Jacob, Gen. xlix. 25, ac- cording to LXX. Sam., Syriac, Arabic versions, and some Massoretic MSS. On this basis it is used by P5 times and by the Redactor in Gen. xliii. 14, not elsewhere in the Hexa- teuch. THE DIVINE NAME YAHWEH 167 (ii). The style of P in using suffixes with the sign of the defi- nite accusative rather than with the verb appears 6 times in this passage, but not at all in the parallel passage of E. (12). Notice also " And God spake unto Moses and said," the style of P, as compared with " And God said " of E. II. THE CHARACTERISTIC WORDS AND PHRASES OF THE DOCUMENTS. In his invaluable work, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, Canon Driver gives the following specimens of the characteristic words and phrases of D, H, and P. (i). The style of Deuteronomy, •' The literary style of Dt. is very marked and individual. In vocabulary, indeed, it presents comparatively few exceptional words ; but particular words and phrases, consisting sometimes of entire clauses, recur with extraordinary frequency, giving a distinctive colouring to every part of the work. In its predomi- nant features the phraseology is strongly original, but in certain particulars it is based upon that of the parenetic sections of JE in the Book of Exodus (esp. 13, 3-16. 15, 26. 19, 3-8, parts of 20, 2-17. 23, 20 ff. 34, 10-26). In the following select list of phrases characteristic of Dt., the first TO appear to have been adopted by the author from these sections of JE ; those which follow are original, or occur so rarely in JE, that there is no ground to suppose them to have been bor- rowed thence. For the convenience of the synopsis, the occur- rences in the Deuteronomic sections of Joshua are annexed in brackets. I. 3nN io loT'c, with God as object : 6, 5. 7, 9. 10, 12. 11, i. 13. 22. 13, 3 [Heb. 4]. ig, 9. 30, 6. 16. 20. [Josh. 22, 5. 23, it.] So Ex. 20, 6 (== Dt. 5, 10). A characteristic principle of Dt. Of God's love to His people : 4, 37. 7, 8. 13. 10, 15. 23, 5 [Heb. 6]. Not so before. Otherwise first in Hos. 3, i. 9, 15. 11, i, cf. 4. 14, 4 [Heb. 5], rjbS; CHARACTERISTIC WORDS AND PHRASES 169 2. D"''^^N DM?K other gods : 6, 14. 7, 4. 8, 19. 11, 16. 28. 13, 2. 6. 13 [Heb. 3. 7, I4"|. 17, 3. 18, 20. 28, 14. 36. 64. 29, 26 [Heb. 25]. 30, 17. 31, 18. 20. [Josh. 23, 16. 24, 2 16.] So Ex. 20, 3 (= Dt. 5, 7). 23, 13 ; cf. 34. 14 (int< i^K). Always in Dt. (ex- cept 5, 7. 18, 20. 31, 18. 20) with to serve or go after. Often in Kings and Jeremiah, but (as Kleinert remarks) usually with other verbs. 3. That your {thy) days may be long [or to prolong days\ : 4, 26. 40. 5, 33 [Heb. 30]. 6, 2\ II, 9. 17, 20. 22, 7. 25, 15. 30, 18. 32, 47. So Ex. 20, 12 {= Dt. 5, 16). Elsewhere, only Is. 53, 10. Prov. 28, 16. Eccl. 8, 13 ; and rather differently, Josh. 24, 31 = Jud. 2, 7.t 4. The land (pXH : less frequently the ground, T\yT\'^T() which Jehovah thy God is giving thee (also us, you, them i, 20 etc.) : 4, 40. 15, 7, and constantly. So Ex. 20, 12 (= Dt. 5, 16) nDINH. 5- Dn!3y rriD house of bondage (lit. of slaves) : 6, 12. 7, 8. 8, 14. 13, 5. 10 [Heb. 6. 11]. Qosh. 24, 17.] So Jud. 6, 8. Mic. 6, 4. Jer. 34, 13. From Ex. 13, 3. 14. 20, 2 (= Dt. 5, 6).t 6. In thy gates (of the cities of Israel): 12, 12. 15. 17. 18. 21. 14, 21. 27-2^. 15, 7. 22. 16, 5. II. 14. 18. 17, 2. 8. 18, 6. 23, 16 [Heb. 17]. 24, 14. 26, 12. 28, 52. 55. 57. 31, 12. So Ex. 20, 10 (= Dt. 5, 14). Nowhere else in this application : but cf. i Ki. 8, 37 = 2 Ch. 6, 28. 7^' iTOD Dy a people of special possession : 7, 6. 14, 2. 26, 18. f Cf. Ex. 19, 5 n^jD 'h on^Mi. *lb. ^r\^ Dy a holy people : 7, 6. 14, 2. 21. 26, 19. 28, 9.f Varied from Ex. 19, 6 \i)'V\'^ ^IJ a holy nation : cf. 22, 30 and holy men shall ye be unto me. 8. Which I command thee this day : 4, 40. 6, 6. 7, 11, and repeatedly. So Ex. 34, II. 9. Take heed to thyself {yourselves) lest, etc.: 4, 9. 23. 6, 12. 8, rr. 11, 16. 12, 13. 19. 30. 15, 9 (cf. 24, 8) ; comp. 2, 4. 4, 15. [Josh. 23, II.] So Ex. 34, 12 ; cf. 19, 12. (Also Ex. 10, 28. Gen. 24, 6. 31, 24, cf. 29 ; but with no special force.) 10. A mighty hand and a stretched out arm : 4, 34. 5, 15. 7, 19. n^ 2. 26, 8. The combination occurs first in Dt. Mighty hand alone : Dt. 3, 24. 6, 21. 7, 8. 9, 26. 34, 12 [cf. Josh. 4, 24]. So in JE Ex. 3, 19. 6, I. 13, 9. 32, IT. (Nu. 20, 20 differently.) Stretched out arm alone: Dt. 9, 29 f varied from Ex. 32, 11). So Ex. 6, 6 P. 11. "inn to choose : of Israel 4, 37. 7, 6. 7. ro, 15. 14, 2,— the priests 18. 5. 21, 5,— of the future king 17, i5,_and especially in the 170 APPENDIX phrase " the place which Jehovah shall choose to place {or set) His name there," 12, 5. 11. 14. 18. 21. 26. 14, 23-25. 15, 20. 16, 2. 6. 7. ir. 15. 16. 17, 8. ID. 26, 2, or "the place which Jehovah shall choose" 18, 6. 31, 11. [Josh. 9, 27. J Very characteristic of Dt. : not applied before to God's choice of Israel ; often in Kings of Jerusalem (i Ki. 8, 44. ir, 32 etc.) ; in Jeremiah once, 33, 24, of Israel. Also charact. of II. Isaiah (41, 8. 9. 43, 10. 44, I. 2: cf. chosen 43, 20. 45, 4. Of the future y 14, I. 65, 9. 15. 22 : and applied to Jehovah's ideal Servant, 42, i. 49, 7). 12. PKltJ^^D l^lpO ynn my2"l and thou :> halt extinguish the evil from thy midst {ox from Israel^ \ 13, 5 [Heb. 6], 17, 7. 12. 19, 19. 21, 21. 22, 21. 22. 24. 24, 7.f This phrase is peculiar to Dt. ; but Jud. 20, 13 is similar. 13. That the Lord thy God may (or Because He will) bless thee : 14, 24. 29. 15, 4. 10. 16, 10. 15. 23, 20 [Heb. 21]. 24, 19 : cf. 12, 7. 15, 6. 14. 14. The stranger, the fatherless, and the widow : 10, t8. 24, 17. 19. 20. 21. 27, 19. Cf. Ex. 22, 21 f. Hence Jer. 7, 6. 22, 3. Ezek. 22, 7. Together with //i^ Z(?z/?V^ ,• 14, 29. 16, 11. 14, 26, 12. 13. 15. pm io cleave^ of devotion to God : 10, 20. 11, 22. 13, 4. [Heb. 5]. 30, 20 : the corresponding adjective, 4, 4. Qosh. 22, 5. 23, 8.] So 2 Ki. 18, 6 : cf. 3, 3. i Ki. 11, 2.f 16. And remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt : 5, 15. 15, 15. 16, 12. 24, t8. 22.t 17. (v5>y) l^V Dinn ^ thine eye shall not spare {him) : 7, 16. 13, 8 [Heb. 9]. 19, 13. 21. 25, 12. Also Gen. 45, 20. Is. 13, 18, and frequently in Ezek. 18. XDn in iVTW and it be sin in thee : 15, 9. 23, 21 [Heb. 22]. 24, 15 ; cf. 21, 22 : with not, 23, 22 [Heb. 23]. 19. nniDH y\^n the good land{oi Canaan) r, 35. 3, 25. 4, 21. 22. 6, 18. 8, 10 (cf. 7). 9, 6. II, 17. [Josh. 23, 16.] So I Ch. 28, 8.f Dt. I, 25 (Nu. 14, 7) and Ex. 3, 8 are rather different. 20. Which thou {ye) knowest (or knewest) not : 8, 3. 16. 11, 28. 13, 2. 6. 13 [Heb. 3. 7. 14]- 28, 33. 36. 64. 29, 26 [Heb. 25]. Chiefly with reference to strange gods, or a foreign people. Cf. 32, ] 7. 21 That it may be well with thee (-|^ 30^^ jJ^D^ or "1C^'^<) : 4. 40. 5, 16. 29 [Heb. 26]. 6, 3. 18. 12, 25. 28. 22, 7. Similarly (DD^) -]^ nim : 5, 33 [Heb. 30]. 19, 13, and nioi? 6, 24. 10, 13. 22. TG^n. inf. abs., used adverbially = thoroughly: 9, 21. 13, 14 [Heb. 15]. 17. 4. 19* 18. 27, 8, Elsewhere, as thus applied, only 2 Ki. u, 18. f CHARACTERISTIC WORDS AND PHRASES lYl 23. To fear God (nXl v ' often with that they may learn prefixed) : 4, 10 5, 2g [Heb. 26]. 6, 24. 8, 6. 10, 12. 14, 23. 17, 19. 28, 58. 31, 13, cf. 12. 24. P^Vj^JDin N?, in the sense of not to be allowed : 7, 22. 12, 17, 16, 5. 17, 15. 21, 16. 22, 3. 19. 29. 24, 4. A very uncommon use ; cf. Gen. 43, 32. 25. To do that ivhich is right ("It^Tl) in the eyes of yehovah : 12, 25. 13, 18 [Heb. 19]. 21, 9 : with 21tDn that which zV ^^c>^ added, 6, 18. 12, 28. So Ex. 15, 26, then Jer. 34, 15, and several times in the framework of Kings and the parallel passages of Chronicles. 26. To do that which is evil (yin) in the eyes of Jehovah : 4, 25. 9, 18. 17, 2. 31, 29. So Nu 32, 13 ; often in the framework of Judges and Kings, Jeremiah, and occasionally elsewhere. Both 25 and 16 gained currency through Dt., and are rare except in pass- ages written under its influence 27. The priests the Levites (== the Levitical priests) : 17, 9. 18, i. 24, 8. 27, 9 : the priests the sons of Levi^ 21, 5. 31, 9. [Josh. 3, 3. 8, 33.] So Jer. 33, 18. Ez 43, 19.44, 15. 2 Ch. 5, 5. 23, 18. 30, 27. P's expression " sons of Aaron " is never used in Dt. 28. With all thy (your) heart and with all thy {your) soul : 4, 29. 6, 5* 10, 12. II, 13. 13, 3 [Heb. 4]. 26, 16. 30, 2. 6. 10. [Josh. 22, 5. 23, 14 ] A genuine expression of the spirit of the book (p. 73). Only besides (in the third person) i Ki. 2, 4. 8, 48 1. 2 Ki. 23, 3. 25 ||. 2 Ch, 15, 12 ; and (in the first person, of God) Jer. 32, 41. 29. ''JD7 jnJ, in the sense of delivering up to : i, 8. 2T. 2, 31. 33. 36. 7, 2. 23. 23, 14 [Heb. 15]. 28, 7 and 25 (with P|3^). 31, 5. [Josh. 10, 12. II, 6.] Also Jud. ir, 9. i Ki. 8, 46. Is. 41, 2.f The usual phrase in this sense is T2 jnJ. 30. To turn (ID) neither to the right hand nor to the left : 2, 27 lit. (Nu. 20, 17 has riDJ) : so i Sa. 6, 12. Metaph. 5, 32 [Heb. 29]. 17, 11. 20. 28, 14.^ [Josh. I, 7. 23, 6.] So 2 Ki. 22, 2|.f 31. Dn** ntJ^V^ the work of the ha7tds (== enterprise) : 2, 7. 14, 29, 16, 15. 24, 19. 28, 12. 30, 9 : in a bad sense, 31, 29. 32. mD, of the redemption from Egypt : 7, 8 (Mic. 6, 4). 9, 26. 13, 5 [Heb. 6]. 15, 15. 21, 8. 24, 18. Not so before: Ex. 15, 13 (the Song of Moses) uses pj^J (to reclaim). 33. T\p midst, in different connexions, especially "^I'^p^, *]3*^pD. A favourite word in Deut., though naturally occurring in JE, as also elsewhere. In P ^T\ is preferred. 34. To rejoice before Jehovah: I2, 7. 12. 1 8. 14, 26. I6, II. 14 (cf. Lev. 23, 40). 26, n. 27, 7. 172 APPENDIX 35. To make His name dwell there (pE>^, pK>^) : 12, 11. 14, 23. 16, 2. 6 Ti. 26, 2. Only besides Jer. 7, 12. Ezra 6, 12. Neh. i, g.f With UW> {to set) : 12, 5. 21. 14, 24. This occurs also in Kings (to- gether with nvn^, iTiT, which are not in Dt.) : i Ki. 9, 3. 11, 36 al. 36. (DDT, in^)lT rb^}2ihat to which thy {your) hand is pit : 12, 7. 18. 15, 10. 23, 20 [Heb. 21]. 28, 8. 2o.f 37. And .... shall hear and fear (of the deterrent effect of punish- ment) : 13, II [Heb. 12]. 17, 13. 19, 20. 21, 21 f 38. To observe to do iS\'\^)h "ItDST) : 5, i. 32 [Heb. 29]. 6. 3 etc. (six- teen times : also four times with an object intervening). [Josh. I, 7. 8. 22, 5.] Also a few times in Kings and Chronicles, 39. To observe and do : 4, 6. 7, 12. 16, 12. 23, 23 [Heb. 24]. 24, 8. 26, 16. 28, 13 ; cf. 29, 9 [Heb. 8]. [Josh. 23, 6.] 40. The land whither ye go over {ox enter in) to possess it : 4, 5. 14 and repeatedly. Hence Ezra g, 11. HDCinp to possess it follows also which Jehovah is giving thee {No. 4): 12, I. 19, 2. 14. 21, i. [Josh. I, 11^.] Cf. Gen. 15, 7. In P, with similar clauses, riTHN? is used : Lev. 14, 34. 25, 45. Nu 32, 29. Dt 32, 49. 41. a, ri^n"^ nnyin Jehovah's abomination, esp. as the final ground of a prohibition: 7, 25 (cf. 26). 12, 31. 17, i. 18, 12*. 22, 5. 23, 18 [Heb. 19]. 24, 4. 25, 16. 27, 15 : b. nOTH alone, chiefly of heathen or idolatrous customs, 13, 14 [Heb. 15]. 14, 3. 17, 4. 18, 9. 12*^. 20, 18. 32, 16. a. So often in Prov. ; comp. in H, Lev. 18, 22. 26 f. 29 f. 20, 13 (but ofily of sins of unchastity).* (2). T/ie style of H. *' H has points of contact vtrith P, but lacks many of its most characteristic features. Ezekiel, the priestly prophet, has affini- ties vi^ith P, but his affinities with H are peculiarly striking and numerous : the laws comprised in H are frequently quoted by him, and the parenetic passages contain many expressions — sometimes remarkable ones — which otherwise occur in Ezekiel alone.' I. nin'' ""Ji^ I am Jehovah, esp. at the end of an injunction or series of injunctions (nearly fifty times) : 18, 2.^ 4. 5.^ 6. 21. 30.''^ 19, 3.^ 4.'' 10.2 12. 14. 16. 18. 25.^^ 28. 30. 31.'^ 32. 34.'^ 36.'^ 37. 20, *]? * Literature of the Old Testament, 91-95. 1 Literature of the Old Testament^ 45-46. 3 Followed by your (their) God. CHARACTERISTIC WORDS AND PHRASES I73 8.3 24.'' 21, 12. 15.3 23.' 22, 2. 3. 8. 9.3 16.^ 30. 31. 32.^ 33. 23, 22,2 43.2 24, 22.2 25, 17.2 38.-* 55.2 26, i.-^ 2. 13/ 44.2 45 So Ex. 6, 2. 6. 8. 29. 12, 12^ 29, 46*.* 46^^ 31, 13^' Nu. 3, \iend. 41. 45. 10, 10.2 15, 4lM4I^^ 2. miT ""JN tJ^np ^3 ^^r / Jehovah afn holy: 19, 2.^ 20, 26. 2t, 8.' Cf. II, 44. 45 (For I am holy). 3. That sanctify you {them, etc.) : 20, 8. 21, 8. 15. 23. 22, 9. 16. 32. So Ex. 31, 13. Ez. 20, 12. 37, 28. f 4. V^^ EJ^^t< for whoever : 17, 3. 8. 10. 13. 18, 6. 20, 2. 9. 22, 4. 18. 24, 15. So 15, 2. Nu. 5, 12. 9, 10. Ez. 14, 4. 7 (with ^NIK'^ HUD as ch. 17, 3. 8. 10). .5. I will set {'>r\T\y\) my face against . . . : 17, 10.20, 3. 5 (""JX "TIDK^). 6. 26, 17. So Ez. 14, 8. 15, 7*. 7** (DK^). Jer. 21, 10 (Dt5^). 44. II (DK^).f 6. I will cut off from the midst of his {its, their) people : 17, 10. 20, 3. 5. 6.6 Cf. Ez. 14, 8 ( . . . TjiriD : in Lev. a^i^D). 7. nipnn "|?ri /"^ w/a/y& m M^ statutes : 18, 3. 20, 23. 26, 3. Also i Ki. 3, 3. 6, 12. 2 Ki. 17, 8. 19 ; but chiefly in Ez., viz, 5, 6. 7. 11, 20. 18, 9. 17. 20, 13. 19. 21. 33, 15: cf. Jer. 44, 10 OTTJID^ ^npnii).t 8. ''DBtJ^I Tllpn my statutes and my judgments: 18, 4 (inverted). 5. 26. 19, 37. 20, 22. 25, 18. 26, 15. 43. 9. To observe and do : 18,4. 19, 37. 20, 8, 22. 22, 31. 25, 18. 26, 3. 10. ^'^^ flesh = next-of-kin: 18, 12. 13. 17 (mXK'). 20, 19. 21, 2. Nu. 27, II ; hK^3 nxtp 18, 6. 25, 49. Not so elsewhere. 11. riDT evil purpose (of unchastity) : i8, 17. 19, 29. 20, 14 bis. So Jud. 20, 6. Hos. 6, 9. Jer. 13, 27. Ez. 16, 27. 43. 58. 22, 9. ir. 23, 21. 27. 29. 35. 44. 48 bis. 49. 24, 13. (In RV. often lewdness.) 12. n^Dy neighbor: 18, 20. 19, 11. 15. 17. 24, 19. 25, 14 bis. 15. 17. 5, 21 bis. Zech. 13, 7.f A peculiar term ; not the one in ordinary use. s Followed by the participial clause that sanctify you {hitn^ etc.). * Followed by a relative clause. t The dagger (both here and elsewhere) denotes that all instances of the word or phrase referred to that occur in the OT. have been cited. The distinctive character of an expression is evidently the more marked, and the agreement be- tween two writers who use it is the more striking, in proportion to the rarity with which it occurs in the OT. generally. * In P always ^'shall becni off " (see § 7). In general the Divine " I " appears here with a prominence which it never assumes in the laws of P. 174 APPENDIX 13. To profane — the name of Jehovah 18, 21. 19, 12. 20, 3. 21, 6, 22, 2. 32 (Am. 2, 7. Isa. 48. Ti) : a /^f?^^ thing ox sanctuary ig, 8. 21, 12. 23. 22, 15 (so Nu. 18, 32): in other connexions ig, 2g. 21, 9^ 15. 22, g : comp. 21, 4. g^ So Ex. 31, 14 (of the Sabbath). So often in Ezek. : of Jehovah 13, 19. 22, 26 ; His name 20, 9. 14. 22. 39. 36, 20-23. 39, 7 ; His sabbaths 20, 13. 16. 21. 24. 22, 8. 23, 38 (Isa. 56, 2. 6) ; His holy things or sanctuary 22, 26. 23, 39. 44, 7 ; cf. also 7, 21. 22. 24. 22, 16. 24, 21. 25, 3. 28, 7. 16. i8. Obviously the correlative of Nos. 2, 3. 14. My sabbaths : 19. 3. 30. 26, 2. Ex. 31, 13. Ez. 20, 12. 13. 16. 20. 21. 24. 22, 8. 26. 23, 38. 44. 24. Isa. 56, 4.f 15- DvvN things of nought = vain gods : 19, 4. 26, r. Not elsewhere in Pent. Chiefly besides in Isaiah (9 times, and PvNH once). 16. ']''n7ND DNTI and thou shalt be afraid of thy God: 19, 14. 32. 25, 17- 36. 43-t 17- (D3 DiT'DH) 12 VDT -^^-J" {their) blood shall be upon him {them) : 20, 9. II. 12. 13. 16. 27. Ez. is. 13 (n\T n VDn). 33, 5 (u idt n^n"*)-! (The ordinary phrase is It^^N^ (2) ^V IDI). l8. ^"/^(f bread of {theif) God : 21, 6. 8. 17. 21. 22. 22, 25. Nu. 28, 2 (cf. 24. Lev. 3, II. 16). Ez. 44, 7.f (Ez. i6, 19 differently.) Ig^ t 3'^]- Lev. II, 29. 41. 42. 43. 46. Ez. 47, 9. Fig. of men : Gen. 9, 7, Ex. i, 7.f 4. Swarming things (pSJ') : Gen. i, 20. 7, 21. Lev. 5, 2. 11, 10. 20 [hence Dt. 14, 19]. 21. 23. 29. 31. 41. 42, 43.44. 22, s.f 5. To be fruitful and multiply (n^ll iTlD) : Gen. i, 22. 28. 8, 17. 9, I. 7. 17, 20 (cf. 2 and 6). 28, 3. 35, 11. 47, 27, 48, 4. Ex. i, 7. Lev. 26, 9. Also Jer. 23, 3 ; and (inverted) 3, 16. Ez. 36, 11. f 6. For food (npDX?) : Gen. i, 29. 30. 6, 21. 9, 3. Ex. 16, 15. Lev. 11, 39. 25, 6. Ez. 15, 4. 6. 21, 37, 23. 37. 29. 5. 34, 5. 8. 10. 12. 39, 4.f (In Jer. 12, 9 npDN? is an infin.) 7. Generations (nnpin) : {a) In the phrase These are the generations of . . . (see p. 5 f.), {b) Otherwise : Gen. 10, 32. 25, 13. Ex. 6, 16. 19. 28, 10. Nu. I (12 times), i Ch. 5, 7. 7, 2. 4. 9. 8, 28. 9, 9. 34. 26, 31. f laws of P, it is worth remarking:, are, as a rule, formulated differently from those of either JE or D (contrast e.g. the >D DlwS, ""^ t^2J, IX SJ^^N, ^D TW^ etc. of Lev. I, 2. 4, 2. 5, 1. 15. 13, 2. 29. 38. Nu, 5, 6. 6, 2 al. with the t^^i^ ^31 of Ex. 21, 7. 14. 20. 26, etc.), and show besides differences of terminology, which, however, the reader must be left to note for himself. » Were these expressions confined to the legal sections, it might be argued that they were the work of the same hand as JE, who, with a change of subject, adopted naturally an altered phraseology ; but they are found repeatedly in the narrative parts of the Hexateuch, where the peculiar phraseology cannot be at- tributed to the special character of the subject {e.g. Gen. 6-9. Ex. 6, 2-7, 13. c. 16. Nu. 13-14. 16-17. Josh. 22, 9 ff.). 176 APPENDIX 8. nXD in the st. r., in cases where ordinarily ^^. 21. 22 (Lev. 10, 6). 24. 26. 41. 42. 45. 46. [Heb 17,6. 7. JO. 11]. 20, I 2. 8 bis. II. 22. 27. 29. 25, 6. 7. 31, 12, 16. 26. 27. 43 (as well as often in the other chapters of Nu. assigned wholly to P). 32, 2. 4. Josh. 9, 15. 18 bis. 19. 21. 27. 18, I. 20, 6. 9. 22, 12. 16. 17. 18 (Nu. 16, 22). 20. 30. (Cf. No. 39.) Never in JEor Dt., and rare in the other hist, books : Jud. 20, i. 21, 10. 13. 16. i Ki. 8, 5 (= 2 Ch. 5, 6). 12, 20. 33. Between the two evenings : Ex. 12, 6. 16, 12. 29, 39. 41. 30, 8. Lev. 23, 5. Nu. 9, 3. 5. II. 28, 4. 8.f 34. In all your dwellings (D^'TlUt^'^D h'21): Ex. 12, 20. 35. 3. Lev. 3, 17. 7, 26. 23, 3. 14. 21. 31. Nu. 35, 29 (cf. 15, 2. 31, 10). Ez. 6, 6. 14. 35. This is the thing which Jehovah hath commanded : Ex. 16, 16. 32. 35, 4. Lev. 8, 5. 9, 6. 17, 2. Nu. 30, 2. 36, 6.f 36. A head {TO^hy lit. skull) in enumerations : Ex. 16, 16. 38, 26. Nu i, 2. 18. 20. 22. 3, 47. I Ch. 23, 3. 24. f 37. To remain over i^'}^ : not the usual word) : Ex. 16, 18. 23. 26, 12 bis. 13. Lev. 25, 27. Nu. 3 46. 48. 49. f 38. J^uler or prince (X'^t^J), among the Israelites : Ex. 16, 22. 35. 27. Lev. 4, 22. Nu. I, 16. 44. cc. 2. 3. and 7 (repeatedly). 4, 46. 10, CHARACTERISTIC WORDS AND PHRASES 179 4. 13, 2, 17, 2. 6 (Heb. 17. 21), 25, 14. 18. 34, iS-28. Josh. 22, 14, In JE once only, Ex. 22, 27 : never in Dt. Jud. Sara. : in Kings only i Ki. 8, i, and in a semi-poetical passage, 11, 34. Cf. Gen. 17, 20. 23, 6. 25, 16. 34, 2. Often in Ez., even of the king. 39. Rulers {princes) of {or in) the congregation : Ex. 16, 22. 34, 31. Nu. 4, 34. 16, 2. 31, 13. 32, 2. Josh. 9, 15. 18 (cf. 19. 21). 22, 30 (cf. 32) : cf. Nu. 27, 2. 36, I. Josh. 17, 4.f 40. Deep rest (pn3*J*) : Ex. 16, 23. 31, 15. 35, 2. Lev. 16, 31. 23, 3. 24. 32. 39 bis. 25, 4. 5.f 41. According to the command (lit. mouth) of Jehovah (niiT' ''Q 7^) : Ex. 17, 1. Lev. 24, 12. Nu. 3, 16. 39. 5T. 4, 37. 41. 45. 49. 9, 18. 20. 23. 10, 13. 13. 3. 33, 2. 38. 36, 5. Josh. 15, 13 (^^<). 17, 4 (i)K). 19, 50. 21,3 (7K). 22, 9. Very uncommon elsewhere : Dt. 34, 5** (probably from P : cf. Nu. 33, 3S). 2 Ki. 24, 3. 42. Half {T\'^^T\'0 -' not the usual word) : Ex. 30, 13 bis. 15. 23. 38, 26. Lev. 6, 13 bis. Nu. 31. 29. 30, 42. 47. Josh. 21, 25 (= i Ch. 6, 55). Only besides i Ki. 16, 9. Neh. 8, 3. i Ch. 6, 46.f 43. pyD to trespass and pyo trespass (often combined, and then rendered in RV. to commit 0. trespass) : Lev. 5, 15. 6, 2 [Heb. 5, 21]. 26, 40. Nu, 5, 6. 12. 27, 31, 16. Dt. 32, 51. Josh. 7, I. 22, 16. 20. 22. 31.* Ez. 14, 13. 15, 8. 17, 20. 18. 24. 20, 27. 39, 23. 26. (A word belonging to the priestly terminology. Never in Jud., Sam., Kgs., or other prophets [except Dan. 9. 7] ; and chiefly else- where in Ch.) 44. The methodical form of subscription and superscription : Gen. 10, [5]. 20. 30. 31. 25, 16. 36, 19. 20. 31. 40. 43. 46, 8. 15. 18. 22. 25. Ex. I, I. 6, 14. 16. 19^ 25^ 26. Nu. I, 44, 4, 28. 33. 37. 41. 45. 7, 17^ 23^ 29'' etc. 84. 33, I. Josh. 13, 23". 28. 32. 14, I. 15, 12b. 20. 16, 8\ 18, 20. 28^ 19, 8^ 16. 23. 31. 39. 48. f I [cf. Gen 10, 30. 31J. 21, 19. 26. 33. 40. 41-42. (Not a complete enumer- ation). 45. For tribe P has nearly always HDD, very rarely t^^tJ^ ; for to beget T^Jin (Gen. 5, 3-32. 6, 10. 11, 11-27. I7, 20. 25, 19. 48, 6. Lev. 25, 45. Nu. 26, 29. 58), not "li)"» (as in the genealogies of J : Gen. 4. 18 ter. 10, 8. 13. 15. 24 bis. 26. 22, 23. 25, 3) ; for to be hard ox to harden (of the heart) pffl, p^PI lit. to be or make strong (Ex. 7. 13. 22. 8, 19 [Heb. 15]. 9, 12. 14, 4. 8. 17), not nn^, *1^3Dn lit. to be or make heavy (Ex. 7, 14. 8, 15. 32 [Heb. 11. 28]. 9, 7. 34. 10, i) ; for to stone DJ") (Lev. 20, 2. 27. 24, 14. 16 bis. 23. Nu. 14, 10. 15, 35. 36 : also Dt. 21, 21. Josh. 7, 25* [? PJ*), 180 APPENDIX noti)pD(Ex. 8, 26 [Heb. 22]. 17, 4. 19, 13 bis. 21, 28 bis. 29. 32. Dt. 13, 10 [Heb. 11]. 17, 5. 22, 21. 24. Josh 7, 25^*) ; for to spy^ypi (Nu. 13, 2. 16. 17. 21. 25. 32 ^zj. 14, 6. 7. 34. 36. 38. 15. 39 : also lo, 33 JE. Dt. i, 33 *), not ^21 (Nu. 21, 32. Dt. i, 2|. Josh. 2, I. 6, 22. 23. 25. 7, 2 /5i.f. 14, 7) ; and for the pron. of I ps. sing. '•JX (nearly 130 times ; "iDiX once only Gen. 23, 4 : comp. in Ez. ''JX 138 times, ''DJX once 36, 28). III. THE GENESIS OF THE TEN WORDS. The Ten Commandments. "^ I. Thou shalt have none other gods before me. II. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image {nor, E], any form that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth : thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor be led to serve them : for I Yahweh thy God am a zealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, [a?td, Dj upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my command- ments. III. Thou shalt not take the name of Ya hweh thy God IN VAIN; for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. IV. Remember [" Observe," DJ the Sabbath day to keep IT HOLY. Exodus. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work : but the seventh day is a sabbath unto Yahweh thy God : [m z'l] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man- Deuteronomy. as Yahweh thy God commanded thee. Six days shalt thou la- bour, and do all thy work ; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto Yahweh thy God : [in it] thou shalt not do any work, [* The small capitals give the original words. Where the versions agree in specifications and reasons, they are not distinguished ; but where they disagree, they appear in parallel columns, with the difference indicated by italics. In a few cases of minor difference, the variation is placed in brackets.] (i8j) 182 APPENDIX servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day : wherefore Yahweh blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, 7wr thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor aity of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates : in order that thy man-servant and thy maid' servant may rest as well as thou. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and Yahweh thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand, and by a stretched- out arm ; therefore Yahweh thy God comma7tded thee to keep the sabbath day, V. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which Yahweh thy God giveth thee. as Yahweh thy God commanded thee : that thy days may be long : and that it may be well with thee upon the land which Yahweh thy God giveth thee. VI. Thou shalt do no murder. VII. f"And,"D]. Thou shalt not commit adultery. VIII. ["And,"DJ. Thou shalt not steal. IX. ["And," DJ. Thou shalt not bear witness against THY NEIGHBOUR TO A LIE [" to a vain thing," D]. X. ["And," D]. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's HOUSE \wife, DJ. Thou shalt not covet thy neigh- bour's wife, nor his man-ser- vant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. and thou shalt not desire thy neighbour's house, his field, or his man-servant, or his maid- servant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's. It will first be necessary to separate the work of the Deuter- onomist. We have already seen that he has changed slightly I he language of three of the Ten Words. We should expect, there- fore, that in the reasons he would be freer still. His changes THE GENESIS OF THE TEN WORDS 183 have been in commands four, five, and ten. In the specifications of the fourth command, he adds " nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of [thy cattle] "; so, in the specification of the .cnth command, he adds " his field." But the most striking diffeicnce is in the reason of the fourth command, which is totally ditfer- ent from the reason given in Exodus. The reason given in Deuteronomy is so characteristic of the author's style, and of his usage elsewhere, that no one can doubt that this reason is pecul- iar to him, and that he has added it to the fourth command. See the reason for the observance of the year of release (Deut. XV. 15), the Passover (xvi. n, 12), and the regard for the poor (xxiv. 18, 22). Besides these additions, we observe the phrase "as Yahweh thy God commanded thee " appended immediately to the fourth and fifth words, and the additional reason, " and that it may be well with thee," added to the fifth command, — a reason which is a favorite one in Deuteronomy (v. 29; vi. 18; xii. 25). It would seem, therefore, quite evident, that all of these variations of Deuteronomy are additions in the way of en- largement, paraphrase, explanation, and enforcement of the Ten Words. Looking now at t'le version of Exodus, we note that the reason for the observance of the sabbath is peculiar to it. It is not at all likely that the author of Deuteronomy would have taken the* liberty of cutting off any portions of the commands as they were known to him, and substituting another and very different reason for the one previously given. It would seem, therefore, that this reason of Exodus is a later addition to the command, no less than the additions that we have found in Deuteronomy. The writer or editor of Exodus xx. in its present form, clearly had before him the same command as the author of Deuter- onomy, with the exception of the Deuteronomic additions and this reason of the fourth command. It is not difficult to trace the origin of this reason. We find it essentially in Genesis ii. 2, 3: "And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made ; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it ; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made." These passages are recognized as belonging to the priestly 184 APPENDIX narrative and the priests' code (P). It would seem, therefore, that this addition to the fourth command is due to him. The other parts of the commands are common to the versions, and we can find nothing more that can be ascribed to the priestly- narrator except a single word in the fourth command, to be con- sidered later. We have now to explain the origin of the remaining specifica- tions and reasons. We begin with the second command. The second part of the reason appended to this command, we find in essentially the same form in Exodus xxxiv. 6, 7, in the great reve- lation of the Divine grace by the theophanic voice to Moses : " Yahweh, Yahweh, a God full of compassion and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy and faithfulness ; keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin : and that will by no means clear [the guilty] ; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation." We find also, in the little Book of the Covenant, the first part of the reason, thus : " For Yahweh, whose name is Zealous, is a zealous God " (Exod. xxxiv. 1 4). Now, both of these passages belong to the writing of the Judaic narrator (J). It seems clear, therefore, that he must have appended this reason to the second command ; and certainly nothing could be more appro- priate. Moreover, in the specifications we have the same verb as in Exodus xxxiv. 14, although this fact is obscured by the Re- vised Version, which renders the verb in the second command *'Thou shalt not bow down thyself," but in the little Book of the Covenant, "Thou shalt worship [no other god]." It seems probable, therefore, that the specifications, as well as the reason, of the second command, belong to J. The reason appended to the third command reminds us of the phrase "will not hold [him] guiltless " of the theophanic words already referred to in connection with the reason of the previous command, where we find the same verb naqah, which is obscured by the Revised Version in its rendering "and that will by no means clear [the guilty]," which is a singularly bad translation in other respects (Exod. xxxiv. 7). This favors the opinion that this reason, like the previous one, was derived from J. The specifications of the fourth command are more dif- THE GENESIS OF THE TEN WORDS 185 ficult. They seem to combine material from E as well as J. J gives us two sabbath laws. One of these is in the little Book of the Covenant (Exod. xxxiv. 21): "Six days shalt thou labour, and on the seventh day thou shalt keep sabbath. In ploughing and reaping, thou shalt keep sabbath." Here great stress is laid upon abstinence from labor, even in the busiest seasons of the year. The first clause, " Six days shalt thou labour," is the same in both commands, although here again the Revised Version has made a difference by rendering the one " labour " and the other " work." Exodus xvi. gives an account of the sabbath in connection with the giving of the manna. Here the narratives of P and J are combined. In the parts belonging to J we find the following: " For to-day is a sabbath unto Yahweh : to-day ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye shall gather it : but on the seventh day is the sabbath. In it there shall be none. . . . See, for that Yahweh hath given you the sabbath. ... So the people rested on the seventh day " (Exod. xvi. 25-30). Here we notice the phrase "sabbath unto Yahweh," which recurs in the specification of the fourth command. It seems likely, therefore, that in these two phrases we have the version of J. But there remain some very striking features that cannot be found in J, and these we find in E. The greater Book of the Covenant gives the sabbath law of E thus : " Six days shalt thou do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt keep sabbath : that thine ox and thine ass may have rest, and the son of thy maid-servant and the stranger may be refreshed." We observe that this law lays stress upon the refreshment of the animal, servant, and stranger, rather than upon abrtinence from labor. This striking feature of the command, not found in J, is characteristic of E elsewhere also in his code of legislation. We have seen that the first clause, " Six days thou shalt labour," belongs to J. To this is now added the phrase, "and do all thy work." This resembles E in the verb, but differs in the noun. The command here uses a noun, meldkhah, which is peculiar to the style of P. We can ascribe this introduction of the word instead of the noun ma'aseh of E, only to the process of assimilation that was later than any of the versions, and which strongly tended in the direction of Genesis ii. 2, 3. Hence, in the clause " thou shalt not do any work," the 186 APPENDIX same phrase is repeated, and then follow the specifications. E gives specifications of the ox and ass where the command uses " cattle," and son of thy maid-servant and stranger where the command gives " thy maid-servant and stranger." The command, however, adds "son and daughter and man-servant." It seems likely that these specifications all belong to E. There is one difficulty remaining. E gives us simply "the stranger " ; but the command, " thy stranger which is within thy gates." The phrase " within thy gates" is Deuteronomic. It seems likely that this has come into the text of Exodus by as- similation to the text of Deuteronomy at a late date, just as melakhah above is an assimilation to Genesis ii. 2. This is favored by the Septuagint Version, which uses instead of it " among thee," as if it read a different Hebrew word. We should not be surprised at so many changes in the fourth command ; for it recurs so many times, and in so many different forms, in the several narratives and codes. The reason appended to the fifth word is also Deuteronomic (see Deut. iv. 40; vi. 2 , xi. 9). This must also be a late addi- tion to the version of Exodus by assimilation to the version of Deuteronomy. The specifications of the tenth command are like those of the fourth, and doubtless came from the same writer, E. We observe the ox and the ass and the maid-servant of E from Exodus xxiii. 12, and the man-servant of the fourth command. The wife is added here, for she could hardly be missing in any specifications here, whereas she would have been unsuitable in connection with the fourth command. Thus we have, for the most part, traced the origin of the rea- sons and specifications that have been added to the Ten Words. We have found that each of the four writings that constitute our Pentateuch has a share in the work, and that their work has enriched the commands and enlarged their interpretation in many ways. It would be a serious loss if we were deprived of any of them. The Divine voice gave the Ten Words with thunder tones from heaven, and the Divine finger wrote them upon the two tables; and then the Divine Spirit inspired the several writers of the Pentateuch, each in his own way, to illustrate and enforce them THE GENESIS OF THE TEN WORDS 137 by specifications, reasons, and exhortations. In later times the prophets urged these Ten Words in other ways ; and at last our Saviour, in the Sermon on the Mount, took them up, removed from them the rubbish of rabbinical speculation, and set them in the bright sunlight of the gospel, showing that they are the eternal words of God for all ages and for all men, — the guide of the tongue and the heart as well as the outward act and deport- ment ; and summing them all up in the one blessed word " love," — love to God, and love to our neighbor. IV. THE PESTILENCE IN EGYPT. J. Ex. ix. I 7. I "And Yahweh said untoMoses, Come unto Pharaoh and speak unto him. Thus saith Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, Let my people go that they may serve me. (i). For if thou refuse to let them go, and wilt hold them still (2). Behold the hand of Yahweh is going to be upon thy cattle, which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the herds, and upon the flocks, a very grievous murrain. (3). And Yahweh will sever between the cattle of Is- rael and the cattle of Egypt; and there shall nothing die of all that belongeth to the chil- dren of Israel. (4). And Yahweh set a time, saying. To-morrow Yahweh will do this thing in the land. (5). And YahvHi did this thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died ; but of the cattle of the children of Is- rael died not one. (6). And Pharaoh sent and behold not even one of the cattle of the Israelites had died. But the heart of Pharaoh was stubborn and he did not let the people go." (7). (188) P. Ex. ix. 8-12. " And Yahweh said unto Mo- ses and unto Aaron, Take to you handfuls of ashes of the furnace, and let Moses sprinkle it toward heaven ih the sight of Pharaoh. (8). And it shall be- come small dust over all the land ot Egypt, and shall be upon man and upon beast a boil break- ing forth with blains throughout all the land of Egypt. (9). And they took ashes of the furnace and stood before Pharaoh ; and Moses sprinkled it up toward heaven, and it became a boil breaking forth with blains upon man and upon beast. (10). And the magicians were not able to stand before Moses because of the boils ; for the boils were upon the magicians and upon all the Egyptians. (11). And Yah- weh hardened the heart of Pha- raoh and he hearkened not unto them, as Yahweh had spoken unto Moses." (12). V. THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS IN THE OTHER CODES. The book which Moses was commanded to write as the basis of the Covenant according to J (Ex.xxxiv. 27), is called the little book of the Covenant, to distinguish it from the book which Moses wrote according to E as the basis of the Covenant at Horeb (Ex. xxiv. 4) which is called the greater book of the Covenant. This little book of the Covenant is scarcely larger than the tables of the Covenant (Ex. xx. 1-17). Indeed it is now the opinion of many critics that We have here another decalogue. It is true the critics differ in their arrangement of these commands, but as there have always been differences in the synagogue and the church as to the arrangement of the " Ten Commandments of the Tables," such differences of opinion as to the arrangement of this deca- logue cannot destroy the consensus as to their number in either case. There are some critics who hold that this decalogue was written upon the Tables (Ex. xxxiv. 28), on account of "the words of the covenant," which seem to go back upon "write thou these words, for upon the basis of these words do I conclude a covenant with thee and v/ith Israel " (v. 27) ; and also on account of the verb nnD*1 which has no subject expressed and where the most natural interpretation finds the subject in Moses, the sub- ject of the verbs which immediately precede. If the section Ex. xxxiv. 11-28 stood by itself we could not escape this conclusion; but if we go back to Ex. xxxiv. i we find the promise that Yah- weh will write upon these tables the same commands that were upon the former tables destroyed by Moses, and these were certainly the ten words of Ex. xx. 2-17. This certainly was the opinion of the Redactor. We shall take the decalogue of J as a basis for our comparison : We shall compare these laws of J and E with corresponding laws in the Deuteronomic code (D), the code of Holiness (H), and the Priests' code (P). We shall also bring into comparison the Ten Words of the Tables. There are two versions of these, the one in Ex. xx. (T a), the other in Deuteronomy v. (T S). The version in Ex. xx. embraces material from P, and, accord- ingly, has embedded in it the Tables of E and J. The Tables in D are called " Tables of the Covenant/' Deut. ix. 9 ; in P (189) 190 APPENDIX. "Tables of the testimony/' Ex. xxxi, iSa; in E "Tables of stone," Ex. xxxi. i8^; in J "Tables of stones," Ex. xxxiv. i, 4- /. Command. J.—" Surety ye shall not worship afioiher God'' (Ex. xxxiv. 14 a), E— " Ye shall not make with me gods of silver " (Ex. xx. 23 a). T.— " Thou shall have no other gods before me " (Ex. xx. 3). D.— '^ If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, .... say- ing, Let us go after other gods .... and let us serve, them,'' thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet" (Dt. xiii. 2). H. — " Turn ye not unto worthless gods " (Lev. xix. 4). This is the same command in five different codes (a) "other gods" {T and D), = "another god " (J), = ''gods of silver" (E), = " worthless gods " (H) ; (b) " have " (T), = " go after and serve " (D), = "make " 'E), -= "turn unto" (H), = "worship" (J); (c) " with me " (E), = " before me " (T). //. Command. J. — " J/o/ten gods thou shalt not make thee'' (Ex. xxxiv. 17). E. — " And gods of gold ye shall not make you " (Ex. xx. 23 d). T. — " Thou shalt not make thee any graven i?nage" (Ex. xx. 4). H.— " Molten gods ye shall not make you " (Lev. xix. 4). D. — " Cursed be the man that maketh a graven or molten image " (Dt. xxvii. 15). " Molten gods '" (J and H), — "gods of gold " (E), = "graven image " (T), = " graven or molten image " (D). It is probable that the reasons attached to these commands were not original. In J the reasons are appended to the first command. " For Vahweh, his name is jealous. The jealous God is He. (Take heed) lest thou conclude a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and when they go whoring after their gods and sacrifice unto their gods, they invite thee and thou eat of their peace offerings, and then take some of their daughters for thy sons, and when their daughters go whoring after their gods they make thy sons go whoring after their gods " (Ex. xxxiv. 14 b, 16). These verses simply unfold the meaning of N3p. As Yahweh is the husband of Israel he demands the exclusive allegiance of his people. Any worship of other gods is as the neglect of her THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. IQl husband by a wife and her going after other lovers. Any par- ticipation in the sacrificial meals of these gods is committing whoredom with them. In both versions of the Tables a corre- sponding reason is appended to the second command. " ( nor T a) any form that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth ; thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor be led to serve them : for I Yah weh thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children {a?t(i T d) upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me ; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my command- ments " (Ex. XX. 4-6 ; Dt. V. 8-10). {a). This enlargement of the command has its parallel in Dt. iv. 15-19. " Take ye, therefore, good heed unto yourselves ; for ye saw no manner of form on the day that Yahweh spake unto you in Ho- reb out of the midst of the fire : lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the heaven, the likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth : and lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun and the moon and the stars, even all the host of heaven, thou be drawn away and worship them and serve them." It is evident that this is an expansion by Dof the lesser specifi- cation given in connection with the Tables. The specification in the Tables is earlier than D, and not derived from D. (<)). The first part of the reason of the 2d command of the Ta- bles is the same essentially as the first part of the reason of the decalogue of J. J. — " For Yahweh, his name is jealous. The jealous God is He" (Ex. xxxiv. 14 <^). T. — " For I, Yahweh, thy God, am a jealous God " (Ex. xx. 5). This we may also compare with D. — " For Yahweh, thy God, is a consuming fire, a jealous God " (Dt. iv. 24). (c). The second part of the reason of the 2d command of the decalogue of the Tables we find in essentially the same form in the revelation of the divine grace by the theophanic voice, " Yah- \\y2 APPENDIX web, Yahweh, a God full of compassion and gracious, slow to an- ger, and plenteous in mercy and faithfulness : keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin: and that will by no means acquit; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation " (Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7). This passage certainly belongs to J. It is probable, therefore, that the whole of the specification and reasons appended to the 2d command of the Tables belongs to the document J. (a). The larger portion of the reason attached to the first com- mand of the decalogue of worship in J is not found in T. We find this prohibition of making a covenant with the Canaanites in D. " Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them : neither shalt thou make marriages with them ; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For he will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods ; so will the anger of Jahveh be kindled against you, and he will destroy thee quick- ly" (Dt. vii. 2-4). The conception of " whoring after other gods " is found in the Hexateuch elsewhere in Deut. xxxi. 16 (J) ; Lev. xvii. 7 ; xx. 5-6 (H), and Num. xiv. 33 (J ?) I ^v. 39 (P). There seems to be little doubt that this conception also is original to J. ///. Comtnand, J. — Six days shalt thou labor, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest (Ex. xxxiv. 21). E. — Six days shalt thou do thy work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest (Ex. xxiii. 12). T a. — Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it (Ex. xx. 8). X ^, — Observe the Sabbath day to sanctify it (Dt. v, 12). H. — Ye shall observe my Sabbaths (Lev. xix. 3, 30; xxvi. 2). P. — Verily ye shall observe 7ny Sabbaths (Ex. xxxi. 13). In the decalogue of J the feast of unleavened bread precedes the Sabbath, but in the parallel passage in E, and in the cata- logues of holy days in P, the Sabbath comes first. The reason for this strange transposition it is difficult to see. J mentions the six days as days in which to "labor"— "do THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. I93 thy work" (E). The seventh -day is for "rest," nn^ (J E). In the Tables " the seventh day " gives place to "the Sabbath," r\2^. This is to be " sanctified," trip- It is to be " remembered " (T a) ; but observed (T d, H, P). The Sabbath becomes Sab- baths in H, P. J gives an additional specification. E. — " In ploughing and reaping thou shalt rest " (Ex. xxxiv. 21), that is, in the busiest seasons of the year, when the temptation to labor would be strongest. The Tables also give specifications. T a. — " Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work ; but the seventh day is a Sabbath unto Jahveh thy God : thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates" (Ex. xx. 9, 10). T d. — " As Jahveh thy God commanded thee, — Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath unto Jahveh thy God : thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stran- ger that is within thy gates " (Dt. v. 12-14). The Priest code contains two sets of specifications from differ- ent sources. Pa. — "Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you : every one that profaneth it shall be put to a violent death : for whosoever doth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done ; but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to Jahveh : whosoever doeth any work on the Sabbath day, he shall be put to a violent death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations for an everlasting cove- nant " (Ex. xxxi. 14-16). Compare also in the catalogue of D'lyiD of P. P d. — "Six days shall work be done : but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, an holy convocation ; ye L94 APPENDIX. shall do no manner of work : it is a sabbath unto Jah- veh in all your dwellings " (Lev. xxiii. 3). Compare also the catalogue of ritual offerings, Num. xxviii. 9-10, where the offerings for the Sabbath are presented. The specifications are two-fold : {a) as to the method of ob- serving the day, and (d) as to those who are to observe it. (a). The first object is abstinence from labor, nDK7D p2 ntJ^yn {Dn, leavened. P a uses niVD> unleavened, as well as |*Dn. J uses for offer DH'^^ = Hat E = y^'\^r\ P a, b. J E use n3t = D''D^C'n nDT P^. P allows the use of leavened bread in the case specified to be eaten at the common meal of the peace- offering, and H mentions the offering of the two leavened loaves at the harvest feast (Lev. xxiii. 17). VI/I. Command. J. — ** And the zebach of the feast of the Passover shall not be left unto the morning " (Ex. xxxiv. 25 b), E. — " And the fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning" (Ex. xxiii. 18 b). D. — " And thou shalt sacrifice the passover unto Jahveh thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which Jahveh shall choose to cause his name to dwell there." .... " Neither shall any of the flesh, which thou sacrificest the first day at even, remain all flight until the fnorning. Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which Jahveh thy God giveth thee : but at the place which Jahveh thy God shall choose to cause his name to dwell in, there thou shait sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt. And thou shalt roast and eat it m the place which Jah- veh thy God shall choose : and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents " (Deut. xvi. 2, 4 ^—7). THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 205 p {a).—" They shall leave none of it until the morning, nor break a bone thereof: according to all the statute of the passover, they shall keep it " (Num. ix. 12). p {b). — *' And in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, is Jahveh's passover" (Num. xxviii. 16). The fuller law of the passover is given in connection with the mingled history of J and P in Ex. xii. P.—" Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth {day) of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers' houses, a lamb for an household : and if the household be too little for a lamb, then shall he and his neighbor next unto his house take one according to the number of the souls ; according to every man's eating, ye shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year : ye shall take it from the sheep, or from the goats : and ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at even. And they shall take of the blood, and put it on the two side posts and on the lintel, upon the houses wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleav- ened bread ; with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Eat not of it r3w, norsoddenatall with water, but roast with fire; its head with its legs and with the inwards there- of. And ye shall let nothifig of it reynain until the morn- ing ; but that which remaineth of it until the morn- ing, ye shall burn with fire. And thus shall ye eat it ; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand : and ye shall eat it m haste: it is jahveh's passover." .... *' And Jahveh said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover : there shall no alien ert thereof : but every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A sojourner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. In one house shall it be eaten ; thou shalt not carry forth aught of the flesh abroad out of the house : nei- 206 APPENDIX. ther shall ye break a bone thereof " (Ex. xii. 3-1 1 ; 43-46). ]._>«' Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out, and take you lambs according to your families, and kill the passover. And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the basin : and none of you shall go out of the door of his house until the mornmg. For Jahveh will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts. Jahveh will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you. And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever. And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which Jahveh will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service ? that ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of Jahveh's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses" (Ex. xii. 21-27). The passover feast of the eighth command of J, which is here incidentally referred to under the offering peculiar to the feast, is more fully mentioned in the narrative of J. The passover sacrifice is indeed a special kind of the zebach, or peace-offering, rtDDH Jn n^T == PIDD nir of Ex. xii. 27. E gives the command a more general reference to all the feasts. D uses the phrase "sacrifice the "passover," riDSn n3T = nDDH Dn2^ of J. In the narrative of J the victim is |K^, a lamb ; in P, a nt^, embracing ^22, lamb, and ty, kid. There is no specification in the codes of E and J. In J the zebach shall not be left until the morning, npni) ]'h' i6 = "ipn nv p^'' n!) of E := -ipn^ ntj^nn p pi?^ xi? of D = npn IV I'T'nin i6 of P (narrative) = -)p3 IV "in^N*&^'> ^h of P ^7. D emphasizes the celebration of the feast at the central sanc- tuary. Pa gives the additional rule, " nor break a bone thereof," both in his code and in his narrative. If we had space we could point to a large number of features which distinguish the docu- tHE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 20? ments here and elsewhere, as illustrated by these extensive pas- sages. Any one of our readers may do it for himself, IX, Command, J._" The first of the first-fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring to the house of Jahveh thy God'' (Ex. xxxiv. 26 d), E. — ** The first of the first-fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring to the house of Jahveh thy God" (Ex. xxiii. 19). D. — " That thou shalt take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which thou shalt bring in from thy land that Jahveh thy God giveth thee ; and thou shalt put it in a basket, and shalt go unto the place which Jahveh thy God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there. And thou shalt come unto the priest that shall be in those days, and say unto him, I profess this day unto Jahveh thy God, that I am come unto the land which Jahveh sware unto our fathers for to give us. And the priest shall take the basket out of thine hand, and set it down before the altar of Jahveh thy God. And thou shalt answer and say before Jahveh thy God, A Syrian ready to perish was my father, and he went down into Egypt and sojourned there, few in number; and he became there a nation, great, mighty, and popu- lous : and the Egyptians evil entreated us, and afflicted us, and laid upon us hard bondage : and we cried unto Jahveh the God of our fathers, and Jahveh heard our voice and saw our affliction, and our toil, and our op- pression : and Jahveh brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and writh signs, and with wonders : and he hath brought us into this place, and hath given us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey. And now, behold, I have brought the first of the fruit of the ground, which thou, Jahveh, hast given me. And thou shalt set it down before Jahveh thy God, and worship before Jahveh thy God : and thou shalt re- joice in all the good which Jahveh thy God hath given unto thee, and unto thine house, thou, and the Levite, and the stranger that is in the midst of thee " (Deut. xxvi. 2-1 1). 208 APPENDIX. H. — "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring the sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest unto the priest: and he shall wave the sheaf before Jahveh to be accepted for you : on the morrow after the sab- bath the priest shall wave it. And in the day when ye wave the sheaf, ye shall offer a he-lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto Jahveh. And the minchah thereof shall be two tenth parts (of an ephah) of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto Jahveh for a sweet savour : and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin. And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this self-same day, until ye have brought the oblation of your God. It is a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwell- ings " (Lev. xxiii. 10-14). P.—" All the best of the oil, and all the best of the vintage, and of the corn, the first-fruits of them which they give unto Jahveh, to thee have I given them. The first ripe fruits of all that is in their land, which they bring unto Jahveh, shall be thine ; every one that is clean in thy house shall eat thereof " (Num. xviii. 12-13). The phrase of J E is "inD"tX niDn n''t^'^n = r\\T\^r\ ns) h'2 n^K^Nn of d = D3"i^vp n^E^'xn of H = Dn^:^i<-i \rx\ ^nn^n ni?n i>Di nnv^ ai^n b of p. The house of Jahveh seems to imply a temple. It may have been a change by insertion from an original command to bring the first fruits to Jahveh. In D it is brought to the priest of Jahveh. In H it is the offering of the first ripe sheaf. In P it is generalized so as to include oil and wine and grain, and these are to be given to the priests for food. X. Command, J.—" Thou shall not seethe a kid (which is still) with its mother* 5 milk " (Ex. xxxiv. 26^). E.— " Thou shall not seethe a /^/V/ (which is still) with its mother* s milk " (Ex. xxiii. 19). THE DECALOGUE OF J AND ITS PARALLELS. 209 D. — " Thou shall not seethe a >5;V (which is still) with its mother's milk " (Dt. xiv. 21). This command is identical in these three codes. It is not clear in itself, and probably remained as an enigma after the law and usage had changed. The older Protestant interpreters. Luther, Calvin, Piscator, etal, thought of a limitation of the age of the animal for purposes of sacrifice. This is most suited to the context, for we have had three laws of offerings prior to it. But the Rabbinical interpretation that it is a dietary law against eating a kid in the milk of its mother has been followed by most moderns. The Deuteronomic code (xiv. 21) is thought to favor the latter view from the fact that it is there preceded by the command not to eat anything that dies of itself. But on the other hand, it is followed by the laws of tithes and first-fruits, and it may rather go with these laws there, as it is associated with the law of first-fruits here. We do not hesitate to follow the former interpretation and class this law with the three preceding ones as laws of offerings. 7^2 is used for cooking the portions of the animal victim that were eaten by the offerers in the communion meal of the n3T (Ex. xxix. 31). This then would forbid the sacri- fice of suckling animals. It is true that in the larger book of the Covenant (Ex. xxii. 29) first born of animals were to be given to Jahveh on the eighth day, notwithstanding the law in Ex. xxiii. 19, corresponding exactly with ours. It is also true that in Lev. xxii. 27, we have the more explicit statement, " From the eighth day and upward it shall be accepted for a qorba7t an offering by fire unto Jahveh," but notwithstanding the consensus of Rabbin- ical interpretation we are not sure that this amounts to any more than that as the male child was circumcised on the eighth day, so the animal on the eighth day was taken from its mother to the divine presence. It may then have been kept in the flocks and herds of the altar for subsequent use at the proper age. In- deed the "and upward," favors our view. But even if the ordi- nary view is taken as to the age of animals suitable for offerings, we have still to bear in mind that the various codes differ not in- frequently in their prescriptions. The offerings are generally of animals a year old or more, in the specifiations of age that are not infrequently made. We have gone over this decalogue of worship given in the nar- rative of J, and have compared its ten laws with similar laws in 210 APPENDIX. the other codes. We have found that the same fundamental commands underlie the several forms in which they appear in the different codes. These fundamental commands we may re- gard as Mosaic; but how is it possible to explain the variations in the codes on the traditional theory that all these variations were given by Moses to the same people before their entrance into the Holy Land, and ere it was possible to fulfil any of them in action ? They appear in the codes in several stages of devel- opment representing different stages of codification, as changes were rendered necessary in the experience of God's people in the Holy Land. If any one can propose any more reasonable ex- planation, or one more in accord with the traditional theory that will take the facts of the case into account, we shall gladly follow him. VI. THE GREATER BOOK OF THE COVENANT AND ITS PARALLELS IN THE LATER CODES. The book written by Moses and called the book of the Cov- enant Ex. xxiv. 4-7, because the great Covenant at Sinai was made upon the basis of it (xxiv. 8), is also called the greater book of the Covenant in order to distinguish it from the little book of the Covenant, Ex. xxxiv. 27. This book contained all the words and judgments which had just been given to Moses in the mount (xxiv. 3). The words certainly embrace Ex. xx. 22-26, and Ex. xxiii. 20-33, the Introduction and Conclusion of the book. Some have maintained that the ten words of the tables, Ex. XX. 3-17, should likewise be included. The judgments em- brace xxi. — xxiii. 19 in accordance with the title xxi. i : "These are the judgments which thou shalt set before them." These judgments are regarded by many as a series of pentades or groups of five commands, and also decalogues. The first effort to arrange them in such groups was made by Bertheau in his Sieben Gruppe7t Mosaischer Gesetze., Goettingen, 1840. He makes seven decalogues: xx. 3-7; xxi. 2-1 1, 12-27; xxi. 28 — xxii. 16, 17-30; xxiii. 1-8; xxiii. 14-19. He regards xx. 22-26 as four commands introductory to the judgments; Ex. xxiii. 9-13 as an interpolation, and Ex. xxiii. 26-43 ^s a decalogue of promises. Great credit is due to Bertheau for breaking the way into this previously unexplored wilderness of commands. It is not surprising that he sometimes missed the proper arrange- ment. Ewald in his Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, II. p. 235, 1865, im- proves upon Bertheau 's scheme and finds : xxi. 2-1 1, two pentades, xxi. 12-16, a pentade followed by v. 17 a fragment of another pentade relating to crimes other than murders with a death (211) 212 APPENDIX penalty ; xxi. 18-32, two pentades ; xxi. 33— xxii. 5, a decalogue; xxii. 6-16, two pentades, xxii. 17-30, two pentades, xxiii. 1-9, two pentades; xxiii. 10-19, two pentades. Dillmann in his edition of Knobel's Com. on Exodus and Leviticus, 1880, improves upon Ewald by a more careful analysis. He thinks that the Redactor has only given a selection of commands of the original series in Ex. XX. 24-26 and xxii. 17-30; that Ex. xxiii. 4-5 is a later in- terpolation, and that xxiii. 10-19 ^^s been rearranged and im- proved by the Redactor. On the basis of these efforts we propose what seems to us a still further improvemant. I.; — The Pcntade of Worship xx 23-26. (i). Ye shall not make with me gods of silver. (2). And gods of gold ye shall not make you. (3). An altar of earth thou shalt make me, and sacrifice upon it thy whole burnt-offerings and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep and thy cattle. In all places where I record my name I will come unto thee and bless thee. (4). And if an altar of stones thou wilt make me, thou shalt not build them hewn. And if thou hast twung thy tool over it thou hast defiled it. (5). And thou shalt not ascend by steps upon my altar that thy nakedness may not be disclosed upon it. I and 2 have been studied in connection with their parallels in the code of J. 3. This command prescribes the material out of which the divine altar should be constructed, the earth, npis, the natural soil of the ground. It mentions the two kinds of sacrifices, both primitive and Pre-Mosaic, which might be made upon it: nii'lV = whole burnt-oiferings, and DVJ^L** = peace-offerings. Many different altars are contemplated in DIpDH i^D, which, in accordance with the rule of h'2 with the article must be translated "all places." These places for the erection of altars were indicated by divine selection. The law of the Deuteronomic Code (xii. 5-7, 12-14) is as follows: " But unto the place which Yahweh 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 THE GREATER BOOK OF THE COVENANT 213 bring your burnt-offerings, 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 Yahweh your God, and ye shall rejoice in all that ye put your hand uino, ye and your households, wherein Yahweh thy God hath blessed thee." " And ye shall rejoice before Yahweh your God, ye, and your sons, and your daughters, and your menservants, and your maid- servants, and the Levite that is within your gates, forasmuch as he hath no portion nor inheritance with you. Take heedto thyself that thou offer not thy burnt-offerings in every place that thou seest ; but in the place which Yahweh shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee." This law substitutes " the place which Yahweh your God shall choose out of all your tribes " for the " all places " of the cov- enant code, and prohibits offering burnt-offerings in " every place that thou seest" (DIpD ?D3), xii. 13, thus limiting sacri- fices to 07ie national altar. The Deuteronomic expressions for divine selection are '* to put his name there " (D1K^7), xii. 5, and "cause his name to dwell there" (|3 6^7), xii. 11, instead of "re- cord my name " ("CDTH) of the covenant code. The sacrifices are increased beyond the whole burnt-offerings and peace-offer- jngs of the covenant code to the tithes, heave-offerings, votive- offerings, free-will offerings and firstlings (xii. 6). The law of H is as follows (Lev. xvii. 3-9) : " What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it without the camp, and hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting, to offer it as an oblation unto Yahweh before the taber- nacle of Yahweh : blood shall be imputed unto that man ; he hath shed blood ; and that man shall be cut off from among his people : to the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they sacrifice in the open field, even that they may bring them unto Yahweh, unto the door of the tent of meet- ing, unto the priest, and sacrifice them for sacrifices of peace- offerings unto Yahweh. And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of Yahweh at the door of the tent of meeting, and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto Yahweh. And they shall 214 APPENDIX no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the he goats, after whom they go a whoring. This shall be a statute forever unto them throughout their generations. And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that offereth a burnt-offering or sacrifice, and bringeth it not unto the door of the tent of meeting, to sacrifice it unto Yahweh ; even that man shall be cut off from his people." This law is a still further advance. The sacrifices are limited under severe penalty to the altar at the door of the tent of meet- ing. 4, The native rock or natural stones were allowed for use in altar building as well as the natural soil of the ground, only these must remain in their natural condition. No tool could be used upon them. With this prohibition compare the law of • P. (Exodus xxvii. 1-5.) " And thou shalt make the altar of acacia wood, five cubits long, and five cubits broad ; the altar shall be four-square : and the height thereof shall be three cubits. And thou shalt make the horns of it upon the four corners thereof : the horns thereof shall be of one piece with it : and thou shalt overlay it with brass, and thou shalt make its pots to take away its ashes, and its shovels, and its basons, and its fleshhooks, and its firepans : all the vessels thereof thou shalt make of brass. And thou shall; make for it a grating of network of brass ; and upon the net shalt thou make four brasen rings in the four corners thereof. And thou shalt put it under the ledge round the altar be- neath, that the net may reach halfway up the altar." This law makes the use of tools necessary both in cutting the acacia wood and in overlaying with brass. The material of the covenant code is no longer thought of. 5. The sanctity of the altar was also maintained by the prohi- bition of any exposure of the person there, even such as might arise in the use of stairs, niiy has here the same sense as in Lev. xviii. 6 sq. These three commands form a group in the un- folding of the reverence of the divine name of the third Com- mand of the tables. There seems to be rather an abrupt transition from the pen- tade of Worship to the D^tOfitJ^D. We would expect other laws THE GREATER BOOK OF THE COVENANT 215 of worship to follow. It may be that the Redactor has omitted one or more pentades and used them elsewhere. If the closing decalogue of our book xxiii. 10-19, immediately followed, it would seem more natural than the present order. We must leave these questions undecided for the present. 11. — The Pentade of the Rights of the Hebrew Slave (xxi. 2-6). (i). If thou acquire a Hebrew slave, six years shall he serve, and in the seventh go forth to freedom without price. (2). If by himself he came, by himself he shall go forth. (3). If he were married, his wife shall go forth with him. (4). If his lord give him a wife and she bear him sons and daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her lord and he shall go forth alone. (5). But if the slave earnestly say, I love my lord, my wife and my children, I will not go forth free, then his lord shall bring him unto God and bring him to the door or to the post, and bore his ear with his awl, and he shall become his slave forever. The Deuteronomic code, (xv. 12-18), gives (i) and (5) in differ- ent language and greatly enlarged : (i). The Deuteronomic code uses "iDtD^ for njpn and 13nWn ^K'Sn for ^^^rb & Bathgen, F. W 143 Batten, L. W 144 Baudissin, W. W., 130, 132-134, 143 Bauer, G. L 53 Baur, Ferd 162 Beecher, W.J 130 Bellarmin 33 Bertheau, E 211 Bissell, E. C 130, 137 Bleek, Ferd 61 Bohmer, E 64 Breaches of trust, decalogue of. .221 seq. Bredenkamp, C 143 Brown, Francis 47, 130, 144 Brown, C. R 144 Bruston, C 143 Budde, K 135, 143 Buhl, F 143 Calmet 44, 56, 59 Calvin 34, 99, 209 Canus 35 Carlstadt 36, 41 Carpenter, J. E 144 Carpnov, J. G 42, 43, 62 Carriere, A 143 Castelli, David \ 144 ChcTne, T. K 144 Chrysostom 33 Clark, Adam 43 Clementine Homilies 33 Clement of Alexandria 33 Clericus 41 Codes ; of D. , 8 seq. , 81 seq, , 99 s:q,, no seq., 133 J^i'., 157 ^^'J", of E., loi seq., 122, 132 seq., 156 seq.\ of H., loi seq., 127 seq., i33-y^7M 157 -y^l^-; of Jm 101 seq., i;^^ seq., 1^6 seq. \ oiY*., (jg seq., no seq., 132 seq., 157 seq.', of Sinai, 131 seq. Colenso 9a Concubines, Hebrew slave, pentade of 216 seq. Cornill, C. H 134, 135, 143 Covenant, Greater Book of, 7, 18 seq., 100, 156, 158, 185, 189, 211 seq.; little Book of, 7, 100, 156, 184, 189, 211 seq. Criticism, Higher, what is it, t seq.\ problems of, 2 seq.\ evidences used by, 4 seq. ; obstacles to, 145 ; Lower i Curtis, E. L 144 Curtiss, S. Ives 130, 144 D., 68 ; style of 75 Darmstetter, J 144 Davidson, A. B 129 " Samuel 66 Davison, W. T 144 Dealings with the weak and poor, pentade of 224 seq. Decalogues, of J., iZg seq.', of the Tables 189 seq. De La Saussaye, Chautepie 144 ^239) 2^0 INDEX OF NAMES AND TOPICS Delitzsch, Franz. . . 14, 23, 67, 130, 132 " Fred 143 Deuteronomy, date of, 81 seg.\ style of 168 seq. De Wette, 60, 62, 65, 81, 92, 100, 107, 132 Diatessaron, Tatian's 138 seg. Dillmann, August, 63, 69, 88, 130, 131, 132, t34, 143, 153, 218 Dods, Marcus 212 Douglas, George 129, 130 Drechbler 62 Driver, S. R., 47, 69, 70, 83, 85, 88, i35> 143. 144. 151. 157, ^68 Drummoud, James 144 DulT, A , J44 Duhm, B 93. 143 E, , 68 ; style of 74 Eichhorn, J. G., 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 60, 99, 100, 107, 142 Ewald, H 61, 63, 64, 132, 211, 212 Feast of Passover, 106, 204 seg.\ of unleavened bread, 106, 195 seg.\ of weeks, 106, 199 seg.\ of harvest, 106, 199 seg.\ of in- gathering, 106, 201 seg.\ of booths (tabernacles) .... 106, 201 seg. Feasts and ofTerings, pentades of, 229 seg. Fleury, Abb6 44 Floigl, Victor 144 Francois, Abbe L 44 Fulda, F. C 53 Gabler, J. G.. . . .... 52 Gast, F. A 130, 144 Gautier, Lucien 143 Geddes, Alex... 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 107, 137 George 9°. 93 Giesebrecht, F 94, 143 Gleaning, law against 234 Gleig, Bishop 44 Gore, Charles 29 Graf, Karl H 9ij 92| 127 Graves 43 Green, W. H. 74, 110, 113, 117, 130, 142 Gregory 35 Grill, J 143 Guthe, H 143 H. , style of 172 seg. Harper, W. R 130, 144 Hartmann, A. T 58 Hasse, G 53 Haupt, Paul 144 Havernick, A. C 62 Heidegger 42, 62 Hengstenberg, E. W 62, 63 Hexateuch, term explained i Hirsch, E. G T44 Hobbes, T 36, 41 Hodge, A. A 130 Hommel, Fritz 143 Home, T. H 54, 55, 56, 58, 118 Horst, L 127 Huet, P 42 Hupfeld, H 48, 63, 64 Hypotheses, documentary, 46 seg.\ fragmentary, 57 seg.\ supple- mentary, 60 seg.\ development, go seg. ^ 129 seq. ILGEN, CD 48, S3, 63 Injuries, pentade of 219 seg, Irenjeus 33 Israel, religious development of, 124 seq. J., 68 ; style of 74 Jahn S3, 56 Jasher, book of 12, 13, 95 Jastrow, M 144 Jerome 33 Jerusalem 49, 52 Julicher, A 143 Junilius 33. 34 Justice, pentade of 228 seq. Kalisch, M 93 Kamphauscn, A 143 Kautzsch, E 69, 75, 94, 143 INDEX OF NAMES AND TOPICS 241 Kayser, A 93. 127 Keil, F 62, 63 Kellner, M. L 144 Kennedy -144 Kindness, laws of 228 Kirkpatrick, A. T i44 Kittel, R 130. 132, 143 Kleinert, P 67, 143 Klostermann, A 127, 143, 152 knappert, J 144 Knobel, A 64, 212 Kohler, A 143 Konig, E 94,95, 143 Kuenen, A. . . . 92, 93. 94> 95, ii5» 128, 131, 143, 162 Kurtz, J. H 62, 67 Ladd, G. T 144 Lange, J. P 67 Language, argument from. ... 69 seq. Law Book of Josiah 15 seg. Lemme, L i43 Lenormant, F 94» 95 Lotz, W 144 Luther 34. 209 Lyon, D. G : 144 Maresius 42 Marsh, Bishop 54, 55, 56, 58, 118 Marti, K 143 Masius 36, 42 Merx, A 60, 143 Michaelis, J. D 52, 57 Mishna 32 Mitchell, A. F 35 Mixtures, law against 233 Montet, E 143 " F 143 Moore, G. F T30, 138, 140, 144 Mozley 54 Myer, E 143 Neander, a 162 Noldeke, T 65, 91, 143 Nowack, W 143 Oetti I, S 143 Oort, H 144 Orelli, K. von 143 Osgood, H 130, 137, 138 Ottmar (Nachtigall) 53 P., 68 ; style of 74. '74 ^^9- Patton, F. L 130 Paul of Nisibis 33 Pentateuch, term explained i Peters, J. P 130,144 Perowne, J. J. S 66, 141 Peyrerius 3^, 39 Piscator 209 Plagues, Egyptian, ']?,seq., 148 seg., 188 Poems, Pentameter, 75 seg.; trim- eter 75 -f^?- Poole, Matthew 35,54 Popper, J 91, 92 Prideaux 43, 44 Purity, laws of 226 seg, Ranke, F. H 61 Renan, E 162 Reuss, E., 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 9^, * 98, 100, 107, 115, 118, 125, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, T43, 162 Reverence and offerings, pentade of 225 seg. Reville, A 143 Riehm, E .. . 81, 82, 83, 84, 91, 99, 100 Robertson, J 144 Robinson, Edward 59 Roediger 63 Rosenmuller 53, 5^ Ryle, H. E 16, 144 Ryssel 143 Schrader, E 65, 143 Schultz, H 9, 94, i^j3 Schurer, E 14^ Semler 4^ Sharp, S 94 Siegfried, C 94, i43 Simon, R 40, 41, 42, 49, 75 Slave, Hebrew, rights of, pen- tade of 215 seg. Smend, R 94, I43 Smith, G. A 130, i44 242 INDEX OF NAMES AND TOPICS Smith, H. P 130, 144 ** W. R 94, 96, 129, 144 Socin, A 75, 143 Spinoza, B. de 36, 39, 40, 41, 42 Spurrell, G.J 144 Stade, B 94, 143 Stahelin, J.J 63 Stanley, A. P 66 Stanton, V. H 144 Stickel, J . G 143 Strack, H. L 63, 130, 143 Strauss, D 162 Tatian 138, 141 Ten words, genesis of 181 seq. TertuUian 33 Testimony, pentade of 227 seq. Theft and Damage to property, pentade of 221 Theodoret 33 Theophany, several representations of 146, 236 seq. Thorah, the book of 8, 14, 16, 17 Tiele, C. P 144 Toy, C. H 94, 96, 144 Tuch, F 63 Valeton, J. J. P 144 Van Dale, A 41 Vater, J. S 57. S8, 61, 137 Vatke, W 9°, 93. 94 Vemes, M 94. ^44 Vitringa 44 Volck, W 143 Vuilleumier, H 143 Wars of Yahweh, book of. ... . 12, 95 Weights and mccisures 235 Wellhausen, J... 94, 95. "5, 128, 129, 137, 143, 162 Whitehouse, O. C 144 Wildeboer, G 144 Witsius, H 43 Worship, pentade of 212 seq. Wright, C. H. H 144 Yahweh. revelation of the name of 46 seq.^ 165 seq. INDEX OF TEXTS.^ Genesis. i 52, 75 i. i-ii. 3 50 i. 2 151 i. 25 70 ii 75 ii. 4-iii. 24 50 ".1 73 ii. 2 186 ".2.3 183,185, 195 "•7 73, 151 ii.9 , 72 V. 1-28, 30-32 50 V. 22, 24 166 vi. 3 151 vi. g-22 50 vi. 9, II 166 vi. 20 70 vii. 20-23 46 vii. 22 "73 viii. 1-4, 13-19 50 viii. 20 loi '^^•^-17 50, 149 ix. 13 se^ 195 ix. 28, 29 50 xi. 10-26, 32 50 xii. 1-3 79 xii. 4, sdis SO ^il'6 36,44. 71 xii. 7, 8 101 xii. 10-20. 78 xii. II 72 xiii. 6, II, 12 di's 50 xiii. 7 71 Genesis. xiii. 18 loi 3iv 46,50, 135 xiv. 14 36, 44 XV. 2, 8 49 XV. 4, 5 79 XV. 7 166 XV. 16 71 XV, 18 149 xvi. 3, 15, 16 */.r 50 xvii 149, 195 xvii. 1-8 79 xvii. 1-27 50 xvii. 18 166 xix. 29 50 xix. 29-38 46 XX. 1-13 78 XX. 4. 13 49 XX. 9 72 XX. 16 217 xxi. 2-5 so xxi. 22, 32 73 xxii. 9 101 xxii. 14 38,42, 44 xxii. 15-18 79 xxii. 20-24 . . 46 xxiii. 1-20 50 xxiii. 4 71, 166 xxiv. 3, 37 71 xxiv. 16 72 XXV. 6 72 XXV. 7-11, 17, 20, 26 ins 50 XXV. 12-18 46 xxvi. 6-11 .... 78 ♦ This Index does not include the Word Lists of Canon Driver, for which see pp. 168- 180. (243) 2U INDEX OF TEXTS Genesis. xxvi. 7 72 xxvi. 25 loi xxvi. 26 73 xxvi. 34, 35 46, 50 xxvii. 20 48 xxviii, 1-9 50 xxviii . 6-9 46 xxviii. 12-15 146 xxviii. 13, 21 166 xxix. 17 . . 72 xxxi. 1 152 xxxi. 20 71 xxxi. 28 73 xxxi. 39 105 xxxi. 51 72 xxxiii. 18-xxxiv. 31 50 xxxiii. 14 72 xxxiii. 20 loi xxxi V 46 xxxi V. 30 71 XXXV. 28-xxxvi 46 XXXV. 7 49, 101 XXXV. 14 105 xxxvi 37, 50 xxxvi. 3 44 xxxvi. 31 c . . 37i 42, 43 xxxvii. 5-10 146 xxxix. 1,6 72 xl. 5-8 146 xli. 1-15 146 xli. 2, 4 72 xli. 38 150 xlii. 9 146 xliii. 7, 27, 28 72 xi;ii. 14 166 xlv. 3, 26, 28 72 xlv. 13 152 xlvi. 2, 30 72 xlvi. 3 73 xlviii. 16 155 xlviii. 22 7T xlix 95 xlix. 1-27 50 xlix. 6 152 xlix. 25 166 1. 20 73 Exodus. i.-ii 52 ii. 4 73 ii. 24 166 iii 48 iii. 5 152 iii. 12-15 165 "»• 19 73, 147 iii . 20 ... . 147 iv. 1-9 dis 147 iv, 14 T58 iv. 18 72 iv. 20 39 iv. 21 154 vi 47. 48 vi-2-3 47 vi. 2-7 165 vi. 4 149 vi. 6 155 vii. 3, 13, 14, 22 154 vii. 4-5, 9, 19-20 147 vii. 17 147, 166 viii. 1-3, 12-13, 17-^9 147 viii. II, 28 154 viii. TI-15, 16-28 78 viii. IS 147. 154 viii. 18 166 ix. 1-7 78, 188 ix. 3, 15, 23 147 ix. 7, 12, 34, 35 154 ix. 8-12 78, 148, 188 X. I, 20, 27 154 X. 2 166 X. 13 6ts, 19 147 xi. 10 154 xii 205 xii.-xiii 74 xii. 1-28, 43-51 . 91 xii. 2, 18 70 xii. 3-11, 21-27, 43-46 206 xiii. 2,11 seg' 226 xiii. 3, 9, 14 147 xiii. 4 70 xiii. 12-13. 198 xiv. 4, 8, 17 154 xiv. 16, 21 147 XV 95 INDEX OF TEXTS 245 Exodus. XV. 4 XV. II XV. 13 XV. 17 XV. 25 XV. 26 xvi . . xvi. 25-30. xvi, 27-30 . . xvi. 35 152, 48, 37, 43, xvii xvii. 8-13 xvii. 14 xvii. 15 xviii xviii. 2 seq xviii. 13 xviii. 18 xix. 5, 6, 22 xix. 6 xix. 13 XX 183, xx.-xxiii t8, 19, 23, 100, 136, xx.-xxiv XX. 1-17 bis XX. 3 49. XX. 3-7, 3-17 XX. 4-6, 5 XX. 4, 2^bis XX. 6 XX. 8 XX. 9, 10 73, XX. II XX. 22-26 6,211 XX. 23-26 XX. 24 XX. 24-26 102, 159, xxi. 28-xxii. 16, 17-30 x^i. 3?-xxii. 5 xxi.-xxiii xxi.-xxiii. 19 xxi. I, 2 -I I bis^ 12-16, 17, T2-27. . xxi. 2 xxi. 2-6 xxi. 6-11 » xxi. 7 72 152 155 49 147 166 185 185 147 44 79 147 10 lOI 157 39 158 73 104 152 72 189 158 99 189 190 211 191 190 155 192 193 194 bis 212 230 212 211 212 6 211 211 230 215 231 232 Exodus, xxi. 7-11 xxi. i2-r6 xxi. 12-25 219, xxi. 14 xxi. 15 xxi. 17 218, xxi. 18-25 xxi. 18-32 xxi. 26-37 220, xxii. 1-5 221, xxii. 6-16 212,221, xxii. 7, 10 xxii. 17-19 xxii. 17-30 xxii. 17, 19 ; 18, 23-26, 30 xxii, 20-26 224, xxii. 26 xxii. 27-29 219, 225, xxii 28 xxii. 28-29 xxii. 29 xxii, 29-31 xxii. 30 xxii. 31 xxiii. 1-3 227, xxiii. 1-8, 9-13, 26-43 xxiii. 1-9 xxiii. 4-5 212, 228, xxiii. 6-9 228, xxiii. 10, II xxiii. 10-17 xxiii. 10-19 212, 215, 229, xxiii. 12 186, 192, xxiii. 14-19 159, xxiii. 14, 17 xxiii. 15 19, 70, 19s. 196, xxiii. 16 199, xxiii. i2> bis 49, xxiii. 19 207, 208, 209, xxiii. 20-33 211, xxiii. 21 xxiv xxiv. 1,9 xxiv. 3, 4-7, 8 xxiv. 3-8 xxiv. 3, 4, 7 216 217 232 102 218 225 219 212 232 232 232 72 222 212 232 232 217 232 198 197 209 159 226 106 232 211 212 232 232 121 106 232 194 211 203 198 201 204 224 230 154 105 158 211 149 6 246 INDEX OF TEXTS Exodus. xxiv. 4 101,189, 232 xxiv. 5 104 xxiv 7 18 xxiv. 9-11 238 xxiv. 12 8 xxv.-xxxi. bis 91 xxvi 103 xxvii. 1-5 214 xxvii. 1-8 102 xxviii. 2, 40 153 xxix. 31 209 XXX. 1-6, 27 103 XXX. 23 72 XXX. 28 102 xxxi 91 xxxi. 3 151 xxxi. 8 103 xxxi. 9 102 xxxi. 13 . . 192 xxxi. 13, 17 194 xxxi. 14-16 193 xxxi. 16-17 . . 149 xxxi. 18 190 xxxii. II 147 xxxii. 21, 30, 31 72 xxxii. 30-34 ISS xxxiii. 7-11 103, 158, 237 xxxiii. II 39 xxxiii. 18, 22 152 xxxiii. 18-23 237 xxxiii. 20-23 146 xxxiv 23, 99, 100 xxxiv. I, 4, 14, 17 190 xxxiv. 1,11-28 189 xxxiv. 6, 7 151, 184, 192 xxxiv. 6-9 155 xxxiv. 7 T84 xxxiv. 10 seq 136 xxxiv. 10-27 149 xxxiv. it-13 231 xxxiv. 14 49, 184, 191 xxxiv. 14, 16 190 xxxiv. 18 70, 195, 196 xxxiv. 19-20 197 xxxiv. 20 198, 226 xxxiv. 21 185, 192, 193 Exodus. xxxiv. 22 199, 201 xxxiv. 23 49 xxxiv. 23, 24 203 xxxiv. 25 203, 204 xxxiv. 26 207, 208 xxxiv. 27 7, 189, 211 xxxiv. 33-35 237 xxxv.-xl. bis 91 XXXV. II, 15 103 XXXV. 16 102 xxxvii. 25 103 xxxviii. I, 1-7, 30 102 xxxix. 32, 38 103 xxxix. 39 102 xl. 2, 5, 6, 26, 29 103 xl. 2, 17 70 xl. 6, 10, 29 102 Leviticus. ,-xvi 91 118 .5 "8 , 204 X02 103 w.i^seg 117 vii.-ix 91 vii. 12, 13 204 xi. sag 226 xi. 34 70 xi. 39, 40 106, 227 xii., xiii., xiv., xv 106 XV. 23 152 1. II , V. 7, TO, 25, 30, 34 V. 7 XVI. 121 xvii.-xxvi 95, 127, 133 xvii. 3-9 213 xvii. 7 192 xvii. 10-14 226 xvii. 15, 16 106, 226 xviii 217 xviii .-xxiii 91 xviii. 6 j^^ 214 xviii. 6-16, 17-23 223 xviii. 15 seg . 226 xix. 2 152 xix. 3, 30 192 INDEX OF TEXTS 247 Leviticus. xix. 4 190 xix. 9-10 234 zix. 15-18 227 xix. 19 223 xix. 26 223, 226 xix. 33-34 224 xix. 35-36 23s XX. 5-6 192 XX. 6, 10-21, 27 223 XX. 7, 8, 26 152 XX. 9 219 XX. 25 70 xxi. 2 217 xxi. 6-8 152 xxii. 9, 16, 32 152 xxii. 27 209 xxiii 106, 195, 199, 203 xxiii. 3 194 xxiii. 5 70 xxiii. 5-6 19s xxiii. 6-8 196 xxiii. 10-14 208 xxiii. 15-21 200 xxiii. 17 204 xxiii. 22 234 xxiii. 34-36, 40-44 201 xxiv. 10-23 91 xxiv. 17 217 xxiv. 19 seg 219 XXV 91, 121, 230 XXV. 10 72 XXV. 35, 36 225 XXV. 37 70 XXV. 39-46 215 XXV. 49 217 ^ I7i9i. 231 xxvi. 2 192 xxvi. 3-45 64 xxvi. 9, 42, 45 149, 166 xxvi. II seg 2-*i xxvi. 34 jtfy 121 xxvii. 13, 15. 19. 20, 31 155 xxvii. 26-27 » 197 Numbers. i, 4&-X. 28. 91 Numbers. ^•^ 39 "•2 39 iii. 12 se^ 226 "i- 25 103 iv. II 103 VI 39 vi 112 viii. 16 seg 226 ix. 1 70 ix. 12 , 205 ix. 15 103 xi. 18-33 147 xi. 24 seg' 158 xi. 24, 26 103 xi. 25-29 151 xii.3 39 xii. 4 seg 158 xii. 5, 10 103 xii. 6 72 xii. 6-8 237 155 153 X92 91 192 79 49 70 xiv. 18-20 xiv. 21-22 xiv. 33 xv.-xix XV. 39 xvi xvi. 9 xvi. 30 xvii. 21-25 147 xvii. 22, 23 103 xviii. 2 103 xviii. 12-13 208 xviii. 15-18 198 xix 106 XX 79 XX. 8-17 148 XX. 21 73 xxi. 8-9 147 xxi. 14 12, 38 XXI. 21, 31 seg 71 xxi. 30 72 xxii. 13, 16 73 xriii.-xxiv . 95 xxiii. 1, 14, 29 102 xxiv. II 152 XXV. 12-13 ^49 248 INDEX OF TEXTS Numbers. xxvii. II 217 xxviii 106, 199 xxviii.-xxix 203 xxviii. -xxxi 91 xxviii. 9-10 194 xxviii. 16 .... 70, 205 xxviii. 16-17 195 xxviii. 17-25 196 xxviii. 26-31 , 200 xxix 199 xxix. 12-T9, 35-38 202 xxxi. 14 39 xxxiii. 2 9 xxxiii. 3 70 XXXV 218 XXXV. i6-xxxvi. 13 91 XXXV. 20-21, 22 218 Deuteronomy. -XXX . i-xxii. 47 1. i. i. lii. ii. IV. V. V. V. V. IV. V. V. 66 64 I 37 5 38 12 37* 44» 81 30 154 11,14 37» 44 24 49 12-16 238 13 M9 15-19, 24 191 19 18, 83 20 19, 20 34 M7 37 155 40 186 189 V. 7 49 V. 8-10 191 V. 10 155 V. 12 192 V. 12-14 193 V. 13, 14 73 V. 14-1S 194 v. 21 152 V 29 183 V13 7 Deuteronomy. vi. 2 186 vi. 5 >5S vi. 18 183 vii. 2-4 192 vii. 5 84 vii. 8, 9, 13 155 vii. 22 86 viii. 3-4, 15-16 147 viii. 18 149, ] 66 ix. 9 189 ix. 26 49 X. 5 20 X. 6 158 X. 8 39 X. 8, 9 104 X. 12, 15 155 X. 18-19 224 xi. 1 15s xi. 6 79 xi. 9 186 xii.-xxvi 8, 23, 99 xii. 3 84 xii. 5 18, 19, 213 xii. 5-7, 12-14 212 xii. 6, II, 13 213 xii. 9, 10 20 xii. 16, 23-27 226 xii. 25 183 xii. 26 152 xii. 27 102 xiii 223 xiii. 2 190 xiii. 2, 4, 6 X46 xiii. 4, 22 155 xiii. 16 223 xiv 226 xiv. 3-21 106 xiv. 21 106, 209, 226 XV 106 XV. 1-3 121 XV. 1-18 230 XV. 12-18, 16-17 « ^^5 XV. 15 183 XV. 17 215, 217 XV. 19-22 197 XV. 23 226 INDEX OP TEXTS 249 Deuteronomy. XVI. XVI. I . , 70, xvi. 1-8 xvi. 2, 4-7 xvi. 3-4, 8 xvi, 8 xvi. 9-12, 17 xvi. 11, 12 xvi. 13-15 xvi. 16 199, xvi. 18-20 xvi. 2T, 22 xvii. 3 18, xvii. 8 seg.^ 14-20 xvii. II xvii. 14 seg' xvii. 18-20 xviii. 9-14 xviii. 10-14 xviii. 15 seg xix xix. 4 di's xix. 5, II xix. 9 xix. 14 xix. 15-20 xix. 21 XX. 1-15, 19, XX. 16 XXI. 10-14 xxi. 18-21 . . . , xxii. 1-4 xxii. 9-11 xxii. 12 xxii. 13-.30 . . . xxii. 2S-29 xxiii. 6 xxiii. 10 seg. . . xxiii. 15 xxiii. 19-21 . . . xxiv. 5 xxiv. 6, 10-13. xxiv. 7 xxiv. 8 xxiv. 16 xxiv. 17-18, . . xxiv. 18, 22. . . 106 195 18 204 196 73 199 183 201 203 229 84 83 82 159 20 19 18 222 88 218 217 218 155 81 227 220 86 73 86 219 228 233 217 223 222 155 106 152 225 73 225 218 159 19 224 183 Deuteronomv. xxiv. T9-22 234 XXV. 13-15 235 xxv. 17 86 XXV. 19 20 xxvi. 2-11 207 xxvi 13, 15 152 XTivi. 17 166 xxvii.-xxx 231 xxvii. 2 seg 38 xxvii. 6 102 xxvii. 8 232 xxvii. 15 190 xxvii. 19 224 xxvii. 25 229 xxviii.-xxxi 17 xxviii. 36 82 xxviii. 37 17, 19 xxviii. 68 83 xxviii. 69 149 xxix. 1 19, 20 xxix. 1-4 147 xxix. 9, 14, 21, 24, 25 19 xxix, 9-14 99 xxix. 12 166 xxix. 20 149 xxix. 24 17, 19 XXX 27 XXX. 6, 16, 20 155 xxxi. 1 39 xxxi. 9 39, 104 xxxi. 9-11, 24-26 88 xxxi. 9, 26 8 xxxi. 14 seg 158 xxxi. 14, 15 103 xxxi. 16 192 xxxi. 18, 20 49 XXXI. 22 xxxi. 27 xxxii 9. ii> 27, xxxii. 3-4 xxxiii ^4» xxxiii. I xxxiii. 8-11 xxxiii. 10 xxxiv. 10 xxxiv. 11-12 9 72 95 15^ 95 39 104 158 38 64 250 INDEX OF TEXTS Joshua. i. 7, 8 , 9 i- 8 19, 23 iii. 3i 6 104 "I. 15-17 147 iv. 3i9 104 iv. 7, 9, 20 79 »v. 13 73 iv. 24 147 V 120 V. 5 "9 V. TO 112 V. 12 37 V. 14, 15 73 V. IS 152 vi. 4, 6 104 vi. 5 147 vi. 19 152 vii. 7, 13, 19, 20 49 vii. 19 153 viii. 30 102, no viii. 30seg^ 38, 232 viii. 31 9, 102 ix. 18, 19 49 X. 12, 13 12 X.40 73 X. 40, 42 49 xi. II, T4 73 xi. 20 154 xiii. 14, 33 49 xiii. 33 104 xviii. 6 72 xviii. 7 104 xxii. 5 155 xxii. 10-34 102 xxii. 24 49 xxii. 34 166 Miii. " 15s xxiv. 2, 16 49 xxiv. 8, 12, 15, 18 71 "iv. 19 49i 152 xxiv. 25 149 xxiv. 26 II Judges. "■5 ii. i8 no 166 Judges. vi. 24 102, 110 xi. zi no xiii. 4-5 112 xiii. 19 no xiv. 15-20 112 xvii. 13 158 xviii. 29 36 XX X19 xxi. 4 102 xxi. 8 no xxi. 19 113 I. Samuel. ii. 22 103 iii. TS 72 v.-vii 112 vii. 5 112 vii. 17 102, 112 ix. 9 150 ix. 12 seg 112 X 113 X. 5, 8 112 xi. 15 112 xiv. 35 102, 112 XV. 21-33 112 XV. 25 155 xvi. 4-5 112 xvii. 42 72 XX. 6 113 XX. 14 72 xxi. 9 1x2 II. Samuel. i. 18 12 vi. 1-17 114 vi. 17 104 vii. 6 104 vii. 24 x66 xi. 2 72 xii. 22 7a xiv. 27 72 xviii. 14 73 xxiii. 5 150 xxiv. 25 103 I. Kings. >• 39 X04 INDEX OF TEXTS 251 I. Kings. i. 50. 51...- i. 50 102 318 ii. 3 19 ii. 28 102, 21S ii. 28-30 104 iii. 4 102 vi. 20 102 viii 19 viii. 4 104 viii. 9. S3. 56 20 viii. 12, 13 12 viii. 27 seg 122 viii. 51 19 viii. 64 102 ix 19 ix.3.7.8 19 xii. 32 102 xviii. 30 bis, 32 102 XX. 32 72 II. Kings. X. 31 20 xii. 16 118 xiv. 6 19 xvi. 10 11 xvii 41 xvii, 21 72 xviii. 4 83 xviii. 12 20 xxi.3, s 18 xxi. 8 20 xxii. 3 seq 81, 85 xxii. 8 20 3fxii. 8, II 15 xxii. 11-13, 16, 17, 19 17 xxiii 19 xxiii. 2, 21 i5> 16, 18 xxiii. 4, 5, II, 12, 21-23, 24 18 xxiii. 8-20, 15 102 xxiii. 25 IS» 16, 20 I. Chronicles. y\. IT bis 103 vi. 34 22, 103 ix. 19, 21, 23 103 XV. I T04 I. Chronicles. XV. 17 114 xvi. 1 104 xvi. 15 149, 166 xvi. 39, 40 114 xvi. 40 21, 103 xvii. 1 71 xvii. 5 104 xvii. 22 166 xviii 38 xxi. 18 102 xxi. 29 103, 114 xxii. 1 102 xxii. 12 21 xxiii. 29. 114, 235 xxiii. 32 103 xxviii. 19 114 II. Chronicles. i- 3. 6, 13; 5) 6 103 i. 4 104 iv. 3 71 V. 5 104 vii. 8-10 114 viii. 3 114 xii, I 21 xvii. 9 22, 23 xix. 8-11 82 xxiii. 18 22 xxiv. 6 , 103 XXV. 4 22 xxix. 20-24 117 xxix. 22 118 XXX. 16 22 xxxi. 1 83 xxxi. 3, 4 21 xxxiv. 14 22, 55 xxxiv. 14, 15, 19, 30 15 xxxiv. 15 22 xxxiv. 30 ^° XXXV. 3, 6 IS. 16 XXXV. 12 22 XXXV, 26 . 2^ xxxvi. 21 '^' Ezra, iii. 1-6 iii. 2 122 22 252 INDEX OF TEXTS Ezra. vi. 18 .. vii. 6 . . . . vii. 10 , , Nehemiah. i.8 ii. I viii. I 22, viii. 3, 8, 14, 18 viii. 9, 13 viii. 13-17 viii. 17 «.3 3t. 29» 30 x.34»37 xii. 44 Esther. i. II ". 2i 3i 7 m. 7 22 22 21 22 70 23 22 21 122 120 22 21 22 21 Psalms. cvi cvi. 45 cix. 7 cxi. 5 cxix. 54.. . cxl. 3 I49i 149. 149 166 72 166 i65 141 Proverbs. x.-xxii. 16 24 ECCLESIASTES, vii. 20 141 Job. vii. 21.. . xviii. 19. xix. 23.. Psalms. V.9 ». 7 xiv xiv, 2-3 .... xxxii. I xxxvi. I xl xl.7 xl. 8 , Iv. 16 Iviii. 5 Ixxii Ixxiv Ixxviii . . . . . , Ixxviii. 20, 27. Ixxviii. 60, 67. cv CY. 8 . ..... "7, 78, 78, 149. 72 72 70 ISS 166 10 141 141 141 141 72 141 118 72 20 r66 71 153 T49 148 217 103 148 166 Isaiah. ii. 9 ^v. 3 X. 26 xi. 15-16. 155 217 149 149 xiii. 4 71 xix. 19 84, 102 xxvii. 9 102 xxxiii. 24 155 xxxvi. 7 83 xl. 18 71 xliii. 16 149 1.2 149 Ii. 10 149 liii 88, 117 liii. 10 118 liii. 12 154 lix. 7-8 141 Ixi. I , 72 Jeremiah. viii. 8 14 XXV. IT, 12 121 xxxiv. 8, IS, 17 72 xli. 5 se^ 116 EZEKIEL. i. I... 72 iv. II, 16 235 viii .^ 72 xvi. 60 h's. 62 149, 166 xvii. 22-2 J 127 XX. 38 166 INDEX OF TEXTS 253 EZEKIEL. xxx. 24 166 xxxvi. 28 71 xxxvii. r-14, 15-28 , 127 xxxviii.-xxxix 127 xl.-xlviii 115, 126 I xl. 2 72 xli. 1 103 xliii. 3 72 xlv. 18-20 ■ . . 122 xlvi. 17 72 Mark. i- 12, 13 139 i. 44 26 vii. 10 26 xii. 26 25 Daniel. ». 4 72 ix. 7 154 ix. II, 13 22 X. 7-16 72 X. II, 16 71 Luke. iii. 21, 22. iii. 23 iv. I, 2.. . iv. 5-7-.. 139 138 139 HOSEA. ii. 19 iv. 8 viii. 12.. . xiv. 3 Amos. ». 9 V. 25 230 118 13 155 166 119 MiCAH. iii. 11 158 vi. 7 118 vii. 18 155 Zechariah. vii.-viii 122 viii. 8 166 X. II 149 140 x.7 27 XX. 28. 26 XX. 37 27 xxiv. 44 25 John. i. 29-31, 32-34 139 i- 45 27 V. 46, 47 27 vii. 19 26 vii. 23 25 Acts. iii. 22-24 ■» 24 27 vii. 37 27 XV. 21 25 xxvi. 22 27 Romans. iii. 9-18 14 1 X. 5i 19 27 Malachi. iv. 4 I. Corinthians. ix. 14 xi. 23 seq n. Corinthians. iii. 15 21 Matthew. iii. 13 138 iii. 14 jtf^., 16, 17 139 iv. 2-7 139 xix. 7-8 26 Hebrews. iv. 7 vii. 14 viii. 5 ix, 19 X. 28 xii. 21 26 27 25 26 26 27 27 26 27 INDEX OF HEBREW WORDS AND PHRASES/ Tax (pp. 70, 195, 196, 229.) PN (p. 235.) nDnN(n) (pp. -o, 169, 212.) ^jn^^ (p. 4^.) mn^ ''jnN (p- 49-) nnx (p. 168.) nnyn ^nx (p. 103.) nyiD i^nx (pp. 103, 158.) nn^5 ,nix (p. 223.) m^j .nrns (p. 177.) nn^N(3) (p. 218.) K^-x t^^•'^< (p. 173-) ni)DK(i3) .i?DX (pp. 70, 175.) nnx M^N (p. 166.) D^ni?N (pp. II, 46 J^{7-. 52, 56, 165, T75. 225.) D\i^N(n) (pp. 165, 166, 215.) D'^inx n^nh^ (pp. 49. 169, 223.) nn^in nh^ (p. 175.) D^Wx (p. 174.) ••^cr ^x (pp. 47. 165, 166.) HDX (p. 70.) jDN ,d:dx .njroN (p. 70.) nni? p3« (p. 154.) "•DJK .""JK (pp. 71. 165, 166, 180.) mn^ ''jt< (pp. 165, 166, 172.) P)^DK (p. 202.) n-iN* (p. 218.) (naiDH) pN(n) (pp. 70, 169, 170.) nn (p. 217.) ina (p. 169.) nuK rr-n (p. 178.) Dnav nu (p. 169.) ' Some of ihe words contained in this index are cited, in the passages referred to, in the Engiish translation. (254) INDEX OF HEBREW WORDS AND PHRASES 255 DDTiut^^D bn (p. 178.) ;b (p. 71.) hV2 (p. 71.) Tyn .-lyn (p. 71.) "J2"ipD 1V2 (p. 170.) Nnn (p. 77.) DiJiy nnn (pp. 150, 176.) i?K^a (p. 209.) HNJK^n (p. 218.) ntj'n (p. 71.) nijinn (p 222.) ^Nj (pp. 155, 171.) Vi:i (p. 176.) nSj^:: (p. 178.) cnj (p. 71.) pm (p. 170.) nx lan (p. 71.) Dy "I3T (p. 71.) mm (p. 7I-) (D3 DH^ttl) U VDT (p. i74-) VDT (p. 225.) r^V'=^ (p. 73) for njn •rnn (p. 72.) p|nn (p. 218.) T^in (pp. 73, I79-) T^rn (pp. 213. 230.) DM^KP (DDb) n\1 (pp. 165, 166.) n^D\n (p. 170.) n'')hn D'jn^n (p. 171.) ^ijq (p. 73) for nJ? nipnn i^n (p. 173.) D^n (p. 228.) nnn D'^pn (pp. 149, 166.) ^nnn JIN TiDpn (p. 165.) nnpn (p. 204.) nn ,2h ntrpn (p. 154.) fi^DH "|3 .Tni (p. 170.) Tni>ND DNTI (p. 174.) 256 INDEX OF HEBREW WORDS AND PHRASES n^T (pp. To^, 204, 2o5, 209.) nDQ(n) nnr (p. 206.) noDn in nnr (p. 206.) U'lDh^n nnr (p. 204.) nna nDT (pp. i49» 165. 166.) not (p. 173.) 3in (p. 203.) nrn (p. 72.) (nfj) pin .prn (pp. 154, 179-^ HNDn ,Ni£>n (pp. 72, 105.) ij^n (p. 174. J pn (p 204.) n^^Ki non (p. 151-) "•DQt^^Di ^nipn (p. 173.) D"in (p. 223.) nHnD(^2iD) r\y\D (p. 72.) nyrh^ niiT >jx ^3 Dnvi' (p- 165.) '•jyT' (p. 223.) niiT* ^pp II, 46 se^., 52, 56, 165, etc.) 1^5^ (pp. 73, I79-) -iDrS'' (p. 215.) nNnD(n) riD"' (p. 72.) Nav N^^ (p. 73.) HT (p 72.) {2b) T^sn ,133 (pp. 154, 179.) 1133 (p. 152.) 3t^3 ,tJ>33 (pp. 198, 206.) D33 (p. 78.) niD3 (p. 217.) r)n3 n-i3 (p. 149 ) 33f) ,3^5 (p. 72.) 03^nni55 .Dn-n^ (p- 177.) nxT^j (p. 171-) ^3^3 (p. 176.) DiT'-DninDc^ij (p. 176.) nnsj^n^ (p. 172.) 1ND3 ,1«D (p. 177.) nxo ,nND (p. 176.) INDEX OF HEBREW WORDS AND PHRASES 257 DnniD ,DniiD .")iio (pp. 165, 166, 177.) mo (p. 235.) DnviD (p. 193.) n^:;nD (p. 179-) ni3D (pp. 73, I79-) r^ (p. 175.) HD^SD (p. 222.) ntth^ (p. 152. 193.) ni(T '•JK ^Mp (p. 173.) X3p (p. 190) pp (p. 178.) impD,^mp3,mp (p. 171.) p-lp (pp. 105, 209.) INDEX OF HEBREW WOKDS AND PHRASES 259 HNI (p. 150.) rT'K'Ni (p. 208.) D'-i'J") .^n (pp. 180. 203.) Di"l (p. 179.) - : (p. 73) for nn> cnD-i .Ej'Di (p. 177.) yvi (p. 215.) niNCj' ,-)xsj^ (pp. 173, 217.) D2iy (pp- 73, 179.) r\2^ (pp. 193, 194 ) pnnc' (pp. 179, 194.) nsj^ (pp. 198, 206.) DK^ 10:^ ,\3^b ,]3l^ (pp. 172, 213) D^D^CJ^ (pp. 106, 212.) ni^DK^ ,DDt^' (p. 230.) (nitj'vi') ide:^ (pp. 169, 172.) NJK^ (pp. 217, 218.) DnyEJ' (p. 169.) nnDCJ' (p. 70.) D^DSCJ^ (p. 178.) pK' (p. 175 ) nnin (p. 106.) bv ,i3Din(Ni?) (p. 171.) iin (p. 180) min (pp. 8, 14, i6, 17.) nin^ nny^n ,nny^n (p. 172.) ncjnn (p. 178.) "]j''j; DinnCN^) (p. 170.) D^cj^nn (P 103.) nj^n riDipn (p. 202.) n^ain (p. 225.) THE WRIXINOS OK PROFESSOR Charles a. Briggs, D.D. CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS. PUBLISHERS. The Defence of Professor Briggs before the Presbytery of New York, December 13, 14, 15, and 19, 1892. Crown octavo, paper, 50 cents, net. This argument in the greatest of the ecclesiastical trials of our day is destined to become historical, and its importance to all who would inform themselves as to the position of the defendant is, of course, of the first importance. The Authority of Holy Scripture^ Inaugural Address of Professor Charles A. Briggs, D.D., upon his transfer to the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology in the Union Theological Seminary of New York. A new edition, with a preface and additional notes. Crown octavo, paper, 50 cents, net, <• In this pamphlet is to be found a full and fair statement of Dr. Briggs' position, and the adherents of nearly all the different creeds will read it with a recognition of its great importance as a manifestation of the trend of current . religious thought. Dr. Briggs is very outspoken in his criticism of the barriers which an extreme dogmatism has raised against a common-sense study of the Bible The strength of Dr. Briggs' argument is based on the assertion that the ethical element in the Bible has been neglected, while the purely theological tenets have been unduly brought into prominence. ' The greatest sin against the Bible,' he says, * has been the neglect of the ethics of Jesus.' " Xhe Case against Professor Briggs. The Charges and Specifications submitted to the Presbytery of New York, October, 1891, and the Response of Professor Briggs, November 4 ; the Action of the Presbytery in Dismissing the Case ; the Complaint to the Synod, the Appeal of the Prosecuting Committee to the General Assembly, November 13 ; the Argument of Professor Briggs before the General Assembly against Enter- taining and Sustaining the Appeal, May 26, 1892, and the Action of the General Assembly. Crown octavo, paper, 50 cents, net. Biblical History. A Lecture delivered at Union Theological Seminary. Crown octavo, paper, 30 cents, net. " It epitomizes the consensus of scholarship as to the formation of the Old Testament and shows its splendid results In this little pamphlet the ordinary reader can get the pith of the controversial literature of the greatest of scholars." — The Critic. PROFESSOR J3 RIO OS'S WRITINGS. Xhe Higlier Criticism of ttie Hexa- teucli» By Charles Augustus Briggs, D.D., Edward Robinson Pro- fessor of Biblical Theology in the Union Theological Semi- nary, New York. Crown octavo, $1.75. The most prominent exponent of the Higher Criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures in America is Professor Briggs. If he is not at the same time the most learned and fully equipped scholar among us in this field, it would not be easy to name his peer. For many years his contributions to the literature of the subject in the great theological reviews have been widely read and have been the object of much criticism from the adherents of the opposite school. Owing to the prominence and the great importance of the trial to which he has been subjected because of his views on Old Testament Criticism, his interpretation of the princi- ples that he champions is of the highest consequence. Many years ago he began the preparation of a book on the Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, but deeming the times not yet ripe for it, it was laid aside for other work. The events of the past few months render it necessary for the author to define his position in regard to the Hexateuch, and for this reason he publishes this volume, which pre- sents the result of his studies and includes a large amount of fresh evidence, which now appears for the first time. The results of his researches correspond, in the main, with the opinions which have been formed independently by leading Biblical scholars in all parts of the world. But it is now time that these ques- tions should no longer be confined to theological schools and profes- sional circles. It is with the aim of contributing to the readjustment of opinions and to a better understanding and higher appreciation of the documents of the Bible that the book has been written, which is designed for the general public rather than for Hebrew students, and, for the most part, technical material has been put in the Appendix, which constitutes a considerable part of the volume. PROFESSOR BRIG OS'S WRTTI2(GS. Xlie Bible, the Churchy and tlie Reason. The Three Great Fountains of Divine Authority. By Charles A. Briggs, D.D., Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology in Union Theological Seminary, New York. Crown octavo, $175. ** It consists of lectures delivered at different times since the recent assault upon him. In these lectures he does not indicate the least inclination to beat a retreat, cry for quarter, or even secure a truce. And yet, with some few excep- tions, he does not exhibit personal feeling, nor defend himself personally from the charges made against him. He simply elaborates and substantiates the positions in his inaugural which have subjected him to pubUc criticism and to a possible trial for heresy." — The Christian Union. " The problems which are discussed with masterly power in this volume are not those of Presbyterianism, or of Protestantism, but of Christianity, and, indeed, of all Biblical religion. To any man for whom the question of God and revelation has an endlessly fascinating interest, the book will prove suggestive and stimulating. We cannot see why even the Israelite and the Roman Catholic should not desire to taste — despite the traditions of synagogue and Mother Church — this latest forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge." — The Literary World. " But on a calm review of this book, while making due allowance for some of the characterizations of his opponents, and without entering into the merits of the subject involved, one must reach the candid conclusion that Professor Briggs is deeply reverent and devout in his attitude towards the Word of God ; that he is conscientiously and earnestly aiming at its exaltation and its stronger hold upon the minds and hearts of men. He says : ' Criticism makes the Bible more real, more historic, more pregnant with holy meaning than ever before, .... Think not the critics are destroying the Bible which they study with so much enthusiasm and love. They have enthroned it in a higher position than it has ever held before in the estimation of the world.' Surely, an impartial judgment will not fail to give full credit for purity of motive and loftiness of purpose to a man who writes like this." — The Evangelist . " It deals, as the author observes, with ' matters which lie at the root of our common Christianity,' and largely, at any rate, ' with questions of truth and fact,' to be determined, not by hasty and superficial writers in periodicals, but *by patient, diligent, painstaking, exhaustive investigation of truth and fact.' (Preface p. ix.) It appeals, therefore, to men of all shades of churchmanship, provided that they recognize the duty of continually absorbing fresh elements of truth, which both may and must more or less modify the conceptions already adopted by the common consent of past ages. But, if I may say so, it appeals most of all to those who attach the highest value to the principles of the Refor- mation, and who, therefore, recognize a Bible within the Bible, of which the experience of the Christian life in the community and in the individual is the true test." — Professor T. K. Cheyjie^ D.D.^ in the Lotidon Academy. PROFESSOR BRIOOS'S WRITINGS. Biblical Study. Its Principles, Methods, and History, together with a Catalogue of Books of Reference. By Charles A. Briggs, D.D., Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology in the Union Theological Seminary, New York. Fourth Edition. One volume, crown 8vo, $2.50. "A choice book, for which we wish wide circulation and deep influence in Its own land and also recognition among us. The author maintains his position with so much spirit and in such beautiful language that his book makes delightful reading, and it ie particularly instructive for Germans on account of the very characteristic extracts from the wTitings of English theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Moreover, he is unusually familiar with German literature of recent date as well as with that of the earlier period."— ZayvicA^'s Literatui'iscJies CentralUatt fur Deutsch- land. *'Here is a theological writer, thoroughly scientific in his methods, and yet not ashamed to call himself evangelical. One great merit of this handbook is the light which it throws on the genesis of modem criticism and exegesis. Those who use it will escape the crudities of many English advocates of half-understood theories. Not the least of its merits is the well-selected catalogue of books of reference— English, French, and German. We are sure that no student will regret sending for the book." —The Academy, London. " Dr. Briggs begins with a chapter upon the advantages of Biblical study, and the subjects of the following chapters are : Exegetical Theology, the Languages of the Bible, the Bible and Criticism, the Canon and Text of the Bible, Higher Criticism, Literary Study of the Bible, Hebrew Poetry, Interpretation of Scripture, Biblical Theology, and the Scriptures as a Means of Grace. It will be seen that the subjects occupy a wide range, and, ably treated as they are, the volume becomes one of real value and utility. Appended to the work is a valuable catalogue of books of reference in biblical studies, and three indexes — of Scriptures, of topics, and of books and authors. The publishers have done honor to the work, and it deserved it."— 7%^ Churchman. •' The minister who thoroughly masters this volume will find himself mentahy in- vigorated, as well as broadened in his pcope of thought ; will almost certainly be able to better satisfy himself in his understanding of what the uiith is which from the Bible he ought to preach to men ; and so will speak from his pulpit with new force, and find his words mightier, through God, to the pulling down of strongholds."- Boston CongregationcUist. "After all that we have heard of the higher criticism, it is refreshing to find so scholarly and trenchant defences of the old paths His historical account of the movement and developement among the English-speaking scholars is very valuable. This, and the chapter on the ' Literary Study of the Bible,' are among the best in this excellent book."— AVw York Christian Advocate (Methodist). *' We are constrained to rank this book as one of the signs of the times in the Amer- ican church. It marks the rising tide of Biblical scholarship. Christian liberty of thought and evangelical interpretation of the Scriptures."- C/wi^'^iaw Union. " There are many grounds on which the work may be earnestly commended. Large reading in German and English, quick apprehension of the salient points of opposing theories, an unflagging earnei^tncfB of purpose, and very positive belief in his positions conspire to make the work instructive and attractive. But above all these excellences there shines out the author's deep reverence for the whole Bible."— TAe Examiner (Baptist, N. Y.) PROFESSOR BRIQOS'S WRITINGS. Messianic Prophecy. The Prediction of the fulfilment of Redemption through the Messiah. A critical study of the Messianic passages of the Old Testament in the order of their development. By Charles A. Briggs, D.D., I'.dward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology in the Union Theological Seminary, New York. One volume, crown octavo, $2.50. " Messianic Prophecy is a subject of no common interest, and this book is no ordin- ary book. It is, on the contrary, a work of the very first order, the ripe prodnct of years of stndy upon the highest themes. It is exegesis in master-hand, about its noblest business It has been worth while to commend this book at some length to the attention of Bible students, because both the subject and the treatment entitle it to rank among the very foremost works of the generation in the department of Exegetical Theology. Union Seminary is to be congratulated that it is one of her Professors who, in a noble line of succession has produced it. The American Church is to be congratulated that the author is an American, and Presbyterians that he is a Presbyterian. A Church that can yield such books has large possibilities."— iVifif Toi'k Evangelist. "It is second in importance to no theological work which has appeared in this Country during the present century."— T'Ae CHlic. "His arduous labor has been well expended, for he has finally produced a book which will give great pleasure to Christians of all denominations The pro- found learning displayed in the book commends it to the purchase of all clergymen who wish for the most critical and exact exposition of a difficult theme ; while its earnestness and eloquence will win for it a place in the library of every devout lay- man."— A^. Y. Journal of Commerce. " It is rich with the fruits of years of zealous and unwearied study, and of an ample learning. In it we have the first English work on Messianic Prophecy which stands on the level of modem Biblical studies. It is one of the most important and valuable contributions of American scholarships to those studies. It is always more than in- structive : it is spiritually helpful. We commend the work not only to ministers, but to intelligent laymen."— TAe Independent. "On the pervading and multiform character of this promise, see a recent, as well as valuable authority, in the volume of Dr. Briggs, of the New York Theological Seminary, on 'Messianic Prophecy.'"— W. E. Gladstone, " Prof. Briggs' Messianic Prophecy is a most excellent book, in which I greatly rejoice." — Prof. Franz Delitzsch. "All scholars will join in recognizing its singular usefulness as a text-book. It has been much wanted."— Rev. Canon Chetne. "It is a book that will be consulted and prized by the learned, and that will add to the author's deservedly high reputation for scholarship. Evidences of the ability, learning and patient research of the author are apparent from the beginning to the end of the volume, while the style is remarkably fine." — Phila. Pi'esbyteHan. " His new book on Messianic Phrophecy is a worthy companion to his indispens- able text-book on Biblical study .... What is most of all required to insure the future of Old Testament studies in this country is that those who teach should satisfy their students of their historic connection with the religion and theology of the past. Prof. Briggs has the consciousness of such a connection in a very full degree, and yet he combines this with a frank and unreserved adhesion to the principles of modem criticisms He has produced the first English text-book on the subject of Messianic Prophecy which a modem teacher can use." — The London Academy. 6 PROFESSOR BRIO OSS WRITINGS. ^Whither ? A Theological Question for the Times. By Charles Augustus Briggs. D.D., Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology in the Union Theological Semmary, New York. Third Edition. One volume, crown 8vo, $1.75. " He ^how^ that genuine Christiauitv has nothing lo lose, but much to gain, by un- fettered thou'^ht and by the ripest modern echolarsbip ; that the doctrines which pro- gressive theofoc^y threatens are no eascuiial part of tiie historic faith, but rather out- worn o-arments" woven with warp and woof of tradition and speculation ; that being hune uuon the noble form of Ciiristianity, have obscured its real proportions, and that * the higher criticism ' of which timid and untjcholarly souls are so much afraid, is really malincr the Bible more manifestly the book of God, by relieving it from the false interpretations of men."— ^Ae Fress, l^hiladelphia. " The book is a strong one. It is packed with weighty matter. Its reach is larger than any of the author's other works, though i(s compass is smaller. It contains only 300 pages, yet it is a critical treatise on Westminster and modern theology, and also on church life and Christian unity. It is written in nervous, virile English that holds attention, gest compressic 'Excesset?,' ' Fa . . is a whole history iu some* of these words", and a whole sermon in others." — Tfit C'fidc, New Yorlc. ''At the same time it is irenic both in tone and tendency. It is noble from be^nnuing to end, though the author may possibly place unnecessary emphasis orf the orp;anic unity of the different denominations of Christendom as the condition preceut'nt for a true catholic unity. There is not a touch or smell of rationalism or rationalistic speculation in the book, and freely as the author deals with his oppo- nents, it is an honest freedom, which will promote good feeling even amid debate."— T/ie independent. American Presbyterianism : Its Origin and Early History, together with an Appendix of Let- ters and Documents, many of which have recently been discovered. By Charles A. Briggs, D.D., Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology in the Union Theological Seminary, New York. I volume, crown Svo, with Maps. $3.00. "TI.e Prcj^bytcrian Church owes a debt of gratitude to the enthusiasm and antiquar- ian research of Professor Briggs. He seems to ha\o seized the foremost place among them, and his vigorous, skilful, and comprehensive researches put all Protestant Christians, and especially Congregationaliste, under obligation to him."— jBoston C'o>ig7'egationalu!t. "This is an admirable and exhaustive work, full of vigorous thinking, clear and careful statement, incisive and judicious criticism, minute yet comprehensive research. It is such a book as only a man with a gift for historical inquiry and an enthusiasm for the history and principles of his Church could have produced. It represents an amazing amount of labor. Dr. Briggs seems to have searched every available source, British and American, for printed or v/rilten documents bearing on his subjects, and he has met with wonderful success. He has made many important discoveries, illus- trative of the Puritan men and period, useful to himself, but certain also to be helpful to all future Inquiriea In this field."— j5/-i/<\s7i Quarterly Review. CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SOWS, Publishers, 743 and 745 Droad%vay, New Vork.