'xSll'?ll
P0
/f #:>V$
JC^
^
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/arecriticsrighthOOmlrich
Are the Critics Right ?
Are the Critics Right?
HISTORICAL & CRITICAL CONSIDERATIONS
AGAINST
THE GRAF-WELLHAUSEN HYPOTHESIS
BY
WILHELM MOLLER
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
PROFESSOR C. VON ORELLI, D.D.
U7(^
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN BY
C. H. IRWIN, M.A.
WITHDRAWN FROM
UNIVERSITY OF REDLANDS LIBRARY
FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY
NEW YORK, CHICAGO. TORONTO
i6.i' ■-
y
u
kL A ^Ma^Jh J^
'^
• : : •
PREFACE TO ENGLISH EDITION
In view of statements as to the authorship and
date of the books of the Pentateuch made by-
British supporters of the Higher Criticism, it has
been thought desirable to issue this translation of
the work of one who was formerly a follower of
Wellhausen. The book has already been trans-
lated from its German original into Danish and
Norwegian.
The translator has added the Table of Con-
tents at the beginning, the sub -headings of the
various sections throughout the book, and the
Index at the end.
Mi24??G8
INTRODUCTION
I GLADLY accede to the wish of the author that I
should write a word of introduction to the follow-
ing pages. These pages are truly a welcome
indication that there is in the field of Old
Testament criticism no lack of independent
workers among the younger generation, who do
not accept the theories offered by the authorities
of to-day as something incontrovertible, but test
them without prejudice, and discover how much
they contain that is untenable. Nothing indeed
is more astonishing to me than the readiness with
which even diligent explorers in this field attach
themselves to the dominant theory and repeat the
most rash hypotheses as if they were part of an
unquestioned creed. Under these circumstances
the elements of fact on the other side must be
emphasised until they receive their due weight.
This is done by the following treatise, which
comprehends much that has been said already but
has never been refuted. A special value attaches
to it from the fact that the author himself formerly
vii b
viii ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
shared the views which he now opposes, but has
allowed himself to be convinced by the evidence
of the facts on the other side. The youthful
temperament, which sometimes betrays itself in
rather hasty conclusions or in a too absolute form
of judgment, gives, on the other hand, the benefit
of vivacity to the writing, and will not repel the
readers for whom it is intended. On all the
leading points I can only agree with the train of
thought, and I am convinced that the weight of the
arguments here vindicated will be better appreci-
ated by a future generation of Protestant theo-
logians than has been the case in recent decades.
That this little book, moreover, may contribute to
a more unbiassed treatment of the inquiry as to
the origin of the Old Testament, and one more
worthy of the high subject, is my earnest wish.
C. VON ORELLI, D.D.,
Professor.
Basel, May 2, 1899.
CONTENTS
Author's Preface-
Origin of the book . xv
The method not dogmatical, but historical and critical . xvii
The Graf-Wellhausen theory and the three codes of laws in
the Pentateuch (JE, D, and P) xviii
List of books recommended in refutation of the modern
critical theories . . . . . . . . xxi
CHAPTER I
COMPARISON OF THE LAWS WITH THE HISTORY
I, Criticism of the Modern Date of Deuteronomy—
Wellhausen's theory, dating it at time of King Josiah . i
Examination of the narrative in 2 Kings xxii. and
foil 3
1. Cause of Josiah's alarm at the finding of the law . 3
Kautzsch's theory 4
Untenableness of the view that because a law was
unknown at a particular time therefore it did not
exist ......... 7
Shown by the analogy of J and E . . . . 8
2 Kings xxii. 8 implies that Hilkiah knew the
book by hearsay ....... 10
2. Deut. could have been produced neither by the
priests nor by the prophets of Josiah's time . . 14
Kautzsch's theory that it was the work of the prophets 14
Opposed by Kuenen, who attributes it to the priests 14
: ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
PAGE
But the profligacy of both priests and prophets of
that time makes their authorship of Deut. im-
possible ........ i6
3. The Mosaic authority attributed to Deut. incon-
sistent with the later date I7
Cornill's view that the name of Moses was necessary
to give weight to Deut 18
Why should the Mosaic authorship impress such an
age as that of Josiah ? 19
4. The effect produced by such a deception is incredible 20
The priests, the prophets, the king, the people, all
are deceived ....... 21
5. The' contents of Deut. itself contradict the later
date 25
{a) Why include the civil sphere in reforms planned
for religion and worship only ? . . -25
The reformation of Josiah's time was chiefly
abolition of idolatry. But it is not prohibition
of idolatry, but unity of worship, which is the
leading thought in Deut 29
(3) Individual injunctions of Deut. contradict later
date 32
The extermination of the Canaanites . . 33
Laws about going forth to war : no mention of
a king ........ 34
The injunction about the Amalekites . . 36
References to Moses, to false prophets, and the
exile 37
6. Distinct traces of Deut. in existence long before
623 B.C., 2 Kings xviii. 4-6; 2 Kings xiv. 6;
Josh. viii. 30 ; Hos. iv. 4, v. lO ; Amos iv. 4 ;
Jer. vii. 12 ; i Sam. i.-iii. ; Judges xvii. and foil. 40
On the critical theory, Deut. is a pious fraud . . 50
Summary 53
II. Criticism of the Modern Dating of the Priestly
Code —
A. Criticism of the modern result 55
I. The Law as read by Ezra (Neh. viii. -X.) ... 56
Wellhausen's view that PC originated then (second
halfof fifth century B.C.) 59
CONTENTS xi
PAGE
Views of Reuss, Kayser, Kautzsch, and other modern
critics ........ 62
2. The Priestly Code itself contradicts, by its aim, the
later date 66
3. The Priestly Code not at all adapted for the purpose
assigned to it by the critics ..... 72
4. The result attributed to PC quite incredible on the
critical theory 75
5. PC could not have originated with such authors
as the critics assume ...... 80
6. Many particular enactments of PC are inexplicable
on the modern theory ...... 87
A pious fraud once more ...... 94
Summary 95
B. Criticism of the modern auxiliary hypotheses which are
supposed to necessitate an early date for PC . -99
(a) Relation of the prophets to the Priestly Code . . 99
1. Does Jer. vii. 21 and foil, prove that PC could
not have existed in Jeremiah's time ? . . lOO
2. Did the prophets really assume a hostile attitude
toward sacrifice ? 106
3. The apparent hostility of the prophets directed
not against sacrifice in itself, but against sacrifice
as a substitute for obedience . . . .112
{P) Relation of Ezek. xl.-xlviii. (Ezekiel's vision) to the
Priestly Code 114
1. The argument that PC is later than Ezekiel
proves too much . . . . . '115
On the same principle Ezekiel could not have
been acquainted with the Books of the Covenant
or with Deut 116
Ezekiel presupposes a previous ritual legislation . 120
Summary 123
2. The degradation of priests to Levites (Ezek. xliv.
4 and foil.) one of the principal supports of
modern criticism . . . . . .124
{a) But this degradation implies disobedience to a
previous enactment — an enactment only
found in PC 127
{d) Ezek. xlviii. ii, 13, presupposes PC . . 128
{c) The word "Levite" could not have been
chosen as a mark of punishment . . .129
xii ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
PACK
(d) Incredible that Ezekiel could have introduced
the distinction . . . . . .129
{e) 'Ezra. ii. does not support the critical view . 133
(/) The critical theory credits the authors of
PC with astounding folly . . . -133
The true sequence is P — Ezekiel, not Ezekiel — P 140
(7) Relation of the history, down to B.C. 444, to the
Priestly Code 141
1. Are there no traces of PC in the history before 444? 141
The critics' " history" is itself quite unhistorical . 144
2. That the enactments of PC were violated is no
proof that they did not exist . . . .150
III. Criticism of the Modern Dating of the Books
OF THE Covenant —
1, Consideration of Ex. xx. 24 . . . . . i6l
This date is contradicted by the principles applied
by the critics to Deut. and PC . . . ,161
2. Impossible to place the Books of the Covenant so late 166
CHAPTER II
comparison of the laws WITH ONE ANOTHER
The modern sequence is : Books of the Covenant, Deut., P . 171
1. General observations —
(a) P alone contains ritual legislation, therefore it cannot
be described as an expansion of the other two . 1 72
{d) The argument that Deut. makes no reference to P
cuts both ways 173
2. Discussion of particular passages . . . . -174
The ark (Deut. X.) 174
Clean and unclean . . . . . . .176
The Laws about the Feasts 178
The critical theory that the three great Feasts were
merely harvest festivals . . . . . -179
How then did they suddenly come to have an historical
reference ?........ 180
The names of the Feasts only to be explained by the
historical reference 182
CONTENTS xiii
PAGE
The dates prescribed for the Feasts presuppose the
enactments of P . . . . . . . 185
Laws which are only possible if PC comes at the time of
the wandering in the wilderness, and Deut. shortly before
the entrance into Palestine . . . . . . 1S8
The slaying of the paschal lamb, and the assembly at tlie
holy place 1S8
The central sanctuary . . . . . . .189
Wellhausen's theory that down to the seventh century every
killing was a sacrifice, but that after that sacrifices must
only be offered at the central sanctuary , . . .190
The permission in Deut. xii. to sacrifice anywhere proves
that Deut. was later than PC 193
The redemption of the first-born in Deut. xiv. is further
evidence of the same ....... 194
Difficulties which are inexplicable except on the assumption
of the priority of PC . . . . . . .196
The distinction between priests and Levites . . . 196
The difference between PC and Deut. in regard to the
tithe 201
CONCLUSION
Summary of previous argument 203
The conclusions of criticism make the idea of a revelation
untenable .......... 206
Wellhausen's logical conclusions result in the overthrow of
his whole theory, and prepare for the acceptance of the
Mosaic authorship (in essential structure at least) of the
disputed books 210
Modern criticism not scientific, but, as in the case of Vatke,
the result of dogmatic preconceptions . . . .213
Natural development of religion v. Divine revelation . . 214
PREFACE
I AM constrained to publish the following long-
planned pamphlet. After the experiences which
other opponents of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis
have had with their writings, I can scarcely hope
that my "Considerations" will receive any attention
from the representatives of the modern Old
Testament school. This little book is therefore,
at the outset, addressed not to them at all, but
to the students who are for the moment entirely
dependent on their professors. I know from my
own experience, as well as from many acquaint-
ances, that little encouragement is given to
students of the Old Testament even to take in
their hand for once a book of a different school.
I myself have been in several cases advised
against it by professors. Now it cannot for a
moment be doubted that it is utterly unscientific
to seek to know one's opponent from polemical
writings only.
The accompanying treatise will, it is hoped,
help to remove this one-sidedness, and create
^ XV
XVI
ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
in students a desire to study even the literature
on the other side, but above all to make them
hesitate in the confidence with which they follow
modern criticism. I myself was immovably
convinced of the irrefutable correctness of the
Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, so long as I allowed
it alone to have an effect upon me. But after
my attention was once directed to its weaknesses
(first by Kohler in Erlangen), after I had studied
with some thoroughness the scientific literature
on the other side, this hypothesis seemed to me
more and more monstrous. By discussions on
the subject in the Theological Societies at
Erlangen and Halle, in the Tholuck Institute at
Halle, and in the Theological Seminary at
Wittenberg, as well as by frequent conversations
with friends and acquaintances, my own view
was confirmed and elucidated, so that I hope
that the change which took place in my case may
and will be effected in others also.
I know indeed from my own theological
development that a dogmatic treatment would
be of little use and efficacy in this case. I
certainly should not have been converted by it
in my first college terms ; for I had reached the
conviction that the modern conception of the
Old Testament did not necessarily exclude
revelation, but that for the rest the dogmatic
view would have to be modified in accordance
PREFACE
XVll
with the assured historical results. Hence even
in the following pages I proceed not dogmatically,
but purely by the historical-critical method.
I should make the effect of my treatise illusory
from the start if I arranged it apologetically, and
sought to defend in succession the points attacked
by Wellhausen. In that way the appearance of
dogmatic bias and energetic refinement, which so
readily affects the apologete, might too easily
arise ; and moreover the ingenious scheme of Well-
hausen would still exercise its attractive power.
The way from which I anticipate most result
is to put the opponent himself on the defensive,
and thus at once to take up the offensive. If
one is only once thoroughly convinced that the
Graf- Wellhausen hypothesis involves us in endless
difficulties, one is the more disposed to pay
attention to apologetic efforts. The whole force
of our treatise, at any rate, lies in the attack on
the modern hypothesis.
The aim and the constituency of the booklet
permit, nay demand, that we should not attempt
completeness or exhaustive treatment. The
terseness of the book would otherwise suffer ; it
would remain unread. I have fully attained my
purpose, if the points of the modern hypothesis
here specified are found to be difficulties. The
rest will then follow of itself
The modern theory I assume throughout as
XVIU
ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
known to my readers. In the discrimination of
sources, their nomenclature and dates, Kautzsch's
Translation of the Bible has been taken as a basis.
The same is the case, as a rule, with Biblical
quotations. The quotations from Kautzsch refer
to his Abriss der Geschichte des altestamentlichen
Schrifttums (" Sketch of the History of the Old
Testament Scriptures ") in the Supplements to his
Translation of the Bible} They shall appear
pretty often, not only because this Bible work
will be in the hands of most students, but, above
all, because it professes to contain "the actual
results of the strictly scientific Biblical inquiry "
(comp. the first preface in the Supplements, p.
viii.). There is, besides, little quotation from
writings of followers or of opponents of the
modern theory, because, in my judgment, the
value of a treatise does not depend upon the
multitude of quotations which it gives.
A few words, finally, about the plan of the
whole. The peculiar attraction of the Graf-
Wellhausen hypothesis consists first in the
apparent agreement between law and history,
and then in the apparently smooth development
of the various collections of laws. As is well
known, three such collections are assumed in
the Pentateuch : —
^ The separate edition contains no essential alterations on the
points of importance to us.
PREFACE xix
1. The two so-called Books of the Covenant,
Ex. xx.-xxiii. and Ex. xxxiv. lO, 14-26, wrought
together into the original sources JE (Jahwist
and Elohist) which existed before the prophetic
writings.
2. Deuteronomy (D).
3. The Priestly Code (P or PC) which, besides
a brief prefatory history, contains the injunctions,
Ex. xxv.-xxxi. ; xxxv.-xl. ; Lev. i.-xxvii. ; Num.
i.-x. 28 ; XV. ; xviii.-xix. ; xxv. 6-xxxi. ; xxxiii.-
xxxvi. (only the larger sections which are
inter-related are enumerated).
The Books of the Covenant are then said to
agree with the historical circumstances down to
the reformation of worship under Josiah (623
B.C.), described in 2 Kings xxii. et seq., and also
with the patriarchal narratives of JE originating
in this period. A similar harmony between law
and history is alleged to exist in the case of D
since that reformation of worship, and in the case
of P since the publication of the law under Ezra
(comp. Neh. viii.-x., 444 B.C.), while the history
before the period 623, and especially 444, is said
not only to be in glaring opposition to the
requirements of D, and especially P, but also not
to suggest the slightest acquaintance with them.
If even before Wellhausen there was agreement
about the placing of the Books of the Covenant
and Deuteronomy, inasmuch as, on account of
XX
ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
their harmony with the history, the former were
placed in the period before the major prophets
and the latter in the seventh century B.C., it was
clear how enticing and alluring the Wellhausen
hypothesis must be, which, by assigning the
Priestly Code to the exilic and post-exilic period,
extended that harmony between law and history
even to this third collection of laws.
The Wellhausen arrangement is really only
the necessary key -stone of the building which
was already carried so far. And, vice versa^ if
there had not previously been agreement in the
assumptions on which Wellhausen builds his plan,
the general spread of the Wellhausen hypothesis
would be incomprehensible ; but it is only the
necessary consequence of the previous assumptions,
and must have emerged sooner or later. For
this reason, however, we must also necessarily
extend our examination to the whole. In the
first part this will be directed to the question
whether the laws could have really originated in
the period in which modern criticism places them,
and this part again will naturally divide itself
into three sections, in which the examination will
be successively made with regard to each of the
collections of laws. If, then, only in one passage
that alleged agreement between law and history
should be proved to be an error, if only in one
group of laws, namely D, the untenableness of
PREFACE xxi
the modern dating should be shown, this must
inflict a perceptible blow on the whole of modern
criticism. For that which is peculiarly convincing
in the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis lies precisely
in this threefold harmony between law and history.
If one is convinced on all points that this is
actually non-existent, that even on the principles
of modern criticism it is impossible that all the
three groups of laws could have arisen at the
time to which their origin is assigned, there still
remains a comparison of the laws with one another
which, according to Wellhausen, must necessarily
lead to the sequence : Books of the Covenant,
Deuteronomy, Priestly Code. This assertion will
be examined in our second part.
Some of the works which I have most used
against modern criticism are enumerated below,
and strongly recommended for study. In them
many, if not all, of the thoughts here put forward
have already been expressed, but have hitherto
remained ineffectual in their isolation. The
choice of the books mentioned has been guided
by the influence which they have exercised upon
the author.
BOOKS RECOMMENDED
Baudissin. — Geschichte des alttestamentlichen Priester turns.
Especially noteworthy is the section, " The Priesthood
in Ezekiel," pp. 105 ff.
xxii ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
Bredenkamp. — Gesefz und Propheten. Highly recom-
mended.
Delitzsch. — Pentateuch-kritische Studien in the Zeitschrift
fur kirchliche Wissenschaft und Leben, 1880. Well
worth reading.
DiLLMANN. — Die Biicher Numeric Deuteronomium und
Josua^ with an appendix on the composition of the
Hexateuch.
Havernick. — Specielle Einleitung zuin Pentateuch.
Hengstenberg. — Beitrdge zur Einleitung i?ts alte Testa-
ment^ vols. ii. and iii. (on the authenticity of the
Pentateuch).
In the last two works many individual objections of
criticism are so convincingly and conclusively refuted,
that it is quite incomprehensible how they can be
brought forward again and again as if no answer had
ever been made to them.
Kleinert. — Zurn Deuteronomium.
Klostermann. — Beitrdge zur Entstehungsgeschichte des
Pejitateuch in the Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift., 1890-
1897 (cf. especially No. 2, " Der sichere Ausgangs-
punkt fiir die kiinftige Pentateuchkritik," 1892; and
No. 7, "Heiligtums- und Lagerordnung," 1897).
Kohler. — Lehrbuch der biblischeit Geschichte des Alien
Testaments. Indispensable as a book of reference.
Especially valuable are the notes in the third vol.
J. Robertson. — The Early Religion of Israel., translated
by V. Orelli. Dillmann says of this book, that it
strikes the nail on the head. Especially worthy of
notice is the positive construction.
Fr. W. Schulz. — Das Deuteronomium.
Schumann. — Die Wellhatisensche Pentateuchtheorie.
The Strack-Zockler Commentaries^ especially those of
Oettli and v. Orelli.
CHAPTER I
COMPARISON OF THE LAWS WITH THE HISTORY
I. Criticism of the Modern Date of Deuteronomy
We begin with an inquiry regarding Deuteronomy.
To commence here appeals to me personally,
because it was on this point that I first became
distrustful of modern criticism. But the chief
reason is that Deut. is, with the critics, the
firm foundation on which they build the super-
structure.
In Wellhausen's Prolego^nena (the 4th edition
of 1895 is here quoted), p. 9, this sentence occurs :
" As to the origin of Deuteronomy little doubt
now prevails ; in all circles where recognition of
scientific results is at all to be depended on, it is
admitted that it was produced at the time in
which it was discovered, and that it was made the
basis for the reformation of King Josiah." This
certainly sounds very promising for us ! But we
do not allow ourselves to be alarmed by such
B
2 .ARE THEE CRITICS RIGHT?
triumphant and self-conscious utterances of our
opponents, and maintain on the contrary that any
one who declares Kleinert's book Zum Deutero-
nomiiim and Delitzsch's article (as above named,
No. II," The Code of Laws in Deuteronomy ")
unscientific simply because they oppose the
modern date, shows thereby that he is utterly
lacking in unprejudiced judgment of what is, and
what is not, scientific work. We remember also
that in most recent times the modern date of
Deuteronomy has been most vigorously contested
by men like Klostermann (as above), Kohler (as
above), and Robertson (as above).
So much by way of explanation. For the
rest we do not consider it superfluous, even at
the risk of being regarded as unscientific by
Wellhausen, to undertake once more an examina-
tion into the date of the origin of Deuteronomy.
And we hope, by purely scientific method, to
show this much at least — that there are the
greatest possible difficulties in the way of placing
it in the seventh century B.C.
In the first place, there is no question that
Deuteronomy itself professes to be a speech which
Moses addressed to the people on the threshold
of the Holy Land shortly before his death, in
which he put before them once more God's merci-
ful dealings and also the obligations resulting
therefrom, especially that of unity of worship.
2 KINGS XXII. 3
According to modern criticism, however, this is
merely a cloak. The narrative in 2 Kings xxii.
and foil., as well as Deut. itself, are said to
indicate clearly that it had originated but a
short time before its discovery in the year 623.
Let us therefore in the first place examine the
narrative in 2 Kings xxii. and foil., which even
according to modern criticism is to be regarded
as authentic in the most essential points.
I. According to this, Josiah the king in the Examina-
tion of
eighteenth year of his reign (623 B.C.) has sent 2 Kings
Shaphan the scribe to the temple on money ^^^" '
matters; there the high-priest Hilkiah says to
him, " I have found the book of the law in the
house of the Lord " (ver. 8). Shaphan reads it,
returns to the king and reports to him about his
errand ; then he adds, " Hilkiah the priest hath
delivered me a book " (ver. i o), and reads it before
the king. The king is terribly alarmed at its
contents, rends his clothes, and commands five
persons, among them Hilkiah and Shaphan, to
inquire of Jahwe concerning the words of the
book for himself and for the people and for all
Judah, " for great is the wrath of the Lord that
is kindled against us, because our fathers have not
hearkened unto the words of this book " (ver. 13).
The messengers betake themselves to Huldah the
prophetess, who foretells misfortune, and announces
that all the threatenings of the book shall be
4 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
fulfilled, "because they have forsaken Me, and
have burned incense unto other gods" (ver. 17).
But because Josiah has humbled himself and has
shown himself penitent, the trouble shall not take
place until after his death. Then the book of the
law which has been found is read in an assembly
of the people, and the king pledges himself with
his whole people to obey faithfully the commands
of Jahwe, " to walk after the Lord, and to keep
His commandments and His testimonies and His
statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to
perform the words of this covenant that were
written in this book " (xxiii. 3). And now begins
the purification of worship and the overthrow of
idolatry. After this a passover is observed ac-
cording to this Book of the Covenant (xxiii. 21),
such as had not been held since the days of the
Judges, and finally a check is put upon witch-
craft, and the idols are exterminated. So far the
narrative, which should be read in detail. This
much at least is certain from it — that the book of
the law was unknown, not only to Shaphan and
the people, but also to the king. So far I am in
agreement with modern criticism. Thus, for
example, Kautzsch {Abriss, p. 167) says : — " It is
clear that the violent emotion, the deep sorrow of
the king, can only be explained by the fact that
from the reading of the Book of the Covenant he
was learning something quite new, which was in
CAUSE OF JOSIAH'S ALARM 5
entire opposition to the prevailing practice." But
when Kautzsch continues, " This new element is
the demand for the concentration of worship in
one place, and at the same time the requirement
of a thorough putting away of all remnants of the
future nature-worship," I am compelled to see
here a distortion of matters of fact. Kautzsch
would be right if in the narrative 2 Kings xxii.
and foil., generally or prominently, the abolition
of the worship of Jahwe in " high places " was
treated of (comp. 2 Kings xviii. 4-6 with ver. 22).
If we read 2 Kings xxii. and foil, without prejudice
we must find the new element which so alarmed
the king, not in the demand for concentration of
worship, but in the prohibition of idolatry and
every form of nature-worship. True, it is stated
in xxiii. 8 that Josiah defiled the high places
where the priests had burned incense. But that
this act serves not for the concentration of worship,
but for the overthrow of idolatry, is clear from
xxii. 17, where we are told that they offered in-
cense not to Jahwe, but to idols. This very
verse, in which the blame is laid upon the whole
people, does not say a word about any breach of
the commandment for unity of worship. Corre-
sponding with this is the description in xxiii. 4
and foil., which plainly shows that the refer-
ence is to actual idolatry (comp. xxiii. 4, 5, 10,
13, 24).
6 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
Moreover, let it not be said that it is peculiar
to the Deuteronomic mode of treatment, to see in
the worship of Jahwe in high places simply
idolatry. It could not possibly occur to any one
who wrote in the sense of Deuteronomy to confuse
the one with the other ; for Deuteronomy dis-
tinguishes them. In chapter xii. it directs itself
against the worship of Jahwe in high places, and
in chapter xiii. against idolatry. If it cannot be
doubted for a moment from 2 Kings xxii. and
foil, that actual idolatry had taken place (as at
that time worship of Jahwe in high places cannot
any longer be proved with certainty), if the idols
are expressly named (Baal, Sun, Moon, the Con-
stellations, all the host of heaven, Molech, Astarte,
Chemosh), then it is indeed an extraordinary idea
that the king should have been so excited because
Jahwe had been worshipped at several places
instead of one, and not because they had forsaken
Jahwe and gone after other gods. I can only
see, therefore, in the assumption ol criticism a
violence to the text, arising from the effort to
make the origin of Deuteronomy probable shortly
before 623. We shall return to this, and only
add here that where in the chapter 2 Kings xxiii.
the reference is to the worship of Jahwe, it only
appears in the central sanctuary, so that we can
only speak here of a purification of worship, but
not at all of a concentration of worship. In
AN UNTENABLE MAXIM 7
short, the new thing at which the king was so
much alarmed cannot, according to the narrative
in 2 Kings xxii. and foil., be " the requirement to
concentrate worship in a single place," but only
the prohibition of idolatry in the high places and
the impure worship in Jerusalem, together with
the punishments threatened for its infringement.
To sum up, we thus find ourselves compelled to
differ with criticism as to the new element which
was contained for the king in the book of the law
— how important this is will appear under ^ 5 {a) —
but we agree with it in this, " that he perceived in
the reading of the book of the law something
quite new, which was in entire opposition to the
prevailing practice." Yet here a serious difference
again appears.
Criticism, namely, applies here a maxim which
it often uses, the untenableness of which appears
with special clearness from this passage. It
maintains that if a supposed ancient law can be
proved to be unknown at a particular time, so
that there is no hesitation even on the part of the
most pious in violating it, it follows that it must
be of more recent date. Hence in the case before
us there could be no reference to a merely lost
book of the law ; it must have been written
shortly before its discovery, and thus they arrive
at the assertion that Deuteronomy only originated
in the seventh century B.C. We must meet with
8 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
an absolute denial this assertion of criticism. The
original writings J and E ^ are now dated previous
to the major prophets, and this, too, together with
the laws which they contain. Now let us read
passages like Ex. xxxiv. 14-17: "Thou shalt
worship no other god : for the Lord whose name
is Jealous, is a jealous God : lest thou make a
covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and
they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice
unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of
his sacrifice; and thou take of their daughters
unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring
after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring
after their gods. Thou shalt make thee no molten
gods." According to Cornill {Einleitung in das
Alte Testament, 2nd ed.) vers. 10-14 also certainly
belong to J ; we therefore quote also vers. 12 and
13: " Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a
covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither
thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of
thee : but ye shall destroy their altars, break their
images, and cut down their groves." We may
also compare Ex. xx. 3 and foil., " Thou shalt
have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not
make unto thee any graven image, or any like-
ness of anything that is in heaven above, or that
is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water
under the earth : thou shalt not bow down thyself
1 See Preface.
WHY NOT ALSO J AND E ? 9
to them, nor serve them " ; xxii. i8, "Thou shalt
not suffer a witch to live " ; xxii. 20, " He that
sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only,
he shall be utterly destroyed " ; xxiii. 24, " Thou
shalt not bow down to their (the Canaanites')
gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works :
but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite
break down their images"; xxiii.32,33, "Thou shalt
make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.
They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make
thee sin against Me : for if thou serve their gods,
it will surely be a snare unto thee"; xxiii. 13,
" And in all things that I have said unto you, be
circumspect : and make no mention of the name
of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy
mouth." I think that, had King Josiah known
these laws, he must have seen from them quite as
well as from Deut. that the practice (2 Kings
xxiii. 4 and foil.) was in the rudest opposition
to the Divine command. Plainly, therefore, he
knew the two Books of the Covenant (Ex. xx.-
xxiii. ; xxxiv. 10-26) just as little as Deut.
If from this the conclusion is not drawn that
these books could not have previously existed,
why should it be drawn for Deut. ? If, how-
ever, the latter is done, let us at least be con-
sistent, and admit that J and E must have
similarly originated in the seventh century ; but
this on other grounds has to be left alone. This,
10 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
however, shows the untenableness of that maxim
of criticism. We will note for future use " that not
merely the low country but even the capital and
the temple " could be " actually crammed full with
the signs of a naturalistic and merely heathen
idolatry — and all this under the eyes of a king as
pious as Josiah, and under the eyes of the temple
priesthood!" (comp. Kautzsch, as above, p. 167),
and that nevertheless, according to modern
criticism, the Books of the Covenant, which con-
demned most emphatically such conduct, were
regarded for centuries as Mosaic. For the ques-
tion immediately before us, however, this much
results, that notwithstanding the narrative in 2
Kings xxii. and foil., Deut may, with equal
reason with the Books of the Covenant, have
originated earlier and been already in force, as is
conceded by criticism in the case of the latter.
But our narrative in 2 Kings xxii. and foil,
carries us a step farther ; it indicates that in the
book found by Hilkiah we have not to consider
something totally new, but that the reference is
actually to the re-discovery of a book which has
been lost, of the existence of which it is true
neither Shaphan, nor the king, nor the people, but
certainly the high-priest Hilkiah, still knew ; for
he speaks not of " a book," as Shaphan does (xxii.
I o), but he says, " I have found the book of the
law in the house of the Lord " (xxii. 8). The
HILKI AH HIMSELF SURPRISED 11
[first] definite article [implied] in the Hebrew phrase
nnhnrr nop is incomprehensible, except on the
assumption that Hilkiah knew the book by hearsay.
From this it would result that, according to this very
narrative in 2 Kings xxii. and foil., Deuteronomy
must have come into existence a considerable
time before 623, whereas previously we could only
maintain the possibility of an earlier origin.
There is certainly a way of escape from this
conclusion. It might be suggested that in the
words of Hilkiah, " I have found the book of the
law," a deceit was intended, that Hilkiah himself
had a hand in the authorship, and that he now
sought by the use of the definite article to produce
the impression that it is not a publication for the
first time, but the re-discovery of a book which
had been lost and was missed by him. Though
we refrain here from a judgment of this pious
fraud, we are not justified in rejecting a priori the
possibility of this explanation. But on closer
examination it is seen to be untenable ; we are
this time in the happy position of having the
majority of the critics on our side. Thus, for
example, Kautzsch says (as above, p. 167):
" All things considered ... we may come to the
conclusion that Hilkiah himself was surprised at
the discovery. The position of the priests in
Deuteronomy is by no means of a kind that
would explain a special eagerness on their part
12 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
for the creation and introduction of this law.
Certainly the concentrating of worship assured to
the priests at Jerusalem an important increase in
influence and income, even though the gifts to the
priests were in themselves still very moderate
(Deut. xviii. 3 and foil.). But all possible ad-
vantages are weakened by the express command
(Deut. xviii. 6 and foil.) that henceforth a right to
the priestly office in the temple and to the priestly
revenues shall be conceded even to those who
have been priests in the country. . . . The writer
of Deuteronomy was clearly in earnest in the
command of xviii. 6, and this is in itself a proof
that he is to be sought for not among the priests,
but among the prophets. That the book was
actually placed by an unknown hand in the
temple in the certain hope that sooner or later it
would be discovered, and its aim then fulfilled, is
proved first of all by the fact that it came to light
on the occasion of repairs in the temple. And, in
the second place, we must not overlook the question
why, under the presumably favourable circum-
stances for a reformation of worship, they should
have waited until the eighteenth year of Josiah to
publish in such a way a book which must have
already for a long time been a pressing need."
We may therefore agree entirely with Kautzsch
in his negative conclusions, and regard his reasons
as convincing. But the only way of reconciling
CONCLUSIONS 13
the definite article in 2 Kings xxii. 8 with the
modern date of Deuteronomy has thus been cut
off. And true as it is, " that Hilkiah himself was
surprised at the discovery," it is equally true that
the definite article shows plainly that the book of
the law which was found could not have been to
Hilkiah an absolutely new thing. Before we pass
on to the next question, for which we have already
prepared the way by the last arguments, let us
sum up once more the points of importance which
have resulted from our consideration of the narra-
tive 2 Kings xxii. and foil.
(a) In 2 Kings xxii. and foil, the reference is
not at all, or at least in the first instance, to
concentration of worship, but to purification
of worship and abolition of idolatry. The
significance of this extremely important
question for the inquiry as to the origin of
Deut. will appear under § 5 (a),
{b) The book Deut. may, notwithstanding the
improprieties in regard to religion and
worship described in 2 Kings xxii. and
foil., and tolerated by Josiah until the
year 623, have already had an existence
and an authority, since the argument from
these improprieties could and must be
equally held as valid against the earlier
existence and authority of the Books ol
the Covenant
14 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
(c) The book Deut. must have been known
and must have possessed authoritative
force at an earlier date ; otherwise the
definite article in 2 Kings xxii. 8 remains
incomprehensible and inexplicable.
Deut. 2. We were able to agree with Kautzsch when
been he rejected the production and introduction of
SeitlTer^^ Deut. by the priesthood. On the other hand, we
by the must now pronounce impossible his own posi-
priests
nor the tive propositions, according to which the author
of ^siah's should be sought for in the circle of the prophets,
time. Qj. ^|. ^^y j.^|.g outside the priesthood ; above all,
when it is assumed "that the book was written in
a dark time, perhaps under Manasseh, and deposited
in hope of a better time, but in the meantime
perhaps the author had died" (as above, p. 168).
My attitude of opposition will certainly appear to
be above suspicion, when 1 am able to appeal in
this connexion to so eminent a modern critic as
Kuenen. In his Historisch kritische Einleitung
in die Bucher des Alten Testaments (authorised
German edition by Dr. Th. Weber, vol. i. p. 209)
Kuenen says : " In opposition to this [the view
sketched above] there is, however, the important,
and in my view unanswerable consideration, that
according to this assumption of the course of
events the reformation is called into life by
persons who have not planned it, and are only
KUENEN'S THEORY 15
blind instruments in the hand of the unknown
author. Such an assumption has no analogies.
Almost equally improbable is the part which
is assigned to the author of Deut. in con-
nexion with it ; he states his wishes in writing
and urges their fulfilment with the greatest
earnestness — but leaves them to chance." Then
Kuenen defends the above- rejected aspect of
the hypothesis, according to which Deut. was
produced by priests. We have here the rare
occurrence that the foregoing critics, otherwise so
united, differ from one another on a really im-
portant point, and clear us from the reproach of
dogmatic prepossession. In fact, the weaknesses
of our opponents' position on this point are so
obvious, that from this alone the absolute un-
tenableness of the almost universally accepted
date of Deut. is evident. It must have been
written either by priests or by other persons, by
prophets in particular ; both have been shown to
be impossible under the circumstances assumed
by the critics.
We may add the following reasons. It is an
argument against the production by priests in the
seventh century that the larger part of Deutero-
nomy, even in most of the legal sections, chapter
xii. and foil., breathes a'thoroughly prophetic spirit,
and lays down the highest religious and ethical
principles. This indeed is not in itself irreconcil-
16 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
able with the priestly spirit, but it certainly is so
with the priestly spirit of that time. Not only
the priests of the northern kingdom were profligate
and corrupt (Hos. iv. 4-10, vi. 9, etc.) but also
those of the kingdom of Judah (comp. Is. xxviii.
7 and foil., 14; Mic. iii. 11 ; Zeph. iii. 4; Jer.
ii. 26, V. 31, vi. 13, xxiii. 11). To such a
priesthood it is impossible to assign the author-
ship of Deut. The saying of our Lord is true
in this case : " Neither can a corrupt tree bring
forth good fruit" (Matt. vii. 18).
This argument, in addition to what is adduced
above, tells equally against the production by
prophets of that time. The passages Mic. iii. 1 1 ;
Zeph. iii. 4 ; Jer. ii. 26, v. 31, vi. 13, xiv. 14
and foil., xxiii. 9 and foil., xxviii. 1 5 and foil.,
xxix. 8 and foil., show us how sad was the
condition of the prophets of that period. For
the most varied reasons Deut. cannot be attri-
buted to the known prophetic writers ; and
certainly not to the other prophets named by
them, for they were profligate persons, to whom
the prophetic writers were in the sharpest
opposition. Where are we to look for the
prophetic circles in which Deut. could have
originated ?
Further, is it credible that a prophet would
have given so many casuistical directions as meet
us in Deut, xix. and foil., and this too at a time
MODERN DATE IMPOSSIBLE 17
when the conditions were so bad as in the seventh
century ?
But, above all, it would be quite incompre-
hensible why the author did not appear openly,
as was otherwise the method of the prophets, but
covered himself with the authority of Moses ; and
the more incomprehensible since, according to
Deut. xviii. 15, 18, the author held out the pros-
pect, from the times of Moses for all the future,
of a prophet who should have Mosaic authority.
In short, we see that the modern date of
Deut. is wrecked not only by the narrative in
2 Kings xxii. and foil, (see above, i, c), but also
by the question of author sJiip.
3. We have been recalling the fact that a prophet The
would have had difficulty in concealing himself authority
under the mantle of Moses. But apart from this toDlut*hi^
altogether, the whole hypothesis must break down consistent
^ . ^^ with the
on the Mosaic dress ; this we shall show in the later date.
present section. True, it is pointed out with
great emphasis that it would naturally occur to
Israelitish lawgivers — nay, that they really could
do nothing else than introduce new laws under
the authority of Moses. Thus Cornill, for ex-
ample (as above, p. 37 and foil.), says: *' D. was
certainly written not long before its publication,
for it was calculated from the beginning in view
of this : it appears to me inadmissible that it goes
C
18 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
back to the time of Manasseh. Then, however,
we must also recognise the fact that we have here
a pseudepigraph, and that this fact was known to
those chiefly interested in it — an instructive
evidence that even then Moses was to the Jewish
mind the lawgiver and founder of religion Kar
i^o')(r)v, so that only under his name a later writer
could reckon on a hearing as a religious lawgiver.
And this must be the excuse for those men, that
they saw no other means of carrying out their
work planned in the spirit of Moses and for the
honour of Jahwe." This sounds all very pretty ;
only it is a pity that you should yourself have
already sawn off the branch on which you want
to sit ; for all the laws which are attributed to
Moses you have denied to him ; to put others, of
which we know nothing, in their place is the
purest arbitrariness. Of the laws which are before
us only the few legal directions of the Books of
the Covenant (Ex. xx.-xxiii. and xxxiv.) would
have been regarded as Mosaic at the time of the
discovery of Deut. ; yet are we to believe that
no other course was possible than to attribute
to Moses all new laws ? If therefore the effort to
prove the Mosaic disguise to be necessary, or even
only probable, does not succeed, then this dress
would have been absolutely excluded, because the
new legislation, according to the view of modern
criticism, was in the sharpest contradiction to that
MOSAIC DRESS INEXPLICABLE 19
which was hitherto regarded as Mosaic ; for it is
said to be taught in Ex. xx. 24 that Moses
expressly permitted the offering of sacrifices
everywhere, whereas in Deut. the whole emphasis
is laid on the instruction that sacrifice must only
be offered in the central sanctuary (comp. especi-
ally chap. xii.). I should really like to know
not only how it would have occurred to the
authors, but how it was possible at all for them
to put their legislation in the mouth of Moses/
The result which they would have liked to attain
by means of the Mosaic dress, they would have
made from the first, by means of it, illusory and
impossible. The contradiction between the in-
structions recognised as Mosaic must have shown
only too clearly that the newly-found book of the
law was not Mosaic, but an innovation. Only in
passing we may point out that it was an incred-
ible optimism on the part of the authors, if they
expected from the reference to Moses permanent
results on the part of a thoroughly lost people
who cared neither for the living prophets nor for
their God."^ The result proved at least that the
reformation of worship under Josiah was only able
^ I see besides, even in view of the legislative directions attri-
buted to Moses which differ in cardinal points from one another,
no better way than to attribute them to him, at least so far as their
kernel and essential substance are concerned.
- A friend who has read this translation in MS. says here : " If
they hear not Moses and the prophets, yet they will be persuaded
if one forge a Mosaic treatise."" — Trans.
20 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
to fan a fire of straw. Moreover, it is hardly
credible that this important book of laws should
have been assigned to the end of Moses' life if,
as modern criticism alleges, Deut was never-
theless the first detailed legislation attributed to
Moses. But these are all merely subordinate
elements in comparison with what has been argued
above, with which one other point may be classed
as of equal significance.
We must not regard the Mosaic dress as if it
were a matter of comparative indifference. On
its consistent accomplishment the success of the
whole would depend, as will be seen more
particularly from § 4. For then it would have
been above all things necessary to give the book
such an antiquarian appearance that it might
reckon on credence for its claim to be Mosaic.
But if we reflect how difificult it is even to-day to
give such an ancient appearance to new subjects,
we cannot understand how the authors of Deut.
could have given themselves credit for such very
fabulous skill ; I think that on this ground alone
they could not have arrived at the idea of attributing
their legislation, not merely in its substance but in
its writing, to Moses (comp. Deut. xxxi. 9).
The effect
produced 4- -^ut let US really suppose that the authors
deception ^^^ "°^ permit themselves to be deterred from the
is incred- Mosaic dress by the last-named difficulty, still our
EFFECT OF THE DECEPTION 21
astonishment grows when we hear of the result.
The new book of laws must have been disagree-
able to all, as we shall presently see — certainly
ground enough for all to examine very closely
into its genuineness. But the dress must have
been such a masterly success in form, appearance,
and substance, that not even the smallest doubt
could arise as to its genuineness. It is true that
the circumstances soon became just as bad as
they had been before ; the enthusiasm and the
alarm disappeared as quickly as they had come ;
men sinned exactly as before ; but there is no-
where the slightest hint that any one had dared
to question the genuineness of this book of the
law (comp., for example, Jer. xxxiv. 8 and foil.,
where the law Deut. xv. 1 2 and foil, had been
transgressed, but nothing is urged against the
appeal of Jeremiah to Deut. Jeremiah stands
on one point on the same ground with the
transgressors ; both regard Deut. as Mosaic).
Let us examine a little more in detail.
The whole people — with its spiritual leaders,
the priests and the prophets (2 Kings xxiii. 2) —
allows itself to be deceived, and does not observe
that laws appear here as Mosaic which are in
mutually exclusive opposition to what has been
up to the present considered as such. This is
the more remarkable, as it would not be entirely
a matter of indifference to the people whether
22 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
they should suddenly pay dues to their priests
(comp. Deut. xviii. i and foil.), whether they
should and must perform their worship only at
the central sanctuary, whether they had to fulfil
the other numerous burdensome directions. It
is the more remarkable, as every decaying age is
specially inclined to be critical. How thoroughly
the authorities, how thoroughly the whole people
know in Jer. xxvi. 7 and foil, whether or not the
religious conceptions of the prophet agree with
those hitherto accepted. It is finally the more
remarkable, as the people in those days only sub-
mitted themselves to the religious yoke with
extreme reluctance, and soon transgressed the
law again, without being able to challenge its
genuineness.
The priests of the high places allow themselves
to be deceived, and yet they are thereby thrown
out of their own special calling ; for it was but a
slight compensation, when they were permitted to
perform service at the sanctuary — with which
they had always been occupied — to have to share
the revenues also with a multitude of other priests.
The central priesthood allow themselves to be
deceived ; even they cannot refuse to acknowledge
the book of the law, and yet the instruction
(Deut. xviii. 6 and foil.) " that henceforth those
who have hitherto been country priests shall have
a claim to the priestly service in the temple
THE PROPHETS DECEIVED 23
and to the priestly dues," weakens all possible
advantages, and must therefore be disagreeable to
them also (comp. Kautzsch, p. 167).
King Josiah allows himself to be deceived, and
has to submit to the authority of the book of the
law. When he sends to Huldah the prophetess,
it is not for the purpose of testing the genuine-
ness of the book, which is firmly established in
his sight (comp. 2 Kings xxii. 1 3), but to ask
whether the threaten ings of the book are to be
fulfilled (this is the only explanation which fits
the answer of the prophetess, 2 Kings xxii. 1 5
and fol!.). Yet how disagreeable to the king
must be the book of the law which blamed him
and his ancestors and put them in the pillory
(comp. 2 Kings xxii. 13, 16 and foil.)!
The prophets allow themselves to be deceived
— Huldc.h and even Jeremiah, and the latter so
much so that he goes through the streets ol
Jerusalem and the cities of Judah and defends
Deuteronomy as the legislation of Moses (comp.
Jer. xi.) ; and yet Jeremiah is the very prophet
who unhesitatingly exposes the false prophecy
of his contemporaries {e.g. Jer. xxix. and foil.), and
who on other occasions knows so exactly what is
God's Thora and what is not (comp. e.g. Jer. viii.
8).^ Must he, therefore, not have noticed that
^ Criticism certainly makes Jeremiah hesitate in his relation to
Deut. On :his, and opposed to it, the striking remarks of Breden-
kamp (as above quoted, pp. 101-108) may be specially noted.
24 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
here something was smuggled in under a false
mark ?
We can only say that the result would be
absolutely incredible, if modern criticism was
right in its view of the origin of Deut. ; nay, it
is so incredible that the latter, for this reason
alone, cannot be right. The more one is
otherwise inclined to assume sources in Deut.
and to ascribe it therefore to various authors
(comp. e.g. Cornill, Kautzsch, Steuernagel), the
more mysterious would it be that nothing of the
secret work came to light. For this must of
necessity be assumed, otherwise the result would
have been impossible from the first.
Moreover, it is quite an obscure conception
under which criticism sometimes acts, as if
Deut. had no further concern with its outward
dress, and as if it even allowed this sometimes to
appear clearly. We saw how many interests
would be injured by Deut., and how the un-
paralleled result was from the first impossible, if
the disguise were not carried out in an absolutely
masterly and flawless fashion. If it were really
so, as Kautzsch (p. i68) represents, that "the
Deuteronomist often (as in xii. 2 in the perfect
'served' [their gods]) lets the disguise appear
clearly, that he, in fact, addresses a people long
settled, living in the midst of a tolerably highly-
advanced worship " — this would be the strongest
AGAINST LATER DATE 25
possible refutation of the possibility of the modern
view of the origin of Deut.
5. {a) Up to this point we have seen that the The
modern date of Deut. not only has not the narra- of Deut.
tive of 2 Kings xxii. and foil, in its favour, ^*^®^^ ,. ,
but against it (§ i ) ; we have proved that it t^ie later
meets with invincible difficulties as soon as we
try to reduce the idea to actual form ; we find no
suitable author (§ 2) ; we cannot understand how
the author could choose the Mosaic disguise
(§ 3) > w^ must find it incredible that he could
succeed with his pretence without being un-
masked (§ 4). Now we enter upon Deut. itself,
and inquire whether, in its contents at least, it
corresponds to the modern view ; but here it is
absolutely clear that the origin of the book cannot
be made contemporaneous with the reformation
of worship under Josiah. According to modern
criticism, Deut. was produced with the view
of effecting what it did effect. Its result was
its aim ; it was aimed from the first at the refor-
mation of worship, such as took place in 623, and
it therefore owed its origin to the untenable con-
ditions of religion and worship at that time.
Thus Cornill (as above, p. 37) says : " D. was
certainly produced not long before its publi-
cation ; for it was from the beginning calculated
with a view to this." In it, according to Kautzsch
26 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
(as above, p. i66), a great problem was solved:
" The restoration of a comprehensive body of
religious and civil laws in behalf of a transforma-
tion of the prevailing practice in the state and in
worship." I must say at once that it seems to
me a very difficult idea that in the seventh century
such a reform in the civil and municipal sphere
should have been combined with one planned in
the sphere of religion and worship. If such abuses
existed as are described in 2 Kings xxii. and
foil., and Deut. had for its aim their abolition,
everything else must of necessity have been put
aside, and the laws which relate to civil reforma-
tion could scarcely have found a place beside
those others. But if the whole life of the state
and the citizen was equally regulated in Deut.,
then assuredly the observation of Delitzsch
is appropriate (as above. No. 10) that Deut. xii.-
xxvi. appears intelligible as an ideal sketch-like
project for a people which is just about to become
a state, but is on the other hand quite inadequate
for a state centuries old. Deut. therefore will,
in the first place, not fit in with the reforma-
tion of worship, on account of its inclusion of the
civil sphere ; and, on the other hand, the sketch-
like character of the whole points to a much more
ancient time.
But even if we were willing to admit that
Deut. could have had so general an aim, and
UNITY OF WORSHIP 27
could have carried it out, if it had originated
in the seventh century, we ought at least to
expect that all the instructions would bear an
obvious relation to this aim ; as a matter of fact,
however, we only find a whole series of laws
which have no such relation, and therefore are, to
say the least, superfluous, and, in the mind of
reformers, unintelligible. On the other hand,
the very instructions which should and did pro-
duce the reformation in worship arc given quite
differently from what we should expect. Let us
begin with the later ones, for us the more im-
portant. We may connect this with what we
proved above (§ i , a). There we showed that the
reference in 2 Kings xxii. and foil, was to the
abolition of idolatry and to purification of worship,
and that the concentration of worship, on the
other hand, was an element absolutely introduced
for the first time by criticism, or at any rate first
brought into the foreground by it. We must
therefore conclude that a book of laws which was
written with a view to the production of the
reformation of worship described in 2 Kings xxii.
and foil, would have had to lay the whole
emphasis on the prohibition of idolatry and the
command of a pure worship, whereas the em-
phasising of united worship must have been a
subject of quite remote interest, since Jerusalem
was full of idolatry. That our contention is
28 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
correct is clear from a comparison with the
prophets who had to strive against the same
religious abuses as appear in 2 Kings xxii. and
foil. They declare war against idolatry (comp.
e.g. Jer. iii. 6, 9, i 3 ; xiii. 27 ; xvi. 16, 18 ; xvii. 2
ii. 20 and foil.; i. 10 and foil.; Ez. vi. 1-6
xviii. 6, 15 ; xx. 28 and foil.; xliv. 10 and foil,
viii. ; xvi. ; xxiii., and elsewhere). But nowhere
does Jeremiah expressly demand that Jahwe
shall be worshipped in Jerusalem only. Just as
little does Ezekiel denounce the multiplicity of
altars in itself (comp. Bredenkamp, as above, pp.
1 68- 1 71). It must have been the same with
Deut. if it had really originated for the pur-
pose of abolishing the abuses described. As a
matter of fact its point of view is quite different ;
here the demand for unity of worship does actually
stand in the foreground ; it is not necessary to
quote particular passages, for this thought runs
through the whole book from chap. xii. onwards ;
and it is the less necessary, as on this point we
find ourselves in entire agreement with our
opponents. But inasmuch as the idea of con-
centration of worship was only introduced into
2 Kings xxii. and foil, by criticism, or, at any
rate, put in the foreground by it, and hence the
artificially-created agreement between that narra-
tive and the book of the law has really no
existence, the most important support for the
TREATMENT OF IDOLATRY 29
modern view falls to the ground. I lay great
stress upon this point in particular.
On the other hand, the prohibition of idolatry Deut.
does also certainly appear in Deut. along with chiefly at
the command for unity of worship, but in a ^^^j^ship
comparatively subordinate way, whereas, with the and only
^ "^ in a slight
aim which is ascribed to Deut., it ought to degree at
have been in the very centre. And now let us of
observe, further, the method in which this idolatry i^^ol^^^y.
is treated. If Deut. had really in view the
abolition of the abuses described in 2 Kings
xxii. and foil, was it conceivable that they should
be treated as something entirely problematical and
only likely to appear in the future (see Deut. xiii.)?
was it then conceivable that the community should
appear quite blameless on this point, so blameless
that they could be entrusted with executive power
against the transgressors (xiii. i and foil. ; xvii. 2
and foil.) ? and, finally, was it conceivable that,
with the general spread of idolatry in the time of
Josiah, the death punishment should be appointed
for this offence, a punishment which certainly
was only practicable so long as idolatry was con-
fined to isolated cases ?
In short, I hold it indeed as possible that
the newly-discovered Deut. could effect the re-
formation of worship described in 2 Kings xxii.
and foil., since it actually forbade everything
which was then abolished ; but I regard it as
30 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
absolutely impossible that a book of laws specially
prepared for this reformation could be clothed in
this form, so that (i) besides the reformation of
worship, a transformation of the life of the citizen
and the state was intended ; so that (2) the
principal subject in the book of laws (unity of
worship) had little or nothing to do with that
reformation ; and so that (3) conversely, that
which was the most important element in the
reformation (abolition of idolatry) appeared only
as a secondary feature in the book of laws.
Finally, let us note also the difference between
Deut. xviii. 6 and foil, and 2 Kings xxiii. 9.
Deut. xviii. 6 and foil, runs : " And if a Levite
come from any of thy gates out of all Israel, where
he sojourned, and come with all the desire of his
mind unto the place which the Lord shall choose ;
then he shall minister in the name of the Lord
his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, which
stand there before the Lord. They shall have
like portions to eat," etc. According to the
modern view as to the origin of Deuteronomy, we
must understand by the word " Levites " priests of
high places, who, by the concentration of worship,
would have lost their occupation and their
means of support. Deut., which shows itself
human throughout, would then grant as com-
pensation, as it were, to these " hitherto country
priests a right to the priestly service in the temple
TREATMENT OF LEVITES 31
and to the priestly dues " (Kautzsch, as above,
p. 167). Yet this alone is sufficient to show the
impossibility of the modern hypothesis. Deutero-
nomy may be as human as possible ; but that it
understands no trifling in religious matters we see
from Deut. xiii. i and foil., where the seducers to
idolatry and those who are seduced are to be put
to death. How can it then concede that favour
to the idolatrous priests — and those who were
removed in 2 Kings xxii. and foil, were such —
and in general provide expressly for the Levites
(cf. Deut. xviii. 6 and foil. ; xii. 12, 19 ; xiv. 27 ;
xvi. II, 14 ; xxvi. 11, 12 and foil.)? It is there-
fore inconceivable that those Levites mentioned in
xviii. 6 were deposed priests of the high places ;
but then Deut. must necessarily belong to a
different period.
Besides, Deut. xviii. 6, 7 would be in strict con-
tradiction to 2 Kings XX "■ • "Nevertheless the
priests of the high places came noi up to the altar
of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they did eat of the
unleavened bread among their brethren." Here
that would be expressly forbidden to them, which
was conceded to them in Deut. xviii. 6, 7. From
this also it follows that Deut. cannot have been
written in order to produce that reformation;
it would be quite incomprehensible how Deut.
xviii. 6, 7 could have been evaded, unless the
priests of the high places had offered the most
32 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
determined and successful resistance, appealing to
Deut. xviii. 6, 7 (comp. Bredenkamp, as above,
p. 135). Deut. xviii. 6 and foil, does not refer at
all to the priests of the high places.
If we thus see that the commands of Deut.
will not fit in at all with the aim assigned
to it, on the other side we note that just in
connexion with the supposed aim of Deut.
an extensive legislation on worship and ritual
might be expected ; it is wanting, and, according
to modern criticism, appears instead in a place
where they had nothing to do with the question
of public worship, i.e. in exile. Certainly this
omission here again contradicts the modern date
of Deut.
Individual {b) After the more essential discussions we re-
tions of member also a number of individual injunctions
^®^^ ^. . which have no relation to the alleged plan of
contradict ^ °
later date, reform, and, therefore, remain inexplicable in view
of the practical tendency of Deut. From the
large number we select only a few of special
importance, because the fundamental explanations
already given seem to us quite convincing, and
we prefer not to delay unnecessarily long over
such details. We may refer any one who does
not find enough here I0 Havernick (as above,
p. 460 and foil.), Delitzsch (as above. No. 11),
Kleinert (as above, Third Essay), and Schulz (as
above, p. 72 and foil.), even though all the
TREATMENT OF CANAANITES 33
passages adduced by them are not conclusive.
Whoever has been convinced by the above ex-
aminations even to a moderate extent, will not
deny the significance and importance of such
single passages for our inquiries.
On the assumption that Deut. was aiming Exter-
at a transformation of existing circumstances, of the
what is the meaning of the oft-recurring warning j^^g^^°"
to exterminate the Canaanites, thus well marked
at a time when as a people they had long
ceased to exist and no longer possessed fortified
towns, but at the most dwelt in the land as
isolated settlers ? True, it is answered that this
occurs because at that very time an idolatry
identical with, or resembling, the Canaanitish
worship was being practised ; this commands
attention and is quite evident for the moment.
But if we look a little closer, it is at once clear
that this explanation is utterly insufficient. If it
were correct, we should expect that a warning
would only be given against the Canaanitish
worship as is done in Deut. xii. I and foil. On
the contrary, the warning, given with repeated
emphasis and increasing vigour, that the Canaan-
itish people themselves are to be extirpated,
remains unexplained, and appears, to say the least,
superfluous, because in the seventh century what
is here enjoined had been long since fulfilled.
What is, in particular, the meaning of the words
D
34 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
intended to reassure them in Deut. vii. 1 8 and
foil., which are only intelligible if the readers or
hearers of Deut. were afraid ? What is the
meaning, in the seventh century, of the command
to exterminate the Canaanites gradually, with the
noteworthy reason that the wild beasts would
otherwise become too numerous (comp. vii. 22)?
What, finally, is the meaning, in the seventh
century, of the law (Deut. xx. 1 6 and foil.) which
commands that on the conquest of the Canaanitish
cities the interdict is to be scrupulously executed,
and not a soul to be left alive, if there had been
for a long time no Canaanitish cities left ? If,
then, it remains that this objection, already long
brought forward against the modern date of
Deut, has not hitherto been weakened, it must
be that the authors are credited with quite a
fabulous refinement in their work. The same may
be said in the following instances.
Laws The passage last adduced is taken from the
going so-called laws of warfare (see especially xx. 1-15,
forth xxiv. 5), in connection with which quite a series of
to -war. "^ ^' ^
thoughts arise, which are most decidedly opposed
to the modern date. It is in the first place
scarcely conceivable that in the beginning of the
seventh century instructions should have been
given as to how they were to act in besieging
cities very far away from them, and this too out-
side Canaan (comp. xx. 10-15 with ver. 16); at that
LAWS ABOUT WAR 35
time distant wars were the last thing they thought
of. According as xx. 19 and foil, is understood
to refer to Canaanitish or to foreign cities, these
verses fall under the first or the second of the
points just treated.
But if we actually assume in the seventh
century such a lust for conquest, if we further
assume that it was supported by the prophetically
guided author of Deuteronomy, how are we to
explain instructions such as xx. 5, 6, 7, 8, and
xxiv. 5, that any one who has built a new house,
planted a vineyard, who has been betrothed or
newly married, nay, even every one who is faint-
hearted, is not required to go forth to war ? This
is intelligible in the case of a people who still
expect that after their immigration Jahwe himself
will defend Israel and break all their enemies in
pieces (comp. Ex. xxiii. 22 and foil, 27-31), but
not any longer at a time when they must often
enough have seen that the people could be
abandoned to their enemies and become tributary
to them, nay, even annihilated by them, as had
happened a short time before to the northern
kingdom through Asshur. How, finally, is it
conceivable in the seventh century that the law
(Deut. XX. 1-9) which treats of going forth to
war could leave the king entirely unobserved and
disregarded, and mentioned in his stead only
priests and officers ? It need not be objected
36 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
that in this case the Mosaic dress is put on ;
for that Deut. elsewhere thinks of the king is
clearly proved by xxviii. 36 and xvii. 14 and
foil. If, therefore, there had been already a king
at the time of the origin of Deut, we should
expect that the law which must concern him in
the very first degree would have introduced him
with some such formula as " the king who shall be
in those days."
Reference Further, we may refer to Deut. xxv. 17-19,
Amaiek- where Israel is reminded of what the Amalekites
Deut'xxv^ ^^^ *^ them in the journey through the wilderness
earlier (comp. Ex. xvii. 8-1 O, and the duty of utterly
than time ,, , r
of Saul, blotting them out from the earth is forcibly incul-
cated. This instruction is quite inconceivable in
the seventh century, because there were then no
longer any Amalekites. We would have to
go back with Deut. at least to the time of
Hezekiah (727-699), under whose reign, according
to I Chron. iv. 41-43, the last survivors of the
Amalekites were annihilated by five hundred
Simeonites. But even that would not suffice ; for
so miserable a remnant, which could be destroyed
by five hundred men surrounding them, would not
explain the solemn inculcation of the command in
Deut. xxv. 17 and foil., which clearly assumes a
people still in its vigour. But the Amalekites
had already ceased to exist as a people since the
time of David (see i Sam. xxx. i, 17); nay, the
THE PROPHETIC LAW 37
vengeance required in Deut. for that which
Amalek had once done to Israel had been executed
under Saul, who destroyed all the men of war
(comp. I Sam. xv. i-8, especially ver. 2, "I remem-
ber that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid
wait for him in the way, when he came up from
Egypt," with Deut. xxv. 17). Deut. xxv. 17-19
must, therefore, be placed farther back even than
the time of Saul.
A further consideration which makes the Deutxriii.
modern date impossible is the prophetic law incon-
xviii. 9 and foil. Deut. xxxiv. is generally held ^^^^*^^
not to be by Moses, even by Hengstenberg, date.
Havernick and Kohler, because the death of
Moses is here narrated. In ver. 10 of that chapter
it is said : " There arose not a prophet since in
Israel like unto Moses." If then Moses appeared
to later times in such unattainable height, how
could he be compared by the authors of Deut.
to other prophets (comp. xviii. 15, 18, "The
Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet
from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like
unto me ; unto him shall ye hearken. ... I
will raise them up a prophet from among their
brethren like unto thee ") ? It was precisely on
comparing these words with Deut. xxxiv. 10 that
they appeared to me as only modest utterances of
Moses, but not intelligible in the mouths of others.
Absolutely inadequate and inappropriate for the
38 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
seventh century would be the sign given in Deut.
xviii. 22, by which the false prophet is to be
recognised : " When a prophet speaketh in the
name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor
come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath
not spoken : the prophet hath spoken it pre-
sumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him."
How is that possible at a time when prophecies
of really genuine prophets had not been fulfilled,
because Jahwe repented of his word and penitence
took place ; compare, for example, the threatening,
Micah iii. 12, with Jer. xxvi. 18 and foil. How,
above all, in the seventh century, could the false
prophets be virtually described as those who
prophesied evil (Deut. xviii. 22, "thou shalt not
be afraid of him "), whereas the false prophets of
that time prophesied good instead of evil (comp.
I Kings xxii. 22 and foil. ; Is. ix. 15 ; Jer. iv. 9,
xiv. 14 and foil., xxiii. 16 and foil., xxix. 8 and
foil. ; Ez. xiii. 10, 16)?
Threats Finally, we recall the way in which the exile is
in Deut. threatened (chap, xxviii. and foil.). In the seventh
"^tT^^th ^^°^"^y ^^^ threatening would hardly have been
later date, pronounced in such general terms, inasmuch as
Asshur, and since Isaiah's time Babel also, had
come within the horizon of the prophets. But it
would have been absolutely incomprehensible to
threaten to bring the people back again into Egypt
(xxviii. 68). Similarly the reference in the kingly
THE LAW ABOUT THE KING 39
law (Deut. xvii. i6) is unintelligible at any other
time than that of Moses ; for no king ever showed
any desire to take the whole people back to Egypt
in order to obtain many horses. The same is
true of ver. 15:" one from thy brethren shalt thou
set king over thee ; thou mayst not put a foreigner
over thee, which is not thy brother." There was
never any idea in Judah of making a foreigner
king. What then could be the meaning of
such a law ? If, moreover, Deut. dated from the
time of Josiah, if a king already existed at all, the
few directions would be quite inadequate to lay
down his duties. For other points compare
Hengstenberg (" Authentic des Pentateuch," the
third vol. of his Beitrdge, pp. 246-261). Further,
what object could there be in the seventh century
in the instruction (xxvii. 1-8) to write the law
upon stones and to set them up on Mount Ebal ?
We could continue in this way for a consider-
able time, but I think the instances I have cited
are quite sufficient ; some of them would only be
comprehensible if the Mosaic covering was carried
out in the most skilful manner ; but the/est remain
quite unintelligible even then, and therefore of
necessity go much farther back.
Thus, then, this section has shown us how the
modern view of the origin of Deut. breaks down in
the contents also ; neither the fundamental ideas
nor a series of particular commands agree with the
40 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
narrative in 2 Kings xxii. and foil., and the aim
attributed to Deut.,orwith the seventh century at all.
Distinct 6. We propose to prove in this section that
Deut. in before 623 distinct traces of Deut, or at any rate
fon?^^^ of the fundamental ideas represented in it, are
before already in existence which make it impossible,
623 B.C. . t , , t- f
or improbable, to place its origin only a short
time before its discovery. We pass by, in this
connexion, the passages in the books of Kings in
v/hich the reign of particular kings is judged
according to the principles laid down in Deutero-
nomy ; for if the supposed constructor of
Deuteronomy assumed that Deuteronomy was
already known to the kings, he might judge them
according to that standard, even though he should
have been quite in error in his assumption. It is
different with those passages in which particular
actions are undertaken on the ground of the
commands in Deuteronomy. To these we may
appeal ; for otherwise the editor of Deuteronomy
would not judge on Deuteronomic principles only,
but would simply invent. That this makes a
great difference is clear ; unfortunately it has not
often been observed on the side of criticism, and
the critics have not shrunk from crediting the
author of Deuteronomy with such construction
and invention of history. We refrain from enter-
ing on the objectionableness of such a mode of
HEZEKIAH AND MOSAIC LAW 41
conduct, and only remind our readers that we
then lose at once the slightest possibility of
knowing anything at all of the history of Israel.
Here also they cut away the branch on which
they sit ; for the Deuteronomist could have in-
vented the narrative in 2 Kings xxii. and foil,
which is attributed to him just as well as other
incidents which suited his view of history. For
this reason Eichthal {^Melanges de critique biblique^
Paris, 1886) and Vernes {Une nouvelle hypothese
sur la composition et Vorigine deuterono^ne. Examen
des vues de M. G. Eichthal, Paris, 1887), who
regard Deut., in spite of the narrative in 2 Kings
xxii. and foil., as post-exilic, can rightly claim
to be consistent After this preliminary remark let
us pass on to the passages themselves.
2 Kings xviii. 4-6 runs thus : " He (Hezekiah)
removed the high places, and brake the images
and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the
brazen serpent that Moses had made ; for unto
those days the children of Israel did burn incense
to it ; and he called it Nehushtan. He trusted
in the Lord God of Israel ; so that after him was
none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor
any that were before him. For he clave to the
Lord and departed not from following him, and
kept his commandments, which the Lord com-
manded Moses." And in ver. 22, Rabshakeh, the
general of the Assyrian king Sennacherib, says to
42 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
the representatives of Hezekiah : " But if ye say
unto me, We trust in the Lord our God ; is it not
he whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah
hath taken away, and hath said to Judah and
Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar in
Jerusalem ? " True, this very verse is appealed to
in order to prove that the reformation of worship
under Hezekiah was an arbitrary one, and not
produced by Divine command (comp. Kuenen,
as above, i. p. 205, § 2 ; and Steuernagel, Die
Entstehung des deuteronomischen Gesetzes, p. 81
and foil.). But how can they then insist that
Rabshakeh, to whom the destruction of the high
places and the altars of Jahwe must have appeared
repugnant in the sight of God, since as a heathen
he could have no appreciation of the demand for
unity of worship, must have expressly added that
Hezekiah had acted according to the Divine
command ? But what was not only unnecessary
but impossible in the mouth of Rabshakeh is
clearly enough stated in vers. 4-6. This is ad-
mitted even by Steuernagel.
But when the historicity of that reformation of
worship at all is called in question (as by Smend,
Stade, and Wellhausen), they cannot argue from
the fact that it was not permanent ; it was not a
whit better with the reformation of Josiah (comp.
Jer. iii. 10; Ez. viii.), and Wellhausen himself
says (as above, p. 28), " If the people of Judah
HEZEKIAH AND JOSIAH 43
had remained quietly in their own land, the
reformation of Josiah would hardlyjhave penetrated
among the people because the threads which
bound the present to the past were too strong " ;
the best and most striking proof, besides, that
even in the view of Wellhausen himself Deut.,
even though it be supposed to have originated in
the seventh century, does not agree at all, or
only very superficially, with the history ! If it is
pointed out that the narrative in 2 Kings xxii.
and foil, goes so much more into detail, and that
the reformation of Josiah made so much more
noise (Wellhausen), this proves nothing, but is
quite in agreement with the fact that in 2 Kings
xviii. the question was indeed the purification of
worship, but for the rest, the abolition of the
worship of Jahwe in the high places ; whereas in
2 Kings xxii. and foil, it was the abolition of
actual idolatry (see above) ; compare 2 Kings
xviii. 4 with ver. 22, and the difference between
the two reformations also according to the reports
of the chronicler, 2 Chron. xxx. 14, xxxi. i in
contrast with 2 Chron. xxxiv. 24 and foil. From
these it is further evident that the reformation
under Josiah was naturally a quite specially
notable event on account of the sudden discovery
of the book of the law. Moreover, no one knows
how the Deuteronomist could have come to ascribe
a reformation to Hezekiah ; perhaps because he
44 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
was pious ? But then he surely must have narrated
other reformations for us !
If then we have no reason to dispute the
historicity of that event, it is on the other hand
pure caprice to regard it — in contrast with the
narrative in 2 Kings xviii. — as the presupposition
for the Deuteronomic legislation instead of as the
consequence of it (in opposition to Steuernagel
and Kuenen) ; this can certainly not be proved,
and it seems to me on historical grounds quite
preposterous to take out of a narrative what suits
ourselves, and on the other hand to reject other
points on which the former seems to depend.
The same manoeuvre could be carried out, besides,
in the case of 2 Kings xxii. and foil. Here the
alternative holds good : either the narrative is
historical, and we have no reason to doubt it, and
then we have a clear trace of Deuteronomy ; or it
was invented by the Deuteronomist, and then we
may fairly question also the historicity of 2 Kings
xxii. and foil., in which case the secure starting-
point of modern criticism would disappear !
A second passage, 2 Kings xiv. 6, runs :
" But the children of the murderers he (Amaziah,
king of Judah, 797-779) slew not ; according to
that which is written in the law of Moses, where-
in the Lord commanded, saying. The fathers shall
not be put to death for the children, nor the
children be put to death for the fathers ; but
DEUT. KNOWN TO AMOS 45
every man shall be put to death for his own
sin." Here also it is narrated that the king was
influenced by Deut. (see xxiv. i6) not to execute
whole families of the murderers of his father,
but to limit himself to the actual criminals.
Similarly Jos. viii. 30 and foil, may be com-
pared, where the command given in Deut. xxvii.
I and foil., to write the Deuteronomic book of
the law upon stones and to set them up on Mount
Ebal, is carried out.
Amos and Hosea, too, must have known
Deut. ; thus the expression (Hos. iv. 4) " thy
people are as they that strive with the priest"
is scarcely intelligible without acquaintance with
Deut. xvii. 12. Similarly the reproach against
the priests in Hos. iv. 14 who sacrifice with
harlots presupposes the instruction of Deut.
xxiii. 18 ; and the expression in Hos. v. 10, "the
princes of Judah were like them that remove the
bound," the law of Deut. xix. 14.^ Amos iv. 4
can only be properly understood if it contains an
amplification of the command in Deut. xiv. 28.
We will content ourselves with these instances ;
it is clear from them not only that Deut.
was already in existence at the time of Hosea
and Amo^ but that it had authoritative force
^ It may be re. ked by the way that it is absolutely incom-
prehensible how this passage can be adduced against Mosaic
authorship ; if Moses wanted to give this instruction as permanently
binding on the people, he could not have formulated it better.
46 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
even before the division of the kingdom ; for
otherwise, in view of the opposition to Judah, it
would never have been accepted in the northern
kingdom and would have been quite unknown
there.
But we must go farther back. It is main-
tained, indeed, that by the place "which the
Lord shall choose to cause his name to dwell
there" (see Deut. xii. ii, 14, etc.) Jerusalem is
meant, and that it was just before the building
of the temple that it made its demand for unity
of worship. So far as may be meant thereby
that Deut. drops its Mosaic dress, we have
already spoken on that subject (see p. 24). In
support of this, appeal cannot be made to the clause
" when he giveth you rest from all your enemies
round about" (Deut. xii. 10), which necessarily
presupposes the time of Solomon. Certainly
Solomon wants to build a house for God, because
he had given him rest on every side (see i Kings
V. 4 and foil.). But Israel was also to wreak
vengeance on Amalek and destroy it only when
the Lord had given them rest from all their enemies
round about (Deut. xxv. 17-19), and this com-
mand was already executed by Saul, and there-
fore long before the building of the temple (see i
Sam. XV. 1-8, esp. ver. 2)! We have, besides,
Jeremiah on our side, for he plainly says (chap.
vii. 12) that Jahwe set his name in Shiloh before
CENTRAL SANCTUARY 47
the choice of Jerusalem. According to him,
therefore, the central sanctuary of Deut. already-
existed there, and we have every reason to put
more confidence in him, since he was in closer
relation to the history and tradition of his people,
and could and must have fuller knowledge of it
than modern criticism could have. Besides, his
view is confirmed by the historical narratives, i
Sam. i.-iii., where Shiloh actually appears as the
central sanctuary. Not only does Elkanah the
Ephraimite betake himself there year by year, in
order to pray and offer sacrifice (i Sam. i. 3), but
all the Israelites come there to offer sacrifice (chap,
ii. 14) and the sons of Eli transgressed against
all Israel (ii. 22, 23). The ark of the covenant
was there, the palladium of the whole people,
which assured them of the presence of Jahwe
(see chap. iii. 3, iv. 3, and also Judges xxi. 19).
Thus from the combination of Jer. vii. 12
with the history it follows that the Deutero-
nomic requirement of a central sanctuary was
already in force at the time of the Judges.
But the idea of unity of worship has nothing
doubtful or difficult in it even at the time of
Moses, even if Moses had given Israel nothing
further than its national Deity. And con-
versely, criticism does not succeed in discovering
elements the operation of which must have led
in the seventh century to the concentration of
48 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
worship. The reference to the deliverance of
Jerusalem from the danger threatening it through
Sennacherib is absolutely incorrect. If Jerusalem
was saved although Jahwe was worshipped at
various places, that was surely the best proof that
Jahwe was satisfied with the prevailing conditions.
The concentration of worship at Jerusalem must
lie the farther away from the time of Manasseh,
Amon and Josiah, as Jerusalem was a very seat
of idolatry and nature-worship (comp. Kohler, as
above, iii. 157, note i).
Modern criticism, indeed, takes much credit to
itself for showing the development of religion ;
but very erroneously. According to it we can-
not speak of a development the result of which,
in principle, was in existence from the beginning
and therefore really necessary, but only of the
tricks of history which are brought about by
accidents. So here. Deut. xii. compared with
Ex. XX. 24 signifies no development, but a
revolution the result of which, it is alleged, was
in no way prepared for, and which was as foreign
to and out of sympathy with the spirit of the
people as, according to the Biblical view, the
legislation once given by Moses had been. So
far, modern criticism shows no advance on the
Biblical view ; but the latter has an important
advantage over it ; according to it there is really
a development, namely, in the understanding of
NEW DIFFICULTIES CREATED 49
the revelation ; the people are led by their history
more and more to acknowledge those laws (on
this point see especially J. Robertson's volume).
If we say that Deut. in its fundamental
ideas must be Mosaic, we do not of course mean
that particular laws could not have been incor-
porated later on ; this would have to be the
subject of further inquiries. If it should then be
found that individual laws indicate a later time,
this we could calmly recognise. It can prove
nothing against the whole. The difficulties are
not solved by the acceptance of modern criticism,
but insoluble riddles are then indeed created.
Finally, we adduce here one more passage,
which is an argument for the great antiquity
of Deut. — Judges xvii. and foil. There the
Ephraimite Micah has appointed one of his sons
as his priest for his domestic worship. A wander-
ing Levite casually arrives there. Micah detains
him, appoints him as his priest and says (Judges
xvii. 13), " Now know I that the Lord will do
me good, seeing I have a Levite to my priest."
How would that be possible, if even in the decay-
ing time of the judges there was not still at least
the remembrance that Levi was appointed to
the priestly office ? This too points to the
Mosaic origin of Deut (comp. Deut. x. 8 and
foil., xviii. 1-8, xxxiii. 8-1 1).
As it is not our work here to discuss the
E
50 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
further evidence for and against the Mosaic origin,
we may refer to Hengstenberg, Havernick and
Schulz, and also to Kleinert. That, in particular,
the prophets presuppose the unity of worship,
and that those who preceded the reformation of
worship differ in no respect from those who came
after it, has been unanswerably shown by Breden-
kamp in the third chapter of his book {Ort des
Kultus, pp. 1 39-1 71).
For the rest, we shall come once more, in the
next section, to speak of the modern treatment of
traces of the law in the history.
On the By way of appendix we must add a few words
theo^, ^" explanation of the pious fraud. Many of the
Deut. is niodern critics unreservedly admit that, accord-
a pious -' ^
fraud. ing to their view of the origin of Deut., an act
of deceit would be in question. Others plainly
are very anxious to remove the idea of deceit ;
they are more dangerous, because they thus do
away with the chief objection to modern criticism
on the part of many. It is therefore the more
requisite for us to produce clearness on this point,
and to show that here there is exhibited nothing
but a well-meant self-deception. Thus Kautzsch,
for example, says (p. 168) : " The conclusion that
this (the original Deuteronomy) is a work of
deception, overlooks one long recognised fact. In
reference to speeches which are put in the mouths
A PIOUS FRAUD 51
of older authorities, the idea of literary ownership
is utterly foreign to the Old Testament writers, as
to the ancient world generally. Only let the con-
viction once appear justified that what is proposed
is in accordance with the thought and spirit of
that more ancient authority, and it is also justifi-
able to speak in its name. This holds good of
the original Deuteronomy as well as of the so-
called Priestly Code, which in innumerable passages
introduces Moses as speaking, in the same way as
a Solomon is represented by the * Preacher ' as
testifying to the vanity of all things." ^
On this we may remark that, in the first place,
the question here is not merely of a pleasing
speech, such as perhaps a Thucydides or a Livy,
according to circumstances, put in the mouth of
their heroes, but of introducing a legislation which
was intended to strike deep into the life, but could
not do it without a Mosaic cloak (comp. p. 24).
The parallel, therefore, does not hold. Secondly,
in view of the fact that the Book of the Covenant
— recognised as Mosaic in the seventh century,
even according to the critics, and used by Deut.
— permitted, according to modern exegesis, the
multiplicity of altars expressly in the name of
Moses, the authors of D could not enter-
tain the conviction that what was proposed was
^ Similarly Professor Driver, Dcuteronowy, Introd. pp. Ivii.-lxii.
—Trans.
52 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
in accordance with the thought and spirit of
Moses. On both grounds the comparison with
** the Preacher " is also quite inappropriate.^ In
the latter case it was really, comparatively, a
matter of indifference whether Solomon was
the author or not. But for the carrying out
and fulfilment of Deut. everything depended on
whether Moses was the author or not. Only in
the former case would the people submit (comp-
§§ 3 and 4). Therefore the covering must in this
case have been carried so far that, entirely for
the purpose of deception, a multitude of individual
laws (of which we have only cited a few) should
have been put forward which had not the slightest
agreement with the practical purpose of Deut.
(comp. § 5, ^)- We should then have to do
here with a deception of unparalleled clever-
ness. Whoever accepts the modern view must
take this into the bargain. We will therefore
proceed in the purely historical method, and leave
the dogmatic decision to each individual. It
might of course be questioned whether from the
historical standpoint alone it can appear correct
to attribute to people who introduced and repre-
sented the highest religious and ethical ideas such
a deception at the same time, unless we have the
evidence for it in our hands in black and white.
^ For the reasons given it is also clear that an appeal to the
pseudonymous apocalyptic literature does not hold good ; for the
circumstances of Deut. are quite different.
RESULTS ARRIVED AT 53
Here we break off our inquiry and only sum up Summary,
in conclusion the result which has been arrived at.
The narrative in 2 Kings xxii. and foil, showed
us that the earlier origin of Deut. is to be
accepted not only as possible but even as neces-
sary (§ i) ; further, that in the reformation of
worship under Josiah the movement was not at
all, or at least not mainly, for the concentration
of worship, but for the abolition of idolatry in
and around Jerusalem ; when with this we com-
pared Deut. it was clear that the latter put the
unity of worship in the very foreground, whilst
the prohibition of idolatry had only a subsidiary
importance in comparison with it, so that here
also the impossibility of the modern view followed,
according to which Deut. was produced with
a view to that reformation (§ 5, <^) ; to the
same conclusion we were led by a mass of indi-
vidual instructions, which are not at all suited to
the seventh century, and would only be possible
on the assumption of the most skilful deception,
but would in part remain even then unexplained
(§ 5, b). The modern view broke down further, as
soon as we tried to picture to ourselves the
origin of Deut. and asked after the author ; the
critics, in mutual contradiction, here discovered
their weaknesses (§ 2). With the modern view,
moreover, the Mosaic disguise (§3) and the result
(§ 4) remained a puzzle, and finally the whole
54 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
hypothesis was shown to be impossible by the
traces which point much farther back (§ 6). To
this we add that modern criticism has not suc-
ceeded in proving an actual development (comp.
under § 6) or in showing the alleged agreement
between law and history for Deut. in the pre-
exilic history from Josiah on, apart from the
year 623. All these arguments taken together
must have demonstrated the untenability of the
now almost universal placing of Deut. in the
seventh century.
At the same time we have already obtained
some material for the criticism of the modern
critical methods : —
{a) If a law is generally transgressed, and
therefore is quite out of sympathy with the
popular mind, this is by no means evidence
of a later origin ; otherwise Deut. and the
Books of the Covenant would have to be post-
exilic.
{b) A law accepted as Mosaic may remain
disregarded even by the most devout, without its
non-existence at the particular time having to be
deduced ; otherwise the Books of the Covenant
calmly violated by the pious king must only have
originated after 623 (see § i, <^).
{c) A law which has formerly been in operation
may disappear without a single trace, as the fate
of Deut. shows (see the whole discussion).
MODERN DATE OF PC 55
id) It is an arbitrary modern principle, and
for criticism itself a dangerous one, that the later
compilers of historical books not merely judge
history one-sidedly, but invent it. For this
principle could be applied to 2 Kings ii. and foil,
and other narratives accepted by criticism, and
then we have no longer any knowledge of
Israelitish history at all. We must therefore
either abandon this principle or renounce the idea
of constructing a history of Israel.
Thus far our negative result, with which here
we are principally concerned. For a positive
construction this much has at the same time
resulted, that every theory must break down at
the very outset which does not attribute to Moses
at least the essential kernel of Deut. (see §§ 3,
4j 5 <^) 6) ; whether more is to be maintained
must be left to further inquiries.
II. Criticism of the Modem Dating of the
Priestly Code
A. Criticism of the Modern Result
We hope that we have demonstrated this much
by the preceding discussion, that the greatest
difficulties lie in the way of the now almost uni-
versally accepted date of Deut., and this con-
clusion of ours is especially important to us
56 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
as here for the first time the dazzling and alluring
correspondence between law and history is proved
to be mere outward show, it being, moreover, once
more emphasised that even according to the
modern view it was only quite superficial (see
p. 43). We proceed now to point out the same
discrepancy for the Priestly Code (P or PC) and
the exilic or post-exilic date attributed to it.
The law I- Here also we have in Neh. viii.-x. a firm
E^ ^^^N h^ starting-point. We find ourselves in the year 444.
viii.-x.). Ezra is requested by the people to bring the book
of the law ; he reads it before the assembled con-
gregation, whilst the Levites add their instructions.
The people are troubled, but are appeased by the
Levites. In the following days there is observed,
for the first time since the days of Joshua, the
feast of tabernacles commanded in the book of
the law exactly as it was prescribed, whilst the
reading continues, and finally they enter into a
covenant, after a long confession of sin, in which
the whole history of Israel is recapitulated. We
see, therefore, that the course of events is in many
respects similar to the familiar one of the year
623, and that, accordingly, analogous conclusions
follow from the outset. When in Neh. viii. the
request comes from the people to bring the book
of the law of Moses, we certainly get the impression
from viii. 8 and foil., and generally from the whole
VIEW OF KAUTZSCH 57
narrative, that the contents of this book of the law
were substantially new to the people. We are
again, therefore, able to agree entirely with
Kautzsch (p. 194) when he says : " In the highly
interesting original narrative of the introduction
of the new law (Neh. viii.-x.) there is a twofold
assumption : first (viii. i), that the book of the
law had hitherto been kept only by Ezra and
therefore had been brought by him from Babylon ;
and secondly, that the contents were up till
then quite unknown to the people." As, how-
ever, from the fact that Deut. was regarded in
2 Kings xxii. and foil, as something unknown,
the conclusion was drawn that Deut. could
only have originated a short time before, so a
corresponding conclusion is now drawn for P
from Neh. viii.-x. So Wellhausen, for example,
says (as above, p. 415): "It is obvious that we
have in Neh. viii.-x. an exact parallel to 2 Kings
xxii., xxiii. Especially to xxiii. 1-3 : Josiah
caused all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem to
be gathered, and went up with the men of Judah
and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, with the priests
and prophets and all the people, both small and
great, to the house of the Lord. There he read
to the people all the words of the book of the law
and made a covenant with all the people before
the Lord to keep all the words of this book. Just
as it is attested that Deuteronomy, made known
58 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
in the year 621, was till then unknown, precisely
in the same way is it attested that the other Thora
of the Pentateuch — for it is certain from Neh. ix.,
X. 29 and foil, that Ezra's book of the law was
the whole Pentateuch — which became known in
the second half of the fifth century, was until then
unknown. It is first of all indisputably clear
that Deuteronomy was the first, and the Priestly
Thora the second, stage of the legislation. But,
further, the same conclusion as to the date of the
origin of Deuteronomy which is usually drawn
from its publication and introduction by Josiah,
must be drawn regarding the date of the origin of
the Priestly Code from its publication and intro-
duction by Ezra and Nehemiah."
Now, assuming that all was here in order, any
one who follows our previous discussions would
come to the converse analogous conclusion : —
Just as Deut., notwithstanding the narrative
in 2 Kings xxii. and foil, not only may, but
must be older, in the same way the book of the
law referred to in Neh. viii.-x. may at least belong
to another time than the exilic and post-exilic,
although its contents were regarded as something
new. But even one who has not been con-
vinced by our criticism of the modern placing of
Deuteronomy, will at least have to admit that
the circumstances in Neh. viii.-x. are essentially
different from those of 2 Kings xxii. and foil.,
CRITICS DIFFER 59
as soon as it is admitted that then not merely the
Priestly Code, but the whole Pentateuch, was
published. This is VVellhausen's view (see the
quotation above ^) ; but it is most strenuously
opposed by almost all modern critics, so that we
do not here finish the inquiry as to what was the
scope of that book of the law. The result is of
the greatest importance, and is again quite sufficient
by itself to disclose the untenableness of the Graf-
Wellhausen hypothesis ; only the critics, differing
as they do on this important point, have relieved
us of the task and have mutually revealed the
weaknesses of their positions, so as to free us once
more from the reproach of dogmatic prejudice
(see pp. 14, 15).
Wellhausen, to whom the whole hypothesis
owes its name, is therefore of opinion that in Neh.
viii.-x. the whole Pentateuch is meant and is read
aloud, and says in his fourth edition of 1895, in
spite of the contradiction of his followers, that this
admits of no doubt at all. I associate myself
entirely with his reasons. For that the Priestly
Code is certainly not sufficient is clear to every
unprejudiced person from the historical description
of chap, ix., but above all from Neh. x. 29 and
foil., where the allegiance to the law of Moses is
specified. Thus, according to the modern dis-
^ " It is certain that Ezra's book of the law was the whole
Pentateuch."
60 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
tinction of sources, there is found in P no law
(not even Num. xxxiii. 5 i and foil.) which forbids
alliance with the inhabitants of the land ; perhaps
however, in Ex. xxxiv. 11-16 (J), and in Deut,
e.g. vii. 2 and foil. — comp. Neh. x. 30. Similarly
there is lacking in P any command which is
covered by Neh. x. 3 1 (" And that we would
leave [the land fallow] the seventh year, and the
exaction of every debt ") ; comp., on the other
hand, Deut xv. 2 for the form Ex. xxiii. 11.
The prohibition (Neh. xiii. i) " that the Ammonite
and the Moabite should not come into the
congregation of God for ever " was, according to
the same verse, found written in the book of
Moses ; but it only exists in Deut. xxiii. 3-6, and
not in the Priestly Code. (Criticism, it is true,
ascribes this passage to the writer of Chronicles.)
" Since, further, the law read aloud by Ezra
and then sworn to is throughout described by
the formulas of Deuteronomy (. . . D^ipQmp nh:2p
D^pn, Neh. X. 29), it cannot admit of the least
doubt that Ezra's book of the law contained not
merely the priestly, but also the Deuteronomic
portion of the Pentateuch together with Ex. xx.-
xxiii. 34, i.e. that it was just the complete
Pentateuch" (Dillmann, as above, p. 672). We
agree therefore with Wellhausen on this point.
Then there results this much in the first place,
that the argument from analogy referred to above
LAW BECOME UNKNOWN 61
is not a true argument from analogy ; for other-
wise, from the fact that in Nehemiah viii.-x. the
people hear something new, it would follow that
the whole Pentateuch must have originated only
a short time before 444. This, therefore, is rather
the result : from the fact that the law in Neh. viii.-x.
was unknown to the people, it is not to be inferred
that it had never been known, but only that it had
become unknown. But that which must necessarily
be assumed for the rest of the Pentateuch, apart
from the Priestly Code, is possible for it also.
These are the necessary consequences which
follow from the assumptions of Wellhausen,
but which naturally must seem to him very un-
congenial. For here it would be proved for
the second time that writings acknowledged
even by criticism as of canonical authority could
be absolutely unknown to the people, or at
least disregarded by them (the first case is that of
the Books of the Covenant in the year 623, see
pp. 7-10). Wellhausen, in the quotation given
above, makes an entirely arbitrary attempt to
escape from this consequence. He simply
assumes that it was not the whole Pentateuch,
but only the Priestly Code, that was new to the
people. But according to the narrative in Neh.
viii.-x., it is quite unjustifiable to suggest such a
separation. From it we receive the impression
throughout that in essential points everything was
62 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
new to the people ; even if, perchance, certain
details were known to them, it is arbitrary and a
petitio pri7tcipii to exclude from these the require-
ments of PC and, conversely, to limit to PC
that which was new to the people. If, therefore,
the conclusions reached above are irrefutable, we
see in them a confirmation for the result of our
inquiry above about D. If it is clear here that
the whole Pentateuch was unknown to the people
in Neh. viii.-x., although even according to criticism
J and E and D had been long in existence, so
from the fact of D being unknown in the year
623 it is not to be concluded that it did not
exist and have authority at an earlier date.
But, passing from this for the present, there
now arises in connection with Wellhausen's view
of the origin of PC an enormous difficulty,
which almost all other critics, e.g. Reuss, Kayser,
Kautzsch, quite rightly point out. Thus the
last-named says (as above, p. 194): "The
formerly predominant assumption that Ezra's book
of the law was the whole Pentateuch is quite
impossible," and Kayser {Jahrbuch fur prakt.
Theol. 1 88 1, p. 520 and foil.) states that the
converse " supplement hypothesis," according to
which PC was inserted in the Pentateuch by
Ezra, is even more untenable than the old one.
And why ? If it is an unlikely assumption that
the priests, who were specially interested in the
AN INCONCEIVABLE THEORY 63
publication of P, should at all have published
along with it other laws which had no relation
to PC, it is quite impossible, and not merely
" doubtful and highly improbable " (Cornill, as
above, p. 6^^ to believe that they should have
received laws directly opposed to PC, such as,
according to the view of modern critics, are con-
tained in the two Books of the Covenant, Ex.
xx.-xxiii. 34, and Deut. Or are we actually to
suppose that the priests, who had just restored
with much trouble the PC, and assume therein
the unity of worship, published at the same time
an enactment such as appears in Ex. xx. 24,
which according to criticism itself flatly contradicts
that assumption ? Is it conceivable that the
priests would place on a par with the laws in
which such numerous sources of income had
been assured to them, the Deuteronomic laws
which promised them so much less ? Or is it
quite conceivable that the persons who had just
secured to themselves the exclusive prerogative of
the priesthood as against the Levites, would ever
have agreed that at that very time Deut, in
which that prerogative belonged to all Levites,
should be read aloud along with it and regarded
as canonical ? They would certainly have had
to reckon with the fact that the people, that the
Levites, in opposition to the priests, would appeal,
in case of all enactments disagreeable to them,
64 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
to the laws which, even according to modern
criticism, had long been regarded as Mosaic and
authoritative. Therefore it is a sheer impossibility
that the priests, in case they were the authors
of PC, should recognise as their standard
Deut. and the Books of the Covenant, and
impose them upon the people, at the same
time as PC. We have only adduced a few
instances which might be increased at will ; I
think, however, that they will suffice to show
the untenableness of the modern hypothesis in
Wellhausen's form. It has, moreover, not been
possible to evade the force of these arguments.
Bredenkamp's prediction (as above, p. lo) that
the Reuss-Kayser standpoint will prevail has
come true. So far as I can see, Wellhausen
stands almost in isolation in his view ; his school
has not followed him on this point.
And yet still more weighty reasons tell against
the modern hypothesis as conceived by Reuss,
Kayser, Cornill, and Kautzsch than as it is held
by Wellhausen. Against them the narrative of
Neh. viii.-x. is decisive. This, as we saw (see
pp. 59, 60), simply excludes the view according to
which the book of the law published by Ezra
was only the PC. For as we have here onl}^
an " original narrative " (Kautzsch, p. 194) before
us, any further words are really superfluous and
unnecessary. This view has against it the sources
EZRAS LAW MORE THAN PC 65
recognised by itself as suitable and genuine. But
it is also untenable in itself. If it is assumed that
the laws previously acknowledged as Mosaic (the
Books of the Covenant and D) were still familiar
to the people and of authority in 444 — and that
is the opinion of those critics — then PC could
not at all become effectual, on account of the
contradictions touched on above ; no advantage
therefore is gained against Wellhausen by this
view. If, however, we were to assume that
the Book of the Covenant and Deut. had in
the year 444 passed into oblivion, then the
hindrance to the introduction of PC would, it
is true, be removed for the moment ; but the
difficulty with which Wellhausen is charged, and
which at an earlier point (444 itself) had been
happily avoided, would return at a later point, in
somewhat altered form but with increased force,
namely, when the lost books were again discovered
and introduced.
We have not, I think, maintained too much,
when we said that on this question alone the
modern hypothesis must break down.
Wellhausen's view, according to which it is
the Pentateuch that is promulgated in Neh. viii.-
X., is indeed true to that narrative, but is im-
possible, because the authors of PC could not
publish at the same time with it other laws
contradicting and abrogating it.
F
66 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
The view shared by most of the critics, accord-
ing to which it was only the Priestly Code that
was promulgated in Neh. viii.-x., is on the face
of it untenable, for it contradicts the narrative
acknowledged as " original," and is besides as
impossible in itself as that of Wellhausen. But
the difficulties on both sides, according to the
judgment of the critics themselves, are so enormous,
that I see no other course open to them than to
give up the Graf- Wellhausen hypothesis that PC
did not originate until the exile.
The 2. We reach the same result if we consider the
Code itself Priestly Code itself, and try to picture to ourselves
dict*s^^by ^^^ ^^^' *^^ arrangement, its result and its origin,
its aim, according to the assumptions of modern criticism.
the later ^ ^
date. It is necessary in the first place to be quite
clear as to what the authors of PC, according to
modern criticism, aimed at, so much the more as
the critics themselves on this point often make
use of vague and obscure expressions. Did the
authors in their work live in the past, and had
they therefore a theoretical, historical, archaeo-
logical interest in it, or did they expect by the
statement of quite new ideals and standards to
produce an effect upon the future ? Did they
only want to codify what they had already put
into practice in order to rescue from oblivion the
usages of worship, perhaps also to comfort them-
THE AIM OF PC 67
selves for the sorrowful present in this occupation
— certainly a strange comfort ! — or had they in
view the setting forth, in opposition to the past,
of a programme new in all essential points, which
should be carried out, in order the better to save
Israel in the future from the anger of their God
which they had to experience in the exile ? Many
expressions of criticism sound as if the former
were meant. We only quote some statements of
Wellhausen. Thus on page 60 : " So long as
sacrificial worship was the practice, it was zealously
carried out, but they did not trouble themselves
about it theoretically, and had no inducement to
put it into book form. Now, however, the temple
was destroyed, sacrificial worship at an end, the
priestly order out of employment ; it is conceivable
that the sacred practice of the past would now be
made the subject of theory and of writing, in
order that it should not be lost ; and that a
banished priest (Ezekiel) should make a beginning
by drawing the picture of it which he carried in
his memory, and to publishing it as a programme
for the future restoration of ^he theocracy." On
p. 412 we read : " Now that the temple was
destroyed and God's worship interrupted, the
practice of the past must be depicted if it was not
to be lost." Finally, a note on p. 413: "It
must often happen that the traditional practice is
first committed to writing when it is threatening
68 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
to die out, and that a book is, so to speak, the
ghost of a departed life."
On this we remark that if it were really-
capable of proof, which, in company with Dill-
mann and others, we dispute, that the laws of
worship were not written down before the exile,
but had only propagated themselves from the
beginning by practice and oral tradition ; if, on
the other hand, P was really in essential points
only the codification of the now extinct practice,
we might continue to wonder that the laws had
not been sooner written down in order to rescue
them from misuse and caprice ; but for the rest
we should not dispute the possibility and ad-
missibility of this view. But that is not by any
means the meaning of criticism ; those sentences
are misleading and obscure. How, otherwise,
could Kautzsch, for example, say (as above, p.
194): "In Nehemiah viii.-x. it is plainly as-
sumed that the contents were until then utterly
unknown to the people " ; comp. also the quotation
from Wellhausen on p. 57 and foil. If PC was
really only for codification and systematising of
the practice and the pre-exilic usages, then the
cleavage which was formed by the exile was by
no means so deep as it is elsewhere represented ;
for, according to Wellhausen's usual methods of
criticism, it should be possible to produce plain
traces of this practice which, though not yet
AN UNTENABLE THEORY 69
reduced to book form in PC, was yet in substantial
harmony with it, whereas he elsewhere lays all
emphasis on the fact that the pre-exilic practice
not merely does not correspond with P, but con-
tradicts it at every step. If the pre-exilic history
was such as Wellhausen and his school elsewhere
represent, the codification of the enactments and
usages which held good at that time must have
had a very different appearance from PC. There
could then have been found in the latter no
tabernacle, no historical explanation of the feasts,
no limitation of the priesthood to the descendants
of Aaron.
We must therefore maintain that, according
to the principles of modern criticism itself, the
explanation of PC as being in historical interests
is untenable. When codification and systematising
of the pre-exilic practice are spoken of, these are
phrases which must produce quite a false concep-
tion. This we must state the more unhesitatingly,
as the Wellhausen hypothesis might appear the
more admissible on account of this vagueness.
In the recovery of PC, according to modern
criticism, the process is not the codification of
the past in the conservative or historical interest,
but the presentation and execution of a new
programme, though in details it might be linked
on to older usages. They did not therefore re-
produce, nor did they produce imaginative work
70 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
at random, but they had quite a definite aim in
view which they wished to reach, and did actually
reach, as history attests. Here, too, it is assumed,
as in the case of Deut., that the result of PC
was its aim. They wanted, after the restora-
tion, to preserve Israel from new guilt and
punishment, by showing the people exactly how
they should keep themselves holy, and therefore
regulating the ritual in the minutest detail, and
reducing it to a system.
But here again we must say that we regard
the modern hypothesis as absolutely untenable.
No lack of sacrifices was permitted by those
belonging either to the northern or to the southern
kingdom ; this is clearly shown us by the polemic
of the prophets against the sacrifice on the mere
performance of which the people relied (comp.,
for example, Am. v. 18-27; Is. i. 11-15; Jer.
vii. 21 and foil.). The lack was in justice and
righteousness, and therefore they had to threaten
the people with exile " in spite of the previous
perfection of the sacrificial rites " (Kohler, iii.
p. 527, note 2); history justified the prophets.
How then in all the world could the priests have
arrived at the idea of seeing now in the violation
of the sacrificial rites the reason of the exile, and
of beholding therefore the salvation of the world
in an exact performance and strict fulfilment of
these ? Ezek. xl.-xlviii. need not be appealed to.
EZEKIEL'S VISION 71
In the first place, we must not, in considering
these last chapters of the prophet, forget the
earlier ones. Where do we find in these a hint
that Israel had brought upon itself the punishment
of exile by defective performance of the sacrificial
ritual ? No ; it was the religious falling away of
Israel from its God that was made its reproach
(comp., for example, chaps, xvi. and xxiii.). And
just as little does Ezekiel see in the performance
of outward worship a means of salvation in time
of need ; what he rather demands and promises is
repentance (chaps, xviii. and xxxiii.), is the new
heart of flesh and the new spirit (chap, xxxvi.).
And further, let it be observed, that the legis-
lation of Ezekiel " is an integral element of a
prophecy which refers equally to the future form
of the temple, in which the worship demanded by
Ezekiel shall be practised, and of the country in
whose midst this temple is to be situated. Only
if the Holy Land has experienced the transforma-
tion proclaimed by Ezekiel can the temple of
Ezekiel be built in it (comp. xl. 2), and it is only
if this is built that the worship described by him
can be practised in it. The vision of Ezekiel
xl.-xlviii. is therefore neither an adumbration of
the past nor a rule of life which was to come into
force at once after the return from the exile, and
in the realisation of which Israel too was to take
part from the moment that Jehovah should have
72 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
begun it by the transformation of the Holy Land"
(Kohler, as above). Comp. especially in chap, xlvii.
the temple river, and its wonderful effects.
To sum up, it remains inexplicable how the
authors of PC in the exile could have arrived at
the idea of being able, by propounding a ritual
legislation, to assist the people to a conduct
pleasing to God, and thereby to happiness and
prosperity.
The
Priestly
Code not
at all
adapted
for the
purpose
assigned
to it by
the
critics.
3. In pursuing the inquiry it is most necessary
to emphasise strongly the special aim which PC,
according to criticism, is supposed to have had.
The priests wanted to put out a programme.
They were not concerned, therefore , with an abstract
system which was not intended to be introduced ;
no, they aimed at the realisation of their ideas ;
they hoped and intended, on the suitable oppor-
tunity after the exile, to introduce and carry out
practically their programme, as actually happened
in the period from 444 onwards. Now here
certainly the most unfavourable form conceivable
was chosen, so that we must wonder at the
narrowness of the authors. The whole worship
is placed in the closest relation with the imaginary
tabernacle which was afterwards neither erected
nor was its erection desired ; sacrifice must be
offered in it alone. Of the temple, on the other
hand, to the re-erection of which the hopes of the
AN IMAGINARY AIM 73
prophets were directed (see Isaiah, Micah, and,
above all ! Ezekiel xl.-xlviii.), and the building of
which was afterwards most energetically urged by
Haggai and Zechariah, there is not the slightest
hint.
The whole worship on the day of atonement
is concentrated at the ark of the covenant (Lev.
xvi.), of the restoration of which, also, no one
thought ; nay, they had in Jer. iii. i6 the express
prophecy that in the restoration of the people it
would neither be missed nor renewed.
The possibility of realising the whole worship
and the hierarchical order would from the first
depend on something non-existent, as Kloster-
mann expresses it (as above, No. 7, law of the
sanctuary and the camp ; No. 5, the date of origin).
In other words, the special design of the authors
to introduce their system into practical working
is from the outset rendered illusory by their effort
to give it an archaic appearance.
But their carelessness goes further. They
must have been acquainted with Deut., and
known that it was for a long time regarded
as Mosaic. How could they then have set up
another legislation as Mosaic in opposition to that
which was recognised as the work of Moses, with-
out making the slightest reference to the latter or
even as much as hinting at an attempt at com-
parison between the differences and contradictions
74 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
of Deut. and PC, which are, according to modern
criticism, so important ? How could they clothe
their laws in a form so divergent from the
language of Deut. ? How, above all, could they
place PC before Deut. in point of time? Thus,
surely, by the last enactment of Moses in Deut.
all that they had so successfully smuggled in by
Mosaic authority would be undone. For Deut. was
regarded as the last will of the great lawgiver.
If they had made Moses give PC after Deut.
they could thus have easily avoided the difficulties ;
for they could then have adapted the worship not
to the wandering in the wilderness but to the time
after the immigration, and thus linked it not to a
portable sanctuary, but to a temple ; they could
find an explanation for the possible differences
from Deut., and yet with all this they would have
attained what they desired — their ritual legislation
would go under the authority of Moses.
But we must make up our minds to regard the
authors as so short-sighted, if we are to hold to
the modern hypothesis. That involves indeed a
strong resolution ; for these men otherwise appear
in a quite different light. We may think what
we like of the religious value of their Levitical
laws, but the system which they are alleged to
have discovered and set forth is certainly an
imposing one, and does every credit to their
intelligence. The simple, transparent, but great
IMAGINARY AUTHORS 75
fundamental ideas (God is the Lord of all space,
of all time, of all property and of all life ; comp.
Kautzsch, pp. 190-193), in their grand carrying
out to the smallest detail, permit of any other
conclusion rather than that the authors had such
a restricted outlook, and Kautzsch himself speaks
(as above, p. 193) of the "profound and delicate
symbolism " of PC.
The modern hypothesis therefore compels us
to picture to ourselves the authors of PC as such
self- contradictory people that, on the one hand,
they were capable of thinking out and constructing
a system of such grandeur, and, on the other hand,
incapable of clothing it in a suitable form, nay, so
short-sighted that from the outset they rendered
the realisation of their system, which specially
concerned them, impossible by linking it on to
something that was non-existent, and by the way
in which they clothed it in Mosaic dress — again^
in my opinion, weighty reason for the untenable-
ness of the whole hypothesis.
4. But let us suppose for a moment that it were The
result at-
admissible, and that we might conceive of people tributed
at once so clever and so foolish ; and let us now q^ite in-
inquire into the result. Then our astonishment credible
^ on the
and doubt must be increased rather than dimin- critical
theory,
ished. Klostermann is quite right when he shows
that these authors of PC would have had quite
76 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
incredible success with their designs. We are to
believe that the people, if they permitted them-
selves to be influenced at all by PC, had nothing
more pressing to do than to carry out with pre-
cision its enactments — P at any rate required the
most painful fulfilment even of the most trifling
details — i.e, above all to undertake the erection of
the tabernacle in accordance with the instructions
given ; to neglect and abandon the newly -built
temple, of which there is not the slightest mention,
and after which PC was expressly excluded ; ^ and,
further, to make an ark of the covenant.
But this does not all happen ; people hear as
much of it as they ought to hear. The unskilful-
ness of the authors is made up for by the con-
genial intelligence of the people. And further,
we have seen above how it was impossible for
criticism to make credible and profitable the
success of falsifying the history of Deuteronomy.
But here is something still more impossible. Be-
sides the sympathy of the people's intelligence
with the enactments of PC, they are credited
with a really more than naive innocence, through
which they allow themselves to be made fools of.
They do not observe that here there is something
totally new, which they are to regard as Mosaic.
^ Comp. for example Lev. xvii. 1-7, where it is to be a statute
for ever unto them throughout their generations to kill every sacri-
ficial animal at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and
to offer it there at the same time.
INCREDIBLE RESULT 77
They observe nothing of the above-mentioned
contradictions and differences — which according
to criticism itself are so striking — between the
present legislation, which is alleged to be also
Mosaic, and the earlier one. They believe the
entirely new picture of their early history and do
not venture to utter the slightest doubt about it.
The new legislation is naturalised without any
conflict ; and yet it could not be a matter of in-
difference to any one, for it made the highest
demands on the time, money, and natural gifts of
each individual, and must have made life as
uncomfortable as possible. Or was the tendency
to the Levitical system then in the air and in the
spirit of the time, so that the incredible result was
thus explained ?
Well, if we consider the priests of that time, no
one will be willing to maintain this. They dis-
honour Jahwe by impure offerings, they bring to
Him blind, lame, and sick animals, they celebrate
polluted festivals, as may be read in the prophet
Malachi (i. 6-14; ii.). Malachi may be placed
either shortly before or after 444. This much is
clear, that the Jerusalem priests have not this
Levitical tendency ; and yet it should be expected
of them chiefly.
Nor have the people this tendency ; for they
rob Jahwe in tithes and offerings (see Mai. iii. 8) ;
they do not sanctify the Sabbath (Neh. xiii. 15
78 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
and foil.) ; they do not provide the portions of the
Levites (Neh. xiii. lo and foil.), although they
have only just bound themselves to obey the new
book of the law.
Nor do the historians of the exile, neither the
authors of the books of Kings nor the Deutero-
nomist editors, show anything of the Levitical
spirit The books of Kings must otherwise have
had a similar appearance to that of the Chronicles.
Or let us think of the prophets. Here, along-
side of Ez. xl.-xlviii., Haggai, Zechariah and
Malachi, which certainly bear a certain Levitical
impress, we have Ez. i.-xxxix., Is. xl.-lxvi., and
many passages from the earlier prophets, which
criticism places in the exilic and post-exilic period,
but which without exception breathe anything but
a Levitical spirit.
In the same way we may think of the Psalter,
which is now almost generally regarded as of this
date. There, too, the Levitical tendency is almost
utterly lacking.
Thus the result produced by the authors of
PC remains a mystery. The people allow them-
selves to be duped, although they have to bear
the injury, although they were not otherwise in
the least inclined to Levitism, although it was
surely so easy to detect the deception. At the
same time, in accepting PC they do not take hold
of it blindly, but feel, as it were instinctively,
PEOPLE S ATTITUDE A PUZZLE 79
that the directions about the tabernacle (Ex.
xxv.-xxxi. ; xxxv.-xl.) and about the ark. of the
covenant, with the existence of which the whole
ritual legislation was connected, and the existence
of which was presupposed for all generations, had
better be neglected ; and so they select, with the
congenial intelligence, what suits them.
As is well known, certain sections of PC are
assumed as those in which we first find the law of
holiness of Lev. xvii.-xxvi. Many now think that
these different sections were made known at
different times, and partly indeed before 444.
On this we may remark that the more such
promulgations are assumed, the more puzzling be-
comes the result; for these different sections vary
considerably from one another, and it is on account
of these very variations that they are accepted.
If, then, each of them nevertheless passes itself
off as Mosaic, the people must have much more
frequently allowed themselves to be pleased with
these contradictions, without observing them or
doubting their Mosaic origin. Therefore it has
now been more and more resolved to assume the
promulgation of all these various sections as taking
place first in the year 444. Otherwise the starting-
point of the critics would at once break down :
the contents of that legislation could not have
been utterly unknown to the people until 444
(comp. § I and Kautzsch, as above, p. 194).
80 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
Kautzsch infers from Neh. viii. 13 and foil, that
the very manner in which the feast of tabernacles
is observed is regarded as something new, and
that therefore the law of holiness, to which that
enactment belongs (cf. Lev. xxiii. 40), was then
published for the first time.^ That, for the rest,
Kautzsch's view exchanges a great disadvan-
tage for a momentary advantage over others
will appear later. Whether or not the difficulty
which confronts criticism through the success of
the authors of PC be greater for some than for
others, it is in any case great enough to make the
Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis impossible.
PC could 5- W^ saw that PC, as it is understood by
^*^.*^^T®^ criticism, was too improbable in its aim (§ 2), too
with such foolish in its plan (S 3), too incredible in its result
authors ^
as the (§ 4) for us to be able to regard the modern view
as justified. It is also too full of contradiction in
the method of its origin ; this shall be shown in
this section.
We cannot assume that some of the work of
the priests was published in an underhand way
before 444 ; the success would have been a priori
impossible if the people had observed that PC
^ That it is not therefore necessarily new follows incontrovertibly
from the comparison with Neh. xiii. i, where the Deuteronomic
enactment (Deut. xxiii. 3-6) that no Ammonite or Moabite should
belong to the congregation of God is introduced in quite analogous
phrase : " it was found written in the law."
critics
assume.
SECRET AUTHORSHIP 81
was not composed by Moses at all, but was then
handled in its very origin. Moreover, its contents
would not then have been " utterly unknown " to
the people until 444 (Kautzsch, p. 194). For the
same reason single parts and sections of PC could
not have been promulgated before 444. Other-
wise their contents would certainly not have been
" utterly unknown " to the people ; but, above all,
the quite impossible success would have been still
more impossible if it had been repeated on every
new promulgation. A work in secret was therefore
necessary, of which no one must learn anything
before 444. But then we heard how many different
hands, nay, how many different circles (Kautsch,
p. 188), must have worked on PC. We must
wonder all the more that of the work — requiring
many years — of this circle, differing in so many
ways among themselves, nothing should have come
to light, and thus at one stroke exposed the whole
deception and made its success a priori impossible.
How then are we further to think of this
activity of the priests ? I frankly confess that I
cannot form any idea of it in keeping with the
result which they achieved. What they aimed at
was the system which we find in PC. This, apart
from individual links with the past, was a pure
invention, and yet they agreed so wonderfully in
this invention that it is impossible that they could
have worked independently of each other. They
G
82 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
all have the tabernacle, they all have the great
fundamental ideas, spoken of in § 3. But how
are the divergences which are recognised and sup-
posed (comp. Kautzsch, pp. 188 and 194) to be
explained ? How could they be overlooked, when,
according to criticism, they are so obvious ? The
same people who are such clever systematisers and
so united in the statement of the great funda-
mental ideas, in which they could so easily be of
different opinions, these very persons are at the
same time absolutely incapable of arranging
smaller differences, which could easily lead the
people to notice that it was impossible for Moses
to be the author of such divergent views —
differences, too, which must have made the people
hostile. Why, for example, is the age for service
of the Levites not uniformly prescribed, but now
fixed at twenty-five, now at thirty years of age
(comp. Num. viii. 24 and foil, with iv. 3, 23, 30,
etc.) ? Why in one place is the high-priest alone
anointed (Ex. xxix. 7 ; Lev. viii. 12, xxi. 10),
and in another all priests (Num. ii. 3 ; Ex. xxviii.
41, xxx. 30, xl. 15)? Why is the blood of the
sin-offering in Lev. iv. 4-7, 14-17, brought into
the holy place, and in Ex. xxix. 12, 14, and Lev.
ix. 9, I 5, to the horns of the altar of burnt-offering
in the outer court ?
The same want of systematic unity which is
here shown in the inconsistency of enactments
DIVERSITY OF FORM 83
appears also in diversity of form. It is clearly
shown in the lack of strict order, the repetitions,
the differently-worded introductory formulae, the
different statements as to those to whom the laws
are addressed. (For the lack of order see the
whole work ; for the second point compare the
laws as to feasts in Num. xxviii. with Lev. xxiii.,
or Ex. xxvii. 20 and foil, with Lev. xxiv. 1-4,
the instructions regarding the holy lamp, or Ex.
xxv. 30 with Lev. xxiv. 5 and foil., those about
the shewbread, etc. ; for the third and fourth
points comp. Ex. xxv. i, xxx. 11, 17; Lev. iv.
I, v. 14, vi. I, 12, etc., "and Jahwe spake unto
Moses, saying " ; the same formula in Ex. xxxi.
12, only with "ipi^ instead of il^ ; Lev. i. i, " and
Jahwe called unto Moses and spake unto him out
of the tabernacle of the congregation " ; Lev. xi.
I, "And Jahwe spake unto Moses and Aaron,
saying unto them"; Lev. xiii. i, xiv. 33, xv. i ;
Num. iv. I, 17, "And Jahwe spake unto Moses
and unto Aaron"; Num. xviii. I, 8, 20, " And
Jahwe spake unto Aaron") It is inconceivable
that a school with whom system is the chief thing
(see Wellhausen, pp. 427, 412) should proceed so
carelessly in regard to form. It would surely
have been so easy to allow uniformity to prevail
here also.
Finally, we must not omit to point out that
we learn nothing good otherwise of the alleged
84 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
authors of PC. The introduction of Deut. in the
year 623 had not been of the slightest assistance ;
idolatry had been everywhere restored on the
high places (see the frequent complaints of
Jeremiah, e.g. iii. 10, xiii. 27, xvi. 16, 18, xvii.
2 ; Ez. vi. 1-6, xviii. 6, 15, xx. 30 and foil.,
esp. ver. 31). Nay, the temple itself could be
abandoned after the Reformation to the most
abominable idolatry, as Ez. viii. and 2 Chron.
xxxvi. 14 attest. The priests must bear the
principal blame for this, and we see what godless
men they were as they went into exile. Are we
to suppose that they had so much improved there
that they were the very persons who sought, even
though in a mistaken way, to bring salvation to
the people, that they were the very persons who
were so anxious to lay down new religious
principles? That would Hkely be in itself im-
possible ; but we can prove the contrary. In the
year 538, according to Ezra ii. 36-38, 4289
priests returned, whilst on the second return
doubtless only individual priests came back. The
bulk of the priests had therefore been in their
native land since 538. Whether we place
Malachi shortly before or after 444, this much at
least is clear from that prophet, that the priests
in Jerusalem were not at all concerned about the
exact Levitical fulfilment of the laws relating to
sacrifice. They bring without scruple blind, lame,
PRIESTS NOT AUTHORS 85
or sick animals as an ofifering — which was for-
bidden not only in Lev. xxii. 17 and foil., but also
already in Deut. (see xv. 21, xvii. i). They have
no reverence for Jahwe, they neglect right instruc-
tion, they observe abominable feasts, they are not
satisfied with what was prescribed to them by Jahwe
as an acceptable offering (see Mai. i. 6 to ii. 9, iii. 3).
These then are the persons who are alleged
to have co-operated in the exile in producing
PC, to have had a special interest in the
painfully strict observance of a sacrificial ritual,
and with whose consent PC either had been
already or was now introduced. Who can
believe this ? If Malachi should be placed even
before 458, what right have we to assume that
their brothers still in exile were so much better
than they, especially when, according to Well-
hausen, they were in the most active intercourse
with one another? When Wellhausen (p. 412)
says, " After the temple was restored, the
theoretical zeal was still maintained, and in co-
operation with the renewed practice completed
the ritual still further ; the priests who remained
in Babylon took, from a distance, no less interest
in the sacred worship than their brothers at
Jerusalem who were occupied with carrying it out,
who, living amid adverse surroundings, do not
seem to have kept so strictly to the laborious
fulfilment of the appointed observances," he undoes
86 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
by the last relative clause all that he had
previously said, and shows how his whole hy-
pothesis is not merely composed of airy nothings,
but is in contradiction to the actual circumstances.
According to Malachi, it may be even more
decidedly said that the Jerusalem priests not only
do not seem to have kept less strictly to the
laborious fulfilment of the appointed observances,
but that they violated them in the grossest
manner, and that too from want of reverence for
Jahwe (see Mai. i. 6), not because of " adverse
surroundings," but out of pure egotism. These
are the facts. Among such a priesthood the
zeal for godliness which must be and is ascribed
to the authors of PC is incomprehensible ; we
could only credit them with those sections of PC
in which they might have secured to themselves a
good source of income by the tithes — which, in
contrast with earlier times, were vastly increasing
— but never with those in which a painfully exact
observance of ritual is demanded of them.
To sum up, it seems to me incredible that
several persons worked at PC and that nothing
of their work came to light ; that an agreement
prevailed in the cardinal points, whereas no unity
was attained in smaller matters ; that a great system
was elaborated, and yet at the same time that so
much in form and contents contradicted the system ;
and that, finally, persons should have constructed
DETAILS ABOUT TABERNACLE 87
PC whose hostility to such enactments can be
proved, in whom all religious interest was lacking,
and who dared expressly to set themselves against
the commands of God.
6. Let us turn, finally, to particular enachnents Many
of PC, the origin of which remains unexplained enact-
under the modern theory, because they would not pc^are°iii-
be in any harmony with the purposed attempt at explicable
reformation. To these we shall add such as are modem
in direct contradiction to the circumstances of the
exilic or post-exilic period, and lastly such as one
would have necessarily expected in a ritual legis-
lation of that time, but which are lacking.
The first-named laws would be at least super-
fluous and scarcely intelligible in a programme
which was to be translated into practice. We
have already mentioned above that it would have
been the height of folly for the authors of PC to
clothe the system in Mosaic dress, and in particular
to invent the tabernacle at all (see § 3). Even,
however, though it might be foolish, the idea
might be explained by the hope of giving greater
sanction and higher authority by means of this
dress to the law about to be introduced. But
what reason can be alleged for the fact that, even
to the minutest detail, the material, number,
measure, and colour of the various parts are
stated (see Ex. xxvi. 1-37)? The more the
88 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
legislation is supposed to appear as a programme,
the more unintelligible would be this aimless fancy
for construction, especially as it was not intended
to build the tabernacle itself. If it is alleged that
Solomon's temple had to be copied and dated
back to the time of Moses, in the first place there
is not the slightest hint of this ; nay, it is even
excluded, because the tabernacle appeared with
the claim of permanent existence (see Lev. xvii.
1-7, esp. ver. 7). What, moreover, would then be
the meaning of the innumerable divergences in
measurements (it is not at all the case that the
tabernacle always had exactly the half measure-
ments of the temple), in form (in the temple a
porch and two outer courts, in the tabernacle one
outer court), and in the decoration ? Why is the
expression for the holy of holies i"*!'^ (the oracle)
which appears so often in the case of the temple
(see I Kings vi. 5, 16, 19-23, 31, vii. 49, viii. 6)
avoided ? ^ Why in place of the ten lamps of the
temple does only one appear? All this would
remain unintelligible, if it had been intended to
pre-figure the temple in the time of Moses.
What, besides, is the meaning of a law like
Num. iv., in which the mode of transporting the
various portions is exactly laid down, and what
1 The friend mentioned in a previous note says here : "Its use
in 2 Chron. iii. 16, iv. 20, v. 7, 9, and in Ps. xxviii. 2 marks its
absence in PC still more strongly." — Trans.
MEANINGLESS ENACTMENTS 89
Levites are to carry them ? How could this duty-
be assigned strictly to the Levites — a duty which
they no longer had after the exile, whilst elsewhere
the service of the tabernacle is quite generally
stated (comp. Num. xviii. 2, 4, 6), though it
should have been more minutely laid down, since
it was to be henceforth attended to ?
Why did PC assume the numbers of the first-
born (22,273) ^T^^ of the Levites (22,000) in
Num. iii. as not easily agreeing, so that only with
difficulty it could arrange the correct proportion ?
The law of Lev. xvii. i -9, where it is laid down
that every animal for sacrifice must only be killed
at the central sanctuary, would be impracticable
and unintelligible at any other time than that of
the wanderings in the wilderness, whereas PC
wanted to translate it into practice.
What could be the meaning, after the exile, of
the law of Num. xxxiii. 51-56, relating to the
extermination of the Canaanites who had long
ceased to be in the land ?
What, just at that time, could be the meaning
of the list of encampments in Num. xxxiii. ?
What could be the meaning of the bold enact-
ment about the land, its allotment, the distribution
of the cities of the Levites, and the other agrarian
laws ? How is it appropriate to the time of the
exile that the existence and the unmixed condition
of the twelve (or thirteen) tribes should be assumed,
90 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
whereas, in] fact, the northern kingdom had then
ceased to exist at all, and its remaining inhabitants
had mingled with the settlers who had been im-
ported ? All the laws which refer to this ^ have
not the slightest relation to the actual programme,
and could only be explained on the ground that,
as is alleged in the case of Deut., there was an
attempt to make the Mosaic authorship credible
in a quite artificial way. But the authors would
then have gone so far in this effort that, by the
law of Lev. xvii. 1-9, which Wellhausen himself
(p. 5 2) pronounces " impracticable," they would
have rendered it impossible to carry out those
laws about which the authors of PC, with their
programme, were specially anxious (see above,
under § 3, what is stated about the tabernacle and
the Day of Atonement). This seems to me
scarcely credible.
Let us turn to those enactments of PC which
are in direct contradiction to the time assigned
by criticism to the Priestly Code, and therefore
alone make the Graf- Wellhausen hypothesis quite
impossible.
How could the Urim and Thummim be con-
1 Comp., for example, the year of Jubilee and the law of
daughters' inheritance, Lev. xxv. and Num. xxxvi. ; regulations
about the Levites and the cities of refuge, Num. xxxv. 1-8, 9-15;
about the boundaries of the land and the men who shall divide the
land, Num. xxxiv. ; and about the distribution of Canaan to the
particular tribes to be completed by lot, Num. xxvi. 52-56 (comp.
Kohler, as above, p. 527, note 2).
LAWS CONTRADICT DATE 91
sidered part of the complete dress of the high-
priest, when they had been lost after the exile
(comp. Ezra ii. 63, Neh. vii. 65 with Ex. xxviii. 30)?
How can PC prescribe the anointing for the high-
priest (Ex. xxix. 7 ; Lev. viii. 12, xxi. 10), which
according to tradition was not carried out in the
post-exilic time (comp. Riehm's Handworterbuch
article " Hohepriester ") ?
How could the age of service for the Levites
be reckoned from thirty (Num. iv. 3) or twenty-
five years (Num. viii. 23-26), when it clearly began
after the exile at twenty years of age (comp. Ezra
iii. 8) ? 1
Many of the more recent critics think that the
continual offering (Heb. Tamid), according to
Neh. x. 33, consisted in the morning of a burnt
offering and in the evening only of a meat offering,
which they try to make probable by a comparison
with the passages 2 Kings xvi. 15, Ezra ix. 4
(comp. also Ez. xlvi. 13 and foil.). How then
could P in Ex. xxix. 38 and foil, require the
burnt offerings morning and evening ?
How could P require the Passover to be on
the 14th day of Nisan in the evening in the
^ There is here, it may be remarked, a notable confirmation of
the historicity of Chronicles (comp. i Chron. xxiii. 24 and foil. ; 2
Chron. xxxi. 17, where that alteration of PC is attributed to David).
How could the chronicler have come to alter P without historical
authority, seeing that he otherwise keeps carefully to its fulfilment
and writes in its spirit ?
92 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
houses, but the Feast of Unleavened Bread on the
15 th in the central sanctuary (comp. Ex. xii. ;
Lev. xxiii. 5 and foil. ; Num. xxviii. 1 6 and foil.) ?
This was absolutely impracticable for the time
after the wanderings. This law also is only
intelligible, therefore, for the period of wandering
in the wilderness. When the chronicler speaks
of observances of the Passover (2 Chron. xxx. 5,
XXXV. I and foil.), he presupposes the Deutero-
nomic injunction, according to which even the
Passover was to be celebrated In the holy place.
Inasmuch as the chronicler otherwise always
follows P, we must assume that in his time not
P but Deut. was obeyed on this point.
How could half a shekel be fixed in P as an
offering unto the Lord (Ex. xxx. 1 1 and foil.)
whilst after the exile only a third was required
(Neh. X. 32)?
Here too we recall once more the fact that the
post-exilic time knows nothing of a tabernacle
and an ark of the covenant.
In short, we see that the enactments cited
must have been otherwise stated if PC had
originated in the exilic and post-exilic period.
How little P is suited to the time to which it
is assigned is clear, finally, from the fact that we
do not find in it quite a number of laws which we
should expect.
PERSONS NOT MENTIONED 93
It is well known what a part the temple
music plays after the exile. As early as Ezra ii.
41 and Neh. vii. 44 "the singers" are mentioned
among those who returned in the year 538.
The personnel of those serving in the temple in
the post-exilic time appears to be very fully
analysed ; mention is made not only of priests
and Levites, but also of door-keepers [porters],
temple - servants [Nethinim], and children of
Solomon's servants (Ez. \\.^ Neh. vii.). We ask,
in the first place, how was this full classification
possible, if it had not already existed before the
exile ? The exile, during which the temple
worship had to cease, was certainly quite un-
adapted to call it into existence, apart altogether
from the fact that it appears in Ezra ii., vii. 7,
24, viii. 17, x. 23 and foil., and Neh. vii., not
as something new, but as something well known
and self-evident.^ But, putting this aside and
proceeding simply from the actual state of things
in the post-exilic time, how was it possible for P to
leave these people quite unnoticed ? It was surely
only consistent to date from Mosaic times these
various positions which were allowed to exist, and
to assign to their occupants their definite duties
and their revenues (comp. Neh. xii. 47).
^ Still another contiimation of the historical value of Chronicles,
which attributes this division of duties to David ( i Chron. xxv. and
foil.).
94 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
Why, again, is the enactment mentioned in
Neh. xii. 44 and foil., and xiii. 10, that chambers
should be provided as treasuries for the portions
of the priests and Levites, and men appointed for
the oversight of them, omitted in P ?
In Neh. x. 35, xiii. 31, regular supplies of
wood for the holy place are mentioned and
required, of which there is not a trace to be found
in P. How they could have escaped notice
remains unexplained under the modern theory.
Finally, it is v/ell known how in the post-
exilic time the marriages with heathen peoples
had to be abolished (Ezra ix. and foil. ; Neh. xiii.
23 and foil., 30; Mai. ii. 10 and foil), and how
much trouble it cost. How could P omit a law
referring to this ?
Were we to proceed on parallel lines to the
foregoing inquiry, we should here allude to the
fairly numerous traces of PC which are found
before 444, and this too in the historical books,
in Ezekiel and in Deut. But we shall better
deal with them in the later sections, and here
only indicate them.
A pious By way of appendix it may here be once
once more, more expressly noticed that, if the Graf-Wellhausen
hypothesis be accepted, it is impossible to elimi-
nate the pia fraus. Here, too, the Mosaic dress
A PIOUS FRAUD ONCE MORE 95
is not merely a matter of indifference for the
success of the introduction of PC, but decisive.
Here, too, the deception would be as subtle as
possible, nay, the priests would have gone so far
in it that by the Mosaic dress they would have
really made the carrying out of their programme
impossible from the first (comp. §§ 3, 4, and 6).
We can only repeat here what we demonstrated
in the appendix to the previous section (pp.
50-52), and find it incomprehensible how the
disguise of PC can be placed on a level with
that of the Preacher (comp. Kautzsch, p. 168).
Besides, in the case of PC there would be this
element of added difficulty, that the priests would
not have acted exactly unselfishly in their work,
since they would have increased immeasurably
the revenues which hitherto accrued to them.
But we shall have still to deal with one point,
namely, the proof of the position of the Levites
in PC in contradiction to Ezekiel, and to show
that this can only be regarded as a fraud in the
worst sense of the word.
To sum up the result of our inquiry. The Summary,
narrative of Neh. viii.-x. showed us that Well-
hausen is right when he considers that the whole
Pentateuch, and not merely PC, was published on
that occasion. But his hypothesis is then impos-
sible from the start, and is at the moment hardly
96 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
shared by others ; it breaks down especially on
the reconciliation with the Books of the Covenant
and Deut On the other hand, the now almost
universal view of the modern hypothesis, according
to which it is only PC that is made known in
Neh. viii.-x., has the narrative — recognised by
criticism itself as " original " — against it, but apart
from this it breaks down on the existence of the
Books of the Covenant and Deut. (comp. § i).
Section 2 showed us that the authors of PC,
according to criticism, had not a historical
purpose in view, and therefore did not merely
codify the use and wont, but that they put forward
a programme by the carrying out of which the
people were to be saved from the future chastise-
ments by their God. But the priests could not
hope from the course of history that anything
would be effected by the outward observance of
ritual. In any case, however, they would not
then have ventured to choose the Mosaic garb,
because their law was in opposition to what was
hitherto regarded as Mosaic, and because by
choosing that form of dress for PC they would
have made the practical introduction of the
latter a priori illusory (§ 3). If nevertheless they
had chosen this form, the result would be quite
unintelligible ; the people would have allowed
themselves to be deceived, although the legislation
must have been in the highest degree uncongenial
A CHIMERA 97
to them, and yet they would not have accepted PC
blindly, but in a form more suited to the time (§ 4).
Further, we could not conceive how the
authors could be at once genial and narrow-
minded (§ 3), at once interested and callous in
religious matters, at once systematic and unsys-
tematic Kar i^o^rjv, as we would have to assume
throughout on the modern hypothesis ; and
similarly, how so many were engaged in the work
and yet nothing came to light (§ 5). We add
that quite a multitude of laws cannot be explained
by the programme, that many are in contradiction
to the time of the exile, that others are lacking
which were to be expected at that time ; and
that for the explanation of all these phenomena
the Mosaic disguise is utterly inadequate (§ 6).
Taking all in all, we can no longjr have any
doubt that the modern view is a chimera, a
monstrosity. P can no more have originated in
the sixth or the fifth century than Deut. in the
seventh, and thus the apparently harmonious
correspondence between law and history is for
the second time proved to be an error.
As for the criticism of the critical methods of
the modern Old Testament scholars, the following
points were to be noted : —
{a) If we assume with Wellhausen that the
whole Pentateuch was promulgated on the occasion
described in Neh. viii.-x., and that thus something
H
98 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
essentially new was enjoined upon the people, it
follows that E and J and D could become un-
known, although their existence for centuries
previous is admitted even by the critics. Nothing
can therefore be deduced against the previous
existence of a law from the fact of its being un-
known at a particular time (§ i).
(J?) If we assume with Kautzsch, and most of
the other modern critics, that in Neh. viii.-x. only
PC was published, then our whole argument and
the analogous fate of Deut. and the Books
of the Covenant in the year 623 show that
nothing must be inferred against the previous
existence of a law from the fact of its being un-
known at a particular time (§ i).
Finally, we believe that many of the difficulties
which have been discussed exist not only for the
modern conception, but for every view which does
not proceed from the assumption that at least the
kernel of this ritual legislation goes back in reality
to Moses ; in this we express no opinion on the
question whether the laws must have been all
codified in the time of Moses, or whether laws, in
accordance with changes in the practice, may not
have been added on to this kernel. This would
have to be discussed by exhaustive inquiries,
although I am of opinion that on this point we
shall never be able to get beyond subjective con-
jectures. At any rate, so far as I can see, every
CRITICISM TESTED 99
view must break down which does not at least
regard the kernel of PC as Mosaic (§§ i, 3, 4, 5, 6).
B. Criticism of the Modern Auxiliary
Hypotheses
After we have shown the untenableness of the
modern dating of PC, there remains for us the
criticism of the most important auxiliary hypotheses
which are supposed to render that date necessary.
We are less concerned in this discussion to meet
the objections to the Biblical view, though we
shall give suggestions as to how, in our view, they
are to be overcome. Our chief desire is here also
to bring criticism to bear on Criticism, and to
show how arbitrary its canons of criticism are,
and how by a logical following-out of them quite
different results must be arrived at. We have
already given some samples in the preceding dis-
cussions (see pp. 7, 41, 54, 97). We shall here deal
in sequence with the relation in which the prophets
in general, Ezekiel xl.-xlviii. in particular, and the
history down to 444, stand to PC. The sequence,
which might appear arbitrary, has been determined
by the influence which the different arguments of
criticism once produced upon myself.
(a) It was passages like Amos v. 2 1 and foil., iv. The rela-
4 and foil. ; Hos. vi. 6 ; Mic. vi. 6 and foil. ; Is. i. prophets
II and foil. ; Jer. vi. 20, vii. 21 and foil ; Ps. xl. p^^^g^jy
7, 1. 9, li. 1 8 and foil, which first convinced me C®^®-
UNlVERSiTY OF REDLANDS LIBRARY
100 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
of the incontestable correctness of the Wellhausen
hypothesis. They seem quite clearly to show it
to be impossible that the prophets, with such a
polemic against sacrifice, could have been ac-
quainted with an ordinance of sacrifices going
back to Moses. PC therefore, as it seems, must
have originated after those passages. Later, I
became convinced of the error of this conclusion.
I do not propose to give a thorough exegesis
of the passages in question, which in part are on
exegetical grounds specially difficult, in order not
to produce the impression that the correctness of
the view stated depends upon this, an impression
by which Bredenkamp, for example, does much
harm. We shall, on the contrary, do well to treat
these passages at first as critically as possible.
Even then, nay, just because of this, we shall be
in a position to show that this argument proves a
great deal too much, and therefore nothing at all.
Does Jer. I . Let US commence with the passage Jer. vii. 2 1
foil, prove and foil., and let us assume with modern criticism
coui/not ^^^^ ^^^ expression in ver. 22 Dnhw ^«^shn DV21.
have D^*iSO I>"iNO is not to be pressed so as only to be
existed • ' • ' ' •
in Jere- understood of the mom„ent of the departure from
t?me ?^ Egypt ; let us further assume that in the same verse
rhy^ ^11*7-^2? ni)^ does not mean " by reason of
burnt offerings or sacrifices," but " concerning
burnt offerings or sacrifices," the passage would
ARGUMENT FROM JER. V5I. 21 Iftl
expressly state that God had given in Mosaic
times no instructions and commands relating to
sacrifices at all. Because this is diametrically
opposed to PC, it is argued that PC could not
yet have existed in the time of Jeremiah, and the
positive testimony of that prophet is maintained
to be in favour of this view. But if we were
really to draw this conclusion from the particular
fact, we should actually infer a great deal too
much. The Books of the Covenant and Deut.
could then just as little have existed at the time
of Jeremiah ; for both, even according to the
critics, were then regarded as Mosaic and both
speak of sacrifice, especially the first Luck of the
Covenant, in the passage otherwise so rc^"'ily
used by the critics, Ex. xx. 24, " An altar of
earth shalt thou make unto me and shalt sacrifice
thereon thy burnt offerings and thy peace offerings^
thy sheep and thine oxen ; in all places where I
record my name I will come unto thee, and I
will bless thee." ^ Comp. further Ex. xxii. 20,
" He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the
Lord only, he shall surely be put to death " ; Ex.
xxiii. 1 8,2 " Thou shalt not offer the blood of
^ Kautzsch's translation *' in all places which I shall appoint that
men may worship me there " gives to the Hiphil of idi a meaning
which it nowhere else possesses.
"^ According to Cornill, p. 29, from E without being edited, in
opposition to the new translation, which assigns vers. 14-19 to the
redactor. Even Wellhausen, in his treatment of the Feasts,
proceeds on the assumption that this section is older than Deut.
ijp? ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
my sacrifice with leavened bread ; neither shall
the fat of my sacrifice remain until the morning " ;
xxxiv. 25, " Thou shalt not offer the blood of my
sacrifice with leaven ; neither shall the sacrifice of
the feast of the passover be left until the morning."
According to the Books of the Covenant, there-
fore, God certainly spoke of sacrifice in the time
of Moses, and yet Jeremiah would dispute the
fact that God stated and appointed anything con-
cerning sacrifices in the Mosaic period. One of
two alternatives is only possible here. Either we
are to regard this contradic^'^n as so strong that
we shall also ^^nsider the existence and Mosaic
authority of the Books of the Covenant quite as
irTipbssible in the time of Jeremiah as that of P,
or we are to admit that P, notwithstanding the
passage from Jeremiah, could already exist as a
Mosaic law quite as well as the Books of the
Covenant. The procedure of modern criticism is,
on the contrary, arbitrary and inconsistent. If,
however, it should say that there is a difference
between P and the Books of the Covenant, it must
be retorted that this actual difference is only one
of quantity, inasmuch as P certainly contains
more instructions about sacrifice ; but that in the
main discussion as to the relation of the prophets
to sacrifice, the question at issue is not whether
there were many sacrifices or few, but whether or
not there were any sacrifices at all. And in the
ARGUMENT APPLIED TO DEUT.103
modern exegesis of Jer. vii. 22, as a matter of
fact, any divine appointment of sacrifices in
Mosaic times is disputed.
The case for Deut. is exactly similar to
that for the Books of the Covenant. Accord-
ing to the usual assigning of the 7th chapter
of Jeremiah to the year 608,^ Deut, in the
opinion of the critics, was already introduced
as Mosaic fifteen years before, and since then
recognised as such. Now Deut. speaks of
sacrifices much more frequently than the Books
of the Covenant ; we quote the following passages :
xii. 5 and foil., " But unto the place which the
Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes
to put his name there, even unto his habitation
shall ye seek and thither shall ye come ; and
thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings and
your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings
of your hand, . . . and all your choice vows
which ye vow unto the Lord " ; xii. 1 3, " Take
heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offer-
ings in every place that thou seest : but in the
place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy
tribes, there thou shalt offer thy hirnt offerings^
and there thou shalt do all that I command thee " ;
xii. 17, "Thou mayest not eat within thy gates
^ Comp. with this chap, xxvi., where the historical setting is
prefixed to the speech given in chap. vii. ; so also Kautzsch. See
also the note on p. 23.
104 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thy oil,
or the firstlings of thy herds or of thy flock, nor
any of thy vows which thou vowest, nor thy free-
will offerings, or heave offering of thine hand,
but thou must eat them before the Lord thy
God," etc. ; xii. 26, " Only thy holy things
which thou hast, and thy vows, thou shalt take,
and go unto the place which the Lord shall
choose, and thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings,
the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the
Lord thy God ; and the blood of thy sacrifices
shall be poured out upon the altar of the Lord
thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh." Comp.
further Deut. xv. 19-23 ; xvi. 2, 5 and foil.; xvii. i ;
xviii. I, 3. Here it is even clearer than before
that, according to Deut, God had given com-
mands and instructions in reference to sacrifices
and burnt offerings in the time of Moses before
the entrance into the Holy Land, and yet
Jeremiah could utter the expression in chap. vii.
22. So there only remains here also the above-
mentioned alternative.
Jer. vii. 2 1 and foil, is undoubtedly the
passage which speaks most sharply against
sacrifices. If it proves nothing, much more is
this true of the other passages, even of Amos v.
21 and foil, (see especially ver. 25, "Have ye
offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the
wilderness forty years, O house of Israel ? ") ; for
ARGUMENT FROM AMOS V. 25 105
this only establishes the fact that in the time of
the wanderings in the wilderness (comp. ii. lo)
no sacrifice was offered — which corresponds to
the hints which we get elsewhere about that
period (comp. Deut. xii. 8 ; Ezek. xx. ; Lev. xvii.
7). But it is impossible that this can prove any-
thing against the fact that sacrifices were offered
before that time (otherwise JE must in turn be
later than the prophetic writings ; comp. Ex. xxiv.
4 and foil.), and that a legislation on ritual was
given at Sinai. All that has been adduced above,
however, may be applied generally to all these
passages about sacrifice in the prophets without
qualification. For even if Deut., according to
modern criticism, was not yet in existence for
Amos iv. and foil., Hos. vi., Mic. vi.. Is. i.
(though doubtless for Jer. vi. and Ps. xl., 1. and
foil. !), yet it will be at once admitted that the
Books of the Covenant are older than even the
oldest of the prophetic writings. Thus what we
have shown above is repeated here ; i.e. criticism
admits that the prophets could speak so sharply
against sacrifices, although instructions about
sacrifice which were regarded as Mosaic existed
in their time, and loses thereby the right of
denying, for the same reason, the existence of P
at that time.
In order that the difference between P and the
Books of the Covenant may not be appealed to,
106 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
as we have deprecated above (see p. 102), we
may add here the following remarks. Amos v.
21 ("I hate, I despise your feast days, and I
will not smell in your solemn assemblies ") and
Is. i. 1 3 and foil. (" new moons and sabbaths, the
calling of assemblies, I cannot away with : iniquity
and solemn meeting ! Your new moons and
your appointed feasts my soul hateth ; they are
a trouble unto me ; I am weary to bear them ")
attack the feasts at least as sharply as the
sacrifices ; their opposition on this point must of
course be regarded as absolute, if we do so with
reference to sacrifices. And yet in the Books of
the Covenant the Sabbath and the three principal
feasts are enjoined (comp. Ex. xx. 9-1 1 ; xxiii.
12, 14-17 ; xxxiv. 18, 21-24). We must indeed
regard it as a quite incomprehensible piece of
arbitrariness that modern criticism can on this
ground dispute the existence of P and admit the
existence of the Books of the Covenant, although
the circumstances were the same for both.
Did the 2. After we have thus seen that there is no
reaUy^ ^ argument for the Wellhausen theory, even if the
hostile^ ^ prophets had been absolutely hostile to the mode
attitude of worship, it still remains for us to inquire if the
toward 1 1 -i • 1
sacrifice? prophets really assumed such a hostile attitude to
sacrifice. It would indeed be at least a subject
of wonder that they should have put themselves
MALACHI AND SACRIFICE 107
in such antagonism to the previously-revealed will
of God, even though they only found it in the
Books of the Covenant, or in Deut., or even in
P. But that this is actually a false conception is
seen by analogies to be very probable, and may
on other grounds be definitely proved.
(a) In confirmation of the first assertion, let us
start with a passage from the prophet Malachi.
In chap. i. lO we read, "Who is there even
among you that would shut the doors for nought ?
Neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought.
I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts,
neither will I accept an offering at your hand."
The value which Malachi, however, attaches to
sacrifice is clear from other parts of his book. In
the very next verse we read, " For from the rising
of the sun even unto the going down of the same
my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and
in every place incense shall be offered unto my
name, and a pure offering " ; iii. 3 and foil.,
" And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver,
and he shall purify the sons of Levi and purge
them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto
the Lord an offering in righteousness. Then shall
the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant
unto the Lord as in the days of old, and as in
former years." The Levitism of Malachi has
certainly been pointed out, and it has been main-
tained that he, on this account, is not to be
108 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
compared with the earlier prophets. We admit
at once that the whole spirit of Malachi is different
from that of the earlier prophets, but just for that
very reason we consider Malachi to be in favour
of our view. For just because the prophet adhered
to Levitism, his rejection of sacrifices in i. I o is the
more interesting. If, notwithstanding his prefer-
ence for sacrifices, he does not say, " You must
not bring any more defective animals for sacrifices,
you must offer them henceforth in the right,
prescribed manner," but is able to say, " I will
have no sacrifices from you at all under such
circumstances," it is surely clear how hasty it is
to conclude from similar passages in the older
prophets that the latter are opposed to sacrifice in
itself. From the passage in Malachi it follows
undeniably that Jahwe can reject sacrifices when
the right disposition, reverence for Him, is wanting
(Mai. i. 6 and foil.), and that at the same time
high value is placed on sacrifice (comp. i. ii, iii.
3 and foil.).
Nay, in P itself there is a passage (Lev. xxvi.
31) which plainly says that sacrifice under certain
circumstances is of no avail. If, and because, and
so long as, the heart is uncircumcised (ver. 41),
sacrifices will not prevent banishment. Even in
F, then, God " will not smell the savour of their
sweet odours." We should therefore have quite a
wrong conception of P if we thought that P shows
PC AND RITUAL 109
itself to be contented with the mere ofifering of
sacrifice. No, there is here plainly the pre-
supposition that the right spirit, the circumcised
heart, must be associated with the sacrifices if
Jahwe is to have pleasure in them, if He is not to
lead His people into exile. Moreover, it must not
be forgotten that according to PC it is only sins
committed in ignorance (comp. Lev. iv. 2, 22,27 \
V. 15 ; Num. xv. 27 and foil.; xxxv. 11, 15)
which may be atoned for by sacrifices. " But the
soul that doeth aught presumptuously (np*! *t;^),
whether he be born in the land or a stranger, the
same reproacheth the Lord ; and that soul shall
be cut off from among his people. Because he
hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath
broken his commandment, that soul shall be utterly
cut off; his iniquity shall be found upon him"
(Num. XV. 30, 31). Were the prophets then
doing wrong according to the view of PC when
they rejected the sacrifices of their fellow-country-
men ?
Ezekiel, according to the modern view of the
originators of Levitism, might produce in chapters
xl.-xlviii. the same impression as if he made piety
an outward thing and confined it to the painful
performance of ritual, and yet we should do the
prophet a serious wrong if we thought that he
regarded the fulfilment of outward ceremonies as
the essential thing in religion. Let it not be
110 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
forgotten that Ezekiel {e.g. chap, xviii.) demands
above all else repentance from the sinner, and
that in chap, xxxvi. he promises for the future a
heart of flesh instead of a heart of stone ; only
then will the ritual prescribed by him be effective.
From what has been said it follows that even
according to P, Ezekiel and Malachi, sacrifice has
only value as an expression of a corresponding
spirit, and that, when this is lacking, sacrifice alone is
of no avail, but rather may be expressly rejected.
If, then, no one can go the length of ascribing
to Malachi on account of Mai. i. lO, or to PC on
account of Lev. xxvi. 31, an attitude absolutely
averse to sacrifice, how can this be attributed,
without question, to the pre - exilic prophetic
writers ? Here also it is clear by what a different
standard things are measured ; and this we must
bring unhesitatingly to light.
(J?) But that the modern view about the attitude
of the prophets to sacrifice is not merely incapable
of proof and improbable, but impossible, is clear
from what follows. Even Jeremiah, alongside of
the passages vi. 20 and vii. 21 and foil, predicts
in a way very similar to Malachi (iii. 3 and foil.)
sacrifices for the future when he writes (xvii. 26^),
" And they shall come from the cities of Judah,
and from the places about Jerusalem, and from
1 The genuineness of the passage is recognised as probable in the
new translation.
JEREMIAH AND SACRIFICE 111
the land of Benjamin, and from the plain, and from
the mountains, and from the south, bringing
burnt offerings, and sacrifices, and meat offerings,
and incense, and bringing sacrifices of praise, unto
the house of the Lord " ; or xxxi. 14, " And I will
satiate the soul of the priests with fatness, and my
people shall be satisfied with my goodness, saith
the Lord." We may venture also to refer to Jer.
xxxiii. 14 and foil., although these verses are
lacking in the Septuagint. Modern criticism
itself, on account of the Deuteronomic expression
in ver. 1 8 (" the priests the Levites "), cannot place
the date of these verses farther down than the
incident narrated in Ez. xliv. 4 and foil. (B.C. 573).
In ver. 18, however, it is said : " Neither shall the
priests the Levites want a man [to stand] before
me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat
offerings, and to do sacrifice continually."
If, further. Is. i. 1 2 and foil, was to be regarded
as an evidence for the essentially hostile attitude
of the prophet toward sacrifice, then the prophet
in ver. i 5 must be regarded as having pronounced
himself with equal hostility against any prayer
(" And when ye spread forth your hands, I will
hide mine eyes from you ; yea, when ye make
many prayers, I will not hear "). Moreover, an
objection in principle on Isaiah's part to the mode
of worship as such would be the more incom-
prehensible, inasmuch as with him Zion and the
112 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
temple hold such a prominent place (see, for
example, Is. ii. i and foil., iv. 2-5, viii. 18,
xviii. 7, xxxi. 9, xxx. 29, xxxiii. 20. Comp.,
besides, Am. i. 2 and Mic. iv. i and foil.), and it
was in the temple that the vision which brought
the call to Isaiah took place (see Is. vi.).
3. We have already indicated how the appar-
ently absolute antagonism of the prophets to
sacrifice in those passages is to be explained ; it was
due to the circumstances of that time. Is. i. and
Jer. vi. and foil, are directed against such people
as gave themselves up to sin without scruple, and
quieted themselves with the thought that all would
be made right again by sacrifice. The opus
operatum must be as infallible in its effect, and
secure against punishment the person who brought
the offering, as the mere possession of the temple
guaranteed to the people their eternal permanence
(see Jer. vii. 4). Under such circumstances the
only right course was to insist : " Away with all
sacrifices ! " It was not for sacrifices that Jahwe
had once addressed Himself to the people ; that
which alone He required from them, even with the
sacrifice, was obedience. This is the meaning of
the passage Jer. vii. 22, if we give the word
'>'il'T-^i; its original meaning of "because of"
(comp. Gen. xii. 1 7 ; Deut. iv. 21), whereas the
weakened meaning " concerning " can nowhere be
FAr.SE TRUST IN SACRIFICE 113
proved with certainty. In the only passage to
which this passage might appear comparatively the
nearest parallel, 2 Sam. xviii. 5, Kautzsch neverthe-
less translates " for Absalom's sake " ! Then Jer.
vii. 22 would be at once transformed into a proof
that he knows well that God when he brought
them out of Egypt had given legislation regarding
sacrifice ; only they thoroughly misunderstood it
when they thought that God attached any import-
ance to the opus operatum. It is at any rate much
more evident that the people, just by the false
conception of PC, fell into an overestimate of
sacrifice, as was certainly the case in later Judaism,
than that without such a legislation it should have
attained to false confidence in sacrifices and to a
false security.
But we shall much more readily be able to
understand the polemic against the worship in the
northern kingdom, if we reflect what this worship
was like. Here not merely was the confidence
perverted to the mere performance of the action,
but the whole worship was repugnant to God and
even in itself sinful (see especially Am. iv. 4), on
account of which it must incur the Divine con-
demnation (see e.g. Hos. x. i. and foil). But if
Hos. vi. 6 has quite a general sound, it is to be
observed that in the second clause of the verse
the sharp utterance of the first is corrected. If it
is maintained, with the newer critics (so even
I
114 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
Kautzsch), that we must translate, " For I desired
mercy and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God
and not [instead of " more than "] burnt offerings,"
and if the conclusion is drawn from this that the
prophet wanted to know nothing of worship as
such, then we may conclude from Prov. viii. lO
(" Receive my instruction and not silver ; and
knowledge and not [instead of " rather than "]
choice gold ") that the author forbids the receiving
of any silver and gold ! In reality, Hos. vi. 6
stands on the same footing with i Sam. xv. 22,
where Samuel certainly also says that to obey is
better than sacrifice and to hearken than the fat of
rams, but he does not therefore repudiate sacrifice
altogether but offers sacrifice himself.
The result of our inquiry is this. Modern
criticism may (see § i) or may not (see ^§ 2 and 3)
be right in its view of the passages from the
prophets ; in any case its conclusions as to PC
are false, or they are equally applicable to the
Books of the Covenant and Deuteronomy.
Relation (y8) With this we leave the question which has
xl.-xlviii. just been discussed and pass on to the other,
*° .*^® almost as important, regarding the relation between
Code. Ezekiel and P. It is asserted (i) that Ezekiel xl.-
xlviii. is unintelligible after P, and therefore that
PC must be placed later ; and (2) that the
priority of PC is expressly excluded by Ez.
EZEKIEL'S VISION 115
xliv. 4 and foil., inasmuch as the distinction
between priests and Levites, assumed throughout
in PC, is here first created.
I. Let us begin with the first point. In Ezekiel The
xl.-xlviii. the prophet living in exile has a vision, that PC
He feels himself suddenly carried away in the J^^*®'
spirit into the land of Israel, and finds himself Ezekiel
proves too
near the new Jerusalem (see xl. i and foil). The much.
structure of the new temple with its courts and
its surroundings is shown to him. Further, after
the entrance of Jahwe (chap, xliii.) all the laws
and ordinances which relate to the temple are
given to him — as, for instance, about the persons
who are to serve in it (xliv. 5 and foil.), the
conditions of service, the division of their land-
property, and about sacrifices and feasts. Finally,
the wonderful river of the temple is shown to
the prophet (xlvii. i and foil.), and in conclusion
the division of the land and the extent of the
holy city are exactly stated.
The purpose of the whole vision and its
meaning has been at all times a crux interpretum^
and it cannot be said that modern criticism has
been successful in solving the mystery. Ezekiel's
picture of the future has no connection with the
past ; criticism has drawn from this the con-
clusion which suggests itself at the first glance
so far as the ritual legislation of PC is concerned.
116 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
that Ezekiel was not acquainted with PC, but
rather gave the first outline of it, which the
authors of PC followed. And yet that conclusion
is hasty and unwarranted. Ezekiel, indeed, has
just as little connexion with the past, so far,
for example, as the position and structure of the
temple are concerned, or the distribution of the
land among the twelve tribes. Had the temple
of Solomon therefore not existed, or had the holy
land not been previously divided ? These points,
moreover, are not comparatively subordinate, but
occupy a larger space in the vision than the
ritual legislation. The matter is, therefore, not
so simple.
But it is further asked, how could Ezekiel
deviate from PC, if this ritual legislation had
already existed, inasmuch as on the one hand
he left so much of PC unregarded, e.g. the high-
priest — to mention only this point — and on the
other hand altered so much ; how could the
prophet dare to attack those ordinances which
were regarded as Mosaic ? Even this seems at
first sight very evident ; but it also is only in
appearance.
On the In the first place, the alleged principle of
principle criticism goes once more farther than is intended.
co^not According to it the prophet ought to be in
have been agreement with the Books of the Covenant and
acquainted
with the with Deut., the two Books of the Law which were
PROVING TOO MUCH 117
regarded as Mosaic. But since here also the Books of
agreement is lacking, and that too in such a ^ant^or^
way that on the one hand much is omitted which ^^^ ^®'^*'
was given in them, and on the other hand there
is express deviation from them, it is clear that
that principle of criticism is false and inapplicable,
or rather that, logically carried out, it should at
once involve the post-exilic origin of the Books
of the Covenant and Deut. We give in a few
examples the proof of the alleged deviations.
The Books of the Covenant and Deut. mention
three principal feasts (see Ex. xxiii. 14-17, xxxiv.
18-25 ; Deut. xvi. 1-17): the feast of unleavened
bread [passover], the feast of weeks [harvest first-
fruits], and the feast of tabernacles [ingathering],
which even PC has accepted (see Lev. xxiii. ;
Num. xxviii.). Ezekiel, on the other hand, knows
only the first and the last ; the feast of weeks is
lacking (see xlv. 1 8 and foil.).
Deut. enjoins that the tenth is to be consumed
in the holy place, but that every third year it
is to be handed over to the Levites (Deut. xiv. 22
and foil., xxvi. 12 and foil.). Ezekiel knows as
little of this as of the tenth of PC (Lev. xxvii.
30-33 ; Num. xviii. 20-22).
Deut. requires the firstlings to be eaten in the
holy place (Deut. xiv. 23-26, xv. 19-23). Ezekiel
no more mentions them than the firstlings of PC
(Lev. xxvii. 26 and foil. ; Num. xviii. i 5 and foil.).
118 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
Deut requires as a due to the priests from
those who offer sacrifices, the shoulder, the two
cheeks, and the maw (Deut. xviii. 3). Ezekiel
knows as little of this requirement as of the corre-
sponding one in PC (see Lev. vii. 31 and foil.).
The first Book of the Covenant requires (Ex.
XX. 25, 26): "And if thou wilt make me an
altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn
stone ; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou
hast polluted it. Neither shalt thou go up by steps
unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not dis-
covered thereon." On the other hand, steps lead
to Ezekiel's altar of burnt offering (Ez. xliii. 17).
In short, there is not merely lacking in this
prophet an express reference to the Books of the
Law, which even according to criticism were then
regarded as Mosaic, but the prophet disposes
quite freely of their contents, and therefore no
conclusion can be drawn against the existence
and validity of PC at that time from the devia-
tions of Ezekiel from it.
If, however, we look closely at these deviations
themselves, the difficult question of their solution
is not brought a hair's-breadth nearer by modern
criticism, but in place of the one difficulty another
and a greater one simply appears. Criticism used
to ask : How could a prophet change the law
of God ? We ask now : How could the authors
of PC deviate from the will of God revealed to
DEVIATIONS FROM PC 119
a prophet in a vision ? Only we occupy the
more favourable position in relation to our
opponents ; for we have in the Books of the
Covenant and Deut. an undisputed and indisput-
able proof that the prophet, in consequence of
the Divine vision, could deviate from the Thora ;
but there is not a single acknowledged case in
which priests ever dared to alter a revelation of
the Divine will made to a prophet.
There would be a reason which might make
us disposed to accept the posteriority of PC if we
found in it in all cases an advance on Ezekiel in
relation to the instructions about sacrifice, require-
ments for the priests, etc. But if we look more
closely, we find the stricter and more far-reaching
regulations sometimes in Ezekiel, sometimes in P,
so that nothing can be deduced from this either
for or against It is clear, and is candidly admitted
by the critics themselves (see Smend's Commentary
on Ezekiel on xlv. i8 and foil.), that in Ezekiel
everything is strictly systematised, and therefore
in the number as well as in the choice of offerings
a principle of proportion prevails and can be
recognised. Thus, e.g., the sacrifices at the Pass-
over Feast and at the Feast of Tabernacles are in
perfect proportion ; thus, further, the mincha
[meat offering] at the feasts consists regularly in
an ephah for the bullock, an ephah for the ram,
an optional quantity for the lamb, and a hin of
120 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
Ezekiel
presup-
poses a
previous
ritual
legisla-
tion.
oil for the ephah. On the other hand, this
principle does not appear in P, and no other
principle can be perceived in relation to sacrifices.
We may compare especially Ez. xiv. i8-xlvi. 15
with Num. xxviii. Now what reason could P
have had, if it was post - exilic and used Ez.
xl.-xlviii. as a starting-point, to depart from the
clear principle and to proceed without any principle
at all ? Unintelligible as this would be in itself,
it is doubly so in this case, since according to
criticism itself system was the novel and essential
thing in P. It must, however, be clear to every
unprejudiced person that the more systematic
Ezekiel is the later.
A further argument for the priority of PC is
the circumstance that it is quite impossible that
Ezekiel could have been a first ritual legislation.
For such a purpose Ez. xl.-xlviii. is much too
incomplete. Bredenkamp, with the most perfect
justice, points out (as above, p. 118) "how com-
paratively brief are the ritual enactments in com-
parison with the exhaustive description of the
temple and the future dwelling-places, and how
much is lacking which might be expected from a
detailed ritual legislation given for the first time."
Thus the simple mention of sin offering and
trespass offering (xl. 39, xliv. 29), the general
statement about dues (xliv. 30 <2), and the instruc-
tions about clean and unclean required of the
EZEK. PRESUPPOSES LEV. 121
priests (xliv. 23), necessarily presuppose as well
known more thorough enactments in detail, if
Ezekiel was not to be unintelligible. In xliv. 26,
for example, it is assumed that every one knew
how long the uncleanness (v. 25) lasted ; the only
law on the subject is Num. xix. 11, 12.
Similarly it is only prejudice which can deny
that Ezekiel, besides, knew and used at least the
law of holiness (Lev. xvii. and foil.). If Jahwe
at the exodus gave the Israelites statutes and
judgments (see, ^.^., Ez. xx. 10 and foil., xviii. 9),
if these (xviii. 5 and foil.) contained enactments
which we find in P (see, e.g., Ez. xviii. 6-8 ; Lev.
xviii. 19, XX. 18, XX. 10, xix. 13, xxv. 37, 14,
17), how can it then be maintained that the par-
ticular laws in P were only added to Ezekiel with-
out admitting that the converse connexion is much
rather to be assumed ? In the same way it is
clear from Ez. xxii. 26 not only that the priestly
Thora must have been something objective,
fixed, definite, — since otherwise the expression
Dpn (to profane) could not have been used, — but
especially that it must have contained regulations
about clean and unclean, holy and profane. What
then is the objection to recognising the greater
antiquity of the particular enactments of PC ?
We arrive at the conclusion that Ezekiel pre-
supposes acquaintance not only with the law of
holiness (just referred to) but also with the law of
122 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
sacrifice (Lev. i.-vii.) and with the enactments
about the priests' dues (see especially Num. xviii.).
As, therefore, there is no lack of allusions in
Ezekiel to PC, so on the other hand it would be
difficult to prove the necessity of acquaintance
with Ezekiel on the part of PC. By the following
argument it is even as good as excluded. If
the priests had relied upon Ez. xl.-xlviii. in the
way in which the critics assume, so that they
only completed more fully the programme of the
prophet, then it would be quite incomprehensible
how they could have left quite unnoticed and
unused the description of Ezekiel's temple, the
distribution of the land and other things, which
occupy the largest space in that vision, and have
arbitrarily laid hold, instead, on chaps, xliv.-xlvi.,
only to alter even these in almost every point.
So far as I can see, Ezekiel xl.-xlviii. cannot
possibly be brought into a development of the
laws. Apart from the general standpoint, just
discussed, that the understanding of Ezekiel with-
out P is simply impossible, those chapters can
by no means be smoothly dovetailed into the
course of legislation, and deviate in many points
quite as much from the Books of the Covenant
and from Deut. as from PC. What Ezekiel
beheld in the vision could only have come into
force if the conditions had been brought about by
Jahwe in the transformation of the land. The
VISION UNFULFILLED 123
condition never came to pass, and therefore the
whole legislation, or let us rather say the whole
ideal project of Ezekiel, remained inoperative. It
cannot actually be shown from a single passage
that even a solitary enactment of Ezekiel came
into force, or was even intended to come into
force, before the building of Ezekiel's temple,
before the entry of Jahwe into it, before the trans-
formation of the land and its distribution, and
before the flowing of the wonderful temple fountain
with its still more wonderful effects. But we have
yet to give proof for one passage, namely, Ez.
xliv. 5 and foil. Before we pass on to it, let us
sum up the substance of this section.
{a) No conclusion can be drawn from the Summary,
deviations of Ezekiel from PC in favour of the
later date of the former, because such deviations
extend also to the Books of the Covenant, Deut.,
and the foregoing history.
{b) Nothing is gained by the assumption that
PC is later than Ezekiel, but a new puzzle is
simply put in place of the old.
{c) The following reasons, indeed, contradict
this assumption : —
(a) Deviations of the prophet from a law
recognised as Mosaic can be adduced ;
but for the deviations of the priests from
the will of God revealed to a prophet we
would have no analogy of any kind.
124 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
(y8) Ezekiel is more systematic than PC in the
sacrificial legislation, whereas, according to
the modern hypothesis, quite the converse
might be expected.
(7) Ezekiel xl.-xlviii. as the first legislation or
ritual would be incomplete and inadequate ;
it rather presupposes necessarily such a
legislation as we find in P ; and besides,
at least an acquaintance with the law of
holiness is demonstrable.
(S) Conversely, there is no reference to Ezekiel
in P, although such was to be expected.
(e) The eclectic use of Ezekiel by P would be
quite unintelligible.
In short, the general comparison of Ez. xl.-xlviii.
and P results adversely to modern criticism.
The 2. But how does the case stand in regard to the
degrada- passage Ez. xliv. 4 and foil., which treats of the
priests to degradation of priests of the sanctuary to Levites ?
Levites
(Ez. xliv. Here we come to one of the principal supports
* of modern criticism. Thus, e.g., Kautzsch (p. 181)
says : " This requirement of Ezekiel \i.e. of that
degradation] is the root of the distinction between
priests and Levites, which Deuteronomy as yet
knows nothing of, whilst it plays an eminently
important part in the priestly law. This circum-
stance is alone sufficient to assign to the so-called
Priestly Code its proper place — after Ezekiel."
DEGRADATION OF PRIESTS 125
Similarly Wellhausen (p. i66). How Deut.
on this point is related to PC we shall see
later on. The question here at issue is not
whether the modern exegesis of Ez. xliv. is
possible along with others equally permissible,
but whether it is necessary ; whether, in other
words, Ez. xliv. taken by itself is really adequate
to prove the later date of PC.
According to PC the persotmel of worship^
represented through the whole tribe of Levi, is
divided into the twofold rank of priests (with the
high-priest at the head) and the ordinary Levites
(see, e.g., Ex. xxviii., xxix. ; Lev. viii. and foil.,
xvi. 21 ; Num. i.-iv., viii., xvi.-xviii.). To the
first class are appointed all the sons of Aaron, to
the second all the other Levites. According to
modern criticism this lower rank was only created
for the first time by the degradation of the priests
of the sanctuary, which is described in Ez. xliv.
The passage Ez. xliv. 4 and foil, falls into
two sections. First of all, according to vers. 4-8,
Israel sinned grievously, inasmuch as they appointed
to the care of the inferior service in God's sanctuary,
which He had entrusted to themselves, "strangers,
uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in
flesh." The second train of thought is imme-
diately connected with this (ver. 9 and foil.) : —
When Israel fell into idolatry in the high places,
the priests — who are described by the repeated
126 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
expression " the Levites that went astray from me "
— were partakers in it. Only the central priesthood
of Jerusalem, " the priests the Levites, the sons of
Zadok," had no part in that idolatry ; they alone,
therefore, may still remain priests. Those others,
on the contrary, as a punishment for their trans-
gressions, must henceforth perform in the sanctuary
the lower service handed over in the most recent
past to the uncircumcised strangers. This is the
substance of Ez. xliv. 4-15. In this point we
at once feel ourselves in agreement with the
critics, that it is a real degradation of priests that
is here spoken of, and not merely a replacement
in a former rank from which they had illegally
raised themselves ; for then the expression " they
shall bear their iniquity" in vers. 10 and 12 would
scarcely be intelligible.
If, then, P was already in existence before
Ezekiel, the priests degraded to the inferior posi-
tion are all the sons of Aaron, the descendants
of Aaron's sons, Eleazar and Ithamar (see Lev.
X.), except the sons of Zadok. But when criticism
thinks it necessary to conclude from the passage
that the lower position to which they were con-
demned was an absolutely new one created by
Ezekiel, so that the previous existence of P would
be thereby excluded, not only can this not be
proved, but it can be expressly refuted from the
verses 4-8.
DEGRADATION IMPLIES LAW 127
{a) If the prophet can here make the greatest But this
religious and moral reproaches against the Israel- im^fes^ ^^^
ites (even that of breaking^ the covenant, in case ^^^^o^fdi-
^ fc> ' ence to a
we are to read in ver. 7 — with the Sept., Well- previous
enact-
hausen, Kautzsch, Kohler, Bredenkamp, and others ment.
— "^ipn^ instead of ^"ip^^J because they admitted
heathen strangers to that service in the sanctuary
which had been entrusted to themselves, this is
only morally justifiable, nay, it is only intelligible
at all on the ground that Israel had received a
command from God to attend themselves to this
inferior temple service.
If, then, we assume P to be post-Ezekiel, we
look in vain for such an enactment to which
Ezekiel could have appealed. But we certainly
find it in P, especially in the passage Num. xviii.
3, 4, with which Ezekiel is in harmony, even to
the very words. If, moreover, the order is here
given in the more definite form that that service
is specially assigned to the Levites, this is not
only not remarkable but very intelligible ; for if
the care of the sanctuary had been handed over
to the Israelites in general by an express command
of God, it is clear that more thorough regulations
had to be imposed, and probable that specific
persons were entrusted with this service. If,
nevertheless, it is maintained that Ezekiel was
not acquainted with PC, it remains a mystery
how he could venture to reproach the Israelites,
128 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
and how they could have put up with it. Both
of these things seem to be an impossibility.
From the passage in Ezekiel, so far as I can
see, the following is clear. Ezekiel was at any
rate acquainted with the distinction between a
higher and lower grade of service in the sanctuary ;
regulations must have been familiar to the Israel-
ites not only about the higher (priestly service),
but also about the lower. But these are only to
be found in PC, according to which the latter
service was assigned to the Levites. They
handed it over to heathen strangers, and Israel
calmly looked on. Now the priests — according
to PC the sons of Aaron, with the exception of
the sons of Zadok — who were partakers in the
idolatry are in future to discharge this duty as a
punishment for their transgression. But there is
no room for the suggestion that Ezekiel was the
first to create this inferior grade.
Ezekiel (b) That PC with its distinction between priests
13, pre- ' and Levites is presupposed, follows further from
apposes ^j^g £^^^ ^^^^ ^l^jg distinction appears in Ez.
xlviii. II, 13 as something quite familiar and self-
evident, whilst Ezekiel does not give the slightest
hint that he intends henceforth to describe the
degraded priests specially as " Levites " in con-
trast with the sons of Zadok, who were themselves
indeed also Levites, and are further described by
him as " the priests the Levites " or as " sons of
"LEVITE " NOT A REPROACH 129
Levi." This would have been absolutely necessary
in the event of the priority of Ezekiel. But if
PC was the older book, according to which the
title of " Levites " was expressly given to the
personnel of the lower rank of service, it was of
course unnecessary.
{c) But even if Ezekiel had expressly said that The word
he would describe the degraded priests henceforth could not
as ''Levites" Kar efo^^V, it would, on Wellhausen's chosen IT
own showing^ be incomprehensible how Ezekiel ^ mark of
punish-
could have chosen this name for the newly created ment.
rank. Wellhausen (p. 142) says: "Not only in
Deuteronomy, but everywhere in the Old Testa-
ment, except Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles,
Levite is the priest's title of honour." Since, how-
ever, in Ezekiel the admittedly new position is a
position of punishment, he could not really have
found for it a more inappropriate name.
{d) There is a further difficulty for modern Incred-
criticism if we consider the method in which Ezekiel Ezekiel
is supposed to have introduced this distinction. f^J^^^.^^^®
According; tocriticism, those priests of the sanctuary duced the
^ ^ ^ distinc-
had been within their perfect right. Wellhausen tion,
says, for example (p. 120) : " Hitherto these men
(the Levitical priests of the sanctuary) occupied the
priesthood, and that, too, not in consequence of
despotic usurpation, but by reason of their just
rights." And on p. i 2 I : " It is a strange justice
that the priests of the abolished Bamoth [high
K
130 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
places] are punished because they were priests of
the abolished Bamoth, and conversely, the priests
of the Jerusalem temple are rewarded because they
were priests of the temple : the guilt of the former
and the merit of the latter consists in their exist-
ence. In other words, Ezekiel merely throws a
moral mantle over the logic of facts." In the
first place, Wellhausen is mistaken in seeing in
that worship of the high places only the worship
of Jahwe and not idolatry, which does not agree
with Ez. xliv. lO and many other passages. As
we are proceeding historically and not dogmatic-
ally, we shall not dwell upon the fact that in this
case the prophet would act in a manner not only
very questionable, but absolutely objectionable from
a moral point of view, although I must regard
it as even historically false to credit a man —
who otherwise stands before us in spotless purity,
and who besides asserts high moral and religious
principles which have still their value even in
Christendom — with acting in such a way, if con-
vincing proofs of it of a quite different kind are
not forthcoming.
But even if, as I have said, we pass away from
this, we must still wonder at the man's folly, nay,
even find it incomprehensible. How could he
hope to attain anything by such means ? Let us
think for a moment of the year 623. In that
year Deut. is said to have indeed abolished the
AN IMPOSSIBLE THEORY 131
high places, but to have expressly permitted the
priests of the high places to perform priestly
service in Jerusalem as well as their brethren (see
Deut. xviii. 6. We saw above that this idea was
quite impossible, p. 31). Deut. is said, moreover,
to have been carried out and recognised ; only this
enactment had never prevailed (see 2 Kings xxiii.
9), and the Levitical priests had themselves
neglected to appeal to Deut. for their rights.
(Again an impossibility ; see above.) Now, in the
exile, Ezekiel comes and is not contented that
these unhappy people had been thrown out of
their calling and means of subsistence, but assigns
to them a quite subordinate position, and that too
as a punishment, although they had been quite
innocent. Did it not occur to him at all that the
degraded priests would rise as one man and
unsparingly disclose his objectionable mode of
action ? In reality criticism assumes that he
could not succeed in this way. Stiff battles must
have taken place such as are mirrored in Num. xvi.
The authors of PC would therefore have founded
differently the position of the Levites — a point on
which something must be said later on. At any
rate it ought to be supposed that Ezekiel himself
must have been clever enough to see that he could
not thus attain his object ; that did not require
much penetration. Even a child will defend itself
energetically if it is blamed and punished although
132 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
it is in the right. But here it was men who were
in question, men whose whole position was being
ruined and to whom a perpetual stain was being
attached.
And yet the prophet, with his short-sightedness,
had once more an unheard-of good fortune. The
position of the Levites might be otherwise founded
in PC, the restriction of the priesthood to the sons
of Zadok might not be discontinued ; but the
prophet would have nevertheless attained what he
wanted. From that moment the separation of
priests and Levites would be taken in hand, and in
the scanty number of the Levites who returned
after the exile in the year 528 (74; see Ezra ii.
40) the plainest proof is discovered for the correct-
ness of the modern view of Ez. xliv. ; though
very erroneously. If it was really as criticism
represents, it would be a cause of the utmost
astonishment if, after the irritating treatment, even
a single Levite had returned to perform the penal
service, whilst, besides, it is not so very difficult to
understand that few serving Levites returned ;
according to our view of Ez. xliv. their position
was of so little consequence to them that they had
been able to hand it over to heathen strangers.
But, moreover, it is also probable that a further
division had already taken place at that time
among the serving staff, so that the singers, the
porters, and the temple-servants (Ezra ii. 41, 42,
EZRA AND CRITICAL VIEW 133
43) were Levites by descent quite as much as the
priests, only that by the expression " Levites "
they were not meant any more than the priests,
but the meaning was restricted to a definite grade
within the serving staff (see Neh. xii. 44-47 ; xiii.
10). Then the 74 Levites, Ezra ii., are really
quite harmless, since at least the singers and
porters, and perhaps also the temple-servants, were
also Levites, even though they were no longer
described as such (see also i Chr. xxiii.-xxvi.).
(e) Modern criticism is, besides, very unwise to Ezraii.
appeal to Ezra ii. For how does it propose to support
explain the large number of priests (4289) if, first *^f ^P^^'
of all, according to Ezek. xliv., only the sons of
Zadok were still priests ?
In addition to this is the fact that one cannot
understand how the intention of Ezekiel had been
so hastily carried out, since he intends his new
order only for the time after the building of the
new temple, in which the sons of Zadok and the
degraded priests of the sanctuary were to perform
their service, and since nothing else of Ezekiel's
programme seems to have been executed.
{/) If we here proceed at once to the further The
development which the question of priests and theory
Levites has assumed in modern criticism, it may ^u^th^^ra^f
be shown from this also how utterly untenable ^^ ^i*^
astound-
the modern conclusions are. ing folly.
Since in the year 458 the Levites again showed
134 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
little desire to return, and the hostility of the
degraded priests to the irritating purpose of
Ezekiel found vent (as Num. xvi. and foil, is to
be read), it was at last perceived in priestly circles,
according to criticism (see Kautzsch, p. 194), that
the position of the Levites must be founded other-
wise than in Ezekiel, in order to succeed really
and" permanently with that innovation ; it was
clear that Ezekiel had made a complete mistake
with his " moral mantle " which he had thrown
over " the logic of facts." They were therefore
cleverer than Ezekiel, it would appear. And yet
on closer consideration the conduct of the priests
would be still more foolish. Let us assume that
Ezekiel had prepared the degradation and ap-
pointed it as punishment. The opposition to it
is so intelligible that the lack of it would be
strange. There were now, in my opinion, only
two reasonable ways : either the demand of
Ezekiel was allowed to fall to the ground entirely
and the distinction between priests and Levites
was not introduced at all — in other words, was
given up again — or with reckless consistency the
demand of Ezekiel was tenaciously adhered to
and appeal was made to the fact that God had
announced through the prophet His unchangeable
will. The authors of PC take a third way ; they
seek to sweeten the bitter pill for the Levites, and
to reconcile them to their inferior position, by
FOLLY OF AUTHORS OF PC 135
representing their service no longer as a punish-
ment but as an honour. " According to Ezekiel
xliv. 10 and foil, the condemnation of the priests
of the sanctuary to an inferior service in the holy
place was a merited punishment ; according to
the Priestly Code the service of the Levites is by
virtue of Divine appointment an honourable office
of which they might be proud " (Kautzsch, p. 194).
Even here we refrain from passing judgment on
the morality of such conduct, but we hope that
many a reader will be repelled by the questionable
methods to which criticism has again to resort.
Here, too, we only confirm the incredible folly
of the authors of PC and its still more incredible
result.
How could they even hope to attain anything
in such a way ? If the Levites had previously
refused, their refusal must now have been really
challenged ; or was it really so difficult to observe
that the case was quite differently represented
here from the way Ezekiel put it ? No ; they
would only have exposed themselves, and in the
feeble yielding on the part of the priests it was
quite evident that they felt themselves insecure in
their position, and that they were quite convicted
of being in the wrong and of doing wrong. No
doubt the state of affairs would have been altered
and concealed by taking refuge under the authority
of Moses. But even this could not succeed. The
136 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
degraded Levites required only to point to the
history and to the fact that down to the time of
Ezekiel nothing was known (as criticism assumes)
of a distinction between priests and Levites, and
that he had nevertheless clearly and plainly (again
speaking in the sense of the critics) introduced
the position for the first time. And, further,
they could protect themselves with Deut. and
thus set law against law. Here it was surely
quite clear that Moses knew nothing of a dis-
tinction between priests and Levites, but recog-
nised all Levites as entitled to the priesthood.
Incidents such as that of Num. xvi. and foil,
might be found ten times over ; in Deut. there
was the last will of the great lawgiver. In
short, all the arguments which we made valid
generally under the " Criticism of the modern
result " repeat themselves here on a particular
point with increased force. The authors of PC
must have said to themselves that the Levites,
whose position was at stake, would leave no stone
unturned to spy out any weak points which the
priests presented, to discover inconsistencies, and
at any rate to adduce everything which could be
adduced at all in their own favour.
If we are to follow the critics we must credit
the authors of PC with such folly. But now a
further miracle takes place : the opposition is
silenced as if in a moment. The priests have
FRESH DIFFICULTIES 137
more good luck than good sense. They succeed
with their new estabHshment of the position of
Levites. The Levites themselves fulfil their office
and have not the slightest idea of cherishing any
mistrust against the new Book of the Law ; they
had indeed joined in subscribing their obedience
to it (Neh. X. i, 10-13), ^^^ the rest had associ-
ated themselves with them (Neh. x. 28, 29).
In short, the Graf - Wellhausen hypothesis
shows itself in this point also to be a really
monstrous construction of history ; it makes un-
precedented demands on its adherents, and creates
difficulties in comparison with which those urged
by Wellhausen are mere child's play.
The position is not, moreover, made more
probable by the fact that P considers not merely
the sons of Zadok, but all the sons of Aaron,
entitled to the priesthood. What does this ex-
tension mean? If we are to find therein a
further confirmation of the view that Ezekiel's
enactment was not successful and that others had
to be admitted to the priesthood, then what has
been above adduced would be sufficient on this
point. We should have to conclude that the
remaining Levites had appealed to such cases of
precedent. But if no confirmation is to be
found in the extension by P, then we are con-
fronted by a puzzle. What, in this case, is the
meaning of the introduction of the two sons of
138 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
Aaron, Nadab and Abihu (Lev. x.), who die with-
out leaving any descendants ? Before we refer to
a further difference between PC and Ezekiel xliv.,
which remains unexplained by criticism, let us in
this connexion, where we have spoken of the
priests the sons of Zadok, call attention to a
strange assertion of the newer critics. It is
asserted that Zadok was " the beginner of an
absolutely new line " which could not trace its
origin farther back than the commencement of
the time of the Kings (see Wellhausen, p. 123).
Since, however, it was desired to let the claim
of his descendants to the priesthood appear justifi-
able, the aid of a Divine revelation had to be
sought. For this purpose the prophecy to Eli
(i Sam. ii. 27 and foil.) arose, which is supposed
to have originated with the Deuteronomist.
But if it was so generally known down to the
time of the exile, that Zadok by descent had no
claims to the priesthood, then the following points
are quite unintelligible : —
1. Deut, originating in the seventh century, is
supposed to have reference to existing conditions
throughout. How, then, could it emphasise the
Levitical descent of the priests (see the expression
d^^hrt D'^Dnsn, ^.^., in xviii. i) if the very centre
of the priesthood did not possess this descent ?
2. How could it occur to one who wrote in the
sense of Deut. to make Zadok legitimate in a
A NEST OF CONTRADICTIONS 139
manner which contradicted the requirements of
Deut., inasmuch as he showed that Zadok was
not a Levite (i Sam. ii. 27 and foil.) ? ^
3. How can Ezekiel, a few years later, in con-
tradiction to tradition and the passage just quoted,
assume as self-evident that Zadok was of Levitical
descent (see Ezek. xl. 46, xliii. 19, xliv. 15)?
Here, therefore, is once more quite a nest of
contradictions, if we accept the assumptions of
criticism. i Sam. ii. 27 has been entirely mis-
understood and arbitrarily interpreted.
But to return to Ezek. xliv. If the authors of
PC had depended on Ezekiel, they would certainly
have taken up also the duties of the newly-created
office. According to Ezek. xliv. there was not
merely assigned to the inferior Levites the care of
the sanctuary (comp. vers. 8 and 14 with Num.
xviii. 3 and foil.) ; they had also to slay the
burnt offerings and the sacrifices for the people
(ver. 11) and to boil the sacrifices (xlvi. 24). Of
^ The author, Mr. Moller, in reply to an inquiry about this
paragraph, says : " I Sam. ii. 27 and foil, has, in my opinion, not
the slightest reference to Zadok in the sense which Wellhausen
means. This reference is introduced into it for the first time by
Wellhausen, and that, too, without any proof, but purely on the
basis of a hypothesis. Zadok is mentioned as priest under David,
2 Sam. XX. 25 (comp. i Kings i. 34), along with Abiathar ; the
latter is deposed, i Kings ii. 27 ; here there is a reference to I
Sam. ii. 27 and foil. But that, conversely, i Sam. ii. 27 and foil,
first originated, ex eveniu, in order to legitimise Zadok, who is
thenceforth high-priest (comp. Ezek. xl.-xlviii.) is a pure assumption,
which I have endeavoured to refute above." — Trans.
140 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
this there is not a word in P. There the chief
function of the Levites is the transport of the
tabernacle (see Num. iii.). If then the chronicler
expressly declares (i Chron. xxiii. 25 and foil.) that
the privileges of the Levites were extended under
David (cf. also 2 Chron. xxx. 1 7, xxxv. 1 1 and
foil.), there is in this fact not only a confirmation
of the historical truth of the Chronicle, which was
very unlikely to alter P, but also an evidence that
the deviations of Ezek. from P are explained by
the development in the course of the history. On
the other hand, the deviation of PC from Ezekiel
is incomprehensible.
The true Ezekiel xliv. 4 and foil, has therefore become
seq^nce ^ proof- passage against the modern hypothesis.
Let us repeat the most important points. PC
must be earlier than Ezekiel ; for otherwise the
prophet could not reproach the Israelites for
appointing heathen strangers to the care of the
temple which had been imposed as a duty upon
themselves ; otherwise, after the degradation in
xliv. 9 and foil, he could not assume and introduce
without further comment, as if well known, the
distinction between " priests " and " Levites "
(xlviii. II, 13); otherwise he could not have
given to the degraded ones the hitherto honour-
able title of the priests — " Levites." The modern
view of Ezek. xliv. breaks down further in this
that Ezekiel would punish the priests of the
Ezekiel,
not
Ezekiel
—P.
PC MUST PRECEDE EZEKIEL 141
sanctuary for something that they could not help ;
here neither the prophet's action nor its con-
sequence would be intelligible. We had to say
the same in regard to the authors of PC, who
would have deviated incomprehensibly from
Ezekiel in the establishment of the new office,
in the extension of the priesthood to all the sons
of Aaron, and in the definition of the duties of
the Levites. Finally, the rapid execution of this
particular enactment of Ezekiel would be quite
unintelligible. If we add § i, the complete result
is that the true sequence is not Ezekiel — P, but
P — Ezekiel.
(7) Even in the case of the argument which Relation
modern criticism deduces from history it cannot be history,
our task to remove all difficulties ; we shall content ll^^^^^l^ie
ourselves with indicating the lines on which they Priestly
^ Code,
may be met. We are above all anxious here to
show the false principles on which criticism has
proceeded.
I . When it is asserted that there are no traces Are there
of PC in the history before 444, we must first make of pc
it clear what we are to understand by this. JJJg*Q®
Allusion has often been made above to the fre- before
444?
quent assertion of criticism that PC only codified
the practice and reduced it to a system (see p.
66 and foil.). But if we ask for traces, it quickly
142 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
falls back upon the artificial distinction between
usage and codified law, and asserts that here there
is only usage. In how many cases, however, will
the historian be in a position to say whether
something takes place only from usage or from
obedience to a law ? Apart, therefore, from what
we have said above (" Criticism of the modern
result," § 2) against this view of PC, I find that
it is asking too much if we are not content with
such proofs in a general way, but demand quite
unequivocal evidences that the subject is not
merely the contents of PC generally, or a usage,
but a codified law. Then the literature before
444 must appear similar to the historical work of
the chronicler (Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles), which
certainly regards the history from the point of
view of PC. Let us think for a moment of this
historical work. Where do we find, then, in the
other literature after 444 such clear traces of the
existence of PC ? And how much is now
transferred by criticism to this period — think of
the numerous sections of the prophetic books and
the Psalter ! Nay, even in the Psalms which
praise the Law (Ps. i., xix., and especially cxix.)
I can find no specific traces of PC. This might
restrain us from making too extravagant demands
on the period before 444.
In PC the ritual is regulated down to the most
minute detail ; certainly the life of the individual
TRACES OF PC BEFORE 444 143
Israelite was influenced by it also in a high degree
if he adhered to PC. But in history that which
regularly happens is not usually mentioned speci-
ally, because it is regarded as self-evident and is
familiar to every one. Of this kind are the customs
of daily life and purely legal enactments and their
observance, and so it follows that before as well
as immediately after 444 PC might often remain
unnoticed. Wellhausen has skilfully used the first
argument, and has known how to take advantage
of it for his hypothesis ; the second, on the other
hand, he has ignored.
But if we are once convinced of the fact that
the conditions after 444 were not essentially
different from what they were before it, it follows
either that that conclusion was not justified for
the period before 444, or else that we must come
much farther down with PC. Besides, if we wanted
to build as much on the traces of the Books of the
Covenant as on those of PC, we could quite as
easily place them as late as 444 ; of this we shall
speak in the next section.
Further, it is not the case that there would be
no traces of PC before 444. We will not follow
them up in detail, but only examine the arbitrary
action of criticism in relation to such traces.
All passages from P, as, e.g., the note in Jos.
xviii. I, that the tabernacle of the congregation
was set up in Shiloh, are a priori regarded by it
144 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
as unhistorical. Here two things are at once
mixed up which should be strictly kept separate.
That is to say, it is quite a different thing whether
I regard the history of a people from a particular
standpoint, and consequently emphasise and render
prominent those features, and only those, which
harmonise with that standpoint, or whether I not
merely bring out those features but invent them.
To the former there is no objection except that
it is a one-sided action ; the latter deserves the
reproach of being the grossest falsification of
history. On the critical theory the reproach
would fit JE, which invents the history of the
patriarchs in accordance with the religious-ethical
conditions of the time of the prophets, the Deutero-
nomist (see the discussion on Deut. § 6), and the
authors of PC, who would have not merely regarded
history from a one-sided point of view, but ex-
pressly falsified it.
The Against this we must enter the emphatic
""istory " objection, not only that it is in itself a quite
is itself arbitrary assertion, incapable of proof, not only
historical, that those men appear again in a very peculiar
light, not only that with quite as much right we
may set down as unhistorical and reject the narra-
tive in 2 Kings xxii. and foil, and Neh. viii.-x.,
but that, viewed rationally, it is simply unthinkable
and would stand quite alone in the history of
nations. Let us suppose that some one in the
CRITICS DISTORT HISTORY 145
sixteenth century wanted to write German history
and would ascribe the art of printing to the ancient
Germans ; another in the beginning of our century
would assume the steam printing-press as already
in use in the most ancient times. One would
describe our ancestors as travelling by railroad ;
another would have them using the electric light.
Would we submit to this or place implicit confi-
dence in such a disfigurement of history ? In the
history of Israel such a process would have been
repeated three times in succession ; three times
the Israelites would have allowed a completely
different representation of their history to be im-
posed upon them ; three times they are so good
as to submit to this as well as to the three mutually
contradictory — yet introduced as Mosaic — collec-
tions of laws.
How foolish, truly, is this people ! But how
foolish also the authors ! They alter the history
agreeably to their own opinion, and not only
introduce their own principles and points of view,
but they invent histories to suit these, and yet
allow to remain beside them the old narratives
which contradict them and expressly exclude them.
Thus, then, there is on the one side an incom-
prehensible impiety toward history, and on the
other a still more incomprehensible reverence for
other sources. Because such a method of treating
Israelitish history is a monstrosity which carries
L
146 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
the stamp of impossibility on the face of it, nothing
remains but to assume that the various narratives
do not mutually exclude, but supplement one
another. Each of them gives true history, even
though one-sidedly from a particular point of
view ; but it is certainly not the case that what is
narrated by each of them is pure invention, for
then the earlier narratives would not have been
allowed to remain calmly beside them.
Applying this to the special case before us, we
must regard it as wrong to brand as unhistorical,
without further explanation, all historical references
in P. It holds good here and elsewhere : — Either
I must use most conscientiously the comparatively
rare references to Israelitish history in re-stating
them, or I must regard them as unhistorical and
thus disable myself completely from knowing any-
thing certain about that history. For I repeat
that we only require to apply to Nehemiah viii.-
X. for PC the principle of method applied by
modern criticism to 2 Kings xxii. and foil, for
Deut, which would only be consistent, and the
Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis is entirely in the air !
The procedure of the critics in treating the sources
so arbitrarily, and at the same time wanting to
draw a faithful historical picture, is a contradictio
in adjecto and forfeits a priori every pretence to
credibility.
Besides, it is not enough for the critics to reject
UNSCIENTIFIC METHODS 147
only the traces which are ascribed to PC itself as
eo ipso unhistorical, because by this means alone
it would not attain its object. If other traces are
found, they prefer to choose any other explanation,
so as not to be compelled to admit that there are
actually influences of P to be found. They either
help themselves in the way indicated above, and
say that the reference is only to a usage but not
to the observance of a codified law, or they assign
such passages to a late date, a strange petitio
principii (see Judges xix.-xxi.), or they brush
aside the words in question as glosses, without
being able to assign the slightest reason for doing
so ; thus, e.g.^ in the new translation by Kautzsch,
in the expression S'^n^n iTlBrT in 2 Kings xxii. 4,
8, xxiii. 4, the Sman is simply regarded as a
gloss, without it being thought necessary to assign
any reason. And then it is maintained that there
is no trace of the high-priest before the exile !
But in this fashion anything may be proved, or at
least maintained. There is here an end to all
scientific procedure, and they are quite unjustified
in boasting of their historical method.
We do not stop to indicate in detail such traces
in the pre-exilic period (see, e.g., I Sam. ii. 1 1 and
foil., where the conduct of the sons of Eli at the sac-
rifice is regarded as a grave offence ; see vers. 16, 17,
which assume the transgression of enactments like
Lev. vii. 30, 32, x. i 5 ; Ex. xxix. 30, 3 i ; Lev. viii.
148 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
31 ; Num. vi. 19, 20 ; Lev. vii. 29-32 ; see Kohler,
ii. p. 13, note 2, and Strack's Einleitung^ § I3> 3)«
It is clear that according to the principles referred
to they would be set aside with a smile.
Let us only call attention here to the fairly
numerous traces immediately after the exile.
They are found therefore at a time when they
must be very unwelcome to modern criticism, since
they really are only justified in appearing in 444
for the first time. For it was hitherto one of the
principal levers for unhinging the earlier view and
assigning PC to the time shortly before 444, to
assert that the contents of the law promulgated
in Neh. viii.-x. was something totally new to the
people (see above, "Criticism of the modern result,"
§ I, and Kautzsch, p. 194). But now since the
return from the exile not only is the distinction
between priests and Levites, about which we spoke
above, quite self-evident (see Ezra ii. 36, 40 ;
Neh. vii. 39, 43), but even the high-priest, whom
Ezekiel is supposed not to have known (according
to criticism he did not even know the Feast of
Weeks, see above), appears all of a sudden (see
Hag. i. I ; Zech. iii. 6, 10 and foil.), and nowhere
is there any mention of the introduction of this
highly important institution. How is this con-
ceivable, and how does it harmonise with the other
principles of criticism ? For this priest Urim and
Thummim are wanting, which belonged to him
PRE-EXILIC TRACES OF PC 149
according to Exod. xxviii. 30 (see Ezra ii. 63 ;
Neh. vii. 65). The question of Haggai (Hag. ii.
1 1 and foil.) presupposes that the Thora of the
priests covered such questions of ritual, and the
answer is given in accordance with Lev. vi. 20,
Num. xix. 22. The prophet Malachi, whom
criticism places before 444, is nevertheless regarded
by it as Levitical through and through, and pre-
supposes the enactments of PC on the tithe, see
iii. 8-10 (comp. Nowack, Kleine Propheten^ on this
passage).
Ps. xl., on account of its polemic against
sacrifice, is brought down by criticism to the exile ;
in verse 7 the sin offering, which is only minutely
described in P (see Lev. iv.), is assumed as some-
thing well known. Similarly P is presupposed
in Ezra vi. 8 and foil. Should it be said in reply
that PC became naturalised by degrees in its
various sections, then not only is that argument
abandoned that in Neh. viii.-x. something quite
new is introduced, but the whole position is made
much more difficult than it is already ; for then
the people must have allowed themselves to be
deceived still oftener, and believed that enactments
differing from one another and hitherto entirely
unknown were nevertheless Mosaic.
We have shown that criticism in its demand
for traces is too audacious ; that, further, it is
arbitrary for it to deny all credibility to the
150 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
historical references of PC and to brush aside
other traces simply as glosses, and that finally it
is impossible for it to do anything with the traces
before 444. The result is that the argumentum
e silentio either proves nothing or can only be
made applicable by the arbitrariness of modern
criticism, or finally directs itself against the critics
themselves, inasmuch as what they demand is
actually in existence before 444.
That the 2. Let US now turn to the argument that PC
ments of cannot be pre-exilic, because it was so generally
vSirtedis violated. But here also far too much is at once
no proof concluded. Let this principle be consistently
that they i' ^ y
did not carried out and it will be seen whither it will lead.
The Book of the Covenant was in existence,
according to criticism, for several centuries, and
yet it was not able to prevent the abominations,
described in 2 Kings xxiii., which were forbidden
by it (see " Criticism of the modern date of Deut-
eronomy," §1). It must therefore, to be consistent,
have originated only after 623. But we must
come down to a still later date with it. Inter-
marriage with the heathen inhabitants of the land
was clearly forbidden (Ex. xxxiv. 1 6) ; yet even
in the middle of the fifth century they gave
themselves little concern about it (see Mai. ii. 10
and foil.; Ezra ix. i and foil.; Neh. x. 30, 31 ;
xiii. 23 and foil.). Therefore it could not yet
A NON SEQUITUR 151
have been in existence at that time. The same
holds good of Deut., which contains the same
enactment (Deut. vii. 3).
Deut. must also, therefore, necessarily be placed
after the exile, because the offences censured by
it were in existence quite as much after 623 as
before it, which is freely conceded by Wellhausen.
The narrative in 2 Kings xxii., xxiii. must therefore
rest upon fiction, as is assumed also with regard
to the reformation of worship under Hezekiah,
2 Kings xviii.
Further, Nehemiah viii.-x. must also rest upon
fiction, for the newly-introduced Book of the Law
is immediately violated (see Neh. xiii. 10 and foil.).
In short, it is a quite erroneous principle to
infer the non-existence of a law from the fact of
its violation. If PC is to go back to Moses, it is
not at all strange if the Israelites violate it
immediately (see Ex. xxxii. ; Lev. xvii. 7 ; Deut.
xii. 8 ; Ezek. xx.) and after their immigration ;
on the contrary, it would be a source of infinite
wonder if they had not deviated from it to the
right or to the left. For we surely will not forget
that those laws did not spring from the spirit of
the people any more than the Books of the
Covenant and Deut, but that, according to the
Bible narrative, they were rather given to the
people from above — one might even say, forced
upon them — against the will and inclinations of
152 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
the latter — proof enough that it required a long
education finally to bend the stiff neck of the
unbending, disobedient, ungodly race, and to
secure recognition for the Divine commands.
It may be very obvious to the intellect if the
development of the people proceeds more smoothly,
although even according to the modern hypothesis
it is not at all smooth, as the above -quoted
examples prove ; but this development is only an
intellectual abstraction and contradicts the Biblical
views as well as the other processes of history and
the history of salvation.
What would be said to the following construc-
tion of Church history ? If we consider the New
Testament, we stumble on an intolerable contradic-
tion : Jesus demands the observance of the law
which He has intensified and makes salvation
dependent upon works (see, e.g.. Matt, v.-vii. ; vii.
2 1 ; XXV. 31 and foil.). We find the same
elsewhere, as, e.g.^ in James ii. 14 and foil.; in
St. Paul's Rom. ii. 6, ii. 13, xiv. 10 and foil.;
2 Cor. V. 10 ; Gal. vi. 7 and foil., and frequently.
Alongside of this there appears another view quite
irreconcilable with it, that of justification by faith,
with which everything else is given, even the
assurance of future perfection. But if we consider
the development of Church history, the latter idea
disappears almost entirely : the few traces which
are to be found of justification by faith alone are
AN ANALOGOUS ABSURDITY 153
extremely suspicious ; for there is always at hand
the other rule that it depends upon our works.
It is quite otherwise since the sixteenth
century ; then the Pauline doctrine comes to the
front. There can be no doubt that Luther did
not bring it to light out of the past, but it was
his own work, born from his own particular ex-
perience. Convinced of its truth, he wanted to
make it accessible to others. But he could not
anticipate much success if he, the simple monk,
did not conceal himself behind a higher authority.
He chose Paul and interpolated his own view in
St. Paul's epistles. There arose no opposition.
That which was Luther's own production appeared
to his contemporaries as reformation. Zealous
adherents of his then compared the Church
history with the supplemented St. Paul, and as it
contained no traces they interpolated them.
Such a construction of history would be
laughed at, and the men who put it forward would
be considered fit for an asylum ; and yet we
would have a fairly exact analogy to the Graf-
Wellhausen hypothesis. No one will advance
that suggestion, because we possess a much too
thorough literature of the whole of Church history
from its very beginnings. Nevertheless the
illustration is instructive. It shows us that the
full revelation was made in Christendom at the
beginning, that then there could come a time of
154 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
perversion, so that even the most pious under-
stood it fully only at rare moments, and that
after several centuries a return to it took place,
only indeed to lead to torpidity in the age of
orthodoxy. Is it so improbable for the old
Covenant that the highest stood at the top of the
history of the people, prepared for, of course, by
the Divine leading of the patriarchs ; that then a
period follows of complete falling-away, of neglect
and rejection of the prescribed rules, even on the
part of the most pious ; and that then only
after a long education the people are led to an
acknowledgment of the Divine laws ?
This is development ; for the result is here
aspired after from the first ; it is included like a germ
in the beginning, in the principle. According to
modern criticism, on the other hand, notwithstand-
ing assertions to the contrary, there is no develop-
ment at all ; for the sequel never grows organically
out of what goes before, but follows at a jump
and is dependent upon chance circumstances.
Thus Deut. represents a revolution as compared
with the Books of the Covenant ; for we saw how
criticism failed in deducing from the history the
demand for concentration of worship. Similarly,
P is not the necessary development of the pre-
ceding history (see " Criticism of the modern
result," § 2), and is equally antagonistic to Deut.
But the other arguments which have been put
LAWS EASILY FORGOTTEN 155
forward against the Mosaic origin (the impossi-
bility of the tabernacle, etc.) have been long since
refuted by Hengstenberg, Havernick, and others.
Here also we are dealing of course not with
details but with the whole ; PC may have been
codified only at a later date ; particular enactments
may have been constantly added to the parent
stem ; this may be the subject of further scientific
inquiry. What concerns us is that the ritual
legislation in its main features may be attributed
to Moses, even though the whole of the later
period down to the exile were nothing but one
great transgression, and in support of this we can
appeal to the attitude of the Roman Catholic
Church to justification by faith.
We need not wonder that the wildness of the
people seems so great even in the times of the
Judges. If, according to the original sources,
the people with the brazen neck were never
successfully held in obedience during the journey-
ings in the wilderness (see Lev. xvii. 7 even in
P ! ; Deut. xii. 8 ; Ezek. xx. ; Am. v. 25 and foil. ;
and especially Ex. xxii., the story of the golden
calf), although they had just seen the greatest
miracles of their God, although they were under
the authority of Moses, although the whole people
was there kept together, we cannot expect any-
thing better of the times of the Judges in which
the unity was broken, the tribes mingled with
156 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
the Canaanites, the unifying head was wanting ;
besides, nothing is usually more quickly forgotten
than benefits received.
But how difficult it must have been to restore
order after the Divine commandments had once
been allowed to pass out of notice ! What has
been said must suffice, I think, to explain even
the widest deviations from the Mosaic laws. We
do not require, therefore, to discuss the passages
adduced by criticism, but we could admit them
all and yet would not be obliged to arrive at
Wellhausen's result. The illustration from Church
history and the corrupt conditions of the time of
the Judges would be quite adequate to explain
how the law might be transgressed even by the
most pious without this being regarded as a sin.
Let us recall also our first inquiry, where we
showed that the Book of the Covenant condemned
almost all the abominations censured in 2 Kings
xxiii., and yet the pious king Josiah allowed
them to pass as something unforbidden without
taking offence at them until the discovery of
Deut.
Yet we are of opinion that the picture of pre-
exilic history, assuming the Mosaic origin of PC,
has been painted quite too black by Wellhausen,
and that the offences have in many cases been
created by criticism, whilst it ignores all the
attempts to remove or to modify the difficulties.
DEVIATIONS EXPLICABLE 157
When in the times of the Judges devout people
frequently offer sacrifice at places agreeable to
them, in the first place it is not a regular worship
that is referred to, but always a single offering ;
and further, such sacrifices are always mentioned
in connexion with a theophany (see Judges ii.
1-5, vi., xiii.), and in some cases they even
occur at the express command of Jahwe (Judges
vi. 25); must He not be able to remove a com-
mand which He had given ? Nay, were not the
persons mentioned acting in accordance with the
law (Ex. XX. 24) which permitted them to
sacrifice in every place where Jahwe caused His
name to be remembered, i.e. where He specially
revealed Himself?
The case is somewhat different with the
observances of worship in the period from the
defeat of the Israelites by the Philistines described
in I Sam. iv. down to the building of the temple.
Kohler and others have rightly noted that it
follows from passages like Jer. vii. 12-15, Psalm
Ixxviii. 60 and foil., not only that in the time of
Jeremiah Shiloh was regarded as the central holy
place before the choice of Jerusalem (see " Criticism
of the modern date of Deut.," § 6) — for no other
of the holy places is put on a level with Jerusalem
— but, above all, that with that defeat there came
a rejection of this central sanctuary, and that
until the selection of Jerusalem Jahwe did not
158 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
wish to have any place of continual revelation of
His grace any more. This is confirmed by the
fact that the ark after its return from the land of
the Philistines to Kirjath-jearim was brought into
a private house (i Sam. vii. i), but not to Nob,
whither the priests had betaken themselves and
the tabernacle had been brought (see i Sam. xxi.,
xxii., especially xxi. 6). But with the central
sanctuary there fell to the ground, naturally, all
the enactments of P, for these were closely bound
up with it. If this hypothesis, which is rendered
probable by the particulars given, is correct, then
it is evident that the ritual observances of this
period cannot be adduced either for or against the
earlier existence and validity of PC.
In this period are included also the kingly
offerings adduced by criticism. Even the
chronicler, who elsewhere writes always in the
spirit of P and treats and judges the history from
that standpoint, does not take the slightest
offence, e.g., at the sacrifices and priestly actions
of Solomon (see 2 Chron. i. 6, vi. 1-4, vii. 1-7).
After the temple is consecrated, on the other
hand, and the old order restored along with it,
the chronicler does not allow priestly actions to
the kings any longer ; this is clear from 2 Chron.
xxvi. 16 and foil., where Uzziah's burnt offering
is regarded as a transgression and is punished.
According to this, therefore, the time before the
THEORY NOT PROVED 159
consecration of the temple seems, even in the
purely Levitical view, to occupy an exceptional
position, and it was not considered at all necessary
to represent even that period as a time in which
P was an authority. If, however, the chronicler
did not once do that, we shall see therein a proof
of the correctness of the above view.
If we come farther down, no proof can be
produced that in the southern kingdom, with the
exception of some specially dark periods, the
violations of PC were regarded as something
warranted. It is certainly different in the period
shortly before 623 ; at that time King Josiah
takes no offence at the abominations. But as
they were already forbidden in the Books of the
Covenant, and as these are admitted to have been
then a long time in existence and to have possessed
Mosaic authority, nothing can of course be argued
from this in favour of the non-existence of P.
Moreover, we shall never find out whether P ceased
in the time of the Kings, and to what extent, as
long as we give no credence to the Chronicles.
In the northern kingdom the circumstances
again were quite exceptional ; there we have the
sacrifice of Elijah on Carmel, and similarly his
complaint, " They have thrown down thine altars "
(i Kings xviii. 32 and foil., xix. 10). But if the
separation of the two kingdoms had taken place
in accordance with God's will, it was clear from
160 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
the first that Israel could not have part in the
central sanctuary at Jerusalem, and that all
enactments given regarding it fell therewith to
the ground. As, moreover, the devout Israelites
could not share the impious worship of images at
Bethel or Dan, they simply erected altars for
themselves throughout the land.
I do not see that these attempts at explanation
have anything improbable in them ; but if they
are rejected, it is still not necessary, after what
has been adduced above, to fall back on the
acceptance of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis.
III. Criticism of the Modern Dating of the Books
of the Covenant
After we have discussed separately the modern
date of Deut. and PC, and have in both cases
arrived at the conclusion of their untenability,
there remains finally the same problem in regard
to the precepts of the law in Ex. xx.-xxiii. and
xxxiv., which are incorporated in J and E and
also profess to have been given by Moses (Ex.
xxiv. 3, xxxiv. 27). Here also we shall put
ourselves from the outset in the place of the
critics, according to whom these precepts of the
law originated long after Moses but at least before
the major prophets, and we shall here lay all the
emphasis on the fact that the principles applied
EXODUS XX, 24 161
by criticism to the date of D and P make this
date of the Books of the Covenant impossible.
I. We turn at once to the consideration of the This date
1.1. 1 -1 1 is contra-
passage which is supposed to require the modern dieted
date of the Books of the Covenant, Ex. xx. 24 : principles
" An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and appHed
by the
shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings and thy critics
rr ' 11 11. . 11 *o Deut.
peace offerings, thy sheep and thine oxen ; in all and PC.
places where I record my name " (more accurately,
" where I shall bring my name to remembrance,"
see p. loi note) " I will come unto thee and will
bless thee." According to Wellhausen (p. 30)
this passage means that they might offer sacrifice
to Jahwe in any place. This is said to harmonise
exactly with the practice before 623, and also
with the picture which the original narratives J
and E, originating in that period, give of the
observance of worship by the patriarchs ; the
passage therefore belongs to that period. The
latter is evidently only of force if the narratives
about the patriarchs are not historical, and if it is
assumed that E and J simply dated back the
conditions of their own time to the time of the
patriarchs ; otherwise there is of course no ap-
propriateness in it, inasmuch as the patriarchs
could know nothing of the Mosaic legislation, and
therefore naturally sacrificed wherever they pleased.
We have already shown in our previous discussion
M
162 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
(" Relation of the history down to 444 to the
Priestly Code ") what is to be thought of all this
unhistorical mode of treatment. But, as we have
said, we desire to place ourselves at the standpoint
of our opponents. From that point no one will
really dispute the fact that the patriarchs offer
sacrifice wherever they please. In the same way
the pre-exilic history of Israel would agree with
this view of Ex. xx. 24, if the picture drawn by
Wellhausen is correct. Then, too, sacrifice was
offered at any place that suited. But then it
remains absolutely incomprehensible how a legal
enactment could still be issued, since it was a
matter of course for every one that he could offer
sacrifice anywhere.
It must be added that the passage Ex. xx.
24 does not prove what it is supposed to prove.
It is expressly said, " in every place where I bring
my name to remembrance." If this limitation be
added, Ex. xx. 24 does not adapt itself to the
history of the patriarchs ; for they know nothing
of that limitation, but sacrifice everywhere. Just
as little does it agree with the modern view of the
pre-exilic history ; for there that limitation has
equally no meaning, and thus, according to the
modern view itself, there appears a critical
difference between law and history.
Further, the Book of the Law will not agree
with the time to which criticisn:^ assigns it, if once
ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE 163
we apply the canons of criticism which previously
led to the modern view of D, and especially of P.
We have already discussed most of the arguments,
and here only sum them up again.
We begin with the argumenttim e silentio.
Where, then, do we find in the history the clear,
unmistakable traces of the Books of the Covenant ?
The mere use is not enough ; no, we must con-
sistently ask for traces which put the codified law
beyond any doubt. If they cannot be found, we
are not justified in placing the Books of the Cove-
nant so early. And as a matter of fact they
are not found. " Thus the prophets (not even
Hosea iv. 2) never appeal unmistakably to the
Decalogue" (Bredenkamp, p. 54). Or if we con-
sider the three principal Feasts which the Books
of the Covenant enjoin (Ex. xxiii. 14-18 ; xxxiv.
18-25), it is nowhere stated that these Feasts
were observed out of obedience to the Books of
the Covenant. But if we were willing to be
content with the general references of the prophets
(Is. i. ; Amos v.; Hosea ii. 13, etc.) and to assume
further that Judges xxi. 19, 20 ; i Sam. i. 3, 20,
21, refer definitely to the Feast of Tabernacles,
and Is. XXX. 29 to the Passover, there would still
be lacking confirmation for the Feast of Weeks.
1 Kings ix. 25 is much too general, and, besides,
is to be suspected as being Dcuteronomist !
2 Chron. viii, 1 3 cannot, of course, apply. If we
164 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
add that even Ezekiel (xlvi. i8 and foil.) only
knows the Passover and Feast of Tabernacles, but
makes no mention, on the other hand, of the
Feast of Weeks, it can admit of no doubt that
the Books of the Covenant are post-exilic.
The same result follows if we reflect that in
Ezek. xl.-xlviii. there is no allusion to the Books
of the Covenant. This will lead to absolute
certainty if we compare Ezek. xliii. 17 with
Ex. XX. 25, 26. Whereas Ezekiel regarded it as
quite unobjectionable to put steps to his altar,
the author of the Books of the Covenant was
more strict and most emphatically prohibited
them.
That the Books of the Covenant are to be
placed after the Exile, though not perhaps before
the prophetic books, is clear not only from the
absence of definite traces, but also from the atti-
tude of the prophets to sacrifices and feasts.
Am. iv. 4, V. 21 and foil. ; Hos. vi. 6 ; Mic. vi. 6 ;
Is. i. 1 1 and foil.; Jer. vi. 20, vii. 21 and foil.;
Ps. xl., 1., li., express themselves so decidedly
against all sacrifice that they could not possibly
have been acquainted with the Books of the
Covenant, for these enjoin sacrifice (Ex. xx. 24
and foil, xxii. 19, xxiii. 18, xxxiv. 25) and
themselves record sacrifice (Ex. xxiv. 5 and foil.).
In the same way Is. i. 12 and foil.. Am. v. 21
and foil., absolutely reject the Feasts, which the
VIOLATION OF LAWS 165
Books of the Covenant quite as absolutely enjoin
(Ex. xxiii. 14-18 ; xxxiv. 18-25).
Similarly the general violation of the Books of
the Covenant until long after the Exile shows
that they could not possibly have existed before
it. Worship of other gods, worship of images,
and witchcraft are forbidden as definitely as
possible (Ex. xx. 3 and foil., 23 ; xxii. 19 ; xxiii.
13,24 and foil. ; xxxiv. 12-17). How then would
it be conceivable that so pious a king as Josiah
should have tolerated all these abominations down
to 623 (see 2 Kings xxii., xxiii.)? Above all, he
would not have been so alarmed after the dis-
covery of the Deuteronomic Book of the Law if he
had not here been confronted by entirely new enact-
ments. How then can we still hold to so early a
date for the Books of the Covenant, unless we are
willing to assume that they were permanently
allowed to lie latent, which no reasonable person
will do. But we must come still farther down
with the Books of the Covenant. For their enact-
ments are transgressed soon after 623 quite as
much as before. Away with them, therefore, to
the time of the Exile. Even this, however, is
not enough. In Ex. xxxiv. 15, 16, interming-
ling with the heathen inhabitants is forbidden ;
but as late as the year 444 they were marrying
heathen wives unconcernedly ; such a prohibi-
tion, therefore, could not have been known (see
166 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
Mai. ii. lo; Ez. ix. i and foil.; Neh. xiii. 23
and foil.).
We will stop here. Why does modern criticism
not draw all these conclusions ? Because it is
absolutely inconsistent. If it allows the Books
of the Covenant, notwithstanding the opposing
instances, to remain in the place to which it
removes them (namely, the time before the
prophetic books), then it thereby loses the right
to apply the same instances for the purpose of
bringing down the Priestly Code to the year 444.
We might, besides, make exactly the same
experiment with Deut., but we leave it to the
reader, as we have already given the particular
points of it in various places.
impos- 2. We have up to this point shown that modern
phJce*the criticism, according to its own principles of pro-
Books cedure, has no right to put the Books of the Cove-
ofthe & jr
Covenant nant SO early. Now we shall indicate reasons
which make it impossible to place them so late.
In one respect modern criticism is better here
than in relation to Deut. and PC. While in both
cases we had to regard it as impossible that the
authors should have chosen a Mosaic garb, because
they would then have put themselves in contra-
diction to the already existing enactments which
were recognised as Mosaic, this consideration
would fall to the ground in relation to the Books
WHY MOSES ? 167
of the Covenant, since no codified Mosaic collec-
tion of laws would have been yet in existence.
On the other hand, an argument now arises in
intensified force, to which we had to call attention
in the discussion of Deut. (§ 3). Whilst Mosaic
laws must have been accessible to the authors of
Deut. and completely to those of P, so that this
explains why they thought themselves obliged to
refer their legislative enactments back to Moses,
this would not have been the case with the
authors of the Books of the Covenant. How,
therefore, could they arrive at the idea of ascribing
to Moses these laws, which according to criticism
take the standpoint of a settled people ? How
could they see in him the lawgiver Kar i^o-^t^v
if all the laws which purport to come from him
are to be denied to him ? To substitute other
laws is not only a culpable and arbitrary way out of
a difficulty, but absolutely impossible according
to the principles of criticism ; for then clear traces
of these postulated laws must be in existence.
Moreover, it can be shown that all enact-
ments were not, by any means, blindly attri-
buted to Moses. Otherwise why would the insti-
tution of the Sabbath be put at the beginning
of the world's history (Gen. ii. 3), circumcision
performed on Abraham (Gen. xvii.), the custom of
abstaining from the sinew which shrank dated
back to Jacob (Gen. xxxii. 33)? Nay, even the
168 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
different kinds of sacrifice which P regulates are
introduced not as something new, given by Moses,
but as something well known and only included
and incorporated in the ritual legislation. Simi-
larly the further division of the personnel of the
tabernacle into courses at a later date was ascribed
not to Moses but to David (i Chron. xxiii. and
foil.). Thus it is quite evident that another
course was possible than attributing all laws to
Moses, that everything was by no means assigned
blindly to him, that accurate distinctions were
made, and that it was therefore possible to dis-
criminate as to what enactments dated from him
and what did not !
The following is another difficulty. Those
who introduced D and C certainly thought that
they could point to certain definite points of time
at which these laws were imposed (see 2 Kings
xxii., xxiii. ; Neh. viii.-x.). These narratives
would also reflect the extraordinary impression
which these new collections of laws would have
made. On the other hand, we would not hear a
word about the introduction of the Books of the
Covenant, and yet this must have been an epoch-
making event of the first rank in the history ; for
the first time a codified legislation going back to
Moses would have been received. But the more
that modern criticism proceeds on other points with
the argumentuni e silentio^ the more momentous
MOSES AND LAWS OF PC 169
for it is the fact that not a trace should have
been preserved of any such experience.
I believe that it is the only possible course here
also to go really back to Moses himself and to
give credence to the Biblical narrative. That
Moses gave laws at all, even such as related to
ritual (PC), to external cleanliness, to agriculture,
and, generally, to a settled people, should not be
really considered so incomprehensible but rather
natural, if we reflect that Israel came out of
Egypt, where ritual was so elaborated (see
Hengstenberg, Die Biicher Moses wid Agypien)^
and that Israel was not to remain in the wilder-
ness, but was on the point of entering upon
possession of the Holy Land, in order to become
there a settled agricultural people. Moreover, if
the Books of the Covenant had been down to the
seventh century the only codified legislation, it would
be a subject of extreme amazement that at a time
when, even according to the admission of criticism,
poetry, history, and prophecy had long been in
full bloom, legal enactments should appear so
limited, which elsewhere are usually drawn up at
the very beginning — apart from the fact that
Hosea viii. 12, notwithstanding the scorn of
Wellhausen, cannot naturally be explained in any
other way than that at the time of Hosea a mass
of codified enactments was already in existence.
Besides, it would be unintelligible that they did not
170 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
carry at least to an equal extent the improvement
of justice, but arrested it for several centuries
down to 623, in order to content themselves with
the few enactments of the Books of the Covenant.
Thus, then, the apparent correspondence be-
tween law and history is for the third time shown
to be a mistake.
This concludes a large section of our inquiry.
CHAPTER II
COMPARISON OF THE LAWS WITH ONE ANOTHER
If up to this point we have compared the laws
with the time in which, according to criticism,
they are supposed to have originated, but on the
other hand have refrained from a comparison of
the laws with one another, we would now pass on
to this subject and inquire whether we can agree
with the modern sequence : Books of the
Covenant, Deut., P. We shall leave Ezekiel
quite out of notice ; we have said above all that is
necessary about it, and have proved that Ez. xL-
xlviii. is not to be placed on a level with the
other laws ; if, however, this is done, it argues
quite as much against as in favour of the modern
sequence. Since, further, the priority of the
Books of the Covenant to Deut. and P is to be
assumed, both according to the Biblical narrative
and according to the modern view, our inquiry is
substantially restricted to the sequence of Deut.
and P. It is only on particular points that we
171
172 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
shall have to take the Books of the Covenant into
consideration. Here, too, we are not concerned
to follow the modern positions into the minutest
detail. We may content ourselves the more
readily with few observations on this point, as
most readers are influenced in favour of the
modern theory by the apparent agreement between
the laws and the history, which has been discussed
above, than by the questions now at issue, which
are in part extremely complicated. We have
therefore already accomplished the principal part
of our work ; for the priority of P to Deut., which
is to be proved in this discussion, we may especi-
ally refer to the works of Dillmann and Delitzsch
(as above, § 9).
I. We shall commence our inquiry with two
general observations.
p alone {a) If we consider for a moment how the view
ritual that P must be the latest of the collections of laws
tion ^and ^ould so easily and so generally obtain support,
therefore tj^g explanation appears to me to be very obvious.
cannot be ^
described P has by far the most exhaustive and thorough
pansio^of enactments, and this seems necessarily to imply
the other ^^^^ ^^ j^^^^ j^^j.^ ^^ actual extension, a comple-
tion of the other laws. But the conclusion is
proved to be hasty as soon as we reflect that it is
only P which contains ritual legislation ; Deut.
and the Books of the Covenant do not. Deut.
WAS DEUT. BEFORE PC? 173
describes itself particularly as a farewell address
of Moses to the people, in which before his death
he laid on their heart once more the enactments
which specially interested him. The Mosaic
element in Deut. may or may not be a mask ;
this at any rate it shows, that it deals with a
legislation for the people, in which ritual, interest-
ing in the first degree to the priests, had only a
limited place ; for the congregation had not to
provide for the official worship at the central
sanctuary. But it is then clear at the outset that
we cannot argue anything from the more minute
enactments of PC in themselves in favour of its
being subsequent to Deut.
(J?) It is said that the priority of Deut. is un- The
mistakably shown by the fact that it makes no that Deut.
reference whatever to P, and that this would be ^f^rence
unthinkable if P had already existed. But even *° ? ^^*^
"^ both ways.
if we admit that the assumption is correct and
that Deut. nowhere really presupposes P, nothing
is improved by the change of relationship ; for
then we ask with equal justice : How could P
make no reference to Deut. if it had already
existed ? The same, precisely, holds good of the
deviations and contradictions, they are a priori as
difficult to explain in the one case as in the other.
If we keep to the Biblical view, according to
which PC as well as Deut. goes back to Moses,
we have a thoroughly adequate reason for many
174 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
variations ; Deut. professes to have been given
immediately before the immigration at the end of
the forty years' wandering in the wilderness ; quite
a number of variations of earlier laws resulted
naturally from this.
In the following pages we shall first deal with
the passages from Deut. which presuppose P, no
matter to what dates Deut. and PC may be
otherwise assigned. Then we shall discuss such
laws as also indeed suggest the sequence P —
Deut, but are at the same time only possible if P
as well as Deut. are ascribed to Moses ; and
finally, such as can be easily explained on the
assumption of the priority of PC and the genuine-
ness of PC and Deut., but not if we deviate from
the Biblical date.
Discus- 2. When in Deut. x. i and foil, there is a re-
particular minder how Jahwe previously commanded Moses to
passages, prepare an ark of acacia wood (comp. ver. I with
ver. 3), it is a fact that the erection of the ark is only
commanded in P (see Ex. xxv. 10-22); similarly,
it is only there that it is stated that it consisted
of acacia wood. Therefore Deut. must have been
acquainted with PC. If, on the other hand, it is
said that this is impossible because Deut. plainly is
not acquainted with the tabernacle of PC, we reply
that Deut. makes just as little mention of the tent
of meeting, and yet modern criticism does not
DEUT. IMPLIES PC 175
therefore dispute the priority of J E to Deut. (see
Ex. xxxiii. 7-1 1 ; Num. xi. 16, 24 and foil.; xii.
4, 5 ; Deut. xxxi. 14, i 5 — this from JE according
to criticism). Besides, the command in Deut.
xxxi. 26, that the Book of the Law is to be laid
beside the ark, is sufficient proof that a roofed-in
place is presupposed for it as a matter of course.
Thus, therefore, Deut. x. i and foil, is certainly an
argument for the priority of PC.
When in the following verses, Deut. x. 8, 9,
there is a reminder that Jahwe separated the
tribe of Levi to bear the ark with the law (comp.
Num. iv.), to stand before Jahwe as a constant
servant (see, e.g., Ex. xxviii. 35,43; xxix. 30; xxx.
20) and to bless in His name (Num. vi. 23 and
foil. ; Lev. ix. 22) ; when, further, in the blessing
of Moses (Deut. xxxiii. 8) the Thummim and the
Urim (comp. Ex. xxviii. 30), the teaching (see,
e.g., Lev. xiv. 57) and the sacrifices (Lev. i.-vii.)
are ascribed to them, it should not be disputed
that more minute instructions for the tribe of
Levi than we find only in P are assumed as
known. Ex. xxxii. 29 (from E) is much too
general, and could not possibly have sufficed to
make clear to the tribe of Levi its obligations in
detail.
When in the following verse Deut. x. 9, and also
xviii. I, 2 (comp. xii. 12 ; xiv. 27, 29) it is ex-
pressly stated, Levi "shall have no inheritance
176 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
, . . as he hath spoken unto him'^ and when that
command and that promise only appear in P
(Num. xviii. 24, 20), it is only the greatest pre-
judice that can deny the dependence of Deut.
upon P.
Clean and That the enactments about clean and unclean
animals in Deut. xiv. 3-20 and Lev. xi. 2 and
foil, are mutually dependent, even our opponents
cannot deny. But that Deut. is not the earlier is
raised above all doubt, according to the principles
of criticism itself, by the character of the language
of the passage, which corresponds not to Deut.
but to P (comp. e.g. in Deut. xiv. the expressions
}>nm ver. 19 and po ver. 14 and foil, with Gen. i.).
Deut. xxiv. 8, 9 expressly recalls the in-
structions which God gave to the priests : " Take
heed in the plague of leprosy, that thou observe
diligently, and do according to all that the priests
the Levites shall teach you; as I commanded them,
so ye shall observe to do." Enactments like those
of Lev. xiii., xiv. are, therefore, quite clearly and
definitely presupposed as well known. If we
reflect that these are the only laws on leprosy
which have come down to us ; if, further, the ex-
pression -i>iD ni^l'^n is often found in those very
chapters (Lev. xiii. 2, 3, 20, 25, 27 ; xiv. 32, 34,
33) ; if, finally, at the end of the enactments of Lev.
xiii., xiv. it is stated that the priests must give
pronouncement according to these rules, I do not
LAWS OF CLEANLINESS 177
know how the existence of this chapter in the
time of Deut. could be better proved.
Moreover, laws of cleanliness such as we find in
P must already have existed and been well known
to the people; for in Deut. xii. 15, 22, xv. 22, it
is assumed that every one knows what is to be
regarded as clean and unclean. In xxvi. 13 and
foil, such commandments are expressly recalled,
as they are given in Lev. xxi., xxii., and Num. xix.
14 and foil., about the defiling effect of dead
bodies. Deut. xxvi. i 3 and foil, runs thus : " I
have put away the hallowed things out of mine
house, and also given them unto the Levite, and
unto the stranger, to the fatherless and to the
widow, according to all thy commandment which
thou hast commanded me : I have not transgressed
any of thy commandments, neither have I forgotten
them. I have not eaten thereof in my mourning,
neither have I put away thereof, being unclean,
nor given thereof for the dead. I have hearkened
unto the voice of the Lord my God, I have done
according to all that thou hast commanded me."
The instruction (Deut. xxii. 12) to wear fringes
on the four borders of the garment is unintelligible
without the statement of the purpose in Num. xv.
38-41.
The mention and distinction of the various kinds
of sacrifice (burnt offering, meat offering, heave
offering, peace offering) presuppose, quite clearly,
N
178 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
a corresponding ritual, which again we find only
in P.
The Laws The Laws about the Feasts, which are brought
Feasts. forward as of first importance for the modern
sequence, deserve a more detailed consideration.
The three principal Israelitish Feasts (Passover,
Feast of Weeks, Feast of Tabernacles) are alleged
by criticism to have been originally pure harvest
festivals and to have been adapted together from
the Canaanites, whilst a historical reference was
imported into them for the first time by Deut, and
then completed in P. By the centralisation of
worship at Jerusalem the P'easts were separated
from life, and thus the historical element displaced
the agricultural. With this separation the differ-
ence in dating is connected — the date of them is
said to be almost entirely lacking in the Books of
the Covenant, to be prepared for in Deut, and to
attain to consistent completion in P. Similarly, a
change took place in the character of the Feasts,
which in the Books of the Covenant and in Deut.
is joyous, but in P, on the other hand, receives a
gloomy feature, inasmuch as here the general
offerings [of the whole people] appear in place of
the peace offerings [of the individual]. Finally,
the number of Feasts in Deut, in comparison with
the earlier laws, is considerably increased.
If we were to admit, in the first place, that all
THE FEASTS 179
the assumptions here made were true, even then
the modern view would remain utterly improbable.
Are Vv'e really to assume that down to the Critical
time of Josiah there could be an absence of all that the
historical reference to the Feasts observed in -j.^^^
honour of God, and that even in Hosea's time Feasts
were
[thanksgiving for] corn and must could be the merely
sole motive of public worship (see Wellhausen, festivals.
pp. 94-97) ? And this, though at the time of
the prophetic writings the mighty deeds of Jahwe
to Israel were so popular among the people that
these prophets, and Hosea in particular, often
remind them of the deliverance from Egypt, and
other acts of God's power through which the land
with all its resources was first given to the people,
in order thus to influence their hearers ? It
appears to me the height of improbability to
assume that Israel only observed Feasts to God
on account of the resources of the land, without
any historical reference. Observe, we do not
deny that the Israelites expressed their thanks by
means of tribute from the harvest, and at the
same time /or it, and that, therefore, there was a
close connexion of the Feasts with agriculture ;
only we protest against the idea that it can be in
any way credible that Israel saw nothing in all
those Feasts but harvest festivals, and that God
felt himself pledged to nothing but the outward
blessing, and that therefore the only difference
180 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
between the Canaanitish and Israelitish Feasts
was the God in whose honour they were celebrated.
The passage, Deut. xxvi. i and foil., to which
Wellhausen (pp. 90, 91) appeals — it treats of the
bringing of the first-fruits — shows as clearly and
strikingly as possible that he is wrong ; for it is
clear from 5 and foil, that the first motive for
that offering was not an agricultural but a historical
one.
How then There is the further argument that, on the
did the ^ , , . .
Feasts acceptance 01 the modern view, it cannot be
comeTo^ adequately and satisfactorily explained how it
have a ^^s suddenly decided to e^ive the Feasts their
historical ^
reference? historical connexion and to separate them from
the agricultural. If we are told that by the
concentration of worship in Deut. the connexion
between worship and life was rent in pieces, and
that in this way the transformation took place,
we cannot at all see how far the centralisation
was likely, or even fitted at all, to thrust the
agricultural connexion to one side, and put the
historical in its place. For the people still carried
on their agriculture even after the concentration
of worship, and if the whole population was and
remained an agricultural people, it is not easy to
see why they could not have celebrated great
united harvest festivals at the central sanctuary in
place of those which had previously been observed
at different places.
HISTORICAL MEANING 181
But further, is it really credible that a people
would have allowed a totally different meaning of
their popular Feasts to be imposed on them from
without ? If we are referred for proof to the
Feast of Weeks, which certainly received a historic
meaning only through later Judaism, this reference
is not adequate. For here they had in the Pass-
over and in the Feast of Tabernacles examples
for the historical meaning of these Feasts. It is
quite different, however, with the introduction of
such an innovation for the first time.
But quite apart from the fact that there was
no necessity or even inducement for the trans-
formation of the Feasts from agricultural harvest
festivals to historical anniversaries, and that the
carrying out of it must have met with great
difficulties on the part of the people, it is very
incredible that this historical connexion should
have been introduced just at a time of political
decay. Could there really have been any hope of
thus preserving the popularity of these Feasts, if
the great acts of God's grace had not been
previously sufficient to move the people to thanks-
giving for them in worship, at a time when those
mighty deeds were still living fresh in the memory
of every one ? But if we were willing to lay aside
all these considerations, we should at least expect
that the historical transformation was proposed at
the same time for all three Feasts, most naturally
182 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
therefore by Deut. Instead of this, only a very
timid attempt is made in Deut. ; P goes farther,
and it was reserved for later Judaism to give even
to the Feast of Weeks a historical reference.
This reminds one vividly of the dog whose master,
out of compassion, did not cut his tail off all at
once, but in pieces.
I think that this is a strong argument, if ever
there was one, against a transformation imposed
upon the people so mechanically and from outside
as, according to the modern view, we must assume.
Here also an organic development is not suggested-
So far we have vindicated more in a general
way our opinion of the Wellhausen hypothesis on
this one point. By an examination in detail its
untenableness will be fully shown. It arbitrarily
reads into the sources what it likes, and what fits
into its once-constructed framework of ideas.
Thenames If we begin with Deut, there is no doubt that
Feasts can the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread
only be associated with it are intended to recall the fact
explained
by the of the deliverance from Egypt (see chap. xvi. i,
historical ^\\ ,; f
reference. " Observe the month of Abib, and keep the
passover unto the Lord thy God ; for in the month
of Abib the Lord thy God brought thee forth out
of Egypt by night"; xvi. 3, "Thou shalt eat no
leavened bread with it ; seven days thou shalt eat
unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of
affliction ; for thou camest forth out of the land of
NAMES OF FEASTS 183
Egypt in haste "). In the case of the Feast of
Pentecost the historical note is not lacking any-
more than in P (comp. chap. xvi. 9 with Lev.
xxiii. 15 and foil. ; Num. xxviii. 26 and foil.).
In the case of the third Feast (see xvi. i 3 and
foil.), the description of it as the Feast of Taber-
nacles (nSDH an) is simply unintelligible without
the historical reference — nay, without an express
law such as is contained in Lev. xxiii. 39 and
foil. Wellhausen indeed maintains that the
people originally betook themselves to the vine-
yards and encamped there at the time of the
vintage under improvised tent-roofs, and that the
name is thus explained. But apart from the fact
that the latter is a purely imaginary idea, in
support of which Is. i. 8 is appealed to without
the slightest justification (contrary to Wellhausen,
p. 84), that special name is not to be found in
the older legislation of the Books of the Covenant,
just the place where, according to criticism, it
would be appropriate (see Ex. xxiii. 16, xxxiv.
22), and is, strangely, found in Deut, which would
not be able any longer to use that name, because
it requires the Feast of Tabernacles to be celebrated
at the central sanctuary (Deut. xvi. i 3 and foil.).
On the other hand, the reference to the exodus
and the dwelling in booths during the journeying
in the wilderness remains as the only natural
explanation of the name ; only then P must be
184 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
older than Deut, and the enactment of Lev.
xxiii. must be assumed as known in Deut. xvi. ;
then, however, the historical reference appears in
an equal degree in both legislations.
If we turn to the Books of the Covenant, it is
clear, indeed, that the two last Feasts are put
forward both in Ex. xxiii. and xxiv. in their
character of harvest festivals ; yet it is not to be
overlooked that there is no further treatment of
the subject, and that it is actually only an
enumeration of the Feasts that is given. Why
should they not be described there according to
their distinguishing feature as harvest festivals,
which indeed they certainly were at a later period,
even in P ? That the historical reference is not
necessarily lacking, and that it was certainly not
first imported by Deut., is proved not only by
the expression " the sacrifice of the feast of the
passover" in Ex. xxxiv. 25 (the description
" passover " is therefore found before Deut. !), but
especially by the way in which the Feast of
Unleavened Bread is introduced ; in Ex. xxiii. 15,
namely, it is said : " The feast of unleavened bread
shalt thou keep : seven days thou shalt eat un-
leavened bread, as I commanded thee, at the time
appointed in the month A bib ; for in it thou
earnest out from Egypt!' The other passage,
Ex. xxxiv. 18, runs quite similarly. The
hypothesis that the historical reference was
DATES OF FEASTS 185
imported at all into the Feasts by Deut. in
consequence of the concentration of worship, is,
therefore, to be regarded as contrary to facts.
It is not only artificial, but certainly false.
Similarly, it is arbitrary and inadmissible to The dates
prescribed
adduce the more or less exact dating of the for the
Feasts for determining the sequence of the presup-
particular collections of laws. In Deut, indeed, pose the
^ ' ' enact-
in the case of the first Feast it is only the month ments of
P.
Abib that is mentioned without a more definite
fixing of the date (see xvi. i ; comp. Ex. xxiii.
15, xxxiv. 18). But if the Feast of the
Passover and Unleavened Bread was to be a
united celebration (see the solemn assembly,
Deut. xvi. 8), and if it was to be a historical
commemoration of the day of departure from
Egypt (xvi. I, 3), it is quite clear that it must
have been observed on fixed days. From this
it necessarily follows that there must be, along
with it, laws with such fuller details as we find
in P. In particular, xvi. 9 is too indefinite and
presupposes Lev. xxiii. 15 and foil., 10 and 11.
Even in the Books of the Covenant a celebra-
tion at the central sanctuary is certainly thought
of,^ but not in such a way that every one might
^ Comp. the charge "Three times a year shall all thy males
appear before the Lord thy God" in Ex. xxiii. 17, xxxiv. 23;
Deut. xvi. 16, II, with Deut. xvi. 15, 11 {d), 6, and, further, the
expression m,i; n'3 (in Ex. xxiii. 19), to which the people were to
come (see also Jos. vi. 24; Judges xviii. 31 ; i Sam. i. 7, 24 ;
iii. 15 ; 2 Sam. xii. 20).
186 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
come at whatever time he pleased. For that a
definitely fixed time was actually thought of is
indisputably clear from Ex. xxxiv. 24, where
Israel is to be secure from the danger of war each
time during the period of the Feast. Thus here
also a more definite statement of time is requisite.
How, further, can we explain, without an exact
date for the Feasts, the name " Feast of Weeks "
(Ex. xxxiv. 22). Finally, compare Ex. xxiii.
I 5 and xxxiv. 1 8.
So far, this result has come to us for Deut.,
that both the name " Feast of Tabernacles " as
well as the method of dating the Feasts necessarily
presuppose the enactments of P.
Nothing, however, can be argued from the
greater number of Feasts to be found in P,
because otherwise the Books of the Covenant and
D would have to be placed after Ezekiel, inasmuch
as Ezekiel mentions only two principal Feasts,
the first and the third (Ezek. xlv. 18 and foil.).
That there could be at any rate more Feasts
than these three, although they are not mentioned
in Deut, is clear from the fact that the Feast of
the New Moon is attested in ancient times (see
also Hosea ii. 11); if Deut, however, does not
mention this, it may just as well have known
the other Feasts of PC without mentioning
them.
When, moreover, only P, but none of the other
FEASTS NOT GLOOMY IN PC 187
laws, speaks of the official sacrifices of the
congregation (sec Num. xxviii.), this is by no
means an argument for the later origin of P,
but is simply inherent in the character of a ritual
legislation. Conversely, P had no occasion to
speak here further of the peace offerings, which
had been already regulated by it in another
passage (Lev. vii. 1 1 and foil.).
It is clear from tradition, besides, that it is
utterly false to assume a gloomy character in the
formerly joyous Feasts after the introduction of
PC ; according to it, they danced even on the
Day of Atonement. The employment of music,
too, will not harmonise with a gloomy character
of the worship; comp. also Joel i. i6, if, with
the critics, this prophet is put after the Exile.
With this we close this section. It has shown
us how Deut. necessarily presupposes almost all
the laws of PC, sacrificial laws, festival laws,
enactments about purity, regulations about the
staff for conducting worship and their obligations,
the ark of the Covenant, and many individual
details. On that point we can in the first
instance leave out of sight the date of Deut.
We now proceed to deal with the laws which
are only possible if PC comes at the time of
the wandering in the wilderness, and Deut. in the
time shortly before the entrance into Palestine.
188 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
Laws 3. We begin here with an enactment from the
■which are _
oniypos- Laws of the Feasts which so far we have left
comes at untouched. The paschal offering is, according
the time to PC (Ex. xii. 3 and foll.^), to be slain in the
of the V ^ /'
wander- houses, and this too on the 14th day of Nisan
inginthe . . • /t- •• ^ t ••• xt
wilder- m the evenmg (Kx. xn. 6 ; Lev. xxni. 5 ; Num.
DeS ^^ xxviii. 1 6). At the same time P requires an
shortly assembly at the holy place (Lev. xxiii. 6 and
before the "^ ...
entrance foil. ; Num. xxviii. 1 7 and foil.). This enact-
Palestine. ment was certainly possible and practicable at
the time of the wandering in the wilderness ; but
only then. After the wandering it was impossible
to be on the evening of the 14th in one's home,
and on the 15 th in Jerusalem. Therefore Deut.
xvi. 5, shortly before the immigration, does away
with this earlier regulation and transfers the Pass-
over also to the sanctuary : " Thou mayest not
sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates,
which the Lord thy God giveth thee ; but at
the place which the Lord thy God shall choose
to place his name in." It was natural that the
Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread
were now blended in one observance. How in
all the world could PC, if it was only post-
Deuteronomic, even entertain the idea of altering
this Deuteronomic enactment, which must have
been quite in the spirit of P, and of putting in its
1 Similarly according to ver. 21 and foil., yet the critics do not
know to which source these verses are to be ascribed.
THE CENTRAL SANCTUARY 189
place another, the impracticability of which was
clear from the outset ? As a matter of fact, the
Feast of the Passover and Unleavened Bread was
never celebrated after the Return in the form of
P, but in that of Deut.
The state of matters is quite similar in the The
„ , . . central
case of Lev. xvii. and Deut. xii. On this pomt sanctuary.
we refer again to the Books of the Covenant. If
we share the assumption of criticism, above dis-
proved, that it is permitted by Ex. xx. 24 to offer
sacrifice at any place they pleased, it is in the first
place quite clear that there can be no suggestion of
a development from this into Deuteronomy, which
requires the service at a single place ; this would
be no development, but a jump, or, as Robertson
quite correctly observes, a revolution, an over-
throwing and displacing of the previous stability.
But we have seen above (pp. 46, 47) how little
modern criticism was able to render probable the
sudden change through the historical conditions
about 623. At the very time when the temple
at Jerusalem was filled with the emblems of the
most abominable idolatry, the idea of a concentra-
tion of worship at this particular sanctuary must
have been utterly remote.
To come back to Ex. xx. 24, it is now, how-
ever, neither necessary nor advisable to understand
the passage as criticism does. If we saw in our
preceding section that the Book of the Covenant
190 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
itself (xxiii. 1 5 and foil.) has in view a central
sanctuary, we would otherwise imply a contradic-
tion in this very collection of laws. Attention
has therefore been rightly called to the additional
clause, " in all places where I record my name," ^
and also to the singular in ver. 26, " my altar," so
that that passage does not at all confirm the idea
of a worship to be observed simultaneously at
different places. But that the idea of worshipping
God at one place had anything improbable in it
at the time of Moses we have disproved above
(see pp. 46, 47).
Well- After this preface let us pass on to the relation
theory between Deut and P, which especially interests us.
to\\e°^ A warning is given in Deut. xii. 1 3 and foil.
seventh ag-ainst offering sacrifice in any place they like ;
century ^ ^ J' r / '
every this must only be done at the central sanctuary.
killiusT
was a On the other hand, it is allowed to kill and eat
sacrifice. ^^^^ everywhere, on condition that the blood is
allowed to flow away. Wellhausen and his school
explain the passage thus : — Hitherto, z.e. down to
the seventh century, every killing was a sacrifice.
But from henceforth, when the worship is to be
concentrated at one place and the nature of the
case forbids the bringing, killing, and offering
simultaneously all the cattle from the whole land,
a distinction is made between sacrificing and
slaying. Every killing is not, as hitherto, a
^ See the note on p. loi.
A BASELESS THEORY 191
sacrifice, and may therefore occur at any place
they like ; the real sacrifices, however, must no
longer be offered at any place they choose, but
only at the central sanctuary.
But the assumption here made that before 623
every killing was looked upon as a sacrifice is not
only quite incapable of proof, but exceedingly
improbable. The existence of the high places
proves decisively, as far as I can see, that an
ordinary killing was not in itself a sacrifice, but
only became such when it was performed there.
Or does i Sam. xxviii. 24 produce the impression
that the witch of Endor offered a sacrifice when
she slew the fat calf in her house, took flour and
kneaded it, and baked unleavened bread, in order
to set all before Saul and his companions? The
same may be said of similar passages in the
patriarchal history, in which the conditions of the
time before the prophetic writings are surely
supposed to be reflected. Why, then, when real
sacrifices are in question, do they first solemnly
build an altar (see Gen. xxii. 9) ?
But if a distinction was made before 623
between sacrificing and slaying, then the passage
Deut. xii. 1 5 remains a puzzle. What is the
meaning of a law which expressly permits what
was self-evident for every one? It will be seen
how very simply and naturally it is explained on
the assumption of the genuineness of Deut. and
192 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
the priority of PC, as soon as we have discussed
the modern view of Lev. xvii. and also rejected it
as inherently impossible.
That is to say, admitting that the Wellhausen
school was right in its certainly false exegesis of
Deut. xii. 15, yet its view of the sequence of the
laws Deut. and P would break down at Lev. xvii.
I and foil.
For here it would be once again laid down
that every killing must be an offering, and must
therefore take place at the central sanctuary.
Such an enactment could not possibly be given
at the time of the Exile, if they had any idea of
introducing PC ; but that was done, as we saw,
and therefore such an " unpractical " regulation, as
Wellhausen (p. 52) calls it, is the best proof that
the whole hypothesis is false. Even after the
return from the Exile most of the Israelites were
much too far removed from Jerusalem to be able
to obey this enactment and actually to kill all
sacrificial animals at the central sanctuary.
Besides, they had still a quite definite hope of
occupying the whole land. All Israel must,
according to this enactment, have been continually
on the road ; yet PC attached to its transgression
the punishment of death (Lev. xvii. 4) and
appointed this law as a statute for ever (ver. 7, b).
It is only intelligible during the wandering in the
wilderness, when every animal killed in the camp
EARLIER LAW ABROGATED 193
could actually be brought to the tabernacle of the
congregation.^
Now, however, that passage in Deut. xii. i 5 The per-
1 r 11 . r 1 n ■ • ii- -1 i 1 missioii ill
and foil. IS for the first time intelligible ; here, peut. xii.
shortly before the immigration, that regulation of anywh^r
Lev. xvii. is expressly abroe:ated, because it proved proves
^ J ^ ' ^ that Deut.
impracticable for the future to kill everything at was later
the central sanctuary, and thus Deut. permits the
killing at any place they liked, and only requires
that the sacrifices are still to be performed at the
central sanctuary. We see how simply and
naturally both passages are explained, both in
themselves and in their relation to one another, if
we leave the laws in the place where they profess
to have originated. If we compare with this the
constantly artificial and impossible explanation of
both passages on the part of criticism — and this
again, too, both in themselves and in their relation
to one another — it cannot be difficult to decide
in favour of the Biblical view.
That Deut. xii. is to be referred to Lev. xvii.,
and that the converse relationship does not exist,
is abundantly confirmed by the fact that Deut.
^ Besides, if Lev. xvii. is from the time of Moses, it is self-
evident that the command for erection of the tabernacle of the
congregation, the erection itself, regulations about its care and the
sacrifices to be offered in it, about the staff for the services, etc. , were
not only possible, but probable and necessary for that time ; for all
this is presupposed in the passage before us, so that once more
there follow from this the most far-reaching conclusions for the
genuineness of PC.
O
194 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
xii. I 5 contains a regulation at the end of it which
is unintelligible without Lev. xvii. 1 3. For here,
as well as in xii. 22, xv. 22, the method of dealing
with the non-sacrificial animals ^ is presupposed
as well known, and this we find stated only in
Lev. xvii. i 3. According to P also, wild beasts,
in contrast to the sacrificial animals which were
to be brought to the central sanctuary and must
be offered there, were to be everywhere hunted
and eaten ; now Deut. puts the sacrificial animals
on a level with the wild beasts and lays it down
that they may be eaten, even as the roebuck and
the hart. The further instruction that the blood
must in this case be poured out upon the earth
is found in Deut. xii. as in Lev. xvii., but without
involving any further inference from it than that
Deut. xii. and Lev. xvii. must have some connexion
with one another.
The re- Further, a third law is only intelligible if PC
of the ^°^ actually originated at the time of the wandering
first-born [^ ^^^q wilderness, and Deut., on the other hand,
mDeut. ' ' '
xiv. shows shortly before the immigration ; we allude to the
be later differing enactments about the first-born. PC
than PC. i-equii-es ^j^^t the first-born themselves be given to
Jahwe (Lev. xxvii. 26, 27 ; Num. xviii. 15-18)
and expressly forbids their redemption (Num.
xviii. 17), unless in the case of unclean beasts or
the first-born of men. Deut. xiv. 23 and foil., on
^ Sacrificial animals are cattle, sheep, goats.
LAWS ABOUT THE FIIIST-BORN 195
the other hand, expressly permits this redemption:
"7/" the way be too loiig for thee, so that thou art
not able to carry it, or if the place be too far from
thee which the Lord thy God shall choose to set
his name there, when the Lord thy God hath
blessed thee, then thou shalt turn it into money
. . . and thou shalt bestow that money for what-
soever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen or for sheep,
. . . and thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy
God." Here also it is true that the enactments
of P could only be obeyed in the time of the
wandering in the wilderness ; for only then was it
possible to give up to Jahwe all first-born creatures
themselves. Deut., on the other hand, has regard
to the circumstances after the immigration.-^
The other important difference, that according
to P the first-born of animals is to be eaten by
the priest, but according to Deut. by the owner,
his family and his guests, leads us to the next
section. Deut. could alter P on this point, in
order to make appearing at the sanctuary more
agreeable to the Israelites, and also because after
the immigration the priests received important
revenues from agriculture (see Num. xviii.). This
is certainly a better explanation than that the
^ Besides, P exactly corresponds with the enactment of the Book
of the Covenant (Ex. xxii. 29) which commanded the first-born to
be given to Jahwe on the eighth day ; Deut. xv. 19 and foil., on the
other hand, implies that the dedication did not need to take place
until a bullock might be put to work and a sheep shorn.
196 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
priests should have simply annexed the first-born
during the Exile ; against that the Israelites,
making appeal to Deut, would have energetically
protested. The remaining small differences are too
unimportant for us to linger over them, and do
not in any case afford any argument in favour of
the later date of PC.
Diffi-
cnlties
which
are in-
explicable
except
on the as-
sumption
of the
priority
of PC.
Distinc-
tion
between
priests
and
Levites.
4. In this section, finally, the differences are to
be elucidated, which may be well explained on
the assumption of the priority of PC and the
genuineness of PC and Deut. — both of these things
being rendered probable by our former inquiries
and suggested by the Biblical representation ;
otherwise these difficulties remain absolutely in-
explicable.
In proof of the priority of Deut. we are, it is
true, referred with great assurance to the fact that
it knows nothing of the distinction between priests
and Levites, whereas Ezekiel introduces it (chap,
xliv.) and P assumes it as self-evident. Now we
have seen in our discussion of the connexion of
Ezekiel with the Priestly Code (see § 2) that
Ezekiel cannot possibly have first introduced it,
but presupposes it ; but then the relation of Deut.
to P on this point must remain utterly obscure,
unless we keep to the Biblical view.
As a matter of fact the circumstances are so
put in Deut. that it would be difficult to infer from
PRIESTS AND LE\ ITES 197
it the distinction, if we had only Deut.^ Thus, e.g.^
in Deut x. 8, xxxiii. 8 and foil., the various
duties which according to P also belong indeed
to the tribe of Levi, but appear distributed among
high -priests, priests, and ordinary Levites, are
assigned without any subdivision to the whole
tribe of Levi. The question here, however, is not
in the first instance whether the distinctions within
the priestly office appear in Deut., but rather
whether they are excluded by Deut. whilst they
profess to be previously introduced by P ; and this
is not the case. Or do we exclude military
distinctions when we speak of " soldiers " ? Just
as little should we ascribe to the Israelites such a
deduction from the passages in question about the
tribe of Levi, when the distinction between high-
priests, priests, and Levites was current among
them through PC. In Deut, where the subject
was not an address to the tribe of Levi in particular,
but a parting word to the whole people, for whom
the contrast of the tribe of Levi with the other
tribes was incomparably more important than the
distinction within this tribe, Moses could speak
more generally and comprehensively. If, notwith-
standing this, we conclude from the state of affairs
in Deut. that the distinction could not yet have
been in existence at that time, let us be consistent
^ At most, chap, xxvii. 9, 14, compared with ver. 12, can be
adduced.
198 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
and draw a similar conclusion for the time of
Malachi, in whose case the circumstances were
quite analogous ; for according to Mai. ii. i and
foil, (see especially vers. 4 and 8) and iii. 3, these
distinctions could not yet have existed then either
within the tribe of Levi, and all Levites must still
have been priests; but criticism quite calmly allows
the distinction to have existed since the year 573
(Ez. xliv. 4 and foil.), and at least since the first
return from the Exile in 538 (see Ezra ii. 36, 40 ;
Neh. vii. 39, 43), whereas Malachi can, at the
earliest, be placed about 500. What is right for
Malachi is permissible in Deut.
The passages in Malachi also prove most
decidedly that a distinction between priests and
Levites is not excluded even by the Deuteronomic
expression : D)^hrf D^DrrBn (e.^. Deut. xviii. i )}
For this emphasising of the descent of the priests
from the tribe of Levi is also found in Malachi,
without being regarded by criticism as rendering
the distinction impossible there. But even with-
out this most striking refutation, we cannot see
how this emphasising of the Levitical descent of
the priests can be adduced at all against a
division within the tribe of Levi. Ezekiel, after
he has just mentioned the distinction in xliv. 4
and foil., retains the description " the priests the
Levites" for the sons of Zadok (ver. 15); similarly
^ i.e. "the Levitical Priesthood"; comp. Heb. vii, 11.
BEFORE VIIth CENTURY 199
the expression is found even in Jer. xxxiii. 1 8,
a passage which is inconsistently placed much
later by the moderns — nay, even in Chronicles, e.g.
2 Chron. xxx. 27, where it could certainly not be
found if the assumptions of criticism were correct.
The arbitrariness and inconsistency of the Well-
hausen school are most clearly shown on this
point.
If, moreover, Deut. originated in the seventh
century and is to be regarded as referring to existing
conditions, the untenableness of the view according
to which there were as yet no distinctions in the
spiritual office would follow even from this. We
have already called attention above to the fact
that in 2 Kings xxii. 4 and 8 Hilkiah is called
" high-priest " (see also xxiii. 4), and that this can
only be set aside by a stroke of violence on the
part of criticism (see p. 147). Further, the
position of an Eli (i Sam. i and foil.), of an
Ahimelech (i Sam. xxi., xxii.), of a Zadok and an
Abiathar, proves indisputably that there was a
distinction within the priestly office even before
the seventh century. The same follows from Jer.
XX. I ; xxix. 25, 26, 29; Hi. 24. And even if
Deut. had connected itself with the existing cir-
cumstances, it could not possibly act as if there
were no distinction within the priestly office. Let
us also recall the fact that in Ez. xliv. 4 and
foil, regulations about the inferior staff for service
200 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
must have been assumed as well known. Similarly
Deut. X. 8, xviii. 2, xxxiii. 8, made it absolutely
necessary that minute regulations about the tribe
of Levi had already been found. In xviii. 2 there
was surely a direct reference to Num. xviii. 20,
24, and therefore to P. But then Deut. must
necessarily have been acquainted with the distinc-
tion between high -priests, priests, and Levites.
But if, in reply, we are pointed to the fact that
the inferior Levites are nowhere mentioned in the
history, the question at once suggests itself whether
it was necessary that they should be mentioned,
i.e. whether their not being mentioned is enough
to prove their non-existence. But then there are
actually passages in which the Levites are
mentioned (see Judges xvii., xviii. ; xix.-xxi. ; I
Sam. vi. 1 5 ; 2 Sam. xv. 24; I Kings viii. 4);
only they have been treated after the approved
pattern.
We remain therefore of the opinion that even
this point does not exclude the priority of PC,
and the genuineness of PC and Deut. ; nay, that
it is only in this way that we can explain at all
the apparent difference between the two legisla-
tions. According to modern criticism a real
difference exists, which it is not able to solve,
since it has demonstrated the connecting link in
Ez. xliv. to be unsuitable and useless.
The case is quite similar also with the difference
LAWS ABOUT TITHE 201
in regard to the tithe. P requires a tithe, which The differ-
was to be paid yearly to the Levites, who in turn tween PC
had to give up a tenth to the priests (Lev. xxvii. ^^^ ^®^*-
30-33 ; Num. xviii. 20-22). Deut., on the other to the
tithe,
hand, mentions another tithe (Deut. xiv. 22-29 ;
xxvi. 12-15); according to these passages the
tithe is to be consumed at the sanctuary two years
in succession, but in every third year is to be
given to the Levites. If we depart from the
Biblical date of the sources, we lose once more all
possibility of explaining how the one legislation
could completely ignore the other and deviate
from it without explanation — whether we regard
Deut. or P as the earlier.
If we abide by the Biblical date, Deut would
add a second tithe. In support of the correctness
of our view we may adduce the text of the
Septuagint, which in Deut. xxvi. 12 reads to
Bevrepov iirtheicaTov ; and similarly the history, for
in the Greek text of the Book of Tobit we read
(chap. i. 7) : t^]v SeKcirrjv iBlSovv tol<; VLol<i Aevl
T0?9 OepairevovaLV eh 'lepovaakTJ/jL, koI rrjv Bev-
repav SeKurijv aTreirpaTL^Ofjirjv, koI iiropevo/jirjv
Kal iSaTrdvcov avra iv 'l6povo-a\vfxoi<; Ka6' eKaarov
evLavTov.
Even the difference between Lev. vii. 29-34
and Deut. xviii. 3 is, if these enactments refer at
all to the same subject, quite inadequate to
warrant any conclusions in favour of the later
202 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
date of PC. According to the former passage
the priests receive from the peace offerings the
breast and the right thigh (see R.V.) ; according
to Deut., on the other hand, only a fore-shoulder,
the two cheeks and the maw. Now if Deut. is
late, and PC also, it is unintelligible how the
enactment could have been simply altered, for the
injured Israelites, i.e. priests, would in any case
have entered their protest, appealing to the other
legislation. The difference is best explained if
Moses himself undertook the alteration, having
observed that the priests were henceforth richly
enough provided for by the revenue from agri-
culture. If, on the other hand, the ni| in
Deut. xviii. 3 refers to the killing, as in xii. 15,
for example, the difference from P disappears
altogether.
We have thus discussed the most important
deviations between P and Deut. and have seen
how they either prove nothing in favour of the
sequence in time of Deut. — P (see §§ i and 4) or
even require the converse relationship (§ 2), but in
many respects only become possible and intelligible
at all if both legislations are ascribed to the
Mosaic period, in which they profess to have
originated, in the Biblical sequence P — Deut. (§ 3
and part of 4). If we add the passages dealt
with under 8 2, which require the priority of PC,
RESULTS ARRIVED AT 203
there can no longer be any doubt that the modern
sequence D — PC is untenable.
In order to avoid misunderstandings, let us
here once more expressly state that we only have
in view the two collections of laws as a whole, and
in each case only consider the kernel and essential
structure, without therefore wishing to dispute
from the outset that individual laws may have
been possibly incorporated later.
Conclusion
Let us sum up what has been arrived at as Sum-
, mary of
a result. previous
1. Ezekiel xl.-xlviii., in itself unsuited to be ^^&^®^*-
included in a development of collections of laws,
requires nevertheless the priority of PC (see " The
relation of Ezekiel to the Priestly Code ").
2. If we compare Deut. with PC, it is clear, on
the one hand, that no argument can be deduced
from the more minute enactments of PC in favour
of its posteriority, because it professes to be a
ritual legislation, which Deut. does not. On the
other hand, the priority of PC is expressly
demanded by many passages of Deut. as well as
by a comparison with the latter (see " Comparison
of the Laws with one another"). From this it
would equally follow that even with the modern
204 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
date of Deut. the Priestly Code is at least not
post-exilic.
3. The same result was arrived at when we
compared PC with the time at which it is supposed
to have originated (see " Criticism of the modern
date of PC ")•
4. The result of our first inquiry carried us
still farther, inasmuch as it showed that it is quite
impossible for Deut. to have arisen in the seventh
century (see " Criticism of the modern date of
Deut."). Now the farther back Deut. must be
placed, the farther back the Priestly Code must
go with it, since according to § 2 the latter is
older than Deut.
This is the result of our inquiry, so far as it
related to the consequences of the Graf-Wellhausen
hypothesis.
At the same time, however, it has disclosed
the weaknesses of modern critical methods and
auxiliary hypotheses. They are useless, because,
if consistently carried out, they prove not only
that the Biblical representation of Israelitish
history is untenable, but that the modern con-
struction of history is quite as much so ; in fact
they make all positive science of history a priori
impossible.
Let us once more go through these principles
and supplementary hypotheses in order.
I. Criticism sees in the non-mention of a law
CRITICAL PRINCIPLES 205
a proof of its non-existciicc ; but then also the
Books of the Covenant are impossible before the
Exile (see " Criticism of the modern date of the
Books of the Covenant ").
2. Criticism sees in the general violation of a
law a proof of its non-existence ; but then, again,
the Books of the Covenant, and also Deut., are
impossible before the Exile.
3. Criticism does violence to the text and
treats all traces of Deut. before 623 and of P
before 444 as impossible. Here there is a
circulus vitiosus. In this fashion we might bring
PC down to a later date than 444 and Deut.
later than 623.
4. Criticism assumes that the editing of the
history of the Israelites not merely regards it
from particular standpoints, but invents it ; in
that case 2 Kings xxii., xxiii. and Neh. viii.-x.
belong also to these inventions.
5. The polemic of the prophets against
sacrifices makes the existence of PC at that time
impossible ; but then the same would be true of
the existence of the Books of the Covenant and
Deuteronomy.
6. Ezekiel xl.-xlviii. demands, on account of
its deviations from PC, the later date of the
latter ; but then the same would hold good of the
Books of the Covenant and Deuteronomy.
7. The impression of the novelty of Deut. in
206 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
2 Kings xxii., xxiii. obliges us to conclude that it
was only written shortly before 623 ; but then
also the Books of the Covenant could not have
existed before that time. The impression of the
novelty of PC in Neh. viii.-x. necessitates the
conclusion that it was only produced shortly
before 444 ; but since, according to Wellhausen,
the Books of the Covenant and Deut. were
promulgated at the same time with it, the same
conclusion must be applicable to them.
With §§ 2-7 compare " Criticism of the modern
date of Deuteronomy," § i ; the whole of the
second section of " Criticism of the modern date
of PC," " Criticism of the modern auxiliary
hypotheses," and the first section of " Criticism of
the modern result," § I.
The con- By way of appendix, further, we variously
criticism* pointed out that many of the modern critics do
make the ^^^ ^jg]-^ ^q deny the revelation, but admit it.^ If
ideSi 01 Bi
revelation by this we are to understand revelation in its
untenable. . , - , , . r -, • ■
special sense of the history of redemption, it was
difficult for us to conceive how it could be
seriously held, if we cannot get beyond a con-
scious refined falsification in connexion with the
origin of Deut. and P (see " Criticism of the
^ It is indeed often questionable whether they go beyond a
guidance of God such as takes place even in profane history. If
we could not under any circumstances be content with this for the
New Testament revelation, then we can scarcely accept it for its
preliminary stages.
REVELATION IMPOSSIBLE 207
modern date of Deut.," p. 50, and "Criticism of
the modern result " in the discussion about P, p.
94) ; if in particular Ezekiel and the authors of
P play such a doubtful part on the subject of the
Levites (see " The relation of Ezekiel to P," § 2) ;
if the authors of P give such scope to egoistical
motives in their writing, inasmuch as they in-
crease their revenues immeasurably ; if, finally,
the prophets come before us in a peculiar light,
inasmuch as, notwithstanding appearances to the
contrary, they do not come forward in the
attitude of reformers, but bring new ideas and at
the same time make moral and religious re-
proaches against the people, which, considering
the lower platform on which the latter still stood,
were not deserved.^ In short, if lying and decep-
tion have a share every time that new forces
arise in the development, it is only a well-meant
self-deception to believe that we can hold to a
revelation along with this ; this self-deception must,
however, be the more unhesitatingly exposed the
more dangerous it is, and the more, under its
protection, the foundation on which we stand is
undermined.
When, finally, modern criticism boasted that it
had proved a development in the history of Israel,
^ The last point is only mentioned in one passage in our discus-
sion (see " Relation of Ezekiel xl.-xlviii. to the Priestly Code," § 2,
a)y but it plays an important part in modern Old Testament
theology.
208 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
so that the different laws had always corresponded
to the maturity of the people, on this point also
we had to maintain an attitude of denial. Even
if we accept the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, the
people would never have been able to grasp, in
their necessity and wholesomeness, the new legal
enactments which were introduced, or to produce
them entirely of their own accord. Deut. as well
as P would have always reflected only the ideal of
some few, and therefore would at first, at least,
have met with no sympathy ; after the flaring up
of a fire of straw the people would have not only
sunk into indifference again, but would have
violated the new laws as if they were not in
existence ; the Books of the Covenant had
previously met with precisely the same fate.
Moreover, it is not the case that according to
criticism the result of the development had already
existed in iiuce at the beginning of the Israelitish
history, so that all that followed was only a
necessary growth from the slumbering germ — it
is only then that we can speak of a development
— rather, it is external circumstances by which the
progress is determined from step to step. Nay,
the new elements would have emerged at times
when they could not be understood at all ; thus
the idea of concentration of worship at the very
time when the most abominable idolatry was
practised at the central sanctuary, the thought of
MET ON THEIR OWN GROUND 209
Levitism at a time when it had been shown that
the outward observance of rules of worship was
not the slightest help, and in which there was no
inclination whatever to Levitism (see " Criticism
of the modern result" on Deut., § i, and on PC,
^§ 2 and 4). Just as little is a really organic
development of the laws from one another to be
established ; here also nothing but contradictions
and jumps !
Thus far our negative result, on which the
whole emphasis of the work rests.
We have arrived at it throughout from the
ground of the critics ; for we have in every case
shared their assumptions at first. We have taken
the modern " sources " as the basis, and assumed
that they can really be so cleanly divided and
dated, which has become the more improbable to
me the longer I study it. We have admitted
the editings of the history, e.g. the Deuteronomist
editing of the Books of Kings, although we are
firmly convinced that here at least there is very
often a circulus vitiosus ; for Deut. is first of all
placed so late because no traces exist, and then
the traces are ascribed to a later time because
Deut. only originated shortly before ^2^. We
have, finally, disregarded entirely the dogmatic
standpoint, and have proceeded on purely
historical lines.
If on all sides we find ourselves thus in
P
210 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
Well- antagonism to the modern hypothesis, we will
conciu^** not, however, deny to Wellhausen all merit, even
sions though it is essentially of a negative character : it
serve to ^ ^ & '
destroy consists, in my opinion, in this chiefly, that he has
his whole , , , , . r i
theory. drawn the last conclusions from the assumptions
about which, before him, there was agreement.
He has crowned the whole ; but the crown is too
heavy and must crush the whole. It will be
necessary, therefore, to proceed to a new building,
and many stones from the previous building may
be employed in it. And if our work has been in
its whole tendency essentially destructive, yet it
has aimed at preparing a place for the new
building, and has already given at least some hints
for it. Thus, in the inquiry about Deut. (§ 5),
and on P (" Criticism of the modern result," §§ 3
and 6), and similarly in that on the relation of both
laws to one another (see the last inquiry, § 3), we
came across quite a number of important laws which
defy all attempts at explanation, if we do not admit
that they really originated in the time of Moses.
Above all, it has also been shown how utterly
impossible it is, in view of the very deviations
and contradictions of the individual collections
of laws, to comprehend the Mosaic dress and
the success in the introduction of Deut. and P,
so long as we do not assume at least a genuine
basis for all three legal sections. And these
original stems must certainly have included all
EDITING POSSIBLE 211
essential parts, so that they could form centres
of crystallisation for laws which might be added
later (see the inquiry about Deut., §§ 2, 3, and 4 ;
inquiry about PC, " Criticism of the modern result,"
§§ 2, 3, 4, and 5 ; inquiry about the Books of the
Covenant, § 2 ; and, finally, the inquiry on the
relation of the laws to one another, § 3).
Granting, then, that there are laws and enact-
ments which necessarily point to a later time and
appear as further improvements of the original,
and were therefore incorporated according to
practical needs, we have at any rate a rational
explanation, which criticism does not give us, how
these laws also came to be ascribed to Moses.
In the same way we may institute inquiries
whether the codification of the laws may not have
been, in part at least, carried out in later times.^
It is clear, at any rate, that even then the picture
of the history of Israel would be a totally different
one from that which is drawn by Wellhausen.
Above all, the inquiries about a possible later
codification, postscripts, etc., would only touch
subordinate points, whereas these literary-critical,
more or less subjective discussions unfortunately
touch at once the centre, and must continue to
do so, so long as the Wellhausen hypothesis is
not refuted ; all individual Old Testament teaching
^ The Priestly Code, e.g., nowhere claims to have been written
by Moses.
212 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
depends upon them and is influenced by them.
Similarly we might be able calmly to admit that
the historical narratives in the Pentateuch were
wrought together from original sources, so long as
their essential contents are not shown to be
unhistorical, and criticism has not yet succeeded
in doing this. Here, too, it is true that these
inquiries must occupy a subordinate place, because
it will never be possible to attain sure results.
In the first place, it is very unlikely that we
should ever be able definitely to separate the
original sources ; just consider that we have at
once to do with not only J, E, D, P, but with J^
and J^, E^ and E^, P^ . . 2 • • • 3 ; and in the
same way with different sources in Deut. ; ^ to
these would be added the various editors. Con-
sider, further, the close relationship of J and E, of
J and Deut., also of Deut. and P in some purely
legal parts of Deut, e.g. chaps, xiv. and xix. and
foil., where an exact distinction of sources appears
from the first extremely improbable ; even an
approximately accurate date is absolutely im-
possible, as the history of Pentateuchal criticism
has abundantly proved.
If Old Testament science only assumes again
a more healthy character, it is also to be hoped
^ The inquiries on this subject have certainly yielded results
differing totally from one another !
EFFECT ON PREACHING 213
that love for the Old Testament will awake again :
at present it is well-nigh extinguished ; for the
early enthusiasm of the young student does not
last long, as I know from many of my acquaint-
ances. If a more general proof is wanted, con-
sider how seldom the Old Testament is preached
on to-day. It will not be very different in the
instruction of youth. But if our people are not
constantly referred to the Old Testament as the
basis of the New, the New Testament must become
unintelligible to them, and the person of Christ a
puzzle. The Old Testament is made disagreeable
to students of theology, and the congregation suffers.
One point more in conclusion. Modern Modern
criticism often claims not only that it is able to not
retain revelation in its entirety, which we had to s"®^^^^-
describe as unlikely ; it claims also that it reaches
its result by purely scientific investigation ; we
have shown this in our discussion to be untenable.
We would like only to suggest here that perhaps
on this point also there is self-deception on the
part of the critics. Wellhausen, whom others have
followed, professes (^Prolegomena, p. 14) to have
learned from Vatke " the most and the best " ; but
the latter arrived at his construction of history not
by unprejudiced historical investigation, but from
his purely dogmatic preconceptions on the philo-
sophy of religion.
214 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
Natural Of course, if all revelation is a priori denied
ine^t^o^ and the history of Israel explained only by natural
religion v. development ; if, in other words, it is settled from
revelation, the first that the history cannot have happened as
it is described to us ; if it is asserted that the
highest point of the history of a people can never
be at the beginning, then all discussion is hopeless,
and the maxim holds good : De principiis non est
disputandum. We must then content ourselves
with having demonstrated the historical appear-
ance of the modern construction of history to be
unwarranted. It only remains to us to make
good the following assertions against this mode
of treating the philosophy of religion : —
1. It is in opposition to the Old Testament,
which everywhere proclaims a Divine revelation.
It is thoroughly unhistorical, in so far as it uses
the sources otherwise than they admit of, and yet
turns them to advantage so far as they agree with it.
2. It is at present carried out quite inconsist-
ently in the Old Testament ; for the different
religious conceptions of the particular laws, even
according to criticism, correspond in their origin
not to the spirit of the people, but always to the
ideal of individuals only. The people as a whole
are still almost as immature as before.
3. It must, to be consistent, seek to understand
the revelation in Christ as a natural development
also.
REVELATION PROGRESSIVE 215
4. It must regard a perfecting of religious ideas
beyond Christ as not only possible, but necessary.
Moreover, it is not the case, even according to
the Biblical view, that the complete revelation was
made at the beginning. It is, rather, prepared for
by the early revelation and by the leading of the
patriarchs. Notwithstanding the revelation in
Moses, a progress in revelation takes place within
the Old Testament (see especially the ethical
deepening through the prophets and their Mes-
sianic prophecies). Finally, the New Testament is
self-evidently a vast advance upon the Old.
But if we believe that the essential elements of
the Old Testament revelation were actually in
existence at the time of Moses, we see above all in
the further course of Israelitish history a develop-
ment in understanding of the revelation and in
agreement with it.
The author would be delighted if his " considera-
tions" should prove even to a few people to be an
inducement to reflection. If his protest should
die away unheard, like that of so many others, he
has at any rate the consciousness of having done
that which he could not leave undone.
INDEX
Agrarian laws in PC inexplicable on critical
theory, 89
Amalekites, reference to ; a proof of earlier date
of Deut., 36
Amos, 45, 105, 'd.Vid. passim
Ark, laws relating to the, 92, 174
Auxiliary hypotheses of modern criticism, 99-1 50
Baudissin, History of O. T. Priesthood, xxi
Bredenkamp, The Law and the Prophets, xxii,
23 n., 50, 64, 100, 120
Canaanites, order to exterminate ; a proof of
earlier date of Deut., 33
Central sanctuary, 46, 189
1 Chronicles, 36
2 Chronicles, 84 and passim
Clean and unclean, laws of, 176
Cornill, 8, 17, 24, 64, 10 1 71.
Covenant, Books of the, xix, i o, and passim
Delitzsch, Critical Studies in the Pentateuch, xxii,
26, 32, 172
Deuteronomy, xix, 1-55, ^.nA passim
Development, theory of, 152, 207, 214
217
218 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT?
Dillmann, The Books of Numbers^ Deuteronomy^
and Joshua, xxii, 60, 68, 172
Driver, Deuteronomy, $i n.
Eichthal, Melanges de critique bihlique, 41
Exile, threats of, in Deut. inconsistent with later
date, 38
Exodus, xix, 8, and passim
Ezekiel, 38, 114
xl.-xlviii., 70, 1 1 4- 14 1, 164
Ezra (Book of), 149
Ezra, the Law as read by, 56
Feasts, the three great, 163, 178-187
First-born, law of the redemption of the, 1 94- 1 96
Genesis, 112, 167, 191
Haggai, 73, 78, 148, 149
Halle, Tholuck Institute, xvi
Havernick, Introduction to the Pentateuch, xxii,
32, 155
Hengstenberg, xxii, 39, 155, 169
Hosea, 1 6 and passim
Isaiah, 16 d^nd passim
Jeremiah, 16, 21, 104., dind passim
Josiah's reformation and the law, 3-23
Judges, Book of, 47, 49, 157
Kautzsch, History of O. T. Scriptures , 4, 10, 23,
50, 57, 64, 68, 80, loi n,, 113, 135
Translation of the Bible, xviii
Kayser, 62
INDEX 219
1 Kings, 88 2.x\^ passim
2 Kings, 3 and passim
Kleinert, D enter 07i07ny, xxii, 2, 32
Klostermann, Origin of the Pentateuch, xxii, 73, 75
Kohler, Professor (Erlangen), xvi, xxii, 70
Kuenen, 14, 42
Levites, 30, 6^, 124- 141
Leviticus, xix, 79, and passim
Malachi, JJ, yZ, 85, 86
Micah, 73 ^ndi passim
" Mosaic disguise " alleged by critics as given to
books later than time of Moses, 2-17, 51, Z6,
97, 166
Nehemiah, 5 6 and passim
Non-existence of a law not proved by its violation,
7-10, 150
Nowack, Kleine Propheien, 149
Numbers, xix, 60, 82, 89, 2,x\^ passim
Orelli, Professor von, viii
Passover, historical basis of, 182-186
Pentecost, Feast of, 181- 186
Pious fraud, implied by the critical theory, 50, 94
Preaching, effect of O. T. criticism on, 2 i 3
Priestly Code in the Pentateuch, xix, 55-160
Priests and Levites, distinction between, 124-141,198
Prophets on sacrifice, the, 106, 164
Prophets, relation of the, to the Priestly Code,
99-114
Proverbs, 1 1 4
Psalms, 99, 142, 157
220 ARE THE CRITICS RIGHT ?
Reuss-Kayser standpoint, the, 64
Robertson, Early Religion of Israel^ xxii, 49
Sacrifices, differences between PC and Deut. on,
190-194
1 Samuel, 37> 47, I58» 191
2 Samuel, 1 1 3
Sanctuary, the central, 46, 189
Schulz, Deuteronomy^ xxii, 32
Schumann, Wellhausen's Theory of the Pentateuch^
xxii
Smend, 42, 1 19
Stade, 42
Steuernagel, Origin of the Deuteronomic LaWy 42
Strack-Zockler Commentaries, xxii, 148
Tabernacle, why mentioned in PC if the critics
are right? 72, 87-89
Tabernacles, Feast of, and its historical basis, 183
Tithe, differences between PC and Deut. on the
law of, 201
Tobit i. 7 (the second tithe), 201
Unscientific character of modern criticism, 147
Urim and Thummim inexplicable on critical
theory of date of PC, 90
Vatke, dogmatic preconceptions of, 213
Vernes, Une nouvelle hypothese, etc., 41
Wellhausen, xv, i , and passim
Wittenberg, Theological Seminary, xvi
Zadok the priest, 126-1 '^g, 139 n.
Zechariah, 73, 78, 148
14 DAY USE
RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED
LOAN DEPT.
This book is due on the last date stamped below, or
on the date to which renewed.
Renewed books are subject to immediate recalL
2Nov'60PW1
,.^.'€»-i-»
\^6^ u ^^
0
\
...*^
(A9562sl0)476B ^'"'^^"Kfkel^
YB ?I629
Ml;^4S68
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
WITHDRAWN FROM
UNIVERSITY OF REDLANDS LIBRARY
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11