knowing what success had been achieved in separating the sources, and thereby he became involved in a desperate and utterly untenable assumption.  This assumption, however, had no necessary connection with his own hypothesis, and at once fell to the ground when the level to which Hupfeld brought the criticism of the text had been reached.  Graf originally followed the older view, espoused by Tuch in particular, that in Genesis the Priestly Code, with its so obtrusively bare skeleton, is the “main stock,” and that it is the Jehovist who supplements, and is therefore of course the later.  But since, on the other hand, he regarded the ritual legislature of the middle books as much more recent than the work of the Jehovist, he was compelled to tear it asunder as best he could from its introduction in Genesis, and to separate the two halves of the Priestly Code by half a millennium.  But Hupfeld had long before made it quite clear that the Jehovist is no mere supplementer, but the author of a perfectly independent work, and that the passages, such as Gen. xx.-xxii., usually cited as examples of the way in which the Jehovist worked over the “main stock,” really proceed from quite another source,—­the Elohist.  Thus the stumbling-block of Graf had already been taken out of the way, and his path had been made clear by an unlooked-for ally.  Following Kuenen’s suggestion, he did not hesitate to take the helping-hand extended to him; he gave up his violent division of the Priestly Code, and then had no difficulty in deducing from the results which he had obtained with respect to the main legal portion similar consequences with regard to the narrative part in Genesis. 1

*************************** 1.  K. H. Graf, Die s. g.  Grundschrift des Pentateucks, in Merx’s Archiv (1869), pp. 466-477.  As early as 1866 he had already expressed himself in a letter to Kuenen November 12) as follows:—­ “Vous me faites pressentir une solution de cette enigme...c’est que les parties elohistiques de la Genese seraient posterieures aux parties jehovistiques.”  Compare Kuenen, Theol.  Tijdschrift (1870), p.412.  Graf had also in this respect followed Reuss, who (ut supra, p. 24) says of himself:  “Le cote faible de ma critique a ete que, a l’egard de tout ce qui ne rentrait pas dans les points enumeres ci-dessus, je restais dans l’orniere tracee par mes devanciers, admettant sans plus ample examen que le Pentateuque etait l’ouvrage de l’HISTORIEN elohiste, complete par l’HISTORIEN jehoviste, et ne me rendant pas compte de la maniere dont l’element legal, dont je m’etais occupe exclusivement, serait venu se joindre a l’element historique. ***************************

The foundations were now laid; it is Kuenen who has since done most for the further development of the hypothesis./2/

************************** 2.  A. Kuenen, Die Godsdienst van Israel, Haarlem, 1869-70 (Eng. transl.  Religion of Israel, 1874-5), and De priesterlijke Bestanddeelen van Pentateuch en Josua, in Theol.  Tijdschr.(1870), pp. 391-426. **************************