RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Hexateuch
Examples of the latter are Num. xxviii.-xxxvi.; Deut. xxxi. 14-23, xxxii. 1-44, 48-52. The formation of the original work lay far back of Micah, who knew this enlarged book. The limit a quo Klostermann seeks to find in a discussion of the chronological system of the author who deals with the consecration of the temple in the twentieth year of Solomon as epoch-making. Three divine cycles (one is 12x49 years) or 1,764 years to the flood, two cycles or 1,176 years to the birth of Abraham, and two cycles to the consecration of the temple are discovered (concerning the Jubilee period as 49 years cf. Pentateuch, i. 419-447). The section concerning the tabernacle and the plan of the camp shows that the author used two sources marked by the distinctive use of separate terms for the tabernacle, ohel mo'ed and mishkan ha-'eduth. This work can have originated only in a time when the sanctuary at Shiloh was still in the memory, and when there was interest in preserving for posterity what had been replaced by the temple and so had fallen out of actual experience. The Sinaitic book of the covenant is discussed in Pentateuch, ii. 429- 579. In later studies Klostermann purposes to investigate the older type of narration, and so the fragments designated by the symbols J, E, and Q, which then first come properly under consideration. Klostermann 's method, as indicated by his keen investigations, is theoretically good. He rightly considers that the confidence of most Old Testament scholars in the security of the results of analytical work is too strong. On the other hand, he overvalues the meaning of the changes which the text of the Pentateuch has suffered in the course of time. (H. L. Strack.)
Of critics who accept the traditional account of the origin and development of the religion of Israel not a few accept the current analysis 12. Limita- (§§ 6 and 7 above) in its bolder outturns of lines (J. Robertson, C. H. H. Wright, Literary J. Orr); while others, after minute in- Analysis. vestigation, find the analysis illusory and reject it altogether (W H. Green, E. C. Bissell). These critics are one in the conviction that the method of argument is " in very many respects precarious; the criteria alleged are often fallacious to the last degree; and the resulting partition is extremely dubious." The reasons which call for caution are such as these: (1) The divine names are evidently used at times with discrimination. The particular aspect of God which was at the moment prominent in the thought of the speaker or narrator determined the choice of the title, whether it should be Elohim or Yahweh or the Almighty or the Most High God or the Everlasting God. " The original distinction between Jahweh and Elohim very often accounts for the use of one of these appellations in preference to the other" (Kuenen, Hexateuch, p. 56). According to the current analysis J at least uses each name as he has occasion; and Yahweh is found in passages of Genesis which are ascribed to the Elohist writer (Green, Unity of Genesis, pp. 539 sqq.; Higher Criticism, pp. 91 sqq.; E. Riehm, Einleitung, i. 126, Halle, 1889; P. J. Hoedemaker, Mosaischer Ursprung der Gesetze, p. 110 sqq., Gtlters-
loh, 1897). The use of a particular divine name, therefore, can not in and of itself alone be conclusive evidence of authorship (cf. Gen. xv. 1, xx. 1, xxx. 2, 6, 8). (2) The diction, style, and religious conceptions of J and E are confessedly so similar that as evidences of authorship they are often " far from conclusive " and yield " nothing but conjectures as to the separation of the sources " (H. Gunkel, Legends of Genesis, p. 126, 134, Chicago, 1901; Strack, Commentary, p. xviii.; Driver, Introduction, 10th ed., pp. 116, 126). The same facts hold with regard to passages that are assigned to P, but not to the same extent (Green, Unity, p. 552; and on the scraps given to P in Gen. xii.xviii., p. 215; cf. also Kuenen, on Gen. vii., viii.). Occasionally D and JE are not readily distinguishable (Kent, Students 0. T., vol. i., on Gen. xiii. 14- 17; Driver, Introduction, pp. 35, 66, and 99). (3) The difference of style between passages, moreover, where such difference actually exists, is largely one of mood and subject-matter and purpose; calm or emotional, plain or graphic, rigid or easy, brief or descriptive or diffuse, stately or lively or formal, prosaic or poetic, declarative or hortatory. Unless other marks are present, stylistic differences of this general nature are at best an uncertain guide when the question concerns the analysis of a verse and the distribution of its clauses; for the style of a sympathetic author changes along these very lines and adjusts itself to his moods and the varying aspects of his subject (Green, Unity, p. 552; idem, Feasts, p. 14; Dillmann, Commentary on Exodus and Leviticus, p. 676, 1897) . (4) The analysis is being based more and more on asserted divergences or contradictions, the existence of which is quite unnecessarily assumed (see below). In view of these facts, caution is demanded, especially when the attempt is made to disintegrate a small bit of connected story. Before leaving the subject of the literary analysis a remark is in place regarding " contradictions." Many doublets and divergences are said to exist in the Hebrew records. There may be some. No textual critic would think for a moment of denying that possibility. But such as have been pointed out are not always, nor even generally, " contradictions " (Green, Higher Criticism, pp. 109-113; C. H. H. Wright, Introduction, p. 100, London, 1891; J. Orr, Problem of the Old Testament, pp. 236, 361). They are diversities, indeed; but it is contrary to the canons of historical criticism constantly to pit sources against each other. Rather the historian regards variants as different aspects or incidents of the event.
The narrative of Israel's history contains an account of the organization of the people into a nation by Moses under the direction of God. Yahweh was acknowledged as the supreme head of the state; he was the sole object of worship and the ultimate source of all authority, legislative, executive, and judicial. The Ten Commandments with the prologue (Ex. xx. 2-17) were made the fundamental law. They were the constitution of the nation. The body of laws contained in Ex. xxi.xxiii. 19, with the introduction and conclusion in xx. 22-26 and xxiii. 20-33, formed the statutes. The Ten Commandments were often called the
Hexateuoh