VIiI. THE PRIESTS’ CODE (P).
i. THE SouRCES. — Regarding the numerous questions connected with the literary criticism of the stratum usually known as P, we must here be content with a few remarks. It is generally admitted that not only the present Pentateuch but also its latest stratum, namely P, must be viewed as the fruit of a somewhat lengthy literary pro- cess. Nevertheless, the spirit and the diction of this whole stratum exhibit such unity, that, from the point of view of the history of the religion of Israel, it is a matter of only subordinate interest to determine the component elements more ex- actly. Thus we do not dispute the possibility that the so-called Law of Holiness (H) may in- clude some pre-exilic passages, but we regard by far the most of H as having originated within the priestly circles of the Exile, and that by way of carrying out the programme sketched by Ezekiel (chs. 40-48). The same remark applies to the priestly law-book, which, according to the express statement of Ezr 7% (cf. also Neh 8!*”), was first brought with him from Babylon by Ezra, and which, in view of Ezr 7}! (‘the writer of the law of the God of heaven’), must at least have been edited by him. Whether this law-book of Ezra was identical with that recension which embodied the cultus laws in the form of a cultus ria (ef. e.g. Ly 10, Nu 15##:), and included also the historical parts of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua, we leave an open question. Only, we have no doubt on this point, that Ezra’s law-book was identical neither with the whole of the present Pentateuch nor with the whole of the present P stratum. For, in the one case, the occasional glaring differences between the laws in D and in P would have occasioned serious confusion; while,
* The above (p. 713») cited passage, Is 2619, which, by the way, perhaps belongs to the same period as Daniel, is by not a few explained of the political resurrection of the people.
RELIGION OF ISRAEL 715
on the other supposition, it would be quite im- possible to account for the very frequent repeti- tions (for instance, the duplicate versions of the ordinances regarding the building and furnishing of the Tent of Meeting, Ex 25-31 and 35-40), as well as the partial divergences of the components of certain groups (for instance, in the so-called sacrificial torah of Lv 1-7). On the contrary, we can only conclude that the code of Ezra, which was originally harmonious, was subsequently en- larged by the products of other priestly schemes, and so finally (probably still within the 5th cent. B.C.) united with the older sources (J, E, D) into a single whole.
ii. THE CONCEPTION OF GoD.—1. P’s conception of God can, properly speaking, be gathered only from the Creation narrative of Gn 1. For, as almost his whole interest is fixed on the prepara- tion for and the establishment of the Israelitish theocracy, little occasion presents itself elsewhere for descanting on the being of God. But in the story of Creation (cf. above, p. 666) we encounter such a transcendence of God in relation to matter, in opposition to all pantheistic intermixing of the two, and to every theory of evolution, that we may here pass by the much debated question of the dependence of the narrator on the Babylonian or the Phenician cosmogony.* At most, a mytho- logical echo has survived in the allusion to a chaos (v.2) and the hovering (scarcely ‘ brooding’) of the creative spirit of God over the primeval ocean. But, even if v.? should be urged in opposition to the assumption of a creation ex nihilo, there would still be left the making of light, of the firmament of heaven, and, above all, of the stars, which are evidently to be thought of not as formed from pre-existing material but as called immediately into being. The absolute omnipotence of the Creator results of itself from the fact that His word of command is all that is needed to bring things into being according to His pleasure ; while His absolute wisdom is manifested in the pro- gressive order of the creative work, culminating in man, the goal and the crown of creation; as well as by the testimony of the Creator Himself (v.21) that all He had made was ‘very good,’ i.¢. perfect.
2. This lofty conception of the living, personal, but at the same time purely spiritual, God—a product of perfected prophetism—shows itself elsewhere in P in his careful avoidance of all anthropomorphism. True, indeed, even he cannot entirely dispense with theophanies at specially important crises in the history of redemption; but he always con- tents himself with almost imperceptible allusions to the near presence of God (Gn 17” 354), or to the appearing of the ‘glory of Jahweh’ (see above, p. 639° f.) in the cloud (Ex 16°, Nu 9% 177 [16%)). This glory appears to the Israelites upon the top of Mount Sinai like devouring fire (Ex 24"); its reflexion causes the skin of Moses’ face to shine, so that he has to cover his countenance with a veil (Ex 34%), But none of these passages venture on even a remote description of the being of God. Under these circumstances it is surely no accident, again, that in P we find no trace of intermediary beings between God and man, the sole medium of revelation being the word of God. Manifestly, the sending forth of angels, who had to be thought of all the same as wearing some bodily form, ap- peared to P as itself a degrading of the Divine sphere to the realm of the creaturely. }