Pentateuch, a Greek word (pentateuchos) meaning 'the five-volumed (book),' is the name used by Origen to denote what the Jews of his time called 'the law' (Torah) or, more fully, 'the five-fifths of the law.' The same word was adopted into the Latin by Tertullian. 'The five books of Moses' as a designation of the Pentateuch was first made current in the Western Church at a considerably later period by Jerome and Rufinus; but a Jewish writer (Josephus) had long before stated that the first five books of the Old Testament canon 'belong to Moses.' The Greek names by which the five books are now known—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers (Arithmoi), Deuteronomy—have come to us from the Septuagint through the Vulgate Latin. Along with the book of Joshua these five really form one continuous work, now usually referred to by modern scholars as the Hexateuch, the present division of the Hexateuch having been made by a comparatively late editor. The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is nowhere affirmed in the books themselves, but it is suggested by certain obvious phenomena in various parts of them, though contradicted by others; and it had begun to be held before the Jewish canon was closed ('the law of Moses,' Dan. ix. 11, 13; 'the book of Moses,' 2 Chron. xxv. 4, xxxv. 12). It soon became a fixed ecclesiastical tradition and a tacitly established point of Christian orthodoxy, and those who doubted or denied it were generally held to be, and in fact often were, hostile to Christianity (Hobbes, Spinoza), though this cannot be said of Leclerc, Simon, or Morinus. The facts which have generally led scholars with steadily increasing unanimity to a contrary conclusion have already been indicated under BIBLE, where the leading documents—JE (Jahvist + Elohist), D (Deuteronomy), and P (Priestly history and Priestly legislation)—have been named and characterised. The present article will seek to describe these documents with rather fuller detail and to indicate briefly what is maintained by many modern critics as to the nature of the somewhat complex process by which they have reached their present state of combination.
(I.) JE.—This is compounded mainly from two older parallel narratives, both of which embodied in writing current oral tradition relating to the origin of the world and of man, and to the patriarchal and heroic periods of Hebrew history. The extent of the document as we now have it may be ascertained roughly by deducting D and P (see below) from our present Hexateuch, allowance being also made, however, for editorial additions and glosses. The separation of its two constituent elements is a problem of greater delicacy and difficulty. (1) The work of the Jahvist, which employs the name Jahweh (see JEHOVAH) throughout, is distinguished also, on the whole, by other well-marked characteristics, especially a naïve anthropomorphism, which appears more particularly in its frequent accounts of Divine appearances under the form of 'the angel of Jehovah,' as, for example, to Abraham, to Lot, and to Moses at the inn and also on Pisgah. The style is lively, vivid, and popular. The author shows special interest in the local sanctuaries which were still recognised in his own time, showing that they owed their origin to theophanies in the pre-Egyptian period. His decalogue is that ancient and simple form of the law contained in Ex. xxxiv. He introduces, at various places, extracts from older poetical works, such as Gen. xlix, and the quotations from 'the book of the wars of Jehovah.' For minute details as to the limits of his work reference must be made to some of the books mentioned in the bibliography appended to this article; among the more important passages in Genesis which can with considerable certainty be attributed to him are the account of the creation and fall in ii. 4b-iv. 26; portions of vi.; one of the two parallel accounts of the flood contained in vii., viii.; the history of Abraham in xii., xiii., xv., xvi., xviii., xix., xxiv., and xxv. 1-6; of Isaac in xxv. 21-34, and xxvi.-xxvii.; considerable portions of the history of Jacob, including one of the narratives which make up chap. xxxiv.; portions of xxxvii., the story of Judah (xxxviii.); the story of Joseph in xxxix., xliii., xliv., xlvii., and l. (also some fragments in the intervening chapters). (2) The Elohist, who in the book of Genesis invariably employs the name Elohim, has several distinguishing characteristics. He shows some beginnings of a tendency to remodel the ancient traditions in a less anthropomorphic sense. He does not speak of objective manifestations of the Deity under human form as the angel of Jehovah, but prefers rather to represent divine communications as being by dreams, visions, and voices. It has been remarked that he takes a special interest in the sanctuary of Beersheba. His decalogue, if later expansions be left out, is that contained in Ex. xx. He no doubt originally had an account of the creation and fall parallel to that of the Jahvist; but the earliest extant fragment of his work is probably that preserved in Gen. xv. 5. To him are attributed Gen. xx. 1-17, xxi. 6a, 8-32a, the greater part of xxii., considerable portions of xxvii., xxix., and xxx.-xxxii., xxxv. 1-8, almost the whole of xl.-xlii. and some portions of the remaining chapters; Ex. i. 6, 8-12, 15-22, ii. 1-10, 15, iii. 1-6, 9-16, iv. 17-23, v. 1, 3, 5-23, vi. 1, vii. 17, 18, 20, 21, ix. 22-26, 31, 32, x. 12, 13a, 14a, 21-29, a few verses of xi. xii., xiii. 17-19, xiv. 7, 9, 16, 22, xv. 20-25, xvii. 3-16, xviii., xix. 2, 3, 10, 13-17, 19, xx. 1-23 (with later additions), xxiv. 3-8, 12-14, 18b, xxxi. 18, xxxii. 15-20, 25-29, xxxiii. 1-3, 5-11; Numb. x. 33-36, xi. 1-3, 7-10, 30-34, xii. 1-15, xiii. 20, 23, 24, 30-33, xiv. 39-45, portions of chap. xvi., xx. 3-11, 13-21, xxi. 12-30, portions of the story of Balaam, xxv. 3, 5, xxxii. 16, 17, 24, 34-39, 41, 42; Deut. xxxi. 14-23, xxxii. 44, xxxiii., xxxiv. 10.
That J and E once existed as separate narratives is now unanimously agreed, and that their dates must be sought somewhere between 900 B.C. at the earliest and 750 at the latest may also be regarded as settled. Within these limits there is considerable diversity of opinion. It is agreed on the whole that E belonged to the northern kingdom, and many hold this of J also, but some of the strongest critics think of the Jahvist as having been a Judæan. There is disagreement also as to the relative ages of the two, some thinking E the older, but the preponderance of argument seems to be in favour of J. The two were brought together into the document now known as JE by a redactor (sometimes called for convenience' sake the Jehovahist, as distinguished from the Jahvist) towards the end of the 7th century. His aim was to embrace the two parallel histories; and his method was simple. Where the two were closely parallel he seems to have chosen the one he thought the preferable and to have cancelled the other (saving occasionally a word or clause); when he found the same incident related of different persons and in very different forms, such as the incident of Abraham and Sarah at Pharaoh's court, and Isaac and Rebekah at Abimelech's, he gave both, introducing some reconciling notes (e.g. Gen. xxvi. 18). A good example of his manner of combination is afforded by the narrative of Jacob's dream. JE also introduced new matter. In particular, the legislative portion of his work, usually spoken of as the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx. 24-xxiii. 33, xxiv. 28), shows the influence of the Assyrian period, and (it is held) cannot be earlier than the 7th century (but prior to the publication of Deuteronomy).
(II.) D.—Deuteronomy also is a composite work, and its various elements are not all of the same date. In structure it consists of a legislative kernel (xii.-xxvi.), to which are prefixed two separate introductions (i. 1-iv. 44, and v. 1-xi. 32) and two separate epilogues or concluding narratives (xxvii. and xxviii.-xxx.). Finally, the last four chapters form an appendix containing some materials from J and E. Critics are now generally agreed that the original Deuteronomy to which reference is made in 2 Kings is what we have spoken of as the legislative kernel. The date of its publication we know to have been 621 B.C. That of its composition is less certain, but no one now proposes to carry it back to an earlier date than the reign of Hezekiah. There is difference of opinion as to the authorship of the prologues and epilogues. The second introduction and first epilogue, if by the author of the central portion of the book, were probably written at least at a later date. The first introduction, recapitulating portions of the history of JE, and the second epilogue, containing unmistakable allusions to the exile, are believed to have been the work of a second Deuteronomistic writer about the beginning of the 6th century. A third Deuteronomistic redactor towards the close of the exile (about 536 B.C.) combined JE with D, and gave what is known as the Deuteronomistic redaction to the historical books 1 Samuel to 2 Kings. But the so-called Deuteronomistic redaction was perhaps not a single or final act; some think it did not wholly cease till the beginning of the Grecian period. Considerable portions of the Book of Joshua are probably due to one of the Deuteronomists—e.g. i., iv. 21–24, viii. 30–35, xi. 10–23, xii. 1–24, xiii. 1–14, xiv. 6–15, xvii. 1–6, xxiii.
(III.) P.—Of all the elements of the Hexateuch by far the bulkiest (see BIBLE, Vol. II. p. 120, and add Josh. xiii. 15–33, xiv. 1–5, xv. 1–12, 20–62, xvi. 4–8, xvii. 1–9, xviii. 11–28, xix.–xxi.–xxii. 9–34) is that supplied by the so-called Priestly document. It is also the most easily distinguishable, and even those critics who differ most widely as to its age are agreed almost to a verse as to its extent. The criteria which they apply are certain well-marked features in its highly developed and esoteric ritual legislation, and, as regards its narrative portions, a certain mechanical precision with which it follows a formal arrangement of its matter, and heads each section with a title, the apparent accuracy of its chronological, genealogical, and statistical details, and, along with that, an almost entire absence of the picturesque elements which give their chief literary charm to J and E. In the opinion of a rapidly increasing number of critics the evidence for its relatively late origin is overwhelming. The argument is drawn not only from the characteristics of its legislation and history already alluded to, but also from its language and phraseology, from the fact that it is never alluded to in what are certainly known to be the pre-exilic books of the Old Testament canon, and from the absence of Deuteronomistically revised passages. As Deuteronomy is associated with Josiah's reformation, so is the Priestly legislation with that of Ezra. It, however, contains some elements which are earlier than that event (444 B.C.) and others which are later. Of an earlier date, in particular, is what critics call the Law of Holiness contained in Lev. xvii.–xxvi., presenting affinities with the last chapters of Ezekiel. The cessation of the temple functions with the beginning of the exile naturally led to a desire and effort on the part of zealous priests to preserve some memorials of the pre-exilic temple practice apparently threatened with oblivion; but further, it would seem, the lapse of time gave scope for a good deal of reflection and discussion about questions of detail with a view to possible improvements, and this was especially the case when it became plain that in the restored community the priesthood were destined to hold a much more prominent position than at any period of the monarchy. With the practically new detailed code which resulted was associated a brief summary of general history and of the history of Israel, the result being a work of combined legislative and narrative character similar to the previously existing JE + D which it was designed to supersede. Critics also discern further modifications of ritual which must be assigned to a later date than that of Ezra (see NEHEMIAH); but the investigation of these is still being carried on, and cannot be regarded as completed. When it was found that the Priestly document was only very slowly, if at all, superseding JE + D as an authoritative history and law book, the important step of incorporating it with that document was next taken. The work thus produced, probably before 400 B.C., was substantially our present Hexateuch. But it continued to undergo a process of editorial change and revision till a much later date. The division of the Hexateuch into the six books with which we are now so familiar is probably one of the last editorial operations it underwent, and carries us back, as we have seen, to at least the date of the LXX. translation.
The gradual ascertaining in modern times of the different sources of the Hexateuch has been described by Stade with hardly undue exaggeration as one of the most brilliant triumphs of human sagacity. The investigation of the problem on scientific lines may be said to have begun with Astruc (1753), who was the first to point out the value of the 'Jehovah' and 'Elohim' criteria in seeking to trace the authorship of different parts of Genesis. His hypothesis was introduced into Germany by Eichhorn, and was the beginning of a long discussion which has lasted till the present day, producing an immense literature, now for the most part quite out of date, and a vast variety of conflicting and, as was sometimes imagined, mutually destructive theories. The first cardinal fact to emerge from the chaos with clearness was the late date of Deuteronomy as being the new law book which formed the basis of Josiah's reformation. The credit of having established beyond doubt the post-Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy belongs chiefly to De Wette, whose activity dates from 1805. The next thing to be satisfactorily proved was the existence of two independent Elohist. The existence of two authors sharing the feature in common had been divined by Igen (1798), but it was always supposed that the one merely supplemented the other, till Hupfeld (1853) proved their complete independence. In other words, four distinct sources were now completely made out. Finally, Graf (1866) proved the post-exilic character of the legislative portion of the Priestly document (hitherto spoken of as the 'Grundschrift' or older Elohist), and it was further shown by Kuenen to the satisfaction of Graf himself that the same character belongs to the Priestly document as a whole. This indeed had been seen and argued for at an earlier date by Vatke (1835) and George (1835), but partly through defects in their manner of presenting their views, and partly because scientific and theological opinion was not yet sufficiently educated to receive it, it failed to make any impression. Reuss, Graf's teacher, claimed to have publicly taught the Grafian theory as early as 1833; but he did not publish it till 1879.
As a manual of modern Pentateuch criticism Kuenen's masterly Historico-critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch, translated from the Dutch by Wicksteed (1886), is indispensable to the student, and will probably hold a permanent place as a classical example of the application of modern methods in biblical criticism. The 'Introduction' prefixed to it, containing an outline of the history of Hexateuch criticism since 1861 will serve as guide to the older literature. Along with Kuenen's great treatise ranks Wellhausen's equally admirable Composition des Hexateuchs (2d ed., with appendices, 1889). Only the appendices to this work are new, the papers on the composition of the Hexateuch having appeared originally in the Jahrbücher f. deutsche Theol. in 1876–77, and having been reprinted without modification in 1885.
Valuable assistance of a typographical or mechanical kind is to be had from Kautzsch and Socin's little work entitled Die Genesis mit äusserer Unterscheidung der Quellenschriften (2d ed. 1891), in which the various sources and the work of editors and glossators are indicated by the use of differential types. In Kautzsch's new translation of the Old Testament (Die Heilige Schrift des A. T., 1890–91), P, J, E, D, Dt, and R in the Hexateuch are indicated by letters on the margin. See also Lenormant's Genèse and Reuss's Bible. The critical views indicated in the foregoing article are more or less fully discussed, and the results reckoned with, in the histories of Israel by Wellhausen (Prolegomena to the History of Israel, with reprint of article 'Israel' from Ency. Brit., 1885), Stade (Gesch. d. V. Isr., 1887), Renan (Hist. du Peuple Isr., 3 vols. 1887–91; Eng. trans.), and Kittel (Gesch. d. Hebräer), whose first half-volume (1888) gives in a very instructive way the stories of the patriarchal age according to E, J, and P respectively, in three separate sections, followed by estimates of the historical meaning of each narrative. Dillmann placed P two centuries before the exile; Nöldeke and Schrader still argue for its comparatively early date; Baudissin dates it about thirty years before D. See also Holzinger's Einführung in den Hexateuch (1893). For a fuller bibliography Reuss's Gesch. der heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments (2d ed. 1890) may be consulted; see also article BIBLE, Vol. II. p. 128-9; and SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH.