2. To which of the two legislations
2. To which of the two legislations(TOC)
(That of the intermediate books, or of Deuteronomy)
Shall we assign the priority?
It might appear almost unnecessary after having thus defined the relation of Deuteronomy to the other Codes, to put the question just stated. If our conception of the book as prophetical is in the main correct, and verified by its applicability to the phenomena, this will decide the matter at once. Prophecy presupposes the law—roots itself in it, and grows out of it. The legal and formal is before the spiritual and ideal, not in the mind of God, but in its historical realization. Nevertheless, since the history of modern criticism is very instructive on this special point, and a fair exponent of its unreliable character, we offer a few remarks.
1. In 1861 Dr. Kuenen gave the following comment on the views of Von Bohlen, George, and Vatke, who asserted that the Deuteronomic legislation was earlier than that of the middle books of the Pentateuch: "He [George] assumes that the historical elements of the Pentateuch are the oldest, that Deuteronomy was written during the reign of Josiah, whilst the greater part of the laws in Exodus-Numbers did not exist until after the exile. His arguments are partly external, partly internal; i.e., derived from a comparison of the two legislations. (1) Jeremiah, who knows Deuteronomy and makes frequent use of it, shows no acquaintance with the laws in Exodus-Numbers, as appears from chapter 7:21-23, where he appeals to Deuteronomy 7:6, 14:2, 26:18, but ignores the whole sacrificial Thora. But Jeremiah could, as Hosea, Isaiah, and other prophets before him, exalt the moral commands of the law far above its ceremonial prescriptions, and consider the former as the real basis of the Covenant with Jahveh, without the implication that a ceremonial Code did not yet exist in his time: he could even pronounce his conviction, that the laws concerning burnt-offering and sacrifice are later than the moral commands, and still it would not follow from this that Exodus-Numbers were committed to writing later than Deuteronomy. (2) Internal evidence. The priority of Deuteronomy is argued on the ground of several strange assertions, which are not worthy of refutation; to wit, that before the Babylonish captivity, there was no distinction between priests and Levites, high-priest and priests; that the Mosaic tabernacle never existed; that the spirit and tendency of Deuteronomy indicate an earlier period than those of Leviticus. Deuteronomy 31:14 is considered wholly arbitrarily as a later addition: 18:2, 24:8, are left out of view. The view of George in this form as presented by him has been almost universally rejected."
So far Dr. Kuenen. The quotation is instructive in many respects. It proves (a) That a critic may proclaim as incontestable truth at one time what, a decade before, he deemed unworthy of refutation. (b) That he may use the same statements at different times to establish views which are diametrically opposed to each other (this with regard to Deuteronomy 18:2, 24:8). (c) That he may propose, as a reasonable explanation of certain phenomena, what he condemns afterwards as uncritical dogmatism in others (this with regard to Jeremiah). (d) That so long as his mind is unbiased by preconceived philosophical theories, he may find the postulates of his own later philosophy absurd. (e) That consequently his theory is not determined by the facts, but that the facts are colored by a theory framed independently of them, and afterwards imposed upon them.
2. This is not the only instance, however, in which criticism has itself closed the way to its own later development, which it was not far-sighted enough to discern sufficiently long in advance. It is well known that Graf in 1866, five years after the appearance of Kuenen's introduction, declared the legislation of the middle books posterior to that of Deuteronomy. Connected with this was the statement that Deuteronomy presupposed not only the Jehovistic, but (a potiori) also the Elohistic, narrative. Pp. 9-19 of Graf's book contain an elaborate argument to prove that the narrative of the Elohist in Exodus-Numbers was known and used by the Deuteronomist. It was shown no less in detail that the Deuteronomist did not know the Levitical Code. It was evident, however, that in the Elohistic document, narrative and legislation were so indissolubly blended, that even the most daring critic could not sever them. This state of affairs was soon realized. Kuenen immediately discovered the weak point in Graf's hypothesis, and called his attention to it in a letter. Now, when two mutually inconsistent propositions have been independently established by an elaborate survey of facts, the natural suggestion would be, to reject the whole process of criticism, that had led to such results, as unreliable. Instead of doing this, however, Kuenen advises Graf to extend his hypothesis to the narrative of the Elohist also. This advice was followed; and out came the present theory of Wellhausen, Kuenen, etc. We ask what has become in the mean while of Graf's arguments apparently so conclusive, that the Elohistic narrative was known to Deuteronomy? Have they been carefully reviewed? Not in the least. Dr. Kuenen simply declares it necessary, that either the laws should follow history, or history follow the laws. Here, however, criticism has denied its own principles. Whosoever claims to argue from facts, is not allowed to discard one of his conclusions to save another. If two conclusions are mutually exclusive, then nothing remains but to declare the whole argument invalid. We have exactly the same right to ignore Graf's proofs that the Deuteronomist shows no acquaintance with the Levitical law, in order to recognize merely his arguments that he knew the Elohistic narrative, and then, after the innocent remark that the laws must follow history, to consider the pre-Deuteronomic existence of the whole Priest Code established. But the idea of one thing "following" the other has no legitimate place in the sphere of criticism.
When placed in the light of the two facts just mentioned, the following considerations obtain a double force—
1. The fact that Deuteronomy, on the whole, attaches itself to the Jehovistic Code, is no proof that the Levitical law did not then exist. The Covenant-law furnished the real basis for the Covenant between God and the people. It is no more than natural that Deuteronomy, wishing to bring out the fundamental ideas of this Covenant-relation in their spiritual bearing upon the popular life, should go back to the Code in which they were already germinally contained.
2. Whilst, in most cases, it is difficult to decide how two laws stand related to each other, it is quite different with history. One clearly stated proof that the Deuteronomist knew the narrative of the Elohist, is enough to settle the matter. But numerous proofs have been given by Graf and others. It is therefore safer to abandon the ambiguous method of ascertaining the relative age of two laws by a comparison of their contents, and to adhere to the results obtained from history, than the reverse.
3.
(a) There are some indications, however, that Deuteronomy knows the Elohistic legislation. Attention has been called by the critics from a stylistic point of view to the frequent combinations of twqx (statutes), twcM (commandments), my+p#M (judgments), hrwt (law), twd( (testimony). When we remember that the statutes of the Covenant-law are pre-eminently called my+p#M (judgments), Exodus 21:1, and that the other terms are predominantly used of the Levitical legislation, then their combination in Deuteronomy becomes highly significant. Besides, it gives us the impression that the author of the latter had a voluminous body of law in mind, to which he referred the people. It is unnatural to refer the terms he uses to the scanty contents of the Jehovistic Code (Exodus 13, 20-23, 34).
(b) The two laws (Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14:3-21) are so similar in language and contents, that their interdependence cannot be doubted. Graf assigns the priority to Deuteronomy. This view is at once overthrown by the consideration that the language is Elohistic, and is accordingly in its place in the Priest Code, and out of place in Deuteronomy. Graf seeks to relieve this difficulty by assuming that both the Elohist and the Deuteronomist drew from an older source, but there is not the least ground for this assumption. And how this older source came to possess such a remarkable resemblance in language and contents to the Priest Code of much later date, remains a profound mystery. Moreover, the originality in the Priest Code is clear, because the reference to the touching of a dead carcass does not coincide with the plan of Deuteronomy, which is only to give law about clean and unclean food, but agrees perfectly with the plan of the Priest Code, which is to treat of every kind of defilement.
(c) Other cases of interdependence in which the priority of Leviticus is clear are Leviticus 19:19 = Deuteronomy 22:9-11, Leviticus 19:13 = Deuteronomy 24:14, Leviticus 19:35 = Deuteronomy 25:13-16.
(d) That Deuteronomy alludes to the priesthood of Aaron and Eleazar (10:6), to the Urim and Thummim (33:8), and to the priestly inheritance (10:9, 12:12, 14:27, 29, 18:1), has been pointed out before.
(e) The passages, Deuteronomy 24:8, and 31:14, are even by Dr. Kuenen admitted as proof for the priority of Leviticus. When Kayser sees no reference in the former passage to the law of leprosy in Leviticus 13, 14, but assumes that some other law may have been alluded to just as well, this other law exists only in his imagination, and there is not the slightest trace of its actual existence.
(f) A comparison of Deuteronomy 28 with Leviticus 26 will show that the Deuteronomist knew the latter discourse, or rather that both proceeded from the same author; in which case the priority of the chapter in Leviticus as the shorter one is, of course, beyond dispute.
(g) Leviticus 17 and Deuteronomy 12 leave no doubt, both as to their mutual relation and their Mosaic origin. Without the Levitical law being presupposed, that in Deuteronomy could have no meaning. Deuteronomy here abolishes in the fortieth year what the Priest Code had enacted in the second. The same relation exists between Deuteronomy 4:41, 19:1-13, and Numbers 35, treating of the cities of refuge.
(h) A reference to the ark in chapter 10:1 points back to Exodus 25:10.
4. All these cases, in which Deuteronomy makes short, incomplete, and evidently supplementary statements in regard to matters not treated by the Jehovist, are so many proofs of the priority of the Priest Code.
5. It was generally acknowledged that Deuteronomy throughout presupposes the Levitical legislation, until theoretical bias obliged the critics to deny it. Even a man like De Wette once declared, "Deuteronomium prioribus libris tamquam fundamento niti quaevis pagina docet."