PENTATEUCH
655
PENTATEUCH
Organic Unity of the Pentateuch", London, 1904;
Wiener, "Studies in Bibhcal Law", London, 1904;
Rouse, "The Old Testament in New Testament
Light", London, 1905; Redpath, "Modern Criticism
and the Book of Genesis", London, 1905; Hoberg,
"Moses und der Pentateuch", Freiburg, 1905; Orr,
"The Problem of the Old Testament considered with
reference to Recent Criticism", London, 1906.
E. Opponents of the Mosaic Authorship of the Pen- tateuch. — A detailed account of the opposition to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is neither desirable nor necessary in this article. In itself it would form only a noisome history of human errors; each httle system has had its day, and its successors have tried their best to bury it in hushed oblivion. The actual difficulties we have to consider are those advanced by our actual opponents of to-day; only the fact that the systems of the past show us the fleet- ing and transitory character of the actual theories now in vogue can induce us to briefly enumerate the successive views upheld by the opponents of the Mosaic authorship.
(1) Abandoned Theories. — The views advanced by the Valentinian Ptolemy, the Nazarites, Abenesra, Carlstadt, Isaac Peyrerius, Baruch Spinoza, Jean Leclerc are sporadic phenomena. Not all of them were wholly incompatible with the Mosaic authorship as now understood, and the others have found their answer in their own time. — With the work of John Astruc, published in 1753, began the so-called Hy- pothesis of Documents which was further developed by Eichhorn and Ilgen. But the works of the sus- pended priest, Alexander Geddes, published in 1792 and ISOO, introduced the Hypothesis of Fragments, which in its day was elaborated and championed by Vater, de Wette (temporarily at least), Berthold, Hartmann, and von Bohlen. This theory was soon confronted by, and had to yield to the Hypothesis of Complements or Interpolations which numbered among its patrons Kelle, Ewald, Stiihelin, Bleek, Tuch, de Wette, von Lengerke, and for a brief period also Franz Delitzsch. The theory of interpolations again had hardly found any arUierents before Gram- berg (1828), Stahelin (1830), and Bleek (1831) re- turned to the Hypothesis of Documents, proposing it in a somewhat modified form. Subsequently, Ewald, Knobel, Hupfeld, Noldeke, and Schrader ad- vanced each a different explanation of the documen- tary hypothesis. But all of these are at present only of an historical interest.
(2) Present Hypothesis of Documents. — A course of religious development in Israel had been proposed by Reuss in 1830 and 1834, by Vatke in 1835, and by George in the same year. In 1865-66 Graf took up this idea and applied it to the literary criticism of the Hexateuch; for the critics had begun to consider the Book of Josue as belonging to the preceding five books, 80 that the collection formed a Hexateuch instead of a Pentateuch. The same application was made by Merx m 1869. Thus modified the documentary the- ory continued in its development until it reached the state described in the translation of the Bible by Kautzsch (3rd ed., with Introduction and Annotations, Tubingen, 1908 .sqq.). In itself there is nothing against the assumption of documents written by Moses; but we cannot ascribe with certainty any- thing of our literary remains to the hands of the Hebrew lawgiver. The beginning of written accounts must be placed towards the end of the time of Judges; only then were fulfilled the conditions which must pre- cede the origin of a literature properly so called, i. e., a general acquaintance with the art of writing and reading, stationary settlement of the people, and na- tional prosperity. What then are the oldest literary remains of the Hebrews? They are the collections of the songs dating from the heroic time of the nation, e. g., the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num., xxi,
14), the Book of the Just (Jos., x, 12 sqq.), the Book ol
Songs (III Kings, viii, 53; cf. Budde, "Geschichtc der
althebr. Litcratur", Leipzig, 1906, 17). The Book of
the Covenant (Ex., xx, 24-xxiii, 19) too must have
existed before the other sources of the Pentateuch.
The oldest historical work is probably the book of the
Yahwist, designated by J, and ascribed to the priest-
hood of Juda, belonging most probably to the ninth
century B.C.
Akin to this is the Elohim document, designated by E, and written probably in the northern kingdom (Ephraim) about a century after the production of the Yahweh document. These two sources were com- bined by a redactor into one work soon after the middle of the sixth century. Next follows the law- book almost entirely embodied in our actual Book of Deuteronomy, discovered in the temple 621 B. c, and containing the precipitate of the prophetic teaching which advocated the abolition of the sacrifices in the so-called high places and the centralization of worship in the temple of Jerusalem. During the Exile orig- inated the Priestly Code, P, based on the so-called law of holiness, Lev., x\-ii-xx-vi, and the programme of Ezechiel, xl-xlviii; the substance of P was read before the post-exilic community by Esdras about 444 B. c. (II Esd., \-iii-x), and was accepted by the multitude. History does not tell us when and how these divers historical p.nd legal sources were combined into our present Pentateuch; but it is generally assumed that there was an urgent call for a compilation of the tra- dition and pre-exilic historj' of the people. The only indication of time may be found in the fact that the Samaritans accepted the Pentateuch as a sacred book probably in the fourth century B. c. Considering their hatred for the Jews, one must conclude that they would not have taken this step, unless they had felt certain of the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. Hence a considerable time must have intervened between the compilation of the Pentateuch and its acceptance by the Samaritans, so that the work of combining must be placed in the fifth century. It is quite generally agreed that the last redactor of the Pentateuch com- pleted his task with great adroitness. Without alter- ing the text of the older sources, he did all within man's power to fuse the heterogeneous elements into one apparent (?) whole, wnth such success that not only the Jews after the fourth century B. c, but also the Christians for many centuries could maintain their conviction that the entire Pentateuch was writ- ten by Moses.
(3) Deficiencies of the Critical Hypothesis. — As several Pentateuchal critics have endeavoured to assign the last redaction of the Pentateuch to more recent dates, its placement in the fifth century may be regarded as rather favourable to conservative views. But it is hard to understand why the patrons of this opinion should not agree in considering Esdras as the last editor. Again, it is quite certain that the last edition of the Pentateuch must have notably preceded its acceptance on the part of the Samaritans as a sacred book; but is it probable that the Samaritans would have accepted the Pentateuch as such in the fourth century B. c, when the national and religious opposition between them and Jews was well devel- oped? Is it not more probable that the mixed nation of Samaria received the Pentateuch through the priest sent to them from As.syria? Cf . IV Kings, xvii, 27. Or again, as this priest instructed the Samaritan population in the law of the god of the country, is it not reasonable to suppose that he taught them the Pentateuchal law which the ten tribes carried with them when they separated from Juda? At any rate, the fact that the Samaritans accepted as sacred only the Pentateuch, but not the Prophets, leads us to infer that the Pentateuch existed among the Jews before a collection of the prophetic writings was made, and that Samaria chose its sacred book before even Juda
