VIII.I.3.  As a further objection to Graf’s hypothesis, the Deuteronomistic revision of the Hexateuch is brought into the field.  That revision appears most clearly, it is said, in those parts which follow the Deuteronomic Torah and point back to it.  It used to be taken for granted that it extends over the Priestly portions as well as the Jehovistic; but since the occasion arose to look into this point, it is found that it is not so.  The traces which Noldeke brings together on the point are trifling, and besides this do not stand the test.  He says that the Deuteronomistic account of the death of Moses (Deuteronomy xxxii. 48 seq., xxxiv. 1 seq.) cannot be regarded as anything else than an amplification of the account of the main stem (Q), which is preserved almost in the same words.  But Deuteronomy xxxiv. 1b-7 contains nothing of Q and xxxii. 48-52 has not undergone Deuteronomistic revision.  He also refers to Josh. ix. 27:  “Joshua made the Gibeonites at that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation and for the altar of Jehovah even unto this day, in the place which He should choose.”  The second part of this sentence, he says, is a Deuteronomistic addition to the first, which belongs to the Priestly narrative.  But Noldeke himself acknowledges that the Deuteronomistically-revised verses ix. 22 seq. are not the continuation of the priestly version 15c, 17-21, but of the Jehovistic version 15ab, 16; and between verse 16 and verse 22 there is nothing wanting but the circumstance referred to in verse 26.  The phrase hewer of wood and drawer of water is not enough to warrant us to separate verse 27 from 22-26; the phrase occurs not only in verse 21 but also in JE verse 23.  The words FOR THE CONGREGATION do certainly point to the Priestly Code, but are balanced by the words which follow, FOR THE ALTAR OF JEHOVAH, which is according to the Jehovistic view.  The original statement is undoubtedly that the Gibeonites are assigned to the altar or the house of Jehovah.  But according to Ezekiel xliv. the hierodulic services in the temple were not to be undertaken by foreigners, but by Levites; hence in the Priestly Code the servants of the altar appear as servants of the congregation.  From this it results that LMZBX is to be preferred in verse 27 to L(DH W, the latter being a later correction.  As such it affords a proof that the last revision of the Hexateuch proceeded from the Priestly Code, and not from Deuteronomy.  As for Joshua xviii. 3-10, where Noldeke sees in the account of the division of the land another instance of Deuteronomistic addition, I have already indicated my opinion, VIII.III.2..  The piece is Jehovistic, and if the view were to be found in the Priestly Code at all, that Joshua first allotted their territory to Judah and Ephraim, and then, a good while after, to the other seven tribes, that source must have derived such a view from JE, where alone it has its roots. 1