************************ 2.  J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs, in Jahrb. f.  Deutsche Theologie, 1876, pp. 392-450, 531-602; 1877, pp. 407-479.  I do not insist on all the details, but, as regards the way in which the literary process which resulted in the formation of the Pentateuch is to be looked at in general, I believe I had indicated the proper line of investigation.  Hitherto the only important corrections I have received have been those of Kuenen in his Contributions to the Criticism of the Pentateuch and Joshua, published in the Leyden Theologisch Tijdschrift; but these are altogether welcome, inasmuch as they only free my own fundamental view from some relics of the old leaven of a mechanical separation of sources which had continued to adhere to it.  For what Kuenen points out is, that certain elements assigned by me to the Elohist are not fragments of a once independent whole, but interpolated and parasitic additions.  What effect this demonstration may have on the judgment we form of the Elohist himself is as yet uncertain.  In the following pages the Jehovistic history-book is denoted by the symbol je, its Jehovistic part by J, and the Elohistic by E; the “main stock” pure and simple, which is distinguished by its systematising history and is seen unalloyed in Genesis, is called the Book of the Four Covenants and is symbolised by Q; for the “main stock” as a whole (as modified by an editorial process) the title of Priestly Code and the symbol RQ (Q and Revisers) are employed. *************************

Now the Law, whose historical position we have to determine, is the so-called “main stack,” which, both by its contents and by its origin, is entitled to be called the Priestly Code, and will accordingly be so designated.  The Priestly Code preponderates over the rest of the legislation in force, as well as in bulk; in all matters of primary importance it is the normal and final authority.  It was according to the mode furnished by it that the Jews under Ezra ordered their sacred community, and upon it are formed our conceptions of the Mosaic theocracy, with the tabernacle at its centre, the high priest at its head, the priests and Levites as its organs, the legitimate cultus as its regular function.  It is precisely this Law, so called par exceIlence, that creates the difficulties out of which our problem rises, and it is only in connection with it that the great difference of opinion exists as to date.  With regard to the Jehovistic document, all are happily agreed that, substantially at all events, in language, horizon, and other features, it dates from the golden age of Hebrew literature, to which the finest parts of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, and the oldest extant prophetical writings also belong,—­the period of the kings and prophets which preceded the dissolution of the two Israelite kingdoms by the Assyrians.  About the origin of Deuteronomy there is still less dispute; in all circles where appreciation of scientific