PENTATEUCH
658
PENTATEUCH
agree. Dillmann, Kittcl, Konig, and Winckler place
the Elohist, who is subdivided by several writers into
the first, second, and third Elohist, before the Ynh-
wist, who also is divided into the first and second
Yahwist; but Wellhausen and most critics believe
that the Elohist is about a century younger than the
Yahwist. .Vt any rate, both are assigned to about the
ninth and eighth centuries B. c; both too incorporate
earlier traditions or even documents.
All critics appear to agree as to the composite char- acter of Deuteronomy; they admit rather a Deuter- onomist school than single writers. Still, the succes- sive la\ers composing the whole book are briefly designated by D', D', D', etc. As to the character of these layers, the critics do not agree: Montet and Driver, for instance, assign to the first Deuteronomist cc. i-.\xi; Kuenen, Konig, Reuss, Renan, Westphal ascribe to D', iv, 45-9, and v-x.xvi; a third class of critics reduce D' to xii, l-x-wi, 19, allowing it a double edition: according to Wellhausen, the first edition contained i, 1-iv, 44; xii-xxvi; x.\vii, while the second comprised iv, 45-,\i, 39; xii-xxvi; x.xviii-xxx; both editions were combined by the redactor who inserted Deuteronomy into the Hexateuch. Cornill arranges the two editions somewhat differently. Horst con- siders even cc. xii-xxvi as a compilation of pre-existing elements, gathered together without order and often by chance. Wellhausen and his adherents do not wish to assign to D' a higher age than 621 b. c, Cornill and Bertholet consider the document as a summary of the prophetic teaching, Colenso and Renan ascribe it to Jeremias, others place its origin in the reign of Ezechias or Manasses, Klostermann identifies the document with the book read before the people in the time of Josaphat, while Kleinert refers it back to the end of the time of the Judges. The Deuteronomist depends on the two preceding documents, .J and E, both for his history and his legislation; the historical details not found in these may have been derived from other sources not known to us, and the laws not contained in the Sinaitic legislation and the decalogue are either pure fiction or a crystallization of the prophetic teaching.
Finally, the Priestly Code, P, is also a compilation : the first stratum of the book, both historical and legal in its character, is designated by P' or P«; the second stratum is the law of holiness, H or Lev., xvii-xxvi, and is the work of a contemporary of Ezechiel, or per- haps of the Prophet himself (H, P', P) ; besides, there are additional elements springing rather from a school than from any single writer, and designated by Kilnen as P', P*, P', but by other critics as P' and P'. Ber- tholet and Biintsch speak of two other collections of laws: the law of sacrifices, Lev., i-vii, designated as P"; and the law of purity. Lev., xi-xv, designated as P". The first documentary hypothesis considered P' as the oldest part of the Pentateuch ; Duston and Dill- mann place it before the Deuteronomic code, but most recent critics regard it as more recent than the other documents of the Pentateuch, and even later than Ezech., xliv, 10-xlvi, 15 (57.3-2 b. c); the fol- lowers of Wellhau.sen date the Priestly Code after the return from the Babylonian Captivity, while Wildeboer places it either after or towards the end of the cap- tivity. The historical parts of the Priestly Code de- Eend on the Yahwistic and the Elohistic documents, ut Wellhausen's adherents believe that the material of these documents has been manipulated so as to fit it for the special purpo.se of the Priestly Code; Dill- mann and Driver maintain that facts have not been invented or falsified by P, but that the latter had at hand other historical documents besides ,1 and E. As to the legal part of P, Wellhausen considers it as an a priori programme for the Jewish priesthood after the return from the captivity, projected backwards into the past, and attributed to Moses; but other critics believe that P has systematized the pre-exilic customs
of worship, developing them, and adapting them to the
new circumstances.
\\'hat has been said clearly shows that the critics are at variance in many respects, but they are at one in maintaining the post-Mosaic origin of the Penta- tcuchal documents. What is the weight of the reasons on which they base their opinion? (a) The conditions laid down by the critics as prerequisites to literature do not prove that the sources of the Pentateuch must be post-Mosaic. The Hebrew people had lived for, at least, two hundred years in Egypt; besides, most of the forty years spent in the desert were passed in the neighbourhood of Cades, so that the Israelites were no longer a nomadic people. Whatever may be said of their material prosperity, or of their proficiency in writing and reading, the above-mentioned researches of Flinders Petrie show that they kept records of their national traditions at the time of Moses. (^) If the Hebrew contemporaries of Moses kept written records, why should not the Pentateuchal sources be among these documents? It is true that in our actual Penta- teuch we find non-Mosaic and po.st-Mosaic indica- tions; but, then, the non-Mosaic, impersonal style may be due to a literary device, or to the pen of secre- taries; the post-Mosaic geographical and historical indications may have crept into the text by way of glosses, or errors of the transcribers, or even inspired additions. The critics cannot reject these suggestions as mere subterfuges; for they should have to grant a continuous miracle in the preservation of the Penta- teuchal text, if they were to deny the moral certainty of the presence of such textual changes.
(7) But would not the Pentateuch have been known to the earlier Prophets, if it had been handed down from the time of Moses? This critical exception is really an argument e silenlio which is very apt to be fallacious, unless it be most carefully handled. Be- sides, if we keep in mind the labour involved in multi- plying copies of the Pentateuch, we cannot be wrong in assuming that they were very rare in the interval between Closes and the Prophets, so that few were able to read the actual text. Again, it has been pointed out that at least one of the earlier Prophets appeals to a written Mosaic law, and that all appeal to such a national conscience as presupposes the Pen- tateuchal history and law. Finally, some of the critics maintain that J views the history of man and of Israel according to the religious and the moral ideas of the Prophets; if there be such an agreement, why not say that the Prophets write according to the religious and moral ideas of the Pentateuch? (S) The critics urge the fact that the Pentateuchal laws concerning the sanctuary, the sacrifices, the feasts, and the priesthood agree with different stages of post-Mosaic historical development; that the second stage agrees with the reform of Josia.s, and the third with the enactments enforced after the time of the Babylonian Exile. But it must be kept in mind that the Mosaic law was in- tended for Israel as the Christian law is intended for the whole world; if then 1900 years after Christ the greater part of the world is still un-Christian, it is not astonishing that the Mosaic law required centuries before it penetrated the whole nation. Besides, there were, no doubt, many violations of the law, just as the Ten Commandments are violated to-day without det- riment to their legal promulgation. Again there were times of religious reforms and disasters as there are periods of religious fervour and coldness in the history of the Christian Church; but such human frailties do not imply the non-existence of the law, either Mosaic or Christian. As to the particular laws in question, it will be found more satisfactory to examine them more in detail.
(ii) Pentateuchal Codes. — The critics endeavour to establish a triple Pentateuchal code: the Book of the Covenant, Deuteronomy, and the Priestly Code. Instead of regarding this legislation as applying to
