176 



PKNTATI-rril 



ryntlv called the IViii.itcuehal analysis, incti who think 

 for themselves arc \rt jii-titi.iUe in hc-iiatiiig to accept 

 it. Tin- nature M I lit- arguments commonly urged 

 gainst it may be learned Ky consulting tin volumes 

 named at the close of this article. 



Hut supposing the current IVnt;it<-u<-hul aiul\-i- 

 ..eepted, ao far an it pertains to the literary form 

 anil the mode of composition of these writings, it 

 would l>y no means follow that we are compelled to ac- 

 e. ;! the alleged late dates of the several parts of the 

 Hexateueh. All the different liter.iry processes in- 

 volved may as well have been |>erforiued in the tiine.- 

 of Moaee, or before him, or after him within the life- 

 time of men who were associated with him, an at any 

 later period. That the times of Josiah and Jeremiah 

 were times when the Deutcronomie law-book was 

 closely studied is very evident It has been alleged in 

 addition to this that the Dcutcronouiic legislation bears 

 marks of having been made in those times and for 

 those times. This is sufficiently refuted bv Dr. Bissell 

 and others. Similar claims are made, and arc refuted 

 by the same authors, as to the special affiliations l>> 

 tween the priestly legislation and the times of F./ra 

 ami Nelieuiiah. A great deal has been made by some 

 writers of the alleged absence of Egyptian elements 

 from the Hexateuch, and the presence there of Baby- 

 lonian elements ; but, at present, no respectable 

 scholar would allege that Egyptian elements are want- 

 ing, and the Babylonian elements may be readily ex- 

 plained by the known facts as to early relations between 

 Egypt and Babylonia. The "find" descrilwd in the 

 articles of Profs. Payee and Brown, in the Independent 

 i.f. June 28, 1888, and the Pi-<-*l>iitrrun> Rrrlnr. of July, 

 1888, is rich in material of this sort It is further 

 asserted that the Book of Ezckicl presupposes parts 

 of the Hexateuch, but is in turn presupposed by most 

 of the priestly legislation : and it is hence inferred that 

 the pneft-code is later than Kzekiel. This has been 

 most satisfactorily refuted by Dr. Frederic Gardiner, 

 in the Journal of 'the Society of Biblical Lltn-ntin-r <in<l 

 Exegatu, 1881. 



6. The argument that is regarded as strongest of all, 

 in connection with the Pcntateuchal analysis, to prove 

 the late date of the successive part.- of these writings, 

 is the alleged silence of the Books of Judges and 

 Samuel, both in regard to the Mosaic writings and in 

 regard to the institutions described in them, combined 

 with the alleged testimony of these books ami the 

 Books of Kings to the existence of institutions incon- 

 sistent with those of the I'etitateueh. This argument 

 is spread out into a great variety of specification- . it 

 is impossible here to do more than mention a l< w of 

 the nio.-t prominent. It is alleged that the Books of 

 Judges and Samuel do not mention the Tonih. The 

 fact is thai they use the noun Titrah in 2 Sam. vii. 14, 

 and the cognate verl>. in the same sense with the noun, 

 in Jud. xiii. hand I Sam. xii. 23. It is alleged that 

 these books never cite the Hexateuch. It is true that 

 they never u-e the formulas of citation, like those used 

 in the Hooks of Kings and Chronicles, and in the New 

 Testament ; but they presuppose the events and the 

 institutions described in the Hexateuchal writings, and 

 abound in what seem to be verbal citations from them. 

 A few out of very many apparent instances of verbal 

 citation instances in which the meaning depends upon 

 the fact that the phrases are citations ore those in 2 

 Sam. vii. 1, 12, 24 ; 1 Sam. viii. 3, 5 ; Jud. xi. 14-27, 

 ii. 1-3. Indeed, there is now a strong tendency among 

 the advocates of the Hexateuchal analysis entirely to 

 give up this allegation, and adopt an opposite view, 

 i. iiin-ly. that the Books of Judges and Samuel are 

 composite productions, formed from continuations of 

 the same documents from which the Hexateuch was 

 formed, and arc therefore of a ' correspondingly late 

 i ,-. 



It ia alleged that these books are entirely silent as to 

 the Pentatcuchal system of institutions. This allega- 

 tion, however, ia materially modified by two admis- 



sions. First, the allegation is not quite true as tin- 

 text of these books now stands ; the silence does not 

 exist until the text ha- lir.-t l>een corrected and certain 

 passages that break the silence (r. g., 1 Sam. ii. 22) 

 omitted us interpolations. Secondly, it is admitted 

 that these books mention many particular institutions 

 that belong to the IVntateuchal s\>teui. In replying 

 to this and to several of the following allegations it 

 should be conceded that, so far as appears from the 

 evidence, the Pentateuchal system, if it existed during 

 the period from the death o_l Joshua to the later years 

 of David, was then in very imperfect o]>cration. Hut 

 the failure to enforce the law in those times neither 

 implies that the law was then non-existent nor that it 

 was then unwritten. Meanwhile the passages that pre- 

 suppose institutions described in the Pentateuch are 

 too numerous, too explicit, and too varied to be con- 

 sistent with the allegation that the books are silent on 

 iliject. Among the Pentateuchal institutions, 

 mentioned arc tho functions of the d'<l. 1' Sam. iii. 

 27 ; xiv. 11 ; certain parts of the law of the 

 Nazarite, Jud. xiii. 5; 1 Sam. i. 11 ; the prohibi- 

 tion of foreign gods, 1 Sam. vii. 3, etc. ; usages re- 

 specting ceremonial cleanness, uncleauness, and holi- 

 ness, 1 Sam. xx. 26 ; xxi. 5 ; religious laws against 

 the eating of blood, 1 Sam. xiv. 32-34 ; airainst witch- 

 craft, 1 Sam. xv. 23 ; xxviii., etc. ; the priestly char- 

 acter of the Lcvitcs, Jud. xvii. , etc. ; the carrying of 

 the ark by men, 2 Sam. vi. 13, and context; the burn- 

 ing of the fat before the priest's fee was due, 1 Sam. 

 ii. 16 (cf. Lev. vii. 29-34) ; the offering of meal and 

 wine with an animal victim. 1 Sam. L 24; the tech- 

 nical terms "i8?ni, P3& nnj^i i dam. iii. 14 ; the 

 distinction of burnt-offerings, peace-offerings, etc., 

 1 Sam. x. 8 ; xiii. 9, rt al. sacrifices connected with 

 vows, 1 Sam. i. 21 ; sacrifices for certain seasons dis- 

 tinguished from particular sacrifices, 1 Sam. i. 21 ; the 

 shewbread, I Sam. xxi. 6 ; the high-priest's ephod, 1 

 Sam. ii. 28, et al. ; the sanctuary tent and the sacred 

 ark, 1 Sam. ii. 22 : 2 Sam. vi. , et <il ; the service of 

 the sanctuary by prieste descended from Aaron, 1 Sain. 

 ii. 28, and many places; its being for "all Israel." ii. 

 11. 22. 21. 28; iii IT, <//.; at least one annual festi- 

 val, with sacrifices peculiar to it, to which Israel came 

 up, 1 Sam. i. 3, 7, 9. 21 ; ii. 19, etc. ; eating and 

 drinking in Shiloh (before the LORD), as a part of 

 the celebration_ of the festival, vs. 7, j in fine, the 

 existence of rigid ceremonial laws, which it was a sin to 

 neglect, 1 Sam. ii. 2'.i ; xiiL 11-13: 2 Sam. vi. 7, etc. 

 The list might be greatly extended. Certainly, these 

 books mention the Levitical laws and the other 1'en 

 tateuchal institutions as fully as any one has a right t<> 

 expect on the supposition thp.t these were then aln a I. 

 in existence. Their silence, therefore, in regard to 

 other particulars has no weight to prove that the law.- 

 werc tncn non-existent. 



But it is alleged that in many of the instances 

 given, and in other like instances, the details described 

 in these books are different from those described in the 

 Pentateuch, and that this fact proves the Penta- 

 teuehal description to have been then non-existent 

 The fact allc'.'cd is in part admitted, but the inference 

 of wholly denied. The cultus described in the Book 

 of Ncheuiiah includes many details that vary from 

 those of the Pentateuch : for example, the pulpit for 

 the reading of the law, the processional services, the 

 tax of a third of a shekel, the wood-offering. The 

 ritual of the scribes included the sacrifice of the cock, 

 the pouring of water and the use of citrons at the 

 feast of tabernacles, tha ceremonies for, receiving 

 proselytes. _No one claims that these variations prove 

 that the written law was in their time non-existent, 

 and there is no more ground for such a claim in the 

 variations of the times ot Samuel. It is further al- 

 leged, however, that the institutions described for the 

 times of thepudges, and for the later times, up to the 

 reign of Josiah, are not only variant from those de- 

 scribed in the Pentateuch, but aie iiicotisiblcut with 



