DwisioQ 'b// // 
 

 THE ANTIQUITY ap""" 
 
 OF 
 
 HEBREW WRITING AND 
 LITERATURE 
 
 OR 
 
 PROBLEMS IN PENTATEUCHAL 
 CRITICISM 
 
 BY, 
 
 Hlyin Sylvester Zerbe, Ph. D., D. D. 
 
 Professor of Old Testarr\ei\t CriticiSEq ar\d. Tt\eology 
 
 ir\ \\\Q Central Tt)eologtcal Sen\ir\ary 
 
 Daytoi\, Of\io 
 
 1911 
 
 central publishing HOUSE 
 CLEYELRND, OHIO 
 
OTHER WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 Europe Through American Eyes, 1886. 
 
 The Old Testament a Book for Our Times, 1 888. 
 
 The Code Hammurabi and the Book of the 
 Covenant, 1905. 
 
 Lost Books and Records Quoted in the Old 
 Testament, 1908. 
 
 COPYRIGHTED. 1911 
 
PREFACE 
 
 THIS volume is the outgrowth of investigations conducted 
 in the discharge of duties in connection with the chair 
 of Semitic Languages and Literature in Heidelberg The- 
 ological Seminary, Tiffin, O., 1887-1907, and in that of Old 
 Testament Criticism and Theology in the Central Theological 
 Seminary, Da>1:on, O., 1907- . In the preparation of lectures 
 on the origin and transmission of the Pentateuch, the author 
 failed to find in any language a work which discusses adequately 
 the language, script and writing-material which Moses might 
 have employed, in composing the Pentateuch. The common 
 Introductions to the Old Testament, even the most extensive, 
 while describing minutely the transmission of the Old Testa- 
 ment after it had received a fixed form at the hands of scribes, 
 Talmudists and Massoretes, pass lightly over the David-Ezra 
 period, and furnish little or nothing on the external history of 
 the text in the pre-Davidic period. 
 
 The attempt is here made to supply the necessary data for 
 a thorough discussion of the transmission and preservation of 
 the first seven books of the Bible (Heptateuch) in the centuries 
 immediately following the Mosaic age. The theses defended 
 here are: i. The conditions for the cultivation of writing and 
 literature by the Hebrews arose from three to four centuries 
 earlier than allowed in the current (largely negative) criticism. 
 2. The Pentateuch in its underlying strata may well, for aught 
 to the contrary (so far as outer possibilities go), have origin- 
 ated under the guiding hand of Moses. The aim is, not to 
 discuss the Pentateuchal problem as such, but to supply the 
 prolegomena to such a discussion. 
 
 A brief outline of the argument may be of service to the 
 reader. After a statement of the antithetic positions of the con- 
 
 III 
 
IV ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 servative and the radical schools of Old Testament criticism 
 and theology (Chapter I) and an explanation of the aim, 
 methods and alleged results of criticism (Chap. II), it is shown 
 that the Hebrews as a branch of the great Semitic stock inher- 
 ited the traditions and literary instincts of their kin and were 
 as far advanced in civilization as their contemporaries. Through 
 close political and cultural contact with the Babylonians and 
 the Egyptians, the antiquity of whose literature is briefly de- 
 scribed (Chap. Ill), the gifted and resourceful Hebrews prob- 
 ably already at an early date prepared records comparing fav- 
 orably with those of the ancient world generally (Chap. IV-). 
 The fpld Testament books of the middle period having been 
 written in the archaic Hebrew script, the question emerges, 
 when the Hebrews adopted the Phoenician (more properly 
 Semitic) alphabet; and this turns on the date of its origin. If 
 the alphabet was not invented before the Mosaic age, or, if in- 
 vented, it had not yet reached the Hebrews, it is a waste of time 
 to argue that Moses wrote the Pentateuch in the Hebrew lan- 
 guage and script (Qiap. V). 
 
 Since the dominant school of Old Testament criticism, the 
 Grafian, (whose shibboleth is that the Priest code is the latest 
 of the codes, c. 445 B. C, and so, according to Duhm, the Mosaic 
 age "is at one stroke zviped out"), holds that the Phcenician 
 alphabet reached Israel only about 1000 B. C, the problem of 
 the origin of the Pentateuch hinges, not on an a priori and 
 critical analysis of the contents (the method pursued alike by 
 conservatives and radicals), but on the prior question of the 
 language and script employed by the Hebrews in the Mosaic 
 and pre-Davidic periods, or, more specifically, on the date of 
 their adoption of the Phoenician alphabet (Chap. V). 
 
 The theories of the Phoenician, Egyptian, Hittite, Babylon- 
 ian, Aramaic, South Arabic, or Cretan origin of the alphabet 
 are reviewed and the conclusion reached that the Phoenicians 
 have the best claim to the distinction (Chaps. VI and IX). All 
 the lines of evidence show that the Phoenician alphabet was 
 adopted by the Greeks c. 1 200-1 100; and the fixed forms of 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 the Phoenician letters and letter-names at that date imply sev- 
 eral centuries of previous development. Contrary to the old 
 view that some genius devised and at once brought into general 
 use the Semitic alphabet of 22 letters, it is pointed out that, 
 according to the principles of alphabetology, written Hke spoken 
 language is the result of centuries of growth and development, 
 of selection and rejection, and that slow differentiation is the 
 law governing the life and transformation of alphabets. Ac- 
 cordingly, the Phoenician alphabet (assuming that the law of 
 development in the centuries prior to lOCXD B. C. was about the 
 same as thereafter) reached its completed form (with the ex- 
 ception of one or two letters) as early as 1500 B. C. As over 
 against the securely intrenched cuneiform, the Scriptura sacra 
 et diplomatica, it circulated at first as a Scriptura profana et 
 privata (which explains its non-employment in the Amarna 
 Letters). Chap. X. 
 
 That the early Old Testament books were composed in the 
 Hebrew language and the archaic Hebrew script appears cer- 
 tain from such external evidence as the Samaria ostraca, Siloam 
 inscription, Gezer Calendar tablet, the Jeroboam and other 
 ancient seals, and from the internal evidence of the Song of 
 Deborah, the Book of Jashar, the Book of the Wars of Jeho- 
 vah and other early productions (Chap. VH and XI). It is 
 probable that the Hebrews while in Egypt learned the Egyptian 
 language and script, and that Moses and his scribes understood 
 the Babylonian language and script ; but it is improbable that 
 the Pentateuch was written in Egyptian hieratic, or in cunei- 
 form. The Hebrews acquired a knowledge of the Phoenician 
 letters while yet in Egypt through contact with people speaking 
 the Canaanite-Phoenician-Hebrew dialect, or possibly through 
 the Minseans. It is shown that the extensive literature of the 
 David- Solomon period, as e. g., David's Lament over Saul and 
 Jonathan, various Psalms, and historical works, are composed 
 in a finished style and imply a long previous period of writing 
 and of the cultivation of literature (Chap. XII). The ante- 
 cedent probability of a considerable body of pre-Davidic litera- 
 
VI ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 ture is confinned by the Book of Jashar, the Book of the Wars 
 of Jehovah, Jotham's Parable and Joshua's copying of the law. 
 The results thus obtained prepare the way for a reconciliation 
 of the traditional view that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and 
 of the modern critical hypothesis, that the Hexateuch arose 
 some six or eight centuries after his time. Chap. XIII. 
 
 Since recent American works on Old Testament history 
 and criticism from the analytical side reflect chiefly the Graf- 
 Wellhausen hypothesis of the lateness of Hebrew writing and 
 Hterature, it has been thought opportune to adduce, with such 
 degree of fulness as the present subject admits, the argumen- 
 tation of the so-called Dillmann-Kittel school (broadly speak- 
 ing) in support of the antiquity of the Old Testament religion 
 and institutions generally. The views of Dillmann, Kittel, 
 Baudissin, Koenig, Klostermann, Hommel, Strack, Oettli, OrelH, 
 Eerdmanns and others ( whose works are not always accessible 
 to the English reader and whose position is constantly ignored 
 by American Grafians) are presented briefly in the body of the 
 book and more especially in the foot-notes in a literal transla- 
 tion or in the original, when extreme accuracy is sought.* 
 
 The discriminating reader will observe that a considerable 
 body of German scholars, dissatisfied with the extremes of 
 Wellhausenism and impelled by the wonderful archaeological 
 discoveries of recent years, entertain the view (even though 
 accepting som.e theory of the codes), that the people of Israel 
 already in an early period were sufiiciently far advanced to pre- 
 pare and transmit accurate records, like the Babylonians and 
 Egyptians, and that the Pentateuch, at least in its underlying 
 parts, is of Mosaic origin. 
 
 There being frequent occasion to refer to Graf, Kuenen, 
 Wellhausen, Stade and their followers in this country, it is 
 
 A good illustration of the one-sidedness of the Grafian school is seen in the 
 Encyclopaedia Biblica, notably in the article "Hexateuch" (Wellhausen-Cheyne), 
 which, while noticing various writers of inferior rank, omits all reference what- 
 ever, even in the literature, to Dillmann, the chief opponent of Wellhausen. The 
 vision of not a few American Grafians is equally narrow. And yet the great 
 French Semitist, Joseph Halevy, said of August Dillmann: "II est sans contredit 
 le premier exegete de notre Steele." {Revue Sem. V,, p., 313). 
 
PREFACE. VII 
 
 necessary to state that in the interest of brevity the writer em- 
 ploys the terms Grafianism and Wellhausenism as denoting a 
 system of Old Testament criticism and theology which may be 
 characterized briefly as follows. The books of the Old Testa- 
 ment are the spontaneous and natural product of the Hebrew 
 mind, specifically of the choice spirits of the. nation (as e. g. 
 English literature is an expression of the spirit of the English 
 people through their great writers) ; the religion of Israel Hke 
 that of Egypt, Babylonia, India, begins in fetishism, advances 
 to polytheism, and by an inner striving of the people passes up- 
 ward into monotheism. The work of the prophets forms indeed 
 *'an integral part in the progress of spiritual religion," but their 
 teachings are ''mere flashes of spiritual insight lighting up for 
 a moment some dark corner". Gradually, as a result of the 
 development of the religious sentiment, the Hebrew people, 
 cultivating their native Semitic instinct for religion, surpass all 
 ancient races in the purity of their monotheism and the elabo- 
 rateness of their ritual. But their sacred books, though record- 
 ing a high conception of their local deity, Jehovah, and breath- 
 ing lofty sentiments, especially in the prophets, are no more en- 
 titled to a special divine inspiration than a Vedic hymn or the 
 Homeric poems. In brief the Old Testament is a record of the 
 evolution of the Hebrew mind, and not a revelation of the 
 divine mind. This naturalistic movement assumes the form of 
 a philosophy of history and of mind. Years ago Vatke, the 
 forerunner of Wellhausen, taught that "religion is developed 
 in the human spirit and finally comes to itself in pure thought, 
 so that the development of religion among a people presents 
 the same spiritual process as the development of thought". 
 Adopting the psychological tenet that in the development of 
 mind the emotional stage is first and the reflective second, Vatke 
 professed to be able to trace in true Hegelian style the devel- 
 opment of the Hebrew religion and of the different codes and 
 documents. In this view the objective, supernatural factor in 
 revelation (which is thus no longer a revelation) is reduced to 
 the lowest limit or indeed entirely denied, and the subjective, 
 
VIII ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 psychical and purely human elements magnified out of all pro- 
 portion to their real value. In short, nearly all that under the 
 old view was regarded as divine, inspired and objective in the 
 Old Testament is reduced to the merely natural and subjective 
 manifestations of the human mind. All is an evolution or devel- 
 opment of certain inherent powers and capacities, and only that 
 is accepted as historical which accords with the events pre-de- 
 termined by this subjective standard. No more arbitrary, un- 
 critical and falsely philosophical scheme could well be devised. 
 
 Such is Grafianism, German, and American. It is forced 
 by the nature of its premises to regard as unhistorical, un- 
 authentic and incredible all Old Testament laws, records and 
 narratives which do not agree with the preconceived philosophy. 
 
 In the alternative view, God is in history and directs its 
 course without either being pantheistically identijfied with the 
 world or doing violence to the normal acts of his creatures. 
 God, as the sole absolutely independent person, as the Creator 
 of the universe of mind and matter, subordinates the laws of 
 nature to his purpose and in a perfectly legitimate way influ- 
 ences man endowed with a relatively independent personality 
 and thus held accountable as a moral agent. In this way both 
 the transcendence and the immanence of God in the economy of 
 the world, and the ethical freedom, and accountability of man 
 are conserved. If we believe the Scriptures at all, it is certain 
 that over the lower, temporal order of nature, there exists a 
 higher, spiritual order. Conflict, confusion, disintegration 
 characterize the merely natural and human course of events. 
 A higher unity is attained only in the adjustment of human 
 affairs by the Infinite Mind ; the finite from the very nature of 
 the case is limited and requires the interposition of the Infinite. 
 
 Accordingly, the writer hold's that since the Bible has both 
 a divine and a human side, the investigation of problems relat- 
 ing to the origin, authenticity and transmission of the books, is 
 an entirely legitimate and indeed necessary undertaking. But 
 much depends on the spirit and view-point of the investigator. 
 The theist and the pantheist, starting from different premises. 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 reach of necessity different conclusions. The view entertained 
 here is, that a theistic conception of the universe guarantees 
 the rights and freedom of true criticism. Since Old Testament 
 criticism in its ever widening scope has come to include every 
 kind of investigation, literary, historical, psychological, archaeo- 
 logical, comparative and philosophical, and has invaded every 
 department of thought in the search for light on the Old Testa- 
 ment, the writer refrains from using the phrase ''higher critic" 
 as an opprobrious epithet of a particular school (however much 
 some extreme views may have served to bring the science into 
 disrepute). Whoever inquires into the origin of the Penta- 
 teuch or of any book of the Bible is a ''higher critic" in one 
 sense or another. 
 
 The extent of the author's indebtedness to English, Ger- 
 man and French authorities is acknowledged, at least in part, 
 in the course of the work and in the Index of Authors at the 
 close. His obligations, however, to two Germ.an writers are 
 of such a character as to merit special notice : namely to Dr. 
 Eduard Koenig, whose many timely and judicious works on 
 the Old Testament have been a constant guide and inspiration ; 
 and to Dr. Mark Lidzbarski, whose various volumes on Semitic 
 epigraphy were of invaluable aid in the preparation of chapters 
 VII and IX. 
 
 The author desires, also, gratefully to acknowledge special 
 indebtedness to several American friends and scholars : to 
 Prof. John D. Davis, D. D., LL. D., Princeton Theological 
 Seminary, for valuable suggestions on various points;* to 
 Prof. Albert T. Clay, Ph. D., Assyriologist, Yale University, 
 for an examination of the sections on Babylonian and Canaanite 
 literature, .and for expressions of opinion on topics in the field 
 in which he is an authority ; to Rev. M. G. Kyle, D. D., Egyp- 
 tologist, Philadelphia, Pa., for reviewing the Egyptological sec- 
 tions and for the use of a fac-simile of the so-called Coffin In- 
 scription (Col. VI, Chart) ; and to the writer's colleague in 
 
 * Dr. Davis writes: "The subject is a timely one, there being enough recent 
 material to make a new discussion opportune." 
 
X ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 the Seminary, Rev. George Stibitz, Ph. D., D. D., Professor of 
 Old Testament Languages and Literature and Semitic Philol- 
 ogy', for a critical reading of the last two chapters. 
 
 In the preparation of the Chart on the Origin of the Sem- 
 itic Alphabet (at the close of the volume), liberal use was made 
 of material supplied by Delitzsch, Lidzbarski, J. Euting and 
 C. J. Ball. 
 
 It may yet be noted that this book is intended especially 
 for those who study the Bible in English: hence matter of a 
 purely technical character is relegated to the several excursus or 
 to the foot-notes. For a similar reason it has been deemed suf- 
 ficient to transliterate whatever words are reproduced from the 
 Hebrew, Aramaic and other Semitic languages. 
 
 A. S. Zerbe. 
 Dayton, O. 
 
 August, 191 1. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 TWO THEORIES OF THE ANTIQUITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT RELIGION. 
 
 I. 
 
 Fundamental Problems of Old Testament Science. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 1. Three Underlying Problems i 
 
 2. The Preservation and Transmission of the Old Testament. ... 2 
 
 3. Transmission of Early Hebrew Literature and of the Pentateuch. 3 
 
 4. The Heart of Old Testament Criticism 3 
 
 n. 
 
 Two Theories of the Antiquity of Hebrew Writing and Literature. 
 
 A. Nature of Hebrew Civilization in the Mosaic Age 5 
 
 1. A High Civilization 5 
 
 2. A Low Civilization 6 
 
 B. The State of Writing among the Hebrews at the Exodus 7 
 
 1. Writing Known to the Hebrews 7 
 
 2. Writing not Known to the Hebrews 8 
 
 C. Rival Theories of the Composition of the Pentateuch 9 
 
 1. The Traditional View 9 
 
 ( I ) . Mosaic Authorship 9 
 
 (2) . Unity and Integrity ID 
 
 2. The Anti-Traditional or Modern Critical View 10 
 
 (i). Moses not the Author of the Pentateuch 10 
 
 (2) . Theory of the Codes 12 
 
 a. The Jehovistic Code 12 
 
 b. The Elohistic Code 12 
 
 c. The Deuteronomic Code, D 12 
 
 d. The Law of Holiness 13 
 
 e. The Priest Code, P 13 
 
 f. Manner of Combining the Documents 14 
 
 g. The Dillmann Hypothesis 15 
 
 D. Original Transmission of the Early Books 16 
 
 1, Written Records 16 
 
 2. Oral Tradition 17 
 
 XI 
 
XII ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 E. History, or Legend i8 
 
 1. History, not Legend i8 
 
 2. Legend, not History 19 
 
 F. Relation of Law and Prophecy 21 
 
 1. Law First, then Prophecy 22 
 
 2. Prophecy First, then Law 22 
 
 G. God, Man and the Supernatural 23 
 
 HL 
 
 Are the Traditional and the Anti-Traditional Positions Reconcilable? 
 
 1. Each School Regards its Position as Established 24 
 
 (i). Conservatives Firm in their Attitude 24 
 
 (2). Grafians Deem their Position Established Absolutely. . 24 
 
 2. Irreconcilable Antagonism 25 
 
 3. Possibility of Mediating Position 26 
 
 CHAPTER n. 
 
 THE LOWER AND THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, 
 
 L 
 
 The Lower Criticism. 
 
 A. Criticism in General 27 
 
 B. Kinds of Criticism 28 
 
 C. The Lower and the Higher Criticism in General 29 
 
 1. Lower or Textual Criticism 29 
 
 2. Higher or Literary Criticism 29 
 
 D. The Need of Textual Criticism 30 
 
 n. 
 
 The Higher Criticism of the Old Testament. 
 
 A. Province of the Higher Criticism 31 
 
 1. Age and Authorship 31 
 
 2. Integrity 32 
 
 3. Credibility 32 
 
CONTENTS. XIII 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 B. Higher Criticism Illustrated from the Book of Joel 33 
 
 1. The Style and Language 33 
 
 2. The Historical Situation 34 
 
 3. Inferences and Deductions 34 
 
 C. The Name and Nature of the Science 35 
 
 1. Literary Criticism 35 
 
 2. Historical Criticism 36 
 
 3. Literary-Historical Criticism 36 
 
 D. The Method of Old Testament Higher Criticism Zl 
 
 1. The Literary Method or Argument 37 
 
 ( I ) . Vocabulary and Style 37 
 
 (2) . Value of Argument from Style 38 
 
 2. The Historical Method or Argument 39 
 
 ( I ) . Direct Inference 39 
 
 (2) . Proof from Subj ect-Matter 40 
 
 (3) . Argument from Anachronisms 40 
 
 (4) . Argument from Silence 41 
 
 a. Matter Foreign to Plan 41 
 
 b. Omissions 41 
 
 3. The Theological Method or Argument 41 
 
 Cumulative Value of three Methods 42 
 
 E. Principles and Method of Present Inquiry 42 
 
 First Principle: Essential, not Absolute Historical Certainty. 42 
 Second Principle: A Document Genuine until Spuriousness 
 
 Established 43 
 
 CHAPTER HI. 
 
 THE SEMITIC PEOPLE AND LANGUAGES. 
 I. 
 
 The People. 
 
 1. Preliminary Statements 45 
 
 2. Character and Influence of the Semites 45 
 
 (i). The Babylonians 46 
 
 (2) . The Assyrians 46 
 
 (3). The Aramaeans 46 
 
 (4) . The Southern Semites 47 
 
 (5) . The Amorites 47 
 
XIV ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 3. Original Home of the Semites 47 
 
 4. Home of the Northern Semites 48 
 
 5. Light on the Old Testament from Semitic Sources 49 
 
 II. 
 
 Semitic Languages and Systems of Writing. 
 
 1. The Semitic Family of Languages 49 
 
 2. The Hebrew Language 50 
 
 ( I ) . Origin of Hebrew 50 
 
 (2). Antiquity of the Hebrew Language 51 
 
 3. Definition of Writing 52 
 
 4. Excursus: Cuneiform or Babylonian- Assyrian System of Writing. 52 
 
 (i). General Character of Cuneiform Script 53 
 
 (2) . Ideograms and Phonograms 53 
 
 (3) . The Babylonian Scribe 54 
 
 (4) . Priests as Scribes 54 
 
 (5). Babylonian Syllabaries 55 
 
 5. Excursus: Egyptian Writing 55 
 
 ( I ) . Pictorial and Ideographic 55 
 
 (2) . Phonetic and Syllabic Stage 56 
 
 (3) . Determinatives 57 
 
 (4) . Selected Syllables or Letters 57 
 
 (5). Knowledge of Writing among the Common Peopk. .. 57 
 
 6. No True Alphabet Prior to the Phoenician 58 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ANTIQUITY OF WRITING AND LITERATURE IN EGYPT, BABYLONIA 
 AND CANAAN. 
 
 I. 
 
 Excursus: Antiquity of Egyptian Writing and Literature. 
 
 1. The Old Empire 59 
 
 2. The Middle Empire 60 
 
 3. The New Empire 61 
 
CONTENTS. XV 
 II. 
 Excursus: Antiquity of Babylonian-Assyrian Literature. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 A. Assyrian Literature .' 6^ 
 
 B. Babylonian Literature 62 
 
 1. Immense Extent 62 
 
 2. Poetical Literature 63 
 
 ( I ) . Creation Epic ^3 
 
 (2) . Gilgamash Epic 63 
 
 (3). Story of the Deluge 63 
 
 3. Prose Literature 63 
 
 ( I ) . Historical Literature 63 
 
 (2) . Legal Literature 64 
 
 The Hammurabi Code 65 
 
 (3) . Epistolary Literature "• <^6 
 
 (4) . Religious Literature 66 
 
 (5). Anonymity of Babylonian-Assyrian Literature. ... 66 
 
 III. 
 
 Civilisation and Literature in Canaan in the Pre-Mosaic Period. 
 
 A. The Tell el Amarna Tablets 67 
 
 B. The Historical Situation in Palestine in 2500-1400 B. C 18 
 
 1. Early Egyptian Influence 68 
 
 2. Semites in Palestine 69 
 
 3. Cassite, Canaanite and Mitannian Inroads 70 
 
 4. Egyptian Supremacy 7i 
 
 C. A Native Palestinian Literature from Early Times 71 
 
 Amorite Literature 73 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 EXTENT AND ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 A. Hebrew Literature in the David-Josiah Period 76 
 
 1. The Writing Prophets 76 
 
 2. Historical Literature 77 
 
 3. Poetical Literature 78 
 
 B. Hebrew Literature in the Pre-Davidic Period 79 
 
 Writing in the Mosaic Age 80 
 
 C. The Problem of the Date of Origin and Introduction of the 
 
 Phoenician Alphabet 81 
 
 ri 
 
XVI ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF THE PHOENICIAN ALPHABET. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Importance of the Subject 83 
 
 Excursus: Historical Resume 84 
 
 1. The Phoenician Origin 84 
 
 (i). Dissemination by the Phoenicians 84 
 
 (2). Did the Phoenicians Invent the Alphabet? 85 
 
 2. Eg3'ptian Origin 85 
 
 ( I ) . Egyptian Hieratic 85 
 
 (2) . Egyptian Hieroglyphic 87 
 
 3. Hittite Origin 87 
 
 4. The Cuneiform Hypothesis 89 
 
 ( I ) . The Neo-Assyrian 89 
 
 (2) . The Old Babylonian 89 
 
 5. Aramaic Origin 90 
 
 6. Cretan or Cypriote Origin 91 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 EARLY SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS. 
 
 North-Semitic Inscriptions. - 
 
 A. Semitic Inscriptions and the Old Testament 93 
 
 1. Importance of Epigraphy and Palaeography 93 
 
 2. Number of Semitic Inscriptions 03 
 
 3. Semitic Inscriptions in General 94 
 
 B. The Phoenician Inscriptions 
 
 1. The Moabite Stone 95 
 
 2. The Baal Lebanon Inscription 96 
 
 3. Hassan Bey-li 97 
 
 4. Nora Inscriptions 97 
 
 5. Abu Simbel 97 
 
 6. Assyrian Lion-Weights 98 
 
 7. Abydos 98 
 
 8. Byblos 98 
 
 9. Tabnith and Eshmunazar 98 
 
 10. Deductions 99 
 
CONTENTS. XVII 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 C. The Aramaic Inscriptions lOO 
 
 1, The Zakar Inscription loi 
 
 2. The Hadad 1^4 
 
 3.. The Panammu Inscriptions ic>4 
 
 4. Bar-Rekub i^S 
 
 5. Nerab. 106 
 
 6. Lion-Weight of Abydos 106 
 
 7. Lamas ^^ 
 
 8. Teima 106 
 
 9. Characteristics of Aramaic Script 107 
 
 D. Archaic Hebrew Inscriptions 108 
 
 1. The Siloam Inscription 108 
 
 2. The Gezer Calendar Tablet 109 
 
 3. The Jeroboam Seal 112 
 
 4. The Samaria Ostraca 1 14 
 
 5. Other Archaic Hebrew Inscriptions 116 
 
 6. Importance of Seals in Ancient Times 116 
 
 (i). The Egyptian Seal ii7 
 
 (2) . Babylonian Seal 1^7 
 
 (3). Hebrew Seals 118 
 
 7. Archaic Hebrew Seals 118 
 
 (i). Shemayahu Seal HQ 
 
 (2). Obadiah Seal ii9 
 
 (3). Shebaniah "9 
 
 (4). Abijah Seal ii9 
 
 (5). Ustinow Seal "9 
 
 (6). El-Siggeb Seal 120 
 
 (7). Joshua Seal 120 
 
 (8). Haggai Seal 120 
 
 (9) Hananiahu Seals 120 
 
 ( 10) Masseyahu Seal 120 
 
 (11). Ancient Scarabaeoid 120 
 
 (12). The Hareph Seal 121 
 
 8. Other Early Hebrew Seals 121 
 
 9. Later Archaic Hebrew Inscriptions 121 
 
 E. Comparison of Phoenician, Aramaic and Archaic Hebrew Script. 122 
 
 n. 
 
 South-Semitic or Arabic Inscriptions 123 
 
 III 
 
XVIII ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 INTRODUCTION OF THE PHOENICIAN ALPHABET INTO GREECE. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 A. Early Greek History and Civilization 127 
 
 1. The Pre-Hellenic Period. 127 
 
 2. Writing Earlier than Inscriptions 127 
 
 3. Testimony of Early Greek Authors 128 
 
 4. The Cretan Script 129 
 
 B. Origin of the Greek Alphabet 130 
 
 C. Evidence of the Greek Inscriptions 131 
 
 1. The Abu Simbel Record '. 132 
 
 2. The Thera Inscriptions I33 
 
 3. Summary of Results from Inscriptions I34 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 excursus: PROVISIONAL THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE SEMITIC 
 (PHOENICIAN) ALPHABET. 
 
 A. Delitzsch Theory of Babylonian Origin I37 
 
 B. Names and Forms of the Phoenician Letters 138 
 
 1. The Problem of the Letter-Names 138 
 
 2. Meaning of the Disputed Letters I39 
 
 3. Theories of the Letter-Names and Forms. 140 
 
 C. The Astro-Mythological Hypothesis 142 
 
 D. Semites and Semitism in Egypt I43 
 
 1. The Hyksos in Egypt I43 
 
 2. Egyptian Language Semitized i43 
 
 E. Canaanite- Phoenician Origin of the Alphabet I44 
 
 1. The Phoenicians in History I44 
 
 2. Relation with Egypt in Early Times I44 
 
 3. Bearing on Phoenician Origin i45 
 
 4. Influence of the Egyptian Hieratic I45 
 
 5. The Abridged Egyptian Syllabary 147 
 
 6. Phoenicians Drew from all Quarters 147 
 
 7. Direction of Writing I49 
 
 8. Non-Adoption of Phoenician Script by Babylonians and 
 
 Assyrians ^49 
 
CONTENTS. XIX 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 DATE OF ORIGIN OF THE PROTO-PHOENICIAN AND THE PHOENICIAN 
 ALPHABET. 
 
 I. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Proto-Phoenician Alphabet, 2000-1500 B. C 150 
 
 1. The Sinai Scribings 152 
 
 2. Summary I53 
 
 II. 
 
 Phoenician Alphabet, 1300 B. C. 
 
 A. Principles of Alphabetology I54 
 
 1. Alphabets Grow i54 
 
 2. Law of Correlative Variation I54 
 
 3. Adoption of Foreign Script I55 
 
 4. No Absolute Sameness of Development 155 
 
 B. The Three Types of the North-Semitic Alphabet 156 
 
 C. Relation of North and South Semitic Alphabets 156 
 
 D. Origin of Semitic (Phoenician) Alphabet circa 1500 B. C 158 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 THE SCRIPT AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE EARLY OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. 
 
 1. The Ground Covered thus Far 160 
 
 2. The Ground Still to be Covered 160 
 
 3. Nature of the Problem 161 
 
 A. The Script Employed by the Hebrews after Ezra 162 
 
 1. Writing in Square Characters 162 
 
 ( I ) . Epigraphic Testimony 162 
 
 (2). Testimony of Talmudists and Fathers 162 
 
 2. Indeterminateness of Date 163 
 
 B. Phoenician Script Employed by Hebrews from Date of Exodus. 163 
 
 I. The Script from 900 to 400 B. C 163 
 
 ( I ) . Evidence from Seals 164 
 
 (2) . Pre-Exilic Seals 164 
 
 (3). Longer Archaic Hebrew Inscriptions 164 
 
 a. Proof from the Gezer Calendar Tablet 165 
 
 b. Evidence from the Jeroboam Seal 165 
 
 c. The Samaria Inscriptions 165 
 
XX ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 2. The Hebrew Script between 1350 and 900 B. C 166 
 
 (i). A Suitable Script Necessary 167 
 
 (2). No Transition in the Script 167 
 
 (3). Early Adoption of Phoenician Script 168 
 
 (4). Phoenician Script among Surrounding People 168 
 
 (5) . Moses and the Minaean Alphabet 169 
 
 (6). Phoenician Script Long a Scriptura Privata 170 
 
 (7). Phoenician Alphabet Known to Hebrews in Moses- 
 Joshua Age 171 
 
 (8). How the Hebrews Acquired the Phoenician Script. . 172 
 
 C. The Hebrews and the Egyptian Language and Script 173 
 
 1. Hebrews Learned the Egyptian Language and Script 173 
 
 2. Was the Egyptian Script Employed in Writing Hebrew? . 173 
 
 3. Literary Attainments of Moses 174 
 
 4. Was the Law Originally Written in Egyptian Hieratic? . .. 175 
 
 (i). Size and Weight of Original Tablets of Law 176 
 
 (2). No Evidence of the Use of the Hieratic 177 
 
 D. The Hebrews and the Babylonian Language and Script 178 
 
 1. The Library Chest of Tell Taanach 178 
 
 2. The Gezer Cuneiform Tablets 179 
 
 3. Babylonian Language in Use in Israel 180 
 
 (i). Babylonian Language During Exile 181 
 
 (2). Babylonian Language among Hebrews in Assy- 
 rian Period 182 
 
 a. Had the Hebrews ever a Hieratic Script? 183 
 
 b. Babylonian- Assyrian Language in Israel 184 
 
 c. Winckler Hypothesis 185 
 
 (a). Winckler on Isaiah 8: i 186 
 
 (b). Winckler on Jer. 32 : 10 186 
 
 (3). No Babylonian Influence in Early Regal Period. .. 187 
 
 4. Early Old Testament Books in Cuneiform 187 
 
 (i). Conder's Argument from Proper Names 188 
 
 (2). Hebrew Text Paraphrased from an Assyrian Orig- 
 inal 189 
 
 5. Assyrian and Hebrew Languages Side by Side 191 
 
CONTENTS. XXI 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 I. 
 
 Hebrew Civilization in the Pre-Davidic Period. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 A. Are the Genesis Narratives Sagas and Legends, or Authentic 
 
 History ? I93 
 
 B. Hebrew Civilization from Abraham to Joshua 196 
 
 1. Were the Hebrews Nomads ? 197 
 
 (i). Agriculture in the Genesis Narratives 197 
 
 (2). The Hebrews as Semi-Nomads 199 
 
 (3). Tent-Life in Semi-Nomadic State 200 
 
 (4). The Agrarian Laws of the Book of the Covenant. 201 
 
 2. The Hebrews at the Exodus Prepared for Mosaic Legisla- 
 
 tion 202 
 
 Contact with Egyptians 202 
 
 C. Hebrew Civilization in the Period of the Judges 204 
 
 1. The Books of Joshua and Judges 204 
 
 ( I ) . The Book of Joshua 204 
 
 (2) . The Book of Judges 205 
 
 2. Relation of Hebrews and Canaanites in Period of Judges. 208 
 
 (i). Later Canaanites Low Morally and Religiously. ... 209 
 (2). Hebrews Morally and Spiritually Superior to Cana- 
 anites 210 
 
 (3). Hebrew and Canaanite Civilization Compared 211 
 
 II. 
 Books and Scribes in the Old Testament. 
 
 1. Early Use of the Word Book in the Old Testament 214 
 
 2. The Scribe in Ancient Israel 215 
 
 (i). A Scribe or Writer in General 215 
 
 (2). An Enroller or Muster-Master 216 
 
 (3). One Skilled in the Sacred Books 216 
 
 (4). The Shoter 216 
 
 (5). The Chartom 217 
 
 (6) . The Mazkir 217 
 
 (7) . The Tiphsar 217 
 
 (8). Jeremiah and the Scribe Baruch 217 
 
XXII ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 III. 
 
 Literature in the David-Solomon Period. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 1. David's Lament over Sanl and Jonathan 218 
 
 2. David's Letter to Joab 218 
 
 3. The Scribe Seraiah 219 
 
 4. Psalms of David 219 
 
 5. David's Last Prophetic Words 220 
 
 6. Other Writings of David 220 
 
 7. The History of Samuel the Seer 221 
 
 8. The History of Nathan the Prophet 221 
 
 9. The History of Gad the Seer 221 
 
 10. The Chronicles of King David 222 
 
 11. The Book of the Acts of Solomon 222 
 
 12. The Lost Proverbs of Solomon 222 
 
 13. Summary 223 
 
 IV. 
 
 Pre-Davidic Literature. 
 
 1. The Book of the Wars of Jehovah 224 
 
 2. The Book of Jashar 226 
 
 3. Jotham's Parable 228 
 
 4. Writing in Gideon's Age 229 
 
 5. Deborah's Triumphal Ode 230 
 
 6. The Marshal's Staff 232 
 
 7. Kiriath-Sepher or Book-Town 233 
 
 8. Writing in Joshua's Time 234 
 
 ( I ) . Copying of the Law 234 
 
 (2). Distribution of the Territory 235 
 
 9. Literature in the Mosaic Age 2z6 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 THE ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE (Continued). 
 
 A. Ancient Strata in the Pentateuch 238 
 
 1. Old Hebrew Records 238 
 
 2. Pre-Mosaic Strata 239 
 
 3. Abraham and Cuneiform Tablets 240 
 
 ( I ) . Ur a Literary Center 240 
 
 (2). Religious Motives in the Migration 241 
 
 (3) . Early Sacred Records 242 
 
 (4) . Canaanite Libraries. 244 
 
CONTENTS. XXIII 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 4. The Antiquity of Genesis XIV 245 
 
 (i). Identification of Persons and- Places 246 
 
 (2). Historic Background of Gen. XIV 247 
 
 a. Grafians Regard the Chapter as Legendary. . . 247 
 
 b. Historical Character of the Chapter 248 
 
 c. Early Babylonian-Canaanite Source 248 
 
 d. Abraham and Early (Hebrew) Records 250 
 
 B. Written Sources of Sinaitic Legislation 250 
 
 1. Mosaic Origin of the Decalog 251 
 
 2. The Book of the Covenant 252 
 
 3. The Little Book of the Covenant 254 
 
 4. The Memorial against Amalek 254 
 
 5. The Song of Moses and Miriam 255 
 
 6. The J and E Codes Ancient 256 
 
 C. The Problem of the Book of Deuteronomy 256 
 
 1. Dilemma of Criticism 256 
 
 ( I ) . A Pious Fraud 257 
 
 (2). Imaginative Revivification of the Past 257 
 
 2. Language and Style 258 
 
 3. Historical Situation that of Mosaic Age 259 
 
 4. No Reference to Jerusalem 260 
 
 5. Moses Represented as Author 260 
 
 6. Antecedent Probability of Mosaic Basis 261 
 
 7. Alleged Anachronisms and Contradictions 262 
 
 8. The Closing Chapters 264 
 
 ( I ) . The Song of Moses 264 
 
 (2) . The Blessing of Moses 265 
 
 9. Ancient Strata in Deuteronomy 266 
 
 10. The Transmission of Deuteronomy 267 
 
 D. The Problem of the Priest Code 269 
 
 1. Graf-Wellhausen Philosophy of History 269 
 
 2. Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis of the Priest Code 270 
 
 3. The Central Place of Worship 271 
 
 4. Sanctuaries in Time of the Judges 273 
 
 5. Theory of Sacrifice 273 
 
 6. Special Features of the Priest Code 274 
 
 (i). The Language and Style of P 274 
 
 (2) . The Material of P 274 
 
 (3). The Literary Sources of the Priest Code 275 
 
XXIV ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 7. Arguments Unfavorable to a Post-Exilic Date 276 
 
 ( I ) . P Unsuitable to a Late Date 276 
 
 (2). The Account in Neh. VIII-X 2:]7 
 
 8. Ezekiel and the Priest Code 277 
 
 9. Date of the Priest Code 278 
 
 (i). Dilemma of the Graf-Wellhausen School 278 
 
 (2). Traces of P in D and other Books 279 
 
 E. Summary on the Origin of the Pentateuch. 
 
 1. Theory of Documents 280 
 
 2. Codes Based on Ancient Sources 280 
 
 3. Pentateuch Essentially Mosaic 281 
 
 4. Employment of Scribes and Amanuenses 281 
 
 5. A Fourfold Record 282 
 
r 
 
 
 rrr- . 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 rrr- 
 
 0--^ 
 
 ^H- 
 
 rrr-Q ^^^ 
 
 '^>M 
 
 J-^^<l 
 
 ^ 
 
 I 
 8 
 
 r 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 \) — 
 
 
 •rrr- 
 
 ./^ 
 
 -7— m 
 
 o ^^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 ^T-^ 
 
 
 x:^ 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 TWO THEORIES OE THE ANTIQUITY OE THE OLD 
 TESTAMENT RELIGION. 
 
 I. 
 
 FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS OE OLD TESTAMENT SCIENCE. 
 I. THREE UNDERLYING PROBLEMS. 
 
 At the threshold of Old Testament science three fundamen- 
 tal questions demand consideration: i, the origin, age and 
 credibility of the various books; 2, the collection and accept- 
 ance of the writings as authoritative and inspired ; and, 3, their 
 preservation and transmission; or, the problems of the Liter- 
 ary, popularly called, the Higher Criticism; of the formation 
 of the canon; and of the Lower, or Textual Criticism. It is 
 theoretically possible to regard these subjects as distinct, but 
 practically they overlap at many points. The question of ori- 
 gin may be treated from a purely literary viewpoint, without 
 reference to, or acknowledgement of, a divine side in the writ- 
 ings. It is obvious that such a method must issue in a denial 
 of any distinctively supernatural element in the Old Testament. 
 On the other hand, a critic who accepts the theistic philosophy 
 with all that it implies in the way of divine intervention in hu- 
 man history, as by revelation and inspiration in the special sense, 
 will see in the Old Testament a consistent and perfectly artic- 
 ulated system of religion mediated by divinely chosen agents. 
 In either case a philosophy of history is the point of departure 
 and determines the result. 
 
 A man who does not believe in a special revelation from God 
 or in the special inspiration of the Old Testament must of 
 recessity regard the Old Testament as essentially an evolution 
 of the human mind. For such a one the second question, that 
 of the canon, loses its distinctive character and is swallowed 
 up in the first (e. g. Ryle and Wildeboer). The books of the 
 Old Testament under this view (here regarded as false) are 
 not in their nature specifically God-derived, but came gradually, 
 
2 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 through "the law of the survival of the fittest, to be regarded as 
 worthy of preservation. Th-e problems of the literary criti- 
 cism and of the canon of the Old Testament are therefore of 
 a fundamental character and must be solved one way or an- 
 other by every serious student of the Old Covenant. 
 
 2. THE PRESERVATION AND TRANSMISSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 The task before us is, however, of a somewhat different 
 nature. We may ask, why the Christian world assumes the 
 undoubted antiquity and essential correctness of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures. How do we know that the books of the Old Tes- 
 tament, written, some of them, thirty, others twenty-five cen- 
 turies ago, have been transmitted to us in anything like a pure 
 state ? The literary critic has no little difficulty in showing that 
 we have Shakespeare's Plays or Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in 
 their original form. These are modern works. The argu- 
 mentation is more complicated if we are challenged to prove 
 that the Latin and Greek classics, as Virgil's Aeneid or Ho- 
 mer's Iliad, were faithfully copied for a thousand years. Less 
 difficult on account of the numerous manuscripts, but neverthe- 
 less demanding the most accurate research, is the task of ascer- 
 taining the true text of the New Testament. 
 
 The Old Testament problem is vastly more intricate. The 
 labors of the scribes, Talmudista and Massoretes in the preser- 
 vation of the Hebrew Bible and the testimony of the Septuagint 
 Version (285-150 B. C.) enable us to determine the text with 
 a considerable degree of assurance from the time of Ezra (458 
 B. C.) onward. But for the period between David and Ezra 
 the material at command for a history of the then existing 
 sacred books is scanty and indirect. Unfortunately, v^e have 
 no very ancient papyrus or parchment rolls, nor any inscrip- 
 tions on stone or stucco containing the Old Testament or any 
 part of it ; and the oldest extant manuscripts of the Septuagint 
 date from the fourth, and the oldest Hebrew manuscripts from 
 the tenth, possibly from the ninth century of our era.^ For 
 the period between Moses and David we are in a still worse 
 strait, so far as concerns original and ancient sources, since not 
 even a single verse is attested by any tablet or inscription com- 
 ing down from those remote times; and the line of proof is 
 exceedingly difficult and involved. The question of the pres- 
 
 1 It is not denied that by a tedious process of indirect proof we can estab- 
 lish the essential correctness and credibility of the Old Testament; the reference 
 in the text is to the non-existence of documents actually written in that early age. 
 
FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS OF OLD TESTAMENT SCIENCE. 3 
 
 ervation and transmission of the Old Testament in the pre- 
 Ezraic period, though uniformly overlooked in recent books on 
 the Old Testament, is of fundamental importance. Weakness 
 here is weakness along the whole line. 
 
 3. TRANSMISSION OF EARLY HEBREW LITERATURE AND OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Limiting ourselves, however, to a still narrower field, we 
 inquire how the early, or pre-Davidic literature was preserved 
 and transmitted originally. Through what channels could the 
 legislation of Moses have come down to us in a fairly correct 
 state? Our investigation is confined to the original transmis- 
 sion and transcription of the first half dozen books of the Bible. 
 Within this area the underlying problems, not merely of the 
 Lower, but also of the Higher Criticism, must be settled. Un- 
 less it can be shown that scribes, writing material and a suitable 
 language and script existed in the Mosaic age, every theory of 
 the composition of the Pentateuch in the Mosaic age floats in 
 the air. The existence of these conditions in the age in ques- 
 tion does not of course prove that Moses had any share in the 
 composition of the Pentateuch ; it shows merely the external 
 possibility; but the non-existence of such conditions would 
 render the traditional view of the Mosaic authorship untenable. 
 *Tf the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? 
 (Ps. 11:3)". 
 
 4. THE HEART OF OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 
 
 The scope and gravity of the subject will be apparent upon 
 slight reflection. The first eleven chapters of Genesis treat of 
 the period from the creation to the call of Abraham (circa 
 8,000 to 2,000 B. C.) ; the remaining chapters carry the narra- 
 tive to the close of the life of Joseph. Then come the events 
 of the Exodus. In the books of Joshua and Judges, the occu- 
 pation of Canaan and the rule of the Judges, embracing the 
 whole period from Joshua to Samuel, are narrated. 
 
 What proof have we that the narratives, miracles, revela- 
 tions recorded in these seven books were written down contem- 
 f>oraneously, or nearly so, with the events, and not transmitted 
 orally many centuries, and then in a greatly modified form 
 reduced to writing? It is of course important to know that 
 in the post-Ezraic period the Old Testament was carefully 
 guarded, but unless we have a safe footing for the pre-Davidic 
 period and can show that the early books (i. e. the assumed 
 
4 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 early books) have come down to us in a pure and authentic 
 fonn. the very foundation is removed from the whole super- 
 structure. It is of the highest importance to ascertain by what 
 process the accounts of the creation, fall, flood, call of Abra- 
 ham, sojourn in Egypt, the Exodus, the giving of the law and 
 the period of the Judges, came to assume their present form. 
 Were they transmitted orally five hundred, or a thousand years, 
 or were they reduced to writing at an early date ? The coun- 
 try is flooded with books on "Introduction to the Old Testa- 
 ment", "How We Got our Bible" and "Translations of the 
 Scriptures", and so on, but they, one and all, pass hurriedly 
 over the primitive period and describe minutely the transmisr 
 sion of the Old Testament after it had reached a fixed form at 
 the hands of later scribes." 
 
 Doubtless the chief reason why the whole subject is 
 hastily brushed aside by writers of the conservative and radi- 
 cal schools alike, or allowed to rest on mere assertion, is that 
 here we enter the very heart of Old Testament criticism, text- 
 ual, literary, historical and comparative, a field in short, of 
 which every inch is disputed territory. Progress can be made 
 only by examining anew each contested point and settling it 
 one way or the other by the weight of evidence and logical 
 inference. But even then the difficulty increases, for each 
 investigator approaches the subject with a bias (Hterary, or 
 theological) and may draw conclusions deemed unwarranted 
 by fellow Vv'orkers in the same field. Nevertheless, the histor- 
 ical, archaeological and epigraphical material accumulating in 
 recent years has reduced the problem to more definite and tan- 
 gible limits, and encourages the hope that the transmission of 
 the Old Testament Scriptures may be placed upon a more 
 scientific and satisfactory basis than exists today. 
 
 The time would seem to be ripe for a somewhat extended 
 consideration of the transmission, whether oral or written, of 
 the oldest parts of the Old Testament, or at least a presenta- 
 tion of the available evidence, for the benefit of the general 
 student of the Old Testament who may not have the resources 
 at command for a special investigation. 
 
 * Of what avail is it to prove that during the last two thousand years the 
 O. T. has been faithfully preserved, if we are unable to show even in general 
 terms, how the Hebrews originally obtained and transmitted the early O. T. books' 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW WRITING AND LITERATURE. 5 
 
 11. 
 
 TWO THEORIES OF THE ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW WRITING AND 
 
 LITERATURE. 
 
 At the outset we encounter two extreme and contradictory 
 theories of the antiquity of Hebrew writing and literature. 
 Before the rise of the so-called Higher Criticism it was held 
 almost universally that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. In re- 
 cent times, however, the view has been advanced and is accept- 
 ed by a large body of scholars, that Moses practically had Httle 
 or no share in the composition and writing of the Pentateuch. 
 It is allowed that he was an historical personage and probably 
 promulgated a system of laws; but it is denied that the extant 
 Pentateuch emanated from him. To understand the nature 
 and scope of the problem, it is necessary to state these opposing 
 theories somevv^hat in detail.^ 
 
 A. NATURE OF HEBREW CIVILIZATION IN THE MOSAIC AGE. 
 
 I. A High Civilisation. 
 
 On the one hand it is maintained that the Hebrews at the 
 Exodus had a tribal government, fixed institutions and trained 
 leaders, and were far advanced in the arts of that day and the 
 elements of ancient civilization. The Egyptians were at that 
 time, as they had been for centuries, among the most cultured 
 of ancient nations; and it is affirmed that the apt and quick- 
 witted Hebrews must have assimilated the best elements of 
 Egyptian culture and civilization. This view is defended by 
 a large body of modem scholars. Thus Hengstenberg, deny- 
 ing that the Hebrews led a nomadic life in Egypt, says : "The 
 foundation of the settled life was laid in the very first settle- 
 ment. It was in the best and most fruitful part of the land 
 that the Israelites received their residence, at least in part, Gen. 
 47: II, 27. It is inconceivable that they should not have taken 
 advantage of the excellent opportunity for agriculture which 
 presented itself; and to participation in Egyptian agriculture 
 was added participation in Egyptian civilization" (Kingd. God 
 under O. T., I, 2^6). H. Ewald writes: "When it is related 
 that Joseph obtained in marriage, Asenath, a daughter of Po- 
 
 ' In the absence of an entirely satisfactory nomenclature, we employ the 
 terms traditional or conservative, and anti-traditional or radical for the two 
 schools and stand-points. Lyman Abbott suggests the terms, ancient, theological, 
 traditional for the one school, and modern, scientific, literary and evolutionary 
 for the other. (Life and Lit. of the Ancient Hebrews). 
 
6 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 tiphera, Priest of On; and that Moses was brought up by a 
 dau£;hter of Pharaoh and therefore learned in all the wisdom 
 of Egypt; when even Joseph's Egyptian title of rank and 
 office'^is very faithfully preserved, Gen. 41 : 45, we have every 
 reason to see in this only a few striking reminiscences of the 
 strong influence of a people of ancient culture and established 
 government upon a less cultivated nation associated with them" 
 (Hist. Isr. II, 4). Other writers, German and English, occupy 
 the same view-point.* 
 
 2. A Lozv Civilisation. 
 
 The other extreme, briefly stated, is that the Israelites at 
 the date of the Exodus and in the three following centuries 
 stood low in the scale of civilization and were largely dependent 
 on the Canaanites for advancement in the arts. E. Reuss un- 
 equivocalh affirms that the Hebrews at the Exodus were a 
 rude horde. "Above all it is absolutely necessary to re- 
 ject the view which represents the Israelites as constituting 
 a body of people well organized, with a political constitu- 
 tion, a central government and enforced laws. Nothing of 
 all this existed at first, and it is only little by little that these 
 products of civilization affected a people whose physical con- 
 dition presented a sense of need" (Histoire des Israelites). 
 J. Wellhausen affirms that it is ''quite incapable of proof 
 that Moses was indebted to the Egyptian priests for certain 
 
 advantages of personal culture The story of 
 
 Exodus j: i is a mythus of frequent recurrence, to which 
 no further significance is attached ; that Moses was trained 
 in all the wisdom of the Egyptians is vouched for by no ear- 
 lier authority than Philo and the New Testament" (Fro- 
 leg. z. Gesch. Is., 410). B. Stade, a leading exponent of the 
 anti-traditional view, denies in his History of the People of 
 Israel and in his Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, that 
 the activity of Moses was in any way influenced by the culture 
 of the Egyptians.** 
 
 Dr. F. Hommel writes: "It is a cardinal article of belief 
 
 * Thus R. Kittel: "Arabia at that time was the home of comparatively set- 
 tled people, with strongholds, towns and warlike chiefs. The mode of living was 
 by no means lacking in advanced education and culture; but was thoroughly sat- 
 urated with the elements of Babylonian and no doubt also of Egyptian life and 
 thought" (Babyl. Excav. and Early Bib. Hist., p., 6). 
 
 • In the latter work he says: "The contact of the Hebrew Beduins in the 
 border province of Goshen with Egyptian culture and cults was too brief, and the 
 national haired between Egyptians and Hebrews too great, to admit of the al- 
 leged influence" (p., 38). 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW WRITING AND LITERATURE. 7 
 
 among modern critics of the Pentateuch that the Hebrews of 
 pre-Mosaic times were uncivilized nomads. . . whose reUg- 
 ion consisted of .... a mixture of fetishism and Totemism. 
 This view of the early beginnings of the Hebrew faith is one 
 of the most vital factors in Wellhausen's system ; it is at once 
 the necessary conclusion to which his theories lead, and the 
 actual basis and assumption on which they rest" (Anc. Heh. 
 Trad., p., 28). 
 
 B. THE STATE OF WRITING AMONG THE HEBREWS AT THE EXODUS. 
 
 Here again we have two rival theories, the one affirming, 
 the other denying, that writing was known to the Hebrews at 
 the Exodus. 
 
 I. Writing Knozi<n to the Hebrezvs. 
 
 The great German scholar, Ewald, in his History of Is- 
 rael, supports in detail the view that the Hebrews were familiar 
 with writing in the Mosaic age. 'Tt cannot be doubted that 
 the Israelites could write during the time of their sojourn in 
 
 Egypt Only what was then written in Israel canr 
 
 not have been very important — at any rate we have no trace 
 
 of it As to the Mosaic age, the most various and 
 
 earliest reminiscences concur in representing it to have pos- 
 sessed the familiar use of writing. The two stone tables of 
 the law are according to all evidences and arguments to be 
 ascribed to Moses; but as the art of writing certainly cannot 
 have commenced with the hardest writing-materials, nor its 
 use been restricted to a few words on one single occasion, the 
 unquestionable historical existence of these tables necessarily 
 implies a diffusion of the knowledge of writing among the 
 more cultivated portion of the people" (II p., 48). Prof. W. 
 H. Green, of Princeton, writes : "If anything can be established 
 by historical and monumental evidence, the law surely can be, 
 which was graven on stones that were still extant in the time 
 of Solomon" (Heb. Feasts, p., 169).^ 
 
 A large and influential group of scholars are certain that 
 the Hebrews must have been acquainted with the art of writ- 
 ing at the time of the Exodus. 
 
 • So to the same effect: C. F. Keil, Bib. Archaeol. ii, 260; A. H. Sayce, 
 Lex Mosaica, p., 6, and other works; E. C. Bissell, Bib. Anttq., p., 14; A. J. F. 
 Behrends, O. T. under Fire, 18; J. Orr, Problem of the O T. and Btble under 
 Trial, p., 127. 
 
8 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 2. Writing not Knozun to the Hebrews. 
 
 On the other hand an equally large and certainly more 
 boastful school confidently affirm that writing was not known 
 at all among the Hebrews of that period, or at any rate was not 
 sufficiently far advanced for literary purposes. 
 
 E. Reuss, though not absolutely denying to Moses a know- 
 ledge of writing, is disposed to question it. ''Even if Moses 
 were highly educated, the Phoenician script was unknown in 
 Egypt. Besides, no one writes books and laws except for 
 people who can read and do read. Even allowing that Moses 
 could write, the question arises for whom he could have writ- 
 ten. Certainly not for his herdsmen, who living in Goshen 
 could scarcely have had opportunity to practise reading; the 
 Levites stood practically on the same plane" (Gesch. d. Heil. 
 Sch., p., 134). Reuss pertinently asks, what script Moses 
 could have employed? If the Egyptian, then his successors 
 must at some later date have exchanged it for the Phoenician. 
 If the Phoenician, then we ask, whether he acquired a know- 
 ledge of it in Eg}^t (of which we have no evidence) or wheth- 
 er he perhaps invented it and carried it to the Phoenicians ? In 
 either case we are involved in a dilemma. 
 
 W. Vatke, the father of the philosophic presuppositions of the rad- 
 ical criticism of the Old Testament, in true Hegelian style, denies on 
 a priori grounds that Moses had a knowledge of writing, claiming that 
 such a view contravenes the laws of the evolution of history. He 
 accordingly concludes that the Hebrews at the Exodus were illiterate 
 nomads and of course had no knowledge of writing (Relig. d. A. T., 
 p., 179). Cornill says: "In the sense in which the historian speaks of 
 knowing, we know absolutely nothing about Moses. All original 
 records are missing ; we have not received a line, not even a word, 
 from Moses himself, or from any of his contemporaries; even the 
 celebrated Ten Q)mmandmenfts are not from him, but, as can be proved, 
 were written in the first half of the seventh century B. C. The oldest 
 accounts of Moses are five hundred years later than his time" {Proph. 
 Israel, p., 17). Prof. C. F. Kent writes: "About the same time [i. e. 
 the ninth century] the Hebrew system of writing, which seems to have 
 been an inheritance through the highly civilized Canaanites and Phoeni- 
 cians, appears for the first time to have come into use. Pioneers strugg- 
 ling for homes have little need or time for literary pursuits 
 
 The conditions were first developed among the Hebrews after the estab- 
 lishment of the monarchy" {Nar. Begin. Heb. Hist., p., 18). 
 
 The same position is held by most writers of the left wing 
 of the anti-traditional school."^ 
 
 ' See W. R. Smith, O. T. in Jewish Church, 297; Ruess, op. cit., 96; R. 
 Smend, Alttcst. Religionsgesch.. pp., 9, 42; Nowack, Heb. Archaeol., 2S7; Ben- 
 ringer, Heb. Archaeol., 288. Also 2. Aufl. 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW WRITING AND LITERATURE. 9 
 
 C. RIVAL THEORIES OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Running parallel with the preceding contradictory views 
 are two rival theories of the composition of the Pentateuch and 
 of the immediately following books, theories which have called 
 forth a spirited controversy. This controversy, carried on 
 during the past half century and unquestionably the greatest 
 and most significant of modern times, is designated variously 
 as ''Pentateuch Criticism", "Hexateuch Criticism", or **Liter- 
 ary and Historical Criticism of the Old Testament". We state 
 the issue in the simplest terms. 
 
 J. The Traditional View. 
 
 Until within a comparatively recent period, Moses was almost uni- 
 versally regarded as the author of the Pentateuch substantially as it 
 exists today. It was allowed that he may have used documents and 
 employed amanuenses; but his approval of what the latter wrote, would 
 render the work practically his own.^ It is further alleged that Moses 
 had access to genealogical tables, ancient records and even tablets in the 
 cuneiform script brought by Abraham from Ur of the Ohaldees and 
 containing the essential data of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, 
 Assuming that Moses was competent to write a book and that he 
 wished to record God's wonderful dealings with the chosen people, a 
 large body of scholars hold what mav be called the traditional view 
 of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. 
 
 (i). Mosaic Authorship. Dr. E. C. Bissell says : "The positive and 
 often repeated claim made in the Pentateuch itself for the Mosaic 
 authorship in general has not only the emphatic, if somewhat exagger- 
 ated, external support of all authorities from his day downward, but 
 also the incidental corroboration of a multitude of internal characteris- 
 tics appropriate to his 2igt"{The Pent., p. 78). The uncompromising 
 champion of the Mosaic authorship, the late Dr. W. H. Green, writes: 
 'The Pentateuchal Law claims in the most unambiguous manner to 
 have been given and recorded bv Moses. The general character of 
 the legislation, and the terms in which it is conveyed, accord with this 
 claim Under any other view, the question must remain unan- 
 swered or land us in the most incredible of paradoxes" (Moses and 
 Prophets, p. 344). Writers of this school make much of the language 
 of Christ: "Christ's authority is as vital an element in the settlement 
 of controverted matters respecting the Old Testament as is the science 
 of history or the science of language. The appeal to Him in these Old 
 Testament questions really corresponds to a reference to an axiom in 
 mathematics, or to a first principle in morals" (Dr. Liddon, Worth of 
 O. T., p., 12). The Pulpit Commentary says: "That the Pentateuch 
 is what it claims to be i. e. of Mosaic origin, and given by inspiration 
 of God, is here assumed. The book was according to the account it 
 
 * Various passages originally of an editorial character, as Gen. 12: 6, 8; 13: 3; 
 36: 31; Ex. 16: 35; Deut. 17: 14-20; 34: 5-12, etc., are held to have been in- 
 serted later by competent authority. 
 
lO ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 gives of itself in the first instance compiled and written out by Moses" 
 (Introduction).^ 
 
 (2). Unity and Integrity. The Mosaic authorship implies of course 
 the unity and integrity of the Pentateuch. But some \vho_ deny that 
 the Pentateuch proceeded from Moses allow that the composite work is 
 characterized by unity of plan and purpose. As employed by conser- 
 vatives, the term unity means the unity which springs from samenessof 
 authorship and integrity the oneness and organic coherence which 
 spring from a plan consciously formed and executed, and not the gen- 
 eral unity which may exist between documents composed in different 
 centuries and possessing some similarity of matter and form. _ The 
 traditionalists are not satisfied with a unity of the latter sort, but insist 
 stoutly that the Pentateuch is characterized by such a remarkable degree 
 of unity and integrity as to exclude the theory of diversity of author- 
 ship." 
 
 2. The Anti-Traditional or Modern Critical Viezv. 
 
 The liberal critics affirm that the Hebrews were not in a position 
 to cultivate literature in the Exodus period and that Moses did not 
 write or compose the Pentateuch. They hold that the Hexateuch (1. e. 
 the Pentateuch and Joshua) was compiled from various documents 
 which arose gradually some six or eight centuries after Moses and 
 professed to describe the early Hebrew history and the Mosaic insti- 
 tutions. These separate booklets or documents, drawn up largely on 
 the basis of oral tradition, received additions from age to age until 
 about 445 B. C, when a redactor or editor, taking the latest and most 
 systematic of these documents as a skeleton or outline, and selecting 
 from the different sources whatever accorded with his plan, brought 
 together the scattered material into the composite whole known as the 
 Hexateuch. This conclusion, presented here in the briefest terms, the 
 Graf-Kuenen-Wellhausen school regard as established absolutely and 
 without a peradventure as the result of the critical examination of the 
 literary strata, the historical setting and the theological implications 
 of the Hexateuch. The chief exponents are Reuss, Graf, Kuenen, 
 Wellhausen, Stade, Cornill, Holzinger, Driver, Cheyne, Ryle, Briggs, 
 and W. R. Harper. We summarize the arguments of a few of these 
 critics. 
 
 (i). Moses not the Author of the Pentateuch. We present, first, 
 the negative attitude, or the special considerations tending to show that 
 Moses could not have written the Pentateuch ; and, second, the positive 
 or_ constructive arguments of the divisive critics, or their theory of the 
 origin and nature of the Codes. 
 
 » See also: W. H. Green, Higher Crit. Pent, p., 32, Unity of Genesis, O. T. 
 Canon, etc.; D. Mac Dill, Mosaic Authorship Pent., p., 257; Behrends, op. cit 
 p., 18; G. Vos, Mosaic Orig. Pent. Codes, 263; J. W. Beardslee, Introd. to Old 
 Test., 31; J. H. Raven, O. T. Introduction, pp., 85-128. 
 
 30 "They fthe divisive critics] explain the unity of plan by the skill of the 
 final redactor and by his using the Priest Code, the most systematic and complete 
 of the documents as tlie basis of his complete work. But this explanation is in- 
 
 suflficient It is claimed that the difficulties of accepting the story of its 
 
 origin which has been made for us by the keen critical insight of a century of 
 criticism, tax our credulity far more than the traditional view. This plan presents 
 a mountain of difficulty for every mole hill which it removes and to all its spe- 
 cious arguments we reply, non sequitur" (J, H, Raven, op. cit., p., 128). 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW WRITING AND LITERATURE. II 
 
 It is generally conceded by the anti-traditionalists that Moses had 
 some connection with the religion of Israel, but how much is a matter 
 of dispute. Extremists regard him as a mythical character, but this 
 opinion is not shared by the critics generally. The latter adopt some 
 such view as that of Kuenen, who, while denying that Moses wrote a 
 systern of laws, assumes that an important place belongs to Moses in 
 thie history of his nation. His chief concern was to emphasize the 
 national religion and to speak in the name of Jehovah. iPractically all 
 that he did was to show that Jehovah was Israel's God' and Israel 
 Jehovah's people. The Ten Commandments proceeded from' Moses in 
 the sense that "in the name of Jehovah he prescribed to the Israelitish 
 tribes such a law as is contained in the Ten Words", but not in the 
 sense that he received them from Jehovah at Sinai, or that the words 
 actually spoken by him are the same as those in the Pentateuch (Relig- 
 ion of Israel. J.^"^ 
 
 Wellhausen regards the religion of Israel as a natural development, 
 hence little is left for the activity of Moses. "The religion of Israel 
 is a slow growth out of heathenism; this is the substance of the his- 
 tory It did not start with an absolute beginning" {Is. und 
 
 lued. Gesch., p. 34). Ancient Israel had a few laws for the ordering 
 of life, but "they were not fixed in writing" (Proleg. p. 401). The 
 view-point of the extreme critics is voiced by Cheyne : "The question- 
 ing spirit revives when one is asked to believe that Moses is partly at 
 least a historical figure. Alas! how gladly could one believe it! But 
 where are the historical elements? .... Happily we are not asked 
 to believe either in Moses or the decalogue" (Introd. to R. W. Smith's 
 Proph. Israel). 
 
 The modern critical position is that Deuteronomy does not proceed 
 from Moses. According to Graf, "The composition of Deuteronomy in 
 the age of Josiah is one of the most generally accepted results of the 
 historical criticisms of the O. T. for all who do not simply ignore these 
 results" {Gesch. Buech. 11). Dr. W. R. Harper says: "We may 
 safely deny the ascription to Moses of literary work of any kind, even 
 the songs with which his name is connected {e. g. Ex. 15: 1-15; Deut. 
 32: 1-45; 33: 2-29) or the judgments and precepts of the Book of the 
 Covenant and the decalogues of E and J" {Amos and Hosea p. 
 LXXXVI). 
 
 Duhm states the position of the school in a nut-shell : "Nothing in 
 fact is simpler than the Grafian Hypothesis : it needs only the trans- 
 ference of a single source, namely the Priest Code, into the post-Exilic 
 time, into the period of Ezra and Nehemiah, and at one stroke the 
 Mosaic period is wiped out".^' The reader will see that this is the most 
 revolutionary movement of the age." 
 
 " Reuss says: "We are compelled to affirm concerning the state of literature, 
 that the only remains are fragments of poetry, which chance has spared from 
 oblivion, and certain occasional allusions found in later historical narratives. . . _ . 
 We affirm that we do not possess a single historical work in the authentic form in 
 which it left the hand of its author" (Histoire des Israelites, 874). 
 
 " See also Holzinger: "We have no work of Moses, but a narrative from a 
 later period" (EinL, p., 7); "If anything is certain in O. T. criticism it is that 
 the Pentateuch is not from the hand of Moses; he is not to be thought of as an 
 author" (Marti, Gesch. 58). "If Moses wrote the Pentateuch, neither he nor 
 
12 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 (2). The Theory of the Codes. The modern critical view of the 
 origin of the Pentateuch, or the theory of the Codes, has assumed 
 various forms, but in broad outline is as described below. Various 
 distinct documents, it is alleged, underlie the Pentateuch, or rather the 
 Hexateuch, for the critics find the same strands in Joshua as in the 
 Pentateuch and include it in the discussion. 
 
 a. The J Code. The first of these documents, known as J, from 
 its use of the word Jehovah for God, is assumed to have originated in 
 the Southern Kingdom, Judah, about 850-650 B. C. The style is free, 
 picturesque, poetical, anthropomorphic and predictive. "Of all the 
 Hebrew historians whose writings have been preserved to us, J is the 
 most gifted and the most brilliant. He excels in the power of delineat- 
 ing character" (Driver, Gen. XIV.). Since the writer assumes to 
 know and reveal the plans of God and to think for Him {e. g. Gen. 2: 
 18-24; 6: 1-7) this document is regarded as distinctly prophetic. The 
 critics now hold that J is a composite work starting with a nucleus J 
 
 1 2 
 and receiving additions J, J, etc., from many hands during several 
 centuries." 
 
 h. The E Code. The second document, designated by the letter 
 E, from its use of Elohim for God, is supposed to have been compiled 
 in the Northern Kingdom about 800-700 B. C. In general character the 
 original author of E does not differ widely from J, "but he does not 
 exhibit the same rare literary power, he does not display the same 
 command of language, the same delicacy of touch, the same unequalled 
 felicity of representation and expression" (Driver, Gen., p., XV). The 
 stand-point of E is prophetical, though it is not brought so prominently 
 forward as in J, "and in general the narrative is more objective, less 
 consciously tinged by ethical reflection than that of J" (Driver, Lit. 
 III). "The general historical situation of the writers seems to be the 
 same as in the case of J, namely, the period of the monarchy. But the 
 general stand-point of E is unanimously conceded to be more advanced 
 than that of J" (W. R. Harper. Amos & Hosea, p., LXXIX)." 
 
 c. The Dcuteronomic Code, D. Another document, consisting 
 mainly of the book of Deuteronomy, is designated in critical circles by 
 
 1 2 3 1 
 
 D. D denotes the kernel out of which D grew; D, D, D, denote 
 later additions and changes. Deiiteronomist means the author of the 
 body of the book of Deuteronomy, whether merely chs, 12-26 inclu- 
 sive, according to some critics, or chs. 5-26, according to others. The 
 term Deutcronomic is applied to material in the body of Deuteronomy; 
 
 any other for him took the usual method of securing credit for his work" (H. G. 
 Mitchell, World before Abraham, p., 4). 
 
 " Our apology for quoting chiefly from German authorities is that they are 
 ihc Jons et orxgo of the whole modern critical movement. Even the most inde- 
 pendent of their American followers and imitators draw their inspiration and ar- 
 guments from the Germans. 
 
 " A few of the J passages in Gen. are: chap. 2: 4 to the end of ch. 4; 5: 29; 
 6: \-T\ 7: i-s, 7-12, 16, 17, 22, 23; 8: 2, 3, 6-12, 20-22; 9: 20-27. 
 
 ^' The Dillmann school, however, hold that the stand-point of J is the more 
 advanced. The letters J, E, P, D, etc., in the nomenclature of criticism stand 
 indefinitely for both the author and the document. It is well that such is the case, 
 for with all the resources of scholarship, the critics have not ventured, except in 
 a few instances, to suggest who the mysterious writers may have been; hence the 
 arbitrary symbols. 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW WRITING AND LITERATURE. 1 3 
 
 and Deiiteronomistic to material wherever found in the style of the 
 Deuteronomist. Various editors who are assumed to have revised 
 Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, etc. or their constituent parts, in the 
 spirit of D, are denoted by R. Here the critical hypothesis of addi- 
 tions, modifications, redactions, and numerous strata is in full bloom. 
 
 In determining the date of D, the critics start with the account of 
 the memorable discovery of "the book of the law" in the Temple in 
 the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah, 621, B C, as narrated in 
 2 Kgs. 22: 3-20. Josiah's law-book is alleged to be identical with D. 
 "It cannot be shown to have included more than Deuteronomy" (Driv- 
 er, Deut, p., XLV). How much earlier than 621, D was composed is 
 a matter of dispute among the divisive critics, the dates ranging 
 between 721 and 621. Cornill says: "Shortly before 621"; Driver, 
 "either the reign of Manasseh, or the early years of the reign of Josiah", 
 Steuernagel, "between 720 and 650".^^ 
 
 d. The Laiv of Holiness, H. Another document, known as the 
 Law of Holiness (Levit. 17-26), is designated by H. It was a compila- 
 tion from earlier sources, but in its present form contains additions by 
 the editor who incorporated it in the Priest Code. On account of its 
 affinities with D, the Priest Code proper and Ezekiel 40-48, the analysts 
 are perplexed as to the date and the circle of authorship. Driver places 
 it shortly before the Exile, Cornill in the second half of the Exile, and 
 Holzinger immediately after the Exile. "Its sources were pre-Exilic, 
 and may be in part older than D" (Benn, & Ad. Int.). 
 
 e. The Priest Code, P. We come now to a document which has 
 played an important role in Hexateuch criticism, namely the Priest 
 Code, P. It includes some of the principal parts of Genesis, as i : i — 2 : 
 4; 5: 1-32; 6: 9-22, and long sections in other chapters; the greater 
 part of Exodus and Numbers, all of Leviticus (except chs. 17-26) and 
 a considerable part of Joshua, chs. 13-22. Starting with the creation 
 and the Sabbath, it not only narrates the course of events to the division 
 of Canaan among the tribes, but also presents a succinct and graphic 
 account of the fundamental institutions of the Old Testament. The 
 Germans call it, not inaptly, the Fundamental Code (Grundschrift). 
 The question of its date and composition is therefore of far-reaching 
 significance. 
 
 As in the case of the other documents, it was not the product of 
 one man, or one age, but of many. Accordingly, the exigencies of up- 
 to-date criticism require a series of symbols to denote the different 
 strata. Thus P denotes either the Priest Code or any material by 
 
 1 2 
 
 priestly writers; P the Law of Holiness; P the Priest Code proper; 
 3 4 5 X D 
 
 P, P, P, P, later additions to the Priest Code. Other sympols are R, 
 
 editor who added D to JE; R, editor who combined JED and P, or 
 later priestly editors who revised and retouched the Hexateuch and 
 other historical books." 
 
 " "The Deuteronomic writers compose codes, exhortations to obedience; they 
 provide earlier history with chronological framework and religious comment; only 
 in Kings do they themselves write history" (Bennett and Adeney, Introd., 50). 
 
 1^ The stylistic characteristics of P are marked, there being words, phrases 
 and expressions found nowhere else or rarely in the O. T. The diction is syste- 
 matic, rigid, chronological, stereotyped, as seen in the first chapter of Genesis: 
 
14 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 The question of the age and authorship brings us to heart of Old 
 Testament criticism. In common usage, P stands for the whole com- 
 
 12 3 X 
 
 posite document compiled from P, P, P, down to P. As some of the 
 latter are themselves based on earlier sources, which may have been 
 used by different writers, the analysis seems finally to lose itself in an 
 intricate and inextricable labyrinth. The critics are not agreed whether 
 
 I a 
 
 P and P were composed independently and then combined, or whether 
 
 P was merely the nucleus of the larger work P. In either case addi- 
 tions were made by later writers, and by the editor who combined them. 
 Under such conditions the question of date and authorship has no 
 definite meaning, for the developmental and evolutionary process is 
 conceived of as extending over an indeterminate period of from three 
 to eight centuries." 
 
 1 
 Since H, otherwise P, is assumed to have affinities with Ezek. 
 40-48 (circa 585) and to have been composed during the Exile, critics 
 generally hold that P, although containing more or less early material, 
 is essentially an Exilic or post-Exilic work. Driver says : "P belongs 
 approximately to the period of the Babylonian Captivity"; Holzin- 
 ger. The very beginning of the fifth century", Wellhausen, 445 B. C. 
 According to the Grafian school generally, P was composed in Baby- 
 lonia after the Exile and combined with H before Ezra's mission to 
 Palestine in 458. P, therefore, though receiving additions as late as 
 350 B, C. was practically complete in 445.^^ 
 
 /. Manner of combining the Documents. Assuming that these doc- 
 uments existed separately for a longer or shorter time, the Graf-Well- 
 hausen school hold that somewhere in the seventh century, say, 650, a 
 redactor, R, or editor, combined J and E into one work, or, more 
 accurately, selected from each the material suited to his purpose, reject- 
 ing for the most part duplicate matter or whatever did not fall in with 
 his plan. The result was a composite work JE.^*^ From the peculiarities 
 of language, historical and other statements, the critics profess to be 
 able to restore the original sources or documents so far as preserved. 
 Somewhat later, after 621, perhaps during the Exile, another editor 
 combined D with JE, producing JED. Some critics, however, hold 
 that one editor combined J, E, and D. Some time after the Exile, an- 
 other Redactor combined H and the various priestly strata into the 
 Priest Code proper. This code was published by Ezra in 445, B. C. 
 
 "Evening and morning were — day", "God saw that it was good", etc. "Both in 
 
 method and literary style, P oflfers a striking contrast to either J or E 
 
 His aim IS to give a systematic view, from a priestly stand-point, of the origin and 
 chief institutions of the Israelitish theocracy" (Driv. Lit.). 
 
 ", ^"""i- ?. F. Moore, an adherent of the Graf-Kuenen-Wellhausen scheme 
 remarks: The result was the heterogeneous conglomerate which it is customary 
 to call the Priests' Code" (Ency. Bib., col. 2082). 
 
 '..■ " ^^ ? '5 thus late, the historical character of much of Genesis, Exodus, Le- 
 viticus and ^ umbers is of course blotted out. The average Bible student may 
 well ask, What becomes of the credibility and inspiration of the Pentateuch under 
 
 , " Since T and E would not be destroyed at once, it is believed that they still 
 circulated separately until finally superseded by the larger work. 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW WRITING AND LITERATURE. 1 5 
 
 (Kuenen). Somewhat later JED and P were combined into our Hex- 
 ateuch." 
 
 Collecting the various strata and fragments and employing the sym- 
 bols of the critics, one obtains the following interesting literary and 
 
 algebraic formula : J+J+J+J+E+E+E+E+D+D+D+H+P+P+P+ 
 
 X J E JE D P JEP 
 
 P+R+R+R+R+R+R+R =Hexateuch, 
 
 To the average reader, unacquainted with the methods or supposed 
 methods of ancient literary composition, such a theory of the origin of 
 the Hexateuch is the climax of absurdity and its own sufficient refuta- 
 tion; to the twentieth century Old Testament critic, revelling in the 
 study of Hebrew words and idioms, and assuming that Hebrew authors 
 excerpted from their sources any suitable material, and modified and 
 transposed at pleasure, such a procedure in the compilation of the Hex- 
 ateuch is not only conceivable, but under the circumstances perfectly 
 natural and legitimate.^ 
 
 g. The Dillmann Hypothesis. It must be observed that 
 though the above analysis is accepted by the great body of 
 divisive critics, or the Grafians, as they are called, a scholarly 
 and influential German school, headed by Dillmann, Kittel and 
 Koenig, advocate a considerably earlier date for the documents, 
 especially the Priest Code. Thus Kittel : ''The oldest stratum, 
 partly containing the groundwork of the Law of Holiness and 
 partly that of P, may justifiably be placed in a comparatively 
 early period, at any rate from that of Solom'on downwards 
 (tenth and ninth century") (Hist. Hebrews, I, 132). 
 
 On this hypothesis, P in its main texture is either the 
 second oldest document, following E, or at least the third, fol- 
 lowing J, all of them preceding D. According to this view, 
 E and P were united first, and J added at a later date ; or, 
 perhaps P was added after the union of E and J. Subsequent- 
 ly D was incorporated with JEP, yielding JEPD. The Pen- 
 tateuch (Hexateuch) was therefore a complete work before 
 the close of the Exile, and possibly before its beginning. In 
 the Dillmann scheme, the component parts of the Pentateuch 
 
 21 The critics of the extreme left in reality hold that each of the above doc- 
 uments was originally a mere nucleus, which received additions from generation 
 to generation by a kind of accretion, much as a heap of stones might be enlarged. 
 Each code proceeded from a "school", each member thereof adding or eliminating 
 matter at pleasure. The Codes, like Topsy, simply "grew", gradually and im- 
 perceptibly. Under such an hypothesis, authorship in the usual sense is out of 
 the question. 
 
 ^ If the critics are right, the method of composition furnishes the most 
 remarkable example in all literature, ancient or modern, of a work compiled from 
 so many sources and by so many hands, and yet characterized by undoubted unity 
 and homogeneity. Homer's Iliad, the Bible of the Greeks, has to be sure been 
 similarly dismembered; but the most radical German critics have hesitated to dis- 
 sect the Greek classic in any such style. 
 
l6 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 and the Pentateuch as a whole are conceived to be from one to 
 three centuries older than in the Grafian. 
 
 The sequence of the Codes and the manner of their com- 
 bination differ considerably in the Grafian and Dillmann sys- 
 tems. If it should be found that P in its essential features 
 antedates D, the whole Vatke-Kuenen-Wellhausen contention 
 of a naturalistic evolution of the Codes from the Book of the 
 Covenant (Ex. 20-33) ^o J, E, D and thence to P would be 
 undermined at its supposed strongest point. Unless it can be 
 shown that P is the latest Code, the evolution hypothesis can- 
 not be carried through. The proposition that P contains very 
 ancient written (and not merely oral) material and was com- 
 piled prior to D (i. e. from the critical stand-point) was elab- 
 orately defended by Dillmann; and in the judgment of an 
 increasing number of competent scholars, his arguments have 
 never been refuted. 
 
 It is evident that the anti-traditional, or critical view, un- 
 der either form, is diametrically opposed to the traditional 
 view; and if accepted necessitates an entire readjustment, if 
 not abandonment of the old theory regarding the age, author- 
 ship and credibility of the Pentateuch. 
 
 D. THE ORIGINAL TRANSMISSION OF THE EARLY BOOKS, 
 
 If we ask how the earliest Biblical books were transmitted 
 originally, we have again two opposite answers. By written 
 records, according to one school; by oral tradition, according 
 to another. 
 
 /. Written Records. 
 
 If writing was sufficiently far advanced in Israel to be 
 employed for literary purposes, it is natural to suppose that 
 there were scribes and writers who recorded the early and 
 contemporaneous history. Accordingly, we find that the He- 
 brews, certainly from the date of the Exodus, and perhaps 
 earlier, were in the habit of writing down matters of impor- 
 tance, especially religious laws and ordinances. It is held that 
 such records were transmitted to later times in a substantially 
 correct form and contained authentic and reliable history. Ac- 
 cording to the traditional view, not only were Moses, Joshua 
 and their successors able to write and compose books, but they 
 actually either composed or caused to be composed the early 
 books of the Bible. 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW WRITING AND LITERATURE. 1 7 
 
 It is held further that the question of a written record is 
 of fundamental import. ''What would be the conceivable 
 nature of revealed religion, without a record of facts? The 
 briefest consideration convinces us, that either the whole nature 
 of revelation must be essentially changed, or else a record of 
 its historic process must somehow be preserved. To be sure 
 the fact of supreme importance is the fact of revelation itself. 
 But the very nature of revelation, if it is to take the form of 
 an historical process, is such as to demand a record of that 
 process" (Ladd, Doc. Sac. Script., I, 737). 
 
 That such a record was actually made is the firm belief 
 of the conservative school. Hengstenberg : "Moses was able 
 faithfully to impart what had taken place before his eyes ; and 
 that he designed to relate the truth his whole character as it 
 appears in his works is a guarantee; and even if he had not 
 wished to do so, he must have done it, since he wrote first o£ 
 all for those who had witnessed all the great events which he 
 communicated" (Kingd. God, etc., I, 30). "The Bible is 
 through and through of historical nature and spirit" (Ewald). 
 Fuerst, in his History of Hebrew Literature, maintains two 
 propositions; iirst, that the accounts of the cosmogony, fall, 
 flood, migration of the patriarchs, were written down in the 
 patriarchal period; second, that the earliest Hebrew writing 
 dates from a time prior to the Mosaic individualizing of the 
 patriarchal religion" (p., 25). ^^ 
 
 The conservatives to a man consider it vital to the cred- 
 ibility and integrity of the Pentateuch and of the other early 
 books, that the revelation to Moses should have been preserved 
 in permanent form, that is in written records, and not entrusted 
 for safe-keeping merely to the somewhat fickle memory of men. 
 
 2. Oral Tradition. 
 
 In opposition to the foregoing view, the whole Grafian 
 school, without any important exception, hold that, not written 
 records, but oral tradition, formed the vehicle of transmission 
 of the Hebrew books to the time of the Monarchy (1,000 B. 
 C). Wellhausen constantly emphasizes this point. "It can 
 
 " On Deut. 31: 24, Dr. W. H. Green says: "If it be possible for words to 
 convey the idea that the entire code of laws here spoken of, which cannot be less 
 than Deut. 12-26, was written by Moses, the idea is here expressed" (Moses and 
 Proph., S3). Canon R. B. Girdlestone, reviewing the historical elements in Ex. 
 Levit. and Num., says: '*It is natural to take them as made up of official docu- 
 ments, recorded at or about the time of the events narrated, and preserved in the 
 sacred archives together with the patriarchal Book of Genesis. There is abso- 
 lutely no literary difficulty in this view" (Criticism Criticised). 
 
 2 
 
l8 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 be shown that throughout the whole of the older period the 
 Torah (Law) was no fixed legislative code, but consisted 
 entirely of the oral decisions and instructions of the priests. 
 .... IMoses was not regarded as promulgator once ^ for 
 all of a national constitution, but rather as the first to call into 
 activity the actual sense for law and justice, and to begin the 
 series of oral decisions, which were continued after him by the 
 priests" (Proleg. 458). 
 
 Wildeboer says : "Historical-literary criticism has shown that all 
 the writings of the Old Testament without exception are in their pres- 
 ent form post-Exilic This is true also of their origin" (Litt. 
 
 d. Alt. Test.). Comill : "In the Biblical accounts the material has all 
 gone through the medium of popular tradition. Until the beginnings 
 of the Monarchy, all the historical recollections of Israel were handed 
 down by word of mouth" {Hist., pp., 4, 7). Prof. C. F. Kent cham- 
 pions this view at some length: "In the process of transmission these 
 stories [i. e. Israel's traditions] were constantly being recast and sup- 
 plemented Contrary to the position sometimes maintained, it 
 
 seems probable that most of the stories found in the first eight books of 
 
 the O. T. originated before or during the age of song or story 
 
 Thus all the indications contained in Israel's history point to the cen- 
 tury or two beginning with about 950 B. C. as the era when the oral 
 traditions of an earlier age were collected and woven into connected 
 groups of narratives" {Begin. Heb. Hist., pp., 13, 17, 18).^* 
 
 What is commonly called the Law of Moses is in the new 
 view a series of oral decisions handed down by the lawgivers 
 and judges from Moses to Samuel and finally written out in 
 the centuries interv^ening between 900 and 4CX), that is from 
 five to ten centuries after the Mosaic age. 
 
 E. HISTORY, OR LEGEND. 
 
 Here again the two schools entertain diametrically oppo- 
 site views, the one maintaining that the matter in the Penta- 
 teuch and the early Old Testament books is in a true sense 
 historical, the other that it is essentially unhistorical, or legen- 
 dary. 
 
 I. History, not Legend. 
 
 On the basis of the evidence from the books themselves 
 and from other sources, the traditional school maintains that 
 
 ** Elsewhere Kent says: "Up to this time [Saul's] the only records of the 
 past appear to have been disconnected popular traditions, recounted beside the 
 camp fire, in the secret of the harem, at marriage feasts, at the local sanctuaries, 
 during the annual feasts, at the wells, or beside the city gates, wherever men and 
 women were gathered together and the story-teller could find an audience" (Is- 
 rael's Hist, and Biograph. Nar. p., 3). In other words Prof. Kent would have 
 us believe that the first eight books of the O. T. are little more than Old Wives' 
 Tales. 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW WRITING AND LITERATURE. IQ 
 
 the matter in the early Old Testament books is of an historical 
 and trustworthy character and reflects events substantially as 
 they occurred. If writing was employed by the Israelites for 
 literary purposes in the period of the Exodus and later, if 
 Moses and his successors wrote down laws and the essence of 
 contemporary happenings, we have records, chronicles, jour- 
 nals as truly authentic and reliable as those at command for a 
 history of the Crusades or of the Norman Conquest. If the 
 material for the former is to be pronounced legendary, so also 
 must the latter. 
 
 Hengstenberg writes: "All modern distinguished histori- 
 ans, as Niebuhr, etc., agree that the O. T. history is more 
 authentic even in that which it relates concerning other nations 
 than the most reliable native sources. If it be proved therefore 
 that the historical books have in general a true historical value, 
 and not a mythical character, we have no right to reject as 
 mythical that which has reference to an extraordinary inter- 
 ference of God in nature, unless, like the heathen prodigies, it 
 stands out as aimless and isolated" (op. cit.). Fr. Delitzsch : 
 "If history is critically annihilated, [as by the Grafians], what is 
 left but to fill the tabula rasa with modern myths?" (Com. 
 Gen., I, 9). 
 
 Prof. S. Leathes says: "On the radical view not only are 
 we uncertain as to what God said unto Moses, but we do not 
 
 even know that he spoke to him at all It is therefore 
 
 all moonshine to say that if we destroy the form of the revela- 
 tion, the fact remains untouched (Driver) ; because no fact 
 at all remains, except so much as we choose to concede to pop- 
 ular prejudice, resting as it does in the mere oral revelation 
 without any specific authority whatever" (Claims of O. T., 
 p., 30).^^ ^ 
 
 Such is substantially the conservative position. ^^ 
 
 2. Legend, not History. 
 
 The anti-traditional school declare that the narratives in 
 the Pentateuch, Joshua and Judges are not strictly history, but 
 
 25 Of the professional writers on O, T. History, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Koeh- 
 ler, Wm, Smith, Kurtz, Milman, Stanley, Sayce, Edersiieim, Kittel, Klostermann, 
 Lotz, Volck and Erbt occupy the traditional view-point; Reuss, Kuenen, Wellhau 
 sen, Stade, Cornill, Piepenbring, H. P. Smith, Winckler, Kent the opposite ex- 
 treme. 
 
 2^ According to Bishop Hervey "The narrative contained in the Pentateuch 
 is either absolutely true history, or a most skillful and elaborate fiction. The 
 close connection between the parts, the coherence of the successive stages of the 
 drama, etc., precludes the possibility of mere books containing a bundle of tra- 
 ditions or legends mingled with fragments of truth here and there" (Lex Mosaica). 
 
20 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 legends, entertaining stories coming down from the past, but 
 not verified by historical record. 
 
 Here again the chief authorities are Kuenen, Wellhausen 
 and Stade, to whom their American followers are largely in- 
 debted. Kuenen boldly avows his stand-point: "Our faith in 
 Israel's own account of her career is at once severely shaken 
 by the discovery that by far the greater number of those 
 accounts did not proceed from contemporaries, but were writ- 
 ten very long after the events of which they treat. . . . This 
 applies especially to the accounts of the period of the Judges, 
 the conquest of Canaan, the times of Moses and the patriarchs. 
 .... Their principal element is legend" (Relig. Is., p., i6- 
 7). The word legend is the shibboleth of this school. Well- 
 hausen in the Prolegomena rejects the traditional chronology of 
 the books and claims that *'to get even approximately at the 
 truth we are shut up to an analysis of the contents". Under Well- 
 hausen's manipulation little of an historical, much of a legen- 
 dary character is found.-' We do not attain, says Wellhau- 
 sen, "to historical knowledge of the patriarchs, but only of the 
 time when the stories about them arose among the Israelite 
 people" (322). Abraham is not an historical person; "he 
 might with more likelihood be regarded as a free creation of 
 unconscious art" (323). The early chapters of Genesis do not 
 rise even to the dignity of legend; they contain merely myths.^^ 
 Wellhausen speaks of "the mythical stuff of the oldest world- 
 history", "of the discoloration of the myths", and of "the 
 m}'thical universal history", in Gen. I-XI. The accounts of 
 the places of worship, Shechem, Bethel, Hebron, etc., are mere 
 "culture myths". "Purely mythical elements are particularized 
 in the wrestling of Jacob at the Jabbok" (op. cit., pp., 320, 26- 
 30-43). At the end of Wellhausen's dissecting process noth- 
 ing of historical value remains in the Pentateuch. Joshua and 
 Judges fare no better, for they have "neither definite aim. nor 
 true hi story. 2^ 
 
 " Wellhausen begins with Chronicles, which contains "a deliberate and in its 
 
 motives a very transparent mutilation of the original narrative One 
 
 might as well try to hear the grass grow as expect to find here definite knowledge 
 of ancient Israel (op. ctt., pp., 71, 215). W. scarcely allows to the Chronicler 
 ordinary wit and honesty. He slashes into the other historical books in very 
 much the same style. ^ 
 
 " A myth is the creation of a fact out of an idea, a legend the seeing of an 
 idea in a tact. 1 he myth is purely the work of the imagination; the legend has 
 a nucleus of fact.—Stand. Dictionary. & . 5 ck, 
 
 xxT ■" ^" ^^I ^'u^'"*!''*'^^ ?"^ Judaic History", W. elaborates the above views. 
 W. is regarded by the Grafians as having once for all established the impregnabil- 
 ity of their position and silenced all cavil. His works are written in a chlrming 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW WRITING AND LITERATURE. 21 
 
 The anti-traditional view is clearly set forth by Prof. H. 
 P. Smith, The Genesis narratives are for the most part 
 Sagas/'^ which "circulate orally long before there is any writ- 
 ten literature. They are products of the poetic imagination", 
 and so have little historic value. "We have no really histori- 
 cal knowledge of a patriarchal period preceding Israel's con- 
 quest of Canaan. The individuals, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob 
 are eponyms — personifications of clans, tribes or ethnological 
 
 groups — and they are nothing more The nature 
 
 of the information given by the stories is such that we cannot 
 suppose it handed down by any valid historical process — fam- 
 ily gossip known only to the immediate members of the fam- 
 ily does not pass accurately from one generation to another 
 
 for six hundred years or more Our conclusion is 
 
 that there is not sufficient warrant for supposing individuals 
 Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to have been the ancestors of the 
 people" (0. T. History, pp., 42, 48-50).^^ 
 
 German critics like Holzinger, Stade, Meinhold follow in 
 the wake of Wellhausen. Meinhold writes: "The patriarchs 
 are nothing more than the ideal Israel. ... As to an his- 
 torical outline, the patriarchal times fall away entirely" (Wi- 
 der d. Kleinglaiihen, 23). The American wing of the anti- 
 traditional school uniformly claim that the Pentateuchal nar- 
 ratives are largely legendary. ^^ 
 
 F. RELATION OF LAW AND PROPHECY. 
 
 A similar antithesis exists between the two schools on the 
 relation of the Pentateuchal laws and later prophecy. Was 
 
 style and are classics in this field. His opponents charge that underneath the 
 smoothly flowing sentences, there lurks a specious logic, a false historical method 
 and an anti-Old Testament bias, which are but poorly concealed under the guise 
 of candor. — It is astounding to what an extent a whole regiment of American 
 writers swallow complacently any and every statement, however unsupported, put 
 forth by Wellhausen. 
 
 ^^ Saga (a Scandinavian word) is a legend or tradition of considerable length, 
 relating either mythical or historical events. — Cent. Dictionary. 
 
 81 Prof. Smith finds the accounts of the Exodus so contradictory that litte can 
 be made of them. "The most glaring improbabilities are the property of the 
 Priestly writer". The "unhistorical scheme" of the priestly writer being left 
 aside, "we examine the story of J and E", but even here "we find little that com- 
 mands our confidence" (pp., 53, 56). 
 
 " So Dr. J. P. Peters: "At or about the time of Solomon, when the effort 
 was made to write the history of Israel's past, these stories and legends [of the 
 Exodus] were brought into consecutive shape to form the history of this period. 
 .... For the still earlier period, which preceded the deliverance from Egypt 
 and the creation of the nation, the compilers of the history found another sort 
 of material — legends with myth intermixed" (Early Hebrew Story, p., 12). 
 
22 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 the law first and then prophecy, or prophecy first and then 
 the law? 
 
 1. Law -first, then Prophecy. 
 
 It was the uniform belief of the ancient Hebrews and of 
 the earlv Christian Church that the Mosaic law was the basis 
 of the Old Testament religion. Catholics and Protestants in 
 the Reformation and post-Reformation periods believed that 
 Moses under divine guidance promulgated a legislation substan- 
 tially as recorded in Exodus — Deuteronomy, and that the his- 
 torical and prophetical books were permeated by its spirit. In 
 short, the Pentateuch preceded both genetically and chrono- 
 logically the prophetical books, as Amos, Isaiah and the rest.^^ 
 The Ten Words and the Book of the Covenant were held to 
 be the foundation of the prophetic, priestly and kingly func- 
 tions of the theocracy. The teaching of the prophets was 
 under this view but an enforcement of the Mosaic law and an 
 efifort to bring back the people to the fundamental principles 
 of their religion. The law came first, then prophecy in the 
 special sense. 
 
 So W. H. Green: "The history and legislation of the Pentateuch 
 lies at the basis of all the subsequent history of the Old Testament. It 
 is presupposed in the Psalms and in the Prophets" (Moses and Proph. 
 p. 345)- Likewise G. Vos : "Prophecy presupposes the law — roots it- 
 self in it, and grows out of it" (op. cit. p., 172). Also E. C. Bissell : 
 'The settlement of this one question (namely of the order of law and 
 prophecy) in the nature of the case, must be the virtual settlement of 
 the entire discussion in its present form" (Pent., p., 291). That such 
 is the claim and position of the whole traditional school could easily 
 be shown, if necessary.** 
 
 2. Prophecy Urst, then Law. 
 
 The Graf-Wellhausen school places the law after prophecy 
 on the grounds among others that the conditions were not pres- 
 ent in Israel before the ninth century for a written code and 
 that the early writing prophets, as Amos and Isaiah, preceded 
 the written law, or the Pentateuch. It is contended that the 
 prophets before the Exile are absolutely silent regarding the 
 
 I u "u'^'^'^. ^''*^"' "^turally grew out of the order of the books in the Hebrew Bible 
 (which under any view is very ancient), the Torah standing first, then the Nebiim 
 (the historical and prophetical books) and finally the Kethubim. 
 
 "Thus K. Riehm: "Prophetism everywhere assumes as a basis the civil- 
 ecclesiastical legislation enacted by Moses" (Alttest. Thcologie, p., 55). Breden- 
 kamp. commenting on Hosea 8: 12, says: "The actually expressed contempt for 
 tne law ^implies its existence, and indeed in written form" (Gesetz u. s. w ) 
 Again: We want a founder of the prophetical school of thought, but unless he 
 IS Moses we cannot find him" (Watson, Law and Prophets, 79). 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW WRITING AND LITERATURE. 23 
 
 Levitical Code, and that such silence implies the non-existence 
 of the Priest Code. Wellhausen argues that the asisumed 
 legislation of Moses disappears entirely when the people enter 
 Canaan ; the period of the Judges is one of chaos with no trace 
 of the Mosaic laws, and the temporal rulers, not the priests, 
 are at the head of affairs and in fact have charge of the wor- 
 ship and sacrifices, appointing and discharging priests at pleas- 
 ure. *'The Torah of Jehovah is not a definite document guar- 
 anteeing the rights of the priests, but simply their oral decisions 
 
 to others So far as the literature of the period of 
 
 the monarchy is concerned, it would be exceedingly difficult to 
 discover even a few ambiguous echoes of the law." (Wellh. 
 Prole g.). 
 
 W. R. Smith says: "The prophets of the eighth century 
 never speak of a written law of Moses" (O. T. Jew. Ck, 2p/). 
 R. L. Ottley : 'The general results of O. T. criticism might be 
 summed up in a single sentence : instead of speaking of the law 
 and the prophets, we might equally speak of the prophets and 
 the law" (Aspects of O. T., p., 265). 
 
 As was pointed out above, the Grafians regard the Priest 
 Code as dating from 445 B. C. The book of the law read by 
 Ezra (Nell. 8: 1-6) was, it is alleged, chiefly this Priest Code, 
 which until then, if in existence at all, was known only to the 
 priests, and which in the Grafian scheme is the latest of the 
 Codes, nearly a thousand years after Moses. We understand 
 now why the question of the date of this Code is so vital and 
 far-reaching. Smend says correctly : "The controversy relates 
 to that part of the Pentateuch which embodies the essential 
 matter of the O. T. law" (Alttest.-Religionsg., 8). 
 
 Obviously, this whole position as over against the other 
 is of the most revolutionary character and, if correct, necessi- 
 tates a reconstruction of the whole Old Testament religion 
 (and indeed of Christianity itself) from the ground up. 
 
 G. GOD, MAN AND THE SUPERNATURAL. 
 
 The six preceding antitheses grow largely out of diametric- 
 ally opposed interpretations of literary and historical data in 
 the early books of the Old Testament. But underneath these 
 opposing view-points there run two antagonistic theories of 
 God and man, of the supernatural and the natural. In the 
 final analysis the issue is transferred to the field of the philoso- 
 
24 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 phy of mind, of history and of the universe. However care- 
 fully disguised, the fact remains that the above schools start 
 from two conflicting theories of the O. T. religion, two different 
 if not irreconcilable, philosophical postulates, the one affirming, 
 the other denying the commonly accepted inferences from a 
 thorough-going theism. 
 
 III. 
 
 ARE THE TRADITIONAL AND ANTI-TRADITIONAL POSITIONS 
 RECONCILABLE? 
 
 I. EACH SCHOOL REGARDS ITS POSITION AS ESTABLISHED. 
 
 Each of the above schools is certain that its view is correct 
 as over against the other. 
 
 (i). Conservatives Firm in Their Attitude. 
 
 The conservatives consider that their view has been placed 
 or is capable of being placed on a solid historical basis and is 
 the only view which guarantees the integrity and inspiration 
 of the Old Testament. A denial of the direct Mosaic author- 
 ship of the Pentateuch is equivalent to a denial of its inspired 
 character; and a denial of its supernatural character in the 
 objective sense means the undermining of the Old Testament 
 (and of the New Testament) as containing a special and super- 
 natural revelation. 
 
 (2). Grafians Deem their Position Established Absolutely. 
 
 The radical critics are thoroughly convinced in their own 
 minds that a rejection of their theory implies a lack of his- 
 toric insight, true scholarship and philosophic acumen. In 
 1882. Strack said : ''Keil is now about the only prominent O. 
 T. scholar who holds to the Mosaic authorship of the entire 
 Pentateuch". Stade regards "the discovery of the origin of 
 the Pentateuch one of the most brilliant triumphs of human 
 genius". * Through the brilliant demonstration of Wellhausen 
 the Grafian hypothesis has attained almost universal supremacv 
 and recognition" (Kautzsch). "It is admitted almost univer- 
 sally that there existed in Israel before Josiah no divine law- 
 book of public authority" (Smend). Recent encyclopaedias, 
 commentaries, Bible histories and compends of theology- from 
 the critical side (so-called) accept the non-Mosaic origin of 
 
TRADITIONAL AND ANTI-TRADITIONAL POSITIONS. 2$ 
 
 the Pentateuch without question; the old view is not thought 
 worthy of serious consideration.^^ 
 
 2. Irreconcilable Antagonism. 
 
 In the opinion of competent judges, the differences between 
 the two schools are too great and far-reaching to admit of 
 reconciliation. Prof. Jordan in a review of G. A. Smith's 
 Modem Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament", 
 remarks : "It is no use attempting to minim^ize the difference 
 between the traditional view and the critical treatment of the 
 Old Testament. The difference is immense; they involve dif- 
 ferent conceptions of the relation of God to the world; differ- 
 ent views as to the course of Israel's history, the process of 
 revelation, and the nature of inspiration. We cannot be lifted 
 from the old to the new position by the influence of a charm- 
 ing literary style or by the force of the most enthusiastic elo- 
 quence" (Am. Jour. Theol. 1902, p., 114). Rev. I. Gibson in 
 a work championing Grafianism, says: 'The traditional and 
 critical views of revelation are face to face in open antagonism". 
 Dr. Hazard in the introduction to Gibson's book regards these 
 theories as mutually destructive : "As compared with the . . . 
 obsolescent treatment of the Bible that was accepted outside the 
 limited circle of specialists down to within the last two or three 
 decades the present system is an advance of such profound 
 significance, that the two are nothing short of mutually de- 
 structive". 
 
 Prof. Volck of Dorpat, a conservative, writes : "Under 
 the influence of Wellhausen the opposition to the churchly con- 
 ception of the Old Testament has developed to the utmost ex- 
 treme. Peace between the two camps is impossible; the gulf 
 which separates them cannot be bridged" (Heil. Schrift u. Kri- 
 tik, p., 190). Meinhold, an advanced critic, concedes that his 
 views are utterly incompatible with the old : "If the new 
 hypotheses are correct, the old conception of the Pentateuch 
 has received its death-blow" , "Accordingly the opponents of 
 scientific criticism are quite right when they speak of its destruc- 
 tive tendency" (op. cit., p., 14). 
 
 '" The most recent commentary on Exodus undertakes to show how modern 
 criticism is warranted "in denying to Moses the authorship of the Pentateuch 
 which our Lord and His apostles ascribed to him" (A. H. McNeile, Booh of 
 Exodus, 1908, p., XI). The two latest commentaries on Genesis, Gordons Early 
 Traditions of Genesis (observe the significant title) and Skinner on Genesis in 
 the International Critical Series (1910), occupy throughout the Grafian view- 
 point. 
 
26 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 A careful study of the Grafian scheme will convince the discrimin- 
 ating reader that it destroys from the ground up the old order of things 
 and substitutes an astoundingly revolutionary hypothesis. It cuts away 
 the foundation of the whole Old Testament religion, in its historic 
 setting, and builds, not on Mosaism as heretofore interpreted, but on the 
 Judaism of a thousand years later. This is no half-way measure; it 
 lays the axe at the very roots ; everything in the Old Testament is 
 re-arranged and reconstructed from a radically different view-point. 
 A lies wird aiif den Kopf gestellt. As Boehl says : "The later criticism 
 has striven to turn every thing up-side-down — has made the lowest the 
 highest, the earliest the latest. Nothing remains longer in its old 
 place" (Gesetz u. Zeugn. p., 148.) 
 
 3. POSSIBILITY OF MEDIATING POSITION. 
 
 It is clear that these mutually exclusive positions arise 
 from different philosophical and theological standpoints, dif- 
 ferent canons of historical criticism and different conceptions 
 of the limits of literary criticism. It is possible that each 
 school, seizing some important principle, develops it one-sidedly 
 and to the exclusion of other equally important principles. 
 Recognizing whatever of truth and validity attaches to either 
 contention, and mediating, if need be, between the extremes, 
 we shall endeavor to reach a safe footing for the solution of 
 the problem. 
 
 Three attitudes are possible toward the critical analysis 
 and the underlying philosophy, i. A rejection of both the 
 analysis and the naturalistic philosophy, as by \N . H. Green. 
 2. An acceptance of both the analysis and the naturaHstic phil- 
 osophy, as by Kuenen. 3. An acceptance of the analysis and 
 a rejection of the naturalistic philosophy, as by Dillmann. 
 Which of these positions is to be adopted, will be seen in the 
 sequel. ^^ 
 
 »• An unfortunate feature of the whole situation on the one hand is, that the 
 rank and file of the Christian Church and perhaps a considerable body of min- 
 isters, are not aware of the real nature of the problem and so rest in fancied 
 security that every tlung is as it was a generation ago; and on the other that the 
 adherents of the VVellhausen camp, convinced of their victory, deny that there 
 IS any longer an enemy in sight. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE LOWER AND THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE 
 OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 Reference having been made in the preceding pages to Old 
 Testament criticism and its real or assumed results, something 
 must be said here regarding its aim and methods. 
 
 I. 
 
 THE LOWER CRITICISM. 
 A. CRITICISM IN GENERAL. 
 
 Criticism ordinarily is merely fault-finding or adverse 
 opinion. Men always have been and doubtless always will be, 
 critics, for they cannot avoid expressing judgments concerning 
 persons, events and books. The universality of criticism leads 
 to its cultivation as a special science. Whoever would express 
 a valid judgment on a painting, a scientific treatise, or a book 
 of the Bible, must possess special fitness and conform to true 
 standards.^ Few men are safe critics, because few have a 
 thorough grasp of all the facts and principles. They mistake 
 their own opinions and preferences for objective truths. The 
 most perfect men are one-sided even in their virtues, leaning 
 like the Scotchman's straight tree a little to one side.^ If men 
 reasoned infallibly there would be little need of criticism. But 
 human attainments are a queer mixture of the true and the 
 false, the correct and the incorrect. The great mass of people 
 accept as true whatever they have learned from teachers and 
 friends or acquired in their limited experience. The trained 
 specialist, however, accepts a conclusion as valid only after a 
 severe test. It is this clash of opinion arising frorn the one- 
 sideness of human attainments which renders criticism in the 
 technical sense a necessity of modern life. 
 
 1 The word criticism comes from a Greek root meaning to separate one thing 
 from another, as the good from the bad, to choose, to discriminate. Here lies 
 the germ of all the meanings, namely to decide any matter of dispute according 
 to reason and accepted standards. According to Kant, criticism aims_ to discover 
 the principle or common ground lying back of every difference of opinion. 
 
 27 
 
2S ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 This spirit of testing everything anew, of inquiring into the cor- 
 rectness of inherited views has invaded Biblical and especially Old Tes- 
 tament science.^ Old truths are rejected, old methods abandoned. New 
 ideas, new methods are in possession of the field. This doubt- 
 ing spirit would dig beneath the very foundations of knowledge 
 and call into question even the eternal verities. This iconoclasm is to 
 be deplored, but it can be met only by a true and safe criticism. The 
 problems of criticism have taken a wide scope through the intellectual 
 temper of the age, and especially through the wide acceptance of the 
 evolutionistic philosophy (whatever that may be). Accordingly Old 
 Testament criticism, though entirely legitimate as a science, is beset 
 with many dangers and difficulties as we shall see. 
 
 B. KINDS OF CRITICISM. 
 
 Much of the confusion in the public mind regarding" criti- 
 cism arises from the wideness of the field and the overlapping 
 of method. The kinds are almost as numerous as the range of 
 subjects; and some subjects admitting half a dozen points of 
 view may be criticized along as many different lines of ap- 
 proach. It is sufficient to notice two principles of classification, 
 which ought to be kept distinct, the one referring to the sub- 
 ject matter, the other to the plan of procedure. Thus any 
 critical process which inquires into the facts and laws of science 
 is called scientific criticism. An investigation into the facts and 
 reliability of history is historical criticism. An explanation of 
 the facts and laws of consciousness is psychological criticism ; 
 and an inquiry into the laws, quahties and characteristics of 
 literature is called literary criticism. In all these the subject- 
 matter suggests the name. 
 
 The second method derives its name from the method of investiga- 
 tion. If the method of science, usually the inductive, is pursued, the 
 process is said to be scientific, even though the subject be an inquiry 
 into the date and authorship of the book of Job or Chronicles.'^ The 
 Grafians claim that their criticism is strictly and exclusively "scientific" 
 and infallible as over against all other methods.* 
 
 ' The recent discoveries in Babylonia, Egypt, Palestine and in Bible lands 
 generally and the new light thrown on ancient life, civilization and religion have 
 impelled men to ask whether some old views about the Bible must not be greatly 
 modified. 
 
 3 There occurs one important exception to the above general rule. In ordin- 
 ary usage, literary criticism is so called solely from the subject matter, the method 
 pursued being scientific, historical, ethical, or a combination of these. Other 
 divisions of criticism have been suggested, as lower and higher, internal and 
 external, subjective and objective, positive and negative, analytic and synthetic, 
 static, dynamic and organic. No strictly logical classification has yet been of- 
 fered, and it is doubtful if such be possible. 
 
 _ * Today induction is lauded as tlie only correct method of Biblical inquiry. 
 It is a powerful agent in collecting facts; and in this respect men today are 
 strong, but they are weak in the interpretation of the facts. Critics often fail 
 to get all the facts, or they fail to interpret correctly the facts in their posses- 
 sion. The inductive method is inadequate when it undertakes to formulate rules, 
 for it cannot classify without some principle of classification, and this is furnished 
 by the deductive logic. 
 
LOWER CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 29 
 
 C. THE LOWER AND THE HIGHER CRITICISM IN GENERAL. 
 
 The most widely current classification is that of Lower and 
 Higher, or Textual and Literary. The terms are not entirely 
 satisfactory, but we retain them as upon the whole the most 
 expressive. 
 
 1. Lower or Textual Criticism. 
 
 This is the science which seeks to recover the exact words 
 of an ancient author. In the case of books written several 
 thousand years ago, whether sacred or secular, we naturally 
 ask, with what degree of fidelity they have been transmitted. 
 Thus if one were to inquire into the character of the works 
 of Josephus, he would first of all examine the correctness of 
 the text, the very words reported to have been used by the 
 historian, and ascertain with what degree of fidelity they have 
 been handed down to our times. Since the inquiry relates to 
 an examination of the manuscripts, the mode of transcription 
 and the faithfulness of copyists, that is to a close scrutiny of the 
 external side of the preservation, it miay with propriety be called 
 external, lower or textual criticism.'' 
 
 2. Higher or Literary Criticism. 
 
 If in the case just supposed, one were to inquire into 
 the date, authorship and credibility of the works ascribed 
 to Josephus, or were to compare his statements with those 
 of other ancient writers, either earlier or later, with the view 
 of determining whether Josephus were correct in his rep- 
 resentations, he would enter the field 'of the Higher Crit- 
 icism. An inquiry into the trustworthiness of the matter it- 
 self (however handed down) falls under this head. As this 
 is a delicate and difficult process, involving sometimes an 
 inquiry into the self-consistency of a document and a com- 
 parison with other documents of disputed date, it may not im- 
 properly be styled internal or higher criticism. Obviously the 
 work of the higher criticism begins only after the text has been 
 established by the lower criticism. As a matter of fact the 
 two branches overlap, and we shall see that many a modern 
 critic, finding a text obscure, undertakes to reconstruct in the 
 interest of a preconceived notion of what an author may have 
 
 5 The term text, shortened from the French texte, is derived from the Latin 
 textus, meaning woven together, that is the warp and woof of words woven 
 together in connected discourse. It denotes either the original words of a book, 
 as distinguished from a commentary, at Kittel's text of the Hebrew Bible, or 
 specifically the letter of Scripture, especially in the original languages. 
 
30 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 said. Nevertheless, some such distinction, as that of lower and 
 higher criticism, is valid. 
 
 D. THE NEED OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 
 
 We do not proceed far in the study of an author of a former 
 period before occasion arises to inquire into the state of the text. Take 
 the works of Shakespeare. The existing text is derived from the four 
 folios and the early quartos, each containing marked peculiarities. An 
 example will show the transformation which a text may undergo in 
 printing and editing. "The Comedy of Errors", V :i, line 147, has in 
 the First Folio, "at your important letters" ; the Second Folio changed 
 "important" to "impoteant"; the Third and Fourth miscorrected to 
 "impotent", and Rowe, a later editor, changed the word to "all-potent"." 
 The text of the Old Testament is in no such deplorable condition as 
 that of Shakespeare, but yet in coming down through many centuries, 
 it was subject to similar errors of transmission. The early editions of 
 the English Bible contained some typographical errors, but only a small 
 number affected the sense.^ Various mistakes occurred in ancient times 
 in the transcription of the Old Testament. No ancient book handed 
 down through many centuries could be kept perfectly free from change 
 without a miracle. Even with the most zealous care, mistakes would 
 arise. The object of textual criticism is to ascertain as nearly as pos- 
 sible the original text of the writings, that is to correct whatever error 
 of language may have crept in through oversight. The aim is not by 
 an evolutionary process to construct a text congenial to the modern 
 mind, but to restore by means of new evidence and a more thorough 
 sifting of old sources the exact words of the original Scripture. 
 
 In such an undertaking we must go back of the printed editions 
 of our Bibles, none of which are earlier than the fifteenth century 
 A. D. It is a well-known fact that the manuscripts furnishing the text 
 of the early printed editions of the Hebrew and Greek Bibles were not 
 of the first rank, and even these were not used to the best advantage.® 
 But in face of all the hindrances, the Old Testament has been handed 
 down in a greater variety of ways and with more safeguards than any 
 other equally ancient book. It was written down with scrupulous 
 accuracy and guarded with the greatest care. Already in early times 
 
 * A Shakespearean critic writes: "The truth is that the text of S. has come 
 down to us from his own time with such imperfections that to form it into a 
 self-consistent v.hole requires a degree of scholarship and of critical acumen 
 beyond that required by the text of any other great poet of the past excepting 
 Homer" (R. G. White, Studies in Shakcsp.). 
 
 / The first ]-'olio Edition of the Authorized Version, 161 1, has among other 
 curious errors the following. Ex. 38: 11 "hoopes" for "hooks"; Levit. 17: 14 
 "ye shall not eat" for "ye shall eat" etc. The second and third Folios correct 
 some of the errors of the first, but introduce others. Thus Ex. 9: 13 "may 
 serve thee" for "may serve me"; Levit. 7: 25 "fast" for "fat". Fortunately, the 
 editions of the Bible put forth in recent times are nearly wholly free from 
 the blemishes of books published a few centuries ago. 
 
 ^Certain manuscripts, now regarded as more accurate than those on which 
 the Received text is based, were not available. Hence, though the Reformation 
 scholars produced remarkably accurate editions, they did not enter upon a criti- 
 cal study of the text, and so did not in all places reproduce the exact words 
 which a more thorough examination of the manuscripts would have yielded. 
 Since their day textual criticism has developed into a science with well-estab- 
 lished rules and principles. 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 3I 
 
 official copies were preserved in places of worship, in the archives of 
 temples, in the homes of priests and prophets, and in the palaces of 
 kings. In the reproduction of copies, every precaution was taken to 
 guard against the insertion of foreign matter. It was translated into 
 Greek and Aramaic already before the Christian era, and into Syriac 
 and Latin shortly after. The material for tracing the text is abundant.' 
 
 II. 
 
 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 A. PROVINCE OF HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 Whenever one inquires into the date, authorship and integ- 
 rity of such books as Joshua, Judges and others of which the 
 Bible gives no direct information, he enters the province of the 
 Higher Criticism. With the exception of the Pentateuch and 
 the prophetical and poetical books, the Old Testament con- 
 tains few indications of date and authorship. If we wish to 
 gratify a natural desire to know something more definite on 
 these subjects, the only course open to us is to institute an 
 inquiry according to accepted literary and historical methods.^*^ 
 Since criticism presupposes some standard of judgment, much 
 depends on the view-point of the critic. If he is conservative 
 and opposed to change, he will be guarded in his conclusions; 
 if he is radical and inclined to accept new views, he may hold 
 as true that which is purely hypothetical. The tendency to 
 suggest all kinds of visionary hypotheses regarding the date 
 and origin of Old Testament books, has brought the Higher 
 Criticism into ill-deserved disrepute. 
 
 We describe three sub-heads of the Higher Criticism. 
 
 I, Age and Authorship. 
 
 It is important to know when, where and by whom a 
 Biblical book was written. If the author's name, but not 
 his age is mentioned, can we by an examination of the book 
 itself and by comparison with what is known of the differ- 
 ent periods of Hebrew history fix his age with any degree 
 of assurance? This is not an idle question, for often a 
 
 ' Since the American Revision is in our judgment the most accurate of 
 the English translations, it is adopted here as the standard of reference. It 
 must be noted, however, that the American revisers adopted for the Old Testa- 
 ment the Received rather than a critically established Hebrew text. 
 
 1" The wide-spread outcry against this, the real aim and function of criti- 
 cism, is therefore misdirected and often betrays great ignorance of the real 
 questions at issue. On the other hand, since criticism is a delicate and dan- 
 gerous process, and is often pure subjectivism, it is not surprising that with the 
 same data, equally competent scholars reach diametrically opposite conclusions. 
 
32 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 knowledge of the people whom the author had in mind lends 
 greater force to the teaching of the book. Or, if neither the 
 author's name nor the date is given, can we by an examination 
 of the internal evidence reach a satisfactory conclusion as to 
 both date and origin? An affirmative answer, though not ab- 
 solutely necessary to an acceptance of the book as credible, 
 inspires a greater degree of confidence in its historical char- 
 acter. 
 
 2. Integrity. 
 
 Some books of the Old Testament are alleged to be com- 
 posite works. In regard to the integrity, we ask, Does a 
 book exhibit signs of unity of plan, purpose and authorship? 
 Or, Does it contain linguistic and historical evidence of hav- 
 ing been compiled from two or more writings by some editor 
 who skillfully wove together the parts suitable to his pur- 
 pose? Again, has the work under any view been handed 
 down unimpaired or without long additions through many cen- 
 turies; or, have words and sentences, and even whole para- 
 graphs been incorporated in the text? When we recall that 
 there was no copyright in ancient times and that everything 
 once published was public property, and further that in histori- 
 cal writing, it was regarded as desirable to reproduce the very 
 language of a document as proof of accuracy, we need not be 
 surprised that the ancient literary world boldly appropriated 
 whatever came its way. The Old Testament contains many 
 references to books and writings, and so we must conclude that 
 the authors of the several books had access to authentic docu- 
 ments and used them freely. Thus the question of the man- 
 ner in which the Old Testament books were compose'd cannot 
 be evaded. 
 
 3. Credibility. 
 
 Another important subject is that of credibility. Does 
 the matter of an Old Testament book accord with the social, 
 historical and religious condition of its supposed age as known 
 from contem.porary sources, or does it contain contradictions, 
 inaccuracies and anachronisms? In short is the book reli- 
 able and credible? Until within recent years, every state- 
 ment in the Bible was regarded as absolutely correct; and 
 such may really be the case. But in these latter days men 
 openly call in question the accuracy and reliability of some 
 parts. The only course open to the apologist is to accept the 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 33 
 
 challenge. It matters not how the issue is raised, whether 
 through honest doubt, defiant scepticism or intellectual pride, 
 when once raised, it must be met by the defenders of the Old 
 Testament; otherwise the inference will be drawn that no 
 defence is possible. 
 
 B. HIGHER CRITICISM ILLUSTRATED FROM THE BOOK OF JOEL. 
 
 We may illustrate the problems and method of the Higher Criti- 
 cism by a concrete case, the book of Joel. The date is not mentioned 
 in the Bible or in early literature. The only evidence available, the 
 internal, is differently interpreted; hence the dates assigned vary from 
 ^75 to 330 B. C. _Why this uncertainty? Chiefly because there is no 
 fixed and unquestioned starting-point. How do the critics proceed? 
 They examine every word, phrase, historical statement and scrap of 
 information which can possibly be regarded as indicating date; in the 
 light of the material gained, they construct a theory to account for the 
 greatest number of facts. It is assumed that the writer will uncon- 
 sciously reflect the customs, ideas and peculiarities of his age; but 
 some works, as the Pentateuch, Job, Joel, are so devoid of precise 
 references to contemporaneous events that keen-eyed critics and learned 
 antiquarians are not agreed- on the significance of the internal evidence. 
 
 In the case of Joel the facts are substantially as follows, i. He 
 refers to Tyre, Sidon, the Philistines, Javan, Sabaeans, Egypt and 
 Edom; he makes no reference to Assyrians, Syrians, or Chaldeans;, 
 the Ten Tribes are not mentioned. It is doubtful if the term Israel 
 in 2 : 27 and 3 : 16 means the Northern Kingdom, or stands for Judah 
 after the deportation of the Ten Tribes (721). 2. The name of the 
 king is not mentioned, but elders are alluded to. 3. The valley of 
 Jehoshaphat is mentioned, presumably from the king of that name. 
 4. Jehovah's people is "a reproach among the nations," 2 : 19 and 
 Israel is "scattered among the nations", 3:3. 5. "Egypt shall be a 
 desolation, and Edom shall be a desolate wilderness for the violence to 
 the children of Judah", 3 : 19. From such data the critics agree that 
 the composition is either early (before 736) or late (after 500). The 
 problem is thus narrowed to the question, whether an early or a late 
 date best suits all the conditions." 
 
 The arguments for determining the date cluster around: (i) The 
 Style and Language; (2) The Historical Situation. 
 
 I. The Style and Language. 
 
 "The language", says Koenig, "is of such a character that it 
 may most properly be placed at the beginning of the second chief 
 period of O. T. literature", i. e. comparatively early. "The style 
 of Joel is clear and of a high order, and the language compara- 
 
 ^ Since no mention is made of Syria, Assyria, or Babylon, and since from 
 the time of Amos (760) to the Exile of Judah, one or the other of these powers, 
 is constantly mentioned by the prophets, it is inferred that Joel wrote before 
 Assyria began to threaten the chosen people, or after Babylon ceased to be dan- 
 gerous; that is the date is prior to circa 750 (Eichhorn, Credner, Hitzig, Ewald, 
 Schrader, Orelli, Dillmann, Baudissin, Koenig) ; or later than the fall of Baby- 
 lon, 536, (Vatke, Merx, Stade, Kuenen, Cornill, Wellhausen, Driver, Cheyne, 
 Wildeboer, Nowack, W. R. Harper). 
 
 3 
 
34 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 lively pure'' (G. G. Cameron, Hast. Bib. Die). "The style of Joel 
 is bright and flowing; and the contrast, which is palpable, with Haggai 
 or Malachi, is no doubt felt by many as a reason against the view that 
 his prophecy dates from the same general period of the history" 
 (Driver, Lit.). The language would seem to favor an early date. 
 
 2. The Historical Situation. 
 
 (i). Arguments for the early date are: a. The position of Joel 
 in the series of Minor Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos) favors the 
 early date. b. In the time of Joel the Temple service was regular- 
 ly maintained, the priests were highly esteemed, etc. Hence about 
 775. c. This period agrees best with the absence of reference to 
 Syria, etc. Only a pre-Exilic writer would mention Tyre, Sidon 
 and Philistia as among the enemies of Israel, d. There is a pos- 
 sible historical allusion in "the valley of Jehoshaphat" (2: 2, 12) to 
 the great victory of Jehoshaphat over Aloab (2 Chron. 20: 1-20), when 
 Jehovah fought for his people (860). This triumph, fresh in the minds 
 of all, may have suggested the language and imagery of the prophet, 
 e. Joel has no reference, direct or indirect, to events of the Persian or 
 Greek periods. This is unaccountable if the book is late. f. Amos i : 
 2 and 9 : 13 clearly imply Joel 3 : 16 and 3 : 18 respectively, for the Joel 
 passages suit the context better, g. The term Israel 2: 17; 3 : 16 is a 
 generic name of Judah, current before and after the defection of the 
 Northern Kingdom.^^ 
 
 {2). The arguments for a late date are: a. "I shall bring back the 
 captivity, etc.," implies the Babylonian Captivity, b. In Joel, Judah 
 and the people of Judah are synonymous terms. Northern Israel has 
 disappeared. Under Joash the limitation of the people of Jehovah to 
 Judah is wholly inconceivable. Hence the book was written after 721. 
 c. The mention of priests, and the non-mention of kings and princes 
 cannot be accounted for by dating the book during the minority of 
 Joash. d. The assumption of a period before the eighth century when 
 spiritual prophecy had full sway is not consistent with history, e. Since 
 the ritual is represented as in full force, the book is later than Ezekiel 
 (582) and the Le\4tical legislation, f. The attitude of the prophet 
 toward the heathen nations implies an approach toward the exclusive- 
 ness of later Judaism." 
 
 3. Inferences and Deductions. 
 
 Such is in general the method pursued in ascertaining the date. 
 We first examine the language in the hope that some word or 
 phrase known to have been used in a certain period may furnish 
 a clue to the age. In this case the evidence inclines, though not 
 without exception, to the early date. Then we examine the histori- 
 cal setting. Here the material is limited in extent, for the^ book 
 has only three chapters of 73 verses and contains comparatively 
 
 12 The claim that the phrase "the sons of Javan", i. e. the Greeks, implies 
 a late date, may be offset by the view of Baudissin: "It is not clear why it may 
 not have come to pass in the ninth or eighth century B. C. that the Phoenicians, 
 who from early times had business relations with Greece, and perhaps also the 
 Philistines, may have sold prisoners of war to the Greeks" {Einl. 493). 
 
 " In (2) above we have drawn largely on the article "Joel" in the Ency 
 Bib. which is a fair statement for that side. 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 35 
 
 few references to contemporary circumstances. But intensively the 
 field is broad, for Joel is rich in imagery and developes his central 
 thought, "the day of Jehovah", with wonderful scope and suggestive- 
 ness. Since his prophecies outline the future course of Israel's history, 
 critics of one school place him at the very beginning of the writing 
 prophets, those of another, near the close. Broadly speaking he fits 
 in in either place; at least no one may dogrnatically affirm that the 
 case is thus or so. It is a matter of literary, historical and theological 
 investigation, and doubtless sooner or later, Biblical scholars will be 
 able to settle the question one way or the other. We have dwelt thus 
 minutely on this one book with the intent that the reader may gain a 
 clear idea of some of the problems and difficulties of Old Testament 
 Higher Criticism.^* 
 
 C. THE NAME AND NATURE OF THE SCIENCE. 
 
 The plirase Higher Criticism was used originally in con- 
 trast with Lower Criticism as denoting a more subtle and deli- 
 cate weighing of evidence. With the constantly enlarging 
 scope of criticism, it has come to involve far more important 
 doctrinal consequences than the Lower Criticism. But the 
 phrase is unfortunately chosen, since as merely antithetic to 
 something else, it explains nothing and invites all kinds of mis- 
 leading inferences. The name itself, the confusion in the pub- 
 lic mind as to its real nature, and the revolutionary views of 
 some critics, have brought the whole science into widespread 
 odium. 
 
 I. Literary Criticism. 
 
 Some have suggested the phrase Literary Criticism, but 
 this is employed in various senses.^^ The aim here is not 
 the criticism of the literary qualities of the Old Testament. 
 W-e do not ask primarily whether the writing awakens emo- 
 tions of beauty and pleasure, and belongs to the sphere of 
 high art; whether it is the work of a master, or of a nov- 
 ice ; whether it is good prose, or bad poetry. These sub- 
 jects are dealt with only incidentally as a means of solving 
 the problems of origin, composition and religious value. The 
 
 " The question of the date of Joel is a part of other inter-related subjects. 
 Thus, since the Levitical laws relating to worship seem to be in force, the whole 
 question of the date of the Priest Code is brought to bear on the discussion. 
 Those who adopt the Dillmann view of the early date of P, consider the refer- 
 ences to the ritual as entirely consistent with an early date; but "almost all 
 who place that legislation later than Ezekiel, are agreed that the book of_ Joel 
 is also late" (Ency. Bib. col. 2495). As one's view of a subject is conditioned 
 by the system of thought in which he moves, the literary analysis is affected by 
 the philosophical and theological postulates of the critic. 
 
 15 "Any critical process which deals with literature is called literary criti- 
 cism" (Gayley and Scott, Literary Criticism). The purpose of literary criti- 
 cism, as usually understood, is to point out what in literature is good and what 
 bad; to interpret and make clear what is obscure; to regulate literary taste; and 
 to give some idea of the scope and character of a book. 
 
36 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Old Testament may indeed be viewed as literature, but, as 
 Moulton has pointed out, Hebrew literature has certain dis- 
 tinguishing features. First, "it has not developed a separate 
 and distinct drama. The reader of the Bible knows that he 
 will find in it no acted play like the plays of Shakespeare" 
 (Lit. Study of Bible, iii). Again, prophecy is a special de- 
 partment of Hebrew literature. "The distinction of prophecy 
 is not one of form, but of spirit : Biblical prophecy, in a sense 
 that belongs to no other class of literature, presents itself as an 
 actual divine message" (ihid,)}^ Since the Old Testament 
 constitutes a special kind of literature, the phrase ''Literary 
 Criticism" is too narrow and inexact for the science under 
 review. 
 
 2. Historical Criticism. 
 
 Others have preferred the term Historical Criticism. 
 Since the Old Testament contains historical books and not 
 a little history in the other books, the question arises whether 
 we may not go back of the records and inquire into the cor- 
 rectness of the statements, and use such material as an in- 
 dex of the age and authorship. Under this view the in- 
 quiry may take wide range, for one critic may call in ques- 
 tion one part of the narrative, another another, until prac- 
 tically every chapter and verse is challenged on one ground 
 or another. In recent years critics have questioned the correct- 
 ness of so many statements and professed to be able to readjust 
 Old Testament history at so many points that on their theory 
 little of history remains. Thus understood, the kernel of the 
 modern view of the Old Testament is a reconstruction (often a 
 destruction) of what was formerly regarded as historical. The 
 historicity of the Old Testament is, therefore, regarded by some 
 as the central problem of the Higher Criticism. 
 
 3. Literary-Historical Criticism. 
 
 Since the analysis of the Old Testament (and especially 
 the Pentateuch) into documents is no less essential to the 
 critical process than the determination of the historical data, 
 most German and English writers use the phrase Literary- 
 Historical, which expresses at least two important phases of 
 the movement. As a matter of fact, however, Old Testa- 
 
 " Moulton would restrict literary criticism to a study of the form and 
 spirit of the Old Testament and leave to historical criticism the other questions 
 of the Higher Criticism. 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 37 
 
 ment criticism' has come to include every kind of investiga- 
 tion, literary, historical, linguistic, psychological, archaeolog- 
 ical, comparative, philosophical and theological, and has in- 
 vaded every department of inquiry in the search of light on 
 the Old Testament religion. At bottom it is less a literary 
 and historical, than a philosophical movement, and ultimate- 
 ly it must be fought out on philosophic lines. Since, as mat- 
 ters now stand, everything in heaven and earth is brought in- 
 to the drag-net of this branch of Biblical study and since no 
 altogether satisfactory term has been proposed, we personally 
 prefer, though with some reluctance, to retain the old phrase 
 ''Higher Criticism", as under present conditions the most sug- 
 gestive and comprehensive, without thereby indicating any par- 
 ticular school, whether conservative or radical, Grafian or anti- 
 Grafian, since all are higher critics in one sense or another. 
 
 D. THE METHOD OF OLD TESTAMENT HIGHER CRITICISM. 
 
 In the absence of external proof, criticism is driven to 
 argue from internal peculiarities usually classed as literary, 
 historical and theological. 
 
 I. The Literary Method or Argument. 
 
 (i). Vocabulary and Style. It is well known that each 
 person has a more or less definite stock of words and phrases 
 which are employed to express the most diverse thoughts and 
 feelings. ^^ This peculiarity runs through Hterature in greater 
 or less degree and is seized upon by the critic as an index of 
 authorship. On the basis of vocabulary and style we have two 
 antagonistic views regarding the authorship of the Pentateuch. 
 One view is that if Moses wrote the Pentateuch it would all 
 be written in the same style, but since the difference of style 
 is great, we must assume a plurality of authors. The other 
 view is that the difference in style, though marked, is not of 
 such a character as to demand a plurality of authors. Dr. 
 Briggs formulates the rule thus : "Differences of style imply 
 differences of experience and age of the same author [and 
 difference of subject], or when sufficiently great, difference of 
 
 " If one were to prepare lists of key-words in a book it would be found 
 that the tendency is toward the recurrence of certain words revealing the age 
 and view-point of the author. This peculiarity is especially noticeable in the 
 Hebrew Old Testament, Books not being plentiful, writers were left to choose 
 their own stock of words. Sometimes when the right word was found it was 
 used on similar occasions afterward without fear of the charge of tautology. 
 This led to a certain monotony of expression, objectionable stylistically, but help- 
 ful to the critic. 
 
38 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 author and of period of composition". The question is whether 
 the difference in style in the Pentateuch is so great as to prove 
 difference of authorship. 
 
 The divisive critics claim to have discovered such a wide 
 difference in the words and phrases of the Hexateuch as to 
 demand a partition into the documents described above. The 
 argument is, however, vitiated somewhat by the view now 
 commonly held by these critics that the documents are the pro- 
 duct of "schools" shading into each other. ^^ 
 
 (2). Value of Argument from Style. Under certain con- 
 ditions the argument from literary quality may be safely used. 
 Such is the case when a writing is known to emanate from a 
 certain author who is also reputed to have written other works. 
 We may then examine the peculiarities of his style and phrase- 
 ology and conclude that another work, brought into relation 
 with it and exhibiting in a marked degree the same peculiarities, 
 probably emanates from the same source. But even here we 
 cannot reach absolute certainty, for it has been shown that 
 the known works of an author may differ widely from each 
 other in language and style.^^ 
 
 In Pentateuch criticism the situation is indescribably com- 
 plicated. We have scarcely any unchallenged starting-point 
 for the dissection into documents. The critic examines the 
 literary phenonena, classifies words and phrases, conceives that 
 such and such expressions proceed from one author, such and 
 such from another, and concludes that the Pentateuch must have 
 been compiled from the documents J, E, D, and P. The anal- 
 ysis is made to correspond to the assumed characteristics of the 
 four hypothetical writers, and the parts not agreeing with the 
 analysis are simply considered as supplied by the ever present 
 editor. Curious results are obtained if we apply such a test 
 to EngHsh writers.^*^ Thus, Bacon's later writings surpass the 
 
 ^*' Driver finds 41 characteristic expressions in D, 50 in P and 20 in H; 
 Holzinger 125 in J and 198 in E. 
 
 " This has been illustrated from the Latin poet Horace. The "Ars Poetica" 
 contains many words and phrases not found in his other writings: as ah ovo, 
 in medias res, ore rotundo, ad uugucm, vivas voces, sagax rerum, sesquipedalia, 
 laudator temporis acti, the simile of the mountain and the mouse, and the prov- 
 erb, occupct extremum scabies, all of them often quoted. One might suppose that 
 having used these expressions once, Horace would use them again; but the fact 
 is that a writer of the first rank might use least often that which we most 
 admire. Another strange fact is that this poem is preceded by two others of 
 similar style and character, and yet its vocabulary is entirely unique. Accord- 
 ing to the principles of some Grafian critics these Hapax legomena indicate a 
 different autl^or; but how utterly absurd to reject the traditional authorship on 
 any such ground I 
 
 ^** Koenig reminds us that the results of such criticism may be challenged 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 39 
 
 earlier in vigor and variety. So in the case of Burke, whose 
 style at twenty was ''simple and unadorned; at forty it was 
 rich and copious; at fifty ornate and florid, and at seventy 
 gorgeous". The prose writings of Milton differ so much from 
 the 'Taradise Lost" that if style alone were considered it would 
 appear that he could not have written both.-^ 
 
 Similar strange results follow from an examination of the 
 style of Old Testament books of known authorship.-^ 
 
 It is generally conceded by the Grafians that the evidence 
 from style alone is not conclusive. Cheyne says : "Linguis- 
 tic arguments do not furnish a positive or conclusive argument." 
 So, too, Kuenen.-^ 
 
 2. The Historical Method or Argument. 
 
 (i). Direct Reference. The validity of the historical ar- 
 gument is based on the claim that a document reflects the 
 character of its age. Thus a book containing references to 
 contemporaneous events recorded in other works, or to per- 
 sons known to have lived at a certain time, originated in or 
 subsequent to that age. The principle is that an author uncon- 
 sciously reflects the peculiarities of his environment, much as 
 men today conform to the ideas of their time. When an 
 ancient writer, however remote, refers directly to events of his 
 time or indicates the internal between his and an earlier age, 
 or even in a casual way alludes to events recorded by other 
 writers, the critic has a definite period and may reason thence 
 
 at many points "by the difficulties arising from the comparatively small body 
 of Hebrew literature and the absolutely certain date of only a fraction of the 
 O. T. The critic has therefore only a relatively small amount of material of 
 unquestioned date as his point of departure, and may err by attaching too much 
 or too little significance to one or another part of the writing" (Einl.). 
 
 21 On the same principle Scott's "Ladv of the Lake" and the "Life of 
 Napoleon" were written by two different persons; and Byron's "Don Juan", 
 "Childe Harold", and "English Bards and Scotch Reviewers" by three persons. 
 Similar difficulties arise in French and German literature. On the principle of 
 the Grafians, the "Pucille", the "Henriade" and the "Charles XII" of Voltaire 
 were written by three distinct authors. And what shall we say of the second 
 Part of Goethe's "Faust" compared with the First, and even sections in the 
 First part compared with each other? 
 
 22 Thus the divisive critics, while admitting the genuineness of the greater 
 part of the first 39 chapters of Isaiah, deny that the last 27 are by Isaiah. The 
 Isaian origin of chapter one is universally admitted. But it is found that the 
 surprisingly large number of 45 words occur only in chap, one and chaps. 40-66. 
 It would follow, therefore either that the Isaian authorship of chas. 40-66 must 
 be conceded, or that of chapter one denied. Either alternative is fatal to the 
 argument from style. 
 
 2s "The extant Israelitish literature is too limited in extent to enable us to 
 determine the age of any work with certainty from mere considerations ot lan- 
 guage and style" (Hexat.). 
 
40 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 as to the exact date of a writing.-* Strangely enough a very 
 considerable part of the Old Testament lacks local and con- 
 temporaneous color. The writers were thoroughly absorbed 
 in their theme and looked on the inner rather than the outer 
 world. They were not always men of affairs in the political 
 sphere. They took little or no note of current happenings; 
 they lived apart from the great streams of history, caring lit- 
 tle for anything beyond their immediate horizon. Communi- 
 cation with the outside world was difficult and infrequent; 
 news, even of the rise and fall of dynasties, of great battles and 
 world-conquests, traveled slowly and sometimes never reached 
 their ears. This is true especially of the Hebrews from the 
 time of Abraham to Joseph and from Moses to David. All 
 this increases the difficulty of estabHshing the date of early Old 
 Testament writings. 
 
 (2). Proof from the Subject-Matter. Doubt arises regarding the 
 date of some books because the references to local and contem- 
 porary events are so meager and general that they may be differ- 
 ently interpreted. Here the method is much the same as in deter- 
 mining the authorship of anonymous or pseudonymous books. It 
 has been found that of the ten thousand anonymous books of the 
 world, no well attested case exists of a book, the approximate date of 
 which was not ultimately determined by criticism. Even the_ most 
 astute and accomplished literary imposter invariably betrays his age 
 and century by slips in language, geography, or place and time of com- 
 position. He invariably attributes to his assumed chronological period 
 some custom, law or institution which is known to have originated 
 later. The ill-success of Chatterton and Macpherson (Ossian) might 
 be cited in proof of the rule. The Old Testament critic may apply this 
 canon in two ways. He may point out that the book in question exhib- 
 its marks of a later age. In that case he will inquire whether such 
 phenomena are few and scattered, or numerous and_ characteristic. In 
 the former event he may allow that the book is genuine, but that words 
 and even paragraphs were inserted afterward (so the conservative crit- 
 ics) ; in the latter he would hold that the work is a compilation of late 
 date (so the Grafians), 
 
 (3). Argument from Anachronisms. The argument from ana- 
 chronisms (i. e. errors in assigning the date of an event) has been 
 used as a means of disproving the alleged date of a book. Thus the 
 use of the word cannon in Shakespeare's King John is an anachronism, 
 as cannon were not employed in England until a century after his 
 reign. How can the critic base an argument on anachronisms? As 
 follows. If a book mentions an event (predictive prophecy excepted), 
 the book, or at least the part in which the statement is made, must be 
 later than the event. It is of course possible, and in some instances 
 probable, that the book is earlier than the sentence in question, and that 
 the latter is a later addition. 
 
 " By this method the date of the book of Amos is fixed at 760, and the 
 "Song of Deborah" 1150 — iioo, B, C. 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 4I 
 
 Literary impostures have often been exposed by the argument from 
 anachronisms. This was the method pursued by Richard Bentley in 
 establishing the spuriousness of the so-called "Epistles of Phaleris'V 
 He showed that the Epistles mentioned towns, words, events, and 
 authors not in existence until long after the time of Phaleris. Bentley's 
 line of argument opened a new era in scholarship, and he is really the 
 founder of literary and historical criticism, rather than Wolf (Proleg. 
 ad Homeriim), as Germans admit. His success in this field filled the 
 learned world with astonishment, since for fifteen centuries the Epistles 
 had universally been regarded as genuine. 
 
 The same argument has been applied to the Pentateuch, but to the 
 writer it seems certain, that the Pentateuch, even if the theory of codes 
 in some sense be allowed, reflects so truly and correctly the conditions 
 of the Mosaic age and is so devoid of anachronisms (barring a small 
 number of later insertions) that the bulk of its matter must somehow 
 have come down from a period far more remote than the Davidic. 
 
 (4). Argument from Silence. The argument from silence has been 
 employed more frequently perhaps than any other. But its validity 
 depends on special circumstances. Silence may imply different things 
 not always easily determined. 
 
 a. Matter Foreign to Plan. As each independent writer has his 
 own individuality, he is a law unto himself, accepting or rejecting as 
 deemed best. Since he cannot reproduce all that he knows, he omits 
 what is unessential to his plan. He writes for the immediate present 
 and furnishes what seems the most important. He is the judge of 
 what is the most suitable under the circumstances, rather than a critic 
 two thousand years later; and this, too, in harmony with historical 
 composition under any view, for up to a certain point, all true literary 
 art is consciously unconscious of its processes; and so it is absurd 
 to suppose that our ancient author sits down and by a mathematical 
 calculation determines what is and what is not to be omitted. And 
 yet critics go far afield in the attempt to prove that because an Old 
 Testament writer fails to refer to some law, institution or mode of 
 worship, such institutions were not in existence. Nothing could be 
 more unscientific and unpsychological.^* 
 
 3. The Theological Method or Argument. 
 
 Strictly this head ought to be designated by some such 
 phrase as the argument from thought or the religious setting, 
 
 25 Phaleris, a ruler of Agrigentum, Sicily, about 550 B. C, was the author 
 of certain valuable Epistles which by some mischance were lost and have never 
 been recovered. Wishing to gratify a demand for them, a Greek writer some 
 six or eight centuries later produced the famous, but spurious Epistles. 
 
 28 b. The second form of the argument is generally stated so vaguely that 
 it has little force. If an author neglect to state facts bearing on the subject in 
 hand and materially modifying, or negativing what he says, it may be inferred 
 either that he wrote before the event took place, or that he had no knowledge ot 
 it. Here again it is only rarely possible to reach even a provisional conclusion. 
 News travelled slowly in ancient Israel; it took longer in the time of David tor 
 a message from Damacus to reach Jerusalem than to encircle the globe a half 
 dozen times today. We can scarcely picture to ourselves the disadvantages ot 
 ancient writers in ascertaining facts deemed valuable by us. What we consider 
 essential is often an inference from statements of authors whose judgment we 
 impugn. 
 
42 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 since it refers to the religious ideas expressed or implied in the 
 writing. But used in a broad sense, the term is sufficiently ex- 
 pressive. The thoughts of a writer are indicative of his men- 
 tal qualities, education and environment. Just as the soil out 
 of which vegetation grows imparts a certain flavor, so the 
 school in which a man is educated, or his early associations, or 
 the literature read by him, find expression directly or indirectly 
 in his writing. Even an original genius like Aristotle, Shakes- 
 peare, Isaiah, betrays to some extent the source of his material. 
 So in the strictly religious or theological sphere, men approach 
 a theme from different sides and subjective tendencies. This 
 is seen in the difference between the books of the Bible : Isaiah 
 compared with Jeremiah, or Matthew with John. In Biblical 
 theology the period of the authors is known at least approxi- 
 mately, and the sameness or difference in point of view indi- 
 cated and compared. But in criticism we are supposed to argue 
 from the theological content of a writing to its origin, which 
 is a far more difficult and delicate undertaking. 
 
 Ciimulative Value of the Three Methods. As seen above, 
 the literary method alone yields no absolutely certain results; 
 the theological argument is scarcely more satisfactory, since it 
 can be resorted to only on the basis of a provisional order of 
 the books and of an assumed philosophy of history and mental 
 development, both of which (in this case) imply reasoning in 
 a circle. The historical-archaeological argument is the most 
 satisfactory in this field. When historical and archaeological 
 facts, especially those discovered in recent times, are brought 
 to bear on the Old Testament books and point in a certain direc- 
 tion, either confirming or opposing the traditional date, the 
 argument has great and in some cases a decisive value. So, 
 too, if the three lines of argument converge to the same point. 
 
 E. PRINCIPLES AND METHOD OF PRESENT INQUIRY. 
 
 Since our inquiry relates to a remote past and the utmost 
 care is required, it is necessary to note a few general principles 
 in the examination of and citation from, ancient records. 
 First Principle: Essential, not Absolute Historical Certainty. 
 
 In dealing with the remote past, not absolute, but merely relative 
 certainty, is attainable. Indeed the same is true of comparatively recent 
 history. The principle was fully discussed by Prof. E. A. Freeman; 
 "A very little thought will bring any of you to see that absolute cer- 
 tainty is unattainable by the very best historical evidence. . . Let any 
 man take his own personal experience. Let him begin at the beginning. 
 Every man fancies that he knows who he is; but he does not really 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 43 
 
 know it for certain. He knows it only as he knows a fact of past 
 history. No man can say of his own knowledge that he is really the 
 son of those whom he believes to be his parents ; he believes that he 
 is so only as he believes that William the Conqueror landed at Pevensy; 
 he believes it because he has been told it on what he believes to be trust- 
 worthy evidence." (Method of Hist. Study). 
 
 If the rules which some critics apply to the study of the Bible 
 were carried out in daily life, everything would be thrown into the 
 utmost confusion. "You believe," says Freeman, "that I am Regius 
 Professor of Modem History; I believe it myself. But you have no 
 proof of the fact, neither have I. Yet I did not decline to act because 
 it is possible that what I believe to be Her Majesty's sign-manual 
 appointing me may have been a forgery— for I certainly did not myself 
 see her Majesty sign it" (op. cit. p., 152). "It has become almost a 
 proverb that no two eye-witnesses describe the same event in exactly 
 
 the same way According to the different turns of men's minds, 
 
 one man will be most struck by one aspect of what he sees and another 
 by another; in their reports, therefore, there is likely to be a wide dif- 
 ference in the relations and proportions in which things are put" (ibid, 
 124). 
 
 Speaking of unlikely happenings, Freemian says : "A thing which 
 is really physically impossible we do not under ordinary circumstances 
 believe. But those things which we often loosely call impossible merely 
 because they are unlikely, are often the more likely to be true because 
 they are so unlikely. That is to say they are so very unlikely that no 
 one is likely to have said that they happened unless they really did 
 happen. And when you can say this, it amounts to a very high degree 
 of probability indeed" (ibid, 128).^^ 
 
 These observations of Freeman are manifestly so just and sensible 
 that is would seem impossible to ignore them ; and yet some critics 
 persistently and ignorantly violate common-sense rules.^^ 
 
 Second Principle: A Document Genuine Until Spuriousness Established. 
 
 A second principle of investigation is that a document coming down 
 from the historic past is to be considered genuine until its spuriousness 
 is established. If a man tenders me a ten dollar bill in payment of a 
 debt, its genuineness is assumed ; and I accept it without question. 
 Any other course would necessitate an intricate line of proof. Hypo- 
 thetically the bill may be spurious, but only one in many thousand is 
 found to be so. The contingency is so remote that it may be left out of 
 
 _ 2T Freeman says further: "Many people think that a proposition is proved 
 if it cannot be disproved. It is a deep saying of Grote that if a man chooses 
 to say that rain fell on the site of NewYork on the day of the battle of Platea, 
 no one can prove that it did not; only he can not prove that it did. That is 
 no one can know anything about the matter" {ibid, 144). What would become of 
 some of Wellhausen's arguments if this canon of criticism were applied? 
 
 2* Freeman also condemns the tendency to reject duplicate narratives: *'At 
 every step we meet with something which warns us that the practice of rejecting 
 a story merely because something very like it happened once before, is one that 
 must be used with great caution. As a matter of fact, events often do repeat 
 one another; it is likely that they should repeat one another, not only are like 
 causes likely to produce like results, but in events that depend on the human 
 will it is often likely that one man will act in a certain way simply because 
 another man acted in the same way before him" (p. 139)' 
 
44 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 account. Likewise as to ancient records : they are as a rule genuine, 
 the Biblical no less than the Babylonian, Egyptian and Assyrian." 
 
 Eduard Meyer, author of a number of works on ancient history and 
 himself somewhat of a free lance, deplores the tendency of some critics 
 to question in a wholesale manner the authenticity and credibility of 
 the Old Testament Scriptures. Later investigators, he observes, start 
 with the extant sources. If these "are not in accord with the hypoth- 
 esis, they are pronounced spurious. This is a very questionable proced- 
 ure in the field of historical investigation; for an historical document, 
 if genuine, is a witness which silences all opposition". It may indeed 
 happen that a genuine document contains statements which at first 
 glance are irreconcilable, but in reality admit of explanation ; in that 
 event the document itself furnishes the key to a more correct under- 
 standing of its statements and scope. "Facts cannot be mastered by 
 hypotheses and conjectures. The historian must first of all search for 
 well-established facts, irrespective of any theory he may have enter- 
 tained" (Entstehung d. Jtidentiims, p., 4). 
 
 Since the Old Testament writings, especially those prior to Ezra, 
 have come down to us through the medium of copies, it would be easy 
 to deny their genuineness and correctness, and demand absolute proof. 
 Such is essentially the attitude of the Grafians. An hypothesis, how- 
 ever remote and unsupported, is set up, and unless proof can be adduced 
 that it is false, its correctness is forthwith assumed. The above obser- 
 vations of Freeman neatly nail this kind of argumentation (or sophis- 
 try). Meyer's comments are also instructive: "The task of establish- 
 ing the genuineness of documents preserved by transcription, so that 
 doubt is silenced, is, as many examples from historical literature show, 
 no easy one. A doubt may easily be expressed; and even if it is wholly 
 unfounded, or if the alleged arguments are immediately refuted semper 
 aliquid haeret ('something always sticks'). If the original document 
 be extant, the writing material, the palaeography and other details 
 furnish external proof of a more or less decisive character regarding 
 genuineness ; such proof is lacking in the case of literary transmis- 
 sion" (Op. cit. p., 4). Meyer proceeds to show that even in the latter 
 case the document must be regarded as authentic, if it be possible to 
 prove that no motive for fraud exists, and that it is intelligible from 
 contemporaneous circumstances and contains between the lines much 
 which is not found at all or only partly in other sources, but which 
 throws a new light on the latter, and proves that the document cannot 
 be a fabrication of a later writer" (ibid). 
 
 Under these conditions, according to Meyer, the document must be 
 considered genuine and trustworthy. Then follows the principle laid 
 down by Meyer: "It cannot be sufficiently emphasized, although it is 
 often ignored, that in the case of a document transmitted from the 
 historic past, the burden of proof lies ivith the assailants of its gen- 
 uineness, not with its defenders". This principle we regard as valid 
 for the Old Testament writings, the earliest no less than the latest. 
 
 -» The few instances in which Egyptians, Babylonians and Assyrians fal- 
 sified records may be left out of account. 
 
 '" The exact language of Meyer runs: "Es kann nicht genug betont werden, 
 obwohl es oft genug verkannt wird; bei einem aus historischer Zeit ueberliefer- 
 ten Dokument steht die Beweispflicht den Angreifern der Aechtheit zu, nicht den 
 Vertheidigern" (op. cit. p., 6). Meyer has in mind more directly the Ezraic 
 period, but the principle is equally valid for earlier Old Testament history. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 THE SEMITIC PEOPLE AND LANGUAGES. 
 
 I. 
 
 THE PEOPLE. 
 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS. 
 
 In determining the antiquity of Hebrew writing and liter- 
 ature, it is necessary to ascertain the historic situation from 
 which the Hebrews emerged and came upon the field of his- 
 tory. The Hebrews were one of a number of Semitic people 
 and had racial affinities with many of their neighbors. The 
 roots of their culture and civilization were imbedded in Semitic 
 soil. The Hebrews, to be sure, are commonly represented as 
 a separate and isolated people. This is true ta a certain de- 
 gree, for their religion (that of the Old Testament) is sui 
 generis. Nevertheless in their cultural relations they came in- 
 to contact with and under the influence of the Babylonians, 
 Egyptians, Amorites, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Aramaeans, and 
 Assyrians, as well as a number of less important people, as the 
 Hittites, Moabites and Ammonites. We accordingly review 
 briefly the Semitic people and languages, their script, Egyptian 
 writing and literature, Babylonian writing and literature, sys- 
 tems of writing and writing material in ancient times. All 
 these subjects are important, if we wish to ascertain when the 
 Hebrews learned the art of writing and began to cultivate liter- 
 ature; and whether they employed the Egyptian, the cunei- 
 form or the Phoenician script in their early history. 
 
 2. CHARACTER AND INFLUENCE OF THE SEMITES. 
 
 The most important of the Semitic people, as enumerated 
 in Gen. lo: 21-30, are the descendants of Shem, viz. Asshur, 
 Arpachshad, Aram, Eber, Joktan and Sheba ; other people, not 
 descendants of Shem, who spoke a Semitic dialect, are the 
 Canaanites and Sidonians. In whatever way Gen. 10: 10 
 (Nimrod, the founder of Babel) and 11:9 (Babel, from con- 
 fusion of tongues) be interpreted, the fact remains that the 
 city Babel (Greek Babylon) gave its name to the people, who 
 next to the Hebrews played the chief role in Semitic history. 
 
 45 
 
46 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Babylon itself did not come into prominence until about 2000 
 B. C., but thenceforward its influence was great. 
 
 (i). The Babylonians. 
 
 "The Semites of the East controlled the destiny of their 
 kindred of the West, including Judah and Israel, whose fate- 
 ful history involved in one supreme sway the well-being of 
 mankind. Their influence in the civilization of the race has 
 been vast and far-reaching. We are convinced of this when 
 we consider the enormous antiquity of the culture of the Baby- 
 lonians, who, long before Arabs or Aramaeans or Hebrews 
 or Phoenicians had begun to be known, and felt in the world, 
 had already extended themselves beyond the limits of the lower 
 Euphratean kingdoms, overspread the West-land and passed 
 over the sea to Cyprus — who before the Hittite era, had 
 made the Semitic Babylonian tongue a language of polite inter- 
 course in all the immense region from the Upper Nile through 
 Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia, east and south to the Per- 
 sian Gulf" (McCurdy, Pres. and Ref. Review, II, p., 58). It 
 is impossible to determine all the elements entering into the for- 
 mation of the Babylonian civilization. Though perhaps not th-e 
 originators, they were the chief disseminators of the cuneiform 
 system of writing, and were noted for their culture, inventive 
 genius and mental acumen. 
 
 (2). The Assyrians. 
 
 The Assyrians were probably an offshoot of the Baby- 
 lonians. 'The name is derived from the city of Asshur, which 
 was founded at an unknown early date on the west of the 
 Tigris The Assyrians used the Babylonian lan- 
 guage in its purity. Indeed we usually call this language 
 Assyrian, because it was principally from the monuments of 
 Assyria, and not from those of Babylonia, that our knowledge 
 of it was first obtained. . . . The Assyrians had virtually 
 the same institutions as the Babvlonians'' (AlcCurdy, Hast 
 Die. Bible v., 86). 
 
 (3). The Aramaeans. 
 
 The Aramaeans, the descendants of Aram, occupied a wide 
 extent of territory. Their original centre is uncertain. ''They 
 seem to have been equally at home herding cattle for the mar- 
 kets of Babylon, driving caravans along the Euphrates, or hold- 
 ing bazaars in the crowded cities of Harran and Damascus. 
 
THE PEOPLE. 47 
 
 . . . They were par excellence the travellers and negotiators 
 of the ancient East. What the Phoenicians achieved by sea, 
 thev with almost equal enterprise and persistence attained on the 
 land" (McCurdy, op. cit., 86). 
 
 (4). The Southern Semites. 
 
 The book of Genesis ( 10 : 26-30) enumerates other de- 
 scendants of Shem, designated today as Arabs or Southern 
 Semites. Chief among these are the sons of Joktan, or the 
 Joktan Arabs, notably Sheba, Ophir and Havilah. Since 
 Ophir was probably on the Eastern coast of Arabia, Sheba at 
 the South-west of Arabia and Havilah South-west of Babylon, 
 they doubtless represent Arabian communities. The Biblical 
 statement that Joktan was a son of Eber (a descendant of 
 Shemi) indicates some kinship between the Babylonians and 
 Southern Arabs, and this is borne out by evidence from out- 
 side sources. 
 
 (5). The Amorites. 
 
 According to the Biblical narratives the Amorites, who 
 were descendants of Canaan (Gen. 10: 16) formed part of the 
 ancient inhabitants of Palestine (Gen. 15: 21; Ex. 3:8, 17; 
 23 : 23) and occupied a wide extent of territory on both sides of 
 the Jordan (Gen. 14: 7, 13; Deut. 1:17, 27). Joshua 10: 5-6 
 mentions five kings of the Amorites, ''kings of the hill-country". 
 Amorites also dwelt east of the Jordan (Num. 21: 13), the 
 Arnon separating them from the Moabites. The Amorites are 
 represented in the ancient inscriptions as a powerful people; 
 their king Sihon before the immigration of Israel had conquered 
 Moabitish territory and built the famous Heshbon as his cap- 
 ital (Nuni. 21: 26). The Egyptian inscriptions call the land 
 east of Phoenicia and north of Palestine ''the land of the 
 A-ma-ra". The people of Amurru are mentioned in the Amar- 
 na Letters. See chapter IX for an account of the Canaanites 
 and Phoenicians. 
 
 3. ORIGINAL HOME OF THE SEMITES. 
 
 Much has been written in recent years on the original home pf the 
 Semites, but the question is still involved in obscurity. According to 
 one view the Semites came originally from Armenia. Others claim 
 that the Euphrates valley or some point in Babylonia was the original 
 seat of the Semites. This would accord with a possible interpretation of 
 Gen. 11: 1-9. Others, as Pognon, Sayce and Hommel hold that the 
 original home of the Babylonians (and inferentially of the Semites 
 generally) was Arabia. Some proper names in the old Babylonian are 
 very similar to their cognates in the Minaean or old Arabic dialect. 
 
48 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Thus the root zadugga in Ammi-sadugga, is not found in the Baby- 
 lonian-Assyrian dialects, but is common in the South-Semitic lan- 
 guages (Arabic, Sabaean, Ethiopic) as well as in the Canaanite, He- 
 brew and Aramaic languages. "When we seek for the original home 
 of this oldest of civilized races we are pointed to a region in North 
 Arabia, probably not far from the Lower Euphrates. The Semitic civ- 
 ilization is essentially of nomadic origin. North Arabia is the geo- 
 graphical centre of the race. It is much more likely to have peopled 
 the surrounding highlands than to have been peopled from them. The 
 Arabic language is upon the whole nearest the primitive Semitic speech, 
 as it is by far the oldest and purest of all living tongues [though its 
 literature is by no means the oldest] and its speakers in Arabia belon<y 
 to the oldest and purest of races We assume that the North- 
 ern Semites — Babylonians, Aramaeans, Canaanites — lived long to- 
 gether apart from the Arabs, who tended always to the centre of the 
 desert" (McCurdy, Hast Die. V. 87). 
 
 This view, held probably by the majority of Semitists, has lately 
 encountered serious opposition. It has been shown, especially by Ranke, 
 that the early settlers in Babylonia were called "sons of the West-land", 
 or Amorites, and that such West-Semitic expressions are of frequent 
 occurrence in the early Babylonian records. Hence the theory that in the 
 distant past, nomads from Syria and Mesopotamia settled in Baby- 
 lonia and in course of time succeeded in placing a dynasty upon the 
 throne. 
 
 4, THE HOME OF THE NORTHERN SEMITES. 
 
 Recently the thesis has been defended by Prof. A. T. Clay 
 that "the Semitic Babylonians came from the land of Amurru; 
 that is Syria and Palestine, and that their culture was an amal- 
 gamation of what was once Amorite or West-Semitic and the 
 Sumerian which they found in the Euphrates valley. . . . 
 Without attempting to determine the ultimate origin of the 
 Semites, the writer holds that every indication proves that 
 the movement of the Semites was eastward from Amurru^ and 
 Aram (i. e., from the lands of the West) into Babylonia. In 
 other words, the culture of the Semitic Babylonians points, if 
 not to its origin, at least to a long development in Amurru be- 
 fore it was carried into Babylonia" (pp., 5, 13). Prof. Qay 
 argues cogently that a considerable part of the culture and re- 
 ligion heretofore ascribed to the Babylonians originated in the 
 West-land and was carried eastward through war, commerce 
 and race migration. The traditions of the early chapters of 
 Genesis, as the creation, Sabbath, deluge, and ante-diluvians, 
 and the names of the chief Babylonian gods, as Alarduk, Ner- 
 gal, Ninib, Shamash, etc., are shown to be of West-Semitic 
 origin. According to Clay, the influence of Babylonia in the 
 
 1 Amurru, the Home of the Northern Semites. By A. T. Clay, Ph. D., Phil 
 1909. S. S. Times Co. ' • •> •» 
 
SEMITIC LANGUAGES^ AND SYSTEMS OF WRITING. 49 
 
 West, though marked, has been greatly overestimated by the 
 Grafians and Panbabylonists.^ 
 
 Clay's position is a modification of the view that the Arabs 
 first migrated into Mesopotamia and Aram, and then split off 
 in two directions, westward into Canaan and eastward into 
 Babylonia. The researches of Clay and of others in the same 
 field will necessitate a re-examination of the whole question of 
 the origin and character of the culture of Canaan in the third 
 and second millennium B. C. The various hypotheses, old and 
 new, leave the question of the origin of the Semites unsettled. 
 Enough, however, is known to prove that Canaan, in the diays 
 of Abraham, was far advanced in civilization. 
 
 5. LIGHT ON" THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM SEMITIC SOURCES. 
 
 It is only within recent years that students of the Old 
 Testament are beginning to see the immense value to be derived 
 from a study of Semitic (that is, Babylonian, Assyrian and 
 Arabic) history, languages and literature. One can scarcely 
 understand the Old Testament in its historical setting and sig- 
 nificance vrithout a thorough understanding of the civilization 
 and religion of the surrounding world-powers. McCurdy well 
 says : "The actors in and makers of Bible history were Semites, 
 who did their deeds and said their say within the Semitic realm. 
 Further, the truth of God, as revealed in the Bible, was not 
 merely conveyed to the world through an outward Semitic 
 channel : it was moulded in Semitic minds, colored by the 
 genius of Semitic speech, and put to the proof for the educa- 
 tion of the world in Semitic hearts and lives. It is perhaps 
 enough to remind the reader that Moses, David, Elijah, Amos, 
 Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, St. John, St. Paul, and the Son of 
 Man Himself, were Semites" (Hast. Die. Bib., V., 83). 
 
 II. 
 
 SEMITIC LANGUAGES, AND SYSTEMS OF WRITING. 
 I. THE SEMITIC FAMILY OF LANGUAGES. 
 
 The Semitic family of languages may be divided into two 
 main groups, the North-Semitic and the South-Semitic. The 
 most important of the former are the Babylonian, Assyrian, 
 Aramaic, Hebrew and Phoenician. As Hebrew (the language 
 
 ' "The excavations by Macalister and others in Palestine point to the fact 
 that the dominant people in the Westland, whom we call Amorites, in the millen- 
 nium preceding the time of Moses, were Semites; and further . . . there are 
 
 4 
 
50 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 of the greater part of the Old Testament) and Aramaic (in 
 which parts of Daniel and Ezra are written) are sister dialects 
 of the Semitic group, a knowledge of the cognate languages, 
 (Babylonian, Assyrian, Arabic) is essential to a scientific study 
 of the Old Testament. 
 
 2. THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 
 
 (i). Origin of Hebrew. 
 
 The origin of the Hebrew language is nowhere recorded 
 and can be determined only from early remains of Hebrew and 
 Semitic speech and from the laws of language development. 
 As Ur of the Chasdim from which Abraham migrated was a 
 Semitic centre, we shall not be surprised to find that the lan- 
 guage of the patriarch and his followers shows some affinity 
 with the old Babylonian and Aramaic. It is probable that the 
 tribesmen and descendants of Abraham retained in a large 
 degree their original speech and yet adopted words and expres- 
 sions from the surrounding people. The common Semitic 
 basis would readily admit of modifications ; and thus the Ara- 
 maic, Phoenician and Hebrew would come to possess in the 
 lapse of time remarkable agreement and also remarkable differ- 
 ences. 
 
 The Biblical account of the Abrahamites, though repre- 
 senting a certain degree of social contact with the Canaanites, 
 portrays the patriarch as pursuing his mission in comparative 
 independence of the natives. And yet linguistic elements were 
 undoubtedly introduced from this source. That in classical 
 Hebrew the word for West is jam (sea), for South negeb 
 (dr>Tiess), for family heth (house), for bread lehem (food), 
 and so on, proves, not as has been claimed by some writers, 
 that the Hebrew arose in Canaan, but rather that these and like 
 terms, were engrafted on the language or were old words used 
 in a new sense. It is, however, remarkable, that the Phoeni- 
 cians and Canaanites, with whom the Israelites acknowledged 
 no brotheihood, spoke a language which at least as written dif- 
 fers little from the Biblical Hebrew. But this observation ap- 
 plies to the state of these languages centuries after the call of 
 Abraham. From this one might infer their original identity; 
 in reality, however, a careful study of the Phoenician reveals 
 differences sufficient to constitute a distinct dialect and to favor 
 
 evidences which determine that in the earliest known historical period the Amorite 
 culture was already fully developed, and that it played an important role in in- 
 fluencing other peoples" (Clay, op. cit., p., 28). 
 
SEMITIC LANGUAGES, AND SYSTEMS OF WRITING. 5 1 
 
 the view that the language of the Abrahamites, as of the Phoe- 
 nicians, was developed along normal lines, each of course drop- 
 ping or taking up words as the genius of the people prompted.^ 
 
 (2) Antiquity of the Hebreiv Language. 
 
 In the whole body of the Hebrew Hterature of the Old 
 Testament, the language, so far as appears from its general 
 character, and irrespective of minor changes of form and style, 
 occupies essentially the same plane of development. It prob- 
 ably at an early period assumed a fixed state as to literary 
 forms; and the transmission of its literature in the form of 
 books esteemed as sacred would tend to preserve the ancient 
 coloring. The Hebrew literature in our possession extends 
 from about 1500 B. C. to a few centuries before the Christian 
 era. In the earliest books of the Bible the language is in an 
 advanced state of perfection both as regards the lexical and 
 grammatical development and the copiousness of words. The 
 later books of the O. T. show no marked superiority in the 
 language; and those points in which they differ often partake 
 of a certain degeneracy as if arising from the influence of other 
 Semitic dialects. The purest Hebrew is in the incontestably 
 oldest Scriptures. Even at the earliest period of which we 
 have any extended record, the language appears so highly de- 
 veloped that a considerable degree of literary activity must 
 have preceded. 
 
 Naturally enough there is a development in the Hebrew of 
 the Old Testament, so that some writers distinguish two, others 
 three periods; but the difference between the early and the 
 classic period, while noticeable, may be easily exaggerated. 
 Ewald writes : "Hebrew passed through three successive stages. 
 The writings from the time of Moses show Hebrew already 
 
 * It may be noted that the old Assyrian which preceded Aramaic in regions 
 to which the narrative in Genesis points as the original home of Abraham is in 
 some respects similar to the Hebrew. As the exact movements of the early 
 Semitic races are involved in obscurity, even in the cuneiform inscriptions, and 
 as the Biblical account of the Israelites is brief, the data for determining the 
 actual development of the language in Canaan are meager and preclude a too 
 confident expression of opinion one way or the other. Delitzsch (Franz) com- 
 ments on Gen. 31: 47 thus: "The Terahites, who remained in Mesopotamia, be- 
 came acquainted there during the one hundred and eighty years which elapsed 
 between Abraham's migration into Canaan and this occurrence on the mountain 
 of Gilead with the Aramaic speech of the country, but in the family of Abraham 
 the Babylonian-Assyrian, which differed less than the Aramaic from the tongue 
 of the Canaanites who had migrated there (from the Erythrian sea) was spoken" 
 (Com. on Gen., 11, 96). Such is essentially the view of recent Hebrew grammar- 
 ians. Koenig says: "Aus seiner chaldaeisch-babylonischen Heimath hat Abraham 
 einen Dialekt mitgebracht, welcher aehnlich demjenigen war, welchen vorher in 
 benachbarten Gegenden wahrscheinlich die Kanaaniter oder Phoenicier bei ihrem 
 Abzuge nach Westen zu lernen angefangen hatten" (Hebraeische Sprache, I, 16). 
 
52 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 formed and essentially the same as that of more recent times. 
 It must therefore even then have been very old. In the second 
 period, dating from the kings, it shows symptoms of divergence 
 into two styles, an ordinary and a more artistic one. The third 
 begins with the seventh century before our era ; it is a period 
 of decay, during which it is constantly encroached upon by the 
 Aramaic tongue" (Lehrhuch d. Hebr. Sprache.). Bissell says: 
 "While differences of style may be recognized to some extent, 
 even within the limits of the Hebrew of the Pentateuch it is 
 often quite as likely to be due to a difference in the matter 
 treated as to diverse authorship or date. In any case, the 
 style of the Priest's Code, assigned by Wellhausen to the Exile, 
 must be c.dmitted to have the peculiar coloring of the most 
 ancient Biblical Hebrew" (The Pentateuch). 
 
 Tht antiquity of Hebrew is shown: (a) from archaisms, 
 especially the names of persons and places, and from fixed 
 forms, chiefly in poetry; (b) from the phenomena of extant 
 words, which point, according to the laws and analogies of 
 sounds, to an earlier stage of the language; (c) from a conir 
 parison of related languages, especially the Arabic, in which 
 the early character of the Semitic (and Hebrew) is largely 
 preserved; (d) from the Canaanite glosses in the Amarna 
 Letters, which as reflecting the state of the language in the 
 fifteenth pre-Christian century furnisti new proof that the He- 
 brew and Canaanite dialects reached a relative permanence at 
 a much earlier date than formerly supposed. 
 
 3. DEFINITION OF WRITING. 
 
 Since the oldest extant writings are of Semetic origin we 
 may pause here to define writing. To write means either "to 
 trace or inscribe on a surface in letters or ideographs charac- 
 ters that represent sounds or ideas", or "to compose or pro- 
 duce in writing" (Stand. Die), especially as an author. The 
 two senses are complementary, since to compose in writing of 
 course presupposes writing. If, however, to compose be un- 
 derstood in the sense of expressing thought in a orderly man- 
 ner by means of language, the tracing in characters is no neces- 
 sary part. Here the term is used in the former sense. Writ- 
 ing, though one of the earliest of the arts, is also one of the 
 slowest in development, centuries having been required for its 
 progress from the first rude stages to its relative perfection in 
 the Phoenician alphabet. To the layman phonetic spelling is 
 
SEMITIC LANGUAGES, AND SYSTEMS OF WRITING. 53 
 
 a very simple affair, but the student of language knows that an 
 alphabet is the final result of centuries of theory and practice 
 in the use of written characters. 
 
 The kinds of ancient writing of every description (pictor- 
 ial, hieroglyphic, syllabic) are numerous; but all may be re- 
 duced to a half dozen types, as the Chinese, Hittite, Aegean, 
 cuneiform, Egyptian and Phoenician. The first of these hav- 
 ing no direct influence on European or Semitic scripts, and the 
 second and third not having as yet been deciphered, it is only 
 the last three which have historic value in the development of 
 writing. These we describe briefly. 
 
 4. EXCURSUS : CUNEIFORM OR BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN WRITING. 
 
 (i). General Character of Cuneiform Writing. 
 
 The cuneiform system of writing derives its name from the wedge- 
 like form of the symbols (Latin, cuneus, wedge). Originally the 
 wedges were carefully drawn pictures resembling at least remotely the 
 objects imitated. The wedges appear at first glance as a wilderness of 
 short lines running in all directions without order or regularity. Closer 
 examination reveals something of system. The signs are arranged in 
 lines running horizontally for the most part, and read from left to 
 right, most of the wedges standing upright or inclining to the right. 
 These wedges, either singly or in combination, represent ideas, or 
 syllables. See Chart, cols. I and II. 
 
 (2). Ideograms and Phonograms. 
 
 In cuneiform writing one must grasp clearly the distinction be- 
 tween ideograms and phonograms. An ideogram (Greek, Idea-writ- 
 ing) may have more than one meaning, but frequently a relation, ideal 
 or physical, exists between the several meanings. Thus the sign for 
 booty stands also for the verb, to capture, and the sign for mouth 
 represents the verb to speak. A second and higher stage was reached 
 in the phonograms (Greek, sound-writing), which were signs repre- 
 senting syllables. The phonographic value comes at once from the 
 name of the object represented by the ideogram. Thus the same sign 
 stands for risu, head, as an ideogram and for ris as a phonogram; the 
 ideogram katu, hand, gives us the phonogram kat. This may be ap- 
 proximately illustrated in English by the mnemonic lines, "A is for ax, 
 B is for box, C is for cat, etc.," in which the pictures of the ax, box, 
 cat (ideograms) also stand for the initial sounds. Babylonian and 
 Assyrian writing is in general a union of ideograms and phonograms 
 in varying proportions. About a hundred of the phonograms are used 
 more than all the rest combined ; and the student who memorizes these 
 thoroughly, together with a limiited number of ideograms, and deter- 
 minatives, has a good foundation for reading the ordinary historical 
 texts. Many additional phonograms must be learned if one wishes to 
 read the more difficult texts. The reading of cuneiform is greatly 
 facilitated by the employment of certain ideograms called determina- 
 tives, which show the class of objects to which the world belongs. 
 
54 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 They stand with the names of gods, men, women, animals, rivers, etc., 
 and serve to restrict otherwise doubtful meanings of the signs. 
 
 The Assyriologist F. Delitzsch writes : 'The Bab. cuneiform script 
 underwent no essential change of system during its remarkably long 
 period of over 3000 years. It remained always what it had been from 
 the beginning, a mixed ideographic and syllabic script ; but it under- 
 went many changes in the outer form of the characters. The constantly 
 widening use of the system required a simplification of the complicated 
 characters of the archaic script, and there took place systematically a 
 change from the old to the new Bab. script, as well as to the new 
 Assyrian. . . . The oldest forms are assumed to be those of Telle 
 (de Sarzec) and of Nippur (Hilprecht). The inventors were masters 
 in the art of combining ideas and characters" (Entstehung d. Aelt. 
 Schriftsystems). Delitzsch reaches the conclusion that "the whole 
 number of Bab. signs, out of which the whole system of 410 characters 
 was developed can be reduced to 45 or at most 50". By the varied 
 combination of these ideograms and phonograms, the whole number 
 of signs runs up into many thousands, rendering the dicipherment of 
 some inscriptions an exceedingly complicated process. 
 
 (3). The Babylonian Scribe. 
 
 Maspero vividly describes the Babylonian scribe : "The position 
 of a scribe was an important one. We continually meet with it in all 
 grades of society, in the palace, the temple, the store-houses, the private 
 dwellings; in fine the scribe was ubiquitous, at court, in the town, in 
 the^ country, in the army, managing affairs both small and great, and 
 seeing that they were carried on regularly. His education differed but 
 little from that given to the Egyptian scribe : he learned the routine of 
 administrative or judicial affairs, the formularies of correspondence 
 either with nobles or with ordinary people, the art of calculating quickly 
 and of making out bills correctly. Not papyrus, but the same clay 
 which furnished the architect with such abundant building material 
 appears to have been the only medium for transmitting the language. 
 The scribes were always provided with slabs of a fine plastic clay, care- 
 fully mixed and kept sufficiently moist to take easily the impression of 
 an object, but at the same time sufficiently firm to prevent the marks 
 once made from becoming either blurred or effaced. When the writ- 
 ing was finished, the scribe sent his work to the potter, who put it in 
 the kiln and baked it, or the writer may have had a small oven at com- 
 mand." (Daiim of Civilization). 
 
 (4). Priests as Scribes. 
 
 _ It will throw light on Old Testament usage if we recall that the 
 scribe was usually a priest attached to one of the temples. "As a 
 priest he was required to have not only a knowledge of the religious 
 rites, but also of the ritual, and in connection with the ritual, of the 
 religious literature, consisting of hymns, prayers, penitential psalms, 
 incantations, oracles and portents. In addition to the practical training 
 he received for acting as the recorder of commercial transactions and 
 of the orders of the court and other legal business, the young aspirant 
 to priestly distinction had to extend his knowledge beyond mere ex- 
 pertness in routine work. . . . His introduction to the literary treas- 
 ures of a religious character was the last step in the education he 
 
SEMITIC LANGUAGES, AND SYSTEMS OF WRITING. 55 
 
 received. . . . What he needed for understanding the hymns and 
 prayers were commentaries explaining the different words and pas- 
 sages. These were either directly attached to the texts themselves, 
 being inserted as notes in smaller characters at the proper place, or 
 special tablets were prepared to go with the texts, in which all the 
 comment needed was given. Such comment was particularly required 
 for texts written wholly or in part in the ideographic method" (M. 
 Jastrow, Bib. World, IX, 266). 
 
 (s). Babylonian Syllabaries. 
 
 The Babylonians and Assyrians studied their language scientifi- 
 cally and bequeathed a great mass of material useful to the modern 
 inquirer. There was a guild of philologists, who drew up lists of 
 signs, simple and compound, with their meanings. These lists, written 
 in three or four columns, are technically called Syllabaries.^ Fortunate- 
 ly some of the Assyrian text-books have been discovered, from which 
 it is possible to form an idea of the manner in which the future scribe 
 learned his letters. Since it was necessary to learn not merely the 
 usual meaning of the 400 signs, but the many possible meanings in 
 different combinations, it was a herculean task to become proficient 
 in writing and reading cuneiform. Years of study were required. 
 Some of the thousands of tablets in the royal libraries contained a kind 
 of dictionary of the chief meanings of the signs, or of their syllabic 
 value. 
 
 5. EXCURSUS : EGYPTIAN WRITING. 
 
 We come now to the second of the three chief systems of writing, 
 the Egyptian. It consists of three styles, the hieroglyphic, hieratic and 
 demotic. The hieroglyphic, though found occasionally in manuscripts, 
 is that of almost all the monuments. The hieratic is a cursive form 
 of the hieroglyphic. The hieroglyphic signs were well adapted to 
 monuments, but not suitable for papyrus, and so the signs rapidly as- 
 sumed a shorter form used in papyrus rolls. A still more cursive form 
 was the Demotic, used at a later period in the ordinary affairs of life. 
 The hieroglyphic texts runs from left to right, or right to left, now in 
 horizontal, now in perpendicular lines. Generally hieratic papyri are in 
 horizontal lines from left to right. 
 
 (i). Pictorial and Ideographic. 
 
 The essential characteristic of the Egyptian hieroglyphics is that 
 all the forms except those for number were originally pictures of 
 objects. In looking at a hieroglyphic text, we see a multitude of pic- 
 tures of men, women, human hands> eyes, legs, birds, beasts, insects, 
 reptiles, and the like; also pictures not so easily understood, as cir- 
 cles, squares, ovals, curved lines and small segments of circles. Orig- 
 inally the forms were probably correct pictures of the objects. Thus 
 the circle represents the sun, the curved line the moon, the oval an tgg. 
 This kind 01 writing, called pictorial, is very primitive and is employed 
 by nearly every people emerging from a semi-barbarous state. _ But the 
 Egyptians early passed beyond this stage into the ideographic, in which 
 the picture acquires the force of a symbol. Thus the circle represents 
 not only the sun, but also day, or eternity; and a curved line not only 
 
 * The most complete of these are printed in Delitzsch's Assyrische Lesestuecke, 
 4te Auflage, Seite 83-116. 
 
56 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 the moon, but a mouth; an oval meant not merely an egg-, but a child. 
 Again, the forepart of a lion meant the beginning of anything, and the 
 hind-quarters the end; the figure of a pen and ink stood for writing, 
 or a scribe, and so on. Other signs were still more obscure. A bee 
 stood for a king, or monarchical government ; a vulture stood for a 
 mother (there being according to the Egyptians no male vulture, each 
 vulture was a mother), a leg within a strap meant deceit, ^nd an 
 ostrich feather, justice (because all the feathers were supposed to be 
 of equal length). "The idea of thirst was represented by a calf running 
 toward water, power, by a brandished whip, and battle by two arms, one 
 holding a shield, the other a javelin". 
 
 (2). Phonetic and Syllabic Stage. 
 
 The practice of expressing ideas by pictures was early carried to 
 a high stage by the Egyptians. But this method led to such a multi- 
 tude of signs and pictures, that often uncertainty arose as to which one 
 of several meanings was intended by the signs. In connected speech 
 there must be sentences made up of nouns, verbs, adjectives and other 
 parts; and syllabism, however suggestive, is unable to express these. 
 Moreover, ideas are so numerous and varied that there would be hardly 
 enough signs "to go round." The Egyptians resorted to a happy ex- 
 pedient by which symbols gradually acquired a phonetic and syllabic 
 value, the precursor of the alphabet. We may illustrate this by the 
 sentence: "I saw a boy swallow a goose-berry". If we should write 
 in succession the pictures of an eye, a saw, a boy, a swallow, a goose, 
 and a berry, the picture of the eye would stand, rebus-like, for the 
 pronoun "I" ; that is it would represent a sound or be used phoneti- 
 cally. Again, the nouns saw and swallow would be read as verbs, "and 
 so on. 
 
 This comparatively simple device was soon elaborated. A large 
 proportion of the hieroglyphics are really phonetic, standing either for 
 syllables or letters. The Egyptians like the Phoenicians resolved speech 
 into its elements and expressed these elements by signs which are vir- 
 tually letters. In choosing the sign, they selected some common ob- 
 ject whose initial element was identical with the sound they wished to 
 represent. "Thus Akhom being the name of an eagle in Egyptian, the 
 eagle was made the sign of its initial sound A ; the name of an owl in 
 Egyptian being moidag, the figure of an owl was made to express M. 
 But, unfortunately, the Egyptians did not stop here. Not content with 
 fixing on one such sign in each case to express each elementary sound, 
 they for the most part adopted several. An eagle, the leaf of a water- 
 plant, and a hand and arm to the elbow were alike employed to repre- 
 sent the sound A. The sound B was expressed by a human leg and 
 foot, and also by a bird like a crane, and by an object resembling a 
 flower-pot. For M there were four principal signs, an owl, two parallel 
 straight lines, joined at one end by a diagonal, a form something Hke a 
 sickle, and a sort of double-headed baton. There were four forms for 
 T, three for N, for K, for S, for J, and for H, while there were two 
 for L, or R, (which the Egyptians regarded the same), two for SH, 
 two for I, for U, and for P. The letters F and D were about the only 
 ones that were represented uniformly by a single hieroglyphic, the 
 former by the cerastes or horned snake, the latter by a hand with the 
 palm upwards" (Rawlinson, Hist. Anc. Egypt, I,). Egyptian conso- 
 
SEMITIC LANGUAGES, AND SYSTEMS OF WRITING. 57 
 
 nants have their complementary vowel (though most consonantal signs 
 can be used with any of the vowels) which may often be -treated as 
 an expletive. A period of at least a thousand years was required for 
 the development from the earliest to the latest stage of Egyptian syl- 
 labic writing. 
 
 (3). Determinatives. 
 
 The Egyptian writing, like the cuneiform, made use of determina- 
 tives, generally after proper names. Thus a word followed by the 
 picture of a man represents his name; and one followed by a sitting 
 figure with a beard is the proper name of a god. Classes and genera 
 are also accompanied by determinatives. Thus the names of classes 
 of birds are followed by the figure of a bird, of reptiles by the picture 
 of a snake and of plants by a water-plant. So also of animals. Thus 
 the picture of an elephant followed by the determinative for beast 
 means elephant (yebu); but the same figure followed by the sign of a 
 city means the city of that name, Yebu (Elephantine). 
 
 (4). Selected Syllables or Letters. 
 
 In course of time the pictures, ideograms, and phonograms 
 reached the prodigious number of several thousand — obviously an 
 apparatus too unwieldy for the ordinary purposes of life. The scribes 
 came to restrict themselves to the more appropriate signs. At first 
 some 45 characters were selected, but these were finally reduced to 25. 
 [These characters are given in our Chart, col. V. and VI]. It may be 
 observed that the Egyptian alphabets which one sees in different books 
 differ somewhat from the above chiefly because of a difference of 
 opinion as to the characters employed to express certain letters. 
 
 (S). Knowledge of Writing among the Common People. 
 
 Naturally it required hard study and continual practice before skill 
 could be acquired in writing the hieroglyphic, or hieratic; and for the 
 more difficult kinds of writing professional scribes were in demand, 
 just as in Babylonia; but it would appear that a relatively large number 
 of the comrnon people in Egypt learned at least the simpler or shorter 
 forms of \vriting. Maspero gives an interesting account of the "School- 
 boy" at his task: "There was no public school in which the scribe 
 could be prepared for his future career; but as soon as a child had 
 acquired the rudiments of letters with some old pedagogue, his father 
 took him with him to his office or entrusted him to some friend who 
 agreed to undertake his education. The apprentice observed what went 
 on around him, imitated the mode of procedure of the employer, copied 
 in_ his spare time old papers, letters, bills, petitions, reports, or com- 
 plirnentary addresses, all of which his patron examined and corrected, 
 noting on the margin letters or words imperfectly written and recast- 
 ing the incorrect expressions. As soon as he could put together a cer- 
 tain number of characters without mistake, he was allowed to draw 
 bills, or to have the sole charge of some department, his work being 
 gradually increased in difficulty. When he was considered sufficiently 
 au courant with the ordinary business, his education was declared to 
 be finished". (Dawn of Civ.). 
 
58 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 6. NO TRUE ALPHABET PRIOR TO PHOENICIAN. 
 
 Neither the Babylonians nor the Egyptians ever devised a true 
 alphabet, although the Egyptians were near it, and one would suppose 
 could have made the transition at any time. Breasted holds that 
 alphabetic letters were discovered in Egypt twenty-five hundred years 
 before their use by any other people. "Had the Egyptian been less a 
 creature of habit, he might have discarded his syllabic signs 3500 years 
 before Christ and have written with an alphabet of 24 letters" (p. 45). 
 As a matter of fact, however, the so-called Phoenician Alphabet was 
 the first to combine in a simple, convenient and universally applicable 
 system the elements or letters necessary for the reproduction of sounds ; 
 and as this was the script employed by the Hebrews in the historical 
 pericKl it is of interest to know the date of its origin (whatever that 
 may have been) and of its adoption in Israel. Chart, cols. XII, 
 XXVI. etc. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ANTIQUITY OF WRITING AND LITERATURE IN 
 EGYPT, BABYLONIA, AND CANAAN. 
 
 I. 
 
 ANTIQUITY OF EGYPTIAN WRITING AND LITERATURE. 
 
 Undoubted proof exists that writing was employed for literary pur- 
 poses at a very early period. The question is not whether writing was 
 current at the date of the Exodus, but how many thousand years before 
 that time. Every year the evidence increases that the introduction 
 of writing was in a remote past. The antiquity of Egyptian literature 
 is universally admitted. 
 
 I. THE OLD EMPIRE. 
 
 The pyramids afford ample proof that a high civilization was 
 attained under the kings of the Old Empire (3400-2475 B. C.) and 
 that literature flourished. "A large part of the literature of Egypt 
 comes down to us in the shape of historical inscriptions graven upon 
 pyramids, obelisks, walls of temples and stelae. The sentences are 
 sometimes short and abrupt; but frequently they have a kind of rhythm 
 which is exceedingly fine, and, owing to the parallism of members, re- 
 minds us of many of the Psalms. If, however, we were required to 
 depend upon stone sculptures for our idea of Egyptian literature, we 
 should not have an adequate idea at all. Though the early pyramid 
 texts with their rubrics reveal to us the inscriptions which were fitting 
 for funereal monuments, they give us no idea of the wonderful fairy 
 stories which we obtain from the papyri. The hieratic writing was the 
 writing of the priests, and as the learning of Egypt was locked up in 
 the breasts of this caste, we must look to their works to understand 
 what the literature of Egypt was. It must not be imagined that the 
 hieratic is the only sort of writing found on papyrus ; on the contrary, 
 we find many papyrus copies of the Book of the Dead in hieroglyphics. 
 Still, a very large number of the most interesting compositions are 
 found on papyrus in hieratic" (Budge, Dzvellers on the Nile. 99). 
 
 Parts of the Book of the Dead profess to date from this early per- 
 iod. Tela, son of the first Pharaoh, according to Manetho, is said to 
 have written a work on anatomy. A papyrus roll of the most remote 
 age, bought by Ebers in Thebes, describes in archaic language a famous 
 prescription for making the hair grow. More important is the claim, 
 if correct, that the writings of the Pharaohs on medical subjects reach 
 back as far as the first Dynasty. Under the last king of the third 
 Dynasty, numerous inscriptions were cut in the steep wall of rock in 
 
 69 
 
6o ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 the Wady-Magharah. There are valuable inscriptions from the fourth 
 Dynasty. The second collection of "Proverbs" in the Prisse Papyrus is 
 believed to date from the fifth Dynasty. One of the princes of this 
 Dynasty is described on a tomb in Memphis as "the royal scribe of the 
 palace, the Master of writing, who serves as a light to all the writinig 
 in the house of Pharaoh". Brugsch says of the beautiful tomb_ of Thi 
 erected during the fifth Dynasty, that "the inscriptions carved in hier- 
 ogl>T)hics and filled in with color, give a clear significance to the pic- 
 tures" and indicate great progress in writing. "In the documents of 
 these early Dynasties the writing is in such an archaic form that many 
 of the scanty fragments which we possess from this age are as yet 
 unintelligible to us. Yet it was the medium of recording medical and 
 religious texts, to which in later times a peculiar sanctity and effective- 
 ness were attributed" (Breasted, Hist. Egypt, 45). One of these is 
 the so-called "Ebony- Tablet of Menes" (3400 B. C). The Berlin 
 Museum possesses a legal document pertaining to litigation between an 
 heir and an executor, dating from the Old Empire. It is the oldest 
 document of the kind in existence (Breasted, op. cit, 81). Inscrip- 
 tions found at Tanis, El-Kab, Memphis show that under the Pharaohs 
 of the sixth Dynasty, various styles of writing were in vogue. 
 
 2. THE MIDDLE EMPIRE. (2160-I580 B. C). 
 
 The seventh and eighth Dynasties yield us practically no records. 
 The period of confusion during Dynasties 7 to ii is naturally lacking 
 in literary remains of a high order; but we have many inscriptions. 
 Among these is an elaborate description of the first voyage to Ophir. 
 In the period of the powerful monarchs of the twelfth Dynasty, the 
 Amenemhets and Usertesens, art and literature flourished. This is 
 the classic period in which the system of writing attains a consistent 
 regularity, and every department of literature is well represented. The 
 first Pharaoh of this Dynasty in the instructions written for his son 
 (in Salier Papyrus II) speaks of the troubles consuming the land. 
 The classic story of Sinuhe dates from this period. A document on 
 parchment in the Berlin Museum renders it clear that Usertsen I was 
 a patron of literature, of which the great obelisk at On, cut with beau- 
 tiful hieroglyphics in the red granite, affords a proof. The long in- 
 scription of Ameni, the latter part of which is supposed to contain an 
 allusion to the seven years' famine in Joseph's time, dates from this 
 period. An inscription in the Louvre is dated in the ninth year of 
 Usertsen I. The inscriptions from this period, as that over Khun- 
 hotep's rock-tomb at Beni-Hassan, indicate a high state of graphic 
 and literary art. 
 
 Positive proof exists that inscriptions adorning the walls of the 
 rock-chambers of tombs belong to the 13th Dynasty. Many papyri, of 
 this period, have suvived, as the "Story of the Sekhti", the "Ship- 
 wrecked Sailor" and "the Westcar Papyrus of Tales". "A system of 
 uniform orthography, hitherto lacking, was now developed and followed 
 by skilled scribes with consistency. A series of model letters studied 
 by the school-boys of the 20th cent. B. C. has survived, and they show 
 with what pains composition was studied. The language of this age 
 and its literary products were in later times regarded as classic, and 
 in spite of its excessive artificialities, the judgment of modem study 
 
ANTIQUITY OF BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN LITERATURE. 6l 
 
 confirms that of the Empire So many of the compositions 
 
 of the Egyptian scribe are couched in poetic language that it is diffi- 
 cult to distinguish between poetry and prose Of the liter- 
 ature of the age we may say that it now displays a wealth of imagery 
 and a fine mastery of form which five hundred years earlier, at the close 
 of the Old Kingdom, was but just emerging. The content of the sur- 
 viving works does not display evidence of constructive ability in the 
 larger sense involving both form and content; it lacks general coher- 
 ence" (Breasted, Op. cit. pp. 203, 207,-8.). Nearly all the inscriptions 
 contemporary with the Hyksos have disappeared from Egyptian soil, 
 having been destroyed by the native kings. 
 
 3. THE NEW EMPIRE (158O-94S B, C). 
 
 Under the New Empire, beginning with Ahmose I, i8th Dynasty, 
 the evidences of writing and literature meet us on all sides. It is im- 
 possible to enter into details. Inscriptions of every kind, historical, 
 poetical, mythological, mortuary, abound. One of the most interesting 
 compositions is the "Battle of Kadesh" (formerly called the "Poem of 
 Pentaur") celebrating the victory of Rameses I over the Hittites. The 
 author's perception of dramatic action is remarkable. "A copy of this 
 composition on papyrus was made by a scribe named Pentewere (Pen- 
 taur), who was misunderstood by early students of the document to be 
 the author of the poem" (Breasted, p. 453). While in the Middle 
 Kingdom folk-tales with a historical back-ground had sprung up, by far 
 the better class of this kind of literature dates from the 19th Dynasty. 
 The story of the conflict between the Hyksos king Apophis and Sek- 
 enere relates in popular form the expulsion of the Hyksos. Many other 
 productions of a similar character are extant. 
 
 The preceding brief account will suffice to show that for three 
 thousand years the Egyptians cultivated writing and literature, and 
 that the climax was reached in the Dynasty preceding the Exodus. 
 May we not suppose that with all such incentives before them, the 
 Hebrews during their sojourn in Egypt would acquire the art of writ- 
 ing and a taste for cultivating literature? 
 
 II. 
 
 EXCURSUS : THE ANTIQUITY OF BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN 
 LITERATURE.^ 
 
 As we are concerned here in determining to what extent writing 
 was current in Bible lands at a date sufficiently early to warrant the 
 inference that Hebrew literature flourished in early times, we deal 
 primarily with the periods contemporary with or antedating the ap- 
 pearance of the Hebrews on the stage of history. 
 
 A. ASSYRIAN LITERATURE. 
 
 The Assyrians were a military rather than a literary people and 
 sustained a relation to the Babylonians similar to that of the Romans 
 
 1 In addition to the sources themselves and the usual authorities, we make 
 liberal use of Weber's "Literatur der Babylonier und Assyrer," Leipzig, 1907. 
 
62 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 to the Greeks; they appreciated, copied and imitated the literature of 
 their predecessors. Thus it happens that from about iioo to 600 B. C, 
 we have an immense body of Babylonian-Assyrian literature, partly 
 original works of native writers and partly copies of Babylonian litera- 
 ture. Indeed not a little of the Babylonian literature has been trans- 
 mitted to us by the Assyrians. The language of these two people was 
 essentially the same. This literature consists of prose and poetry. 
 "The former class consists of royal inscriptions (relating to military 
 and religious aflfairs) chronological tables, legal documents, grammati- 
 cal tables, lists of omens, and lucky and unlucky days, and letters 
 and reports passing between kings and governors; the latter class 
 includes cosmogonic poems, an epic poem in tv, elve lines, magic for- 
 mulas, and incantations, and prayers to deities. The prose pieces, with 
 scarcely an exception, belong to the historical period, and may be dated 
 with something like accuracy. The same thing is true of a part of the 
 poetical material, particularly the prayers; but the cosmogonic and 
 other mythical poems appear to go back, at least, so far as their material 
 is concerned, to a very remote antiquity, and it is difficult to assign 
 them a definite date" (C. H. Toy, Lib. World's Best Literature). 
 
 We record here merely the most important of the historical 
 inscriptions: as, the Prism Inscription of Tiglathpileser I, 1120-1100 
 B. C. ; the Standard Inscription and the Broken Obelisk of Ashumaz- 
 irpal III, 885-60; the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser II, 860-25; the 
 Slab Inscription of Adadnirarri III, 812; the Cylinder Inscription of 
 Sargon, 722-05 ; the Taylor Cylinder of Sennacherib, 705 ; and the 
 Six Sided Prism of Esarhaddon, 681 ; and many others. 
 
 From all this it is clear that throughout their whole history the 
 Assyrians were thoroughly conversant with writing, and the scribe was 
 a well-known character. How was it in the earlier period? 
 
 B. BABYLONIAN LITERATURE. 
 
 I. Immense Extent. 
 
 The ancient Bab. literature covers a period of 3000 years and all 
 departments of thought. By literature is here meant, compositions 
 not handed down orally, but permanently preserved in writing. The 
 Babylonians and Assyrians were the best record-keepers of the ancient 
 world, writing down accurately the most important events. Explora- 
 tions in recent years have proved beyond cavil that a very old, if not 
 the oldest civilization in the world, had its seat in Southern and Central 
 Babylonia. As early as 4000-3000 B. C, painting, engraving and writ- 
 ing were carried to a high degree of perfection. The written material 
 from ancient Babylonia consists of a vast store of tablets, "which 
 now number certainly not less than one hundred and sixty thousand 
 in the various museums of the world.^ These tablets contain a liter- 
 ature as varied in form and content as it is vast in extent. In the end 
 all of this literature may be considered as sources for history. Every 
 business tablet is dated, and from these dates much may be learned 
 for chronology, while even in the tablets themselves there is mat- 
 ter relating to the daily life of the people Even little statu- 
 ettes and vases bear the royal mark, while the bricks used in the 
 
 ' "I would say, there are fully 1,000,000 tablets in Museums and in the hands 
 of private persons" (A. T. Clay, in private letter). 
 
ANTIQUITY OF BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN LITERATURE. 63 
 
 erection of large buiMings were stamped with the king's name and the 
 name of the land over which he ruled" (Roger's, Hist. Bab. and Ass.). 
 
 2. Poetical Literature. 
 
 We have a large body of texts which establish the claim that the 
 Babylonians cultivated literature in the form of both prose and poetry. 
 The poetry, though largely secular, has an underlying religious tone, 
 as seen in the numerous hymns to the gods and in the penitential 
 psalms. As to form the elements of meter were observed, the verse 
 being divided into two nearly equal parts. As to content, the most 
 important are the so-called epic poems, which have come down to us 
 in a comparatively pure form. Thus (i) The Creation Epic covers in 
 a general way the same ground as Genesis I, but from a grossly poly- 
 theistic stand-point. In its present form it is of rather late date, not 
 before the seventh cent. B. C, and reflects the ideas of that period. 
 The original work is of much earlier date, as shown by the language. 
 This is the poem which some of the most radical O. T. critics regard 
 as the source of Gen. i, but the spirit, content and conception of the 
 O. T narrative are so far superior that comparison is out of the question. 
 (2). The Gilgamesch Epic, is a magnificent poem of 12 tablets, whose 
 hero Gilgamesch becomes king of Erech, where he holds sovereign 
 sway, until the gods create Engidu to destroy him. But Ishtar, 
 the goddess of love, appears on the scene, and after a series of mar- 
 vellous exploits described in a vivid style, the hero comes off victor. 
 Attempts have been made, but unsuccessfully, to connect the hero with 
 the Biblical Nimrod. (3). The Story of the Deluge, found in the nth 
 tablet of the preceding Epic, is the Bab. account of the Flo9d and con- 
 tains some points of similarity, but many more of dissimilarity, with 
 the Biblical account. Driver, though claiming that "the resem.blances 
 with the Biblical narrative are too numerous and too marked to be due 
 to accident", allows that the Genesis account "has a new character 
 stamped upon it ; and it becomes a symbolical embodiment of ethical 
 and religious truth. It marks an epoch in the religious history of 
 mankind" (Genesis, p., 107). Other poems are the Etana-Legend, the 
 Legend of the god Zu and that of the god Urra, of very early date. 
 Some interest attaches to a poem recounting the invasion of Babylonia 
 by Kudur-Dugumal, regarded by some as the Chedorlaomer of Gen. 
 XIV. 
 
 3. Prose Literature. 
 
 (i). Historical Literature. The best examples of Bab. and Ass. 
 literature are the longer historical inscriptions of the later periods. 
 The earlier inscriptions, though shorter, testify to the wonderful 
 skill and activity in the art of writing. There are a few inscriptions 
 of unusual length; among them two prayers of Gudea, each having 
 about 2000 lines. We must conclude that writing was well known 
 long before 3000 B. C. In his excavations at Tello, de Sarzec discov- 
 ered thousands of clay tablets of a date varying from 2500 to 3200 B. C. 
 "With regard to their age, these tablets cover a considerable period. 
 Some of them' antedate the Dynasty of Ur-Nina (4000 B. C.) ; others 
 bear the name of Urukagina, king of Shirpurla, whose time has not 
 been fixed definitely; again others belong to the age of Sargon I and 
 
64 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Naram-Sin and are of inestimable value for their dates ; a few are the 
 documents from the reign of Gudea (2700) ; by far the largest mass of 
 the tablets removed belongs to the powerful members of the later 
 Dynasty of Ur about 2500 B. C." (Hilprecht, Excavations in Bible 
 Lands, 249). A few of the bricks found in the pavement of the temple 
 at Nippur contain inscriptions of Sargon I, the reputed builder, and of 
 Naram-Sin.^ 
 
 Another city attaining a high civilization was Ur, whence Abraham 
 migrated (Gen. 11: 28, 31,). "Even before the Days of Sargon the 
 city of Ur had an existence and government of its own" (Roger's, 
 Hist. I, 372). About a thousand years later Ur again became the cen- 
 ter of great literary activity. All sources of information testify that 
 "Ur of the Chasdim" in the time of Abraham was a great political and 
 literary metropolis in which literature was extensively cultivated. 
 
 Ur-Gur, a builder of temples, has left us a considerable number 
 of inscriptions at Mugheir, Erech, Larsa, and Nippur. The Erech of 
 Gen. 10: 10 was one of the sacred cities of Babylonia and enjoyed 
 great prestige as a shrine of the goddess Ishtar. Inscriptions of Dungi 
 have been found at Ur, Erech, Cutha, etc. For a number of centuries 
 to the rise of Babylon, the inscriptions vary in character, but furnish 
 undoubted evidence of literary activity and the general cultivation of 
 writing. A new era began with Hammurabi, who according to the 
 ancient sources, was a strong and energetic personality with the ability 
 to originate and execute far-reaching plans. His life and works are 
 fully described in some fifty letters written by himself and in the Chron- 
 ology of the Kings. The excavator's spade has uncovered many liter- 
 ary treasures of his time. As many of these are dated there can be 
 little doubt as to their origin. 
 
 Toward the close of the Cassite rule, Babylon began to decline, 
 and other peoples, as the Egyptians, Hittites, Amorites, and Assyrians 
 appeared upon the stage of Asiatic history. The Babylonian language 
 and the cuneiform script were the chief vehicles of literary expression, 
 and while in the interval between Hammurabi (2000 — 1950 B. C.) and 
 the Amarna period (1400) the strictly historical material is scanty, 
 abundant evidence exists that literature was cultivated. 
 
 (^). Legal Literature. Already at an early date, the Babylonians 
 developed what may be called legal literature in the broad sense, in- 
 cluding laws, contracts, and deeds. The extensive business relations 
 led to a great variety of legal documents, as pledges, wills and testa- 
 ments. "Legal documents constitute by far the larger portion of the 
 inscriptions which have come down to us from every period of Bab. 
 
 * The date of Sargon I is computed from indirect proof. Nabonidus the 
 last king of Babylon states that while restoring a ternple of the sun-god, he came 
 upon the foundation-stone of Naram-Sin, the son of Sargon, which had been hid- 
 den 3200 years. Since the date of Nabonidus is 550 B. C, Naram-Sin, on this 
 calculation, ruled in 3750 and Sargon in 3800. The accuracy of this result de- 
 Dends on the altogether precarious and otherwise unsupported statement of 
 Nabonidus. "The chronological systems of the later Ass. and Bab. scribes, which 
 were formerly regarded as of primary importance, have been brought into dis- 
 credit by the scribes themselves. From their own discrepancies it has been shown 
 that the native chronologists could make mistakes in their reckonings, and a pos- 
 sible source of error has been disclosed in the fact that some of the early dynas- 
 ties, which were formerly regarded as consecutive, were actually contemporane- 
 ous" (King, Hist. Sumer and Akkad). The date of Sargon I is now generally 
 given as 2650 B. C. (King), 
 
ANTIQUITY OF BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN LITERATURE. 65 
 
 and Ass. history. In the library of Ashurbanipal alone they are ex- 
 ceeded by the letters and even more by the works dealing with astrol- 
 ogy and omens." (Johns, Bab. and Ass. Laws, Contracts and Letters, 
 10). The range of subjects includes all matters needing regulation in 
 a highly civilized community. That which concerns us especially is 
 the date of this kind of writing, which extends from the earliest period 
 of recorded history to the close of the Bab. kingdom, i. e. from 4500 
 to 500, during every period of which we have proof of literature of 
 this character, and thus of our thesis that writing was one of the 
 necessary accompaniments of Bab. civilization. 
 
 The Hammurabi Code. The discovery in 1901 of the laws of 
 Hammurabi, the oldest Codex juris in the world, is a remarkable 
 proof that as early as 2000 B. C, an elaborate legal code was committed 
 to writing and perhaps published in different parts of the empire. As 
 this code is alleged to have had some influence on the Mosaic legisla- 
 tion we describe it briefly. It covers such subjects as oaths, theft, land, 
 tenure, damages, marriage, adultery, divorce, inheritance, adopted 
 children, the jus talionis and slavery, and in some respects runs parallel 
 with the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 21: 1-23; 33). Deducting the 
 missing parts, the Code has 248 paragraphs, the Book of the Covenant 
 100 verses ; the Code is five times longer, but each has a large amount 
 of matter not found in the other. The following are some of the chief 
 parallels : 
 
 Hammurabi Code. Mosaic Covenant. 
 
 If a son strike his father, they He that smiteth his father or 
 
 shall cut off his fingers (§ 195). mother shall be surely put to 
 
 death (Ex. 21 : 15). 
 If a man steal a man's son, who He that stealeth a man and 
 is a minor, he shall be put to selleth him, of if he be found in 
 death (§14). his hand, he shall surely be put 
 
 to death (Ex. 21 : 16). 
 If a man strike another in a If men contend and one smite 
 
 quarrel and wound him he shall the other with a stone or with his 
 swear: "I struck him without in- fist, and he die not, but keep 
 
 tent," and he shall be responsible his bed he shall pay for 
 
 for the physician (§206). the loss of his time and shall 
 
 cause him to be thoroughly 
 
 healed (Ex. 21: 18, 19). 
 If a man destroy the eye of an- If any harm follow, then thou 
 other man they shall destroy his shalt give life for life, eye for 
 eye. If he break a man's bone, eye, tooth for tooth, hand for 
 they shall break his bone. If a hand, burning for burning, wound 
 man knock out a tooth of a man for wound, stripe for stripe (Ex. 
 of his own rank, they shall knock 21: 23-25). 
 out his tooth (§§196, 197, 200). 
 
 Three views have been entertained regarding these and other 
 similarities. The first is that little or no influence was exerted by the 
 Code on the Covenant, the laws being such as would be found in the 
 ancient world generally. The second view is that the influence is 
 direct, the common Babylonian law having found its way into the 
 
 5 
 
66 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Covenant. According to the third theory the influence was indirect 
 "The Covenant has Babylonian elements, but it is not Babylonian in 
 spirit. Like the accounts of the Creation and the Deluge in Genesis, 
 the old material is incorporated in a new system of thought and moulded 
 in a new form. The difference is one of ethical setting and purpose. 
 The moral undertone of the Covenant, reverence toward God, love_ to 
 neighbor, humane treatment of animals and the great underlying 
 thought of the Decalog, are lacking in the Code Hammurabi." * 
 
 (s). Epistolary Literature. The origin of letter-writing is un- 
 known. As early as Sargon I, a kind of postal system existed. Pack- 
 ages of goods were forwarded, and with them small blocks of clay 
 containing the address of the recipient. The greeting "Peace" (Shti- 
 lumu, Heb. Shalom) or "Peace to thee" is very common. We have 
 letters from all periods of Babylonian history. For a thousand years 
 prior to the Exodus letters had passed to and fro between Babylon 
 and the Mediterranean. The letters of Hammurabi constitute per- 
 haps the most valuable of the earlier series. These letters, some fifty 
 of which are addressed to one and the same man, relate chiefly to 
 administrative affairs, as the collecting of taxes, recovery of stolen 
 goods, the punishment for bribery, etc. Since all the letters of Ham- 
 murabi seem to be in the same hand, it is inferred that they were 
 written by one scribe. Some peculiar expressions, however, indicate 
 that the king sometimes wrote with his own hand. But generally offi- 
 cial documents were executed by professional scribes. Since some of 
 the letters are addressed to agents, overseers, and tax-collectors, it 
 may be inferred that in the third millennium B. C. the middle-class 
 Babylonian could write in the complicated cuneiform script. 
 
 (4). Religious Literature. In a certain sense the religious element 
 is present in much of Babylonian literature. Even a business com- 
 pact, being bound by an oath, partook of a religious character. But 
 apart from this, there existed several kinds of special religious litera- 
 ture, as the magical texts, the hymns and prayers, omens and fore- 
 casts, the cosmology and legends. Of these it may be said in general 
 that though we possess them mostly in copies of the Assyrian period, 
 they go back to a much earlier time. Some of the magical texts come 
 down to us from the age of Hammurabi. 
 
 (5). Anonymity of Babylonian- Assyrian Literature. A remarka- 
 ble peculiarity of Babylonian and Assyrian literature is its wholly im- 
 personal and anonymous character, due to the dominant desire to repro- 
 duce traditional forms and models. There is little originality of style, 
 because none is aimed at. "H we leave out of account the additions and 
 interpolations (which in no way affect the literary character) we are 
 unable to determine in most cases whether a text dates from the 
 twentieth or the seventh century B. C." (Weber, op. cit, p., 2). Weber 
 regards this anonyrnity and woodenness of Babylonian literature as a 
 serious defect. This tendency to old and stereot>T)ed methods in 
 Babylonian writing may be the reason why in the Amarna Letters, the 
 cuneiform rather than the Phoenician script was employed (assuming, 
 of course, that the latter was then in existence). Weber continues: 
 
 * Condensed from the author's article on "The Code of Hammurabi and the 
 Mosaic Book of the Covenant" in The Reformed Church Review, Jan. and Apr 
 1905. 
 
LITERATURE IN CANAAN IN THE PRE-MOSAIC PERIOD. 6/ 
 
 "Das ist nur verstaendlich wenn man bedenkt, dass der offiziellen Spra- 
 che der Nimbus der Heiligkeit anhaftete, dass ausschliesslich die Prie- 
 sterkaste der Schrift kundig war, dass die konservierende Macht der 
 priesterlichen Tradition auch der Fortpflanzung der Schriftssprache 
 diente" (op. cit., p., 21). 
 
 For Tell el Amarna Letters, see next section. 
 
 III. 
 
 CIVILIZATION AND LITERATURE IN CANAAN IN THE 
 PRE-MOSAIC PERIOD. 
 
 The recent recovery of a remarkable body of Palestinian 
 literature lias necessitated a radical modification of traditional 
 views regarding the civilization of Palestine at the date of the 
 Exodus. 
 
 A. THE TELL EL AMARNA TABLETS. 
 
 In 1888 there were found near the modern village of Tell 
 el Amarna on the right bank of the Nile some 320 clay tablets 
 Vv^ritten in the Babylonian language and the cuneiform script. 
 These records, which have been carefully edited and translated, 
 have necessitated an almost entire reconstruction of the history 
 of Palestine in the fifteenth century B. C. Since Palestine 
 was at that time an Egyptian province, we should expect to 
 find the Egyptian language employed as the medium of com- 
 munication. The constant and exclusive use of the Babylonian 
 in these letters (excepting some native words) implies that tlie 
 old conquerors had so thoroughly impressed their language and 
 culture on the people that even in writing to the Egyptian court 
 the cuneiform was preferred. 
 
 This collection includes letters from the officials of many 
 towns in Palestine, as Gaza, Byblos, Accho, Hazor, Ashkelon, 
 Joppa, Lachish and Jerusalem.^ The subject of the letters is 
 generally the need of succor against an enemy. The names 
 of the officials are generally Canaanite (Hebrew), a proof that 
 both the Hebrew and the Babylonian language were understood 
 by the writers. How are we to explain this employment of 
 the Babylonian ? "The only explanation of the actual phenom- 
 
 ■ About two-thirds of these found their way to the British Museum and the 
 Royal Museum in Berlin; the rest are in the Museum at Balak in Egypt. The 
 fact that letters in the Babylonian should be found in Egypt was a great sur- 
 prise, which was increased when it was discovered that they were written about 
 1400 by rulers in Babylonia, Assyria, Syria and Palestine to Amenophis III and 
 his successor Amenophis IV. The subjects of the letters between the Babylonian 
 and Egyptian monarchs are treaties, business relations and marriage compacts. 
 They furnish valuable historical data and throw an interesting side-light on the 
 customs, trade and politics of that day. 
 
68 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 enon is that the Babylonians had once, and up to a comparative- 
 ly recent period, occupied the whole of the habitable territor}^ 
 as far as the Mediterranean and the River of Egypt ; that the 
 period of their occupation was very long and scarcely intermit- 
 tent; that their influence extended to the minutest details of 
 business and social life ; and that their language and literature 
 fonned a liberal education for all the cultivated classes in Wes- 
 tern Asia" (McCurdy, Hist. Proph. and Mon., I, 185). 
 
 These letters show that Palestine was at this time a land 
 of high civilization. All the arts were well advanced, especially 
 writing. 'The most suggestive fact of all is the prevalence 
 .... of one system of writing, and that not only for the 
 Babylonian language, but for the native languages as well" 
 (McCurdy, op. cit.). The view generally entertained is that 
 the culture and religion of Canaan in 2500-1400 B. C. was 
 Babylonian both in origin and development; but lately the 
 theory has gained ground that there was an extensive native 
 literature and culture. See further below on Amorites. 
 
 B. THE HISTORIC SITUATION IN PALESTINE IN 25OO — I4OO, B. C. 
 
 7. Early Egyptian Influence. 
 
 The earliest sources of information regarding Palestine 
 are the Egyptian monuments. ''Both the Palermo Stone and 
 the inscriptions of the Wadi Maghara in the peninsula of Sinai 
 bear witness that already in the First Dynasty, beginning ca. 
 3400 B. C, the Egyptians, who were exploiting the copper 
 mines in Sanai, came in contact with tribes of Beduin, while 
 as early as the Third Dynasty (2980-2900) the Egyptians im- 
 ported cedar wood from the Lebanons, and Sahure of the Ffth 
 Dynasty brought back Phoenician captives, whose pictures, on 
 a relief from his pyramid-temple at Abusir, are the oldest 
 pictures of Semitic Svrians which have come down to us" (D. 
 D. Luckenbill, Bib. World, XXXV, p., 26). Somewhat later 
 Pepi I (2590-70) invaded Palestine and the inscription on the 
 tomb of his general Uni declares that "His Majesty made war 
 with the Amu (Asiatics) and the Harusha (beduin, sand-dwel- 
 lers)" and destroyed their strongholds. It is clear that in this 
 early period, Egypt was in touch with Midian, Sinai, Palestine 
 and Syria." 
 
 • According to Mueller (Asien u. Eitropa 123), the term Amu is Egyptian, 
 
 meaning boomerang-thrower, and gradually came to denote Beduin, Arabians 
 
 Palestinians; •* •'• "- — •-'■-^ ...-.^v. tt , _ ^<- ,, , , . . ..> » 
 
 to 
 
 _.....» — ^^...^.^wj, ,....^.,,^j, aiiw Kiauuaiiv Lduic lo uenoie rieauin, Arabians, 
 lestinians; It is ass9ciated with Harusha (Sandbewohner) sand-dwellers, applied 
 the nomads of Syria. ^^ 
 
LITERATURE IN CANAAN IN THE PRE-MOSAIC PERIOD. 69 
 
 2. Semites in Palestine. 
 
 On the other hand according- to the cuneiform inscriptions, 
 the Semites exerted a powerful influence in Syria and Palestine 
 already in 3000 B. C. One of the early kings of Babylon, 
 Lugalzagisi, has left an inscription recording his claim to the 
 territory from ''the Lower Sea to the Upper Sea", that is from 
 the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. Some years later Sar- 
 gon I extended his power to Martu the land of the Amorites ; 
 his successors made a like claim. "With the fall of the second 
 dynasty of Ur this supremacy came to an end. For 300 years 
 Habylonia was wasted by foreign invasion and internal strife" 
 (Paton, Syria and Pal, 23). About the middle of the third 
 millennium, a great migration of races started from Arabia and 
 Babylonia and poured Westward.'^ That Canaan was affected 
 by this Semitic or more correctly Amorite migration, is shown 
 by early names, contract tablets and scattered inscriptions. 'The 
 name which is most appropriate for this migration is Amoritic" 
 (Paton). 
 
 From this time on the Amorites played an important role 
 in the West-Land. According to Sayce, "in early days, long 
 before the age of Abraham, the Amorites must have been the 
 
 predominant population in this part of Syria From 
 
 the time of Sargon, Amurru was the name under which Syria 
 and more particularly Canaan, was known to the Babylonians" 
 (Patri. Pal.). Referring to early Palestinian civiHzation, Sayce 
 says: "It was not to a strange and unexplored region that 
 Abraham migrated. The laws, the manners, to which he had 
 been accustomed, the writing and literature which he had 
 learned in the schools of Ur, he found again in Canaan. The 
 land of his adoption was full of Babylonian traders, soldiers 
 and probably officials, and from time to time he must have heard 
 around him the language of his birth-place" (op. cit. 169). 
 
 About 2000 B. C. the great Hammurabi became supreme 
 ruler in the East and is supposed to have gained control over 
 Canaan, claiming the title ''King of Martu". Contrary to the 
 view generally held, the monumentsi relating to the centuries 
 immediately following do not indicate absolute Babylonian 
 
 ' The names of some of the kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon, have as 
 one of their component parts the terms "abi'\ "my father", or "Atnmi", "my 
 paternal uncle", words indicative of the Canaanite-Semitic group of languages 
 (Hebrew, Phoenician, Moabite). According to Winckler, a number of letters 
 of the First Dynasty of Babylon abound in Canaanite words and idioms, and 
 reveal a linguistic, if not a race, connection between these remote regions. 
 
70 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 supremacy in Palestine and Syria, even though the Bab3'lonian 
 langTiage and script were employed in the West. The distance 
 was too great to admit of more than a nominal lordship. A con- 
 siderable part of the Palestinian culture of this period is now 
 known to have been a native product.^ 'The excavations con- 
 ducted in Palestine do not show any Babylonian influence in the 
 early period of Israelitish history, nor in the pre-Israelitish" 
 (Clay, Amurru, 26). In the so-called Assyrian period, eighth 
 century, it may be allowed that Assyria influenced Israel. Such is 
 the view of Nowack (in his review of the discoveries at Tell 
 el-Mutesselim) ; "It is a disturbing but irrefutable fact that 
 down to the fifth stratum — i. e., to the beginning of the eighth 
 century — important Assyrian influences do not assert them- 
 selves It is most significant that in Megiddo not 
 
 a single idol from the Assyrian-Babylonian Pantheon has been 
 found" (Theolog. Literature., 1908, 26). "Contrary to the 
 views of most Semitists .... that the people of Palestine 
 2000 B. C. were in a state of barbarism, Prof. W. Mueller main- 
 tains that in the districts of arable land the people^ were agri- 
 cultural, and had attained a fair degree of civilization" (Clay, 
 op. cit., 29). It is now generally admitted, even by some Pan- 
 babylonists that the Amurri, Canaanites and Phoenicians entered 
 the West-Land at an early date and founded a high civiHza- 
 tion.® 
 
 3. Cassite, Canaanite and Mitannian Inroads. 
 
 Whatever the influence of Babylon on Palestine and Syria 
 in early times, it ceased in the eighteenth century when the 
 Cassites, C'anaanites and Mitannians broke the power of Baby- 
 lonia. "Babylon was cut oflf from her ancient trade with the 
 West; and, with the loss of her commercial prosperity, sank 
 to the position of a second-class power. Syria, Palestine and 
 Mesopotamia, which she had dominated for two thousand years, 
 passed out of her grasp, never to return again, except for a 
 
 • The fact that Babylonian was used in Palestine and among the Hittite 
 peoples clearly does not allow sweeping inferences. Indeed so far from the 
 script or language having been imposed from without, the people of Mitanni 
 apparently borrowed the cuneiform script and adapted it to their language; while 
 in the Amarna Tablets, the native tongue of Palestine and Syria has left a dis- 
 tinct impress upon the Babylonian The archaeological evidence shows 
 
 very clearly that Palestine was not absorbed by Babylonian culture, still less by 
 that of Egypt" (Cooke, Relig. An. Pal., 112). 
 
 ' "The ability to master this complicated and difficult system of writing (i. e. 
 the cuneiform), speaks volumes for the intelligence of the civilized peoples of 
 Western Asia. Education of scribes must have been widely spread; for the 
 learned knew how to write this cumbersome ideographic and phonetic script of 
 the Babylonians" (Clay, p., 32). 
 
LITERATURE IN CANAAN IN THE PRE-MOSAIC PERIOD. 7I 
 
 brief period a thousand years later under the rule of Nebuchad- 
 rezzar IF' (Paton, op. cit., p., 65). Meanwhile the West-land 
 trade, hitherto by way of Harran, was diverted to Southern 
 Arabia, where there flourished the influential Minsean kingdom 
 about the middle of the second millennium B. C. 
 
 Some centuries previously the Hyksos, a Semitic people, in 
 their conquering march to Egypt, must have subdued Palestine, 
 to which they returned after their expulsion from Egypt. 
 About the same time there occurred the Canaanite and Phoe- 
 nician Migration. The relation of these people to the Amorites 
 is not exactly determined, but it is probable that *'the Hyksos- 
 Canaanites are to be regarded as one of the later waves of the 
 Amorite invasion rather than as an independent migration, 
 such as the Babylonian, the Aramaean, or the Arabian, all of 
 which are distinguished by marked linguistic peculiarities. . . 
 The common opinion that the Hyksos were barbarians rests 
 upon no good evidence. On the contrary their kings patron- 
 ized art and literature Neither in Egypt nor in Pal- 
 estine is there any sign of an overturning of civilization" ( Pa- 
 ton, p., 70). "The expelled Hyksos joined forces with their 
 kinsmen who had already occupied the cities of Palestine and 
 of the Syrian coast; and, mingling with the older strata of 
 population, formed the race that the Old Testament designates 
 as Canaanites". 
 
 4. Egyptian Supremacy. 
 
 After a reign of some 200 years (1788- 1580) the Hyksos 
 were expelled from Egypt, and the native kings of the power- 
 ful eighteenth Dynasty followed up their victory by reducing 
 Palestine and Syria to tributary provinces. For a period of 
 some one hundred and fifty years, the Pharaohs (1553-1392) 
 were supreme in Palestine. The point that concerns us here 
 is that during this whole period, the Babylonian language and 
 script and not the Egyptian was the medium of communication 
 between the Pharaohs and the subject provinces. This strange 
 fact can be accounted for only on the theory that the Babylon- 
 ian language and culture (so-called) had become practically 
 indigenous long prior to the Egyptian supremacy. 
 
 C. A NATIVE PALESTINIAN LITERATURE FROM EARLY TIMES. 
 
 The preceding survey shows successive Semitic migrations 
 into the Westland, i. e. Palestine, the first as early as 3,cxx) 
 B. C. ; then again in the Sargonic and Hammurabi periods. 
 
*J2 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 The Cassite invasion broke the power of Babylon in the West ;^® 
 and the Egyptians were supreme in Palestine from the seven- 
 teenth to the fourteenth century. It would seem, therefore, 
 that previous to the Cassite period, the Babylonian language 
 had gained a firm foothold in Canaan and was employed at 
 least in international correspondence, and probably in ordinary 
 hfe until the close of the Amarna period. Nothing hinders 
 our holding that the people of Palestine, or at least the higher 
 classes, in 1900- 1600 (when the power of Babylon in Palestine 
 was practically nil) still retained a knowledge of the Babylonian 
 language and script. This is confirmed by recent excavations 
 in Palestine.^^ Sellin has shown that an original Canaanite 
 culture and literature existed between 2500-1500 sharply distin- 
 guished from the Babylonian. He unearthed in Taanach a 
 seal-cylinder of a Canaanite living in 2000 B. C. with the cune- 
 iform legend : ''Atanachili, son of Chabsi, servant of Nergal".^^ 
 Sellin holds that the Babylonian language and script were per- 
 petuated in Canaan by scribes, foreign and native, and in 
 "writing-exercises in religious and legal documents". The con- 
 stant needs of a civilized people like the Amorites, would ne- 
 cessitate a retention of the cuneiform script (the only interna- 
 tional script of that day) centuries ^fter the cessation of direct 
 Babylonian influence in the West.^^ 
 
 It has been suggested that the cuneiform script was un- 
 known in Palestine between, say, 1900 and 1500, and that it 
 was mediated to the Canaanites just before the Amarna period 
 by the Hittites who had themselves acquired it from; the Mitan- 
 
 " Winckler: "Unter den Kassiten beginnt der Rueckgang der babylonischen 
 Machtstellung ' (Keilins. A. T. p., 21). 
 
 " See: Petrie: Tell el Hesy; Bliss, A Mound of Many Cities; Bliss and 
 Dickie, Excavations at Jerusalem; Macalister, Bible Side-Lights from the Mound 
 of Gezer; Bliss and Macalister, Excavations in Palestine; Sayce, Archaeology of 
 the Cuneiform Inscriptions; Driver, Modern Research as Illustrating the Bible; 
 Steuernagel, Tell el-Mutcsselim; Vincent, Canaan d' apres I' exploration recente ; 
 Sellin, Tell Ta'annck and Nachlese; Ertrag d. Ausgrabungen im Orient; also 
 vols, of Palestine Exploration Fund and Mitt. u. Nachr. d. Deut. Palaes. Vereins. 
 
 T i,'*,^T^^^' ,Y'*^ ^ Babylonian inscription no longer decipherable was found in 
 I ell el-Muteselhm; and Bliss discovered in Tell es Safi the tragments of a stele 
 with cuneiform writing, as also seals and cylinders. Sellin writes: "Wenn wir 
 nun also die Frage aufwerfen: welche Voelker haben in der kananitischen Perio- 
 de d. 1. etwa von 2500-1200 v. Chr. auf Palaestina kulturell eingewirkt, so ist 
 darauf folgendes zu antworten: Es hat eine originell kananitische Kultur gege- 
 ben, erkennbar vor allem an den Erzeugnissen der Keramik, den schraffierten 
 bcherben, den eigenartig gewolbten Handgriffen und den hineingeritzten, immer 
 wiederkehrenden Dekorationen der Kriige. Von dieser Kultur hebt sich scharf 
 die Babylonische ab." (Ertrag etc, p., 25). 
 
 " Nothing forbids our holding that Abraham had scribes in his service and 
 probably possessed in cuneiform the substance of Gen. I-XI. He would also take 
 care that the chief events of his life were recorded. 
 
LITERATURE IN CANAAN IN THE PRE-MOSAIC PERIOD. 73 
 
 nians/"* It must be allowed that the proof of cuneiform writ- 
 ing in Palestine during the period in question is slender. It 
 would, however, be passing strange, if the Canaanites, who 
 have hitherto been regarded by the whole Graf-Wellhausen 
 school, as the possessors and purveyors of the very quintes- 
 sence of Canaanite-Israelite lore, had not extensively employed 
 the cuneiform script in the pre-Amama period. Unless, there- 
 fore, the Hittites and particularly the Mitannians adopted the 
 cuneiform at a much earlier date than usually assumed, it is 
 difficult to see how the Palestinians could have gotten the Baby- 
 lonian language and script from that quarter. 
 
 That the Canaanites stood high culturally from the twen- 
 tieth century onward is admitted by scholars generally. So 
 Driver: ''We find a Canaanite civilization in Palestine cir. 
 2000 to 1200 B. C. : this is recognizable especially by the pot- 
 tery. Side by side with this we have traces of the very different 
 Babylonian civilization, which it is evident influenced Canaan 
 deeply during many centuries before the Hebrew occupation. 
 . . . For a century or two before the Israelite period the 
 pottery found at both Gezer and Taanach testifies to the influ- 
 ence of the art and civilization of Phoenicia, Crete, the islands 
 of the Aegean Sea, and Cyprus" (Mod. Res., p., 86). Unless 
 the proto-Phoenician alphabet was employed by the Amorite- 
 Canaanite-Phoenician population as early as 2000 B. C. (as 
 suggested by Hommel and confirmed by many data) we incline 
 to the view that the cuneiform was employed continuously to 
 a late date. 
 
 Amorife Literature. 
 
 Assuming that the cuneiform was current in Canaan from 
 the earliest times, we can understand that the Amorites were in 
 a position to cultivate literature. Even though Prof. Clay has 
 not adduced any distinctively Amorite (as over against Baby- 
 lonian) inscriptions, and though his line of argument is largely 
 
 " See D. D. Luckenbill on "Excavations in Palestine" in Bib. World XXXV, 
 p., 101, who says: "In the opinion of the writer, the Mitannians borrowed the cune- 
 iform writing from the Babylonians, and in turn gave it to their neighbors and 
 successors, the Hittites, and from here it spread along with other Hittite influ- 
 ences into Syria and Palestine Perhaps the most positive proof ot the 
 
 probability of this hypothesis lies in the fact that while the excavations in Pales- 
 tine produced cuneiform tablets— at Tell el-Hesy, Gezer, and Taanach scuh were 
 found— in no case were tablets found which date from before the Amarna ^ert- 
 od". L. adds in a foot-note: "Even if it should be shown that cuneiform 
 reached the Hittites as early as the Hammurabi period, or even earlier, it would 
 not affect our argument that it was not until the Amarna period that cueniform 
 was introduced into Palestine". L's argument in general against the Paribaby- 
 lonists is valid and forcible, but his contention that the cuneiform was wholly un- 
 known in Palestine before the Amarna period goes to the other extreme. 
 
74 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 indirect, he has proved that many deities and usages, heretofore 
 regarded as Babylonian, are of Western or Palestinian origin. 
 "At the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon (2000 B. C), the 
 personal names show that the country was filled with foreign- 
 ers, notably Western Semites .... and the names of the 
 kings of the Isin Dynasty (third millennium B. C.) indicate 
 West Semitic influence upon Babylonia". The fact that ''in the 
 earliest known inscriptions of the Sumerians and Babylonians 
 the West Semitic Mar (or Amar) figures prominently", shows 
 that *'the sun-cult of the West was well established in the ear- 
 liest known period of Babylonian history, and doubtless already 
 had had a long history of development" {op. cit., pp., 96, loi, 
 108).^^ A strong argument is advanced for the view that the 
 Biblical accounts of the Creation, Sabbath, Antediluvians and 
 Deluge, go back to very ancient Amorite or West-Semitic 
 sources, some of which were afterward carried to Babylonia. 
 
 It is gradually coming to be recognized among Semitists 
 that not only was Canaan far advanced in culture and literature 
 in the third and the second millennium B. C, but that the West- 
 land contributed its share to the literature and religion of the 
 East. The indebtedness was not all on one side. Communi- 
 cation between the East and the West was with rare exceptions 
 constant. Says Prof. G. A. Barton : 'Tn the reign of Sham- 
 suiluna, Hammurabi's successor, a man in Sippar leased a 
 wagon for a year with the stipulation that it should not be 
 
 driven to Kittim, i. e., the Mediterranean West-land 
 
 During the latter part of this period there was a considerable 
 movement eastward from the Syrian coast into Babylonia. The 
 migrations were accordingly reciprocal. They were not all in 
 one direction" (Jour. Bib. Lit., XXVIII, 155). 
 
 Sayce, while not agreeing altogether with Clay, allows that 
 he has shown that the Amorite element cannot be neglected in 
 future researches into the early civilization of the East. ''The 
 Amorites lent a good deal to Semitic Babylonia, notably the 
 name and worship of Hadad, the Amorite god, and the culture 
 and literature of Babylonia passed to the Israelites through an 
 Amorite medium" (Expos. Times, Oct., 1910). 
 
 Clay's position has received strong support from L. W. 
 King in his authoritative "History of Sumer and Akkad". 
 
 " Clay argues that other gods of the Babylonian pantheon were originally 
 Western, as Uru, Nergal, Marduk, Ninib, Urash, Shamash, Addu or Adad, Nabu 
 and a few others ( — truly a formidable array — ) and adduces cogent reasons 
 for his conclusions, — reasons which cannot be ignored by the Panbabylonists. 
 
LITERATURE IN CANAAN IN THE PRE-MOSAIC PERIOD. 75 
 
 "The immigration of Semitic nomads into Syria and Northern 
 Babylonia may possibly have been caused by periods of aridity 
 in Central Arabia. However this may be, it is certain that the 
 early Semites reached the Euphrates by way of the Syrian 
 coast and founded their first Babylonian settlements in Akkad. 
 . . ^. In view of the absence of Semitic influence in Sumer 
 during the earlier periods, it may be conjectured that the Sem- 
 itic immigrants did not reach Babylonia from the South, but 
 from the North-West, after traversing the Syrian coast-lands. 
 The first great influx of Semitic nomad tribes left colonists be- 
 hind them in that region, who afterwards as the Amurru, or 
 Western Semites, pressed on in their turn into Babylonia and 
 established the earliest independent dynasty in Babylonia" (pp., 
 VIII, 55).^^ 
 
 Under all these circumstances it is clear that Canaan in the 
 pre-Mosaic period, far from being a barbarous region, pos- 
 sessed the elements of culture and literature existing in the 
 ancient Semitic world generally. The people spoke a language 
 essentially Hebraic ; and even if the Phoenician script was not 
 as yet introduced, the cuneiform was employed not only in for- 
 eign correspondence and business transactions, but perhaps by 
 the whole official class. The references to the Amorites, Ca- 
 naanites, Phoenicians, Sidonians, etc., in the Egyptian and Baby- 
 lonian monuments, as well as the uniform testimony of the Old 
 Testament, leave no doubt that Canaan had its own writing and 
 literature long before the Amarna Letters. That only a small 
 part of this has been recovered need not surprise us, seeing that 
 prior to 1888 the learned world was in total ignorance of any 
 such extensive literature as that of the Amarna period. 
 
 The results already obtained from excavations encourage 
 the hope that the mounds of Palestine contain valuable literary 
 treasures awaiting the spade of the excavator. 
 
 " King holds that there was a return movement : "It was by the coastal 
 regions of Syria that the first Semitic immigrants from the South reached the 
 Euphrates, and it was to Syria that the stream of Semitic influence, now impreg- 
 nated with Sumerian culture, returned" (p., 47). 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 EXTENT AND ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW 
 LITERATURE. 
 
 We propose now to inquire whether the Hebrews were 
 intellectually inferior to their neighbors and failed to cultivate 
 letters until a late date, or whether in fact they acquired the 
 art of writing and produced a high-grade literature at a date 
 very much earlier than allowed by the Grafians. We confine 
 ourselves here to the statements of the Old Testament itself, 
 reserving for a later chapter the discussion of controverted 
 points. 
 
 A. HEBREW LITERATURE IN THE DAVID-JOSIAH PERIOD. 
 
 It is not necessary to support at length the proposition that 
 from the time of Solomon to Hezekiah, and thence to Josiah, 
 Israel produced a large body of literature of the most varied 
 character, prophetical, historical and poetical. Without citing 
 here any books and records concerning whose exact date schol- 
 ars are not agreed, there remain many records, narratives and 
 prophecies written in this period. 
 
 J. The Writing Prophets. 
 
 We have, as perhaps the most important, the so-called 
 early writing prophets of the eighth and seventh centuries, as 
 Amos, Hosea, Joel, Isaiah, Micah, Nahum and Zephaniah; 
 then somewhat later, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Obadiah, Ha- 
 bakkuk, etc. It is allowed on all sides that the earliest of these, 
 Amos and Hosea, wrote in a style characterized by the very 
 perfection of literary art and with a scope of information re- 
 markable for that age. Prof. J. Robertson in accounting for 
 this high culture pointed out that literary composition had been 
 practised in the "schools of the Prophets" from the time of 
 Samuel.^ Accepting the Biblical accounts as correct, we must 
 
 ^ "If we admit the existence of these schools at all, we must give the in- 
 mates something to do connected with the religion and fortunes of the nation. 
 
 Given the power to write, and such incentives, there is no reason why 
 
 many of the compositions crowded together into the so-called first literary age 
 may not in whole or in part belong to an earlier period" (Robertson, Early Re- 
 ligion Israel, 94). 
 
 78 
 
EXTENT AND ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. ']'] 
 
 infer that the three centuries between Solomon and Hezekiah 
 were characterized by intense hterary activity. According to 
 Prov. 25: I, "the men of Hezekiah copied out" various "prov- 
 erbs of Solomon". This must mean at least that they selected 
 and transcribed from a large collection of Solomonic proverbs 
 such as suited their purpose.' Whether the source from which 
 they copied was one book or many, is not clear, but the state- 
 ment implies a literary class — a body of men who, we may sup- 
 pose, cultivated literature as assiduously as the scribes and 
 chroniclers of the Egyptian and Assyrian courts. 
 
 2. Historical Literature. 
 
 There was also produced in this period a large body of 
 theocratic history, as the books of Samuel and Kings. From 
 the statements contained in these and other books, it is evident 
 that the authors of the extant historical books drew largely on 
 written sources no longer extant, as "the History of Nathan the 
 Prophet" and many others. "The historical value of the great 
 prophetic record in the books of Samuel and Kings is due to 
 the fact that it consists for the most part of verbatim quotations 
 from earlier histories and biographies. . . . The growth of 
 these books was gradual .... From their themes and liter- 
 ary character, as well as from their relation to the longer Jude- 
 an narrative, it may be fairly inferred that the Saul and David 
 histories were written not very long after, if not before, the 
 division of the Hebrew empire at the death of Solomon" ( Isra- 
 el's His. and Bio. Narratives, pp., 10, 12, by C. F. Kent). It 
 is clear that in the post- Solomonic period written history was 
 produced on a large scale and in a script easily read. 
 
 Already in the reigns of David and Solomon, much was 
 done in this direction. "With the reign of Solomon a new era 
 in Hebrew history opened. . . . Literature, as well as art, 
 was probably encouraged by him. In addition to the chancel- 
 lor or recorder, two scribes were counted among the important 
 officials of his court (I K. 4: 3). Their duty was probably 
 primarily to conduct the royal correspondence, but for diplo- 
 matic reasons, if for no other, a record of the most important 
 events of each reign would also be needed for reference" (Kent, 
 op. cit., p., 14). That some of the sources used were handed 
 down from early times' is the almost unanimous judgment of 
 scholars. The prophets and priests as well as the professional 
 
78 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 scribes, would be interested in preserving and transcribing 
 carefully the old records. 
 
 S. Poetical Literature. 
 
 Concerning the date of the poetical books, we encounter 
 the two antagonistic theories entertained regarding the Penta- 
 teuch, the conservatives assigning the greater part of this liter- 
 ature to the traditional authors, the Grafians allowing them little 
 or nothing. The later criticism denies that any considerable 
 part of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, EcclesiasLes and the Song, comes 
 down from the David-Solomon period. Nevertheless a very 
 strong argument can be adduced for the other side. "A group 
 of psalms was admitted by both Ewald and Hitzig to be Dav- 
 idic (Pss. 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 19 a). Ewald admitted in addition 
 Pss. 2, 20, 21, 24, 29, 32, no; and Hitzig 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 
 17, 19 b. The Davidic authorship of these psalms is, however, 
 denied by the latest critics. They have not discovered an>thing 
 in them which Ewald and Hitzig did not see, but the evidence 
 of literary activity which these psalms afford, the spirituality 
 which pervades them, their reference to the law, and their 
 recognition of but one place for Jehovah's worship are features 
 which are incompatible with the Graf-Wellhausen theory. On 
 ultimate analysis, this incompatibility is the sole difficulty with 
 these psalms. To save the theory, the Davidic authorship is 
 denied'^ (Dr. J. D. Davis, Bib. World, VII, p., 502). 
 
 Dr. C. A. Briggs denies that the ascription of 74 psalms 
 to David has any critical value, but he finds thirteen psalms 
 (3^7. 18, 34, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 142) which have in 
 their titles references to incidents in the life of David. *Tt is 
 probable that these 13 psalms constituted a little collection of 
 Davidic psalms" (Book of Psalms, I, LXHI). None of these 
 in its present form is by David, though ''Ps. 18 in its original 
 form was probably Davidic, and probably 7, 60". We are not 
 concerned here so much with the exact number of Davidic 
 psalms as with the evidence of literary activity in the reign of 
 the great monarch. Dr. Briggs' admission that such a mag- 
 nificent composition as Ps. 18 ("after removing the glosses 
 there is nothing in the way to his authorship", "the ode stands 
 out in simple grandeur as fittingly appropriate to the historical 
 experiences of David," p., 140, op. cit.), in its original form 
 proceeds from David, implies that the old warrior may have 
 written others. 
 
EXTENT AND ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 79 
 
 B. HEBREW LITERATURE IN THE PRE-DAVIDIC PERIOD. 
 
 That writing" and literature were extensively cultivated in 
 the times of David and Solomon is a well-established fact, con- 
 ceded even by the extremists of the Wellhausen school. Scribes, 
 amanuenses, recorders, secretaries and chroniclers were indis- 
 pensable functionaries at the court. Under David, Jehosha- 
 phat was at the head of the recorders or chroniclers, and Sera- 
 iah was chief of the scribes or secretaries (2 S. 8: 16, 17). 
 Under Solomon, Elihoreph and Ahijah were the head scribes 
 or secretaries, and Jehoshaphat the chief recorder (i K. 4: 3, 
 4). The word translated "vecordQr" (maj^kir) denoted an at- 
 tache of the court whose duty was to record important events 
 for future reference. This was a universal custom throughout 
 the East and probably in vogue among the Hebrews from early 
 times. In Exodus we read : ''Jehovah said unto Moses, write 
 this for a memorial in a book".^ The remembrancer of Da- 
 vid's time was ''a state officer of high rank, who seems not only 
 to have kept a record of events, but to have acted as the king's 
 adviser" (Kirkpatrick, 2 Sam., p., no). 
 
 The data and references in Samuel and Kings render it 
 clear that writing was well known and in extensive use in the 
 time of David. This implies a long preparatory stage of prac- 
 tice of the art in Israel. The contents of the early Old Testa- 
 ment books, rightly construed, and the witness of outside au- 
 thorities, bear out the contention that literature, written litera- 
 ture, and not merely oral literature, (a contradiction in ad- 
 jecto), flourished from time immemorial among the Hebrews. 
 
 Various books and writings are specifically mentioned. 
 David's Lament over Saul and Jonathan, 2 S. i : 18, is said to 
 have been recorded in the already existing ''Book of Jashar". 
 The latter contained other pieces, such as the poem from which 
 the quotation regarding the standing-still of the Sun and Moon 
 in the timic of Joshua, Judges 10: 11 -13, was taken. *'The 
 Book of the Wars of Jehovah", mentioned in Num. 21, must 
 have been very ancient. Jotham's Parable of the trees anoint- 
 ing a king, Jud. 9: 1-21, stands in a very ancient stratum, ac- 
 cording to Driver and most critics. In Jud. 8 : 14, we have an 
 account of a young man of Succoth taken as prisoner, who 
 wrote down for Gideon the names of yy princes and elders. 
 
 * As this stands in the E Code, the charge cannot be brought that the pas- 
 sage is late. 
 
80 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 The fact that a youth taken at random could write implies a 
 general knowledge of the art among the people. 
 
 Deborah's Triumphal Ode, Jud. 5: 1-31, is almost univer- 
 sally admitted, even by the most radical critics, to have been 
 composed about the time of the events celebrated, i. e. cir. 1200 
 II 50. We can go back even further. The age of Joshua is 
 represented as one of considerable literary activity. According 
 to Josh. 8 : 32, "he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the 
 law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children 
 of Israel"." It is clear that the author of the book of Joshua 
 understood that Joshua wrote or caused to be written a copy 
 of the law. So too the written description (Josh. 18 and 19) 
 of the unoccupied territory implies a general knowledge of 
 writing. 
 
 Writing in the Mosaic Age. 
 
 That writing is assumed as well known among the He- 
 brews in the time of the Exodus is evident from many passages 
 in the Hexateuch and the early books of the Old Testament. 
 See Ex. 17 : 14; 24: 4, 7; 34: i ; Num. 5: 23; 17: 3 (Heb. 
 17* 18) ; 33-2; Deut. 6:9; 11 : 20; 31 : 9, etc. In Ex. 17: 
 14 we read : "And Jehovah said unto Moses, write this for a 
 memorial in a book". This stands in J, a document assigned 
 by the critics to about 850 B. C. The narrator must have ob- 
 tained his information either from oral tradition, or from some 
 extant work, perhaps the "Book of the Wars of Jehovah". 
 In any event he must be assumed to have relied on trustworthy 
 authority, reaching back to the Exodus. Again, Ex. 24: 4: 
 "Moses wrote all the words of Jehovah", stands in J, a very 
 ancient document. Here also the narrator must have had un- 
 equivocal proof that Moses wrote or caused to be written the 
 Decalog and the Book of the Covenant. Num. 5:13: "And 
 the priest shall write these curses in a book"; 17: i : "Write 
 thou every man's name upon his rod". Deut. 6:9: "And thou 
 shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house"; 31: 9: 
 "And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests". 
 
 We adduce these passages with the admission that their 
 cogency depends upon the date of the codes in which they occur 
 (the great critical question), but they furnish prima facie evi- 
 dence that the authors of these codes without exception ascribe 
 writing to Moses and his contemporaries. The assumed un- 
 known writers may have been mistaken, but in that case it is 
 
 * This stands in the early JE Code. 
 
EXTENT AND ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 8 1 
 
 difficult to account for the uniform tradition in all the codes 
 that writing was well known in the Mosaic age. Even if it be 
 allowed that J, E, P, and D "nod" occasionally, it is hard to 
 believe that they all "nod" at the same time and place. 
 
 C. THE PROBLEM OF THE DATE OF ORIGIN AND INTRODUCTION OF THE 
 
 PHOENICIAN ALPHABET. i 
 
 According to the traditional view the Pentateuch was writ- 
 ten in the Mosaic period, and the books of Joshua and Judges 
 not far from 1300 to iioo B. C, that is they are affirmed to 
 have been committed tO' writing some centuries before the 
 earliest remains of writing in the Phoenician characters. Ac- 
 cording to the Grafians, the Phoenician alphabet did not reach 
 the Hebrews until 1000 B. C, and so of course they had no 
 literature before that time. If now it were certain that the 
 Phoenician alphabet (whenever invented) was generally intro- 
 duced about the Amarna period (1400 B. C), a strong argu- 
 ment could be constructed for the view that the above, as well 
 as the later, Hebrew Scriptures were transmitted from the first 
 in the Phoenician characters. Or, if we had even a dozen lines 
 of any part of the Old Testament in the cuneiform script, it 
 might be inferred that the early parts of the O. T. were com- 
 posed in those characters. But in the absence of definite infor- 
 mation either way, we are compelled to resort to a critical, his- 
 torical and palseographical inquiry as to the actual mode in 
 which the early Hebrew Scriptures were transmitted. Such an 
 inquiry is fundamental if we would get at the real kernel of 
 Pentateuch criticism. 
 
 The claim is constantly made by a certain class of writers 
 that Moses as a matter of course wrote the Pentateuch; by 
 others that he wrote none of it. The parties to the controversy 
 rarely touch on the preliminary question as to the script that 
 would be employed. The first of these seldom mention the 
 fact that if Moses wrote the Pentateuch he must have employed 
 either the Egyptian hieratic, or the Babylonian cuneiform, or 
 the Phoenician script, though as a matter of fact we have not a 
 scrap of direct evidence that he used either of these. Hundreds 
 of pages are consumed in showing the learning of Moses and 
 the historicity and Egypticity of the Pentateuch, but scarcely a 
 page is devoted to the all-important question whether Moses 
 could write at all in any of these scripts, even if the Phoenician 
 were current in his age. On the other hand the deniers of the 
 6 
 
82 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch affirm that Moses could not 
 have written the Pentateuch for the obvious reason that both 
 the Egyptian and Babylonian scripts were too cumbersome and 
 unwieldy for this purpose, and that the Phoenician alphabet was 
 not yet invented, or at least was not yet employed for literary 
 purposes by the Hebrews. 
 
 The controversy hinges, therefore, largely, not on an a priori 
 and critical analysis of the Hexateuch, nor yet on the assumed 
 historical situation implied in the codes (the line of argument 
 pursued ahke by the common conservative and radical criti- 
 cism), but on the prior question of the script employed by the 
 Hebrews in the Mosaic age, and specifically the date of their 
 adoption of the Phoenician alphabet. The situation, according- 
 ly demands a thorough inquiry into the date of origin of the 
 Phoenician, or more correctly, Semitic, alphabet with the view 
 of determining whether already at the date of the Exodus, 
 Moses and his scribes may have employed this script.* 
 
 * To the lay reader it may seem unnecessary to devote so much space to this 
 phase of the subject, but it will be seen that thoroughness demands it. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF THE PHOENICIAN 
 ALPHABET. 
 
 IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT. 
 
 The results reached thus far warrant the inference that 
 writing was sufficiently far advanced in Canaan in 1500 B. C. 
 to be employed for literary purposes. The Tell el Amarna tab- 
 lets show that at this time the Babylonian script was well known 
 at least to scribes in all the provinces at the Eastern end of the 
 Mediterranean. The evidence from the Old Testament, as ad- 
 mitted by critics of all shades, shows further that the Hebrews 
 were well acquainted with writing in the times of Samuel, 
 David and Solomon. How far back of this period, writing was 
 employed in Israel for literary purposes is a disputed question ; 
 but if, as shown above, the Song of Deborah, was committed to 
 writing from the first, we have at the approximate date of 11 50 
 B. C. a poem of considerable length composed in a script with 
 which the writer gives every indication of being quite familiar. 
 
 In what script was this early Hebrew literature composed? 
 Was it the Egyptian, the Babylonian, or the Phoenician? We 
 shall endeavor to show that it was the latter, and that the script 
 was invented and introduced at a period considerably earlier 
 than is generally assumed. It may be well to remark that in un- 
 dertaking to determine the origin oi the Phoenician alphabet we 
 enter a field in which the literature is immense, forming a large 
 library, but the generally accepted results very meager. In 
 fact we admit at the outset that no one knows when, where, or 
 by whom that alphabet was devised and introduced. The prob- 
 lem has, however, been simplified and reduced to narrower lim- 
 its in recent years through the discovery and decipherment of 
 some very ancient inscriptions. These have enabled epigraph- 
 ists to carry the date of the origin of the script in question back 
 considerably further than critics conceded twenty years ago. 
 We shall ask the indulgence of the reader while we examine 
 somewhat minutely this evidence, which, though dry and techni- 
 cal, furnishes the most direct and cogent proof that, after all, 
 
 83 
 
84 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 the Pentateuch and the early Old Testament books may have 
 been committed to writing at the time assigned in the generally 
 accepted chronology. The discussion of this phase of the sub- 
 ject may seem unnecessary, but the gain in the end will be 
 immense. 
 
 The logic of the Wellhausen school runs thus : i . There 
 can be no literature in the real sense without writing. 2. The 
 Hebrews had no knowledge of the Phoenician script or of writ- 
 ing for literary purposes until long after the date of the Exodus. 
 3. Ergo, they could not have reduced any part of the Penta- 
 teuch to writing before about 950 B. C. In investigating the 
 date of the origin and spread of the Phoenician alphabet, we 
 com.e, therefore, to the very core of the whole Pentateuch con- 
 troversy. Obviously if it cannot be shown that Moses wrote 
 in either the Egyptian, cuneiform or Phoenician script, or, if 
 the Phoenician alphabet was not invented until 1,000 B. C, or 
 if invented, was unknown to the Hebrews before that date, all 
 argumentation whether or not Moses wrote the Pentateuch or 
 any part of it is worse than useless. If on the other hand it 
 should appear that the Phoenician script was invented about the 
 fifteenth century and if further there is strong proof that the 
 Hebrews became acquainted therewith not long afterward, we 
 have historical, linguistic and epigraphic evidence that the Pen- 
 tateuch or at least the underlying material may have been writ- 
 ten down at a very early period. The question of the date of 
 the introduction of the Phoenician script is thus fundamental 
 to the whole issue of the composition and transmission of the 
 early Old Testament scriptures. 
 
 Since the Greek, Latin, English and other alphabets are 
 derived from the Phoenician, the question of its origin has not 
 merely Biblical, but also general interest. The subject pos- 
 sesses a certain fascination from the fact that we have no scrap 
 of reliable information from any quarter and are consequently 
 compelled to theorize. We review the chief theories in the 
 following excursus. 
 
 excursus: historical resume. 
 
 I. The Phoenician Origin. 
 
 (i). Dissemination by the Phoenicians. The classical writers in 
 general relate that the Greeks derived their alphabet from the Phoe- 
 nicians and accordingly inferred that they were the inventors. Hero- 
 dotus says : "These Phoenicians who came with Cadmus brought in 
 among the Hellenes many arts when they settled in the land of Boeotia, 
 
THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF THE PHOENICIAN ALPHABET. 85 
 
 and especially letters, which did not exist, as appears, to me, among 
 the Hellenes before this time . . , The lonians, having received let- 
 ters by instruction of the Phoenicians, changed their form slightly and 
 in doing so they d-eclared them to be called Phoenician, as was just, 
 seeing that the Phoenicians had introduced them into Hellas" (V, 58). 
 Lucan says : "Phoenices primi, famae si credetur, aussi mansuram 
 rudibus vocem signare iiguris" (Phar. 3: 290). 
 
 All the Greek writers from Homer to Hecataeus ascribe to the 
 Phoenicians a marked influence on Greek art and letters. The islands 
 of the Aegean are represented as visited and perhaps colonized by the 
 Phoenicians, even before the movement of the Greeks to Asia Minor. 
 The: Greek language itself has a number of Phoenician loan-words for 
 articles of trade, weights, writing-material and utensils. The Phoeni- 
 cians were doubtless the chief agents in the dissemination of the 
 script passing under their name. 
 
 (2). Did the Phoenicians Invent the Alphabet? We must dis- 
 tinguish between the dissemination of the alphabet by the Phoenicians 
 and its invention. It is possible that the Phoenicians, having a knowl- 
 edge of the common scripts of that day, selected the elements most 
 suitable for the purpose and combined them into a practical system on 
 the basis of some such principle as that of acrophony, wlhich clearly 
 underlies the Phoenician alphabet. A tradition recorded by Eusebius 
 is to the effect, that "the Phoenicians did not claim to be themselves 
 the inventors of the art of writing, but adrnitted that it was obtained by 
 them from Egypt". Being of Semitic stock they must be supposed 
 to have used previously the cuneiform, and through commercial rela- 
 tions to have had a knowledge of the Egyptian hieratic. 
 
 2. Egyptian Origin. 
 
 Already in the ancient world the view was widespread that the 
 alphabet is of Egyptian origin. Plato, Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch and 
 Tacitus mention the tradition. In modern times Olshausen advanced 
 the same theory, which has been held also by other recent philologists 
 and has undergone various modifications. The common view is that 
 the Egyptian script never became really alphabetic ; but Breasted and 
 other recent Egyptologists hold that it contained alphabetic elements 
 from the first and thus easily lent itself to the formation of a true 
 alphabet. Indeed Breasted is so certain that the Phoenicians were indebt- 
 ed to the Egyptians for their alphabet that he declines to argue the case, 
 but assumes it as established beyond a peradventure. He assigns the 
 origin to the period of Merneptah and Rammeses HI, circa 1225. 
 
 If we inquire into the possible process by which the Egyptian 
 characters formed the basis of the Phoenician, we encounter two chief 
 theories, namely that the Phoenician alphabet was derived from the 
 Egyptian hieratic, or from the hieroglyphic. The former view was 
 propounded at great length by the French scholar Emanuel de Rouge 
 (Memoire sur Vorigine Egyptienne de ['alphabet Phenicien Paris, 1874), 
 and is unreservedly reproduced by Isaac Taylor in his "Hist, of the 
 Alphabet" 1898. The latter view is represented by another French 
 Semitist, J. Halevy. 
 
 (i). Egyptian Hieratic. Thte correctness of the results reached 
 by de Rouge depends largely on the correctness of his premises. If 
 
86 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 these be allowed, the rest of the argument follows almost necessarily. 
 Taylor says: "The secret of M. de Rouge's success in solving the 
 problem which had baffled so many predecessors must be attributed to 
 his clear perception of the fact, itself antecedently probable, that the 
 immediate prototypes of the Semitic letters must be sought, not, as 
 had hitherto been vainly attempted, among the hieroglyphic pictures 
 of the Egyptian monuments, but among the cursive characters which 
 the Egyptians had developed out of their hieroglyphics, and which 
 were employed for literature and secular purposes, the hieroglyphic 
 writing being reserved for monumental and sacred uses" (Alphabet, 
 I., 90). 
 
 De Rouge had recourse to an old form of the hieratic script, orig- 
 inating under the early empire, and used during the Semitic conquest 
 of lower Egypt known as the Hyksos invasion. He places the origina- 
 tion of the Semitic alphabet in the period of four or five centuries of 
 Semitic rule in Egypt. 
 
 The form of hieratic writing chosen by de Rouge for comparison 
 is represented in the celebrated Prisse Papyrus, now in the National 
 Library, Paris, and supposed to date from the eleventh dynasty, ca. 
 2100 B. C. This is brought into comparison with a comparatively 
 late form of the Phoenician script. When de Rouge first put forward 
 his hypothesis in 1859, neither the Moabite Stone nor other early Sem- 
 itic inscriptions had yet been discovered; and so he compared the hie- 
 ratic with the Eshmunazer inscription of the fifth century B. C, which, 
 though representing the same general type of writing, it at least four 
 centuries later than the Moabite Stone and accordingly so much fur- 
 ther removed from the early hieratic. Here is an interval of at least 
 sixteen centuries. Allowance ought to be made for changes naturally 
 taking place during this period. Again, the hieratic characters are 
 cursive, freely traced by a pencil, while the Semitic are cut in stone 
 with a chisel. These and other objections suggest themselves at 
 once. Since the discovery of early Phoenician inscriptions, it has been 
 found that the characters resemble more nearly the Egyptian hieratic 
 than those selected by de Rouge. Hence his theory has received un- 
 expected support from this quarter. It is the fashion now to speak 
 slightingly of de Rouge's theory, but a careful camparison of all the 
 forms of script accessible to us may necessitate a more favorable 
 judgment. 
 
 It is known that of the four hundred picture-signs, some forty- 
 five had approached a syllabic character. In order to avoid the 
 charge of selecting letters to suit his purpose, de Rouge confined 
 himself to the so-called "Egyptian Alphabet" which according to 
 Plutarch consisted of twenty-five letters. It is from these twenty-five 
 symbols that he attempts to derive the twenty-two Semitic letters. 
 De Rouge's hypothesis is substantially that some Semite selected and 
 employed 21 of the most suitable hieratic characters as the prototypes 
 of the alphabet known as the Phoenician. His theory has been ac- 
 cepted by a number of experts, as Lenormant, Maspero, Ebers, Euting. 
 It has been opposed by no small body of Orientalists, as Lagarde, 
 R. S. Poole, Fried. Delitzsch and nearly the whole Wellhausen school 
 who unite in placing the origin of the alphabet much later, ca. 1200. 
 
 Lagarde urges that the letters teth, tsadhe, quoph, and ayin, which 
 
THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF THE PHOENICIAN ALPHABET. 87 
 
 denote sounds peculiar to the Semitic languages, could not have been 
 represented by hieratic characters and must have been invented by the 
 Semites or derived from some other source. He further points out 
 that the names of the Phoenician letters do not refer to the Egyptian 
 prototypes. Thus why is the second letter called beth (house) if_ it 
 was derived from the picture of a crane? To this it may be replied 
 that such a renaming is not uncommon in similar borrowings in other 
 languages. Lagarde's chief objection, however, is that as a matter of 
 fact there is no adequate resemblance between the Phoenician letters 
 and the hieratic prototypes. This objection, if sustained, is fatal to de 
 Rouge's hypothesis, as Taylor admits. A comparison of the letters of 
 the Prisse Papyrus with those on the Moabite Stone reveals upon first 
 glance nothing more than a general resemblance in the case of certain 
 letters, as betJi, ghimel, daleth, wazv, kaph, mem, resh and quopJi. Upon 
 closer inspection it is possible to see some degree of resemblance in the 
 general form and slant of the letters. If to this be added the develop- 
 ment taking place during the ten centuries between the Prisse letters 
 and the Moabite, the hypothesis does not appear as fanciful as some- 
 times represented. 
 
 (2). Egyptian Hieroglyphic. The celebrated French _ Semitist, 
 Joseph Halevy, sees the nearest resemblance to the Phoenician script 
 in the Egyptian hieroglyphics and finds at least 13 letters traceable to 
 the Egyptian. (See his Melanges d'epigraphie et d'archeologie semi- 
 tiques. Paris, 1874). But the fact that he is compelled to resort_ to 
 some forced comparisons in order to establish the desired similarities, 
 greatly weakens his own theory. He, however, writes : "So far as 
 my arguments are concerned, I consider them stronger than ever, and 
 not one of the points wherein Taylor seeks to weaken them is tenable. 
 In spite of the careful selection made from the characters of the 
 Prisse Papyrus, not the least resemblance exists between them and 
 the Hebrew letters numbered, i, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 22, The 
 ayin has no equivalent at all, and among the other nine,^ only four, 
 namely 4, 12, 17, 21 have a greater similarity in the hieratic than 
 in the Phoenician; two, namely, 10 and 19 in the Phoenician than in 
 the hieratic, and one, waw, has a different inclination in the two 
 systems. There remain therefore only two characters, 18 and 20, which 
 in any way resemble each other." 
 
 Halevy admits that only 12 or 13 characters are derived directly 
 from the hieroglyphs ; but by reason of added strokes and lines the other 
 letters can be obtained. As may be seen (in our Plate col. i, 2, 3) by 
 placing the letters of the Phoenician alphabet and the selected hiero- 
 glyphs side by side, the similarity is very slight; and what Lagarde 
 says of de Rouge applies equally to Halevy: 'Tf we omit what does 
 not suit and supply what is needed, it can easily be shown that the pic- 
 ture of an ox looks like that of an eagle and the picture of a house like 
 that of a crane". 
 
 3. Hittite Origin. 
 
 In recent times the view has been advanced that the Semitic script 
 is a modification of the Hittite. Since the Hittite inscriptions con- 
 tain forms resembling the oldest type of Hebrew Letters, it is possible 
 that a system of writing different from the Egyptian and the cunei- 
 form may have been in use at an early period and become the basis 
 
88 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 of the Phcenician alphabet. Unfortunately the Hittite inscriptions have 
 been discovered only within recent years and though European and 
 American scholars have been engaged in deciphering them, only a few 
 characters have been ascertained with certainty. The key to the lan- 
 guage has not yet been found. 
 
 The first of these inscriptions known to scholars were four stones 
 found at Hamath to the North of Palestine in 1872 ; since that time 
 others have been discovered at Aintab, Kadesh, Marash, Zinjirli, Car- 
 chemish, and Boghaz Koi. The writing is alternatively from left to right 
 and right to left, as in early Greek inscriptions. The letters are in relief 
 and have apparently no connection with any known script. From the 
 fact that the Hittites are often mentioned in the Old Testament and 
 that the discovery of the nature of their writing and civilization may 
 throw light on Old Testament problems, the investigation of their 
 script is a fascinating theme and has engaged the attention of various 
 scholars. ^ 
 
 Of the inscriptions at Boghaz Koi Prof. B. B. Charles writes: 
 "Many are written in Babylonian, that lingua franca which penetrated 
 to all parts where Babylonian influence was felt. These naturally can 
 be read without much difficulty, and in them is revealed a second 
 Amama correspondence, letters to and from all the great powers of 
 the day, one having the peculiar interest of being a cuneiform dupli- 
 cate of the famous treaty between the Hittites and Egyptians. The 
 majority, however, are in cuneiform Hittite, and form, together with 
 those of the same character found in various parts of Cappadocia, and 
 the tablets in this tongue found in the Amama collection, a fair-sized 
 library" (N. Y. Independent, Oct. 21, 1909). 
 
 Ward says: "We can hardly doubt that the Hittite script had its 
 origin in an imitation of the Egyptian hieroglyphics. In the time of 
 Rameses II they engraved on an oblong silver plate, in their own 
 language, the text of their treaty with Egypt; and probably their sys- 
 tem of hieroglyphics was invented some time in the two or three 
 centuries before that, but after they first came in contact with Egypt" 
 (Rec. Res. 184). Ward supposes that some Hittite merchant or sol- 
 dier acquired a knowledge of the Egyptian hieroglyphics and con- 
 structed a similar system for his people. The Hittite characters are, 
 however, unlike the Egyptian, there being no lions or wild beasts, 
 but herds of oxen, goats and hares. Ward admits "that thus far only 
 a few characters are plausibly identified, and no sentence can be read, 
 not even a proper name". 
 
 Prof. Charles recognizes three general periods in the develop- 
 ment of the Hittite inscriptions, the first going back to 1500 B, C, or 
 earlier. With the increased resources at command, specialists will 
 doubtless ere long decipher the language: meanwhile in our ignorance 
 of the real nature of the script it is hazardous to affirm that it formed 
 even a starting-point for the Semitic alphabet. 
 
 1 It is not known to what family of languages the Hittite belongs, and much 
 ihat has been written rests on pure conjecture. The chief authorities are Sayce, 
 The Hittites. 1888; W. Wright, The Empire of the Hittites, 1884; E. Meyer, Ge- 
 schichte des Altertums; Conder, The Hittites, 1898; W. H. Ward (in Hilprecht's 
 Recent Research in Bible Lands). 
 
THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF THE PHOENICIAN ALPHABET. 89 
 
 4. The Cuneiform. 
 
 )Some scholars have undertaken to show that the Semitic alpha- 
 bet is traceable to the Babylonian-Assyrian cuneiform, in its earlier 
 or later form. 
 
 (i). The Neo-Assyrian. W. Decke traces the alphabet back to 
 the New Assyrian. Tbe validity of his argumentation depends on the 
 existence of forms assumed as intermediate between the Assyrian and 
 the old Phoenician, but not now extant. But as Stade pointed out, 
 it would be more natural to start with the old Babylonian. The hy- 
 pothesis finds little support among scholars. 
 
 (^). The Old Babylonian. This view is set forth by Hommel 
 in his Gesch. Bab. u. Assy, and in the article "Babylonia" in Hast. Die. 
 Bible. It is substantially as follows. The Semites who developed the 
 alphabet were a nomadic people, as seen from the names of the letters. 
 It is evident that the seafaring and commercial Phoenicians would not 
 have selected the terms ox, camel, door, etc. Of the civilized nations 
 with whom the oldest nomadic Semites came into contact, the ancient 
 Babylonians are most prominent from a phonetic view-point. They 
 had a system of phonograms, whose general appearance resembled the 
 Semitic alphabet far more than did the Egyptian hieroglyphics. Fur- 
 ther, the Babylonian-Assyrian language knows only one ch sound and 
 only one ayin. We may suppose the development to have been some- 
 what as follows. The Semitic Beduins of the Syrian desert, the an- 
 cestors of the Hebrews, Aramaeans, and Arabs, saw and admired as 
 early as 2000 B. C. in their expeditions to the Euphrates, the old Baby- 
 lonian inscriptions. That one could in this way perpetuate events and 
 exploits seemed to them something wonderful and worthy of imita- 
 tion (Benzinger regards this as the acme of improbability). With the 
 few phrases which they had in common with the Babylonians, they 
 learned the names of a series of ideograms, as alpu, bitu, gimillu, daltu, 
 and so on, out of which they then, starting with the syllabaries, ar- 
 ranged and simplified the characters of their alphabet. Thus they 
 obtained aleph, beth, daleth and at least eigiht letters, in which the 
 similarity is marked. It is not improbable that in a few instances the 
 Babylonian syllabic signs were adopted, as in the letters mem and he 
 and perhaps others; finally, after most of the letters had been devised 
 a few others were added. 
 
 The chief objection to this view may be summarized in the lan- 
 guage of Nowack. (a). The Bab.-Ass. cuneiform is in a transition stage 
 from the ideographic to the syllabic script; and the Persian was the 
 first to introduce the syllabic element, (b). Accordingly the neighbors 
 of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as the Hamathseans, had probably a 
 kind of picture-writing, but no real alphabet, whereas all the Semites 
 bordering on Egypt came to have alpbabetic writing, (c). The old 
 Persian scr^t, which undoubtedly is a development of the Babylonian- 
 Ass, writing, has an origin entirely different from w'hat must have 
 been the course of development in the Semitic alphabet. 
 
 But Hommel says : "It is becoming ever more probable that even 
 the so-called Canaanitish or Phoenician form of writing, to which the 
 S. Arabian is most closely allied, was derived not from the Egyptians 
 but from the Babylonians, as early as 2000 B. C. It is a transformation 
 
go ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 into cursive of a number of old Babylonian signs, and may have orig- 
 inated in E. Arabia about the time of the first N. Babylonian dynasty, 
 which was of Arabian descent" (Hast. Die. I, p., 223). Hommel's 
 later view is presented in his Grundr. d. Geogr. u. Gesch. d. Alt. 
 Orients^ which we discus'S in Chapter IX. 
 
 5. Aramaic Origin. 
 
 Some scholars incline to the view that the origin is traceable to 
 the Aramaeans. De Lagarde was a prominent advocate of this hy- 
 pothesis. It derives support from the fact that of the 22 letters at 
 least II are rough pictures of the names, which are in general Semitic. 
 i\Iany things favor the claim that the Aramaeans were the first to in- 
 troduce the letters subsequently known as Phoenician; this claim being 
 allowed, it would be a short step to the thesis that they were also 
 the inventors. It must be remembered that the Aramaic was the lan- 
 guage of common intercourse between the East and the West, be- 
 tween Mesopotamia and Canaan, for a period of nearly two thousand 
 years, or from Laban to Christ. 
 
 In the covenant between Laban and Jacob, Gen. 31 : 47, the "heap 
 of witness" is called Galeed in the Hebrew of Jacob, but jeger-saha- 
 dutha in the old Aramaic of Laban. The passage testifies that Laban 
 spoke the Aramaic and that Jacob, who in his twenty-years' sojourn 
 in Mesopotamia doubtless acquired the Aramaic, preferred to use here 
 his mother-tongue. The incident, besides throwing light on the poly- 
 glottal character of that age, shows that both Hebrew and Aramaic 
 were spoken in the i8th century B. C. (we assume the essential cor- 
 rectness of the narrative). 
 
 It would appear that the Semitic or Phoenician script came into 
 general use upon the withdrawal of Babylonian influence in Palestine 
 after the 15th century. McCurdy adduces strong arguments for the 
 Aramaic origin : "It is probable that it was devised in the centre of 
 the Western Semites, and not among the people of the Mediterranean 
 border-land, whose business dealings were mainly with non-Semites. 
 Hence not Phoenicia, but Mesopotamia, the centre of the land traffic, 
 should be looked upon as the region of its origin. The great emporium, 
 Charran, a home of learned priests, and one of the greatest resorts of 
 travellers and merchants in western Asia, may possibly have been the 
 city where it was elaborated" (Hist. Proph. & Mon., iii, 25). 
 The chief arguments of McCurdy are: (i). The language and writing 
 of the Aramaeans took the place of the Babylonian in the active busi- 
 ness life of the whole region west of the lower Euphrates and Tigris; 
 it was the language of business and diplomacy much earlier than the 
 time of Hezekiah (2 K. 18: 26). (2). Historically, the common 
 alphabet changed far more among the Aramaeans, than among the 
 Phoenicians. The Hebrew or "square" characters were derived from 
 it. The same change doubtless went on at an earlier period. (3). In 
 the eighth and seventh centuries, the Aramaean language and writ- 
 ing were frequently used in Assyria and Babylonia along with the 
 native cuneiform. The characters are practically identical with con- 
 temporary Phoenician. On the supposition that alphabet-making be- 
 gan with the Phoenicians and spread eastward, it is not easy to un- 
 derstand why the Aramaean type diverged so little from the Phoenician. 
 
THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF THE PHOENICIAN ALPHABET. 9I 
 
 (4). The Aramseans did most to spread the knowledge of the alpha- 
 bet throug-hout Western Asia. From the eighth century onward, 
 their inscriptions are found from N. Syria to West-Central Arabia, 
 and from Egypt to the banks of the Tigris. 
 
 *Tn fine", says McCurdy, "the historic role of the Aramaeans, 
 played during the formative era of the alphabet, their function as 
 intermediaries and negotiators, and their geographical distribution, 
 seem to have predestined them to devise a more fitting medium of 
 expression and communication than that employed by their Babylonian 
 and Hittite predecessors" (Op. cit., Ill, 27). 
 
 6. Cretan Origin. 
 
 In addition to other ancient civilizations, recent exploration has 
 brought to light primitive centers of culture in the Greek islands and 
 archipelagoes. "There existed human society in the Hellenic area, 
 organized and productive, to a period so remote that its origins were 
 more distant from the age of Pericles than that age is from our own. 
 We have probably to deal with a total period of civilization in the 
 Aegean not much shorter than in the Nile Valley" (Hogarth, Authori- 
 ty & Archaeology) . Various scholars, notably A. J. Evans, have un- 
 earthed a very ancient civilization in the islands of the Mediterranean. 
 In his "Cretan Pictographs" (1895) Mr. Evans has established the 
 fact of an indigenous culture and of an extensive intercourse between 
 Crete and Greece, Egypt and Canaan, centuries before the Phoenicians 
 entered on their famous maritime expeditions. 
 
 Evans came across some interesting specimens of ancient writing. 
 The hieroglyphic characters engraved on the 21 stones depicted by 
 him in the above work number Z2, and include pictorial and ideo- 
 graphic forms of the following proportion of objects: marine objects, 
 3; geometrical figures, 4; the human body, 6; vegetable forms, 8; parts 
 of houses, 8; arms and implements, 17; animals and birds, 17; uncer- 
 tain symbols, 12. Evans presents a chart from which it appears proba- 
 ble that of the 32 linear signs 16 approach to the Egyptian and 16 to the 
 Hittite forms, but all have more or less an independent character. 
 "Some Cretan types present a surprising analogy to the Asianic; on the 
 other hand many of the most recent of _ the Hittite symbols are con- 
 spicuous by their absence. The parallelism can best be explained by 
 supposing that both systems had grown up in a more or less conter- 
 minous area out of still more primitive pictographic elements" (Jour. 
 Hel. StuJ. 
 
 The above discoveries have been supplemented by others In 
 Egypt. "Among the antiquities which make the Fayum so renowned 
 a district are the remains of two cities ; Kahun, which dates from 
 2500 B. C. and Gurob, which is some 12 centuries later, both sites 
 yielding evidence of Asian and Aegean settlers" (Clodd, Story of the 
 Alphabet). While digging there some years ago Prof. Flinders Petrie 
 discovered fragments of Aegean pottery inscribed with characters re- 
 sembling and in some cases identical with those found by Evans. 
 The relics unearthed at Kahun are, says Petrie, as old as the city 
 and "it will require a very certain proof of the supposed Arabian 
 source of the Phoenician alphabet before we can venture to deny that 
 we 'have here the origin of the Mediterranean alphabets" (Ten Years 
 Digging in Egypt, 134). 
 
92 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Contemporary with the Cretan there were other ancient Mediter- 
 ranean scripts. In Cyprus there existed a linear script similar to 
 Asian systems like the Karian and Iberian, which it is supposed had 
 been developed among people with whom the Phcenicians were in con- 
 tact at a time prior as far as we at present know, to the development 
 of the Phoenician script. Evans guardedly suggests that the Cretan 
 linear script was the parent of the Phoenician alphabet, admitting, 
 however, that the development of the Cretan signary was "aided by a 
 knowledge of the existence of the highly developed Egj-ptian system". 
 In his view, "the linear Cretan system indicates a much more advanced 
 method of writing than the hieroglyphic; and the Egyptian parallels 
 are here less in evidence". It is the linear script which resembles the 
 Phoenician alphabet, or rather "the theoretic pictorial originals of the 
 Phoenician forms". Prsetorius likewise holds that the Phoenician 
 script-makers were indebted to the Cretan. 
 
 A solution of the whole problem hinges on the character and an- 
 tiquity of the Semitic inscriptions, which we now proceed to consider. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 EARLY SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS. 
 
 I. 
 
 NORTH SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS. 
 A. SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 I. Importance of Epigraphy and Palaeography. 
 
 Two comparatively new sciences, which will have an im- 
 portant bearing on Old Testament study and investigation, have 
 sprung up in recent years. In epigraphy, the science of in- 
 scriptions, the ancient writings on stone are examined with the 
 view of determining their age, character and historical value; 
 palaeography, the science of ancient writing, deals more especial- 
 ly with the question of the age, trustworthiness and general 
 character of an ancient writing other than on stone or metal. 
 We are concerned here more particularly with the former.^ 
 
 2. Number of Semitic Inscriptions. 
 
 It is only within comparatively recent times that the need 
 has arisen for a scientific examination of the ancient inscrip- 
 tions. The numxber of recovered Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, 
 Arabic, Hittite and Greek inscriptions has increased so prodig- 
 iously in the last half century that only a thorough classification 
 can render them available as trustworthy witnesses. Fortun- 
 ately the most valuable of the Semitic inscriptions have been 
 deciphered and classified by scholars after years of patient 
 study and comparison, and have been published in huge folios 
 at the expense either of learned societies or of benevolently dis- 
 posed men of large mxcans. As these volumes are found in the 
 large libraries, it becomes possible to study the inscriptions in 
 facsimiles almost as well as at first hand. 
 
 Ancient writing on any material possesses a high value in 
 ascertaining the age of the script, or the literature generally; 
 but writing on stone or mietal or any durable substance posses- 
 
 1 The phrase 'Semitic Inscriptions' in the broad sense includes Babylonian, 
 Assyrian and other writings in a Semitic language whatever the script, but _ in 
 this work the expression is restricted to inscriptions in the so-called Phoenician 
 script as over against the cuneiform. 
 
94 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 ses obvious advantages over any other. The exact forms of the 
 letters remain as originally written thousands of years ago and 
 may be studied in their chronological sequence. The evidence 
 of an inscription, assuming that its age is established, is the evi- 
 dence of a contemporaneous witness and cannot be impeached 
 on the ground of being a late transcript, as in the case of a cop- 
 ied papyrus or parchment roll. By means of inscriptions, whose 
 date can be determined, sometimes definitely, sometimes ap- 
 proximately, and by comparison of inscriptions from the same 
 or adjacent, or even widely separated countries, we can deter- 
 mine the date of other inscriptions and thus discover the marks 
 of age borne by the script. It must be remembered that in 
 ancient times and until the age of printing, the peculiarities, 
 merits and defects, the national and local characteristics of writ- 
 ing, were far more marked than today. 
 
 3. Semitic Inscriptions in General, 
 
 The Semitic inscriptions are now available for the study 
 of the rise and antiquity of the alphabet. Unfortunately no 
 extant inscription represents the original script by a number of 
 centuries, the oldest dating from about 1,000 B. C. How long be- 
 fore that date the script was invented is not known. ^ The prob- 
 lem, therefore, is to determine what light these texts found in 
 widely separated regions and written in various Semitic dialects, 
 throw on the age and country of the original Phoenician, or 
 more properly, Semitic alphabet. On the basis of the extant 
 inscriptions, we may classify the types as follows: i. The 
 Phoenician in the narrow sense. 2. The Aramaic. 3. The 
 Hebrew. 4. The South Semitic. Since our purpose is to trace 
 the course of development with the view of determining the 
 approximate date of the origin of the Semitic alphabet and 
 of its adoption by the Hebrews, we confine ourselves to inscrip- 
 tions covering the period between 1,000 and 400 B. C.^ 
 
 ' The history of the Semitic alphabet is largely a history of the external 
 change of the letters. The general form of the letters in late North Semitic writ- 
 ings is similar to that in the oldest monuments. The Moabite Stone, whose age 
 is definitely determined from the mention of certain names and events, is the 
 standard of comparison with other inscriptions. 
 
 ■ A brief account of these inscriptions is found in the Encyclopedias and 
 Large Bible Dictionaries. More detailed information is given in special works 
 and journals on Semitic epigraphy, as Taylor's Alphabet, and G. A. Cooke's Text- 
 Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions. 
 
 The classic work, indispensable here, is the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum 
 (designated by CIS), Pt. I, Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions; Pt. II, Aramaic 
 Inscriptions, etc. The standard German authority is Mark Lidzbarski: Hand- 
 buch der Nordsemitischen Epigraphik, etc., I Text, II Tafeln. Also his Ephemerxs 
 flier Semitische Epigraphik. Vid. also Euting's Schrifttafel in Zimmern's Ver- 
 gleichende Grammatik der Semitischen Sprachen. 
 
NORTH SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS. 95 
 
 B. THE PHOENICIAN INSCRIPTIONS, 
 
 We classify as Phoenician (in the narrow sense) the in- 
 scriptions which linguistically and palaeographically may be 
 conveniently so designated, even though some of them are 
 strictly Moabite, Sidonian or Tyrian. The inscriptions regard- 
 ed as typical and of special epigraphical value are given in the 
 following account. Of those entering into consideration here, 
 one was found in Moab, one in Southern Palestine, three in 
 Sidon, two in Tyre, another in Cyprus, one in Sardinia, two in 
 Egypt, and several in Assyria. The use of the alphabet in 
 these widely separated regions shows that in the course of 
 centuries, this special type of the Semitic alphabet had been 
 introduced into every land whither Phoenician colonists had 
 penetrated. Since the Phoenicians were the merchants and 
 common carriers on the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean 
 from the earliest period of which history gives an account, we 
 need not be surprised that the oldest remains of the Semitic 
 alphabet are in the Phoenician dialect and script. 
 
 I. The Moabite Stone. 
 
 The history of the discovery of this inscription has been 
 narrated so often that a brief notice here will suffice.^ The 
 stone contains an account by Mesha, King of Moab, of the sub- 
 jection of his country to Israel and of his part in regaining the 
 disputed territory. It is a graphic narrative yielding much 
 valuable historical, linguistic and archaeological material. The 
 language is that of Moab, a dialect akin to Phoenician and He- 
 brew.^ The inscription serves as a general type of the West- 
 Semitic group of the tenth century B. C. The character of 
 the letters is seen in our Chart (col. XII). The approximate 
 date, ascertained by a comparison of the statements of Mesha 
 
 * In the summer of 1868 a German Missionary, F. Klein, in the course of a 
 journey to the East of the Jordan, came to the site of Dibon (Is. 15: 2), the 
 ancient capital of Moab. The Arabs of his suite pointed out near his encamp- 
 ment a block of black basalt, 41 inches high and 21 wide, with an inscription of 
 34 lines. Prof. Petermann, of Berlin, who happened to be in Jerusalem, at once 
 took measures to secure the stone for the German Royal Museum. At the same 
 time Ch. Clermont-Ganneau, a Semitic scholar, and attache of the French con- 
 sulate in Jerusalem sought to gain possession of the treasure. As a result of this 
 competition, the Arabs steadily increased the amount demanded and finally, unable 
 to exact an exorbitant price, broke the stone into some forty fragments. For- 
 tunately, about two-thirds of these were subsequently recovered and pieced to- 
 gether. The collected parts and a somewhat imperfect squeeze taken by Cler- 
 mont-Ganneau before the stone was broken up, are now exhibited in one of the 
 rooms of the Louvre, Paris. Despite the mutilation, the script is fairly legible. 
 
 "5 The language of Moab is far more closely akin to Hebrew than any other 
 Semitic language at present known (though it may be conjectured that the lan- 
 guages spoken by Ammon and Edom were approximately similar) : in fact, it 
 scarcely differs from it otherwise than dialectically (Driver, Samuel, p., XCII). 
 
96 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 with the Biblical records, especially 2 K. i : i ; 3 : 4-12, is 890 
 B. C. The inscription is of the highest value as a point of de- 
 parture for determining the date of the origin of the Semitic 
 alphabet. "The considerable length of the inscription supplies 
 examples of all but one of the letters of the ancient alphabet, 
 while the repeated occurrence of most of the letters renders it 
 easy to eliminate mere variant or accidental forms, and thus to 
 determine the normal alphabet of this early period" (Taylor, 
 Alphabet, II, 206). 
 
 Two seals, whose nationality is determined by the use of 
 the word Kemosh, are the only other archaic Moabite inscrip- 
 tions extant.® 
 
 2. The Baal Lebanon Inscription. 
 
 One of the most interesting of all inscriptions is the so- 
 called Baal Lebanon, found at Limassol, Cyprus, but supposed 
 by some to belong originally to a temple of Baal not far from 
 Sidon.'^ The inscription, or rather inscriptions ( for there are 
 eight fragments of thin bronze) formed parts of bowls or 
 paternse, used for ceremonial purposes. Six of these fragments 
 pieced together form (a) of the translation below; the remain- 
 ing pieces (b) and (c) owing to slight differences in some let- 
 ters, as aleph and lamed, may have belonged to another bowl.® 
 On palseographical grounds the writing must be pronounced as 
 old as the Moabite Stone, and perhaps older. This conclusion 
 follows from a critical examination of the letters. See Chart 
 col. XI. The aleph, beth, daleth, jod, mem, nun, samekh, ayin 
 and shin are practically the same in the Moabite and the Leb- 
 anon, while the heth, teth, lamed and resh of this inscription 
 are more distinctly lapidarian and archaic than in the Moabite. 
 Only zayin and taw are peculiar. The downward stroke of 
 
 * The script of one of these (described by Sachau in Aramaeische Inschriften) 
 is almost identical with that of the Moabite Stone and cannot be of much later 
 date. The other seal is several centuries later. "The Phoenician inscriptions may- 
 be classified chronologically with the Moabite; geographically with the Hebrew" 
 (Lidzbarski, HB, p., ii6), 
 
 ^ It is preserved in the Cabinet des Antiques, Bibliothcque Nationale, Paris. 
 The view that the bowl was originally dedicated to a temple in Phoenicia, and af- 
 terward taken to Cyprus, is regarded by Lidzbarski as improbable. According to 
 Cooke, "the dedication to Baal of Lebanon seems at first sight to point to Phoe- 
 nicia, or Syria as the original home. But the Phcenician colony in Cyprus may well 
 have carried with them the cult of their deity from the mother-land; or if the 
 skn, Governor, came from Phcenicia, he may have wished to remember the god 
 of his native place, just as the Tyrian colonists at Malta made their dedications 
 to Melkarth, the Baal of Tyre" (N. S. Inscrip., p., 53). 
 
 8 Cooke's rendering is: "(a) . . . governor of Qarth-hadasht, servant of 
 Hiram, king of the Sidonians, gave this to Baal of Lebanon, his lord, of choicest 
 bronze, (b) . . . . T B, governor of Qarth-hadasht. (c). To Baal of Lebanon, 
 his lord" (op. cit., p., 52). 
 
NORTH SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS. 97 
 
 zayin is perpendicular in the Baal Lebanon; it inclines some- 
 what to the left in the Moabite. The taw of the former has 
 the form of the Latin cross f with a long perpendicular stroke, 
 and not that of the St. Andrews, X, as in the Moabite Stone. 
 It is worthy of note that the letters Z and T in the archaic Greek 
 alphabet have the form found on these fragments. On these 
 grounds the inscription is supposed to date from circa i,ooo B. 
 C. Euting and Lidzbarski, high European authorities, are in- 
 clined to ascribe a greater antiquity to it than to the Moabite 
 Stone.® 
 
 3. Hassan-Bey-li. 
 
 The inscription of Hassan-Bey-li, found to the West of 
 Zinjirli, contains all the letters except gimel, zayin, heth, teth, 
 samekh and koph. The script is more cursive than that of the 
 Moabite Stone, but bears every trace of being one of the oldest 
 of the Phoenician inscriptions. Lidzbarski says: "Even if the 
 meaning of 'King of Asshur', line 4, and of 'Kingdom of 
 Asshur', l.me 6, is doubtful, the script nevertheless indicates that 
 the inscription is not much later than the Aramaic inscriptions 
 of Zinjirli. It belongs therefore to the 7-8 century B. C. and 
 is one of the oldest of the Phoenician inscriptions" (HB, p.,, 
 118). Chart, XIII. 
 
 4. The Nora Inscriptions. 
 
 Some of the inscriptions of Nora (Pula) in S. Sardinia are of 
 great age, the script resembling that of the Moabite Stone. Whether 
 they are chronologically of the same period is a disputed matter, turn- 
 ing partly on the question when the Phoenicians effected settlements in 
 the Western Mediterranean, and in Sardinia. Under any view it is 
 remarkable that Phoenician inscriptions of essentially the same char- 
 acter as the Moabite script (though probably somewhat later) should 
 be found so far westward. This is a further proof that the Phoenician 
 alphabet was carried to the West at a much earlier date than generally 
 supposed. Chart, XIV. 
 
 5. Abu Simbel. 
 
 Early Phoenician inscriptions have been found also in Egypt. One 
 of the oldest was inscribed on the temple at Abu Simbel, and owes its 
 origin, as the accompanying Greek inscriptions indicate, to mercenaries 
 of Psammeticus I or II. It accordingly dates from about the seventh 
 century B. C. The script is more developed than in the Hassan-Bey-li 
 and Nora types ; but less than in the Sidonian. See Chart, col. XV, 
 (also Cis., I, III, 112, and Lidz. Ephem. II, 5). 
 
 ■ Cooke adopts the opposite view: "Internal evidence favors a later date than 
 that of the Zinjirli inscriptions, the middle of the eighth century B. C. ; and the 
 character of the writing agrees with this" {op. cit., p., 53). 
 
 7 
 
98 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE, 
 
 6. The Assyrian Lion Weights. 
 
 We now turn to some Phoenician inscriptions discovered as far 
 East as Assyria. Some fifteen lion weights, bearing bilingual inscrip- 
 tions in cuneiform and in Phoenician characters, were unearthed by 
 Layard at Nineveh. Tlie names of four Assyrian kings, ruling be- 
 tween 745 and 681, fix the date of the several inscriptions. "Apart 
 from their palseographic value, these records are of great interest, as 
 showing that the Phoenician alphabet must have been in common use 
 at Nineveh for commercial purposes, side by side with the cuneiform 
 as early as the middle of the eighth century B. C." (Taylor, Alphab. I, 
 218). The Phoenician legend on the eleventh lion-v/eight, which reads 
 maneh melek, "a maneh of the King", and is supposed to refer to Shal- 
 maneser (737-722), is in a script less archaic than the inscriptions thus 
 far considered but evidently older than those of Eshmunazar and Sidon 
 considered below.^°. 
 
 7. Ahydos. 
 
 Under this head may be classed a number of short inscriptions 
 from the walls of the Temple of Osiris at Abydos in Egypt. They are 
 assigned by Lidzbarski to the 5 — ^4th century B. C. (Ephem. II). 
 Chart, XVI. 
 
 8. Byhlus. 
 
 The so-called Byblus inscription records the dedication of a bronze 
 altar and a golden shrine by Yehaumelek, king of Gebal, the modem 
 Byblus. It is assigned to the 5 — 4th century B. C, the script being in a 
 transitional stage from the Nora to the Eshmunazar type. The fifteen 
 lines contain the whole alphabet except teth. Chart, XVI. 
 
 9. Tahnith and Eshmunazar. 
 
 Two other comparatively early Phoenician inscriptions may be 
 examined together. The one is that of Tabnith, king of Sidon, in 
 which the letters have the characteristic Phoenician forms. The other 
 is the long funereal inscription of Eshmunazar of Sidon. 
 
 (i). Tahnith. ''The inscription was found at Zidon in 1887, en- 
 graved on the base of a sarcophagus of black basalt, of Egyptian work- 
 manship and bearing in front an hieroglyphic inscription, designed no 
 doubt originally for use in Egypt, but diverted from its original pur- 
 pose and taken to Phoenicia in order to receive the remains of a Phoe- 
 nician prince. The contents of the hieroglyphic inscription bear no 
 relation to those of the Phoenician one" (Driver, Samuel,). Lidz- 
 "barski assigns this and the following inscription to the fourth century, 
 B. C." See Chart, col. XVII. 
 
 1" A unique interest attaches to a scarab inscribed in Phoenician letters and 
 discovered in the foundation of the palace at Khorsabad built by Sargon, 722-705, 
 the conqueror of Samaria. It contains simply the two words Ebhed Baal', "ser- 
 vant of Baal" in a clear Phoenician script and is assigned by Levy to the eighth 
 century B. C, and conjectured by Taylor to have belonged to one of the cap- 
 tives of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. 
 
 "• Driver remarks that the Tabnith inscription "may serve as an example of 
 the style, as regards characters and general appearance, in which the autographs 
 of the Old Testament must have been written" {op. cit., p., XXVI). This may 
 be true of the later O. T. Scriptures, but certainly the earliest writings, as the 
 assumed codes J and E, and the Pentateuch generally, as well as Joshua and 
 Judges, must have been composed in a far more archaic script. 
 
NORTH SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS. 99 
 
 (2). Eshmunazar. One of the most valuable of ancient inscriptions 
 is the magnificent sarcophagus of Eshmunazar, king of Zidon, "now 
 one of the glories of the Louvre". With the exception of a small spot 
 injured by the spade of the excavator, it is so well preserved that every 
 letters is clearly distinguishable. The material and style indicate that 
 it was brought from Egypt. The references to Dora, Joppa and Sha- 
 ron, as parts of the kingdom of Eshmunazar, point to a time subsequent 
 to 587, the fall of the Jewish monarchy. Since Eshmunazar states that 
 he reigned at Zidon, the inscription must be older than 330, when 
 Alexander subdued Phoenicia. It must accordingly be placed some- 
 where toward the close of the fourth century. Chart, XVII. 
 
 10. Deductions. 
 
 From the preceding it will be seen (by aid of the Chart) 
 that the Phoenician script (in the narrow sense) represents a 
 type with marked characteristics. The Baal-Lebanon, Nora, 
 Tabnith and Eshmunazar inscriptions are distinctively of this 
 family. Of the later remains, the Hassan-Bey-li approaches 
 very near to the archaic type. The only letter exhibiting a var- 
 iation is the taw, in which the two strokes incline as in the 
 archetype, but the one to the left is considerably longer. Ar- 
 chaic form.s of letters are also found on seals (see Levy, 1-4, 7). 
 For the remainder of the old Phcjenician forms, we must go to 
 the extrem.e West, Sardinia, Carthage and Malta. In the Nora 
 inscriptions (CIS, I, 144, 145) there is scarcely a letter which 
 deviates much from the Moabite form; even taw has yet the 
 old shape. Only beth in 145 has lost the lower projecting ends ; 
 the tail of Samekh in the last line of 145 approaches the later 
 form. 
 
 That the script underwent gradual change is seen in the 
 case of mem and shin, each of which is a test of the age of a 
 text. Thus by reference to the Chart it will be noticed that 
 mem has a zigzag form, which, while tending to drop one arm, 
 always retains the tail. By the time of the Abu Simbel in- 
 scription this arm has disappeared entirely. Likewise in the 
 case of shin, one of the slanting lines gradually coalesces with 
 the preceding until in the course of three centuries it assumes 
 a form approaching the square shin.^^ Another gradual change 
 takes place in the slant of the letters. Just as in English (writ- 
 ten from left to right) a slanting letter, as b, f, 1, leans to the 
 right, so in the Phoenician and Hebrew (right to left) the ten- 
 dency is in the opposite direction. The daleth, he, heth and jod 
 
 " "These two letters one may regard as the shibboleth for the age of a 
 Phoenician inscription; a text in which mem and shin have the zigzag form is to 
 be placed in a period prior to the sixth century B. C, unless there are weighty 
 opposite reasons" (Lidz. HB, p., 177)' 
 
lOO ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 of the old script came to incline to the left. The letters leaning 
 originally to the right, as kaph, lamed, mem, etc., either retained 
 the same slant or tended to become perpendicular. As a result 
 of the tendency to incline to the left, jod and zayin assumed 
 more and more a slanting form until in the Middle Phcenician 
 and Punic they are practically horizontal. 
 
 No other radical changes occur in the Phoenician script. 
 There is, however, a tendency in every period to write the let- 
 ters in a more cursive form, so that the stylus may rest con- 
 tinuously on the writing-material. This is seen in samekh, in 
 which the one perpendicular and the three horizontal lines grad- 
 ually (i. e. during the lapse of seven centuries) assumed in the 
 Punic one continuous, but curved line. This tendency issued in 
 the cursive script found in all alphabets, but least in the Phoe- 
 nician, for it died out too soon.^^ 
 
 The letters of the above inscriptions, doubtless the purest repre- 
 sentatives of the Semitic alphabet, differ considerably from the Hebrew 
 and Aramaic inscriptions, as will be seen presently. If now, be- 
 ginning with the Moabite Stone and ending with the Eshmunazar in- 
 scription, we trace the rate of change during a period of nearly six 
 centuries, we discover that the development was exceedingly slow. We 
 merely remark here that this slow evolution of the Phoenician, Aramaic 
 and Hebrew types of script, will constitute one of the lines of proof 
 in support of the proposition that according to the facts and prin- 
 ciples of alphabetolog-y, the Semitic alphabet, i. e., the Proto-Phoenician, 
 must have originated many centuries earlier than held by the Well- 
 hausen school and the Panbabylonists, 
 
 C. THE ARAMAIC INSCRIPTIONS. 
 
 With the decline of Phcenician commerce and supremacy, 
 the Phoenician language also declined, and the Aramaic grad- 
 ually took its place as an international medium of communica- 
 tion in Mesopotamia and the lands bordering on Aram (Syria). 
 It was the Aramaic, and not the Phoenician alphabet which be- 
 came the parent of the later Hebrew, Syriac and Arabic scripts. 
 It accordingly becomes necessary to trace the development by 
 which the Aramaic script entered the field and finally crowded 
 out the more archaic forms represented in the Phoenician.^* 
 The view that the Aramaeans were the inventors of the Semitic 
 
 ^^ The development finally yielded the script of the middle or Persian period, 
 and furnishes a tolerably correct method of determining the age of an inscription. 
 Thus the frequency and the length of the lower curve are generally in inverse 
 proportion to the antiquity of a writing, though sometimes local and personal ele- 
 ments modify the rule. 
 
 " In 1 500-1 300 B. C. Assyrian was the language of diplom.acy in Palestine, 
 Egypt and Assyria; but Phoenician was the language of commerce along the 
 shores of the Mediterranean until the eighth century and later. 
 
NORTH SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS. lOI 
 
 alphabet is disputed, but their activity in its spread and intro- 
 duction is admitted by all scholars. That this alphabet was in 
 general use among them at an early date is attested by the fact 
 that we have Aramaic inscriptions of the ninth and eighth 
 centuries from regions as widely separated as Assyria, and 
 Asia Minor, and of the eighth and seventh centuries from Ara- 
 bia and Egypt. Just as the greater part of the Phoenician in- 
 scriptions were found outside of Phoenicia and indeed beyond 
 Semitic territory, so the majority of Aramaic inscriptions were 
 discovered in Assyria, Asia Minor and other non-Aramaic 
 lands. Only those of Zinjirli, Nerab, and a few other places 
 were found in Aram proper. 
 
 We give a sketch of the chief inscriptions, beginning with 
 the recent great discoveries in North Syria, which have added 
 greatly to our knowledge of the early Aramaic script and of 
 the languages and literature of North Syria in the early years 
 of the first millennium^ B. C. Especially valuable are the 
 Zakar inscription, 800 B. C, and the so-called Zinjirli inscrip- 
 tions of the eighth and seventh centuries. They yield much 
 new historical, linguistic, and archaeological material, and on 
 account of their antiquity and high state of preservation are 
 prized especially by the scholar in search of inscriptional and 
 palseographical data. Their discovery has done for Aramaic 
 epigraphy what the Moabite Stone did for Phoenician, and the 
 Siloam inscription for Hebrew epigraphy. 
 I. The Zakar Inscription. 
 
 In 1903 a French scholar, Henri Pognon, discovered 
 somewhere in Northern Syria an old Aramaic inscription of 
 unusual interest and value in this connection. The monument 
 was erected by Zakar king of Hamath and Laash to his god 
 El-Ur in recognition of the defeat of his enemies.^^ Expecting 
 some day to be able to recover the missing parts and to publish 
 the whole inscription, Pognon declines at present to divulge 
 the exact locality of the find.^*' 
 
 1' See Pognon, Inscriptions Semitiques de la Syrie, de la Mesopotamie et de 
 la region de Mossoul, Paris, 1907. The stele consists of four fragments forming 
 originally the lower part of a monolith with the figure of a man in relief. The 
 upper fragment shows the feet and the lower end of a robe. The inscription 
 begins on the front of the stele and continues on the left side. On the right side 
 is a line supposed to be the end of an inscription. The writing on the front 
 contains 17, that on the left side 29 lines, in a fair state of legibility. Pognon 
 calculates that the upper part contained at least 30 lines more. The portion re- 
 covered is 106 cm high, from which it is inferred that the original stele had a 
 height of 210 cm. 
 
 " Pognon writes: "Je ne peux pas songer a faire des fouilles en ce moment, 
 mais je compte bien en faire un jour; j' ai, d' autre part, la conviction que, si 
 
102 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 The inscription not being generally accessible, we give be- 
 low a translation of the text as edited by Lidzbarski, with con- 
 jectural restoration of a few lacunae.^' Zakar and his kingdom 
 were wholly unknown until revealed by this monolith, which 
 accordingly has priceless value historically and palseographi- 
 cally. He appears to have been king of Hazrak, probably to 
 be identified with the Hadrach of Zech. 9:1, which is associated 
 with Damascus ''Zakar styles himself king of Hamath and 
 Laash; the former is the important city in northern central 
 Syria, the site of the other city being as yet uncertain. His 
 chief enemy is Bar-hadad son of Hazael, king of Aram, that is 
 
 of Damascus The Old Testament makes Jehoash, 
 
 king of Israel, the liberator of his nation from the yoke of 
 Damascus (2 K. 13: 25). If we may accept as correct the 
 Biblical statement that his son Jeroboam II, who died in 745, 
 reigned 41 years (14: 23) this loss to the empire of Damascus 
 
 must have taken place about 800 The approximate 
 
 date of 800 mav then be assigned to the inscription'' (Prof. J. 
 A. Montgomery, Bib. World, XXXIII, p.. 82). Chart, col. 
 XVIII. 
 
 Prof. S. R. Driver in a lengthy review reaches the conclu- 
 sion : "The date of the inscription must be about 800 B. C. ; it 
 is consequently the oldest Aramaic inscription at present known 
 and only about 50 years later than the inscription of Mesha on 
 the Moabite Stone" (Expositor, V). Halevy also assigns it to 
 800.^^ Nearly all German specialists assign it to the same 
 period. 
 
 je commettait 1' immense mala'dresse de dire ovi j' ai decouvert la stele, de Zakir, 
 il se trouverait certainement quelqu'un qui irait immediatement faire des fouilles, 
 decouvrirait sans aucune difficulte les fragments qui manquent, et s'empresseraait 
 de publier complete 1' inscription qu' a mon grand regret je ne peux publier 
 qu'en partie". 
 
 1^ Col. I. Line i. The stele which Zakar king of Hamath and Laash erected 
 to El-Ur in the place of these. 2. Zakar, king of Hamath and Laash, a man lowly 
 was I. So elevated me 3. the Lord of Heaven and stood by me; and the Lord 
 of Heaven placed me as king over Hazrik. 4. Bar-hadad, son of Hazael, king of 
 
 Aram, united against me 5. s . . . teen kings. These were Bar-hadad 
 
 and his army, and BRGSH and his army. 6. the king of Kue and his army, and 
 the king of Umk and his army, and the king of Gurg um 7. and his army, and 
 the king of Samal and his army, and the king of Miliz and his army. . 8. . . . 
 .... seven kings 9. and their armies. All these kings laid siege against Haz- 
 rak, 10. And they built a wall higher than the wall of Hazrak and dug a trench 
 deeper than its trench. . 11. Then I raised my hands to the Lord of Heaven 
 and the Lord of Heaven heard me. Answered me 12 the Lord of Heaven through 
 seers and astrologers; and said to me 13 the Lord of Heaven: Fear not, for I 
 have appointed thee king and will stand by thee, 14 and will deliver thee from 
 all these kings who 15 have brought siege against thee; said to me the Lord 
 of Heaven I will destroy 16 all these kings who have laid siege against thee 
 17 and this wall which they have raised 18 (Ephem. Ill, 3). 
 
 " "Une Inscription de la Syrie moyenne, qui par son age et sa haute im- 
 portance historique, se place immediatement apres la celebre inscription de Mesha" 
 (Rev. Sent., Avril, 1908). 
 
NORTH SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS. IO3 
 
 This inscription, written in Aramaic with a strong admix- 
 ture of Hebrew, throws new light on the Hebrew and Aramaic 
 of that day. ''When the need arose among the Aramaeans to 
 make written records, they turned to the people who hitherto 
 had written only in Canaanitish. The first records were ob- 
 viously composed in the language of the scribes, but the con- 
 querors would soon prefer to use their native tongue. Natur- 
 ally a new literary language could not be formed in a day; 
 something too depended on the skill of the scribe. The oldest 
 monuments from northern Syria exhibit such attempts. . . . 
 In the recently published inscription, it is religious expressions 
 which bear a Canaanitish, indeed actually a Hebraistic, char- 
 acter. Only here do we find the very characteristic waw con- 
 versive. Perhaps the composer was a priest at one of the Ca- 
 naanite shrines before whose mind expressions from hymns or 
 religiously colored narratives floated" (Lidz. Ephem. IH, p., 
 3). Whether or not Lidzbarski's conclusions are in all respects 
 correct, it is clear that the stele compels us to carry back the lit- 
 erary use of the Canaanite alphabet several centuries further 
 than hitherto allowed by the Panbabylonists. 
 
 That which concerns us especially in this connection is the epi- 
 graphic value. All the letters of the Hebrew or Aramaic alphabet 
 occur except teth; from the form of the letters we can gain a tolerably- 
 correct idea of the Aramaic script in 800. A comparison of the letters 
 with the Moabite Stone on the one hand and the Hadad inscription on 
 the other shows a general resemblance, with some marked peculiarities. 
 Thus the frequently recurring aleph, he, waw, kaph, lamed, mem, 
 ts'adhe, shin and taw resemble the Hadad letters ; but the gimel, daleth, 
 zayin, samekh, and koph exhibit departures from the normal forms. 
 Especially noteworthy is the short perpendicular line separating 
 words, somewhat as in the Moabite Stone. Upon the whole, epigraph- 
 ically viewed, the monolith furnishes undoubted proof that the so- 
 called Phoenician alphabet was in full bloom in a remote district of 
 Syria in the ninth century B. C. How long previously it was intro- 
 duced is a matter of conjecture. Some considerable time, perhaps a 
 century or two, must have elapsed before the new script could have 
 found such general currency among the Aramaeans, Both the lan- 
 guage and the forms of the letters indicate that writing in this script 
 had long been in use in Aram and, though our ignorance of the exact 
 locality of the origin of the inscription invites caution, we may infer 
 that a knowledge of the Phoenician script was widespread in the North 
 of Syria, reaching even to a hitherto utterly unknown and forgotten 
 kingdom. 
 
 All this is significant and shows that in this early period, more 
 people could read and write than has heretofore been supposed. The 
 practical question for the Old Testament student is whether with the 
 almost universal knowledge of writing in _ the distant past, the 
 Hebrews were the only people lacking the wit, ambition and oppor- 
 
I04 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 timity to acquire and employ the art. As Lidzbarski intimates above, 
 the Canaanite, i. e. the Phoenician language and script must have been 
 widely current in the North of Syria in early times. 
 
 2. The Hadad Inscription. 
 
 Another Aramaic inscription of the same or perhaps a 
 somewhat later date than the preceding receives its name from 
 the god Hadad, to whom it was dedicated by Panammu I of 
 Jaudi. It is the earliest and most important of the so-called 
 Zinjirli inscriptions and is in a good state of preservation with 
 the exception of three small erasures across a part of the stone. 
 The letters are clear-cut, distinct and regularly formed, though 
 being in relief they are reproduced with difficulty in our Chart, 
 col. XIX. "The writing belongs to the archaic type repre- 
 sented by the Moabite Stone" (Cooke, op. cit., p., 163). As 
 shown by the archaic style of the letters and contemporary ref- 
 erences, the colossal statue dates from about 775 B. C}^ 
 
 3. The Panammu Inscription. 
 
 The second of the Zinjirli inscriptions, found in 1888, is 
 preserved in the Berlin Museum. It dates from the time of 
 Tiglath-Pileser II (745-27). It consists of 23 lines, fairly 
 legible for the most part, but the last few lines are **so much 
 injured that the exact sense cannot be recovered" (Cooke, op. 
 cit., 180).^^ Lidzbarski deplores that he was unable to pro- 
 cure a satisfactory reproduction; but by the aid of his plate 
 we are enabled to trace the letters in their essential features, 
 which confirm the evidence from other sources. Sayce, speak- 
 ing of this and the preceding stele, says : "The strange and 
 unexpected fact which they disclose is that the Aramaic lan- 
 
 " The inscription, consisting of 34 lines (the same as the Moabite) was found 
 in 1890 near Zinjirli, a town in North Syria, and is now in the Berlin Museum. 
 The first part runs thus: "I am Panammu, son of QRL, king of Jaudi, who have 
 
 set up this statue to Hadad in my 2. There stood by me the god (?) Hadad 
 
 and El and Reshef and Rekub-el and Shamash. And Hadad and El and Rekub-el 
 
 and Shamash gave into my hand the sceptre of ; and Reshuf stood by me: 
 
 and whatsoever I take in hand and whatsoever I ask of the gods they 
 
 give me, etc." 
 
 Of this inscription and the next one Hommel says in a recent work: "Auch 
 die beiden grossen bei Zendschirli an der syrisch-cilischischen Grenze, also am 
 Aeussersten Nordwesten des semitischen Gebietes, muessen eher als altkanaanaei- 
 sche Sprachdenkmaeler mit aramaeischer Beimischung bezeichnet werden — zu- 
 gleich ein Beweis dafuer, wie zu Anfang des i. vorchristlichen Jahrtausends nach 
 Zurueckdraengung des hcthitisch-alarodischen Volkselements in ganz Palaestina 
 und Syrien kanaanaeische Sprache und Schrift geherrscht hat" (Grundr. d. Geog. 
 u. Gesch., 159). 
 
 20 The first few lines read: "This statue Bar-rekub placed to his father Pan- 
 ammu, son of Bar-sur, king of Jaudi . . . year my father Panammu ... 2. 
 his father; the gods of Jaudi delivered him from his destruction. There was a 
 conspiracy in his father's house, and the god Hadad rose ... his seat . . . 
 over . . . destruction etc." 
 
NORTH SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS. IO5 
 
 guage of Samala approached the Hebrew in many respects. 
 While the Hebrew ben, son, is replaced by the Aramaic bar, 
 the grammatical forms and particles are in several cases dis- 
 tinctively Hebrew. So also many of the words which are used 
 in the text. Even more striking is the fact that the spelling 
 of certain proper names is the same as it is in the present text 
 of our Hebrew Bibles. As in the Old Testament, so in the 
 inscriptions of Samala the name of Assyria is written with the 
 vowel u In the second syllable The fact gives us in- 
 creased confidence in the historical accuracy of the Books of 
 Kings, as it indicates that the information contained in them 
 was faithfully copied from, written documents; it also proves 
 that a dialect more akin to Hebrew than to the later Aramaic 
 was spoken in Northern Syria in the eighth century before 
 our era" (Higher Crit. & Mon., 196). See Chart, col. XX. 
 
 4. Th& Bar-Rekuh Inscription. 
 
 Another old inscription is that erected by Bar-Rekub to 
 his father Panummu II of Samal. It dates from the eighth 
 century, 2^ as shown from contemporary historical data and the 
 character of the letters, which are a later type of the archaic 
 Semitic script. Chart, col. XXI. From these and similar types 
 it is clear that a general change took place in the letters, some 
 forms becoming simpler and more rounded, others more open 
 and regular. 'This inscription belongs, not to a statue [like 
 the two preceding] but to a building — the new palace built 
 by Bar-Rekub. On the left side of the inscription is a figure 
 of the king in Assyrian style carved in relief, holding a lotus 
 flower in his hand" (Cooke, op. cit.). Lidzbarski reproduces 
 additional Zinjirli inscriptions of nearly the same date, or a 
 little later, as shown by the forms of the letters and the general 
 style of art.^^ 
 
 21 Found in 1891, now in the Imperial Museum, Constantinople. Consists of 
 20 lines, in an almost perfect state of preservation. We give a few lines; as ren- 
 dered by Cooke: "I am Bar-Rekub, son of Panammu, king of Samal, servant of 
 Tiglath-pileser lord of the four parts of the earth. For the righteousness of my 
 father and for my own righteousness my lord Rekub-el and my lord Tiglath-pile- 
 ser made me to sit upon the throne of my father, etc." 
 
 " The question has recently arisen whether the language of the Zinjirli in- 
 scriptions is really Aramaic. Halevy maintains that the Hadad and Panammu in- 
 scriptions are not in the Aramaic, but in a Cannanitish dialect, perhaps the Hittite 
 (Nouvel Examen des inscriptions de Zinjirli. Rev. sent. VII). His chief argu- 
 ment is the absence of distinctively Aramaic forms. Lidz. also expresses doubt, 
 saying, "Noch vor dem Erscheinen dieser Arbeit . . . bin ich zu der Ueber- 
 zeugung gelangt dass Had. und Pan. in einer anderen Sprache abgefasst sind, als 
 die kleineren Inschriften" {,Eph. I, 57). Whether the language is in fact Hittite, 
 Lidz. leaves to the "Chetitologen". 
 
ICX) ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 5. Nerab. 
 
 The two so-called Nerab inscriptions were discovered in 1891 at 
 Nerab, a small town S. E. of Aleppo. They constitute a part of the 
 treasures of the Louvre. "They accompany the bas-reliefs of two 
 priests of the local sanctuary, finely executed in the Assyrian manner 
 and singularly well preserved. . . The writing is net so archaic and 
 rigid as that upon Zinjirli inscriptions, while it belongs to an earlier 
 stage than that of the inscriptions from Teima." (Cooke, op. cit). 
 Lidzbarski assigns them to the seventh century. 
 
 6. Lion Weight of Abydos. 
 
 This inscription underneath a lion-weight found in i860 at Abydos 
 on the Hellespont belongs to the 6 — 5th century as indicated by the 
 style of the letters. "At this period Asia Minor was subject to Persian 
 rule, and the Persian satraps used Aramaic in intercourse with the sub- 
 ject races in the West of the Empire. This was a trade-weight offi- 
 cially certified to be of full standard" (Cooke). 
 
 7. Lamas Inscription. 
 
 This inscription, consisting of six lines, is carved upon a rock 
 S. E. of Saraidan in the Valley of the Lamas in S. E. Cilicia. Both 
 Lidzbarski and Cooke assign it to the 5 — 4th century. The letters 
 are of a later style than the preceding. That Aramaeans should have 
 penetrated this remote and obscure district in this early period is an- 
 other proof of the wide extent of Semitic and even Aramaic civiliza- 
 tion. 
 
 If additional proof were required to show the extensive use of the 
 Aramaic script in the 9 — 5th century, it could be adduced in numer- 
 ous examples of writing on seals, weights and votive offerings. 
 
 8. The Teima Stones. 
 
 The first and longest of the Teima inscriptions was found in 
 1880.^' It consisted of 2$ lines, of which less than two-thirds are 
 pTeser\-ed ; it is dated "in the 22nd year", but the nam^e of the king 
 has disappeared. It describes the revenues necessary to support a 
 newly introduced cult. The letters are of a transitional type, sorne 
 as zayin, jod and tsadhe exhibiting archaic forms, others, as teth, ayin 
 and resh being late. Carved in relief the letters are somewhat difficult 
 to reproduce on our chart, col. XXII. ^'The Teima Stone is generally 
 believed to date from the fifth century before Christ, although some 
 
 would place it early in the sixth century The stone is of 
 
 interest as an early example of Aramaic epigraphy" (Goodspeed, 
 op. cit.). 
 
 The second Teima inscription is much shorter, but it exhibits the 
 same general style. The characters belong to a period in the middle 
 stage of Aramaic writing. They are almost all of the same size and writ- 
 
 23 While few Semitic inscriptions surpass the Teima Stone in interest and 
 importance, it is one of the least known of the great inscriptions. Teima in North 
 Arabia is generally identified with the Tema of Job 6: 19. The place must have 
 been famous in antiquity, doubtless as a caravan center between Petra, Gerra 
 and Sheba, for it is often mentioned by Old Testament writers; cf. Gen. 25: 15; 
 I Chron. i: 30; Isa. 21: 14; Jer. 25 : 22 (E. G. Goodspeed, Bib. World, 
 XXXIII, 424). 
 
NORTH SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS. lO/ 
 
 ten as it were between straight lines, like CIS, II, 72 from Chaldea. — 
 "The Zayin and jod are archaic in form, Koph is almost Nabataean, 
 Ayin is shaped like a V, and aleph has the shape of +, mem is writ- 
 ten with the two down strokes nearly equal in length" (Cooke, op. cit.). 
 
 9. Characteristics of Aramaic Script. 
 
 As seen from^ a comparison of forms in the Chart, the 
 script of the Zakar inscription is in general identical with that 
 of the Moabite Stone. With some exceptions the same is true 
 of the two oldest Znjirli inscriptions. Minor differences as 
 compared with the Moabite occur : as daleth with the more up- 
 right form and approach to resh ; waw, with a square head ; 
 teth with its more oblong shape; kaph, mem, nun, and taw, 
 which inchne more to the right, whereas samekh, tsadhe, resh, 
 more to the left. By the time of the Teima stones, the alphabet 
 has assumed still more characteristic forms. The zayin, as in 
 the Phoenician, has approached very nearly the form of z; in 
 samekh, both the perpendicular and cross-lines have become 
 decidedly curved; and in koph the left circle has taken the 
 form of a mere point. Strangely enough, the teth is round as 
 in the Moabite, but in the Bar-Rekub has only a stroke in the 
 middle. The exact interval between the Zakar stele and the 
 monuments of Nerab is not known; but the changes in the 
 script are peculiar rather than numerous. The heth, which 
 has still three cross-marks in Zinjirli has usually only one in 
 Nerab. In kaph the angle has become a wedge, and zayin has 
 turned one-fourth around. On the other hand, waw has again 
 the round head; and koph the whole circle. By the time of 
 the Teima inscriptions the Aramaic script developed a marked 
 character of its own. This transition from the archaic to the 
 middle epoch is exhibited step by step in the Chart. Some of 
 the characters have the same development as in the Phoenician 
 alphabet. 
 
 It will be seen that the distinguishing feature of the Ara- 
 maic script is not difficult to determine. It consists in the ten- 
 dency to an opening of the loops in the closed letters. This is 
 quite marked in beth, daleth, samekh, ayin, koph and resh, 
 compared with the Phoenician and the archaic Hebrew script. 
 From the earliest of the inscriptions, the Zakar and Hadad to 
 those of the middle period, Nerab and Bar-Rekub, to those of 
 Teima, the closed loop tends to open and become first curved 
 and finally almost horizontal lines. The letters originally hav- 
 ing bars, as he, waw, heth, and taw gradually modify or even 
 lose them altogether, until the distinctively archaic Aramaic 
 
I08 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 type prepares the way by a further differentiation for the later 
 square forms, adopted in the later Hebrew. 
 
 D. ARCHAIC HEBREW INSCRIPTIONS. 
 
 Hebrew inscriptions covering a period of a thousand years 
 are scattered over every part of the East. But very ancient 
 inscriptions are with few exceptions confined to the Mediter- 
 ranean region. Archaic Hebrew inscriptions have thus far 
 been found only in Palestine.^'* Unfortunately their number is 
 small, and with the exception of the Siloam, Gezer, Jeroboam 
 and Samaria inscriptions they possess inferior palseographical 
 value. A few seals from the eighth, and some fragments of 
 inscriptions from the seventh and sixth centuries, practically 
 complete the list. The material at command is, however, suf- 
 ficient to enable us to trace the development of the Hebrew 
 script from the ninth century onward. From the position thus 
 gained we may infer what its character was in the immediately 
 preceding centuries. 
 
 I. The Siloam Inscription. 
 
 This most precious and famous of Hebrew inscriptions has 
 value for us here chiefly on chronological and palaeographical 
 grounds. It shows that at an early period the Phoenician 
 script was well known to common workmen and that it had 
 been probably long employed for literary purposes among the 
 Hebrews. It was discovered by accident in 1880 on the wall 
 of the Pool of Siloam. Two passages in the Old Testament 
 are regarded as referring to this pool and tunnel. Thus in 2 C. 
 32: 30: "This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper spring 
 of the waters of Gihon and brought them straight down on the 
 West side of the city of David" ; and 2 K. 20 : 20 : "Now the 
 rest of the acts of Hezekiah and all his might and how he made 
 the pool and the conduit, and brought water into the city, are 
 
 2* The fewness of Hebrew inscriptions is variously explained. Until within 
 a recent period no systematic effort was made to explore and excavate the hills 
 of Palestine. Recently the English Palestine Exploration Society and the Ger- 
 man Palaestina Verein have prosecuted the work vigorously, and have already 
 brought to light a sufficient number of inscriptions to warrant the conclusion that 
 others of great value still remain hidden. Then again, it is probable that the 
 bulk of Hebrew literature of the classic period was written upon papyrus or 
 membranes, which naturally perished centuries ago. Nevertheless "excavation 
 in Palestine itself and in adjacent lands has revealed an amount of culture which 
 could never have been imagined; continued research among Semites, whether in 
 Arabia, Palestine, Syria or Mesopotamia has brought to light features of cult and 
 custom identical with, analogous to or illustrative of ancient conditions and life. 
 .... The comparatively small extent of excavation in Palestine has not yet 
 succeeded in unearthing tlTose native records with definite chronological data, 
 which, it is hoped, will some day be forthcoming" (S. A. Cooke, Pal. Ex. Fund, 
 1907). 
 
NORTH SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS. lOQ 
 
 they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of 
 Israel?"-^ It is generally held that the conduit and the in- 
 scription were executed in the reign of Hezekiah (726 B. C). 
 Others quoting from Is. 8 : 6, ''the waters of Shiloah that flow 
 gently", a prophecy dating from the reign of Ahaz, assign both 
 tunnel and inscription to an earlier period about 750 B. C.^® 
 
 That which concerns us especially is the form of the let- 
 ters and their relation to the Phoenician and Aramaic scripts. 
 The resemblance to the characters on the Moabite Stone is quite 
 close in gimel, kaph, lamicd, koph and taw, all of which stand 
 closer to the Moabite than to the Sidonian and Tyrian. The 
 inscription presents the daleth with a continuous line under- 
 neath as in the Tyrian, though it differs considerably from both 
 the Moabite and the Zinjirli in the case of waw, heth, mem and 
 nun. In general the relation is closer to the Moabite than to 
 the Hadad and the Middle Phoenician. 
 
 2. The Gezer Calendar Tablet.''' 
 
 In 1908 Prof. R. A. S. Macalister, an English scholar, who 
 for some years conducted excavations in Palestine, discovered 
 at Gezer, some 20 miles to the West of Jerusalem, a small lime- 
 stone tablet containing writing in archaic Hebrew characters 
 and easily ranking as the oldest of extant Hebrew inscriptions. 
 The name by which it is generally known is suggested by the 
 
 25 The pool is at the extreme South of the Eastern hill of Jerusalem (on the 
 North of which the Temple stood) at the entrance to the Tyropoean Valley; anda 
 tunnel cut through the rock from the Virgin Spring (the one natural spring in 
 Jerusalem) situated some distance above it on the East side of the same hill, leads 
 down to it and supplies it with water. The tunnel is circuitous, measuring 1708 
 feet though the distance in a straight line is considerably less. The inscription 
 was first observed by a pupil of architect Schick, who, while wading in the pool 
 with a lighted candle, observed what appeared to be characters engraved on the 
 rock. Ultimately in 1881 a gymsum cast was obtained by Dr. Guthe, who pub- 
 lished a photograph with accompanying description in 1882, which has since been 
 often reproduced. A portion of three lines in the inscription has been destroyed 
 through the wearing away of the rock; but the general sense is quite clear" 
 (Driver, Samuel XV). Following is a translation: "The boring through and 
 this was the manner of the boring through: whilst yet .... the pick, each 
 towards his fellow, and whilst yet there were three cubits to be bored through, 
 there was heard the voice of each calling to his fellow, for there was a split in 
 
 the rock on the right hand And on the day of the boring through the 
 
 miners struck, each to meet his fellow, pick upon pick; and the waters flowed 
 from the source of the pool for two hundred and a thousand cubits ;^^ and a hun- 
 dred cubits was the height of the rock above the head of the miners". 
 
 2« "There can be little doubt that the work was carried on in the reign of 
 Hezekiah. The character of the writing points to the same period. It belongs 
 to the archaic type represented on the Moabite Stone; but in general form it is 
 lighter and more flowing than the Moabite, and some letters, as aleph, daleth, heth, 
 and tsadhe are considerably different. It will be noticed that the final vowels 
 are represented by consonants; but within the word the vowel-letter is not 
 written" (Cooke, op. cit.) See chart, col XXVI. 
 
 27 The value of this lately discovered inscription as a proof of the early and 
 common use of the Semitic script among the Hebrews justifies a full considera- 
 tion here. 
 
no ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 frequent occurrence of the word yerach (month). Macalister 
 describes ^.t as follows : "It is the upper fragment of a tablet of 
 limestone, four and one-half inches high, two and three-fourths 
 inches across and five-eighth inches thick. The lower part is 
 broken off by an oblique fracture and lost; the fracture passes 
 through a square hole, apparently meant for a peg by which 
 the stone was affixed to a wall. The reverse side of the tablet, 
 except for one or two meaningless and perhaps accidental tool- 
 marks, is plain, as is also the right hand edge. The left hand 
 edge is covered with a fret of diagonal lines, five or six to the 
 inch" (Pal. Ex. Fund, ipog). The tablet contains seven lines 
 and is fairly well preserved. See Chart, col. XXV. A few 
 letters are in dispute, but the general meaning is clear. The 
 text twice contains marks of separation of words in the first two 
 lines, somewhat as in the Moabite Stone.^® It is sometimes 
 called the Gezer Stone, but as this phrase is liable to be con- 
 fused with two Gezer cuneiform inscriptions, lately discovered, 
 it is better to employ some such term as the above. ^^ 
 
 We are more directly interested in the date of the tablet. 
 Hebrew archaeologists and palaeographers, as Lidzbarski, Hal- 
 evy. Gray, Macalister, H. Vincent, Ronzevalle have examined 
 the stone minutely and agree (excepting Vincent) that it is 
 older than the Siloam inscription. "The inscription probably 
 
 belongs to the eighth century The workmanship is 
 
 rough, but the type of the letters is closely akin to the earliest 
 inscriptions in the N. Semitic alphabet that we possess. Judg- 
 ing by the writing I should say that the inscription is later than 
 the Moabite and earlier than the Siloam. The letters which 
 weigh with me most in connecting the inscription somewhat 
 closely in time with those of the ninth and eighth centuries are 
 
 the samekh and the daleth The samekh of the Gezer 
 
 inscription is of the earliest type, with this peculiarity that the 
 perpendicular stroke starts from above the top horizontal. The 
 
 28 The text as translated from Lidzbarski's transliteration is: 
 
 (i). Month of the fruit harvest — month of — 
 
 (2). the sowing. — Month of tne after-grass. 
 
 (3). Month of the flax-harvest. 
 
 (4). Month of the barley-harvest. 
 
 (5). Month of the harvest of all the rest. 
 
 (6). Month of the pruning of vine-plants. 
 
 (7). Month of the fig-harvest. 
 
 2» Macalister and Lidz. regard it as a calendar, perhaps a kind of agricultural 
 calendar, the latter, however, adding: "The tablet contains no systematic division 
 of the whole year, but records the months of agricultural activity. The enumera- 
 tion begins with harvest, omits the two winter months, resumes with the begin- 
 ning of spring and counts up the months in unbroken order" (Ephem., Ill, 38). 
 
NORTH SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS. Ill 
 
 form of daleth points to the same conclusion" (Gray, Pal. Ex. 
 Fund, Jan., 1909). 
 
 S. Ronzevalle, of Beirut, regards the inscription as next 
 to the Moabite in age : "The inscription gains equally from the 
 linguistic and palseographic point of view, since one may, with- 
 out any improbability, ascribe it to some professional scribe, 
 such as Gezer surely had in the ninth and eighth centuries B. C, 
 the epoch to which the language and especially the writing 
 point. The gaucherie of the inscription need make no differ- 
 ence ; the hand which traced with a stylus these unruly charac- 
 ters would be less maladroit when it held a pen". 
 
 H. Vincent, a French archseologist, labors through 25 octavo pages 
 to prove that the inscription is comparatively late, not much earlier than 
 the Exile. His chief contention is that a comparison of this writing 
 on soft limestone with the hard basalt of the Moabite or with the Siloam 
 is iniadmissible, and that the scribe of Gezer, unlike the royal scribes of 
 Moab, engraved directly and not from a carefully prepared exemplar; 
 hence the irregularity of the letters and the mingling of early and late 
 forms. Vmcent offers no proof that the Moabite letters had been, and 
 those of Gezer had not been previously 'traced' ; nor yet that the Gezer 
 scribe cut the characters "directly and without a preliminary design". 
 Even if such bad been the procedure, Vincent has not accounted for the 
 undoubtedly archaic and Moabite type of the letters. His article from 
 first to last is a case of special pleading and characterized by bitter an- 
 tagonism to Gray and Lidzbarski.^° 
 
 It has not been the good fortune of the writer to have had access 
 to tihe original tablet, but he has carefully scrutinized with a glass the 
 excellent fac-simile of Lidzbarski (Ephem. Ill, Tafel VI). At least 17 
 of the 22 letters of the alphabet occur, some of them more than once, 
 as zayin, lamed, mem and pe, twice, ayin and shin three times, tsadhe 
 and koph four times, heth and jod eight times and resh thirteen times. 
 This fortunate circumstance serves as a control of the letters. But a 
 special difficulty arises from the conjecture that the stone is a palimpsest 
 and that only a part of the original writing was erased before the 
 calendar was inscribed.^^ Such is the view of Vincent and Lidzbarski, 
 but Macalister dissents. 
 
 In addition to Gray's above description of some of the letters, we 
 
 ^^ See Revue Biblique. Sixieme Annee, Avril, 1909, pp., 243-269. In the 
 interest of fairness, we reproduce a part of V'.s argument: "L'archaism, on le 
 voit, n'est done pas aussi absolu qu'on I'a voulu. II est reel; mais sans doute 
 y avait-il un moyen beaucoup plus simple de le concevoir et de I'accorder avec 
 les nuances mcdernes qui s'y melent, en tenant compte de la ture materielle de 
 
 la tablette et du precede tres vraisemblable de gravure directe Le 
 
 scribe de Gezer pouvait deja etre beaucoup moins virtuose en calligraphie, que 
 ses collegues des capitales judeenne et moabite. Quelle que soit toute fois 1' ele- 
 gance ou I'habitude de son ecriture courrante, il ecrivait ici au stylet, ou plutot 
 il gravait directement, et sans dessin prealable, les lettres dans le calcaire doux." 
 
 ^1 Die Schrifflaeche zeigt allerhand S'triche und Figuren, die nicht zum jetzi- 
 gen Text gehoeren. Ich habe die Vermutung ausgesprochen, dass die weiche 
 Kalksteintafel als Schreibtafel benutzt wurde, dass sie schon frueher ein oder 
 mehrmals beschrieben war und die Striche Ueberreste der letzten schlect wegpo- 
 lierten Schicht seien, d. h. dass die Tafel ein Palimpsest sei (Lidz., op. cit.). 
 
112 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 comment briefly on a few others. After yerach, lines i, 2, and 6, and 
 after ksr, line 5, occurs a character which is either wau' or nun. It is 
 generally, though not without doubt, regarded as the former. The 
 heth has in general three forms as in the Chart. The jod also varies 
 considerably, the arm in some cases differing in length and inclination. 
 Tsadhe too is peculiar. In nearly every instance the shaft of the resh 
 inclines somewhat more to the left than in the Moabite. Both the 
 general type of the letters and the variants of the same letter may be 
 seen by comparing lines 4 and 5, the first two words of which are the 
 same; yet the letters vary somewhat. All this in our judgment shows 
 that the scribe was quite familiar with the Semitic script, but neverthe- 
 less cut individual letters with about the same degree of similarity and 
 difference as an unprofessional writer to-day would trace letters with a 
 stylus on stone or any intractable material. 
 
 A comparison of the letters with the Moabite, Zakar, Hadad, and 
 Siloam inscriptions leads to the conclusion that the script is not quite as 
 archaic as the Moabite, but much more so than the Siloam. We may 
 therefore confidently assign it to about 825 and perhaps 850 B. C, cer- 
 tainly not later than 800. In either event, the tablet is of far-reaching 
 significance in every way. It confirms the epigraphic evidence already 
 presented and still to be presented that the Phoenician script (in the 
 broad sense) originated centuries earlier than has generally been sup- 
 posed ; further, that the type of script current in Israel in the ninth cen- 
 tury implies a long period of native development. It shows also that 
 (contrary to the Pan-babylonists) the Phoenician script (rather than the 
 cuneiform) was in extensive use in Israel for the most varied purposes 
 of life and must have been introduced centuries previously; otherwise 
 it is impossible to explain how a humble peasant could have been in 
 possession of the art. 
 
 3. The Jeroboam Seal. 
 
 An ancient Hebrew inscription discovered by the German 
 Palestine Union at Tell el Mutesellin in 1904 has confirmed in 
 a remarkable way the proof of the use of the Semitic script in 
 Israel during the early years of the monarchy. It is an en- 
 graved seal containing in the middle the figure of a lion with 
 open jaws and the following legend on the upper and lower 
 edges : "Belonging to Schema, the servant of Jeroboam". The 
 engraving was probably executed by an Israelitish or Phoenician 
 workman, similar lion-types being found on other Canaanite 
 gems. Kautzsch, Stade, Cheyne and Lidzbarski have discussed 
 the recovered treasure. It is unquestionably very ancient ; but 
 how ancient ? Much depends on the answer. 
 
 An argument for the age has been constructed from the 
 name Jeroboam, it being assumed that one or the other of the 
 kings of that name is meant. Jeroboam I reigned in 937-915, 
 and Jeroboam II in 781-741. Those who favor the view that 
 the seal is of the same type as the Siloam inscription (Stade, 
 
NORTH SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS. II3 
 
 Cheyne) refer it to the period of Jeroboam II, others to Jero- 
 boam I. "It may belong equally well to the age of Jeroboam I, 
 for in the absence of great monuments in the Canaanite script 
 anterior to the Moabite, no one is able to show that this type of 
 script underwent material changes in the period between Jero- 
 boam I and Mesha. In fact the character of the Greek alpha- 
 bet, which had evidently branched off before the tenth century, 
 points to a long period of stability in the oldest types. The 
 contention that the seal was prepared during the reign of Jero- 
 boam II rests largely upon the assumption that the prominence 
 of court-officials, among whom was also the office of 'servant 
 of the king' fits in better with the later period than with the 
 first years of the Northern Kingdom".^^ The latter claim, 
 however, has little force in view of the list of officials of all 
 kinds mentioned in i K. 4 as connected with Solomon's court. 
 
 Lidzbarski urges substantially the same view as Kautzsch : 
 "The script has the oldest impress of the Semitic alphabet. But 
 the mem already shows the germ of a peculiarity found later 
 only in the specifically Hebrew script. The first and third lines 
 of the serrated head of the letter were cut parallel to the shaft 
 and with equal thickness, and the two other lines in lighter 
 strokes. The chief stroke of the upper mem is somewhat long- 
 er than that of the lower ; but this is probably due to the nature 
 of the margin. Otherwise the script of the seal has a much 
 older appearance than that of Siloam ; and the period in which 
 the same writing as that upon the seal was in general use, was 
 long before that of the Siloam. Accordingly the script would 
 point to the age of Jeroboam I." (Ephem.) 
 
 As Kautzsch and Lidzbarski are high European authorities 
 in such matters, we are justified in assigning the seal to the 
 time of Jeroboam I, or about 920 B. C. Epigraphically the in- 
 scription falls between 950 and 875. In the chart, col. XXIII, 
 we give the approximate date 900-800, as a compromise be- 
 tween the various views. 
 
 Some important conclusions follow from the above dis- 
 covery. First, it is clear that writing must have attained a 
 high degree of perfection in Israel in the tenth century B. C, 
 for this seal is a work of art. It is on jasper in the form of a 
 scarabseoid and shows a high state of finish. The firmness and 
 regularity of the letters indicate a long period of permanence 
 
 '2 Kautzsch, Ein Althehraeisches Siegel von Tell el-Mutsellin in Mitt. u. 
 Nachr. d. Deut. Palaes. Vereins, 1904. 
 
 8 
 
114 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 of forms, extending over centuries and implying a guild of men 
 engaged in engraving on wood and stone. Before such an art 
 became established in Israel, there must have been a long per- 
 iod in which more convenient and tractable material than stone, 
 namely papyrus and membranes, were employed. Thus, again, 
 it appears that no violence is done to facts, if we hold that writ- 
 ing, and that too as a permanent embodiment of literature, was 
 known in Israel from the date of the judges and even the Exo- 
 dus. 
 
 4. The Samaria Ostraca. 
 
 Recently some inscriptions have been discovered in Pales- 
 tine which prove conclusively that the archaic Phoenician script 
 was well known in Israel in 900 B. C. In 1910 the Harvard 
 Expedition to Palestine, headed by Prof. G. A. Reisner, con- 
 ducted excavations on the site of the ancient city of Samaria, 
 capital of the Northern Kingdom. There was discovered part 
 of a massive Hebrew structure, believed to be the palace of 
 Omri and Ahab. This building is supposed to have covered 
 more than one and a half acres and shows four periods of con- 
 struction, tentatively assigned to Omri, Ahab, Jehu and Jero- 
 boam II. 'The belief", says Prof. D. G. Lyon, ''that the build- 
 ing was originally erected by Omri and Ahab was based on 
 archaeological grounds, and seems greatly strengthened by the 
 discovery of an alabaster vase inscribed with the name of Ahab's 
 contemporary, Osorkon II of Egypt. Of unusual interest is 
 a series of ostraca found at the level of the Osorkon vase, and 
 comprising some seventy-five fragments of pottery inscribed 
 with records or memoranda in the ancient Hebrew character." 
 (Harv. Theolog. Rev., Jan., 1911). 
 
 The script of these ostraca is the Phoenician. 'Tt is prac- 
 tically identical with that of the Siloam Tunnel inscription, and 
 this fact settles at a stroke the disputed question whether that 
 inscription can be as old as the time of Hezekiah. It is also the 
 same as that of the Moabite Stone , . . The inscriptions are 
 written in ink with a reed pen in an easy, flowing hand and 
 show a pleasing contrast to the stiff forms of Phoenician in- 
 scriptions cut in stone. The graceful curves give evidence of 
 a skill which comes only with long practice. In many of the 
 inscriptions the ink is so well preserved that the readings are 
 subject to no doubt, and in only a few cases is there uncertain- 
 ty. Such distinctness after twenty-eight centuries in a damp 
 soil is a marvel. The reading is facilitated by the dots or 
 
NORTH SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS. II5 
 
 strokes which divide the words from one another" (Lyon). 
 Chart, cols. XXIII, XXIV. 
 
 In general the inscriptions seem to be labels attached to 
 jars, or groups of jars, in the cellar or store-house, giving date, 
 ownership and origin of the jars.^^ 
 
 At this writing the facsimiles of the script have not yet 
 been published, and so it is impossible to compare the forms of 
 the letters with those on the Moabite Stone, the Jeroboam seal 
 and other early Phoenician types. They will however prove 
 of the highest value to Hebraists and epigraphists. They are 
 the earliest specimens of Hebrew writing which have ever been 
 found, and in number and legibility they far surpass all known 
 archaic Hebrew inscriptions. Dating from the reign of Omri 
 (900-875) and Ahab (875-53), these ostraca take us back to 
 within a century of the time of David and afford indubitable 
 proof of the antiquity of writing among the Hebrews. 
 
 German authorities agree that these Harvard ''finds" are 
 by far the most valuable of modern times. That these ostraca 
 are in the archaic Hebrew script opens ''an entirely new per- 
 spective", says Kittel. "I have for some time had the firm con- 
 viction that an extensive literature on papyrus and in the na- 
 tive (i e. Phoenician) script existed in Syria and Palestine 
 toward the close of the second millennium B. C. This view 
 receives strong support from the ostraca, for it must be assumed 
 that in Palestine, not clay but skins and papyrus were the orig- 
 inal and most suitable material for pen and ink. If, as Lyon 
 intimates, the script is decidedly cursive, our view is doubly 
 sustained. Neither the script nor the material (pen and ink) 
 was first introduced in 900, but they imply long practice on 
 papyrus and therefore an extended Hterature prior to 900 B. C. 
 in Canaan and Israel" (Theolg. Literaturh., Feb., 191 1). 
 
 Lyon writes : "It is not improbable that thousands of such 
 records may exist at Samaria. In some parts of the hill, less 
 overturned than the summit has been by the burrowing of later 
 builders, it is likely that multitudes of business documents await 
 the explorer, documents giving records of sale, barter, contract, 
 and all phases of private and social transactions. More than 
 this, may we not even hope for historical records ? We know 
 
 23 We reproduce a few of the inscriptions as translated by Prof. Lyon. No. 
 6: "In the tenth year. Wine of the vineyard of the Tell. With a jar of fine 
 oil." No. 13: "In the tenth year. From Abiezer. For Shemaryo. A jar of 
 the old wine for Asa. From the Tell." No. 47: "In the eleventh year. From 
 Abiezer. For Asa, Akhimelek and Baala. From Elnathan". 
 
Il6 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 that the kings of Israel had their court annaHsts. And while 
 we may be sure that their work was committed mainly to per- 
 ishable material, other parts of it may have been written on 
 stone, pottery, or clay. Such possibility is enough to kindle 
 the imagination of every student of Palestinian history" {op. 
 cit., p., 142). 
 
 5. Other Archaic Hehreiv Inscriptions. 
 
 Other ancient Hebrew inscriptions have been discovered in recent 
 years in Palestine and add immensely to our knowledge of the state of 
 writing among the Hebrews in the early centuries of the monarchy. At 
 Tell €S Safi, Tell Zakariya, Tell Sandahannah and Tell ej Judeideh, 
 Bliss and Macalister unearthed a number of inscribed jar-handles. 
 Twenty-five of these were stamped with Hebrew names such as She- 
 baniah, Azzariah, Azzur, Menahem, etc., referring either to the owner, 
 or to the potter who made the vessel. In addition to these were some 
 others of a different type, with the device of a winged scarab impressed 
 upon them and bearing the names of four towns, Hebron, Ziph, Sucoh 
 and Mamshith, preceded by a phrase probably meaning "of the King". 
 The script varies, pre-Siloam, Siloam and post-Siloam types being 
 represented. A few are probably as early as 900, B. C. In any event 
 these objects testify that in 900-700, the art of writing and engraving in 
 the Phoenician alphabet must have been far advanced in Israel.^* Chart, 
 col. XXIII. 
 
 6. Importance of Seals in Ancient Times. 
 
 In recent years other archaic Hebrew inscriptions, mostly 
 seals and gems, some earlier, some later, than the Siloam, have 
 come to light. As seals played a prominent role in the ancient 
 Orient, especially in Israel, we describe them briefly. In anti- 
 quity, when only comparatively few could write, the seal was 
 extensively used for a variety of purposes. Seal impressions 
 not only attested a man's signature (when a letter or document 
 was to be authenticated), but also served the same purposes as 
 locks and keys in modern times ; they afforded a certain degree 
 of protection against slaves and thieves. Men of wealth and 
 station had their private seals; royal officers had in addition 
 public seals bearing the name of the king. Modem research 
 
 2* See Bliss and Macalister, Excavations in Palestine. Facsimiles of the 
 scarabs and jar-handles are given in their plate 56. Nos. i — 3 read: "of the 
 king, Hebron"; 4 — 9, "of the king, Sucoh"; 10, 12, 13, 14, "of the king, Ziph"; 
 16, 17, "of the king, Mamshith"; 20, "Hoshea, son of Zaphron"; 21, "Sheba- 
 niah, son of Azariah"; 28, "of Azzur, son of Haggai". 
 
 Sayce in a review of the date of the jar-handles, in the Palestine Expl. Fund, 
 1900, inclines to the view that they are similar to those of the Amarna period. 
 As they disappeared toward the end of the sixth century, he assigns them to 800 
 B. C. and some of them possibly to the age of Solomon. Lidz. (Ephem., I, 182) 
 sees two styles of writing, a later, post-exilic, and an earlier, with letters sub- 
 stantially as on the Moabite Stone. The presence of jod as vowel-letter is ex- 
 plained on the theory that the matres lectionis in the Semitic texts are earlier by 
 far than generally supposed, being found already in Bar-rekub. 
 
NORTH SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS. II7 
 
 has brought to view hundreds of seals in Babylonia, Egypt, 
 Syria, Palestine and the Greek islands, all of them exhibiting 
 some artistic and national characteristics.^^ 
 
 Seals were universally in vogue in the ancient world, ''ex- 
 tending from the mists of Babylonian antiquity to the decline 
 of Roman civilization" (Ecy. Brit.). Gems, seals, signets, dat- 
 ing as far back as 3500 B. C. have been found in Egypt and the 
 Euphrates valley."^ They were probably used also in Canaan 
 in the third millennium B. C.; the account of Judah's signet 
 in Gen. 38: 18, 25, is therefore in accord with contemporaneous 
 usage : '*He gives it as a pledge, because it was the one thing 
 which could be proved to belong to him and would serve to iden- 
 tify him" (Hast. op. cit., p., 513). 
 
 (i). The Egyptian Seal. The Egyptian seal has the 
 characteristic form of a scarab (from the Latin scarabaeus, a 
 beetle, which was sacred in Egypt). It was made of wood, 
 ebony, lapis lazuli, rarely of metal or glass, was enameled, col- 
 ored, and sometimes modified in form. The latter are called 
 scarabseoids. Various objects were engraved on the lower 
 edge, either hieroglyphics, containing the name of the wearer, 
 the king or a god, or figures of birds, snakes, lotus-flowers and 
 geometrical forms.^^ 
 
 (2). The Babylonian Seal. Among the Babylonians the 
 seal had characteristically the form of a cylinder, or a little rol- 
 ler three-fourths of an inch to two long, and from one-half to 
 one inch in diameter, w^ith engraved letters and pictures. It 
 was made of basalt, porphyry, jasper, or clay, pierced longi- 
 tudinally and suspended from the neck of the owner by a linen 
 or woolen cord. Rolled over the moist clay, it produced a 
 clear im.pression. Seals without figures are rare; besides the 
 
 2^ "In the early days of civilization the art of writing was practically limited 
 to a class of professional scribes. Every one outside that class, from the king 
 downwards, needed a signet to authenticate the documents with which he was 
 concerned. Herodotus, I, 195, says, of the Babylonians, each one has a seal" 
 (Hast. Die. Bible, IV, 513). 
 
 -^ "The seal, owing no doubt to its convenient size and practical use, was 
 adopted by all the nations of antiquity at an early period. Its use was so univer- 
 sal when the book of Genesis was written, that Judah is represented as giving 
 to Tamar his staff, bracelets and signet, as pledges (38: 18); whilst in Exodus, 
 semi-precious stones, graven with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel, set 
 in gold, and ouched with chains of the same shiny metal, are distributed about the 
 breast and shoulders of Aaron's robe: 'like the engravings of a signet', Ex. 28: 
 21" (Perrot and Chipiez, Hist, of Art, I, 338). 
 
 3' "In oroportion to the rank and wealth of their possessors, they were 
 carved on sard, amethyst, chalcedony, and serpentine; also on tenderer material, 
 schist, green, blue and maculated stones; the greater proportion in vitrified terra- 
 cotta — many very beautiful in ivory, bound or mounted in silver rings and brace- 
 lets" (M. Sommerville, Engraved Gems, etc., p., 41). 
 
Il8 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 script, the} contain engraved representations changing with the 
 taste of the age, but relating mostly to the worship of the gods. 
 It is thought that the seal-cylinder was native to Babylonia, al- 
 though found in pre-historic times in Egypt. Its use in Eg>^pt 
 extended to the close of the i8th dynasty, when it was almost 
 wholly displaced by the scarab. 
 
 (3). The Hehrezv Seal. Recent excavations have shown 
 that in Palestine both forms of the seal, the Egyptian scarab and 
 the Babylonian cylinder, were in use. So far as indicated by 
 the discoveries to date, it would seem that the scarab was the 
 more popular; in fact, however, a style peculiarly Palestinian 
 or Israelite, a blending of the scarab and the cylinder, gradual- 
 ly developed. Thus the Jeroboam seal, described above, has 
 the Egyptian form of a scarabaeoid; but the engraving repre- 
 sents a lion in an attitude characteristically Babylonian. Still 
 more characteristic of the Palestinian type is a seal-cylinder 
 found in Taannak, which in addition to the Babylonian script 
 and images, has Egyptian hieroglyphics and amulets. This 
 seal, which dates from the time of Hammurabi, was produced 
 in Canaan and shows that already in 2,000 B. C. a commingling 
 of Babylonian and Egyptian culture had taken place. 
 
 Up to the present time some fifty seals in the archaic He- 
 brew script have been found. In contrast with other old Sem- 
 itic or Egyptian seals, the best types have rarely any pictures of 
 animals and natural objects (Ex. "Thou shalt not make unto 
 thee a graven image, etc.,"). The legend or lettering is gen- 
 erally in two Hues separated by strokes, or in the margin, if 
 the seal be oval. That the Hebrews early made use of seals 
 is now generally allowed by scholars. ^^ 
 
 7. Archaic Hebrew Seals. 
 
 We give a brief account of the most important archaic He- 
 brew seals as evidence that the Phoenician script was quite ex- 
 tensively employed by the Hebrews at a comparatively early 
 date. 
 
 ^^ "Not only at head centres, as at Jerusalem and Samaria, but in every town 
 were doubtless shops in the various bazaars, where carnelian, hematite, jasper and 
 onyx were cut to the required shape; symbols and ornaments having been pre- 
 viously prepared, so that the buyer had only to wait the time necessary to have 
 his name engraved. A handcraft which is the monopoly of the few is sure to 
 pay well; it is not to be supposed, therefore, that the Israelites would be back- 
 ward in trying to become proficient in an art which promised so well, albeit they 
 could not hope to displace the Phoenicians, whose multitudinous workshops turned 
 out intaglios, both on stone and on tinted or figured glass paste, in such quantities 
 and at so moderate a price as to be within the means of the humblest; to them the 
 art in all its minute and intricate delicacy was an open book and child's play" 
 (Perrot and Chipiez, op. cit., 1, 338). 
 
NORTH SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS. II9 
 
 (i). The Shemayahu Seal .This is one of the oldest of 
 extant Hebrew seals. It was purchased by Waddington in 
 Aleppo and is fully described by Levy, who regards it as of the 
 eighth pre-Christian century. Lidzbarski places it somewhat 
 earlier. A strange peculiarity is that the figure of an ox or 
 bull separates the upper and lower lines of the inscription. 
 This however, is in accord with the popular representation of 
 Jehovah by a bull in early times. It reads : "Belonging to 
 Shemayahu, son of Azarahu". Chart, col. XXIII. 
 
 (2). The Ohadiah Seal This is a typical Hebrew seal 
 with merely the name engraved upon it thus: ''Belonging to 
 Obadiah, servant of the king". It is to be regretted that Oba- 
 diah did not add the name of the king whom he served. In 
 that case we could with greater confidence identify him with 
 the true worshipper of Jehovah who was the governor of Ahab's 
 palace and a friend of EHjah ( i K. i8). In any event "the 
 seal of that official must have closely resembled ours, for the 
 inscription arranged in two lines is archaic enough to be carried 
 back to that remote period" (Perrot and Chipiez, op. cit., p., 
 340), that is to about 860 B. C. 
 
 (3). The Shebaniah Seal. Another seal regarded as of 
 Hebrew origin is a beautiful oval sapphirene carnelian. "On 
 the obverse stands a male figure, staff in hand, in an attitude 
 of worship. His dress, which falls on the ankles leaving the 
 upper part of the body uncovered, recalls that of an Egyptian 
 page. His name Shebaniah forms a line behind him". On the 
 reverse, between the upper and lower lines of the legend, "Be- 
 longing to Shebaniah son of Uzziah", is a winged solar disk. 
 The script is of the classic period. If the Uzziah is the king 
 of that name, as seems probable, we have here a definite chron- 
 ological datum, since he ruled in 777-36 (Revised Chronology). 
 
 (4). The Ahijah Seal. This is a scarab of the same gen- 
 eral type as the preceding, though smaller. Between the two 
 lines an Egyptian deity (perhaps) is represented as kneeling 
 before a lotus-tree. The seal belonged to "Abijah, servant of 
 Uzziah". The letters are of a form midway between the Mo- 
 abite and Siloam. The epigraphic and historical data indicate 
 that the seal was made in the age of Uzziah. 
 
 (5). The Ustinozv Seal. An ancient seal, designated here 
 by the name of its present owner, Baron Ustinow, is of great 
 but disputed age. It is a Karneol in the form of an ellipsoid, 
 with rounded sides. It contains in neatly inscribed archaic 
 
I20 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Hebrew characters the legend, "Belonging to Schema, servant 
 of the king". Its age has been discussed by Kautzsch, Vincent 
 and Lidzbarski. The former would assign it to the same per- 
 iod as the above described Jeroboam seal ; Vincent and Lidz- 
 barski on epigraphic grounds place it a century or so later. 
 From a careful examination of the letters, the present writer 
 would regard it as earlier, certainly not later, than the Siloam 
 inscription. In any event, it shows that engraving was gener- 
 ally cultivated in Israel in the eighth century B. C. 
 
 (6). The El-Siggeh Seal. The inscription runs: ''Be- 
 longing to El-Siggeb, daughter of El-Shamai". The two lines 
 are separated by a war-like figure ; two animals on the side of 
 a plant. Assigned to the seventh century. 
 
 (7). The Joshua Seal. Another old Hebrew seal, pur- 
 chased by Prof. C. C. Torrey in Sidon, is thus described by 
 him : ''It is a scarabseoid, longitudinally pierced. The mater- 
 ial is agate, nearly white, and the inscribed surface measures 
 three-quarters of an inch in length". The legend, "Belonging 
 to Joshua, son of Asayahu", is in two lines. The script is reg- 
 ular and beautiful; assigned to the seventh century by Lidz- 
 barski. 
 
 (8). The Haggai Seal A hematite seal, found by Sir C. 
 Warren in Jerusalem at a depth of some twenty feet. The in- 
 scription in two lines: "Haggai, son of Shebaneiah". The 
 letters are sufficiently archaic to date from the Uzziah period. 
 
 (9). The Hananiahti Seals. We mention next two ancient 
 seals described by CI. Ganneau. One found in Jerusalem, con- 
 sists of "a very hard siliceous stone, convex and oval in shape, 
 with a Phoenician palmette engraved with rare perfection above 
 the legend, "Hananiahu, son of Akbor" ; on the other, likewise 
 a scarab, but somewhat larger, a ring of poppies or pomegran- 
 ates surrounds the lettering, "Belonging to Hananiahu, son of 
 Azariah". 
 
 (10). The Maaseyahu Seal A seal found in 1902 at Tell 
 ej-Gudejidc and owned by Baron Ustinow is inscribed in char- 
 acters of the classic Hebrew script : "Belonging to Maaseyahu 
 son of Meshallem". Its date is approximately 700 B, C. 
 
 (11). An Ancient Scarabaeoid. We merely mention here 
 a seal with a strange device and in archaic Hebrew script, but 
 on account of illegibility of the letters not perfectly decipherable. 
 It is a scarabaeoid of red-grey Karneol, pierced longitudinally, 
 
NORTH SEMITIC INSCRIPTIONS. 121 
 
 and was found in Egypt. Lidzbarski pronounces it as very 
 ancient (Ephem., I, ii). 
 
 (12). The Hareph Seal. Found in Hebron in 1900, and 
 reads, "Belonging to Uzziahu, son of Hareph". The script is 
 quite similar to the Siloam, and, as in that, the words are sep- 
 arated by a point, i C. 2 : 51. 
 
 8. Other Early Hebrew Seals. 
 
 Among other ancient Hebrew seals worthy of mention are 
 the following : ''Zakkur, son of Hushai" ; ''Amadiyahu, daugh- 
 ter of Shebanayahu" ; ''Neeheveth, daughter of Ramelayahu" ; 
 "Abigail, wife of Asayahu" ; "Menahemeth, wife of Gaddime- 
 lek". 
 
 From the preceding it is evident that seals were very gen- 
 erally in use among the Hebrews from the year 900 B. C. and 
 onward and indicate an advanced state of writing. Attention 
 may be directed to the fact that a considerable number were 
 the property of women, which implies a highly complex social 
 and economic order. 
 
 Doubt may arise whether all the seals enumerated above 
 are really Hebrew. "We are quite willing to admit", say Fer- 
 ret and Chipiez, "that seals where one of the proper names is 
 compounded of Jehovah were wrought by or for Israelites ; for 
 example Jehu, Joash, Jonathan, Ahiah, El, Elohim. But the 
 question is more difficult of solution when the name is joined 
 with Baal, as Eshbaal, Abimelech, Jerubbaal, etc., which, al- 
 though found in the Bible and borne by Jews of position, are 
 common to all Semitic races, and might with equal propriety 
 have belonged to Sidonians and Canaanites, as to Jews inhabit- 
 ing Jerusalem or any other part of Palestine. With all these 
 restrictions, we may accept as unreservedly Jewish a number 
 of intaglios with inscriptions in old Hebrew characters" {op. 
 c^^'f P-) 339)- As however, Hebrew words containing Baal, 
 as Jerubbaal, are early, the presence of this word in the com- 
 pound is a proof of early date. 
 
 9. Later Archaic Hebrew Inscriptions. 
 
 From the preceding survey it appears that the archaic He- 
 brew script while substantially the same underwent a gradual 
 development from the earliest times to about the fifth century 
 B. C. After that time the rate of change is somewhat more 
 rapid. Nevertheless, some seals and most of the coins bear a 
 distinctly archaic impress, from which it may be inferred that 
 
122 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 the archaic script was still in general use in 500-300. Unfor- 
 tunately we have no long, and very few, short Hebrew inscrip- 
 tions from this period. The later Phoenician inscriptions may, 
 however, be taken as fair representatives of the script in use in 
 this period. We shall not err greatly if we regard the Tabnith 
 inscription of Sidon, 300 B. C, as approximating to the con- 
 temporaneous Hebrew script. 
 
 E. COMPARISON OF PHOENICIAN, ARAMAIC AND ARCHAIC HEBREW SCRIPT. 
 
 We may now compare the three preceding types of the 
 early Semiitic script on the basis of the three representatives, 
 the Moabite Stone, the Early Zinjirli monuments, and the Gezer 
 and Siloam inscriptions. The respective dates, about 900, 825, 
 and 825-725, lend themselves admirably for our purpose. That 
 the comparison may be still more exhaustive, we include impor- 
 tant later mscriptions, as the Hassan Bey-li, Nora and Abydos 
 among the Phoenician, the Panammu, Nerab and Teima among 
 the Aramaic and the 8 — 7 century seals among the Hebrew. The 
 generalization, therefore covers about four centuries for each 
 of the types, a period of sufficient length to exhibit the law of 
 development both after and before 900 B. C. 
 
 The detailed examination shows that as early as 900 a 
 script substantially the same, yet with marked variations, was 
 in use in districts as widely separated as Cyprus. IMoab, Jerusa- 
 lem, Zinjirli, Asia Minor, Egypt, and Assyria. A long period 
 would be required in that age for the introduction and general 
 prevalence of such a script among nations between whom com- 
 munication was rare and difficult. Several generations would 
 scarcely suffice to overcome the well known conservatism of 
 the ancient world in regard to the novelty ; several more would 
 be required to supplant the old method. Besides, time would 
 elapse before the news of the invention and its merits would 
 be carried to other countries. If the rate of progress and ex- 
 tension was not more rapid than from 900 to 500, three or five 
 centuries would elapse before the general introduction of the 
 new script and its adoption in the above named countries. 
 
 On epigraphic grounds everything points to the probability 
 that the old Semitic characters were devised about the middle 
 of the second millennium B. C, perhaps even earlier. The his- 
 torical situation also points in that direction. The Mediterran- 
 ean people were in a state of intense activity; commerce and 
 the arts were flourishing. Egyptians, Phoenicians, Dorians, 
 
SOUTH-SEMITIC OR ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS. I23 
 
 Sidonians, Hittites, were engaged in great commercial enter- 
 prises, rendering such a medium of international communication 
 an absolute necessity. 
 
 The fact that the Amarna Letters were composed in the 
 cuneiform script is no decisive argument against this view. In 
 any event the officials in Egypt, Babylonia and Canaan would 
 use a script generally known at the time and not one lately 
 invented, however superior. ^^ The Assyrian scribes, even if 
 conversant with the Semitic (Phoenician), would employ the 
 international script. The claim that the use of the cuneiform 
 in the Amarna Letters implies the non-existence of the Semitic 
 is illicit, for the same logic would prove its non-existence ten 
 centuries later. It seems incredible (nevertheless it is a fact) 
 that the Assyrians and Persians retained the lumbering and 
 complicated cuneiform at least six centuries after the simple 
 Semitic alphabet had been introduced into practically all the 
 civilized countries of the East. Unless public sentiment, or 
 those shaping it, favored the introduction, its adoption in any 
 country would be indefinitely delayed. 
 
 11. 
 
 SOUTH-SEMITIC OR ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS.**' 
 
 At an early period, the primitive Semitic alphabet split up 
 into two great stems, the North Semitic, and the South Semitic. 
 Formerly it was assumed that the S. Semitic script, represented 
 by the various Arabic dialects, as the Minsean and Sabsean, 
 were later developments of the N. Semitic. But in recent years, 
 E. Glaser and F. Hommel have contended that the S. Arabian 
 script originated about the beginning of the second millennium 
 B. C. and penetrated the West Land before the Amarna period. 
 That a high civilization existed in Southern Arabia at a remote 
 date is attested by the ruins of ancient towns, temples and aque- 
 ducts, and especially by numerous extant inscriptions. Ac- 
 cording to Hommel the latter are ''written in an alphabet which 
 
 29 That the Canaanite words in the Amarna Letters are represented by cune- 
 iform characters is quite natural under the circumstances. A parallel case is the 
 difficulty of introducing a system of simplified orthography into English. "There 
 is nothing to prevent us from assuming that the Canaanite (or so-called Phoenician) 
 script was in use in Palestine during the Amarna period; at that time, however, 
 it had not yet been officially employed as the medium of diplomatic correspon- 
 dence with Egypt" (Hommel, Anc. Heb. Trad., p., 275). 
 
 *° Various names, as Arabic, Ishmaelite, Ethiopic, and Joktanite, have been 
 suggested. Most of these are too narrow. For our purpose the terms Arabic and 
 S. Semitic are sufficiently exact and comprehensive. 
 
124 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 belongs, at the very lowest estimate, to the same period as the 
 so-called Phoenician alphabet, and must therefore be referred, 
 together with the Phoenician, and the Greek alphabet, which 
 is derived from it, to one and the same source, viz. the Western 
 Semitic alphabet, the structural source of which has not yet 
 been made out. This circumstance alone is an argument in 
 favor of ascribing these inscriptions to the middle or perhaps 
 even to the beginning of the second millennium before Christ. 
 The question whether they take their origin from the Egyptian 
 hieratic script, or as seems far more probable, from the ancient 
 Egyptian, is quite a separate one" (Anc. Heb. Trad., p., 75). 
 
 The South Arabian inscriptions are written in two dialects, 
 the Minaean and the Sabaean. The earliest Sabaean inscrip- 
 tions belong to the first millennium B. C, not later than 800, 
 and probably as early as 900, or 1,000. Next come Sabaean 
 inscriptions from the 8th to the 3rd century B. C, and lastly 
 Neo-Sab^an inscriptions as late as 600 A. D. The Minaean 
 inscriptions may be assigned to 900-200 B. C. Extensive col- 
 lections of early Arabic inscriptions have been made by Arnaud, 
 Halevy and Glaser ; and these writers together with Sayce and 
 Hommel would trace the origin of the Arabic alphabet to a 
 period at least contemporaneous with the Phoenician. Starting 
 from the view held by some Semitic scholars, that the first 
 dynasty of Babylon was of Arabian, and not of Canaanite or 
 Babylonian origin, these investigators reach the conclusion that 
 all the conditions were present for the formation of a South 
 Arabic script at the date indicated. "Although at present we 
 cannot state whether as early as the time of Hammurabi a 
 Minaean empire existed, and from which part of Arabia its 
 dynasty came, nevertheless, from a study of the proper names 
 we can draw the result that, even at that period, an Arabian 
 civilization existed equal to the Minaso- Sabaean" (Hommel, Rec. 
 Research, etc., p., 143). "The most flourishing period of the 
 Minaean empire, we must consider the centuries preceding and 
 following 1,000 B. C, or perhaps more correctly about 1500 
 to 800 B. C. {ibid., p., 152)." 
 
 The views of Hommel and Glaser have received support 
 from other quarters. Thus Larfeld (Greek Epigraphy) says: 
 "The Phoenician Alphabet is assumed to have some connection 
 
 *^ In short, Hommel contends that the S. Arabian script antedates the N. 
 Semitic, and that the alphabet was brought to Phoenicia from Arabia. "The oldest 
 traditions of the Hebrews must still have been written in the Minaean alphabet 
 (Mitt. d. V order. As. Gesell., 1897, p., 271). Later positions of Hommel will be 
 considered in another connection. 
 
SOUTH-SEMITIC OR ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS. I25 
 
 with the Minsean-Sabgean inscriptions of Arabia. If Glaser is 
 correct, the writing is as early as 1500 B. C. In that case, 
 allowance being made for the development implied in the ear- 
 liest inscriptions, the script arose as far back as 1800 B. C. 
 From various examples it is evident that the forms of some let- 
 ters are older than the Canaanite. Thus the form of pe resem- 
 bles more nearly the supposed original pictograph than in the 
 Phoenician. Again, the forms of kaph (Latin palma) and jod 
 (Lat. maniis) approach more nearly the original pictographs." 
 All this points to some connection in remote times between Ca- 
 naan and Southern Arabia. This fact, however, would not 
 prove that the Phoenician alphabet was subsequent to, or de- 
 rived from the South-Semitic. Chart, col. XXIX. 
 
 On the other hand, since many of the inscriptions are of 
 unknown or of late date, the argument for the great antiquity 
 of the Sab^an-Minsean script, is alleged to rest on a slender 
 basis. Lieu. Col. Conder regards the whole Arabic hypothesis 
 with suspicion : 'That the alphabet should have originated in 
 Arabia is improbable. The Arabs adopted the civilization of 
 Babylon, and of the Hebrew and Phoenician traders who first 
 visited Yemem, about the time when letters took the place of 
 
 cuneiform signs in Syria It was from the Phoenicians 
 
 that the Arabs must have learned letters, and no ancient author 
 ever suggested the contrary explanation" (Hittites, etc). Lidz- 
 barski also opposes the theory. ''Whoever has any knowledge 
 of the art of writing sees that the form of the script, as it ap- 
 pears even in the oldest S. Arabic monuments, is not primitive, 
 but must be the result of a long development. The S. Semitic 
 script would in that case go back at least to the beginning of 
 the second millennium B. C. But we have knowledge of the 
 N. Semitic since about 1,000 B. C. Since certainly at this time 
 and even earlier, commercial relations existed between Canaan 
 and Yemen, one could regard the Sabsean-Minsean script not 
 only as an elder sister but really the mother of the N. Semitic 
 alphabet. Is this correct?" (Ephem. I, no). Nevertheless 
 Lidz. argues at some length against such a view and in support 
 of the N. Semitic origin (but we reserve a full consideration of 
 his position for a later head) . 
 
 It follows from the preceding that S. Semitic inscriptions 
 go back to at least 1200 B. C, implying a very ancient civiliza- 
 tion, sufficiently far advanced to produce a high literature. 
 Lidzbarski's admission that the oldest extant S. Arabic inscrip- 
 
126 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 tions imply "a. long development" is significant in this connec- 
 tion and warrants the conclusion that a permanence of type was 
 reached not later than 1300. All this implies that the N. and S. 
 Semitic scripts split off from each other and from the primitive 
 Semitic or proto-Phoenician at an indefinitely determined date, 
 but probably about 1500. This would throw back the origin 
 of the primitive Semitic alphabet to about 19001500 B. C, to 
 which other considerations (as the science of alphabetology and 
 the early introduction of the alphabet into Greece) point. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 INTRODUCTION OF THE PHOENICIAN ALPHABET 
 INTO GREECE. 
 
 A. EARLY GREEK HISTORY AND CIVILIZATION. 
 
 I. The Pre-Hellenic Period. 
 
 Recent authorities in Greek history, archaeology and liter- 
 ature emphasize the fact that the Greeks came upon the field 
 of history at a much earlier date than was formerly supposed.^ 
 It is immaterial whether we designate this early civilization as 
 Pelasgic, Mycenaean, Achaean, Dorian, or pre-Hellenic, the fact 
 remains that by the middle of the second millennium B. C. great 
 progress had been made in all the arts. The researches of 
 Evans, Schliemann and others have enabled us to recover a 
 very ancient civilization. 
 
 2. Writing Earlier than Inscriptions. 
 
 The earliest writing in Greece, as elsewhere, was upon 
 comparatively tractable material, as leaves, wood and hides. 
 The custom of engraving inscriptions on stone and metal, is 
 of later date, and implies considerable skill in the arts. Cen- 
 turies earlier than the Greeks, the Orientals covered the walls 
 of their temples with accounts of the victories of their kings. 
 The ruins of Cretan palaces from the Mycenaean and pre- 
 Mycenaean times contain arabesques with alphabetic characters ; 
 and numerous jars and vases, covered with a remarkable linear 
 script, prove that in that remote period writing on various kinds 
 of material was in use extensively in the region of the Aegean 
 Sea. 
 
 But that early period of considerable culture with its skill 
 
 1 "From about the fifteenth century until the twelfth one sees rising from the 
 obscure background, probably under the influence of Egypt, Phoenicia. Babylonia 
 and Phrygia, certain groups of peoples with distinctly marked characteristics. 
 One may call the period pre-Hellenic, since it comes between the Pelasgic age and 
 the Hellenic. The groups of Asia came to be more Asiatic, while those of the 
 islands and in Greece proper, especially in the Eastern shores, began to take on 
 an Ionian aspect. These latter, though somewhat inclined toward the Orient, 
 are separated from it, and are open to cultivate at home the precious elements 
 
 of civilization Toward the twelfth century again, there were important 
 
 movements among the pre-Hellenic tribes, and then began the real period of Hel- 
 lenization" (Croisset, Hist. Greek Literature, 1904). 
 
 127 
 
128 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 in pictographic writing was followed by a decline intellectually 
 and epigraphically. Between the age of intellectual activity of 
 the Mycenasans and that in which the Greeks adopted the Phoe- 
 nician alphabet, there took place the immigration of the Dori- 
 ans into the Peloponessus ; as a result the enfeebled rulers of 
 the islands and the mainland succumbed to the powerful, but 
 rude invaders. Fortunately the Greek spirit soon revived. 
 Driven from their native heath, the Greek tribes planted colo- 
 nies on the Western coast of Asia Minor. Among the arts car- 
 ried with them was the Semitic alphabet. 
 
 3. Testimony of Early Greek Authors."^ 
 
 As will be pointed out presently, this alphabet was proba- 
 bly mediated to the Greeks by the Phoenicians. No Greek in- 
 scriptions of this early period are extant ; *'but no grounds exist 
 for impugning the early Greek writers that they themselves saw 
 very ancient inscriptions on jars and vases. ^ The earliest ex- 
 amples of writing pertain to the offices of religion; and in 
 Greece the priests were the first to cultivate the art extensively. 
 The oldest epigraphic monuments were executed under their 
 direction. Lists of the victors at the annual religious festivals 
 are among the earliest records, ninth to eighth century" (Lar- 
 feld, op. cit.). 
 
 Another high authority says : *Tt is now generally admitted 
 that the Greeks had learned the art of writing from the great 
 commercial people (the Phoenicians) not later than the ninth 
 century, and probably as much as three centuries earlier. For 
 a long time it would only be employed for such limited and priv- 
 ate uses as the writing of names on lots. Probably its more 
 extended use began in the temples, where inscribed offerings 
 and registers of priests and of sacrifice existed at an early date. 
 .... It is likely that the Greeks did not begin to inscribe 
 upon marble until they had experimented with the use of writ- 
 
 2 The highest European authority on Greek inscriptions is W. Larfeld, whose 
 Handbuch d. Griech. Epigraphik, 2 Baende, Leip. 1907, has been constantly con- 
 sulted. Years ago, Larfeld established his reputation by the article on Griechische 
 Epigraphik in the second edition of Mueller's Handbuch d. Klass. Altertums-Wis- 
 senschaft, in which he laid down the lines of investigation subsequently carried 
 out more fully in the above work. Larfeld surpasses Kirchhoff as much as the 
 latter his predecessors. He is a safe investigator, who looks at all sides of a 
 subject. Unless otherwise indicated, our references are to the Handbuch. 
 
 3 Boeckh says (CIG, I, 63) that previous to the Trojan War the use of writ- 
 ing (Larfeld suggests 'the epigraphic use of writing') was exceedingly rare among 
 the Greeks and that only a few inscriptions are earlier than the First Olympiad, 
 776, B. C. Andrew Lang writes: "There is no reason why Pausanias should not 
 have seen at Ascra, as he tells us that he did, if not the original copy of Hesiod, 
 at least an extremely ancient copy, chiseled on thin and mouldering plates of lead" 
 (Homer and the Epic). 
 
INTRODUCTION OF PHOENICIAN ALPHABET INTO GREECE. 1 29 
 
 ing on leaves, clay, metal, wood and other substances" (Hicks 
 and Hill, Manual of Greek Hist. Inscrip., 1901). 
 
 The classical writers agree in ascribing the introduction of 
 the alphabet to the Phoenicians. Herodotus says : "The Phoe- 
 nicians introduced into Greece the knowledge of letters, of 
 which, as it seems to me, the Greeks had heretofore been ignor- 
 ant" (V: 58). So also Diodorus Siculus; and Pliny affirms 
 that "to the Phoenicians belongs the glory of the invention of 
 the alphabet" (Nat. Hist., V: 12). The word alphabet itself, 
 composed of alpha and beta, is also a silent witness. These 
 words are plainly identical with the names aleph and heth, 
 meaning respectively ox and house in the Phoenician, but mean- 
 ingless in the Greek. In short the names, number, order and 
 forms of the primitive Greek alphabet attest a Semitic origin. 
 See Chart, cols. XXX, XXXI, XXXII. 
 
 4. The Cretan Script. 
 
 Larfeld is disposed to allow considerable weight to the 
 researches of A. J. Evans cited above: "Through the epoch- 
 making work of Evans, the existence of an archaic hieroglyphic 
 and a linear script in the islands and coasts of the Eastern 
 Mediterranean has been established, of which the former con- 
 tains echoes of the Hittite picture script of Asia Minor and 
 North Syria, and the latter, some remarkable agreements with 
 the Cypriote syllabary, reaching far down into the historical 
 period. Both systems of writing stretch over a vast period and 
 belong to the beginning of the second millennium B. C. The 
 hieroglyphic system seems to have been substantially the script 
 of the oldest inhabitants of Crete and of the pre-Mycensean 
 age; the linear script to which the Homeric 'signs' (Iliad, VI: 
 168) may belong seems to have been the Mycenaean system in 
 the broadest sense" (Larf., op. cit.). 
 
 According to Evans, the alphabetic forms borrowed by the 
 Greeks from the Phoenicians were influenced by the pre-his- 
 torical Aegean script. Of the 22 letters of the Phoenician al- 
 phabet, about 12 closely resemble one or the other of the Cretan 
 characters. In view of such marked parallelismi in the form 
 and significance of the signs, Evans is convinced that de 
 Rouge's hypothesis of the derivation of the Phoenician script 
 from the Egyptian can nO' longer be maintained ; he suggests 
 that the Phoenician-Greek alphabet represents a selection of 
 signs from a syllabic script of the same group as the Cretan. 
 
 Such a combination of circumstances on the Syrian coast 
 9 
 
130 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 may perhaps have been due to the arrival in the Mycenaean 
 times of a people from the Aegean Sea, as e. g., the Philistines, 
 who. though afterward Semitized, but known in the Old Testa- 
 ment as Kaphtorim and Krethim, are supposed to have migrated 
 from Crete. That the Philistines were originally inhabitants 
 of Crete is clear, says Evans, from the Egyptian monuments, 
 which represent this people from ''the island in the sea" as 
 bearing tribute; these data harmonize perfectly with the style 
 of gems and seals found in the Eastern part of Crete. 
 
 B. ORIGIN OF THE GREEK ALPHABET. 
 
 According to Larfeld, neither the linear script of the prim- 
 itive Hellenic period, nor the syllabic script of the Cretans ex- 
 erted any perceptible influence on the development of the Greek 
 alphabet. *'As the Greek immigrants of Cyprus, of whom only 
 a small number could write at all, soon exchanged their own 
 script for that current in the island, so the Greeks remaining in 
 the circle of the Aegean, abandoned in the course of centuries 
 their heavy native script for the more perfect alphabet of the 
 Phcenicians. In spite of all minor differences, the various local 
 Greek alphabets exhibit agreement in the fundamental forms, 
 which indicates not only relationship with each other, but a 
 common origin of the characters. In answering the question 
 of the origin of the Greek alphabet we are thrown back upon 
 sources of unequal value, namely tradition, formal statements 
 and the inscriptions" (Larf., op. cit., II, 330). 
 
 The Greek inscriptions point to some Semitic people. Not 
 only were the letters called "Phoenician signs", but in the 
 archaic form they are strikingly similar to the archaic Phoeni- 
 cian inscriptions. The direction of the writing in the oldest 
 Greek monuments, from right to left, is an undoubted proof 
 of Semitic origin. See this exhibited in the chart, col. XXX. 
 Though the Phoenician alphabet may have been introduced 
 into Greece at various points, it probably spread from some 
 prominent center. Where was this ? Boeotia, Asia Minor, and 
 Delphi have been suggested.* 
 
 * According to Bergk "there is inherent probability that in Boeotia, where the 
 Aeolic and Ionian races came into immediate contact, the Semitic alphabet first 
 gained a footing, that the Aeolic race (an old representative of an advanced civili- 
 zation) derived it from the Phoenicians through business intercourse, and that 
 then the lonians learned it from the Aeolians and made further changes". Cur- 
 tius, starting from his view that the Hellenes migrated first to Asia Minor and 
 afterward to Europe, holds that the Phoenician alphabet was first introduced into 
 Asia Minor, and then independently adopted in various districts by European 
 Greeks, above all by the Boeotians. 
 
INTRODUCTION OF PHOENICIAN ALPHABET INTO GREECE. I3I 
 
 Larfeld says : ''The theory of the spread of the Greek al- 
 phabet from Boeotia appears to me to be improbable for the 
 reason that this country lacked the requisite vantage-ground 
 for moulding the Hfe and culture of ancient Greece. With 
 much greater likelihood of success, one may seek the starting- 
 point of the imported script, in Delphi, the rallying-point of 
 the intellectual life of Greece and the center of the powerful 
 Amphictyonic Council, which already in a period to which our 
 historical data do not extend, united the different Greek clans 
 in a peaceful and prosperous development. It is inconceivable 
 that the astute Delphic priests would not have had a prominent 
 part and manifested the deepest interest in such an important 
 agent of Greek culture as the alphabet. They would be the 
 first to patronize it. Already in a hoary antiquity, the Phoeni- 
 cians from Crete had come to Delphi, and Delphic priests, con- 
 stituting in fact one of the oldest academies of learning, may 
 well have mediated to their countrymen the priceless possession 
 of the alphabet in a form adapted to the genius of the Greek 
 language" (op. cit., I, 344).^ 
 
 We are concerned here, not in settling the dispute of the 
 epigraphists and palaeographers, but in drawing certain prac- 
 tical conclusions. Whether the Phoenician alphabet was 
 adopted by the Greeks at one point, from w^hich it spread to 
 others ; or, whether it was introduced at many places and then 
 gradually assumed the form of the common Greek alphabet of 
 later days, it is clear that such a complicated process, extending 
 to many tribes and localities, would require many years. With 
 the imperfect means of communication between tribes and peo- 
 ples, it is probable that several centuries would elapse before 
 the uniform Greek alphabet of the historic period was evolved. 
 Thus again we are driven to the conclusion that the germs of 
 the Semitic alphabet were planted in Greece not later than 
 1200 B. C, 
 
 C. EVIDENCE OF THE GREEK INSCRIPTIONS. 
 
 A comparison of the alphabet of the early Greek inscrip- 
 tions with the Phoenician reveals some remarkable examples of 
 resemblance and dissemblance. We shall see that here as in 
 
 ^ Taylor holds that the epigraphic evidence favors the view that the island of 
 Thera was the first place in Europe where the Greeks adopted the Phoenician let- 
 ters (Alphabet, II, 29). Others contend that the Greeks received the Phoen. 
 alphabet at difterent places. So E. M. Thompson: "It is not to be supposed that 
 the Greeks received the alphabet from the Phcenicians at one single place, from 
 whence it was passed on throughout Hellas; but rather at several points of con- 
 tact from whence it was locally diffused among neighboring cities" (Handb. Greek 
 & Latin Palaeography, p., 5). 
 
132 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 the Semitic inscriptions, the laws of development hold, and 
 that changes in the forms of the letters are not arbitrary inven- 
 tions, but the result of steady growth. The immense number 
 and variety of Greek inscriptions furnishes the palaeographer 
 the desired material for classification, but this 'embarrassment 
 of riches' is in one sense unfortunate, since with all the re- 
 search of recent years, no absolute agreement has been reached 
 as to the kiw of development or the origin of the Greek alpha- 
 bet.^ Some even go so far as to affirm that the history of the 
 Greek alphabet is yet to be written, and that its relation to the 
 Phoenician is still an open question.'^ This, however, is an 
 extreme view, for it is certain that Larfeld has placed the 
 science of Greek epigraphy on a solid basis and traced the chief 
 periods of the history of the Greek alphabet. 
 
 Our interest in Greek inscriptions centers in their value 
 for Greek and Semitic alphabetology. From the shape of the 
 letters we attempt to determine by the law of historical develop- 
 ment the probable time required for the transition from the orig- 
 inal Greek alphabet to that exhibited on the oldest inscriptions. 
 The conclusions thus reached will throw light on the probable 
 date of the adoption of the Phoenician alphabet by the Greeks. 
 For our purpose the chief inscriptions of the early and imme- 
 diately succeeding periods will suffice to determine the law of 
 change.® 
 
 I. The Abu Simhel Record. 
 
 The remarkable inscription which furnishes a definite 
 starting-point for Greek epigraphy was not found in Greece at 
 all, but in a remote region of Egypt, the Nubian desert. At 
 Abu Simbel, near the second cataract of the Nile, Ramases II, 
 carved a m.assive, precipitous rock into a magnificent temple, 
 ''trusting, and not in vain, that the desolate solitudes of Nubia 
 
 « The extent of the material may be surmised when it is recalled that while 
 Rose's Inscriptiones Graecae Vetustissimae, 1825, contains less than one hundred 
 inscriptions, the four volume work of Boeckh has more than 10,000, and that a 
 complete collection would comprise nearly 30,000. 
 
 ^ See A. Gercke, Zur Geschichte d. Aelt. Griech. Alph., in Hermes' Zeitsc. 
 fuer Clas. Phil., 1906, who says: "Die Geschichte d. Griech. Alphab. soil noch 
 geschrieben werden, bisher sind nur Ansaetze dazu vorhanden. Das gesammte 
 Material d. Archae. Inschriften hat Kirchhoif vorgelegt. Man muss eingestehen 
 dass seit den 43 Jahren d. ersten Auflage sehr wenig an neuen, fruchtbaren Ge- 
 sichtspunkten hinzugekommen ist, obwohl die neueren Inschriftfuende das Ma- 
 terial erfreulich vermehrt und im einzelnen wichtige Erkenntnisse gebracht ha- 
 ben; nicht einmal die von ihm vernachlaessigte Anknuepfung der Buchstabenfor- 
 men an das Phoenikische Vorbild ist seitdem sorgfaeltig durchgefuehrt, und eine 
 Geschichte der einzelnen Buchstaben noch nicht gewonnen worden". 
 
 * The principal authorities are: Boeckh's Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, 
 1828, 1833, 1853. Franz: Elementa epigraphices Graecae, 1840. The fourth vol. 
 of the Corpus was brought out by Kirchhoff in 1853. Kirchhoff's valuable Stu- 
 dien zur Geschich. d. Griech. Alphabets appeared in 1863. 
 
INTRODUCTION OF PHOENICIAN ALPHABET INTO GREECE. 1 33 
 
 would guard more faithfully the memories of his glory than 
 the palaccb and temples which he reared in the precincts of his 
 great cities of Thebes, Memphis, or Abydos" (Taylor, op. cit.). 
 In front of the temple are seated four colossal statues of the 
 king, hewn from the solid sandstone, and rising each to a 
 height of 66 feet. Travellers of all ages have exhausted the 
 vocabulary of panegyric in describing the grandeur of the con- 
 ception of carving in imperishable hieroglyphics the glories of 
 his reign. 
 
 The most important of the inscriptions is one in Phoenician, 
 already considered on page 97 ; and one in Greek of five lines, 
 the date of which is fixed by the mention of the reigning Egyp- 
 tian king, Psammeticus. Whether this be the first of that name 
 (as generally supposed) or the second, the date is approximate- 
 ly 600 B. C. The record was made by some Greek mercenaries 
 in his service. "Two of the Greeks seem to have shared the 
 work of engraving the great inscription, while eight Greeks, 
 three Carians, and several Phoenicians separately scratched their 
 names elsewhere on the knees of the Colossus" (Taylor). 
 That soldiers from all parts of the East were able to write in 
 their respective languages is proof that writing was one of the 
 most common of the arts in 600 B. C. and was probably well 
 known at a much earlier date.® 
 
 2. The Thera Inscriptions. 
 
 The island of Thera, a hundred miles to the North of 
 Crete, has furnished a number of cardinal inscriptions illustrat- 
 ing the early history of the Greek alphabet. The language is 
 Greek, but the letters are of a primitive Phoenician type, "be- 
 longing to an earlier stage of the Semitic alphabet than the 
 Moabite Stone itself^^ (Taylor, II, 29). From the cemeteries 
 
 * The chief Abu Simbel inscriptions, the letters of which are given in our 
 Chart, col. XXX, are invaluable as a starting-point in reasoning back to the 
 earlier script. The letters are so deeply cut into the solid cliff and have suffered 
 so little from the action of the elements that they are distinctly legible. In the 
 nine longer inscriptions, the alphabet is practically uniform and the correctness 
 of the spelling, and "the evidence of familiar habitude with the use of graphic 
 materials, show that in the seventh cent. B. C. alphabetic writing could have been 
 no novelty among the Greeks." In these inscriptions, the direction of the writ- 
 ing is no longer from right to left, as in early Greek, but from left to right. 
 The phonetic changes are still greater. The gutturals, aleph, he, heth, ayin, and 
 the semi-consonants waw and jod, have been transformed into the vowels, alpha, 
 epsilon, eta, omikron, upsilon and iota, respectively. The letters. Phi, chi, psi, 
 unknown in any Semitic alphabet have been introduced; and marked changes 
 have taken place in the forms of the letters. The Greek and the Phoenician alpha- 
 bet have therefore diverged widely from each other since the Greeks had adopted 
 the Semitic script. 
 
 10 Here and there a writer has challenged this statement, but recent discov- 
 eries, and the investigations of Larfeld have proved its correctness. 
 
134 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 of Mesa-Vouno and Exomiti, dating probably from the time of 
 the Dorians, some 20 inscriptions on basalt have been obtained. 
 In the absence of definite historical references, their date can 
 be determined only by the laws of graphic development. For- 
 tunately, however, they can be arranged in a chronological 
 series extending over two or three centuries. ''The latest, 
 written from left to right in a Greek alphabet approaching the 
 Abu Simbel type, may be assigned to the seventh century; 
 others, still older, are boustrophedon ; while four or five, writ- 
 ten from right to left in letters of Phoenician style, may be pro- 
 nounced without hesitation to be the oldest extant monuments 
 of the alphabet of Greece" (Taylor, II, 29).^^ 
 
 The Thera inscriptions cover the period of the transition 
 from the early to the intermediate forms, and from the early 
 mode of writing from right to left to that which finally pre- 
 vailed, from left to right. They illustrate forcibly the principle 
 that no alphabet is formed or adopted arbitrarily, but gradually 
 and almost imperceptibly.^^ The older epitaphs are written 
 from right to left in Semitic style ; then in a somewhat cursive 
 script around the stone, and this is succeeded by the boustro- 
 phedon. Then came the practice of writing from left to right. 
 A similar development takes place in the change from the 
 Semitic to the Greek value of some of the letters. 
 
 3. Summary of Results from Inscriptions. 
 The preceding inquiry establishes two propositions. The 
 first is that the Phoenician alphabet was introduced into Greece 
 at a considerably earlier date than generally supposed. All 
 recent investigation and discovery in archaeology tend to prove 
 the correctness of Mahaffy's statement that "the first common 
 use of writing in Greece was generally fixed at too late a date". 
 Not only was the common use earlier, but the introduction of 
 the Phoenician alphabet into Greece must be placed several cen- 
 turies earlier than was thought possible a generation ago. The 
 second proposition is that the comparatively perfect forms of 
 
 ^ In comparing the letters in the different columns of our Chart, some in- 
 teresting facts emerge. The letters in col. XXX are mostly Phoenician, with the 
 exception of jod, lamed, tsadhe, shin and taw. The combination of pe and heth 
 to denote ph shows that the letter phi had not yet been invented and that heth 
 still retained the Semitic power of a breath. In another, presumably later series 
 of Thera inscriptions, but more archaic than the Abu Simbel, the sloping bars in 
 alpha, epsilon and taw are clearly remainders of the Phoenician style. Another 
 Thera inscription shows the transition stage from the older to the later forms, 
 and the expedients adopted to express the compound letters. 
 
 " Herodotus states explicitly that the Greek alphabet underwent such devel- 
 opment. See Bk. V: 58. His account is in accord with the most advanced phil- 
 ological Science. 
 
INTRODUCTION OF PHOENICIAN ALPHABET INTO GREECE. I35 
 
 the Phoenician letters at the date of their introduction impUes 
 several centuries of previous development. If we once rid our- 
 selves of the false idea that the Phoenician, or Greek, or any 
 other alphabet, dropped, Minerva-like, full-formed from heav- 
 en, we shall understand that centuries of experimentation and 
 development were required before the few simple characters, 
 devised, mayhap, by Phoenician-Egyptian scribes, acquired the 
 forms and names known as Phoenician. ^^ 
 
 Nearly all recent authorities construct an argument for the 
 antiquity of the Greek alphabet from the history of certain let- 
 ters, as digamma, zeta, san and sigma. The original Greek 
 alphabet had in the sixth place digamma (F, v, w), a letter 
 lacking in the Phoenician alphabet, and after taw an upsilon, u, 
 which is clearly the Phoenician waw in form and force. Since 
 digamma and waw were doublets, one or the other might be 
 omitted; and so the former finally dropped out. Strangely 
 enough, the South Semitic retained ® , but dropped the form 
 for waw. See chart, XI, 6; XXIX, 6; XXX, 6, 23. Hence 
 the Moabite alphabet could serve as prototype neither for the 
 South Semitic nor for the original Greek; and so centuries 
 must be assumed for the introduction of digamma, its long 
 use and final disappearence.^* 
 
 The history of zeta, sigma, san, koppa and of most of the 
 vowels is involved in such doubt that a long period prior to the 
 eighth century must be assumed for their introduction, modifi- 
 cation and final permanence.^^ 
 
 " It is certain that the introduction of the alphabet far antedates the Thera 
 inscriptions. This is shown as follows. We know that the evolution of eta and 
 omega required about two centuries. Five of the seven vowels had been devised 
 prior to the Thera tablets; if, therefore, the same rate of development obtained, 
 we must allow 3 or 4 centuries at least for the introduction and general prevalence 
 of these vowels. 
 
 " That digamma was in use when the Iliad was composed (cir. 1000 B. C.) 
 is seen from the laws of scansion, as e. g. in the word, Foinos, wine, where digam- 
 ma is required to avoid hiatus. The letter had however dropped out prior to 
 the establishment of the received text. A. Gercke, a high authority, holds that 
 the Greek vowels were introduced about iioo-iooo B. C. : "Noch etwas hoeher 
 hinauf wuerden wir durch eine Hypothese Larfeld's gefuert wenn sie sich als 
 gesichert erwiese: das dekadische Ziflerungssystem fuer i — 900 sei um 800 in 
 Milet erfunden worden und setzte das vollstaendige Alphabet mit Phi, chi, psi, 
 omega voraus und andererseits noch F und als lebendige Laute. . . . Viel- 
 leicht darf man hierbei sogar now etwas hoeher hinauf gehen oder mindestens den 
 Beginn des Schwundes um rund 2 Jahrhunderte aelter setzen, als Thum es tut 
 (also ca. 1 100 statt 900)" (Zur Gesch. d. aelt. Griech. Al., in Hermes, 1906). 
 
 " "The original Semitic names appear to have become confused in the course 
 of transmission to the Greeks and to have been applied by them to the wrong 
 signs. The name zeta appears to correspond to the name tsade, but the letter 
 appears to be taken from the letter zayin. Xi, which seems to be the same word 
 as shin, represents the letter samekh. San, which is probably derived from 
 zayin, represents tsade. Sigma, which may be identified with samekh, represents 
 shin." (E. M. Thompson, Handb. Greek and Lot. Palaeog.). 
 
136 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 The proof that alphabetic writing was practised in Greece 
 in the Homeric period is overwhelming. Three lines of argu- 
 ment, namely the evidence of the inscriptions, the laws of de- 
 velopment of the letters and the state of writing in the Homeric 
 age, all converge to the same point, that is, that the Phoenician 
 alphabet must have entered Greece anywhere between 1200 and 
 1000. If, further, allowance be made for the development of 
 the Semitic or Phoenician characters from their earliest proto- 
 types to the finished forms of the Moabite Stone, the conclu- 
 sion is inevitable that the Semitic script was devised about 1500 
 B. C., and possibly somewhat earlier. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 PROVISIONAL THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE 
 SEMITIC (PHOENICIAN) ALPHABET. 
 
 Of the above theories of the origin of the Phcenician alphabet 
 (chap VI), some drop out of consideration. That the Cretan, Cypri- 
 ote and ]\Iycenaean syllabaries originated in the beginning of the second 
 pre-Christian millennium is clear, but they probably had no direct in- 
 fluence on the Phoenician (or more correctly) Semitic alphabet. The 
 same is true of the Hittite script ; the non-discovery of the key 
 to the language and script leaves slender support for this view. In the 
 consideration of the subject we distinguish sharply between two ques- 
 tions : £rst, the elements underlying and suggesting the alphabet ; and, 
 second, the people who really invented and introduced the alphabet. 
 The question is not, From whom did the inventors get their material 
 and working hypothesis, but who were the inventors? Thus under- 
 stood, the question is narrowedi to the Aramaeans, Babylonians and 
 Phoenicians. Much can be said in favor of the Aramaic origin (see 
 McCurdy above). From the time of Laban (Gen. 31: 47) to that of 
 Hezekiah (Is. 36: 11), and later, one or another of the Aramaic dialects 
 was a kind of lingua franca in the lands between the Tigris and 
 Euphrates. Nevertheless it would appear that the Aramaeans came 
 upon the stage of history too late to meet the conditions of the prob- 
 lem. 
 
 A. DELITZSCH's theory of the BABYLONIAN ORIGIN. 
 
 A new turn has been given to the Babylonian theory by Friedrich 
 Delitzsch.^ Be modestly claims that his "Enthraetselun^' of the 
 origin of the cuneiform script has thrown new light "auf das andere 
 grosse palaeographische Raethsel des Ursprungs des Phcenizischen Al- 
 phabets" {op cit., p., 221). That the Phoenician script sustains some 
 relation to the Babylonian is probable, says D.,_"for all attempts to 
 derive the Phoenician characters from the Egyptian hieratic or hiero- 
 glyphic have ended in a complete fiasco; and yet the Phoenician script 
 cannot be an absolutely new one. It arose in Canaan, i. e., in a land 
 which on the one hand stood for centuries in the closest political and 
 cultural relations with Egypt; and in which on the other, just pre- 
 viously, as the Amama Letters show, the Babylonian script was the 
 medium of diplomatic correspondence. Nothing is a priori more pro- 
 bable than that the Phoenician or Canaanite alphabet sustains a con- 
 nection of some sort with the two oldest systems of writing". _ D. 
 holds that the Canaanitish script-makers adopted from the Egyptians 
 "the great principle of acrophony" and from the Babylonians the prin- 
 
 1 Die Entstehung des Aeltesten Schriftsystems, oder der Ursprung der Keil- 
 schriftzeichen. Dargelegt von Friedr. Delitzsch. Leipzig. 1897. 
 
 187 
 
138 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 ciple of expressing objects and ideas by simple graphic figures. He 
 considers it highly significant that fifteen of the twenty-two Phoenician 
 letters represent objects which find expression in the Babylonian script. 
 These are the signs for ox (aleph), house (beth), hump of camel 
 (gimel), door (daleth), hook (waw), fence (heth), hand (yodh), palm 
 of hand (kaph), water (mem), fish (nun), eye (ayin), mouth (pe), 
 fish-net (tsadhe), head (resh), mark or cross (tau). He argues, fur- 
 ther, that the names of the letters are for the most part of Babylonian 
 origin. 
 
 According to D., the Phoenician forms of t'he letters might easily 
 have been differentiated from the Babylonian characters. He regards 
 it as significant "that both the Bab. and the Phoen. script distinguish 
 between a hand with fore-arm (yodh) and a hand simply (kaph)", 
 which implies some connection and influence. He adds : "Ix. is univer- 
 sally admitted th'at the Phoen. aleph resembles in rough outline an 
 ox-head. It is not likely that the Phoenicians independently of the 
 Babylonians hit upon the idea of representing an ox by the sign of 
 an ox-he-ad". Delitzsch accordingly occupies a middle position be- 
 tween the rival theories of an Egyptian and a Babylonian incentive, 
 granting that the inventor (s) had a knowledge of both systems and 
 chose from each whatever was available. Herein he is sustained by 
 other recent invesitigators. Zimmern says : "I believe at all events 
 with Del. that in this case an external historical connection exists in 
 the selection of letter-objects between the Phoenician alphabet and the 
 order of the original Babylonian signs". Fries (who inclines to the 
 Mycenaean hypothesis) writes: "I consider it quite probable that the 
 Phoen. -Canaanite-Hebrews gave to the Mycenaean characters, names 
 suggested by the original cuneiform signs, which on the one hand were 
 familiar through centturies of use and on the other met Phoenician con- 
 ditions. On this hypothesis, the views of Kluge, Delitzsch and Zim- 
 mern are reconciled" {Zeitsch. d. Deut. Palaes. Ver., XXH). 
 
 B. THE NAMES AND FORMS OF THE PHOENICIAN LETTERS. 
 
 I. The Problem of the Letter-Names. 
 
 What is the connection between the names of the letters and the 
 concepts denoted by them? Had the letters aleph and the rest, originally 
 a form corresponding to the pictures of the objects, or did the words 
 merely happen to have the initial sound of the letters, and were the 
 latter mtvt Voces memoriales? In the latter event no inference can 
 be drawn; in the former, it is possible to construct an argument re- 
 garding the origin of the letters.'' If the transmitted names repre- 
 sented accurately the original orthography, one could reason back to 
 the probable origin of the characters. But allowance must be made 
 for changes in the transmission. "Die ueberlieferten konsonantischen 
 Bestandteile sind nicht so, wie sie etwa der Erfinder geschrieben hat, 
 sondem die Formen enthalten phonetische Wiedergaben der Namen 
 au9 ejner Zeit, als diese nach langem Gebrauche zum Teil abgerieben 
 und infolge des mangelhaften Verstaendnisses ihrer Bedeutung ver- 
 stuemmelt worden waren" (Lidz. op. cit., 126). Nevertheless "the pic- 
 
 ' Noeldeke, Delitzsch, Lidzbarski, Zimmern, Halevy, Ball and Peters have 
 recently discussed the subject. See Noeldeke: Die Semitischen Buchstabennamen ; 
 and Lidzbarski, Die Namen d. Alphabetbuchstaben (EpJiem. II, 125-39). 
 
ORIGIN OF THE SEMITIC (PHOENICIAN) ALPHABET. I39 
 
 tures of the characters in the oldest texts do not vary essentially from 
 the original" (ibid). If the form and significance of the proto-types 
 could be determined, new light would be thrown on the origin of the 
 alphabet. It is possible that the letter-names were chosen without ref- 
 erence to the pictures of the objects; but yet "the more a connection 
 between picture and name is established the more probable it becomes 
 th^t the connection is not accidental, but designed, {. e, the picture actu- 
 ally represented the idea which the name designates" (Lidz.). So too 
 Gesenius Heb. Gram, (latest ed.). The majority of the letters have 
 well defined meanings ; but the etymology and signification of nine or 
 ten letters are doubtful, and even the language from which some of 
 them were derived is in dispute. The possibility, therefore, exists that 
 the inventors drew on sources other than Egyptian and Babylonian. 
 We discuss merely the disputed letters. 
 
 2. Meaning of the Disputed Letters.^"^ 
 
 He, a window, traditional view (Hupfeld, Boettcher, Gesenius, 
 Koenig, etc.). C. J. Ball: from archaic Babylonian he, a house. J. P. 
 Peters : a meaningless sound, but no letter-name. Lidzb. : "Die N. Se- 
 mitischen Sprachen weisen kein passendes mit he beginnendes Wort 
 dafuer auf" (Ephem., II, 136). 
 
 JVazif, a hook, (Taylor, Green, Gesenius, Delitzsch Fried., etc.). 
 Ball : archaic Bab. zvu, wood, or we, voice. Peters : not a word origin- 
 ally, but the sound of u or v. Del. : "Von den kananaischen Schrift- 
 bildern selbststaendig ersonnen" (Entsteh. 229). 
 
 Zayin, a weapon (so traditionally). Peters: not a word, but a 
 syllable ze or sai. Lidzb. : "Das Griechische Zeta scheint mir fuer 
 das Zeichen besser zu passen als zayin. Denn als Wafife laesst sich 
 das Bild (vid. our Chart, VII, 7) nicht erklaeren, wohl aber kann man 
 es als Olivenzweig auffassen" (op. cit., 132). 
 
 Heth, a fence (traditional view). Del.: Chetu, from the Bab. a 
 virall or enclosure. Ball : Archaic Bab. hyt, stylus. Peters : no such 
 word in Hebrew or Aramaic, perhaps merely a syllable. Lidzb. : "Auch 
 fuer cheth wurde bis jetzt keine einwandtsfreie Erklaerung gegeben. . . 
 Chetu ist nur babylonisch und an einen babylonischen Ursprung des 
 Alphabets ist nicht zu denken" (op. cit., p., 138). But may not a Phoe- 
 nician, conversant with the Babylonian, have chosen letter-names from 
 this quarter? 
 
 Teth, snake, serpent (old view). Ball: From archaic Babylonian. 
 Peters : not a word in any known language. Lidzb. : "Ich sehe in die- 
 sem Bilde (chart IX, 7) einen Ballen, ein Kolli, und im Namen teth 
 ein Phcenizisches teeth, vom Stamme fan (op. cit., 128^. 
 
 Lamedh, ox-goad (old view). Ball: from Bab. lam, to plant, 
 plough. The archaic Phoenician form clearly resembles an ox-goad; 
 but the Hebrew for this would be malmad of maimed, not lamed. 
 According to Lidzb. the m of maimed was elided "trotz der akrophoni- 
 schen Tendenz", and the stem beginning with I, dhosen. 
 
 Samekh, post or prop (traditional view). But this does not cor- 
 respond with the archaic form of the letter (chart, XV, 7) Ball: 
 
 3-a See C. J. Ball in Light from the East and J. P. Peters in review of sec- 
 ond edition of Taylor's Alphabet, Jour. Am. Orient. Soc. XXII, p., 176 seq. 
 
140 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 archaic Bab. Sam, herbage. Lidzb. : 'Ich fasse das Bild als Baum oder 
 Zweig auf". 
 
 Tsadhe, fish-hook, or javelin (common view). The meanings, 
 fish-hook, scythe, nose, rest on comparatively late inscriptions. Starting 
 with the form on the Moabite Stone, Lidzb. sees "in diesem Zeichen 
 eine Treppe und (ich) leite den Namen vom Stamm tsa'adh ab". 
 
 Koph, back of head, knot, ear, eye of needle etc. Peters : Not a 
 word in any language. Latest view of Lidzb. : "Ich erklaere nun den 
 Namen als qiioh'a, Helm, Kopf, was phoeniziscli etwa qoh' gesprochen 
 wurde" {op. cit., 133) • Since heth sometimes became koph, it is pos- 
 sible that the Phoenicians already wrote koph instead of koh. 
 
 Resh, head (usual view). But in Phoen. and Heb., head is rosh, 
 in Amarna Letters rush, in Greek rho. The difiference, though slight, 
 is still unexplained. Lidzb. suggests that the name underwent change 
 in the transmission and finally took the Aramaic form, — the most 
 probable view. 
 
 3. Theories of the Origin of the Letter-Names and Forms. 
 
 As seen above, Delitzsch derives 15 of the letters and forms direct- 
 ly from the Babylonian, including some of the disputed letters. The 
 original Bab. sign for gimel, says D., meant to hend or how (Sum. gam, 
 gammu), and was employed as an ideogram for the hump of a camel 
 (Chart 1,3), just as the Bab. sign tab, tazv, (Chart, I, 22; XII, 22) cor- 
 responds to the Phoenician Taw. 
 
 Both Lidzbarski and Halevy challenge some of Dejitzsch's claims. 
 The former remarks that the Egyptian script also distinguishes be- 
 tween "the hand with forearm" and "the palm of the hand"; the sign 
 of an ox occurs in the Cretan script, and it resembles somewhat the 
 Phoenician; and the earliest form of gimel is probably the first of 
 the three given in our Chart (col. I, 3). That the archaic Phoeni- 
 cian form of nun sustains any resemblance to a fish is denied by 
 Lidzb.; the fish has always been represented, not by a perpendicular, 
 but by a horizontal figure, as in the Egyptian. It were more correct 
 to see in the Phoenician the figure of a serpent, as in the Egyptian. 
 Lidzb. questions that the archaic Phoen. character for daleth resembles 
 even remotely a door; but his own suggestion that it denotes "nur 
 die weibliche Brust, also dad", is equally remote. 
 
 Halevy ridicules and belittles Delitzsch's hypothesis at every 
 point : "En somme, I'alphabet phenicien comprendrait deux lettres 
 egyptiennes, six lettres babyloniennes, et le reste serait indigene ou d'une 
 origine inconnue. Une ecriture si eclectique au deuxieme millenaire 
 avant notre ere n'est pas bien vraisemblable." (L'Origine des Ecritures 
 cuneiforme et Phenicienne, p., 4). Under this view, says H., the alphabet 
 would be "un melange de signes egyptiens et cuneiformes lineaires. 
 Les Pheniciens auraient emprunte aux hieroglyphes les signes du lion 
 (lahoi) pour /, le signe tot pour t, et le grand principe de I'acrologie, 
 tandis qu'ils apprirent des scribes a produire comme expressions gra- 
 phiques des figures simples plutot mdiquees que formees et a lignes 
 aussi droites que possible" (p., 2). Halevy concludes that "Dans une 
 nouvelle edition, ce vilain chapitre [sic!] doit disparaitre a tout jamais" 
 (p., 19). 
 
ORIGIN OF THE SEMITIC (PHOENICIAN) ALPHABET. I4I 
 
 Attention must be directed to another hypothesis of the Babylonian 
 origin of the letter-names, advanced by C. J. Ball and designated here 
 as the "Semitized Sumerian". "The monosyllabic /orm of almost all 
 the names agrees with our theory that they are 'partially Semitized 
 (imperfectly triliteralized) Sumerian terms" (Light from the East, 22,6). 
 Ball claims that his theory "retains and accounts for the names of 
 the letters". See assumed proto-types (Chart, col. I). Thus bet 
 Phoen. (XII, 2) is sufficiently like I, 2, ba, bi, to split, (Sumerian bad, 
 bid) to suggest a connection. "The difference of shape between the 
 Bab. sign and the Phoen. is merely a variation for convenience of writ- 
 ing. The latter may be called a one-stroke adaptation of the former. 
 As to the name beth, b — t is the common Semitic term for house. 
 The original sound of the symbol becomes its name in the Phoen. 
 alphabet ; the original meaning is naturally exchanged for a familiar 
 Semitic one". By reference to the chart one can see the supposed 
 evolution of the Phoen. forms from the Archaic Bab. (cols II, III, etc.). 
 But, assuming that an alphabet-maker in the 15th cent. B. C, wished to 
 ■select from other scripts it seems almost self-evident that he would 
 select from, familiar, i. e. contemporaneous, rather than from unfa- 
 miliar archaic forms. Under this view the same objection lies against 
 Ball's view as against any other based on archaic forms. 
 
 We find ourselves, however, in accord with a suggestion offered by 
 Ball, namely that now one and now another word was used acrophon- 
 ically until the alphabet assumed its present stereotyped form. "For 
 an indefinite period the various related Bab. symbols were used indif- 
 ferently as alphabetic representatives. . . This would be the first 
 step ; and it seems to account for the varying forms of the Phoen. 
 signs, which need not all be deduced from a single ancestor, but may 
 preserve traces of several. One locality, even one individual scribe, 
 might prefer one form of a letter, another another, until at last by 
 the intercourse of commerce and diplomacy a form would result ex- 
 hibiting a likeness to all, but not exactly identical with any of the 
 proto types" {op. cit., p., 2Z7). 
 
 The principle here suggested by Ball is an important one and 
 supports our contention that the alphabet was in process of formation 
 for many centuries. 
 
 Finally, "Twelve of the letter-names are words with meanings, 
 all of them indicating simple objects, 6 of the 12 being parts of the 
 body. The objects denoted by the other six names — ox, house, door, 
 water, fish and cross — clearly do not belong to any people in a no- 
 madic state, but in a settled, town-abiding population. Of these 12 
 significant words, 11 are words which may be found almost in the same 
 form in the Bab. syllabaries. . . . This suggests a Bab. origin, and it 
 would seem probable that the forms of the letters were derived from 
 the same source as the names" (J. P. Peters, 0/). cit.). On the other 
 hand "no syllabary with which we are acquainted seems to give us 
 satisfactory proto-types for the Phoen. alphabet, either in the forms of 
 the letters, or their names" (Peters). The fact that the meaning of 
 at least eight letter-names cannot be determined (six of them words 
 in no language) implies that the names and perhaps the characters 
 originated in a period so remote that history preserves no record. 
 
142 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 C. THE ASTRO-MYTHOLOGICAL HYPOTHESIS. 
 
 Recently, Hommel and Winckler, contemporaneously, yet inde- 
 pendently, have suggested the hypothesis that the starry heavens, the 
 signs of the zodiac, gave rise to the characters of the original alphabet. 
 Though differing in detail, both contend that the names and order of 
 the letters are of astronomical origin. This primitive, pre-Phoenician 
 script arose among a non-Semitic people, the Sumerians, as early as 
 20OO B. C. and spread in two great branches, the Phoenician and the 
 Arabian, over the whole West- Semitic world. In order to understand 
 Hommel's present views it must be recalled that he divides the Semitic 
 peoples, languages and religion into "Babylonian and West-Semitic". 
 Having presented the reasons for this classification, he argues that the 
 alphabet likewise furnishes proofs of the same view : "One may desig- 
 nate these as astrological proofs, since here not merely the culture 
 of the Moon-god and that of the Sun and certain planets (Saturn, 
 Mercury, Venus), but the whole astrological system of the Chaldeans 
 forms the basis This alphabet, from which also the South- 
 Arabic branched off, arose in the regions whence the Canaanites orig- 
 inally came, /. e. Chaldea On phonetic grounds, the Egyptian 
 
 origin is simply impossible; nor could the inventors have been Semites, 
 for the underlying body of sounds is far too poor".^ 
 
 Hommel then arranges the Phoen. letters in two columns (the di- 
 viding line being between kaph and lamed) and proceeds : "Heth was 
 differentiated from he, teth from ayin (originally a circle, O), das 
 tsadhe aus samekh, und endlich das Quoph (Lat. q) aus dem ayin, in- 
 dem durch den das ayin bezeichnenden Kreis einfach ein senkrechter 
 Strich gezogen wurde. The proofs for the origin in Chaldea, lie in 
 the quite evident derivation of different signs of the alphabet in ques- 
 tion from the old Babylonian, i e., Sumarian cuneiform and in fact 
 under circumstances excluding chance. Thus e. g. an oval in the cunei- 
 form has the syllabic value hi (which was used also in loan-words for 
 West-Semitic ayin) and ti (Sum. di), and in the West-Sem. alphabet 
 the circle denotes ayin and teth (and by differentiation also taw). 
 Ja es gibt in dem ca. 2000 v. Chr. (in der Hammurabizeit) ueblichen 
 Silbenzeichensystem Faelle, wo geradezu ein Uebergang zu Buchstaben- 
 zeichen vorliegt, wie z. B. beim Hauchlaut ch oder Aleph, wo fuer ach, 
 ich, uch, ein einziges Zeichen in Gebrauch ist, und dieses Zeichen be- 
 steht wiederum aus dem ovalen Kreis, dem sonst der Werth chi eignet, 
 nur dass hier ein Zeichen eingeschrieben wird, das mit dem West- 
 Semitischen Zeichen fuer h nahezu identisch ist ; oder das Zeichen pi, 
 welches gerade um 2000 v. Chr. auch zur Wiedergabe eines einfachen 
 w (im Anlaut ;) verwendet wird und woraus sowohl das West- 
 Semitische Zeichen fuer w als auch das fuer ; entstanden ist. It may 
 yet be observed that in general in all cases where no vowel follows a 
 consonant, the cuneiform in fact represents a transition to simple alpha- 
 betic signs, as, e. g. in the syllabic signs, ab, ib, ub, ag, ig, ug, etc., since 
 a word written ka-al-bu, but pronounced kalbu could be transcribed 
 simply ka-l-bu. In this direction we must look for the derivation 
 of the remaining signs : thus the West-Semitic sign for k clearly came 
 
 •■' Hommel, Grundr. d. Geographie u. Geschich. d. Alien Orients, p., 97. See 
 also H's. Gesch. Bab. u. Assy., pp., 50 — 3, and Aufs. u. Abh. 
 
ORIGIN OF THE SEMITIC (PHOENICIAN) ALPHABET. I43 
 
 from the old Bab. sign ig; likewise p from ib (which latter could also 
 denote an open mouth, cf. pe, mouth)" (Grundr., p., 98-9). 
 
 D. SEMITES AND SEMITISM IN EGYPT. 
 
 Neither Delitzsch, Hommel, Ball, nor any Semitist or Panbabylon- 
 ist (Winckler) holds that the Sumerians or Babylonians actually de- 
 vised the Phcen. alphabet, but merely that the underlying elements are 
 Sumerian or Babylonian, and not Egyptian. The theory that the alpha- 
 bet was suggested by the Egyptian hieratic is unpopular to-day in 
 Semitic circles; nevertheless it demands consideration. The fact that 
 there was constant communication between Egypt and Palestine be- 
 tween 2500 and 1400 B. C. (see above, ch. IV) and that Egypt was in 
 fact Semitized, is admitted by all Egyptologists. During the waning 
 power of the Pharaohs of the 13th and 14th dynasties, Egypt became 
 an easy prey for the ever watchful neig'hbors on the N. East. "The 
 Syrians and the people belonging to the nomad tribes of the desert 
 had been quietly settling in tflie Delta for centuries, and had been 
 making themselves owners of the lands and estates. For some reason 
 which is unknown to us the immigration of the foreigners from the East 
 increased largely, and their kinsmen (who were already in the coun- 
 try) making common cause with them, they seized the land and set 
 up a king over them" (Budge, Hist. Egypt, III, 132). Again the Pha- 
 raohs at an early date invaded Palestine and Syria. Thus there was 
 constant intercourse between these lands. 
 
 I. The Hyksos in Egypt. 
 
 Josephus, quoting from Manetho, speaks of a people called 
 "Hyksos" who ruled in Egypt during three dynasties. It is certam 
 that foreigners sat on the throne of the Pharaohs' during several cen- 
 turies. Breasted concludes that "the Hyksos were an Asiatic people 
 who ruled Egypt from their stronghold of Avaris in the Delta" (Hist. 
 Egypt, p., 216). It is generally allowed that the Hyksos were Semites. 
 "That' it was a Semitic empire we cannot doubt, in view of the Mane- 
 thonian tradition and the subsequent conditions in Syria-Palestme. 
 Moreover the scarabs of a Pharaoh who evidently belonged to the Hyk- 
 sos time, give his name as Jacob-her or possibly Jacob-El, and it is not 
 impossible that some chief of the Jacob-tribes of Israel for a time 
 gained the leadership in this obscure age. Such an incident would 
 account surprisingly well for the entrance of these tribes into Egypt, 
 which on any hypothesis must have taken place about this age ; and in 
 that case the Hebrews in Egypt will have been but a part of the Beduin 
 
 allies of the Kadesh or Hyksos empire Likewise the naive 
 
 assumption of Josephus, who identifies the Hyksos with the Hebrews, 
 may thus contain a kernel of truth, however incidental" (Breasted, 
 op. cit., 220). 
 
 The duration of the Hyksos supremacy is undetermined, Breasted 
 allowing about 200 years, Petrie 500. 
 
 2. Egyptian Language Semitized. 
 
 The settlement of so many Semitic people in the Nile Valley had 
 inevitably a twofold effect: Urst, the Semites learned the Eg^^tian 
 language and script; second, each language, adopting loan-words from 
 
144 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 the other, was greatly enriched in its vocabulary. Brugsch vvrites: 
 "The memorial stones, coffins, and papyri found in the cemeteries all 
 testify to Semites who were settled in the Nile valley ... as also do 
 they show the inclination of the people to give their children half 
 
 Semitic and half Egyptian names The commercial interest 
 
 contributed to introduce into Egypt foreign expressions, as may be 
 shown by siis for horse, agalota for chariot, carnal for camd 
 and ahir, bull; also rosh, head, sar, king, heit, house, hah, door, hir, 
 spring, hirkata, lake, ketem, gold, sJialom, to greet, rom, to be high, 
 barak, to bless, and many others" (p., 98.) Many Egyptian names of 
 places are clearly Hebrew or Semitic. Thus Ta-Mazor is the Hebrew 
 Mizraim; Thuku is Succoth; Pa-Tmu, the city of Tmu, is the Bib- 
 lical Pithom. Maktol is the Hebrew Migdol, a fortress. 
 
 It was in this period (2000-1500) that the need arose for a sim- 
 plified alphabet such as the Phoenician for the transcription of Egyp- 
 tian and Semitic proper names and for writing the Canaanite and He- 
 brew language. 
 
 R CANAANITE OR PHOENICIAN ORIGIN OF THE ALPHABET. 
 
 The Phoenician alphabet arose in the time of the Hyksos rule in 
 Egypt, and the question arises whether some Hebrew, Canaanite or 
 Phoenician was not the inventor adapter. 
 
 I. The Phoenicians in History. 
 
 The ancestors of the Phoenicians were probably a part of the great 
 Amorite or Canaanite stock which in the third millennium B. C. mi- 
 grated from the East to the West-land. "That this migration was be- 
 fore the third millennium may be argued from the Phoenician tradition 
 preserved by Herodotus that the founding of the temple and city of 
 Tyre took place about 2750 B. C. . . . That the settlement was much 
 earlier than this is probable" (Goodspeed, Bib World, VH, p., 463). 
 
 The Phoenicians had commercial relations with foreign peoples 
 from very early times. "It is no exaggeration to place the beginnings 
 of these commercial enterprises in the year 2000 B. C. Creeping 
 around the coast of Asia Minor or striking boldly across to Cyprus and 
 thence to the Aegean, their ships landed at all points where the country 
 was attractive and opportunities for trade were given. Thasos with 
 its gold mines and Cythera with its mussels that yielded the famous 
 purple dye were early places of Phoenician settlement in the Aegean 
 sea. In such places they established trading posts or set up factories, 
 where the products of the region were most easily accessible. They 
 exchanged for these the more finished products of the Orient, the 
 manufactures of Babylonia and Egypt" (Goodspeed, op cit., p., 465). 
 
 2. Relations zcith Egypt in Early Times. 
 
 The relations of Egyptians and Phoenicians were varied and ex- 
 tensive. "The earliest maritime commerce of the Phoenicians was prob- 
 ably with Cyprus, Cilicia and Egypt. . . . Their vessels laid them- 
 selves alongside the wharves which lined the banks of the great river 
 at Pelusium, Bubastis, Zoan, Memphis, Sais, Sebennytus. At Memphis 
 they were allowed to make a settlement. Jealous as the Egyptians were 
 of foreigners, and disposed as they were to exclude them altogether 
 
ORIGIN OF THE SEMITIC (PHOENICIAN) ALPHABET. I45 
 
 from their country, they were so won upon by the Phcenicians as not 
 merely to carry on with them an extensive trade, but even to allow them 
 a settlement in the capital, and a temple in which they could worship 
 their own gods" (Rawlinson, Story of Phoe., pp., 56. 26). 
 
 3. Bearing on Phoenician Origin of Alphabet. 
 
 What is the bearing of all this on the origin of the alphabet? 
 Two conditions that must be met are fulfilled : Urst, the Phoenicians had 
 absolute need of some script, and the shorter the better, to carry on 
 their business transactions, which required the listing of many varied 
 articles ; and second, the commercial class must be supposed to have 
 acquired a fair knowledge of the Egyptian language and script. This 
 conjunction of circumstances would inspire a quick-witted scribe, who 
 had to meet the exigencies of a bilingual script to devise a new script 
 by the selection of the best elements in the old ones. It is established 
 from the Papyrus Ebers that already in the i6th century Canaanite 
 towns, as Sidon, Gebal, Berytus, Sarepta, stood in close cultural re- 
 lation with Egypt. Byblos is often referred to in the Egyptian texts; 
 and its antiquity is attested by the classical writers who call it the 
 oldest city in the world. (See Movers, Phoeniker, III, i; Birt, Das 
 Antike Buchwesen, 2: /^y, Krall, Studien z. Gesch. Alten Aegyp., 78). 
 In fact it is probable that Greece obtained its papyrus originally, not 
 from Egypt, but from Byblos, since it seems now made out that the 
 older name of the writing material was Byblos, whence ultimately the 
 word Bible (book). Theophrastus was the first to use the term papy- 
 rus instead of Byblos. 
 
 It is thus an established historical fact that Sidon, Tyre, Byblos-,. 
 Berytus and other Canaanite or Phoenician centers were seats of' high 
 culture from very early times to 1200 B. C, and that all the conditions 
 were present for the formation of the Semitic (Phoenician) alphabet. 
 Neither in Babylonia nor in Arabia nor elsewhere was there a similar 
 conjunction of circumstances rendering such a script as the Phoenician 
 a necessity. 
 
 That the inventor of the alphabet drew largely on the Egyptian 
 script^ is evident from many considerations, as held by both Lidz- 
 barski and Delitzsch. The former says : "The Phoen. alphabet is con- 
 sonantal, the cuneiform script is syllabic; the alphabetic characters 
 are pictures, the cuneiform are no longer such; the alphabet is acro- 
 phonic, the cuneiform is not. 'On the other hand the Egyptian script 
 is acrophonic, consonantal and pictorial. Only one conclusion is open 
 to us. Hence I see in the alphabet a dependence on the Egyptian 
 script and the creation of a Canaanite who had some knowledge of 
 the Egyptian system" (Ephem. I, 134). Delitzsch also allows that the 
 distinctively Canaanite forms of some of the letters is an indication 
 that the alphabet was of Western origin. 
 
 4. Influence of the Egyptian Hieratic. 
 
 An inscription which tends to confirm the de Rouge hypothesis of 
 Egyptian influence has lately come to light. It is described by the 
 Rev. Dr. M. G. Kyle, a well-known Egyptologist of Philadelphia, in the 
 Recuil de Travaux, from which we quote. In the Ghiza Museum 
 stands a wooden coflfin, labeled: "Cercueil d'un Mentou-hotep sur- 
 momme Bouaou, tresorier royal. A I'interieur, figures et textes mer- 
 
 10 
 
146 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 vielleusement conserves. Deir el-Bahari, Xleme dynastie". Dr. K. 
 reproduces in parallel columns the Hieroglyps, the Hieratic of the Old 
 Empire, the alphabetic characters of the Coffin and the corresponding 
 Phoen. letters. We reproduce in our Chart, col. VI, the Coffin characters 
 and refer to the other cols, for comparison. 'The inscription as a whole 
 is a curious mixture of hieroglyphics, conventional forms and hieratic 
 characters. Moreover, some of the signs used are represented some- 
 times, and others almost invariably, by their hieratic equivalents ; but 
 not all the signs which occur are represented anywhere in the inscrip- 
 tion by hieratic equivalents. And the hieratic characters used are 
 sometimes distinctly of the fixed forms of the hieratic of the Old Em- 
 pire, and sometimes a transitional approach thereto. Concerning these 
 hieratic signs of the inscription, five strange things are to be noted : 
 (i) There are clearly transitional forms, representing a transitional 
 period of Egyptian writing; (2) Among the hieratic characters of this 
 inscription, exactly those in which E. de Rouge believed he had found 
 the Egyptian prototypes of the Phoen. alphabet are most conspicuous; 
 (3) Among the hieratic characters representing the simplest sourids 
 and commonly called letters, it is just those of de Rouge's list which 
 hiere appear most regularly, where the Egyptian sound represented 
 thereby was required; (4) These same are also most fixed in their 
 forms, and those the final forms of the hieratic of the Old Empire; 
 (5) The list of hieratic alphabetic characters here found falls short 
 of de Rouge's complete list by some significant omissions." 
 
 Dr. K. summarizes his extended comparison : "Of the 21 alpha- 
 "betic prototypes which de Rouge selected from the Egyptian hieratic of 
 the Old Empire thirteen are here found in the fully developed and 
 final hieratic forms. Two others, the lioness and the mouth are found 
 in transitional forms. Two, the tongs and the knee are uncertain; and 
 four, the crane, the duck, the owl and the lasso are not found. In the 
 work of identification, the two certainly transitional forms, the lioness 
 and the mouth may be added to the thirteen which are fully developed, 
 making in all fifteen identifications. Of the four not found, and the 
 two not certainly identified, the inscription employs the crane and the 
 owl regularly in the hieroglyphic forms, though sometimes slightly 
 conventional, and the duck as a letter, is of comparatively infrequent 
 occurrence in the inscription. Moreover, the tongs and the lasso, the 
 knee, the crane and the owl, being in their hieroglyphic forms or with 
 some abbreviation well adapted to cursive writing, would naturally, 
 from the very ease with which they were made, be among the last for 
 which fixed hieratic forms would be developed". 
 
 It must be allowed that the resemblance between some of the 
 Coffin and the Phoen. characters is sufficiently close to warrant the 
 inference that the alphabet-makers had before them, if not these char- 
 acters, then their more fully developed types. "Since this inscription 
 represents a period when just these identified letters and not others 
 were commonly used, as their fixed hieratic forms evidence, it is very 
 near this period that the Phoenicians must have chosen the Egyptian 
 
 characters from which in time their alphabet was developed 
 
 That the Phoenicians should have chosen of these same alphabetic char- 
 acters at a later period when there were many alternative characters 
 from which to choose, would not be an unreasonable supposition, but 
 
ORIGIN OF THE SEMITIC (PHOENICIAN) ALPHABET. I47 
 
 that in such circumstances they should have chosen all these, and just 
 these is, on^ the doctrine of probabilities, well nigh impossible". 
 
 A few observations may be made here: (i) None of the assumed 
 Sumerian or Babylonian prototypes exhibited on our chart or yet sug- 
 gested, approach so uniformly the Moabite characters, as those of the 
 Coffin inscription — a presumptive proof that some type of the Egyp- 
 tian hieratic was the basis of the P roto- Phoenician ; (2) According to 
 the principles of the alphabetology and the available epigraphic data, 
 the Phoenician alphabet was a slow growth (like every other alphabet) 
 from provisional and tentative forms (here called the Proto-Phoenician) 
 until it reached something like permanence circa 1500 B C, being re- 
 garded in its early history as a Scrip tura privata et prof ana, and en- 
 countering the opposition of the securely intrenched cuneiform, re- 
 garded as a Scriptura publica et sacra; (3) The prototypes of the 
 Phoenician (as Hommel, Weber, Ball and Delitzsch have shown) go 
 back undoubtedly to 2000 B. C, but only in the intercourse between 
 Egyptians and Canaanites (Phoenicians) do we find an adequate Motif 
 for the invention of such a script as the Phoenician (see further pp. 150 
 — 3) ; (4) Though ithe Coffin inscription is probably of earlier date than 
 that in which we place the origin of the alphabet, all the conditions 
 would be met on the assumption of a long use of the transitional hier- 
 atic forms. 
 
 5. The Abridged Egyptian Syllabary. 
 
 Already in an early period, the Egyptians, who for centuries had 
 dealings^ with Semites at home and abroad, selected some thirty out 
 of the six hundred characters of their script and employed them in the 
 transcription of Semitic words. This well-ascertained datum is the 
 point of departure and in truth the key to the whole situation. We 
 find nothing to match if from the Babylonian and Aramaic sides. 
 Years ago it was shown by Bondi * that Phoenician and Hebrew loan- 
 words were accurately reproduced by this syllabary in hieroglyphic and 
 hieratic texts. The prime error of de Rouge's theory lay in the attempt 
 to derive the Phoenician alphabet from the hieratic script pure and sim- 
 ple. Since, however, the alphabet under any theory of its origin was in- 
 tended to serve the rough and ready purposes of practical life, as in the 
 keeping of accounts and the transaction of ordinary business, both 
 Egyptians and Phoenicians would resort to this transcription Alphabet. 
 That such was actually the case is known from Egyptian papyri. Thus 
 the Papyrus Anastasi (time of Meremptah II) reproduces in this way a 
 series of Semitic words. This abbreviated alphabet employed by 
 Egyptian scribes in the reproduction of Phoenician words was natur- 
 ally preferred on account of_ its brevity and simplicity by Phoenician 
 merchants, rather than the hieratic or the cuneiform. 
 
 6, Phoenicians Drew from All Quarters. 
 
 As seen above, the Phonicians having entered upon their maritime 
 expeditions in the Mediterranean probably became acquainted with the 
 Cretan script. Whether or not they received hints from this source 
 is unknown, but it is a surprising fact that some potsherds unearthed 
 
 * In "Dem hehraeisch-phoenizischen Sprachzweige angehoerige Lehnwoerter 
 in hieroglyphischen und hieratischen Text en." 
 
148 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 at Tell-el-Hesy in Palestine and assigned to the year 1450 B. C. have 
 characters bearing a striking resemblance to some half dozen of the 
 Aegean forms. Add to this the fact that some eight of the Phoenician 
 letters have no intelligible meaning in any known language, and it 
 would seem plausible that the Phoenicians may have drawn also from 
 ■;;his quarter. 
 
 Whether now the Phoenician alphabet in its essentials was devised 
 in Egypt (Memphis, or some other Egyptian-Phoenician quarter), or 
 in Phoenicia (Sidon?) on the basis of elements derived from many 
 sources, is unknown. In any case we seem warranted in supposing 
 that some gifted and educated scribe, versed in the Egyptian hieratic, 
 the Egyptian Abbreviated alphabet and the cuneiform, and seeking 
 some short-cut and feasible scheme of writing the Phoenician, simply 
 adopted the well-understood Egyptian principle of acrophony and by 
 the aid of the transcription alphabet devised the characters of the orig- 
 inal Phoenician alphabet. But the alphabet in the form exhibited in 
 the earliest extant inscriptions is the result of a long process of de- 
 velopment. Time would be required both to determine the number 
 and to test the adequacy of the new letters, as well as to effect their 
 introduction. The common Grafian assumption (shared by men who 
 have not looked closely into the matter) that the Phoenician alpha- 
 bet was invented and forthwith introduced only a few centuries before 
 the Moabite Stone, is without a semblance of epigraphic or comparative 
 proof, and contravenes all the known facts of the formation of alpha- 
 bets and the immense period required for their spread and introduction 
 (especially in ancient times, characterized by extreme conservativism). 
 The experimentation of the Greeks in adapting the new script to their 
 own language, and the very nature of the process, render it probable 
 that a half dozen centuries would elapse before the alphabet reached 
 the stage exhibited on the Moabite Stone." 
 
 The Phoenicians proceeded from first to last on the eclectic plan, 
 adopting from the Egyptian, Babylonian and other sources whatever 
 seemed suitable. As seen above, the letter-names are in general Phoe- 
 nician or at least Semitic. Such an eclectic course has in fact been 
 pursued in devising other alphabets ancient and modern, as the Armen- 
 ian alphabet of Mesrop (fourth century A. D.) and the Gothic of 
 Ulfilas. These are artificial alphabets composed of letters from dis- 
 tinct scripts. The same is true of the Mongolian alphabet which has 
 elements from three scripts. The Iranian alphabets also furnish proof 
 of the composite character of ancient alphabets. Some of the alpha- 
 bets in use in Persia, though containing ancient Aramaic elements, 
 are demonstrably composite. A more direct proof is furnished by the 
 Coptic script employed by Christian Egyptians. Instead of selecting 
 from the great variety of Demotic signs, they wrote the Eg>^ptian lan- 
 guage in C^reek letters, omitting or adding at pleasure. 
 
 In the light of all this we are quite prepared to understand that 
 the Phoenicians naturally appropriated whatever material lay in their 
 path. 
 
 ^ Nach dem Gesagten wuerde die Entstehung der Phneiiizischen Schrift nicht 
 als das Werk eines findigen Kopfes, der an der Stelle complicirter Schriftsysteme 
 ein einf aches setzte anzunehmen sein, sondern als das Ergebniss eines langsam 
 tind natuerlich entwickelnden Processes" (Krall, op. cit., S. 18). 
 
ORIGIN OF THE SEMITIC (PHOENICIAN) ALPHABET. I49 
 
 7. Direction of Writing. 
 
 Another decisive point in favor of Egyptian influence relates to the 
 direction of the writing. The cuneiform, which in early times was ar- 
 ranged in perpendicular columns, came to be written in horizontal lines 
 from left to right. If now the inventor or inventors had followed Baby- 
 Ionian precedent they would have written the alphabet in the same way. 
 On the other hand the hieratic was at the time in question written from 
 right to left." Prof. W. Max Mueller says: "All cursive writing runs 
 from right to left (like Hebrew etc.) ; hieroglyphics in both direc- 
 tions, though never boustrophodon" (En. Bib., 1214). From the fact 
 that early Greek and some North Semitic inscriptions run boustro- 
 pheden, it has been suggested that such was also the practice in the 
 original Phoenician. But the suggestion is without the shadow of proof. 
 Even in the boustrophedon inscriptions, the first line always runs from 
 right to left. The fact, therefore, that the Semitic (Phoenician) alpha- 
 bet is written from right to left just as the hieratic is a proof, not 
 easily set aside, of direct Egyptian influence at this point. 
 
 8. N on- Ad option of Phoenician Script by Babylonians and Assyrians. 
 
 A fatal objection to the Babylonian origin is the fact that for cen- 
 turies after the invention of the Phoenician characters, the cuneiform 
 was retained in Babylonia and Assyria. It may of course be alleged 
 that the well known conservatism of the East and the hesitancy to 
 adopt new methods, even when superior to the old, will account for 
 this delay. But the delay was of too long duration to suit the condi- 
 tions here. If the new script had arisen among the Babylonians they 
 would have been the first to introduce it ; but there appears, so far as 
 we know, to have been no effort by the Babylonian scribes to introduce it 
 even alongside of the old and complicated cuneiform.^ To be sure the 
 Aramaic script was at a later date used in contract-tablets side by side 
 with the cuneiform; but the manner of its use would imply that it was a 
 foreign importation. Not only so, but among the thousands of Baby- 
 lonian and Assyrian inscriptions (pertaining to all kinds of subjects) 
 are none in a transition alphabet from the cuneiform to the Phoenician. 
 Therefore we are driven to the conclusion that the old view of a Phoe- 
 nician origin on the basis of Egyptian elements and prototypes, is 
 still in possession of the field and, while not accounting for all the facts, 
 meets a greater number of the conditions of the problem than any 
 other theory thus far advanced. 
 
 * "Diese Schreibrichtung von rechts nach links ist in der hieratischen Schrift 
 die Regel. Die Hieroglyphentexte gehen von rechts nach links oder umgekehrt, 
 bald in wagrechten, bald in senkrechten Columnen. Der hieratische Berliner 
 Papyrus, welcher die bekannte Geschichte des Ueberlaeufers Sineha enthaelt, ist 
 ausnahmsweise in senkrechten Columnen geschrieben; sonst sind wagrechte Zei- 
 len beim Hieratischen die Regel" (Krall, op. cit., 18). 
 
 '' This objection would be met if our view (suggested by Winckler's hypothe- 
 sis) should prove correct, namely that the Phoenician alphabet was originally and 
 for centuries a "vulger" or Demotic script over against the cuneiform or "sacred" 
 script. See, further, chap. XI. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 DATE OF ORIGIN OF THE PROTO-PHOENICIAN 
 AND THE PHOENICIAN ALPHABET. 
 
 I. 
 
 PROTO-PHOENICIAN ALPHABET 2OOO-I5OO B. C. 
 
 Recent archseological discoveries indicate that the proto- 
 Phoenician alphabet sprang up between 2000 and 1500 B. C. 
 The system of writing in the Mediterranean coast-lands from 
 2000 and 1600 prepared the way for the origin and spread 
 of the Phoenician letters. A recent authority says: ''Crete 
 was the chief seat of the Mycenaean system of writing, which 
 was in vogue from 3000 to 1500. The Mycenaean characters 
 serve the purpose of what we call syllables and letters. These 
 conditions probably led to the transformation of the oldest 
 Mycenaean script into syllabic Cypriote alphabet," (see Kluge, 
 Die Schrift d. Mykenier). See above, chap. VI. 
 
 So, too, Prof. Flinders Petrie: "A great signary was in 
 use all over the Mediterranean 5,000 B. C. It is actually found 
 in Egypt at that period, and was split in two, Western and 
 Eastern, by the cross flux of hieroglyphic systems in Egypt 
 and among the Hittites. This linear signary was developed 
 variously, but retained much in common in different countries. 
 It was first systematized by the numerical values assigned to it 
 by the Phoenician traders, who carried it into Greece, whereby 
 the Greek signary was delimited into an alphabet" (Jo. An- 
 throp. Inst., 1899). This signary was not, according to Petrie, 
 a real alphabet ; ''the change of attributing a single letter value 
 to each sign, and only using signs for sounds to be built into 
 words, is apparently a relatively late outcome of the systematiz- 
 ing due to Phoenician commerce". 
 
 Hommel and Weber also hold that the proto-Phoenician 
 alphabet arose about 2000 B. C. (see above, p., 142) and that 
 some connection exists between the cuneiform and the West- 
 Semitic scripts. "An original, non-Semitic alphabet, but one 
 adopted by all the Semites, appears to have existed, which was 
 
 150 
 
PROTO-PHOENICIAN ALPHABET 2OOO-I5OO B. C. I5I 
 
 in use in Babylonia as a scriptura profana, but used perhaps 
 on papyrus alongside of the picture-writing".^ Nevertheless, 
 riddles surround this view; ''Above all, is the difficulty of 
 explaining why the Babylonians and Assyrians did not employ, 
 so far as we know, this simple alphabetic script (even in private 
 letters) if it existed". "However this may be, it is certain that 
 the alphabet goes back to the third millennium B. C. The 
 nations which at that date came forth from the Arabian womb 
 of races were unquestionably in possession of this script. So 
 far as they came within the direct influence of Babylonian cul- 
 ture they betook themselves to the use of the cuneiform, rather 
 than the alphabetic script, so far as we are able to determine. 
 The other peoples, the Canaanites and Minaeans, widely separ- 
 ated geographically and developing under different conditions, 
 brought the same original script to the stage of independent 
 development shown in the monuments of looo B. C, which 
 exhibit a script then already a long time complete (etwas 
 laengst fertiges und ahgcschlossenes)" (Weber, op. cit., p., 15). 
 It was pointed out above (chap. VII) that the South 
 Semitic letters are probably a development of some unknown 
 proto-types (rather than a development of the North-Semitic). 
 Weber supports this contention, adducing some strong points. 
 He holds that the Minsean Kingdom antedates the Sabsean. 
 "In the beginning of the second millennium B. C. a new stream 
 of nations began to pour out of Arabia. While the Canaanites, 
 Phoenicians, Hebrews and Chaldeans moved Northward and 
 North-Westward, the Minaeans must have migrated to South- 
 ern Arabia. When South Arabian history begins for us, there 
 exists a highly developed state, — undoubtedly the concomitant 
 of a high civilization. The script of the earliest monuments 
 exhibits a perfection which must have been the outgrowth of 
 centuries of development. In North- Western Arabia, in the 
 Biblical Midian there had arisen a Minsean colony, — Muzraim, 
 which anciently stood in close connection with the Minsean 
 commerce of the Mediterranean. Of the existence of this 
 Minasan colony of Musraim the South Arabic monuments have 
 yielded for the first time definite information. They furnished 
 the key to the right understanding of numerous passages in 
 other literature, especially in the Bible. All this cast a new 
 light on Northern Arabia and proved that North Arabian races 
 with or without political organization stood in close relation to 
 
 ^ Otto Weber, Arahien vor dem Islam, p., 14, seq. 
 
152 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Canaanites and especially Hebrews from early times" (op. cit., 
 24). 
 
 I. The Sinai Scribings isoo B. C. 
 
 That such a script was actually employed by Minseans, 
 Egyptians and Syrians as early as 1500 B. C, has been definite- 
 ly established by the Egyptologist, Flinders Petrie. In his 
 exploration on Sinai he discovered speciments of a new kind 
 of writing several centuries older than the Exodus.-^ As his 
 discoveries signally confirm the position here taken, we repro- 
 duce his description at sortie length. In excavating at Serabit 
 near Sinai, "a remarkable group of figures was found in the 
 temple, of a ruder style than the regular Egyptian figures and 
 some bearing inscriptions in unknown characters. ... At 
 last it was clear that we had remains of about eight tablets, 
 roughly cut, with broad grooves round them to isolate them. 
 .... But none of the inscriptions were intelligible as Egyp- 
 tian, of any hieratic or debased type. A figure of the god Ptah 
 was evident, very roughly outlined ; but not a word of regular 
 Egyptian could be read. There was a mixture of Egyptian 
 hieroglyphics, but most of the signs are quite apart from such. 
 How much can be concluded about this writing? i. It is a 
 definite system and not merely a scribbling made in ignorant 
 imitations of Egyptian writing by men who knew no better. The 
 repetition of the same five signs in the same order on the figure 
 and on the sphinx from the temple, as well as on three of the 
 tablets over the mines a mile and a half distant, shows that 
 mere fancy is not the source of the writing. 2. It is always 
 connected with work of a style different from all the usual 
 Egyptian work here, a peculiar local style which was not fol- 
 lowed by any one trained in Egyptian methods. Each of these 
 facts is not conclusive, but they all agree, and we are bound to 
 accept this writing as being about 1500 B. C." (op. cit., p., 131 ).'^ 
 
 Finally, "the ulterior conclusion is very important — name- 
 ly that common Syrian workmen, who could not command the 
 skill of an Egyptian sculptor, were familiar with writing in 
 
 ' Researches in Sinai. By W. M. Flinders Petrie. 1909. 
 
 » Petrie continues: "I am disposed to see in this, one of the many alphabets 
 which were in use in the Mediterranean lands long before the fixed alphabet 
 selected by the Phoenicians. A mass of signs was used continuously from 6,000, 
 or 7,000 B. C. until out of it was crystallized the alphabet of the Mediterranean. 
 Some of the workmen employed by the Egyptians, probably Syrians who are often 
 named, had this system of linear signs, with which they naturally mixed hierogly- 
 phics borrowed from their masters. And here we have the result, at a date some 
 five centuries before the oldest Phoenician writing that is known' (p., 132). 
 
PROTO-PHOENICIAN ALPHABET 2OOO-I5OO B. C. 1 53 
 
 1500 B. C. ; and this writing independent of hieroglyphics and 
 cuneiform. It finally disproves the hypothesis that the Israel- 
 ites, who came through this region into Egypt and passed back 
 again, could not have used writing. Here we have common 
 Syrian laborers possessing a script which other Semitic people 
 of this region must be credited with knowing". 
 
 C. J. Ball holds that these Sinai scribblings read from right 
 to left (like Hebrew) and that one of them contains the word 
 Ishtar. "The chief interest of the thing lies in the fact that 
 the identity of Hathor with Ishhara-Ishtar is proved by the in- 
 scription and that we have here Phoenician writing of a date 
 apparently as early as 1500 B. C."^ Sayce agrees with Petrie 
 and Ball.^ 
 
 2. SUMMARY. 
 
 ( I ) . As early as 2000 B. C. the nucleus of a script essen- 
 tially alphabetic, designated here as proto-Phoenician, originat- 
 ed in Babylonia and gradually reached the West-land, where 
 enterprising Canaanites (Phoenicians), adopting the Egyptian 
 principle of acrophony and drawing from other sources (possi- 
 bly Cretan) elaborated the so-called Phoenician (but more prop- 
 erly Semitic) alphabet. The South- Arabic type split off either 
 from the original proto-Semitic or the early Phoenician (in the 
 broad sense). 
 
 (2). The simple primitive script was for centuries em- 
 ployed as a scriptura privata alongside of the cuneiform (the 
 scriptura puhlica et diplomatica) and only slowly gained the 
 favor of the learned classes. The fact that there existed both a 
 sacred and a vulgar script in Egypt, and the hypothesis of 
 Winckler (see below, ch. XI) that the distinction between a 
 "sacred" (cuneiform) and a "vulgar" (Phoenician) script was 
 observed in Israel, would account for the non-employment of 
 the Phoenician in the Amama Letters. 
 
 * See Proced. Soc. Bib. Archaeol. XXX, 243 — 4. "I saw at once that the first 
 four letters, read from right to left, gave the name of Athtar, the S. Arabian 
 
 equivalent of Ishtar There are nine characters, all clear except 6 and 
 
 7, where there are flaws in the stone. We may read either 'Athtar-Antarta, or 
 Athtar-Antsabhoth, i. e., perhaps, Ishtar of the Earrings" (p., 243). 
 
 » E. J. Pilcher supposes that "illiterate natives attempted to copy an Egyp- 
 tian stele. One or two signs would be reproduced more or less correctly; but the 
 rest would be mere arbitrary scratches" (Proceed. Soc. B. Ar. XXXI, 38). On 
 this Sayce comments thus: "Mr. Pilcher's ingenious explanation is, I am afraid, 
 impossible" (Ibid., p., 132). 
 
154 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 II. 
 PHOENICIAN ALPHABET I5OO B. C. 
 
 The names, the number, the order and the forms of the 
 letters prove that the alphabet originated with a Semite. But 
 his name and nationality are unknown. At best, therefore, 
 we can merely reason back from the known to the unknown. 
 Fortunately, however, the laws of language and of graphic 
 development aid us in the search. 
 
 A. PRINCIPLES OF ALPHABETOLOGY. 
 
 I. Alphabets Grow. 
 
 As seen above (ch. VII) the discovery of a great number 
 of ancient inscriptions has led to the application of modern 
 methods ^f examination and investigation. Palaeography and 
 epigraphy now rank among the exact sciences. By the laws of 
 growth and development, so highly prized in other sciences, we 
 are enabled to discover general principles which serve as a 
 guide in the construction of a theory of the origin and growth 
 of the ancient systems of writing. The older alphabetologists 
 either ignored, or failed to apply consistently, the law of devel- 
 opment; and so failed to reach a solution of the origin of the 
 Phoenician alphabet. It was universally assumed that some 
 transcendent genius at one stroke conceived, devised and put 
 into practical use the Semitic alphabet of 22 letters, and that all 
 his countrymen and the Semitic tribes and nations forthwith 
 adopted the same. Nothing could be farther from the real 
 facts. Written, like spoken language, is the result of centuries 
 of growth and development, experimentation and modification, 
 selection and rejection. No known alphabet, ancient or mod^ 
 em, sprang into being at one bound ; and we have no reason to 
 suppose that the Semitic was an exception to the rule. 
 
 Slow differentiation by minute variation, as so often point- 
 ed out in the case of plants and animals, is found to be the law 
 that obtains in the life and growth of alphabets. It is a prin- 
 ciple now universally accepted by Semitic palaeographers and 
 epigraphists, that graphic and alphabetic changes seldom take 
 place arbitrarily or accidentally, but are the result of growth and 
 development in accordance with law. 
 
 2. Law of Correlative Variation. 
 
 One change tends to produce another. Thus a change in 
 one letter, especially if it approach the form of the first, neces- 
 
PHOENICIAN ALPHABET I5OO B. C. 1 55 
 
 sitates a change in the second in order that the dissemblance 
 may be maintained. This is illustrated by such letters as m 
 and n, p and q, v and zu in English. The character of the writ- 
 ing material often affects the shape of letters, even in the same 
 alphabet. The script on bark, palm-leaves, papyrus or parch- 
 ment differs from writing on wax, clay, stone, or metal, even 
 though the characters in general are the same. 
 
 3. Adoption of Foreign Script. 
 
 Since each language has its own peculiar words and sounds, 
 any script adopted, whether native or foreign, must conform 
 to the spirit and phonetic laws of the language. No two lan- 
 guages have exactly the same script or alphabet. Hence in the 
 adoption of a foreign script some of the old symbols will be 
 modified or put to a new use, or even omitted. If new char- 
 acters are required, they are usually adopted from scripts which 
 have forms lending themselves to such use. Thus when the 
 Phoenician alphabet was adopted by the Greeks, certain con- 
 sonants, as aleph, he, waw, jod, (used sometimes as vowel-let- 
 ters) gradually came to be used altogether as vowels. The 
 alphabetologist who applies the principles and methods of his 
 science understands that the evolution of the Semitic script 
 from the earliest forms to the characters exhibited on the Moa- 
 bite Stone, or the Gezer and Zakar inscriptions, must have ex- 
 tended over a much longer period than was though possible in 
 the pre-scientific stage of the study of inscriptions. It is gen- 
 erally held that the original Phcenician alphabet had only about 
 18 letters.^ 
 
 4. No Absolute Sameness of Development. 
 It is further true that the rate of alphabetic change is not uniform 
 and absolute, but conditioned by internal and external circumstances. 
 War, conquest, colonization, trade-routes, religion and national spirit 
 have often greatly affected, and sometimes radically changed the trans- 
 mission of alphabets. The supremacy of the Babylonian power in the 
 fifteenth century B. C. carried the cuneiform script to the far west, so 
 that even the Egyptian court was constrained to employ that cumbrous 
 syllabary in its foreign correspondence. So, too, the Greek tribes, 
 (though having a script of their own), coming into contact with the 
 Phoenicians, the chief carriers in the Mediterranean in 1200 B. C, 
 adopted the Ph<]enician script on account of its superiority and_ com- 
 mercial relations. The same law is illustrated by the introduction of 
 the Greek alphabet and civilization into Italy, and of the Carthaginian 
 language into Spain. 
 
 • Lidzbarski: "Auch ich bin der Ansicht, dass Heth nur cine Erweiterung 
 von He, Samekh ein erweitertes Zayin, Teth ein Taw mit cinem Kreis darum, und 
 dass vielleicht auch Tsadhe aus Shin oder Zayin entstanden ist' (Ephetn. I, 112). 
 
156 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 B. THE THREE TYPES OF THE NORTH SEMITIC ALPHABET. 
 
 The inscriptions reviewed above reveal three types of the 
 North Semitic alphabet, the Phoenician, the Aramaic and the 
 Hebrew, each with marked characteristics. The conclusion 
 reached from a comparison of the letters was that the old 
 Semitic characters were devised not later than about 1500 B. C. 
 The laws of graphic development prove this. A comparison 
 of the letters in our Chart, cols. XI, XVIII, XXIII, compels 
 us to hold that centuries were required for the rise, develop- 
 ment, differentiation, segregation, spread, and well-nigh uni- 
 versal introduction by 1000 B. C. Both epigraphically and 
 historically, the date of origin, must fall not far from 1500. A 
 principle enunciated by Lidzbarski is to the point here: "A 
 script changes little if confined to narrow circles. But if it 
 gain currency, and especially if used much in practical life, it 
 soon approaches a form admitting of rapid writing. And so 
 we find that the North Semitic script changes very little during 
 the first five hundred years in which we can trace its history. 
 If now the alphabet had existed, say in 1500, not as many 
 changes would have taken place to 1000 B. C, as in the next 
 five hundred years. But if such changes occurred, they would 
 have been similar to the later development. At least I could 
 assign no reason why another law should be operative". 
 (Ephem. I, 1 11 ) . Before the final summary we discuss briefly 
 the relation between the North and South Semitic scripts. 
 
 C. RELATION OF NORTH AND SOUTH SEMITIC ALPHABETS. 
 
 On the basis of the data given above (chap. VII), it is 
 clear that the South Semitic inscriptions go back to an early 
 date. If now they should be found to antedate the North 
 Semitic script, the date of the origin of the Semitic script would 
 be still earlier, for obviously one influenced the other, as proved 
 by the sameness of the letter-names. 
 
 Not Earlier than the North Semitic. The Sabsean-Minae- 
 an script, as seen from the chart, col. XXIX, is distinguished 
 from the North Semitic by elegance of form. The writing of 
 the principal monuments may be classed with the best that the 
 calligraphic art furnishes. In all probabiHty, the script, as 
 found on the monuments was a modification of that in common 
 use. In practical life a simpler and more cursive style was 
 doubtless employed. But each probably influenced the other. 
 The greater influence of the lapidary script is traceable to the 
 
PHOENICIAN ALPHABET I5OO B. C. 1 57 
 
 s>Tnmetry prevailing in the majority of the letters. Lidzbarski 
 made the surprising discovery that of the 29 letters 22 are so 
 shaped that they fall into two corresponding halves. This is 
 indicated in six of them by a vertical line, in four by a horizon- 
 tal line and in twelve by both lines. That this is not acciden- 
 tal is shown by the ratio of the symmetrical to the other char- 
 acters, viz. 22 to 7. This becomes more apparant if we com- 
 pare the N. Semitic script. Here the greatest irregularity ex- 
 ists, and even the signs which lend themselves to a regular for- 
 mation, as aleph, daleth, and he, lack a symmetrical develop- 
 ment. 
 
 Hence it follows that the earliest script was not the sym- 
 metrically developed Sabsean-Minaean, but rather the proto-type 
 of the irregular N. Semitic, for obviously the Northern Semites, 
 in their adoption of a script, assuming that the South Semitic 
 were then extant, would not have changed the ornate and reg- 
 ular forms into the crude and irregular Phoenician characters. 
 It is more probable that the S. Semitic forms are a development 
 of some unknown proto-type. Lidzbarski institutes an elaborate 
 comparison of the N. and S. forms and reaches the conclusion 
 that if any dependence exists, it is that of the South-Arabic 
 on the N. Semitic. ''The Sabaean script must have origin- 
 ated before the alphabet broke up into the three extant branch- 
 es; that is about the time that the Greek branched off, circa 
 1200-1000. In all probability the S. Arabian merchants learned 
 it in Gaza or some other Phoenician center" (Lidz., Ephem., I, 
 128). 
 
 Contrary to Lidzbarski and Halevy, the view is steadily 
 gaining ground that the South-Semitic alphabet is an offshoot, 
 not of the Phoenician, but of an earlier type. Weber and Prae- 
 torius hold that the difference between the Sab^ean-Minsean and 
 the Phoenician is so great that neither could have been derived 
 from the other, both being traceable to a common ancestor. 
 The Moabite characters are the result of a long development 
 and "some facts are now at hand which indicate an experimen- 
 tal stage in times long prior to Mesha" (Praetorius). The 
 South-Semitic sprang from an early (unknown, but essentially) 
 alphabetic script. The symmetry of the S.-Semitic characters 
 is accounted for by the fact that the Moabite and Minaean are 
 ancient modifications of a script not yet definitely fixed. '^ Cer- 
 
 ^ "Der unter sich im ganzen einheitliche, dem Mesa-alphabet gegenueber 
 aber vielfach fremdartige Character, den die Buchstaben der Sued-Semitischen 
 Alphabete aufweisen, erklaert sich dann daraus, dass Sued-Semitisch und Mesa 
 
158 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 tain Sabsean leters, as aleph, beth, he,, kaph, mem, samekh can- 
 not be conceived as evolutions of Phoenician forms. Praetorius 
 would trace a few letters, as he, heth, kaph, to Cypriote proto- 
 types.^ 
 
 Other Semitic philologists entertain the view that the S. 
 Semitic alphabet cannot be a development of the Phoenician. 
 The latest edition (the eleventh) of the Encyclopedia Britanni- 
 ca, presumably the highest authority in England, says :" "It 
 would be premature to say that the Sabsean alphabet is derived 
 from the Phoenician. It is likely, considering the date of both, 
 that they are equally descendants from an older source. . . 
 It is the tendency of the Northern Semitic to open the heads of 
 letters and therefore it is possible that the Sabsean form for 
 jod may be older than the Phoenician. Similarly, if pe mean 
 mouth, Hommel is right in contending that the Sabsean (see 
 Chart) is more like the object than the Phoenician. So also if 
 kaph corresponds to the Bab. Kappu, the hollow hand, the 
 Sabasan form (see chart), which Hommel interprets as the 
 outline of the hand with the fingers turned in and the thumb 
 raised, is a better pictograph than the various meaningless 
 forms of k". Finally, "if it be possible to assign to some of 
 the monuments discovered in Arabia by Glaser a date not later 
 than 1500 B. C, the origin of the alphabet and its dissemina- 
 tion are carried back to a much earlier period than had hitherto 
 been supposed" (Vol. I, p., 729). 
 
 Since even Lidzbarski admits that the Sabsean script arose 
 before the breaking up of the Semitic alphabet into the three 
 North Semitic branches, we seem to be forced to predicate an 
 earlier, that is Proto-Phoenician alphabet.^ 
 
 D. ORIGIN OF SEMITIC ALPHABET CIRCA 1 500 B. C. 
 
 The lines of evidence from three independent fields, name- 
 ly, the North and South Semitic and the Greek inscriptions, 
 
 uralte Gabelungen von einer noch nicht ganz festen, einheitlichen Schrift sind. 
 Und aus diesem Verhaeltniss ergibt sich waiter sofort, dass die vermissten Mit- 
 telglieder zwischen Mesa und Sued.-Semitisch ueberhaupt nicht vorhanden sein 
 koennen" (F. Praetorius, Das Kan. u. S. Sent. Al. in Zeits. d. D. M. G. LXIII, 
 p., 189, f). 
 
 8 Lidzb. holds that the Phoen. aleph was turned half way round as in the 
 Greek A and so developed into the Sabasan form. See chart. He would derive 
 even the Sabaean teth and pe from the Phoenician. Grimme admits that the long 
 time required for the transformation of the Phoen. teth into the S.-Sem., implies 
 a great antiquity for the S.-Sem. script; and in fact "it is allowed that the orig- 
 inal Semitic alphabet reaches very nearly to the Amarna period" (Zeiis. f. 
 Assy. 1907). 
 
 8 "The theory is gradually gaining ground that the Phoenicians borrowed the 
 alphabet from South Arabia" (New Intern. Ency.). So too the Jewish Ency. 
 
PHOENICIAN ALPHABET I5OO B. C. 1 59 
 
 have established beyond a peradventure the fact that the Sem- 
 itic script and its various offshoots originated in an epoch far 
 more remote than has usually been supposed, especially by the 
 school predisposed to question the credibility of ancient his- 
 tory. According to the law of development of scripts we are 
 compelled to predicate centuries for the evolution of letters 
 which were formerly supposed to have sprung up over night. 
 There is no such discipline as the science of epigraphy, or even 
 of history and language, unless we follow the laws of develop- 
 ment whithersoever they lead. Scientists and historians have 
 during recent decades professed to apply rigidly what is called 
 the law of evolution (whatever that may be), but in the field 
 of Semitic epigraphy the most pretentiously scientific and pro- 
 gressive Old Testament scholars (Wellhausen, Stade, et id 
 omne genus) have with a few notable exceptions (Glaser, Hom- 
 mel) seen nothing but a dead level of uniformity or a magic 
 change of scripts and alphabets. ^^ 
 
 But the spade has at last turned up from beneath the 
 ruins of ancient cities and temples the mute (but incontrover- 
 tible) witnesses of far-off and forgotten civilizations with all 
 their wealth of art and engraving. There can be no shadow 
 of doubt that writing and literature in the Semitic (Phoenician) 
 script were cultivated centuries before the period to which the 
 oldest extant inscriptions can be traced. From the firm foot- 
 hold of the known date of inscriptions we can with the greatest 
 assurance reason back to the probable date of other inscriptions, 
 and thus establish approximately the date of origin of the al- 
 phabet. All the available evidence, linguistic, historic and ar- 
 chaeological, tends with cumulative force and cognency to es- 
 tablish our thesis that the Semitic script arose about 1500 B. C. 
 
 J" It may be observed, en passant, that the very school, the Grafian, which has 
 all along maintained that O. T. language, history, and religion are but an ex- 
 pression of the law of evolution, is guilty here of the most palpable inconsistency 
 in pushing the employment of writing and literature in Israel down to about 900 
 B. C. So far as we have been enabled to discover in all the immense literature 
 of the "Higher Criticism", there is nowhere even an attempt to rnaintain by 
 epigraphic proof the extreme position of the Grafians and Panbabylonists on this 
 point. There is to be sure no end of assertion and of claiming everything m 
 sight. But of proof there is very little. 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 THE SCRIPT AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE EARLY 
 OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. 
 
 I. THE GROUND COVERED THUS FAR. 
 
 What now are the points established thus far? It was 
 shown that the Semites, especially the Babylonians, early adopt- 
 ed a syllabic system of writing and cultivated literature on an 
 extensive scale. A natural inference is that the ancestors of 
 Israel, the Terahites and Abrahamites, had some knowledge of 
 writing and possibly carried with them from Ur of the Chaldees 
 tablets containing accounts of the creation. Paradise, the fall 
 and other early narratives of Genesis. Again, Egypt was the 
 home of scribes, and of writing and literature in a preeminent 
 degree, the youth generally being taught to write, even the 
 poorest child and the slave at his task. It would have been an 
 unparalled exception had not at least the more brilliant and in- 
 telligent of the Israelites, surrounded by writing on all sides, 
 acquired the art sufficiently to read papyrus rolls or simple tab- 
 lets. Canaan itself prior to the conquest by the Israelites had 
 been under the influence of Babylonian law and civilization for 
 a thousand years and was far advanced in the arts; some at 
 least of the common people could read and write. The pas- 
 sages cited from the Pentateuch, Joshua and Judges clearly 
 prove, as admitted by negative critics, that writing existed 
 among the Hebrews as early as the date of Gideon, the Song 
 of Deborah and perhaps the Exodus. The general spread of 
 writing during the first half of the period of the Judges and 
 the cultivation of literature not later than the second half Avere 
 pointed out as conceded by nearly all authorities in this field. 
 
 2. THE GROUND STILL TO BE COVERED. 
 
 But it is not sufficient to show that writing of some kind 
 flourished among the Hebrews at an early date: we wish to 
 know whether they employed the Phcenician alphabet of 22 
 letters, or whether they employed the difficult cuneiform, or 
 the complicated Egyptian hieratic, or some other ancient script. 
 
 160 
 
EARLY OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. l6l 
 
 This necessitated an inquiry into the time and place of origin 
 of the Phoenician alphabet — the alphabet which the Hebrews 
 adopted at some disputed date and in which their literature of 
 the middle period was composed. An examination of the 
 Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew and South Semitic inscriptions 
 by the comparative method and according to the laws of 
 graphic development, pointed to circa 1500 B. C. as the latest 
 possible date for the invention of the Phoenician letters. The 
 period of the adoption of the Phoenician alphabet by the Greeks, 
 about 1200-1100 pointed, it was seen, in the same direction, 
 namely a date sufficiently early to allow for the fixedness, 
 spread and introduction of the Phoenician alphabet. 
 
 The next question to engage our attention is the date 
 when the Hebrews adopted the Phoenician alphabet and began 
 to use it in writing their books, sacred and profane. If it could 
 be shown that the Hebrews at an early date came into contact 
 with Phoenicians, Canaanites, Minseans or some people using 
 the Phoenician script and adopted it from that quarter, the way 
 would be prepared for an argument in support of the claim that 
 the Hebrews after the Exodus employed the Hebrew language 
 and the Phoenician script rather than the Assyrian language 
 and the cuneiform script. 
 
 3. NATURE OF THE PROBLEM. 
 
 The view that the early Old Testament books were writ- 
 ten in the Hebrew language and the archaic Hebrew script 
 remained unshaken until within recent years. But since the 
 discovery of the Armarna Letters, the Tell Taannek (1350 B. 
 C.) and the Assyrian Gezer inscriptions (seventh cent. B. C.)^ 
 the hypothesis has been advanced that a considerable part of the 
 early Old Testament literature was composed in the Babylon- 
 ian-Assyrian language and the cuneiform script, and afterward 
 translated into the Hebrew language and script. If this hy- 
 pothesis should prove correct, it would necessitate an entire 
 reconstruction of traditional views regarding the source and 
 character of the early Old Testament books. ^ 
 
 The question cannot be settled off-hand. The original 
 
 1 The reader will note that the Gezer Calendar Tablet described above (chap. 
 VII) is in the Heb. lang. and script, but the Gezer Assyrian inscriptions in the 
 cuneiform script (see Sec. D. 2, below). 
 
 2 Winckler, Benzinger and Jeremias see in the hypothesis (which for them 
 is a fixed datum) strong support for the Panbabylonism which traces nearly every- 
 thing valuable in the Old Testament to Babylonian culture and religion; Conder 
 and Sayce see in it a basis for undermining the Graf-Wellhausen theory of the 
 Codes. 
 
 II 
 
l62 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 copies, and early transcripts of the Pentateuch and of the com- 
 ponent parts, perished before the time of Christ. By the aid 
 of the present Hebrew Scriptures and of the ancient versions 
 we can establish the integrity of the text from 458 B. C. (Ezra) 
 or certainly 300 B. C. onward; and by means of cross-refer- 
 ences and quotations in the Old Testament we can prove that 
 the substance of the Pentateuch was extant in 900 B. C. The 
 doubts of the Higher Criticism would be dispelled, if there 
 should be discovered a copy of the Pentateuch or a part thereof 
 written in 1450, or 1320 or even 1000 B. C. But we have noth- 
 ing of the kind, not even a line of the Pentateuch written on 
 stone, stucco or papyrus in an early period. Not only so, but 
 we have no positive knowledge whether the autographs were 
 written in the Egyptian, the Assyrian or the Hebrew language, 
 or in the Egyptian, the cuneiform or the Phoenician script. 
 Prior to 1000 B. C. every inch is disputed territory. 
 
 No apology is needed for an inquiry into the facts. 
 
 A. THE SCRIPT EMPLOYED BY THE HEBREWS AFTER EZRA. 
 
 I. Writing in Square Characters. 
 
 Prom the time of Ezra (458-444) the Hebrews gradually 
 came to use a script called the Square or Aramaic. The let- 
 ters of the ordinary Hebrew Bible of today are similar to the 
 so-called square characters (see Chart, col. XXVHI). If proof 
 of the gradual introduction of this script during the three cen- 
 turies following Ezra were demanded, it could be supplied from 
 extant speciments of such writing and from the testimony of 
 the Talmud and the Church Fathers. Previous to the Exile 
 the Hebrews used the so-called archaic Hebrew (Phoenician) 
 script, which, though the progenitor of the Aramaic script, dif- 
 fered from it considerably in the form of the letters (see Chart). 
 It is a disputed point when the Hebrews finally abandoned the 
 archaic script. 
 
 (i). Epigraphic Testimony. Seals, gems, coins, and other epigra- 
 phic remains testify that the new or square characters gradually dis- 
 placed the archaic in the centuries between Ezra and Christ. Not a 
 little importance attaches to the question, in what script the later books 
 of the Old Testament, as Zeohariah, Haggai, Malachi and Chronicles 
 were comxposed, as also the script of the Pentateuch which lay before 
 the Septuagint translators. It is possible that some strange differen- 
 ces between the readings of the Hebrew and the Septuagint texts are 
 due to confusion in the transition from the archaic to the square char- 
 acters. The fact that the Samaritans never abandoned the archaic 
 Hebrew script in favor of the square characters is a proof that the 
 
EARLY OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. 163 
 
 Pentateuch was extant in that script about 400 B. C. and a criterion 
 in the comparison of the script employed by the Jews after the Exile. 
 It is generally allowed that the connecting link between the archaic 
 and the square Hebrew script is supplied by a bi-lingual inscription, that 
 of Araq el-Emir found by Clermont-Ganneau near Emmaus, It is not 
 earlier than the fourth pre-Christian century; the characters are quite 
 similar to those on the Asmonean coins (Lidzbarski). 
 
 (2). Testimony of the Talmudists and the Fathers. The Talmud 
 says : "Originally the law was given to Israel in the Hehreiv character 
 and in the sacred tongue : it was given again to them, in the days of 
 Ezra, in the Assyrian character and in the Aramaic tongue" {Sanh. 
 21 b). The former phrase means archaic Hebrew, the latter the 
 square Hebrew script.'' Origen states that in accurate MSS. the sa- 
 cred name was written in archaic characters unlike those in ordinary use 
 in his day. In the commentary on Ezek. 9 : 4, Origen adds that a 
 converted Jew told him that in the archaic style the letter taw had 
 the form- of a cross (which is correct). Jerome, Epiphanius and 
 Jewish rabbis either intimate or directly affirm that a change of char- 
 acter was introduced by Ezra, and that the Samaritans alone retained 
 the archaic script. 
 
 2. Indeterminateness of Date. 
 
 As seen above, the evidence is conclusive that the archaic 
 Hebrew script was used among the Jews on seals and coins long 
 after the Exile. The remarkable fact is that on all the Jewish 
 coins of the pre-Christian period the writing is not in the 
 square, but in the archaic characters. As we just saw, certain 
 of the inscriptions of the third and second centuries B. C. are in 
 square letters. If the Talmudic statement that Ezra intro- 
 duced the square letters be correct, it would seem that the two 
 scripts were employed side by side for several centuries. In 
 fact the recovered seals and coins indicate that the old charac- 
 ters were understood, if not actually employed, by the people 
 until about the middle of the first century B. C., if not to the 
 Christian era.* 
 
 B. PHOENICIAN SCRIPT EMPLOYED BY HEBREWS FROM DATE OF EXODUS. 
 
 I. The Script from 900 to 400 B. C. 
 We proceed to trace the script employed in Israel prior to 
 Ezra. 
 
 5 On the use of the term "Assyrian" in such a connection Ad. Neubauer 
 says: "In Greek writers Assyria is often employed for Aramaic countries, which 
 were later called Syria. In fact the name of Syria is derived from the name 
 Assyria. Even the svstem of vowel-points employed in the eighth century A. D. 
 in some Eastern schools, which are placed above the letters, is termed the Assy- 
 rian punctuation, while the system used by the Western school is called the 
 Palestinian Punctuation" (Sudia Bihlica, III). 
 
 * The fact that some four centuries elapsed before the square script sup- 
 planted the archaic is proof additional to that already given that some four or 
 five centuries would be required for the wide dissemination of the Phoenician 
 script before the date of the Moabite Stone. 
 
164 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 (i). Evidence from Seals. Attention has already been 
 directed to the large number of coins and seals in the archaic 
 Hebrew script. It is a singular fact that even after the square 
 script had been adopted, the archaic script was still retained a 
 long time on coins. 
 
 Of the specifically Hebrew seals we have a sufficient num- 
 ber to trace the development of the script from the ninth pre- 
 Christian century to the final abandonment of the archaic let- 
 ters. Recently a considerable number of post-Exilic seals has 
 come to light, but here a brief notice must suffice. Among 
 them is a seal with the inscription "Belonging to 'Asiyu, son 
 of Yokim". The date according to Cooke is 5 — 4 century. 
 
 (2). Pre-Exilic Seals. The pre-Exilic seals, described 
 above, chap. VII, furnish abundant proof that the old Hebrew 
 script was in general use in Israel from the ninth century on- 
 ward. The El Siggeb seal and the two Hananiahu seals may 
 be taken as types of the writing of the 7 — 6 century B. C. The 
 number of seals from this period would indicate that many men 
 of rank, and even women, had their seals.^ Other seals of this 
 period are those bearing the legends : ''Haggai, the son of 
 Shebaniah", "Uzziahu, the son of Hareph", "Maasayahu, son 
 of Meshaliem" and "Joshua, the son of Asayahu". Of a some- 
 what earlier date probably are the following : "Shebaniah, son 
 of Uzziah", "Obadiah, servant of the King" and "Schema, ser- 
 vant of the King". All these specimens of Hebrew script tes- 
 tify to the quite general use of writing among the Hebrews in 
 the ninth century B. C. It is logically certain that the contem- 
 poraneous books of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew 
 and in the archaic Hebrew script. 
 
 (^). Longer Archaic Hebrew Inscriptions. Additional 
 evidence of the use of the archaic script in Israel is found in 
 the so-called longer inscriptions, especially the Siloam and 
 Gezer. The former is proof positive that in 700 B. C. this 
 script was in such general use that workmen in excavating the 
 Siloam tunnel recorded briefly a few facts regarding it. The 
 comparatively regular forms of the letters and the fact that 
 ordinary laborers had the interest to record and the skill to 
 execute such an inscription in an out-of-the-way and almost 
 inaccessible place are incontestable evidence that writing in this 
 
 ^ This implies, not that the owner could not write or that writing was not 
 generally practiced, but rather that it was the custom of the age and was found 
 convenient (just as in Assyria and Egypt) to carry a seal ready for use and as 
 a protection against a spurious signature or authentication. 
 
EARLY OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. 165 
 
 script was a well-known and quite generally practiced art in 
 Israel in the eighth century. 
 
 a. Proof from the Gezer Calendar Tablet. Perhaps the 
 most striking proof of the script employed by the Hebrews in 
 800 B. C. is furnished by the Gezer Calendar Tablet. This 
 recently discovered witness (1908) of the script in use in the 
 ninth century merits further notice here. (See above, chap. 
 VII). Of its antiquity there can be no doubt. The great body 
 of Semitic epigraphists, as Gray, Halevy, Lidzbarski, Ronze- 
 valle and Macalister, pronounce it as certainly not later than the 
 ninth century. Lidzbarski, the highest authority in Europe, 
 regards the characters without exception as archaic, there being 
 no late forms whatever. 
 
 h. Evidence from the Jeroboam Seal. The Jeroboam seal 
 enables us to carry the use of the archaic script back to a still 
 earlier period. The leading authorities assign it to Jeroboam I 
 (935 — 15) rather than to Jeroboam II (781 — 41). According 
 to Kautzsch ''no one is able to show that this type of script un- 
 derwent material change in the period between Jeroboam I and 
 Mesha. In fact the character of the Greek alphabet, which 
 had evidently branched off before the tenth century, points to 
 a long period of stability in the oldest types". Lidzbarski ex- 
 presses himself emphatically in favor of the earlier date: 
 *The script has the oldest general impress of the Semitic 
 alphabet. The period in which the same writing as that 
 upon the seal was in general use, was long before that 
 of the Jeroboam. Accordingly the script would point to the 
 age of Jeroboam I" (op. cit.). These conjectures have been 
 signally borne out by the character of the script of the Samaria 
 Ostaka described above (chap. VI). Important consequences 
 follow\ The Jeroboam seal is a scarabaeoid of jasper, and is 
 in a high style of art. The letters are characterized by freedom 
 and regularity of execution and imply a long period of per- 
 manence of fonns. The skill to produce an artistic work of this 
 sort could not have sprung up over night, but was the result 
 of a long period of practice and experimentation. 
 
 c. The Samaria Inscriptions. The most decisive evidence 
 remains to be noticed. As described above (pp., 114 — 6), 
 there were discovered in 1910 on the site of the ancient city of 
 Samaria, some seventy-five archaic Hebrew inscriptions, which 
 from their age and character are of such signal importance as 
 to form a new era in Hebrew epigraphy. Remains of the only 
 
l66 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 palace of a Hebrew king ever found were unearthed ; and 
 many objects of interest containing writing were found. In a 
 certain room *Vas found an alabaster vase inscribed with the 
 name of Ahab's contemporary, Osorkon II of Egypt. The 
 words are divided by ink spots, and the reading of many of 
 the records is perfectly clear. The script is the same as that of 
 the Siloam Tunnel and of the Moabite Stone. To the eighth 
 or ninth century therefore we should assign the ostraca even 
 
 if they had not been found in the Ahab building It 
 
 seems obvious that these ostraka are of the nature of labels 
 attached to jars or groups of jars in a store-room adjoining 
 the palace, and that they indicate origin, ownership, and in 
 most cases character of the contents". 
 
 As these inscriptions fall between 900 and 850 B. C. they 
 furnish overwhelming proof of our contention that the archaic 
 Phoenician script was in use in Israel quite generally at a very 
 early date. As says Prof. Lyon : ''That these ostraca are very 
 precious from an epigraphic and linguistic point of view is ob- 
 vious. The script is beautiful and flowing, thus showing much 
 practise in writing with the pen. We have here for the first 
 time a large number of Hebrew proper names of definite and 
 early date preserved on contemporary records. And when we 
 consider that the amount of writing here is far greater than 
 all other Hebrew writings yet known, the discovery may be 
 called epoch-making" (op. cit.). These "finds" are indeed 
 "epoch-making", for they allay all doubt as to the language 
 and script employed by the Hebrews in 900 B. C.® 
 
 2. The Hebrezv Script between 1350 and goo B. C. 
 
 It is clear that the archaic Hebrew script was employed 
 for commercial and literary purposes from the tenth century 
 onward. The preceding examples are a sufficient proof. How 
 far back of this can we go? Here the argument is that of 
 analogy. The older Stade-Wellhausen school hold that the 
 Hebrews practically had no knowledge of this script until about 
 1000 B. C. A more recent school, or rather certain scholars of 
 different schools, contend that whatever writing there may have 
 been was in the Babylonian language and script. The view 
 adopted here is that the Phoenician script was introduced into 
 
 * Kittel well says: "Here then the Samaria inscriptions are significant. What 
 previously was highly probable has now become a certainty. If the Phoenician 
 script was used on ostraca already in 900 B. C, it must have been employed on 
 papyrus, skins, stone and clay a long time previously" (Theolog, Literaturb., 
 Feb.,. 191 1). 
 
EARLY OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. 167 
 
 Israel about the time of the Exodus and was employed contin- 
 uously in the composition of the Old Testament. 
 
 (i). A Suitable Script Necessary. That a considerable 
 body of Hebrew literature had grown up in the pre-Davidic 
 period is certain. ''The Book of Jashar", "The Book of the 
 Wars of Jehovah", ''Deborah's Triumphal Ode" and other pro- 
 ductions were unquestionably composed in the two or three cen- 
 turies preceding- the reign of David. If it be held that Moses 
 and Joshua, or their scribes, drew up historical memoranda and 
 a code of laws, it is incumbent upon us to face the question of 
 the language and script in which such Hterature was embodied. 
 
 While it is true that the cuneiform script reproduces Ca- 
 naanite (Hebrew) words in the Amarna Tablets and possesses 
 in fact all the sounds of the Hebrew, it is such a complicated 
 syllabary that it was never regarded as convenient or popular, 
 even among the Assyrians, as the Aramaic notes on Assyrian 
 contracts show. Much less probable is it that this foreign lan- 
 guage and script was employed by the Hebrew people, even if 
 the guild of scribes employed it in foreign correspondence and 
 perhaps monumental records. No proof whatever exists that 
 the Assyrian language and script was in use at this time in 
 Israel for the ordinary purposes of life and literature. The 
 Gezer Calendar Tablet, the Jeroboam seal and the numerous 
 Samaria ostraca show unquestionably that the archaic Hebrew 
 was the current script in 900-800. The fact that the Phoenician 
 script was in extensive use in 900 is strong prima facie evidence 
 that it must have been introduced a long time previously. It 
 follows that in the David- Solomon period the Hebrew language 
 and script were employed for all literary purposes."^ 
 
 (2). No Transition in the Script. The Hebrew text ex- 
 hibits no trace of any such confusion as would result if 
 the cuneiform had been used originally and then translated or 
 transliterated into Hebrew. The phenomena generally relied 
 upon to prove such a source are found even in greater degree 
 in later books, and so the argument would extend to the whole 
 Old Testament, which not even the most zealous Panbabylonist 
 would allow. The argument proves nothing. The Book of 
 Jashar affords conclusive proof that one and the same language 
 and script was employed from the first. This book was begun 
 a century or two before the time of David, and completed dur- 
 
 ^ The Gezer cuneiform tablets of the seventh century B. C. which might 
 seem to be an exception, are reviewed below, sec. D, 2. 
 
l68 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 ing or after his reign, for it contains the "Lament over Saul 
 and Jonathan", which was unquestionably written in the He- 
 brew language and script; and so was the remainder of th^ 
 book. 
 
 An equally cogent proof is furnished by Deborah's Ode, 
 which is allowed by critics of all shades to be contemporaneous 
 with the event celebrated. The Hebrew text is in a fairly good 
 state, excepting vs. 8-15. This one instance of confusion in 
 the text is due, however, not to a transcription of the Ode from 
 the cuneiform to the Hebrew script, but to some mischance in 
 the transmission of the Hebrew script. A comparison of the 
 Hebrew with the phonograms and ideograms that would be em- 
 ployed in the Assyrian reveals no trace of a cuneiform text. 
 The only alternative is that it was composed in the Hebrew lan- 
 guage and script. 
 
 (j). Early Adoption of Phoenician Script. As shown 
 above, the Phoenician script was certainly invented about 1500 
 B. C. This conclusion remains unshaken; else there is no 
 science of alphabetology or of Semitic epigraphy. The Phoeni- 
 cian script was unquestionably in use, perhaps in wide use, at 
 the date of the Exodus, whether that be placed in 1200, 1300, or 
 even 1450. The only question that remains is whether the 
 people of Israel had a knowledge of it and were fairly well 
 skilled in its use at the Exodus. 
 
 (4). Phonician Script among Surrounding People. It matter little 
 here, by whom the Phoenician alphabet was invented. On our theory 
 the credit falls to the Phoenicians; in any event it was gradually com- 
 municated to and adopted by surrounding people (Moabites, Ammon- 
 ites, Aramaeans, Arabians, etc). A people as quick-witted and re- 
 sourceful as the Hebrews, whether still in Egypt, in the Desert, or in 
 Canaan, would not be slow to adopt the simple and time-saving de- 
 vice. Though the Moabite Stone is the solitary witness of the art of 
 writing in early times among that peopk, it affords incontestable proof 
 that writing and literature had flourished there several centuries. The 
 Moabites must have gotten the Phoenician script at least several cen- 
 tures before Mesha, i. e. not later than the twelfth; otherwise it is im- 
 possible to account for the difference between the Moabite script and 
 the earliest types of the Hebrew and Aramaic. The Phoenician script 
 was certainly known at Gebal (Byblos) in 1200 B. C.® 
 
 It does not appear that the Moabites were superior to their neigh- 
 bors in cultural attainments; indeed, but for the accidental discovery 
 
 « This is shown from the "Diary of Wenamon", an Egyptian officer who 
 made a journey to Gebal in 1150 B. C. In the course of the narrative we are 
 told that the Phoenician prince caused the journals of his fathers to be read. As 
 these were doubtless in the Pnoenician language and script and ancient, the date 
 was anywhere between 1400 and 1200. 
 
EARLY OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. 169 
 
 of the Moabite Stone we should be disposed to place them low in the 
 scale of civilization. The somewhat singular fact that but one mon- 
 ument of their graphic and literary skill has been preserved, does not 
 indeed prove absolutely a poverty or ideas, but it at leasts suggests 
 that they produced little of permanent worth. Comparing this with the 
 transcendent character of Hebrew achievement, from the time of David 
 and Solomon, we must conclude that a people who, as all admit, were 
 in the height of intellectual and literary fame in the tenth century, 
 must have had a long period of preparation before they could have 
 achieved such results. If the Moabites, Sidonians, Tyrians and Ara- 
 maeans at an early date acquired the Phoenician script, what hindered 
 the Hebrews, even though yet in Egypt, but in contact with the outer 
 world (through association with Palestinian traders), from acquiring 
 the art? It is utterly preposterous to suppose that while Phoenicians, 
 Moabites and Aramaeans were composing long inscriptions in their 
 native dialects the Hebrews had no literature at all, or wrote in the 
 Assyrian language and script. 
 
 (^). Moses and the Minaean Alphabet. Much can be said 
 in support of Hommers view that the Hebrews before the Exo- 
 dus acquired the alphabet in the Minsean or South Arabic form 
 and that Moses employed it in his writings. Moses spent forty 
 years in Midian and came under the influence of an advanced 
 Semitic civilization, and nothing prevents our holding that 
 he acquired a knowledge of the Minaean script then current 
 in Midian. All recent authorities agree that not only South- 
 em, but also Western Arabia was in early times the center 
 of a high civilization. According to Winckler, "The land 
 which produced the Yemen culture with its countless inscrip- 
 tions and great structures was no province in which Beduin 
 life controlled the intellectual culture It is impos- 
 sible that N. Arabia should have been uninfluenced by the 
 civilization of Hither Asia. Such settlements as Teima, 
 Mekka, Medina, are primitive cities, in which cults and cul- 
 tures prevailed, common to Arabia and Hither Asia as mem- 
 bers of one family" (Keils. u. A. T., 138). Winckler allows 
 that the Minaean civilization has a value "for Biblical antiquity 
 of no less significance than that of the Euphrates Valley. The 
 acme of the older kingdom of S. Arabia coincides with the 
 rise of Israel". 
 
 Having observed that certain Hebrew forms are similar to 
 the early Minaean, Hommel proceeds: "The only possible in- 
 ference that can be drawn from this is that both the Moabites 
 and Hebrews, during the period prior to the adoption of the 
 Canaanite language, that is while they still spoke a pure Arabic 
 dialect, must have originally employed the Minaean script in 
 place of the so-called Phoenician or Canaanitish" (274). That 
 
170 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Moses was conversant with Midianite culture and perhaps with 
 the Minsean script is evident from several considerations. Mid- 
 ian, which plays such an important part in the history of Moses, 
 is mentioned in the Min^an inscriptions under the name Muts- 
 ram ; its geographical position as given in the Old Testament 
 concides with the Minsean Mutsram. Moses during his 40 
 years sojourn in Midian probably learned the Minxan script. 
 
 In a recent work, Hommel adduces additional proof for 
 his view : "It is clear that in the Minaean inscriptions as in the 
 Sabsean, we have two only slightly different branches of an 
 archaic idiom early acquiring a fixed literary form, in other 
 words, a so-called literary language, Vv^hich changed but httle 
 from the middle of the second pre-Christian millennium (Mi- 
 nsean) to the eighth (Sabsean), and thence to the time of Islam. 
 This monumental language represents one and the same civiU- 
 zation extending over two thousand years" (Griindr. d. Geog. u. 
 Gesch., 150). It is the fashion in some Grafian circles to be- 
 little Hommel's conclusions, but the correctness of many of his 
 positions is corroborated every day by fresh evidence from the 
 excavations in the East; and the cumulative proof looks in 
 the direction of a high civilization in Midian and Arabia in 
 1 800- 1 500, and of an alphabet antedating in some respects the 
 Phoenician.® The existence of an early Minaean script is there- 
 fore no longer an open question ; a reasonable doubt exists, 
 however, whether the roots of this script go back as far as 
 Hommel traces them, namely 2000 B. C. In any event, IMoses 
 and the Hebrews of his day may well have been in possession 
 of an alphabetic script, either the Phoenician (the more probable 
 view), or the Minaean (less probable ).^° 
 
 (6). The Phoenician Script Long a Scriptura Privata. 
 The contention that the Phoenician script was not in existence 
 in 1400 B. C. because it is not employed in the Amarna Letters 
 is without much force. The Babylonian language and script 
 had for centuries been the medium of correspondence and was 
 understood at the Egyptian, Hittite, Mitannian, Canaanite and 
 other courts; the Phoenician would not have gained general 
 recognition within less than two or three centuries after its ori- 
 gin. The cuneiform was the scriphira sacra et piihlica; the 
 
 * "The Phoenician characters, even when employed on monuments, create 
 the impression of having been designed originally for cursive writing on papyrus; 
 East Arabia was in fact the home of the date-palm" (Hommel, op. cit.). 
 
 ^^ Hommel conceives that the Mosaic writings, originally composed in the 
 Minsean script, were subsequently transcribed into the Phoenician. 
 
EARLY OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. I7I 
 
 Phoenician circulated a long time as a scriptura profana et 
 privata. 
 
 (y). Phoenician Alphabet Knozvn to Hebrezvs in Moses- 
 Joshua Age. It is a well ascertained fact that the Oriental 
 world in the age of Moses 'Svas as highly educated and literary 
 as was Europe in the age of the Renaissance". Outside of the 
 Old Testament the literature thus far recovered is chiefly 
 Egyptian and Babylonian. That Moses and his scribes under- 
 stood and employed the cuneiform is unquestioned. If the 
 petty princelings of Canaan and the chiefs of the Beduin tribes 
 could write letters in cuneiform, we may be sure that Moses and 
 the higher classes in Israel (the Shoterim and heads of clans) 
 could also. Much greater would be their desire to acquire the 
 new and simple alphabet designed especially for their native 
 tongue (for they retained the Hebrew in Egypt). ^^ 
 
 The place-names Kiriath-sepher and Kiriath-sannah 
 (which are Hebrew) do not appear to be translations from the 
 Assyrian ; and so the books deposited there were at least in 
 part in the Canaanite language and script. The Grafians con- 
 stantly urge that a considerable part of Israel's culture was bor- 
 rowed from the Canaanites. If such be the case (which may 
 be doubted) what hindered the Israelites from obtaining the al- 
 phabet from them as early as the time of Joshua ? Subsequent 
 history shows that the Israelites were superior to the Canaanites 
 morally and intellectually. In fact the Canaanites were simply 
 outclassed.^2 And yet this degenerate people were according 
 to the current criticism the superiors and teachers of the sturdy 
 Hebrews ! ! The evidence shows that Israel at the time of the 
 Conquest l^ad already acquired the alphabet and was not depen- 
 dent upon the Canaanites. 
 
 Kittel sees in the report of the Egyptian traveller Wen- 
 Amon proof that papyrus was in great demand in Palestine as 
 writing material in iioo B. C. One passage speaks of 500 
 papyrus rolls which the Egyptians are to send to Byblos in pay- 
 ment for Lebanon wood. That this papyrus was to be used for 
 writing purposes cannot be doubted ; and the passage proves 
 "that at this time literature was extensivelv cultivated in Syria 
 
 " "We cannot suppose that a people acquainted with that mode of writing 
 (namely, the cuneiform) would relapse into illiterates when the Phoenician alpha- 
 bet took its place; much more reasonable is it to suppose that this discovery 
 would be an immense stimulus to them" (J. Robertson, Early Rehg. of Is., p., 78). 
 
 12 What literature have we from the Canaanites, of whom the Grafians make 
 so much? Practically none at all. A few seals and gems are not literature. 
 
172 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 and Palestine". The papyrus was to be delivered at Byblos, 
 the emporium of the Canaanite book-trade ; from which point 
 it was distributed to the surrounding towns. "What Kiriath- 
 sepher was to the South, Byblos was to the North" (Theolog. 
 Literath., Feb., 1911). Nothing forbids our holding that the 
 Hebrews at this time and indeed from the time of Moses used 
 papyrus rolls for their sacred literature, as indeed the constant 
 occurrence of the word ''book" implies. The probability that 
 the earliest Old Testament books were written on papyrus 
 would account for their disappearance. 
 
 The same account of Wen-Amon refers to a monument on 
 which the prince of Byblos records one of his exploits. The 
 script was obviously that of the natives, namely the Phoenician 
 and not the cuneiform or hieratic. ''Hence we are driven to 
 the conclusion that the North-Semitic, Canaanite alphabet (even 
 if not exactly in the later form) was in common use in iioo 
 B. C." (Kittel). 
 
 (8). Hozi} the Hebrews Acquired the Phoenician Script. 
 Our ignorance of the route by which the Hittites, Mitannians, 
 Cappadocians and Palestinians adopted the cuneiform script 
 is tenfold greater than our knowledge. Until the Grafians can 
 tell us how the Mitannians acquired the cuneiform as far back at 
 least as 1500 B. C, or how the Hittites came to employ the 
 same syllabary, or how and why the Cappadocians and Canaan- 
 ites adopted the same system of writing, we need not hesitate 
 to affirm that our ignorance of the exact manner in which the 
 Hebrews at an early date acquired the Phoenician script is no 
 bar to an acceptance of the fact. Again, who can tell us, by 
 what route the Moabites acquired the alphabet at a date so 
 remote that it was thoroughly naturalized in the tenth pre- 
 Christian century? Only yesterday there came to light an 
 Aramaic monument (that of Zakar, ninth century B. C.) from 
 a king and kingdom somewhere in Northern Syria, of whose 
 existence men had never dreamed. 
 
 How can we account for the use of the Phoenician script in 
 Cyprus (where the Baal-Lebanon inscription was found) in 
 1000 B. C, and in Zinjirli not much later? How was the 
 Phoenician alphabet introduced into widely separated regions at 
 an early date? No one knows; we know simply the fact. In 
 our lack of evidence regarding the history of the cuneiform, 
 Phoenician and other scripts, we do not consider it incumbent 
 upon us to prove with mathematical accuracy the manner in 
 
EARLY OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. 173 
 
 which the Hebrews acquired the alphabet; enough, however, 
 is known to disprove the assumed late date (looo B. C.) as- 
 signed by the Grafians, and to establish an early date (circa 
 1400 B. C). 
 
 C. THE HEBREWS AND THE EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE AND SCRIPT. 
 
 1. Hebreics Learned the Egyptian Language and Writing. 
 
 Something can be said to support the contention that the 
 Hebrews while in Egypt learned the Egyptian mode of writ- 
 ing and used it at the date of the Exodus. It would be a thing 
 unparalled in the history of human development, if a people as 
 talented as the Israelites had not learned to write the ordinary 
 Egyptian script. As seen above, writing was practised by the 
 Egyptians of all ranks. From the number of recovered school 
 exercises and of other proofs of writing, it would appear that 
 almost every Egyptian acquired the art. The relation of the 
 Hebrews to the Egyptians was of a character to afford ample 
 opportunity to acquire the art. Though in general dwelling 
 apart, they nevertheless came into daily contact with each other, 
 as shown in the Biblical narrative. Some Egyptians doubtless 
 learned the Hebrew language ;^^ the more favorably situated 
 Hebrews either from necessity or inclination acquired a know- 
 ledge of the Egyptian language and script. On the very day 
 of the Exodus the children of Israel '"'asked of the Egyptians 
 jewels of silver and jewels of gold and raiment, .... and 
 they let them have what they asked" (Ex. 12 : 35).^* From this 
 it may be inferred that the Egyptians and Hebrews lived in 
 close proximity, visiting back and forth, becoming in turn each 
 other's guests and of course speaking, now Hebrew now Egyp- 
 tian, according to the ability and preference of individuals. It 
 is altogether probable that during four hundred years' sojourn 
 in Egypt, the Israelites became in large degree a bi-lingual 
 people. 
 
 2. Was the Egyptian Script Employed in Writing Hebrew? 
 Attention has already been directed to the fact (see chap. IX) 
 
 that the Egyptians by means of the Standard Alphabet of 25 letters 
 
 " Rawlinson says: "As all educated Romans in the days of Cicero learned 
 Greek and all Russians in the time of Alexander I were taught French, so in the 
 days of Moses all educated Egyptians had to be familiar with a Semitic dialect, 
 which if not exactly Hebrew, was at any rate closely akin to it (Moses and his 
 Time^J- ^^ ^^. ^^ ^^^^ ^g ^^^ g^j^g gflfgj.t The latest critical com- 
 
 mentary on Exodus says: "According to E, the Israelites lived among the Egyo- 
 tians not separate in Goshen. The sojourners would be either friends staying 
 as visitors, or possibly female slaves or hired servants". (McNeile, Book of 
 Exodus, 20). 
 
174 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 were accustomed to write Semitic words, as attested by extant papy- 
 rus rolls. The Hebrews acquainted with the hieratic script could with 
 some little experimentation select a sufficient number of current con- 
 ventional signs for the expression of Hebrew words and sentences.^^ 
 A people to whom subsequent history ascribes a high order of inventive 
 ability and literary skill would certainly find means of writing down 
 simple Hebrew sentences by the aid of the Egyptian syllabary. The 
 influence of the Egyptians on the Israelites was of such a character 
 culturally and religiously that the Exodus was a necessity if Israel were 
 to fulfill its mission and escape the contamination of Egypt. 
 
 Nothing forbids our holding that the Hebrews at the Exodus had 
 acquired a knowledge of writing sufficient to enable them to use 
 Egyptian characters in writing Hebrew. "As far back as the XI 
 dynasty (c. 2060) the Egyptians adopted ?. new method of writing 
 proper names, particularly foreign names. Instead of using signs for 
 the consonants only, as was the case in the ordinary script, they began 
 to employ signs for syllables composed of consonants with the vowels, 
 a, e, u" (Paton, Early Hist. Sy. and Pal, p., 50). As the Hebrews 
 dwelt in Goshen not far from the capital and the seats of culture, they 
 naturally became acquainted with the system of expressing foreign 
 words in the select or special Egyptian alphabet. These considera- 
 tions meet the objections of Reuss that neither the mass of the people 
 nor the Levites could read or write." 
 
 3. Literary Attainments of Moses. 
 
 The priinary question here is whether Moses had the requi- 
 site literary quaUfications to compose laws and to write them in 
 Hebrew. The statement that ''Moses was instructed in all the 
 wisdom of the Egyptians" (Acts 7: 22) is interpreted dififer- 
 ently by the two opposing schools of Old Testament criticism. 
 The conservatives regard the passage as a direct proof of their 
 contention that Moses had a knowledge of writing sufficient 
 for that day. The Grafians find here no historical credibility, 
 but, in the language of Stade, only *'a haggadic development 
 of the legendary eleinents of the Exodus-narratives" (A. T. 
 Theologie, Seite, 38). The correct position, briefly stated, is 
 to this effect : "The adopted son of a princess required a prince- 
 ly education This was to fit him for a high office un- 
 der the government, if not even for the Egyptian throne. But 
 in God's intention it was to fit him for the leadership of the 
 Hebrews. He was possessed of great natural ability, and the 
 training which he received schooled him for the great work for 
 
 1' One need but turn to the transcription alphabet in any Egyptian Grammar 
 to convince himself that the Hebrew letters with a few exceptions' were expressed 
 by Egyptian characters. 
 
 i« R. S. Poole says: "The documents of the scribes of that age not only 
 show by their accurate translation of Semitic words that the writers had a mastery 
 of the foreign sounds they wrote; but more than this, it was the fashion to in- 
 troduce Semitic words into the Egyptian language". 
 
EARLY OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. 1 75 
 
 which he was destined". (J. D. Davis' Die. of Bible, 493). 
 Doubtless some of the traditions related by Philo and Josephus 
 are not literally correct, but they rest on a basis of fact and his- 
 torical verisimiHtude.^^ 
 
 A recent English writer, Dr. S. Kinns in "Graven in the Rock", 
 furnishes a graphic picture of what he conceives to have been the early- 
 education of Moses. "The youthful Moses would doubtless have been 
 shaved in the same way [i. c. all his hair shaved off] and kept scru- 
 pulously clean by the princesses's attendants, who would train him 
 in all refined manners then prevalent among the highest circles of the 
 Egyptians. His residence would be chiefly in the apartments of his 
 royal mother by adoption, where he would be furnished with every 
 
 luxury Like other children, he would have to learn to read and 
 
 write; and I think that he would have been taught both the hiero- 
 glyphic and hieratic writing, particularly the latter, which was a cursive 
 hand used for correspondence and business purposes. As a prince, 
 doubtless, it would have been necessary for him to master the hiero- 
 glyphic writing, in order that he might read the inscriptions on the 
 monuments and tombs. . . . After being trained by his private tutors, 
 he would be sent to one of the two great Universities which were at 
 On and at Hermopolis. Tradition says that Heliopolis was chosen ; 
 it was nearer to Memphis than Hermopolis and would have a special 
 attraction for any Hebrew youth, as Joseph's wife was a daughter of 
 
 the priest of On At this University there can be no doubt that 
 
 Moses completed his education as a lay student, for we cannot con- 
 ceive of his becoming a priest" (op. cit., pp., 308, 310, 314-5)- 
 
 4. Was the Lam Originally Written in the Egyptian Hieratic? 
 
 But we desire to know more especially whether in receiv- 
 ing the laws, Moses actually engraved them on stone in the 
 complicated Egyptian script. It must be remembered that the 
 usual writing material in Egypt was papyrus and the brush, 
 rather than stone and the stylus. And yet a large number of 
 lapidarian records of all kinds has come down to us, some of 
 them of a character similar to what the situation in the time of 
 Moses allowed. In fact some of the inscriptions were cut in 
 limestone or rather scratched thereon with little labor. One 
 need but examine the Egyptian inscriptions in the British Mu- 
 seum, or the Louvre, or in the large universities in this country 
 to be convinced that the Egyptian scribes attained wonderful 
 skill in cutting pictures of birds, animals and natural objects. 
 
 " Some of these traditions merit reproduction here. It is affirmed that he 
 was educated at Heliopolis (StraDo 17: i) and grew up there as a priest with the 
 Egyptian name Osarsiph (Manetho, apud Jos. c. A p. I: 26, 28, 31). He was 
 instructed in the whole range of Egyptian and Babylonian literature. From the 
 Egyptians he learned Mathematics, in order to test truth accurately (Philo, Vtta 
 Af. I. 5). He imparted a knowledge of grammar to the Hebrews, whence it 
 spread to Phcenicia and Greece *,£upol. apud Clem. Alex. Strom. I). He headed 
 a successful expedition against the Ethiopians and founded the city of Hermopolis 
 (Jos. Ant. II: 10). 
 
176 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITEIL\TURE. 
 
 Indeed the task of merely cutting the characters was not dif- 
 ficult unless the stone happened to be unusually hard and flinty. 
 Not a few of the inscriptions are on limestone, a comparatively 
 tractable material. Moses must have possessed the skill of at 
 least the average Egyptian schoolboy or workman, who 
 scratched hieroglyphics everywhere. 
 
 In the account of the giving of the law it is said : ''And 
 the tables were the work of God and the writing was the writ- 
 ing of God graven upon the tables" (Ex. 32: 16). The 
 ascription of the writing to God is an anthropomorphism which 
 need occasion no difficulty here. God is represented as doing 
 what his agent Moses does. The words, "graven upon the 
 tables", if interpreted strictly, would mean that they were cut 
 in the stone. The Hebrew word haruth (found only here in 
 the O. T.), rendered "graven", but practically the same as 
 harash, means to cut on wood, stone or stucco. The situation 
 would seem to demand that Moses had with him or prepared 
 on the moment stone tablets into which the letters were cut. 
 It is known that scribes went about supplied with writing ma- 
 terial suitable for any emergency. 
 
 Another explanation has been suggested. In Deut. 2y : 
 2, 3, we read : "Thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaster 
 them with plaster: and thou shalt write upon them all the 
 words of this law, when thou are passed over". On this. Driv- 
 er says : "That is, coat them with lime or gypsum, in order to 
 secure a surface on which the writing inscribed might be clearly 
 legible. The letters were not to be carved in the stone (as is 
 usually the case in ancient inscriptions), but to be inscribed, 
 with some suitable pigment, upon a prepared surface. The 
 practice was Egyptian".^^ It is possible that Moses had small 
 stone tablets which he covered with plaster, on which the deca- 
 log was inscribed. Since this was a common Egyptian practice, 
 with which Moses was acquainted, the writing of the law was 
 not the extremely difficult task which it is sometimes represent- 
 ed to have been. 
 
 (i). Size and Weight of the Original Tables of the Law. Reuss 
 urges an objection requiring consideration here. He claims that the 
 tables oi the Law, if containing originally the full text of Ex. 20, 
 
 ^* Deut., p., 296. Driver adds: "In Egypt it was the custom to put a layer 
 of stucco, or paint, over the stone used in architecture, of whatever quality, even 
 granite: and in the case of sandstone, which was porous, a coat of calcareous com- 
 position was laid on before the paint was applied. The black pigment, used in 
 Egypt, consisted of ivory or black bone; and figures, or characters inscribed by 
 this method were very permanent". 
 
EARLY OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. 1 77 
 
 would be too heavy to be carried by an octogenarian. He assumes 
 that the 620 letters of the Hebrew text would occupy at least a square 7 
 metre ^^and a half of surface, counting 25 square centimeters for each •^ 
 
 letter.^** Accordingly the decalog occupied more than 16 square feet I 
 
 of surface, and each table must have been four feet long and two wide. 
 Stone tables of such weight and size would probably be too heavy to 
 be carried down a mountain side by one man. 
 
 Concerning this hypothesis the following may be noted. Reuss 
 supposes that 25 square centimeters or eight square inches and a frac- 
 tion were necessary for each letter. This would mean that each letter 
 ^yas two and a half inches square — surely an extravagant assump- 
 tion. One need but examine the ordinary Papyri, or the longer 
 Egyptian documents, or better still, the so-called Israel Stele of 
 Menerptah, to convince himself that the Egyptian characters are often 
 very small, and that the space required for the Ten Words even in the 
 Egyptian script is upon the whole within very moderate limits. From 
 a comparison of representative inscriptions in Egyptian hieratic, cunei- 
 form and Phoenician we reach the conclusion that one square inch for 
 each letter is amply sufficient under the circumstances. Accordingly 
 the whole of the decalog would require 620 square inches, or a surface 
 about 25 inches square. Two tablets, then, each two feet and one inch 
 long and a fraction over a foot wide, would contain the Ten Com- 
 mandments. But Reuss ignores the fact that "the tables were written 
 on both sides ; on the one side and on the other were they written" 
 (Ex. 32: 15). We may accordingly reduce the tablets by one-half,, 
 that is, each tablet would be a trifle over a foot in length and width,, 
 not much larger in fact, though somewhat heavier than a school-boy's, 
 slate. Tables of this size could easily be carried by Moses/" 
 
 (2) No Evidence of the Use of the Hieratic. If therefore 
 the issue hinged on the mere possibility of the use of the Egyp- 
 tian script by Moses, no serious objection could be urged. Un- 
 fortunately, we have nowhere any indication that the Egyptian 
 script (whether hieroglyphic or hieratic) was at any time, either 
 in the Mosaic or any later age, employed by the Hebrews in 
 their sacred books. It probably was used occasionally in the 
 pre-Mosaic period in the transcription of proper names, but not 
 in the writing of Hebrew narratives. But in the event of its 
 use, as Reuss well says, there must have been a time when the 
 Hebrews exchanged it for the Phoenician script. Of this we 
 we have no proof whatever. 
 
 " "Ce texte se compose de 620 lettres. Avec I'ecriture carree actuelle, ce 
 texte, en ne tenant aucan compte des marges et des intarlifjnes (la separation des 
 mots n'etant pas d'usage) aurait demande au moins un metre carre et demi de 
 superficies, meme en ne calculant pour chaque lettre que I'espace minima de 25 
 cm. carres" (L'Histoire Sainte, int., p., 66). 
 
 2° Substantially the same calculation would hold in case the decalog were 
 written in cuneiform, or in Hebrew. 
 
 12 
 
178 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 D. THE HEBREWS AND THE BABYLONIAN LANGUAGE AND SCRIPT. 
 
 Since the discovery of the Amarna Letters the opinion has 
 gradually gained ground that Moses and the early Old Testa- 
 ment writers employed the Babylonian language and script for 
 literary purposes. The cuneiform script was current in Pal- 
 estine from the middle of the third millennium down to and in- 
 cluding the Amarna period (1400 B. C). How much later 
 is a matter of dispute. It is probable that it continued in use 
 several centuries longer. The recent discovery of the Gezer 
 and other cuneiform inscriptions would indicate that here and 
 there the Babylonian language was employed after the occupa- 
 tion by the Israelites. As one's position on this subject will 
 determine in some measure his attitude on the antiquity of He- 
 brew literature in general and the character of Mosaic litera- 
 ture in particular, we inquire into the facts. 
 
 I. The Library Chest of Tell Taan<ich. 
 
 The cuneiform tablets recently discovered at Tell Taannek, 
 the Biblical Taanach, in the plain of Jezreel, prove, it is alleged, 
 that the Babylonian language and script were employed quite 
 generally in Canaan some time after the Amarna period. Ernst 
 Sellin, a German archaeologist, unearthed in 1902 — 4 the ancient 
 city, which flourished from 2000 to 600 B. C. In one of the 
 structures, identified through the peculiar stone architecture, 
 as old Canaanite, Sellin found a library chest of the Prince of 
 Taanach, which contained several clay tablets recording the 
 names of persons. Near-by, two letters and other inscriptions 
 on clay tablets were discovered. ^^ The writing is in the Baby- 
 lonian language and script. Sellin conjectures that originally 
 the library contained other valuable writings which by some 
 mischance were lost. 
 
 From internal evidence, Sellin assigns the tablets to a per- 
 iod some 50 years after the Amarna Letters. It is of the great- 
 est significance, he remarks, that the correspondence between 
 the native princes was in the Babylonian language, for hereafter 
 no one can affirm that the cuneiform was employed only in for- 
 eign correspondence, and not among the people. Though the 
 large tablets are greatly mutilated, it is certain that they con- 
 tain lists of names sent to the ruler of Taanach. In a later 
 monograph, Sellin returns to the language and script of the 
 tablets, declaring that the paramount value of the discovery lies 
 
 21 See Tell Taannek, von E. Sellin, Wien, 1904. Also Eine Nachlese auf dem 
 Tell Taannek in Palaestina. 
 
EARLY OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. 1 79 
 
 in the fact that we now see how extensively in that age writing 
 was carried on in the cuneiform script, even in a country dis- 
 trict of Palestine.22 
 
 These tablets render it clear that Babylonian was employed 
 in a Canaanite town in 1350; but do they prove that the men 
 of Taanach did not speak the Canaanite language or write in 
 the Phoenician script? Not at all. The fact that many Ger- 
 man books and periodicals are published in this country is no 
 proof that English is not the language of the United States. 
 We must suppose that the Canaanite language of this date (as 
 also the Hebrew, if the Exodus had already taken place), the 
 language of the mass of the people, was sufficiently distinct 
 from the Babylonian to be regarded as a separate language with 
 its own script. Nothing in the above tablets indicates that when 
 the people of Taanach or any other Palestinian town wrote they 
 employed the cuneiform script. 
 
 2. The Gezer Cuneiform Tablets. 
 
 The Panbabylonists claim to have received strong support 
 from some recently discovered cuneiform tablets in Palestine. 
 Of these, the most important, perhaps, are the Gezer tablets 
 found by Macalister. They are deeds of the sale of land, which 
 are supposed to have been prepared for ancient dwellers of the 
 place. *'The dates of these documents are 651 and 649 and they 
 prove that under Ashurbanipal, fields at Gezer, one of which 
 belonged to a man with a Jewish name Nathaniah, were sold, 
 and the sales were registered, according to Assyrian formulas 
 in the Assyrian language and in the one case by a notary with 
 so unmistakable an Assyrian name as Nirgal-Sharzzur" (G. 
 A. Smith). This discovery shows that the Assyrian language 
 was used in a town 20 miles from Jerusalem as late as the mid- 
 dle of the seventh century B. C. {i. e. on the assumption, denied 
 by some, that the tablets were produced in Gezer, and not car- 
 ried thither from some other place). But it does not show that 
 the cuneiform was then or at any time ordinarily employed by 
 the people of Gezer. 
 
 We may account in several ways for the use of the Assyri- 
 an language in these tablets. Although Gezer was a Levitical 
 city, it did not come permanently into the possession of the 
 
 2' "I am aware that skeptics will regard the 7 foreign and 5 native letters as 
 isolated incidents, and the correspondence as an exceptional peculiarity of the 
 Prince. But these tablets together with those of \marna and Lachish prove that 
 the Babylonian script was employed by the Canaanite princes in 1350; and in fact 
 no other was known to them" (Eine Nachlese auf dem Tell Taannek in Palaes.J. 
 
l8o ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Israelites until the time of Solomon (Josh. 21 : 21 ; i K. 9 : 16). 
 Afterward during the Assyrian domination, it became a seat 
 of Assyrian influence and of the Ashtoreth (Astarte) religion. 
 In fact Macalister was so fortunate as to find the foundation of 
 the temple of Astarte in Gezer. "Gezer down to the Babylon- 
 ian Exile was a center of the Baal-Ashtoreth cult".^^ All this 
 implies an influential, if not a large Assyrian population ; thero 
 need be no surprise, therefore, at the use of the Assyrian lan- 
 guage under the circumstances; but it must have been excep- 
 tional in Palestine. 
 
 The political and religious situation in Judah in the seventh cen- 
 tury throws light on the subject. The early years of the long reign 
 of Manasseh (697-641) witnessed the introduction of Assyrian cus- 
 toms. The armies of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal overran all Pales- 
 tine. Ahaz had imported Assyrian models in the furnishings of the 
 Temple, and Manasseh "reared up altars for Baal, and made an 
 Asherah, as did Ahab, king of Israel, and worshipped all the host of 
 heaven, and served them" (2 K. 21: 3). Assyria being dominant, 
 it is natural that here and there Assyrian soldiers should remain in 
 Palestine and retain for a while their mother tongue. It is even pos- 
 sible that not a few may have settled there, or that an Assyrian gar- 
 rison was quartered there, as suggested by Gray.^* , 
 
 Benzinger, however, holds that the custom of writing such com- 
 pacts in the Assyrian language in Palestine dates from an early 
 period and that the hypothesis of an Assyrian garrison does not meet 
 the conditions of the case. The dominance of the Assyrians in Pales- 
 tine and the tendency to ape foreign customs would encourage the use 
 of the Assyrian in a deed of sale to which one of the parties was an 
 Assyrian. So much certainly must be granted; but this is far from 
 proving the proposition that the Assyrian language was employed 
 at this time by the Israelites in general. In fact the Gezer Calendar 
 inscription and the Samaria ostraca written in archaic Hebrew letters 
 are incontrovertible proof that the Hebrews two centuries before the 
 period in question employed in public as well as private affairs the 
 Hebrew language and script. 
 
 3. Babylonian Language in Use in Israel. 
 
 We must again remind the reader that the problem before 
 us is the determination of the original form of the early Hebrew 
 writings and of the m.ode of preserving ancient Hebrew records 
 — surely a vital question for all Old Testament students. In 
 this section we inquire to what extent, if at all, the Hebrews 
 were acquainted with and employed the Babylonian language 
 and script in addition to their native language. 
 
 " G. A. Barton, Bib. World, XXIV, p., 167 — 9, See, further, Macalister, 
 Pal. Ex. F. Quar. St., Oct., 1902. 
 
 " "What more probable than that an Assyrian garrison was resident there 
 and that Assyrian parties to the deed of sale employed an Assyrian notary? Cer- 
 tain it is that some of the signatures bear pure Assyrian names, certain also that 
 one bears a Jewish name" (G. B. Gray, Expositor, May, 1909). 
 
EARLY OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. l8l 
 
 (i). Babylonian Language during the Exile. Did the 
 Hebrews during the Exile learn the Babylonian language and 
 script ? Yes !" say some recent writers. No I^® say others. 
 Col. Condc^r writes : "It is evident that during the Captivity the 
 Jews must have been familiar with the use of brick tablets, 
 and of the cuneiform script ; for these were the official methods 
 of the Babylonians, and were used also in trading transactions 
 of the age'" (op. cit., p., 20). To what extent the Jews of the 
 Exile mingled with Babylonians and studied Babylonian litera- 
 ture is not known definitely; but it is probable that the more 
 enterprising spirits came under the influence of Babylonian 
 thought. At the same time, the Jews formed practically a 
 community by themselves. "The first thing that strikes us is 
 the fact that in some way from the very beginning the solidarity 
 of the survivors of Israel was maintained. There was no oblit- 
 eration of any large number at any time On the whole 
 
 the Hebrew society held well together in exile. The fidelity 
 with which the family records and genealogies were kept was 
 both cause and effect of this social survival" (McCurdy, Hist. 
 PropJi. Mon., Ill, 351, 353). 
 
 The Exile was for the Hebrews a period of no little liter- 
 ary activity, both in arranging and editing the ancient scrip- 
 tures and in producing new works. ^^ It is natural, too, that 
 they would be influenced by the literary methods of their neigh- 
 bors. It is probable that the Hebrew scribes, priests and 
 prophets acquired a knowledge of the Babylonian, but we have 
 no trace in the exilic or post-exilic books that the Hebrews, even 
 if conversant with Babylonian literature, used this language in 
 any of their writings."^ We know that they gradually came 
 to use the Aramaic, for parts of the Old Testament are written 
 in that dialect. Until more definite proof is forthcoming, the 
 view of Conder that the Jews as a community were familiar 
 with the cuneiform must be pronounced premature.^^ 
 
 25 The First Bible. Col. C. R. Conder. Blackwoods, London. 
 
 -^ Strack, Koenig, Kittel. 
 
 " "A special incentive was the habit of writing, almost universal among the 
 people of the land, and necessarily made general among the Hebrews as they 
 came to be engaged in varied business. Add to this the effect upon a gifted people 
 of a literary atmosphere and of a great literature of immemorial antiquity 
 (McCurdy, op. cit., p., 382). 
 
 -* Lack of space forbids a discussion of the Graf-Wellhausen dictum that not 
 a little of the Priest Code (as e. g. the account of the creation, the flood, etc.,) 
 was derived from Babylonian sources during the Exile. It must suffice to remark 
 that the thesis has never been proved. 
 
 20 In fact even in Babylonia during the Exile the language of the people was 
 largely Aramaic. "The tongue of the common people seems to have been Aramaic, 
 
l82 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 (2). Babylonian Language among the Hebrews in Assy- 
 rian Period. The advocates of the Panbabylonist hypothesis 
 derive alleged support from the state of religion and society 
 in Judah in the so-called later Assyrian period (735-609). Ac- 
 cording to Benzinger : **Two things are clear : the script of 
 Canaan in the Amarna period was the cuneiform ; the Israel- 
 ites brought with them no other script of their own from the 
 desert into the land of culture, but adopted the one current 
 there. This does not, however, exclude the claim that the al- 
 phabetic script was known at an earlier period in Canaan. 
 There, too, it was originally the vulgar script in contrast with 
 the official cuneiform script employed for all official documents, 
 
 compacts, etc In the period of dependence on Assyria 
 
 (since Jehu, 842) the cuneiform writing again came into use; 
 when Jehu paid tribute to Assyria, the two courts must have 
 had regular communication, and this was naturally in the cune- 
 iform script" (Heb. AchaeoL, 2te Aitf., S., 176). 
 
 Referring to the Gezer cuneiform tablets, Benzinger con- 
 tinues : 'This shows that the custom of preparing such deeds 
 descends from the remote past, as also that the cuneiform script 
 was employed for this purpose. But the cuneiform script was 
 also the script of law and tribunals, and not merely of inter- 
 national communication. Just as kings and princelings in the 
 Amarna age had secretaries who could conduct correspon- 
 dence in this foreign language and script, so there were at trib- 
 unals (in Israel) similar learned scribes conversant with the 
 script and language. But the writing at tribunals is the sacred 
 writing, for justice is a part of religion, in Israel as elsewhere. 
 It is in fact the writing of God (Ex. 31 : 18; 32: 16). It is 
 
 therefore the writing of the learned In Israel as in 
 
 Babylonia the alphabetic script was in early times the vulgar 
 script, which served originally the purposes of business life. 
 It was at the same time the national script, in opposition to the 
 cuneiform, because it allowed the use of the native language. 
 .... Josiah's reform, which at the same time implied a 
 breaking away from Assyria, may also have signalized the end 
 of the cuneiform script and the recognition of the national al- 
 
 which eventually crowded out the Babylonian with its most difficult cuneiform 
 script. The intercommercial use of the language, the fact that many Western 
 Semites had emigrated to this region, and that for writing purposes the Aramaic 
 with its short alphabet was infinitely easier to learn than the difficult cuneiform 
 script with its five hundred characters, give us reasons for the theory that the 
 Aramaic gradually supplanted the Babylonian as the spoken language of the land" 
 (Clay, Light on O. T., p., 397). 
 
EARLY OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. 1 83 
 
 phabet. That Jeremiah wrote the purchase deed of his land 
 in cuneiform is scarcely probable, Jer. 32: 10" (op. cit., 177).^^ 
 
 The points of special interest in Benzinger's position are 
 that among the Hebrews the Phoenician script was at first and 
 indeed for an indefinite period regarded as a "vulgar" or "de- 
 motic", and the cuneiform as the "official" or "sacred" script ; 
 and that only at a late period (just before the Exile) was the 
 Babylonian language and script supplanted by the Hebrew. 
 We review these allegations in detail. 
 
 a. Had the Hebrezvs ever a Hieratic Script? The hypo- 
 thesis of a variety of scripts in Israel is not in itself impossible 
 or without precedent. The Egyptians had a sacred or hieratic 
 script, employed by the priestly class, and a demotic, or vulgar 
 script in use among the people. Other instances might be cited, 
 but the custom is exceptional. That the Hebrews ever made 
 such a distinction is improbable, and must be established by 
 evidence. Is there such ?^^ 
 
 A passage in Isaiah, always variously interpreted, is now 
 cited in support of the new view. In 8 : i we read : "Take 
 thee a great tablet and write with the pen of a man, etc." The 
 Revised Version, margin, has "in common characters". What 
 is the meaning of this? Evidently the "great tablet" is a tablet 
 of wood, stone, clay or metal sufficiently large to contain an 
 inscription to be set up in a public place and easily read by the 
 people. The writing "with the pen of a man" was understood 
 by all the older authorities as denoting large and plainly written 
 letters in the archaic Hebrew script. Thus Skinner says : "Easily 
 legible and understood by the people. Such a direction bears 
 witness to an extensive knowledge of writing in Isaiah's time" 
 (Camh. Bib., 65). According to Dillmann it is "a script cut 
 with a stylus, i. e. characters which the common man (Deut. 3 : 
 II ; 2 S. 7: 14; Hos. 6: 7) can read; probably not in contrast 
 with a smaller cursive script of the learned, or even in the ar- 
 chaic Hebrew script compared with the Aramaic, but simply in 
 a plain script easily read by the people" (Kom., p., y6). The 
 natural meaning is that the prophet shall write the message in 
 clear and bold characters. 
 
 30 Why not go the whole length of the hypothesis, as Winckler does, and hold 
 that he did? What Benzinger says as to the scope of Josiah's reform is also 
 without the shadow of proof. 
 
 31 The alleged Hebrew custom is really not parallel to the Egyptian, for 
 while in the latter case various scripts were employed to write the same language, 
 in the former it is the Babylonian language and script which is said to be sacred 
 and the Heb. lang. and script "the vulgar" or "demotic". 
 
184 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 In Opposition to this we are told : ''The prophet Isaiah is 
 expiessly commanded to write in the 'script of a man', that is 
 in the vulgar [Phoenician] script" (Benzinger). The same opin- 
 ion is expressed by Jeremias, who suggests that if the phrase 
 "the pen of a man" designate the archaic Hebrew script in con- 
 trast with the cuneiform, the latter in Isaiah's time would be re- 
 garded as a sacred or hieratic script. In that event, says Jere- 
 mias, the words, "graven upon the tables (Ex. 32: 16)", would 
 be a circumlocution for "cuneiform script". ^^ Neither Ben- 
 zinger nor Jeremias offers any direct proof that such a distinc- 
 tion ever obtained in Israel. 
 
 If we understand Benzinger and Jeremias they intend to 
 convey the impression that the prophet, if not otherwise direct- 
 ed, would have employed the Babylonian-Assyrian language in 
 uttering the prophecy, and this would imply that his prophecies 
 were written in that language. Is this probable? Is there any- 
 thing to support such a view ? Is there a shadow of proof that 
 Isaiah could write the cuneiform? In any event prophecies 
 written in a foreign tongue and script would have been sealed 
 letters to the people. 
 
 b. Further Consideration of Babylonian-Assyrian Lan- 
 guage in Israel. Again, we are told : "That the Aramaean lan- 
 guage was known to the upper classes in Jerusalem in the days 
 of Hezekiah is definitely stated in the Bible (2 K. 18: 16; Is. 
 36 : 11) and it appears equally clear that the cuneiform script 
 was also understood by the Jews of this age 2 K. 19: 14; Is. 
 37: 14)" (Conder, op. cit., p., 22). The letter (Heb. hassepha- 
 rim, letters, referred to in the two immediately preceding pas- 
 sages cited by Conder) sent by Sennacharib to Hezekiah was 
 probably, though not certainly, written in the Assyrian language 
 and script. In that event it would be translated by the court 
 scribes. But since Aramaic was the language of international 
 communication in the eighth century, the letter may have been 
 in that language and script, which was current throughout the 
 East and of course well understood in Jerusalem. The same is 
 true, mutatis nmtandis, of the "letters" sent by Merodach- 
 Baladan to Hezekiah (2 K. 20: 12). These passages indicate 
 that in all probability the Assyrian language was understood at 
 the court of Hezekiah, but they do not prove that the people in 
 general understood it. According to 2 K. 18 : 26, the people 
 
 ^ A. Jeremias, Das A. T. im Lich. d. Orients, 424. 
 
EARLY OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. 185 
 
 did not understand Aramaic; and it is less likely that they 
 understood the Assyrian. ^^ 
 
 Benzinger's statements that the Assyrian language was understood 
 at the court of Jehu and that the Gezer cuneiform tablets are proof 
 of the use of cuneiform in drawing up deeds may be allowed; but 
 this by no means shows that the "Keilschrift" was ever officially adopt- 
 ed by the Hebrews or formed any appreciable element in their national 
 life. Benzinger has in no way proved that the writing of the Hebrew 
 court was in cuneiform, that the prophets employed it, that it was 
 "auch in Israel die Schrift der Religion und der Verwaltung his auf 
 Hiskia", or that the Hebrews at the time of Isaiah or in any period of 
 their history distinguished between a sacred (cuneiform) and a vulgar 
 (Phoenician) script. He merely assumes what the whole Graf- 
 Kuenen-Wellhausen school has all along assumed, that the Hebrews 
 at the Exodus were too ignorant and illiterate to have acquired the 
 Phoenician script, or he adopts with the same negative school the 
 exploded hypothesis that the Phoenician script was not invented until 
 about 1200 B. C. and did not reach the Hebrews at the earliest until 
 1000 B. C, and then only through the Canaanites". 
 
 c. Winckler's Hypothesis. Benzinger and Jeremias adopt 
 substantially the hypothesis announced by Hugo Winckler sev- 
 eral years ago, that the cuneiform was employed by the Hebrews 
 until about the time of the Exile. His thesis runs thus : The 
 alphabet was employed in Canaan as a 'Vulgar" script in oppo- 
 sition to the cuneiform, the script of government and letters. 
 The ''demotic" script sustained the same relation to the cunei- 
 form as the language of the people in the Middle Ages to the 
 Latin of the learned professions, for the alphabet was employed 
 from the first in the popular language, that is Canaanite, and 
 then Hebrew and Aramaic. Assuming that cuneiform writing 
 was employed in Israel for the same purpose as in the Euphra- 
 tes valley, Winckler seeks to determine when it was supplanted 
 by the Phoenician or "vulgar" script. Since the earliest in- 
 scriptions in the Phoenician script are later than looo B. C, 
 Winckler holds that the period of its use in Israel runs parallel 
 with the decline of Assyrian influence.^* 
 
 Winckler allows that meanwhile of course the Phoenician 
 script was used in the "monumental records" of the kings, but 
 that this does not imply its use as the medium of expression 
 in education and religion. One may ask. Why not ? If it could 
 be employed in the former case, why not in the latter? The 
 
 «3 "There are many known facts concerning the use of Aramaic in Babylonia, 
 Assyria, and Palestine, which in the centuries before and after the Exile are sug- 
 gestive of a very general usage of the language. We can infer that Aramaic wa3 
 the language of diplomacy in the time of Sennacherib from the episode in 2 K. 18: 
 36" (Clay, Light etc., p., 396). 
 
 ^* See "Der Gebrauch der Keilschrift be* den Juden" in Altorientalische Far- 
 schungen, III, 165—76. Von Hugo Winckler. 
 
l86 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Gezer Calendar tablet and the Samaria ostraca, as well as the 
 Jeroboam and other early seals clearly refute Winckler. One 
 can indeed, says Winckler, compose government orders and 
 historical reports in a cultureless language, but not real litera- 
 ture. But surely the Hebrew of the David-Hezekiah period 
 was as perfect and highly cultivated a language as the Assy- 
 rian of that age ; and as to literary quality the early Old Testa- 
 ment books are at least on a par with, if not superior to, the best 
 Babylonian-Assyrian literature. 
 
 (a). Winckler on Is. 8: i; 8: i6. The only proof that Winckler 
 considers it necessary to adduce is the affirmHtion that Is. 8 : i implies 
 a distinction between a "sacred" and a "vulgar" language and script 
 and that Is. 8: i6 refers to a tablet prepared in the Assyrian manner. 
 Instead of the usual rendering, "bind up the testimony, seal the tablet 
 among my disciples" (8: i6) Winckler by an arbitrary emendation 
 of the Hebrew translates: "description (of the compact), witnesses, 
 seal, legal conditions and scholar". The latter, we are told, is the 
 Assyrian dupsar, the learned scribe who drew up the document in 
 cuneiform, not in Hebrew. The conclusion is reached that the Israel- 
 ites made use of tablets and writing material in the manner of the 
 Assyrians, a proposition which might have been sustained without a 
 mutilation of the Hebrew text, but which does not prove what Winck- 
 ler asserts. 
 
 (b). Winckler on Jeremiah 32: 10. Jeremiah Z'^'- lo: "And I 
 subscribed the deed, and sealed it, and called witnesses and weighed 
 him the money in the balances", is adduced by Winckler in support of 
 his view. The common interpretation of this transaction is as fol- 
 lows : "Jeremiah made out and signed in the presence of witnesses, 
 whose signatures were added, two copies of the deed of purchase, spe- 
 cifying the particulars of the land, and the conditions under which 
 he bought it. He then caused one of the deeds to be sealed up and 
 the other left open, the former to be referred to, in case at any time 
 it were suspected that the latter had been tampered with" (Streane, 
 Jeremiah, 210). Winckler, however, holds that "we have to do with 
 a clay tablet which like the archaic Babylonian tablets consists of an 
 inner tablet and an outer covering, both of which contain the same 
 text. Of these the outer one is sealed. This is called here the open 
 one". W. adds : "The sealing implies clay, for otherwise something 
 would be said of the material to be sealed". It is not clear what 
 Winckler aims to establish by showing that the "deed" was on clay 
 tablets; the traditional view does not hinge on the contention that 
 parchment or papyrus was used exclusively by the Hebrews, though 
 the narrative in Jer. 36: 2 f implies a parchment roll. The Hebrews 
 used also stone and clay for writing. Winckler himself says : "Mani- 
 festly it does not follow from the use of the double clay tablet, that it 
 was written in the cuneiform script. This is excluded by the date 
 under consideration." That is, in the time of Jeremiah both the He- 
 brew language and the Phoenician script were employed even in legal 
 documents. For aught to the contrary they might also have been 
 employed by Isaiah a century earlier and even in the time of David. 
 
EARLY OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. 1 8/ 
 
 Winckler finally suggests two dates when the Phoenician became 
 the official script of the Hebrews: "We have between Isaiah and Jere- 
 miah two occasions when the new style may have been introduced: 
 first, in the time of Hezekiah's legislation, which was based presum- 
 ably on the Book of the Jehovist (J) ; or, second, the Book of Deut. 
 in the time of Josiah. The former seems more probable; because 
 Hezekiah's reform represents the first positive act of Judah in con- 
 trast with the dependence on Assyria under Ahaz". It has been 
 shown that not only had the Hebrew language and Phoenician script 
 been employed in Israel in early times for the purposes assigned by 
 Winckler to the cuneiform, but also that they had become the lan- 
 guage and script of law, literature, education and religion as early as 
 the time of Solomon, and probably at the Exodus. 
 
 (^). No Babylonian Influence in Early Regal Period. Even 
 if it be found that Assyrian influence in Israel in the time of 
 Jehu and Hezekiah may have led to the use of the Assyrian 
 language in diplomacy, no trace of such tendency exists in 
 the pre-Assyrian period (1037-875). The Hebrews were left 
 to develope their own national life and consciousness without 
 any perceptible foreign interference. This is the period when 
 they cuhivated in a special sense their native literature, histori- 
 cal, prophetical and poetical. The language was the Hebrew, 
 the script the Phoenician. This is shown archaeologically by 
 the Siloam inscription (700 B. C), the Gezer Calendar tablet 
 (800), the Samaria ostraca (850), the Jeroboam seal (920), 
 and indirectly by the Moabite Stone (900) and the Baal Leba- 
 non inscription (1000). 
 
 Ther'i is absolutely no trace in any inscription thus far un- 
 earthed that the Hebrews of this period employed the cunei- 
 form in their literature. Even Benzinger and Winckler con- 
 cede that ''the earliest extant monuments in the alphabetic 
 script, the royal inscriptions of Mesha and of Zinjirli", prove 
 a temporary decline in Assyrian influence in the period sub- 
 sequent to 1000. But Benzinger holds that this by no means 
 proves that the cuneiform ''disappeared from religious use in 
 the temple and from official use in legal documents". What 
 evidence does he offer that the Keilschrift still retamed (if 
 indeed it ever acquired) a footing in Israel? None whatever.^^^ 
 4. Early Old Testament Books in Cuneiform. 
 
 The possibilities of the cuneiform have led some to argue 
 that Moses wrote his laws in the cuneiform script. Lately two 
 
 35 It is not unlikely that the scribes and men of letters in Israel from Abra- 
 ham to Moses Joshua, David and Hezekiah, understood the cuneiform; but the 
 coSention here is that the Old Testament was a native product written originally 
 in the Hebrew language and script. 
 
l88 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 English scholars, Col. C. R. Conder and Prof. A. H. Sayce have 
 defended (independently, it seems) the view that at least the 
 early Old Testament books were composed in the Babylonian- 
 Assyrian language and the cuneiform script.^^ 
 
 (i). Conder' s Argument from Proper Names. Conder 
 argues that the forms of some proper names "seem to suggest 
 that the character used in the original tablets of the law, and in 
 their early chronicles on clay was the cuneiform script which 
 prevailed m the days of Moses" (First Bible, 95). He holds 
 that the variant orthography of Azariah and Uzziah," Michal 
 and Merob, Bathsheba and Bathshua and a dozen other proper 
 names is due to scribal mistakes in reading the value of the 
 cuneiform signs. Conder's view that the "Osnapper" of Ezra 
 4: 10 is really an alternative reading of the cuneiform signs for 
 Assurbanipal is probably correct.^^ 
 
 Having examined some 20 proper names, Conder reaches 
 the conclusion that the Hebrews knew at least two scripts from 
 the time of Solomon, one the cuneiform, "the divine writing", 
 the other, the Phoenician, "the writing of common men". "The 
 discrepancies in personal names, and in other words not of 
 common occurrence, indicate clearly that a character was in 
 use which was not alphabetic, and in which the signs had more 
 
 than one sound The uncertainties are clearly traced, 
 
 on the assumption that this character was the Babylonian cune- 
 iform" (p., 137, op. cit.). 
 
 Conder's examples are too few to warrant the hazardous 
 conclusions drawn by him. It would seem that foreign pro- 
 
 2« In the Amarna Letters the scribes frequently reproduce Canaanite (He- 
 brew) words in cuneiform characters. Thus after shadi (mountain) stands fre- 
 quently the Hebrew charri (mountain) in cuneiform. So after chalgat (perish) 
 we have the Heb. abada (perish); after epiru (dust) aparu; after elippu (ship), 
 Canaanite gloss anay ; sisu (horse), Cannanite susu, etc. See a full list in 
 Schrader, KAT, 3 ed., p., 652. Even the word Canaan, Heb. Kanaan appears 
 in a quite similar form Kinachi. The scribes wishing to leave no doubt as to 
 the meaning inserted the native Canaanite word. These glosses prove that the 
 language of Canaan in the 15th cent. B. C. was essentially the same as that 
 spoken by the Phoenicians, Moabites and Hebrews several centuries later. The 
 large number of Hebrew words • in the Amarna Letters proves that already in 
 1400 Canaanite or Hebrew had substantially the same stock of words as are found 
 in the Pentateuch. 
 
 3^ This king's name occurs in the records of Tiglath-Pileser III as 'As-ri-ya-a- 
 hu. But the sign ri has also the sounds gs and sa, so that the reading 'Ae-sa- 
 ya-a-hu, or Uzziah, is also possible. 
 
 ^ The name Assurbanipal does not occur in the Bible, but Conder reproduces 
 cuneiform signs which might be read either Assurbanipal or Asnappar. Though 
 the letter of which Ez. 4: 10 forms a part was written in the Aramaic language 
 and script, Conder writes: "The letter itself would probably be in cuneiform; 
 for the Babylonian type of this script was commonly employed for official docu- 
 ments by the Semitic subjects even of the Persian Artaxerxes I. Such letters 
 were copied in many known cases, and a copy seems to have fallen into the 
 hands of the Jews" (op. cit., p., iii). 
 
EARLY OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. 1 89 
 
 per names were often either differently pronounced or imper- 
 fectly understood by Biblical writers, and so confusion would 
 naturally arise. In a few cases the discrepancy may be due to 
 a mistaken reading of a cuneiform text : but neither Benzinger 
 nor Conder has shown that any Old Testament book or any 
 part thereof was composed in cuneiform. 
 
 (2). Hebrew Text Paraphrased from an Assyrian Origin- 
 al. A somewhat similar type of Panbabylonism has recently 
 been championed by Prof. A. H. Sayce, who comes forward 
 with the hypothesis that *'if there are any records in the Old 
 Testament earlier than the time of David they will have been 
 written on clay tablets in the Assyrian language and script. 
 And careful investigation of the text of the books of the Old 
 Testament brings phenomena to light which can be explained 
 only on the supposition that the Hebrew text has been translated 
 or paraphrased from an Assyrian original".^^ Examining 
 the text of the Old Testament with the view of discovering 
 hovv^ far it can readily be turned into Assyrian, he claims to 
 have found a number of words which imply an Assyrian orig- 
 inal. Thus the confusion of Ham and Ammi, Zuzim and Zam- 
 zumin, in Gen. 15: 5 and Deut. 2: 20, is supposed to imply a 
 translation from the Assyrian. In Gen. 11 : 29 the phrase *'the 
 father or Iscah" is but a repetition of "the father of Milcah" 
 through failure to note that the same cuneifonn character has 
 the phonetic value of both is and mil. 
 
 Commenting on 2 S. 8: i ("David took the bridle of the 
 mother city out of the hand of the Philistines"), Sayce writes: 
 "Metheg-ammah has no sense in Hebrew, and the attempts 
 made to explain it have consequently been failures. The two 
 words, however, are simply a transliteration of two Assyrian 
 words which signify 'the military road of the mainland' of Pal- 
 estine". But the word, literally 'the bridle of the mother city', 
 may be used metaphorically in the sense of authority, jurisdic- 
 tion, as indicated in the parallel passage i C. 18: i, "David took 
 Gath and its towns out of the hands of the Philistines". ^° The 
 passage is not decisive for the new view. 
 
 We are told that zoMr, Gen 6: 16 rendered "window" is 
 "not a Hebrew word at all but merely a transliteration of the 
 Assyrian zuhru, a ridged roof". But since it occurs as a Ca- 
 
 «» Homiletic Review, LX, pp., 100-104). 
 
 *• A similar expression, 'holding the bridle of countries', is found in Arabic 
 writers. See Lane, Arabic Lexicon, p., 1249; Shultens on Job 30: 11 and Koeh- 
 ler Gesch. II, 244. 
 
IQO ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 naanite gloss in the Amarna Letters (157, 11), it was doubt- 
 less used also in Hebrew, though like many Hebrew words 
 ultimately derived from a Babylonian root. The same is true 
 of ed, mist, Gen. 2 : 6. 
 
 Something can be said in favor of Sayce's explanation of 
 the crux in Gen. 4 : 22, "a. hammerer of every artificer in bronze 
 and iron". Says Sayce : 'The two Hebrew words for 'ham- 
 merer' and 'artificer' are alike translations of the same Assyrian 
 original ; they were alternative renderings which were sub- 
 sequently combined in the same text". 
 
 Prof. Sayce has worked in this field many years and dis- 
 covered some strange phenomena, but, as he himself says, "the 
 work is far from finished, and it is too early to announce gen- 
 eral results" ; nevertheless, from less than a score of passages 
 presented thus far, he would have us accept the sweeping gen- 
 eralization that by his discovery "the foundations of the Higher 
 Criticism and its theories will be destroyed together with the 
 originality of the Hebrew text upon which they have been 
 built". 
 
 Unfortunately, the same line of argument would prove 
 that the later historical books, no less than the earlier, must have 
 been composed in the Assyrian and afterward translated into 
 Hebrew. Kings, and Chronicles, exhibit even in greater de- 
 gree phenomena similar to those which Sayce finds in the Hex- 
 ateuch, Judges and Samuel. Thus i C. 18 (parallel to 2 S. 8) 
 has a number of alternative forms which might with equal plau- 
 sibility be traced to an Assyrian original. A comparison of 
 Beth-lebaoth, Josh. 19: 6 and Beth-biri, i C. 4: 31; of Gath- 
 rim.mon,'^^ Josh. 21 : 25 and Bileam, i C. 6: 70; of Jokneam,*^ 
 Josh. 21 : 34 and Rmmono, i C. 6: 77 (which are hardly mere 
 scribal errors) might lead one to infer that the discrepancies 
 are due to a misreading of an assumed Assyrian original. 
 Sayce's argument proves too much. 
 
 Of the six ways of spelling the name of a Babylonian king 
 in the Hebrew Bible the form Nebuchadrezzur (Jer. 49: 28), 
 as nearest the Babylonian form, is probably the most correct. 
 It might, therefore, be argued that since this form occurs in 
 Jeremiah, the prophecy was originally written in cuneiform; 
 but nothing could be more absurd. Such isolated examples 
 
 *i If the name be turned into cuneiform, it can be read either Bil-im, or 
 Gat-Rimmono. 
 
 ** The cuneiform might be transliterated either as Akanam or Rammuano. 
 
EARLY OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. I9I 
 
 prove merely, that now one, now another orthography was 
 preferred by the Hebrew writers.*^^ 
 
 While questioning that Sayce has proved his thesis, we 
 allow that he and others have brought support to our conten- 
 tion, that the Hebrew Scriptures, first and last, were composed 
 in the Hebrew language and the archaic Phoenician script, but 
 that at least in the early period, less so in the later, the authors 
 and compilers had access to old sources, sometimes in Baby- 
 lonian-Assyrian, but usually in Hebrew. We agree with 
 Strack : "Proof is lacking that the Israelites after the Conquest 
 made use of the cuneiform writing in any perceptible degree. 
 The conjecture put forth by Englishmen and by Winckler that 
 the decalog was originally written in the cuneiform script is 
 devoid of the sUghtest proof" (Herzog, RE 3rd Ed.). 
 
 Koenig in opposing the Winckler hypothesis shows that 
 the Canaanite-Hebrew language was indigenous in Canaan 
 from the time of Abraham. ''The Abrahamites brought with 
 them their own native language which was closely related to the 
 Phoenician. The degree of relationship of the Hebrew with 
 the Phoenician was once for all settled by Stade ; and the same 
 conclusion is reached from the fact that in the intercourse be- 
 tween the Hebrews and the Canaanites no interpreter is im- 
 plied" (See art. on ''Die Bah. Schrift u. Sprache u. d. Original- 
 Gestalt d. Hebrae. Schrifttnms" , in "Zeits. d. Dent. M. Ge- 
 sellsc, 1910, pp., 715-32). In opposition to Naville's fancy 
 that Deborah's Ode was composed in cuneiform, Koenig points 
 out that the style and language are similar to those of other old 
 Hebrew writings. See Num. 21: 14; 18: 27-30; Deut. 33; 
 Josh. 10: 13. "There is no positive ground to deny to the 
 Mosaic age the use of the Hebrew as a literary language."*^ 
 5. Assyrian and Hebrew Languages Side by Side in Israel. 
 
 What must be our conclusion on the use of the Babylonian- 
 Assyrian language among the Hebrews ? Much can be said in 
 support of the view that the scribes and court officials in Is- 
 rael understood this foreign language and script. The Amama 
 Tablets, the Taanach letters, the Gezer cuneiform tablets and 
 
 " The king's name is variously written in the monuments. It is a singular 
 fact that in one of the shorter forms we may read either Nabu-cu-du-nazar or 
 Nabn-cu-dur-iuzar, which would indicate that the transliteration was not always 
 the same. 
 
 ** "Man kann in Israel auch schon in sehr alter Zeit, wie z. B. jn den 
 Tagen Moses, eine andere als die Bab. Schrift, also die althebraeische Schrift 
 besessen haben. Diese Moeglichkeit muss offen gelassen werden. 
 
192 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 various Old Testament passages warrant such an inference. 
 The Hebrews were in fact throughout the greater part of their 
 history a bi-lingual, and even tri-Hngual people. Abraham spoke 
 the Babylonian as well as the Hebrew- Aramaic dialects; Isaac 
 and Jacob probably understood both the Babylonian and the 
 Aramaic in addition to the Hebrew; (Jacob certainly under- 
 stood the Aramaic spoken by Laban, Gen. 31 : 47). In Egypt 
 Israel would retain the Hebrew and acquire to a greater or less 
 degree also the Egyptian. During the Hyksos and Amarna 
 periods we may be sure that the leading spirits of the tribes 
 would learn the Babylonian. In the time of Hezekiah Aramaic 
 was understood by the nobility of Jerusalem ; and it would seem 
 that Hebrew and Aramaic flourished side by side after the 
 Exile. We know that in the time of Christ, Aramaic and 
 Greek were well understood by the people of Palestine. Even 
 today one meets in the East men and women who speak a half- 
 dozen languages; and a similar proficiency may have been at- 
 tained by the half-dozen affiliated Semitic peoples in the an- 
 cient Orient. The Hebrews have always been linguists, and 
 we have no reason to suppose that the ancient Hebrews were 
 inferior in this respect to the modern. We see nothing im- 
 probable, therefore in the claim that the Babylonian-Assyrian 
 language was understood by Hebrew scribes and scholars from 
 the Exodus [and even Abraham] to the Exile. 
 
 The preceding inquiry establishes four propositions : 
 
 1. The foreign correspondence of Israel (in 1400-600 B. 
 C.) was probably carried on in the Assyrian language and 
 script. 
 
 2. It is not probable that the people as a class understood 
 the Assyrian or that Hebrew history, legislation, prophecy or 
 literature m general was written in this foreign and to the peo- 
 ple unintelligible medium of expression. 
 
 3. The hypothesis that the early Old Testament books 
 were composed in the Assyrian language and the cuneiform 
 script is without substantial support. 
 
 4. The only conclusion validated by facts is that the books 
 of the Old Testament, early and late, were written originally in 
 the Hebrew language and script, except a few chapters in Ezra 
 and Daniel (in Aramaic). 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 THE ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 We are now prepared to reconcile the antitheses of the 
 antagonistic schools of Old Testament criticism mentioned at 
 the outset (chap. I). Of the half dozen fundamental issues, 
 only three demand consideration here : the mode of transmis- 
 sion of the early books (whether by written record, or oral 
 tradition) , the nature of Hebrew civilization in the Mosaic and 
 the post-Mosaic age, and the extent of Hebrew literature in 
 the pre-Davidic period. The answer to these questions will 
 go far toward settling the underlying problems of Pentateuchal 
 discussion. 
 
 I. 
 
 HEBREW CIVILIZATION IN THE PRE-DAVIDIC PERIOD. 
 
 A. ARE THE GENESIS NARRATIVES SAGAS AND LEGENDS^ OR AUTHENTIC 
 
 HISTORY ? 
 
 Hermann Gunkel opens his elaborate Introduction to Gen- 
 esis with the statement: ''Does Genesis relate history, or saga? 
 This question is no longer a question for the modern historian''. 
 Gunkel then proceeds to justify his conclusion that Genesis 
 contains only saga, not history.^ 
 
 The first of the three points in which saga and history dif- 
 fer, according to Gunkel, is that ''originally the saga^ exists as 
 oral tradition, history in written form ; the saga is employed by 
 those who are unable to write, historical composition is a scien- 
 tific process implying writing". Originally, however, an oral 
 tradition may be just as accurate as a written document; the 
 distinction lies in the fact that the former in the course of trans- 
 mission is liable to great modification, while the latter is relative- 
 
 1 Genesis Uebersetzt u. Erklaert, von H. Gunkel. The fact that the Grafians 
 generally and especially their American representatives regard G's. Introduction as 
 a better Gospel than the old, is our apology for reviewing it here. 
 
 2 The dictionaries define saga as a tradition relating either mythical or histor- 
 ical events. 
 
 13 193 
 
194 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 ly permanent.^ In general of course an ancient document has 
 immense value over oral tradition, though exceptionally a gen- 
 uine tradition outweighs a written statement. The question 
 here is whether the Genesis narratives come under the head of 
 authentic history (in oral or written form), or of saga, myth, 
 legend. 
 
 Gunkd declares: 'Tf that which Genesis contains is oral 
 tradition, it is saga". It may be saga (if the term be pre- 
 ferred) but saga may contain the essentials of history, and it 
 has never yet been shown that Genesis is not substantially his- 
 torical. Further, Gunkel assumes, without proving, that prac- 
 tically all of Genesis is "oral tradition". For him, ''Genesis", 
 ^'oral tradition", ''saga" are convertible terms, and so the major 
 part of his Introduction is a fine specimen of reasoning in a 
 circle. He has at every point ignored the overwhelming evi- 
 dence of the practice of writing among the Hebrews from the 
 Abraham-Hammurabi period onward. 
 
 Moreover, throug-h the longevity of the antediluvians and the 
 patriarchs, the whole period from Adam to Noah can be bridged by 
 three generations of oral transmission, and that between Shem and 
 Abraham by two or three at most ; in the period between Abraham and 
 Moses there were unquestionably written sources. Gunkel and his 
 school fail to note that the memory of the ancients was remarkably 
 tenacious; the absence of writing does not necessarily imply myths 
 and legends, but rather a faithful transmission of events for the very 
 reason that men had to trust in the memory. The statement that 
 ^'the writing-down of tradition serves to fix it", confirms the trustwor- 
 thiness of Genesis, for Gunkel has not shown that the traditions are 
 untrue; he merely assumes that some oral traditions are unsupported by 
 written records and therefore unreliable — a palpable non sequitur. 
 
 Again, according to Gunkel, "the proper themes of history are 
 great public events ; the historian mentions private affairs only when 
 they have value for public transactions. The saga treats of things 
 of popular interest, personal and private" {op. cit., p., XIII). But 
 surely the restriction of history to "great" events is entirely arbitrary, 
 as is also its limitation to the "publicity" of events. Personal and 
 family events may be just as significant as wars and battles. In fact 
 history has as its content that which has happened. According to 
 Gunkel, "Genesis (with the exception of one chapter viz. XIV) con- 
 tains no great political occurrences ; its theme is the history, not of 
 kings and princes, but chiefly of a private family; we have a mass 
 of details, which, whether authentic or not, have for the most part no 
 value directly or indirectly for real history". 
 
 • "From a librarian's standpoint oral tradition is just as much a document 
 as anything else, and a collection of oral traditions in a man's head just as much 
 a library as a collection of written documents in a book-case. . . In the event of 
 careful memorizing on the one hand, and careless or officious scribal work on the 
 other, oral transmission of a given document may be more exact than written 
 transmission" (E. C. Richardson on "Oral Tradition, Libraries and the Hexa- 
 teuch", in Princeton Theolg. Rev., Ill, p., 196). 
 
HEBREW CIVILIZATION IN THE PRE-DAVIDIC PERIOD. I95 
 
 But are not the accounts of the creation, fall, flood, dispersion, call 
 of Abraham, his sojourn in Canaan, the Isaac- Jacob episodes, the 
 Joseph narratives, genuine, even if largely, family history? Is not 
 Abraham's faith an epoch in the world's history? Does not Genesis, 
 even if cast in the mold of family and personal history, contain the 
 material for a clear view of the course of events and of the real nature 
 of the pre-Mosaic civilization? Is not history at bottom biography 
 "writ large"? 
 
 But, says Gunkel, "the chief characteristic is the poetical tone 
 of these narratives. Historical writing is essentially prose, the saga 
 essentially poetry". Poetry is "the art of idealizing in thought and 
 expression" (Webster Die). The question is, whether Genesis is 
 essentially an account of that which actually took place, or mere ideal- 
 ization? Genesis unquestionably contains poetry, both in matter and 
 form, as 4: 23, 4; 9: 25-7; 27: 27-9; and especially chap. 49 and per- 
 haps other parts ; but the poetical sections are clearly distinguishable 
 from the prose, and to characterize the body of Genesis as "poetical", 
 is certainly a subjective and unwarranted judgment.* 
 
 It is true that "the lofty spirit of the Old Testament religion lends 
 itself to a varied use of poetry", but the poetry of the Old Testament 
 is only "a poetic reproduction of the religious history, or the poetic 
 reproduction of the joy enkindled by such history, and a poetic out- 
 burst of the new inner life which was awakened by those historic ex- 
 periences of Israel' (Koenig), as e g. in the Song of Moses, Ex. 15. 
 
 The logic of Gunkel runs thus : Genesis is saga ; saga is 
 poetry; therefore Genesis is poetry. Gunkel, indeed, says: 
 ''Saga ist nicht Luege' C'Saga is not falsehood") ; neither is 
 poetry "falsehood", but at the same time it is a product of the 
 imagination and moves in the sphere, not so much of external 
 facts, as of internal emotions. Saga, under any fair view of 
 the term, as understood of the Genesis narratives, is not poetry, 
 either in content or form. Poetry is '*an imaginative and metri- 
 cal collocation of words so marshaled as to excite the emo- 
 tions" ; saga is a simple, naive, prose narrative of actual 
 (though somewhat embellished) events. Poetry is one thing; 
 saga another. Gunkel himself in the commentary treats the 
 narratives as prose, not poetry. His syllogism is false, notably 
 in the minor premise, and so is false in the conclusion. The 
 only alternative is, that Genesis contains authentic history. 
 
 Naturally on Gunkel's theory, we have no "historical facts" 
 in Genesis, but at most only an indistinguishable blending of 
 history and poetry. Gunkel criticizes Cornill and Steuernagel 
 for finding at least a nucleus of historical data. None the less 
 he allows that "he would indeed be a barbarian who would 
 
 * Gunkel cannot quite accept the view of Sievers (Metrische Studiett), in his 
 attempt to recast Genesis in a metrical form; but consistency on the part of G. 
 would demand some such schematism. 
 
196 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 lightly esteem these sagas", for ''they are after all more valua- 
 ble than some prosaic statements regarding actual events" ; but 
 in the end v^e have only poetry, inspiring poetry to be sure, 
 but still poetry, and not historical data. In short, says Gunkel, 
 "Genesis is the literary deposit of oral, popular tradition". 
 And yet we must assume that "in Israel, as among the Arabs, 
 there was a guild of history-narrators. These men, versed in 
 the old songs and sagas, went from place to place in the land 
 and attended the festivals" (where they rehearsed the narra- 
 tives). Gunkel allows that these sagas are ancient, those of 
 chapters i — 11 having found their way to Canaan perhaps as 
 early as 2000 B. C.^ 
 
 Gunkel employs the term saga, Grafians generally the terms 
 myth and legend for the matter in Genesis ; but it comes to the 
 same in the end, for both schools deny true historical value to 
 the book. The logic of these men is : no written records in 
 Israel before 1000 B. C., but merely oral tradition ; no history, 
 but much of saga, myth, legend. We have pointed out suffi- 
 ciently that writing in cuneiform was known among the He- 
 brews in 2000 B C, and in the Phoenician script in 1500- 1400, 
 and that the direct evidence supports the contention that the 
 early Old Testament books (or the substance of them) may 
 well have been based on ancient and authentic sources. 
 
 B. HEBREW CIVILIZATION FROM ABRAHAM TO JOSHUA. 
 
 The clans of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph occupied 
 the stage of history essentially as represented in Genesis. Were 
 these people rude, ignorant and half-civilized nomads, as the 
 Grafians contend, or were they as far advanced as their neigh- 
 bors, the Canaanites and Egyptians? Here, again, all parties 
 to the controversy have access to the same sources, — the Old 
 Testament, ancient records and recent archaeological discover- 
 ies. It is largely a question of the interpretation of the evi- 
 dence. It is antecedently probably that the Hebrews inherited 
 and maintained the social, cultural and religious traditions of 
 the great Semitic family of which they were a branch. It is 
 also probable that a people who from their first appearance in 
 history to the last were characterized by undoubted intellectual 
 
 ' In common with the Grafians, Gunkel adopts the view that these chas. are 
 based on Babylonian sources. In that event the question arises why they may 
 not be authentic history. 
 
HEBREW CIVILIZATION IN THE PRE-DAVIDIC PERIOD. I97 
 
 acumen, were no less highly endowed originally than their 
 neighbors.* 
 
 I. Were the Hebrews Nomads? 
 
 It is a cardinal principle of the negative criticism that the 
 Hebrews to the period of the monarchy were nomad tribes 
 without much culture. The argument runs thus: The docu- 
 ments underlying the Pentateuch (Hexateuch, eighth cent.) 
 yield little reliable information of the early period, but merely 
 a reflection of prophetic teaching. Even in its present form 
 the Pentateuch represents the Hebrews as nomads, not agri- 
 culturists ; whatever agricultural laws it contains arose in the 
 period of the Judges and of the monarchy, before which time 
 Israel had no need of such laws ; and it is absurd to suppose 
 that Moses would promulgate agricultural laws if the people 
 Hved in tents and did not cultivate the soil. We examine this 
 hypothesis."^ 
 
 (i) Agricidture in the Genesis Narratives. Genesis con- 
 veys the impression that the patriarchs were not pure nomads, 
 but occasionally tilled the soil. Frequently one and the same 
 passage implies both a semi-nomadic and agricultural life, as 
 13: 5, ''they had flocks and herds and tents" and ''Abraham 
 dwelt in the land of Canaan and Lot dwelt in the cities of the 
 plain" (13: 8). "Isaac dwelt in Gerar" (a town, 26: 6). Ja- 
 cob's blessing speaks of "the fatness of the land, and plenty of 
 grain and wine" {2y: 28). In fact "Isaac sowed in the land 
 and found in the same year a hundred fold" (26: 12). When 
 it is said of Reuben that he "went in the days of wheat harvest 
 etc." (30: 40) and when Joseph relating his dream says, "be- 
 hold we were binding sheaves in the field" (37: 7), agriculture 
 is clearly indicated. Gen. 42: i, "Jacob saw that there was 
 grain in Egypt", 43 : 2, "When they had eaten of the grain 
 etc.", and similar passages, are unequivocal proof that the 
 patriarchs cultivated the soil to a certain degree. They had 
 every inducement to such a course, for Palestine throughout 
 
 ' Speaking of the early Hebrews, McCurdy says: "Their invincible persis- 
 tence nitcntes in adversum testifies to the potentiality of the forces that went to 
 the making of Israel. The stream cannot rise higher than the fountain. From 
 what divine heights then must have descended the influences that moulded and en- 
 dowed that nation which gave us the Bible and the vitalizing forces of the world 1" 
 (Hist. Proph. and Mon., II, 79). 
 
 ^ The aim of the Grafians is clear. If the Israelites were nomads until near 
 the close of the age of the Judges, the Agrarian laws of the Book of the Cove- 
 nant originated at a late date. If on the contrary, the Hebrews had long been 
 semi-nomads and tilled the soil at least occasionally, the agricultural laws of 
 Exodus need not be late, but may have originated in the time of Moses. . . 
 Much therefore depends upon determining whether the Hebrews had passed be- 
 yond the simple nomadic into a semi-nomadic stage prior to the Exodus. 
 
198 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 the whole of the historical period was the granary of the East, 
 and it may be supposed that in the Abrahamic age agriculture 
 would yield a rich return. 
 
 A nomad is "one of a pastoral tribe of people who have 
 no fixed place of abode, but move from place to place according 
 to the state of the pasturage" (Cent. Die). The ancient popu- 
 lation of Canaan may be divided into three classes, nomads, 
 towns-people and semi-nomads.® 
 
 A natural inference from the above passages is that the 
 patriarchs and their clansmen fall under the third of these 
 classes, i. e. semi-nomads. Recently a professor in the Univer- 
 sity of Leyden, B. D. Eerdmanns in a series of O. T. Studies, 
 has come out strongly in support of the view that the Hebrews 
 were much further advanced in the patriarchal and Exodus 
 periods than the Graf-Wellhausen school have allowed. 'The 
 patriarchs'", he says, ''are semi-nomads who settle in a certain 
 place and cultivate the soil. They build houses, and live in 
 tents only as long as demanded by circumstances, depending 
 for subsistence upon both cattle-raising and agriculture".^ Ac- 
 cording to Genesis, the patriarchs do not live in the desert like 
 the Beduin, but in the fertile valleys of Canaan near Gerar, 
 Beersheba, Hebron and Bethel. They do not move constantly, 
 but remain several years in the same place, raising cattle and 
 tilling the soil. "The nomads of the desert possess only cam- 
 els, sheep, goats and asses. Cattle cannot be kept for want of 
 pasture" ( Eerdmanns ).^*^ 
 
 Prof. G. A. Smith remarks : "All scholars agree .... 
 that part of Israel's evolution into the agricultural economy, 
 which we find them following in Palestine, consisted in the 
 
 • 1. The Nomads Proper, who live in booths and move constantly, their en- 
 campment seldom being in the same place more than a few days. They live on 
 tne products of the herds and flocks, and do not cultivate the ground. 2. The 
 Towns-People, who dwell in houses, live by trade, commerce and agriculture (cul- 
 tivating fields near the towns) and are on a higher plane financially and educa- 
 tionally than the preceding. 3. The Semi-Nomads, some of whom keep goats, 
 sheep, cattle, but also cultivate a piece of land. Others are more like the towns- 
 people. "The difference between these people and the Beduin (nomads) is ob- 
 vious. The Beduin's home is where the flocks are pasturing. The semi-nomads 
 are people accustomed to a settled life" (B. D. Eerdmanns, Expos., Vol. VI). 
 
 • Alttestamentliche Studien, II : Die Vorgeschichte Israels, 43. Eerdmanns 
 gives a resume of his views in the Expos. VI. Prof. G. A. Smith in the same 
 periodical mildly criticizes Eerdmanns, but without throwing new light on the 
 subject. In fact Smith allows that the Hebrews in the patriarchal age were 
 semi-nomads. 
 
 ^o In answer to Wellhausen's assertion that the Israelites turned to their old 
 nomadic life after the Exodus, Eerdmanns says: "Our only source is the book 
 of Ebcodus; but there it is very clearly shown that the tribes do not know how 
 to live in the desert. After leaving Egypt they immediately make for Canaan". 
 
HEBREW CIVILIZATION IN THE PRE-DAVIDIC PERIOD. I99 
 
 semi-nomadic stage. The narratives clearly distinguish be- 
 tween Abraham's and still more Isaac's and Jacob's manner of 
 life on the one hand and that of the hunting Ishmael on the 
 other" (op. cit., 266). The admission that Abraham and Ish- 
 mael represent two different types of life is a near approach 
 to Eerdmanns' view.^^ 
 
 (2). The Hehrcivs as Semi-Nomads. That the Hebrews 
 at their migration to Egypt and subsequently were not the 
 uncivilized horde of the Grafians, but somewhat advanced in 
 the arts is a thesis defended by historians from Ewald to Kittel 
 and McCurdy. *Tt would be a great mistake to imagine the 
 Israelites to have been then a merely roving (or nomadic) race. 
 Between fixed and roving tribes there are many intermediate 
 grades; on one of these Israel then stood" (Ewald). The 
 same position has been elaborately defended by Prof. J. F. 
 McCurdy. The residence of Israel in Egypt extended over 
 several centuries. *'To have endured so long it must have had 
 inherent elements of permanence of a social character, apart 
 from the virility of individual founders or early leaders of the 
 race. . . It is true that during a large portion of the time of 
 the Hebrew residence the Hyksos, their kindred, formed the 
 controlling element in the Egyptian population. But the toler- 
 ation made possible during their regime was unknown and, in 
 fact, impossible under their successors. . . The corporate sur- 
 vival of Israel in such circumstances is probably unique among 
 the experiences of the tribes and nations of the earth" (Hist., 
 etc., II, 81— 2). 12 
 
 But there were deeper reasons for the survival of the He- 
 brews in Egypt. "The cardinal point is that the central attri- 
 butes of the Hebrew religion must have remained intact — 
 above all, the worship of Jehovah, the national, God. Consider 
 what this means. It implies that for hundreds of years the 
 same deity had been worshipped and the same characteristic 
 observances maintained as an essential part of the tribal system. 
 Otherwise, I repeat, the survival of Israel in Lower Egypt was 
 
 11 The Wellhausen school seek to break the force of the above argument by 
 the empty assertion that "the narratives of the patriarchs in Genesis spring from 
 the ethnological and cultural relations of the monarchical period", and so have 
 no historical value. But this is to adopt an unproved hypothesis and then to 
 build an argument thereon — a clear case of "arguing in a circle". 
 
 " That the Hebrews preserved their identity "must have been due to their 
 organized social condition. They must have lived in Egypt in no small num- 
 bers, occupying a considerable extent of country. . . Moreover, their numbers 
 must have increased during the tranquil period of their residence; otherwise they 
 would have dwindled away to extinction under outside pressure. ,,buch is the 
 law of growth and decay among nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples . 
 
200 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 impossible and is to us unthinkable. The long and obscure 
 interval between the patriarchs and the Exodus is thus bridged 
 over. The Exodus implies, or rather involves, the essentials 
 of the patriarchal history" (McCurdy, op. cit., p., 86).^^ 
 
 In short, the Hebrews were no mere nomads when they 
 entered Canaan. "They had already acquired the elements of 
 a settled government, and- these may well have been prepared 
 for during a fixed residence, just such as they enjoyed in 
 Egypt. . . . The people were, it is true, unsettled and dis- 
 couraged by reason of the hard bondage; and the messengers 
 of Jehovah received an unfavorable response from the mass of 
 the people. Yet he was still recognized as the God of Israel. 
 . . Conclusions such as these, taken all together, make the 
 strongest arguments for the essential accuracy of the tradition- 
 al conceptions of the character and career of Israel in the ear- 
 lier stages of its history" (McCurdy). 
 
 Such too is the view of Gressmann.^* "The culture of the 
 Genesis narratives is everywhere that of the semi-nomads. . . 
 Where they find opportunity for agriculture, they resort to it 
 without becoming farmers. Houses are implied in Beersheba, 
 where the soil is tilled and lentils raised (25: 34). A failure 
 of crops in Beersheba necessitates a removal to Gerar. In fact 
 the possession of camels by the patriarchs is not in itself a proof 
 of nomadism. Semi-nomads also possess camels, but their 
 characteristic is the keeping of sheep and goats, as is the case 
 with the patriarchs. The nomads with their swift camels 
 cover an incredibly wide territory; but the semi-nomads are 
 restricted to a narrow area, because their cattle must be watered 
 daily" (op. cit, 26). 
 
 (3). Tent-Life in Semi-Nomadic State. ^ It is clear that the tent 
 or nomadic life was not wholly abandoned in Israel until a compara- 
 tively late period. Tent life had its attractions even when people had 
 fixed abodes. Actual dwellers in tents and larger or smaller groups 
 of shepherds were scattered over wide districts both East and West of 
 the Jordan. In fact, "To your tents, O Israel" (i K. 12: 16), was 
 the watchword of insurrection long after the encampment had been 
 
 " The above points of McCurdy have been persistenly ignored by such writ- 
 ers as C. F. Kent, H. P. Smith and J. P. Peters (who swallow the whole WcU- 
 hausen scheme of "myths" and "legend"). McCurdy accepts the theory of the 
 Codes, but holds that they are sufficiently ancient to yield authentic history. 
 
 " Hugo Gressmann, "Sage u. Gesch. in d. Patriarchenerzaehlungen" in 
 Zeitsch. f. A. T. Wissensch. XXX, p., 3. This article by G. is significant as show- 
 ing that even some Grafians are receding from the extreme views of a decade ago 
 and allowing some historicity in the patriarchal narratives. While American 
 Grafians still stand by Cheyne's Ency. Biblica, a considerable number of rising 
 German and Dutch scholars are undermining the Graf-Wellhausen scheme at all 
 points. 
 
HEBREW CIVILIZATION IN THE PRE-DAVIDIC PERIOD. 20I 
 
 typical of the national life. But such isolated reflections of an earlier 
 period must not be construed as proof that Israel dwelt exclusively in 
 tents either in the later or the earlier period. Finally, "during the 
 monarchy the Israelites were no longer semi-nomads. Granting that 
 the view-point of that period were adopted by the Genesis narrators, 
 the Patriarchs would not have been represented as sem^'-nomads, but 
 as dwellers in cities. But since no Old Testament passage can be 
 adduced which implies a purely nomadic life of ancient Israel, and 
 since the external surroundings teach directly the opposite, one must 
 beware of defending a theory which floats in the air" (Eerdmanns, 
 Das Buck Ex., S. 125). 
 
 (4). The Agrarian Laivs of the Book of the Covenant. 
 The Grafians, admitting that the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 
 21 — 3) implies agricultural conditions, are forced by the exi- 
 gencies of the hypothesis to push its origin down to the mon- 
 archical period. If, however, the Hebrews at the Exodus 
 were semi-nomads and expected to till the soil in Canaan, the 
 agrarian laws of the book fit in with the circumstances. Most 
 of these enactments either refer to or imply agricultural condi- 
 tions, such as would naturally occur to a lawgiver. When the 
 Hebrews entered Canaan, "vineyards, olive yards, barley and 
 wheat fields, were found ready at hand. For the cattle which 
 they brought with them pasture was available ; nor was it nec- 
 essary to turn many of them to agricultural uses, since the oxen 
 and the asses and the sheep of their serfs became their property 
 along with the former owners. . . Broadly speaking, this semi- 
 pastoral, semi-agricultural type of society prevailed throughout 
 the period of the Judges" (McCurdy). 
 
 The Mosaic legislation regarding fields, vineyards, shocks 
 of grain (Ex. 22: 5, 6); the six years of sowing and reaping 
 and the Sabbatic years (23: 10—2) ; the feast of harvest and 
 of ingathering (23: 16), and the injunction to drive out the 
 inhabitants of the land, might well have been promulgated in 
 Egypt. Eerdmanns writes : "As long as the opinion was en- 
 tertained that the Israelites first became an agricultural people 
 in the period of the Judges, critics could not assign the harvest 
 festival and the ordinances implying agriculture to the Mosaic 
 period. But this opinion having been proved erroneous, there 
 is no objection to such a dating. In antiquity life had a relig- 
 ious import. Every transaction bore some relation to the in- 
 visible, but everywhere present gods and spirits. The Israel- 
 ites must have regarded the harvest as having a religious sig- 
 nificance before their migration to Egypt, just as well as after 
 their conquest of Canaan. There is no proof or intimation 
 
202 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 that they borrowed these religious festivals from the Canaan- 
 ites" (Buck Ex., 130). 
 
 In view of the foregoing cumulative proof, the position of 
 the latest professedly "critical" and "scientific" commentary on 
 the Book of Exodus (McNeile), that the Hebrews were "un- 
 trained nomads, fresh from Egyptian slavery" (p., LXXXI) 
 and that the Mosaic laws are an amalgamation of Hebrew, 
 Canaanite and Babylonian elements, is wholly gratuitous and 
 un-critical. In true Wellhausen, Mephistophelian style ("der 
 Geist der stets verneint") McNeile affirms that the civilization 
 of the Canaanites "must from the nature of the case have been 
 more advanced than that of the invaders, who had but recently 
 emerged from a rude nomad life" (p., XLVI). He, however, 
 adds : "In our ignorance of Canaanite laws this is of course 
 conjectural" ; so is much else in McNeile's work purely "con- 
 jectural". Will scientific critics brush aside the ancient He- 
 brew records and illogically substitute mere "conjecture" about 
 the Hebrews and the Canaanites ? 
 
 2. The Hebrews at the Exodus Prepared for Mosaic Legislation. 
 
 Enough has been said to make good the claim that the 
 Hebrews, though originally a pastoral people, soon advanced 
 to the semi-nomadic stage, building houses, tilling the soil and 
 gradually adopting the arts of civilized life. An increasing 
 number of scholars now hold that at the Exodus the Hebrews 
 were sufficiently advanced to receive the Mosaic legislation as 
 described in Exodus. Some additional points may be recorded 
 here. 
 
 Contact zvith the Egyptians. The Hebrews in Egypt came 
 into contact with a highly cultivated people and may be sup- 
 posed to have been influenced thereby. Dr. Franz Delitzsch 
 declares unequivocally that Israel stood high in culture : "The 
 more Israel was then blended with Egypt, the more it would 
 be influenced by Egyptian culture, — God so ordained it that 
 Egypt was to Israel a secular preparatory school for its future 
 national life and authorship. No people of antiquity was so 
 adapted for this purpose as Egypt. . . The history of Israel 
 does not begin with a rude, ignorant and undisciplined horde, 
 but with the transition to a nation of a race which had come 
 to maturity amidst the most abundant means of culture" (Com. 
 on Genesis, I, 7). Prof. R. Kittel refutes "the too frequently 
 reiterated assertion that the Israelites of the time of Moses 
 were nothing more than a rude tribe of nomads, destitute of all 
 
HEBREW CIVILIZATION IN THE PRE-DAVIDIC PERIOD. 203 
 
 higher culture. Fifteen years ago this error was in a certain 
 measure excusable, but not now." (Bab. Exp. & Earl Bib. 
 Hist., 25). 
 
 Dillmann says: "In constant intercourse with their kin 
 among the Hyksos and in the Arabian desert, Israel grew 
 through natural increase into a great people, developed its 
 peculiar tribal organism and attained the self-consciousness 
 of a free and independent people. According to the Exodus 
 narratives, we must regard at least a part of the people as sit- 
 uated in the rich land east of the Pelusium arm of the Nile, 
 dwelling in houses (Ex. 12: 4, 7), mingling with the Egyp- 
 tians, cultivating the fields and gardens, just as the earliest and 
 latest historical data teach that nearly all nomads, settled in 
 Egypt proper, became through the character of the Egyptian 
 soil almost unconsciously agriculturists, whereas the other part 
 of the people, spreading out toward the Arabian steppes, fol- 
 lowed a nomadic life. Through this contact with Egypt the 
 people learned not merely a number of arts and trades, but the 
 whole political and religious system of the Egyptians" (A. T. 
 Theologie, p., 95). 
 
 Though the Hebrews were benefited by the superior culture 
 of the Egyptians, they remained true to their ancestral faith. 
 Through all their trials they remembered the God of their 
 fathers (Ex. 2: 23 f). 
 
 A recent English writer says : "When we consider how 
 well organized the government of Egypt was at this period, we 
 may safely infer that these officers (Ex. I) of the children of 
 Israel had to send in periodical reports of the work done under 
 their charge, and that where oral reports were impossible owing 
 to the distance from the Court, these reports would have to be 
 in writing. . . In the face of this, we cannot but assume that 
 the most ordinary Israelite was at least familiar with the prac- 
 tice of handwriting, even if he did not himself possess it. while 
 a well-educated Israelite may be presumed to have himself pos- 
 sessed the accomplishment" (J. G. Duncan, Explo. of Egypt 
 and O. T., p., 242). 
 
 Gressmann points out that when the Hebrews formed a 
 political confederacy against a great power, they must already 
 have possessed a certain degree of political culture.^^ 
 
 1' "The excavations of the last decade have pushed back the beginning of 
 the development in Israel much further than was formerly allowed; this can 
 no longer be denied. We must reckon with the fact that the civilized powers, on 
 whose borders Israel dwelt, had already a well-developed legal code. The conclu- 
 
204 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Recently there appeared from the modem school a remark- 
 able book on Moses by Paul Volz, who deplores the weakness 
 of criticism in laying so much stress on the personality of the 
 writing prophets and at the same time denying the striking per- 
 sonality and achievements of such a figure as Moses. ^® For 
 the purely literary-historical school, says Volz, Israel is only 
 one people among many ; its religion is no better and no worse 
 than any other (Kuenen). On the other hand, the historico- 
 redemptive school starts with Christianity; Christ is the reve- 
 lation of God, and Christianity is the absolute religion. The 
 Old Testament religion must be judged and examined from 
 the standpoint of Christianity ; it is merely the preparatory 
 stage of Christianity, there being no fundamental difference. 
 The former school makes everything human and evolutionistic, 
 and eliminates Moses ; the latter allows a divine element and 
 views Moses as the greatest of lawgivers. 
 
 C. HEBREW CIVILIZATION IN THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES. 
 
 The condition of the Hebrews during the three hundred 
 years (more or less) of the period of the Judges has an im- 
 portant bearing in this connection. Do the books, Joshua and 
 Judges, contain reliable data? What was the relation of the 
 Hebrews to the Canaanites? Finally, how were the historical 
 records and the Biblical books preserved and transmitted? 
 
 I. The Books of Joshua and Judges. 
 
 (i). The Book of Joshua. The older authorities, Jewish 
 and Christian, held that Joshua or one of his successors was the 
 author and that the matter is strictly historical. In the new 
 view the book is regarded as a continuation of the Pentateuch 
 and compiled chiefly from the documents J and E by a Deu- 
 teronomic editor (after 621 B. C), and is of course late. Our 
 limited space forbids a discussion of these rival claims; it suffi- 
 ces to note what is essential to our purpose. 
 
 The admission of the divisive critics that the history of 
 the book "is somewhat different from that of the rest of the 
 Hexateuch" and that "the ground-work is not P as in the first 
 
 sion is unavoidable that the pre-Mosaic Hebrew tribes had at least an elementary 
 legislation, the germs of public law. Moses, from whom there sprang a true 
 Monotheism and whose Tora ultimately became the common law in Israel, must 
 have been greater than Hammurabi and Chuenaten" (op. cit., p., 27). 
 
 " "Neuerdings bricht die Erkenntniss durch dass mindestens ebenso notwendig 
 auch am Anfang der Israelitischen Religion eine Schoepferpersoenlichkeit stehen 
 muesse. So arbeitet die gegenwaertige A. T. Forschung daran, das Monument 
 fuer Moses zu bauen" (P. Volz, Mose, Tueb., 1907, p., a). 
 
HEBREW CIVILIZATION IN THE PRE-DAVIDIC PERIOD. 205 
 
 five books, but JED" (Ben. and Ad., Introd., p., 79) is signifi- 
 cant. Various ancient strata are recognized by all critics. The 
 most remarkable of these is The Book of Jashar, allowed by 
 all except the most radical critics, to have been a very ancient 
 work. Early material runs through the book; thus chapter 
 one, though composite, *'is based probably upon an earlier and 
 shorter narrative" (Driver). So of other chapters, even from 
 the Grafian view-point. 
 
 It is generally allowed that back of the codes J, E, and P 
 are older sources from the pre-monarchical and monarchical 
 periods. As the problem here is essentially that of the original 
 strata of these codes in the rest of the Hexateuch, we need 
 merely observe that the matter in Joshua is no mere echo of 
 "prophetical schools" (according to the Grafians), but a trust- 
 worthy narrative drawn up on the basis of records and chron- 
 icles preserved in such sanctuaries as Shiloh, Gilgal, Shechem, 
 etc." 
 
 (2), The Book of Judges. The older writers regarded 
 Samuel or one of his school as the author (much can be said 
 in favor of this view) ; the later critics see here as elsewhere in 
 the Old Testament a working over of material from different 
 sources, early and late. The question of the nature of the 
 component parts of Judges is one of the most complicated in 
 Old Testament criticism; but the bearing of the book on our 
 inquiry necessitates a statement of the trend of criticism. 
 
 A recent Biblical Introduction from the Grafian school 
 says : "The frame-work is due to Deuteronomic editors, so 
 that it existed in a Deuteronomic edition, to which priestly 
 writers made further additions. The Deuteronomic work made 
 use of earlier material, which is often supposed to be a section 
 of JE. During the monarchy (850-700), two independent 
 writers (J) and (E) made collections of the narratives con- 
 cerning the Judges. These were combined into a pre-Deuter- 
 onomic book about 650. During the Exile (JE) was edited 
 by a Deuteronomic editor who added a system of chronology 
 and retouched the book, in the interests of the Deuteronomic 
 
 " Arguments for an early date: i. No allusion to late events. 2. The ref- 
 erence to the Jebusites in 15: 63 implies a date before David's capture of the 
 city. 3. From 9: 27 it is clear that the temple was not yet built. 4. The min- 
 uteness of details, as in 9: 47 and all of ch. 22, suggests an eye-witness. 5. The 
 detailed geographical survey of chs. 12 — 19 must antedate David. 
 
206 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 doctrine of national righteousness and prosperity" (Ben. and 
 Ad.). In this view everything in the book is late.^® 
 
 Budde, Driver, Moore agree substantially with the preced- 
 ing position. Prof. Moore, however, admits that we have no 
 direct proof (internal or external) for determining the exact 
 date of the various strata. ''The author's motive, the lesson he 
 enforces, and the way in which he makes the history teach it, 
 are almost the only data at our command to ascertain the age 
 in which he lived. Indefinite as such criteria may seem, they 
 are, when the character of the work is sufficiently marked, 
 among the most conclusive" (Judges, p., XVI ).^^ 
 
 Omitting the introduction and the close, criticism takes its 
 point of departure from the section 2: 6 — 16: 31. This, ac- 
 cording to Driver, "consists essentially of a series of older nar- 
 ratives, fitted into a framework by a later editor" (Lit.). The 
 history of each of the greater Judges fits into a scheme seen in 
 3: 7-11 (Othniel). In the accounts of these Judges "we have 
 the same succession of apostasy, described often in the same 
 way, always in similar phraseology" (Driver). The narratives 
 concerning the minor Judges are much briefer.^^ 
 
 The critics are not agreed on the sources of the first introduction 
 i: I — 2:5; the second introduction 2: 6 — 3: 6; the story of Gideon 6: 
 i-io; of Jehpthah, 10: 6-16 and of chaps. 17-21. A number of other prob- 
 lems await solution, but we inquire merely as to unquestionably ancient 
 sections. _ Critics of all shades agree that the Song of Deborah is 
 ancient, in fact almost if not quite contemporaneous wdth the occasion. 
 From this vantage ground and proof of ancient strata in Judges, it 
 may be inferred that other ancient sources and records are imbedded 
 in the book. So far as the matter of the book goes, no statement or ex- 
 pression is inconsistent with an early date; the language, the local 
 coloring and the verisimilitude indicate a high antiquity. The internal 
 
 1® The Grafian scheme of the date of the constituent parts is a necessary- 
 postulate of the hypothesis that the literature and religion of Israel date from 
 the early writing prophets (eighth cent.) and that the history of the preceding 
 periods is written from that view-point. The weakness of this view has been 
 indicated. 
 
 1* This means that the critical analysis is entirely subjective and determined 
 by the view-point of the critic. The Grafian critic has no advantage over the 
 anti-Grafian; nor the latter over the former. The alleged perfect articulation of 
 the Grafian scheme is oflfset by the self-authentication of the book. If, therefore, 
 we allow that the book of Judges may be heard as a witness in its own behalf, we 
 are pursuing a Jogical and scientific method. ^ 
 
 20 Prof. Moore remarks: "It is plain that the author of Jud. 2: 6 — 16: 31 
 did not write these stories himself, but took them from older sources. These 
 stories cannot have been oral tradition, or unwritten popular legends, for, apart 
 from the difficulty of supposing that oral tradition had transmitted to so late a 
 time such lifelike and truthful pictures of a state of society that had passed away 
 centuries before, in reducing the oral t'radition to writing, the author would 
 inevitably have left the impress of his own style upon the stories far more deeply 
 than is the case" (op. cit., p., XIX). 
 
HEBREW CIVILIZATION IN THE PRE-DAVIDIC PERIOD. 207 
 
 evidence points to a pre-monarchical period as the date of the under- 
 lying material. 
 
 According to Moore, "in those parts of the book which are at- 
 tributed to J, the standpoint of the narrator is that of the old national 
 religion of Israel ; there is no trace of prophetic influence, and we can 
 have no hesitation in ascribing this source to a time before the great 
 prophetic movement of the eighth century. Other indications point 
 to a considerably higher antiquity". But Moore adds : "On such 
 grounds we should be inclined to assign this source to the first half of 
 the ninth century" (op. cit., p., XXVII). Do not the lack of "pro- 
 phetic influence", the indications of "a considerably higher antiquity", 
 the reflection of society "in the early days of the settlement in Pales- 
 tine" and "the lifelike and truthful pictures" of early conditions, point 
 to a pre-monarchical age for most of this material? The internal 
 evidence which leads Moore to assign this source to the ninth century 
 logically compels us to go back at least to the age of Samuel." 
 
 Critics not bound hand and foot by the Grafian schematism 
 see much in Judges which, is scientifically provable as ancient. 
 Thus Koenig finds old strata (contemporaneous with the 
 events) in every chapter and deplores the tendency "of a cer- 
 tain school of historiography" to ignore absolutely ''the express 
 statements" of the sources and to search out "new and extreme- 
 ly doubtful ones". Speaking of lo: 3-5; 12: 8-15, he asks: 
 "Why should all this be set down to invention ?" Divisive crit- 
 ics do not deny the antiquity of the story of Ehud (3: 15 f) 
 or the historicity of the bold figure of Jephthah. "In like man- 
 ner the antiquity of the narrative in chapter 17 is witnessed to", 
 and "the note that the priests of the city of Dan were descen- 
 dants of Moses (18: 30) must be borrowed from an ancient 
 source" (Judges, Hast. Die). 
 
 Recently one of the great German authorities on ancient 
 history, E. Meyer, has come out in a strong defence of the 
 trustworthiness of the early historical books : "It was only 
 among the Israelites and the Greeks that true historical liter- 
 ature had an entirely independent origin. Among the Israel- 
 ites, who in this respect as in others, occupy a separate position 
 among all the civilized peoples of the East, it arose at an amaz- 
 ingly early period and begins with highly important creations, 
 on the one hand the purely historical narratives in the books 
 
 " Moore says elsewhere: "It is often found that the impulse to write history 
 is first given by some great achievement which exalts the self-consciousness of a 
 people and awakens the sense of the memorable character of what it has done" 
 (Hist. Lit., Ency. Bib., col. 2075). Were not the crossing of the Jordan, the 
 capture of Jericho, the defeat of the five kings by Joshua, the deliverance by 
 Othniel, the exploits of Gideon and Jephthah, sufficiently great achievements to 
 warrant the inference that here and there a priest or prophet in the period of the 
 Judges rose to a consciousness of Israel's worth and mission and left a record, 
 however brief, of such crises? 
 
208 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 of Judges and i Samuel and on the other the reconstruction of 
 legend by the Jehovist" (Gesch. d. Altertums,, sec, 131). 
 Meyer develops the same view in his ''Israel'', declaring that 
 the books of Judges and Samuel "show by their contents that 
 they belong to the time when the events took place, and that 
 the narrator must have been very accurately informed about 
 the doings at court and the character of the actors in his story. 
 They could not have been written later than in the time of 
 Solomon". Meyer even adds : "It is an astonishing thing that 
 a historical literature of this kind should have been possible in 
 Israel, at that period. It stands far above every other speci- 
 men of ancient Oriental history knozvn to us — above the dry 
 official annals of the Babylonians and Assyrians and above the 
 legendary stories of Egyptian literature. It is really genuine 
 history. Its roots lie in living interest in the actual events 
 which it strives to comprehend" (op. cit., 2te Aufl.). 
 
 This is in sharp contrast with, and a stinging reproof of 
 the depreciatory style of Stade, Wellhausen, H. P. Smith, Kent 
 and the Grafians generally and ought to go far toward estab- 
 lishing the claim that the Old Testament books contain not 
 only accurate historical data, but a true philosophy of history.-^ 
 
 We are justified in holding that the essential parts of 
 Judges are either ancient or based on ancient and reliable 
 sources (mostly written) and that the book contains a faithful 
 portraiture of the period in question. 
 
 2. Relation of the Hebrews and the Canaanites in the 
 Period of the ludges. 
 
 It is a cardinal tenet of the Grafian school that the Hebrews 
 acquired the arts of civilized life, including the alphabet and 
 the cultivation of literature, from the Canaanites. We, too, 
 have shown that Canaan had been a land of writing and books 
 a thousand years before the Exodus and that the alphabet was 
 probably devised by Canaanite-Phoenician scribes. But we 
 hold that the Hebrews even while in Egypt were as far ad- 
 vanced as the mass of people in the ancient world and that 
 their culture, literature and religion were largely indigenous 
 and only indirectly affected by the Canaanites. We shall seek 
 to justify this view so far as relates to the period of the Judges. 
 
 " Commenting on Meyer's deliverance, Koenig says: "This is certainly a 
 very notable judgment, and it is all the more important as coming from a scholar 
 who is equipped with a thorough knowledge of Oriental languages, and who has 
 therefore an unusually far-sighted vision of the origins of ancient history, . . 
 The historical testimonies of the people of Israel lead us back still further on a 
 sure path until we reach the time of Moses" (Expositor, Apr., 1911). 
 
HEBREW CIVILIZATION IN THE PRE-DAVIDIC PERIOD. 20g 
 
 (i). Later Cana^anites Lozv Morally and Religiously. At 
 the period in question (1300-1000) the Canaanites were mor- 
 ally and religiously, and probably intellectually, on the decline. 
 Neither the Canaanites nor the Phoenicians ever formed a 
 united, compact political body ruled by a single head; they 
 were a group of independent communities — a confederacy of 
 cities or states. These isolated city-republics were often in 
 conflict or rivalry with each other, though generally acting in 
 concert in times of foreign invasion. Favored by situation, 
 caravan routes and commerce, they built up rich and powerful 
 cities, and engaged in agriculture in the fertile plains and val- 
 leys. But wealth begat indolence, weakness and immorality, 
 precursors of downfall. Contrary to the view generally enter- 
 tained, the Canaanites at this time were on a low plane in every 
 way.^^ 
 
 According to sacre<^ writ the inhabitants and the land were 
 ''defiled". "Therefore I do visit the iniquity upon it and the 
 
 land vomiteth out her inhabitants Ye shall not do any 
 
 of these abominations" (Levit. 18:25-30; Deut 12:30). This, 
 testimony is borne out by other ancient authorities and is ad- 
 mitted by all except some negative critics who uniformly seek 
 to degrade and belittle the ancient Hebrews. Even Cornill 
 allows that the Canaanites were "enervated by luxury". 
 
 The rank of a religion is determined largely by its repre- 
 sentation of the deity. The degrading character of the Cana- 
 anite religion may be inferred from the fact that correspond- 
 mg to each male divinity is a female and that the religious rites 
 often degenerated into licentious orgies.^* Such a low religion 
 inevitably affected every phase of life and cut the nerve of all 
 serious and noble endeavor, including literature in the true 
 sense. This is the true explanation of the fact that with all 
 
 . ..." According to Kittel, the Canaanites "had reached a relatively hieh deeree of 
 ?His' n"L^'4"hJ?'^''or''^'/ voluptuousness and dissolute mLalf prefaifed" 
 (rtist. ii, b2). Their moral degeneracy had reached a point to which no other 
 fnt^v.^h"""'!^ t-Pf''^l^?V ^-^t abominations they practised aTerepreseSed 
 to have been of a kind which might be said to call to heaven for vengenace. The 
 inH^li;""' 1^"' to which they were addicted, tended to defile theif conscience! 
 fear Cambr Bwfe ^^f'^'^^'^^y Practised were a disgrace to humanity" (Mac' 
 
 "It is a significant fact that the Hebrew language has no word for goddess. 
 Dut_ manjr for God. The reason is obvious: the idea of a goddess, or female 
 divinity, is utterly foreign to the O. T —'-—•— '^' • 
 
 Tj *u - /• -r>- r- .r r , ., ^'^^^^^^^P^rr T^is was elaborately shown by 
 
 Baethgen (in Der Gott Israels u. d. Goet. d. Heidsn"); and so the basis of a 
 
 eligion which grows out of the ' • • - 
 
 srael. 
 
 14 
 
 nature-religion which grows out of the physical contrast of sex, was entirely want- 
 ing in Israel. 
 
210 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 the boasted civilization ascribed to the Canaanites, they have 
 left no literature, a few scattered seals and scarabs excepted.^^ 
 
 (2) The Hebrews Morally and Spiritually Superior to 
 the Canaanites. All the evidence, both Biblical and inscription- 
 al, supports the view that the Hebrews at the conquest and in 
 the period of the Judges were so far superior to the Canaanites 
 morally and religiously (and even intellectually) that they need 
 not rely upon them for the elements of culture and civiHzation. 
 Israel never ranked as low, nor the Canaanites as high as the 
 Grafian critics imagine. According to Koenig "the religious 
 life was a real one in ancient Israel. . . If the flame of rever- 
 ence for Jehovah had not been kindled by Moses, why should 
 he and not Samuel have been named as the greatest hero of the 
 reHgious development of Israel ? Hence there is no reasonable 
 ground for doubt that Gideon (Jud. 6:11) contended for the 
 cult of Jehovah in opposition to the preference to Baal. . . . 
 These ancient principles lived in the conscience of the nation, 
 and when they were trodden under foot, as in the instance of 
 Gibeah (Jud. 19: 23) the voice of the moral conscience spoke 
 out loudly" (art. Judges, Hast. B. Die.). 
 
 Without moral and intellectual, as well as physical, super- 
 iority, the Hebrews would not have gained decisive victories at 
 first, nor finally subdued the country. Moabites, Midianites, 
 Canaanites, Philistines went down before them. Even Stade 
 concedes that a less robust people would not have held out so 
 long. 'That Israel maintained its ground against Canaanites 
 and Aramseans and yielded only to the great Asiatic powers 
 shows its virility". Stade well asks, how it happened that an 
 Israelite State was established on Canaanite soil, and why the 
 Hebrews did not unite with the Canaanites, to whom they were 
 related linguistically and ethnically? 
 
 Stade is conscious of the gravity of the situation, but he 
 fails to relieve it. He has nowhere in his two ponderous vol- 
 umes adduced any direct evidence that the Canaanites were in 
 advance of the Hebrews in the essential elements of culture; 
 and he admits that they were inferior morally and religiously. 
 He reluctantly concedes that the spirit of the Hebrew religion 
 was immensely superior to that of the Canaanites. Before their 
 entrance into the West-Jordanic territory, the Hebrews "had 
 cut loose from the other nations and adopted a religion which 
 
 " We have no evidence from the inscriptions that the Canaanites of this 
 period produced any high-grade literature, and much less that any of it served 
 as models for the Hebrews. 
 
HEBREW CIVILIZATION IN THE PRE-DAVIDIC PERIOD. 211 
 
 stood higher than that of the original Canaanite population. 
 Hereby they became a nation" (History, I, 112). Three things, 
 says Stade, distinguished the Israelites from the nations: I. 
 The absorbtion of Canaanite blood. 2. The adoption of Ca- 
 naanite culture and greater attention to agriculture. 3. The 
 worship of Jehovah as the national God. A more logical for- 
 mulation is: I. The worship of Jehovah as the God of all the 
 earth. 2. Through the Jehovah-religion the Hebrews from 
 the Mosaic period occupied a higher religious and moral plane 
 than the Canaanites. 3. They were benefited by the Canaanite 
 culture and blood only to a limited degree. ^^ A strange fact 
 is that at the close of all his argumentation in the two works 
 under review, Stade admits that it was the superiority of the 
 Jehovah-religion and of the Hebrew people that assured vic- 
 tory and supremacy over the Canaanites. So, too, Kuenen and 
 Wellhausen.^^ 
 
 (^). Hebrezu and Cmmanite Civilization Compared. The 
 accounts in Joshua and Judges indicate that complete extermin- 
 ation of the Canaanites was resorted to only in rare cases. In 
 its stead were simple subjugation, friendly alliance, servitude, 
 (or, rarely, intermarriage). Thus we are told that the tribe 
 of Manasseh acquired Dor, Taanach, Megiddo, etc., but that 
 they ''could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities", though 
 they subsequently "put the Canaanites to taskwork, and did not 
 utterly drive them out" (Josh. 17: 11-13). Similarly in other 
 districts. The Hebrews, when brought into close contact with 
 the natives, adopted gradually some of their customs and be- 
 liefs. "Ancient Israel was a genuine peasant people. It pro- 
 duced com, wine, oil and figs, and from its herds milk and flesh. 
 These found ready purchasers in the Phoenician dealers" 
 (Kittel). 
 
 The Hebrews naturally were not all on the same plane of 
 culture. The people generally were probably not as well ac- 
 quainted with the arts of civilized society as the Canaanite city 
 
 '• Stade, elaborating his views in the O. T. Theology, allows that "the im- 
 migrants were conscious of their superior prowess and moral excellence. As 
 descendants of nomads and conquerors, they considered themselves better than 
 the natives" (Theologie, 58). To the above three features, Stade adds two more 
 in his "Theology", viz., the intolerance of the Jehovah-religion and the increased 
 vitality of the Israelitish nation and religion gained through war. 
 
 *^ Kuenen concedes that the Jehovah religion was adopted by the Hebrews 
 at some period anterior to their entrance into Canaan (Relig. Israel, 1, 390-403). 
 Wellhausen writes: "Why the Israelitish religion with an approximately cqn.-\l 
 beginning, led to a totally different ending from, say, the Moabitish, cannot be 
 satisfactorily explained" (Is. u. Jued. Gesch., p., 35). Of course not, from a 
 naturalistic world-view; but perfectly so, from a consistent theistic, supernatur- 
 alistic world-view. 
 
212 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 inhabitants; but there is no proof that the Canaanites in the 
 country districts were more intelligent or had a broader outlook 
 on life than the Hebrews after their contact with the Egyptians, 
 Minseans and Moabites. The fact is that with the exception 
 of a few favorably situated cities, the Canaanites were an iso- 
 lated and provincial people and intellectually inferior to the 
 Hebrews. ^^ The latter had absorbed the best features of the 
 old civilizations; even the so-called desert-wanderings had 
 brought them into contact with surrounding people well steeped 
 in Babylonian and Minaean culture. 
 
 A recent writer of the Grafian school admits this: "Of special sig- 
 nificance for the nomadic Israelites was the culture of the Minseans. 
 The Old Testament speaks of the closest connection with them, even 
 of direct influence from them; Moses flees into Midian to the high- 
 priest Jethro and marries his daughter (Ex. 2: 13), and he accepts 
 the advice of Jethro regarding the organization of the judiciary (Ex. 
 18: 19). Midian is in Musri, the North-Arabian province of the 
 Minaean kingdom. The Minaean kingdom flourished according to its 
 inscriptions as early as 1500 B. C. ; by this time it had a finished cul- 
 ture and was no longer a new kingdom. The political influence of the 
 Minseans extended to Gaza, the extreme limit of one of the trade- 
 routes; Southern Palestine was for centuries under the influence of 
 the Min^ans, and so were all the tribes dwelling between the Dead 
 and the Red Sea. Whatever, therefore, of culture the Israelites 
 brought with them from the steppes will bear specifically Minsean 
 marks". This is from Benzinger's "Hebraeische Archaeologie" (2nd 
 ed., 1907), and shows that proof is constantly accumulating from 
 archaeological research that the Hebrews in Egypt and in the desert 
 were in close touch with the customs and institutions of that day and 
 sufficiently far advanced to record and transmit a written revelation 
 in the time of Moses and the Judges. 
 
 As admitted by all critics, Israel's character during the 
 forty years' wandering ''was gradually disciplined by a pure 
 and simple moral code" (Ottley). But such a Hfe as that of 
 Israel in Egypt and the desert is no more incompatible with a 
 knowledge of writing and letters than the pioneer life of the 
 Pilgrim Fathers on the bleak New England shores implies the 
 absence of books and of the general means of culture. In fact 
 just as the strong moral and religious character of the latter 
 led to the establishment of schools and colleges, so the Israel- 
 ites assimilated at least the essentials of the culture of that day; 
 this would include a knowledge of the current systems of writ- 
 ing. 
 
 Thus disciplined the Hebrews immediately upon their en- 
 trance into Canaan took advantage of the agricultural and eco- 
 
 " In short, the vaunted culture of the Canaanites was a thin vaneer of civi- 
 lization, the pseudo-culture so characteristic of commercial and maritime centers. 
 
HEBREW CIVILIZATION IN THE PRE-DAVIDIC PERIOD. 213 
 
 nomic opportunities, which would scarcely have been the case 
 had they been ignorant nomads; in general, 'once a nomad, 
 always a nomad'. The Hebrews appear to have adapted them- 
 selves readily to Canaanite civic and agricultural conditions; 
 they were "to the manor (manner) born" and needed no long 
 tutelage at the feet of the overrated Canaanites. 
 
 The books of Joshua and Judges furnish undoubted proof 
 of the advancement of the Hebrews during the period of the 
 Judges in the so-called technical arts. Mention is made of 
 doors of houses ( Jud. 19 : 26) ; locks ( Jud. 3 : 23) ; tables ( Jud. 
 1:7); weaving (Ex. 35 : 35) ; embroidery (Ex. 28: 39) ; and 
 costly robes (Ex. 28: 4, 31). Pottery is assumed as well 
 known: bowls (Ex. 25: 29; 37: 16) ; pots and shovels (Ex. 
 38: 3; Jud. 6: 38). Implying agriculture and commerce are: 
 ox-goad (Jud. 3: 31) ; millstones (Jud. 9: 53) ; ropes (Jud. 
 16: II); money (Jud. 5: 19; 16: 18; 17: 14). Pertaining 
 to cultus: molten images (Deut. 9: 12; Jud. 17: 3) ; graven 
 image (Ex. 20: 4); ephod (Ex. 25: 7 and often). Imple- 
 ments of war, etc. : sword (Ex. 5 : 21 ; 32 : 27) ; daggar (Jud. 
 3: 16); spear (Josh. 8: 18); razor (Jud. 13: 5; 15: 17). 
 Most of these imply trade and industry and were known to the 
 Hebrews before the occupation. 
 
 That a simple agricultural life is not incompatible with a 
 considerable degree of literary excellence is made clear in the 
 oft-quoted passage from Robertson Smith. In accounting for 
 the classical Hebrew and forcible diction of the prophet Amos, 
 he says : 'To associate inferior culture with the simplicity and 
 poverty of pastoral life is totally to mistake the conditions of 
 Eastern society. At the courts of the Caliphs and their Emirs 
 the rude Arabs of the desert were wont to appear without any 
 feeling of awkwardness, and to surprise the courtiers by the 
 finish of their impromtu verses, the fluent eloquence of their or- 
 atory, and the range of subjects on which they could speak with 
 knowledge and discrimination. Among the Hebrews, as in the 
 Arabian desert, knowledge and oratory were not affairs of pro- 
 fessional education, or dependent for their cultivation on wealth 
 and social status. The sum of book learning was small ; men 
 of all ranks mingled with that Oriental freedom which is so 
 foreign to our habits ; shrewd observation, a memory retentive 
 of traditional lore, and the faculty of original reflection took 
 the place of laborious study as the ground of acknowledged 
 intellectual pre-eminence". (Prophets of Israel, 126). 
 
214 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 May not Moses and his scribes, though leading a humble 
 life and unschooled in the misnamed ''Canaanite culture", have 
 written, if not as classically, yet as forcibly as the Tekoan 
 herdsman ? 
 
 Once in Canaan, the Hebrews through force of character 
 and inherited institutions, and partly through contact with their 
 neighbors, soon eclipsed whatever literary glory the Canaanites 
 may have acquired. We shall see that from the time of Joshua, 
 certainly from that of Deborah, there was a continuous stream 
 of literary activity to the period of Samuel, David and Solomon. 
 
 11. 
 
 BOOKS AND SCRIBES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 It was shown above that already in an early period the He- 
 brews employed the same writing material (papyrus, clay, 
 stone, stylus, ink, etc.) as the surrounding nations, and that both 
 the cuneiform and Phoenician scripts were in use in a period so 
 remote that no ancient writer records the date of their introduc- 
 tion. We now adduce evidence that scribes, amanuenses, 
 chroniclers flourished in Israel in the pre-monarchical as well 
 as the monarchical period. 
 
 I. EARLY USE OF THE WORD BOOK IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 The ordinary word for book, sepher,^^ occurs nearly two 
 hundred times in the Hebrew Bible, including the earliest as 
 well as the latest literature. Of the former are: Ex. 17: 14; 
 24:7; Josh. 1:8; 8:34; Is. 29: II, 18; 37:14. The word 
 has the well-defined meanings of a writing, a letter, a hook, as 
 follows: {i). A Writing. Is. 29: 11, "words of a book" ; 29: 
 12, "I am not learned" (literally, 'T know not writing") ; Num. 
 
 -• The word sepher, as also sdpher, scribe, are probably denominatives from 
 saphar, to count, to relate, to write. Some would derive sepher from the Aramaic 
 saphar, to cut, or shave off, whence dressed skins for writing. This etymology is 
 not generally accepted. Since the discovery of the Tell-el-Amarna Letters, a 
 derivation from the Assyrian has been suggested. There the verb shaparu, to send 
 a letter, and the noun shipru, a writing, a letter, and shipirtu, a message, are of 
 frequent occurrence. (Vid. Winckler's Tell-el-Amarna Letters.) In these, the 
 large number of Phoenician, silicit, Hebrew glosses, is noteworthy and would 
 indicate a constant interchange of words between the Assyrian and the Phoenician 
 in 1400 B. C. and perhaps earlier. Possibly, sepher is an old Assyrian loan-word, 
 finding its way into the Hebrew at an early date. So Gesenius-Buhl and Brown- 
 Driver-Briggs lexicons, sub. voce. It ought to be noticed, further, that the word 
 has no connection with the usual Hebrew word meaning to write, Kathabh. If 
 the word sepher was adopted from the Assyrian, or possibly already from the 
 Babylonian, did not the thing signified go with it? Much can be said in support 
 of the position of Koenig, as deduced from the Hammurabi Code, and the Amarna 
 Letters, that writing was known among the Hebrews at the date of Exodus, and 
 possibly even in the Abrahamic period. 
 
BOOKS AND SCRIBES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 21 5 
 
 5: 25; Jer. 32: 10, "I subscribed the deed" (literally, *'I wrote 
 in the book") ; Job 19: 23, 'learning- of the Chaldeans". (2). 
 A Letter or Indictment. 2 S. 11 : 14, **David wrote a letter to 
 Joab" ; 2 K. 5 : 5. Plural, Is. 37 : 14 ; 39 : i ; i K. 21 : 8, "She 
 wrote letters in Ahab's name". Jer. 32: 12, 14 (deed of pur- 
 chase) ; Job 31 : 35, ''the indictment"; Deut. 24: i, 3, "bill of 
 divorcement". (3). Book. Ex. 27 : 4, "the book of the Cove- 
 nant" ; Ex. 17 : 14, "a book", (or the book) ; Josh. 1:8; 8 : 34, 
 "the book of the law"; Ps. 40: 8 (Eng. v. 7) "roll of the 
 book"; Is. 29: 18; 69: 29; Dan. 9: 2, "the books" (sacred) ; 
 12 : I ; Eccles. 12 : 12, "of making many books there is no end" ; 
 Gen. 5 : i, "book of the generations" ; Num. 21 : 14; Josh. 10 : 
 13; 2 S. i: i8.^« 
 
 These passages show that the art of committing thought 
 to writing in the form of rolls, letters, books and legal enact- 
 ments antedates the Davidic age. In Num. 21 : 14 a quotation 
 is said to have been taken from "the Book of the Wars of Je- 
 hovah", a work assigned by critics to a pre-Solomonic period. 
 In any event, whoever the authors of the assumed J, E, P 
 and D codes were, they uniformly represent books and writ- 
 ing as common in the Mosaic age, — a species of circumstantial 
 proof amounting to certainty. 
 
 2. THE SCRIBE IN ANCIENT ISRAEL. 
 
 A remarkable proof that great care was taken in ancient 
 Israel to preserve the sacred writings is derived from the fre- 
 quent reference to the scribe and secretary in both the earlier 
 and the later Old Testament. The Hebrew word Sopher,'g^n- 
 erally rendered scribe or writer in the American Revision, 
 occurs fifty-six times with the following meanings, 
 (i). ^ Scribe or Writer in General. 
 
 Is. 36 : 3, 22, "Shebna the scribe" ; Ps. 45 : i, "a ready wri- 
 ter" ; Jer. 36: 26, "Baruch the scribe"; Ezek. 9: 2, 3, "the 
 writer's inkhorn by his side". Since in early times the number 
 of those who could write was small, the employment of a pro- 
 fessional scribe became a necessity in a civilized community. 
 At the court of the kings of Judah, the office of scribe or sec- 
 retary was one of high rank.^^ Seraiah and Sheva were scribes 
 
 «» Since the word sepher occurs in all the Pentateuchal codes, the word and 
 the thing are ancient under any view of the date of codes. 
 
 «i As seen above, sopher was probably imported at an early date. We hnd 
 the Ass. noun shapiru used as a synonym of ablu, secretary; one or the other 
 term was often wanted, for the different classes needed secretaries to prepare 
 legal documents and other business records. So doubtless among the Israelites 
 (Ency. Bib., col. 4319)- 
 
2l6 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 to King David, 2 S. 8 : 17 ; 20 : 25 ; Elihoreph to Solomon, i K. 
 4:3; Shebna to Hezekiah, 2 K. 19:2; Shaphan to Josiah, 2 
 K. 22\ 8. In the following passages the American Revision 
 translates by the word "scribe" in the text, but by ''secretary" 
 in the margin: 2 S. 8: 17; 20: 25; i K. 4 : 3 ; 2 K. 12: 10; 
 I C. 18: 16; 2 C. 24: 11; Esther 3 : 10; Is. 36: 3, 22. The 
 duties of this official are not clearly defined ; but he seems to 
 have been charged with preparing a record of the chief events. 
 He may also have been an accountant, since this is one of the 
 meanings of the word. The scribe stood near the king, often 
 being a counsellor : '']orv2S\\2xv, David's uncle, was a counsellor, 
 a man of understanding, and a scribe", i C. 27 : 32. According 
 to Jer. 36: 10-12, 20, 21, the work of the royal scribe was so 
 extensive that he appears to have had a special chamber or 
 office. See also 2 K. 18: 18, 37; 22: 3, 8, 9, 12; 2 C. 34: 15, 
 18, 20; Jer. 37: 15, 20. 
 
 (2). An Enroller or Muster-Master. 
 
 This was an officer having charge of the enrollment and 
 enumeration of troops. See 2 K. 25: 19; Jer. 52 : 25 ; 2 C. 
 26: II, ''according to the number of their reckoning made by 
 Jeiel, the scribe". Is. 33 : 18, "Where is he that counted ?" 
 (margin, "the scribe"). Probably Jud. 5: 14 belongs here: 
 "They that handle the marshal's staff" (margin, "the staff of 
 the scribe"). The scribe in this sense was "a kind of adjutant- 
 general" (Moore, Judges, 151). 
 
 (3). One Skilled in the Sacred Books. 
 
 Of these Ezra is the type. Ezra 7 : 6, "he was a ready 
 scribe in the law of Moses"; 7: 11, "Ezra, the priest, the 
 scribe"; Neh. 8: i, 4, 9, 13. According to Neh. 13: 13, the 
 scribes were of nearly the same rank as the priests : "I made 
 treasurers over the treasures, Shelamiah the priest and Zadok 
 the scribe". The guild of the professional scribe was indicated 
 by the inkhorn girded at the side, Ezek. 9 : 2, 3. The services 
 of scribes were in such constant demand that sometimes whole 
 families were members of the order, i C. 2 : 55, "the families of 
 scribes etc.,". In the time of Josiah, scribes were regularly 
 appointed officials, 2 C. 24: 13. 
 
 (4). The Shoter. 
 The word shoter rendered "officer", in the American Revi- 
 sion, in Ex. 5:6, 10, 14, 19 and in other places, is frequently 
 rendered scribe in the Septuagint. "Evidently Sopherim and 
 
BOOKS AND SCRIBES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 21/ 
 
 Shoterim were synonymous terms and could be used of any 
 subordinate office which required ability to write" (En. Bib., 
 col., 4320) .^2 
 
 (5). The Char torn. 
 Another strange word is Clmrtom, Gen. 41 :8; 24:7; Ex. 
 7: II, 22; 8: 3, 14, 15; 9: II, generally translated magician, 
 but in the Amer. Rev. margin, Gen. 41 : 8, "sacred scribe". 
 It is probably traceable to cheret, a stylus, and denotes first a 
 writer of hieroglyphics, and then an interpreter of the sacred 
 writings. As this passage stands in the early document E, 
 the word must have been long in use and well understood by 
 writer and reader. 
 
 (6). The Mazkir. 
 
 At the courts of David and Solomon important events were 
 recorded by regularly appointed scribes and chroniclers. Thus 
 under David, ''Jehoshaphat was the recorder (mazkir) and 
 Seraiah was scribe"; 2 S. 8 : 16, 17. Under Solomon, "Eli- 
 horeph and Ahijah, scribes; Jehoshaphat, the recorder", i K. 
 4:3-. See also 2 K. 18 : 18, 37 ; Is. 36 : 3, 22 ; 2 C. 34 : 8. The 
 mazkir was "one of the court-officers whose duty it was to 
 record noteworthy contemporary events, in order that the king 
 might call them to remembrance. Compare Esther 6:1; Ex. 
 17 : 14. He was the M agister memoriae of the Roman Emper- 
 ors" (Biihl-Ges. Lex.). The mazkir was the royal remem- 
 brancer.^^ 
 
 (7)- The Tiphsar. 
 
 The unusual word tiphsar is translated "scribe" in the Am. 
 Rev., margin, Jer. 51 : 2y. Lenormant and Cheyne derive it 
 from the Assyrian dup-sharru, tablet-writer, occurring fre- 
 quently in the Babylonian and Assyrian contract-tablets. The 
 word was probably in current use among the Hebrews from 
 very early times and indicates their knowledge of tablet-writing. 
 
 (8). Jeremiah and the Scribe Baruch. 
 The Book of Jeremiali refers frequently to the service rendered to 
 the prophet by the scribe Baruch. 'Then took Jeremiah another roll, 
 
 " Koenig directs attention to the fact that shoterim are mentioned not merely 
 as Egyptian taskmasters over the Hebrews, Ex, s : 6, but also as Hebrew officers of 
 the Mosaic period. Num. ii: i6; Deut. i: 15; 16: 18; 20: 5, 8, and regards 
 this harmony of representation as implying a knowledge of writing among the 
 Hebrews of the Exodus. 
 
 " "It was the duty of the sopher to issue the public documents; of the 
 mazkir to preserve them and to incorporate them into the proper connection of the 
 history of the kingdom. Throughout the ancient East both offices existed gener- 
 ally" (F. Delitzsch). 
 
2l8 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 and gave it to Baruch the scribe, who wrote therein from the mouth of 
 Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim had burned in the 
 fire ; and there were added unto them many like words", 36 : 32. See 
 also 36: 1-6, 9-38; 43: 4-7; 45' 5. We have here a typical example of 
 the relation of the scribe and disciple to the prophet. If Jeremiah had 
 an amanuensis who wrote down carefully the words of the master, 
 it is altogether likely that other prophets took a similar care to have 
 their messages recorded in permanent form. 
 
 III. 
 LITERATURE IN THE DAVID-SOLOMON PERIOD. 
 
 Critics of all shades admit literature of a high grade existed 
 in Israel shortly after the establishment of the monarchy. The 
 references in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles to old and authen- 
 tic books and documents is a direct proof that the art of com- 
 position in the archaic Hebrew script had attained a high stage 
 in the David- Solomon period. We describe briefly some of 
 these ancient records.^* 
 
 I. David's lament over saul and Jonathan. 
 
 The essentially Davidic authorship of the "Lament over 
 Saul and Jonathan", 2 S. i : 18-27, is admitted by most critics; 
 also that it was committed to writing from the first. Kautzsch 
 says : ''The doubts occasionally expressed against the genuine- 
 ness of the song are now silenced ; in every age men have recog- 
 nized here a genuine pearl of Hebrew poetry" (Abriss d. Altt. 
 Schrift turns). So, too, Prof. H. P. Smith : ''There seems to be 
 absolutely nothing in the poem which is inconsistent with its 
 alleged authorship" (Samuel, p., 258). This is strong lan- 
 guage. If David could write such a "beautiful elegy" (C. F. 
 Kent), is it not prima facie evidence that he wrote other 
 poems ?^^ 
 
 2. David's letter to joab. 
 
 2 S. II : 14 is significant, for it implies the use of writing 
 in some generally understood script : "David wrote a letter to 
 Joab and sent it by the hand of Uriah". This verse is found 
 in a stratum regarded by critics as written in the age of Solo- 
 
 ** Kautzsch assigns the following sections to the 10 — 9 centuries: in i Sam- 
 uel, most of chas. 9 to 11; most of 13 and 14; 16: 14-23; most of 18, 21, 231 
 25: 1-44; most of 28; all of 29 — 31. In 2 S. most of chs. i — 20; 21: 15-22; 
 23: 8-39. I K. ch. I ; 2: 13-46; 3: 5-28; most of 4 — 11. 
 
 " That the Lament of David over Abner, 2 S. 3: 33 — 4, is genuine, even 
 though no authority is cited, is generally admitted. It may, however, be a ques- 
 tion whether this one strophe, complete indeed in itself, is the whole of the dirge, 
 or only a part of the original. 
 
LITERATURE IN THE DAVID-SOLOMON PERIOD. 219 
 
 men or not much later. The whole account is realistic in a high 
 degree; and this statement regarding the letter is so entirely 
 incidental that its historicity cannot be reasonably questioned. 
 Some have supposed that since Uriah v^as the bearer of his own 
 death-sentence, the letter was not composed in the Phoenician 
 script, but in an (assumed) system of conventional signs (cf. 
 Iliad, VI, 169-170). But just as ''the sad characters" of the 
 Bellerophon-letter were written on a folded and sealed tablet, 
 so here the tablet of wax or gypsum was sealed, and the con- 
 tents unknown to the bearer. Nothing forbids our holding 
 that the letter of David was composed in Hebrew and in the 
 script then current. ^^ 
 
 3. THE SCRIBE SERAIAH. 
 
 The statement, 2 S. 8: 17, ''Seraiah was scribe", shows 
 that one of the regular officers of the court of David was a 
 secretary whose duty was doubtless in part to keep a written 
 record of the chief events. This passage, found in the oldest 
 source of the book of Samuel, unquestionably indicates the 
 literary use of writing in Israel as well established and there- 
 fore of early date. 
 
 4. PSALMS OF DAVID. 
 
 The number of Psalms written by David is not definitely 
 known. It the titles and superscriptions could be accepted as 
 authentic, the number would be about 74. As seen above, 
 Ewald, Briggs and others regard some fourteen Psalms as 
 essentially Davidic.^^ A considerably larger number were in- 
 spired by David. The situation is described by Dr. J. D. Dav- 
 is : ''Tradition, not a late tradition, but ancient native tradition 
 almost contemporary with David, both directly and indirectly, 
 ascribes the composition of psalms to him. His fondness for 
 music is recorded in the historical books ; he played skillfully 
 on the harp (i S. 16: 18-23; 2 S. 6: 5), and he arranged the 
 praise for the sanctuary ( i C. 6 : 31 ; 16:7; 41, 42 ; 25 : i sq.). 
 
 36 It may be remarked that the words "wrote a letter" are kathabh sepher, 
 literally wrote an epistle or book, (Sept., Biblia), the words uniformly employed 
 in the O. T. to denote ordinary writing in the Phoenician script. An exactly 
 parallel passage of somewhat later date, but reflecting an ancient custom, occurs 
 in I K. 21: 8; "Jezebel wrote letters in Ahab's name and sealed them with 
 his seal", which implies sealing in the ancient way. The Samaria Ostraca, 
 recently discovered, render it clear that Jezebel's letter was written in the 
 Hebrew language and the archaic Hebrew script. 
 
 " The Psalms in the Hebrew are frequently introduced by a preposition 
 denoting of, or belonging to, the so-called lamed auctoris. This in some cases 
 certainly means authorship. According to the later criticism, "the lamed is not 
 the lamed of authorship, as has generally been supposed" (Briggs, Psalms, 1, LXI). 
 
220 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 . . . His musical activity is referred to by various authorities ; 
 Amos (6:5), Ezra (3: 10), Nehemiah (12: 24, 36,45, 46), the 
 son of Sirach (Ecclus. 47: 8, 9). . . The times of David, 
 moreover, were calculated to call forth devotional literature; 
 for the revival and reformatory work of Samuel had been in 
 progress for a generation, the spirituality of religion had been 
 urgently insisted upon, interest in the sanctuary had been re- 
 awakened, and preparations were being; made for the erec- 
 tion of a temple on a scale of great magnificence" (Bib, World, 
 VII, p., 502). 
 
 Even if the number of Davidic Psalms is not as great as 
 was formerly supposed, the fact that a man of war like David 
 wrote noble and inspiring hymns, is an indirect proof that men 
 living in the time of Moses and of the Judges might likewise 
 write poems, or at least historical records and memoranda.^® 
 
 S. David's last prophetic words. 
 
 2 S. 23: 1-7 contains a poem introduced as the "Last 
 Words of David". Standing in an early stratum of the Book 
 of Samuel, it is on a priori grounds authentic. According to 
 H. P. Smith, "both the vocabulary and thought show it to be 
 a comparatively late production" (Samuel, 381). Few He- 
 braists would pronounce the language as necessarily late; and 
 the "thought" can be pronounced "late" only on the unproved 
 Grafian assumption that all the codes are late. G. Baur remarks 
 that only "hypercritics" deny the authenticity. As the negative 
 criticism has nothing direct to offer, but builds on subjectivism, 
 we regard the Biblical account as well sustained. 
 
 6. OTHER WRITINGS OF DAVID. 
 
 David seems to have been the author of other writings. 
 In I C. 23 : 27 we read : "By the last words of David the sons 
 of Levi were numbered". The American Revision, margin, 
 reads, "in the last acts", which is preferable. A more literal 
 rendering is : "In the last acts of David is the numbering of 
 Levi". Under this view, the reference is to a lost book of an- 
 nals or statistics. There is mentioned also, "The Writing of 
 
 S8 Of Psalm 18 (= 3 S. 22), one of the noblest of productions, Briggs says: 
 After removing the glosses, there is nothing that bars the way to his author- 
 ship (Ps. I, 141). The man who could write such a poem could write others. 
 Driver, adopting the common view of the negative critics that David had inferior 
 literary talents, finally remarks: "On the other hand, if Deborah, long before 
 David's time, had 'sung unto Jehovah' (Judges 5: 3), there can be no a priori 
 reason why David should not have done the same; and 3 S. 23 : 1 the expression 
 •the sweet singer of Israel' implies that David was the author of religious songs" 
 (Literature, p., 358). 
 
LITERATURE IN THE DAVID-SOLOMON PERIOD. 221 
 
 David and Solomon", in 2 C. 35 : 4: "Prepare yourselves after 
 your fathers' houses by your courses according to the writing 
 of David king of Israel and according to the writing of Sol- 
 omon his son". It would seem that the lost works here men- 
 tioned were notes or writings of David and Solomon in which 
 were recorded the laws for the guidance of the priests and Le- 
 vites in the sanctuary. 
 
 The prophets of the David-Solomon period produced a 
 large number of booklets and records, which, though suffered 
 to perish, are referred to in the canonical scriptures, as follows. 
 
 7. THE HISTORY OF SAMUEL THE SEER. 
 
 "Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold they 
 are written in the history (Heb. zt'ords) of Samuel the seer, 
 and in the history of Nathan the prophet, and in the history of 
 Gad the seer" (i C .29: 29). It has been held that the first 
 of these works is the extant Book of Samuel, since certain sec- 
 tions of Samuel and Chronicles agree almost verbally. But a 
 closer examination shows that the document quoted by the 
 Chronicler was considerably more extensive than our canonical 
 Samuel. The natural inference is that the authors of Samuel 
 and Chronicles quoted from a history of Samuel now lost. 
 
 8. THE HISTORY OF NATHAN THE PROPHET. 
 
 This is mentioned in i C. 29 : 29 quoted above. As Nathan 
 was a prophet of commanding influence at the court of David, 
 and conversant with the real drift of events, we are not sur- 
 prised that he wrote a history of that part of the reign of David 
 with which he was especially familiar. In 2 C. 9 : 29 we read : 
 "Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they 
 not written in the history of Nathan the prophet ?" From this 
 it may be inferred that he also wrote an account of Solomon's 
 reign.^^ 
 
 9- THE HISTORY OF GAD THE SEER. 
 
 The above passage in Chronicles likewise mentions this 
 work. The prophet Gad was counsellor of David in early life 
 (l S. 22: 5). Subsequently he announced the divine condem- 
 
 " Alas! of all the lost works of antiquity, is there any, heathen or sacred, 
 to be named with the loss of the biography of David by the prophet Nathan? We 
 can, however, form some notion of these lost books by the fragments of the his- 
 torical writings that are left to us in the Prophetical Books of Isaiah and Jere- 
 miah, and also by the likelihood that some of the present canonical books were 
 founded upon the more ancient works which they themselves must have tended to 
 supersede (Stanley, History of the Jewish Church, Vol. I., p., 395). 
 
222 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 nation of the royal census (2 S. 24: ii), and advised the erec- 
 tion of an altar on Araunah's threshing-floor (2 S. 24: 18). 
 He was therefore qualified to write a history of the first part 
 of David's reign. In regard to these three lost books on the 
 reign of David, it may be remarked that the events in the 
 king's life must have been well known to Samuel and in the 
 schools of the prophets, and that they would take steps to keep 
 a complete record. 
 
 10. THE CHRONICLES OF KING DAVID. 
 
 I C. 27 : 24 : ''Neither was the number put into the account 
 in the chronicles of King David". As this passage stands in the 
 account of the numbering of the people, the chronicler doubt- 
 less means that the details of the census were not entered in 
 the official records. The book would thus appear to have con- 
 tained among other matters, a transcript of statistical tables. 
 ''From them may have been derived the formal summaries of 
 wars such as are given in 2 S. 8: 1-15, and lists of officials 
 such as those in 2 S. 8: 16-18; 20: 23-26; 23: 8-39 (Kirkpat- 
 rick, Samuel, p., 11)". 
 
 II. THE BOOK OF THE ACTS OF SOLOMON. 
 
 In the Books of Kings three documentary sources are men- 
 tioned : (i) The Book of the Acts of Solomon, i K. 11: 41; 
 (2) The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, i K. 
 14 : 19 ; (3) The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, 
 I K. 14: 29. That these are independent works is shown by 
 the fact that for the history of Solomon only the first is cited ; 
 for the history of the kings of Israel only the second; and for 
 the history of the kings of Judah only the third. 
 
 Thus it is certain that the prophets were the authors of his- 
 torical books; and we are therefore justified in holding that 
 the book of the Acts of Solomon was composed largely of ex- 
 cerpts from prophetical writings, and perhaps chiefly from the 
 three mentioned in 2 C. 9 : 29. 
 
 12. THE LOST PROVERBS OF SOLOMON. 
 
 There must have been intense literary activity in the two and a 
 half centuries between Solomon and Hezekiah, for we are told, Prov- 
 erbs, 25: I, "These also are proverbs of Solomon, which the men of 
 Hezekiah copied out", the reference being to chapters 25-29 inclusive. 
 The peculiarities of language and matter bear witness to the gradual 
 growth of the Book of Proverbs. Since Solomon is said to have spok- 
 en three thousand proverbs (i K. 4: 32) and the number transmitted is 
 only about 540 (some of which are repeated) it is probable that several 
 
PRE-DAVIDIC LITERATURE. 223 
 
 collections of his proverbs were extant, and that scribes gathered into 
 one book such as suited a religious purpose. The word translated 
 "copied out", meaning also "compiled", "arranged in order", may indi- 
 cate either one book or many as the source of the collection. Whether 
 Hezekiah's men merely copied out, or also compiled and edited is im- 
 material, since under any view some book or record existed from which 
 they selected. The view of some that these proverbs were handed 
 down orally is wholly without support. 
 
 13- SUMMARY. 
 
 That the David-Solomon period was far advanced in what 
 may be called literature in that age is evident. But according 
 to the negative criticism, Hebrew literature arose only in the 
 ninth century. Wellhausen says : "Before 850 B. C. we have 
 no statistics. . . Hebrew literature first flourished after the 
 Syrian wars. . . The reason why EHjah and Elisha left no 
 writing, while Amos did, is due to the fact that the former was 
 a non-Hterary, the latter a literary age". So too Kuenen : 'Ts- 
 raelitish literature dates from this, i. e. the eighth century, or 
 at all events not much earlier". Smend says : *'The oldest 
 literature of the Old Testament arises as to substance in the 
 regal period, and in its present form not until the late regal 
 period".*^ 
 
 Such is the uniform assumption of the Grafians, — an 
 assumption based on the prior assumption that the Hebrews 
 had no opportunity, disposition or suitable environment to 
 record the achievements of their race or to sing the praises of 
 Jehovah. The evidence thus far adduced shows that this 
 remarkable people at the Exodus and even during the some- 
 what unsettled times of the Judges were as far advanced as 
 their neighbors and as deeply concerned in the perpetuity of 
 their inherited institutions. The reader will not be surprised 
 to find a very considerable body of records, historical memo- 
 randa and even the most elevated poetry in the period of the 
 Judges. 
 
 IV. 
 
 PRE-DAVIDIC LITERATURE. 
 
 We come now to the most difficult part of our thesis. What 
 is the nature of the evidence that the Hebrews had at least a 
 limited body of literature, written literature (if the tautology 
 
 *<> The American Grafians fall in with the above. Thus Prof. C. F. Kent 
 says: "The conditions were first developed among the Hebrews after the estab- 
 lishment of the monarchy" (Nar. Begin. Heb. Hist., p., i8). See above, chap. I. 
 
224 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 be allowed), prior to David by some centuries, even as far back 
 as the time of Moses? Here again we reason back from the 
 known to the unknown. 
 
 It is clear that writing and literature were extensively cul- 
 tivated in the early years of the monarchy.*^ There must have 
 been pamphlets, biographies, histories, poems, state records, 
 chronicles, and booklets generally, from which later writers 
 quoted, but which subsequently disappeared. Only the titles 
 of some of them and an occasional citation have been preserved. 
 But the material at command is sufficiently ample and specific 
 to enable us to construct a strong argument for the view that 
 the era of Davidic literature was preceded by many years of 
 practice in writing and composition. The classic Hebrew and 
 the finished style of the admittedly earliest Hebrew literature 
 (though the "style" of Hebrew is never ''finished" in the classic 
 Greek sense) did not spring up over night, but were the fruitage 
 (in a fertile soil) of a long period of growth and development 
 in all kinds of literature. We describe some of these early 
 writings. 
 
 I. THE BOOK OF THE WARS OF JEHOVAH. 
 
 I. The twenty-first chapter of Numbers contains three po- 
 etical quotations, the first of which is affirmed explicitly to have 
 been taken from the "Book of the Wars of Jehovah", v. 14. 
 The occasion of the quotation is a description of the route of 
 Israel beyond Moabite territory and to the border of the Amor- 
 ites. Since the Arnon was in dispute, it is possible that the 
 poem celebrated a war for its possession; the writer adduces 
 a few lines as proof that the Arnon as the border of ]\Ioab has 
 been taken by Israel. The fragment begins and ends in the 
 middle of a sentence. If we supply a suitable verb, it runs 
 thus : "Wherefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of Jeho- 
 vah, 
 
 We passed Vaheb in Suphaih, 
 
 And the valleys of the Arnon, 
 
 And the slope of the valleys 
 
 That inclineth toward the dwelling of Ar, 
 
 And leaneth upon the border of Moab", vs. 14, 15- 
 
 We have here the clear statement of a quotation from a 
 "book" (Hebrew sepher), and unless the word has a meaning 
 
 " It was shown above (chapters six and eight) that inscriptions in the archaic 
 Hebrew script, such as those of Siloam, Samaria, Jeroboam, the Gezer Calander 
 Tablet and others, take us back to about 900 B. C., and warrant the inference 
 that this script had long been in use. So, too, of literature in the special sense. 
 
PRE-DAVIDIC LITERATURE. 225 
 
 different from the uniform usage of the Old Testament, it 
 denotes a composition in written, and not merely in oral form. 
 The date of this book will be considered later. 
 
 2. The second poetical quotation, Num. 21 : 17, 18, is the 
 so-called ''Song of the Well" : 
 
 "Spring up, O Well; sing ye unto it; 
 The well, which the princes digged, 
 Which the nobles of the people delved, 
 With the sceptre and with their staves." 
 
 Moses at the command of Jehovah collects the people and 
 gives direction for the digging of the well. ''The seeking of 
 the precious water by rude art in a thirsty valley kindles the 
 mind of some poet of the people. And his song is spirited, with 
 ample recognition of the zeal of the princes, who themselves 
 take part in the labor. While they dig he chants, and the peo- 
 ple join in the song till the words are fixed in their memory, 
 so as to become part of the traditions of Israel" (R. A. Wat- 
 son in Expositor's Bible). 
 
 3. The third poetical citation. Num. 21 : 27-30, begins : 
 ^'Wherefore they that speak in proverbs say : 
 
 Come ye to Heshbon; 
 
 Let the city of Sihon be built and established : 
 
 For a fire is gone out of Heshbon, 
 
 A flame from the city of Sihon : 
 
 It has devoured Ar and Moab, 
 
 The lords of the high places of the Arnon, etc." 
 
 Since the introductory words, 'al-ken yomeru, are the same 
 as in v. 14 (except that the verb is naturally in the plural), it 
 may be inferred that the quotation was made by the same writer 
 from the same source. The words, "they that speak in prov- 
 erbs" (in the Hebrew, one word, a participial noun) may 
 refer to the above "Book of the Wars of Jehovah", to a dif- 
 ferent book, or even to a song handed down orally.'*^ Driver 
 
 *^ The persons who recited the poem are called meshalim (v. 27), from a 
 verb meaning to utter a tnashal. A mashal may be either a parable, as in the 
 American Revision of Ps. 49: 4 (Hebrew v. 5) and 78: 2; a satiric hymn, Micah 
 2: 4; Hab. 2: 6; a maxim, Prov. i: i, 6; or even a prophecy in verse, as the 
 parables of Balaam, Num. 23: 7, 18; 24: 3. The second of these meanings seems 
 to suit best here. The meshalim are Israelites. The words, "let the city of 
 Sihon be built and established," imply that it was destroyed. Satirically the Is- 
 raelites call on the vanquished Amorites to rebuild the city if they are able. The 
 justification of the triumphal song is found in v. 28: "a fire is gone out of Hesh- 
 bon," etc. The view that the poem is a satiric ode is held by Ewald, Keil, Sayce, 
 Dillmann. Others, as Stade and E. Meyer, claim that the poem has nothing to 
 do with the Amorites, but is a triumphal ode celebrating a victory over Moab at 
 a much later date. In any event, the Mashalim were an order of long standing in 
 Israel. 
 
 IS 
 
226 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 and critics generally regard the three fragments as part of one 
 poem. Kautzsch thinks it probable that the "Song of the Well" 
 and other poems, as Ex. 15: 1-18, 21, were taken from this 
 ''Book" : "All these fragments point to a collection of songs 
 for the glorification of the brave deeds of the people, and espe- 
 cially of Jehovah as the leader and the God of Battles" 
 (Abriss, etc.). 
 
 That which concerns us especially in this connection is the early 
 date of this "Book" and the still earlier date of the poems preserved 
 in it. Some, as Gray, hold that the book was a collection of ancient popu- 
 lar songs that had been handed down orally till the fuller establishment 
 of a national life brought with it a period of Hterary activity (Commen- 
 tary, p., 285). Fuerst and the older critics place it in the Mosaic period; 
 Dillmann in that of David and Solomon ; Stade in the time of Omri ; 
 Kuenen under Jehoshaphat; E. Meyer 850; Driver prior to 900. Hol- 
 zinger, reviewing the recent literature, concludes : "Ueber Vermutun- 
 gen kommt man da nicht hinaus" (Einleitung, Hexateuch, p., 230). 
 Dillmann argues : "Since the book is cited for the Moses-Joshua period, 
 and since it cannot be supposed that the later writers (J and E) would 
 quote for their readers very late songs as witnesses of that remote per- 
 iod, the Wars of Jehovah must mean the old conflicts for the pos- 
 session of the land ; and' the composition of the book or the collection 
 of the songs must be placed not later and probably earlier than the 
 David-Solomon period, when the recollections were still fresh in the 
 memory. The age of Moses is out of the question" (Numeri, Deut. 
 u. Jos., 123). 
 
 The connection clearly shows that at an early period a guild of 
 men existed not unlike the Greek rhapsodists, who recited before the 
 people the old songs and poems of the nation.*^ We shall not err much 
 either way, if we regard the nucleus of the Book of the Wars of Jeho- 
 vah as originating shortly after the events celebrated and as com- 
 mitted to writing already in the period of the Judges. Whatever the 
 date of composition, it is clear that written sources existed in the 
 early days of the Judges.** 
 
 2. THE BOOK OF JASHAR. 
 
 I. At the battle of Gibeon, Joshua said: 
 
 "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. 
 
 *» It is easy to imagine how these reciters went about in Israel and, especially 
 in time of war, by reciting poems like the present (compare Is. 4: 4; Hab. 2: 6) 
 and thus recalling former victories, stimulated and encouraged the people (Judges 
 5: 31), But possibly the repertoire of these ballad-singers was not confined to 
 odes of war and victory (Gray, Numbers, p., 299). 
 
 " Any one caring to see a good example of the self-refutation of a certain 
 type of textual and literary criticism will find it in T. K. Cheyne's article in the 
 Encyclopaedia Biblica, col. 5271, where the absurd Jerahmeel hypothesis is brought 
 to bear on this subject, and the contention put forth that there was probably no 
 Sepher Milhamoth at all, but rather a Sepher Yerahmehel, i, e., "the book, or list, 
 of Jerahmeel," "a geographical survey"! 
 
PRE-DAVIDIC LITERATURE. 
 
 22-] 
 
 Is not this written in the Book of Jashar?" (Jo^h lo- 
 12-13). 
 
 What was the character and the date of this Book? ''It 
 was probably a collection, rhythmical in form, and poetical in 
 diction, of various pieces celebrating the heroes of the Hebrew 
 nation, and their achievements. . . . The book was naturally 
 compiled by degrees, and gradually any ode or song deemed 
 worthy of preservation added to it" (Maclear, Cambridge Bi- 
 ble, p., 89). Since the word hayyashar means the "Righteous 
 One," the book may have been a record of the deeds of righte- 
 ous men.'*^ It will be observed that the verses i-ii,^and 
 16-27 read continuously, while 12-15 break into the narrative 
 and indicate an insertion. Whether the author of chapter ten, 
 or another, incorporated the matter relating to the standing still 
 of the sun, the citation of the Book of Jashar proves that 
 sources and documents were preserved in that early period and 
 were available for literary purposes. 
 
 2. The second and only other reference to this book in the 
 Hebrew Bible is in 2 Sam. i: 17, 18: ''And David lamented 
 with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son ( and 
 he bade them teach the children of Judah the song of the bow ; 
 behold it is written in the Book of Jashar)". In v. 18 the 
 Hebrew text, which has no word for "the song of", might be 
 translated literally, "teach the children of Israel the bow". But 
 ^yhat can this mean? The text as it stands is in some confu- 
 sion, for this lamentation of v. 17, would seem to refer to the 
 dirge in vs. 19-27. How then can "the bow", which is said to 
 be written in the Book of Jashar, mean the following dirge ?*^ 
 Was the dirge known both as "a lamentation" and as "the song 
 of the Bow"? It is immaterial here how these questions are 
 answered; the fact remains that in this comparatively early 
 straturn of the Old Testament we have a distinct reference to 
 an ancient book doubtless preserved in the Hebrew archives 
 and available for reference. According to Driver, "it was not 
 
 r. " ?^^j quotation here does not prove that the Book of Joshua was composed 
 after the date of the reference in 2 Sam. i : 18 (David's time), and as little is 
 the reference there a proof that the first part of the book was not extant in the 
 pre-Uavidic period. Josephus testifies that books other than the canonical were 
 laid up in the Temple (Antiquities, V: i, 17). 
 
 _ « All the later critics, as Ewald, G. A. Smith, Perles, Wellhausen, Holzinger, 
 Driver and II. P. Smith have discussed the passage and attempted a restoration of 
 the text. Driver states the difficulties, but offers no solution (Notes on Sam- 
 uel). Wellhausen is equally unsatisfactory (Buecher Samuelis). H. P. Smith 
 says: "We can do nothing with the text as it stands, and the efforts of all the 
 commentators only bring the difficulty more clearly into relief" (Commentary on 
 Books of Samuel, 259). 
 
228 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 compiled before the time of David, though the nucleus of the 
 collection may obviously have been formed earlier" (Literature, 
 p., 114). So also Reuss. 
 
 It is probable that the Book of Jashar is referred to in another 
 passage. In closing the description of Solomon's dedication of the Tem- 
 ple, the Septuagint in i Kings 8: 53, adds: "Is not this written in the 
 Book of the Song?" Since the Hebrew for "the Righteous" is hay- 
 yashar and for "the Song" hashshir, and since in the absence of the 
 vowel-points in the Hebrew as originally \yritten, a confusion could 
 easily occur, it is probable that the Septuagint translators mistook the 
 one for the other. The Syriac similarly confounds the two words, 
 rendering Josh. 10: 13 "book of hymns, or praises", and 2 Sam. i: 18, 
 "book of Ashir". It is not likely that the Septuagint added the clause 
 without warrant. It would seem then that the Book of Jashar con- 
 tained an account of the foundation of the Temple and was quoted 
 by name in the Hebrew text used by the translators of the Book of 
 Kings into Greek. 
 
 Various opinions have been entertained as to the extent of this lost 
 book. Talmudists, Church Fathers, Midieval rabbis wrestled in vain 
 with the problem ; perhaps all would have assented to the conclusion 
 of Theodoret "that the citations prove that other documents written 
 by the prophets were made use of in the composition of the historical 
 books." Current criticism may be summed up in the language of W. 
 H. Bennett : "The data are too scanty and obscure to determine either 
 the character of the book or the meaning of its title. As the passages 
 quoted are ancient poems on great events, especially battles, prob- 
 ably the book was a collection of such poems" (Hast. Die. Bible). 
 At all events, the references show that already at an early period, books 
 were in process of formation and were referred to as sources of further 
 information.*^ 
 
 3. jotham's parable. 
 
 Jotham's parable of the trees anointing a king, Jud. 9 : 1-21, 
 must be regarded as a pre-Davidic piece of writing both on 
 internal grounds and the recognized principles of literary criti- 
 cism. The whole chapter, as Driver and nearly all critics ad- 
 mit, stands in a very ancient stratum. ''Chapter nine," says 
 Oettli, "contains traces of a highly archaic character, a section 
 rich in names, characteristic features and specific data, taken 
 from a special source, which chronologically is not far re- 
 moved from the events narrated. The moral judgments in 
 
 *^ The Sepher hayyashar has given rise to a curious literature. The Targum 
 saw in it "the book of the law"; and the rabbis variously understood it as refer- 
 ring to Genesis, Deuteronomy, Judges, and even the Minor Prophets. The opin- 
 ion of Gershom that it was one of the books that perished in the Babylonian Cap- 
 tivity was shared by Hottinger and other writers. In 1854 there appeared in 
 London an ambitious work by Dr. Donaldson, who in the attempt at reconstruc- 
 tion included in it a considerable part of the Pentateuch and of the early historical 
 books. There are also extant several rabbinical books with the same title. An 
 interesting account of the speculations and imitations called forth by this lost 
 work is found in Literary Remains of Emanuel Deutsch, pp., 440 — 8. 
 
PRE-DAVIDIC LITERATURE. 229 
 
 VS. 24, 56,^ 57, grow so naturally out of the history itself and 
 are so entirely different from the analogous passages of the 
 religious-pragmatic scheme, that we ascribe them, not to the 
 late redactor, but to the original author of chapter nine. The 
 compromising estimate of the kingdom in Jotham's fable and 
 in the description of Abimelech, forbids our assigning the 
 composition to the Saul-David period" (Kommentar).^^ An- 
 other critic says : "The artistic form of the fable is of such a 
 high character and is permeated by such inimitable sarcasm, 
 that the impression of the early date of the composition is un- 
 avoidable". The stylistic and historical data indicate that the 
 parable was composed and written out not long after, and per- 
 haps even contemporaneously with the episode, i. e. about 
 1 120 B. C. 
 
 4. WRITING IN Gideon's age. 
 
 Judges 8 : 14 contains an incidental but all the more valu- 
 able proof that a youth taken at random was able to write down 
 at the request of Gideon the names of the princes and elders of 
 Succoth.*^ *'He caught a young man of the men of Succoth 
 and inquired of him ; and he described [wrote down] for him 
 the princes of Succoth, and the elders thereof, seventy and 
 seven men" (vs. 14). According to Kautzsch, "this incident 
 warrants the inference of a general spread of the art of writ- 
 ing among the common people and enables us to conclude that 
 the rise of real literature may not be placed later than the sec- 
 ond half of the period of the Judges. The possibility that 
 already at that time, perhaps at ancient sanctuaries, as Shiloh 
 and Bethel, and in the circle of an hereditary priesthood, the 
 writing down of old hymns and of the history of the sanctuary, 
 was begun, must be admitted" (Ahriss, p., 9), 
 
 This admission of the use of writing in the time of Gideon 
 in the Phoenician script, not in the cuneiform, involves some far- 
 reaching consequences, especially when taken in connection with 
 the fact that the youth recounted to Gideon the sarim (princes) 
 and the zequanim (elders) of Succoth, which implies a stable, 
 
 ** Prof. G. F. Moore, with more reserve, says: "It is noteworthy that these 
 words (vs. 56) are uttered, not, as in so many similar cases, by a nameless 
 prophet, or by an angel, but by the man from whose lips they come with the most 
 dramatic fitness. In this also we may perhaps see evidence of the antiquity of 
 the whole story" (Judges, p., 246). 
 
 *» Both the Authorized Version and the Am. Rev. are probably inaccurate 
 here in the use of "described" rather than "wrote down", which by the general 
 consensus of scholars is the meaning of kathabh in this connection. Moore says: 
 "There is as little reason to depart from the usual meaning of the verb as there 
 is to infer from it that the Israelites of Gideon's time could all read and write". 
 
230 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 well-organized government. If society was thus comparatively 
 far advanced among the inferior races of Palestine, we may 
 suppose that the conquering Israelites had a like knowledge of 
 arts and letters. This passage, whose plain meaning and veri- 
 similitude cannot be invalidated by any special pleading as to 
 the 'lateness" of the documents (the ever ready Grafian re- 
 fuge), shows not only that society and government were in a 
 comparatively advanced stage, but that writing must have been 
 taught either at home or in the schools of Palestine. 
 
 This well-attested incident proves as conclusively as most 
 facts of ancient history can be proved that writing was known 
 at Succoth and presumably among the Hebrews. How could 
 Gideon have read the list even when written unless conversant 
 with the script? If Gideon had acquired the art, why not 
 others of his people? The episode proves further that tablets, 
 stylus and writing-material were ever at hand, even in a mil- 
 itary foray, and that the Israelites had at command all the 
 accessories of recording more or less lengthy documents and 
 narratives. 
 
 We need not expect that literature of the style and polish 
 of the Periclean age flourished in that somewhat primitive state 
 of society ; nor did it in fact so flourish in the Hammurabi and 
 Amarna periods, if by literature we mean a magnificent diction 
 and artistically rounded sentences. But if it be allowed that 
 the Egyptian and Babylonian annals of the millennium preceding 
 Gideon may in a broad sense be denominated literature, then 
 assuredly it may be held that a Gideon and the ancient Israelite 
 scribes possessed in no less degree the skill, acumen and re- 
 sources of language to compose not merely simple narratives, 
 but even longer poetical and historical pieces. 
 
 5. Deborah's triumphal ode. 
 
 We examine the remarkable poem known as Deborah's 
 Song or Triumphal Ode, Judges 5: 1-31, with the view of 
 evaluating the proof which it supplies regarding early Hebrew 
 literature. All competent judges admit that it is written in 
 classic Hebrew and implies a long period of literary prac- 
 tice among the Hebrews. Critics generally, even the more 
 radical, allow that the author was a contemporary of the 
 events described. Thus Kuenen : "Form and contents alike 
 prove that it is rightly ascribed to a contemporary". Stade: 
 "Even though the lineage of Deborah is uncertain, the Song in 
 any event dates from a contemporary". Wellhausen : "The 
 
PRE-DAVIDIC LITERATURE. 23 1 
 
 Song of Deborah, an unquestionably authentic document, goes 
 back almost to the Mosaic age" (Is. u. Jued. Gesch., ii).'^° 
 
 Moore says : "The Song is unsurpassed in Hebrew litera- 
 ture in all the great qualities of poetry, and holds a high place 
 among Triumphal odes in the literature of the world. It is a 
 work of genius, and therefore of that highest art which is not 
 studied and artificial, but spontaneous and inevitable. It shows 
 a development and command of resources of the language for 
 ends of poetical expression which shows that poetry had long 
 been cultivated among the Hebrews" (op. cit., 135).^^ The 
 Harvard professor concedes practically all that we ask : "a work 
 of genius", "unsurpassed in Hebrew literature", "poetry long 
 cultivated among the Hebrews". Orelli says : "That the Song 
 originated in the period which it describes and is accordingly 
 one of the oldest and best preserved monuments of Israelite 
 literature, is quite generally admitted" (Kom., 246). The in- 
 ternal character of the poem and the concessions of critics who 
 with few exceptions belong to the negative school furnish an 
 impregnable argument that the Song was composed in the He- 
 brew language and script and preserved intact to later times. ^^ 
 
 The age of Deborah according to the chronology adopted 
 here is about 11 50 B. C. ; it may be a half century earlier or 
 later. In any event this writing, and be it understood, writing 
 in the sense of literature as classic and finished as any in the 
 Old Testament, goes back very nearly to the Mosaic age, as 
 Wellhausen allows. If our purpose were to multiply words, 
 it would be natural to draw inferences as to the possibility and 
 probability that Hebrews of that and the preceding age rose on 
 
 " Koenig says: "The Song is not merely according to the general analogy, 
 that poetical glorifications of great events are older than their records in prose, 
 but also according to the wealth of detail, a direct echo of the historical situation 
 therein described, namely the decisive victory over the Northern Canaanites 
 (Einl., 254). It follows that other ancient sources are probably imbedded in 
 the book. 
 
 w Prof. Moore seeks to break the force of his admissions by the adoption of 
 the unproved Wellhausen-Stade hypothesis that since "early poetry was not pre- 
 served in books, but in the hearts of men", the Song "itself was thus perpetuated 
 for generations". We have seen that this assumption of "oral perpetuation is 
 contrary to the facts and probabilities. 
 
 " Some scholars, appealing to the title and v. 7, regard Deborah as the 
 author. Against this it may be said that the title is possibly of later date, and 
 that some of the ancient versions have the verbs of v. 7 in ths third person and 
 not in the first, as in the Hebrew. But since, as a rule, the Massoretic text 
 stands, unless overwhelming evidence supports the versions, and since, further, 
 vs 12, IS, 24, and 30 accord with the received text, the common view of the 
 Deborah authorship is well sustained. Some critics, however, as Kuenen, Reuss, 
 Kittel, etc, hold that Deborah is not the author. Wellhausen says: "Barek fuerte 
 die Israeliten an; Deborah sang ihnen das Lied" (Gech. 38). Whether or not 
 Deborah is the author is immaterial for our purpose. Its essential contemporane- 
 ousness with the events celebrated is the chief point here. 
 
232 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 other occasions to similar flights of literary excellence. Or, 
 are we to infer, either that they exhausted their resources on 
 this occasion, or that no other themes worthy of literary treat- 
 ment presented themselves? So a large number of literary 
 critics would have us believe. If it be allowed that some un- 
 known Hebrew author of the twelfth pre-Christian century 
 conceived and executed such a magnificent piece of word-paint- 
 ing as the fifth of Judges, other writers of that and the preced- 
 ing age could have produced, so far as literary qualifications 
 go, the documents underlying the Hexateuch and the book of 
 Judges. 
 
 6. THE marshal's STAFF. 
 
 Some recent writers, as Sayce, hold that Deborah's Ode 
 contains a clear proof of Hebrew writing. The latter part of 
 V. 14 reads in the American Revision : "Out of Machir came 
 down governors, and out of Zebulun they that handle the mar- 
 shal's staff". The Authorized Version substitutes ''lawgivers" 
 and ''staff of the scribe" for "governors" and "marshal's 
 staff", respectively. All turns here on the meaning of several 
 Hebrew words. Sayce's argument is substantially as follows. 
 The Hebrew word rendered "lawgiver" is mkhoqeq, a partici- 
 ple meaning to engrave. In Ezek. 23 : 14 the words m'khuqqeh 
 and khuquqim are used of sculptures engraved on the stuccoed 
 walls of the Chaldean palaces and then marked in red. In 
 Is. 49: 16 the verb Khaqah denotes tattooing of letters in the 
 flesh, and in Ezek. 4 : i the same verb describes the engraving 
 of the plan of Jerusalem on a clay tablet. In Is. 10: i, the 
 Khoq'qim khiqqe'aven, "engravers of unrighteous decrees", 
 are associated with "the writers of perverseness". Thus the 
 mkhoqeq and the scribe performed a similar work, the for- 
 mer holding a higher place, for he made the law, while the lat- 
 ter merely recorded it. The scribe might be content with 
 papyrus and parchment, but the statutes of the lawgiver needed 
 to be engraved on durable material, like wood or metal. 
 
 The words rendered "the marshal's staff", or "the staff 
 of the scribe" are shebhet sopher. All depends on the force 
 of shebhet, which the lexicons define, as a tree, a rod, or staff. 
 In Gen. 49 : 10 khoqeq clearly means lawgiver, but shebhet in 
 the same verse as clearly means scepter. Unless the passage 
 under review form an exception, it would seem that the Old 
 Testament furnishes no well-attested example in which the 
 word means stylus or pen of a scribe ; but such a use was en- 
 
PRE-DAVIDIC LITERATURE. 
 
 233 
 
 tirely natural, since the word is etymologically the same as the 
 Assyrian shahhitu, a stylus. Sayce argues cogently that here 
 the term must mean 'pen of the writer'. "The word sopher, 
 scribe, defines the word shehhet, rod, with which it is conjoined' 
 What is meant by the 'rod of the scribe' is made clear by the 
 Assyrian monuments. It was the stylus of wood or metal with 
 the help of which the clay tablet was engraved or the papyrus 
 inscribed with characters. The scribe who wielded it was the 
 associate of the lawgiver" (High. Crit., etc., p., 56)." 
 
 7. KIRIATH-SEPHER OR BOOK-TOWN. 
 
 Another proof that writing was known in Palestine at an 
 early date, certainly in the time of Joshua, is supplied from the 
 meaning of Kiriath-sepher in Josh. 15: 15, 16 and Judges i: 
 II, 12. Kiriath unquestionably means town or city, as shown 
 by Is. 1 : 21 , 26 ; Hos. 6:8; Jer. 4 : 26. Sepher clearly means 
 book in this connection; hence Book-Town. In Josh. 15: 15, 
 49; Jud. i: II, 12 the Sept. rendering is "city of letters"! 
 Still further strengthening the claim of the antiquity of Kiriath- 
 Sepher as a seat of learning is the explanatory clause : "Now 
 the name of Debir beforetime was Kiriath-Sepher" (Josh. 15: 
 15; Jud. i: 11). That the writer considered it necessary to 
 explain that Debir was formerly known as Kiriath-Sepher im- 
 plies the high antiquity of the town. In i K. 6 : 5 the word 
 Debir is simply transcribed in the Sept., but rendered Oraculum 
 in the Vulgate and Oracle in the Authorized and American ver- 
 sions.^* Koenig says : "In any event the existence of a Cana- 
 anite Book-Town in Southern Palestine, Josh. 15: 15, has 
 since the recent discoveries lost much of its historically enig- 
 matic character, and one will admit more readily than hereto- 
 fore that Judah's signet, Gen. 38: 18, 25, was supplied with 
 letters" (Einl, p., 178). 
 
 The Amarna Letters furnish incontestable evidence that 
 
 " Prof. G. A Barton holds that the common interpretation, 'staff of the 
 scribe, IS correct (Bth World, V, 127). Moore renders sopher by "muster-mas- 
 ter , an officer who m the later military organization "had charge of the enume- 
 ration and enrollment of the troops". Moore renders the whole phrase, "the 
 muster-master s staff". Assuming that the muster-master would make a list of 
 the troops, some kind of writing is implied. 
 
 . " "It meant the inner shrine of the temple, the Holy of Holies, where the 
 deity spoke to his worshippers. It was essentially a place of speaking, wherein 
 the oracles of the god were delivered to his priests. It was thus a fitting spot for 
 the site of a great library" (Sayce, op. cit., p., 55). Moore regards with sus- 
 picion all such attempts at identification. "So tempting a name could not fail to 
 give rise to a multitude of speculations". Moore, however, has nothing more 
 satisfactory to offer. It is worthy of mention that W. Max Mueller recognizes 
 Kiriath-Sepher in a phonogram meaning "house of the scribe" in Papyrus Ana- 
 stasi I (Asien u. Europa, 174). 
 
234 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 even small towns in Palestine had scribes who wrote in the 
 cuneiform and carried on an extensive correspondence with the 
 Egyptian court. The existence of such a Hterary center as 
 Kiriath-Sepher is therefore entirely in harmony with what 
 might be expected. But the existence of such a center some 
 forty miles from Jerusalem implies that at an early date the 
 Hebrews came under its influence and possibly had access to its 
 literary treasures.^^ 
 
 8. WRITING IN Joshua's time. 
 
 Tracing the evidence of written records further and fur- 
 ther back, we need not be surprised that the age of Joshua is 
 represented in the Bible as one of considerable literary activity. 
 
 (i). Copying of the Lazv. 
 
 In Josh. 8 : 32 we read : "He wrote there upon the stones 
 ... a copy of the law of Moses, etc.,'' 'This has been vari- 
 ously interpreted as meaning (a) the whole law; (b) the Dec- 
 alogue; (c) the Book of Deuteronomy; and (d) the Com- 
 mandments proper, the statutes and rights contained in the 
 Pentateuch". It matters little here in what sense the word 
 "law" is to be understood; the fact remains that writing for 
 literary purposes is clearly implied. ^° The law vv^as probably 
 "written upon or in plaster with which these pillars v/ere 
 coated. This could easily be done ; and such writing was com- 
 mon in ancient times. I have seen numerous specimxens of it 
 certainly more than two thousand years old, and still as distinct 
 as when they were first inscribed on the plaster" (Thomson, 
 Land and Book). 
 
 The account, though brief, fits in vv^ell with the situation. 
 The author in speaking of the law "written upon stones (the 
 stones covered with gypsum) need express himself very briefly 
 because the subject was fully presented in Deut. 27, to which 
 he had just referred" (Dillmann).'^^ 
 
 " It is possible that the cuneiform records preserved in Kiriath-Sepher, 
 Shecheni, Bethel, etc., and falling into the hands of the Israelites at the con- 
 quest, were in some cases the sources of the Biblical narratives. See, further, 
 chap. XIII. 
 
 " The Graf-ivent-Smith school would break the force of the passage by as- 
 signing its insertion to the ever ready Deuteronomic editor, but according to the 
 same school, this figure-head stupidly misplaced the passage. "But", says Dill- 
 mann, "an interpolator would certainly have sought a more suitable place for the 
 inserted passage" (Josh., p., 478). If the section 8: 30-35 goes back to E, it is 
 quite ancient, and as E rested on earlier sources, we reach the same date approx- 
 imately as above. 
 
 ^^ The investigation of the Egyptian monuments has shown that it was an 
 ancient Egyptian custom "first to plaster the stone walls of buildings, and also 
 monumental stones that were to be painted with figures and hieroglyphics, wi^ 
 a plaster of lime and gypsum, into which the figures were worked; thus it was 
 
PRE-DAVIDIC LITERATURE. 235 
 
 (2). Distribution of the Territory. 
 
 The account in Josh. i8 and 19 of the distribution of the 
 unoccupied territory to the seven tribes which had not received 
 their allotment is a proof at once of the extensive use of writing 
 and of the advanced culture among the Hebrews of that day. 
 If the territory was to be distributed equitably, it must be 
 accurately described. Hence Joshua directs that a commission 
 of 21 men, three from each tribe, prepare a written description 
 of the land, and report to him at Shiloh.^^ Joshua directs the 
 men as follows : "And they shall arise and walk through the 
 land, and describe it according to their inheritance; and they 
 shall come unto me. . . . And ye shall describe the land into 
 seven portions and bring the description hither to me. . . And 
 the men went and passed through the land, and described it 
 by cities into seven portions in a book; and they came to Joshua 
 unto the camp at Shiloh" (18: 4, 6, 9). The author of these 
 verses evidently intended to convey the impression that the com- 
 mission was to prepare a written description of the territory as 
 the basis of an equitable distribution. In order to secure ac- 
 curacy, they were to describe "it by cities in a book".^^ The 
 report was to be embodied in a written form, says Dillmann, 
 (who accepts the historicity) in order to prevent future strife. 
 
 That the commission is assumed to be competent to make 
 such a survey implies a somewhat advanced stage of culture 
 and rufutes in a striking way the assumption of the negative 
 critics' that at the Exodus the Israelites were an ignorant 
 horde. "Although the survey was connected chiefly with a 
 general estimate of the resources and characteristics of the 
 several districts, yet it is to be remembered that the Israelites 
 had acquired a knowledge of the art of mensuration in Egypt, 
 where, on account of the annual overflowing of the Nile, it had 
 been practised from the earliest times" (Maclear, Cam. Bible ).^^ 
 
 possible in Egypt to engrave on walls the most extensive pieces of writing. And 
 in this manner Deut. 27: 4-8 must be understood, and in this manner it was 
 accomplished by Joshua". 
 
 ^* Their duty was not so much to make an actual measurement as to furnish 
 information regarding the different districts, such as the number and character 
 of the towns, the barrenness or fertility of the soil, etc. 
 
 " The word translated "describe" in the above passages is the usual word 
 kathabh "to write", and such is unquestionably its meaning here. According to 
 the Grafians the whole narrative is late and a projection backward of the ideas 
 of a later age. It stands, however, in JE, whose component parts are early under 
 any view; and thus it may rest ultimately on a source coming down from the 
 age of Joshua. The word rendered "book" is the usual Hebrew word sepher, 
 whose plain meaning cannot be evaded here. 
 
 «° This mode of assignment "places the conquest of Palestine, even in that 
 remote and barbarous age, in a favorable contrast with the arbitrary caprice, by 
 which the lands of England were granted away to the Norman chiefs" (Stanley, 
 Lectures, I., p., 265). 
 
236 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 9. LITERATURE IN THE MOSAIC AGE. 
 
 The line of argument in the preceding section yields certain 
 definite results. We proceeded from data accepted by the 
 negative critics to conclusions warranted by a rigid inductive 
 logic. The starting-point was in every instance some generally 
 accepted position of scientific criticism. Others cogent argu- 
 ments (advanced by the strictly conservative or traditional 
 school) could have been adduced, but since their validity might 
 be challenged on the basis of the Grafian premises, they have 
 been omitted. But even so the case is a strong one. In the 
 David-Solomon period, there originated certain writings of 
 David, Samuel the seer, Nathan the prophet, Gad the seer, the 
 Chronicles of David's reign, and various other records no lon- 
 ger extant. In the period of the Judges, there appeared the 
 first part of "The Book of the Wars of Jehovah," "The Book 
 of Jashar", Jotham's "Parable", Deborah's "Triumphal Ode", 
 Joshua's Transcript of the Law and the Description of the Un- 
 occupied Territory. Further proof of writing in the Phoeni- 
 cian script is found in the ability of a youth of Succoth to write 
 and of Gideon to read a list of 'j'j names, also in the reference to 
 the pen of the scribe in Deborah's Ode and in the mention of 
 the Book-Town (Kiriath-Sepher). 
 
 Here we have an unbroken chain of examples of writing 
 and literature extending from Joshua to David. This period, 
 it must be allowed, was not characterized by the highest degree 
 of literary activity; nor is it so represented in Scripture. It 
 followed the Mosaic, or creative period of Israelitish history, 
 and was partly an age of decline. All classes alike were occu- 
 pied in becoming firmly established in their new home.®^ But 
 the extant writings from this period are sufficiently numerous 
 and meritorious to warrant the inference that heroes like Josh- 
 ua, Deborah, Jephthah, Samuel and others, would not merely 
 rise in defence of the Jehovah-religion, but also prepare the 
 essentials of an historical record; and we may be sure that 
 the priests at Shiloh, Bethel and other sanctuaries (with the 
 native pride of their guild) would transmit various written 
 records. If, as admitted by all critics, writing was well-known 
 and a high order of literature produced in Israel in Deborah's 
 time, it is safe to conclude (even apart from other proofs) that 
 
 •^ Their condition was similar to that of the American colonies before the 
 Revolution. The latter, even while fighting the Indians, produced a very con- 
 •iderable body of respectable literature. So, too, the leading spirits in the period 
 of the Judges. 
 
PRE-DAVIDIC LITERATURE. 237 
 
 they flourished several generations earlier in Joshua's time, and 
 if in Joshua's, then in the Mosaic age generally. 
 
 The chief points, therefore, are: i, Conditions in the per- 
 iod of the Judges favorable to the production and transmission 
 of writings; and, 2, the prima facie presumption of the com- 
 mon use of writing and of an extensive Hebrew literature in the 
 Mosaic Age.^^ 
 
 " Commenting on the tendency to assume that writing on monuments pre- 
 cedes its use for literary purposes, J. G. Dawson says: "It is quite possible that 
 handwriting was likely to be in common use for ordinary purposes before ever it 
 was thought of employing it on stone or other imperishable material. It is 
 incredible that with civilization at such a height as we find it on the shores of the 
 Levant as early as 1500 B. C, the people would go on using the accomplishment 
 of handwriting merely for public or political purposes, or for records on temple 
 walls and monuments, and never dream of applying it to the purposes of every- 
 day life" (Expl. of Egypt, etc., p., 240). 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 THE ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 (Continued.) 
 
 A. ANCIENT STRATA IN THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 While the present inquiry does not necessarily demand a 
 consideration of the question of the origin and composition of 
 the Pentateuch (Hexateuch), it is obvious that the chief prac- 
 tical as well as theoretical interest of the discussion lies in the 
 possible Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch or at least of the 
 underlying strata. The Pentateuchal problem is too large for 
 consideration here; but it will be proper to inquire whether 
 any parts of the Pentateuch may not have originated either 
 in the Mosaic or the immediately following age. 
 
 I. Old Hebrew Records. 
 
 The Hebrews produced a very credible literature in the 
 period of the Judges, as e. g. the Song of Deborah, the Book 
 of the wars of Jehovah etc. It is probable that these works 
 are types of other prose and poetic writings, of which unfor- 
 tunately the Old Testament makes no mention. It is therefore 
 antecedently probable that a considerable part of the Pentateuch 
 is of early, even Mosaic, origin. The essential trustworthiness 
 of the Old Testament records, as shown by archaeological dis- 
 coveries, justifies the conclusion that authentic written docu- 
 ments of the pre-Mosaic period are imbedded in Genesis, as 
 the accounts of the creation, flood, dispersion, call of Abraham, 
 etc. E. Koenig says : ''Upon the basis of the above described 
 cultural relations of the patriarchs and of the positive traces 
 of credibility in Israelitish literature, the conclusion appears per- 
 fectly valid, that not only traditions, but also written records 
 from the pre-Mosaic age are found in the Pentateuch. This 
 seems to be the only adequate explanation of the following char- 
 acteristics of the narrative, namely that already before Moses 
 stages of progress are distinguished, that certain occurrences 
 are minutely described, and yet without a trace of the laudatory 
 and over-wise saga ; and that a part of the history contains a 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 239 
 
 number of surprising references to non-Israelitish antiquities" 
 (Einl, 180). 
 
 If in deference to the current criticism, the J and E Codes 
 be assigned to the ninth and eighth centuries respectively, it 
 follows from the same criticism that the matter of these codes 
 antedates written prophecy by a number of centuries. The 
 majority of critics allow that the authors of the original J and 
 E strata had at command and either re-wrote or embodied, 
 ancient written sources going back in some cases almost, if 
 not quite to the Mosaic age. According to Gunkel the patriar- 
 chal sagas received their present form prior to 1200 B. C, as 
 seen from the silence of the Pentateuch regarding the sanctuary 
 at Jerusalem, the wars with the Philistines, the kingdom of 
 Saul, David and Solomon, the high-place and Ashera worship 
 etc.^ 
 
 2. Pre -Mosaic Strata. 
 
 The Israelites, while recognizing Moses as the great law- 
 giver, carefully preserved the old land-marks and patriarchal 
 traditions, a thing impossible without specific records. The 
 historicity of Genesis is established as much by v^hat it omits as 
 by what it records. A late writer would probably have repre- 
 sented Abraham as observing all the Mosaic laws of sacrifice 
 (as is actually done in the Apocryphal Book of Jubilees) and 
 have committed other anachronisms. Such a distinction be- 
 tween the pre-Mosaic and Mosaic periods, far from being the 
 result of a Stndier-Zimmer calculation of a writer living a 
 thousand years later, must date from a remote past.^ ''The 
 Abraham narratives in Genesis," says Koenig, ''do not sound 
 as if they were sagas and myths. Abraham is a nomadic chief 
 with a merely temporary abode in Canaan and must purchase 
 a burying-place for his dead. Would not the picture of his con- 
 dition have been painted differently by oral tradition after the 
 lapse of five hundred or a thousand years ? We know what oral 
 tradition has to say of his migration from Chaldea and his 
 kingdom in Damascus (see the extravagant account in Jo- 
 sephus Antiq. 1 : 7, 2 ; 8 : 2)". 
 
 1 With the exception of Gen. 36: 31 there is no reference to a king in Israel; 
 and if this passage be regarded as a late insertion, nothing in JE is demonstrably 
 post-Davidic. Certain sections in these codes are represented as originating in 
 the Mosaic age. 
 
 2 An incidental proof of the Egypticity and authenticity of the Genesis nar- 
 ratives is furnished by the fact that of the five kinds of animals presented to 
 Abraham by a Pharaoh (Gen. 12: 16), the horse is not mentioned, agreeably to 
 the fact that the horse is not depicted on Egyptian monuments before the Hyksos 
 period; it occurs, however, in the time of Joseph, Gen. 47: 17; Ex. 9: 3. Other 
 data of like character could be adduced. 
 
240 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 3. Abraham and Cuneiform Tablets. 
 
 Had Abraham access to cuneiform tablets, and did he leave 
 anything in writing? The Grafians dismiss the subject con- 
 temptuously, and Driver ridicules the idea that the patriarchs 
 may have had written records. But look at the facts and proba- 
 bilities.^ 
 
 (i). Ur a Literary Center. A thousand years before the 
 Abrahamaic age, letters, contracts, histories and all kinds of 
 writing were prepared in every part of the Babylonian Empire, 
 including Canaan.* Scribes were found everywhere, and writ- 
 ing was almost universal among the higher classes. Writing 
 was a required exercise in the schools.^ 
 
 Ur was an ancient city already in the days of Abraham and 
 the seat of a high civilization and of the worship of the Moon- 
 god Sin.^ We do no violence to the probabilities of history in 
 holding that in the family of Terah the same care would be 
 taken in the education of the youth as in other families of the 
 higher middle class in Babylonia ; it must be remembered that 
 Abraham was a man of wealth and influence when he was di- 
 vinely directed to leave his fatherland."^ Since writing was an 
 indispensable element in Babylonian life and civilization, noth- 
 ing is more probable than that Abraham in youth learned to 
 write the cuneiform just as others of his rank; in any event 
 he could command the services of a scribe. During his 75 
 years' residence in Ur he would certainly have constant need 
 
 f "It is not denied that the patriarchs possessed the art of writing; but the 
 admission of the fact leads practically to no consequences; for we do not know 
 what they wrote, and there is no evidence that they left any written materials 
 whatever behind them" (Genesis, p., XLIII; ibid., p., 143). 
 
 * "In the times of the First Dynasty of Babylon almost every tablet seems 
 to have a fresh tupshar, or scribe. Many show the handiwork of women scribes. 
 But most of the persons concerned in these documents were of the priestly rank. 
 There is no evidence that the shepherds or workpeople could write. In the Assy- 
 rian times the scribe was a professional man. We find aba or tupshar used as a 
 title. So, too, in later Babylonian times" (C. H. W. Johns, Bab. and Ass. Laws, 
 Contracts, etc., p., 151). 
 
 5 "The fact toat scribes were so numerous implies that there were schools 
 in which they had been taught. . . All kinds of pupil exercises have been found, 
 from tablets containing a repetition of single wedges, to exercises in multipli- 
 cation and grammar, and in the copying of various kinds of lists" (Clay, Light 
 on O. T., pp., 182, 187). 
 
 « "The great political and religious centers of Babylonia, Ur, Sippar, Agade, 
 Eridu, Nippur, Uruk, perhaps also Lagash, and later on Babylon, formed the 
 foci of literary activity, as they were the starting-points of commercial enter- 
 prise" (Jastrow, Relig. of Bah. and Ass., p., 245). 
 
 ^ "In accordance with an ancient Oriental custom even now universally pre- 
 vailing in the East, we should imagine the Babylonian students of the time of 
 Abraham being seated on the floor with crossed legs, respectfully listening to the 
 discourses of the priests, practising writing and calculating on clay tablets, or com- 
 mitting to memory the contents of representative cuneiform texts by repeating 
 them in a moderately loud voice" (Hilprecht, Expl. in Bib. Lands, p., 522). 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 24I 
 
 and opportunity to read the Babylonian language and script, 
 and farniliarize himself with all the details ; at the departure of 
 the family from Ur, and subsequently from Harran, there were 
 unquestionably professional scribes in the caravan. 
 
 (2). Religions Motives in the Migration. The Terahites, imi>elle<l 
 by religious motives to migrate to the West, naturally carried with 
 them their sacred books, for they must be supposed to have had as 
 much interest in religious records as the average Babylonian, who as- 
 sociated religion with every business transaction. As says Jeremias : 
 •Trom the analogy of other religious-historical phenomena in the 
 Orient, we may assume that there was here a reformatory movement 
 which protested against a religious degeneration in ruling circles" 
 (A. T. im Lichte, etc., p., 333). Through a revelation (outward and 
 objective as well as inward and subjective) Abraham was led to mi- 
 grate. According to Acts 7: 2, "the God of glory appeared unto 
 our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in 
 Harran". The correctness of this must be maintained despite the 
 negative criticism. Even Jeremias writes : "The critics [he means the 
 Grafians] say that this is to be understood in the sense of the later 
 prophetism. But this is a petitio principii (*a begging of the ques- 
 tion')".® 
 
 B. Baentsch in bis recent "Ancient Oriental and Israelitish Mono- 
 theism", takes high ground in support of the old view that the call 
 of Abraham looked toward the conservation of a true monotheism. 
 "Ur Kasdim and Harran, as well as Heliopolis or On, are not merely 
 geographical designations, but the nam^s of celebrated ancient sanctu- 
 aries with highly cultured priests, in whose midst the old monotheistic 
 speculations were familiar. If now the ancient representatives of the 
 people (Abraham and Joseph) are brought into relation with these 
 sanctuaries,_ it would follow that the generations of the patriarchs were 
 familiar with the religious thoughts current at these sanctuaries. 
 Under these circumstances, the ancestors of Israel must have been 
 monotheists, even if only in the old sense." (p. 50)." 
 
 "Finally", says Baentsch, "the strongest proof that we have here, 
 not a late, artistic construction, but a genuine historical record lies in 
 the fact that the Abrahamic narrative in Genesis justifies itself more 
 and more as a part of a great religious-historical environment. For, 
 from the El-Shaddai of Abraham there are historical threads to El- 
 Elyon, who according to the clearly unsuspicious account in Gen. 14: 
 
 • Jeremias continues: ''Besides, if God revealed himself to the prophets, was 
 he inactive m the origin of the Israelitish religion? If one asks, where was rev- 
 elation before the time of Abraham, we reply in the language of Acts 14: 16, but 
 in the sense of Rom. 1: 19. With tHe father of the faithful, a novum took place. 
 a revelation looking forward to redemptive history" (op. cit., p., 334). To the 
 same effect also Orelli: "The soil out of which the O. T. religion grew, was a 
 Semitism, which recognized a supreme God." Israel's permanent possession of a 
 true monotheism was due to a revelation of the living God to pious men, as e. g. 
 to Abraham, "bei welchem ein erster Ansatz zur Bildung der spezifischen bi'bli- 
 schen Religion stattfand" (Allgemeine Religionsg., p., 264). 
 
 8 Baentsch opposes the Grafian view that this monotheism of Israel was first 
 taught by the prophets of the eighth century and that "the patriarchal history and 
 especially the Abrahamic narratives were of Canaanite origin". 
 16 
 
242 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 18 f. was venerated in ancient Urusalem about 2000 B. C. ; and from 
 this El-Elyon the threads are spun to the Lord of the gods in the 
 Amarna period" (p. 36). 
 
 It is highly significant that Abraham migrated from the great re- 
 ligious centers Ur and Harran. Jastrow, Baentsch and Sayce have 
 pointed out that at both these places (especially the former) Abraham 
 would come into contact with the worship of the Moon-god (now 
 rapidly degenerating), and that his "call" to another country fits in 
 exactly with what the inscriptions intimate regarding the decline of true 
 religion. 
 
 (j). Early Sacred Records. That which concerns us here 
 is whether Abraham would take steps to preserve and carry 
 with him genealogical records and religious books. ''Every 
 organized religion has its sacred books. They have been as in- 
 dispensable to it as an organized priesthood. . . . The sacred 
 book binds a religion to its past ; it is the ultimate authority to 
 which, in matters of controversy, appeal can be made, for it 
 enshrines those teachings of the past upon which the faith of 
 the present professes to rest" (Sayce, Relig. An. E. and Bab., 
 398). In antiquity each great sanctuary had its own collec- 
 tion of books. Living under the very shadow of the great 
 temples and departing on a religious mission, Abraham would 
 unquestionably provide himself with just such tablets and rec- 
 ords as were deposited in great numbers in Ur and Harran. 
 
 Dr. Julius Fuerst in his History of Biblical Literature re- 
 marks that the Abrahamites coming into contact with the liter- 
 ary atmosphere of Ur must have been influenced thereby to pre- 
 serve records of their faith. ''The writings of the Babylonians 
 and Canaanites must have led the patriarchs to write out the 
 traditions of the remote past, i. e. the accounts of the creation, 
 fall, flood and dispersion, for they still lived in the circle of 
 Semitic ideas, had a deep consciousness of their connection with 
 other people, and transmitted the cosmogonic sagas and the 
 information concerning the new post-diluvian race. . . These 
 beginnings of Hebrew literature in the patriarchal period are 
 contained in the primitive Biblical records of Genesis. If we 
 omit the few, but recognizable later, additions in the spirit of 
 the particularistic Mosaic religion, we clearly discover the pre- 
 Mosaic, archaic expressions and the common Semitic ideas, 
 imbued, however, with a deep ethical spirit". ^^ 
 
 i** Fuerst emphasizes two points: i, The traditions of Gen. i — ii were written 
 in the patriarchal period; 2, The earliest Hebrew literature arose prior to the 
 Mosaic individualizing of the material. "These primitive records in Genesis 
 (which reflect the views of the West-Asiatic races) are characterized by such a 
 realistic style that one immediately recognizes that neither the sojourn in Egypt 
 nor the distinctively Mosaic legislation affected them essentially". 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 243 
 
 Recent English writers, as Girdiestone and Lias, also hold 
 that Abraham had cuneiform record s.^^ 
 
 A cardinal tenet of the Grafian critics is that Genesis i-ii is trace- 
 able to Babylonian sources. On the assumption of some connection 
 between the two accounts, only two hypotheses are worthy of con- 
 sideration : I, either these chapters were composed by the Jews during 
 the Babylonian Exile and so are late ; or, 2, the underlying strata 
 were brought by Abraham from Ur and so are early. At no inter- 
 mediate period, either during the patriarchal sojourn in Canaan, the 
 bondage in Egypt, the time of the Judges or of the monarchy, were 
 the conditions present for the adoption by the Hebrews of these prime- 
 val narratives. The period of the Babylonian Exile is excluded by the 
 fact that the J and E codes were composed some centuries earlier, 
 as all allow, (the Grafian date being circa 850, at which time the 
 Hebrews were not in touch with Babylon, nor had they been for cen- 
 turies) ; and by the fact that the P sections (assigned by the Grafians 
 to the Exilic or post-Exilic period) are for the most part and es- 
 pecially in Genesis earlier than the Exile and are accordingly as- 
 signed by the Dillmann school to a comparatively early date, a view 
 gradually gaining ground in other critical quarters. 
 
 A German archaeologist, E. Sellin, who has investigated 
 anew the sources of Genesis i-ii reaches the conclusion that 
 an absolute separation of J and P is impossible. In some 
 parts P has more original, i. e. older material than J. There 
 can be no doubt that chapter V is more ancient than 4: 17-22. 
 It is also clear that parts of the flood narrative are older than 
 J, as e. g. the rainbow and the covenant including animals 
 (9: 12). 'The traditional matter in i-ii was in all probabil- 
 ity brought to Canaan by the family of Abraham" (Bib. 
 Urgesch ), but was later elaborated from other sources and 
 finally written out in the Davidic period, according to Sellin. 
 
 Another German critic, R. Kittel, adopts the view that 
 these chapters are based on records brought by Abraham from 
 the East, ''having been long known to Israel, for the simple rea- 
 son that they had long existed as an old heritage in the East and 
 been imported in substance by Israel from their ancient home. 
 Everything tends to show that this material, whether found in 
 
 11 "There would be no difficulty in Abraham's becoming possessor of trust- 
 worthy copies or translations of these documents, which would thenceforward be 
 handed down to his posterity, and from these or such as these, the early part of 
 Genesis would be composed, the whole series being welded into one by some qual- 
 ified person, into whose keeping the document would come on the death of Joseph" 
 (R. B. Girdiestone, Foundations of the Bible, p., 48). So, too, J. J. Lias: "There 
 is a strong presumption in favor of the supposition that the patriarchs them- 
 selves could write and a high degree of probability in consequence that memoirs 
 were preserved among their descendants which were used in the narrative in 
 Genesis. It is more than probable that some of these were inserted in extenso. 
 Genealogies would naturally be copied with as much exactness as possible, though 
 it is also possible that some of these might have been inserted from public records 
 by some later editors" (Prin. Bib. Criticism). 
 
244 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Babylonia or in Israel, is very ancient, and the simplest explana- 
 tion of the later variations, is to be found in the assumption that 
 both accounts go back to a common original, from which, pro- 
 ceeding in two streams and subject to independent develop- 
 ment, they issue respectively in a nature-myth (Babylon) and 
 in a monotheistic religion with an ethical basis (Israel)" (Ori- 
 ent. Ausgr. u. Bib. Gesch., 30). 
 
 The probability, therefore, that Abraham may have taken 
 with him some cuneiform tablets of the early history of man- 
 kind — some transcripts of the Sumerian-Babylonian Urge- 
 schichte — is not so preposterous as Driver and others would 
 have us believe; nor is it necessary to entertain the extreme 
 view that the patriarchs carried about with them whole ''librar- 
 ies of burnt bricks". A half dozen tablets six by eight inches, 
 carefully encased and easily stowed away in a small ark, would 
 suffice for what under any view must have been the compass 
 of Genesis i-ii in that day. If Abraham was any such figure 
 as represented in the Bible he must have preserved a record of 
 his eventful career. Nor do we depart from the probabilities 
 of the situation if we assume that Isaac and Jacob and Joseph 
 caused ever-ready scribes to write down the essentials of patri- 
 archal history for future use and guidance. 
 
 (4) Canaanite Libraries. It is well known that in the 
 period of the Amarna Letters and of the Judges, writing and 
 literature were cultivated in Canaan. Kiriath-Sepher ("Book- 
 Town") must have been "the seat of a library like those of the 
 great cities of Babylonia and Assyria, — a library which doubt- 
 less consisted in large measure of books on clay that m.ay yet be 
 brought to light" (Sayce). It is probable that there were li- 
 braries in Canaan at a considerably earlier date. In Babylonia 
 places of worship were also seats of learning, and so every tem- 
 ple had its library. Babylonian precedent would obtain in Ca- 
 naan in 2000 B. C. 
 
 Some German scholars (Winckler, Benzinger, Jeremiias, 
 Erbt) have recently come out in support of the view that the 
 old Canaanite sanctuaries (Shechem, Gilgal, Shiloh, etc.,) were 
 the depositories of books and tablets from early times and that 
 these were made use of by the Israelites after the conquest in 
 drawing up the early Old Testament books. The first part of 
 the hypothesis is probable enough, for evidence to that effect 
 is daily accumulating ; the second part is less probable, for the 
 essentials of Israelitish history and religion were in possession 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 245 
 
 of the Hebrews when they emerged from Egypt. The view 
 adopted here is that the Hebrews took with them to Egypt the 
 records subsequently used by Moses and others in the com- 
 position of the Hexateuch. Nevertheless, the many proofs 
 (recently supplied by excavations) that Canaan was a land of 
 letters from 2000 to 1400 B. C. and thence to the later periods, 
 support the contention that such chapters as Genesis 5, 10 and 
 14, may be based on old records (Babylonian or Canaanite) 
 preserved at the old sanctuaries.^^ 
 
 In any event, whether the first eleven chapters of Genesis 
 are based ultimately on old records carried to Egypt by Jacob 
 and preserved there until the deliverance, or whether they are 
 based in part on old chronicles drawn from Canaanite libraries 
 at Shechem, Kiriath-Sepher, Jerusalem and elsewhere, enough 
 has come to light to warrant the conclusion that the early books 
 of the Bible are not ^'cunningly devised fables", or sagas, myths 
 and legends, but authentic and well-attested history. 
 
 4. The Antiquity of Genesis XIV. 
 Genesis 14 is significant in this connection. It relates 
 that in the days of Amraphel, king of Shinar, four kings from 
 the East under the lead of Chedorlaomer of Elam made war on 
 five vassal kings of Canaan and having defeated in succession 
 a number of tribes, also defeated the five kings in the Vale of 
 Siddim and took booty and captives. Among the latter was 
 Lot. Abraham at once organized his men and the confederate 
 chiefs to undertake the pursuit. In due time he fell upon the 
 enemy '*by night" and gained a signal victory, recovering Lot, 
 the goods and the people. The king of Sodom and Melchiz- 
 edek, king of Salem, meet him upon his return. He is blessed 
 by Melchizedek, to whom he pays tithes. All this is graphi- 
 cally related and conveys the impression of authentic history. 
 The chapter in addition to casting a remarkable side-light on 
 Abraham introduces us to the unique figure of Melchizedek. 
 It is, therefore, in every way a storm-center of criticism, calling 
 forth two antagonistic theories. The section is regarded by the 
 conservatives as ancient, authentic and historical ; by the Gra- 
 fians as late, unreliable and unhistorical.^^ If, now the chapter 
 
 12 "Instruction and science, fostered at the temples by the priests, were orig- 
 inally introduced into Canaan by the aid of Babylonian cuneiform tablets, which 
 served as basis for study and transmission" (Benz. Heb. Archaeol. 2 Aufi., 
 S. 177). 
 
 " Hommel remarks: "The reader will understand why it is that this four- 
 teenth chapter of Genesis has come to be a sort of shibboleth for the two lead- 
 ing schools of O. T. critics. . . It is the question of the nature of history itself 
 
246 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 is based on old sources, it furnishes undoubted proof that this 
 part of Genesis, and presumably others, contain authentic his- 
 tory. If, however, it should turn out that the whole chapter 
 was composed during the Exile on the basis of oral tradition or 
 late sources, not only the teaching of the chapter, but the credi- 
 bility of Genesis as whole would be undermined. All Bible 
 scholars, therefore, regard the question of age and origin as of 
 far-reaching significance. 
 
 (i). Identification of Persons and Places. It is a remark- 
 able fact that nearly all the names of persons and places have 
 been identified. Amraphel is a modified form of Hammurabi,^* 
 king of Babylon. Shinar is Southern Babylonia and perhaps 
 the Hebrew equivalent of Shumer.^^ Chedorlaomer "unques- 
 tionably stands for Kiidnrlagamar, a genuine Elamite proper 
 name" (Skinner, Gen., p., 298). That such a character as 
 Chedorlaomer flourished in the time of Abraham is now gen- 
 erally admitted.^^ Arioch, king of Ellasar, is 'in all probability 
 Eriaku, king of Larsa" (Driver). In ''Tidal" many authori- 
 ties find a T hud k hula, whose name occurs in the above 
 Pinches tablets, and in 'Goiim", a corruption of the word 
 Guti, a powerful people near the Upper Zab.^^ 
 
 The orthography of the names varies somewhat in the Heb. 
 Sept. and Samaritan texts, rendering the identification some- 
 what doubtful. But Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim are 
 mentioned elsewhere; and plausible identifications have been 
 suggested for the rest.^^ The fact that some editor found it 
 
 which divides the students of the O. T. into two irreconcilable factions" i^An. Heb. 
 Trad., p., 64). 
 
 " Nearly all Assyriologists accept the equivalence; Jensen, Bezold, Meyer 
 express doubt. The / of Amraphel has not been explained to the satisfaction of 
 all. According to Hommel "the form Amraphel can be explained only on the 
 supposition that the original of Gen. 14 contained the reading Ammu-rapaltu. 
 This would be possible only during the Hammurabi dynasty, for_ at that period 
 alone do we find the variants Ammu-rabi and Ammi-rabi side by side with Kham- 
 murabi" (An. Heb. Tr.). 
 
 15 Some Assvriologists identify the word Shinar with Singar, West of Nine- 
 veh (Zimmern, Gunkel). Others suggest that it has some connection with the 
 Sanhar of the Amarna Letters, and so with the Egyptian Sangara. In any event 
 the words Shinar and Shumer are sufficiently alike etymologically to be traceable 
 to the same root. 
 
 " "The Elamite royal names are formed from Kudur; and the existence 
 of an Elamite god Lagamar is established" (Holzinger). See, also Keilinsch. u. 
 A. T., p., 485. Three tablets preserved in the Brit. Mus. and translated by 
 Pinches contain a name read provisionally either Kudurlachgamal or Kudurdug- 
 mal and identified with Chedorlaomer. 
 
 I'' Sayce, however, suggests that Goiim may be retained in the sense of "Na- 
 tions" and referring to the "hordes" of Northern people mentioned in the in- 
 scriptions as invading Assyria. 
 
 " The Rephaim, Zuzim, Emim, Horites, Amelekites, etc., are ancient people. 
 En-Mishpat, Seir, Elparan, Siddim, Salem, Mamre, and others arc places of un- 
 doubted antiquity. According to Paton, "it appears that nearly all the names 
 are attested by external evidences, and that no race is mentioned in this chapter 
 which can be shown to belong to a late period" (Sy. and Pal., p., 38). 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 247 
 
 necessary to explain certain names is a proof of their archaic 
 character. Thus after Bela he inserts, "the same is Zoar" ; after 
 En-Mishpat, **the same is Kadesh" ; after the Vale of Siddim, 
 "the same is the Salt Sea". Salem is probably Jerusalem, in 
 the Amarna Letters Urusalem, an ancient stronghold.^^ So 
 far then as the names of persons and places are concerned, the 
 chapter has every mark of antiquity and authenticity. 
 
 (2). Historic Background of Genesis XIV. The ques- 
 tion arises whether the appearance of Abraham in such a rela- 
 tion is historical, or whether the account of his victory and of 
 the character of Melchizedek, is a fiction. 
 
 a. Graiians Regard the Chapter as Legendary. Since the 
 time of Noeldeke (1869), who dissected the chapter in the style 
 of the negative criticism, some critics (mostly Grafians, whose 
 shibboleth is that the Priest Code, as demanded by a naturalis- 
 tic scheme of development, is late, 445 B. C.) regard the nar- 
 rative as fictitious and some of the names pure inventions of 
 the author. Others take a more favorable view, yet without 
 allowing a high degree of historicity. According to Driver, 
 "the campaign may in outline be historical", yet "the narrative, 
 as it stands, contains elements which are not credible."^*^ Gun- 
 kel regards the chapter as semi-historical, semi-legendary. "The 
 narrative contains ancient historical data, as the names of the 
 four kings and the historical setting of the whole, and the su- 
 premacy of the Elamite-Babylonian kings as far as Palestine. 
 The character of Melchizedek may also be historical. . . But 
 the narrative contains inherent impossibilities".^^ 
 
 A similar milk-and-water view is entertained by Skinner 
 on Genesis (written avowedly from the Grafian standpoint). 
 "It is quite clear that the names are not invented; it is highly 
 probable that they are those of contemporary kings. . . Some 
 such expedition to the West is possibly historical ; but every- 
 thing else belongs to the region of conjecture" (pp. 273, 275). 
 
 i» The objection has been urged that the occurrence of the word Dan (v. 14) 
 disproves the early date, since Laish did not receive the name Dan uiitil the 
 time of the Judges (Josh. 19: 47)- It is, however, more in keeping with the 
 tenor of the chapter to suppose that it was not the later Laish-Dan that \s in- 
 tended, but a place farther South. So W. H. Green, in ' Lmty of Genests . 
 
 20 The average American Grafian would doubtless chime in with Wellhausen's 
 ipse dixit: "Noeldeke's criticism of Gen. 14 remains unshaken and unanswerable . 
 
 21 "It is utterly inconceivable", says G., "that Abraham with 318 men over- 
 came the army of the world-conquerors". But if Abraham with trained men 
 came "by night" and suddenly (as we must suppose) upon this Oriental mob 
 flushed with victory and composed largelv of hirelings bent upon booty, he might 
 well have caused a stampede and accomplished his purpose. 
 
248 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Skinner emphasizes the assumed 'inherent improbability or 
 incredibiHty of many of the incidents recorded", such as the 
 circuitous route of the invaders [but our ignorance of the con- 
 ditions is dense], the rout of Chedorlaomer's army by 318 "un- 
 trained men" [though the narrative says ''trained men"] etc., 
 and reaches the conclusion that "the improbabilities" of the 
 chapter "neutralize the impression of trustworthiness which 
 the precise dates, numbers and localities may at first produce" 
 
 (p., 274).'^ 
 
 b. Historical Character of the Chapter. On the other hand an 
 increasing number of scholars (even of those accepting some form of 
 the documentary hypothesis) allow that the historic setting of the chap- 
 ter, even in details, is in remarkable agreement with the political 
 situation in 2000 B. C. "The account", says Jeremias, "corresponds to 
 the historical relations of that early period" (op. cit., p., 345). Even 
 Gunkel says : "The narrative contains ancient, undoubtedly historical 
 data, as the names of the four kings and the historical setting of the 
 
 whole The character of Melchizedek may also be historical". 
 
 Kittel writes : "It seems to me to be in the highest degree probable that 
 in Genesis 14 we have a historical reminiscence of ancient date. At 
 any rate this theory enables us far more easily to imagine how the 
 passage originated than the other hypothesis does" {Hist. I, 178). "It 
 is settled beyond reasonable contradiction that this chapter stands on 
 historic ground" (W. H. Green, Unity of Gen., 198). 
 
 c. Early Babylonian-Canaanite Source. Much can be 
 said in support of the proposition that the old sanctuaries of 
 Canaan, as Shechem, Hebron, Gilgal, and such centers as Jeru- 
 salem and Kiriath-Sepher, were depositories of cuneiform tab- 
 lets containing such data as those of Genesis 14. Every sanc- 
 tuary had its priests and scribes ; and since the Amarna Letters 
 show that in 1500- 1400, Canaan was a land of letters, it may 
 be supposed that cuneiform records of ancient date were care- 
 fully preserved. The hypothesis that the chapter under review 
 is a late Jewish fiction (or Midrash) is met by Koenig thus: 
 "If an Exilic Jew had derived it from' the Babylonian temple 
 archives, then probably entirely different things would be found 
 in the O. T. than this isolated reference to the old Babylonian 
 period" (Einl, p., i^z)-"^ 
 
 " Skinner holds that "many of the improbabilities spring from a desire to 
 enhance the greatness of Abraham's achievement", though it is not clear why any- 
 thing in the chapter should be regarded as "enhancing" his glory more than his 
 remarkable career as described in other chapters. Jeremias observes that Gen. 21: 
 22 (treaty with Abimelech and Phicol) proves that Abraham was reputed to have 
 "military ability" (op. cit., p., 326). "History contains weighty material in proof 
 of the strong personality of Abraham" (ibid.). 
 
 " Similarly Sayce: "The fourteenth chapter of Genesis is the last portion of 
 the Pentateuch which contains a distinctively Babylonian element. It is the last 
 narrative of which we can say that it was derived from the cuneiform documents 
 of Babylonia, either wholly or in part. . . It was perfectly possible for these 
 documents to have been known in Canaan before the Exodus" (High. Crit., etc.). 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 249 
 
 Winckler and Jeremias also hold that ancient records were 
 deposited in Shechem and Jerusalem in pre-Israelite times and 
 utilized by those who drew up the J, E and other codes. "We 
 must assume that not only oral but also written sources lay at 
 the basis of the J and E codes, just as the Babylonian accounts 
 of the heroes of the Hammurabi period profess to be copies 
 or elaborations of old sources" (Jeremias, op. cit., p., 326). 
 Dillmann writes : ''We are forced to the conclusion that this is 
 a peculiar and in fact ancient document, but one which on ac- 
 count of the mention of Dan and various explanatory clauses 
 passed through the hands of a later editor" (Gen. 233). 2* 
 
 The writer who has most consistently developed the view 
 of an early source is William Erbt,^^ who argues that Genesis 
 14 and other early parts of the Pentateuch are based on Baby- 
 lonian-Canaanite documents preserved in Palestinian sanctuar- 
 ies and libraries. "Having gained a safe footing", says Erbt, 
 "regarding Melchizedek [who in Erbt's view is a strictly his- 
 torical figure] we shall not find it difficult to determine the 
 ground for the preservation of the accounts of Abraham's 
 military exploits. They belonged to the archives of the tem- 
 ple at Shechem. Thence the kings of Judah afterward obtained 
 them, in order to turn to account for their political claims the 
 ancient records of the relation of Palestine to the East [this 
 peculiar phase of E's. view is not an essential part of the hypoth- 
 esis of ancient records]" (op. cit., p., 74). Erbt holds that 
 such records lay concealed for centuries and that some of them 
 may yet come to light. ^'^ "The objection cannot be made that 
 the Shechem archives did not belong to the Jerusalem kings. 
 Whatever was valuable in Shechem David would have trans- 
 ferred to his capital either in the original or in copies". 
 
 From the fact that Shechem was a sanctuary in the time of Abra- 
 ham (Gen. 12: 6), a city of refuge under Joshua (Josh. 20: 7), and 
 the final burial-place of Joseph (Josh. 24: 32), it was doubtless an 
 important literary center from time immemorial and a rallying-place for 
 the Israelites from the time of the Conquest. Nothing forbids our 
 
 " So Strack: "Gen. 14 is taken from a special and very ancient source". 
 On account of the reference to Abraham as "the Hebrew" (v. 13), Ewald re- 
 garded the whole narrative as derived from an old foreign source and as proof 
 of Abraham as an historical character. "The chapter offers every indication 
 that the data bearing upon Palestine belong, not to the late date of Hebrew history, 
 but to very ancient times" (Clay, Light, etc., p., 140). 
 
 25 Die Hebraeer; Kanaan im Zeitalter d. Hebraeischen Wanderung, etc., von' 
 Wilhelm Erbt. Leip., 1906. 
 
 " Sellin holds that the original source was deposited in the Temple archives 
 in Jerusalem and came under the notice of the compilers of the Pentateuch (Neue 
 Kirch. Zeitsch., XVI). 
 
250 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 holding {contra Erbt in this regard), that already Joshua and his col- 
 laborators would turn to good account any literary and historical 
 treasures found there." 
 
 d. Abrahamic and Early Hebrew Records. As seen in 
 previous sections, the question is fundamentally whether there 
 were documents among the Hebrews in pre-Davidic and pre- 
 Mosaic times. If the conclusion reached above is correct, that 
 Abraham may have brought cuneiform records from Ur and 
 have caused simple narratives of his time to be prepared, it 
 follows that the data of this chapter may well have been pre- 
 served among the Hebrews and finally incorporated in Genesis. 
 "The balance of probability inclines in favor of a cuneiform 
 original, moreover, not from the post-exilic period, but from 
 Jerusalem in or soon after the time of Abraham, a Hebrew 
 translation of which must have been incorporated into the main 
 stock of the Pentateuch at a very early date" (Hommel, op. cit., 
 191). The probability that the piece was drawn up by some 
 scribe under the direction of Abraham and afterward revised 
 by an editor would account for the difference in style and some 
 later insertions.^^ 
 
 B. WRITTEN SOURCES OF SINAITIC LEGISLATION. 
 
 The various strata of the Pentateuch contain facts and 
 principles, not myths and legends. Nothing in ancient his- 
 tory is better attested than that "Israel in the period of its deliv- 
 erance from Egyptian bondage acquired the fundamentals of its 
 religious and political existence" (Koenig). The whole sub- 
 sequent history echoes with references to the new era inaugu- 
 rated by the events of the Exodus (Amos 2: 10; 3:1; Hos. 
 II : I, etc.).^^ The oldest speaking and writing prophets, far 
 from intimating the introduction of a new religion, everywhere 
 trace the laws and institutions of their people to the revelation 
 on Sinai. In this early period there arose unquestionably cer- 
 
 2^ On such grounds Erbt holds that "Abraham appears as a figure of flesh 
 and blood from the Hammurabi period. The narratives of the patriarchal period, 
 extant in the form of family tales, would furnish insight into the pre-historic 
 conditions of Palestine, if only we were able to interpret these records as clearly 
 as the history of the destruction of Sodom by fire from heaven". 
 
 ^ Critics who deny the authenticity and credibility of the chapter generally 
 accept without question any and every statement found in the Assyrian inscrip- 
 tions; and yet the latter are often more or less correct copies of older records. 
 Every one conversant with the original text of the Ass. -Bab. inscriptions knows 
 that variant readings occur. See C. P. Tiele (Bab.-Assy. Gesch.) for proof of 
 the incompleteness of the cuneiform inscriptions and their unreliability on other 
 grounds. If the scribes who transcribed old books for Assurbanipals library are 
 to be trusted implicitly, may we not concede at least equal accuracy and honesty 
 to Hebrew scribes and authors? 
 
 2» Wellhausen allows: "If the Israelitish narratives were merely possible, it 
 would be folly to prefer another possibility". 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 25 1 
 
 tain groups of Mosaic laws, as the Decalog, the Book of the 
 Covenant, and the Little Book of the Covenant. Other pieces 
 of the Mosaic age are: the Song of Victory (Ex. 15), the 
 Blessing of Aaron (Num. 6: 24-6), the Signal words (Num. 
 10: 35), the crossing of the Arnon (Num. 21: 14) and the 
 Triumphal Song on Hebron (Num. 21 : 27-30). ^o 
 
 I. Mosaic Origin of the Decalog. 
 
 One of the assured results of criticism is the direct Mosaic 
 origin of the decalog (at least in its unexpanded form), as 
 attested by the use of writing in the Mosaic age, the linguistic 
 and literary phenomena, the appropriateness of the matter and 
 the existence of such a code in pre-prophetic times. Whether 
 we start from the traditional position that Ex. 20 and Deut. 5 
 are both Mosaic (the former promulgated at the beginning, the 
 latter at the close of the forty years' wandering), or from the 
 critical view that both are late recensions, we are driven to 
 predicate an essentially Mosaic nucleus underneath both. Some 
 such theory leaves undisturbed the view that Moses promul- 
 gated an ethical and religious code of Ten Words, but concedes 
 that there are some later additions. Under this view, the deca- 
 log is attested by two witnesses instead of one.^^ 
 
 Grafians, except extremists, allow that the ground-work 
 is by Moses. "The decalog is generally held to have been in- 
 corporated in E; but the substance is older than E, and may 
 have been taken from the tables of stone in the ark" (Bennett 
 and Ad., Intr., 65). Kautzsch allows that "there would be no 
 valid reason for refusing to attribute to Moses himself a prim- 
 itive concise form of the Decalogue, were it not for the formid- 
 able difficulty presented by the prohibition of the use of images'' 
 (Hast. Die. Bib. V, p., 634). To this it may be replied in the 
 language of a writer in the same work, "that the non-observance 
 
 J* T^^- *^^*^ °^ incorporation of these fragments in JE must not be con- 
 founded with the date of their origin, which under any view was early. The main 
 parts arose in the period represented in the Bible; there were, however, some 
 later additions. 
 
 ^1 Some naturalistic critics unflinchingly follow out their pre-arranged schem- 
 atisrn. Thus Budde: "It appears that there existed, in the earliest times, a con- 
 ception of God so sublime that hardly anything could have remained for the 
 prophets to do. This of itself should suffice to show the impossibility of the 
 Mosaic origin of the Ten Commandments" (Relig. of Israel). To the same effect 
 McNeile: "It is difficult to believe that Moses promulgated the Ten Words. . . 
 The literary evidence suggests that in its original form the decalog came into being 
 as a distinct code between E and the rise of the Deuteronomic school, i. e. 
 roughly speaking between 750 and 650 B. C. (Book of Ex., p., LXII). McNeile 
 is bound hand and foot by the formula: Covenant Code 850, Deuteronomy 621, 
 Priest Code 445 B. C. Nothing is in the conclusion which is not in the major 
 premise. 
 
252 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 of a religious law is no proof of its non-existence ; and, in par- 
 ticular, that as the central sanctuaries possessed no image in 
 the times of Eli, David and Solomon, the prohibition must have 
 been early operative as a recognized part of the pure Mosaic 
 system" (W. P. Patterson, I, p., 581). 
 
 So, also, Dillmann : "That such a command, implying the 
 spirituality of God, was too elevated a thought for the time of 
 Moses and therefore not promulgated by him, but incorporated 
 much later, cannot be proved. . . Not to speak of Ex. 32, 
 which prohibits images, it is certain that already in patriarchal 
 times such prohibition is implied, as also in the post-Mosaic 
 period and in the Solomonic temple. . . Amos and Hosea do 
 not announce a new command, but seek to enforce an old one" 
 (op. cit., p., 229). *'If anything can be attributed with cer- 
 tainty to Moses, it surely is the Decalogue, which lies at the 
 foundation of the whole covenant relation of Jehovah to Is- 
 rael" (J. Orr, Problem, etc., p., 152). The decalog may there- 
 fore be regarded as Mosaic in matter and form. 
 
 2. The Book of the Covenant. 
 
 The Book of the Covenant has the following setting: (a), 
 Ex. 20: 1-17, the Ten Words, i. e. the ethical and religious 
 law; (b), 20: 22-26, the ceremonial law; (c), 21 : 10 — 23 : 33, 
 the social-political law. This sequence is organific and regula- 
 tive. It follows from Ex. 24: 7 ("Moses took the book of the 
 covenant, etc.,"), that the Book of the Covenant is unique, as 
 being the legitimate outgrowth of the ethico-religious law gov- 
 erning the nation. It and the Decalog fit into each other as 
 necessary complements. It is significant that the Covenant 
 opens with a reaffirmation of the supremacy of Jehovah Ex. 
 20: 22, 23), as inculcated in the Decalog. The Decalog is ab- 
 solute, valid for all times and individuals; the Covenant is 
 relative, representing what is best for a given time and people. 
 
 As seen above (chap. IV), the discovery of the cuneiform 
 text of the Code Hammurabi sheds new light on the Mosaic 
 laws and is a severe blow against those who deny that the 
 Covenant Code originated under Moses. The Expository 
 Times declares : "The discovery and decipherment of the Ham- 
 murabi Code is the greatest event in Biblical archaeology for 
 many a day". Winckler pronounces it the most important 
 Babylonian record which has thus far been brought to light.^^ 
 
 •'2 From the standpoint of human culture and as a mere collection of laws, the 
 Hammurabi Code, as pointed out by jurists like Kohler, Cohn and Dareste, is 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 253 
 
 On account of the similarity of some sections to the Hammura- 
 bi Code, critics are beginning to admit that the Covenant Code 
 may after all be very ancient. Indeed, Wellhausen in the latest 
 edition of the Prolegomena (1905) writes: "I believe that the 
 agricultural legislation in Ex. 21—23 is fundamentally Canaani- 
 tish, t. e. pre-Israelitish" (p., 392). On this an out-and-out 
 Grafian remarks : "This admission of Wellhausen is significant. 
 And we shall scarcely go astray in assuming that the master 
 of the historical-development school, was impelled to this change 
 of position by the fact that the discovery of the celebrated old 
 Babylonian Code seriously endangered his widely accepted hy- 
 pothesis that Israelitish law is of late date and subsequent to 
 the prophets" (Puukko, Das Deiiteronomium, p., 36). If the 
 Babylonians in 2000 B. C. could draw up the Code Hammurabi, 
 why might not Moses a thousand years later have drawn up a 
 similar code ? The followers of Wellhausen have not answered 
 the question. 
 
 Recent criticism regards the Covenant Code as very an- 
 cient. F. Giesebrecht in a monograph on the Sinaitic covenant 
 points out that even the most radical critics (e. g. Kraetzmar 
 and Steuernagel) see in J and E traces of a covenant which 
 rnust be regarded as having "the character of the highest an- 
 tiquity" ; ^ and in fact "the Sinaitic Covenant has a strong claim 
 to antiquity and historicity. . . The result of our investigation 
 is that the historically real and prophetically mediated relation 
 between Jehovah and Israel received official authentication in 
 a formal act which we may unquestionably call a covenant . . 
 which was formed when Moses after the deliverance from 
 Egypt led a grateful people to Sinai" (Geschichtlichk. d. M. 
 Bundes, p., 64).^^ 
 
 Finally, "if the Decalogue is allowed to be Mosaic, there 
 is little reason for denying that the remaining laws (*judg- 
 
 superior to the Mosaic legislation. But "the moral undertone of the Book of the 
 Covenant, reverence toward God, love to neighbor, humane treatment of animals, 
 and the great underlying thoughts of the Decalog, are lacking in the Code Ham- 
 murabi, The latter has no law implying even remotely the philanthropic gran- 
 deur of Ex, 23: 4, 5: "If thou meet thine enemy's ox or ass going astray, thou 
 shalt surely bring him back", etc. We have here the paradox of a people com- 
 paratively low in culture producing the highest pre-Christian ethics; and of a 
 people of high culture lacking in the monotheistic and ethical instincts. See, 
 further, A. S. Zerbe, on "The Code Hammurabi and the Mosaic Book of the 
 Covenant" in Reformed Ch. Rev., Jan, and Apr., 1905. 
 
 «3 Although B. Baentsch regards the book as dating from the ninth century, 
 he allows that "in its present form it is to be distinguished from the original 
 work" and is based on early sources (Bundesb., 120). In a later work, B. con- 
 cedes somewhat more to the originating activity of Moses (Monotheismus, p., 83). 
 Steuernagel concedes that the covenant has "such archaic features that the pos- 
 sibility of its describing the actual course of events must be allowed". 
 
254 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 merits') of the Book of the Covenant, with which the Ten 
 Words stand in so close a connection, also proceeded from 
 Moses in substantially their present form" (Orr, op. cit., p., 
 
 154)- 
 
 3. The Little Book of the Covenant. 
 
 In Ex. 34: 10, 28 we read : "Jehovah said, Behold, I make 
 a covenant. . . And Moses wrote upon the tables the words 
 of the covenant, the Ten Commandments". The section 34 : 
 10-28 is regarded by some critics as J's summary of the Sinai 
 legislation and is called the Little Book of the Covenant to 
 distinguish it from the Great Book of the Covenant (Ex. 21 — 
 23) by E. The question arises whether the (Ten) Command- 
 ments of 34: 28 are those of 20: 3-17, or other Commandments 
 presumably contained in the Little Book of the Covenant.^* 
 The text is in some confusion, as even conservative critics ad- 
 mit. It is not essential to our purpose to decide the matter. 
 As G. V^os says : "After the Covenant had been broken, the 
 second law (ch. 28) was of course written separately after the 
 analogy of the first" (Mosaic Origin etc., p., 204). The fact, 
 admitted by all, is that Moses was directed to write this sec- 
 tion, or at any rate the underlying stratum. This is additional 
 proof of the literary activity of Moses. 
 
 4. The Memorial against Amalek. 
 
 According to Ex. 17: 14 Jehovah directed Moses to write 
 "a memorial in a book".^^ This stands in an E connection and 
 is admittedly ancient. "It is evident that the writer would 
 not have expressed himself thus, if he had not had a written 
 record (going back to Moses) of this Amalek- War and God's 
 command" (Vos, p., 200). The passage is a clear proof that 
 Moses or his scribes wrote something, as Dillmann remarks, 
 "to blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven, even 
 his very name". If such an episode was worthy of record, 
 much more the weightier matters of that day.^® 
 
 3* "The so-called second Decalogue of J in 34: 12-26, is, in fact, pretty much, 
 as scholars p.re coming to see, a figment of the critical imagination" (Orr, p., 
 153). Addis regards the division into ten as mere guess work. Kittel : "It 
 requires the utmost arbitrariness to find in it the number ten". 
 
 ^' The margin of the Am. Rev., following an alternative Hebrew reading, 
 has "the book". "The most plausible interpretation, is that which the Massorah 
 intimated by adding the article; viz., Moses was accustomed to commemorate im- 
 portant events and commands, and that this book, the origin of our present Pen- 
 tateuch, is referred to by God" (Vos, p., 202). 
 
 -^ McNeile, contrary to his usual scepticism, says: "Moses probably learnt 
 some form of writing when he was brought up in Egypt. . . At any rate it [the 
 Hebrew alphabet] dates from a period long before the Exodus" (op. cit., p., 103). 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 255 
 
 5. The Song of Moses and Miriam. 
 
 The so-called "Song of Moses", Ex. 15: 1-18, is, in con- 
 ception and forceful language, one of the finest examples of 
 Hebrew lyric poetry. Omitting vs. i and 18, it may be divided 
 into three strophes : I, verses 2"-5 ; II, 6-10; III, 11-17.^^ The 
 first two strophes, as shown by the language and thought, are 
 archaic :^^ so also the third, except that the latter part of v. 15, 
 *'all the inhabitants of Canaan are melted away", seems to have 
 been added after the conquest. A considerable body of critics 
 (Del., Dill., Strack) hold that the ode was written out shortly 
 after the event commemorated. Others contend that though 
 the first two strophes may be early, the third is late.^^ In brief, 
 scholars vary a thousand years in the date — a striking example 
 of the uncertainty of criticism. ^'^ 
 
 From the fact that the verbs generally, especially in vs. 8 
 and 10, are in the past tense and for other reasons, we incline 
 to the view that the poem was composed in Canaan shortly 
 after the occupation; the poet by a bold figure conceives the 
 entrance into Canaan as but a logical result of the passage of 
 the sea. The ode in its present form is not absolutely Mosaic, 
 but rather an elaboration of a brief song uttered at the time.*^ 
 
 Correct. The evidence is daily accumulating that Moses wrote in the archaic 
 Phoenician script and that the Hebrew Bible from the first was written (not in 
 cuneiform), but in the Hebrew language and script. 
 
 3^ So Keil, Dillmann, Holzinger, Baentsch. There are various other divi- 
 sions. A good one is by P. Haupt into 9 stanzas of 4 Meshalim, or two Mas- 
 soretic verses each. See Am. Jour. Sent. Lang., XX, 149 — 72 and Sievers Metri- 
 sche Stud., p., 408. 
 
 '* Contrary to McNeile, we regard the style and vocabulary as early, with 
 the possible exception of a very few words in strophe III. Archaisms: the pro- 
 noun ZH V. 13 and 16, and the absence of the article 8-10, 12; the pronominal 
 suffixes 7no and mii (nine times, hem only once) and kemo; also alluphe and 
 ele, V. 15, etc. The alleged Aramaisms are not necessarily late. "Several 
 words which are common in Aramaic are archaic (and poetic) in Hebrew" (Haupt, 
 p., 152). 
 
 ^^ Moore is certain that "17 b — which there is no formal reason for regard- 
 ing as an interpolation — speaks of the building of the temple" (En. Bib., col. 
 1450). Das geht nicht an. Makon und Mikkadesh sind fortschreitende Appo- 
 sitionen zu 'dem Berge deines Erbteils', indem der Dichter nach Nennung des All- 
 gemeinen, des Landes, nun fortschreitet zur Nennung des Speciellen, worauf er 
 hinzielt (v. i^), der Wohnstaette oder des Heiligtums Gottes in diesem Land, an 
 welchem auch dieses Festlied gesungen wurde (nach Dillmann). 
 
 *« Dates suggested: older critics, Mosaic age; Del., Dill, etc., 1280; Reuss, 
 950; Grafians generally, 850-650; Bender, 450; Haupt 350. Referring to Ben- 
 der's date, Haupt says: "It is quite possible that it is a century later, it may 
 have been inserted long after the completion of the Pentateuch" (op. cit.,, p., 154). 
 
 " According to Kittel, "the older form, which perhaps came down from the 
 very days of Moses, is here transformed into an artistically membered psalm for 
 the use of the people in Canaan. Probably it is from an ancient song-book" 
 (Hist., I., p., 207). It may have been copied from the Book of Wars of Jehovah. 
 Strack says: "In its present form, the poem is a Festival-Ode in commemoration 
 of the deliverance of Israel from the pursuing Egyptians. The closing strophe, 
 and accordingly the completion of the whole Song, may be assigned to the period 
 shortly after the conquest of Canaan. Neither v. 13, nor 17 requires us to go 
 •^own to the Davidic age" (Kom., p., 214). 
 
256 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 6. The J and E Codes Ancient. 
 The parts of the Pentateuch reviewed in the preceding sec- 
 tions and assigned by the critics (Grafian and Dillmann) to the 
 J and E codes, contain very ancient matter, going back in some 
 cases to the Mosaic age. How much of the remainder is Mo- 
 saic, or post-Mosaic, is in dispute, as is also the question when 
 the bulk of J and E were written.^^ The evidence adduced in 
 the foregoing pages warrants the conclusion that the nucleus, 
 if not a very considerable part of these codes, originated in the 
 Mosaic- Joshua period, or not long thereafter. With the ex- 
 ception of a few passages, the whole of the matter in J and E 
 (so far as the language and historical setting are concerned) 
 might well have been composed in the pre-monarchical period. 
 Some editor probably revised the underlj^ng strata and com- 
 bined them into the organic whole lying before us. These so- 
 called J and E narratives, as based on early documents, ac- 
 cordingly take us back almost, if not quite to the Mosaic age.^^ 
 
 C. THE PROBLEM OF THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 According to the traditional view the book of Deuteronomy 
 was written in substantially its present form by Moses ; in the 
 Grafian scheme it was compiled some time between 721 and 
 621 B. C. (see above, pp., 10, 12, 13). Both parties are certain 
 of the correctness of their position. The problem of reconciling 
 the rival claims is too complicated to receive full treatment 
 here; only what pertains to the possibility of underlying Mo- 
 saic strata need be considered here. 
 
 I. Dilemma of Criticism. 
 
 Critics who claim that the book arose in the Manasseh- 
 Josiah period are involved in an awkward dilemma in explain- 
 ing how an author could make it appear that a book on which 
 the ink was scarcely dry was from Moses. 
 
 ** Gunkel holds that when J and E were compiled "there was an extensive 
 collection of literature, of which the extant remains are only fragments, just as 
 the three Synoptists are only remains of a more extensive early Christian liter- 
 ature". Sayce believes that the cuneiform originals of parts of J and E are pre- 
 Mosaic. "It was perfectly possible for these documents to have been known in 
 Canaan before the Exodus" (High. Crit., p., 171). 
 
 *' According to Koenig, the J code is composed of parts and sections both 
 Mosaic and pre-Mosaic and was brought into its present shape (substantially) in 
 the period of the Judges. It was compiled at one of the sanctuaries, probably 
 Shiloh. Koenig adduces as proof of his contention a number of linguistic argu- 
 ments too technical to be reproduced here. That E drew from ancient narratives 
 is admitted by all critics. Dillmann says: "The author unquestionably made use 
 of written sources, of which there were many in his day. That he did not com- 
 pose, but incorporate Ex. 20-23 is clear; other sources are the register of sta- 
 tions (Num. 21: 4-35) and the Book of the Wars of Jehovah, from which he may 
 have derived his account of other wars". 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE 
 
 257 
 
 (i). A Pious Fraud. Critics of the extreme left boldlv 
 declare that the work was a "pious fraud" in the interest of a 
 desired reform. Kuenen says: 'It is certain that an author 
 of the seventh century has made Moses himself proclaim that 
 which in his opinion it was expedient to the real interests of 
 the Mosaic party to announce and introduce". Cornill : ''We 
 must recognize the fact that we have here a pseudograph, and 
 that this was known to the persons interested". Holzinger: 
 'The book is in any event a pseudograph. . . It represents 
 itself unquestionably as a work of Moses".'^* After declaring 
 in the manner of the Grafians that "the Josianic law-book marks 
 a turning-point in the spiritual development of Israel", Hol- 
 zmger properly enough asks : "Does then a turning-point in 
 the spiritual history of mankind rest on a fraud ?" Betraying 
 the real mwardness of his school, Holzinger unflinchingly de- 
 clares: "Even a decided affirmative answer were not a result 
 of a naturalistic view of history nor an introduction of the 
 same" (op. cit., 330). Why not? Is not the whole Grafian 
 scheme primarily a naturalistic, evolutionistic philosophy, and 
 only secondarily a literary-historical study ? Here the' paths 
 of the consistent theist and of the pantheist lead in diametrically 
 opposite directions. Holzinger makes a weak attempt to show 
 that the authors of the deception were prompted by pure mo- 
 tives ! !*^ The thought is abhorrent. 
 
 (2). Imaginative Rezimii cation of the Past. Less radical 
 Grafians urge that all can be explained by a well-known literary 
 expedient, namely that of attributing supposed speeches to an- 
 cient worthies. Such is the view of Driver : "The imaginative 
 revivification of the past, by means of discourses, conversa- 
 tions and even of actions, attributed dramatically to characters 
 who have figured upon the stage of history, has been abundant- 
 ly exemplified in literature. . . The dialogues of Plato, the 
 tragedies of Shakespeare, the Paradise Lost and even the poem 
 of Job . . . have never been condemned as immoral frauds" 
 (Deut., p., LVIII). 
 
 It is to be noted, however, that in such cases the reader 
 knows from the setting whether he has before him a novel, a 
 
 ** Holz. adds: ''Whether merely the king and people, or also the finders [of 
 the book described in 2 K. 22] were deceived, or whether some old prophet or 
 a commission falsely attributed the book to Moses, matters not" (Einl., 330). 
 
 ^^ Cheyne entertains a similar view: "Such conduct as that of Hilkiah is, 
 I maintain, worthy of an inspired (sic!) leader and statesman in that age and 
 under those circumstances". 
 
 17 
 
258 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 scientific treatise, or an epic poem.*^ So here, the impression 
 from first to last is that created by a book intended to be un- 
 derstood in its natural sense as an account of actual, and not 
 imagined situations. We cannot avoid the suspicion that the 
 author, if living in the Manasseh-Josiah period, was guilty of 
 deception in representing an unreal situation as truly historical. 
 In fact, however, Driver, far from placing Deuteronomy in the 
 same category with the writings of Dante, and Shakespeare (as 
 consistency would require), considers it as essentially histori- 
 cal. Many of the laws are repeated from the Book of the Cov- 
 enant; others are attested by the Law of Holiness, and others 
 still, on internal grounds, are clearly ancient. In fact Deuter- 
 onomy, says Driver, may be described as the prophetic reformu- 
 lation of an older legislation. The author of Deuteronomy in 
 thus combining the laws "into a manual for the guidance of 
 the people cannot be held guilty of dishonesty or literary fraud". 
 This is a subtle explanation; but all depends on the amount 
 of matter which is actually attested and accepted as Mosaic, 
 and that which is merely an elaboration of, or a deduction 
 from. Mosaic principles. If the former be the meaning of 
 Driver, we see no serious objection; if the latter, then the door 
 is opened for whatever the seventh century writer chose to 
 regard as a legitimate development of Mosaism. Obviously, 
 such a procedure, if carried to an extreme (as might well be 
 the case), would issue, if not in a ''pious fraud", a "pseudo- 
 graph", then certainly in something like a historical novel, 
 which might be interesting as a work of the imagination, but 
 valueless as the basis of religion. 
 
 2. Language and Style. 
 
 The view that Deuteronomy is substantially an early book 
 encounters at once the objection that the style, language and 
 form are late. The style in comparison with J, E, and P is 
 not decisive either way. In fact so far as mere style goes, the 
 Hebrew is less ornate and finished than that of J or E, and 
 so would indicate an earlier date. As to the vocabulary and 
 language, no Hebraist would claim that we have anything more 
 than a relative criterion for determining the age of a Hebrew 
 composition, since the extent of Hebrew literature is too small 
 and the absolute dates too few to enable us to reach a final 
 judgment. The hapaxlegomena warn us to be cautious in 
 
 " The reader of Kingley's Hypatia, Wallace's Ben Hur, or any historical 
 novel, is not misled into supposing that he is reading veritable history. 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 259 
 
 fixing the date of an Old Testament book on the basis of vocab- 
 ulary and form. Koenig reminds us that ''the foreign judge 
 of a literature like the ancient Hebrew cannot always certainly 
 know what elements of language are too old or too recent for 
 a given author". If we take our departure from the Song 
 of Deborah,^ and the prophets Amos, First Isaiah, and Micah, 
 whose date is agreed upon, and whose language and style indi- 
 cate centuries of literary activity in Israel, we may confidently 
 affirm that the chief parts of the book (excepting some editor- 
 ial glosses), so far as mere language and diction are concerned, 
 may well have originated in premonarchical, and even. Mosaic 
 times.*^ 
 
 3. Historical Situation that of Mosaic Age. 
 
 A remarkable feature of the book is the constant reference 
 direct or indirect to the Egypt of the time of Moses, and the 
 entire absence of any allusion to the nations of a later period. 
 It may of course be maintained that the Deuteronomist success- 
 fully imposed his work on the public by excluding any refer- 
 ence to post-Mosaic events. But it has often been shown that 
 it is psychologically and historically impossible for a writer to 
 conceal all traces of his age and environment.^^ The politi- 
 cal, social and religious conditions of the Manasseh-Josiah 
 age were entirely different from those implied in the book, 
 which are those of the Egypt of Menerptah.*^ 
 
 No Egyptologist has yet succeeded in showing that the 
 representations of the book do not correspond accurately with 
 the state of affairs in the Mosaic age. Conversely we find in 
 Deuteronomy not the slightest trace of the activity of the Assy- 
 rian kings of the seventh century, nor any reference direct or 
 implied to the stirring events in Israel during this period. If 
 the book were written to meet the conditions in the Southern 
 
 *'' Linguistic evidence of antiquity is adduced by Koenig (than whom there is 
 no higher authority in Europe) : "Just as the Covenant Book has alongside of 
 anokhi also a few ani, so beside the many anokhi (26 times in the phrase asher 
 anokhi), there are also two ani, one in chs. 12 — 26, the other in 29: 13. Further, 
 the characteristic «n in the perfect, 8: 3, 16 is perhaps only an imitation of the 
 imperfect un, to prevent hiatus and is found also in Is. 26: 16" (Einl. 215). 
 
 *^ Literary forgeries, like those of Chatterton, Macpherson, the pseudo- 
 Phaleris and others, though for a time escaping detection, have always been ex- 
 posed when once subjected to a rigid criticism. In each instance the writer be- 
 trayed himself by glaring anachronisms and contradictions. It would not have 
 been otherwise here. 
 
 *9 "The nearly two-score references to Egypt by name alone are of unmis- 
 takable significance. In eleven only of the 34 chapters do we fail to find them. 
 They abound equally in every part — laws as well as history. More than half 
 the references are to Israel's deliverance and the signal manner of it" (Bissell. 
 Pent.). 
 
26o ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Kingdom, one would expect to find at least some allusion to 
 contemporaneous events and circumstances; but nothing of 
 the kind is found in the whole book. This singular fact has 
 never been explained by the new criticism. The only answer 
 of Driver and his school is that the writer so skillfully sup- 
 pressed all contemporary allusions and was so deeply steeped 
 in Egyptian antiquities that he successfully hoodwinked every- 
 body but the astute nineteenth century critics — a claim which 
 would stamp the author as the most adroit literary forger of 
 history. 
 
 4. No Reference to Jerusalem. 
 
 One of the peculiarities of the book according to the Gra- 
 fians is the emphasis laid on the central place of worship, and yet 
 no reference at all is made to the temple in Jerusalem, or to its 
 service and altar. The command is given : "Unto the place 
 which Jehovah your God shall choose out of all your tribes, to 
 put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and 
 thither shalt thou come" (12: 5). The writer never advances 
 beyond this, though the matter is referred to nearly a score of 
 times. The ''high places", the Baal worship and the Asherim 
 were to be exterminated, and yet the great central sanctuary 
 is never even hinted at. This seems utterly inexplicable if the 
 book were composed in the age of Josiah and had as its aim 
 the centralization of worship in Jerusalem. The book un-r^.crr 
 this view is entirely too tame and colorless ; but all is in har- 
 mony if the work originated in the Mosaic age. 
 5. Moses Represented as Author. 
 
 Against the dictum of Driver that Deuteronomy nowhere 
 professes to be written by Moses, it may be confidently affirmed 
 that it everywhere is represented as emanating from him. At 
 least nine-tenths of the book may be regarded as ascribed to 
 him. ''The name of the lawgiver is found 37 times in the book, 
 and in the great majority of cases it is introduced with the 
 special purpose of connecting him authoritatively with its mat- 
 ter. The strictly legislative portion (chaps. 12-26) shares this 
 peculiarity equally with the historical, the first person being 
 used without exception. Omitting the last chapter, there are 
 less than a half dozen exceptions to this uniform classification" 
 (Bissell, p., 260). Moses is represented as responsible not 
 merely for the matter, but equally so for the literary form. It 
 is affirmed (31 : 9, 24) that he wrote it "to the end". If it 
 be objected that such words as "this law", "this book of the 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 261 
 
 law", restrict the reference to a mere fraction, it is sufficient 
 to remark that the parts are so interwoven that such phrases 
 must refer to the book up to a certain place. 
 
 It is entirely in accord with the fitness of the occasion that 
 "when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this 
 law in a book, until they were finished that Moses commanded 
 the Levites . . . take this book of the law and put it by the 
 side of the covenant of Jehovah your God, that it may be there 
 for a witness against thee" (31 : 24, 5). In every part of the 
 book language is used which is represented as uttered by Mo- 
 ses, as, "We saw the sons of the Anakim" ( i : 28) ; "I com- 
 manded Joshua at that time, etc.," (3: 21) ; ''your eyes have 
 seen all that Jehovah did because of Baal-Peor" (4:3); "I 
 speak not with your children, who have not known etc.," ; "Ye 
 have seen all that Jehovah did before your eyes" (29: 3-5). 
 This language surely purports to come from Moses ; and if it 
 was not used by him, it is a remarkable case of impersonation, 
 if not of literary forgery, for the writer represents himself, as 
 reproducing, not what Moses might have said, but the exact 
 words of Moses. If the theory of Mosaic authorship (of the 
 underlying strata) be rejected, we are driven logically (despite 
 the protestations of Driver) to the revolutionary hypothesis of 
 "a pseudograph", "a pious fraud", as Kuenen and Holzinger 
 admitted. 
 
 6. Antecedent Probability of Mosaic Basis. 
 
 The theory that the book in substance comes from the 
 Mosaic age is antecedently probable. Driver allows "a tradi- 
 tion, if not a written record of a final legislative address by 
 Moses". So, also, Oettli : "It is probable that Moses before 
 his death impressed upon the people the substance of the divine 
 covenant ; and so the Deuteronomic addresses may rest, as says 
 Delitzsch, on a traditional substratum." Oettli refutes the 
 Grafian view that since Deuteronomy was the basis of the 
 Josianic reform, it was also written about that time. Allowing 
 that the book of Kings contains references to Deuteronomy, 
 Oettli asks whether we are bound to infer that the book arose 
 in the circle which inaugurated the reforms ? "The account 
 in 2 K. 22 excludes such a supposition. The use of the article 
 in the phrase 'the book of the law', is explained naturally if 
 understood of an early well-known, temporarily forgotten, but 
 now discovered book. . . The objections to the view that 
 Deuteronomy may have been forgotten for a time are not well 
 
262 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 sustained. More than one great reformation has been effected 
 by those who did not plan it, but who in the whole development 
 were instruments in the hands of God. Even under Josiah the 
 requirements of Deuteronomy were only partly carried out ; in 
 fact some provisions, as those regarding the Levites, were not 
 enforced".^^ 
 
 The rare references to Deuteronomy in the pre-Josianic 
 period are regarded by Oettli as proving nothing. "The his- 
 tory of Israel is not, as some critics assume, a literary-histori- 
 cal one, but an entirely free development conditioned by cir- 
 cumstances not definitely known at present. How circumstan- 
 tial is the literary authentication of the oldest strata [i. e. JE 
 in critical parlance] of the Torah even in Isaiah !^^ Need we 
 marvel that the prophets (who often quote from memory) 
 contain only a few direct references to Deuteronomy?" (Op. 
 cit., p., 20) . However, the number of quotations is sufficiently 
 numerous to establish the claim that Deuteronomy was extant 
 in the eighth century. Let the reader compare the following : 
 Amos 2 : 8 and Deut. 8:2; Hos. 4 : 4 and Deut. 17 : 12 ; Hos. 
 3 : I and Deut. 7 : 8 and 31 : 18 ; Hos. 5 : 10 ; Deut. 19 : 14 ; Is. 
 7, 12, Deut. 6: 16.^^ 
 
 7. Alleged Anachronisms and Contradictions. 
 
 It is alleged that anachronisms and contradictions mark 
 a later than the Mosaic age. Much of the matter said to be 
 late is in the form of introductory statements, quite germane 
 to the context. Thus i : 2, ''there are 11 days journey from 
 Horeb . . . unto Kadesh-Barnea", is meaningless in the mouth 
 of Moses, but quite natural as an explanatory clause of a later 
 writer. We, however, face a real problem. ^^ Are the marks 
 
 " Oettli adds: "The removal of the high places under Hezekiah, 2 K. 18: 4; 
 21: 3, even if temporary, must have been based on Deuteronomy. . . In short 2 K. 
 18: 6, referring to the reform under Hezekiah, employs a characteristically 
 Deuteronomic phrase, viz., 'he kept his commandments which Jehovah commanded 
 Moses'. . . If Hezekiah had not known the Deuteronomic prohibition of the 
 high places, he would either not have proceeded against them, or would have 
 shared the common view of their legality". 
 
 " Since the pre-Josianic prophets rarely quote from J and E, consistency 
 would require the Grafians to place these codes, not in the eighth century, but in 
 the sixth cent. B. C. The argument e silentio signally fails here, as generally. 
 
 " Oettli (who accepts some form of the critical analysis) regards the ten- 
 dency of the Grafians to limit the aim of Deuteronomy almost exclusively to the 
 centralization of the worship as one-sided. "Das ist eiyie seiner Forderungen, aber 
 weder die urspruenglichste, noch auch die wichtigste, sondern nur ein Ausfluss 
 seiner Verticfung dcs Bundesgedankens" (op. cit., 21). 
 
 5s Since the custom of supplementing the text by foot-notes was unknown in 
 ancient times, additional matter was incorporated in the text. Thus in Herodotus 
 (Bk. I, 125), the narrative of Cyrus is interrupted by a description of the Persian 
 tribes. Those who claim a direct Mosaic authorship allow that the last eight 
 verses and some others are later additions. 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 263 
 
 of a post-Mosaic age so numerous as to forbid an early origin of 
 the underlying sources ? Of the discrepancies urged by Driver, 
 some have real, others only apparent, force. 
 
 (i). The first of Driver's objections is that "the differ- 
 ences between the laws of Deut. and those of Exodus 21-23 
 tend to show that the two codes are separated from each other 
 by a considerable interval of time" (p., XLVI). Now it has 
 always been held that Ex. 20-23, constitute the moral and civil 
 code. Then came the so-called Priest Code (Ex. 25-40), the 
 whole of Leviticus and most of Numbers, relating to the sanc- 
 tuary and ritual. Finally, nearly forty years after the Exodus, 
 the third stratum, known as the Deuteronomic code, was pro- 
 mulgated by Moses in the plains of Moab. This latter code, 
 looking forward to conditions in Canaan, was both a recapitu- 
 lation and an expansion of the original organic law. So far 
 forth there is truth in Driver's position. All parties agree that 
 both JE and D are prophetic and that Moses was endowed 
 with the prophetic spirit. Deuteronomy, as both legalistic and 
 prophetic, might on antecedent grounds be regarded as the 
 work of the prophetic lawgiver. 
 
 i But Driver urges that the modifications in Deuteronomy are 
 "adapted to meet the needs of a more developed state of society" 
 than at the Exodus. If, however, as shown above, the Hebrews at 
 the Exodus were not the ignorant horde of the Grafian critics, and 
 if, moreover, the legislation is to some extent anticipatory, the argu- 
 ment of Driver is illicit. Apart from a dozen or so passages, generally 
 conceded as later insertions, the plea of Driver and Holzinger is not 
 of such a character as to disprove the essential Mosaicity as to matter 
 and form. 
 
 (2). Again, says Driver, "the law of the kingdom, {ly: 
 14-20) is colored by reminiscenses of the monarchy of Solo- 
 mon". But this law contemplates the time when the demand 
 for a king would arise. "With the knowledge of what the 
 kings of Egypt and Canaan were, what less could have been 
 expected of such a man as Moses, to say nothing of the fact 
 that our book represents him as a prophet?" (Bissell, p., 142). 
 Moreover, certain things in the law would have been meaning- 
 less in the seventh century, as the injunction that no foreigner 
 should be chosen, or that the people should not be led back to 
 Eg>'pt. The people of Samuel's time seem to know the law, 
 for they employ Deuteronomic langauge, "make us a king to 
 judge us like all the nations" (i S. 8: 5). It is probable, too, 
 that the word "testimony" (2 K. 11 : 12), occurring in the ac- 
 
264 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 count of Joash's coronation (837) implies the existence of this 
 book.«* 
 
 (3). "The forms of idolatry alluded to, especially the wor- 
 ship of the host of heaven (4: 10; 17: 3) point to a date not 
 earlier than the second half of the eighth century B. C." (Dri- 
 ver). But "it is indisputable that sun, moon and star wor- 
 ship was one of the most primitive and universal forms of 
 idolatry among the leading nations with which the Hebrews 
 during the Mosaic period came into contact. . . Hence, so far 
 from finding it strange that we meet with an alleged Mosaic 
 law of this sort in Deuteronomy, we should think it strange if 
 under the circumstances supposed it were not there." (Bissell). 
 
 (4). The phrase "beyond the Jordan", says Driver, means 
 East of the Jordan and so implies that the author was a resi- 
 dent of Western Palestine. The Hebrew, literally "at the 
 crossing of", is in itself colorless, and so demands some quali- 
 fying word to determine the exact force. It occurs ten times 
 in Deuteronomy : 1:1,5; 3 : 8, 20, 25 ; 4 : 41, 46, 47, 49 ; 11: 
 30. In 3 : 20, 25 ; and 1 1 : 30, the standpoint of the writer is 
 clearly East of the Jordan. The remaining passages are gen- 
 erally accompanied by some limiting clause, as "on this side 
 Jordan in the land of Moab". The phrase being ambiguous 
 cannot be quoted either way. 
 
 Even if the alleged discrepancies should in part be allowed, 
 they pertain to such a relatively small part of the book as not 
 to impair the essential integrity. ^^ 
 
 8. The Closing Chapters. 
 
 While the divisive critics assign chaps, i — 26, and 28 to 
 the Deuteronomist, they parcel out the remaining parts to a 
 variety of sources.^® 
 
 ( I ) . The Song of Moses. Both the date and the author- 
 ship of the so-called "Song of Moses", 32: 1-43, are variously 
 
 ** Driver allows that "the nucleus of the law may be ancient" and that the 
 prohibition of a "foreigner" "may well be an old one". Oettli says: "Das Koe- 
 nigsgesetz enthaelt rein nichts, was den Verdacht spaeterer Einfuegung recht- 
 fertigte". 
 
 " Puukko, the most recent critic on Deuteronomy (Das Deuteronomium, 
 1910), holds that the Josianic or original Deuteronomy contained only parts of 
 chapters 12, 14, 15, 26, 16, 17, 13, 18, 23, 19, the remainder being added later. 
 He finds fault in one point or another with practically all the earlier and later 
 critics, and at the end of his analysis we have a meager skeleton of late date. 
 
 " According to Driver, 2y: 4-7; 31: 14, 15, 2^; 34: 1-6, fall to JE. Driver 
 formerly gave ch. 32 to JE. More recently he says: "more probably from an 
 unknown source". So also 33 is "of unknown origin". 32: 48-52; 34: i, 8-9, 
 fall to P. The rest is assigned in general to D. 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 265 
 
 assigned. The line of thought and the phraseology of the 
 poem", says Driver, "point to an age much later than that of 
 Moses". On the other hand Dillmann says: 'The Jehovist 
 must have regarded it as handed down under the name of 
 Mos€S. If we recall that other pieces passed under the name 
 of Moses (Deut. 33; Ps. 90), which indeed are not from the 
 same author, but yet have points of contact in linguistic phe- 
 nomena, we are driven to the conclusion that in the prophetic 
 circles of the Northern kingdom there existed in early times 
 prayers and admonitions associated with the name and author- 
 ity of Moses and that later writers drew from such older 
 sources." Of all critics, Klostermann^' has given the most 
 elaborate analysis and reached the conclusion that it was "none 
 other than Moses whom Jehovah through a special revelation 
 concerning the future course of Israel's history inspired to 
 write the poem" and that "the children of Israel treasured it 
 in their memories". In fact, "the song lays claim to being un- 
 derstood in no other way than as indicated in 31 : 16-22 and 
 was from the first ever transmitted with the statement that it 
 was written by Moses as a witness for the future" (op. cit., 
 366). =» 
 
 (2) The Blessing of Moses. The fact that the dates as- 
 signed by the divisive critics to the "Blessing of Moses", Deut. 
 33, differ some seven or eight centuries, affords a striking 
 illustration of some of the uncertainties of the Higher, or Liter- 
 ary Historical criticism. Of two equally competent Hebrew 
 scholars and lexicographers,^^ one assigns the authorship to a 
 writer of the Babylonian Exile, the other to Moses himself. 
 
 Nor are critics able to decide whether the poem stands in 
 J, E, D, P, or some other stratum. Some assign it to an 
 altogether independent source. It must be confessed that the 
 conclusions of criticism here are mutually destructive; with 
 equal assurance Graf and Stade assign it to the age of Jeroboam 
 II, Kleinert and Koenig to that of the Judges. 
 
 Though critics are wholly at sea as to the date, they in 
 general incline to the view that the poem contains very early 
 
 " In "Der Pentateuch, 1, 1893; and II, 1907. 
 
 "' Volck claims that Klostermann has established absolutely his thesis (Der 
 Segen Mose's, 168). "The Song must have been old enough to be currently at- 
 tributed to Moses when 31: 16-22 was written" (Driver). 
 
 °* The former is Gesenius, author of a Hebrew lexicon; the latter, Volck, one 
 of the later editors of the same lexicon, who wrote a learned brochure of nearly 
 200 pages on "Der Segen Mose's", adducing linguistic and archaeological proof of 
 the Mosaic origin. 
 
266 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 strata.^*^ "That the Song is very ancient and unique is univer- 
 sally admitted. In view of the rich and characteristic diction 
 one is disposed to assign it a high antiquity ; but the only cer- 
 tain datum is that it implies the occupation of Canaan. No 
 decisive ground, in my judgment, exists against placing it in 
 the early years of David's reign". "Though not Mosaic, the 
 Blessing is certainly ancient" (Driver). 
 
 After an exhaustive examination of the dates assigned by 
 critics, Volck reaches the conclusion that "a whole series of 
 data" in the poem itself points to the Mosaic age as the best 
 attested. The Blessing was incorporated in the book when the 
 final chapters were compiled. Though Volck wrote in 1873 
 he anticipated substantially the position of the later negative 
 criticism.®^ 
 
 9. Ancient Strata in Deuteronomy. 
 
 It is allowed by all except the most radical critics that very 
 ancient strata are imbedded in Deuteronomy (Dillmann, Koe- 
 nig, Kittel, Oettli, Klostermann). According to Dill., Deuter- 
 onomy contains old and genuinely Mosaic material, and not 
 merely expansions of laws in JE (Driver). These ancient rec- 
 ords are lost, but we can affirm that they formed the basis of 
 considerable parts of the book. "Special references to old stat- 
 utes occur: thus the formula, 'as Jehovah hath spoken' (6: 19; 
 9:3; II : 25) doubtless implies a written source; so also 10: 
 9; 18: 2, Levi's inheritance, must be a citation". Oetth says: 
 "Our investigation shows that the author drew from ancient 
 written sources, which in many cases demonstrably go back 
 to the Mosaic period". According to Koenig Deuteronomy 
 contains older and later material, part of which arose in the 
 period of the Judges. ^^ 
 
 The theory of a genuinely Mosaic substratum (adopted 
 
 *'' Volck writes: "Wenn sie [die neuere Kritik] uns bald die Zeit der Rich- 
 ter, bald die des beginnenden Koenigthums, bald die des ersten, bald die des 
 zweiten Jerobeam, bald die des Koenigs Josia empfiehlt, so geht doch aus solch 
 unsicherem Herumtasten hervor, dass die Segenssprueche im Ganzen in einer 
 grossen Unbestimmtheit und Allgemeinheit gehalten sein muessen. Denn wie 
 erklaerte sich's sonst, dass man bald auf diese, bald auf jene Zeit verfaellt?" (op. 
 cit., 154). 
 
 ^1 Critics who ascribe the Blessing to Moses, admit that some verses, as i, 2, 
 5, 27, 28, are later additions. 
 
 " Klostermann, who pursues an independent course over against the new 
 views as well as the old, argues that according to content and literary form, the 
 book arose in the INloses-David period. The fact that neither Jerusalem nor 
 Samaria, neither temple nor priests, kings nor prophets, are mentioned, and that 
 the hypothesis of a "muessigcn schriftstellerischen Luege" is not to he thought 
 of, compel the inference, that the substance of the book goes back "bis an die 
 klassische und vorbildliche Zeit des Mose". 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 267 
 
 here) i. e. of sources and documents reaching to the Mosaic 
 and Joshuanic age, differs radically from the evolutionistic 
 hypothesis, according to which there were no documents until 
 the monarchical period, and according to extremists no such 
 legislator as Moses. The ordinary naturalistic hypothesis is 
 to the effect that in some way unknown to the Grafians, the 
 name of Moses came to be associated with the fundamental 
 laws of Israel; and so some genius of the Manasseh-Josiah 
 age, boldly manufactured Deuteronomy 5 — 26 (or 12 — 26), 
 "out of the whole cloth", assuming that his readers would be 
 such simpletons as not to be able to detect the deception. Cre- 
 dat Jiidaeiis Apella! ! 
 
 The theory which upon the whole seems best supported is 
 that some editor, having access to, and desiring to bring into 
 systematic shape, the scattered records of the last acts and 
 words of Moses, wrote out the so-called Deuteronomic code, 
 that is substantially the present book of Deuteronomy. 
 
 Two points are not capable of exact determination : i, the 
 date of the editor ; 2, the component parts of the original Deu- 
 teronomy. Neither the age of Josiah, nor that of Manasseh 
 meets the conditions of the problem. More can be said in favor 
 of the age of Hezekiah. But if we go back thus far, the same 
 reasons justify a much earHer date. And in view of the fact 
 that the bulk of the matter suits the period of the Judges and 
 indeed the early part of it, and since four-fifths of the book 
 have no relevancy to conditions in the monarchical period, the 
 essential contents must have originated in the Moses-Joshua, 
 and the remainder in the Joshua-Samuel period. It would 
 seem that the first four and last eight chapters were integral 
 parts of the book almost from the first. ^^ 
 
 10. The Transmission of Deuteronomy. 
 
 How was the book of Deuteronomy transmitted to the 
 time of Josiah? It has been pointed out that the Hebrews 
 exercised the same care as the Egyptians and Babylonians in 
 
 *2 If according to the naturalistic critics, the whole Mosaic age has been 
 "wiped out" through the post-Exilic date of the Priest Code (Duhm), the logical 
 inference is that no such book as Deuteronomy could have originated in that 
 age. The Grafians are driven by the terms of their hypothesis to predicate a late 
 date. According to the Vatke-Kuenen-Wellhausen philosophy of history, the book 
 must on a priori grounds be late. We have here a species of dogmatism sur- 
 passing anything ever charged against the old view. The Grafians of course do 
 not allow that the real motive of pleading for a late date is to save their arbitrary 
 IX IX IX IX 
 
 schematism that J+J-f J-f-E + E + E+D + D + D + P+P -|-P+ a score of redactors, 
 equal the Pentateuch, but their line of argument invariably starts from, and ends 
 with, this assumption. 
 
268 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 preserving copies of their sacred books in sanctuaries. There 
 is no reason to doubt that official copies of the Hebrew scrip- 
 tures from the time of Joshua onward were deposited at Bethel, 
 Shechem, Shiloh and other places for safe keeping.^* From 
 the time of Solomon the sacred writings as well as the state 
 chronicles were deposited in the Temple. The correctness of 
 this view has recently received support from an unexpected 
 quarter. 
 
 Prof. E. Naville, the Egyptologist, has suggested that 
 just as it was an established custom of the Egyptians to deposit 
 copies of their sacred books in the foundation-walls of tem- 
 ples, so Solomon deposited the book of Deuteronomy in the 
 Temiple.®^ His point of departure is the discovery of Egyptian 
 texts of parts of the ''Book of the Dead" in the temple at Her- 
 mopolis. In a papyrus we read: "This chapter was found in 
 the foundations of (the god) Amihunnu by the overseer of the 
 men who built a wall, in the time of king Usaphais". Naville 
 shows that it was the custom not only in Egypt but in Asia 
 Minor, in the temple of Ephesus and at other places, to deposit 
 writings at the foot of statues of gods and within the founda- 
 tion walls.^® Other writers have referred to the same fact. 
 Naville concludes that the "book of the Law", found in the 
 Temple in the time of Josiah, was Deuteronomy, a copy of 
 which had been deposited in the walls during the reign of 
 Solomon.^^ 
 
 «* The account of the bringing up of the ark from Zion to the Temple refers 
 specifically only to the "two tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb" (i 
 K. 8: 9), because the law as the testimony of Jehovah was of prime importance. 
 That other writings were subsequently deposited there is probable. 
 
 ^* Proceedings of the Soc. of Bib. Archae., 1907, and Comptes-rendus de 
 I'Academie, 1909. 
 
 «8 "It is not under the statues only that books were deposited. Another 
 rubric teaches us that such writings were put in the foundation v/alls . . ., books, 
 which, in their hiding-place could be preserved for centuries and discovered only 
 long after they had been deposited in the masonry" (Proceedings, 239). Amelia 
 B. Edwards writes: "At Denderah there is a chamber especially set apart for the 
 sacred writings, and its walls are sculptured all over with a catalogue raisonnee 
 of the manuscript treasure of the Temple. . . . Every temple had its library, and 
 as the Egyptian books, being written on papyrus or leather, occupied but little 
 space, the rooms appointed to this purpose were generally small" (A Thousand 
 Miles Up the Nile). 
 
 " "Now, I ask: is there not the greatest analogy between this text (2 K. 22) 
 and that which was found at Denderah? Josiah makes considerable repairs in the 
 temple, or as an Egyptian would say, he renews the building to the Lord. For 
 that work he gathers carpenters, builders and masons. The first thing they have 
 to do is to use hewn stones for building walls which were in a very shaky state, 
 or, as the text says, they were to repair the breaches of the house (2 K. 22: 5). 
 . . . Evidently the book came out of one of these old and falling walls which 
 must have belonged to the foundations of the construction. There is no reason 
 why the Hebrews should not have put a book which they particularly valued in 
 the foundation wall of the temple. The foundation of the temple means the work 
 of Solomon. So that I have no hesitation in giving to the passage this inter- 
 pretation" (Proceed., p., 241). 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 269 
 
 Something can be said in favor of this hypothesis, especial- 
 ly if extended to include other writings. Solomon as a patron 
 of letters would take steps to preserve the old records and 
 Scriptures. He may even have been the first to gather the 
 sacred books into a kind of canon. In any event, having imi- 
 tated the custom of foreign courts in other respects, he must be 
 supposed to have desired even to surpass them in the conserva- 
 tion of the national literature.^^ If, according to Naville, Sol- 
 omon deposited Deuteronomy, it may be inferred that he took 
 measures to preserve other books, as the Covenant Code, the 
 Song of Deborah and others, in short the Pentateuch, Joshua 
 and Judges, as they then stood. Nor is it necessary to limit 
 the deposit of books to the foundation walls. The greater 
 number were doubtless placed in the chambers and archives sur- 
 rounding the temple. ^^ 
 
 D. THE PROBLEM OF THE PRIEST CODE. 
 
 Having reviewed the J, E, and D codes, we proceed to 
 a still more difficult undertaking, namely the determination of 
 the character and age of the Priest Code, P. (See general 
 description chap. I). It will be recalled that the Graf-Well- 
 hausen school regard this document as post-Exilic (445), the 
 Dillmann-Kittel school as pre-Exilic (circa 800 B. C.). We 
 limit ourselves to the points bearing on its age and relation to 
 other codes, with the view of ascertaining whether the under- 
 lying strata of the Pentateuch may not after all have originated 
 in the Moses-Joshua period. '^'^ 
 
 I. Graf-Wellhausen Philosophy of History. 
 
 It is necessary here to state the philosophy of history un- 
 derlying the Grafian criticism. On the one hand we have the 
 
 _ *8 Commenting on Naville's argument, Kittei remarks that the question of 
 Josiah's law-book "ist natuerlich damit nicht ohne weiteres eriedigt. Aber es ist 
 uns eine ueberaus wichtige neue Hilfe fuer ihre Loesung in die Hand gegeben" 
 (Ori. Auzgrab., etc., p., 43). 
 
 ^* Naville claims, further, that the law-book of Josiah was written in the 
 Ass. language and the cuneiform characters. We are unable to follow him in 
 this regard, our reasons being given above (chap. XI). "According to the tenor 
 of the texts themselves the Book of the law does not appear to have been incom- 
 prehensible to any one. Consequently, there is no necessity for supposing it to 
 have been written in an unknown language or in unknown characters" (E. Mon- 
 tet. Bib. World, Nov., 1910). 
 
 "" Since the Grafian critics with few exceptions constantly ignore the Dill- 
 mann arguments for the early date of P, we consider it opportune to present his 
 views. One might suppose from their silence, that Cheyne, Carpenter, Kent, 
 the Smiths (W. R., G. A, and H. P.) and the Grafians generally (except Hol- 
 zinger) had never heard of Dillmann. The art. "Hexateuch" (Wellh.-CTheyne) 
 in Ency. Bib. never once refers to Dillmann, not even in the literature. The 
 majority of American books on O. T. criticism are equally narrow. And yet 
 Dillmann, according to Halevy, was "sans cotitredit le premier exegete de notre 
 siecle" (Revue Sem., V, p., s^s)- 
 
270 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Hegelian panlogism, according to which all religion (that of 
 the O. T. included) is of human origin, "a devolopment of the 
 human spirit" (Vatke). On the other we have the monistic, 
 evolutionistic hypothesis of the events of history. "When the 
 natural sciences attained all manner of brilliant results through 
 the application of the inductive method, the wish arose in many 
 breasts that history might be studies after the same rnethod, 
 and thus reach equally certain results. There was ultimately 
 only one science, that of nature. . . It is silently presupposed 
 that, in the last analysis, one and the same causality originates 
 all events and causes them to succeed each other according to 
 the law of progressive development in a straight, upward line. 
 Monism and evolution are the principles of the modern viev/ of 
 history" (Bavinck, Phil, of Revelation, pp., 113, 117). 
 
 There are two fatal defects in this hypothesis: i, its ad- 
 vocates are unable to explain how free human agency and per- 
 sonality are controlled by laws of nature ; 2, it is not sustained 
 by the facts of history. The hypothesis overlooks the fact that 
 in history we must take account of the will and motives of men 
 (to say nothing of the Supreme Personality, God).'^^ Society 
 is not a biological organism, but an organization in which the 
 personal element is ever active. The hypothesis of a uniform ad- 
 vance in civilization and religion is not verified by the history of 
 any ancient people. Otto Weber writes: ''The dogma of a 
 gradual development from a lower to a higher level is not sus- 
 tained by the history of the Oriental peoples. History leaves 
 upon us, on the contrary, the impression of decadence rather 
 than of advancing civilization, which tries to find fixed forms ; 
 everywhere in art, science and religion, this is confirmed" 
 (Theol. II. AssyriologieJ. 
 
 This monistic (i. e. anti-theistic), evolutionistic, biological 
 conception of history underlies much of the current Old Testa- 
 ment criticism and crops out everywhere, but especially in the 
 Grafian view of the Prist Code.^^ 
 
 2. Graf-Welllmusen Hypothesis of the Priest Code. 
 
 Wellhausen is sponser for the statement that Vatke and 
 George ''have the honor of being the first by whom the ques- 
 
 ■^1 "We might speak of evolution in families, nations or humanity if men 
 successively increased in height, in size and weight, in stren^h or length of life, 
 or even in intellectual, moral, or religious capacity, in capability of culture. But 
 this is not the case" (Bavinck, p., ii8;. 
 
 ^^ Judging from the public prints, one would infer that many clergymen (most- 
 ly half-baked youth, or others with a smattering of philosophy), adopt the above 
 false view of the O. T. Such men never get beyond what they call "evolution", 
 — a term meaning anything, or nothing. 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 27I 
 
 tion of the historical sequence of the several stages of the laws 
 was attacked on a sound method" (Ency. Bib., col. 2049), *• ^• 
 the Hegelian dialectics. He adds : "The characteristic feature 
 of the hypotheses of Graf is that the Priestly Code is 
 placed later than Deuteronomy, so that the order is JE, 
 D, P." There can be no doubt that the controlling principle 
 of the Grafian criticism is a naturalistic, evolutionistic philoso- 
 phy of history. By placing P at the end of the series, a seem- 
 ingly consistent and progressive development of Israel's history 
 is obtained and all is made to fall in with the pre-arranged 
 schematism. The Grafians delete, or post-date all troublesome 
 passages. 
 
 The question accordingly is, can the Grafians prove that 
 P is the latest of the codes and so establish a basis for eliminat- 
 ing revelation, inspiration and the supernatural from the Old 
 Testament? If everything in the Old Testament takes place 
 according to natural law and evolutionistic forces in man, and 
 if in short, **God has been politely escorted to the frontiers 
 of the universe", we are committed to the baldest naturalism 
 and pantheism. In view of the gravity of the issues, we dis- 
 cuss briefly the real nature of the Grafian tenets.'^^ 
 
 3. The Central Place of Worship. 
 
 The Grafians hold that the codes imply progress from the 
 simple to the complex in regard to the place of worship. JE, 
 it is said, permits sacrifices everywhere; D prescribes one cen- 
 tral sanctuary (Jerusalem) ; P takes the latter for granted. 
 Therefore the law of evolution necessitates a post-Exilic date 
 for P. But Korah's rebellion. Num. 16 : 8 f , implies a conflict 
 between priests and Levites. While the centralization of wor- 
 ship is not directly involved, the exclusion of the Levites from 
 sacrificial service implies a period when their standing was a 
 subject of dispute. Everything here points to a comparatively 
 early date. 
 
 It is a mistake to maintain (Wellh.) that the demand for 
 centralization did not arise before Josiah. Such an attempt 
 was made by Hezekiah 90 years earlier ; in fact from the time 
 
 '3 Of course the Grafians in general do not allow that their critical views are 
 in any way the outgrowth of a preconceived philosophy of history; but it is a 
 remarkable fact that few of them are avowed and consistent theists, or accept 
 the doctrine of revelation and inspiration in the special sense. Monism (as us- 
 ually held) and theism are incompatible. 
 
2.'J2 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE, 
 
 of Solomon, Jerusalem and its Temple were regarded as the 
 central place of worship.'^* 
 
 The classical passage in this connection, Ex. 20 : 24-6, espe- 
 cially the clause, "in every place where I record my name I will 
 come unto thee and bless thee", is cited as proof that originally 
 an altar might be erected anywhere. Wellhausen argues that 
 not one central sanctuary, but many are here legalized. This 
 is partly correct ; but the view must be qualified by the clause, 
 "Where I record my name", which means that a place becomes 
 sacred through a revelation of Jehovah. When circumstances 
 rendered centralization impossible, the place chosen by Jehovah 
 was legitimated. Ex. 23: 17, 19, (J), requiring every male 
 to appear three times in the year before Jehovah, implies unity 
 of worship. Without question the central sanctuary is meant. 
 See also 34: 23. If the sanctuaries had been numerous, such 
 a command would appear superfluous. 
 
 It is alleged, further, that, since J makes no provision for 
 the maintenance of the priests, therefore all Israelites could 
 offer sacrifice. But it is silent also as to^ leprosy and circum- 
 cision. Must we therefore conclude that these were unknown 
 In the 10 — 9th century? In fact, however, the selection of 
 Aaron, Nadab and Abihu (Ex. 24) looks forward to a priestly 
 order. (See Vos, Mosaic Origin, etc., pp., 89-92). 
 
 Again, it is a cardinal tenet of the Graf-Wellh. school 
 that the tabernacle of P (Ex. 25-31, 35-40) is an ideal structure 
 suggested by the Temple and transferred to Mosaic times.'^'* 
 It is admitted that there was an ark of the covenant and per- 
 haps a simple tent covering it, but it is denied that "a band of 
 roving shepherds, even though' laden with the spoils of Egypt, 
 could have erected the magnificent structure of Ex. 25-31" 
 (Schultz). But since Schultz's time it has been shown con- 
 clusively that the Israelites were not wild Beduin, but semi- 
 nomads with advanced views. Schultz allows that the taber- 
 nacle was a strongly constructed sanctuary at Shiloh in the time 
 of the Judges. "This sanctuary was the place of the national 
 worship and of the national priesthood" (0. T. Theol. 1, 212). 
 Delitzsch, Dillmann, Bredenkamp, Kittel, Riehm, Baudissin, 
 and Wiener hold that there arose in the time of Moses the idea 
 
 ''* "When Amos and Hosea speak of the worship performed at such places as 
 Bethel, and Gilgal, there is nothing in their words to lead us to suppose that 
 these places were regarded by them as set apart by any divine authority as places 
 of worship" (Roberston, Early Relig. Is., 405). 
 
 ■^5 Reuss: "Die Stiftshuette des Priesterkodex ist eine bare Fiktion". 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 273 
 
 of a central sanctuary, to which the description of the tent of 
 meeting in P corresponds, even if all the details cannot now be 
 established.'^® 
 
 4. Sanctuaries in the Time of the Judges. 
 
 As seen above, the period of the Judges was one of relig- 
 ious syncretism, good and bad, normal and abnormal, prepon- 
 derating alternately. The cultus of these centuries is but an 
 expression of the life of the community. That the people here 
 and there fell into a false worship is no proof that the Mosaic 
 institutions were unknown or that there was no central sanc- 
 tuary. The idolatrous sanctuary of Micah (Jud. 17) is ex- 
 plained by the fact that every man did that ''which was right in 
 his own eyes" ; and the condemnation of Gideon's false worship 
 (8: 2y) has meaning only on the assumption of a legal central 
 sanctuary. That this sanctuary was at Shiloh is to be inferred 
 from Jer. 7 : 12. Shiloh, centrally located, was a town of con- 
 siderable size in the time of the Judges (Jud. 20: 49) ; hence 
 its selection by Joshua as a resting-place for the ark and taber- 
 nacle. Having fallen into idolatry, it was discredited in the 
 last days of Eli (i S. 4) " 
 
 5. Theory of SacriUce. 
 
 According to Wellhausen, P's theory of sacrifice fits in 
 only with a post-Exilic date. It is probable that the ritual was 
 not always carried out. But the ground-work of the Penta- 
 teuchal laws of sacrifice existed in oral, if not in written form, 
 from the earliest times. ''Occasional sacrifices brought by in- 
 dividuals, which the historical books are specially fond of relat- 
 ing, may have been offered loosely and according to peculiar 
 ancient traditions, especially in the remoter periods." (Kittel, 
 Hist., I, 112). When Isaiah (ch. i) and the early prophets 
 demand a true, heart-sacrifice, it must be inferred that men 
 were prone to rest content with an elaborate ritual.'^® 
 
 ^' "The laws of JE recognize a plurality of altars, and, as these are for pur- 
 poses of lay sacrifice, we may properly term them lay altars; but this does not 
 justify us in saying that a plurality of sanctuaries is here permitted. . . If we 
 find many lay altars, we also know of a house of the Lord at Shiloh at which 
 sacrifices were performed with the assistance of a priesthood." (H. M. Wiener, 
 "Origin of the Pentateuch, p., 64). See, also, same author in "Essays in Pen- 
 tateuchal Criticism." 
 
 " Wellhausen gets rid of the troublesome passages (Josh. 18: i; 19: 51; 
 22; Jud. 19, etc.,) by simply deleting them; i S. he pronounces a late vatictni- 
 um post eventum. He, however, admits that Jer. 7: 12 implies that the sanc- 
 tuary at Shiloh was regarded as the forerunner of the Solomonic Temple. 
 
 ''^ Israel came out of a country which in the time of Moses had prescribed 
 forms of worship and sacrifice. In Babylonia, rules for sacrifice were known 
 from the earliest times. Can we believe that with the natural desire for decorum, 
 18 
 
274 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 6. Special Features of the Priest Code. 
 
 We notice some peculiarities of the Priest Code which tend 
 to show that it is early, or at least has early strata. 
 
 (i). The Language and Style of P. The language of 
 P is classis in the best sense, and so may be early rather than 
 late."^^ The question cannot be settled absolutely, for we have 
 no absolute criterion. Dillmann writes: *'Why such expres- 
 sions (cited by Wellh.) should be late is not evident. We 
 have no right to assume that in the early regal period men 
 lacked the culture to make such distinctions in words and 
 thought. From the fact that many of these expressions occur 
 only in late literature, their lateness is not yet established. How 
 many priestly writings have we from the period of the kings 
 that men can decide so confidently? Only some H fragments 
 and laws, and these exhibit the same phenomena. The later 
 writers who recognize P as authoritative were naturally influ- 
 enced by its language". Dillmann denies that Aramaisms and 
 late expressions occur in P. Other marks of decaying He- 
 brew, such as found, e. g. in Jeremiah, cannot be established.®^ 
 
 (2). The Material of P. It is incredible that chapter af- 
 ter chapter in P, describing the sacred vessels, their use and 
 removal from place to place during the life in the wilderness, 
 could have originated in a period which had not the slightest 
 interest in such things. But in early times, when the ark of 
 the covenant still stood in the tabernacle and the accounts of the 
 worship of a former age were preserved, it is natural that the 
 priestly and Levitical families, whose ancestors had ministered 
 at the sacred places, would seek to transmit the old customs. 
 The matter of P does not indicate an Exilic or post-Exilic date. 
 The table of nations in Gen. 10 and 36 fits in only with an early 
 
 the Israelitish priests were the only ones in all the world without a regular ritual 
 until the Exile (when in fact there was no place for such a ritual) ? The lan- 
 guage of the prophetical and historical books lends no support to such a view. 
 
 ''^ Prof. A. T. Clay, Amurru, p., 32, note, says: "The writer is one of the 
 small minority who believes that Hebraic (or Amoraic) literature, as well as 
 Aramaic, has a great antiquity prior to the first millennium B. C." 
 
 ^0 "The language of P has few marks of a post-Exilic date, especially of 
 expressions which can positively be affirmed as Aramaisms. To be sure, books 
 were written in pure Hebrew even after the Return; but they are Psalms and 
 prophetical works, which follow the old models. That after the Exile, historical 
 and legal works of the type of P would be written without Aramaisms and other 
 evidences of a dying language is rendered improbable by Ezra and Nehemiah, in 
 which the Hebrew is no longer pure. P, far from containing many late words, 
 is characterized by a vocabulary and diction of the early period. The body of 
 the code is unquestionably archaic. In the ritual parts of P, certain expressions, 
 which are doubtless late, were added by the reviser; but these exceptions simply 
 prove the rule" (Lotz, A. T. u. die Wissensch.). 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 275 
 
 pre-Exilic date ; and it is noteworthy that the Edomite history 
 (Gen. 36) extends only to the time of David. The description 
 of the extent of Canaan (Num. 34) suits the very early period. 
 Another inexplicable fact (on the Grafian hypothesis) is the im- 
 pHed autonomy of the twelve tribes after their absorption in 
 the kingdom. Nowhere in P do we find the bitter tone against 
 foreign nations so prominent in the post-Exilic books. 
 
 The Grafians regard the registers of names in Num. 1-3, 7, 13, 33, 
 34 and elsewhere as pure fabrications. But now that the South Ara- 
 bian monuments and the numerous inscriptions from the Hammurabi 
 period have shed fresh light on the old Semitic proper names, it has 
 been shown that the names in these chapters have forms corresponding 
 to those extant in the Mosaic period. The historical character of 
 such names is an overwhelming proof that this code has elements 
 reaching to the Mosaic and pre-Mosaic ages. It has also been found 
 that many of the technical expressions and sacrificial usages of P are 
 analogous to those of ancient Arabian and Babylonian periods, so 
 that here again, this code goes back to a hoary antiquity. All the 
 more difficult, therefore, is the attempt to bring the main stratum of P 
 down to late date. If, however, the chief parts of P, as of J, E, and 
 p, are early, the critical difficulties are largely surmounted, for the 
 different codes (socalled), even though partly contemporaneous, would 
 supplement each other. 
 
 (3). The Literary Sources of P. For the historical sec- 
 tions, P clearly depends largely on written sources. Oral tra- 
 dition is too vague and aimless to suit the historian's purpose. 
 The reduction of the old material to narratives containing a 
 religious purpose was the work of the early collaborators. 
 They must have sprung up at least in the Joshua, and probably 
 already in the Mosaic period ; and so it was possible to extract 
 from the old records (of the Mosaic and pre-Mosaic periods) 
 the essentials of history and furnish a systematic account of 
 revelation in the priestly style and interest. It may be assumed 
 that P had access to E, or to his sources. As to' J, Dillmann 
 allows considerable matter common to J and P, but finds that 
 in some sections, as Gen. i-ii, P is earlier.^^ That P had 
 access to very ancient sources is evident from the genealogies 
 of Shem, Ishmael, Edom and the lists in Gen. 46; also Num. 
 I, 3, 13, 26, 34, etc., and especially from the narrative concem- 
 
 *i "Since the narratives of the creation and of the deluge, and the lists of 
 the Noachic races (Gen. lo) are decidedly more archaic in P than in J, the de- 
 pendence of P on J for the primeval history cannot be conceded; on the con- 
 trary, we must infer that in its first part the present J code contains elements 
 which are incorporated on the basis of P. The perceptible P coloring in Gen. 6: 
 7 and 8: 21 would in this event be explained" (Dillm., op. cit., p., 656). 
 
2/6 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 ing Enoch, the landing on Ararat, the rambow, cave of Mach- 
 pelah, the plagues of files, etc. (Dillmann).^- 
 
 7. Arguments Unfavorable to a Post-Exilic Date. 
 
 (i). P Unsuitable to a Late Date. According to Dill- 
 mann, "it is inconceivable that a post-Exilic priest, or priests 
 would have dared contrary to contemporaneous prophecy (Zech. 
 I : 2-6) and to the dominant D code (as claimed by our oppo- 
 nents), to introduce sharply antagonistic laws, and contrary to 
 Ezekiel 44 (Zadokites) to install the Aaronites as priests, or to 
 favor laws of tithing and feasts antagonistic to those of J, D 
 and Ezekiel. Even allowing such a possibility, is it likely that 
 the interested classes would have fav^ored such innovations 
 (partly to their disadvantage), unless justification had been 
 found in earlier writings" (p., 270) ? Though the post-Exilic 
 period v/as one of some literary activity (Haggai and Zech., 
 520; Ezra and Nehemiah, 456-32), we have no evidence that 
 any writer was interested in the archaic matter of P. It is 
 inconceivable that after D had been united with JE (Graf- 
 Wellh.) and had received official sanction, the scheme of antag- 
 onizing and supplanting the earlier codes could have been car- 
 ried through without opposition. The Grafian Hypothesis im- 
 plies an unparalleled degree of credulity on the part of the post- 
 Exilic Jews.*^ 
 
 It is difficult to understand why an author of the fifth pre- 
 Christian century in writing a law-book for an obscure people 
 in a Persian province should incorporate minute ordinances on 
 the Ten Tribes, the Levitical cities, war and booty, the ark of 
 the covenant, Urim and Thummim, and other matters not suit- 
 able to his age. The claim of Kuenen that such material was 
 incorporated merely to authenticate the work, implies (apart 
 from deception) the use of older written sources. Again, if 
 this code was prepared in the Ezraic period, why is it silent on 
 matters of vital concern for the new community, such as pro- 
 hibition of mixed marriages, the service of the Levitical sin- 
 
 S2 "Some of P's matter must have been based on special written sources: as, 
 the names of Esau's wives (Gen. 26: 34; 28: 9), the name Padden Aram; the 
 contest of Moses and Aaron with the Egyptian magicians, the place of Aaron's 
 ieath (Num. 20: 23); the murmuring of Moses and Aaron at Meribah (Num. i8: 
 ij), the peculiar Balaam narrative (Num. 31: 8, 16), and the controversy with 
 the East-Jordanic tribes. P's sources here are unknown" (Dillmann). 
 
 ^^ Can we suppose that the learned Jews of Ezra's time would have accepted 
 without question the creation-account of Gen. i: i — 2: 3 as over against 2: 4-25, 
 or the increase of the feasts from 4 to 7; or would have allowed the whole scheme 
 of elaborate P sacrifices to go into effect without a solitary protest? Such a silent 
 acquiescence in a revolutionary program is utterly foreign to ancient Hebrew 
 proclivities. 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 277 
 
 gers, musicians, door-keepers, etc. ? Why finally is the law of 
 the Passover different from the practice of Ezra's time?^* 
 
 (2). The Account in Nehemiah 8 — lo. Contrary to the 
 Grafian view, the account in Neh. 8 — lo of Ezra's public read- 
 ing of the book of the law in 444 B. C, does not convey the 
 impression that it was a recently composed book. Still less 
 probable does this view become, if we hold that the book was 
 the completed Pentateuch. In that event, time would be re- 
 quired for the composition of the different parts of P, and 
 their union with each other and with the other documents 
 entering into the Pentateuch. Ezra is said to be a ready scribe 
 in the law of Jehovah", and the implication is that *'the law" 
 is our Pentateuch and that it dates from a distant past. The 
 people know of the existence of the law, for they ''gathered to- 
 gether . . . and spake unto Ezra to bring the book of the 
 law of Moses" (Neh. 8: i). They appear simply to have 
 neglected to observe its contents. Furthermore, Ezra 2 : 36 f ; 
 Neh. 6: 10; 12: 35, 41 and Haggai 2: 11 imply acquaintance 
 with the Priest Code. 
 
 8. Ezekiel and the Priest Code. 
 
 The pre-Exilic date of P is reached by another line of 
 proof. The prophet Ezekiel employs language which implies 
 a knowledge of Levit. 17-26 (H) and the Priest Code in gen- 
 eral.^^ Since Ezekiel prophesied in 597-71 we have a fixed 
 datum. If the priority of H and P to Ezekiel is established, it 
 follows that P is pre-Exilic. 'There are a number of points 
 in which it is generally conceded that the legislation of Ez. is 
 an advance upon H. In the distribution of priestly functions, 
 in the classification of holy things, in the enumeration of sacri- 
 fices, and in the treatment of feasts Ez. is certainly more devel- 
 oped than H. This fact need not be exhibited in detail, inas- 
 
 84 "The hypothesis that in P we have a projection of later conditions into 
 the desert period breaks down under the weight of P's data. The writer conceives 
 the Levites primarily as a body of sacred porters. Now nobody living in any 
 subsequent age could suppose that there was either occasion or possibility to carry 
 about the Temple. If we are really to adopt the projection theory (according to 
 which the duties of the Levites in P mirror their duties in the second Temple), 
 we must imagine a priestly gentleman picturing to himself sections of the Temple 
 walls and bits of the roof as being carried about at odd times by Levites on their 
 shoulders. The absurdity of the proposition must surely be obvious to everybody" 
 (Wiener, op. cit., p., 75). 
 
 s5 The Wellhausen sequence is: D, Ezek., H, P; the Dillmann, H, P, D, 
 Ezek. In addition to the older literature of Del., Dill., Klos., Baud., Kittel, see 
 L. B. Paton on "The Holiness Code and Ezekiel", in Pres. and Ref. Rev., VII, 
 98 — IIS, and J. O. Boyd on "Ezek. and the Modern Dating of the Pent.," in 
 "Princ. Theolog. Rev., VI, 29 — 51). 
 
278 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 much as it is conceded by Kuenen, Baentsch and other advo- 
 cates of the priority of Ez." (Paton). 
 
 Other strata in P are earlier than Ez., as shown by P pas- 
 sages compared with Ez., as: Gen. 9: 14 and Ez. i : 28; Gen. 
 7: 14 and Ez. 17: 23; 39: 4, 17. Ezekiel's "every bird of 
 every wing", thrice repeated, seems to be a reflection of Gen. 
 7: 14. Ezekiel in 4: 4-6 doubtless had Num. 14: 34 (P) in 
 mind. If we were to accept the view "that Ezekiel here ^yas 
 prior to P, it would involve us in the absurdity of attributing 
 to P not merely invention of historical facts — this is an essen- 
 tial part of the Wellhausen conception of P — and not merely 
 a dependence on Ezekiel wholly uncalled-for under the circum- 
 stances of this case, but this invention and this slavish depen- 
 dence without any assignable motive" (Boyd). 
 
 According to the critical canon that an elaborate ritual is 
 later than a simple one, Baudissin urges the priority of P over 
 Ezekiel. "In P, the killing, flaying, and cutting up of the 
 sacrificial animal has to be done by the layman presenting the 
 offering (Lev. i : 5, 11, etc.) ; in Ez. the Levites have to per- 
 form the killing. There can be no doubt that in this instance 
 the Priests' Code represents the earlier custom" (Hast., Die. 
 Bib., IV, 87). 
 
 Grafians ask, 'If P's distinction between Levites and 
 Aaronites was known to Ez., why does he present his own dis- 
 tinction between priests and Levites?' It suffices to observe 
 that Ezekiel's Zadokites are not the same as P's Aaronites. 
 The former, as but one branch of the family of Aaron, are less 
 extensive than the Aaronites.^^ The sons of Zadok according 
 to I K. 2 : 35 and Ezekiel were the priests officiating in Jeru- 
 salem from the time of Solomon. When, therefore, Ezekiel 
 (44: 15) speaks of the sons of Zadok as priests, he employs a 
 narrower term than P's "sons of Aaron", that is Ezekiel is later 
 than P, even according to the Wellhausen logic. 
 9. The Date of the Priest Code. 
 
 We are now prepared to summarize the evidence for the 
 date of the Priest Code. 
 
 (i). Dilemma of the Graf-Wellhausen School. The Well- 
 
 *» According to Ex. 28: i; 40: 2-15, Aaron and his sons were appointed 
 priests. Nadab and Abihu having perished, the priesthood was hereditary in the 
 lines of Eleazar and Ithamar. Zadok, a descendant of Eleazar, and Abiathar, a 
 descendant of Ithamar, were priests under David. Abiathar, having joined the 
 Adonijah rebellion, was deposed; but Zadok, remaining loyal to David and Sol- 
 omon, was confirmed in the priesthood, as were his descendants. 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 279 
 
 hausen hypothesis proceeds on the assumption that the reHgious 
 institutions of Israel were developed uninterruptedly. But 
 this assumption has never been verified. The data show that 
 there was advance and retrogression alternately. The postulate 
 of this school is that according to Deuteronomy, the civil and 
 ceremonial ordinances of P were not enforced (and therefore 
 not in existence) in the monarchical period, but only in the 
 small community established by Ezra and Nehemiah. This 
 position is valid as over against those (i) who hold that P in 
 all its details is the work of Moses, and those (2) who believe 
 that the laws of P were actually enforced from the first. But 
 the Wellhausen contention is invalid over against the view, 
 that the Priest Code, based on Mosaic data and principles, but 
 drawn up with an eye on both present and future needs, con- 
 tains an early well-articulated system of the Israelitish theo- 
 cracy. On the critical view (shared by the Grafians) that P is 
 a priest code, it would not possess supreme interest for the pro- 
 phets. Either the Grafians must allow that P might be ex- 
 tant without necessarily being quoted by the prophets, or they 
 must abandon their favorite dictum of a sharp antagonism be- 
 tween priests and prophets. In the former case our contention 
 is established; in the latter, the possibility of priestly and 
 prophetic writings existing side by side from the earliest times 
 must be conceded. ^^ 
 
 (2). Traces of P in D and other Books. The Grafians 
 deny any traces of P in D. Here the honors between them and 
 the Dillmannists are even. As seen above, we do not expect 
 a direct influence of one on the other ; but the question is 
 whether D knowing of the existence of P would unquestion- 
 ably quote from it. The contention of the Grafians is illicit, 
 for it cannot be shown that D (on the Grafian assumption) was 
 bound to refer to P. All the conditions would be met (even 
 if both P and D arose in the Mosaic period) if it should appear 
 that D was aware of the institutions of P and designed to sup- 
 plement them.^^ 
 
 It is impossible to prove a development of the cultus be- 
 
 " "The question is not whether there was a time in the monarchical period 
 when all the laws of P were enforced, but only whether it is conceivable that 
 already about 800 B. C. the priests of the central sanctuary came forward with 
 such an ideal; and we see no reason to answer this question in the negative" 
 Dillm.). 
 
 «8 It was shown above that D exhibits an acquaintance with the legal and 
 historical data of P and to some extent with the language and phraseology. Thus 
 Deut. i: 15; 2: 14-16; 3: 15; 4: 16, and chas. 17, 18, 25, etc. contain expressions 
 characteristic of P. That these are glosses by a later editor is out of the question. 
 
28o ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 tween 621 and 445 — an age of decadence comprising the be- 
 ginning of the Exile, the Exile itself and the time between 
 Zerubbabel and Ezra — periods absolutely unsuitable for most 
 of the institutions of P. It is inconceivable that any priest 
 would in this interval draw up the laws of P. Any modification 
 of the ritual would proceed on the basis of the old laws ; the in- 
 troduction of absolutely new laws is improbable. We are 
 therefore led to conclude that the institutions of P are not only 
 pre-Exilic, but in the main pre-monarchical, and even Mosaic. 
 
 E. SUMMARY ON THE ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 A theoretical and practical reconciliation of the uniform 
 Old Testament teaching, according to the traditionalists, that 
 Moses had a considerable share in the origin of the Pentateuch, 
 and of the modem critical hypothesis, that the Hexateuch arose 
 from six to eight centuries after Moses, may be sought along 
 the following lines. 
 
 I. Theory of Documents. 
 
 Since the Old Testament abounds in references to books 
 and sources, a theory of documents is not in itself objectionable, 
 but becomes so only when the documents are affirmed to be late 
 and of naturalistic origin. 
 
 2. Codes Based on Ancient Sources. 
 
 Starting for the purpose of argument, from the theory of 
 the_ codes J, E, P and D (too widely accepted by Hebraists to 
 be ignored), we have seen that each of these codes is based on 
 a considerable number of early written sources, and so may in 
 fact go back in substance to the Mosaic age. Thus, (i) the 
 Decalog, the Book of the Covenant, the Little Book of the Cov- 
 enant, and, with the exception of some editorial additions, the 
 matter in J and E (so far as language and historical setting 
 enable us to determine) originated in the Moses-Joshua period. 
 (2). Without deciding the question of the final redaction of 
 Deuteronomy, it is clear that the book reproduces old laws and 
 monitions, and is based on ancient written sources which in 
 some cases demonstrably go back to the Mosaic age. The 
 theory which upon the whole seems best supported is that some 
 editor in the age of Joshua or not much later, having access to 
 the scattered records of the last words and acts of Moses, wrote 
 out Deuteronomy in substantially its present form. (3). As to 
 the Priest code, P, it is incredible that chapter after chapter 
 relating to the ten tribes, Levitical cities, Urim and Thummim, 
 
ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 28 1 
 
 the ark of the covenant, the sacred vessels, the cultus of the 
 Mosaic age, ancient and extinct nations, and ancient laws and 
 technical details, originated as late as 445 B. C, an age not in- 
 terested in such matters ; and on the other hand that post-Exilic 
 priests would have dared to introduce laws sharply antagonistic 
 to the (assumed) dominant D code, to install the Aaronites as 
 priests (contrary to Ezekiel), to favor laws of tithing and 
 feasts opposing those of J, D and Ezekiel, and in short to bring 
 forward a code embodying much matter unsuitable to that age, 
 and omitting things of vital concern for the new community. 
 From the character of the matter, which has point and signifi- 
 cance only for the Mosaic age and which from its circumstan- 
 tiality of detail could not have been thought out (without an- 
 achronisms) by a post-Exilic Jew however learned, it is impos- 
 sible to avoid the conclusion that the code in its essentials was 
 drawn up at an early date on the basis of sources going back 
 to the Mosaic age. 
 
 3. Pentateuch Essentially Mosaic. 
 
 Unless the uniform testimony of the Old Testament that 
 Moses had a large share in the composition of the Pentateuch 
 was a fiction of a later age (which is improbable) and unless, 
 further, our Lord intended to accommodate himself to a false 
 traditional view (which is unthinkable),^^ we cannot escape 
 the conclusion that the Pentateuch in its underlying parts is to 
 be ascribed to Moses. 
 
 4. Employment of Scribes and Amanuenses. 
 
 Moses undoubtedly was competent and had the required 
 facilities to write such a work as the Pentateuch, had he been 
 so disposed ; and the evidence Biblical and critical is to the 
 effect that he actually wrote the Ten Words, the Book of the 
 Covenant and some other parts. But in view of the difference 
 in style (indicating different writers) and in accord with the 
 custom of that age, the conditions of the problem are met if we 
 suppose that for the most part scribes and amanuenses drew up 
 under his direction the early history of the world and of his 
 people, as well as an account of the deliverance from Egyptian 
 bondage and of his legislative activity. Hence the underlying 
 
 «9 Two alternatives we exclude: (i), that Jesus had so limited or emptied 
 himself (Phil. 2:5) that he did not know or care to know the facts regarding the 
 Torah; and (2) that he wickedly intended to deceive. The former alternative 
 implies a false Kenosis; the latter, a false ethics. 
 
282 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Strata of the Pentateuch may well have originated in the Mosaic 
 age.^° 
 
 5. A Fourfold Record. 
 
 A fourfold record of the birth-time of Israel would in fact 
 furnish cumulative proof of the historicity and correctness of the 
 narrative, just as in the case of the four Gospels (really one 
 Gospel) we have cumulative proof of the life and teaching of 
 Jesus. Under this view the documents and codes underlying 
 the Pentateuch virtually sustain the same relation to the Mosaic 
 age in point of time, content and literary form as the four Gos- 
 pels to that of Christ. ^^ 
 
 »" "If we accept Moses as a historical character and if we believe the account 
 of Exodus that he was brought up as a prince of the house of Pharaoh, it would 
 be absurd to suppose that he was unfamiliar with such accomplishments [viz. 
 writing, etc.,]. He would be trained in every accomplishment known at the 
 court and certainly in those which the Pharaoh expected even his minor officials 
 to possess. So far then as writing is concerned, there is not the slightest diffi- 
 culty in accepting him as the author of at least the kernel of the Pentateuch" 
 (J. G. Duncan, Explor. Egypt and the O. T., p., 243). 
 
 ®i "The history of Israel and of its literature stands under another law than 
 that of a constant development from below upward. The unique redemption era 
 of Moses dominates as a creative beginning .the whole of the subsequent develop- 
 ment. No doubt there is a constant progress, but it is only such as gradually to 
 develop that which had commenced in the time of Moses with all the primal force 
 and fulness of a divine creation" (Delitzsch, Psalms). 
 
I. 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 Aaronites and Zadokites, differ- 
 ence between, p. 278. 
 
 Abraham, language of, 50, 51; 
 had trustworthy cuneiform rec- 
 ords, 8, 240, 244, 250; migra- 
 tion of, from Ur, 241 ; monothe- 
 ism of, 241 ; influenced by cul- 
 ture of Ur, 240. 
 
 Abridged Egyptian Alphabet, 57; 
 possible influence of, on Phoe- 
 nician letters, 83, 173. 
 
 Abu Simbel, Phoenician inscrip- 
 tion of, 97; Greek inscriptions 
 of, 83, 173. 
 
 Aerology, 56, 140. See Acrophony. 
 
 Acrophony, defined and illustrat- 
 ed, 56; Egyptian principle of, 
 adopted by inventors of Semit- 
 ic, (Phoenician) alphabet, 137. 
 
 Aegean Writing, probably fur- 
 nished material for Phoenician 
 alphabet, 91, 129. 
 
 Agrarian laws of Book of the 
 
 Covenant, possible in Mosaic age, 
 201. 
 
 Agriculture, in Genesis narratives, 
 197; not incompatible with cul- 
 tivation of literature (W. R. 
 Smith), 213. 
 
 Alphabet, no true, prior to Phoe- 
 nician, 58; a certain kind of, in 
 Egypt in early times, 58; prob- 
 lem of origin of Phoenician, 
 81; theories of origin of, 84-92; 
 importance of determining date 
 of origin, 83, 84; alleged Phoe- 
 nician origin of, 84; Egyptian 
 origin (de Rouge), 84; Stand- 
 ard Egyptian, 86, 173; the de 
 Rouge theory of, 86; Hittite 
 origin of, 87; theory of Baby- 
 lonian origin of, 89; theory of 
 Aramaic origin of, 90; Mesopo- 
 
 tamian origin of, 90; theory 
 of Cretan origin of, 91 ; Greek, 
 129; introduced into Greece by 
 Phoenicians, 129, 130; provi- 
 sional theory of origin of, 137; 
 Delitzsch hypothesis of origin 
 of, 137; Astro-Mythological 
 hypothesis of origin of, 142; 
 growth and development of, 
 148, 154; three types of North 
 Semitic, 156; relation of N. 
 and S. Semitic, 156, 157; Phoe- 
 nician, known to Moses, 171 ; 
 extant in third pre-Christian 
 millennium, 151 ; Phoenician, 
 long a Scriptura privata, 123, 
 182, 183. 
 
 Alphabetology, principles of, 154; 
 law of correlative variation, 
 154; no absolute sameness of 
 development in alphabets, 155; 
 law of graphic development, 
 156. 
 
 Altars, question of unity or plu- 
 rality, 27Z', bearing on date of 
 Priest code, 272,, 274. 
 
 Amanuenses, in service of Moses, 
 80, 169, 234, 264, 281. 
 
 Amarna Letters, when and where 
 discovered, 67', character and 
 value of, 68; language and 
 script of, 68; scribes in Pales- 
 tine, in time of, 234; afford 
 proof of cuneiform in Palestine 
 in early times, 178; mention 
 Byblos, Gaza, Jerusalem, etc., 
 67; confirmatory of O. T., 68, 
 and of antiquity of Hebrew 
 language, 187, foot-note, 36. 
 
 American Graiians, mostly fol- 
 lowers of Germans and capti- 
 vated by the Wellhausen rheto- 
 ric and philosophy, 10, 11, 15, 
 19, 20, 269, 270. 
 
 288 
 
284 
 
 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Amorites, 47; civilization of, 50; 
 played important role in West- 
 Land, 69; used Babylonian lan- 
 guage and script, 72. 
 
 Amraphel, 246. See Hammurabi. 
 
 Amurru, high civilization of, 49; 
 home of Northern Semites 
 (Clay), 48-49; influenced West- 
 Land culture, 70, 74; carried 
 civilization and religion to 
 Babylonia, 72,, 74', often re- 
 ferred to, in Babylonian and 
 Egyptian inscriptions, 74, 75. 
 
 Anachronisms, character of, 34; 
 value of argument from, in de- 
 termining date of a book, 40; 
 in Shakespeare, 40. 
 
 Anonymity of Babylonian- Assy- 
 rian literature, 66. 
 
 Anonymous Writings, authors of, 
 frequently determined by the 
 literary-historical criticism, 40, 
 259- 
 
 Antiquity, of proto-Phoenician al- 
 phabet, 150-153; of Phoenician 
 alphabet, 158; of Babylonian 
 writing, 53-55 ; of Babylonian 
 literature, 62-66; of Egyptian 
 writing, 55-57; of Egyptian lit- 
 erature, 59-61 ; of Greek alpha- 
 bet, 135 ; of Hebrew language, 
 51, 187; of Hebrew literature, 
 193-280; of Genesis XIV, 245; 
 of underlying strata in Penta- 
 teuch, 238-279. 
 
 Arabia, land of old civilization, 
 123, 151- 
 
 Arabia, North, supposed original 
 home of Semites, 47. 
 
 Aramaic Language, in O. T., 50, 
 137; long a lingua franca, 90, 
 157; spoken in Jerusalem in 
 Hezekiah's time, 184. 
 
 Aramaic script and inscriptions, 
 100, 107 ; Zakar, loi ; Hadad, 
 104; Panammu, 104; Bar-Re- 
 kub, 105; Nerab, 105; Lion- 
 Weight of Abydos, 106; Lamas, 
 Teima, 106. 
 
 Aramaic hypothesis of origin of 
 Phoenician alphabet, 90. 
 
 Archaic Hebrew script, character 
 of, 108-116; used in David-Ez- 
 ra age, 163-165; in Joshua-Da- 
 vid age, 166-168; in Mosaic 
 age, 168-172. 
 
 Archaeology and the Old Testa- 
 ment, 49, 93. 
 
 Argument, from anachronisms, in 
 establishing date of a document 
 or book, 40; from silence, 40; 
 from subject-matter, 40; from 
 vocabulary, :^7 ; from direct 
 reference, 39. 
 
 Assyrian language, similar to 
 Babylonian, 46; in Israel, 184; 
 at court of Jehu, 185 ; Conder's 
 argument of use of, in original 
 O. T. books, 188; Sayce's view 
 of early O. T. books para- 
 phrased from, 189. 
 
 Assyrian literature, many kinds 
 of, 61 ; mostly imitation of 
 Babylonian, 61. 
 
 Astro-Mythological hypothesis of 
 origin of Phoenician alphabet, 
 142. 
 
 Authenticity, meaning and im- 
 portance of, in criticism, 31 ; ac- 
 cepted, in case of documents, 
 until disapproved, 44. 
 
 Baal-Lebanon inscription, 96; 
 date of, 97. 
 
 Babylonians, character of, 46; em- 
 ployed cuneiform script, 53; 
 had many scribes, 54. 
 
 Babylonian hypothesis of origin of 
 Phoenician alphabet, 89, 137. 
 
 Babylonian language in Israel, 
 178, 182 ff. 
 
 Babylonian literature, antiquity of, 
 62 ff. ; immense extent of, 62 ; 
 poetical, prose, legal, historical, 
 epistolary and religious, 63-66; 
 anonymity of, 66. 
 
 Babylonian ivriting, character and 
 antiquity of, 51, 
 
 Berytus, antiquity of, 145. 
 
 Blessing of Moses (Deut. 
 XXXIII), date disputed, 265; 
 ancient and probably Mosaic, 
 266. 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 285 
 
 Book, early use of term, in O. T., 
 214; Hebrew word for, sepher, 
 probably a Babylonian loan- 
 word, 214; implies writing on 
 papyrus, 214. 
 
 Book of the Covenant (Ex. XXI 
 —XXIII), scope and character 
 of, 252 ; Agrarian laws in, 201 ; 
 Mosaic origin of, 252, 253 ; com- 
 pared with Code Hammurabi, 
 65, 253; moral tone of, superior 
 to Code Hammurabi, 65, 66, 253. 
 
 Book of Genesis, written records 
 underlying it, 17, 238-25. 
 
 Book of Jashar, 79 ; poetical form 
 of, 227; contains Song of Bow, 
 22y; extent of, 228. 
 
 Book of Joel, illustration of High- 
 er Criticism, from, 33 ; style 
 and language of, ^,2) I historical 
 situation implied in, 34; infer- 
 ences and deductions from, 34. 
 
 Book of Joshua, authorship and 
 date of, 204; based on old rec- 
 ords, 205. 
 
 Book of Judges, component parts 
 of, 205; of early date, 206; 
 negative criticism of, largely 
 subjective, 207, 208. 
 
 Book of Wars of Jehovah, 79; 
 date of, 226. 
 
 Book-Tou.m, 171. See Kiriath- 
 sepher. 
 
 Books, early Hebrew, in Davidic 
 age, 218-221 ; in Mosaic age, 
 224-230, 240-280; sacred, de- 
 posited in sanctuaries, 268; in 
 foundation walls of temiples, 
 268; books and scribes in O. T., 
 214. See Hebrew literature. 
 
 Boustrophedon zm'iting, in early 
 Greek inscriptions, 133-134. 
 
 Byhlos, mentioned in Amarna Let- 
 ters, 67; antiquity of, 145; cen- 
 ter of book-trade and papyrus 
 industry, 145, 172 ; seat of cul- 
 ture in pre-Mosaic age, 145 ; 
 word hook derived therefrom, 
 145, 172. 
 
 Canaan, early Egyptian influence 
 in, 68; early Babylonian civili- 
 zation in, 67, 69; had an ad- 
 
 vanced indigenous civilization, 
 68, 70; influenced by Amorites, 
 69; Babylonian influence on, 
 ceased after 1800 B. C, 70. 
 
 Canaanites, origin and character 
 of, 70, 144; early employed 
 cuneiform script, 70; stood high 
 culturally in 2000-1500, B. C. 
 73', low morally and religiously 
 in post-Mosaic age, 209; no 
 models for Hebrews, 209; out- 
 classed by Hebrews of Joshua 
 period, 210, 211. 
 
 Canon of O. T., one of the fun- 
 damental problems of Old Tes- 
 tament science, i, 2. 
 
 Cassitcs in Canaan in early times, 
 70. 
 
 Certainty, no absolute historical, 
 42; sufficient for practical pur- 
 poses, 42. 
 
 Chartom, the, sacred scribe, ma- 
 gician, 217. 
 
 Chedorlaomer, identified with Ku- 
 du rlagamar, 240. 
 
 Civilisation, Hebrew, in Mosaic 
 age, 5; high, according to tra- 
 ditionalists, 5; low, according 
 to radicals, 6; in Canaan in pre- 
 Mosaic period, 67, J2>'> early 
 Cretan, 91 ; Hebrew, in pre- 
 Davidic period, 193, 204; He- 
 brew, in pre-Mosaic age, 196; 
 of Canaanites, 202; Hebrew and 
 Canaanite, compared, 211. 
 
 Clay, not papyrus, generally used 
 in Babylonian writing, 54. 
 
 Code Hammurabi, 65 ; proof of 
 early Babylonian legal litera- 
 ture, 65, 66; compared with 
 Book of the Covenant, 66. 
 
 Codes, theory of Pentateuchal, 
 12; sequence of, 16; Deuteron- 
 omic code, so-called, 12; Eloh- 
 istic code, E, 12; Jehovistic 
 code, J, 12; Holiness code, H, 
 13; Priest code, P, 13; man- 
 ner of combining codes, 14; 
 Grafian hypothesis of, 15 ; Pen- 
 tateuchal, based on early sourc- 
 es, 280. 
 
286 
 
 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Conservative and Radical posi- 
 tions of O. T. criticism, 5-23; 
 possibility of reconciliation, be- 
 tween, 24, 25 ; mediating view, 
 26, 280-282. 
 
 Creation Epic and Genesis I, 6^. 
 
 Cretan script, conjectural proto- 
 type of Phoenician, 92, 125, 129; 
 relation to_ Egyptian hieratic, or 
 hieroglyphic, 92. 
 
 Crete, early civilization of, 91 ; 
 origin of alphabet in (Evans, 
 Praetorius), 91; script of, 92; 
 center of a primitive system of 
 writing, 150; syllabic script in, 
 130. 
 
 Criticism, in general, defined, 27; 
 a characteristic of the present 
 age, 28; kinds of, 28; Lower 
 or Textual, 29, 30; Higher or 
 Literary, 29, 31; need of, 30; 
 Shakespearean, 30; province of 
 Higher, 31, 32, 33; from local 
 color of writing, 40; often pure 
 subjectivism, 31; current O. T. 
 criticism largely Grafian and 
 negative, 12-14, 196-21 1, 218-222, 
 238-279. 
 
 Criticism, Higlier, or Literary- 
 Historical, illustrated from 
 Book of Joel, 33-35. 
 
 Cuneiform or wedge-shape writ- 
 ing, nature of, 53; number of 
 characters (Delitzsch), 53; ide- 
 ograms and phonograms, 53 ; 
 the Babylonian scribe, 54; syl- 
 labaries, 55. 
 
 Cypriote characters,^ possible pro- 
 to-types of Phoenician, 92. 
 
 Cyprus, Baal-Lebanon inscrip- 
 tion, in, 172; 'home of Cypriote 
 script, 129. 
 
 Debir. See Kiriath-sepher. 
 
 Deborah, Ode of, 80, 230. 
 
 Decalog, Mosaic origin of, 251 ; 
 not beyond comprehension of 
 Hebrews of the Exodus, 251. 
 
 Decalog, second, a figment of the 
 critical imagination, 254. 
 
 Delphi, and Phoenician alphabet, 
 131 ; priests of, and Greek al- 
 phabet, 131. 
 
 Deluge, Babylonian story of, and 
 Biblical account, 63. 
 
 Deuteronomy, Book of. Mosaic 
 origin denied, 11; character and 
 age of, according to Grafian 
 criticism, 12; dilemma of crit- 
 icism, 256; originated in sev- 
 enth century B. C., according to 
 Grafians, 257 ; a pious fraud 
 (Holzinger), 257; language 
 and style, 258, 259; historical 
 situation that of Mosaic age, 
 259; Egypticity of, 259; Mo- 
 ses represented as author of, 
 260, 261 ; references to, in 
 prophets,^ 262; alleged contra- 
 dictions in, 262; ancient strata 
 in, 266; Mosaicity of, 267; 
 transmission of, 267; Mosaic in 
 underlying strata, 280, 
 
 Documents, combined to form 
 Pentateuch, 14; Dillmann hy- 
 pothesis of, 15; theory of, not 
 necessarily objectionable, 280. 
 
 Eclecticism, in formation of al- 
 phabets, 148. 
 
 Egypt, civilization of, 5 ; script 
 and literature of, 57, 59-61 ; 
 influence of on Hebrews, 202; 
 Semites, in, 143; Hyksos in, 
 143; Egyptian language Semit- 
 ized, 144. 
 
 Egyptian Standard, Alphabet, so- 
 called, 85, 86. 
 
 Egyptian writing and literature, 
 extent and antiquity of, 59-61, 
 
 Elohistic code, characteristics and 
 age of, 12; ancient, and based 
 on ancient sources, 256. 
 
 Engraving, in early times, 62; 
 early use of, among Hebrews, 
 232. 
 
 Epic, the Creation, 62, ; the Gil- 
 g-amesch, 6;^. 
 
 Epigraphy, Semitic, science and 
 importance of, 93, 132; Greek, 
 132. 
 
 Epistolary literature, Babylonian, 
 66. 
 
 Evolution, of Pentateuch, accord- 
 ing to Graf-Wellhausen school, 
 11; of O. T. religion and liter- 
 ature in Grafian system, 269, 
 270; and revelation, i, 269, 270. 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 287 
 
 Exile, Babylonian, 180; Babylon- 
 ian and Hebrew language in, 
 181 ; Hebrew literary activity 
 in, 181 ; Aramaic language and 
 script in, 181. 
 
 Ezekiel, relation to Priest code, 
 277; later than P code, 277, 
 278; sacrificial system more 
 elaborate than P code, 278. 
 
 Foot-Notes, none in ancient 
 books, 262. 
 
 Forgeries, literary, usually ex- 
 posed, 259. 
 
 Fraud, book of Deuteronomy, a 
 "Pious", according to Grafians, 
 
 257- 
 
 Gebal. See Byblos. 
 
 Genesis, book of, contains history, 
 not legends, 194-196; matter 
 of, transmitted from patriarchal 
 period, 242, 243; first eleven 
 chapters on half dozen cunei- 
 form tablets, 244; chapters V, 
 X, XIV, based on old records, 
 2J t; : antiquity of chap. XIV, 
 245-249; book of, not traceable 
 to late Babylonian sources, 243. 
 
 Genesis XIV, storm center of 
 criticism, 245, 246; persons and 
 places of, identified, 246; his- 
 torical background of, 247; 
 based on early sources, 248. 
 
 Genuineness, of ancient documents 
 accepted until disproved, 43. 
 
 Geser, cuneiform tablets of, 161, 
 179. 
 
 Gezer, Hebrew Calendar Tablet 
 of, 109; archaic character of, 
 no; date and epigraphic value 
 of. III, 112. 
 
 Gideon, writing in age of, by 
 youth of Succoth, in Phoenician 
 alphabet, 129, 130. 
 
 Goddess, no word for, in Hebrew 
 language, 209. 
 
 Gilgamesch Epic, 63. 
 
 Graftanism, hypothesis of, 271 ; 
 assumes late date of Hebrew al- 
 phabet, writing and literature, 
 148 ; monistic evolutionistic 
 philosophy of, 270; regards 
 Priest code as evolutionistic, 
 271; natural law the dominat- 
 
 ing principle of, 271 ; holds that 
 codes developed from simple to 
 Complex, 271 ; regards its posi- 
 tion as established absolutely, 
 24; destroys the old order from 
 the ground up, 25. 
 
 Greeks, early civilization of, 128; 
 adopted Phoenician alphabet, 
 130; experimented with alpha- 
 bet, 128; gradually developed 
 their alphabet, 131 ; extant in- 
 scriptions of, 132-134. 
 
 Hammurabi, character of, 64; 
 code of, compared with Mosaic 
 Book of the Covenant, 65-66; 
 letters of, 66; the lord of Ca- 
 naan, 69; the Amraphel of Gen- 
 esis XIV, 246-247. 
 
 Harran, religious and literary 
 center, 242. 
 
 Hebrezvs, highly civilized in Mo- 
 saic age, 5 ; of Semitic stock, 
 45 ; antiquity of their language, 
 51; had examples of writing 
 and literature in Egypt, 61 ; 
 early adopted Phoenician alpha- 
 bet, 168, 171 ; learned Egyptian 
 language and script, 173 ; a bi- 
 lingual people, 192; not no- 
 mads, but semi-nomads, 197, 198; 
 had elements of settled govern- 
 ment in Egypt, 200; prepared 
 for Mosaic legislation at Exo- 
 dus, 202 ; morally superior to 
 Canaanites, 210; early adopted 
 Jehovah religion, 211; cultivat- 
 ed true historical literature, 
 205. 
 
 Hebrew Inscriptions, archaic, 108; 
 their number, 108; fewness of, 
 due to nature of writing-mater- 
 ial, 108; Siloam, 108; Gezer 
 Calendar, 109; Jeroboam, 112; 
 Samaria ostraca, 114; inscribed 
 jar-handles, 116; probability of 
 many yet to be discovered, 115. 
 See Inscriptions. 
 
 Hexateuch, composition of, 12-15; 
 formula of, 15. 
 
 Hieratic script, described, 55, 59; 
 influence of, on Phoenician, 145; 
 fwas Mosaic law written in 
 hieratic, 175-7. 
 
288 
 
 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Hieroglyphics, character of, 55- 
 58; largely phonetic, 56; cop- 
 ies of the Book of the Dead in, 
 59; many writings (monumen- 
 tal) in, 60. 
 
 Higher, or Literary, Criticism, 31, 
 33 ; name of science, 35 ; broad 
 scope of, S7; methods of, 37, 
 39, 41 ; literary and historical 
 method in, 39; theological 
 method, 41 ; compared with 
 Lower, 2S. 
 
 Historical method or argument, 
 value of, 39, 42. 
 
 Historical situation in Palestine 
 in 2500-1400 B. C, 68-71. 
 
 History vs. Legend, 18, 20; gen- 
 uine history in Genesis, 194; 
 philosophy of, in O. T., 208. 
 
 Hittites, their writing, boustro- 
 phedon, 88; inscriptions of, un- 
 deciphered, 88; script of, relat- 
 ed to Egyptian hieroglyphics, 
 88; their alleged influence in 
 origin of Phceaiician alphabet, 
 
 87. 
 
 Holiness code, H, characteristics 
 and' age of, 13, 14. 
 
 Hyksos, subdued Palestine, 71 ; 
 not averse to literature, 71 ; 
 their reign in Egypt and expul- 
 sion, 71 ; as Semites in Egypt, 
 143 ; duration of supremacy of, 
 in Egypt, 143; probable share 
 of, in origin of Phoenician al- 
 phabet, 143-145. 
 
 Inscriptions, many Egyptian. 60; 
 historical, mythological, poeti- 
 cal, in Egypt, 61 ; Assyrian, 
 consisting of poetical and prose 
 works on many subjects. 62; 
 chief Assyrian historical, 62; 
 many Babylonian, 62 ; Babylon- 
 ian historical, 62,', Hittite, 88; 
 Semitic and O. T., 93 ; number 
 of Semitic, 93, 94; kinds of, 94; 
 Phoenician, 95 ; Baal-Lebanon, 
 96; early Greek, 128, 131; 
 Thera, 133; Assyrian not al- 
 ways accurate, 250; Minasan 
 and O. T., 275 ; Egyptian Cof- 
 fin, 145-7; hieratic, 146; lon- 
 ger archaic Hebrew, 171. 
 
 Integrity, of scripture, 32; of 
 (Pentateuch, 10, 238, 267. 
 
 Israelites. See Hebrews. 
 
 Jehovistic code, character and age 
 of, 12 ; ancient and based on 
 early records, 256. 
 
 Jeroboam seal, in archaic Hebrew 
 script, _ 112; discovery of, 112; 
 antiquity of, 113, 165; epigraph- 
 ic value of, 113. 
 
 Jerusalem, no reference to, in 
 Deuteronomy, a proof of early 
 date, 260. 
 
 Joel. See Book of Joel, 
 
 Jesus and the Pentateuch, 281. 
 
 Jotham's Parable, early date of, 
 228, 229. 
 
 Joshua, writing and literature, in 
 time of, 234; copying of law, 
 by, 234; description of terri- 
 tory, in age of, 235. 
 
 Kingdom, law of, 263. 
 
 Kiriath-sepher, Book- Town, 233; 
 city of letters, 233; documents 
 preserved in, 245. 
 
 Kiriath-sannah, seat of culture, 
 171. 
 
 Language, Aramaic. See Aramaic 
 Language. 
 
 Language, Assyrian. See Assy- 
 rian Language, 
 
 Language, Hebrew, 50; early, 51; 
 origin and development of, 50; 
 similar to Canaanite and Phoeni- 
 cian, 50; antiquity of, 51, 75; 
 three stages of, 51, 52. 
 
 Languages, Semitic, 49; classifi- 
 cation of, 49. 
 
 Laze, the Mosaic, foundation of 
 Hebrew theocracy, 250; implied 
 in prophets, 250; copied in time 
 of Joshua, 234. 
 
 Lazv and prophecy relation of, 21; 
 law first, then prophecy, 22; 
 Pentateuchal codes, prior to 
 prophetical books, 238-279. 
 
 Legends and myths, Gunkel's view 
 of 184 f. ; said to characterize 
 Genesis narratives, 193 ; unten- 
 ability of hypothesis of, 194-6; 
 no historical facts in Genesis 
 according to Gunkel, 194. 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 289 
 
 Letter-Names, Phoenician-He- 
 
 brew, 138-140; unknown mean- 
 ing of some, in Hebrew alpha- 
 bet, 139; names and forms of 
 Phoenician letters, 138; prob- 
 lem of, 138; theories of origin, 
 140; Semitized Sumerian, 141. 
 
 Libraries, Canaanite, at Gilgal, 
 Shechem, Shiloh, 244, 248, 249; 
 at Kiriath-sepher, 245; at Je- 
 rusalem, 245. 
 
 Literature, Egyptian, very ancient, 
 59' 61 ; Assyrian, 61 ; Baby- 
 lonian, 62>; Babylonian in Ham- 
 murabi period, 64; legal Baby- 
 lonian, 65, 66; Babylonian 
 Epistolary, 66; anonymity of 
 Babylonian-Assyrian, 66; a na- 
 tive Palestinian in early times, 
 
 Literature, Hebrew; two theories 
 of antiquity of, 5 ; early date of, 
 51, 76, 238, 250-280; trustworth- 
 iness of, 208; in David-Solo- 
 mon period, y6, 218; David's 
 Lament over Saul and Jona- 
 than, 79, 218; David's letter to 
 Joab, 218; Psalms of David, 78, 
 219; David's Last Prophetic 
 words, 220; History of Samuel 
 the Seer, 221 ; History of Nath- 
 an the Prophet, 221 ; History of 
 Gad the Seer, 221 ; pre-Davidic, 
 223; Book of Wars of Jeho- 
 vah, 80, 2^4; Memorial against 
 Amalek, 254; Song of Deborah, 
 80, 230; in Mosaic age and 
 Judges, 236; old Hebrew rec- 
 ords, 238; problem of script of 
 early, 81, 83, 166-172. 
 
 Literature, Hebrew historical, yy; 
 the most trustworthy in the an- 
 cient world, (E. Meyer), 205; 
 superior to Babylonian, Egyp- 
 tian, and Assyrian, 185, 205. 
 
 Little Book of the Covenant, so- 
 called, written by Moses, 254. 
 
 Lower or Textual Criticism, 29; 
 compared with Higher, 29; 
 need of, 30; goes back of 
 printed editions of Bible, 30. 
 
 Manuscripts, no very ancient, of 
 O. T., extant, 2. 
 19 
 
 Marshal's pen or staff, 232. 
 
 Maskir, scribe or recorder, 217. 
 
 Memorial, against Amalek, Mo- 
 saic origin of, 254. 
 
 Method, or line of argument, in 
 Higher Criticism; literary, val- 
 ue of, 38; historical, value of, 
 39; theological, value of, 41. 
 
 Meshalim, various kinds of, 225. 
 
 Midian, ancient civilization and 
 culture of, 151, 170. 
 
 Minaeans, powerful kingdom of, 
 in Mosaic age, 169; culture of 
 influenced Israel in Mosaic age 
 (Benzinger), 212, 213. 
 
 Minaean script, 151 ; employed by 
 Moses (Hommel), 169; an- 
 tiquity of, 170. 
 
 Mitannians in Canaan in early 
 times, 70. 
 
 Moabites, culture of, 169; early 
 date of their adoption of the 
 Phoenician script, 169. 
 
 Moabite Stone, discovery of, 95 ; 
 epigraphic value of, 95. 
 
 Monotheism, of Terahites and 
 Abraham, 241 ; belief in true, 
 impulse to Abraham's migration 
 from Ur, 241. 
 
 Mosaic age, "wiped out" (Duhm) 
 by post-Exilic date of Priest 
 code, II, 267. 
 
 Moses, education of, 175; learned 
 hieroglyphic and hieratic writ- 
 ing 175; personality of, 204; 
 influenced by Minjean culture, 
 212; author of Song of Moses 
 and Miriam, 255; of Song of 
 Moses, 264; of Blessing of 
 Moses, 265; composed all of the 
 Pentateuch, according to tradi- 
 tionalists, 11; composed none 
 of it according to extremists, 
 II ff; greater than Hammu- 
 rabi and Chuenaten (Gress- 
 mann), 202, 203; a great per- 
 sonality (Volz), 203. 
 
 Mycaenean civilisation and script, 
 138. 
 
 Myths, alleged in Genesis. See 
 Legend and saga. 
 
290 
 
 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Narratives, the Genesis, largely 
 legends, myths, sagas, according 
 to Grafians, 20; contain authen- 
 tic history, 193 ff. 
 
 Nehemiah, his reading of the law, 
 :^7; had ancient book, 277. 
 
 Nomads, character of real, 198; 
 were the Hebrews such, or sem- 
 i-nomads?, 197-199, 200, 
 
 North Semitic inscriptions, 93- 
 123. 
 
 Ode of Deborah, a work of geni- 
 us, and classic, 231 ; in archaic 
 Hebrew script, 231; written out 
 from the first, 230; a starting- 
 point for literary-historical 
 criticism, 79, 80. 
 
 Old Testament, problems of, O. 
 T. science, i, 2. 3 ; a record of 
 God's revelation, 270. 
 
 Old Testament Books, early, af- 
 firmed to have been written^ in 
 Babylonian language and script, 
 161 ; evidence of Gezer cunei- 
 form tablets, 179; hypothesis of 
 Winckler, Benzinger, and Jer- 
 emias, concerning, 104, 105; 
 written in cuneiform (Conder, 
 Sayce) 188, 189; written in He- 
 brew language and script, as 
 proved from archaic Hebrew in- 
 scriptions, and other considera- 
 tions, 108-120, 223-236. 
 
 Origin of O. T. hooks, question 
 for Higher Criticism, 31, 32. 
 
 Ostraca, Samaria, 114, 165; ar- 
 chaic character of script, 114, 
 166; epigraphic value of, 114, 
 165 ; afford proof of papyrus as 
 writing-material in Israel, 115. 
 
 Palaeography, importance of, 9^ : 
 an exact science, 154; valuable 
 in O. T. study, 154, 155- 
 
 Palestine, civilization of, in time 
 of Abraham, 69, 70; ability of 
 people to learn the cuneiform, 
 70; early native literature in, 
 70; Babylonian language and 
 script in, 70, 178, 179, 245-250. 
 
 Panbabylonism and Gezer cunei- 
 form tablets, 179; no Babylon- 
 ian influence in early monarchi- 
 cal period, 187. 
 
 Papyrus, as writing-material in 
 Egypt, 55-57; in Palestine and 
 Syria in early times (Kittel), 
 115; In Israel, 108, 217; used 
 in Byblos in early times, 171 ; 
 sent from Egypt to Canaan for 
 use in books, 172; early use 
 among Hebrews, 115. 
 
 Papyri, various, 59-61. 
 
 Patriarchs, no historical knowl- 
 edge of (Wellhausen), 20; per- 
 sonifications of tribes (Grafi- 
 ans), 21; real personages, ac- 
 cording to safe criticism, 197- 
 200. 
 
 Pentateuch, traditional view of, 9; 
 Moses as author of, 9; unity 
 and integrity of, 10; modern 
 critical view of, 9, 269-279; 
 no ancient copy of, extant, 161 ; 
 reflects ideas and conditions of 
 eighth cent. B. C. and so con- 
 tains little of historical value 
 (Grafians), 10, 197; is substan- 
 tially from Mosaic age, as at- 
 tested by internal and external 
 evidence, 238-282; Christ's view 
 of, 9, 281. 
 
 Philistines, 130. 
 
 Philosophy of History, Grafian, 
 monistic and evolutionistic, 8, 
 270; theistic, as presented in 
 the O. T., 208. 
 
 Phoneticism, Egyptian, defined 
 and illustrated, 56; Babylonian, 
 53- 
 
 Phonograms, character of, 53; 
 cuneiform, 55; iig>-ptian, 56; 
 prodigious number of Egyptian, 
 57. 
 
 Phoenicians, in history, 144; rela- 
 tion with Egypt, 144; had need 
 of simple script, 145 ; drew 
 from all quarters in formation 
 of alphabet. 147 ; devised alpha- 
 bet in Memphis or Sidon. 148. 
 
 Phoenician inscriptions, Moabite, 
 95; Baal-Lebanon, 96; Hassan- 
 Bey-li, Nora, Abu Simbel, 97; 
 Assyrian Lion-Weight, Abydos, 
 Byblos, Tabnith and Eshmuna- 
 zar, 98; deductions, 99. 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 291 
 
 Phoenician hypothesis of origin of 
 alphabet, 84. 144-149. 
 
 Priest code, characteristic of, 13 ; 
 age of, 14; prior to D, 16; an- 
 cient, 243 ; language and style 
 of, 274; material of, 274; liter- 
 ary source of, 275, 276; adapted 
 to Mosaic, not to Ezraic age, 
 276; traces of, in other codes, 
 279; Ezekiel and the Priest 
 code, 277. 
 
 Prophets, the writing, later than 
 the Law, 22, 76. 
 
 Proto-Phoenician alphabet; date 
 of, 150; circulated in Babylon- 
 ia, Canaan, Arabia, Egypt, 123, 
 142, 147, 150, 151, 152, 153. 
 
 Psalms of David. See Literature 
 Hebrew. 
 
 Pseudograph, Deuteronomy, a, ac- 
 cording to Grafians, 257. 
 
 Pseudonymous writings, authors 
 of, usually detected, 257. 
 
 Reconciliation, of conservative and 
 modern critical views on Penta- 
 teuch, 24-26, 280-283. 
 
 Records, written, of early O. T. 
 books, 16, 17; old Hebrew, 
 238; pre-Mosaic Hebrew, 239; 
 Abraham and early Babylonian 
 and Hebrew, 250. 
 
 Revelation to Abraham (Baentsch 
 and Orelli), 241 ; motive of his 
 migration, 241. 
 
 Sabacan-Minaean script; elegance 
 of form of, 156; relation to 
 Phoenician, 156, 157. 
 
 Sacrifice in Wellhausen system, 
 as bearing on date of Priest 
 code, 273. 
 
 Saga, so-called, in Genesis, 194 f. ; 
 alleged poetic character of, 195 ; 
 a simple prose narrative, 195 ; 
 Gunkel's view of, 195 ; contains 
 authentic history, 194-196. 
 
 Samaria Ostraca. See Ostraca 
 Samaria. 
 
 Sanctuary, central at Shiloh, 273. 
 
 Sanctuaries, Hebrew in time of 
 Judges, 273 ; imply Mosaic 
 Law, 272,. 
 
 Sargon I, date of, 62,, 64. 
 19a 
 
 Scribe, pen of, in Deborah's Ode, 
 22>2. 
 
 Scribe, Hebrew, various names 
 for; sopher, 215; shoter, 216; 
 chartom, 217; mazkir, 217; 
 tipnsar, 217; Jeremiah and the 
 scribe Baruch, 218. 
 
 Scribes, Babylonian, 54; priests 
 as scribes, 54; skilled Egyptian, 
 60; education of, widespread, 
 70; in employ of Abraham, 72; 
 numerous, 240; in service of 
 Aloses, 236, 251, 281. 
 
 Scribings Sinai, discovered by 
 Petrie; new kind of writing, 
 152; early date of, 152; proba- 
 bly earliest Phoenician, 1500 B. 
 C, 152. 
 
 Script, Phoenician, possibility of 
 Moses employing it, 81, 82; ear- 
 ly Hebrew literature in it, 83; 
 Cretan, 92, 129; Aegean, 91; 
 Cypriote, 99; Phoenician in 
 narrow sense, with marked pe- 
 culiarities, 99; gradual devel- 
 opment of Phoenician, 99; com- 
 parison of Phoenician, Aramaic 
 and Hebrew, 122; old Semitic 
 in middle of second pre-Chris- 
 tian millennium, 122; Hittite, 
 137; non-adoption of Phoenici- 
 an by Babylonians, 149; intro- 
 duction of foreign into various 
 lands, 155; Minaean-Sabaean, 
 156; N. and S. Semitic compared, 
 157; of early O. T. books, 160 
 fif. ; of Hebrews after Exile, 
 162, 163 ; Phoenician employed 
 by Hebrews at Exodus, 163, 
 168; archaic Hebrew in 1000 B. 
 C, 166; suitable Hebrew, neces- 
 sary, 167; Deborah's Ode in ar- 
 chaic Hebrew, 168; Phoenician 
 among nations surrounding Is- 
 rael, 168; how Hebrews ac- 
 quired Phoenician, 172; Minaean, 
 ancient character of, 151, 158; 
 alleged sacred and profane 
 among Hebrews, 183, 184, 188. 
 
 Scriptura privata, the Phoenician 
 alphabet, long a, 147, 150. 
 
 Scriptura publica, the cuneiform, 
 long a, 147, 153, 170. 
 
292 
 
 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE, 
 
 Seal Jeroboam, 165. 
 
 Seals, importance of, in ancient 
 'times, 116; Egyptian, 117; 
 Babylonian, 117, 118; Hebrew, 
 118; archaic Hebrew, 1 18-120. 
 
 Semites, character and influence 
 of, 45, 46; include Babylonians, 
 Assyrians, Aramaeans, Hebrews, 
 46 ; original home of, 47, 48 ; im- 
 migration of, into Canaan, 75. 
 
 Semites, Northern, original home 
 of, 48; Clay's view, 48, 50, 62, 
 70; L. W. King's view, 64, 70, 
 
 75- 
 
 Semitic alphabet. See Alphabet, 
 Script, Writing. 
 
 Semitism, in Egypt, 143. 
 
 Shakespeare, textual criticism of 
 his works difficult, 30. 
 
 Shiloh, seat of central sanctuary 
 and of books, 273. 
 
 Sepher, book, writing, 214; occurs 
 in Book of Wars of Jehovah, 
 224; term probably Babylonian 
 and ancient in Israel, 224. 
 
 Shoter, scribe, Hebrew, 218. 
 
 Signaries, signwritings, in 5000 
 B. C, (Petrie), 150. 
 
 Sidon, antiquity and civilization 
 of, 145. 
 
 Silence, argument from, 41, 
 
 Siloam inscription, Hebrew, clas- 
 sic character of, 109. 
 
 Sinai Scribings. See above, 
 
 Sinuhe, story of, 60. 
 
 Song of the Bow, in Book of 
 Jashar. 
 
 Song of Moses, 264, 265. 
 
 Song of Moses and Miriam, 255, 
 
 Song of the Well, antiquity of, 
 225, 226. 
 
 Sources, theory of old Babyloni- 
 an and Canaanite, used in Gen- 
 esis, 191, 248; accessible to 
 Moses, 238-279. 
 
 South-Semitic alphabet, sister of 
 N. Semitic, 123 ; in two dialects, 
 Minsean and Sabaean, 124; early 
 date of, 125, 126; possibly ear- 
 lier than N. Semetic, 124. 
 
 South-Semitic inscriptions, 123- 
 126. 
 
 Standard Egyptian alphabet, 85, 
 86. 
 
 Square or Aramaic script, used by 
 Hebrews after Exile, 162 ; epi- 
 graphic testimony, 162; date of 
 introduction indefinite, 163. 
 
 Stone, Moabite. See above. 
 
 Stone, ancient writings on, pecu- 
 liarly valuable, 93. 
 
 Stone tablets of Law, size and 
 weight, 176; language and 
 script, I7S. 
 
 Style and vocabulary, as marks of 
 authorship, :i7, 38, 39; illustrat- 
 ed fiom English, German and 
 French authors, 39. 
 
 Supernatural, the, in critical dis- 
 cussion, 23, 24, 269. 
 
 Syllabaries, Abridged Egyptian, 
 possible prototype of Phoenician 
 alphabet, 145, 147; Babylonian, 
 55. 
 
 Syllables, not letters, used in Bab- 
 ylonian writing, 53-55 ; like- 
 wise in Egyptian, 55-57. 
 
 Tabernacle of Priest code, an 
 ideal structure (Grafians), 272; 
 a real structure (traditional- 
 ists), 273. 
 
 Tablets, Babylonian, num.ber of, 
 62; contain varied writings, 62; 
 accessible to Abraham, 240-244. 
 
 Tabnith, Phoenician inscription of, 
 in style of autographs of later 
 O. T., 98. 
 
 Tell el Amarna Tablets. See 
 Amarna Letters. 
 
 Tell Taanach, library chest of, 
 178; in cuneiform, 178, 179. 
 
 Tent-Life in Israel not incompat- 
 ible wnth culture and semi-no- 
 madic state, 200. 
 
 Terahites had knowledge of writ- 
 ing, 160, 240-242. 
 
 Textual criticism. See Lower 
 Criticism. 
 
 Theological argument, value of, 
 41. 
 
 Thera, Greek inscription in, 133. 
 
 Tiphsar, Hebrew scribe, 217, 
 
 Tradition, original oral, of early 
 iO._ T. books (Grafians), 18; vs. 
 original written records, 17. 
 
INDEX OF SUBJFXTS. 
 
 293 
 
 Transmission of early O. T. 
 books, in pre-Davidic period, 3, 
 4; by written records, 16, 17; 
 of Deuteronomy, 267, 268; ac- 
 curacy of, 30. 
 
 Trustworthiness of documents to 
 be accepted, 44; of early He- 
 brew books (E. Meyer), 207. 
 
 Tupsliar, Babylonian scribe, 240. 
 
 Tyre, antiquity of, 145. 
 
 Unity of Pentateuch, according to 
 traditional and modern critical 
 views, 10. 
 
 Ur of the Chaldees, ancient seat 
 of religion and civilization, 63, 
 64, 160, 240; literary center, 
 240. See Abraham. 
 
 Vocabulary and style, as index of 
 age and authorship, 2>7^ 38. 
 
 Wellhausenism, denies Mosaic au- 
 thorship of Pentateuch, 10, 11: 
 places prophecy before the law, 
 22) ; logic of, regarding Hebrew 
 writing and literature, 84; de 
 velopment of civilization, liter 
 ature and religion in Israel in ? 
 straight line, 279 ; absoluteb- 
 certain of its correctness, 24. 
 
 Wen-Amon, diary of, 168; refer? 
 to papyrus, 171 ; mentions mon 
 ument of prince, 172. 
 
 West-Land, the. See Amurn- 
 Canaan, Palestine. 
 
 Worship, Hebrew, according td- 
 Ex, XX, in time of Judges, 273, 
 
 Writing, definition of, 52 ; slow in 
 development, 52; kinds of, 53; 
 
 cuneiform, 53; Eg>-ptian 55; 
 pictorial and ideographic, 55; 
 phonetic and syllabic, 56; de- 
 terminatives, 53, 57; on Egyp- 
 tian pyramids and obelisks, 59; 
 two theories of antiquity of He- 
 brew, 5, 7, 8, 17; oldest Egyp- 
 tian, 60, 61 ; Egyptian partly 
 alphabetic from the first, 85; 
 practised by common people in 
 Egypt, 57; Babylonian, 62; by 
 middle-class Babylonians in ear- 
 ly times, 66; in use among He- 
 brews at Exodus, 80; Hittite, 
 boustrophedon, 88; Aegean, 91, 
 129; writing with pen of a man, 
 (Is. 8: i), 183; direction of in, 
 hieratic and Phoenician, 149; 
 direction of, in Babylonian and 
 Assyrian, 149; in Hebrew 
 square characters, 162; in ar- 
 chaic Hebre\v, 162; in Phoenici- 
 an script in time of Joshua, 234; 
 cuneiform, known to Abraham, 
 and patriarchs. 240. 
 
 Writing-Material, in Babylonia, 
 63. 65; in Egypt, 55; in Israel, 
 7, 108-116, 118-121, 164-169, 214- 
 217, 229-234; in Palestine and 
 Syria, 115. 
 
 Zakar or Zakir, early Aramaic in- 
 scription, of, 101-103, 172; dis- 
 covered in 1903 by Pognon, 
 loi ; king of Hazrak, 102 ; epi- 
 graphic value of, 103. 
 
 Zinjirli, the Aramaic inscriptions 
 of, 104; date and language of, 
 105. 
 
11. 
 
 INDEX OF AUTHORS. 
 
 Aibbott L., 5. 
 Addis, W. E., 254. 
 
 Bacon, F., 38. 
 
 Baentsch, B., 241, 253, 255. 
 
 Baethgen, F., 209. 
 
 Ball, C. J., 138, 139, 141, 143- 
 
 Barton, G. A., 180, 233. 
 
 Baudissin, W. W., 33, 272, 278. 
 
 Baur, G., 220. 
 
 Bavinck, H.. 270, 271. 
 
 Beardslee J. W., 10 
 
 Behrends, A. J. F.. 7, 10. 
 
 Bennett, W. H., 228. 
 
 Bennett and Adeney, 13, 205, 251. 
 
 Bentley, R., 41. 
 
 Benzinger, J., 8, 182, 183, 185, 187, 
 
 212, 244, 245. 
 Bergk, J., 130. 
 Bezold, C., 246. 
 Birt, Th., 145. 
 Bissell, E. C., 7, 9, 22, 52, 259, 
 
 260, 264. 
 Bliss and Dickie, 72. 
 Bliss and Macalister, 72, 116. 
 Boeckh, Aug., 128, 132. 
 Boehl, E., 26. 
 Boettcher, F., 139. 
 Bondi, F., 147. 
 Boyd, J. O., 277, 278. 
 Breasted, J. H., 58, 60, 61, 143. 
 Bredenkamp, C. J., 22, 272. 
 Briggs, C. A., 10, 78, 219, 220. 
 Brugsch, H. K.. 60, 143. 
 Bndde, K., 251. 
 Budge, E. A. W., 59. 143. 
 Burke, E., 39. 
 Byron, Lord, 39. 
 
 Cameron, G. G., 34. 
 Carpenter, J. E., 269. 
 Charterton, T., 40, 259. 
 Chaucer, Geof., 2. 
 
 Cheyne, T. K., 10, 11, 33. 39, 112, 
 
 217, 226, 257. 
 Clay, A. T., 48, 50, 62, 70, 73, 182, 
 
 185, 240, 249, 274. 
 Clermont-Ganneau, 163. 
 Cohn, F., 252. 
 Clodd, E., 91. 
 Conder, C. R., 8, 125, 161, 183, 
 
 184, 188. 
 Cornill, C. H., 8, 10, 13, 18, 19, 33, 
 
 195, 209, 257. 
 Cooke, S. A., 70. 
 Cooke, G. A., 94, 96, 97, 104, 105, 
 
 106, 107, i(^. 
 Credner, W., 33. 
 Curtius, E., 130. 
 Croisset, A., 127. 
 
 Dareste, E., 252. 
 
 Davis, J. D., 78, 175, 219. 
 
 Delitzsch, Franz, 19, 51, 202, 217, 
 282. 
 
 Delitzsch. Friedrich, 54, 55, 86, 
 137, 1^8, 139, 145. 
 
 Dillmann, Aug., 15, 16, 26, 33, 183, 
 203, 225, 234, 248, 249, 252, 
 254, 256, 265, 269, 274, 279. 
 
 Deutsch, E., 228. 
 
 Deecke, W., 89. 
 
 Diodorus Siculus, 85, 129. 
 
 Donaldson, J. W., 228. 
 
 Driver, S. R., 10, 12, 13, 14, 34, 73, 
 98, 102, 176, 205, 220, 227, 244, 
 246, 247, 257, 263, 264, 266. 
 
 Duhm, B., II, 267. 
 
 Duncan, J. G., 203, 282. 
 
 Ebers, G.. 86. 
 Edershcim, E., 19. 
 Edwards, Amelia B.. 268. 
 Eerdtnanns. B. D., 198, 201. 
 Eichhorn, J. G., 33. 
 Epiphanius, 163. 
 Erbt. W., 19, 249. 250. 
 
 '294 
 
INDEX OF AUTPIORS, 
 
 295 
 
 Euting, J., 86, 94, 97. 
 Evans, A. J., 91, 92, 97, 129. 
 Evvald, H., 5, 7, 17, 33, 51, 199, 
 225, 227, 249. 
 
 Freeman, E. A., 42, 43. 
 Fries, W., 138. 
 Fuer&t, J., 17, 226, 242. 
 
 Gayley and Scott, 35. 
 
 Gercke, A., 132, 135. 
 
 Gesenius, W., 139. 
 
 Gibson, I., 25. 
 
 Giesebrech.t, F., 256. 
 
 Girdlestone, R. B., 17, 243. 
 
 Goethe, J. W., 39. 
 
 Gordon, A. R., 25. 
 
 Glaser, E., 159. 
 
 Goodspeed, G. C., 106. 
 
 Graf, K. H., 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 271. 
 
 Gray G. B., no, in, 180, 220, 226. 
 
 Green, W. H., 7, 9, 10, 17, 22, 26, 
 
 139, 247, 248. 
 Gressmann, H.. 200, 203. 
 Grimme, H., 158. 
 Gunkel, H., 193, 246, 247, 256. 
 
 Halevy, J., 85, 87, 102, 105, no, 
 
 138, 140, 269. 
 Harper, W. R., 10, n, 12, 33. 
 Hanpt, P., 255. 
 
 Hengstenberg, E. W., 5, 17, I9- 
 Herodotus, 84, 129, 134, 262. 
 Hervey, Bishop, 19. 
 Herzog, Real-Encyk., often. 
 Hicks and Hill, 129. 
 Hilprecht, H. V., 54. 64, 240. 
 Hitzig, W., 32>- 
 Hogarth, D. G., 91- 
 Holzinger, H., 10, n, 12, 3^, 226, 
 
 227, 246, 255, 257, 261, 263. 
 Homer, 2, 15, 129, 219. 
 Hommel, F., 6, 89, 104, 123, 124, 
 
 142, I. /1 7. 150, 170, 245, 246, 
 
 250. 
 Horace, 38. 
 
 Jastrow. }vl., jr., 55, 240. 242. 
 
 Jensen, P., 246. 
 
 Jeremias, A., 161, 184. 241, 244, 
 
 248. 
 Jerome, 163. 
 Johns, C H. W., 65. 240. 
 
 Jordan, W. G., 25. 
 Josephus, Fl., 143. 
 
 Kant, E., 27. 
 
 Kautzsch, E., 24. n2, 113, 120, 218, 
 
 226, 229, 251. 
 Keil, C. T., 7, 225. 
 Kent, C. F., 8, 18, 19, 77, 200, 218, 
 
 223, 269. 
 King. L. W., 64. 74, 75. 
 Kingsley, C, 258. 
 Kinns, S., 175. 
 Kirkpatrick, A. F., 79, 222. 
 Kittel, R., 6, 15, 19, lis, 166, 173, 
 
 183, 202, 209, 211, 231, 243, 
 
 254, 269, 273. 
 Kleinert, P., 265. 
 Klostermann, A., 265, 266. 
 Kliige, W., 150. 
 Koenig, Eduard, 15, 33, 38, 51. 
 
 139, 183, 191, 207, 208, 210, 217, 
 
 231, 233, 239, 248, 250, 256, 
 
 259- 
 Koehler, A., 19, 189. 
 Kraetzmar, R., 253. 
 Krall, J., 145, 148, 149. 
 Kuenen, A., 10, n, 15, 19, 20, 26, 
 
 33, 39, 2n, 223, 230, 231, 257, 
 
 261, 276. 
 Kurtz, J. H., 19. 
 Kyle, M. G., 145, I47- 
 
 Ladd, G. T., 17. 
 
 Lagarde, P. de, 86, 87, 90. 
 
 Lane, E. W., 189. 
 
 Larfeld, W., 124, 128, 128, 129, 130, 
 
 131. 
 
 Leathes, S., 19. 
 
 Lenormant, F., 86, 217. 
 
 Levy, J., 99. 
 
 Lias. J. J., 243. 
 
 Liddon, H. P., 8, g. 
 
 Lidzbarski, M., 96, 97, 98, 103, no, 
 III, 113, 116, 125, 138, 140, 
 145, 155, 156, 157, 163, 164- 
 
 Lotz, W., 19, 274. 
 
 Lucan, 85. 
 
 Luckenbill, D. D., 68, 69, 73- 
 
 Lyon. D. G, n4, n5. 166. 
 
 Macalister, R. A. S., 109. 
 MacDill, D., 10. 
 Maclear, G. F.. 209, 235. 
 Macpherson, J., 40, 259. 
 
296 
 
 ANTIQUITY OF HEBREW LITERATURE. 
 
 Mahaffy, J. P., 134. 
 
 McCurdy, J. F., 46, 48, 49, 68, 90, 
 
 137, 181, 197, 199, 201. 
 McNeile, A. H., 25, 173, 202, 251, 
 
 254. 
 Marti, K., 11. 
 
 Maspero, G. C. C, 54, 57, 86. 
 Meinhold, A., 21, 25. 
 Merx, A., 33. 
 Meyer, Eduard, 44, 88, 207. 208. 
 
 225. 246. 
 Mitchell, H. G., 12. 
 Milman, H. H., 19. 
 Milton, J., 39. 
 Montgomery, J. A., 102. 
 Moore, G. F., 14, 206, 216, 229, 
 
 231, 233, 255. 
 Moulton, R. G., 26. 
 Movers, F. C, 145. 
 Mueller, W. M., 68, 70, 149. 233. 
 
 Naville, E., 191, 268, 269. 
 Neubauer, E., 163. 
 Noeldeke, Th., 138, 247. 
 Nowack, W., 8, 33, 70, 89. 
 
 Oettli, S., 261, 262, 264, 266. 
 
 Orelli, C., von, 33, 229, 231, 241. 
 
 Orig-en, 163. 
 
 Orr, J., 7, 252, 254. 
 
 Ottley, R. L., 23, 212. 
 
 Paton, L. B., 69, 71, 174, 277. 
 
 Patterson, W. P., 252. 
 
 Perrot and Chipiez, 117, 118, 119, 
 
 121. 
 Peters, J. P., 21, 138, 139, 141, 143, 
 
 200. 
 Petrie, W. M. F., 72, 91, 150, 152. 
 Phaleris, Pseudo, 259. 
 Philo, Judaeus, 175. 
 Piepenbring. C, 19. 
 Pilcher, E. J., 153. 
 Plato, 85. 
 Plutarch, 85. 
 Pliny, the Elder, 129.- 
 Pognon, H., 47, loi. 
 Poole, R. S., 86, 174. 
 Praetorius, R, 157. 
 Puukko, A. F., 253, 264. 
 
 Raven, J. H., 10. 
 Rawlinson, H., 56, 145, 173. 
 
 Reuss, E., 6, 9, 10, 11, 19, 174, 176, 
 
 227, 231, 272. 
 Richardson, E. C., 194. 
 Riehm, E., 22, 272. 
 Robertson, J., 76, 171, 272. 
 Rogers, R. W., 63. 
 Ronzevalle, S., no. 
 Rouge, Em. de, 85, 86. 
 Ryle, H. E., i, 10. 
 
 Sachau, E., 96. 
 
 Sayce, A. H., 7, 19, 69, 104, 116, 
 
 153, 161, 225, 232, 242, 244, 
 
 246, 248, 256. 
 Schrader, E., 33. 
 Schultz, H., 272. 
 Scott, W., 39. 
 
 Sellin, E., 72, 178, 243, 249. 
 Shakespeare, W., 2, 30, 40, 257. 
 Schultens, A., 189. 
 Sievers, E., 195, 255. 
 Skinner, John, 251, 246, 248. 
 Skinner, J., 185. 
 Smend, R., 8, 23, 24, 223. 
 Smith, G. A., 179, 198. 227, 269. 
 Smith, H. P., 19, 21, 200, 218, 220, 
 
 227. 
 Smith, W. R., 8, 23, 213. 
 Smith, W., 19. 
 Sommerville, 2\L, 117. 
 Stade, B., 6, 10, 19, 24, 33, 112, 159, 
 
 174, 200, 211, 225, 226. 
 Stanley, A. P., 19, 195, 253. 
 Steuernagel, Carl. 13, 195, 253. 
 Streane, A. W., 186. 
 Strabo, 175. 
 Strack, H. L., 24, 191, 249, 255. 
 
 Tacitus, 85. 
 
 Taylor, I., 87, 94, 96, 98, 131, I33, 
 
 134. 
 Thompson, E. M., 131, 135. 
 Thomson. E., 234. 
 Tiele, C. P., 250. 
 Toy, C. H., 62. 
 
 Vatke, W., 8, 16, 33. 
 
 Vincent W. H., 72, no, in, 120. 
 
 Virgil, 2. 
 
 Volck, W., 19, 25, 265, 266. 
 
 Voltaire, F, M. A., 39. 
 
 Volz, P., 204. 
 
 Vcs, G., 10, 22, 254, 272. 
 
INDEX OF AUTHORS. 
 
 297 
 
 Wallace, L., 258. 
 
 Ward, W. H., 88. 
 
 Watson, R. A., 22, 252. 
 
 Weber, O., 61, 66, 147, 150, 151, 
 157, 270. 
 
 Wellhausen, J., 6, 10, 11, 14, 18, 
 20, 23, 159, 211, 223, 22^, 230, 
 231, 250, 253, 270, 293. 
 
 White, R. G., 30. 
 
 Wiener, H. M., 272, 2^^- 
 Wildeboer, G., i, 18, 2>Z- 
 Winckler, H., 19, ^2, 142, 161, 169, 
 
 185, 186, 187, 244. 
 Wrig-ht, W., 88. 
 Wolf, F. A., 41. 
 
 Zakar, loi, 103. 
 Zimmern, H., 94, 246. 
 
XiV 
 
 KV 
 
 XXX 
 
 XXXI 
 
 vr 
 
 npsUon 
 u 
 
 (P 
 
 ^f 
 
 4^ 
 
 ia 
 
 phi. pk 
 
 chl. ch 
 
 Pri, ps 
 
 omega, 7 
 
 23 
 
 24 
 
 25 
 
 26 
 
 27 
 
Origin of the Semitic (PhoenicianHebrew) Alphabet 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 pho.Md.11. 
 
 ^.. 
 
 .... 
 
 South Smia.. 
 
 .^. 
 
 
 
 Ul. 
 
 1 
 
 " 
 
 III 
 
 IV 
 
 • 
 
 " 
 
 Vll 
 
 vni 
 
 1, 
 
 * 
 
 XI 
 
 XII 
 
 XIII 
 
 XIV 
 
 x» 
 
 „ 
 
 ^ 
 
 xmi 
 
 XIX 
 
 XX 
 
 XXI Ixxii 
 
 XXIII 
 
 XXIV XXV 
 
 ...,l„. 
 
 ...1 
 
 XXIX 
 
 Cdneui. 
 
 _ We.len 
 
 • xxxii, 1 t..u„. 1 
 
 im. 
 
 
 
 XIX XXXI 
 
 
 ■•Mo'.L 
 
 ,^. 
 
 "^T 
 
 -- 
 
 £op«.n 
 
 =«,.. 
 
 ""'- 
 
 sr 
 
 .... 
 
 H»,'".d 
 
 H 
 
 r 
 
 jl_ 
 
 bS-d" 
 
 s 
 
 "r 
 
 ¥ = 
 
 aT 
 
 H 
 
 1 
 
 I'cJnt 
 
 r.im. 
 
 s 
 
 ^""' v<r 
 
 ;;"" 
 
 'E- 
 
 = 
 
 '■"S-T* 
 
 z 
 
 ,«!rf.o 
 
 3't 
 
 «'i" 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 KIL 
 
 
 It 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 *->- 
 
 '"u ll'J" 
 
 X 
 
 ^ 
 
 /:. 
 
 ?. 
 
 -' 
 
 
 «.,.. 
 
 
 <:♦= 
 
 < 
 
 iic' 
 
 s< 
 
 "f"-^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 &^ 
 
 L^ 
 
 <p 
 
 ^ 
 
 < 
 
 <(- 
 
 ¥f 
 
 4^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^t 
 
 iJ 
 
 h /^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 A 
 
 ^ 
 
 T- 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 4^ 
 
 ^T 
 
 ««(0>« 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ... 
 
 
 r?» 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 5 
 
 ^1 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 5 
 
 ^ 
 
 9 
 
 ^ 
 
 y 
 
 y 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 SiJ 
 
 n 
 
 n nn 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 B 
 
 r 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 ^ 
 
 V 
 
 jam, 
 
 A 
 
 ;^ 
 
 s 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^., 
 
 
 Ts"' 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 -A 
 
 1-1 
 
 -/ 
 
 /\ 
 
 "a^ 
 
 AT 
 
 ■\ 
 
 n 
 
 ^ 
 
 7 
 
 
 ■\ 
 
 -77 
 
 J 
 
 "/ a 
 
 -7 
 
 r 
 
 r< 
 
 „.„ 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 V ? 
 
 ^^Tr<t 
 
 l';,r. 
 
 
 -^13 
 
 -cv 
 
 -^ 
 
 .... 
 
 
 rs 
 
 
 <:^ 
 
 A 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^■ 
 
 ■=i'\ 
 
 '^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 S 
 
 ^ 
 
 \ 
 
 A 
 
 ^ 
 
 A 
 
 /) 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 1 
 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 A 
 
 ■r 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 a 
 
 ^1 
 
 *i™.'' 
 
 )e 
 
 nz) 
 
 m 
 
 tr\ 
 
 .. 
 
 
 ■;■ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 \ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 <\ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 \ 
 
 ^n 
 
 n 
 
 V V ) 
 
 -a* 
 
 .^ 
 
 (^ 
 
 .«,.. 
 
 5 
 
 (i 
 
 tT 
 
 >^M- 
 
 Z' '".t 
 
 71 
 
 ^1..=^ 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 „. 
 
 
 r- 
 
 
 
 Y 
 
 1 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 H 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 )7 
 
 rr 
 
 f/Y 
 
 1 
 
 rr 
 
 1 
 
 (D^Js V 
 
 ^ 
 
 r 
 
 r 
 
 '•rr 
 
 • 
 
 
 ^. 
 
 ^tT^^ 
 
 'LLii 
 
 ^^ 
 
 /r 
 
 
 t 
 
 s 
 
 
 "f' 
 
 
 t 
 
 rx 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 -u 
 
 -Z: 
 
 X 
 
 Z 
 
 z 
 
 _ 
 
 J J 
 
 _y 
 
 ■x; 
 
 XX 
 
 I" 
 
 y H 
 
 I 
 
 X 
 
 I 
 
 ■r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 Hlfl-J 
 
 at 
 
 ^TO.J'^'' 
 
 IK 
 
 @ 
 
 (Z? 
 
 (D 
 
 "•■ 
 
 
 ,;:"} 
 
 -i- 
 I 
 
 P 
 
 
 
 
 B 
 
 HW 
 
 ^ 
 
 fl 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 n 
 
 ^^. 
 
 B^H 
 
 P 
 
 e\tl 
 
 n 
 
 fi=VV .! 
 
 B 
 
 B 
 
 BH 
 
 ? 
 
 8 
 
 a 
 
 ^^EB 
 
 ^^T^l^ 
 
 », l^'S 
 
 ^ 
 
 8= 
 
 c^ 
 
 c>. 
 
 -. 
 
 
 !.«,. 
 
 ^ 
 
 ® 
 
 
 
 
 
 e 
 
 
 d 
 
 (» 
 
 cs 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 D 
 
 ID mM 
 
 ® 
 
 ® 
 
 Q 
 
 T 
 
 9 
 
 lU 
 
 ^ 
 
 •^^1 
 
 '"■.■^f'/' 
 
 7 
 
 \\ 
 
 y 
 
 ^ 
 
 K' 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ? 
 
 T/l 
 
 ^ 
 
 nH 
 
 \ 
 
 =L 
 
 \ 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 .! 
 
 ^n 
 
 21 
 
 ^Z 
 
 " 
 
 ? ? 
 
 ■^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 ■"" 
 
 10 
 
 u 
 
 1t-v 
 
 U^^l 
 
 J^^. 
 
 ^ 
 
 '^iTi 
 
 <ix 
 
 o^ 
 
 .„ 
 
 
 T' 
 
 
 ) 
 
 y 
 
 r 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 /y 
 
 i 
 
 f 
 
 / 
 
 y 
 
 y 
 
 ; 
 
 ^^ i 
 
 t 
 
 i 
 
 /5 
 
 Dl 
 
 h t7 
 
 >l 
 
 K 
 
 K 
 
 ..... 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 £- 
 
 ^^11 
 
 r..r:;^ 
 
 4 
 
 J^!£ 
 
 r^ 
 
 u... 
 
 
 .„.. 
 
 J. 
 
 /i 
 
 L 
 
 ^ 
 
 6 
 
 A 
 
 ^f, 
 
 { 
 
 i 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 L 
 
 (i 
 
 / I, 
 
 6 
 
 i L 
 
 '> 
 
 ^7? 
 
 ^ 
 
 A 
 
 /A 
 
 ""."'■ 
 
 12 
 
 1.1 
 
 1^ t ;<trr -^T' 
 
 r;r 
 
 AA 
 
 1. 
 
 ^ 
 
 .... 
 
 
 •;r 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 "1 
 
 "^ 
 
 ^. 
 
 W 
 
 Uj 
 
 /J, 
 
 7 
 
 "/ 
 
 •^ 
 
 'f'i 1 
 
 V- 
 
 y 
 
 y^ 
 
 OD 
 
 >l 11 I] 
 
 ^ 
 
 r^ 
 
 AA 
 
 r 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 ^tii-^ r^:. 
 
 «-;.,"- 
 
 T 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■" 
 
 
 .„. 
 
 7; 
 
 y 
 
 11 
 
 \'^ 
 
 "7 
 
 "7 
 
 V 
 
 ^ 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 ^ 
 
 ) 
 
 >) ^ 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 ) 
 
 3? 
 
 'I ^ ^ 
 
 1 
 
 r 
 
 r^ 
 
 ■; 
 
 U 
 
 IS 
 
 n^m^^^w 
 
 .s. 
 
 J_ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 .Ji^ 
 
 •"•' 
 
 
 
 
 ¥ 
 
 ¥ 
 
 
 X_ 
 
 f 
 
 ^ 
 
 \ 
 
 ¥ 
 
 ? 
 
 T 
 
 T 
 
 ^ 
 
 ! 
 
 f 
 
 
 1 
 
 D 
 
 h^v/ 
 
 E 
 
 ffl 
 
 + 
 
 r 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 
 0^<^<l'^l}< 
 
 „(,.„), 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «v 
 
 
 
 (9 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 v^.^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •"!"■ 
 
 16 
 17 
 
 17 
 
 ^Ajfl^^ < 
 
 a;";^. 
 
 V/ 
 
 i 
 
 i^ 
 
 "V 
 
 .. 
 
 
 r.. 
 
 ~ 
 
 
 n 
 
 7 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 79 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 1 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 D^ 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 1' 
 
 rn 
 
 " 
 
 18 
 
 I \-in 
 
 [«; S), 
 
 
 "^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 U.. 
 
 
 ,„... 
 
 ~" 
 
 F 
 
 h- 
 
 V 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 rr 
 
 T 
 
 \ 
 
 V 
 
 Y 
 
 Y 
 
 r 
 
 t'^ 
 
 n ^ 
 
 iK 
 
 V% 
 
 yf 
 
 ^ '^y=a 
 
 /^ 
 
 AA 
 
 
 "■ 
 
 18 
 
 in 
 
 □ y 'TE^ ^.Z 
 
 *«(«. 
 
 AT 
 
 A 
 
 
 -Q, 
 
 .... 
 
 
 . ,» ■ 
 
 
 T 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 "^ 
 
 f 
 
 T 
 
 ^ 
 
 t 
 
 ? 
 
 T 
 
 r 
 
 ? 
 
 -P 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 V 
 
 ^ 
 
 Q 
 
 "■'■" 
 
 
 20 
 
 VI] *i^sT::Y 
 
 
 as 
 
 <=> 
 
 •=^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 „« 
 
 
 ~ 
 
 \ 
 
 <l 
 
 T 
 
 7" 
 
 1 
 
 \ 
 
 ^ 
 
 4 
 
 ^ 
 
 A 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 'X 
 
 -1^^ 
 
 1_ 
 
 A 
 
 "^ 
 
 y >-■> 
 
 <! 
 
 Y 
 
 K 
 
 ' 
 
 20 
 
 21 
 
 H ^ 
 
 JtCT ^ 
 
 Z'J^' 
 
 '^ 
 
 ffi 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 s™,«.. 
 
 ~~ 
 
 \A- 
 
 VA/ 
 
 w 
 
 vv 
 
 v>- 
 
 a/ 
 
 u^ 
 
 w 
 
 w 
 
 w 
 
 •v^ 
 
 sy 
 
 vL/ 
 
 V4/ 
 
 I.V 
 
 M/ 
 
 W 
 
 ^ > 
 
 \ 
 
 i 
 
 ^s 
 
 "f 
 
 
 22 
 
 X E 
 
 ► ►^ I^ 
 
 ^•S 
 
 Hl- 
 
 } 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 - 
 
 
 '-,'" 
 
 
 ~ 
 
 X 
 
 7< 
 
 S 
 
 77 
 
 /■/' 
 
 _/!_ 
 
 _/_ 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 X 
 
 XXII 
 
 !^ 
 
 X 
 
 XXV 
 
 X 
 
 XT 
 
 n 
 
 x/?=gr 
 
 T 
 
 T 
 
 r 
 
 ' - 
 
 22 
 23 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 ljll_ 
 
 [^m_ 
 
 IX 
 
 IZ! 
 
 X, 1 x„ 
 
 E 
 
 jm_ 
 
 bL 
 
 b!!_ 
 
 1 — 
 
 ljlllll_ 
 
 iil 
 
 LU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ..,M 
 
 '24 
 
 
 
 ^t 
 
 ■"• •* 
 
 25 
 
 
 y 
 
 «.. p. 
 
 26 
 
 
 •^^ 
 
 """■' 
 
 27 
 
Date Due 
 

 
 
 BS1171 .Z58 
 
 The antiquity of Hebrew writing and 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00011 8465