IS THE SO-CALLED " PRIESTLY CODE " OF POST-EXILIC DATE ? G9 



country and language, make use of archaic words, which have 

 long fallen out of use in conversation or ordinary narrative. 

 Sometimes the text of the passages outside " P " in which the 

 word occurs, is said to be " doubtful." Though a " doubtful " 

 text is not necessarily corrupt, it is certainly worthless in 

 controversy. One word, "congregation" (jjheclah), is said by 

 Dr. Driver to be " rare in the other historical books." But, as 

 the other historical books were written long after Israel had 

 settled in Palestine, there was every reason why the use of the 

 word should have become rare. 



6. The words peculiar to " P " are thus reduced to 13 in 

 number. It is scarcely worth while to discuss all these in detail. 

 One of them, said " not " to be " the usual word " for " half," 

 does occur in Nehemiah. This might have furnished an argu- 

 ment had it not been confessed that the word appears in 

 I Kings xvi, 9. Concerning a second expression out of the 13, 

 Dr. Driver adds in a parenthesis, that he does not give " a 

 complete enumeration" of the passages in which it occurs. 

 Then how does it come in as an argument ? A third word (recush) 

 " substance " or " possessions " and the cognate verb not only 

 occurs in " JE " as well as in " P " but it occurs several times in 

 Genesis xiv, of which the critics have denied the genuineness, 

 assigning it to a special document thoroughly inconsistent with 

 the rest of the narrative.* It does occur in the post-exilic 

 narratives, but is not peculiar to them and P. 



11. — I propose now to reverse my former process, and to show 

 that post-exilic historians (Chronicles excepted for reasons above 

 given) contain a large number of words and phrases entirely 

 absent from " P." I fear that space will prevent me from going 

 further than an analysis of Ezra, and indeed the subject is, as a 

 rule, too technical for a general audience. 1 will first give a 

 brief analysis of each chapter, and then proceed to comment on 

 some words and phrases which present points of special interest. 

 But I shall be obliged by the rules of the Institute to stop short 



* The case of Genesis xiv is a very unfortunate one for the critics. 

 Many of the names mentioned occur in contemporary tablets, such as 

 Amraphel, Arioch, EUasar, Tidal. The word translated " nations " {goim) 

 also appears in the tablets. Kedur and JMgamar (Cliedorlaoraer) appear 

 in the tablets, though not together. Worse than all, Genesis xiv seems to 

 hint at the subsequent subjugation by Amraphel of his former leader 

 Chedorlaomer. It should be noted that the vowels were seldom introduced 

 in the early oriental texts. The only possible line of defence is that the 

 names are not, and cannot be, the same, but the vehemence with which 

 the defence is made suggests that the position is not too defensible. 



