HEXATEUCH
(In
the
same
way
Jos
24™
refers
to
the
preceding
section,
not
to
the
whole
book.)
In
fact,
the
care
with
which
the
writers
or
editors
felt
it
necessary
to
emphasize
a
Mosaic
origin
tor
certain
sections,
is
the
surest
indication
that
it
never
occurred
to
them
to
attribute
the
remaining
portions
of
the
bool£
either
to
Moses
or
to
Joshua,
and
that
they
wished
their
readers
to
exercise
as
much
discrimination
as
themselves
in
such
matters.
How
did
the
belief
in
the
Mosaic
authorship
of
the
Pentateuch
arise?
Probably
it
was
a
natural
inference
from
the
language
of
Deuteronomy.
There
is
absolutely
nothing
to
suggest
his
name
as
the
probable
author
of
the
fourearUer
books;
but
when
once
Beuteronomy
was
added
to
the
collection,
the
name
of
Moses
was
transferred
from
that
book
to
the
whole
work
;
much
as,
at
a
later
period,
the
name
of
David
was
prefixed
to
the
Psalter,
though
there
has
practically
never
been
any
doubt
as
to
the
inclusion
of
many
post-
Davidic
psalms
in
that
anthology
of
religious
poems.
2.
The
indirect
evidence
of
the
Hexateuch,
however,
is
of
more
importance;
and
the
multitudinous
repetitions,
divergences,
and
even
contradictions
thus
brought
to
light
furnish
a
convincing
proof
that
the
books
of
the
Hexateuch
are
the
result
of
complicated
literary
processes,
and
cannot
by
any
possibihty
be
ascribed
to
a
single
author.
It
will
be
well
to
consider
these
phenomena
as
they
concern
respectively
the
legal
and
the
historical
sections
of
the
Hexateuch.
(a)
The
demonstration
that
in
the
Hexateuch
we
have
at
least
three
independent
bodies
of
law,
corresponding
to
the
requirements
of
as
many
distinct
historical
situations,
may
be
considered
one
of
the
most
brilliant,
as
it
Is
also
one
of
the
most
certain,
of
the
achievements
of
Biblical
criticism.
(i.)
The
Book
of
the
Oovenant(=0),
Ex20-23.—
In
these
laws
we
catch
a
glimpse
of
primitive
Israel.
They
are
dii;fcted
to
the
simple
needs
of
an
agricultural
community.
In
religious
matters,
three
feasts
are
mentioned
when
the
sanctuary
must
be
visited;
and
sacrifice
may
be
done
to
Jehovah
in
any
place,
upon
rough
altars
of
earth
or
unhewn
stone.
(ii.)
The
Deuteronomic
Code
(=D)
gives
unmistak-able
evidence
of
an
advanced
civilization.
Seven
feasts
are
mentioned
;
and
their
original
agricultural
character
is
wholly
subordinated
to
their
religious
significance;
the
permission
as
to
the
numerous
localities
where
Jehovah
might
be
met
and
worshipped
is
arbitrarily
and
emphati-cally
abrogated.
(iii.)
The
Levitical
legislation,
or
Priestly
Code
(=P),
presupposes
rather
than
anticipates
a
completely
altered
situation.
The
consciousness
of
sin,
and
the
need
of
forgiveness,
had
taken
the
place
of
the
earlier
spirit
of
joyous
festivity
which
came
at
stated
times
'to
see
Jehovah
'
(an
expression
judiciously
altered
by
orthodox
scribes
in
later
times
into
'
to
be
seen
by,
or
to
appear
before
,
Jehovah
'
)
.
Accordingly
P
describes
with
the
ut-most
fulness
the
ritual
of
the
Day
of
Atonement
;
this
'
cul-minatinginstitution
of
the
Levitical
system
'
is
apparently
unknown
to
all
previous
legislation.
P,
moreover,
is
in
open
conflict
with
D
on
the
subject
of
the
priesthood.
In
pre-exilic
days
the
Levites
were
priests,
even
if
one
family,
that
of
Aaron,
may
have
enjoyed
a
special
pre-eminence
;
but
P
takes
the
utmost
pains
to
distinguish
'the
priests,
the
sons
of
Aaron,'
from
'the
Levites,'
the
subordinate
ministers
of
the
sanctuary
—
a
fact
which
practically
proves
the
composition
of
the
Priestly
Code
to
have
been
subsequent
to
the
reforms
indicated
by
Ezekiel.
Further
innovations
may
be
observed
in
the
means
adopted
for
the
provision
of
the
priesthood.
Thus,
while
in
D
the
worshipper
himself
consumes
the
firstUngs,
though
of
course
the
priest
receives
his
due,
in
P
the
worshipper
has
no
part
or
lot
therein,
as
they
are
unreservedly
appropriated
for
the
support
of
the
officiating
minister.
Other
differences
have
also
been
detected.
Now
these
divergences
might
conceivably
be
susceptible
of
being
explained
away
by
harmonistic
ingenuity,
were
HEXATEUCH
not
the
conclusions
they
suggest
borne
out
by
corrobora-tive
testimony
drawn
from
two
independent
quarters.
Historically
it
can
be
shown
that
these
different
codes
correspond
to
different
stages
of
Israel's
development.
It
can
be
shown
that
D
was
unknown
before
Josiah,
and
P
before
the
Exile.
A
minute
and
patient
investigation
of
such
contemporary
evidence
as
we
possess
In
the
historical
books
has
proved
conclusively
that
many
of
the
laws
of
the
Pentateuch
as
a
whole
were
for
centuries
wholly
unknown
to
the
religious
leaders
or
social
reformers
of
the
country.
It
has
also
been
shown
that
on
two
occasions
far-reaching
changes
were
taken
in
hand
on
the
lines,
and
on
the
basis,
of
those
two
later
codes,
embodied
in
Deuteronomy
and
Leviticus.
Linguistically
it
has
become
no
less
evident
that
each
code
has
its
own
peculiar
terminology,
its
own
styUstic
idiosyncrasi
es,
its
own
characteristicmode
of
presentation.
The
continual
recurrence
of
remarkable
words,
phrases,
and
even
sentences,
in
each
of
the
three
codes,
coupled
with
the
fact
that
this
distinctive
phraseology
and
vocabulary
is
strictly
confined
to
that
particular
code,
and
does
not
reappear
in
either
of
the
others,
practically
excludes
the
possibility
of
their
emanating
from
the
same
author.
It
may
therefore
be
held
to
be
beyond
reasonable
dispute
that
the
legal
portions
of
the
Hexateuch
are
incompatible
either
with
unity
of
authorship
or
with
an
even
approximately
contemporaneous
promulgation.
Language
shows
that
they
are
not
the
work
of
the
same
legislator;
history
is
equally
decisive
against
their
being
the
product
of
a
single
age.
(b)
Passing
from
the
legal
to
the
narrative
portion
of
the
Hexateuch,
we
are
confronted
with
a
problem
even
more
intricate
and
involved.
(i.)
There
are
frequent
repetitions.
Continually
we
see
the
clearest
traces
of
the
same
event
being
twice
recorded.
We
may
instance
the
story
of
Creation,
the
Flood,
the
history
of
Joseph,
the
Plagues
of
Egypt,
the
giving
of
quails
and
the
sending
of
manna,
the
history
of
the
spies,
the
rebellion
of
Korah,
the
appointment
of
Joshua,
the
conquest
of
Canaan.
The
names
of
various
personages
and
famous
sanctuaries
are
explained
twice
and
even
thrice.
These
examples
must
by
no
means
be
considered
exhaustive:
they
could
be
multiplied
almost
indefinitely.
It
might,
of
course,
be
argued
that
the
author
deliber-ately
repeated
himself,
but
—
(ii.)
These
repetitions
are
marked
by
a
corresponding
change
of
language,
and
a
difference
of
representation
in
the
events
they
describe.
We
shall
take
the
latter,
the
material
differences,
first.
The
second
story
of
Creation
(Gn
2'^-^)
seems
to
know
nothing
of
the
six
days,
and
gives
an
order
of
the
creative
acts(man
—
vegetation—
animals
—
woman)evidently
opposed
to
that
given
in
the
first
chapter.
In
the
two
accounts
of
the
Flood
(6"-22
T-^),
the
former
states
that
two
of
every
sort
of
beast
entered
the
ark
(6^
^
7^^)
,
while
the
latter
states
with
equal
explicitness
that
for
one
couple
of
unclean
beasts,
seven
couples
of
clean
animals
were
to
beadmitted(72-3).
One
account
gives
the
duration
of
the
Flood
as
61
days;
the
other
as
a
year
and
10
days.
In
Joseph's
history,
while
one
writer
explains
thatat
Reuben's
suggestion
he
was
thrown
into
a
pit
from
which
he
was
stolen
by
the
Midianites,
the
other
records
how
Judah
took
the
lead
in
selling
him
to
the
Ishmaelites
(37""
the
exact
division
is
uncertain).
'The
narrative
of
the
plagues
(Ex
TW-ll")
is
marked
by
a
series
of
systematic
differences,
relating
to
four
distinct
points
—
(1)
the
terms
of
the
command
addressed
to
Moses;
(2)
the
demand
made
of
Pharaoh;
(3)
the
description
of
the
plague;
(4)
the
formula
expressive
of
Pharaoh's
obstinacy'
(Driver,
Ix.
p.
25).
In
thestory
of
the
spies
(Nu
13.
14),
the
two
accounts
are
BO
clear
and
complete
that
they
can
be
extricated
from
each
other
without
much
difficulty
and
present
us
with
two
wholly
independent
narratives.
In
one,
thespies
explore
only
the
south
of
Judah,
and
returning
praise
the
fertility
of
the
land,
but
dread
the
strength
of
the
inhabitants;
Caleb
alone
dissents
from
their
counsel
of
despair,
and
is
alone
exempted
from
the
punishment
of
exclusion
from
the
Holy
Land.
In
the
other,
the
spies
penetrate
to
the
extreme
north,
and
on
their
return
expatiate
on
the
stenhty
of
the
