HEXHAM 



HEYDEN 



This suggested the use in the 

 composition of Genesis of at least 

 two independent documents, the 

 Elohistic (E) and the Jehovistic 

 (j). But Astruc had to assume the 

 further use of ten other documents. 

 His theory of composition, which 

 was developed by Eichhorn (1779) 

 and by Ilgen (1798), who thought 

 he could discover two Elohists, has 

 been called the Earlier Documen- 

 tary Hypothesis. 



Another stage was marked by 

 the work of A. Geddes, who in 1800 

 suggested that the Pentateuch was 

 composed of a number of smaller 

 and larger fragments derived from 

 an Elohistic and a Jehovistic 

 school. This theory, which was de- 

 veloped by Vater (1805), has been 

 called the Fragmentary Hy- 

 pothesis. Its defects, the Penta- 

 teuch in its present form being a 

 unit, were pointed out by De 

 Wette, and a new theory arose 

 which is closely associated with the 

 name of F. Bleek (1822). Accord- 

 ing to this, an historical work con- 

 taining the main part of Genesis- 

 Numbers and the Book of Joshua, 

 and including Deut. xxxiv, 1-8, 

 all being the work of the Elohist, 

 was edited and supplemented by a 

 Jehovist writer. The whole work 

 was then revised again in a 

 Deuteronomic spirit by the author 

 of Deuteronomy. This theory has 

 been called the Supplementary 

 Hypothesis. 



The next stage of development is 

 marked by a return to the docu- 

 mentary theory It was the merit 

 of Hupfeld (1853) to succeed in de- 

 monstrating that in Genesis there 

 are three independent documents 

 which were combined by a re- 

 dactor. Following the hint of 

 Ilgen, he distinguished two writers 

 who employ the word Elohim in- 

 stead of Jehovah, one of them a 

 priestly writer. This theory, which 

 was developed by Graf (1866), 

 Kuenen (1861 ; influenced by 

 Bishop Colenso), and Wellhausen 

 (1878), has been called the Later 

 Documentary Hypothesis. 



In its latest form, the docu- 

 mentary hypothesis assumes the 

 use of four independent documents. 

 A Jehovist work (c. 800 B.C.), de- 

 rived from Judah and designated 

 J by scholars, and an Elohist work 

 (c. 750 B.C.), derived from Ephraim 

 and designated E by scholars, circu- 

 lated independently for a time. 

 Later (some time before 650 B.C.) 

 these two works were combined. 

 The united work, which has been 

 described as the " Oldest Book of 

 Hebrew History," incorporated 

 (from E) the earliest of the three 

 chief codes of Hebrew law, now 

 known as the Book of the Covenant. 

 It knows nothing of the reform as 



to " high-places," or as to the 

 limitation of sacrifice to the temple 

 at Jerusalem. In 620 B.C. a work 

 largely, but not entirely, identical 

 with our book of Deuteronomy, 

 the Deuteronomic code, was dis- 

 covered. Soon afterwards this 

 work, with additions at the be- 

 ginning and the end, was combined 

 with the other two works. This third 

 document, which seems to know 

 nothing of the " priestly " law, 

 is designated D by scholars. In 

 each case, of course, the com- 

 bination was the work of a 

 redactor. Thus we get the 

 formula : (J -f- E) -f- D 



"Rje Rd~ = JE 



There next arose a document 

 containing an ancient body of laws 

 (Lev 17-26), which stands mid 

 way between Deuteronomy and 

 the priestly legislation. This has 

 been called the Law of Holiness. 

 It was incorporated in a later 

 priestly work which has been de- 

 signated by scholars the Priestly 

 code or P. This was promulgated 

 by Ezra in 444 B.C., and some 

 time afterwards was combined by 

 a redactor with JED. Thus we 

 get the formula . Hexateuch = 

 (J + E) + D + P 



Rje Rd Rp 



The various documents are distin- 

 guished, according to the critics, by 

 differences in style and tone. 



It is a mistake, however, to sup- 

 pose that the considerations are 

 simply linguistic and stylistic. It is 

 held that the separation of the 

 sources is dictated as much, if not 

 more, by historical considerations. 

 Apart from the fact that there are 

 many duplicate narratives, the his- 

 torical course of events as a whole 

 postulates a gradual but inevitable 

 development and evolution, first 

 the prophet, then the priest, next 

 the ritual. See Bible ; Pentateuch. 



Bibliography. Documents of the 

 Hexateuch, W. E. Addis, 1892-98 ; 

 Genesis of Genesis, B. W. Bacon, 

 1893 ; The Higher Criticism of the 

 Hexateuch, C. A. Briggs, 1897 ; 

 The Hexateuch, J. E. Carpenter and 

 G. Harford-Battersby, 1900 ; In- 

 trod. to Old Testament, C. H. Cor- 

 nill, 1907 ; History of Old Testa- 

 ment Criticism, A. Duff, 1910 ; Diet, 

 of the Bible, J. Hastings, 1909. 



Hexham. Market town and 

 urban district of Northumberland. 

 It stands on the S. bank of the 

 Tyne, 20 m. from Newcastle, and 

 has a station on the N.E. Rly. The 

 town has tanning and other indus- 

 tries and a trade in agricultural 

 produce, while in the neighbour- 

 hood are coal mines. The chief 

 building is the priory church, a 

 magnificent Early English build- 

 ing, restored in the 19th century. 

 It was not entirely completed by 

 its builders, the Augustinian 



canons, the nave being only finished 

 in the 20th century. 



There are some remains of the 

 priory of the Augustinian canons : 

 which was dissolved at the Re- 

 formation. Other buildings are the 

 grammar school and two old build- 

 ings, the Moot Hall and the Manor 

 Office. The urban council owns 

 the water supply and markets. 

 Race meetings are held. 



Hexham. The Moot Hall, the 15th 



century tower of the bailiffs of the 



archbishops o! York 



Hexham grew up around the 

 church founded in the 7th century, 

 and at one time it had its own 

 bishop. After the Norman Con- 

 quest the town and district, called 

 Hexhamshire, was a liberty ruled 

 by the bishop and later by the arch- 

 bishop of York. It was not united 

 with the county of Northumber- 

 land until 1572. Market day, Tues. 

 Pop. 8,400. 



The battle of Hexham was 

 fought May 15, 1464, between the 

 Lancastrians and the Yorkists. It 

 took place on the Linnels, 3 m. 

 from the town. Beaten at Hedgeley 

 Moor (q.v.), the Lancastrians col- 

 lected a force and, led by Henry 

 Beaufort, duke of Somerset, came 

 up with the Yorkists under Lord 

 Montagu. The latter were superior 

 in numbers, whereupon the Lan- 

 castrians melted away, except 

 about 500, who were soon killed or 

 captured, Somerset and other 

 leaders being executed. 



Heyden, JAN VAN DER (1637- 

 1712). Dutch painter and etcher. 

 He was a native of Gorkum. Most 

 of his pictures are of buildings or 

 ruins in Dutch towns, but he tra- 

 velled widely on the Continent and 

 in England, painting wherever he 

 went. Adriaan van de Velde occa- 

 sionally introduced the figures into 

 his works. Van der Heyden died 

 at Amsterdam, Sept. 12, 1712. 



