THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF
THE PENTATEUCH
WILLIAM HENRY
GREEN, D.D., LL.D.
PROFESSOR
OF ORIENTAL AND OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE IN
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
1895 edition
published by Charles Scribner's Sons.
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at:
PREFACE
THE Higher Criticism has been of late
so associated
with
extravagant theorizing, and with insidious attacks
upon
the genuineness and credibility of the books of the
Bible
that the very term has become an offence to seri-
ous
minds. It has come to be considered one of the
most
dangerous forms of infidelity, and in its very nature
hostile
to revealed truth. And it must be confessed that
in
the hands of those who are unfriendly to supernatural
religion
it has proved a potent weapon in the interest of
unbelief.
Nor has the use made of it by those who,
while
claiming to be evangelical critics, accept and de-
fend
the revolutionary conclusions of the antisupernatur-
alists,
tended to remove the discredit into which it has
fallen.
This is not the fault of the Higher
Criticism in its
genuine
sense, however, but of its perversion. Prop-
erly
speaking it is an inquiry into the origin and char-
acter
of the writings to which it is applied. It seeks to
ascertain
by all available means the authors by whom,
the
time at which, the circumstances under which, and
the
design with which they were produced. Such inves-
tigations,
rightly conducted, must prove a most important
aid
to the understanding and just appreciation of the
writings
in question.
The books of the Bible have nothing to
fear from such
investigations,
however searching and thorough, and how-
ever
fearlessly pursued. They can only result in estab-
lishing
more firmly the truth of the claims, which the
xix
xx PREFACE
Bible
makes for itself, in every particular. The Bible
stands
upon a rock from which it can never be dislodged.
The genuineness and historical truth
of the Books of
Moses
have been strenuously impugned in the name of
the
Higher Criticism. It has been claimed as one of its
most
certain results, scientifically established, that they
have
been falsely ascribed to Moses, and were in reality
produced
at a much later period. It is affirmed that the
history
is by no means reliable and merely records the
uncertain
and variant traditions of a post-Mosaic age;
and
that the laws are not those of Moses, but the growth
of
centuries after his time. All this is demonstrably
based
on false and sophistical reasoning, which rests on
unfounded
assumptions and employs weak and inconclu-
sive
arguments.
It is the purpose of this volume to
show, as briefly and
compactly
as possible, that the faith of all past ages in
respect
to the Pentateuch has not been mistaken. It is
what
it claims to be, and what it has always been be-
lieved
to be. In the first chapter it is exhibited in its
relation
to the Old Testament as a whole, of which it is
not
only the initial portion, but the basis or foundation
upon
which the entire superstructure reposes; or rather,
it
contains the germs from which all that follows was
developed.
In the second, the plan and contents of the
Pentateuch
are unfolded. It has one theme, which is
consistently
adhered to, and which is treated with or-
derly
arrangement and upon a carefully considered plan
suggestive
of a single author. In the third it is shown
by
a variety of arguments, both external and internal,
that
this author was Moses. The various forms of oppo-
sition
to this conclusion are then outlined and separately
considered.
First, the weakness of the earlier objections
from
anachronisms and inconsistencies is shown. In the
fourth
chapter the divisive hypotheses, which have in
PREFACE xxi
succession
been maintained in opposition to the unity of
the
Pentateuch, are reviewed and shown to be baseless,
and
the arguments urged in their support are refuted.
In
the fifth chapter the genuineness of the laws is de-
fended
against the development hypothesis. And in the
sixth
and last chapter these hypotheses are shown to be
radically
unbiblical. They are hostile alike to the truth
of
the Pentateuch and to the supernatural revelation
which
it contains.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I Page
THE
OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS STRUCTURE, 1
The Old Testament addressed in the first instance to
and in the language of that people ;
the New Testament to
all mankind and in the language of the
civilized world. The
former composed by many writers in the
course of a thousand
years, 1; not an aggregate of detached
productions, but pos-
sessed of an organic structure, 2; of
which each book is a
constituent element, 3, with its
special function. The three-
fold division of the Hebrew Bible, 4,
resting on the official
position of the writers, 5. The
Lamentations an apparent ex-
ception, 6. Two methods of
investigating organic structure,
7. First, trace from the beginning.
The Pentateuch, histor-
ical, poetical, 8, and prophetical
books, 9. Second, survey
from the end, viz., Christ; advantages
of this method, 10.
Predictive periods, negative and
positive; division of the Old
Testament thence resulting, 11-13. Two
modes of division
compared, 14. General relation of the
three principal sec-
tions, 15-17.
II
THE
PLAN AND CONTENTS OF THE PENTATEUCH, 18
Names of the books of Moses, origin of the fivefold divis-
ion,
18. Theme of the Pentateuch; two parts, historical and
legal,
19; preliminary portion, 20; its negative and positive
aim,
21. Creation to the Flood, primeval holiness and the
fall;
salvation and perdition; segregation, 22; divine insti-
tutions.
The Flood to Abraham, 23. Call of Abraham. Two
stages
in the development of
Isaac,
Jacob, 24. The nation; negative and positive prepa-
ration
for the exodus; the march to Sinai. The legislation;
at
Sinai 25, in the wilderness of Paran, in the plains of
26-28;
one theme, definite plan, continuous history, 29, sug-
gestive
of a single writer. Tabular view, 30.
xxiv CONTENTS
III Page
MOSES
THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH, 31
Importance of the Pentateuch, 31. Mosaic authorship as
related to credibility. (1)
Traditional opinion among the
Jews; testimony of the New Testament,
32, not mere accom-
modation to prevailing sentiment. (2)
Testimony of the Old
Testament, 33-35. (3) Declarations of
the Pentateuch ; the
Book of the Covenant; the Priest code;
the Deuteronomic
code, 36; two historical passages
ascribed to Moses, which
imply much more, 37, 38; intimate
relation of the history to
the legislation. (4) The language of
the laws points to the
Mosaic period, 39, 40; indicates that
they were written then.
Moses's farewell addresses, song and
blessing, 41. The laws
could not be forged; locality of these
enactments. (5) The Pen-
tateuch alluded to or its existence
implied in the subsequent
books of the Bible, 42. (6) Known and
its authority admitted
in the kingdom of the ten tribes, 43;
no valid argument from
the Samaritan Pentateuch, 44; proof
from the history of the
schism and the books of the prophets.
(7) Elementary char-
acter of its teachings. (8) Egyptian
words and allusions, 45.
Assaults in four distinct lines, 46.
The earliest objections;
ancient heretics; Jerome
misinterpreted; Isaac ben Jasos
Aben Ezra, 47; Peyrerius; Spinoza;
Hobbes; Richard
simon, 48; Le Clere; answered by
Witsius and Carpzov, 49.
The alleged anachronisms and other
objections of no account,
50, 51. Note: Testimony of Judges,
Ruth, 1 Samuel, 52; 2
Samuel, Kings, 53; Joel, Isaiah, 54;
Micah, Jeremiah, 55;
Psalms. Allusions in Hosea and Amos to
the facts of the
Pentateuch, 56; to its laws, 57;
coincidences of thought or
expression, 58.
IV
THE
UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH, 59
Meaning of unity, 59; illustration from Bancroft; the
Gospels, 60. The Document Hypothesis;
Vitringa, 61; As-
true, Eichhorn, Gramberg, 62. (1)
Elohim and Jehovah, 63.
(2) Each class of sections continuous.
(3) Parallel passages,
64. (4) Diversity of diction and
ideas, 65, 66. At first con-
fined to Genesis; not conflict with
Mosaic authorship until
extended to the entire Pentateuch, 67;
even then not neces-
CONTENTS xxv
sarily, unless the documents are
post-Mosaic Ex. vi. 3, 68. Jehovist
suspected of anachronisms,
inaccuracies, and contradictions, 69;
inferred from parallel passages, 70.
Fragment Hypothesis, Vater,
Hartmann, 71; supported by similar
arguments, 72; the Document
Hypothesis reacting against itself,
73; titles and subscriptions, 74. But
(1) The extensive literature assumed.
(2) The continuity and orderly
arrangement of the Pentateuch, 75. (3)
The numerous cross-ref-
erences. Refuted by Ewald and F. H.
Ranke. Supplement Hypothesis,
Bleek, Tuch, Stdhelin, De Wette,
Knobel, 76, 77. This accounts for
certain evidences of unity but not for
others. Inconsistent relation of
the Jehovist to the Elohist, 78, 79;
attempted explanations destructive
of the hypothesis, 80. Refuted by
Kurtz, Drechsler, Havernick, Keil,
Hengstenberg, Welte. Crystallization
Hypothesis of Ewald, 81, 82.
Modified Document Hypothesis of Hupfeld;
Ilgen, Boehmer,
Schrader, 82, 83. But (1) The second
Elohist destroys the continuity
of
the first. (2) The first Elohist
almost ceases soon after Gen. xx. where
the second begins, 84. (3) Intricate
blending of Jehovist and second
Elohist. (4) First Elohist alleged to
be clearly distinguishable; without
force as an argument, 85. (5)
Capricious and inconsistent conduct
attributed to the redactor, 86;
undermines the hypothesis. Bur-
densome complexity inevitable, 87.
Critical symbols. The grounds of
literary partition considered, 88. I.
The divine names; their alternation
not coincident with successive
sections, 89; this fundamental criterion
annulled by unsettling the text, 90.
Elohim in J sections; Jehovah in P
and E sections, 91. Examples given,
92-98. Ex. vi. 2, 3, 99.
Misinterpretation corrected, 100. Not
written with an antiquarian
design; neither was the patriarchal
history, 101. Gen. iv. 26.
Signification and usage of Elohim and
Jehovah, 102, 103.
Hengstenberg's theory, 103, 104. That
of Kurtz, 105.
use of the divine names. II.
Continuity of sections, 106. But (1)
numerous chasms and abrupt
transitions, 107. (2) Bridged by scattered
clauses. (3) Apparent connection
factitious, 108. (4) Interrelation of
documents. (5) Inconsistency of
critics. III. Parallel passages. But (1)
Often not real parallels, 109. (2)
Repetition accounted for 110. (3)
Summary statement followed by
particulars, 111. (4) Alleged
doublets, 112. IV. Diversity of
diction and ideas. But (1) Reasoning in
a circle, 113. (2) Proofs factitious,
114. (3) Synonyms, 115. (4)
Criteria conflict. (5) An
indeterminate equation, 116. (6) Growing
complexity, 117.
xxvi CONTENTS
PAGE
Arguments insufficient, 118. Partition
of the parables of the
Prodigal Son, 119-122, and the Good
Samaritan, 122-124.
Romans Dissected; additional
incongruities, 125, 126; mar-
vellous perspicacity of the critics,
126, 127 , critical assault
upon
and 128, 129 note; Prologue of Faust,
130; agreement of
critics, 130, 131; Partition
Hypothesis a failure, but the labor
spent upon it not altogether
fruitless, 132, 133.
V
GENUINENESS
OF THE LAWS, 134
Critical revolution, 134; diversities of literary critics, two
points of agreement, 135; Development
Hypothesis, 136, 137
its fallacy, 138; dates assigned to
the several codes, 139, 140;
Graf. 140; Kuenen, Wellhausen. 141;
works for and against,
nuts 111-143; Supplement Hypothesis
overthrown, 142, 143;
Scriptural statements vindicated, 141.
146; no discrepancy be-
tween the codes, 147-149; alleged
violations of the law, 150,
in respect to the place of sacrifice
and the priesthood, 151,
152; Ignorance of the law, 153; the
laws of Charlemagne,
154; Deuteronomy, the Priest Code,
155; incongruities of
the hypothesis, 156.
VI
THE
BEARING OF THE DIVISIVE CRITICISM ON THE CREDIBIL-
ITY
OF THE PENTATEUCH AND ON SUPERNATURAL RELIG-
ION, 157
Partition Hypotheses elaborated
in the interest of unbelief,
157; credibility undermined; not a
question of inerrancy,
but of the trustworthiness of the
history, 158; facts only
elicited by a critical process;
incompleteness of the docu-
ments ; work of the redactors, 159,
160; effect upon the
truthfulness of the Pentateuch, 161,
162; the real issue; un-
friendly to revealed religion, 163; in
both the Old and the
New Testament, 164; the religion of
the Bible based on his-
torical facts; revelations,
predictions, and miracles discred-
ited by the authors of these
hypotheses, 165, 166; Mosaic or
contemporary authorship denied, 167;
falsity of the docu-
ments assumed, 168; they represent
discordant traditions;
Scripture cannot be broken ; criticism
largely subjective, 169;
CONTENTS xxvii
errors of redactors, 170; no limit to
partition, 171; deism,
rationalism, divisive criticism ;
literary attractions of the
Bible, 172; the supernatural
eliminated, 173; deism, 174;
iationahstic exegeds, 174, 175; method
of higher criticism
most plausible and effective, 176;
hazardous experiment of
the so-called evangelical critics,
177.
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF
THE PENTATEUCH
I
THE OLD TESTAMENT AND
ITS STRUCTURE
THE Old Testament is the volume of
God's written
revelation
prior to the advent of Christ. Its complement
is
the New Testament, which is God's written revelation
since
the advent of Christ. The former being immedi-
ately
addressed to the people of
language
of that people, and hence for the most part in
Hebrew,
a few chapters in Daniel and Ezra and a verse in
Jeremiah
being in the Jewish Aramean,1 when the lan-
guage
was in its transition state. This earlier dispensa-
tion,
which for a temporary purpose was restricted to a
single
people and a limited territory, was, however, pre-
paratory
to the dispensation of the fulness of times, in
which
God's word was to be carried everywhere and
preached
to every creature. Accordingly the New Testa-
ment
was written in Greek, which was then the language
of
the civilized world.
The Old Testament was composed by many
distinct
writers,
at many different times and in many separate
portions,
through a period of more than a thousand years
from
Moses to Malachi. It is not, however, aan aggre-
1 Jer. x. 11; Dan. ii.
4-vii. 28; Ezra iv. 7--vi. 18, vii. 12--26 are in
Aramean.
1
2
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH
gate
of detached productions without order or method
as
the seemingly casual circumstances connected with the
origin
of its several parts might tempt some to imagine.
Nor,
on the other hand, are the additions made from time
to
time of a uniform pattern, as though the separate value
of
each new revelation consisted merely in the fact that
an
increment was thereby made to the body of divine
truth
previously imparted. Upon the lowest view that
can
possibly be taken of this volume, if it were simply
the
record of the successive stages of the development of
the
Hebrew mind, it might be expected to possess an
organic
structure and to exhibit a gradually unfolding
scheme,
as art, philosophy, and literature among every
people
have each its characteristics and laws, which gov-
ern
its progress and determine the measure and direction
of
its growth. But rightly viewed as the word of God,
communicated
to men for his own wise and holy ends, it
may
with still greater confidence be assumed that the
order
and symmetry which characterize all the works of
the
Most High, will be visible here likewise; that the
divine
skill and intelligence will be conspicuous in the
method
as well as in the matter of his disclosures; and
that
these will be found to be possessed of a structural
arrangement
in which all the parts are wisely disposed,
and
stand in clearly defined mutual relations.
The Old Testament is a product of the
Spirit of God,
wrought
out through the instrumentality of many human
agents,
who were all inspired by him, directed by him,
and
adapted by him to the accomplishment of his own
fixed
end. Here is that unity in multiplicity, that single-
ness
of aim with diversity of operations, that binding to-
gether
of separate activities under one superior and con-
trolling
influence, which guides all to the accomplishment
of
a predetermined purpose, and allots to each its par-
ticular
function in reference to it, which is the very con-
THE
OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS STRUCTURE 3
ception
of a well-arranged organism. There is a divine
reason
why every part is what it is and where it is; why
God
spake unto, the fathers at precisely those sundry
times
and in just those divers portions, in which he
actually
revealed his will. And though this may not in
every
instance be ascertainable by us, yet careful and
reverent
study will disclose it not only in its general out-
lines,
but also in a multitude of its minor details; and
will
show that the transpositions and alterations, which
have
been proposed as improvements, are dislocations
and
disfigurements, which mar and deface the well-pro-
portioned
whole.
In looking for the evidences of an
organic structure in
the
Scriptures, according to which all its parts are dis-
posed
in harmonious unity, and each part stands in a
definite
and intelligible relation to every other, as well as
to
the grand design of the whole, it will be necessary to
group
and classify the particulars, or the student will lose
himself
in the multiplicity of details, and never rise to
any
clear conception of the whole. Every fact, every
institution
every person, every doctrine, every utterance
of
the Bible has its place and its function in the general
plan.
And the evidence of the correctness of any scheme
proposed
as the plan of the Scriptures will lie mainly in
its
harmonizing throughout with all these details, giving
a
rational and satisfactory account of the purpose and
design
of each and assigning to all their just place and
relations.
But if one were to occupy himself with these
details
in the first instance, he would be distracted and
confused
by their multitude, without the possibility of
arriving
thus at any clear or satisfactory result.
The first important aid in the process
of grouping or
classification
is afforded by the separate books of which
the
Scriptures are composed. These are not arbitrary or
fortuitous
divisions of the sacred text but their form,
4
THE
HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH
dimensions,
and contents have been divinely determined.
Each
represents the special task allotted to one partic-
ular
organ of the Holy Spirit, either the entire function
assigned
to him in the general plan, or, in the case where
the
same inspired penman wrote more than one book
of
different characters and belonging to different classes,
his
function in one given sphere or direction. Thus the
books
of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Malachi exhibit to us that
part
in the plan of divine revelation which each of those
distinguished
servants of God was commissioned to per-