HEXATEUCH (from Gk. hex. six -• ieuehos, implement. hook). A term used to denote the lirst six books of the Bible, viz.: ticnesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers. Deuteronomy, ,and Joshua, peou•uch (q.v.) as a title of the five books ascribed to loses. and 0011 fetid' as a designation of these with 'Joshua. Judges, and Ruth, go hack to an Ilexuteuch is a modern term that has come into vogue chiefly through Nuenen an 1 Wellhausen. It represents a critical view, ac cording to which the Book of Joshua was corm piled from the same sources as the Pentateuell, and once formed with it a separate work. This opinion presupposes the conviction that the Pen t:item-1i is not the work of Moses, but a later •ganpilalion from sources, of different age, which sources also appear in the Book of .Joshua. The existence of such sources is thought to he proved by duplicate ae•ounts of the same events and marked differences of representation, which glif ferenees do nut occur indiscriminately. but appear in well-defined sections and in combination, a given point of view and certain marked d• acterisbies of language and style invariably being found together. The following sources are now generally recognized: (1) A prophetic narra tive, itself a combination of two distinct sources. one using Jehovah (Yahweh) as the divine name and hence commonly called the other using Elohim as the name of God and hemp called E. the combination being designated as .1E. It resents a succession of more or less closely con nected narratives, lieginning the creation and extending to the conquest of Canaan. (2) A priestly document (P). covering the same period, lint distinguished by the combination of narrative with legal ordinances. It is often ealled the 'Priests' Code.' although the name strictly be longs only to the legislative portions (i.e. cer tain of the laws in Exodus and those of Leviticus and Numbers1. (31 The code of laws known as the 'Book of the Covenant' (C; Ex. xxi-xxiii 1. (4) Another code, the 'LaAv of Holiness' Lev. xvii.-xxvi.). (5) The Book of Deuteronomy (D: also containing certain codes). The work of combination is commonly referred to a `ro da•tor' designated by R. These sources are in turn generally considered as composite, or at least to have undergone successive revisions be fore being combined into the llexateuch as we have it. There is difference of opinion concerning the minutiae of the analysis. the age of the docu ments, and their relation to each other, and the process or processes by which they have reached their final form. But scholars do not now ques tion the existence of such sources: and they are in substantial accord as to what they are in the main, as indicated above. That the Pentateuch contains post-Mosaic material was seen by some writers as early as the second century, such as Ptolemy the Gnostic. and the author of the Clementine Recognitions. It was shrewdly in timated by Ibn Ezra (died 1167). Through Carlstadt (1520), Du Macs (1574), Pereira ( 1534 ) • Boni are ( 1625 ) , Hobbes ( 1651 ) Pey rem ( 1655 ) , Spinoza ( 1670 ) , Simon ( 1678 ) . and Le Clere (1685), the facts showing a later au thorship of the Pentateuch were brought out. In 1753 Astruc published his epoch-making con jectures as to the documents possibly used by Moses in the compilation of .Genesis. Ile had correctly observed that sections in which Elohini was used as the divine name differed in vocab ulary. style. and thought from sections in which the name Yahweh was used. and concluded that they belonged to different documents, though some fragments could not be ascribed to either of these. Before the end of the century Eieh horn (1780) and Ilgen (1798) had further de veloped the documentary theory. the latter dis tinguishing between two sources using the name Elohim and leaving it an open question whether there was more than one writer using the name Yahweh, while Geddes (1792-1800) had framed a theory based on the existence of unrelated frag ments recognized by Astruc. This theory was introduced in Germany by Vatcr (18021, and found an exponent in De Wette (1806), whose view that the divine names represented not so much different authors as different ages or schools of religious thought was destined to ex ercise a wider influence. He also suggested that an earlier epic was supplemented in later times. This led to the supplementary theory championed by Ewald and 'Fitch (1830). While Be Wette himself and Gesenius (18151 still regarded the bulk of the legislation in Exodus and Leviticus as earlier than Deuteronomy. which they placed in the Exile, George (1835) and Vatke (1835) were led partly by a careful analysis of customs and ideas, partly by applying Hegelian principles of historic development, to the conviction that this priestly legislation was later than Deuteron omy, thus anticipating the position now gen erally held. The reaction led by Ewald against
a too mechanical construction of history accord ing to philosophical categories, and in the direc tion of a stronger emphasis upon personality, brought Ilexateuchal criticism back to the docu mentary theory, while delaying for a time the recognition of israel's historic development divined by the diseiples of De Wette and by Reuss. This scholar in 1850 expressed his Con viction that the priestly legislation was later than Deuteronomy. hut without a definite con ception of the Penta teuchal documents. Unpfeld in 1S53 earefully defined the main sources of Genesis, making the necessary distinction between the two writers using the name Elohim. A cor rect characterization of Deuteronomy was given by Riehm (1854). A clear idea of the Priests' Code could only be obtained after the historical criticism of Reimarus (whose Wolfenbattel Frag ments were published by Lessing in 1777) 11:1(1 been resumed by Colenso (1860) and Ni)Ideke (1863). Before Noldeke's work had appeared it was still possible for Graf (1866) to give to the legislative portions a post-exilic date, while leaving the closely allied matter in the pre Deuteronomic period. This error was corrected by Known (1866). The position reached by Reuss. Graf, and Kuenen was ably defended by WelMonsen (1876). His comparison between the regulations as to sanctuaries, festivals, priestly functions, and revenues in the different codes and between these and the historic and prophetic books was especially convincing. Budde (1883) observed that there was an earlier stratum within the Yahwistic documents which did not know of a deluge. The history of Israel was written from the new standpoint by Stade (1886). Dill mann embodied the results of documentary analysis in his learned commentaries on the books of the Hexateuch 118+6-92). though he was unwilling to accept the priority of Deuteron omy except as regards some late additions to the Priests' Code. During the last decade most scholars have come to recognize the essentially post-exilic origin of the Priests' Code. The Book of the Covenant is considered the oldest of the codes and perhaps of the sources. It probably dates from early in the ninth century, B.c. It is generally held that the earlier Elohistie narra tives originated in North Israel before the fall of Samaria in n.c. 722. The Yahwistie narratives show a marked preference for Judean heroes. sanctuaries, and traditions; hence many schol ars assign them to the Kingdom of Judah be fore the reign of Josiah: others think they originated in the northern kingdom, hut have been worked over in Judah, it is agreed that both the Elohistic and the Yahwistie documents received various additions from time to time. They were combined in the seventh century B.C. The difference of opinion as to their relative age has lost nmeh of its positiveness and importance by the fact that, in case of duplicate,. the originality is seen to be sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other, and by the shifting of interest from the writers, who, after all, were chiefly collectors of stories, to the narrators who gave them a form and told them at the sanc tuaries. It is especially Gunkel (10021 who has called attention to these aspects of the question. While Steuernagel has not won general recogni tion for his analysis of the Deuteronomie Code. it is commonly maintained that our present book has gone through at least two redactions. and this scholar has made it probable that the Nvnrk introduced by Josiah as the law of Israel (see .iostAn) had itself been compiled from smaller codes embodying decisions by elders. priestly or acles, and acknowledged rules of conduct. The code of Holiness is thought to belong to the time of Ezekiel (e.560 B.C.) and the combination of Deuteronomy and JE probably took place at about the same time. :\lost uncertainty still pre vails in regard to the Priests' Code. While scholars consider this code as having been in troduced by Ezra and afterwards united with Deuteronomy and the earlier code-books (e.400 B.C.) others look upon the Code of Ezra as a compilation containing both the priestly docu ments and the previously existing ones. The general opinion is that the Priests' Code grew up in Babylon. Eduard Meyer icgarsIs Ezra as its author. But the unity of this hook has long liven questioned, Popper I 1)+62) showed that Ex, xxxv.-xl. and Lev. are by a differ ent hand from that which wrists. EN. xxv.- xxxi. klostermarm (1S77) indicated a sepa. rate authorship for the Holiness Code ( Lev.