WN WN \ SS AWN \ SSS MAK ANE \ 222 .1N5 M383T Sch. R. DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY DURHAM, N. C. Rec'd Fal. 2 142 lid, LiladQaro YT) wd. we Tee Pore OF MOSES: BEING A CRITICAL STUDY OF DEUTERONOMY; ITS SEPARATION INTO TWO COPIES OF THE TORA ; A REFUTATION OF HIGHER CRITICISM. ee BY WILLIAM WALLACE MARTIN, Formerly Professor of Hebrew, Vanderbilt University. NASHVILLE, TENN.; Datuas, TEx.: PUBLISHING HousE oF THE M. E. CuurRcu, SournH. BARBEE & SMITH, AGENTS. 1900. eG : COPYRIGHT, 1900, BY WiLitiaAM WALLACE MARTIN. © ‘ ; a) » Ned ” ne ™< -* ; let = - os ew . - —_* at 7 a _— a) ? « “i. THE TORA OF MOSES. BEING A CRITICAL STUDY OF DEUTERONOMY; ITs SEP- ARATION INTO Two CoPIES OF THE TORA; A REFUTATION OF HIGHER CRITICISM. BY WILLIAM WALLACE MARTIN. On every page it exhibits the hand of the trained and careful scholar. One may search in vain for a single indication of rashness or a disposi- tion to set up and maintain a pre- conceived opinion, without refer- ence to the actual truth... . But of one thing we are certain: Prof. Martin has written a strong book, and one of which the scholars will be compelled to take notice.—Bishop E. E. Hoss, D.D. If one will carefully read these two chapters [XI X.-XX.] he cannot fail to be impressed with the free- dom from contradiction and confu- sion, the lucidity, consecutiveness homogeneity, and completeness of the results Prof. Martin has reached ns the simple means demanded es hisequally simpletheory. . .. If freedom from obscurity and com- plexity in both method and results yere the only tests of truth, no one can withhold the verdict that Dr. Martin had routed the higher critics at the first onslaught.—Dr. Jno. J. Ti- gert, Editor Methodist Review, M. E. Church, South. Issue is taken by Prof. Martin with the higher criticism in its con- clusion as to the literary analysis of the book of Deuteronomy... . His contribution to this ever-impor- tant discussion is bound to receive notice as one of the very thoughtful and strong essays put forth by scholarly yet conservative Chris- tian critics—men who are higher critics no less than the destruction- ists.—Piltsburg Christian Advocate. This volume seeks to counteract the tendencies of current Old Testa- ment criticism by presenting a new literary analysis of Deuteronomy, The author does not aim so much at finding flaws in the generally ac- cepted analysis as at undermining its whole structure. . . . The vol- ume is a scholarly attempt at an al- ternative theory of the composition of Deuteronomy which is full of in- terest in its side issues and sugges- tions,—London Quarterly Review, The book as a whole, whatever may be said of the theory, is intense- ly interesting. The lan eof the author is perspicuous, forcible, and concise, in certain passages partak- ing of the qualities of the best style of those sacred writings which he has so long and so earnestly studied. - « « No one who reads his work without prejudice can fail to per- ceive the admirable character of his analysis of the contents of the book, the noble style which he em- ploys, and the marks of entire con- fidence in his theo which are everywhere visible.—Dr. J. M. Buck- Ley Editor Christian Advocate, New ork, What hearing this hitherto silent man will get from the world of erit- ics for his radically new theory re- mains to be seen, but certainly no man will accuse him of wanting in candor or scholarship. And equal- ly certainly the man who turns from the heterogeneous jumble the book of Deuteronomy presents on its face, or the multitudinous ‘redactions’ of the old school of critics, to Dr. Martin’s exhibition of his two par- allel versions of a perfect code, wor- thy of the master hand of Moses, ... will feel like one who, from the yan- tage point of the geology of to- day, looks back on the geology of fifty years ago, with its constant ap- peal to supposed cataclysms and ca- tastrophes.—Rev. E. Wine- coff, D.D., Rector St. Luke’s Church. Prof. Martin antagonizes wholly this literary analysis, and the pres- ent volume, he considers, demon- strates its failure in Deuteronomy. Many candid readers, we are sure, will share his conclusion. The sci- entifle method is followed, and meets the literary analysts on their own ground. The phrase “recon- structive criticism’ very admira- bly describes the method and char- acter of his work.—Methodist Maga- zine and Review, Toronto, (715) TO MY FRIEND REV. J. M. BUCKLEY, D.D., LL.D, Editor of the ‘‘ Christian Advocate," New York, A PREACHER AND DEFENDER OF METHODISM, WHOSE VOICE AND PEN HAVE LONG BEEN HER BULWARKS, I GRATEFULLY INSCRIBE THIS BOOK, Digitized by the Internet Archi in 2022 with funding from Duke University Libraries |) a https://archive.org/details/toraofmoses01 mart TABLE OF CONTENTS. INTRODUCTORY MATTER. PAGE TRARID) ANGI A SIR RIOR AICS CIO GD COS ERD ETAERA Oe Srarar s\evetat. WAAL ANAT WSTS OR THE! DORA. 5 cies 1s c.clere cate asia een. OIE one xi EXPLANATORY STATEMENTS........ Ae NOS a Te ner rie a | PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS. CHAPTER I. AUTHORSHIP AND HIGHER CRITICISM........... fice cane = I II. RECONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM ILLUSTRATED,........ patie HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE TORA. Pie ROMP GMP RUTONELOR EB) s:> selec) rise «) sis/< selon alalainis'einis nalee 330 DV HROM MOREE ONSEN AN )\sejeialele!-sitalcls © o/s « eleleleleiei= she 55¢ 56 Vee DROMGOLNAL TOMEPELE SORDANG cin cis cis aisles eicis's erie eve circu LEGISLATION OF THE TORA. Wile bene © OMIMANID MENTS 5 a:c)lere, civic ars «\a\lalove/a'e-ele ini eieiele erates cic oe 93 WES ovnROR TIE GOD OR [SRAET.\ cs. ccele nae sin elenemidnen ce LOS NAR emleOvin RORY NEIGHBOR: jertaraiere eleleia sie\2\c)0\> fetsteieetaierayeicien LDS ID RSSSETCU ENG: JOON )5505 onion sued song coRopESacoco oancemays X. THe NAME OF JEHOVAH..............- faite etatol erate eho. Wuly XI. RESPECTING WORSHIP............. Sddoansouoocosmond 116 TL. Aberin) Tele) Tasp GIy Nien oes ahiao hon coud oGue odo coueoeas 179 XIII. RESPECTING CHASTITY. .........00....002. SSdepocuroae I9I Xi INjURIES To MAN AND BEAST ...occ..ccceecnssscccascs 197 REVS ENUAT DPR SaOW MRESPASS w5 c)aic's'c.4 0 cia/eeteveole'e onielelsiaiste cineca 212 XVI CouRTs.ORr WAW AND) JUSTICE. «ccs seisecwicle jee esis (v) = 219 ie . ~ ‘y4 5 ? Le aie 7 3 A vi chats HORTATORY CLOSE TO THE THE COPIES OF THE TORA IN PARALLEL C XIX. First Taste: Duttes To Gop........ 2000+ sees XX. Seconp TABLE: DuTIEs TO MAN.,.....++sse0eeee CRITICISM, RECONSTRUCTIVE AND XXI. HicHer Criticism CHALLENGED............. PREFACE. DeEUTERONOMY is the stronghold of higher criticism. If its analysis of this book be correct, and if the date which it assigns be accepted as true, there remains nothing to be done except to believe. If, however, it be shown that the literary analysis is incorrect, the strong reasons upon which the date rests disappear, and higher criticism must revise its conclusions. In this volume I take issue with the analysis of Deuteronomy which higher criticism has made and accepted. I do not undertake to show how this analysis is open to ob- jection and so should be abandoned. Attempts of this kind have been frequently put forth, yet all of them are as unsatisfactory as the analysis itself. My method is to give an entirely new analysis. Professor Driver, in his Deuteronomy, says: ‘In estimating these objections, it must be remembered, firstly, that what is essentially new in Deuteronomy is not the matter, but the form. Deuteronomy, says Dill- mann, truly, ‘is anything but an original law book.’ The laws which agree with those of the Book of the Covenant can be demonstrated to be old; those which agree with H (the Laws of Holiness) have the pre- sumption of being based upon some common earlier source; the priestly usages alluded to are evidently not innovations.’’ (Deut. lvi.) Certain admissions in this quotation are to be noticed: in the first place, an agreement is confessed between Deuteronomy and the Book of the Covenant; and, in the second place, an (vii) Vili PREFACE. agreement is recognized between Deuteronomy and the Laws of Holiness. The analysis which I advance for consideration is based on the theory that Deuteronomy is a composite book, made up by the commingling of two ancient copies of the Mosaic Tora. I prove my theory by re- producing the copies. In this volume I treat the great divisions of the tora in chapters, naming one copy J and the other E. In Chapters XIX. and XX. I place the copies side by side in parallel columns. I have followed as closely as possible the Authorized Version, because such a course would enable any one easily to follow the reconstruction of the tora by marking off J with a blue lead pencil and E with a red one, in the Bible. If any one will do this, he will have a poly- chrome Deuteronomy which will be most instructive from a critical standpoint. The Hebrew scholar should do this in his Hebrew Bible. The reader will observe that certain parts of the tora were wanting in one of the copies, and that the Book of the Covenant and the Laws of Holiness furnished what was missing. Indeed, what Professor Driver confesses to be agreements are found on my theory to be parts of a copy of the tora. Certain paragraphs in Deuteronomy have no place in the tora. Because of this fact it was necessary to reconstruct Exodus—Numbers, in order to learn what must be done with these unused parts. I have, there- fore, in manuscript Exodus-Numbers; and, on the basis of these investigations, I affirm that what is left unused of Deuteronomy are in the main essential parts of Exodus-Numbers. My work on the tora ought to win ready credence for this statement. Three years ago I advocated the theory of reconstructive criticism PREFACE. ix in a pamphlet on Genesis, giving an analysis of the first eleven chapters into two narrative histories, designating one by J and the other by E. In the second chapter of this volume I have taken from my manuscript upon Genesis the part relating to Jacob and Rachel at the well. I make this mention of my investigations simply to indicate the background of labor upon which my analysis of Deuteronomy rests. The actuating spirit which has sustained me in these labors has been to find paths which would lead to that trust in the Old Testa- ment Scriptures which has been the heritage of Chris- tians from the beginning. In concluding, I would acknowledge the courteous interest shown in this volume by my friend, the Rev. Jno. J. Tigert, D.D., LL.D., Editor of The Methodist Review, and Book Editor of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. WwW. W. M. BRENTWOOD, TENN., August 11, 1900. ANALYSIS OF THE TORA, A. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. [Figures refer to pages. ] I. FROM EGYPT TO HOREB.|$, Command to Enter Ca- a. Prefatory Statement. ..251 oe Si gana ahaa +++ 256 : According to J, 58. According to J, 39. E According to E, 59. According to E, 39. : c. Punishment of Unbe- é. Introductory Sentences.251 re ee ee eee 257 According to J, 61. According to E, 62. d. Punishment of Disobe- dience...... ARERR = According to J, 63. According to E, 64. e. Wanderings in the Wil- GELneSS, «cen n eden 259 According to J, 65. ; According to E, 66. 2 Eirst Descente: .os.5\ 2254 ra Theophany at Sinai... 260 ee rg According to J, 69. eee a According to E, 71. According to J, 41. According to E, 43. ce. Appointment of Judg- eS forint eet 252. According to J, 45. _According to E, 46. d. First Stay in the Moun- 2 aoe Scie SEE According to J, 48. According to E, 48. % Jf. Intercessory Prayer...254| o. Petition at Sinai...... 261 According to J, 52. According to J, 72. According to E, 52. According to E, 73. g. Third Ascent......... 255|%. Military Organization . 262 According to J, 53. According to J, 75. According to E, 54. According to E, 75. 11, FROM HOREB To siwar,| “7” 70M oe Sires a. The Northward Jour- a. March by Seir and HY Sa tate Snene ein 2 50 Moab ..... Saute wie 202 According to J, 57. According to J, 76. According to E, 57. According to E, 77. (xi) xii ANALYSIS OF THE TORA. 4. Passage of the Brook d. Possession East of Eis Gg axhin tate sie» 803 Jordan..s doa s>5= oes According to J, 79. According to J, 85. According to E, 8o. According to E, 86. c. Overthrow of Sihon e. Close of Historical In- and Og... «iaaweve’ 264 troduction ........ 266 According to J, 82. According to J, 87. According to E, 83. According to E, 89. B. THE LEGISLATION OF THE TORA. 7. THE TEN COMMAND- | d, Confidence in Jehovah..273 MENTS. According to J, 113. a. Transitional Para- According to E, 114. oak ae ed gaia III, LOVE OF THE NEIGH- According to J, 95. bie According to E, 96. sm 6. First Table...........269]@. Good Will to Men....274 According to J, 97. According to J, 117. According to E, 98. According to E, 119. c. Second Table.........269|4. Need and Debt........ 275 According to J, 100. According to J, 122. According to E, ror. According to E, 124. Ge EsRHOLtAMON veleciciecels oes 270|c. Hebrew Slave ...... .276 According to J, 102. According to J, 125. According to E, 103. According to E, 127. d, A Stranger’s Title....278 IT, LOVE FOR THE GOD OF According to J, 128. ISRAEL. According to E, 129. a. Fidelity to God..... ..271|¢ Debt Release.........279 According to J, 106. According to J, 129. According to E, 107. According to E, 130. Bi Edolnters:. oii. si3 048 271| f. Land Redemption.....279 According to J, 108. According to J, 131. According to E, 109. According to E, 131. ao Tributaries. 35 67 teal .272|g. Perpetual Bondage. ... 280 According to J, 111. According to J, 132. According to E, 112. According to E, 132. ANALYSIS OF THE TORA. IV. RESPECTING IDOLA- DRT. a. Image Worship..... 3 According to J, 134. According to E, 135. 6. Forms of Divination .. 281 According to J, 137. According to E, 139. c. False Prophet. According to J, 141. According to E, 142. d. Apostatizing.. According to J, 143. According to E, 144. e. Apostate City.... According to J, 145. According to E, 146. eeoeceece V. THE NAME OF JEHO- VAH. ALR Oe i to Sr According to J, 148. According to E, 149. Gene TeSVite os oe cee oss 286 According to J, 150. According to E, 150. eathe EP TOphet saree. s Disobedience... 2... +. 315 CVn a vlecvevtnes se ste 319 According to J, 237. According to J, 248. According to E, 237. According to E, 249. EXPLANATORY STATEMENTS. 1. References are to the English version of King James. 2. The upper figures refer to chapters; the lower, to verses. 3. The letters E, L, N refer respectively to Exodus, Le- viticus, and Numbers. 4. Where there is no letter, Deuteronomy is understood. 5: A reference like ,} means Deuteronomy vi. 17; but L 4, » means Leviticus vi. 14, 25. THE TORA OF MOSES. CHAPTER’ T. AUTHORSHIP AND HiGHER CRITICISM. Amonc the Jews one uniform belief seems to have prevailed respecting the authorship of the Pentateuch, and so of Deuteronomy. Moses, they claim, is the author. Plausible inferences are drawn, favoring this view, from the books of the Old Testament following Deuteronomy. Repeated references to Moses and his law furnish the data for these conclusions. Josephus and the Talmudists, both the early and the later schools, are in accord with this traditional belief. Modern scholars, however, have pointed out ‘‘ that the Jews pos- sess no tradition worthy of real credence or regard, but only vague and uncertain reminiscences, intermin- gled often with idle speculations.”’ Belief in the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy passed from the Jewish synagogue to the Christian Church. There were strong reasons for the writers of the New Testament and the Church Fathers to deny Mosaic origin, since strong sects and perilous heresies secured many adherents by resting their right to cre- dence upon the authority of Moses. The almost undis- puted reign of this traditional view, respecting author- ship, for above eighteen centuries witnesses to the per- sistence and strength of the belief in the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. And our own century has had, and still possesses, many who champion the view of Jewish tradition. ‘* These scholars base the Mosaic authorship @) 2 THE TORA OF MOSES. upon the testimonies of the Pentateuch itself, the histor- ical books of the Old Testament, the prophets, and the New Testament, and finally upon the assertion that the Pentateuch shows no vestiges of post-Mosaic events and customs, no chronological errors, but exhibits a unity of spirit and language, and meets every expectation so great an antiquity would arouse.’’ The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was in a few instances looked upon with suspicion during the past centuries; and this doubt first took upon itself an obtru- sive character in the seventeenth century. Attention was directed to the contradictions, transpositions, repe- titions, so frequently found in the Pentateuch. Thus, Genesis xx. and xxvi. were alleged to stand in impossible chronological order. The two accounts of creation in Genesis i. and ii. would, according to this view, militate against a unity of authorship because of the irreconcila- ble differences which these critics affirm are found in the two narratives. They pointed to the fact that Moses was spoken of not in the first but in the third person, and this peculiarity argued other authorship. Many such statements began to be brought together under this new spirit of criticism, which made it quite apparent that ‘‘the writer is necessarily one who looked back to Moses through a long series of later prophets.” The criticism of the seventeenth century succeeded in completely separating Deuteronomy as a distinct book, dominated by a single purpose and characterized by a notably striking and beautiful literary style. Our present century, through its scholars, has examined in closest detail this last book of the Pentateuch. Two theories have resulted. Some have advocated that this portion of the Pentateuch is the oldest, and if not written AUTHORSHIP AND HIGHER CRITICISM. 3 by Moses, yet is nearer to his age, and therefore most strongly influenced by his work. Others, equally emi- nent, have considered Deuteronomy as quite a late doc- ument; and by this supposition a few of these were en- abled to hold that the rest of the Pentateuch was Mosaic, and so quiet their conscience. Higher criticism, the name applied to this critical work of our century, has separated in the Pentateuch three collections of laws and three narratives corresponding to these law-codes. The laws in Exodus xx. 23-xxiili. 33 constitute the first collection, and are designated by the letters JE. There is, so it is conceded, no logical order in the succession of these laws. ‘The commands in Xx. 23-26 respecting idolatry and the altar of unhewn stone belong to the Jewish religious cultus, and should have been placed beside the religious ordinances in this collection. Repetitions, such as xxiii. 9 and xxii. 21, suggest interpolations. The religious festivals, men- tioned in xxiii. 10-14, are interrupted by the intrusion, ‘* altogether senseless,’’ of verse 1c. The Decalogue in xx. is considered a later addition to this collection of laws. The expression ‘‘ Book of the Covenant’’ is supposed to refer to these laws, and indeed to consti- tute a code. The Deuteronomic code embodies many of the laws found in this Book of the Covenant; for in- stance, the decalogue, the purpose of the sabbath, the place of sacrifice, the prohibition ‘‘ not to eat blood,”’ the law of tithing, the three annual feasts, the places of refuge, the law of witnesses, the release of the He- brew slave, and very many other enactments. Ex- planations of these coincidences among the advocates of higher criticism have been more or less at variance. The fact, however, that a more highly developed mode 4 THE TORA OF MOSES. of expression, in cases where the subject-matter is al- leged to be common, is found with the Deuteronomist, has led to the prevailing view that Deuteronomy is later and that its writer had the Book of the Covenant before his eyes. A second code is thought to be found in Exodus— Numbers, after the JE legislation is subtracted. This second collection of laws is called the priestly code, and is designated by the letter P. A third collection of laws is contained in Deuteronomy, and it is referred to by the letter D. This third code has similarities to the other two codes. These likenesses appear in such subjects as the not-eating of blood, the law of tithes, the institution of the sabbatical year, the manumission of the Hebrew slave, the statute concerning the firstlings of the ox and sheep, the three annual feasts, the warning against Moloch worship, the cities of refuge, the law of usury, and some others. These facts argue a close relation be- tween the Deuteronomic code and the laws of the priest- ly legislation. The practically concurrent opinion of critical scholarship places the priestly code in the main as subsequent to Deuteronomy. Approximate dates have been assigned as marking the appearance of these three remarkable law-codes and the literature most nearly re- lated to each. ‘*At some period later than 650 B.C. the documents J and E were combined into a single whole.’? The Deuteronomic code was in the main a completed book about 621 B.C. Ezra and Nehemiah introduced the priestly legislation in its highest devel- opment in Judea, during the year 444 B.C. Such are briefly the conclusions of higher criticism in relation to these three legislative codes. Scholars have pointed out a kind of civil code, scat- AUTHORSHIP AND HIGHER CRITICISM. 5 tered through the Deuteronomic collection of laws. These rules of action for the civic community constitute an incomparable group of laws. They embody the es- sence of a criminal law, with the central command, ** Thou shalt not kill.’”” The civil code makes a distinc- tion between willful murder and those cases of killing which occur through accident, and protection is provid- ed for him who takes undesignedly the life of a fellow, by means of the cities of refuge. Yet whosoever kill- eth another, having enmity in his heart, must die; and for him there is no refuge even at the altarof God. A similar distinction is made in the laws regarding adul- tery. The home life is protected by safeguards thrown around parentage with the profoundest wisdom. The law of trespass is succinctly stated in the command, ‘*Thou shalt not steal.’’ Special laws amplify this rule, making quite a full legislation upon this feature of the civil code. The integrity of one side of the court practice is secured in the command, ‘‘ Thou shalt not bear false witness,’’ and on the other side by the in- junction that judges should decide according to the right. Every form of oppression is attacked through the injunction, ‘‘Thou shalt not covet.’’ There is no question among scholars as to the existence of this re- markable civil code, scattered throughout Deuteron- omy. Its presence is one of the proofs, urged by higher criticism, to establish the conclusion that this book belongs to an age much later than the Mosaic. The nobler law by its rule is the later in its appearance. Deuteronomy contains something like an ethical code, being rules of conduct which affect our well-being, but which may not be reached by any procedure under a civilcode. A political body always expresses its noblest 6 THE TORA OF MOSES. development in those unwritten regulations which are ethical and lead to the maintenance of a benevolent watchfulness over one another. The ethical code of Deuteronomy requires honor for the father and the mother, love for the neighbor, kind treatment of the stranger within the gates. The orphan and the widow are to be considerately treated; and benevolent feeling is to be exercised always toward every living thing. The presence of this ethical code in writings, which tradition has surrounded with remote antiquity, has ever been a subject of serious thoughtfulness to specu- lative and reflective minds. There is no law of evolu- tion here; or, if so, an evolution not in harmony with scientific theory. Higher critics, with the historical sense largely developed, have traversed the history of Israel with patient step in order to find that period of great humanism wherein these stars of the first magni- tude in the ethical world held their daily course in the heavens. Deuteronomy regulates to a degree the practice of worship in Israel. A central sanctuary is, in the mind of the Deuteronomic writer, to be established. Hither thrice in the year every male of the Israelitic communi- ty isto go. These times are festal times for the most part. The early harvest festival and the late harvest festival are seasons of thanksgiving and rejoicings. Burnt offerings and sacrifices are enjoined for these times. The sabbath is to be observed. Perhaps the injunctions against idolatry are the only severe and al- most wholly unintelligible manifestation of harshness in the whole book, especially to the charity of the unbe- lieving modern mind. A liberal provision is made for those who give their lives to inculcate the religious cul- AUTHORSHIP AND HIGHER CRITICISM. "7/ tus in Israel. Higher criticism sums up its estimate in the following words: ‘‘ The different relation in which Deuteronomy stands to the other codes may be ex- pressed thus: it is an expansion of that in JE (Ex. XX.-XXlll.); it is in several features parallel to the law of holiness in Lev. xvii.—xxvi.; it contains allusions to laws such as those codified in some parts of P.’’ Great as Deuteronomy stands in respect to its civil, ethical, and religious codes, these all pale into insignificance when compared with that noble recognition of God and man’s duties to him, which pervades the whole of this most remarkable book. ‘*The Lord our God is ONE Lorp,”’ is the sentence around which clusters the spirit- uality of this people of Israel. The speaker of these words is involved in no mists of doubt. His conviction is based on personal knowledge, a fundamental faith with him. Other peoples have many gods. Torun after them and serve them is in Israel a capital oftense. To seek to proselyte away from Jehovah is worthy of death. There is no God like the God of Israel. The Deuter- onomist says: ‘* Did people ever hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live? or hath God essayed to go and take him a nation from the midst of a nation by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by an outstretched arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the Lord your God did for you in Egypt be- fore your eyes?’ ‘The intensest personal relation, ac- cording to the Deuteronomist, exists between God and his chosen people. This is witnessed to by the Shema’ of this people, words to be repeated daily in the house of every Israelite. ‘These are the words of the Shema’: ‘* Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one 8 THE TORA OF MOSES. Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart. And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sit- test in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as a frontlet between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.’’ Admiration increases as one follows the manifold expressions of the love and mercy of the God of Israel in Deuteronomy. One of the most rey- erent of the school of higher criticism has truly said: ‘Nowhere else in the Old Testament do we breathe such an atmosphere of generous devotion to God and of large-hearted benevolence to man; and nowhere else is it shown with such fullness of detail how these prin- ciples may be made to permeate the entire life of a community.’’ (Driver, Lit. O. T., p. 74.) The collection of laws in Deuteronomy xii.—xxvi. is considered by higher criticism ‘‘as the kernel of the Deuteronomic literature.’’ Kuenen’s excellent sum- mary of this position is given in the following para- graph: ‘‘Deuteronomy xii.-xxvi. [or D] is a single whole. Here and there the order of precepts leaves something to be desired, and occasionally the suspicion of later interpolations is provoked; but, in spite of this, it remains quite unmistakable that these chapters, as a whole, come from one author and constitute a single book of law. The Tora of Yahwe which they pro- mulgate is intended by the writer to embrace all the demands that Yahwe makes from his people, and ac- AUTHORSHIP AND HIGHER CRITICISM. 9 cordingly it regulates not only the worship, which must be offered to Yahwe alone and in his own sanctuary, but also the political, civic, and domestic life of the people consecrated to him, and the moral duties of the individual Israelite.’’ (Hexateuch, pp. 107, 108.) The exhortations of Deuteronomy v.—xi., or D,, are intended as an introduction to xii.-xxvi. Kuenen urges in reference to v.—xi., that the language, style, and details are such as only the hypothesis of a com- mon origin would explain. Wellhausen and others contend for a different authorship. The part con- tained in Deuteronomy i.—iv., or D,, is universally re- garded by the advocates of higher criticism as written by a different author, who placed it as an introduc- tion to D and D,. This writer was in sympathy with all the hortatory and legislative teachings of what fol- lows, and adds his portion ‘‘ to link the Deuteronomic legislation to older narratives,’’ or else as supplemen- tary, and thus furnishing ‘‘the historical antecedents to the legislative discourse of v.—xxvi.”’ The chap- ters following xxvi. are considered diverse in style, al- though revealing the influence of the former portions. They are, in the main, incorporated fragments of Deu- teronomic or priestly literature. A most singular phe- nomenon presents itself in xii.-xxvi. Although higher criticism generally regards it as ‘‘a single book of law,”’ yet it is not dominated, as the higher critics confess, by any principle of order. ‘‘The precepts are defectively arranged, kindred matter is not treated together, and no fixed plan seems to be followed.’’ This fact mili- tates against a single author, unless we mean by the ex- pression a mere compiler, and that too not a very skill- fulone. There are present, however, in these chapters Io THE TORA OF MOSES. expressions and turns of language which argue a fond- ness for special words and forms of phrases, which suggests, so it is affirmed, a single hand. A few of these may be indicated: they are, to eat before Yah- we’s face; to go after other gods; the place that Je- hovah shall choose; to possess; to inherit; to redeem from Egypt. This characteristic has been most influ- ential in leading to the hypothesis of a single author. Klinert, however, finds too little evidence of a single author, unless we mean by the term one who simply codifies. Hortatory pleadings are common in v.-xi. Higher criticism finds that the language has affinity to D, but the whole tone of the chapters is such as a writer would assume ‘‘who had the ordinances and statutes of the subsequent chapters lying before him.’’ This peculiar- ity has led to the assumption of a different author. Wellhausen gives an interesting summary of these chap- ters. He says: ‘*In v. 1. the author announces the in- stitutions and statutes which the people are to observe in the land of Canaan, but immediately involves himself in an historical presentation of the occasion on which they were communicated to him on Horeb forty years ago, when the people begged him to interpose as a mediator. At the beginning of vi. he again appears to be coming to the communication of ordinances and statutes, but turns off into a plea for obedience to the laws, based on love of the lawgiver. And in similar ways our patience is yet further tried in the follow- ing chapters. The discourse always turns upon the ORDINANCES AND STATUTES WHICH I SHALL GIVE YOU THIS DAY; but we are never told what they are. In vii. and viii. an attempt is made to disarm by anticipa- AUTHORSHIP AND HIGHER CRITICISM. If tion all manner of threatening dangers which might lead to their neglect after the conquest of Canaan. Yahwe’s grace, which the Israelites might think they could dispense with, when they were out of the wilder- ness, will always be needed, and his wrath will always be terrible. This gives occasion to a long digression on the golden calf; and it is not till x. 12 sqq. that we return to the enforcement of the commandments, while xi. once more insists that Yahwe’s past care for Israel demands both gratitude and obedience, but that his future care will not be rendered superfluous by the possession of the land, since its fruitfulness depends upon the grace of heaven.’’ (Wellh. Prolegomena, etc., Xxli. 462 sq.) These words of Wellhausen make clear how there still remains the dificult question whether any author could compose a document with the strik- ing peculiarities which Wellhausen so graphically de- picts as present in this portion of Deuteronomy. Chapters i.-iv. are regarded as introductory to v.— xxvl., but they are relegated to a different hand from that of D or D,. This third author has a strong his- torical sense, and joves to connect the legislation in the following portion of Deuteronomy with events in the history of Israel. Narratives referred to in Exodus— Numbers are interwoven in this historical introduction more or less deftly. He also places speeches in the mouth of Moses. Kuenen’s summary of these chapters will be useful in outlining distinctly the view of higher criticism respecting them. These are his words: ‘‘ The notes, glosses as it were, on the discourse, which he puts into the mouth of Moses, are the clearest proofs of his interest in antiquities, but the discourse of Moses itself is also drawn up mainly with an historical purpose, 12 THE TORA OF MOSES. though the tone of warning and exhortation is not want- ing. Note especially Deuteronomy ii., iii. I-17, evi- dently written to throw light upon Israel’s relation to his neighbors and to explain the settlement in the trans- jordanic region. Where the author passes, in iv. sqq., from history to admonition, he anticipates the points which D, impressed on his readers in v. sqq., and, like him, though with a somewhat different intention, makes use of the events in Horeb for the purpose. Charac- teristic of his historical sense in this connection is his comparison of Israel with other peoples (iv. 6-8, 32- 44). His affinities with D, are unmistakable as the differences which part him from him.’’ (Hexateuch, note, p. 119.) Tradition affirms unity of authorship for Deuterono- my. Higher criticism finds too many transpositions and conflicting statements, too abrupt turns in the prog- ress of the discourse, too little evidence of. logical se- quence in the arrangement, and too slender a thread running through the book to bind its parts together, upon which to predicate a unity of authorship. Crriti- cal scholars have, therefore, proffered instead of the traditional view a tripartite authorship. Yet, in D (xii.-xxvi.), which higher criticism regards as a unit, the statements are inconsistent often, the arrangement of subjects illogical, transpositions are not infrequent; and these same reasons, which led scholars to abandon the traditional view, should lead them to refuse faith in the unity of authorship for this the largest section of Deuteronomy. The peculiarities which Wellhausen finds in D, (v.—xi.) are of such a surprising nature that a mere bungler in composition alone could produce a product of this character. D, (i—iv.) seems an addi- AUTHORSHIP AND HIGHER CRITICISM. 13 tion, according to higher criticism. Therefore, this school of critics find no more acceptable method for the disposition of the difficulty than to assume a sepa- rate author; yet this writer must have been a tyro in the art of writing like to the author of D,. Indeed, as these three portions of Deuteronomy, D, D,, D,, are all characterized by the same puerile traits of composition, such as inconsistencies, want of logic, repetitions, a kind of literary hodgepodge, it would seem most likely that one hand put together the whole of Deuteronomy, and that hand not by any means skillful. Therefore, it could not have been, in its present form, put together by the hand of that master Moses, whom all subsequent ages have ranked with the leading minds of the centu- ries past. Kuenen sums up his own investigations, and at the same time sets forth the accepted conclusion of higher criticism, in these words: ‘* With respect to the tradi- tion which makes Moses the actual writer of the whole tora, we must express ourselves more strongly: it is absolutely excluded by the differences of form between the several codes.’’ The conclusion of the whole mat- ter, then, according to higher criticism, is as follows: Whatever is said to be the words of Moses in Deuter- onomy is so said because the writer wished to place his thoughts or the collection of laws and precepts, which he had made, in the mouth of a great historical character. This liberty is justified by the ‘‘ custcm of the times.”’ It remains with higher criticism to establish this custom. But conceding it to be a fact, yet the most singular phe- nomenon is presented by applying this custom to the composition of Deuteronomy. All unite in affirming that the writer, whoever he may have been, presents the no- 14 THE TORA OF MOSES. blest ethics and the highest spiritual representations of God to be found anywhere except in the New Testament. Could one, breathing so lofty a morality and so beautiful a conception of God, place these words in the mouth of another to give them currency? The acceptance of Mosaic authorship with all its manifold difficulties under the present form of Deuteronomy would be a more rational conclusion. A distinguished writer justifies the acceptance of these views of higher criticism in these words: ‘‘ There is nothing in Deuteronomy implying an interested or dishonest motive on the part of the post-Mosaic author; and this being so, its moral and spiritual greatness remains unimpaired: its inspired authority is in no respect less than that of any other part of the Old Testament Scriptures which happens to be anonymous.’’ This justification hinges upon the absence of an ‘* interested or dishonest motive’’ in the unknown writer. The only motive that could: have in- duced any writer to place his production under the name of another, in whole or in part, is that greater currency and respect for the writing would ensue through the use of the name employed; and this is, to say the least, an ‘‘ interested motive.”’ Any new theory, presented to explain the problem which Deuteronomy offers to the critical mind, must set out with the acceptance of all those most striking facts which are found in this book, and are clearly pointed out by higher criticism. These are, that Deuteronomy is constructed without any logical consistency pervading the book as a whole; that events of history are recorded with a complete disregard for chronological sequence; that repetitions occur, which are inexcusable in any re- spectable author; that inconsistent statements are made AUTHORSHIP AND HIGHER CRITICISM. 15 regarding matters which must have had the sanction of a custom or usage of long standing. These are the principal facts. A new theory must give an adequate explanation of this unique phenomenon in a literary production which is most fascinating, although it pos- sesses characteristics which in any other writing would condemn it to obscurity. Reconstructive criticism prof- fers such a theory for consideration. This theory, briefly stated, is that in Deuteronomy we have the Mosaic Tora. Among the Hebrews there were two ancient copies of this code, which were held in great veneration. These were combined together for some sufficient reason. The result of the amalga- mation of these two copies of the Mosaic Tora is Deu- teronomy in its present form, with all its inconsistencies, reduplications, contradictions, illogical arrangement, and every alleged inharmonious statement upon which higher criticism rests its assertion of repeated redac- tions. The production of these two toras will establish the theory of reconstructive criticism. Professor C. A. Briggs has set forth the brilliant vic- tories of higher criticism in these words: ‘‘ The critical analysis of the Hexateuch is the result of more than a century of profound study of the documents by the greatest critics of the age. There has been a steady advance until the present position of agreement has been reached in which Jew and Christian, Roman Catholic and Protestant, Rationalistic and Evangelical scholars, Reformed and Lutheran, Presbyterian and Episcopal, Unitarian, Methodist, and Baptist, all concur. The analysis of the Pentateuch into several distinct original documents is a purely literary question, in which no article of faith is involved. Whoever in these 16 THE TORA OF MOSES. times, in the discussion of the literary phenomena of the Hexateuch, appeals to the ignorance and prejudice of the multitude, as if there were any peril to the faith in these processes of the higher criticism, risks his rep- utation for scholarship by so doing. There are no He- brew professors on the continent of Europe, so far as I know, who would deny the literary analysis of the Pen- tateuch into the four great documents (J, E, P, and D). The professors of Hebrew in the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Edinburgh, and tutors in a large num- ber of theological colleges, hold the same opinion. A very considerable number of the Hebrew professors of America are in accord with them. There are, indeed, a few professional scholars who hold to the traditional opinion, but these are in a hopeless minority. I doubt whether there is any question of scholarship whatever in which there is a greater agreement among scholars than in this question of literary analysis of the Hexa- teuch.’’ (Presbyterian Rev., April, 1887, p. 340.) Our theory antagonizes wholly this ‘* literary analysis of the Pentateuch.’’ The present volume will demon- strate its failure in Deuteronomy. CHAP TER. if. RECONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM ILLUSTRATED. DEUTERONOMY, in the view of reconstructive criti- cism, is a conglomerate mass, produced by the crowd- ing together of two copies of the Mosaic Tora. The problem then is to disentangle these two copies. The student of this book has then the same problem which confronted the geologist, when he faced the confusions of the various geological formations, brought about by the eruptive and destructive forces of nature during long periods. He sought for order in this chaos. In- deed, the problem is the same the scientists have fath- omed in the upbuilding of the several sciences. Law was hidden in many widely separated specimens or combinations. The law was discovered, and then what seemed confused, unrelated, was found to belong to a wonderful system, present in nature. Reconstructive criticism proposes to bring order out of confusion, to show the two toras, which are concealed in the dis- ordered mass of Deuteronomy. Its claims are simple, the task of the greatest magnitude. This book of the law must have a well-defined logic, binding part to part; must be that complete system which exercised controlling power over the children of Israel for centuries. There must be in this Mosaic Tora a complete civil code, a full ethical code, a reli- gious code, guiding the people in their relations to God. Such demands at least will be made upon us, before scholarship will accept the theory as established. We will illustrate the combination of two narratives 2 (17) 18 THE TORA OF MOSES. into one more or less consistent, as the first step in the present undertaking. The healing of the centurion’s servant is recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Each is marked by an individuality of its own, and yet there is no such lack of common characteristics as to preclude the accepted belief that the event is the same in each narrative. Burton, in his masterly study of the Gospel of St. Luke, says: ‘*The narrative of St. Matthew differs slightly from that of St. Luke, in that he omits all reference to the two deputations, speaking of the interview as being personal with the centurion. But St. Matthew’s is evidently an abbrevi- © ated narrative, and passes over the intermediaries, in accordance with the maxim that he who acts through another does it fev se.’ We now propose to combine these two narratives into one. This unification will in- volve no change of forms, only a new arrangement, and will embody all the words of the two narratives, as they appear in the two Gospels. Matthew records the incident in these words: And when Jesus was entered into Caper- naum, there came unto him a centurion, be- seeching him, saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously torment- ed. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof; but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I ama man under authority, having soldiers under me; and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doethit. When Jesus | a RECONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM ILLUSTRATED. heard, he marveled, and said to them that fol- lowed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abra- ham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven ; but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way ; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the self- same hour, (Matt. vili. 5-13.) Luke records this event in these words: Now, when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum. And a certain centurion’s sery- ant, who was dear unto him, was sick and ready todie. And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseech- ing him that he would come and heal his serv- ant. And when they came to Jesus, they be- sought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this: for he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a syn- agogue. Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself; for Tam not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof: wherefore, neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed. For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he #9 20 THE TORA OF MOSES. goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick. (Luke vii. 1-10.) There are marked differences in these two narratives. We notice that Matthew gives us more of the words of Christ and less of the doings of men; while Luke re- verses, giving us more of the deeds of men and fewer of the words of Christ. Matthew makes no mention of the two deputations sent to Christ. Luke records no words such as, ‘‘And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west,’’ etc. In presenting the unification of these two narratives, what belongs to Matthew alone we shall place in ordinary type; what belongs to Luke alone, in italics; what is common to both, in small capitals. We may then show very easily the arrangement required to unite them into a consist- ent narrative. References are to verses. The follow- ing is the composite narrative: uketsa. Vow when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum. And a certain centurion’s serv- ant, who was dear unto him, was sick and ready todie. And when he heard of Jesus, and mat.5a. When Jesus had entered into Capernaum, he Luke 3-7. sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseech- ing him that he would come and heal his servant. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was Matt. 6 0-8. Luke 8. Matt. 9. Luke 8-9 a. Luke 9. Matt. 10a. Matt. 10. Luke 9. Matt, 11-13. RECONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM ILLUSTRATED. worthy for whom he should do this: for he loveth oux nation, and he hath built us a syn- agogue. Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him,saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself; for Iam not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof: where- Sore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say the word, and my servant shall be healed. ‘Then the centurion came unto him, beseeching him, saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, griev- ously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. And the centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof; but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I also AM A MAN set UNDER AUTHORI- TY, HAVING UNDER ME SOLDIERS: AND I SAY UNTO ONE, GO, AND HE GOETH; AND TO ANOTHER, COME, AND HE COMETH}; AND TO MY SERVANT, Do THIS, AND HE DOETH IT. WHEN JESUS HEARD ¢hese things, WE MAR- VELED at him, AND turned to the crowd that followed him, AND SAID to them that fol- lowed him, Verily I sAy uNTo you, I HAVE NOT FOUND SO GREAT FAITH, NO, NOT IN Is- RAEL. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven: but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness : there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done 21 22 THE TORA OF MOSES. unto thee. And his servant was healed in that tukelo. selfsame hour. And they that were sent, re- turning, found the servant whole that had been sick. At a glance, it will be seen how little of labor it re- quired to construct this composite narrative. Yetif we had this narrative, and were undertaking to disentangle therefrom the narrative of Matthew and the narrative of Luke, any one can see what a difficult task would be placed before us. We would need to know the pe- culiar view to be portrayed by each writer, the details which attracted each most powerfully, and many, many other particulars. The chief difficulties in the undertaking would arise through the almost perfect con- sistency of this composite narrative. Therefore, if our theory respecting Deuteronomy be true, the grave diffi- culties arising from the clashings of different portions of any narrative, such as higher criticism speaks of in order to prove the narratives utterly untrustworthy, be- come very helpful aids in unraveling the two original toras. Our next step will be to take a narrative in Genesis, which higher critics accept as composite, and recon- struct the two narratives, of which the composite one is formed. The account of Jacob meeting Rachel at the well, recorded in Genesis xxix. I-13, is the one chosen for analysis and reconstruction according to the theory of reconstructive criticism. Its incongruities have not been sufficiently obtrusive to impress the popular mind, because the love at first sight, which fettered Jacob to Rachel, has been the charming congruity everywhere in the narrative. The common inheritance of the Christian mind, from this passage in Genesis, is a pic- RECONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM ILLUSTRATED. 23 ture in which a well is the central object, surrounded by reclining flocks with their shepherds and a stranger who stands among them, talking with the keepers of the sheep. As soon as a beautiful maiden approaches, leading her father’s sheep to water, this stranger breaks off conversation with the shepherds and goes to the well, rolls away a great stone at the mouth of the well, and waters for the beautiful shepherdess the flock which she tends. Her rare beauty wins the stranger: his graceful courtesy and large strength win the maid- en. This is the meeting of Jacob and Rachel at the well. Ancestry is a mighty factor in a race. Courtesy, strength, beauty, and passionate admiration of these traits everywhere ought to be the birthright of Joseph and Benjamin; for they are the children of Jacob and Rachel. The splendid career of Joseph and the maj- esty and strength of Ephraim and Manasseh manifest to the world that they did not sell their birthright for a mess of pottage or of pleasure. Some inconsistent statements may be pointed out in the present form of the narrative in Genesis. It is said in the third verse that the flocks were watered, while in the eighth verse it is clearly implied that they were wait- ing until all the flocks should come together. The pres- ence of Rachel with her father’s flock indicates that the time of day was the accustomed hour when shepherd- esses came together, whereas the conversation with the men of Haran shows that an hour is in mind when the flocks under the care of men had come to the well in order to water the sheep. These differences suggest the duplicate narratives. We will now give these two accounts as they appear when separated. For conven- ience, one of these narratives we will designate by the 24 THE TORA OF MOSES. letter E and the other by the letter J. The numerals on the margin refer to the verses in which the scattered parts are found. Small capitals will indicate the com- mon matter in the two narratives. THE NARRATIVE OF /. 1 THEN JACOB WENT ON HIS JOURNEY, AND CAME TO THE LAND OF THE PEOPLE OF THE 2East. And behold A WELL IN THE FIELD, And lo! there were three flocks of sheep ly- ing by it; for out of that well they watered the flocks. And a great stone was upon the Tmouth of the well. And he said, Lo! it is yet high day, neither is it time that the cattle should be gathered together ; water the flock, Sand go feed them. And they said, We can- not, until all the flocks be gathered together, and till they roll the stone from the well’s ® mouth ; then we water the sheep. And while he yet spake with them, Rachel came with 10 her father’s sheep; for she kept them. THEN JACOB WENT NEAR and rolled the stone from the well’s mouth, and watered the flocks of 12Laban his mother’s brother. ANp JAcoB TOLD RAcHEL that he was Rebekah’s son, land he kissed Rachel, AND SHE RAN AND 12 TOLD HER FATHER. AND HE RAN TO MEET 13 rm, and kissed him, and brought him to his house. And he told Laban all about matters. THE NARRATIVE OF E. 1 THEN JACOB WENT ON HIS JOURNEY, AND CAME TO THE LAND OF THE PEOPLE OF THE East. And he saw A WELL IN THE FIELD. 3 And thither were all the flocks gathered ; and they had rolled away the stone from the well’s RECONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM ILLUSTRATED. 25 mouth, and watered the sheep, and put the * stone on the well’s mouth in his place. And Jacob said unto them, My brethren, whence be ye? And they said unto him, Of Haran °are we. And he said unto them, Know ye Laban the son of Nahor? And they said, We &know him. And he said unto them, Is he well? And they said, He is well: and, be- hold, Rachel, his daughter, cometh with his sheep. And it came to pass, when Jacob saw Rachel, the daughter of Laban his mother’s brother, and the sheep of Laban his mother’s 11 brother, that JACOB WENT NEAR and lifted up his voice and wept. ANpD JAcoB TOLD Ra- 12 cHEL that he was her father’s brother. AND 13SHE RAN AND TOLD HER FATHER. And it came to pass, when Laban heard the tidings 14 of Jacob, his sister’s son, THAT HE RAN TO MEET HIM, and embraced him. And Laban said, Surely thou art my bone and flesh. And he abode with him the space of a month. We now present the composite narrative, showing in common type J, and in italics E, and all common mat- ter in small capitals. THE NARRATIVE AS FOUND IN GENESIS. THEN JACOB WENT ON HIS JOURNEY, AND CAME TO THE LAND OF THE PEOPLE OF THE East. And he saw A WELL IN THE FIELD} and lo! there were three flocks of sheep lying by it; for out of that well they watered the flocks: and a great stone was upon the well’s mouth.