The Linguistic Argument Examined
Chapter Three(TOC)
The Linguistic Argument Examined
When we test the claims of the critics by these principles, the first question is, what a priori right have they to analyze the Pentateuchal Codes? The most plausible answer refers us to the use of the divine names in Genesis in connection with the fact, that the writers of the Elohistic and Jehovistic documents had evidently both planned a history covering the time from creation down to the conquest of the Holy Land. Here, however, a difficulty appears. The whole body of Pentateuchal legislation falls after Exodus 6:2, 3; and so the basis on which the right of analysis would rest, breaks down immediately. And, as to the prospective features of the Elohistic and Jehovistic documents, they are most easily accounted for by ascribing them to the redaction of Moses, who may have combined the two so as to form a real unity.
Still, we must admit that these considerations, whilst they deprive the argument of independent value, do not entirely destroy its basis. There can be no objection against here also using the criteria furnished by an analysis of Genesis, where there certainly exists, in the alternation of divine names, an a priori right to attempt the analysis. If it were possible to show that they re-appear after Exodus 6:2, 3, with the same, or even greater, frequency and regularity, in lengthy coherent passages, which admit of an easy and natural separation from their context, in that case it might not be easy to dispute further the claims of critical analysis to the whole domain of the Pentateuch. Both Kuenen ("Hist. krit. Onderz.," 1861, i. p. 85) and Delitzsch ("Genesis," 4te Ausg., p. 30) put the argument on this basis. As we shall see hereafter, in the hands of less cautious critics it has long since outgrown these modest beginnings. As far as we have been able to ascertain, the following words and phrases, considered as belonging to the Elohistic usus loquendi of Genesis, re-appear after Exodus 6:2, 3. Where they are not too numerous, we shall add the references.
1. myrgM (sojournings or pilgrimage), passim in Genesis; Exodus 6:4.
2. hzx) (possession), ten times before Exodus 6:4, passim in Leviticus—Numbers, once in an Elohistic passage of Deuteronomy 32:49.
3. mkytrdl and mtrdl and wytrdl, and wytrdb (in his, their, or your generations), four times before Exodus 6:4, viz., Genesis 6:9, 17:7, 9, 12; passim in the middle books.
4. wnyMl or whnyMl and hnyMl and mhnyMl (after his, her, or their kind), sixteen times before Exodus 6:4, nine times in Leviticus, four times in Deuteronomy.
5. hzh and mwyh and mc(b (in the self-same day), three times before Exodus 6:4, viz., Genesis 7:13, 17:23, 26; three times in Exodus 12:17, 41, 51; five times in Leviticus 23:14 and (mc( d(), and 21, 28, 29, 30; once in an Elohistic passage of Deuteronomy 32:48.
6. tyrb myqh (establish a covenant), six times before Exodus 6:4; once in Exodus 6:4; once in Leviticus 26:9; once in Deuteronomy 8:18 (tyrb Ntn, Genesis 17:2, Numbers 25:12).
7. rkn-Nb (stranger), twice before Exodus 6:4, viz., Genesis 17:12, 27; once in Exodus 12:43; once in Leviticus 22:25.
8. )y#n (prince), four times before Exodus 6:4, viz., Genesis 17:20, 23:6, 25:16, 34:2; four times in Exodus 16:22, 22:28, 34:31, 35:27; once in Leviticus 4:22; sixty-two times in Numbers.
9. The Hiphil of dly (beget), fifty-eight times before Exodus 6:4; once in Leviticus 25:45; twice in Numbers 26:29, 58; twice in Deuteronomy 4:25, 28:41.
10. hnqM (bought or price), five times before Exodus 6:4, viz., Genesis 17:12, 13, 23, 27, 23:18; once in Exodus 12:44; four times in Leviticus 25:16, 51, 27:22.
11. Mlw( (for ever), with a noun in construction, eight times before Exodus 6:4; thirty-eight times in Exodus—Numbers; four times in Deuteronomy 13:16, 15:17, 33:15, 27.
12. rkz-lk (every male), seven times before Exodus 6:4; once in Exodus 12:48; three times in Leviticus 6:18, 29, 12:6; thirteen times in Numbers.
13. Cr# (bring forth abundantly), and Cr# (creeping thing), seven times before Exodus 6:4; twice in Exodus 1:7, 8:3; passim in Leviticus; Deuteronomy 14:19.
14. d)M and d)M (exceedingly), four times before Exodus 6:4, viz., Genesis 7:19, 17:2, 6, 20; once in Exodus 1:7; once in Numbers 14:7.
15. N(nk Cr) (land of Canaan), passim before Exodus 6:4; once in Exodus 16:35; three times in Leviticus 14:34, 18:3, 25:38; passim in Numbers; Deuteronomy 32:49.
16. hbrw hrp (be fruitful and multiply), passim in Genesis, Leviticus 26:9.
17. hwqM (gathering together), Genesis 1:10, Exodus 7:19, Leviticus 9:36.
18. hlk) (food), four times before Exodus 6:4, viz., Genesis 1:29, 30, 6:21, 9:3; once in Exodus 16:15; twice in Leviticus 11:39, 25:6.
19. #Mr (creep), and #Mr (creeping thing), passim in Genesis; three times in Leviticus 9:44, 46, 20:25; Deuteronomy 4:18.
20. The emphatic repetition of h#( with Nk (so he did), once in Genesis 6:22; six times in Exodus 7:6, 12:28, 50, 39:32, 43, 40:16; three times in Numbers 1:54, 8:20, 17:26.
21. The Hiphil of ldb (separate), five times in Genesis 1; once in Exodus 26:33; passim in Leviticus; four times in Deuteronomy 4:41, 10:8, 19:7, 29:21.
22. hbqnw rkz (male and female), six times before Exodus 6:4, viz., Genesis 1:27, 5:2, 6:19, 7:3, 9, 16; four times in Leviticus 3:1, 6 (w) -m)), and 12:7 (w)), and 15:33 (lw-l); Deuteronomy 4:16 (w)).
23. l)r#y-td( lhq (the assembly of the congregation of Israel), Exodus 12:6, and Numbers 14:5.
24. ypl (according to), once before Exodus 6:4, viz., Genesis 47:12; three times in Exodus 12:4, 16:16, 18; twice in Leviticus 25:16, 27:16; twice in Numbers 9:17, 26:54.
25. #pn (soul), in the sense of "person," passim before Exodus 6:4; in Exodus-Numbers, passim.
26. rg (stranger), twice before Exodus 6:4, viz., Genesis 15:13, 23:4; Exodus-Deuteronomy, passim.
27. b#wt (sojourner), once before Exodus 6:4, viz., Genesis 23:4; once in Exodus 7:45; Leviticus 22:10; seven times in Leviticus 25; Numbers 35:15.
28. r#b-lk (all flesh), passim in Genesis; three times in Leviticus 17:14; Numbers 16:22, 18:15, 27:16; Deuteronomy 5:23.
29. hxp# (maidservant), passim before Exodus 6:4; Exodus 6:5, Leviticus 19:20.
30. twxp#Ml (according to families), with suffixes, passim in Genesis; Exodus-Numbers, passim.
31. (wg (expire), passim in Genesis; Numbers 17:26, 28, 20:3, 29.
32. +x# (slay), twice before Exodus 6:4, viz., Genesis 22:10, 37:31; Exodus-Numbers, passim.
33. tx# (destroy), in the Piel and Hiphil species, passim before Exodus 6:4; passim in Exodus-Deuteronomy.
34. #kr (get), and #wkr (substance), passim in Genesis; Numbers 16:32, 35:3.
35. t)M (hundred), passim in Genesis; passim in Exodus-Numbers.
36. p l) (M# (hearken unto), four times before Exodus 6:4, viz., Genesis 3:17, 16:11, 21:17, 39:10; Exodus 6:9, 16, 20.
37. )whx #pnh htrknw (that soul shall be cut off), Genesis 17:14; passim, Exodus-Numbers.
38. Nynq (substance), Genesis 34:23, 36:6; Leviticus 22:11.
We find accordingly that thirty-eight words and phrases in all, which are claimed in Genesis to belong to the usus loquendi of the Elohist, re-appear after Exodus 6:2, 3. At first blush, the not inconsiderable number might impress us; but, after the necessary sifting, a very scanty harvest will remain. There is much in this collection that cannot stand the test of our principles laid down above (pp. 25 ff.)
1. Some of these terms occur only in Genesis 17, which is confessedly a chapter of legal contents; so that their re-appearance in the Codes has nothing to do with Elohistic or Jehovistic authorship. The fact, that they are nowhere else found in Genesis, warrants us to consider them as legal expressions. This rules out hnqM and {10} (besides Genesis 17, only in 23:18), rkz-lk and {12} (besides Genesis 17, only in 34, and there likewise with reference to circumcision). rkn-Nb and {7} and trdl and {3} with suffixes (only once besides Genesis 17, viz., 6:9).
2. Likewise we must exclude from the list all words that occur only once or twice in Genesis, since it is an open fallacy to conclude from such few cases that they are Elohistic. This applies to hwqM and {17} (only in Genesis 1:10), the emphatic phrase h#( Nk and {20} (once, Genesis 6:22), ypl and {24} (once in Genesis 47:12), rg and {26} (twice 15:13, 23:4), b#wt and {27} (only in 23:4), +x# and {32} (22:10, 37:31), Nynq and {38} (Genesis 34:23, 36:6). In all such cases, the occasional use in Genesis is probably nothing but a prolepsis of legal terms.
3. Neither can we admit as characteristic those words which, though perhaps frequent in Genesis, appear in the Codes in one or two instances at most. It is evident that such isolated words are no index of style. To this class belong myrnM and {1} (only in Exodus 6:4), d)M d)M and {14} (Exodus 1:7, Numbers 14:7), and hbrw hrp and {16} (Leviticus 26:9), hxp# and {29} (Leviticus 19:20), (wg and {31} (Numbers 17 and 20), #kr and {34} and #wkr and {34} (Numbers 16:32, 35:3), k l) (M# and {36} (only in Exodus 6).
4. Our rule stated above, under No. 5, page 28, forbids us to accept as criteria of the Elohist, words which are found also in confessedly Jehovistic passages. Instances of this are )y#n and {8} (Exodus 22:28 (27)), and tx# and {33} (Exodus 21:26, 32:7), p l) (M# and {36} (Genesis 16:11, Jehovist according to Schrader, Knobel, Kayser, Dillmann; 39:10, Jehovist according to Schrader, Kayser, Dillmann), N(nk Cr) and {15} (Genesis 47:13, Jehovist according to Schrader, Kayser).
5. Of the residuum, a considerable number of words are so intimately related to the idea to be expressed or the thing to be mentioned, that it is absurd to call in the influence of Elohistic style to explain their occurrence. The thought and expression were inseparable, so that the presence of the former necessarily involved that of the latter. If the Jehovist had found occasion to convey the same ideas, we may expect that he would have employed the same forms. It remains only to ask why these ideas and conceptions are peculiar to the Elohist, but here also the answer is obvious. Critics have assigned the ritual legislation to the Elohist exclusively, and consider his narrative in Genesis as subsidiary to this. It is no wonder, then, that the expressions in question are found neither in the Jehovistic Code nor in the corresponding narrative. We believe that the author did not use them in Exodus 20-23 because he did not touch the subjects which would have given him occasion to do so. The following words are of this character: wnyMl and {4} occurring only where the distinction of species is referred to; and even then it is not used exclusively, for the Elohist knows and employs the synonymous term mhytxp#Ml also (Genesis 8:19, Elohistic according to Hupfeld, Knobel, Schrader). It is difficult to see how this word could have found a place in the Covenant-law. The only occasions on which the Elohist uses it are in his account of the creation, of the flood, and in the laws of food, Leviticus 11. When the Deuteronomist treats of the same topic, he, too, employs the very same expression. mlw( and {11} with a noun in construction (often followed by mkytrdl and {3}), and the phrase )whh #pnh htrknw, and {37} appear only as sanctioning laws that constitute the essential peculiarity of the theocratic people, such as circumcision, the passover, offerings, etc., and accordingly could not be looked for in the Covenant-law, which is rather ethical and civil. Cr# and {13} means "to creep;" and, if the Jehovist never employs the word, it is simply because he nowhere refers to a creeping thing. It is so little characteristic of the Elohist, that he himself substitutes for it a number of times the synonym #Mr and {19} The Hiphil of ldb and {21} is evidently a ritual term (compare Ezekiel 22:26, 42:20, and lxl #dqh and Nyb lydbh), denoting the divinely constituted difference between "holy" and "profane." Hence also it occurs in Genesis 1, where the various created bodies and elements are represented as classified and distinguished from the beginning according to a principle that regulated the plan of a holy Creator. Of course, the Jehovistic legislation is not concerned with such distinctions. hbqnw rkz and {22} denotes the physical sex-distinction: to designate the ethical personality, the Elohist chooses wt#)w #y) as well as the Jehovist (Exodus 36:6; Leviticus 23:29, 38; Numbers 5:6, 6:2. 30:17). And the Jehovist knows hbqnw rkz also, and uses it occasionally (Genesis 7:3, Jehovist according to Schrader, Knobel). #pn and {25} in the sense of "person:" An examination of the passages in Genesis discloses the fact that the word occurs almost exclusively (when it has this sense of "person") in connection with numerals. This explains fully why it does not re-appear in the Covenant-law, but rather in Leviticus and Numbers. There it denotes frequently the legal personality of man, that which constitutes him responsible to God and his law. Hence the frequent use of yk#pn to introduce certain laws, especially in Leviticus. That this introduction is lacking in Exodus 20-23 is partly accounted for by the general (less personal or individual) tenor of these laws, partly because, as Keil remarks, in many of them the predicate of the sentence makes provision rather for the object than for the subject of the action referred to, so that the construction of the sentence forbade the emphatic, personal mention of the subject by yk #pn at the beginning. t)M and {35} in construction, is not characteristic of the Elohist; since he uses the absolute state just as frequently, and the Jehovistic legislation had no occasion to employ this numeral. The expressions tyrb myqh and {6} and tyrb Ntn are not entirely synonymous with the Jehovistic tyrb trk. In the latter, the idea of a covenant made with sacrifice is rendered prominent, and the concurrence of two parties emphasized (compare Psalm 50:6); whilst in tyrb mrqh and tyrb Ntn, the fact is brought out, that the covenant-relation springs from God's free grace; that he stoops to man, and establishes his Covenant amongst men, who could not advance to meet him. It is quite natural, therefore, that in Exodus 20-23, the phrase tyrb trk should repeatedly occur (23:32, 24:8; compare also 34:27); since, according to 24:4, 5, the Sinaitic covenant was solemnly contracted with the offering up of sacrifices. hzx) and {2} occurs only six times outside of the Pentateuch and Joshua, if we except Ezekiel 40-48, where it is in frequent use. Numbers 32:22, which Schrader and Kayser assign to the Jehovist, shows that the word does not belong exclusively to the Elohistic diction. It denotes permanent and firmly held property, in contrast with the unsettled, nomadic life of the patriarchs and the Israelites in the desert. This explains its disappearance from the common language after the conquest of Canaan, and its resumption by Ezekiel, who wrote during the captivity. As a proper name, we find it in Genesis 26:26, a passage which Schrader and Kayser give to the Jehovist. hzh mwyh mc(b and {5} appears twelve times in the Pentateuch; in each of these cases, it serves to mark out the accurate date of a momentous event: Genesis 7:13, Noah's entering the ark; 17:23, 26, the first circumcision; Exodus 12:17, 41, 51, the exodus from Egypt; Leviticus 23:14, the second day of Mazzoth; verse 21, the feast of weeks; verse 28, 29, 30, the day of atonement; Deuteronomy 32:48, the announcement of Moses' death.
It is an exceedingly small group to which the host of "satellites" marshaled by the critics has thus gradually dwindled clown. Three words only, hlk), and {18} the Hiphil of dly, and {9} and r#b-lk, and {28} have not found an explanation. The last two are found only once in the Levitical code, the first one twice. The Qal-species of dly, which (in the sense of "begetting") the critics claim as characteristically Jehovistic, does not occur in Exodus 20-23; for in 20:4 it means "to bear." The fact that these three terms occur only in the Levitical law is hardly striking enough to need an explanation.
If thus the argument drawn from the Elohistic usus loquendi of Genesis proves to be worthless, we can have no great expectations of the independent evidence collected from the Codes themselves. To say that the Levitical law employs a ceremonial terminology which is wanting in the Jehovistic parts of Exodus, is true, but so much so that it amounts to a truism. What use is there in arraying a list of names of utensils and implements of the tabernacle, parts of the priestly apparel, etc., and then declaring that they belong exclusively to the Elohist? Still, Knobel has taken pains to do this! Again, what can be made of the Jehovist not using a sacrificial phrase like mybr(h Nyb >(between the evenings), or such as refer specifically to the religious life of Israel, on which the Jehovist did not legislate at all? It sounds strange when we hear #dq )rqM >(holy convocation) classed as an Elohistic phrase. Do the critics mean, that in the time of Jehoshaphat, or whatever date they may choose to fix for the origin of the Covenant-law, no such "holy convocations" were held? And, if not, where is the slightest trace of proof that the Jehovist has another word to designate the same thing? We cannot but infer that he had no occasion to use the word, and that this is the one and the only reason why the word is not found in his vocabulary. He does use a similar phrase, however, in Exodus 22:30 (31); viz., #dq y#n) >(holy men). What is to be thought of Elohistic words which do not occur even once in the whole book of Leviticus, such as tw)bc >(hosts), my+p# >(judgments), or of tyM( >(neighbor), which appears only in laws of injury done to a neighbor, whilst, moreover, the Elohist employs the synonymous Nk# >and (r >in common with the Jehovist just as well? Besides Cr)h xrz), the Old Testament knows no other word for "native of the land;" and so we will have to hold that its absence in the Jehovist has no further cause than a want of occasion to use it. It is useless to collect here all the pretended evidence of this and like character, except in so far as it might furnish an apt illustration of the ease with which some critics make the transition from proving a theory to applying it, all the while forgetting that their application, as it results in a reductio ad absurdum, instead of fortifying, practically weakens, all the previous evidence.
We now turn to the Jehovistic part of the Mosaic Code. The passages, Exodus 12:24-27, 13:3-10, 11-16, are assigned to it by Knobel, Dillmann, Nöldeke, Schrader, Kayser (Dillmann and Kayser, in addition 12:21-24). Here, also, it is claimed that the dissection rests on solid literary grounds, which we shall have to examine.
First, the proper name myrcM >(Egypt), not preceded by the usual Cr) >(land), 12:27. But neither form, with or without Cr) >is exclusively used by either the Jehovist or the Elohist. The former uses the form with Cr), Genesis 13:10 (according to Schrader, Knobel, Kayser, Dillmann), and 21:21 (according to Kayser); also Exodus 22:20. The Elohist, on the other hand, employs that without Cr), Genesis 46:6-8 (according to Hupfeld, Knobel, Schrader, Dillmann).
Next comes mydb( tyb >(house of bondmen), 13:3, 4. This is used only here and in 20:2; also four times in Deuteronomy. But the fact that the phrase does not occur before the exodus shows that its use does not depend on the style of the writer, but on the intention of the law-giver. The reference to the bondage of Egypt is urged as a motive to faithful observance of God's commands; and, of course, this was only appropriate in such laws as directly reminded the people of their sojourn in Egypt (Passover, Mazzoth, Treatment of strangers and servants), and suited ethical commands better than ceremonial prescriptions, which were given to the priests, not addressed to the people in general.
byb) #dx >(the month Abib), 13:4; also 23:15, 34:12; Deuteronomy 16:1. A comparison of all the passages will show, that, wherever a specific date is given, the month is numbered also; and, wherever the date is left indefinite, the month is designated by the name Abib. In all these pretended Jehovistic passages, there is no specification; and accordingly Abib is retained. Of Wellhausen's assertion, that the custom of numbering the months, in connection with the adoption of the spring era, was derived from the Babylonians during the captivity, we shall have occasion to speak hereafter.
hwhy (b#n >(Jehovah sware), 13:5, 11, 32:13, 33:1. But the Levitical law contains no reference to God's swearing, neither is it easy to see at what occasion it could have introduced God as doing so.
The enumeration of the seven Canaanitish nations 13:5; also 23:23, 25, 33:2, 34:11. But it is not merely this complete enumeration which is peculiar to the Jehovist, but the idea that the Israelites shall possess the land of the Canaanite tribes. He conveys this idea without the same enumeration, Genesis 13:7, 34:30: in Exodus 23:28, only three tribes are mentioned. That the idea is found with him rather than with the Elohist is natural; since the critics assign to the latter only ritual law, with which it stands in no way related. And, even if we suppose that it was peculiar to the Jehovistic document in Genesis, what wonder would there be in Moses' repeating the phrase? How do we know that he cannot have appropriated some elements of the diction of the documents?
#bdw blx and tbz Cr) >(land flowing with milk and honey), 13:5, 33:3. This phrase occurs also in Leviticus 20:24. In Numbers 14:8, Schrader is obliged to divide a single verse to eliminate it from an Elohistic context. This must accordingly be given up as peculiarly Jehovistic.
lwbg >(quarters or borders), 13:7, occurs in the Elohistic passages, Genesis 23:12; Numbers 20:23, 34:3, 6, 35:26, and elsewhere. How this can be called Jehovistic may remain for the critics to determine. The word occurs throughout the whole Old Testament.
rwb(b >(because), 13:8; also 19:9, 20:20; passim in Genesis. The expression is of frequent occurrence in the Old Testament, from Amos down to Chronicles. It is absurd to call it the peculiar property of the Jehovist, since it belonged evidently to the common stock of the language.
rxM >(in time to come), Exodus 13:14, 32:5; Numbers 4:25, 16:7, 16. The two latter passages are both Nöldeke and Schrader assigned to the Elohist, so that the word ceases to be characteristically Jehovistic. Moreover, the Elohist has it in somewhat different form, trxMM >Leviticus 23:11, 15, 16.
With regard to the Decalogue our task is easy; since the critics all admit that the criteria of Jehovist, Elohist, and Deuteronomist intermingle. The sanction added to the Sabbath-command, verse 11, refers back to the Elohistic account of the creation. Also the phrase hk)lM h#( >(do work) is Elohistic. Kyr(#b >(in thy gates), in verse 10, is Deuteronomic. Wellhausen claims the same for the whole of verse 6. mydb( tybM >(from the house of bondmen) is Jehovistic. The whole Decalogue, however, forms a strict unit, and the critical analysis will not apply. To assume a post-Deuteronomic redaction, or even modifications later than the final redaction of the Pentateuch (Dillmann), seems precarious, and in the highest degree improbable. Everybody who has no preconceived idea that the Pentateuch must necessarily be of composite character, and have gone through a series of redactions, will not fail to find in these phenomena a striking proof that the author of the legislation employed words from the Elohistic, Jehovistic, and Deuteronomic vocabulary promiscuously.
The passage, Exodus 20:18 -chapter 23, remains to be examined. Here also we have an illustration of criteria intermingling, on account of which the redactor is again resorted to. Wellhausen assigns chapter 21-23 to J.[2] Dillmann thinks they were taken by B (Wellhausen's E) from another source. With regard to 34:10-25, Dillmann tries to vindicate the authorship of C; whilst Wellhausen assumes a tertium quid, an unknown source, neither Q nor J nor E, from which this piece alone has been preserved to us. Dillmann, moreover, gives as his opinion that the whole passage 34:1-28, is out of place in the present connection, and stood in C originally, behind 20:20, 24:1, 2; so that the redactor must have taken the twofold liberty of first substituting the Covenant-laws, 20-23, for those found in C (now chapter 34:10-26), and of afterwards using the opportunity offered him by the breach and restoration of the Covenant, to resume what he had first thrown out. It is alike needless and useless to follow the critics into this labyrinth of dissections, transpositions, and interpolations, by which they condemn themselves, and frequently each other. Perhaps a dozen other ways might be devised to transform a beautifully connected passage into a miserable patchwork. A comparison of the criteria will suffice to convince any unprejudiced mind how impossible it is to prove diversity of authorship on literary grounds. For the traces of B, compare Dillmann, "Exodus," p. 220. To C belong, amongst others, hcx >(divide), 21:35; hq(c >(cry), 22:22; tyx hd#h >(beast of the field), 23:12; tMwy twM >(shall surely be put to death), passim; qr >(only), 21:19; and llq >(curse), 21:17. Of A we note the following words: )y#n >(prince, ruler), 22:27; and rg >(stranger), 22:20; tx# >(destroy), 21:27; and myrcM Cr) >(land of Egypt), 21:20, 23:8; and P) hrx >(anger burn), 22:23 (in Genesis the Jehovist is said to use hrx >as impersonal, with the preposition l). The statement in 23:18 has a Deuteronomic color.
In Leviticus, chapter 17-26 have been partially denied to the Elohist. Ewald, Nöldeke, and Schrader accounted for the peculiarity of chapter 18-20 by the use which the Elohist had made of an older Code. Graf assigned 17-22, 25, 26, to Ezekiel. Kayser, not content to deal with the material in such a summary way, institutes a marvelous analysis carried out with hair-splitting finesse. He agrees with Graf in considering Ezekiel as the author, and confidently claimed in 1874 to have settled this fact beyond the possibility of doubt. Three years afterwards, however, this theory had been already superseded; since Klostermann instituted a still closer comparison between Ezekiel and these chapters, which showed, that, with much similarity, there were also considerable differences in expression, making the view untenable. With him Kuenen and Nöldeke agreed; whereupon the former with Wellhausen reversed the order, and declared the chapters one of the earliest exilic bodies of law composed in dependence upon Ezekiel, a sort of bridge between him and the Pentateuchal Codes. Dillmann says emphatically that for all this there is no ground in the contents and language of these chapters, which he regards as containing very old, even some of the oldest, laws. The redactor composed the collection from two different redactions of what Dillmann calls the "Sinaitic Law," these two redactions being respectively those of the Elohist and the Jehovist.
Where there is so much disagreement among the critics, it seems superfluous to discuss the numerous divisions of which the majority must necessarily be wrong. The greater part of the peculiar expressions stated by Kayser (p. 66) arise naturally from the contents: some express ideas that occur only here; several of them are confessedly Jehovistic, others Elohistic; the whole division is arbitrary and precarious, one of the most striking proofs that the critical analysis, if consistently carried out, issues in absurdities. Often a single verse is sundered out, because it presents traces of the Elohist.
And after all, Kayser himself is obliged to confess that the elimination of the new source ("law of holiness"), though constituting a connected and somewhat cognate whole, leaves the remaining parts incoherent and detached, without any central idea, or guiding principle of connection.
It may still further be remarked, that the denial of the Elohist origin of Numbers 8:23-26 (Kayser assigns it to the redactor) does not rest on literary considerations, but is maintained in direct opposition to the decidedly Elohistic language of these verses, simply on account of a pretended contradiction to chapter 4:30.
We have reached the end of our discussion of the literary argument, and may state as our conclusion that, whatever it be held to prove with regard to Genesis, it is incompetent to prove a diversity of authorship for the Pentateuchal Codes. It appears that the divisive methods partake rather of the nature of an applied hypothesis than of a strictly linguistic argumentation. The conviction that the middle books of the Pentateuch are of a composite character may rest on various grounds. With the newest school it is based on a historical theory of the development of the ceremonial and religious institutions for which of necessity a literary counterpart must be sought. On the whole, the work has been carried out for more than a century with marvelous ingenuity; and the comparatively uniform results need not surprise us. Given the preconceived notion of a composite character in the critic's mind; given the two Codes, though closely related, still sufficiently distinct; given furthermore the acute scrutinizing and analyzing of a century, cautiously fortifying all weak points, and guarding against exposure on any point where any tolerable assertion may avoid it—and who can wonder, that, under the concurrence of such favorable conditions, results have been obtained that seem to equal in plausibility the skill at work in their production? But the fruit, however beautiful in appearance, has grown on a tree radically different from that rooted in the soil of truly Evangelical Criticism. Let us not appropriate theories and schemes, at the basis of which lie historical conceptions, that we can never make our own. The critics may jump without hesitation from a composite Genesis to a composite legislation: for us there is a wide gulf between the two, and more than Christian prudence prevents us from placing what claims to be one continuous revelation of the living God on our dissecting-tables before we have been furnished with positive and unequivocal proof that it is composite. All the evidence hitherto produced is such that it convinces only him who is imbued with the a priori belief, that there is no divine revelation in the law: for all others, who repudiate such a belief, it is no more than the outcome of a subtile and ingenious, but none the less unfounded and deceptive, imagination.