The Jewish outlook., 1908-01-31

parts OF the ola JE narratives, or
sages, into books, incorporating there
with considerable material of their
own, the character of which additions,
like that of the DeuterOnOmists, is
plainly discernible. Thus it is that
we owe to the late priestly school the
present book of Genesis, Exodus, etc.
Deuteronomy, then, in substantially
the form in which we have it, must
have antedated by considerable pc
riOd any books which were given shape
at the hands of the priests. Late as
was the work of the Deuteronomic
school, it may be proper to question
whether we really have any book III
the Old Testament more ancient than
theirs. This may be said. though We
assign Deuteronomy to Josiah S day,
say the fifth or even the fourth CEN
tury b. c.. regarding it as the work
of ardent Zionists who upon their re-
turn re-establshed the new Yahwism
in Jerusalem. If we have not an Old
Testament book older than this, the
fact should be widely known. that the
real value of the work of the Deuter-
OnOmists as the Jealous mOnOtheists of
their time may be recognized.
If, then, this struggle for antiquity
among the Old Testament books.
struggle in which Genesis. Exodus.
and other historical books have one by
one backed down and stepped out Of
the contest. and in which finally the
books of Ruth and Proverbs. and job
even, have yielded. must end with the
recognition for the priority of Deuter
onOmy, we are certainly in better po-
sition than formerly to put a just es-
innate upon the work of its authors.
Naturally those who feel to look upon
most of Amos. Hosea. Micah. and Jere-
miah. together with certain chapters
of Isaiah as early, or pre-exilic, cannot
recognize these ardent Iionists. known
to scholars as Deutcronomists. at their
full worth. though they give them
not n little credit as unifiers of the
people and centraliZers of their wor-
ship. and do not fail to speak enthu-
siastically of their pronounced mono
theism. and their lofty ethical tone. all
of which. as we are happy to note.
strangely allies them to us modern
UnitarianS.
1t has frequently been remarked
that. if we cannot. as liberal Chris
tians. have Hebrew and Christians
Scriptures that has not been made by
English Churchmen and others in the
interests of traditional orthodoxy. we
mt least should have a handy commen-
tary. SO far as the Old Testament is
concerned. it is generally understood
that the present arrangement of the
books is misleading. though it is likely
that most readers fail to discover to
what distressing extent II is so. To
have Lcviticus placed before Dcuter
onomy. to have the fictitious story of
single tabernacle i'm Exodus prcccde
Deuteronomy. and to have Dcutcron-
omy itself stand in front of the JE
material of Joshua. Judges and Sam
uel should be admitted as most per-
picking to the average reader. If we
could have in a compact volume the
.JE narratives. followed by the book
of Deuteronomy. and that in turn bv
the other parts or books of the Old
Testament in their natural sequence.
their chronological order, the progress
sive development and real character of
this Hebrew literature would be most
happily apparent Such efforts as
have been made to bring together the
various parts of the Old Testament in
something like their natural and or
derly sequence have not proved alto
gether satisfactory. Perhaps the time
- H.