PENTATEUCH
660
PENTATEUCH
Bcsiiles, the Biniks of Josuo and Paralipomenon ac-
kuowktige the distinction between priests and Levites;
according to I Kings, vi, 15, the Levitos handled the
ark, but the Bethsaniites, the inhabitants of a priestly
city (Jos., xxi. 13-()), offered sacrifice.
A simihir distinction is made in II Kings, xv, 24; 111 Kings, viii, 3 sq.; Is., Ixvi, 21. Van Hoonacker ("Les pretres ot Ics levites dans le livre d'Ezcchiol" in"Kevuc bibliquc", 1899, VIII, 180-189, 192-194) Bhows that ICzochiel did not create the distinction between priests and Levites, but that supposing the traditional distinction in existence, he suggested a divisiim into these classes according to merit, and not according; to hirtli (xliv, 15-xlv, 5). Unless the critics simply set lu-iide all this historical evidence, they must grant the existence of an Aaronitic priesthood in Israel, and its division into priests and Levites, long before the D and F codes were i)ronmlgated according to the critical t heory . It is true that in a number of passages persons are said to offer sacrifice who are not of Aaronitic descent: Judges, vi, 25 sqq.; xiii, 9; I Kings, vii, 9; x, 8; xiii, 9; II Kings, vi, 17; xxiv, 25; III Kings, \Tii, 5, 62; etc. But in the first place, the phrase "to offer sacrifice" means either to furnish the victim (Lev., i, 2, 5) or to perform the sacrificial rite; the victim might be furnished by any devout lay- man; secondly, it would be hard to prove that God committed the priestly office in such a way to Aaron and his sons as not to reserve to himself the liberty of delegating in extriordinary cases a non-Aaronite to perform the pric-stK fuiirlii.ns.
(iii) Penlalevilhil lirilnclinn. — The four documen- tary sources of tlu' I'cnt^iteuch thus far described were combined not by any one individual; critics require rather three ditferent stages of combination: first, a Yahwislic redactor Hie or Ri combined J and E with a view of harmonizing them, and adapting them to Deuteronomic ideas; this happened either before or after the redaction of D. Secondly, after D had been completed in the sixth century b. c, a redactor, or perhaps a school of redactors, imbued with the spirit of D combined the document with JE into JED, intro- ducing however the modifications necessary to secure consistency. Thirdly, a last redactor Rp imbued with the letter and the spirit of P, combined this document with JED, introducing again the necessary changes. The table of nations in Gen., xiv was according to Kunen atldcd by this last redactor.
At first sight, one is struck bj- the complex character of this theory; as a rule, truth is of a more simple texture. Secondly, one is impressed by the unique nature of the liypotlicsis; antiquity has nothing to equal it. Thirdly, if one reads or studies the Penta- teuch in the light of this theorj', one is impressed by the whimsical character of the redactor; he often retained what shoidd have been omitted, and omitted what should have been retained. The critics themselves have to take refuge, time and time again, in the work of the redactor, in order to save their own views of the Pentateuch. A recent writer does not hesitate to call the complex redactor ein genialer Esel. Fourthly, a truth-loving, straightforward reader is naturally shocked by the literary fictions and forgeries, the editorial changes and subterfuges impUed in the crit- ical theory of the Pentateuchal documents and redac- tion. The more moderate critics endeavour to escape this inconvenience: some appeal to the difference between the ancient and the modern standard of liter- ary property and (editorial accuracy; others practi- cally .sanctify the means by the end. Oettli considers the dilemma "either the work of Moses or the work of a deceiver" as the expression of sheer imprudence; Kautzsch unctiously points to the depth of the wis- dom and the knowledge of God whose ways we cannot fathom, but must admire. The left wing of criticism openly acknowledges that there is no use in hushing up matters; it actually is the result of scientific re-
search that both form and contents of a great part of
the Old Testament are based on conscious fiction and
forgery.
IV. Style of the PENTATEncH. — In some general introductions to the Pentateuch its Messianic proph- ecies are specially considered, i. e., the so-called proto-evangelium, Gen., iii, 15; the blessing of Sem, Gen., ix, 2(>-7; the patriarchal promises. Gen., xii, 2; xiii, 16; xv, 5; xvii, 4-6, 16; xviii, 10-15; xxii, 17; xxvi, 4; xxviii, 14; the blessing of the dying Jacob, Gen., xlix, 8-10; the Prophecy of Balaam, Num., xxiv, 15 sqq.; and the great Prophet announced by Moses, Deut., xviii, 15-19. But these prophecies be- long rather to the province of exegesis than introduc- tion. Again, the text of the Pentateuch has been con- sidered in some general introductions to the work. We have seen already that besides the Massoretic Text we have to take into account the earlier text followed by the Septuagint translators, and the still earlier readings of the Samaritan Pentateuch; a detailed investigation of this subject belongs to the field of textual or lower criticism. But the style of the Penta- teuch can hardly be referred to any other department of Pentateuchal study.
As Moses employed no doubt pre-existent docu- ments in the composition of his work, and as he must have made use too of the aid of secretaries, we expect antecedently a variety of style in the Pentateuch. It is no doubt due to the presence of this literary phe- nomenon that the critics have found so many points of support in their minute analysis. But in general, the style of the work is in keeping with its contents. There are three kinds of material in the Pentateuch: first, there are statistics, genealogies, and legal for- mularies; secondly, there are narrative portions; thirdly, there are parenetic sections.
No reader will find fault with the writer's dry and simple style in his genealogical and ethnographic lists, in his table of encampments in the desert, or his legal enactments. Any other literary expression would be out of place in records of this kind. The narrative style of the Pentateuch is simple and natural, but also lively and picturesque. It abounds in simple charac- ter .sketches, ilialogues, and anecdotes. The accounts of Abraham's purchase of a burying-ground, of the history of Joseph, and of the Egyptian plagues are almost dramatic. Deuteronomy has its peculiar style on account of the exhortations it contains. Moses explains the laws he promulgates, hut urges also, and maiidy, their practice. As an orator, he shows a great deal of unci ion and persuasiveness, but is not destitute of t lie earnest iiess of the Prophets. His long sentences reiiiaiti al times incomplete, thus giving rise to so- called anacolutha(cf. Dt., vi, 10-12; viii, 11-17; ix,9- ll;xi, 2-7; xxiv, 1-4). Being necessarily a popular preacher, he is not lacking in repetitions. But his earnestness, persuasiveness, and unction do not inter- fere with the clearness of his statements. He is not merely a rigid legislator, but he shows his love for the people, and in turn wins their love and confidence.
Many workg referring to the Pentateuch have been cited throughout the course of this article. We shall here add a list of mainly exegetical works, both ancient and modern, without at- tempting to give a complete catalogue.
Patristic Writers. — Eastern Church: — Origen, Selecta in Gen., P. C, XII, 91-145; Idem, Homil. in Gen., ibid.. 145-62; Idem. Selecta el homil. in Ex., Lev., Num., Deut., ibid., 263-818; Idem, Fragmenta in P. G., XVII, 11-36; St. B.isil, Homil. in Hexatmer. in P. a., XXIX. 3-208; St. Gregorv of Ntssa. In Hexatmer. in P. G., XLIV, 61-124; Idem, De homin. opific, ibid., 124-297; Idem. De vita Moysis. ibid., 297-430; .St. John Chryh.. Homil. in Gen. in P. G., LIII, LIV, 23-580; Idem, Serm. in Gen. in P. G., LIV. 581-630; St. Ephr.. Comment, in Pentat. in Oper. syr., I. 1- 115; St. Ctril op Alex.. De adoratione in spiritu in P. Q., LXVIII, 133-1125; Glaphyra in P. G., LXIX, 13-677; Theo- DORETUS. Qutest. in Gen., Ex., Lev., Num., Deut. in P. G., LXXX. 76-456; Procopius of Gaza. Comment, in Oclateuch. in P. G., I.XXXVII, 21-992; Nicephorus. Catena in Oclateuch. et libroa Reg. (Leipzig. 1772). .
Western Church: — St. Ambrose. In Hexatmer. in P. L., AlV, 123-274; Idem, De Paradiso terrestri, ibid., 275-314; Idem. De Cain el Abel, ibid., 315-60; Idem, De Noe et area, ibid., 361-416;
