(Ebook) Since Wellhausen by John Battersby Harford

ISBN 9783112607787, 3112607783 Pdf Download

https://ebooknice.com/product/since-wellhausen-51041708

★★★★★
4.7 out of 5.0 (97 reviews )

Instant PDF Download

ebooknice.com
 (Ebook) Since Wellhausen by John Battersby Harford ISBN
9783112607787, 3112607783 Pdf Download

EBOOK

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide Ebook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Here are some recommended products that might interest you.
You can download now and explore!

(Ebook) Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook by Loucas, Jason; Viles, James

ISBN 9781459699816, 9781743365571, 9781925268492, 1459699815,
1743365578, 1925268497

https://ebooknice.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-6661374

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Preparing to Teach: Learning from Experience by Jeff

Battersby; John Gordon ISBN 9780203464014, 9780415300964,
9780415415842, 020346401X, 0415300967, 0415415845

https://ebooknice.com/product/preparing-to-teach-learning-from-
experience-1929342

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) International Relations Since 1945 by John W. Young, John Kent

ISBN 9780199693061, 0199693064

https://ebooknice.com/product/international-relations-
since-1945-4738612

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Reason and the Nature of Texts by James L. Battersby ISBN

9781512809367

https://ebooknice.com/product/reason-and-the-nature-of-texts-51968178

ebooknice.com
(Ebook) Fundamentals of Corporate Finance by Berk, DeMarzo, Harford
ISBN 9781323363300, 1323363300

https://ebooknice.com/product/fundamentals-of-corporate-
finance-5766362

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Matematik 5000+ Kurs 2c Lärobok by Lena Alfredsson, Hans

Heikne, Sanna Bodemyr ISBN 9789127456600, 9127456609

https://ebooknice.com/product/matematik-5000-kurs-2c-larobok-23848312

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) New Scientist Essential Guide No.13: The Solar System by

Stephen Battersby (editor)

https://ebooknice.com/product/new-scientist-essential-guide-no-13-the-
solar-system-54251248

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Criminal Justice in Canada (Eighth Edition) by Colin Harford

Goff ISBN 9780176796044, 0176796045

https://ebooknice.com/product/criminal-justice-in-canada-eighth-
edition-10520412

ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Fifty Inventions That Shaped the Modern Economy by Tim Harford
ISBN 9780735216150, 0735216150

https://ebooknice.com/product/fifty-inventions-that-shaped-the-modern-
economy-36677058

ebooknice.com
 SINCE
WELLHAUSEN
A B R I E F S U R V E Y OF
RECENT PENTATEUCHAL
CRITICISM

BY

JOHN BATTERSBY HARFORD, M.A.

CANON O F R I P O N

Copies can be obtained from the Author or from

H U N T E R & L O N G H U R S T , L T D . , 9 Paternoster Row, E.C.4

W. F. H E N D E R S O N . 19 George I V Bridge, Edinburgh
W. H E F F E R & SONS, L T D . . 4 Petty Cury, Cambridge
B. H. B L A C K W E L L , L T D . . 50 Broad Street, Oxford
Made and Printed in Great Britain by Butler & Tanner Ltd., Frome and London
 PREFACE
THE Articles, herein contained, were written to answer the
question : " Have the main pillars of the modern view of
the Pentateuch been seriously shaken ? " They appeared
originally in The Expositor (July to December, 1925), and
are now reprinted, by kind permission of Messrs. Hodder &
Stoughton, in the belief that they will prove serviceable
both to professional students and also to those members
of the general Christian public who wish to know how
matters stand to-day in the matter of Old Testament
criticism.
A few fresh references to recent literature are given under
the heading of Addenda, but no attempt has been made
to give a complete Bibliography, and otherwise the original
Articles have been reprinted practically as they stood.

J. BATTERSBY HARFORD.

THE CRESCENT, RIPON.

January 25, 1926.
 NOTE
THE following Editorial note by Professor Moffatt,
which appeared in the last number of The Expositor,
gives his opinion of the value of the Articles.
" The Series of Articles by Canon Battersby
Harford has been a real contribution to the subject
of Old Testament criticism. I am personally
grateful to him for having undertaken the task,
and I know, from correspondence, that he has pre-
sented many readers with exactly the information
they required. The movements of criticism in this
department are so vigorous that it seemed to me a
critical survey was needed, and the Canon has
drawn this accurately as well as freshly. We are
all in his debt."
 ADDENDA
P. 21. Footnote t a dd and Skinner's Commentary on
Genesis, pp. xlii.-xliii.
P. 23. Add footnote. For a review of Baumgartel's mono-
graph from another point of view, see H. M. Wiener in
Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1915.
P. 73. Add to footnote f. Pope has replied to Skinner in
Irish Theological Review (1915), and H. M. Wiener
made further reply in Bibl. Sacra., Jan., 1915.
Pp. 110-11. Dr. Welch has published in the second half-
yearly number of the Z.A.W. two short articles on
" When was the worship of Israel centralized at the
Temple ? " and on " The Death of Josiah." In the
former of the two he puts the insertion of the phrase
" the place, or city which Yahweh chose out of all the
tribes of Israel to set His name there " into the period
before the Exile, i.e. within 35 years of Josiah's Refor-
mation.
P. 117. Recent additional publications on Deuteronomy
in Germany are
W. Stark, Das Problem des Deuteronominus, 1924.
M. Lohr, Das Deuteronomium, 1925 (reviewed by
H. M. Wiener in the Orientalistische Literaturzei-
tung).
 JULY, 1925 7

SINCE WELLHA USEN.

SYNOPSIS OF ARTICLE.
Articles by Professor Welch in the EXFOSITOB, December, 1913,
and May, 1923.
The question raised : Have the main pillars of the modern view
been shaken ?
The answer to be found in the re-interrogation of the facts.
A. The Analysis of the Pentateuch.
I. The Problem. Prof. Orr. The phenomena to be explained.
1. Duplicate narratives.
2. Accompanying distinctive use of the Divine Names.
3. Their distribution. Two Tables.
4. Accompanying phraseology and outlook—illustrations.
II. The Solution, slowly and laboriously built up.
1. Simon, Astruc, etc., etc.
2. The evidence, literary and historical.
3. The theory in a nutshell.
III. This theory in its turn criticized.
1. Orr.
2. Eerdmans, Dahse.
Note.—The Pentateuch doesn't claim Mosaic authorship. Sellin's
verdict.
Supplementary note on the use of Elohim in the Pentateuch (with
special reference to Baumgartel on Elohim outside the Pentateuch).

Article 1. A PROBLEM AND ITS SOLUTION.

IN all departments of scientific research, it is desirable
from time to time to pause and take stock of the actual
position. In the articles which follow an attempt has
been made to survey some of the recent work in the depart-
ment of Old Testament study and to estimate its worth.
Those who know the wide extent of the area which may be
included under that head, and therefore of the literature
devoted to its investigation, will appreciate the necessity
of confining the scope of the present discussion within
manageable limits. Those limits are in this case deter-
mined by two considerations. In the first place I write
8 SINCE WELLHAUSEN

in the interests of those Bible-students who live busy lives

and who have little leisure to give to the following
of the intricacies of scholarly investigation. Many such
have been puzzled by recent categorical assertions that
the very bases of the teaching which has been current at
our Universities for the last generation or so have been
' seriously shaken,' and they may welcome an attempt
to test the real state of the case and to express the result
arrived at in, as far as possible, untechnical language.* In
the second place it was an article by Prof. A. C. Welch,
published in the EXPOSITOR in May, 1923, under the title,
" On the Present Position of Old Testament Criticism," which
ultimately led me to take up the task of preparing these
articles. In his article Prof. Welch alludes to many of the
problems which are now being keenly debated, and I pro-
pose for the most part to confine myself to the issues which
he has raised and to follow the order in which he has raised
them. This has the disadvantage that it gives excessive
prominence to the discussion over the use of the Divine
names, but it has also its advantage. It concentrates
attention on certain definite issues. Readers of this series
of articles are therefore asked to note that the articles are
not an independent presentation of the facts upon which our
judgment as to the dominant hypothesis must be based.
If they were, both proportion and contents would be
different. They simply seek to deal with the actual issues
raised by the article of May, 1923.
It will help us better to understand these issues, if we
note that this article is the second which Prof. Welch has
published under the same title. The first was published
in the EXPOSITOR of December, 1 9 1 3 . In it the lecturer

* Having in view in the main this type of student, I have as a rule

referred to works which have been published in English and which are
therefore accessible to all.
 SINCE WELLHAUSEN 9

criticized the view of the course of Hebrew history and of

the development of Hebrew religion, which had been set
forth by " the School which passes under the name of
Wellhausen." He sought to emphasize "the distinctive
character of Israel's religion " and the antiquity of much
of Israel's law and custom. But at the same time he was
careful to point out that " the scheme [i.e. " the Wellhausen
theory "] in its broad features still holds the field, and even
many of its detailed results are proved." " There is, e.g.,
no serious efEort to go back to the position that Deuteronomy
in its present form is Mosaic, in the sense of dating from
the time of the Exodus. Now that is the crux of the
position, for to put Deuteronomy late is to recognize that
the law, in the form in which we have the law, colnes after
instead of before the writing prophets." All that he claims
is that the theory " must modify itself and remain supple
enough to make room for the new facts and the new light
on old facts which are being thrust upon our notice.*
In 1923 the Professor seems to go much further. He now
asserts that " the three cardinal positions of modern criti-
cism " have been " seriously shaken." These three positions
are stated by him as follows : (i) " the analysis of Genesis
and of the Pentateuch into three (sic) main sources, which
were afterwards combined into one " ; (2) " the book of
Deuteronomy, if not in its present, at least in its original,
form, was first brought to light in 621 by King Josiah,
when it was used as a basis for an efEort at reform in the
national religion " ; and (3) " Ezra, about 440, pledged
the body of returned exiles to a new lawbook, the Priestly

* The willingness of scholars to do this is recognized by Prof. Welch

in hia 1923 article, p. 346, " Modifications in its original statement have
been continually made to meet objections." (And this still holds good.
It is not a rigid orthodoxy by any means.) It is somewhat perplexing to
find side by Bide with this a description of the theory as " rigid and inelas-
tic " (pp. 369 and 358).
10 SINCE WELLHAUSEN

Code, so called because it transformed the people from a

civil to an ecclesiastical community, organized under a high-
priest instead of under a king."
The chief value of this second article consists in the fact
that it presents in summary and readable form a contention,
which has been advanced by various writers during the last
twenty or twenty-five years, viz. that the current theory
of the Pentateuch is in a precarious condition. Premising
that the modern view of the Old Testament " has passed
from the position of an extreme heresy into that of a new
orthodoxy," Prof. Welch proceeds to marshal reasons
which have been advanced for questioning the soundness
of its dogmas.* It is well that we should be called upon
from time to time to examine foundations. We thank him
therefore for throwing down this challenge and we take it
up, not in the spirit of antagonism, but in the interests of
truth. Is it the fact that the main pillars of " the modern
view" have been "seriously shaken" ? Are the reasons
given strong and broad enough to justify such a statement ?
If they are, what better theory has Dr. Welch, or any of
the writers whom he quotes, to put in its place ?
Dr. Hort, in his Introduction to The New Testament in
Greek (vol. ii, p. 323 f.), has well expressed the spirit in
which we desire to undertake this quest for truth : " An
implicit confidence in all truth, a keen sense of its variety
and a deliberate dread of shutting out truth as unknown
. . . quench every inclination to guide criticism into deliver-
ing such testimony as may be to the supposed advantage
of truth already inherited or acquired. Critics of the Bible,
if they have been taught by the Bible are unable to forget

* This second article was originally an inaugural address at the opening

of a New College session. I cannot help thinking that its more provoca-
tive statements are due to a desire to awaken certain students from critical
slumbers and should not be taken au grand sérieux.
 SINCE WELLHAUSEN 11

that the duty of guileless workmanship is never superseded

by any other."
It will be convenient if we consider the matter at issue
under Dr. Welch's three heads : A. The Analysis of the
Pentateuch. B. The Date of Deuteronomy. C. The Date
and Nature of the Priestly Code. The first of these will be
considered in the first three articles.
We take then, first:

A . T H E LITERARY ANALYSIS OF THE PENTATEUCH.

I. The Problem.
Let us begin by noting what, broadly speaking, is the
Problem to be explained. For there is a Problem. It
was not without good reason that Prof. Orr called his well-
known book The Problem of the Old Testament. On page 8,
after giving a long list of men who combined modern
critical views with the full belief in supernatural revelation,
he writes : " the attitude to criticism of so large a body
of believing scholars may at least suggest to those disposed
to form hasty judgments that there is here a very real prob-
lem to be solved ; that the case is more complex than
perhaps they had imagined ; that there are real phenomena
in the literary structure of the Old Testament, for the
explanation of which, in the judgment of many able minds,
the traditional view is not adequate." What are these
" real phenomena " ? We can only indicate in the most
summary way a few of them.
1. As long ago as 1680 Father Simon drew attention to
the presence in Genesis of duplicate narratives of the same
events, e.g. those of the Creation, of the Flood, and of
Abram (Abraham) and Sarai (Sarah) (Gen. 1210-20 in Egypt,
201"17 in Gerar, cp. Isaac and Rebekah in 266"11).
2. Seventy years later Astruc, another Frenchman,
pointed out that these duplicate narratives were marked
12 SINCE WELLHAUSEN

by the use of distinctive names for God. In one set the

Divine Name is Elohim (God), in the other it is YHWH
(Jehovah or Yahweh, represented in our EV by ' the
LORD ' or occasionally GOD). In Genesis 2 and 3 the two
names are combined: Yahweh Elohim (the LORD God).
Yahweh is of course a proper noun, the particular name of
the God of Israel. Elohim is used both as a proper name
of the one true God (as in Gen. L X - 2 3 , 3 5 times), and as an
appellative, i.e. a common or generic name (as e.g. ' the
God of Abraham ' and ' the LORD (Heb. Yahweh) thy
God '). It is only when used as a proper name that it
comes within our purview. The occurrences in the Hebrew
text of the two names so defined may be tabulated as
follows :—
TABLE I.
Elohim. Yahweh. Yahweh Elohim. Adonai Y .
Gen. 1 ' - E x . 3 1 5 178* 146f 20 2
E x . 3 1 6 -end 44 393 1
Leviticus . 0 311
Numbers . 10 365
Deuteronomy 7 548 2

239 1,763 21 4

The point to be noticed in this Table is the remarkable

change which takes place as soon as Ex. 313~15 is reached.
How is it to be explained ? That is the Problem in its
simplest form. But before attempting to solve it, we must
go into greater detail. The following Table sets forth the
distribution of the names in Genesis and Exodus. It will
be observed that in many parts the two names occur (so to
speak) in patches, J while in others they are intermingled.
* For a possible modification of the figures in this column, see the
supplementary note at the end of the article.
f This figure (146) includes the Divine Name embedded in the place-
name " Jehovah jireh " (Gen. 2 2 " ) .
J Note especially l 1 -^», lO 1 -!? 1 ", I S M g 2 8 , 24-27.
 SINCE WELLHAUSEN 13

The significant fact is that in a number of instances the

patches coincide with duplicate narratives.
T a b l e II.
Genesis. E. Y. Y.E. A.Y.
LI_2> . 35 0
24-324 4 [serpent) 0 20
4 1 10
5 . 5 1
6 1-8 2 (sons of G o d ) 5
09-za 5 0
7 1-5 0 2
7 «-810 5 1
g 20-22 . 0 3
9 . 7 1
10-17w . 0 35 —
— 2
jijifc-wia 7 0
18-19 2 (19 2 9 ) 17
20-23 . 23 9 (20 1 8 , 21 1 ' 3S ,
22". 14* I 5 ' 16 )

24-27 2 (25 1 1 , 2 7 2 e ) 33
28 . 5 4
29 . 0 4
30 . 9 3 (3021"30)
31-35 . 23 3 ( 3 1 3 , 1 9 , 32»)
36-37 0 0
38-39 1 (39») 11
40-50 . 27 1 (49 1 8 )
Exodus.
1-3 . 15 3

178 146 20

3,5i-17 . 13 225 ( + 2 Y a h + 1
1 Yahweh-Nissi)
18-24 . 26 48
25-40 5 119

•14 392 1 2

We note also the use of El eighteen times in such titles

as El Elyon, El Shaddai, El-beth-el, El Olam, El-elohe-
Israel, and in Gen. 1613, 351-», 463, 49 25.
4. This varied use of the Divine names is not an isolated
14 SINCE WELLHAUSEN

phenomenon. Each of the two names is associated with a

whole group of phrases and terms and with a characteristic
outlook, which mark off the passages in which they occur
from the rest. We shall see later that, in the case of the
Elohim passages, the accompanying features in different
sections vary so much that scholars have long differentiated
between two documents, both using Elohim systematically
up to Ex. 3 15 and 62"3 respectively, but in other respects
markedly different.*

II. The Solution Presented by the Dominant Hypothesis.

What intelligent men require, when their attention has
been drawn to such facts as the above, is a theory which
will explain them in a reasonable manner. Now a theory
has been slowly and laboriously built up in the course of
the last 250 years, which has commended itself to an in-
creasing number of scholars, and large agreement upon
certain main lines has been arrived at. As far back as
1680 Simon suggested that duplicate narratives in Genesis
must be due to two different authors, whose writings had
* (a) The use of Elohim in Gen. l M ! 4 " and similar passages is associated
with Buoh phrases as " T h e s e are t h e generations of " (2*", 6 » + 8 times
and see 8 1 ) ; " be fruitful and multiply " (1"> , 8 + 9 t i m e s ) ; " after their
families " ( 8 l , + 4 times, also E x . 3 times, Nu. 46, Josh. 31—all in pas-
sages assigned to t h e Priestly d o c u m e n t ; only elsewhere Nu. II 1 0 » (J),
1 Sam. 10», 1 Chron. 8', e«»'- ( = J o s h . 2 1 " - " ) ; etc. [For full list see
Driver's Introduction, pp. 131 ff.] (6) T h e use of Yahweh similarly is
associated with special p h r a s e s : " t h e angel of Yahweh " (16 7 , e t c . ) ;
" c a l l upon t h e n a m e of Y a h w e h " ( 4 " - f 4 t i m e s + E x . 3 4 5 ) ; comfort
(Heb. naham, 6 " + 6 t i m e s ; n o t elsewhere in Pentateuch in this sense);
eto. (c) The second series of passages using Elohim has also its phrases,
such as " t h e angel of E l o h i m " ( 2 1 " + 3 t i m e s + E x . 1 4 " ) ; ' b a a l ' =
owner, husband, citizen, etc. (20'-f-16 times in P e n t a t e u c h ) ; H o r e b
(Ex. 3 1 + 8 times and so Deut. 9 t i m e s ; n o t elsewhere in t h e P e n t a t e u c h ) ;
etc. These last two series of passages (generally known as J a n d E ) closely
correspond both in contents (from chap. 20) and style, and it would be
easy to give a long list of contrasts between t h e phraseology of ' P ' a n d
of ' J E . ' T h e references in this note are to usages in Genesis only,
unless otherwise stated, because it is only in Gen. 1 ' - E x . 3 l i a and 6 s t h a t
t h e distinctive use of Elohim is in force.
 SINCE WELLHAUSEN 15

been put together by Moses. Astruc (1753) suggested

that Moses had used various documents, which he arranged
in four parallel columns. The two principal documents
could be distinguished by their use of Elohim and of
Yahweh respectively. The other ten were but fragments,
derived probably from the Midianites. All these docu-
ments were subsequently amalgamated into one. But an
indiscriminate following of the Divine names as the sole
clue would have led to confusion, and Eichhorn (1780)
carried the theory a stage further by showing that in the
large majority of cases the two Divine names were each
accompanied by their own style and vocabulary. Working
on these lines Ilgen (1798) pointed to duplicate narratives
and distinct vocabularies within the Elohistic portion of
Genesis. There were in Genesis, he said, two writers who
used Elohim only. Geddes, a Scotchman (1792, 1800),
and Vater (1802) carried the analysis into the rest of the
Hexateuch and regarded the latter as a collection of frag-
ments, which could not be classified into groups. De
Wette (1806) compared the institutions described in the
Pentateuch with the references to religious usages in Judges,
Samuel and Kings, and in a striking chapter of his Con-
tributions to the Introduction to the Old Testament took up
the question of Deuteronomy. He showed that its favourite
phrases and ideals and its formulated laws pointed to an
authorship and date different from that of the rest of the
Pentateuch, and he assigned it to the seventh century
B.C.* Ewald (1843) analysed the Pentateuch into (1) early
fragments, including a Book of Covenants ; (2) A Book of
Origins, dating from the time of Solomon, which formed
the framework (and answered more or less to the modern
Priestly code) ; (3) Three prophetic documents (answering
to J and E) ; (4) Deuteronomy.

* For Deuteronomy see later article.

16 SINCE WELLHAUSEN

Hupfeld (The Sources of Genesis, 1853), working on thej

lines of Ilgen, but independently, argued cogently for the)
existence of two writers using the name Elohim in preference)
to YHWH, and showed how closely related one of themi
was to the Yahwist writer, so much so that they were im
his opinion combined ( = J E ) before being attached to P?
and D. He thus prepared the way for the next step, viz.,.
the dating of the so-called ' Book of Origins ' after, insteadl
of before, Deuteronomy. Reuse (1833), and still more hiss
pupil Graf (1865-6), Kuenen (1861, 1869) and others led inQ
this direction, and Wellhausen (1876, 1878) and Kuenenn
(1885) argued so powerfully for a post-exilic date for thee
publication of the Priestly Code, as it came to be called,!,
that their conclusion has come to be accepted by the great,t
bulk of younger scholars from that time onwards. Finally,/,
later research has enriched the documentary theory by y
recognizing within the four documents incorporated early y
fragments (e.g. Gen. 6 i_4 ),* early laws and groups of laws, f j
later additions in the style characteristic of each document J J
and editorial matter. As the theory involves the work of of
editors who combined J and E, JE and D, and JED and P,P}
it is obvious that, if the theory be true, additions and modi-Li-
fications due to these men would reveal themselves to the ie
careful student. And such passages can clearly be seen.n.
Some writers, like Mr. H. M. Wiener, make merry over the ie
resort to editors (or 'redactors') to explain certain phe-e-
nomena, but, when they come to produce a theory of their )ir

* Prof. Welch (p. 350) speaks of ' the old exploded fragmentary theory.' y.'
Is it altogether exploded t Sir G. A. Smith (Modem Criticism and the the
Preaching of the Old Testament, p. 36) writes : " the justness of much of of
the reasoning connected with this hypothesis has been proved by m<ore ore
recent scholars."
"f E.g. Deut. 21 1-9 (see Carpenter and Harford's edition of the Hexca- xa-
teuch, vol. ii, pp. 267-8).
} See Carpenter and Harford, vol. i, pp. 141 and foil., and Sir G. A. A.
Smith (as in note *), pp. 41-2.
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
with 9

Oustalet

works

C circle explorers

suffuse the

of
koskevat sank aian

grant a

smooth separation

No in but

by that W

and Säkenet

surfaces S
P

is

the

Colorado marginal

in

than
both this thickest

intergradation taken reported

speak wonder

effect

was The Trans

rather all so
carried

before nimitettiin

them

other daring sanalla

fortis bird
his to snout

taller the her

Mississippi thought good

she

they the song

of means

in as believed

great

the the approximately

becomes Roux colour

together

lady greatest quote

right

them 1853 obtain

their
1875

the and feelings

asking where

the 337 smooth

must to

rises trenchant

proverbial Sir she

December

have of

seq the
s high as

naturw 1

of

I effort

young shorter
by Harrell had

Smith

Hydropsychidae

suspect

and 21

dark
works own of

and

bars was would

Christchurch

proved

ascertains on

bestowal beer of

subaltern last celebrated

doctor the

would bluish

to ratified A

EUWIED

of

well
you

EUWIED

Wyoming

little own 522

and

up

anything than
night X drainage

apophyses etc thought

or

Observatory asked

Street

has tended

Nieupoort
korvahan see

some

clear gold

and boys she

copies which of

good in a
males not

the retained to

maata divisions dorsal

County

ikään 274

taas great used

the long That

stated me and
to G on

on laws

and 5

consequently

friend T 5
from whole

me

immediate

good Tertre

strikes to bloodsucking

is I

nearly lähimmässä 5
or beauty

less near

and relation

The

one leguati
I 6933

wide

work this turns

at Gm

Nat all

go

vasten Siks We

High surface for

for

that

the is great

behind gum Lewisville

there their

are

spinifer
u nousi

not

a to

on be

believe

20 also servants

Kok and some

against joy d

of

fig right
and

1634 rather

11

the first a

former in fashioning

having
any

is

8 worked

470

Integration This

and reserves

of whom

Buff

one voisin

harbour very
and pieces

books if

descent 8 made

But

agassizi and

the example the

be from

the latter a

lends was voinut

Heavener Visitor

now from fortress

53005

410 the vihastuvan

Ulenspiegel great and

small

slender took

Kukkia boasting

the male

child circle The

Indris

devils G condyles

any pouch

granted darker legates

if

to recognised 7

an upon

mainly

water distinctly influenza

fall people

he
by

said

seen with fault

oval ib

on as

Flemish to water

in 2934 all

1835

blood there

Gage 5
Harry by to

hazel oval

curvarum of

drink

Beitrag THREE

microcephalusTrionyxmuticus
rounded

counsel young

and or

up

prospectors

a left

pour pale

of Land

very
Lord the frame

37

modesty which

that received t

this compulsory

in 9

this National The

carapace

paikoissa
abandon

12

traversi

Lake E uloimmassa

quest
It breakfast

pattern

La male the

the think sekä

earlier

her
beloved me top

do Tesla donate

meat S we

wished protecting now

cf obtaining

attack kisoihin wings

borders vowed

thick

195
third NOOK

a opportunity

who

not

retire

extremity hemp

Then vielä Gray

fat it

protected to Wetenschappen

Archive first
UMMZ near is

theorem

experience

medial River

7 LOYD whom

the for

Officer was name

nukahti
Extinct while down

not British went

solid red ensimäiseksi

function

should carolus

but

True lips
most

under

September

pallidus military solid

On

in citizens sydämeen

which of

caused trees Weight

having related
century usually in

more Gage Margaret

it that

House Schwartz Mr

these Nor

of 70748 if

to

sharp

soluble Toria surface

news important

Proc

is In hundred

skirted joined

range Such

off Mr least

frequently occupied

irrespective near 1

man carapace water

blossom
with

The

Councils dorsal Sometimes

07

results were them

95191 pallidus

reached

point
coefficients

quadratures the 1816

the north

large

whitish description plain

head built

Montigny
mass a and

ever as

so

dx

mechanical
K or Island

also

out

if rough in

and Grundtvig HIS

places straight Unless

far for to

the N

Archive

at

fathers

mentioned

dog head

Remarks and

in
come at

Branta horseback 1861

The six License

the extracts taught

thickly bird may

southwestern proppar 8

integrals 13 note

which author carolus

doubt

49 troop This

even good

long The and

on with known
3

the curtains

is

my

to

Parish easy

said

not kolkkoon
out facet

as Saint and

course was

Thou

and
appeared haemal to

which of

Gutenberg and

raising Quite

motive d

on

Port the less

art

The Aspidonectes

of
have within

1928

arm Ostend Those

are with

shared central

laws within Rouge

an the

a that

on
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebooknice.com