HEXATEUCH
soil;
Joshua
is
associated
witli
Caleb
both
in
the
vain
task
of
pacification
and
in
the
ensuing
promise.
We
may
take
as
a
final
instance
the
rebellion
of
Korah
(Nu
16.
17),
where
it
seems
that
three
narratives
have
been
combined.
In
one,
Dathan
and
Abiram,
of
the
tribe
of
Reuben,
head
a
political
rebellion
against
the
civil
domina-tion
of
Moses,
and
are
swallowed
up
alive
by
the
earth;
in
the
second,
Korah
and
two
hundred
and
fifty
princes
of
the
congregation
protest
against
the
limitation
of
priestly
rites
to
the
tribe
of
Levi,
and
are
consumed
by
fire;
in
the
third,
Korah
is
the
spokesman
of
an
ecclesiastical
agitation
fostered
by
the
Levites
against
the
exclusive
privileges
enjoyed
by
Aaron
and
the
Aaronic
priesthood.
These
differences
of
representation
are
invariably
accompanied
by
a
change
of
language
and
of
character-istic
expression
—
so
that
out
of
inextricable
confusion
there
are
gradually
seen
to
emerge
three
literary
entities
corresponding
to
the
three
great
legal
strata.
(1)
Deuteronomy
(
=
D)
stands
almost
alone;
but
there
are
several
Deuteronomio
additions
in
the
Book
of
Joshua,
conceived
in
that
spirit
of
bitter
hostiUty
to
the
heathen
which
was
considered
an
indispensable
accompaniment
of
meritorious
zeal.
(2)
The
main
body
of
the
work
corresponds
to
the
Book
of
the
Covenant,
which
is
contained
in
its
pages.
Labori-ous
investigations
have
estabUshed
the
fact
that
this
is
not
a
homogeneous
document,
but
a
composite
work.
Two
writers
have
been
distinguished;
and
from
the
fact
that
one
uses
'Jahweh,'
the
other
'Elohim'
as
the
ordinary
title
for
God,
they
have
been
called
respec-tively
the
Jahwist
and
the
Elohist,
contracted
into
J
and
E
—
while
the
combination
of
those
histories
which
seems
to
have
been
effected
at
a
comparatively
early
date
is
known
as
JE.
(3)
The
framework
of
the
entire
history
is
due
to
the
author
of
the
Priestly
Code,
and
this
document,
which
suppUes
the
schematic
basis
for
the
arrangement
of
the
whole
work,
is
accordingly
known
as
P.
In
conclusion,
we
should
mention
H,
which
stands
for
the
Law
of
Holiness
(Lv
17-26),
a
collection
of
moral
and
ceremonial
precepts
plainly
anterior
to
the
work
of
P
in
which
it
is
embodied.
There
is
also
the
redactor
or
editor
(=
H),
who
fused
the
different
narratives
together
into
one
smooth
and
connected
whole.
Even
this
enumeration
does
not
exhaust
the
capacity
of
critics
to
distinguish
yet
other
sources
used
in
the
composition
of
the
Hexateuch.
The
excessive
subtlety
and
arbitrary
methods
by
which
some
writers
have
succeeded
in
detecting
the
existence,
and
defining
the
precise
limits,
of
multitudi-nous
authors,
editors,
and
revisers,
often
resting
their
hy-potheses
on
no
surer
foundation
than
the
extremely
pre-carious
basis
of
subjective
preferences,
must
be
pronounped
rather
a
caricature
than
a
legitimate
development
of
critical
ingenuity.
II.
Chiticism
of
the
Hexateuch.
—
It
is
the
task
of
criticism
to
discover
the
respective
dates,
and
to
determine
the
mutual
relations
of
the
component
parts
of
the
Hexateuch.
1.
Spasmodic
attempts
have
been
made
throughout
the
17th
cent,
towards
a
critical
study
of
the
Hexateuch;
but
to
Jean
Astruc,
physician
to
Louis
xty.,
belongs
the
honour
of
being
the
first
to
deal
with
the
subject
in
a
scientific
and
systematic
form
(1753).
He
it
was
who
first
noted
in
Genesis
the
alternation
of
Divine
names,
and
attributed
this
phenomenon
to
the
two
main
sources
from
which
he
concluded
Genesis
was
compiled.
This
discovery
was
developed
by
Eichhorn,
and
became
knownasthe
DocumentHypothesis.
Eichhorn
observed
that
the
variation
of
Divine
names
was
regularly
accom-panied
by
other
characteristic
differences
both
from
a
Unguistic
and
an
historical
standpoint.
Further
investiga-tion
revealed
the
presence
of
two
sources,
both
employing
the
title
'Elohim.'
This
theory
of
a
Second
Elohist,
from
wliich
at
first
many
erroneous
inferences
were
drawn,
has
established
itself
in
the
domain
of
Biblical
criticism
as
a
no
less
unassailable
conclusion
than
the
original
discovery
of
Astruc
himself.
2.
These
unexpected
discoveries
in
the
text
of
Genesis
naturally
suggested
the
critical
analysis
of
the
remaining
HEXATEUCH
books
of
the
Hexateuch.
But
the
absence
of
any
such
distinctive
criterion
as
the
use
of
the
two
Divine
names
made
progress
difficult.
Geddes,
however,
in
Scotland
(1800)
and
Vater
in
Germany
(1802)
essayed
the
task.
The
latter,
in
particular,
developed
a
consistent
theory,
known
as
the
Fragment
Hypothesis.
He
held
that
the
perpetual
repetitions
and
varying
phraseology
character-istic
of
the
different
sections,
were
susceptible
of
rational
explanation
only
as
an
agglomeration
of
unconnected
fragments,
subsequently
collected
and
not
inharmoni-ously
patched
together
by
an
industrious
historian
of
Israel's
early
literature
and
antiquities.
He
believed
that
Deuteronomy
originated
in
the
time
of
David;
and
that
it
formed
the
kernel
round
which
the
rest
of
the
Pentateuch
was
gradually
added.
3.
The
chief
weakness
of
this
second
theory
(itself
a
natural
exaggeration
of
the
first)
lay
in
the
fact
that
it
entirely
ignored
those
indications
of
a
unifying
principle
and
of
a
deliberate
plan
which
are
revealed
by
an
examina-tion
of
the
Hexateuch
as
a
whole.
It
was
the
great
merit
of
de
Wette
to
make
this
abundantly
clear.
But
he
also
inaugurated
an
era
of
historical
as
opposed
to,
or
rather
as
complementary
to,
Uterary
criticism.
He
led
the
way
in
instituting
a
careful
comparison
between
the
contemporary
narratives
and
the
Pentateuchal
legislation.
As
a
result
of
this
examination,
he
became
convinced
that
Deuteronomy
presented
a
picture
of
Israel's
life
and
worship
unknown
in
Israel
before
the
time
of
Josiah's
reformation.
Only
a
short
step
separ-ated
this
conclusion
from
the
identification
of
D
with
the
law-book
discovered
in
the
Temple
in
Josiah's
reign
and
adopted
by
that
monarch
as
the
basis
of
his
reforms
(2
K
22).
The
ehmination
of
D
considerably
simplified,
but
did
not
finally
solve,
the
main
problem.
A
reaction
against
de
Wette's
(at
first)
exclusively
historical
methods
in
favour
of
literary
investigations
resulted
in
estabUsh-ing
the
connexion
that
subsisted
between
the
Elohist
of
Genesis
and
the
legislation
of
the
middle
books.
This
was
considered
the
Grundschrift
or
primary
docu-ment,
which
the
Jahwistic
writer
supplemented
and
revised.
Hence
this
theory
is
known
as
the
Supplement
Hypothesis,
which
held
the
field
until
Hupfeld
(1853)
pointed
out
that
it
ascribed
to
the
Jahwist
mutually
in-compatible
narratives,
and
a
supplementary
position
quite
foreign
to
his
real
character.
4.
We
thus
come
to
the
Later
Document
Theory.
Hupfeld's
labours
bore
fruit
in
three
permanent
results.
(1)
There
are
two
distinct
Elohistic
documents
under-lying
Genesis
—
those
chapters
which
have
undergone
a
Jahwistic
redaction
(e.g.
20-22)
being
due
to
an
entirely
different
author
from
the
writer
of
Gn
1.
(2)
The
Jahwist
must
be
regarded
as
an
independent
source
no
less
than
the
Elohist.
(3)
The
repetitions
and
divergences
of
the
Jahwist
entirely
disprove
the
Supple-ment
Theory,
and
show
that
he
is
probably
not
even
acquainted
with
the
Elohist,
but
furnislies
a
self-con-tained,
complete,
and
independent
account.
Hupfeld
found
a
valuable
ally
in
NOldeke,
who,
while
introducing
some
minor
modifications,
showed
how
the
Elohistic
framework
could
be
traced
throughout
the
entire
Hexa-teuch,
and
how
it
might
easily
be
recognized
by
observing
the
recurrence
of
its
Unguistic
peculiarities
and
the
fixity
of
its
reUgious
ideas.
5.
The
Graf-Wellhausen
Theory
.—It
will
be
observed
that
although
criticism
had
begun
to
disentangle
the
component
parts
of
the
Hexateuch,
no
effort
was
made
■
to
inaugurate
an
inquiry
into
the
mutual
relations
of
the
different
documents.
Still
less
does
it
seem
to
have
occurred
to
any
one
to
regard
these
three
literary
stratifications
as
embodiments,
as
it
were,
of
various
historical
processes
through
which
the
nation
passed
at
widely
different
periods.
A
provisional
solution
had
been
reached
as
to
the
use
and
extent
of
the
different
sources.
Graf
(1866)
instituted
a
comparison
between
these
sources
themselves;
and,
assuming
the
identity
of
D
with
Josiah's
law-book
as
a
fixed
point
from
which
