law books of the Pentateuch. But since the mnemonic laws are the commandments and judgments, and the descriptive laws are the statutes, and Deuteronomy is always Deuteronomy, it appears at once that these two separate divisions of the law books into three portions are identical.

E. Recalling now that the Documentary Theory of the Pentateuch makes also three general divisions, comparison is at once suggested between divisions according to kinds and uses of laws and the divisions according to the Documentary Theory. Here the surprise of the investigation awaits us. The mnemonic laws, the commandments and the judgments, with the narrative belonging to them, are discovered to be identical with the J-E Document (with the fragments of J and E still pointed out) of the Documentary Theory; the descriptive laws, the statutes, with the narrative portions belonging to them, are exactly the same as the P Document; and Deuteronomy, of course, is Deuteronomy in each case. This identification is not merely in a general way accurate, but is startlingly exact, with no more variation than the slight margin of phrases and verses occasionally found to be difficult of assignment by either system of partition.

Thus, the kinds and uses of laws discovered account for most of the peculiarities of the Pentateuch, the puzzling things that attract the attention of one who scrutinizes the Pentateuch as it is, and this it does without the adventitious supposition of unknown authors and unmentioned documents. The laws of the introduction of evidence require that suppositions shall not be admitted when not necessary—that is, when the whole case is explained by the known and observed facts. As these facts of the Pentateuch itself account for these peculiar phenomena, a theory that explains them by a supposition of unknown persons and things is ruled out by the laws of evidence.

III. THE METHOD OF COMPOSITION.

One question yet remains the method of composition of the Pentateuch, and with that is linked the time and place and probable author. The composition of the Pentateuch from the standpoint of the archæologist is logically and inevitably from the standpoint of the historical imagination. The archeologist, after collecting and classifying the facts found, becomes, then, the historian to reconstruct out of these materials, as far as it may be possible to do so, the history of the times represented by

the things discovered, the order of events exactly as they appeared at the time. The special problem presented to the archeologist here is that, when he has collected and classified the facts as we have done, he is confronted with the Pentateuch as it is, with its various elements arranged in a most peculiar way, presenting all the puzzling peculiarities which we have pointed out, the fragmentariness of the codes, the repetition of the laws, and the distribution of all throughout a running narrative. To reconstruct aright the historical events which brought about these strange results is the real problem of the Pentateuch. Did it grow into this form in a journalistic way throughout the extent of the history represented in the Pentateuch, or was it constructed in this form by persons not connected with the events?

The method of the archæologist requires us, then, to visualize exactly what is required by each of these views of the method of composition, and so judge which is most in accord with the facts as they are before us in the Pentateuch as it is. According to the Documentary Theory the final Redactor-or Redactors, as many prefer to think of them-have in hand three great documents. There was the J-E Document, containing narrative and civil and criminal laws and constituting a complete and harmonious and self-consistent document; there was also the P Document, containing also much narrative and another code of laws or directions of a totally different character from the laws of the J-E Document, being religious ritual and ceremonial laws and directions concerning the construction of a building in the wilderness for religious purposes. These laws were not civil and criminal laws, but ecclesiastical laws, also quite harmonious and self-consistent as a code. There was also before the Redactors a D Document, containing a very little narrative as binding material and four addresses on laws of both ecclesiastical and civil and criminal kind, though chiefly of civil and criminal laws.

The Redactors, with all these various documents before them, took the civil and criminal code of laws out of the J-E Document and broke them up into fragments, a few large fragments and many smaller ones. They took also the ecclesiastical laws out of the P Document and likewise broke them up into fragments, a few large fragments and many smaller ones. They then mixed these fragments of various kinds of laws, self-consistent and harmonious in themselves, all together indiscriminately; they even put occasionally one or two civil and criminal laws

into the midst of a group of ecclesiastical laws, and here and there one or two ecclesiastical laws into the midst of a group of civil or criminal laws. Still the Redactors were not satisfied: they took some of the individual laws, repeated them two or three times and inserted them at different places among the various fragments of the codes of laws. The narrative portions of both the J-E and the P Document were then broken up, and the fragments, some from each, pieced together so as to make a continuous narrative. And yet this strange proceeding is not complete; this continuous story is now spread out and the fragments of laws inserted in the openings, the narrative being adapted, or a few words written in by the Redactor, to make the narrative at times introduce the fragments of laws. There was thus produced a long portion of the Pentateuch which is now called Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers ; the D Document was then appended to the end as Deuteronomy and, presto, the work was finished!

It is, indeed, said that all this was not done in a day or at a sitting, but that it was a work that progressed over some considerable time; but however little or much time the work may be made to cover, the various steps of the progress are here correctly given and the actual process correctly described. If the whole process, when thus set out, seems absurd, it is so because the various steps in it are absurd, however much they may have been spread out over a long time and among many succeeding persons.

Now it may be frankly admitted that the Pentateuch might have been written in this way. It is physically quite possible to break up literary documents and piece them together in such fashion. Children may often be seen doing this at their play; it is questionable if anyone has ever seen a serious proceeding of this kind. In fact, it seems simply impossible to believe that any person, or any number of persons, would ever make law books in this fashion. If any lawyer to-day should be found at such a work, his friends would tap their foreheads meaningly and consult about the advisability of getting a nurse for him.

Let us now endeavour to visualize what the facts of the wilderness journey disclose. It appears at once that Moses was, first of all, a speaking prophet; the well-known formula is, "God spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the people saying.' This is exactly what the wilderness journey requires. Though

writing was well known and doubtless many could both write and read, writing materials in the wilderness among the refuges and writing facilities for producing sufficient books for the instruction of the people would be impossible. Also, no very considerable number of the people could be addressed at one time in such oral instruction in the laws, and, besides, the children of Israel were "Shepherds in the Wilderness." The nature of that region as a pasture-land requires that the flocks must be scattered far and wide, and so the shepherds scattered with them. Only representatives from each tribe were kept about the tabernacle as a guard, and doubtless changed from time to time. In any case, Moses' audience must have been very different at different times.

Some laws also needed reiteration. Even a modern preacher has been known to preach on the same subject more than once, especially such subjects as Sabbath-keeping and the treatment of servants; these needed then, as now, frequently to be pressed. upon the conscience of the people. It is hardly necessary to point out that it is exactly such laws as these that are repeated in the Pentateuchal codes.

It is to be noted again that Moses was also a writing prophet; he is expressly directed in one place to write these things in a book (Ex. xvii, 14). Eight times at least in the Pentateuch writing is attributed to Moses. One patent fact of the Pentateuch as it is, from Exodus on, is that it is journalistic in form. Such expressions as "They journey from here," "After these things,' On the morrow," are quite frequent; they are the passing notices of a journey.

"" 66

With these facts before us it is easy to visualize what was taking place during the wilderness journey. The cloud rested. and the tents were pitched; they tarried for a time, and certain events took place. All these things were written down in order. Then Moses "spake unto the people saying," and what he said was, in its substance, written down in this place; sometimes he spake on civil and criminal laws and sometimes on ecclesiastical laws, and sometimes upon both kinds. Sometimes the laws mentioned were very few in number, and sometimes a long list of laws was expounded or even promulgated. In all cases they were written down in order in their place. Sometimes, as on the occasion of a feast or some other public occasion, when the wandering shepherds came in, repetition of important laws already announced was made. All these things, both laws and

events, were written down in order as they occurred. Thus time went on, and the journey went on, and the book grew, until at last they came to the plains of Moab, and there Moses gathered the host for a great national assembly for the stirring of patriotism. He delivered four great addresses, each of which was written down, together with the intervening events. Moses died, and this also was noted by the scribe, quite in accord with the Egyptian literary biographical method of the time, which even allowed a man to speak in the first person on his tombstone. So the journey was finished and the book was finished. Thus, in the most natural, simple way, in exact accord with the conditions of the wilderness life and journey, are all the peculiarities of the composition of the Pentateuch accounted for, and that without any supposition.

The history preceding the books of the law, now known under the name of Genesis, the "beginning," was prepared probably in part from documents, for there are sufficient library marks in it, and certainly partly by revelation, for no man was present at creation to leave a record. This book was added as a preface to the books of the law. It is to be noted that according to the Documentary Theory the style of Genesis is largely that of the P Document, i.e., the descriptive style, and indeed is distinctively so designated (Kautzsch, Lit. O.T., p. 109). This is exactly what the style ought to be, for it represents the style of the author of the descriptive portions of the books of the law. The judgments, being well-known decisions of judges, were not in the style of the author, but in the conventional style of usage. The commandments were given of God. Only the narrative and the statutes represent immediately the style of the author of the Pentateuch, and thus it is descriptive style that we should expect to find in Genesis, and do find there.

The divine names also, in their discriminative use, are in exact harmony with this explanation of the problem of the Pentateuch drawn from the kinds and uses of laws. In a court of law to-day we hear the general name for the Deity, God, or the Almighty, very frequently, but seldom the covenant names, Redeemer, Saviour, or Christ. But in an ecclesiastical court, while we may sometimes hear the name God, or the Almighty, the covenant names, Redeemer and Saviour and Christ, are used much more frequently. In like manner exactly, we find Elohim used almost exclusively in the civil and criminal law portions of the Pentateuch, the so-called J-E Document, and the name

D