Difference between revisions of "Pentateuch"

<i> Pentateuch </i> <i> Penta </i> <i> teuchos </i> <i> Torah </i> <i> bereshith </i> <i> we'elleh shehymoth </i> <i> wayyikra </i> <i> bemidbar </i> <i> elleh haddebarim </i> &nbsp;Numbers 1-4&nbsp;26:1&nbsp;Deuteronomy 17:18 <p> The dividing lines between the individual books of the Pentateuch generally mark a change in the direction of the materials. At the end of Genesis (&nbsp;Genesis 50:1 ), the stories of the [[Patriarchs]] end, and the story of the people of Israel begins in &nbsp;Exodus 1:1 . The division between Exodus and Leviticus marks the change from the building of the tabernacle in &nbsp;Exodus 35-40 to the inauguration of worship (&nbsp; Leviticus 1-10 ). Numbers begins with preparation for leaving Sinai, and Deuteronomy stands out sharply from the end of Numbers in that &nbsp;Deuteronomy 1:1 begins the great speech of Moses which covers thirty chapters (&nbsp; Deuteronomy 1-30 ). We do not know when the Pentateuch was divided into five books. The division may have taken place only when the whole material now united within it had been incorporated into one unit and that this division was aimed at producing sections of approximately equal length, corresponding to the normal length of scrolls. </p> <p> Contents The division of the Pentateuch into five books does not indicate adequately the richness of the contents nor the variety of the literary forms found in the whole. A division of the Pentateuch based on the contents may be outlined as: &nbsp;Genesis 1-11 , Primeval history, from [[Creation]] to Abraham; &nbsp;Genesis 12-36 , Patriarchal history; &nbsp;Genesis 37-50 , Joseph stories; &nbsp;Exodus 1-18 , The Exodus; &nbsp;Exodus 19:1 —Numbers 19:1—&nbsp;10:10 , Israel at Sinai; &nbsp;Numbers 10:11-21:35 , Israel in the Wilderness; &nbsp;Numbers 22:1 —Deuteronomy 22:1—&nbsp;34:1 , Israel in the [[Plains]] of Moab. Within each of these larger narrative sections are a number of smaller sections dealing with various themes and subhythemes couched in many literary forms. </p> <p> Themes The first theme in the Pentateuch is God is [[Creator]] (&nbsp;Genesis 1-2 ). This is followed closely by a chapter on the beginning of sin (&nbsp;Genesis 3:1 ). &nbsp;Genesis 4-11 tell of the increase of world population and sin, and the judgment of God on the whole world. The themes of electon, covenant, promise, faith, and providence are introduced in the remainder of Genesis (12–50). </p> <p> Divine deliverance is the major theme of &nbsp;Exodus 1-18 . [[Covenant]] and law are themes of &nbsp;Exodus 19-24 . [[Worship]] and social ethics are the concerns of &nbsp;Exodus 25:1 —Numbers 25:1—&nbsp;10:10 . [[Guidance]] of a rebellious people through the great and terrible wilderness marks &nbsp;Numbers 10-21; and preparations for going over Jordan and conquering Canaan are the major topics of &nbsp;Numbers 22:1 —Deuteronomy 22:1—&nbsp;34:1 . </p> <p> Literary forms and genres The Pentateuch includes many literary forms and genres: narratives, laws, lists, sayings, sermons, and songs. Narratives describe creation, judgment (flood), travel (wilderness wanderings), buildings (Ark, tabernacle), marriages (Isaac and Rebekah), and births (Moses). </p> <p> Although the Pentateuch is often refered to as Torah or law, laws comprise only a small percentage of the text. The Ten [[Commandments]] (&nbsp;Exodus 20:1 : &nbsp;2-17; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 5:6-21 ) are frequently called law, but they are not law in the technical sense because no penalties or sanctions are connected with them. Other groups of laws in the Pentateuch are: the Book of the Covenant (&nbsp;Exodus 20:22-23:19 ); the laws of sacrifice (&nbsp;Leviticus 1-7 ); the laws of purity (&nbsp;Leviticus 11-15 ); the [[Holiness]] Code (&nbsp;Leviticus 17-26 ); and the Deuteronomy Code (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 12-26 ). No laws appear in Genesis. Four out of forty chapters in Exodus (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 20-23 ), most of Leviticus and a small portion of Numbers contain laws. [[Fourteen]] out of thirty-four chapters of Deuteronomy consist of legal material. See &nbsp;Deuteronomy 20-23; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 20-23; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 20-23; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 20-23; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 20-23 . The 65 laws in the Book of the Covenant (see &nbsp;Exodus 24:7 ) include rules about images and kinds of altars (&nbsp;Exodus 20:22-26 ); Hebrew slaves (&nbsp;Exodus 21:1-11 ); offences penalized by death (&nbsp;Exodus 21:12-17 ); bodily injury (&nbsp;Exodus 21:18-24 ); offences against property (&nbsp;Exodus 21:25-22:17 ); miscellaneous social and cultic laws (&nbsp;Exodus 22:18-23:9 ); a cultic calendar (&nbsp;Exodus 23:10-19 ); blessing and curse (&nbsp;Exodus 23:20-33 ). </p> <p> The Holiness Code (&nbsp;Leviticus 17-26 ) is named from the expression, “Ye shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy” (&nbsp;Leviticus 19:2; &nbsp;Leviticus 20:7 ,Leviticus 20:7,&nbsp;20:26 ). The Holiness Code stresses moral and ceremonial laws rather than civil and criminal laws. &nbsp;Leviticus 18-20; &nbsp;Leviticus 23-26 are directed to the people; &nbsp; Leviticus 17:1; &nbsp;Leviticus 21-22 are directed to the priests and the house of Aaron. This Code deals with the slaughter of animals and sacrifice (&nbsp; Leviticus 17:1-16 ); forbidden sexual relations (&nbsp;Leviticus 18:1-30 ); relationships with neighbors (&nbsp;Leviticus 19:1-37 ); penalties (stoning, burning); rules for personal life of the priests (&nbsp;Leviticus 20:1-22:16 ); the quality of sacrifices (&nbsp;Leviticus 22:17-33 ); a cultic calendar (&nbsp;Leviticus 23:1-44 ); rules for lights in the sanctuary and the shewbread (&nbsp;Leviticus 24:1-9 ); blasphemy (&nbsp;Leviticus 24:10-23 ); the sabbatic year and jubilee (&nbsp;Leviticus 25:1-55 ); blessings and curses (&nbsp;Leviticus 26:1-46 ). </p> <p> The Holiness Code says very little about agriculture. Much more is said in this Code than in the Book of the Covenant about forbidden sexual relations, including homosexuality (compare &nbsp;Leviticus 18:1-23; &nbsp;Leviticus 20:13 ). All forms of witchcraft, augury, and the occult are forbidden (&nbsp;Leviticus 17:7; &nbsp;Leviticus 19:26 ,Leviticus 19:26,&nbsp;19:31; &nbsp;Leviticus 20:2-6 ,Leviticus 20:2-6,&nbsp;20:27 ). Two significant passages in this group of laws are: “For the life is in the blood” (&nbsp;Leviticus 17:14 RSV), and, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (&nbsp; Leviticus 19:18 ). The expression “I am the Lord your God” and similar expressions occur 46 times in &nbsp;Leviticus 18-26 . </p> <p> The Deuteronomic Code (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 12-26 ) is part of Moses' address to the twelve tribes just before they crossed the Jordan to go into Canaan. These are “preached” laws, full of admonitions and exhortations to heed and obey so that the Lord may bless them and they may live in the land (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 12:1 ,Deuteronomy 12:1,&nbsp;12:13 ,Deuteronomy 12:13,&nbsp;12:19 ,Deuteronomy 12:19,&nbsp;12:28; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 13:18; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 14:1; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 15:10 ,Deuteronomy 15:10,&nbsp;15:18; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 16:12; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 17:20 ,Deuteronomy 17:20,&nbsp;17:29 ). Many of these 80 laws are new because they are addressed to a new generation. See Deuteronomy. The restriction of worship or sacrifice to one legitimate altar is limited to the Deuteronomic Code as is the expression: “the place where I will make my name to dwell.” [[Permission]] for private slaughtering and eating animals is given only in Deuteronomy (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 12:15 ). Laws for judges, prophets, priests, and kings occur only in Deuteronomy. The laws for Hebrew slaves and the calendars of worship are different in Exodus and Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy the Passover is to be observed only at the one legitimate place and the lamb is to be boiled (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 16:7 ), but in Exodus, Passover is a family affair and the lambs are to be roasted (&nbsp;Exodus 12:9 ). The laws for the tithes are different in &nbsp;Deuteronomy 14:1 from those in &nbsp; Numbers 18:21-32 . Laws of holy war are given only in Deuteronomy. [[Idolatry]] and the First [[Commandment]] are major concerns of all the codes. </p> <p> Many attempts have been made to classify the laws in the Old Testament according to their types. Some recent scholars have used the terms “apodictic” and “casuistic” to refer to the two main types of laws. Apodictic refers to those authoritative, unconditional laws such as the Ten Commandments which begin, “Thou shalt not,” “You shall,” or laws calling for the death penalty. Casuistic laws are usually case laws which begin “When a man,” or, “If a man.” This classification is helpful in identifying the literary form, setting, and perhaps the origin of a law. [[Christians]] often speak of Old Testament laws as moral, civil, and ceremonial, but the Old Testament does not use those categories to classify its laws. In the Pentateuch, laws of every kind are jumbled together and interspersed with narrative and descriptive sections. Rather than attempting to isolate certain moral laws, it would be better to try to detect moral and ethical principles in all types of Old Testament laws. Some recent scholars have classified the laws in the various parts of the Old Testament as: criminal law, civil laws, family laws, cultic (worship) laws, and charitable (humanitarian) laws. </p> <p> Old Testament laws were given in the context of the covenant. The people had experienced deliverance (salvation) at the Exodus. God took the initiative and by grace redeemed Israel from bondage in Egypt. God acted first, then called the people to respond. Old Testament laws were given to redeemed people to tell them how to live as people of God. </p> <p> The Pentateuch contains many lists: genealogical (&nbsp;Genesis 5:1; &nbsp;Genesis 11:1; &nbsp;Exodus 5:1 ), geographical and ethnographical (&nbsp;Genesis 10:1; &nbsp;Genesis 26:1 ), tribal (&nbsp;Genesis 49:1; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 33:1 ); offerings (&nbsp;Exodus 35:1 ); census (&nbsp;Numbers 1-4; &nbsp;Numbers 26:1 ), and campsites in the wilderness (&nbsp;Numbers 33:1 ). </p> <p> The Old Testament contains many “sayings” of various kinds. Some are poetic. Some are proverbial. Some are prose. These sayings may have been remembered and passed from generation to generation. Some familiar examples are: </p> <p> This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh (&nbsp;Genesis 2:23 NIV). </p> <p> For dust you are and to dust you will return (&nbsp;Genesis 3:19 NIV). </p> <p> Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord (&nbsp;Genesis 10:9 NIV). </p> <p> I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious (&nbsp;Exodus 33:19 ). </p> <p> Deuteronomy is the only place in the Old Testament where long sermons are found. Even the laws in Deuteronomy are “preached” laws. The fact that many admonitions and exhortations occur throughout the book may indicate that the book was used as a covenant renewing document. </p> <p> One other major literary genre is found in the Pentateuch—that of song: Israel was a singing people. They sang in times of victory (&nbsp;Exodus 15:1 ), at work (&nbsp;Numbers 21:17-18 ), in times of battle (&nbsp;Numbers 21:14-15 ,Numbers 21:14-15,&nbsp;21:27-30 ), and in worship (&nbsp;Numbers 6:22-26; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 32:1-43 ). </p> <p> Date and Authorship The problem of the date and authorship of the Pentateuch is one of the major critical problems of the Old Testament. Dr. John R. Sampey wrote, </p> <p> Possibly the higher criticism of the Pentateuch is the most important critical problem confronting students of the Old Testament. Fundamental and difficult it calls for patience, industry and the ability to sift evidence and estimate its value. It requires logical discipline and a well-balanced mind [John R. Sampey, [[Syllabus]] For Old Testament Study (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1924), p. 52]. </p> <p> The existence of sources for its writing is not the major issue, but its inspiration and reliability in its present form. </p> <p> One reason the question of date and authorship of the Pentateuch is difficult is that the books themselves are anonymous. Most English Bibles carry the titles of the first five books as “the books of Moses.” These titles are not in the Hebrew manuscripts. They came into [[England]] through Tyndale's version and were probably derived from Luther's translation which used only the numerical titles, “First Book of Moses,” and so on to the fifth. </p> <p> Although the books of the Pentateuch as a whole are anonymous, a number of passages refer to Moses writing at least certain things (compare &nbsp;Exodus 17:14; &nbsp;Exodus 24:4; &nbsp;Exodus 24:7; &nbsp;Numbers 33:1-2; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 31:9 ,Deuteronomy 31:9,&nbsp;31:22 ). Late in the Old Testament period, the tradition arose which seemingly refers to the Pentateuch as the “Book of Moses” (&nbsp;2 Chronicles 35:12 ). This tradition was carried on by Jews and Christians until after A.D. 1600. Some Jews and Christians raised occasional questions about the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch during all that time, but the [[Renaissance]] and the [[Enlightenment]] led to the questioning of all things including the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. One passage in the Pentateuch which contributed to the serious questioning of Mosaic authorship is &nbsp;Deuteronomy 34:5-8 , describing Moses' death and the following period of mourning. Other post-Mosaic references are to Dan (&nbsp;Genesis 14:14; compare &nbsp;Joshua 19:47; &nbsp;Judges 18:28-29 ), and the conquest of Canaan (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 2:12 ). The way the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch is written today is nothing like it might have appeared in Moses' day. For hundreds of years, the Hebrew text was copied by hand. In the process of copying, the shape of the letters was completely changed. Vowel points and accents were added. Words were separated word by word and divided into verses and chapters. </p> <p> We do not know who wrote the completed Pentateuch. The Pentateuch makes no claim that Moses wrote all of it. Many theories and hypotheses have been advanced to explain its origin. The classical literary critical theory is associated with the name of [[Julius]] Wellhausen, a nineteenth century German scholar. He popularized and synthesized the views of many Old Testament scholars and said that the Pentateuch was a compilation of four basic literary documents identified as J, E, D, and P. J stood for Jehovah or Judah and supposedly was written in the Southern [[Kingdom]] about 850 [[B.C. E]]  stood for Elohim, a favorite Hebrew name for God in this document. It was supposedly written about 750 [[B.C. D]]  stands for Deuteronomy and was written according to this hypothesis about 621 [[B.C. P]]  stands for the Priestly document and was written about 500 B.C. The Priestly writer might have compiled the whole Pentateuch according to this theory. </p> <p> Many other theories and modifications of older theories have arisen in the twentieth century. Critical scholarship's earlier agreement on the four sources has disappeared in the 1980s. Some date P early. Some date J very late. Some see D as the dominant author. Many are more interested in the literary art of the Pentateuch than in literary sources. Scholars are thus no closer to a solution to the problem of the authorship of the Pentateuch than they were when they first asked questions about it. </p> <p> Even the most conservative scholars who defend Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch admit that Moses did not write every word of the Pentateuch. All accept the possibility of later minor alterations and additions to the work of Moses in the Pentateuch. Many discuss some development of the material in the Pentateuch along independent lines, <i> after </i> Mosaic composition. This is especially true linguistically. There is no reason why conservatives cannot often use such symbols as P and H as a convenient shorthand to refer to certain blocks of material. Recent conservative scholars speak of sources Moses may have used. </p> <p> Conclusions No agreement has been reached as to the final solution to this most difficult problem. However some things are clear: (1) We should avoid the two extreme views that Moses wrote all the Pentateuch or that he wrote none of it. We should take the claims of the Bible concerning itself seriously but keep our minds and hearts open to new and different possible interpretations. (2) We should recognize the legitimacy of certain critical methods. W. T. Conner, who taught Systematic [[Theology]] at Southwestern Seminary for almost 40 years (1910-49), said, “There are certain questions of date, authorship, historical reliability and so forth, that must be settled by historical and literary criticism. There is no other way to settle them” [W. T. Conner, <i> Revelation and God </i> (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1943), p. 99]. (3) It is not necessary that we know the date and authorship of a book in the Bible before we can read it with profit. At times we must sacrifice our need for security in certainty to God's nature as sovereign mystery. See [[Authority]]; Inspiration; Revelation. </p> <p> Ralph L. Smith </p>

<li> From the time of Joshua down to the time of Ezra there is, in the intermediate historical books, a constant reference to the Pentateuch as the "Book of the Law of Moses." This is a point of much importance, inasmuch as the critics deny that there is any such reference; and hence they deny the historical character of the Pentateuch. As regards the Passover, e.g., we find it frequently spoken of or alluded to in the historical books following the Pentateuch, showing that the "Law of Moses" was then certainly known. It was celebrated in the time of Joshua (&nbsp;Joshua 5:10 , cf 4:19), Hezekiah (&nbsp;2 Chronicles 30 ), Josiah (&nbsp;2 Kings 23; &nbsp;2 Chronicles 35 ), and [[Zerubbabel]] (&nbsp;Ezra 6:19-22 ), and is referred to in such passages as &nbsp;2 Kings 23:22; &nbsp;2 Chronicles 35:18; &nbsp;1 Kings 9:25 ("three times in a year"); &nbsp; 2 Chronicles 8:13 . Similarly we might show frequent references to the Feast of [[Tabernacles]] and other Jewish institutions, although we do not admit that any valid argument can be drawn from the silence of Scripture in such a case. An examination of the following texts, &nbsp;1 Kings 2:9; &nbsp;2 Kings 14:6; &nbsp;2 Chronicles 23:18; &nbsp;25:4; &nbsp;34:14; &nbsp;Ezra 3:2; &nbsp;7:6; &nbsp;Daniel 9:11,13 , will also plainly show that the "Law of Moses" was known during all these centuries. <p> Granting that in the time of Moses there existed certain oral traditions or written records and documents which he was divinely led to make use of in his history, and that his writing was revised by inspired successors, this will fully account for certain peculiarities of expression which critics have called "anachronisms" and "contradictions," but in no way militates against the doctrine that Moses was the original author of the whole of the Pentateuch. It is not necessary for us to affirm that the whole is an original composition; but we affirm that the evidences clearly demonstrate that Moses was the author of those books which have come down to us bearing his name. The Pentateuch is certainly the basis and necessary preliminary of the whole of the Old Testament history and literature. (See [[Deuteronomy]] .) </p> <div> <p> '''Copyright Statement''' These dictionary topics are from M.G. Easton [[M.A., DD]]  Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, published by [[Thomas]] Nelson, 1897. Public Domain. </p> <p> '''Bibliography Information''' Easton, Matthew George. Entry for 'Pentateuch'. Easton's Bible Dictionary. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/ebd/p/pentateuch.html. 1897. </p> </div> </li>

<p> ''''' pen´ta ''''' - ''''' tūk ''''' : </p> <p> I. [[Title]] , [[Division]] , Contents </p> <p> II. Authorship , [[Composition]] , [[Date]] </p> <p> 1. The [[Current]] Critical Scheme </p> <p> 2. The Evidence for the Current Critical Scheme </p> <p> (1) Astruc's Clue </p> <p> (2) [[Signs]] of Post-Mosaic Date </p> <p> (3) [[Narrative]] Discrepancies </p> <p> (4) Doublets </p> <p> (5) The Laws </p> <p> (6) The Argument from Style </p> <p> (7) Props of the Development Hypothesis </p> <p> 3. The [[Answer]] to the Critical Analysis </p> <p> (1) The Veto of Textual [[Criticism]] </p> <p> (2) Astruc's Clue Tested </p> <p> (3) The Narrative Discrepancies and Signs of Post-Mosaic Date [[Examined]] </p> <p> (4) The Argument from the Doublets Examined </p> <p> (5) The Critical Argument from the Laws </p> <p> (6) The Argument from Style </p> <p> (7) Perplexities of the Theory </p> <p> (8) Signs of Unity </p> <p> (9) The Supposed Props of the Development Hypothesis </p> <p> 4. The Evidence of Date </p> <p> (1) The Narrative of Genesis </p> <p> (2) [[Archaeology]] and Genesis </p> <p> (3) The Legal Evidence of Genesis </p> <p> (4) The Professedly Mosaic Character of the Legislation </p> <p> (5) The Historical [[Situation]] [[Required]] by Pentateuch </p> <p> (6) The Hierarchical [[Organization]] in Pentateuch </p> <p> (7) The Legal Evidence of Pentateuch </p> <p> (8) The Evidence of D </p> <p> (9) Later Allusions </p> <p> (10) Other Evidence </p> <p> 5. The Fundamental Improbabilities of the Critical [[Case]] </p> <p> (1) The [[Moral]] and Psychological [[Issues]] </p> <p> (2) The Historical Improbability </p> <p> (3) The Divergence between the Laws and Post-exilic [[Practice]] </p> <p> (4) The [[Testimony]] of Tradition </p> <p> 6. The Origin and Transmission of the Pentateuch </p> <p> III. Some Literary [[Points]] </p> <p> 1. Style of Legislation </p> <p> 2. The Narrative </p> <p> 3. The Covenant </p> <p> 4. Order and Rhythm </p> <p> IV. The Pentateuch As History </p> <p> 1. Textual Criticism and History </p> <p> 2. Hebrew Methods of Expression </p> <p> 3. Personification and [[Genealogies]] </p> <p> 4. Literary Form </p> <p> 5. The [[Sacred]] Numbers </p> <p> 6. [[Habits]] of [[Thought]] </p> <p> 7. National Coloring </p> <p> 8. How Far the Pentateuch Is Trustworthy </p> <p> (1) Contemporaneous Information </p> <p> (2) Character of Our Informants </p> <p> (3) Historical [[Genius]] of the People </p> <p> (4) Good Faith of Deuteronomy </p> <p> (5) Nature of the Events [[Recorded]] </p> <p> (6) External Corroborations </p> <p> 9. The Pentateuch as Reasoned History </p> <p> V. The Character Of The Pentateuch </p> <p> 1. Hindu Law Books </p> <p> 2. Differences </p> <p> 3. Holiness </p> <p> 4. The Universal Aspect </p> <p> 5. The National Aspect </p> <p> [[Literature]] </p> I. Title, Division, Contents <p> ( תּורה , <i> ''''' tōrāh ''''' </i> , "law" or "teaching"). - I t has recently been argued that the Hebrew word is really the [[Babylonian]] <i> ''''' tertu ''''' </i> , "divinely revealed law" (e.g. Sayce, <i> Churchman </i> , 1909,728 ff), but such passages as &nbsp; Leviticus 14:54-57; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 17:11 show that the legislator connected it with הורה , <i> ''''' hōrāh ''''' </i> (from <i> ''''' yārāh ''''' </i> ), "to teach." Also called by the Jews תּורה חוּמשׁי חמשּׁה , <i> ''''' ḥămishshāh ''''' </i> <i> ''''' ḥūmeshı̄ ''''' </i> <i> ''''' tōrāh ''''' </i> , "the five-fifths of the law": ὁ νόμος , <i> ''''' ho ''''' </i> <i> ''''' nómos ''''' </i> , "the Law." The word "Pentateuch" comes from πεντάτενχος , <i> ''''' pentáteuchos ''''' </i> , literally "5-volumed (book)." The Pentateuch consists of the first five books of the Bible, and forms the first division of the Jewish Canon, and the whole of the Samaritan Canon. The 5-fold division is certainly old, since it is earlier than the Septuagint or the Sam Pentateuch. How much older it may be is unknown. It has been thought that the 5-fold division of the [[Psalter]] is based on it. </p> <p> The five books into which the Pentateuch is divided are respectively Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and the separate articles should be consulted for information as to their nomenclature. </p> <p> 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 comes a history of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the collateral lines of descendants being rapidly dismissed. The story of Joseph is told in detail, and Genesis closes with his death. The rest of the Pentateuch covers the oppression of the [[Israelites]] in Egypt, their exodus and wanderings, the conquest of the trans-Jordanic 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 articles on the several books). </p> II. Authorship, Composition, Date. <p> <b> 1. The Current Critical Scheme: </b> </p> <p> The view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, with the exception of the concluding verses of Deuteronomy, was once held universally. It is still believed by the great mass of Jews and Christians, but in most universities 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 English-speaking countries the vast majority of the critics would regard Driver's, <i> Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament </i> and [[Carpenter]] and Harford-Battersby's <i> Hexateuch </i> 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 writing, 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. </p> <p> After attention had been drawn by earlier writers to various signs of post-Mosaic date and extraordinary perplexities in the Pentateuch, the first real step toward what its advocates have, till within 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 Genesis as a test of authorship. On this view the word <i> ''''' 'Ělōhı̄m ''''' </i> ("God") is characteristic of one principal source and the Tetragrammaton, i.e. the divine name <i> ''''' ''''' [[Yhwh]] </i> represented by the "LORD" or "GOD" of the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), 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, 3, (2)) Astruc was followed by [[Eichhorn]] (1780), who made a more thorough examination of Genesis, indicating numerous differences of style, representation, etc. </p> <p> Geddes (1792) and Vater (1802-1805) extended the method applied to Genesis to the other books of the Pentateuch. </p> <p> In 1798 Ilgen distinguished two Elohists in Genesis, but this view did not find followers for some time. The next step of fundamental importance was the assignment of the bulk of Deuteronomy to the 7th century 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 Deuteronomy), two Elohists (P and E) and one document (Jahwist) that uses the [[Tetragrammaton]] in Genesis. From 1822 (Bleek) a series of writers maintained that the Book of Joshua was compounded from the same documents as the Pentateuch (see [[Hexateuch]] ). </p> <p> 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 (P1, [[Secondary]] Priestly Writers, P3, etc., J1, Later additions to J, 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 exile or later. On this view theory is in outline as follows: J and E (so called from their respective divine appellations) - on the relative dates of which opinions differ - were composed probably during the early monarchy and subsequently combined by a redactor (Rje) into a single document JE. In the 7th century D, the bulk of Deuteronomy, was composed. It was published in the 18th year of Josiah's reign. Later it was combined with Je into Jed by a redactor (Rjed). P or Priestly Code the last of all (originally the first Elohist, now the Priestly Code) incorporated an earlier code of uncertain date which consists in the main of most of &nbsp;Leviticus 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 Pentateuch. As already stated, 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 Pentateuch. 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]] . </p> <p> 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 literature on the Old Testament has been written from this standpoint that no intelligent use can be made of the most ordinary books of reference without some acquaintance with it. </p> <p> Before 1908 the conservative opposition to the dominant theory had exhibited two separate tendencies. One school of conservatives rejected the scheme <i> in toto </i> ; 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 wreckage. The former school of thought was most prominently represented by the late W.H. Green, and J. Raven's <i> Old Testament Introduction </i> may be regarded as a typical modern presentation of their view; the latter especially by Robertson and Orr. The scheme put forward by the last named has found many adherents. He refuses to regard J and E as two separate documents, holding that we should rather think (as in the case of the parallel Psalms) of two recensions of one document marked by the use of different divine appellations. The critical P he treats as the work of a supplemented, and thinks it never had an independent existence, while he considers the whole Pentateuch 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, altering, manipulating, enlarging at pleasure" ( <i> [[Pot]] </i> , 375). </p> <p> While these were the views held among Old Testament 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 in their 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. <i> If </i> it be the case that the Pentateuch contains hopelessly contradictory laws, no archaeological discovery can make them anything else; <i> if </i> the numbers of the Israelites are original and impossible, 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. </p> <p> 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 Old Testament 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 justify certain remarks. Eerdmans has perhaps not converted any member of the Wellhausen 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 Old Testament 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" ( <i> Einleitung </i> , 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 (for examples see BS, 1909,744-48; 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 Old Testament 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 ( <i> Tmh </i> , 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. </p> <p> <b> 2. The Evidence for the Current Critical Scheme: </b> </p> <p> The examination of the Graf-Wellhausen theory must now be undertaken, and attention must first be directed to the evidence which is adduced in its support. Why should it be held that the Pentateuch is composed mainly of excerpts from certain documents designated as J and E and P and D? Why is it believed that these documents are of very late date, in one case subsequent to the exile? </p> (1) Astruc's Clue. <p> It has been said above that Astruc propounded the use of the divine appellations in Genesis as a clue to the dissection of that book. This is based on &nbsp;Exodus 6:3 , <i> ''''' ‛A ''''' </i> nd I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as <i> ''''' 'Ěl ''''' </i> <i> ''''' Shadday ''''' </i> (God Almighty); but by my name <i> ''''' YHWH ''''' </i> I was not known to them.' In numerous passages of Genesis this name is represented as known, e.g. &nbsp;Genesis 4:26 , where we read 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 &nbsp;Exodus 6:3 , but other difficulties are found, and moreover the sources already distinguished in Genesis 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 Of The Bible . </p> (2) Signs of Post-Mosaic Date. <p> Close inspection of the Pentateuch shows that it contains a number of 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 of the death of Moses (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 34:1-12 ). 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" (&nbsp;Genesis 36:31 ) presumes the existence of the monarchy. The [[Canaanites]] who are referred to as being "then in the land" (&nbsp;Genesis 12:6; &nbsp;Genesis 13:7 ) did not disappear till the time of Solomon, and, accordingly, if this expression means "then still" it cannot antedate his reign. &nbsp;Deuteronomy 3:11 (Og's bedstead) comes unnaturally from one who had vanquished [[Og]] but a few weeks previously, while &nbsp; Numbers 21:14 (the King James Version) contains a reference to "the book of the [[Wars]] of the Lord" which would hardly have been quoted in this way by a contemporary. &nbsp; Exodus 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. </p> (3) Narrative Discrepancies. <p> While the divine appellations form the starting-point, they do not even in Genesis 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. </p> <p> In &nbsp;Genesis 21:14 f [[Ishmael]] is a boy who can be carried on his mother's shoulder, but from a comparison of &nbsp; Genesis 16:3 , &nbsp;Genesis 16:16; 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 Genesis he must have been thus lying on his deathbed for eighty years (compare &nbsp;Genesis 25:26; &nbsp;Genesis 26:34; &nbsp;Genesis 35:28 )? Yet we can only diminish this period by extending proportionately the interval between [[Esau]] marrying his Hittite wives (&nbsp;Genesis 26:34 ) and Rebekah's suggestion to Isaac to send Jacob away, lest he should follow his brother's example (&nbsp;Genesis 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" (Driver, <i> Contemporary Review </i> , Lvii , 221). </p> <p> An important instance occurs in Numbers. According to &nbsp;Numbers 33:38 , Aaron died on the 1st day of the 5th month. From &nbsp;Deuteronomy 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. </p> <p> Other discrepancies are of the most formidable character. Aaron dies now at Mt. [[Hor]] (&nbsp;Numbers 20:28; &nbsp;Numbers 33:38 ), now at [[Moserah]] (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 10:6 ). According to Dt 1; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 2:1 , &nbsp;Deuteronomy 2:14 , the children of Israel left Kadesh-barnea in the 3rd 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]] perhaps _ provides some of the most perplexing of the discrepancies, for while according to the well-known scheme of [[Ex]] 25 ff and many other passages, it was a large and heavy erection standing in the midst of the camp, &nbsp;Exodus 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 verbs 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 <i> of the same name </i> . Joseph again is sold, now by [[Ishmaelites]] (&nbsp;Genesis 37:27 , &nbsp;Genesis 37:28; &nbsp;Genesis 39:1 ), anon by [[Midianites]] (31:28a, 36). Sometimes he is imprisoned in one place, sometimes apparently in another. The story of Korah, [[Dathan]] and [[Abiram]] in Nu 16 is equally full of difficulty. The enormous numbers of the Israelites given in Nu 1 through 4, etc., are in conflict with passages that regard them as very few. </p> (4) Doublets. <p> Another portion of the critical argument is provided by doublets or duplicate narratives of the same event, e.g. &nbsp;Genesis 16,21 . These are particularly numerous in Genesis, but are not confined to that book. "Twice do quails appear in connection with the daily manna (&nbsp;Numbers 11:4-6 , &nbsp;Numbers 11:31 ff; &nbsp; Exodus 16:13 ). Twice does Moses draw water from the rock, when the strife of Israel begets the name [[Meribah]] ('strife') (&nbsp;Exodus 17:1-7; &nbsp;Numbers 20:1-13 )" (Carpenter, <i> Hexateuch </i> , I, 30). </p> (5) The Laws. <p> 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]] (which see). These subjects form the two main pillars of the Graf-Wellhausen theory, and accordingly the articles in question must be read as supplementing the present article. An illustration may be taken from the slavery laws. It is claimed that &nbsp;Exodus 21:1-6; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 15:12 ff permit a Hebrew to contract for life slavery after 6 years' service, but that &nbsp; Leviticus 25:39-42 takes no notice of this law and enacts the totally different provision that Hebrews may remain in slavery only 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 Exodus and is in turn ignored by the legislator in Deuteronomy, who only knows the law of Exodus. </p> (6) The Argument from Style. <p> The argument from 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 characteristic phrases which either occur nowhere else or only with very much less frequency. For instance in &nbsp;Genesis 1 , where <i> ''''' 'Ělōhı̄m ''''' </i> is used throughout, we find the word "create," but this is not employed in &nbsp; Genesis 2:4 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 in e.g. &nbsp; Genesis 5:1 f. </p> (7) Props of the Development Hypothesis. <p> While the main supports of the Graf-Wellhausen theory must be sought in the articles to which reference has been made, it is necessary to mention briefly some other phenomena to which some weight is attached. Jeremiah displays many close resemblances to Deuteronomy, and the framework of Kings is written in a style that has marked similarities to the same book. Ezekiel again has notable points of contact with P and especially with H; either he was acquainted with these portions of the Pentateuch or else he must have exercised considerable influence on those who composed them. Lastly the Chronicler is obviously acquainted with the completed Pentateuch. Accordingly, it is claimed that the literature provides a sort of external standard that confirms the historical stages which the different Pentateuchal sources are said to mark. Deuteronomy influences Jeremiah and the subsequent literature. It is argued that it would equally have influenced the earlier books, had it then existed. So too the completed Pentateuch should have influenced Kings as it did Chronicles, if it had been in existence when the earlier history was composed. </p> <p> <b> 3. Answer to the Critical Analysis: </b> </p> (1) The Veto of Textual Criticism. <p> The first great objection that may be made to the higher criticism is that it starts from the Massoretic text (MT) without investigation. This is not the only text that has come down to us, and in some instances it can be shown that alternative readings that have been preserved are superior to those of the Massoretic Text. A convincing example occurs in &nbsp;Exodus 18 . According to the Hebrew, [[Jethro]] comes to Moses and says "I, thy father-in-law ... am come," and <i> subsequently </i> 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 Massoretic Text 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 this was followed by textual corruption of so happy a character as to remove the difficulty by the change 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 illustrates one branch of textual criticism; there are others. Sometimes the narrative shows with certainty that in the transmission of the text transpositions have taken place; e.g. the identification of [[Kadesh]] shows that it was South 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, Deuteronomy gives an account that is parallel to certain passages of Numbers; and it confirms those passages, but places the events in a different order. Such difficulties may often be solved by simple transpositions, and when transpositions in the text of Nu are made under the guidance of Deuteronomy 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 text. Here the ancient versions often help us, one or other omitting some words which may be proved from other sources to be a later addition. Thus in &nbsp; Exodus 17:7 the [[Vulgate]] (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) did not know the expression, "and Meribah" (one word in Hebrew), and calls the place "Massah" simply. This is confirmed by the fact that Deuteronomy habitually calls the place [[Massah]] (&nbsp; Deuteronomy 6:16; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 9:22; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 33:8 ). The true Meribah was Kadesh (Nu 20) and a glossator has here added this by mistake (see further (4) below). Thus we can say that a scientific textual criticism often opposes a real veto to the higher critical analysis by showing that the arguments rest on late corruptions and by explaining the true origin of the difficulties on which the critics rely. </p> (2) Astruc's Clue Tested. <p> 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 Massoretic Text of Genesis makes P or E use the Tetragrammaton ( <i> ''''' ''''' [[Yhwh]] </i> ) or <i> ''''' [[Yahweh]] ''''' </i> (Yahweh). In some of these cases the critics can suggest no reason; in others they are compelled to assume that the Massoretic Text 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 &nbsp; Genesis 28:21 Carpenter assigns the words "and Yahweh will be my God" to J while giving the beginning and end of the verse to E; in Genesis 31, &nbsp; Genesis 31:3 goes to a redactor, though E actually refers to the statement of &nbsp; Genesis 31:3 in &nbsp; Genesis 31:5; in Genesis 32, &nbsp;Genesis 32:30 is torn from a J-context and given to E, thus leaving &nbsp; Genesis 32:31 (Jahwist) 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 Genesis are very numerous, and in some instances the new readings are clearly superior to the Massoretic Text, even when they substitute <i> ''''' 'Ěl̄ohı̄m ''''' </i> for the Tetragrammaton. Thus, in &nbsp;Genesis 16:11 , the explanation of the name Ishmael requires the word <i> ''''' 'Ělōhı̄m ''''' </i> , as the name would otherwise have been Ishmayah, and one Hebrew MS, a recension of the Septuagint and the Old Latin do in fact preserve the reading <i> ''''' 'Ělōhı̄m ''''' </i> . The full facts and arguments cannot be given here, but Professor Schlogl has made an exhaustive examination of the various texts from &nbsp;Genesis 1:1 to &nbsp; Exodus 3:12 . Out of a total of 347 occurrences of one or both words in the Massoretic Text 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 <i> TMH </i> , I. Wellhausen himself has admitted that the textual evidence constitutes a sore point of the documentary theory ( <i> Expository Times </i> , XX, 563). Again in &nbsp;Exodus 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 Hebrew. 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 knowledge of the name, and involved rather a pledge of his power. Lastly the analysis may be tested in yet another way by inquiring whether 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 <i> EPC </i> , chapter i; <i> Expository Times </i> , XX, 378 f, 473-75, 563; <i> TMH </i> , I; PS, 49-142; BS, 1913, 145-74; A. Troelstra, <i> The Name of </i> <i> God </i> , <i> NKZ </i> , Xxiv (1913), 119-48; <i> The Expositor </i> , 1913). </p> (3) The Narrative Discrepancies and Signs of Post-Mosaic Date Examined. <p> Septuagintal manuscripts are providing very illuminating material for dealing with the chronological difficulties. It is well known that the Septuagint 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 manuscripts present a wealth of alternative readings. Some of these show an intrinsic superiority to the corresponding readings of the Massoretic Text. Take the case of Ishmael's age. We have seen (above, 2, (3)) that although in &nbsp;Genesis 21:14 f he is a boy who can be carried by his mother even after the weaning of Isaac, his father, according to &nbsp; Genesis 16:3 , &nbsp;Genesis 16:16 , was 86 years old at the time of his birth, and, according to Genesis 17, 100 years old when Isaac was born. In &nbsp;Genesis 17:25 we find that Ishmael is already 13 a year before Isaac's birth. Now we are familiar with marginal notes that set forth a system of chronology in many printed English Bibles. In this case the Septuagintal variants suggest that something similar is responsible for the difficulty of our Hebrew. Two manuscripts, apparently representing a recension, omit the words, "after [[Abram]] had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan" in &nbsp; Genesis 16:3 , and again, &nbsp;Genesis 16:16 , while in &nbsp;Genesis 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. </p> <p> The same manuscripts that present us with the variants in &nbsp;Genesis 16 have also preserved a suggestive reading in &nbsp; Genesis 35:28 , one of the passages that are responsible for the inference that according to the text of Genesis 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 &nbsp;Genesis 27:41 , Esau, according to English [[Versions]] of the Bible, 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 Hebrew, but the Septuagint translated 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 Septuagint has truly apprehended the real sense of the narrative. If we read the chapter with this modification, 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 &nbsp;Genesis 25:26 and &nbsp; Genesis 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 [[Number]] . </p> <p> The other chronological difficulty cited above (namely, 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 Numbers) is met partly by a reading preserved by the Peshitta and partly by a series of transpositions. In &nbsp;Numbers 33:38 Peshitta reads "first" 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 Deuteronomy, 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 (&nbsp; Numbers 14:45 ) before it is explained (&nbsp;Numbers 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" (&nbsp;Numbers 14:25 ). A full discussion is impossible here and will be found in <i> EPC </i> , 114-38. The order of the narrative that emerges as probably original is as follows: Nu 12; &nbsp;Numbers 20:1 , &nbsp;Numbers 20:14-21; &nbsp;Numbers 21:1-3; 13; 14; 16 through 18; &nbsp;Numbers 20:2-13 , &nbsp;Numbers 20:12; &nbsp;Numbers 21:4-9 , then some missing vs, bringing the Israelites to the head of the [[Gulf]] of Akabah and narrating the turn northward from [[Elath]] and Ezion-geber, then &nbsp;Numbers 20:22-29; &nbsp;Numbers 21:4 , and some lost words telling of the arrival at the station before Oboth. In &nbsp;Numbers 33:40 is a gloss that is missing in Lagarde's Septuagint, and &nbsp; Numbers 33:36-37 should probably come earlier in the chapter than they do at present. </p> <p> Another example of transposition is afforded by &nbsp;Exodus 33:7-11 , the passage relating to the Tent of Meeting which is at present out of place (see above 2, (3)). It is supposed that this is E's idea of the Tabernacle, but that, unlike the Priestly Code (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 &nbsp;Exodus 33:7 should be rendered "And Moses used to take a (or, the) tent and pitch it <i> for himself </i> ," etc. As to 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 &nbsp;Exodus 33:7-11 . In &nbsp;Exodus 18:13-16 we find Moses sitting with all the people standing about him because they came to require of God; i.e. the business which according to Ex 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 the Priestly Code (P), e.g. Nu 27. If now we look at the other available clues, it appears that &nbsp; Exodus 33:11 seems to introduce Joshua for the first time. The passage should therefore precede &nbsp; Exodus 17:8; &nbsp;Exodus 24:13; &nbsp;Exodus 32:17 , where he is already known. Again, if Ex 18 refers to the closing scenes at [[Horeb]] (as it clearly does), &nbsp;Exodus 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. &nbsp; Exodus 33:7 ff provides such a statement. The only earlier place to which it can be assigned is after &nbsp; Exodus 13:22 , but there it fits the context marvelously, for the statements as to the pillar of cloud in &nbsp;Exodus 33:9 f attach naturally to those in &nbsp; Exodus 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" (&nbsp; Exodus 25:22 ). After 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, <i> EPC </i> , 93-102, 106 f) . </p> <p> Some other points must be indicated more briefly. In &nbsp;Numbers 16 important Septuagintal variants remove the main difficulties by substituting "company of Korah" for "dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram" in two verses (see <i> Epc </i> , 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 ( <i> Epc </i> , 155-69). Further, there are numerous passages where careful examination has led critics themselves to hold that particular verses are later notes. In this way they dispose of &nbsp;Deuteronomy 10:6 f (Aaron's death, etc.), the references to the Israelirish kingdom (&nbsp; Genesis 36:31 ) and the Canaanites as being "then" in the land (&nbsp;Genesis 12:6; &nbsp;Genesis 13:7 ), the bedstead of Og (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 3:11 ) and other passages. In Gen 22, "the land of Moriah" is unknown to the versions which present the most diverse readings, of which "the land of the Amorite" is perhaps the most probable; while in &nbsp;Genesis 22:14 the Septuagint, reading the same Hebrew consonants as Massoretic Text, translates "In the Mount the Lord was seen." This probably refers to a view that God manifested Himself especially in the mountains (compare &nbsp; 1 Kings 20:23 , &nbsp;1 Kings 20:28 ) and has no reference whatever to the Temple Hill. The Massoretic pointing is presumably due to a desire to avoid what seemed to be an anthropomorphism (see further PS, 19-21) . Again, in &nbsp;Numbers 21:14 , the Septuagint knows nothing of "a book of the Wars of Yahweh" (see Field, <i> [[Hexapla]] </i> , at the place). It is difficult to tell what the original reading was, especially as the succeeding words are corrupt in the Hebrew, but it appears that no genitive followed wars" and it is doubtful if there was any reference to a "book of wars." </p> (4) The Argument from the Doublets Examined. <p> The foregoing sections show that the documentary theory often depends on phenomena that were absent from the original Pentateuch. 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. &nbsp;Genesis 16,21 are, to all appearance, narratives of different events; so are &nbsp; Exodus 17:1-7 and &nbsp; Numbers 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 Pentateuch. If the latter also had a Rephidimnarrative (compare &nbsp; Numbers 33:14 P), there were 6 tales. In any case both J and E tell <i> two </i> stories each. It is impossible to assign any cogency to the argument that the author of the Pentateuch could not have told two such narratives, if not merely the redactor of the Pentateuch 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 Pentateuch places them at almost exactly a year's interval (see <i> EPC </i> , 104 f, 109 f). </p> (5) The Critical Argument from the Laws. <p> 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 (especially Sanctuary; [[Priests]] ). 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 (&nbsp;Genesis 14:14; &nbsp;Genesis 17:12 , etc.), gift (&nbsp;Genesis 20:14 ), capture in war (&nbsp;Genesis 14:21; &nbsp;Genesis 34:29 ), kidnapping (Joseph). The law of Exodus and Deuteronomy applies <i> only </i> to Hebrew 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 Hebrew slaves. It is concerned merely with free Israelites who become insolvent. "If thy brother be waxed poor with thee, and sell himself" it begins (&nbsp; Leviticus 25:39 ). 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 bondsmen, i.e. they were full citizens who were compelled to perform certain duties. A similar class of free bondsmen existed in ancient Rome and were called <i> nexi </i> . 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 <i> SBL </i> , 5-11 ). </p> (6) The Argument from Style. <p> Just as this argument is too detailed to be set out in a work like the present, so the answer cannot be given with any degree of fullness. 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 reasons for the phenomena observed. Again, the versions suggest that the Biblical text has been heavily glossed. Thus in many passages where the frequent recurrence of certain words and phrases is supposed to attest the presence of the Priestly Code (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 &nbsp;Genesis 23:1 , "And the life of [[Sarah]] was a hundred and seven and twenty years:... <i> the years of the fife of Sarah </i> ," the italicized words were missing in the Septuagint. When they are removed the meaning is unaltered, but the form of expression is far superior. They are obviously 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 theory requires it. One instance muse be given. It is claimed that the word "create" is a P-word. It occurs several times in Gen 1:1 through 2:4a and &nbsp;Genesis 2:3 times in &nbsp; Genesis 5:1 , &nbsp;Genesis 5:2 , but in &nbsp;Genesis 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 &nbsp; Numbers 16:30 and D in Dt 4:82. On the other hand, P does not use the word <i> exclusively </i> , even in Gen 1 through 2:4, the word "make" being employed in &nbsp;Genesis 1:7 , &nbsp;Genesis 1:25 , &nbsp;Genesis 1:26 , &nbsp;Genesis 1:31; &nbsp;Genesis 2:2 , while in &nbsp;Genesis 2:3 both words are combined. Yet all these passages are given unhesitatingly to P. </p> (7) Perplexities of the Theory. <p> The perplexities of the critical hypothesis are very striking, but a detailed discussion is impossible here. Much material will, however, be found in <i> Pot </i> and <i> Eerd </i> . 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 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 Wellhausen critics chapters will be assigned by one writer to the post-exilic period and by another to the earliest sources (e.g. &nbsp; Genesis 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 theory is compelled to feed on itself; for J, E, the Priestly Code (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 Genesis (see below 4, (1) to (3)). </p> (8) Signs of Unity. <p> 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 during different centuries. Again, there are sometimes literary marks of unity, e.g. in &nbsp;Numbers 16 , the effect of rising anger is given to the dialogue by the repetition of "Ye take too much upon you" (&nbsp;Numbers 16:3 , &nbsp;Numbers 16:7 ), followed by the repetition of "Is it a small thing that" (&nbsp;Numbers 16:9 , &nbsp;Numbers 16:13 ). This must be the work of a single literary artist (see further <i> SBL </i> , 37 f). </p> (9) The Supposed Props of the Development Hypothesis. <p> When we turn to the supposed props of the development hypothesis we see that there is nothing conclusive in the critical argument. Jeremiah and the subsequent literature certainly exhibit the influence of Deuteronomy, 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. Ezekiel again was steeped in priestly ideas, but it is shown in [[Priests]] , 5b, how this may be explained. Lastly, Chronicles certainly knows the whole Pentateuch, but as certainly misinterprets it (see [[Priests]] ). On the other hand the Pentateuch itself always represents portions of the legislation as being intended to reach the people only through the priestly teaching, and this fully accounts for P's lack of influence on the earlier literature. As to the differences of style within the Pentateuch itself, something is said in III, below. Hence, this branch of the critical argument really proves nothing, for the phenomena are susceptible of more than one explanation. </p> <p> <b> 4. The Evidence of Date: </b> </p> (1) The Narrative of Genesis. <p> Entirely different lines of argument are provided by the abundant internal evidences of date. In &nbsp;Genesis 10:19 , we read the phrase "as thou 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 towns 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 </p>

<p> '''(d)''' In addition to all this, and very much more might be said '''''—''''' for a whole harvest has been gleaned on this field by Schultz in the Introduction to his work on Deuteronomy '''''—''''' in addition to all these peculiarities which are arguments for the Mosaic authorship of the book, we have here, too, the evidence strong and clear from post-Mosaic times and writings. The attempt, by a wrong interpretation of 2 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 34, to bring down Deuteronomy as low as the time of Manasseh fails utterly. A century earlier the Jewish prophets borrow their words and their thoughts from Deuteronomy. Amos shows how intimate his acquaintance was with Deuteronomy by such passages as &nbsp;Deuteronomy 2:9; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 4:11; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 9:7, whose matter and form are both colored by those of that book. Hosea, who is richer than Amos in these references to the past, while full of allusions to the whole law (&nbsp;Hosea 6:7; &nbsp;Hosea 12:4, etc.; &nbsp;Hosea 13:9-10), in one passage (&nbsp;Hosea 8:12) using the remarkable expression, "I have written to him the ten thousand things of my law," manifestly includes Deuteronomy (comp. 11:8 with &nbsp; Copyright StatementThese files are public domain. Bibliography InformationMcClintock, John. Strong, James. Entry for 'Pentateuch'. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and [[Ecclesiastical]] Literature. https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/tce/p/pentateuch.html. [[Harper]] & Brothers. New York. 1870. </p>