3, forsaken, ceasing. Isa. liii. 3; Ps. xxxix. 5; Ezek. iii. 27 only. There is an important difference here. In B and Psalms the word is passive, in Ezekiel active. B says, "he was despised and forsaken of men"; the Psalmist, "I shall know how frail I am"; Ezekiel," he who forbeareth shall forbear." Here again B agrees with an early writer, and differs from a late one. (The distinction however seems doubtful; cf. Näglesbach's critical note.)

, a viper, Isa. xxx. 6; lix. 5; Job xx. 16 only. There is no connection between the Isaian passages, which strengthens the evidence for unity drawn from incidental agreement. B has in this same passage another word for viper, is, found nowhere else fully written except in A. Note also, to press out, Isa. i. 6; lix. 5 ; Job xxxix. 15; Judg. vi. 38 only. Hence B uses in this verse three of A's rare words, but without quoting from him.

, a fugiThe word

, a fugitive, Isa. xxvii. 1; xliii. 14; Job xxvi. 13 only. So the Vade Mecum; but Gesenius, while quoting, Isa. xv. 5, under the word, a bar, prefers to derive it from the above word for fugitive. Davies's Lexicon makes a separate form, tive; but this is not necessary, as Gesenius has shown. in Isa. xv. 5 is a perfect parallel to xliii. 14, being a substantive in the plural, while in the other two cases, it is an adjective in the singular. Ezekiel has a different word for fugitive, coming from the same root, . Had B lived at Babylon in the time of the Exile, he would probably have used that word.

I add a list of miscellaneous words, which illustrates still further the difference between the vocabularies of B and Ezekiel. Those marked as found in B do not occur in Ezekiel, or at least, not with the meaning given; the converse is also true. It is not necessary to indicate the agreements between A and B, as these may be found in the Index previously published.

I would not be understood to rest the chief weight of the argument on this list; it simply adds one more to a series of independent inferences. The present Article endeavors to prove that the scenery and allusions of Ezekiel, as also his vocabulary, are germane to the place and time assigned him in the Canon, and that the same is true of Isaiah B, as evinced by the contrast with the former prophet, and the agreement with Isaiah A, which he presents at every point of comparison. This appears in inorganic nature (pp. 526–529); in the vegetable and animal kingdoms (pp. 530-533); in the sphere of human activities, domestic, social, military, and religious (pp. 534-537); being strikingly manifest in the names for God (pp. 538-543). The same result is confirmed by the very grouping of the vocabularies in question. Both in respect to common and uncommon words (pp. 544–546), the agreement is close between A and B, while the disparity is wide between B and Ezekiel. Independent evidence results from the careful study of about twenty among the rarest words in B's vocabulary (pp. 547-552), and the nail is clinched by a list of seventy miscellaneous words found in B, but wanting in Ezekiel, who expresses the same ideas by eighty-three . other words, foreign to B's vocabulary. Thus it will be seen that the evidence for the integrity of Isaiah is not a chain which must fall if any link be broken; it consists rather of a multitude of pillars, each and all supporting the conclusion that the second part of Isaiah is rightfully placed with the first.

In view of all this, it may not be presumptuous to express the hope that when Professor Kuenen revises his "Religion of Israel,” he will not begin by asserting (p. 15 English translation), "we know for certain that the last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah are the productions of a later prophet, who flourished in the second half of the sixth century B.C." Be it so that this is a result "of the entire intellectual work of Europe during the last century" (p. 7), still the present century has something to say on that topic. Mr. Cheyne, for example, so far from knowing for certain any such facts, professes to know but in part.1

1 As these closing pages go to the press, I find that a new edition of Mr. Cheyne's Commentary on Isaiah has just appeared. I regret that I have had access only to Vol. i., in which I find nothing which would lead me to modify the views above expressed.

III.

-THE PENTATEUCHAL CODES COMPARED.

THE Hexateuch, as analyzed by Julius Wellhausen and the school of critics he represents, may be formulated as follows: JE+D+HG+PC (Q) +R.1 This formula will be found convenient for reference, as well as to present to the eye the relative order of the codes according to this system. Each of these letters or combination of letters, it will be seen, except the last, represents a different stage of the legislation; JE having for its nucleus the Book of the Covenant, which is followed by the Deuteronomic code, and

1 At the risk of a slight repetition (see pp. 5, 6, 225, 226 above), it may be well to explain here, more in detail, this analysis. The letters JE stand severally for a Jahvist and an Elohist document, the former beginning at Gen. ii. 5, the latter at Gen. xx. These are claimed to be the oldest documents of the Bible; but the question of their relative age is not specially mooted. The germ of J is the so-called Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx.-xxiii., xxxiv.), though, with this exception, it is in the main an historical work. It arose, it is said, in the period of the earlier Hebrew kings and prophets. E is a similar historical work which, after circulating like its companion document, separately for a timeaccording to Wellhausen each passed through three editions in this separate form was united to J by the Jehovist, who also revised and edited to some extent. D represents the legislative portions of Deuteronomy, originating in the eighteenth year of King Josiah (B.C. 621), the chapters preliminary and following being added at a considerably later period. HG (i.e. Heiligkeitsgesetz), is used for chaps. xvii-xxvi. of Lev., which were composed, it is maintained, at VOL. XL. No. 160.-OCTOBER, 1883. 75

that in succession by Lev. xvii.-xxvi., and the remaining priestly legislation of the middle books of the Pentateuch.

The method adopted by Wellhausen to prove that these collections of laws do actually represent different so-called stratifications, which took form in the widely separated periods indicated in our note, is twofold. I. He endeavors to show that when compared there is evidence of a marked development in these several parts of the legislation themselves in the direction named, i.e. from JE toward PC. II. He calls attention to the impression left by the laws on the historical books of the Old Testament, not excepting the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua,- and claims that the history most readily adapts itself to such a theory of the post-Mosaic development of the codes. Under the first head five particulars are specially dwelt upon: 1. the place of worship; 2. the sacrifices; 3. the feasts; 4. the priests and Levites; 5. the provision made for the support of priests and Levites. The object of the present article will be to discover, if possible, what fair conclusion may be drawn from an examination of these several collections of laws on the points named. Is such a theory of development, as is proposed a necessary or legitimate outcome of a really candid and critical investigation? Adopting Wellhausen's order, let us consider the attitude of these laws as it respects:

1. The Place of Worship. The position here assumed is, that there are three successive steps in the growth of the idea and practice among the Israelites of worshipping at one central sanctuary, and that these three steps are distinctly about the time of Ezekiel, although not by him. Q (quatuor foederum liber) is the great historical and legislative work beginning the Bible, and like E peculiar in its predominant use of as a name for God, and embracing by far the largest part of the Hexateuch. PC is the symbol for Priests' Code, the name given to Q after receiving, from time to time, the various additions made to it, up to the period of its completion subsequent to the Exile (B.c. 444). The letter R stands for Redactor, the person who combined JE and D with PC. He is assumed to have had the style of the document last named, and to have done his work wholly in its spirit. The Hexateuch having thus been brought, essentially, to the form in which it is now found was published and introduced by Ezra.