Wellhausen on the Decalogue and David's Sincerity

I'm still in Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena. Today, I want to mention two things in my reading that stood out to me.

First, on page 486 (which is actually Wellhausen's article on "Israel" in the Encyclopedia Britannica), Wellhausen states the following:

"We possess one document dating from Manasseh's time in Micah vi.1-vii.6. Here, where the lawlessness and utter disregard of every moral restraint in Judah are set in a hideous light, the prophetic point of view, as contrasted with the new refinements in worship, attains also its simplest and purest expression. Perhaps to this period the Decalogue also, which is so eloquently silent in regard to cultus, is to be assigned."

Many of the Ten Commandments appear to be rather obvious. I mean, don't most cultures tell people not to kill or steal? It's not surprising that the priestly author of Exodus 34 (according to some scholars) inserted a version of the Ten Commandments that highlighted Israelite ethnicity and religion: the Ten Commandments that we know as such are so obvious---at least most of them are. Why would the Israelites need to be told not to kill and steal, and for that to be made an integral part of their covenant? Wellhausen's speculation is that the Decalogue came about when such moral laws were flagrantly violated---during the time of King Manasseh. And the Decalogue contains nothing about cult because it was part of a movement that elevated morality above ritual. This was a time when people needed to be told not to kill or steal.

Second, on page 455-456 (which is still his Encyclopedia article), Wellhausen states regarding David: "In like manner it is unjust to hold him responsible for the deaths of Abner and Amasa, or to attribute to him any conspiracy with the hierocracy for the destruction of Saul, and thus to deprive him of the authorship of the elegy in 2 Sam. 1, which certainly was not the work of a hypocrite."

This reminds me somewhat of C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" argument. Lewis says that Jesus is Lord because he's not a liar or a lunatic in his claim to be God. One reason, for Lewis, that Jesus was not a liar or a lunatic was because his words were so profound---because he spoke as no one before him spoke. I'm not a big fan of apologetics that appeal to that sort of pious reasoning. Wellhausen does the same sort of thing when he is swayed by II Samuel 1. At the same time, it is moving to see one of the formative figures of higher criticism being touched by something in the text---seeing, not just a bunch of sources, but a cry of sincerity.