Translated From Manuscript Notes
Samuel Ives Curtiss, D. D.,
Professor in Chicago Theological Seminary
Taken from THE HEBREW STUDENT April, 1882. Vol. 1, Issue 4
§ 20. The Relation of
Deuteronomy
to the
Book of the Covenant.
All the fundamental laws,
codified in the Book of the Covenant, are repeated
and amended in Deuteronomy, except Ex. xxi.
18-xxii. 14; xxii. 27 and xxii. 13, (compare Psalm
xvi. 4). All the other fundamental laws are at
least recalled, but are also partially modified. The
following are examples: Deut. xv. 12, according to
which the Hebrew maid like the Hebrew servant
shall go free in the seventh year; and Deut. xxiv. 7,
compared with Ex. xxi. 16, according to which
the stealing of a man is to be punished with death
only in case, that the one stolen and sold as a slave
is a fellow countryman. But the greatest and most
radical modification is this, that Deuteronomy
in opposition to Ex. xx. 24, sqq., which does not
limit the erection of an altar to one place, has in
prospect a central sanctuary, chosen out of all the
tribes, as the exclusive place of sacrifice, (Deut. xii.
5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26; xiv. 23-25; xv. 20; xvi. 2,
6, 7, 11, 15, 16; xvii. 8, 10; xviii. 6; xxiii.
16; xxvi. 2). This centralization of the worship
with the secularization of all the other sacred places
was first carried into effect subsequent to Hezekiah
(Is. xxxvi. 7). The simultaneous worship of Jehovah
in many sacred places was not only the practice
in the time of the judges, but also in that of the
kings, and it was only at a late time during the latter
period that the temple at Jerusalem was elevated
from the dignity of the chief and central sanctuary to
exclusive recognition as such, in which alone
sacrifices might be offered.
It is undeniable that
Deuteronomy, as it now lies before us, was written to
support the effort at centralization, which aimed at
setting aside the false worship. But the difference
between Deuteronomy and the Book of the Covenant is
even here not fundamental; for in the law
concerning the three great pilgrim festivals (Ex. xxiii.
14-18) the future erection of a central sanctuary is
presupposed. Even the temple at Shiloh in the time
of the judges indicates that at least an attempt
was made to establish a central sanctuary. Moreover
the history of Israel, through the Canaanitic character
which the people took on and through the anarchy
in the time of the judges, was thrown back into a
stadium of lawlessness which is in marked contrast
with the Tora; and in general the Tora remained
an ideal, which was neither literally nor
spiritually fulfilled.
§ 21. Pre-Deuteronomio Elements
in the so-called Priests’ Code.
Graf, a disciple of Reuss,
presumed in his dissertation: De Templo Silonemi,
published in the year 1855,on the supposition,
that the Mosaic Tabernacle of the Covenant was a copy
of the Solomonic Temple reduced to the dimension
of a portable tent. Hence the new theory began at
once with the degradation of the Elohistic
history of the legislation to the realm of fiction. At
first, Graf maintained the high antiquity of the
primitive history as related in Genesis; but pressed by Riehm
he referred the Elohist beginning with
בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא to the
post-exilic period. He considers him
younger than Ezekiel, who wrought before him in
Ezek. xl-xlviii; he considers him as contemporary
with Ezra, and even as Ezra himself. It is
characteristic of all the representatives of this theory,
that they deny all historical value to the history,
which the Priests’ Code makes the foil of the
legislation; and it is a fact that they are almost
necessarily compelled to do so, because they contribute
these writings to the post-exilic age, for it is
inconceivable, that at this time there was in existence so
fresh and fertile a source of reliable tradition
from the Mosaic age. Nevertheless we maintain (1)
that the pre histories of Israel, beginning with the
Elohistic account of creation until the history of
Joseph were written in the pre-exilic period; (2) that
at the time when Deuteronomy arose, the
foundation was already laid for the Elohistic codification
of the Mosaic law; for (a) Deuteronomy XXIV. 8, refers
to the Leper’s Tora (Lev. xiii-xiv) which now forms
a constituent part of the Priests’ Code; (b) the
law concerning animals which may and may not be
eaten (Deut. xiv. 3-20) is a part appropriated
from the Elohistic Tora (Lev. xi). (c) The separation of
the free cities east of the Jordan, (Deut. iv.
41, sqq.) is the fulfillment of the Elohistic law, Num.
xxxv. and the command, Deut. XIX. 1-13, is the
repetition and amendment of this law. (d) That
which is said in Deut. XVIII. 2, of the priestly tribe,
is a reference, adapted to the time when made, to Num.
xviii. 20-23 sq. These references to Elohistic
passages of the Priest’s Code
suffice to prove, that alongside
of the Mosaic type of legal
language and the Jehovistico-Deuteronoraic mode of diction, which
was modeled after it, the Elohistic type existed at
least before the pre- Deuteronomic period. The
difference in time does not suffice to explain the
diversity in these types.
They must go back to certain
creative sources that have given them their peculiar
tone, as for example, the Asaphic and Korahitic style
of psalms. The Jehovistico-Deuteronomic type
was founded by Moses, the Elohistic certainly
by a prominent priest, from whom this legal and
historical language was further developed within the
priestly order, as the prophetico-historical style was
within the schools of the prophets. We discriminate
between E (the older Elohist) and Q (the book
of the four covenants); but if E is one person,
Q is a collective; the Priests’ Code is not the
work of one time, but the fruit of a successive
growth, the result of a gradual development which
reached its culmination in the post-exilic age.
Remark. We do not attempt to
make הוא equivalent to היא, valid for the
age of Deuteronomy. Thne feminine form of the pronoun
היא occurs only eleven times in
the Pentateuch, but never in
Deuteronomy. The pronoun הוא)
הוא
instead of היא) is found one hundred and
ninety-five times in the Pentateuch, and thirty-six times
in Deuteronomy. It is an archaism, but one
stamped upon all the constituent parts of the Pentateuch
without distinction through its final redaction—an
archaism arising from the presupjiosition, that
the distinction in gender in the old language was not
yet carried through consistently. The form
יָדְעוּן (Deut.viii.
3,16, compare צָקוּן Is. xxvi. 16,) is not
an archaism, but on the contrary the
Nun is only an
appendix, which the perfect has as well as the
imperfect. The old Arabic, the Ethiopic, and the
Aramaic show that קָטְלוּ without
Nun is the original
form. On the contrary נַעֲרָ girl, which occurs
twenty-one times, and for which
נַעֲרָה is only found once
in Deut. xxii. 19, is a real archaism.
§ 22. The Poetry op the Mosaic
Period. A history so poetically disposed
and formed in itself as that of the Mosaic
period must also bear poetical fruit. The people of
Jehovah came out of an intellectually proa active
land with materials for Meriting and tabrets for
dancing. One of the songs which the events of the
wandering drew forth is the tetrastichic song of the
well (Num. xxi. 17, sq.):
“Spring up, O well; sing ye unto
it. It is easy to believe that Moses
himself was a poet, when we consider the ideal
character of his life as ordered by God. The poetical
character of the thoughts and of the frame of
mind, which even sometimes takes wing in the Book
of the Covenant (Ex. xx. 4; xxii. 25 sq.)
culminates in two primitive Mosaic formulas. They are
as follows: (1) The harmonious ascending triad of
the priestly benediction, Num.
vi. 24-26.
In this benediction the first
blessing consists of three words, the second of five,
the third of seven, and the seventh and last word is
שָׁלוׂם
Seven is the number indicating
satisfaction and peace. (2)
The twofold formula which was
used at the taking up and at the setting down of
the ark of the Covenant during the wandering (Num.
x. 33 sqq);
35. “ Rise up. Lord, and let Thine enemies be scattered, And let them that hate Thee flee
before Thee !
36. Return, O Lord, unto the
myriads of the thousands of Israel!”
The introduction to Ex. xv. 1,
does not require that Moses should have been the
author of the song of praise on the other side of
the Red Sea. The development of the theme ver.
lb-3 may have first received its present form in Canaan (compare ver. 13), but in the time before David, as
is indicated by the following echoes: Ps. xxiv. 8;
lxxviii. 13 and 54; xcix. 7 sq. Here first, in ver.
18, expression is given to the theocratic relation; here
first, ver. 2, the divine name
יָהּ occurs, which
recurs in Ex. xvii. 16, in the highly poetical utterance
of Moses concerning Amalek: “A hand [is raised]
over Jah’s throne, (compare Deut. xxxii. 40 sq.).
Jehovah has war with Amalek from generation to
generation [i. e. to the most
remote generations לֻדוׂרדּוׂר
Ex. iii. 15. On the contrary, it
is expressly attested (Deut.
xxxi. 30) that the song
beginning; “Hear, O heavens,”
etc., was written by Moses; and
if only this one thing is
assured, that the signal-words
(Num. x. 35 sq.) have arisen
from his exalted and powerful
spirit, then he can also be the
author of this song, which does
not contain anything that may
not even be comprehended as
coming from the natural prophetic gift of a deeply
religious and patriotic poet.
Regarded from a
supernaturalistic, theocratic
standpoint it is a picture of the
inwardly necessary concatenation of Israel’s
vicissitudes. It is throughout
original, and is probably one of
the sources, which the Deuteronomiker used in order
to reproduce the testamentary addresses of Moses.
The blessing of Moses (xxxiii.) which is
appended to Deuteronomy is equally original. Aside from
ver. 3, which is a later interpolation,
this companion-piece of the
blessing of Jacob has the Mosaic age
throughout as its historical basis, and the name
of the people, Jeshurun, is in harmony with the
great song, and the expressions “thousands of
Manasseh, myriads of Ephraim ” harmonize with the
signal-words.
Also Ps. xc. whose
superscription has a similar form with that of this blessing
sounds undeniably Mosaic. The entire psalm is like
the development of the three words, Deut. xxxiii.
27: מְעׂנָה אֱלׂהֵי קֶדֶם “The eternal God is a refuge.”
But the authorship by Moses on the ground of
the thoroughly Mosaic character of its contents
and form cannot be proved with overwhelming
certainty. As the Deuteronomiker imitated the Mosaic
type oratorically, so the author of Ps. xc. could
imitate it poetically. The fact that Ps. xo. opens the
fourth book of psalms rather indicates that he
composed it out of Moses’ soul, than that it was
composed by Moses himself.
§ 23. The Organism of the Book
of Joshua. The Book of Joshua is intimately
connected with the Pentateuch, and indeed with
Deuteronomy. It
is the history of the conquest
of the Promised Land under Joshua, the Ephraimitic
national hero, and of the possession of it through
the division of its territory. It is arranged as a
trilogy like Deuteronomy. The first part which
contains the history of the conquest (i-xii) closes
with a list of the kings of the northern and southern
land who were overcome in two campaigns, and the
history of the distribution of the land, contained
in the second part (xiii-xxi) runs out in the
closing remark, whose last word gratefully recognizes,
that “ all came to pass.” The third part
(xxii-xxiv) stands related to
these two halves like an
epilogue, that is the two and a half tribes are left in
their trans-jordanic territory and the altar which
occasions scandal on the west bank of Jordan is removed
(xxii). Joshua, in chapter xxiii takes leave of the
representatives of the people and renews in Shechem
(xxiv) the bond of the people with Jehovah God
of Israel, following which the death of Joshua
and of the priest Eleazar, who stood at his side,
is narrated. The Book of Joshua is also parallel
in this respect with Deuteronomy, that as Moses
leaves behind him a testamentary book of the law, so
Joshua according to xxiv. 25, set for the people
in Shechem “a statute and an ordinance
[expressions like those at the
beginning of the legislation in
Mara Ex. xv. 25], and Joshua wrote these words in
the book of the law of God (Elohim).” This
sounds as if an enrichment of that Elohistic
Tora was intended, which is presupposed in the
Deuteronomic legal code along with the Book of the
Covenant as the lowest, oldest strata of the
Priests’ Code.
§24. The Different Hands in the
Book of Joshua.
The union of the Book of Joshua
with the five books of the Mosaic Tora in a
Hexateuch is justified through the fact, that the
Elohistic, Jehovistic and Deuteronomic modes of diction
are continued in the Book of Joshua. In the first
part (i-xii) there are so few elements bearing an
Elohistic stamp, that it can scarcely be excepted that
this author (Q) wrote the history of the conquest; but
the history of the distribution of the land (xiii-xxi)
together with xxii, is on the whole written in an
Elohistic style. It is connected with the Elohistic
Tora (PC) not only in fact, for example xiii. 21 sq.,
compare Num. xxxi. 8; but also in style, for
example xv. 2, compare Num. xxiv. 3; and Eleazar, tne
priest, is here by the side of Joshua the chief
person in the various proceedings, as Aaron is with
Moses in the Priestly Code, whereas in i-xii, together
with xxiii-xxiv. 28, he is never mentioned. But
we also meet in the part treating of the history of
the distribution of the land with the Jehovistic
diction, for example xviii. 1-10, which is a prologue to
the division of the land, is written in a Jehovistic
style, as xiv. 1-5 is written in an Elohistic style, and we
also meet in the midst of Jehovistic connections with
Elohistic pieces, for example v. 10-12, concerning the
first passover. Sometimes Elohistic, Jehovistic,
and Deuteronomic elements are commingled, as for
example in ix respecting the successful artifice
of the Gibeonites.
It is especially the case that
Jehovistic and Deuteronomic elements cannot be
sharply discriminated; thus, for example,
the divine name “Jehovah God of Israel,” which
is characteristic of the Book of Joshua, is
Jehovistic and strange in the book of
Deuteronomy, whereas יְרֻשָּׁה i. 15;
xii. 6, sq. (in a
Jehovistic connection) is not
Jehovistic in the Pentateuch,
but exclusively Deuteronomic. But although the two
styles often interpenetrate, nevertheless two
different hands can be distinguished; for there are Jehovistic paragraphs, which keep within the boundaries
of the Jehovistic representation, for example xiv.
6 sqq., (concerning the possession of Caleb, where
אַל־אדוׂת d 6b in the Pentateuch occurs only in J, but
not in D and Q).
Remark 1. The final redaction
considers Joshua as an independent work, for the
feminine pronoun הִוא no longer occurs in the Book
of Joshua, and the city of palms is no longer
called יְרֵחוׂ, as in the Pentateuch, but as in the former
and latter prophets יְרִיחוׂ. Even the final editor of
the book of Joshua treats it as an independent
work; for otherwise he would not have accepted into the
book the account of the conquest and distribution
of the trans-jordanic land among the two and a half
tribes, nor the designation of the free cities on the
east side of the Jordan by Moses since that had
already been related in the Pentateuch. The Book of
Joshua was to the final editor a continuation of
the Pentateuch, as Polybius continues Aratus, and
Xenophon in the Hellenica
continues Thucydides.
Remark 2. An impression of the
difference between the Jehovistic and
Elohistic styles can be gained by a comparison of Josh,
xviii. 7, with Num. xxxiv. 14, of which, so to
speak, it is the Jehovistic translation. The following works
and phrases are peculiar to the Elohist:
מַטֶּה tribe
for שֵׁבֶט furthermore the designation of the
trans-jordanic land as מֵעֵבֶר
לְרֲרֵּן יְרֵחוׂ for
מֵעֵבֶר לְרֲרֵּן further the indication of the direction
קֵדְמָה towards thee east instead of
מִזְרָחָה, and as a favorite
expression בֵּית אָבוׂת family, and also more briefiy
אָבוׂת—all these peculiarities disappear
from Josh, xviii. 7.
Remark 3. The reciprocal
relation between the Book of Joshua and Deuteronomy
appears especially in chapter viii. After the
conquest of Ai the army moved for some hours northward,
and in view of the mountains Gerizim and Ebal,
Joshua reads “all the words of the law, the
blessings and the curses, according to all which was
written in the Book of the Tora,” after he had
previously erected an altar on Mount Ebal, and had
written there the Mishneh, that is a copy of the
Tora of Moses on stones covered with plaster.
This paragraph viii. 30 sqq., which begins with
אָז יַבְדִּיל is just such an intermediate portion as Deut.
iv. 41-43, which begins with It is undeniable, that
the one who relates this regards
Deuteronomy as Mosaic, and we too regard the substance
of its oratorical and legal part as Mosaic.
§ 25. The Manner in which the
Book of Joshua Arose.
The Book of Joshua begins in
chapter i with the Deuteronomic style, and
continues in chapter xxiii. in the same style to the end.
Even the narrative concerning the altar called Ed
(witness) xxii, which excludes special places of worship by the side of the central place of worship, is at
least in spirit Deuteronomic. There is nothing to hinder
the supposition, that the Deuteronomiker himself (not
a younger Deuteronomist) composed and gave
form to the Book of Joshua. If this is so, then he
has partially used records of J and E, partially
records of Q, which he has blended together. Modern
criticism is bound, of course, to deny the latter
supposition for the sake of consistency. For it considers
the priestly narrator of the Book of Joshua as the
youngest, and that his narrative has no independent
-historical value. This discrediting of its
historical character is especially based upon the
supposition that it makes all
Canaan through the conquest of
Joshua a tabula rasa and
then, when it has been emptied
of men and rulers, divides it,
although it is evident from
Judges I. that the possession
proceeded only very slowly and
not under Joshua as the
commander of the entire people.
But we reply: (1) That which is
related in Judges i occurred “after
death”; the newer criticism without
sufficient reason substitutes
for these words: “ after
Moses'
death.” (2) Not only the elements which go back
to Q, but also those which refer to JE and D would
fall under this charge of being unhistorical,
for the whole Book of Joshua, on the one hand, fosters
the impression that Joshua conquered the entire
land, except the territory named in xiii. 2-6,
and on the other that the actual possession of the
portions of the land by those to whom they were promised
remained to a great extent incomplete (xxiii.
7, 12). Many of those passages, which attest the
gradual possession of the land through conquest are
common to the Book of Joshua and the
book of
Judges.
§ 26. The Reciprocal Relation of
the Books of Joshua and Judges.
The Book of Judges prefixes to
its account of the period of the Judges an
introduction I. l-iii. 6, which
IS divided into two parts. The
first half (i. 1-ii. 5) shows how, after Joshua’s death,
the cis-Jordanic tribes fought for the possession
of the lands which had been assigned them, but
contrary to God’s will, left a part of the Canaanitic
population remaining beside them. In order to punish
this negligence the angel of Jehovah appeared to
the people as they departed from Gilgal and the
people, weeping, acknowledged their sin. The second
haif, (ii. 6-iii. 6) returns to the time, when Joshua
took leave of the assembled people in Shechem,
then relates the death of Joshua, describes the
interchange of apostasy and judgment, repentance and
salvation, which characterizes the period of the
judges, and closes with a cursory view of the Canaanitic
peoples in whose seductive territory the generation
subsequent to Joshua had its habitation. The
portions in this
second half, which resemble
verbatim the Book of Joshua, have undoubtedly been
taken from it:
(1). The portion concerning
Joshua’s death and burial (Judg. ii. 6-9, which is
equivalent to Josh. xxiv. 28-31). The words: “Ana
Joshua sent away the people, each man to his
inheritance ” (Josh. xxiv. 28), which close the
account of the assembly at Shechem stand quite abruptly
in Judg. ii. 6,
(2). The survey of the peoples
who are still unconquered (Judg.
iii. 3). This is
probably an abbreviation of Josh.
xiii. 2-5.
But in the first halt of the introduction there are
four passages, where it is questionable to which side
the priority belongs. They relate events from the time
after Joshua (Judg. i. 1,), and also without
regard to this they stand aphoristically in the Book
of Joshua, while in Judges I. they are constituent
parts of a Jehovistic survey of the efforts of the
single tribes in the conquest of the cis-jordanic land,
(a) The conquest of
Hebron and Debir through Caleb
and Othniel (Judg. i. 10-15, 20), which is
equivalent to Josh. XV. 13-19). Although separated
from the Jehovistic connection, which in Judg. i. is
kept, nevertheless the text of the Book of Joshua
is more correct and complete. It has (in xiv. 6, sqq.)
retained the introduction of this part, which
has been left out in Judg. I. (b) The non-expulsion
of the Jebusites from Jerusalem (Judg. i. 21) is
equivalent to Josh. XV. 63. Here the phrase
“children of Benjamin” is a correction for “children of
Judah” in the Book of Joshua. (Compare Josh, xviii.
28.) (c) The territories of Mannasseh which
remained unconquered (Judg. i. 27 sq., which is
equivalent to Josh. xvii. 11-13). The Book of Judges has
here only five cities instead of six. Endor is
wanting, (d) The non expulsion of the Canaanites
in Gezer through Ephraim (Judg. i. 29, equivalent
to Josh. xvi. 10). The Book of Judges here omits
the additional expression “until this day,” and
the text is consequently later. In consideration
of all this we conclude that the four parallels in
both books are taken independently of each other from
the Jehovistic source. The Book of Joshua
contains these four passages more completely and
faithfully, but in the Book of Judges they stand in the
midst of the extensive context of JE from which they
are isolated in the Book of Joshua. Even aside from
this it is settled that the Book of Joshua has JE
as one of its sources. None of these passages
has any connection with Q, but the history of
the distribution of land is mostly derived from Q,
and this Elohistic source is in our opinion pre-Deuteronomic.
§ 27. The Documentary Character
of the History of the Distribution of the
Land. It is in itself probable that
the history of the distribution of the land in the
Book of Joshua rests on written documents. The book of
the commission for the division of the land
(Josh, xviii. 9), shows that in .carrying out the
division a protocol was used. And we lay stress on this,
that the Israelitish history gives no account of
any contentions of the tribes concerning
boundaries, for the wandering of
the tribe of Dan from its
territory was occasioned
through the pressure of the
Amorites, Judg. i. 34. Hence the records which have
been transmitted in the Book of Joshua, respecting
the division of the land, have the value and warrant
of written documents proceeding from appointed
authorities. But even elsewhere the Book contains
documentary parts of the same sort. Ewald
recognizes the list of the thirty^one conquered kings
as such an old document, since he remarks, that
cities are mentioned in it which were formerly
powerful, but afterwards were without any importance or
remain unmentioned. Here and there the
documentary text no longer has its original form;
it is either fragmentary (like
xix. 15, 38), where
in one passage twelve cities, and in another
nineteen are enumerated, without so many cities
having been previously mentioned, or it has been
enlarged by a later hand, as xv. 32, where
thirty-nine cities are counted,
while thirty-six or seven have
preceded. The list of Levitical cities. Josh, xxi.
9-42, compared with 1 Chron. vi. 39-66, shows how such
documents vary under changed conditions. The
documentary character of the part which treats
of the distribution of the land justifies us in
speaking of the Book of Joshua in the time of Joshua;
and it can also be proved that in the part treating
of the history of the conquest JE
and D do not freely indulge in
fictions, but reproduce
traditions. § 28. Indications of the Great
Age of the Historical Sources of the Book of
Joshua. The presence of the Biblical
historiographer is indicated among other ways by
the frequent remark concerning things or
circumstances, that they were
“until this day.’’ Sometimes the
presence of the historiographer is not evident
in this, but that of the source from which he has taken
the phrase “until this day,” as for example, the
chronicler (2 Chron. v. 8) repeats the formula “until
this day” from 1 Kings VIII. 8, which the
author of the Book of Kings has taken from an older
source. We can therefore determine from the
above expression in the Book of Joshua, at least,
the age of the source to which it goes back. If on the
day when Josh. viii. 28 was written, Ai was still a
desolation, this conducts us back to the time before
Isaiah. (Comp. Is. x. 28). If on the day when Josh
ix. 27 was written, there was only first an
altar of Jehovah, but no temple, that places us in the
time before Solomon. The passage. Josh. xvi. 10,
carries us back just as far, according to which, “until
the present day” Canaanites dwell in Gezer among
the Ephraimites; for in the beginning of the
reign of Solomon the situation was different (1
Kings, ix. 16). But we are carried back still further,
since Sidon with the appended name Rabbah stands in
the foreground of the history (Josh. xi. 8; xix.
28) not Tyre (xix. 29). But even under David Tyre
had dimmed the splendor of Sidon, and besides
the hope of conquering the coast of Phoenicia,
which was connected with the promise contained in
xiii, 6, had long since disappeared. Also the passage
xv. 63, (equivalent to Judg. i. 21), carries us back
to the time of David. (Compare 2 Sam. v. 6-9). Nay,
two passages
sound asif a contemporary of
Joshua were speaking; for according to Josh. vi. 25,
Rahab was still living at the time of the writer. On
the contrary. Josh. XIV. 14, can be understood of
Caleb’s family. For, when at the time of the author
the heap of stones in the bed of the Jordan, (Josh
iv. 9), and over the corpse of Achan in the
valley of Achor, (vii. 26), were
in existence, such primitive
reminiscences of the great
events in the time of Joshua are
not unexpected.1
|
|
1) Those who may be interested in this and the preceding articies may And a further discussion of the subject by the transistor in the July number of The Presbyterian Review, entitled Delitzsch on the Origin and Composition of the Pentateuch.—C. |