Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/99

 Code as a whole is later than Ezekiel is proved by the fact that the division between priests and Levites, which is unknown to the writer of Deut., and of which we find the origin and justification in Ezk. 44$6-16$, is presupposed as already established (Nu. 3. 4. 8, etc.). It is possible, however, that that distinction belongs to a stratum of the legislation not included in P$g$; in which case P$g$ might very well be earlier than Ezk., or even than the Exile. The question does not greatly concern us here. For the understanding of Genesis, it is enough to know that P$g$, both in its theological conceptions and its attitude towards the national tradition, represents a phase of thought much later than J and E.

The view that P$g$ was written before the Exile (in the end of the 7th cent.) is advocated by Procksch (l.c. 319 ff.), who reduces this part of P to narrower limits than most critics have done. He regards it as an essentially historical work, of considerable literary merit, embracing hardly any direct legislation except perhaps the Law of Holiness (P$h$), and recognising the priestly status of the entire tribe of Levi, just as in Dt. (Nu. 17$16-24$ and P$h$ in its original form). If that fact could be established, it would go far to show that the document is older than Ezk. It is admitted both by Kuenen and Wellhausen (Prol.$6$ 116) that the disparity of priests and Levites is accentuated in the later strata of P as compared with P$g$, but that it is not recognised in P$g$ is not clear. As to pre-Exilic origin, the positive arguments advanced by Pro. are not very cogent; and it is doubtful whether, even on his own ground, he has demonstrated more than the possibility of so early a date. In Genesis, the only fact which points in that direction is one not mentioned by Pro.: viz. that the priestly Table of Nations in ch. 10 bears internal evidence of having been drawn up some considerable time before the 5th century (p. 191 below); but that may be sufficiently explained by the assumption that the author of P$g$ made use of pre-existing documents in the preparation of his work.

The last distinguishable stage in the formation of the Pent. is the amalgamation of P with the older documents,—in Genesis the amalgamation of P$g$ with JE. That this process has left traces in the present text is quite certain a priori; though it is naturally difficult to distinguish redactional changes of this kind from later explanatory glosses and modifications (cf. 6$7$ 7$7. 22. 23$ 10$24$ 27$46$ etc.). The aim of redactor was, in general, to preserve the ipsissima