The Mosaic origin of the Pentateuchal codes

Introduction

THE author of the following treatise is descended from the French Huguenots. The original name of the family was Voss£, and his ancestors were among the refugees who emigrated to Holland after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. He received his literary training in the gymnasium at Amsterdam ; and after completing his theological course at the Seminary of the Reformed Church of Holland, at Grand Rapids, Mich., of which his father is a professor, he spent two additional years at Princeton Seminary. This treatise was prepared as a thesis in competition for the Hebrew fellowship in the latter institution, which was awarded to him ; and he is now pursuing his studies at the University of Berlin.

The subject discussed is the Mosaic origin of the laws of the Pentateuch. This is the point about which the critical battle is raging at present. The literary partition of the Pentateuch, which at one time stood in the fore-front of the fray, is now on all hands regarded as a side issue, of whose results the critics of the most recent school of Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen still seek to avail themselves, but upon which they do not mainly rest their cause. This part of the question is taken up and disposed of at the outset. The position maintained is perfectly tenable, though it has not heretofore been pressed as it deserves. The divisibility of Genesis, or, as the critics phrase it, the literary analysis of that book, does not in the slightest degree affect the

question of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, or of the laws which the Pentateuch contains. And unless it be pressed to the extent of finding mutually inconsistent narratives in Genesis, and thus impugning the truth of the record and the trustworthiness of the history, the hypothesis is one of purely literary interest, and of no theological consequence. It is only the endeavor to carry the divisive hypothesis through the subsequent books of the Pentateuch, that imperils the ascription of the legislation to Moses, as well as of the volume in which the legislation is found. If Chronicles and Kings could be compiled from antecedent authentic records without prejudice to their canonicity, the same is obviously true of Genesis, the latest limit of whose history is almost three centuries prior to the birth of Moses.

But, if the same analysis is applicable to the books from Exodus onward, the aspect of the case is materially changed. It is indeed conceivable that Moses might have employed different amanuenses to record different classes of laws, and that the literary form of the laws might thus vary to some extent in consequence. But if the later books of the Pentateuch, containing the life and the legislation of Moses, have been compiled from distinct documents in the sense maintained by the advocates of this hypothesis, it is difficult to imagine that Moses could have had any thing to do with the compilation. Accordingly, waiving all discussion as to the applicability of the hypothesis to Genesis, its right is challenged to proceed beyond Exod. vi. 3, where God revealed himself to Moses as Jehovah, and this henceforth becomes the predominant name of the Most High ; and the barrenness of the unsupported linguistic argument for any division beyond that point is shown.

It would have been better, perhaps, to put the line of demarcation at the opening of the Book of Exodus. For the alternation cf divine names is not only of no help

INTRODUCTION. V

to the critics in Exod. i. i-vi. 3, but is a source of constant perplexity, which they escape only by conspicuously disregarding it. It did not belong to the subject treated in this volume, to deal with the partition of the historical sections of Exodus. But I think that no one can carefully examine the division of Exod. i.-xi., as wrought out by Wellhausen, or by others who attempt a similar nice discrimination, without feeling at every step that the attempt to carry the partition through is a signal failure. The perplexity of the scheme rendered necessary by the rigorous application of critical rules is almost beyond belief. The critical sundering not only rends apart the most intimately connected paragraphs, but throws out isolated clauses and words ad libitum, upon the mere dictum of the operator, and to save the consistency of the hypothesis. It is simply and evidently a determined forcing through of a foregone conclusion in spite of every consideration that stands in the way.

Pushing the linguistic and literary argument aside, as destitute of any real force in application to this portion of the Pentateuch, the discussion proceeds to grapple with the problems arising out of the constitution and character of the laws themselves, and of the several Codes in which they are found. This is the chosen field of the latest phase of criticism, and it is from this quarter that the materials are drawn for its most formidable assaults upon the authenticity of the Pentateuch and the Mosaic origin of its laws. The issue involved is not merely that of the authorship of a given production, nor whether particular institutions took their rise in one century or in another. It is a question of the veracity of the sacred volume from first to last. The question is fundamentally that between rationalism and supernatural religion. Did the institutions of the Old Testament, and by legitimate and necessary sequence those of the New

VI INTRODUCTION.

Testament also, proceed from the revelation of God ? or are they the natural outgrowth of the national life of Israel?

The writer of this treatise has decided convictions upon this fundamental matter, and these underlie and shape his whole treatment of the subject. They determine his point of view, but they do not supersede a thorough and candid investigation. On the contrary, they impel to a frank and honest examination of the whole ground of debate : they lead to the patient consideration of every objection that is raised, and every difficulty that is started, in the confident assurance that all the phenomena of the case must find their solution in harmony with what is true and right.

Since the argument is throughout conducted in opposition to the latest critical school, with the purpose of wresting their weapons from their hands, it is necessarily limited to the region within which these critics themselves move, and to considerations whose validity must be conceded even from the stand-point which they occupy. Nothing is gained in controversy with them by adducing testimonies whose genuineness is in question, whose historical character is impugned, or which lie outside of the field which they recognize as the legitimate territory of debate. Hence, no argument is here drawn from the authority of the New Testament, in defence of the Mosaic origin or authorship of the laws of the Pentateuch. And, in the Old Testament, every thing is left out of the account, which, on the critical hypothesis, is judged irrelevant, or which is susceptible of an interpretation consistent with its claims. These may confirm the faith of those who accept the current view of Scripture and of the Mosaic writings, but are not suited to convince or to confute opposers.

It will be found that the discussion contained in this little - volume is neither narrow nor superficial. It is the fruit of extensive reading and careful reflection. It is not a

summary of results hastily gathered from compendiums at second-hand, but it is drawn from the direct study of original sources. The views of the leading critics are concisely stated on the various points raised in the controversy, substantially as they present them themselves. These are uniformly treated with eminent candor and fairness, while at the same time their weakness and fallacy are skilfully exposed. The book makes no pretensions to be an exhaustive exhibition of the subject. It will not, of course, prove a substitute for more elaborate and extended works ; though, to those who are entering upon the study, it will be an admirable introduction to them. And for such as wish to gain a general knowledge of the present state of critical questions concerning the Pentateuch, the range of the discussion, and the arguments employed on each side, I do not know where a more satisfactory exhibition can be found, of what intelligent readers would wish to learn, in so small a

compass.

W. HENRY GREEN.

Princeton, N.J., Jan. 8, 1886.

Chapter I. Statement And Division Of The Subject

Pentateuch-Criticism largely a question of facts, it ; subject stated page negatively and positively, 12; important aspects and bearings; general scheme, and method of treatment, 13 .... 11-14

Chapter II, History Of The Linguistic Argument Of The Critics

Double purpose of the linguistic argument, its dependence on the alternation of divine names, 15 ; bearing of Exod. vi. 2, 3, p. 16; theory of Hengstenberg and others not satisfactory, 17; other proofs of diversity of authorship chiefly subjective, 19; yet added to that from the names of God make a plausible case for Genesis, 20 ; but the Mosaic authorship not impugned unless this can be established likewise for the rest of the Pentateuch ; the linguistic argument at first regarded with distrust, t even by rationalistic critics, 21 ; brought into prominence by Eichhorn and Gramberg, 22 ; overlooked by conservative critics, pushed still farther by Stahelin, scrutinized by Kurtz, 23 ; who yielded to Delitzsch ; Hupfeld's altered style of argument, revival of the historical method by the latest critics, 24 ; and literary analysis made less prominent. Remarks preliminary to an examination of the argument : 1. Some presumptive evidence required to justify the literary analysis of the Pentateuchal Codes, 25 ; 2. Argument valueless unless the differences are marked, 26 ; 3. Diversity of matter affects diction and style ; 4. Differences must be such as are inconsistent with unity of authorship, 27; 5. Arbitrary and inadmissible methods of the critics, 28 I 5 _ 3°

Chapter III. The Linguistic Argument Examined

Does Genesis justify the literary analysis of the Pentateuchal Codes ? page 31 ; Elohistic words and phrases of Genesis, which re-appear after Exod. vi. 2, 3, p. 32 ; some only in Gen. xvii., a legal chapter; or rare in Genesis, or rare in the Codes, 36 ; or found also in Jehovist passages, or necessary to express the thought which is in many cases peculiar to the ritualistic legislation, ^ ; the number thus reduced to an insignificant group, 40 ; alleged Elohistic diction of the Codes of no account, 41 ; Jehovist diction in Exod. xii., xiii., p. 42 ; in the Decalogue, criteria are intermingled, 45 ; so also in Exod. xx. 18-xxiii. and xxxiv. 10- 25, p. 46; Lev. xvii.-xxvi , p. 47; Num. viii. 23-26, p. 48 ; inconclusiveness of the linguistic argument notwithstanding the general agreement of the critics, 49 . . . . . 31-50

Chapter IV. Incompleteness Of The Codes

Completeness of legislation in the modern sense not to be expected; the law embraces those ceremonial and civil forms which were shaped by the theocratic idea, all else left to existing usage or future provision ; opposite objections urged, incompleteness, or too great perfection for a nomad tribe, 51 ; isolation of the people and the equal division of lands favor simplicity of legislation, which was subordinate to Israel's high spiritual calling, 52, 51, 52

Chapter V. System, Or Disorder?

Alleged want of arrangement, 53; a genetic order to be expected, Bertheau's seven groups, 54 ; unity of the feast-laws in Exod. xii., xiii., shown positively, 55 ; chronological objection from xii. 3, p. 56 ; memorial ante factwn, alleged discrepancies in the account, 57; or interpolation, contradiction, 59; and transposition ; duplicate and mutually inconsistent laws, unleavened bread not mentioned in Moses' instruction to the elders, 60 ; the Book of the Covenant, 61 ; directions for building the sanctuary, Exod. xxv.-xxx., p. 62 ; Sabbath-law, Exod. xxxi. 12-17, p. "63; restatement of the Covenant-law, xxxiv. 10-27, p. 64 ; Sabbath-law, xxxv. 1-3 ; Levitical Code, the sacrificial laws, Lev. i.-vii., p. 65 ; induction of Aaron and his sons, chap, viii.-x., laws concerning uncleanness, purification, and PAGE holiness, chap, xi.-xxv., p. 66 ; unity of chap, xxiii., p. 68 ; formal close in chap, xxvi., p. 70 ; chap, xxvii., vows ; historical principle of arrangement predominates in Numbers, 71 ; Bertheau's groups ; objections answered, 72 ... 53 - 74

Chapter VI. Contradictions And Repetitions

Contradictory laws not exclusive of Mosaic authorship if due to altered circumstances or one substituted for the other, or if the discrepancies are few and isolated, 75 ; seeming differences may arise from the peculiar aims of distinct laws, 76 ; Kuenen's distinction dissented from ; methods of harmonizing, systematically and historically, yy ; Delitzsch's illustration from the Justinian Code, 78; how contradictions may be invalidated; repetitions explained, 79 75~8o

Chapter VII. Development Of Law

Evolutionary and naturalistic critics necessarily obliged to reverse the order of Israel's history, 81 ; the scheme of Wellhausen, 82 ; confessed retrogression, 83 ; alleged order of the Codes, 84 . 81-84

Chapter VIII. Unity Or Plurality Of Sanctuary?

The Covenant-law in Exod. xx. 24-26; its directions provisional, 85 ; objections answered, 86 ; the words, " where I record my name," 87; unity presupposed in the feast-law, xxiii. 17, 19, no contradiction in this respect between the Covenant-law and subsequent Codes, 88 ; absence of provision for priests does not prove the right of all to offer sacrifice ; Deuteronomy wrongly cited as a witness to the period immediately preceding Josiah's reform, 89; it emphasizes permanence as well as unity, 91 ; its polemic character explained, 92 85-95

Chapter IX. Thf Sacrificial System

Wellhausen's scheme of the development of sacrifice and its ritual, 96; the same sacrifices in Deuteronomy and the Jehovist; contrast between the Covenant-law and the Priest Code too sharply page drawn ; original simplicity of sacrifice no objection to the Mosaic origin of the Priest Code, 99 ; burnt-offerings and peace-offerings ; the existence of the altar of incense, 100 . . . 96-103

Chapter X. Priests And Levites

The gradual restriction of the priestly office as affirmed by the critics, 104; the alleged stages of the development, 106; it is denied that Jehovistic law knows nothing of a priestly order, 107; or that Deuteronomy puts priests and Levites on a par, 108 ; post-exilic books use the same generic designation ; allegation controverted that Deuteronomy assigns priestly functions to Levites, 109 ; use made of Ezekiel's Thora by the critics, though it is ideal, 111 ; and prospective; Ezekiel's three statements, 112; their explanation, 113; at first return from exile distinction between priests and Levites already established, 118 ; more priests returned than Levites; arbitrary to assume that this part only of Ezekiel's Thora was binding, 119; no gradual restriction of the priesthood on this hypothesis, 120; it does not explain how Levi became the priestly tribe, 121 ; Wellhausen's evasion, 122; distinction traceable in the tribe of Levi, existence of an Aaronic priesthood shown, 124 ; Kuenen's inference from Deut. xxxiii. 8-11 ; priests and Levites distinguished in Samuel and Kings, 125 ; Wellhausen's op ; nion that the high-priest was unknown before the exile, his arguments examined, 126 104-129

Chapter XI. Levitical And Priestly Revenues

Wellhausen's view of the change in the priest's share of the sacrifices, 130; remarks in reply, 131 ; alleged change in tithes, replied to, 132 ; change in firstlings, reply, 133 ; objections relating to the Levitical cities, 134 ; reply, 136 130-138

Chapter XII. Feasts

Points in which the feast-laws of Deuteronomy advance beyond the Jehovistic Code, 139 ; further advance in the Priest Code, 141 ; alleged agricultural origin of the three main feasts, but the earliest laws assign a historical basis for Passover, 14^ ; critics' severance of Passover and unleavened brsad, 144 ; etymology of " Passover," critical evasion, 146 ; Wellhausen's hypothesis PAGE of its origin, 147 ; his arguments reviewed, 148 ; historical association of feast of tabernacles not of late origin, 150; pretended advance of Deuteronomy upon the Covenant-law considered, 151 ; alleged peculiarities of the Priest Code considered,- 153 ; Passover not merely a commemoration, but a saving ordinance, the holy convocation on the seventh day of , unleavened bread, 155 ; a day said to have been added by the Priest Code to both unleavened bread and tabernacles ; also feast of trumpets and Day of Atonement said to be additional, 157 ; arguments for this allegation considered, 158 . . . 139-164

Chapter XIII. Unity Of Deuteronomy And The Laws Of The Intermediate Books

Critical views of Deuteronomy ; the sense in which its unity with preceding laws is maintained, 165 ; the peculiar character of Deuteronomy variously defined, 166; best presented by Havernick, 167; this the most comprehensive and applicable to all the phenomena, 168 ; the diversity of character does not preclude unity of authorship, since Moses was both legislator and prophet, 170; exhaustive treatment of differences by Hengstenberg and others ; Deuteronomy posterior to the legislation of the other books of the Pentateuch, 172 ; Kuenen's prior statements on this subject, 173; Graf's declaration that Deuteronomy presupposed the Elohistic narrative, 174; the relation of Deuteronomy to the Jehovistic Code does not disprove the existence of the Elohistic Code ; allusions in Deuteronomy to the Elohistic history, 176 ; and to the Elohistic legislation, 177 . 165-179

Chapter XIV. Internal Evidence For The Mosaic Origin Of The Deuteronomic Code

The new and the old hypothesis contrasted, 180 ; the explicit testimony in Deut. xxxi. 9, 24 ; this refers not to the whole Pentateuch, but to the legal portion of Deuteronomy, 181 ; though yielding indirect testimony in regard to the other Codes ; " literary fiction," 183; to be distinguished from legal forgery, 184; indirect testimony of Deuteronomy to its Mosaic origin, the time and situation, acquaintance shown with the region, not due to an attempt on the part of the author to personate Moses, 186; the conquest of Canaan still future, references to the sojourn in Egypt, 187 . . 180-188

Chapter XV. Objections Answered

Deuteronomy alleged to be a Reform Code, and assigned to differ- page ent dates ; Riehm's propositions, 189 ; its supernatural character denied ; are the utterances of Deuteronomy vaticinia ex event ti ? chap. xvii. 14-20 as related to Solomon's reign, 190 ; to the narrative in 1 Sam. viii., p. 191 ; all consistent with Mosaic origin, but- not with later date, 192 ; xvii. 8-13, the institution of Judges, 193 ; not prove its origin in or after the reign of Jehoshaphat ; chap, xviii., the prophet like Moses, and false prophets, 194 ; iv. 79, xvii. 3, the prohibition of star-worship ; " beyond Jordan," 195 ; positive arguments, the military law of chap, xx., the curse upon Amalek, 197 ; attitude toward Edom and Egypt, 198 ; Lev. xvii. modified in Deut. xii. 15, other laws, no re-action against ceremonial formalism, 199; passing of Jordan, and conquest of Caanan, 200 189-200

Chapter XVI. Internal Evidence Of The Mosaic Origin Of The Laws In Exodus-numbers

Twofold direct testimony, Mosaic origin claimed, 201 ; Moses wrote certain laws, Exod. xvii. i_j, p. 202; xxiv. 4, Num. xxxiii. 2, critical inferences, 203 ; indirect internal evidence, 204; Bleek's propositions, two opposite theories, 205 ; principles on which the solution must rest, 206 ; no allusions alleged in the Priest Code to its assumed late date, 207 ; the law concerning leprosy demonstrably Mosaic, 209 ; further deductions from this fact, 210; the Decalogue, 211 201-213

Chapter XVII

TESTIMONY OF THE HISTORICAL BOOKS, — JUDGES, FIRST AND SECOND SAMUEL, FIRST AND SECOND KINGS.

The critics' conception of the sources, 214; makes positive argument from this quarter useless with them, 215 ; testimony set aside by the assumption of interpolations ; observance of the ritual does not certainly, prove existence of Codes, though it conflicts with the latest phase of criticism, 216; attitude apologetic, simply prove that admitted facts do not exclude the existence of the Pentateuchal Codes, Bochim, Gideon, Manoah, 217; Jephthah, 218; Bethel, Micah, sacrifice by others than priests, first chapters of Samuel, 219; captivity of the ark, reform under Samuel, 220 ; Saul, David, 221 ; Solomon, period page

after the schism, 222 ; attitude of the prophets of the ten

tribes, worship in high places, 223 214-226

Chapter XVIII. ' Testimony Of The Early Prophets

Argue only from books whose antiquity is acknowledged by the critics ; value of this testimony ; references to " the law of Jehovah," 227 ; the phrase has both a general and more limited sense, 228 ; in certain passages it must mean the Mosaic law, 229; Hos. viii. 12 discussed, 231; Smend's admissions, 233; references to the ritual do not establish the existence of the Codes, but on the other hand their existence cannot be disproved ; alleged antagonism to the priesthood and ceremonial, 235 ; but the ceremonies opposed are treated not with indifference but with repugnance, 236 ; the recognized relation of ceremonies and true piety shown even by evil-doers ; the prophets did not aim to abolish the ritual, 237 ; Isa. xxix. 13, the favorable estimate put upon the ritual, Amos v. 25, 26, discussed, 238, 227-241

Chapter XIX. Testimony Of The Poetical Books

Critical opinions respecting the poetical books, Reuss, 242 ; Davidic Psalms according to Hitzig and Ewald, their spiritual conceptions, 243 ; deductions from them, the law referred to, 244 ; Zion the only legal sanctuary, references to the Pentateuch, 245 . 242-246

Chapter XX

SECOND KINGS XXII. AND NEHEMIAH VIII.-X.

A pious fraud assumed in 2 Kings xxii ; but the easy submission of opposers unaccountable, 247 ; Deut. xxviii. 36, why an entire Code ? such a forgery without a parallel in the Old-Testament literature, 248 ; Kuenen's inconsistent attitude to Neh. viii.-x ; the law read by Ezra not the Priest Code merely, but the entire Mosaic Thora, 249 ; Ezra's relation to this law ; the critics' hypothesis located in a period of which nothing is known, Ezekiel's programme, 251 ; the so-called Deutero-Isaiah, the exiles who first returned, 252 ; successive steps assumed by the critics in the formation of the Priest Code ; entire lack of positive evidence, 253 ; insupposable under the circumstances, 254 ; the scheme impracticable, 256 ; the old view safest and best, 258 247-258

Chapter XXI. Did Moses Write The Laws?

What Moses is expressly stated to have written, 259 ; the art of page writing possessed by the Israelites in the Mosaic age, source of the Semitic alphabet, 260 ; Israel's state of civilization at the exodus, 261 ; oral transmission of laws, 262 ; probable inference from the writing of the Covenant-law, the Decalogue and Deuteronomy, that the Priest Code was written likewise, 263 . 259-263

THE MOSAIC ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES.

THE MOSAIC ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH AL CODES.

Chapter I. Statement And Division Of The Subject

THE subject denned by this title is one of verycomplicated and comprehensive character. Especially since Pentateuch-Criticism has become pre-eminently historical in its most advanced leaders, — the school of Reuss, Kuenen, Wellhausen, and others, — the field of investigation has been so enlarged, and the various arguments have assumed such complex relations to each other, that more space would be required for a full discussion than we can allow ourselves. Pentateuch-Criticism has, to a very large extent, been reduced to a question of facts. A detailed examination of facts must furnish the basis upon which all debate must at present be conducted between the conservative and destructive critics. On account of this comprehensiveness, it will be necessary to define our subject, that everything which does not properly belong to it, or is not vitally connected with it, may be excluded at the outset.

1. We do not intend to discuss the authenticity cf the Pentateuch, but only the Mosaic origin of the Codes which it contains. The latter is independent of the former, though the reverse may not be true. Both questions are connected in so far that the establishment of the Mosaic origin of the Codes would furnish one of the strongest arguments for the authenticity of the whole, since the narrative is in most cases subsidiary to the legislation, and serves as its framework.

2. By the predication of Mosaic origin is not meant that every statute and regulation in particular can be proven to have emanated from the mouth of Moses. From the nature of the case, such proof can never be given. Neither will it be possible to show that the ipsissima verba of the law in its present form descend from Moses. All that we intend to make a point of inquiry is, whetJier tJie bulk and essence of the Pentateuchal Codes, in so far as they exhibit the evidences of being one great system of legislation, bear the impress of the Mosaic age. The origin of each individual part must be estimated by its relation to this systematic whole.

3. The questions whether Moses promulgated the laws that pass under his name, and whether he codified them in written form, should be kept distinct. Abstractly they admit of being separated. How far such separation is supposable in this concrete case will appear hereafter.

4. The problem may be stated in a somewhat different form ; viz., whether the law be the immediate product of divine revelation, complete from the first,

DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. 1 3

and not admitting of development, or the final outcome of a long process of growth, oftentimes changed before it petrified into its present form. Is the law soil and seed, or is it the fruit of the religious development of Israel ? All these contrasts are nearly synonymous with the great alternative, — Mosaic, or non-Mosaic ? The former naturally represents revelation, the latter development. Hence it appears that the unity of the Codes must occupy an important place in the discussion.

5. Our subject is one of wide and important bearings, not only in the department of Criticism, but^also of Apologetics. It touches the heart of the Christian conception of revelation. Criticism on the part of our opponents has long since left its independent position, and become subservient to naturalistic tendencies. It manifests a spirit of enmity against the very material upon which it works. The innocent literary aspect of the question has been lost : it is no longer a matter of dilettanteism, but of pressing and practical importance, which cannot be confined to the lecture-rooms and studies of the learned, but claims the interest of the Church at large.

We shall endeavor to arrange the numerous questions involved under certain general heads, and choose the following scheme: —

I. Unity of the Pentateuchal Codes.

A. Unity of the laws in Exodus-Numbers.

1. The linguistic and literary argument.

2. Incompleteness of the Codes.

4. Contradictions.

5. Repetitions.

B. Unity of Deuteronomy and the laws of the intermediate books.

1. Does a unity of relation exist between Deuter-

onomy and the Codes of the middle books?

2. If so, to which of the two must we assign the

priority ?

II. Internal evidence of the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuchal Codes.

A. Internal evidence of the Mosaic origin of the Deu-

teronomic Code.

1. Direct testimony of the Code to its own origin.

2. Indirect internal testimony.

3. The fraud-theory.

B. Internal evidence of the Mosaic origin of the laws

in Exodus-Numbers.

1. Direct testimony of the laws to their own origin.

a. Simply Mosaic origin claimed.

b. Codification of laws in written form.

2. Indirect internal evidence.

III. External evidence of the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuchal Codes.

A. The testimony of the historical books, Judges,

1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings.

B. Testimony of the early prophets, Hosea, Amos,

Isaiah, Micah.

C. Testimony of the poetical books.

D. 2 Kings xxii. and Nehemiah viii.-x.

Chapter II. History Of The Linguistic Argument Of The Critics

THE critical examination of the linguistic character of the Pentateuch has been carried on with a double purpose : a. To obtain the criteria for an analytical distribution of its contents among the various documents which critics profess to find ; b. To fix the relative date of these documents. Whilst in the latter respect, however, the linguistic argument is no longer counted as a decisive factor, it has been elaborated for the former purpose to such a degree of minuteness, and with such consummate skill, that at present it constitutes one of the most perplexing phenomena for those who defend the essential unity of the Pentateuch.

For a just estimate of the character and force of the argument, it will be necessary to exhibit not only its historical connection with the discovery of Astruc, but also its logical dependence on the latter. The critics have gradually detached the one from the other, apparently unconscious that in doing so they have destroyed the very basis on which they rest. We must start with a recognition of the very remarkable use of the divine names in Genesis and the first chapters of Exodus. The question, what is the cause of this, cannot be ultimately decided by an interpretation of the much discussed passage, Exod. vi. 2, 3. If we understand it in the sense that the name Jahveh was previously to this absolutely unknown to the patriarchs and Israelites, it follows immediately that the writer of this passage cannot be the author of the Jehovistic passages which precede, unless we take recourse with Clericus and others to the assumption of a prolepsis, which, however, as Hengstenberg has shown, will not account for the facts. But when we take the passage in its other more probable sense, that God had not previously revealed to Israel those special attributes which constitute him Jahveh, it does not follow immediately, that, by this different interpretation, the interchange of both names is satisfactorily explained. To show that the writer of Exod. vi. 2, 3, did not absolutely deny the previous knowledge of the name Jahveh, is quite a different thing from explaining how he, acquainted with the facts, could have used both names in the course of the same work in such a peculiar manner.

In favor of the former interpretation, attention has been called to the fact, that, in the Hebrew mind, there was a very intimate connection between the name and the nature of a thing ; that the name is never accidental or arbitrary, but the expression of the nature ; that consequently not to know God as to his name Jahveh, is equivalent to a not-knowing of his nature as such and the reverse. Nature and name are so indissolubly connected, that, where knowledge of the former is wanting, acquaintance with the lat-