Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Wiener - Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism (1909)
Wiener - Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism (1909)
Wiener - Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism (1909)
*:
A.
MJi'AI'
BY THE SAME
AUTHOR
STUDIES IN BIBLICAL
BY
LAW
HAROLD
succeeded well.
there
He
has done
fog.
was overmuch
all
among
students of the
much to clear the atmosphere where The work deserves to be well known older part of God's Word."Review and
Expositor.
" It is bold and refreshing .... our writer goes over ground trodden nearly two thousand years ago by the sages of the Mishuah but he strikes out his own line and stands forth much more logical than the old Pharisaic doctors." 2Vew York Evening Post
;
"There is no doubt that in this examination of the Biblical jural laws Mr. Wiener has opened up a new and valuable source of information as to the dates of the various books of the Pentateuch."
Academy.
" The method employed is an inboth novel and interesting genious and skillful application of the principles of legal interpretation to texts in apparent connkV Harvard Laic Review.
" In the simplest and quietest way, though with a very firm grasp of the subject, the author shows the impossibilities, and in
some cases the real absurdities, of certain contentions of modern criticism; and in our judgment he clearly convicts the writers referred to of sacrificing reality and common-sense to matters of We recommend this volume to the careful philological theory. attention of our readers." Churchman (London).
. .
is
Essays in
Pentateuchal Criticism
BY
HAROLD
Author oj
OF LINCOLN'S
BARRISTER-AT-LAW
"STUDIES IN BIBLICAL
LAW"
OBERLIN, OHIO
TO
MY MOTHER
PREFACE
The
chapters of this book have already appeared as articles
in the Bihliothcca
The
title
first
five
" Essays in
the sixth
was written
as a sequel to
in the present
volume.
few
slips
to the
may,
tion represented
erally held in
First,
by
this
volume
differs
two fundamental
is
respects.
there
cism.
many
centuries
all
depended on a MS.
must be
to use
the
actually wrote.
The
which
it
would be
search.
difficult to find
book of Genesis.
As
is
shown
Preface.
mous number
quite unre-
The
publication of this
Times (May,
July,
September,
1909).
At
ciples of
moment of writing it would seem that the disAstruc can make no reply to the notes in the July
the
issue?,
and September
in
is "
unchallenged.
at
me
that
Genesis tend
same
direction.
It is significant
that Dr.
in
the
Book
2,
dated August
it.
It
may
new knowledge.
is
The
driven
home by
dence
other investigations.
number of further
instances
evi-
where a textual
is
on the extant
will
able
to
dispose of
century-old ^difficulties
be
it
found
in this
I
volume (see
Since
was written
inquiries
which reaffirm
crit-
hope to continue
my
examination of the
case in future
else-
where.
So
far as
have gone,
more favorable
to a
difficulties of the
Preface.
xi
MS.
text that
assiduously copied.
work must be a
impartiality and
plied.
The second
I
I
great differentia of
first
my
position
lies in
the view
take of the
principles of
all
scholarship.
For example,
ful
Is
it
own
world-wide acceptance?
mound and a house should have found The ordinary higher critic and the
would answer
in
the
negative.
The
critic
to require an
as
suggesting an idea that from his point of view was too good
to be true.
Yet
if
book
the
it
criticizes,
Here,
again,
know from
when pressed
present discus-
no reply
but, so far as I
am
aware,
my
points.
that this
book owes
ment of
his University
and
his
Church, Professor A.
Van
Hoonacker of Louvain.
the lines of
The
my
xii
Preface.
it
me
own.
to conclusions differ-
more or
less materially
from
his
HAROLD
9 Old Squake, Lincoln's Inn, W. C. 29 October, 1909.
M.
WIENER.
CONTENTS
PAGE
Pbeface
ix
I
Chapteb
Introductory
The
Chapter
"
Clue
"
to
the
"
Documents
"
....
4
57 57 60 64 66 70 72
II
Egypt or Goshen The Story of Moses Moses and Aaron or Moses The Ministry of the Sanctuary The Rod The Plagues
The
Chapter
78
82 82 90
III
The Cloud The Glory The Position of the Ark The Tent of Meeting The Analysis of the Narrative Exodus xn
Chapter IV
90 93
xiii.-Numbers
102 114
....
.
114 138
143 KoRAH, Dathan, and Abiram 146 The Balaam Narrative The Other Alleged Discrepancies in Narrative between 147 Deuteronomy and Exodus-Numbers
.
.
xiv
Contents.
PACK
Chapter V The Numbers of the Israelites The War with Midian Conclusion
.
. .
155 155
169
171
175
Index Index
I.
(Texts)
(Subjects)
227
II.
285
Sketch Map of the Region of the Forty Years' Wan.115 dering OF the Children of Israel
.
. .
ERRATA
Page Page
8,
and
line
of the
footnote,
for pronoun,
preposition.
ESSAYS
IN
PENTATEUCHAL
CRITICISM
ESSAYS
IN
PENTATEUCHAL
CHAPTER
I.
CRITICISM.
It
sis
is
at present
current in
many
theological
beyond
all
possibility of
doubt.
the
many
is
making an accurate statement on any subject that has a bearing on their main hypothesis. Indeed, if accuracy, care, thoroughness, impartiality, be essential elements in scholarship
shall find
much
Let there be no
further
from our
thoughts than to suggest that these writers have any consciousness of their
are
all
own
deficiencies.
On
cellence of the
their
friends.
They honestly
Essays
in
Pentatenchal Criticism.
differ
scholars,
either
Windfacts,
As
own
filled
to realize
is
possible.
them,
we have found on
that an
occasions
when we have
tested their
work
overwhelming majority of
their statements
on
mind the
opinions to the
If
we be
whelming majority
made by
the
can be no
to
difficulty
home
We
have on many
way.
It is the object
primarily
main
difficulties alleged in
is
based
on those
assertions.
To
this
commonly
1
called the
For an account of some Princeton Theological Review, October, 1907, pp. GIO f. = The Ilexateuch according to the Revised Version. Arranged Historin its Constituent Documents by Members of the Society of
Essays
in
Pcntatenchal Criticism.
any other English work represents the position of the Wellhaiisen school in regard to the Pentateuch, the various topics raised in
its
notes
oni
We
shall
and we
ly the
shall
International
Commentary by Dr. George Buchanan Gray and the commentary on Deuteronomy in the same series from the pen
Critical
The arrangement
It is
of the sub-
by convenience.
not practi-
commentary, as a
but
we hope
To make
who
There were
in existence at
some time
must be conceived
work
redactor
into
its
component elements.
now
of one
document and
for his
now
ical
was unnecessary
Theology, Oxford. Edited ... by J. Estliii Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby. 2 vols. London, New York, and Bombay: Longmans, Green & Co. 1900. Mr. Carpenter writes the Introduction and Notes. A second edition of the Introduction (but without the text) has appeared under the name of " The Composition of the Hexateuch " (1902), and will be referred to where necessary.
4
Essays
Pentateuchal Criticism.
in
(D).
JED,
and
Deuteronomic
gave sundry
They
(P),
till
is
a priestly document
of
it
which
composite.
it
The bulk
is
of exilic or post-
the
Law
into
of Holiness,
known
the
as
or V^.
redactor writing
(RP) combined
JED
with
(substantially)
Each
the
of these
of a
main documents
school,
strata.
is
J,
E, D, and P, being
itself
work
it
rests
on alleged
dis-
first
four books,
we
start
we
substitute
Lord
"
the
dis-
Tetragrammaton, a
free use of
which
is
regarded with
"
DOCUMENTS."
The
may
be said
to lie in
Ex
vi
2-8.
Two
here definitely asserted. In revealing himself as the Ix)rd, God affirms that he had not been known by that name to tlie forefathers of Israel; but he had appeared to them as El Shaddai. On the basis of these words it would be reasonable to look for traces in Genesis
Essays
in
Pentaicuchal Criticism.
tlie patriarchs under the title El Shadand their discovery would afford a presumption that they belonged to the same document. On the other hand the occurrence of similar manifestations in the character of the Lord would directly contradict the express words of the text, and could not be ascribed to the same author. The distinction which Astruc adopted has thus the direct sanction of the Pentateuch itself, and its immediate application is simple and easy. Does the book of Genesis contain revelations of God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as EI Shaddai? To Abraham and Jacob, certainly I am El Shaddai Gen xvii 1 and XXXV 11 but the corresponding announcement to Isaac is missing. Mingled with these, however, are other passages of a different nature, such as the divine utterance to Abram xv 7 I am the Lord
of divine manifestations to
dai,
'
'
'
that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees or to Jacob xxviii 13 'I am the Lord, the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac' Side by side with these stand many others describing the recognition of the Lord by the patriarchs and their contemiX)raries.
' ;
Between Bethel and Ai Abram builded an altar unto the Lord, and called upon the name of the Lord' xii 8 cp xiii 4, 18 xxi 33. To the king of Sodom Abram declared that he had sworn to the Lord to take none of the goods recovered from the Mesopotamian invaders xiv 22. Sarai complained to her husband, 'the Lord hath restrained me from bearing xvi 2. When the mysterious visitor rebukes her for her incredulity, he asks Is anything too hard for the Lord?' xviii 14. Lot is warned by the men whom he has entertained, the Lord hath sent us to destroy this place xix 13. But
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
accumulate further instances. The name is known beyond the confines of Canaan. The man in search of a bride for his master's son is welcomed with it at the city of Nahor by Laban, Come in, thou blessed of the Lord sxiv 31. And it is of such ancient use that it can be said of the family of Adam, then began men to call upon the name of the Lord iv 26. But unless the
it
is
not needful
to
'
'
'
'
'
'
writer of
Ex
vi 2 contradicts himself,
not one of these passages can (Mr. Carpenter adds a footnote: "It
does not, however, follow that he would never have employed the name in narrative.") (Oxford Hexateuch, vol. i. pp. 33 f.)
is
now well-known
J,
E, and P.
critics
had succeeded
in
documents
ly
consistent-
used to the
Tetragrammaton, while
Essays
in the third
in
PentatcnciiaJ Criticism.
was used.
We
and
drawing
this inference, at
relates to J,
we must
tion of
what the
On
'
page 98 of
his first
volume
enters
Abraham
name
the
Lord
'
is
usually limited
Gen xxvi 28
xxxix
On
are
we
language of
'
with
Elohim
xliii 23,
which
is
no longer dramatic-
appropriate as in
strangers, and
may
one
of the redactors
whom we
of
the
meet] cp
as follows
^
21 note."
:
The
material portion
the
that
note
'
is
"
There
remains
to be
stories
use
of
name
a
Elohim.'
This
appears
due
have
passed
[i.e.
redactor].
23."-
The
It
name
'the
Lord
'
might have
been expected
29
On
is
which ments
"
The occurrence
of the
name
Elohim
'
in 5
and 11
at first
from E.
name (cp
who
1
xliii
Now
'
the
is
])lain
meaning of
Elohim
not
ill
:i
iinnie
but
let
that
Mt
ot'cur.s
xlix. IS,
to a
rodaolir.
Essays
tions
is
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
as follows
is
con-
ceivable.
Tetragrammaton
them
the
Tetragrammaton
prefer.
The
latter is
would
is
The reason
(or perhaps
It is
prompts them
not
difficult to discern.
one
of the
guage
throughout uniform,
rigid, mechanical.
it
If J
can use
diffi-
becomes very
who
has no-
ticed a
ally
(characteristicefforts to
makes desperate
Exodus
breaks
down
it
completely under
examination.
ferent tests.
1.
We
propose to submit
which
of
shall
God and
(1)
conform
uniform
practice.
sages of
and
xxi. lb).
(2)
to
E:
in four pas-
sages of
E
As
(Gen. xv.
is
:
In
all
these
cases recourse
(
to J
lines of
argu-
ment.
Essays
(a)
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
as to the use of the
The discrepancy
critical
Tetragrammaton
which the
though on a smaller
(according to J)
the birth of
it
was known.
His statement
is
that after
to call
Lord (Gen.
26).
is
mouth of Eve,
the grandmother
She
is
made
to
say,
" I
have gotten a
man
(iv. 1).
it
How
is this
possible
on the
critical
theory?
Why
is
con-
{b)
As
many
passages,
We
iii.
1, 3,
iv,
25
(contrast
1)
vii.
ix.
where the
critical
Name
;
theory)
10,
11
;
xxxix. 9
1.
xHii.
23,
xlviii.
15 (twice)
is
24.
We
reduced to
phenomena they
is
present.
in the
An
to be
found
It is
1-ii. 3,
or
xi. 1-9,
;
or xiv.
is
may
it
quite
The following
Essays
in
Fentateuchal Criticism.
in xvi. the use of the
or determining criterion
in verse 2
Tetragrammaton
in xix., verse 29
is
torn from
a J chapter in which
the last verse
is
perfectly, to be given to
all
in xx.
the rest of
assigned to
Tetragrammaton
in 11).
An
compelled to scoop
"
my God
What man-
ner of
man was
this redactor
who
constructed a narrative on
E;
work
re-
However, he
is
wrenched
During the
Tetragrammaton occurs
in Genesis only
It
must be
re-
membered
cases
further that
we have
ing criterion
(e.g. the
It will
where
it
is
assignment of
felt
be
The
is
10
Essays
in
Pentatcnchal Criticism.
Unfortunately somewhat
it
needed to make
intelligible
but in
We
shall
show
is
in
many
in-
sometimes
The
tainly
oldest biblical
Hebrew AISS.
is
cer-
known do
Christian era.-
They
one
official
text.
Our
attention
was
first
drawn
by a notice of a paper by Dr. H. A. Redpath. After worliing at the subject, we wrote and asked an eminent disciple of Astruc and Wellhausen, how he dealt with the matter. In reply he referred us to an article by Dr. Johannes Dahse, entitled " Textkritische Bedenken segen den Ausgangspunkt der heutigen Pentateuchkritik," in the Archiv fiir Religionswisseuschaft, 1903, pp. 305-310, attacking the Wellhausen theory on the ground of the evidence of the Aversions. We have since asked another eminent critic whether any answer has been put forward to Dr. Dahse, and he tells us that so far as he knows this has not been done. Our views have not been materially affected by Dr. Dahse's work, and it does not appear that Dr. Redpath had ever seen or heai'd of his paper. We have now read Dr. Redpath's paper, which will be found on pages 2SG-301 of the American Journal of Theologj-. vol. viii. (1904), under the title "A New Theory as to the Use of the Divine Names in the Pentateuch," and we find that our views differ very largely from his but this does not detract from our debt to his work for giving us the
this connection
;
first
We
desire to
Rossi pointed out, in reply to Asti'uc, that many instances of changes of the Tetragranuuaton into Elohim are found in the MSS. (see his note on Genesis vii. 1, Variae
add
back as 1784,
De
i.
p. 10).
Apart from the Xash papyrus, which contains only two short passages. There is a Pentateuch of the year G04 (see Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary,
p.
017b).
Essays
in
Pentnteuchal Criticism.
11
(commonly
tradition)
called Massoretes,
lived at
who
by
They took
steps
as
known
to them,
varishall
we
Textual
criti-
The
is
as follows
At
Hebrew Pentateuch.
They seem
to
have edited
it,
alterations that
were de-
views or
to
else to
etc.
Subject
MS.
tradition, they
There
is
no evidence
that
their
original
MS. was
better
as
may
free
from
a
some of the
later
Hence
Septuagint
is
facile
princcps.
It
12
large
retic
Essays
in Peiitatcnclml Criticism.
number of readings
text,
and
is
regarded on
sides as the
textual criticism.
The
in
im-
it
must be remembered
for textual criticism
universally accepted by
modern comFor
in-
in the other
1,
Samuel
the
ii.
MSS. and
my
accepted by modern
It
would be
it
will
be sufficient to
its
parallels in
It is
who
substitutes
him
and
in the earlier
vii.
1,
Kings
xii.
22 with 2 Chron.
xi. 2).
No
doubt
many
in-
some
cases
it
Name
has
Hebrew
text, as in the
passage just
to sup-
from
Samuel
ii.
1,
Coming now
higher
to the Pentateuch,
it
is
critics fully
when
it
it
suits
their
con-
venience.
pp.
;310f.)
and
^Ir.
Carpenter (Ilexateuch.
pp.
109,
220, etc.))
One
of the strangest of
many
strange phenomena
is
in the critical
to be
found
in the
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
13
Hebrew
text
and textual
criticism, of
knowledge
For example,
in his
in vii. 9 the
Targum
Lord
God."
He
know
it
that one
Hebrew
previous
is
MS.
and that
Septuagintal
support.
We
believe
that
only
in the
note on
ii.
4c,
Lord God
"
down
to
viii.
21
and even
matter.
in ix. 12.
This
is
work
in this
is
How
will
we
through the occurrence of the double phrase " Lord God ")
an enormous proportion of the occurrences of both Elohim
vii. 9.
in
Either
it
should be practised
it
is
not, in
which
alone altogether.
in
Now
there
is
Does the
Hebrew?
version, or
If
it
more
literal
obvious that
text.
it
will be of
this
is
no value for
not the case
shall
:
Hebrew
That
we
have to
is
Mr. Carpenter probably means the Targum of " Jonathan," as Onkelos habitually paraphrases. See, e.g., Genesis i., where it has
"I""
throughout.
14
Essays
(1)
in
Pcntatcuchal Criticism.
number
is
MSS.
or from the
we
De
Hebrew
j\ISS.
We
bridge Septuagint.
It will
We
be
shall
have
make
ties at
it
will
sufficient to
notice that there are variations, and that sometimes a Septuagintal reading that has
little
Greek authority
is
supported by a
relied
Hebrew MS.
Kittel's Biblia
less
As we do
we have
on
this, as also
of the
important Versions.
Rossi chronicles the following variants
:
De
Reference.
Essavs
ill
Fciitatciichal Criticism.
15
Reference.
16
Essays
1,
in
Pentatcuchal Criticism.
"
iv.
was the
reading- of
"
(i.e.
as " the
Hebrew
probably an
unknown
God," and
translator or
commentator
-
In
36 the
this is
"
supported by a note
"
had
this reading."
Hebrew
"
both our
Now
known
was
supported in
this,
Symlittle
Of
this scholar
very
his translation
treme
ton at
and a refusal
to translate the
He
Name
itself,
Greek but
at
in the old
Hebrew
is is
character.
Hence on
this point
fore him.
Judaism
close
extremely valua-
Christian era.
it
is
where they
differ
from the
and
this
It is
it
may
'^
be asserted that in
ITexapla, p. Ixxvii.
all
is
to be
'Field,
Ixxxii.
^
loc.
Essays
preferred.
in
Pcntateuchal Criticism.
17
hesitate to invoke a
away
when
their theory
:
demands
it,
the
rather strange
but consistency
is
as
little
from
this
Therefore
we propose
in
meet
argument by pointing
to
Massoretic text.
In Genesis
iv. 1,
" I
have gotten a
iv.
man
with
the
Lord
"
is
impossible, in view of
2G.
of the
LXX,
the
"
Hexapla attributing
to " the
Hebrew
"
LXX
clearly preferable. It
notice-
is
the
Tetragrammaton
that has
for
some
Hebrew
another example of
It is certain that
the
Tetragrammaton, for
Ishma-3'a/i.
Israc/
the
of the type of
these,
MS. which
has preserved
this,
by the Luciis
LXX
certainly
LXX,
Syriac,
Aquila, and
Symmachus,
LXX
is
at
^The pronoun
discussion.
is
18
Essays
in
Pcntatcnchal Criticism.
at least
On
is
one instance
place.
in
which
In Gene-
15 the best
MS.
of the
LXX has
preserved a reading
text.
Jacob gives a
triple descrip-
of
Him whom
Of
is
God
is
angel.
But Codex
of the Septua-
"the Lord"
(i.e.
probably not
the
lord,
which
is
And
this
is
clearly right.
class of cases in
Another
af-
to be preferred
is
its
variant
of such a
It is
withwill
exist people
who
MS.
tradition such
notes are apt to get incorporated with the text in later copies
of the book.
Hence
there
is
In Genesis xiv. 22
it is
more probable
that the
that the
Tetragrammaton
is
the addition of
all
So
in xv. 2,
grammaton (represented by
In xxxi. 42, "
the
God
of the R.V.)
omitted
MSS.
of the Septuagint.
God
of
my
father
LXX,
Essays
"
in
Pcntateuchal Criticism.
19
in xxxi. 53
God
of
my
father the
God
of
Abraham
So
"
and
" the
God
is
original
LXX,
iginal
an unmistakable gloss.
iii.
the
word
"
God
" in
Exodus
1,
which
is
known
to
in the or-
Septuagintal text.
interpreters.
This
Lastly,
trouble to
number of considerations
is,
combine
" I
to
show
am
the
God
of
Abraham
this
thy father,"
etc.
but, as
we
shall
we omit
The above
in
show
though they
It
in
which
this has
happened.
has
number of
demon-
strably inferior.
But
nil
and
to the
sound
indecisive.
In
"
and
many
cases.
The same
is
Genesis.
the one
Many
word
and
in the great
majority of
cases
where variants
is
one reading
necessary
only
to
show
that
these
variants
are
extraordinarily
numerous
to cut
away
documentary
inal
critics.
If
God
all
cannot be argued
Massoretic text
these
words
the
as to authorship.
20
Essays
in Pcntatcuclial Criticism.
is
order to use
;
it
critically
some sketch of
history
is
neces-
sary
for
its
of ascertaining
is
true readings
i?
frequently as difficult as
it
fascinating.
It
is
known
Christian world
Septuagint,
respectively.
prepared
If
and Origen
in
we had
would
many
cases
fre-
where they
more
This
is
the
more
owing
to the
known
critical
of the editors.
He observed that there were many instances in which the MSS. of the Septuagint differed from the accepted Hebrew text of his day. He concluded that in all such cases
Hebrew was
right
the
But the
won
in the
Christian world
was so strong
tion.
that
it
new
transla-
correction.
The
result
was
his
famous Hexapla.
The bulk
of the
work was
in six
:
columns
One gave
the
Hebrew
text in
Hebrew
characters
in
the second
Hebrew
Greek characters
those of Aquila,
*
Symmachus,
In the case of the work of Origen, the edition in common use was prepared by Eusebius and Pamphilus on the basis of the Hexapla.
Essays
Septuagint.
in
Pcntatcuchal Criticism.
21
An
ment of the
missing-
latter.
that
in the
;
words were
Hebrew, he
but to
make
For example,
"
in Genesis
ii.
4 he found
Hebrew had
In his
LXX
"
had only
" God."
LXX
Lord God,"
This
would be understood by
the
'
his readers to
is,
mean
The reading of
LXX
as found by Origen
God
'
but the
Hebrew has
the
word
'
Lord
LXX."
the
LXX
Hebrew he
LXX.
ultimate result of these labors
The
Where
Origen's
was
The
three recensions
those
A
MS.
Origen
(i.e.
did not
result is
texts.
remain absolutely
The
that
all
our extant
MSS.
represent
more or
less
mixed
They frequently
dififer
greatly
among
a task that
it
is
Moreover
is
not
We
have been
22
entitles
Essays
it
in
Pcnfatcuchal Criticism.
to
criti-
and we think
it
represents a re-
At-
p and
t.
its
MS.
support.
Possibly
it
be
found that
candidates.
it
represents
it
If
Thus
it
is
necessary to
their merits.
in this task.
variants,
We
are,
The view
Hebrew
was nec-
the
Masfrom
Accordingly
it
will be
which
differs
is
more
likely to
Of
LXX
text
;
we have
the
further
question,
whether
but that
is
subsequent to the
The
(1)
we have
to
work are
as follows
ings of the
Hexapla
in particular passages
and sometimes
Origen's
critical signs
addi-
material
larger
Cambridge
Septuagint.
(2)
It
was observed
that
certain
readings
which were
known from
Essays
in
Pcntatcuchal Criticism.
33
MSS.
that these
MSS.
anic text in a
more or
less
volume
but that of
course covers the books that are important for our present pur-
The
is
MSS. and
makes
it
It is plain
tains
the readings of
all)
of
God
He
who
instances,
but
at fault?
(3)
^
Gottingen, 1883.
in Genesis,
Librorum Veteris Testameuti Canonicorum Pars Prior Graece, Dahse has lately argued that the MSS. regarded as Lucianic are not in fact the best representatives of Lucian's work
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (1908), vol. xxviii. p. 19). The readings hereafter quoted are incompatible with the latter conten-
Dahse's reasoning appears to us extremely weak, and his main ground for arguing that a different group of MSS. (the f, i, r AE In of the Cambridge Septuagint) represents Lucian is a note the margin of a MS. referring to a reading in xix 2. He first changes this to AE, and then interprets it as Lucian's edition (Aou/ctat-ou Ek5oo-/s). That is probably right but he has overlooked the fact that Lagarde has this reading as the result of an examination of the Lucianic MSS. Thus his only important evidence
tion.
;
Lucianic is not a test that excludes the f, i, r is bulk of the MSS. on which Lagarde relied. Such a reading as that in Gen. xvi. 11 proves beyond a peradventure that Lagarde's MSS.
that the group
have preserved a distinct and most valuable version where f, i, r are at fault. Moreover, Lagarde appears to have used evidence for his edition that has not been employed by Dahse.
24
censions,
Essays
in
Pentatenchal Criticism.
we have
a larg-e
translations
from
the
LXX. By
LXX
for those
who
the larger
edition, of which,
have appeared. 1
all
the uncials,
gives the
who
quote the
LXX,
but these
be
considered.
is
(In
a
view
statement
that
shall
the
Ethiopic Version
generally
we
not
quote
this.)
reports
some additional
readings of other
but,
MSS.
as this
reputation
for
some
reserve.
After
this
lengthy introduction
it is
possible to arrive at
some
principles
Septuagintal
material.
(1)
Where
in
all
agreed
"
"
Hebrew Hebrew
"
God
"
or
Lord God," or
reading "
God
" for a
"
Lord
" or
LXX.
inference
is
God.")
(2)
Where
some of the
Hebrew
LXX.
1906. Part
ii.
by Alan England Brooke and i. Genesis, Cambridge, Exodus and Leviticus, Cambridge, 1909.
in Greek, edited
I,
Essays
(3)
in
Pentatcuchal
Criticisvi.
25
Where
it
it
is
definitely
known
that
text to bring
all
or most of our
Where Lucian
for a
God
" for a
Hebrew
"
Lord
"
or "
inal
Lord ""
Hebrew
;
God,"
an orig-
Hebrew
variant
of the
LXX.
will
Other canons
present
for the
we
a simple manner.
In
we
readings in Genesis
ii.-iii.
available.
2G
Essays
hi
PentateucJial Criticism.
o
<
"
Essays
hi
Pcntatcuchal Criticism.
instructive.
37
this
supported by
all
our authorities.
God
" alone,
and he added
"
Lord
" to bring
all
it
into conformity
with the
Hebrew.
In one instance
all
vanished from
in the
On
right,
In
all five,
No
definite rule
can be laid
It
down
us
we must compare
all
But
it
may
be asked.
What do
Would
facts be considered
S.
R. Driver, a volume
dated 1890.
On
pages Hi
f.
found
"
great importance in the embodies renderings, not found in other MSS. of the LXX, which presuppose a Hebrew original self-evidently superior in the passages concerned to the existing Massoretic text. Whether these renderings were derived by him from MSS. of the LXX of which all other traces have disappeared, or whether they were based directly upon Hebrew MSS. which had preserved the genuine reading intact, whether in other words they were derived mediately or immediately from the Hebrew, is a matter of subordinate moment the fact remains that Lucian's recension contains elements resting ultimately upon Hebrew sources which enable us to correct, with absolute certainty, corrupt passages of the Massoretic text. The full gain from this quarter is in all probability not yet exhausted. Let him who would himself investigate and advance learning, by the side of the other Ancient Verto Lucian's
is
work
its
It
'
28
sions,
pla,
Essays
in
Pcntatcnchal Criticism.
accustom himself above all things to the use of Field's Hexaand Lagarde's edition of the Recension of Lucian ( Klostermann)."
'
There
also
passes,
S.
R. Driver, a
volume
entitled "
The Book
first
i.e.
long after
to
ii. 4 we on " Lord God." Has any attempt been made, either
Naturally
when we come
here or in any other passage where they throw light on the appellations of
Lucian
in
ii.
No.
we
read, " It
is
4b-iii.
that
of
ii.
Would
if
LXX
God
"
compiler
is
which the
"
God
" of the
Hebrew
text
assigned to the
compiler, and
it
we
was an
when
1-iii
24 was regarded
throughout."
Klostermann
is
Books of Samuel,"
"
above
all
Why
The evidence
ii.
and
iii.
where
God
"
is
as follows:
Essays
in
Pentatenchal Cnticism.
29
ii^^
!:^i
1^1
^1
-s-^
3il
is*is|ii::ss.|.|||.s||i||.s
-;
=^|
!5
00
.
(m
02
^: Tt<
.9
Si
ii
<^0
Essays
in
Pentatcuchal Criticism.
often n alone preserves
superior to that of
doubt about
list
8 2.
On
pages
SI-;}.")
we
give a select
:
of variant readings
from Genesis
iv.
onwards
in the great
majority of the
this
table the
LXX
originally
had a read-
But there
in
We
known
to have been
made by
have also
in all
our authorities.
We
laid
show
that
down
as
what
always possible
that one or
more MSS.
God
"
"
is
evidently a
"'
God."
earlier
sometimes one
ness
is
reprecir-
In these
may
be
little
Septuagintal authority
Hebrew
variant.
A
text.
to varying
a conflate
He-
brew
Essa ys
in
31
32
Essays
in Peiifateuchal Criticism.
Essays
in Pentatetichal Criticism.
33
?!!
1:11
^t||i:,:|.
3"i^s^..r
^. III
-111
ii^li-:r^-^^-
^-;i|gi2i^g|isi:.-g^.iggg^ii:
>"^ ^
3^
o p
-c
O O
5h
1^^
H S H
5
a -c
g!
OOOO
2>2i
OOO
9 M
S I M ^ ^ SToS
s
es
2^2^
gj-,.^
00
34
Essays
in
Pcntatcnchal Criticism.
35
36
Essays
in the
in Pentateiichal Criticism.
been performed
Hebrew
originals
LXX
was
translated.
The
following- table
Essays
in
Pcntateuchal Criticism.
37
Refeeence.
Gen.
Massobetic
Text.
Septuagintal Evidence.
vii. 16.
God.
IMS.
LOBD.
uncial (E) and about 13 cursives, Loed God; 2 uncials (D, M), Bohairic, with some Sahidic support, LOED,
1 1
Gen. XV.
2.
loivl
God.
3MSS.
LoBD God; 1 MS. God.
cursive
(a),
Sahidic,
Tetragrammaton
only.
for
Much
only.
authority
lord
Gen. XV.
8.
Lord God.
3 MSS.'
LoBD God;
God; 2
lord,
cur-
God,
God.
God.
LOBD.
MS. LOBD.
God;
Gen.
xvlii. 33.
Loed
1 M'S. omits. 1
1 cursive
(cj omits.
God
1.
MS. LOBD,
Gen. xxviii.
4.
God.
Sam. LoBD.
2".
(E), God.
cursive
Gen. XXX.
22.
God
2
1
1
MSS.
MS. omits.
omit.
omit;
Gen. XXXV.
Gen. XXXV.
9.
God
God.
1.
10.
MS. God
LOBD.
1
MS.
omits.
to chance,
and
in
text without any reason for supposing that the variant origi-
is
Hebrew
*See Kennicott, ad loo.; also his addenda on page 119. 'It may be remarked that there are also variants evidenced by the Samaritan, the Syriac, or a Hebrew source in cases where the LXX supports the Massoretic text, e.g. xxii. 15 (Rje), M. T. Loed, Syr. God; xxxi. 7 (E) M. T. God, Sam. Loed; 9 (E) M. T. God, Sam.
38
Essavs
hi
Pcntateuchal Criticism.
"
Lord God,"
two He-
Lord
"
owing
guages, they
that the
may sometimes be due to dittography.^ We think tables we have already printed are amply sufficient to
God;
make
it
quite clear
how
precarious,
we propose
any consecritics
The higher
is
doubt
is
Accord-
ingly
flood.
we begin with
9-xi. 17
the
we
story of the
MS.
first.
Essavs
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
39
Refebence.
Gen.
vii. 1.
SOUBCE.
Massobetic
Text.
LOBD.
Septuagint.
LoBD God; 2 cursives and some MSS. of the Armenian, God; 1 cursive, Lobd
(as stated before, there
is
Gen.
vii. 5.
LOED.
Samaritan, Syriac, and Hebrew evidence for God). LoBD God 1 cursive, God 1 cursive and the Sahidic,
;
;
LOED.
Gen.
vii. 9.
God.
Gen.
vii.
16a.
God.
God;
uncial
and about
some evidence from the Sahidic, Loed (as already stated there is Hebrew evidence for Loed).
Gen.
vii.
16b.
LOBD.
Loed God;
Loed God.
1 uncial,
God;
Bohairic, Lobd.
Gen. Gen.
viii. 15.
viii. 20.
God.
LOBD.
2 cursives (f, n) Sahidic, Lobd God; uncial and about 14 cursives, Loed.
;
God
1
and
Gen.
viii.
21a.
God; Origen obeIt is omitted lized God. by 1 uncial and about 5 cursives.
Loed
LOBD.
Gen.
viii.
21b.
Gen. Gen.
ix. 1.
God. God.
ix. 8.
God; Sahidic, God. found Loed God and obelized God. God; 2 cursives and the Sahidic, Loed God. God; 1 uncial, about 4 cursives, Armenian and Saone of hidic, Lobd God
Ix)BD
Origen
these cursives
ally
(f)
origin-
Gen.
Gen.
ix. 12.
God. God.
ix. 17.
God
ian
uncial,
about
cursives,
MSS.
cursive, Loed.
40
Essays
in Pentateuchal Criticism.
The
Divine appellation.
The
Essays
in
Pentatcnchal Criticism.
41
proved that
in
in
text
is
demonstrably
/^^
wrong, and
certain.^
4.
,y
of the Pentateuch
What
Pentateuch
The answer
can only be the Samaritan Pentateuch, supported by the Massoretic recension of the
tion
Peshitto or Vulgate.
authorities
all
vi.
3) these
tenth-century Karaite
MS.^
It
differs
reading only
in
a single
letter.
At
first
appears to
but
we
shall
see that
when
the
comparative method
to
is
be
enormous.
For
was known,"
like the
it
has, Tiynin
"
even more
Massoretic text
in the
in the old
Hebrew than
at
square
LXX,
any
rate, presents
an abso7
The enormous number of variations suggests that Genesis must have been current in more than one form. Either owing to some palaeographical peculiarity, or some religious or other theory, or through some other cause, the Divine appellations varied. A number of ancient variants are due to the fact that was often regarded as an abbreviation for the Tetragrammaton. We quote the fol" There is no doubt, I think, that before lowing from Dr. Redpath the time when so much attention was directed to the accuracy, letter for letter, of the Hebrew canonical Scriptures, a considerable amount of abbreviation of words was used in their reproduction.
^
:
There are frequent indications of this in the LXX; but I need not go into that now. What more concerns us, however, is the fact that the Hebrew fragments of Ecclesiasticus show that two or three forms of abbreviation were used for the Tetragrammaton and, if
;
p. 17.
42
Essays
xxviii. 13)
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
to a patriarch
and
Tetragrammaton
self-revelation the
The form
ing
*'
of the
Hebrew
sentence
is
so much so that
My Name "
My Name "
I
to
by
was not
known."
much
authority involving
so slight a departure
serves
up under the
at
any
rate in part
on preexisting sources,
invented
all
J,
and
Nobody
in his right
down and
Genesis.
the statements
made
in
the book of
He
it is
even possible
some
glosses
casionally)
Mosaic
S
date.
We
may
take, as
an example, Genesis
x. 19,
where
\J
were used for the name Elohim, it is easy to see liow constantly confusion might arise between the two names, in badly written or partly perished codices" (American Journal of Theology, vol. viii. p. 293). The duplicate psalms and the variations between Kings and Chronicles afford parallels for varia-
of abbreviation
It
may
the entire absence of evidence, the reading of the Massoretic text should be preferred in most cases, other things being equal, the pre-
sumption being that the Jewish view, which ultimately prevailed, the whole sounder than any which did not ultimately prevail. It may also be added that the difficulty of forming an opinion is due to the supreme unimportance of the subject. The difference between the two appellations so seldom makes any appreciable difference to
was on
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
43
is
goest toward
boiim."
The places named were destroyed in Abraham's lifetime. It follows that this passage must have been originally composed before the catastrophe narrated in Gen. xix. Mr. Carpenter attributes it, how ever, to a late stratum of " J " making it subsequent to xiii 10, which was obviously composed aiter the destruction of Sodom. Dr. Driver assigns the passage to J and writes " Nor does the language of J and E bring us to any more definite conclusion. Both belong to the golden period of Hebrew literature. They resemble the best parts of Judges and Samuel (much of which cannot be greatly later than David's own time) but whether they are actually earlier or later than these, the language and style do not enable us to say. All things considered, both J and E may be assigned with the greatest probability to the early centuries of the monarchy" ("Literature of the Old Testament," sixth edition, pp. 124-125). In other words, Dr. Driver would on " literary " grounds be prepared to accept a date 1,000 years after the age of Abraham as the time of composition of this passage. What precisely is the value of a method which does not permit its ablest and most cautious exponent to arrive at results that are correct to within 1,000 years?
' ' ' ' :
.
p. 95.]
same
tale is told
by the
the
legal evidence in
Genethe
which repeatedly
attests
superior antiquity
of
laws of Exodus-Deuteronomy.^
ix.
For
is
(P)
The
criti-
facts as these.
On
many
when
not
Here
is
And
that
it
came
to pass
sore,
J:
^
two of
See the Churchman (London), January, 1908, pp. 15-23.
44
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
J:
P:
Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, each man his sword, and came upon the and slew all the males.
city
unawares,
And where
by-
away inconvenient
facts.
To sum up
Exodus
vi. 3
lead-
ing to the division of the earlier portions of the Pentateuch into three self-consistent documents, J, E,
and P, of which J
not, breaks
and
P do
down
First,
in fact
be effected.
Secondly, in so far as
effected,
it
postulates a
series of redactors
unintelligible
and inconceivable.
Fourthly, the
vi. 3 is
Exodus
almost
Fifthly, the
" clue"
date,
Mosaic
difificulty
presented by Exodus
As already
to which
an alternative reading,
letter,
I
differ-
according
God
says," I
Isaac,
I
am
the
Lord
and
appeared unto
Abraham, unto
my
re-
Name
many
the
Lord
many
ages, being
embodied
in
numerous
Targum
of Onkelos.
Essays
If
in
Fentateuchal Criticism.
45
now we
is
grammaton
used by
God
in a revelation,
13.
we
The
(1)
Abraham and
uses the
fre-
made
little
or no distinction between
is
God and
it
his angel,
appears in
makes them a
(3)
God
as using the
state-
Name
(3)
is
no contradiction of the
ment of Exodus
Lastly in
xviii.
14
we have
all
Here
MSS.,
This
unite on "
God
ing of the
LXX.
may
be right, but
we
is strictly
in conflict
with Exodus
far as
it
vi.
The
true
(in so
can be
it
might be argued
the
Name,
not of
its
This
is
a point on
at present possible,
and we must
the fact that
as doubtful, bearing in
mind
LXX.
it
and xv.
"
7.
The former
criticism,
case (a)
absolutely clear
Hebrew MS.
doubt that
24
of xxvi.
word
Lord
"
little
originally the
LXX
did too.
The analogy
46
Essays
in
Pentafcuchal Criticism.
the
am
God
of
Abraham
is
thy father."
favor of the
as an
in
shorter text.
known
that
"
Exodus
xxxiii. 19,
"
where the
LXX treated
as one word,
and translated
divided
iiut
this
''3K
On my
\
it
into
Otio "
Lord."
"
I " ends in
arisen
from
",
probably from
ways of writing
without the
\
this
word
in
Thus
final letters,
would be
possible,
it
the
",
as
JX.
Exodus
vi.
3, it
Tetragrammaton
is
not
7.
text reads
Lord
"
and the
bability
one
LXX " God." There is no palasographical proway or another. We have seen that the Tetragramfrom the Massoretic text
it it is
maton has
in
has
done so here.
We
is
and (2)
God
is
Thus
it
God announced
to
Moses
that
He
While
this text is
formally consistent,
it
at first sight
appears
Essays
to
in
Peiitatcuchal Criticism.
47
mean nothing
intelligible.
It is at this
parative historical
method comes
to the rescue,
and enables us
extent.
at
any rate
to
some
we must
it
so far as
which
was
in the first
instance designed.
that
it is
Those who
believe in a
God
will not
doubt
possible for
Him
to give
men new
pose that
He
is
who
left
Egypt.
can
it
be conceived that
He
gave
Enactment
after en-
when
it
receive
is
new
aspect
when considered
more or
the light of
what
known
of other races in a
less primitive
con-
dition.
vious importance
we
proceed to ask:
ideas
known
this;
primitive
which would
comprehending
and (2)
in the Bible.
The very
familiarity of
many
fre-
how
own
to-day.
Take
the
numerous passages
in
which we read of
Name "
at Jerusalem, or
built to his
making
his
Name
pre-
House being
Name. They
48
xxviii. 58
Essays
in
Pentatcuchal Criticism.
we
Name
is
"
as
This
Name may
by
false
an idea that
xviii.
compara-
tively intelligible
but by
Molech (Lev.
down
6 ff.).
In this
10)
in
it
men may
Name
Exo-
dus
thus
xxiii.
:
30
f.
27.
"
Behold,
the place
have prepared.
:
Take heed
not:
is in
voice
provoke him
My Name
view of
its
him."
It
would be impossible
to hold a clearer
name and of
being
is
here revealed.
Isaiah xxx.
little diflFerent
Name
from
far,
in thick rising
is
smoke:
and
his
tongue
as a devouring
as
a term for
God
himself.
this passage,
one thing
clear
in
Here
"
is
between words and things [writes fancies that the link between a name and the person or thing denominated by it is not a mere arbitrary and ideal association, but a real and substantial bond which unites the two in such a way that, for example, magic may be
Unable
commonly
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
49
wrought on a man just as easily through his name as through his hair, his nails or any other material part of his person. In fact, primitive man regards his name as a vital portion g. himself and takes care of it accordingly." (Frazer, Golden Bough (2d ed.) vol.
i.
an inafrom the mere thought or idea of it in the mind, shows itself very fully and clearly in the superstitious beliefs and practices of the untaught man, but its results are by no means confined to such matters. But between our clearness of separation of what is in the mind from what is out of it, and the mental confusion of the lowest savages of
be said [says Dr. Tylor]
effect of
bility to separate, so clearly as
"It
may
we
our
own
day, there
is
a vast interval.
Especially
we may
see, in
the superstitions connected with language, the vast difference between what a name is to the savage and what it is to us, to whom
'words are the counters of wise men and the money of fools.'" B. Tylor, Early History of Mankind (3d ed.) pp. 148 f.)
"
(E.
Barbaric
man
of other
name is a vital part of himself, men and of superhuman beings He further believes that to know
is to put its owner, whether he be deity, ghost, or mortal, power of another, involving risk of harm or destruction to the named. He therefore takes all kinds of precautions to conceal his name, often from his friend, and always from his foe. This belief, and the resulting acts, as will be shown presently, are a part of that general confusion between the objective and the subjective in other words, between names and things or between symbols and realities which is a universal feature of barbaric modes of thought
name
in the
This confusion attributes the qualities of living things to things not living. ... To look for any consistency in barbaric philosophy is to disqualify ourselves for understanding it, and the theories of it which aim at symmetry are their own condemnation." (E. Clodd, Tom-Tit-Tot, pp. 53-55.)^
is
evi-
denced by
all
sorts of superstitions.
The
idea underlying
some
passage.
own names,
p. 140.)
has often
(Op.
cit.,
Numerous
We
Bough
50
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
much
space.
We
therefore Hmit
ourselves for the present to the following extracts from Frazer's "
"
Golden Bough."
is asked his name, he will look at some bystander and ask him to answer. This reluctance arises from an impression they receive when young, that if they repeat their own
'
When an Ojebway
it will prevent their growth, and they will be small in stat... In this last case no scruple seems to be felt about communicating a man's name to strangers, and no ill effects appear to be dreaded as a consequence of divulging it; harm is only done when
names
ure.'
a name is spoken by its owner. Why is this? and why in particular should a man be thought to stunt his growth by uttering his own name? We may conjecture that to savages who act and think thus a person's name only seems to be a part of himself when it is utbreath uttered by the breath of others it has no with him, and no harm can come to him through it. Whereas, so these primitive philosophers may have argued, when a man lets his own name pass his lips, he is parting with a living piece of himself, and if he persists in so reckless a course he must certainly end by dissipating his energy and shattering his consti;
own
vital connection
tution.
"
it,
the fact
is
certain
that
many
savage evinces the strongest reluctance to pronounce his own name, while at the same time he makes no objection at all to other people pronouncing it, and will even invite them to do so for him in order
to satisfy the
curiosity of
an inquisitive stranger.
Thus
.
in
some
parts of Madagascar it is fady or taboo for a person to name, but a slave or attendant will answer for him.
curious inconsistency, as
tribes of
tell his
.
.
own
it may seem to us, is American Indians. Thus we are told that the name of an American Indian is a sacred thing, not to be divulged by the owner himself without due consideration. One may ask a warrior of any tribe to give his name, and the question will meet with either a point-blank refusal or the more diplomatic evasion that he cannot understand what is wanted of him. The moment a friend approaches, the warrior first interrogated will whisper what is wanted, and the friend can tell the name, receiving a reciprocation of the courtesy from the other.'
'
of
This general statement applies, for example, to the Indian tribes Columbia, as to whom it is said that 'one of their strangest prejudices, which appears to pervade all tribes alike, is a dislike to telling their names thus you never get a man's right name from himself; but they will tell each other's names without
British
"
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
51
hesitation.' ... In the whole of the East Indian Archipelago the etiquette is the same. As a general rule no one will utter his own name. To inquire, 'What is your name?' is a very indelicate question in native society."
No Warua
by
to being addressed
He
it
by
i.
all
who
are interested in
(see Golden
vi.
Bough, 2d
ed., vol.
pp. 403
ff.).
In particular Exodus
3 should be
compared
On
who
Name
Old Tes-
summing up
somewhat
differ-
name
power
of a deity.
at the dis-
He
a
name
of the
it.
god puts
its
his
By
god
is
of a god
power
that a
man can
With
hold.^
varying phenomena
we
Possibly no
ent purpose
we have
to note
two
points.
First, a
name
is
con-
an actual part of
is
its
bearer:
(and
it
best expressed by
comparing the
in
relation of the
two
to that of a
man and
is
his
shadow or
some
other way).
of
*
Secondly, there
name him-
Giesebrecht Die Alttestamentliche Schatzung des Gottesnamens und ihre Religionsgeschichtliche Grundlage, Konigsberg, 1901, p. 90.
52
self in
Essays
in
Pcntateuchal Criticism.
answer to the
direct question
by
it.
name,
it
is
held
that he
We proceed to apply these notions to the problem before us. We have seen that among the ancient Hebrews some similar
ideas prevailed,
and through
whom
it
was wrought.
It
is
of course
as
Name
of
God
won-
derworking.
We
it is
where
it is
mand
to fear
Name
in him.
Now
let
us go back to
The answer
that thou dost
ask after
nificant
is
my name?"
Still
more
sig-
"And Manoah
said
words come
the
to pass
What is thy name, that when thy we may do thee honor? And the angel of
Wherefore askest thou
^
Lord
after
my
name,
seeing
it is
wonderful "
all is
(xiii.
17
f.).
and significant of
self.
Name
to
He
result
endeavors to induce
is
God
to say " I
am
The
am
that
am"
is
given
(Ex.
iii.
14).
common
Then
while
as the
it
Name
is
was desired
had
sence, recourse
to a quotation.
*
God does
am
Or
" secret,"
Essays
the Lord."
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
53
On
Moses
to say to the
etc.,
The Lord,
will be seen
I
the
God
of your fathers,"
(iii.
and
this
method
is
persistently
adhered to
15,
16,
18).
How
unnatural
it is
when we
the
am
iii.
Lord
through
direct " I
am
the
God
and
in
other places.
We
we have
shall
not yet
conveys.
But we
vi.
understand
carefully.
better
Exodus
more
Meanwhile there
this
:
"
Among many
women
it
when
it
cannot be
avoided."
To
Age
it is
clear that
what may
" I
It
Name
that
it
by God
(i.e.
the
unambiguous statement
significance.
Lord ")
to a mortal
am the may be
cer-
was regarded
work
wonders
The
precise shade of
meaning must be
left to
be determined by
to us
future research.
we have
considered.
It
how Exodus
meaning.
vi.
fits
on
Is
Frazer, op.
cit.
vol.
i.
p. 411.
54
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
The
make
answer
affirmative.
The
intervention of
to
Then Moses
returns
Lord with
came
the
words
"
people?
Why
me?
evil
For
since
to
Pharaoh
;
to speak in thy
name, he hath
The last words in particular show that Moses was in a mood when some guarantee of the Divine assistance was needed.
Then comes
:
Now
hand
what
will
do to Pharaoh
for by a strong
shall
he
let
by a strong hand
Then
The
true meaning:
it
if
now we examine
Stress
vi.
these ideas
will be
laid
is
on the
fact that
some-
thing
And
this rela-
promise of salvation
" I
am
bring you
etc.
is
That
is
a complete
answer.
We
Lord
am
the
new and
unfamiliar name,
al-
inti-
mate
relationship.
By them
Israel's behalf
in
which
it
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
55
that
and
this
was done
in the
way
would
We
God
return
now
to the narrative of
Exodus
iii.
In verse 6
reveals himself to
" I
am
the
God
God
Two
First, the
is
Tetragrammaton
to stand
not used
and, secondlevel as
the revelation
made
Here God
raises
Moses
to
same position
as
Abraham,
no more
intimate relationship.
sion.
He
own
(ver.
incapacity, to
which God
replies that
He
will be with
It
him
12).
Then comes
but in
Name.
it is
has a double
meaning.
Superficially
its full
and ostensibly
mation
a
demand
for a guarantee
it
lowest.
Accordingly
guarantee
is is
The
readily given.
And
identifica-
God
of the fathers
carefully maintained.
Moses
the
power
to
work
certain signs.
in
Thus
with the
later
in
revelation
iii.
(1)
Whereas
Exodus
Moses
same
sort of reve-
Exodus
God
Hebrews
from His
it
(2)
is
work
is
certain signs, in
itself
am
the
Lord
"
in
sufficient,
56
Essays
in
" I
am
the
Lord "
ter
iii.
avoidance
in
chap-
it
it
Is
in iv. 11, or
ever have
Thus
shalt
God
of your fathers,"
is
etc.,
should
in the
comprehended
formula of
them.
vi.
f.,
but
we must
we
find
The
the opinion of
tors of this
branch of anthropology
is
"
To
which aim
at
symmetry are
own condemnation." Thvis it comes about that to the Israelites of the Mosaic Age there would be no inconsistency or
statements of the Pentateuch.
difficulty in the
They would
their
God, to bind
Him
to
Him
in a close-
He had
CHAPTER
In coming to the other
ters of
II.
difficulties raised
we
defer
the
EGYPT OR GOSHEN?
"According to J [writes Mr. Carpenter on Exodus] Gen xlv 10 and this view is found But in E Gen xlvi 18 [xlv 18?] and P Gen xlvii in viii 22 ix 20. 11 the Israelites settle in Egypt. There they are accordingly found in close proximity with Egyptian neighbours, from whom they can ask for valuables iii 22 xi 2, or from whose houses they must carefully distinguish their own that the Lord may pass over them xii 13. They are near enough to the capital for the king to communicate with the Hebrew midwives." (Oxford Hexateuch, vol. ii. p. 80.)
.
.
It
(Ex.
26).
before
and
in
58
to
arose.
The
critics
seem
in
Goshen does not necessarily exclude the presence of Egyptians in that district."
It is,
the passages in J,
see
order to
In
shalt
how
this
comment
"
and thou
me,"
etc.;
and
in xlvii.
Egypt,
in the
in
the land of
Egypt
redactor, for
method by
Egypt
in the land of
Goshen,
xlvii.
26,
Mr.
Carpenter
is
Ac-
cordingly,
when he comes
their
to
Exodus
iii.
verses
from
to the narrator
who
regards the Israelites as settled, not apart in the land of Goshen, but
'
among
worth noting Mr. Carpenter's method of dealing with Having got rid of 21 f. on the ground stated above, he writes: "These verses do not seem in their present form to belong either to J or to E. Not to J because ( 1 they interrupt the connexion between iii 16-18 and iv 1, and (2) they contain distinct literary marks of E, 'give you leave' and the peculiar infinitive 'to go' [Ileb.]. Yet on the other hand the phrase 'by a mighty hand'
It
is
iii.
19
f.
does not belong to E, but tends to appear in passages kindred with D for wonders cp xxxiv 10. The passage seems to have been amThat these verses should plified from E by Rje " [ad. loc, p. 84]. appear out of place when their proper sequel is removed is of course
'
:
'
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
59
vii. 8, in
"
23 ix 26
hail.
or the
On
the other
Egypt
itself,
is
and
their
darkness
ings.
This
view of
Egyptheir
21
and
sequel xi 2
to E."
f,
it
must be assigned
The statement
all
21-23
is
was a
thick
darkness in
Israel
the land of
the children of
bad
Once more
misconcep-
makes
its
appearance.
In the note on
21
we
read,
" In 21-27 there are traces of different hands blended into one
editorial
complex.
.
belong to J ...
though
may
be questioned
how
who
places
them apart
in
Go-
Goshen
mean
" apart in
Goshen
" either
It results not from any impropriety in the narrative, but from Mr. Carpenter's own proceedings. As to tiis " literary marks," it is interesting to turn up the references in his lists of words. Of " give you leave " it is alleged that it occurs Ave times in E, once in J in a passage assigned to a priestly redactor, once here, where it is given to Rje, and twice in D. As to " by a mighty hand," the list of words contains five references to JE, five to D, and one to a Deuteronomic redactor in Joshua iv. 24. It will occur to most people to wonder that this sort of argument can be gravely put forward and considered by men who claim to be scholars.
Inevitable.
60
in
Hebrew or
in English,
much
embarrassment.
as follows
Moses further shows some interesting variations. In ii 15 f he dwells in the land of Midian, and in 16, 21 marries the daughter of the priest of Midian and has one son 21 f cp iv 19 f. When he returns to Egypt his wife and son accompany him iv 20. In iii 1, however, his father in law is named Jethro cp iv 18, and Moses leads the flock to the mountain of God, identified as Horeb cp 12. this mountain On his return to Egypt his wife remains behind, and when Jethro brings her to her husband she has two sons (Vol. xviii 5 f later on she is described as a Cushite Num xii 1."
The
stoi-y
of
'
ii.
p. 80.)
distinct charges
is
1 ) in
one document
Jethro; (2) in J
two;
in
he
is
accompanied to Egypt by
his wife
and son,
a wife
who
a Cushite.
We
E:
first
charge.
The
father-in-law
is
named
Ex.
iii.
and
xviii. 1.
He
He
is
named
xviii. 9,
is
Mid-
in J, viz.
ii.
16.
On
the
this,
When E
who
words
" priest of
Midian
gentleman
is
expressed
"Some
critics
E
so,
If
Essays
gested that there
ceeding-s.
is
in
Pcntateuchal Criticism.
61
Such testimony
exists
of ancient variants
iii.
is
(E)
the Lucianic recension of the Septuagint omits not " the priest
of
" Jethro."
But
it
suits
Mr. Carpenter
;
to at-
tribute certain
and accordingly
he does
so,
So out
where
" priest of
Midian
" occurs in
the Pentateuch,
two go
to the harmonist.
critics "
As
to the alleged
justification
adduced as a
will
become increasingly
clear as this
Our second
Moses.
sons of
ii.
the narrative in
son, but
it
Exodus
by no means
fol-
from
this that
In point of
and
his
by
al-
indispensable
redactors
:
with
text.
22,
The
But
if
we
is
xviii. 2
we
justified
in J
son,
on
his return to
iv 20,
25."
The only
From
this
Mr. Carpenter
that,
infers that
But he forgets
on
his
own
it
24-26
is
incomplete.
He
In that case
it
can-
knew only
of one son.
62
Essays
in Pentateiichal Criticism.
is
some ground
for holding
its
prestext,
If
ent form.
view be adopted, or
if
falls
to the ground.
it
is
alleged
it
xviii.
Mr. Carpenter
states
thus
in
"In
5 f Jethro arrives
sets
Moses
curious
how
the critics
who
twisted
into
the
service
of
their
hypothesis
ignore
is
those
valuable aids
to
show
based
on textual corruption.
tuagint,
Syriac,
'3K
all
6,
for the
Kittel's
Massoretic
" Biblia
" I."
The
of
Exodus
in
3,
xlviii.
where
the
"
R. V.
renders the
Hebrew
Joseph
xviii.
and one
Jacob
and
said.
Behold,
thy
son
cometh
unto
thee."
"
On
that
analogy
Exodus
would mean
and one
[or,
We
will be
observed
how much
if this
same error
afforded by Genesis
11,
Hebrew
text reading
for
Essays
the correct
in
Pentatcuchal Criticism.
It
63
Massoretic "behold."
in xviii. G, the
Hebrew
and
said."
We
Moses
is
turn
now
E E
on the return of
fiction.
This
is
pure
There
not a
word
that in
any wise
once got
it
in his note
on
This
is
as
untrue as the allegation that J placed the Israelites apart in Goshen. With the correction of the text in xviii. 6 the whole
of that chapter forms an intelligible and continuous narrative,
in 2 E. that
Moses had
gone before.
away and
fit
that they
entirely
not impos(not
of
iv.
26 told
how Zipporah
Moses
after calling
him
a bridegroom of blood.
this refers
As
to a second wife or
whether she
recent discoveries
there
was a Gush
not
make any
To sum up
ter places
all
Mr. Garpen-
fragment
but
we have found
is
64
Essays
for
in
Pentateitchal Criticism.
good reason
is
is
extremely obscure
Pharaoh one set of demands is urged by Moses alone in the name of the Lord God of the Hebrews iii 18 V 3 vii 16 ix 1 f, 13 X 3 and Moses asks leave to go three days' journey into the wilderness to sacrifice to the Lord iii 18 v 3 viii 27, or serve him vii 16 viii 1, 20 ix 1, 13 x 3, etc. Another formula is found in iii 12, serve Elohim upon this mountain,' while in the name of the Lord God of Israel Moses requires the release of Israel that they may hold a feast to him in the wilderness v 1. A third demand is made by Aaron vii 2-7." (Vol. ii. p. 80.)
'
;
'
'
'
First,
it is
not
demands
in v. 3, etc.
Moses
1
(E).
In
v.
(E)
In v. 3 (J)
"And
they said,
The God
v.
of the
us" (whom?).
In
"WhereIn v
"
fore do ye,
20
(J)
and
Aaron"
" unto
(all
convenient redactor,
but he
forgets to alter
12, 25
;
them "
the
in the
In
viii. 8,
ix.
27
J)
redactor
ix.
called
in,
27 and 28.
"And Moses
in
and
in 8
(J)
is
"
expected to remember that in 8 (J) "unto them" is also " ihcy" were driven from Pharplural, and that in 11
(J)
aoh's presence.
Once more
in xii. 31
(J)
"and Aaron"
is
swept away by the usual method, but " both ye and the
chil-
Essays
dren of Israel "
5
is
in Pentateuchal Criticism.
65
suffered to remain.
is
made
that
to say,
"And
sent
is
ment
"a
third
demand
made by Aaron"
his
(vii.
2-7)
brother's
is
is
demand
made by Aaron.
It is
No
the
fresh information
only
same demand
is
as before.
Nor
for there
and
sacrifice.
sacrificial
feasts.
As
to
the
Lord
the
God
of Israel," this
It is
is
one of Mr.
once only, in
is
v. 1,
Who
know
Whereupon
the ex-
planation
us," etc.
given, "
The God
is
Mr. Carpenter
in
iii.
Elohim "
the
12
Hebrews
"
could be used by
God
in
speaking to Moses
or any
Hebrew?
it
At
this point
iv.
note on
13,
allega-
tions about
begins as follows
" In 13-16 it is not apparent in what way the auger of the Lobd expresses itself against the reluctance of Moses. It is believed, therefore, that this is really a later insertion to prepare for the introduction of Aaron, for whom a place had to be found in the story. The want of uniformity in his appearances, the curious alternation between plural and singular verbs in the immediate context of his entry into the narrative (cp viii 8, 12a, 25, 28 ix 27 x 16, 17b with viii
12b, 29 ix 33 x 7a, 18), and the fact that in the earliest extant account of the sanctuary he had no function, Joshua being the servitor of Moses in the Tent of Meeting Ex xxxlii 11, render it probable that the passages narrating his activity are all secondaryas compared with the original J." (Vol. ii. p. 85.)
9,
etc.
66
Essays
in Pentateuchal Criticism.
The anger
in
of the
Lord
will be seen to express itself quite " The " want of uniformity to Moses.
is
Aaron's appearances
itself.
made
tive
the position of
God
cir-
to
Aaron,
who
very curious
to be
found in
vii.
f.,
attributed to P,
who
is
God
When
con-
Pharaoh
shall
speak unto
yoii, saying.
Show
It
would be
two or
forded.
its
effect
is
here af-
parallel instance
19, in "
teronomy xxxi.
thou
it
Write ye
who
he
matter.
Nevertheless
raises
no objection
to
the
The
sanctuary" Aaron "had no function" needs further investiof gation, for it supplies one of the most convincing examples
the wholly unscientific procedure of the critics.
to this
ther,
[i.e.
the
Tent of Meeting]
is
Num
xi 28,
whose presence
in the
Reading
this
al-
Essays
ready quoted that
tuary
in
Pentatcuchal Criticism.
67
in the earliest
Aaron had no
function,
it
would seem
Mr. Carpen-
in E, or else that
was
in
it
some way
differ-
from that of P.
is
We
cause there
penter's meaning,
owing
of self-contradiction.
"
On
I.,
we
read,
The Tent
of Meeting, however,
when
first instituted,
needed
no sacred
tribe.
It
Aaron and
his sons.
An
the
installed as its
Moses returned
Tent.
Neverthless
E
in
Aaronic priesthood
at
Moserah, Eleazar
office
Deut x
6."
What Mr.
the earliest
function,"
traces of
his
in
Aaron had no
But
first
is
and
an Aaronic priesthood,
we cannot
understand.
when
instituted
flatly
contradicted
xviii.
In
Numbers
not
23
we
read,
"And
to the
Tent of Meeting."
it
No
doubt
this refers
would seem
to be less
the
law
was thought
before
the
Korah's rebellion.
Even assuming,
remained
to
therein
that
Tent
in
which
Joshua
take
was
fact
" sanctuary,"
which
we
leave
doubt,
and
68
ed,
in
this respect
as the minister of
privileges.
In order, however, to
that of
make
it
clear that
no priesthood save
tribe of
Levi
is
recognized by E,
we
We
E
;
shall
examine,
first,
sec-
as to the priesthood
dence as to Joshua.
hesitation,
ascribes
the
E
p.
(vol.
i.
119).
Now
Aaron
and Kings.
Micah's
to
all
itself is still
more
6,
interesting.
Ac-
with
its
uncom-
document.
in E,
The
blessing of
Moses was
Thy Thummim
shall put in" altar
They
(Deut. xxxiii.
8,
Of
these passages
indeed seem to have been dimly conscious, but there are others
that he has entirely forgotten.
The book
of Joshua,
it
will be
remembered,
is
ascribed to the
same sources
as the Pentateuch,
that
and accordingly
The information
Essays
in
Pentatcnchal Criticism.
69
singularly
may
its
fragments
is
unfavorable.
we
read, "
When
and
re-
it."
members
even that
awkward
other
priests
than
the
Ephraimite Joshua
(who
priests
sharply
distinguished
we
read, "
and
priests, saying,
Take up
the ark
....
In 14
we hear again
of " the
this representa-
Finally
it
is
we
representations of
Eph-
The whole
was
In
Exodus
tent
Moses takes a
self (so the
p.
and pitches
see
it
Hebrew;
Van Hoonacker,
Sacerdoce levitique,
146, note).
act
not
an
re-
isolated
and
that
Joshua
On
28).
another occasion
We
shall con-
what
this
of Meeting.^
In this connection
we
Joshua.
It
70
Essays
in
Pentatcuchal Criticism.
But there
is
f.),
and, as
Van Hoonacker
p. 147, note),
has
acutely
Joshua, so far
is
summ.oned
no
justification
"
"
sanctuary
Ephraimite Joshua, or
for
Aaron and
The
Tent of Meeting
already ap-
foundation
for
Mr. Carpenter's
remarks as to Joshua.
We
The next
is
al-
to be
found
THE
]\Ir.
ROD.
:
of the ancient elements of the tradition. Here in it is represented as the shepherd's staff which was naturally Moses' hands, and it becomes the medium of the display of the di"
vine power to him. In E it is apparently given him by God 17, and consequently bears the name 'rod of God' 20b (cp 'mountain of God') as such, it is the instrument with which Moses achieves the wonders vii 20b ix 23 x 13. P transfers the rod to Aaron, and sup8plies a different occasion for its conversion into a serpent cp vii 13." (Vol. ii. p. 84, note on Exodus iv. 2.)
:
We
begin
by disposing of Mr.
Carpenter's
comparison.
We
"Mountain of God
"
by God
'
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
71
God
:
mean
the
same thing
{c)
as "
God
"
can only
God.
If for
and
"
we imag-
ine that
God
"
means nothing of
the sort.
It is
a miracle.
As
to the
words
who
The
phrase
is
in verses 1-3,
and
it.
it
misunderstand
is
15 (E)
"
final
harmonistic
own
shepherd's
ff."
staflf
ii.
(Vol.
p. 89.)
As
there
is
not
may
reasonably afford
much
amusement.
"
transfers
So does
J.
In
iv.
30
we
read, "
Aaron
spake
all
the
And Mr.
Car-
72
the
redactor
to
conjure
away
is
"
Moses
"
It is
we have
already exam-
Aaron was
from these
narratives.
There
is
in fact
one
difficulty
but,
will be better
THE PLAGUES.
We
W. H.
Green.
form a symmetrical and reguany con-
fusion or derangement.
The first nine plagues spontaneously divide themselves into three series of three each.
1.
2. 3.
(1) blood, vii. 14-25. (2) frogs, vii. 26-viii. 11." (3) lice, viii. 12-15.
murrain,
darkness,
x. 21-27.
In each series the first and second are announced beforehand the third is sent without warning. The regularly repeated formula 'And the Loed said unto in the first is with slight variations Moses, Rise up early in the morning and stand before Pharaoh, lo he Cometh forth to the water, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord (the God of the Hebrews), Let my people go that they may serve me and if thou wilt not let my people go, behold I '. " The second of each series is introduced thus 'And the Lord said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord (the God of the Hebrews), Let my people go that they may serve me and if thou refuse to let them go, behold I " While the first in each series was thus pre-announced to the king by the river's side, and the second in his palace, the third was wrought without premonition, the Lord simply giving directions to Moses or to Moses and Aaron. "This orderly arrangement of the plagues is rendered still more significant by their number, which cannot be merely the accidental result of combining separate accounts, which differ both in the number of the plagues and in the substance of the plagues themselves.
:
"
'.
See infra, p. 77. In A. V. viii. 1-15, with a corresponding change in the verse* throughout chap. viii.
*
'
73
Nine follow in immediate succession, three times three, sugsrestive of the three degrees of comparison, each series rising to a climax, the final series the climax of all that preceded; and these are but
the prelude to the tenth, which seals the completeness of the whole, like the ten digits and the ten commandments." (Hebraica, vol. vii. pp. 131-132.)
as
"The narrative of the wonders vii 8-xi 10 Various reasons unite to enforce this conclusion
sis
is
is
;
founded on two broad classes of evidence, (a) material difrepresentation, and (/:?) accompanying peculiarities of phraseology. (1) Scattered through the record occur short sections of which vii 8-13 is the type. They are based on the idea of showing a wonder vii 9. Moses receives the divine command, and transmits it to Aaron, who executes it with his rod: the magicians of Egypt then attempt to produce the same marvel, at first with success, but afterwards impotently the heart of Pharaoh is strong, and he will not listen. These common marks unite the following pasferences of
' '
:
sages
vii 8-13, 19-20a, 22 viii 5-7, 15b, 16-19 ix 8-12. They are unconnected by any marks of time; they constitute a succession of
:
Their recurring phrases (see the margins), the peculiar relation of Moses and Aaron cp vii 1 f, the prominence assigned to Aaron as the agent of the wonders with his rod cp Num xvii 8, while elsewhere the wonder is wrought by Moses with his rod, justify the ascription of these passages to P. Some points of linguistic affinity with JE are of course inevitable, in travelling over so much common ground."
(Vol.
ii.
p. 88.)
on the other
it
points.
First,
is
cept
vii.
8-12, "
not the
Moreover,
not of
five.
vii.
9 contemplates the
all
Moses
74
Essays
in Pentateuchal Criticism.
command and
is
transmits
it
to Aaron,
who
It is
executes
it
also false.
In
ix.
mand
his
is
The
cussed.
It
relation
of
dis-
may
vii.
Goshen and
partly
he does
not.
He
series
writes
"
Again
the agency by
are
successively
one
hand
may
The hand
pose "
of
x 13 cp 22
vii
20b,
!].
That
is
to say,
it
no discrepancy
is
alleged, but in
Mr.
Carpenter's opinion
was impossible
for either J or
to
com-
which were
initiated in
This
was quite
possible for P,
who
is
allowed to
tell
of a
number
was begun by
;
the action of
Moses
in casting
handfuls of
al-
dust to heaven
but J and
license.
this.
are not as
Besides,
really
al-
to
do
He
Essays
in Peniatenchal Criticism.
75
else.
With regard
we must
Mr. Carpenter
vii.
able to
make
by banishing from
15 the
phrase which proves this to be the rod that was turned into a
serpent.
gift, but we how the rod is eliminated from J. Mr. Carcontinues: "The coincidence of (i) [i.e. the presence
We
have
now
to see
penter
in Egypt, not
Goshen] and
(ii)
[i.e.
the rod] in
21-2;> se-
cures
all
the rod-passages to E.
It will
;
contain alone
;
no mention of Aaron
act after act
We
rests
It will
E
in
Gol-e
need only
added that the other statements are simply due to the arbitrary
division adopted.
Thus
x.
28
f.
much
is
it,
though the
preceding verse
given to E.
Any
We
the
read in
vii.
35,
And
smit-
On
saith
I will smite,'
the
Lord
is
obviously the
,
20f
ix 13, 18
3 f
it
is
Lord
himdied
(18,
76
(Vol.
is
Essays
ii.
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
p. 89.)
And
is
this
man
The next
point
In
ix. G
we
read
tiiat
Egypt
By
Mr. Carpenter
" as a
ment, and
all
mathe-
matical term.
ing
all
" According to ix 6
the cattle of
Egypt
'
are already
hail
by giving the
half of 25 to
J].
The
the
storm,
as
an editorial
:
afterthought in reference
it
25a."
is
further added
'
that there
this
Hence again
is
we
all
"prob(njpo)
'
The
'
cattle
'
of
Egypt
killed ix C
beast,'
(Vol.
ii.
p. 96.)
Similarly with
xii. 29.
We
Numbers
xxxi. must be
because
"if
slain,
it
were
Midian
;
in the timie of
Moses and
would
conflict
Essays
by Midian
later
in the
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
77
Book
[!]."
references
(Numbers,
pp. 418-419.)
And
Dr.
Numbers, thinks
7 (every
it
We
nius
may come when some sympathy with the Hebrew geand its methods of expression may be deemed an indis-
on a Hebrew book.
There thus remains one
plagues.
difficulty
in the narrative
of the
In
Exodus
to
say,
vii.
17
God
I
in speaking to
will
Moses comthe
mands
that
is
him
in
"Behold
"
;
smite
with
rod
imne hand
whereas, in 19,
etc.
He
is
says, "
Say unto
The passages
perhaps a
little
awkwardness
appear
if,
in the
some
slight corruption
and that
it
is
''
but no variant
is
recorded in Kittei's
Biblia Hebraica."
The
editions of the
:
and the
Samaritan text
is
On
is
the whole,
we
it
some holding
correct as
may
tion.
we
have discovered
can be
volume of the larger Cambridge Septuagint now records " the rod " as an extant variant, but this need not necessarily represent a different Hebrew.
Part
ii.
of the first
?8
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
By
the
p.
The
Waters
of
Egypt
Frogs
Flies
Murrain
Boils
Hail Locusts
Hail Locusts
Death of the
first-bom
It is to
first-
Death of the
born
is
first-
traceable either
their execu-
in the
number
method of
documents to
one another.
less collections of
fragments
nothing more.
in the
more astonishing
feeling,
and
is
quality
entirely absent
difificult
critical
work.
It
would be
to conceive anything
more hopelessly
unlitit
And
work
lists
the lack of
at
care, ac-
curacy, thoroughness, judgment, and impartiality that constitute the outstanding features of all the higher critical
work.
at
Opening Volume
I.
of the
Oxford Hexateuch
random
Essays
the
lists
in
Pcntateuchal Criticism.
79
of words,
we
take
(187) on w^hich
we happened
The phrases
J, 7
are al-
leged to be characteristic of J
No.
and honey
"
said to be
:
used 8 times by
times by
and
separate code
that," 4 J, 1
;
now
Rd;
This
No.
oG, "
No.
38, " to
do good."
is
J. 2 E, 10
P and
so on.
sort of thing
mere
trifling.
If a
the alleged
is
is
And
in
estimating these
in
mind.
It quite
documents by various
the
lists
not identical.
In such cases
is
Again, there
much
circular
reasoning.
The
critics will
To
new
an
to
in
Exodus
is
iii.
19
we
This
Hebrew
quoted
lexicon to
J,
but by Mr.
is
phrase.
Then
this
phrase
is
in the
list
of
words
distinguish
may
We
at
some
may
'
'
80
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
refuses to the people go 14 vlii 2 ix 2 x 4. The Lord, God of the Hebrews,' vii 16 ix 1, 13 X 3. * Let my people go that they may serve me' vii 16 viil 1, 20 ix 1, 13 X 3. ' the saith Thus
Pharaoh
let vii
'
Say
22
unto
19
Aaron
18 ix
vii 11.
vii 9,
viii 5, 16.
The
11,
magicians
viii 7,
Lord
will
1
' .
Behold
his
f,
f, 20 18 X 3 f. Intreat the Lord viii 8, 28 ix 28 x 17. Removal the of plague viii 8, 31 x 17 cp ix 33. Marks of time to' ' '
20b ix 22
f.
19
viii
X 12
21
Land
19,
of
Egypt
xii 51.
1,
vii
ix
17,
21b 9ab
41
viii 5-7,
16 f 12 f,
f,
morrow
29 ix 5
'
viii
10,
23,
4.
infliction 6b, 14
Pharaoh's
'stubborn'
Hiph)
15,
vii
Pharaoh's
'
strong
'
Hiph)
27.
Pharaoh's
'strong'
Hiph)
vii
13,
32 ix
7, 34.
19 (ix 12 Pi).
And
he
hearkened
not as the Lord had spoken vii 10, 13, 22 viii 15, 19 ix 12.
is.
We
E, act
is
made
that
natural in dia-
in
And
so
"
of P, use;
are permitted to
etc.
e.g., ix.
There
is
nothing
in this style of
argument
that
common
At one
Essays
in
Pentatcuchal Criticism.
alleges that certain verses
81
must belong
because the phrase " land of Egypt " occurs, and then in
to
the
go
to other sources
is
found
in
them.
we
it.
But we
have thought
" literary
it
right to say a
lest
it
this alleged
it
method,"
is
in
any
way more
Before
we should
like to give a
sample of what
dence.
in the
The following
is
the assignment of
:
Exodus
xiii.
3-16
Oxford Hexateuch
EXODUS
3.
XIII.
And
;
Harmonizing addition hy Rje [i.e. the redactor of J and E] Remember this day in which ye came out from Egj^pt, out of the house of bondage for by strength of hand the Lord brought you from this
place
4.
:
This day ye go forth in the month Abib. J Supplement hy a tcriter of the J School (Js) And It shall be when the Lord shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Amorite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee, a laud flowing with milk and honey, that thou shalt keep this service in this month. 6. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, and in the J seventh day shall be a feast to the Lord. Js [See 5 supra] 7. Unleavened bread shall be eaten throughout the seven days and there shall no leavened bread be seen with
:
5.
thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee, in all thy borders.
8.
And thou
it
is
because of
priestly redactor
me when I came forth out of Egypt. (Rp) And it shall be for a sign unto thee
:
upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the law of the Lord may be in thy mouth Rje [see supra 3] For with a strong hand hath the Lord brought
:
14-16.
Rje.
And
this is
regarded as scholarship
CHAPTER
III.
ing of the
writes
Red
Sea.
"
The
Mr. Carpenter,
sage of the
J,
also related
ii.
by
all
E, and P."
p.
99,
note on
Exodus
xiii.
17.)
The
make strong
and sim-
appearance of
and
this is
The Glory
and the position of the Ark and the Tent of Meeting are necessarily involved in any discussion of the Cloud, and we juirpose therefore to dispose of these topics without further delay.
THE CLOUD.
Three representations of the divine presence in the cloud [writes Mr. Carpenter, on Ex. xiii. 21] are to be found in the Hexateuch.
"
In
15
P
ff,
it
its
consecration
Ex
xl 34
ff
Num ix
time for the camp to be moved, when it is taken up. A second set of passages also connects it with the Tent of Meeting, but places it at the entrance, where it comes down in the form of a pillar and remains in
until
it is
converse with Moses Ex xxxiii 7 f Num xii 5 cp DeutxxxilS: reaBut in the sons will be given hereafter for ascribing these to E.
Essays
text 21
in
Pcntateuchal Criticism.
83
[i.e. Ex. xiii. 21] nothing has yet been said of any sanctuary; the pillar with its twofold aspect by day or night serves another function, that of guidance and protection. In xiv 19 two symbols, the angel of Elohim, and the pillar, have been combined by R. As the angel of Elohim naturally belongs to E, the guardian pillar must be regarded as the equivalent in J." (Vol. ii. p. 100.)
' '
crit-
In reply
we
(1)
It is
the cloud
first
makes
its
appearit
On
the contrary
is
in the
same
position as in J.
(2)
The
(3) Otherwise
the cloud in
same
position as J.
(4)
The
discrepancy between
P and JE
The
for
pillar of
cloud in Exodus
xiii.
no remark.
The passage
is
presence.^
is
xiv. 19-20.
We
:
begin by
continuously
"And
the
camp
of Israel, removed
Israel
This
at
have
we
see that
disen-
still
The
w^e
representation
that
is
same
as in J
when
remember
Hebrew thought
did not
God and
his angel,
* It will, however, hereafter be argued that these verses should be followed immediately by Exodus xxxiii. 7-11, a passage which is at present out of place.
84
Essays
in
Pcntaicuchal Criticism.
Him.
20
Many
;
is
some corruption
in verse
but,
unless Mr, Carpenter can prove that the angel did not appear
in the cloud,
and he
is
this,
breaks
down.
It
must be conceded
that these
precisely the
this juncture.
same conception of
is
Exodus
2,
xvi, 10 (P),
On
:
this
Mr, Car-
on verse
writes as follows
" But the story implies the existence of the Levitical Dwelling with the ark containing the Sacred Testimony 34, It is not till the Dwelling is completed that 'the Glory of the liOEo' (10) first appears in the cloud cp xl 34 ff Nor can the narrative be relieved of this anachronism by viewing 33 f as a later addition. The phrase in 9 come near before the Lord similarly describes attendance at the sanctuary cp Lev ix 5 xvi 1 Num xviii 22, The story, then, in its present form Implies the existence of a centre of worship which is not yet constructed, and must have been transposed to
,
'
'
its
(Vol,
ii,
We
we
if
often feel
how much
would gain
in
accuracy
they were
by somebody
who
treated
It
water to think
how many
an instance.
we
"excludes"), the
first
Moses
tells
Aaron
to
command
gation to
the Lord,
it is
But
it
did
Essays
nothing of the
sort.
in
Penfateuchal Criticism.
IsraeHtes
85
not to have
The
who appear
if
As
the cloud which went before them and had not yet removed to
the Dwelling.
Accordingly
we
to
command
to
Lord
still,
symbol of
Worse,
in
the cloud.
And Mr.
Dr.
quietly.
torily
On
No
page 154 of
his
his
orders
ness."
wisely.
reason
command
we
think
It will
Gray
(Numbers,
tive."
86) says:
"
a misplaced narra-
We
indeed
:
we hope
ward
ters
to propose
but
for-
we would suggest
their
to these
schemes
in future they
that they
whom
this is at-
the third
month
(xix. 1).
It
tended
subsequent period.
That the
manna very
86
Essays
in Pentateuchal Criticism.
is
so obviously in ac-
"
it is
till
the dwelling
is
'
Glory of the
Lord
supported.
16).
The
glory
is
found
The
pot of
commands
the deposit of a
manna
in the
easily conceivable
command
relating to
manna.
to correct
He
We
also
"
On
page 8G we read
.
.
The
appeared
at vSinai.
Before
mandment
still
22),
move
at
the head
show
the way."
P on the march
:
scarcely
in
ix.
17
"And
in the
place where the cloud abode, there the children of Israel en-
camped."
was
in front
Essays
in Pentateuchal Criticism.
87
is
In xix. 9 (E)
we
read:
"Behold,
same writer
it
as thick
We
P
draw
it
disproves
Gray (Encyclopaedia
Biblica, col.
differs
He
he speaks of
the cloud in
such a form."
we
Exodus
gard as the
in
for
P
it
must be
remembered
ally begins
that
Exodus
xvi.
is
" misplaced."
if it
not unnatur-
tioned before.
Mr. Carpenter
it
offers
no explanation of
will
seem
which happens to be
we
and
in
P we
is
and descending. In
xxxiv. J
actually thoughtless
enough
the
Encyclopaedia
J,
"
Deuteronomy
is
33
is
dependent on
In
xl.
though the
late priestly
it
term
pillar
34 a
writer once
more speaks of
and
tells
how
So
J,
came
to
occupy a position
camp.
that, if the
appears that
and
all
We
of the
Numbers
day,
x.
34
"And
set
the cloud
when they
forward
88
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
xiv. 14
"
For thou,
Lord,
by night."
ing manner
The
first is
consigned to a
late priestly
stratum.
The
'
note
'
over
ment from the narrative of J in which it is conceived as going before them xiv 14b Ex xiii 21 as a pillar. In P, on the other
hand,
17
ff,"
it
is
We
in
and
we have
also
found J (and
D
to
As
Rje
or,
to xiv.' 14
(i.e.
the redactor of J and E), but invokes another redactthe priestly redactor), to redact the earlier redactor,
''
RP
(i.e.
seems due
Dwelling
it
in the midst
of the
camp and
it."
Yet
should be tolera-
bly obvious that " standing " and " going before " are
tually exclusive,
muthe
in
camp and on
march
respectively.
We
5) the
xi. 25,
in a late
stratum of
E (Num.
xii.
and
spoken of
the
word
We
As
To sum
xix.
Inr,
up.
to the
form
Both
and
speak someIn
Exodus
pil-
in the
form of a
precisely the
same
as that found
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
not
difficult to
89
more frequently
in P.
It is
in the
Pentateuch as a whole,
:
certainly did in E.
As
to the position
P and
J and
E
At
same
mountain
documents, but
in all three
is
it
Moses. Accordingly
documents
Israelites.
above the
its
When
erected
it
takes
camp over
Israelites
the sanctuary.
P and
it
flo all
sufficient
form
it
assumes
in P.
In
three doc-
uments
it
is
it
some-
times descends.
will
We
it
have seen
it
J,
and
it
be found that
different
camp
after Sinai,
we
theory cannot be
supported
division
by the process
this ap-
any narrative
in the world.
On
the other
hand
we
are
bound
of Messrs.
may
doubtless be paral-
On
it
will be
Sinai there
was
90
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
in literature
THE GLORY.
This
is
we
take
it
next.
Num-
fiery ap-
P's conception
Lord
is
Hexateuchal sources."
On
page 158,
in reference to
xiv. 21 (redactor of
JE), he adds:
"Here and
in the
next
Lord
is
and power
in history."
ception occurs in
also.
Hebrew
by
the
has:
"And
it
shall be sanctified
my
it
glory."
fiery appearance.^
On
other hand, in
Exodus
goes the
way
We
language of one of
on
a second edition of
later
Volume
work.
I.
of his
Hexateuch.
sages
^
We
to
Tlie pas-
we have
is
in
number.
7.
We
The
glory of the
Perhaps there manifested in the morning by the manna. verses 9-12 should stand before G-8. In that case they would owe
Lord
present position to the misunderstanding of somebody who confused the " glory " of verse 7 with the fiery " glory " of verse 10, and therefore thought that verse 7 was a prediction of the occurrence related in verse 10.
their
91
"The ark is mentioned Num x 33, and appears (con(1) Of J: trary to E's view of tlie sanctuary cliap xii 2e) to have been ha(Composibitually guarded in the centre of the camp Num xiv 44."
tion, p. 183.)
order.
"The Mosaic sanctuary, however, is of a different a tent, fit for the conditions of nomad life in the desert, pitched outside the camp xxxiii 7 ff, bearing the name of the Tent of Meeting. ... It was no doubt intended to enshrine the ark, which (Composition, p. 209=Hexain its turn held the sacred stones." teuch, vol. i. p. 114. This is the passage referred to in the last ex(2)
Of E:
It is
"The Tent
of Meeting is
still
Num
xi 24-30 xii 4.
camp harmony
with this representation of the isolation of the sanctuary that the ark does not travel in the midst of the tribes, but in front of them X 33." (Composition, p. 49=iHexateuch, vol. i. p. 30.)
Now
ally
unfortunately
Numbers
x.
33 belongs to
J,
who, ac-
guarded
camp." Therefore
position in camp.
its
position
on the march
no
criterion of
its
Ark we
take
its
position on
J.
march
first.
The
first is
Numbers
"
before them
The
what
second
is
f.)
where we are
it
told
Moses
ern
said
when
it
set
rested.
commentators
think
no
doubt rightly
that
x.
text.
This
is
if
the
three
it
Then reading 34
continuously
beit.
comes
It is
Ark
led the
way with
p.
92
Essays
in
verse
K^npfD
must be rendered
" holy
things."
"And
ing the holy things .... and the ark .... went before them to
seek out a resting place for them," would not infer an inconsistency.
He
in
the expression
tion of the ark
this posi-
days' journey.
And
we have
feel
is
responsible.
We
think there
is
minds of Messrs.
iii.
Gray!
We
turn
to
this
Joshua
f.
narrative
viser
is
Deuteronomic
!
re-
and a
priestly stratum
and, alack-a-day
all
these
Ark
in precisely the
same
manner.
And none
of these sources
After this
it
is
it
a portable object)
same
Ark on
the march.
its
We
turn to
It
that J
Essays
locates the ark in the
in
Peniateuchal Criticism.
93
camp.
So does P (Ex.
is
xl.
20
ff.).
And
E?
arls:
The
when Moses
(in
come
And
indeed the
Hebrew
expressly states that Moses pitched the Tent for himself (not
for the ark).
Probably that
"
is
writes that
to enshrine
critic
the
the ark."
We
it
who
asserts that
was
so,
But
as
in
Moses or
his minister),
it is
clear
Moses
It
again the
nation.
critical
breaks
down
Num
xi 24
ff
xii
pitched outside the camp. The first existence of the tent and describes the sacred usage connected with it: the others supply incidental confirmation by depicting incidents which happened at its door. With these conceptions Dt xxxi 14 f is in harmony. It is a singular circumstance that (in the present text)
the
it
ffi
first mention of the place of this Tent Ex xxxiii 7 fif represents as in actual use before it was made. It is a part of the sanctuary which is to be constructed xxvii 21 xxviii 43 xxix 4 fC xxx 16 ff xxxi 7 but its preparation is not begun till after the second sojourn
;
of Moses on the
xl
2-.33.
sections
Mount xxxiv, its erection being solemnly completed Must it not be admitted that the two long corresponding xxv-xxx and xxxv-xl together with Num il-iii present an
94
account which
Essays
Is
in
Pcntatcuchal Criticism.
Ex
xxxiii 7
ff
(Vol.
i.
pp. 51-52.)
Van Hoonacker,
great
On
we found
setting
first
it
it
unworkable
but, out
we begin by
it.
In the
ble
we
Numbers
1.
xxxiii.
peof. er's
van hoonackOR-
NAMED.
Ex XV
ver
to
27 people come
Num
xxxiii
there
Ex
xxxiii 7-11
No
place
may
Ex
po-
xvi
The
Elim
the Sin
people
leave
to of
and
come
wilderness
ver 12
Dophkah
Elim
r5)
Num
6b-9
to
(less a
Taberah (ver
ver 13 Alush
Num
xii
is
Ex
xvii
and further
narra-
ver
1.
The
in
Israel-
ver 14 Rephidim no
(unspecified)
tives leading to
water to
drink
ver 15 wilderness of Sinai
the
place
called
Massah
bah
and
Meri-
Essays
PEOF. EB'S DEB.
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
95
VAN HOONACKproposed
OB-
NAMED.
12 ver leave the wilderness of Sinai for the wilderness of Paran verse 33
:
Num
set
forward
from
Ex
xvi 2-36
No
is
place named, but (ver 11) the cloud not in the centre (see of the camp supra on the cloud)
Num Num
xl 33-4
The
yer 3
place
called
^''
^^
Kihroth-hat-
Klbroth-hattaavah
xiii
fif
taavab
ver 17 Hazeroth
wilderness of
Paran
Numbers
gether.
xi.
35 appears to be
left
Now
that the
and Numbers
it
is
evident
the places.
Elim,
wilderness
leave
Rephidim.
and
set
not in the
camp (pointing
And
it is
if
breaks
down
with the
external
testimony of
Numbers
We
are,
But
is
fessor
Van
Hoo'nacker's
work
which we have
to
96
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
forward
we have
work
it is
important that
that
we
should
It
is
we have
to meet.
said
that
in
it is
the tent
is
(and
probably J)
in the center
Bound up with
Joshua
is
sanctuary, that
side the
(in contrast to J
is
in a different position,
all
on.
tions,
We
main proposition
the
center
of the
camp
as being
We
*
begin by
eliminating
Deuteronomy xxxi. 14
is
f.
(E),
" the
" in
harmony with
We
points.
Professor Van Hoonacker here to the Taberah incident. on Deuteronomy ix. 22, where Taberah, Massah, Kibrothhattaavah, are mentioned in the order named. It may be questioned whether this is sufficient evidence to warrant a transposition at all. If it be, perhaps the Deuteronomy names are in the wrong order, not the Numbers narratives. Assuming, however, that Deuteronomy be held to evidence derangement in the latter, we think the
(a)
As
relies
xi. 1-3. The episode of the quails chapter stands in intimate relation with the name Kibrothhattaavah (ver. 33), which the Deuteronomy verse dissociates from Taberah. Hence the very passage which is advanced for the transposition of verses 1-3 affords an argument for retaining the present
(b)
As
Professor
that
We
cannot agree.
Indeed,
we think
Moses ascended the mountain, seventy elders had already been invested with a portion of his spirit, tiie arrangement by which Aaron and Ilur were intrusted with judicial business would probably have been unnecessary, or at any rate would have utilized the seventy in some way. In Exodus the elders are present to repat the time
Essays
in
Pentatenchal Criticism.
If that
97
representation attributed to E.
it
passage be examined,
will be
observed that
it
way
sugges-
camp.
We
out that
tfre
it is
not " in
harmony with
" a theory
making Joshua
^
:
and there
is
left
out of consideration.
that "
Turning now
to take the
Exodus
xxxiii. 7,
we read
Moses used
it
his tent]
and pitch
for
and he
called
it,
Now
on
1
Hebrew
this
;
Sam.
:
xix. 13).
From
[i.e.
may
be
cited
"
The garment
Sam.
xiv. 13,
in Josh.
to
nothing
more
iu
Moses
is
was not chiefly judicial, (c) As to the manna: Numbers much more vivid and natural if the people had been on the manna diet for a considerable time than if the narrative be
business
xi.
IT.
Moreover,
the people
till
ment of the
to the dates.
text.
We
first
more
this chapter of
Numbers.
flight
facts
The
teenth day of the second month of the first year (Ex. xvi. 1). The second flight must have been at the same season of the year, for the
Israelites left Sinai
(x. 11),
later.
:
on the twentieth of the second month of the secto have arrived at Kibroth-hattaavah a of the Mosaic calendar are, of course,
unknown to us but it is reasonably clear that in both narratives the same season is contemplated, and as the Exodus fell in the early
it is reasonably clear {pace Dr. Gray), that "in the original source this story was referred to the spring season." (See. further. Gray, Numbers, pp. 117 f.)
^
spring
See supra,
p.
70.
98
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
" a "], the pots [i.e. 2
n. 15,
Heb.
Heb.
" the,"
" the,"
Kings
X. 7,
article,
by th^
purpose
to zvhich it is,
or is to he, put."
Numbers
vii.
on a [Heb. and
Judges
Once
this
it
Hebrew
Moses took
his tent, or
it
much
As
at present
we
prefer the
He-
brew
Neither in any
way
ed.
of the passage
it
is
extraordinarily im-
probable that Moses should take the Tent that sheltered the ark and pitch it (without the ark) for himself, leaving the ark
is
up on the Hebrew
text.
To
pair
:
this
Tent those
who wished
it
to seek the
Lord used
to re-
becomes necessary
to consider an-
Exodus
xviii.
narrates certain
It
is
left Sinai.
not at
present in
its
We
learn (ver.
5) that Jethro
where he
was encamped
i.
mount of God
and Deuter-
6-19 appears to support this. Mr. Carpenter places onomy " nmong the last of the Horeb scenes," and verse 16 would it
Essays
certainly
itic
fit
in
Pentatcuchal Criticism.
as a statement
xii. 1
99
after the Sina-
in well
enough
made
covenant.
Moreover, Numbers
Cushite
intelligible if the
woman had
if
the camp, as
Jethro's visit
shortly be-
onomy
i.
suits
this
Now
it
is
sit in
a tent outside
xxxiii.
7,
The
In
Exodus
xviii.
the Tent
in
Exodus
ff. all
13 he
sits to
and
When
the
they see the cloud standing at the door of the tent, they worship.
In
xviii.
13b,
14,
Moses from
to note
how
moved.
tion, it
the narrative gains in vividness when the words are re"In its present posiDr. Gray (Numbers, p. 121) writes: is true, the clause itself, apart from any particular interpre-
was
;
recent."
We
think that with this alteration the point is marriage was not recent, Zipporah's presence in the
contact with Miriam and Aaron could then have been of no long
duration
Sinai.
if
The language
she had only arrived shortly before the departure from used, " the Cushite woman " instead of her
name, faithfully
reflects the method by which Miriam and Aaron sought to arouse prejudice against her, for union with Midianitish women was perfectly legal in the Mosaic age (Num. xxxl. 18; Deut. xxi. 10-14, etc.) for all Israelites except the high priest (Lev. xxi. 14). Unhappily it has always been only too easy to rouse the feeling of any people against foreigners.
100
Essays
in
Pentatenchal Criticism.
It
would ap-
The reason
is
not far to
sat at the
erected,
and Moses
door
could
(Num.
Thus
Num.
xxvii. 2
and
5 (all
in
P)).
sup-
the position of
is
Moses when
sitting as a
judge
The
xxxiii.
was disused
sanctuary in accordance
which
plainly
tells
camp
acted in
sition.
It
is
was
more
central po-
Numbers
xi.
and
xii.,
where
it
We
way we
On
of the tent.
The Lord descends In the pillar of cloud, and stands at the door He then summons Miriam and Aaron, and they both step forvi-ard, viz., from the position which they had talceu up together
Moses.
in
with
Certainly
this
gives
the
verb
'i{<':f''"i
a sense different
which it is used in verse 4, and in itself unusual (yet op. Zech. V 5). Dillmann explains the verb in both cases of going out from the camp, regarding verse 4 (J) and verse 5 (E) as doublets. But (1) it is not in accordance with E's representation elsewhere that the theophanic cloud should appear, and wait for people to come out from the camp the persons summoned to or seeking God await
from that
;
He
its
theirs
7-11,
Num.
xi
16
f.
Essays
Dr.
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
101
summoned
to,
or
seeking,
God
and
his
reference
Zechariah
5.
v. 5 is apt.
if
But
the
word has
meaning
need not
verse
5,
it
the encampiii.
east of the
Tent (Num.
38) to
itself.
It
is
"
And
the cloud
might be thought
to conflict
meaning
is
here
cit-
"
must be remembered
xvii. 7) certainly
that
Numbers
xvi.
42 (Heb.
im-
P.
It
is
varied.
This
We
2(;,
return
now
30,
in
The
27,
and
"gone out"
The
first
same
as in
this
With regard
In
to the antithesis of
ii.
reappears in P.
Numbers
meeting
with the
camp
the
does
not
of
meeting, the
camp
of the Levites."
this,
and we think
probable
to the
But
102
Essays
if
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
even
the
clearly
camp.
nacle
may
be adopted
was located altogether outside of the camp, contrary to ch ii which places it in the centre of the host. But this is an unwarranted inference from expressions which readily admit a different interpretation, and one in harmony with the uniform representation of all
other passages relating to the subject. The camp was a vast hollow square with the Tabernacle in the centre and the tribes arranged
about
leaving of course a respectful distance between the house of the tents of men. In approaching the Sanctuary it was necessary to go out from the place occupied by the tents and traverse
it,
God and
the open space which intervened between (Hebraica, vol. viii. p. 183.)
Once
this is
grasped,
it
is
clear
why
o speaks of God's
coming down
tion of the
in the cloud,
i.e.
last
shred of justi-
fication for the theory that the various sources contain diver-
finally disappears.
We
will
and
this discussion
shorten
later
chapters.
We
Red
Sea.
Mr. Carpenter
which do not
notes on
fall
His other
is
Exodus
wor-
thy of discussion.
"),
he writes
with
103
Num
xiv 3
Ex
v 15.
Lord
is
E."
The
higher
critical logic,
but
it
to dis-
Exodus
main
It falls
outside the
narrative,
xvi.
and
Exodus
need not
:
now
first,
detain us long.
that in G
is
f.
Mr. Carpenter
11
f.
the
Dwelling.
We
first point,
4 and 11
fess
f.
We
con-
that
point
we fail to see why. He makes a more substantial when he says that the intention to prove the Israelites in
fits
verse 4
in
Israelites,
and
it
is
therefore possible
25b,
26
displacement,
and
verse 30.
And
(And
this leads us to
name thereof Manna (Heb. man)) is closely connected with verse 15 (they said one to another. What (Heb. man) is it), but Mr. Carpenverse 31
the children of Israel called the
ter holds that this portion of verse 15 contains a trace of E,
and
assigns
to the
itor!
it
its
sequel (31)
may
it
was
" in
Supra,
"
104
verse 15.
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
common MS.
error,
having possibly slipped from the " and Moses said "
first in
the
margin and
32
the
Septuagint
" of
it
actually
:
reads
" of
manna
"
and
this involves
no change
the consonantal
text as originally
lectionis
and the
distinct
forms
:
for
this
the
final
letters
are of
and
is
Passing to Exodus
xvii.,
we
some
Doublets
mean two
similar narratives
Exodus
xvii.
The
critics
im-
possible that
stories,
and
The
result
startling.
who
get
writes
ratives,
we double
number and
traditions," writes
Mr. Carpenter
(vol.
p.
107), "attached
parallel incidents to
E
that
ap-
pears
tions."
also to
In
addition,
had a Meribah
story."^
So
we
when
^Perhaps, also a Rephidim story (Num. xxxiii. 14) unless this be based by Ps on the combined Pentateuch.
Essays
in
rcnfalcnclial Criticism.
105
to believe that
two by two,
the quotient
them
teuchal doublets
It
reduced to a chaotic collection of unintelligible fragAll the difficulties that the higher critics experience
ments.
find
no support
takes
"
in the
unin
divided
verse
6,
text.
Mr.
however,
Horeb,"
as proving that " the story has been placed too soon
.... for Israel has not yet reached the sacred mountain."
this is
But
due
as
is
to a misunderstanding.
Israel
not yet
to pass
On
the contrary,
will
Moses
stand before
issue
it
him
No
Horeb
into a channel
to the people at
Rephidim.
fight
with Amalek
in 9
in verses
8-lG
Joshua enters
:
without introduction as
he
is
whom
and he
men
Yet
in
xxxiii 11 he
is
first
time,
then
is
young man.'
"
(Vol.
ii.
p.
107.)
" Tried
captain "
critical
scheme the
first
same source
in xxxiii.
is
him
time
"
times in xxiv. 13
xxxii. 17.
It is
not obvious
why Mr.
still
Car-
young
man
few weeks.
he
is
astonished at a
command, he need
Or perhaps
six, if
P had
Rephidim
story.
106
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
etc.
Nor
is
it
clear
why
Moses
who was
eighty
when
the
Exodus took
place
should
a rod for a
number
of hours.
To
Then
"
Deuteronomy
XXV. 17
episode.
f.
There
is,
therefore,
no ground
editorial."
Exodus
xviii. calls
for no further
it
comment.
We
have
al-
is
Mr. Car-
"
"
's
may have
stood before
Numbers
x.
29 originally, and
we
whole chapter.
On
tion
Exodus
of place in
present position.
(3)
Exodus xxiv.
dicial
business
by Aaron and
Hur
to refer to
here
described
being already in
swing.
(3) It
would be very
case
it
which
If
it
dus
xiii.
will be
found that
all difficulties
Moses
in
preceding verse.
(a) Joshua, (b) the seat of judgment, (c) the cloud, (d) the
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
107
22 and Exodus
xviii.
before
Numbers
x. 29,
and
it
will be
intelligibility.
Chapter xix.
is
cut
up
ancies are alleged, save one, which depends on the state of the
text.
Verse
25
ends abruptly
in
with
the
words
say.
them,"
leaving
doubt what
fallen out,
Moses did
Obviously
come up)
as well as the speech to the people. The " coming up " cannot have been to the summit, for xx. 19 excludes this
]\Ioses
but presumably
barrier.
The
effected
by the usual
methods.
At
this stage
it
is
Nothing of moment
is
come
to xxxii.,
first
resumed.
The
point of importance
in
Mr.
apparently
in xxviii."
(Vol.
ii.
p.
131, note on
is,
we
think, erroneous.
parallel could
be found in
The
rest of
Mr. Carpen-
He
appears to us
108
that verses
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
place,
Thus
it
new punishment.
We
moved
" bring
have already suggested that xxxiii. 7-11 should be reto an earlier position in the narrative.
We
would point
up
following conveniently
difficulties
corruption.
" The expostulation of Moses in this passage seems directly connected with the command in 1-3. But it may be doubted whether the materials of 12-23 are now arranged in their proper order. The
Yet thou hast said etc. are not uttered till 17 once stood before 12, or, if 17 is in its place, some other divine utterance must have preceded 12. The latter is the view of Bacon who unites 3 with 32 by means of Num xi lOb-15 and a conjectural passage containing the required phrase (it must be remembered that before the union of JE with P Ex xxxiii-xxxiv 28 was followed immediately by Num x 29-xii). Another suggestion is that of Kautzsch who proposes to translate 14 as a question, Shall (or must) my presence go with thee, and must I give thee rest?' while Dillmann regards 14-16 as the sequel of xxxiv 6-9, a suggestion which has the support of Driver. The difficulty may be partially met by a simple re-arrangement of the verses; if 17 be transferred as the antecedent of 12, the prayer of Moses 13 Make me to Jcnow thy way is answered by the promise My presence shall go with thee.' Of this (16) Moses desires immediate assurance which the Lord grants with the announcement (19) that he will make his goodness pass before him. But Moses, still urgent, prays that the Lord will enable him to see his glory, his very self (18). The prayer cannot be satisfied (20), 'Thou canst not see my face' (the presence' of 1.5) but in the cleft of the rock he shall behold his back as the Lord passes by 21-23. The more natural order would seem to be 17, 12-16, 19, 18, 20-23 leading directly to xxxiv 6-9."
' '
words quoted in 12
either, therefore, 17
'
'
'
'
(Vol.
ii.
p. 133,
on
12a.)
is
Ijut
tion,
17
do
this
Essays
of
in
Pcntateuchal Criticism.
in the
109
Moses which
f.
is
wanting
scheme suggested.
More-
over, verse 15
On
the whole,
it
either has
else
We
We
that
Numbers
4-34.
the question of the doublets.
take
first
We
have seen
when
on duplicate narratives
a feature which
We
xi.
they
their arith-
number
witnessed
it
may
be
Numbers
4-6 clearly
diet for a
it
manna
it.
Accordingly
bein
earlier reference to
xvi.,
manna
JE
to
make up
to P.
If
Exodus
gone
assigned to
J,
we
shall
its
its
have
at
least
manna
stories, viz. J
;
two (Num.
xi.
and
anteceoriginal
one (Ex.
xvi.,
Moreover,
and
inserted their
manna
same point
in the
narrative,
and
J's first
manna
story,
come soon
Exodus. Such
With regard
is
different.
It is true
had had
quails, but in
Exodus
xvi.
110
flight lasted a
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
whole month.
The
dates raise
some presump-
were two
flights of quails.
first flight
The Exodus
of quails took
on or about the
fifteenth
month of
was
as
many
day would
After the
The season
same
possible the
The
dif-
two
flights
may
perhaps be due
some temporary
years
f.
certainly
it
explains
the
surprise
of
Moses
in
verses 21
nothing
is
two years
the incident
may
of a
phenomenon
that
is
well
known
same authorship
From what
will.
we
"The expostulation of Moses lOb-12, 15 does not seem in harmony with the cause implied in the context. His displeasure is plainly directed, not like the anger of the Lord against the people, but against the Lord himself. The language of 12 suggests that he repudiates a responsibility which really lies upon the God of Israel.
'
by remote implication.
section
But that responsibility has not here been thrown upon him, except On the other hand it is formally laid on him in Ex xxxiil 1, 12. Now in the original document of JE the Horeb
X 29
ff,
in
Num
manna
Essays
scene.
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
Ill
Bacon accordingly conjectures that this passage once stood xxxiii 3 and before xxxiii 12, In the combination of J and E these verses were displaced by the insertion of the account of the Tent of Meeting, and were woven into the nearest appropriate situation, where (on this view) they have dislocated the connexion of 13
after
Ex
with 4-lOa."
in a different
"
The
in-
sertion
of
it
the
account
where
among
whole
the results
the
remarkable
procedure.
On
the
theory
higher
critics.
The
fact
is
standing of
human
nature.
is
human
nature in
man;
al-
and
it is
must
ways remain
But
exempt
The
Israelites
had been
supported mainly on
there
manna
for
more than a
year.
Of
course
first flight
of quails, and
no doubt there
to their
staple
and continuous
diet
had been
manna.
That
it
an inevitable
result,
and so
was
entirely reasonable
and was probably viewed by Moses with But as frequently happens, a reasonable
some sympathy.
may more
easily be understood
112
than
Essays
justified.
in
Pentatcnchal Criticism.
that
savored of
doubt of the Divine power and more than savored of ingratitude and
infidelity.
As
duced
man
discouragement he
for his strength
had been
set
blaming
Again
human
affairs the
efficient,
It
is
last
This principle
illustration
the complaint
it
" I
am
this
is
to regard these
first
in
them the
utterance of a
"
Ye have been rebellious against the Lord from I knew you " (Deut. ix. 24). And the rebelliousfelt
ness would be
the
more keenly
Hence
the
com-
plaint
15.
Hence,
f.,
in verses 16
24-30, in direct
f.
would be impossible
to
truer to
the
human
nature
of
standards
accordance with
that contained in
these verses.
It
critics
wrench IG
f.,
24b-30,
them
in
made
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
113
Mr. Carpenter, on
E
:
but, as
is
Exodus
xviii.
has already
in a difficulty.
Therefore to
own
expression
"
By
signed to Es."
in
further,
little
relief
here sought by
Moses has
business.
to
An
excellent
example of the
xvi. 25.
is
be found in
Numbers
is
It
cannot reasonably be
In saying this
we do
not
mean
to suggest that
(not easy cases like the captains of thousands, etc.) and transacting public business.
that
was
to
give
Moses
and
who were
Divine
and that
this
object
The
relief
means of
ence,
their
and
CHAPTER
Before treating of the
ters,
IV.
chap-
we propose
to clear the
is
some
That
many
that
we have
is
at least
due
in part to
At
the
is
not without
its
irony.
We
have found a
critics,
vigilance.
many
having
adopted
point
an impossible exegesis.
unanimous on one
that
wan-
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
115
SKETCH MAP OF THE REGION OF THE FORTY YEARS WANDERING OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.
For a powerful presentation of evidence tliat this whole region had a larger rainfall, and was much more productive, at the time of the Exodus than it is now, see the article on "The Climate of Ancient Palestine" (Bulletin of the American Geographical Society, vol. xl., 1908), by Ellsworth Huntington, whose extensive travels in Central Asia and thorough investigation give
exceptional
weight to his
conclusions.
[We
are
indebted
to
116
dering-, not at
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
Kadesh.
The
unshakably
all,
Kadesh.
Sinai:
fact of
making
the Israelites
go
to
the dominant
and central
whole history.
making
wander
could
at
What
the
further proof
any higher
critic
require
that
Israelites
were never
forty
years at
Kadesh?
As we
sight
first
impossible to
first
it.
In this instance
we must
first
prove
alike untenable,
that,
and
own
case.
When
we have established
at all points
it
we
can return
to the critics
answers
their criticism.
we may
" in
He
is
first
.
month
the
"
in
Numbers
xx. la
number of the year has been omitted deliberately. In all probability it was the fortieth; for (1) the event to be related is given as the reason why Moses and Aaron, who had led the peo. .
trance into
are cut off just before the en22-29 xxvii 12-14, Dt. xxxii 48-52 (P), and Dt. xxxiv (so far as it is derived from P) ) (2) In chap, xxxiii, which, though not derived from, is dominated by Pg, the wilderness of Zin^ is the station next before Mount Hor, where
Canaan
(ver.
spelling of
In this and other instances, we have accommodated Dr. Gray's Hebrew names to ordinary English usage. The lack of common sense which is so characteristic of the critics is very conspicuous in this matter. Thus Dr. Gray writes in his preface: "The
*
117
Aaron died in the fiftli month of the fortieth year. Thus, according Kadesh was merely visited by the people for a short period at the end of the wanderings. In JE Kadesh is the scene of a prolonged stay. The people go thither straight from Sinai (cp. xiii 21), and are still there at the end of the period of wanderings (ver. 14). To this source, therefore, and perhaps in particular to J, we may refer and the people abode in Kadesh: cp. Jud. xi 17 and also for the vb. (3"i;n) Nu. xxi 25, 31 (JE). ... In Dt. chap i f. we find a third view of the place of Kadesh in the wanderings, viz. that Israel
to Pg,
'abode' (nL""'l) there for an indefinite time (not exceeding a few months) at the heginning of the period." (Numbers, pp. 259 f.)
It will
Apart
from minor
difficulties,
we
really
We
what
i.e.
we must
find out
literary prob-
lems,
we must
discover
how
the narrative in
Numbers was
;
shaped and
lastly,
how
the speech in
to
we have
its
consider
how
the narrative in
Numbers
reached
present form.
Of
onomy
ical.
The order
is
largely rhetor-
But
is
so defective.
it
Thus,
V
I
if
the itinerary in
xxxiii. be considered,
will
to be
have transliterated by
since Z,
made with
the Arabic, is misleading; this necessitates substituting Selophehad, Soan, etc., for the familiar Zelophehad, Zoan, etc." It is
probable that not one Bible reader in one hundred thousand desires to make comparisons with the Arabic: it is certain that such comparisons when made by those who are too indolent or too stupid to
master the Hebrew alphabet and ascertain the spellings from the On the other hand, pace Dr. Gray and the other apostles of philological pedantry, such transoriginal could possess no scientific value.
literations render a booli
much more
difficult to read,
and are
likely
118
named
points
unknown.
We
many
we must
For exam-
we cannot
The
and we
may
tion
must of course be
And
fulfil.
its
the
lies in
coincidences
the
number
one
set of
set tests
and
if it
controls any theory that might account for the other set
stood isolated.
And
Now
;
in this in-
we cannot complain
from the
arrival at
if in
Kadesh-barnea
else.
onwards are
true solution
first
rich in embarrassments,
nothing
The
In the
must
it
inevitably satisfy
many
conditions.
instance,
must provide an
intelligible
account of the
119
the
must harmonize
all
must
fit
well ascertained.
ities.
It
must remove
all
chronological impossibildifficulties
It
presented by
literary
problem.
tary
It
human
it
explanation of every
say adequate
human
error supposed
and
all
when we
we mean such
race.
Hebrew
these tests
correct.
we
JE
In
leave
Numbers
Kadesh
:
(JE) we
find
ye,
an express
command
to
"
To-morrow turn
wilderness by the
way to the Red Sea." It is true that the command was delayed by the disobedience of the Israelites who went up and fought an unsuccessful battle (xiv. 44 f.). This may have consumed a certain amount of time, and may have caused a further delay for tendexecution of this
etc.
;
but, if
we
Then
the water-supply proved insufficient, and the Israelites the pangs of thirst for this period
to
complain.
Moses
somewhat
Next,
unreasonably
that
after
it
may
be thought
years
was
thirty-eight
the
Israelites
drink,
Edom
requesting per-
and Moses,
in
120
Essays
in
Pentatcuchal Criticism.
way
is
to
Red
of
Edom."
This
the
story
In the circum-
stances
it is
who had JE
before
him, put the events in a different order, and that the higher
critics
and well-known
Numbers
glaring
or
the
impossibilities
the
narrative
we have
outlined:
Edom
breaks
down
utterly.
It
command
Nor
is it
possible
for per-
Edom
to
mission to take a route which did not coincide with that com-
the Divine
command
compass the
Edom
its
is
is
fulfilment in xxi. 4b
must belong
closely togethIt
is
Nor
easily
sufficient
water
at
the
but
it is
improbable
either that the water after sufficing for thirty-eight years sud-
Israelites
lived without
it
for that
We
and by
into
that
as
"the children of
contrasted
Israel
came
Zin,"
Kadesh
in the
we formerly
held that
Essays
in
Pcntatciichal Criticism.
121
the
identical
with
the
Kadesh
in
1906).
peared to have no obvious bearing on this problem has, however, suggested to us that another explanation
may
be correct.
We
We
have already
to
laid stress
on the
having
message
the
the king of
to
Edom
his
command
compass
is
territory.
There
In
of
is,
clearly misplaced.
Numbers
Arad
we
in the
Negeb.
On
"The Canaanites of the Negeb (under the king of Arad, a place some 50 or 60 miles almost due N. of Kadesh), hearing of Israel's advance in the direction of their territory take the offensive, fight against Israel, and take some of them captives. Israel vow to the Lord, if granted revenge, to place the Canaanite cities under the ban. Success is granted them, the ban is put Into force, and the region or city (? Arad) is consequently called Hormah (Ban).
" It has long been recognised that the section is, in part at least, out of place, and does not refer, as from the position which the compiler has given it it should do, to the period spent at Mt. Hor (xx
22 xxi 4), nor, indeed, to any time immediately before the Israelites took their departure to the E. of Jordan. For why, as Reland pertinently asked, should they abandon the country in the S. of Canaan W. of the Arabah, in which they had just proved themselves victorious?
original position of the section
reach any certain conclusion as to the .... the story did not, even in JE, stand after xx 21 and before xxi 4 for that passage speaks of the
....
It is difficult to
Hebrews taking a southern course from Kadesh the present incident implies that they were moving towards the Negeb, which lies
;
f.)
This section cannot be assigned to any period after the departure from
Israelites
it
Kadesh
to
neighborhood.
But,
if
country
immediately becomes
clear.
After this
victory
the
123
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
very place
xiv.
45
the
is
Hormah.
This order
already
we have to place a sentence in the present form of the itinerary in Numbers xxxiii., which disBut we tinctly assigns the Arad campaign to a later period.
has this name. Against this
think this verse an obvious gloss inserted by a late reader
who
had before him the present text of Numbers, and scribbled a note meaning that this was the proper date to which this incident
must be assigned.
print xxi. la
We
And
and
xxxiii. 40 side
by side
NUMBERS
XXI. la.
NUMBERS
XXXIII. 40,
the Canaanite, the king of Arad, which dwelt in the Negeb, heard tell that Israel came by and he the way of Atharim fought against Israel, etc.
;
And the Canaanite, the king of Arad. which dwelt in the Negeb in the land of Canaan, heard of
the
Israel.
It will
a quotation
in-
it
it
leads to nothing,
We
it
is
from the
in
it
text.
we were confirmed
in
omitted
Lagarde's
being
re-
edition
Lucianic
wanting
lies.
MSS.
on which he here
The next
bers
;
step
must be
to
but, in
doing
so, certain
An
produce an exact
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
adopts
his
133
whatever means
may
also
purpose.
historian
may
The
actual
124
Essays
in
Pcnfatcuclial Criticism.
8b
13 f
NUMBEES.
the xxi 11
is
Moab
Moab
12 Brook Zered
from Kadesh-barnea
18
ff
24
Arnon
Arnon
The
first
concerns
brook Zered.
It
may
follows
inclusive,
fortieth
year.
less
amounted
thirty-seven
years
or
our
modern reckoning,
Passing from
but, according to
Hebrew
usage, could be
is
same
story,
and that
text
of
Ninnbers
is
deranged.
and
it
Mount Hor
37 that
is
it
is,
but
we
learn from
Numbers
xxxiii.
From Deu-
teronomy
the
Israelites
The
present position of
by the border of the land of Edom," which has led the per-
Numbers
it
Thus Deuteronomy
125
supplies the clue to the order of events, and confirms the in-
ference
drawn from
the
Numbers
compass
Edom
zna the
com-
mand
in
Numbers
xiv. 25,
is
command by
shows that
at
onetime Numbers xx. 22a ("And they journeyed from Kadesh ") and xxi. 4b (" by the
the land of
way
to the
Red
Sea, to compass
Edom
")
NUM.
DEUT.
I.
40;
II.
1,
14.
And
way
to
by
Red
the Sea.
Red
Sea,
took our journey into wilderness the by the way to the Red Lord as the Sea, spake unto me: and
we compassed Mount Seir many days. And the days in which we came from
.
in the
rative
known
to the Deuteronomist
two
half
verses
in
command
in
column one
We
year,
see clearly
in
the third
not in the
126
Essays
in
Pentatcuchal Criticism.
this point
is
merely due
derangement
in
in
the
Numbers Numbers
all
text.
Edom,
and
this
confirmed by
should in
xiv. 33
D"'yj
" shepherds."
But
xxxii.
this
is
the
" source."
Numbers
It
a bone of
among
Mr.
be sup-
the critics.
to Ps,
"
who may
P"
{ad he).
Others regard
it
as
Its
stateI
ment
is
unambiguous
"
fathers,
when
sent
and fro
patent that this writer had never heard of the alleged thirtyeight years' sojourn at Kadesh.
And
even
this
much
on the present
but
Numbers
tell
(the itinerary),
names themselves
a curious
The Red
itinerary
knows
way
of the
list.
geber (ver. 35
f.)
figures in the
It also
makes the
is
to
Ezion-geber.
It
true
that
at
two names.
But, in a
list
every
the form
"And
y,"
is
there
called
are
endless
error
through what
first
homoeoteleuton.
"
" pitched,"
back to his
MS.
His eye
lights
Essays
in
Pcntateuchal Criticism.
137
more
lines.
MS.
is
is
discovered, and
when
a fresh
is
inserted in the
after Ezion-
wrong
geber
place.
is
Kadesh
xi.
16
fif.,
the
indications
of
the
JE
will
narrative,
also
glance at the
map
show
geographically, the
order
is
absurd.
It is, therefore,
etc.,
"
Kadesh
it
" in
verse 37
it
is
This
may
be accidental, or
its
may
be that
was
erroneously removed to
present place by
somebody who
f.
in its present
text.
and introduced
his conjectural
either immediately
after
where-
deal entirely
There
is
to confirm them.
On Deuteronomy
:
46,
"And ye abode
Hormah;
in
"
The phrase
but in
Nu. XX
(JE)
it
is
This
is
very
artificial.
at
Kadesh
in
both
This appears to have actually happened in verses 30-31 (the visit to Moseroth) in the original text of codex F (the Ambrosian codex) of the Septuagint.
128
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
onomy
"
17,
and
is
no longer trans-
in
Deuteronomy
of the expression in
Numbers
4a.
This passage
(xxi. 1-3)
;
two
sections:
(1) the
Arad campaign
;
(2)
Mount Hor
xxxiii. 38
f.
(xx.
22b-29
xxi.
4a).
Now we know
in
from
tieth
the
for-
year.
Both
we
are informed
that
Edom, and
we
learn
from Deuteronomy
through
years.
must be inferred
that
frontier of
Edom, where
the period
of wandering
leaving
Ezion-geber, not by
It
then becom.es
related
Israel
Numbers probably
how,
in
came
to Elath
The
Numbers
xx. 22b-29
xxi. 4a,
Hor
10).
it
brought the
Oboth
(xxi.
sustained
damage involving
the loss
of a few verses,
to be the true
" in xx. 23,
Edom
when
frontier.
Edom
was ruinous
to the sense.
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
129
Arad campaign.
present
As
already stated,
is
Arad
lay north
obvious displacement.
The
arrangement
is
here fortuitous, as
when a
leaf
drops out of a
book and
judging
is
at
inserted in a wrong place. We have no means of what period these verses were inserted between
As
Hormah
torious.
in xiv. 45.
The
defeat there
xiii. f.
come
"
to
We
Edom
in
we
believe that a
similar clue
ters.
is
Numbers
Paran.
Numbers
xiii.
What more
ran?
isting
As
order in the
Hormah
narrative
Edom.
xiii.
From
20
we
ripe grapes,
i.e.
But the
arrival
at
Kadesh occurred
month,
i.
e.
the negotia-
Edom would
in
The
most part
their
right order.
The words
of
Dathan and
130
Essays
in
in
Pcntatcuchal Criticism.
14 are extremely forcible
all
Abiram
Numbers
xvi.
if
they
put an end to
all
hopes of
invasion
f.
order of time.
On
as
to
Edom and
the
Arad
may
we
1,
Numbers
;
xii.
xx.
14-21
xxi.
1-3
xiii.
xiv.
xvi.-xviii.
some missing
the
to
the
head of
gulf
of
the xx.
turn
northwards
;
from
Elath
then
of
22b-29
rival
xxi.
4a,
and some
lost
words
the ar-
at
We
and
xix.
from
this
their position,
tive.
Numbers
might refer
to
In
Numbers
is
xxxiii.
we have
40
a late gloss,
It
earlier.
may
we
to adopt
number of the
month.
And now how far do these suggestions comply with the we laid down when entering on our inquiry into these chapters? Do they give us a probable, consistent, and intelligible narrative? Do they harmonize all the available information? Do they remove all the geographical and chronological difficulties? Do they postulate any unaccountable human acts
tests that
or omissions?
Essays
in Pentatcuclial Criticism.
131
The
is
in
harmony with
discrepancies
the
Hebrew
sources.
the
story
is
itself
probable,
That question
Sinai,
best answered by
Israelites
summarizing
it.
'After leaving
the
proceeded by leisurely
stages to Kadesh-barnea.
We
many months on
may have
In
ization.
The
identification is
now
generally
They could
from the
Edom
first
laterally,
and operate
east, or
Negeb by marching
The
Edom,
in
was
waged
in the
Negeb, resulting
king of Arad, and spies were sent out to explore the country.
But, on hearing their report, the people lost heart, and
it
be-
came
eration
therefore given to
Edom.
command
was
conquest.
The
result
disastrous.
They were
utterly routed
perhaps to
famous
by
132
Essays
in
Pcntatcuchal Criticism.
Merenptah, who
is
The
"Vanquished are the Teheunu (Libyans); the Khita (Hittites) are pacified; Pa-Kan'ana (Canaan) is prisoner in every evil; Askalui (Ashkelon) is carried away; Gezer is taken; Yenoam is annihilated; Ysiraal is desolated, its seed {or fruit) is not; Charu has become as widows for Egypt."
Of
these,
Yenoam
vary.
is
Gezer
of course
Hence
Arad
district,
campment of such an army as Kedor-la'omer's or such a host as Israel's. That plain is arable, capable of an extensive grain or grazing supply, and with adjoining wells of the best water." (H. Clay Trumbull,
f.
f.,
272
f.)
It
may
be based on re-
It
may merely
refer to a victory
allies
won by
this
natives
who were
vassals or subject
of Pharaoh.
Whether or not
Hormah must
Canaan
ap-
at
the
failure
conquer Canaan
seems to have been partly responsible for the conduct of Dathan and Abiram
:
"
into a
Essays
fields
hi
Pcntateiichal Criticisin.
133
and vineyards."
Then came
the
the
We
first
in
month,
i.
e.
in the
early spring.
visited
Kadesh
at the
end of March
(Kadesh-barnea,
cription
263).
He
of the place.
Air. Holland,
who was
there on
May
ploration
Fund
The
date of Mr.
Rowlands's
visit is
It is,
however,
wa-
mands
At
some months
in
all,
the
Israelites left
Kadesh
by the
way
to the
Red
returned to
it
Then
fol-
at the
period,
at
Aaron died
ern frontier of
Edom
is
Such
in outline
arrangement of the
and
self-consistent.
How
made
difficulties it
and
will
we
quote
It
Aaron died
text,
on the
first
day of the
fifth
month (Num.
The
first
day of the
first
^Dr. Gray has also a reference to an account of the place in the Biblical World for May, 1901, pp. 326-338. It describes a visit on April 13, 1900, and speaks of the water-supply as perennial.
134
Essays
hi
Pcntatcuchal Criticism.
month.
The
better to
examine
this
we
set
on the chronology.
"(i) We are told that Aaron died on 'the first day of the fifth month of the fortieth year of the wanderings, N. xxxiiii. 38 and they mourned for him a month, N. xx. 29. "(ii) After this, 'king Arad the Canaanite fought against Israel, and took some of them prisoners ;' whereupon the Israelites attacked utterly destroyed them and their cities,' N. these Canaanites, and xxi. 1-3, for which two transactions we may allow another
'
'
7nontJi.
Then they 'journeyed from Mount Hor, by the way of the compass the land of Edom,' N. xxi. 4, and the people murmured, and were plagued with fiery serpents, and Moses set up the serpent of brass, N. xxi. 5-9, for all which we must allow, at
"(iii)
Red
Sea, to
least,
a fortnight.
"(iv)
xxi.
10-20, for which we cannot well allow less than a month. " believe that, at every station, at least three days' rest
'
We
must
Kurtz,
iii.
p.
251.
to Sihon,
who 'gathered
'
all his
Israel
smote him
in all the cities of the daughters thereof,' N. xxi. which we may allow another month. "(vi) After that 'Moses sent to spy out Jaazer, and they took the villages thereof, and drove out the Amorites that were there,' N. xxi. 32, say, in another fortnight.
'
and
took
all
these
cities,
and dwelt
the
21-25, for
all
Then they 'turned up by the way of Bashan, and Og, the king of Bashan went out against them, and they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive, and they possessed his land,' N. xxi. 33-35. For all this work of capturing " three-score cities, fenced with high walls, gates, and bars, besides unwalled towns, a great many,' D. iii. 4, 5, we must allow,
"(vii)
"Thus, then, from the 'first day of the fifth month,' on which Aaron died, to the completion of the conquest of Og, king of Bashan,
we cannot reckon
less altogether than six months, (and, indeed, even then the events will have been crowded one upon another in a most astonishing, and really impossible, manner,) and are thus brought down to the first day of the eleventh month, the very day on which Moses is stated to have addressed the people in the plains of Moab, D. i. 3.
is
Essays
in
Pentatcuchal Criticism.
135
corded in the book of Numbers, as having occurred between the conquest of Bashan and the address of Moses? The chief of these
were
"(1)
"(2)
to the plains of
"(3) Israel's 'abiding' in Shittim, and committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab, xxv. 1-3 ."(4) The death of 24,000 by the plague, xxv. 9; "(5) The second numbering of the people, xxvi. "(6) The war upon Midian, above considered, during which they burnt all their cities, and all their goodly castles,' &c., and surely must have required a month, or six weeks for such a transaction." (The Pentateuch, etc., Part i. 2d ed., pp. 144-146.)
'
It will
inated (ii)
table.
and
(iii),
Moreover,
certain
criticisms
must be made.
to
According to Deuteronomy
26,
Moses
sent messengers
This appears to be
xxi. 11
ff.,
Numbers
so that
contemporaneous.
for the nine
p. 295.)
;
The month
as,
encampments
perhaps excessive
but
on our
view of the true order, there were probably more than nine
there.
But
it is
Og
cupied less time than Colenso allows, and some of the other
events
may have
been synchronous.
It is therefore
is
perhaps
correct, but
and, as he imports a
new
diffi-
Between the departure from Mt. Hor and the delivery of address to the people there elapsed not more than five months (cp. xxi 4 xxxiii 38 xx 29, Dt, i 3). Into these few months
"
. . . .
Moses'
final
136
there
is
Essays
in
Pentatciichal Criticism.
now compressed
Akabah,
thence north to the Arnon. the despatch of messengers to the Amorites, war with the Amorites and occupation of the country between
Arnon and Jabbok, the attempt of Balak to get Balaam to curse rael (this alone, if Balaam came from Pethor, extending over
Is-
at the least three months), the intercourse of the Israelites with the Moabite women, the taking of the second census, the appointment
of Joshua, the
of
Pethor,
it
must be explained,
is
identified
philologically
unsound
(p. 325).
We
have elsewhere
identified
The
true
criterion
of the
it
afforded by Genesis
appears that
was seven
days' jour-
it
We
therefore are
is
impossible: but
we
think the
more
probable.
difficulties that
We
now
:
set
disappear on
our view
Edom, nor
rejection
and
that,
disagreement
Edom
be,
in their
W.
. .
to the E. of the
.
Arabah."
But however
this
may
certain
lyye;
Abarim
and
thus the narrative of Pg, in so far as it is extant, mentions between Mt. Hor (XX 22 xxi 4a) on the W., and lyye-Abarim on the E., of the Arabah only one place, Oboth (the site of which is un-
known), and gives no indication whatever that the passage from W. to E. was made by a long detour southwards from Kadesh by the head of the Red Sea. The fuller itinerary of chap, xxxiii,
'
of that name.
Essays
in
Pentatcuchal Criticism.
137
which, though the work of Ps, is in the main governed by Pg's point of view, mentions, indeed, a larger number of intervening stations It is therefore but it also gives no indication of a detour south. highly probable that Pg represented the people marching, unmolested and with ease, straight across the northern end of Edom. Just as forty years before the spies passed through the whole
Canaan at will, so now the Israelites approach Canaan by the direct and chosen route with entire disregard of the people then {Op. cit., p. 282.) in possession of the country."
length of
"
.
.
ment from Kadesh." (Op. cit., p. 443.) "A second and more significant instance occurs in Num. xx. The Israelites ai'rive at Kadesh in the first month (ver. 1), apparently of the third year, reckoning from the Exodus, the last previous date marking the departure from Sinai, in the second month of the second year (x 11). In xx 22 the march is resumed,. and in consequence
of the refusal of
Edom
to allow a
passage through
In the
list
its
territory, a
long circuit
is
necessary.
dies
The
first
where Aaron
ings.
thus an interval of at least thirty-seven years (cp Dt ii 14, from Kadesh to the brook Zered thirty-eight years). Is it credible that the journals of Moses found nothing worthy of record in this long period beyond a solitary instance of popular discontent, and a fruitless embassy to the king of
ff
Between xx
and 22
there
is
'
'
entire generation pass away, without any further bones of its 'fighting men' upon the wilderness? Only at a later day could imaginative tradition have rounded off the whole into a fixed form of forty years, and been content to leave
Edom?
Did an
(Oxford Hexateuch vol. i. p. 28.) [Dt] i 37-38. In Nu. xx 12 (cf. xxvii 13 f. Dt. xxxii 50 f.) Moses is prohibited to enter Canaan on account of his presumption here in striking the rock at Kadesh in the 39th year of the Exodus the ground of the prohibition is the Lord's anger with him on account of the people^ (so iii 26 iv 21), upon an occasion which is plainly fixed by the context for the 2nd year of the Exodus, .37 years
:
previously.
should have passed, in verse 37, from the 2nd to the 39th year, returning in verse .39 to the 2nd year, is highly improbable." (Driver,
46
il
1.
14.
As shown
in the uotes
on
pp. 31-33
it
seems
*A
very
little
lan-
guage of Moses
138
sages with that of Numbers; according to Nu. xiv, &c., the 38 years in the wilderness were spent at Kadesh according to Dt. they were
:
spent
(Op.
(ii
14), in
(ii
1)."
xxxvi.)
When
added the
incredibility of the
in the thirty-eighth
year
Edom
the
for
Arad
North, the
difficulty of
the conquered territory by the victorious host, the improbability that the
explanation of
Hormah
the
first
use of the
name with
logical monstrosities
Deuteronomy
will
And
in
if it
we
effect in the
is
Hethat
brew text
in
one instance
we have
we
in
an ancient Version.
transpositions
nal
Apart from
we have
only effected
inter-
that
merely by
Deuno
sug-
teronomy.
improbable
but
act
not
least,
we
have
postulated
human
or omission,
subjected to the
ordinary vicissitudes of
MS.
tradition.
SPIES.
summary
is
much
shorter than
Mr. Carpenter's
Essays
"
in
Pcntateuchal Criticism.
139
Nothing but the baldest analysis of the story as it now lies before possible without recognising the numerous incongruities in detail by which it is marked; some of these might be harmonised,
us
is
The point of departure of the the wilderness of Paran, ver. 3. 26a, now Kadesh, ver. 26b the country reconnoitered is now the whole land of Canaan, ver. 2. 17a, from the extreme south to the extreme north, ver. 21, now only the southern district round Hebron, ver. 22-24; the majority of the spies now report that the land is unfertile, ver. 32, now that it is very fertile, but invincible, ver. 27-31. 33; now Caleb
others are hopelessly irreconcilable.
spies is
;
now
alone dissents from the majority, ver. 30, and is alone exempted from punishment, xiv 24; now both Joshua and Caleb dissent, xiv 6f, and are exempted, xiv .38. Even when the details of the narrative are not incongruous, they are frequently duplicated, or the style
markedly redundant {e.g. xiii 17-20, and note the extent to which xiv 11-24 and ver. 26-35 are parallel in substance.") (Numbers,
is
p. 129.)
The
and
first
of these discrepancies
is,
is
purely factitious.
The
"And
and
Israel,
fol-
in
Numbers
xxxii.,
where a
he speaks
real ques-
The
and Paran.
Two
the-
which would
this
used
in a
more exactly
The
data at
insufficient for
any
final decision
between these
two views.
It
gravamen
140
Essays
xx.
1,
in
Pcntatcnchal Criticism.
Numbers
re-
gard as misplaced.
year the people apparently march out of the wilderness of Paran to Kadesh."
(Numbers,
p. 91.)
The second
that
difficulty is
xiii.
more
serious.
It
is,
Numbers
as going unto
is
it
Rehob
Hamath.
Nothing
known
of this
to identify
full
given.
On
is
quite
Hamath
the north.
ff.
Ac-
represent
way
to
Hebron.
From
his
own
and, so
we can
see, there is
Numbers
knows nothing of
and
fixes
is
on Esh-
This
the
more
ob-
remarkable
as,
it is
JE
P)."
p. 426.)
that this
knew
was
Further,
it
may
be
who
went
and
Essays
not before, the
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
Eshcol,
after 24
141
visit to
i.e.
for he
must have
MS.
tradition.
it
is
There
is
solution
of the next
spies.
In
xiii.
with
ou;)^/
aXka
is
nothing coris
This beginning
something
is
we have
that the
words
"
and Caleb
in the
same
direction.
a later note
not in order.
place.
xiii.
30-xiv. lb ("voice")
gests that
ter has a
xiii.
Had
influence
hypothesis,
would probably
have reflected that there was here a case for textual criticism
it
impossible to dogmatize
MS.
that
had been
With regard
must be noticed
142
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
fails to
The
only difference
is
is
that the
text
to
now
assigned
evil
For Numbers
makes Canaan
xiii.
32 gives an
report,
and Numbers
If
xiv. 7
"
an exceeding good
land."
we
sideration of
reasonably clear.
That resulted
spies
The
last
supposed discrepancy
that
is
punishment
it
is
is difficult
to take seriously.
Hebrew
tradition
is
absolutely
under
whom
That being
so,
it
But, ac-
JE
men
of that generation
was
to live
in Joshua.
but one
fatal lack of
methods of expression.
that
at
first
For the
is
sufficiently
clear
overshadowed
Joshua.
It
may
other
little
argument.
On
xiii. 6,
p.
136)
"Ac-
6,
14."
Now
xxxii.
is
alleged to be the
work
143
embodying an
On
is
the verse
in question Dr.
ite."
if
Gray says
(p.
430), " In
Caleb
a JudahP."
"
But
we
Joshua we
get an expla-
nation of the
phenomenon
"
;
Then
the children of
Judah drew
in Gilgal
That
is
" earlier tradition " treats Caleb the Kenizzite as having been so incorporated with the children of
practical
Judah
as to be for all
purposes a constituent
member
or
there
is
no passage
in
that in any
We
its
have no means of
:
telling
how
makes
it
With regard
detail, this
may
in part
it is
we
is
Numbers
xvi.
But
Septuagint which
we have
to
more
serious than
some
made
We
have
our arguments.
We
there-
much
detail here.
144
Essays
in
Pentatcuchal Criticism.
Dr. Gray (p. 187) appears impressed by the fact that Deuter-
onomy
xi. 6
is
which
is
germane
emerge.
to its purpose,
and partly to a
presently
To
say, as Dr.
is
Gray
does, that
Numbers
Korah
Gray
to
him.
It is
much upon
chapter
unity.
is
order to obtain a
revolt of a non-Levitical
Korah
No
" in
verses 3 and
9
7,
" Is
it
and
13.
The
truth
is
two
other verses,
" Dwelling "
have suffered
is
in
transmission.
The Hebrew
elsewhere in the
it,
Tabernacle or a portion of
but not
human
Gray,
habitation,
Dwelling
of
Korah,
(See
critics,
Dathan, and
Abiram"
p. 204.)
who
Hebrew
text.
Unhappily they
that the
Hebrew
text
is
wrong)
some MS.
In
embark on biased
speculations.
company
"
Dwel-
and two of the best codices omit " Dathan and Abiram."
'*
This gives us
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
145
rose
And Moses
up
In verse 37 the
same
two MSS. again omit " Dathan and Abiram," and the
brosian has " Korah's company."
Amfol-
low 24 immediately.
Then we have
rest
"
and the
of the chapter
really quite
concerned.
But
if
the text of
Numbers
xxvi.
10
is
remains.
Korah
is
Samaritan
the earth
"And
opened her mouth and the earth swallowed them up when the
company
died,
fire
hundred and
is
men."
occurs
may
be doubted
hundred and
fifty,
the difficulties.
and
tents,
and Korah's
human and
and was
consumed by
fire
from heaven.
It
Hebrew and
the Samaritan,
latter, is
once the
slight.
very
The
latter
has in
its
it
might more
easily
have given
presenting
In a text
nximpnx
nx
the
copyist's
from the
first
to the second.
inserted in the
margin perhaps
its
in the
would
be likely to lose
proper position.
146
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
in
Numbers
It will
xxvii., since
common
fate.
therefore be
seen that the correction of the text in the light of the ancient
evidence removes
surdities
all difficulties,
that
are
inevitable in a
fatuous redactor
who composed an
stories.
Balaam narrative
is
some-
seriously
(Numbers,
third
is
309).
Two
trifling.
The
made by
home
in
Numbers
xxii. 5 is
by the Euphrates, and then altering " the land of the children
of his people " to
*'
Ammon,"
with
This
Ammon
and Pitru
on the Euphrates
(not Pitru) in
but as Balaam
really
which was not the Euphrates, from the land of " the children of his people"
that there
It is
is
(not "of
Ammon"),
it
will
be admitted
for Dr. Gray's distrust of the point. " of course quite possible that " the children of his people
is
some ground
lies
concealed
but
"Ammon
"
little
be probable.
The
words
"consists mainly in the fact that in ver. 20f, Balaam, having received Ood's permission to go, is on his way accompanied hy the
^
See supra,
p.
13(5.
Essays
in
Pentafcuchal Criticism.
147
Balaam is on his way accompanied l)y Uvo servants and without having received the Lord's permission: for that is the obvious meaning of the Lord's anger " (Numprinces of BalaJx, whereas in ver. 22
bers, p. 309).
We
clue
is
true solution
and
this
we
On
pages
xxxv
to
xxxvii
of
his
"
Deuteronomy,"
in nine
Dr.
numbered
Two
of
Deuteronomy
f.
The
Numbers
xxxiii., the
death of Aaron
is
place at Moserah,
extremely
difficult.
It is
true that
would have
to be stretched
It
is
out of recognition
to
or near
xxxiii.
may
in transmission.
not such as to justify us in preferring the data of a fragmentary note of this description which
is
Numbers
xxxiii.
As
by
it
presents
148
to support
Essays
in Pentateiichal Criticism.
an argument
difficulties
first
in favor of the
documentary theory.
The
groups.
other
The
consists
which
awaken
"
The remaining
two
three
perplexities
cannot
But of these
three,
sojourn at Kadesh
in
authorship.
We
take
these
three
difficulties
in
the
order
last.
The
" in the
first is
stated as follows
According to Ex. xxxli-xxxiv Moses was three times Iff. xxxii 31 xxxiv 4) but it is only on the third occasion that he is recorded to have fasted (xxxiv 28) Dt., in the very words of Ex., describes him as doing so on the first occasion. Obviously, Dt. may relate what is passed by in silence in Ex.; but the variation is remarljable." (Deuteronomy, p. xxxvi.)
[Dt]
ix 9.
mount (xxxii
Clearly the
believe that
first
thing
is
to consider
Moses
the Mount.
that
We
do not suppose
will be seriously
suggested
we
diflference of tradition.
if
we
further look at
Exodus
to
see
how
the narrative
to
constructed,
we
the
Mount came
Essays
golden
calf.
in
Pentatcuchal Criticism.
for that episode,
149
At
the
we
visit,
followed by a
command
Moses
Mount.
The
fasted
Points like this are not perhaps very easy to demonstrate, but
feels
Exodus
xxxii.
Moses
fasted, at
will
any
that
point he
may
He
find
is
as follows
plain,
[Dt]
ix 25-29.
This,
it is
must
(Moses' second visit to the mountain), or (more probably) to Ex. xxxiv 9. 28 (his third visit to it). It is singular, now, that the terms of Moses' own intercession, as here reproduced, are borrowed,
31f.
of
not from either of these passages, but from xxxii 11-13, at the close his -first forty days upon the mountain." (Deuteronomy, p.
xxxvi.)
We
ment
number
of available
replies.
we have
seen
so
many
instances of displace-
that
strain
on our credulity to
14.
It is
turned,"
but the
sarily
Hebrew
is
"
and
turned,"
this transposition
correct
but
we
in
we
do not think
First,
it
at all necessary.
Two
we can
see
no improbability
man
he de-
We
a sort of
modern professor
carefully looking
up
his references
150
Essays
to
is,
in
Pcntatcnchal Criticism.
his sources
and endeavoring
copy
And
the second
deliberately
We
Deut. ix 15-16
17 18-20
visit
Moses descends from the mountain after his and sees that a calf has been made.
brealvs the tables.
visit to the
first
He
Third
mountain.
21 22
23 24
25 26-29
at Kadesh-barnea.
rebellious
knew
visit
Terms mount
Commnnd
hew
the
new
table?!'
and come up
to the
3
It
must be admitted
The prayer
gical an
in ix.
26-29
its
is
arrangement of
it
in
it
was offered up on
occasion.
Is
We
think
On
"The Writer
the purpose of emphasizing (in accordance with the general design of the retrospect) the indebtedness of Israel to Moses' intercession."
(Op.
cit., p.
116.)
Now
in
calf, this
intercession took
Essays
is
in Pentateuchal Criticism.
151
mentioned
first,
probably
But
it
because
if
it
would be
likely to
was
to be
made
clear
was necessary
prayer.
was
impossible to repeat
utter the words,
Exodus
if
xxxii. 31.
No man who
could
and
not, blot
me,
them for
The
ut-
single sentence
tered by
Moses on the
speaker's purpose,
begins
now
way
of bringing
is
home
of their iniquity
and
God
does not even contemplate the danger which had once been
that
God might
The
point of
Moses,
is that,
:
the people
" Let
me
alone, that I
out their
first
Hence the
was
possible to quote
and the
failure to
realize that
the arrangement
is
not meant to be
chronological.
This
failure
the
On
ites
first visit
to the
mount
made
a golden calf.
Moses
in
Exodus destroyed
" I fell
But
Deuteronomy we are
down
before
it
the
Lord
as at the
first,
forty days
152
is
Essays
in Pentateuchal Criticism.
how he
des-
troyed the
And
this is in conflict
with chronology,
:
writes
approvingly
"
No
doubt
its
this
men-
on account of
its
(Deuterono-
my,
p. 115.)
No
it
doubt
it
is
but, if
chronology
suits
set aside
it
when
all
override
The
last point
which
it
must be remembered
is
one of the
three that
ical
:
Dr.
is
also chronolog-
to a large extent verbally This passage agrees with Ex. xxxiv 1-4, 28, with the difference that in Dt. Moses is directed to make, and actually does make, an ark of acacia-wood hefore ascending the mount the third time, to receive the Ten Commandments. That Moses should describe as made by himself what was in fact made by Bezal'el, acting on his behalf, is, no doubt, natural enough; but in the narrative of Ex. (as it now stands) the command is both given to Bezal'el, and executed by him, after Moses' return from the mountain (xxxvi 2 f xxxvii 1). The discrepancy in two narratives, so circumstantial as each of these is, is difficult to explain, if both are the work of one and the same writer, describing incidents in which he was personally concerned." (Deuteronomy, p. xxxvi.)
.
"[Dt.] X 1^.
If
such a discrepancy
statesman, nobody
about the
but
the
fallibility
of
astonishing
is
chronological:
but
to the
Moses pointed
making of
But
it
ascent.
153
is
Exodus xxxv.-xl.
By way
forward
the most extreme critical view, the following the late Dr. William Robertson Smith:
quoted from
case of variations between the Hebrew and the found, where we should least expect it, within the Pentateuch itself. The translation of the Law is the oldest part of the Septuagint, and in the eyes of the Jews was much the most import-
"A remarkable
is
Greek
as a rule the variations are here confined within narrow the text being already better fixed than in the historical books. But there is one considerable section, Exod. xxxv.-xl., where extraordinary variations appear in the Greek, some verses being omitted altogether, while others are transposed and knocked about with a freedom very unlike the usual manner of the translators of the Pentateuch. The details of the variations need not be recounted here; they are fully exhibited in tabular form in Kuenen's Onderant.
And
limits,
i.
p. 77,
and
The
variations prove either that the text of this section of the Pentateuch
fixed
in the
Greek version of these chapters is not by the Book of Exodus, various Hebrew words being represented by other Greek equivalents than those used in the earlier chapters. And thus it seems possible that this whole section was lacking in the copy that lay before the first translator of the Law. It is true that the chapters are not very essential, since
rest of the
they simply describe, almost in the same words, the execution of the directions about the tabernacle and its furniture already given in chaps, xxv.-xxxi. Most modern critics hold chaps, xxxv.-xl. for a late addition to the text, and see in the variations between the Hebrew and the Greek proof that the form of the addition underwent
changes, and
version
in all copies
when
the Septuagint
this
it would carry us too far to consider here. But in any case those who hold that the whole Pentateuch dates from the time of Moses, and that the Septuagint translators had to deal with a text that had been fixed and sacred for a thousand
with which the Greek version treats this part of the sacrosanct Torah." (Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 2d ed., pp. 124 f.)
Dr. Smith quite characteristically forgets that the Samari-
tan
Pentateuch
which,
154
this
Essays
hi
Pentatcuchal Criticism.
c, here supports the
b.
undoubtedly
call
for
some explanation.
Unfortunately the
They
cer-
haps to expansions.
We
have to glance
at
some further
when we
num-
in
our judgment no
may
exhibit
tell
my
can be held to
of the
more
is
known
method
the
chapters in
'
this
law was
still
unknown to Nehemiah, and must be a late addiThe " late addition " is found in the Sais
not subsequent to
Nehemiah.
=
CHAPTER
THE NUMBERS OF THE
V.
ISRAELITES.
We
now have
to consider matters
embarrassment
Gray's statement
as follows
and to consider once numbers yielded by the two censuses recorded in Numbers (chaps, i-iv, xsvi). The details given are the numbers (1) of male
twenty years belonging
(2)
to
Israelites over
each of
tlie
twelve secular
(6) in the
month
old, iii 43; (3) of males above a month old belonging to the three Levitical families; (a) in the second year, chap, iii; (&) in the
fortieth, chap, xxvi; (4) of male Levites between thirty and fifty years of age, chap. iv. " 1. The tribes in the table below are arranged according to their size at the first census; the order in the text of chap, i (in chap, xxvi it is the same, except that Manasseh precedes Ephraim) is inor to the dicated by the bracketed number to the left the sign right indicates that the tribe is represented as having increased or
;
diminished in the interval between the two censuses, and the bracketed figure to the right indicates the order of size in chap. xxvi.
Chap,
4) Judah (10) Dan ( 2) Simeon Zebulun ( 6) 5) Issachar ( (12) Naphtali 1) Reuben (
(
i,
year
2.
40.
1)
(2)
(12) 4) 3) ( ( 8) 9) (
(
64,300+
45,400 43,730 -
156
Essays
Chap,
i,
in Pentateuchal Criticism.
year
2.
40,500 -
(10)
53,400+
32,500 45,600 52,700
(5)
(11) 7) 6) (
(
+ +
Totals
" 2.
603,550
601,730
The
firstborn
male
Israelites
22,273.
"
3.
Kohath Gershom
Merari
Total
"At
"
These numbers must on every ground be regarded as entirely unhistorical and unreal; for (1) they are impossible; (2) treated as and real, and compared with one another, they yield absurd results (3) they are inconsistent with numbers given in earlier Hebrew lit;
erature.
" 1. The total represented is impossible. Males over twenty form but very little more than a quarter of a whole population, thus (neglecting the 51,000 odd Levites) the total in chap. if. (603,550) represents a total of men, women, and children well exceeding 2,000,000.
And
yet this multitude is represented as spending forty years in the The impossibility cannot be avoided by the assumption that the two millions wandered far and wide; for (1) this is not the representation of the text, according to which, for example, they
wilderness!
in a fixed order (chap, ii), and marched together at a signal given by two trumpets (chap, x) and (2) the numbers are impossible even if we think of them as dispersed over the whole peninsula of Sinai, the present population of which is estimated at from 4000
camped
to 6000.
peninsula,' writes Robinson (BiN. Researches, two millions of men could not subsist there a week without drawing their supplies of water, as well as of provisBy a miracle, no doubt, this multitude ions, from a great distance.' might have been sustained; but it ought to be observed that the mirfor let any acles actually recorded are not on an adequate scale one read the story in xx 1-13, and ask himself whether this suggests a water supply sufficient for a multitude equal to the combined populations of Glasgow, Liverpool, and Birmingham. It must suffice to
i.
Essays
in
Penfateuchal Criticism.
157
bring this uiimber once more to the touchstone of reality. The number at the end of the wilderness period is virtually the same as at the beginning, i.e. we are to think of two million people ready to fall
on and
ist
settle in
ex-
point to about one million as the outside population of Israel and Judah when settled in the country even this population representing
a density of about 150 to the square mile, i.e. a density nearly twice that of Spain, and about the same as that of Denmark or Scotland. "The numbers of the several tribes must stand or fall with the
total.
" It
is
the great merit of Colenso to have demonstrated the absonumbers and to his discussion (Pentateuch,
;
chap,
iv.-xiii.)
reference must be
made
for
further detail.
whole, very properly tests the compatibility of the numbers with statements in any part of the whole. In what is here said they are
compared only with the statements in P. "2. The unreality of the numbers is independently proved by comparing them one with another. Thus the number of male first:
allowing the number of female firstborn to be equal, the total number of firstborn is 44,546, and, therefore, the total number of Israelites being between 2,000,000 and 2,500,000, the average number of children to a family is about 50! Again, if, as is proba-
born
is
22,273
ble, the firstborn of the mother is intended (cp. iii 12), then, since the number of firstborn and of mothers must have been identical, there were 44,546 mothers but the number of women being approximately the same as of men, the women over twenty numbered something over 600,000, and therefore only about 1 in 14 or 15 women over The comparison of the two sets of Levitical twenty were mothers figures bring less absurd, but still unreal, results to light. The average European percentage of persons (male and females) between thirty and fifty years of age to the whole population is barely 25, and in the U. S. A. the percentage is 22; but the percentage (males only considered) among the Kohathites is 32, the Gershonites 35, the Merarites 52. For the sake of simplicity the numbers are here taken as they stand some slight difference would be made by allow: !
ing for children under a month, or again by adopting the view that
firstborn
means the
influence of
polygamy
and then allowing for the but no legitimate allowance or device can get
to
;
chap. xiv.
pt. vi. p.
"3.
The 40,000
(? fighting
men)
1 .-)S
celebrated in Deborah's song as Again, the male Danites above twenty, according to the census, just before settling in Canaan numbered 64,000; in Jud. xviii we have a narrative recording a migration of at lenst a considornMle part of the tribe of Dan: yet the migrating party
sell,
armed men. But if the numbers are unhistorical, how did they arise, and how much do they mean? The total, 600,000, was derived by P from the earlier work JE (Ex. sii 37, Nu. xi 21), unless we assume that the original number in these two earlier passages has been removed by a later harmonising scribe in favour of P's 600,000. How the number was obtained we are just as little able to determine as in the parallel cases of high numbers elsewhere (e.g. Jud. xx 2, 17, 2 S. xxiv 9) it must suffice to have shown that they are impossible even under the conditions prevailing after the settlement in Canaan. The exacter totals (603,550 and 601,730) appear to have been given to gain an air of reality in the same way the numbers of the indiincludes only GOO
"
;
;
but
numbers are so manipulated that in each census precisely six tribes have over and precisely six under 50,000; somewhat similarly the number of the Levitical cities (48) is represented not as 12X4, but as 13-1-10-1-13+12 (Jos. xxi 4-7). Under the circumstances it seems likely that all the tribal numbers are purely artificial though the number assigned to Judah presupposes a population not greatly
;
in excess of a quarter of a million (which may be taken as a rough approximation to the actual population of the Southern Kingdom), and might, if it stood alone, be treated as an anachronism rather than an artifice. The fact that in both censuses Judah shows the largest numbers may be intentional, and due to the writer's desire to illustrate the pre-eminence of Judah (cp. p. 18) but for the most part no significance can be detected in, and was probably not intended to attach to, either the numbers of the several tribes themselves or the variations between the first and second census. "The numbers of the male firstborn (22,273) and the male Levites
;
Since the impossibility of the (22,000) are intimately connected. proportion noted above forbids us to believe that the number of the
male firstborn was inferred from the total number of male adults, consider it based on the number of Levites, a slight excess (273) being attributed to the firstborn in order to admit of an illustration of the law of xviii 16. But this consideration leads us further. The number of the Levites was reached independently and without reference to the 600,000. Whence or how we cannot say it is more moderate than the Chronicler's impossible figure (38,000 over thirty years old about 94,000 over a month old), but scarcely corresponds to reality at any period." (Gray, Numbers, pp. 10-15.)
we must
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
159
in
We
do not believe
them
critical position,
would be necessary
at
to
show
that the
any rate
alleviates,
the difficulty.
we have
seen of the
nobody
will be surprised to
from doing
this,
it
rassment.
The
hypothesis,
to
statements at
ible), or, at
any
representations
that
The make
exact opposite
in
it
the case.
The
inflated
numbers are
found
JE
own
the Israelites
bered that
we
incapacity for
to be sought,
we propose
to
examine
showing
lutely
1.
no assistance.
JE:
In
Exodus
i.
9,
20b;
v. 5
(all J),
language
is
used
(more or
ites
less rhetorical in
8 the
Canaan
not
if
large,"
it is
certainly
was
to be
found
in the 600,000
160
fighting
Essays
in
Pcnfateuchal
Criticisui.
men
i.
xii. 37.
On
(E)
the other
for the
hand, in
15
E
it
sufificient
is
Exodus
xiv. 7
textu-
but
pursuit.
At Elim J apparently
supplies
all
finds
smiting a rock.
sages
it
must be admitted
is
water supply
sufficient for a
and Birmingham."
The
Exodus
xviii.
to need rulers of
thousands (E)
matter
light.
Exodus
to
xxiii.
us considerable
make
;
(xxiii.
(E or
a harmonist)
xxxiv. 23
f.
(J and
R^)) could
field
multiply
Canaan
if
the Israelites
num-
Numbers
families
;
x.
36
is
a fragment of
it
so that
would not be
In
Numbers
21 (J)
we once
is
more
footmen; but
in xx. a
water-supply
same source.
"
Who
(Num.
xxiii.
10 (E))
is
another
passage,
Essays
statistical
in
Pcntatcuchal Criticism.
161
purposes, and
we
The
compassing of Jericho
in
chapter
(partly J
and partly E)
In
vii.
are thrown
into a
In
viii.
knows of an
ambush
It will
the narrative.
2.
Like
J,
7).
He
too
gives the various numbers set out in the above extract from
Dr. Gray, which need not be repeated here, and these appear at
first
sight to be confirmed by
Exodus
xxxviii. 25
f.
In addition
xvi.
we
49 (Hebrew
But
side
ferent representation.
E (Num.
xx., etc.).
His
wagons
few that
assisted
all
by Le-
The
are
Israelites are so
the higher
priestly duties
ily.
The camps
(Num.
X. 2).
difficulty at the
4).
In
Numbers
xxxi. he
f.),
is
But
it
in
162
awaits us.
it
Essays
in
Pentatenchal Criticism.
Unfortunately
we have
only one
number
there, but
is in
book of
Num-
bers.
Hebrew
to
fit
How
in
with the
is
critical
theory?
The
fact
that the
difficulties
of the numbers
it
shirks them.
We
must look
else-
On
it
is
impossible
numbers
but
it
is
possible to
go some
way behind
For
this
purpose
will be necessary to
We
is
iv. 13,
Here the
solu-
extremely easy.
In
Hebrew
the tens
is
from 30 to 90 are
that in
Now
it
known
Hebrew
was
fre-
MSS.
final
MSS.
used
by the
LXX,
being represented by a
little
mark
well
of abbreviation
(consisting of a
stroke).^
It
is
known
that,
al-
in certain letters,
Samuel, p. Ixix. We have not been able to see a copy of the work of Lagarde's to which Dr. Driver refers but we would point out that there are ample examples in extant Hebrew MSS. and editions. See, for instance, pp. 001, 618, 820 of C. D. Ginsburg's " Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical edition of the Hebrew Bible." His chapter on "Abbreviations " should also be consulted. It is noteworthy that in some of Ginsburg's examples the abbreviations do not even have a
:
mark
to
163
some other
earlier.
position,
such dupHcate
stroke
or, if
But
this differs
from 4000
either not at
the
little
mark
of
It is,
LXX
actually has
4000 as the
figure.
It
may
For example,
in
Numbers
i.
one
MS.
one
has the
in the
final
n of
in the first
hand
same direction)
in 1
Samuel
xiii. 5
the Lucianic
It
LXX
would
is
seem that
in
clearly preferable,
and
this
number may be
historical.
In any
case
2.
it
The
is
far
more com-
plicated.
We
it
up
purpose of discussion.
We
which
at the census
amounted
At
first
sight this
but on
closer investigation
is
something
wrong with
the text.
passage depends
God commands
silver,
gold,
In xxxvi.
in fact
we read
were
brought: in
of the gold
passage of xxxviii.
we read
of the use
made
164
Essays
in
Pcntateiichal Criticism.
find
an account of the
silver
Instead
we meet with
this
mis-
mand
for the
ransom of
erection.
When we
combine these
facts with
what
MS.
that
was
defective.
The account
To make
its
this
have undergone.
The evidence
of the
LXX
satis-
in a
bad condi-
to
produce a
it is
factory version of
sufficient to
^ It is no part of our plan to discuss the difficulties that beset the account of the Tabernacle, as this requires expert knowledge that we lack. At the same time we think it right to point to certain phenomena that have been overlooked 1. As shown above, the account demonstrably contained at least one lacuna. It is, therefore, perfectly possible that it may have contained others, and that this is the explanation (at any rate in part) of the omissions of which the critics complain. 2. It will become increasingly clear that very little reliance can be placed on the numbers. The amount of the silver here obviously depends on the census numbers, which are corrupt. In the case of the brass, Kennicott records an extant Hebrew variant giving t^^enty as the number of talents, instead of seventy; while the facts we shall have to note about the transmission of Hebrew numbers are such as to make it impossible to condemn any narrative on the ground that the numbers it contains are excessive. These phenomena, together with the evidence of the LXX and the divergence in the statement of Deuteronomy as to the construction of the Ark, seem to show that the text of these chapters has suffered very seri:
ously in transmission.
Essays
in
Pentatenchal Criticism.
165
see that these verses belong properly to the account of the first
with the
3.
latter.
Coming now
lacked
i.
there
is
extant evi-
Gad
fifty
of the numbers
now
Numbers
ble, the
25.
Owing
to the
amount of information
involved, for
we
the
ways
in
At present
six
five
thousand
hundred and
(including 6) omit " and fifty," and these are confirmed by two
i.e.
g and n of the new Cambridge Septuagint) and the Georgian. With regard to the number of the hundreds, one
the word, another reads " and five," while
first
two
t^'^
of
^'^'^
over
is
an erasure.
follows
:
The
interpretation
we
as
number of
six
Two
five
readings arose
hun-
dred and
five
hundred.
The
was
inserted in the
margin of
one or more
into the text
MSS.
Then
it
was taken
comtotal
and read as
mon
mistake that
we have
i.
already explained.
32,
The sum
and
of the Israelites in
half-shekel
46
ii.
and
its
ransom
num-
the
MSS.
harmony with
the
new form
originally,
ii.
and traces
of the
that
MSS.
15 a
memory
Hebrew MSS.,
166
Essavs
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
Thus
it
was
paper Gadites.
this
source of
MS.
vi.
corruption,
we
it
which
19
we read
of the
in
smiting of
the text as
"seventy men,
fifty
thousand men."
Yet
known
have
amounted
to seventy only.
represented
men
"
was
came
in as the result
word
for thousand.
illustrations
Refebence.
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
167
number
is
of facts
may
ture which
tions.
also based
The use
word
is
abundantly
testified
Now
Hebrew word
The
hundred
is
o,
supposition
lies
for an
word
hundred."
Thus,
in
Samuel
It is
MS.
xiii. 3,
y^iN one
MS.
for mxD).
the second
It
is
well
known
numbers
re-
where the
Thus
in
Numbers
675, 720 for 72, 610 for 61, 320 for 32.
Canon R.
" tends to
LXX
in
does
any
Our
evidence
^
further
Deuterographs (1894),
168
Essays
in Peiitateuchal Criticism.
number
had become
For
instance, in
Numbers
i.
text has 300, one ]\IS. of Kennicott's 500, another 700; while
Or, again, in
Numbers
MS.
LXX
reads
600.
Examples
these will suffice to illustrate the fact that there are cases
to
is
be preferred, and,
if
so,
which, or
Some
work
in
studied by persons
who
could of
arithmetical basis
in
thus, to take
i.
Numbers
33,
Hebrew
in
is
text.
of the fighting
men
difficulty
removed by
makes
the
it
numbers of the
Levites in chapter
add up
correctly, for
presents us with
7200 Gershonites
soretic text, thus arriving at the total 22,000 stated in verse 39.
In such cases
it
is
made changes
in a
One
In deter-
some
it
criterion
to
must have
text.
was
hand on the
word
made
for
some reason or
other.
Now
Essays
it is
in Pentatciichal Criticism.
169
when
in the
is
ditions of their
historical spirit
own day
is
The
not found at
periods of
human
history.
Hence
there
larger number.
We
may
Numbers
text,
that
MS.
peculiarities of
Hebrew
writing.
These causes,
text,
but the
:
last stages
of the process
can
known
to the
miknown we can
obtain
standing of the
way
in
chapter of
the object of
particularly
it
Colenso
this in
at-
on chronological grounds.
We
have met
our
Numbers.
story
is
f.)
(1) that
170
Essays
in
Pentatcuchal Criticism.
it
is
it is
incredible that
single
man."
not
all
he writes.
Thus he
but, as this
we have
all
Further
we cannot
ficulty
dif-
when
it
is
madic Arabian
probably to that
in the
With regard
on pages
to the
posed
this
confusion
113
f.
Bibliotheca
Sacra for January, 1908, and need not labor the point further
Lastly,
we
see
no
on
this
by another,
viz. that
suming
that the
suffered in transmission,
owing
is
On
on
this chapter
Midrash theory.
(ver.
This,
it
is
is
in entire
accord
who
women
laid
Israelite,
and
down express
provisions
171
But
it
is
and practice of
If there
it
that
was anathema
to
woman.
COXCLUSION.
We
main
difficulties
alleged in regard
to
four books of
own
opinions
of the competence of the higher critics to deal with the matters in question.
It will
we
The
Deuteronomy
That authenticity
First,
it
lines of
argument:
most
by Moses.
makes
it
men who
xi.
are not
Deuteronomy
10 are
to
See Studies in Biblical Law, pp. 71-75. It may be worth while point out the errors of Dr. Driver's reasoning with regard to Deuteronomy xxiii. 5 (4). "in the way, when ye came forth out of " Here, at any rate, where the reference is to Egypt." He writes
:
a date at the close of the 40 years' wanderings, the expression when ye came forth out of Egypt could not have been used by a contemporary, writing but six months afterwards, but betrays the writer of a later age, in which the 40 years had dwindled to a point." (Deuteronomy, p. 61.) The fact is that the reference is to an incident which, though not narrated in our present text of Numbers, had occurred some thirty-eight years previously. Moses had sent from Kadesh not merely to Edom, as stated in Numbers, but also
' '
172
Essays
in
Pentatcnchal Criticism.
only applicable to the Mosaic age, and would not have been
forged
at
of the
anonymous narrative
of the
preceding books
In this matter the
labors of the critics have not been wholly fruitless, but have
gone
far to
show
(Judges 17) to the king of Moab. It is quite clear, from the language of Jephthah's message, that this took place near the beginning
It is natural that Moses, speaking some thirtyeight years later, should use the phrase " when ye came forth out
The same phrase is used to designate the same period in Deuteronomy xxiv. 9 (Miriam's leprosy on the way to Kadesh) and xxv, 17 (Amalek's attack at Rephidim). Indeed had the reference in this passage been to the forty years as a point, we should have had " because they met you not with bread out .... and because they hired Balaam ., when ye came forth of Egypt." But the actual text of Deuteronomy puts the phrase about Egypt after the charge of not meeting the Israelites, thus
of Egypt " to refer to this period.
.
. .
showing that this charge, as contrasted with the accusation of hiring Balaam (which occurred later) refei'S to an earlier period. Two other phrases are sometimes pressed into service by the critics " at that time " and " beyond Jordan." In both cases the answer is the same, viz. that the use of language is determined by the linguistic feeling of the age, and not by the dogmas of strangers living three thousand years later. "At that time " can obviously be used in Hebrew idiom where an English writer would probably choose " then." But that proves nothing as to authorship. As to the other phrase, "beyond Jordan" is used in the speeches once of the East (Deut. iii. 8) in a passage which Mr. Carpenter does not regard as original, and three times of the West (iii. 20, 25; xi. 30). This probably should merely be held to show that here again Hebrew idiom is different from English (see especially Num. xxxii. 1!), 32 xxxv. 14). The force of the passages in Numbers may, however, be held by some (as by Dr. Driver, Deuteronomy, p. xliii, note, as to Numbers xxxii. 14) to be broken by other considerations. Yet at the worst Deuteronomy iii. 8 could only be regarded as proving that Mr. Carpenter is right It shows a hopeless lack of in thinking this verse an interpolation. sense of proportion to deny the Mosaic origin of these lengthy speeches on the ground of a single phrase in one verse
;
Essays
While, therefore,
it
in
Pentatcuchal Criitcism.
173
is
much more
restricted
now supposed
will be recognized
On
will
The
Mosaic
effect of
Genuine
MoOld
Testament
history.
And
is
the
tatcuchal criticism
archaeology.
occurs in
later
times
name
of the city
was
little
Jebus, Josh, xviii. 28, Jud. xix. 10, 11, and there can be
'
first
by David, after
its
p.
218.)
No
critic
could
now be Amarna
ilarly
it
have disposed of
this notion
once for
all.
Sim-
now argue
that
it
ground
takes the
Tetragrammaton
Nor, again,
to
in
used outside
Israel.-
'Gen. xiv. 18. = Oxford Hexateuch, vol. It is probable that the Tetra107. i. p. grammaton has not yet been discovered in Babylonian material. See an article by Dr. S. Daiehe in the Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie, 1908.
174
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
possible to hold that " there are
is it
Abraham with
the
Mesopotamian kings."
is
The progress
slow,
of
monumental research
gradually grinding
critical case,
if
at
effective.
But if it should hereafter be found in early cuneiform tablets, the discovery would only confirm the statement of Genesis.
>
Op.
cit., vol.
1.
p. 158.
CHAPTER THE
VI.
the current
carefully
last
Law was
the
sis.
main
I
begin with Dr. Driver's statement of one of the underof that theory.
"
lying postulates
He
writes
"
:
as
follows
on
pages
"
Deuteronomy
:
in Israel, slaughter
and
sacrifice
were
below) the flesh of domestic animals, such as the ox, the sheep, and the goat (as is still the case among the Arabs) was not eaten habitually; when it was eaten, the slaughter of the animal was a sacrificial act, and its flesh could not be lawfully partaken of, unless the fat and blood were first presented at an altar. ... So long as local altars were legal in Canaan (Ex. XX 24), domestic animals slain for food in the country districts could be presented at one of them with the limitation
identical
phil.
note,
had necessarily
....
itself
the latter
drawn between slaughtering the former was permitted was prohibited except at the
;
one sanctuary."
word
for
Deuteronomy
1
xii.
15
ply,"
i.e.
and compares
Samuel
to
24;
Kings xix.
to
21, his
times when,
according
K6
former
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
once
on
this point,
:
and after the exchange of some letters wrote as follows On the question whether all slaughter was sacrificial, you
"
I
write,
have no hesitation in saying that in 1 Sam xxviii 24 there was No doubt the reason for your attitude is that you were away from books and could not refer to the other passages cited in my pamphlet. I would therefore specifically put the following questions to you which may decide you. (a) What reasons have you for saying there was a sacrifice in 1 Sam. xxviii. 24? What emdence have you for your theory on this point? (6)
a
sacrifice."
there a sacrifice of the calf in Gen. xviii. 7? if so, who perit? I repeat these questions as to (c) Gen. xxvii. 9-14; (d) Gen. xliii. 16; (e) 1 Sam. xxv. 11; {f) 1 Kings xix. 21. {g) I further ask (i) whether in each one of these cases there was an
Was
formed
(ii) whether in each case the place was holy as the rethe time of Josiah. (70 In Ex. xxi. 37 does the legislation contemplate sacrifice of stolen animals and places made holy as the result? (i) In Judg. vi. 19 Gideon "made ready a kid" and put some broth in a pot and brought them out to the angel. They
altar,
and
sult
till
were then put on a rock and consumed by flames. Had Gideon already sacrificed the kid and the animal from which the broth was made when he killed them? And at an altar? And did that sacrifice also make the place holy till the time of Josiah? I would also remind you that in the preceding letter you said that it was impossible to adduce direct evidence to show that all slaughter was
sacrificial till Josiah's time.
I
it
is
possi-
ble to
I
was
not.
any answer to
readers
these questions
and
my
who
may know
the
public.
higher
until
critics
The
are
fond
of
claiming
that
all
men
Surely
F.
Burney
ical
Graf-Wellhausen theory], with the reconstruction which it involves of our view of the development of Israel's religion after b.c. 750, may now be regarded as proved up to the hilt for any thinking and unprejudiced man who is capable of estimating the character and
value of the evidence."
Wcllhauscns Prolegomena.
those to
177
has given
whom, on
their
at the
He
Saul
"...
;
to
sacrifice
anywhere
or
slaughter any-
where
mous."
"
is simply and solely to secure the exclusive legitimation of the one lawful place of sacrifice; it is only for this, obviously, that the profane slaughtering outside of Jerusalem, vi^hich Deuteronomy had permitted, is forbidden. Plainly the common man did not quite understand the newly
The
intention of
prescription
quite
unknown
distinction
between the
re-
and the profane act, and when he slaughtered at home (as he was entitled to do), he in doing so still observed, half unconsciously perhaps, the old sacred sacrificial ritual."
xvii.
must
quite
unknown
cited
distinction "
dogmatic, un-
historical
methods.
vii.
And on
Leviticus
22-27, he writes
"
Here accordingly
is
another
:
instance of
is
what
is
brought forward
in the
Deuteronomy
Code
as an innovation
as-
sumed
as
far
Priestly
to be an ancient
custom dating
is
back as Noah.
soil
And
growth of the
former."'
^
by means of the
Again, on page 63
p.
we
18.
The
So, too,
etc.
W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites (2d Ed.), p. The whole Wellhausen literature is honeycombed with
this
theory.
178
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
came
to be a sacrifice."
On
.
ing to the praxis of the older period a meal was almost always
there
And when
" Slaying
he has
on
this
(on
sacf.
and
On
the
pages 77
(supposed)
[we are solemnly told] has its root in local environment, and 80 also had the ancient cultus in being transplanted from
life
;
Human
was deprived of its natural nourishment. A separation between it and the daily life was inevitable, and Deuteronomy itself paved the way for this result by permitting profane
its
natural
soil it
slaughtering.
life
A man
in
lie
dormant
" This is the reason why the sacrifice combined with a meal, formerly by far the chief, now falls completely into the background. One could eat flesh at home, but in Jerusalem one's business was to do worship."
Assuredly
to
'
it
is
answer
my
questions.^
viii.
13 the word translated " cooks " really means H. P. Smith {ad loc.) writes in explanation, "The cook is also the butcher." It is also clear that the slaying of oxen and the killing of sheep in Isaiah xxii. 13 is purely non-sacrificial. R. Kittel (Studien zuv Hebraischen Archaologie und Picligionsgeschichte (1908), p. 103; clearly recognizes that there was nothing sacrificial in Gideon's killing of the kid. But his discussion of the sub.iect is vitiated by his not having recognized the other material passages (pp. 108-110). Indeed, the whole of Kittel's essay is rendered of small value for the l>iblical student by his neglect to
In 1 Samuel
"slaughterers."
Old Testament evidence, by an exegesis that it desires to find, and by confused :ind improbable theories. The latest monograph on the places of sacrifice in the Pentateuchal laws (W. Engelkemper, Heiligtum und Opferstatten in den Gesetzen des Pentateuch (1908)) also fails
collect the available
to recognize the
historical
instances of non-sacrificial
slaughter.
ircllhauscii's
Prolegomena.
179
The
first
Prolegomena
one
sacrifice
were
are:
identical before
two
;
in the
order named.
have written
but,
owing
case,
it
Wellhausen
it is
necessary that
should
is
hausen writes
" I differ
from Graf
that
from
it
the
particular
divergences.
My
whole position
p. 368.)
is
contained in
my
first
chapter."
(Prolegomena,
That
ditions
:
first
shall
in
see
numerous instances)
which
technical, I believe
them
so that any
man
shall
of ordinary intelligence
who
The
could
ancient
in
Hebrews had
For
this
pur-
one
more
stones or of a
mound
of earth.
Such
altars could be
made
for
at a
moment's
occasions
notice,
and were
in fact frequently
used
single
only.
On
the
other hand,
sometimes
180
(at
Essays
in
Pcntatcuchal Criticism.
any rate
in the
in-
ready parallel
:
is
provided by the
Arabs of
whom
"
To
the
altar,
and evidently
Hebrew
nonce
(Encyclopaedia
123.)
The words
what we should
and
(2)
though, as
we
element
among
the Hebrews.
this
Moses found
to disturb
it.
custom
in existence.
He made no
it
effort
On
himself.
But
itself to idolatry
or apostacy.
in
Accordingly he regulated
he does this
it.
We
which
f
xvi. 21
Of
these
by Wellhausen.
we need
not
now
deal
provisions
Ofily
But
To
a
hewn
stone
are
allowed.
Steps
are
who
but
We
shall
'Contrast Exodus xx. 20 with xxviii. 42 f. Ezekiel, at any rate, had no objeotion to tlie priests' approaching their altar by steps (xliii. 17), and in this he may possibly have followed Solomon.
181
moment
want
to
urge on
my
of visualising them.
also
and
mounds
of earth and
unhewn
stones;
difficulty in picturing
now we
we
recall
Michmash, Naait
Once
this
is
clearly realized,
be-
comes possible
objects.
On
a stone or
mound
is
not a house
is
a matter that
need not be
labored.
Imrnt-offering.
Turning
to the
command
in
Exodus
xxvii.,
The
altar
of earth or
unhewn
stones
future
we may
Owing
to the nature of
have no horns.
As
it
against this
we
read,
"And thou
:
shalt
make
the horns of
the horns
The
of
altar of burnt-offering
is
not
made
of earth or stone.
l)ut
4. o.
wood and
metal.
The
It
is
and
ledge.
altar.
This does not exhaust the differences that might be gathered from the history
pose.
;
but
it
is
sufficient for
1H2
Essays
in
Pcntatciichal Criticism.
One
name
of
"
its
most
striking-
suggests
to
If
us
the
horned
altar "
for
my
haAe no
difficulty in
following the
discussion.
Dictionary."
altars used
to
in
"At legitimate or
illegitimate
God
"
;
and
God
This
f.,
latter point is
Kings
i.
50
where we read of
1
Kings
2<S ff.,
where Joab
flees to
altar.
would
As
Amos
says
(iii.
14)
"
For
in the
day that
I
upon him,
altar
and
fall
to the ground."
"A
it
house of the
not even an
Lord," then,
is
is
appendage of a lay
An
at
altar
it
Ark
horned
altar.
And
such an altar
Both these types must he distiuiiuislied from the pre-Israelitish hi.iih phices that have recently been investigated. It is foolish to say, as is sometimes done, "All altars were very much alike," and then to exhibit an elaborate picture of a Canaanitish high place to illustrate the law under which Saul after Michmash used a large stone as an altar. Such reasoning threatens us with new confusions based on undigested archax)logical data. = From 1 Kings vlli. 04 it appears that the temple altar was made
of bronze.
Wellhaiiscn's Prolegomena.
183
not identical
it
is
horned
altar, I
turn to J and
their data.
altars.
We
The
legislation of J,
house of
of the
the
the Lord""
(Ex.
xxiii.
xxxiv. 26):
"The
is,
first
bikkurini of thy
ground thou
is
House of
however, a place
In
Exodus xxxiv. 22
we
find:
"And thou
house of the Lord, where must the peasant have been on the
feast of the
hikkurim?
It
is
intended to be
the
the
feast of ingathershall
all
Three times
in
year
thy
God
Now
if
pearance consisted of a
the
"
House,"
it
follows
of
oc-
These pilgrimages
and not
Precisely the
same
tale is told
"
by the narrative of
J.
In
Joshua
ix.
23
we
read of
my
What
does
is
that
mean?
What
been,
could
it
mean
to a Judaean, such as J
alleged to have
And
in verse 27
when we
to other
we read
that "
of
184
Essays
altar,
to.
in
Pentatcuchal Criticism.
Observe the
here referred
doubtful
I
?
is
Was
it
a lay altar?
Can
the answer be
14)
"
die."
From mine altar shalt thou take him, that he may What is here meant is clearly shown by the passage in
The
Thus
altar referred to cannot be a lay altar like the
Kings.
Michmash
altar.^
stone or
it
Naaman's
earth.
It
recognize a plurality of
altar.
lay altars
Wellhausen
famous chapter on
"
The Place
of
Wor-
He
dis-
xxiii.
or xxxiv. or Joshua
ix.
is
His
Exodus xx.
the only
if
me any
be
T
Perhaps some of
my
readers
may
more
fortunate.
in
cannot pass by
of
interpretation
'
Exodus xx.
He
translates
" in every
necessary to notice the mistranslation of Exodus xxii. 29 (30), which should run "on the eighth day thou niayest give it me." Similarly Deuteronomy xxii. 7 is^ not a command but a pei*mission to bird's nest, and Exodus xiii. 13 contains not a command but a permission to redeem asses, as is proved by the next words. (See A. Van Hoonacker, Le lieu du culte, pp. 9-10.) Mistranslations are
It
is
In this case they argue for lo"sanctuaries" (!) on the strength of their rendering. Well" hausen argues that Tassover cannot have been known at all to the Book of the Covenant, for there (Exod. xxii. 29, 30) the command is to leave the firstling seven days with its dam and on the eighth day to give it to the Lord!" (Prolegomena, p. 93.) Here, as oLsewhere, I substitute "the Lord" for Wellhausen's translitera1ion of the Tetragramniaton.
I'Vcllhausciis
Prolegomena.
to be
185
place where
this
cause
:
my name
this
by saying
"
But
spots
on the
somehow
or other
(p.
30).
altarsi,
as
rule, are
own
private
place"
(p.
31).
T
the critics.
S.
one instance.
Professor A. R.
Kennedy
of the Bible:
"As regards,
first
of
all,
its
sanctuary or
'
high
.
.
with
its
altar
cult.
Not
might choose
theophany
:
it
tradition of a
'
we had no
;
his-
but, in
view
it
more example of
For
instance,
facts.
with
Samuel's
altar
at
etc.
Ramah,
More-
all
slaughter was
sacrificial,
Can
it
really
the case
we have examined?
186
Essays
in 1
in
Pcntatcuchal Criticism.
29
Again,
Samuel xx.
6,
we read
of David's putting
forward a clan
plausible
it
To have
in
been
accordance
But
an altar
according
to
Wellhausen a theo-
phany.
in his
Did every
back garden?
Israelitish
The same
to call
When men
iv.
began
Or
When Abram
built
(Gen.
IS)
at
?
xii.
8),
is
a theophany suggested?
Or
at
Mamre
(xiii.
Or
Or
Shechem
(xxxiii. 20)
is
The
to
ly
fact
two
possibilities
with regard
literal-
Exodus XX.
and
Either
we must
translate the
Hebrew,
the
camp and
its
possessions in Canaan)
" in every place,"
or else,
if
we
insist
on translating
we must adopt
where
my name
is
to be
remembered."
Personally
In any case
I
the R. V. rendering
impossible.
prefer the
former alternative.
I
At the beginning of
his
first
" For the earliest period of the history of Israel, all that precedes the building of the temple, not a trace can be found of any sanctuary of exclusive legitimacy. In the Books of Judges and Samuel
iiardly a place
is
least casual
p. IIH, note.
U'ciniaiiseii's
Prolegomena.
187
sacrifice.
was part of the heritage taken over from the Cauaanites by the Hebrews; as they appropriated the towns and
the culture generally of the previous inhabitants, so also did they take possession of their sacred places. ... In Gilgal and Shiloh, in the fixed camps where, in the first instance, they had found a per-
manent foothold
in Palestine proper, there forthwith arose important centres of worship so likewise in other places of political importance, even in such as only temporarily came into prominence,
;
Ramah, and Nob near Gibeah. And, apart from the greater cities with their more or less regular religious service, it is perfectly permissible to erect an altar extempore, and offer sacas Ophrah,
rifice
itself"
(pp.
17,
18).
The
thing to notice
is
is
regarded
and when
were
it
made
to a
multiplicity of sanctuaries.^
I
and
it
is
that Shiloh
and
lay
afterwards
altars.
Nob
are
At Shiloh (subsequently
Nob)
there
was something
the
word
is
to bring
Heb.)"
(Additional
known
that " the seat of a lay altar: and it is tolerably obvious that the door or doorpost presupposed by Exodus xxi. is lacking to a stone or mound, albeit present in a gate. The stoutest opponents of the higher critics would have thought it impossible that they should be so hope-
him 'to God' (Exod. xxi. 6; xxii. Answer to the Libel, p. 74.) It is well .ludgment " was the gate of the city, not
incompetent as to be unable to distinguish between a mound and a house, and that merely because they had called both these objects " sanctuaries " but, unfortunately, the facts admit of no
lessly
;
never wise in matters legal or historical to call a spade a sanctified excavatory implement.
doubt.
It
is
188
priesthood;
Essays
in Pentatetichal Criticism.
and
these
instances,
therefore,
bear
not
the
to erect
sacrificial
custom of
J and
side
We
We
the
the
same
is
Solomon's temple.
word
this.
" sanc-
The second
point to notice
is
and
in-
is
He
speaks of "
all
we can
find.
is
There certainly
with them
the
first
But
side
by side
we
find
something
else.
As
Lord with
To
those
who have
it
will be
moment
altars.
David (2 Sam.
vi.
17).
The
tact that
it
in
any wise
1
Going back, we
find in
Samuel
was
at
Nob
a priestly establishment.
At
first
sight
it
would appear
much
house
but
more
there
the
nature
of
where the shewbread was kept fto say nothing of the ephod
and spear), for shewbread has nothing
to
do with a lay
altar,
IVcUhauscn's Prolegomena.
189
ver.
nor could the expression " from before the Lord "
here apply to such an erection.
7(6))
The
on
be well to
in
out
Wellhausen's
remarks
this
subject
parallel
columns.
Page
19.
Page
129.
the close of the period of the Judges, Shiloh appears to have acquired an importance that perhaps extended even beyond the limits of the tribe of Joseph. By a later age the temple there was even regarded as the prototype of the tem^)le of Solomon, that is, as the one legitimate place of worship to which the Loed^ hacl made a grant of all the burnt-offerings of the children of Israel (Jer. But, vii. 12; 1 Sam. ii. 27-36). in point of fact, if a prosperous man of Ephraim or Benjamin made a pilgrimage to the joyful festival at Shiloh at the turn of the year, the reason for his doing so was not that he could have had no opportunity at his home in Ramah or Gibeah for eating and drinking before the Lord. Any strict centralization is for that period inconceivable, alike in the religious as in every other sphere. This is seen even in the circumstance that the destruction of the temple of Shiloh. the priesthood of which we find officiating at Nob a little later, did not exercise the smallest modifying influence upon the character and position of the cultus Shiloh disappears quietly from the scene, and is not mentioned again until we learn from .Teremiah that at least from the time when Solomon's temple was founded its temple lay
;
Toward
independent and influenpriesthood could develop itself only at the larger and more imblic centres of worship, 'but that of Shiloh seems to have Jiecn the only one of this class. [My italics. H. M. W.] The remaining houses of God, of
tial
An
which we hear somft word from the transition period which preceded the monarchy, are not of importance, and are in private
hands, thus corresponding to that of Micah on Mount Ephraim.
in ruins.
'
In accordance with
my
usual custom
190
It will
Essays
in
Pcntateuchal Criticism.
What
he means by his
I
argument about
not know.
its
do
Our
all
quite frag-
mentary, and
we can
say
is
but
whether
same position
as Shiloh
it
is
im-
possible to say.
must be remembered
was
and the
Law
Deut.
itself
9).
is
That the
Philistine
;
wars broke
it
in
on the previ-
ous practice
reasonably clear
and
is
ground
time
the
at Jerusalem.
in
One
We
word bamah
13;
("high place")
is
Samuel
this
ix.
12-25 and
5,
and
it
was contrary
to the
Law.
But
lay altar
could not
'
make
f.
it
Indeed there
no
he speaks of the establishment at Shiloh, and On subsequently at Nob, as " the solitary instance of an independent and c'onsideral)le priesthood to be met with in the old history of
pages 131
Israel."
* Gideon's ephod is expressly condemned in the narrative of Judges, so that no arf,'ument can be based on this passage. Micah's image (Jud. xvii. f.) was kept in his own house; so that we find no
"
IVcUJuntscns Prolcgojiicita.
reason to
191
bamoth of a
the days of
tirel}'
In
itself
we
meet.
is
The
Law
no objection
to the zvord
bamah (which
not used
in Deut. xii.,
though
x.
it
appears
in
Of
ix.
the
baiiiah in 1
Samuel
we know
too
but chapter
gives
lay-
us sufiicient light.
The
sacrifice
was accomplished by a
man,
cook
without priest-
ly assistance.
was delayed
his
he might
ban-
Nor can
it
was
to
Doubtless the
that at
Michmash
this
makes
no difference.
No
mon
all
It
must be remembered
Exodus
XX. leaves the fullest latitude for customary lay sacrifice, and
makes permanent
more tem-
bamah must be
authorities
We
know from
all
our
First
fat
Samuel not
less
that in sacrifices
priests, the
burning of the
ii.
was a
Sam.
16).
Here Samuel's
role
is
priest.
He
193
grace.
illegal priesthood,
As such
it
was
perfectly lawful.
The
writer
in
sacrifices
offered
at
Kings
iii.
2-4-).
Perhaps
this
means
him
unlawful
accessories
or
that
sacrifices
were
offered
there
in
to
the
religious
capital
Thus
it
may
Possibly, however,
the
Law
which was
makes
it
certain
that
the
original
different.
Finding
it
the
word bamah,
the writer
that
denoted
with
as
those
Law
prohibited
in the
With
first
history alike
House
of the
Lord and
many
lay altars.
will
be
Deuteronomy
demands
But
that
certain
is
offerings
shall
be
to
come
into existence
local
also recognizes
and regulates
he.)
"As Dillmann
presupposes by
its
wording the
/or.)
admits
that this law " belongs to the older cultus before the unity of
the
in
xii."
When
ask a Well-
I'VdlJiauscn's
Prolegomena.
193
hausenite to
in the
Prolegomena
The index
passage
to
may
also be consulted
exists.
this
As
is
is
supin
ported
Joshua,
"
Deuteronomic
redactor "
who
(viii.
30
ft'.)
makes Joshua
never
dis-
On
1.
How
down
in
we have
already seen.
Non-sacrificial
till
the time
when
was enacted,
it
This made
non-sacrificial slaughter
More important
is
the question
whether there
is
any
We
legis-
to
^
small point on the words " a statute for ever " in Leviticus This would most naturally refer only to the sentence immediately preceding (i.e. the prohibition of sacrificing to satyrs), but possibly should be extended to all slaughter by
xii.
21)
of the relig-
194
lay altars.
it
Essays
in
Pentatcuchal Criticism.
in both respects, but
is
13, 14.
To
explain this
it
is
necessary
background.
being emphasized) be
made
to bear a
meaning foreign
law may be
considered as a whole,
while
we
must
Exodus XX.
isting
custom of lay
it
from abuses.
abundantly
clear that
When
it
is
remembered
same
legislation recognizes a
Exodus
xxiii.
15 and xxxiv. 20
'")
("And none
question.
shall
"
appear before
me empty
God
answer the
clearly
It
it
The
appearance before
" at the
House
does not
is
mean an appearance
at a casual stone or
mound.
and
altar,
is
an appearance with
Thus
this
legislation
recog-
where
"
else.
The same
holds
Thou
:
my
sacrifice
bread
WcUhaiiscn's Prolegomena.
195
remain
all
was
also one of the " appearances before the Lord," the matter
cannot be doubtful.
for a description of
what
first
actually occurred
two chapters of
in, it
crept
And
if
so
we
see the
meaning
Exodus XX.
" all
Theoretically,
the passage
"
stood alone,
" thy
burnt-ofiferings
might mean
either
thy burnt-offerings
else " all
fall
But
we
terpretation
is
or, to
put
the matter in another way, the lav/ relates merely to customary, not to statutory, sacrifices.
Conversely
statutory,
it
appears that
Deuteronomy
xii.
deals
with
not
customary,
sacrifices.
Hence
the
apparent
xii.
antinomy.
Really
are
perfectly intelligible
to untrained
in
foreigners living in a
that
circumstances
present
no
antiquity,
few phrases
detail.
is
whatever non-lawyers
may
think,
it
quite incon-
xii.
Such
manifestly erroneous.
Secondly, Deuteronomy
xii.
all.
whole
196
Essays
in
Pcntatcnchal
Criticisiu.
meaning becomes
a land in
clear.
The
Israelites
They had
;
(Num. xxv.
2; Lev. xvii.
Dent,
8).
should
had introduced.
tree,"
and
to
their idolatrous
What
follows
is
directed
preventing
such
places
ordinary
common-law worship
obviously no
at lay altars
:
danger
but
it
new
and
It is to these,
addressed.
in
been headed
" Statutory
(as
modern
statute)
Individual
while
Exodus
xx.
was
difficulties
could have
it
later generations,
is
impos-
have supposed
on many solemn or
Once
is
it
this
is
firmly grasped,
disappear.
There
and
xvi.,
because
Another
diffi-
IVcllhausen's Prolegomena.
197
culty
insuperable
And,
for
lawyer
that
Deuteronomy
xii.
it
was meant
to
abrogate
is
also
lastly,
it
no con-
between Deuteronomy
is
13
f.
and Exodus
former
When
it
is
JE and
the
as
Deuteronomy are
perfect
harmony,
it
follows
that
Hence no
:
here necessary
yet
Wellhausen's survey.
1.
it
is
important to
note that while he speaks of " thy altars " as being thrown
down
found
(1
Kings
xix. 10,
is
most naturally
(1
Kings
xviii.
30).
The account
to
of his
we have
less
do here with an
house of God
''
Hence
it
when we read
Elijah's complaint
is
natural to refer
to
When
Wellhausen
speaks
of
Hezekiah's
attempt
to
Kings
xviii.
is
4.
he appears to have
left the
lay altars.
In
verse 22 he
God, apparently
altars
"A
distinction
in the
is
acknowledged
490.
198
Essays
in
Pcntatciichal Criticism.
Kingdom
If
Hezekiah
the
bamoth con-
Law
which
With regard
and procedure
to
this
away
certain
minor
points.
It
is
xxii.
single altar
legal.
The
Jordanic tribes was built after the pattern of the great altar
of burnt-ofifering, and
altar.
The
pro-
to lay altars.
2.
Wellhausen writes of P
"
Nowhere does
it
become ap-
these institutions
are
now
regarded as
full
of
meaning
in itself"
(p.
36).
The
superficiality of
Wellhau-
and destroy
ten images,
and destroy
mol-
and demolish
all
their
Bamoth
1,
"
(Num.
xxxiii.
It
is
52 (ps);
30 (both F^)).
bamoth
JE
or D, both of which, as
we
WcJUiauscn's Prolegomena.
o.
199
The indictment
itself,
the tent
in six pair-ox
wagons aided by
The
discussion of the
Mosaic
altar
of burnt-offering
44) ignores the fact (noticed above) that either that altar
Ark
an earlier date than the erection of Solomon's temple. Before passing to the second great confusion we must con-
somewhat
further.
We
at
fully that
two kinds of
sacrifices:
sented locally at a
lay
altar;
and
at
But
In
sac-
we have
those
Thus we
really
offerings,
(3)
(statutory)
I
national
offerings.
adopt
terminology because
believe the
words
and
" Pri-
vate "
is
" pubHc,"
to clear his
f.,
should read,
Numbers
xxviii.
shewbread
in
^On the
102,
(p. 39),
200
these
Essays
in
Pcntateuchal Criticism.
were to be offered by or on behalf of any (and which) individual or on behalf of the whole nation.
if
so
Thus
by
the
Law
is
Whether
Descbiption.
Origin.
in-
dividual OB NATIONAL.
By whom
OFFERED.
Where
OFFERED.
1.
Offered by
At a
altar.
local
2.
Statutory individual
offerings.
Introduced by Moses.
Individual.
At the
religious
capital.
3.
Statutory national
offerings.
Introduced by Moses.
National.
Offered by
the priests.
1
At the
religious
capital.
numerous
of
The
are not
mentioned
JE
or D.
It
long before
in
number and
show
The
The
[burnt-
offering]
morning and a nnJO [meal-ofteringl in the evening (2 K. xvi 15: cp. 1 K. xviii 29, 36). Ezekiel also requires one n^iy and one nnJ?0 (clearly a meal-offering) to be offered every day, but
lequirps both to be offered in the morning.
Neh. x
34
(.33)
still
Wcllhaiiscii's
Prolegomena.
:
201
it does not specify the speaks of a daily nnJ and a daily n^lj? time of offering, and it is therefore uncertain whether in this respect it agreed with 2 K. xvi 15 or Ezek. but in common with both of these it co-ordmates the n'?)}} and nnJO. The present law (Nu. xxviii 3-8) requires two nblH daily, one in the morning and one in the evening, and also two nnj^; but the nmo is in each case subor;
dinated to the
n^lj; ."
it
Now,
make
but
first,
is
true that
Kings
xviii.
29, 36 speaks of
meant was
" in the
in the
evening:
char-
it is
Kings
iii.
20 (which the
critics
acteristically ignore)
speaks of
some part
Secondly,
it
is
which one
Second Kings
from Ahaz:
"Upon
morning
burnt-ofifering,
ing meal-ofiering, and the king's burnt-ofifering, and his mealoffering, with the burnt-offering of all the people of the land,
and
their meal-offering,
it all
and
their drink-offerings
and sprinkle
upon
ical
is
Higher
;
crit-
arithmetic
of course notoriously a
little
weak
but there
The morning
the people
burnt-offering
also one:
is
is
total,
two.
(The
king's
offering of course
falls
Moreover,
the
much
as
we had
to
offerings.
Curiously enough, too, even Numbers xxviii. 8, which subordinates meal-offerings, speaks of " the meal-oft"ering
of the morning," whicli
^
is
very
much
p.
like 2
Kings
iii.
20.
It
Gray, Numbers,
405
^02
is
Essays
in
Pcntataichal Criticism.
fact preexilic practice
is
in
What
does appear
the addition
So long
as there
offer-
it
was
sufficient to
evening.
When
a king's offering
of
all
name
There
" burnt-offering
was
view of 3
of course
to time:
is
Kings
iii.
30, this
will
critics.
It is
from time
much.
Ahaz prove
that
But there
the law of P.
The passage
in
affect
our
it
is
a national offering.
see
it
It is
not mentioned
JE
or D.
(1)
Yet we
at the
at
Nob.
From
this,
two
results
follow:
earliest
JE and
in
those documents,
no inference
This
10:^
;
is
the answer
Wellhausen's
argument
on
page
" Centralisation
fixity,
Dr. Gray makes a point of the quantities in Numbers xxviii. f. being fixed. This is due to the fact that we are dealing here with the natiortal offerings, which in this as in other respects differed
offerings.
203
In
community
^
And
where
not
more
"
distinctly
on page
90,
we
read of Deuteronomy
Even
here, however,
we do
festive offering
As such
is
clearly valueless.
Before
destruction of Wellhausen's
main
case,
we must proceed
to
the ignorance of
Using
it
law
in a
wide sense
will be
a natural distinction.
If
enters
and duties of
by legal
rules.
and
If,
X that he shall sell him a book, the rights X under that contract will be governed however, X does not fulfil his duties, A
recourse to a court to enforce his right.
the interest shifts from the question of
to the question
set
how
that right
is
to be en-
forced.
How
If so,
is
he to
By
the issue of
a writ?
And
so on.
cedure.
most im-
it
is,
am owner
make
of Whiteacre
title
have a right to
sell it:
but. in order to
a valid
and
executing
204
Essays
in Peiitatciiclial Criticism.
my
A command
that particu-
be offered
is
substantive law.
The method
to
of offering
be
is
frequently the
Thus codes of
civil
lies
on methods of procedure.
to
is
alleged
have been broken, and the rules deal with the steps to be
On
Such
in the
They
A
and
We
The procedure
to be follow-
ed in such cases
is
for the
in P.
That
is
"But
is
it
In that book
it
commanded;
it
in
is
is
it
tacitly
assumed as a fundamental
expression"
is
nowhere does
find actual
(p. 35).
accordingly laid upon the technique of sacrifice corresponding to the theory, alike upon the when, the ivhere, and the ft)/ ichom, and also in a very special
altogether disproportionate emphasis
"An
(p. 52).
Such
arc
the
For
commencing
actions in a given
JVcllImiiscii's
Prolegomena.
205
who
will
and accord-
will "
presuppose
action
the cause
of
[73'
and occupy
where, the
clusion of
whom, and
all
other topics.
On
substantive law will assume that such matters are dealt with
in the
account.
They
:
sentence as to J
is
How
the
one
is
as
an
affair
itself
for
legislation,
which,
on the contrary,
(p.
occupies
53).
is
Here we
thinking of
in-
Wellhausen
it
customary lay
sacrifice
and confusing
wrong
To make
it
will
be necessary to dwell
on other considerations.
An
was
form
ofifer.
if
This
is
sufficiently
obvious
in
1
without argument.
We
have an
laity
interestin.g illustration
Samuel
ii..
where the
were forced
to
conform even
lieved to be wrong.^
^To avoid interrupting the thread of the argument, the discrepancy alleged to exist between this passage and P will be discussed
later on.
20G
Essays
conflict
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
be anxious to offer in the
to give
no
right
way:
would be there
sary instructions.
individual
As
offerings
was
and a knowledge of
it
it
was
Moses
which, as
we
was
to
reach
the
people only
priests.
The
fact that
Moses introduced
individual offerings which could be performed only at the religious capital with the aid of priests
fine
made
it
necessary to de-
roles of sacrificant
and
priest
and accordingly we
confusion between customary lay sacrifice and statutory individual sacrifice are responsible for Wellhausen's argument on
page
54,
of the matter,
where he says of J "According to this representation Moses left the procedure in sacrifice .... to be
:
That
is
true of the
is
first
kind of
sacrifice,
drawn,
no
difficulty or inconsistency
The
makes
vals.
clear distinction
it
On
festal
pages 99
f.
Wellhausen
alleges,
P
is
celebration,
offering.
.
properly so called,
.
exhausted by a pre-
The passover alone continues in the Priestly Code also to be a sacrificial meal, and participation therein to be restricted to the family or a limited society. But this last
scribed
joint
.
itself
first-fruits
still
'
of
come
to be separated
more
ficed
is not the case that the priest slaughters the animal sacriby an individual. On the contrary, the sacrificant performs this duty (Lev. i. 5, etc.).
It
IVcUh.auscn's Prolegomena.
20']'
While
in
Lord, in the Priestly Code they have altogether ceased to be offerings at all, and thus also of course have ceased to be festal offerings, being merely dues payable to the priests (by whom they are in part collected) and not in any case brought before the altar. Thus
the feasts entirely lose their peculiar characteristics, the occasions by which they are inspired and distinguished by the monotonous
;
all
put on the same even level, deprived and degraded into mere exercises of
'
we might rather say, to betray, what was the point from which the development started, namely, the rites of the barley sheaf, the loaves
of bread,
rified
xxiii.).
;
rites, pet-
remains of the old custom the actual first-fruits belonging to the owners of the soil are collected by the priests, the shadow of them is retained at the festival in the form of the sheaf offered by the whole community a piece of symbolism which has now become quite separated from its connection and is no longer understood. And since the giving of thanks for the fruits of the field has ceased to have any substantial place in the feasts, the very shadow of connection between tho two also begins to disappear, for the rites of Lev. xxiii. are taken over from an older legislation, and for the most part are passed over in silence in Num. xxviii., xxix. Here, again, the passover has followed a path of its own. Even at an earlier period, substitution of other cattle and sheep was permitted. But now in the Priestly Code the firstlings are strictly demanded indeed, but merely as dues, not as sacrifices; the passover, always a yearling lamb or kid, has neither in fact nor in time anything to do with them, but occupies a separate position alongside."
The theory
that in
the festival
is
celebrated in the house, and not before the Lord, rests on Well-
hausen's
habitual
omission to
The
anni-
the
first
Numbers
ix.
6-14 we read
how
certain
not
were unable
is
perform their
statutory duties.
The R. Y.
translation
"offer the oblation" (ver. 7 and 13) does not represent the
original adequately.
The Hebrew
208
Essays
in
Peiitateitchal Criticism.
is
also implied
by Exodus
it
would
the animal
was
This disposes of
Wellhausen's argument
Easter
is
removed from
(Exod.
xii.
legislation
1 seq.),
and the
difficulty that
now
is
in
Code
Yet
is
got
over by divesting
acter."
as
much
as possible of
:
its sacrificial
char-
in a note
he says
"
The ignoring
first
of the sanctu-
passover, and
now
in
fact,
Passover
well as
D contemplates
that of JE and P as
at the
an appearance
House of
"
the
Lord on Passover.
Wellhausen further writes
in the Priestly
in this
connection
But now
indeed,
is
Code
demanded
That
not
In
P
in
it
rule as to
expressed
;
Numbers
This passage
is
very import-
ant
because
felt
been
"And
all
the holy
be
his.
And
whatsoever any
man
shall
be his."
That
Wcllhauscn's Prolegomena.
is
309
as
to
say,
the Israelite
were
ani-
The
sub-
regulated by
Numbers
first-
is
no question of these
lings
" collected
first-fruits
known
as reshith.^
f.
The only
date
we have
signed not to
if
work he must be
contains rules of
Now P
in this matter,
" the actual first-fruits are collected by the priests while the
shadow of them
sheaf, etc."
is
form of the
^ On the true distinction between reshith and bikkurin,, of which Welhausen knows nothing, see Murray's Illustrated Bible Diction-
ary,
*
s.
v.,
" First-fruits."
Wellhausen writes of Deuteronomy xxvi. Iff.: " the prayer with which at the feast of tabernacles the share of the festal gifts The theory falling to the priest is offered to the Deity" (p. 92). that this offering refers to tabernacles is not merely groundless, but demonstrably wrong: (1) there is no evidence whatever to connect it with tabernacles; (2) this is an offering of reshith, and the only
date given for this
reshith.
is
"the
first
of
all
that of Leviticus; (3) it lies in the nature of the fruit of the ground." that it could not
be offered at the end of the agricultural year. To be " first " it must be offered at " the time thou beginnest to put the sickle in the standNote that this prayer only applies to reshith of -' the ing corn." fniit of the ground." i.e. not to wine or oil.
210
Essays
in
Pcntatcuchal Criticism.
Numbers
xxviii. 26 actIt
follows that
it
from the
festival.
Leviticus
ii.
of hikkurim.
the
And
complement
command
the
House of
same.
Lord (Ex.
xxiii.
is
Thus here
P and JE
it is
But, as usual,
not
constituent enactment.
The
third
pilgrimage festival
:
was
tabernacles.
On
'
this
Wellhausen writes
. . . .
" Alike at Jerusalem and at Bethel the feast was celebrated from the days of Solomon and Jeroboam just as previously at
'
Shechem and
panegyris.
perhaps somewhat
This was at that period the sole actual summer may indeed also have been observed at this early period (Isa. ix. 2), but in smaller local circles," etc. (pp. 94 f.).
The
ix.
25).
is
It
can scarcely be
If so, a
and
this
presumption
is
Our
fragmentary that
it is
With regard
and the
partic-
extremely simple.
Tithes of wine, for example, could not be dealt with until after
the vintage.
Hence
it
IVcllhansens Prolegomena.
211
Wellhausen writes
"
.
We may
in like
it
as a kind of
no longer boiled, but consigned to Such was not the ancient custom, as is seen, not only from the case of Gideon already cited (Judges vi.), but also from the procedure at Shiloh, described in 1 Sam. ii., where the sons of Eli will not wait until the flesh of the sacrifice has been boiled, and the altar pieces burnt, but demand their share raw for roasting" (pp. 67 f. cp. p. 62).
sacrifice in the Priestly
Code
its
raw
condition.
In
fat,
Samuel
ii.
15-17 we read:
"
man that
sacrificed.
Give
flesh of thee,
but raw.
And
if
the
man
They
will surely
burn the
;
fat presently,
by
force.
And
etc.
the sin of
(R. V.)
Now
boiled
;
Leviticus
is
iii.
does not
make
it
peace-offerings
to be boiled at
it
all, still
when
it is
to be
and accordingly
we have
But while
if it
it is
is
silent
on the
point, yet,
sacrifices
was so universal
recognized
it
it
as certain to be
done without
in
specific directions,
does.
Such evidence
forthcom-
In Numbers
vi.
we have
who
is
Nothing
is
said about
is
assumed
as self-evidently
213
necessary
" the
Essays
for
in
in
Pcntatcnchal Criticism.
19
the
verse
law
I
suddenly
speaks
of
this
The
true inference
is
was
universal.
This
for
;
in
on the Passover
in
Egypt,
Simi-
Similarly Leviticus
which
it
It will
sage of Samuel
It
is
unfavorable to the
said
that
its
first
fixed
definite
dates
for
the festi-
vals.-
Before
publication, tabernacles,
for example,
was
This
disposed of by
Kings
xii.
32
"
Jeroboam ordained a
Judah.
And
he went up ...
month
own
heart."
the
is
date of P, and
the
month.
Can
it
was a
feast in
Judah on the
fifteenth
WcUhausen's
Prolego)iiciia.
213
critical
argu-
if
now
Thus P betrays
treating Tishri
the
month of tabernacles
as
it
the seventh
month.
Yet
in this
is
sufficiently
Jeroboam.
may
As
ludicrous type
tivals.
made by Wellhausen
all
in connection
i.
nearly
readers of Genesis
in ancient Israel.
began
in
in the
evening
On
"
reference to the
Priestly
Code
The
the
first
count as the
first
latter
6;
Num.
xxviii. 17:
Exod.
in
xii.
18)."
It will
according to the
it
Hebrew reckoning
was evening and
it
at the be-
was morn-
Now
Deuteronomy
down
first
day.
"
It
Wellhausen. Prolegomena,
109.
214
Essays
in
Pciitatcnchal Criticism.
who
i.
will
doubt that
reckoned days
in the
same way as
does here.^
moon need
not detain
in early
this
;
was celebrated
it
times.
Doubtless
was pre-Mosaic
and
necessary to enact
its
With regard
is
to the
Day
what
of
I
Atonement
have said
in
and sin-offerings
it
sufficient to refer to
refuta-
my
Law."
we have
views of
many minor
points.
It
to correct
On
"
unfit to
ii.
be offered as in Lev.
the
11.
For under
Lev.
even
presentation
of the
This particular misrepresentation appears to be due to Wellhausen's omission to read this and the following verse
;
for the
to be
reason given
burnt:
if
is
were not
offered, leaven
was
to be presented as reshith,
and
Of
^ In a footnote on the next page (105) Wellhausen actually argues against this by saying inter alia that " the first day of the feast in Deuteronomy is just the day on the evening of which the passover is hold, and upon it tliere follow not seven but six days more." Yet Deuteronomy xvi. ?> dearly makes the seven days of eating un-
leavened bread begin with the Passover sacrifice. = See Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, Niipra. ])\}. 1-174, and tlie ExiM)sitory Times. July. 1!>0f>, pp. 47^-475, September. 1009, p. 568.
IVcUhausen's Prolegomena.
I
215
The
is
it
good deal of
earlier material.
is
The
irreducible
MS.
i.e.
which do not
in
it
that
we have
on the
the laws of
it
Moses
in the
language of Moses.
of
Now
critical side
is
usual, after
making a number
But
this
make
it
clear
beyond
all
possi-
in
P were
They
"
shall teach
poem
included in
E)
"Take heed
and do
ac-
cording to
all
you
as
commanded them,
(D)).
that there
So too
which
" (Lev.
''
:
and
the
the
hand of Moses
etc.).
The
contents of
much
It
about leprosy,
sacrificial
bearit
to
gument about
on the question of
^Ifi
Essays
in
Pentatenchal Criticism.
Further,
when
Wellhausen speaks of P as
whole community
of
"
(p. 53),
" a
he merely contradicts
the data
itself.
are pro-
fessedly not intended for direct general use, and that other
and material,
liar
it is
Leaving out of account minor divisions, three main groups of laws are to be distinguished
in the
phenomena
of this legislation.
Pentateuch.
to be
First, there is
from
its style,
memorized.
Secondly,
we have Deuter-
form of speeches.
ing to the whole people, and style and contents are for the
facts.
Thirdly,
we have
the bulk
matters
class
would have
to
it
may
The charge
Hence
of the calendar
is
fell
to
is
easy to see
Israel.
in the
onomy excludes
ber, 1907.
Wellhausens Prolegomena.
etc.,
217
peasant.
that
affected
the
hfe
of
the
ordinary
He
would learn
is
details of date
Deuteronomy
pilgrimage
festi-
The
other point
is
stress
is
is
laid
on
known
to the prophets
is
already considered.
we have much of P is
mere procedure
manner
substantially agreeing
with
ets
its
requirements, there
is
really
provisions.
We
there were
fails to deal
with
in the
time
of, say,
Jeremiah.
is
words of the
For example,
fathers,
Jeremiah says
"
For
said
and
"
in the
to be pressed in
its
most
literal
meaning,
we must
of
No man
guage
Deuteronomy and JE, for these contain such commands. with a balanced mind would hesitate to use such lanif
sacrificial
But there
iii.
is
Cp.,
however. Zephaniah
sanctuary, they have done violence to the law." refer to something in connection with ritual.
218
ter.
Essays
in
Pentateuchal Criticism.
According
to the
ter of the
Pentateuch
Leviticus xix.
Anybody who
will be
why
to
it
has obis
Ph and
incorporated in P.
It is clear
form that
it
was meant
to be
known
to the
whole people.
If
we may assume
to be taught
that this
by the priests to
One
writes
"
:
thing more.
That the priests were not mere teachers of law and morals, but {e.g., regarding cleanness and uncleanness), is of course not denied by this. All that is asserted is that
in pre-exilian antiquity the priests' own praxis (at the altar) never constituted the contents of the Torah, but that their Torah always consisted of instructions to the laity."
What
is
that there
would be no object
in
teaching the laity the praxis of the priests at the altar, and
also that
we have
On
the
first
is
we hear
of the sin
That
is
No
doubt
in
ordinary
the
priest
performed
his task
correctly,
do so by laymen.
The second
point
is
equally important.
is
Our
historical information as to
entirely derived
it
came
follows, of
necessity, that
we cannot
may have
regulated the
own
ritual functions.
Matters
the priesthood
PVelllwnsen's Prolegomena.
219
On
found to be valueless.
The conthan
duct of Ezra
in
(other
Deuteronomy)
to the
Law
it-
The bulk
of
P was
through
in direct conflict
The whole
triple
system of
customary
disre-
The
scientific research, a
as
unity,
in
and an extraordinary
minutiae
capacity for
making blunders
it
the
of
legal
and
historical research,
on a single point.
On
some
slight coloring-
when more
turns
It
out
that
that
P P was
was not in
common
common
literary use:
and
its
save at Je-
though when
its
The
influence of
Deuteronomv on the
2-20
Essays
in
Pcntatenchal Criticism.
Law
in the
reign of Josiah,
ship.
1)ut this
strange
lately
He
says with great truth that the Pentateuch recognizes only one
temple.
community
Egypt, which
in the
year 405
B.C.,
without being
Bible
students
and
jurists
will
be
equally
shocked
at
Professor
wonder
all
that a
man
the passages in
J,
argument.
As
not
we need
now
labor
it.
Jurists will
to write
man
who presumes
is
know
that thousands
and thousands
of times has
human
existing laws.
know
the
Pentateuch or
else
do not
regard
it
as binding.
As
the
it
may
be well to ex-
behind
the
particular
phenomenon
of
The
often overlooked
men were
unable to
commune
with a
Power by
made
The prayers
of Moses, of Abra-
IVcUhanscns Prolegomena.
221
and
set the
matter beyond
all
reasonable doubt.
was
in use as a
means
of worship.
was
sacrificial.
The concep-
it
the synagogue
had
and
must be obvious
Piecing
that
was
ofifered
at
certain
times,
such as new
Then came
the
Exodus
we
find a peculiar
that the
in
God
may
be that this
sufficient
it is
mathat
Certain
is
even considered.
The
the
:
whole
legislation
postulates
Here
statutes
the approach-
are
some of the
which ye
shall observe to
the land,
(Deut.
I will
1);
"In
all
the
I
record
My
Name,
"
;
come unto
thee and
Three times
in the
year shall
of Israel
Lord God,
the
God
man
when thou
goest
"
is
up
Lord thy
God
(Ex. xxxiv. 23
322
territory,
Essays
in
Pcntatcuchal Criticism.
and nowhere
else.^
No
provision whatever
is
made
may
sojourn definitively
his
own.
is
The only
from national
in a section
exile)
a brief absence:
and that
is
dealt with
critics
assign
*'
to the post-exilic P.
enacted that
if
an
Israelite be
is
on
it
a journey afar
date of Passover, he
10).
to keep
one month
pilgrimage
later
(Num.
ix.
With regard
to the other
festivals,
and the
sacrificial
worship which, as we
know from
sions,
no provision whatever
made
for
temporary absence
far
less
permanent residence
God.
in the speeches of
The passages
Deuteronomy where
it
is
gods
"
may
and
assist
It is in-
in exile,
though
The
This
Is
ilic
or post-exilic P.
alone sufficient to dispose of the whole theory of an exThat legislation given to a people whose cen-
was in Babylonia should make no provision for an absence from Canaan exceeding a month or two in duration is a proposition which could be adopted only by men who have not the least practical acquaintance with the working of institutions.
ter of gravity
WcUhaiisens Prolegomena.
without
sacrifice.
223
They were
need
the
to
within
Israelite
certain
might
God
must be noticed
shiped Israel's
God
Israel's territory.
Our
first
an Israelite
who was
I
national territory
is
"
They
have driven
me
inheritance of the
David's
He
some god or
ceivable.
other.
it
incon-
And
Sam-
in either
branch of the popular opinion: but for the purposes of tracing the history of the interpretation of the
Law we must
leave
The next
stage
is
that
for
may
sacrifice to Israel's
God
when
when
residing in Syria.
Here we
to grapple
a worshiper of Israel's
God
is
desires to worship
Him
it is
by
the
act outside
it
Canaan.
But
as yet
based on a legal
fiction.
224
Essays
in
Pentatcuchal Criticism.
the
destruction
of the
Northern
Israel
shall abide
without
sacrifice,
Lord
their
f.).
many
disputes.
all
To
its
appears that
Hosea condemned
will be
who do
sacrifices of the
within
it.
sacrifice as possible
ix. 3
and 4
"
They
Lord's land
to Egypt,
shall
and they
out
:
shall eat
They
be
not pour
shall they
them as the
:
bread of mourners
for
into
shall not
come
This
may
be interpreted to
mean
no
purport to
sacrifice,
any rate
some
is
not offered
in
God's land.
is
And
that
obviously unanswerable
"
What
will
ye do in the day
It
shows that
no adequate
solution.
The
substantially
that
Wellhauscns Prolegomena.
legislation
225
sacrificial
national
Isaiah.
territory,
It is
We
pass
next to
the
nineteenth
foretells
the
joint
;
worship
The horizons
are widening
and
it
is
Canaan,
At
same time
It is
this chapter
tion.
a vision of what
to
happen
at
is
some future
date,
legitimate in the
in
;
exile
the Israelites " shall serve other gods day and night
will
for
(xvi. 13).
fails
At
point
is
our information
us
altogether.
No
must
further light
problems of worship
foreign lands.
Yet the
exiles
Two
will
questions confronted
them:
(1)
How
was
tained or replaced?
(2)
"What
ye do in the day of
?"
in the
The
Judaism
is
familiar to
all.
It is
more conceivable
was
'
Jeremiah than
to the
it
to
Hosea.
appeal be
made
Law
for
The only
saic sygteiu
had been introduced into the Mowas that made by Jerol>oam in deference to political
xli.
exigencies (1 Kings
2Gff.)
of sacrifice abroad.
226
Essays
in Pentatciichal Criticism.
it
God
made
in the
circumset of
whatof the
unalter-
men
^
to
change or
of these
repeal
it
it
intact.
;
Some
it
and
is
obvious
as
Naaman was
good
When
the exile
made
in the conditions
were possible:
(1) to abandon the public worship of Israel's (2) to adopt a purely non-sacrificial worship;
God
altogether;
of the age.
The
first solution,
Judaism was
to be saved
some
What
will ye
do
in the
in the
day of the
* '
feast of the
Lord ?"
See his Ancient Law. words might, however, mean that the worship of the gods was additional or subsequent to an attempt to serve the God
Jeremiali's
of Israel abroad.
INDEX
I.
228
xxi. 1 xxi. 2
Index
7
I.
xxii. 16
xxiii.
xxxix. 3 xxxix. 9
xliii.16
xliii.
xliii.
23 29
xliv. 16
'
8 as XXX. 29 (28).
Index
vi. 2
I.
229
15
i.
vi. 3
vii. 1 vii.
vii.
vii. vii.
2-7
8-xi 10
8-13 8-12
f.
vii. 8
vii. 8
vii. 9
14-25
14 15 16 17
vii. 19,
vii.
vii.
20
vii. vii.
19 20 22 25
(viii.
(8)
viii. 5 (9)
viii. 8
viii.
(12) 11 (15)
viii.
viii. viii.
16 (20) 18 (22) 21 (25) viii. 22 (26) viii. 23 (27) viii. 24 (28) viii. 25 (29)
viii. viii.
ix.
1-7
ix. 1 f. ix. 6
ix.
ix. ix.
ix.
8-12 1 3-35
X. 3
X. 7
X. S
230
xviii.
Index
I.
Index
XIX. xix. 12 XX. 3 xxi. 6 xxi. 14
xxiii.
xxiii.
I.
231
218
10-14
f.
xxiii. 10
NUMBEBS
i.-iv.
I. f.
1.21
II. f.
11.
11.6 11.11
ii. ii. ii.
ii.
15 16 17 32
iii.
iii.
Ix.
ix.
ix.
G-14
10
1
ff. ff.
ix.
ix.
17 17
X.
X. 2 X. X.
11 21
X. X.
4-34
233
xiv. 23
ff.
Index
I.
i.
22-25
234
xi.
Index
ff.
I.
16
INDEX
II.
SUBJECTS
Aaron.
death
04-70,
of,
71
f.,
f.,
74,
99.;
116
124,
128, 133,
f. f.
Cambridge
larger,
14,
J.
1(52
f.,
77., 165.
Carpenter,
7, 8, 9,
Altar, before the Ark, 182; the great, 201; horned, 181-184, 103, 108; lay, 175, 179-182,
183, 102, 100, 181,
185
f.,
104,
191, 198,
burnt-offering, 200; of 100; steps of, 180; Temple. 180 71., 182 n.; see also " Sanctuaries." Amalek. 105 f.. 172 . Aneel of God, 45, 83 f. Aquila, IG. 20. Arad. 121 f., 128, 129 f., 131, 132,
134. 138.
Arani-naharaim. 13G. makArk, the, custody of, G8 f ing of, 152-154; position of,
.
Estlin. 3jj., 4, 5, 6, 13, 28, 41, 43, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 70, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93. 96, 98, 99., ioi, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 f., 113, 126, 138, 141, 172 ., 173, 192. Charu. 132. Cheyne, 140. Chronicles. 12. 167. Chronoloev. 85 f., 97 ., 98, 99, 133-136, 137, 129, 110. 125. 138. 149-1.54, 171 ., 172 n. 56. 40. Clodd, E.. Cloud, the, 82-90, 100, 101, 106 f. Clue to the documents, the, 4-44.
12,
Colenso. 134
"
f.,
00-03.
Article, the Hebrew. 97 Ashkelon. 132. Astruc, 5, 10 H., 41.
f.
Composition of the Hexateuch, the." 3f?., 00 f.; see also Carpenter, Oxford Hexateuch.
f.
Conflate readings. 30, ,38, 165 Cush, Cushite, 60, 63, 99.
n.
D,
4.
58.,
59
n.,
88,
Bacon.
108. 111.
Baentsch, 77.
13,5, 13G, 146 f., 172 n. 100, 101, 192, 198; see also Hi2:h Place. Beth-Rehob. 140. " Beyond Jordan," 172 n. Bikkurim, 183, 209 m., 210.
204,
.
120, 208,
126, 209,
Balaam.
Dahpe,
J.,
Bamah.
Dniches,
S..
10 h.. 23 173 h.
De
Rossi, 10
jk,
14
f.
Blayney.
3G.
f.
Boiling. 211
Deuteronomy, composition of, 4; influence on literature, 219 f. Mosaic interpretation of, 219 authorship of, 173; purpose of, 216, 217; see also D and the Index of Texts.
;
195,
also
197, Offerings,
Dillmann. 100, 108, 192. Dittography. 38. 91. Documentary theory, 3-44
see
236
also
Index
Carpenter,
II.
D,
DeuterJ, JE,
Graf, 179.
hypothesis, 10 220; see also Higher Criticism, Wellhausen. Gray, G. B., 3. 12. 76, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90. 91, 92, 97., 99 .. 100, 101, 114, 110, 117 ., 121, 133 n.,
n..
Graf-Wellhausen
176
.,
197.
Donhlets, 104 f., 109 f. Drink-offerings, 201. Driver, S. II., 3, 27. 28, 43, 97,
98, 108. 114, 127, 132, 137, 147, 148. 150, 151, 152, 153, 102, 171m., 172 n., 175, 187 ., 192.
f.. 5, 6, 7. 9, 37 ., 38, 40, 42, 43, 44, 57, 58, 59. GO, 61, 63, 64, 65, 67, V,S, m. 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82. 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88. 89, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 99, 100. 103, 104, 109, 111, 113, 160, 161, 183, 184, 188, 199 ., 215, 220: see also JE. Edom, compassing of, 120, 121, 123, 125 ff.. 128. 131, 133, 134; passage 123, through, 124,
E, 3
135. 136, 137. 138, 140, 142, 143, 144, 140, 155, 161. 169. 200. 201 n., 202. Green. W. H., 72, 78, 102.
141, 158,
see Ph.
Harford-Battersby, G., 3 n. Hastings. 185. 193. Hazeroth, 127. Hebrew MSS.. 10, 11. 14, 16.5, 166; see also Abbrevintinns, Septuagint. Textual Criticism.
"Hebrew.
1'he,"
16.
128; proposed iourney through, 119 ff., 127, 129 f., 131, 136,
171 n. Effypt see Goshen.
;
Hesychius. 20, 21, 22. Hexapla, 20 f. High Place, 182 ?2., 196,
197
f.
Elatli.
128,
130.
sec also Bamah. High Priest. 99?)., 170. Higher Criticism, 1-44. 215; see
also
Elders, the seventv. 96 w., 113. Eleazar, 67, 68. 69. Elephantine papyri, 220-226. Elohim, 5-44. Ensrelkentper, W., 178 n. Eshcol. 123. 140. Eusel)ius, 20?)., 21. E7ekiel, 1S0., 200. Ezinn-geber, 115, 126 f., 128. 130,
133.
Carpenter,
Colenso.
D,
Holland, 133.
Holmes, 24. 165. Holy, 208 f. Homoeote'euton, 104. 126 f.. 145, Hor. Mount, 116. 121, 123. 124,
128. 123. 134,
;
13.5,
136.
1.37.
147.
Horeb, 60
22. 28.
f.,
First-fruits,
206
Hormah,
131,
House of God.
53 .
189, 197.
Frazer,
119. 121 f., 127, 138. 182, 183. 187, 190. 192. 193. 194, 200. 205 f 208; see
1.32,
of,
165
f.
Nob, Shiloh.
132.
Gideon, ephod of, 190 n.; sacrifice by, 211 ; slaughter by, 176. Gipseltrecht, 51. Ginshurg. C. D.. 162tc. Gi'dlestone. R. B., 167. Glory of the Lord. the. 84, 86, 90.
Hundred,
167.
E.,
Huntington,
115.
;
INGATITFRTNG, Feast of
ernacles. Investigation,
see Tabof,
principles
Glosses
18
f..
38
m..
99
n.,
122,
130. 144
f.,
171, 172 n.
117 f. Tshmael.
17.
f.
Goshen. 57-60.
Index
Israelites, intellectual condition of, in Mosaic age, 47, 53; see
If.
237
78-81.
Wan126,
Lucian,
21,
Lucianic Recension, 20, 25, 27, 28. 168; see also Textual Criticism.
23, N.,
136
J,
f.,
147.
McLean,
3\LTine,
24
n. 97??..
3f., 5, 6, 7, 8, 0, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 71, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, >81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 96, 100, 102, 104, 106, 109, 111, 117, 159, 160, 161, 183, 184, 188, 205, 206,
Manna, narratives,
Marriages
170
f.
103
f.,
with foreigners, 99
104.
7i.,
220; see also JE. Jaazer, spying out, 134 f. JE. 3f.. 59 7i., 73. S3, 92, 108,
109, 110, 117, 119, 120, 121, 120, 127, 139, 140, 158, 159, 161, 192. 198, 200, 202, 204, 208, 209, 210. 217; see also E, J. Jethro, 60 f., 62. 98. Joshua. 105, 106, 139, 142; alleged priesthood of 65, 66-70. Judges, 96?i.. 106 f., 113.
see
Textual
Merenptah, 132. Merihah see Kadesh, Massah. Micah, image of. 190 n. Midian, 76 f., 135. 169-171. Miriam, 99??.. 172??.
;
Moab, message
99
f.,
Mistranslations, 101. 184??., 207. wilderto, 172 n. ness of, 124. Months, numbered before the
;
Exile, 213.
Kadesh,
138,
116
f.,
118,
119,
120ji.
139,
Kautzsch,
148, 108.
171
n.,
172
135.
14,
15,
36,
37
n.,
165,
166,
168.
Moserah, 147. Moses. 52 f.. 54-56, 60-66, 74, 99, 105 f., 111-113, 116, 119, 120, 137. 1.52, 171-173; fasting of, 148 f. sons of, 60, 61 f.. 63 f. visits to the Mount, 148-152; wife of, 60. 61. 63; see also Jethro, Rod. Zipporah. Mountain of God, 70 f. see also Horeb. Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, lOn., 47??., 182, 209 n.
;
;
Names,
122,
objective existence of, 47 f.. 51 primitive ideas as to, 48-56; see also Tetragramma;
Laws,
;
43, 171;
groups
of. in
Pen-
ton.
tateuch,
216; how construed, 194 some, only to reach the people through tlie priests, 215 f.; see also Altar, 206, Booty, Burnt-offerings. Legislation. Offerings,
Nash papvrus,
10??.
Negeb, 121. Neheniinh. 154??., 171. Nob, 187. 188, 189, 190, 202. Noldeke. 220.
Leavened Cakes.
Legislation, the, people, settled ritory, 221 ff. see also Laws, Levi. Levites Priests.
;
Numbers,
the,
155-169,
170.
Mosaic,
see
215
Numbers,
Obotii. 128. 130. 136. Offerings, classified. 196. 199 f., 219; National. ino-9f.Q- ptntntory individual, 205, 206, 209, 210; see also Sacrifice. Og. campaign against, 134 f.
;;
238
Index
II.
Quails, 97
h.,
109
f.,
111-113.
f.
Oxtord Hexateuch, 2
13, 28, 57,
58
n.,
Ransom
R(l, 4,
of souls, 103
n.,
67, 78,
68, 80,
f.,
93
113,
73, 74, 75, 76, 84, 88, 90 f., 102 f., 105, 107, 108, 110 f., 126, 137, 173 n. ; see also
70,
71,
59
81,
82
f.,
Red
102
Sea,
of,
Hexateuch.
P, 4, 5, 7, 9, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44,
57, 66, 67, ()8, 70, 71, 73, 74, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 100, 101, 103, 104. 105 u., 107, 108, 109, 116, 117, 126, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142, 143, 158, 159,
f.; journey by, 119, 123, 125, 133, 134, 136. Redpath, H. A., 10/;., 41 n. Rehob, 140. Reland, 121. Reshith, 209 f., 214.
82, 120,
Rje,
f.,
37
n.,
58
n.,
59
n.,
60,
Rowlands,
Rp,
4, 58,
222;
see
also
206,
207
183, 212,
f.
Pentateuch, the, authorship of, 42 f., 171-174 transmission of, 118; see also D, Deuteronomy, E, J, JE, P, Pli, Wellhausen. Pentecost; see Weeks. Pethor, 136, 146. Ph, 4, 79, 198, 209, 218. Pilgrimage festivals, 183. 206 f., 210, 222; their dates, 212 f.; see also Passover, Tabernacles,
Sacrifice, 189 f., 221-220; and slaughter, 175-178, 193; at hamoth, 192; clan, 186; customary lay, 179, 185 f., 187, 191, 194, 195 f., 197, 205; how prepared, 211 only possible in the national territory in Mosaic times and for long after, 221 ff. Naaman's device, 223, 226 Hosea's view, 224 f. Jeremiah's, 225, 226 n.; solutions of the difficulty, 226; prophetic denunciations of, 217 f. statutory individual, 192, 195, 196 f., 202 .. 205, 206; with priestly assistance, 191, 206; sec also Offerings.
; ; ; ;
Salem, 173.
Samaritan
153
f.
Pentateuch,
11,
36,
Weeks.
Pillar of Cloud see Cloud. Pitru. 136. 146. Plagues, the, 72-78. Plural verbs, alternation of singular and, 65 f. Prayer, 221.
;
Samuel,
191. 175,
179,
185,
Pre-Mosaic materials
teuch, 42 Priesthood,
f.
in
Penta-
Priests, 6G-70. 107, 181, ISS, ISO, 190, 191,' 192, 205, 200, 207, 208, 209, 211, 216 f., 218 f.; garb of priests, 180; sec also Aaron, Altar, House of Cod, Offering, Sacrifice. Teaching-. Procedure. 203-206. 209, 210, 215, 217.
ministry of, 66-70; what is, 180; see also Altar, House of God, Tabernacle. Scribes, bias of, 168 f. Septuatrint, the, 11, 13, 14, 1542. 127 ., 153 f., 162. 164, 167; how to use, history of, 20 f. 1.3, 22, 24 f.. .30, .37 f.; sec also Cambridge Septuagint, Lucian, Textual Criticism.
Sanctuary,
Shewbread.
188,
202, 214.
Shiloh, 187. 189. 190. 210, 211. Sihon, campaign against, 134 f.
message
Singular;
to.
1.34
f.
see
Plural.
Index
Sin-offering, 212,
II.
239
214.
Theophany,
ITSnon-sacrificial, Slaughter, ITS, 193; of statutory individual sacrifice, 20(5 n. Smith, H. P., ITSJi. Smith, W. R., 153 f., ITTn.,
1ST?!., 19T. Spies, mission of 131, 138-143.
the,
how
or
Thousand,
omission
Tithes, 210.
undue
of,
insertion
f.
166
Transliteration
the,
of
f.,
Hebrew,
133.
123,
129,
116?!-.
Trumbull, H. C, 131
Tylor, E. B., 49.
Strack, 9T.
Van Hoonackee,
94-
Symmachus,
" Syrian,
IG,
20,
12.
IG.
21.
Syriac Version,
the,"
9G, 184 n. Versions, the, 11, 13 ff. ; see also Septuagint, Textual Criticism.
Taberah, 9G.
Tabernacle,
the,
91,
Wanderings
161,
f.,
;
making
153
GG-TO position service of, 154 ti. of, see also Altar, Tent of Meet-
Water
episodes,
104
f.,
119
f.,
93-102
ing.
f.,
Feast 212 f.
the
of,
183,
Weeks, Feast of, 183, 210; see also Pilgrimage festivals. Wellhausen, 1, 3, 10 n., 90, 116,
ITT, 1T8, 1T9, 180, 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 192, 19T. 198, 200, 203, 204. 206, 20T, 208, 200 tm., 210, 212 .. 213. 214, 216, 218,
Teaching
215
93,
f.,
of
priest,
69,
;
206,
91,
218, 219.
Tent of Meeting,
96-102,
f.
89
n.,
lOTf.
see
also
"
Tetragrammaton,
lT3f.,
of,
the,
4,
184
to
f.,
n.,
46 f., 189 n.
docurevela-
importance
tion
of,
4,
the
;
also Graf-Wellhausen. ye came forth out of Egypt," ITl n. Wright, G. F., 115. Writing, Hebrew, 46, 162 f., 166; see also Abbreviations.
see
When
46,
53-56;
use of, 5-41, 45. Textual criticism. 10-42, 44-46, 62 f., 83?!., 85, 90 n., 91, 94-96,
9Tf., 101, 103 f., 106, lOT, 108, 140 f., 143-146, 114, 121-138, 14T, 149, 153 f.. 162-169, 1T2 n.
Ye NOAM,
132.
116,
n.,
120
f.,
ITO.
BS1225.4.W642
Essays
in
Pentateuchal criticism.
llliriiriri]ilH?i'.?",'.^57!!r^Ty.-Speer Library