C. It will now be shown that this view of the
composition of the Hexateuch is borne out by an examination of the books. To do so we will "first call attention to a few isolated facts, tlie bearing of which on the general question will afterwards appear. ( 1 ) It is obvious to the most casual reader that the Bk. of Dt, speaking generally, dilfers strikingly in style and character from the other books of the Hexateuch. It produces when read a dill'erent impression, just as St. John produces a dilferent impression from the other Gospels. On examination we discover that this ditierence of impression is chiefly due to its highly spiritual tone and its constant appeal to the emotions. (2) In Kx 20--23. 24'-' we find a definite body of laws, religious and civil, both marked by their singularly primitive character, described as wTitten in a book, and marking the basis of a special covenant between God and man. (3) Throughout a lar<'e part of Exodus, the whole of Leviticus, and the greater part of Numbers, we meet with a large number of laws, mainly ritual, but partly civil, marked, how- ever, throughout by a sameness of tone and spirit, the stress being always laid on ceremonial ooser- vances. Thus we find three distinct codes — the Covenant code (C), the Deuteronomic (U), the Levitical or Priestly (P). These wUl be found on comparison to differ, not only in general tone and snirit, but also in several definite details, both in tlieir religiou.s and civil portions. For instance, compare C's altar of earth or rough stone (Ex 20^"-') with P's elaborate altar of acacia wood overlaid with brass (27'*), the offerer apparently him-self the priest in C (Ex 20") with the Levites all priests in U (Dt 18' etc.), and the elaboration of High Priest, Priests and Levites of P, as frequently throughout Leviticus, etc. Notice the differences in the feasts both in number and character : in C three, entirely agricultural, depending in time on the season, namely. Unleavened Bread, Han-est, Ingathering, Ex 23""" (15'' appears to be a later interpolation, cf. 34**) ; in D also three : Passover and Unleavened Bread, Weeks, Booths, Dt 16, mainlj' agricultural, but the first in part historical as a memorial of the departure from Egypt in haste, the last two still dependent on the seasons, vv.'- ", or the second only relatively fixed if the Passover is to be identified with the beginning of harvest ; in P six holy seasons, besides the Sabbath, mentioned in the same category : Passover, Wave- sheaf, Weeks, Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Booths, Lv 23. Two of these only. Wave-sheaf and Weeks, are solely agricultural, the last partly agricultural and partly historical. The meaning of Trumpets isnot explained ; the Passoveris historical, the Day of Atonement purely religions. The law of the manumission of slaves presents similar con- trasts. In C (Ex 21"-') the Hebrew slave, bought as a matter of course, after six years' servitude is allowed to go free, but without the wife procured for him by his master and the children born in servitude. If from love of tlicse or his master he elects to stay, bis ear is bored, and he becomes his master's slave for ever. In D (Dt 15'^-'*) the Hebrew slave who, in spile of his slaverj', is, being a Hebrew, his master's brother, aft«r six years' 8er\-itude (or possibly such of them as remained till the Sab- batical year, cf. 15'-") is to \k manumitted with liberal presents in gratituilo for his treat sen-ice. Nothing is said of his wife and children, but it seems probable that they were to l>o manumitted too. If from love for his master and his master's family he elects to stay, he is treated as in C. In P (Lv 25*-'') if a Hebrew, here called a brother, ia sold into slavery through poverty (it is not con- ceived possible under any other circumstances), he is not to be treated as a slave at all, but a.s a hired servant. He is to be manumitted \rilh hit wife and children in the year of jubile, wLen ha
366
HEXATEUCH
HEXATEUCH
returns to his familj- and family possessions, which are tlien restored to liim. But, even before tills, any relative had the power to redeem him, or he might redeoiii himself. Slaves proper were to be only from the heathen around, or from the stranger /hat sojourned with them, and these were an absolute possession and heirloom.
That these thrive laws here contrasted belong to ditl'erent dates is obvious. The similarity of form makes it equally clear that they are ditl'erent versions, by revision, of the same law. The order of dates, both with respect to these and the re- li^ous laws before compared, is easily determined. The natural order is from the 8imi)ler to the more elaborate ritual, from the more barbarous to the kindlier treatment of fellow-countrymen. We should expect that in course of time leasts would be added, and for the sake of general convenience their dates more definitely lixea, and the priesthood become more ordered ana delined. We know, too, that, as the danger of foreign invasion increased, the idea of a nation and of a religion both abso- lutely different from all others became more and more prominent, and hence a marked distinction between the treatment of the forei^er and the Israelite is a characteristic of late date (cf. Neh IS'^-"'). We gather, then, that C, D, P is the historical order of these codes. It will be seen on examination how, in almost every particular, D marks a transition between C and P in the law of manumission. In C the treatment of slaves is harsh. They are regarded as little better than the absolute propertv of their masters. They have only the one cliance of freedom, which, if they have married in slavery, can only be accepted at the cost of breaking the sacred ties of family. In D this harshness almost, if not entirely, dis- appears. It is suggested that the master might treat his slave so kindly that the latter would, apart from all other considerations, prefer his service to liberty, and if he did not the master was to reward him liberally. But if the slave elected to remain he had no second chance of liberty. In P the kindness hinted at in D becomes a legal re- quirement. The Hebrew slave had always through redemption a chance of liberty, and could not legally remain, even nominally, a slave after the year of jubile. The perpetual servitude of a Hebrew was in no case permissible.