1.02.01.01 The Hexateuch

I. THE HEXATEUCH. Of all the problems that concern the authorship and history of the books of the Old Testament, the most complicated and perplexing is that of the Hexateuch. This name is now given to the first six books of the Old Testament— the Pentateuch and the kindred Book of Joshua. We have not merely to answer “Yes” or “No” to the one question, “Did Moses write the Pentateuch?” A host of inquiries crowd upon us as soon as we begin to analyze the first volume of the Hebrew Bible. So elaborate are the problems that bristle round the subject that we are tempted to lose heart in our search for a path through a forest of briers like that which guarded the sleeping beauty in her enchanted palace. But this would be a mistake. Fine historical and literary inquiries must be left to the experts, who alone have the necessary equipment for the successful pursuit of them. But certain broad results have been fairly ascertained, and with these it is our duty to make ourselves acquainted if we would understand what we are reading. Nor have we to be altogether content with the unsatisfactory position of simply taking on authority what has been settled by the specialists.

Much of the subject appeals to the judgment of the general reader, and can be judged on its own merits when once its salient features have been pointed out.

1. The 0riginals.— Whatever may be said of the date of the Hexateuch as a whole, it is perfectly clear that the Book of Genesis must have been written long after the events to which it refers could have occurred. Even on the old theory that the world was created but 6000 years ago, and granting that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, he would have been giving his accounts of the Creation and the story of Adam and Eve between two and three thousand years after the things he narrated took place. We have no record whatever of the way in which any chronicles of the antiquities of the human race were preserved in primitive times. At best, then, we should have to conclude that Moses was like a modern historian who undertook to give an account of the Britons who lived on our island long before the days of Julius Caesar, without, as far as we could ascertain, possessing Caesar’s famous Commentaries or any authority from an intermediate period that we could identify or authenticate. In point of fact, we know that the creation of the world took place in an antiquity immeasurably distant from us, and we know that the origin of man must be put back many thousands of years, so that the time between the writing of Genesis, whenever it may have been composed, —the question of its date is limited to a few hundred years,— and the creation of the world, or even the origin of man, is vast beyond calculation. Is it not apparent, then, that writings such as the early chapters of Genesis cannot be put on a level with contemporary or nearly contemporary records, like the books of Kings, as equally solid grounds of historical knowledge? It is nothing to reply that God could have revealed these occurrences of an immeasurable antiquity to Moses or any other inspired writer. Nobody who believes in God can deny the possibility. But then, what evidence have we that He did so? Genesis itself does not claim such an origin, nor does any writer of the Bible attribute it to Genesis. It is a pure assumption to assert that anything of the kind occurred. The late Mr. George Smith and other Assyriologists have shown remarkable parallels between the stories in Genesis of the Creation, the garden of Eden, the Flood, etc, and mythological writings preserved in the brick libraries of Babylon. Such discoveries go to show that our familiar Bible stories represent the early idea of the Semitic race on the great question of the origin of all things. There is, however, an important difference between the Babylonian and the Hebrew narratives. In the former we meet with the various divinities of a polytheistic system, and the old legends are worked up with monstrous absurdities. In Genesis all is grave, severe, and sober, and the one and holy God is the Creator and Ruler of the universe. Here we have the religious interest of the narratives. This is the mark of their true inspiration, the inspiration that lifts them out of the follies and debasing influences of heathenism, and breathes into them great ideas concerning God’s relation to creation, and man’s sin, and God’s treatment of him in his fallen state. These are truths of profound importance, and they are taught in the opening chapters of Genesis with a clearness, a force, a sublimity, unapproached in any other literature of the world. We have no excuse for turning to the early chapters of Genesis for instruction in astronomy, geology, or the antiquities of prehistoric man, but they are of permanent interest and authority for truths which no science can discover.

2. The Patriarchs.— The case of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and his brothers, is very different. It is true they all lived some centuries before the earliest date that can be assigned to the Book of Genesis, and therefore we are compelled to read the narratives concerning them with a certain reservation of entire assent. This is a case where it is unwise to dogmatize one way or the other. We have to deal with a question of probability. It is very important to recognize that there are many statements concerning which we cannot come to absolute conclusions. The mists that hang on the horizon of history often compel us to suspend our judgment and, while not denying that things may have occurred just as they are recorded, to admit the possibility that the later writings may not entirely correspond to the actual occurrences, from which they are divided by several centimes. Still, we have here a very different case from that of the dim antiquities of the world. We stand within the period of known history in neighboring countries. The hieroglyphics of Egypt on the one hand, and the brick tablets of Babylon on the other, run side by side with the history of the Hebrew patriarchs. What light has come from the ancient monuments tends in the direction of confirming the truth of the patriarchal history.

There is some probability that Abraham’s birthplace, Ur of the Chaldees, has been identified at Mugheir on the Euphrates. The war with Chedorlaomer, described in Genesis xiv, is very clearly referred to in the monuments, though the date of it is too early for the Biblical date. It may be said that, since but a few small points have been identified, these cannot be used to authenticate every detail of the Biblical narrative. But it is a matter of some importance that on the whole the discoveries tend, as far as they go, toward the verification of that narrative. They dispel the rash assertion, which some have ventured to make, that the stories of the patriarchs, in common with the legends of early Rome and Greece, were nothing but astronomical myths, and they give us some encouragement in believing that the Hebrews had preserved genuine traditions of their ancestors. Some of us would go farther and express our strong conviction that such firm character-drawing as we have in these narratives, together with the revelation of a profound movement of Providence that runs through them all, speaks for their substantial historicity.

3. Parallel Narratives.— One of the most remarkable facts to be noted in reading the Hexateuch is the constant recurrence of parallel narratives. The same events are recorded twice, but with variations. This fact meets us on the very opening pages of Genesis.

We have two accounts of the Creation, two accounts of the Flood, and so on. When these parallel narratives are compared it is found that they have certain characteristic differences, which are preserved throughout, showing that we have here to do with two streams, which were originally separated, but which have been brought together by some later editor. The most obvious difference between them is in the use of words for God. In the one narrative we meet with the name “God” simply; in the other we read “ the Lord God,’’ i.e. in the Hebrew, Javeh, Jehovah. Thus the first account of the Creation has “God” throughout; the second has “the Lord God.’’ Then certain marked differences of style may be traced out. Thus the sections with the name “God’’ only are written in a dry, severe style, with favorite formulae, that frequently recur after the manner of a law code; but the sections with the name “the Lord” (Jehovah) have a richer vocabulary and are composed with more glow and color, allowing of poetic touches and indications of sympathy with name. Father, it may be noticed that the former sections correspond strictly to the character of the law, while the latter, although they form an integral part of the Hexateuch, are in sympathy with the spirit of the second volume, that of the Prophets, This shows that when we begin to analyze the books of the Old Testament we cannot keep entirely to the division made by the Jews in the arrangement of their canon for forming our estimate of the distinctive characters of the several parts of the sacred collection. The existence of these parallel narratives will account for what might otherwise appear to be most inexplicable discrepancies between different parts of the ancient history. The editor had two narratives before him, and in some cases he set them down side by side, while in others he took some steps toward combining them. In the former case he made no attempt at reconciling them.

They were two versions of the same incident, and he thought it would interest his readers to see them side by side. The differences which we see must have been patent to him — some of them, at all events; yet he let them stand. It is clear, then, that they did not trouble Him, and if they did not trouble him it is also clear that he did not take the narrow, pedantic view of the literalists of later times, did not suppose that exact verbal accuracy was to be looked for in his sources, but thought it well to let his readers see for themselves the different versions of the ancient narratives that had come down to his time. They are valuable to us in this way; and when we go further and discover the different tendencies of the various parts of the Hexateuch they are valuable in throwing light on the successive stages of the history of revelation. All this has to be recognized whatever date we assign to the final shaping of the work.

4. Deuteronomy.—The Book of Deuteronomy stands in a measure by itself as a section of the Hexateuch.

It is a distinct version of the law, going over much of the ground that is covered in Exodus and the intermediate books. It has a remarkable unity of treatment from beginning to end, and is characterized by certain clearly marked traits of its own. We cannot but be struck with its peculiar style, a voluminousness of language, a delight in large ethical principles, a hortatory tone— characteristics that indicate the earnest preacher rather than the cool lawgiver. These features of what we may call the Deuteronomic style reappear in Jeremiah and other writers, who were deeply influenced by this wonderful book. In these respects it differs considerably from the dry legality of Leviticus. Like the Jehovistic narratives, it has more of the prophetic temper. Then, in treating of matters of ceremonial it does not go altogether on the same lines as Leviticus. For example, throughout the Book of Deuteronomy the Levites are identified with the priests; in Leviticus they form a lower order of the ministry, only acting as attendants of the priests, and not allowed themselves to perform the holy functions. The Book of Deuteronomy should be read in connection with the period when it became known and when it influenced the Jews. A number of circumstances point to the conviction that this period was the time of Josiah’s reformation. It seems to be now fairly proved that “the book of the law” which Hilkiah the priest found in the temple was no other than our Deuteronomy (2Ki 22:8). The discovery of this book produced a profound effect, which issued in the reforms carried out by Josiah; for those reforms, as recorded in the history, are just in accordance with the precepts laid down in Deuteronomy. When it was read it came upon the king and his people with a shock of surprise.

They found, to their dismay, that they had been unwittingly disobeying its precepts. This entirely agrees with what we know of the earlier history of the kingdom. There is no indication that some of the most prominent principles of Deuteronomy had been followed hitherto, or that there had been any feeling that some of the things it most severely condemns were wrong. Thus it dwells on the importance of worship at the one central shrine, and forbids that worship at the high places which was freely practised in the days of Elijah, and even encouraged and revived by the prophet in the famous scene at Carmel.

5. Leviticus and the Law.— Although. Deuteronomy now comes last among the books of the Pentateuch, it seems to be fairly proved that the law, as we now have it in Leviticus and other parts of the Pentateuch that correspond to the character of Leviticus, is of later date. We have no indication that the elaborate system of priests and sacrifices that is found in the perfect law was adopted by the Jews before the Exile. We must not assume, however, that it was entirely a creation of that period. It was then recognized as “the law of Moses,” and it is most reasonable to suppose that it was a development of very ancient practices. Some of the laws are evidently bequeathed from primitive times; but as we now have them they are worked up in the system which was made known to the people by Ezra. From the time of Ezra we have the complete Pentateuch. A little later Joshua is added, thus making up what we now name the Hexateuch. The work comes to us with its various strata preserved, but yet rounded off and shaped into one work, the late date of the final editing of which should be recognized when we study its constituent parts.

If, then, we set ourselves to the study of the Hexateuch, in view of the complicated construction of this part of the Bible and the obscure problems of its origin and development, it would seem that our path is beset with difficulties. Instead of our beginning here, according to old custom, as with the most elementary subject, the facts of the case would rather lead us to reserve this subject for the riper powers of advanced scholarship. The moral problems, too, which overshadow this portion of Scripture demand some understanding of its history and construction before we can do justice to them. When the right perspective is obtained we can see that it is in the highest degree uncritical to judge them by any absolute standard of ethics. They must be regarded historically. In coming to a serious examination of the Hexateuch, we must approach it along the lines of its composite construction and historical development. Meanwhile, until we are able to do this, it is most important to remember that we are not in a position to pronounce any judgment either on historical or on moral difficulties. If, therefore, we can go no further, it will be much to have learned the wisdom of holding our judgment in suspense. This is not only a lesson in humility; it is really a relief to the sense of painful perplexity with which the strange things narrated, especially in Genesis and Joshua, so often oppress the reader. It might seem that the natural conclusion was that a very important part of the Bible was beyond the grasp of the ordinary reader and must be left to the interpretation of the professional scholar. But it should be recognized that a great many of the lessons of these first books of the Old Testament are easily understood and lie outside the region of historical and literary discussions.

See W. R. Smith, “The Old Testament in the Jewish Church’’; Wellhansen, “History of Israel”; Kuenen, “The Hexateuch’s Cave,” “Inspiration of the Old Testament.”