Lagarde expresses great surprise—­and the surprise is reasonable—­ that so little importance is attributed to this narrative by Old Testament critics; only Kuenen had rightly appreciated its significance. 2

****************************************** 2 Goettinger Gel.  Anzeigen, 1870, p. 1557 seq.  Kuenen, Religion of Israel, vol. ii. chapter viii. ******************************************

It is obvious that Nehemiah viii.-x. is a close parallel to 2Kings xxii. xxiii., especially to xxiii. 1-3.  There we read that Josiah caused all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem to come together, and went up with the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, with the priests and the prophets and all the people, high and low, to the house of Jehovah; where he read to the assemblage all the words of the Book of the Law, and bound himself with all the people before Jehovah to keep all the words of the book.  Just as it is in evidence that Deuteronomy became known in the year 621, and that it was unknown up to that date, so it is in evidence that the remaining Torah of the Pentateuch—­for there is no doubt that the law of Ezra was the whole Pentateuch—­became known in the year 444 and was unknown till then.  This shows in the first place, and puts it beyond question, that Deuteronomy is the first, and the priestly Torah the second, stage of the legislation.  But in the second place, as we are accustomed to infer the date of the composition of Deuteronomy from its publication and introduction by Josiah, so we must infer the date of the composition of the Priestly Code from its publication and introduction by Ezra and Nehemiah.  It would require very strong internal evidence to destroy the probability, thus based on a most positive statement of facts, that the codification of the ritual only took place in the post-exile period.  We have already seen of what nature the internal evidence is which is brought forward with this view. 1

******************************************** 1.  It is not, however, necessary, and it can scarcely be correct, to make Ezra more than the editor, the real and principal editor, of the Hexateuch:  and in particular he is not likely to have been the author of Q. Nor on the other hand is it meant to deny that many new features may have been added and alterations made after Ezra.  A body of customs is a subject which can scarcely be treated quite exhaustively.  There are no directions about the nervus ischiadicus **sciatic nerve??**, about the priests having their feet bare, about shutting up before Jehovah (1Samuel xxi cf.  Jeremiah xxxvi. 5), or about the stoning of adulterers. *******************************************