MM
}g- ipi ' i|'
s'M 'ji, ■-■¥*'.,'_; , •?!*? \ . .
*•¥
V$>
' •y; ^■
THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
^Ijc |nicnTati0naI ©Ijcalagitiil i^tbnirjr.
EDITORS' PREFACE.
Theology has made great and rapid advances in recent years. New lines of investigation have been opened up, fresh light has been cast upon many subjects of the deepest interest, and the historical method has been applied with important results. This has prepared the way for a Library of Theological Science, and has created the demand for it. It has also made it at once opportune and practicable now to secure the services of special- ists in the different departments of Theology, and to associate them in an enterprise which will furnish a record of Theological inquiry up to date.
Thj^^Bprary is designed to cover the whole field of Christian ThecMfyT Each volume is to be complete in itself, while, at the same fftne, it will form part of a carefully planned whole. One of thdi Editors is to prepare a volume of Theological Encyclo- paedia which will give the history and literature of each depart- ment, as well as of Theology as a whole.
The Library is intended to form a series of Text-Books for Students of Theology.
The Authors, therefore, aim at conciseness and compactness of statement. At the same time, they have in view that large
a
" EDITORS' PREFACE.
and increasing class of students, in other departments of inquiry, who desire to have a systematic and thorough exposition of Theological Science. Technical matters will therefore be thrown into the form of notes, and the text will be made as readable and attractive as possible.
The Library is international and interconfessional. It will be conducted in a catholic spirit, and in the interests of Theology as a science.
Its aim will be to give full and impartial statements both of the results of Theological Science and of the questions which are still at issue in the different departments.
The Authors will be scholars of recognised reputation in the several branches of study assigned to them. They will be associ- ated with each other and with the Editors in the effort to pro- vide a series of volumes which may adequately represent the present condition of investigation, and indicate the way for further progress.
STEWART D. F. SALMOND. CHARLES A. BRIGGS.
THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.
•4«-
In connection with this Series, in announcing that the following
for:—
An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament.
Theology of the Old Testament.
An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament.
Contemporary History of the Old Testament.
History of Christian Doctrine.
the Publishers have pleasure Volumes are already arranged
Apologetics.
Comparative Religion. Symbolics.
Philosophy of Religion.
Christian Ethics.
Christian Institutions.
The Apostolic Church.
By S. R. Driver, D.D., Regius Pro- fessor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Cliurcli, Oxford.
{Now ready.)
By A. B. Davidson, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, New College, Edinburgh.
By S. D. F. Salmond, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology and New Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, Aberdeen.
By Francis Brown, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union Theological Seminary, New York.
By G. P. Fisher, D.D., LL.D., Pro- fessor of Ecclesiastical History, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.
By A. B. Bruce, D.D., Professor of New Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow.
By A. M. Fairbairn, D. D., Principal of Mansfield College, Oxford.
By Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Church History, Union Theological Seminary, New York.
By Robert Flint, D.D., LL.D., Pro- fessor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh.
By Newman Smyth, D.D., Pastor of the First Congregational Church, New Haven, Conn.
By A. V. G. Allen, D.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, Mass.
By Arthur C. M'Giffert, Ph.D., Professor of Church History, Lane Theological Seminary, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Edinburgh: T. & T. CLARK, 38 George Street. New York: CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS, 743-745 Broadway.
Ube international Ubeolooical Xibrarp.
EDITED BY
STEWART D. F. SALMOND, D.D.,
Professor of Systematic Theology and Neiv Testa7izciit Exegesis, Free Church College, Aberdeen;
AND
CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D.,
Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, Neiu York.
I. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
By Prof. S. R. DRIVER, D.D.
PRINTED BY MORRISON AND OIBB, FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON, HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
DUBLIN, GEORGE HERBERT.
NEW YORK, CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS.
International Theological Library.
' AN INTEODUCTION
TO THE
LITEEATUEE OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT
BY
S. R. DRIVER, D.D,.
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, AND CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD; FORMERLY FELLOW OF NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD.
SECOND EDITION.
EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
189L
{The Rights of Translation and of Reproduction are Resei~ved,)
^
i-
J
PREFACE.
More than three years have elapsed since I undertook to pre- pare an Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. Although the more important parts of the ground were already familiar to me, other occupations prevented my being able to complete it until now. I ought, in the first instance, to guard against any misapprehension as to the scope of the work. It is not an Introduction to the Theology, or to the History, or even to the Study, of the Old Testament : in any of these cases, the treatment and contents would both have been very different. It is an Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament; and what I conceived this to include was an account of the contents and structure of the several books, together with such an indication of their general character and aim as I could find room for in the space at my disposal.^ For it is not more than just to myself that I should state that by the terms of my agreement I was limited in space : I had to do the best that I could within an average, for the longer books, of 20-25 pages. There have been many matters on which I would gladly have given fuller par- ticulars : there have been opinions which I should often have been glad to notice, or discuss more fully than I have done, if only out of respect for those who held them : but my limits have forbidden this, and I have repeatedly omitted, or abbreviated, what I had originally written — sometimes, no doubt, to the reader's advantage, though not perhaps always so. Hence, while I am prepared to accept full responsibility for what I have said, for what I have not said I must put in a plea to be judged leniently.
'^ The Theology of the Old Testament forms the subject of a separate volume in the present series, which has been entrusted to the competent hands of Professor A. B. Davidson, of the New College, Edinburgh.
ix
X PREFACE.
A perfectly uniform treatment of the material has not been aimed at. The treatment has varied with the character of the different books. The contents of the prophetical and poetical books, for instance, which are less generally known than the history, properly so called, have been stated more fully than those of the historical books : the legislative parts of the Pentateuch have also been described with tolerable fulness. The relation to one another of the parallel parts of the Old Testament has been explained in some detail, as these have often an important bear- ing upon the structure and authorship of the books concerned. Much attention has been paid to the lists of expressions charac- teristic of the style of particular writers. These have, in most cases been drawn up, and in all cases independently tested and verified, by myself; and care has been taken to exclude from them^ words of slight or no significance. Distinctive types of style prevail in different parts of the Old Testament ; and it is hoped that at least the more important of these types may thus be brought before the notice of students : though naturally the full significance of such lists and their mutual bearing upon one another will only be apprehended by one familiar with the whole of the Old Testament, and able to view its parts in their true perspec- tive. It was impossible to avoid altogether the introduction of Hebrew words ; nor indeed, as the needs of Hebrew students could not with fairness be entirely neglected, was it even desir- able to do so ; but an endeavour has been made, by translation, to make the manner in which they are used intelligible to the English reader.
Completeness has not been attainable. Sometimes, indeed, the grounds for a conclusion have been stated with approximate completeness ; but generally it has been found impossible to mention more than the more salient or important ones. This is especially the case in the analysis of the Hexateuch. A full statement and discussion of the grounds for this belongs to a Commentary. Very often, however, it is believed, when the relation of different passages to each other has been pointed out briefly, a comparative study by the reader will suggest to him additional grounds for the conclusion indicated. A word should also be said on the method followed. A strict inductive. method would have required a given conclusion to be preceded by an ^ With the limitation noted on p. 167, n. 2.
PREFACE. XI
enumeration of all the facts upon which it depends. This would have been impossible within the limits at the writer's disposal, as well as tedious. The method pursued has thus often been to assume (on grounds not fully stated, but which have satisfied the author) the conclusion to be established, and to point to particu- lar salient facts, which exemplify it or presuppose its truth. The argument in the majority of cases is cumulative — a species of argument which is both the strongest and also the one which it is most frequently impossible to exhaust within reasonable compass.
In the critical study of the Old Testament, there is an im- portant distinction, which should be kept in mind. It is that of degrees of probability. The probability of a conclusion depends upon the nature of the grounds on which it rests ; and some conclusions reached by critics of the Old Testament are for this reason more probable than others : the facts at our disposal being in the former case more numerous and decisive than in the latter. It is necessary to call attention to this difference, because writers who seek to maintain the traditional view of the structure of the Old Testament sometimes point to conclusions which, from the nature of the case, are uncertain, or are propounded avowedly as provisional, with the view of discrediting all, as though they rested upon a similar foundation. But this is very far from being the case. It has been no part of my object to represent conclusions as more certain than is authorized by the facts upon which they depend ; and I have striven (as I hope successfully) to convey to the reader the differences in this respect of which I am sensible myself. Where the premises satisfy me, I have expressed myself without hesitation or doubt ; where the data do not justify (so far as I can judge) a confident conclusion, I have indicated this by some qualifying phrase. I desire what I have just said to be applied in particular to the analysis of the Hexateuch. That the " Priests' Code " formed a clearly defined document, distinct from the rest of the Hexa- teuch, appears to me to be more than sufficiently established by a multitude of convergent indications ; and I have nowhere signified any doubt on this conclusion. On the other hand, in the remainder of the narrative of Gen. -Numbers and of Joshua, though there are facts which satisfy me that this also is not homogeneous, I believe that the analysis (from the nature of
XII PREFACE.
the criteria on which it depends) is frequently uncertain,^ and will, perhaps, always continue so. Accordingly, as regards "JE," as I have more than once remarked, I do not desire to lay equal stress upon all the particulars of the analysis, or to be supposed to hold that the line of demarcation between its component parts is at every point as clear and certain as it is between P and other parts of the Hexateuch.
Another point necessary to be borne in mind is that many results can only be approximate. Even where there is no ques- tion of the author, we can sometimes only determine the date within tolerably wide limits {e.g. Nahum) ; and even where the limits are narrower, there may still be room for difference of opinion, on account of the different aspects of a passage which most strongly impress different critics {e.g. in some of the acknowledged prophecies of Isaiah). Elsewhere, again, grounds may exist sufficient to justify the negative conclusion, that a writing does not belong to a particular age or author, but not definite enough to fix positively the age to which it does belong, except within broad and general limits. In all such cases we must be content with approximate results.
It is in the endeavour to reach definite conclusions upon the basis either of imperfect data, or of indications reasonably sus- ceptible of divergent interpretations, that the principal disagree- ments between critics have their origin. Language is sometimes used implying that critics are in a state of internecine conflict with one another.^ This is not in accordance with the facts. There is a large area on which the data are clear, and critics are agreed. And this area includes many of the most important results which criticism has reached. There is an area beyond this, where the data are complicated or ambiguous ; and here it is not more than natural that independent judges should differ. Perhaps future study may reduce this margin of uncertainty. I make no claim to have admitted into the present volume only those conclusions on which all critics are agreed ; for naturally
^ See pp. 14, 17 f., 36, 109 f., etc. The same admission is constantly made by Wellhausen, Kuenen, and other critics — most recently by Kautzsch and Socin in the second edition (i 891) of the work named on p. 12, p. xi.
- It may not be superfluous to observe that, from allusions to the subject in contemporary literature, no accurate opinion can commonly be formed as to either the principles or the results of the critical study of the Old Testament.
PREFACE. XUl
I have followed the guidance of my own judgment as to what was probable or not; but where alternative views appeared to me to be tenable, or where the opinion towards which I inclined only partially satisfied me, I have been careful to indicate this to the reader. I have, moreover, made it my aim to avoid specula- tion upon slight and doubtful data ; or, at least, if I have been unable absolutely to avoid it, I have stated distinctly of what nature the data are {e.g. p. 209 f ).
Polemical references, with very few exceptions, I have avoided : in this case, the limitation of space coincided with my own in- clinations. It must not, however, be thought that, because I do not more frequently discuss divergent opinions, I am therefore unacquainted with them. I have been especially careful to acquaint myself with the views of Keil, and of other writers on the traditional side. Upon no occasion have I adopted what may be termed a critical as opposed to a conservative position, without weighing fully the arguments advanced in support of the latter, and satisfying myself that they were untenable.
Naturally a work like the present is founded largely on the labours of previous scholars. Since Gesenius, in the early years of this century, inaugurated a new epoch in the study of Hebrew, there has been a succession of scholars, of the highest and most varied ability, who have been fascinated by the literature of ancient Israel, and have dedicated their lives to its elucidation. Each has contributed of his best : and those who come after stand upon the vantage-ground won for them by their pre- decessors. In exegesis and textual criticism, not less than in literary criticism, there has been a steady advance.^ The historical significance of different parts of the Old Testament — the aim and drift of individual prophecies, for instance, or the relation to one another of parallel groups of laws — has been far more carefully observed than was formerly the case. While in fairness to myself I think it right to state that my volume embodies the results of much independent work, — for I never accept the dictum or conclusion of any critic without satisfying myself, by personal study, that the grounds alleged in its support are adequate, — I desire at the same time to acknowledge my in-
1 The progress in the two former may be measured approximately by the Revised Version, or (in some respects, more adequately) by the notes in the " Variorum Bible " of Eyre & Spottiswoode.
XIV PREFACE.
debtedness to those who have preceded me, and facilitated my labours. The references will generally indicate who the author- ities are that have been principally of service to me ; naturally they vary in different parts of the Old Testament.
It does not fall within the scope of the present volume to deal with either the Theology or the History of the Old Testament, as such : nevertheless a few words may be permitted on them here.
It is impossible to doubt that the main conclusions of critics with reference to the authorship of the books of the Old Testa- ment rest upon reasonings the cogency of which cannot be denied without denying the ordinary principles by which history is judged and evidence estimated. Nor can it be doubted that the same conclusions, upon any neutral field of investigation, would have been accepted without hesitation by all conversant with the subject : they are only opposed in the present instance by some theologians, because they are supposed to conflict with the requirements of the Christian faith. But the history of astronomy, geology, and, more recently, of biology,^ supplies a warning that the conclusions which satisfy the common unbi- assed and unsophisticated reason of mankind prevail in the end. The price at which alone the traditional view can be maintained is too high. 2 Were the difiiculties which beset it isolated or occasional, the case, it is true, would be different : it could then, for instance, be reasonably argued that a fuller knowledge of the times might afford the clue that would solve them. But the phenomena which the traditional view fails to explain are too numerous for such a solution to be admissible ; they recur so systematically, that some cause or causes, for which that view makes no allowance, must be postulated to account for them. The hypothesis of glosses and marginal additions is a superficial remedy : the fundamental distinctions upon which the main con- clusions of critics depend remain untouched.'^
The truth, however, is that apprehensions of the character
^ Comp. the luminous and able treatment of this subject, on its theological side, by the late lamented Aubrey L. Moore in Science and the Faith (1889), asp. pp. xi-xlvii, and pp. 163-235.
- Of course there are many points at which tradition is not affected by criticism. I allude naturally to those in which the case is different.
•' These distinctions, it ought to be understood, in works written in defence of the traditional position, are, as a rule, very imperfectly stated, even where they are not ignored altogether.
PREFACE. XV
just indicated are unfounded. It is not the case that critical conclusions, such as those expressed in the present volume, are in conflict either with the Christian creeds or with the articles of the Christian faith. Those conclusions affect not the fact of revelation, but only its form. They help to determine the stages through which it passed, the different phases which it assumed, and the process by which the record of it was built up. They do not touch either the authority or the inspiration of the Scrip- tures of the Old Testament. They imply no change in respect to the Divine attributes revealed in the Old Testament; no change in the lessons of human duty to be derived from it ; no change as to the general position (apart from the interpretation of particular passages) that the Old Testament points forward prophetically to Christ.^ That both the religion of Israel itself, and the record of its history embodied in the Old Testament, are the work of men whose hearts have been touched, and minds illumined, in different degrees,'^ by the Spirit of God, is manifest : ^ but the recognition of this truth does not decide the question of the author by whom, or the date at which, particular parts of the Old Testament were committed to writing ; nor does it determine the precise literary character of a given narrative or book. No part of the Bible, nor even the Bible as a whole, is a logically articu- lated system of theology : the Bible is a " library," showing how men variously gifted by the Spirit of God cast the truth which they received into many different literary forms, as genius permitted or occasion demanded, — into poetry of various kinds, sometimes national, sometimes individual, sometimes even developing a truth in a form approaching that of the drama ; into prophetical dis-
1 Comp. Prof. Sanday's words in The Oracles of God {\%(^\), p. 7 — a volume which, with its counsels of wisdom and sobriety, I would gladly, if I might, adopt as the Preface to my own. See also now (Nov. 1891) the admirable work of Prof. A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Divine Library of the Old Testament.
2 I say, in different degrees ; for no one would attribute to the authors of some of the Proverbs, or of the Books of Esther or Ecclesiastes, the same degree of spiritual perception displayed, e.g. in Is. 40 — 66, or in the Psalms.
^ So, for instance, Riehm, himself a critic, speaking of the Pentateuch as a record of revelation, remarks on the "immediate impression" of this char- acter which it makes, and continues : "Every one who so reads the Penta- teuch as to allow its contents to work upon his spirit, must receive the impression that a consciousness of God such as is here expressed cannot be derived from flesh and blood" {Einkitung, § 28, "Der Pentateuch als Offen- barungsurkunde ").
XVI PREFACE.
courses, suggested mostly by some incident of the national life ; into proverbs, prompted by the observation of life and manners ; into laws, prescribing rules for the civil and religious government of the nation ; into narratives, sometimes relating to a distant or a nearer past, sometimes autobiographical ; and (to include the New Testament) into letters, designed, in the first instance, to meet the needs of particular churches or individuals. It is probable that every form of literary composition known to the ancient Hebrews was utilised as a vehicle of Divine truth, and is represented in the Old Testament.^ Hence the character of a particular part of the Old Testament cannot be decided by an a priori argument as regards what it must be ; it can only be determined by an application of the canons of evidence and probability universally employed in historical or literary investi- gation. None of the historians of the Bible claim supernatural enlightenment for the materials of their narrative -.^ it is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that these were derived by them from such human sources as were at the disposal of each particular writer ; in some cases from a writer's own personal knowledge, in others from earlier documentary sources, in others, especially in those relating to a distant past, from popular tradition. It was the function of inspiration to guide the individual writer in the choice and disposition of his material, and in his use of it for the inculcation of special lessons. And in the production of some parts of the Old Testament different hands co-operated, and have left traces of their work more or less clearly discernible. The whole is subordinated to the controlling agency of the Spirit of God, causing the Scriptures of the Old Testament to be profitable
•rfo^nrciii, Heb. I, I. On the manifold Voice of God as heard in the Old Testament, the writer may be permitted to refer to a sermon preached by him at Cambridge on A])ril 27, 1890, and printed in the supplement to the Cambridge Jieviexv, May i, 1890. See also the Contemporary KeviiW^ Feb. 1890, p. 229 f. ^ The preface to St. Luke's Gospel (Luke I, 1-4) is instructive in this respect. St. Luke only claims for his narrative that he has used in its com- position the care and research of an ordinary historian. Comp. Sanday, I.e. pp. 72-75: "In all that relates to the Revelation of God and of His Will, the writers [of the liible] assert for themselves a definite inspiration ; they claim to speak with an authority higher than their own. But in regard to the narrative of events, and to processes of literary composition, there is nothing so exceptional about them as to exempt them from the conditions to which other works would be exposed at the same place and time."
PREFACE. XVll
" for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction, which is in righteousness :" but under this presiding influence scope is left for the exercise, in different modes and ways, of the faculties ordinarily employed in literary composition. There is a human factor in the Bible, which, though quickened and sustained by the informing Spirit, is never wholly absorbed or neutralized by it ; and the limits of its operation cannot be ascertained by an arbitrary a priori determination of the methods of inspiration ; the only means by which they can be ascertained is by an assiduous and comprehensive study of the facts presented by the Old Testament itself.^
^ Two principles, once recognized, will be found to solve nearly all the difficulties which, upon the traditional view of the historical books of the Old Testament, are insuperable, viz. — (i) that in many parts of these books we have before us traditiofis, in which the original representation has been insensibly modified, and sometimes (especially in the later books) coloured by the associations of the age in which the author recording it lived ; (2) that some freedom was used by ancient historians in placing speeches or dis- courses in the mouths of historical characters. In some cases, no doubt, such speeches agreed substantially with what was actually said ; but often they merely develop at length, in the style and manner of the narrator, what was handed down only as a compendious report, or what was deemed to be consonant with the temper and aim of a given character on a particular occasion. No satisfactory conclusions with respect to the Old Testament will be arrived at without due account being taken of these two principles. Should it be feared that the first of these principles, if admitted, might imperil the foundations ol the Christian faith, it is to be pointed out that the records of the New Testament were produced under very different historical conditions ; that while in the Old Testament, for example, there are instances in which we can have no assurance that an event was recorded until many centuries after its occurrence, in the New Testament the interval at most is not more than 30-50 years. Viewed in the light of the unique personality of Christ, as depicted both in the common tradition embodied in the Synoptic Gospels and in the personal reminiscences underlying the fourth Gospel, and also as presupposed by the united testimony of the Apostolic writers belonging almost to the same generation, the circumstances are such as to forbid the supposition that the facts of our Lord's life on which the fundamental truths of Christianity depend can have been the growth of mere tradition, or are anything else than strictly historical. The same canon of historical criticism which authorizes the assumption of tradition in the Old Testament, forbids it- — except within the narrowest limits, as in some of the divergences apparent between the parallel narratives of the Gospels — in the case of the New Testament.
It is an error to suppose, as seems sometimes to be done, that topographical exploration, or the testimony of Inscriptions, supplies a refutation of critical
XVlll PREFACE.
It is objected, however, that some of the conclusions of critics respecting the Old Testament are incompatible with the authority of our blessed Lord, and that in loyalty to Him we are pre- cluded from accepting them. That our Lord appealed to the Old Testament as the record of a revelation in the past, and as pointing forward to Himself, is undoubted ; but these aspects of the Old Testament are perfectly consistent with a critical view of its structure and growth. That our Lord in so appealing to it designed to pronounce a verdict on the authorship and age of its different parts, and to foreclose all future inquiry into these subjects, is an assumption for which no sufficient ground can be alleged. Had such been His aim, it would have been out of harmony with the entire method and tenor of His teaching. In no single instance (so far as we are aware) did He anticipate the results of scientific inquiry or historical research. The aim of His teaching was a religious one ; it was to set before men the pattern of a perfect life, to move them to imitate it, to bring them to Himself. He accepted, as the basis of Llis teaching, the opinions respecting the Old Testament current around Him : He assumed, in His allusions to it, the premises which His opponents recognised, and which could not have been questioned (even had it been necessary to question them) without raising issues for which the time was not yet ripe, and which, had they been raised, would have interfered seriously with the paramount purpose of His life.^ There is no record of the question, whether a particular portion of the Old Testament was written by Moses, or David, or Isaiah, having been ever submitted to
conclusions respecting the books of the Old Testament. The Biblical records posse>s exactly that degree of historical and topographical accuracy which would be expected from the circumstances under which all reasonable critics hold that they were composed. The original sources of Samuel and Kings, for instance, being the work of men familiar with Palestine, describe localities there with precision : the chronology, being (in many cases) added subse- quently, is in several respects in irreconcilable conllict with contemporary Inscriptions (cf. Sanday, I.e. p. 9 ; or the note in the writer's Isaiah, p. 13). Mr. Girdlcstonc, in The Foundations of the Bible (1890), partly from an in- exact knowledge of the facts, partly through misapprehension of what critics really hold, employs himself largely in beating the air.
' On Ps. no, see the note, p. 362 f. ; and especially the discussion of our Lord's reference to this Psalm in the seventh of Mr. Gore's " Bampton Lectures." It does n )t seem requisite for the present purpose, as, indeed,
PREFACE. XIX
Him ; and had it been so submitted, we have no means of knowing what His answer would have been. The purposes for which our Lord appealed to the Old Testament, its prophetic significance, and the spiritual lessons deducible from it, are not, as has been already remarked above, affected by critical inquiries. Criticism in the hands of Christian scholars does not banish or destroy the inspiration of the Old Testament ; \\. pre- supposes it ; it seeks only to determine the conditions under which it operates, and the literary forms through which it manifests itself; and it thus helps us to frame truer conceptions of the methods which it has pleased God to employ in revealing Himself to His ancient people of Israel, and in preparing the way for the fuller manifestation of Himself in Christ Jesus.
S. R. D.
June 1 8, 1 89 1.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
The present edition does not differ materially from the first, the changes made in it being confined to the correction of a few misprints, and the introduction of a slight amount of fresh matter, chiefly bibliographical, which has been incorporated partly in the text of the book, partly in the Addenda.
S. R. D.
Nov. 25, 1S91.
within the limits of a Preface it would not be possible, to consider whether our Lord, as man, possessed all knowledge, or whether a limitation in this, as in other respects, — though not, of course, of such a kind as to render Him fallible as a teacher, — was involved in that gracious act of condescension, in virtue of which He was willing "in all things to be made like unto His brethren" (lieb. 2, 17). On this subject a reference to the sixth of the Lectures just mentioned must sufilice. The questions touched upon in the latter part of the preceding Preface are also thoughtfully handled by Bishop Moorhouse in his volume entitled, The Teaching of Christ {\%()\), Sermons i. and ii. And since this note was in type, there have appeared two essays, one by A. Plummer, D. D., in the Exposito)- for July 1S91, on " The Advance of Christ in 2o<p/a," the other An Inquiiy into the Nature of our Lord's kno-.vkdge as inan, by the Rev. W. S. Swayne, with a Preface by the Bishop of Salisbur}', each meriting calm and serious consideration.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
Addenda, ........ xxiii
Corrigenda, ........ xxvi
Abbreviations, ....... xxvi
Introduction (The origin of the Booi^s of the Old Testament, and
the growth of the Canon, according to the Jews), . . . xxvii
CHAPTER I The Hexateuch, § I. Genesis, § 2. Exodus, § 3. Leviticus, § 4. Numbers, § 5. Deuteronomy, § 6. Joshua,
§ 7. The Prophetical Narrative of the Hexateuch (character and probable date), The Priestly Narrative of the Hexateuch (character and prob
able date). Synopsis of the Priests' Code, .
I
4 20
39 55 65 96
109
iiS 150
CHAPTER n. Judges, Samuel, and Kings, . § I. The Book of Judges, . § 2. 1-2 Samuel, § 3. 1-2 Kings,
151
151
162
175
Isaiah, .
Jeremiah,
Ezekiel,
CHAPTER III.
CHAPTER IV.
CHAPTER V.
194
232
260
|
xxii |
CONTENTS. |
||||
|
CHAPTER VI. PACK |
|||||
|
The Minor Prophets, ...... 280 |
|||||
|
§ I. Rosea, |
. 281 |
||||
|
§ 2. Joel, . § 3. Amos, § 4. Obadiah, § 5. Jonah, § 6. Micah, § 7. Nahum, § 8. Habakkuk, |
. 287 . 293 ■ 297 . 300 • 30s . 314 . 316 |
||||
|
§ 9. Zephaniah, § ID. Haggai, § II. Zechariah, § 12. Malachi, |
. 318 . 320 . 322 . 333 |
The Psalms,
CHAPTER VII.
337
CHAPTER VIII.
|
The Book of Proverbs, |
. 368 |
|
CHAPTER IX. |
|
|
The Book of Job, . . . . . |
. 384 |
|
CHAPTER X. |
|
|
The Five Megilloth, . . . , |
. 409 |
|
§ I. The Song of Songs, |
. 409 |
|
§2. Ruth, ..... |
• 425 |
|
§ 3. The Lamentations, |
. 428 |
|
§ 4. Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth), |
. 436 |
|
§ 5. Esther, .... |
. 449 |
|
CHAPTER XL |
Daniel,
. 458
CHAPTER XXL
Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, . § I. Chronicles, § 2. Ezra and Nehemiah, .
484 484 507
Index,
521
ADDENDA.
p. I, add : Fr. Tuch, Commeniar iiber die Genesis, zweite AttJI., besorgt ■von Prof. Dr. A. Arnold nebst einem Nachivort von A. Merx (1871) ; G. J. Spurrell, Notes on the Hebrew Text of Genesis, Oxford 1887. On the Cosmogony of Gen. I, see an article by the present writer in the Expositor, Jan. 1886, where other literature on the subject is referred to, and his criti- cism of Prof. Dana's theory in the Andover i^.'i.K.) Review, 18S7, p. 639 fif. ; Prof. C. Pritchard, Oecasional Notes of an Astronomer, 1890, p. 257 ff.
P. 2, add : W. W. Graf Baudissin, Die Gesch. des Alttest. Priesterthutns (1889), to be compared with Kautzsch's review in the Stud. u. Krit. 1890, pp. 767-786, or Kuenen's in the Theol. Tijdsehrift, 1890, pp. 1-42 ; and the discriminating article of C. G. Montehore in the Jeivish Quarterly Review, Jan. 1891, entitled "Recent Criticism upon Moses and the Pentateuchal Narratives of the Decalogue." Reuss' Gesch. dcr heil. Schr. AT.s appeared in a 2nd ed. 1890 ; vol. ii. of Riehm's Einleitung ^'z.% published in 1890.
It may be of assistance to the reader who desires to pursue further the critical study of the historical Books, to state that of the works here mentioned, the two most important for his purpose are, for the Hexateuch, Wellh.'s Composition and the Commentaries of Dillmann ; and for Judges and Samuel, Wellh.'s Composition and Budde's Richter inid Samud (see p. xxiv). A discriminating study of these works, and judgment on the points upon which they differ, are the necessary foundation of all further progress.
The grounds for the principal critical conclusions respecting the Hexateuch are stated, lucidly and moderately, and with greater fulness than was possible in the present volume, in a series of papers by Prof. H. Vuilleumier in the Revue de Tkeologie et de Philosophie (Lausanne), 1882 (Jan. May, July, Sept. Nov.), 1S83 (Jan. Mar.), 1884 (May). It is understood that an English translation of these papers is likely to appear shortly.
On the Text and Veisions of the OT., the most recent information is to be found in Wellhausen's edition of Bleek's Eitileitung, 187S, p. 563 ff.; 1886, p. 523 ff.^ See also the present writer's Notes on Samuel, p. xxxvi ff., with
^ In the 1878 edition of this work, parts, esp. those relating to Judges, Samuel, and Kings, were rewritten by Wellhausen ; the 1886 edition, except p. 523 fif., is a reprint of Bleek's work (which the editor — see p. v. — still regards as a useful introduction to the critical study of the OT.), Well- hausen's contributions to the previous edition being now incorporated in his Composition des Hexateuehs, u.s.w.
xxiii
xxiv ADDENDA.
the references. Much information, especially bibliographical, for which no space could be found in the present volume, is also contained in Dr. C. H. H. Wright's Introduction to the Old Testament, published in the "Theo- logical Lducator" (ed. 2, 1 891). And C. A. Briggs' Biblical Study, its principles, methods, and history, together with a Catalogue of books of reference (ed. 3, 1891^ will be found a comprehensive and valuable guide to the subject with which it deals.
P. 9, 1. I ; p. 12, lines 9, 10. To obviate misunderstanding, it should have been stated explicitly that it is the absolute use of " Elohim " (God) which is here referred to as characteristic of P and (largely) of E. The term, as qualified by a genitive, or possessive pronoun (^.^. "God of Israel," "thy God," "your God"), is used quite freely by J ; the personal name, Jehovah, —or rather, as it should strictly be represented in English, Yahwe,— as is well known, not admitting of being so qualified.
Pp. 14-17. See also B. W. Bacon, "Notes on the Analysis of Gen. 32 — 50," in Hebruica, July 1S91.
P. 20, add : B. W. Bacon in \.\\eJourn. of Bibl. Lit. 1 890, p. 161 ff. P. 105, 1. 2 from bottom. D''D33, riclies, in 22, 8 is a word found other- wise only in the latest parts of the OT. (Eccl. 5, 18. 6, 2. 2 Ch. i, II. 12), and in Aram. (Ezr. 6, 8. 7, 26 : also in the Targums, and in Syriac). P. 151, add (chiefly on the text of Judges): K. Budde, in the Theol. Literaturzeittmg, 1884, col. 211-16.
Pp. 151, 162, add: K. Budde, Die Biicher Richtcr nnd Samuel, ihre Quellcn und ihr Aufbau, 1890 (a reprint of the essays here referred to, together with additional matter, completing the author's critical analysis of these two Books), with Kittel's critique in the Stud. n. Krit. 1892, pp. 44-71. P. 182, 1. 4 ff. The passage, as restored with closer adhesion to the existing Hebrew text, may be seen also in Cheyne's Origin and Religious Contents of the Psalter (1891), pp. 193, 212. The contrast between the ancient poetic fragment and the noble, but much later prayer, couched in a flowing Deutero- nomic style, with which the compiler of the Book of Kings has united it, is very noticeable.
P. 194. The translation of Delitzsch's Jesaia referred to is that of the fourth edition, published by T. & T. Clark. The translation published by riodder & Stoughton is from the third edition, and does not contain the alterations and additions introduced by the author into his fourth edition. — See also Cheyne's article, " Isaiah," in the Encyclopedia Britamiica (1881) ; and "Critical Problems of the second part of Isaiah" in \\\iije^vish Qua7-terly Review, July and Oct. 1891.
P. 19s, 1. 4: translated (T. & T. Clark, 1891). Of Schultz's compre- hensive work, mentioned in 1. 6, a translation is also announced as in prepara- tion. Add : Ed. Riehm, Alttestametitliche Theologie, 1890.
P. 301. "lob 1U'X2 Jon. I, 8 was not cited, as the clause "for whose cause this evil is upon us" is omitted in codd. B S of LXX, and is regarded by some modern scholars as a gloss explanatory of '^'(j7^'2 in v. "]. If it be genuine, it materially strengthens the argument of p. 301 (see p. 445, «.).
P- 337> add : A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Piatms (Book i.), in the Cambridge Bible for Schools (1891). The appearance, as I am revising these Addenda,
ADDENDA. XXV
of Prof. Cheyne's " Bampton Lectures " on the Psalms, makes me regret that
1 had not the advantage of having his volume before me while writing chapter vii. At the same time, I hope that what I have there said may not be deemed unsuitable as an "introduction" to the more complete discussion of the problems presented by the Book of Psalms. (Cf. further Montefiore, "Mystic Passages in the Psalms," in i\ie Jewish Quart. Rev. 18S9, p. 143 ff., and his review of the last-named work, ib. Oct. 1891.)
P. 341, 1. 9 from bottom, add : Ps. 92, 10. 93, 3. 94, 3. 1 13, I ; cf. 67, 4. 6.
P. 351, bottom. It is observable that the verb Vi^l (whence nS3D "pre- centor"— only in the titles to Psalms, and Hab. 3, 19 — is derived) is used otherwise only by the Chronicler — most often in the general sense of preside over, superintend {\ Chr. 23, 4. 2 Chr. 2, 2. 18 [H. I. 17]. 34, 12. 13. Ezr. 3, 8. 9t), once with special reference to music, to lead (i Chr. 15, 21 f). It is remarkable, if the word had been in use earlier, that it should not have occurred, at least in its more general sense, in pre-exilic writings ; but in
2 Chr. 2, 2^. 1 8b [Heb. i^. 17b] jt jg substituted for the older word mi used in I Ki. 5, 16 [Heb. 30]. See more fully the writer's note in Prof. Sanday's Oracles of God, ed. 2, p. 146 ff.
P, 383. The Proverbs of Jesus the son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), written c. 200 B.C., de-crve to be compared with the canonical- book of Proverbs: cf. Cheyne, Job and Solomon, p. 179 ff. ; Montefiore, Jeivish Quart. Rev.
1 890, p. 449 ff.
P. 385, add: A. Dilimann, " Textkritisches zum Buche Ijob" in the
Sitzungsberichte der Kon.-Preiiss. Akad. der IViss. 1890, p. 1345 ff. [an elaborate criticism of Dr. Hatch's Essay].
P. 437, n. 4. So also Dr. W. Wright, Arab. Gr. i. § 233, Rem. c, who
S' I
compares 'i S\) a deep investigator.
P. 447, n. 1. 2. The Rabbinical quotations from Ben-Sira have been re-edited, with greater completeness, by S. Schechter in the Jezvish Quarterly Review, July 1891. See also the gleanings by Ad. Neubauer, ib. Oct.
1891, p. 163 f. Against the opinion that Greek influences are traceable in Ecclesiastes, see esp. P. Menzel, Der Griechische Einjluss auf Prediger und IVeisheit Salomos (18S9).
P. 449, add : B. Jacob, " Das Buch Esther bei den LXX," ZATIV. 1890, p. 241 (L
P. 458, add : A. Bludau, De Alex. luterpr. Libri Dan. indole critica et hermencutica, 1 89 1.
P. 461. The "abomination of desolation" of i Mace, i, 54. 59, as seems clear from the terms used, was a small heathen altar : of the expression DDb^ )'*1i3ti' in Dan. 12, 11 (cf. 9, 27. 11, 31), a not improbable explanation
has been suggested by E. Nestle, ZATIV. 1884, p. 248 (see also Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, p. 105).
Pp. 468, note, 469, 479, note. Since the first edition of this work was published, the writer has learnt, on high Assyriological authority, that contract-tablets exist, bearing date continuously from the reign of Nabonidus £0 that of Cyrus, showing that neither Belshazzar nor Darius the Mede
*
xxvi ADDENDA.
(supposing the latter to be an historical person") could have received the title of ki7ig. (Comp. Sayce in the Expository Times, Dec. 1891.) The tablets in question have been published by Dr. Strassmaier, and will be translated before long.
P. 483. It may interest the philological student to know that the pron.
S (Dan. Ezr.) occurs in the Corp. hiscr. San. ii. i, No. 145 B ; isn (Ezr.)
ib. Nos. 137 B (as a stijix), 145 B, 149 A : Ipn il'. Nos. 137 A, B, appears to be a variant of l^X (Dan.). The inscriptions quoted are all from Egypt.
P. 498 f. In view of the style of the additions in Chronicles, Mr. Girdle- stone's theory of their origin {Fo20idatio7is of the Bible, pp. 31, 32, 34, 119, 120) will be seen to be an ill-considered one.
P. 503, No. 4, 1. I. An approximation to the weaker sense occurs in I Ki. 12, 32. 15, 4 — both belonging, probably, to the compiler of Kings.
P. 505, No. 30. Add: I 12, 23. 29, I. II 28, 9.
P, 505, No. 36. Add : I 29, 8 (unless this be an isolated example, analogous
to the Arabic idiom, i^ jj»^l, Ewald, ^aww. arab. ii. p. 242 f,).
ABBREVIATIONS.
A'.^T'. =(Eb. Schrader) Die Keilinschriften und das AT., — translated under the title The Cnneiforvi Inscriptions and the Old Testammt, London 1885, 1S8S (the standard work on the subject).
OTJC. = (W. R. Smith) The Old Testament in thejavish Church.
QPB'^. — Qiieen^s Printers' Bible (otherwise called the Vario7-um Bible'), ed. 3, 1889, published by Eyre & Spoltiswoode : — the OT. edited by the present writer and Prof. T. K. Cheyne.
RV. = Revised Version of the Old Testatnetit (1885).
ZATW. = Zeitschrift fiir die Alttestamenlliche Wissenschaft, edited by B. Stade.
ZDMG. — Zeitschrift der Dentschen Morgenldndischen Gesellschaft.
Z,KWL. = Zeitschrift fiir Jdrcliliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Lcben.
The symbol P is explained on p. 9 ; J, E, and JE on p. 12 ; H on p. 45 ; D^ on p. 97.
The citations of Biblical passages are accommodated throughout to the English version, except sometimes where the reference is more particularly to a Hebrew term. (As is well known, the division of chapters is in certain places not the same in the Hebrew as in the English Bible ; and the title to a Psalm, where it consists of more than two words, is reckoned generally in the Hebrew &sv. i.)
The dagger (t), attached to a list of passages, indicates that it includes all instances of the word or phrase referred to, occurring in the OT.
INTRODUCTION.
THE ORIGIN OF THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, AND THE GRO WTH OF THE CANON, ACCORDING TO THE /E WS.
It is sometimes supposed that conclusions such as those expressed in the present volume on the age and authorship of certain parts of the Old Testament are in conflict with trust- worthy historical statements derived from ancient Jewish sources. This, however, is not the case. On the authorship of the Books of the OT., as on the completion of the Canon of the OT., the Jews possess no tradition worthy of real credence or regard, but only vague and uncertain reminiscences, intermingled often with idle speculations.
Of the steps by which the Canon of the Old Testament was formed, little definite is known.^ It is, however, highly probable that the tripartite division of the books, current from antiquity among the Jews, has an historical basis, and corresponds to three stages in the process ; and it has accordingly been adopted in the present volume. It ought only to be stated that, though the books belonging to one division are never (by the Jews) transferred to another, in the case of the Prophets and the " Kethubim " (Hagiographa), certain differences of arrangement have sometimes prevailed. In the Talmud {Bdba bathra 14^) the arrangement of the " Latter" Prophets is Jer, Ez. Is. the XII; and this order is commonly observed in German and French
■^ For further information on the subject of the following pages, the reader is referred to the learned and elaborate article by Strack, " Kanon des Alten Testaments," in Y{&xzo^% Encycl. (ed. 2) vol. vii. (1880). See also Dillmann, " Ueber die Bildung u. Sammlung heiliger Schriften des AT.," in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1S58, pp. 419-91 ; and Jul. Fiirst, Der Ka^ion des AT. nach den Ueberliefertingen im Talmud u. Midi-ash (1868). The most recent work on the subject is G. Wildeboer, Die Enistekitng des A litest. Kanoiis, 1891. SeealsoF. Buhl, Aa;w« ?<. TextdesAT.s, 1891 (transl.: T. &T. Clark).
XXViil GROWTH OF THE CANON
MSS. The Massoretic scholars (7-9 cent.) placed Isaiah first ; and the order sanctioned by them is adopted in the ancient MS., now at St. Petersburg, and bearing a date = a.d. 916, in Spanish MSS., and in the printed editions of the Hebrew Bible. The Talmudic arrangement of the Hagiographa is Ruth, Ps. Job, Prov. Eccl. Song, Lam. Dan. Est. Ezra,^ Chr. ; and this order is found in I\ISS. ; the Massorites, followed (as a rule) by Spanish MSS., adopted the order Chr. Ps. Job, Prov. Ruth, Song, Eccl. Lam. Est. Dan. Ezr. : German MSS. have generally the order followed in printed editions of the Hebrew Bible (and in the present volume), Ps. Prov. Job, the 5 Megilloth^^ Dan. Ezr. Chr. Other variations in the arrangement of the Hagiographa are also to be found in MSS. The following are the earliest and principal passages bearing on the subject : —
T. The Proverbs of Jesus, the son of Sirach {c. 200 B.C.), were translated into Greek by the grandson of the author, c. 130 B.C., who prefixed to them a preface, in which he speaks of "the law and the prophets, and the others, who followed upon them " (koI TciJv oAAcuv Twv KO.T avTOvs r]KoXov6r]Kor(x)v), to the Study of whose writings his grandfather had devoted himself, " the law and the prophets, and the other books of our fathers {koI to. uXXa TTtxTpia y8t'/?Ata)," " the law, the prophets, and the rest of the books {kol to. Xoitto. twv y8t/3AtW)." This passage appears to recognise the threefold division of the Jewish Canon, the indefinite expression following "the prophets" representing (presumably) the miscellaneous collection of writings known now as the Hagiographa. In view of the fact that the tripartite division was afterwards generally recognised by the Jews, and that two of the names are the same, it may be taken as a tolerably decisive indication that this division was established c. 130 B.C., if not in the days of the translator's grandfather him- self. It does not, however, show that the Hagiographa was already completed, as we now have it ; it would be entirely con- sistent with the terms used, for instance, if particular books, as Esther, or Daniel, or Ecclesiastes, were only added to the collec- tion subsequently
2 The 2nd Book of Maccabees opens with two letters (i, 1—2,
1 Including "Nehemiah" (p. 484).
* In the order in which they are read in the synagogue (p. 409), viz. Song, Ruth, Lam. Eccl. Est.
ACCORDING TO THE JEWS. xxix
1 8), purporting to have been sent by the Palestinian Jews in B.C. 144 to their brethren in Egypt. The second of these letters, after the mention of certain apocryphal anecdotes connected with Jeremiah and Nehemiah, continues as follows : —
" The same things were also reported in the public archives and in the records relating to Nehemiah ; and how, founding a library, he gathered together the things concerning the kings and prophets, and the (writings) of David, and letters of kings about sacred gifts. ^ And in like manner Judas also gathered together for us all those writings that had been scattered (ri tia.Ti'jrTuiKiTa.) by reason of the war that we had ; and they remain with us. If, therefore, ye have need thereof, send some to fetch them unto you " (2, 13-15)-
These letters, whether they were prefixed to what follows by the author of the rest of the book, or by a later hand, are allowed on all hands to be spurious and full of untrustworthy matter ; ^ and the source referred to in the extract just cited — probably some pseudepigraphic writing — is in particular discredited by the legendary character of the other statements for which it is quoted as an authority. The passage may, however, contain an indistinct reminiscence of an early stage in the formation of a canon, — " the things relating to the kings and prophets " being a general designation of the writings (or some of them), now known as the "Former" and "Latter" Prophets, to. tov AauetS being some part of the Psalter, and the " letters of kings respecting offerings " being (possibly) documents, such as those excerpted in the Book of Ezra, respecting edicts issued by the Persian kings in favour of the Temple. But even though the statement be accepted as historical, manifestly the greater part of the Hagiographa would not be included in Nehemiah's collec- tion. And from the expression " founding a library" it would naturally be inferred that Nehemiah's aim was the collection and preservation of ancient national literature generally, rather than the determination, or selection, of such books as deserved the authority which we now express by the term "canonical." The utmost that follows from the passage is that, according to the
■* i^nyouvTo oi kki iv Tali ava.'ypa(pa7s Kit) |y <ro7; uTof/t.vnfia.TKriJi.oT'i ToTf xara <ro» tiiiftiocv TO, aira, xcci us xaTocfiakXofiivos fiifiKio^wriv iwiffuvnyayi ra -ripi Tuit ^a(riXiuy xai Ti)o(pyiTuy xai Ta tov Aaft/o xaJ icriffToXas (iaciXiuv Tipi avccfrificcTuv,
* TAe Speaker's Comvi. on the Apocrypha, ii. p. 541 ; cf. Schiirer, Gesch. des J'lid, Volkes iin Zeilaller /esu Christi, ii. p. 741.
XXX GROWTH OF THE CANON
unknown author of the documents quoted, the books (or some of them) now constituting the second division of the Canon (the "Prophets"), and certain writings attributed to David, were collected together under Nehemiah, and that they formed part of a larger collection founded by him. But the origin of the statement is too uncertain, and its terms are too indefinite, for any far-reaching conclusion to be founded upon it.
3. The Fourth Book of Ezra. In this apocryphal book, written, as is generally agreed, towards the close of the ist cent. a.d.,i Ezra, shortly before his death, is represented as lamenting to God that the Law is burnt, and as craving from Him the ability to re-write it, in order that after his decease men may not be left destitute of Divine instruction — " But if I have found grace in Thy sight, send the Holy Ghost into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world since the beginning, even the things which were written in Thy law, that men may find Thy path, and that they which will live in the latter days may live " (14, 21 f). God grants Ezra's request: he prepares writing materials and five skilled scribes ; the next day he hears a voice saying to him, " Ezra, open thy mouth, and drink that I give thee to drink " [cf. Ezek. i, 3], after which we read : —
"Then opened I my mouth, and, behold, He reached me a full cup, which was full, as it were, with water, but the colour of it was like fire. And I took it and drank : and when I had drunk of it, my heart uttered under- Standing, and wisdom grew in my heart, for my spirit strengthened my memor)- ; and my mouth was opened, and shut no more. The Highest gave understanding unto the five men, and they wrote by course the things that were told them, in characters which they knew not,- and they sat forty days ; they wrote in the daytime, and at night they ate bread. As for me, I spake in the day, and by night I held not my tongue. In forty days they wrote 94' books. And it came to pass, when the forty days were fulfilled, that the
^ Speaker's Com?)!, on the Apocrypha, i. p. 81 ; Schiirer, ii. 656 f.
^ So the Syriac Version (the original text of 4 Ezr. is not extant) : similarly the Ethiopic, Arabic, and Armenian (Hilgenfeld, Messias Judaorum, 1869, pp. 260, 321, 376, 432). The allusion is to the change of character, from the old type, known from the Siloam inscription and Phoenician inscriptions, to the so-called "square" type, which was attributed by tradition to Ezra. In point of fact, the transition was a gradual one, and not completed till long after Ezra's time. See the writer's Notes on Samuel, p. ix. tf.
^ So the Syr, Eth. Arab. Arm. The Vulgate has "204." Comp. W. R. Smith, OTJC. p. 407.
ACCORDING TO THE JEWS. xxxi
Highest spake, saying, The first that thou hast written' publish openly, that the worthy and the unworthy may read it : but iceep the 70 last that thou mayest deliver them only to such as be wise among the people ; for in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge. And I did so " {ib. vv. 39-48).
The same representation is frequently alluded to by the Fathers,^ being derived in all probability from the passage of Ezra just quoted. The point to be observed is that it contains no statement respecting either a completion of the Canon, or even a collection, or redaction, of such sacred books as were extant in Ezra's time : according to the representation of the writer, the books were actually destroyed, and Ezra re-wrote them by Divine inspiration. Moreover, not only did he re-write the 24 canonical books of the Old Testament, he re-wrote 70 apocryphal books as well, which are placed upon an equal, or, indeed {v. 46 f.), upon a higher level than the Old Testament itself! No argument is needed for the purpose of showing that this legend is unworthy of credit : the crudely mechanical theory of inspiration which it implies is alone sufficient to condemn it. Nor can it be determined with any confidence what germ of fact, if any, underlies it. It is, however, observable that there are traces in the passage of a twofold representation : according to one {vv. 20-32), Ezra is regarded only as the restorer of the Law; accord- ing to the other {v. 44), he is regarded as the restorer of the entire Old Testament (and of the 70 apocryphal books besides).
' I.e. the 24 canonical Books of the OT., according to the regular Jewish computation (Strack, p. 434), viz. Gen. Ex. Lev. Num. Dt. Josh. Jud. Sam. Kings, Jer. Ez. Is. the XII, Ruth, Ps. Job, Prov. Eccl. Song, Lam. Dan. Est. Ezr. Chr.
'E.g. Iren. adv. hcer. iii. 21, 2 {ap. Euseb. 5, 8); Clem. Al. i. 21, p. 392. See other references in Strack, p. 415. That the passage in Irenceus has no reference to a completion of the Canon by Ezra, and is based upon no inde- pendent source, is shown clearly by Strack, p. 415, from the context : after speaking of the marvellous manner in which, according to the legend, the LXX translators, working independently, agreed verbally in their results, uirn x.at to, vitpovTOi. i^vfi yvuvici or; kut iVfTrvoiav tov Siov SiV/v iipf/.nviv/iiivai ai ypa<pai, Irenseus continues, "Nor is there anything remarkable in God's having thus acted ; for, after the sacred writings had been destroyed {^ia.(p6a.f- tia-uv TMv ypaipuv) in the exile under Nebuchadnezzar, when the Jews after 70 years had returned to their own country. He, in the days of Artaxerxes, inspired Ezra the priest, of the tribe of Levi, to rearrange (avaralair^iai) all the words of the prophets who had gone before, and to restore {xtoxutu- (TTijirai) to the people the legislation of Moses."
XXXll GROWTH OF THE CANON
The first of these representations agrees with a tradition recorded elsewhere in Jewish literature, though expressed in much less extravagant language {Succah 20^): "The Law was forgotten out of Israel : Ezra came up [Ezr. 7, 6], and established it." ^ Whether this statement is simply based upon the phrase in Ezr. 7, 6, that Ezra was "a ready scribe in the law of Moses" (cf. vv. II. 21), or whether it embodies an independent tradition, may be uncertain : there exists no ground whatever for questioning the testimony of the compiler of the Book of Ezra, which brings Ezra into connexion with the Latv. This, no doubt, is the historical basis of the entire representation : Ezra, the priest and scribe, was in some way noted for his services in connexion with the Law, the recollection of which was preserved by tradition, and (in 4 Ezr.) extended to the entire Old Testament. What these services were, we do not certainly know : they may have been merely directed towards promoting the observance of the law (cf. Neh. 8-10); but the term "scribe," and the form of the representation in 4 Ezr. (in so far as this may be supposed to rest upon a historical foundation), would suggest that they were of a literary character : it would not, for instance, be inconsistent with the terms in which he is spoken of in the OT. to suppose that the final redaction and completion of the Priests' Code, or even of the Pentateuch generally, was his work. But the passage supplies no historical support for the supposition that Ezra had any part either in the collection (or editing) of the OT. books generally, or in the completion of the OT. Canon.
4. The Talmud. Here the celebrated passage is in the Baba bdthra 14'', which, after describing the order of the books of the OT., as cited above, continues thus : —
" And who wrote them? Moses wrote his own book and the section con- cerninfj Balaam,- and Job. Joshua wrote his own book and eight verses of the Law.^ Samuel wrote his own book and Judges and Ruth. David wrote the Book of Psalms, at the direction of ten elders, viz. Adam,® Melchizedek,*
^ Comp. Delitzsch, Z. fiir Luth. Theol. 1877, p. 446.
* Nu. 22, 2 — 25, 9. Named specially, as it seems, on account of its not being directly connected with the subject of the law (so Rashi [nth cent.] in his commentary on the passage).
3 Dt. 34, 5-12. * n'' h^. See p. 505, No. 34.
' The Jews ascribe Ps. 139 to Adam ! * Ps. no.
ACCORDING TO THE JEWS. xxxiii
Abraham,^ Moses, Heman, Jeduthun, Asaph, and the three sons of Korah. Jeremiah wrote his own book and the Book of Kings and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his college wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes). The Men of the Great Synagogue wrote Ezekiel, the XII (Minor Prophets), Daniel, and Esther. Ezra wrote his own book and the genealogies of the Book of Chronicles as far as himself." ^
By the college, or company (nj;"'D), of Hezekiah, are meant, no doubt, the literary associates of the king mentioned in Prov. 25, I. The "Great Synagogue," according to Jewish tradition, was a permanent council, established by Ezra, which continued to exercise authority in religious matters till about B.C. 200, But the statements respecting it are obscure and vague : already critics of the last century doubted whether such a permanent body ever really existed ; and in the opinion of many modern scholars all that is told about it is fiction, the origin of which lies in the (historical) narrative in Neh. 8 — 10 of the convocation which met at Jerusalem and subscribed the covenant to observe the law.3 Into the further discussion of this question it is not necessary for our present purpose to enter. The entire passage is manifestly destitute of historical value. Not only is it late in date ; it is discredited by the character of its contents themselves.
^ Ps. 89. Jewish exegesis understood (falsely) the " righteous man from the East (niT^D) " in Is. 41, 2 of Abraham : Ps. 89 is ascribed by the title to Ethan the Ez7-ahite (^mTXH); and upon the supposition that the word TnTN is connected with mtO "east" in Is. 41, 2, the Jews identified Ethan with Abraham ! Ps. 89, i Targ. : "Spoken by Abraham, who came from the east." (There are other slightly different enumerations of the supposed authors of Psalms : see the Midrash on Qoheleth, 7, 19, p. 105 f. of Wunsche's translation, or on Cant. 4, 4 (substantially the same passage), ap. Neubauer, Studia Biblica, vol. ii. p. 6 f., where Melchizedek is not named, and Ezra is included.)
^ w ly- Supposed to mean as far as the genealogies in i Ch. 6 (which recites Ezra's ancestors, v. 15, though not including himself). According to another view, as far as the word I7 in 2 Ch. 21,2.
^ See J. E. Rau, Diatribe de Synagoga Magna, 1726 ; and esp. Kuenen, " Over de Mannen der Groote Synagoge," in the Verslagen en Mededeelingen der Kon. Akadeinie van Wetenschappen (Afdecling Letterkunde), Amsterdam 1S76, pp. 207-248; W. R. Smith, OTJC. pp. 156 f. 408 f. ; and on the other side, J. Derenbourg, Essai stir Phistoire et la g/ograp/iie de la Palestine dapris les TncJf/iiuls, etc. (1867), p. 29 ff.; C. H. H. Wright, Ecclesiastes, pp. 5 ff. , 475 ff. Comp. also C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (the Mishnic treatise ni3X \"51D), 1877, p. 124 f.
XX.XIV GROWTH OF THE CANON
What are we to think of the statement respecting the authorship of the Psalms? What opinion can we form of the judgment ot men who argue that because a person (Melchizedek) happens to be mentioned in a particular poem, he was therefore in some way connected personally with its composition ? ^ or of the reasoning by which Abraham is brought into relation with Ps. 89 ? More- over, the word " wrote " ^ (303) must plainly bear the same meaning throughout ; what sense then is to be attached to the statements about the college of Hezekiah and the Men of the Great Synagogue ? In what sense can it be said that they "wrote" different books of the Old Testament? The fact of so much of the passage being thus unworthy of regard, discredits the whole. It is an indication that it is not the embodiment of any genuine or trustworthy tradition. In so far as the passage yields an intelligible sense, it merely expresses inferences of the most superficial order : it assigns books to prominent characters living at, or shortly after, the times with which they deal. The origin of the statements about the other books is uncertain. If any book bears the impress of its author's hand, both in matter and in arrangement, it is the Book of Ezekiel ; and yet it is said here to have been "written" by the members of a body which {ex hyp.) did not come into existence till a century after its author's death. If some tradition of the manner in which the books referred to were edited, or made generally available, for popular use underlies these statements, its character and source are far too doubtful for any weight to be attached to it, where it
' It is right, however, to mention that, according to some scholars (see Wright, I.e. p. 453 ; Dahiian, Der Gottesname Adonaj, 1889, p. 79), i"!'' PJ? means here on behalf of ; but even so, it will still be implied that the persons named were in some sense the inspirers of the Psalms in question : for the Jewish view, absurd as it may seem to be, is that the Psalms were composed (lit. "spoken") by ten authors (□''^nn "IDD 'nJ^^^ mx ''J^ mC'y), though in some undefined way David gave form to their words (see the passages cited on p. xxxiii, note, and elsewhere).
- Not "arranged," or "edited," or even "inserted in the Canon." Rashi's explanation (Strack, p. 418; Wright, p. 455 f.) is anything but satisfactory. The supposition that the term means " wrote down " or " reduced to writing what had previously been transmitted orally " is not probable, considering the nature of the books referred to ; such a sense might be suitable in con- nexion with a body of law, or a system of traditional exegesis, perpetuated in a school, but hardly, for instance, with reference to a volume of prophecies.
ACCORDING TO THE JEWS. XXXV
conflicts with the irrefragable testimony suppHed by the books themselves respecting their authorship or date.^
For the opinion, often met with in modern books, that the Canon of the OT. was closed by Ezra, or in Ezra's time, there is no foundation in antiquity whatever. As has been shown above, all that can reasonably be treated as historical in the accounts of Ezra's literary labours is limited to the Law. The Men of the Great Synagogue — in so far as their services to Biblical literature may be accepted as historical — were a permanent body, which continued to act for more than two centuries after Ezra's time. The opinion referred to is not a tradition at all : it is a conjecture^ based no doubt upon the passages that have been just cited, but inferring from them more than they actually express or justify. This conjecture was first distinctly propounded in the i6th century by Ehas Levita, a learned Jew, the author of a work on the origin and nature of the Massorah, entitled Massoreth ha- Massoreth, written in 1538.^ The reputation of Elias Levita caused this opinion to be adopted by the Protestant divines of the 17th and i8th centuries, Hottinger, Leusden, Carpzov, &c. ; and it has thus acquired general currency. But it is destitute of historical foundation ; and the authority of Ezra cannot, any more than that of the Great Synagogue, be invoked against the conclusions of critical investigation. The Canon of the Old Testament, in Loescher's words (quoted by Strack, p. 424), was " non uno, quod dicunt, actu ab hominibus, sed paulatim a Deo, animorum temporumque rectore, productus." The age and authorship of the books of the Old Testament can be determined (so far as this is possible) only upon the basis of the internal evidence supplied by the books themselves, by methods such as those followed in the present volume : no external evidence worthy of credit exists.
^ It should never be forgotten that, with regard especially to antiquity, the Talmud and other late Jewish writings abound with idle conjectures and unauthenticated statements.
" Edited, with an English translation and notes, by C. D. Ginsburg, London 1867. See p. 120 : "In Ezra's time the 24 books of the OT, were not yet united in a single volume ; Ezra and his associates united them together, and divided them into three parts, the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. " See further, Strack, p. 416.
AN INTRODUCTION
TO THE
LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
CHAPTER I. • THE HEXATEUCH.
(Pentateuch and Joshua.)
Literature.' — a. Commentaries: — F. Delitzsch, A'euer Covimentar iiber die Genesis, 1887 (translated : T. & T. Clark) ; A. Dillmann (in the Kiirzge- fasstes Exegetisches Handbtuh zum AT.), Die Genesis {tA. 3), 1886 ; Ex. tind Lev. 1880; Numeri Deiit. und Josua, 1886 (based on the original commen- taries of A. Knobel in the same series, but largely or entirely re-written) ; C. F. Keil (in the Bihlischer Coininentar iiber das AT., edited by himself and Delitzsch), Geii. und Ex, (ed. 3) 1878 ; Lev. Num. und Deut. (ed. 2) \?,-lO ; Josua, Richter und Ruth (ed. 2), 1874; M. Kalisch, Historical and Critical Commentary on the OT., viz. Ge^ieds, 1858; Exodus, 1S55 ; I^eviticus, 1867, 1872 (with much illustration from Jewish sources).
b. Criticism : — II. Hupfeld, Die Quellen der Genesis, 1853 ; H. Ewald, History of Israel (td. 3, l864ff. : translated, Longmans, 1869 ff.), i. pp. 63-132; K. H. Graf, Die geschichtlichen BUcher des AT.s, 1866; Th. Noldeke, Die Alttcstamcntliche Literatur, 1868; Untersuchungen ztir K'ritik des AT.s, 1S69 (on the limits and characteristics of the document now generally styled P) ; J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs in the Jahrbiicher fiir Deutsche Theologie, xxi. (1876) pp. 392-450 (on Genesis) ; 531-602 (on the narrative of Ex. — Josh.) ; xxii. (1877) pp. 407-479 (on the laws in Ex. — Dt.) [reprinted I. in Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, ii. (1885) ; 2. (to- gether with matter contributed by the same writer to his edition of Bleek's Einleitimg published in 1878, on the structure of Judges, Samuel, and Kings) in Die Coinposition des Hexateuchs und der historischen BUcher des AT.s (1889)]; J. Wellhausen, Geschichte Israels, i. (1878), reprinted (sub- stantially unaltered, but with improvements in detail) under the title Prole- gomena zur Geschichte Israels (1S83 : ed. 3, 1886), and translated under the title History 0/ Israel [P^. & C. Black), 1S85 ; Ed. Reuss, La Bible (translation
^ Only the more important works can be named. The older literature, which has been largely superseded by more recent works, is of necessity omitted altogether,
A
2 IJTERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
with notes and Introductions), vol. i. 1879, PP- I-271 ; F. Delitzsch, 12 P€7it.- kritische Stiidien in the Zci/sckr. fiir KircJil. Wissenschaft ii. Kirchl. Lebcn, 1880, and Urmosdisches im Pent., ib. 1882, p. Ii3ff. (on Nu. 6, 22-7), p. 226 ff. (Nu. 10, 33-36), p. 281 ff. (the Decalogue), p. 337 ff. (Nu. 21, 14 f.), p. 449 ff. (Nu. 21, 17 f.), p. 561 ff. (Nu. 21, 27-30) ; albo/^. 1S88, p. 119 ff. (Balaam) ; A. Kuenen, Bijdragen lot de critiek van Pent, enjosna in the Thecl. Tijdschrift xi.-xviii. (1877-84) [see the titles in Wellh. Comp. p. 312]; \V. R. Smith, TJie OT. in the Jewish Chmrh (1881), esp. Lectures viii.-xii. ; W. H. Green, A/oses and the Prophets (New York), 1883 ; The Hebrew Feasts in their rela- tion to recent critical hypotheses concerning the Pentateuch (London), 1886; David Castelli, La Legge del Popolo Ebreo nel sno svolgimento storico, 1S84 (a well-written semi-popular exposition of the growth of Hebrew law, substan- tially from Wellhausen's point of view) ; R. Kittel, Geschichte der Hebriicr, i. (Quellenkunde u. Geschichte der Zeit bis zum Tode Josuas [follows Dillmann largely]), 1S88; Prof. W. R. Harper in the American journal Hebraica (New Haven, Conn.), i. Oct. 1888, pp. 18-73 [on Gen. i — 12, 5] ; ii. July 1889, pp. 243-291 [Gen. 12, 6 — 37, i] ; iii. Oct. 1SS9, pp. 1-48 [Gen. 37, 2— Ex. 12, 51], with Prof. Green's criticism on No. i. , ib. Jan. — Apr. 1S89, p. 137 ff., on No. ii., Jan. — Mar. 1S90, p. 109 ff., on No. iii., Apr. p. 161 ff. ; the commentaries of Delitzsch [pp. 1-38 on the Hexateuch generally] and Dillmann, mentioned above; and the following "Introductions": Eb. Schrader's edition (the 8th) of De Wette's Einleitung, 1869 ; Keil's Ein- leitung, 1873; Ed. Reuss, Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften AT.s, 1881 ; A. Kuenen, Hist.-crit. Onderzoek naar het Ontstaan en de Verzameling van de Boeken des Ouden Verbonds (ed. 2), i. i, 1885 (translated under the title The Hexateuch, Macmillan, 18S6) ; E. C. Bissell, The Pentateuch, its origin and structure, 1S85 ; Ed. Riehm, Einleitung in das AT. (published post- humously) i. (1889).
Books or articles dealing with special parts of the Hexateuch will be re- ferred to as occa'-ion arises. Of the works named, the most important (even for those who but partially accept its conclusions) is Wellhausen's essay On the Composition of the Hexateuch, partly on account of its lucid exposition of the subject, and partly on account of its forming the basis of all subsequent investigation and discussion. Next in importance come the writings of Dill- mann, Delitzsch, and Kuenen. In Dillmann's commentaries, especially, details and references will usually be found, for which it has been impos- sible to find place in the present volume. Kittel's book contains a useful synopsis and comparison of different views. The style and characteristics of the various sources of which the Hexateuch is composed are most abund- antly illustrated in the papers (so far as they at present [May 1890] reach) of Prof. Harper. The chief question in dispute among critics concerns, not the limits of the several sources, but their relative dates (see below, § 7). Keil, Green, and Bissell represent the traditional view of the origin and structure of the Hexateuch. The reason why this cannot be maintained is, .stated briefly, the presence in the Hexateuch (and in other parts of the Old Testament) of too many facts which conflict with it.
The historical books of the Old Testament form two series \
THE IIEXATEUCIT. 3
one, consisting of the books from Genesis to 2 Kings/ embracing the period from the creation to the release of Jehoiachin from his imprisonment in Babylon, B.C. 562, the other, comprising the Books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, beginning with Adam and ending with the second visit of Nehemiah to Jerusalem in B.C. 432.^ Though differing from each other materially in scope and manner of treatment, these two series are nevertheless both constructed upon a similar plan ; no entire book in either series consists of a single, original work ; but older writings, or sources, have been combined by a compiler in such a manner that the points of juncture are often plainly discernible, and the sources are in consequence capable of being separated from one another. The authors of the Hebrew historical books — except the shortest, as Ruth and Esther — do not, as a modern historian would do, re-write the matter in their own language ; they excerpt from the sources at their disposal such passages as are suitable to their purpose, and incorporate them in their work, sometimes adding matter of their own, but often (as it seems) introducing only such modifications of form as are necessary for the purpose of fitting them together, or accommodating them to their plan. The Hebrew historiographer, as we know him, is essentially a compiler or arranger of pre-existing documents, he is not himself an original author. Hebrew writers, however, exhibit, as a rule, such strongly marked individualities of style that the documents, or sources, thus combined can generally be distinguished from each other, and from the comments of the compiler, without difficulty. The literary differences are, moreover, frequently accompanied by differences of treatment or representation of the history, which, where they exist, confirm independently the conclusions of the literary analysis. Although, however, the historical books generally are constructed upon similar principles, the method on which these principles have been applied is not (juite the same in all cases. The Books of Judges and Kings, for instance, resemble each other in their mode of composition : in each a series of older narratives has been taken by the compiler, and fitted into a framework supplied by himself, the framework in both cases being, moreover, composed of similar elements and
^ Exclusive of Ruth, wliich, at least in the Hebrew Canon, is treated as part of the D'"2in3 or Hagiographa.
* Though the genealogies are brought down to a later date.
4 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
designed from the same point of view. The Books of Samuel are likewise constructed from pre-existing sources, but the com- piler's hand is very much less conspicuous than is the case in Judges and Kings. The Pentateuch includes elements homo- geneous, at least in large measure, with those of which the Book of Joshua is composed ; and the literary structure of both is more complex than that of either Samuel, or Judges and Kings. It will be our aim, in the following pages, to exhibit the structure of these different books by discovering, so far as this is possible, their component parts, and determining the relation which these parts hold m regard to each other.
* § I. Genesis.
The Book of Genesis is so called from the title given to it in the Septuagint Version, derived from the Greek rendering of 2, 4"
avTT] rj ^t/3Ao? yevecretos ovpavov kol yrj<;. By the Jews it is
termed, from its opening word, n''p'X7i3 B'reshlth. It forms the first book in the Hexateiich^ — as the literary whole formed by the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua may conveniently be termed, — the general object of which is to describe in their origin the fundamental institutions of the Israelitish Theocracy {i.e. the civil and ceremonial law), and to trace from the earliest past the course of events which issued ultimately in the establishment of Israel in Canaan. The Book of Genesis comprises the introductory period of this history, embracing the lives of the ancestors of the Hebrew nation, and ending vvith the death of Joseph in Egypt. The aim of the book is, however, more than merely to recount the ancestry of Israel itself ; its aim is, at the same time, to define the place occupied by Israel among other nations, and to show how it gradually emerges into separate and distinct existence. Accordingly the line of its ancestors is traced back beyond Abraham to the first appearance of man upon the earth ; and the relation, both to each other and to Israel, of the nations descended from the second father of humanity — Noah — is indicated by a genealogical scheme (c. 10). I'he entire book may thus be divided into two parts, of which the first, c. i — 11, presents a general view of the Early History of Mankind., explaining the presence of evil in the world (c. 3), sketching
GENESIS. 5
the beginnings of civilisation (c. 4), accounting for the existence of separate nations (c. 10 ; 1 1, 1-9), and determining the position occupied by Israel among them (10, i. 21-22; 11, 10-26); while the second, c. 12 — 50, comprehends in particular the History of Israel's immediate ancestors, the Patriarchs.
The narrative of Genesis is cast into a framework, or scheme, marked by the recurring formula, Tliese are the generations (lit, begettings) of . . . This phrase is strictly one proper to genealogies, implying that the person to whose name it is pre- fixed is of sufficient importance to mark a break in the genea- logical series, and that he and his descendants will form the subject of the record which follows, until another name is reached prominent enough to form the commencement of a new section. By this means the Book of Genesis is articulated as follows : —
C. I— 4I (Creation of heaven and earth, 5, I — 2, 4*: second account of the origin of man upon earth, followed by the story of the Fall, 2, 4"^ — 3, 24 ; growth of sin in the line of Cain, and progress of inven- tion, 4, 1-24 ; beginning of the line of Seth's descendants, 4, 25 f.).
5, 1—6, 8 [Adam and his descendants, through Seth, to Noah, c. 5 ; the increasing wickedness of the earth, 6, 1-8).
6, 9 — 9, 29 (History of Noak and his sons till their father's death, including, in particular, the narrative of the Flood, 6, 9—8, 22 ; and the new covenant made by God with humanity in the person of Noah,
9. I-I7)-
10, I — II, 9 [Sons of Noak and nations sprung from them, c. 10; the
dispersion of mankind over the earth, II, I-9).
11, 10-26 (Line of S/iem to Terah, the father of Abraham).
EI, 27 — 25, n {Terah, with the history of his descendants, Abram and
Lot, ending with the death of Abram). 25, 12-1S {Ishmael, with list of Arab tribes claiming descent from him). 25, 19 — 35, 29 (Life of Isaac, with history of Esau and Jacob, until the
time of Isaac's death).
^ The formula is here applied meiapliorically la "heaven and earth," and stands at 2, 4*. By analogy it v/ill introduce an account of heaven and earth, and of that which sprang from either, or could be regarded as its jirogeny. This agrees with what is narrated in c. i, but not with what follows in 2, 4'' ff. (for the narrative here is silent respecting the /learvrrs, the subject being the formation of man, and the preparation of the earth to receive him). The formula must here, therefore, contrary to usual custom, refer to what precedes. It is a plausible conjecture that originally it stood as the superscription to i, i. (Dr. Green, Hehraica, v. 143-5, omits to observe that the formula introduces some account o'i the person himsdfxvixae.&. in it, as well as of his descendants.)
6 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
C. 36 [see zn.'. i. 9] {Esau and his descendants, the rulers of the Edomites, with a digression, vv. 20-30, on the aboriginal inhabitants of Edom).
C. 37 [see t'. 2] — 50 (Life oi Jacob subsequently to Isaac's death, and history of his sons till the death of Joseph).^
With which of the component parts of Genesis this scheme was originally connected, will appear subsequently. The entire narrative, as now disposed, is accommodated to it. The atten- tion of the reader is fixed upon Israel, which is gradually dis- engaged from the nations with which it is at first confused ; at each stage in the history, a brief general account of the collateral branches having been given, they are dismissed, and the narrative is limited more and more to the immediate line of Israel's ancestors. Thus after c. 10 (the ethnographical Table) all the descendants of Noah disappear except the line of Shem, II, 10 if.; after 25, 12-18 Ishmael disappears and Isaac alone remains ; after c. 36 Esau and his descendants disappear, and only Jacob is left. The same method is adopted in the intermediate parts : thus 19, 30-38 the relation to Israel of the collateral branches of Moab and Ammon is explained: 22, 20-24 (sons of Abraham's brother Nahor), and 25, 1-4 (sons of Abraham's concubine Keturah), the relation to Israel of certain Aramaic and Arabian tribes is explained.
The unity of plan thus established for the Book of Genesis, and traceable in many other details, has long been recognised by critics. It is not, however, incompatible with the use by the compiler of pre - existing materials in the composition of his work. And as soon as the book is studied with sufficient attention, phenomena disclose themselves which show incon- trovertibly that it is composed of distinct documents or sources, which have been welded together by a later compiler or redactor into a continuous whole. These phenomena are very numer- ous ; but they may be reduced in the main to the two following heads : (i) the same event is doubly recorded ; (2) the language, and frequently the representation as well, varies in different sections. Thus i, i — 2, 4^ and 2, 4^-25 contain a double narrative of the origin of man upon earth. It might, no doubt,
^ The formula occurs next Nu. 3, i : see also Ru. 4, 18 ; i Ch. i, 29+ (from Gen. 25, 12). The close of one section is sometimes repeated so as to form the starling-point of the section which follows : cf. Gen. l, 27 f. with 5. I f- ; S> 32 with 6, 10; n, 27 with v. 26.
GENESIS. 7
be argued prima facie that 2, 4^' ff. is intended simply as a more detailed account of what is described summarily in i, 26-30 ; and it is true that probably the present position of this section is due to the relation in which, speaking generally, it stands to the narrative of those verses; but upon closer examination differences reveal themselves which preclude the supposition that both sections are the work of the same hand. In 2, 4*" ff. the order of creation is: i. man (v. 7); 2. vegetation (v. 9; cf. V. 5); 3. animals (v. 19)^; 4. woman {v. 21 f.). The separation made between the creation of woman and man, if it stood alone, might indeed be reasonably explained upon the supposition just referred to, that 2, 4'' ff. viz. describes in detail what is stated succinctly in i, 27^^; but the order in the other cases forms part of a progression evidently intentional on the part of the narrator here, and as evidently opposed to the order indicated in c. i (vegetation, animals, man). Not only, how- ever, are there these material differences between the two narratives; they differ also in form. The style of i, i — 2, 4* is unornate, measured, precise, and particular phrases frequently recur. That of 2, 4*^ ff. is freer and more varied ; the actions of God are described with some fulness and picturesqueness of detail ; instead of simply speakifig or creating, as in c. i. He fashions, breathes into man the breath of life, plants, places, takes, sets, brings, closes up, builds, Sec. (2, 7. 8. 15. 19. 21, 22), and even, in the allied c. 3 {v. 8), walhs in the garden : the recurring phrases are less marked, and fiot the same as those of I, I — 2, 4^ In the narrative of the Deluge, 6, 9-13 (the wickedness of the earth) is a duplicate of 6, 5-8, as is also 7, 1-5 of 6, 18-22 — the latter, with the difference that of every clean beast seven are to be taken into the ark, while in 6, 19 (cf. 7, 15) t2vo of every sort, without distinction, are prescribed ; similarly 7, 22 f (destruction of all flesh) repeats the substance of 7, 21 : there are also accompanying differences of repre- sentation and phraseology, one group of sections being akin to I, I — 2, 4% and displaying throughout the same phraseology, the other exhibiting a different phraseology, and being conceived in the spirit of 2, 4^—3, 24 (comp. e.g. 7, 16'^ shut in, 8, 21 smelled, with 2, 7. 8. 15 &c.).2 17, 16-19 '^^^ ^S, 10-14 the
' The rendering " had formed " is contrary to idiom.
- The composite character of the narrative of the Flood has been pointed
8 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
promise of a son to Sarah is twice described, Avith an accom- panying double explanation of the origin of the name Isaac?- The section 27, 46 — 28, 9 differs appreciably in style from 27, 1-45, and at the same time exhibits Rebekah as influenced by a different motive in suggesting Jacob's departure from Canaan, not as in 27, 42-45 to escape his brother's anger, but to procure a wife agreeable to his parents' wishes (see 26, 34 f). Further, in 28, 19 and 35, 15 we find two explana- tions of the origin of the name Bethel : 32, 28 and 35, 10 two of Israel : 32, 3. 33, 16 Esau is described as already resident in Edom, while 36, 6 f. his migration thither is attributed to causes which could only have come into operation after Jacob's return to Canaan. ^ The Book of Genesis presents a group of sections distinguished from the narrative on either side of them by differences of phraseology and style, and often by con- comitant differences of representation : these differences, more- over, are not isolated, nor do they occur in the narrative indiscriminately : they are numerous, and reappear with singular persistency iti combination with each other ; they are, in a word, so marked that they can only be accounted for upon the sup- position that the sections in which they occur are by a different hand from the rest of the book.
The sections homogeneous in style and character with I, I — 2, 4''' recur at intervals, not in Genesis only, but in the following books to Joshua inclusive ; and when disengaged from the rest of the narrative, and read consecutively, are found to constitute a nearly complete whole, containing a systematic account of the origines of Israel, treating with particular minute- ness the various ceremonial institutions of the ancient Hebrews (Sabbath, Circumcision, Passover, Tabernacle, Priesthood, Feasts, &c.), and displaying a consistent regard for chrono- logical and other statistical data, which entitles it to be con- sidered as the framework of our present Hexateuch. This source, or document, has received different names, suggested by one or other of the various characteristics attaching to it.
out often ; see the art. Pentateuch, by the present Dean of Peterborough, in the Dictionary of the Bible (ed. I, 1863), p. 776. On the phraseology see more fully below, § 7.
^ There is a third explanation, from a third source (see below), in 21, 6.
* Keil's explanation of this discrepancy is insufficient.
GENESIS. 9
From its preference (till Ex. 6, 3) for the name God (" Elohim ") rather than /^//c'Z'fl/^, it has been termed the Elohistic narrative, and its author has been called the Elohist ; and these names are still sometimes employed. By Ewald it was termed the " Book of Origins ; " ^ by Tuch and Noldeke, from the fact that it seemed to form the groundwork of our Hexateuch, the " Grundschrift ;" more recently, by Wellhausen, Kuenen, and Delitzsch, it has been styled the " Priests' Code." This last designation is in strictness applicable only to the ceremonial sections in Ex. — Nu. ; these, however, form such a large and characteristic portion of the work, that the title may not unsuitably be extended so as to embrace the whole ; and it may be represented conveniently, for the sake of brevity, by the letter P.-
In Genesis, as regards the limits of P, there is practically no difference of ophiion amongst critics. It embraces the descrip- tion of the Creation of heaven and earth, and of God's rest upon the Sabbath (i, i — 2, 4=^); the line of Adam's descendants through Seth to Noah (5, 1-28. 30-32) ; the story of the Flood, with the subsequent blessing of Noah, and covenant established with him by God (6, 9-22. 7, 6. 11. i3-i6'\ 18-21. 24.8, 1-2*. 3'^~5' 13^- i4~i9- 9j i~i7' 28-29); ^^"^ enumeration of nations descended from Japhet, Ham, and Shem (10, 1-7. 20. 22-23. 31-32); the line of Shem's descendants to Terah (11, 10-26); a brief account of Abraham's family (11, 27. 31-32), of his migra- tion to Canaan, and separation there from Lot (12, 4''-5. 13, 6. 11^ [from and they\-\2^ [to Flain\), of the birth of Ishmael (16, 1^ 3. 15-16), the institution of Circumcision (c. 17), the destruc- tion of the Cities of the Plain (19, 29), the birth of Isaac {21, i^ 2^-$), the purchase of the family burial-place at Machpelah in Hebron (c. 23), the death of Abraham and his burial by his sons at Machpelah (25, 7-1 1*^) ; a list of tribes tracing their origin to Ishmael (25, 12-17); Isaac's marriage with Rebekah, Esau's Hittite wives, Jacob's journey to Paddan-Aram to obtain a wife
^ Urspriinge, — Ewald's rendering of the Heb. JliTpin ("generations"), the term (p. 5) characteristic of this source ; see his Hist, of Israel, i. 74-96.
^ Dillmann uses the letter A. Wellhausen, who supposes the " Priests' Code " to have passed through more stages than one before it reached its present form, denotes the nucleus of it by the letter Q. This letter is chosen by him on account of \hQ. four (Quatuor) covenants described in it (with Adam, i, 28-30 ; Noah, 9, 1-17 ; Abraham, c. 17 ; Israel, Ex. 6, 2 ff. )■ The first of these, however, is not strictly a covenant, but a blessing.
10 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
agreeable to his mother's wishes (25, 19-20. 26^ 26, 34-35.
27, 46 — 28, 9), Jacob's marriage with Rachel, his return from Paddan-Aram to Canaan (29, 24. 29. 31, iS'^ [from and all]. 33, iS'*), the refusal of his sons to sanction intermarriage with the Shechemites (34, 1-2^ 4. 6. 8-10. 13-18. 20-24. 25 [partly]. 27-29), his change of name to Israel at Bethel (35, 9-13. 15), the death of Isaac (35, 22''-29) ; the history of Esau (c. 36 [in the main]);^ the migration of Jacob and his family to Egypt, and their settlement by Pharaoh in the land of P^ameses (37, 1-2* to Jacob. 41, 46. 46, 6-27. 47, 5-6^'-^ 7-1 1- 27^ [from a>id they]-2Z), Jacob's adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh (48, 3-6. 7 ?), the final charge addressed by him to his sons, and his burial by them (49, i^ 2 8''-33. 50, 12-13).
These passages present an outline of the antecedents and patri- archal history of Israel, in which only important occurrences — as the Creation, the Deluge, the Covenants with Noah and Abraham — are described with minuteness, but which is sufficient as an introduction to the systematic view of the theocratic insti- tutions which is to follow in Ex. — Nu., and which it is the main object of the author of this source to exhibit. In the earlier part of the book the narrative appears to be tolerably complete ; but elsewhere there are evidently omissions (1?.^. of the birth of Esau and Jacob, and of the events of Jacob's life in Paddan-Aram, presupposed by 31, 18). But these may be naturally attributed to the compiler who combined P with the other narrative used by him, and who in so doing not unfrequently gave a preference to the fuller and more picturesque descriptions contained in the latter. If the parts assigned to P be read attentively, even in a translation, and compared with the rest of the narrative, the peculiarities of its style will be apparent. Its language is
1 For it is generally allowed that vv. 2-5. 9 -28 (though even here the framework appears to be that of P) include an element foreign to P : in particular, the names of Esau's wives differ from those given in 26, 34 f.
28, 9 (both P), and must thus have been derived, most probably by the com- piler, from a different source.
2 As read in LXX., where, though the substance is unaltered, the sequence is preferable: "And Jacob and his sons came into Egypt to Joseph ; and Pharaoh, king of Egypt, heard of it. And Pharaoh spake unto Joseph, saying, Thy father and thy brethren are come unto thee : behold, the land of Eg}'pt is before thee ; in the best of the land make thy father and thy brethren to dwell." Then follows v. 7.
GENESIS. II
that of a jurist, rather than a historian ; it is circumstantial, formal, and precise: a subject is developed systematically; and completeness of detail, even at the cost of some repetition, is regularly observed.^ Sentences are cast with great frequency into the same mould ; ^ and particular formulae are constantly repeated, especially such as articulate the progress of the narra- tive.^ The attention paid by the author to numbers, chrono- logy, and other statistical data, will be evident. It will also be apparent that the scheme into which, as was pointed out above, the Book of Genesis, as a whole, is cast, is his work, — the formula by which its salient divisions are marked constituting an essential feature in the sections assigned to P.
The parts of Genesis which remain after the separation of P have next to be considered. These also, as it seems, are not homogeneous in structure. Especially from c. 20 onwards the narrative exhibits marks of composition ; and the component parts, though not difiering from one another in diction and style so widely as either differs from P, and being so welded together that the lines of demarcation between them frequently cannot be fixed with certainty, appear nevertheless to be plainly discernible. Thus in 20, 1-17 our attention is arrested by the use of the term God, while in c. 18 — 19 (except 19, 29 P), and in the similar narrative 12, 10-20, the term Jehovah is uniformly employed. The term God recurs similarly in 21, 6-31. 22, 1-13, and elsewhere, particularly in c. 40 — 42. 45. For such a variation in similar and consecutive chapters no plausible explana- tion can be assigned except diversity of authorship.^ At the same time, the fact that Elohitn is not here accompanied by the other criteria of P's style, forbids our assigning the sections thus charac- terized to that source. Other phraseological criteria are slight ;
^ E.g. 7, ir. 13-16. 9, 9-11. 12-17. 17, 10-14. 23-27. 49, 29-30. 32.
^ E.g. I, S**. S^ 13 &c. ; 5, 6 — 8, 9-11. 12-14 &c. ; 11, lo-ii. 12-13 &c. ; 12, 4^ 16, 16. 17, 24. 25. 21, 5. 25, 20. 41, 46^ Ex. 7, 7.
•^ "These are the generations of . . ." (above); i, ^. 8^ 13 &c. ; 10, 5 [see QPB.'''\ 20. 31. 32. 25, 16. 36, 40. 43 &c. ; 6, 22 compared with Ex. 7, 6. 12, 28. 50 (and elsewhere). See more fully in § 7.
■* It is true that Elohim and Jahweh represent the Divine Nature under different aspects, viz. as the God of nature and the God of revelation respectively ; but it is only in a comparatively small number of instances that this distinction can be applied without great artificiality to explain the variation between the two names in the Pentateuch.
12 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
there are, however, not unfrequently differences of representation, some of which will be noticed below, which point decidedly in the same direction. It seems thus that the parts of Genesis which remain after the separation of P are formed by the combination of hvo narratives, originally independent, though covering largely the same ground, which have been united by a subsequent editor, who also contributed inconsiderable additions of his own, into a single, continuous narrative. One of these sources, from its use of the name Ju/nveh, is now generally denoted by the letter J ; the other, in which the name Elohim is preferred, is denoted similarly by E ; and the work formed by the combination of the two is referred to by the double letters JE. The method of the compiler, who combined J and E together, was sometimes, as it would seem, to extract an entire narrative from one or other of these sources (as 20, 1-17 from E ; c. 24 from J) ; sometimes, while taking a narrative as a whole from one source, to incorporate with it notices derived from the other; and sometimes to construct his narrative of materials derived from each source in nearly equal proportions.
In the details of the analysis of JE there is sometimes uncer- tainty, owing to the criteria being indecisive, and capable, conse- quently, of divergent interpretation. Points of minor importance being disregarded, the analysis, so far as it seems to the writer to be reasonably clear, is exhibited in the following tables. E first appears in the history of Abraham (c. 15 or 20).^
I. c. I — II. The beginnings of history.
J 2, 4^ — 3, 24. 4, 1-26. 5, 29. 6, 1-4. 5-8. 7, 1-5. 7-10 (in the main).- 12. 16^-ij. 22-23. 8- 2''-3". 6-12. 13''. 20-22. 9, 18-27. io> 8-19. 21. 24-30. ir, 1-9. 28-30.
■' The notes appended are not intended to do more than afford a partial indication of the grounds on which the analysis rests ; for fuller details reference must be made to the more special works named p. i f. The Book of Genesis has been publisiied (in German), in a convenient form, with the different sources distinguished typographically, by Kautzsch and Socin {Dit^ Genesis init ciiisserer Unlerscheidtin^ der Quellenschriftcn, 1S91). Great pains and care have been bestowed upon the preparation of this work ; but the details, so far as the line of demarcation between J and E, and the parts assigned to the redactor, are concerned, can in many cases not claim more than a relative probability, as the editors themselves avow.
^ For vv. 7-9 include two or three expressions borrowed by the redactor fiom P.
GENESIS. 13
The rest belongs to P (above, p. gf.). 4, 25-26. 5, 29 are fragments of the line of Seth, as it was given in J, the final redactor of the Pentateuch (R) having preferred in the main the line as given by P (5, I-28. 30) : notice that in point of fact the verses 4, 25 f. are /a>-a//,/ to 5, 3. 6 : notice further the difference in style of 5, 29 from the rest of the ch., and the resemblance to 4, 25 f., as well as the allusion to 3, 16 f. (also J). In the account of the Flood, the main narrative is that of P, which has been enlarged by the addition of elements derived from J : liere, however, these elements form a tolerably complete narrative, though there are omissions, e.c^. between 6, 8 and 7, I of the instructions for making the ark, the redactor having preferred the account of P : and in what follows, the narrative of J, for a similar reason, is not perfectly complete. The distinguishing characteristics of the two narratives are well exhibited by Delitzsch (p. 164 f. ): each viz. is marked by a series of reairring features which are absent from the other, and by which it is connected with other sections of the book, belonging respectively to the same source (comp. above, p. 7). The interchange of Jehovah and God is here specially noticeable. In c. 10 the scheme of P is singularly clear : i/. i is the title to the entire section, dealing wiih the "sons of Noah" : vv. 2-5 sons of Japheth, with subscription : vv. 6-7. 20 sons of Ham, with subscription: vv. 22-23. 3' sons of Shem, with suliscription : V. 32 the subscription to the entire section. The framework of the ch. is thus supplied by P, and into it notices of the nations descended from Noah, derived from J, have been inserted by the final redactor. Observe that v. 22 begins the third main division of the ch., and that v. 21, taken strictly, is out of place before it : v. 24 f. contain J's account of Shelah, Eber, and Peleg, parallel to that of P in 11, 12-17 (comp. 4, 25 f. beside 5, 3-8).
Notice also that the genealogies in J (both here and elsewhere) are cast in a different fnotild from those of P, and are connected together by similarities of expression, which do not occur in P : thus in 4, 17-26. 10, 8-19. 21. 24-30. 19, 37-38. 22, 20-24. 25, 1-6 notice the recurrency of the form of sentence. Unto . . . was born ; of 1p^ (not 1 vlH, as in P) used of the father ; of XIH D3 ; and of the phrase the father of . . , (see Budde, Die Biblische Urgcschichte, 1883, pp. 220-223).
II. 12 — 26. Abraham and Isaac.
fj 12, i-4'». 6-20. 13, 1-5. 7-11* (to East). 12'' (from and moved)-i8.
\e ^•
fj 16, ib-2. 4-14. 18, I — rg, 28. 30-38. 2r, i*. 2^.
lE 20, i-ry. (18). 2r, 6-2t.
(J 33. 22, 15-18. 20-24. c. 24. 25, 1-6.
lE 21, 22-32*. (32''). (34). 22, 1-14. 19.
(J 25, ri''. 18. 21-26". 27-34. 26, 1-14. (r5). 16-17. (i8)- 19-33- "lE
The verses enclosed in parentheses appear to be due to the compiler of JE. The parts not included in the table belong to P (p. 9f.), with the exception of c. 14, the character of which points to its being taken from a
14 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
special source. C. 15 shows signs of composition ; but the criteria are inde- cisive, and no generally accepted analysis has been eftected. (It is accord- ingly printed in the table between the J and the E lines.)
19, 29 belongs to P. Observe (i) God twice, Jeliovah having been regularly used before {e.g. vv. 13. 14. 16. 24. 27) ; (2) remembered (see 8, i in P; and Ex. 2, 22) ; (3) " cities of the Plain," as 13, 12 P. The verse further betrays itself as an insertion in its present context, in that it repeats in other words the substance of the preceding narrative ; and secondly in the general statement that Lot dwelt in "the cities of the Plain," which would fall naturally from a writer compiling a summary account of the occurrence (and is actually used by P in 13, 12), but hardly so from one who had just before named Sodom repeatedly as i\\Q particular city in which Lot dwelt.
With 21, 33 ("called on the name of Jehovah") comp. 4, 26. 12, 8. 13, 4. 26, 25 (all J : not so elsewhere in the Pent.).
26, 3b-5 has probably (on grounds of style: see Del.) been expanded or recast by the compiler. The same may have been the case with 22, 15-18. 26, 15. 18 appear to be additions made by the compiler for the purpose of harmonizing with 21, 25 ff. Observe in v, 33 the different explanation of the name " Beer-sheba," as compared with 21, 31 (E). It has been plausibly conjectured that in c. 24 — 26 a transposition has taken place, and that the original order was 25, 1-6. 11". c. 24 (observe that v. 36 appears to presuppose 25, 5). 26, 1-33. 25, 2i-26\ 27-34, of which c. 27 is now the natural sequel.
III. 27 — 2>^. Jacob atid Esau.
5) 27, I
{
-45. 28, 10. 13-16. 19. 2-14.
11-12. 17-18. 20-22. 29, I. 15-23. 25-28. 30.
J 29, 31-35. 3»'-5 7. 9-16. 20*" (now . . . sons)
E 30, 1-3* (to k/ices). 6. 8. 17-20*.
J I 24—31, I. 3. 46. 48-50-
lE 30, 20'=-23. 31-2. 4-i8». 19-45. 47. 51—32,2.
{
J 32. 3-^3*- 22. 24-32. 33, 1-17. 34, 2*'-3. 5. 7. 11-12. 19.
E i3*'-2i. 23. i8''-20.
Si 34. 25 (P'lrtly). 26. 30-31. 35, 14. 2i-22\
lE 35, 1-8. 16-20.
In 27, 1-45 some critics discover the traces of a double narrative, and con- sider accordingly that the narrative of J has been supplemented by details taken from E ; but it is doubtful whether the grounds alleged are decisive.
In 28, 10-22 the main narrative is E, vv. 13-16 being inserted from J. Both narratives contained the account of the theophany at Luz, E giving ]irominence to the dream and vision of the ladder, which made the place one "where heaven and earth meet" {v. 17 being the sequel to z'. 12), J to the uords of promise addressed to Jacob ; the compiler has united the two
GENESIS. 15
accounts, as mutually supplementing each other. The promise in-'. 13 f., as elsewhere in J (13, 14-16; 12, 3), .accommodated in v. 15 to Jacob's present situation. Render v. 13 as RV. marg. (see iS, 2 Ileb.) : in J Jehovah appears standing beside Jacob as he slept.
In 29, 31 — 30, 24 (births of Jacob's children) the main n.arrative is J, with short notices from E. Notice God interchanging w'w^ijeltot'ah, and the double etymologies in vv. 16 and iS ; 20 ; 23 (with God) and 24 (yi\\\\ Jehovah). But in c. 29—32 it must remain an open question whether the points of separation between J and E have in all cases been rightly determined.
In 30, 25 — 31, 18 (the parting of Jacob and Laban), 30, 25—31 is mainly J, 31, 2-18^ mainly E. The two sources give a different account of the arrangement between Jacob and Laban, and of the manner in which, never- theless, Jacob prospered. The success which in 30, 35 ff. is attributed to Jacob's stratagem, with the effect of the striped rods upon the ewes in the flock, is in 31, 7-12 attributed to the frustration by Providence of Laban's attempt, by repeatedly altering his terms, to overreach Jacob, and to the fact that only the striped he-goats leaped upon the ewes. Each account, how- ever, appears also to contain notices incorporated from the other, which, in some cases, harmonize imperfectly with their present context, and complicate the interpretation (for details see Dillmann or Delitzsch).
31, 45 54 may have been in parts expanded or glossed by the compiler : w. 45. 47. 5i-54appear to embody E's account of the covenant between Jacob and Laban ; vv. 46. 48-50 the account given by J. Observe that the covenant in V. 50 is differe7it in its terms from the covenant in v. 52.
In c. 34 the analysis is not throughout equally certain ; but marks of P's style appear unmistakably in some parts, while they are absent in others, and the motives and aims of the actors seem not to be uniformly the same. In vv. 3. 11-12 Shechem himself is the spokesman, and his aim is the personal one of securing Dinah as his wife; \x\vv. 8-io(cf. 16. 21-23) his father Hamor is spokesman, and his aim is to secure an amalgamation between his people and Jacob's : observe also the similarity in the terms in which circumcision is mentioned vv. \^. 22^. 24^ and 17, lo^- (P), and between v. 24 and 23, lob. 18^ (also P). But it is not impossible that P here is based upon elements derived from E ; see Wellh. Comp. p. 312 ff., Cornill, ZATIV. 1891, p. i ff.; and cf. 35, 5. 48, 22 (both E). In 35, 21-22* notice Israel {ox Jacob (cf. p. 17).
IV. c. 11— t^o. Joseph.
{
J 12-2T. 25-27. 28'' (to silver). 31- 35.
E 37, 2''-ii. 22-24. 28* (to///). 23<=-30. 36.
fj c. 38. c. 39. 42, 38—44. 34--
lE c. 40.1 41, 1-45.1 47-57- 42. 1^37- 45. 1—46, 5-^
1 With (as it seems) traces of J, as 40, i*". 3''. 15^ 41, 14 ("and they brought him quickly from the dungeon"). 42, 27-28. 45, 4 ("whom ye sold into Egypt"). 5 ("that ye sold me hither"). 45, 28. 46, i ("Israel").
2 With traces of E (43, 14. 23").
l6 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
([ 46, 28 — 47, 4. 6^.' 12-26. 27* (to Goshen). 29^ 31. 49, i''-28».
(E 48, 1-2. 8-22.2
/J 50. I-"- 14.
(.£ 15-26.
Though the analysis of c. 37 is in parts uncertain, the differences of repre- sentation which it exhibits show that it is of composite origin. Thus v. 28 is not the continuation of vv. 25-27 : notice the indefinite expression, "and there passed by Midianites, merchantmen," which evidently describes the first appearance of merchants upon the scene : the sequel to v. 25 would have been expressed by "7mA the Ishmaelites drew near" (or some similar verb, but with the subject definite): v. 28 is thus parallel to vv. 25-27, not the sequel to them. Notice, further, that it is t^vlee said that Joseph was brought into Egypt and sold there; once, 37, 36, by the Midianites, in agreement with v. zS**-'; the other time, 39, i, by the Ishmaelites, in agreement with v. 28"'. Again, if in V. 28 the subject of "they drew" be Joseph's brethren, it is strange, as Reuben appears clearly to be in their company, that, going afterwards to the pit, he should be surprised at not finding Joseph in it ; on the other hand, if " they" refer to the Midianite merchants passing by, who drew up Joseph from the pit without his brothers' knowledge, the surprise of Reuben is at once explained, and the expression in 40, 10 " for I was stolen out of the land of the Hebrews" exactly describes what had occurred. If 37, 19-21. 25-27. 28b (And they sold . . . silver). 31-35. 39, I &c. , on the one hand, and 37, 22-24. ^S^''. 29-30. 36, on the other, be read consecutively, they will be found to form two complete parallel accounts of the manner in which Joseph was taken into Egypt, each (as will appear presently) connecting with two corresponding narratives in the chapters following : in one (J) Joseph is sold by his brethren to dshtftaelites, in the other (E) he is cast by his brethren into a pit, and stolen thence by the Midianites without his brothers' know- ledge. V. 21 is tautologous beside v. 22*, but forms an excellent introduc- tion to vv. 25-27. Notice that in '] Judah takes the lead (so 43, 4. 43, 14 ff.); in E Reuben (so 42, 22. 37) : it is not impossible that (as has been suggested) " Reuben" in v. 21 was originally "Judah."
The narrative of Joseph in c. 39 ff. consists, as it seems, of long passages excerpted alternately from J and E, each, however, embodying traits derived from the other. The ground of this conclusion is the observation — {a) that the representation in different parts of the narrative varies ; {h) that in each of these long passages occur short, isolated notices not in entire harmony with the context in which they are embedded, but presupposing different cir- cumstances. Thus {a) in c. 42 Joseph's brethren are charged with being spies, and in reply volunteer the information about their younger brother {vv.
^ As read in LXX., viz. (directly answering v. 4) : "And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Let them dwell in the land of Goshen; and if thou knowest that there are able men amongst them, then make them," &c. Then follows 5-6* (P), as given above, p. 10.
'•* In the main, probably ; but the two narratives cannot here be disengaged with certainty. Perhaps z't/. 13-14. 17-19 are from J.
GENESIS. 17
7-13. 30-32) ; in the report of what had occurred given in c. 43, there is no allusion to such a charge, and Joseph is expressly said to have asked them if they had a brother {vv. 6-7 : so 44, 19) ; {/>) 42, 35 comes unexpectedly after V. 27 f., but agrees with v. 25 : having been given special provision for the way [v. 25), the brethren naturally only make the discovery that the money is in their sacks at the end of the journey. On the other hand, 42, 27 f. harmonizes with 43, 19 f., where the discovery is made at the lodging place. The former is E's account, the latter J's, 42, 27 f. being inserted in E from J. Further, in 42, 19-24. 34-37 the detention of Simeon is an essential feature of the narrative ; but in 42, 38 — 43, 10, and again in 44, 18-34, there is entire silence respecting him : his release is not one of the objects for which the brethren return to Egypt. Had the whole narrative been by one hand, it would have been natural to find Simeon mentioned iii the farts 0/ c. 43 — 44 where he is tmnoticed. The notices of Simeon in 43, 14. 23b, agreeing thus imperfectly with their immediate context (J), appear to have been inserted in it from the parallel narrative (E). (A similar point connected with c. 39 is noticed by the commentators.) Phraseological indications point- ing to the same conclusion are — {a) Jehovah in 39, 2. 3. 5. 21. 23, God in 41, 51. 52. 45, 5. 7-9. 46, 2. (The use of Cua? elsewhere in these sections, in converse with Egyptians, or between Joseph, whilst in disguise, and his brethren, is naturally inconclusive either /w E, 40, 8. 41, 16 &c., or against J, 43, 29. 44, 16.) (b) A preference for Israel as the name of the patriarch in one group of passages (37, 3. 13. 43, 6. 8. 11. 46, 29. 30. 47, 29. 31. 48, 8. 10. 13. 14. 50, 2 : J), and for Jacob in the other (42, i. 4. 29. 36. 45, 25. 27. 46, 2. 5. 48, 2 : E), — a preference so decided as to make it probable that in the few passages where, in the context of ], Jacob occurs (37, 34), or, in the context of E, Israel (45, 28. 46, I. 2. 48, 2''. 11. 21), the variation is either a change made by the compiler, oris due to the use by him of the other source. The unusual word nnn?DX sack occurs thirteen times in c. 43 — 44 (J): by a remarkable coincidence it also occurs twice in the two verses 42, 27 f., which, on independent grounds, were assigned above to the same source (no- where else in the OT. ) ; E uses the more ordinary term pL^* 42, 25. ^5 (also
In c. 49 the Blessing of Jacob is, of course, incorporated by J from an in- dependent source. It may have been in circulation either as a separate piece, or as part of a collection of national poetry.
That P and JE form two clearly definable, independent sources, is a conclusion abundantly justified by the facts. As regards the analysis of JE, the criteria (as said above) are fewer and less definite ; and the points of demarcation cannot in all cases be determined with the same confidence. Nevertheless the indications that the narrative is composite are of a nature which it is not easy to gainsay ; and the difficulty which some- times presents itself of disengaging the two sources is but a natural consequence of the greater similarity of style subsisting
B
1 8 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
between them than between JE, as a whole, and P.^ In the history of Joseph the harmonizing additions wliich the analysis attributes to the compiler may be felt by some to constitute an objection to it. In estimating the force of such an objection, we must, however, balance the probabilities : is it more probable, in the light of what appears from other parts of the Pentateuch, that the work of one and the same writer should exhibit the incongruities pointed to above, or that a redactor in combining two parallel narratives should have introduced into one traits borrowed from the other? The narrative of Joseph cannot be judged entirely by itself; it must be judged in the light of the presumption derived from the study of JE as a whole. And this presumption is of a nature which tends to confirm the con- clu.^ion that it is composite.
The distinction between P and JE — in particular, between P and J — may be instructively illustrated from the blessings and promises which form a con- spicuous feature in the Book of Genesis, and, in virtue of the progressive limitation of their scope, harmonize with its general plan (p. 6). To P belong I, 28 -30 (Adam) ; 9, 1-7 (Noah); 17, 6-8 (Abraham); 28, 3 f. and 35, II f. [quoted 48, 3] (Jacob): to JE 3, 15 (the Protevangelium) ; 9, 26 (Shem) ; 12, I-3 (Abraham : also 13, 14-17. 15, 5. 18. 18, 18. 22, 15-18) ; 26, 2-5. 24 (Isaac) ; 27, 27-29. 28, 13-15 (Jacob) ; 49, 10 (Judah). Let the reader notice how those assigned to P are cast in the same phraseology, and express freq.uenily the same thoughts : those assigned to J exhibit greater variety ; and such common features as they present (especially those addressed to the three patriarchs) are different from those that mark the other series. In P, it may be observed, the promises are limited to Israel itself; in J the prophetical outlook embraces other nations as well.
The process by which, probably, the Book of Genesis assumed its present form may be represented approximately as follows. First, the two independent, but parallel, narratives of the patri- archal age, J and E, were combined into a whole by a compiler whose method of work, sometimes incorporating long sections
' Dillmann attempts to separate J and E with great minuteness. But it is often questionable if the phraseological criteria upon which he mainly relies warrant the conclusions which he draws from them. He is apt (as the present writer ventures to think) not to allow sufficiently for the probability tiiat two writers, whose general styles were such as those of J and E are known to have been, would make use of the same expressions, where these expressions are not (as in the case of P) of a peculiar, strongly marked type, l)Ut are such as might be ;-.sed, so far as we can judge, by any writer of the best historiographical style.
GENESIS, 19
of each intact (or nearly so), sometimes fusing the parallel accounts into a single narrative, has been sufficiently illustrated. The whole thus formed (JE) was afterwards combined with the narrative P by a second compiler, who, adopting P as his frame- work, accommodated JE to it, omitting in either what was necessary in order to avoid needless repetition, and making such slight redactional adjustments as the unity of his work required. Thus he naturally assigned i, i — 2, 3 the first place, — perhaps at the same time removing 2, 4* from its original position as superscription to i, i, and placing it where it now stands. In appending next, from J, the narrative of Paradise, he omitted probably the opening words (for the narrative begins abruptly), and \.o Jahweh added the defining ^^]nwc\. Eloh'un} "God," for the purpose of identifying expressly the Author of life in 2, 4^ {'(. with God, the Creator, in i, i fif. Still following J, he took from it the history of Cain and his descendants (4, 1-24), but rejected the list of Seth's descendants (which the fragments that remain show that J must have once contained) except the first two names (4, 25 f.), and the etymology of Noah (5, 29), in favour of the genealogy and chronological details of P (5, 1-28. 30-32). In 6, I — 9, 17 he combines into one the double narrative of the Flood, preserving, however, more from both narratives than was usually his practice, and in parts slightly modifying the phraseology. In 9, 18-27 he introduces from J the prophetical glance at the character and capabilities of the three great ethnic groups descended /'rom Noah, following it by the account, from P, of the close of Noah's life (9, 28 f.). C. 10 (the Table of nations) includes elements derived from both sources (p. 13); it is succeeded by the account from J of the dispersion of mankind (11, 1-9). C. XI, 10-25 carries on the line of Israel's ancestors from Shem to Terah, from P; i r, 26-32 states particulars respecting Abram's immediate relations, taken partly from P, partly from J, and necessary as an introduction to the history of Abram in c. 12 ff. Mutatis mutandis, a similar method is followed in the rest of the book. The narrative of Genesis, though composite, is constructed upon a definite plan, and to the development of this plan the details that are incorporated from the different sources employed are throughout subservient.
^ Producing an unusual and emphatic phrase (= Jahweh, who is God), occurring again in the Pentateuch only Ex. 9, 30.
20 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Twice in P (17, i. 21, i'') the nvimt. JeJwvah appears in place of the name God ; and the variation, il has been argued, is subversive of the grounds upon which the critical analysis of Genesis rests. But this argument attaches undue significance to an isolated phenomenon. We must weigh the alterna- tives, and ask which is the more probable : that an inference, dependent upon an abundance of criteria, extending throughout the entire Pentateuch, should be a mistaken one, or that the compiler, or even a scribe, should tivicc have substituted the more usual Jehovah for Elohim under the influence of the usage of the verses preceding. To this question there can surely be but one answer. The compiler of Chronicles changes conversely Jehoz'ah of his original source into God, neither consistently nor with apparent reason, except that when writing independently, he evinces a preference for the latter term himself; comp. e.g. 2 Ch. 22, 12. 23, 9 ; 25, 24 ; 33, 7 ; 34, 9. 27 with 2 Ki. 1 1, 3. 10 ; 14, 14 ; 21, 7 ; 22, 4. 19.
The more special characteristics of J, E, and P, and the question of their probable dates, will be considered when they have been reviewed in their entirety at the end of the Book of Joshua.
* § 2. Exodus.
Literature (in addition to the works mentioned above, p. I f. ). — Ad. JUiicher, Die Qaellen von Exodus i.-vii. 7, Halis Sax. 1S80, and Die Qiiellen von Exodus \\\. 8 — xxiv. 11, in "Cti^ Jahrbiicher fiir Protcstantische Theologie, 1882, pp. 79-127, 272-315; C. A. Briggs, "The Little Book of the Covenant " [Ex. 34, 11-26] in The Hebrew Student (Chicago), May 1883, p. 264 ff. ; " The Greater Book of the Covenant " [Ex. 20, 22 — c. 23], ib. Jime 18S3, p. 2S9 ft;
The Book of Exodus (called by the Jews, from its opening words, niOL*' n?Nl^ or more briefly nict;') carries on the history
of the Israelitish nation from the death of Joseph to the erection of the Tabernacle by Moses in the second year of the exodus (40, I. 17). The structure of the book is essentially similar to that of Genesis, the same sources, P and JE, appearing still side by side, and exhibiting the same distinctive peculiarities. It will be convenient, in analysing the book, to divide it into sections, which may be briefer than was the case in Genesis.
I. C. I — II. Events hading to the deliverance of t]ie Israelites fro7n Egypt.
C. I — 2. The continued increase of Jacob's posterity in Egypt, and the measures instituted for the purpose of checking it by a "new king," unmindful of the benefits conferred previously upon
EXODUS. 21
his country by Joseph (c. i). The birth and education of Moses, and his flight from Egypt into the land of Midian (c. 2).
b_
'J-
P I, 1-7- 13-^4- 2, 23
I, 8-12. 15-22. 2, 1-23'* (to died).
I, 1-5 repeats the substance of Gen. 46, 8-27 (cf. p. 6). 2, 15-23* are assigned by Dillm. to J, chiefly on the ground that Zipporah's father is called Keuel {v. 18), while in c. 18, which undoubtedly belongs to E, he bears the name of yethro. But, as Jillicher points out, the name Reuel (Nu. 10, 29) may not be part of the original narrative in this chapter ; had it stood in it originally, it would probably have been found in v. 16, rather than in v. 18.
C. 3, I — 7, 13. Moses is commissioned by Jehovah to be the deUverer of his people ; his preliminary negotiations with the Israelites and with Pharaoh.
P 6, 2 — 7, 13.
f J 7-8. 16-20. 4, 1-16. 19-20°. 4, 22 — 6, 1.
IE 3, 1-6. 9-15. 21-22. 17-18. 20''-2I.
In c. 3 the main narrative is E (notice the frequency of God vv. 4. 6^ II. 12. 13*. 14*. 15*), with short passages from J; in c. 4 — 6, I, on the contrary, the main narrative is J, with short passages from E. The verses 4, 17-18. 20^-21 are assigned to E on account of their imperfect connexion with the context : 4, 1 7 speaks of " the signs " to be done with the rod, whereas only one sign to be performed with it has been described vv. 1-9 ; 4, 2 1 mentions wonders to be done before Pharaoh, whereas vv. 1-9 speak only of wonders to be wrought for the satisfaction of the people. The two verses read, in fact, like fragments from another narrative, which once, of course, contained the explanations which are now missing. Further, in the existing narrative, v. ig, from its contents, is not fitted to be \\\t sequel oi v. 18: it, in fact, states an alternative ground for Moses' return into Egypt ; and the name Jethro makes it probable that v. iZ belongs to the same current of narrative as 3, i and c. 18 {i.e. E) ; hence v. 19 will be referred to J. V. 20^ goes naturally with v. 17 (the rod).
Passing now to the consideration of the passage assigned to P (6, 2 — 7, 13), and comparing it with JE as a whole, we observe that it does not describe the sequel of 3, i — 6, i, but i?, parallel to it, and contains a partly divergent account of the commission of Moses, and of the preliminary steps taken by him to secure the release of his people. This will be apparent if the narrative
22 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
be followed attentively. 3, i — 6, i describes the call and com- mission of Moses, the nomination of Aaron as his spokesman with the people (3, 16. 4, i. 16), and three signs given to him for the satisfaction of the people if they should demand his credentials : Moses and Aaron have satisfied the people (4, 30. 31), but their application to Pharaoh has proved unsuccessful (c. 5), and something further is threatened (6, i). The con- tinuation of 6, I is, however, 7, 14; for though the revelation and commission contained in 6, 2-S might in itself h^ treated as a repetition of that in c. 3, its different style points to P as its source, and the sequel shows that in fact it is part of a parallel narrative of Moses' call and commission, in which, nnlike 4, 31, the people refuse to listen to the promises conveyed to them (6, g), and in which, upon Moses' protesting his inability to plead, not, as before, with the people, but with Pharaoh^ Aaron is appointed to be his spokesman with him (6, 11-12. 29-30. 7, 1-2). If Pharaoh had already refused to hear him (as he would have done, had c. 5 — 6 formed a continuous narrative), it is scarcely possible that Moses should allege (6, 12) a different a priori ground — a ground, moreover, inconsistent with 4, 31 — for his hesitation. Aaron having been thus appointed Moses' spokesman with Pharaoh, the case of the king's requiring a guarantee is next provided for : Aaron's rod is to be thrown down that it may become a reptile ^ 7, 8 f. Pharaoh's heart, however, is hardened; and the narrative at 7, 13 has reached just the same point which was reached in 6, i. The parallelism of details which prevails between the two narratives is remark- able; comp. 6, 2-8 and 3, 6-9. 14-15; 6, la"" (= 30) and 4, 10 ; 7, I and 4, 16; 7, 4 f . and 3, 19 f. 6, i.
•
7, 14 — II, 10. The narrative of the plagues.
^ P 7, 19-20° (to commanded). 2i*'-22.
) I J 7, 14-18. 23. 25.
( I E 17 (partly) 2o''-2i" (to river). 24.
P 8, 5-7. i5''-T9- 9. 8-12.
fj 8.21-4.
8, 20—9, 7. 13-21. 23''-34.
22-23". 24». 35.
1 )'3ri a 7-epiile, not t^'Hi a serpent, as in 4, 3.
* The verses are numbered as in the English version.
EXODUS. 23
1 {{ "■ "'■
I3''-I9. 28-29. II, 4 8.
10, 8-13'. 14* 20-27. ^'^' i~3- 9-10.
The grounds of the analysis depend, in the first instance, upon Hterary criteria ; which, however, are remarkably supported by corresponding differences in the representation. Reserving for the present the consideration of the few passages referred to E, and confining our attention to P and J, we observe that the narrative of the plagues is marked by a series of systematic differ- ences, relating to four distinct points — viz. i. the terms of the command addressed to Moses ; 2. the demand made of Pharaoh ; 3. the description of the plague ; 4. the formula expressive of Pharaoh's obstinacy : and further, that these differ- ences ^^r^^ /ri?^/^^;2/'/v w/M corresponding differences in the parts of the preceding narrative, 3, i — 6, i, which have been assigned (on independent grounds) to P and JE respectively. Thus in P Aaron co-operates with Moses, and the command is Say iintc Aaron (7, 19. 8, 5. 16; so before, in 7, 9: even 9, 8, where Moses acts, both are expressly addressed) ; no demand is ever made of Pharaoh, the plagues being viewed rather as signs, or proofs of power, than as having the practical object of securing Israel's release ; the description of the plague is brief, seldom extending beyond the compass of two or three verses ; the success or failure of the Egyptian magicians (who are mentioned only in this narrative) is noted ; the hardening of Pharaoh's heart is expressed by the verb pm, p-fn {ivas strong, made strong RV. niarg.) 7, 22. 8, 19. 9, 12 (so 7, 13), and the concluding formula is Aftd he hearkened not unto them, as Jehovah had spoken (7, 22. 8, 15^ 19. 9, 12 : so 7, 13). In J, on the contrary, Moses alone (without Aaron) is commissioned to present himself before Pharaoh ; he addresses Pharaoh himself^ (in agreement with 4, 10-16, where Aaron is appointed expressly to be Moses' spokesman with the people) ; a formal demand is uniformly made, Let 7?iy people go, that they t?iay serve jne (7, 16. 8, i. 9, i. 13. 10, 3: so before 4, 23. 5, i in the corresponding narrative); upon Pharaoh's refusal, the plague is announced, and takes
^ Aaron, if he appears at all, is only Moses* silent companion : 8, 8 (see w. 9. 10). 25 (see vv. 26. 29). 9, 27 (see v. 29). In 10, 3 it is doubtful if the plural " and ///^j/ said " is original : notice at the end of the speech {v. 6'') " and he turned."
24 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
effect, either without further human intervention (8, 24. 9, 6), or at a signal given by Moses (not by Aaron) (7, 20. 9, 22 f. 10, 12 f 22); the interview with Pharaoh is prolonged, and described in some detail ; sometimes also the king sends for Moses and Aaron to crave their intercession for the removal of the plague (8, 8. 25. 9, 27. 10, 16); the term used to express the hardening of Pharaoh's heart is was heavy (133) or made heavy (nosn) 7, 14. 8, 15. 32. 9, 7. 34. 10, I. The narrative generally is written in a more picturesque and varied style than that of P ; there are frequent descriptive touches, and the dialogue is abundant. In a word, the two currents of narrative display just the same contrasted literary characteristics which they exhibit in the Book of Genesis.
Recurring phrases which mark this narrative and distinguish it from that of P are (besides " Let my people go " &c., and "133, n^n^n of the heart, just noted) refuseth (|S0)) esp. followed by " to let the people go," 7, 14. 8, 2.
9, 2. 10, 3. 4 (so before 4, 23) ; 7, 15 serpent C^ni), see 4, 3; Thus sailh Jehovah, said regularly to Pharaoh (so 4, 22. 5, i) ; behold . . . with the participle in the announcement of the plague 7, 17. S, 2. 21. 9, 3. iS. 10, 4 (so 4, 23); border 8, 2. 10, 4. 14. 19; tJiou, thy people, and thy sen'auts 8, 3. 4. 9. II. 21. 29. 9, 14,1 cf 10, 6. 12, 30; God of the Hebreivs 7, 16. 9, I. 13. 10, 3 (so 3, 18. 5, 3) ; to intreat 8, 8. 9. 28. 29. 9, 28.
10, 17; such as hath not been &c. 9, 18. 24. 11, 6, cf. 10, 6, 14; to sever (ri/Sn) 8, 22. 9, 4. 11,7; the end or object of the plague (or circumstance attending it) stated 8, 10. 22. 9, 14. 16. 29''. 10, 2''. 11, 7.
The grounds for believing that what remains in the narrative of the plagues after the separation of P is not perfectly homo- geneous, but contains elements due to E, are, stated briefly, as follows. Reasons were given above (p. 21) for concluding that the two verses 4, 17-18, which speak of the rod of Moses, were not originally part of the context in which they are now found, and they were assigned accordingly to E. Now, in the narrative of the plagues, the effect in certain cases is brought about not immediately by God, but by the intervention of Moses' rod (7, 17. 2o'\ 9, 23. 10, 13). It is difficult not to connect the passages in which the rod is thus named with 4, 17-18, and to treat both as notices derived from the same source E. The opinion that the parts of the narrative which remain after the
^ The symmetry of this verse is much improved, if, with Hitzig, for "J^p PX we read '13 i^?^*
EXODUS. 25
separation of P are to some extent composite, is confirmed by other indications. Thus in 7, 17 the transition from the " I " of God to the " I " of Moses is abrupt and (in the historical books) unusual; hence the suspicion arises that originally the subject of / will smite was Jehovah (cf. v. 25^), and that the words "with the rod that is in mine hand" were introduced by the compiler of JE from the other source used by him. By the side of 9, 34^ V. 35* would seem to be superfluous.
The reasons for attributing to E the other passages assigned to this source in the analysis must be sought in the works of Welih. DiUm. and Jiilicher. It may be that a few additional traits are also derived from him ; but the point is one on which it is not possible to speak with confidence. Only one plague (as it seems, ;s derived entirely from E, the ninth (10, 21-27). The concluding formula in E is and Pharaoh's heart was hardened [p^n lit- '"«•? strong\ (or and Jehovah hardened PharaoK s heart), and he would not let the children of Israel (or them) go 9, 35 (contrast J 's phrase, v. 34''). 10, 20. 27. II, 10 (cf. 4, 21 E). P uses the same verb pm, but follows it by and he hearkened not nnto them, as Jc'iovah had spoken.
II. c. 12 — 19, 2. The last plague, the departure of tJie Israelites fro/n Egypt, and their Jc iirney to Sinai.
C. 12 — 13. The institution of the Passover, and the Feast of Unleavened Cakes. The death cf the first-born of the Egyptians, and journey of the Israelites from Rameses to Succoth. The law respecting the dedication of the first-born (12, i — 13, 16). March of the Israelites from Succoth to Etham, on the border of the wilderness (13, 17-22).
P 12, 1-20. 28. 37". 40-51- i.^. I f- 20.
T 20 f. ^ ,^ 21 f.
-' 2I-'^7. ^1, ^-10.
E ^ 31-36- 37''-39- -^ 17-19-
{
In c. 12 — 13 the double treatment is peculiarly evident. We have («) 12, 1-13 (Passover); 14^-20 {Mazzoth or Unleavened Cakes); 28. 37^ 40-42. 51 (narrative); 43-5° (Passover — supplementary); 13, i f. (first-born): {b) 12, 21-27 (Passover); 29-36. 37'-38 (narrative, — continuation of 11, 4-8); 39. 13, 3-10 (Unleavened Cakes); 11-16 (first-born): the former narrative exhibits throughout the marks of P ; the latter, those of JE. The Passover, it is to be observed, though followed by the Feast of Mazzoth (Unleavened Cakes), is distinct from it both in its origin and in its observance; and the distinction is recognised in both
^ V. 14 refers to the first day of Mazzoth (Lev. 23, 6), not to the Passover.
26 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
narratives, especially in that of JE. The injunction in P respect- ing the first-born (13, i f.) is here isolated; the full explanation is first given Nu. 3, 12 f 8, 16-19.
The distinction between P and JE in c, 12 is sufficiently established upon literary grounds ; but a material justification of the analysis is to be found in the fact that 12, 21-27 cannot be the original sequel of 12, 1-20 (or rather, of 12, 1-13; for vv. 14-20 do not concern the Passover at all). The verses do not describe the execution of the commands received by Moses in iw. I- 1 3. Moses does not repeat to the people, even in an abridged form, the injunctions before received by him ; but, while several points of importance {e.g. the character of the lamb, and the manner in which it was to be eaten) are omitted, fresh points (the hyssop, the basin, none to leave the house), not mentioned before, are added. The inference is irresistible that 12, 21-27 is really part of a different account of the institution of the Passover,! which "stands to 12, 3-13 in the same relation that the regulations respecting Mazzoth in 13, 3-10 stand to those in 12, 14-20" (Dillm. p. 100). Vv. 25-27 are conceived entirely in the spirit of parts of 13, 3-16 (see vv. 5. 8. 10. 14 f.) ; it is probable, therefore, that both passages are of similar origin, and may be referred either to J (Dillm.) or to the compiler of JE expanding materials derived from J (so Wellh., at least for 13, 3-16).
A noticeable difference between P and JE is the greater specialization and strictness of the provisions contained in the former narrative {e.g. 12, 15 f. 18 f. 43-49). As regards the parts assigned to E, with v. 31'' comp. 3, 12. 10, 8. II. 24"; with V. 32, ID, 9. 24" ; with v. 35 f., 3, 21 f. 11, 2 f. (all E) ; in 13, 17-19 notice God (not Jehovah) four times; and with v. 19 comp. Gen. 50, 24, in a context which (on independent grounds) is assigned to the same source. 12, 34. 39 deserve attention, being evidently intended as an explanation of the origin of the Feast of " Unleavened Cakes."
C. 14 — 15. The passage of the Red Sea; Moses' Song of Triumph ; the journey of the Israelites to Marah and Elim.
P 14, 1-4. 8-9. 15-18.
5-7. 10' (to afraid). 11-14. i9''-20.
10". \g\
^ Dr. Green's explanation of the imperfect connexion of 12, 21-27 with the preceding narrative [Hebrew Feasts, p. 102) does not .satisfy the require- ments of the case. See further on c. 12-13, Delitzsch, Studieii, vii. p. 337 ff.
EXODUS. 27
P 21^ {to over /^e sea). zi". 22-22. 26-27'' (ioover the sea).
<] 21*' (to dry /and). 24-25.
IE
P 28-29. (15. 19)-
fj 27". 30-31. 22-27
^E IS, 1-18. 20-21. ^^ ^7-
The passages assigned to P will be found to be connected both with each other and with other parts of the Pentateuch belonging to the same source : thus "harden (pTPl) the heart " z-. 4 recurs m'. 8. 17, and is the same term that is used by P in the narrative of the plagues (p. 23) ; "get me honour" id. recurs vv. 17. 18. Lev. 10, 3 ; comp. also Z'v. 4. 18 " and the Egyptians shall know," &c. (cf. 6, 7. 7, 5. 16, 12); w. 9. 23 "and the Egyptians pursued;" vv. 22. 2Q "the dry land" and "the wall;" vv. 16. 21 "divide;" the rcpetilio7is (in the manner of P) in v. 17 f. as compared with V. 4, in 28" as compared with 23, in 29 as compared with 22. The particulars of the analysis depend to a certain extent upon the apparently double char- acter of the narrative in some parts of the chapter. As regards the parts attributed to E, with v. 10" comp. Josh. 24, 7 (E) ; with v. 19, Gen. 21, 17. 31, II (the "angel of God"). It is possible that other trails in the narrative also have their source in E {e.g. v. 16 " hft up thy rod ;" comp. above, p. 24). 14, 28" may be a notice derived from J (comp. 8, 31. 9, 7. 10, 19).
In c. 15 the Song{zn'. i''-i8, cf. 20-21) is, of course, incorporated by E from an earlier source — perhaps from a collection of national poems. K 19 appears to be a later redactional addition, reverting, in terms borrowed from P (see 14, 23. 26. 29*'), to the occasion of the Song. The Song itself appears to have undergone some expansion, or modification of form, at a later age ; for V. 13 ("Thou hast guided them to Thy holy habitation") appears clearly to describe a. fast event, and v. 17'' points to some Jixed abode of the ark^ the temple at Shiloh (i Sa. I, 9), if not (Riehm, Eiiil. p. 299 f.) the temple at Jerusalem. 1 In z'z/. i*'-3 we seem indeed (to use Dillmann's expression) to hear Moses himself speaking ; and both Dillm. and Delitzsch {Gen. p. 29) agree with Ewald {Die Dichter des A.B.^s, i. i, p. 175 ; cf. Hist. ii. 354) in sppposing that the Song, as a whole, is a later expansion of the Mosaic theme contained in vv. l''~3, — perhaps designed originally as a festal Passover- song (Is. 30, 29). Probably, however, the greater part of the Song is Mosaic, and the modification, or expansion, is limited to the closing verses ; for the general style is antique, and the triumphant tone which pervades it is just such as might naturally have been inspired by the event which it celebrates.
C. 16^19, 2. The journey of the Israehtes from Elim to Sinai, including particulars respecting the quails and manna given to the people in the wilderness of Sinai (c. i6); the miraculous supply of water at Rephidim, and the conflict with Amalek at the same place (c. 17) ; the meeting with Jethro, and the counsel given by him to Moses (c. 18).
1 The verbs in 17" may be translated as pasts or futures, indifferently.
28 LITERATURE OF THE OI,D TESTAMENT.
P i6, 1-3. 6-24. 31 36. 17, i' (to Rephidlm).
4-5- 25-30' -17. i''-^.
3-6.
19, I-2».
3-16. c. 18. 19, 2^
In c. 16 the parts assigned to P have many marks of his style which are absent from the rest of the narrative (see § 7). There are also corresponding differences of representation ; thus in vv. 6-7 [evening and morning, agreeing with vv. 8. \i flesh at evening, and bread at morning) the communication made to the people is different in its terms from that given in vv. 4-5 to Moses {bread alone, with no distinction of morning and evening) ; and vv. 25-30 agree with vv, 4-5. In the text of P a transposition appears to have taken place; for vv. 11-12 the command to speak to the people follows the account vv. 6-8 of the actual delivery to them of the message ; probably the original order was vv. 1-3. 9-12. 6-8. 13 &c.
C. 18, though in one or two places (as in parts of vv. 2-4. 8- 10) there may be traces of the hand of the compiler of JE, is other- wise an excerpt from E ; notice the preponderance in the chapter of God (not Jehovah). The chapter is one of great historical interest : it exhibits to us a picture of Moses legishxtbig. Disputes arise among the people ; the contending parties come to Moses to have them settled ; he adjudicates between them ; and his judgments are termed "the statutes and decisions {TorotJi) oi God" {v. 16). It was the historic function of the priests to give decisiotis (niin, miin) upon cases submitted to them, in matters both of civil right (Dt. 17, 11) and ceremonial observance {ib. 24, 8) ; and here Moses himself appears discharging the same function, and so laying the foundation of Hebrew law.
III. 19,3 — c. 40. Israel at Sinai.
(a) The solemn establishment of the theocracy at Sinai (see 19, 5-8. 24, 3-8) on the basis of the Ten Commandments (20, 1-17), and of a Code of laws (20, 23—23, 33) regulating the social life and religious observances of the people, and called the " Book of the Covenant " (24, 7); (b) the giving of directions to Moses on Mount Sinai for the construction of the Tabernacle, with the vessels and appointments belonging to it, for the conse- cration of Aaron and his sons as priests, the selection of Bezaleel and Oholiab to execute the skilled work that was necessary, and the delivering to Moses of the two Tables of the Law (24, 12— 31, 18); (e) the incident of the Golden Calf, Moses' intercession
EXODUS. 29
on behalf of the people, and the renewal of the covenant (c. 32 — 34) ; (d) the construction of the Tabernacle and its appurten- ances in accordance with the directions prescribed in c. 25 — 31, and its erection (40, 17) on the first day of the second year of the exodus (c. 35 — 40).
f J 20-25. 20, 22-23, 33. 3-8.
i.E 19, 3-19.1 20, 1-21. 24, (1-2). (9-11)- 12-14-
P 24, is-i8» (to clo7(d). 25, I— 31, i8» (to testimony).
\e. 24, i8\ 31. I8^ 32, 1-8.
34, 29-35. c. 35—40.
{
i 32. 9-14. 15-29.30-33.6.17-". 3.3.12-34-28.
The structure of JE's narrative of the transactions at Sinai 19,
3 24, 14. 18'^ and 31, 18^' — 34, 28 is complicated, and there
are parts in which the analysis (so far as concerns J and E) must be regarded as provisional only. Nevertheless, the composite character of the narrative seems to be unmistakable. Thus in c. 19 the natural sequel of z'. 3 went up would be, not v. 7 came, but V. 14 ivent down: v. (^ is superfluous after v. 8'' (if, indeed, it be more than an accidental repetition of it): v. 13^' is isolated, and not explained by anything which follows (for the " trumpet " of vv. 16-19 is not the " ram's-horn " of this verse). In the latter part of the chapter vv. 20-25 interrupt the connexion : z;. 20 is a repetition of v. iS'' ("descended"), and v. 21 of v. 12; the priests and Aaron are introduced without preparation : v. 2^ " and said ("i?DS''l) unto them " (not " and told them ") should be followed by a statement of the words reported, and is quite dis- connected with 20, I : on the other hand, 20, i is the natural continuation of 19, 19. It is evident that two parallel narratives of the theophany on Sinai have been combined together, though it is no longer possible to determine throughout the precise limits of each. 19, 20-25 are commonly assigned to J : Kuenen con- siders these verses, together with v. 13'^ 24, 1-2. 9-11 (which similarly interrupt the connexion in c. 24), as standing by them- selves, and forming part of a third and independent narrative of the occurrences at Sinai. 19, 3-19 (though parts oivv. 3-8 may
1 In the main.
30 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
be derived from J) belongs in the main to E ; the sequel (as just said) is formed by 20, i, introducing the Decalogue (20, 2-17), and the following verses 20, 18-2 1^ (notice God \n 19, 3. 17. 19^ 20, I. 19. 20. 21). 24, 12-14. iS**. In c. 24, 7'7'. 1-2. 9-1 1 are of uncertain origin. Possibly they are to be regarded as in- troductory to V. 12 ff., and assigned to E; possibly, as Kuenen supposes, they belong with 19, 13^ 20-25 to ^^ independent narrative, of which only fragments have been preserved.
The Decalogue was, of course, derived by E from a pre-existing source, at least the substance of it being engraven on the tables in the Ark, and incorporated by him in his narrative. Some interesting critical questions arise from a comparison of the Decalogue as here given with the form in which it is repeated in Dt. (5, 6-21), where, although it is introduced ostensibly {vv. 5. 22) as a verbal quotation, it presents considerable differences from the text of Exodus. The differences are most remarkable in the 4th, 5th, and loth Commandments, which are here printed in parallel columns, the variations being indicated by italics : —
Ex. 20. Dt. 5.
8. Remember the sabbath day to 12. Observe the sabbath day to
keep it holy. keep it holy, as Jehovah thy God com-
9. Six days shalt thou nianded thee. 13. Six days shalt thou
labour, and do all thy work : 10. but labour, and do all thy work : 14. but
the seventh day is a sabbath unto the seventh day is a sabbath unto
Jehovah thy God : in it thou shalt not Jehovah thy God : in it thou shalt not
do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor
thy daughter, thy man-servant, thy daughter, 7ior thy man-servant,
nor thy maid-servant, nor nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox,
thy cattle, nor tliine ass, nor any of thy cattle,
nor thy stranger that is within thy nor thy stranger that is within thy
gales : gates : in order that thy man-sei-vatit
and thy maid-servant may rest as jvell
II. For in six days Jehovah made as thou. 15. A)id than shalt remcni-
heaven, and earth, the sea, and all her that tlion wast a sci~vant in the
that in them is, and rested the seventh latid of E,i^ypt, and Jehovah thy God
day : therefore Jehovah blessed the brought thee out thence by a mighty
sabbath day, and hallowed it. ha7td, and by a stretched out arm :
therefo7-e Jehovah thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.
1 Kuenen, in his discussion of these chapters in the Th. Tijdschr. xv. 190, suggested that 20, 18-21 stood originally in E between 19, 15-19 and 20, i ; and Wellh. Camp. 327 f. assents. Certainly the verses suit the proposed place ; and their position there ivould explain the allusion in Dt. 5, 5.
EXODUS. 31
12. Honour thy father and thy 16. Honour thy father and thy
mother. mother, as Jehovah thy God com-
that thy days may be ma7ided thee : that thy days may be
Iqujt long, a^id that it may be well with
upon the land which Jehovah thee, upon the land which Jehovah
thy God is giving thee. thy God is giving thee.
• • • • • .....
17. Thou shall not covet thy 21. Ami thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not neighbour's wife, and thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, desi)-e thy neighbour's house, his field, or his man-servant, or his maid-ser- or his man-servant, or his maid-ser- vant, <7r his ox, or his ass, or anything vant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is thy neighbour's. that is thy neighbour's.
The principal variations are in agreement with the style of Dt., and the author's hand is recognisable in them. Thus with Observe v. 12 comp. Dt. 16, i ; with as Jehovah thy God com- manded thee (which is not strictly appropriate in what purports to be a report of the words spoken), 20, 17. 24, 8. 26, 18; with the spirit oiv. I4^ 14, 29. 15, 10; with the motive of gratitude in v. 15, 15, 15. 16, II. 12. 24, 18. 22 ; and with the addition in V. 16'', 5, 29 [Heb. 26]. 6, 18. 12, 25. 28. 22, 7. Does, however, even the text of Ex. exhibit the Decalogue in its primitive form ? It is an old and probable supposition,^ suggested in part by the fact of this varying text, that in its original form the Decalogue consisted merely of the Commandments themselves, and that the explanatory comments appended in certain cases were only added subsequently. Thus, according to this view, the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Commandments read originally : —
" Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image." " Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy." " Honour ihy father and thy mother."
All the Commandments would thus be moulded in uniform shape, and would be expressed in the same terse and simple form in which the ist, and the 6th to the 9th, appear now. It has further been conjectured that, as the comments in vv. 9. 10. T2 bear a singular resemblance to the style of Dt., they were in the first instance added in that book, and thence transferred sub- sequently to Ex.; and that, as it is scarcely probable that the author of Dt. would omit part of the Decalogue (though he might
1 Ewald, Hist. ii. 159 ; Spealar s Conim. p. 336; Dillmann, p. 201.
32
LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
for the purpose of explanation add clauses), v. 1 1 may have been only introduced into the text of Ex. after Dt. was written. As regards the first of these conjectures, it is no doubt attractive and plausible. In the phrase "them that love me" v. 6 there is embodied a thought which in the Pent, is confined to Dt., viz. the love of God, which in that book is made the foundation of all human action (e.g. 6, 5. 10, 12. 11. i al.); the expression "within thy gates" v. 10 (= in thy cities) is all but peculiar to Dt., occurring in it twenty-nine times; the expressions in v. 12 "that thy days may be long," and "the land which Jehovah thy God is giving thee," are also (especially the latter) of repeated occur- rence in the same book (neither occurring elsewhere in the Pent.). These facts possess undoubtedly considerable weight. It is, however, an objection to the inference which they appear to authorize, that the clauses in question (as a glance at the parallel columns will show) are not incorporated ejitire in Exodus. If the clauses were transferred to Ex. from Dt., it is not apparent why portions of them were omitted. On the whole, therefore, the more probable view appears to be that these clauses are in their original place in Exodus, and that they are of the same character as certain other sections in Ex., chiefly of a parenetic or hortatory character (as 13, 3-16. 23, 20-33), which do exhibit an approxi- mation to the style of Dt., and which are the source of certain of the expressions which were adopted afterwards by the author of Dt., and became part of his phraseology.^ It must, indeed, be admitted that the expression "within thy gates," and the phrases in v. 12, read more distinctively Deuteronomic than those occurring in the sections referred to ; but (unless the text of the Decalogue has passed through phases respecting which we can but speculate) the explanation proposed seems to be the most reasonable one. If it be correct, the additions in Dt. will, of course, be of the nature oi further comments upon the text of Exodus. V. II, however, stands upon a different footing : not only does it supply no elements for the style of Dt., but it is dis- similar in style to JE : in its first clause it resembles closely 3r, 17'', and in its second Gen. 2, 2^ — both passages belonging to P. As there is force in the remark that the author of Dt. is not likely to have omitted the verse had it formed part of the Decalogue at the time when he wrote, it is not improbable that ^ The expressions referred to are noted below, at the end of § 5.
EXODUS. 33
it was introduced into the text of Exodus subsequently, upon the basis of the two verses of P just cited.
The laws contained in the " Book of the Covenant " (20, 20 — 23, 33) comprise two elements (24, 3), the " words " (or com- mands) and the "judgments:" the latter, expressed all hypo- thetically," occupy 21, i — -22, 17. 25^ 26. 23, 4 f . ; the former occupy the rest of the section to 23, 19 ; what follows, 23, 20-33, annexing 2^. promise in case of obedience, as Wellh. observes, im- parts to the preceding law-book the character of a " covenant " (of. 24, 7). The laws themselves are taken naturally from a pre- existing source, though their form, in particular cases, may be due to the compiler who united J and E into a whole. The main body of the "judgments," 21, i — 22, 17, seems to have undergone no alteration of form ; but in the following parts of the section most critics are of opinion that slight parenetic addi- tions have been made by the compiler; eg. 22, 21^-22 (observe in V. 23 [Heb. 22] him, he, his in the Hebrew, pointing back to the singular "sojourner" in v. 21) ; and in the final exhortation, 23, 23-25^^ (which anticipates unduly v. 27 f., and disguises the conditional character of the promises vv. 25^. 26 ff., which are dependent on v. 22) : the substance of this passage may have been derived from 34, 11. 13. The verses 23, 4 f. can hardly be in their original position ; for the context (on both sides) relates to a subject of a different kind, viz. just judgment.
The laws themselves are designed to regulate the life of a community living under simple conditions of societ}', and chiefly occupied in agriculture ? They may be grouped as follows : — (i) 20, 22-26 prohibition of graven images, and regulations for the construction of altars; (2) 21, 2-1 1 regulations respecting Hebrew male and female slaves ; (3) 21, 12-17 capital offences; (4) 21, 18-32 injuries to life or limb ; (5) 21, 33-22, 6 cases of danger caused by culpable negligence, or theft; (6) 22, 7-17 deposits, loans, and seduction (which is here treated, not as a moral offence, but as a wrong done to the father, and demanding pecuniary compensation); (7) 22, 18-31, and 23, 4 f. (not to ■ refuse help to an oiemy in his need), miscellaneous religious and moral injunctions; (8) 23, 1-3. 6-9 veracity, and equity in the
^ To Cod, 25^ beginning originally with "And / will bless" (so LXX. Vulg.). _
^ Notice the prominence of the ox, ass, and sheep, 21, 28 — 22, 10,
C
34 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
administration of judgment ; (9) 23, 10-19 on the Sabbatical year, the Sabbath, the three annual pilgrimages, and sacrifice ; (10) 23, 20-33 the concluding exhortation. That the community for whose use the Code was designed had made some progress in civilisation, is evident from the many restrictions imposed on the arbitrary action of the individual ; on the other hand, that it was still in a relatively archaic condition appears from such regula- tions as 21, 18 f. 23-5 (the lex talionis), or the conception of God as the immediate source of judgment (21, 6 ; 22, 8-9 : cf. i. S. 2, 25). Notice also the rudimentary character of the ceremonial injunctions respecting altars 20, 24-26, the right of asylum 21, 13 f., first-fruits and firstlings 22, 29 f. 23, 19, prohibition to eat nsiD 22, 31, the observance of the sacred seasons 23, 10-17, sacrifice 23, 18; comp. 20, 23. 22, 20 against the worship of idols or other gods, just and equitable motives are insisted on {e.g. 22, 21. 27. 23, 4f. 9) ; but religious institutions, it is evident, are still in a simple, undeveloped stage.^
In c. 24, V. 18" ("and he went up," &c.) is E's introduction to 31, i8\ c. 32 ; and vv. 15-18' are P's introduction to c. 25 — 31.
C. 25—31, I S'* form P's account of the instructions given to Moses respecting the Tabernacle and the priesthood. These instructions fall into two parts : (i) c. 25—29 ; (2) c. 30 — 31. In c. 25—29 the following subjects are dealt with :— («) the vessels of the Sanctuary, named naturally first, as being of central interest and importance (c. 25) ; {b) the Tabernacle, designed to contain and guard them (c. 26) ; (c) the Court round the Taber- nacle containing the Altar of the daily Burnt-offering (c. 27) ; {d) the dress (c. 28) and consecration (29, 1-37) of the priests who are to serve in the Sanctuary ; {e) the daily Burnt-offering, the maintenance of which is a primary duty of the Priesthood (29, 38-42), followed by what is apparently the final close of the entire body of instructions, 29, 43-46, in which Jehovah promises that He will bless the Sanctuary thus established with His pre- sence. C. 30—31 relate to {a) the Altar of Incense (30, i-io); {b) the maintenance of public service (30, 11-16) ; {c) the Brazen Laver (30, 17-21) ; {d) the holy Anointing Oil (30, 22-33) ; (^) the Incense (50, 34-38) ; (/) the nomination of Bezaleel and Oholiab(3T, i-ii); (^) the observance of the Sabbath (31,12-17). i Comp. further on this code W. R. Smith, OTJC. p. 33^ ff-
EXODUS. 35
A question arises here whether the whole of this group of chapters belongs to the original legislation of P. It is remarkable that the Altar of Incense^ which, from its importance, might have seemed to demand a place in c. 26 — 29 (among the other vessels of the Tabernacle), is mentioned for the first time in 30, l-io, when the directions respecting the essential parts of the Tabernacle are apparently complete (see 29, 43-46) : even in 26, 34 f. (where the position of the vessels of the sanctuary is defined) it is not included. Moreover, the annual rite prescribed in Ex. 30, 10 is not noticed in the detailed account of the Day of Atonement in Lev. 16, and only one altar, the altar of Burnt-offering, appears to be named throughout the chapter. Further, the ceremony of anointing, which in 29, 7. Lev. 8, 12 is confined to the Chief priest (Aaron), is in 30, 30 extended to the ordinary priests (his "sons"), although the original limitation to Aaron alone would seem to be confirmed by the title "the anoiiilid priest," applied to the Chief priest (Lev. 4, 3. 5. 16. 6, 22 [Ileb. 15] : cf. 16, 32. 21, 10. 12. Ex. 29, 29 f. Nu. 35, 25), which, if the priests generally were anointed, would be destitute of any distinctive significance. On these grounds (chiefly) it is argued that c. 30 — 31, together with certain other passages in which the same phenomena occur, form part of a secondary and posterior stratum of P, representing a later phase of cere- monial usage. Space forbids the question being considered here as fully as it deserves; and it must suffice to refer to Wellh. Comp. 139 ff. ; Kuen. Hex. § 6. 13 ; Del. Studien, iii. ; Dillni. EL. p. 263 f., NDJ. p. 635 ; and the Diet, of the Bible {e:d. 2), art. Exouus.
The section on the Sabbath (31, 12-17), ^^ ^^'^ been often observed {e.g. by Delitzsch, Studien, xii. p. 622), has in w. 13-14* affinities with the code of which extracts have been preserved in Lev. 17 — 26 (see p. 43 ff.) ; and it is probable that these verses have been excerpted thence, and adapted here as the nucleus of a law inculcating the observance of the Sabbath in connexion with an occasion on which the temptation might arise to disregard it.
In the narrative of the Golden Calf (31, iS*" — 34, 28), c. 32, as a whole, may be assigned plausibly to E; only vv. 9-14 appear to have been expanded by the compiler of JE (comp. Gen. 22, 16-18, to which \n V. 13 allusion is inade). 32, 34 — t,t,, 6 ex- hibits traces of a double narrative : thus v. 5^ the people are commanded to do what, according to 4^, they had ahxady done — which confirms the. prifjia facie view that vv. 5-6 are a doublet of vv. 3^-4. No satisfactory analysis of the entire passage has, however, been effected. All that can be said is that if E be the basis of 33, 1-6, it has been amplified by the compiler, possibly with elements derived from J.
33, 7-1 1, which (as the tenses in the original show) describe throughout Moses' fra dice {v. 7 " tiscd to take and pitch," &c.), was preceded, it may be conjectured, in its original connexion by an account of the construction of the Tent of Meeting and of
36 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
the Ark,^ which was no doubt the purpose to which the orna- ments, vv. 4-6, were put ; when the narrative was combined with that of P, this part of it (being superfluous by the side of c. 25. 35 &c.) was probably omitted, only vv. 7-1 1 being regarded as of sufficient interest to be retained.
33, 1 2 — "34, 9 forms a continuous whole, though whether belong- ing to J (Dillm.) or to the compiler of JE (Wellh.) can scarcely be definitely determined ; in 34, 1-3 there may be traces of E. Ic is a plausible conjecture of Dillmann's that TyT^, 14-17 originally followed 34, 9 : where they at present stand, they break the con- nexion between t^I-, 13 ^"d 33, 18; while as stating the issue of the whole intercession, and directly responding to 34, 9, they would be entirely in place. 34, 10-26 introduce the terms of the covenant, v. 27. These agree substantially — often even verbally'^ — with the theocratic section of the "Book of the Covenant" (23, 10 ff.); the essential parts of which appear to be repeated, with some enlargement (especially in the warning against idolatry vv. 12-17), ^s constituting the conditions for the reneival oi the covenant.
In the preceding pages no attempt has been made to give more than an outline of the structure of JE's narrative in c. 19 — 24. 32 — 34. Much has been written upon it ; but though it appears to display plain marks of composition, it fails to supply the criteria requisite for distributing it in detail between the different narrators, and more than one hypothesis may be framed which will account, at least apparently, for the facts demanding ex- planation. It is probable that it reached its present form by a series of stages which can no longer, in their entirety, be dis- tinguished with certainty. The relation of the Code of laws in 34, 11-26 to the very similar Code in 23, 10 ff. is also capable of different explanations. Hence beyond a certain point the conclusions of critics are divergent. Under the circumstances, it seemed wisest to the writer not to include in his analysis more than appeared to him to be reasonably probable.
Those who desire to pursue the subject further should consult Wellh. Comp. pp. 83 ff., 327-333 ; Dillmann, Cointn. pp. 189 ff., 331 ff. (who in some
^ See especially Dt. 10, i, which a comparison with the text of Ex. shows must refer to something omitted in the existing narrative (see below, § 5)-
- Cf. w. 18. 2o'\ 21. 22-3. 25-6 with 23, 15. 12. 16-19. ^'^- 19-20', how- ever, agree with an earlier part ofJE, viz. 13, 12-13.
EXODUS.
37
3- 4-
5- 6.
7-
respects takes a very different view from Wellh.); and Jiilicher, JPTh. 1882, pp. 295-315. See also Montefiore,/6-ww^ Quart. Kcv. 1S91, p. 276 ff. In 34, 27-2S the preceding body of laws on the basis of which the covenant is made, appears to be spoken of as "Ten Commandments" (Heb. "words"). It has hence been supposed that, though in its present form it has undergone expansion, it originally consisted of ten particular injunctions ; and many attemots have been made to determine which these may have been. Wellh. {I.e. p. 331 f.) reconstructs this second " Decalogue" as follows : —
1. Thou shalt not worship any other god {v. 14).
2. Thou shalt not make to thyself any molten gods {v. 17). The Feast of Unleavened Cakes shalt thou keep {v. 18). All that first openeth the womb is mine {v. 19), The Feast of Weeks thou shalt observe {v. 22).
And the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year {ib.). \{v. 25). Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread
8. The fat of my feast shall not be left until the morning {ib.) [in the form
in which the injunction appears in Ex. 23, 18].
9. The best of the first-fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the
house of Jehovah thy God {v. 26).
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk {ib.).
Stade (Cwc/i. i. 510) had previously proposed a very similar restoration, the only material difference being that with him No. 5 is " Thou shalt observe the Sabbath" (cf. v. 21), while No. 6 embraces Wellh. 's 5 and 6.
C. 35 — 40 form the sequel to c. 25 — 31, narrating the execu- tion of the instructions there communicated to Moses. The relation of these chapters to c. 25 — 31 will be best learnt from the following synopsis, extracted (with slight modifications) from Kuenen's Onderzoek (§ 6. 15), which exhibits at the same time the corresponding passages of the LXX (the order of which in several cases differs remarkably from that of the Hebrew) : —
|
Hebrew Text |
Greek Text. |
Ex. 25—31, |
|
|
35. |
1-3 (the Sabbath : v. 3 added). |
35. 1-3- |
31, 15- |
|
4-9 (the people are invited to |
35, 478(z'.8lleb. |
25, 1-9. |
|
|
bring free-will offerings). |
omitted). |
||
|
10-19 (all skilled workmen in- |
35. 9-19 (with |
||
|
vited to assist). |
variations). |
||
|
20-29 (the offerings are presented). |
35, 20-29. |
||
|
30-36, I (Moses announces to |
35, 30—36, I. |
31, r-ii- |
|
|
the people the appointment |
|||
|
of Bezaleel and Oholiab). |
|||
|
36, |
2-7 (the presentation of offerings completed). |
36, 2-7. |
|
|
8-19 (Curtains made for the |
cf. 37, 1-2. |
26, i-ri. 14. |
|
|
" tabernacle " (the p:;'^), and |
|||
|
the tent over it). |
38
LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Hebrew Text.
36, 20-34 (Boards for the framework
of the " tabernacle "). 35-38 (Veil for the Holy of holies, and Screen for the entrance to the Tent).
37, 1-9 (the Ark).
10-16 (Table of Shewbread).
17-24 (Candlestick).
25-28 (Altar of Incense).
29 (Anointing Oil and Incense).
38, 1-7 (Altar of Burnt-offering). 8 (Brazen Laver).
9-20 (Court of the Tabernacle). 21-23 (Superscription to the ac- count of metal employed). 24-31 (the account itself).
39, 1-3 1 (Vestments for the High
Priest and the Priests). 32-43 (Delivery to Moses of the completed work of the Taber- nacle).
40, 1-16 (Moses commanded to rear
up the Tabernacle, and to consecrate the priests).
17-33 ('he Tabernacle erected, and the sacred vessels arranged in their places).
34-38 (the Cloud and Pillar of Fire).
|
Greek Text. |
Ex. 25- |
-3'. |
|
cf. 38, 18-21. |
26, 15-29. |
|
|
37, 3-6. |
26, 31-32. |
36-37. |
|
38, 1-8. |
25, 10-20. |
|
|
38, 9-12. |
25, 23-29. |
|
|
13-17- |
25, 31-39. |
|
|
Wantins^. |
30, 1-5- |
|
|
38, 25. "^ |
30, 22-33. |
34-38. |
|
cf. 38, 22-24. |
27, 1-8. |
|
|
38, 26. |
30, 17-18" |
|
|
37. 7-18. |
27, 9-19. |
|
|
37> 19-21. |
||
|
39, i-io. |
cf. 30, II- |
16. |
|
36, 8''-40. |
28, 1-43. |
|
|
39, II. 14-23. |
||
|
40, 1-13 {w. 6-8 |
||
|
Heb. omitted |
||
|
in part, v. II |
||
|
altogether). |
||
|
40, 14-26. 38, 27. |
||
|
40, 27 {vv. 28. |
||
|
29'' Heb. omit- |
||
|
ted). |
||
|
40, 28-32. |
In the main, the narrative is repeated verbatim from the instructions in c. 25 — 31, with the simple substitution of past tenses for future ; in two or three cases, however, a phrase is altered, and there are also some instances of omission or abridg- ment. Thus a few verses (as 25, 15. 22. 40. 26, 12-13. 28, 29. 35. 29, 43-46. 30, 7-10) are omitted, as not needing repetition; others (as 25, 16. 21. 30. 37^ 26, 30. 2,2,- 34-35. 3°, 6. i8'\ 19-21, chiefly relating to the position of the different vessels named) are incorporated in c. 40, 17-33, ^^e account of the erection of the Tabernacle, where they naturally belong; and the sections on the Anointing Oil and the Incense (30, 22-33. 34-38) are merely referred to briefly in a single verse, 37, 29. In c. 39 there are also some noticeable cases of abbreviation. The only material omissions are the Urim and Thummim (28,
LEVITICUS. 39
30), and the consecration of priests (29, 1-37), which follow in Lev. 8, the oil for the lamps (27, 20 f.), and the daily Burnt-offering (29, 38-42): with these exceptions the execution of the instructions contained in c. 25 — 31 is related systematically.^ The change of order is in most cases intelligible. The injunction to observe the Sabbath, which closes the series of instructions, stands here in the first place. This is followed by the presentation of offerings, and the nomination of Bezaleel and Oholiab ; after which is narrated the construction of the Tabernacle, of the sacred vessels to be placed in it, and of the Altar and Laver, with the Court surrounding them. The Sanctuary having been thus completed, the dress of the priests is prepared, the work, complete in its different parts, delivered to Moses, and the Tabernacle erected and set in order. The Altar of Incense and the Brazen Laver, which appear in the Appendix to c. 25 — 29 (viz. in c. 30), are here enumerated in accordance with the place which they properly hold, in the Tabernacle (c. 37) and Court (c. 38) respectively.
C. 35 — 40 raise the same question of relationship to the main body of P which was stated above on c. 30 f. If c. 30 f. be allowed to belong to a secondary stratum of P, the same conclusion will follow for these chapters as a necessary corollary ; for in c. 35 — 39 the notices referring to c. 30 — 31 are introduced in t/ieir froper order, and c. 40 alludes to the Altar of Incense. "•' Dillm., though he disputes Wellh.'s conclusions with regard to c. 30 — 31, agrees with him virtually as regards c. 35 — 40 {NDJ. p. 635).
.- § 3. Leviticus. Literature. — See above, p. i f.
The Book of Leviticus is called by the Jews, from its opening word, ^^P^y. It forms throughout part of the Priests' Code, in which, however, c. 17 — 26 constitute a section marked by certain special features of its own, and standing apart from the rest of the book.
I. C. I — 16. Fundamental Laws of Sacrifice, Purification, and
Atonemetit.
(i.) I, I — 6, 7 (c. I — 5 Heb.). Law of the five pj'incifal types of sacrifice.
^ 38, 24-31 differs, however, somewhat remarkably from 30, 11 16. ^ For some other grounds, peculiar to these chapters, which are held to point in the same direction, see Kuenen, Hex. § 6. 15.
40 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
C. I. The Burnt-offering (ritual of sacrifice). C. 2. The Meal-offering (ritual of sacrifice).
The second pers. in 2, 4-16 (unlike the rest of tliese chapters) is notice- able, and may be an indication that the ch. is formed out of a combination of elements originally distinct.
C. 3. The Peace-offering (ritual of sacrifice).
C. 4. The Sin-offering (ritual of sacrifice for the four cases of unintentional sin, committed by 1. the "anointed priest" {i.e. the Chief priest) ; 2. the whole people; 3. a ruler ; 4. an ordinary Israelite).
It is not impossible that Lev. 4 may represent a more advanced stage in the growth of the sacrificial system than Ex. 29. Lev. 8 — 9 ; for here the blood of the Sin-offering for the Chief priest and for the people is treated with special solemnity, being brought within the veil, and sprinkled on the horns of the Incense-altar; whereas in Ex. 29, 12. Lev. 8, I5- 9; 9- '5 it is treated precisely as prescribed here in the case of the ordinary Sin-offering, vv. 25. 30. 34 (see Wellh. Comp. p. 13S f.). — A law for the Sin-offering both of the people and of an individual is contained also in Nu. 15, 22-31.
5, 1-13. Appendix to c. 4, containing (i) examples of unintentional sins, requiring a Sin-offering, z'Z'. 1-6; (2) provision for the case of those whose means did not suffice for the ordinary sin-offering, vv. 7-13.
5, 14 — 6, 7 (5, 14-26 Heb.). The Guilt-offering (three cases, or groups of cases — viz. different cases of fraud or sacrilege — defined, in which the Guilt-offering is incurred).
On 5, 17-19, which enjoins a 6'«:7/-offering for (apparently) the same case for which in 4, 22 ff. a i'iw-otfering is prescribed, see DiUm. ad loc. ; Stade, Gesch. ii. 256 f.
(ii.) 6, 8 — c. 7 (c. 6 — 7 Heb.). A manual oj priestly directions under eight heads.
6, 8-13. Regulations to be observed by the priest in sacri- ficing the Burnt-offering.
14-18. Regulations to be observed by the priest in sacri- ficing the Meal-offering.
19-23. The High Priest's daily Meal-offering.
24-30. Regulations to be observed in sacrificing the Sin- offering.
7, 1-7. Ritual of the Guilt-offering (which is not defined in 2^ 14—6, 7), with an appendix, vv. 8-10 (arising out of V. 7), on the priests' share in the Burnt- and Meal-offering.
LEVITICUS. 41
11-21. On the species of Peace-offering (the Thank-offering, vv. 12-15 ; the Vow- and the Voluntary-offering, v. 16 ff ), with the conditions to be observed by the worshipper in eating the flesh.
22-27. Fat (of ox, sheep, and goat in all cases, and of other animals dying naturally or torn of beasts) and blood (generally) not to be eaten.
28-34. The priests' share of the Peace-offering, viz. the "heave-leg" and the "wave-breast."
35-36. First subscription to the preceding section 6, 8 — 7, 34 (in so far as this comprises regulations respecting the priests' share in the different offerings).
37 — 38. Second more general subscription.
This subscription relates to 6, 8 — c. 7 only, which forms an independent collection of laws linked together by the same formula that is used here, viz. This is the law of . . . {6, (). 14. 25. 7, i. 11) ; only the laws thus intro- duced are recognised in the subscription, where they occur in the same order : ^ 6, 19-23 (otherwise introduced, and not, as it seems, recognised in the sub- scription) was perhaps not originally part of the collection ; 7, 22-27 (regu- lating the conditions under which animals might be used for food) may be regarded as an appendix to 7, 11-21, being probably placed here on account of the Peace-ofiering being accompanied by a sacrificial meal ; the subject of 7, 28-34 is also closely connected with the Peace-oftering, and may be fairly regarded as comprehended in the heading 7, il.
The main distinction between c. 1 — 6, 7 and 6, 7 — c. 8 is that while the laws of the former group relate, as a rule, to the manner in which the sacrifice Itself is to be offered, the latter contain regulations anciUa7y to this, e.g. concerning the dress of the officiating priest, the fire on the altar, the portions to be eaten by the priest or the worshipper (as the case may be), the disposal of the flesh of the Peace-offerings (as opposed to the parts which went upon the aUar, c. 3), &c. The treatment is not, however, perfectly uniform through- out : on the analogy of c. I — 4, 7, 1-7 (the ritual oi the Guilt-offering) should occupy the place of — or, at least, precede (cf. c. 4 before 5, 1-6) — 5, 14 — 6, 7 (the cases in which the Guilt-offering is to be paid).
(iii.) C. 8 — 10, The consecration of the priests, and their solemn entry upon office.
C. 8. Aaron and his sons consecrated to the priesthood in accordance with the instructions Ex. 29, 1-37.
^ In the existing text of Lev. 6, S — c. 7 nothing corresponds to the "con- secration" offering of 7, 37; either the expression rests on a misinterpre- tation of 6, 19-23, or a law on this subject may have been omitted by the compiler of P in view of the fuller treatment in Ex. 29.
42 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
C. 9. Aaron and his sons solemnly enter upon their office.
C. 10, 1-7. Nadab and Abihu punished for offering strange fire : the priests forbidden to mourn for them.
8-9 (lo-i x). Priests forbidden to drink wine while officiating.
12-15. The priests' share in the Meal-offerings and Peace- offerings.
16-20. A law in narrative form determining that, in the people's Sin-offering (the blood of which was not z^. 18 (cf. 9, 15. 9) brought within the Tabernacle), the flesh should be eaten by the priest, not burnt without the camp (as had been done 9, 15, cf. 11).
This law is a correction of the usage followed in 9, i^^ (see 9, li) — which is in agreement with the analogy of the injunction Ex. 29, 14, and its execution Lev. 8, 17 — on the ground of the regulation in c. 4, according to which the flesh of only those Sin-offerings was to be biir7it, of which the blood had been brought within the Tabernacle and sprinkled on the Altar of Incense (4, 1-21 ; cf. 6, 30). The connexion of 10, 10 f. with 10, 9 is imperfect, the subject treated being in reality a different one (see 11, 47 ; and com p. Ez. 44, 23 beside 21). Unless the rendering of RV. niarg. be adopted — which, though grammatically possible, is somewhat artificial — it would almost seem as if 10, 10 f. had been transplanted from their original context.
(iv.) C. II — 16. Laws of Purification and Atotietnent.
C. II. Clean and unclean animals.
(i) Animals unclean as food : {a) Quadrupeds (nona), m\ 2-8; ip) aquatic creatures (D''Dn )'"1C' "swarming things of the waters"), vv. 9-12; {c) flying creatures (=liy), a. birds, vv. 13-19; /?. flying insects (^liyn )'"lt^' "swarming things that fly"), vv. 20-23; {d) creeping insects and reptiles (pxn ^y pb'H pCM "swarming things that swarm upon the earth"), vv. 41-42, with conclusion, vv. 43-45. (2) On the pollution caused by contact with the carcases of certain animals, vv. 24-40. Vv. 46-47 sub- scription.
Vv. 24-40 appear not to be part of the original draft of this chapter ; for the subscription, v. 46 f , notices only the four classes of creatures not to be eaten {z/v. 2-8; 13-23; 9-12; 41-45), and ignores the contents of vv. 24-40 (creatures whose carcases are not to be touched] ; these verses, moreover, differ from the rest of the ch., in that they define the purification rendered necessary by non-observance of the regulations prescribed.
LEVITICUS. 43
C. 12. Purification after child-birth.
This ch. would more suitaVily follow c. 15, with which it is connected in subject, and which, indeed, it presupposes in v. 2 (see 15, 19).
C. 13 — 14. Leprosy.
Diagnosis of leprosy in man, 13, 1-46 ; leprosy in clothing
and leather, 47-59; purification of the leper, 14, 1-32;
leprosy in a house, 33-53; subscription to the whole,
54-57- C. 15. Purification after certain natural secretions.
C. II — 15 are linked together by the recurring colophon This is ihe law of . , . II, 46. 12, 7. 13, 59. 14, 32. (54). 57. 15, 32.
C. 16. Ceremonial of the Day of Atonement.
The introduction, v. i, directly connects this ch. wiih c. 10. Whether it was originally separated from c. lo by c. II — 15 (esp. when the different character of the introductions li, i. 13, i. 14, 32. 15, i is considered) may be doubtful. At the same time, the position which c. 11 — 15 now occupy is a thoroughly appropriate one: "They come after the consecration of the priests, whose functions concerning the 'clean' and 'unclean' they regulate, and before the law of the Day of Atonement on which the sanctuary is cleansed from the pollutions caused by involuntary uncleanness of priests and people" (Kuen. p. 82; so Wellh. p. 150).
On the question whether this ch. represents throughout one and the same stage of ceremonial usage, see the study of Benzinger in the ZATIV. 1S89, pp. 65-89,
11. C. 17 — 26. The Law of Holiness.
Literature. — Graf, Die Geschicht lichen Biicher des AT.s (1866), pp. 75-83 ; Noldeke, Untersitchungen (1869), pp. 62-71 ; Kayser, Das Vorexi- lische Biich der Urqeschichte Isr. (1874), pp. 176-184 ; Klostermann, Hat Ezechiel die in Lev. 18 — 26 am deiitlichsten erkcnnbai-e Gesetzessammlung verfasst? in the Z. filr Ltith. Theologie, 1877, pp. 406-445 ; Wellhausen, Comp. pp. 151-175; Delitzsch, Stiidien (1880), xii. p. 617 ff. ; Horst, Leviti- cus xvii. — xxvi. nnd Hc'zekiel (Colmar, 1881); Wurster in the ZATIV. 1884, pp. 112-133; Kuenen, Nexateuch, §§ 6. 24-28; 14. 6; 15. 5-10; Riehm, Einleitutig (1889), pp. 177-202.
We arrive here at a group of chapters which stand by them- selves in P. While in general form and scope appertaining to P, they differ from the main body of P by the presence of a foreign eleme?it, which manifests itself partly in the style and phraseology, partly in the motives which here become prominent. The phenomena which the chapters present are explained by the supposition that an independent — and in all probability an older
44 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
— body of priestly legislation lies at the basis of c. 17 — 26, which has been incorporated in P, — either by the compiler of P, or by a redactor writing under the influence of P, — sometimes (as it would seem) with slight changes of form introduced for the pur- pose of accommodating it to P, at other times interwoven with elements derived from P. The elements thus united with P are distinguished from it, partly by the predominance of certain ex- pressions never, or very rarely, found in P (or indeed in the Hexateuch generally), partly by the prominence given to particu- lar principles and motives : the laws themselves have also (in certain instances) been provided with a parenetic framework in a manner unlike that of P. The principle which determines most conspicuously the character of the entire section is that of holiness — partly ceremonial, partly moral — as a quality distinguishing Israel, demanded of Israel by Jehovah (19, 2. 20, 7. 8. 26. 21, 6-8. 15. 23. 22, 9. 16. 32), and regulating the Israelite's life. Holiness is, indeed, a duty laid upon Israel in other parts of the Pent.;^ but while elsewhere it appears merely as one injunction among many, it is here insisted on with an emphasis and frequency which constitute it the leading motive of the entire section. In consequence of this very prominent characteristic, the present group of chapters received from Klostermann in 1877 the happily- chosen title of Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, or " The Law of Holiness," which it has since retained.
That these chapters of Lev. are rightly treated as containing an independent body of laws, appears not merely from the dis- tinctive character thus belonging to them, but, further, from the somewhat miscellaneous nature of their contents (as compared with Lev. i — 16. 27), from the recurrence in them of subjects that have been dealt with before, not only in Ex. 20 — -23, but also in P (comp. 17, 10-14 ^i^d ?> 26 f; 19, 6-8 and 7, 15-18; 20, 25 and c. 11), and from the fact that they open with instruc- tions respecting the place of sacrifice, and close with a parenetic exhortation, exactly in the manner of the two other Pentateuchal Codes, the " Book of the Covenant" (Ex. 20, 24-26 ; 23, 20 fif.) and the code in Deuteronomy (Dt. 12 and 28). The laws, no doubt, in substance, if not also in form, date in general from a much older time than that of the collector who brought them
■^ In JE Ex. 22, 31 (though in a ceremonial rather than in a moral con- nexion) ; and in Dt. 14, 2. 21.
LEVITICUS. 45
together and fitted them into their present framework. It will be convenient to denote the laws thus incorporated in P, with their parenetic framework, by the abbreviation H} H has points of contact with P, but lacks many of its most character- istic features. Ezekiel, the priestly prophet, has affinities with P, but his affinities with H are peculiarly striking and numerous : the laws comprised in H are frequently quoted by him, and the parenetic passages contain many expressions — sometimes remark- able ones — which otherwise occur in Ezekiel alone.
List of phrases characteristic of c. 17 — 26 : —
1. nin"" ''jX I am Jehovah, esp. at the end of an injunction or series of
injunctions (nearly fifty times) : 18, 2.' 4. 5.- 6. 21. 30.- 19, 3.'- 4.'^ 10.2 12. 14. 16. 18. 25.228. 30. 31.- 32. 34.-36.-37. 20, 7.28.3 24.^21, 12. 15.=* 23.=' 22, 2. 3. 8. 9.3 i6.» 30. 31. 32.3 ZT,. 23, 22.- 43.- 24, 22."^ 25, 17.2 38.^ 55.- 26, I.- 2. 13.* 44." 45. So Ex. 6, 2. 6. 8. 29. 12, I2^ 29, 46\'* 46^.2 31, I3^='Nu. 3, 12, end. 41. 45. 10, lo.^ 15, 4I^■* 4I^^
2. mn'' ''JS Cnp ''D For J Jchovah am holy: 19, 2.- 20, 26. 21, 8.* Cf.
II, 44. 45 (For I am holy).
3. That sanctify you {them, &c.) : 20, 8. 21, 8. 15. 23. 22, 9. 16. 32. So
Ex. 31, 13. Ez. 20, 12. 37, 28.t
4. ti^'X C^'^X for whoever: 17, 3. 8. 10. 13. 18, 6. 20, 2. 9. 22, 4. 18. 24, 15.
So 15, 2. Nu. 5, 12. 9, 10. Ez. 14, 4. 7 (with ^XTki"" n''20 as ch.17, 3. 8. 10).
5. / "Will set (^nnil) my face against , . . : 17, 10. 20, 3. 5 ("«i}{ TlJ^ti'l).
6. 26, 17. So Ez. 14, 8. 15, 7^ 7" (2-c>). Jer. 21, 10 (qj;^). 44, 11
6. / wz7/ cut off from the midst of his {its, their) people : 17, 10. 20, 3. 5.
6.5 Cf. Ez. 14, 8 ( . . . Tjinp: ii^ Lev. mpp).
^ Kuenen uses the symbol P^, distinguishing different strata of the Priests' Code (denoted by P in the present volume) as P- and P^ The only reason why the same symbol has not been adopted here is that the writer did not wi>h to impose upon himself the task, which its use would have involved, of distinguishing between P- and P^.
- Followed \yj your {their) God.
^ Followed by the participial clause that sanctify you {him, ^^c).
* Followed by a relative clause.
t The dagger (both here and elsewhere) denotes that all instances of the word or phrase referred to that occur in the OT. have been cited. The distinctive character of an expression is evidently the more marked, and the agreement between two writers who use it is the more striking, in proportion to the rarity with which it occurs in the OT. generally.
° In P always '^ shall be cut off" (see § 7). In general the Divine "I " appears here with a prominence which it never assumes in the laws of P.
46 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
7. nipni ']7r\ to walk in the statutes: 18, 3. 20, 23. 26, 3. Also I Ki.
3, 3. 6, 12. 2 Ki. 17, 8. 19; but chiefly in Ez., viz. 5, 6. 7. 11,
20. is, 9. 17. 20, 13. 19. 21. 33, IS : cf. jer. 44, 10 ("Tipna"! "minn)-!
8. ''OSii'DI Tllpn my statutes and my judgments : iS, 4 (inverted). 5. 26.
19, 37. 20, 22. 25, 18. 26, 15. 43.
9. To ohserzie and do: 18, 4. 19, 37. 20, 8. 22. 22, 31. 25, 18. 26, 3.
10. -\^'^ Jiesh = next-of-kin: 18, 12. 13. 17 (m^5k^')• 20, 19. 21, 2. Nu.
27, II ; i~lb'3 "li^ti^ 18, 6. 25, 49. Not so elsewhere.
T ; •* :
11. n?3T evil purpose (of unchastity) : 18, 17. 19, 29. 20, 14 bis. So Jud.
20, 6. Hos. 6, 9. Jer. 13, 27. Ez. 16, 27. 43. 58. 22, 9. 11. 23, 21. 27- 29. 35. 44. 48 bis. 49. 24, 13. (In RV. often lezudness.)
12. nVOy neighbour: 18, 20. 19, 11. 15. 17. 24, 19. 25, 14 /w. 15. 17.
5, 21 bis. Zech. 13, 7.f A peculiar term ; not the one in ordinary use.
13. To profane — tlie na??ie of Jehovah 18, 21. 19, 12. 20, 3. 21, 6. 22, 2. 32
(Am. 2, 7. Isa. 48, 11): a ^o/v thing or sanctuary 19, 8. 21, 12. 23. 22, 15 (so Nu. 18, 32) : in other connexions 19, 29. 21, g*". 15. 22, 9 : comp. 21, 4. 9a. So Ex. 31, 14 (of the Sabbath). So often in Ezek. : o^ Jehovah 13, 19. 22, 26; His name 20, 9. 14. 22. 39. 36, 20-23. 39, 7; i/?V sabbaths 20, 13. 16. 21. 24. 22, 8. 23, 38 (Isa. 56, 2. 6) ; His holy things or sanctuary 22, 26. 23, 39. 44, 7 ; cf. also 7, 21. 22. 24. 22, 16. 24, 21. 25, 3. 28, 7. 16. 18. Obviousl the correlative of Nos. 2, 3.
14. My sabbaths: 19, 3. 30. 26, 2. Ex. 31, 13. Ez. 20, 12. 13. 16. 20.
21, 24. 22, 8. 26. 23, 38. 44, 24. Isa. 56, 4.t
15- D^^'^^X things of nought =zvai7i gods : 19,4. 26, i. Not elsewhere in Pent. Chiefly besides in Isaiah (9 times, and 7''7Sn once).
16. IM^SD nXI^I a7id thou shall be afraid of thy God: 19, 14. 32. 25, 17.
36. 43-
17. (DH Dil'IOn) "13 VDT his {their) blood shall be tipon him {them) : 20, 9.
II. 12. 13. 16. 27. Ez. 18, 13 (n-n'' u vm). 33, 5 (n'H' u im).t
(The ordinary phrase is l^i^XI (n) ^J? IDn)-
18. 7he bread of {their) God: 21, 6. 8. 17. 21. 22. 22, 25. Nu. 28, 2 (cf. 24.
Lev. 3, II. 16), Ez. 44, 7.t (Ez. 16, 19 diff"erently.) 19". XDn XC'3 to bear sin: 19, 17. 22, 9. Nu. 18, 22. 32; cf. Ez. 23, 49.! 19". (DjIXuDn ("l^Sw*: to bear his {their) sin: 20, 20. 24, 15. Nu. 9, 13.! 20*. (D)13"iy (l)t5ki*J /^ /vrt;- /^^■.f (MtvV) iniquity : 17, 16. 19, 8. 20, 17. 19.
So 5, I. 17. 7, 18. Nu. 5, 31. 14, 34 (cf. 15, 31 nn n:iy). Ez. 14, 10.
44, 10. I2.t
20*'. '■^'^ J<L"3 to bear iniquity : Ex. 28, 43 ; cf. Lev. 22, i6.f
20'. . . . py XC3 lo bear the iniquity of . . . {=^ be responsible for) :
Ex. 28, 38. Nu. 18, I bis; no bear th,ir iniquity, v. 23 (see Dillm. ; and comp. Wellh. Comp. p. 341). f 20"*. . . . to bear the iniquity <?/ another : Lev. 10, 17. 16, 22. Nu. 30, 15 [H. 16]. Ez. 4, 4. 5. 6 (not always in the same application). So KOn XC'] to bear the sin of msiny, Is. 53, 12.
LEVITICUS. 47
The distinctive prominence attached in this group of chapters to the ideas of hohness, and of the reverence due to Jehovah or to a holy thing, will be evident from this collection of charac- teristic expressions. Amongst the expressions quoted, several instances of agreement with Ezekiel will have been observed ; others will be noticed subsequently (§ 7), when the nature of the relation subsisting between Ezekiel and the " Law of Holi- ness " comes to be considered more particularly.
We may now proceed to examine c. 17 — 26 in detail.
C. 1 7 treats oifour subjects : —
1. No animal (of a kind offered in sacrifice) to be slain for
food, except it be presented at the central sanctuary, and its flesh eaten there as a Peace-offering, vv. 1-7.
2. Sacrifices not to be offered except at the central
sanctuary, vv. 8-9.
3. Blood not to be eaten : in the case of animals of a kind
not offered in sacrifice, it is to be poured upon the earth, vv. 10-14.
4. The flesh of animals dying naturally, or torn by beasts,
not to be eaten, vv. 15-16.
C. 17, as it seems, belongs in the main to II ; but the text is probably mixed. Thus "unto (at) the door of the tent of meeting" in vv. 4. 5. 6 (which is in fact not required for the sense) appears to be an additional definition, after the manner of P, introduced by the compiler ; and tliere are not improbably elements belonging to P in other parts of the chapter.
On 17, 1-7, and its relation to Dt. 12, 15 ff., see (i) Wellh. Coinp. 152-154, Hist. 50 f. 377 ; Horst, 6o ; Kuen. § 6. 27, 28 ; 14. 6 ; 15. 5, 9, who argue that the injunction was unknown to the author of Dt., and assign it to a date later than Dt. ; (2) Del. Studicn, 447 f. 622, who argues that it is older than Dt., and abrogated by it (so Dillm. EL. 535) ; (3) Kittel, Theol. Studien aus Wiirttemberg, 1881, 42(T., Cesch. 99, and Baudissin, Priecterthjim, 47, following Kayser and Diestel (cf. also Dillm. EL. 536; W. R. Smith, OTIC. 236; Answer to the Amended Libel (Edin. 1879), 61-64, 72, 73), who think that in its original form the law contained no reference to the central sanctuary, but presupposed a plurality of legal sanctuaries (Ex. 20, 24 ; cf. I Sa. 14, 32-35), and was only accommodated to the single sanctuary when it was incorporated in P. The law seems not to be strictly consistent with P ; for in P (Lev. 7, 22-27) the slaughtering of animals for food is freely permitted, the only restriction being that their fat and blood are not to be eaten. The third of the opinions quoted appears to be the most probable.
C. 18. Unlawful marriages and unchastity; and Molech worship {p. 21).
48 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Entirely IL Observe the plan of the chapter : the laws themselves occupy the central part vv. 6-23 ; vv. 1-5, 24-30 form respectively a parenetic introduction and conclusion. The characteristics of H are very evident in the style of the parenetic portion, and also in the refrain " I am the Lord," both there {vv. 2^°. 4". ^. 30'') and in the laws {vv. G'. 21'^). It is probable that the laws themselves were found by the compiler of H already formulated, and that he merely provided them with the parenetic setting. The laivs, it may be observed, are in the 2nd pers. sing., the parenetic portions in the 2nd pers. plural.
C. 19. A collection of miscellaneous laws, regulating the religious and moral behaviour of the Israelites, in the manner of parts of Ex. 20-23, but with a more distinct predominance of the ethical element.
Likewise H, except, probably, v. 21 f. J'. 2^ ("Ye shall be holy," &c.) states the fundamental principle from which the special precepts which follow are deduced. The ch. may be divided into three parts : (l) vv. 3-8 laws analogous to the fi}'st table of the Decalogue ; ^ (2) vv. 9-22 laws analogous to the second tMie. Here, however, v. 19 deals with a different subject, viz. unnatural mixtures, in three precepts, with a new introduction. And v. 20, treating of a very special case of unchastity, and (unlike vz>. 3-19) in the third person, belongs rather to c. 20, where it would stand suitably after v. 10. Either it has been removed here by accident, or it was once accompanied by other laws on the same subject, omitted by the compiler in view of c. 18 and 20. V. 21 f. are alien to the general tenor of either this ch. or c. 20, and appear to be an addition from the point of view of P. (3) vv. 23-37, a kind of supplement to vv. 2-19, with a special introduction, v. 23, and containing injunctions of a somewhat more general character ; notice in v. 34 the extension of the principle oi v. 18 ("thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy- self " [viz. among the "children of thy people "]) to the stranger. The 2nd pers. sing, preponderates (though it is not used exclusively) in vv. 9-19, the 2nd pers. plural in vv. 2-8 and vv. 23-37. In vv. 2-19 the laws appear often to be arranged in Pentads, or groups of five, each closed by the refrain (implying the ground of their observance) I am Jehovah : see vv. 9-10. 1 1-12. 13-14. 15-16. 17-18. 19 (incomplete).
C. 20. Penalties enjoined for certain offences specified inc. 18 and 19, 3*. 31 : viz. (i) Molech worship and divination, vv. T-7 ; (2) (chiefly) unlawful marriages and unchastity, vv. 8-21, with conclusion, vv. 22-26, and supplement, V. 27 (a witch or wizard not to live).
^ Though vv. 5-8 (on Peace-offerings) are, it is true, of a different character. The law here laid down is in 7, 15 — 18 (P) retained only for two (apparently) less important species of "Peace-offering," the Vow- and the Voluntary- offering ; for the Thank-offering a stricter law is prescribed (so 22, 29 f. ).
LEVITICUS. 49
The laws forming the boily of the ch. are provided with a parenctic intro- duction and conclusion (vz>. 2-6 partly, vv. 7-8, t'v. 22-26) in the same style as c. 18, and evidently by the same hand. It is commonly considered that c. 18 states the prohibitions, and c. 20 prescribes the penalties incurred by disobedience to them; but though this may be the relation between the two chapters which guided the compiler in placing them where they now stand, it may be doubted whether it is the principle which determined their original composition ; for the correspondence is imperfect ; not only does the order of cases differ, but four of the cases named in c. 18 (vv. 7. lO. 17^ iS) are not noticed here. Nevertheless, the two lists have many features in common ; and they may well have been drawn up by the same writer, though not with the definite intention of their supplementing one another. As in the case of c. 18, the parenetic framework is probably all that is due to the compiler of H. K 24b introduces a short injunction {v. 25) on the distinction of clean and unclean food, which, to judge from the general character of the "Law of Holiness," must once have been accompanied by fuller definitions on the same subject (analogous to those which now stand in c. 11):^ z'Z'. 24''-26 have features in common with 11, 43-45. J^- 27 is supplementary to v. 6.
C. 2 1 — 22. Regulations touching priests and offerings, under five main heads — (1) Rules to be observed in certain cases of domestic Ufe by (a) the ordinary priests, 21, 1-9 ; {^) the Chief priest, 21, 10-15 : (2) conditions of bodily perfection to be satisfied by those discharging priestly duties, 21, 16-24: (3) the two conditions for partaking in the sacrificial food, viz. ceremonial purity and membership in a priest's family, 22, 1-16: (4) animals offered in sacrifice to be free from imperfections, 22, 17-25 : (5) three special injunctions respecting sacrifices, 22, 26-30, with concluding exhortation, 22, 31-33.
The contents of both chapters are evidently determined by the main idea of the code : they show how the " Law of Holiness " is to be observed in its application to the priesthood and to sacrifices. Both also exhibit repeatedly the characteristic phraseology and motives of H ; the only question is whether they belong to it entirely. In the laws themselves there is little that is akin to P ; it is probable, therefore, that these are derived mainly from H, the parts exhibiting the ideas of P being chiefly redactional additions. Thus the laws themselves use the uncommon expressions " seed of Aaron" 21, 17. 21. 22, 3. 4, and " the priest that is chief among his brethren " (for the " chief priest") : the superscriptions and subscriptions use the more fixed phraseology of P "the sons of Aaron" 21, I. 24. 22, 2. 18, and were probably added later ; in 21, I-15 there is, further, a disagreement between the superscription (in which the friests are addressed) and the laws that follow (in which the priests are spoken of in the 3rd pers., and the people, v. 8, are addressed),
^ Wellh. p. 158; Klost. p. 409; Riehm, p. 1S4. D
50 LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
which supports the same conclusion. Otherwise c. 21 appears to belong entirely to H, except in one or two isolated phrases, as v. 21^ (on the ground of this exception, see Wellh. p. 160 f.). Whether c. 22 belongs as largely to H is less certain. Horst (p. 22 f. ), with whom Kuen. (p. 269) agrees, con- siders vv. 3-7. 17-25. 29-30 as belonging in the main to P ; in the last named passage v. 30 deviates from 19, 6-8 (H), but agrees with 7, 15 (P) ; the definitions in vv. 5-7 are in the style of P rather than in that of H ; and in vv. 17-25 most of the usual marks of H are absent. It is at least probable that these passages, though not perhaps belonging entirely to P (see the marks of 11 in vv. 3. 4. 18. 25 [Horst, p. 23]^ have been revised and added to in the spirit of P. The conclusion 22, 31-33 is in the style of 18, 26-30. 19, 37. 20, 22-26 (H).
C. 23. A calendar of sacred seasons,^ in particular i^v. 2. 37)
of the days on which "holy convocations," i.e. religious
assemblies, were appointed to be held, with particulars
respecting the manner of their observance. The days
stated are the following: all Sabbaths, the ist and 7th
days of Mazzoih, the Feast of Weeks, New Year's Day,
the Day of Atonement, the ist and 8th (or supernumerary)
day of the Feast of Booths.
The elements of which the ch. is composed consist of excerpts
from two sources ; laws from H and P having been combined
so as mutually to supplement one another, — in all probability by
a compiler living subsequently to both, and representing the
principles of P.
(H 9-20. 22. 39". 40-43-
(P 23,. 1-8. 21. 23-38. 39'. 39°. 44.
Our guide in analysing the chapter must be the title {vv. 2. 4) and subscription {v. 37 f.), which authorize us to expect an enumeration of " holy convocations." Vv. 3. 5-8 correspond with the terms of the title ; the Sabbath, and the first and seventh (lays of Mazzoih, were observed by " holy convocations." (It is true that the Passover-day v. 5 was not so observed ; but the Passover appears to be mentioned here, not on its own account, but rather as introductory to Mazzoth, vv. 6-8.) Vv. 9-14 prescribe an offering of a sheaf, as the first-fruits of the harvest, on "the morrow after the Sabbath." This injunction (i) falls outside the scope of the calendar, as fixed by the title ; it relates
' DnyiD "stated times," RV. (usually) "set (or appointed) feasts," a wider term than JPI "pilgrimage," which denotes the three "feasts" observed as pilgrimnges, viz. Mazzoth, Weeks, and Ingathering (Ex. 23, 14-17).
LEVITICUS. 51
to an offering to be made on a day for which no convocation is prescribed; moreover, in its present connexion (2) there