Abbildungen der Seite


But it is extravagant in Delitzsch to say,' that Exodus xv. is the key-note of all following hymns, and Deut. xxxii. the magna charta of prophecy ; both were composed much later than Moses, after noble hymns had appeared, and prophecy flourished.

Keil and others find allusions in Joel to the Elohist and Jehovist united. The prophet writes: "A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains : a great people and a strong: there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations” (Joel ii. 2), which has been referred to Exodus x. 14, “Before them there was no such locusts as they, neither after them shall be such.” But the resemblance is too slight to shew borrowing. The same may be said of Joel ii. 13, “He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and of great kindness,” in relation to Exodus xxxiv. 6, “ The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth."2

It has also been disputed whether Amos and Hosea, who flourished at the beginning of the eighth century, were acquainted with the Jehovist. Amos writes : " Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks” (ii. 9), which merely resembles the description in Num. xiii. 32, 33 (an Elohistic portion), but is free and independent. It is probable that the prophet did not follow the description in the book of Numbers. The reference of Amos iv. 11, “I have overthrown some of you as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah," to the Elohist in Gen. xix. 29, cannot be entertained, even though the two cities are spoken of to which the tradition in the Elohist confined the catastrophe; because the tradition, in that very state, must have been well known.

In Hosea iv. 6, where the prophet speaks of the people being rejected by Jehovah from being priests to Him, there is no reason for thinking that he had before him Exodus xix. 6, or that he took the idea from that place. Nor in alluding to the degeneracy of the fathers in falling away to the idolatry of Baalpeor (ix. 10) does Hosea shew his acquaintance with the narrative in Num. xxv. 15, which is Jehovistic. In like manner the prophet does not allude to Gen. xiv. 2, 3, xviii., in xi. 8. As little does xii. 4, etc. (Hosea) presuppose Gen. xxvii. 36, xxxv. 15. The words in xii. 12, “And Jacob fled into the country of Syria,” shew that the prophet knew the Jehovist tradition embodied in the Jehovist document, which alone speaks of the separation between the two brothers; and represents Jacob's going to Haran as a flight (Gen. xxvii. 41-43).

1 Kommentar ueber die Genesis, third edition, p. 14, Einleitung. 2 See Keil's Einleitung, p. 120.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Thus we cannot adopt Tuch's opinion in maintaining the acquaintance of Amos and Hosea with the Elohist or the Jehovist. The passages referred to do not necessitate the supposition that the allusions are as he has indicated. The prophets in question had not the two or more documents united, as they are now. Nor is there any evidence that they knew the Jehovist separately. If indeed the writers of the documents had inrented the historical traditions embodied in their composition, the prophets must have borrowed their allusions; but as their traditions were the inheritance of the nation, and did not cease to be handed down orally because they were embodied in writings, the case is different. The form in which they are described must be reflected in later writers, in order to prove imitation. Unless the mode of statement be similar, it is illogical to infer that one is borrowed from another. In none of the oldest prophets-Joel, Amos, Hosea—does such verbal resem

blance appear.

[ocr errors]


In Isaiah i. 9, 10, there is a reference to the destruction of the Jordan-vale similar to that in Amos, in addition to the viciousness of the inhabitants, which implies acquaintance with Gen. xix. The same conclusion follows from Isaiah iii. 9, “ They declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not," from Gen. xix. 5. But in Isaiah iv. 5, 6, where we read, “And the Lord will create upon every dwelling-place of Mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night: for upon all the glory shall be a defence. And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the day time from the heat, and for a place of refuge, and for a covert from storm and from rain,” there is no reason for supposing that the description of the tabernacle by the Elohist and Jehovist in Num. ix. 15–23, Exodus xxxiii. 7-11, xl. 34 was before the prophet; because the traditional account of the tabernacle was wellknown. Nor in Isaiah iv. 1, “And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, “We will eat our own bread and wear our own apparel, only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach," do we discern a reference to the legal requirements in Exodus xxi. 10, relative to the taking of a concubine in addition to a purchased female Hebrew, and the nonabridgment of duties owing to the latter ; because Isaiah speaks of the duties involved in the marriage state. In Isaiah v. 14"therefore hell hath enlarged herself and opened her mouth without measure"—there is a personification of Sheol, representing the depopulation of the country by the enemy's sword, without allusion to the fate of Korah in Num. xvi. Again, Isaiah x. 26, xi. 11, xv. 16 shew no more than that the tradition embodied in Exodus xiv. was well-known to the writer. But

See Kommentar ueber die Genesis, pp. lxxxix., xc.

Isaiah xxx. 27–33, is a manifest imitation of the song in Exodus xv., which latter is older than the Jehovist himself. Isaiah xii. 2 is imitated from Exodus xv. 2; but the prophecy is confessedly later than Isaiah. Thus the allusions of Isaiah to the Elohist and Jehovist are very few; and though they were more, nothing in the date of the latter prevents the prophet's use of his document.

In Micah vi. 5, we read, “O my people, remember now what Balak, King of Moab, consulted, and what Balaam, the son of Beor, answered him," etc, which implies an acquaintance with the narrative in Num. xxii. But this is consistent with our position respecting the Jehovist. It cannot be shewn that the elder Zechariah alluded to the Jehovist in ix. 1, 11, xüi, 7, 8. In that case our date of the Jehovist could not stand; for the Zechariah in question was rather prior to Isaiah.

These prophetic references need not be followed farther. There is nothing against the use of the Jehovist by Nahum and succeeding prophets, who would probably base their exhortations on the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Hengstenberg and Von Boblen seem to have fallen into two extremes respecting the comparison of prophetic passages with the Pentateuch; the former concluding at once that the prophets borrowed from the Elohist and Jehovist ;' the latter, that the Pentateuch contains distinct allusions to the older prophets.? We have endeavoured to follow the true medium between these views.

Let us now glance at the supposed references of the Elohim document to the Jehovist, collected by Keil on the foundation of Kurtz.3

Gen. v. 3 to iv. 25. Here there is none, because the Elohist (v. 3) merely states a fact repeated by the Jehovist.

Gen. v. 29 to iii. 17. Part of the twenty-ninth verse is from the redactor. The rest has no reference to jii. 17.

Gen. xix. 29 to xiii. 10-13. This verse naturally follows the seventeenth chapter. Connected with it, it occupies its proper

, place.

Gen. xxi. 9 to xvi. 15. The former of these is the redactor's; the latter the junior Elohist's (in part).

Gen. xxii. 19 to xxi. 33. The former is the younger Elohist's; so is the latter. Gen. xxiii

. 4, 6, presuppose a longer abode in the neighbourhood of Hebron, of which the Elohist knows nothing. This is nothing; but the Jehovist's accounts of Abraham's former dwelling there, have supplanted the Elohist's briefer notices.

1 Die Authentie des Pentateuches, vol. i., p. 48, et seqq. ? See Introduction to the Book of Genesis by Von Bohlen, edited by James Heywood, vol. i., p. 244.

3° Sce Keil's Lehrbuch, second edition, p. 66.

Gen. xxviii. 20, 21, to xxviii. 15. The former verses proceed from the younger Elohist; the latter is the redactor's.

Gen. xxxii. 106, 13, to xxxi. 3. The former belongs to the junior Elohist ; the latter to the Jehovist.

Gen. xxxi. 13 to xxxviii. 14. Both are the redactor's.
Gen. xxxv. 1-3, 7, to xxviii. 13-16. Both are the redactor's.

Gen. xl. 4 to xxxix. 21–23. The former belongs to the junior Elohist; the latter partly to the redactor and partly to the Jehovist.

Gen. xlvi. 12 to xxxviii. 7-10. There is no necessary connection between these. The latter is not required by the former. Besides, the former belongs to the junior Elohist.

Gen. xlix. 8 to xxvii. 29, 40. The former is Jehovistic; so is the latter too.

In this manner we might go over all the alleged references in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers of the Elohist to the Jehovist, and shew their fallacy or incorrectness. Keil takes Stähelin's division as his basis-a division which has various inaccuracies. This circumstance facilitates his argument without exhibiting his honesty.

In relation to this topic—the allusions to the Pentateuch discoverable in subsequent books-nothing can be more fallacious or inconsequential than the statements of Hengstenberg and his followers. In the historical books, from Joshua to Chronicles inclusive, passages are collected referring to places in the Pentateuch. All the prophetic literature is treated in the same manner. Obadiah, Joel, Isaiah, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Hosea, are made to yield abundant testimony. The poetical literature, such as the books of psalms and proverbs, is adduced for the same purpose. By such a process an imposing array of passages is made out. Its very length and largeness are deceptive. It serves to fill up pages in English books, into which it is transferred in the lump. But when sifted, its importance vanishes. All that is really relevant amounts to little. Indeed nothing in it militates against the proper use of the documents we have described, or the dates belonging to them. It is convenient for Hengstenberg, Hävernick, Keil, Caspari, etc., to overlook the late dates of almost all the historical books in which they find quotations from, or allusions to the Pentateuch. It is also convenient to ignore the fact that unwritten historical tradition may have supplied authors with many things which are also recorded in the books of Moses. It is highly conducive to their cause to ignore the separate existence of the Elohim and Jehovah documents before they were incorporated in the present Pentateuch. It suits their purpose to amass everything in the other books that has a semblance to the Pentateuch, and say, “ Here are plain allusions to the written Pentateuch we now have.” But such criticism is perfunctory and deceptive. It saves trouble certainly. It is also well adapted to English theological conservatism. But the honest lover of truth cannot be satisfied with it. Unappalled by the calumnies of Pharisaical evangelicalism, he must open his eyes, use his judgment, and look round about the theme.

The entire subject of documents incorporated into the Pentateuch might be made apparent even to an ordinary reader, by calling his attention to a few plain facts, such as : " Abraham said (vil), Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house,” etc. (Genesis xv. 2). In the very next verse, the same in substance is uttered by Abraham. “And Abraham said (Ni), Behold to me thou hast given no seed : and lo, one born in my house is mine heir." It is easy to see that different authors appear here; one would not so write.

Again we read : “And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the Lord (1717!) is in this place; and I knew it not? (Gen. xxviii. 16). The very next verse is : “And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place ! this is none other but the house of God (o'mbx), and this is the gate of heaven.” The patriarch speaks twice in immediate succession ; using however two different appellations of Deity. The former verse belongs to the redactor; the latter to the junior Elohist.

The question is firmly established on critical grounds, that two documents at least are incorporated into the present Pentateuch-documents in many respects different, and sometimes contradictory. It may suit an atmosphere of ignorance to reproduce the uncritical, far-fetched apologies of Hengstenberg, Hävernick, Keil, and Kurtz, in opposition to settled results ; but as soon as a little light shines, their emptiness appears. Kurtz himself has given up the arguments of his work on the unity of Genesis"-a fact commonly concealed, or not known,

. by the small retailers of its contents in England. And every scholar can easily estimate the worth of Keil's opinions on nice and delicate points of criticism. It may harmonise with the temper of religious sectaries in England to denounce men like Bleek, Tuch, De Wette, Ewald, Hupfeld, and Knobel as irreligious or sceptical, because they have carefully investigated the subject and honestly expressed their views upon it; but who are their judges ? Are smatterers in Hebrew the persons to lament over such men's treatment of questions that have nothing to do with religion, as though it were irreligious ? Is it a heinous heresy to be out of the pale of what is called evangelicalism ? Fortunate indeed it is, that they are out of the pale of that

« ZurückWeiter »