Melvin Grove Kyle.

The problem of the Pentateuch; a new solution by archaeological methods online

. (page 10 of 20)
Online LibraryMelvin Grove KyleThe problem of the Pentateuch; a new solution by archaeological methods → online text (page 10 of 20)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


quire different, very different, diction, arrangement,
and all the other elements that go to make up literary
style.

It is a poor rhetorician that cannot adapt himself
to his audience and occasion. How delightfully dif-
ferent are some of our great preachers in a sermonette
to the children and in the usual sermon to the congre-
gation which immediately follows. Sometimes the
congregation wishes that the sermonette would con-
tinue all the way through ! Not only is this difference
affected by the purpose with different subjects, but
is just as marked, when the same subject is discussed
with a different purpose in mind even on similar great
occasions. Compare President Wilson in his peace
message to Congress (Jan. 22, 1917) with President
Wilson in his war message to the same Congress (April
2, 1917). How unlike the same person, though dis-
cussing the same great subject before the same audi-



THIRD INVESTIGATION 127

ence! How very different the style and the spirit,
and, in some measure, the vocabulary! But why
should it be necessary to heap up additional evidence on
this subject? Who, that listens to public speaking,
does not know that different purposes and different
occasions require different styles and vocabularies
quite as much as do different authors ? How monoton-
ous and tiresome to listen to a public speaker who
drones along in the same fashion and with the same
diction on all subjects, using pet words and phrases
over and over until they become positively painful.
What a lot of "doublets" we sometimes hear!

Now, as we have seen, different parts of the Penta-
teuchal laws were intended for different uses on very
different occasions ; some for the common daily use of
judges on the bench, some for the guidance of the
priests, and so to be used as books of reference by an
educated priesthood; others still were intended for
public address, as were the exhortations of Moses to
the people in the Plains of Moab. These different
USES and different occasions were so marked that
they give rise to some of the laws being Mnemonic in
form, that judges might easily remember them : others
Descriptive, that the priests should easily understand
them : and others Hortatory that the people should be
moved to obey and do them. With these facts in mind,
it seems a waste of words to argue that these different
purposes and different occasions would certainly re-
sult in great differences of literary style. The Mne-
monic "commandments" and "judgments" with their
brevity and terseness and rhythm, present a style as
clearly marked as is that of the Eoman Laws of the
Twelve Tables. The Descriptive expression of the Law
in the "statutes," becomes more verbose, even some-



128 THE PROBLEM OF THE PENTATEUCH

times florid in expression, and the addresses of Moses,
intended to inspire obedience and fine patriotism and
incite spiritual fervor, do, indeed, take on the im-
passioned style of such statesmanlike oratory. More-
over, these marked, and intentionally, different literary
styles cannot but react upon vocabulary and change it
still more, for style depends quite as much upon the
choice of words as upon the arrangement of words and
the spirit of the author. Thus appears how great has
been the mistake of those critics who have attributed
all or nearly all literary peculiarities to the Style of
authors allowing little or nothing to the demands of
the various literary Forms by the different KINDS of
Pentateuchal Law and different USES intended by
the Pentateuchal law-giver.

IV. Summary of resulting Style. There are thus
to be expected, and there are actually found, great dif-
ferences of Style and vocabulary in different parts
of the Pentateuch. These differences have been at the
basis of nearly all the critical discussions of the Penta-
teuch during the last century. Though historical dif-
ficulties have often been assigned as a reason for the
divisions of the Pentateuch, they have usually been
after-thoughts as reasons, the differences of Style and
vocabulary have furnished the first criteria upon which
the divisions have been made. The lists of such marks
of Style as are set forth as criteria for the various
Documents of the Pentateuch cover about 35 pages in
the Oxford Hexateuch.

These differences of Style and vocabulary have been
often, and very plausibly, accounted for by the sup-
position of different authors for different portions of
the Pentateuch. And when literary Form is ignored,
as it has so largely been in criticism of the Pentateuch,



THIRD INVESTIGATION 129

and all peculiarities are attributed to Style, it is quite
natural and logical to trace this Style in the main to
authorship.

Even on the most conservative views of the com-
position of the Pentateuch, different authors have in
some measure to do with these differences in Style
and vocabulary: for "commandments" announced by
the voice of God from the summit of the mountain,
and "judgments," the decisions of judges recognized
as common law, would not represent the style of Moses,
which, on this view of the giving of the Law, only ap-
pears in the "statutes," in direction concerning the Tab-
ernacle and the Ceremonial Law, in narrative portions,
and in the impassioned oratory of the addresses on the
Plains of Moab.

But far more than the effect of such differences of
authorship has been the effect of the Form of litera-
ture arising from the different subjects and different
purposes, an effect almost wholly overlooked in criti-
cal discussions. These different subjects of law, which
so clearly appear, and these different purposes for
which the laws were intended and to which the laws
were put, which are not less distinct the one from the
other, make most complete and satisfactory explana-
tion of the differences of Style and vocabulary which
have so often been pointed out, and used as criteria
for parceling out the Pentateuchal materials among
different documents by different authors. Thus the
facts, th mselves, of the giving and use of the laws in
the Pentateuch, the giving of laws to meet different
KINDS of cases, and the employment of these laws for
very different USES, when carefully examined, fur-
nish a complete solution of the problems of Style and
vocabulary which the Pentateuch presents.



Chapter IV

FOURTH INVESTIGATION

A Comparison of the Divisions of the Pentateuch

According to KINDS and USES of Laws with

THE Divisions According to the

Documentary Theory

The fourth investigation was made concerning a
comparison between the divisions into which the ma-
terials of the Pentateuch fall according to these KINDS
and USES of laws and the divisions which are made
according to the Documentary Theory.

I. The Documentary Theory regards Deuteronomy
as a book by itself among the Pentateuchal material.
The other books of the Pentateuch are treated as com-
pilations made up from various documents and joined
together by various Redactors, and so, finally, coming
into their present form as a finished product. Deuter-
onomy, on the other hand, is regarded as an entirely
separate piece of literature, in the main the work of
one author, and, perhaps struck off at one time, though
on this latter point critics differ much among them-
selves. It is, also, held by all that use was made of the
legislation contained in Exodus and Numbers, and, by
most critics, that one or more Redactors have had a
hand in bringing Deuteronomy into its present form
(Cf. George Adam Smith's Deuteronomy, in the Cam-

130



FOURTH INVESTIGATION 131

bridge Bible, with, also, all exponents of this Docu-
mentary view of the Pentateuch) . Moreover the one
author and one time of the composition of Deuteronomy
is, according to the Theory, entirely apart from the
various authors and redactors and dates of the other
books of the Pentateuch.

The analysis of the Pentateuch that we have been
making in these investigations has, also, found Deuter-
onomy to be a book that is, in its literary form, quite
apart from the other books of the Law. While the
"commandments," "judgments" and "statutes" are
found with the same technical significance in Deuter-
onomy as in the other law books, the literary form and
setting has been found to be totally different. In Exo-
dus, Leviticus and Numbers, all the various KINDS
of laws are like inserts in a journalistic narrative.
They could be dropped out entirely and the journal of
events would constitute a complete narrative, as com-
plete, as now, and more consecutive. In Deuteronomy,
on the other hand, the laws are of the very warp and
woof of Moses' addresses, and the addresses them-
selves so combine together as to make the book to be,
not a journal, but a monograph.

Now, it is manifest that for the purposes of com-
parison between divisions of the Pentateuch afforded
by the Documentary Theory and divisions according
to KINDS and USES of laws the common basis of
comparison which logic requires is to be found in
recognizing the monographic character of Deuteron-
omy in distinction from the journalistic character of
Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, and so allowing it
to stand apart from the other books in the comparison,
while they are grouped together. The groups of the
various KINDS and USES of laws in Deuteronomy



132 THE PROBLEM OF THE PENTATEUCH

would, indeed, show the same characteristics, but there
are no divisions according to the Documentary Theory
with which to compare them, hence no common basis
of comparison. In the following comparison, there-
fore, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers will be grouped
together and Deuteronomy treated separately, as is
done in the Documentary Theory.

We have already seen that both Form and Style of
the groups of the various KINDS of laws, "command-
ments," "judgments" and "statutes" in their various
USES, differ greatly from each other. It is clearly
then to be expected that, if the groups of all these
various KINDS of laws in Exodus, Leviticus and Num-
bers were gathered together respectively according to
their KINDS and USES, and to each group of laws
was attached the narrative portions which served to
introduce them or explain the occasion that called them
forth and the events to which they led in the wilder-
ness experiences, that the resulting divisions of the
Pentateuch will exhibit, also, very strikingly the same
characteristics of Form and Style as the various
KINDS and USES of laws according to which these
collections have been made from the books of the
Pentateuch.

II. We will extract these collections of laws and
associated narrative from the complete analysis of the
materials in the First Investigation and see what they
are in fact.

COMMANDMENTS

Ex. XX: 1-17, The Decalogue. Associated narrative
Ex. XIX and XX :18-21, the account of the giv-
ing of the Decalogue and of the accompanying
events.



FOURTH INVESTIGATION 133

JUDGMENTS

Ex. XXI :1-XXIII :19, The great list of "judgments"
given at Sinai.

Ex. XXIII :31-33, Brief list of "judgments" con-
cerning the occupation of the Promised Land
which at that time was looked forward to im-
mediately. Associated narrative, Ex. XXIII:
20-30, being exhortations and promises ; XXIV :
1-18, narrative of the Covenant at Sinai, the
presentation of the priests and the seventy
elders before the Lord and the calling of Moses
into the mount with Jehovah for forty days.

Ex. XXXIV :18-21, Short list of "judgments" con-
cerning the civil law of some of the Feasts, con-
cerning First fruits, and concerning the keep-
ing of the Sabbath.

Lev. XVIII :3-26, Sundry "judgments" mingled
with "statutes" for the most part repetitions of
"judgments" already given. Associated narra-
tive. Lev. XVIII: 27-30, indicating that these
laws were given at this point in special prepara-
tion for entering the Promised Land.

Lev. XIX:l-4, 11-18, 29-36, Sundry "judgments"
mingled in the list with "statutes." Verse 37
narrates the injunction to observe all the "judg-
ments" and "statutes."

Lev. XX :9-16 and 27, Various "judgments" for the
most part concerning miscegenation of various
kinds.

Lev. XXIV:10-XXV:55, Brief list of "judgments"
and mingled narrative arising out of the inci-
dent of the son of an Israelitish woman and an
Egyptian man who blasphemed the name of the



134 THE PROBLEM OP THE PENTATEUCH

Lord. Following this are a number of "judg-
ments" concerning the Jubilee, the redemption
of Land, the treatment of bondmen.

Lev. XXVI: 1-2, Certain "judgments" concerning
idolatry and irreverence.

Num. XXXV:9-29, "Statutes of judgment" concern-
ing Cities of Refuge, which are special statu-
tory "judgments" and may properly be included
among the "judgments" for the purpose of this
comparison of divisions in the Pentateuch.

Num. XXXV:30-34, "Judgments" concerning homi-
cide which are appropriately associated with
the law of the Cities of Refuge.

STATUTES

Ex. XX:22-26, Brief group of "statutes" of ritual
given immediately after the Decalogue for the
direction of worship before the giving of the
Ceremonial Law.

Ex. XXV:1-XXX:38, Directions for the construc-
tion of the Tabernacle, and its furniture, for the
vestments of the priests and for the setting
apart of the priests; associated narrative, Ex.
XXXII :1-XXXIII:23, recounting the events
in the camp of Israel while Moses was on the
mount receiving instructions concerning the
Tabernacle, and Moses' return and prayer for
the people for their sin of worshipping the
golden calf.

Ex. XXXIV :19-26, Brief lists of "statutes," with
associated and continuing narrative to the end
of the book, Ex. XXXIV :1-17 and XXXIV :27-
XL:38, recounting the renewal of the Tables of
the Law, the gifts of the people for the Taber-
nacle and its furnishing, and the erection of the



FOURTH INVESTIGATION 135

Tabernacle and the making of all the things
needed for it.

Lev. I-XVI, "Statutes" of the Ceremonial Law.

Lev. XVII: 1-16, "Statutes" of the Ceremonial Law
of eating flesh with the blood.

Lev. XVIII: 1-17, Concerning unlawful marriages.

Lev. XIX:5-10, 19-28, Sacrifice of peace-offerings,
and sundry "statutes." Verse 20 is a "statute
of judgment."

Lev. XX: 1-8, 17-26, Sundry "statutes."

Lev. XXI:1-XXIV:9, "Statutes" concerning many
matters, and especially the Feasts.

Lev. XXVII: 1-34, Laws of vows and their redemp-
tion, preceded by a narrative of the blessings
and the curses. Lev. XXVI: 3-46.

Num. I-X:10, "Statutes" concerning the numbering
of the people, the camp of the tribes, vows and
offerings, the passover, and the silver trumpets,
associated narrative X:ll-36, account of the
setting forward on the way from Sinai to the
Promised Land.

Num. XV: 1-31, Law of sacrifice for sin of ignor-
ance, narrative XI :1-XIV :45, a narrative of the
journeyings on the way toward the Promised
Land, the sending out of the spies, and the re-
bellion of the people and Moses' intercession for
them.

Num. XVIII :1-XIX:22, "Statutes" of the portions
of the Priests and Levites, associated narrative
XV:32-XVII:13, of the stoning of the Sabbath
breakers, of the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and
Abiram, of the murmuring of the people, and
of Aaron's rod that budded. Also, a succeeding
narrative, XX:1-XXVI:65, recounting the



136 THE PROBLEM OF THE PENTATEUCH

events of the thirty-eight years wandering, the
conflict with Balak and Baalam, the whoredom
and idolatry with Edom and the numbering of
Israel in the Plains of Moab.

Num. XXVII :6-ll, Law of the inheritance of daugh-
ters, a "statute of judgment." It might be
listed with the "judgments," also, but this
"statute" of "judgment" seems more a "statute"
than a "judgment." There is also associated
narrative XXVII :l-5, giving account of the
plea made for the daughters of Zelophehad.

Num. XXVIII :1-XXX: 16, Concerning offerings
and feasts, "statutes," narrative XXVII: 12-23,
the command to Moses to view the Holy Land,
and the arrangement for a successor to Moses.

Num. XXXIV :l-29, "statute," fixing the borders of
the land, narrative XXXI:1-XXXIII:49. Mid-
ianites spoiled, Reuben and Gad allotted their
inheritance east of Jordan, and account of the
two and forty journeyings of Israel.

Num. XXXV: 1-8, Law of the cities of the Levites.

Num. XXXV: 9-29, Law of the cities of refuge, a
"statute of judgment," that might be, also,
classified as a "judgment" in this comparison,
but seems also more a "statute" than a "judg-
ment."

Num. XXXVI: 1-13, Inheritance of daughters, an-
other "statute of judgment" (Cf. p. 60-61)
which seems more a "statute" than a "judg-
ment" and so is placed here for this comparison.

If again, the groups of Mnemonic, Descriptive and
Hortatory laws were gathered together respectively
from the preceding investigations, together with nar-
rative portions which serve to introduce them or ex-



FOURTH INVESTIGATION 137

plain the occasion of their use, we would expect the
resulting divisions to display in large degree the same
characteristics which so strongly mark these different
Literary Forms required by the different USES for
which these groups of laws were intended. And when
we actually make such divisions the expected char-
acteristics are clearly apparent. Moreover, the sets of
divisions thus resulting from gathering together the
groups of laws according to KINDS, with associated
narrative and the groups of laws according to USES
with accompanying narrative, are exactly the same.
The "commandments" and "judgments" are the Mne-
monic laws, the "statutes" are the Descriptive laws,
and the Book of Deuteronomy, which stands by itself,
contains the Hortatory presentation of all the three
kinds of laws. Of course, as the divisions are the same,
the same narrative serves to introduce and explain the
groups of laws according to the division in either case.

III. It is well known that the Documentary Hypo-
thesis also presents certain divisions of the Pentateuch.
These various divisions and the reasons assigned for
making them are best examined in detail in the writ-
ings of those who are the principal advocates of the
Documentary Theory. The subject may be seen so
presented in Wellhausen's Prolegomena, Kautzsch's
Literature of the Old Testament, Haupt's Polychrome
Bible, and in the Oxford Hexateuch. I will give here
only a few brief statements of the Divisions of the Pen-
tateuch according to the Documentary Theory, which
any one may test by reference to the works just cited.

According to the Documentary Hypothesis, there are
certain main Documents as follows : First among these
Documents, because esteemed the oldest of them all, is
the J Document, whose author is known as the Jahvist,



138 THE PROBLEM OP THE PENTATEUCH

because he used almost exclusively the name Jehovah
in speaking of God. Another Document is called the
E Document, whose author is called the Elohist, be-
cause he refers to the Deity almost exclusively by the
Hebrew name Elohim. These two very early Docu-
ments were later combined, according to the hypo-
thesis, into one Document, called, for convenience, the
JE Document. It is in this combined Document, ac-
cording to the theory, that the two authors, J and E,
appear, for the most part, in the Bible as we have it.
A few fragments only of the original J and E docu-
ments are pointed out. A second main Document ap-
pearing in the Bible in its present form, according to
this Documentary Hypothesis, is the P Document, the
Priestly writing, so called, because its author is sup-
posed to have been a priest or a company of priests.
Finally, there is the D Document, which is the Book
of Deuteronomy, and its author is called the Deuter-
onomist. There are, also, a number of smaller Docu-
ments pointed out by various advocates of the Docu-
mentary theory. Indeed, one who accepts the theory
is apt to acquire a Documentary habit that impels to
ever increasing exercise. Then, there is also, a con-
siderable element, not a document, contributed by a
Redactor or by Redactors, various editors, who from
time to time had to do with the publication of the
sacred writings of the Hebrews. This last element is
denominated R. In making comparison between the
divisions of the Pentateuch afforded by these present
investigations and those divisions afforded by the
Documentary Theory, it will prove entirely satisfac-
tory to all that the comparison be limited to the Main
Documents of the Documentary Theory; the minor
Documents are so brief as not to affect the general



FOURTH INVESTIGATION 139

results of the comparison, and the element supplied
by the Redactor serves simply to combine together
what are claimed to be the real Documents.

Comparison vs^ill then be made w^ith the JE Docu-
ment, including with it such fragments of J and E as
are still pointed out; the P Document, including H,
the so-called Holiness Code, incorporated with it; and
the D Document. While naturally, all critics do not
wholly agree in the assignment of passages to the
various Documents, the disagreement is sometimes
quite overestimated. There is, indeed, quite general
agreement concerning the main portions of the Penta-
teuch. In this comparison, we will follow the divisions
as given by Kautzsch in the Literature of the Old Testa-
ment (Cf. p. 226), and as shown to the eye in the
Polychrome Bible edited by Professor Haupt. Nearly
the same results would be found by consulting any
other work founded on the Documentary Theory.

According to this analysis of the Pentateuch, there
is assigned to the JE Decument, including the frag-
ments still assigned to J and E, the Book of Exodus,
except Chapters XXV-XL, portions of the book of
Numbers amounting to about one-half, and portions
of Leviticus, especially of the Holiness Code. There
is assigned to the P Document almost the whole of
Leviticus (except portions of H assigned to JE), chap-
ters XXV-XL of the book of Exodus, and nearly all
of the remainder of the book of Numbers not assigned
to JE and to J and E. The D Document is the book
of Deuteronomy almost in its entirety. Only chapter
XXXni and a few scattered fragments are given other
assignment.

It only remains to compare these divisions of the
Pentateuch according to the Documentary Hypothesis



140 THE PROBLEM OP THE PENTATEUCH

with the divisions afforded by the different KINDS
and USES of laws as developed in the preceding in-
vestigations. A glance at the preceding list of groups
of laws will suffice to show the results of the com-
parison. These two sets of divisions are almost ex-
actly identical. There is a margin of uncertainty in
the assignment of difficult passages by either process
of division, and a few mistakes may be made in either
case. No more disagreement than this is found to
exist. The accompanying Diagram on the opposite
page shows the main divisions afforded by these two
methods, the divisions according to the Documentary
Theory being placed above and the divisions according
to the KINDS and USES of laws below. The extent
of the agreement is indicated by the diagrammatic
scheme, agreement by dashes, disagreements by dots;
divided agreement, i.e. agreement in part, or possible
agreement and possible disagreement, by both dashes
and dots. It is usual with advocates of the Docu-
mentary Theory to speak in a general way of Leviticus
as wholly P (Cf. Kautzsch, Literature of the Old Testa-
ment), but in detailed discussions of the material it
comes out that H, i.e. Chaps. XVII-XXVI, is said to
have been incorporated from some older legislation
and, in the ultimate analysis, is divided into two
original sources. Upon examination of these two
"sources" it is found that they contain respectively
"judgments" and "statutes." Thus these Chaps. XVII-
XXVI are in the Diagram indicated as "divided agree-
ment."

IV. The results of the comparison are so plain that
a cursory glance at the Diagram will perceive:

(1) That the JE Document, together with scat-
tered fragments assigned to J and E, is made up very




s




nj




3

o








:\


-


9






■■i




H-










o

r

1






•1




1






p




iSi!


W
X



(A


1


3




1




ir


p.




1


«r




1


r*


14^


c


O


Pb


1
n




1
1


<


1


w




k-|






1
1


d-


1




O
















►<








IK


n


1




■J-


' 1




1 "


f


1




•S.


1;$! is




L


n


1




<












fl>








t-

















?








w




15




s


r




o
1

r*





e

1
O

3


r




O


p>




y


(1)


1 - ^


<



o
o

P

3

3



3 '


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Online LibraryMelvin Grove KyleThe problem of the Pentateuch; a new solution by archaeological methods → online text (page 10 of 20)