Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 3.djvu/655

Rh made up of parallel narratives which, though, they cover the same period, do not necessarily record the same events, was first clearly seen after Astruc (1753 A.D.) obser /ed that the respective uses of Jehovah and Elohim (God) as the name of the Deity afford a criterion by which two documents can be dissected out of the book of Genesis. That the way in which the two names are used can only be due to difference of authorship is now generally admitted, for the alternation corresponds with such important duplicates as the two accounts of creation, and is regularly accompanied through a great part of the book by unmistakable peculiarities of language and thought, so that it is still possible to reconstruct at least the Elohim document with a completeness which makes its original independence and homogeneity matter of direct observation. The character of this narrative is annalistic, and where other material fails blanks are supplied by genealogical lists. Great weight is laid on orderly development, and the name Jehovah is avoided in the history of the patriarchs in order to give proper contrast to the Mosaic period (cf. Gen. xvii. 1 ; Exod. vi. 3) ; and, accordingly, we find that the unmistakable secondary marks of this author run through the whole Pentateuch and Joshua, though the exclusive use of Elohim ceases at Exod. vi. Of course the disappear ance of this criterion makes it less easy to carry on an exact reconstruction of the later parts of the document ; but on many points there can be no uncertainty, and it is clearly made out that the author has strong priestly tendencies, and devotes a very large proportion of his space to liturgical matters. The separation of this document may justly be called the point of departure of positive criticism of the sources of the Old Testament ; and present controversy turns mainly on its relation to other parts of the Pentateuch. Of these the most important are 1. The Jehovistic narrative, which also begins with the crea tion, and treats the early history more in the spirit of prophetic theology and idealism, containing, for example, the narrative of the fall, and the parts of the history of Abraham which are most important for Old Testament theology. That this narrative is not a mere supplement to the other, but an independent whole, appears most plainly in the story of the flood, where two distinct accounts have certainly been interwoven by a third hand. 2. Many of the finest stories in Genesis, especially great part of the history of Joseph, agree with the Elohim-docunient in the name of God, but are widely divergent in other respects. Since the researches of Hupfeld, a third author, belonging to northern Israel, and specially interested in the ancestors of the northern tribes, is generally postulated for these sections. His literary individuality is in truth sharply marked, though the limits of Ids contributions to the Pentateuch are obscure.

It will be remembered that we have already seen that three currents of influence run through the Old Testament development, the traditional lore of the priests, the teaching of the prophets, and the religious life of the more enlightened of the people. Now, in the three main sections of the early history just enumerated we find the counterpart of each of these. The priestly narrative of the Elohist, the prophetic delineation of the Jehovist, the more picturesque and popular story of the third author, embody three tendencies, which are not merely personal but national, and which constantly reappear in other parts of Hebrew literature. Up .to the book of Joshua all three run side by side. But the priestly interest found little scope in the subsequent history ; and from the time of the Judges we can generally distinguish only sections marked by prophetic pragmatism and others which, though distinctly religious and even theocratic, are, so to speak, written from a layman s stand-point. The latter comprise a large part of Judges, and by far the greatest part of Samuel, as weiL as the beginning of Kings. To the modern mind this part of the narrative, which is rich in colour and detail, is by far the most interesting, and it is with sincere regret that we pass at 1 Kings xi. to a division of the history for which the chief sources cited as the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Judah respectively treat almost exclusively of the outer political life of the nation. In striking contrast to the uniformity of this narrative are the interspersed histories of Elijah and other northern prophets. These histories are very remarkable in style and even in language ; and, containing some of the noblest passages of the Old Testament, form one of many proofs of the unusual literary genius of the kingdom of Ephraim. But how are these various narratives related to each other 1 This question is not easy to answer. In general the third or lay element of the history seems to stand nearest to the events recorded, and even, perhaps, to form the direct basis of the prophetical matter ; while, occasionally, old lists of names and places, poetico-historical pieces, and the like, form a still deeper stratum in the story. (Poetical pieces in the Book of the Wars of Jehovah, Num. xxi. 14; Book of Jashar [the upright], Josh. x. 13; 2 Sam. i. Lists like 2 Sam. xxiii.) Whether the same hands or only the same tend encies as appear in the non-Levitical parts of Genesis run on as far as the book of Kings, is a question which, though answered in the affirmative by Schrader and others, cannot be viewed as decided. Even the date of these elements of the Pentateuch is obscure ; but in the 8th century Hosea refers quite clearly to passages of both. Thus far there is tolerable agreement among critics ; but the Levi- tical or Elohistic history is the subject of violent controversy, which, however, turns mainly on the analysis of the legal parts of the Pentateuch. These contain other elements besides those already enumerated, of which we need only mention the brief code which follows the Decalogue in Exod. xx. -xxiii., and the great repetition of the law in a prophetic spirit which occupies the major part of Deuteronomy. Both these codes may be called popular in tone. They are precepts not for the priests, but for the whole people ; and the former is the fundamental sketch of the whole theocratic constitution, which the latter develops and to some extent alters. Now the book of Deuteronomy presents a quite distinct type uf style which, as has been already mentioned, recurs from time to time in passages of the later books, ani that in such a connection as to suggest to many critics since Graf the idea, that the Deuteronomic hand is the hand of the last editor of the whole history from Genesis to Kings, or, at least, of the non-Levitical parts thereof. This conclusion is not stringent, for a good deal may be said in favour of the view that the Deuteronomic style, which is very capable of imitation, was adopted by writers of different periods. But even so it is difficult to suppose that the legislative part of Deuteronomy is as old as Moses. If the law of the kingdom in Deut. xvii. was known in the time of the Judges, it is impossible to com prehend Judg. viii. 23, and above all 1 Sam. viii. 7. That the law of high places given in this part of the Pentateuch was not acknowledged till the time of Josiah, and was not dreamed of by Samuel and Elijah, we have already seen. The Deuteronomic law is familiar to Jeremiah, the younger contemporary of Josiah, but is referred to by no prophet of earlier date. And the whole theological stand-point of the book agrees exactly with the period of prophetic literature, and gives the highest and most spiritual view of the law, to which our Lord himself directly attaches his teaching, and which cannot be placed at the beginning of the theocratic development without making the whole history unintelligible. Beyond doubt the book is, as already hinted, a prophetic legislative programme ; and if the author put 