THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
particularly in Ex. xx.-xxiii. and Num. xxi.; J (which he calls C) is a Judaic document not earlier than the middle of the eighth century; D is not much earlier than the eighteenth year of Josiah, and its author used E and J, especially the book of the covenant, and other laws (especially H) which now are embodied in P; Wellhausen's Q (which Dillmann calls A), the kernel of P, is dated c. 800 B.C.; E in its historical parts was constructed from oral sources and from written sources no longer extant, and in its legal parts from a collection of laws having the character of H; QEJ were worked together c. 600 by a redactor who still had J and E before him as independent documents (all other scholars hold that JE was consolidated before a third document was added); not much later, D was united with QEJ, so that D remained really the standard; before the return of Ezra H and some priestly instructions were added; Ezra brought the Pentateuch into recognition in 444, after which nothing essential was added, though editorial work and polishing of the text continued. J. Wellhausen in Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (5th ed., Berlin, 1899) holds that J belongs to the golden age of Hebrew literature, the time before the separation of the two kingdoms; the later E was worked together with J into the Jehovistic history, but takes in legislative elements only in the case of the giving of the law at Sinai in its historical connection; D (Deut. xii.-xxvi.) was written immediately before it was found; next followed the fundamental piece, Lev. xvii.-xxvi., later than Ezekiel, but closely related to him; P (of which Q designates the core, which treats history systematically and is found in its pure condition in Genesis) is the result of longcontinued literary labors during and after the exile, and was already incorporated in the Pentateuch when the latter was published by Ezra in 444. A. Kuenen in his " Introduction " (3 parts, Leyden, 1861-65) places J in the ninth century or early in the eighth; E, to which J was known, is dated c. 750; both were northern documents, but a Judaic edition of both, somewhat extended, was made for Judah in the second half of the seventh century; these two documents were united into JE at the end of the seventh or beginning of the sixth century, before the Babylonian exile, and Moses' Song was in the possession of the redactor; D1 (i.e., Deut. v.xx vi., xxviii., xxxi. 9-13) was written as a guide for Josiah's reformation; D2, drawn from JE, added to Deuteronomy the introduction i.-iv. 40; JE was united with D during the Babylonian exile, and the redactor made alterations only at the end of the history of Moses, in Deut. xxvi., xxxi., xxxiv. ; further, in order to win Deuteronomy its place, he placed the Book of the Covenant and Ex. xxxiv. 10-28 in the time of the giving of the law at Sinai; H (Lev. xvii.-xxvi., Kuenen's P1) is later than Ezekiel; still later and postexilic is the legal-historical Q (Kuenen's P2); the book read by Ezra and accepted by the people's representative in 444 was Q united with H and other priestly instructions, but whether this union had taken place in Babylon or was made in Judea between 458 and 444 is not determinable; Ezra's law-book underwent essential changes and extensions; consequently the redaction
of the Pentateuch is not a work completed all at once by the union of P with JED, probably before 400, but the result of a labor continued for some time as the differences of text in the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint indicate.
A. Klostermann (Der Pentateuch, Leipsic, 1893-
Das chronologische System des P, in NKZ, 1894-
Die Heiligtums- und Lagerordnung,
ii. Kloster- 1897; Das deuteronomische Gesetzbuch,
mann's 1902-03) complains (Pentateuch, pp.
Recent 1-76) that modern Pentateuchal crit-
Work. icism founded upon the documentary hypothesis lacks basis. It conceives that the synagogue text, by the side of which there are other and older ones, and which is regarded as a book often edited, is identical with that of the composer of the Pentateuch, and that all linguistic diversities, especially in the most variable element of divine names, originate not in differences of manuscripts which underlie our late edition, but in the diversity of historiographic sources which the author combined and thereby recognized as older. It ignores the fact, says Klostermann, that the Pentateuch was a book for the edification of the community, in the transmission of which the emphasis must have fallen upon its edifying quality, upon its lucidity, and not upon the purity and age of the text. The work should, therefore, not be carried from above downward and begin with assumed authors J and E, but should first investigate when the author — or, if you will, the redactor — wrote, that is, he to whom we owe the unified but materially multicolored Pentateuch. The starting-point of the investigation is the report in II Kings xxii. of Hilkiah's discovery (Pentateuch, pp. 77-114). Deut. iv. 44-xxvii. 69 is the recension with introduction of homiletic addresses directed by Josiah to be made of the work found in the temple, which is to be understood not as the law itself, but as the elucidation by the teacher of the law. In this way only is the character of Deuteronomy explained, and the supposition that Deuteronomy is a counterfeited program for a reformation is shown to be unreasonable (Pentateuch, ii. 154-428). In order to make possible the fitting of this document into the pre-Josianic Hexateuch, also in the time of Josiah, speeches of Moses and historical notes were interwoven, and so in the manner of a harmony attempts were made at smoothing away the difficulties which the reader discovers between Num. x. 11-xxxvi. and Deut. xxxi. 14 sqq.,on the one side, and Deut. iv. 44- xxviii. 68, on the other. It results, therefore, that the report in Num. x.-xxxvi. and Deut. xxxi. 14 sqq. held its place as an authoritative account of the Mosaic times from the departure from Sinai to the death of Moses, and so is an old document; indeed, it must be older than Isaiah and Micah (Pentateuch, i. 115-152). Klostermann then takes up the Pentateuch of the times before Josiah (Pentateuch, i. 153-187), in which statistical details and independent documents with legal ordinances were combined, to which Genesis belonged. In consequence of the loose union of material of varied character, this book suffered damage and disarrangement and also experienced augmentation.