w^Mh MAY 26 1959 BSII99 .L3P4 V >, MAY 9 -1927' tot 0GIGM%1\ ENTATEUCH LA" AND THB Higher Criticism A SERIES OF QUESTIONS IN REVIEW OF RECENT THEORIES CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH LEGISLATION. PRINTBD FOR THE USE OP CLASSES IN THE HARTFORD THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. HARTFORD, CONN.: Press op The Case, Lockwood & Brainard Company. 1885. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. Until within a comparatively recent period Moses has been generally regarded as the originator, under God, of the great mass of Pentateuch laws; or, at least, as a principal in bringing them into the form in which they now appear. The consecutive narra- tive of events in which these laws are imbedded has been looked upon as genuine history and entirely wortliy of trust. A very different theory, however, is now proposed. It is claimed that the laws of the Pentateuch, so far from being the product of a single generation, or originating to any great extent with Moses, are the result of slow development extending through many cen- turies. The earliest code, it is said, is that found in the so-called Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx.-xxiii., xxxiv). It arose during the time of the early kings and prophets (c. B. C. 1000). Next appeared the code of Deuteronomy (chaps, xii.-xxvi.) at the period when it is alleged to have been discovered (B. C. 621; cf. 2 Kings xxii). The remaining laws of the Pentateuch, embracing what has come to be known as the Priests' Code, are a precipitate from the varied activity of learned men, especially priests, down to the time of Ezra, when they first assumed their present form and were publicly introduced (B. C. 444). This theory has awak- ened so much attention and gained so wide a currency, particularly in Europe, that it cannot be passed lightly over. The special object of the present series of questions which is based on chapters iii.-vi. of the writer's book (The Pentateuch: its Origin and Structure. An Examination of Recent Theories. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1885) is to test the matter: (I) whether the laws themselves when critically examined, and as compared with one another and with those of the other supposed codes, require the abandonment of the old position that they originated in the age of Moses; and (2) whether they favor in any degree the proposed hypothesis of development. In harmony with the nomenclature of the criticism we shall use the characters JE to represent the two alleged earliest documents of the Bible which, as combined, had for their legislative portion the above-named Book of the Covenant. D will be used for chapters xii.-xxvi. of Deuteronomy, that is, its entire body of laws. PC will be under- stood as referring to the Priests' Code and as including all the remaining laws of the Pentateuch. For further explanation of terms and of the analysis see p. 85f. of the writer's book, to which, moreover, all references not otherwise specific in form are made. It will be noticed that, with the exception of laws peculiar to PC, the investigation is conducted on the basis of D, since its code is the most representative of the Pentateuch legislation in general. All the laws of the Pentateuch are brought under review excepting a few in Exodus concerning whose early date there would probably be no dispute. X LAWS OF THE SEVERAL CODES. Text of D. Topic. Questions. xii. 2-4. Destruction of What appropriateness in such an in- idols (p. 168). troduction to the code of D on the common theory? Attitude of all the codes towards idolatry? Any essential difference in their point of view? xii. 5-28. Centralization of How is the theory of development worship (p. 84). applied here? Does JE really allow a plurality of altars at one and the same time? Does PC presuppose a centralized worship as a thing of the past? What evidence in JE that one cen- tral place of worship was then required? Is it probable that if JE allowed a contemporaneous plurality of al- tars D would so strenuously pro- hibit it? xii. 31. Worship of Mo- What was Moloch and its worship? loch (p. 1G9). Conclusions to be drawn from the way in which the subject is pre- sented in PC and D respectively? What two leading principles of the proposed Iheorj' of development are here seen to be inoperative? xiii. 1-12. Seduction to idol- Bearing of the independent legisla- atry (p. 134). tion of a code on critical questions Peculiar to D. in general? Text of D. Topic. Xiii. 13-19; XX. 15-18. xiv. 1, 2. xiv. 3-20, xiv. 31. xiv. 22-29. Destruction of Canaanitish cities (p. 171). Forbidden mourning cus- toms (p. 172). Food as clean and unclean (p. 173). Animals eaten to be properly slain (p. 175). The Offerings (p. 94). Questions. Logical connection of tliis law with its context? Anj^ evidence of Mosaic origin in its form? Evidence that it represents the most developed form of Pentateuch legislation on this subject? Fitness of such a law as originating in the time of King Josiah (B. C. 621)? Logical connection of this statute? Does its form in D presuppose other laws on the subject? Is PC or JE referred to (see D xx. 17)? What force in such a law subse- quent to the time of David? Any marks of a later age in the form of the law of PC? What renders improbable the rise of the law in D at the time of King Josiah? Reasons for supposing the legisla- tion of D here dependent on that of PC? Bearing of the supposed textual cor- ruption? Differences in the three codes as compared together? Is the order JE, PC, D, a natural one under the circumstances pre- supposed in the history? How is the theory of development applied in the case of the offerings ? Is it a fair statement to say that PC, contrary to JE, makes the custom of sacrificing begin with Moses? Text of D. Topic XV. 1-11. XV. 12-18. XV. 19-23. xvi. 1-17. The Sabbatic year (p. 177). Release of He- brew servants (p. 177). Animal sacrifices to be faultless (p. 181). The Feasts (p. 104). Questione. Can the alleged discrepancy between the two codes be proved to exist? Does the fact that PC alone intro- duces the sin and trespass offer- ing as such prove its later origin? Validity of other evidence adduced as showing the late rise of PC? Reasons for supposing that the same thing is referred to in all the codes? How is the difference of form to be accounted for? Bearing of D's law of the tithe? Logical connection of this law with its context? Points of divergence in the three forms of the law, how to be accounted for? Provision of PC respecting the year of jubilee? What difference between D and PC here? Reason for supposing the form in D secondary? Might greater definiteness naturally be expected in PC? How is the hypothesis of develop- ment applied here? Textual basis for the theory that these feasts were originally popu- lar festivals? Does the passover appear as a differ- ent thing (in name, date, occasion) in D from what we find it in PC? Does D differ from PC in the num- ber of days required for the feast of tabernacles? Text of D. Topic. xvi. 18-20; xvii. 8-13. xvi. 19, 20; xxiv. 14, 15. xvii. 2-5. xvii. 6, 7. xvii. 14-20. xviii. 1-8. Judges and offi- cers (p. 136). Peculiar to D. Oppression of the poor (p. 182). Punishment of Hebrew idola- tors (p. 138). Peculiar to D. Of witnesses (p. 183). The king (p. 141). Peculiar to D. Priests and Le- vites (p. 112). Questions Why do JE and D probably fail to mention the feast of trumpets? Does the fact that PC alone enjoins the day of atonement favor the hypothesis of its late origin? What seems to be contemplated in this law? Objections to considering it as late as the times of Jehosaphat? Mutual relation of the three codes? Evidence that PC is not later than D? Importance of this law from the point of view of the criticism? Evidence that the form of idolatry here forbidden was very old? Bearing of the form of the statute? Relation of D to PC here? Reasons for supposing D the later? Validity of such an argument in view of previous reasoning (see foot-note)? The idealism of the Hebrew laws here a defect? What does the external form of the law presuppose? Was Solomon probably in mind? Features precluding the theory of a late date? What is to be said of the silence of Samuel respecting this law? How is the theory of development applied here? Does JE say nothing of priests? Does D make no distinction between priests and Levites? Text of D Topic. xviii. 9-14. xviii. 15-22. xix. 1-13. Magical arts (p. 184). The prophet (p. 144). Peculiar to D. Cities of Refuge (p. 185). xix. 14. Of landmarks (p. 146). Peculiar to D. QiiePtionp. Do the historical portions of D differ from the representations of PC respecting the duties of priests? How may the weakening of the dis- tinction between priests and Le- vites in D be partial Ij' accounted for? Bearing of the law in PC concern- ing the high-priest on the ques- tion of development? Fact showing that this office did not originate during the exile? Other facts bearing against the development hypothesis? External form of the law in the three codes? Bearing of Israelitish history on the question of its slow development? Importance of the law of the prophet? How is it introduced? Consequences of supposing it not genuine? Apparent aim of the Pentateuch law in all its phases? Relation of the codes, especially that of D to PC? Bearing of the provision in I) for three additional cities? Were these three expected to make the whole number nine or six? Exact force of the prohibition? Any evidence that it would be no anachronism on the lips of Moses? 10 Text of D. xix. 15-21. XX. 1-9. XX. 10-14; 19, 20. xxi. 1-9. xxi. 10-14; 18-21. xxi. 15-17. xxi, 22, 23. Topic. Qnestione. Of false witnesses Mutu.al relation of the three codes? (p. 188). Weight of probability as it respects the priority of D or PC? Preparation for Appropriateness of such a law in battle (p. 147). D on the common theory? Peculiar to D. Inconsistency of its specifications with a date as late as the times of Hezekiah even? Incidental proofs of the priority of PC? Organization of the Israelitish army in the royal period? Peculiarity of introduction? Such a statute appropriate to the times after the division of the kingdom? Would it be out of place at the period of the exodus? Primitive character of the legisla- tion suggests what? Is a sacrificial rite enjoined? Ceremony is based on what custom? State of things presupposed in the former class? Would the latter be out of place in a Mosaic code? What was the original custom? Apparent aim of the legislation in all its phases? What fixes the date of that of PC? Form of the law suggests what respecting the origin of Penta- teuch laws in general? Of hanging Confirmation in the Book of Joshua (p. 151). of the early origin of this law? Peculiar to D. Why allowable to cite this book here? Of hostile cities (p. 148). Pecu- liar to D. Purification for murder (p. 149). Peculiar to D. Female captives. A disobedient son (p. 150). Peculiar to D. Rights of inherit- ance (p. 189). 11 Text of D. xxii. 1-4. xxii. 6, 7. xxii. 8. xxii. 5, 9-11. xxii. 12. xxii. 13-21. xxii. 22-29; xxiii. 1. xxiii. 2-9. Topic, Property of Is- raelites (p. 190). Kindness to ani- mals (p. 191). Regard for hu- man life (p. 151). Peculiar to D. Mixing of things diverse (p. 191). Of fringes (p. 192). Charge of un- chastity (p. 151). Peculiar to D. Sins against chas- tity (p. 183). Congregation of the Lord (p. 152). Peculiar to D. Questions. Bears only on the relation of D to JE. Appropriateness of the form of the law in PC and D respectively to their commonly supposed origin? What might the law presuppose? How appropriate to its historic set- ting as found? Reasons for supposing the form of the law found in D but an en- largement of that of PC? Evidence that the one law had the other in view? Marks of the popular form of D as compared with PC? Difference in the form of the legis- lation in D and PC and its natural ground? Apparent object of the law? Relation to the peculiar one in Numb. v. 11-31? How is the subject treated in the several codes? Why should priority to D be as- cribed to the form in PC? Evidence in D that it had PC be- fore it? Adaptation of the law to the his- toric circumstances of D? Why inappropriate to a later period than the exodus? Natural inference from the attitude of the law toward the Ammonite and Moabiteand other nations? 12 Text of D. xxiii. 10-15. xxiii. 16, 17. xxiii. 18, 19. xxiv. 1-4. Topic. Cleanliness in the camp (p. 194). Fugitive slaves (p. 155). Peculiar to D. Prostitution (13. 194). xxiii. 20, 21. Usury (p. 195). xxiii. 22-24. Vows (p. 196). xxiv. 6, 10- 13, 17, 18. xxiv. 7. xxiv. 8, 9. Divorce (p. 156). Peculiar to D. Pledges (p. 197). Of Man-stealing (p. 198). Leprosy (p. 198). Questions. How is this law in harmony with its historic background? Its relation in its general spirit to PCV Any special marks of origin in the Mosaic period? Any evidence that it would not be out of place then? Any reason to suppose that D ante- dates PC here? Peculiarity of the form of the stat- ute in D? Relation of the different forms of the law to the common theory of their origin? Peculiar coloring of D? Spirit of all the laws touching this subject? Local coloring of D ? Relation of the latter to PC? Is this law too much developed for the exodus period? What fact found in PC is here as sumed? Does it rise to the plane of the teaching of the later prophets? Any signs of a late period ? Failure of PC to treat the subject suggestive? Relation of the law in D to that of JE? Relation of the codes of JE and D? What principle laid down by De- litzsch may be here applied? 13 Tuxt of D. xxiv. 19-22. XXV. 1-3. XXV. 5-10. XXV. 11-12. XXV. 13-16. XXV. 17-19. xxvi. 1-19. Lev. xxiv. 15, 16; Numb. XV. 30, 31. Topic. Gleaning (p. 199). Punisliment by flogging (p. 157). Peculiar to D. Leviiate mar- riage (p. 157). Peculiar to D. Punishment of immodesty (p. 158). Peculiar to D. Just weights and measures (p. 200). Amalek (p. 158). Peculiar to D. An offering of lirst fruits (p. 160). Peculiar ^ to D. LAWS PECULTAU TO Blasphemy (p. 209). Quegtiens. Any critical value in the reference to Miriam? How does the code of D stand re- lated to PC here? Any suggestion of the priority of D? Significance of the method of ad- ministering this punismentV On what custom was this law based? Its relation to Lev. xviii. 16? What seeming historic corrobora- tion has it? Any good reason from the form of the law itself for denying its Mosaic origin? Difference in the Deuteronomic and the Levitical forms? Inference from the motives urged respectively? Probable original form of the pass- age? Nature of the appeal suggests what? What were the present circum- stances of Israel? Bearing of the actual history of Amalek? This formula was for what occa- sion? Any marks of a post-Mosaic origin? THE priests' code. In itself considered , is this law out of place in the age of Moses? What special confirmation of its genuineness? 14 Text erf-©. Topic. Ex. xxviii. The sacred vest- 1-43. ments (p. 210). Ex. xxix. Consecration of 1-43, etc. the priests (p. 213). Ex. XXX. The anointing oil 22-33. (p. 215). Lev. X. 8-11; Special require- xxi. 1-24. ments from priests (p. 215). Numb. XXV. High-priest to be 10-13. from Eleazer's line (p. 216). Lev. xxii. Requirements 1-16; Numb. from those eat- xviii. 10 ff. ing of the sacri- fices (p. 218). Numb. vi. Prerogatives of 22-27; X. the priests 1-10. (p. 219). (iuestions. Objections to considering it a late product? Any particular marks of the earliest period ? What argument derived from the names of certain colors? What inference to be drawn from the history of the Urim and Thummim? What was the ceremony? Evidence of age from the rite of anointing? Are the form of offerings peculiar to any age ? Were its compounds ever rare? Argument from the later abandon- ment of the rite? What of the requirement respecting marriage? Teaching of the history? Bearing of the title " son of Aaron " in PC? Uniform position of the high-priest throughout the biblical book? Are the alleged stages of develop- ment discoverable? Opinion of Delitzsch? Bearing of these regulations on the theory of a Priests' Code? Relative position of Moses and Aaron throughout this code? The two points of special import- ance here? Any evidence of development? Original use of the silver trumpet and its later history? 15 TextjO*HD. Ex. XXV.- xxvii. 19. Cf. xxxvi- xxxviii. Ex. XXX. 1-21, 34-38. Ex. XXV. 23-30; Lev. xxiv. 5-9. Ex. xxvii. 1 If. ; xxviii. If. Lev. i. 1-17; vi. 1-6, etc. Topic. Tlie tabernacle and its furni- ture (p. 220). Altar of incense (p. 226). Table of shew- bread (p. 227). Altar of burnt offering (p. 228). The burnt offer- ing (p. 229). Cinestions. Objections to considering the ac- count of the tabernacle fictitious? Its historic reality, how supported? Any real difficulty in the details of the narrative? Does the Pentateuch recognize one or two tabernacles? Riehm's theory for explaining appar- ent discrepancies? How may all statements be harmo- nized on the basis of the unity and genuineness of the docu- ments? Proof that of the furniture of the tabernacle the ark dates back to the age of Moses? Peculiarity of the account of the altar of incense ? Objection to regarding it as an after- thought based on that of Solo- mon's temple? Reasons for supposing that the table of sJicw-bread and the candlestick as described in PC are genuine and Mosaic? Changes the altar of burnt offering underwent in the history? Conclusions to be drawn here and in the case of the remaining fur- niture of the tabernacle from these changes, when the usage of the exile period is considered? Important presuppositions? Relation of Jehovist and Elohist? Ritual out of place in the exodus period ? 16 Text 9f-e: Lev. ii. 1-6, 7. 11; X. 12, 13, etc. Lev. iii. 1-17; vii. 11-21, etc. Lev. iv. ; v. 13, etc. Lev. v. 14-26; vii. 1-10, etc. Lev. xxvii. 1-34. Numb. vi. 1-21. Lev. xii. 1-18. Topic. Meal and drink offering (p. 230). Peace offering (p. 231). Sin offering (p. 232). Trespass offering (p. 233). Release from vows (p. 234). The Nazarite (p. 236). Rite of purifica- tion at cbild- birtli (p. 237). QuestionB. Peculiarity of tlie Petateucli rituai of the drink offering? What evidence of development in Hebrew usage? To what does the institution of these offerings look forward? When did this rite originate? Argument derived from the terms employed that it is not of late date? Significance of the order of the narrative? What points to its origin in the wilderness? Bearing of Israelitish historj^ after the times of Hosea? Distinction between this offering and the last? Is the latter a subordinate dcAjelop- ment from the former? Terminology of the Pentateuch always consistent? Whj' is this offering so seldom re- ferred to? Relation of this law to the Sinaitic legislation in general? Reason for such a law at an early period? What were the exilian and post- exilian usages? Evident aim of this law? Ground for inferring an , early origin? Ethical basis of the rite? Any internal marks of its age? 17 Text o*^. Xiimb. xix. 1-22. Lev. xxiii. 23-25, etc. Ex. XXX. 10. Lev. xvi. 1-34, etc. Topic. Puiitication by the ashes of a red heifer (p. 238). Opening feast of the seventh month (p. 239). The day of atone- ment (p. 242). Questions. These Elohisfic rites of piiriticalion are based on what Jehovistic principles? Circumstances favoring the rise of this law in the exodus period? Importance of this law from the point of view of the criticism? Is it noticed in the historical books? Why not admit that it arose at the time of the exile? How do the exulauts really cele- brate this feast? How is this law introduced in the code? Natural inference from such a four- fold presentation? Anj'thiug in the history to disprove its potential existence in the statute? Occasion of its first announcement? Has this law the exclusive support of PC? J PAMPHLET BINDER Syracuse. N Y. Stockton, Colif. DATE DUE ■ „,^.,,..^. 1MHtoii> GAYLORD PRINTED IN U.S.*.