Introduction to the Pentateuch

By E. F. SUTCLIFFE, S.J.

with a section on

SOME RECENT CATHOLIC VIEWPOINTS

By R. A. Dyson, S.J.

§ 126 Bibliography—R. Cornely, S.J., Introd. in U.T. Libros Sacros II i (Parisiis, 1887) 3–169 (CS1186S); 1187*W. Möller, Are the Critics Right? (London, 1903); G. Hoberg, Moses und der Pentateuch (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1905) = B1188S X iv; L. Méchineau, S.J., L’Origine mosaïque du Pentateuque (Paris, 1905¹¹⁸⁹⁴); E. Mangenot, L’Authenticité mosaïque du Pentateuque (Paris, 1907) and ‘Pentateuch’ DB1190V v 50–119; S.T.B., Archbishop Smith and the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch (Aberdeen, 1911); 1191*H. M. Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism (London, 1910); and Pentateuchal Studies (London, 1912); 1192*J. Dahse, Is a Revolution in Pentateuchal Criticism at Hand? (London, 1912); F. E. Gigot, The Message of Moses and Modern Higher Criticism (New York, 1915); F. X. Kugler, S.J., ‘Zum Alter der wichtigsten bürgerlichen und kultischen Gesetzesbestimmungen des Pentateuch, insbesondere des sog. Priesterkodex’ in Von Moses bis Paulus (Münster in Westf., 1922) 36–133; 1193*E. Naville, The Higher Criticism in relation to the Pentateuch (Edinburgh, 1923); J. Goettsberger, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1928) 13–117; A. Bea, S.J., De Pentateucho (Romae, 1933¹¹⁹⁴²) = Institutiones Biblicae II i and ‘Der heutige Stand der Pentateuchfrage’ B1195i 16 (1935) 175–200; J. Coppens, L’Histoire Critique de l’Ancien Testament (Tournai-Paris, 1938)—English trans. with new material up to 1940, The Old Testament and the Critics trans. by E. A. Ryan, S.J. and E. W. Tribbe, S.J. (Paterson, N.J., 1943); H. Hoepfl, O.S.B., ‘Pentateuque et Hexateuque’ DAF1196C III 1883–1920.

§ 127 Names—The five books of Moses are commonly referred to as the Pentateuch, a word which signifies a book composed of five rolls. The second element of the word, viz. τεῦχος, originally meant a container or case for holding a manuscript roll and later came to stand for the roll which the case contained. It is used in this sense in The Letter of Aristeas, 179. In the Letter to Flora from Ptolemy, a Gnostic of the 2nd cent. a.d., is found the first occurrence of ‘the Pentateuch of Moses’ (ἡ Μωσέως πεντάτευχος). The letter has been preserved by Epiphanius, Adv. Haereses 33, 4, 1, P1197G 41, 560. From the Greeks the name passed to the Latin writers and was used by Tertullian early in the 3rd cent., Adv. Marcionem 1, 10, P1198L 2, 257. The fivefold division itself is attested about two centuries earlier, as Philo, De Abraham 1, speaks of Genesis as the first of ‘five books’.

In the NT the Pent1199. is called ‘the book of the Law’ Gal 3:10; ‘the Law’ Rom 3:21; ‘the Law of Moses’ Lk 24:44. The expression ‘the Law of the Lord’, Lk 2:23, may be, not the designation of the Pent1200., but a reference to the legislation it contains. As the Pent1201. contains much historical material, these appellations indicate which of the two elements, history and law, was most esteemed.

In the OT the Pent1202. is called ‘the book of the Law of Yahweh’ 2 Par 17:9; ‘the book of the Law of Moses’ Neh 8:1; ‘the Law of Moses’ 2 Par 23:18; ‘the book of Moses’ Neh 13:1, where the Lucianic recension of LX1203X has ‘the book of the Law of Moses’; and in Neh 8:2 it is simply ‘the Law’.

The names of the five books in DV, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, are either adopted or adapted or translated from V1204g, which itself acquired the names in the same way from the LX1205X; see §§ 136c, 162c, 182b, 196b, 210b. The Hebrew names, which are taken from the opening words of the different books, are added in V1206g as transcribed by St Jerome in his Prologus Galeatus or preface to the Books of Kings.

§ 128 Contents—The Pent1207. contains the religious history of the chosen people and of their ancestors traced from the creation of the first man to the death of Moses, and secondly, the laws, religious and social, of their theocratic system. Genesis indicates the line of descent from Adam to Abraham, and then narrates at length the history of this patriarch, of Isaac, of Jacob and his sons, and ends with the death of Joseph in Egypt. It is the necessary introduction to the other books, as it relates God’s promise that Canaan was to be the possession of Abraham’s descendants and explains how the Israelites came to be living in Egypt. Exodus continues the story with an account of the oppression of the Israelites in Egypt, the call of Moses, his liberation of the people, the Covenant at Sinai, and ends with the setting up of the Tabernacle in the first month of the second year after the departure from Egypt. Leviticus contains very little narrative and ends with the people still at Sinai. The Book of Numbers gives the remainder of the story up to the fortieth year. It opens with the numbering of the people preparatory to the departure from Sinai and ends with their encampment in the plain opposite Jericho. Deuteronomy like Leviticus has little narrative. The Covenant with God is renewed before the entry into Canaan, and the history ends with the death of Moses on Mount Nebo after he had seen the promised land he was not allowed to enter.

Of the legislation Genesis contains the law given to Noe after the Flood, ch 9, and the law of circumcision given to Abraham, ch 17. The laws in Ex, Lev and Num up to 10:10 were given at Mount Sinai, Lev 26:45; 27:34. Those in the rest of Num date from various times during the wandering in the desert, and the laws of Deut are a repetition and modification of previous legislation given by Moses in immediate preparation for the passage of the Jordan into the land of promise. This summary does not exclude the addition of laws in post-Mosaic times, cf. § 134d–g.

Certain collections of laws may be distinguished as the Decalogue, Ex 20:3–17, and its repetition, Deut 5:7–21. The initial legislation at Mount Sinai is given in the Book of the Covenant, Ex 24:7, from Ex 20:23 to 23:19. Collections of laws appertaining to the Sanctuary, the sacrifices and the priesthood are given in Ex 25–30; Lev 1–8, 10, 12–16, 21–24, 27; Num 15, 18–19, 28–9. The law of Deut. is given in chh 12–26.

§ 129a Moses; His Life and Achievements—As Moses was the author of the Pent1208. (with due allowance for later additions and modifications; see § 134), it will be convenient to gather here the main facts about his life, achievements and character. His birth fell during the period of oppression in Egypt. The fact that his life was saved through the pity of Pharaoh’s daughter and that she adopted him as a son, Ex 2:1–10, ensured for him the best home and education possible in Egypt at the time and far superior to what would have been his, had he passed his youth among his own people. The Egyptians were a highly civilized nation. They had a keen eye for beauty and remarkable skill in the arts of sculpture and architecture. They had an abundant literature and were famous in the Near East for their wisdom. It was in the highest circles of this refined society that Moses passed his youth. Thus alone of the Israelites he ‘was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians’, Acts 7:22. This of itself must have won him pre-eminence among his countrymen, but he had it in him besides to become, as St Stephen put it, ibi1209d., ‘mighty in his words and in his deeds’. Not that he had any natural gift of eloquence. On the contrary, as St Paul’s speech was called ‘contemptible’, 2 Cor 10:10, so Moses described himself as ‘heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue’, Ex 4:10. He suffered in fact from some impediment of speech, cf. Ex 6:12. Aaron, his brother, had to be his ‘mouth’ and ‘speak in his stead to the people’, Ex 4:16. But many years were to pass before he had to teach and guide his fellow-Israelites.

§ b His life falls into three periods, to each of which are assigned forty years. He was forty years old, Acts 7:23, ‘when it came into his heart to visit his brethren’. He was ‘eighty years old’ when he went with Aaron to speak with Pharaoh, Ex 7:7. And he was ‘a hundred and twenty years old’ at the time of his death, Deut 31:2. According to these figures he spent forty years of private life, of which little is recorded, forty years as a fugitive in Madian, and forty years as leader of his people, all, except the period of struggle with Pharaoh, spent in the long wandering from Egypt to Canaan. This schematism combined with the Hebrew use of forty as a round and only approximate number shows that the figures are not meant to be exact. It will be recalled that in the same way forty years are assigned to the reigns of the three successive kings, Saul, David and Solomon; see § 124l. It should be added that the records indicate that with all their culture and knowledge the Egyptians do not seem to have had a knowledge of their true ages; see § 161e. The meaning of the figures, therefore, may be taken to be that Moses had reached an age at which he could be expected to act with authority when he attempted to intervene in the struggle between the Israelites, Ex 2:13, that he was long absent in Madian, and had reached an advanced age at the time of his death.

§ c The second period of Moses’ life began with his flight from Egypt to Madian. This was necessitated by Pharaoh’s determination to kill him for having slain an Egyptian in defence of one of his fellow-countrymen, Ex 2:11 f., 15. The personal courage he had shown on that occasion led him to defend the shepherd daughters of Jethro, the priest of Madian, against the violence of an unspecified number of men. The sequel of this bold act of kindness was his marriage with Sephora, who was one of the seven daughters. In appearance Moses was at this time an Egyptian and was taken to be such, Ex 2:19. Further, he was not true to the religious practices of his people, as an obscure narration makes it plain that he omitted the circumcision of one at least of his two sons, Ex 4:24–26, perhaps out of a fear of displeasing his wife. The fidelity of the story to fact is illustrated by the mention of Moses’ marriage with a foreign woman and his neglect of circumcision. If the story had been written or edited in later ages with the purpose of edification at all costs, these facts, which did not make for the honour of the great lawgiver, would have been omitted. The same is true of his second marriage, which was with an Ethiopian (Cushite), Num 12:1, for this woman can hardly be identified with Sephora. This marriage was resented by Mary, Moses’ sister, and by Aaron.

While living in Madian Moses took charge of his father-in-law’s ‘flock’, Ex 3:1, which may have been of sheep or goats or, indeed, of both together. He thus belongs to the list of famous shepherds and goatherds, in which are the names of Jacob, David and Amos. Later, it was on Jethro’s advice that Moses eased his burden of government by appointing rulers over sections of the people to judge the easier cases, Ex 18:13–26.

§ d The third period began with the divine mission to return to Egypt to free his people. This charge was given in the vision of the Burning Bush, Ex 3–4. There is still discussion whether God then revealed his sacred name of Yahweh for the first time, Ex 3:15. The text strongly suggests that Moses knew or suspected that God was known among his countrymen by a name that was unknown to him. He had lived all his life away from them, at the court of Pharaoh’s daughter and in Madian. He seems to have foreseen incredulity if he could not tell his people the name of God who had sent him. ‘Lo, I shall go to the children of Israel and say to them: The God of your fathers hath sent me to you. If they should say to me: What is his name? what shall I say to them?’, Ex 3:13. If, in answer to this question, he had given a name that the Israelites had never heard before, it would have been an obstacle to the acceptance of his mission. If this is correct, it is evidence of what would be expected, viz. that Moses was not well-informed about the religion of his people. § e Apart from the liberation from Egypt, Ex 5–12, the story of the remainder of Moses’ life is that of the forty years’ sojourn in the wilderness and its main outline is too well known to be summarized here. But something must be said of his troubles, his faults, and his virtues. His task was certainly a formidable one, for he had to bear the burden of a ‘stiff-necked’ people, Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Deut 9:6, 13; 10:16. In spite of the miracles they had seen wrought on their behalf in Egypt they lacked trust in God and were constantly murmuring and complaining, for lack of water, Ex 15:24; 17:3; Num 20:5, of food, Ex 16:3; see also Num 11:1; 21:5. On one occasion the people so far forgot their indebtedness to Moses that he had reason to fear for his life: ‘Yet a little more and they will stone me’ Ex 17:4. And it was not only the common people who proved so ungrateful. Even those nearest and dearest to him, from whom he had the right to look for support and encouragement, found fault with and gave way to jealousy against him, as did Mary and Aaron, Num 12:1 f. On another occasion there was even open rebellion under the leadership of Core, Dathan and Abiron, Num 16. And although God vindicated his servant by the speedy punishment of the offenders, such ingratitude and opposition must have caused him great distress. Other instances of such opposition and murmuring are related Ex 2:14; 5:21; 6:9; 14:11 f.; Num 14:2 f.

§ f Even more distressing to Moses than these personal affronts were the lack of trust in God and the grave breaches of his commandments. ‘The Lord said to Moses: How long will this people contemn me? how long will they not believe in me for all the signs that I have wrought in the midst of them?’, Num 14:11. Very soon after receiving the decalogue and with the portents of Egypt fresh in their minds, while Moses was yet in the mountain with God, they violated the precept never to make a graven image, and set up the golden calf: ‘This is thy God, O Israel, who has brought thee up out of the land of Israel’, Ex 32:4; cf. 20:4. And not only did the people thus transgress, but even Aaron set up an altar before the image and proclaimed ‘Tomorrow will be the feast in honour of Yahweh’, Ex 32:5. But far worse was to follow. When the people were shortly to enter the promised land, they took to fornication with the daughters of Moab, and when invited to the sacrifices of their gods ‘the people did eat and adored their gods’, Num 25:2. It cannot have been a surprise though it must have been heartbreaking to Moses, when shortly before his death and the end of the long pilgrimage in the desert God announced to him: ‘Behold thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, and this people will rise up and go afornicating after strange gods in the land to which it goeth in to dwell: they will forsake me, and will make void the covenant, which I have made with them’, Deut 31:16.

§ g No wonder that the burdenon Moses’ shoulders seemed at times more than he could bear. He made his complaint to God: ‘Why hast thou afflicted thy servant: wherefore do I not find favour before thee: and why hast thou laid the weight of all this people upon me?… I am not able alone to bear all this people, because it is too heavy for me’, Num 11:11, 14. So intense was his affliction that death seemed preferable: ‘I beseech thee to kill me, and let me find grace in thy eyes, that I be not afflicted with so great evils’, Num 11:15. So to speak was no sign of virtue in Moses; but the fault, if in the anguish of his soul fault there was, was slight and received no rebuke from God, who on the contrary arranged for the easing of Moses’ burden, vv 16 f. On a previous occasion when Moses showed pusillanimity and lack of trust in God in almost refusing the mission to liberate Israel, God was angry with him, Ex 4:14.

§ h Here it may be remarked how frankly and humbly Moses relates his own weaknesses and shortcomings. In addition to the examples mentioned in the last paragraph there is the confession of his failure to circumcise his son, Ex 4:24 ff., and the offence which so displeased God as to merit Moses’ exclusion from the land of promise. To this, allusion is made on several occasions, Num 20:12; 27:14; Deut 1:37; 3:27; 31:2; 32:52; 34:4 (probably post-Mosaic). From Num 20:12 ‘Because you have not trusted me’ and Num 27:14 ‘because you were rebellious against my command’ it appears that the fault of Moses was a failure to carry out the divine command just as it was given to him, the failure being due to a lack of trust based perhaps on the unworthiness of the people. Ps 105 (106) 33 in its allusion to this incident further charges Moses with having ‘spoken rashly with his lips’, a reference to Moses’ reprehension of the people, Num 20:10. God had ordered Moses to ‘speak to the rock’, Num 20:8. This he did not do. Instead he struck the rock twice. Both in Deut 1:37 and 3:26 Moses tells the people that God was angry with him on their account. That is to say that it was the obstinacy and rebelliousness of the people which occasioned Moses’ fault.

§ i This constant recurrence to his shortcomings is a sign of great virtue in Moses. He was completely devoid of the spirit of pride. His spirit of forgiveness is illustrated by his prayer to God to heal his sister Mary of leprosy although it was inflicted on her in punishment of her envy of him and evil talk against him, Num 12:13. This same forgiving spirit and at the same time unbounded devotion to his people is manifested in his petitions to God to spare them after some of their gravest transgressions. Thus after the worship of the golden calf he prayed: ‘Either forgive them this trespass; or if thou do not, strike me out of the book that thou hast written’, Ex 32:31 f. The doctrine of eternal bliss with God had not been revealed, and the book of which Moses speaks is ‘the book of the living’ (cf. Ps 68 [69] 29), that is of those alive in this world. He prays to die if God will not spare his people. He had the same great spirit which led St Paul in the same sense to desire to be an anathema for his brethren, Rom 9:3. See St Jerome, Ep. ad Algasiam 121, qu. 9 (P1210L 22, 1028). Num 14:19 f. records another successful prayer of Moses for the forgiveness of his people.

§ j On the subject of Moses’ virtues a word must be said of Num 12:3: ‘Moses was a man exceeding meek above all men that dwelt upon earth’. Accepting this to refer to ‘meekness’ some have argued that Moses could have written so of himself; others, as A Lapide, have considered the sentence a later addition. In subsequent usage the word combined the double notion of suffering affliction with patience, but here it seems to refer merely to the multitude of Moses’ troubles and afflictions. This is favoured by the context which treats of the hostility of Mary and Aaron, those nearest and dearest to the great legislator. An allied word has the bare sense of ‘affliction’ in Ex 3:7 and Deut 16:3, and another allied word has the meaning of ‘in distressed circumstances’ ‘needy’ in Deut 24:12, 14 f. This is not, of course, to say that Moses was not meek, as his ready forgiveness in this very instance shows that he was. Just anger is not opposed to meekness and Moses often had occasion to manifest it, Ex 11:9; Lev 10:16; Ex 32:19.

§ k Moses’ supernatural privileges may be briefly referred to. He was a prophet, that is, one commissioned to speak in the name of, and with the authority of God: ‘I shall be in thy mouth’, Ex 4:15; see § 409e. And he speaks of himself as a prophet in the passage where he foretells that God will send Israel a succession of prophets to end with Christ: ‘The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a prophet of thy nation and of thy brethren like unto me’, Deut 18:15. As a prophet God himself set Moses above all others: ‘If there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him in a dream. But it is not so with my servant Moses, who is most faithful in all my house; for I speak to him mouth to mouth, and plainly and not by riddles and figures doth he see the Lord’ (M1211T ‘not by riddles, and the form of the Lord doth he see’) Num 12:6–8. So Ex 33:11 ‘The Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man is wont to speak to his friend’. Moses did not, of course, see God as he is in himself, but in some familiar apparition. When he came forth from these intimate colloquies with God, Moses’ ‘face was horned’, Ex 34:29–35. That is, the effulgence of God’s presence caused the prophet’s face to shine with beams or rays of light, which are metaphorically called horns. On two occasions Moses was forty days and forty nights alone with God in the mountain, and on neither occasion did he either eat or drink; Ex 24:18 with Deut 9:9 describe the first occasion and Ex 34:28 the second. On Moses’ office as a miracle-worker and as a lawgiver it is not necessary to dilate, as the last four books of the Pentateuch bear ample witness to his power and authority in both respects.

§ l Such then was Moses—prophet, miracle-worker, legislator, friend of God, leader of his people. He may justly be called the second father of his race and its founder as a nation. He freed them from the bondage of Egypt, ruled them in the wilderness, gave them a religious and social code that bound them in a close federal unity. But even he was not allowed to set foot on the soil of the promised land to which he led his nation. Such is God’s displeasure at any breach of his holy law that this great and virtuous man was condemned to die in sight of the land he had so long desired.

§ 130a Mosaic Authorship—It has long been recognized that the Pent1212. has not come down to us precisely as it left the hand of Moses and that apart from the errors of copyists it has received additions and modifications. For instance, Cornelius a Lapide, who died in 1637, wrote in his preface to the Pent1213. that ‘Moses wrote the Pentateuch simply by way of a diary or annals, but Josue or someone similar put these annals of Moses into order, divided them up, and added and inserted some sentences’. So when the Mosaic authorship is spoken of, it must be borne in mind that the authorship meant is that of the work as a whole with allowance for subsequent modifications, for which see § 134.

§ b There are various references in the Pentateuch to Moses’ literary activity. Moses is ordered by God to write down an account of the destruction of Amalec, Ex 17:14. This refers to Ex 17:8–13. ‘Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord’, Ex 24:4, and what these were is made plain in 24:7 ‘Taking the book of the covenant he read it in the hearing of the people’. The exact limits of this ‘book’ or document are not easy to define and are variously set, by Hoberg 20–23, by Goettsberger 20:22–23:19, by Bea 20:23–23:33. After the defection of the people in worshipping the golden calf and the subsequent renewal of the covenant God again ordered Moses: ‘Write thee these words by which I have made a covenant both with thee and with Israel’, Ex 34:27. This refers to 34:10–26. Num 33:2 records that Moses wrote down the places of encampment from the time of the departure from Egypt. The list follows in the same chapter. ‘Moses wrote this law’, Deut 31:9, 24, and ordered it to be kept with the Ark, v 26. The Canticle given in Deut 32 is said to have been written by Moses, 31:22, at the command of God, 31:19.

§ c What is to be concluded from these passages? In the first place, Moses is shown to have been not only a legislator but also a writer. But the question is how much did he write? A logical person may argue: as these texts explicitly testify that Moses wrote certain parts of the Pent1214., so they implicitly testify that he did not write those parts which are not attributed to him. This argument is guilty of the fallacy of interpreting these ancient oriental documents in accordance with our own modern western habits of mind. It is not probable that Moses wrote the whole Pent1215. in the plains of Moab shortly before his death. It is far more likely that he wrote different parts of it at different times during the course of the forty years’ journeyings. In such protracted literary work it is in accordance with psychology that he should think at times of saying what at other times he did not think of saying. Moreover, it is one of the commonest literary devices in biblical style to use the sensus praecisivus, that is, a manner of writing which is concerned to express the truth of the statement in hand without any implication as to its being the whole truth or not. Thus it is said that Joseph ‘knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son’, Mt 1:25, where nothing is implied as to their future relations; cf. Ps 109 (110) 1 ‘The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool’, where it is not implied that the place of honour accorded up to the time of victory is thereafter to be withdrawn. In accordance with this mode of expression the explicit attribution of certain passages to Moses does not deny him also the authorship of others.

§ d As regards the Canticle of Deut 32 the previous chapter implies that Moses not only composed it but also inserted it in the book that contained ‘the words of this law’, 31:24. It was to be a testimony against the children of Israel, who after entering into the promised land would despise God and make void his covenant, 31:19. Moses knew that he was soon to die and that Josue was to lead the people over Jordan, 31:23. Moses therefore completed the writing of his book and ordered it to be kept with the Ark, vv 24–26. This was not to be done immediately as Moses was first to read out to the people the words of the song he had composed, vv 27–30. The order of this narration shows that Moses set down his canticle in his book.

§ e The next question is what was this book in which Moses wrote ‘the words of this law’, Deut 31:24. D1216V following V1217g has ‘volume’ here, that is, strictly speaking a roll, which is an undue narrowing of the meaning. M^eg̱illāh is the Hebrew word for ‘roll’, and, although the sēp̱er or ‘book’ had the form of a roll, the two words are not interchangeable, partly because the word sēp̱er is used of any document, however short, and partly because a long book had to be written in several rolls. The book is referred to also Deut 28:58 ‘the words of this law that are written in this book’; and similar expressions occur 28:61 and 29:21 (M1218T 29:20). Moses commanded the priests to read ‘the words of this law’ before the people every seven years ‘in the year of remission’ at the feast of Tabernacles, 31:9–11. The observance of this law is recorded in the time of Nehemias, Neh 8:18: ‘He read in the book of the law of God day by day, from the first day till the last’. Was the reading merely from Deut, or was it from the Pent1219. as a whole? There is no distinction of meaning between the two expressions ‘the book of the law of God’ and ‘the law’, which is used just before, Neh 8:14: ‘They found written in the law that the Lord had commanded through Moses that the children of Israel should dwell in tabernacles on the feast in the seventh month’. The feast of Tabernacles is mentioned in Deut 16:13–16; 31:10–12; but there is no mention in these texts of dwelling in tabernacles or booths. This is prescribed exclusively in Lev 23:42 f. In the time, therefore, of Esdras and Nehemias this law and the words of this law in a book’, Deut 31:9, 24, were understood to refer to the legislation of the Pent1220. as a whole. In other words these texts were understood to record the writing by Moses of the legislation of the Pent1221. Moreover, the legislation and the narrative are so closely interwoven that to say Moses wrote the law is practically equivalent to saying that he wrote the Pent1222. as a whole. Indeed, the name of the Pent1223. in later times was simply the Law, the designation being taken from what was regarded as the most important element.

§ f At the beginning of Deut it is said that ‘Moses took in hand to expound this law’, 1:5. ‘This law’, or ‘this Torah’, refers to the laws contained in the previous books, just as the opening words of Deut refer back to all the discourses pronounced by Moses during the previous forty years. The geographical expressions which follow the sentence ‘These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel’, 1:1, designate various places in the course of the forty years’ wanderings. The word ‘these’ is retrospective just as it is in Num 36:13; and the opening sentence of Deut in this way joins this book to its predecessors. And just as ‘these words’ are those reported in the previous books, so ‘this law’ refers to the legislation there recorded.

§ g It is, perhaps, worth remarking in connection with the meaning of ‘this law’ that Goettsberger supposes Moses to have read the law to the people after he had finished writing it in a book, Deut 31:24. But what Moses read to the people was, not the law, but the Canticle of Deut 32: ‘I will speak these words in their hearing, and will call heaven and earth to witness against them’, 31:28. This alludes to the opening words of the Canticle, ‘Hear, O ye heavens, the things I speak; let the earth give ear to the words of my mouth’, 32:1. § h And the reason which Moses gives, ‘For I know that after my death you will do wickedly … and evils shall come upon you in the latter times’, 31:29, is amply illustrated in the Canticle, 32:5, 15 (on the prevarications); 32:20–25 (on the punishments). And finally, 31:30, Moses therefore spoke in the hearing of the whole assembly of Israel the words of this canticle’, records the carrying out of the purpose mentioned just before, 31:28

§ i In the law of the kingdom the king is ordered to have written out for him a copy of the law for his own use: ‘After he is raised to the throne of his kingdom, he shall write cut for himself a copy of this law in a volume from that of the priests of the Levitical tribe’, Deut 17:18. It would be arbitrary to limit this to Deut. The king’s office would demand a knowledge of the whole legislation.

§ j The prescription that ‘the words of this law’ were to be read publicly every seven years at the feast of Tabernacles, Deut 31:10 f., has been thought by some to imply the reading of something fairly short. But the limitation of the prescription to seven year intervals indicates that the obligation was an onerous one. Thé reading of the whole Pent1224. is not prescribed but only of the legislation. The purpose is stated explicitly, 31:12, ‘that hearing they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and keep and fulfil all the words of this law’. Only those parts, therefore, had to be read publicly which concerned the people. Those prescribing the duties of priests and Levites could be omitted. The rest could easily be read within the week of the feast. It is recorded of Esdras that he read before the people ‘from dawn (Heb. ‘from the light’) until midday’, Neh 8:3; and the expression ‘he read therein’ implies that he read only selections. Compare the reading of the following day of fasting, Neh 9:3, when ‘they read in the book of the law of the Loro their God’. This refers to the reading that took place on a single day.

§ k In this connection reference should be made, lastly, to the order given Deut 27:2 f.: ‘When you are passed over the Jordan …, thou shalt set up great stones and shalt plaster them over with plaster, that thou mayst write on them all the words of this law’; cf. v 8. The execution of this is recorded Jos 8:32–35. Note v 32 ‘he [Josue] wrote there upon stones a copy of the law of Moses’ (cf. Deut 17:18), and v 34 ‘after this he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the cursing, according to all that was written in the book of the law’. There are two questions here, (1) what was written on the stones, and (2) what did Josue read out to the people. The setting up of the stones was intended, not so much as a memorial of the law, as a public acknowledgement of its authority joined with an implicit undertaking to observe it. The injunction to set them up was given in an address of Moses and the elders of Israel to the people commencing with the admonition to ‘keep every commandment that I command you this day’, Deut 27:1. There is no reason, therefore, to suppose that among the laws written on the stones were those that did not concern the conduct of the people directly. Neither is it probable that the many laws which are set down twice, and even oftener, like the law concerning the Pasch and the use of leaven, were written more than once on the stones. With these omissions there would be no great difficulty in writing the law of Moses on a number of great stones. The law of Hammurabi was carved on a stone, and as Goettsberger reminds us, ‘this was not less extensive than the law of Moses’. The second question, what was read to the people at Josue’s command, is secondary, partly because the biblical use of the word ‘all’ is not so exact as in our usage, and partly because in spite of its obscurity the text seems only to mean that Josue had carried out the law or commandment of Moses recorded Deut 27:11–26, and had the cursings read in the words prescribed in the law there given. To these may have been added the blessings given in Deut 28, or perhaps with Fernandez ‘it may be said that the blessings are implied in the curses as contraries’, Comm. in Josue (CS1225S, 1938) 126.

§ 131a Jos and Kings speak of the law of Moses as written in a book—‘The book of this law’, Jos 1:8, is spoken of as equivalent to ‘all the law which Moses my servant hath commanded thee’ of the previous verse; ‘as … it is written in the book of the law of Moses’, 8:31; ‘all things that are written in the book of the law of Moses’, 23:6. Also ‘as it is written in the law of Moses’, 3 Kg 2:3; and Deut 24:16 is quoted 4 Kg 14:6 as ‘written in the book of the law of Moses’. Such texts leave no doubt that Moses drew up a code of law which existed in writing, but they do not of themselves demonstrate that Moses was the author of the whole Pent1226. They do not amount to a demonstration, but in view of the evidence of the Pent1227. itself their natural meaning is that Moses was its author, a meaning which should not be rejected in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary. The correctness of this interpretation is further evidenced by the close connection between the narrative and the legislative parts of the Pent1228. In a large measure the narrative prepares for the legislation and gives it its setting. The force of these allusions to the law of Moses, it may be added, is illustrated by the endeavour of those who deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pent1229. to treat them as glosses and later additions. If there had been an attempt to put back into a distant past a late belief in the Mosaic authorship, I think it is safe to say that it would have been carried through rather more energetically and above all in more explicit terms. The very fact that the allusions are not in themselves demonstrations goes to show that they were written by people with no ulterior motive.

§ b This brings us to the witness of the NT. Mk 12:26 attributes the words ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’, to ‘the book of Moses’. These occur in the narrative Ex 3:6. Various passages of Lev are ascribed to Moses, Lev 12 on the purification of women in Lk 2:22; Lev 12:3 on circumcision in Jn 7:22; Lev 14 concerning the cleansing of a leper in Mt 8:4; Lev 20:10 on the punishment of an adulteress in Jn 8:5; in Rom 10:5 it is said by Paul that ‘Moses wrote’ a text of Lev 18:5. St Stephen in Ac 7:37 attributes to Moses Deut 18:15; the Jews in Mt 19:7 ascribe to Moses the legislation about divorce in Deut 24 and our Lord’s answer, Mt 19:8 makes the same attribution. Deut 25:4 about muzzling the ox is ‘written in the law of Moses’, 2 Cor 9:9. Deut 25:5, which gives the Levirate law, is said to have been written by Moses, Mk 12:19; Lk 20:28.

§ c Philip, Jn 1:45, says that ‘Moses in the law … did write’ about the Messias; and, more important, Christ himself, Jn 5:46, said to the Jews, ‘If you did believe Moses, you would believe me also, for he wrote of me’. (The ‘perhaps’ of D1230V in this text is due to a peculiarity of the V1231g rendering of conditional sentences, and is best omitted in English.) According to the belief of the Jews, therefore, corroborated by our Lord, Moses was the writer of Messianic passages in the Pent1232. These are Gen 3:15; 12:3 and parallels 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; further Gen 49:10; Deut 18:15. Our Lord is here basing his claim to a supernatural mission on the witness borne to him by Moses, not merely, be it noted, on the witness in itself, but on the witness as being the witness of Moses. Christ would not base so important a dogmatic truth on a false premiss. First Christ appealed to the testimony of John the Baptist, vv 32–35, then to that of ‘the Father himself’, v 37, and finally to that of Moses. He is speaking of the person Moses, in whom the Jews put their trust, v 45, and it is the person Moses who accuses them, ibi1233d.

§ d Among both Jews and Christians tradition has always been in harmony with this testimony of Scripture. On the Jews see Bea 18 f., and on the Fathers Hoberg, 71 f. It must suffice here to mention two prominent Jewish writers of the first Christian century. Both Philo, De Vita Mosis, ed. Cohn 4 (1902) 267 f., and Josephus, Ant. 4, 8, 48, consider Moses to have written even the account of his own death. According to Josephus he was moved to write it out of fear lest the greatness of his fame might lead men rashly to say that he had departed to God.

§ e The Pent1234. contains internal evidence that it was composed at the time and under the conditions which Mosaic authorship postulates. This is only to be expected from the historical testimony examined above. It also presents not a few texts which taken alone would suggest a later date. Considered, however, in the light of all the evidence such texts show the presence of later additions and modifications.

The writer is more familiar with Egypt than with Canaan. Places in Egypt are mentioned without explanation, as the city of On (Heliopolis), Gen 41:45, the land of Gessen (Goshen), Gen 46:28, Socoth (Succoth), Ex 13:20, Phihahiroth, Ex 14:2. On the other hand, of Qiryath-arba it is added that it is ‘in the land of Canaan’, Gen 23:2, and similarly of Mambre, where Abraham buried Sara, Gen 23:19. The same information is added about Shechem, Gen 33:18, and about Luza (Bethel), Gen 35:6. The situation of mounts Garizim (Gerizim) and Hebal (Ebal) is described in Deut 11:30. Again, to give an idea of the fertility of the country round about Jordan reference is made to Egypt as better known, Gen 13:10, and the date of the foundation of Hebron is fixed by that of Tanis (Zoan), Num 13:23. The prohibition to act ‘according to the custom of the land of Egypt in which you dwelt’, Lev 18:3, is explicable only if it dates from a time not too distant from the delivery from that country. § f And the time is further fixed by the accompanying prohibition to act according to the customs of Canaan ‘into which I will bring you’, ibi1235d. Similarly Ex 20:12; Deut 5:16; 17:14. Some laws are given explicitly to be observed after entry into the promised land, Num 15:2, 18. Other laws again clearly suppose that the people are living in camp. Lev 16:26 f. prescribes what is to be done to the scapegoat outside the camp and what are the conditions of re-entry into the camp. Then there are all the prescriptions laying down what is to be done in moving camp, Num 4:4 ff. The law ordering any ox, sheep or goat that was killed, to be offered ‘at the door of the tabernacle an oblation to the Lord’, Lev 17:3 f., could only be observed under the conditions of camp life. Once the people were scattered throught Canaan its observance would clearly be impossible. On the Egyptian colouring in the Pent1236. reference may be made to 1237*A. S. Yahuda, The Language of the Pentateuch in its relation to Egyptian I (1933), and by the same author, The Accuracy of the Bible (1934).

§ 132a Characteristics of the Pentateuch—Several important facts tend to be overlooked which are essential for the formation of a judgement of the Pent1238. as a piece of literature. In the first place, its composition extended over some forty years. Such a long period of time quite apart from differences of subject-matter could hardly fail to introduce differences of language, style and view-point. Then, Moses was not young when he led Israel to Sinai and he was a very old man when he arrived with the people in the country opposite Jericho. Repetition and fullness of style were characteristic of his people, and such characteristics would be emphasized in the style of an old man. Thirdly, not only is the Pent1239. an ancient and an oriental book, which it is quite unscientific to judge by the standards applicable to modern and western literature, it is further, in its own line, pioneer work. The marvel is that it is as perfect a production as we find it to be. No ancient literature has an historical work of similar compass which can be compared to it. And of course through divine inspiration God made use of human instruments as he found them. He did not interfere with their natural modes of thought, of speech, of style. Considered, therefore, simply on the plane of human achievement Moses wrote a truly remarkable work, which must take pride of place in any history of world literature.

§ b Perhaps the most striking feature of the Pent1240. is the mixture of historical and legislative elements. It contains the laws of Israel and yet cannot be called a legal handbook or code. The narrative gives the setting of the legislation and sometimes its historical occasion, Num 27:1 ff.; 36:1 ff. But the narrative does not exist simply to illustrate the historical origin and growth of the legislation. It has, besides, its independent purpose to give a record of God’s dealings with his people. The Pent1241., therefore, has a double thread, of historical narrative and of legal enactment.

§ c Whereas more often the legislation fits naturally into its historical setting as do the Sinaitic laws, and cf. Num 27 and 36, sometimes there is no apparent connexion and the transition from narrative to law is extremely abrupt; cf. Num 15:1 ff. after 14:45, and 15:37–41 after 15:32–36. Contrary to the principle of grouping, such passages give the impression of having been slipped in without regard to the context. In the narrative portion such an abrupt insertion is found in Ex 9:30 f. This account of what the hail had or had not damaged in the fields of Egypt differs in spirit and style from the rest of the passage.

§ d In the narrative the primary purpose is not to record history as such. The record aims at giving the religious history of Israel, and there is consequently no mention of much that we moderns would like to know. The governing principle is the religious interest. One result of this is that the story is left with rough edges. For example, Sephora and her sons are with Moses in his journey from Madian to Egypt and are mentioned on account of the mysterious incident connected with the circumcision of one of them, Ex 4:20, 24–26. There is no mention of their having left Moses. This is learnt incidentally from Ex 18:2 ff. Another result is that chronological order is not rigidly adhered to. As in the case of Mt, within a broad framework which is definitely chronological, the details are sometimes arranged according to some other principle, for instance, common subject matter. Num 9:1 ff. is dated in the first month of the second year after the delivery from Egypt, whereas Num 1:1 is dated the first day of the second month of the same year. Num 7:1 ff. is dated to the day that Moses set up the Tabernacle; according to Ex 40:2 this occurred on the first day of the first month, again of the same year. Ex 16:32–35 presents an example of the grouping of matter. First is recorded the command to lay up some manna for a memorial and secondly its execution by Aaron who put the required amount in the Tabernacle. This was in the second month of the first year after the delivery from Egypt, but the Tabernacle was not set up till the first month of the following year, Ex 40:2. Thirdly, it is added that the Israelites eat manna for forty years till they came to Canaan. But at this stage of their journey it was still anticipated that they were to enter almost at once on the conquest of that country.

§ e There is no effort after brevity. On the contrary, repetition would seem to have been a cause of pleasure. In the following examples it is sometimes part only of a verse that is repeated: Deut 7:5, 25 and 12:3; 8:3 and 16; 1:10 and 10:22 and 28:62; 6:7–9 and 11:18–20; 12:6 and 17 f. and 14:23; 12:16 and 23 f. and 15:23; 27:2 and 4; 28:4 and 11; 31:6 and 8; 31:30 and 32:44. An example on a large scale but of a slightly different character is provided by Ex 25–31 and 35–39 which in general treat of the same matters, the Ark, the Tabernacle and the like, the first section as a narration of the divine commands, the second of their execution. Some repetitions may be due to the conflation of two sources or may be later non-Mosaic additions. See the commentaries on the mission of Moses in Exodus and on the rebellion of Core in Numbers.

§ f As an illustration of the repetition and also of the development of laws may be taken those relative to the first-born males of beasts. Immediately after the deliverance from Egypt God claims as his own every firstborn, Ex 13:2. Moses then transmits the divine command to the people, 13:11–16. When they arrive in Canaan the firstborn of the male sex is to be consecrated to the Lord. The firstborn of an ass is to be changed for a lamb or a kid (the word śeh is applicable to both); otherwise it is to be killed. And the Israelites must hand on to their posterity the reason for this rite, namely that God delivered his people from Egypt by slaying all the firstborn of the land. The law is next included in the covenant legislation of Sinai with the explicit mention of oxen and the flock or herd. The word ṣō’n is applicable to both sheep and goats, and both D1242V and R1243V unduly limit the meaning by translating ‘sheep’. New precision is given by the additional regulation that the animal is to be left with its dam for seven days and then to be given to God. In what manner the gift was to be made is not said. At the time this was general knowledge and did not need to be specified. Probably the owner himself killed it and consumed it at a sacrificial meal with his family. After the violation of the Covenant by the worship of the golden calf it was renewed and the law about the firstborn re-enacted, Ex 34:19. In place of the specification of the age at which the animal is to be given to God it is again laid down that the firstborn of an ass is to be redeemed by a lamb or kid. The next mention is in Lev 27:26. This chapter deals with free-will offerings and it is appropriately laid down that no one can make a free-will offering to God of the firstlings as they belong to God by right already. The subject comes up again in Num 18:15–18, this time from the point of view of the priest’s rights. All firstlings which belong to God are assigned to the priest. Unclean beasts are to be bought back at the age of one month for five shekels of silver. Presumably the clean animals that could be legally sacrificed were still to be offered on the eighth day. The extension of the time to a month in the case of the unclean animals is probably a condescension to men’s unwillingness to buy back very young animals with the greater uncertainty of their survival. If the animal was to die within the month the owner of its dam would be free of any obligation. The firstlings of cows, sheep, and goats may not be redeemed because they are holy to God. The priest is to sprinkle their blood on the altar and to burn their fat as a sweet odour to the Lord. But the flesh is the priest’s as is the breast of the wave-offering and the right shoulder; on the breast and the shoulder see Lev 7:30–34, etc.

§ g The Deuteronomic legislation was given in immediate preparation for the new conditions of settled life after entry into Canaan. In Deut 12:6 it is prescribed that firstlings may be offered only in the central sanctuary, in the place that God should choose out of all their tribes. There the Israelites are to eat them with their families and servants and with the Levites who dwelt in their cities, 12:7, 17 f.; 14:23. In these passages the firstlings are mentioned only incidentally to the law of the unity of the sanctuary. The matter is treated in its own right in Deut 15:19–23. As the offering was to be made only at the central sanctuary and some time might elapse between the birth and an opportunity to offer it there, it is enacted that no work might be done with the firstlings of cattle nor might the firstlings of sheep be shorn. They were entirely the property of God. It is again laid down that they are to be eaten by the Israelite and his household in the one sanctuary that God should choose. The concession is made that if the animal have any defect which renders it unfit to sacrifice to God, then it may be eaten anywhere, and by all, whether clean or unclean, under the one condition that its blood may not be consumed. The blood was to be poured out on the earth like water. The blood as typifying life was specially sacred to God. In Deut there seems to be a definite change in the previous legislation. In Num the flesh of the firstlings was assigned to the priest to be consumed under the same conditions as the breast and right shoulder, the priest’s portion of peace-offerings. In Deut all Israelites (who are not labouring under a legal uncleanness) may join in the sacrificial meal provided by the flesh of the firstlings. It does not seem possible with A Lapide to understand the words of Deut as addressed to the priests. The language is quite general and the laws are addressed to all. Neither does it seem legitimate with Keil to suppose that a share of the sacrificial meal was dependent on the invitation of the priest to enjoy part of what legally belonged to him. The wording of the laws seems to make it plain that the flesh reverted of right to the offerer. Neither does it seem possible to understand Num 18:18 as granting the priest only the breast and the right shoulder. This was Hengstenberg’s explanation. Nor again does 1244*H. M. Wiener, Pentateuchal Studies (1912) 294 seem to be correct in saying that Num 18 applies only to heave-offerings and that usually the heave-offering consisted of one or more firstlings. Probably experience had shown that the priests did not require all that had been assigned to them and would stand in even less need of the firstlings in Canaan, as it was foreseen that the animals would be older and more fully grown before an opportunity occurred to bring them to the one central sanctuary.

§ 133a A phenomenon that easily escapes attention in a translation is that connected with the use of the divine names. Sometimes we find Yahweh, the personal name by which God was known to the Israelites, and sometimes Elohim, the general name for God, used also of false gods. The former is rendered in D1245V by ‘the Lord’ as V1246g has ‘Dominus’ (LX1247X κύριος), and the latter by ‘God’. The first to comment on the varying usage of these designations seems to have been Tertullian, Adv. Hermogenem 3, P1248L 2, 199 f. The following table will give an idea of the distribution of the names. It is taken from Bea, 45, and R. Cornely, S.J., Introd. in S. Script. Libr. Compend., edit. A. Merk, S.J. (1927¹²⁴⁹⁹) 338 (= C–M).

In this list those instances are omitted in which Elohim is used in the construct state or with suffixes. As it is against Heb. usage to employ a proper name such as Yahweh either in the construct state or with personal suffixes, in certain cases the writer practically had no choice. The combination of the two names, Yahweh Elohim is found exclusively in Gen 2 and 3 except for Ex 9:30, where the equivalent of Elohim is not in LX1250X and is probably not original in HT. The probable explanation of this restricted use was the desire to stress the identity of Elohim, alone named in Gen 1, with Yahweh, named exclusively in Gen 4 except for v 25. It should further be noticed that in Ex up to 6:2 (exclusively) Yahweh occurs 23 times and Elohim 19 times. Thus in Gen and Ex up to this point the number of occurrences of the two names is approximately the same, thereafter Yahweh altogether predominates. This preference must be connected with the revelation of Ex 6:2 f. On this see the commentary and § 129d. If it is true that the name Yahweh was previously unknown, then it follows that its earlier occurrences in the text of the Pent1251. were not original in the stories of Gen as handed down to the time of Moses. And this would be true also of the proper names, such as Jochabed, that of Moses’ mother, in which the Tetragrammaton forms an element; cf. the case of Eliacim, whose name was changed to Joakim, 4 Kg 23:34. In any case some explanation is called for by the preference shown in different passages for one name or the other. Thus in Gen 10–16 Yahweh occurs 36 times, but Elohim not at all. On the other hand, in Gen 40–45 Elohim occurs 19 times, but Yahweh not at all.

§ b A similar phenomenon occurs elsewhere. In Pss 1–40 (41) Yahweh occurs 272 times (278 including titles and doxology), Elohim 15 times, of which 9 are required by the context. Jn Pss 41–82 (42–83) Elohim is used 200 times, Yahweh only 44 times including the doxology, Ps 71 (72) 18. Finally Pss 89 (90)–150 have the name of Yahweh 339 times, Elohim 6 times. Of these 6 occurrences 5 occur in Ps 107 (108) which is compiled from two Elohistic Pss, 56 (57) and 59 (60). The other is found in Ps 143 (144) 9. Then, that the present distribution of the divine names is at any rate sometimes due to an editor or editors, not to the original authors, is shown by the fact that though Ps 52 (53) is a rehandling of Ps 13 (14), the latter uses Yahweh where the former has Elohim. The same tendency is to be seen in Ps 69 (70) which is a rehandling of Ps 39 (40):14–18. The explanation proposed by J. Calès, S.J., from whose work most of the above figures have been taken, is that the intention was to provide a collection of canticles for the use of the Jews dispersed in pagan lands, where it would have been a profanation to pronounce the sacred Tetragrammaton, Le Livre des Psaumes 1 (1936) 20 f.

§ c These examples from the Pss make it clear that the use of the divine names in the existing H1252T is not always that of the original authors. This is further demonstrated as regards the Pent1253. by both external and internal evidence. Swete’s edition of the LX1254X shows that in the four books Gen to Num the Greek text differs in the use of the divine names 180 times from the existing HT, Dahse, 9. In Gen 16:11 the reason given for the name Ishmael is that ‘Yahweh has given ear’. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Yahweh has been substituted in this sentence for an original El or Elohim, which latter is found in one Heb. MS.

§ d It is impossible to explain the choice of one name rather than the other in all cases, just as it is impossible always to assign a reason why we sometimes speak of Jesus, sometimes of Christ, sometimes of Jesus Christ, sometimes of our Lord. To some extent the matter is fixed by usage, as we speak of ‘the blood royal’ but never of ‘the throne royal’. So the Hebrews spoke of ‘a man of God’ (Elohim), not of ‘a man of Yahweh’. On the other hand ‘Blessed be Yahweh’ is the regular expression (25 times), ‘Blessed be Elohim’ occurring twice only, Ps 65 (66):20 and Ps 67 (68):36 both in the Elohistic section of the Psalter. In general it may be said that Elohim is used where there is question of God’s omnipotence and transcendence, Yahweh where he appears as the guardian and protector of his people. In converse with non-Israelites the name Yahweh is as a rule avoided. The narratives of Gen were traditional in the time of Moses, and the name of God will have been left in the form handed down in the case of each story. It is possible that in pre-Mosaic times before special emphasis had been given to the name of Yahweh some tribes favoured the one name and others the other.

§ 134a Post-Mosaic Elements—These may be either modifications or additions. The modifications may affect both common words and proper names. The remarkable stability of the language from the Mosaic age suggests that copyists may have changed obsolete forms and words for those used in later times. On the other hand, the Pent1255. presents some linguistic peculiarities which seem definitely archaic. If common significant words were changed in the course of transcription, the process was not carried through consistently. Dan is mentioned as a place-name in northern Canaan, Gen 14:14, Deut 34:1, but this name dates from the conquest of the country, Jos 19:47, Jg 18:29. Similarly the place-name Horma, Num 14:45, Deut 1:44, was given only at the conquest, Jg 1:17. Deut 1:1 speaks of discourses of Moses delivered ‘beyond the Jordan’. This phrase suggests some writer other than Moses living on the western side of the Jordan, which Moses himself never crossed. A Lapide suggested long ago that Moses may have written ‘on this side’ and that ‘Josue or whoever edited Moses’s diaries, as he was living in Canaan’ changed it to ‘beyond the Jordan’. If such a change was made it was not made consistently. The expression is used of the country east of the Jordan, Num 22:1; 32:32; 34:15; 35:14; Deut 1:1, 5; 3:8; 4:41, 46, 47, 49. (In Gen 50:10 f. the topography is uncertain.) On the other hand ‘beyond the Jordan’ signifies the country west of the river in Deut 3:20, 25; 11:30; and, be it noticed, in Jos 12:7, whereas in Jos 12:1 it signifies the country east of it. More remarkable still in Num 32:19 the phrase occurs twice and denotes first the western side and then the eastern side. D1256V has translated according to the sense; but H1257T reads: ‘We will not acquire a possession with them across the Jordan and beyond, for our possession has fallen to us across the Jordan eastwards’. The collation of these passages leads to the conclusion that the phrase could be used by a speaker or writer on either side of the Jordan with the sense of ‘on this side of the Jordan’ or ‘on the other side of the Jordan’ provided the context made the meaning intended plain.

§ b Additions to the text, as distinct from modifications of language or alterations of names, might be short glosses or the insertion of longer passages mostly historical or legal in character. Here some examples only can be given. Many consider as glosses the information given Gen 12:6 and 13:7 that the Canaanite and the Perizzite were living in Canaan in Abraham’s time. However, such information is almost necessary to give the reader a correct setting for the narrative and to explain why there was not room for the flocks and herds of Abraham and Lot. Moreover, the wording prescinds altogether from the future state of the country, and, according to the Hebrew idiom, implies nothing as to whether those peoples were or were not there at the time of writing. On the apparent reference in Ex 15:17 to the temple on Mount Moriah see § 170h. The note that the gomer (omer) is the tenth part of an ephah, Ex 16:36, is a gloss, as the fact was known to contemporaries and Moses could hardly have foreseen that the note would be required by later generations. The measure is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. The note that the Arnon was the frontier of Moab, Num 21:13, has been considered a gloss; but it seems gratuitous to suppose that this geographical fact must have been universally known to Moses’ contemporaries considering that they had only just made acquaintance with those parts. A Lapide considered Num 21:14 f. to be a later addition, a view rejected by Hummelauer. Num 27:14 may well contain a gloss written originally in the margin. Deut 2:12 speaks of Israel as already ‘in the land of his possession’, but this is not a certain sign of a later hand, as in the context it is reasonably taken to refer to the settlement of the two and a half tribes east of the Jordan. The note in Deut 3:9 giving the Sidonian and Amorite names for Hermon may well be a later gloss, and also that about Og in Deut 3:11. Of the phrase ‘until this present day’ in the LX1258X of Gen 35:4 and in Deut 34:6 St Jerome wrote ‘Certe hodiernus dies illius temporis aestimandus est quo historia ipsa contexta est, sive Moysen dicere volueris auctorem Pentateuchi, sive Ezram eiusdem instauratorem operis, non recuso’, P1259L 23, 190. In this passage which has been misunderstood, St Jerome expresses his belief that Moses was the author of the Pent1260., but says that the words ‘up to the present day’ may apply not to his time but to that of Esdras as the restorer of the OT Canon after the troubles of the exile.

§ c Among historical additions that which has attracted most attention is perhaps the account of Moses’ death in Deut 34. Alphonsus Tostatus, generally called Abulensis from his episcopal see of Avila (died 1455), restricted the addition to part of the chapter. Jacobus Bonfrerius, S.J., Pentateuchus Moysis (1625) 1062, rightly preferred to consider the whole chapter post-Mosaic, as it is not reasonable to ascribe historical narrative to prophecy in the absence of compelling cause. Another well-known addition is the list of Edomite kings in Gen 36:31–39. The note introducing them as reigning before an Israelite king ruled over Edom (cf. § 156 f) takes the list down to the time of David, who subjugated the country, 2 Kg 8:14. This addition was recognized by Bonfrerius. Num 15:32–36, the account of the punishment of the man found collecting sticks on the Sabbath, is introduced by the remark that it occurred while the children of Israel were in the wilderness. No one would be likely to think of adding this information to the story as found in its present context. It suggests therefore that the whole story is an addition. Deut 10:6–9 is another probable example. Ex 16:35 suggests knowledge of the time when the manna ceased after the death of Moses. Num 32:41 narrates events which took place in the period of the Judges, Jg 10:3 f. There is a repetition of this in Deut 3:14. In Gen the details about the ages of Abraham and the other patriarchs were not part of the original story; see § 140b–f. On the blessings of Jacob see § 159b, and on Deut 32–33 § 222a and f. For other examples see §§ 162e–f, 181k.

§ d That there are legislative additions is also not doubted. The Pent1261. was the legal code of the nation and enactments required by changed conditions were naturally inserted in it. See § 162e–f and on the law of the king, § 217d. The laws concerning tithe belong to different periods, Lev 27:30–33; Num 18:21–32; Deut 12:6, 11, 17–19; 14:22–29; 26:12–15. It may be doubted whether Hoberg, 66 f., is right in adducing Jos 24:26 as proof of such an insertion: Josue ‘wrote all these things in the volume of the law of the Lord’. Hummelauer thought he discovered Josue’s insertion in Deut 26:16–27:26, but he has found no adherents. The meaning probably is that Josue added his writing at the end of Deut. The reference seems to be to the contents of the Book of Josue as a whole; so Cornely, II i 192. Nothing in the Pent1262. represents this writing of Josue, yet written as part of the law it seems extremely unlikely that it should have perished. Moreover, Jos is the natural and almost inevitable complement of the Pent1263. as it records the attainment of the promise made in the writings of Moses.

§ e Hoberg, 67, appeals also to 1 Kg 10:25, ‘Samuel told the people the law of the kingdom and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord’. Hoberg himself thinks this law is that of Deut 17:14–20. But if Deut had been meant, it would have been said that Samuel wrote it in the book of the law, and not merely in a book. And the passage in Deut seems to reflect the abuses of Solomon’s time.

§ f It is strange that both Hoberg, 68, and Goettsberger, 57, should lay down as a principle that those laws which suppose a settled population are post-Mosaic, e.g. Ex 23:10 ‘Six years shalt thou sow thy ground’. When the Israelites left Egypt, it was confidently expected that they would soon take up their abode in the promised land, and all the Sinaitic legislation was enacted without any reason to doubt the speedy fulfilment of this expectation. It was only when Moses was on the point of leading the people into Canaan but met with murmuring and resistance due to their pusillanimity and lack of trust in God that that generation was condemned never to enter the holy land but to die in the wilderness. After forty years their children would see the fulfilment of the promise intended for them, Num 14:28–34. The Deuteronomic legislation also was given when the beginning of settled life was in sight just before the crossing of the Jordan.

§ g Lev 16:29–34 is perhaps post-Mosaic. This passage gives the law for the perpetual observance of the day of atonement. Hoberg, 48 f., considers it to be probably a later addition based on Lev 23:26–32. A case may be made for the post-Mosaic character of Lev 25:32–34. These laws about the right of redemption of houses in the cities of the Levites and about their fields presuppose Num 35, which contains the regulations about the granting of cities and fields to the Levites. The Levitical legislation is Sinaitic, that of Num 35 Moabitic, and belong therefore respectively to the beginning and the end of the forty years of life in the wilderness. Lev 25:32–34 therefore appears to be a later addition.

§ 135a Sources—From the point of view of Moses’ knowledge a distinction occurs at Ex 2:10. From this verse everything narrated fell within his own lifetime and within his own knowledge except for the historical additions, § 134c. The events narrated in the opening part of Ex were recent history when Moses came to years of discretion and will have been learnt by him partly from Pharaoh’s daughter and partly from members of his own race. On the other hand the story of Gen refers to times long previous to his own and could have been learnt only from ‘sources’ whether oral or written; see § 137g–i. When writing is unknown or little used, the power of the human memory is such as to seem to us, the word is not too strong, prodigious. One has only to recall the oral tradition of the Veda and of the Homeric poems. There are references to such oral transmission in Ex 13:14. Moreover, not only is Gen comparatively a short composition, but its contents are for the most part vividly recounted stories which easily impress themselves even on indifferent memories. From constant repetition these stories would readily acquire a comparatively fixed form, which would be handed on in the tents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob from generation to generation. That the work of different minds is incorporated is clear from the difference not only of style but of outlook apparent in Gen, chh 1 and 2. The question is whether it is possible to dissect the Pent1264. into parts attributable to definite sources.

§ b The sources together with the dates assigned to them, which have won widest acceptance, have been those of the Wellhausen School. For a sketch of its history and of the variety of opinions maintained one of the books of introduction to the OT may be consulted or Coppens, 3–40, where a fairly exhaustive account will be found with ample bibliography. In particular may be mentioned here J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs (1899¹²⁶⁵³) and The Composition of the Hexateuch (1902) by J. Estlin Carpenter and G. Harford. In general the Pent1266. is traced to four sources designated respectively J, E, D and P. The origin of these designations being German, J. stands for the Yahwist, E for the Elohist, D for Deut and Deuteronomical elements, and P for the Priestly Code. The first two names are derived from the view that the Yahwist writer thought the name of Yahweh to have been known from the beginning and made use of it accordingly, whereas the Elohist writer thought that the name was first made known to Moses, Ex 6:2, and therefore made no use of it in the previous narrative. The former is considered to have written in the kingdom of Judah about 850 b.c. and the latter in the Northern Kingdom about 750 b.c. These two were combined into a single narrative J1267E by about 650. Deut was written not so long after and hidden in the temple where it was discovered in the 18th year of Josias and being accepted as Mosaic became the starting-point of Josias’ religious reformation. The incorporation of D with J1268E was accomplished by about the middle of the 6th cent. In the meantime the various elements of P came into existence in Babylonia and were finally worked into a unity with JED sometime before 450. This scheme involves much more than a denial of Mosaic authorship. It is designed to fit in with current evolutionary ideas according to which Israelite religion from animism and polytheism passed to monolatry and so finally in the age of the prophets to true monotheism. It supposes that the code of Deut was unknown until late in the 7th cent. and the priestly legislation till later still. It supposes further that the religious history was largely written without regard to historical fact in order to give a supposititious basis for the late priestly system. The Tabernacle, for instance, was an invention designed to throw back the origins of the temple worship into the days of Moses and so to win for it the authority of his name.

§ c For the history of the period preceding his own time Moses must, as already said, have made use of sources, and there is no reason to deny the possibility of his combining matter from different sources into one narrative. The question is whether there actually were two sources, J and E, which could be justly distinguished by the use of the divine names. In a number of passages where according to the criteria one or other source should be recognized actually the H1269T has the name that does not suit the theory. Such occurrences are explained as due to interpolations from the other source, or it is held that the two sources did not restrict themselves to Yahweh or Elohim respectively but only show a preference for the one name or the other. This latter suggestion, of course, renders the use of the divine names an uncertain basis for the distinction of the sources. Besides, the disagreement of the HT, the LX1270X and Sam. at times renders the correct reading uncertain. And as we have definite evidence that the divine names have been deliberately altered (see § 133b–c) there is considerable uncertainty what exactly was the use made of them in the original text. In the later parts of the Pent1271. also some Catholic writers have thought they detected the presence of the documents J and E. In this view the original Mosaic account had a double line of transmission, and in an editorial revision elements from both were incorporated in the Pent1272. as we know it. This distinction into sources leads at times to grave psychological difficulties. For example, the redactor of Num 22 is supposed to have preserved the same statement from both sources in v 3, ‘And Moab was sore afraid of the people, because they were many; and Moab was distressed because of the children of Israel’ (R1273V). Here the first half is said to be from E and the second from J. On the other hand when the whole story is split up into its two components, it is found that the redactor has omitted essential elements. He has preserved the unimportant and omitted the important. It is psychologically much more probable that the original writer indulged in repetition of a kind which the synonymous parallelism of the psalms shows to have been congenial to Hebrew writers. If it is contended that the original author could not have been guilty of tautological writing, then the question arises why should an editor have inserted what he could easily have omitted if it did not suit the genius of his language? Another psychological difficulty arises over the supposed contradictions between the two sources. Balaam is said to have travelled according to E with the princes of Moab, 22:21, but according to J with two servants only, 22:22. Is it more likely that an editor should have inserted such contradictory facts in two consecutive verses or that the original writer with his mind concentrated on the religious side of the story should have left obscure to the reader what was plain to himself? Balaam will have desired to start the journey without the knowledge of his fellow-citizens and gone out with two servants to join the caravan somewhere outside the town. In some such way he will at first have been alone with the two servants; cf. B1274i 18 (1937) 439 ff. This of course is only an illustration of the questions that arise when the matter is examined in detail. The small importance of such ‘discrepancies’ may be shown from Jn 11:19 ‘Many of the Jews were come to Martha and Mary’ and 11:45 ‘Many of the Jews who were come to Mary’. (D1275V with V1276g has here ‘and Martha’, but these words are in neither the Gk nor Latin codices.) See 1277*P. Volz u. W. Rudolph, Der Elohist als Erzähler ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik, Giessen, 1933.

§ d According to the Wellhausen reconstruction of history Deuteronomy was written in the 7th cent. and found in the temple, 4 Kg chh 22, 23. It purports to be Mosaic and was in fact accepted as such. That the book discovered was Deut has been held by many in the Church including St Jerome, P1278L 23, 217, and St John Chrystostom, P1279G 57, 181. Others, as Hoberg, 8 f., rightly hold that the book found was the Pent1280.; cf. Bea, 98, Goettsberger, 86. However, for our present purpose the question may be discussed as if it were Deut alone. The first thought that strikes the enquirer is how could a book recently written have been taken for a long-lost document? It is not easy to counterfeit antiquity and the very freshness of the roll and its writing would have aroused suspicion, for it is not easy to believe that the supposed fabricators of the document were so clever as in that age and that society to have given the script and the writing-material the appearance of antiquity, nor is it easy to believe that king Josias and his courtiers were so unsophisticated as to have been unable to distinguish new from old. It is moreover hard to believe that men should have accepted as of Mosaic authorship and of divine authority a series of new and burdensome laws if there was no tradition that Moses was the author of such a code—and the theory cannot admit such a tradition without destroying itself. What was read, however, in the newly-found document did inspire salutary fear in king Josias and his counsellors who proceeded without delay to act upon the precepts they read. It is evident that they knew of the law of Moses though they had never seen it. The words of the high-priest Helcias show that the law he had found was known by repute though it had been lost: ‘I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord’, 4 Kg 22:8. There is no parallel between a pseudepigraphical work such as Eccl is held to be and Deut. In the former, words of wisdom are put in the mouth of the wise king; in the latter are numerous laws the binding force of which would not have been acknowledged except for the belief that they derived from Moses. Moreover Deut, if composed in the 7th cent., shows a remarkably consistent effort to reproduce the atmosphere and outlook of Mosaic times. The exhortation, 7:17–19, not to fear the inhabitants of the land was meaningless in the days of Josias. And so was the repeated injunction utterly to destroy them, 7:2; 20:13, 17. Certainly the supposed authors ‘are credited with quite a fabulous refinement in their work’, Möller, 34, when they are imagined to have warned the Israelites that the extermination must be gradual ‘lest perhaps the beasts of the earth should increase upon thee’, 7:22. The aim of the authors is said to have been the result which the reformation of Josias actually achieved, namely the centralization of worship at Jerusalem. But in the account of the reform this centralization is not stressed at all and appears only incidentally, 4 Kg chh 22 and 23. The whole emphasis is on the elimination of idolatry, which had defiled even the central sanctuary of Jerusalem.

§ e Evidence is not lacking that Deut is older. Ezechias ‘destroyed the high places and broke the statues in pieces, and … kept his commandments which the Lord commanded Moses’, 4 Kg 18:4, 6. And Rabshakeh, the Assyrian, who fancied this must be displeasing to Yahweh, tauntingly asked the Israelites how they could put their trust in Yahweh: ‘Is it not he whose high places and altars Ezechias hath taken away, and hath commanded Judah, and Jerusalem: You shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem?’ v 22. This is in virtue of the law of the unity of the sanctuary in Deut 12. If it is suggested that the passage is an insertion of a Deuteronomist editor, and, of course, in a case like this, an insertion means an invention, it may be replied that if Deuteronomist editors had undertaken the revision of ancient texts in the interest of their own views, they would surely have done the work more thoroughly by way of both excision and of addition.

Further it is difficult to believe that men of the high moral and religious standard betrayed by Deut were capable of the grave deception involved in passing off regulations of their own making as possessing the authority of Moses, and worse still, of securing their acceptance on the score of a feigned divine authority and sanction. Whoever wrote Deut, he or they possessed religious God-fearing dispositions and could not have been guilty of so heinous a crime against the reverence due to the Creator. For further evidence see e.g. Möller 44 ff., Bea 110 f.

§ f The Priestly Code or P is said to have been of exilic and post-exilic origin, and to have been either the law-book read by Esdras, Neh 8, or part of that book. Its principal parts are Ex 25–31:18a; 35–40; Lev; Num 1–10:28; 15; 17–19; 25:6–31; 33–36. The same difficulty meets us here. New and grave obligations are supposed to have been accepted as of Mosaic origin without the existence of a tradition attesting such origin. Yet the new code is said to have marked ‘a reformation, one might almost say a revolution, in religious worship’, HD1281B ii 370b. On the other hand we are told that ‘it is dealing with a dead past—a mere summary composed out of old written records’, ibi1282d. It is certainly strange that a document composed to further a reformation or rather revolution in the life of the post-exilic community should be written in a style said to be marked by its ‘stiffness, artificiality and conciseness of treatment’. It is also strange that given its alleged purpose, it should devote so much space to such antiquarian information as is found in Ex 25–31 and 35–40 concerning the Ark, the Tabernacle and its furniture. The Ark was lost at the time of the Babylonian exile; and the Tabernacle is not admitted ever to have existed: ‘The attitude … to the priestly legislation … and in particular to those sections of it which deal with the sanctuary and its worship, is patent on every page of this Dictionary, and is opposed to the historicity of P’s tabernacle’, HD1283B iv 666b. This is not to attribute a lofty standard of honour to those circles anxious to produce a reformation in the service of God. And it is strange that this reforming legislation should make laws to centre round the Ark and the Tabernacle, as those of the Day of Atonement, Lev 16:2, 33, laws which accordingly could not be and never could have been observed. The same applies to the law, Lev 17:1–6, concerning the offering at the door of the Tabernacle of every ox, sheep or goat killed by any Israelite.

§ g ‘All the people wept when they heard the words of the law’, Neh 8:9. They did not weep at the hearing of something new, for no man’s conscience reproaches him with not observing obligations of which he has never heard; nor did they weep for having violated precepts, the observance of which was impossible under changed conditions. They wept because it was brought home to them on hearing the law that they had not done what they well knew they could and should have done. The argument from the non-observance of a law to its non-existence is invalid. And the argument from silence may be quite misleading. There is no explicit reference to the celebration of the Day of Atonement anywhere in the OT; but see Heb 9:7, 25, Ac 27:9. If P was written to effect the reformation it achieved, how is it that its prescriptions differ from post-exilic practice? According to P, Ex 30:13–16, half a shekel was to be given for the use of the Tabernacle; after the exile, presumably on account of the poverty of the people, the sum was fixed at the third of a shekel, Neh 10:32. After the exile the Levites began their service from the age of 20 years, Esd 3:8; how is it that in P it begins at 30, Num 4:3, and at 25, Num 8:24?

§ h The tenets of the Wellhausen school no longer hold the field as they once did. They have been attacked from many quarters and in many points, and various divergent views have been propounded to replace them. No one, however, of these new systems has achieved the popularity formerly enjoyed by the system it seeks to replace. 1284*H. H. Rowley has sketched the situation in PE1285Q (1946) 52 f.: ‘In recent years (the once normal critical views of the compilation of the Pent1286.) have been much attacked from many sides, and especially from two directly opposed sides. The one side has aimed to carry the sources back to an earlier date, while the other has aimed to carry them down to a later date. Again some scholars have questioned the existence of the once generally acknowledged sources, while others have attempted to carry the analysis further, and isolate still further sources. Never has there been so much fluidity in Pentateuchal criticism. Yet while many scholars would agree that the days of the Graf-Kuenen-Wellhausen theory are numbered, agreement ends as soon as the question what is to succeed is asked’.

1287*W. F. Albright: ‘It is sheer hypercriticism to deny the substantial Mosaic character of the Mosaic tradition’, The Archaeology of Palestine (1949) 224. See also §§ 43–6. This article is supplemented by the following account of the opinions of Catholic writers.

Some Recent Catholic Viewpoints on the Pentateuchal Question

§ i The decrees of the Biblical Commission of June 27 1906 directed the adherence of Catholic scholars to the substantial (quoad substantiam) Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. It was, therefore, within this framework that they approached the literary problems of the Pentateuch. J. Goettsberger in his Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1928, while rejecting the Wellhausen hypothesis in its essence, distinguishes between the original Pentateuch and its present form, and admits the valuable contributions of the critical school. P. Heinisch in his commentary on Genesis, 1930, defends the theory of ‘supplements’; i.e. the principal document is Mosaic, though it has been increased by inspired sizable additions (doublets) and undergone many alterations of a minor sort. We have already noted the solution suggested by Fr. Vaccari, S.J. (cf. § 46b). In a study of the same question Père Lagrange admits the existence of the documents E J P in Genesis. He believes that Moses either wrote E or put together its already existing material. He makes J also the work of Moses who inspired its composition, tracing out its broad lines to amanuenses and ultimately approving it. He considers P a later précis of the basic lines of the tradition.

§ j A greater modification in the Catholic attitude is to be noted in the recent work of J. Coppens, The Old Testament and the Critics, 1942. He tends to a broader interpretation of the Biblical Commission’s quoad substantiam than it has hitherto received. Following a suggestion of Père Lagrange in his article in R1288B 47 (1938) 48 he feels that the words can be taken in a qualitative rather than quantitative sense. Such a view would see the Pentateuch as the outcome of a lengthy literary process initiated by Moses and continued in his spirit.

§ k The most recent development in this question is the letter of the Biblical Commission to Cardinal Suhard of Jan. 16, 1948; cf. AA1289S 40 (1948) 1, 2, pp 45–8. It declares that balanced criticism and the results of allied sciences will establish beyond doubt ‘the large part and profound influence of Moses as author and legislator’—words that give an indication of how ‘Mosaic authenticity’ may now be understood. The letter also points to the fact that no one today questions the existence of sources in the Pentateuch, the fact of progressive accretion to the Mosaic laws caused by the social and religious conditions of later times—a development which appears also in the historical narratives.

It is not then difficult to understand that some Catholic scholars believe that three distinct literary strands appear in Genesis, i.e. J E P, that seem to have the character of continuous narratives, although some hesitancy is felt that this can be fully verified in the case of E and, even more so, of P.

§ l The problem of dating these sources is a vexing one, but, in general, they would explain their origin and composition more or less in the following fashion. The narratives of Genesis existed, at least in oral form, long before the activity of Moses. They were handed on by rhapsodists in oral recitation which was the normal method of transmission. Albright says he is ‘increasingly convinced that the narrative portions of the Pentateuch swarm with poetic phraseology and are strewn with reminiscences of the original verse form in which they were transmitted for centuries before being written down in prose’, JB1290L 62 (1943) 359. Recited in the evenings before the tent-fires, any notable deviation in the well-known narrative would result in a popular outcry. ‘As a rule, poetic sagas are preferable as historical sources to prose traditions concerning the same events, unless the latter are quite recent’ (1291*W. Albright, FSA1292C, 37), for both their external and internal forms are fixed.

§ m Today competent historical and literary scholarship places something more than half a millennium between the written record and the beginnings of that record; it supports the essential reliability of oral transmission for the period preceding the written documents. Naturally however there would be some variations. According to some recent Catholic scholars (cf. DB1293V (S) II, 207, Critique Biblique) the patriarchal narratives give historical facts, but adorned here and there with additions serving a doctrinal purpose, written under Inspiration and possessing the truth of the didactic form of writing. In other words, Israelitic faith not only presupposed history but interpreted it, gave it its meaning and flavour, fixed its broad lines, thus favouring an extension to the point of mingling the historical with other genres (ib. p 8). Then, too, one should take into account the poetic modifications that would naturally occur during the long centuries of oral transmission in popular circles. For these reasons the same scholars speak of the literary genre of Genesis as a ‘mixed genre’, largely historical but partly didactic and poetic, rather than historical in our strict sense of the word. This, however, does not deny the fact that the patriarchal narratives have the character of historical records.

Such then would be the nature of the sources that Moses used for his written account of primeval history and the deeds of the patriarchs. His narrative, which may be dated about 1250 b.c., is the common source of J and E in Genesis. Of the other historical sections, of which Moses was an eyewitness (Ex, Num), he was the responsible author.

§ n But for the ordinary Hebrew the written document was of secondary importance; oral recitation remained the norm of transmission. The fall of Shilo, however, Israel’s central sanctuary, and, even more so, the division of the kingdom after the death of Solomon, undoubtedly affected the historical rhapsodists. Cut off to a large extent from one another, they gradually introduced into the Mosaic text adaptations which subtly reflected the partisan preferences of their audiences. Geographical influences also played a part. The narrative underwent certain modifications in Judah and Ephraim. The narrators of Ephraim speak not of God (Yahweh), but of the Divinity (Elohim), and retain or stress those details which glorify the house of Joseph and the northern sanctuaries, while the Judaean school retains the name of Yahweh and an interest in the sacred places of the Southern Kingdom. The suppression of unfavourable details is understandable. The rhapsodists, while preserving the sense, also substituted different literary conventions recognized as such and not touching the substance of the narrative.

§ o In the ninth and eighth centuries these diverging versions were given a definite written form, which superseded oral transmission as the authentic norm. In this fashion recent Catholic scholarship would explain the origin of J and E. But behind these two documents stands the one Mosaic narrative and unity of source, not multiplicity; hence we have a twofold testimony to the truth of the narrative. They were joined together, in the fashion described in § 46b, after the collapse of the Northern Kingdom with the capture of Samaria by the Assyrians in 722 b.c., perhaps during the reign of Josias (638–609), whose efforts were directed towards both political and religious unity (cf. 4 Kg 23). After the finding of Deuteronomy (621 b.c.) there seems to have been a deuteronomistic revision of the sacred books then existing, which left Gen–Num almost intact, but joined Deuteronomy first with Jos–4 Kg, then with the other books of the Pentateuch to form an account of sacred history from the creation of the world to the collapse of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (Simon-Prad1294o, 315).

§ p The question of Deuteronomy is a more delicate one. H. Junker rightly observes (Das Buch Deuteronomium, 1933, p 14): ‘We must agree with Goettsberger who believes that in view of the present state of investigation, one cannot ask a Catholic exegete to propose a definite theory of the origin and evolution of Deuteronomy. Such a theory would only have provisional value. He would do much better were he to point out the general lines that the evolution of the book seems to have followed. The laws given by Moses were the basis on which Israel’s religious and social life developed. Moreover, in the OT religion, there existed from the beginning prophecy, which directed this development. No wonder then if there were an evolution of the law under prophetic authority’.

§ q That much of the material in Deuteronomy is old. there can be no question (cf. W. Albright, FSA1295C, 241 ff.; G. von Rad, Deuteronomische Studien, 1948; P. J. Hempel, Die Schichten des Deut., 1914, 259 ff.). That there has been an introduction of new laws and a modification and abrogation of others is equally clear. Some Catholics speak of a long and complex evolution of Deuteronomy before it reached its final form. As an example we expound briefly the origin of Deuteronomy according to H. Cazelles in his book, Le Deutéronome, 1950, p 13 f. Moses himself wrote down a certain number of concrete applications of the Decalogue. This work was continued after his death, as he had foreseen, under the authority of the Levites, the guardians of his spirit and his law. In the Yahwistic sanctuaries practical solutions of difficult cases were given (cf. Deut 33:10). Thus the Mosaic law was continually applied to new economic and social conditions, and in certain cases there grew up the practice of setting down in writing the new solutions (cf. Os 8:12). After the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 b.c., its Levites fled to Jerusalem, 2 Par 11:14, bringing with them certain collections of this law (a number of laws found in the present Deuteronomy could have had their origin only in the Northern Kingdom). These legislative texts were, like the fifth group of Proverbs (chh 25–29), gathered and compiled in the time of Ezechias (1296c 700 b.c.), and a sort of theological commentary to them was placed in the mouth of Moses, the writer of the basic laws and the inspirer of all. In this way the first edition of the book came into being. This was the law found by Helcias during the repair of the temple in 621 b.c. Eventually there came the end of Jerusalem and the exile. The second edition of Deuteronomy was published in the days of Ezechiel. It possessed the same spirit as the first, but placed more emphasis on the exile, deliverance, and sapiential literature; cf. ch 4. This edition added chh 1–4 which emphasize the conquest of Canaan, as symbol of the reconquest for which the exiles hoped. At the same time additions were made to the maledictions of 29, ch 31 was amplified, and 10:6–9 introduced into the text. Such is the solution proposed by Fr. Cazelles, salvo meliori judicio.

§ 1 When we come to P (chiefly Leviticus) the problem is even more complex. In view of certain critical arguments, some Catholic exegetes hold to a recent dating for its final composition; nevertheless they consider it Mosaic either because it is only an application to new conditions of Mosaic principles or because its basic elements are Mosaic. They observe that laws in general can receive authoritative complements and modifications; so too, they urge, for the Mosaic law under inspired prophetical or sacerdotal authority. In fact, no part of the Pentateuch was more liable to modification in the course of centuries than the ritual. It will, therefore, be of interest to see the attempt made by J. Nikel in Die Pentateuchfrage, 1921, pp 31–7, to reconcile the lawful demands of criticism with the traditional doctrine of Mosaic authorship of Leviticus.

§ s The ‘Code of Holiness’, Lev 17–26, he affirms, comes from a time when Israel was already in peaceful possession of the promised land; but it was a codification of an older law adapted to new circumstances. Because of certain points of contact it possesses with Ezechiel, it is possible that its final form was fixed during his lifetime or shortly after (p 48). In the matter of legislation on the tithes, a similar progressive adaptation occurred (p 41). If, however, some elements of the law are only mediately and indirectly Mosaic, they are, nevertheless, the applications to new conditions of the principles promulgated by Moses, and so the legislative evolution always remains organic (p 82). In his Grundriss der Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1924, Nikel says of the sacerdotal law, Lev, in general that it presents itself ‘as the condensation of the cultural life of Israel from Moses till the end of the exile; this legislation, several times codified and revised according to need, was finally collected by the priesthood’ (p 55). P. Heinisch, also, in his commentary on Leviticus, 1937, admits an evolution whose various steps he attempts to trace.

§ t In all this matter, the Catholic scholar must keep in mind the directives of the Encyclical Humani Generis. At the same time, there should be no biased censure of the exegete who, while conforming in all docility to the guidance of the ‘magisterium ecclesiasticum’, abandons a purely defensive attitude to look squarely at the difficulties raised by the theory of Wellhausen. The progress of critical studies has clearly shown that certain conclusions of the new criticism, removed from all compromise with rationalistic evolution, can, without danger and even with profit, be incorporated into Catholic science. On the other hand, a good number of independent critics no longer assign a recent date for the composition of the whole corpus of legislation in the Pentateuch; they admit the reality of the Sinaitic tradition and recognize in the law-code of the Pentateuch a Mosaic, or even pre-Mosaic, nucleus. On the one hand, one must admit that, without Moses, the law of Israel is inexplicable; on the other, that no legislator would give a law that would remain unchangeable through the centuries; cf. R1297B 45 (1936) 363–4.