The whole of Leviticus e\-idently belongs to P in the wider sense of the word, and almost the whole of Numbers. The exceptions are : (a) Nu 10'^-12 ; (A) 13. 14 : (.) 16 : (rf) 20-21 ; (e) 22-'-25'> ; (/) 32. Of these (a) and (e) l>elong entirely to JE (see Balaam). In ((/) and (/), if we except perhaps '20'-", only un- important fragments of P have been introduced. In (h) (the account of the spies) and (r) (the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram), P's narrative has been combined with JE, but in both it can gener- ally be separated without much dilliculty. In 13'" we have the list of the spies, their fathers and theii
370
HEXATEUCII
HEXATKUCII
tribes, sjnnnietrically arranged witli a clmracter- istio heading and conclusion, ' tliese are the (their) names,' etc., vv.* and ", a descriptive summary of the j;eograi)hical range of their searcli (omitting the picturesque details of JE, snch as the huge liunch of grapes, and the terrific giants), and the dntc of their return, w.-^-^ In their report no mixture of character is displayed, but there is a sharp contrast lietween the bad report of tlie ten spies, v."'*, and the good report of Joshua and Caleb, 14'- ', of whom the latter only appears in JE. The eti'ects on the congregation, as told in the P narrative, are probably to he found in 14'- ' (in part) • and '". This last verse has P's characteristic ' tent of meet- ing.' P's narrative seems to be continued in v.^, but in this section the analysis is far more diflicult and uncertain. In ch. 1(5 we can separate with little trouble P's rebellion of the Levitical Korah from J E's popular rebellion of Dathan and Abiram, the one against the high priestliood of Aaron, the other against the secular authority of Moses. Quito apart from the critical characters which mark the various sections of the chapter, it is evident that we have not here a single consistent account of a double rebellion, against Church and State, so to sjieak. For example, in v.^ there is an allusion to the sin of 'one man,' evidently Korah, the 250 of v.'" being merely his satellites ; but almost immediatelj; after, in v.*^, Dathan and Abiram are connected with Korah, as though actin" in concert. In v.^ the first two appear alone, and in ¥.'■* the warning to depart out of their tents, which as given by God iu v." refers to all three, is given by Moses only with reference to Dathan and Abiram. The test by which the claim of these two is to be tried, vv.^- *", is diflerent from that threatened to Korah and his men in v.'. The latter, which is to take place while they are engaged iu oUering incense, is evidently connected with the punishment of v.**. There can be little doubt that in P's original account Korah was consumed by tire with the 250. It is probalile that when tlie accounts were welded together his name was added in v.'', and those of Dathan and Abiram in vv.^ and "*. Except for some such modifications we can recognize P's narrative in -vv.'-"- "•^- ^'"•sa-w. The portions of Dt commonly assigned to P are 4*'"'', the appointment oi the cities of refuge, a necessity which arose in course of time out of the abolition of the high places where sanctuary was originally permitted, 32**-»= 34'*- '■». P's account of the last days of Moses contains, among other character- istics of P, Moses' exact age, 34', and the state- ment that ' the children . . . did as J" commanded Moses,' 34°.
In Joshua the P portions are somewhat curiously distributed. P must certainly have contained some account of the conquest of the country, but it is probable that this was told in a dry and summary manner, and that the compilers pre- ferred the more detailed and interesting account of the older sources. Certain it is that in chs. 1-12, containing the account of the conquest of the country, tlie only fragments which can be definitely recognized as derived from P are the accounts of the passover and other events in Gilgal told in 4'" S'"'*^, and of the covenant made with the Gibeon- ites by the princes of the congregation, 9'°''' ""-'■ "*. There are also suspicions of P in such details as those given in 3** 4" 7'"", but we certainly cannot prove from them what the range of P's narrative really was. Beyond ch. 12 there is some diHiculty, as there is evidence of mixture with other sources, but the following passages in their present form with little doubt belong to P, 13"^^ 14'-» 15'-"- ;o-ii3 jg4-« i^u. »-» (notice, among other things, the characteristic headings). With ch. 18 we get on clearer ground. With the exception of IS-''" and
19401-47. 4ii.»o_ i8_oi4a anj o2»-»4 belong almost entirely to P. It should be observed, however, that in thii general analysis of P we have not, as a rule, attempted to distinguish between the work of P proi)er and later revisers.