THREE PECULIARITIES OF THE PENTATEUCH
WHICH ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE GRAF WELLHAUSEN
THEORIES OF ITS COMPOSITION
BY
ANDREW
CRAIG ROBINSON, M. A.,
Ballineen, County Cork, Ireland,
Author Of “What About The Old Testament?”
There are — amongst others — three
very remarkable peculiarities in the Pentateuch which seem to be incompatible
with modern theories of its composition, and to call for some explanation from
the critics. The first of these peculiarities is:
THE ABSENCE OF THE NAME “JERUSALEM”
FROM THE PENTATEUCH
The first occurrence of the name
“Jerusalem” in the Bible is in the Book of Joshua (Joshua 10:1): “Now it came
to pass when Adonizedek, King of Jerusalem”, etc. In the Pentateuch the city is
only once named (Genesis 14) and then it is called “Salem” — an abbreviation of
its cuneiform name “Uru-salem”. Now on the traditional view of the Pentateuch
the absence of the name Jerusalem presents no difficulty; the fact that Bethel,
Hebron, and other shrines are named, whilst Jerusalem is not, would merely mean
that at these other shrines the patriarchs had built their altars, whilst at
Jerusalem they had not.
But from the point of view of modern
critics who hold that the Pentateuch was in great part composed to glorify the priesthood
at Jerusalem, and that the Book of Deuteronomy in particular was produced to
establish Jerusalem as the central and only acceptable shrine for the worship
of Israel — this omission to name the great city, then of historic and sacred
fame, which they wished to exalt and glorify, seems very strange indeed.
According to the theories of the
critics the composers of the Pentateuch had a very free hand to write
Whatsoever they wished, and they are held to have freely exercised it. It seems
strange then to find the “Yahvist,” supposed to have been written in the
Southern Kingdom, and to have been imbued with all its prejudices, consecrating
Bethel by a notable theophany (Genesis 28:16,19), whilst in all that he is
supposed to have written in the Pentateuch he never once even names his own
Jerusalem. And so the “priestly writer” also, to whom a shrine like Bethel
ought to be anathema, is found nevertheless consecrating Bethel with another
theophany: “Jacob called the name of the place where God spoke with him Bethel”
(Genesis 35:14,15), and he never even names Jerusalem.
What is the explanation of all this?
What is the inner meaning of this absence of the name Jerusalem from the
Pentateuch? Is it not this: that at the time the Pentateuch was Written, Jerusalem,
with all her sacred glories, had not entered yet into the life of Israel. The
second remarkable peculiarity to which attention is called is:
THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF SACRED
SONG FROM THE RITUAL OF THE PENTATEUCH
This is in glaring contrast to the
ritual of the second temple, in which timbrels, harps, and Levite singers bore
a conspicuous part. Yet it was just in the very time of the second temple that
the critics allege that a great portion of the Pentateuch was composed. How is
it then that none of these things occur in the Mosaic ritual? It might have
been expected that the priests in post-exilic times would have sought to
establish the highest possible sanction for this musical ritual, by
representing it as having been ordained by Moses.
But no such ordinance in point of
fact occurs, and the Pentateuch stands in its primitive simplicity, destitute
of any ordinance of music in connection with the ritual, except those passages
in which the blowing of the trumpets is enjoined at the Feast of Trumpets, the
blowing of the trumpet throughout the land in the year of Jubilee, and the
command, contained in a single passage (Numbers 10:10), that in the day of
gladness, and in the beginnings of the months, over the burnt offerings and
over the sacrifices of the peace offerings the silver trumpets were to sound.
No mention in connection with the ritual of cymbals, harps, timbrels, or
psalteries; no mention of sacred song, or Levite singers. NO music proper
entered into the ritual, only the crude and warlike blare of trumpets. No
ordinance of sacred song, no band of Levite singers. The duties of the Levites,
in the Book of Numbers, are specially defined. The sons of Gershom were to bear
the tabernacle and its hangings on the march; the sons of Kohath bore the altars
and the sacred vessels; the sons of Merari were to bear the boards and bands
and pillars of the sanctuary. No mention whatsoever of any ministry of sacred
song. A strange omission this would be, if the “Priestly Code” (so-called)
which thus defines the duties of the Levites, had been composed in post-exilic
times, when Levite singers — sons of Asaph — cymbals, harp, and song of praise
formed leading features in the
ritual. Does it not seem that the
Mosaic Code, enjoining no music but the simple sounding of the trumpet-blast,
stands far behind these niceties of music and of song, seeming to know nothing
of them all?
The third remarkable peculiarity to
which attention is called is:
THE ABSENCE OF THE DIVINE TITLE
“LORD OF HOSTS” FROM THE PENTATEUCH
The first occurrence of this Divine
title in the Bible is in 1 Samuel 1:3: “And this man went out of his city
yearly to worship and to sacrifice unto the Lord of hosts in Shiloh.” After
this it occurs in a number of the remaining books of the Bible, and with increasing
frequency. The pre-Samuelitic period of the history of Israel is thus
differentiated from the post-Samuelitic period by this circumstance, that in
connection with the former period this title is never used, whilst in
connection with the latter it is used, and with growing frequency — at all
stages of the history, even down to the end of the Book of Malachi; occurring
altogether 281 times.
Now the theory of the criticism of
the present day is that the Pentateuch was composed, edited, and manipulated,
during a period of more than four hundred years, by motley groups and series of
writers, of differing views, and various tendencies. One writer composed one
part, and one composed another; these parts were united by a different hand;
and then another composed a further part; and this by yet another was united to
the two that went before; and after this another portion was composed by yet
another scribe, and afterwards was joined on to the three. Matter was absorbed,
interpolated, harmonized, smoothed over, colored, edited from various points of
view, and with different — not to say opposing — motives. And yet when the
completed product — the Pentateuch — coming out of this
curious literary seething pot is
examined, it is found to have this remarkable characteristic, that not one of
the manifold manipulators — neither “J”, nor “E”, nor “JE”, nor “D”, nor “RD”,
nor “P”, nor “P2”, nor “P3”, nor “P4”, nor any one of the “Redactors of P”, who
were innumerable — would appear to have allowed himself to be betrayed even by
accident into using this title, “Lord of hosts”, so much in vogue in the days
in which he is supposed to have written; and the Pentateuch, devoid as it is of
this expression, shows an unmistakable mark that it could not possibly have
been composed in the way asserted by the criticism, because it would have been
a literary impossibility for such a number of writers, extending over hundreds
of years, to have one and all, never even by accident, slipped into the use of
this Divine title for Jehovah, “Lord of hosts”, so much in vogue during those
centuries. In point of fact the Pentateuch was written before the title was
invented.
These three peculiarities of the
Pentateuch to which attention is here drawn, are points absolutely undeniable.
No one can say that the name “Jerusalem” does occur in ‘the Pentateuch; no one
can say that any mention of sacred song does occur in the ritual of the
Pentateuch; and no one can say that the Divine title “Lord of hosts” does occur
in the Pentateuch.
Return to the Aisbitt’s Homepage
