The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined

without any notice of my replies, while others are new, and deserve a careful consideration. Having closely examined this essay of KOSTERS, I have arrived at the conclusion that none of the reasons alleged in it against the antiquity of the Elohistic Narrative are valid in face of the facts of the case.

It seems to me, therefore, that more decisive evidence is required before the theory of the post-exilic origin of the Elohistic Narrative in Genesis can be accepted; whereas the indications of its earlier composition appear to me at present very strong indeed, if not conclusive. I desire, however, to reserve on this point any final judgment, in deference to the opinion of Professor KUENEN and other eminent writers. But in (App.152) I have collected the arguments which appear to me to support the views maintained in this work as to the relative antiquity of the Elohistic Narrative, and in (App.153) those which seem to determine the age of the Jahvist.

Finally, there is one point in the criticism of the Pentateuch which I feel it necessary to urge, because (as it seems to me) an erroneous assumption with respect to it is exercising a very misleading influence upon the freedom of these enquiries. I allude to EWALD's view, adopted in the New Bible Commentary, that Moses originally published the Ten Commandments to the Israelites in an abridged form, which leads to the conclusion (from the terms of the First Commandment) that Moses communicated to them the name Jahveh, and enforced its reception as that of the God of Israel; and from this, of course, it is inferred that Moses also in other respects exhibited great energy and ability in ruling and instructing his people.

Now it seems to me certain that in the Original Story there were no Ten Commandments'-that there is positively no

room for them, since the story goes on continuously from E.xix.19 to E.xx.18, and in such a way as to show distinctly that no such Commandments could have been inserted in the original narrative, as having been uttered by the Divine Voice at Sinai that the Decalogue, consequently, as it appears in Exodus, is a later interpolation, and is, in fact, the work of the Deuteronomist (VI.217), as well as that form of it which is given in Deuteronomy itself. I have proved this, as I imagine, in Part VI. And the matter seems to me so clear and certain, and is withal of such vital importance for the full understanding of the development of religion in Israel, that I desire to call once more attention to it. For, if Moses did not publish the Decalogue in any form, longer or shorter—and no Prophet, be it remembered, makes the least allusion to it (VII.334)—and if he was not the author of either the Deuteronomistic or the Levitical Legislation, it is obvious that his action as a legislator, as exhibited in the OS, will be reduced within very narrow limits, and will be confined, in fact, to the series of primitive laws, the 'words and judgments' in E.xx.22, &c., which must have been written originally in the land of Canaan and probably in Samuel's time (VI.493—506), but are repeated by the Deuteronomist in an abridged form (E.xxxiv.10-26), the civil injunctions being omitted, many of which had in his time become obsolete and antiquated (VI.253-4). Rather, I believe that it will advance greatly the criticism of the Pentateuch, and assist materially towards forming a true conception as to the civil and religious history of the Hebrew People, if the notion of the 'activity' of Moses is altogether abandoned, and the name regarded as merely that of the imaginary leader of the people out of Egypt, a personage quite as shadowy and unhistorical as Æneas in the history of Rome or our own King Arthur.

The publication of this closing Part of my work has been delayed by the political disturbances in this Colony, in which I have felt compelled, in the interests of Truth and Justice, to take an active part in the years 1873-5. I had hoped meanwhile that Prof. KUENEN, who had said, in his Preface to the English Translation of his Religion of Israel, that my 'divergent opinion upon a few points deserves much more than a passing remark,' and that he hoped to give elsewhere the reasons why my opinion as to the Deuteronomic origin of E.xx. 1-17 seems to him to be inadmissible,' might perhaps have been able to find time, amidst his more serious engagements, to carry out this intention. The seven years, however, which have elapsed since my Part VI was published have allowed me to go over the ground again and again with respect to every part of my criticisms, taking careful account of such works of any of my fellow-labourers in this field as have reached me here in South Africa, and especially while examining the important contributions to the Criticism of the Hexateuch by SCHRADER, KLOSTERMANN, HOLLENBERG, KAYSER, WELLHAUSEN, and others already named above. Where I cannot adopt the particular view of any of these eminent writers, yet the discussion of the points on which we differ, and on which we have separately bestowed much thought and labour, will, I trust, help forward the settlement of some of those questions upon which critics of the Pentateuch are still divided, while thoroughly at one upon the great main points. And no amount of thought and labour will be grudged, or will be reckoned as wasted, by those who have been closely engaged in this part of the work, which shall help in any degree to clear the way for the more thorough knowledge of the composition of the Pentateuch, and the age and authorship of its different portions,-upon which depends

so much the progress of true Christianity in the world, the work of Missions among Mohammedans, Parsees, Buddhists, and Heathens, and (in one word) the future Religion of the human

race.

In App.154 I have given a list of passages in respect of which I have been led to modify the views expressed in former Parts, either through my own later studies, or through comparing my results with those of other recent critics; and I have here given in a translation the complete story as told by the Second Elohist in Exodus and Numbers, and as told by the Jahvist in Numbers and Joshua. But I owe it to my readers to complete the present work without further delay. And I heartily thank God that life and health have been spared to me to bring it thus to a close.

BISHOPSTOWE, NATAL: July 24, 1878.

J. W. NATAL.

CONTENTS.

CHAP.

PREFACE.

I. THE DEUT. AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOKS OF KINGS

II. THE DEUT. PASSAGES IN 1K.I-VIII