Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums · 1928-01-01 · Heft 3 · p. Seite 323

323 wenigsten für mich eine Aufgabe bilden kann, habe ich doch auch in meiner kurzen Selbstbiographie gezeigt, der ich gerade deshalb den Titel ,,Der doppelte Wellhausenianismus im Lichte meiner Quellenforschungen“ (1927 bei Bertelsmann erschienen; 52 S.) gegeben habe, um allen Gelegenheit zur Erwerbung der Erkenntnis darzubieten, wie sehr die Auseinandersetzung mit den Wellhausenschen Theorien den Mittelpunkt meiner wissenschaftlichen Lebensarbeit gebildet hat. Hierzu schreibt uns Herr Harold M. Wiener: The above article must rank as in some ways one of König’s most important contributions to the study of Hebrew antiquity. In it he shows us honestly and lucidly exactly how far he has appreciated the case that has been made against Wellhausenism, and where the contentions of his opponents need additional explanation and clarification. Further he has done this in quite the most admirable way, following my October article in order, so that the precise issues are in each case put clearly before the reader for judgment. But the most significant matter of all is his complete break with the unscholarly proceedings of the Wellhausenians. Instead of doing his best to strengthen the conspiracy of silence he has come out into the open, and by so doing rendered an immeasurable Service to biblical studies. § 1- In this section — andonlyhere— König appears as the defender of Wellhausenism pure and simple. I think that in this he is guided by the necessities of the case. If Wellhausen and all his followers were wrong in their view that originally all slaughter was sacrific-ial, the position of the whole documentary school becomes untenable: for in that case the only possible explanation of Ex xx, Lev xvii and Dt xii is that they are all Mosaic subject only to textual criticism; and this again involves the admission that all three styles go back to Moses. Now I must first ask König to re-read a passage of my article on which he has said nothing, beginning with the words ״Ein noch schlagenderer Beweis“ on p 354 and going down to the end of the second paragraph of p 355. Why has he ignored this? It goes to the root of his whole position. Ex viii 22 with its clear implication that it was impossible to sacrifice what to the Egyptians were objects of worship, Deuteronomy teaching that of necessity the Israelites in exile would have no alternative but to give their sacrificial worship to other gods, David propounding as self-evident the view of his age that exile abroad necessarily embraced that and excluded sacrifice to Israel’s God, Hosea and Jeremiah reinforcing the same lesson, — all these provide an irresistible body of authority to show that in Gen xliii 16 we are dealing with non-sacrificial slaughter. *Does König really believe that he can dispose of the unanimous and emphatic testimony they fnrnish by suggesting without a tittle of evidence that some words may have been spoken which in his view, but not in theirs, would have constituted a sacrifice? Is he here quite just to himself, quite true to that Standard of ״Quellenmäßige Forschung“ which constitutes his ideal? These men knew what was meant by asacrifice to the Eternal and they had not the slightest doubt that in their period it was impossible on foreign soil. On the question of fact the reader must decide whether he will accept their unhesitating witness or König’s surmises1. As to Gen xviii 7 I invite him to turn to my discusion on p 354 and compare it with König’s. He will find that no notice has been taken of the question of sacrificial purity and my other contentions2. Yet hospitality was the law of the East then as now, and the chance visitor could not be met with a Statement that his host was not in a state of purity and consequently could not give him meat. 1 A Jew might recite all the prayers that have ever been composed over a slaughter in Egypt without converting it into a lawful sacrifice to the Eternal as the conception was understood in the early age. Nothing short of Palestinian soil (Naaman) or direct divine authority could do that (Is xix, which contemplates the entry into a covenant relationship similar to that which bound Israel to the Eternal). 2 On that page read Nabal for Abigail. 21*