There follows a short chapter on the growth of the Canon according to the Jews. The principal external evidence from the Apocrypha and the Talmud is discussed, and proved to be worthless. "There is no foundation in antiquity whatever " for the common opinion that the Canon " was closed by Ezra or in Ezra's time"; while the shadowy conclave of the Great Synagogue is found to be nothing more than a controversial expedient propounded in the sixteenth century by Elias Levita. Consequently, we are thrown upon our own resources, and "the age and authorship of the books of the Old Testament can be determined only upon the basis of the internal evidence supplied by the books themselves."

Now we come to the Hexateuch, the treatment of which occupies nearly a third of the whole book. For the sake of clearness, let us take the different codes or documents in their chronological order.

1. The earliest document of the Hexateuch is that which comes from the hand of the Jehovist (J), so called from his marked preference for the name Jehovah. Hebrew prose literature contains nothing finer than the narratives of this writer. In vivacity and force, in delicacy of touch and appropriateness of detail, his style is unsurpassed (see, e.g., Gen. ii.-iii., xviii.-xxiv., lxiv. 18 ff.; Exod. iv. 1-16). His religious point of view is that of the great prophets of the eighth century. "Indeed," to quote Dr. Driver's sentence, "his characteristic features may be said to be the fine vein of ethical and theological reflection which pervades his work throughout" (p. 113). While his representations of the Deity are highly anthropomorphic, he has the prophet's insight into the state and destiny of man, the nature of God, and the Divine purposes of grace as manifested in the past, and destined to be revealed in the future. The legal code of J is that contained in Exod. xx., xxii.-xxiii., xxxiii., known as "The Book of the Covenant." It stands at the head of Israel's statute-roll. "The laws themselves are designed to regulate the life of a community living under simple conditions of society, and chiefly occupied in agriculture" (p. 33). This is the code which was in force during the period of the Judges, and the earlier kings and prophets.

2. Next in order comes the Elohist (E), so called because he prefers Elohim as the Divine name. A confusion may occur here which it is important to avoid at once. A preference for the name Elohim is also a characteristic of the Priestly Code as far as Exodus vi. 3. But many passages where this Divine title occurs do not contain the other invariable marks of the style of the Priestly Code; we are thus forbidden to assign them to the latter document, and we conclude that they belong to the Elohist. This writer is to be realized as distinct from the Jehovist; his "standpoint is the prophetical, though it is not brought so prominently forward as in J," and in general the narrative is more "objective" (p. 111), and the style scarcely so imaginative. The Elohist has a keen sense of Israel's dignity and lofty future; and we notice that he takes a special delight in dreams and theophanies. The story of Joseph (Gen. xl., xli., xlii.) is a good specimen of his style and treatment.

The following instance from Gen. xxxvii. will show how distinct E is from J, and also the manner in which the two narratives are interwoven :

If the reader will follow this scheme carefully, and read the verses assigned to J and those assigned to E consecutively, he will find that there are two accounts of the same event, presenting some remarkable points of divergence. According to J, Joseph is sold by his brethren to some Ishmaelites; while according to E, he is cast into a pit by his brethren, and thence stolen by a company of "Midianites, merchantmen," who bring him into Egypt; all this without his brethren's knowledge. Further, according to J, it is Judah who takes the lead; whereas E tells us that Reuben suggests the idea of the pit, in order to deliver his brother, and restore him to his father. It is Reuben who returns to the pit, and finding it empty, rends his garments. This distinction between the two documents is further illustrated by the fact that, according to J, Abraham's principal residence is at Hebron, afterwards the great Judaic sanctuary; in E he dwells chiefly at Beersheba, the sanctuary frequented by the Ephraimites (p. 111). The fact that E's narrative bears a strong Ephraimitic tinge induces most critics to agree that he was a native of the northern kingdom. We must notice that the Decalogue (Exod. xx. 1-21) belongs to E. But while the differences between the two documents are apparent in many cases, it often happens that they are so combined as to render the analysis difficult and uncertain. Thus there occurs a combination known as JE, the work of a later compiler, which, although it is clearly marked off from the rest of the Hexateuch, and bears traces of its composite character, yet it cannot always be severed into its component parts with any certainty. Dr. Driver warns us against the over-minuteness of some scholars, who would push the analysis too far.

As to the relative date of J and E, critics agree that neither of them can be later than c. 750 B.C. The prophetical element in the two documents will place them in the period which saw the rise of the early prophets (Amos, Hosea, &c.). Wellhausen, Kuenen, and Stade place J in 850-800 B.C., and E c. 750. Professor Driver seems inclined to adopt these dates (p. 116).

3. Next in chronological order comes the great code of Deuteronomy, marked by striking peculiarities of style and subject-matter. Its position in the growth of Israelitish legislation is clearly defined. On the one hand it presupposes the usage prescribed in the code of JE, on the other it differs widely from the elaborate and highly-developed enactments of the Levitical legislation. Let the student work out for himself the synopsis of laws given on pp. 68 ff. The intermediate position of Deuteronomy will be found indisputable. It will be seen at a glance that many of the laws are repeated from the book of the Covenant, or derived from pre-existent usage. It is the object of the author " to insist upon their importance, and to supply motives for their observance. The new element in Deuteronomy is thus not the laws, but their parenetic setting. Deuteronomy may be described as the

prophetic reformulation, and adaptation to new needs, of an older legislation (p. 85). Another fact worthy of notice is that the historical retrospect in chapters i. to iv. is based upon the narratives of JE. An illustration will make clearer the position and point of view of Deuteronomy. In Exod. xx., xxiv. (J), it is said, “An altar of earth thou shalt make to me, and thou shalt sacrifice upon it thy burnt-offerings, &c. ; in every place where I record my name I will come unto thee and bless thee." Observe, the place of sacrifice is not defined, a simple altar may be reared at the pleasure of the worshipper, so long as it is in some holy place. Now turn to Deut. xii. 1-28.

There is

no ambiguity about the place of sacrifice. In significant contrast to the practice of the Canaanites around, the Israelite worshipper is to come "unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there. Thither shall ye bring your burnt-offerings, &c. " (xii. 5, 6). Here we have a central sanctuary with a central altar, the only legitimate place of worship. This centralization of religious practice is closely bound up with the emphatic proclamation of the uniqueness of Israel's God. Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord" (vi. 4). In this characteristic feature of the Deuteronomic Code we have an undoubted indication of date. Its prophetic counterpart is the teaching of Jeremiah; its political result is the reformation of Josiah carried out in the interests of a central sanctuary. Thus the terminus ad quem will be "the eighteenth year of Josiah (B.c. 621), the year in which Hilkiah made his memorable discovery of the book of the law' in the temple " (p. 81). It is difficult to say how much earlier than this we are to place the composition of the book; Dr. Driver will not allow it to be later than the reign of Manasseh.

4. Before we can enter into the region of the Priests' Code, we are confronted with a small group of chapters, Lev. xvii.-xxvi, which form what is known as the "Law of Holiness." This group is introduced into the Priests' Code as a foreign element. The distinguishing characteristic, which suggests its title, is the supreme importance attached to the principle of holiness, distinguishing Israel from the other nations, demanded of Israel by Jehovah, and regulating the life of the community. This corpus of very miscellaneous. legislation has points of contact with the book of the Covenant and with Deuteronomy; but its contents, its reiterated insistence on its central doctrine, its abrupt and concise style, give it a character of its own, and determine its position as a stepping stone to the Priests' Code (P). It is this Priestly Code that forms the groundwork of the Hexateuch. The aim of the author "is to give a systematic view, from a priestly standpoint, of the origin and chief institutions of the Israelitish theocracy" (p. 118). Content with giving merely an abstract of the history, only warming into fuller detail when the origin of some existing institution excites his interest, his method is to measure out history by dates and genealogies in the manner of an analyst rather than a historian. He is most comprehensive in his description of the Tabernacle and the ceremonial system; those parts of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers which are concerned with these form the staple of his work.

The literary style of P is strongly marked: "stereotyped, measured, prosaic," with a strong preference for "standing formulæ and expressions," as Dr. Driver puts it, adding a list of P's characteristic words and phrases. These lists, which we find at the end of chapters on Deut., Sam., Kings, Isaiah, Jer., and Ezek., will be found invaluable to the Hebraist.

Though the narrative of P is closely interwoven with the other documents, it can be separated from them with very considerable precision. A most successful piece of analysis will be found in the account of the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Numb. xvi.). The following scheme exhibits the structure of the chapter:

16, 1.

2b-7 (7-11).

(16-17). 18-24.

25-26.

(P 27". 32b. JE 1b-2. 12-15. 27b-34. Read JE consecutively, and it will be seen that "Dathan and Abiram, Reubenites, give vent to their dissatisfaction with Moses, complaining that his promises have been unfulfilled, and resenting this authority and lordship possessed by him: they, with their tents and households, are swallowed up by the earth. This is a rebellion of laymen against the civil authority of Moses." In P there are two strata. "Korah, at the head of 250 princes of the congregation, not themselves all Levites, opposes Moses and Aaron in the interests of the community at large, protesting against the limitation of priestly rights to the tribe of Levi, on the ground that all the congregation are holy.' Invited by Moses to establish their claim by appearing with censers at the sanctuary, they are consumed by fire from Jehovah." This narrative appears to have been rather altered at a later time, and a somewhat different view is given in the verses enclosed in brackets. Here Korah at the head of 250 Levites opposes Aaron, and the interests of the tribe of Levi generally are supposed to clash with the rights claimed by the sons of Aaron (pp. 59 ff.).

Instances of this kind might be multiplied. A simpler and equally suggestive illustration may be taken from the two accounts of the Creation, that of P in Gen. 1-2, 4a, and that of J in 2, 4b-25. A few words about the date of P. Compared with the other documents which make up the Hexateuch, and with the other parts of the Old Testament, the Priestly Code is discovered to be the latest of the sources of the Hexateuch, and to belong "approximately to the period of the Babylonian captivity" (p. 129). "The pre-Exilic period shows no indications of the legislation of P being in operation." For instance, the strict enactments about the place of sacrifice, the officiating priests, the maintenance of the Tabernacle, &c., are found to be ignored in the books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, for the simple reason that they were not known. The same is the case with the Day of Atonement, the Jubilee Year, the Levitical cities, and the elaborate system of sacrifices. Again, it has been shown above that Deuteronomy marks a stage of legislation in advance of that of JE; in the same way "the legislation of P is presupposed by Deuteronomy." The whole spirit and attitude of the former document is that of a later period, when the Jewish monarchy had

given place to the Jewish Church, and the nation had become exclusively theocratic. At the same time, it must not be supposed that the whole of the Priests' Code was simply an invention of the priests during the Exile. Dr. Driver is very emphatic upon this point, and thereby notifies distinctly what his critical position is. He says (p. 135), "The Priests' Code embodies some elements with which the earlier literature is in harmony, and which indeed it presupposes. The chief ceremonial institutions

of Israel are in their origin of great antiquity; but the laws respecting them were gradually developed and elaborated, and in the shape in which they are formulated in the Priests' Code, they belong to the Exilic or early post-Exilic period."

The question may have occurred to the reader before this, What had Moses to do with the law after all? What are we to believe about him? Prof. Driver gives us an answer which will commend itself to every one who has studied the facts placed before him in this volume. "It cannot be doubted that Moses was the ultimate founder of both the national and the religious life of Israel." It is only reasonable to suppose that he would have formed, at any rate, the nucleus of system of civil government and religious duties. We naturally turn to the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant (Exod. xx.-xxiii.) to find out what Moses actually left behind him of positive enactment. Dr. Driver goes further, and finds good reason for believing that the hereditary priesthood, with its accompanying ceremonial lore, may be traced to a Mosaic origin. JE certainly seems to imply an ark and "tent of meeting" in the age of Moses, and there are early allusions to the "tribe of Levi" exercising priestly functions (pp. 144 f.).

It has been necessary to deal with the Hexateuch at this length, on account of the fundamental importance of the subject, and because Prof. Driver is seen here at his best. Unhappily, however, we must pay the penalty of not being able to do equal justice to the rest of the book. We must content ourselves with noticing only a few points which deserve special attention. The remaining books are arranged in the order of the Hebrew Bible-the "Former Prophets," the Latter Prophets,"

and the "Hagiographa."

This at once simplifies matters, and assists the critical treatment. In dealing with the Historical Books (Judges, Samuel, Kings), Dr. Driver is particularly successful in separating the early and often contemporary narratives from the later additions of the compiler, whose idiosyncrasies and partialities are carefully detected and pigeonholed. We must not be surprised to find the compiler figuring largely in the pages on Kings; it is of the utmost importance to get a grasp of his purpose and a quick eye for his handiwork; for it is he who is the interpreter of Israel's past, who can read between the lines as he transcribes his bare materials, never losing sight of the higher significance of them all.

Dr. Driver's earlier work has made most students familiar with his convincing criticism of the prophecies grouped under the name of "Isaiah.” It is rather disappointing to find that he makes no allusion in the present