The documents of the Hexateuch;

PART I. The Oldest Book of Hebrew History

New York: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS London: D. NUTT ycv,

A.M-^Ot

X

TO

THOMAS GRAVES LAW

OF THE SIGNET LIBRARY

IN HAPPY MEMORY OF

HIS LONG AND GENEROUS

FRIENDSHIP

Preface

A NEW book on the well-worn subject of the Hexateuch needs justification, and perhaps my best course will be to explain the motives which led me to undertake my present task. In German and Dutch we have an abundance, indeed a superabundance, of works on the criticism of the Hexateuch, and the best results of recent inquiry are set before the English student in Mr. Wicksteed's excellent translation of Kuenen's masterly work. It seemed to me, however, that a book like Kuenen's, which is the best of its kind, could only appeal to a very limited circle of readers. At least I found that I had constantly to spend many hours over a single page. Each note is crowded with references, and till the reader has made himself familiar with them, and weighed the evidence which they give, he cannot follow Kuenen's clear and consecutive argument. Moreover, just because the argument is consecutive, he must burden his memory with a mass of facts and of inferences already established : otherwise he is not prepared to take the succeeding step. Manifestly it is only scholars with time at their command who can give themselves to such a course of study.

IV PREFACE

The burden of toil is aggravated if we proceed to compare the conclusions presented by Kuenen with those of other critics. Probably most students find themselves compelled to underline the text of the Hexateuch with various colours, indicating the different documents from which the Hexateuch has been compiled. In this way they are enabled to take a general view of the ground, and to see how it lies, to compare, to test and amend, the results of criticism. A good many years ago, before Kuenen's book had appeared, I had for my own guidance marked an unpointed Hebrew text in the manner indicated above, and as time went on I added notes and corrections. Out of this first attempt the book now offered to the public grew.

It seemed to me that the separation of the Hexateuch into its component documents would justify itself if these documents were printed separately. Of course, for the settlement of many points the reader must go to the more elaborate investigations of Old Testament critics. Nevertheless, the main division of the documents only needs presentation to become self-evident. Moreover, even when we have been thoroughly convinced that the methods of modern criticism are sound, we shall, I think, experience something akin to surprise at the striking manner in which the results of this criticism stand out clear and consistent, when exhibited as a whole and set before the eye. I also hope that the theologian and the student of history will find it convenient to have the documents apart and be able to consult them readily. For the time is past when we can speak of the theological

PREFACE V

and historical ideas contained in the Pentateuch or in the book of Joshua. A wide gulf of time and of the changes time brings, separates the Jahvist from the Deuteronomist, the Deuteronomist from the ' Priestly Writer.' Such is the main purpose of my work. Despite its manifold imperfections, it will, I hope, serve some useful purpose. I have had no predecessors in the same field. We have several translations of the documents in Genesis, and one of these is carefully and skilfully done, but no one, so far as I know, has extended his labours to the whole of the Hexateuch.

The plan followed is meant to distinguish between that which is certain and admitted on the one hand — that which is, and to some extent perhaps always will be, disputable, on the other. Thus, it is often hard to distinguish the Jahvist from the Elohist. But we very rarely find any diflficulty in distinguishing the Jahvist and Elohist, considered as a unity, from the other documents. It is admitted that the Jahvist and Elohist are closely allied in thought and language ; and, though not universally admitted, it can, I think, be shown that they were combined in one book before they were united with the other documents of the Hexateuch. Accordingly, I have endeavoured to reproduce this book. I have called it 'The Oldest Book of Hebrew History,' i.e. the oldest relatively to the rest of the Hexateuch, and I have not attempted to distinguish the Jahvist from the Elohist, except in cases where the evidence appeared to be strong. The introduction explains the steady and orderly progress of criticism, and fixes the attention of the reader on

VI PREFACE

the results attained and the points which are still in debate. The notes accent the distinguishing marks of the documents, and afford some imperfect illustration of their religious attitude and their historical data. In translating, it has been my habit to make my own translation of each verse, and then to adapt it as closely as I could to that of the Revised English Version. If the opportunity be afforded me, I hope to complete the documents of the Hexateuch in another volume. The main difficulties are now over, for the disputes on the text of the other documents are few and unimportant, at least by comparison.

Sometimes I have had to tread on dangerous ground, and I have not concealed my agreement with the school of Graf and his eminent disciples, on the whole. At the same time, if I have failed to give the arguments on the other side the weight which is their due, that has arisen from want of power, not from lack of will. I am unable to follow DiUmann's conclusions, but I have read and re-read his great commentary on the Hexateuch, and always with increasing admiration for its profound and varied learning and its astonishing accuracy.

It only remains to thank the friends upon whose counsel and kind encouragement I could always rely. I may be permitted to mention in particular Sir George Grove, who is so well known to all lovers of the Bible by his articles in Smith's Bible Dictionary, Mr. Haas, of the firm of David Nutt, has softened the pains of exile by supplying me with the Old Testament literature of the Continent. To the friend whose name stands in the Dedication I owe my first knowledge of the subject, my

PREFACE Vll

first real interest in the Bible ; and the trouble he has taken

in arranging for the publication and correcting the proofs

is but one of many benefits continued through a long

course of years.

W. E. ADDIS.

Melbourne, Australia, September 1891.

The following list of the chief works which I have used is appended for the convenience of the reader.

For the Hebrew text and ancient versions. — The ordinary Hebrew Bible of Van der Hooght, with the text in Stier and Theile's Polyglotten-Bibel^ which is based on the fourth stereotyped edition of the Hebrew text as given by Hahn. In Genesis I was able to use the critical edition of Baer (1869). For the various readings (seldom of much value) I have consulted Kennicott's Hebrew Bible (1776), and De Rossi's Variae lectiones (1784 seq^. For the Samaritan copy of the Hebrew text I have used Kennicott's Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint has been read in the edition of Swete (Cambridge, 1887) ; the Peshitto (usually quoted as * Syr.') in the edition revised by Dr. Lee for the Bible Society ; the Targum of Onkelos in the edition of Berliner (1884) ; the Jerusalem Targums in the text of the London Polyglott ; the Latin Vulgate in the text of Stier and Theile ; the Arabic version of Saadia Gaon in the London Polyglott ; the fragments of Greek versions other than the LXX. in Field's Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt (1875). Add Geiger's Urschrift unci Uebersetzungen (1857). Of commentaries, I have read Keil on the Pentateuch and Joshua, Knobel and Kalisch on the same books ; Tuch on Genesis, in the edition of Merx (1871) ; Delitzsch on Genesis (fifth edition, 1887); Spurrell on Genesis (1887). But I have been chiefly indebted to the commentary of Dillmann on the Hexateuch (Genesis, in the fifth edition, 1886). Dillmann's great work really supersedes all others.^

X Where reference has been made to Rabbinical commentators, I have used Berliner's edition of Rashi (1866), and the texts as given in Buxton's Rabbinical Bible.

VIU PREFACE

For the general criticism of the Hexateuch I have used the introductions of Eichhorn (fourth edition, 1823) ; De Wette (edited by Schrader, 1869) ; Bleek (edited by Wellhausen ; fifth edition, 1886) ; Strack (1888) ; Riehm (1889) : also Colenso on the Pentateuch (1862- 1879), ^TSiij Gesckichtliche Bucher des A.T, (1866) ; Noldeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des A.T. (1869) ; Wellhausen, Co^nposition des Hexateuchs (1885) ; Kuenen, Onderzoek (in the second edition of 1885, which is really a new book) ; Robertson Smith, O.T. in the Jewish Church (1881) ; Reuss, Geschichte d. heil. Schrift d. A.T. (second edition, 1890); Dillmann's essay in the last volume of his commentary of the Hexateuch (second edition, 1886); DeHtzsch's Critical Studies on the five books of Moses ; '■ the introduction to Kittel's Geschichte der Hebrder (1888) ; and Stade's Geschichte des Volkes Israel (1887-8). Great use has been made of a long series of essays on the criticism of the Hexateuch, published by Kuenen in the Leiden Theologisch Tijdschrift (beginning in vol. xi. 1877), and of many articles of distinguished scholars in the Zeitschrift fUr A.T. Wissenschaft (1881, and still in progress).

The language of the * Priestly Document,' as a criterion of its age, has been specially examined by Ryssel, De Elohistae Pentateuchici sermone (1878); by Giesebrecht in Z.A.T.W. for 1881; and by Professor Driver (in Xht. Journal of Philology ^ No, xxii.).

For particular portions of the Hexateuch I have had the help of Ilgen, Urkunden des ersien Buchs von Moses (1798) ; Ewald, Co7nposition der Genesis (1823) ; Bertheau, Sieben Gruppen niosaischer Gesetze (1840) ; Hupfeld, Qiiellen der Genesis (1853) ; Riehm, Gesetzgebung ijn Lande Moab (1854) ; Kayser, Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte Israels (1874), Albers, Qitellenberichte in Joshua i.-xii. (1891); V>m6.A%^ Biblische Urgeschichte {\%%'^)\2C^^ Richter und Samuel ( 1 890, containing an investigation of the Jahvist document in Joshua),

The history of Hebrew religion has been treated, in connection with the documents of the Hexateuch, and the questions which they raise, by Vatke, Religion des A. T (1835); George, Die dlteren jiidischen Feste (1835) ; Kuenen, Godsdienst van Israel (1869) ; Konig, Hauptprobleme der altisraelitischen Religion (1884); 'Q^wdX^^xn., Geschichte des A. T. Priesterthums (1889).

1 They appeared in Luthard's Zeitschrift (1880), but are only available to me through the Dutch translation (1883).

PREFACE IX

Use has been made in dealing with the connection between the religion and history of Israel and those of foreign nations, specially the Egyptians and Assyrians, chiefly of such works as Smith's Chaldean Genesis^ with the notes and additions of Frederic Delitzsch ( 1 876) ; Ebers' Egypien und die Bucher Mosis, Baudissin's Siudien zur semitischen Religions geschichte (1876), Robertson Smith's lectures on The Religion of the Semites (1889), Schrader's Cuneiform Inscriptions and the 0. T. (English translation by Whitehouse, 1885), Bathgen's Beitrdge zur semitischen Religiongeschichte ( 1 888), many articles in Riehm's Biblisches Handworterbuch (1884), and various parts of the Records of the Past (1873, second series now in progress). Brugsch's Steinschrift und Bide l-wort (iSgi) ca.me to hand too late for use in this part.

Of course use has been made of many other works on Oriental history besides commentaries on other parts of the Old Testament and Biblical theologies, a list of which need not be given here. Works like Smend on Ezekiel, or again Duhm's Theologie der Propheten may be said to deal directly with the criticism of the Hexateuch.

I have passed over books like the History of Israel by Seinecke and that by Renan, because they do not, so far as I can judge, really help the progress of criticism. Their views, when original, are purely fantastic, and the same may be said of essays by Havet and Maurice Vernes.

To the translation of Genesis by Kautzsch and Socin, who distinguish the documents by variety of type, my obligations are veiy great. The only other work of the same kind which I have used is that of Lenormant (English translation, 1886), but it is of little value.

In references to foreign works of which an English translation has appeared, I have consulted the convenience of the English student by referring to the chapters, etc., not to the pages. For the dates of Hebrew history I have taken advantage of the chronological table in the second volume of Kuenen's Onderzoek (new edition, 1889).

I defer the mention of other books, because, though they have been used incidentally already, their names will be given with greater fitness in the second part of this work.

PS. — Since these pages were in type three important

X PREFACE

works have reached me, viz. : — Dr. Driver's Introduction to the O. T.y CornilFs Einleitiing in das A. T., and the German Translation oft/te 0. J"., with marks in the margin to distinguish the documents of the Hexateuch by Kautzsch and a committee of other scholars. My regret that I did not receive these works in time for use is outweighed by the solid satisfaction of finding my conclusions confirmed by these great and independent authorities. I never for a moment doubted that the principles followed in this little work are sound and sure. Still the uniform agreement between Kautzsch's edition of the Hexateuch documents and my own on all important points, the constant agreement even in minute detail, has, I own, surprised and delighted me.

I hope to issue Part II., which will complete the whole work, early next year ; meantime let the reader observe that the most difficult and important division of the labour is already before him. The * Oldest Book ' is a composite work, in which it is a difficult and often hopeless task to disentangle the Jahvist and Elohist documents. The Deuteronomical code and narratives are written in a style comparatively uniform. About the Priestly history and code there is little room for divergence of opinion. They stand out clear, consistent, uniform in style, complete. No man who sees the results can doubt that he is dealing with an independent document.

Melbourne, yi««£ 1892,

Table Of Contents

PAGE

Preface, . iii

Introduction, . xiii-xciv

Introduction To The Documents Of The Hexateuch

I.— THE HISTORY OF OPINION ON THE ORIGIN

AND DATE OF THE HEXATEUCH.

The word Pentateuch (ij TrevTarcvxos ;St/3A.os) means literally ' the book in five volumes.* It is the title given to the first five books of the Hebrew Bil^Ie. It was adopted by the Jews who spoke Greek, and passed from them first to the Greek, and then to the Latin Christians. It corresponds to the name current among the Jews who continued to read their Scriptures in the original Hebrew, viz., *The five fifths of the law.' The name Pentateuch implies two things, first, that the writings so called contain a connected history, beginning with the creation of the world and ending with the death of Moses : secondly, that the history falls into five divisions, generally known among Christians by the names which they bear in the Greek translation, viz., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and among Jews by the Hebrew words with which each separate book opens. We cannot say for certain when first these books were regarded as a whole divided into five parts. The division was known to Josephus (born 37 or 38 a.d.), but is probably much older than his time. The principle of the division is natural and obvious : it seems to have served as a model to the unknown scribe who completed the collection of Psalms, which are also divided into five books, and it is quite possible that the arrangement in five books dates from the time when the final editor united the various documents of which the Pentateuch is composed into one, and so

d

XIV INTRODUCTION

gave to the text that form which it has retained substantially ever since.

Nevertheless, it is necessary for critical purposes to speak, not of the Pentateuch, but of the Hexateuch— />. not of the five, but of the six books. The reason is that a critic cannot investigate the origin of the Pentateuch apart from that of the book of Joshua. It will be shown afterwards that the Pentateuch consists of several documents originally independent of each other, but finally, with various omissions, additions, and alterations, pieced together so as to form one continuous history. Now, it has long been seen, and the fact is acknowledged by all who admit the composite character of the Pentateuch, that these primary documents did not close with the death of Moses. They related the conquest of Canaan and the settlement of the Israehtes in the territory west of the Jordan. We are able to distinguish the documents of the Pentateuch by divergences of vocabulary and literary style, by their different and frequently contradictory views of history and religion, by the fact that we find the same statement made or the same story told twice over ; and are therefore driven to the inference that we are dealing with more than one narrator, and that the superficial appearance of unity is fallacious. Precisely the same phenomena recur in the book of Joshua. Not only so ; when we have separated and studied the documents in the Pentateuch, we become familiar with their peculiarities of thought and style. These same peculiarities are continued in Joshua : there are, moreover, verses in Joshua which are scarcely intelligible without verses in Genesis, and verses in Genesis which are incomplete without verses in Joshua. Hence we are obliged to extend our inquiries, and to speak, not of the Pentateuch, but of the Hexateuch. It is the object of this Introduction to point out the way in which we can distinguish the various documents out of which this Hexateuch has arisen and can determine with more or less probability their relations, their origin, and their dates. It will be best to begin by tracing the history of opinion.