and historical ideas contained in the Pentateuch or in the book of Joshua. A wide gulf of time and of the changes time brings, separates the Jahvist from the Deuteronomist, the Deuteronomist from the 'Priestly Writer.' Such is the main purpose of my work. Despite its manifold imperfections, it will, I hope, serve some useful purpose. I have had no predecessors in the same field. We have several translations of the documents in Genesis, and one of these is carefully and skilfully done, but no one, so far as I know, has extended his labours to the whole of the Hexateuch.

The plan followed is meant to distinguish between that which is certain and admitted on the one hand-that which is, and to some extent perhaps always will be, disputable, on the other. Thus, it is often hard to distinguish the Jahvist from the Elohist. But we very rarely find any difficulty in distinguishing the Jahvist and Elohist, considered as a unity, from the other documents. It is admitted that the Jahvist and Elohist are closely allied in thought and language; and, though not universally admitted, it can, I think, be shown that they were combined in one book before they were united with the other documents of the Hexateuch. Accordingly, I have endeavoured to reproduce this book. I have called it 'The Oldest Book of Hebrew History,' i.e. the oldest relatively to the rest of the Hexateuch, and I have not attempted to distinguish the Jahvist from the Elohist, except in cases where the evidence appeared to be strong. The introduction explains the steady and orderly progress of criticism, and fixes the attention of the reader on

the results attained and the points which are still in debate. The notes accent the distinguishing marks of the documents, and afford some imperfect illustration of their religious attitude and their historical data. In translating, it has been my habit to make my own translation of each verse, and then to adapt it as closely as I could to that of the Revised English Version. If the opportunity be afforded me, I hope to complete the documents of the Hexateuch in another volume. The main difficulties are now over, for the disputes on the text of the other documents are few and unimportant, at least by comparison.

Sometimes I have had to tread on dangerous ground, and I have not concealed my agreement with the school of Graf and his eminent disciples, on the whole. At the same time, if I have failed to give the arguments on the other side the weight which is their due, that has arisen from want of power, not from lack of will. I am unable to follow Dillmann's conclusions, but I have read and re-read his great commentary on the Hexateuch, and always with increasing admiration for its profound and varied learning and its astonishing accuracy.

It only remains to thank the friends upon whose counsel and kind encouragement I could always rely. I may be permitted to mention in particular Sir George Grove, who is so well known to all lovers of the Bible by his articles in Smith's Bible Dictionary. Mr. Haas, of the firm of David Nutt, has softened the pains of exile by supplying me with the Old Testament literature of the Continent. To the friend whose name stands in the Dedication I owe my first knowledge of the subject, my

first real interest in the Bible; and the trouble he has taken in arranging for the publication and correcting the proofs is but one of many benefits continued through a long course of years.

MELBOURNE, Australia,
September 1891.

W. E. ADDIS.

The following list of the chief works which I have used is appended for the convenience of the reader.

FOR the Hebrew text and ancient versions.-The ordinary Hebrew Bible of Van der Hooght, with the text in Stier and Theile's Polyglotten-Bibel, which is based on the fourth stereotyped edition of the Hebrew text as given by Hahn. In Genesis I was able to use the critical edition of Baer (1869). For the various readings (seldom of much value) I have consulted Kennicott's Hebrew Bible (1776), and De Rossi's Variae lectiones (1784 seq.). For the Samaritan copy of the Hebrew text I have used Kennicott's Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint has been read in the edition of Swete (Cambridge, 1887); the Peshitto (usually quoted as 'Syr.') in the edition revised by Dr. Lee for the Bible Society; the Targum of Onkelos in the edition of Berliner (1884); the Jerusalem Targums in the text of the London Polyglott; the Latin Vulgate in the text of Stier and Theile; the Arabic version of Saadia Gaon in the London Polyglott; the fragments of Greek versions other than the LXX. in Field's Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt (1875). Add Geiger's Urschrift und Uebersetzungen (1857). Of commentaries, I have read Keil on the Pentateuch and Joshua, Knobel and Kalisch on the same books; Tuch on Genesis, in the edition of Merx (1871); Delitzsch on Genesis (fifth edition, 1887); Spurrell on Genesis (1887). But I have been chiefly indebted to the commentary of Dillmann on the Hexateuch (Genesis, in the fifth edition, 1886). Dillmann's great work really supersedes all others.1

1 Where reference has been made to Rabbinical commentators, I have used Berliner's edition of Rashi (1866), and the texts as given in Buxtort's Rabbinical Bible.

For the general criticism of the Hexateuch I have used the introductions of Eichhorn (fourth edition, 1823); De Wette (edited by Schrader, 1869); Bleek (edited by Wellhausen; fifth edition, 1886); Strack (1888); Riehm (1889): also Colenso on the Pentateuch (18621879), Graf, Geschichtliche Bücher des A.T. (1866); Nöldeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des A.T. (1869); Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs (1885); Kuenen, Onderzoek (in the second edition of 1885, which is really a new book); Robertson Smith, O.T. in the Jewish Church (1881); Reuss, Geschichte d. heil. Schrift d. A.T. (second edition, 1890); Dillmann's essay in the last volume of his commentary of the Hexateuch (second edition, 1886); Delitzsch's Critical Studies on the five books of Moses; the introduction to Kittel's Geschichte der Hebräer (1888); and Stade's Geschichte des Volkes Israel (1887-8). Great use has been made of a long series of essays on the criticism of the Hexateuch, published by Kuenen in the Leiden Theologisch Tijdschrift (beginning in vol. xi. 1877), and of many articles of distinguished scholars in the Zeitschrift für A.T. Wissenschaft (1881, and still in progress).

The language of the 'Priestly Document,' as a criterion of its age, has been specially examined by Ryssel, De Elohistae Pentateuchici sermone (1878); by Giesebrecht in Z.A.T.W. for 1881; and by Professor Driver (in the Journal of Philology, No. xxii.).

For particular portions of the Hexateuch I have had the help of Ilgen, Urkunden des ersten Buchs von Moses (1798); Ewald, Composition der Genesis (1823); Bertheau, Sieben Gruppen mosaischer Gesetze (1840); Hupfeld, Quellen der Genesis (1853); Riehm, Gesetzgebung im Lande Moab (1854); Kayser, Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte Israels (1874), Albers, Quellenberichte in Joshua i-xii. (1891); Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte (1883); and Richter und Samuel (1890, containing an investigation of the Jahvist document in Joshua).

The history of Hebrew religion has been treated, in connection with the documents of the Hexateuch, and the questions which they raise, by Vatke, Religion des A.T. (1835); George, Die älteren jüdischen Feste (1835); Kuenen, Godsdienst van Israel (1869); König, Hauptprobleme der altisraelitischen Religion (1884); Baudissin, Geschichte des A.T. Priesterthums (1889).

1 They appeared in Luthard's Zeitschrift (1880), but are only available to me through the Dutch translation (1883).

Use has been made in dealing with the connection between the religion and history of Israel and those of foreign nations, specially the Egyptians and Assyrians, chiefly of such works as Smith's Chaldean Genesis, with the notes and additions of Frederic Delitzsch (1876); Ebers' Egypten und die Bücher Mosis, Baudissin's Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte (1876), Robertson Smith's lectures on The Religion of the Semites (1889), Schrader's Cuneiform Inscriptions and the O. 7. (English translation by Whitehouse, 1885), Bäthgen's Beiträge zur semitischen Religiongeschichte (1888), many articles in Riehm's Biblisches Handwörterbuch (1884), and various parts of the Records of the Past (1873, second series now in progress). Brugsch's Steinschrift und Bibelwort (1891) came to hand too late for use in this part.

Of course use has been made of many other works on Oriental history besides commentaries on other parts of the Old Testament and Biblical theologies, a list of which need not be given here. Works like Smend on Ezekiel, or again Duhm's Theologie der Propheten may be said to deal directly with the criticism of the Hexateuch.

I have passed over books like the History of Israel by Seinecke and that by Renan, because they do not, so far as I can judge, really help the progress of criticism. Their views, when original, are purely fantastic, and the same may be said of essays by Havet and Maurice Vernes.

To the translation of Genesis by Kautzsch and Socin, who distinguish the documents by variety of type, my obligations are very great. The only other work of the same kind which I have used is that of Lenormant (English translation, 1886), but it is of little value.

In references to foreign works of which an English translation has appeared, I have consulted the convenience of the English student by referring to the chapters, etc., not to the pages. For the dates of Hebrew history I have taken advantage of the chronological table in the second volume of Kuenen's Onderzoek (new edition, 1889).

I defer the mention of other books, because, though they have been used incidentally already, their names will be given with greater fitness in the second part of this work.

P.S.-Since these pages were in type three important