Such is the theory of Delitzsch, which is in manj' respects worthy of consideration, and which has been adopted in the main by Ivurtz {Gesch. d. A . £. i, § 20, and ii. § 9'J, ti), who formerly was opposed to the theory of ditfurent documents, and sided rather with Hengsten- berg and the critics of the extreme conservative school. There is this difforcuee, however, that Kurtz objects to the view that Deuteronomy existed before the other books, and believes that the rest of the Pentateuch was committed to writing before, not after, the occupation of tlie Holy Land. Einally. Schultz, in his recent work on Deuteronomy, recognises two original documents in the Pentateuch, tlie I'Jnhistic being tlie base and groimd- work of the whole, but contends tliat the Jehovistic portions of the first four books, as well as Deuteronomy, except the concluding portion, were written by Moses. Thus he agrees with Delitzsch and Kurtz in admitting two documents and the Mosaic aiuhorship of Deuter- onomy, and with Stiilieliu in identifying tlic Deuter- onomist witii the Jehovist.
One other theory has, liowever, to be stated before we pass on. The author of it stands quite alone, and
it is not likely that he will ever find any disciple bold enough to adopt his theory: even his great admirer Bunsen forsakes him here. But it is due to Ewald's great and deserved reputation as a scholar, and to his uncommon critical sagacity, briefly to state what that theory is. He distinguishes, then, seven different au- thors in the great Book of Origins or Primitive His- tory (comprising the I'entateuch and Joshua). The oldest historical work, of which but a very few frag- ments remain, is the Book of the Wars of Jehovah. Then follows a biography of Moses, of which also but small portions have been preserved. The third and fourth dociunents are much more perfect : these consist of the Book of the Covenant, which was written in the time of Samson, and the Book of Origins, which was written bv a juiest in the time of Solomon. Then comes, in the fifth place, the third historian of the primitive times, or the first prophetic narrator, a sub- ject of the northern kingdom in the days of Elijah or Joel. The sixth document is the work of the fourth historian of primitive times, or the second projjhetic narrator, who lived between 800 and 750. Lastly comes the fifth historian, or third prophetic narrator, who flourished not long after Joel, and who collected and reduced into one corpus the various works of his prede- cessors. The real ]iurposes of the history, both in its prophetical and its legal aspects, began now to be dis- cerned. Some steps were taken in this direction by an unknown writer at the beginning of the 7th century B.C.; and then in a far more comprehensive manner by the Deuteronomist, who flourished in the time of Manasseh, and lived in Egypt. In the time of Jere- miah appeared the ])oet who wrote the Blessing of Closes, as it is given in Deuteronomy. A somewhat later editor incorporated the originally independent work of the Deuteronomist, and the lesser additions of his two colleagues, with the history as left by the fifth narrator, and thus the whole was finally completed. 'Such," says Ewahl (and his words, seriously meant, read like delicate irony), "were the strange fortunes which this great work underwent before it reached its present form."
(2.) Writer's in favor of the Mosaic A uthorship of the Pentateuch. — On the other side, however, stands an array of names certainly not less distinguished for learn- ing, who maintain not only that there is a unity of de- sign in the Pentateuch — which is granted by many of those before mentioned — but who contend that this unity of design can only be explained on the supposi- tion of a single author, and that this author could have been none other than IMoses. This is the ground taken by Hengstenberg, Haveruick, Drechsler, Kanke, Welte, and Keil. The first mentioned of these writers has no doubt done admirable service in reconciling and re- moving very many of the alleged discrepancies and contradictions in the Pentateuch: but his zeal carries him in some instances to attempt a defence, the very ingenuity of which betrays how unsatisfactory it is; and his effort to explain the use of the divine names, by showing that the writer had a special design in the use of the one or the other, is often in the last degree arbitrarj'. Drechsler, in his work on the Unity and (lenubieness of Genesis (1838), fares no better, though his remarks are the more valuable because in many cases they coincide, quite independently, with thost of Hengstenberg. Later, however, Drechsler modified his view, and supposed that the several uses of the divine names were owing to a didactic purpose on the part of the writer, according as his object was to show a par- ticular relation of (iod to the world, whether as Elohim or as Jehovah. Hence he argued that, while different streams flowed through the Pentateuch, they were not from two different fountain-heads, but varied according to the motive which influenced the writer, and accord- ing to the fundamental thought in particular sections; and on this ground, too, he explained the characteristic phraseology which distinguishes such sections. Kanke's