Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 10.djvu/59

HEXATETJCH. 45 HEXATETJCH. least to have undergone successive revisions be- fore being combined into the Hexateuch as we liave it. There is difference of opinion concerning the minutiip of the analysis, the age of the docu- ments, and their relation to each other, and the process or processes by which thej' have reached their final form. But scholars do not now ques- tion the existence of such sources; and they are in substantial accord as to what they are in the main, as indicated above. That the Pentateuch contains post-Mosaic material was seen by some writers as early as the second century, such as Ptolemy the Gnostic, and the author of the Clementine Recognitions. It was shrewdly in- timated by Ibn Ezra (died 1167). Through Carlstadt (1520), Du Maes (1.574). Pereira (ir,!)4), Bonfrfere (1G25), Hobbes (1651), Pev- rfre (16.55), Spinoza (1670), Simon (1678), and Le Clere (1685). the facts showing a later au- thorship of the Pentateuch were brought out. In 1753 Astruc published his epoch-making con- jectures as to the documents possibly used by Moses in the compilation of. Genesis. He had correctly observed that sections in which Elohira was u.sed as the divine name differed in vocab- ulary, style, and thought from sections in which the name Yahweh was used, and concluded that they belonged to different documents, though some fragments could not be ascribed to either of these. Before the end of the century Eich- hom (1780) and Ilgen (1798) had further de- veloped the documentary theory, the latter dis- tinguishing between two sources using the name Elohim and leaving it an open question whether there was more than one writer using the name Yahweh, while Geddes (1792-1800) had framed a theory based on the existence of unrelated frag- ments recognized by Astruc. This theory was introduced in Germany by Vater (1802), and found an exponent in De Wette (1806), whose view that the divine names represented not so nnich different authors as different ages or schools of religious thought was destined to ex- ercise a wider influence. He also suggested that an earlier epic was supplemented in later times. This led to the supnlementarv theorv championed by Ewald and Tuch (18.30)'. While De Wette himself and Gesenius (1815) still regarded the bulk of the legislation in Exodus and Leviticus as earlier than Deuteronomy, which they placed in the Exile. George (18.35') and Vatke (1835) were led partly by a careful analysis of customs and ideas, partly by applying Hegelian principles of historic development, to the conviction that this priestly legislation was later than Deuteron- omy, thus anticipating the position now gen- erally held. The reaction led by Ewald against a too mechanical construction of history accord- ing to philosophical categories, and in the direc- tion of ,a stronger emphasis upon personality, brought Hexateuchal criticism back to the docu- mentary theory, while delaying for a time the recognition of Israel's historic development (livine<i by the disciples of De Wette and by Reiiss. This scholar in 1850 expressed his con- viction that the priestly legislation was later than Deuteronomv. but without a definite con- ception of the Pcntateuchal documents. Hupfeld in 185.3 carefully defined the main soirces of Genesis, making the necessary distinction between the two writers using the name Elohim. A cor- rect characterization of Deuteronomy was given by Riehm (1854). A clear idea of the Priests' Code could only be obtained after the historical criticism of Reimarus (who.se Wolfenbiittel Frag- ments were published by l^ssing in 1777) had been resumed by Colenso (1860) and XiJldeke (1869). Before Xiildeke's work had appeared it was still possible for Graf (1866) to give to the legislative portions a post-exilic date, while leaving the closely allied matter in the pre- Deuteronomic period. This error was corrected by Kuenen (1866). The position reached by Iteuss, Graf, and Kuenen was ably defended by Wellhausen (1876). His comparison between the regulations as to sanctuaries, festivals, priestly functions, and revenues in the different codes and between these and the historic and prophetic books was especially convincing. Budde (1883) observed that there was an earlier stratum within the Yahwistic documents w-hich did not know of a deluge. The history of Israel was written from the new standpoint by Stade (1886). Dill- mann embodied the results of documentary anal.vsis in nis learned commentaries on the books of the Hexateuch (1886-92). though he was unwilling to accept the priority of Deuteron- omy except as regards some late additions to the Priests' Code. During the last decade most scholars have come to recognize the essentially post-exilic origin of the Priests' Code. The Book of the Covenant is considered the oldest of the codes and perhaps of the sources. It probably dates from early in the ninth century, B.C. It is generally held that the earlier Eloliistic narra- tives originated in North Israel before the fall of Samaria in B.C. 722. The Yahwistic narratives show a marked preference for .Judean heroes, sanctuaries, and traditions: hence many schol- ars assign them to the Kingdom of .Judah be- fore the reign of .Josiah : others think they originated in the northern kingdom, but have been worked over in .Tudah. It is agreed that both the Elohistie and the Yahwistic documents received various additions from time to time. They were combined in the seventh century B.C. The difference of opinion as to their relative age has lost much of its positiveness and importance by the fact that, in case of duplicates, the originality is seen to be sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other, and by the shifting of interest from the writers, who. after all, were chiefly collectors of stories, to the narrators who gave them a form and told them at the sanc- tuaries. It is especially Gunkel (1902) who has called attention to these aspects of the question. While .Steuernagel has not won general recogni- tion for his analysis of the Deuteronomic Code, it is commonly maintained that our present hook has gone through at least two redactions, and this scholar has made it probable that the work introduced by .Josiah as the law of Israel (see .IcsiAH) had itself been compiled from smaller codes embodying decisions by elders, priestlv or- acles, and acknowledged rules of conduct. The code of Holiness is thought to belong to the time of Ezekiel (<".560 B.C.). and the combination of Deuteronomy and .JE probably took place at about the same time. Most uncertainty still pre- vails in regard to the Priests' Code. While some scholars consider this code as having been in- troduced by Ezra and afterwards united with Deuteronomy and the earlier code-books (0.400 B.C.), others look upon the Code of Ezra as a compilation containing both the priestly docu- ments and the previously existing ones. The