Objections have been made to the general style of the proof on
which Graf's hypothesis is based. It is said to be an illicit
argument _ex silentio_ to conclude from the fact that the priestly
legislation is latent in Ezekiel, where it should be in operation,
unknown where it should be known, that in his time it had not yet
come into existence. But what would the objectors have? Do they
expect to find positive statements of the non-existence of what
had not yet come into being? Is it more rational, to deduce _ex
silentio_, as they do, a positive proof that it did exist?-_to say,
that as there are no traces of the hierocracy in the times of the
judges and the kings it must have originated in the most remote
antiquity, with Moses? The problem would in this case still be
the same, namely, to explain how it is that with and after the
exile the hierocracy begins to come into practical activity.
What the opponents of Graf's hypothesis call its argument _ex
silentio_, is nothing more or less than the universally valid
method of historical investigation.
The protest against the argument _ex silentio_ takes another form.
It is pointed out that laws are in many cases theories, and that
it is no disproof of the existence of a theory that it has not
got itself carried out into practice. Deuteronomy was really
nothing more than a theory during the pre-exile period, but who
would argue from this that it was not there at all? Though laws
are not kept, this does not prove they are not there,--provided,
that is to say, that there is sufficient proof of their existence
on other grounds. But these other proofs of the existence of the
Priestly Code are not to be found--not a trace of them. It is,
moreover, rarely the case with laws that they are theory and
nothing more: the possibility that a thing may be mere theory
is not to be asserted generally, but only in particular cases.
And even where law is undoubtedly theory, the fact does not
prevent us from fixing its position in history. Even legislative
fancy always proceeds upon some definite presupposition or other;
and these presuppositions, rather than the laws themselves, must
guide the steps of historical criticism. /1/
-- Footnote
1. Cf. <I.III.2. ad fin., IV.III.3., V.II.1., VII.II.2.>. This is
the reason why the strata of the tradition require to be compared as
carefully as those of the law.
-- Footnote
An argument which is the very opposite of this is also urged.
The fact is insisted on that the laws of the Priestly Code are
actually attested everywhere in the practice of the historical
period; that there were always sacrifices and festivals, priests
and purifications, and everything of the kind in early Israel.
These statements must, though this seems scarcely possible,
proceed on the assumption that on Graf's hypothesis the whole
cultus was invented all at once by the Priestly Code, and only
introduced after the exile. But the defenders of Graf's
hypothesis do not go so far as to believe that the Israelite cultus
entered the world of a sudden,--as little by Ezekiel or by Ezra
as by Moses,--else why should they be accused of Darwinism by
Zoeckler and Delitzsch? They merely consider that the works of
the law were done before the law, that there is a difference
between traditional usage and formulated law, and that even where
this difference appears to be only in form it yet has a material
basis, being connected with the centralisation of the worship and
the hierocracy which that centralisation called into existence.
Here also the important point is not the matter, but the spirit
which is behind it, and may everywhere be recognised as the
spirit of the age at one period or another. /2/
-- Footnote
2. Comp. <II.III., III.III.1.>
-- Footnote
All these objections, meanwhile, labour under the same defect,
namely, that they leave out of view that which is the real point
at issue. The point is not to prove that the Mosaic law was not
in force in the period before the exile. There are in the
Pentateuch three strata of law and three strata of tradition, and
the problem is to place them in their true historical order. So
far as the Jehovist and Deuteronomy are concerned, the problem
has found a solution which may be said to be accepted
universally, and all that remains is to apply to the Priestly Code
also the procedure by which the succession and the date of these
two works has been determined--that procedure consisting in the
comparison of them with the ascertained facts of Israelite
history. /3/
-- Footnote
3. The method is stated in the introduction: and special pains are
taken to bring it out distinctly in the first chapter, that about
the place of worship.
-- Footnote
One would imagine that this could not be objected to. But
objections have been raised; the procedure which, when applied to
Deuteronomy, is called historico-critical method, is called, when
applied to the Priestly Code, construction of history. But
history, it is well known, has always to be constructed: the
order, Priestly Code, Jehovist, Deuteronomy, is not a thing
handed down by tradition or prescribed by the nature of the case,
but a hypothesis as yet only a score of years old or thereby, the
reasons for which were somewhat incomprehensible, so that people
have forgotten them and begun to regard the hypothesis as
something objective, partaking of the character of dogma. The
question is whether one constructs well or ill. Count Baudissin
thinks a grave warning necessary of a certain danger, that,
namely, of an exaggerated application of logic: that the laws
follow each other in a certain order logically, he says, does not
prove that they appeared in the same order in history. But it is
not for the sake of logical sequence that we consider the
development which began with the prophets to have issued finally
in the laws of cultus; and those who set out from "sound human
reason" have generally forced the reverse process of this on the
history, in spite of the traces which have come down to us, and
which point the other way. /1/
-- Footnote
1. And it would not be surprising when we consider the whole
character of the polemic against Graf's hypothesis, if the next
objection should be the very opposite of the above, viz. that it
is not able to construct the history.
-- Footnote
After laboriously collecting the data offered by the historical
and prophetical books, we constructed a sketch of the Israelite
history of worship; we then compared the Pentateuch with this
sketch, and recognised that one element of the Pentateuch bore
a definite relation to this phase of the history of worship, and
another element of the Pentateuch to that phase of it. This is not
putting logic in the place of historical investigation. The new
doctrine of the irrationality of what exists is surely not to be
pushed so far, as that we should regard the correspondence between
an element of the law and a particular phase of the history as a
reason for placing the two as far as possible asunder. At least
this principle would have to be applied to the Jehovist and
Deuteronomy too, and not to the Priestly Code only. What is
right in the one case is fair in the other too; a little logic
unfortunately is almost unavoidable.
Not everything that I have brought forward in the history of the
cultus and the tradition, is a proof of the hypothesis; there is
much that serves merely to explain phenomena at the basis of the
hypothesis, and cannot be used as proving it. This is a matter
of course. My procedure has intentionally differed from that of
Graf in this respect. He brought forward his arguments somewhat
unconnectedly, not seeking to change the general view which prevailed
of the history of Israel. For this reason he made no impression
on the majority of those who study these subjects; they did not see
into the root of the matter, they could still regard the system
as unshaken, and the numerous attacks on details of it as
unimportant. I differ from Graf chiefly in this, that I always
go back to the centralisation of the cultus, and deduce from it the
particular divergences. My whole position is contained in my
first chapter: there I have placed in a clear light that which is
of such importance for Israelite history, namely, the part taken
by the prophetical party in the great metamorphosis of the
worship, which by no means came about of itself. Again I attach
much more weight than Graf did to the change of ruling ideas which
runs parallel with the change in the institutions and usages of
worship; this has been shown mostly in the second part of the
present work. Almost more important to me than the phenomena
themselves, are the presuppositions which lie behind them.
Not everything that we have hitherto discussed proves, or is meant
to prove, Graf's hypothesis. On the other hand, however, there is
abundance of evidence, which has not yet been noticed. To discuss
it all in detail, would take another book: in this work only a
selection can be with all brevity indicated, if the limits are
not to be transgressed which are imposed by the essentially
historical character of these prolegomena. In these discussions
the Pro will as a rule naturally suggest itself in the refutation
of the Contra.
IX.I.
IX.I.1. Eberhard Schrader mentions, in his Introduction to the Old
Testament, that Graf assigns the legislation of the middle books
of the Pentateuch to the period after the exile; but he does not
give the least idea of the arguments on which that position is
built up, simply dismissing it with the remark, that "even
critical analysis enters its veto" against it. Even critical
analysis? How does it manage that? How can it prove that the
one and sole cultus, worked out on every side to a great system,
the denaturalising of the sacrifices and festivals, the distinction
between the priests and Levites, and the autonomous hierarchy, are
older than the Deuteronomic reform? Schrader's meaning is
perhaps, that while the signs collected by a comparison of the
sources as bearing on the history of worship show the order of
succession to be Jehovist, Deuteronomy, Priestly Code, other
signs of a more formal and literary nature would show the Priestly
Code to be entitled to the first place, or at any rate not the
last, and that the latter kind of evidence is of as much force as
the former. Were this so, the scales would be equally balanced,
and the question would not admit of a decision. But this awkward
situation would only occur if the arguments of a literary nature
to be urged on that side really balanced those belonging to the
substance of the case which plead for Graf's hypothesis. In
discussing the composition of the Hexateuch, /1/
-- Footnote
1. Jahrb. Deutsche Theol., 1876, p. 392 seq, 531 seq; 1877,
p. 407 seq.
-- Footnote
I have shown, following in the steps of other scholars, that this
is by no means the case; and for the sake of completeness I will
here repeat the principal points of that discussion.
IX.I.2. It is asserted that the historical situation of Deuteronomy
is based not only on the Jehovistic, but also on the Priestly
narrative. Deuteronomy proper (chaps. xii.-xxvi.) contains
scarcely any historical matter, but before Moses comes to the
business in hand, we have two introductions, chapter v.-xi. and
chapter i.-iv., to explain the situation in which he promulgates
"this Torah" shortly before his death. We are in the Amorite
kingdom, east of the Jordan, which has already been conquered.
The forty years' wanderings are about to close: the passage to
the land of Canaan, for which this legislation is intended, is
just approaching. Till this time, we hear in chapter v. 9, 10,
the only law was that which is binding in all circumstances, and
was therefore promulgated by God Himself from Horeb, the Law of
the Ten Words on that occasion. The people deprecated any
further direct revelation by Jehovah, and commissioned Moses to
be their representative; and he accordingly betook himself to the
sacred mount, stayed there forty days and forty nights, and
received the two tables of the decalogue, and besides them the
statutes and laws which now, forty years after, he is on the
point of publishing, as they will come into force at the
settlement. In the meantime the golden calf had been made down
below; and when Moses descended from the mount, in his anger he
broke the tables and destroyed the idol. Then he betook himself
for a second period of forty days and nights to the mount, pleaded
for mercy for the people and for Aaron; and after he had made,
according to divine command, two new tables and a wooden chest
for them, Jehovah once more wrote down exactly what stood on the
tables which were broken. On this occasion, it is remarked in x.
8 seq., the Levites received their appointment as priests.
This is evidently a reproduction of the Jehovistic narrative,
Exodus xix. xx. xxiv. xxxii-xxxiv. The Priestly Code, on the
contrary, is entirely ignored. Deuteronomy knows only two
laws, the decalogue, which the people received, and the statutes
and judgments which Moses received, at Mount Horeb. They were
both given at the same time, one directly after the other: but
only the decalogue had till now been made public. Where is the
whole wilderness-legislation as given from the tabernacle? Is
it not denying the very notion of its existence, that Moses only
publishes the Torah at the passage into the Holy Land, because it
has application and force for that land, and not for the
wilderness? Apart from the fact that the Deuteronomist,
according to chapter xii., knew nothing of a Mosaic central
sanctuary, can he have read what we now read between Exodus xxiv.
and xxxii.? He passes over all that is there inserted from the
Priestly Code. Noldeke finds, it is true, /1 /
-- Footnote
1. Jahrbb. fuer prot. Theologie, 1875, p. 350.
-- Footnote
a reminiscence of that code in the ark of acacia wood, Deuteronomy
x. 1. But the ark is here spoken of in a connection which answers
exactly to that of the Jehovist (Exod xxxii. xxxiii.), and is
quite inconsistent with that, of the Priestly Code (Exodus xxv.
seq.). It is only instituted after the erection of the golden
calf, not at the very beginning of the divine revelation, as the
foundation-stone of the theocracy. True, the ark is not mentioned
in JE, Exodus xxxiii., as we now have it, but in the next
Jehovistic piece (Numbers x. 33) it suddenly appears, and there
must have been some statement in the work as to how it came there.
The tabernacle also appears ready set up in xxxiii. 7, without
any foregoing account of its erection. The institution of the
ark as well as the erection of the tabernacle must have been
narrated between xxxiii. 6 and 7, and then omitted by the present
editor of the Pentateuch from the necessity of paying some regard
to Q, Exodus xxv.; that this is the case many other
considerations also tend to prove. /2/
-- Footnote-- Footnote
2. Without the ark there is no use of the tabernacle, and the
distinction in Exodus xxxiii. which is treated as one of
importance, between the representation (Mal'ak) of Jehovah and
Jehovah Himself, has no meaning. By making an image the Israelites
showed that they could not do without a sensible representation of
the Deity, and Jehovah therefore gave them the ark instead of the calf.
-- Footnote-- Footnote
That the Deuteronomist found JE in a more complete form, before
it was worked up with Q, than that in which we have it after the
working up, is not such a difficult assumption that one should be
driven into utter impossibilities in order to avoid it. For
according to Noldeke either the author of Deuteronomy v.-xi. had
before him the Pentateuch as it now is, and was enabled, very
curiously, to sift out JE from it, or he used JE as an independent
work, but read Q as well, only in such a way that his general view
was in no way influenced by that of the priestly work, but on the
contrary contradicts it entirely and yet unconsciously--since his
work leaves no opening for a ritual legislation given side by side
with the Decalogue, and that ritual legislation is the whole sum
and substance of the Priestly Code. To such a dilemma are we to
make up our minds, because one trait or another of the Deuteronomic
narrative cannot be traced in JE as we now have it, and is preserved
in Q? Does this amount, in the circumstances, to a proof that such
traits were derived from that source? Must not some regard in fairness
be paid to the ensemble of the question ?
We may, further, remember in this connection Vatke's remark, that
the wooden ark in Deuteronomy x. 1, is by no means very similar to
that of Exodus xxv., which, to judge by the analogy of the
golden table and altar, must rather have been called a golden ark.
It takes even more good will to regard the statement about Aaron's
death and burial in Mosera and the induction of Eleazar in his
place (Deuteronomy x. 6, 7) as a reminiscence of Q (Numbers xx. 22
seq.), where Aaron dies and is buried on Mount Hor. In JE also
the priests Aaron and Eleazar stand by the side of Moses and
Joshua (cf. Joshua xxiv. 33). The death and burial of Aaron are
certainly no longer preserved in JE; but we cannot require of the
editor of the Pentateuch that he should make a man die twice, once
according to Q and once according to JE. And it must further be
said that Deuteronomy x. 6, 7 is an interpolation; for the following
verses x. 8 seq., in which not only Aaron and Eleazar, but all
the Levites are in possession of the priesthood, are the
continuation of x. 5, and rest on Exodus xxxii. Here we are still
in Horeb, not in Mosera.
The historical thread which runs through Deuteronomy v. ix. x. may
be traced further in chaps. i.-iv. After their departure from
Horeb the Israelites come straight to Kadesh Barnea, and from this
point, being commanded to invade the hill-land of Judaea, they first
send twelve spies to reconnoitre the country, guided thereto by
their own prudence, but also with the approval of Moses. Caleb is
one of the spies, but not Joshua. After penetrating as far as the
brook Eshcol they return; and though they praise the goodness of
the land, yet the people are so discouraged by their report, that
they murmur and do not venture to advance. Jehovah is angry at
this, and orders them to turn back to the wilderness, where they
are to wander up and down till the old generation is extinct and
a new one grown up. Seized with shame they advance after all,
but are beaten and driven back. Now they retreat to the wilderness,
where for many years they march up and down in the neighbourhood
of Mount Seir, till at length, 38 years after the departure from
Kadesh, they are commanded to advance towards the north, but to
spare the brother-peoples of Moab and Ammon. They conquer the
territory of the Amorite kings, Sihon of Heshbon and Og of
Bashan. Moses assigns it to the tribes of Reuben and Gad and the
half-tribe of Manasseh, on condition that their army is to yield
assistance in the remaining war. The continuous report comes to an
end with the nomination of Joshua as future leader of the people.
This same narrative, with the addition of some scattered
particulars in the Book of Deuteronomy, /1/ will serve perfectly
-- Footnote
1. Appointment of judges and wardens (#W+RYM = peace-officials,
who, according to xx. 9, are in war replaced by the captains),
i. 9-18, Taberah, Massah, Kibroth Taavah (ix. 22), Dathan and Abiram
(xi. 6), Balaam (xxiii. 5), Baal-peor (iv. 3). Only the
Jehovist narrative of Numbers xii. seems to be nowhere referred to.
In Deuteronomy i. 9-18 the scene is still at Horeb, but this passage
shows acquaintance with Numbers xi. and uses both versions for a
new and somewhat different one.
-- Footnote
well as a thread to understand JE. What, on the contrary, is
peculiar to the Priestly Code is passed over in deep silence,
and from Exodus xxxiv. Deuteronomy takes us at once to Numbers x.
While not a few of the narratives which Deuteronomy repeats or
alludes to, occur only in JE and not in Q, the converse does not
occur at all. And in those narratives which are found both in JE
and in Q, Deuteronomy follows, in every case in which there is a
distinct divergence, the version of JE. The spies are sent out
from Kadesh, not from the wilderness of Paran; they only reach
Hebron, not the neighbourhood of Hamath; Caleb is one of them, and
not Joshua. The rebels of Numbers xvi. are the Reubenites Dathan
and Abiram, not Korah and the Levites. After the settlement in
the land east of Jordan the people have to do with Moab and Ammon,
not with Midian: Balaam is connected with the former, not with the
latter. The same of Baal-peor: Deuteronomy iv. 3 agrees with JE
(Numbers xxv. 1-5), not with Q (Numbers xxv. 6 seq.). Things being
so, we cannot, with Noldeke, see in the number of the spies (Deuteronomy
i. 23) an unmistakable sign of the influence of Q (Numbers xiii.
2). Had the author read the narrative as it is now before us in
Numbers xiii. xiv., it would be impossible to understand how, as we
have seen, the Jehovist version alone made any impression on him.
He must, accordingly, have known Q as a separate work, but it is a
bold step to argue from such a small particular to the use of a
source which everywhere else is entirely without influence and
unknown, especially as the priority of this source is by no
means established on independent grounds, but is to be proved by
this alleged use of it. lf there were a palpable difference
between JE and Q in this point, if we could say that in Q there
were twelve spies sent out, and in JE; three, the case would be
different; but in Numbers xiii. the beginning of the narrative of
JE has been removed and that of Q put in place of it, so that we
do not know how the narrative of JE began, and what number, if
any, was given in it. In such a state of matters the only
reasonable course is to supply what is lacking in JE from
Deuteronomy, which generally follows the Jehovist alone, and to
conclude that the spies were twelve in number in this source also.
The instance in which the proof would be strongest that Deuteronomy
was acquainted with the narrative of the Priestly Code, is x. 22.
For the seventy souls which make up the whole of Israel at the
immigration into Egypt, are not mentioned in JE, and there is no
gap that we are aware of in the Jehovist tradition at this point.
But they are by no means in conflict with that tradition, and
even should we not take Deuteronomy x. 22 for a proof that the
seventy souls found a place in it also, yet it must at least be
acknowledged, that that passage is by no means sufficient to
break down the evidence that the priestly legislation has the
legislation of Deuteronomy for its starting-point. /1/
-- Footnote
1. Noldeke frequently argues from such numbers as 12 and 70, as
if they only occurred in Q. But that is not the case. As Q in
the beginning of Genesis has groups of 10, JE has groups of 7;
12 and 40 occur in JE as frequently as in Q, and 70 not less
frequently. It is therefore surprising to find the story of the
12 springs of water and the 70 palm-trees of Elim ascribed to Q
for no other reason than because of the 12 and the 70. Not even
the statements of the age of the patriarchs--except so far as they
serve the chronological system--are a certain mark of Q: compare
Genesis xxxi. 18, xxxvii. 2, xli. 26, l. 26; Deuteronomy xxxiv.
7; Joshua xxiv. 29. Only the names of the 12 spies and the 70
souls are incontestably the property of the Priestly Code, but
it is by no means diflicult to show (especially in Genesis xlvi.
8-27) that they are far less original than the figures. The
numbers are round numbers, and in fact do not admit of such a
recital of the items of which they are made up.
-- Footnote
VIII.I.3. As a further objection to Graf's hypothesis, the
Deuteronomistic revision of the Hexateuch is brought into the
field. That revision appears most clearly, it is said, in those
parts which follow the Deuteronomic Torah and point back to it.
It used to be taken for granted that it extends over the Priestly
portions as well as the Jehovistic; but since the occasion arose
to look into this point, it is found that it is not so. The
traces which Noldeke brings together on the point are trifling,
and besides this do not stand the test. He says that the
Deuteronomistic account of the death of Moses (Deuteronomy xxxii. 48
seq., xxxiv. 1 seq.) cannot be regarded as anything else than an
amplification of the account of the main stem (Q), which is
preserved almost in the same words. But Deuteronomy xxxiv. 1b-7
contains nothing of Q and xxxii. 48-52 has not undergone
Deuteronomistic revision. He also refers to Josh. ix. 27:
"Joshua made the Gibeonites at that day hewers of wood and drawers
of water for the congregation and for the altar of Jehovah even
unto this day, in the place which He should choose."
The second part of this sentence, he says, is a Deuteronomistic
addition to the first, which belongs to the Priestly narrative.
But Noldeke himself acknowledges that the Deuteronomistically-revised
verses ix. 22 seq. are not the continuation of the priestly version
15c, 17-21, but of the Jehovistic version 15ab, 16; and between
verse 16 and verse 22 there is nothing wanting but the
circumstance referred to in verse 26. The phrase _hewer of wood
and drawer of water_ is not enough to warrant us to separate verse
27 from 22-26; the phrase occurs not only in verse 21 but also
in JE verse 23. The words FOR THE CONGREGATION do certainly
point to the Priestly Code, but are balanced by the words which
follow, FOR THE ALTAR OF JEHOVAH, which is according to the
Jehovistic view. The original statement is undoubtedly that the
Gibeonites are assigned to the altar or the house of Jehovah. But
according to Ezekiel xliv. the hierodulic services in the temple
were not to be undertaken by foreigners, but by Levites; hence
in the Priestly Code the servants of the altar appear as servants
of the congregation. From this it results that LMZBX is to be
preferred in verse 27 to L(DH W, the latter being a later
correction. As such it affords a proof that the last revision of
the Hexateuch proceeded from the Priestly Code, and not from Deuteronomy.
As for Joshua xviii. 3-10, where Noldeke sees in the account of the
division of the land another instance of Deuteronomistic addition,
I have already indicated my opinion, <VIII.III.2.>. The piece is
Jehovistic, and if the view were to be found in the Priestly Code
at all, that Joshua first allotted their territory to Judah and Ephraim,
and then, a good while after, to the other seven tribes, that source
must have derived such a view from JE, where alone it has its roots. /1/
-- Footnote
1. Jahrbb. fur Deutsche Theol., 1876, p. 596 seq.
-- Footnote
And lastly, Noldeke considers Josh. xxii. to speak quite decidedly
for his view; but in the narrative of the Priestly Code, xxii. 9-34,
to which the verses l-8 do not belong, there is no sign of
Deuteronomistic revision to be found. /2/
-- Footnote
2. Joh. Hollenberg in Stud. und Krit., 1874, p. 462 seq.
-- Footnote
There is a more serious difficulty only in the case of the short
chapter, Josh. xx., of which the kernel belongs to the Priestly
Code, though it contains all sorts of additions which savour
strongly of the Deuteronomistic revision. Kayser declares these
awkward accretions to be glosses of quite a late period. This may
seem to be pure tendency-criticism; but it is reinforced by the
confirmation of the Septuagint, which did not find any of those
alleged Deuteronomistic additions where they now are. /3/
-- Footnote
3. Aug. Kayser, Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichtc Israels
(Strassburg, 1874), p. 147, seq.; Joh. Hollenberg, der
Charactcr der Alex. Uebersetzung des B. Josua (Programm des
Gymn. zu Moers, 1876), p. 15.
-- Footnote
But were it the case that some probable traces of Deuteronomistic
revision were actually to be found in the Priestly Code, we must
still ask for an explanation of the disproportionately greater
frequency of such traces in JE. Why, for example, are there none
of them in the mass of laws of the middle books of the Hexateuch?
This is undoubtedly and everywhere the fact, and this must
dispose us a priori to attach less weight to isolated instances to
the contrary: the more so, as Joshua xx. shows that the later
retouchings of the canonical text often imitate the tone of the
Deuteronomist.
IX.II.
IX.II.1. I have said that in the L)DH W of Josh. ix. 27, we have
the addition of a final priestly revision. Such a revision must be
assumed to have taken place, if the Priestly Code is younger than
Deuteronomy. But the assumption of its existence does not depend
on deduction merely: Kuenen argued for it inductively, even
before he became a supporter of Graf's hypothesis. /1/
-- Footnote
1. Historisch-Kritisch Onderzoek I. (Leyden, 1861), p. 165; the
reviser of the Pentateuch must be sought in the same circles in
which the Book of Origins (Q) arose and was gradually extended
and modified, i.e., among the priests of Jerusalem, p. 194; it is
generally thought that the Deuteronomist is the reviser of the
whole Book of Joshua, but his hand is not to be traced
everywhere,--not, for example, in the priestly sections; the last
reviser is to be distinguished from the Deuteronomist. In
certain narratives of Numbers and Joshua, Kuenen detected very
considerable additions by the last reviser, and the results of
his investigation have now been published in the first part of the
second edition of his great isagogic work (Leyden, 1885).
-- Footnote
This may be best demonstrated by examining the chapters Leviticus
xvii.-xxvi. At present they are incorporated in the Priestly
Code, having undergone a revision with that view, which in some
places adds little, in others a good deal. Viewed, however, as
they originally were, they form a work of a peculiar character
by themselves, a work pervaded by a somewhat affected religious
hortatory tone, which harmonises but little with the Priestly
Code. The author worked largely from earlier authorities, which
explains, for example, how chapter xviii. and chapter xx. both
find a place in his production. Leviticus xvii.-xxvi is incomparably
instructive for the knowledge it affords of literary relationships:
it is a perfect compendium of the literary history of the Pentateuch. /2/
-- Footnote
2. Compare Jahrbb. fur Deutsche Theol., 1877, p. 422-444,
especially on the elimination of the additions of the reviser.
In the present discussion I shall not take these into account.
In chapter xxiii., for example, I only take account of verses
9-22, 39-44, in chapter xxiv. only of vers. 15-22
-- Footnote
As with Deuteronomy, so with this legislation; it is clear that
it goes back to the Jehovistic legislation of Sinai (Exodus
xx.-xxiii.) as its source. It also bears to have been given on
Mount Sinai (xxv. 1, xxvi. 46). It is addressed to the people,
and is popular in its contents, which are chiefly of a civic and
moral character. It is meant only for the promised land and for
settled life, not for the wilderness as well. The festivals are
three in number, and have not quite parted with their character
as feasts of harvest. Among the sacrifices the sin-offering and
the trespass-offering are wanting. The legislation does deal with
the cultus to a disproportionate extent, but the directions about
it do not go into technical details, and are always addressed to
the people. Even in those directions which concern the priests
the people are addressed, and the priests are spoken of in the
third person. Nor are palpable points of contact wanting. Leviticus
xix. 2-8, 9-18, may be regarded as counterparts of the first and
second tables of the decalogue. The precept, "Thou shalt not
respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty,"
xix. 15, is a development of that in Exodus xxiii. 3, and a number
of other precepts in Leviticus xix. could stand with equal
appropriateness in Exodus xxii. 17 seq. The directions in Leviticus
xxii. 27-29 are similar to those of Exodus xxii. 29, xxiii. 18, 19.
In the same way those of Leviticus xxiv. 15-22 are based both in
contents and form on Exodus xxi. 12. /1/
-- Footnote
1. Compare xxiv. 15 seq. with Exodus xxii. 27 (xxi. 17); xxiv.
18 with Exodus xxi. 28 seq.; xxiv. 19, 20 with Exodus xxi. 33,
34; xxiv. 21 with Exodus xxi. 28 seq.
-- Footnote
In xxiv. 22 we notice a polemical reference to Exodus xxi. 20
seq., 26 seq. In xxv. 1-7 the whole of the expressions of Exodus
xxiii. 10, 11 are repeated. In xx. 24, we have the Jehovistic
phrase, "a land flowing with milk and honey."
Yet Leviticus xvii.-xxvi. only takes its starting-point from the
Jehovistic legislation, and modifies it very considerably,
somewhat in the manner of Deuteronomy. There is a demonstrable
affinity with Deuteronomy both in the ideas and in the
expressions. Common to both is the care for the poor and the
undefended: to both humanity is a main object of legislation.
"If a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex
him; he shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt
love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt"
(xix. 34).
Leviticus xvii. seq. attaches great importance to unity of worship.
It is still a demand, not a presupposition (xvii. 8 seq., xix. 30,
xxvi. 2); the motive of it is to guard against heathen influences
and to secure the establishment of a monotheism without images. /2/
-- Footnote
2. xvii. 7 (cf. 2Chronicles xi. 15), xviii. 21, xix. 4, 19, 26,
29, 31, xx. 2 seq. 6, xxvi. 1, 30. With regard to the date we
have to note the stern prohibition of the service of Moloch. On
Lev, xvii. see above, p. 376.
-- Footnote
This is quite recognisable, and forms an important point of
contact with Deuteronomy. The same contact may be observed in
the prohibition of certain observances of mourning (xix. 27 seq.),
the calculation of Pentecost from the beginning of barley harvest
(xxiii. 15), the seven days' duration of the feast of tabernacles,
and the cheerful sacrificial feasts which are to accompany its
observance. Add to this a similarity by no means slight in the
colour of the language, e.g., in xviii. 1-5, 24-30, xix. 33-37,
xx. 22 seq., xxv. 35 seq. Some of the phrases may be mentioned.
"When ye are come into the land that I shall give you." "Ye shall
rejoice before Jehovah." "I am Jehovah that brought you up out
of the land of Egypt." "Ye shall keep my commandments and statutes
and laws, to do them."
But the legislation we have here is further advanced than
Deuteronomy. In the festivals the joint sacrifice of the
congregation is already prominent (xxiii. 9-22). The priests
are not the Levites, but the sons and brothers of Aaron, their
income has grown materially, their separate holiness has reached a
higher point. Stricter demands are also made on the laity for
personal holiness, especially as regards continence from the sins
of the flesh, and the marriage of relatives (Leviticus xviii. xx.).
Marriage with an uncle's wife is forbidden (xviii. 14, xx. 20),
whereas in Deuteronomy it is still legal. The work dates from a
time when exile was a familiar idea: xviii. 26 seq.:
"Ye shall keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit
any of those abominations; for the men that were in the land before
you did these things, and the land vomited them out. Take care
that the land spue not you out also as it spued out the nations
that were before you."
Similarly xx. 23 seq.: and in a legislative work such utterances
prove more than they would in a prophecy. Now as our section
departs from Deuteronomy, it approaches to Ezekiel. This is its
closest relationship, and that to which attention has been most
drawn. It appears in the peculiar fusion of cultus and morality,
in the notion of holiness, in a somewhat materialistic sense, as
the great requirement of religion, and in the fact that the demand
of holiness is made to rest on the residence of the people near
the sanctuary and in the holy land. /1/
-- Footnote
1. On Leviticus xxii. 24, 25, compare Kuenen's Hibbert Lectures.
-- Footnote
But the affinity is still more striking in the language: many
unusual phrases, and even whole sentences, from Ezekiel, are
repeated in Leviticus xvii. seq. /2/
-- Footnote
2. Compare Colenso, Pentateuch and Joshua, vi. p. 3-23. Kayser,
op. cit. p. 177- 179. Smend on Ezekiel, p. xxv.
-- Footnote
The 10th of the 7th month is in Leviticus xxv. 9 as in Ezekiel,
new-year's day, not, as in the Priestly Code, the great day of
atonement. This led Graf to regard Ezekiel himself as the author
of this collection of laws in Leviticus; and Colenso and Kayser
followed him. But this is out of the question; notwithstanding
the numerous points of contact both in linguistic and material
respects, the agreement is by no means complete. Ezekiel knows
no seed of Aaron, and no wine at the sacrifices (Leviticus xxiii.
13); his festival legislation shows considerable differences,
and in spirit is more akin to the Priestly Code. And if he were
the author he would have said something about the proper place
in the cultus of the Levites and of the prince.
The corpus in question, which Klostermann called, not
inappropriately, the Law of Holiness, inclines from Ezekiel
towards the Priestly Code: in such pieces as xvii. xxi. xxii.
it takes some closeness of attention to see the differences from
the latter, though in fact they are not inconsiderable. It stands
between the two, somewhat nearer, no doubt, to Ezekiel. How are
we to regard this fact? Jehovist, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, are a
historical series; Ezekiel, Law of Holiness, Priestly Code, must
also be taken as historical steps, and this in such a way as to
explain at the same time the dependence of the Law of Holiness on
the Jehovist and on Deuteronomy. To assume that Ezekiel, having
the Pentateuch in all other respects as we have it, had a great
liking for this piece of it, and made it his model in the
foundation of his style of thought and expression--such an
assumption does not free us from the necessity of seeking the
historical order, and of assigning his natural place in that order
to Ezekiel; we cannot argue on such a mere chance. Now the
question is not a complicated one, whether in the Law of Holiness
we are passing from the Priestly Code to Ezekiel or from Ezekiel
to the Priestly Code. The Law of Holiness underwent a last
revision, which represents, not the views of Ezekiel, but those of
the Priestly Code, and by means of which it is incorporated in
that code. This revision has not been equally incisive in all
parts. Some of its corrections and supplements are very
considerable, e.g., xxiii. 1-8, 23-38; xxiv. 1-14, 23. Some
of them are quite unimportant, e.g., the importation of the Ohel
Moed (instead of the Mikdash or the Mishkan), xvii. 4, 6, 9, xix.
21 seq.; the trespass-offering, xix. 21 seq.; the Kodesh
Kodashim, xxi. 22. Only in xxv. 8 seq. is the elimination of
the additions difficult. But the fact that the last edition of
the Law of Holiness proceeds from the Priestly Code, is
universally acknowledged. Its importance for the literary history
of Israel cannot be over-estimated. /1/
-- Footnote
1. L. Horst, in his discussion on Leviticus XVii,-XXYi, and Ezekiel
(Colmar, 1881), has strikingly shown that the mechanical style of
criticism in which Dillmann even surpasses his predecessor Knobel,
is not equal to the problem presented by the Law of Holiness. He
goes on, however, to an attempt to save, by modifying it, the old
Strassburg view of Ezekiel's authorship; and as Kuenen justly
remarks, he makes ship-wreck on Leviticus xxvi. (Theol. Tijdschr.
1882, p. 646). Cf. <next note, beginning "Horst...">.
-- Footnote
IX.II.2. The concluding oration, Leviticus xxvi. 3-46, calls for
special consideration. Earlier scholars silently assumed that this
piece belonged to Leviticus xvii. 1-XXVI. 2; but many critics,
Noldeke for example, now regard it as an interpolation in Leviticus
of a piece which from its character should be elsewhere. At any rate
the oration is composed with special reference to what precedes it.
If it is not taken as a peroration, such as Exodus xxiii. 30-33,
Deuteronomy xxviii., its position in such a part of the Priestly Code
is quite incomprehensible. It has, moreover, a palpable
connection with the laws in xvii.-xxv. The _land_, and _agriculture_,
have here the same significance for religion as in chaps. xix.
xxiii. xxv.; the threat of vomiting out (xviii. 25 seq., xx.
22) is repeated here more circumstantially; the only statute
actually named is that of the fallow of the seventh year (xxvi.
34, xxv. 1-7). The piece begins with the expression, which is so
characteristic of the author of chapter xvii. seq. "If ye walk
in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them," and the
same phrase recurs, with slight alteration, in vers. 15 and 43.
The conclusion, verse 46, is, "These are the statutes and
judgments and laws which Jehovah gave, to regulate the relation
between Him and Israel on Mount Sinai, by Moses." This is
obviously the subscription of a preceding corpus of statutes and
judgments, such as we have in, xvii. 1-xxvi. 2. Mount Sinai is
mentioned also in xxv. 1 as the place of revelation.
If Leviticus xxvi. is incontestably intended to form the conclusion
of chaps. xvii.-xxv., it would be natural to suppose that the
author of that collection was also the author of the oration.
Noldeke thinks, however, that the language differs too much from
that of xvii.-xxv. Yet he is obliged to acknowledge several
resemblances, and these not unimportant; while some of the
differences which he adduces (Bamoth, Gillulim, Hammanim, xxvi.
30) are really examples of similarity. Rare and original words
may be found in the preceding chapters also. It may be that in
chapter xxvi they are more frequent in proportion: yet this does
not entitle us to say that the language generally is very original.
On the contrary, it is everywhere characterised by borrowed
expressions. So much of linguistic difference as actually remains
is sufficiently accounted for by the difference of subject: first
come laws in a dry matter-of-fact style, then prophecy in a
poetical pathetic style. The idiosyncrasy of the writer has no
scope in the former case, from the nature of the materials, some
of which had already assumed their form before he made use of them.
In the latter case he can express himself freely; and it is fair
that this should not be overlooked.
The arguments brought forward by Noldeke against the probability
that Leviticus xxvi. belongs to chaps. xvii.-xxv. and is not merely
tacked on to them, disappear completely on a closer comparison of
the literary character of the two pieces. Chapter xxvi. reminds
us most strongly of Ezekiel's style, both in thought and
language. The most significant passage is Leviticus xxvi. 39.
The threat has been uttered that Israel is to be destroyed as a
people, and that the remnant which escapes the destroying sword
of the enemy is to be carried into exile, to sink under the weight
of past calamity and present affliction. Then the speech goes
on: "And they that are left of you shall _pine away_ in their
iniquity in your enemies' land; and also in the iniquities of
their fathers shall they _pine away_. Then they will confess
their own sin and the sin of their fathers." In Ezekiel, this
confession actually occurs in the mouth of one of his
fellow-exiles: they say (xxxiii. 10), "Our transgressions
and our sins are heavy upon us, and we _pine away_ in them, and
cannot live." In the same strain the prophet says (xxiv. 23)
that in his dull sorrow for the death of his wife he will be an
emblem of the people: "ye shall not mourn nor weep, but ye shall
_pine away_ in your iniquities."
Nor are the other traits wanting in the oration which, as we say,
accompanied the Ezekielic colouring of the preceding chapters.
We do not expect to find traces of the influence of the Jehovist
legislation (further than that Exodus xxiii. 20 seq. formed the
model both for Deuteronomy xxviii. and Leviticus xxvi.); but to
make up for this we find very distinct marks of the influence of
the prophets, the older prophets too, as Amos (verse 31). We can
as little conceive the existence of the Book of Ezekiel as of this
chapter without the prophetic literature having preceded it and
laid the foundation for it.
As for the relation to Deuteronomy, the resemblance of Leviticus xxvi.
to Deuteronomy xxviii. is very great, in the arrangement as well as in
the ideas. True, there are not many verbal coincidences, but the
few which do occur are important. The expressions of xxvi. 16
occur nowhere in the Old Testament but in Deuteronomy xxviii. 22, 65:
similarly R)#YM with the meaning it has in verse 45 only occurs
in Deuteronomy xix. 14 and in the later literature (Isaiah lxi. 6).
The metaphor of the uncircumcised heart (verse 41) only occurs in
one other passage in the law, in Deuteronomy; the other instances
of it are in prophecy, of contemporary or later date (Jeremiah iv.
4, ix. 24, 25, Ezekiel xliv. 7, 9). There are several more
reminiscences of Jeremiah, most of them, however, not very
distinct. We may remark on the relation between Jeremiah xvi. 18
in one respect to verse 30, and in another to verse 18 of our
chapter. Here the sin is punished sevenfold, in Jeremiah double.
The same is said in Isaiah xl. 2, lx. 7; and our chapter has
also in common with this prophet the remarkable use of rtc,h (with
sin or trespass as object). Did not the chapter stand in
Leviticus, it would, doubtless, be held to be a reproduction, some
small part of it of the older prophecies, the most of it of those
of Jeremiah and Ezekiel: Leviticus xxvi. 34 is actually quoted in
2Chronicles xxxvi 22 as a word of the prophet Jeremiah.
Leviticus xxvi. has points of contact, finally, with the Priestly
Code, in PRH WRBH, HQYM BRYT, HTWDH, )NY, (never )NKY), in the
excessive use of the accusative participle and avoidance of verbal
suffixes, and in its preferring the colourless NTN to verbs of
more special meaning.
The only reason for the attempt to separate Leviticus xxvi. from
xvii.-xxv. lies in the fact, that the exilic or post-exilic origin
of this hortatory and denunciatory oration is too plain to be
mistaken. To us, this circumstance can only prove that it belongs
to xvii.-xxv., providing a weighty confirmation of the opinion we
have already formed on other grounds as to the period which produced
these laws.
"If ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary to me,
then I will also walk contrary to you in fury; and I will chastise you
seven times for your sins. Ye shall eat the flesh of your sons
and daughters, and I will destroy your high places, and cast down
your sun-pillars' and cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of
your idols, and my soul shall abhor you. And I will make your
cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries into desolation, and I
will not smell the savour of your sweet odours. And I will bring
the land into desolation, and your enemies who settle therein
shall be astonished at it; and I will scatter you among the peoples,
and will draw out the sword after you, and your land shall be
desolate and your cities ruins. Then shall the land pay her
sabbaths all the years of the desolation when you are in your
enemies' land: even then shall the land rest and pay her
sabbaths. As long as it lieth desolate it shall make up the
celebration of the sabbaths which it did not celebrate as long as
you dwelt in it. And upon them that are left alive of you I will
send a faintness into their hearts in the land of their enemies,
and the sound of a shaken leaf shall chase them, and they shall
flee as fleeing from a sword, and they shall fall when none
pursueth. And they shall fall one upon another as it were before
a sword when none pursueth, and there shall be no stopping in the
flight before your enemies. And ye shall lose yourselves among
the peoples, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up. And
they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in
your enemies' lands, and also in the iniquities of their fathers
shall they pine away. And they shall confess their iniquity
and the iniquity of their fathers in regard to their
unfaithfulness which they committed against me, and that because
they have walked contrary to me, I also walk contrary to them,
and bring them into the land of their enemies. Then their
uncircumcised heart is humbled, and then they pay their penalty,
and I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with
Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham, and I remember the land.
The land also, left by them, pays its sabbaths, while she lieth
without inhabitant and waste, and they themselves pay the penalty
of their iniquity because, even because, they despised my judgments,
and their soul abhorred my statutes. And yet for all that, when
they be in the land of their enemies, I have not rejected them,
neither have I abhorred them to destroy them utterly, and to break
my covenant with them: for I am Jehovah their God. And I will for
their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors whom I brought
forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the peoples, that
I might be their God: I am Jehovah" (xxvi. 27-45).
These words undoubtedly cannot have been written before the
Babylonian exile. It is said that the Assyrian exile will explain
the passage: but where is there any similarity between the
oration before us and the old genuine Isaiah? In Ezekiel's day
such thoughts, feelings, and expressions as we have here can be
shown to have prevailed: but it would be difficult to show that
the fall of Samaria gave rise to such depression at Jerusalem:
and Leviticus xxvi. was not written outside Jerusalem, for it
presupposes unity of worship. The _Jews_ are addressed here, as
in Deuteronomy xxix., xxx., and they had no such lively feeling
of solidarity with the deported Israelites as to think of them
in connection with such threats. I even think it certain that
the writer lived either towards the end of the Babylonian exile
or after it, since at the close of the oration he turns his eyes
to the restoration. In such prophets as Jeremiah and Ezekiel
there is a meaning in such forecasting of the joyful future but
here it contradicts both the historical position and the object
of the threats, and appears to be explained most naturally as
the result of an accident, i.e., of actuality. That in a
comparison of Leviticus xxvi. with Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the
former cannot claim priority, appears distinctly from the
comparative use of the phrase _uncircumised heart_. That phrase
originates in Jeremiah (iv. 4, ix. 24 seq.), but in Leviticus
xxvi. it is used as a well-known set term. In the same way the
phrase _pine away in their iniquity_ is repeated by Ezekiel as he
heard it in the mouth of the people. He is its originator in
literature; in Leviticus xxvi. it is borrowed. /1/
-- Footnote
1. Horst tries to find a place for Leviticus xxvi. in the last
years of king Zedekiah (op. cit. p. 65, 66), but in this he is
merely working out his theory that the author was the youthful
Ezekiel; and the theory is sufficiently condemned if it leads
to this consequence. Delitzsch (Zeitschr. fur Kirchl. Wissench.
1880, p. 619) thinks it a piece of impertinence in me to read out
of Ezekiel xxxiii. what that passage says. On Deuteronomy x. 16,
xxx. 6, and generally on the color Hieremianus in Deuteronomy, see
Jahrb. fur D. Thhcol., 1877, p. 464.
-- Footnote
The criticism of Leviticus xvii. seq. Ieads us to the result, that
a collection of laws which took form during the period of the exile
was received into the Priestly Code, and there clothed with fresh
life. We need not then tremble at Schrader's threatening us with
"critical analysis," and Graf's hypothesis will not be thereby
overturned.
IX.II.3. Two or three further important traces of the final priestly
revision of the Hexateuch may here find mention. In the story
of the flood the verses vii. 6-9 are an editorial addition, with
the object of removing a contradiction between JE and Q; it
shares the ideas and speaks the language of the Priestly Code.
In the title of Deuteronomy the verse, "It came to pass in the
fortieth year, in the eleventh [(#TY] month, on the first day of
the month, that Moses spake unto the children of Israel according
to all that Jehovah had given him in commandment unto them" (i. 3)
is shown by the most undoubted signs to belong to the Priestly Code,
and is intended to incorporate Deuteronomy in that work. We have
already shown that the Priestly Code in the Book of Joshua is simply
a filling-up of the Jehovistic-Deuteronomistic narrative.
That the Priestly Code consists of elements of two kinds, first of
an independent stem, the Book of the Four Covenants (Q), and
second, of innumerable additions and supplements which attach
themselves principally to the Book of the Four Covenants, but not
to it alone, and indeed to the whole of the Hexateuch--this
assertion has not, strange to say, met with the opposition which
might have been expected. Ryssel has even seen in the twofold
nature of the Priestly Code a means to maintain the position of
the Book of the Four Covenants before the exile: he sacrifices
the additions, and places the necessary interval between them and
the main body of the work. He thinks the close affinity between
the two parts is sufficiently explained by the supposition that
they both issued from the same circle, that of the priesthood of
Jerusalem. Were it the case that the temple of Jerusalem was as
autonomous and as solely legitimate in the days of Solomon as in
those of the foreign domination, that the priests had as much to
say under Ahaz, Hezekiah, and Josiah as after the exile, if it
were allowable to represent them according as it suits one's views,
and not according to the historical evidence, if, in short, there
were no Israelite history at all, such an explanation might be
allowed to stand. The secondary part of the Priestly Code of
necessity draws the primary part with it. The similarity in
matter and in form, the perfect agreement in tendencies and ideas,
in expressions and ways of putting things, all compel us to think
that the whole, if not a literary, is yet a historical, unity.
IX.III.
<IX.III.1.> It has lately been the fashion to regard the language of
the Priestly Code as an insuperable barrier to the destructive
efforts of tendency criticism. But it is unfortunate that this veto
of language is left as destitute of detailed proof, by Delitzsch,
Riehm, and Dillmann, as the veto of critical analysis by Schrader;
and we cannot be called upon to show proof against a contention
which is unsupported by evidence. But I take advantage of the
opportunity to communicate some detached observations, which I
may perhaps remark did not occur to me in connection with the
investigation of the Pentateuch, but on a quite different occasion.
In the passage 2Samuel vi. 12 I was exceedingly struck with L(MT,
and not less with BR) in the two passages Isaiah iv. 5, Amos iv. 13,
and while following out the distribution of these two words I came
on the traces of similar phenomena.
The language of the pre-exilic historical books is in general much
akin to that of the Jehovistic work; that of the Priestly Code,
on the contrary, is quite different. It is common enough to
interpret this fact, as if the latter belonged to an earlier
period. But not to mention that in that case the Code must have
been entirely without influence on the history of the language,
it agrees ill with this view, that on going back to the oldest
documents preserved to us of the historical literature of the
Hebrews we find the difference increasing rather than diminishing.
Take Judges v. and 2Samuel i.; the poetical pieces in JE may be
compared with them, but in Q there is nothing like them. And on
the other hand, it is in the narratives which were introduced very
late into the history, such as Judges xix.-xxi.; 1Samuel vii.
viii. x. 17 seq. xii.; 1Kings xiii., and the apocryphal
additions in 1Kings vi.-viii. that we recognise most readily
some linguistic approximation to the Priestly Code. And as in the
historical so also in the prophetical literature. The speech of
Amos, Isaiah, Micah, answers on the whole to that of the Jehovist,
not to that of the priestly author.
Deuteronomy and the Book of Jeremiah first agree with the Priestly
Code in certain important expressions. In Ezekiel such expressions
are much more numerous, and the agreement is by no means with
Leviticus xvii.-xxvi. alone. /1/
-- Footnote
I Especially noticeable is P)T NGB TYMNH in Ezekiel and the
Priestly Code. In the latter Negeb, even when it refers to the
actual Negeb, yet is used as denoting south (Numbers xxxiv. 3,
xxv. 2-4), i.e., it has completely lost its original meaning.
-- Footnote
In the subsequent post-exilic prophets down to Malachi the points
of contact are limited to details, but do not cease to occur; they
occur also in the Psalms and in Ecclesiastes. Reminiscences of the
Priestly Code are found nowhere but in the Chronicles and some of
the Psalms. For that Amos iv. 11 is borrowed from Genesis xix. 29
is not a whit more clear than that the original of Amos i. 2 must
be sought in Joel iv. 19 [iii. 16].
The Priestly Code maintains its isolated literary character as
against the later literature also. This is the result partly of
the use of a number of technical terms, partly of the incessant
repetition of the same formulae, and of its great poverty of
language. But if we neglect what is due to the stiff and hard
idiosyncrasy of the author, it is undoubtedly the case that he
makes use of a whole series of characteristic expressions which
are not found before the exile, but gradually emerge and come
into use after it. The fact is not even denied, it is merely
put aside. To show what weight is due to it we may find room
here for a short statement of the interesting points for the
history of language to be found in Genesis i.
Genesis i. 1, R)#YT means in the older Hebrew, not the COMMENCEMENT
of a process which goes forward in time, but the FIRST
(and generally the BEST) part of a thing. In the sense of a
beginning in time, as the contrary to )XRYT, it is first found in
a passage of Deuteronomy, xi. 12; then in the titles in the Book
of Jeremiah, xxvi. 1, xxvii. 1, xxviii. 1, xlix. 34, and in Isaiah
xlvi. 10, and lastly in the Hagiographa, Job viii. 7, xili. 12;
Proverbs xvii. 14; Ecclesiastes vii. 8. In Genesis x. 10
R)#YT MMLKTW has a different meaning from that in Jeremiah xxvi. 1
in the one it is the principal part of the kingdom; in the other
it is the beginning of the reign. _In the beginning_ was in the
early time, if absolute, BFR)#NH, BATTXLH; if relative, BTXLT
TXLT. /1/
-- Footnote
1 The vocalisation B:R#YT is very curious: we should expect
BFRA$YT. It has been attempted to do justice to it by translating:
"In the beginning, when God created heaven and earth--but the earth
was without form and void, and darkness lay upon the deep, and the
spirit of God brooded over the water--then God spake: Let there be
light."
But this translation is desperate, and certainly not that followed
by the punctuators, for the Jewish tradition (Septuagint, Aquila,
Onkelos) is unanimous in translating:
"In the beginning God created heaven and earth."
In Aramaic, on the contrary, such adverbs take, as is well known,
the form of the _status constructus_. Cf. RBT Psalm lxvv. 10, cxx. 6.
-- Footnote
We have already spoken <VIII.I.1. "a special word"> of the word
BR), a word remarkable for its specific theological import. Apart
from Amos iv. 13 and Isaiah iv. 5 it is first found outside the
Priestly Code in the Deuteronomist in Exodus xxxiv. 10, Numbers xvi.
30 (?), Deuteronomy iv. 32, and in the Book of Jeremiah, xxxi. 22:
then in Ezekiel xxi. 35, xxviii. 13, 15; Malachi ii. 10; in Psalms
li. 12, lxxxix. 13, 48, cii. 19, civ. 30, cxlviii. 5; Ecclesiastes
xii. 1. It occurs, however, most frequently, 20 times in fact,
in Isaiah xl.-lxvi.; and curiously enough, never in Job, where we
should expect to find it. It has nothing to do with B"R") (cut down
wood) and BRY) (fat). /2/
-- Footnote
2. I do not speak of the use of _Elohim_ and the application of
the names of God in the Priestly Code: the matter is not yet clear
to me. Very curious is H#M, Leviticus xxiv. 11.
-- Footnote
Genesis i. 2, THW WBHW occurs also in Jeremiah iv. 23; Isaiah xxxiv.
11. THW alone is not so rare, but it also occurs, Isaiah xxix. 21
excepted, only in the later literature Deuteronomy xxxii. 10; 1Samuel
xii. 21; Isaiah xxiv. 10, xl. 17, 23, xli. 29, xliv. 9, xlv.
18 seq., xlix. 4, lix. 4; Job vi. 18, xii.24, xxvi. 7; Psalm
cvii. 40. The verb RXP (brood), which is common in Aramaic, only
recurs in a single passage in the Old Testament, and that a late
one, Deuteronomy xxxii. 11. Yet the possibility must be conceded
that there was no occasion for its more frequent employment.
Genesis i. 4, HBDYL and NBDL (divide and divide one's self), common
in the Priestly Code, is first used by Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronomist (Deuteronomy iv. 41, x.8, xix. 7, xxix. 10; 1Kings
viii. 53), then by Ezekiel (xxii. 26, xxxix. 14, xlii. 10) and
the author of Isaiah xl. seq. (lvi. 3, lix. 2). It is most used by
the writer of Chronicles, (1Chronicles xii. 8, xxiii. 13, xxv. 1;
2Chronicles xxv. 10; Ezra vi. 21, viii.24, ix. 1, x. 8, 11, 16 ;
Nehemiah x. 2, 29, xiii. 3). On YWM )XD Genesis i. 5 compare
Josephus, Antiquities I. i. 1: "That now would be the FIRST day,
but Moses says ONE day; I could give the reason of this here, but
as I have promised (in the Introduction) to give such reasons for
everything in a separate work, I shall defer the exposition till
then." The Rabbis also, in Genesis Rabba, feel the difficulty of
the expression, which, however, has its parallel in the )XD LXD#,
which belongs to the later way of speaking. In Syriac the
ordinary expression is XD B#B); hence in the New Testament MIA
SABBATWN for the first day of the week.
Genesis i. 6, RQY( (firmament) is found, outside the Priestly
Code, only in Ezekiel (i. 22-26, x. 1), and in still later
writers ; Psalms xix. 2, cl. 1 ; Daniel xii. 3; cf. Job
xxxviii. 18. /1/
-- Footnote
1. It does not mean, as is generally assumed, that which is
beaten out thin, is stretched out. For, firstly, the heaven is
never considered to be made of sheet-metal; secondly, the meaning
in question only belongs to the Piel, and the substantive derived
from it is RIQQUA(. The Kal, with which RQY( must be connected,
is found in Isaiah xiii. 5, xliv. 24; Psalms cxxxvi. 6. It is
generally translated _spread out_, but quite unwarrantably.
Parallel with it are YSD and KWNN (compare Psalms xxiv. 2 with cxxxvi.
6); the Septuagint translates in all three passages with stereoun,
and accordingly renders RQY( with STEREWMA (firmamentum). This
rendering, which alone is supported by tradition, and which is very
satisfactory, is confirmed by the Syriac, where the verb RQ( is
frequent in the sense of _fortify_.
-- Footnote
Genesis i. 10 YMYM (the sea, singular, see i. 22; Leviticus xi. 9,
10), is rare in older times, and belongs to lofty poetical
language; it is, on the contrary, frequent in Ezekiel (ten
times), and in the Psalms (seven times); and occurs besides in Job
vi. 3; Nehemiah ix. 6 ; Jonah ii. 4 ; Daniel xi. 45. Genesis i. 11
MYN (kind), a very peculiar word, especially in the form _Jeminehu_,
is found outside of this chapter and Leviticus xiv., Genesis vi. 20,
vii. 14, only in Deuteronomy xiv. and Ezekiel xlvii. 10.
Genesis i. 26, DMWT (likeness, verses 1, 3) does not occur in the
earlier literature. It first appears in 2Kings xvi. 10, in a
post-Deuteronomic passage, for the writer is that of chapter xi.
seq., xxi. seq. Then in Ezekiel (15 times), Isaiah xiii. 4, xl.
18; 2Chronicles iv. 3; Psalms lxviii. 5. It is a borrowed word
from Aramaic; and the corresponding verb only came into use in
the period when Aramaic began to find its way in.
Genesis i. 27 ZFKFR (male) is in earlier times ZFKW.R; for
this is the vocalization in Exodus xxiii. 17, xxxiv. 23; Deuteronomy
xvi. 16, xx. 13; and if it is right in these passages, as we cannot
doubt it is, it must be introduced in Exodus xxxiv. 19; Deuteronomy
xv. 19; 1Kings xi. 15 seq. as well. In the Priestly Code ZFKFR
occurs with great frequency, and elsewhere only in the later
literature, Deuteronomy iv. 16; Jeremiah xx. 15, xxx. 6; Ezekiel xvi.
17; Isaiah lxvi. 7; Malachi i. 14; Judges xxi. 11, 12; 2Chronicles
xxxi. 16; Ezra viii. As for NQBH (female), matters are even worse.
Outside the Priestly Code it is only found in Jeremiah (xxxi. 22)
and the Deuteronomist (iv. 16). The Jehovist, it is well known,
always says )Y#, W)Y#H even of the lower animals: the editor of
the Hexateuch, on the contrary, always follows the usage of the
Priestly Code.
Genesis i. 28 XYH HRM#T attracts attention by the omission of the
article with the substantive and its being merely prefixed to the
following adjective; as if one should say in Greek, )ANHR (O
)AGATHOS instead of (O )ANER (O )AGATHOS. In the same way i. 21
YWM H##Y, and ii. 3 YWM H#BY(Y. In Arabic there are some
analogies for this, but on seeking one in Hebrew we have to come
down to the period when it was usual to say KNST HGDWLH. KB#
and RDH are Aramaisms. In KBSHWH we find the only verbal suffix
in Genesis i. Instead we have always the forms )TM )TW; this is
so in the Priestly Code generally. In the Jehovistic main work,
in J, these substitutes with )T are only used sometimes and for
special reasons: it may be generally asserted that they are
more used the later we come down. Parallel with this is the use
of )nky in J and )ny in the Priestly Code; the latter form
grows always more frequent in later times.
These remarks carry us beyond Genesis i.; for the Priestly Code
generally I am now able to refer to F. Giesebrecht's essay on
the criticism of the Hexateuch. Such words as QRBN, (CM, L(MT,
(#TY are each, by itself, strong arguments for assuming a late
date for the production of the Priestly Code. We cannot believe
that such everyday words should never have come into use in the
other literature before the exile, if they were in existence.
They cannot be counted technical terms: QRBN used in Hebrew for
sacrifice and offering is simply as if an English writer should
say priere instead of worship. In such comparisons of the
vocabulary we have, however, to consider first the working up
and revision which has been at work in every part of the books
of the Bible, and secondly the caprice of the writers in apparent
trifles, such as )NKY and )NY, especially outside the Pentateuch.
These two agencies have so dislocated the original facts in this
matter, that in general we can only deal in proportions, and must
be content with showing that a word occurs say 3 times in the
other literature and 27 times in an equal extent of the later. /1/
-- Footnote
1. Too much importance must not be attached to Aramaisms: even when
they admit of clear demonstration they prove little while
occurring merely in single instances. We early find remarkable
phenomena, such as NDR for NZR (hence NZYR = vovens), N+R for NCR
(Amos i. 11 , Y+R for Y+RP?), comp. Arabic _lata_ for _laisa_, Sur.
38, 2. Hudh. 84, 1. And yet such an Aramaism as BT #NTH in Numbers
xv. 27, or even QRBN, is very remarkable.
-- Footnote
IX.III.2. The study of the history of language is still at a very
elementary stage in Hebrew. In that which pertains to the
lexicographer it would do well to include in its scope the proper
names of the Old Testament; when it would probably appear that
not only Parnach (Numbers xxxiv. 25) but also composite names such
as Peda-zur, Peda-el, Nathana-el, Pazi-el, Eli-asaph, point less to
the Mosaic than to the Persian period, and have their analogies in
the Chronicles. On the other hand, the prepositions and particles
would have to be examined the use of the prepositions Beth and
Lamed in the Priestly Code is very peculiar. That would lead
further, to syntax; or better still, to rhetoric and style--a
diffcult and little cultivated field of study, but one of great
importance and lending itself readily to comparative treatment.
This treatment yields the most far-reaching results in the case
of those parallels which have an undoubted and direct relation
to each other. The dependence of the Priestly Code on the Jehovist
cannot be more strikingly demonstrated than by comparing its CDYQ,
Genesis vi. 9, with the CDYQ BDWR HZH, of Genesis vii. 1 (JE.).
The plural DRWT is quite on a line with the MYNYM, and the (MY
H)RC, of the Rabbis, and the SPERMATA of Galatians iii. 15; it
does not denote the successive generations, but contemporaries,
the contemporaneous individuals of one and the same generation.
From words we are brought back to things again by noting that the
age of the word depends in many cases on the introduction of the
thing. The name BTR in the Song of Songs, for example,
presupposes the cultivation of the malobathron in Syria and
Palestine. The Priestly Code enumerates colours, stuffs,
goldsmiths' work and jewels, which nowhere occur in the older
literature: along with the Book of Ezekiel it is the principal
quarry in the Old Testament for the history of art; and this is
the less likely to be due to chance, as the geographical horizon
of the two works is also the same. There is also some contact in
this respect, though to a less degree, between the Priestly Code
and Isaiah xl.-lxvi., and this must doubtless receive a historical
explanation in the circumstances of the Babylonian age. /l/
-- Footnote
1. On Canticles cf. Schuerer's Theol. Lit. Z., 1879, p. 31. It
also, by the names of plants and similar details mentioned in it,
is an important source for the history of external civilisation.
In Isaiah liv. 11, read with the Septuagint NPK: instead of the
meaningless PWK:, and )DNYK instead of )BNYK.
-- Footnote