************************************** 1.  And it would not be surprising when we consider the whole character of the polemic against Graf’s hypothesis, if the next objection should be the very opposite of the above, viz. that it is not able to construct the history. *************************************

After laboriously collecting the data offered by the historical and prophetical books, we constructed a sketch of the Israelite history of worship; we then compared the Pentateuch with this sketch, and recognised that one element of the Pentateuch bore a definite relation to this phase of the history of worship, and another element of the Pentateuch to that phase of it.  This is not putting logic in the place of historical investigation.  The new doctrine of the irrationality of what exists is surely not to be pushed so far, as that we should regard the correspondence between an element of the law and a particular phase of the history as a reason for placing the two as far as possible asunder.  At least this principle would have to be applied to the Jehovist and Deuteronomy too, and not to the Priestly Code only.  What is right in the one case is fair in the other too; a little logic unfortunately is almost unavoidable.

Not everything that I have brought forward in the history of the cultus and the tradition, is a proof of the hypothesis; there is much that serves merely to explain phenomena at the basis of the hypothesis, and cannot be used as proving it.  This is a matter of course.  My procedure has intentionally differed from that of Graf in this respect.  He brought forward his arguments somewhat unconnectedly, not seeking to change the general view which prevailed of the history of Israel.  For this reason he made no impression on the majority of those who study these subjects; they did not see into the root of the matter, they could still regard the system as unshaken, and the numerous attacks on details of it as unimportant.  I differ from Graf chiefly in this, that I always go back to the centralisation of the cultus, and deduce from it the particular divergences.  My whole position is contained in my first chapter:  there I have placed in a clear light that which is of such importance for Israelite history, namely, the part taken by the prophetical party in the great metamorphosis of the worship, which by no means came about of itself.  Again I attach much more weight than Graf did to the change of ruling ideas which runs parallel with the change in the institutions and usages of worship; this has been shown mostly in the second part of the present work.  Almost more important to me than the phenomena themselves, are the presuppositions which lie behind them.

Not everything that we have hitherto discussed proves, or is meant to prove, Graf’s hypothesis.  On the other hand, however, there is abundance of evidence, which has not yet been noticed.  To discuss it all in detail, would take another book:  in this work only a selection can be with all brevity indicated, if the limits are not to be transgressed which are imposed by the essentially historical character of these prolegomena.  In these discussions the Pro will as a rule naturally suggest itself in the refutation of the Contra.