Chapter III: Part 3

"And first, for the Pentateuch. ... We read (Deut. xxxiv. 6)
concerning the sepulchre of Moses 'that no man knoweth of his
sepulchre to this day'; that is, to the day wherein those words were
written. It is therefore manifest that these words were written after
his interment. For it were a strange interpretation to say Moses spake
of his own sepulchre, though by prophecy, that it was not found to
that day wherein he was yet living." The suggestion that the last
chapter only, not the whole Pentateuch, was written later, is met by
Hobbes by reference to Gen. xii. 6 ("the Canaanite was then in the
land") and Num. xxi. 14 (citation from a book relating the acts of
Moses at the Red Sea and in Moab) and the conclusion reached that "the
five books of Moses were written after his time, though how long after
is not so manifest."

"But though Moses did not compile those books entirely, and in the
form we have them, yet he wrote all that which he is there said to
have written: as, for example, the volume of the Law" contained "as it
seemeth" in Deut. xi.-xxvii, "and this is that Law which ... having
been lost, was long time after found again by Hilkiah and sent to King
Josias (2 Kings xxii. 8)."

The books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel are proved much later than
the times recorded in them by the numerous passages which speak of
customs, conditions, &c., remaining "unto this day," and _Judges_ in
particular by xviii. 30, "where it said that 'Jonathan and his sons
were priests to the tribe of Dan, until the day of the captivity of
the land.'"

As for _Kings_ and _Chronicles_, "besides the places which mention
such monuments as, the writer saith, remained till his own days"
(Hobbes here cites thirteen from Kings, two from Chron.), "it is
argument sufficient that they were written after the captivity in
Babylon, that the history of them is continued till that time. For the
facts registered are always more ancient than the register; and much
more ancient than such books as make mention of and quote the
register, as these books do in divers places."

Ezra and Nehemiah were written after, Esther during, or after, the
captivity; Job, which is not a history but a philosophical poem, at an
uncertain date. The Psalms were written mostly by David, but "some of
them after the return from the captivity, as the 137th and 126th,
whereby it is manifest that the psalter was compiled and put into the
form it now hath, after the return of the Jews from Babylon." The
compilation of Proverbs is later than any of those whose proverbs are
therein contained; but Ecclesiastes and Canticles are wholly Solomon's
except the titles. There is little noticeable in Hobbes' dating of the
prophets, though he considers it "not apparent" whether Amos wrote, as
well as composed, his prophecy, or whether Jeremiah and the other
prophets of the time of Josiah and Ezekiel, Daniel, Haggai and
Zechariah, who lived in the captivity, _edited_ the prophecies
ascribed to them. He concludes: "But considering the inscriptions, or
titles of their books, it is manifest enough that the whole Scripture
of the Old Testament was set forth in the form we have it after the
return of the Jews from their captivity in Babylon and before the time
of Ptolemaeus Philadelphus."

Except in strangely making Zephaniah contemporary with Isaiah, Hobbes' conclusions, in so far as they differ from the traditional views, have been confirmed by the more thorough criticism of subsequent scholars. But apart from the special conclusions, the opening and closing considerations contain clear and important statements which still hold good. No fresh discoveries since the time of Hobbes have furnished any "testimony of other history" to the origin of the books of the Old Testament: this must still be determined by the statements and internal evidence of the Old Testament itself, and a deeper criticism has given to the final consideration that the Old Testament received its present form _after_ the Exile a far greater significance than Hobbes perhaps guessed.

But the limitations of Hobbes' literary criticism judged from our present standpoint are great. The considerations from which he acutely and accurately draws far-reaching and important conclusions might be suggested by a very superficial examination of the literature; they involve, for example, no special philological knowledge. The effect of a deeper criticism has been (a) to give a more powerful support to some of Hobbes' conclusions; (b) to show that works (e.g. Ecclesiastes) whose traditional antiquity is left unquestioned by him are in reality of far more recent origin; (c) to eliminate the earlier sources or elements in the writings which Hobbes was content to date mainly or as a whole by their latest elements (e.g. _Pentateuch, Judges, Kings_), and thus to give to these earlier sources an historical value higher than that which would be safely attributed to them as indistinguishable parts of a late compilation.

Hobbes argues in the case of the _Pentateuch_ that two authors are distinguishable--Moses and a much later compiler and editor. Spinoza, whose conclusions in his _Tractatus theologicopoliticus_ (1671), c. viii. ix., had in general much in common with Hobbes, drew attention in particular to the confused mixture of law and narrative in the Pentateuch, the occurrence of duplicate narratives and chronological incongruities. Father Simon in his _Histoire critique du Vieux Testament_ (1682) also argues that the Pentateuch is the work of more than one author, and makes an important advance towards a systematic analysis of the separate elements by observing that the style varies, being sometimes very curt and sometimes very copious "although the variety of the matter does not require it." But none of these makes any attempt to carry through a continuous analysis.

Astruc.

The first attempt of this kind is that of a French Catholic physician, Jean Astruc. In a work published anonymously in 1753 under the title of _Conjectures sur les memoires originaux dont il paroit que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre de la Genese_, he argued that in Genesis and Ex. i. ii. Moses had used different documents, and that of these the two chief were distinguished by their use of different divine names--Elohim and Yahweh; by the use of this clue he gave a detailed analysis of the passages belonging to the several documents. Astruc's criteria were too slight to give to all the details of his analysis anything approaching a final analysis; but later criticism has shown that his criteria, so far as they went, were valid, and his results, broadly speaking, sound though incomplete: and, moreover, they have abundantly justified his really important fundamental theory that the documents used by the compiler of the _Pentateuch_ have been incorporated so much as they lay before him that we can get behind the compiler to the earlier sources and thus push back the evidence of much of the Pentateuch beyond the date of its compilation to the earlier date of the sources. In identifying the compiler with Moses, Astruc failed to profit from some of his predecessors: and the fact that he held to the traditional (Mosaic) origin of the Pentateuch may have prevented him from seeing the similar facts which would have led him to continue his analysis into the remaining books of the Pentateuch.

For subsequent developments, and the fruitful results of documentary analysis as applied to the Pentateuch and other composite books, which cannot be dealt with in any detail here, reference must be made to the special articles on the books of the Old Testament.

Lowth.

The year of the publication of Astruc's book saw also the publication of Bishop Lowth's _De sacra poesi Hebraeorum_; later Lowth published a new translation of Isaiah with notes (1778). Lowth's contribution to a more critical appreciation of the Old Testament lies in his perception of the nature and significance of parallelism in Hebrew poetry, in his discernment of the extent to which the prophetical books are poetical in form, and in his treatment of the Old Testament as the expression of the thought and emotions of a people--in a word, as _literature_. Both Lowth's works were translated and became influential in Germany.

Eichhorn.

In spite of these earlier achievements, it is J.G. Eichhorn who has, not without reason, been termed the "founder of modern Old Testament criticism." Certainly the publication of his _Einleitung_ (_Introduction to the Old Testament_), in 1780-1783, is a landmark in the history of Old Testament criticism. An intimate friend of Herder, himself keenly interested in literature, he naturally enough treats the Old Testament as literature--like Lowth, but more thoroughly; and, as an Oriental scholar, he treats it as an Oriental literature. In both respects he was to be widely followed. His _Introduction_, consisting of three closely packed volumes dealing with textual as well as literary criticism, is the first comprehensive treatment of the entire Old Testament as literature. Much of the voluminous detailed work in this and other works is naturally enough provisional, but in the _Introduction_ there emerge most of the broad conclusions of literary criticism (sometimes incomplete) which, after more than a century of keen examination by scholars unwilling to admit them, have passed by more or less general consent into the number of historical certainties or high probabilities. With his wide linguistic knowledge Eichhorn perceived that the language alone (though he also adduces other considerations) betrays the late origin of _Ecclesiastes_, which he places in the Persian Period (538-332 B.C.): _Canticles_, too, preserves linguistic features which are not of the Solomonic age. He analyses significant stylistic peculiarities such as occur, e.g., in _Isaiah_ xxiv.-xxvii. For various reasons (here following Koppe, who just previously in additions to his translation of Lowth's _Isaiah_ had shown himself the pioneer of the higher criticism of the book of Isaiah) he argues that "in our _Isaiah_ are many oracles not the work of this prophet." In other directions the still powerful influence of tradition affects Eichhorn. He maintains the exilic origin of parts of _Daniel_, though he is convinced (here again in part by language) of the later origin of other parts. His Pentateuchal criticism is limited by the tradition of Mosaic authorship: but even within these limits he achieves much. He carries through, as Astruc had done, the analysis of _Genesis_ into (primarily) two documents; he draws the distinction between the Priests' Code, of the middle books of the Pentateuch, and _Deuteronomy_, the people's law book; and admits that even the books that follow Genesis consist of different documents, many incomplete and fragmentary (whence the theory became known as the "Fragment-hypothesis"), but all the work of Moses and some of his contemporaries.

Other literary critics of the same period or a little later are Alex. Geddes, a Scottish Catholic priest, who projected, and in part carried out (1792-1800), a critically annotated new translation of the Old Testament, and argued therein that the Pentateuch ultimately rests on a variety of sources partly written, partly oral, but was compiled in Canaan probably in the reign of Solomon; K.D. Ilgen, the discoverer (1798) that there were two distinct documents in Genesis using the divine name Elohim, and consequently that there were _three_ main sources in the books, not two, as Astruc and Eichhorn had conjectured; and J.S. Vater, the elaborator of the "Fragment-hypothesis."

De Wette.

But the next distinct stage is reached when we come to De Wette, whose contributions to Biblical learning were many and varied, but who was pre-eminent in _historical criticism_. He carried criticism beyond literary analysis and literary appreciation to the task of determining the worth of the documents as records, the validity of the evidence. His peculiar qualities were conspicuous in his early and exceedingly influential work--the _Beitraege zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament_ (1806-1807). In the introduction to vol. ii. he carefully analyses the principles of sound historical method and the essentials of a trustworthy historical record. These principles he applied to the Old Testament, firstly to the _Books of Chronicles_, and then to the Pentateuch. The untrustworthiness of _Chronicles_--briefly admitted by Luther--he proved in detail, and so cleared the way for that truer view of the history and religion of Israel which the treatment of _Chronicles_ as a trustworthy record of the past hopelessly obscured. In the criticism of the Pentateuch his most influential and enduring contributions to criticism are his proof that _Deuteronomy_ is a work of the 7th century B.C., and his insistence that the theory of the Mosaic origin of all the institutions described in the Pentateuch is incompatible with the history of Israel as described in the historical books, _Judges_, _Samuel_ and _Kings_.

Ewald.

Strong in historical criticism, De Wette was weak in historical construction. But what he failed to give, Ewald supplied, and if more of De Wette's than of Ewald's work still stands to-day, that is but an illustration of the melancholy fact that in history negative criticism is surer than positive construction. But Ewald's _History of the People of Israel_ (1843-1859) was the first great attempt to synthesize the results of criticism and to present the history of Israel as a great reality of the past. By the force of his wide learning and even more of his personality, Ewald exercised for long an all-pervading and almost irresistible influence. He closes one epoch of Old Testament criticism; by his influence he retards the development of the next. Before passing to the new epoch it must suffice to make a simple reference to the philological work of Gesenius and Ewald, which assisted a sounder exegesis and so secured for later criticism a more stable basis.

Vatke; Reuss.

The next stage brings us to the critical theories or conclusions which at first gradually and then rapidly, in spite of the keenest criticisms directed against them both by those who clung more or less completely to tradition and by the representatives of the earlier critical school, gained increasing acceptance, until to-day they dominate Old Testament study. The historico-critical starting-point of the movement was really furnished by De Wette: but it was Vatke who, in his _Biblische Theologie wissenschaftlich dargestellt_ (1835), first brought out its essential character. The fundamental peculiarity of the movement lies in the fact that it is a criticism of what is supreme in Israel--its religion, and that it has rendered possible a true appreciation of this by showing that, like all living and life-giving systems of thought, belief and practice, the religion of Israel was subject to development. It seized on the prophetic element, and not the ceremonial, as containing what is essential and unique in the religion of Israel. In literary criticism its fundamental thesis, stated independently of Vatke and in the same year by George in _Die aelteren juedischen Feste_, and in a measure anticipated by Reuss, who in 1832 was maintaining in his academical lectures that the prophets were older than the Law and the Psalms more recent than both, is that the chronological order of the three main sources of the Hexateuch is (1) the prophetic narratives (JE), (2) Deuteronomy, (3) the Priestly Code (P), the last being post-exilic. This entirely reversed the prevailing view that P with its exact details and developed ceremonial and sacerdotal system was at once the earliest portion of the Pentateuch and the _Grundschrift_ or foundation of the whole--a view that was maintained by Ewald and, though with very important modifications, to the last by A. Dillmann (d. 1894). Inherent in this view of religious development and the new critical position were far-reaching changes in the literary, historical and religious criticism of the Old Testament: these have been gradually rendered clear as the fundamental positions on which they rest have been secured by the manifold work of two generations of scholars.

Graf; Kuenen; Wellhausen; Colenso.

Nearly a generation passed before Vatke's point of view gained any considerable number of adherents. This is significant. In part it may fairly be attributed to the retarding influence of the school of Ewald, but in large part also to the fact that Vatke, a pupil of Hegel, had developed his theory on _a priori_ grounds in accordance with the principles of Hegel's philosophy of history. It was only after a fresh and keener observation of _facts_ that the new theory made rapid progress. For that, when it came, much was due to the work of Graf (a pupil of Reuss, whose _Geschichtliche Buecher des Alten Testaments_ appeared in 1866); to the Dutch scholar Kuenen, who, starting from the earlier criticism, came over to the new, made it the basis of his _Religion of Israel_ (1869-1870), a masterly work and a model of sound method, and continued to support it by a long series of critical essays in the _Theologisch Tijdschrift_; and to Wellhausen, who displayed an unrivalled combination of grasp of details and power of historical construction: his _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_ was published in 1878 and translated into English in 1885; the history itself, _Israelitische u. juedische Geschichte_, followed twenty years later, after much further critical work had been done in the meantime. Not a little also was due to Colenso (_The Pentateuch ... critically examined_, pt. i., 1862), who, though he never entirely accepted the new position, contributed by his searching analysis of the unreality of P's narrative to the formation (for example, in the mind of Kuenen) or ratification of the judgment on that work which is fundamental to the general theory.

This sketch of the critical movement has now been brought down to the point at which the comprehensive conclusions which still dominate Old Testament study gained clear expression and were shown to be drawn from the observation of a large body of facts. It does not fall within the scope of this article to examine the validity of these conclusions, nor even to notice the various subsidiary or consequential conclusions. Nor again is it possible to survey the more special developments of literary criticism which have later emerged, amongst which one of the most important has been the radical examination of the prophetic writings introduced and developed by (amongst others) Stade, Wellhausen, Duhm, Cheyne, Marti.[22] The starting-point of this newer criticism of the prophets is the clearer practical recognition of the fact that all pre-exilic prophecy has come down to us in the works of post-exilic editors, and that for the old statement of the problem of the prophetic books--What prophecies or elements in Isaiah, Jeremiah and the rest are later than these prophets?--is to be substituted the new critical question--From these post-exilic collections how are the pre-exilic elements to be extracted? Bound up with this question of literary criticism is the very important question of the origin and development of the Messianic idea.

But two things, the extent of the influence of criticism and the relation of archaeology and criticism, yet remain for consideration, in the course of which it will be possible just to indicate some other problems awaiting solution.

Influence of Criticism.

It is one thing for scholars to reach conclusions: it is another for these conclusions to exercise a wide influence in the Churches and over general culture. In the 16th century we find _obiter dicta_ of the Reformers challenging traditional opinions on the origin and character of the Old Testament; in the 17th century, among certain isolated scholars, elementary critical surveys of the whole field, which exercised, however, no extensive influence. Nor was it till late in the 18th century that criticism seriously challenged the dominance of the Protestant scholastic treatment of the Old Testament on the one hand, and the rough and ready, uncritical explanations or depreciations of the Rationalists on the other. But Eichhorn's _Introduction_ appealed to more than technical scholars: its influence was great, and from that time forward criticism gradually or even rapidly extended its sway in Germany. Very different was the case in England; after Geddes and Lowth, at the close of the 18th, till far down into the 19th century, the attitude even of scholars (with rare exceptions) was hostile to critical developments, and no independent critical work was done. Pusey indeed studied under Eichhorn, and in his _Historical Enquiry into the probable causes of the Rationalist Character lately predominant in German Theology_ (1828-1830) speaks sympathetically of the attitude of the Reformers on the question of Scripture and in condemnation of the later Protestant scholastic doctrine; but even in this book he shows no receptivity for any of the actual critical conclusions of Eichhorn and his successors, and subsequently threw the weight of his learning against critical conclusions--notably in his _Commentary on Daniel_ (1864). Dean Stanley owed something to Ewald and spoke warmly of him, but the Preface to the _History of the Jewish Church_ in which he does so bears eloquent testimony to the general attitude towards Old Testament criticism in 1862, of which we have further proof in the almost unanimous disapprobation and far-spread horror with which Colenso's _Pentateuch_, pt. i., was met on its publication in the same year.

From 1869 T.K. Cheyne worked indefatigably as a resourceful pioneer, but for many years, in view of the prevailing temper, with "extreme self-suppression" and "willingness to concede to tradition all that could with any plausibility be conceded." (Cheyne, _Origin of the Psalter_, p. 15); more especially is his influence observable after 1890, when he published his Bampton Lectures, the _Origin of the Psalter_, a work of vast learning and keen penetration, without restraint on the freedom of his judgment--always stimulating to students and fellow-workers, though by no means always carrying large numbers with him. From about 1880 the prevailing temper had changed; within a decade of this date the change had become great; since then the influence of Old Testament criticism has grown with increased acceleration. The change in the former period with regard to a single point, which is however typical of many, is briefly summed up by Dr Cheyne: "In 1880 it was still a heresy to accept with all its consequences the plurality of authorship of the Book of Isaiah; in 1890 to a growing school of church-students this has become an indubitable fact" (_Origin of the Psalter_, xv.). By 1906 this plurality of authorship had become almost a commonplace of the market. Many, particularly of late, have contributed to the wide distribution, if not of the critical spirit itself, yet at least of a knowledge of its conclusions. To two only of the most influential is it possible to make more definite reference--to W. Robertson Smith and S.R. Driver. From 1875 onwards Smith contributed to the 9th edition of the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ a long series of important articles, which, together with the articles of Cheyne, Wellhausen and others, made that work an important factor in the change which was to pass over English thought in regard to the Bible; in 1878, by his pleadings in the trial for heresy brought against him on the ground of these articles, he turned a personal defeat in the immediate issue into a notable victory for the cause which led to his condemnation; and subsequently (in 1880), in two series of lectures, afterwards published[23] and widely read, he gave a brilliant, and, as it proved, to a rapidly increasing number a convincing exposition of the criticism of the literature, history and religion of Israel, which was already represented in Germany by Wellhausen and in Holland by Kuenen. In 1891 Dr Driver published his _Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament_ (6th ed., 1897); less popular in form than Smith's lectures, it was a more systematic and comprehensive survey of the whole field of the literary criticism of the Old Testament. The position of the author as regius professor of Hebrew at Oxford and canon of Christ Church in succession to Pusey, and his well-established reputation as a profound Hebrew scholar, commanded wide attention; the qualities of the book itself--its marked sobriety, its careful discrimination between the differing degrees of probability attaching to various conclusions and suggestions, and in general its soundness of method--rapidly extended the understanding of what Old Testament criticism is and commanded acceptance of the well-established conclusions.

No less rapid has been the change in America during the same period, nor less numerous the scholars well equipped to pursue the detailed investigation involved in critical study or those who have shown ability in popular presentations of the critical standpoint.[24] Pre-eminent amongst these is C.A. Briggs, whose influence has been due in part to a large and varied body of work (_Biblical Study_, 1883, and many articles and volumes since) and in part to his organization of united critical, international and interconfessional labour, the chief fruits of which have been the _Hebrew Lexicon_ (based on Gesenius, and edited by F. Brown, one of the most eminent of American scholars, S.R. Driver and himself), and the _International Critical Commentary_. Other important works in which English and American scholars have co-operated are the _Encyclopaedia Biblica_ (1899-1903) and Hastings' _Bible Dictionary_ (1898-1904)--the latter less radical, but yet on the whole based on acceptance of the fundamental positions of Vatke, Graf, Wellhausen. Between either of these and Smith's _Dictionary of the Bible_ (1863) yawns a great gulf. Space forbids any attempt to sketch here the special growth of criticism in other countries, such as France, where the brilliant genius of Renan was in part devoted to the Old Testament, or within the Roman Catholic Church, which possesses in Pere Lagrange, for example, a deservedly influential critical scholar, and in the _Revue Biblique_ an organ which devotes much attention to the critical study of the Old Testament.

Rapid and extensive as has been the spread of critical methods, there have not been lacking _anticritica_. Many of these have been not only apologetic, but unscholarly; that is, however, not the case with all. In Dr James Orr's learned work, _The Problem of the Old Testament considered with reference to Recent Criticism_ (1906), the author's chief aim is to prove insecure the fundamental positions of the now dominant school of criticism.

In view of extensive misconception occasioned by many of these _anticritica_, it needs to be pointed out that terms like "criticism," "higher criticism," "critics" are often loosely used: criticism is a method, its results are many. Again, many of the results or conclusions of criticism are mutually independent, while others are interrelated and depend for their validity on the validity of others. For example, among the generally or largely accepted critical conclusions are these: (1) Moses is not the author of the whole Pentateuch; (2) Isaiah is not the author of Is. xl.-lxvi.; (3) the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century B.C.; (4) the Priestly Code is post-exilic; (5) most of the Psalms are post-exilic. Now 1, 2, 3 are absolutely independent--if 1 were proved false, 2 and 3 would still stand; and so with 2 and 3; so also 2 and 3 could be proved false without in any way affecting the validity of 4. On the other hand, if 1 were disproved, 4 would immediately fall through, and the strength of 5 would be weakened (as it would also by the disproof of 2), because the argument for the date of many Psalms is derived from religious ideas and the significance of these varies greatly according as the Priestly Code is held to be early or late. In view of the number of critical conclusions and the mutual independence of many of them, "higher criticism" can only be overthrown by proving the application of criticism to the Old Testament to be in itself unlawful, or else by proving the falseness or inconclusiveness of all its mutually independent judgments one by one. On examination, the authors of _anticritica_ are generally found to disown, tacitly or openly, the first of these alternatives; for example, Prof. Sayce, who frequently takes the field against the "higher criticism," and denies, without, however, disproving, the validity of the literary analysis of the Hexateuch, nevertheless himself asserts that "no one can study the Pentateuch ... without perceiving that it is a compilation, and that its author, or authors, has made use of a large variety of older materials," and that "it has probably received its final shape at the hands of Ezra" (_Early History of the Hebrews_, 129 and 134). This is significant enough; Prof. Sayce, the most brilliant and distinguished of the "anti-critics," does not really reoccupy the position of the "able and pious men" of the mid-19th century, to whom "even to speak of any portion of the Bible as a history" was "an outrage upon religion" (Stanley, _Jewish Church_, Preface); these may still have pious, but they have no longer scholarly successors. Prof. Sayce travels farther back, it is true, but on critical lines: he abandons the Pentateuchal criticism of the 20th century, to reoccupy the critical position of Hobbes, Spinoza and Simon in the 17th century--whether reasonably or not must here be left an open question.

Archeology and Criticism.

Briefly, in conclusion, it remains to consider the relation of Archaeology to Criticism, partly because it is frequently asserted in the loose language just discussed that Archaeology has overthrown Criticism, or in particular the "higher criticism," and partly because Archaeology has stimulated and forced to the front certain important critical questions.

More especially since the middle of the 19th century the decipherment of Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions and systematic excavation in Palestine and other parts of the East have supplied a multitude of new facts bearing more or less directly on the Old Testament. What has been the general effect of these new facts on traditional theories or critical conclusions?

(1) _Literary Criticism._--No discovery has yielded any direct testimony as to the authorship of any book of the Bible, or as to the mode or date of its composition. Any documentary analysis of the Pentateuch may be right or wrong; but archaeology contributes nothing either one way or another as to the answer. On the other hand, archaeology has in some cases greatly strengthened the critical judgment that certain writings (e.g. _Daniel_, the story of Joseph in _Genesis_) are not contemporary with the events described.

(2) _Historical Criticism._--Here the gain has been more direct; e.g. the Assyrian inscriptions have furnished independent evidence of the relations of certain Hebrew kings (Ahab, Jehu, Ahaz) with the Assyrians, and thus supported more or less completely the evidence of the Old Testament on these points: they have also served to clear up in part the confused chronology of the Hebrews as given in the books of _Kings_. But above all archaeology has immensely increased our knowledge of the nations among which Israel was placed, and of the political powers which from time to time held Palestine in subjection. In this way archaeology has greatly helped to bring the history of Israel into relation with the history of the ancient East, and in so doing has raised important questions as to the origin of Hebrew culture. For example, the recent discovery of the Code of Khammurabi, which contains some remarkable resemblances to the Pentateuchal codes, raises the question of the relation of Hebrew to Babylonian law. On the other hand, there are certain great historical questions which have been greatly affected by criticism, but on which archaeology has hitherto shed no light. For example, much as archaeology has increased our knowledge of the conditions obtaining in Palestine before the Hebrew invasion, it has so far contributed nothing to our knowledge of the Hebrew nation before that time beyond the statement in the now famous stele of Merenptah (Mineptah) (c. 1270 B.C.), discovered in 1896, "Ysirael is desolated, its seed is not," and a few possible but vague and uncertain allusions to particular tribes. It has contributed nothing whatsoever to our knowledge of any Hebrew individual of this period,[25] and consequently what elements of history underlie the stories in Genesis, in so far as they relate to the Hebrew patriarchs, must still be determined, if at all, by a critical study of the Old Testament. The story in Gen. xiv. is no exception to this statement: archaeology has made probable the historic reality of Chedorlaomer, which some critics had previously divined; it has not proved the historical reality of the patriarch Abraham or the part played by him in the story, which some critics, whether rightly or wrongly, had questioned. The Dutch scholar Kosters called in question the return of the Jews in the days of Cyrus; his view, adopted by many, has hardly obtained, as yet at all events, the weight of critical judgment: here again, unfortunately, archaeology at present is silent.

(3) _Criticism of Religion._--Here, perhaps, archaeology has contributed most new material, with the result that religious terms, ideas, institutions, once supposed to be peculiar to Israel, are now seen to be common to them and other nations; in some cases, moreover, priority clearly does not lie with the Hebrews, as, for example, in the case of the materials (as distinct from the spirit in which they are worked up) of the stories of Creation and the Flood. Of late, too, it has been much argued, and often somewhat confidently maintained, that Hebrew monotheism is derivative from Babylonian monotheism.

This and similar questions, leading up to the ultimate and supreme question--Wherein does lie the uniqueness of Israel's religion?--are among those which will require in the future renewed examination in the light of a critical study alike of the Old Testament and of all the relevant material furnished by archaeology. Archaeology has not yet found the key to every unopened door; but it has already done enough to justify the surmise that if criticism had not already disintegrated the traditional theories of the Old Testament, archaeology in the latter half of the 19th century would itself have initiated the process.

LITERATURE.--Much of the details and results of criticism and the
special literature will be found in the articles in the present work
on the several books of the Old Testament. To the works already
mentioned we may add L. Diestel, _Geschichte des Alten Testaments in
der Christlichen Kirche_ (1869); C.A. Briggs, _General Introduction to
the Study of Holy Scripture_ (1889); G.A. Smith, _Modern Criticism and
the Preaching of the Old Testament_ (1901)--these for the history of
Criticism (or more generally of Old Testament study); T.K. Cheyne,
_Founders of Old Testament Criticism_ (pp. 1-247, biographical
sketches of critical scholars since the middle of the 18th century;
pp. 248-372, criticism of Driver's _Introduction_). As already
indicated, the exposition of Literary Criticism in English is Driver's
_Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament_. For the general
principles of Historical Criticism see Ch. V. Langlois and Ch.
Seignobos, _Introduction to the Study of History_ (Eng. trans., 1898),
with which it is interesting to compare De Wette's brief discussion
referred to in the article. (G. B. G.*)

5. _Old Testament Chronology._

A sense of the importance of a fixed standard of chronology was only acquired gradually in the history of the world. Nations in a primitive state of civilization were not, and are not, conscious of the need. When the need began to be felt events were probably at first dated by the regnal years of kings; the reigns of successive kings were then arranged in order, and grouped, if necessary, in dynasties, and thus a fixed standard was gradually constructed. Particular states also not unfrequently introduced fixed eras, which obtained a more or less extensive currency, as the era of the first Olympiad (776 B.C.), of the foundation of Rome (753 B.C.), and of the Seleucidae at Antioch (312 B.C.), which is followed by the Jewish author of the first book of Maccabees. Some of the earliest documents which we possess are dated by the year in which some noticeable event took place, as in contract-tablets of the age of Sargon of Agade (Akkad) (3800 B.C., or, according to other authorities, 2800 B.C.), "In the year in which Sargon conquered the land of Amurru [the Amorites]"; or, "In the year in which Samsu-ditana [c. 1950 B.C.] made the statue of Marduk": Is. vi. 1 ("In the year of King Uzziah's death"), xiv. 28, xx. 1, are examples of this method of dating found even in the Old Testament. In process of time, however, the custom of dating by the regnal year of the king became general. The Babylonians and Assyrians were probably the first to construct and employ a fixed chronological standard; and the numerous contract-tablets, and list of kings and yearly officials, discovered within recent years, afford striking evidence of the precision with which they noted chronological details. Biblical chronology is, unfortunately, in many respects uncertain. Prior to the establishment of the monarchy the conditions for securing an exact and consecutive chronology did not exist; the dates in the earlier period of the history, though apparently in many cases precise, being in fact added long after the events described, and often (as will appear below) resting upon an artificial basis, so that the precision is in reality illusory. And after the establishment of the monarchy, though the conditions for an accurate chronology now existed, errors by some means or other found their way into the figures; so that the dates, as we now have them, are in many cases at fault by as much as two to three decades of years. The _exact_ dates of events in Hebrew history can be determined only when the figures given in the Old Testament, can be checked and, if necessary, corrected by the contemporary monuments of Assyria and Babylonia, or (as in the post-exilic period) by the knowledge which we independently possess of the chronology of the Persian kings. In the following parts of this article the chronological character of each successive period of the Old Testament history will be considered and explained as far as the limits of space at the writer's disposal permit.

1. _From the Creation of Man to the Exodus._--In the whole of this period the chronology, in so far as it consists of definite figures, depends upon that part of the Pentateuch which is called by critics the "Priestly Narrative." The figures are in most, if not in all cases artificial, though the means now fail us of determining upon what principles they were calculated. It is also to be noted that in the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch, and in the LXX., the figures, especially in the period from the Creation to the birth of Abraham, differ considerably from those given in the Hebrew, yielding in Sam. a lower, but in the LXX. a much higher total. The following tables will make the details clear:--

(1) _From the Creation of Man to the Flood_ (Gen. v. and vii. 11).

+--------------------------+-----------------------------+
| |Age of each at birth of next.|
| +---------+---------+---------+
| | Heb. | Sam. | LXX. |
+--------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Adam (930) | 130 | 130 | 230 |
| Seth (912) | 105 | 105 | 205 |
| Enosh (905) | 90 | 90 | 190 |
| Kenan (910) | 70 | 70 | 170 |
| Mahalalel (895) | 65 | 65 | 165 |
| Jared (962) | 162 | 62 | 162 |
| Enoch (365) | 65 | 65 | 165 |
| Methuselah (969) | 187 | 67 | 187[26]|
| Lamech (777) | 182 | 53 | 188 |
| Noah (950); age at Flood | 600 | 600 | 600 |
| +---------+---------+---------+
| Total from the Creation | 1656 | 1307 | 2262 |
| of Man to the Flood | | | |
+--------------------------+---------+---------+---------+

The figures in parentheses indicate the entire ages assigned to the several patriarchs; these are generally the same in the three texts. The Sam., however, it will be noticed, makes in three cases the father's age at the birth of his eldest son less than it is in the Heb. text, while the LXX. makes it in several cases as much as 100 years higher, the general result of these differences being that the total in the Sam. is 349 years less than in the Heb., while in the LXX. it is 606 years more. The names, it need hardly be remarked, belong to the prehistoric period, and equally with the figures are destitute of historical value.

(2) _From the Flood to the Call of Abraham_ (Gen. xi.).

+---------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| | Age of each at birth of next. |
| +----------+----------+----------+
| | Heb. | Sam. | LXX. |
+---------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| Arphaxad (438)[27] | 35[28] | 135 | 135 |
| Cainan (460) [cf. Luke iii. 27] | .. | .. | 130 |
| Shelah (433) | 30 | 130 | 130 |
| Eber (464) | 34 | 134 | 134 |
| Peleg (239) | 30 | 130 | 130 |
| Reu (239) | 32 | 132 | 132 |
| Serug (230) | 30 | 130 | 130 |
| Nahor (148) | 29 | 79 | 79 |
| Terah (205) | 70 | 70 | 70 |
| Abraham (175); age at Call | | | |
| (Gen. xii. 4) | 75 | 75 | 75 |
| +----------+----------+----------+
| Total from the Flood to | 365 | 1015 | 1145 |
| the Call of Abraham. | | | |
+---------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+

The variations are analogous to those under (1), except that here the birth-years of the patriarchs in both Sam. and LXX. differ more consistently in one direction, being, viz., almost uniformly higher by 100 years. It has been much debated, in both cases, which of the three texts preserves the original figures. In (2) it is generally agreed that the Heb. does this, the figures in Sam. and LXX. having been arbitrarily increased for the purpose of lengthening the entire period. The majority of scholars hold the same view in regard also to (1); but Dillmann gives here the preference to the figures of the Sam. The figures, of course, in no case possess historical value: accepting even Ussher's date of the Exodus, 1491 B.C., which is earlier than is probable, we should obtain from them for the creation of man 4157 B.C., or (LXX.) 5328,[29] and for the confusion of tongues, which, according to Gen. xi. 1-9, immediately followed the Flood, 2501 B.C., or (LXX.) 3066 B.C. But the monuments of Egypt and Babylonia make it certain that man must have appeared upon the earth long before either 4157 B.C. or 5328 B.C.; and numerous inscriptions, written in three distinct languages--Egyptian, Sumerian and Babylonian--are preserved dating from an age considerably earlier than either 2501 B.C. or 3066 B.C.[30] The figures of Gen. v. and xi. thus merely indicate the manner in which the author of the Priestly Narrative--and probably to some extent tradition before him--pictured the course of these early ages of the world's history. The ages assigned to the several patriarchs (except Enoch) in Gen. v. are much greater than those assigned to the patriarchs mentioned in Gen. xi., and similarly the ages in Gen. xi. 10-18 are higher than those in Gen. xi. 19-26; it is thus a collateral aim of the author to exemplify the supposed gradual diminution in the normal years of human life.

The Babylonians, according to Berossus, supposed that there were ten
antediluvian kings, who they declared had reigned for the portentous
period of 432,000 years: 432,000 years, however, it has been
ingeniously pointed out by Oppert (_Gott. Gel. Nachrichten_, 1877, p.
205 ff.) = 86,400 _lustra_, while 1656 years (the Heb. date of the
Flood) = 86,400 _weeks_ (1656 = 72 x 23; and 23 years being = 8395
days + 5 intercalary days = 8400 days = 1200 weeks); and hence the
inference has been drawn that the two periods have in some way been
developed from a common basis, the Hebrews taking as their unit a
week, where the Babylonians took a _lustrum_ of 5 years.

(3) _From the Call of Abraham to the Exodus._

From the Call of Abraham to the birth of Isaac
(Abraham being then aged 100, Gen. xxi. 5). 25 years
Age of Isaac at the birth of Esau and Jacob
(Gen. xxv. 26) 60 "
Age of Jacob when he went down into Egypt
(Gen. xlvii. 9) 130 "
----
The period of the Patriarchs' sojourn in Canaan
was thus 215 "
But the period of the Israelites' sojourn in Egypt,
according to Ex. xii. 40, 41, was 430 "

We thus get--

From the Call of Abraham to the Exodus (Heb. text)
215 + 430 = 645 years
From the Flood to the Call of Abraham (Heb. text) 365 "
From the Creation of Man to the Flood (Heb. text) 1656 "
----
From the Creation of Man to the Exodus (Heb. text) 2666 "

On these figures the following remarks may be made:--(i.) In Genesis the chronology of the Priestly Narrative ("P") is not consistent with the chronology of the other parts of the book ("JE"). Three or four illustrations will suffice: (a) The author of Gen. xii. 10-20 evidently pictures Sarai as a comparatively young woman, yet according to P (xii. 4, xvii. 17) she was 65 years old. (b) In Gen. xxi. 15 it is clearly implied that Ishmael has been carried by his mother, yet according to xvi. 16, xxi. 5, 8, he must have been at least 15 years old. (c) In Gen. xxvii. Isaac is to all appearance on his death-bed (cf. ver. 2), yet according to P (xxv. 26, xxvi. 34, xxxv. 28) he survived for _eighty_ years, dying at the age of 180. Ussher and others, arguing back from the dates in xlvii. 9, xlv. 6, xli. 46, xxxi. 41, infer that Jacob's flight to Haran took place in his 77th year. This reduces the 80 years to 43 years, though that is scarcely less incredible. It involves, moreover, the incongruity of supposing that _thirty-seven_ years elapsed between Esau's marrying his Hittite wives (xxvi. 34) and Rebekah's expressing her apprehensions (xxvii. 46) lest Jacob, then aged seventy-seven, should follow his brother's example. (d) In Gen. xliv. 20 Benjamin is described as a "little one"; in P, almost immediately afterwards (xlvi. 21), he appears as the father of ten sons; for a similar anomaly in xlvi. 12, see the _Oxford Hexateuch_, i. p. 25n. (ii.) The ages to which the various patriarchs lived (Abraham, 175; Isaac, 180; Jacob, 147), though not so extravagant as those of the antediluvian patriarchs, or (with one exception) as those of the patriarchs between Noah and Abraham, are much greater than is at all probable in view of the structure and constitution of the human body. (iii.) The plain intention of Ex. xii 40, 41 is to describe the Israelites as having dwelt in Egypt for 430 years, which is also in substantial agreement with the earlier passage, Gen. xv. 13 ("shall sojourn in a land that is not theirs, ... and they shall afflict them 400 years"). It does not, however, accord with other passages, which assign only four generations from Jacob's children to Moses (Ex. vi. 16-20; Num. xxvi. 5-9; cf. Gen. xv. 16), or five to Joshua (Josh. vii. 1); and for this reason, no doubt, the Sam. and LXX. read in Ex. xii. 40, "The sojourning of the children of Israel in the land of Egypt, _and in the land of Canaan_, was 430 years," reducing the period of the sojourn in Egypt to half of that stated in the Hebrew text, viz. 215 years. This computation attained currency among the later Jews (Josephus and others; cf. the "400 years" of Gal. iii. 17). The forced and unnatural rendering of Ex. xii. 40 in the A.V. (contrast R.V.), which was followed by Ussher, is intended for the purpose of making it possible. From the facts that have been here briefly noted it must be evident how precarious and, in parts, how impossible the Biblical chronology of this period is. (iv.) It has been observed as remarkable that 2666, the number of years (in the Hebrew text) from the Creation of Man to the Exodus, is, in round numbers, just two-thirds of 4000; and the fact has suggested the inference that the figure was reached by artificial computation.

_The Date of the Exodus._--Is it possible to determine this, even approximately, upon the basis of external data? (i.) The correspondence between the Egyptian governors established in different parts of Palestine and the Egyptian kings Amen-hotep (Amenophis) III. and IV. of the 18th dynasty, which was discovered in 1887 at Tel el-Amarna, makes it evident that Palestine could not yet have been in the occupation of the Israelites. It was still an Egyptian province, and the Babylonian language, in which the correspondence is written, shows that the country must have been for a considerable time past, before it came into the possession of Egypt, under Babylonian influence. Now one of the kings, who corresponds with Amen-hotep IV., is Burnaburiash (Burna-buryas), king of Babylon, and Egyptologists and Assyriologists are agreed that the date of these monarchs was c. 1400 B.C. The conquest of Canaan, consequently, could not have taken place till after 1400 B.C. (ii.) It is stated in Ex. i. 11 that the Israelites built in Egypt for the Pharaoh two store-cities, Pithom and Rameses. The excavations of M. Naville have, however, shown that Ramses II. of the 19th dynasty was the builder of Pithom; and though the other city has not at present been certainly identified, its name is sufficient to show that he was its builder likewise. Hence the Pharaoh of the Exodus is commonly supposed to have been Ramses (Rameses) II.'s successor, Merenptah (Mineptah). Egyptian chronology is unfortunately imperfect; but Professor Petrie, who has paid particular attention to the subject, and who assigns the reign of Amen-hotep IV. to 1383-1365 B.C., assigns Ramses II. to 1300-1234 B.C.[31] In Merenptah's fifth year the Delta was invaded by a formidable body of Libyans and other foes;[32] and it has been conjectured that the Israelites took the opportunity of escaping during the unsettlement that was thus occasioned.

Alternative dates for Ramses II.: Maspero, _The Struggle of the
Nations_ (1897), p. 449, c. 1320-1255; Breasted (1906), 1292-1225;
Meyer (1909), 1310-1244. Attempts have been made to identify the
Khabiri, who are mentioned often in the Tel el-Amarna letters as foes,
threatening to invade Palestine and bring the Egyptian supremacy over
it to an end, with the Hebrews. The Exodus, it has been pointed out,
might then be placed under Amen-hotep II. (1448-1420 B.C., Breasted;
1449-1423, Petrie), the successor of Thothmes, and more time would be
allowed for the events between the Exodus and the time of David (c.
1000), which, if the date given above be correct, have been thought to
be unduly compressed (see Orr in the _Expositor_, March 1897, p. 161
ff.); but there are difficulties attaching to this view, and it has
not been adopted generally by scholars. There may be some ultimate
connexion between the Khabiri and the Hebrews; but the Khabiri of the
Tel el-Amarna letters cannot be the Hebrews who invaded Canaan under
Joshua.

The mention of Israel on the stele of Merenptah, discovered by Petrie in 1896 ("Israel [Ysirael] is desolated; its seed [_or_ fruit] is not"), is too vague and indefinite in its terms to throw any light on the question of the Exodus. The context speaks of places in or near Canaan; and it is possible that the reference is to Israelite clans who either had not gone down into Egypt at all, or had already found their way back to Palestine. See Hogarth's _Authority and Archaeology_, pp. 62-65.