******************************************** 1.  Jahrbb. fur Deutsche Theol., 1876, p. 596 seq. ********************************************

And lastly, Noldeke considers Josh. xxii. to speak quite decidedly for his view; but in the narrative of the Priestly Code, xxii. 9-34, to which the verses l-8 do not belong, there is no sign of Deuteronomistic revision to be found. 2

********************************************** 2.  Joh.  Hollenberg in Stud. und Krit., 1874, p. 462 seq. **********************************************

There is a more serious difficulty only in the case of the short chapter, Josh. xx., of which the kernel belongs to the Priestly Code, though it contains all sorts of additions which savour strongly of the Deuteronomistic revision.  Kayser declares these awkward accretions to be glosses of quite a late period.  This may seem to be pure tendency-criticism; but it is reinforced by the confirmation of the Septuagint, which did not find any of those alleged Deuteronomistic additions where they now are. 3

************************************************ 3.  Aug.  Kayser, Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichtc Israels (Strassburg, 1874), p. 147, seq.; Joh.  Hollenberg, der Charactcr der Alex.  Uebersetzung des B. Josua (Programm des Gymn. zu Moers, 1876), p. 15. **************************************************

But were it the case that some probable traces of Deuteronomistic revision were actually to be found in the Priestly Code, we must still ask for an explanation of the disproportionately greater frequency of such traces in JE.  Why, for example, are there none of them in the mass of laws of the middle books of the Hexateuch?  This is undoubtedly and everywhere the fact, and this must dispose us a priori to attach less weight to isolated instances to the contrary:  the more so, as Joshua xx. shows that the later retouchings of the canonical text often imitate the tone of the Deuteronomist.

IX.II.

IX.II.1.  I have said that in the L)DH W of Josh. ix. 27, we have the addition of a final priestly revision.  Such a revision must be assumed to have taken place, if the Priestly Code is younger than Deuteronomy.  But the assumption of its existence does not depend on deduction merely:  Kuenen argued for it inductively, even before he became a supporter of Graf’s hypothesis. 1

********************************************** 1.  Historisch-Kritisch Onderzoek I. (Leyden, 1861), p. 165; the reviser of the Pentateuch must be sought in the same circles in which the Book of Origins (Q) arose and was gradually extended and modified, i.e., among the priests of Jerusalem, p. 194; it is generally thought that the Deuteronomist is the reviser of the whole Book of Joshua, but his hand is not to be traced everywhere,—­not, for example, in the priestly sections; the last reviser is to be distinguished from the Deuteronomist.  In certain narratives of Numbers and Joshua, Kuenen detected very considerable additions by the last reviser, and the results of his investigation have now been published in the first part of the second edition of his great isagogic work (Leyden, 1885). ***********************************************