Part 21
(1) A son of Elioenai, of the royal house of Judah
(1 Ch 3 24).
For the first time, the historian makes no reference to the reUgious conduct of a king of Israel. The subject was beneath notice. The 8. Refersecond section of Isaiah's prophecies ences in (7 1—10 4) belongs to the reign of Isaiah Ahaz and thus to the time of Pekah, both of whom are named in it. Pekah
(2) A Levite who assisted Ezra by expounding the Law (Neh 8 7), and was one of those who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (10 10). He is called "Phahas" in 1 Esd 9 48 (RV).
PELALIAH, pel-a-h'a (H^'^bS, p'lalyah, "Jeh judges") : A priest, father of Jeroham, one of the "workers" in the Lord's house (Neh 11 12).
is named in 7 1, and is often, in this and the next chapter, referred to as "the son of Remaliah." His loss of the territorial divisions of Zebulun and Naphtali is referred to in 9 1, and is followed by a prophecy of their future glory as the earthly home of the Son of Man. The wording of Isa 9 14 shows that it was written before the fall of Samaria, and that of Isa 10 9-11 that Damascus and Samaria had both fallen and Jerus was expected to follow. This section of Isaiah may thus be included in the Uterature of the time of Pekah.
PELATIAH, pel-a-ti'a (H^ybg, p^latyah, "Jeh delivers"):
(1) One who "sealed" the covenant (Neh 10 22). (2) A descendant of Solomon, grandson of Zerubbabel (1 Ch 3 21).
(3) A Simeonite, one of the captains who cleared out the Amalekites and dwelt on the captured land
(1 Ch 4 42.43).
W. Shaw Caldbcott PEKAHIAH, pek-a-hi'a, pe-ka'ya (H^npS, p'kahydh, "Jeh hath opened" [the eyes] [2 K 15 2.3-26]; <i>aK£o-£as, Phakesias, A, *aK€t-
(4) A prince of the people whom Ezekiel (in Babylon) pictures as 'devising mischief and giving 'wicked counsel' in Jerus. He is represented as falhng dead while Ezekiel prophesies (Ezk 11 1.13). His name has the 1 , u, ending.
1. Accession o-s, Phakeias) : Son of Menahem, and 17th king of Israel. He is said to have succeeded his father in the "50th year of Azariah" (or Uzziah), a synchronism not free from difficulty if his accession is placed in 750-749
PELEG, pe'leg (jbs, pelegh, "watercourse," "division") : A son of Eber, and brother of Joktan. The derivation of the name is given: "for in his days was the earth divided" (niphl'ghah) (Gen 10 25; cf Lk 3 35, AV "Phalec"). This probably refers to the scattering of the world's population and the oonfoundmg of its language recorded in Gen 11 1-9. _ In Aram, p'lagh and Arab, plialaj mean division"; in Heb pelegh means "watercourse." The name may really be due to the occupation by this people of some well-watered (furrowed), district (e.g in Babylonia), for these patronymics represent races, and the derivation in Gen 10 25 is a later editor's remark. S. F. Hunter
(see Menahem; Uzziah). Most date lower, after 738, when an Assyr inscription makes Menahem pay tribute to Tiglath-pileser (cf 2 K 15 19-21). I'ekahiah came to the throne enveloped in the danger which always accompanies the successor of
an exceptionally strong ruler, in a
2. Regicide country where there is not a settled
in Israel law of succession. Within two years of his accession he was foully murdered —the 7th king of Israel who had met his death by violence (the others wore Nadab, Elah, Tibni,
2297 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Pekahiah Pen
PELET, pe'let (tabs, -pelet, "deliverance"):
were dropped on the ground. The tropical sun soon made the location unbearable to mortals. Perching pelicans were the ugliest birds imaginable, but when their immen.se brown or white bodies swept in a 12 ft. spread across the land and over sea, they made an impressive picture. They are included, with good reason, in the list of abominations (see Lev 11 18; Dt 14 17). They are next mentioned in Ps 102 6
(1) Sonof lahdai (i Ch 2 47).
(2) Son of Azmavoth, one of those who resorted to David at Ziklag while he was hiding from Saul
(1 Ch 12 3).
PELETH, pe'leth (nbsi, pelelh, "swiftness"):
(1) Father of On, one of the rebels against Moses and Aaron (Nu 16 1); probably same as Pallu (q.v.).
"I am like a pelican of the wilderness;
I am become as an owl of the waste places."
(2) A descendant of Jerahmeel (1 Ch 2 :33).
Here David from the depths of affliction likened himself to a pelican as it appears when it perches in the wilderness. See Isa 34 11: "But the peUcan and the porcupine shall possess it; and the owl and the raven shall dwell therein: and he will stretch over it the line of confu.sion, and the plummet of emptine.ss." Here the bird is used to complete the picture of desolation that was to prevail after the destruction of Edom. The other reference concerns the destruction of Nineveh and is found in Zeph 2 14: "And herds shall lie down in the midst of her,
PELETHITES, pel'5-thlts, pe'leth-its pnbg,
p'lethi) : A company of David's bodyguard, like the Chebethites (q.v.) (2 S 8 18; 15 IS); probably a corrupt form of "PhiUstines."
PELIAS, pS-li'as: AV = RV "Pedias."
PELICAN, pel'i-kan (nXf; , ka'ath; Lat Pelecanus onocrotalus [LXX reads irtXeKav, pelekdn, in Lev and Pss, but has 3 other readings, that are rather confusing, in the other places)): Any bird of the genus Pelecanus. The Heb ki' means "to vomit." The name was applied to the bird because
all the beasts of the nations: both the pelican and the_ porcupine shall lodge in the capitals thereof; their voice shall sing in the windows; desolation shall be in the thresholds: for he hath laid bare the cedar-work." Gene Stratton-Pobtbr
PELISHTIM, pel'ish-tim, pe-Ush'tIm (Dinipbs?
, p'lishtlm [RVm of Gen 10 14]). See Philistines.
PELONITE, pel'C-nlt, pe'l5-nlt, p5-lo'nit (^iibs?
, p'iuni, a place-name): Two of David's heroes are thus described: (1) "Helez the Pelonite" (1 Ch 11 27) (see Paltite); and (2) "Ahijah the Pelonite"
(1 Ch 11 36).
PEN, (t:?, 'ci, Unn, heret; Kd\a|ios, kdlamos): The first writing was done on clay, wax, lead or stone tablets by scratching into the material with some hard pointed instrument. For this purpose bodkins of bronze, iron, bone or ivory were used (Job 19 24; Isa 8 1; Jer 17 1). In Jer 17 1 a diamond is also mentioned as being used for the same purpose. In Jer 36 Baruch, the son of Neriah, declares that he recorded the words of the prophet with ink in the book. In ver 23 it says that the king cut the roll with the penknife (lit. the scribe's knife). This whole scene can best be explained if we consider that Baruch and the king's scribes were in the habit of using reed pens. These pens are made from the hollow jointed stalks of a coarse grass growing in marshy places. The dried reed is cut diagonally with the penknife and the point thus formed is carefully shaved thin to make it flexible and the nib spUt as in the modern pen. The last operation is the clipping off of the very point so that
Pelican (Pelecanus oiiocTOlalus)
it swallowed large quantities of fish and then disgorged them to its nestlings. In the performance of this act it pressed the large beak, in the white species, tipped with red, against the crop and slightly lifted the wings. In ancient times, people, seeing this, believed that the bird was puncturing
its breast and feeding it.s young with its blood. From this idea arose the custom of using a pelican with lifted wings in heraldry or as a symbol of Christ and of charity. (See Fictitious Creatures in Art, 182-86, London, Chapman and Hall, 1906.) Pal knew a white and a brownish-gray bird, both close to 6 ft. long and having over a 12 ft. sweep of wing. They lived around the Dead Sea, fished beside the Jordan and abounded in greatest numbers in the wildernesses of the Mediterranean shore. The brown pelicans were larger than the white. Each of them had a long beak, peculiar throat pouch and webbed feet. They built large nests, 5 and 6 ft. across, from dead twigs of bushes, and laid two or three eggs. The brown birds deposited a creamywhite egg with a rosy flush; the white, a white egg with bluish tints. The young were naked at first, then covered with down, and remained in the nest until full feathered and able to fly. This compelled the parent birds to feed them for a long time, and they carried such quantities of fish to a nest that the young could not consume all of them and many
it becomes a stub pen. The Arab scribe does this by resting the nib on his thumb nail while cutting, so that the cut will be clean and the pen will not scratch. The whole procedure requires considerable skill. The pupil in Heb or Arab, writing learns to make a pen as his first lesson. A scribe carries a sharp knife around with him for keeping his pen in good condition, hence the name penknife. The word used in 3 Jn ver 13 is kalamos, "reed," indicating that the pen described above was used in John's time (cf kalam, the common Arab, name for pen). See Ink; Ink-Horn; Writing. Figurative: "Written with a pen of iron," i.e. indelibly (Jer 17 1). "My tongue is the pen of a ready writer" (Ps 45 1; cf Jer 36 IS). As the trained writer records a speech, so the Psalmist's tongue impresses or engraves on his hearers' minds what he has conceived.
James A. Patch
Pence, Penny Pentateuch THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2298
PENCE, pens, PENNY. See Money.
(4) Doublets (5) The Laws (6) The Argument from Style
PENCIL, pen'sil (Isa 44 13, m "red ochre," AV "line"). See Line; Ochre, Red.
(7) Props of the Development Hypothesis
3. The Answer to the Critical Analysis
(1) The Veto of Textual Criticism
(2) Astruc's Clue Tested
PENDANT, pen'dant (from Fr. from Lat pendeo, "to hang"): Not in AV. Twice in RV. (1)
(3) The Narrative Discrepancies and Signs of
Post-Mosaic Date Examined
(4) The Argument from the Doublets Exam-
nlD"'!?: , n'-tlphoth (AV "collars"), ornaments of the Midianites captured by Gideon (Jgs 8 26). (2) msyp, n'tiphoth (AV "chains"), an article of feminine apparel (Isa 3 19). The reference seems to be (Cheyne, "Isaiah" Polychrome Bible [HDB, III, 739]) to ear-drops, pearl or gold ornaments resembling a drop of water, fastened, probably, to the lobe of the ear.
ined
(5) The Critical Argument from the Laws
(6) The Argument from Style
(7) Perplexities of the Theory
(8) Signs of Unity
(9) The Supposed Props of the Development
Hypothesis 4. The Evidence of Date (1) The Narrative of Genesis
(2) Archaeology and Genesis
(3) The Legal Evidence of Genesis
(4) The Professedly Mosaic Character of the
Legislation
PENIEL, pe-nl'el, pen'i-el, pe'ni-el (bsi:JB
(.5) The Historical Situation Required by P
, p'nVel, "face of God"; EtSos BeoB, Eidos theou): This is the form of the name in Gen 32 30. In the next verse and elsewhere it appears as "Penuel." The name is said to have been given to the place by Jacob after his night of wrestling by the Jabbok, because, as he said, "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." It was a height e'S'idently close by the stream over which Jacob passed in the morning. Some have thought it might be a prominent cliff, the contour of which resembled a human face. Such a cliff on the seashore to the S. of Trip-
(6) The Hierarchical Organization in P
(7) The Legal Evidence of P
(8) The Evidence of D (9) Later Allusions (10) Other Evidence 5. The Fundamental Improbabilities of the Critical Case (1) The Moral and Psychological Issues
(2) The Historical Improbability
(3) The Divergence between the Laws and Post-exilic Practice (4) The Testimony of Tradition
6. The Origin and Transmission of the Pentateuch
III. Some Liter.^ry Points 1. Style of Legislation 2. The Narrative 3. The Covenant 4. Order and Rhythm IV. The Pentateuch as History
oli was called theou prosopon, "face of God" (Strabo xvi.2.15f). In later times a city with a strong tower stood upon it. This lay in the line of Gideon's pursuit of the Midianites. When he returned victorious, he beat dowm the place because of the churlishness of the inhabitants (Jgs 8 8.9.17). It was one of the towns "built" or fortified by Jeroboam (1 K 12 25). Merrill would identify it with Telul edh-Dhahah, "hills of gold," two hills with ruins that betoken great anticjuity, and that speak of great strength, on the S. of the Jabbok, about 10 miles E. of Jordan (for description see Merrill, East of the Jordan, 390 ff). A difficulty that seems fatal to this identification is that here the banks of the Jabbok are so precipitous as to be impassable. Conder suggests Jebel 'Osha. The site was clearly not far from Succoth; but no certainty is yet pos-
1. Textual Criticism and History 2. Hebrew Methods of Expression 3. Personification and Genealogies 4. Literary Form 5. The Sacred Numbers 6. Habits of Thought 7. National Coloring 8. How Far the Pentateuch Is Trustworthy
(1) Contemporaneous Information
(2) Character of Our Informants
(3) Historical Genius of the People
(4) Good Faith of Deuteronomy
(.5) Nature of the Events Recorded
(6) External Corroborations 9. The Pentateuch as Reasoned History V. The Character of the Pentateuch
1. Hindu Law Books 2. Differences 3. Holiness 4. The Universal Aspect 5. The National Aspect Literature
sible. W. EwiNG
PENINNAH, pf-nin'a (ns??
, p'ninnah, "coral," "pearl") : Second wife of Elkanah, father of Samuel
/. Title, Division, Contents (TTIiri , torah, "law" or "teaching").—It has recently been argued that the Heb word is really the Bab tertu, "divinely revealed law" (e.g. Sayce, Chitrchman, 1909, 728 ff j, but such passages as Lev 14 54-57; Dt 17 11 show that the legislator connected it with iTlln, hordh (from yardh), "to teach." Also called by the Jews nnin •'timn niBan, Mmishshah Mm'shi torah, "the five-fifths of the law" : 6 cA^os, /lo nomos, "the Law." The word "Pentateuch" comes from TrevTaTevxos, peiitdteuchos, lit. ".5-volumed [sc. book]." The Pent consists of the first five books of the Bible, and forms the fu'st division of the Jewish Canon, and the whole of the Sam Canon. The 5-fold division is certainly old, since it is earlier than the LXX or the Sam Pent. How much older it may be is unknown. It has been thought that the 5-fold division of the Psalter is based on it. The five books into which the Pent is divided are respectively Gen, Ex, Lev, Nu, and Dt, and the separate arts, should be consulted for information as to their nomenclature.
(1 S 1 2.4).
PENKNIFE, pen'nif (Jer 36 23). See Pen.
PENNY, pcn'i (iiyvdpiov, dendrion; Lat denarius [q.v.]): ARV (Mt 18 28; 20 2.9.10.13, etc) renders it by "shiUing" except in Mt 22 19; Mk 12 15 and Lk 20 24, where it retains the original term as it refers to a particular coin. See Denarius; Money.
PENSION, pen'shun (1 Esd 4 56, AV "and he commanded to givf^ to all that kept the city pensions and wages"; kXtjpos, kleros, "allotted portion," usually [here certainly] of lands [RV "lands"]) Literally means simply "payment," and AV seems to have used the word in order to avoid any specialization of kleros. There is no reference to payment
for past services. Sec Lot.
PENTATEUCH, pen'ta-tuk:
I, Title, Division, Contents
II. Authorship, Composition, Date
The work opens with an account of the Creation, and passes to the story of the first human couple. The narrative is carried on partly by genealogies and partly by fuller accounts to Abraham. Then
1. The Current Critical Scheme:
2. The Evidence for the Current Critical Scheme
(1) Astruc's Clue
(2) Signs ol Post-Mosaic Date
(3) Narrative Discrepancies
2299 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Pence, Penny Pentateuch
appellations)—on the relative dates of which opinions dill'er—were composed probably during the early monarchy and sui)seQuently coml>ined by a redactor (RJe) into a single document JE. In the 7th cent. D, the bulk of Dt, was composed. It was published in the 18th year of Josiah's reign. Later it was combined witli JE into JED by a redactor (RJeti). p or PO, the last of all (originally the first Elohist, now the PC) incorporated an earlier code of uncertain date which consists in the main of most of Lev 17-26 and is known as the Law of Holiness (H or Ph). p itself is largely postexilic. Ultimately it was joined with JED by a priestly redactor (Rp) into substantially our present Pent. As already stated, the theory is subject to many minor variations. Moreover, it is admitted that not all its portions are equally well supported. The division of JE into J and E is regarded as less certain than the separation of P. Again, there are variations in the analysis, differences of opinion as to the exact dating of the documents, and so forth. Yet the view just sketched has been held by a very numerous and influential school during recent years, nor is it altogether fair to lay stress on minor divergences of opinion. It is in the abstract conceivable that the main positions might be true, and that yet the data were inadequate to enable all the minor details to be determined with certainty (see Criticism OF THE Bible).
comes a history of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the collateral lines of descendants being rapidly dismissed. The story of Joseph is told in detaO, and Gen closes with his death. The rest of the Pent covers the oppression of the Israelites in Egypt, their exodus and wanderings, the conquest of the transJordanic lands and the fortunes of the people to the death of Moses. The four concluding books contain masses of legislation mingled with the narrative
(for special contents, see arts, on the several books).
//. Authorship, Composition, Date.—The view that Moses was the author of the Pent, with the
exception of the concluding vs of Dt,
1. The was once held universally. It is still Current believed by the great mass of Jews Critical and Christians, but in most univerScheme sities of Northern Europe and North America other theories prevail. An application of what is called "higher" or "documentary criticism" (to distinguish it from lower or textual criticism) has led to the formation of a number of hypotheses. Some of these are very widely held, but unanimity has not been attained, and recent investigations have challenged even the conclusions that are most generally accepted. In the Eng.-speaking countries the vast majority of the critics would regard Driver's LOT and Carpenter and Harford-Battersby's Hexateuch as fairly representative of their position, but on the Continent of Europe the numerous school that holds some such position is dwindling alike in numbers and influence, while even in Great Britain and America some of the ablest critics are beginning to show signs of being shaken in their allegiance to cardinal points of the higher-critical case. However, at the time of writ-
This theory will hereafter be discussed at length
for two reasons: (1) while it is now constantly losing ground, it is still more widely held than any other; and (2) so much of the modern lit. on the OT hag been written from this standpoint that no intelligent use can be made of the most ordinary books of reference without some acquaintance with it.
Before 1908 the conservative opposition to the dominant theory had exhibited two separate tendencies. One school of conservatives rejected the scheme in toto; the other accepted the analysis with certain modifications, but sought to throw back the dating of the documents. In both these respects
it had points of contact with dissentient critics (e.g. Delitzsch, Dillmann, Baudissin, Kittel, Strack, Van Hoonacker), who sought to save for conservatism any spars they could from the general wreck-
ing, these latter critics have not put forward any fresh formulation of their views, and accordingly the general positions of the works named may be taken as representing with certain qualifications the general critical theory. Some of the chief stadia in the development of this may be mentioned.
age. The former school of thought was most prominently represented by the late W. H. Green, and J. II. Raven's OT Intro may be regarded as a typical modern presentation of their view; the latter esp. by Robertson and Orr. The scheme put forward by the last named has found many adher-
After attention had been drawn by earlier -writers to various signs of post-Mosaic date and extraordinary perplexities in the Pent, the first real step toward what Its advocates have, till witliin the last few years, called "the modern position" was taken by J. Astruc (1753). He propounded what Carpenter terms "the clue to the documents," i.e. the difference of the Divine appellations In Gen as a test of authorship. On this view the word 'Elohim (" God") is characteristic of one principal source and the Tetragrammaton, i.e. the Divine name YII WH represented by the "Lobd" or "God" of AV and BV, shows the presence of another. Despite occasional warnings, this clue was followed in the main for 150 years. It forms the starting-point of the whole current critical development, but the most recent investigations have successfully proved that it is unreliable (see below,
ents. He refuses to regard J and E as two separate documents, holding that we should rather think
(as in the case of the || Pss) of two recensions of one document marked by the use of different Divine appellations. The critical P he treats as the work
of a supplementer, and thinks it never had an independent existence, while he considers the whole Pent as early. He holds that the work was done by "original composers, working with a common aim, and toward a common end, in contrast with the idea of late irresponsible redactors, combining, alter-
3, [2]). Astruc was followed by Eichhorn (1780), who made a more thorough examination of Gen, indicating numerous differences of style, representation, etc.
ing, manipulating, enlarging at pleasure" {POT,
Geddes (1792) and Vater (1802-5) extended the method applied to Gen to the other books of the Pent.
37.5). While these were the views held among OT critics, a separate opposition had been growing up among archaeologists. This was of course utilized to the utmost by the conservatives of both wings. In some ways archaeology undoubtedly has confirmed the traditional view as against the critical (see Archaeology and Criticism); but a candid survey leads to the belief that it has not yet dealt a mortal blow, and here again it must be remembered that the critics may justly plead that they must not be judged on mistakes that they made m their
In 1798 Ilgen distinguished two Elohists in Gen, but this view did not find followers for some time. The next step of fundamental importance was the assignment of the bulk of Dt to the 7th cent. BC. This was due to De Wette (1806). Hupfeld (1853) again distinguished
a, second Elohist, and this has been accepted by most
critics. Thus there are four main documents at least: D (the bulk of Dt), two ElShists (P and E) and one document (J) that uses the Tetragrammaton in Gen. From 1822 (Bleek) a series of writers maintained that the Book of Josh was compounded from the same documents as the Pent (see Hexateuch). . „,,, Two other developments call for notice: (1) there has been a tendency to subdivide these documents further, regarding them as the work of schools rather than of individuals, and resolving them into different strata (P,, P„ P, etc J,, Jj, etc, or in the notation of other writers Jj Je etc) ; (2) a particular scheme of dating has found wide acceptance. In the first period of the critical development it was assumed that the principal Elohist (P) was the earliest document. A succession of writers of whom Reuss, Graf, Kuenen and Wellhausen are the most prominent have, however, maintained that this is not the first but the last in point of time and should be referred to the
earlier investigations or on refutations of the more uncertain portions of their theory, but rather on the main completed result. It may indeed be said with confidence that there are certain topics to which archaeology can never supply any conclusive answer. // it be the case that the Pent contains
hopelessly contradictory laws, no archaeological discovery can make them anything else ; if the num-
exile or later. On this view the theory is in outhne as followsJ and E (so called from their respective Divine
bers of the Israelites are original and impossible.
Pentateuch THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2300
culties are found, and moreover the sources already distinguished in Gen are, it is claimed, marked by separate styles and other characteristics which enable them to be identified when they occur in the narrative of the later books (see Criticism op the Bible).
archaeology cannot make them possible. It is fair and right to lay stress on the instances in which archaeology has confirmed the Bible as against the critics; it is neither fair nor right to speak as if archaeology had done what it never purported to do and never could effect.
(2) Signs of post-Mosaic date.—Close inspection of the Pent shows that It contains a number ot passages which, it is alleged, could not have proceeded from the pen of Moses in their present form. Probably the most familiar instance is the account ol the death of Moses (Dt 34). Other examples are to be found in seeming allusions to post-Mosaic events, e.g. in Gen 22 we hear of the Mount of the Lord in the land of Moriah ; this apparently refers to the Temple Hill, which, however, would not have been so designated before Solomon. So too the list of kings who reigned over Edom "before there reigned any king over the children of Israel" (36 31) presumes the existence of the monarchy. The Canaanites who are referred to as being "then in the land" (Gen 12 6: 13 7) did notdisappear till the timeof Solomon, and, accordingly, if this expression means "then still" it cannot antedate his reign. Dt 3 11 (Og's bedstead) comes unnaturally from one who had vanquished Og but a few weeks previously, wliile Nu 21 14 (AV) contains a reference to
The year 1908 saw the beginning of a new critical development which makes it very difficult to speak positively of modern critical views. Kuenen has been mentioned as one of the ablest and most eminent of those who brought the Graf-Wellhausen theory into prominence. In that year B. D. Eerdmans, his pupil and successor at Leyden, began the publication of a series of OT studies in which he renounces his allegiance to the line of critics that had extended from Astruc to the publications of our own day, and entered on a series of investigations that were intended to set forth a new critical view. As his labors are not yet complete, it is impossible to present any account of his scheme; but the volumes already published .iustify certain remarks. Eerdmans has perhaps not converted any member of the Wellhauseu school, but he has made many realize that their own scheme is not the only one possible. Thus while a few years ago we were constantly assured that the "main results" of OT criticism were unalterably settled, recent writers adopt a very different tone: e.g. Sellin (1910) says, "We stand in a time of fermentation and transition, and in what follows we present our own opinion merely as the hypothesis which appears to us to be the best founded" (Einleilung, 18). By general consent Eerdmans' work contains a number of isolated shrewd remarks to which criticism will have to attend in the future; but it also contains many observations that are demonstrably unsound
' the book of the Wars of the Lord
' which would hardly have been quoted in this way by a contemporary. Ex 16 35 refers to the cessation of the manna after the death of Moses. These passages, and more like them, are cited to disprove Mosaic authorship; but the main weight of the critical argument does not rest on them,
(3) Narrative discrepancies.—While the Divine appellations form the starting-point, they do not even in Gen constitute the sole test of different documents. On the contrary, there are other narrative discrepancies, antinomies, differences of style, duplicate narratives, etc, adduced to support the critical theory. We must now glance at some of these.
_ In Gen 21 14 f Ishmael is a boy who can be carried on his mother's shoulder, but from a comparison of 16 3.16; 17, it appears that he must have been 14 when Isaac was born, and, since weaning sometimes occurs at the age of 3 in the East, may have been even as old as 17 when this incident happened. Again, "We all remember the scene (Gen 27) in which Isaac in extreme old age blesses his sons; we picture him as lying on his deathbed. Do we, however, all realize that according to the chronology of the Book of Gen he must have been thus lying on his deathbed for eighty years (cf 25 26; 26 34; 35 28)? Yet we can only diminish this period by extending proportionately the interval between Esau marrying hia Hittite wives (26 34) and Rebekah's suggestion to Isaac to send Jacob away, lest he should follow his brother's example (27 46) ; which, from the nature of the case, will not admit of any but slight extension. Keil, however, does so extend it, reducing the period of Isaac's final illness by 43 years, and is conscious of no incongruity in supposing that Rebekah, 30 years after Esau had taken his Hittite wives, should express her fear that Jacob, then aged 77, will do the same"
(for examples see BS, 1909, 744-18; 1910, 549-51). His own reconstruction is in many respects so faulty and blurred that it does not seem likely that it will ever secure a large following in its present form. On the other hand he appears to have succeeded in inducing a large number of students in various parts of the world to think along new lines and in this way may exercise a very potent influence on the future course of OT study. His arguments show increasingly numerous signs of his having been influenced by the publications of conservative writers, and it seems certain that criticism will ultimately be driven to recognize the essential soundness of the conservative position. In 1912 Dahse (TMH, I) began the publication of a series of volumes attacking the Wellhausen school on textual grounds and propounding a new pericope hypothesis. In his view many phenomena are due to the influence of the pericopes of the synagogue service or the form of the text and not to the causes generally assigned.
(Driver, Contemporary Review, LVII, 221). An important instance occurs in Nu. According to 33 38, Aaron died on the 1st day of the 5th month. From Dt 1 3 it appears that 6 months later Moses delivered his speech in the plains of Moab. Into those 6 months are compressed one month's mourning for Aaron, the Arad campaign, the wandering round by the Red Sea, the campaigns against Sihon and Og, the missions to Balaam and the whole episode of his prophecies, the painful occurrences of Nu 25, the second census, the appointment of Joshua, the expedition against Midian, besides other events. It is clearly impossible to fit all these into the time.
The examination of the Graf-Wellhausen theory must now be undertaken, and attention must first
be directed to the evidence which is 2. Evidence adduced in its support. Why should for the it be held that the Pent is composed Current mainly of excerpts from certain docuCritical ments designated as J and E and P Scheme and D? Why is it believed that these documents are of very late date, in one case subsequent to the exile?
(1) A^iirucs due.—It has been said above that Astruc propounded the use of the Divine appeliations in Gen as a clue to the dissection of that book. This is based on Ex 6 3, 'And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as 'El Shadday [God Almighty]; but by my name YUWH I was not known to them.' In numerous passages of Gen this name is represented as known, e.g. 4 26, where we road of men beginning to call on it in the days of Enosh. The discrepancy here is very obvious, and in the view of the Astruc school can be satisfactorily removed by postulating different sources. This clue, of course, fails after Ex 6 3, but other diffi-
Other discrepancies are of the most formidable character. Aaron dies now at Mt. Hor (Nu 20 28; 33 38), now at Moserah (Dt 10 6). According to pt 1; 2 1.14, the children of Israel left Kadeshbarnea in the 3d year and never subsequently returned to it, while in Nu they apparently remain there till the journey to Mt. Hor, where Aaron dies in the 40th year. The Tent of Meeting per-
2301 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Pentateuch
ent Pentateuchal sources are said to mark. Dt influences Jer and the subsequent literature. It is argued that it would equally have influenced the earlier books, had it then existed. So too the completed Pent should have influenced K as it did Ch,
hapa provides some of the most perplexing of the discrepancies, for while according to the well-known scheme of Ex 26 S and many other passages, it was a large and heavy erection standing in the midst of the camp. Ex 33 7-11 provides us with another Tent of Meeting that stood outside the camp at a distance and could be carried by Moses alone. The vbs. used are frequentative, denoting a regular practice, and it is impossible to suppose that after receiving the commands for the Tent of Meeting Moses could have instituted a quite different tent of the same name. Joseph again is sold, now by Ishmaelites (Gen 37 27.28b; 39 1), anon by Midianites (37 28a. 36). Sometimes he is imprisoned in one place, sometimes apparently in another. The story of Korah, Dathan and Abiram in Nu 16
if it had been in existence when the earlier history was composed.
(1) The veto of textual criticism.—The first great objection that may be made to the higher criticism
is that it starts from the Massoretio
3. Answer text (MT) without investigation. This to the is not the only text that has come down Critical to us, and in some instances it can be Analysis shomi that alternative readings that have been preserved are superior to those of the MT. A convincing example occurs
in Ex 18. According to the Heb, Jethro comes to Moses and says "I, thy father-in-law .... am come," and subsequently Moses goes out to meet his father-in-law. The critics here postulate different sources, but some of the best authorities have preserved a reading which (allowing for ancient differences of orthography) supposes an alteration of a single letter. According to this reading the text told how one (or they) came to Moses and said "Behold thy father-in-law .... is come." As the result of this Moses went out and met Jethro. The vast improvement in the sense is self-evident. But in weighing the change other considerations must be borne in mind. Since this is the reading of some of the most ancient authorities, only two views are possible. Either the MT has undergone a corruption of a single letter, or else a redactor made a most improbable cento of two documents which gave a narrative of the most doubtful sense, (fortunately
is equally full of difficulty. The enormous numbers of the Israelites given in Nu 1-4, etc, are in conflict with passages that regard them as very few.
(4) Doublets.—Another portion of the critical argument is provided by doublets or duplicate narratives of the same event, e.g. Gen 16 and 21. These are particularly numerous in Gen, but are not confined to that book. "Twice do quails appear in connection with the daily manna (Nu 11 4-6.31 ff; Ex 16 13). Twice does Moses draw water from the rock, when the strife of Israel begets the name Meribah ('strife') (Ex 17 1-7; Nu 20 1-13)" (Carpenter, Hexateuch, I, 30).
(5) The laws.—Most stress is laid on the argument from the laws and their supposed historical setting. By far the most important portions of this are examined in Sanctuary and Priests (q.v.). These subjects form the two main pillars of the GrafWellhausen theory, and accordingly the arts, in question must be read as supplementing the present
this was followed by textual corruption of so happy a character as to remove the difficulty by the change
article. An illustration may be taken from the slavery laws. It is claimed that Ex 21 1-6; Dt 15 12 ff permit a Hebrew to contract for life slavery after 6 years' service, but that Lev 25 39-42 takes no notice of this law and enacts the totally different provision that Hebrews may remain in slavery only
of a single letter; and this corruption was so widespread that it was accepted as the genuine text by some of our best authorities. There can be little doubt which of these two cases is the more credible, and with the recognition of the textual solution the particular bit of the analysis that depends on this corruption falls to the ground. This instance illus-
till the Year of Jubilee. While these different enactments might proceed from the same hand if properly coordinated, it is contended that this is not the case and that the legislator in Lev ignores the legislator in Ex and is in turn ignored by the
trates one branch of textual criticism; there are
others. Sometimes the narrative shows with certainty that in the transmission of the text trans-
legislator in Dt, who only knows the law of Ex.
positions have taken place; e.g. the identification
(6) The argument from style.—The argument from
of Kadesh shows that it was S. of Hormah. Consequently a march to compass Edom by way of the Red Sea would not bring the Israelites to Hormah. Here there is no reason to doubt that the events narrated are historically true, but there is grave reason to doubt that they happened in the present order of the narrative. Further, Dt gives an account that is parallel to certain passages of Nu; and
style is less easy to exemplify shortly, since it depends so largely on an immense mass of details.
It is said that each of the sources has certain char-
acteristic phrases which either occur nowhere else or only with very much less frequency. For in-
stance in Gen 1, where 'Elohim is used throughout, we find the word "create," but this is not employed
it confirms those passages, but places the events in a different order. Such diflSculties may often be solved by simple transpositions, and when trans-
in 2 46 ff, where the Tetragrammaton occurs. Hence it is argued that this word is peculiarly
characteristic of P as contrasted with the other documents, and may be used to prove his presence
positions in the text of Nu are made under the guidance of Dt they have a very different probability from guesses that enjoy no such sanction.^ Another department of textual criticism deals with the removal of glosses, i.e. notes that have crept into the
(7) Props of the development hypothesis.—While
in e.g. 5 1 f.
the main supports of the Graf-Wellhausen theory must be sought in the arts, to which reference has been made, it is necessary to mention briefly some
text. Here the ancient VSS often help us, one or other omitting some words which may be proved from other sources to be a later addition. _ Thus in Ex 17 7 the Vulg did not know the expression, "and Meribah" (one word in Heb), and calls the place "Massah" simply. This is confirmed by the fact that Dt habitually calls the place Massah (6 16; 9 22; 33 8). The true Meribah was Kadesh (Nu
other phenomena to which some weight is attached.
Jer displays many close resemblances to Dt, and
the framework of K is written in a style that has marked similarities to the same book. Ezk again
has notable points of contact with P and esp. with H; either he was acquainted with these portions of
the Pent or else he must have exercised considerable
20) and a glossator has here added this by mistake
influence on those who composed them. Lastly
(see further [4] below). Thus we can say that a
the Chronicler is obviously acquainted with the completed Pent. Accordingly, it is claimed that
scientific textual criticism often opposes a real veto
to the higher critical analysis by showing that the arguments rest on late corruptions and by explain-
the literature provides a sort of external standard
that confirms the historical stages which the differ-
Pentateuch THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2302
17, 100 years old when Isaac was born. In 17 25 we find that Ishmael is already 13 a year before
ing the true origin of the difficulties on which the
critics rely.
(2) Astruc's clue tested.—Astruc's clue must next be examined. The critical case breaks down with extraordinary frequency. No clean division can be effected, i.e. there are cases where the MT of Gen makes P or E use the Tetragrammaton or J 'Elohlm. In some of these cases the critics can suggest no reason; in others they are compelled to assume that the MT is corrupt for no better reason than that it is in conflict with their theory. Again the exigencies of the theory frequently force the analyst to sunder verses or phrases that cannot be understood apart from their present contexts, e.g. in Gen 28 21 Carpenter assigns the words "and Jeh will be my God" to J while giving the beginning and end of the verse to E; in ch 31, ver 3 goes to a redactor, though E actually refers to the statement of ver 3 in ver 5; in ch 32, ver 30 is torn from a J-context and given to E, thus leaving ver 31 (.J) unintelligible. When textual criticism is applied, startling facts that entirely shatter the higher critical argument are suddenly revealed. The variants to the Divine appellations in Gen are very numerous, and in some instances the new readings are clearly superior to the MT, even when they substitute 'Elohlm for the Tetragrammaton. Thus, in 16 11, the explanation of the name IshmaeZ requires the word 'Elohlm, as the name would otherwise have been Ishmayah, and one Heb MS, a recension of the LXX and the Old Lat do in fact preserve the reading 'Elohlm. The full facts and arguments cannot be given here, but Professor Schlogl has made an exhaustive examination of the various texts from Gen 1 1 to Ex 3 12. Out of a total of 347 occurrences of one or both words in the MT of that passage, there are variants in 196 instances. A very important and detailed discussion, too long to be summarized here, will now be found in TMH, I. Wellhausen himself has admitted that the textual evidence constitutes a sore point of the documentary theory {Expos T, XX, 563). Again in Ex 6 3, many of the best authorities read "I was not made known" instead of "I was not known" a difference of a single letter in Heb. But if this be right, there is comparative evidence to suggest that to the early mind a revelation of his name by a deity meant a great deal more than a mere knowdedge of the name, and involved rather a pledge of his power. Lastly the analj'sia may be tested in yet another way by inquiring whether
Isaac's birth. Now we are familiar with marginal notes that set forth a system of chronology in many printed Eng. Bibles. In this case the Septuagintal variants suggest that something similar is respon-
sible for the difficulty of our Heb. Two MSS, apparently representing a recension, omit the words, "after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan" in 16 3, and again, ver 16, while in 17 25 there is a variant making Ishmael only 3 years old.
If these readings are correct it is easy to see how the
difficulty arose. The narrative originally contained mere round numbers, like 100 years old, and these were not intended to be taken literally. A commentator constructed a scheme of chronology which was embodied in marginal notes. Then these crept into the text and such numbers as were in conflict with them were thought to be corrupt and underwent alteration. Thus the 3-year-old Ishmael became 13.
The same MSS that present us with the variants in Gen 16 have also preserved a suggestive reading in 35 28, one of the passages that are responsible
for the inference that according to the text of Gen Isaac lay on his deathbed for 80 years (see above,
2, [3]). According to this Isaac was not 180, but 150 years old when he died. It is easy to see that this is a round number, not to be taken literally, but this is not the only source of the difficulty. In 27 41, Esau, according to EV, states "The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob." This is a perfectly possible rendering of the Heb, but the LXX tr'^ the text differently, and its rendering, while grammatically correct, has the double advantage of avoiding Isaac's long lingering on a deathbed and of presenting Esau's hatred and ferocity far more vividly. It renders, "May the days of mourning for my father approach that I may slay my brother Jacob." Subsequent translators preferred the milder version, but doubtless the LXX has truly apprehended the real sense of the narrative. If we read the ch with this rnodification, we see Isaac as an old man, not knowing when he may die, performing the equivalent of making his will. It puts no strain on our credulity to suppose that he may have lived 20 or 30 years longer. Such episodes occur constantly in everyday experience. As to the calculations based on 25 26 and 26 34, the numbers used are 60 and 40, which, as is well known, were frequently employed by the ancient Hebrews, not as mathematical expressions, but simply to denote unknown or unspecified periods. See Numbeb. The other chronological difficulty cited above (viz. that there is not room between the date of Aaron's death and the address by Moses in the plains of Moab for all the events assigned to this period by Nu) is met partly by a reading preserved by the Pesh and partly by a series of transpositions. In Nu 33 38 Pesh reads "fii-st" for "fifth" as the month of Aaron's death, thus recognizing a longer period for the subsequent events. The transpositions, however, which are largely due to the evidence of Dt, solve the most formidable and varied difficulties; e.g. a southerly march from Kadesh no longer conducts the Israelites to Arad in the north, the name Hormah is no longer used (Nu 14 45) before it is explained (21 3), there is no longer an account directly contradicting Dt and making the Israelites spend 38 years at Kadesh immediately after receiving a Divine command to turn "tomorrow" (Nu 14 25). A full discussion is impossible here and will be found in EPC, 114-38. The order of the narrative that emerges as probably original is as follows: Nu 12; 20 1.14-21; 21 1-3; 13; 14; 16-18; 20 2-13.22(,; 21 46-1), then some
it fits in with the other data, and when it is discovered (see below 4, [1]) that it involves ascribing, e.g. a passage that cannot be later than the time of Abraham to the period of the kingdom, it becomes certain that the clue and the method are alike misleading (see further EPC, ch i; Expos T, XX, 378 f, 473-7.5, 563; TMH, I; PS, 49-142; BS, 1913, 14.5-74; A. Troelstra, The Name
of God, NKZ, XXIV [1913], 119-48; Expos, 1913).
(3) Narrative discrepancies and signs of postMosaic date.—Septuagintal MSS are providing very illuminating material for dealing with the chronological difficulties. It is well known that the LXX became corrupt and passed through various recensions (see Septuagint). The original text has not yet been reconstructed, but as the result of the great variety of recensions it happens that our various MSS present a wealth of alternative readings. Some of these show an intrinsic superiority to the corresponding readings of the MT. Take the case of Ishmael's age. We have seen (above, 2, [3]) that although in Gen 21 14 f he is a boy who can be carried by his mother even after the weaning of Isaac, his father, according to 16 3.16, was 86 years old at the time of his birth, and, according to ch
2303 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Pentateuch
Temple Hill. The Massoretic pointing is presumably due to a desire to avoid what seemed to be an anthropomorphism (see further P/S, 19-21). Again, in Nu 21 14, the LXX knows nothing of "a book of the Wars of Jeh" (see Field, Hexapla, ad loc). It is difficult to tell what the original reading was, esp. as the succeeding words are corrupt in the Heb, but it appears that no genitive followed "wars" and
missing vs, bringing tlie Israelites to the head of the Gulf of Akabah and narrating the turn northward from Elath and Ezion-geber, then 20 226-29; 21 4a, and some lost words telling of the arrival at the station before Oboth. In Nu 33, ver 40 is a gloss that is missing in Lagarde's LXX, and vs 36b-37a should probably come earlier in the chapter than they do at present.
Another example of transposition is afforded by Ex 33 7-11, the passage relating to the Tent of Meeting which is at present out of place (see above
it is doubtful if there was any reference to a "book of wars."
(4) 7'/ie argument from the doublets examined.— The foregoing sections show that the documentary theory often depends on phenomena that were absent from the original Pent. We are now to examine arguments that rest on other foundations. The doublets have been cited, but when we examine the instances more carefully, some curious facts emerge. Gen 16 and 21 are, to all appearance, narratives of different events; so are Ex 17 1-7 and Nu 20 1-13 (the drawing of water from rocks). In the latter case the critics after rejecting this divide the passages into 5 different stories, two going to J, two to E and one to P. If the latter also had a Rephidimnarrative (cf Nu 33 14 P), there were 6 tales. In any case both J and E tell two stories each. It is impossible to assign any cogency to the argument that the author of the Pent could not have told two such narratives, if not merely the redactor of the Pent but also J and E could do so. The facts as to the manna stories are similar. As to the flights of quails, it is known that these do in fact occur every year, and the Pent places them at almost exactly a year's interval (see EPC, 104 f, 109 f).
2, [3]). It is supposed that this is E's idea of the Tabernacle, but that, unlUve P, he places it outside the camp and makes Joshua its priest. This latter view is discussed and refuted in Priests, 3, where
it is shown that Ex 33 7 should be rendered "And Moses used to take a [or, the] tent and pitch it for himself," etc. As to the theory that this is E's account of the Tabernacle, Ex 18 has been overlooked. This chapter belongs to the same E but refers to the end of the period spent at Horeb, i.e.
it is later than 33 7-11. In vs 13-16 we find Moses sitting with all the people standing about him because they came to inquire of God; i.e. the business which according to ch 33 was transacted in solitude outside the camp was performed within the camp in the midst of the people at a later period. This agrees with P, e.g. Nu 27. If now we look at the other available clues, it appears that 33 11 seems to introduce Joshua for the first time. The passage should therefore precede 17 8-15; 24 13; 32 17, where he is already known. Again, if Ex 18 refers to the closing scenes at Horeb (as it clearly does), Ex 24 14 providing for the temporary transaction of judicial business reads very strangely. It ought to be preceded by some statement of the ordinary course in normal times when Moses was not absent from the camp. Ex 33 7 ff provides such a statement. The only earlier place to which it can be assigned is after 13 22, but there it fits the context marvelously, for the statements as to the pillar of cloud in 33 9 f attach naturally to those in 13 21 f. With this change all the difficulties disappear. Immediately after leaving Egypt Moses began the practice of carrying a tent outside the camp and trying cases there. This lasted till the construction of the Tabernacle. "And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee" (Ex 25 22). After
(5) The critical argument from the laws.—The
legal arguments are due to a variety of misconceptions, the washing out of the historical background and the state of the text. Reference must be made to the separate articles (esp. Sanctuaby; Pbie.sts). As the slave laws were cited, it may be explained that in ancient Israel as in other communities slavery could arise or slaves be acquired in many ways: e.g. birth, purchase (Gen 14 14; 17 12 etc), gift (20 14), capture in war (14 21; 34 29), kidnapping (Joseph). The law of Ex and Dt applies ordy to Heb slaves acquired by purchase, not to slaves acquired in any other way, and least of all to those who in the eye of the law were not true slaves. Lev 25 has nothing to do with Heb
slaves. It is concerned merely with free Israelites who become insolvent. "If thy brother be waxed poor with thee, and sell himself" it begins (ver 39). Nobody who was already a slave could wax poor and sell himself. The law then provides that these insolvent freemen were not to be treated as slaves. In fact, they were a class of free bondmen, i.e. they were full citizens who were compelled to perform certain duties. A similar class of free bondmen existed in ancient Rome and were called nexi. The Egyptians who sold themselves to Pharaoh and became serfs afford another though less apt parallel. In all ancient societies insolvency led to some limitations of freedom, but while in some full slavery ensued, in others a sharp distinction was drawn between the slave and the insolvent freeman (see further,SSL, .5-11).
its erection the earlier tent was disused, and the court sat at the door of the Tabernacle in the center of the camp (see, further, EPC, 93-102, 106 f).
Some other points must be indicated more briefly. In Nu 16 important Scptuagintal variants remove the main difficulties by substituting "company of Korah" for "dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abu-am" in two vs (see EPC, 143-46). Similarly
in the Joseph-story the perplexities have arisen through corruptions of verses which may still be corrected by the versional evidence (PS, 29-48). There is evidence to show that the numbers of the
Israelites are probably due to textual corruption {EPC, 1.55-69). Further, there are numerous pas-
sages where careful examination has led critics themselves to hold that particular verses are later
notes. In this way they dispose of Dt 10 6 f (Aaron's death, etc), the references to the Israel-
(6) The argument from style.—Just as this argument is too detailed to be set out in a work like the
itish kingdom (Gen 36 31) and the Canaanites as being "then" in the land (12 6; 13 7), the bedstead
present, so the answer cannot be given with any degree of fulness. It may be said generally that the argument too frequently neglects differences of subject-matter and other sufficient reasons (such as considerations of euphony and slight variations of meaning) which often provide far more natural
of Og (Dt 3 11) and other passages. In Gen 22, "the land of Moriah" is unknown to the VSS which
present the most diverse readings, of which "the land of the Amorite" is perhaps the most probable;
while in ver 14 the LXX, reading the same Heb consonants as MT, translates "In the Mount the Lord was seen." This probably refers to a view that God
rea.sons for the phenomena observed. Again, the VSS suggest that the Bib. text has been heavily
manifesl-ed Himself esp. in the mountains (cf 1 K 20 23. 2S) and has no reference whatever to th('
glossed. Thus in many passages where the fre-
q\ient recurrence of certain words and phrases is
Pentateuch THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2304
during different centuries. Again, there are sometimes literary marks of unity, e.g. in Nu 16, the
supposed to attest the presence of P, versional evidence seems to show that the expressions in question have been introduced by glossators, and when they are removed the narrative remains unaffected in meaning, but terser and more vigorous and greatly improved as a vehicle of expression. To take a simple instance in Gen 23 1, "And the life of Sarah was a hundred and seven and twenty years
effect of rising anger is given to the dialogue by the
repetition of "Ye take too much upon you" (vs 3.7), followed by the repetition of "Is it a small thing that" (vs 9.13). This must be the work of a single
literary artist (see further SBL, 37 i).
(9) Su-pvosed -props of the development hypothesis. —When we turn to the supposed props of the development hypothesis we see that there is nothing
. ... the years of the life of Sarah," the italicized words were missing in the LXX. When they are removed the meaning is unaltered, but the form of expression is far superior. They are obviously a mere marginal note. Again the critical method is perpetually breaking down. It constantly occurs that redactors have to be called in to remove from a passage attributed to some source expressions that are supposed to be characteristic of another source, and this is habitually done on no other ground than that the theory requires it. One instance must be given. It is claimed that the word "create" is a P-word. It occurs several times in Gen 1 1 2 4a and 3 t in Gen 5 1.2, but in 6 7 it is found in a J-passage, and some critics therefore assign it to a redactor. Yet J undoubtedly uses the word in Nu 16 30 and D in Dt 4 32. On the other hand, P does not use the word exclusively, even in Gen 1
conclusive in the critical argument. Jer and the subsequent lit. certainly exliibit the influence of Dt, but a Book of the Law was admittedly found
in Josiah's reign and had lain unread for at any rate some considerable time. Some of its requirements had been in actual operation, e.g. in Naboth's case, while others had become a dead letter.
_ The circumstances of its discovery, the belief in its undoubted Mosaic authenticity and the subsequent course of history led to its greatly influencing contemporary and later writers, but that really proves nothing. Ezk again was steeped in priestly ideas, but it is shown in Priests, 5b, how this may be explained. Lastly, Ch certainly knows the whole Pent, but as certainly misinterprets it (see Priests). On the other hand the Pent itself always represents portions of the legislation as being intended to reach the people only through the priestly teach-
1—2 4, the word "make" being employed in 1 7. 25.26.31; 2 2, while in 2 3 both words are conibined. Yet all these passages are given unhesitatingly to P.
ing, and this fully accounts for P's lack of influence on the earlier literature. As to the differences of style within the Pent itself, something is said in
(7) Perplexities of the theory.—The perplexities of the critical hypothesis are very striking, but a detailed discussion is impossible here. Much ma-
III, Ijelow. Hence this branch of the critical argument really proves nothing, for the phenomena are susceptible of more than one explanation.
terial will, however, be found in POT and Eerd. St. A few general statements may be made. The critical analysis repeatedly divides a straightforward narrative into two sets of fragments, neither of which will make sense without the other. A man will go to sleep in one document and wake in another, or a subject will belong to one source and the predicate to another. No intelligible account can be given of the proceedings of the redactors who at one moment slavishly preserve their sources and at another cut them about without any necessity, who now rewrite their material and now leave it untouched. Even in the ranks of the Wetlhausen
(1) The narrative of Genesis.—Entirely different lines of argument are provided by the abundant
internal evidences of date. In Gen
4. Evidence 10 19, we read the phrase "as thou of Date goest toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and Admah and Zeboiim" in a definition of boundary. Such language could only have originated when the places named actually existed. One does not define boundaries by reference to towns that are purely mythical or have been overthrown many centuries previously. The consistent tradition is that these to'mis were destroyed in the lifetime of Abraham, and the passage therefore cannot be later than his age. But the critics assign it to a late stratum of J, i.e. to a period at least 1,000 years too late. This suggests several comments. First, it may reasonably be asked whether much reliance can be placed on a method which after a century and a half of the closest investigation does not permit its exponents to arrive at results that are correct to within 1,000 years. Secondly, it shows clearly that in the composition of the Pent very old materials were incorporated in their original language. Of the historical importance of this fact more will be said in IV; in this connection we must observe that it throws fresh light on expressions that point to the presence in Gen of sources composed in Pal, e.g. "the sea" for "the West" indicates the probability of a Palestinian source, but once it is proved that we have materials as old as the time of Abraham such expressions do not argue post-Mosaic, but rather preMosaic authorship. Thirdly, the passage demolishes the theory of schools of J's, etc. It cannot seriously be maintained that there was a school of J's writing a particular style marked by the most delicate and subjective criteria subsisting continuoasly for some 10 or 12 centuries from the time of Abraham onward, side by side with other writers with whom its members never exchanged terms of even such common occurrence as "handmaid."
critics chapters will be assigned by one writer to the post-exilic period and by another to the earliest sources (e.g. Gen 14, pre-Mosaic in the main according to Sellin [1910], post-exilic according to others), and the advent of Eerdmans and Dahse has greatly increased the perplexity. Clue after clue, both stylistic and material, is put forward, to be abandoned silently at some later stage. Circular arguments are extremely common: it is first alleged that some phenomenon is characteristic of a particular source; then passages are referred to that source for no other reason than the presence of that phenomenon; lastly these passages are cited to prove that the phenomenon in question distinguishes the source. Again the theory is compelled to feed on
itself; for J, E, P, etc, we have schools of J's, E's,
etc, subsisting side by side for centuries, using the same material, employing the same ideas, yet remaining separate in minute stylistic points. This becomes impossible when viewed in the light of the evidences of pre-Mosaic date in parts of Gen (see below 4, [1] to [3]).
(8) Signs of unity.—It is often possible to produce very convincing internal evidence of the unity of what the critics sunder. A strong instance of this is to be found when one considers the characters portrayed. The character of Abraham or Laban, Jacob or Moses is essentially unitary. There is but one Abraham, and this would not be so if we really had a cento of different documents representing the results of the labor of various schools
Gen 10 19 is not the only passage of this kind.
2305 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Pentateuch
Lord shall choose" (AV), etc. It is important to bear this in mind throughout the succeeding discussion.
In 2 14 we read of the Hiddekel (Tigris) as flowing E. of Assur, though there is an alternative reading "in front of." If the tr "east" be correct, the passage must antedate the 13th cent. BC, for As.sur, the ancient capital, which was on the west bank of the Tigris, was abandoned at about that date for Kalkhi on the E.
(5) The historical situation required hy P.—What do we find if we ignore the Mosaic dress and seek to fit P into any other set of conditions, particularly those of the post-exilic period? The general historical situation gives a clear answer. The Israel-
(2) Archaeology and Genesis.—Closely connected with the foregoing are cases where Gen has preserved information that is true of a very early time only. Thus in 10 22 Elam figures as a son of Shem. The historical Elam was, however, an Aryan people. Recently inscriptions have been discovered which show that in very early times Elam really was inhabited by Semites. "The fact," writes Driver, ad loc, "is not one which the writer of this verse is likely to have knowni." This contention falls to the ground when we find that only three verses off we have material that goes back at least as far as the time of Abraham. After all, the presumption
ites are represented as being so closely concentrated that they will always be able to keep the three pilgrimage festivals. One exception only is contemplated, viz. that ritual uncleanness or a journey may prevent an Israelite from keeping the Passover. Note that in that case he is most certainly to keep it one month later (Nu 9 10 f). How could this law have been enacted when the great majority of the people were in Babylonia, Egypt,
etc, so that attendance at the temple was impossible for them on any occasion whatever? With this exception the entire PC always supposes that the whole people are at all times dwelling within easy reach of the religious center. How strongly this view is embedded in the code may be seen esp. from Lev 17, which provides that all domestic animals to be slaughtered for food must be brought to the door of the Tent of Meeting. Are we to suppose that somebody deliberately intended such legislation to apply when the Jews were scattered all over the civilized world, or even all over Canaan? If so, it means a total prohibition of animal food for all save the inhabitants of the capital.
is that the writer stated the fact because he knew it, not in spite of his not knowing it; and that knowledge must be due to the same cause as the noteworthy language of ver 19, i.e. to early date.
This is merely one example of the confirmations of little touches in Gen that are constantly being provided by archaeology. For the detailed facts see the separate arts., e.g. Amraphel; Jerusalem, and cf IV, below.
From the point of view of the critical question we note (a) that such accuracy is a natural mark of authentic early documents, and (6) that in view of the arguments already adduced and of the legal evidence to be considered, the most reasonable explanation is to be found in a theory of contemporary authorship.
In post-exilic days there was no more pressing danger for the religious leaders to combat than intermarriage, but this code, which is supposed to have been written for the express purpose of bringing about their action, goes out of its way to give
(3) The legal evidence of Genesis.—The legal evidence is perhaps more convincing, for here no theory of late authorship can be devised to evade the natural inference. Correct information as to early names, geography, etc, might be the result of researches by an exilic writer in a Bab library; but early customs that are confirmed by the universal experience of primitive societies, and that point to a stage of development which had long been passed in the Babylonia even of Abraham's day, can be due to but one cause—genuine early sources. The narratives of Gen are certainly not the work of comparative sociologists. Two instances may be cited. The law of homicide shows us two stages that are known to be earlier than the stage attested by Ex 21 12 ff. In the story of Cain we have one stage;
a fictitious account of a war and incidentally to legalize some such unions (Nu 31 18). And this chapter also contains a law of booty. What could be more unsuitable? How and where were the Jews to make conquests and capture booty in the days of Ezra?
"Or again, pass to the last chapter of Nu and consider the historical setting. What is the complaint urged by the deputation that waits upon Moses?
It is this : If heiresses 'be married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then shall their inheritance be taken away from the inheritance of our fathers, and shall be added to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they shall belong.'
^ What a pressing grievance for a legislator to consider and redress when tribes and tribal lots had long since ceased to exist for ever!" (OP, 121 f).
in Gen 9 6, which docs not yet recognize any dis-
Perhaps the most informing of all the discrepan-
tinction between murder and other forms of homi-
cies between P and the post-exilic age is one that explains the freedom of the earlier prophets from
cide, we have the other.
Our other example shall be the unlimited power of life and death possessed by the head of the family
its literary influence. According to the constant testimony of the Pent, including P, portions of the law were to reach the people only through priestly teaching (Lev 10 11; Dt 24 8; 33 10, etc). Ezra on the other hand read portions of P to the whole people.