The Documentary Hypothesis tries to Overturn Inspiration

THE Church has had countless heretics to combat her doctrine in past ages, but none perhaps so insidious as the present-day rationalists, who have conceived their campaign on a scale as thorough as we should expect from the country of its origin. Their plan is nothing less than to ridicule the historical character of Holy Writ. All the so-called relations, they say, between God and man are easily explained on natural grounds: they evolved. That the supernatural existed was a fairy-tale, good enough to satisfy our crinolined great-grandmothers; but we! well, we have grown out of all that. And they adopt a patronizing air towards the Sacred Writings. Yes, they say, the stories have a sub-stratum of natural truth but that the Holy Ghost had any part in their production, that God had any dealings with His people of course we should like to be sure first that there is a God at all. This attitude is a difficult one to meet. The martyr could oppose the tyrant with patience, and triumph; the open-voiced heretic could be met with plain denial, and proof of his error. But your modern day critic is nothing if not specious; for he can produce the fruits of painstaking research, and trick them out with a pinch of truth, a modicum of conjecture, and a great deal of unjustified and unavowed cynicism, and there lies before the unwary a very tempting dish, but one, alas! that can poison the very life of faith.

The theory with which we are here concerned is that most ably represented in modern time by Professor Wellhausen, whose world-wide influence in Old Testament criticism is too generally recognized to need emphasizing. The precise point in his teaching which we here propose to scrutinize is this: according to him the office of the Levites of later times had no authority from the statutes of Moses. Before coming to details, a word as to its place in the general strategy of the rationalist offensive will not be out of place. Baldly stated, their position is this: The Sacred Scriptures have no divine origin. Here we are obviously concerned with the Old Testament. The Divine origin of the Old Testament depends on the Pentateuch; but the Pentateuch is not good history, in fact, it is not the work of Moses. If this minor premise can be proved, Professor Wellhausen's conclusion is thus far justified: therefore the Old Testament has no Divine origin.

It is in the main to the proof of this minor premise that the Professor's work on the History of Israel is devoted. One important chapter deals with the question of the Priests and Levites of Israel. We shall follow him, then, as he builds up his story; and afterwards examine it more in detail. He practically assumes that the Pentateuch has been proved to come from four different sources. This, the well-known Documentary Hypothesis, we may briefly describe as follows: This theory denies the authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses, but assigns it to four chief sources. The authors of these four documents were not contemporaneous, but the result of their labors is comprised in the complete Pentateuch. The critics claim to be able to recognize the various sources: hence, somewhat gratuitously, they break up the work, assigning now a large portion to one source, now to another. So painstaking are they that occasionally they also assign even a word or two in the middle of a verse to a source different to that of the rest of the verse. The result of their labors may be seen in the "Rainbow Bible," where the different sources are printed in different colors.

A rough division of the sources will not be out of place. The first and second sources for our purpose the first two may be considered together date from about the eighth or ninth century, after the division of the Kingdom. These sources the critics label with the letters J and E, corresponding to the use of the names Jahveh (Yahweh) or Elohim for God.

In the time of King Josiah, a little before the year B.C. 621, another writer added his quota to the Pentateuch. This source is ticketed D, for it consists mainly of the Book of Deuteronomy. This part so say the critics was written, hidden, and suddenly very conveniently found, as coming from the 'worm-eaten holes of long vanished days' all in collusion with the prophet Jeremiah. The credulity of the pious Josiah was imposed upon: and the family of Zadok by this clever ruse secured their aim, that Jerusalem, their own shrine, should be the only place of worship.

But still another source was necessary: this was the Priestly Code, P. The hand of the author of this document is recognizable in many places of the Pentateuch: but his chief contribution is the Book of Leviticus in its entirety. This document reads everything back to Moses. Eventually the documents are combined, re-edited as a single work; and behold, the Pentateuch, claiming indeed to be the work of the great Lawgiver, but in reality the outcome of the political intrigue of a selfish and crafty priesthood.

In the light of this brief summary of the Documentary Hypothesis it is easy to understand that the man who can prove it correct has gone far to upset the claim of the Old Testament to divine origin. As will be seen, it depends in part upon a peculiar and, as we should say, a rather violent interpretation of certain parts of the Old Testament outside the Pentateuch itself. But the main question is, how does it square with the history of the Hebrews as a whole? It was in his efforts to answer this question that Wellhausen made his mark. Taking the Documentary Hypothesis in the main for granted, he has undertaken to interpret the 'historical Books' Judges, Kings, and the historical hints of the prophets in the light of it, and he maintains that the results positively confirm the hypothesis.

Wellhausen begins with two assumptions: the first, that before the authors of the document J, E wrote, the Israelites, as they occupied the land of Canaan, had taken up the high places of native worship for their own cult of Yahweh; the second, that the original tribe of Levi had disappeared. Now, he continues, you will notice that in the period represented by J, E, there was no such thing as a monopoly of the priesthood vested in the family of Levi. Of course, there were priests in the High Places, but they were members of the tribe on the spot, whichever that tribe might be. Thus it is that we read in the sixth chapter of Judges that Gideon offered a burnt-offering with the wood of an Asherah in the High Places lately sacred to Baal: and also in 1 Kings, that King Saul built an altar unto the Lord.

We come now to the second stage in the evolution of the Levite. The family of Eli had been rejected; and the family of Zadok elevated to the High Priesthood; this is a matter of history we still follow the Professor's lead to be read by anyone who will take the trouble to look at the second chapter of 1 Kings. Further, what is more natural than that the house of Zadok should scheme to have all influence in its own hands? How better to achieve this than to centralize all worship at Jerusalem? The strategy is plain. The tactics are to play on the credulity of the pious King Josiah. The prophet Jeremiah is pressed to their aid. The dramatic finding of the so-called Mosaic work Deuteronomy is a fait accompli. His Majesty is imposed upon; all High Places, save one, are broken up by the royal ukase; the family of Zadok is secure in their position at Jerusalem. This, says Wellhausen, is true history, and agrees with the Pentateuch; for centralization of worship is the burden of the twelfth chapter of Deuteronomy, the thirteenth verse explicitly commanding, 'Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt-offerings in every place that thou seest; but in the place that the Lord shall choose.'

But the line of Zadok soon found that King Josiah (2 Kings 23) had acted on a poorly planned regulation in their forged document (Deuteronomy 18:7). True, he had closed all the High Places save their own, and so, as the Zadok line had wished, Jerusalem had no rival. But, unfortunately for the family, Josiah had invited the priests, whose occupation was now gone, to Jerusalem, and there had given them equal rights with the line of Zadok. All these priests, it is assumed, including those at Jerusalem, from being a caste had long come to claim to be a tribe the lost tribe of Levi; up to this time, therefore, 'priest' and 'Levite' were synonymous, though the critics deny that any priests were really of Levitical descent. But owing to these common rights at Jerusalem the success of the Zadok line was tinged with failure. That failure must be set right. After the exile, said they, a fresh start may be made. The prophet Jeremiah had served their purpose very well before. Ezechiel is to be their tool on this occasion. He readily falls in with the suggestion, and preaches openly (chap 44): 'The priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me.' And what of those that went astray? A little earlier he had considered their case. 'The Levites that went far from me ... they shall bear their iniquity. Yet they shall be ministers in my sanctuary, having oversight at the gates of the house ... and they shall not come near unto me to execute the office of priest unto me.' In other words, says Wellhausen, although hitherto priest and Levite were considered identical, now, however, Ezechiel has invented the distinct and inferior office of Levite to solve the problem created by D. And so the line of Zadok has scored an advantage once more, and has very successfully covered up their little mistake in Deuteronomy.

There only remains for this enterprising family to clinch the whole matter. Once more the Pentateuch is overhauled, the document P the Priestly Code is inserted, bodily in parts (to wit, the whole book of Leviticus), piecemeal in other parts; and behold all the fruits of their scheming have the sanction of the Lawgiver. In other words, the Priestly Code, presupposing what Ezechiel had done, namely, to distinguish the priests from the Levites, reads the whole thing back to Moses and states boldly what is really a lie; that this distinction is the law of Moses.

This is Wellhausen's theory; at the risk of being tedious, let us state it once more very shortly. It is this: the Levitical office at Jerusalem had no origin from Moses; for all trace of the original tribe of Levi had gone. Further, at the outset of the Hebrews' religious history we find that anyone, cleric or lay, could offer sacrifice to God. Unity of worship was the policy of King Josiah, carried out in 621 B.C. at the instigation of the house of Zadok, which had superseded the house of Eli. The Levitical office was the creation of Ezechiel, in order to enable the family of Zadok to reject the claims of priests of the other High Places to share rights with them at Jerusalem, and so to degrade them to a lower office. This creation the family of Zadok skilfully stamped with Mosaic sanction by embodying in the Pentateuch the Priestly Code; and thus the Levitical office is the outcome of chicanery, and by no means bears the impress of Divine institution.

This is the elaborate story that the Professor puts forward as history. It has proved attractive enough to enlist a vast number of scholars and an immense literature in its support; yet its claim to historical truth is rather thin to oust the tradition, of so venerable an age, that the Pentateuch is the work of Moses. Further, if this is to supersede the traditional account, it must be a little less open to criticism itself. The honest critic takes evidence as he finds it. If the facts do not fit the theory, it is the theory that must suffer. Mr. Sherlock Holmes wove beautiful theories; and they were always right; but then he had his faithful henchman, Dr. Watson, to write the evidence to fit; and this we call fiction. Professor Wellhausen, in somewhat the same way, plays Watson to his own Holmes, and calls it history. For instance, the evidence of Exodus 19:22, where Moses mentions priests, is not to his liking: but he applies the national remedy, and that 'scrap of paper' is torn from the book. In Exodus 32:29, the sons of Levi are chosen as the instrument of God's vengeance. It is a pity, of course, but necessity, you know! And so that place, too, finds its rest in the waste-paper basket. Chapters 7-10 of Exodus give prominence to Aaron; those verses, too, must be given to the flames. These are but a few of many instances. May we not say at the outset of the criticism of the critic, that, if not pure fiction, this theory of his has at least a flavor of the novelist's arbitrary disposition of facts and persons?

Again, we may ask: Whither has the original tribe of Levi so conveniently vanished? And where did the new clan get their name from? Here the professor is puzzled, and admits it. "It suits me to have them out of the way," he airily observes, "therefore they must have vanished. As for the name, that is easy to explain. Coincidence!" His statement, of course, is not so openly brutal, but shorn of all ornament it comes to that.

These are the two initial difficulties of a general character against his scheme. Let us now take his stages in order, and see if they hang together.

In the first stage, then, Wellhausen appeals to Gideon and Saul to prove that there was no distinction between priests and lay-folk. But if he would consult Exodus 20:24, he would find due provision made for such sacrifices on special occasions. Again, he ignores the centralization of cult through the ark a fact that can be well established. Moreover, from 1 Kings 14:18, in a chapter on which he relies, it is clear that the ark and its priests were there.

Wellhausen's second stage supposes that the rejected house of Eli was superseded by Zadok. Now this Zadok, he states, was not of the line of Levi, much less of the house of Aaron. The text on which Wellhausen relies, we must admit, presents a difficulty. It will be well, then, to quote it more fully and examine it. The passage is 1 Kings 2:27-35:

And there came a man of God unto Eli and said unto him: Thus saith the Lord: Did I reveal myself unto the house of thy fathers, when they were in Egypt in bondage in Pharaoh's house? And did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest? ... Wherefore kick ye at mine offering ... and honorest thy sons above me? ... Therefore tho Lord God of Israel saith: I said indeed that thy house and the house of thy father should walk before me for ever, but now the Lord saith: Be it far from me. ... Behold the days come that I will cut off thine arm and the arm of thy father's house, that there shall not be an old man in thine house. ... And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in my heart and in my mind.

Hence argues the Professor: Eli's house is rejected; his father's house is rejected; and the house, mark, that was chosen in Egypt, that is to say, Aaron's house. Hence with Eli was rejected the house of Aaron: from this follows that Zadok, his successor, is not of the house of Aaron. This argument seems sound: and if this was the only passage on the point, the conclusion would merit the note, 'most prob- able.' But follow it out. Wellhausen and the critics ascribe this passage to the Deuteronomist source, precisely because it legitimizes Zadok. Yet it denies him Levitical descent! D and P, to say nothing of Ezechiel, continually emphasize the Levitical descent. Have we here a blatant contradiction? Further, 1 Paral. 6 and 24 trace Zadok through Eleazar to Aaron and hence to Levi; and he is represented as being already a priest, both when he is put into Abiathar's place (3 Kings 2:27, 35), and before that (e.g., 2 Kings 17:15). We have followed the Professor in all fairness of mind and he has led us into a cul de sac. Not being able to adopt his attitude towards these chapters of 1 Paral., and ruthlessly tear them out, we must try another way out. Cannot the mention of the 'Father's house' mean that the house of Aaron, as officially represented by the junior branch of Eli, is to give place to what was as a matter of fact the senior branch, of which Zadok was the scion? We claim no certainty for the suggestion offered; it has, however, the merit of not being a blind alley.

Furthermore, as a link in his story, Wellhausen has supposed that Deuteronomy 18:7 made provision for the priests of the High Places when they were broken up. This is not consistent with the thirteenth chapter of the same book, where the penalty for turning aside to the false gods of the country is death. Wellhausen finds it convenient to ignore the idolatry at the High Places: it is evident, however, that the worship conducted there was in the main addressed to the Canaanite Baalim, the original possessors of the shrines. For proof of this it may suffice here to instance the very clear passages in the Book of Judges (e.g., 2:11-13; 3:6-7; 8:33; 10:6). Doubtless Yahweh was sometimes worshiped there, though, speaking generally, contrary to His wish. The High Places at Raman and Bethlehem (1 Kings 9:12-13, 19, 25; 20:6, 28-29) appear to have been originally a shrine of the kind especially authorized by Exodus 20:24-25. On the other hand, it is announced as a change in 2 Paral. 33:17, that the worship in the High Places in general was offered up to Yahweh alone. Hezekiah evidently stopped both the idolatry and the illicit worship of the true God in the High Places (3 Kings 18:22; 21:3; 2 Paral. 32:12; 33:3; Isaiah 36:7). Possibly, indeed, with the building of the Temple at Jerusalem absolutely all sacrificing elsewhere was intended to stop; we might understand this from such a passage as Deuteronomy 12:5-6. In any case, if we look to the account of King Josiah's proceedings in 4 Kings 23 (cf. 24:17), there, too, obviously, we have to do with priests engaged in idolatry. It is also evident that these false priests were not provided for. They were not all executed; perhaps they were too many: 'nevertheless the priests of the High Places came not up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they did eat unleavened bread among their brethren.'

There remains to discuss the part played by Ezechiel. According to Wellhausen the prophet was the ready tool of the house of Zadok. He it was who invented the Levitical office and degraded to it the priests of the High Places, to cover up that family's unfortunate slip in the D document. The truth, however, is that the picture which the prophet draws in his final chapters of a restored Israel is in more than one detail we may instance the very artificial division of the land, and the waters that flow from the sanctuary impracticable, and even impossible, and appears rather to have a symbolic value. No attempt was made to realize it. In any case his words do not require the invention of a new office. The verses in question are in Ezech. 44:10-15; 48:11. The most important words are cited above.

Two explanations are possible. We might suppose and on the whole this seems the more likely alternative that there was no degradation strictly so-called of any priests. In that case these Levites, who had usurped the sacerdotal functions in a false religion, were relegated to the duties that were theirs; in common parlance, were told to attend to their own business. This naturally involved some shame. As a parallel we might wonder what superiors would say to a sacristan who should take upon himself one Sunday morning to conduct a service in the High Place at Tremeirchion. No doubt he would receive a severe admonition, but a request to confine himself to his duties at St. Beuno's would hardly be considered a degradation. There is no real hint in the prophet that he is inventing either a new office or a new distinction among ministers. The contrast between 'the priests the Levites' (i.e., the Levitical priests, as distinguished from the false non-Levitical priests) and the Levites is simply presupposed, and not introduced for the first time. [1] But grant, as an alternative, that it was a real degradation of priests, it is still natural to argue that the Levitical office was already in existence, and was not the invention of Ezechiel. Needless to say, there is ample evidence that it existed, but on one plea or another, the evidence is rejected. The Levite of Judges 17:7 is reasonably interpreted to have had his home in Judah; the 'critics' wish to make him out a member of the tribe, but this is in direct contradiction to Judges 18:30, where "Moses" is generally recognized to be the right reading. The Levites also appear carrying the ark in 1 Kings 6:15; 2 Kings 15:24 just where we should expect to find them.

But to return to Ezechiel. If Wellhausen is right in supposing that the family of Zadok in the Priestly Code falsely read these injunctions back to Moses, the subject Levites might easily quote against them the document D, and Ezechiel himself, for both these latter, according to the Professor, clearly show that in earlier days Levites and priests were on the same footing; and so the Levites would have a good case. Can we imagine that this numerous body of men would have taken this set-back with the meekness that Wellhausen must suppose, if his hypothesis was to have in practice the happy result that he pictures?

Thus, at the end, we are led to ask: Can it be pretended that the position taken up by Wellhausen and his school is merely the result of an impartial study of the evidence? The more minutely the proof of this specious theory is investigated, the greater the violence which it will be found to do to inconvenient data, and unconsciously we find ourselves murmuring that in very truth the higher critic is 'hacking his way through' the Sacred Scriptures.

Note. It may be observed that even before he was put into Abiathar's place as high priest (3 Kings 2:27-35), Zadok is not merely himself called a priest, but is practically treated as Abiathar's equal (2 Kings 8:17; 15:24-35; 17:15; 19:11; 20:25; 3 Kings 1:26-39). No doubt he owed his prominence in some measure to the fact that he was the head of the other branch of the house of Aaron (1 Paral, 24:3), and probably had attracted David's favorable notice while still a young man (1 Paral. 21:28); but it also seems likely that the separation of the ark from the tabernacle, due to the capture of the former by the Philistines (1 Kings 4:11), greatly increased the importance of his position. It gave him an independent ministry before the tabernacle at Gibeon (1 Paral. 16:39), although the ark, upon which dwelt Yahweh between the cherubim (Exod. 25:22; Cf. Psalm 79 [80], 2, etc.), remained David's chief care (1 Paral. 17; 2 Kings 7).

It may also be observed that even if one were to allow that the Zadok line was non-Aaronic, and that it was absolutely substituted for an Aaronic line, this would not of itself go very far towards establishing Wellhausen's position. Genesis 49:5-7, for him must mean absolute disappearance, not a 'scattering' turned afterwards for Levi into a blessing; Deut. 33:8-11, in contradiction to the obvious enumbration of Levi as a tribe, must signify a corporation of men sundered from kith and kin an obscure passage at the best, apparently referring to incidents unrecorded in Exod. 17 and Numb. 20, though we should more naturally think of Exod. 32:28-29. In actual fact there can be no question of all these supposed Levites having been put on equal terms with the Jerusalem priests; the priests of the northern high places, King Josiah slew (4 Kings 23:20), while the priests of the southern high places, though spared, seem to have been dealt with in the manner prescribed for Aaronic priests with a blemish (4 Kings 23:9; Levit. 21:16-24).

___________________________________________
[1] Note especially Baeoh. xliv, 10, 16; xlviii, 11.