PENTATEUCH. 



175 



later, up to the time when Laish was named Dan. 

 When they speak of the birth of Moab and Ben-ammi, 

 or of the oath at Beer-sheba, or of the shrinking of 

 Jacob's thigh, or of the monument to Rachel, or of 

 the laws made by Joseph in Egypt, they mention that 

 "unto this day" there was in existence a people, or 

 a proper name, or a monument, or a usage, connected 

 with the event they narrate, Gen. xix. 37, 38 ; xxvi. 

 33 ; xxxii. 32 ; xxxv. 20 ; xlvii. 26. In their ac- 

 count of what occurred in the times of Moses and 

 Joshua they do the same, Deut. iii. 14 ; xxxiv. 6, 

 10; Josh. iv. 9 ; v. 9 ; vi. 25; vii. 26; viii. 28, 29; 

 ix. 27; x. 14, 27; xiii. 13, etc. To their account 

 of the original giving of the manna they add a cir- 

 cumstance connected with the ceasing of the manna, 

 some forty years later, Ex. xvi. 31, 35. This being 

 their habit, how are we to account for it that no 

 unmistakable allusion to any event later than the 

 lifetime of Phinehas appears in these writings? The 

 natural explanation is that that lifetime marks the 

 date of the completing of the writings, and this ex- 

 planation is thoroughly in accord with all the evi- 

 dence we have thus far considered. 



2. Another class of arguments to prove the late date of 

 the Hexateuch proceeds on the assumption that certain 

 principles of evolution apply in this case. This as- 

 sumption is sometimes avowed, and it is actually one 

 of the premises of the reasoning of some who do not 

 avow it. It is assumed, for example, that the condi- 

 tion of the Israelites in early times was extremely bar- 

 barous and illiterate, so that such a literature as this 

 was then impossible, and that it became possible by a 

 process of development in civilization. But (to say 

 nothing of the possibility that divine inspiration might 

 produce authorship even among a rude people) we now 

 know that there was a widely extended literature, in 

 several languages, in Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia, 

 before the time when Moses is said to have led the 

 Israelites from Egypt. Prof. Osgood (in Essays on the 

 /' n/'itnuch. No. 12) has admirably summarized the tes- 

 timony of recent investigators on this point, and at 

 the present moment the work being done on the col- 

 lection of Syria and Mcsopotainian tablets found in 

 the archives of Amenophis III. and Atuenophis IV. 

 of Egypt, is here adding fresh confirmation. _ See 

 accounts of this "find" with references to additional 

 sources of information, by A. H. Sayce, in the Inde- 

 pendent of June 28, 1888, and by Dr. Francis Brown, 

 in the Presbyterian Review of July, 1888. 



Again, it is assumed that the law of development 

 of religion requires that we should hold that the re- 

 ligion of Israel existed in the form of polytheism, then 

 in the form of a relatively gross monotheism, and 

 afterward in that of the higher monotheism repre- 

 sented by the prophets, all these being stages that 

 must have preceded the ritualism found in the priestly 

 law. Hence it is argued that the law could not have 

 come into existence till after the writing of the books 

 of the pre-exilic prophets. This reasoning has been 

 sufficiently met by man^r writers, among others by Dr. 

 Gardiner and Dr. Dwinell, Essays on the Pentateuch, 

 Nos. 2 and 9, but it is very summarily met by Dr. Os- 

 Bood, in the essay just cited, by the well-attested fact 

 that an elaborate ritualism actually existed before the 

 times of Moses, both in the regions whence the Is- 

 raelites are said originally to have come, and in Egypt, 

 where they made (.heir long sojourn. 



3. In proof of the late date of the Hexateuchal 

 writings it is urged that they have virtually the same 

 linguistic character with the latest books of the Old 

 Testament, which could hardly be the case if they 

 were written a thousand years the earlier. In reply 

 to this, Dr. Franz Delitzsch (see articles of Dr. S. I. 

 Curtiss in the Hebrew Student for March, April, May, 

 and June, 1 K.H2 ; and in the Presbyterian Review for 

 July, 1882) holds, first, that the range of linguistic 

 changes is much less in the Shemitic than in the 

 Western languages ; secondly, that many of the lin- 



guistic differences that once existed may be presumed 

 to have vanished in the process of transferring the 

 books from the old alphabet to the square alphabet ; 

 and thirdly, that, notwithstanding these facts, the differ- 

 ences now actually existing are quite appreciable. This 

 has always been a correct and sufficient reply. Some 

 of these linguistic differences are treated in the latest 

 editions of Gesenius' Grammar, particularly in the 

 treatment of the pronouns, and in Harman s Intro- 

 duction, chap, x., and indeed in most Commentaries 

 and Introductions that treat of the Pentateuch. The 

 fact is that the Hexateuch, the later pre-exilic books, 

 and the post-exilic books, each present characteristic 

 peculiarities of vocabulary, of verbal form, and of 

 syntax, and that the Hexateuchal peculiarities are 

 largely those which are naturally to be assigned to the 

 earlier stages of a language. 



4. In pretty sharp contradiction with the argument 

 just considered, though frequently urged by the same 



: men, is the argument that the differences of style be- 

 tween different parts of the Hexateuch are such as to 

 show that the passages must be by different authors, 

 apparently living in different historical periods. The 

 fact that there are in the Hexateuch great linguistic 

 and rhetorical diversities is admitted. Considering the 

 variety of subjects here treated, the variety of method 

 of treatment, and the variety of the experiences that 

 are said to have entered into the life of Moses, who 

 would here expect anything else than great diversities 

 of style, even if he supposed that Moses wrote every 



i word of the Pentateuch ? And if Moses and Joshua 

 made use of works by earlier writers, employed secre- 

 taries, and left the writings to be edited by their imme- 

 diate successors, we have additional explanations for 

 this class of phenomena. The phenomena, in this 

 way of looking at them, have no weight against the 

 idea that Moses and Joshua are the proper authors of 

 the Hexateuch. 



5. This argument, however, recurs in the more spe- 

 cific and elaborate form of what is now currently called 

 "the Pentateuchal Analysis." Work done in this 

 analysis, and discussion concerning it, form the bulk of 

 the contents of recent works and articles on the Penta- 

 teuch, but this subject is so fully treated in the BHI- 

 TANNICA article, that there is no need of giving much 

 space to it here, even for the sake of presenting a dif- 

 ferent view. Those who accept the so-called "anal- 

 ysis" are pretty well agreed in holding that the Hex- 

 ateuch is a compilation from four previous compila- 

 tions. These are now most commonly described as J, 

 E, D, and P ; that is, the works of the Jehoyist nar- 

 rator, the Elohist narrator, the Deuteronomist, and 

 the Priestly narrator. They are pretty well agreed as 

 to the present limits of P and D, and in the opinion 

 that the main part of D was written in connection with 

 the reform under king Josiah. They differ as to the 

 dates of the other three documents, as to the dividing 

 line between J and E, as to which parts of D belong 

 to the original Deuteronomist, and which parts to each 

 of a series of supplementary Deuteronomists, as to 

 which parts of P are by the proper priestly narrator, 

 and which parts by each of a supposed series of sup- 

 plementary priest-scribes, as to the earlier writings that 

 were incorporated into each of the four documents, 

 and as to the multitude of other questions that arise. 



It is readily seen that every theory of this sort is a 

 complicated structure, built on no other foundation 

 than conjectural explanations of circumstantial evi- 

 dence, beset with difficulties that can be removed only 

 by hypotheses framed for the purpose. The mere tes- 

 timony in the case, as understood by those who hold 

 the modified traditional view, will doubtless explain as 

 many of the phenomena as can be explained by any 

 of these more complex theories ; and the explanation 

 by testimony is of course to be preferred to the ex- 

 planation by hypothesis. It follows that, notwith- 

 standing the great weight of scholarly opinion now ar- 

 rayed in favor of the various forms of what is our- 



