9. General Positions of Advanced Criticism
Practically all other scholars of the present seek
with the aid of the documentary hypothesis to gain
a conception of the construction of the
Hexateuch. Problems of importance
of
under discussion are:
the order in time
Advanced and the absolute age of the individual
Criticism. documents, the shape each of these
documents had up to its union with
another or with others of its fellows, the number and
character of the editorial efforts at combining the
documents. In consequence of the expositions especially of K. H. Graf (1866) and J. Wellhausen
(1876-78); whom E. Reuss (since 1833) and W.
Vatke (1835) preceded, the predominant majority of Old Testament scholars in Germany,
England, and North America hold: that D was
written immediately before the reformation of
Josiah and with a view to using his influence;
that the completed central. portion of P, brought
together at the earliest in the Babylonian exile,
is not historically trustworthy; and that the
closing of the Hexateuch is to be placed in the
time of Ezra (Wellhausen, B. Stade) or still later
(E. Reuss, A. Kayser, A. Kuenen, and many others).
But it must be remarked here that the law-book
which came to light in the eighteenth year of Josiah
must have been written earlier; that the Holiness
Code is earlier than Ezekiel; that the value of P,
the priestly document, is by most scholars rated too
low; and that P (Wellhausen's Q) was not taken
into the united JED, but that D was taken into
the united WE (QJE). The present writer is
convinced that in the future neither the old traditional views nor those of the "advanced critics"
will hold the field.
The conclusions of E. K�nig (in his
Einleitung)
are: that from Mosaic times come the decalogue,
the book of the covenant (Ex. xx. 22ro. Position
xxiii.
33),
Ex. xxxiv. 10-26,
the poet,
of Koenig, ical pieces in Ex. xv., Num. vi., x,.,
Dill-anti, xxi., and at least for substance other
Wellhausen, parts; E belongs to the time of the
A. guenen. Judges, J not before David nor after
Solomon; the analysis of JE is in
many places no longer possible; the kernel of D is
iv. 45-46, v.-xxviii. 46, xxxi. 9-13, which has a
Mosaic basis, but was worked
over in the time of
the Judges and immediately after 722
B.c.;
P is a
collection of oral traditions which grew up in
priestly, circles and.was completed hardly before
600-500; the union of JED, with P was probably
made by Ezra in Babylon. A. Dillmapn (in his
commentary on Numbers, Deuteronomy,
and
Joshua,
Leipsic, 1888) places E (which he calls B) in the first
half of the ninth century; it used written sources
particularly in Ex. xx.-xxiii. and Num. xxi.; J
(which he calls C) is a Judaic document not earlier
than the middle of the eighth century; D is not
much earlier than the eighteenth year of Josiah,
and its author used E and J, especially the book of
the covenant, and other laws (especially H) which
now are embodied in P; Wellhausen's Q (which
Dillmann calls A), the kernel of P, is dated e. 800
B.C.;
E in its historical parts was constructed from
oral sources and from written sources no longer
extant, and in its legal parts from a collection of
laws having the character of H; QEJ were worked
together c. 600 by a redactor who still had J and E
before him as independent documents (all other
scholars hold that JE was consolidated before a
third document was added); not much later, D was
united with QEJ, so that D remained really the
standard; before the return of Ezra H and some
priestly instructions were added; Ezra brought the
Pentateuch into recognition in 444, after which
nothing essential was added, though editorial work
and polishing of the text c ntinued. J. Wellhausen
in
Prolegomena zur Creechu~bte I.raela
(5th ed., Berlin, 1899) holds that J beags to the golden age of
Hebrew literature, the tits before the separation of
the two kingdoms; the later E was worked together
with J into the Jehovistic history, but takes in
legislative elements only in the case of the giving of
the law at Sinai in its historical connection; D
(Deut. xii.-xxvi.) was written immediately before
it was found; next followed the fundamental piece,
Lev. xvii.-xxvi., later than Ezekiel, but closely
related to him; P (of which Q designates the core,
which treats history systematically and is found in
its pure condition in Genesis) is the result of longcontinued literary labors during and after the exile,
and was already incorporated in the Pentateuch
when the latter was published by Ezra in 444.
A. Kuenen in his "Introduction" (3 parts, Leyden,
1861-85) places J in the ninth century or early in
the eighth; E, to which J was known, is dated
c. 750; both were northern documents, but a Judaic
edition of both, somewhat extended, was made for
Judah in the second half of the seventh century;
these two documents were united into JE at the
end of the seventh or beginning of the sixth century,
before the Babylonian exile, and Moses' Song was
in the possession of the redactor; D' (i.e., Deut. v.xxvi., xxviii., xxxi. 9-13) was written as a guide
for Josiah's reformation; D', drawn from JE, added
to Deuteronomy the introduction i.-iv. 4A; JE
was united with D during the Babylonian exile,
and the redactor made alterations only at the end
of the history of Moses, in Deut. xxvi., xxxi., xxxiv.;
further, in order to win Deuteronomy its place, he
placed the Book of the Covenant and
Ex. xxxiv. 10-28
in the time of the giving of the law at Sinai;
H (Lev. xvii.-xxvi., Kuenen's P') is later than
Ezekiel; still later and postexilic is the legal-historical Q (Kuenen's P'); the book read by Ezra
and accepted by the people's representative in 444
was Q united with H and other priestly instructions,
but whether this union had taken place in Babylon
or was made in Judea between 458 and 444 is not
determinable; Ezra's law-book underwent essential
changes and extensions; consequently the redaction
of the Pentateuch is not a work completed all at
once by the union of P with JED, probably before
400, but the result of a labor continued for some
time as the differences of text in the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint indicate.
A. Klostermann
(Der Pentateuch,
Leipsic, 1893;
Daa chronolooche Syatem des P,
in
NKZ,
1894;
Die Heilighema- and Lagerordnung,
::. Kloster- 1897;
Dag devteronomische Gesetsbuch,
mann's 1902-03) complains
(Pentateuch, pp.
Recent 1-76) that modern Pentateuchal crit-
Work. icism founded upon the document-
ary hypothesis lacks basis. It conceives that the synagogue text, by the side of
which there are other and older ones, and which is
regarded as a book often edited, is identical with
that of the composer of the Pentateuch, and that
all linguistic diversities, especially in the most variable element of divine names, originate not in
differences of manuscripts which underlie our late
edition, but in the diversity of historiographic
sources which the author combined and thereby
recognized as older. It ignores the fact, says
Klostermann, that the Pentateuch was a book
for the edification of the community, in the transmission of which the emphasis must hays fallen
upon its edifying quality, upon its lucidity, and
not upon the purity and age of the text. The
work should, therefore, not be carried from above
downward and begin with assumed authors J
and E, but should first investigate when the author
-or, if you will, the redactor-wrote, that is,
he to whom we owe the unified but materially
multicolored Pentateuch. The starting-point of
the investigation is the report in II Kings xxii.
of Hilkiah's discovery (Pentateuch, pp. 77-114).
Deut. iv. 44-xxvii.
69 is the recension with introduction of homiletic addresses directed by Josiah
to be made of the work found in the temple, which
is to be understood not as the law itself, but as the
elucidation by the teacher of the law. In this way
only is the character of Deuteronomy explained,
and the supposition that Deuteronomy is a counterfeited program for a reformation is shown to be
unreasonable (Pentateuch, ii. 154-428). In order -to
make possible the fitting of this document into the
pre-Josianic Hexateuch, also in the time of Josiah,
speeches of Moses and historical notes were interwoven, and so in the manner of a harmony attempts
were made at smoothing away the difficulties which
the reader discovers between
Num. x. 11-xxxvi.
and
Deut. xxxi. 14
sqq., on the one side, and
Deut. iv. 44-xxviii.
68, on the other. It results, therefore,
that the report in Num. x.-xxxvi. and
Deut. xxxi. 14
sqq. held its place as an authoritative account of
the Mosaic times from the departure from Sinai to
the death of Moses, and so is an old document;
indeed, it must be older than Isaiah and Micah
(Pentateuch, i. 115-152). Klostermann then takes
up the Pentateuch of the times before Josiah (Pentateuch, i. 153-187), in which statistical details
and independent documents with legal ordinances
were combined, to which Genesis belonged. In consequence of the loose union of material of varied
character, this book suffered damage and disarrangement and also experienced augmentation.
Examples of the latter are Num. xxviii: xxxvi.;
Deut. xxxi. 14-23, xxxii. 1-44, 48-52.
The formation
of the original work lay far back of Micah, who
knew this enlarged book. The limit a quo Klos
termann seeks to find in a
discussion of the chron
ological system of the author who deals with the
consecration of the temple in the twentieth year of
Solomon as epoch-making. Three divine cycles
(one is 12 x 49 years) or 1,764 years to the flood,
two cycles or 1,176 years to the birth of Abraham,
and two cycles to the consecration of the temple
are discovered (concerning the Jubilee period as
49 years cf.
Pentateuch, i.
419-447). The section
concerning the tabernacle and the plan of the camp
shows that the author used two sources marked by
the distinctive use of separate terms for the taber
nacle,
ohel mo'ed
and
mishkan ha-`eduth.
This work
can have originated only in a time when the sanc
tuary at Shiloh was still in the memory, and when
there was interest in preserving for posterity what
had been replaced by the temple and so had fallen
out of actual experience. The Sinaitic book of
the covenant is discussed in
Pentateuch, ii.
429
579. In later studies Mostermann purposes to
investigate the older type of narration, and so
the fragments designated by the symbols J, E,
and Q, which then first come properly under
consideration. Klostermann's method, as indicated
by his keen investigations, is theoretically good.
He rightly considers that the confidence of most Old
Testament scholars in the security of the results
of analytical work is too strong. On the other hand,
he overvalues the meaning of the changes which the
text of the Pentateuch has suffered in the course
of time.
(H. L. Strack.)
Of critics who accept the traditional account of
the origin and development of the religion of Israel
not a few accept the current analysis
a. Limits-
(§1
6 and 7 above) in its bolder outtions of
lines (J. Robertson, C. H. H. Wright,
Literary J. Orr); while others, after minute inAnalysis. vestigation, find the analysis illusory
and
reject it altogether (W. H. Green,
E. C. Bissell). These critics are one in the conviction that the method of argument is " in very many
respects precarious; the criteria alleged are often
fallacious to the last degree; and the resulting partition is extremely dubious." The reasons which
call for caution are such as these: (1) The divine
names are evidently used at times with discrimination. The particular aspect of God which was at
the moment prominent in the thought of the
speaker or narrator determined the choice of the
title, whether it should be Elobim or Yahweh or
the Almighty or the Most High God or the Everlasting God. " The original distinction between
Jahweh and Elohim very often accounts for the use
of one of these appellations in preference to the
other " (Kuenen, Hexateuch, p. 56). According
to the current analysis J at least uses each name
as he has occasion; and Yahweh is found in passages of Genesis which are ascribed to the Elohist
writer (Green, Unity of
Genesis, pp.
539 sqq.;
Higher
Criticism, pp. 91
sqq.;
E. Riehm,
Einleitung, i.
126, Halle, 1889; P. J. Hoedemaker, Mo
aaischer Ursprung den Gesetze, p. 110
sqq., Gütersloh, 1897). The use of a particular divine name,
therefore, can not in and of itself alone be conclusive evidence of authorship (cf.
Gen. xv. 1, xx. 1,
xaa. 2, 6, 8). (2) The diction, style, and religious
conceptions of J and E are confessedly so similar
that as evidences of authorship they are often " far
from
conclusive " and yield " nothing but conjectures as to the separation of the sources " (H.
Gunkel,
Legends of Genesis, p.
126, 134, Chicago,
1901; Strack,
Commentary, p. xviii.;
Driver, In
troduction,
10th ed., pp. 116, 126). The same facts
hold with regard to passages that are assigned to
P, but not to the same extent (Green,
Unity, p.
552; and on the scraps given to P in Gen. xii.xviii., p. 215; cf. also Ruenen, on Gen. vii., viii.).
Occasionally D and JE are not readily distinguishable (Kent,
Students 0. T., vol.
i., on Gen. xiii.1417; Driver,
Introduction, pp.
35, 66, and 99).
(3) The difference of style between passages, moreover, where such difference actually exists, is largely
one of mood and subject-matter and purpose; calm
or emotional, plain or graphic, rigid or easy, brief
or descriptive or diffuse, stately or lively or formal, prosaic or poetic, declarative or hortatory.
Unless other marks are present, stylistic differences of this general nature are at best an uncertain guide when the question concerns the analysis
of a verse and the distribution of its clauses; for
the style of a sympathetic author changes along
these very lines and. adjusts itself to his moods and
the varying aspects of his subject (Green, Unity,
p. 552; idem,
Feasts, p. 14;
Dillmann; Commen
tary on Exodus and Leviticus, p. 676, 1897). (4)
The
analysis is being based more and more on asserted
divergences or contradictions, the existence of
which is quite unnecessarily assumed (see below).
In view of these facts, caution is demanded, especially when the attempt is made to disintegrate a
small bit of connected story. Before leaving the
subject of the literary analysis a remark is in place
regarding "contradictions." Many doublets and
divergences are said to exist in the Hebrew records.
There may be some. No textual critic would think
for a moment of denying that possibility. But
such as have been pointed out are not always, nor
even generally, "contradictions" (Green,
Higher
Criticism,
pp. 109-113;
C. H. H. Wright,
Introduction
, p. 100,
London, 1891; J. Orr,
Problem of the
Old Testament, pp. 236, 361).
They are diversities, indeed; but it is contrary to the canons of
historical criticism constantly to pit sources
against
each other. Rather the historian regards variants
as different aspects or incidents of the event.
The narrative of Israel's history contains an account of the organization of the people into a nation by Moses under the
direction of God. Yahweh was acknowledged as the supreme head of the
state; he
was the sole object of worship and the
ultimate source of all authority, legislative, executive, and judicial. The Ten Commandments with
the prologue (Ex. xa.
2-17)
were made the fundamental law. They were the constitution of the
nation. The body of laws contained in Ex. xxi.
xxiii. 19,
with the introduction and conclusion in
xx. 22-26
and xgiii. 20-33, formed the statutes.
The Ten Commandments were often called the
covenant
(
Deut. iv. 13);
and the combined legislation, or at any rate the statutes, were entitled
the book of the covenant, since it was
13. The Constitution and the Statutes.
upon the basis of the solemn agreement
of the people to obey these laws
that God made the covenant with Israel
at Sinai
(
Ex. xxiv. 4-8).
The
articles of the constitution and the
statutes are codified, the related injunctions being
grouped together. The sections generally contain
five or ten laws each, perhaps they all contained
ten originally (Dillmann, Commentary on
Exodus, pp. 242-245; Briggs,
Higher Criticism of
the Hexateuch, pp. 212-231; Paton, in
JBL,
1893,
pp. 79-83); and they relate to: (1) Forms of worship
(xx: 23-26); (2) The protection of 'the rights
of man; (a) in respect to liberty, (xxi. 2-11);
(b) concerning injury of person (xxi. 12-36);
(c) concerning property rights (xxii. 1-17). (3)
Regulation of personal conduct (xxii. 18-xxiii. 9).
(4) Sacred seasons and sacrifice (xxiii. 10-19).
(5) The promise annexed (xxiii. 20-33). The constitution
was, of course, unchangeable without the
consent of both parties. The statutes have the
characteristics of such laws; they are constitutional,
involving no principle contrary to the or
ganic law of the State; they are expository, being
the, application of the doctrines of the constitution
to the social life and religious observances of the
people; and they were temporary in their nature
and liable to amendment, abrogation, and increase
in order to meet the new conditions and peculiar
needs of each age. According to the narrative this
process of modification began in the days of Moses
and under his authority (ef.
Ex. xii. 6, 18, xxiii. 15
with
Num. ix. 9-14;
also
Num. xxvii. 1-11, xxxvi. 1-9).
The laws were not new (Dillmann, Commentary
on Exodus, p. 226). The Ten commandments,
or most of them, had long been authoritative
among the children of Israel
(
Gen. iv. 9-15, ix. 6, xx. 3, 5. 6, xxxi. 32, 37, xxxiv. 7,
xxsv. 2,
xliv. 9); and the laws of the second table, with the
probable exception of the tenth, were in force among
other nations. The significance of the decalogue
lay in the fact that God made recognized moral
obligations the fundamental law of his kingdom
and, by the tenth commandment, probed back of
the outward act into the inner nature of man and
located the source of sin in the evil desires of the
heart. The statutes also were not new. They
were a hereditary body of usages, as is proven
among other evidence by the laws of Hammurabi (see
Hammurabi and His Code).
The discovery
of this ancient codex enables the student of the
Bible to trace more of these ordinances back into
the period before Moses than he had heretofore
been able to do. It is remarkable that in so many
instances the same classes of people, particularly
the less fortunate members of society, were regarded
by both Babylonians and Israelites as possessing
rights that could be recognized by the State.
It is perhaps more remarkable that the Babylonian
and Hebrew law often imposes the same, or practically
the same, penalty for the same offense. To
a remarkable degree the two peoples shared the
same conception of justice. It is not necessary to
assume, nor is it probable, that the Hebrew legislator
had the laws of Hammurabi before him; but
it is certain that Israel inherited from some source
the conceptions of justice and the judicial customs
which existed among the Babylonians in the days
of Hammurabi. Moses was inspired in the preparation
of this book of the covenant; but a body of
laws hidden from the foundation of the world was
not revealed to him. Moses was a prophet
(
Deut. xviii. 15),
and inspired as the prophets were. He
was under the influence of the Holy Spirit, whereby
he was made an infallible communicator of God's
will to his fellow men. His mind was enlightened
concerning the nature of the kingdom; he was led
infallibly to choose the laws appropriate to the
condition of the people and adapted to discipline
them in the spirit of the kingdom; and he was
prompted and controlled and enabled to frame a
system, more or less out of old materials, yet distinguished
from all known legislation of contemporary
peoples by its humanity, by its amelioration
of the hard lot of the unfortunate, by its extrication
of the conduct of man from civil relations
merely and the exhibition of that conduct in its
relation to God also, and by its power to lift the
secular life into the true service of God.
:4. The Tabernacle.
The architect's specifications for the tabernacle
are contained in Exodus xxv.-xx??i. They were
obtained or completed from the study of a model
seen in a vision
(Ex. xxv. 9, 40);
for
which Moses was psychologically prepared
by the need that was pressing
upon him of organizing the religious
life of the people as he had regulated their civil
life, by hours spent on the mountain in calm and
earnest and prayerful meditation on the subject,
and by his acquaintance with the impressive temples
and symbolical ritual of Egypt. The significance
of the tabernacle centered in the ark
of the covenant, where Yahweh dwelt between the
cherubim; and the description accordingly begins
with the ark as the chief object and proceeds out
ward--an order of recital followed only in these
formal specifications and for symbolic reasons.
(1) The constant and essential features, patterns of
the heavenly: ark, table of ahewbread, and candle
stick (xxv. 10-39); and then their housing (xxvi.
1-37). The altar of burnt offering (xxvii. 1-8),
and then the court in which it should stand (xxvii.
9-19). Directions concerning the materials to be
used in connection with the permanent features:
(the ahewbread consisted of twelve loaves of ordi
nary bread, and hence specific directions for the
making of it were not required), specifications con
cerning the oil for the continual light (xxvii. 20,
21). (2) Provision for man's approach to Jehovah:
priests (xxviii. 1); their garments (xxviii. 2-43)
and their consecration (xxix. 1-35); consecration
of the altar of burnt offerings (xxix. 36, 37), and
the daily morning and evening offering upon it for
the nation (xxix. 38-46). After the mediating
priesthood and the daily sacrifice have been pro
vided, the offering of incense, symbolical of the
prayers of God's people as being well-pleasing to
Jehovah, is fitting; hence there follows the altar
of incense (xxx. 1-10). (3) Provision for the
things needed in this approach of man to God:
for defraying the expenses (xxx. 11-16); for priestly
functions, viz., the lever (xxa. 17-21), oil for
anointing the vessels (xsx. 22-33), and incense
(xxx. 34-38); for the work of building the tabernacle, skilled artificers (xxxi. 1-11). In this description the altar of incense, which symbolized the
obligatory and acceptable adoration of God by his
people, is not mentioned until provision has been
made for sinful man to approach Jehovah. The
place given to it in the specifications has its reason
in the symbolism. Other considerations determine
the order of narration afterward; other laws of
association prevail, and the altar of incense is
grouped with the furniture of the tabernacle (xxxv.
15, xxsvii. 25), or is mentioned at the proper place
locally (xl. 5). It belonged to the holy of holies,
before the mercy seat
(
I Kings vi. 22
R.V.;
Heb. ix. 4);
but, since none might enter the most holy
place save the high priest and he but once in the
year, the altar of incense was set in the holy place,
in front of the veil
that separated the holy from the
most holy place, in order that the priest might
officiate at it daily. Wealth was lavished on this
movable and evidently temporary sanctuary. The
gold alone amounted to twenty-nine talents or
nearly nine hundred thousand dollars, and the silver raised by taxation to two hundred thousand
dollars (xxxviii. 24-31), and this in addition to the
silver, bronze, and precious stones given voluntarily (xsxv. 5-8, 21-29). But the riches were not
wasted. The journey to the promised land might
be accomplished in a few days
(
Deut. i. 2),
but the
tabernacle must serve during the expected ware of
conquest and during the confusion of settlement
and home-making. And, moreover, costly stuff
was not used for things of a temporary nature.
The housing was comparatively inexpensive, ant)
the materials for it were at hand. The acacia wood
might be had in the wilderness for the cutting, and
the skins for the outer covering of the tent from
the aquatic animals in the neighboring sea; while
from their own flocks the rams' skins and goats'
hair were obtainable. The precious metals went
into the costly furniture of the sanctuary, which
might be used for centuries, and into the gold
plating and silver sockets of the boards. They
would not
be lost to the treasury of the Lord, even
though a more substantial temple might ultimately
be erected.
