EINLEITUNG IN DAS ALTE TESTAMENT. By _C. H. Cornill_, Professor at the
University at Königsberg.
When Darwin and his followers first gave to the world the astonishing
results of their studies, few were those who at once recognised the
importance of the new theories and still fewer those who readily accepted
them. But within the last thirty years, gradually but steadily the
number of those who have adopted as virtually true the hypotheses of the
new school, has been increasing until to-day those are in the minority
who teach a view different from Darwin on the origin and evolution
of the universe. The history and fate of the new studies in Biblical
criticism bear a striking analogy to the reception accorded to Darwinian
researches. At first they were met with well nigh universal opposition.
They were declared to be subversive of the holiest interests of religion.
They were held to rob the Bible of its glory. But by slow degrees the
first passion yielded to wiser counsel. Curiosity led to the examination
of the new positions; and in consequence in ever widening circles the
conviction gained ground that far from taking away from the dignity of
the old Hebrew literature, these new investigations and the method upon
which they footed, lent new lustre to the collection of ancient writings.
And to-day the battle has been won by the school of Wellhausen and
Kuenen. Few are those who to-day urge the old views on the authorship
date and historical succession of the several parts composing what is
called the O. T. or even on the canonisation of the whole collection.
The startling assumptions of Wellhausen, Graf, and their Dutch colleagues
had their forerunners, as had Darwin and Wallace. But when George and
Vatke in the fourth decade of our century and Reuss, in his first
academic lectures, virtually anticipated the lines of research of their
later successors, the world was too busy with other matters to give their
labors much attention. (Cfr. this work, p. 8.) For all this, primitive
orthodoxy had only few representatives in this domain, at least in
Germany. While Hävernick and Keil and Hengstenberg, are ranged on the
extreme right of the line defending with all the resources of a vast
erudition the traditional views, the middle ground is occupied by such
men as Ewald, and Hitzig, and the teacher of these De-Wette, a school
of critics that to-day yet counts among its protagonists such men as
Dillmann and Schrader and Kittel. With Graf, a new era may be said to
have begun for Biblical criticism. Notwithstanding the violent opposition
encountered, the school has won the day. Its greatest triumph was perhaps
the acquiescence in its positions shortly before his death by that master
of Biblical science, Professor Delitzsch of Leipzig. What the cardinal
point of contention is between the warring camps, is well known. It is
the relative age and position of what is technically designated as the
Priestly code, in the Hexateuch. According to the new school this portion
is the capping stone of the edifice, as it were. For Dillmann it is
pre-exilic; for Wellhausen post-exilic.
The book before us places itself without equivocation on the standpoint
of this latest criticism. It is thus another leaf in the laurel wreath
crowning the men of the new dispensation. For the name of the author is
guarantee of the scholarly character of the work; and views which have
the endorsement of a man of the renown and the scholarship of Professor
Cornill carry the presumption of having truth on their side. Professor
Cornill is however, a new-comer in this special field. His life work, as
he himself says, lies in another province of the vast realm of Biblical
critical studies. His fame is associated with his critical edition of
the text of Ezekiel, a work which will forever stand as the best guide
for all who would venture on the dangerous ground of conjectural textual
emendations. For Cornill was the first to lay down the method which above
all must be followed in so venturesome a task and his new version is the
classic illustration of the correctness of his method of proceeding. That
a man who has established for himself the reputation of being methodic
and painstaking almost to a fault, a man who is dowered with critical
acumen of the highest order, should after going anew over the whole
ground cast the weight of his scholarly authority in favor of the views
of the new critical school is a fact the significance of which cannot be
blinked. We are indeed glad that the publishers entrusted this number of
their intended series of manuals for theological students, to a scholar
who had hitherto not written _ex cathedra_ on this particular subject.
Thus was ensured a new and impartial examination of all the points
involved.
The ends which this series of manuals is to serve, decided of course the
style and scope of this work. Of introductions (_Einleitungen_) to the O.
T. there was no scarcity; but (see preface) they were either too bulky
and too full and thus did not answer the requirements of the student,
not yet a scholar; or they were too brief, mere “ponies” as we here in
America would say, intended to be learnt by heart for the purpose of
passing a good examination. The difficulty thus consisted in combining
thoroughness with the necessary brevity without sacrificing lucidity.
No mere results on the other hand were to be stated. The student was to
be initiated into the course of the investigations, the reasons for the
conclusions and thus his interest was to be awakened and the way prepared
for independent research on his own part. That the author has succeeded
in carrying out this his programme, every section of the book confirms.
His fear that the full analysis in paragraph 12, of the priestly code
will be found to be out of place in an “outline of this kind” is
groundless. We do not hesitate that this very section is the gem of the
whole work full as it is of numerous passages which cannot but stir to
profitable reflection the student. None can lay this book aside without
confessing that he has gained a “Gesammtanschauung,” an insight into
the unity and coherence of the new views, apt to convince all earnest
and unbiased minds of the truth that in this science (_Wissenschaft_)
criticism is standing on firm ground. In the selection of the books
named at the head of each chapter, or in the course of the discussion,
the Professor has displayed most consummate skill. There is scarce one
important work which with profit may be consulted but is mentioned; and
what is more in the right connection. This feature is not the least
valuable in the whole work; the student thus has at ready command a
bibliography which excludes the chaff and stores the wheat.
But let us dwell a little more specifically on the plan and execution
and the contents of this book. Two plans may suggest themselves to
the writer of an “introduction” of this kind. He may attempt to give
a picture of the rise of literature among the ancient Hebrews and
treat of the different writings which have come down to us, often the
fragments of larger works, in the order of their composition and at the
same time connect with this discussion the reasons for departing from
the traditional views as to their dates and so forth and for assigning
them to a new age. This would be virtually writing a history of the
literature. It is this plan which Reuss adopted. But according to our
Professor, investigation has not proceeded far enough to make such a
history possible. He even doubts whether it ever will (p. 2). Perhaps his
verdict is justified. At all events he is right when he urges that in
such a sequence much which belongs to the branch which he is to teach,
will scarcely find its proper or organic place. And therefore it was a
wise conclusion of his to adhere to the second plan, the traditional, for
such _Einleitungen_ which treats of the different books in the order of
the Hebrew canon and finally takes up the discussion of such questions
as the collection of the canon, the condition of the text, the different
ancient versions and their value for the reconstruction, if possible, of
the true original. But what is an _Einleitung_? It is that theological
“discipline” which concerns itself about holy scripture as a book. It is
its business to fix the time when and the manner how the several writings
were composed, which now collectively form the holy scriptures, again it
is one of its main objects to understand at what period and under what
conditions the several writings were collected and also the manner of
the tradition of this collection down to us. The method of this inquiry
can be none other but the historic critical. To this definition of the
character of this discipline, to retain this German name, none will take
exception. It is both succinct and complete. The second paragraph gives a
full survey of the history of the studies in this field. It covers within
the brief space of ten pages the results of scholarly labors extending
over a period of over fourteen hundred years. It is not a dry enumeration
of names and book titles. Under each scholar, the salient element of his
contribution is emphasised. The living principle of these studies is thus
illustrated in its growth and successive development. Take for instance
this description of Wellhausen’s method, and in a similar manner that
of all other predecessors or co-laborers is brought out: “At the hand
of the history of the cultus and that of tradition, he shows how these
two lines of development run parallel to each other, how the religious
process of evolution at every halt and turn finds its expression and at
the same time its corroboration in the productions of literature: Israel
and Judaism are two concepts radically different from each other; it is
the canon that differentiates Judaism from old Israel.” Paragraph three
states the author’s reasons for treating the single books first before
taking up the discussion of their collection into a canon, and also why
the apocrypha are excluded. These not being in the canon, are foreign to
the purposes of an introduction into the canon books. None will deny that
the Professor’s arguments on these points are irrefutable. His inquiry
into the age of the art of writing among the Hebrews concludes this
general preliminary. He is of the opinion that as far back as the memory
of the Hebrews goes, they were acquainted with this art as nowhere there
is a sign that among them there was a dim recollection of an analphabetic
period. Recent finds have made it plain that during the reign of the
Pharaoh of the exodus a lively correspondence was kept up between
Palestine and Egypt, while for the reign of David the names of his court
officials is documentary proof that there were writers at his court. The
use of the pen must have been pretty general among the people as is shown
by Judges viii, a chapter which belongs to the oldest layer of historical
compositions.
Our space is too limited to abstract every chapter of this remarkable
book. Much as we should like to do this, and especially as in this
manner alone we can hope to do justice to its merits, we must confine
ourselves, now that we come to the “special introduction” to a few
selections taken from the discussion of the main points in reference to
books which have been the centre of critical study. The Pentateuch as
is natural receives the lion’s share of the author’s attention. We have
no hesitancy in saying that his is the best exposition of the modern
views which has yet come under our notice. The Pentateuch cannot be the
work of Moses; internal evidence, as already pointed out by Aben Esra,
Hobbes, Peyrerius, and Spinoza, render the traditional assumption of
Mosaic authorship untenable. But the Pentateuch cannot be the work of
one author. The critical labors of one and a half century, sketched
most skillfully, has made it plain that the Pentateuch has been “worked
together” from four independent original writings, (_Quellenschriften_)
a yahwistic work, J. an elohistic, E. a Deuteronomistic D. and a
priestly which after Kuenen is denoted as P. On this general division
the scholars are agreed, the relative age of the separate parts alone
is yet under controversy. In paragraph seven an analysis is given of
the first four books as assigned to the three sources. Deuteronomy
occupies a position of its own. It is characteristically different in
language and thought from the others; it is something essentially new
and is in itself homogeneous. In the main Deuteronomy is the book of
the covenant mentioned in II. Kings xxiii; this original D. is now
incorporated in chapters xii, xiii, xiv-xvii, where however certain
verses and even parts of verses must be eliminated. Perhaps xxviii, or
as Professor Cornill argues, something more succinct but of the same
general nature, a curse, may have belonged to the original D. This must
have been the book published under such extraordinary circumstances
in 621. Who is its author? It presents itself as the work of Moses.
But this is characteristic of the tendency of the age to take a great
man as the father of a new literary production, a tendency which was
perfectly well understood and was far above the level of a literary
deception. Its early manifestation in D. is merely proof that even then
Moses was among the people the law-giver _par excellence_. The author
of D. must be looked for in the circle of the pious who in consequence
of Manasse’s retrogression were bound all the more closely unto each
other. In other words among the men of the prophetic party, who must have
had influence also over certain priestly orders, for D. is a compromise
and an alliance between the prophets and the priests. Besides these
components of original D. the book contains in its present form additions
and duplicates which partly are historical and hence are denoted by
D.h, partly parenetic, hence D.p; but again in these are many later
interpolations. For the particulars in this regard, we must refer to the
work of Cornill itself. His analysis displays a keen eye and will on the
whole be sure to be accepted as final. The date of D. being 621, what
is the time of the other great sources of the present Pentateuch. It
is clear that D. is acquainted with the “book of the covenant” Ex. xx,
23.-xxiii, 33. and with both Decalogues (?). Thus it was acquainted with
JE. P. on the other hand is totally unknown. The historical portions of
D. confirm this deduction from the legislative pieces. JE is clearly
known to D. while of a knowledge of P. there is not the least trace.
How far back of 621 may we go to fix the date of both J. and E.? The
period of the first kings seem to be the limit, or more particularly
the reign of David. But which of the two is the elder, J. or E.? There
can be no question that J. is. For he is more naïve as appears from
a comparison among others of chapters Gen. xx, 1-17, xxi 22-32 which
belong to E., with chapter Gen. xxvi. 1-33 which is J.’s. E. appears
to be a theological recasting of J. E. is the work of the Northern
kingdom. Joseph always appears as the leader of his brothers and other
features confirm this impression. The year 722, when in the Northern
realm national consciousness was at its high water mark may then be
supposed to be the _terminus ad quem_. But is E. as we have it a literary
unit? Kuenen has proven that it is not. A century after its original
composition a second edition so to speak must have been made with a
view to meet the requirements and prejudices of the Judaic population
of the South. Ex. chapters 32-33, are of great decisive importance in
this connection. They are a rebuke for the golden calf worship at Dan
and Bethel. Thus E. is divided again into two E.1 and E.2, to which come
yet other later amplifications f. i. Num. xxi, 32-35. E.1 then belongs
to the reign of Jeroboam II (750); and E.2 is the work of a later author
living in Judah and under the influence of prophetic ideas. The locality
of J. is a point of controversy. Cornill sides with those who maintain
that his home is the Southern kingdom of Judah. The incidents in the
Patriarchal biographies which seem to weaken such an assumption are
explained as original traits of tradition which J. had no interest to
change. J. again is not a literary unit; it compromises J.1, J.2, and
even J.3. The reasons for these subdivisions are clearly given in the
book. J. must have been composed in its different parts between 850-625.
The priestly code occupies a whole paragraph, the signal merit of which
we have noticed above. This is indeed the master-piece of a great
critical master. The many points which are involved in the discussion of
this mooted problem are treated with a clearness and a calmness which
carry conviction to the most sceptical. P. presents a spiritual unity
but not a literary. P. is the offspring of P.1 an old priestly record
and P.2 a narrative and legislative composition which is as it were
the substance and skeleton of P. around which younger accretions have
gathered at different times for which Cornill in order to simplify his
symbols proposes the designation of P.x. J. S. Vater as early as 1805 has
proven that in the so-called Mosaism, of the influence in literary and
legislative respect of our P. there is no evidence before the captivity.
Wellhausen and Kayser and Kuenen have demonstrated what for Vatke was a
dim suspicion. Dillmann, Kittel, and Delitzsch as little as Baudissin
have succeeded in saving the pre-exilic character of P. Certain it is
that before Esra 458 (444), this code had no official recognition. From
Nehemiah we have the proof that our P. corresponds to the “Book of the
Law of Moses” which was read at the great assembly in October 444. On the
other hand the book of Chronicles is based on P. as it details history,
as it would have been, if P. had been the law regulating life and liturgy
and temple service. Had P. been known before D. what reason should the
priest have had who promulgated it to substitute for it another code
less advantageous for his own order? P. is clearly a development of
D. D. presents itself as something new in all of its demands, in its
insistence on centralisation, in one sanctuary and in one priestly order
on the legitimacy of the tribe of Levi exclusively. Of the tabernacle
there is not one syllable in the whole of the pre-exile literature.
It is a clear projection into antiquity of the Deuteronomic Central
sanctuary. The relations of P. to Ezekiel make this still plainer. This
prophet is the link of transition between D. and P. The omissions in the
festal cycle of E. can only be explained that this prophet-priest was
unacquainted with P. The captivity is thus the time for the composition
of P. in the main. Its emphasis on circumcision as the sign of the
covenant which decides the connection with the chosen seed and nation,
is proof of this. And the chronology finally corroborates all previous
inferences as the chronology of Genesis which is so important a part
of P. is unmistakably a reconstruction after certain principles of the
Babylonian history of the beginnings. (Oppert.) P. was written during
the century from Ezekiel to Esra (570-458). It was not merely P.2 that
Esra read before the assembled people. P.1 and P.2 seem thus to have
been united even at this time. But it is not to be assumed that under
Esra P. was already a part of the other portions of our Pentateuch. P.
itself contains parts which are later than Esra. P.x is undoubtedly
later and these additions are easily explained on the very assumption
of the official introduction of P. P. is not the work of an individual;
it is that of a whole school, a school which naturally formed in the
captivity. Besides these “source-writings,” the Pentateuch contains
smaller pieces of great antiquity mostly of a poetic character which
had for a long time an independent existence. Such is Gen. xlix, Exodus
xv, and others. Exodus xxi-xxiii, the so-called book of the covenant,
requires also a treatment by itself. It is characteristic of this book
that it ignores totally the Decalogue. Kuenen has solved the difficulties
in which this collection of judicial precedents is involved by pointing
out that it is the predecessor of D. D. is merely the substitute for
this. As it is older than E. and is the precipitate of the unwritten law
of the earlier kingly period, we place its date in the ninth century.
Lev. xvii-xxvi while betraying in many regards affinity with P. is still
distinct from it. It stands between Ezekiel and P.; it is one of the many
priestly Thoroth which undoubtedly were current among the class whom
they concerned. How now did these component parts finally combine? This
is elucidated in paragraph fourteen. First J. and E. were put together,
by an editor of Jehovistic leanings, whom Wellhausen has styled Rj. (R.
standing for German Redacteur, Editor). This Rj. worked over, and that
often decidedly, his materials in keeping with his own convictions. This
Rj. probably lived about 650. His position is pre-deuteronomic. A second
editor combined the work of Rj. with D. He is designated as Rd. His
was the placing of the old book of the covenant near Sinai in order to
gain room for Deuteronomy. He thus became the cause of much confusion.
He lived during the second half of the Babylonian captivity. JED. was
finally combined with P. by a third editor (Rp.) who is characterised by
considerable reverence for the old documents. He omitted much to guard
against repetition but at the same time where the relations differed he
preserved them most faithfully and endeavored to place them into their
proper position and connection. Rp. was thus virtually the author of our
Pentateuch. But living after Esra even with him the Pentateuch was not
yet closed. Many younger hands had a share in its final shaping. Glosses
were added or crept into the text, as is shown by comparison with the
lxx. The book of Joshuah is a necessary continuation and complement of
the Pentateuch.
But here we must stop quoting in detail. Much as we should desire to
reproduce Cornill’s own words relating to other Biblical books, want
of space precludes even the attempt. Suffice it to say that as in his
treatment of the Pentateuch, so every question bearing on Biblical
criticism is handled with the skill of the master. At whatever turn we
ask information of this book we receive it most abundantly. This is
indeed a students book. It stimulates while it instructs. It leads while
it describes the road passed over. In the discussion of the critical
problems on the Psalms, the prophets Isaiah and Zechariah, on the final
collection of the canon, the translation of the Bible and the relation of
the different recensions to each other, the historical books as distinct
from Chronicles, and Esra, and so forth, every point is treated with a
lucidity of style and a fulness of material which is the rare gift of
a man who is saturated with his science and loves it for its own sake.
This book is destined to rank among the classics. Its earnest study and
repeated consultation can therefore be recommended to all who wish to
inform themselves about the method and the achievements of the critical
schools. The kindred book by Driver, recently published will not make
a translation into English of Cornill’s manual less desirable. We take
leave from the author with a feeling of great gratitude for the pleasure
and the profit we derived from his contribution to the literature of
Biblical scholarship. The book is well printed and singularly free from
typographical errors.