to it. To be sure, Giesebrecht, in his endeavour to demonstrate the lateness of P, overshoots the mark, and detects many Aramaisms and other signs of lateness in P which do not exist; indeed, in some cases the words alleged by him form part of the older laws which P embodies. But it is true (as is admitted

in the Journal of Phil. p. 232) that there is a residuum of words which possess this character, and show affinities with writings. of the age of Ez. That these are less numerous than might perhaps be expected, may be explained partly by the fact that P's phraseology is largely traditional, partly by the fact that the real change in Hebrew style does not begin till a later age altogether; many parts of Ez. (e.g. c. 20), and even Haggai and Zechariah, do not show more substantial signs of lateness than P. The change is beginning (c. 450) in the memoirs of Nehemiah and in Malachi; but Aramaisms and other marks of lateness (esp. in syntax) are only abundant in works written after this dateEsther, Chr., Eccl., &c. The phraseology of P, it is natural to suppose, is one which had gradually formed; hence it contains elements which are no doubt ancient side by side with those which were introduced later. The priests of each successive generation would adopt, as a matter of course, the technical formulæ, and other stereotyped expressions, which they learnt from their seniors, new terms, when they were introduced, being accommodated to the old moulds. Hence, no doubt, the similarity of Ez.'s style to P, even where a definite law is not quoted by him although, from the greater variety of subjects which he deals with as a prophet, the vocabulary of P is not sufficient for him, he still frequently uses expressions belonging to the priestly terminology, with which he was familiar.1

After the illustrations which have been given above (p. 20, &c.) of the grounds upon which the analysis of Exodus and the following books depends, the inadequacies of the "Journal theory" of the Pentateuch, advocated by

(p. 127, No. 45). But the writer is still of opinion that the formula (p. 45, No. 1, cf. 2), in which about half the instances of occur, is of early origin. And he considers also that there is a larger traditional element in the phraseology of P than Giesebrecht's argument appears to allow for.

1 The incorrectnesses which appear from time to time in Ez. are due probably, partly to the fact that, as a prophet mingling with the people, he was exposed to influences from which the priests generally were free, partly to errors originating in the transmission of his text.

Principal Cave in his work cited (p. 144), will be manifest. This theory fails, in a word, to account for the phaenomena which the Pent. presents. Thus (1) it offers no explanation of the phraseological variations which Ex. &c. display, and which (as the list, p. 123 ff., will have shown) are quite as marked as those in Genesis. If these variations were so distributed as to distinguish consistently the laws on the one hand from the narratives on the other, the theory might possess some plausibility; the laws, for instance, might be supposed to have required naturally a different style from the narrative, or Moses might have compiled the one and an amanuensis the other: but, as a fact, the variations are not so distributed; not only do the different groups of laws show differences of terminology, but the narratives themselves present the same variations of phraseology as in Genesis, some parts having numerous features in common with the sections assigned to "P" in that book, and with the laws contained in Ex. 25 &c., and other parts being marked by an entire absence of those features. The Journal theory cannot account for these variations in the narrative sections of Ex.-Dt. (2) The Journal theory is unable to account for the many and cogent indications which the different codes in the Pent. contain, that they took shape at different periods of the history, or to solve the very great difficulties which both the historical (esp. c. 1—3. 9—10) and legal parts of Dt. present, if they are regarded as the work of the same contemporary writer as Ex.-Nu. (3) The Journal theory takes a false view of the Book of Joshua, which is not severed from the following books, and connected with the Pentateuch, for the purpose of satisfying the exigencies of a theory, but because this view of the book is required by the facts-a simple comparison of it with the Pent. showing, viz. that it is really homogeneous with it, and (especially in the P sections) that it differs entirely from Jud. Sam. Kings. But Principal Cave's treatment of the books from Ex. to Josh. is manifestly slight and incomplete.

66

In ch. vi. of Principal Cave's book there are many just observations on the theological truths which find expression in the Mosaic law; but it is an ignoratio elenchi to suppose them to be a refutation of the opinion that Hebrew legislation reached its final form by successive stages, except upon the assumption that all progress must proceed from purely natural causes,an assumption both unfounded in itself and opposed to the general sense of theologians, who speak, for instance, habitually of a progressive revelation" (so "Revelation" and " Evolution," p. 251,-though the latter is not a very suitable term to use in this connexion, - -are not antagonistic except upon a similar assumption). Prof. Bissell's Pentateuch fails to establish the points which it was written to prove, partly for the same reason, partly for a different one. The author is singularly unable to distinguish between a good argument and a bad one. Thus the passages adduced (chiefly in chaps. viii.-x.) to prove the existence of the Pent. in the Mosaic age all, upon one ground or another (comp. above, p. 137, lines 6-9), fall short of the mark; and while his volume contains many sound and true observations on the deep spiritual teaching both of the law and also of other parts of the OT., which may be urged with force against the exaggerations and false assumptions which critics

1 Which Principal Cave accepts as proof of its composite origin (p. 171 ff.).

have sometimes allowed themselves to make, he has not shown that this teaching must stand or fall with the traditional view of the origin of the Old Testament books, or that the critical view of their origin cannot be stated in a form free from exaggeration, and entirely compatible with the reality of the supernatural enlightenment vouchsafed to the ancient people of God. (For some useful reflexions on the Pent. as a channel of revelation, from a point of view at once critical and religious, see Riehm's Einl. §§ 28, 29.)

Dr. Kay's Crisis Hupfeldiana (1865), from the tone in which it is written, sometimes produces, upon readers who have no independent knowledge of the subject, the impression that its author has successfully refuted all the arguments upon which critics rely. This, however, is by no means the case. In the first place, it touches but a part of a large subject; and, secondly, in the part which it does touch, it is essentially a criticism of details and side issues. In this criticism, the author, who was a sound Hebrew scholar, is very often right, and convicts Colenso (against whom it is primarily directed) of some error, or inconclusive argument; but he fails to show that these faults vitiate essentially the main conclusions which critics have reached.

THE PRIESTS' CODE.

Genesis I, 1-2, 4o. 5, 1–28. 30–32. 6, 9-22. 7, 6. 7–9 (in parts). 11. 13-16a. 18-21. 24. 8, 1-2a. 3°-5. 13a. 14-19. 9, 1-17. 28-29. 10, 1-7. 20. 22-23. 3132. 11, 10-27. 31-32. 12, 4-5. 13, 6. 11o-12a. 16, 1a. 3. 15–16. c. 17. 19, 29. 21, 1. 2-5. c. 23. 25, 7-11a. 12-17. 19-20. 26”. 26, 34-35. 27, 46—28, 9. 29, 24. 29. 31, 18°. 33, 18a. 34, 1-2a. 4. 6. 8–10. 13–18. 20-24. 25 (partly). 27– 29. 35, 9-13. I5. 22–29. C. 36. 37, I-2". 4I, 46. 46, 6-27. 47, 5-6* (LXX). 7-11. 27-28. 48, 3-6. 7? 49, 1a. 28-33. 50, 12-13.

Exodus 1, 1-7. 13–14. 23°-25. 6, 2—7, 13. 19-20a. 216–22. 8, 5–7. 15o–19. 9, 8-12. 12, 1-20, 28. 37a. 40-51. 13, 1-2. 20. 14, 1-4. 8-9. 15-18. 21a. 21o-23. 26-27a. 28a. 29. 16, 1–3. 6-24. 31-36. 17, 1a. 19, 1–2a. 24, 15-18a. 25, 1-31, 18a. 34, 29-35. c. 35-40.

Leviticus c. I-16. (c. 17-26). c. 27.

Numbers I, I-10, 28. 13, 1–17a. 21. 25-26a (to Paran). 32a. 14, 1−2.1 5-7. 10. 26-38.1 c. 15. 16, 1a. 2o-7a. (70–11). (16-17). 18-24. 27a. 32. 35. (36-40). 41-50. c. 17-19. 20, 1a (to month). 2. 3. 6. 12-13. 22-29. 21, 4a (to Hor). 10-11. 22, 1. 25, 6-18. c. 26-31, 32, 18-19. 28-32. c. 33—36.

Deuteronomy 32, 48-52. 34, 1a. 8-9.

Joshua 4, I3. 19. 5, IO–I2. 7, 1. 9, 15. 17-2I. 13, 15-32. 14, I-5. I5, I−13. 28-44. 48-62. 16, 4-8. 17, 1a. (1-2). 3-4. 7. 9a. 9o-10°. 18, 1. 11-28. 19, 1-8. 10-46. 48. 51. 20, 1-3 (except 'and unawares'). 6a (to judgment). 7-9 [cf. LXX]. 21, 1-42 (22, 9–34).

1 In the main.

2 With traces in 32, 1-17. 20-27.

CHAPTER II.

JUDGES, SAMUEL, AND KINGS.

§ 1. THE BOOK OF JUDGES.

LITERATURE.-G. L. Studer, Das Buch der Richter, 1842; E. Bertheau (in the Kurzgef. Exeg. Handb.), ed. 2, 1883; Keil in Josua, Richter u. Ruth (ed. 2), 1874; Wellhausen in Bleek's Einl. (1878) pp. 181-205[= Comp. 213-238]; Hist. pp. 228-245; A. van Doorninck, Bijdrage tot de tekst-kritiek van Richt. i.-xvi. (1879); C. Budde, ZATW. 1887, p. 93 ff., 1888, p. 148 (on 1, 1-2, 5), 1888, p. 285 ff. (on c. 17-21). (The substance of the following pages appeared in the Jewish Quarterly Revicw, April 1889.)

THE Book of Judges derives its name from the heroes whose exploits form the subject of its central and principal part (2, 6— c. 16). It consists of three well-defined portions: (1) an introduction 1, 1-2, 5, presenting a view of the condition of the country at the time when the period of the Judges begins; (2) the history of the Judges, 2, 6-c. 16; (3) an appendix, c. 17-21, describing in some detail two incidents belonging to the period, viz. the migration of a part of the tribe of Dan to the north, c. 17-18, and the war of the Israelites against Benjamin, arising out of the outrage of Gibeah, c. 19—21.

The Judges whose exploits the book records are 13 in number, or, if Abimelech (who is not termed a judge) be not reckoned, 12, viz.: Othniel (3, 7–11); Ehud (3, 12-30); Shamgar (3, 31); Barak [Deborah] (c. 4—5); Gideon (6, 1—8, 32); Abimelech (8, 33—9, 57); Tola (10, 1−2); Jair (10, 3−5); Jephthah (10, 6-12, 7); Ibzan (12, 8-10); Elon (12, 11-12); Abdon (12, 13-15); Samson (c. 13-16). Shamgar, Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, whose exploits are told only summarily, are sometimes. called the "minor" Judges. According to the chronology of the book itself, the period of the Judges embraced 410 years; thus:

This total, however, appears to be too high; and it is at any rate inconsistent with 1 Ki. 6, 1, which assigns 480 years to the period from the exodus to the 4th year of Solomon, whereas, if the Judges be reckoned at 410 years, this period, which must embrace in addition the 40 years of the wilderness, 7 years of the conquest (p. 96), 20 years of Samuel (1 Sa. 7, 2), 20 (?) years of Saul, 40 years of David, and 4 of Solomon, would extend (at the least) to 541 years. Many attempts have been made to reduce the chronology of the Judges, by the assumption, for instance, that some of the periods named in it are synchronous, or the figures meant to be treated as round ones (especially 40 and 80 40 × 2); 2 but it must be admitted (with Bertheau, pp. xv. xvii.) that no certain results can be reached by the use of such methods, and that, as matters stand, an exact chronology of the period is unattainable.

=

The three parts of which the Book of Judges consists differ considerably in structure and character, and must be considered separately.

I. 1, 1-2, 5. This section of the book consists of fragments

1 Though this is open to the suspicion of having been reached artificially (= 40 X 12).

2

Comp. Bertheau, pp. xii.-xvii.; Wellh. Hist. p. 229 f.; Comp. p. 356; Kuenen, Onderzoek, i. 2 (1887), § 18. 4, 6, 7.