Pentateuchal studies

Front matter

A. K

BY

HAROLD M. WIENER, M.A., LL.B.

Preface

This book is a sequel to my " Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism." Of the studies it contains, Nos. 16 and 17 appeared in the Princeton Theological Review for 1907, the majority are reprinted from the Bibliotheca Sacra, while No. 23 was read before the Victoria Institute and has already been published in the Journal of its Transactions. My best thanks are due to the editors of the two periodicals and to the Council of the Institute for the kind permission to include the various contributions in the present volume. I am also indebted to Drs. Driver and Gordon for leave to republish their letters.

A large group of these studies is concerned with the textual criticism of the Divine appellations in Genesis, and the larger question of which it forms part, the textual criticism of the Pentateuch. In order that the position with regard to these may be properly appreciated, some words of introduction are necessary.

In the year 1753 Astruc published the little book in which was first propounded the theory that a division of Genesis into earlier documents might be effected on the basis of the alternation of the Divine appellations aided by other criteria. This became the starting-point of the work that, in the course of the last one hundred and sixty years, has given us the present documentary theory of the Pentateuch, which at the beginning of the year 1908 was held by almost every Hebrew professor of note in? the Protestant universities of Northern Europe and America. The alternation of the Divine appellations was regarded as so important and so certain a basis for the Pentateuchal analysis, that, e.g., Dr. Driver, in the vi Pentateuchal Studies

eighth edition of his " Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament" (p. 21), reprints a passage from the earlier editions in which he balances the cumulative evidence of all the other criteria throughout the entire Pentateuch against the occurrence of the Tetragrammaton in two passages of P in the Massoretic text of Genesis, being obviously unable to conceive a P that used the Tetragrammaton in Genesis. It would be easy to cite numerous dicta from other leading critics to the same effect. Indeed, the three main documents that were supposed to be represented in Genesis (J, E, and P) all owed their very names to the clue, P having long been called the (first) Elohist. The theory was regarded as invulnerable, and is still so treated in many new popular books. Nevertheless, a point of view was possible from which it is seen to be utterly untenable, and a number of writers have reached it independently. In the year 1903 J. Lepsius printed a series of articles in the Reich Christi in which he drew attention to the fact that the LXX does not always confirm the received Hebrew (Massoretic) text of Genesis in regard to the Divine appellations; in the same year J. Dahse published an independent study in the Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft ; and in 1904 a paper from the pen of H. A. Redpath appeared in the American Journal of Theology. At the time these studies, which were quite independent of one another and drew different inferences from the facts, were not much noticed, though Dahse's article has influenced some Roman Catholic scholars; but in 1908 J. Wellhausen, the leader of the documentary theorists, admitted to Dahse that he had put his finger on a sore point of the theory, and has now given permission for this statement to be published. While they differed among themselves on other matters, all three writers were at one in opposing the theory, and none of the

Preface vii

three at that time extended the application of scientific textual criticism to the other supposed criteria, though Lepsius made a number of arbitrary changes in the text.

The matter attracted fresh attention in 1908, when Eerdmans, Kuenen's pupil and successor in the Leyden chair, published the first part of his "Alttestamentliche Studien." Therein he severed his connection with the documentary theory which he had previously supported. He mentioned the existence of Septuagintal variants, and placed some reliance on the argument, but he showed acquaintance with only a small portion of the existing variants, and contributed no adequate discussion even of these. It is of course true that the oldest existing MS. of the LXX is many centuries earlier than any Hebrew MS. of Genesis, but that fact is not sufficient by itself to establish the importance or legitimacy of the textual method.

The present writer's attention was first drawn to the subject by a notice of Dr. Redpath's paper, and in January, 1909, he published in the Bibliotheca Sacra an article which has since been incorporated in the first chapter of " Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism." This led to a discussion in the Expository Times and elsewhere, and, in the issue, a large measure of support has been secured among conservative scholars in England and America for the application of textual criticism to the Divine appellations, Lias, Wright, Tisdall, Kyle, Reeve, Griffith Thomas, and Griffiths having all given in their adhesion. Meanwhile Professor Schlogl (who had been working at the subject independently) had adopted the method in Austria, and he has been followed by Professor Weiss in the same country. In Holland Dr. Troelstra has recently given it the weight of his support in " De Naam Gods in den Pentateuch," which is shortly to appear in Engviii Pentateuchal Studies

lish dress, and in other publications and lectures. There are thus a rapidly increasing number of scholars in different countries who have come to the conclusion that the methods of the last one hundred and sixty years are indefensible, and the results attained by their adoption worthless.

So much for those who either had never been publicly committed to the documentary theory, or else had found reason to reverse their attitude. What has been the answer of the followers of Astruc? Nobody has been found to produce a reply to the facts and arguments alleged, but when they have had occasion to express themselves in public, the official adherents of the school have adopted one or other of four courses, each and all of which indicate that they are unable to defend their theory against the attacks of the textual critics.

The first course is that of frankly admitting that the theory is in danger. Naturally the exact wording of the admissions varies with each individual. As already stated, Wellhausen himself has written to Dahse describing the textual evidence regarding the Divine appellations as a "sore point " {wander Punkt) of the theory. Professor E. Sellin, of Rostock, whose mind has been influenced by other considerations as well, goes so far as to say : " It will be seen that we stand in a time of fermentation and transition, and in what follows we present our own opinion merely as the hypothesis that seems to us to be the best founded." Similarly Professors Toy and H. P. Smith, who had suffered for their belief in the higher criticism when they thought it true, have now made the important admissions that are cited on pages 132 f. To realize what a change this implies, the words that Professor W. Robertson Smith wrote in 1889 should be recalled : " The first conditions of an effective comparison of Hebrew religion, as a whole, with the religion of the other

Preface ix

Semites, were lacking so long as the historical order of the Old Testament documents, and especially of the documents of which the Pentateuch is made up, was unascertained or wrongly apprehended; but thanks to the labours of a series of scholars (of whom it is sufficient to name Kuenen and Wellhausen, as the men whose acumen and research have carried this enquiry to a point where nothing of vital importance for the historical study of the Old Testament religion still remains uncertain)," etc. (Religion of the Semites, preface). To-day Wellhausen is shaken. Teaching that is subversive of the whole theory is given at Kuenen's old university, and the most candid minds among its supporters realize that a reexamination of the whole textual and historical field is essential.

Unhappily, few of the higher critics are as candid as those just cited, and hence it becomes necessary to note other attitudes. The second main line of conduct is to- ignore the facts and arguments altogether, simply repeating the old exploded theories, and striving to keep the public in ignorance of the results of recent research. This has been followed, e.g., by Mr. W. E. Addis, who contributed to the Review of Theology and Philosophy a notice of my " Essays " that proceeded on these lines. As evidence of inability to meet the conservative case, this is of course second only to a direct admission.

A third method — that of Professor Barton and others — is exemplified in the second of these studies. It consists of sneering about faith. It is said that Wellhausen once compared his own teaching with that of some of his followers in the words, " I knew the Old Testament was a fraud, but I never dreamt, as these Scotch fellows do, of making God a party to the fraud." Now the view of textual criticism is that the Old Testament is not a fraud, but has undergone x Pentateuchal Studies

the ordinary vicissitudes of a MS. tradition, and must be subjected to the same scientific processes as all other writings that have passed through a similar experience. In view of what is said on pages 13-18, it is unnecessary to deal further with the question of faith ; but the method of sneering betrays not less clearly than the other methods the inability of the documentary theorists to answer the textual case.

The fourth method is the most regrettable of all. It consists of the deliberate misrepresentation of facts, and is practised by Doctors Skinner, Briggs, and Driver. Numbers 8-11 of this series (which should be read consecutively) are concerned with it, and the reader who will be at the pains of studying these carefully and impartially will inevitably reach the conclusion that not one of these men is a whit better able to meet the case set up than Wellhausen himself. Accusations of direct deceit are not to be made lightly; but when they become necessary they should be made so plainly that no doubt can be possible as to the issues raised. Every impartial and clear-headed man of the world will be able to see that No. 11 must have been immediately followed by proceeding's for libel if any one of the three men concerned had been in a position to vindicate his honor in the witness-box without committing direct perjury, and a perusal of No. 10 will help to show how impossible this was. Beyond all doubt Astruc's theory is in extremis when it has to be buttressed by the means here revealed.

It may, however, be asked how far the establishment of the textual method will go towards the annihilation of the dominant theories. The answer must be dictated by a number of different considerations. There are, as already stated, numerous admissions in the work of influential critical writers as to the importance of the Divine appellations. Attempts may

Preface xi

now be made to belittle this clue, but every reader of any critical analysis of Genesis knows that it is repeatedly invoked to effect a division. Moreover, it is impossible to apply textual criticism to the Divine appellations and yet to refuse to apply it throughout the Pentateuch. Nobody can say, " Here is an old document : I will treat some 340 words of it in the same way as I should any other ancient document, but I will not extend this treatment to any other word of it." Either the received Hebrew text must be accepted through thick and thin, or a scientific critical text must be constructed throughout. A number of instances of what is likely to happen in the latter case are to be found in these Studies. I understand from Dahse, who has been working at the story of Joseph and the passages treated by me as glosses in No. 8, that he has reached independently results that are practically identical with mine. His full discussion will appear in " Textkritische Materialien zur Hexateuchfrage I.," which is now in the press and will probably be published at about the same time as the present volume. The range of agreement between us appears to be extensive, but, at the time of writing, complete proofs are not available. I have, however, seen the first 112 pages, and am able to say that the work will prove to be one of the most important contributions to the criticism of the Pentateuch that have come from Germany for many years. The instalment now in the press is limited to Genesis, and will presumably, therefore, not treat of many matters outside it. On the other hand, I am glad to observe that Cornill (Zur Einleitung in das Aite Testament (1912), p. 22) has now independently taken the view of the text of Ezekiel xxxvii. 22 and 24 which is set out on page 162.

While the textual criticism of the Pentateuch looms large in the present volume, a number of studies are also concerned xii Pentateuchal Studies

with various phases of its historical interpretation, especially with the Graf-Wellhausen theory of the history. And here the plight of the higher critical school is seen to be not less desperate. In my " Essays " and elsewhere I have shown that the reconstruction of the history of Israel rests primarily on the inability of Wellhausen and his followers to distinguish between a cairn and a house once they had applied the term " sanctuary " to each of these separate and dissimilar objects. Apparently I have so far influenced Dr. Driver that, in his note on Exodus xxi. 6 (see infra, p. 148), he expressly points out that the door cannot be that of the " sanctuary " and goes on to call this view " out of the question " — I suppose because he has at last realized that dubbing a stone or mound a " sanctuary " will not give it a door. The letter of December 7, 1911, on page 150 appears to hold to this, but on May 1, 1912, he wrote a Foreword commending Dr. McNeile's volume on "Deuteronomy : Its Place in Revelation." In this book the interpretation that is " out of the question " is put forward as unquestionable for the benefit of " those who are unacquainted with Hebrew or who lack the time or opportunity to study commentaries " (including presumably Dr. Driver's own commentary on Exodus). It will be seen that when a writer of Dr. Driver's standing is reduced to arguing (infra, pp. 150 f.) that he does not believe the only explanations he puts before his readers, and subsequently to commending views that he regards as " out of the question," the end is not far off.

In other directions a sounder view of the history of Israel is undoubtedly making progress. A perusal of the last volume published by Professor Eerdmans (Das Buch Leviticus) reveals the gratifying fact that he has independently reached many of the conclusions set out in No. 20, and it may be

Preface xiii

hoped that further study will reduce the differences between us. Moreover, a new tendency to give a hearing to the views of conservative scholars is becoming evident in many quarters where the critical theories were formerly accepted as unquestionable. It is now certain that the documentary and evolutionary theories are mortally wounded.

I cannot close this preface without a word of gratitude for the services rendered to the conservative case by Dr. G. Frederick Wright, to whom this book is dedicated. But for his courage and steadfastness of purpose against all odds throughout many years when the outlook must have seemed nearly hopeless, conservatism would not now occupy its present favorable position.

Harold M. Wiener. 9 Old Square,

Lincoln's Inn, W. C.

11 September 1912.

Contents

PAGE PKEFACE V

I. Some Aspects of the Conservative Task in Penta-

teuchal Criticism (I) 1