PENTATEUCH 



37 



historical luniks 1 Samuel to 2 Kings. But the 

 Mi-called Deuteronomistic redaction was perhaps not 

 a single or linal act ; some think it did not wholly 

 ren.se till the beginning of the Grecian period. Con- 

 -iderable portions of the Book of Joshua are prob- 

 al.lv due to one of the Deuteronomists e.g. i., iv. 

 21 24, viii. 30-3.5, xi. 10-23, xii. 1-24, xiii. 1-14, xiv. 

 6-15, xxii. 1-6, xxiii. 



( III. ) P. Of all the elements of the Hexateuch by 

 far the bulkiest (see BIBLE, Vol. II. p. 120, and add 

 Josh, xiii. 15^33, xiv. 1-5, xv. 1-12, 20-62, xvi. 4-8, 

 xvii. 1-9, xviii. 11-28, xix.-xxi.-xxii. 9-34) is that 

 -applied by the so-called Priestly document. It is 

 also the most easily distinguishable, and even those 

 critics who differ most widely as to its age are 

 agreed almost to a verse as to its extent. The 

 criteria which they apply are certain well-marked 

 leatures in its highly developed and esoteric ritual 

 legislation, and, as regards its narrative portions, 

 a certain mechanical precision with which it 

 follows a formal arrangement of its matter, and 

 heads each section with a title, the apparent 

 accuracy of it* chronological, genealogical, and 

 statistical details, ami. along with that, an almost 

 entire absence of the picturesque elements which 

 give their chief literary charm to J and E. In the 

 opinion of a rapidly increasing number of critics 

 the evidence for its relatively late origin is over- 

 whelming. The argument is drawn not only from 

 tlie characteristics of its legislation and history 

 already alluded to, but also from its language and 

 phraseology, from the fact that it is never alluded 

 to in what are certainly known to be the pre-exilic 

 hooks of the <)l<l Testament canon, and from the 



ali-en if Denteronomistically revised passages. 



A- Deuteronomy is as-ociatod w itli .losiati's refor- 

 mation, so is the Priestly legislation with that of 

 Ezra. It, however, contains some elements which 

 are earlier than that event (444 B.C.) and others 

 which are later. Of an earlier date, in particular, 

 is what critics call the Law of Holiness contained 

 in I,ev. xvii.-xxvi., presenting atlinities with the 

 last chapters of Kzekiel. The cessation of the 

 temple functions with the beginning of the exile 

 naturally led to a desire and effort on the part of 

 zealous priests to preserve some memorials of the 

 pie exilic temple practice apparently threatened 

 with oblivion ; but further, it would seem, the 

 lap-e of time gave scojie for a jjood deal of reflec- 

 tion and di-eu-.-ion about questions of detail with 

 a view to possible improvements, and this was 

 especially the case when it became plain that in 



the restored < iniinity the priesthood were destined 



to hold a much more prominent position than at 

 any period of the monarchy. With the practically 

 new detailed code which resulted was associated a 

 brief summary of general history and of the history 

 of Israel, the result being a work of combined 

 legislative ami narrative character similar to the 

 pie\ioii-l\ existing JE + D which it was designed 

 to supersede. Critics also discern further modifi- 

 cations of ritual which must be assigned to a later 

 date than that of Ezra (see NKHKMI.UI); but the 

 investigation of these is still being carried on, and 

 cannot l>e regarded as completed. When it was 

 found that the Priestly document was only very 

 "lowly, if at all, superseding JE + D as an 

 authoritative history and law book, the important 

 step of incorporating it with that document was 

 next taken. The work thus produced, probably 

 lief on- 400 B.C., was substantially our present 

 Hexateuch. But it continued to undergo a process 

 of editorial change and revision till a much later 

 date. The division of the Hexateuch into the six 

 liooks with which we are now so familiar is prob- 

 ably one of the last editorial operations it under- 

 went, and carries u back, as we have seen, to at 

 least the date of the I,.\ X. translation. 



The gradual ascertainment in modern times of 

 the different sources of the Hexateuch has been 

 descrilied by Stade with hardly undue exaggeration 

 as one of the most brilliant triumphs of human 

 sagacity. The investigation of the problem on 

 scientific lines may be said to have begun with 

 Astruc (1753), who was the first to point out the 

 value of the ' Jehovah ' and ' Elohini ' criteria in 

 seeking to trace the authorship of different parts 

 of Genesis. His hypothesis was introduced into 

 Germany by Eichhorn, and was the beginning of 

 a long discussion which has lasted till the present 

 day, producing an immense literature, now for the 

 most part quite out of date, and a vast variety of 

 conflicting and, as was sometimes imagined, mutu- 

 ally destructive theories. The first cardinal fact 

 to emerge from the chaos with clearness was the 

 late date of Deuteronomy as being the new law 

 book which formed the basis of Josiah's reforma- 

 tion. The credit of having established beyond 

 doubt the post-Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy 

 belongs chiefly to De Wette, whose activity dates 

 from 1805. The next thing to be satisfactorily 

 proved was the existence of two independent 

 Elohists. The existence of two authors sharing 

 the feature in common had been divined by Ilgen 

 (1798), but it was always supposed that the one 

 merely supplemented the other, till Hupfeld (1853) 

 proved their complete independence. In other 

 words, four distinct sources were now completely 

 made out. Finally, Graf (1866) proved the post- 

 exilic character of the legislative portion of the 

 Priestly document (hitherto spoken of as the 

 ' Grundschrift ' or older Elohist), and it was further 

 shown by Kuenen to the satisfaction of Graf him- 

 self that the same character belongs to the Priestly 

 document as a whole. This indeed had been seen 

 and argued for at an earlier date by Vatke (1835) 

 and George (1835), but partly through defects in 

 their manner of presenting their views, and partly 

 liecause scientific and theological opinion was not 

 yet sufficiently educated to receive it, it failed 

 to make any impression. Reuss, Graf's teacher, 

 claimed to have publicly taught the Gralian theory 

 as early ;us 1833 ; but he did not publish it till 

 1879. 



As a manual of modern Pentateuch criticism Kuenen's 

 masterly Historiro-critictil Inquiry into the Oriijin and 

 Composition of the Hexattwch, translated from the Dutch 

 by Wicksteed (1886), is indispensable to the student, 

 and will probably hold a permanent place as a classical 

 example of the application of modern methods in biblical 

 criticism. The 'Introduction ' prefixed to it, containing 

 an outline of the history of Hexateuch criticism since 

 1861 will serve as guide to the older literature. Along 

 with Kuenen's great treatise ranks Wellhauscn's equally 

 admirable Competition dri Bexateuehs (2d ed., with 

 appendices, 1889). Only the appendices to this work 

 are new, the papers on the composition of the Hexateuch 

 having appeared originally in the Jahrljiicher f. ilriitn'/ir 

 Theol. in 1876-77, and having been reprinted without 

 modification in 1885. 



Valuable assistance of a typographical or mechanical 

 kind is to be had from Kautzsch and Socin's little work 

 entitled Die Genesis mit ausscrer Unterscheidung dcr 

 Quellenschriften (2d ed. 1891), in which the various 

 sources and the work of editors and clossators are 

 indicated by the use of differential types. In Kautzsch's 

 new translation of the Old Testament (Die Heiliije 

 Schrift des A. T., 1890-91 ), P, J, E, I>, Dt, and R in the 

 Hexatench are indicated by letters on the margin. See 

 also Lenormant's Oenese and Reuss's Bible. The critical 

 views indicated in the foregoing article are more or less 

 fully discussed, and the results reckoned with, in the 

 histories of Israel bv Wellhausen (Prolegomena to the 

 ffittom of Israel, with reprint of article ' Israel ' from 

 KIK-II. lirit., 1885), Stade (Gfsch. d. V. Isr., 1887), Kenan 

 (Hat. du PeupU Isr., 3 vols. 1887-91 ; Eng. trans.), 

 and Kittel (Oesch. d. Hebrder), whose first half-volume 

 (1888) gives in a very instructive way the stories of the 

 patriarchal age according to E, J, and P respectively, in 



