i8 79 ] WELLHAUSEN S GESCHICHTE ISRAELS 607 



these. At any rate the absence of any description of 

 Solomon s altar may be explained by the circumstance 

 that at the close of the period of the kings that altar had 

 disappeared. (Compare 2 Kings xvi. and xxv.) Finally, 

 our author comes to the Pentateuch, and addresses himself 

 to the proof that the narrative of the priestly code is not 

 such as to raise objections against the late date assigned 

 to the document. It will be difficult to meet his argu 

 ment on this head, though Wellhausen himself does not 

 expect that many will join him in the view that the 

 priestly narrative is wholly based on the Jehovistic 

 story that is, on the works of the Jehovist and the 

 Elohist as combined together by a later editor. From 

 our author s point of view the separation between the 

 Jehovist and the Elohist acquires a special interest. He 

 regards the Elohist as the younger author, but does not 

 go into full detail on the subject. 



The section on Israel and Judaism, which embraces 

 discussions on the language of the priestly laws, the final 

 redaction of the Hexateuch, the oral and written law, 

 the decalogue, and the idea and institution of the theo 

 cracy, must be passed over. In closing, I turn back for a 

 moment to suggest that the change of attitude towards 

 the Sabbath which Wellhausen observes in the priestly 

 code, where the day of rest becomes rather a sacrifice of 

 abstinence than a provision of humanity, may be con 

 nected with Babylonian influences. The Sabbath of 

 Assyria and Babylon is a day on which it is unlucky to 

 work a conception entirely opposed to the original 

 Hebrew association of Sabbath and feast-day. 



