THE HEXATEUCH.* No more serious contribution to the criticism of
the Pentateuch, and of what most scholars are now agreed in regarding as its supplement, the Book of Joshua, has appeared in this country. We welcome it as the outcome of a friendly co-operation among representatives of different religious Communions. The Anglican, the Congregational, the Unitarian, and the Jewish are represented by contribu- tions. Neither labour nor time has been spared—the Horatian maxim, nonum prematur in annum, has been observed, not perhaps altogether voluntarily—and the result is one which those who originated and executed the scheme may fairly regard with satisfaction, and Biblical students should thankfully welcome.
The principal criticism that we have to make on the book is easily stated. We frankly accept the theory that the six books are the result of a redaction which has pieced together various documents belonging to different times and indicating by their phraseology and tone of thought a multiplicity of authors; we concede that the "joins," so to speak, can be frequently detected, that there are discrepancies, and even contradictions. But we think that the criticism which professes to detect these discrepancies errs sometimes by excess. Surely if we suppose an editor who has undertaken the task of composing into a harmonious whole materials which have come down to him from an earlier time, we must credit him with common intelligence. Is it possible, then, to suppose, to take a very familiar instance, that "two versions of Joseph's enslavement lie side by side in Gen. 37" According to one version, Joseph's brothers sell him to a caravan of Ishmaelites ; according to the other, "Joseph is not sold at all, he is kidnapped" by the Midianite merchants. This is straining the word "kidnapped." The lad is found in a dry water-hole. By both accounts, if two they are, his brothers have put him there. And according to the common, and we cannot but think reasonable, interpretation, the words "they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites " refer to the brothers, not to the "Midianite merchantmen" who passed by. That the mer- chantmen are called indifferently Ishmaelites and Midianites is nothing very serious. Ishmael and Midia.n, the eponymous ancestors of the two tribes, were half-brothers in the Abrahamic genealogy. When Joseph, later on, says that he was "stolen out of the land of the Hebrews," he describes his brothers' act with a characteristic euphemism. The most mechanical scribe would hardly pass over so palpable a con- tradiction; to an editor, in any sense of the word, it would be impossible. In the story of the spies' report, again, it proves too much to say that in Numbers xiii. v. 27, they report of the land that it is flowing with milk and honey, and in v. 32 that "it eateth up its inhabitants." The phrase is obscure, but its meaning is probably governed by what follows : "All the people that we saw in it are men of great stature." We might paraphrase by saying A fertile land, but full of violence, inhabited by a gigantic race of savages.' To suppose an editor putting in one detail indicating barrenness where the whole tone of the story indicates fertility, is to increase not to remove difficulties. On the other hand, we see no escape from the contradiction as to the position of the Tabernacle. One account puts it in the centre of the host with elaborate precautions for guarding it, the other puts it outside the camp. Canon Rawlinson (An Old Testament Commentary for English Readers) suggests that the Tabernacle outside the camp (as described in Exodus mill.) was Moses' own tent, temporarily used as a place for private prayer, but the explanation is far from satisfactory. There is another discrepancy, of not much importance, but quite manifest, in the narrative of the plagues in Exodus. Sometimes the Israelites are in Goshen ; some- times they dwell among the Egyptians (the whole meaning of the passover blood is otherwise lost). The fact is that there are inconsistencies which it is impossible to get over. The critic, who is already regarded by many readers with suspicion, should carefully avoid any appearance of straining an objec- tion. He is bound to remember that there is scarcely a classical historian who does not present, when he is carefully studied and compared with other authorities and himself,
• The Hecate uch according to the Revised Version. Edited, with Introduction, Notes. cc., by J. EsCin Carpenter and G. Ilariord-Battersby. 2 vols. London: Louginans and Co. 1,36s.]
problems quite insoluble. And he has a warning before his eyes in the temerity with which others are questioning the Christian origins. As we write we have a recently published volume before us in which we have the confident assertion that the twelve Apostles are "demonstrably mythical," while we could refer the curious to a volume in which the history, not only of Judaism, but of Christendom, is shown—to the satisfaction at least of the author—to be a creation of monkish ingenuity in the twelfth century. Our criticism, however, it may be well to repeat, touches detail, not principle. That the authors of this work are here substantially right can hardly be questioned by any open-minded student.
The Introduction, which is the work of Mr. Carpenter (chap. 15, from the pen of Professor Cheyne, excepted), begins with a lucid statement of the problems to be solved, illustrated by some instructive analogies. Chap. 2, dealing with "The Claim to Contemporary Authorship," relating as it does to considerations of internal evidence, might have been advan. tageously postponed to a later place, giving way to 3, "Signs
of Post-Mosaic Date," and 4, "Signs of Diversity of Docu- ments," both of which are mainly concerned with the history
of Old Testament criticism. From 5 onwards we have a careful analysis of the documents dealt with, starting from the remarkable discovery of what is rightly described as the "clue," made about the middle of the eighteenth cen-
tury, when Jean Astruc of Montpelier distinguished the Elohim and the Yahweh narratives in the first two books of the Pentateuch. In 10 we have an examina-
tion of the theory that Deuteronomy was the book of the Law found in the reign of Josiah, a definite and easily intel- ligible idea which may be said to have been the first that, in this country at least, reached beyond the narrow circle of professed Biblical students. Our authors accept the theory as a whole ; "the proof lies in the fact that the proceedings of Josiah correspond step by step with D's demands." But they accept it with some modifications. The whole chapter is one of special interest. In 13, "The Priestly Code," we have, among other valuable matter, a very significant account of the remarkable episode in Ezekiel where the prophet pro- pounds a form of worship for the regenerated Israel. It is certainly a very cogent piece of evidence for the hypothesis of a late date for the Priestly Code. In 16, "The Union of the Documents," Mr. Carpenter seeks to show the actual process by which the books, as we have them, assumed their present form. Criticism to be really fruitful must be construc- tive, and though we would suspend our judgment on details, we have nothing but praise for the courage with which this
necessary work has been essayed. The remaining part of Vol. I. is given to three valuable appendices,—(1) "Lists of
Words and Phrases" in the combined narrative (JE), Deuteronomy and the documents akin to it (D), and the Priestly Code (P) ; (2) "Laws and Institutions" ; and (3) a general synopsis of the six books. Vol. II. contains the text of the Pentateuch, with annotations, ranged under its various origins as indicated by the symbols J, E, and P, and with separate introduction to the Book of Joshua.
We have of necessity made a very hasty survey of this remarkable work, but we should like to call our readers' special attention to the masterly chapters, 11 and 12, in which "The Origins of 3" and "The Origins of E" are treated. We may quote as a specimen the following :— "He explains the gloomy meaning of human toil and suffering. He concerns himself with the development of the arts, cattle- breeding and agriculture, building, music, and metal-working. He gathers up the stories of remote antiquity concerning the origin of the giants of old time ; he relates the flood ; he ascribes husbandry and the culture of the vine to Noah. He is the first to attempt a classification of other nations ; he explains the diversities of language ; and he notes the movements of peoples, the rise of mighty cities, and the foundation of great empires. These ancient narratives have received the powerful impress of the religion of Yahweh, and the form in which they are presented by J accommodates them to Hebrew thought. How far they imply a process of collection or investigation on the author's part cannot of course be exactly determined. But it is probable that the mode in which they are grouped and correlated owes much to a systematic purpose, and in this aspect it is not altogether in- appropriate to speak of the narratives prefixed to his account of the origins of Israel as the product of something analogous to modern research. But what is chiefly noticeable is the large view of human affairs which is thus indicated. Contrasted with the hostility to Canaanite idolatries manifested in D, the relations of the patriarchs to their neighbours in J are for the most part not unfriendly. And in the single story, Gen. 34, which points to con- ilia the conclusion indicates no suspicious result for Israel, while the language of 49-'7 is still more unfavourable. Beyond the limits of Israel the writer's judgments naturally vary. An odious origin is assigned to Moab and Ammon; but the magnanimity of Esau is described with full recognition of his generous and chivalric temper. Traditions of interoourse with the east are still reflected in the pictures of the descendants of Nahor ; while the connexions of the remoter Arab tribes are twice speci- fied, being mentioned both in the lineage of Joktan and in the descendants of Keturah. J, therefore, does not hesitate to give to Joseph an Egyptian bride, or to provide Moses with a Midianite wife, whom P, however, repeatedly ignores. More- over, he takes a sympathetic attitude towards the religious insti- tutions of other nations. The knowledge of Yahweh is not limited to the chosen race ; homage is paid to him in the land of the two rivers ; the fame of Nimrod is sheltered under his name ; his benediction is invoked by Laban upon Abraham's servant. Rebekah inquires of him apparently at some local oracle; and Balsam becomes the organ of his spirit. No rigid line yet separates Israel as the instrument of Yahweh's purpose from the peoples round?'
The book treated in this fashion gains, we cannot but think, largely in interest, while it does not lose in dignity.
Previous page
