216 Baruch J. Schwartz
was for a long period the only Jewish scholar to contend systematically
with the Wellhausenian approach to the history of Israel’s religion. Hoff -
mann understood that the kernel of Pentateuchal criticism was not the
sources themselves (which, by harmonizing the laws in nouveau-rabbinic
fashion, he rejected) but the reconstruction of Israel’s religious history that
the chronological arrangement of the sources made possible. Hoff mann
was the fi rst modern Jewish commentator to accept the literary distinctive-
ness of the separate law codes in the Pentateuch. Th ough he believed the
four codes to be the work of a single (divine) author, he recognized the
distinctive style and content of each. In the case of the Deuteronomic Law
and the Priestly Code, he attempted to account for the distinctive character
of each code on the basis of its placement and role within the Pentateuchal
narrative. He thus set out to reject what the critics saw as the substantive
disharmony between the separate codes, and with it the assigning of sepa-
rate chronological periods for each, without denying their actual existence.
In 1904 and 1916, he published the two parts of his Die wichstigsten
Instanzen gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese, in which he remon-
strated, point by point, with the Wellhausenian reconstruction. Th is com-
panion volume to his Leviticus commentary dealt almost entirely with
what the critics referred to as P or the Priestly Code. Th ere Hoff mann
aimed at refuting the critical claim that the Priestly legislation was a late
phase in Israel’s evolution. Following the agenda established by Wellhau-
sen, Hoff mann entered into detailed discussions of sacrifi ce, especially the
paschal sacrifi ce, as prescribed by the Priestly Code, the stages in the law
of profane slaughter, the festivals, and the laws concerning the priesthood.
In his attempt to cut the knot the critics had tied between P and the exile,
Hoff mann devoted several chapters to Ezekiel, arguing repeatedly that Eze-
kiel’s prophecies drew on P (and indeed on D as well) and could in no wise
be taken as earlier than the law. Here lies Hoff mann’s most lasting con-
tribution to Pentateuchal studies: the antiquity of the law, specifi cally of
the Priestly law, stands on two pillars: its lack of connection with exilic or
postexilic conditions and its antedating prophecy. Hoff mann argued per-
suasively for both of these.
Typical of Hoff mann’s reasoning, it has to be admitted, was an implicit
assumption that in order to uphold the traditional view of the origin and
unity of the Pentateuch, it was enough simply to show some logical in-
consistencies in the critical view and to call attention to occasional dis-
agreement among the critics themselves. Hoff mann seems to have sin-
cerely believed that exposing fl aws in the critical method would suffi ce to