Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

PREFACE

EXPERIENCE in the classroom at Nebraska Wesleyan and Wesleyan Universities has shown that there is need for an edition of the documents constituting the main sources of the Hexateuch. It is impossible to teach the Old Testament historically without frequent reference to J, E, and P. Students become interested in the problem and wish to read the sources, only to discover that the desired documents are not available.

The Sources of the Hexateuch is an attempt to supply this need by editing the documents J, E, and P according to the consensus of English, Scotch, Dutch, German, French, Swiss, and American scholarship. Every Bible student, whether he accepts the results of criticism or not, will find here a conspectus presenting the critical view in concrete form, and thus be able more accurately to estimate the truth or error in the theory presented.

No new translation and no new thecries are presented here. This is a synthesis with no new thesis. The aim is not polemic, although the writer frankly accepts the critical position. The purpose of the book will have been attained if the outcome be a more intensive scientific and religious study of the Hexateuch.

The writer desires to express his thanks for encouragement and suggestions bearing on various aspects of the book to numerous colleagues at Wesleyan University, notably to Professors Heidel, Armstrong, and Conley; and, among other scholars, in particular to Professors Knudson, of Boston; Fowler, of Brown; Bacon, of Yale; Paton and Nourse, of Hartford; and Eiselen of Garrett.

Middletown, Connecticut.

EDGAR SHEFFIELD BRIGHTMAN.

INTRODUCTION

1. EXPLANATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE BOOK.

Scholars have been at work now for over a century on the problem of the analysis of the Hexateuch-the first six books of the Old Testament. An enormous amount has been written, and many widely varying opinions expressed. But out of the debate there has arisen a gradually increasing body of results on which scholars in general agree, based on the view that the Hexateuch as we now have it is made up of an interweaving of various older writings (called documents or sources).

There is no doubt that such interweaving as this theory presupposes did actually occur in Bible times. It is proven by a comparison of Chronicles with its sources in Samuel and Kings; or of Matthew and Luke with their source, Mark; or of Tatian's Diatessaron with the four Gospels. The case of the Hexateuch, however, differs in one respect from the instances cited: whereas in the illustrations we still have both the compilation (Chronicles, Matthew, the Diatessaron) and some at least of the earlier sources on which they are based (Samuel, Kings, Mark), in the case of the Hexateuch the earlier sources no longer exist as separate writings. The sources must be reconstructed by criticism.

It is not within the province of the present book to give an account of the methods used in determining the analysis into sources. Some hints will be found in the later outline of the history of criticism; but for a full discussion the reader is referred to Eiselen, The Books of the Pentateuch, or Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. We confine ourselves to the exposition of results rather than methods.

The generally accepted results designate by letters* the various sources of the Hexateuch as follows:

J (the Jahvistic or Judæan Narrative), written 850 B. C.
E (the Elohistic or Ephraimitic narrative), written 750 B. C.

*The letters are used indifferently to indicate either the documents or their authors.

9

D (Deuteronomy in its original form), written 650, published 621 B. C.

P (the Priestly Code), 500 B. C.

It is agreed that J and E were combined by Rje (a redactor, reviser, or editor), about 650 (his finished work being called JE); that JE and D were combined by Rd, who also made additions to D, about 600-550 (his finished work being called JED); and that the Pentateuch was put into substantially its present form by Rp, who united JED with P, about 400. Since 400 only one important addition was made, namely, Gn. 14, perhaps about 300, or even later.

Such in main outline is the critical view of the Hexateuch on which scholars the world over are in general agreed.

It is the aim of this book to present in usable form the restored documents, J, E, and P, distinguishing in each document the work of the various redactors. D is omitted because the book of Dt. may be read consecutively in any Bible, whereas J, E, and P stand in such intricate relations to each other that it is all but impossible to form any conception of their connection or their unity without such editing as is here undertaken. An attempt is made to represent objectively and accurately the consensus of scholarship, the assured results of criticism. 2. DEFINITION OF THE TERM "CONSENSUS OF SCHOLARSHIP." Statements made in the previous section need further definition. There are many intelligent and educated Christianseven some scholars-who do not accept the critical analysis, with its denial of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. How, then, can it be said that “all scholars agree" on the results?

By a scholar or a critic in this book is meant one who (1) has made an expert and intensive study of the problem of the Hexateuch, being familiar both with the Hebrew text itself and with the range of scholarly discussion on all sides of debated questions, and (2) has published his results in monographs that have been recognized by scholars in general as worthy of attention.* Practically no such monographs have been recently

*It is to be noted that practically all the men fulfilling this description are to be found in the ranks of Protestant Christianity. Roman Catholics have not made any significant contributions in recent years; Greek Catholics and non-Christians, never.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »