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-
form.
The book of Psalms represents the task allotted
to
David and the other inspired writers of song in the
instruction
and edification of the people of God. The
books
of Moses may be said to have led the way in
every
branch of sacred composition, in history (Genesis),
in
legislation (Leviticus), in oratorical and prophetic
discourse
(Deuteronomy), in poetry (Ex. xv., Dt. xxxii.,
xxxiii.),
and they severally set forth what he was en-
gaged
to accomplish in each of these different directions.
The
books of Scripture thus having each an individual
character
and this stamped with divine authority as an
element
of fitness for their particular place and function,
must
be regarded as organic parts of the whole.
The next step in our inquiry is to
classify and arrange
the
books themselves. Every distribution is not a true
classification,
as a mechanical division of an animal body
is
not a dissection, and every classification will not ex-
hibit
the organic structure of which we are in quest.
The
books of the Bible may be variously divided with
respect
to matters merely extraneous and contingent,
and
which stand in no relation to the true principle of
its
construction.
Thus, for example, the current
division of the Hebrew
Bible
is into three parts, the Law, the Prophets, and
the
K'thubhim or Hagiographa. This distribution rests
THE
OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS STRUCTURE 5
upon
the official standing of the writers. The writings
of
Moses, the great lawgiver and mediator of God's cove-
nant
with
altogether
unique, stand first. Then follow the writings
of
the prophets, that is to say, of those invested with the
prophetical
office. Some of these writings, the so-called
former
prophets--Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings--
are
historical; the others are prophetical, viz., those de-
nominated
the latter prophets--Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
and
the twelve minor prophets so called, not as though
of
inferior authority, but solely because of the brevity of
their
books. Their position in this second division of
the
canon is due not to the nature of their contents but
to
the fact that their writers were prophets in the strict
and
official sense. Last of all those books occupy the
third
place which were written by inspired men who
were
not in the technical or official sense prophets.
Thus
the writings of David and Solomon, though inspired
as
truly as those of the prophets, are assigned to the
third
division of the canon, because their authors were
not
prophets but kings. So, too, the book of Daniel be-
longs
in this third division, because its author, though
possessing
the gift of prophecy in an eminent degree, and
uttering
prophecies of the most remarkable character,
and
hence called a prophet, Mat. xxiv. 15, in the same
general
sense as David is in Acts ii. 30, nevertheless did
not
exercise the prophetic office. He was not engaged in
laboring
with the people for their spiritual good as his
contemporary
and fellow-captive Ezekiel. He had an
entirely
different office to perform on their behalf in the
distinguished
position which he occupied at the court of
cover
the same period of the history as 2 Samuel and
Kings,
but the assignment of the former to the third
division,
and of the latter to the second, assures us that
6 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH
Samuel
and Kings were written by prophets, while the
author
of Chronicles, though writing under the guidance
and
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was not officially a
prophet.
As classified in our present Hebrew
Bibles, which
follow
the order given in the Talmud, this principle of
arrangement
is in one instance obviously departed from;
the
Lamentations of Jeremiah stands in the Hagiogra-
pha,
though as the production of a prophet it ought to
be
included in the second division of the canon, and
there
is good reason to believe that this was its original
position.
Two modes of enumerating the sacred books
were
in familiar use in ancient times, as appears from
the
catalogues which have been preserved to us. The
two
books of Samuel were uniformly counted one: so
the
two books of Kings and the two of Chronicles: so
also
Ezra and Nehemiah: so likewise the Minor Proph-
ets
were counted one book. Then, according to one
mode
of enumeration, Ruth was attached to Judges as
forming
together one book, and Lamentations was re-
garded
as a part of the book of Jeremiah: thus the en-
tire
number of the books of the Old Testament was
twenty-two.
In the other mode Ruth and Lamentations
were
reckoned separate books, and the total was twenty-
four.
Now the earliest enumerations that we have from
Jewish
or Christian sources are by Josephus1 and Ori-
gen,
who both give the number as twenty-two: and as
this
is the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet,
while
twenty-four is the number in the Greek alphabet,
the
former may naturally be supposed to have been
adopted
by the Jews in the first instance. From this it
would
appear that Lamentations was originally annexed
1 Josephus adopts a
classification of his own suited to his immediate
purpose,
but doubtless preserves the total number current among his
countrymen.
THE
OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS STRUCTURE 7
to
the book of Jeremiah and of course placed in the
same
division of the canon. Subsequently, for liturgical
or
other purposes, Ruth and Lamentations were re-
moved
to the third division of the canon and included
among
the five small books now classed together as Me-
gilloth
or Rolls, which follow immediately after Psalms,
Proverbs,
and Job.
There are two methods by which we can
proceed in
investigating
the organic structure of the Old Testament.
We
must take our departure either from the beginning
or
the end. These are the two points from which all the
lines
of progress diverge, or in which they meet in every
development
or growth. All that which properly be-
longs
to it throughout its entire course is unfolded from
the
one and is gathered up in the other. Thus the seed
may
be taken, in which the whole plant is already in-
volved
in its undeveloped state, and its growth may be
traced
from this its initial point by observing how roots,
and
stem, and leaves, and flowers, and fruit proceed
from
it by regular progression. Or the process may be re-
versed
and the whole be surveyed from its consummation.
The
plant is for the sake of the fruit; every part has its
special
function to perform toward its production, and
the
organic structure is understood when the office of
each
particular portion in relation to the end of the
whole
becomes known.
In making trial of the first of the
methods just sug-
gested,
the Old Testament may be contemplated under
its
most obvious aspect of a course of training to which
it
there will be little difficulty in fixing upon the law of
Moses
as the starting-point of this grand development.
God
chose
be
his own peculiar people, to train them up for himself
by
immediate communications of his will, and by manifes-
8 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH
tations
of his presence and power in the midst of them.
And
as the first step in this process, first not only in the
order
of time but of rational arrangement, and the foun-
dation
of the whole, he entered into special and formal
covenant
with them at Sinai, and gave them a divine
constitution
and laws containing the undeveloped seeds
and
germs of all that he designed to accomplish in them
and
for them. The first division of the Old Testament
consequently
is the Pentateuch, which contains this law
with
its historical introduction.
The next step was to engage the people
in the observ-
ance
of the law thus given to them. The constitution
which
they had received was set in operation and al-
lowed
to work out its legitimate fruits among them and
upon
them. The law of God thus shaped the history of
ment
to the law by the experience which it afforded of
its
workings and of the providential sanctions which at-
tended
it and by the modifications which were from time
to
time introduced as occasion demanded. The histori-
call
books thus constitute the second division of the Old
Testament,
whose office it is to record the providential
application
and expansion of the law.
A third step in this divine training
was to have the
law
as originally given and as providentially expanded,
wrought
not only into the outward practice of the people
or
their national life, as shown in the historical books,
but
into their inward individual life and their intellect-
ual
convictions. This is the function of the poetical
books,
which are occupied with devout meditations or
earnest
reflections upon the law of God, his works and
his
providence, and the reproduction of the law in the
heart
and life. These form accordingly the third divis-
ion
of the Old Testament.
The law has thus been set to work upon
the national
THE
OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS STRUCTURE 9
life
of the people of
and
is in addition coming to be wrought more and more
into
their individual life and experience by devout medi-
tation
and careful reflection. But that this outward and
inward
development, though conducted in the one case
under
immediate divine superintendence, and in the
other
under the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, might
not
fail of its appointed end, there was need that this end
should
be held up to view and that the minds of the peo-
ple
should be constantly directed forward to it. With
this
view the prophets were raised up to reiterate, un-
fold,
and apply the law in its true spiritual meaning, to
correct
abuses and misapprehensions, to recall a trans-
gressing
people to fidelity to their covenant God, and to
expand
to the full dimensions of the glorious future the
germs
and seeds of a better era which their covenant
relation
to Jehovah contained. They furnish thus what
may
be called an objective expansion of the law, and
their
writings form the fourth and last division of the
Old
Testament.
If, then, the structure of the Old
Testament has been
read
aright, as estimated from the point of its beginning
and
its gradual development from that onward, it con-
sists
of four parts,1 viz.:
1. The Pentateuch or law of Moses, the
basis of the
whole.
2. Its providential expansion and
application to the
national
life in the historical books.
3. Its subjective expansion and
appropriation to in-
dividual
life in the poetical books.
4. Its objective expansion and
enforcement in the
prophetical
books.
The other mode above suggested of
investigating the
1 This is substantially the
same as Oehler's division first proposed in
his
Prolegomena zur Theologie des Alten Testaments, 1845, pp. 87-91.
10
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH
structure
of the Old Testament requires us to survey it
from
its end, which is Christ, for whose coming and sal-
vation
it is a preparation. This brings everything into,
review
under a somewhat different aspect. It will yield
substantially
the same division that has already been ar-
rived
at by the contrary process, and thus lends it addi-
tional
confirmation, since it serves to show that this is
not
a fanciful or arbitrary partition but one grounded in
the
nature of the sacred volume. At the same time it is
attended
with three striking and important advantages.
1. The historical, poetical, and
prophetical books,
which
have hitherto been considered as separate lines of
development,
springing it is true from a common root,
yet
pursuing each its own independent course, are by this
second
method exhibited in that close relationship and
interdependence
which really subsists between them, and
in
their convergence to one common centre and end.
2. It makes Christ the prominent
figure, and adjusts
every
part of the Old Testament in its true relation to
him.
He thus becomes in the classification and struct-
ural
arrangement, what he is in actual fact, the end of
the
whole, the controlling, forming principle of all, so that
the
meaning of every part is to be estimated from its re-
lation
to him and is only then apprehended as it should
be
when that relation becomes known.
3. This will give unity to the study
of the entire Script-
ures.
Everything in the Old Testament tends to Christ
and
is to be estimated from him. Everything in the
New
Testament unfolds from Christ and is like-wise to be
estimated
from him. In fact this method pursued in other
fields
will give unity and consistency to all knowledge
by
making Christ the sum and centre of the whole, of
whom,
and through whom, and to whom are all things.
In the first method the Old Testament
was regarded
simply
as a divine scheme of training. It must now be
THE
OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS STRUCTURE 11
regarded
as a scheme of training directed to one definite
end,
the coming of Christ.
It is to be noted that the Old
Testament, though pre-
paratory
for Christ and predictive of him everywhere, is
not
predictive of him in the same manner nor in equal
measure
throughout. Types and prophecies are accumu-
lated
at particular epochs in great numbers and of a strik-
ing
character. And then, as if in order that these lessons
might
be fully learned before the attention was diverted
by
the impartation of others, an interval is allowed to
elapse
in which predictions, whether implicit or explicit,
are
comparatively few and unimportant. Then another
brilliant
epoch follows succeeded by a fresh decline; pe-
riods
they may be called of activity and of repose, of in-
struction
on the part of God followed by periods of com-
prehension
and appropriation on the part of the people.
These
periods of marked predictive character are never
mere
repetitions of those which preceded them. Each
has
its own distinctive nature and quality. It emphasizes
particular
aspects and gives prominence to certain char-
acteristics
of the coming Redeemer and the ultimate
salvation;
but others are necessarily neglected altogether
or
left in comparative obscurity, and if these are to be
brought
distinctly to view, a new period is necessary to
represent
them. Thus one period serves as the comple-
ment
of another, and all must be combined in order
to
gain a complete notion of the preparation for Christ
effected
by the Old Testament, or of that exhibition of
Messiah
and his work which it was deemed requisite to
make
prior to his appearing.
It is further to be observed that
Christ and the coming
salvation
are predicted negatively as well as positively.
While
the good things of the present point forward to
the
higher good in anticipation, evils endured or foretold,
and
imperfections in existing forms of good, suggest the
12
THE HIGHER CRITICISM of THE PENTATETJC
blissful
future by way of contrast; they awaken to a
sense
of wants, deficiencies, and needs which points for-
ward
to a time when they shall be supplied. The cove-
nant
relation of the people to God creates an ideal which
though
far from being realized as yet must some time
find
a complete realization. The almighty and all holy
God
who has made them his people will yet make them
to
be in character and destiny what the people of Jeho-
vah
ought to be. Now since each predictive period ex-
presses
just the resultant of the particular types and
prophecies
embraced within it, its character is determined
by
the predominant character of these types and proph-
ecies.
If these are predominantly of a negative descrip-
tion,
the period viewed as a whole is negatively predic-
tive.
If they are prevailingly positive, they constitute a
prevailingly
positive period.
If now the sacred history be
considered from the call
of
Abraham to the close of the Old Testament, it will be
perceived
that it spontaneously divides itself into a se-
ries
of periods alternately negative and positive. There
is
first a period in which a want is developed in the ex-
perience
of those whom God is thus training, and is
brought
distinctly to their consciousness. Then follows
a
period devoted to its supply. Then comes a new want
and
a fresh supply, and so on.
The patriarchal, for example, is a
negative period. Its
characteristic
is its wants, its patient, longing expecta-
tion
of a numerous seed and the possession of the land
of
Moses
and Joshua, which is therefore the corresponding
positive
period.
The period of the Judges, again,
possesses a negative
character.
The bonds which knit the nation together
were
too, feeble and too easily dissolved. This was not
the
fault of their divine constitution. Had the people
THE
OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS STRUCTURE 13
been
faithful to their covenant God, their invisible but
almighty
sovereign and protector, their union would
have
been perfect, and as against all foreign foes they
would
have been invincible. But when the generation
which
had beheld the mighty works wrought under the
leadership
of Moses and Joshua had passed away, the in-
visible
lost its hold upon a carnally minded people, and
“every
man did that which was right in his own eyes.”
They
relapsed from the worship of God and obedience to
his
law, and were in turn forsaken by him. Hence their
weakness,
their civil dissensions tending to anarchy and
their
repeated subjugation by surrounding enemies con-
vincing
them of the need of a stronger union under a
visible
head, a king to go before them. This was sup-
plied
in David and Solomon, who mark the correspond-
ing
positive period.
Then follows another negative period
embracing the
schism,
the decline of the divided kingdoms, their over-
throw
and the captivity, with its corresponding positive,
the
restoration.
If the marked and prominent features
of the history
now
recited be regarded, and if each negative be com-
bined
with the positive which forms its appropriate com-
plement,
there will result three great predictive or pre-
paratory
periods, viz.
1. From the call of Abraham to the
death of Joshua.
2. To the death of Solomon.
3. To the close of the Old Testament.
All that precedes the call of Abraham
is purely pre-
liminary
to it, and is to be classed with the first period
as
its introduction or explanatory antecedent.
If these divisions of the history be
transferred to the
Old
Testament whose structure is the subject of inquiry,
it
will be resolved into the following portions, viz.
1. The Pentateuch and Joshua.
14
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH
2. The recorded history as far as the
death of Solo-
mon,
and the sacred writings belonging to this period.
These
are, principally, the Psalms of David and the Prov-
erbs
of Solomon, the great exemplars of devotional lyr-
ics
and of aphoristic or sententious verse, which gave
tone
and character to all the subsequent poetry of the
Bible.
The latter may accordingly be properly grouped
with
them as their legitimate expansion or appropriate
complement.
These echoes continue to be heard in the
following
period of the history, but as the keynote was
struck
in this, all the poetical books may be classed to-
gether
here as in a sense the product of this period.
3.
The rest of the historical books of the Old Testa-
ment,
together with the prophetical books.
This
triple division, though based on an entirely dis-
tinct
principle and reached by a totally different route, is
yet
closely allied to the quadruple division previously
made,
with only divergence enough to show that the
partition
is not mechanical but organic, and hence no
absolute
severance is possible. The historical books are
here
partitioned relatively to the other classes of books,
exhibiting
a symmetrical division of three periods of di-
vinely
guided history, and at the close of each an imme-
diate
divine revelation, for which the history furnishes
the
preliminary training, and, in a measure, the theme.
The
history recorded by Moses and consummated by
Joshua
has as its complement the law given at Sinai and
in
the wilderness. The further history to the death of
Solomon
formed a preparation for the poetical books.
The
subsequent history prepares the way for the proph-
ets,
who are in like manner gathered about its concluding
stages.
There is besides just difference
enough between the
two
modes of division to reveal the unity of the whole
Old
Testament, and that books separated under one as-
THE
OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS STRUCTURE 15
pect
are yet united under another. Thus Joshua, accord-
ing
to one method of division and one mode of conceiving
of
it, continues and completes the history of the Penta-
teuch;
the other method sees in it the opening of a new
development.
There is a sense, therefore, in which it
is
entirely legitimate to combine the Pentateuch and
Joshua
as together forming a Hexateuch. The promises
made
to the patriarchs, the exodus from
march
through the wilderness contemplate the settlement
in
out
it. And yet in the sense in which it is currently
employed
by modern critics, as though the Pentateuch
and
the book of Joshua constituted one continuous liter-
ary
production, the term. Hexateuch is a misnomer. They
are
distinct works by distinct writers; and the func-
tion
of Joshua was quite distinct from that of Moses.
Joshua,
as is expressly noted at every step of his course,
simply
did the bidding of Moses. The book of the law
was
complete, and was placed in his hands at the outset
as
the guide of his official life. The period of legislation
ended
with the death of Moses; obedience to the law
already
given was the requirement for the time that fol-
lowed.
Again the reign of Solomon may be viewed un-
der
a double aspect. It is the sequel to that of David,
carrying
the
prosperity
and renown; and yet in Kings it is put at the
opening
of a new book, since it may likewise be viewed
under
another aspect as containing the seeds of the dis-
solution
that followed.
As to the general relation of these
three divisions of
the
Old Testament there may be observed:
1. A correspondence between the first
and the follow-
ing
divisions. The Pentateuch and Joshua fulfil their
course
successively in two distinct though related
spheres.
They contain, first, a record of individual
16
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH
experience
and individual training in the lives of the
patriarchs;
and secondly, the national experience and
training
of
spheres
repeat themselves, the former in the second
grand
division of the Old Testament, the latter in the
third.
The histories of the second division are pre-
dominantly
the record of individual experience, and
its
poetry is individual in its character. Judges and
Samuel
are simply a series of historical biographies;
Judges,
of the distinguished men raised up from time to
time
to deliver the people out of the hands of their op-
pressors;
Samuel, of the three leading characters by
whom
the affairs of the people were shaped in that im-
portant
period of transition, Samuel, Saul, and David.
Ruth
is a biographical sketch from private life. The
poetical
books not only unfold the divinely guided re-
flections
of individual minds or the inward struggles of
individual
souls, but their lessons, whether devotional
or
Messianic, are chiefly based on the personal experi-
ence
of David and Solomon, or of other men of God.
The third division of the Old
Testament, on the other
hand,
resembles the closing portion of the first in being
national.
Its histories--Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and
Nehemiah--concern
the nation at large, and the same may
be
said to a certain extent even of Esther. The commu-
nications
of the prophets now given are God's messages
to
the people, and their form and character are condi-
tioned
by the state and prospects of the nation.
2. The number of organs employed in
their communi-
cation
increases with each successive division. In the
first
there are but two inspired writers, Moses and the
author
of the book of Joshua, whether Joshua himself or
another.
In the second the historians were distinct from
the
poets, the latter consisting of David, Solomon, and
other
sacred singers, together with the author of the
THE
OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS STRUCTURE 17
book
of Job, In the third we find the greatest number
of
inspired writers, together with the most elaborate ar-
ticulation
and hence an advance in organic structure.
3. There is a progress in the style of
instruction
adopted
in each successive division. The first is purely
typical.
The few prophecies which are scattered
through
it are lost in the general mass. The second di-
vision
is of a mixed character, but types predominate.
We
here meet not a simple record of typical facts and
institutions
without remark or explanation, as in the
Pentateuch
and Joshua; but in the poetical books types
are
singled out and dwelt upon, and made the basis of
predictions
respecting Christ. The third division is also
of
a mixed character, but prophecies so predominate that
the
types are almost lost sight of in the comparison.
4. These divisions severally render
prominent the
three
great theocratic offices which were combined in the
Redeemer.
The first by its law, the central institution
of
which is sacrifice, and which impresses a sacerdotal
organization
upon the people, points to Jesus as priest.
The
second, which revolves about the kingdom, is prog-
nostic
of Jesus as king, although the erection of Solo-
non's
temple and the new stability and splendor given
to
the ritual show that the priesthood is not forgotten.
In
the third, the prophets rise to prominence, and the
people
themselves, dispersed among the nations to be the
teachers
of the world, take on a prophetic character typ-
ifying
Jesus as a prophet. While nevertheless the re-
building
of the temple by Zerubbabel, and the prophetic
description
of its ideal reconstruction by Ezekiel, point
still
to his priesthood, and the monarchs of
his
kingdom.
II
THE
PLAN AND CONTENTS OF THE PENTATEUCH
The books of Moses are in the
Scriptures called "the
law,"
Josh. i. 7; "the law of Moses," I Kin. ii. 3; "the
book
of the law," Josh. viii. 34; "the book of the law
of
Moses," Josh. viii. 31; "the book of the law of God,"
Josh.
xxiv. 26, or “of the LORD,” 2 Chron. xvii. 9, on ac-
count
of their predominantly legislative character. They
are
collectively called the Pentateuch, from pe<nte, five, and
teu?xoj, originally signifying an implement, but
used by
the
Alexandrian critics in the sense of a book, hence a
work
consisting of five books. This division into five
books
is spoken of by Josephus and Philo, and in all
probability
is at least as old as the Septuagint version.
Its
introduction has by some (Leusden, Havernick, Len-
gerke)
been attributed to the Greek translators. Others
regard
it as of earlier date (Michaelis), and perhaps as
old
as the law itself (Bertholdt, Keil), for the reasons
1. That this is a natural division
determined by the
plan
of the work. Genesis, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy
are
each complete in itself; and this being so, the five-
fold
division follows as a matter of course.
2. The division of the Psalms into
five books, as found
in
the Hebrew Bible, is probably patterned after the
Pentateuch,
and is most likely as old as the constitution
of
the canon.
The names of these five books are in
the Hebrew Bible
taken
from the first words of each. Those current among
ourselves,
and adopted in most versions of the Old Tes-
tament,
are taken from the old Greek translators.
PLAN
AND CONTENTS OF THE PENTATEUCH 19
The Pentateuch has one theme, which is
consistently
pursued
from first to last, viz., the theocracy in
or
the establishment of
It
consists of two parts, viz.
1. Historical, Gen. i.--Ex. xix.,
tracing the successive
steps
by which
tion
chosen to be the peculiar people of God.
2. Legal, recording the divine
constitution granted to
them,
by which they were formally organized as God's
people
and brought into special relation to him. The
law
begins with the ten commandments, uttered by God's
own
voice from the smoking summit of Sinai, in Ex. xx.,
and
extends to the close of Deuteronomy. The scraps of
history
which are found in this second main division are
not
only insignificant in bulk compared with the legisla-
tion
which it contains, but they are subordinated to it as
detailing
the circumstances or occasions on which the
laws
were given, and likewise allied with it as constitut-
ing
part of the training by which
their
proper relation to God. Of these two main sections
of
the Pentateuch the first, or historical portion, is not
only
precedent to, but preparatory for, the second or legal
portion;
the production and segregation of the people of
organized
as the people of God.
It will be plain from a general survey
of these two
main
sections, into which the Pentateuch is divided, that
everything
in it bears directly upon its theme as already
stated;
and the more minute and detailed the examina-
tion
of its contents, the more evident this will become.
The
first of these two great sections, or the historical
portion,
is clearly subdivided by the call of Abraham. It
was
at that point that the production and segregation
of
the covenant people, strictly speaking, commenced.
From
the creation of the world to the call of Abraham,
20
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH
which
is embraced in the first eleven chapters of Gene-
sis,
the history is purely preliminary. It is directed to
the
negative end of demonstrating the necessity of such
a
segregation. From the call of Abraham to the law
given
at
Ex.
xix., the history is directed to the positive end of
the
production and segregation of the covenant people.
The preliminary portion of the history
is once more
divided
by the flood; the first five chapters of Genesis
being
occupied with the antediluvian period and the next
six
with an account of the deluge and the postdiluvian
period.
Each of these preliminary periods is marked
by
the formation of a universal covenant between God
and
the two successive progenitors and heads of the hu-
man
race, Adam and Noah, which stand in marked con-
trast
with the particular or limited covenant made with
Abraham,
the progenitor of the chosen race, at the begin-
ning
of the following or patriarchal period. The failure
of
both those primeval covenants to preserve religion
among
men, and to guard the race from degeneracy and
open
apostasy, established the necessity of a new ex-
pedient,
the segregation of a chosen race, among whom
religion
might be fostered in seclusion from other na-
tions,
until it could gain strength enough to contend
with
evil on the arena of the world and overcome it, in-
stead
of being overcome by it. The covenant with Adam
was
broken by his fall, and the race became more and
more
corrupt from age to age, until the LORD determined
to
put a sudden end to its enormous wickedness, and de-
stroyed
the world by the flood. Noah, who was alone
spared
with his household, became the head of a new
race
with whom God entered into covenant afresh; but
the
impious attempt at
liness
and corruption which once more overspread the
earth,
and it became apparent, if the true service of God
PLAN
AND CONTENTS OF THE PENTATEUCH 21
was
to be maintained in the world, it must be by initiat-
ing
a new process. Hence the call of Abraham to be the
father
of a new people, which should be kept separate
from
other nations and be the peculiar people of the
LORD.
These two preliminary periods furnish
thus the justi-
fication
of the theocracy in
insufficiency
of preceding methods, and the consequent
necessity
of selecting a special people to be the LORD'S
people.
But besides this negative purpose, which the
writer
had in view in recording this primeval portion of
the
history, he had also the positive design of paving the
way
for the account to be subsequently given of the
chosen
people, by exhibiting and inculcating certain
ideas,
which are involved in the notion of a covenant
people,
and of describing certain preliminary steps al-
ready
taken in the direction of selecting such a people.
The idea of the people of God
involves, when con-
templated
under its negative aspect, (1) segregation from
the
rest of mankind; and this segregation is not purely
formal
and local, but is represented (2) both in their in-
ward
character, suggesting the contrast of holiness to sin,
and
(3) in their outward destiny, suggesting the contrast
of
salvation to perdition. The same idea of the people
of
God contemplated under its positive aspect involves
(4)
direct relation to God or covenant with him, the ob-
servance
of his laws and of the institutions which he im-
posed
or established. Something is effected in relation
to
each of these four particulars in each of these prelimi-
nary
periods, and thus much, at least, accomplished in the
direction
of the theocracy which was afterward to be in-
stituted.
Genesis begins with a narrative of the
creation, because
in
this the sacred history has its root. And this not only
because
an account of the formation of the world might
22
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH
fatly
precede an account of what was transacted in it,
but
chiefly because the sacred history is essentially a his-
tory
of redemption, and this being a process of recovery,
a
scheme initiated for the purpose of restoring man and
the
world to their original condition, necessarily presup-
poses
a knowledge of what that original condition was.
Hence
the regular and emphatic repetition, after each
work
was performed, in Gen. i., of the statement, and
God
saw that it was good; "and at the close of all, God
saw
everything that he had made; and behold it was
very
good." Hence, too, the declaration made and re-
peated
at the creation of man, that he was made in God's
image.
The idea of primitive holiness thus set forth is
further
illustrated, by contrast, in the tree of the knowl-
edge
of good and evil, which stood in the midst of the gar-
den,
and was made the test of obedience, and especially in
man's
transgression and disobedience which rendered
redemption
necessary. The contrast of salvation and
perdition
is suggested by paradise and the tree of life on
the
one hand, and by the curse pronounced upon man
and
his expulsion from
upon
the other; by Cain's being driven out from the
presence
of the LORD, and by Enoch, who walked with
God
and was not, for God took him. The idea of seg-
regation
is suggested by the promise respecting the seed
of
the woman and the seed of the serpent, by which the
family
of man is divided into two opposite and hostile
classes,
who maintain a perpetual strife, until the serpent
and
his seed are finally crushed; a strife which culmi-
nates
in the personal conflict between Christ and Satan,
and
the victory of the former, in which all his people
share.
These hostile parties find their first representa-
tives
in the family of Adam himself--in Cain, who was of
the
evil one, and his righteous brother, Abel; and after
Abel's
murder Seth was raised up in his stead. These
PLAN
AND CONTENTS OF THE PENTATEUCH 23
are
perpetuated in their descendants, those of Seth being
called
the sons of God, those of Cain the sons and
daughters
of men. In conformity with the plan, which
the
writer steadfastly pursues throughout, of tracing the
divergent
lines of descent before dismissing them from
further
consideration in the history, and proceeding with
the
account of the chosen line itself, he first gives an ac-
count
of the descendants of Cain, whose growing degen-
eracy
is exhibited in Lamech, of the seventh generation
(Gen.
iv. 17-24), before narrating the birth of Seth (Gen.
iv.
25, 26) and tracing the line of the pious race through
him
to Noah, ch. v. By this excision of the
apostate line
of
Cain that narrowing process is begun, which was finally
to
issue in the limitation to Abraham and his seed. And
in
the fourth and last place, the divine institutions now
established
as germs of the future law, were the weekly
Sabbath
(G en. ii. 3), and the rite of sacrifice (Gen. iv. 3, 4).
In the next period the same rites were
perpetuated,
with
a more specific mention of the distinction of clean
and
unclean animals (Gen. vii. 8), and the prohibition
of
eating blood (Gen. ix. 4), which were already involved
in
the institution of sacrifice and the annexing of the
penalty
of death to the crime of murder (Gen. ix. 6); and
the
same ideas received a new sanction and enforcement.
The
character of those who belong to God is repre-
sented
in righteous Noah, as contrasted with the Un-
godly
world; their destiny, in the salvation of the former
and
the perdition of the latter. Segregation is carried
one
term farther by the promise belonging to this period,
which
declares that while Japheth shall be enlarged and
of
Shem. And here, according to his usual method, al-
ready
adverted to, the writer first presents a view of the
descendants
of all Noah's sons, which were dispersed
over
the face of the earth (Gen. x.), prior to tracing the
24
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PETNTATEUCH
chosen
line in the seed of Shem, to Terah, the father of
Abraham
(Gen. xi, 10-26). He thus exhibits the
rela-
tionship
of the chosen race to the rest of mankind, while
singling
them out and sundering them from it.
Everything in these opening chapters
thus bears di-
rectly
on his grand theme, to which he at once proceeds
by
stating the call of Abraham (Gen. xii.), and going on
to
trace those providential events which issued in the
production
of a great nation descended from him.
The
preparation of the people of
be
made the covenant people of God, is traced in two
successive
stages: first, the family, in the remainder of
the
book of Genesis (Gen. ch. xii.-l.), secondly, the nation
(Ex.
i.-xix.).
The first of these sections embraces
the histories of
the
patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God made
choice
of Abraham to be the father of his own peculiar
people,
and covenanted with him as well as with Isaac
and
Jacob severally to be their God, promising to them-
(1)
numerous seed, (2) the possession of the land of
them
upon all mankind. During this period the work
of
segregation and elimination previously begun was car-
ried
steadily forward to its final term. The line had al-
ready
been narrowed down to the family of Terah in the
preceding
chapter. Abraham is now called to leave his
father's
house (Gen. xii.), his nephew
him,
who is soon, however, separated from him (ch. xiii.),
and
his descendants traced (xix. 37, 38). Then in Abra-
ham's
own family Ishmael is sent away from his house
(ch.
xxi.), and the divergent lines of descent from Keturah
and
from Ishmael are traced (ch. xxv.), before proceeding
with
the direct line through Isaac (xxv. 19). Then in
Isaac's
family the divergent line of Esau is traced (ch.
xxxvi.),
before proceeding with the direct line of Jacob
PLAN
AND CONTENTS OF THE PENTATEUCH 25
(xxxvii.
2), the father of the twelve tribes, after which no
further
elimination is necessary.
The history of this sacred family and
God's gracious
leadings
in
dential
steps are recorded by which they were taken down
into
tion.
One important stage of preparation for the theocracy
in
the
national period is about to begin. Genesis here ac-
cordingly
breaks off with the death of Jacob and of Joseph.
Exodus opens with a succinct statement
of the im-
mense
and rapid multiplication of the children of
effecting
the transition from a family to a nation (Ex. i.
1-7),
and then proceeds at once to detail the preparations
for
the exodus (i. 8-ch. xiii.), and the exodus itself (ch.
xiv.-xix.).
There is first described the negative prepara-
tion
in the hard bondage imposed on the people by the
king
of
The positive preparation follows, first of an
instrument
to
lead the people out of
(ch.
ii.-vi.); second, the breaking their bonds and setting
them
free by the plagues sent on
The
way being thus prepared, the people are led out of
and
grace, which conducted them through the
and
attended them on their march to Sinai (ch. xiv.-xix.).
God.
The history is accordingly succeeded by the
legislation
of the Pentateuch. This legislation consists
of
three parts, corresponding to three periods of very un-
equal
length into which the abode in the wilderness may
be
divided, and three distinct localities severally oc-
cupied
by the people in these periods respectively.
1. The legislation at
they
encamped there.
26
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE
PENTATEUCH
2. That given in the period of
wandering in the wil-
derness
of Paran, which occupied the greater part of the
forty
years.
3. That given to
east
of
ised
land.
At Sinai God first proclaims the law
of the ten com-
mandments
(Ex. xx.), and then gives a series of ordi-
nances
(ch. xxi.-xxiii.) as the basis of his covenant with
way
is thus prepared for God to take up his abode in
preparation
of the tabernacle as God's dwelling-place,
with
its furniture, and for the appointment of priests to
serve
in it, with a description of the vestments which
they
should wear, and the rites by which they should be
consecrated
(ch. xxv.-xxxi.). The execution of these
directions
was postponed in consequence of the breach
of
the covenant by the sin of the golden calf and the re-
newal
of the covenant which this had rendered necessary
(ch.
xxxii.-xxxiv.). And then Exodus is brought to a
termination
by the account of the actual construction and
setting
up of the tabernacle and God's taking up his
abode
in it (ch. xxxv.-xl.).
The LORD having thus formally entered
into covenant
with
next
gives them his laws. These are mainly contained
in
the book of Leviticus. There is first the law respect-
ing
the various kinds of sacrifices to be offered at the
tabernacle
now erected (Lev. i.-vii.), then the consecra-
tion
of Aaron and his sons by whom they were to be
offered,
together with the criminal conduct and death of
two
of his sons, Nadab and Abihu (ch. viii.-x.); then the
law
respecting clean and unclean meats and various kinds
of
purifications (ch. xi.-xv.), and the series is wound up
PLAN
AND CONTENTS OF THE PENTATEUCH 27
by
the services of the day of atonement, effecting the
highest
expiation known to the Mosaic ritual (ch. xvi.).
These
are followed by ordinances of a more miscellane-
ous
character relating to the people (ch. xvii.-xx.), and
the
priests (ch. xxi., xxii.), the various festivals (ch.
xxiii.),
the sabbatical year and year of jubilee (ch. xxv.);
and
the whole is concluded by the blessing pronounced
on
obedience and the curse which would attend upon
transgression
(ch. xxvi.), with which the book is brought
to
a formal close (xxvi. 46). A supplementary chapter
(xxvii.)
is added at the end respecting vows.
Numbers begins with the arrangements
of the camp and
preparations
for departure from Sinai (Num. i.-x.). The
people
are numbered (ch. i.), the order of encampment
and
march settled (ch. ii.), and duties assigned to the sev-
eral
families of the Levites in transporting the tabernacle
(ch.
iii., iv.). Then, after some special ceremonial regu-
lations
(ch. v., vi.), follow the offerings at the dedication
of
the tabernacle, including oxen and wagons for its
transportation
(ch. vii.); the Levites are consecrated for
their
appointed work (ch. viii.), and as the final act be-
fore
removal the passover was celebrated (ch. ix.), and
signal
trumpets prepared (ch. x.). Then comes the actual
march
from Sinai, with the occurrences upon the journey
to
Kadesh, on the southern border of the land, where
they
are condemned to wander forty years in the wilder-
ness
on account of the rebellious refusal to enter Ca-
naan
(ch. xi.-xiv.). Some incidents belonging to the
period
of the wandering and laws then given are re-
corded
(ch. xv.-xix.). The assembling of the people
again
at Kadesh in the first month of the fortieth year,
the
sin of Moses and Aaron, which excluded them from
the
promised land, and the march to the plains of
opposite
eleventh
month of that year, including the conquest of
28
THE HIGHER, CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH
the
territory east of the
the
book (ch. xx.-xxxvi.).
Deuteronomy contains the last
addresses of Moses to
the
people in the plains of
month
of the fortieth year of
which
he endeavors to engage them to the faithful ob-
servance
of the law now given. The first of these ad-
dresses
(Deut. i.-iv. 40) reviews some of the leading events
of
the march through the wilderness as arguments for a
steadfast
adherence to the LORD'S service. Then after se-
lecting
three cities of refuge on the east side of the Jor-
dan
(iv. 41-43), he proceeds in his second address with a
declaration
of the law, first in general terms, reciting the
ten
commandments with earnest admonitions of fidelity
to
the LORD (ch. v.-xi.), then entering more into detail in
the
inculcation, of the various ordinances and enactments
(ch.
xii.-xxvi.). This law of Deuteronomy thus set before
the
people for their guidance is properly denominated
the
people's code as distinguished from the ritual law in
Exodus,
Leviticus, and Numbers, which is denominated
the
priests' code, being intended particularly for the
guidance
of the priests in all matters connected with the
ceremonial.
The latter develops in detail under symbolic
forms
the privileges and duties springing out of the cove-
nant
relation of the people to Jehovah in their access to
him
and the services of his worship. The former is a
development
of the covenant code (Ex. xx.-xxiii.), with
such
modifications as were suggested by the experience
of
the last forty years, and especially by their approach-
ing
entrance into the
sets
solemnly before the people in two sections (ch.
xxvii.,
xxviii., and ch. xxix., xxx.), the blessing consequent
upon
obedience and the curse that will certainly follow
transgression.
Provision is then made both for the
publication and
PLAN
AND CONTENTS OF THE PENTATEUCH 29
safe-keeping
of the law, by delivering it to the custody of
the
priests, who are directed to publish it in the audience
of
the people every seven years, and to keep it safely in
the
side of the ark (ch. xxxi.); next follow Moses's ad-
monitory
song (ch. xxxii.), his last blessing to the tribes
(ch.
xxxiii.), and his death (ch. xxxiv.).
The Pentateuch accordingly has, as
appears from this
brief
survey, one theme from first to last to which all
that
it contains relates. This is throughout treated
upon
one definite plan, which is steadfastly adhered to.
And
it contains a continuous, unbroken history from the
creation
to the death of Moses, without any chasms or
interruptions.
The only chasms which have been al-
leged
are merely apparent, not real, and grow out of the
nature
of the theme and the rigor with which it is
adhered
to. It has been said that while the lives of the
patriarchs
are given in minute detail a large portion of
the
four hundred and thirty years during which the chil-
dren
of
and
that of a large part of the forty years' wandering in
the
wilderness nothing is recorded. But the fact is, that
these
offered little that fell within the plan of the writer.
The
long residence in
establishment
of the theocracy in
ment
of the chosen seed from a family to a nation. This
is
stated in a few verses, and it is all that it was neces-
sary
to record. So with the period of judicial abandon-
ment
in the wilderness: it was not the purpose of the
writer
to relate everything that happened, but only what
contributed
to the establishment of God's kingdom in
out
of the old generation and the growing up of a new
one
in their stead.
The unity of theme and unity of plan
now exhibited
creates
a presumption that these books are, as they have
30
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH
been
traditionally believed to be the product of a single
writer;
and the presumption thus afforded must stand
unless
satisfactory proof can be brought to the contrary.
SCHEME OF THE PENTATEUCH.
Preliminary, Antediluvian, Gen. i.-v.
Gen. i.-xi. , Noachic, Gen. vi-xi.
History, |The
family, Gen. xii. 1.
Gen. i.- |(Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob.)
Ex. xix |
Preparatory, | |Transition
from family, Ex. 1. 1-7.
Gem xii,- | |
Ex. xix. | | Negative.
|The
nation, |Preparation for Oppression, 1. 8-22.
|Ex.
i.-xix |the exodus, i. Positive.
|8-xiii. The instrument,
ses, ii.-vi.
The plagues, vii.-xiii.
Exodus
and march to Sinai, xiv.-xix.
|From
giving law to setting, up tabernacle.
|At Sinai, Ex. xx.- | Ex. xx.-xl.
| Num.
x.10. |Ordinances at Sinai, Lev. i.-xxvii.
| |Preparations
for departure, Num. i. 1-x. 10.
| From
Sinai to Kadesh, x. 11-xiv.
Legislation
Is- | In
Paran, Num. x. Forty
years' wandering, xv.-xix.
rael in wilder-| 11-xxi. Kadesh to plains of
ness, Ex. xx.- | xx.-xxxvi.
Deut. xxxiv. |
| |Moses's
first address (history), i.-iv. 40.
| | General,
v.-xi.
|In plains of
| | (law), Special,
|Dt. 1.-xxxiv. | xxvi.
|Moses's
third address (blessing and curve),
| xxvii.-xxx.
Conclusion,
xxxi. xxxiv.
III
MOSES THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH
IF the Pentateuch is what it claims to
be, it is of the
greatest
interest and value. It professes to record the
origin
of the world and of the human race, a primitive
state
of innocence from which man fell by yielding to temp-
tation,
the history of the earliest ages, the relationship
subsisting
between the different nations of mankind, and
particularly
the selection of Abraham and his descend-
ants
to be the chosen people of God, the depositaries of
divine
revelation, in whose line the Son of God should in
due
time become incarnate as the Saviour of the world.
It
further contains an account of the providential events
accompanying
the development of the seed of Abra-
ham
from a family to a nation, their exodus from
and
the civil and religious institutions under which they
were
organized in the prospect of their entry into, and
occupation
of, the
Pentateuch
stand thus in intimate relation to the prob-
lems
of physical and ethnological science, to history and
archeology
and religious faith. All the subsequent rev-
elations
of the Bible and the gospel of Jesus Christ it-
self,
rest upon the foundation of what is contained in the
Pentateuch
as they either presuppose or directly affirm
its
truth.
It is a question of primary
importance, therefore, both
in
itself and in its consequences, whether the Pentateuch
is
a veritable, trustworthy record, or is a heterogeneous
mass
of legend and fable from which only a modicum of
truth
can be doubtfully and with difficulty elicited. Can
31
32
THE HIGHER CRITICISM 0F THE PENTATEUCH
we
lay it at the basis of our investigations, and implicitly
trust
its representations, or must we admit that its un-
supported
word can only be received with caution, and
that
of itself it carries but little weight? In the settle-
ment
of this matter a consideration of no small conse-
quence
is that of the authorship of the Pentateuch. Its
credibility
is, of course, not absolutely dependent upon
its
Mosaic authorship. It might be all true, though it
were
written by another than Moses and after his time.
But
if it was written by Moses, then the history of the
Mosaic
age was recorded by a contemporary and eye-
witness,
one who was himself a participant and a leader
in
the scenes which he relates, and the legislator from
whom
the enactments proceeded; and it must be con-
fessed
that there is in this fact the highest possible guar-
anty
of the accuracy and truthfulness of the whole. It
is
to the discussion of this point that the present chapter
is
devoted: Is the Pentateuch the work of Moses?
1. It is universally conceded that
this was the tradi-
tional
opinion among the Jews. To this the New Testa-
ment
bears the most abundant and explicit testimony.
The
Pentateuch is by our Lord called "the book of
Moses"
(Mark xii. 26); when it is read and preached
the
apostles say that Moses is read (2 Cor. iii. 15) and
preached
(Acts xv. 21). The Pentateuch and the books
of
the prophets, which were read in the worship of the
synagogue,
are called both by our Lord (Luke xvi. 29,
31)
and the evangelists (Luke xxiv. 27), "Moses and
the
prophets," or "the law of Moses and the prophets"
(Luke
xxiv. 44; Acts xxviii. 23). Of the injunctions of the
Pentateuch
not only do the Jews say, when addressing
our
Lord, "Moses commanded (John viii.
5), but our
Lord
repeatedly uses the same form of speech (Mat. viii.
4;
xix. 7, 8; Mark i. 44; x. 3; Luke v. 14), as testi-
fied
by three of the evangelists. Of the law in general
MOSES
THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 33
he
says, “Moses gave the law” (John vii. 19), and the
evangelist
echoes "the law was given by Moses" (John
i.
17). And that Moses was not only the author of the
law,
but committed its precepts to writing, is affirmed by
the
Jews (Mark xii. 19), and also by our Lord (Mark x.
5),
who further speaks of him as writing predictions re-
specting
himself (John v. 46, 47), and also traces a nar-
rative
in the Pentateuchal history to him (Mark xii. 26).
It has been said that our Lord here
speaks not author-
itatively
but by accommodation to the prevailing senti-
ment
of the Jews; and that it was not his purpose to
settle
questions in Biblical Criticism. But the fact re-
mains
that he, in varied forms of speech, explicitly con-
firms
the current belief that Moses wrote the books
ascribed
to him. For those who reverently accept him
as
an infallible teacher this settles the question. The
only
alternative is to assume that he was not above the
liability
to err; in other words, to adopt what has been
called
the kenotic view of his sacred person, that he com-
pletely
emptied himself of his divine nature in his incar-
nation,
and during his abode on earth was subject to all
the
limitations of ordinary men. Such a
lowering of
view
respecting the incarnate person of our Lord may
logically
affect the acceptance of his instructions in other
matters.
He himself says (John iii. 12), "If I have
told
you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye
believe
if I tell you of heavenly things?"
2. That the Pentateuch was the
production of Moses,
and
the laws which it contains were the laws of Moses,
was
the firm faith of
clearly
reflected in every part of the Old Testament, as
we
have already seen to be the case in the New Testa-
ment.
The final injunction of the last of the prophets
(Mal.
iv. 4) is, "Remember ye the law of Moses my ser-
vant,
which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Is-
34
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE
PENTATEUCH
rael,
with the statutes and judgments." The regulations
adopted
by the Jews returned from captivity were not
recent
enactments of their leaders, but the old Mosaic in-
stitutions
restored. Thus (Ezra iii, 2) they built the
altar
and established the ritual "as it is written in the
law
of Moses." After the new temple was finished they
set
priests and Levites to their respective service, "as it
is
written in the book of Moses" (Ezra vi. 18). When
subsequently
Ezra led up a fresh colony from
he
is characterized as "a ready scribe in the law of
Moses"
(Ezra vii. 6). At a formal assembly of the people
held
for the purpose, "the book of the law of Moses
was
read and explained to them day by day (Neh. viii.
1,
18). Allusions are made to the injunctions of the
Pentateuch
in general or in particular as the law which
God
gave to Moses (Neh. i. 7, 8; viii. 14; ix. 14; x. 29),
as
written in the law (vs. 34, 36), or contained in the
book
of Moses (Neh. xiii. 1).
In the Captivity Daniel (ix. 11, 13)
refers to matters
contained
in the Pentateuch as "written in the law of
Moses."
After the long defection of Manasseh and
Amon
the neglected "book of the law of the LORD by
Moses"
(2 Kin. xxii. 8; xxiii. 25; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 14
xxxv.
6, 12) was found in the temple, and the reformation
of
Josiah was in obedience to its instructions. The pass-
over
of Hezekiah was observed according to the pre-
scriptions
of "the law of Moses" (2
Chron. xxx. 16), and
in
general Hezekiah is commended for having kept the
“commandments
which the LORD commanded Moses” (2
Kin.
xviii. 6). The ten tribes were carried away captive
because
they "transgressed " what "Moses commanded"
(2
Kin. xviii. 12) king Amaziah did (2 Kin. xiv. 6; 2
Chron.
xxv. 4) " as it is written in the book of the law of
Moses,"
Deut. xxiv. 16 being here quoted in exact
terms.,
The high-priest Jehoiada directed the ritual as
MOSES
THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 35
it
is written in the law of Moses" (2 Chron. xxiii 18),
while
appointing the singing as it was ordained by
David;
a discrimination which shows that there was no
such
legal fiction, as it has sometimes been contended,
by
which laws in general, even though recent, were at-
tributed
to Moses. David charged Solomon (1 Kin. ii.
3;
1 Chron. xxii. 13) to keep what "is written in the law
of
Moses," and a like charge was addressed by the LORD
to
David himself (2 Kin. xxi. 7, 13; 2 Chron, xxxiii. 8).
Solomon
appointed the ritual in his temple in accordance
with
"the commandment of Moses" (2 Chron. viii. 13
1
Chron. vi. 49). When the ark was taken by David to
on
it was borne "as Moses commanded" (1 Chron. xv.
15;
cf. 2 Sam. vi. 13). Certain of the Canaanites were
left
in the land in the time of Joshua, "to prove
by
them, to know whether they would hearken unto the
commandments
of the LORD, which he commanded their
fathers
by the hand of Moses" (Judg. iii. 4). Joshua was
directed
"to do according to all the law which Moses
commanded,
and was told that "the book of the law
should
not depart out of his mouth" (Josh. i. 7, 8). And
in
repeated instances it is noted with what exactness he
followed
the directions given by Moses.
It is to be presumed, at least until
the contrary is
shown,
that "the law" and "the book of the law" have
the
same sense throughout as in the New Testament, as
also
in Josephus and in the prologue to the book of
Sirach
or Ecclesiasticus, where they are undeniably
identical
with the Pentateuch. The testimonies which
have
been reviewed show that this was from the first at-
tributed
to Moses. At the least it is plain that the sacred
historians
of the Old Testament without exception, knew
of
a body of laws which were universally obligatory and
were
believed to be the laws of Moses, and which answer
in
every particular to the laws of the Pentateuch.
36
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH
3. Let us next inquire what the
Pentateuch says of
itself.
It may be roughly divided for our present pur-
pose
into its two main sections: (1) Genesis and Exo-
dus
historical; (2) Ex. xx.-Deuteronomy, mainly
legal.
The legal portion consists of three distinct bodies
of
law, each of which has its own peculiar character and
occasion.
The first is denominated the Book of the
Covenant
and embraces Ex. xx.-xxiii., the ten command-
ments
with the accompanying judgments or ordinances,
which
were the stipulations of the covenant then for-
mally
ratified between the LORD and the people. This
Moses
is expressly said (Ex. xxiv. 4), to have written
and
read in the audience of the people, who promised
obedience,
whereupon the covenant was concluded with
appropriate
sacrificial rites.
By this solemn transaction
covenant
people, and he in consequence established his
dwelling
in the midst of them and there received their
worship.
This gave occasion to the second body of laws,
the
so-called Priest Code, relating to the sanctuary and
the
ritual. This is contained in the rest of Exodus
(xxv.-xl.),
with the exception of three chapters (xxxii.-
xxxiv.)
relating to the sin of the golden calf, the whole
of
Leviticus, and the regulations found in the book of
Numbers,
where they are intermingled with the history,
which
suggests the occasion of the laws and supplies the
connecting
links. This Priest Code is expressly declared
in
all its parts to have been directly communicated by
the
LORD to Moses, in part on the summit of Mount
Sinai
during his forty days' abode there, in part while
part
during their subsequent wanderings in the wilderness.
The third body of law is known as the
Deuteronomic
Code,
and embraces the legal portion of the book of
Deuteronomy,
which was delivered by Moses to the peo-
MOSES
THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 37
ple
in the plains of
their
wanderings in the wilderness. This Moses is ex-
pressly
said to have written and to have committed to
the
custody of the Levites, who bore the ark of the cove-
nant
(Deut. xxxi. 9, 24-26).1
The entire law, therefore, in explicit
and positive
terms,
claims to be Mosaic. The book of the Covenant
and
the Deuteronomic law are expressly affirmed to have
been
written by Moses. The Priest Code, or the ritual
law,
was given by the LORD to Moses, and by him to
Aaron
and his sons, though Moses is not in so many
words
said to have written it.
Turning now from the laws of the
Pentateuch to its
narratives
we find two passages expressly attributed to
the
pen of Moses. After the victory over Amalek at
Rephidim,
the LORD said unto Moses (Ex. xvii. 14),
"Write
this for a memorial in a book." The fact that
1”This law,” the words of
which Moses is said to have written in a
book
until they were finished, cannot be restricted with Robertson
Smith
to Dent. xii.-xxvi., as is evident from iv. 44, nor even with
Dillmann
to v.-xxvi., as appears from i. 5; xxviii. 58, 61; xxix.
20,
27. It is doubtful whether it can even be limited to Deut. i.-xxxi.
In
favor of the old opinion, that it embraced in addition the preceding
books
of the Pentateuch, may be urged that Deuteronomy itself recog-
nizes
a prior legislation of Moses binding upon
1;
xvii. 9-11; xxiv. 8 ; xxvii. 26, which affirms as “words of this
law”
the antecedent curses (vs. 15-25), some of which are based on laws
peculiar
to Leviticus); and the book of the law of Moses, by which
Joshua
was guided (Josh. i. 7, 8), must have been quite extensive. Comp.
Josh.
i. 3-5a, and Deut. xi. 24, 25; Josh. i. 5b, 6, and Dent. xxxi. 6,
7;
Josh. i. 12-15, and Num. xxxii.; Josh. v, 2-8, and Ex. xii. 48;
Josh.
v. 10, 11, and Lev. xxiii. 5, 7, 11, 14; Josh. viii. 30, 31, and
Dent.
xxvii; Josh. viii. 34,.and Deut. xxviii.; Josh. xiv. 1-3a, and
Num.
xxxiv. 13-18; Josh. xiv. 6-14, and Num. xiv. 24; Josh. xvii.
3,
4, and Num. xxvii. 6, 7; Josh. xx.. and Num. xxxv. 10 sqq.; Josh.
xx.
7, and Dent. iv. 43; Josh. xxi., and Num. xxxv. 1-8; Josh, xxii.
1-4,
and Num. xxxii.; Josh. xxii. 5, and Deut. x. 12, 13.
38
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENNTATEUCH
such
an injunction was given to Moses in this particular
instance
seems to imply that he was the proper person
to
place on record whatever was memorable and worthy
of
preservation in the events of the time. And it may
perhaps
be involved in the language used that Moses
had
already begun, or at least contemplated, the prepara-
tion
of a connected narrative, to which reference is here
made,
since in the original the direction is not as in the
English
version, "write in a book," but "in the book."
No
stress is here laid, however, upon this form of ex-
pression
for two reasons: (1) The article is indicated
not
by the letters of the text, but by the Massoretic
points,
which though in all probability correct, are not
the
immediate work of the sacred writer. (2) The arti-
cle
may, as in Num. v. 23, simply denote the book
which
would be required for writing.
Again, in Num. xxxiii. 2, a list of
the various stations
of
the children of
derings
in the wilderness is ascribed to Moses, who is
said
to have written their goings out according to their
journeys
by the commandment of the LORD.
This is the more remarkable and
important, because
this
list is irreconcilable with any of the divisive theories
which
undertake to parcel the text of the Pentateuch
among
different writers. It traverses all the so-called
documents,
and is incapable of being referred to any
one;
and no assumptions of interpolations or of manip-
ulation
by the redactor can relieve the embarrassment
into
which the advocates of critical partition are thrown
by
this chapter. There is no escape from the conclusion
that
the author of this list of stations was the author of
the
entire Pentateuchal narrative from the departure out
of
1 See Hebraica viii., pp.
237-239; Presbyterian and Reformed Review,
April,
1894, pp., 281-284.
MOSES
THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 39
No explicit statements are made in the
Pentateuch it-
self
in regard to any other paragraphs of the history than
these
two. But it is obvious from the whole plan and con-
stitution
of the Pentateuch that the history and the leg-
islation
are alike integral parts of one complete work.
Genesis
and the opening chapters of Exodus are plainly
preliminary
to the legislation that follows. The histori-
cal
chapters of Numbers constitute the framework in
which
the laws are set, binding them all together and
exhibiting
the occasion of each separate enactment. If
the
legislation in its present form is, as it claims to be,
Mosaic
then beyond all controversy the preparatory
and
connecting history must be Mosaic likewise. If
the
laws, as we now have them came from Moses by
inevitable
sequence the history was shaped by the same
hand,
and the entire Pentateuch history as well as
legislation,
must be what it has already been seen all
after
ages steadfastly regarded it, the production of
Moses.
4. The style in which the laws of the
Pentateuch are
framed,
and the terms in which they are drawn up, cor-
respond
with the claim which they make for themselves,
and
which all subsequent ages make for them, that they
are
of Mosaic origin. Their language points unmistak-
ably
to the sojourn in the wilderness prior to the occu-
pation
of
The
people are forbidden alike to do after the doings of
the
the
xviii.
3). They are reminded (Deut. xii. 9) that they had
not
yet come to the rest and the inheritance which the
LORD
their God was giving them. The standing desig-
nation
of
to
possess it (Dent. xv. 4, 7). The laws look forward to
the
time when thou art come into the land, etc., and
40
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH
shalt
possess it" (Deut. xvii. 14; Lev. xiv. 34, etc.); or
“when
the LORD hath cut off these nations and thou suc-
ceedest
them, and dwellest in their cities” (Deut. xix. 1),
as
the period when they are to go into full operation
(Deut.
xii. 1, 8, 9). The place of sacrifice is not where
Jehovah
has fixed his habitation, but "the place which
Jehovah
shall choose to place his name there" (Deut.
xii.
5, etc.).
(Num.
v. 2-4, etc.) and living in tents (Lev. xiv. 8), and
in
the wilderness (Lev. xvi. 21, 22). The bullock of the
sin-offering
was to be burned without the camp (Lev. iv.
12,
21); the ashes from the altar were to be carried
without
the camp (vi. 11). The leper was to have his
habitation
without the camp (xiii. 46); the priest was to
go
forth out of the camp to inspect him (xiv. 3); cere-
monies
are prescribed for his admission to the camp
(ver.
8) as well as the interval which must elapse before
his
return to his own tent. In slaying an animal for
food,
the only possibilities suggested are that it may be
in
the camp or out of the camp (xvii. 3). The law of
the
consecration of priests respects by name Aaron and
his
sons (viii. 2 sqq.). Two of these sons, Nadab and Abi-
hu,
commit an offence which causes their death, a cir-
cumstance
which calls forth some special regulations
(Lev.
ch. x.), among others those of the annual day of
atonement
(Lev. xvi. 1) on which Aaron was the cele-
brant
(ver. 3 sqq.), and the camp and the wilderness the
locality
(vs. 21, 22, 26, 27). The tabernacle, the ark, and
other
sacred vessels were made of shittimm wood (Ex.
xxxvi.
20), which was peculiar to the wilderness. The
sacred
structure was made of separate boards, so joined
together
that it could be readily taken apart, and explicit
directions
are given for its transportation as
neyed
from place to place (Num. iv. 5 sqq.), and gifts of
wagons
and oxen were made for the purpose (Num.
MOSES
THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 41
vii.).
Specific instructions are given for the arrangement
of
the several tribes, both in their encampments and their
marches
(Num. ii.). Silver trumpets were made to direct
the
calling of the assembly and the journeying of the
host
(Num. x. 2 sqq.). The ceremonies of the red heifer
were
to be performed without the camp (Num. xix. 3, 7,
9)
and by Eleazar personally (vs. 3, 4). The law of puri-
fication
provides simply for death in tents and in the
open
fields (vs. 14, 16).
The peculiarity of these laws carries
with it the evi-
dence
that they were not only enacted during the so-
journ
in the wilderness, but that they were then com-
mitted
to writing. Had they been preserved orally, the
forms
of expression would have been changed insensibly,
to
adapt them to the circumstances of later times. It is
only
the unvarying permanence of a written code, that
could
have perpetuated these laws in a form which in
after
ages, when the people were settled in
Aaron
and his sons were dead, no longer described di-
rectly
and precisely the thing to be done, but must be
mentally
adapted to an altered state of affairs before they
could
be carried into effect.
The laws of Deuteronomy are, besides,
prefaced by two
farewell
addresses delivered by Moses to
plains
of
cisely
adapted to the situation, and express those feel-
ings
to which the great leader might most appropriately
have
given utterance under the circumstances. And the
most
careful scrutiny shows that the diction and style of
thought
in these addresses is identical with that of the
laws
that follow. Both have emanated from one mind
and
pen. The laws of Deuteronomy are further followed
by
a prophetic song (Deut. xxxii.) which Moses is said
to
have written (xxxi. 22), and by a series of blessings upon
the
several tribes, which he is said to have pronounced
42
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH
before
his death (xxxiii. 1), all which are entirely appro-
priate
in the situation.
The genuineness of these laws is
further vouched for
by
the consideration that a forged body of statutes
could
never be successfully imposed upon any people.
These
laws entered minutely into the affairs of daily life,
imposed
burdens that would not have been voluntarily
assumed,
and could only have been exacted by compe-
tent
authority. That they were submitted to and obeyed,
is
evidence that they really were ordained by Moses, in
whose
name they were issued. If they had first made
their
appearance in a later age, the fraud would inevi-
tably
have been detected. The people could not have
been
persuaded that enactments, never before heard of,
had
come down from the great legislator, and were in-
vested
with his authority.
And the circumstance that these laws
are said to have
been
given at
plains
of
attributed
to a district outside of the holy land, which
had
no sacred associations in the present or in the patri-
archal
age, unless they really were enacted there? and if
so,
this could only have been in the days of Moses.
5. The Pentateuch is either directly
alluded to, or its
existence
implied in numerous passages in the subse-
quent
books of the Bible. The book of Joshua, which
records
the history immediately succeeding the age of
Moses,
is full of these allusions. It opens with the chil-
dren
of
crossing
the
The
arrangements for the conquest and the subsequent
division
of the land are in precise accordance with the
directions
of Moses, and are executed in professed obe-
dience
to his orders. The relationship is so pervading,
and
the correspondence so exact that those who dispute
MOSES
THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 43
the
genuineness and authenticity of the Pentateuch are
obliged
to deny that of Joshua likewise. The testimony
rendered
to the existence of the Pentateuch by the books
of
Chronicles at every period of the history which they
cover,
is so explicit and repeated that it can only be set
aside
by impugning the truth of their statements and al-
leging
that the writer has throughout colored the facts
which
he reports by his own prepossessions, and has
substituted
his own imagination, or the mistaken belief
of
a later period, for the real state of the case.
But the evidence furnished by the
remaining historical
books,
though less abundant and clear, tends in the same
direction.
And it is the same with the books of the proph-
ets
and the Psalms. We find scattered everywhere allu-
sions
to the facts recorded in the Pentateuch, to its insti-
tutions,
and sometimes to its very language, which afford
cumulative
proof that its existence was known, and its
standard
authority recognized by the writers of all
the
books subsequent to the Mosaic age. (See note 1,
p.
52.)
6. Separate mention should here be
made, and stress
laid
upon the fact, which is abundantly attested, that the
Pentateuch
was known, and its authority admitted in the
apostate
kingdom of the ten tribes from the time of the
schism
of Jeroboam. In order to perpetuate his power
and
prevent the return of the northern tribes to the sway
of
the house of David, he established a separate sanctu-
ary
and set up an idolatrous worship. Both the rulers
and
the people had the strongest inducement to disown
the
Pentateuch, by which both their idolatrous worship
and
their separate national existence were so severely
condemned.
And yet the evidence is varied and abun-
dant
that their national life, in spite of its degeneracy,
had
not wholly emancipated itself from the institutions
of
the Pentateuch, and that even their debased worship
44
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE
PENTATEUCH
was
but a perverted form of that purer service which the
laws
of Moses had ordained.
It was at one time thought that the
Samaritan Penta-
teuch
supplied a strong argument at this point. The
Samaritans,
while they recognized no other portion of
the
canon of the Old Testament, are in possession of the
Pentateuch
in the Hebrew language, but written in a
peculiar
character, which is a more ancient and primitive
form
of the alphabet than that which is found in any
Hebrew
manuscript. It was argued, that such was the
hostility
between Jews and Samaritans, that neither
could
have adopted the Pentateuch from the other.
It
was consequently held that the Samaritan Pentateuch
must
be traced to copies existing in the kingdom of the
ten
tribes, which further evidence that the Pentateuch
must
have existed at the time of the revolt of Jeroboam,
and
have been of such undisputed divine authority then
that
even in their schism from
from
the true worship of God they did not venture to
discard
it. Additional investigation, however, has shown
that
this argument is unsound. The Samaritans are not
descendants
of the ten tribes but of the heathen colonists
introduced
into the
monarchs,
after the ten tribes had been carried into cap-
tivity
(2 Kin. xvii. 24). And the Samaritan Pentateuch
does
not date back of the Babylonish exile. The mu-
tual
hatred of the Jews and the Samaritans originated
then.
The Samaritans, in spite of their foreign birth,
claimed
to be the brethren of the Jews and proposed to
unite
with them in rebuilding the temple at
(Ezr.
iv. 2, 3); but the Jews repudiated their claim and
refused
their offered assistance. The Samaritans thus
repulsed
sought in every way to hinder and annoy the
Jews
and frustrate their enterprise, and finally built
a
rival temple of their own on the summit of Mount
MOSES
THE AUTHOR OF THE PRNTATEUCH 45
Gerizim.
Meanwhile, to substantiate their claim of be-
ing
sprung from ancient
the
Pentateuch, which was brought them by a renegade
priest.
While, therefore, in our present
argument no signifi-
cance
can be attached to the Samaritan Pentateuch, we
have
convincing proof from other sources that the books of
Moses
were not unknown in the kingdom of the ten tribes.
The
narrative of the schism in I Kin. xii. describes in
detail
the measures taken by Jeroboam in evident and
avowed
antagonism to the regulations of the Pentateuch
previously
established. And the books of the prophets
Hosea
and Amos, who exercised their ministry in the ten
tribes,
in their rebukes and denunciations, in their de-
scriptions
of the existing state of things and its contrast
with
former times, draw upon the facts of the Pentateuch,
refer
to its laws, and make use of its phrases and forms
of
speech. (See note 2, p. 56.)
7. A further argument is furnished by
the elementary
character
of the teachings of the Pentateuch as compared
with
later Scriptures in which the same truths are more
fully
expanded. The development of doctrine in re-
spect
to the future state, providential retribution, the
spiritual
character of true worship, angels, and the Mes-
siah,
shows very plainly that the Pentateuch belongs to
an
earlier period than the book of Job, the Psalms, and
the
Prophets.
8. The Egyptian words and allusions to
Egyptian cus-
toms,
particularly in the life of Joseph, the narrative of the
residence
of
the
wilderness, and in the enactments, institutions, and
symbols
of the Pentateuch indicate great familiarity on
the
part of the author and his readers with Egyptian
objects,
and agree admirably with the Mosaic period;
Moses
himself having been trained at the court of
46
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE
PENTATEUCH
Pharaoh
and the long servitude of the people having
brought
them into enforced contact with the various
forms
of Egyptian life and taught them skill in those arts
which
were carried in
These, briefly stated, are the
principal arguments of a
positive
nature for Moses's authorship of the books
which
bear his name. They are ascribed to him by unan-
imous
and unbroken tradition from the days of Moses
himself
through the entire period of the Old Testament,
and
from that onward. This has the inspired and au-
thoritative
sanction of the writers of the New Testa-
ment
and of our Lord himself. It corresponds with the
claim
which these books make for themselves, corrob-
orated
as this is by their adaptation in style and charac-
ter
to their alleged origin, and by the evidence afforded
in
all the subsequent Scriptures of their existence and
recognized
authority from the time of their first pro-
mulgation,
and that even in the schismatical kingdom of
Jeroboam
in spite of all attempts to throw off its control.
And
it derives additional confirmation from the progress
of
doctrine in the Old Testament, which indicates that
the
Pentateuch belongs to the earliest stage of divine
revelation,
as well as from the intimate acquaintance
with
Egyptian objects which it betrays and which is
best
explained by referring it to the Mosaic age.
The assaults which have been made in
modern times
upon
the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch have
been
mainly in one or other of four distinct lines or in
all
combined. It is alleged that the Pentateuch cannot
be
the work of Moses, because (1) It contains anach-
ronisms,
inconsistencies, and incongruities. (2) It is
of
composite origin, and cannot be the work of any one
writer.
(3) Its three codes belong to different periods
and
represent different stages of national development.
(4)
The disregard of its laws shows that they had no exist-
MOSES
THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 47
ence
for ages after the time of Moses. The first of these
is
the ground of the earliest objections; the second is
the
position taken by most of the literary critics; the
third
and fourth represent that of those who follow the
lead
of Graf and Wellhausen.
THE EARLIEST OBJECTIONS.
Certain ancient heretics denied that
Moses wrote the
Pentateuch,
because they took offence at some of its con-
tents;1
apart from this his authorship was unchallenged
until
recent times. The language of Jerome2 has some-
times
been thought to indicate that it was to him a mat-
ter
of indifference whether the Pentateuch was written
by
Moses or by Ezra. But his words have no such
meaning.
He is alluding to the tradition current among
the
fathers, that the law of Moses perished in the de-
struction
of
raculously
restored word for word by Ezra, who was di-
vinely
inspired for the purpose. Its Mosaic authorship
was
unquestioned; but whether the story of its miracu-
lous
restoration was to be credited or not was to Jerome
of
no account.
Isaac ben Jasos in the eleventh
century is said to have
held
that Gen. xxxvi. was much later than the time
of
Moses.3 Aben Ezra, in the twelfth century, found
what
he pronounces an insoluble mystery in the words
"beyond
xxxi.
9), "The Canaanite was then in the land" (Gen.
xii.
6), “In the Mount of Jehovah he shall be seen"
(Gen.
xxii. 14), and the statement respecting the iron
1
Clementine Homilies, iii. 46, 47.
2 Contra Helvidium: Sive
Mosen dicere volueris auctorem Penta-
teuchi,
sive Esram instauratorem operis, non recuso.
3
Studien and Kritiken for 1832, pp. 639 sqq.
48
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE
PENTATEUCH
bedstead
of Og in Deut. iii. 11, from which it has been
inferred,
though he does not express himself clearly on
the
subject, that he regarded these passages as post-Mo-
saic
interpolations Peyrerius1 finds additional round
of
suspicion in the reference to the book of the wars of
the
LORD (Num. xxi. 14), to the LORD having given to
"until
this day " (Deut. iii. 14). He also complains of
obscurities,
lack of orderly arrangement, repetitions,
omissions,
transpositions, and improbable statements.
Spinoza2
adds as non-Mosaic "Dan" (Gen. xiv. 14, see
Judg.
xviii. 29), "the kings that reigned in
there
reigned any king in Israel" (Gen. xxxvi. 31), the
continuance
of the manna (Ex. xvi. 35), and Num. xii. 3,
as
too laudatory to be from the pen of Moses; and he
remarks
that Moses is always spoken of in the third per-
son.
His opinion was that Moses wrote his laws from
time
to time, which were subsequently collected and the
history
inserted by another, the whole being finally .
remodelled
by Ezra, and called the Books of Moses be-
cause
he was the principal subject. Hobbes3 points to
some
of the above-mentioned passages as involving an-
achronisms,
and concludes that Moses wrote no part of
the
Pentateuch except the laws in Deut. xi.-xxvii. Rich-
and
Simon4 held that Moses wrote the laws, but the his-
torical
portions of the Pentateuch were the work of
scribes
or prophets, who were charged with the function
of
recording important events. The narratives and gene-
alogies
of Genesis were taken by Moses from older writ-
ings
or oral tradition, though it is impossible to distin-
guish
between what is really from Moses and what is
1
Systema Theologicum ex Praeadamitarum Hypothesi, 1655.
2 Tractatus
Theologico-Politicus, 1670.
3 In his Leviathan, 1651.
4 Histoire Critique du
Vieux Testament, 1685.
MOSES
THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 49
derived
from later sources. Le Clercl maintained that the
Pentateuch
was written by the priest of
the
king of
the
ure,
which be subsequently abandoned. He increased
the
list of passages assumed to point to another author
than
Moses, claiming that the description of the garden
of
Eden (Gen. ii. 11, 12) and of the rise of
dea;
that "
bron"
(Gen. xiii. 18, see Josh. xiv. 15), "land of the
Hebrews"
(Gen. xl. 15), the word xybinA "prophet" (Gen.
xx.
7, see 1 Sam. ix. 9) are all terms of post-Mosaic ori-
gin;
and that the explanation respecting Moses and
Aaron
(Ex. vi. 25, 26) and respecting the capacity of the
“omer”
(xvi. 36) would be superfluous for contemporaries.
He
thus deals with the argument from the New Testa-
ment:2
“It will be said, perhaps, that Jesus Christ and
the
apostles often quote the Pentateuch under the name
of
Moses, and that their authority should be of greater
weight
than all our conjectures. But Jesus Christ and
the
apostles not having come into the world to teach the
Jews
criticism, we must not be surprised if they speak in
accordance
with the common opinion. It was of little
consequence
to them whether it was Moses or another,
provided
the history was true; and as the common opin-
ion
was not prejudicial to piety they took no great pains
to
disabuse the Jews."
All these superficial objections were
most ably an-
swered
by Witsius3 and Carpzov.4
1 Sentimens de quelques
Theologiens de Hollande, 1685.
2 Ibid., p. 126.
3 Miscellanea Sacra, 2d
edition, 1736, 1., ch. xiv., An Moses auctor
Pentateuchi.
4 Introductio ad Libros
Canonicos Veteris Testamenti, Editio Nova,
1731,
1., pp. 57 sqq.
50
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE
PENTATEUCH
“Beyond
east
of the river, does not imply that the writer was in
the
the
expression. In Num. xxxii. 19 it is in the very same
sentence
used first of the west and then of the east side
of
the
dan
eastward" (Deut. iv. 47, 49; Josh. i. 15; xii. 1; xiii.
8,
27, 32), and "beyond
Josh.
v. 1; xii. 7; xxii. 7); and in the addresses of
Moses
it is used alike of the east (Deut. iii. 8) and of the
west
(vs. 20, 25). This ambiguity is readily explained
from
the circumstances of the time.
yond
and
the territory east of the river was “beyond Jordan”
to
they
regarded as their proper home.
“The Canaanite was then in the land”
(Gen. xii. 6)
states
that they were in the country in the days of Abra-
ham,
but without any implication that, they were not
there
still. "In the Mount of Jehovah he shall be seen"
(Gen.
xxii. 14) contains no allusion to his manifestation
in
the temple, which was afterward erected on that very
mountain
but is based on his appearance to Abraham in
the
crisis of his great trial. The bedstead of Og (Deut.
iii.
11) is not spoken of as a relic from a former age, but
as
a memorial of a recent victory. “The book of the
wars
of Jehovah” (Num. xxi. 14) was no doubt a contem-
poraneous
production celebrating the triumphs gained
under
almighty leadership, to which Moses here refers.
As
the territory east of the
quered
and occupied, Moses might well speak (Deut. i.
12)
of the
gave
to them. The words "unto this day " (Deut. iii. 14)
have
by many been supposed to be a supplementary
gloss
subsequently added to the text; but this assump-
MOSES
THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 51
tion
is scarcely necessary, when it is remembered that
several
months had elapsed since the time referred to, and
Havvoth-jair
proved to be not only a name imposed by a
successful
warrior in the moment of his victory, but one
which
had come into general use and promised to be per-
manent.
There is no proof that the “Dan” of Gen. xiv.
14
is the same as that of Judg. xviii. 29 or if it be,
there
is no difficulty in supposing that in the course of
repeated
transcription the name in common use in later
times
was substituted for one less familiar which origi-
nally
stood in the text. The kings of
enumerated
in Gen. xxxvi. were pre-Mosaic; and Moses
remarks
upon the singular fact that Jacob, who had the
promise
of kings among his descendants (Gen. xxxv. 11),
had
as yet none, and they were just beginning their na-
tional
existence, while Esau, to whom no such promise had
been
given, already reckoned several. There is nothing in
Ex.
xvi. 35 which Moses could not have written; nor
even
in Num. xii. 3, when the circumstances are duly
considered
(cf. 1 Cor. xv. 10; 2 Cor. xi. 5; xii. 11). And
the
additional passages urged by Le Clerc have not even
the
merit of plausibility. His notion that our Lord and
his
apostles accommodated their teaching to the errors
of
their time, refutes itself to those who acknowledge
their
divine authority. Witsius well says that if they
were
not teachers of criticism they were teachers of the
truth.
It should further be observed, that
even if it could be
demonstrated
that a certain paragraph or paragraphs were
post-Mosaic,
this would merely prove that such para-
graph
or paragraphs could not have belonged to the
Pentateuch
as it came from the pen of Moses, not that
the
work as a whole did not proceed from him. It is far
easier
to assume that some slight additions may here and
there
have been made to the text, than to set aside the
52
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE
PENTATEUCH
multiplied
and invincible proofs that the Pentateuch was
the
production of Moses.
Note to page 43.
1. The book of Judges records a
series of relapses on the part of the
people
from the true worship of God, ii. 10-12, and the judgments inflict-
ed
upon them in consequence by suffering them to fall under the power
of
their enemies, ii. 14, 15, as had been foretold Lev. xxvi. 16b, 17.
This
extraordinary condition of things led to many seeming departures
from
the Mosaic requirements, which have been alleged to show that
the
law was not then in existence. That no such conclusion is war-
ranted
by the facts of the case will be shown hereafter, see pp. 150 sqq.
For
other points of contact with the Pentateuch, comp. i. 1, 2, xx.
18,
and Gen. xlix. 8, Num. ii. 3, x. 14; i. 5, Gen. xiii. 7; i. 17, Deut.
vii.
2; i. 20, Num. xiv. 24, Deut. i. 36; ii. 1, Gen. 1. 24, xvii. 7; ii. 2,
Ex.
xxxiv. 12, 13, Deut. vii. 2, 5, Ex. xxiii. 21; ii. 3, Num. xxxiii. 55,
Ex.
xxiii. 33, Deut. vii.. 16; ii. 17, Ex. xxxiv. 15, xxxii. 8; iii. 6, Ex.
xxxiv.
16. Deut. vii. 3, 4; v. 4, 5, Deut. xxxiii. 2; v. 8, Deut. xxxii.
17;
vi. 8, Ex, xx. 2; vi. 9, Ex. xiv. 30; vi. 13, Deut. xi. 3-5; vi. 16,
Ex.
iii. 12; vi. 22. 23, xiii. 22, Ex. xxxiii. 20; vi. 39, Gen. xviii. 32;
vii.
18, Num. x. 9; viii. 23, Deut xxxiii. 5, the government established
by
Moses was a theocracy, the highest civil ruler being a judge, Deut.
xvii.
9, 12; viii. 27, superstitious use of the ephod comp. Ex. xxviii. 4,
30;
xi. 13, Num. xxi. 24-26; xi. 15, Deut. ii. 9, 19; xi. 16, Num. xiv.
25,
xx.1; xi. 17-22, Num. xx. 14, 18, 21, xxi. 21-24; xi. 25, Num. xxii.
2;
xi. 35b, Num. xxx. 2, Deut. xxiii. 24 (E. V. ver. 23); xiii. 7, 14,
xvi.
17, Num. vi. 1-5, Deut. xiv. 2; xiv. 3, xv. 18, Gen. xvii. 11;
xvii.
7-9, xix. 1, Num. xviii. 24, Dent. x. 9; xviii. 31, Ex. xl. 2, Josh.
xviii.
1 ; xx. 1, xxi. 10, 13, 16, hdAfe word claimed as
peculiar to the
Priest
Code ; xx. 3, 6, 10, Gen. xxxiv. 7, Lev. xviii. 17, Deut. xxii. 21;
xx.
13, Deut. xvii. 12; xx. 18, 27, Num. xxvii. 21 ; xx. 26, xxi. 4, Ex.
xx.
24; xx. 27, Ex. xxv. 21, 22; xx. 28, Num. xxv. 11-13, Deut. x. 8;
xx.
48, Mtm ryf as Deut. ii. 34, iii. 6.
Comp. Ruth iii. 12, iv. 3, 4, and
Lev. xxv. 25 ; iv. 5, 10, Deut. xxv. 5,
6;
iv. 11, 12, Gen. xxix., xxx., xxxviii. The obligation of the levirate
marriage
has in the course of time been extended from the brother of
the
deceased to the nearest relative; as in the case of Samson and Sam-
uel
the Nazarite vow is for life instead of a limited term.
1
Samuel. Comp. i. 11 and Num. vi. 5; ii. 2, Ex. xv. 11, Deut.
xxxii.
4, 31; ii. 6, Deut. xxxii. 39; ii. 13, Deut. xviii. 3; ii. 22, Ex.
xxxviii.
8; ii. 27, Ex. iv. 27-v. 1, etc. ; ii. 28, Ex. xxviii. 1, 4, xxx. 7,
8,
Num. xviii. 9, 11; ii. 29, iii. 14, sacrifice and meal-offering, x. 8,
etc.,
burnt-offerings and. peace-offerings, vi. 3, trespass-offerings, vii. 9,
MOSES THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 53
whole
burnt-offering as Deut. xxxiii. 10 (2 Sam. i. 21, heave-offerings),
implying
a fully developed ritual; iii. 3, iv. 4 (2 Sam. vi. 2), Ex. xxv.
10,
18, 37, Lev. xxiv. 3; iv. 3 (2 Sam. xi. 11), Num. x. 35; vi. 15, 19,
(2
Sam. vi, 13, xv. 24), Num. iv. 15; viii. 3 Deut. xvi. 19; viii. 5.
Deut.
xvii. 14; x. 24, Deut. xvii. 15; xii. 14, Deut. i. 43, ix. 23; xii.
6,
8, Ex. iii. 10, vi. 13; xii. 3, Num. xvi. 15 xiii. 9-13, Num. xviii.
4;
xv. 2, Ex. xvii. 8, 14, Deut. xxv. 17-19 xv. 6, Num. x. 29, 30,
see
Judg. i. 16, iv. 11; xv. 29, Num. xxiii. 19; xiv. 33, 34, Gen. ix.
4,
Lev. iii. 17; xxi. 9, xxiii. 6, 9, xxx. 7, Lev. viii. 7, 8; xxviii. 3,
Ex.
xxii. 17 (E. V. ver. 18), Deut. xviii. 10, 11; xxviii. 6, Num. xii.
6,
xxvii. 21.
2 Samuel. Comp. vi. 6, 7, and Num.
iv. 15 ; vii. 6, Ex. xl. 19, 24;
vii.
22, Deut. iii. 24; vii. 23, Deut. iv. 7, ix. 26, x. 21, xxxiii. 29; vii.
24,
Ex. vi. 7 ; viii. ; 4, Deut. xvii. 16; xi. 4, Lev. xv. 19; xii. 6, Ex.
xxi.
37 (E. V. xxii. 1) ; xii. 9, Num. xv. 31 ; xv. 7-9, Num. xxx. 2;
xxii.
23, Dent. vi. 1.
The books of Kings, it is
universally conceded, exhibit an acquaint-
ance
with Deuteronomy and with those portions of the Pentateuch
which
the critics attribute to JE. It will only be necessary here, there-
fore,
to point out its allusions to the Priest Code. The plan of Solomon's
temple,
1 Kin. vi., vii., is evidently based upon that of the Mosaic
tabernacle,
Ex. xxvi., xxvii., xxx.; the golden altar, vii. 48, the brazen
altar,
viii. 64, the horns of the altar, i. 50, ii. 23, the lavers, vii. 43, 44,
the
table of shew-bread and the candlesticks, with their lamps, vii. 48, 49,
the
cherubim upon the walls and in the holiest apartment, vi. 27-29, the
dimensions
of the building, and of each apartment, vi. 2, 16, 17, its being
overlaid
with gold, vi. 22, and all its vessels made of gold, vii. 48-50, and
the
Mosaic ark, the tent of meeting, and all the vessels of the tabernacle
were
brought by the priests and Levites and deposited in the temple,
viii.
4. The feast was held in the seventh month, viii. 2, on the fifteenth
day,
xii. 32, 33, for seven days and seven days (twice the usual time on
account
of the special character of the occasion), viii. 65, and the people
were
dismissed on the eighth day, ver. 66, comp. Lev. xxiii. 34, 36. They
had
assembled from the entering in of Hamath unto the
viii.
65, Num. xxxiv. 5, 8. The glory of the Lord filled the temple,
viii.
10, 11, as the tabernacle, Ex. xl. 34, 35; patrimony inalienable,
xxi.
3, Lev. xxv. 23 ; blasphemer to be stoned, xxi. 13, Lev. xxiv. 16
evening
meal-offering xviii. 29, morning meal-offering, 2 Kin. iii. 20,
Ex.
xxix. 39-41; new moon hallowed, 2 Kin. iv. 23, Num. x. 10,
xxviii.
11; laws concerning leprosy, 2 Kin, vii. 3, xv. 5, Lev. xiii. 46
high-priest,
xii. 10, xxii., 4, xxiii. 4, Lev. xxi. 10, Num. xxxv. 25; tres-
pass-offering
and sin-offering, xii. 16, Lev. iv., v. 15 (Deut. xiv. 24, 25)
the
money of every one that passeth the numbering by
his
54
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE
PENTATEUCH
estimation,
xii. 5 (ver 4, see marg. R. V.), Ex. xxx. 13, Lev. xxvii. 2;
meal-offering,
drink-offering, brazen altar before the Lord, xvi. 13-15;
unleavened
bread the food of priests, xxiii. 9, Lev. vi. 16-18.
The books of the prophets also
contain repeated allusions to the Pen-
tateuch,
its history, and its institutions.
Joel shows the deepest interest in
the ritual service, i. 9, 13, 16, ii.
14-17;
and recognizes but one sanctuary, ii. 1, 15, iii. 17 (Heb. iv. 17);
comp.
i. 10 and Deut. xxviii. 51; ii. 2b, Ex. x. 14b; ii. 3, Gen. ii. 8;
li.
13, Ex. xxxiv. 6, xxxii. 14; ii. 23, 24, Deut. xi. 14.
Isaiah uses the term "law"
to denote, or at least as including, God's
authoritative
revelation through the prophets, i. 10, ii. 3, v. 24, but also
as
additional to the word of God by the prophets, xxx. 9, 10, and of
high
antiquity, xxiv. 5, and the test of all professed revelations, viii.
16,
20, since there are prophets that mislead, ix. 15, xxviii. 7, xxix. 10.
To
a people strenuous in observing the letter of the Mosaic law, but dis-
regarding
its spirit, he announces the law of God to be that the union
of
iniquity with the most sacred rites of his worship was intolerable to
the
Most High, i. 10-14. There is in this no depreciation of sacrifice,
for
like language is used of prayer, ver. 15, and of worship generally,
xxix.
13; and acceptable worship is described under ritual forms, xix.
21,
lxvi. 20-23, in contrast with vs. 1-3. The terms of the ceremonial
law
abound in i. 11-13: sacrifices, burnt-offerings, oblations (meal-offer-
ings),
incense; fat, blood ; rams, bullocks, lambs, he-goats; appear
before
me; court; new moon, Sabbath, calling of assemblies (convoca-
tions),
solemn meeting (assembly), appointed feasts; abomination.
The
vision of ch. vi. gives the most explicit divine sanction to the tem-
ple,
its altar and its atoning virtue. Other allusions to the law of sacri-
fice,
implying that it is acceptable and obligatory, xxxiv. 6, xl. 16, xliii.
23,
24, lvi. 7, lx. 7; Messiah the true trespass-offering, liii. 10.
Isaiah enforces the law of the unity
of the sanctuary, Deut. xii. 5, 6,
by
teaching (1) That Zion is Jehovah's dwelling-place, ii. 2, 3, iv. 5,
viii.
18, x. 32, xi. 9, xii. 6, xiv. 32, xxiv. 23, xxviii. 16, xxix. 8, xxxi.
4,
9, lx. 14. (2) The proper place for Israel's worship, xxvii. 13, xxix.
1,
xxx. 29, xxxiii. 20, lxiv. 11, lxvi. 20; no other place of acceptable
worship
is ever mentioned or alluded to. (3) Worship elsewhere, as in
gardens,
on lofty places, and under trees, is offensive, i. 29, 30, lvii. 5-7,
lxv.
3, 4, 11. (4) Altars of man's devising are denounced, xvii. 7, 8,
xxvii.
9. (5) All such were abolished in Hezekiah's reform, xxxvi. 7.
(6)
No objection can be drawn from the altar and the pillar in the land
of
Egypt, xix. 19; for the pillar was not beside the altar, nor intended
as
an idolatrous symbol, so that it was no violation of Lev. xxvi. 1,
Dent.
xvi. 21, 22; and an altar in Egypt as a symbol of its worship
paid
to Jehovah is more than counterbalanced by pilgrimages to Zion
MOSES
THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 55
predicted
from other lands, ii. 3, xviii. 7, lvi. 7, lxvi. 20, 23. So that
it
is not even certain, whether in the conception of the prophet the re-
striction
of the law in this particular was one day to be relaxed; much
less
is there reason to imagine that this restriction was unknown to
him.
In addition to these recognitions of
the laws of the Pentateuch Isaiah
makes
allusions to its language and to facts recorded in it. Thus comp.
i.
2, and Dent. xxxii. 1; i. 7, Lev. xxvi. 33; i. 9, 10, iii. 9, Sodom and
Gomorrah,
Gen. xix. 24, 25, Deut. xxix. 23 (overthrow as i. 7); i. 17,
23,
Ex. xxii. 21 (E. V. ver. 22), Dent. x. 18, xxvii. 19; xi. 15, 16, lxiii.
11-13,
passage of the Red Sea and the exodus from Egypt; xii. 2, Ex.
xv.
2; xxiv. 18, Gen. vii. 11; xxix. 22, xli. 8, li. 2, lxiii. 16, Abraham
and
Sarah; xxx. 17, Lev. xxvi. 8, Deut. xxxii. 30.
Micah. Comp. i. 3b, and Deut.
xxxiii. 29b; ii. 1b, Gen. xxxi. 29,
Deut.
xxviii. 32b; ii. 9, Ex. xxii. 21 (E. V. ver. 22); ii. 12, iv. 6, 7,
vii.
19, Deut. xxx. 3-5; ii. 13b, Ex. xiii. 21; iii. 4, Deut. xxxi. 18,
xxxii.
20; iv. 4, Lev. xxvi. 6; v. 5 (E. V. ver. 6), land of Nimrod,
Gen.
x. 8-12; vi. 1, 2, Deut. xxxii. 1 ; vi. 4a, Ex. xx. 2, Deut. vii. 8;
vi.
4b, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam; vi. 5, Num. xxii,-xxv. 3, xxxi. 16;
v.
6 (E. V. ver. 7), Deut. xxxii. 2; vi. 6, 7, exaggeration of legal sacri-
fices;
vi. 8, Deut. x. 12; vi. 10, 11, Deut. xxv. 13-15, Lev. xix. 35,
36;
vi. 13, Lev. xxvi. 16; vi. 14, Lev. xxvi. 26; vi. 15, Deut. xxviii.
38-40;
vii. 14, Num. xxiii. 9, Deut. xxxiii. 28; vii. 15, miracles of the
exodus;
vii. 16, Ex. xv. 14-16; vii. 17a, Gen. iii. 14; vii. 17b, Deut.
xxxii.
24b; vii. 1.8a Ex. xv. 11; vii. 18b Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7.
Jeremiah's familiarity with
Deuteronomy is universally conceded;
it
will accordingly be sufficient to show that his book of prophecy is
likewise
related to other portions of the Pentateuch. Comp. ii. 3, and
Lev.
xxii. 10, 15, 16; ii. 20, Lev. xxvi. 13; ii. 34 (see Rev. Ver. ), Ex.
xxii.
1 (E. V. ver., 2); iv. 23, Gen. i. 2; iv. 27, Lev. xxvi. 33; v. 2,
Lev.
xix. 12; vi. 28, ix. 4, Lev. xix. 16; vii. 26, Ex. xxxii. 9, xxxiii.
3,
5, xxxiv. 9; ix. 4, Gen. xxvii. 36 ; ix. 16, Lev. xxvi. 33 (Deut. xxviii.
36);
ix. 26 (see Rev. Ver.) Lev. xix. 27, xxi. 5; ix. 26b, Lev. xxvi.
41;
xi. 4, Ex. xix. 5, Lev. xxvi. 12, 13; xi. 5, Ex. iii. 8, Num. xiv.
23;
xiv. 13, Lev. xxvi. 6; xiv. 19, 21, Lev. xxvi. 11, 44; xv. 1, Ex.
xxxii.
11; xvi. 5, Num. vi. 26; xvii. 1, Ex. xxxii. 16; xvii. 22, Ex.
xx.
8-11; xxi. 5, Ex. vi. 1, 6 ; xxviii. 2, 4, Lev. xxvi. 13; xxx. 21,
Num.
xvi. 5, 9; xxxi. 9, Ex. iv. 22; xxxi. 15, Gen. xxxv. 19, xxxvii.
35,
xlii. 36; xxxi. 29, Ex. xx. 5; xxxi. 35, 36, Gen. i. 16, viii. 22;
xxxii.
7118, Lev. xxv. 25, 49; xxxii. 17, 27b, Gen. xviii. 14; xxxii.-
18,
Ex. xx. 5, 6, xxxiv. 6, 7; xxxii. 27, Num. xvi. 22, xxvii. 16; xxxiii.
22,
Gen. xiii. 16, xv. 5, xxii. 17; xxxiii. 26, Abraham, Isaac, and Ja-
cob;
xxxiv. 13, Ex. xx. 2, xxiv. 7; xxxiv. 18, 19, Gen. xv. 17 ; xxxvi.
56 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE PENTATEUCH
14,
Ex. xxi. 2; xlviii. 45, 46, Num. xxi. 28, 29; xlix. 16, Num. xxiv.
21;
xlix. 18, 1. 40, Gen. xix. 25.
Psalm xc., which is in its title
ascribed to Moses, abounds in allu-
sions
to the statements of the Pentateuch and in coincidences of lan-
guage;
see the Commentary of Delitzsch. The following may be noted
in
those Psalms of the first three books, which are in their titles
ascribed
to David (the number of each verse in the English version is
commonly
one less than in the Hebrew). Comp. iii. 4, and Gen. xv.
1;
iv. 6, li. 21, Deut. xxxiii. 19; iv. 7, Num. vi. 25, 26; iv. 9, Lev.
xxv.
18, 19, Deut. xxxiii. 28 ; vii. 13, 14, Deut. xxxii. 23, 41, 42; viii.
7-9,
Gen. i. 26; ix. 6, Deut. ix. 14; ix. 13, Gen. ix. 5; ix. 17, Ex. vii.
4b,
5; xi. 6, Gen. xix. 24; xiii 2, Deut. xxxi. 18; xiv. 1, Gen. vi. 11,
12;
xv. 5, Ex. xxii. 25, xxiii. 8 ; xvi. 4, Ex. xxiii. 13; xvi. 5, Num.
xviii.
20, Dent. x. 9; xvii. 8, Dent. xxxii. 10; xviii. 16, Ex. xv. 8;
xviii.
27b, Lev. xxvi. 23b, 24a; xviii. 31a, 32, Deut. xxxii. 4a, 37, 39;
xviii.
34b, Deut. xxxii. 13a, xxxiii. 29b; xviii. 45b, Deut. xxxiii. 29b;
xix.
contrasts the glory of God as seen in the heavens with that of the
law,
testimony, statutes, commandments, and judgments of Jehovah,
Lev.
xxvi. 46, xxvii. 34, Ex. xxv. 16; xx. 6, Ex. xvii. 15, Jehovah my
banner;
xxiv. 1, Ex. ix. 29b, xix. 5b ; xxiv. 2, Gen. 1. 9; xxv. 4, Ex.
xxxiii.
13; xxvi. 6, Ex. xxx. 19-21; xxvii. 1, Ex. xv. 2; xxviii. 9,
Deut.
ix. 29 ; xxix. 6, Sirion, Deut. iii. 9; xxix. 10, flood, Gen. vi. 17;
xxxi.
9a, Deut. xxxii. 30; xxxi. 16, Num. vi. 25; xxxiv. 17, Lev. xvii.
10;
xxxv. 10, Ex. xv. 11 ; xxxvii. 26, Deut. xxviii. 12 ; xxxvii. 31,
Deut,
vi. 6; xxxix. 13b, Lev. xxv. 23b; xl. 7, Ex. xxi. 6?; xl. 8, the
volume
of the book is the law, which in requiring sacrifice intends
much
more than the outward form of sacrifice, ver. 7; it lays its real
demand
upon the person of the offerer himself; li, 9, hyssop, Lev. xiv.
4,
Num. xix. 6, 18; lv. 16, Num. xvi. 30; lx. 9, Gen. xlix. 10; lx. 14,
Num.
xxiv. 18; lxiii. 12, Deut. vi. 13; lxviii. 2, Num. x. 35; lxviii.
8,
9, 18, Sinai; lxix. 29, Ex. xxxii. 32; lxxxvi. 8, 10, Ex. xv. 11,
Deut.
xxxii. 39; lxxxvi. 15, Ex. xxxiv. 6.
On the traces of the Pentateuch in
later books see Hiivernick, Ein-
leitung
in das Alte Testament (Introduction to the Old Testament), I.
136-142.
Keil, Einleitung in A. T. § 34. Caspari, Beitrdge zur
Einleitung
in Jesaia (Contributions to the Introduction to Isaiah), pp.
204
sqq. Caspari, " Ueber Micha, " pp. 419 sqq. Kueper, Jeremias
Librorum
Sacrorum Interpres atque Vindex, pp. 1-51.
Note to page 45.
2. Allusions in Hosea and Amos to
the facts recorded in the Penta-
teuch:
Comp. Hos. i. 10, and Gen. xxii. 17, xxxii. 12 ; xi. 8, Deut.
xxix.
23 ; xii. 3a, Gen xxv. 26 ; xii. 3b, 4a, Gen. xxxii. 28; xii. 4b,
MOSES
THE AUTHOR OF THE PENTATEUCH 57
Gen.
xxviii. 12-19, xxxv. 6-13; xii. 12, Jacob fled to Padan-aram,
served
for a wife, and kept sheep ii. 15b, xi. 1, xiii. 5, exodus from
Egypt
and life in the wilderness; ix. 10, Num. xxv. 3; the places of
idolatrous
worship were such as were made sacred by events in the his-
tory
of their fathers, iv. 15, Josh. iv. 20, Gen. xxviii. 19 (Bethel the
house
of God is converted into Beth-aven, house of wickedness); xii.
11,
Gen. xxxi. 48; Amos, v. 8, Gen. vii. 11; iv. 11, Gen. xix. 24, 25
i.
11, Edom, Israel's brother, Gen. xxv. 27, Deut. xxiii. 7; iv. 4, v. 5,
places
of idolatry hallowed by events in the time of their forefathers;
ii.
10, iii. 1, v. 25, 26, exodus from Egypt, and forty years in the wil-
derness,
and idolatry there, Deut. v. 6, xxix. 5, Lev. xvii. 7; iii. 2,
Deut.
xiv. 2; vi. 14, Num. xxxiv 5, 8; ii. 9, stature of the Amorites
Num.
xiii. 32, 33, Deut. i, 20, 28.
References to its laws: Hosea
constantly sets forth the relation between
Jehovah
and Israel under the emblem of a marriage, comp. Ex. xx. 5,
xxxiv.
14-16, Lev. xvii. 7, xx. 5, 6. Israel is an unfaithful wife, who
had
responded to her lord in former days, when she came up out of
Egypt,
ii. 15, Ex. xxiv. 7, but had since abandoned him for other lov-
ers,
ch. i.- iii., Baal and the calves, xiii. 1, 2; she has broken her cov-
enant,
has dealt treacherously, v. 7, vi. 7; has backslidden, iv. 16, xi.
7,
xiv. 4; is repeating the atrocity of Gibeah, ix. 9, x. 9; is shamelessly
sacrificing
on the hills and under shady trees, iv. 13, Deut. xii. 2;
Israel
had an extensive written law, Hos. viii. 12 (see a discussion of
this
passage in the Presbyterian Review for October, 1886), which they
had
disobeyed, iv. 6, viii. 1; the annual feasts, new-moons, sabbaths,
and
festive assemblies were observed in Israel, and held in high esteem,
and
occupied a prominent place in the life of the people, so that their
abolition
would be reckoned a serious disaster, Hos. ii. 11, ix. 5, xii. 9,
Am.
v. 21, viii. 5; they had burnt-offerings, meal-offerings, peace-
offerings,
Am. v. 22, Hos. viii. 13; thank-offerings, free-will-offerings,
Am.
iv. 5; drink-offerings, Hos. ix. 4; the daily morning sacrifice, Am.
iv.
4; Hos. iv. 8, alludes to the law of the sin-offering; Hos. ix. 3, 4,
to
the law of clean and unclean meats; viii. 11, xii. 11, the sin of mul-
tiplying
altars implies the law of the unity of the sanctuary, Deut. xii.
5,
6; v. 10, removing landmarks, Deut. xix. 14, xxvii. 17; iv. 4, the
final
reference of causes in dispute to the priest, refusal to hear whom
was
a capital offence, Deut. xvii. 12 ; viii. 13, ix. 3, penalty of a return
to
Egypt, Deut. xxviii. 68; ix. 4, defilement from the dead, Num. xix.
14,
22, Deut. xxvi. 14; x. 11, the ox not to be muzzled when treading
out
corn, Deut. xxv. 4; vi. 9, hm.Azi is a technical word of
the Holiness
Laws,
Lev. xviii. 17 ; xiv. 3, mercy for the fatherless, Ex. xxii. 21, 22,
(E.
V. vs. 22, 23), Deut. x. 18 vi. 11, Am. ix. 14, God returns to the
captivity
of his people, Deut. xxx. 3 Amos, though delivering
58
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE
PENTATEUCH
message
in Bethel, knows but one sanctuary, that in Zion, i. 2; ii. 7,
the
law of incest, Lev. xx. 11, Deut. xxii. 30; ii. 11, 12, Nazarites,
Num.
vi. 2, 3, and prophets, Dent. xviii. 15; iv. 4, triennial tithes,
Deut.
xiv. 28, xxvi. 12, for which in their excess of zeal they may sub-
stitute
tithes every three days; viii. 5, falsifying the ephah, shekel,
and
balances, Lev. xix. 36, Deut. xxv. 13-15.
Coincidences of thought or
expression: Comp. Hos. ii. 17, and Ex.
xxiii.
13; iii. 1, look to other gods, Deut. xxxi. 18 (Heb.); v. 14-vi. 1,
Deut.
iv. 29, 30, xxxii. 39; iv. 10, Lev. xxvi. 26; xi. 1, Ex, iv. 22, 23;
xii.
5, Ex. iii. 15; xiii. 6, Deut. viii. 12-14; Am. ii. 7, to profane my
holy
name, Lev. xx. 3; iv. 6, 8, Deut. xxviii. 48; iv. 9, Deut. xxviii.
22;
iv. 10, Deut. xxviii. 60; iv. 6, 8, 9, 10, Deut. iv. 30; v. 1.1, ix.
14,
Dent. xxviii. 30, 39; vi. 12, gall and wormwood, Dent. xxix. 18;
ix.
13, Lev. xxvi. 5.
For traces of the Pentateuch in the
kingdom of Israel, whether in
Hosea,
Amos, or the Books of Kings, see Hengstenberg, “Authentie
des
Pentateuches," 1. pp. 48-180.
IV
THE UNITY OF THE PENTATEUCH
THE second objection which has been
urged against
the
Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, affects its form
rather
than its contents. It is affirmed that such is the
constitution
of the Pentateuch as to evince that it is not
the
continuous composition of any one writer, but that it
is
compacted of parts of diverse origin, the products of
different
writers, themselves long posterior to the Mosaic
age;
and consequently the Pentateuch, though it may
contain
some Mosaic elements, cannot in its present
form
have proceeded from Moses, but must belong to a
much
later period. This objection is primarily directed
against
the unity of the Pentateuch, and only seconda-
rily
against its authenticity.
In order to render intelligible the
nature of the parti-
tion
hypotheses, with which we shall have to deal, the
nomenclature
which they employ, and their application
to
the Pentateuch, it will be necessary first to state pre-
cisely
what is meant by the unity for which we contend,
and
then give a brief account of the origin and history of
those
hypotheses by which it has been impugned, and
the
several forms which they have successively as-
sumed.
By the unity of the Pentateuch is
meant that it is in its
present
form one continuous work, the product of a sin-
gle
writer. This is not opposed to the idea of his having
had
before him written sources in any number or variety,
from
which he may have drawn his materials, provided
59
60 THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE
PENTATEUCH
the
composition was his own. It is of no consequence,
so
far as our present inquiry is concerned, whether the
facts
related were learned from pre-existing writings, or
from
credible tradition, or from his own personal knowl-
edge,
or from immediate divine revelation. From what-
ever
source the materials may have been gathered, if all
has
been cast into the mould of the writer's own
thoughts,
presented from his point of view, and arranged
upon
a plan and method of his own, the work possesses
the
unity which we maintain. Thus Bancroft's "History
of
the United States" rests upon a multitude of author-
ities
which its author consulted in the course of its prep-
aration;
the facts which it records were drawn from a
great
variety of pre-existing written sources; and yet, as
we
possess it, it is the product of one writer, who first
made
himself thoroughly acquainted with his subject,
and
then elaborated it in his own language and accord-
ing
to his own preconceived plan. It would have been
very
different, if his care had simply been to weave to-
gether
his authorities in the form of a continuous narra-
tive,
retaining in all cases their exact language, but in-
corporating
one into another or supplementing one by
another
and thus allowing each of his sources in turn to
speak
for itself. In this case it would not have been
Bancroft's
history. He would have been merely the
compiler
of a work consisting of a series of extracts
from
various authors. Such a narrative has been made
by
harmonists of the Gospel history. They have framed
an
account of all the recorded facts by piecing together
extracts
from the several gospels arranged in what is
conceived
to be their true chronological order. And the
result
is not a new Gospel history based upon the several
Gospels,
nor is it the original Gospel either of Matthew,
Mark,
Luke, or John; but it is a compound of the whole
of
them; and it can be taken apart paragraph by para-
THE UNITY OF THE
PENTATEUCH 61
graph,
or sentence by sentence, and each portion as-
signed
to the particular Gospel from which it was
drawn.
Now the question respecting the unity
of the Penta-
teuch
is whether it is a continuous production from a
single
pen, whatever may have been the sources from
which
the materials were taken, or whether it is a com-
posite
production, made up from various writings woven
together,
the several portions of which are still capable
of
being distinguished, separated, and assigned to their
respective
originals.
DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS.
The not improbable conjecture was
expressed at an