^{page 297 note 1} ΕϒΧΑΡΙΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ. Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Hermann Gunkel dargebracht von seinen Schülern und Freunden. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, Neue Folge: 19. Heft. Göttingen, 1923.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 2} The tables of the law were placed in the ark not by Moses, but by Deuteronomistic redactors (cf. Arnold, Ephod and Ark, p. 5).

^{page 299 note 3} 1 Kings 3, 4a: 4, 1–19; 5, 7 f.; 27 f.; 8, 1b; 4aα; 12 f.; 9, 11b–14; 16;25; 10, 26; 11, 19; 21 f.; 12, 1–14; 16; 18–20 (including some glosses).

^{page 300 note 4} From J: 1 Kings 2, 13–46a; 11, 15–17a. From E: 1 Kings 11, 23–25aα; 14, 1–18; 17, 1–22, 38: 2 Kings 1, 2–2, 25; 3, 4–8, 15; 9, 1–10, 28; 11, 1–18a; 13, 14–21; 18, 17–20, 19 (with glosses).

^{page 300 note 5} Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissensehaft, 1922, pp. 161–255Google Scholar. His argument is briefly as follows: D represents an ideal legislation whose requirements were not observed in the days of Jeremiah and Ezekiel; the reform of Josiah (621 B.C.) was not based on D; there is no trace of D in Second Isaiah, Haggai, and Zechariah; Malachi knows D; the Jewish colony at Elephantine did not observe the laws of D; D represents the Levitical opposition to Nehemiah's measures. Hölscher fails to recognize the essential character of D: it is not, as he says (p. 255) a “priestly collection of laws,” but “the prophecy of Moses” (Arnold, , Journal of Biblical Literature, 1923, p. 20)Google Scholar; like all prophetic oracles it contained requirements that were not, at the time, lived up to. The testimony of the Elephantine papyri is irrelevant, since Hölscher dates D 15 years before these documents were written and in all cases these Egyptian Jews did not observe the requirements of Josiah's reform, which Hölscher admits to have been based on a code found in the temple, now lost. This colony did not keep in touch with the religious developments in Jerusalem. In consequence of his views, Hölscher has to consider Deut. 27, 14–26 (verses 16–25 are one of the oldest sections in the Pentateuch) a very late concoction, and interpret 17, 14 ff. messianically (p. 230).

^{page 301 note 6} Some views and expressions of Balla are dubious. He seems to imply that Judaism came to an end with the advent of Christianity (Sirach belongs to “late” Judaism, the “end” of this religion is mentioned on p. 259); is there, before Deut. 4, 35; 39, any reference to God as “the sole god of heaven and earth” (p. 225)? Did the prophets consider every form of cult as a religious apostasy (p. 226)? Does Second Isaiah believe in the resurrection from the dead (p. 246) ?

^{page 302 note 7} In redactional sections of Is. 40–48, Jer., and Am., and only there in the prophetic canon, God is the almighty creator (Is.40, 12–14; 22; 26; 28; 42, 5; 44, 24; 45, 7; 12; 18; 48, 13; Jer. 10, 12 f.; 27, 5; 33, 25; Am. 4, 13; 5, 8 f.; 9, 5 f.), Babylonian gods are named (Is. 46, 1; Jer. 50, 2; 51, 44; Am. 5, 26), images are carried in procession (Is. 45, 20b; 46, 1; 7a: Jer. 10, 5: Am. 5, 26), idols are called a lie (Is. 44, 20; Jer. 10, 14; 16, 19; 51, 17 [sheqer]; Am. 2, 4 [kazab]). Other parallels between Is. 40–48 and Jer. could be pointed out (especially in the condemnation of idolatry, cf. Is. 44, 9–20: Jer. 10. 1–16).

^{page 304 note 1} Vol. XVI, January 1923, pp. 81 ff.