,,<»« .t *. mougc., g^^^JJ Shelf PRINCETON, N. J. Divii ion . 4--< ..•-}. Section 3^ >..S /^" Number % ^/ DID MOSES WRITE THE PENTATEUCH AFTER ALL? Did Moses write the Pentateuch after all? y BY F. E. SPENCER, M.A., FORMERLY OF QUEEN's COLLEGE, OXFORD, AND VICAR OF ALL SAINTS, HAGGERSTON, IN THE DIOCESE OF LONDON. ' Ti{. iih' yap dXrjOti Travra (Tvvdcei ra inrdpxovTn ' With the truth all facts and realities agree." Aristotle. LONDON : ELLIOT STOCK, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW, [892. PREFACE. We live in an age when much that has been held sacred is feared to be uncertain. The stories that were the hght and safeguard of our childhood seem to grow dim in their in- struction for our manhood. But is not this because we never laid the foundations deep enough ? Our minds are full of so many things that few of us have time to verify the greatest of them. And so to hear of doubt is almost to embrace it. That sentence of Bacon is true in many appli- cations : ' A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism ; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.' We have no need to fear that knowledge that grasps principles will shake what is great and high within us. It may seem a strange statement at first sight, but upon reflection it may be observed to be a true one, that in every department of enquiry we, in this nineteenth century, need a good deal to be withdrawn from the worship of vi Preface. authority to the study of fact. That ' man is the measure of all things ' is no truer now than ever it was. One fact is stronger than many great names. It is not alone in the physical sciences that authority has hindered the progress of real knowledge. To estimate facts for our- selves is the highest call of a liberal education. To live in an atmosphere of fact is its highest gift. Great writers in Church and State are but guides. The teaching of the Church is but to produce in us the knowledge of the living God. The following historical suggestions — made in the midst of other work and therefore not so full as might be wished — are offered in the hope that, as they were felt to be of use to the writer, so they may be of use to others. It is trusted that they are an honest endeavour to come by the truth, and, if necessary, to defend it. The writer is firmly of opinion that Moses is not played out. He feels rather that to restore him is one of the greatest needs of the age. Where he has found himself under the necessity to speak strongly, he hopes that the indulgent reader will not interpret it as a want of charity. Where he may be judged to have failed, he prays that others may be found to succeed. TJie Feast of St. Luke, 1892. CONTENTS. 'Nous connaissons la verite, non seulement par la raison, mais encore par le cceur.' — Pascal. CHAPTER I. THE HISTORY. PAGE I. The attitude of scientific inquiry.— 2. The problem stated. The importance and meaning of literary tradition. — 3. The critical hypothesis in its latest development. — 4. Its need of scientific verifica- tion. — 5. An impossible task given to certain unknown supposed writers or sources by the critical theory . . . • • i Notes.— A. Upon the value of Wellhausen's judgment as a guide to scientific history . 47 B. The critical ipse dixit . . .52 C. The unreahty ofthe supposed documents or sources. The character and phraseology of P 57 D. The historical colour and accuracy of the Pentateuch . . . • -97 vlli Contents. CHAPTER II. THE LEGISLATION. I. The character of legislation, {a) based upon the customs and institutions of the past ; {b) guided by the genius and inspiration of the lawgiver, to a new departure ; {c) with a view to the order and stability of future ages. — 2. In accord with these principles the Mosaic legislation (i) em- bodies in itself pre-existing customs and insti- tutions which descend from the earliest times, or have grown up during the four hundred years' sojourn of Israel in Egypt ; (2) and tries to break with other bad customs which have grown up under the same conditions. Many of these sanctioned customs and interdicted customs have quite lost their meaning in the later times of the history of Israel. They therefore remain monuments of the time to which the legislation which treats of them belongs. A legislation later than the Mosaic age would have legislated differently, for difference of environment would have called for difference of treatment. Also, throughout the legislation, camp surroundings are implied. (3) The same consideration applies to the Egyptian mediation of much of the Penta- teuchal institutions. They are natural to the facts of the education of Moses, and not to after-times.— 3. The three principles of the Mosaic new departure. They would have been under the conditions of their origin absolutely Contents. ix PAGE unintelligible and forceless, without being clothed and upheld by institutions and symbols. This clothing must have been contemporary with their enunciation.— 4. The forward look of the Mosaic legislation. Its character wholly incon- sistent with times later than Moses himself. — 5. The eminently ideal characteristics of the Hebrew legislation imply its origin in the Mosaic age. Contemporary revelation the only impulse adequate to give ideal type to the legislation. The very imperfect realisation of the ideal in after-times confirms this observation. ^6. The conclusion as to the authorship of the Pentateuch indicated by the facts . • 115 Notes. — A. On the supposed invalidity of liter- ary tradition in Hebrew history . .168 B. The authorship of Deuteronomy . . 178 C. Spencer 'De Legibus Hebreeorum ' . 197 D. The phraseology of H . . .203 CHAPTER III. AN ATTEMPT TO MEET SOME DIFFICULTIES BY CERTAIN HISTORICAL APHORISMS. That difficulties in an account of past events do not necessarily involve that that account is either late or untrustworthy. — 2. That in any account of the past the national style of writing must be taken into consideration, when critically esiimat- Contents. ing its meaning and bearing. — 3. That in study- ing the Hebrew records regard must be had to the extreme and distinctive importance attributed by the Hebrew mind to the significance of names. — 4. That the historical analogy of the English Bible ofters an undeniable criterion of the kind of archaism to be expected in an ancient national document which has set the style of a nation's language. The Pentateuch — how far in an analo- gous position. — 5. That historical analogy, again, is the true and the only safe test of the extent to which the silence of authors, or the inconsist- ency of customs and events, is evidence against the pre-existence of any history or legislation The subject illustrated Notes.— A. Ezekiel and P B. The Samaritan Pentateuch . C. Professor F. A. Wolf and Homer . 207 273 285 288 ' Suppose all the members of any common family to be thrown together in one place, amidst strangers or savages, and there immediately becomes a common life, an unity of action, interest, and purpose, distinct from others around them, which renders them at once a fit subject of history.' — Arnold's 'Lectures on Modern History,' page 4. RECENT CRITICISM ON THE PENTA- TEUCH FROM AN HISTORICAL POINT OF VIEW. CHAPTER I. THE HISTORY. I. The attitude of scientific inquiry — 2. The problem stated. The importance and meaning of literary tradition — 3. The critical hypothesis in its latest development — 4. Its need of scientific verification — 5. An impossible task given to certain unknown sup- posed writers or sources by the critical theory. Notes.— A. Upon the value of Wellhausen's judgment as a guide to scientific history — B. The critical ipse dixit — C. The unreality of the supposed documents or sources — D. The historical colour and accuracy of the Pentateuch. I. We may count ourselves fortunate that the call to investigate the Pentateuch anew comes from a school of British critics of so fair and so reverent a spirit. To take them at their own valuation, it is no longer the citadel that I ^ 2 Did Moses zvrife is attacked.* It is a question of defences within it. We are freed from the odium Theolo- giaun. It is a question of science. But in the name of science therefore, the enquiry must be carried on without panic or prejudice, upon strictly inductive principles. We must try to get rid alike of the idola specns and of the idola theatri. Nor may we start with the opinion that any of the problems that open out before us are insoluble. That is not the temper of science. Insoluble questions emerge from the crucible of experiment. And at the outset we may hold up certain, as it were, lamps and guiding lights of criticism without much fear of being controverted. First, in this investiga- tion facts and not consequences are to be regarded. We may not shrink from accepting well-ascertained facts, because they shake to their foundations old established opinions. Secondly, inductions, not ideas or authorities, are to be followed. In the treatment of very ancient historical records we may well fear mere theorising, however clever and however learned. And, thirdly, we have nothing to do with a ' traditional ' party as such, nor with a * critical ' party as such, except in so far as * Though the importance of the real issues at stake will, it may be conjectured, become increasingly mani- fest. The PentatetLch after all? 3 the history and conditions of these several parties demonstrate that their help towards the solution of the problem is vitiated by pre- judice. And we should like to point out that, if, as their antagonists assert, the 'traditional' school sometimes plays to the gallery, and sometimes has an incomplete, sometimes an inaccurate grasp of the facts, there is still more reason for inferring the possibility of a pre- judice in the case of the 'critical' school. The British school of critics leans, and leans too much, upon a German authority which at its source is tainted with prejudices, of which the existence is unquestioned. These are two- fold ; and at the root and fountain-head of the system, first, there is the a priori refusal of the miraculous; secondly, there is the expressed desire to bring Old Testament research into line with progressive thought. Development from a few types or germs, evolution by the continuous action of simple laws, as they are presumed to be the master key of physical science, are presumed to be also the master key of historical science. It is also considered essential to make the history of Israel fall into line with the progress of thought with regard to the history of all other nations, and to account for it on the I — 2 4 Did Moses %vrite same principles of pure naturalism. Who does not see that all this, however seductive to the thinker, is but to beg the question at issue? The most ancient history in the world, and the authorship and date of the chronicle of it, must yield up the principle of its birth and value to strict examination alone.* There is something else also much to be deprecated, and that is the intellectual terror- ism which is sometimes put in the forefront of the resistless advance of the ' critical ' army. 'Almost every younger scholar of mark is on the side of Vatke and Reuss, Lagarde and Graf, Kuenen and Wellhausen,'-|- we are told by Mr. Robertson Smith. The inference is immediate, but it is not consoling in the interests of truth. We are led to infer that the older scholars are fossils, and that anyone daring to differ from the new Hght in the present must be a fool. There is, perhaps, a constitutional ten- dency in men, who have gone far to wipe out Moses and Abraham, to wipe out other less respectable people also. * It would even defeat the object of the comparative inquiry so ably carried on in the 'Golden Bough,' and Tylor's 'Early History of Mankind,' and 'Primitive Cul- ture,' if one myth were allowed to run into another. Each must be separately examined. \ Preface to Wellhausen's ' Prolegomena.' The Pentateuch after all? 5 And the word ' critical ' itself is open to the same objection, as it is sometimes used. ' This is the ipse dixit of the critical school,' we are often told. And yet the unsatisfied mind of the steadfast inquirer cannot fail to see that the very question in debate is whether such and such a conclusion is or is not a conclusion of a just criticism. 2. Turning then with these postulates to the inquiry as to the date and authorship of the Pentateuch as it is at present being carried on, we are met, we think, in limine, by a very serious misconception, which takes its rise almost un- consciously from the latent ambiguity of the words 'traditional,' 'traditional view.' The expression ' tradition ' may be taken to mean the view traditionally held amongst ourselves. The word ' traditional ' would so become what Archbishop VVhately called a ' question-begging epithet.' It would imply the opposite of critical. And this sense tends to involve it with the mistakes of a long line of Biblical scholars who lived before the birth of criticism in its modern sense, and with the mistakes of present-day literal inspirationists. But really the true scientific value of ' tradition ' we suppose to be this. It means tradition presumptively con- temporaneous with and derived from the times of the writings we examine. And undoubtedly 6 Did Moses zurite there is certain and confirmed scientific reason for giving a definite, not uncritical, but im- portant place to historical tradition, as a fact of historical investigation, which cannot with- out a reason be set aside, and of which an account must in any case be given. 'I have laid it down as an invariable maxim,' sa3'S F. von Schlegel, 'constantly to follow historical tradition and to hold fast by that clue, even when many things in the testimony and de- clarations of tradition appear strange and almost inexplicable, or at least enigmatical : for so soon as in the investigation of ancient history we let slip that thread of Ariadne, we can find no outlet from the labyrinth of fanciful theories, and the chaos of clashing opinions.'* And the force of historical tradi- tion seems to us to reside as much in con- firmed implication, as in direct statement, whether contemporaneous or later. We mean, for instance, that the historical handing on from remote ages of such a fixed idea as ' the law of Aloses,' and the uncontradicted identifi- cation of the law of Moses with our present Pentateuch, raises in the mind a strong pre- sumption that Moses had a principal hand in the origination and codification of that law. After inquiry may modify the conclusion sug- ■^ Schlegel's 'Philosophy of History,' Lecture I., page 8i (Bohn). The Pe7itateuch after all? y gested, or may even render it untenable, but this kind of evidence must, it seems, always on sound principles of historical criticism be treated with respect. And it would be the most fallacious of all fallacies to lead anyone to imagine that this is a property pleaded for with regard to the history of the Hebrew records in any way as something peculiar to them. All history hangs upon it. To undermine this principle is to make all history doubtful. Indeed, the pro- bable veracity of literary traditions has been so strongly received as an axiom of historical investigation, that very little has been done to establish the reasons which tend to make it axiomatic. Literary tradition carries with it at once two strong presumptions : first, that it is contemporaneous, for it always remains to be shown how certain works have been attributed to a certain wTiter, if not by him- self and by his contemporaries ; and secondly, that it is authentic, for there generally is an absence of motive to fraud. Let anyone ponder, for instance, why we accept the sayings of Confucius as his, coming as they do from the remote times of the Chinese empire. If any man should attribute the sword song to Lamech,* or the poem in Judges V. to Deborah, why does he do so ? ■^ Gen. \v. 23, 24. 8 Did Moses W7^ite Surely because of the strong presumption, amounting almost to certainty, of a contempo- raneous tradition. A few instances, taken almost at random, will tend, it is hoped, to make this universal principle clearer. The * Commentaries on the Gallic War,' attributed to Julius Caesar {circa B.C. 50) are written in the third person throughout. Nothing but the title indicates the author. So much so is this, that Sidonius and Orosius, in the fifth century A.D., know the work only by its title, and mistake it to be ' Commentaries on Caesar's Gallic War,' written by Suetonius. The in- ternal evidence is the air of an eyewitness and one implicated in the transactions — the Celtic names, and similarity to what we other- wise know of Caesar. Hirtius, a friend of Caesar's, speaks of ' Caesaris nostri Commen- tarios.' Cicero, a contemporary, mentions them as his. Suetonius {circa a.d. 70) speaks of them as his also. It is evident that the strongest evidence for us, that we have in the book that is come down to us, the ' Commen- taries of Julius Caesar,' is the title of the MS., which is a register of contemporaneous tradition. Yet, no sane man will doubt we have the authentic work of Julius Caesar.* * Teuffel's ' History of Koman Literature,' vol. i., page 317. The Pentateuch after all? 9 Again, there is a book of Tacitus {circa a.d. 68) ' Dialogus de Oratoribus.' It differs in style and mood from his other writings. Its style is ' Ciceronian.' It is characterised by an absence of his later 'bitterness,' and even by 'artistic serenity.' There is only an indirect allusion to it in one of Pliny's letters to Tacitus. But ' undue importance,' says Professor Teuffel, * has been attached to the deviation of the style of this work from the later style of Tacitus ; and the entire neglect of the causes of this discrepancy, and also of the agreement, which is almost as striking, have since the time of J. Lipsius, caused many to consider the work as not Tacitean, and to guess all manner of authors, e.g., Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Quintihan. In the whole period there is ab- solutel}^ nobody whom we might credit with sufBcient talent and character to be the author of the Dialogus.'"^ Hence Professor Teuffel asserts there is now a general agreement that Tacitus wrote the book. Here, again, it will be observed, that the title of the MS. is for us the strongest part of the evidence, as being considered a register of contemporaneous tradition. We may imagine in 3000 a.d. a school of * Teuffel's 'History of Roman Literature,' vol ii., page 172. lo Did Mose^ zvrite critics who shall have directed their attention to the writings of Milton, and who shall have come to the conclusion that the same hand is not seen in the ' Paradise Lost,' the ' Lycidas,' and the ' Paradise Regained.' Where, they might say, in the ' Paradise Regained ' is to be found the dramatic force and creative imagina- tion of the ' Paradise Lost ' ? How different the tone of the ' Lycidas ' ? And yet one would feel that the name on the title-page, showing an unbroken confirmed if implicit tradition, would outweigh all such opinions, for variety and variableness are the distinctive feature of genius. Again, what conclusion might a critic of the same period draw from the earliest and the latest styles of Carlyle ? And yet the evidence of tradition would be quite decisive here. Again, to take another instance still, there is an excellent recent work by Archdeacon, then Canon Farrar, called ' Eternal Hope.' The style of the preface is quiet, scholarly, and scientific. The rest of the book is popular and efflorescent. Imagine the conclusion of your critic of 3000 A.D. ' The book on the face of it was not written by an Archdeacon of this period. It is the work of a distinguished Nonconformist, as is shown from its point of view. The preface is the work of a learned Redactor.' And yet the implicit tradition of the title-page would The Pentateuch aftei^ ail ? 1 1 stand. What might be called implicit or in- direct historical tradition, that is to say, reliance on titles of MSS. (and even indirect allusions of contemporaries), as conveying a strong pre- sumption of contemporaneous tradition, must ever be a fact of first importance to any his- torical decision as to its author and period. The verdict of antiquity can rarely be set aside, and if this be a principle applied without hesitation, and with good results to the history of other literatures, there is every reason to apply it also to the history of Hebrew litera- ture. There is evidence of great care in this respect amongst the Hebrews. It will thus be seen that the discovery* that we may have given an exaggerated and uncritical value to the authority of Ezra and the Great Synagogue as the close and sanction of the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, does by no means dispose of the evidences derived from tradition. This discovery is for the purpose for which it is used, an ignoratio elenchi. The question to be decided by the historical student is, how did the Pentateuch as it stands come by the name of Moses ? It may be shown, by the way, that Ezra and the Great Synagogue have not been quite fairly treated ; for, if the quite unhistorical letter of Aristeas is yet a ■^ ^rof. Driver's 'Introduction/ pages xxvii-xxxv. 12 Did Moses zvrite strong confirmation of the fact otherwise proved that the LXX. translation took its beginning at the instance and for the purposes of an early Ptolemy, vague and sometimes foolish allusions to the work of Ezra and the Great Synagogue are strong confirmations of the fact, otherwise educed, of an edition of the Hebrew Scriptures having been issued under their superintendence generally correspondent to that which we now have. The emphasis given by the grandson of Jesus, the son of Sirach, in his Preface (130 B.C.), to the triple division of the canon is very noticeable. The reference occurs three times in a very short space, in which he speaks of these three divisions as containing the literary treasures of his nation, and is coupled with the statement that the canonical Scrip- tures themselves have become antiquated in language (ou /xtKpav ex^i' '^yv Stacf^opav iv kavroL^^ ' The law, the prophets, and the rest of the books,' refers to a definite, and probably, be- cause of the high estimation given to it, a closed collection of writings. Ezra and the Great Synagogue are the only possible persons, it should seem, to whom this collection can be referred. * Ecclesiasticus — Prologue by the grandson of Jesus. 1 he Penlateuch after all? 13 But the extent and character of the work of Ezra and the Great Synagogue is by no means the only or the strongest bulwark of the vera- city of Hterary tradition amongst the Hebrews. That is not the main point. ' The firemen are playing upon a place where the fire is not.' The force and value of historical tradition depends upon other considerations. Some of these may be thus stated. It is a conclusion alike of mental physiology and of historical experience that genius and light and leading can no more exist without some possibility of social appreciation than music can exist in a vacuum. There is a certain degree of action and reaction in the production and influence of great men. The fact of a Beethoven implies, and necessarily implies, a certain amount of culture in the nation that produced him, and a certain capacity, if even a low level of capacity, in them of appreciation. If we had no history of the nation we must perforce infer this. A Beethoven or a Mozart is an impossible pro- duct in a savage or primitive nation. And this culture and this appreciation is a certain amount of guarantee for the conservation of his works as his. And ' the philosophers, the prophets, and the poets, whom we now venerate as the noblest benefactors of our race, have earned their 14 Did Moses write claim to that distinction, not by bringing us messages from other spheres, which they alone were privileged to visit, but by enunciating truths which our expanded intellect accepts as self-evident, by proclaiming great principles which our deepened insight perceives to con- stitute the basis of all morality, by creating forms of beauty to which our heightened and purified sense looks up as standards of ideal perfection. And this could not be, unless the intuitions of genius call forth echoes from the depths of our souls; awaking dormant faculties, which can apprehend if they cannot create, which can respond, if they cannot originate.'* The idea of this quotation may possibly have been intended to exclude historic revelation ; but the truth contained in it remains. Revela- tion uses the same method. It appeals to the image of God in which we were created. The possibility of sympathy is the secret of influ- ence. Apply this to Hebrew history. No man will ever persuade us that the towering genius and ascendancy of Moses was entirely the creation of a later and by no means famous age. The conclusion of Colenso must be given up as a psychological impossibility. And if Moses, great, magnanimous Moses, existed in any sort, he did not exist in a social * Carpenter's * Mental Physiology,' page 506. The Pentateuch after all? 15 vacuum. There was a circle of social apprecia- tion of some sort. And the greater the influence, the greater the education of the circle of greater or less sympathy, the greater the guarantee of the preservation of the writings and the work which he wrote or authorised as his. The ark is the symbol of the conservation of documents. The influence of Moses was essentially based upon the education of the people. Any thorough realisation of the influence of Moses upon the contemporary Hebrew nation would, it is conceived, go far to explode the mere theorising about literary possibilities, which is at present popular. Men who had known Moses would be very far from attri- buting to him what he was not author of. There is something sacred in such an in- fluence.* And that the men of his time did directly attribute literary compositions to Moses is as certain as any literary fact can be made certain. The evidence would be received as decisive in any other literary history. It may further be pointed out that the atmosphere of the early and later Hebrew history is specially favourable to the veracity alike of literary tradition, and of the conserva- * Compare the estimate of Moses probably by some- one who had known him well (v. 7), and written some time after his death in Deut. xxxiv. i6 Did Moses iviHte tion of documents. There is a seriousness of type, a sense of a sacred deposit of faith, a behef in the future. There are traces from the first of a pious family, zealous to preserve what was their comfort. It can be followed through the line of Seth and Noah (compare the his- toric implications of Gen. v. 29), Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Joseph, down to the mother of Moses. The historic reasons which influenced the earnest desire and command of Joseph as to the carrying up of his bones when God visited the children of Israel (Gen. 1. 24-26), are a monument of long-standing family convictions. In the time of Moses there are indications of rival culture in the camp (Num. xi. 26-30 ; xvi.), he found able men out of all Israel fit to settle the smaller matters of judgment (Exodus xviii.), he was helped by seventy elders. Joshua was his minister. The book of the wars of the Lord (Num. xxi. 14, 15), and the book of Jasher (Joshua x. 13), which, whenever its final recension, contained ancient poems, the well song (Num. xxi. 17, 18), are indications of a contemporary literary spirit. And not all its products are assigned to Moses. All these things, as it seems, are confirmatory of the veracity of Hebrew literary traditions. And even the troubled and disunited times of The Pentateuch after all? ly the Judges are not without brighter spots, and individuals who emerge from them. The judges themselves were the result of the Mosaic system (Exodus xviii.). A fine poem (Judges v.) indicates that the literary spirit had not quite died down. And surely some of the very graphic history must be the history of contemporaries (cf. Judges xviii. and xix.). It breathes a different air from that of later times.* It is again highly probable that the state of general education was higher than the silence and the fragmentary records of history would lead us to suppose. The office of teaching is dis- tinctly given to the college of Levites in the ancient blessing of Moses (Deut. xxxiii. lo) ; every father is to instruct his children, and write the great commandments on his door- posts (Deut. vi. 7-9). What would be the good of that if no one could read ? Popular national education has its founder in Moses (Deut iv. 5-g, and xxix. 29). The Psalms of David con- tain reminiscences of Sinai, embody more ancient poems, and presuppose an historic religion as much as the hymns of the Chris- tian Church presuppose an historic religion. Who is the Lord of the Psalms, if not the * Compare also for the same literary feeling in pre- serving traditions in the later time of the judges i vSam. ix. Q. 2 1 8 Did Moses write Lord of the History ? They also imply educa- tion at Bethlehem and an audience in some degree capable of appreciating them. Their ancient headings, supplementing as they do the historical record, show the instinct of lite- rary tradition. The Psalm of Asaph, a Levite (Ps. Ixxviii.), contemporar}^ with David (ver. 72), is full of reflections of Mosaic history, and emphasizes the great importance of popular education (ver. 1-7). And indeed the history of Israel is full of traits favourable to the truth of literary traditions. The age of Solomon is an age of literary production. The schools of the prophets were continued till the exile. In the courts of the Temple were found students of the ancient records. Repetitions in the prophets and in the later Psalms, as well as the tradi- tion at any rate of Daniel's study of Jeremiah, indicate the scholastic habit. ^ Hezekiah's time was an epoch of authorship. The arrangement of the Psalter, surely in some part of it ancient, is characterised by cultured insight. There seems even good ground for attri- buting a collection of Psalms to David himself, of which Ps. Ixxii. 20 is a reminiscence. ' The Psalms or prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended ;' who but David would so speak of the greater establisher of the kingdom ? * Compare Leathes' 'Law in the Prophets,' page 153. The Pefitateuch after all ? 19 The state of the text of Jeremiah in the LXX. and in the Hebrew, differing as it does in arrangement, seems to be a strong indication of the Hebrew Hterary instinct. The different prophecies of Jeremiah appear to have been carried away from the destruction of Jerusalem both to Egypt and to Babylon, and the after arrangement in Egypt was different from the arrangement in Babylon. But in neither case was anything not by Jeremiah inserted, nor anything by Jeremiah left out in any important instance. The variations are small. This treatment of an unpopular prophet at a time of much distress and very unsettled circum- stances seems to point to the powerful hold literary considerations had upon the minds of educated Hebrews. In fact, there is no period of the Hebrew history (down to the time of the Maccabees, 2 Mace. ii. 14) when traces of careful literary instinct may not be found. Here, then, is the meaning and force of the evidence derived from tradition. It argues from history and from necessity the existence of a body of more or less intelligent contempo- raneous tradition, which is registered by the verdict as to authorship and as to facts, which has come down to us preserved by a continuous tradition. Tradition may be set aside, but it must be set aside by evidence to the contrary. 2 — 2 20 Did Moses write History must sink into hopeless scepticism if we are to attach no weight to it. 3. Tradition from one aspect is the back- bone of history, from another it is the proper starting-point of criticism. But tradition does not decide the question of the authorship of the Pentateuch. It does not do so by the name of it nninn, or later nninn ^^^^n n^^n, the law, the five fifth-parts of the law.* It does not do so in any way directly as a whole. What tradition asserts, and asserts with un- varying tone, is that Moses was the master- spirit of the Hebrew legislation. ' The law came by Moses.' It asserts surely by a conse- quent implication that the main part and pervading spirit of the law was substantially contemporaneous with the lawgiver and in some definite way hisc And tradition directly asserts his immediate authorship of certain magnificent pieces of poetry, of certain dis- courses, and of certain writings, which are handed down to us in the law. Who wrote the rest is a matter for critical and historical inquiry. It is in this connection important to re- member that the style and language of ' the law,' while it may in its various parts suggest or even prove the occurrence of a different '*' IMeeks 'Introduction,' I., page 184. The Pentateuch after all? 21 hand, or different hands, in its composition, is not held to be decisive as to its date. It should seem the balance of evidence is, as far as language and style are concerned, in favour of a high antiquity ; for it is the standard of the language of the best Hebrew literature. An attempt will be made later to show that the archaisms of the Pentateuch (as indeed some other important evidences of language) receive insufficient attention from the critical school. The slight but interesting Aramaic tinge in Genesis xxi. 7, in a speech of Sarah's, who came from Chaldaea, the name of the cairn of witness given by Laban the Syrian (''/blXn, Gen. xxxi. 21), and if there be any other things of a like kind, scarcely need a reference to the dictum that Aramaism is a sign of a very early or of a late date. But, if we concede to the critics in their present mood, that the language and style may possibly, in the main, and with reference to its compilation, be placed anywhere in the golden age of the Hebrew literature, it will be seen that to his- torical considerations and considerations of pragmatism is left the burden of the proof as to the origin and date of the Pentateuch. Let us turn then to recent theories of its composition in search of the light we need as to these points. 2 2 Did Moses write And surely we cannot be wrong if we take Professor Driver's ' Introduction '* as a repre- sentation of what is most happy, and most lucid in recent work upon the subject. There is one thing which is a cause for congratulation. The history of opinion in the analysis and literary investigation of the Penta- teuch has gone through all the forms and variations of combination which perhaps are possible. Critic after critic has laid down with more reason, or often with less reason, his own particular scheme. But it is no longer necessary to examine tediously into the basis and meaning of their work. Clericus, Astruc, Semler, Eichhorn, Michaelis, Ewald, De Wette, and the others are but pioneers. Colenso, who rejoiced to have made Moses as shadowy a character as ^Eneas of the Trojan War, is out of date himself. And 'the older literature, which has been largely superseded by more recent works,' we find in Professor Driver's bibliography 'is for want of space omitted alto- gether.' The labour of many has had its culmination in the genius of one. Wellhausen is arisen, as it were, a Newton of criticism. And he has Kuenen for his minister. ' Kuenen * An Introduction to the 'Literature of the Old Testa- ment,' by S. R. Driver, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew and Canon of Christchurch, Oxford. T. and T. Clark. The Pentateuch after all? 23 and Wellhausen are men whose acumen and research have carried this inquiry to a point when nothing of vital importance for the study of Old Testament religion still remains un- certain.' So has Professor Robertson Smith said.^^ We have therefore in effect only one theory, namely the theory of Wellhausen, which remains of value in itself. All the others are contributions, but this is supposed to settle the matter. And this theory in the main does Professor Driver lucidly set forth. What then are the conclusions set forward, divested of their critical setting, and treated as the elements of a scientific hypothesis ? We find that ' the law ' or the Pentateuch is con- sidered to be in its present shape a compilation, in which, speaking generally, the hands of five compilers are to be discovered, denoted sever- ally as J, E, P, H, and D. The algebraical nature of the symbols employed indicates that these compilers are no historical personages, but that they are an inference grounded, we are told, upon cumulative critical probability that they may or even must have been his- torical personages. We have been told that to speak of com- pilers is wrong, although the Pentateuch may ^ Professor Robertson Smith's 'Religion of the Semites,' Preface. 24 Did Moses write be spoken of as a compilation. J, E, P, H, and D, are to be called documents or sources. And herein we may discern a useful ambiguity, tending towards mythical shadowiness. But there is no doubt that, in some way or other, we are dealing with supposed persons. No one will be hardy enough to assert that ' sources ' are instances of spontaneous generation. The capacities, the tendencies, the limitations of men, one man or more men, lie behind J, E, P, H, and D. As Professor Driver* handles them, they have flesh and bones enough. They have divergencies of style, characteristic method, historic bias and motive. Professor Driver (page ii6) speaks of J and E as 'him"; speaks of P as 'he' (page ii8, 'his aim is'), and as an ' author ' (page 123) ; speaks of H as not being Ezekiel, and of an author about the closing years of the monarchy having arranged H's earlier laws in their present parenetic setting (page 143). He speaks of an 'author' of Deuteronomy, the symbol D (page 8g), and speaks of ' his power as an orator,' of ' his warm and persuasive eloquence.' He also speaks of a ' Deuteronomic Editor, D'-^,' and of the parts added by this writer as being ' in most cases readily recognised by their charac- teristic style.' This gentleman, however, being * Driver's ' Introduction,' pages 109-148. The Pentateuch after all? 25 not concerned apparently with the Pentateuch, does not concern this inquiry. The dates assigned to the work of J, E, P, H, and D are as follow, and speaking with sufficient accuracy for the purpose in view. E and J, who are very like one another (page 109), 'belonged to the northern and southern kingdoms respectively and represent the special form which Israelitish tradition assumed in each locality' (page 116). The date assigned to them varies from goo B.C. to 750 B.C. (page 116), or taking the earliest date about one thousand years from Abraham's time, about five hundred years from the time of the Exodus. They ' cast into literary form what may be termed the popular conception of the patri- archal and Mosaic age.' P's 'aim is to give a systematic view, from a priestly standpoint, of the origin and chief institutions of the Israelitish theocracy' (page 118), and his age, it should appear, wavers from earlier to later. P stands, it should seem, rather for a series of compilers than one. But the work of P ' in its complete form ' (page 146) is after the exile, that is to say, at least four or five hundred years after Solomon's Temple, at least a thou- sand years after the Exodus, and a thousand five hundred years after Abraham. And P above the others has the tendency towards 26 Did Moses write historical romance (page 134). The work of H was to work up earlier laws to their existing state about the closing years of the monarchy, say about a thousand years after Moses ; while D wrote his part of 'the law' before 621 B.C., 'not later than the reign of Manasseh,' and not much before it (page 82). D is said to 'belong, at least approximately, to this age,' that is to say, at least six or seven hundred years from Moses. And J and E are called by Professor Driver ' the prophetic narrative of the Hexateuch ' (the book of Joshua being included), while P and H are called ' the priestly narrative.' The distance of time which divides these writers from the time of Moses and the time of the patriarchs is given in each case generally, with only pretension to sufficient exactness for the purpose in view. But there is no need to debate the matter. It is the very vital breath and purpose of the theory amongst the Germans, its originators, and amongst their English followers, to prove the Pentateuch as it now stands to be the work of writers living many hundreds of years after Moses. Certain unknown men's writings, who lived at the earliest five hundred years after Moses, and about a thousand years from the times of the patriarchs, were combined in the Pentateuch as we now have it. The Pentateuch after all? 27 And the foregoing is a fair statement of the recent assignment of their historical positions. Nor are we left in doubt as to the material which these several compilers worked up, or which is worked up in the several * sources,' into our present ' law.' They are these which follow: I. Oral Tradition (Driver, page 117, and page 118). 2. Poetry, which is the first literature of nations (page 114). 3. 'Archaic elements' (Dillmann, page 116) and 'points lixed by tradition ' (Dillmann, page 113). In some cases traditional elements in phrase- ology (page 148). 4. The ten commandments written in a shorter form. A written account of the war with Amalek (page 115.) 5. Per- haps the teaching of Moses (' the book of the covenant ') preserved in its least modi- fied form contained in Exodus, chapters xx. to xxiii. inclusive (page 145). Many ancient enactments from ' a more ancient body of law,' used by D and possibly by P. 6. The nucleus of a priesthood, and ancient institutions and privileges (page 146, note 2). 7. And from a still later period, pre-existing Temple customs and Temple archives (page 135). 8. ' The tra- dition — perhaps even in a written form — of a final address delivered by Moses in the plains of Moab ^ (page 85). Such material did these several compilers or sources work up into the 2 8 Did Moses write continuous, splendid, and graphic whole, which is now our priceless possession and heritage. Great men and rare ! These are the conclu- sions, which ' since the publication of Well- hausen's Prolegomena in 1878,' to use the rather ominous words of a disciple, ' have become popular with scholars.'* 4. Now we are well aware that the ' investi- gations ' of Wellhausen lie behind all this. Professor Driver's purpose and his space allow him rather dogmatic statement than formal proof. Proofs are from time to time suggested, and an attempt is made to clear the theory from many a priori objections. The conces- sions made to English prejudices in favour of reality of treatment, have roused the wrath of Professor Cheyne. But the critical lists of words peculiar to or characteristic of J, E, P, and H, suggest to the unsophisticated observer the possibility of what the logicians call reason- ing in a circle. If, for instance, you allot to J all passages where certain words and phrases occur, and then use those words and phrases as among the proofs of the existence of J, it does not appear how you can escape a circular argument. Many of the critical observations, again, only require a bare reference to the text to show them to be singularly uncertain. ■^ Riehm's 'Messianic Prophecy,' page 327. The Pentateuch after all? 29 Wellhausen'r, theory of Judaism underlies the whole. But it is clear that it is necessary, without ^oing back over the grounds which are alleged for them, to compare the conclusions with the facts. All this is and must be a scientific hypothesis set forth to account for certain observed facts and certain variations and similarities in the Pentateuch as it now stands. It is nothing more ; nothing less. Before, therefore, it can be accepted as an inductive truth, it must be subjected to deductive verification. An hypo- thesis, or supposition to account for what are considered to be observed facts, is ' of such a nature as to be either proved or disproved by comparison with observed facts.'* The nebular hypothesis of Laplace is the work of the most ingenious reasoning of a powerful mind. But it is not yet, as it should seem, received amongst the ascertained results of astronomy, because upon comparing it again with the facts, there results a small discrepancy. The moons of Uranus and Neptune, and the November meteors have motions contrary to the motions which the hypothesis requires they should have.-f This may be so, or it may not * Mill's 'Logic,' II., page 14. t Beckett's 'Astronomy without Mathematics,' page 297. 30 Did Moses write be so; it is only used as an illustration. But it is plain that the result of the most powerful reasoning must be squared with the facts. Laplace's hypothesis would be quite discredited if we could imagine several of the worlds to be square and none of them to go the right way for it. Professor Driver will be the first to admit this. ' The reason,' he says, ' why the traditional view cannot be maintained is the presence of too many facts which conflict with it ' (page 2). Again speaking of another theory he says, 'this theory fails, in a word, to account for the phenomena which the Pentateuch pre- sents ' (page 149). 5. A scientific supposition must cover the facts to be explained, or else it is proved to be insufficient. Let us apply this test to the hypothesis before us. The first fact which seems to emerge from a comparative consider- ation of the foregoing conclusions is a fact 01 discrepancy. There is no valid historical reason, outside the exigencies of the theory itself, for the various periods to which the compilers are assigned, i. There are times undoubtedly historical to which literary im- pulse may be ascribed. The time of Moses was evidently one of them, and writing is allowed to have been used by him. Yet no written interest in contemporary history and in ancient tradi- The Pentateuch after all? 31 tions or documents, no adequate written codi- fication of laws and constitutions is to be allowed to this age — the age of the birth of a nation. If Moses was in any sort of the power and genius attributed to him, the influence given to him in the moulding of the Pentateuch does not appear, to say the least, equivalent to his ability or adapted to the needs of the educa- tion of a people. The remains of Moses are dry and cold. The genius of Ewald recognises this. ' As certainly,' says Ewald, ' as the Buddhist com- mandments are only an ingenious extract from a much larger multitude of truths and opinions, so Moses also knew and taught much more than these ten commandments, which taken alone are a mere dry skeleton, but considered with reference to their intrinsic character and significance imply a religion originally taught with a perfect living fulness.'* But at the touch of this theory the perfect living fulness which exists in the Hebrew records disappears. No characteristic doctrine, no forceful institu- tions, no living personality remain. There is laid bare the nucleus of Mosaism. The ten commandments in a shorter form, a few simple social, agricultural, and pastoral regulations, which the theory will not allow to express any * 'History of Israel,' II., page 159. 2,2 Did Moses zvrite principle ; a few rudimentary written accounts of the most insignificant parts of the history ; a reminiscence, perhaps written, of an address deUvered in the plains of Moab, are all that remain. Surely it is easier to account for the abiding influence of Moses, and the pre-eminent force of his doctrine according to the text of the Hebrew records than by this theory. ii. The golden age of the Hebrew monarchy, again, that is to say, the time of David and Solomon, was another known period of intel- lectual activity. Thence dates the birth of Psalmody and Proverbial Philosophy. Re- searches into origins, and codification and revision of laws, are historically certain pro- ducts of a time when a nation reaches by conquest its meridian of stability, and grows high in aspiration. But no written edition of history or of laws is allowed to this age. iii. It does not appear why, for the first time, an interest in their historical traditions should influence about the same period of the divided monarchy two writers or sources, J, E, who in Professor Driver's opinion might almost have been one (p. log), who yet belong E to the northern, J to the southern kingdom, and influence them for the first time to ' cast into a literary form what might be termed the popular conception of The Pentateuch after all? n^^i the patriarchal and Mosaic age.' We might ask why was this not done before ? Were there no writers in David's time, none in Solomon's, fit for the task ? The times of the divided monarchy were not so stable and quiet as to be favourable for it. At any rate, it is clear there are no historical reasons for assign- ing E and J to this time. iv. Again, we are invited to believe that by a pious fraud the quiet greatness of Deuteronomy is the product of a writer living in the midst of the stir of political events which imperil the very existence of his nation, and in a time verging on a general apostasy. This unknown writer must have been a specially great man, and have been singularly fortunate in obtaining an immediate hearing for his work (2 Kings xxiii. 2, 3). V. Lastly, we are invited to believe that the most earnest, and complete, and fictitious working up of priestly legislation was brought about by P, when, to all human probability, it would not be needed. For the temple in his day either had no existence, or was only the simulacrum of the first (Ezra iii. 12, 13.)* The ^ For Ezekiel, dwelling fondly on the past, to project it in vision into the future is a completely different thing from legislation. Codes are drawn up to meet felt needs. Surely, again, the builders of the second temple had 3 34 Did Moses write other sources were preserved by literary tra- dition for him, and with a great number of additions, he or some other worked them up into a fairly successful whole. What has been called the psychological mediation^ of these writers or sources is not satisfactory. But in the next place, taking a larger and more general view of the facts into comparison with which this theory must be brought, a conviction rises in mind that there are several observed facts which are critically incapable of being explained by it. It is a fortunate circum- stance that there is no essential difference of opinion as to the principles of criticism. The difference lies in their application. Professor Driver helps us to two critical axioms. I quote his own words : 1. 'Abundance and particularity of detail show that the narrative must date from a period very little later than that of the events related' (page 173). 2. ' Narratives which point forwards and backwards to one another, and are in other ways so connected as to show that they are the work of one and the same writer' (page 163), something more strenuous and more immediate on hand, than spinning out of their brains the fiction of a *• sys- tefnatic view ' of their priestly institutions, * Riehm's 'Messianic Prophecy,' page 55. The Pentateuch after all? 35 are probably by one and the same writer. Other axioms like to these may be added without much fear of entering upon debatable ground. 3. Local colouring, geographical atmosphere, and the influence of the conditions of any given time, are in ancient documents certain indica- tions of date. It is an anachronism to attribute to antiquity powers which are wholly modern. Atmosphere is a late product of the skill of the landscape-painter. To transplant the mind to bygone days so that we live in the colour of their environment, and in the limitations of their thought, is the highest effort, and pro- bably always an indifferently successful effort of the modern novelist. 4. Oral tradition may in ancient times hand on poems, and possibly orations and teachings, treasured in the memory and often recited, but it is not an adequate channel to convey his- torical accuracy reaching to complicated details through many ages, ages themselves full of ■events and pregnant with changes. Still less would a wise lawgiver tend to commit to it entirely a system of national legislation.* 5. Abruptness, mcompleteness, even strange- * ' No record that is entrusted to the mere memory embraces more than a hmited period.' — Ewald, 'History of Israel,' I., 20. 3—2 36 Did Moses write ness of arrangement, as well as contradictions of statement, if such there be, left in situ un- explained, are matters of antiquity. As the Semitic harsher consonants tend in the later language to be displaced by consonants of smoother type, as the style of the older Psalm- ists is ' hard, bold, original,' while the style of the later is ' easy and flowing and marked by the presence of conventional thoughts and ex- pressions,'* so the later compilers' work will be directed towards harmony and system. And, sixthly, the principle of certain later additions to an ancient text is a natural one. The apparatus of notes explanatory or archaeo- logical at the bottom of the page, or numbered at the end of the volume, is modern. It came in with printing. The idea of notes is strangely hostile to the ' critical ' mind, but the principle which admits of them is abundantly conceded. Now, there is something not to be pressed too far in what opponents allege against the critical hypothesis from the variations and character of the hypothesis itself. Surely the fact that what the earlier school of critics treated as the most ancient source of the compilers' development, * the grundschrift,' is treated by the later school as post exilic, suggests the idea that there is something in- * Hupfeld, in Driver's 'Introduction,' page 361. The Pentateuch after all? 2>7 secure in the basis of comparison.* Surely a theory which results from its very principles in turning a vivid, dramatic, connected history into a patchwork put together in different ages by different hands long after the events, does not so far recommend itself a priori as con- formable to human experience. But this is not quite the line of the considerations to which we invite the attention of the reader, y The most important result, it should seem, of any fair comparison of the hypothesis and the facts which it is set forward to explain is this, that E, J, P, H, and D, ancient writers, • or sources, working at the dates assigned to them, distant by ages from the events, and working with the materials given to them, could '^not have composed the Pentateuch as it stands. They are set a task beyond their powers. The reader is besought to notice what is said, and not something that is not said. In the hypo- thesis we are examining there are no uncertain factors. We have the motive-power or force, E, J, H, D, and P ; we have the date at which the work was done ; we have the material given as in the analysis above set forth ; we have the suggested product, the Pentateuch. It is strongly urged upon the reader that the Pentateuch as we have it is an impossible pro- "^ Driver's ' Introduction,' page 128. 8 £>2d Moses zvrite duct for ^uch writers or sources working the earliest five hundred years after Moses, one thousand years after the patriarchal times, and the others hundreds of years later still, with swc/j material as is given to them. It is not alleged that other writers working at a different time with a different material might not have written the Pentateuch as it stands. It is only just to treat the theory which is presented to us as not made in haste, and as fitted to be put to scientific tests. If the theory fails to ac- count for one or two of the greater phenomena which the Pentateuch presents, it is still un- certain. If it cannot account for the larger part of the phenomena which the Pentateuch presents it is rendered untenable. Let us pro- ceed therefore to test it in this way, and with reference to the foregoing canons of criticism. Fact No. I. The whole of the Pentateuch from one end to the other is full of histories which are characterised, and notably charac- terised, by ' abundance and particularity of detail.' Now, if there be any truth, as surely there is, in the dictum that ' such narratives must date from a period very little later than that of the events recorded,' what becomes of a supposition that such narratives were worked up by several hands ages after the events from meagre material ? The Pentateuch after all? 39 Fact No. 2. The Pentateuch is full of histories * which point backwards and forwards, and are in other ways so connected as to show that they are the work of one and the same writer.' This is no question of Hebrew style and language. It is open to the observation of the English reader. There is a practical homogeneousness in the family records, the historic dramas, and the pictures of moving and popular life, in the Pentateuch, which eludes the dissector's knife, and is present to the ordinary understanding.* If this be so, and let each man judge, what becomes of the supposition that these continuous and familiar recitations arose from the stringing together of fragments, as far as appears, in and by them- selves abortive, without real beginning .or end or intelligible course, fragments differentiated by difference of ages and of standpoint, written ages after the events, and afterwards pieced together by another lat^ir and different com- piler, who used them at his will (See note C). Let us not be misunderstood. We think that the several histories may have had several ■^' Canon Cheyne's gibe at the 'common-sense' of the * plain Englishman ' may be met by the admission of Kuenen, that the critic and the layman have in effect the same Bible. Science which cannot recommend its main ultimate results to the ordinary understanding is no science at all. 40 Did Moses write writers, or one writer using different written historical materials. An editor may have put them together. This may be indicated by inherent probability and inferences of style and language. What we plead is that each several history resists disintegration of a complicated and purely theoretical kind — that is, resists treatment of the kind proposed. Fact No. 3. The Pentateuch is so full of local colouring, geographical atmosphere, and I the influences of the times, that it is difficult out of so man}' instances to select examples. But let the reader consider the local colouring of the patriarchal lives, of Joseph's Egyptian life, of the Exodus, of the plagues, of the desert life, in each case exact and verifiable. What influence, for instance, governs the great com- parison of Moses' song — Jahveh, the rock of Israel ? Is it not a comparison brought about by long familiarity with the rock}- peaks of Sinai, impossible in Egypt or among the softer slopes of the ' hill country of Judaea ' (Deut. xxxii. 4, 18). Take another simple illustration of what is meant in an incident which it is believed Voltaire once was merry about, be- cause of an insufficient knowledge of Egyptian customs. When Joseph was called hastily into the king's presence, 'he shaved himself and changed his raiment " (Gen. xli. 14). It The Pentateuch after all ? 4 i appears that the beards of the monuments which deceived Voltaire were false beards, tied on. He who neglected to shave was an object of reproach and ridicule to the Egyptians, and was probably a man of low condition.* The Hebrews, on the contrary, probably wore the beard long. This is only given as illustrating the kind of exact local reference, which abounds in the Pentateuch, not as conclusive by itself. By geographical atmosphere is meant the influence of the geographical surroundings of the writer, even suggestive once and again that the world was much smaller to him than it could have been to later writers. Consider for examples the very interesting and very ancient geo- graphical remarks of Gen. ii. 11-15. The hand of Havilah must have died out of sight by Moses' time, with the gold that ' was good ' in it, and the bdellium and the onyx-stone. Surely, also, was not the very physical geo- graphy of the ' four heads ' with their interest- ing partially traceable names changed before Moses' time by some physical disturbance, possibly connected with the Deluge? Consider again the very limited horizon of the deluge account. Here is no expanded world, no sur- rounding world-civilizations of the later times. * Wilkinson's 'Egyptians,' II., page 327. 42 Did Moses write Would it be too much to suggest that the atmosphere of these accounts of the early chapters of Genesis was impossible for Moses even to have brought himself back into? Take again that most interesting insight into the limits of the ancient but later geography in Balaam's prophecy : ' Ships shall come from the coast of Chittim, and shall afflict Asshur, and shall afflict Eber, and he also shall perish for ever' (Num. xxiv. 24; quoted by Daniel, xi. 30). Cyprus (Chittim) is given as being Balaam's geographical limit of the West, and a prophecy is given, guaranteed genuine by its ancient phraseology, of the predominance of the West in the later time. There was a larger horizon in the times of Solomon and of Isaiah.* Consider the point of view from which men talked and acted in the simple patriarchal times, in the larger but oppressive life of Egypt, in the republican freedom of the desert. Con- sider the manifest archaisms of old-world life that meet one at every turn. Is it too much to say that such place and time colouring is an impossible creation for writers living ages after, under far different and more historically- * The Vulgate, with that curious tendency to exegetical translation which is also observable in the LXX., trans- lates — 'venient in trieribus de Italia, superabunt Assyrios, vastabuntque Hebraeos.' The Pentateuch after all ? 43 advanced conditions, to work up from the scanty material which was ex hypothesi at their disposal ?* Fact No. 4. If there be one conclusion more certain than another it is this, that every advance of historical and philological and ethnological research brings out correspond- encies which involve the historical and some- times unsuspected accuracy of the ancient record of the ' Law.' Undesigned coincidences only explainable by historical reality; individual character portrayed with exactness, without any mythical attribute of perfection, always consistent under varying conditions, and with a consistency so thorough-going as to give as perfect a representation of historical character as has ever been given, and as surely to imply a contemporary hand in the portraiture; spiritual facts of personal religious progress deeply veri- fiable in present human experience — point the same moral. The theophany of the burning bush, with its deep theological significance for the church * Milman's ' History of the Jews,' I., page 133 : I have great faith in internal evidence which rests on broad and patent facts ; on laws ' — and, we might add, histories — 'for instance, which belong to a peculiar age and state of society, and which there can be no conceivable reason for imagining in later times and during the prevalence of other manners.' 44 Did Moses ivrite for all time, is a revelation and a prophecy impossible of invention at all, and still more of after-invention.* Now, without denying the existence of tradi- tions parallel to writings, all our experiences of oral traditions unsustained by writings teach that it is an insufficient channel of historical accuracy, and tends to legendary accretion, obscuring the proper humanity of national heroes and the unity of God. Is it conceivable that oral tradition should carry down to the compilers, through long ages full of stir and change, a record so fresh and so full of contact with the history of nations, and the world, which yet justifies itself to-day by a cumulative verification ? Yet for the greater part of all this, oral tradition is the only source supplied by the supposition we examine. Fact No. 5. The same compilers, who on this supposition were fairly successful in smoothing the joints and piecings of their historical work, were not so satisfactory in the codification of the law. Abrupt pieces of legislation which arise, often without system, in the midst of historical recitals, which are * Exod. iii. H^D ^^""^ o^^ly? ^"d in Deut. xxxiii. 16, of which it is an undesigned coincidence of Mosaic author- ship. The word is evidently ancient, and means the wild acacia of the desert, Irom which Sinai probably got its name. — Stanley's 'Sinai and Palestine,' page 17. The Pentatetuh after all? 45 full of archaic elements, and which are difficult to harmonize, it is surely likelier to suppose arose in the first instance contemporaneously in the evolution of the history itself, however much they may afterwards have been edited or added to. Their traditional position and ancient contents remain. There is no veri- similitude in the opinion that they owe their origin to codifiers, who lived after ages of civilization, neither hampered nor directed in their arrangement by anything but a simple outline, and traditional custom and usage. Such workers would have reduced the legis- lation to a more systematic and continuous method. Father Hardouin of the Jesuit order, about the end of the seventeenth century, became such an authority on medals and coins that he grew to consider himself a master of historical inquiry. At length in one of his works, ' La Chronologic Expliquee par les Medailles,' he ventured to maintain that ancient history had been entirely recomposed by the monks of the thirteenth century. He was forced to retract his opinions, but, like another Galileo, he re- mained of the same mind. And in his last work, ' Prolegomena ad censuram scriptorum veterum,' he again maintained his opinion, less, it should seem, by argument than by bold 46 Did Moses write assertion. In his view, Virgil's ^Eneid, Horace's Odes, and the histories of Livy and Tacitus were the forgeries of the aforesaid monks. ' Our common sense,' says Newman, in his 'Grammar of Assent' (page 289), ' beHeves in their genuineness without any hesitation or reserve. But what are the grounds for dis- missing thus summarily, as we are likely to do, a theory such as Hardouin's ? For, let it be observed first, that all knowledge of the Latin classics comes to us from medieval copies of them, and they who transcribed them had the opportunity of forging or garbling them. Next, it must be considered that the numerous re- ligious bodies had leisure enough to compose not only all the classics but all the Fathers too. The question is whether they had the ability. This is the main point on which the inquiry turns, or at least the most obvious ; and it forms one of those arguments which, from the nature of the case, are felt rather than are con- vertible into syllogisms.' Taking a broad and comprehensive view of the question, a similar kind of argument has been attempted with regard to the theory that E, J, H, D, and P (even with the assistance of the E-, and J-, and D-, and P'^ of Canon Cheyne) had the ability with the given material and at the given dates to have composed the Penta- The Pentateuch after all? 47 teuch as we now have it. It is argued that these shadowy and unhistorical creations are set by the critics upon an impossible task. In a word, everything that goes to prove the his- torical virtue, Hfe, and trustworthiness of the Pentateuch, goes also to prove the theory before us to be untenable. NOTES. Note A. Upon the value of Wellhausen' s judg7?ient as a giiide to scientific history. Our present illuminant, gas, has many valuable by-pro- ducts. But the by-products proceed as essentially from the same dark but useful substance as the final product. If it vvere different, they would be different ; if they were different, it would be different. To Wellhausen's theory of Judaism there are also valuable by-products : they also proceed from the same factory, are evolved from the same substance, in connection with the same process. The marshalling of the same arguments that constitute the theory gives these the air of calm security they wear. It is not unfair therefore to estimate the balance of critical judgment which is the underlying support of the system by the amount of it displayed in the by-products of it. If there is an error, it is not a mere passing error of judg- ment, for it was the system of reconstructing history which brought it to birth. The error is symptomatic ; and surely it is not a captious spirit that fixes upon Well- hausen's treatment of the story of Abraham as a proper criterion. To Wellhausen Abraham very probably may be nothing in comparison with the virtues of his own theory; but to a large number of religious-minded persons 48 Did Moses winte Abraham is still an interest. The Church of God in all ages has been deeply moved by the teachings of his life. The following observations, therefore, of Wellhausen, though found in the comparative obscurity of a note, are not without their serious importance. Complaining of certain commentators who 'merely consider that as the father is older than the son, the story about the father is older than the corresponding story of the son, and so re- gard Isaac generally as a mere echo of Abraham,' he thus proceeds : ' The obviousness of this principle is too great, and against it we have to consider that the later dev^elop- ment of the legend shows a manifest tendency to make Abraham the patriarch par excellence, and cast the others into the shade. In the earlier literature, on the other hand, Isaac is mentioned even by Amos ; Abraham first (!)* appears in Isa. xl.-lxvi — (that is, according to Wellhausen, after the exile). Micah vii. 20 belongs to the exile, and the words 'who redeemed Abraham' in Isa. xxix. 22 are not genuine ; they have no possible position in the sentence, and the idea of the salvation of Abraham (from the fire of the Chalda^ans) is of late occurrence. I certainly do not mean to maintain that Abraham was not yet known when Amos wrote, but he scarcely stood by this time at the same stage as Isaac and Jacob. As a saint of Hebron, he might be of Calibite origin and have something to do with Ram (i Chron. ii.). Abram may stand for Abiram, as Abner for Abiner, and Ahab for Ahiab. The name Abu Ruham occurs in the Hadith as iiomcii prcpriiim viri.^\ This last sounds mystic, but might we venture to translate it 'the proper name of an historical and national personage' '^. * Do J and E, together with J- and E-, know nothing then at all about Abraham ? In Driver's analysis the story of Abraham is given to J principally, with E thrown in. J and E were not far from the time of Amos. t Wellhausen's ' Prolegomena,' page 320. The PentateMch after all? 49 Now the quintessence of historical perverseness that is gathered together in this note has never perhaps been surpassed. But it is to be noticed that it is no passing and unimportant ' detail or side issue.' It proceeds essentially from the palmary suppositions that are Well- hausen's claim to greatness. 1. The Pentateuch is totally ignored, as proved unhis- torical. Even the critical umbrae J and E are ignored also, possibly as being found in bad company. 2. The ' authentic ' history of Israel is put together from the occasional hints of the prophets, ' the earlier literature.' 3. Whatever a prophet does not mention did not exist, or existed only in embryo. 4. Whatever does not fall in with a critic's theory is not genuine, is an interpolation. 5. A critic may give any interpretation to any simple, easily intelligible phrase he wills, and afterwards damn it by his own interpretation. 6. Any flimsy, superficial opinion of a critic of the nine- teenth century is to be embraced as certain to be more historical than the fresh, verified, and archaic record of the past, which is earlier than the critic, and may be after him. But Abraham the Hebrew, our great ancestor and example, may take heart of grace. He may still have been the Father of the faithful in whom we are all blessed. We are critically unsatisfied ; we are favoured first with only a partial account of his name, which further meditation discourages us from accepting ; and, in the second place, it seems to us that critical complete- ness demands a fuller account, i. Abram, we are told, indicates a relationship to Ram. Now there are two Rams : one is Ram, the Buzite, of Job xxxii. 2 ; the other Ram occurs only as a name in a genealogy (Ruth iv. 19 . I Chron. ii.). It is just possible that somebody who 'had something to do with him ' might be properly called a Calibite. But it is at least singular that the genealogist 4 50 Did Moses write never heard of his being an ancestor or near relative of Abraham ; and the interpretation of the name is unhkely. In only one case does the combination Ab or Abi — which is the same, but with the old case ending — signify personal human relationship, and Abiner or Abner, son of Ner, yet means father of light. Usually it is combined with some term of quality, or the name of God. Abiezer is the father of help ; Abinoam, father of beauty ; Abitub, good father, etc. Abijah means whose father is Jehovah or Jahveh. There is again one possible exception in the name Abimael in the list, Gen. x. 28, which is uncertainly conjectured to be the father of Mael, a tribe of the Jok- tanites. But Wellhausen would scarcely take Abram to mean father of the tribe of Ram. There are difficulties in the way. The usage of the children of Israel is in favour of its meaning 'high father.' The critical explana- tion is not likely. 2. It is incomplete. Abram appears before us in the primitive account as Abram the Hebrew (LXX. o TTEparijg ; Gen. xiv. 13), so called by the Canaanites as an historical designation of a rich and noteworthy stranger, who had come amongst them from the regions beyond the Euphrates : ^'^^y means trans-Euphratensis. It seems most improbable that this name 'the Hebrew' is patronymic from Eber, but even if it were, would it not come to mean the same thing from the known tendency to alliterativeness, characteristic of the ancient mind — the descendant of Eber that crossed over (Abhar) the Euphrates ; compare i Sam. xiii. 7 in the Hebrew, 'the Hebrews crossed over' (ibhrim abhru).* Whichever way we might choose to take it, from the manner of its usage, it is certain we have in this name an historical monu- ment, (i) of the migration of Abram from Chaldita, the region beyond the great river, the river Euphrates, f and * Also compare Gen. xv. 2, ' my heir (ben meshek, ^H^H p^)^-J2l) is this Eleazar of Damascus (Dammesek).' t See Josh. xxiv. 2, 3. The Pentateuch aftej^- ail? 51 (2) of the importance with which he was regarded by his contemporaries in the land where he was a stranger."^ There is a conjecture among the Assyriologists that about Abraham's time there was a great impulse given to the primitive nature worship of the by that time mingled Sumirs and Accadians in the direction of a more positive idolatry and of the establishment of a complete and developed system over all Mesopotamia, whether by Sargon or some other.f Some movement of this kind was the probable moving cause under God] of Abram's migration into Canaan. He migrated probably to pre- serve the purity of his faith in the one God of Heaven in evil times. The name ' Hebrew' by which both he and his were known in those ancient times is an historical monument both of his migration and of his reputation amongst his contemporaries. Joshua tells us the same thing from the tradition of his day : ' Your fathers dwelt on the other side (b® ebher) of the river from old time, Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nachor, and they served other Gods' (Josh. xxiv. 2). In the legend of the revolt of the children of Israel, which is all the Egyptian traditions have handed down to Manetho, the Sebennyte, the Egyptian priest and historian in the third century before Christ, and which is yet full of curious reminiscences and many verified historical statements, the name Hebrew survives.:]: As in Osarsiph we have Joseph, so in Avaris or Auaris {dg ■^ For a probable account of the history that underlies the significant names of Abram's ancestors, Shelach and Eber, in their turn, see Geikie's ' Hours with the Bible,' I., page 264. In them we have a probable hint of their migration from their mountain homes in the far north east into Mesopotamia. t Lenormant and Sayce in Geikie, I., pages 304, 305. 1 Given in Rawlinson's Bampton Lectures, page 290. 4—2 52 Did Moses luritc Xrapiv TT]v irpoyoi'tKj)}' avToiv TraTpica), which is treated as the name of their ancestral fatherland, we have the word Hebrew, just as Joseph uses it when he says in the Egyp- tian prison, ' I was stolen from the land of the Hebrews.'* May we not, therefore, hold the opinion that the subject has not received from Wellhausen the exhaustive treat- ment it deserves? The historical nature of Abram the Hebrew does not yield readily to this kind of assault. t Possibly the critics, who are at present inclined to allow us a little more of Moses than they used to do, may in time begin to look leniently on Abraham. We may safely leave Abu Ruham in the Hadith. Note B. The critical '■ipse dixit.' As it is generally supposed that the theoretical school of critics are the critics par excellence, the only men concerned with Old Testament scholarship who can be said to have weight and acumen, critical sagacity and sufficiency, it may not be without advantage to point out that it is just on the ground of pure criticism that their con- clusions are and may be disputed. It is true, indeed, that the careful and sufficient study of the Old Testament has in this country been neglected, and that the careful study of Old Testament documents and Old Testament history, which the theoretical critics lead the way to and throw down the challenge for, may, if fearlessly pursued with religious mind and balanced judgment, be fraught with great benefits to the Church. But the monopoly of the word critic by persons of a certain bias has the danger of all strong self-assertions. People are willing to take thrni at their own valuation to the detriment of the cause * ( .encMs xl. I 5. t The confusion of this Avaris by Manetho with Auaris or Tanis, the capital of the shepherds or Hyksos, does not invalidate the argument. The Pentateuch after all? 53 of truth. There are still patient scholars who are not theorists. It is on critical grounds that the soundness of the theorists' process and results is being debated. Let anyone, for instance, read carefully the masterly treatment which Professor W. H. Green gives to a certain part of Wellhausen's theory in ' The Hebrew Feasts,' published (1886) by J. Nisbet and Co., and they will be convinced that this is so. Stanley Leathes' ' Law in the Prophets,' again, has a bearing upon the question whether P is unknown till the exile. And in truth it might not be unfair very frequently to complain of the absence of" the critical spirit in the so-called critical school. Bold assertions of things that are simply possible at best, without any weighing of considerations which have a per contra in them and sometimes tend to make them impossible ; the neglect of things really interesting and important because of a love for theory-spinning, and the free use of the knife to excise what does not agree with their prepossessions -^ the superstition that, in the ruin of so many historical principles, their own work will stand certain and infallible, and a strong leaning to authority when the question is a question of fact — such things as these are not quite the attributes of an entirely critical spirit. And what shall we say of arguing in a circle .'*t One is tempted to reflect what might not be proved or ■^ There is an instance on page 177 of Wellhausen's ' Prolegomena ' of the use of the critical knife where the material is dead against the theory. + In Wellhausen's ' Prolegomena,' page 37, there will be found a good example of the circular argument, where the theory that one sanctuary was a late idea having been used to prove the late date of the ' Priestly Code,' the assertion that one sanctuary in the Priestly Code was a projection of the later Temple into the past is brought to prove the non-existence of the Tabernacle. The existence of the Tabernacle is of course dead against the theory. 54 Did Moses write disproved on the same principles ; but in purely critical questions they are not by any means necessarily to be followed. It may be useful to give an illustration or two of this. I. There is an expression which occurs for the first time in the book of Exodus, which plainly has a history of ancient custom behind it, because when it first ap- pears it is idiomatic. ' To fill the hand ' (Exod. xxviii. 41, xxix. 9 ; Lev. xxi. 10 ; Num. iii. 3 ; and in a peculiar context and special sense, where kal not picl is used, Exod. xxxii. 29) is an elliptical expression. What the hand is filled with is left out, because the knowledge of ancient, well-understood custom would immediately supply it in the mind of the contemporary. And the historical custom was connected with the initiation and consecration to sacred sacrificial office. The phrase is elliptical, just as 'to cut a covenant' is elliptical, which implies the ancient custom of sacrifice as the essential mediation of an agreement. It is the SNnonym of consecration, because filling the hand was the accom- panying and initial ceremony of setting a priest apart for his sacred office. Just in the same way we are told by Professor Robertson Smith that the Syriac word which means literally 'to cut one's self 'comes to mean generally ' to make supplication,' because the ancient custom of cut- ting one's self v^as associated by the Syrians with earnest supplication"^ (i Kings xviii. 28, the Syrian worshippers of Baal ' cut themselves after their manner '). For the same reason filling the hand comes to mean consecration. And it will be observed that the problem of restoring what is left out — z.t'., what the hand was filled with — is conditioned by the necessity that it nmst have been something which had sacred significance for the old- world mind. Nothing can be more natural than to suppose that ihe historic custom that underlies the phrase * Smith's ' Religion of the Semites,' page 303. The Pentateuch after all? 55 was the placing in the hand of the priest to be consecrated some part of the sacrifice or some instrument or vessel used in the sacrifice^ Nor is this easy supposition left unsupported. Lev. viii. 27, 28, giving the account of the consecration of Aaron and his sons, seems to say as much. Wellhausen disposes of all this summarily. ' Originally this phrase,' we are told (' Prolegomena,' page 152), 'cannot have had any other meaning than that of filling the hand with money or its equivalent.' And upon this basis of false criticism he erects a struc- ture of critical perversity, which it will repay the fair- minded reader to consider. But the 'cannot Ms the other way : the thing is critically absurd. The ancient mind referred the idea ' consecration ' to the sacrifice and to the act of sacrifice. 'To fill the hand to the Lord' looked Godward, not priestward. Even in modern times the fees of priests have never been properly associated with their consecration ; their office is their consecration. And to project modern ideas or prejudices about 'the power and independence of the clergy ' into the interpretation of an ancient idiom for consecration is not sound criticism. 2. We are told by Wellhausen that the meaning of the name of the Passover, HD^/ is not clear.'f Its clearness does not suit his theory, and therefore it is not clear. Professor Green :{: tells us that Professor Robertson Smith says that the corresponding verb denotes 'some kind of * So Buxtorf sub voce : ' Nata locutio inde, quod tradendo certas partes sacrificiorum in manus sacerdotum, immit- terentur solenniter in possessionem muneris sacrificandi.' So Winer : ' Sacerdotibus novitiis videntur tanquam mu- neris sacri signum, instrumenta et vasa sacra in manus tradita esse.' So Lee : ' To consecrate to the priest's office by taking certain parts of the sacrifice into the hand.' So Gesenius : ' Sacerdotium ei in manus tradidit.' t ' Prolegomena,' page 87. X Green's ' Hebrew Feasts,' page 191. 56 Did Moses ivrite rclijjious performance, apparently a dance' — in i Kings xviii. 26 (in picl) they leaped upon or by the altar they had made. The root D5- bl^ C'S' ^^^^ ^^^ sense of jioing apart or spreading out ; 7^ PIDS "leans to leap or pass over. HDS '^ ^" historical word defined by an historical circumstance, and it is a monument of the cir- cumstance. Wellhausen says the Feast of the Passover was originally an offering of firstlings. We are met by this critical dilemma : If HD^ meant a dance at the offer- ing of firstlings, then it was an impossible word for the later idealists P or O to fix upon in the solemn meaning given to it in Exod. xii. 27 ; if, on the contrary, it means a ' passing over ' and a sacrifice commemorative of it (in the phrase to sacrifice the Passover), then, its meaning being defined by the historical circumstance, it is a witness against the possibility of the theory. It is a monumental word which the history makes clear, but which in turn by its mean- ing — which will not suit the theory — supports the history. 3. On page 433 of Wellhausen's ' History of Israel' we are informed that 'Jehovah is to be regarded as having originally been a family or tribal God, either of the family to which Moses belonged or of the tribe of Joseph.' The reader is invited to consider by what critical process this conclusion can be sustained, and how it compares with the words of Max Miillcr (quoted by Geikie, ' Hours with the Bible,' I., 23), 'While all nations over the earth have developed a religious tendency, which acknowledged a higher than human power in the universe, Israel is the only one which has lisen to the grandeur of conceiving this power as the One Only Living (iod. If we are asked how it was that Abraham possessed not only the primi- tive conception of the Divinity, as He had revealed Him- self to all mankind, but passed, through the denial of all other gods, to the knowledge of the One (.od, we are con- tent to answer that it was by a special Divine revelation.' To make this idea, which is the inspiring conception from the earliest dawn of the history and at every stage of its The Pentatetich after all? 57 development, a projection of a later age into its past is, from a purely critical point of view, to stultify the facts, and not to perceive the significance of the history as a revelation. Israel learned more and more of Jehovah till the fulness of time came. The Bishop of Colchester has pointed out that it is in favour of the theoretical critics that they are leading an attack. Elan and brilliancy are readily attributed by the onlooker to an attacking party. It might also possibly be said that the duller qualities of courage are needed in defence. Note C. The imreality of the supposed documents 07- sources. The character and phraseology of P. We are invited by the divisive or compilation theories, even as they are exhibited to us by the latest authorities, to believe that the Hebrew ancients were very strange folk. They seem to have been able to tell interesting, great, and important stories with a pathos and beauty never surpassed, never equalled, with all the appearance of ancient times and old-world character ; and yet to tell them ages after by means of, and in the process of, as remarkable a patch-and-botch work as exists — a process itself without parallel or analogy. It is perhaps part of the force of the theoretical critic that the analysis is put forward with all the confidence of assured results and all the panoply of an apparent scientific apparatus. We are taken off our guard : all is so formal and decisive : the authorities have spoken. There is no room for difference of opinion : everything is absolutely certain. It is, as it were, algebra and arithmetic : we may learn it, if we will. But the rude tearing up of a living history, the underlying suppositions, the goal that must be inevitably reached, are hid from us. Perhaps a want of appreciation for the unity and greatness and character of the ancient history is also hid from us. ' As to the limits of P in Genesis,' says Professor Driver, ' there is practically no difter- 58 Did Moses write ence of opinion amongst critics ' (page 9). ' The parts of Genesis which remain after the separation of P have next to be considered ' (page 11). * That P and J E form two clearly definable, independent sources, is a conclusion abundantly justified by the facts. As regards the analysis of J E, the criteria are fewer and less definite ' (page 17).* It may be well to look at the result in a few examples, not in the spirit of mere verbal criticism, but to see whether it bears the semblance of reality and likelihood. Authorities are not to be numbered but weighed. I. Take the deluge account. J and P or O are the sources. J has Gen. vi. 1-8, vii. i-io 'in the main ' (for we are told with much conscientious accuracy that verses 7-9 include two or three expressions borrowed by the redactor from P, Professor Driver having had apparently a private communication from the redactor to this effect), vii. 12, 1 6''- 1 7, 22-23 5 V"'- -''-3''» 6-12, 13^ 20-22 ; ix. 18-27. The rest, including vii. 6, is P or O's. Now, anyone that follows this analysis will see that it proceeds upon the assumptions (i) that an ancient writer could not possibly repeat himself in any way, on which it is hoped to say something later, and therefore every repetition must mean a different source ; (2) that Noah could not pos^^ibly have remembered and handed on details of time or the dimensii)ns of the ark or the wood (gopher) of which it was made. "H^^ being akin to, perhaps an older form of ^^^, *15j""'V17i some kind of pitchy, resinous wood, as is conjectured, only occurring here in the Old Testament. These things are the historical romance, the formal, precise, circumstantial method of P. (3) That there is no covenant by sacrifice, only a thank- offering, the sacrificial system being projected back by P. The reader is seriously asked to consider if this account be a true one of the Hood ; whether it is at all likely the lime of the divided monarchy first recorded it ; and " It may be remarked in passing that Professor Driver's orthodoxy with regard to I' J seems to be in danger, but Colenso is with him. The Pentateuch after all? 59 whether the idea of law and covenant, which was so essentially necessary to the inhabiters of the new world, would be left to the exilic times to insert. These ideas are great ideas, and very necessary for the times of Noah. The history makes them contemporaneous with him. The following quotation may be taken as evidence beyond suspicion that the deluge is not a myth : 'The occurrence of an ark in the traditions of a deluge found in so many distant times and places, favours the opinion of these being derived from a single source.'"^ We have an archaic account of an event that took place. Picture to yourself the importance of the event and the depth of its teaching for all time. Consider the old-world type of the simple law, the primitive and lasting importance of the covenant (Gen. ix.). What reality is there in imagin- ing it the priestly semi-invention of the exilic period? 2. Take part of the history of Abraham (Gen. xxii., xxiii.) — the sacrifice of Isaac and the cave of Machpelah. The Elohist is the source for verses 1-14, notwithstanding the most expressive use of Jehovah in verse 14. The Jehovist apparently had nothing of the account but verses 15-18, which immediately presupposes what goes before, and is in most intimate union with it. Verse 19 is Elohist. The most beautiful, archaic, and characteristic chapter (xxiii.), vitally connected with the very soul of the history of Abraham, is handed over to the exilic source. Let any- one read chapter xxiii. in the Hebrew or English without a theory in his head and he will find himself in the pre- sence of the very distant past.f Where is the reality of * Tylor's 'Researches into the Early History of Man- kind,' page 332. t Notice the archaic cast of *inD7 1^^ (chapter xxiii. 16) in the currency which is according to the travel- ling merchant, no national or king's currency being ex- istent. Consider also the consistency of character. The fine-minded independency, which refuses the spoils of the 6o Did Moses im^ite this ? Let the reader weigh also the reality of treatment which gives chapter xxi. i>', 2''-5 to P for no reason arising from the text, though P is supposed never to use the word Jehovah. It is theory all. 3. The history of Jacob. In chapter xxvii. (the rest being J), verse 46, which is intensely characteristic of the character of Rebecca, her feeling of strangeness in a strange land, her longing after kith and kin, and her excuse to get Jacob away, is given to P. 'The daughters of Heth' is critically unlikely as the phraseology of P. As it stands, it is most intimately and characteristically con- nected with the whole story. For no reason whatever but the introduction of historic names and the idea of 'the blessing of Abraham,' xxviii. 1-9 is given to P also. For no reason whatever to J is assigned verses 10, 13-16, 19. The rest is from E, though it contains the name Jehovah in verse 21. The same with the next chapter. He who can see a late composite account in the simple beauty and archaic consistency of this story must have strange eyes. The phantoms of theory must have de- stroyed the sense of reality. Genesis xlix. i' is given to P, being half a verse, for no reason at all, and 28''-33, and chapter 1. 12-13, for no reason at all except that mentioning what has already been assigned to P, of course itself must be referred to P. The interesting trait of Jacob's desiring not to be buried amongst strangers but in the tomb of his fathers is left out, though it, and it alone, accounts for the journey of Joseph into Canaan in the next chapter. Surely the inci- dents of the cave of Machpclah are the most natural in the world as they stand, the most unnatural in the world for P to insert. It is the most natural instinct for these early Fathers to desire an inheritance for burial in the strange King of Sodom, will not be beholden to Ephron. The type of character remains though due allowance be made for the Kaslcrn mode of Kphron's speech. The Pentateuch after all? 61 land. The word Machpelah, the prominence of the chil- dren of Heth,-^ and the name of Ephron the Hittite, were as far removed from the supposed priestly party of the later kings and of rising 'Judaism' as they are from us. They are ideas and names confined to the book of Genesis. 4. The history of Joseph. On page 16 (Driver's ' Intro- duction') we have a fine example of the spirit of filial obedience to authority with which Professor Driver searches for a double narrative in E and J, whom he con- fesses in his own mind to be far from distinct. We have also an example of the method which he thinks fair and discriminating for the treatment of an ancient record (Gen. xxxvii. 24-31). In verse 25, while the brethren were eating bread, they lifted up their eyes, and behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites passed by from Gilead, and their camels were carrying spices, and balsam of Gilead, and fragrant gum (^7 here and Gen. xliii. 11 only), and going on their way to go down to Egypt. Then comes Judah's advice not to leave their brother to die of starvation but to sell him. To this advice they consent. It is to be noticed that there is a strong implication that Reuben was, for some reason we are not told of, absent, because they would not have assented without a dissentient word if he had been present. He had a secret plan for de- livering hirn, as we are told (verse 21), and by implication in verse 29. Then follows verse 28. 'And Midianites mer- chantmen passed by, and they drew and brought up Joseph out of the pit, and they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver : and they brought him to Egypt.' Now comes the critical acumen of Professor Driver. There are, he says, two accounts in this. One says the brethren sold him to the Ishmaelites ; the other says Midianite merchantmen stole him out of the pit. Verse 36 says Midianites sold him in Egypt. Moreover, this second story, says Professor Driver, will account for ■^ See Sayce's 'Hittites,' page 13. 62 Did Moses zurite Reuben's surprise when he went afterwards to the pit and found Joseph gone, for Reuben 'appears clearly' to have been with the other brethren when Joseph was sold. Now, far from Reuben being clearly with the other brethren, it appears as clearly from the implications of the storv that he was not with the other brethren. It is also said, for verse 29 begins, 'And Reuben returned. It is also clear that verse 28 is a continuation of verse 27, and that 'they who drew and brought up Joseph from the pit' are the same who sold him, for it immediately follows. TThe change from Ishmaelites to Midianites merchantmen I is characteristic of the Hebrew mind, which delights in I parallelism of epithet. Compare in illustration, ' Israel came into Egypt, and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham'(Ps. cv. 23). Ishmaelites and Midianites are ad- I mitted to be synonyms for the same people, the Arabs, I The expression (Gen. xl. 15) 'For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews' is no proof of this double record, for Joseph was not likely to inculpate his brothers to an Egyptian stranger, and he might readily have been ignorant that he had been sold for money. This is so good an example of the so-called 'critical' method that it is commended to the attention of the reader. He is further invited to consider the inference derivable from a sentence of Professor Driver's that follows : ' The narrative of Joseph consists of long pas- sages excerpted alternately from J and E, each, however, t-mhodyini^ traits derived fro)ii the other^ It is on grounds such as these that we are invited to believe that the history of Joseph e'xisted only as a kernel of a legend, till the times of the early kings, when, by (ompilaiion, it became the interesting and affecting history it is. It would perhaps be uncritical, though it might be useful, to notice the undesigned coincidence of the Arab merchants, trading from Gilead, carrying down the materials for embalming to Egypt, the great centre of I that art, and to notice that the connection of the history The Pejitatettcli after all? 63 (^ of Joseph with Egypt is so varied, so detailed, and so verified in the present day, as to suggest even to so unprejudiced a student as Bleek,* that the history of Joseph existed in writing before the time of Moses— and we may add, if this history, why not others ? 5. We come now to the exodus. For no reason what- ever Exod. i. 1-7 is given to the exihc source, and also for no reason whatever verses 13-14 are given also to P. There is a repetition, which comes in naturally, (i) as the introduction to a new subject, and (2) as an emphatic statement of a serious subject ; there is circumstantial statement of certain details ; but if the record is the record of facts, where is the reality of bringing in the exilic phantom P ? It is really too bad to separate the beautiful pathetic passage, chap. ii. 23^-25, simply be- cause it mentions the covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob, which already, for no reason whatever, has been ascribed to the inventive and idealising genius of P. We are invited to believe that the great and beau- tiful idea of a continuous Divine providence was left out of the national mind till about the exile, though it is supplied by chap. iii. 6, as well as 7, 8, which, for no reason whatever, are given to J ; the Elohist being the source to the end of verse 6, in which six verses the name Jehovah occurs twice. In Exod. i. 7, which is given to P, occurs the somewhat rare and expressive word T**1^, which occurs in Gen. i. 21 ; and of Gen. i. 22 there are verbal reminiscences, which, perhaps, go to prove that Gen. i. to ii. 4 was in written existence when Exod. i. 7 was written. But this really rather characteristic word T^'H^, which is part of the phraseology of P — which only occurs in the Pentateuch, and in one quotation from it in the Psalms, and one in Ezekiel — in Exod. viii. 3 (vii. 28, Hebrew) is given to J, though its use here is precisely in the style and meaning of the other passages, and without ■^ Bleek's ' Introduction,' I., page 289. 64 f^i(^ Moses lurnte them it would not have occurred here. And D, though written before P, is said to have derived the noun V'H^ from P, in Deut. xiv. 19. Perhaps it may be convenient to consider here the meaning and bearing of the ' phraseology of P.' P, with certain exceptions, is the arbitrary grouping together of certain ideas and the words which cluster round these ideas. It is lai>1 down as an absolute certainty, that these ideas could not have existed, save in embryo, in Mosaic or Patriarchal times.* But ideas are necessarily expressed by words, and the words are specialised by the ideas. Hence the phraseology of P. Everything that is not as simple and bald as the preconceptions of the critic conceive very ancient history ought to be, must neces- sarily be the systematising, formal, circumstantial, statis- tical, legal mind cf the unknown writers of a very late priestly school, with iheir tendency to idealising and his- torical romance. The legal, pedantic minds of these people are supposed to be imaginative also. So, behind the phraseology of P is a theory. If the theory falls, 'tlie phraseology of P' falls also, for the purpose for which it is used. But it remains for another purpose. It shows the intimate connection and progressive motive of a growing revelation and cultus in the Pentateuch. The supposed school of the priestly code, again, must have been one of the most remarkable theological schools that ever existed. 'P,' says Dillniann, approved by Pro- fessor Driver (p. I2i), 'nowhere touches the deeper pro- blems of theology. On such subjects as the justice of the Divine government of the woild, the origin of sin and evil, the insufficiency of all human righteousness, he does not pause to reflect.' And although he does not pause to reflect upon such subjects, he manifests, according to ♦ An attempt to meet the assertion that P is unknown until the exile, except in the traditions that are its basis, will be made later. The Pentateuch after all? 65 Dillmann, a Pelagian tendency in Gen. v. 24, and vi. 9. Yet we are left to this school, that does not pause to reflect upon the deeper theology, but is bent upon ideal- ising the theocracy, and at the same time, strangely enough, glorifying ' the kings ' that were to come from the ' Abrahamic clan,' — we are left to this school for the invention or discovery of the deepest foundation truths, from which the other truths essentially arise, which they — surely it should be they, not he, 'nowhere touch upon.' The idea of creation in a wonderful order rising to man, and in a primitive state of innocence and excellence, is P's idea. Surely this implies the justice of God's government of the world. He made to guide. The profound Truth of the nature of man ' in the image of God ' is P's idea. But, surely, this is at the very root of the ancient Hebrew idea of sin and of its origin. To sin is to miss the mark that God has set, i^tOH ; it is a perturbation of what once was in order, y^*n ; it is a twisting and making awry of something that was once straight, 7^^ /1X- This is the ancient idea of sin. God-like freedom of nature and will is the root idea of the temptation in Gen. iii. Again, the party of Pelagian bias are the party that emphasise a sacrificial system for the doing away of sin. The idea of ' an ever- lasting covenant,' which is supposed to be P's idea, is implied in Gen. xv., which, by-the-bye, although it has the name Jehovah frequently throughout is given to the Elohist source. P is supposed to be the first to record the circumcision of Abraham as a covenant rite, though the use of a stone implement in circumcision, in Exod. iv. 25, which is given to the Jehovist, implies, probably, the religious nature and ancient derivation of the rite.-^ Again, P, who is the most diffuse, treats the most inte- * See Tylor's ' Researches into Early History of Man- kind,' page 214. 5 66 Did Moses icrile resting parts of the history in the barest outline (Driver, page II 8). The arbitrariness with which P is torn from the ancient, continuous record, and the neglect of very ancient historical associations and modes of expression which cry against this treatment, is well illustrated as above, in the history of the cave of Machpelah, which is throughout given to P. Another good illustration is found in the ' History of the Tabernacle-making.' There is a hesitation here about Professor Driver's orthodoxy to his critical authorities, but he is orthodox ' in the main.' His theory runs thus : There are two distinct accounts of the tent of meeting, which is always and in every place to be identified with the tabernacle. In the account by J E this tent 'is represented regularly as outside the camp, and the general impression^ derived from the nar- rative of J E, is that it was simpler in its structure and appointments than the tabernacle of P.'* The tabernacle of P was much more elaborate and ornate, and was in the centre of the camp, and never outside it. This sounds very circumstantial, and the accurate references and the supposed character of P clinch the matter. But it is well to investigate how it arises. (i) The first step is entire contempt for the reality of the history. It is treated as a legend, and even as a legend unfairly ; for there is greater consistency in the legend, if it be legend, than the 'critics ' allow. The book of Exodus in its first chapters introduces us to the beginnings of an ecclesiastical and theocratic polity. The people descended from Israel had spent hundreds of years in Egypt. It is hoped to show later on that their bond of union during that time was family or tribal and not national, that they lived apart from the Egyptians to a great extent, that their life was pastoral ♦ Driver's * Introduction,' page 120, note i. The Pentateuck after all? (V and agricultural, that their law was village custom, that their religion— a religion of family rites— was not very defined, and tended to become mixed with superstitions, infiltrated from Egypt to some extent, but arising partly from their own pastoral conditions, and partly perhaps from the remains of idolatries, which came from beyond the river, from the Euphrates valley, and inherited from their forefathers. Then, after their Egyptian sojourning, came the oppression and the deliverance. From tribes by joint suffering and joint action, culminating in the Passover feast, they become welded into a nation. Then comes common life in the wilderness and a common law at Sinai. The subject of the tabernacle for common worship, the ark for the law, the establishment of a national priesthood and ritual is arising, when the critic takes up his parable about the two traditions of the tabernacle. It is a time of transition. Just as the institutions of the Church in the early part of the Acts of the Apostles and in the early times of the Church were inchoate and transitional, so it is here with the Jewish Church. The statutes of the future are being evolved. {a) The first mention of a tent as an object of import- ance is of the tent of Moses (Exod. xviii. 7). The tent of Moses had become of chief importance in the camp, like the tent of the general or leader. It is called ' the tent ' par excellence; but there is no religious association further with it than as the tent of the divinely-sent leader. Jethro and Moses enter into it and converse freely and friendly. With Aaron possibly they eat bread before God in it. This is the first stage of the iuea of a tent in the encampment associated with the thought of the de- liverance and presence of God, and of religious acts before God connected with it. {b) Then comes the second stage. The national law is given solemnly at Sinai (Exod. xx.-xxiii.) in its simplest form, and upheld by the encouragement to a national spirit in the national 5—2 68 Did Moses loritc feast laws.* The next thought evolved is the thought of a national faith, sealed by a symbolic ritual and central institutions. The utmost importance is attached to this in the record. Commandments are an impossible burden without faith in the presence and favour of the living God. Tlie people are educated first (Exod. xxiv.) to the idea of representative common worship before visible symbols of God's Presence. There is as yet no tent of meeting, no appointment of a priestly order. In what was probably the extensive plain of Wady Rahah below the mountain (A.\\, very strangely 'under the hill'), where the commandments had been given, Moses erects an altar and twelve pillars. Certain ' young men ' are sent to sacrifice upon it. The book of the covenant, alrcoiiy lurittcn out, is associated with the idea of re- demption and peace by the sacrifices. And then the representatives of the congregation perhaps go a short distance up the mountain, or go up to the place where the altar is, to eat together the sacrificial meal, the feast of the covenant. And in communion with their sacri- ficial feast, a symbolic manifestation of God's beauty and presence and favour is given to them ; they saw (iod as Isaiah saw Him. Amongst them was His real presence, not to hurt but to save. They saw Him in vision, and in felt communion with Him they ate and drank. The brightness and beauty of the very heaven was as it had been the consecration of His presence. The idea of representative worship, and before the symbols of the presence of the living God, was given. It was to be embodied in permanent institutions, {c) The next stage is the elaboration of this idea in the mind and intention of Moses during his prolonged sojourn on the mount, spent in thought and contemplation and coin- ♦ The subject of the feast laws and the divisive theory is very fully tre.ited in ' Hebrew Feasts,' by Professor W. H. Green. TJie Pcntatczich after all? 69 munion with Jehovah. The result of this elaboration is given in Exod. xxv.-xxxi. But, in the meantime, the con- fidence of the tribes, waiting for the return of Moses in the plain, had given way before the length of his absence. He seemed to discredit their faith by his delay."**" They made them a calf of gold, {d) Here comes the next reference to ' the tent.' The reader is asked to notice ihat no tabernacle was in existence. Moses indeed comes down from the mount with his mind full of plans for the tabernacle and the other institutions, which in communion with God he had been devising. But in anger at their rebellion, just as he breaks the stone tables of the Commandments, he takes his own tent (LXX. Ti\v nKi]vi]v cwtTw) and sets it at a distance from the camp, and with his mind full of the associations of the projectea 'tent of meeting' (Exod. xxvii. 21, et ,y in Exod. vii. 15, which is simply a reference to the foregoing use of the staff before the people of Israel, instead of supposed P's p^n later on, on a different occasion (con- The Peiitateitcli after all? 85 cerning which see above); 'behold,' with participle— 'Thou, thy people, and thy servants'; 'God of the Hebrews'; 'tointreat'; 'to sever'; the end or object of the plague stated. This systematic difference, again, is the pure creation of the critic. P is given a bald, short account of the plagues. The record is perfectly consistent and continuous. Wherever colouring and dramatic elements occur, these are attributed to J. The difference of phraseology is simply brought about by the need of the historian for the words to express the facts that are recorded. It is, however, to be carefully noticed that J is allowed to have refrains and set repetitions of phrases as well as P. {d) The fourth distinct point of systematic difference is, that P uses the word p^Jl ('to be strong'), of the hard- ening of Pharaoh's heart, whereas J uses the word *7^^ ('to be heavy'), and uses the word jj^)^ ('to refuse ' to let the people go). Now, surely, in view of the well-known love of the Hebrew mind for parallelism of expression, this is critical trifling. Is it to be supposed impossible for one and the same writer to lighten his subject by using synonymous words in any language, much more in the Hebrew, which abounds in this style?"^ Moreover, the word ptH) supposed to be P's word, occurs in Exod. ix, 35 ; X. 20, 27 ; xi. lo, as well as in the preceding iv. 21, which are all given to E. So that out of the same account of the plagues, P's systematically different word occurs four times in Kal, six times in Piel, and once in a participle of Piel — eleven times in all. And of these eleven times of the occurrence of this P's systematically different word, five times are given to E. This some- * It is further to be noticed carefully that in two places, Exod. vii, 3 and xiii, 15, another word yet is used of this * hardening ' of Pharaoh's heart, H^p- Chap. vii. 3 is given to P, xiii. 15 to J. 86 Did Moses write what inconsistent result is reconciled by Professor Driver's ;illeging what he supposes to be a characteristic differ- ence. He says P always uses the following phrase — ' And he hearkened not unto them, as Jehovah had spoken'; but he omits to notice that in the first place of E (>x. 35) the record runs, 'The heart of Pharaoh was hardened ( p^H^l ) neither would he let the children of Israel go, as Jehovah had spoken by Moses,' where we have P's supposed refrain pretty nearly. Now, all this can only charitably be supposed to be a kind of critical nugae. It is, further, to be carefully considered that although the account of the plagues given to P is very brief and dry ; yet in this brief space is found an expression whicn is said to be characteristic of J's account — ' Behold ' — with the participle (Exod. xiv. 17). So much for Pro- lessor Driver's 'series of systematic diffeiences relating to four distinct points.' A piece of criticism in a note on page 23 (Driver) is so instructive that it were well to notice it. 'Aaron, if he appears at all, is only Moses 'silent companion' (that is, in the supposed J E). 'In x. 3 it is doubtful if the plural "and they said'' is original. Notice at the end of the speech (ver. 6') and he turned.' So the text is to be altered to suit Professor Driver's theory. I5ut the matter is very easy. As has been shown, it is an undesigned coincidence in the narrative that as the plagues advance and Moses" want of confidence wears away, so there is a clear tendency, both in J E's supposed account and also in P's supposed account, for Moses to come more to the front and feel less of his need of Aaron as an intermediary. But the critical emendation sug- gested seems to be self-destructive. In verse 3 we have • Moses and Aaron came unto Pharaoh and said unto him,' then follows the speech. Now, it clearly cannot be Professor Driver's intention to lead us to suppose that Moses and Aaron delivered the speech both together. The Pciitataich after all? 87 after the manner of a recitation in a board school. Either Moses or Aaron was the speaker, and probably it was Moses, owing to the steadily growing prominence of Moses through chapters viii, and ix. Then, at the end of the speech, we find, ' And he' (z>., probably Moses, though it is not said) ' turned himself, and went out from Pharaoh ' (ver. 6'') — that is, the speaker turned himself and went out, doubtless followed by his companion, who has not taken so prominent a part in the interview. But there is no need of critical emendation here. It is a mode of expression which is quite natural and allowable. The ' they said' of verse 3 simply implies a common mission in which one, in the nature of the case, must have been the spokesman. (3) It remains to notice the literary criteria which are supposed to separate J and E (pages 24, 25). We have to go back to Exod. iv. 17, 18, 20^, 21, which on page 21 ' are assigned to E on account of their imperfect connection with the context.' ' Chap. iv. 17 speaks of " tJie signs '' to be done with the rod, whereas only one sign to be performed with it has been described (ver. 1-9). Chap. iv. 21 mentions wonders to be done before Pharaoh, whereas verses 1-9 speak only of wonders to be wrought for the satisfaction of the people.' Now, this is a most note- worthy and instructive piece of 'criticism.' It simply comes from an attitude of mind for which the record can have no historical reality, because the theoretical pre- possessions of it are merely bent upon searching for J and E. Grant the reality of the story and the reasoning disappears. In iv. 1-6 Moses is taught the use of the staff as a sign to the people. If they will not hearken to the voice or message of the first sign, he is to do others (ver. 7-9). But the exact falling out of the future is not before Moses. It by no means appears whether he will have to do the signs more than once, or how, or where. So verse 17 runs 'And thou shalt take this staff in thy hand, with which thou shalt do the signs' {i.e., the sign-accomplishing staff as often as events render neces- 88 Did Moses write sary). Where is there anything unnatural in this for one and the same account? Again, it is true that verses 1-9 only speak of signs to be done before the people because the people are in the nearest horizon. But when Moses starts on the journey to Egypt actually, and drawing nearer, his mind is full of the great task that lies before him, we read (ver. 21), * And Jehovah said to Moses, In thy going to return into Kgypt behold (or consider) all the wonders (or marvels) which I have put in thy power and which thou shalt do before Pharaoh' — z.t'., think not of thine own weakness but of My power. And, lest any apparent want of success should discourage, Jehovah adds ' and I (I emphatic) will harden his heart.' The word in verses 1-9 is nijlK? 'signs'; the word here is CD^HS/^D' a stronger word, ' wonders' (from H^^j 'splenduit'). Nowi though this word QTlS/^D occurs with HIJlX o^ the wonders done in the land of Ham, it is never used of the 'signs' before the people. It is stronger in its meaning, just as |^^n» t^^ serpent of the sign before Pharaoh, is a stronger word than t^H^? the serpent of the sign before the people. Professor Driver speaks of 'wonders' mentioned in verses 1-9, but this is not so, the word 'wonder' does not occur in verses 1-9. Now, all this in chapter iv. is very natural, and does not imply two writers. The people are the nearer horizon of Moses, but the further and more difficult horizon is Pharaoh and the Egyptian nation. Hence the consistency of the record. ' Further,' says Professor Driver, ' in the existing narra- tive verse 19, from its contents, is not fitted to be the sequel of verse 18 ; it, in fact, states an alternative ground for Moses' return into Egypt.' Verse 18 speaking of Jethro, and E being given all about Jethro, therefore verse 18 is E, verse 19 is J. And E having the rod before, it is good to include the little piece verse 20'' which speaks of the rod like verse 17. So E is settled, and also J. Let us look a little closer at this. It is an undesigned coincidence in the record that Moses does not give to Jethio at the time a The Pentateuch after all? 89 reason for his return to Egypt, which he would not have understood, and would certainly have attributed to mad- ness. Moses gave Jethro a reason which was at once true and intelligible to him. ' Let me go and return unto my brethren which are in Egypt, and see whether they be yet alive.' And in the next verse (ver. 19) Moses, or who- ever wrote the account, adds the reason which made this return, in view of the Egyptian law, at all possible, and which was conveyed then, or probably before, to Moses. It is given here because it comes appropriately to the context. ' Moreover, the Lord said, or moreover the Lord had said, Go, return into Egypt, for all the men are dead that sought thy life.' This is no alternative reason for Moses' return. The reason is here given which makes any return at all possible, and which, either at this time, or more probably before, Jehovah showed to Moses.* If this be the fact, then verse 19 is manifestly not unfitted to be the sequel of verse 18, and the intrusion of J in between two Httle bits of E is incompatible with any regard for the reality of the story. But the two little bits of the record given to E involve Moses' rod ; yet the raison d'etre of the rod being taken at all is given to J. So J records the reason of the rod. E introduces the rod as something known, without any reason going before. Yet upon these slender bases is * ' In the use of \ conversive, the writer may, if he please, suffer himself to be guided by association in thought rather than by association in time. He may thus prefer to mention some fresh fact in the connection in which it rises before his mind, trusting to the reader to assign it to its proper position as regards the rest of the narrative. Thus we sometimes find, first of all, an event described generally, as a whole, and then some detail accompanying or connected with its occurrence appended afterwards by \ ' (Driver's ' Hebrew Tenses,' page 90). 90 Did Moses iV7^ite built the literary criterion which allots E's part of the narrative of the plagues. E calls the rod 'the rod wherewith thou shalt do the signs ' (Exod. iv. 17). Now, a perlectly natural reason of the plural in this verse has been given. But Professor Driver says the use of the plural introduces a new idea of E's on the subject. E wishes, in contradistinction to J, to use the rod, not for J's sign for the people, but in bringing on the plagues upon Egypt. Hence, wherever the rod is made use of in relation to a plague, there is E's account of the plagues ; because he indicates his design of so introduc- ing the rod in this verse (ver. 17), which has been given to him without reason, and which apparently has no such significance at all. The use of the rod in the plagues is, however, allowed to P. Surely this is marvellous criticism ! Surely the sym- bolic use of the rod in the later story is quite compatible with a homogeneous record. A real history is not to be bound by a priori ideas of what it might or ought to be. Even if the plural Jl^inX? 'signs,' in verse 17 does apply to the plagues, is it outside our conception of Jehovah's knowledge that He should know further uses to which the rod was to be put .? These words are given to Him. To give certain passages to E on such grounds as these, supposing the story to be connected, as most legends even are connected, is not literary criticism. By such means as these E is given, moreover, the entire account of the ninth plague. Now, the history of the plagues is both homogeneous in itself and it advances to a climax. The plagues or strokes of God grow in severity. If they occurred as facts, it is as clear that they must have had the deepest impression upon the people that were redeemed by them, as it is clear in the repeated assurances of psalm and story they, in fact, had. The Church of God has never regarded them as legend. The doctrine of the living God, which they convey, is too worthy, too precious, too assimilated The Pentateuch after all? 91 to all His other dealings, for the Church ever so to regard them. The record, on the face of it, is simple, natural, and eminently truth-seeming, and must, if true, have been recorded soon after the event. But even if we suppose the account to be legend, it is clearly connected, and rises to the climax of deliverance. It is clear that every- body knew that there were ten plagues related in purpose. E would never have had the sole knowledge of one. And whether in legend or in record of history, the patchwork way in which the critics assert it to have been compiled will, if the reader will give it close and unprejudiced attention, appear quite incredible. For legend never arose so. The story is connected, and has made deep impression upon a nation's character. No one would have attempted to set about recording it in the piece- meal fashion of J and E and P. There is not the slightest evidence to be given why interest first arose in writing this story about the time of the divided monarchy, and why some of the most important parts of it were told five hundred years after that. It is a further fact to be weighed, that the absolute manner in which Professor Driver indicates the limits of J and E is obedience to authority, and does not accord with his own feeling in the matter. There is a striking discrepancy, for instance, between the absolutism of the remark on page 21, of ' chap, xviii. undoubtedly belong- ing to E,' and the remarks on page 109, where he ex- presses the doubt as to 'having done rightly in dis- tinguishing J and E ' at all. He there seems to lean to a desire to make the whole Pentateuchal record later than the supposed J and E. The absolutism all along expressed is merely an acquiescence in the authority of Wellhausen, Dillmann, and Jiilicher (page 25), and Kuenen. The point as to E's use of p^H? of ^^^e hardening of Pharaoh's heart, has been already considered. Attention is drawn, in passing, to a remarkable piece of criticism 92 Did Moses write further on in Exodus xiv. lo. The latter part of the verse which tells of the armies of Pharaoh approaching in pursuit is given to E. It runs, 'And the children of Israel cried out' (1py>f^"l, a strong word for earnest cry- ing out) ' unto Jehovah.' This little piece, which inter- venes between two little pieces of J, and contains the word 'Jehovah,' is given to the Elohist, who prefers the name Elohim of (iod. The word p^^^, which simply expresses the idea required, has been given to J in other places of the Pentateuch. Before turning from the account of the plagues, there remains one further observation upon two comments placed by Professor Driver in large print (page 25), which seem singularly instructive of the critical manner. Having a further desire to rend the story still more asunder, out of deference to the authorities, he gives the following two instances as raising in his mind the sus- picion of a still further composite account : (i) 'Thus, in vii. 17, the transition from the " I " of God to the " I " of Moses is abrupt and (in the historical books) unusual ; hence the suspicion arises that originally the subject of " I will smite," was Jehovah {cf. ver. 25'>), and that the words "with the rod that is in mine hand" were introduced by the compiler of J E from the other source used by him.' But 'the suspicion' of anything so unlikely never will 'arise' in the mind of anyone who has any idea that the events really took place, and that behind the record there are living realities. In the first place, sudden transitions of person in dramatic poetic passages is eminently in the Hebrew manner, and this, if the occasions and conditions are weighed, is a dramatic passage. Moses and Aaron stand alone to champion a nation wearied with bitter slavery before one of the most powerful of old-world monarchs. But, in the next place, the strong probabilities of the case suggest that there is no transition from the ' I ' of God to the ' 1 ' of Moses at all. The Pentateuch after all? 93 The strong personality of Jehovah, the Redeemer, is asserted throughout. It is the new departure of reve- lation in Exodus. It is emphatically Jehovah's quarrel on the side of the weak and the oppressed. In the first interview, Pharaoh said, 'Who is Jehovah.? I know not Jehovah.' In Exod. vii. i the record runs : ' Jehovah said unto Moses, See, I have made thee' (not a god, but) ' God to Pharaoh.' In the passage before us, Moses is instructed to say to Pharaoh, ' Thus saith Jehovah, In this thou shalt know that I am Jehovah ; behold, I am smiting with the rod which is in My hand.' Both the 'I's' are emphatic. The introduction of Moses in the second * I ' is highly improbable. It is characteristically in the Old Testament manner to identify the sender with the sent. The rod in the hand of Moses is a rod in the hand of Jehovah. The personality and power of Jehovah is what is opposed to Pharaoh, the absolute monarch of great, old-world Egypt. In accordance with this is verse 25^, ' after Jehovah had smitten the river.' The effect all this produced on Moses' mind may be seen in Exod. XV. 3, 'Jehovah is a man of war, Jehovah is His Name': and Deut. xxxii. 41, 'If I whet the lightning of my sword, and mine hand lay hold of judgment.' (2) The second suspicion of a further composite record follows : 'By the side of ix. 34'', verse 35^ would seem to be superfluous.' Every repetition, to the ' critic,' implies a different writer ; but it is the Hebrew manner to em- phasise and bring into prominence by repetition. Half the picturesqueness and interest of the Bible proceeds from this source. It is not a dry precis but a living record. The verses run thus : ' And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more and made heavy his heart, he and his servants. And Pharaoh strengthened his heart, neither would he let the children of Israel go, as the Lord had spoken by Moses.' The repetition adds emphasis to an important and instructive fact. The parallelism 94 Did Moses write between "T^^^l and p\TV^\ is thoroughly in the Hebrew manner. 7. It remains to give one, and only one, other example before bringing this note to an end — the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Numb, xvi., xvii,). Here we are given by Professor Driver two accounts : J E and P (pages 59, 60, 61) ; and in P there are two strata, between which there is an ' important distinction.' So we have three distinct accounts compiled by the unknown writer or writers, who put them together when the Pen- tateuch, as we now have it, was put together in its final shape. Now, on the one hand, it is perfectly evident, as it is all along, that the ' critical' mode of treatment goes upon the foregone conclusion that the stories of the Pentateuch are legends ; on the other hand, it is hoped to make it equally evident that the undesigned coincidences and clear consistency of this account are singularly in favour of its being historical. Professor Driver, in company with Wellhausen and Kuenen, and Dillmann and Bau- dissin (page 61), find in this account, (i) J E's account of a lay rebellion of Dathan and Abiram, on account of the promise of the land flowing with milk and honey not being fulfilled, and Dathan and Abiram were swallowed up by the earth ; (2) an account of Korah and the princes — not Levites — who rebel against Moses and Aaron in the interests of the people at large, on the ground that 'all the congregation are holy' ; and this account is by P ; and these men are consumed by fire ; and (3) an account by P- of a rebellion of Korah, and two hundred and fifty Levites against the exclusive right of the sons of Aaron to the priestly office (see xvi. 40), and discontented with the menial offices in the service of the tabernacle assigned to them (xvi. 8, 9). Dathan and Abiram are separately dealt with, and 'Korah,' says Professor Driver, ' is united with Dathan and Abiram, not in reality, but otilv in the narrative' The Pentateuck after all? 95 Now, the facts are not deniable, but the conclusion drawn from them does by no means follow. It is just because this instance introduces another branch of the critical method — ?>., the labouring undoubted facts to prove conclusions that do not follow— that makes it typical. The very facts alleged of the composite nature of the rebellion are an undesigned coincidence of its reality, and point to the vital seriousness of a rebellion, which it was necessary to overwhelm by the serious meansemployed. The Mosaic polity was in peril. Now, it may be conjectured that there never was a serious and widespread rebellion against government without its being composed of very various elements. Discontented men of different shades of opinion, with differing grievances and differing traditions, have conspired together for the purpose of rebellion. And their coalition was the very strength of the rebellion ; it brought together the varied forms of discontent, and attracted men into a focus. Let the reader reflect upon the differences that totally divided the men that dethroned and beheaded Charles I. We have, indeed, in this account a lay discontent put forward by the sons of Reuben ; we have a general dis- content by which Korah and the Levites stir up the princes of the congregation to side with them in a general grievance, which they put forward to further their own personal and party grievance, as appears in the sequel. The causes of the rebellion and the way in which it grew, which are a little below the surface, are interesting unde- signed coincidences, which mark the reality of the history. It was the growth and settlement of the Mosaic consti- tution that caused it. It would not have occurred earlier, before the order of the camp was fixed and the ministry of the tabernacle settled. Korah was the agitator. Would it be quite impossible to translate the difficult first verse of chapter xvi., ' Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, took both Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of 96 Did jMoscs write Peleth, sons of Reuben ; and they rose up before Moses. '"^ But, in any case, Korah is put first, and is the instigator. He gains over some of the men of Reuben, stirs up two hundred and fifty princes of the congregation, and has a body of Levites on his side. The trouble began with the Kohathite Levites, with Korah their leader, spread to the men of Reuben, involved a serious number of the princes of the congregation. Korah began it, and the probable cause was personal pique. From Exod. vi. 18 it appears he was related by descent to Moses and Aaron, and of the elder branch of the family of Kohath. But, in Numb, iii, 30, it appears that he was passed over in the choice of chief of the Kohathites, and Elizaphan, de- scended from a younger branch of the Kohathites, made, for some reason or other, chief of his house. Here is the personal grievance. And the Kohathites had been given the honourable position in relation to the tabernacle service. This had whetted their ambition, and doubtless made them promising material for Korah to work upon. Side by side with the Kohathites, as luck would have it, the Reubenites in the order of encamp- ment were encamped (Numb. iii. 29 ; ii. 10). They, too, had a grievance. Though by natural right of primo- geniture they were entitled to primacy amongst the tribes, in accordance with the will of Jacob, they had been passed over. So here again, close at hand, was further promis- ing material for Korah. All this ripened to the rebel- lion recorded. Korah by himself perished with the Levites. On, the son of Peleth, most probably, when the serious nature of the rebellion became apparent, retired from it. Dathan and Abiram and all theirs were en- gulfed. The difficulty about the p^JtD^ o^* tabernacle, of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (ver. 24, 27), is probably met * Compare the rendering of the Vulgate— 'Ecce autem Core . . . ct Dathan uiquc Abiram . . . Hon qiwquc' The Pentateuch after all? 97 by Blunt's conjecture, that possibly a rival secret taber- nacle had been constructed, and made by them a centre and place of conference for the conspiracy. The atten- tive reader will observe that the conjectural emendation of Professor Driver (page 61), that after p^)^, ' tabernacle," came 'of Jehovah,' instead of ' Korah, Dathan, and Abiram,' would make the passage no longer difficult, but absolutely dark and unintelligible. It will be thus observed that the composite nature of the conspiracy is an undesigned coincidence, implying the reality of the record ; but being connected, and con- verging upon the serious nature of the rebellion, it by no means implies three narrators in little pieces, who were afterwards combined by a fourth."^ It is the fashion to speak of remarks such as have been attempted in the foregoing notes as criticisms of details and side issues. But it may be pointed out that theories that lead to unsound conclusions are probably themselves unsound, and that no chain is stronger than its weakest part. What is put forward in detail must be met in detail. Besides, what has been attempted is only a sample. To cover the whole ground would require a treatise to itself, and the reader might weary of the large scope which would often require to be taken to combat statements which have in themselves the easy and comfortable air of scientific confidence. Note D. The historical colour and accuracy of the Pentateuch, It is very strongly suggested to the reader that any thoroughgoing research into the so-called ' critical ' position will reveal that that position is not tenable, if the Pentateuch be in any sense an authentic record * Compare Blunt's ' Undesigned Coincidences,' page 79, et seq. ; and the ' Speaker's Commentary,' in loco. 98 Did Moses write of facts. In the first place, if they are facts that are recorded, it is incredible that they should have waited through ages of civilisation for some unknown, unheard- of writers for the first time to consider them worthy of a set record. With the exception of parts of Genesis there is no dispute that it would have been perfectly easy and natural to have recorded them at or near the times when the events happened. And if that had not been done, there are several epochs of literary impulse which have to be passed before the supposed times of E and J are reached. A substantially contemporary record of striking and im- portant events is quite in accord with the monuments of Egyptian and Assyrian antiquity, often of probably equal age, that have come down to us, and which have been recently deciphered. The knowledge of writing and reading must have been fairly well disseminated. ' Egyptian texts,' says Mr. Birch (in the ' Records of the Past,' II., Preface), 'in most instances are con- temporaneous with the events they record, and written or executed under public control.' The same may be said of the remains of Assyrian and Babylonian antiquity. Now, the events recorded in the Pentateuch, if they are facts, are of the most striking and interesting im- portance. Is there any verisimilitude in the idea that these events — the very charter of the Hebrew Church and nation — should have waited from five hundred to one thousand years before anyone thought it worth while to write a connected and sufficient account of them ? In the second place, there exists not the slightest historical reason for believing that the circumstances of E, J, and P were such as to create and stir up an interest in writing the account of these events for the first time. The whole thing is contrary to strong reasonable proba- bilities, nay, even certainties, if the Pentateuch is a record of facts. But, and if it be a Mosaic legend, a series of legends, or the growth of ideas, the sug- gestion is as strongly put forward to the reader, that The Pentateuch afte7^ alt? 99 this theory is no scientific or trustworthy account of how the lege?ids arose. No legend ever arose in the way that this theory suggests. Besides, this legend is a work of mind and genius. Its consistency with itself rebuts the supposition that E and E^ and J and J^, and D and D^ and H and his redactor, and P and P^ and Ps put it to- gether.* Nevertheless, it is certain that the theory took Its rise with those who wished to turn the Hebrew Scrip- tures into legend ; and Wellhausen himself has this intention, and uses this word. Also, Kuenen says C Religion of Israel,' I., page 22), ' The principal element in the Old Testament narratives is legend.' Now, if it can be demonstrated that that which under- lies the Pentateuch is fact, and that all the circumstan- tial colouring of the narrative is true to that ancient past, which only in these latter days is being restored to us^ then the theory of the critics will cease to be tenable in the shape in which it is proposed to us. To demonstrate this would be a large undertaking of wide extent. All that can be attempted in this note is first to indicate some of the principal points of contact between the Pentateuch on the one hand, and science and the restoration of old- world history on the other, which go to establish what is alleged ; and secondly, to suggest a i^w books, more or less easily obtainable, in which the facts and findings of modern times on this subject are conveyed to the English reader. I. Points of contact between the Pentateuch and science, more especially physical. ^ Notice even Professor Driver's reluctance to follow his authorities (page 45) : ' Kuenen uses the symbols P', P^ P3. The only reason why the same symbols have not been adopted here, is that the writer did not wish to impose upon himself the task of distinguishing between P^ and P3.' Professor Driver's mind goes f^ir in all con- science, but it will not stretch to Kuenen's measure. 7—2 loo Did Moses write a. The doctrine of creation. Though, as is only natural in so difficult and so remote a subject, there remain moot and unsettled points, yet the general tenor of the first three chapters of Genesis, properly understood, and the latest real findings of science properly understood, speak the same language. There is nothing out of date. There is nothing mythical, as in all other ancient attempts to speak of the creation of what we see. Longinus the heathen long ago recog- nised the Scripture account as sublime. And sublime it is still. Where science leaves us with the ' unknown God,' the Hebrew record shows us the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, as the Source and Providence of all things. From hence is the beginning of His reve- lation. b. {i) The nature of man and woman. (2) The derivation of man. The philosophic account of the nature of man and of woman, in the first three chapters of Genesis, is in the deepest sense true to all our experience. Well weighed, it is incomparably superior to whole volumes of ethical and mental philosophy, and far more true to nature. The principle of the supremacy of man, the distinction between man and animals, and the delegated power over all nature and its forces given to man, is the principle of all progress and of all history. The derivation of all the human family from one pair is emphatically confirmed by recent science, from many somewhat divergent points of view. The simple condition of the first man is supported by scientific confirmation. There is no myth of Adam Kadmon, full of all science and wisdom. There is nothing here mythological, no- thing shallow or strained. The birth of language is truly described. All is correspondent with the best and highest findings of philosophy and science. How far The Pentateuch after all? loi other nations went astray in these respects is remarkably evident by comparison. Whether any part of the story is to be taken as an allegory, is a question for scientific exegesis. The truths conveyed are profoundly true. The doctrine of sin as spoiling the high calling of man's nature is the only key to the strange paradoxes of history and the only explanation of our closest experiences and of honest self-knowledge. The scientific doctrine of heredity is accurately and finely stated in Gen. v. 3. II. Points of contact between the Pentateuch and science, more especially historical. a. The most ancient world rings with echoes of (i) the Creation, (2) the Fall, (3) the Deluge-possibly of the Giants (Dv^^» 'Fellers,^ or 'marvellous ones') that were in those days. Echoes of these things are spread through every nation under heaven. There must be some account of these echoes. The account is the voice of the Scripture, which represents facts. b. The story of the simplicity and pastoral life of one family of mankind, before the Deluge, conducing to godli- ness, and of the Cainites, making some degree of advance in invention and artificial life and some luxuries, tending to ungodliness, has a distinctly historical flavour. The corruption produced by the mingling of the one with the other has often repeated itself in history. There is nothing mythological, but something very instructive in this. c. The genealogy of Noah and his most remarkable prophetic description of the history of the world are emphatically verified.* * Noah must have been a very sagacious guesser, or else the providential guidance of the world must have been supernaturally revealed to him. He attributes to I02 Did Moses write Genesis x. contains two of the most recent discoveries of philological and historic science. (i) The unity of the Indo-European family, which scientific truth began to be understood from the time of the discovery of Sanskrit. (2) The once disputed, but now clearly recognised, early Hamitic supremacy in the plains of Mesopotamia (Gen.x. 6-12). The language of Accad is witness to it. And, pace Professor Sayce, it may be suggested that the gigantic images of Nimrod disinterred at Nineveh are not the same as Isdubhar. Compare the illustration given by Bishop Walsh with those in Smith's ' Chaldgean Genesis.' And Genesis x. contains also many other interesting scientific facts of the ancient race history of the world ; for instance, the Hamitic origin of the Philistines. d. The doctrine of the primitive unity of human lan- guage and its 'confounding' (Gen. xi. 1-9) precisely cor- responds to the findings of the latest philological research. There exist three great families of language, but the roots common to the three are still existent traces of a common origin. ' It is possible, even now,' says Professor Max Miiller (quoted in ' Hours with the Bible,' I., 282), * to point out radicals which, under various changes and disguises, have been current in the three branches ever since their first separation.' 'It is pleasing to remark,' says Sir H. Rawlinson, speaking of Western Asia,* ' that if we were guided by the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and indepen- dently of all reference to the Scriptural record, we should Ham a tendency to degeneration and slavery ; to Shem the conservation of religious truth ; to Japheth, a spread- ing, colonising, progressive tendency, ending in the latter days in predominance. He might have been writing history. (Gen. ix. 25, 26, 27.) * Rawlinson, * Bampton Lectures,' page 294. The Pentateuch after all? 103 still be led to fix on the plains of Shinar, as the focus from which the various lines had radiated.'"^ The primitive language does not probably exist. It has been ' confounded ' or lost by diffusion. e. Points of contact between the account of Abraham and the recent restoration of ancient history. (i) ' Ur of the Chaldees ' has returned to the light as a place of ancient importance (Smith's ' Babylonia,' page 65). Compare Sayce's ' Fresh Light,' pages 20 and 44. D^I^D' Chaldees, is suggested to mean 'conquerors'; Abu-ramu occurs as a name in early Babylonian con- tract tablets. Possibly some movement towards idola- trous developments, which are traceable in Accadian and other inscriptions, may be the starting-point of Abraham's migration. Also, see ' Padan Aram ' and ' Haran' (Sayce's ' Fresh Light,' page 45). (2) The reception of Abraham in Egypt, and his fears touching Sarah, are directly and specifically confirmed by Egyptian monuments and documents. (' Hours with the Bible,' L, 360, et seq.j and 'Echoes of Bible History,' Bishop Walsh, under times of Abraham.) (3) The conditions of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are confirmed. Commander Lynch concludes his report, after visiting the Dead Sea : ' It is for the learned to comment on the facts which we have laboriously collected. Upon our- * The ancient colouring of Genesis xi. 1-9, is surely long before Moses. The simple references to Jehovah have a very primitive tone about them. The ancient name, Shinar, of the district round Babylon, possibly from a root referring to its fertility (see Davies, sub voce), and the same with Sumir in Accadian ; the use of bitumen in building— natural in Babylon because of its abundance, but not in Egypt — are all indications of this. This account is given by the 'critics' to J, in the time of the divided monarchy. I04 Did Moses ivritc selves the result is a decided one. We entered upon this sea with conflicting opinions. One of the party was sceptical, and another, I think, a professed unbeliever of the Mosaic account. After twenty-two days' close inves- tigation, if I am not mistaken, we were unanimous in the conviction of the truth of the Scripture account of the destruction of the cities of the plain.' (Lynch's 'Nar- rative of the United States Expedition,' quoted in Rawlinson's ' Bampton Lectures,' page 301. Compare the careful and interesting account of the Dead Sea, and the probable causes of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Lot's wife, in ' Egypt and Syria,' by Sir William Dawson.) (4) The condition of Babylonia in Abraham's time (Gen. xiv.). 'The early Babylonian inscriptions contirm the statements of Genesis as to the power and importance of Elam at this period.' (Smith in ' Records of the Past,' III., I9-) Chedor-laomer — a name which would appear in the inscriptions as Kudur Lagamar, servant of the god La- gamar — seems to be the generic title of the ancient kings of Elam. Two of the names of these kings — Kudur-Mabuk, servant of Mabuk, and Kudur-Nanhundi, servant of Nankhunta — have come to light. Two of the other kings have been identified — Eri-aku and Turgal king of Gutium. (Sayce's ' Fresh Light,' page 46.) Also, in Gen. xiv. 18-21, the character of Melchizedec is a survival of a past that was old in Abraham's day. The phrase pXI C'^D^ Hjp pSu Sn- the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth, and the word !^)^ (occur- ring elsewhere, once in Proverbs, and once in Hosea, 'to give thy enemies into thy hand,') are peculiar and with ancient flavour. Melchizedec and Balaam are impossible creations for later times. Professor Driver gives the chapter to a ' special source'; but it may be suggested that the 'special source' is the reality of Truth. Surely The Pentateuch after all? 105 the 'special source' is a contemporary document care- fully preserved. (5) The whole character of the story, and the promi- nence of the Hittites — a race forgotten, whose promi- nence has lately come to light. See the most interesting Hittite remains in the British Museum, and Sayce's ' Hittites.' / The getting a wife for Isaac, and the character and times of Jacob and Laban, with the Aramaean name of the heap of witness (Gen. xxxi. 47). Note also the ancient type of Jacob's pillar (Gen. xxviii. 18), and of the teraphim or household gods (Gen. xxxi. 19, 34, 35). ('Speaker's Commentary,' 171 loc.) g. The times of Joseph and Egypt. The great accuracy and number of the points of contact with Egypt as it is now restored to us, as has been said above, make even a critic hke Bleek suppose the probability of a pre-Mosaic written account. h. The times of Moses and Egypt, (i) The seasons, the natural characteristics, and the national characteristics of the country. (2) The Egyptian model of much of the Mosaic institu- tions. The points of contact are many and various. i. The desert, and the air and character of the desert life. Also there are allusions to many ancient places and races which are more or less verifiable — for instance, Bashan and its cities. ' Even if the precise route were unknown, yet the peculiar features of the country have so much in common that the history would still receive many illustrations.' The occasional springs, wells and brooks, the vegetation, the acacia, the seneh, the palms, the hyssop, the barren mountains, the terrific thunder- storms, etc., etc., are given as instances. (Stanley, 'Sinai and Palestine,' page 19, et seq) To revert in all the fresh and natural colouring of reality to scenes and historic passages so long past in the ages would be beyond the capacities of the supposed J and E, to say nothing of P. io6 Did Moses write 'The accurate labours of the scientific surveyor have vindicated the truthfulness of the narratives of Exodus and Numbers,' says Sir William Dawson ('Egypt and Syria,' page 51). 'Every scientific man, who reads the reports of the Ordnance Survey and studies its maps, must agree with the late Professor Palmer that they afford "satisfactory evidence of the contemporary character of the narrative." They prove, in short, that the narrator must have personally traversed the country and must have been a witness of the events he narrates.' It is very desirable to notice that numbers would seem to be the less certain part of the Hebrew literature. The numbers of our present Hebrew text, and of the Samaritan, and of the LXX. differ. The number forty seems to have been used loosely for a more or less lengthened period of time. If, as supposed on good evidence, the Hebrew literature was transliterated from the Phoenician early character to the Babylonian square character about the time of Ezra, this might probably affect numbers more than other things. It is to be remembered the Samaritan retains the Phoenician character. The Egyptian MSS. also might have done so for some time later. III. List of Books. (i) Books bearing more especially on the scientific points of contact : ' Nature and the Bible.' Professor Reusch. T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh. 21s. A good and useful book. ' Scripture and Science not at Variance.' Archdeacon Pratt. Hatchards. 7s. 6d. A very good book, not yet out of date. ' Does Science aid Faith in Regard to Creation ?' Bishop Cotterill. Hodder and Stoughton. 3s. 6d. An excellent book. The Pe7itateucJi after all? 107 ' Primeval Man.' The Duke of Argyle. Strahan and Co. 4s. 6d. 'The Physical History of Mankind.' Dr. Prichard, 1836. Sherwood, Gilbert, and Piper. A standard book, not yet out of date. 'The Christian Doctrine of Sin.' Dr. Julius Miiller. T. and T. Clark. 21s. A standard book. ' Biblical Psychology.' Delitzsch. T. and T. Clark. '12s. A suggestive book. ' Conversations on the Creation.' A Layman. Sunday School Union, 2s. A very good and suggestive little book. (2) Books more especially on the historic points of contact : ' Echoes of Bible History.' Bishop of Ossory. Church Sunday School Institute. 3s. A good, clear, and interesting summary. ' Hours with the Bible.' Rev. Dr. Cunningham Geikie. H odder and Stoughton. Sold and indexed separately, vols. I and 2 for Pentateuch. 5 vols., 6s. each. A very good book indeed. 'A Manual of the Ancient History of the East.' Francois Lenormant. Translated. Asher and Co. los. A most interesting and instructive book. Maspero's ' Histoire Ancienne des Peuples de I'Orient' (4s. 2d.) is not so good in arrangement or in matter, and is vitiated by the acceptance as science of Wellhausen's theory, but its date is later. It may be usefully com- pared. 'Sinai and Palestine' (14s.) and the 'History of the Jewish Church,' 2 vols., 6s. each. Late Dean Stanley. Murray, Very useful and in his delightful style. io8 Did Moses write Dean Milman's 'History of the Jews.' Murray. 3 vols., 6s. each. His notes on the critical position and on Deuteronomy are still of considerable value. 'Babylonia' and 'Assyria.' George Smith. Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge. 2s. each. ' The Desert of the Exodus.' Prof. Palmer. London. 'Narrative of the United States Expedition to the River Jordan and the Dead Sea.' Commander Lynch. Phila- delphia. 'The Chaldean Account of Genesis.' George Smith. Sampson Low and Co. i6s. ' Serpent Myths of Egypt.' W. R. Cooper. Victoria Institute Paper, Hardwick. 'Fresh Light from the Monuments' (3s.) and 'The Hittites : the Story of a Forgotten Empire' (2s. 6d.). Pro- fessor Sayce. Religious Tract Society. — ' Uarda.' George Ebers. Tauchnitz. Sampson Low and Co. — 'Egypt and Syria.' Sir J. W. Dawson. Religious Tract Society. 3s. Excellent books by original investigators. 'Signs and Wonders in the Land of Ham.' Rev. Thos. Millington. Murray. 7s. 6d. * A Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians.' Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson. Murray. 2 vols., 12s. Canon Rawlinson's ' Bampton Lectures.' Murray. This book is perhaps a little disappointing, but is still valuable. 'The Speaker's Commentary.' Murray. Though also perhaps disappointing and distinctly un- equal, is yet by no means properly entitled to the dis- respect which it frequently receives. 'Egypt and the Books of Moses.' Hengstenberg. T. and T. Clark. 7s. 6d. The Pentatetich after all? 109 'Biblical Archaeology.' Professor Keil. T. and T. Clark. 2 vols., 21s. 'The Diseases of the Bible.' Sir Risdon Bennett. Religious Tract Society. 2s. 6d. Incidentally touches upon points of interest to the subject. 'The Records of the Past.' Edited by S. Birch. Bagster. 8 vols., 3s. 6d. a volume, but difficult to obtain. (3) Books on the general subject. 'When was the Pentateuch Written.?' George War- rington. Society for the Promotion of Christian Know- ledge. IS. 6d. A good little book. ' The Historical Character of the Old Testament.' Rev. E. Eckersley. S.P.C.K. 6d. ' The Battle of the Standpoints.' Eyre and Spottis- woode, 6d. — 'The Inspiration of the Old Testament.' Congregational Union. Principal Cave. los. 6d. Good and useful, the work of a gentleman to whom the Church owes much. But the adoption of a J and E who are not the J and E of the critics, and whom perhaps it would be very difficult to separate, somewhat com- plicates his position. We also cannot help somewhat dis- liking the expression 'the Journal Theory.' History is the search after facts. 'Hebrew Feasts.' Professor W. H. Green. James Nisbet and Co. 5s. An excellent book. 'The Law in the Prophets.' Prof. Stanley Leathes. Eyre and Spottiswoode. 3s. 6d. 'The Foundations of the Bible.' Canon Girdlestone. Eyre and Spottiswoode. 3s. 6d. A book much abused, but by a painstaking student, and containing things that are useful. 1 1 o Did Moses write Most of these books are obtainable second-hand, of course at much leos cost. Moreover, outside all these things there lie other things, which should on no account be neglected in estimating the historical reality of the Pentateuch. And first, there is the prima facie effect produced by the narrative upon the ordinary understanding ; and that effect is fresh, gracious, and truthful. Next, is to be noticed the sharply defined, diverse characters of the people spoken of, real and vivid, 1. Character in itself, by no means mythically or reverentially represented as faultless. Consider Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Sarah, Rebecca, Lot, Laban, Rachel, Reuben, Judah, Joseph, Aaron, the Pharaoh of Joseph's time and the haughty Pharaoh of the Exodus (compare Uawson"s 'Egypt and Syria,' page 53), Potiphar's wife, the butler, the baker, Joseph's steward, Korah, Mel- chizedec, Balaam."*^ 2. Character improved or perfected by the discipline of life and providence, a result verified in any Christian's experience, and at once like human nature and like the dispensations of Providence in the present day. Abraham perfected in faith, his distinguishing virtue made to have its perfect work. Jacob redeemed from the failings of an imperfect character till it grew loyal, dignified, and true. Moses, a high and impatient spirit nurtured by a princely education, but tempered by the discipline * Numb, xxii.-xxiv. The whole narrative is so charac- teristic and has such archaic ideas that it must surely have been reported to Moses by a friendly eye-witness. See the phrases here only. He took up his parable ; DS^ first used by a man who was a prophet ; ^^^ with case ending ; C^y *'l7)l"l 7*3^ falling into a trance and his eyes open. The Pentateuch after all ? in of failure till it became fit for its tremendous and high calling. So only did the magnificent character of Moses become very patient and gentle, more patient and more gentle than any of his contemporaries (Num. xii. 3) But most characteristically to human nature, under strong provocation the old Adam crops out again in Exod. v. 22,23; xxxii. 19; Num. xvi. 15, and finally and specially in Num. xx. 10, 11. Further, the undesigned coincidences of the Pentateuch are well dealt with by the late Professor Blunt in his 'Undesigned Coincidences of the Old and New Testa- ment' (1847, Murray), though perhaps in some parts the argument is a little strained ; and it may be suggested that the undesigned coincidences given are capable of considerable additions being made to them. Finally, the reader is earnestly entreated to notice carefully the immediate and emphatic bearing of these facts upon the authorship of the Pentateuch. I, Taken together, they demand for the greatest part of the Pentateuch that it is substantially contemporaneous with the events recorded. The Pentateuch is not a legend, but records and reveals facts and realities of the greatest interest and importance to mankind. It is no longer possible to deny that a written con- temporaneous record was in the highest degree likely and now proved to have been quite possible. To the Acca- dian writer of the legend of creation, presumably before the time of Abraham,^ the art of writing 'seemed to mount back to the very beginning of mankind,' and there- * Because surely the Semitic elements in Chalda^a had long begun to predominate in Abraham's day. 1 I Did Moses write the Pentateuch ? fore was long before his time ; and, it may be asked, What was the good of writing if nobody could read? (Sayce's 'Fresh Light,' page 22). The fact is that the earlier times of mankind were far more civilised than used formerly to be supposed. 2. Specifically, they make the theory of J and E five hundred years after Moses, and one thousand years after Abraham, and P many hundreds of years later, with oral tradition their only source for the greater part of their story, an untenable theory. To have covered a canvas, on which was only the most meagre outline, with charac- ters as real and differentiated, and facts as complex and verified as the Pentateuch presents, would have been work beyond the strength of the highest genius. And there is no reason for supposing that the unhistorical E, J, and P possessed the highest genius. ' The infidelity of oral tradition,' says Sir G. C. Lewis in the ' Credibility of Early Roman History ' (quoted by Rawlinson, ' Bampton Lectures,' page 270), ' with respect to past occurrences, has been so generally recognised, that it would be a superfluous labour to dwell upon it. For our present purpose it is more material to fix the time during which an accurate memory of historical events may be perpetuated by oral tradition alone. Mallet, in his work on 'Northern Antiquities,' remarks that, among the common class of mankind, a son remem- bers his father, knows something of his grandfather, but never bestows a thought on his more remote progenitors. This would carry back a man's knowledge of his family for about a hundred years, and it is not likely that his knowledge of public affairs, founded on a similar oral tradition, could reach to an earlier date.' It is very possible that this remark may be subject to certain reservations, but it remains true in the main. 'This (that the discovery of law is in part the work of human reason) did the very heathens themselves ob- scurely insinuate, by making Themis, which we call Jus, or Right, to be the daughter of heaven and earth.' — Hooker, Book I., viii. 5. CHAPTER II. THE LEGISLATION. I. The character of legislation, {a) based upon the cus- toms and institutions of the past ; {b) guided by the genius and inspiration of the lawgiver, to a new departure ; {c) with a view to the order and stability of future ages.— 2. In accord with these principles, the Mosaic legislation (i) embodies in itself pre- existing customs and institutions, which descend from the earliest times, or have grown up during the four hundred years' sojourn of Israel in Egypt ; (2) and tries to break with other bad customs which have grown up under the same conditions. Many of these sanctioned customs and interdicted customs have quite lost their meaning in the later times of the history of Israel. They therefore remain monuments of the time to which the legislation, which treats of them, belongs. A legislation later than the Mosaic age would have legislated differently, for difference of environment would have called for difference of treatment. Also, throughout the legislation, camp surroundings are implied. (3) The same considera- tion applies to the Egyptian mediation of much of the Pentateuchal institutions. They are natural to the facts of the education of Moses, and not to after- times. — 3. The three principles of the Mosaic new departure. They would have been under the con- 8—2 1 1 6 Did Moses write ditions of their origin absolutely unintelligible and forceless, without being clothed and upheld by insti- tutions and symbols. This clothing must have been contemporary with their enunciation. — 4. The for- ward look of the Mosaic legislation. Its character wholly inconsistent with times later than Moses himself.— 5. The eminently ideal characteristics of the Hebrew legislation imply its origin in the Mosaic age. Contemporary revelation the only im- pulse adequate to give ideal type to the legislation. The very imperfect realisation of the ideal in after- times confirms this observation. — 6. The conclusion as to the authorship of the Pentateuch indicated by the facts. Notes. — A. On the supposed invalidity of literary tradition for Hebrew history — B. The authorship of Deuteronomy — C. Spencer de Legibus Hebraeorum — D. The phraseology of H. I. The considerations which have been here advanced, and others, seem to involve the conclusion that the histories of the Pentateuch are substantially contemporaneous with the events which they relate. The history was written in or near to the times of which it is a record. If a later writer touched the work, it was to combine or to edit written materials, or to make archaeological, explanatory, or com- plementary additions. And these additions were comparatively insignificant. And if a due observation of the facts makes clear that we have in the Pentateuch story contempo- raneous history, it may not be impossible to The Pentateuch after all ? 117 prove that a due observation of the Penta- teuchal legislation will show that in it we have legislation in the main contemporaneous with Moses, its recognised originator. A conviction that this is so arises, if we analyse the several component parts of the Hebrew legislation, as we should analyse the component parts of any other legislation. For legislation is of a different order from history. When any man arises with the gifts and powers of a legislator, his work naturally divides itself into three parts. The legislation which he has in contemplation has a most important relation to the custom of the past. Its bearing towards these will, humanly speaking and to a great extent, be the condition of its success or non- success. * Men's thoughts,' says Bacon, 'are much according to their inclination ; their discourse and speeches according to their learning and infused opinions ; but their deeds are after as they have been accustomed.'^ The wise legislator will, therefore, not be prone to disturb, without a cause, traditional elements or customs of justice deeply rooted in the people's mind. He must be sometimes saga- cious enough even to bear with them, to try to turn long-standing habit to a good account ; to utilise even very imperfect practices, which •^ Essay xxxix., ' Of Custom and Education.' 1 1 8 Did Moses ivrite are rooted deep, as stepping-stones to better. What the poet sings of the improvement of the individual will hold true of the gradual advance of a people into the light of justice ; and ' Men may rise on stepping-stones Of their dead selves to better things.'"^ Things must be tolerated, which cannot in themselves be commended, with purpose to lead men higher. This accommodation of legislation is allowed by our Divine Lord to the legislation of Moses, when He says : * Moses having regard to the hardness of your hearts (tt/jo? t-^v aKkvpoKaphiav) suffered you to put away your wives' ;i* and in other places. But the legislator has also a new departure to make. It is the raison d'etre of his being a legislator at all. And a very special and peculiar new departure must be ascribed to Moses. He created a religious nation. A nation in which, beyond all controversy, was preserved for mankind the knowledge of the one, true, living God, was constituted by Moses. The principles of a new departure are very evident and marked in his legislation. And, in the third place, the legislator will have a forward look. It is his to plant and water the order and good government of future ages. * Tennyson's ' In Memoriam,' I. t Matthew xix. 8, and v. passim. The Peritateuch after all ? 119 He will have this full in view, for this is his purpose. Now, these three features of the legislator's work are plainly discoverable in the legislation of the Pentateuch. It is also discoverable that the pre-existent customs and other matters, implying the ancient present in which the legis- lator moved — the new departure involving con- temporaneous institutions, and the aspect and standpoint from which the future is contem- plated — all these point to an age for the ' essential part of the Pentateuchal legislation which shall be contemporaneous with the legislator. The conditions fit the times of Moses ; but they would be in the highest degree unnatural in later times. 2. First, then, the present of the Penta- teuchal legislation is a present in the ancient past, a present out of date in later times, and, except in principle, out of reference to them. The customs adapted and adopted into the legislation would belong to an almost for- gotten past, in the times of writers after the divided monarchy, and towards the exile. Some of the dangers warned against are alto- gether antiquated by the times of David. And further, the mediation of the institutions of the PentaTeu'ch is clearly Egyptian— a natural result of the conditions of the education of Moses. I20 Did Moses write Let us attempt, as briefly as may be, (i) to separate the elements of family, tribal, or village custom, which reflect the development of four hundred years of sojourning in Egypt, and are clearly in a past distant from the later times ; (2) to point out the dangers, Iwarned against in the Pentateuch, which cease to have any existence in the later times ; and (3) to indicate the principal points of Egyptian derivation which are to be found in the Pentateuchal institutions. (i) In the first place, then, a fact comes before us of great interest, as a restoration of ancient history. And it is this, that the state of things which the Pentateuch finds existing, and implies as pre-Mosaic, reveals the develop- ment of a very simple organisation amongst the children of Israel, and that this development took place under conditions a good deal separate from life in Egypt. The children of Jacob had not yet reached the type of organised nationality. They were children of Israel still, after their families and after their tribes. Their government was by the paterfamiHas and council of the elders. Their organisation was simple. It is probable that property was possessed to some extent in common. They resembled in many ways the village communities of later times. It also becomes clear that their par- The Pentateuch after all? 121 ticipation in the stir of life in Egypt must have been to no great extent. All this we might have supposed. Descent from the patriarchs, and residence in Goshen, apart from the main stream of life in Egypt, imply it. But it cannot fail to be interesting to find, as from an inde- pendent source, that what was prima facie probable can be traced in the Pentateuch, as a fact imprinted on the customs and habits which there come to Hght. Let us, then, group together the facts in the legislation, which point to the simple, social organisation of the children of Israel, and to their living to a considerable extent apart in Egypt. a. The pre-Mosaic religion and law of the children of Israel was derived from Noah and the patriarchs. It included the following elements, (i.) The code of morals— the honour- ing of parents (Gen. ix. 22-27). The dignity of human life demanding death as the punish- ment of murder (Gen. ix. 5, 6). The sanctity of marriage. The institution of property. Vows and the sanctity of truth, (ii.) The code of worship. The institution of the seventh- day rest from primeval times (Gen. ii. 1-4)- The Babylonians knew of it as ' a day of completion of labour,' or ' a day of rest for the heart ' (Sayce's 'Fresh Light,' page 24). Cir- 1 2 2 Did Moses zvrite cumcision.* The use of a stone implement points to its religious antiquity (Exod. iv. 25).t Sacrifice, the offerings of firstlings and first- fruits. The idea of places of worship, spoken of as ' before the Lord,' * the presence of the Lord,' probably sometimes indicated by pillars set up like the Saxon and Runic crosses in early Christian times (Gen. xxviii. i8), or asso- ciated with an altar of earth, less commonly of unhewn stone (Exod. xx. 24-26)4 The priestly office of the father of the family or elder brother (Exod. xii. 3, 21, 22). (iii.) The ceremonial code and law of quasi-religious custom. The avoidance of blood (Gen. ix. 4). Distinction of meats (Gen. vii. 2). The duty of a brother to marry the brother's widow (Gen. xxxviii.). The marriage law, as resulting from the sanction of ancient custom. The bill of divorce, 'having regard to the hardness of * Common to I-lgyptians and other ancient nations, but expressly adopted as the sign of a covenant in Israel (Sayce's ' Fresh Light,' page 64). t Compare also LXX. additions in Joshua. + The very ancient ideas conveyed in this passage are well illustrated in Spencer's ' De Legibus Hebra^orum,' Lib. IL, cap. 6, page 321. The simple customs of their forefathers were held traditionally sacred. Compare the passage of Porphyry, quoted by Spencer (' De Abstinen- tia,' Lib. IL, sec. 12) : nyaXfiaru apx"i(t, KaiTTfp a-n-Xujg ire' TToitjfifva, i)ftn I'o/ii^ftrOfjf, r« Cf Kuiva Trfpiepyioij eipyaaixBva, OavfiaKfoOai ^tv, iiiov ce oo^ki^ i]ttov exttv. The Pentateuch after all? 123 their hearts.' Laws to mitigate slavery and of very simple pastoral and agricultural life (Exod. xxi.-xxiii.). Traces of all these things are found in the legislation of the Pentateuch, and, it is conceived, have their root in the times which were long before Moses. The Sabbath is an institution, for instance, when it first meets us in the times of Moses (Exod. xvi. 22), so is circumcision.* h. But it is the administration of the law from its criminal and social side that more especially accentuates the atmosphere of the pre-Mosaic customs and social arrangements, in the midst of which the Pentateuchal legis- lation moves and walks. There can be no doubt that the office and duty of the Goel or next of kin is an institution of a very primitive order. Compare Gen. xxxviii. 8, where the institution is not probably so developed. It is not prescribed any more than slavery, but only dealt with and tempered with justice in the legislation of the Pentateuch. The Goel (prob- ably 'the setter free,' compare cognates 7^;! 77p], p]7;i y^jj and the derivative sense of 7X^)» the natural guardian of rights, the avenger of bloodshed, the next of kin for the honour and safety of his kinsman, and for the continuance * For further remarks on this whole subject, see Blunt^s ' Undesigned Coincidences,' pages 8-29. 124 ^'^^ Moses ivrite of the family reflects a very primitive state of society (Lev. xxv. ; Num. v. 8; xxxv. ; Deut. xix. 6-12). It would appear that the institu- tion of the Goel receded more and more into the background as the social organisation of the children of Israel grew more and more civilised. In the time of the kingdom it prob- ably tends in the main to become a thing of the past, as far as the administration of justice is concerned. In 2 Sam. xiv. 7-11, the insti- tution seems in a transition state, and modified by the exercise of the king's power. It is, more- over, to be noticed, that in the somewhat un- civilised condition of the children of Israel, it was sometimes associated, in the time of Moses, with vindictive savagery. To clear it of abuses, in the case of accidental manslaughter, there were sanctioned in the legislation, first, the law of sanctuary in the desert — the sanctuary of the altar (Exod. xxi. 13, 14), a probably existing custom before Moses' time ; and afterwards, when the land of promise grows closer — the institution of cities of refuge, designed and par- tially instituted by Moses, but fully carried out into actual detail by Joshua (Num. xxxv. 9- 34; Deut. iv. 41-43; xix. 1-14 ; Joshua xx.). Next, the government of the children of Israel was by the elders, or headmen of the city or village CDeut. xix. 12; xxi. 3, 6, 19; xxii. 15: The Pentateuch after all? 125 XXV. 8) ; the elders of the tribes (Deut. xxxi, 28) ; and a council of elders, the elders of Israel, elders of the congregation (Exod. iii. 16 ; xii. 21 ; xvii. 5 ; xviii. 12 ; xxiv. i ; Lev. iv. 15 ; Num. xi. 16; Deut. xxvii. i; xxxi. 9). This system Moses modified, by the introduction of priests and judges (Deut. xix. 17, 18) ; but he found the system in existence. He legislated not for its d^ss^, but for its bene esse. These elders, or headmen, or tribesmen, administered local and public justice. The ' people,' or ' con- gregation ' carried out criminal sentences (Lev. XX. 2 ; xxiv. 14). The mode of execution was stoning, not beheading or hanging, as in Egypt. It is very possible that these things suggest that the children of Israel, during the four hundred years' sojourn in Goshen, had grown into something like village communities. And may it not also be suggested that the law of repartition of land and of common land (Lev. XXV. 28, 34) are indications of customs which were familiar, before the times of Moses, to the free communities of Israel ?* Unless this had * Compare Sir Henry Maine's 'Village Communities.' Unwritten usage was declared by the council of village elders from time to time (pages 69, 122). Traces remain of the ancient custom of redistribution or repartition of land (page 112) ; and of the common mark (page 78). And with regard to Deut. xxiv. 10, 1 1, the exclusive right of 126 Did Moses write been so, perhaps the observance of these things would not have been so readily contemplated by Moses. Notice, also, that a man's house is considered his castle (Deut. xxiv. lo, ii). Again, the ' Lex talionis,'* eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth (Exod. xxi. 24, 25 ; Deut. xix. 21 ; Lev. xxiv. 20), has in view to regulate the vindictiveness of a primitive society. Akin to the primitive character of this law, and probably springing from old custom, is the 'Judicium Dei,' or trial by the waters of jealousy (Num. v. 11-31). Analogous usages are found in other primitive societies (see Blackstone, iv., pages 341-348). Landmarks, or stones to mark boundaries, were probably before Moses' time (Deut. xix. 14 ; xxvii. 17). It is to be remarked that they are not noticed in the legislation probably given in the desert, but they are spoken of when the Israelites are nearing the time when such things would come again into use. the paterfamilias in the house or homestead in the village community, is to be compared (Stubbs' ' Constitutional History,' I., 21. '^ The Mex talionis' was a piece of primitive justice, descending from very early times (see 'The Speaker's Commentary,' in he). It is attributed by Aristotle to Rhadamanthus. It occurs in the XII. Tables, but fell into disuse (Justinian, Lib. IV. Tit. iv. 7). And it was found among the ancient Indians. The Pentateuch after all? 127 Most interesting, again, as indicating the primitive tone of the society to which Moses was addressing himself, are the curious social usages, which come from a time before any commercial system of bills and contracts such as was in use in Egypt and the Euphrates valley, and by the Phoenician trader, had per- meated the Hebrew shepherd and agricultural life. The loosing of the shoe and spitting in the face, in the entering in of the village, when a man refuses to take up the responsibilities of hereditary right, are, it seems, a trace of some primitive custom of property conveyancing, together with the spitting in the face, which seems to have been a rather too familiar form of insult or disgrace in the pre-Mosaic social customs (Deut. xxv. 5-10 ; compare Lev. xv. 8, and Num. xii. 14). Further light is thrown upon the subject by two other allusions to it in the book of Ruth and an early Psalm. In the fourth chapter of the book of Ruth we read that when the Goel, who was nearer of kin to Ruth than Boaz, refused to redeem the land of Naomi and Ruth, and with it take Ruth,* he drew off his shoe or sandal, and gave it to Boaz, as publicly assigning to him his own rights in the ■'^ Perhaps he was already married. He says : ' I caimoV (verse 6), I 2 S Did Moses write property (verse 8). And this explanation is given. ' Now this was the custom of old or anciently (D^:lS5^) in Israel, concerning re- deeming and concerning exchanging, for to confirm any matter ; a man drew off his shoe and gave it to his neighbour : and this was the manner of attestation, or the use in Israel.' Here the reader will observe that the cir- cumstances are different from those in the Deuteronomic law, Ruth not acting for herself; but there is the same reference to the taking off the shoe, as abjuring or allowing to lapse property rights. In Psalm Ix. 8 we read, ' Over Edom will I cast my shoe,' as a sign of possession, an allusion to the same old custom of using the shoe in property conveyancing — i.e., the asser- tion or abjuring of a man's rights in a property, by this use of the shoe. How this idea came to be connected with the shoe or sandal, is prob- ably disclosed by the expression in Stephen's speech (Acts vii. 5), ' He gave him none inherit- ance in it — no, not so much as to set his foot on.' Traces of another ancient custom grown up in Israel during their four hundred years' sojourn in b^gypt are to be found in the somewhat barbaric ceremony of the retention The Pentateuch after all? 129 of a slave who does not want to go free (Exod. xxi. 5, 6 ; Deut. xv. 16, 17). If the slave wished, either from affection for his wife and family, or from affection for his master or his master's house, to remain a slave, he was to go before the judge, probably for the purpose of public attestation,* and the arrangement was to be clinched by boring his ear with an awl to the door or doorpost. This ceremony is a primitive and ancient ceremony, of which there are said to be analogies in other nations.f There is, probably, a reference to it in Psalm xl. 6, ' Ears hast thou bored for me,' of which the render- ing of the LXX., ' a body hast thou fitted for me, or prepared for me,' is, as in many other places, an exegetical rendering. In the same way, the bill of divorce, the institution of slavery, the treatment of seduction as a wrong done to the father, for which money payment must be made (Exod. xxii. 16, 17), are old customs not commanded nor commended, but recognised in order to mitigate their severity, prevent their abuse, or sanction what of good * The phrase Q^rt/Xil" /X? i^ Exodus xxi., xxii., probably means the place of judgment— God being the source of judgment. (LXX., irpoq to KpiT7]piov rov Oeov, epojTriov Tov Qsov. Compare Psalm Ixxxii. 6.) f Compare the ancient ceremony among the Romans, of manumission by the vindicta (Smith's ' Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities,' su^ voce ' Manumissio '). 130 Did Moses write there is in them. If attentively considered, they, and many other laws having regard to similar conditions, will be found to be treated only by permission. And very wise is the way in which old customs are safeguarded or directed into better channels. It is probable that some simple festivals kept by the children of Israel in Egypt made the feast laws of Moses easier to be observed, as taking up and inspiring with a new meaning old usages. The ceremony of the scapegoat on the day of Atonement, again, and of the two birds, one sacrificed and one let loose, when a leper is pronounced clean, are probably traces of very old usages. The scapegoat dismissed to Azazel (Lev. xvi. 8, 10, 22, 26) perhaps has its origin in an old pastoral symbolism (or even superstition) retained and sublimated, for its striking power of teaching important truths. Azazel, how- ever we may be inclined to interpret the word, whether cacodaemon, or satan, or ' complete separation,' is evidently a term out of reference to, and out of date in, the later history. The laying of the hands upon the head and dis- missing into the desert have an analogy with certain ceremonies reported to us, as used towards the Egyptian evil spirit Typhon.* The ♦ Hengstcnberg, ' Kgypt and the Books of Moses, page 171. The Pentatetcch after all? I pre-Mosaic custom would seem a symbolic sacrificial rite, with a tinge of influence possibly infiltrated from long sojourn in Egypt. The bearing of such things upon the inspiration of Moses will be treated later. Exodus xxii. 20 (19 Hebrew), again, would seem to be a pre-Mosaic formula, introducing us to the idea of the cherem for the first time. The idea of bans, or devoted things,* had probably sprung up during Israel's four hun- dred years' sojourn in Egypt, and was utilised and purified by Moses. (2) In the next place, some of the dangers warned against in the legislation have quite lost their meaning in later times, and the dangers of the later times are either not alluded to, or not treated with the prominence which later writers must have given to them. And the reason is, that to a great extent they were beyond the horizon of Moses. And some of the legislation has in view a more simple and less civilised state of society than we may I suppose later times to have developed. a. Offering sacrifices to he-goats (Lev. xvii. 7, *And they shall not sacrifice their sacrifices any more to the he-goats, after which it is their custom to go a-whoring'). The sacrifices to he-goats (Dl"*!;^) are traces ^ The analogue of taboo or tabu. g— 2 J 32 Did Moses ivi'ite of an old simple pastoral idolatry, which the children of Israel may be supposed to have fallen into as a result of their contact with the animal worship of Egypt. The chronicler tells us (2 Chron. xi. 15) that Jeroboam sought to reintroduce it from Egypt, along with the calves at Dan and Beersheba. He appointed priests * for the he-goats and the calves which he had made.' But, apart from this imperfectly suc- cessful attempt at a revival, we have no traces that sacrificing to animals was in any way a danger of the later times. It was a danger, in any real sense, of the families in Egypt, and when just delivered from it only. h. The calf or bull worship which sprung up again in Israel (Exod. xxxii.), whether we con- sider it a bastard form of Apis or Mnevis worship, or as Moloch, the ox-god worshipped amongst the foreign population of the Delta,* was evidently an idolatry which found its way amongst the children of Israel from Egypt. It was reintroduced in a modified form from Egypt by Jeroboam. But apart from these two points of contact, it is not found. And though 'passing through a child to Moloch '(Lev. xviii. 21, x\.2-5), was known already to Israel, possibly again, from the Asiatic population of the Delta, where Tanis or Avaris was the former capital * Geikie, ' Hours with the Bible,' II., pages 279-284. The Pe7itateuch after all? 133 of the Hyksos, yet the Asherim or Asheroth, and the idolatrous stones, the Bsetyha of the Canaanites and Phoenicians, are spoken of in the future (D^^t^ ^<, Exod. xxxiv. 13 ; Deut. vii. 5 ; n^^& Exod. xxiii. 24, and elsewhere). The going after the unholy rites of the local Baal of Peor (Num. xxv. 3-5), the high places of the same Baal or another Baal mentioned in Numbers xxi. 20, and xxii. 41, and the mention only of Chemosh, the god of Moab, in Numbers xxi. 29, are the only notes of the abominations and high places, and Baalim, the Phoenician Baal and Ashtaroth, and all the host of heaven, which begin to appear in the time of the Judges, and defile the page of the later history of Israel. All this is strictly historical to the times of Moses. And in relation to the theory of P, in the times of the exile, we find no allusions to the idolatries of Ezekiel's time, to the animal worship and the sun worship, and the women weeping for Thammuz or Adonis, of Ezekiel viii. Also, it is to be carefully noticed that the point of view from which the various races of the Desert and Canaan are spoken of is not a point of view natural to a writer in later times. There is consistently the atmosphere of an ancient present, which, in the days of the supposed J E and P, had become a far-off past. I ;^4 J^^^ Moses ivrite Akin to this, it is to be carefully observed that the environment of the legislation is throughout the environment of a camp in the /desert. Wherever other conditions are con- teniplated they are invariably spoken of as in the future. This is a very simple observation, but very important in its significance. For, as has been pointed out and as can be easily verified by a reference to Egyptian ' and Assyrian poems and stories and travels from the same times, antiquity had none of the powers of the modern novelist to transplant the mind from the surroundings of its present to the surroundings of a remote past. The novelist of the present day could not do this in the natural way in which the Pentateuch reveals the historical conditions of the present, in which it moves unconsciously, and with which it deals. We have direct reference to the conditions of the desert encampment scattered throughout the legislation. From Exodus xiv., when the camp began, to the times of Joshua, wherever an allusion is made to their existing external conditions it is invariably made to the camp. There is one notable exception only, of which we think an interesting explanation can be given. It is in the case of boring the slave's ear to the door or door-post (Exod. xxi. 6 ; Deut. xv. 17). It The Pentateuch after all? 135 is probaole that this being an old custom sprung up amongst Israel in Egypt when they lived in houses (see Exod. xii. 7, 22, 23), and a custom which would refer to their life in houses again, the old wording applying to the custom as it had been and would again be was adhered to. It is noticeable also that in both these places the reference is to the future. This matter of reference to the camp is fur- ther especially to be considered with regard to the book of Leviticus, which is given by the Theorists to the supposed P and H in times when the very idea of a general camp for all the tribes of Israel had passed out of mind in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. This is equally the case with regard to the parts attributed by Professor Driver to P (Lev. i.-xvi., xxvii.), and those attributed to H (xvii.-xxvi.). Certain parts of the bullock of sin-offering are to be burned on the altar, the rest to be burned 'without the camp' (iv. 12, 21). The ashes of the burnt offering are to be carried 'without the camp' (vi. 11). The law of burnt offerings was for their offerings in 'the wilderness of Sinai' (vii. 38). In accordance with the law the other parts of the bullock were ' burnt with fire without the camp ' (viii. 17). The consecration of Aaron and his sons was at the 'tent of meeting' (viii., ix.). 136 Did Moses ivrite The dead bodies of Nadab and Abihu were carried on coats 'out of the camp' (x. 5). The offerings at child-birth were to be offered at * the tent of meeting ' (xii. 6). The leper (per- haps, according to the Egyptian tradition pre- served by Manetho, a victim of a skin disease* prevalent in Goshen amongst the children of Israel) is to have his dwelling ' without the camp.' The priest is to go forth ' out of the camp/ for the ceremony of 'cleansing' or re- admitting a leper who w^as recovered (xiii., xiv.). Ceremonial uncleanness is not to defile the Tabernacle of the Lord which is in the midst of them (xv. 31). On the day of Atonement parts of the sacrifices are to be burned, and the goat dismissed to Azazel is to be taken 'without the camp' (xvi. 26, 27). Every man is to sacrifice at the door of * the tent of meeting' (xvii. 8, 9). The man that cursed the name of God was stoned ' without the camp' (xxiv.). These statutes and judgments and laws were made 'in Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses ' (xxvi. 46, and xxvii. 34). In fine, wherever there is any allusion in Leviticus to the present and existing environment, to which the legislation directs itself, it is to the camp. Perhaps in fairness it ought to be * Probably not the leprosy of later times. (' Diseases of the liible,' page 1 5.) The Pentateuch after all? 137 added, that the camp regulations, which have sometimes been alleged out of Deut. xxiii. 9-14, apply to the future use of camps in war-time, consistently with the outlook towards the future, which is common to the rest of Deuter- onomy. (3) We turn next to the Egyptian mediation of much of the Mosaic institutions. And it will be well to preface what follows with an observation, which will also tend to clear what has just been said of a misconception. Mediation is not the same with origination. We conceive the Mosaic system to be in no sense indebted to the nature worship, or mythology, or idolatrous forms of other nations. It is a republication of the primitive faith of those of his fathers who, in the language of the Apostle Paul reversed, ' did hke to retain God in their knowledge and did not worship and serve the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.' It is a republication of this primitive faith with such developments as the fulness of his own times and the wisdom of God decided to be possible. But this was not incompatible with the assimilation and utilising of things that were useful, convenient, or impossible to do without. To use an illus- tration. Moses was indeed the future Law- giver of Israel, but when he first approached 138 Did Jlfoses zvrite his brethren before he fled to Midian, he was wearing the dress of an Egyptian prince, and when he returned to deliver his people he was probably wearing the dress of a nomad Midianite. The fashion of his clothing did not affect his mission. He had to deal with things as he found them, not with things as he did not And them. Our Divine Lord Himself is a great example of using things that lay to His hand in the disposition of the ages. He did not invent baptism. He found it. The Lord's Prayer is with one exception drawn up from existing Jewish liturgical sources. The world had been prepared in a thousand ways for receiving the idea of His Church, not a little perhaps by the tenets of the Stoic Philo- sophy. The synagogue, again, is the starting-point of the church's service and in many points closely copied. Christian customs and modes of thought may have many analogues. But all these things do in no way derogate from the essential divine originality of Christ, and the originality of His Apostles' teaching. It was only that they lived upon earth and spoke the tongues of men. Where use can be made of things that exist, it is not consonant to the Divine economy to create. Providence uses what Providence has The Pentateuch afte^^ all? 139 prepared. There is no effort in things which are from heaven to be original. They simply shine down upon the earth as they find it. They are ' coming into the world from the light that lighteth every man.' The Mosaic institutions have their analogy in similar usages of the old world, but they are purified from their error and consecrated to the service of the progress of the Truth. It cannot be doubted that Moses adopted and adapted many things from Egypt — Egyptian art, Egyptian modes, and probably some details of symbolism which, though in use in Egypt, had their origin and real signi- ficance in the very first ages of mankind. The only difference of opinion on this subject is as to the less or more. But Moses used familiar material only as the fashion and dress of the outward service of Jehovah and its symbols and types. The original ideas and types themselves were heavenly, and not from Egypt. a. And first, the organisation of the people after the deliverance from Egypt was advanced in dignity and form. While they were in Egypt, we read of the heads of their fathers' houses (D^^NI), elders of Israel Q^:):)!), officers or scribes of the people (D'^ID^), these last probably appointed by the Egyptians from 140 Did Moses write among the Hebrews because of their know- ledge of writing (Exod. iii. 16; v. 6; vi. 14). The princes of tribute and taskmasters under them were Egyptians (D'D^ ^"1^, Exod. i. 11; lZ*::*::, Exod. lii. 7). But after the dehverance out of Egypt there is an advance in the style of dignity and in organisation. The head men or elders are styled princes (D"*N''t^X first in Exod. xvi. 22), and captains or rulers are appointed {U^^^ , Exod. xviii. 21) as judges. Moses introduced an order of judges and a priestly order and the fashion of both was probably influenced from Egyptian usages,* where priests were of the greatest influence, and justice to all being peculiarly valued was administered by a system of state judges. If there be any truth in the statement of Josephust that Moses in his younger days led or participated in Egyptian campaigns, he would the more readily be able to organise the families of Israel into a well- ordered encampment. The arrangement of the general's tent in the middle and the rest of the camp in orderly and fixed array around it, was after the Egyptian model familiar to him. And the place of the Tabernacle afterwards * Compare Wilkinson, 'Ancient Egyptians,' I., page 311 ; II., page 203. t Geikie, 'Hours with the Hible," II., page 102. The Pentateuch after all? 141 had its analogy in the canop}^ and enclosure in the centre which guarded the sacred emblems in the Egyptian camp.* The tribes of Israel had now tribal standards or emblems, possibly like the regimental stand- ards of the Egyptians, which exercised so potent an influence upon them, and promoted their sense of corporate life and corporate honour. f The standard possibly consisted of the tradi- tional or then designed emblem of the tribe, carved in wood or other substance, and placed on the top of a staff or pole ; though it is just possible that the word ^"^jp^ signifies some- thing more like what we know as a flag or banner. In any case the military knowledge of Moses introduced a useful custom, foreign it should seem from the habits of Arab encamp- ments. The children of Israel were changed, under his generalship, from an assemblage of just delivered slaves into an ordered host (Num. i. 52, nX^^). Perhaps the observation may be adventured, that Josephus may have something better than ' untrustworthy legend ' underlying his statement that Moses led the Egyptians against the Ethiopians, and gained great victories. Moses was brought up as an Egyptian prince (Exod. ii. 10). Military training * Wilkinson's 'Ancient Egyptians,' I., page 409. t 'Ancient Egyptians,' I., page 342. 142 Did Moses ivrite and rank were part of the life of princes in Egypt.* They often bore rank as generals, and commanded divisions. It will not, perhaps, be unreasonable to see in the way in which Moses marshalled the undisciplined families and tribes of Israel, traces of his former militar}^ training. It is an undesigned coincidence with what we are told of his Egyptian education. h. In the next place, the use of symbolism, which Moses adopts, is a natural product of a mind * learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.' The great and simple faith of the patriarchs had little need of symbols. But when the religious teaching of Jehovah \vas to be impressed upon a nation, and upon a nation difficult to deal with, then the edu- cational influence of type and symbol became of value. And Egypt was a land of symbols. It will, perhaps, be nearer to the truth to lay chief stress upon the effect produced upon the mind of Moses by long and instructed famili- arity with Egyptian symbols, than to press details, the similarity of which may be only superficial, and the significance of which may be very different. But it is further plainly in accordance with all historical analogy, that the Tabernacle work should be dependent upon Egyptian art and upon skill in manufactures ♦ Wilkinsons 'Ancient Egyptians,' I., pages 342, 343. The Pentateuch after all? 143 derived in Egypt— just as the material (Exod. XXXV. 20-29) came to a large extent straight from Egypt. It would be impossible for an original He- brew art to be born, Minerva-like, in a day. Not so does God work. It is conformable to the on the whole uncivilised state of the chil- dren of Israel, that only two artists are to be found of natural gifts sufficient for their high- est effort ; Bezaleel of Judah, AhoHab of Dan. Their namesand tribes are a sufficient guarantee that we have to do with history, not with a priestly invention of after-ages. Far different were the large number of directors of the work of temple building in Solomon's time (i Kings v. 16). And Bezaleel or Aholiab may have made a new artistic departure, yet they were still dependent upon the conditions of their education. And just as the Temple was in- debted to Tyrian art (i Kings vii. 13, 14) for some of its beauty, so the Tabernacle was in- debted to Egyptian for much of its grace and symmetry. The object was to make their sanctuary as perfect and beautiful as possible. The size of the Tabernacle was only that of a large-sized tent. The greatness of its symbolism was supported by the care devoted to working up the best possible materials into the most perfect possible of forms. 144 Did Moses zvritc The mediation, therefore, of both the sym- bohsin and the art of the Mosaic institutions was Egyptian. What we should judge to be Hkely is found to be the fact. The symbolism has been suggested. The art has been learned. It will remain briefly to indicate some of the points of resemblance. There is judged to be an Egyptian colouring in the following par- ticulars : (i) The form of the ark and its covering (* the mercy-seat '), it is fairly clear, was after the Egyptian model, though its use and mean- ing were very different. Sacred arks, or boats, are found to be in frequent ritual use in ancient Egypt. And over them, on their cover, are to be observed two winged figures, between which is the symbol of deity, or divine illumi- nation — ' the Divine Spirit Nef, or Nou, or the sacred scarabaeus, the sacred beetle of the sun, overshadowed by the wings of two figures of the goddess Thmei, or Truth.'* Now the use to which the Ark of Moses was put — the symbolism of the cherubim (symbolic figures derived, probably, not from Egypt, but from an original of which the sphinxes and. * Wilkinson's 'Ancient Egyptians,' I., pages 267, 270, 271. Perhaps for a still more curious and older type see that figured from Rossellini, Smith's ' Dictionary of the Bible,' I., page 106. The Pe7itatettch after all? 145 winged bulls of Egypt and Babylonia are traces), the totally divergent associations of the Ark — all these are far removed from Egypt, but the structure and arrangement are clearly suggested by an Egyptian type. There is nothing necessarily corrupt or idola- trous in symbols of the Divine Presence, whose meaning is not a dark secret of priests, but the education of a people. (2) Akin to this is the clear use of art and manufacture derived from Egypt, in the struc- ture of the Tabernacle and the dress of the priests, and the instruments and ornaments of the sanctuary. The threads spun by wise-hearted women, and dyed before using, as was the way of the Egyptian women (Exod. xxxv. 25) ;* the pro- minence and sacred use of the blue colour, probably an indigo dye, because the Egyptian colour was so \-\ the art of embroidery (Exod. xxvi. 36 ; xxviii. 39) and the use of gold thread in embroidery (Exod. xxxix. 3) ; the fine twined linen for which Eg3^pt was specially famed ; the working of bronze or brass and precious stones and gold and silverj — ail these and such like things are Egyptian. ■^ Wilkinson's 'Ancient Egyptians,' II., pages 79, 85. t Ibid., II., page 78. :j: Ibid., II., pages 67, -]-:,, 80, 81, 136, 159. 10 146 Did Moses write The Egyptians were peculiarly skilful in the workini^ of metals and the management of alloys, and were possibly possessed of secrets in this work which we have lost to-day. The Israelites had learned from them. They cast the golden calf. The use of natron made possible what M. Goguet (in Wilkinson) calls the very difficult operation of burning and re- ducing it to powder, and did not increase its pleasantness as a drink.* The Egyptians were accustomed to overlay with gold leaf, which probably in the earlier days of the art was thick. The overlaying of the ark of shittim wood with pure gold was in the Egyptian manncr.i* (3) The fashion of the Tabernacle was of Egyptian mediation, as, indeed, if the history be real history, it was likely to be. Its form, its division, its aspect, were after the Egyptian type. The Holy of Holies was set in the west end, as in Egyptian temples, and had the same name in Egyptian, and the * vail ' had its counterpart in the curtains of golden tissue dividing off the Holy of Holies of an Egyptian temple.! The art of Bezaleel and Aholiab was of Egyptian type ; but the significance of the * Wilkinson's ' Ancient Egyptians,' II., pages 136, 138. t Ibid,, II., pages 145, 1 47- t (leikie's ' Hours with the Ijible,' II., page 293. The Pentateitch after all? 147 Tent -temple which they constructed had nothing from Egypt. Again, the use of hnen and the prohibition of wool in the priest's official dress was the Egyptian custom, the fringes and the blue,^' the Urim and Thummim,t symbols of Revelation ■^" Wilkinson's 'Ancient Egyptians,' 11., pages 74, 91. t UrIxM and Thummim. It is to be considered that the symbolic meaning of Revelation and Truth is given as their chief and only sig- nificance in Exod. xxviii. 30. They are to be symbols of the manner of the judgment of Israel 'upon Aaron's heart before the Lord perpetually.' May it be further suggested that the quasi-magical use of these symbolic ornaments for purposes of divination is a matter wholly of the imagination of commentators, misled by Josephus and Philo ? An attentive consideration of the passages where they occur would seem to lead to this conclusion. Lev. viii. 8 does but relate the carrying out of Exod. xxviii. 30. Deut. xxxiii. 8 is a prayer: 'Let Thy Thum- mim and Thy Urim be with Thy holy one ;' />., ' Let Thy Truth and Thy Revelation be with Thy priest,' not only in symbol, but in reality. These are all the places in which they are spoken of in the Pentateuch. There are, further, two allusions to them — one in Ezra ii. 63, the other in Neh. vii. 65— quoted from the same document. Such priests as returned from captivity to Jerusalem in the then inchoate state of the renewed polity were to abstain from eating the holiest things, 'till there stood a priest according to Urim and accord- ing to Thummim ;' i.e.^ until a high priest was appointed to take the supervision of these things. Urim occurs by itself in two passages where a direct revelation seems to be intended to the high priest. In Num. xxvii. 21 10 — 2 148 Did Moses write and Truth (LXX. li]\wai^ /cat a\y]Oeia), which, without going into the vexed question of their use, are clearly analogous in their symbolism to the image of Justice set with precious stones, worn by the Egyptian judge*— these things take their colour from Egypt. It is possible also, as Hengstenberg suggests,t that the influence of a familiarity with Egyp- tian modes and ideas is to be found (i) in the association of the colour red with sin ; (2) in the religious ethical significance of food-dis- tinctions ; (3) in what was, possibly, an insti- tution of bands of holy women in connection with the Tabernacle (Exod. xxxviii. 8 ; compare Wilkinson, I., page 319); u) ^^ ^^e institution of Nazarites and the growth of the hair as a sign of their separation ; (5) and in dancing round the golden calf as a religious ceremony. And, as has been pointed out, Moses, while leaving the government by the elders of the village, and probably by a central council, in- Eleazar is to guide Joshua in difficulty by the judgment of Revelation (Urim). In i Sam. xxviii. 6 we are told that when Saul sought counsel in his difficulties' the Lord answered neither by dreams {i.e., to himself), neither by Revelation (Urim; i.e., to the high priest), nor by the Prophets.' * Wilkinson's ' Ancient Egyptians,' II., page 205. t Hengstenberg's 'Egypt and the Books of Moses.' The Pentateuch aftei^ all? 149 troduced priests and judges, both familiar to him in Egypt. To sum up the conclusion from all these facts, which have come to light in modern times to a great extent, the influence of Egypt which is plainly found in the Mosaic institu- tions is perfectly natural to the then history of Israel and to the times of Moses. In the Mosaic epoch it could scarcely be otherwise ; but w^e have no historic warrant for supposing that such an influence was natural, or even possible, at any other period of Israel's national existence. In after times the influences and the dangers were more cosmopolitan, and less and less Egyptian. The aspect, therefore, which the Pentateuch presents in all parts of it, both to the habits and institutions which had grown up in the midst of Israel during their four hundred years' sojourn in Egypt, and presents to the wisdom of the Egyptians, to their ideas and the arts of ) their civilisation, is natural and necessary to the time of Moses, but not natural to any other time. 3. Such was the material which Moses had to work upon. We come next to the essential principles of his mission, as an inspired prophet and lawgiver. If the record of the law be weighed, they will easily be distinguished as a ] 150 Did Moses write connected progress of the revelation of the Hving God. The principles of the new depar- ture of the Divine commission of Moses, the prophet and interpreter and servant of God, are threefold : (i) The creation and election of Israel from sorrow and from bondage into a nation whose purpose is to be a treasure of property, an inheritance of Jahveh or Jehovah (Hin^ hSh^ Hin^ flS^D).* He, the next of kin, redeemed it from Egypt, as He redeemed Jacob from all evil.f The selected family is developed by the commission of Moses into a selected nation. (2) The principle con- sequent upon this of the Lord, Jehovah or Jahveh, visiting, dwelling amongst His people, to deliver, to guide, and to govern, — the principle of the Divine Presence and of the Theocracy, i.e., of the immediate government of God through certain legal and social instrumen- talities. There hence arises a need for a pro- vision for the forgiveness of sin — a need for the conhrming, enlarging and nationally centralis- ing of the primitive and patriarchal sanctions of sacrifice. Also it will be seen that to carry this principle home to a nation greatly in need uf education, just loose from hard and exhaust- ing slavery, there would be needed something more than its impressive enunciation. It must * Exod. xix. 5 ; Deut. iv. 20. f Exod. vi. 6, 7. The Pentateuch after all? 151 be conveyed by the object lesson of concrete symbols and objective social ceremonial, round which the great idea might cluster. The name of Jehovah was hallowed in the institutions of Israel. (3) As a third principle, still essentially con- sequent upon the nation being the peculiar and treasured property of Jehovah or Jahveh, there arises the principle of the brotherhood and unity of Israel. The family and tribal brother- hood and unity is extended to the nation, as the greater family of God Himself (' the Rock that begat thee,' Deut. xxxii. 18). Now it cannot surely be disputed that these principles and ideas are as original to Moses as they are unique in the history of the nations. And the mission of Moses was first to be the instrument of the nation's mighty deliverance ' out of the iron furnace of Egypt ' (Deut. iv. 20), and secondly, in the exercise of his prophetic office, to bring these principles home to the minds and hearts of every member of a re- deemed people. The free polity of Israel, besides being the most beautiful constitution in the world, has an aspect of respect for all alike. Its central feature is faith in an unseen, present, living God, manifested by His marvel- lous acts, which ought to be had in remem- brance, and in the symbols and types of His I =;2 Did Moses write Presence. The enthusiasm which the better part of Israel had for the Hving Jehovah, which is a phenomenon unique in history, must be scientifically accounted for. And it can only be accounted for by the historic reality of the mission of Moses. And, further, we have the sanction of our Divine Lord that the manner in which these cardinal principles were embodied was devised by the sagacity and educated power of Moses, guided, but not effaced, b}- inspiration. It was the work of a lawgiver. ^ Moses gave you the law.' Now, if as Ewald held, and as common-sense suggests, the ten commandments, ' considered with reference to their intrinsic character and significance, imply a religion originally taught with a perfect living fulness,' surely the prin- ciples of the mission of Moses even more strongly imply the same. In the hands of genius here is motive-power. To the children of Israel, under the conditions in which they were, they would have been unintelligible and forceless, unless they had been clothed and upheld by institutions and symbols. Here, then, is a criterion which can scarcely fail us. Whatever in the institutions of Israel proceeds essentially from the principles of the Mosaic New Departure is of Mosaic age. After-ages may X ^ V The Pentateuch after all? 153 have added, but they did not inspire. What, then, is the essential clothing of these three Divine ideas ? Let us consider the derivatives of the three several principles, (i) From the prin- ciple of the nation being a chosen possession of Jahveh comes ' the law of Holiness ' worked out into ceremonial detail in order to impress it formally and visibly upon the every-day details of their life. Jahveh, who brought the nation out of the land of Egypt, hallowed them. (2) From the principle of the visiting, the dwell- ing of Jahveh amongst His people, comes the symbol of the tabernacle as its visible support and witness — the more stately, more beautiful tent of their Divine Leader, and their king present with them, going or staying, — comes the renewed institution of sacrifice and its kinds suited to varying needs — comes the order of the priesthood and Levites, sup- ported by tithes, to carry on a national system. (3) From the principle of the brotherhood and unity of Israel, enlarged from patriarchal insti- tutions to be the family of God, arise centraHsed National Feasts to keep alive the memory of the nation's origin and to keep alive a sense of its brotherhood — arise laws of kindness to their poorer brethren — arise laws to soften, if not to tend to extinguish, the conditions of slavery, laws against usury, and laws to hold I 54 Did Moses ivrite in check avarice in the possession of land. The possessions of all men were the bene- factions of God. The laws and institutions of a lawgiver have a meaning and tendency, and that meaning and tendency gave them birth. The laws and institutions of the Pentateuch have a clear meaning and tendency, and that meaning and tendency is to enforce and embody for a nation, just constituted and difficult to teach, the prin- ciples of the Divine legation of Moses. They were of Mosaic age, therefore. 4. But, in the next place, every able legislator will look forward. His sphere is not only the present, but the future. He plants and waters the stability and good government of future ages. We come, in the last place, to the phenomena presented for the most part by the book of Deuteronomy. We have here, on the face of it, to let it tell its own story, speeches, a republication of parts of the legislation, with some additions and in an altered aspect, a solemn warning, a great poem, and a blessing of the tribes, with which Moses in the end of his life, when the children of the wandering were grown up, exhorted them to remind them of their charge, and to safeguard their future. These also, on the face of it, were gathered together and edited in the time of Joshua — a The Pentateuch after all? 155 very natural conclusion, which accounts for the phenomena presented. Now, so-called ' criticism ' asserts this collection to be the work of pious fraud about the time of Manasseh. It was, say they, the book which Hilkiah the priest found in the Temple, somebody having lately invented and placed it there a little time before the times of the good king Josiah. Now, for this there is not an atom of evidence. It by no means follows that the book which Hilkiah found was not the whole of the Law. Josiah's after-action seems to presuppose this as much as anything. Doubtless the book of Deuteronomy was found then, and may have considerably influenced the men of that day. But it does by no means follow that it was in- vented by no one knows who a little before. The probabilities are all in favour of its having ancient sanctions. (Let the reader attentively consider 2 Kings xxii. 13 and the reference to ' our fathers.') Professor Moses Stuart" tells us that in France, during the Reign of Terror, they obliterated all copies of the Scriptures round about Paris, so that afterwards the Bible Society could not find a single copy for many weeks to print a new edition from. The reign of Manasseh was a reign of terror. And the ■^ ' Old Testament Canon/ 156 Did Moses ivrite iiiuling of ancient documents, which perchance some pious soul had hidden away somewhere in the Temple, is perfectly natural. But that the document found had been invented recently by some quite unknown person is perfectly unnatural. Moreover, the facts presented by Deuteronomy make it impossible. The diffi- culties of such a supposition are far greater than the difficulties of accepting its plainly historical account of itself. It is quite impos- /sible to imagine that a man of Moses' ability and heart could have left his people without any last words. The character of the words themselves is such as not to fit with any after- age. It will not be possible to do more than to suggest a few convergent lines of proof for this assertion.^ It will be noticed that the contents of Deuteronomy, as the final work of Moses, are (juite natural taken in connection with the statements of the history. The social, political, and religious constitution of the nation had been now established for years. Its symbolism was familiar, its meaning clearer. The children had been brought up in its teaching. But the outlook was towards the Land of Promise. New difficulties and dangers awaited them, and * An attempt is made to treat the subject a little more fully in Note ]>, at the end of this chapter. TJie Pentateuch after alt? 157 a new and more settled manner of life. It was for the great and reverend personality of Moses ) to influence them for the last time. It was, then, likely for him to emphasise and bring out the spirit of their constitution — to impress upon them its real meaning, which he had chiefly at heart. It was also likely for him to go over such parts of the law as possibly experience had shown needed dwelling upon or even modification,* and to endeavour to meet the changing conditions, difficulties, and dangers of the future. This is what we find. But the contents of Deuteronomy are inconceivable as a pious fraud of about the time of Manasseh, written to promote the centraHsed worship of Jerusalem as against the worship of the high places. In the first place, if this were so, the supposed author must have set himself the task of speaking of things established for ages, or else so changed by the passage of time as to be well-nigh forgotten, always in the future. He was to allow himself in no anachronism unsuited to the Mosaic a^e, and in no allusion whatever to anything that had taken place since in the history of his nation. He was to be a man, consequently, of surpassing ability, and to remain unknown ; a man of the most * It is to be remembered also that Deuteronomy is addressed to the laity. 1 5 S Did Moses lurite striking beauty, truth, and greatness of char- acter, and yet the promulgator of a fraud. But even so the task was beyond his power. For the very object for which he wrote he leaves out. There is no allusion, direct or indirect, to Jerusalem whatever. It will be noticed that there are two influ- ences at work in the Pentateuch with regard to the centralising of worship. One is the custom of Israel from the times of the patriarchs, of local altars. It is exceedingly probable that the old law and custom is retained in Exod. xx. 24-26. But on the other hand, for wise pur- poses, the polity of Moses was essentially centralising — to gather together in one, not to scatter. There were, therefore, two influences at work — blameless patriarchal custom, and the inspired, essentially centralising system of Moses. It is quite possible that Moses foresaw that the centralising system must work gradu- ally. And this double influence in the Penta- teuch accounts for the instances of blameless nonconformity which every now and then the after-history discloses. The old law and the influence which was to centralise it lay side by side. Further, the Tabernacle was the type of the Mosaic system, and clearly a transitory type ; and in looking forward to the establish- ment of his people in their own land Moses The Pentateuch after all? 159 gives directions for a central sanctuary, but they are quite indefinite. Whereas a centre of worship and national reunion is directed as the outcome of the Divine guidance, there is no hint of Jerusalem as that centre. Ebal and Gerizim (Deut. xi. 29 ; xxvii. 12, 13) are forecast as the scene of a ceremony of the realisation of which surely there is no historical trace after the days of Joshua (Josh. viii. 33). But no local habitation or name is given to what, however, is presupposed as a providential centre for the national life. Is it possible that an author of later ages should go out of his way to mention Ebal and Gerizim, and yet make no mention of Jeru- salem, to exalt the exclusive influence of which was ex hypothesi one of the main objects of his writing at all P"^ Compare in this connection Deut. xxvi. ; and notice the striking archaism of the expression 'a nomad (wandering) Syrian was my Father ' (liX used in its primitive sense) ; consider also the primitive nature of the ceremony. The forward look of the legislation of Deuter- onomy is natural to the time of Moses. The people are warned against a new form of * This observation will have special force for the time to which D is assigned by the critics. The Northern Kingdom had ceased to exist, and Ebal and Gerizim were in the hands of the Cuthreans. i6o Did Moses write idolatry, which was apparently common to the ancient inhabitants of Canaan, but not a danger of Egypt.* In Deut. iv. ig the people are warned against the worship of the sun, or the moon, or the host of heaven, the most ancient idolatries of the neighbourhood into which they are come or coming. Certain beneficent regulations as to houses are surely not un- natural to this forward look ; so are rules for the parental instruction of children. And it is not a quite necessary conclusion that the king- legislation of Deut. xvii. 14 to the end is post- Mosaic, nor is its Mosaic origin necessarily incompatible with the after action of Samuel. If the matter be carefully looked into, there seems reason for believing it is quite the other way. In the first place, it may be observed that it is in no wa}^ outside the sagacity of Moses to perceive that the ideal theocracy might become too high for the frailty of his people, and that pressure of the example of other nations, and lower considerations of policy, might bring about a popular desire for a king. This is the foresight of Moses. And observe that he neither prescribes nor in any way recommends a king. His precepts are merely by allowance—' If thou * Driver's ' Introduction,' page 82 : 'The ancient wor- ship of the sun and moon is attested even by the names of places in Canaan.' The PentateucJi after all? i6i shalt say, I will place over me a king, like all the nations which are around me.' The im- plication is that it is against the spirit of the Divine distinctive constitution ; it is an imita- tion of ' the nations ' ; it is a wilful desire of the people, '/ will place over me a king.' But if they must have their king, then he must not be an alien ; he must not swell against his brethren in pride and riches ; he must keep himself from Egypt, and must fear God, that his kingdom may become hereditarily stable. Observe the Egyptian cast of the law. Samuel, apparently deeply imbued with the spirit of the Mosaic constitution, acted precisely as such a person might be expected to act. He forcibly points out to the people that their desire is against the spirit of their Divine constitution ; but seeing that the popular wish was strong, and, on the lower level of expediency, not without reason, he allows their king with a protest, and exhorts both king and people to fear the Lord. He exactly copies the Deuter- onomic model. Amongst other things, further, the purely theocratic spirit of the 'song' of Moses (Deut. xxxii.) is to be attentively considered as un- likely in the work of a later poet after the time of the monarchy of David and Solomon. To attribute it to times later than Moses is an II 1 62 Did Moses write anachronism of ideas (compare Psalm ii.). Be- kides, the vigour and beauty of the original is (of the earliest form of poetry. To conclude, upon a general survey of the facts the immediate Mosaic authorship of the greater part of Deuteronomy is distinctly, fre- quently, and emphaticalty asserted both in the text of Deuteronomy and in the book of Joshua ; and the contents are such as can naturally be attributed to Moses, but not to anyone else. We have here a strong and repeated literary tradition of the Hebrews, and its verdict is upheld by the facts.* 5. Before leaving the subject of the legisla- tion of the Pentateuch, the feature which perhaps above all others characterises it most distinctively must not be passed without due notice. We mean its ideal type. We have an ideal social system, withTldeal safeguards. We have an ideal unity of the nation. We have an ideal pure worship of the one true Lord. And above all, we have the ideal, which broke down in the hands of human sin and infirmity, of a nation whose only King is the unseen Jehovah, reigning in an ideal righteousness. This ideal type is stamped upon the legislation as a whole, and even pervades its smallest * For an attempt to meet some of the alleged difficul- ties see Note B. The Pentateuch after all? 163 details. Now, for this ideal type there is adequate motive-power in the Mosaic age, but later not. If we grant, as we have seen reason to be bound to grant, the sympathy of the living God with the oppressed, and the story of their great deliverance from a great and notable nation by the ' mighty hand and outstretched arm ' of Jehovah alone — if we find ourselves bound to receive this as historical truth, then in these ^ marvellous works ' we have at once the only adequate scientific account of the phenomena presented by the history of Israel and by the aims of their great men, and also the only power capable of giving the legislation of the Pentateuch the ideal aspect we find in it. After-ages would lack the requisite elasticity and impulse. For the ideal is brightest at its birth ; it is dimmed in the process of the cen- turies. And after ages of civilisation and cor- ruption, legislation tends to aim at the expedient and possible rather than at the typically best. To give one illustration to make what is meant clearer. The law of the inalienable inheritance, the Sabbatic year, the jubilee, the repartition of land — these laws, though possibly rendered less difficult of realisation by what we have judged to be the pre-Mosaic village custom of the children of Israel, yet, it should seem, would not have been possible legislation in later times II — 2 164 Did Moses write — say in the times of Isaiah, for instance * The influence necessary to give them currency would have been lacking. Thus the ideal stamp of the legislation, to- wards which all that is best in the later history of the nation is seen, in fact, to struggle up — this ideal stamp is one of the indications that the legislation is of Mosaic age. 6. From all these things there follows, there- fore, a conclusion. We have endeavoured in a way necessarily brief, but it is hoped not un- true, to gather up some of the indications presented by the Pentateuch as to the age and authorship both of its histories and of its legis- lation as we find them. It should seem that convergent and cumulative lines of reasoning point to the Pentateuch being of Mosaic age in the main, "^t is so because it is historical. ^;Jt is so because the indications of its environment are indications of Mosaic times. In the Mosaic age, too, we find the onty impetus capable of giving the ideal-aspect of the legislation. The I Pentateuch is practically and in the main, in its I present form, of Mosaic age. There both are and may be additions, rela- tively quite unimportant, of an explanatory and complementary nature, the result of later editions of the law. ■•^ Compare Isa. v. 8. The Pentatetich after all? 165 But our inquiry has not decided as yet the extent or manner in which the immediate hand and influence of Moses is to be traced in the writing of the Pentateuch, i.e., in what sense the constant traditional expression ' the law of Moses ' is to be understood. This is a question of purely archaeological interest, but of very real interest indeed. The answer to it can only be given along the lines of the strong proba- bilities of historical analogy. It is observable, then, in the first place, that the use made of the I carefully preserved early tradition and written 1 documents which would seem to underlie the (book of Genesis, is to cause their convergence jupon a certain purpose which becomes suffi- ciently apparent. There is a^clearly recognisable umty of design. The creation of the world and all that is therein is sketched in outline in order to reach the initial state of man and domestic animals to be treated in greater detail. The history of the world and all its families, and the rising of its nationalities, is sketched in most deeply interesting outline of remote and moving life in order to leave it, and to converge it upon the history of the selected family. There is one historic motive throughout. It is a model of historic art. In the next place it is to be noticed that in the drama of the Exodus and the Desert, there is little in which 1 66 Did Moses write Moses is not concerned. It might be entitled * the Acts of Moses.' And the details of the legislation, both in the conservation of ancient customs as stepping-stones to better things, in the addition of what is essentially new, and in the preparation for the future, are seen to be pervaded, and demonstratively pervaded, by one spirit. There is in the first part of the Pentateuch unity of design, in the second part of the Pentateuch unity of spirit. Now, unity of design and unity of spirit argue under God the uniformity of a master mind. The Pentateuch, therefore, as it stands, as the facts seem to in- dicate, ' came by Moses,' i.e.^ was written under his superintendence. But the evidence as clearly seems to point to something else. The work of elaborating and systematising the historical material which w^as at the command of Moses, and the work of codifying what was ancient and what was new in the legislation (though, as we have seen, this codifying was imperfect) — all this work and all these details occupy a large and extended field. The w^ork of administering justice was found in practice too great for Moses to cope with it unaided. He found the help, and was advised to use the help, of seventy elders and others, of the same inspiration, who were made by the ^raco of God of like mind, to carry out the The Pe7itateuch after all? 167 administration of cases of justice. It is, then, an historic probabihty that he also found collaborators in his literary, historical, and legislative work. This may even be a clear suggestion of certain observed combined varia- tions and similarities of style evidenced in the Pentateuch as it now^ stands. It should seem, therefore, that we have scientific ground for the inference and conclusion that the Pentateuch as we now possess it, with some relatively insignificant exceptions, was drawn up in all its parts under the immediate super- intendence and inspiring guidance of Moses by the aid of unknown collaborators. The poems and discourses ascribed to him are judged to V be immediately his, both from evidences of style and from a reasonable trust in the veracity of tradition in so great a case. And these, with the rest of Deuteronomy, were collected and set forth as they now stand by Joshua and those who helped him. In fine, Moses, to use a modern expression, is responsible for the Pentateuch as a whole, but not responsible unaided. The Pentateuch must also have passed through several editions, of which one can scarcely with probability be refused to the age of Solomon, and of which the last can with some degree of confidence be attributed to Ezra and the men of his day. 1 68 Did Moses write NOTES. Note A. On the supposed invalidity of literary tradition in Hebrew history. The literary traditions of the Hebrews are treated with the least possible respect by Professor Driver and the theoretical school of ' critics ' generally. It is part of that easy historical scepticism which the theory has made in- evitable. For if Hebrew literary traditions are to be received, the theory vanishes. It will be observed, there- fore, that the theoretical school of critics approach the question of the value of Hebrew literary tradition with the strongest possible bias. And if the theory which gives this bias is found to be historically untenable, then the a priori presumption is taken away. The literary traditions of the Hebrews will tend to reassert themselves, and it will be possible to make a scientific estimate of their value. But it is precisely because this is not on the face of it obvious, that the decisions of the 'critics' as to literary traditions assert for themselves a value which is not their due. The reason of the 'critical' decision not being given, the reader is apt to imagine that behind it there lie reasons which only an expert can rightly appre- ciate, and he accepts the decision on the authority of the critic's ' Hebrew scholarship' or 'deep erudition.' But it would be well to bear in mind that this is not so. A certain theory as to the evolution of the Hebrew literary remains has been accepted on certain supposed grounds by the ' critic' This theory involves direct opposition to all Hebrew literary traditions. It scatters scepticism and uncertainty everywhere. If this theory is to be accepted, their literary tradition must be ignored of necessity. It is, in fact, theory versus literary tradition. This is the very point at issue. But the 'critic' gains a fictitious advantage in the argument by this not being immediately apparent on the surface. Speaking, for instance, of The Pentatetcch after all? 169 Moses' blessing (Deut. xxxiii.), Professor Driver says :* 'The external evidence afforded by the title' (verse i) 'is slight.' Why slight ? Because of Hebrew scholarship, or internal evidence ? Not so. Professor Driver tells us : ' Internal evidence, from the obscure nature of some of the allusions, is indecisive, and offers scope for diverging conclusions.' But, surely, it is just the obscure nature of the allusions that are manifest tokens of antiquity. It is not probable that any person would have, as it were, forged Moses' name, and also gone in for obscure allu- sions. Also, the blessing must, for critical reasons, have been before the time of the divided monarchy. Yet, again, it will not fit the times of the monarchy. And who was likely to have written it in the times of the Judges ? Such a blessing is natural to Moses as the father of the nation, as it was to Jacob, the father of the family. The internal evidence and character of the composition is strongly in favour of the external evidence of the title. Again, the solemn and repeated ascription of the Song to Moses (Deut. xxxi., xxxii.) is borne out thoroughly by the Hebrew and the internal characteristics. But because the future is poetically spoken of as past, the Song being declared to be written for the future, and because Moses dwells on the future with a tender and prophetic solici- tude, forsooth, Professor Driver will have it long after the time of Moses. By the ' critic' no form of Divine fore- cast or poetic license can be admitted, even though the powers implied in such a forecast are only those of the sagacity of a great and wise man. The emphatic ascrip- tion of the Song to Moses is entirely ignored. And yet, again, the repeated and most distinct ascrip- tions of the institutions of the Law and of the several laws to Moses and to the times of Moses and Aaron are entirely ignored. The ascription of the addresses in Deuteronomy to Moses, which is m ost distinct, definite, detailed, and * Page 91. ijo Did Moses ivrite solemn (Deut. i. i-6), is still more curiously got rid of. Professor Driver (page 83) satisfies himself with asserting that ' Deuteronomy does not claim to be written by Moses ; whenever the author speaks himself, he purports to give a description in the third person of what Moses did or said. The true "author" of Deuteronomy is thus the writer who introduces Moses in the third person.' That is to say, he satisfies himself by begging the question and confounding the issue. There is no doubt that the addresses, the song, and the blessing, and the notice of the death of Moses were arranged as they now stand in Joshua's time, and, with a strong degree of probability, granting the historical character of the times, by Joshua himself. But this does not make him the 'author' of Deuter- onomy, but only the attester and arranger. He stands in the same position as some have thought the writers of the last verses of the Gospel according to St. John to stand. Was it not possible for Moses to have delivered his last charge to his people, as charges and judgments on im- portant and grave occasions are delivered, first writing it out, and then delivering it ? Nay, was it not likely .? Was it not also likely that the other two studied, poetical, and noble compositions were written out before they were publicly recited .? The matter is to be judged by the habits of the times, and writing out was clearly congenial to the times (consider Exod. xxiv. 4, 7), and the mature products of Moses' genius were clearly well deliberated, and not done in a day. It does not in the least follow that ' the writer who purports to give a de- scription in the third person of what Moses did or said is the true "author" of Deuteronomy.' Nor is this sugges- tion a natural one, unless we are dealing with a legend ; and there is nothing to lead us to suppose that we are dealing with legend, but ;on the contrary. All that the writer in the third person does is with definite detail of lime and place and occasion and object to introduce the address, the song, and the blessing as known to him to The Pentateuch after all? 171 be the work of Moses. It is only an additional attesta- tion of the Mosaic authorship. The strong individuality and genius which Professor Driver shows to pervade the addresses, and which are as strongly manifest in the song and the blessing, point to Moses. The immediate per- sonality of address to the people, connecting the speaker and author with the acts, authority, and spirit of Moses, as strongly asserts the Mosaic authorship. And the implied environment and atmosphere also distinctly imply Moses. Without the foregoing attestations no doubt could exist in v^^hose name and individuality the addresses, the song, and the blessing are put forward. If Moses were not their author, the writer of the fiction did two things : he with inimitable genius personified Moses, and worthily per- sonified Moses, and, to make the fraud more barefaced, affixed a deliberate and solemn attestation, going into false details, to mislead us by affirming the witness of a contemporary to the Mosaic authorship. That is the exact state of the matter, and the true point at issue. It is theory against the facts and internal evidence of Hebrew literary tradition. And it is evident, with regard to the further remarks of Professor Driver, that, whatever may be our view as to the usage of later times in recording speeches, here the probability of the case, the words being the last words of Moses, and the strongly-marked individuality of the words themselves, go to prove that we have the very words and compositions of Moses himself. Now, if with Dr. Kay, who Professor Driver is kind enough to certify was 'a sound Hebrew scholar,' we be- lieve that the anonymous nature of the second part of Isaiah is a pure fiction, and against the critical evidence of style and pragmatism f if we believe that Mr. Wright's arguments against the anonymous nature of parts of Zechariah have not been answered and are not likely to * Not to mention the very useful little book by the Rev- Michael Rosenthal. 1^2 Did Moses write be, we have ceased to believe that the circle of educated Hebrew society, who were the keepers of the national literature, were accustomed to insert great anonymous poems in the body of their well-known and famous writers' works. What has no parallel in any civilised literary history we do not believe exists in Hebrew literary history. If, further, we believe that the laborious, learned, and thoroughly capable work of Dr. Pusey, whom, possibly, we might venture to credit with a little knowledge of Hebrew, and the thoroughly creditable work of Professor Fuller upon the prophet Daniel, wait for the answer they have not received, we shall be still further from ascribing a futile and unhistorical character to Hebrew literature. And yet, again, if we believe that Wellhausen's estimate of the epoch of the Captivity and the return is about as fatuous and unsatisfactory work, from a scientific point of view, as has appeared for the last hundred years,"* we shall be still further from dis- trusting the literary power and grasp of the circle of educated Hebrew opinion, of which there are tokens of the existence at every period of Hebrew history, and to which the keeping of their literary treasures was confided by Divine Providence for the world. There remains to point out two things : first, that, viewed comparatively, a truly historical and literary spirit is the peculiar and distinguishing attribute of the Hebrew history from the earliest age of the world. When it is found in a much less degree in the distant past in other nations, the true spirit of history, both in depth, individu- ality, and interest, is to be discovered in the earliest Hebrew remains. And the reason is that there is in them adequate historical motive. Life is of more many-sided * If this should seem to anyone to savour too much of mere assertion, given the necessary time and opportunity, wc should be prepared to attempt the proof in detail. A few things are suggested in proof in Chapter HI. The Pentateuch after all? 173 interest and importance, and tends towards a definite aim. But, secondly, to have a clear idea of the subject of Hebrew literary traditions, it will be necessary briefly to consider the phenomena presented to us by the books of the Psalms. I. It is not possible to compare for a moment the literary remains of Babylonia, Assyria, and Egypt, of India, China, and Persia, which come from the earliest ages, with the Hebrew history of the same or much earlier age, in respect of character, or historic depth, or purpose. Full of interest and importance are these ancient frag- ments, and the freshness of the nature-worship poetry of this most ancient childhood of the world. But to the Hebrew scriptures they are ' as water is to wine.' They are rather the elements out of which history may be made than history itself, and they are not infrequently quite clearly mixed up with mythical and legendary accretions. To reduce the Hebrew literature to the same level is the aim of theoretical criticism ; but is it for a moment pos- sible ? The earliest literary remains of the other nations are rather the means by which ancient life and character maybe guessed at and elaborated than the characteristic, historically-affected delineation of men and women that once lived. They are deficient both in historical and in- dividual characteristicalness, if one might so say. And this being so, the literary tradition which accompanies them, though treated always with respect by the patient and capable inquirer, is not to be compared in amount or quality with that which flourishes in the historic and literary atmosphere of what are known as the Holy Scrip- tures. Legend or myth, again, is almost always anony- mous, and by the very scientific account of its origin must be. With the birth of literary tradition we have reached historic conditions. Perhaps by a little brief illustration what is meant may be made clearer. The most ancient part of Sanskrit 174 ^^^ Moses IV rite literature are the Vedic hymns. They are an interesting, fresh, and most ancient combination of nature-poetry and nature-worship. They probably take us back to the primeval home of the primitive Aryans — at any rate, in spirit and derivation. But apart from their manifest age there is little, if anything, connecting with national history or of individual type in them. Tradition hands down their authors, and in the several divisions of the poems the poems by the same author tend to be collected to- gether. But, says Professor Monier Williams, ' Sanskrit literature, embracing as it does nearly every branch of knowledge, is entirely deficient in one department. It is wholly destitute of trustworthy historical records. Hence little or nothing is known of the lives of ancient Indian authors.'"^ Yet scientific criticism accepts the verdict of tradition as to the authors of the Hymns, until in the tenth Mandara, the most recent division which is said to contain hymns not inferior in age or poetic quality to the generality of Vedic hymns, it is said, many gods and fictitious personages appear in the list of the rishis or authors of the poems. The earliest poems and sayings of the Chinese, again, present similar facts. There is but little of individual character and historical environment. When seme sort of connected history is attempted, Dr. Legge thus charac- terises it : 'It is without the slightest tincture of literary ability in the composition, or the slightest indication of judicial opinion on the part of the writer.'! It is rather a bald string of facts than a history. Yet no one doubts * Monier Williams, 'Hinduism,' page 19. Compare Max MiillcVs translations and the article on ' Sanskrit Literature' in the ninth edition of the 'Encyclopedia Britannica.' I Article 'China,' in the ninth edition of the 'Encyclo- piudia Britannica.' Compare the translations in Max Muller'b series of ' Sacred Books of the East.' The Pentateuch after all? 175 the literary tradition assigning the authors of the fresh and interesting poems of the Shee King, or that Tang, or Woo Wang, or Chow, or Confucius, said what is attributed to them in the Shoo King. There is the same absence of historical genius in the ancient remains of Babylonia, Egypt, Assyria, and Persia mutatis niMtandis. Yet literary traditions are always re- spected where they can be found. But when we come to the Hebrew literature the difference is felt at once. We are in an historic atmosphere, and surrounded by men and women of deep, differentiated, and most interesting character. In the first pages we discover at once that touch of nature which makes the whole world kin. A characteristic speech is assigned to Noah's father ; a characteristic poem to Lamech, the first polygamist. Genealogies are carefully kept. Every one of the various literary treasures of the Hebrew nation are carefully assigned to authors otherwise, for the most part, historic- ally known or historically associated. It is the exception when this is not so. Hebrew literary tradition stands on a different level. The stream of life that flows in the Holy Scriptures is deeper, more sacred, more important to humanity. In the greatest things, which are spiritual, here is the region of enlightenment and progress. Hebrew literary tradition is guaranteed by the historical genius of the family and of the people amongst whom it sprang up. The only purpose of the critical apparatus of the theorists is to evacuate the Hebrew annals of their historical power, and to reduce them to the level of the annals of the other contemporary nations. But the attentive reader will have observed that this is just the point at issue. We have been inquiring whether this is possible. 2. But, secondly, it may be said the titles of the Psalms cannot be upheld, or the book of Ecclesiastes was not written by Solomon. It will at once be apparent that it will be impossible here to cover the ground of so large a subject. It will only be possible to make a few sugges- I 76 Did Moses write tions, and to refer the reader to the careful introductions in the 'Speaker's Commentary' on these books, which have by no means ceased to be of value. It will be observed that Wellhausen's theory of Judaism taints Pro- fessor Driver's judgment as to the phenomena presented by the Psalter, as how could it do otherwise ? All litur- gical notices in the titles must belong to the time of the second Temple, because Professor Driver has settled that there was little or no music in the first."^ It is strange that these same titles should have become unintelligible to the ICgyptian translators of the LXX. during the time of the flourishing of the second Temple, if this be so. Nay, it is incredible. It is obvious, further, that when Professor Driver says it is not likely that David was 'a man of the deep and intense spiritual feeling reflected in the Psalms that bear his name ' (page 355), that the theory he has accepted could lead him to no other conclusion. With no antecedent history of his nation worth attending to.; with the legends of Moses and Joseph and Abraham not even having taken shape, but merely floating on the popular tongue as nursery stories float ; and without any literature but poetic fragments, anonymous and without true bearing, David the king indeed had no objects of reflection capable of creating that historic maturity which the Psalms attributed to him disclose. But if the theory falls, and a man of strong genius as well as a man of war for his nation (and the combination has often been seen) were brought up in the midst of an historic atmosphere which moved the very heart of him to deep reflection, and if such a man were trained in the school of much personal sorrow and disappointment, then the poems attributed to him are no anachronism. The times were ripe for them. It is thought that the present fashion of attributing the products of the deepest genius and reflection to times that can be proved to be historically barren of just those qualities, in the teeth of their historical attribution to * Page 359. The Peiitate2uh after all ? 177 periods of clear literary impulse, will pass away. It is certain, for instance, that wherever you place Psalm xxii., it will be impossible to make it fit the personal conditions of any ancient writer, known or unknown, or to twist its words into any rational and immediate apposition to the fortunes of the nation. It only fits the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, of which, unless the evidence had been overwhelming, it might readily have been imagined a poetic description after the event. Of Professor Driver's imposing array of arguments against the historical value of the titles, there might be given the following analysis into three parts : The first part should be arguments clearly arising out of prejudices engendered by his theory of the rise of Hebrew literature in general. The second part should be arguments of mere opinion, which the slightest per contra trustworthy literary tradition would sweep away at once. And the third part should be arguments which, when fairly weighed, make for the general value of the titles. It should be carefully remembered that the Lamedh of the author (for instance, in *7*in7)i which is the general style of the ascriptions, has a limited amount of ambiguity attaching to it — an ambiguity which i;i absent from the ascriptions of Deuteronomy, the Prophets, and the his- torical books. It is highly probable that, just as 'The Psalms of David ' is the title in the Prayer-Book in spite of the attribution of the Psalms to other authors, and notably of one, with strong confirmation of internal evi- dence, to Moses, just so the Lamedh auctoris is used in the Hebrew liturgical collection somewhat loosely of non- Davidic psalms. But the attentive reader will observe that just this circumstance involves truly Davidic psalms. The distribution of the really Davidic psalms to the various periods of David's life in the ' Speaker's Com- mentary,' as it forms interesting undesigned coincidences with it, so will it be probably found to be sound in the main. It is far from proved that Solomon is not the author of T2 178 Did Moses write Ecclesiastes ; but in view of the tremendous and ideal re- putation for wisdom that Solomon obtained, and of the ideal use of his name in the Book of Wisdom, where it is certain that no historical attribution of authorship is at all intended, it is clear that the so-called * wisdom ' litera- ture stands by itself, and is to be differently estimated from the rest. Note B. The authorship of Deuteronomy. 'Even though it were clear that the first four books of the Pentateuch were written by Moses,* says Professor Driver, ' it would be difficult to sustain the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy.'* However much misgiving we niay have as to the critical soundness of the process which reduces what goes before to the level of legend, here we are presumed to be on ground not debatable. Here we may not escape the authorities ; and the authorities have spoken. Deuteronomy is not the work of Moses. It is strange that the part of the Pentateuch selected for this exhibition of assurance is just that of which the Mosaic authorship is directly and repeatedly asserted. It is enough to believe that Moses was the mediator of the former part of the Pentateuch. Here Hebrew literary tradition asserts his authorship, and in no uncertain tone. It is asserted in the most detailed, emphatic, and solemn manner. Let the reader consider, for instance, Deut. i. 1-5, xxxi. 28-30. It is possible to review some of the principal arguments which are used to substantiate this at first sight some- what curious ' critical ' conclusion. They may be grouped under four heads : 1. The absence of historical allusion to Deuteronomy till after the time of Isaiah, when it comes into prominence. 2. Discrepancies of the legislation with the supposed J H and the supposed P. * Page 77. The Pentateuch after atl? 179 3. Differences of style and language. 4. General considerations of standpoint and likelihood. It is to be carefully observed that the undertone of Professor Driver's comments is the undertone of one who entirely ignores the possibility that we have to do with a great, interesting, and living history. It is a foregone conclusion that this cannot be. The account of recent history, for instance, and the moral enforced from it cannot be derived from the experience of Moses, the man of God, recapitulating and reviewing in a living and real manner facts of importance to his hearers. On the face of it he is encouraging his successor, Joshua, and his people that have grown up with him to go forward to face the difficulties of Canaan by a recitation with his own comments of what Jehovah has already achieved for them in the conquest of Sihon and Og. But ' the dependence of D for his history upon J E is generally recognised by critics,' says Professor Driver (page 'j']^ note i)."^ Yet, on the other hand, the exceeding appropriateness and naturalness and beauty of Deuteronomy as addressed to the people generally, as drawing out the spirit and religious aim of their religious constitution, as dealing in the same spirit even with the special laws by way of illustration, emphasis, addition, or explanation of motive, all this does Professor Driver satisfactorily recognise (pages 71-74). ' Nowhere else in the Old Testament,' he says even, ' do we breathe such an atmosphere of generous devotion to God, and of large-hearted benevolence towards man ; and nowhere else is it shown with the same fulness of detail how these principles may be made to permeate the entire life of the community.' Surely, if there was any 'living fulness' in the mission of Moses, the prophet, the faithful servant in all his house, the man of God, surely this is quite what we might justly expect from his "^ Again, part of Deut. i. 9-17 in its 'phrases seems borrowed ixovci Numb, xi.' (page 75, note i). 12 — 2 I So Did Moses zu7'ite old age. And from a table provided by Professor Driver, in which Deuteronomy is compared with the supposed J E and P, we may see at a glance how all this is intimately connected, as its living spirit, with the con- stitution and polity of which Moses is the author and exponent. And so, as we pass on, we see how excellently is fulfilled the purpose which very probably Joshua in the preface (Deut. i. 5) tells us was in the mind of Moses — to 'set forth and impress the principles of his law ('this law,' />., the law given)."^ Let us proceed to the arguments against the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. I. 'It is remarkable,' says Professor Driver (page 83), 'that the early prophets, Amos and Hosea and the un- disputed portions of Isaiah, show no certain traces of the influence of Deuteronomy ; Jeremiah exhibits marks of it on nearly every page ; Zephaniah and Ezekiel are also evidently influenced by it. If Deuteronomy were com- posed in the period between Isaiah and Jeremiah, these facts would be exactly accounted for.' We are led to infer, therefore, that there are no traces of Deuteronomy till after the time of Isaiah. But it is the theory that makes this so, n-ot the facts. The facts are just the other way. As we might well suppose, if we are dealing with a living history, the times of Joshua are quite permeated with the influence of the last words of Moses. And in the book of Judges, though as the elders of Joshua's time died (Josh. xxiv. 31) the influence of Moses and of Joshua decreased in Israel, still very distinct traces of Deuter- onomy are found. This is very apparent from Professor Driver's analysis of Joshua. Almost every chapter exhibits Deuteronomic influence, and the case is the same in a less degree for the book of Judges. But the critics * ^Xi) ^ peculiar word characteristic of Deuteronomy, to dig out, so as to reach the water of the well ; to impress deep, as upon tables of stone, so as to last the longer. The Pentateuch after all? i8i have a very notable plan for getting rid of facts. Of course, say they, the books of Joshua and Judges were written many hundreds of years after the supposed events. The history is still legendary. And there was a Deuter- onomic editor (D^) for Joshua, and a Deuteronomic compiler (not dignified by a symbol) of Judges, who of necessity lived after the times of Isaiah. A very pretty theory, but there is no proof for it. If we are dealing with a living history of a conquest of more consequence to the world than any other, and with an ancient Domes- day Book, and an account of the failure of the pure theocracy, which must have been of interest and import- ance to the men of the monarchy, it is likely the history was written soon after the events. The Israelites must have been a specially foolish people if they let it remain for ages unrecorded. And if the history be near the times, then the predominant influence of the last words of Moses throughout the times of Joshua,^ and in a lesser degree throughout the times of the Judges, is clear. The statement that 'Amos, Rosea, and the undisputed portions of Isaiah show no certain traces of the influence of Deuteronomy ' must be met with a direct denial. There are clear traces of Deuteronomy in these prophets and also in Micah, which in any other literary history would be accepted at once as proofs of the pre-e.xistence and esteem of Deuteronomy. The reader is referred to Professor Stanley Leathes' ' Law in the Prophets ' for the proof, which he will there see under the names of these prophets. The reason of the prominence of Deuteronomy in Jeremiah and to a less extent in Ezekiel is that the times were times which with good reason brought Deuteronomy to the mind of pious men. 2. Discrepancies of the legislation with the supposed J E and the supposed P. * Consider only, for instance, Josh. viii. 31-35- 1 82 Did Moses lurite We have points given in which Deuteronomy, Professor Driver says, ' conflicts with ' these legislations and another of his 'impressions.' Let us take the points first and the impression last. {a) Even with J E Deuteronomy 'conflicts in a manner which would not be credible were the legislator in both one and the same.' Deut. xv, 17^ is said to conflict with Exod. xxi. 2 fi*. In Deuteronomy apparently the female slave is to be retained in service after the same fashion of ceremony as the male. The female slave is not men tioned in Exodus. Here is an addition possibly with reference to their present or future conditions not clear to us. We do not discover the conflict nor signs of long interval of date. Deut. xv. i-ii is said to conflict with Exod. xxiii. 10 ff. It is the law of the Sabbatical year. It is given very shortly in Exod. xxiii. 10, 11, which, of course, is allowed by everyone to be part of the oldest Pentateuchal legislation, containing elements older than Moses.* Exod. xxiii. 10, 11, says the seventh year the land is to rest, and ' the poor of thy people shall eat, and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat.' In Lev. XXV. 1-7 the matter is slightly expanded. The land is to have a Sabbath of rest, and this. is to be for the benefit chiefly of the poorer sort, and of the cattle and beasts of the field. Deut. xv. i-ii using the noun T\)^12'^ , release, as Exod. xxiii. 11 uses the verb t0/!2t^n> thou shalt release it, adds that on this year there shall be a Sabbath of debt, ?>., the Israelite poor debtor shall go free, but not an alien. The benefit to be given to the poor is, as it were, defined into a detail. We fail to discover in these things 'variations difficult to reconcile ■* Though it is very evident that centuries are not required (as Driver, page 80) for the expansion of this code in Leviticus, which is necessary to its being carried out at all as a system, and for which the leisure of the wilderness wandering would seem amply sufficient. The Pentateuch after all? 183 with both being the work of a single legislator, or ' that they point rather to the people having passed during the interval into changed social conditions,' which is indeed true, and more true with regard to the future, which Deuteronomy looks towards, but not in any sense contrary to the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. Let the reader judge. (b) But when we come to P, says Professor Driver, * the supposition that these laws are by the same legislator becomes impossible. For in Deuteronomy language is used implying that fu7idamental instiiiilions of P are- unknown to the author.^ We have reached ground where Moses is impossible, because P only being Mosaic in a bare nucleus ex hypothesi, and Deuteronomy not knowing P, therefore Deuteronomy could not have been the work of Moses. The reader will perceive the slippery ground which mere theory and circular argument is apt to produce. In any case, however, we have to meet the assertion that the author of Deuteronomy did not know the fundamental institutions of P. Let us not take this for granted. Let us rather consider Professor Driver's instances, in the full assurance that they are the best attainable. The instances given are (i) discrepancies as to the Hebrew slave law of P ; (2) the priests and Levites not distinguished as in P ; (3) the P law for the mainten- ance of priests and Levites not known in Deuteronomy ; (4) a difference as to the eating of firstlings ; (5) the tithe law of P also not known. There follows (6) a rather double-edged historical argument as to the central sanctuary presupposed or arranged for in Deuteronomy. Now we are well aware that we are in all these matters in the full stream of Wellhausen's theory, and we shall not scruple to draw from the master when occasion serves. But before starting upon an examination of these matters it is well to make two highly important observations, which are on the face of it historically due to the author of Deuteronomy. The first is that Deuteronomy is 184 Did Moses write addressed entirely to the laity. Its point of view is therefore dift'erent from a law book for priests and laity alike. The next is, that if Moses really addressed the words of Deuteronomy to his people, it is also historically certain that h.Q presupposed the legislation already given. A lawgiver addressing a people to whom he has given laws would assuredly do this. Arguments from mere silence in Deuteronomy, therefore, tend to beg the ques- tion at issue. Let the reader carefully bear in mind these two principles. (i) The first point in which Deuteronomy is said 'to conflict with' P is the time for the setting free of Hebrew slaves. This appears to be a very extraordinary piece of criticism indeed. Lev, xxv. .39-43 says Hebrew slaves are to be set free in the year of Jubilee. ' In Deut. xv. 12-18,' says Professor Driver (page jy), 'the legislator, ivithoiit bringing his new law into relation* with the different one of Leviticus, prescribes the release of the Hebrew slave in the seventh year of his service,' One scarcely knows how to take this seriously. Leviticus, according to the facts and according to Professor Driver's own showing (page 53), is a purely ceremonial and reli- gious code. It never mentions civil matters at all. And the allusion to the manumission of slaves and to usury also in connection with the Ceremonial Festival of the Jubilee is only as incidental to that feast. The reversion to his own inheritance, which is to be the common right of all Israelites, is not to be withheld from one who has fallen into slavery. He may serve up to the Jubilee, but however long or short has been his service, then he shall return to his family and to his inheritance. Here is not a different slave-law, nor, indeed, a slave-law at all ; but the effect of the ceremonial proclamation of liberty (^"1*n) throughout the land, which is not to be v/ithheld * The italics are Professor Driver's. The Pentatettch after all? 185 from a Hebrew because he is fallen into slavery. And the Hebrew slave-law in Deut. xv. 12-18 is not a 'new law ' at all. It is simply a reproduction of the oldest part of the legislation, where release on the seventh year is enjoined (Exod. xxi. 2). This stands in Professor Driver's own table. (2) The next instance in which Deuteronomy is said 'to conflict with' P is that the distinction between priests and Levites, which is precise in P, is ignored in D (Deut. xviii. I, 6-8). The suggestion is that this distinction never existed till somewhere near or after the exile. And pro- vision is made for Levites, Processor Driver says, who have been living elsewhere to be able to assert their right of sacrificial service at the central sanctuary. Therefore, in the view of the author of Deuteronomy, so we are told, there was not yet existent any difference of service. This is Wellhausen all over ; and if anybody wishes to see an invention of history against the facts which is probably unique, let him turn to the ' Prolegomena,' page 121, and read on. But the facts are simple. Dr. Driver says that in Deut. xviii. 'it is implied that «// members of the tribe of Levi are qualified to exercise priestly functions.' Pre- cisely so. For the distinction between a priest of Aaron's line and a Levite does not lie here. AH priests are Levites and all Levites are priests (Deut. x. 8). The very locus classicus of Ezekiel, which is the basis of Well- hausen's curious ' investigations,' says so. One chamber of the Temple of Vision is ' for \.\^q priests that keep the charge of the house,' another chamber for ' the priests that keep the charge of the altar' (Ezek. xl. 45, 46). It is true that the priest par excellence, first of Aaron's line and afterwards of Zadok's branch of Aaron's line, was one that ' drew near to the altar ' of Jehovah (Lev. ix. 8) to sacrifice. But they all had priestly functions as repre- sentatives of their people in the sanctuary. That is why, when spoken of as a body in the presence of the laity, they are called the priests, the Levites. They have a 1 86 Did Moses zurite common bond in the 'service' of the sanctuary and a share in the sacrificial offerings. Moses in Deuteronomy speaks of them in the presence of the laity, and there- fore generally, as we use the term 'clergy' generally. He does not allude to the distinction between them, because he is not concerned in his present discourse with that distinction. It is sufficiently laid down both in prac- tice and in law elsewhere. But if anyone will carefully read Ueut. xviii., comparing verses 3 and 5, he will see that the distinction, though not asserted, is implied. Ezek. xliv. 6-16 will not bear the meaning assigned to it by Wellhausen. In the first place, it is a prophetic vision with a prophetic purpose. In the second place, the renewed Temple is to be a Holy of Holies in every part of it (Ezek. xliii. 12); but to make it more so, the distinction of the inferior service of the Levites not of the seed of Aaron (which seed of Aaron had probably remained loyal in the line of Zadok) is to be retained, as probably from the days of Micah, the grandson of Moses, they had had a chief part in prostituting their office in the service of idols. The old distinction, which, indeed, in ancient times provoked a rebellion led by Korah, is to be retained with an added emphasis and meaning. It is perfectly easy for Wellhausen to get rid of the facts that invalidate his theory by saying that the history of Eli is a tale of the exile, and that the chronicler gives a lying genealogy of Zadok ; but who does not see that this is not historical criticism ? It is easy to invent history, and Wellhausen has special gifts in that line. (3) Next, with regard to the maintenance of the priests, the Levites, ' Deut. xviii. 3,' says Professor Driver, 'is in conflict with Lev. vii. 32-34.' Now Lev. vii. 32-34, coupled with the immediately foregoing context, appears to give as the priest's portion what is elsewhere technically ex- pressed in the Authorised Version as ' the wave-breast and the heave-shoulder ' because of their ceremonial oblation to Jehovah before the priest takes them. The The Pentatetich after all? 187 shoulder is to be the right shoulder; and the Hebrew expression for 'shoulder' is only used in this sense as a purely technical sacrificial term in Hebrew literature ; also the Hebrew expression for 'breast,' which means more than the English word breast, has no other use at all in Hebrew literature than as a purely technical sacri- ficial term. It is interesting to notice in passing that this Pentateuchal priest's portion was given to Samuel (i Sam. ix. 23, 24). Moses in Deut. xviii. is explaining to the laity the reason why a portion should be given to the priests at all, and enforcing the necessity of this offering from a kindly lay point of view. In speaking of the priest's portion, he does but translate these two purely technical sacrificial terms into ordinary lay language. Voila tout. Again, ' Deut. xviii. 6,' says Professor Driver, ' is incon- sistent with the institution of Levitical cities prescribed in Num. XXXV. It implies that the Levite has no settled residence, but is a "sojourner" in one or other of the cities of Israel.' Further, throughout Deuteronomy 'the Levites are frequently alluded to as scattered about the land, and are earnestly commended to the Israelites' charity.' Consequently, Levitical cities are one of ' the fandamental institutions of P,' which the author of Deuteronomy had never heard of, and with which Moses had nothing to do. But in the first place we may ask, Does Dr. Driver consider that the Levites were to eat their cities ? All these references are kindly commenda- tions of the Levites to the lay people that they should keep the ordinance of Jehovah for the Levites' mamte- nance in return for their special religious services in the office which Jehovah appointed for them. There is no ' charity '* in this, but a kindly commendation to the laity of the principle and reasonableness of Jehovah's com- ^ ' Charity,' both the name and thing, is unknown both to the Old Testament and also to the New Testament. 1 88 Did Moses write inandment. If Jehovah, for a special public religious purpose, has not given the same local right of tribal in- heritance to Levi as to the other tribes, the other tribes are to make it up to them by a cheerful rendering of the tithes and ofterings, which are appointed for them by the law. Instead of the possession of rights by conquest and inheritance, they, because of their office, are to be depen- dent on the gifts of their brethren, which gifts are divinely appointed. But besides this. Num. xxxv. arranges that a gift of cities and their suburbs should be given to them, where they may live, still without private rights of in- heritance, as colleges or corporate bodies, throughout the land, that their services may be everywhere available. It is not propounded that they were to be rigidly secluded within the walls of these cities, else what would be the meaning of the institution at all? Rather were these cities to be centres of civilising and religious influence throughout the land, and six of them were to he a refuge to the manslayer. The Levite would be within the gates of his brethren as a sojourner and stranger even in his own ciiies, but certainly not only in his own cities. The ideal of Moses was the ideal of a great religious and teaching corporation throughout the land to instruct, remind, and elevate the people. Let the reader carefully read Deut. xxxiii. 8-11, and ponder it in this connection. That the ideal came short of its intention to a great extent is due to human frailty. But it is strongly possible that this institution raised the tone and education of the people far beyond what is generally supposed. Moses in Deuteronomy speaks of the Levites generally, commending the reasons of their support to the laity. He does not allude to their cities, because it has been done before, and it was a charge of Joshua's to carry out, which, indeed, was his last work. (4) But ' Deut. xii. 6, 17 ff., and xv. 19 ff. conflict with Num. xviii. 18.' In Numbers the firstlings are given to the priests ; in Deuteronomy, says Professor Driver, the laity 7 he Pentatettch after all? 189 is to eat them at the central sanctuary. But, first, it is plain that the observations of Deut. xii. 6, 17 ff. are general. All offerings and sacrifices are to be brought to the central place that is to be, and eaten there, including the priest's portion and the firstlings. Further, the main point of the passage in Num. xviii. is the non-redemption of the firstlings of oxen, Iambs, and goats, which are the specially sacrificial beasts. Instead of redeeming them, their fat is to be offered as a burnt sacrifice, ap- parently because they are firstlings. And ' their flesh, in the same way as at an ordinary sacrifice, the wave- breast and the right shoulder, is to be given to the priest.' As the redemption-price to be paid to the priest is not intended to be the value of the beast redeemed, but is rather of the nature of a fixed religious tax, so it should seem ' their flesh ' does not mean all their flesh exclusively, but, as in ordinary sacrifices, the priest's portion. This interpretation is upheld by Deut. xv. 19 ff., which renews this regulation from a general lay point of view. The firstlings of the sacrificial beasts are to be brought year by year at the festivals to the central sanctuary, and the laity are to eat their portion there, as well as the priests. (5) The law of tithes 'in Deuteronomy is in conflict with that of P,' says Professor Driver. ' In Deuteronomy there is no injunction as to tithes of animal produce.' In Num. xviii. 21 ii. all tithe in Israel is given to the Levites as a body, and they are to give a tithe of their tithe to Aaron. This is the general law of tithe applicable to all species. The reference given by Dr. Driver, Lev\ xxvii. 30-32, speaks of all vegetable tithe — tithe of seed of the ground, and the fruit of the tree, which may be com- muted with addition of a fifth. Deuteronomy is fully aware of the tithes and offerings which are to sustain the Levitical body (chap. xii. 6, 11). But in a repetition of the same important injunction of a central sanctuary Moses says -.'^ ' Thou shalt not suffice to eat in thy gates * Deut. xii. 17. 190 Did Moses wj^ite the tithe of thy corn and thy vvine and thy oil and the firsthngs of thy oxen and of thy flock, thy vows and thy freewill offering?, or heave-offering of thy hand.' They are to be brought to the central sanctuary, and not offered to and by priests and Levites, and eaten in their own city. They might perhaps think that to bring their sacrifices to the central sanctuary was all that was needed. Moses says not. The eating is not the principal point. It is spoken of generally. The legal apportionment between priest and lay- man is presupposed as sufficiently known and practised. It is possible, too, that the la) man joined in a sacrificial meal with the priest (see injunctions in Lev. vii. 15, 16; compare i Sam. ix. 23, 24) ; or, being coupled with the first- lings, which are to be eaten at the festivals year by year (Deut. XV. 20), there may be a commendation of a second festival tithe, which may have grown up in practice, which festival tithe on the third year is to be devoted to generous and charitable purposes at home (Deut. xxvi. 12). If the reader will steadily bear in mind that these matters are spoken of generally to the people in view of altered circumstances soon to come upon them, he will see no conflict with former legislation here. What is said would probably sound difterently to contemporaries. It would be interpreted to them either by the current practice or by the precept of the Levites. The main object is to promote duty to the Levite, general generosity, and regard for the central sanctuary that is to be. Let the reader bear in mind 'the familiar consideration that he who speaks to a large and mixed audience will take care, if he knows his business, to shun irrelevant details and distinctions' ('Speaker's Commentary,' page 798). Moses would presuppose the legislation, which had been given, in enlarging upon its spirit ; and a reference — even an enlarged and more generous reference — to vegetable produce would not be unnatural with the desert in the past, where was no fertility, and the promised land in view, where was abounding fertility. If there is The Pentateuch after all? 191 anything in this argument as to the tithe, it would seem to point to the legislation of the supposed P being earlier than that of Deuteronomy, as the former school of ' critics ' stoutly asserted it to be. (6) That Moses looked forward to a central sanctuary in the future of the promised land is certain. The taber- nacle was its transitory type. When Israel ceased to live in tents, the tent of the habitation of Jehovah would cease to have raison d'etre. Even the materials of which it was made would not last for ever, or, indeed, for very many years. And in Samuel's time there is indication of its outward shape having in the necessary process of renewing received additions in the direction of making it more permanent and stable (i Sam. iii. 15). The aim of Moses in this centralising system was the aim of a law- giver. He wished to exclude the possibility of local worship of Jehovah degenerating into a kind of spurious polytheism, after the fashion of the evolution of which Egypt was to him and to us a conspicuous example (com- pare Lenorniant, 'Ancient History,' I., pages 318, 323; Maspero, ' Histoire de I'Orient,' page 26 ff. : ' Dans les plus anciens textes religieux qui nous aient ete conserves, la plupart des dieux ne sont plus que des doublures politiques ou geographiques les uns des autres '). There was nothing spiritually wrong in a local altar. As we have seen, the old patriarchal law and custom remains in the legislation. The true and wise policy of Moses was to centralise it. Times of degeneracy and confusion— as it were, the middle ages of the history of Israel— succeed. In these times, or at any other special time, wise and good men did not scruple to build a local altar or to use one. How, for instance, could Elijah do otherwise ? But the centralising system of Moses at once reasserts itself, wherever it is possible. Hence the his- torical reason of the renaissance under Samuel and the monarchy. We are perfectly well aware that Professor Driver and the school of Kuenen and Wellhausen press 192 Did Moses u)rite the times of confusion and degeneracy as being the original type of the legislation of Moses. As well might we press the gross superstitions of the Middle Ages as being the original types of the Christian revelation. Perhaps someone will do this some day. We are also perfectly aware that the school of Wellhausen get rid of the tabernacle by asserting it to be a fiction of pure priestly imagination, and do this against the evidence ; and that they deliberately cut away from the historical books everything that is against this theory. But we are furtlier well aware of another thing — that this is not his torical criticism. Let these gentlemen transfer their method to some other history, and see what the legiti- mate historian has to say to it. So much for D's ignor- ance of ' fundamental institutions of P.' 3. Differences of style and language. There is a great deal of reason for supposing that, however much the author of the Chronicles m.ay be in- clined to epitomise and give the substance"^ — after the fashion of indirect reports of speeches in the House of Commons — the earlier and fresher custom of the first ages was on important occasions to give the actual words as nearly as possible verbatim. This appears from the eminently characteristic style and sometimes even dialect of the speeches recorded. To instance the speeches of Abraham, Sarah, Rebekah, Jacob, Joseph, Balaam will be enough. In each case they are strongly in keeping with the individual character of the speaker, and not in- frec|uently have characteristic expressions. The speech of Jethro (Exod. xviii. 14-23) is a good instance, f Now we have seen good reason for supposing that the rest of the Pentateuch was under the superintendence of Moses, but that here in Deuteronomy we have his own words * The reader is requested to observe that it is not asserted that this is so, but granting that it ;;w4'be so. t Consider the peculiar use of the words ^1;^5, ^p||, and nin- The Pentateuch after all? 193 and compositions ; z>., his final r.ddresses to the people, his ' Song' and his blessing. Precisely in accordance with this supposition are the general phenomena which Professor Driver says he observes in Deuteronomy. He observes ' that the strong and impressive individuality of the writer colours whatever he writes' (page 95). Here is a man of great power disclosed. At the same time, now and again, are traces of the hand that appears in the other parts of the Pentateuch, and especially in Exodus (page 91). So far so good. But there are new words and expressions. If we have here the original hand of Moses more than in the rest of the"Pentateuch, and he is engaged, not in repeating, but bringing out the spirit of the Divine constitution he has given to the people, of course there would be. For ideas require words, and a different aspect of ideas will require different words. Common-sense and the laborious history of New Testa- ment scholarship have finally settled that it is allowed to the same writer to use different words when he wishes to express different ideas. Attention is directed in passing to a point raised against the Mosaic authorship, in that in the preceding books and in the commandment there is only a passing allusion to the love of God as a motive (in the second command- ment), whereas it is the pivot on which Deuteronomy turns (page ']2)). Now this surely is not a very deep criticism. It is true that the school of Wellhausen leaves no facts in the Pentateuch capable of teaching the love of God in any way specially. But it is evident that we are not bound by the school of Wellhausen. The history of Israel during Moses' lifetime is a school of facts intended to teach the love of God. There is the tJii)ig brought about by that experience which worketh hope. It is of more importance than the word. Because Jehovah has first loved, a return of love is become possible, and not only possible, but dutiful. And the object of Moses in 13 194 ^^^^ Moses write his old age, as in the old age of St. John, is to impress this great idea upon his people. For the rest, a careful consideration of Professor Driver's useful phraseological table will bring out that with a few insignificant, possibly idiosyncratic, exceptions (of which rn3> of Israel's redemption, appears to have its new reference from its customary use in the cere- monial law), the new words are those which either convey the spirit of the law, or which look forward to the changed conditions of life which lie in the immediate prospect. The 'Song' and blessing are in the earliest style of poetry, and contain many characteristic ex- pressions and a-rral X^yoi-ieva. The great comparison of Jehovah, the Rock of Israel, and of His care for His people, like to that of an eagle for its young, are surely natural to the experiences of a long residence in the Sinaitic peninsula, and would not be natural to a later writer. The poetic ideahsing of Israel as Jeshurun (appellatio blanda et charitativa) is natural to Moses in his old age, but it would not be natural to later times. Moses in his earlier days showed his power as a poet, a power now matured and mellowed by vigorous age. 4. General considerations of standpoint and likelihood. A great part of the general arguments alleged by Professor Driver have been considered by anticipation. Those that remain may some of them be briefly glanced at. It would be tedious to pursue Professor Driver into the discrepancies alleged on page 79. The reader may perhaps accept the assurance that on any reasonable and fair usage of an ancient record they are no discrepancies at all. Then Professor Driver says Moses could not use 'at that time ' or 'unto this day,' referring to six months ago, when he spoke, six months of rather exciting in- cidents. The best answer is that he does use these ex- pressions, and the interval is sometimes more than six months. Next comes our old friend ' beyond Jordan,' as proving that the speaker in Deuteronomy must have lived The Pentateuch after all? 195 in the land of Canaan. Now it is somewhat curious that so thoroughly able a man as the supposed D, having placed Moses in the land of Moab, and being so complete a master of the art of fiction as he must have been, should not have been able to carry his impersonation out in so small a detail. But as a matter of fact the ex- pression, n^y^, ^11^)^, in the crossing of, from the crossing of, is quite ambiguous. It is used for both sides of the Jordan. It needs to be defined by addition, ' east- wards.' And it has been not unreasonably conjectured that just as ' the sea ' means the west, so ' beyond Jordan '" (^^^^) was a geographical term amongst the Canaanites for the country afterwards known as Perzea, ' the region beyond,' and that alongside the conventional use, the ordinary meaning was retained.* In any case, the fact that the same expression is used in one verse (Numb, xxxii. 19) of both sides of Jordan will show its ambiguity. It does not necessarily imply a speaker in Palestine (' Speaker's Commentary,' in loc). But Deu- teronomy speaks of Dathan and Abiram as warning examples, but does not mention Korah. This is an undesigned coincidence of the reality of the record. Speaking to the laity, Moses omits reference to the sins of the clergy. It is rather his purpose to ingratiate the clergy with his people on the eve of a conquest which might tend, because they had no part in it, to drive them to the wall. The ' development of oratory and prophecy ' is not likely as a product of the Mosaic age. The judgment of Wellhausen's school must necessarily be biased on this point. They have made a clean sweep of the first ages, jumbled all developments on the way to the Captivity, and left the history unintelligible. This is simply a matter of baseless opinion. A man might say that the development of arts and sciences in Egypt in old ■^ We are gratified to observe that Dr. Driver allows this to be 'possible.' See Expositor for May, 1892, page 339. 13—2 iQb Did Moses write time was unlikely, and that it was unlikely they should be in possession of secrets that are hidden from us in metallurgy and pyramid building. The generally received opinion that the forgotten old world were fools is not justified by the facts. The same observation, from a different point of view, applies to the remark that the theological reflection of Deuteronomy is not likely in the Mosaic age. This judgment is necessarily biased, because the critical school have left no subjects for reflection in the Mosaic age ; given the subjects, the theological reflection is natural and necessary. There must have been a considerable time between Exod. xxi.-xxiii. and Deuteronomy. So there was, many years ; but on the almost certain supposition that the passage in Exodus is in great part pre-Mosaic, there would have been much more time. Because Isaiah speaks of a significant pillar or obelisk as connected with the prophetic conversion of Egypt, where signincant obelisks were common and not con- nected with idolatry, therefore he was ignorant of the injunction in Deuteronomy against idolatrous pillars or stones, which were common objects of worship, sometimes enshrined in the temples, in Phoenician and Canaanite forms of idolatry. Let the reader judge. The arguments against the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy appear for the most part to be undesigned coincidences of the hand of Moses in Deuteronomy. We come in the last place to Dr. Driver's ' impression.' Dr. Driver does not seem very happy in his impressions. He has an impression (page 131) 'that the liturgical in- stitutions under which the author of Deuteronomy lived were of a simpler character than those prescribed in P.' Now, as Deuteronomy is addressed to the laity, and as there is no allusion to liturgical institution or ceremonial The Pentateuch after all ? 197 in it at all, and as anything resembling P is carefully excised from it in the tabular analysis of Deuteronomy (page 67), it certainly does not appear where Professor Driver derives his ' impression ' from. In the same way Dr. Driver says, and makes a great point of saying, that Deuteronomy is dependent for its history on J E, i.e.^ that the historical allusions of Deuteronomy are to be found in J E. But as to J E is given the historical part of the preceding portions of the Pentateuch in the main, it does not appear how it could be otherwise. Note C. Spejicer de Legibus Hebrccorum. The treatises of Spencer de Legibus Hebr?eorum, and Michaelis on the ' Laws of Moses,' and Warburton's ' Divine Legation of Moses,' though in some respects perhaps one-sided and not up to the knowledge of the present time, yet have, it may be thought, this merit, that they handle the subject with a broad and instructive grasp of its dignity and interest. They tend to emphasise the conclusion, which in the present day seems to be con- sidered quite out of date, that the laws and constitution of Moses are not a subject of merely archaeological or dry-as-dust research, but a storehouse from which the men of the present day and the politicians of the present day may learn principles and methods of surpassing im- portance and most immediate bearing. Here is food for thought. The spirit and aim and polity conceived in the Pentateuch are a true statesman's manual. He shall learn from them more and better than elsewhere. Here are the fundamental truths which make for the true welfare of nations. Here is, not as the Puritan fathers would have made it, an inelastic pattern of all legislation, but the essential and pervading spirit which should infuse laws made with the one view of the health and happiness of a people. There is a standard raised of a brighter and a purer age. 198 Did Moses write Moses is the father of modern sanitation and popular education, of fairness and equity as between the rich and the poor, of the spirit of true national godliness. The general study of Moses would have saved us from going blindly on towards rocks which threaten shipwreck of the true principles of national happiness. But it is not entirely from the point of view that Dean Spencer thought the explication of the motive and method of the laws of the Hebrews worthy of the greatest care and meditation that we wish to say a few words of his work in this note. It is to illustrate the position taken up in the foregoing chapter, which we trust to be the true one, that inspiration by no means destroys the use of natural faculties, or does away with the necessities which are imposed by the conditions of any given time or environment. The ideas are Divine, but the clothing of them is left to human powers exercised upon the material, which the historical times and the historical localities supply. In striving to arrive at a clear idea of this truth, it is thought that we shall find Dean Spencer an imperfect guide. Sab^anism, which it is instructive to find had for the first time come into prominence in his day from the labours of an eminent contemporary Orientalist, Thomas Hyde,* occupies a place of disproportionate importance in his mind consequently, from which the advance of knowledge has tended for our minds to dislodge it. There is little touch with Saba^an influence to be found in the work of Moses. Also Spencer's knowledge of Egypt was necessarily limited to the reports of Greek writers. The direct interpretation of ancient Egypt, which makes it speak for itself, is a thing of modern times. It is refreshing, perhaps in one aspect a little amusing, * It is probable that Hyde's ' Veterum Persarum et Magorum rcligionis historia' was issued before the * De Legibi's Hebra^orum/ which was first printed in 1685. The Pentateuch after all? 199 to find his learned editor Pfaffius, Chancellor of Tubingen, falling foul of him for 'levity of argument' in assimilating Moses to heathenism, and especially in illustrations drawn from the rites of the Sabieans. He blames him for 'ihe itch for novelty and the itch for conjecture, under the strong influence of which he is content, though a man of ability, to try to sell to the public the mists and smoke of conjectures for the light of proof and certainty.' ' These things,' he says, ' are a stumbling-block to the theologians, who are touched with reverence for the Divine name and the Holy Law.' O si sic omnia, that had come in later years out of Tiibingen and from other places elsewhere, we might even say. But Chancellor Pfaffius grants with justice that Spencer brought by his erudition no small light to the explication of the Hebrew laws. Now it would appear that there have been two schools of thought with regard to the laws of Moses and their relation to the ancient world. The one school treats everything found in them without reference to their historical connection. To this school all of Moses is strictly original. Where resemblances of any kind are traced in other nations of the ancient v/orld, they were all borrowed from Moses. This should seem to be an idea to some extent fathered by Josephus."^ To some extent, again, it may be a conception held vaguely and loosely by many to-day, as seeming only just to any high idea of inspiration. But it is an idea which receives a shock from contact with ancient history. It is quickly found to be untenable. The type shown to Moses in the Mount does not come unconditioned from heaven. It is con- ditioned by the mind, the education, and the surroundings of Moses himself. He has to use Egyptian arts to embody it ; he has to accommodate it to the existing state of his people's progress. And then the pendulum of * See Josephus against Apion (Whiston's translation), page 822. 200 Did Moses W7n'te opinion sways to the other extreme. The man who is shaken in an unfounded opinion, finding so much of earth, begins to hold feebly that there is any of heaven. He forgets that there is a higher note of inspiration still that touches all to purify all. He forgets the deep truth that lies in the poet's words : ' Though truths in manhood darkly join, Deep seated in our mystic frame, We yield all blessing to the name Of Him that made them current coin.' But the intellectual Pharisaism that would desire to find more true inspiration in a segregated rather than a selected people, in original unearthly institutions rather than humanly conditioned ones, derives no support from the Pentateuch. There is no such thing, strange as the statement may at first sight appear, as separativeness in the Pentateuch. It is the republication, with the added light of further revelation, of truths that once were common property. It is the noble doctrine of Moses himself, who rises infinitely higher in genius and greatness than perhaps some of us perceive, that God has never wholly broken with the other nations. God's continuous presidency over the whole world and all that are therein is the prevailing theme of all His holy prophets since the world began. ' When the Most High gave an inheritance to the nations and separated the sons of Adam, He established the boundaries of the peoples with reference to the number of the sons of Israel, for the portion of Jehovah is His people, Jacob is the line of His inherit- ance ' (Deut. xxxii. 9). The segregation, which is legally prescribed in the Pentateuch, is not Pharisaical. It is from the point of view of a lawgiver to avoid dangers which the historical experience of ancient times (Gen. vi. 1-6), and of times nearer to the lawgiver in the history of Israel in Egypt,''*' has shown to be real, and to threaten * Bertheau (Geikie's * Hours with the Bible,' II., page 1 14) is reported to go so far as to think that Moses in his The PentateMch after all? 201 to overwhelm the knowledge of the living God. The ' stranger ' is to be kindly regarded, according to the law of Moses. The other school of thought on this subject, of which Dean Spencer is a typical example, see so much of Egyptian and other influences in the Mosaic legislation that they become blinded in some degree to its unsullied brightness and originality. It seems to them a thing im- possible for Jehovah to cleanse by using the ' common ' and earthly elements, which He takes up to make the types and symbols of His presence amongst His chosen people. In this way of thinking Moses did but let them down easily. He desired to wean them from idolatry by adopting its forms, that they might gradually achieve the higher standpoint. The two supposed main aims of Moses are thus given by Dean Spencer. He rightly and most justly thinks that a reason is to be carefully sought as the motive of the Hebrew laws ; but to him it is no clothing of the eternal idea, but only a ' transitory and temporary ' reason. He gives as his object in writing, ' Leges Mosaicas non sine ratione, quanquam mutabili et temporaria, datas evincere.' Moses for him is a temporiser, who seeks to abolish idolatry by a certain 'condescension' to the Israehtes' weakness. ' Per av^Ka-a^aaiv illam Israehtas a gentium idolis et ceremoniis se7ismi et stiaviter avocare studuit, quos statim et cum violentia quadam avellere non potuit.' He only allows us a secondary and less important motive, to raise the standard of immutable truth. ' Secundaria ratio ut legis istius ritus et instituta rerum altiorum aKiaypa12 is apparently used for precisely the same Egyp- tian article of commerce in i Kings x. 28. We know ' the best Hebraists ' adopt another rendering ; but the word is singular, and the LXX. make a shot at its meaning, and say something about Tekoa, which, possibly, was the place of a horse-fair in Jerusalem, after their manner when they are at sea. Their shot by no means implies another reading, but is after their manner. When the meaning of the root is considered (Hip, torsit ; compare T\'\T:>T\, Joshua ii. 18, 'cord'), and the celebrity of this Egyptian article of commerce, of which otherwise no mention could be made, the Authorised Version may not be so much out after all. Moreover, the word * merchants ' TJie Pentateuch after all? 227 (D'^'inD) sounds strangely in connection with horses, though, indeed, in one passage of Ezekiel merchants are spoken of in connec- tion with lambs and rams and goats ; but is not the usage somewhat peculiar ?* JHD and y\l occur in later use of fine linen. Akin to this subject: Dpi, to embroider; n*lD, to spin. Later in Proverbs the word for spindle is ni^''^. nii:n:D, bonnets. (c) Ceremonial and legal words : ^^t^^D, anointing oil. niH, breast. JIH^ti^, rest. p1^, in technical sense of shoulder. n^^jH, wave-offering ; twice in Isaiah in different sense. HI-UK, bunch (of hyssop) ; elsewhere in different sense, pip, offering. mSiOltO, front- lets. A considerable number of words relating to diseases and defects, such as 11J, mn^j pni.nnip, p^ ^J^^t^^, of a sin of ignorance; later usage, error. ''^Ip, against or contrary. "^ Would not the probable translation and meaning stand thus : 'As for the bringing of the horses which were for Solomon out of Egypt, and as to linen yarn, the king's merchants {i.e., who had the monopoly) took (and nego- tiated) linen yarn at a price {i.e., as merchandise bought and sold at the current market value). A chariot, how- ever, was raised (came up), and came out of Egypt (not in the hands of the king's merchants) by contract, at the fixed contract price named, and a horse the same, and at the same contract price they brought out by the hands of Solomon's servants for all the kings of the Hittites and for the kings of Syria' ? 1^—2 2 28 Did Moses write n"*/by, neighbour or fellow (once in Zech. xiii. 7, in same sense, but different construction; *the man of my society,' i.e., my equal and asso- ciate). D1^, blemish. ^1D, to wax poor. Difi (Hiphil), to divide the hoof There is a group of words which tend to show the pre- Mosaic importance of the family and its rights : 7X)l ; nn, uncle ; niH, father's sister ; M^ T\12'2\ brother-in-law, sister-in-law, and the verb to ' perform the duty of a brother-in-law ' from it ; jnn, near relation by marriage ; t^^X, to be- troth ; ^n^, to endow ; ^T\12, dowry. Some of these words are peculiar to the Pentateuch ; others chiefly in the Pentateuch and derived from it. There are many antiquated names of animals. Now it is submitted that these words stand in exact parallel and analogy to the technical words found in the Authorised Version. To make clear what is meant : ^T» T\T\^^ D'^t^^p are derived from obsolete or very rare roots (in the case of HD'lS traces of the root are only found in the Pentateuch). 11 is of uncertain, but probably ancient etymology. The same or a similar remark applies to the majority of the instances given. And sometimes the same words are used in a changed sense in the later language, as has been pointed out. The argu- ment stands thus : if the quaint technical The Pentateuch after all? 229 words of the Authorised Version, derived from old roots, are evidence — as they undoubtedly are— to the age of the Authorised Version, the Pentateuch presents phenomena in every way analogous. The list given is not in any sense exhaustive,* and may be indefinitely increased. {d) Antiquated ordinary words: C^H, to tread out corn. tOl^, to lend ; later, ni7, in Hiphil. "]n3, rigour. "^W to die ; an old, peculiar word, found in Job and three other places elsewhere. pS^, to wring the neck. D'lS, to rend of clothes; later, l?np, and also in Pentateuch. D!D"1, to bind. tmS, dung; later, r\'^\i. ^'^^^ or y'lS^. p^^, to 'furnish liberally.' pi" and ^l^'^, to spit (a custom, apparently, of undue prominence in Israel in Egypt). The prominence of SpD and D^l, to stone, the somewhat crude form of death-penalty which had sprung up amongst the somewhat unciviUsed families of Israel m Egypt; neither word is found in Genesis. r\'\Ti1::i, in the sense of reservoir ; in the later language HDni is used for the same thing. nSlD, burdens. pH/tale,' or measure of bricks. ^ The appearance in Ezekiel of words otherwise peculiar to the Pentateuch is considered in Note A to this chapter. It is also to be considered that those who invented the tabernacle according to Wellhausen, must have invented the bulk of the language that describes it. 230 Did Moses write HDD^, number or value. X^pD, ' convocation,' with the epithet ' holy.' ^V^, to bore, and its derivative ^t~\l2, an awl. p^, kind. D^^, tribute. ^>f, a ship, with other peculiarities of expression in Balaam's speeches ; elsewhere three times ; most probably quotations, as that in Daniel is certainly. The usual word is Jl^'^X- pDX, mischief. D**^DX, storehouses or barns ; quoted once in Proverbs. 7-)11, standard of tribes (once in ' the Song of Solomon ') ; later, D^, which is used thrice in the Pentateuch in slightly different sense. 11DT, male. H^T, in the sense of lewdness. ^^^, to feel. X'^lp, renowned ; elsewhere, ' men of name '; later, ^^^5, which occurs in Exod. xv. 10 in a different sense. tO*]^, windfall, or stray fruit ; 1^^, ashes ; pro- bably derived from the Pentateuch in its later use. nj^, foetus. /TlS, fringe, or riband. "yy^, in sense of ' mixed multitude,' and, differently pointed, '■ swarms.' ^^^^C, bracelet ; later, probably, T\\W . D^^, bone, in the sense * self-same, or very.' tO^t^, to release ; later, in a different sense ; and the noun HJO^C^, release. H/jD, in the sense 'peculiar people,' 'people of treasure ' (Exod. xix. 5) ; in Deut., when the idea of inheritance is coming into view for the people, the idea of the people themselves being the inheritance of Jehovah is added. H^V, to swell ; also DM, to swell. tD^^, to kick. "I'^yi, The Pentateuch after all? 231 beasts. Hlpn, scourgincr. :21T, to flow ; chiefly in Pentateuch. XJtO, 7D, basket ; later words for basket: lU l^D, HH- 5]X body, in the expression (in Exod. xxi. 3, 4) ^^^2, by him- self. TTsX twenty gerahs to shekel. 7^3, principally in Leviticus, 'to abhor.' H^D, lending, master of lending = creditor (Deut. XV. 2) ; later, H^l The prominence of TTS"^ as characterising the ' heroic poetry,' which is the prevaiUng poetry of the Pentateuch ; else in manifest allusion or different sense. n^X cud. n^D, to draw out ; Exod. ii. 10, and two manifest allusions to it only. H^I^H, trans- lated 'fellowship.' The prominence of ^\y^ *1)1' to sojourn, sojourner, and their derivatives. N*1^ to disallow. C|ni:, to drop down as rain. "|"l^n, tip. pwV, in sense of ' weight '; afterwards D73, S):S, abomination. f]7y, to break the neck, nSllt:, circumcision., 7K of a flint knife. D^^nX, midwife's stool ^^T^. in the sense of ' times.' nS, ' natural force,' moisture. DDH, to muzzle ; once in Ezekiel in a difl'erent sense, p^, to swarm, and its derivative noun. n:iX^, scarce- ness. ^T>, to radiate, shine, like horns, of Moses' face only, in Exod. xxxiv. (hence through Vulgate, ' cornutam Moysi faciem,' the absurd notion of a horned Moses, perpetuated in Michael Angelo's sculpture) ; also H^iD^, here only of Moses' vail. (The earlier word for vail 232 Did Moses write in Genesis is t|*^l?^ ; a later word, ^TH^, of women's vails.) IXC^, a blood relation. HH^, to cut in pieces, and its noun (Pentateuch mostly; elsewhere probably derived). HU, to sprinkle (Pentateuch mostly). rT^ti^, to be un- mindful (the ordinary word to forget, H^^). DHC demons ; for which Isaiah has D''*'^. 71X1^, Azazel; l^^X, Abib, the names of the months being changed later, p^l^^ Jeshurun. nnntri?, flocks. There is not the slightest pretension to com- pleteness in this list. If the reader will have the kindness to add all the peculiarities in all Professor Driver's lists, which have, more or less purposely, been scarcely touched, he will get a completer idea. And many more curious words and expressions may be added still. Now it is again submitted that these words and expressions stand in a position exactly parallel and equivalent to the archaic expres- sions of ordinary language in the Authorised Version. And it is suggested that in many instances they are far more characteristic and suggestive in their archaic flavour. But, even so, the reader will not rightly appreciate the force of these things unless he carefully bears in mind that a great mass of words and ideas, very common and ordinary to later times, have no place at all in any way in the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch after all? 233 'They belong to later times. So the Pentateuch has words and ideas not found elsewhere ; later times have words and ideas not found in the Pentateuch. It is obvious that the proof of this cannot be given here, because it would take up too much space ; but the proof is easy. (2) There are words in the Pentateuch that in later times have weakened or changed meaning. tO^C^, to release, is used in later times in a different sense, to shake or throw. H^*!^, idle, Exod. V. (is used peculiarly Exod. iv. 26). The general sense of n^l, later, is to be feeble or to weaken. Other words for ' idle ' later, n^iy, in a bad sense, guile ; in Proverbs, in a good sense, wisdom, prudence. |*n5, in the sense of spreading abroad, growing ; later, to break, or urge. ^hT\, to discomfit ; slightly different elsewhere. VIPI, maimed ; elsewhere in different sense. H/H, to draw water ; later, in metaphorical sense, ilNt^, being used commonly in literal sense. [1?, in Niphal and Hiphil, in peculiar sense, ' to murmur ' (' con- tumacem se gessit manendi et persistendi sig- nificatu'); later, in Hiphil, to cause to lodge, harbour; hence, noun only in Pentateuch, ni^/H- ^D1D> chastisement ; later, tends to- wards weaker sense of instruction. |!l7, to make bricks ; later, different, to be white. 2 34 Did Moses write ^ly^T\T\, to make merchandise ; Piel, in Psalm, to bind sheaves. m^, to He in wait ; after usage sHghtly different. I^X, once in primi- tive sense of wandering, nomad ; else generally, to perish ; compare the stronger sense the word * damn ' has attained. T\l2r\, to throw, over- throw ; later, to shoot, of bows. JltO^, beneath of position ; later, slightly different. IHT, to teach ; later, to warn. I^p, in Pentateuch, to bind ; later, in sense of combination, to con- spire. The passive and Pual participle is used in Genesis only in the sense of ' strong.' D^p, to happen ; the use of this word seems in some respects peculiar. There is a slight archaic flavour in the use of ^"Ip, ^l^p, compared with their later use. ^^H, to keep a feast, is used later in a derived sense, of that which accom- panies feasting. ri/v^, in peculiar use in Deut. xxii. 14, 17, ' occasions ' of speech ; later, ' works,' ' doings.' These things, slight in themselves, if taken together and with other examples to be offered out of Genesis, would seem to be precisely parallel to the changes of meaning observable in the current use of certain English words from their meaning in the Authorised Version. The reader is requested to consider that the variations of the Authorised Version are slight in themselves. The Pentateuch after all? 235 (3) There are archaic forms and turns of expression. The reader is requested to observe that these are matters of common observation, not con- fined to the so-called ' conservative ' school, or any other school. Such men as Ewald and Gesenius are sufficiently delivered from the imputation of party leaning. It will be a hard matter for Professor Driver to obliterate them from the Pentateuch, because they are there. {a) Ewald gives the following : The common use of Sx for the later n?^, ' these.' The old termination C the original and fuller form ') of the third person plural of verbs in IV This use is more common in the Pentateuch than in any other book. A special archaism in the speech of Moses is its use in the perfect Jl^n^ (Deut. viii. 3, 16). (6) Gesenius gives the following : Kin, ' he,' used as a feminine for 'she,' X^H, 195 times in the Pentateuch. "11?^, masculine, boy, used for feminine, H^l?! The reader is requested attentively to observe the close parallelism of the use of ' his ' for ' its ' in the Authorised Version. pH^^, p^^, have in the later books preferentially softer forms, pl?T, '^T\'V . (c) Keil gives the following infinitive of verbs : In the verbs n = S in •) or H, instead of later ni. This is a more primitive form. 236 Did Moses write Others are : The shortening of the Hiphil, nsnS (Deut. i. 33), n^!?S (Deut. xxvi. 12). nX/!2, hundred, used in the construct case, where it is ordinarily used absolutely (Driver, pai^ei24). D'^^Sc^, third. The older form, n^D, lamb, interchanged with the later form, ^M. The older form ^IDT, male, for ^DT. The old case- endings, n» ''> 1. n accusative (called T\ locale), more frequent in the Pentateuch than elsewhere; in the later language its original sense tends to become weakened and almost obliterated, and it is used with the prepositions !}, 7, of place or direction ; *• in '^yi, ^^X? **^D^ (in these words, and words hke them, more often in the Pentateuch) ; i, ' in prose only in the Penta- teuch ' (Gesenius), ^^2. in^'H.* These forms and turns of archaic phraseo- logy are, as it should seem, entirely on a foot- ing with similar forms and turns of archaic phraseology in the Authorised Version. The recurrence of some of them in the later, generally poetic, language, does not destroy the force of their significance as proofs of the * Roediger's 'Gesenius,' pages 195-199. Dr. Driver in the May Expositor, 1892, page 340, points out, indeed, that these case-endings occur in the later language, chiefly in poetry. But this by no means does away with the fact that these ' old-case endings ' occur in prose only, or chiefly, in the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch after all? 237 age of a document. The occurrence of such expressions as ' saith,' ' hath,' ' abode,' ' attcnt ' in modern EngHsh, or EngHsh later than the Authorised Version, by no means takes away from their significance, taken together with their contextual stui'oundmgs, of their occur- rence in the Authorised Version as signs of its age. (4) The book of Genesis is set apart from the rest of the Pentateuch by sHght indications of its phraseology. (a) There are antiquated words in it which do not even occur in the rest of the Penta- teuch, and have other words in use for them in the later language. Hpl^ri, the ' desire ' of wife towards husband, younger brother towards elder probably (Gen. iii. 16 ; iv. 7) ; quoted in Song of Songs vii. 10 only. A not quite equivalent synonym in use later is r\)^T\, which is used peculiarly in Genesis, and only in the sense of ' lust ' in the Pentateuch. This last word is used generally in a good sense in the later language. ^*im, thistle ; only else in a manifest quotation in Hosea; the later word for thistle is niH- IH^, emptiness, in phrase )r\2) inn, without form and void. Later, in two quotations. H^ 7X, God Almighty ; once in a reference, Exod. vi. 3 ; n^ occurs by itself later, chiefly in Job and 238 Did Moses zvrite allusions to Genesis. H^P, of Noah's ark ; else only Exod. ii., of the ark in which Moses was laid. ^D, of a camel's pillion or litter ; else- where in Pentateuch, a lamb. The word for ' lamb ' in Genesis is HtT, n^a:D, ^^^ vhll^ bdellium. Su^, the flood. n:n and "1^^, corn ; not elsewhere in Pentateuch ; but pi, which is also used in Genesis. N**"!!}, fat ; not elsewhere in Pentateuch, where j^t^* occurs in the same sense. D^J^, ten times, ^^)^^^s, sack; elsewhere, p^. ^p, cold ; elsewhere, 'pr\T), H^V- D"'D3, of many colours (probably of its shape). iriD, prison ; later, HnpS, "11^. ^HS, to interpret. toS, myrrh ; ^^, later, probably for the same thing, but perhaps a. different kind. D'^JD, true men. D'^^lJtO^, savoury meat. H^X gopher wood. *1SD, pitch ; elsew^here different in sense in Pentateuch, and later ; the word used in Exod. ii. of the pitch which the mother of Moses used for her ark is nST. There are many other instances of the same kind, and many a peculiar old-world expression and ancient name, geographical and personal, peculiar to Genesis, only in the Pentateuch. ' To be fruitful and multiply ' is a phrase characteristic of Genesis. Brass and iron are only mentioned once in Genesis. (jb) There are words with changed meaning, even in the Pentateuch, and in the sense they The Pentateuch after all? 239 bear, often their primitive sense, used only in Genesis. The use of D'^ip, nests, for the com- partments of the ark ; elsewhere, of birds' nests. HIT, in its primitive sense, to stew or seethe pottage ; elsewhere in Pentateuch, to be proud, act presumptuously, but not so used in Genesis. ^^1 is the word to seethe, both in the rest of the Pentateuch and later. n^'Vj nn*'^, in its primitive sense, of what is caught in hunting; else in the Penta- teuch and later in general sense, of victuals. SS^, to confound ; elsewhere in Pentateuch, to mix. "h^, of Adam's rib or side (probably not rib) ; elsewhere in Pentateuch and later of things only, side or side-chamber. tTtO^, to instruct ; elsewhere, to sharpen in literal sense, pi, thin, literally ; elsewhere, small. pSI, to overdrive; later, to knock. nn3, Hiphil, in sense of making wide, expanding; in Gen. ix. 27, nS^S T\^\ ' may God, or God shall make wide room for Japheth ' (whose name means extension).* To be wide or open is the primitive sense of HHi}, but elsewhere in Pen- * It may not be out of place to make a remark here about the etymologies of Genesis and elsewhere, which the ' critic ' will have none of. The etymologies are often valid enough. But often they may not be intended to be etymologies in the strict sense. Their main object is to affix an instructive and notable significance to a name. It is the significance of names that is dwelt upon. 240 Did Moses write tateuch it is to be deceived, to entice ; not in this sense in Genesis. [HS in Gen. vi. 3, * My spirit shall not rule for ever in man ;' probably in primitive sense of * rule,' from which is de- rived the usual meaning, to judge. D?^, of the * image ' in which God made man, or the ' image ' he transmits to posterity ; elsewhere, in Numbers, and later, of idol images, or in a bad sense. Ml^^, of the ' likeness ' in which man was made, and which he transmits to posterity ; later, appearance, fashion, of things. M/X Niphal, Gen. xxxv. 7, ' God revealed Him- self to him ' ; in Deuteronomy, in participle and passive sense, only in Pentateuch. piX, used after of 'the ark,' is used in Genesis only of a mummy-case, or coffin. tOiH, to embalm, is used in Song of Songs in the sense to ripen (the radical meaning, to spice, or season, being used of mellowing fruit), p^, to deliver ; in Proverbs different ; in Hosea probably quoted. (c) There are old forms. Eve (like Jehovah, from an old form, T\\T\, to be) comes from an old form of niH, to live. T\\T\ also occurs once in Genesis. There are probably also many peculiarities of usage of slight archaic flavour separating Genesis even in the Pentateuch ; e.g., in the use of prepositions. The reader is begged also to consider that words of very usual occurrence The Pentatettcli after all? 241 in the rest of the Pentateuch do not occur in Genesis. It is submitted that all these things, small in amount, and perhaps often slight in degree, are yet more strongly significant of archaic flavour than the archaisms observable in the Author- ised Version, which they resemble in kind.* But there is yet another source of evidence in the Pentateuch. Contact with Egypt, we have seen, to some extent brought amongst the / ihildren of Israel Egyptian art and fashions ; / put it also brought Egyptian language. From //the time when this contact begins to the time /it ceases there is a steady introduction of I Egyptian words. Hence (5) there are words of Egyptian and not Hebrew derivation introduced from Egypt into the Pentateuch, some of which are con- tinued in the later language, and some of which are confined to the Pentateuch. This is also a matter of fact, of which no doubt can be enter- tained. It is not an invention of the ' con- servative ' school, it is a matter of common observation. Some of them may be given : IPlX, Nile grass. 'T|nn^^, the Egyptian word for hailing * On the general subject of the book of Genesis the reader may consult ' Quarry on Genesis,' which is not out of d ate. 16 42 Did Moses write Joseph. ^IXS river; used of the Nile. Ht^tt, probably from mesu, a son (which Egyptian word has its root idea ' drawn out,' produced, brought forth, and is cognate to the Hebrew root ^tr^, ntr;^, Xt^:i, possibly ^1^, trD^^), in which case the princess's words would mean, * Here is a son, as it were, produced (or born) to me from the waters ' of the river — a river deemed sacred. This would be the reference of the significant name Moses ; or else the LXX., writing in Egypt, may have been right in the derivation through the Coptic Mcoucr^?, 'water saved.' HST, pitch, possibly I^H, * slime.' T\^T\, a cradle (also used of Noah's ark), said to be a common word in Egyptian. D^D or p, translated Mice'; identified with Egyptian chenemms, mosquito. Jt^^D, 'fur- nace,' probably from Egyptian kabusa, carbo. To these add the Egyptian proper names, which have their significance in Egyptian only, and a considerable number of other words of like kind to those given.* The coincidences with the Egyptian history of the monuments in the Pentateuch, though not of equal certainty in all their parts, are * The reader may consult with advantage on this subject Canon Cook's ' Essay on the Egyptian Words in the Pentateuch,' in vol. i. of the ' Speaker's Commentary,' which it is more easy to pooh-pooh than to ignore. The Pciitatetich after all? 243 yet worthy of the careful attention of anyone who wishes to attain the truth on the whole question. Now, of the foregoing facts, which by no means in any sort of way exhaust the subject, but do but suggest its bearing, there is one meaning. Taken together, they bear witness both to the age and to the importance of the Pentateuch as a document and as a whole. Their relative slightness and smallness in amount point to the fact that this document has for many centuries fixed the Hebrew language of what is called the golden age. But, on the other hand, their clear significance as archaisms sets a distance of time between them and the later products of Hebrew litera- ture. The characteristic combination of true variations with comparative slightness of varia- tion indicates this. The character of the language is still stronger evidence against the Pentateuch being to a great extent a product of the silver age of the Hebrew language, the age just preceding and just after the Captivity. From the standpoint of mere abstract pos- sibiHty, we might interpret these observed varia- tions perhaps in other ways. But the strong historical analogy of the archaisms of the 16 — 2 244 Did Moses write Authorised Version teaches us how to read the meaning of the facts. The Pentateuch in every part presents us with the exact phenomena which historical analogy teaches us to expect in every ancient document, which by its importance has set for ages the style and language of a national literature. For the rest, the true and most interesting historical lessons and inferences, which the language of the whole Hebrew literature is calculated to teach the accurate observer, seem to us to resemble some imperfectly explored country, which the theoretical critic has traversed indeed, but from which, owing to the colour of his spectacles'^ and the complete absorption of his attention in seeking the phantoms and creatures of his own imagina- tion, he has brought back no correct or satis- factory account of the flora and fauna. It is conceivable that an able man, who should equip an expedition into the northern seas to find the sea-serpent,t might return compara- tively empty of true observations of the creature life that was really there, but possibly with a good number of views on other subjects, which the public might be inclined on the whole to * He will have nothing ancient. •{ If that be not a mythical beast, then some other. TJie Pentateuch after all? 245 take at a discount upon a review of the whole case. 5. It will not escape observation that a greater stress is laid by recent criticism upon his- torical considerations. The ' critics ' of to-day tend to express their argument somewhat as follows : Points of style and language, they say, may either have too shadowy and too sub- jective an existence, or may be susceptible, and equally susceptible, of another explanation from that given. In themselves they are not abso- lutely decisive. Cumulative probability results from their multiphcation. But in the historical field, it is said, the critical conclusions find their stricter confirmation. The history of Israel is the stronger ground of the critical evidences. The history of Israel down to the Captivity is supposed to be incompatible with the integrity, or even the pre-existence, of a great part of what is known as the Mosaic legislation. ' The pre-exilic period shows no indications of the legislation of P as being in operation,' we arc told (Driver's * Introduction,' page 129). *The consistent disregard of P in Deuter- onomy,' we are told again, ' admits of but one interpretation ' (page 76), and that is that the author of Deuteronomy did not know of P, which was in his time in no important way existent. That is, the argument runs thus: 246 Did Moses write because the author of Deuteronomy, addressing a large and mixed audience upon the spirit of their constitution, does not mention the cere- monial institutions more or less in every-day usage amongst them, therefore they did not exist. Just so might we argue that if an eminent English lawyer, addressing a general audience on the spirit of English law and English religion, and going into some detail, should never mention ecclesiastical ceremonies which were taking place every day, or the Prayer-Book system and its rubrics, that would be an argument that they did not exist. And yet he might readily do this from an opinion that the outward framework of ceremony was every day impressing itself practically upon the people, but that the spirit and meaning and social bearing of these things upon social life and action was what needed emphasis and exposition. The Archbishop of Canterbury's Church Congress speeches will lie ready to the hand of some future critic in this matter. He will be able to prove from them that the Arch- bishop never gave any ritual judgment of elaborate order at all, because his was not even a legal mind, and he did not even know of the existence of the Prayer Book, which a partisan press mythically record him to have expounded. Again, we are told, the materials for the The Pentateuch after all? 247 early history of Israel are, for these reasons, so uncertain that it is best to discard the existing historical records, and to piece the real history together from the prophets.* And the historical principles that underlie this proceeding are plainly twofold. It goes upon the suppositions that (i) historic silence and (2) historic con- tradictory usage prove the non-existence of legislation, or the mythical nature of a his- torical record. It is supposed to be a safe historical inference that where there are no allusions in history to certain legislation, or where there is evidence in history of usages, or customs, or practices clearly inconsistent with such legislation, there there is proof of its non-existence. There is, it is supposed, excellent reason for imagining that 'the P legislation ' had its full observance during the four hundred years before our Lord, where there are no sufficient historical allusions of any kind to determine what was the contem- porary custom, and during which time the local synagogue and the authority of Rabbinism, and of scribes and lawyers, and of Pharisees, were the growing national influences. But before this time there are no traces of its * E.g., in Kuenen's 'Religion of Israel'; and Well- hausen in the Preface to the ' Prolegomena ' speaks of the real history of Israel as ' rude and colourless.' 248 Did Moses write being in operation, from Solomon's age down- wards. And, on the contrary, there are things found in the history contrary to * its funda- mental institutions.' (i) Historical silence and (2) historical inconsistency are supposed to be proofs of the non-existence of a law. Now, these principles may be tested. They may be brought, not theoretically, but actually, into relation with facts that are certain. They may be compared with the facts of historical analogy. We must treat every other history as we treat the Sacred History. We must treat every other book as we treat the Sacred Book. Let us look at these arguments a little more closely from this point of view, and let us take the argument from historical silence first. I. The argument from historical silence is an old friend. We some of us remember what great things used to be wrought out of ' the silence of Eusebius.' But it may apparently be pushed too far. Let us therefore attentively examine {a) what is the exact import and manner of the argument applied to the Old Testament ; {h) what is the verdict of historical analogy upon the value which the argument so applied has, as a critical method of inquiry, calculated to secure true and trustworthy results ; and (c) in what sense are the facts of the Hebrew history and literature corre- The Pentateuch after all? 249 spondent to what this argument asserts of them. {a) We are not left in doubt as to the manner and attitude of mind in which the argument is appHed. Wellhausen in an interesting auto- biographical passage tells us how he went about his ' investigations.' The reader is asked atten- tively to observe what follows. Wellhausen says :* * It may not be out of place here to refer to my personal experience. In my early student days I was attracted by the stories of Saul and David, Ahab and Elijah; the discourses of Amos and Isaiah laid strong hold on me, and I read myself well into the prophetic and his- torical' {i.e., later) 'books of the Old Testament. Thanks to such aids as were accessible to me, I even considered that I understood them toler- ably, but at the same time I was troubled with a bad conscience, as if I were beginning with the roof instead of the foundation, for I had no thorough acquaintance with the Law, of which I was accustomed to be told that it was the basis and postulate of the whole literature. At last I took courage and made my way through Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and even through Knobel's Commentary to these books. But it was in vain that I looked for the light which was to be shed from this source on the * Wellhausen's ' Prolegomena,' Introduction, page 3. 250 Did Moses write historical ' {i.e., later) ' and prophetical books. On the contrary, my enjoyment of the latter was marred by the Law ; it did not bring them any nearer me, but intruded itself uneasily, like a ghost that makes a noise indeed, but is not visible, and really effects nothing. Even where there were points of contact between it and them, differences also made themselves felt, and I found it impossible to give a candid decision in favour of the priority of the law. Dimly I began to perceive that throughout there was between them all the difference that separates two wholly distinct worlds. At last, in the course of a casual visit in Gottingen in the summer of 1867, I learned through Ritschl that Karl Heinrich Graf placed the Law later than the prophets ; and almost without knowing his reasons for the hypothesis I was prepared to accept it. I readily acknowledged to my- self the possibility of understanding Hebrew antiquity without the book of the Torah.' We observe here that a false historical method led to a purely aesthetic and theoretical conception, which led in turn to an immediate reception of a theory without any examination of the argu- ments for it. This is the genesis of the great Wellhausenian hypothesis. To support this by ' brilliant ' arguments was henceforth a fore- gone conclusion. The Pentateuch after all? -':) There is an originality in speaking of the simplicity, the beauty, and the graciousncss of the Law, in its time-honoured histories and its noble inspiring principles, as ' like a ghost that makes a noise indeed, but is not visible, and really effects nothing,' which is more striking than apposite. Reverence and depth of intui- tion are not characteristics of Wellhausen's manner. But the historical method employed is demonstrably false, and the purely aesthetic and theoretic conclusion does not follow. The proof lies in historical analogy. A critic may be imagined in some future century who might first study the period of history in which we live— the latter part of the nineteenth century. He might find that in it he met with things that were real and congenial to his under- standing. He might then turn with a sigh to a study of the Elizabethan period, which might not be so much to his mind. He might ' begin to dimly perceive that throughout there was between the Elizabethan period and the nine- teenth century all the difference which separates two whole worlds.' He might then come casually across somebody who had a theory that the hterature of the Elizabethan period was a product of the development of the nine- teenth century. He might swallow this theory at once, without examining the arguments. -0- Did Moses write He might then by ' brilliancy ' of criticism clear the Elizabethan period of its literature and its history, and find the ' real ' history ' rude and colourless.' And he might then * readily ac- knowledge to himself the possibility of under- standing the nineteenth century without the Elizabethan period.' But before the bar of serious historical criticism and research he would lay himself open to being convicted of a false historical method and a superficial temper of mind. Behind the nineteenth century there lies, not perhaps so much expressed as rather deeply implied and understood, the history and literature of the Elizabethan period — the ad- mixture of races, Roman law, village community custom. Church history, and a thousand other influences that make together the history of the nation. ' BrilHant ' criticism on behalf of a foregone conclusion might find but few and uncertain allusions to these things in the cur- rent literature and politics of modern England. But to scientifically understand modern Eng- land without them would be an impossibility. The conclusion does not follow. (6) But we are fortunately not left to any picture of what might be in our estimate of the historical and scientific validity of this process. A gentleman has offered himself as an experi- mentiun crucis in corpore vili. The precise The Pentateuch after all? 253 Wellhausenian method has been employed in another department of history, which for us in England has been too much illuminated by soHd scholarship to make the result as to its value seem to most of us doubtful. The reader is earnestly invited to carefully notice that what follows is exactly the Wellhausenian method, only applied to other matter. He is begged to mark the result. A certain gentle- man named ' Edwin Johnson, M.A.,' has re- cently (in 1890) had a book published from the office of Kegan Paul, Trench and Co., called * The Rise of Christendom.' In it he proves by 'brilliant' criticism that just as in Well- hausen's critical researches 'Judaism' is the corporation from which the Pentateuch for the most part takes its rise, so, to use his own words, the following conclusion is arrived at : ' Christianism,' he says, ' is the system of a corporation ; it is the theory of the primitive monks ; no other primitive Christians are to be ascertained' (Preface, page ix.). Mr. Johnson, too, favours us with an interesting autobio- graphical account of the way in which this conviction dawned upon him, and of the method of his critical researches.* ' In 1886 I occupied myself in finding an answer to a question propounded by the Teyler Theological ^ Pages 4, 5, and 46 chiefly. 254 Did Moses write Society of Haarlem. The student was required by the conditions of the question to close the New Testament, and to ascertain the origin of Christianity from the Christian and from the Graeco-Roman writers of the second century. I found that the Imperial writers, so to call them for convenience' sake, know nothing of the New Testament, nothing of those strong dramatic representations which have been familiar to us from childhood, as derived from hearing or reading the Church lessons. Chris- tianity was a system of mystical ideas derived from a capricious exegesis of Old Testament writings.' Mr. Johnson then proceeded to carry his studies into Eusebius, the first Church historian, a.d. 315. ' My previous results,' he says, ' were confirmed by the study of Eusebius. I saw the canonical books were still unknown, except in a bare scheme,* to this writer, who pretends to be contemporaneous with Con- stantine ; and that he had no historical sources whatever. But this writer lays bare the great historical dogma of the Church, which from the first governed all its enterprises, both of sword and pen— the dogma that the Church was coeval with the Roman Empire itself. In * The reader is earnestly requested to observe the exact parallel of the result supposed to be scientific in the Wellhausenian school of Old Testament criticism. The Pentatettch after all? 255 further researches I found that the whole of the earHest Church hterature proceeded from the cloisters of the two primitive orders of St. Basil and St. Benedict. They, and they alone, were the inventors of the designation Christiani and of the whole system of ideas connected with it. Their literature was persistently ante- dated into times when it could not have been written. The whole problem was now to ascer- tain when this monastic confederacy began their literary enterprise.' Again, ' the great corporations that we call nations all possess views of the past which are the product of poetic and patriotic imagination.' * The cata- comb Christian antiquities were the inventions of the fifteenth century. The cross, which was the imperial sign of victory, was Christ not crucified, but above the cross in glory. Nothing is more important, therefore, than to distin- guish between the associations of the old-world cross, the exhibition of which put demons and foes to flight, and those of the Passionary cross or crucifix, which especially denotes hatred of the Jews.' There is a further state- ment on page 384, which may be commended to the attention of those who move in the circles of the Palestine Exploration Fund and others : ' It may be added that the geography of the New Testament is the incorrect geography 256 Did Moses write of the time of the third Crusade, while Syria was yet a dreamland in the conception of the West.' There is something specially rich in flavour, if unexpected, in this. But on page 46 does Mr. Johnson sum up his results in this interesting manner : ' It has cost us but a few paragraphs to state with brevity the blankly negative results of this branch of the evidence as to the existence of the Church or of Christians during the period of the Empire.' That is to say, the study of the historical and prophetic books of the second and third centuries, with a closed New Testament, has led Mr. Johnson to discredit the historical nature of the New Testament, and to infer its invention in the cloisters of the two primitive orders of St. Basil and St. Benedict. He ' readily acknowledges to himself the possibility of understanding Chris- tian antiquity without the books of the New Testament.' Now, it is supposed that most persons of sufficient mformation on the subject will view all this with a quiet smile. But our object is to press home this inquiry. If a method em- ployed upon the New Testament leads to results demonstrably false and untrustworthy, is the same method, pursued with reference to the Old Testament step for step, principle for The Pentateuch after all? 257 principle, result for result, worthy of graver consideration ? The method of Mr. Edwin Johnson, applied to a subject better understood and more scien- tifically explored, is exactly in every respect the method of Wellhausen and Kuenen applied to a subject less understood, less explored, more ancient, more difficult, and at present apparently, for a large number of persons, more in the dark. But is a method which is plainh- fallacious in the one case to be trusted in the other ? The truth is that this historical method, in the hands of an intellectual giant even, is capable of only delusive results. And the reason of this lies deep in the very nature of history and literature. The contemporary his- torian will not dwell with special emphasis upon those features of his times which are common to the past. He tends to pass them by, content with a slight allusion to them. He will presume that all men are acquainted with the history of their country. He has to deal with the special developments and noteworthy, and therefore strange and differentiated, events of his period. The more strongly fixed and prevalent are institutions and practices in the national life, the more will the prophet and the poet be content with casual allusions to them, 17 258 Did Moses write or new and striking observations as to their meaning. The very object of history and Hterature is to avoid the same ground. It is useless to labour what all men know. And it is perfectly easy for perverted ingenuity, especially after a lapse of ages, to twist such allusions and such records into a meaning out of accord with the history of a nation's past. It may be a safe supposition that anyone who should undertake the investigation of any primitive institution of the past of English history from the literature and histories of the nineteenth century, must perforce give to the public an idea of it which shall be scientifically foolish in the last degree. The past is not to be so approached. We are possessed of a history of our own time, in which, as far as we are aware, there is no allusion to the Lord Mayor's Show, to the ceremonies of the opening of Parliament, to the existence of law courts, to the prevalence of the Anglican chant in cathedral services. If we are to pursue the argument from historical silence to the length to which, if it is a true method, it should be pursued, everywhere the most remarkable things would start up on every side. As far as we are aware, Shake- speare makes no allusion to the defeat of the Armada, which occurred in 1588. Shakespeare published his first work, apparently, in 1593, The Pentateuch after all? 259 and died in 1616. There is no allusion to it in Bacon, nor yet in Hooker, as far as we are aware. If there should be any allusions, they are not, apparently, of the importance which so tremendous an event would seem to justify. Seneca and Claudius never mention Chris- tianity, which was the rising social force of their day. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews never mentions Isaiah liii., which would seem to be almost in the path of his argument. (c) But, again, the state of the facts as to the evidences for the pre-existence of the Penta- teuch in the later history and literature is absolutely at variance with the representation of it given by the '' critical ' school. * Hebrew antiquity shows absolutely no tendencies to- wards a hierocracy,'* says Wellhausen (page 5). How, then, are we to account for the preva- lence through ages of the system of judges in the face of difficulties and disorders which more or less apparently arose from it, and contrary to the usage of all the surrounding nations ? What, on this supposition, is the historical meaning of the words of Gideon, when the people wished to make him king in a very simple and uncultured period of Israel's "^ It is presumed that he means the system of the Mosaic Theocracy. 17—2 26o Did Moses write history : ' I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you ; the Lord is your king ' (shall rule over you) ? (Judges viii. 23.) ' The pre-exilic period shows no indications of the legislation of P as being in operation,' says Professor Driver. What indications, might we ask, does the post-exilic period give of P as being in operation ? And why, on this supposition, does Dr. Driver devote many pages to a historical inquiry as to the growth of P, as evidenced in the later history ? It is the very purpose of the so-called 'critical' apparatus to destroy the evidence. There are abundant references and allusions to every part of P in the later history and literature precisely of the kind which historical analogy would lead us to expect. But the evidence is got rid of by the preposterous con- ception that Leviticus and the rest of the sup- posed P, with all its unity of motive and archaism of language, and with a difference of historical atmosphere equivalent, according to Wellhausen, to ' all the difference that sepa- rates two whole worlds,' is not homogeneous. It was, we are told, a late compilation, bit by bit produced by priests living amongst the most different circumstances and under the most diverse conditions. The references of the later literature to every The Pentateuch after all? 261 part of the supposed P are stultified by a base- less theory of its growth, which is at variance with all historical analogy and without any parallel. It is a generally received historical principle that references to any work in the past are to that work as it has been handed down by literary tradition, unless there be overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is also to be very carefully borne in mind by the truth-seeking inquirer that that part which is arbitrarily assigned to P in the Mosaic legisla- tion is just that part which historical analogy teaches would be least likely, if in operation, to receive detailed reference in the later times. Hints and allusions are all that it would be likely for us to expect. To technical cere- monial institutions going on in the every-day experience of all men we have no reason to expect the historian or the prophet would make any elaborated or detailed reference. They would tend to speak of them only where some- thing anomalous was to be recorded, or some forgotten lesson was to be called to the popular mind. The argument from silence proceeds upon a mistaken view of the nature of history. 2. But we are told it is not silence alone. The later Hebrew history indicates facts and customs which * conflict with the fundamental institutions of P.' And the argument runs that 262 Did Moses write therefore these fundamental institutions of P did not exist. We cannot allow them to exist until we find some historical period where we may find no facts or customs which conflict with them. This seems to us rather hard upon the supposed P. Because the conclusion would probably arise that it would be impossible for him to exist at all. There is certainly no historic reason for allowing him to exist in post-exilic times. Is there not some historic ground for believing that the second Temple was conspicuous for its deficiency in some of the most fundamental institutions of P ? What are we to say to the Rabbinical tradition of ' the five lost things ' ? The Holy of Holies is reported to have been quite empty in the second Temple. There was no ark in it.* That is apparently historically certain. This surely is a strange concomitant of the putting of P into complete operation, and a strange commentary on the Well- hausenian myth that the Tabernacle is P's late invention ! 'The holy fire, the Shechinah, the spirit of prophecy, and the Urim and Thum- mim ' are said to have been absent also. The holy oil of unction did not exist because its very composition was unknown. * See Stanley's ' Jewish Church/ III., 95 ; Edersheim's * Temple,' page 38. The Pentateuch after all? 263 But here, again, the certain verdict of his- torical analogy comes to our relief. While, on the one hand, it teaches that the comparative silence of historians and writers of later times is no proof that national institutions are not in operation, on the other it bids us expect as certainly only a varying consistency in carrying them out. It is highly probable that at every period of the history of Israel more of the great ideal of Moses was carried into practice than historians and writers make direct men- tion of.* This is an inference to be gathered from many a fact which, as it were, incidentally emerges and tells its tale to the observant. But on the other hand, as Riehm in part has well pointed out in his ' Messianic Prophecy,' it is the very fact that no ideal, whether in politics or religion, however ably and nobly schemed, has ever realised itself completely in history — it is just this fact that points onward. Ezekiel has rightly read the inspired lesson of his times : ' Thus hath said the Lord Jehovah, Remove the diadem and take off the crown ; this shall no longer continue the same. Abase the height, exalt the plain. Perversion, sub- version, overturning will I make it, till he shall come whose right it is, and I will give it to him.' ■^ In the same way is it probable that the eighteenth century had more religion in it than is generally sup- posed. 264 Did Moses write The theocracy failed, but it was a shadow of that greater kingdom of God which is come and evermore coming. The ideal king of flesh and blood of the monarchy failed, and failed signally ; but none the less was he the type of the King of Peace and Righteousness, who is not ashamed to call us brethren, whose kingdom knows no end. The Mosaic constitution failed, though it was planned by so noble and so generous a mind, and had its foundations laid so deep and its structure towering to heaven ; but it failed, to give place to a greater type still of One who came with bleeding hands and thorn-crowned brow to fulfil it to its length and breadth and height higher than the heavens. The ideal, struggling through the confusion of the present, fails but to succeed and to point us ever higher. God Almighty has not raised the ideal before the human family to mock its efforts and round our span of life with a dream. The realisation waits. Historical analogy shows beyond a doubt that inconsistencies and glaring contradictions quite contrary to the fundamental institutions of statesmen and reformers may exist, and do exist, side by side with the documents and symbols which condemn them. And these in- consistencies and contradictions are no evidence against the pre-existence of those documents The Pentateuch after all? 265 and symbols. This pre-existence has its own proof, and in moral and spiritual things after- practice is insufficient to invalidate that proof. Else the proof is ready to our hands of the non-existence of New Testament Christianity, from the frequent experience we have of the absence of its fundamental principles. We might argue on the review of any his- torical period that a heaven-born religion ought to have had more influence ; that New Testa- ment Christianity could have only existed in embryo and as ' a bare scheme,' whose ' real history' must be put together from the elements which we observe actually working in the period examined. But the subject, fortunately, can be approached more nearly still. There is amongst us a code and institution which strongly re- sembles the code of the supposed P. It is called the Book of Common Prayer. We are in possession of the history, more or less in detail, of the manner in which it has been put into practice. The argument of historical in- consistency, as it is applied by Wellhausen and Kuenen to the Old Testament, would certainly lead to a theory which could be supported by a solid array of facts and very ingenious and somewhat learned reasoning that it consists of old material worked up by the leaders of the tractarian revival, which has not yet reached 266 Did Moses write its complete form. It might on this hypothesis be cogently argued to be still in process of making. And this would only be consistently applying the historical method of Wellhausen's school, touching observed inconsistencies, to other matter. If it is good and valid in one direction, it must be good and valid all round. The reader may perhaps realise that this is not any mere statement from the following quotation from an interesting work, in which a good deal of material lies ready for any * critic ' who should care to work it up. ' It seems to be now very commonly assumed that at the time of its compilation and of the revisions which it afterwards underwent, the Prayer- Book of each date was at once fully put in force, as if there were no hindrances from prejudices or any other circumstances, or as if, at least, no allowance were made for such im- pediments ; as if the simple issuing of a book forthwith established in every place of worship throughout the land all the order and beauty which the system of our Church prescribes or allows. A glance at the Church's history will show that such an assumption is somewhat rash ' (Robertson's ' How shall we Conform to the Liturgy ?' page 12). And in this work there follows what we suppose to be ample materials for working up a ' brilliant ' theory. It will be The Pentateuch after all ? 267 comparatively unnecessary to use the critical knife, or to resort to the necessity of violent ex- pedients of the imagination. There are many documents and tentative drafts of the Prayer- Book in existence. This will favour the opinion of uncertainty. There is and has been much strong and historical party spirit in the country. This may be made use of as favouring any theory of invention. It will be seen that the remarks just quoted will have, if anything, stronger force when applied to the Pentateuch. The nation redeemed from Egypt was sadly in need of training, and we see it to be pos- sessed of some characteristics the reverse of favourable for any but an imperfect realisation of the ideal lifted up. That Moses found it so in his own lifetime is perhaps probable from the allusion in Deut. xii. 8. In the times after Moses the condition of popular education, though it is suggested it was always higher than is generally supposed, yet had fluctuations of a marked character. There are often evi- dences of reversion to original type. There are some sensible observations on these subjects in the * Speaker's Commentary' on the Sab- batical year and the jubilee in its practical bearing, and on the general practical observ- ance of the law (' Speaker's Commentary,' 268 Did Moses write vol. i., part ii., pages 635 and 643*), to which the reader is referred. But, in truth, historical inconsistencies in the Hebrew history often do not exist in the sense insisted upon by theoretical criticism. A very strong point is made about the high places and local altars of the later history. And it is the practice of the ' critic ' persistently to confound the idolatrous high places with the blameless instances of a local altar. But after carefully separating these two, the one being a corruption of probably Canaanite idolatry and the restoration of ancient idolatrous sacred places, and the other being entirely different in spirit, there remains an inconsistency which is more apparent than real. We have seen how the inconsistency arises. It arises from a two- fold tendency of the Pentateuch itself. The Patriarchal altars are not discredited by the law, but their sanction is upheld, whereas the whole tendency of the Mosaic new de- parture is to centralise the national worship. It may even be suggested, as some very cogent and illustrative parallels in our Prayer-Book rubrics and elsewhere would seem to suggest, * 'The proportion of Israelites who maintained a strict observance of religious rites may have been as small as the proportion of baptised Christians who partake of the Holy Communion.' The Pentateuch after all ? 269 that the twofold tendency was left with a purpose. The sagacity of a statesman would surely have foreseen that the new centralising tendency must work gradually, and that the future must present instances of blameless inconsistency; and he would have legislated accordingly. x\nd a good deal may be put down to that natural silence of the historian, the principles of which we have just been endeavouring to investigate. Let us take an instance. The feast of the dedication of the Temple of Solomon coincided, it may be presumed, with the feast of the seventh month. From the manner in which it—' the feast '—is mentioned, it maybe inferred that assembling in Jerusalem for national gatherings, more or less after the law of Moses, was already an established custom ; yet so far as we are aware the history does not mention them. But it becomes apparent from Jeroboam's policy, which made the ten tribes to sin, that periodic national assemblies for the feasts at Jerusalem were become customary. The reader's careful attention is requested to the further facts following. There exists only one allusion in Numb. ix. to the actual keeping of the Passover in Moses' lifetime, and that is made only because of a certain difficulty which arose 270 Did Moses zvrite at it, which needed the further prescription of the lawgiver in the event of a Hke case arising. Certain men were ceremonially defiled by carrying the dead body of a man. And Moses decides that this shall not hinder them from partaking in so great a feast. Yet, though no mention is made of it, there can be no doubt, if the history be real, that none of the years of wandering passed by in the very presence of the lawgiver without Passover commemoration. Again, only one Passover is mentioned in Joshua's lifetime (Josh, v.), because of its special type and special concomitants. But it can scarcely be imagined that this was the only one. An instance is incidentally recorded in Josh, xxii., which shows that the law of the central sanctuary was perfectly understood by the people. Again, there is but uncertain mention, out- side the appointment of Levitical cities, of the Levites being scattered all over the promised land as a teaching influence till we learn in- cidentally of their removal into the southern kingdom, when the sin of Jeroboam and his invasion of the rights of their order drove them away (2 Chron. xi. 13-15). This, though com- pensated for by a special order of prophets, still contributed in no little degree to the swifter deterioration of the northern king- The Pentateuch after all? ly i dom. It made Jezebel's influence more pre- vailing. There is no mention of the Tabernacle and its sacrifices in the book of Judges till the history of Eli brings it to the front. Then we learn they existed all along, and we learn incidentally that its structure had become modified ; and we learn incidentally in 2 Sam. vii. 6 of the changes it had undergone. The historian only mentions ordinary occurrences when special circumstances arising in con- nection with them bring them into prominence or make it instructive or interesting to do so. A better and truer idea of the tenor of the ordinary religious life of the children of Israel will be gained by observing the probable amount of general education and religious spirit which existed at any given period, and which would necessarily act and react upon their observance of the law which was amongst them. The state of education may be gauged by two principles. The rise of literature always implies a certain level of general culture. A settled state of social well-being is favourable to general advance in enlightenment. That the Mosaic law had always a tendency to be observed is certain. It is seen in the atmo- sphere of the history, and in the genuine, if imperfect, realisation of its aims, whenever the 272 Did Moses write circumstances make it possible. The general observation of Delitzsch is true and note- worthy : ' The Torah [i.e., the law of Moses) is LS certainly presupposed by the whole of the )Ost-Mosaic history and literature as the root by the tree.'^ The argument from historical inconsistency is based upon a mistaken estimate of human nature. The truth is that historical analogy teaches that historical silence is an illusory ground to base arguments of the non-existence of customs and usages upon; and, in the second place, that ideal institutions are realised in the ages precisely in proportion to the education of the people and to the conditions, unsettled or settled, of the times, and that in no history have ideals up to the present day been wholly and perfectly realised. It is probably, further, a consideration worthy of the most careful attention, that the tendency to historical silence as to matters not in the direct line of the object proposed to himself in writing, would be far stronger in the ancient Hebrew writer than it would be in a modern * Quoted in the introductory remarks of Keil in his ' Commentary on Genesis.' For instance, where would have been the sin of Jeroboam if no centralising law of ancient type had not made it a sin.?. The Pentateuch after all? 273 historical writer. It is true, as we have attempted to prove, that the historical genius is nobly characteristic of the early Hebrew records. But the idea of history as reproducing the past as a whole is of comparatively recent growth. The early Hebrew historian wrote always with a purpose, and a religious purpose. It is probable that the purpose of the author of the book of Judges, for instance, w^as to trace the downfall of the theocracy and its reasons in the troubles and disorders of the time. When the land had rest forty years he records nothing. The purpose of the book of Esther was to give the reason of the feast of Purim. Till recently the life of the English people was passed over in complete historical silence. History was supposed to consist of the acts of kings, political movements, and the dates of battles. NOTES. Note A. EzeJcid and P. The completely baseless character of Wellhausens 'researches' is nowhere more manifest than in his con- ception of the Captivity and post-Captivity era. He sees in it the golden age of priestly ambition, where originates to a great extent all the stateliness of ceremonial and all the development of a religious system, the ideal of which the priestly school, P or O, transfers to such bits of the Pentateuch as ' he ' possesses. The second Temple has 18 2 74 Did Moses write all the music. The priests establish Judaism, with all its idealism, in the place of the rude and colourless real history which lies behind them. They enlarge their revenues. They make good their position. They have a good time, and no Hebrew critic or man of education arises to say them nay by pricking the imposture.* But the ' real history ' of the epoch tells a different tale. The second Temple rises in stress and difficulty, and at its dedication the attempt at song and rejoicing after the ancient manner is well-nigh drowned by the weeping and lament of those who were old enough to remember the first. The language in which 'the Law' was written had become so antiquated as to need to be explained in public reading (Neh. viii. 8).f There is scarcely encouragement enough to build again the old waste places. The hands of the builders are faint and weary ; the spirit of the few people that returned is slack and half-hearted. The priests and Levites scarcely come by their own, and need the strong backing up of the prophets. The restoration is due to a great extent to the public-spirited and large- hearted labour of a layman, and he had to teach the priests their duties. The second Temple, which was de- ficient in some of ' the fundamental institutions of P,' had probably to wait to the times of the Herods before any restoration of its primitive splendour was in any sort possible. The only point of contact with the dream of Well- hausen is the fact that in the absence of a king the high-priest and the Sanhedrim assumed a proportionate addition of importance. To strengthen which and the * This is certainly Wellhausen's conception of the time as far as it can be gathered, but Wellhausen's strength lies in his extreme vagueness. I Some, with not a little probability, take the word translated 'reading distinctly' to mean giving a transla- tion in Chaldaian language. The Pentatetuh after all ? 275 Levitical position generally may be supposed to be part of the purpose of the author of the book of Chronicles. But the poverty of the present it was which made men's minds look back with yearning to the past, and fill it, in their restoration of what was lacking to its history from the preserved public records, with perhaps even an exaggerated conception of its greatness. If even this were the case, which we will not be sure of, it may readily be pardoned. Jeremy Taylor has greatly said of the period when the Prayer-Book was proscribed, and the little valued privi- leges of Churchmen were put for a space to confusion : ' The Book of Common Prayer was sown in tears, and is now watered with tears. Yet never was any holy thing drowned and extinguished with tears. Indeed, the greatest danger that ever the Common Prayer-Book had was the indifferency and indevotion of them that used it but as a common blessing. But when excellent things go away, and then look back upon us, as our Saviour did upon St. Peter, we are more moved than by the nearer embraces of a full and actual possession.' (Works, V., 254.) The time of the Hebrew restoration was such a time of tears.* It will not be possible here to approach the subject of the book of Chronicles ; but the relations which subsist between the prophet Ezekiel and the supposed legislation of P are too marked, too special, and too instructive to pass them without making a few suggestions as to their meaning. It is supposed that the phenomena observable in the prophet Ezekiel are sufficient in themselves to give a deathblow to the fundamental institutions of theoretical criticism. They are briefly these : (i) Ezekiel gives evidence of the most precise and detailed acquaintance with the * Let the reader attentively consider Nehemiah viii. 9. 18—2 2/6 Did Moses write whole legislation of P. He is perpetually at home in the peculiarities of its language, with which he colours his own. He betrays no sense of commending to his people something that is newly come up, but rather infers a re- ference to something ancient and well known. (2) And yet it is entirely and admittedly impossible, from the strong scientific evidence, that he was in any way or in any part its author. (3) Further, the reason of Ezekiel's thus dwelling fondly and constantly upon the phraseology and contents of the legislation of P is as interesting as it is instructive. Let us consider these three points. Only a bare out- line will be possible. I. The first point of Ezekiel's constant and fond attach- ment to the language, even in its obsolete phrases, of the supposed P legislation, it will be unnecessary to labour. It is allowed on all hands. Over and over again, in a most marked and remarkable way, the words and pecu- liarities, which occur only in the supposed P in the whole course of the Hebrew literature, make their appearance afresh in Ezekiel. Here alone may be found reproduced the technical terms used of the priests' dress, and of the tabernacle building, and of the sacrificial system. Very few of the really distinctive phrases in Professor Driver's lists of words peculiar to H and P (pages 45 and 123 ; compare his more detailed comparison of Ezekiel and P on page 139, et seg.) but will be tound in Ezekiel. And Professor Driver's lists by no means exhaust the subject. Ezekiel is positively impregnated with the supposed P. Perhaps it may be the most instructive to notice the recurrence of what may be called idiosyncratic expres- sions of the Pentateuch in Ezekiel, such as ' break the staff of bread'; ^''X C^^X, whoever ; VQ'^yi [1?\ because, and by the cause that ; the preference of the Pentateuchal N''t^^^1 'a prince of Israel, a prince of the congregation,' as the designation of the king that is to be in the restored The Pentatc2ich after all? 277 Israel ; and the use of the Levitical expression, ^^j^ 7i?/b» to trespass a trespass. Now Dr. Driver concedes, apparently with reluctance, that all this denotes that Ezekiel was acquainted with parts of P, but he thinks it doubtful that he was ac- quainted with the completed P. His words are : 'How- ever doubtful it may be whether Ezekiel presupposes the C077ipleted Priests' Code, it is difficult not to conclude that he presupposes parts of it.'"'*' This is thoroughly in his manner. The doubt exists in this, that if Ezekiel were acquainted with the whole of the supposed P, it would militate very strongly against the purely imaginary mythus of the theoretical school of critics. The plain facts all along must be bent and twisted in obedience to Wellhausen's conception of the post-exilian era. There is no other doubt. In the same way the plain and incontestable allusions of the prophets to P are got rid of (page 136, ct scq.) by a 'consistent explanation.' 'They attest the existence of certain institutions ; they do not attest the existence of the particular document (P), in which the regulations touching those institutions are now codified.' This ' consistent explanation ' is applied all along the line to get rid of the evidence. It is applied on page 137 to get rid of the plain allusions in Deuteronomy to the Priests' Code, some of which are given. Deuteronomy throughout implies the whole legis- lation of P. Professor Driver is nothing if he is not fair and reasonable. There might be something in this ' con- sistent explanation,' if there was proof elsewhere of a historical and thorough order amounting to a demonstra- tion that P was a growth which did not reach completion till after the exile, when it bloomed out in all its full vigour and beauty. But there exists no such proof. The internal proof of P itself is all the other way. The his- torical allusions to P in the Hebrew literature, which are * Page 138. 2/8 Did Moses write precisely of the kind and order which every well-known document or law-book receives in the literature of to-day, only of far greater cumulative weight and better quality, are all the other way. The proof that P is a growth of the nature supposed exists solely in the mind of the critic, as the result of an acceptance of Wellhausen's theory of Judaism. It exists nowhere else. Its final resort must be that Wellhausen has proved that Judaism rose in such and such a way, and therefore the appearance of the facts must be interpreted that way. But carry this * consistent explanation' into other regions, and you plainly destroy the value of all literary allusions everywhere. It would be incomparably easier to prove by the application of this ' consistent explana- tion' that Shakespeare did not possess a copy of the Bible at all ; but his apparent allusions to the Bible we possess were to a floating tradition, which afterwards took shape in our present Bible. It would be easy also to prove by the method of the same ' consistent explana- tion ' that the traditions which he possessed were different from the present shape in which they have been com- pleted. It is certain that Bacon, on the same 'consistent explanation,' had only seen a quite different form of the Biblical tradition, and he leaves an ' impression ' upon the mind that the form of it current in his part of the world was much ' simpler.' For apparently the only two allusions to Biblical history to be found in him may be proved to be inconsistent with their present context, if that context be duly considered. This 'consistent ex- planation ' is a process which does not weigh, but extir- pates, the evidence. It is a plain principle, which can be seen every day, that just in proportion as a document, or law book, or poem is thoroughly well known, just in that proportion is it unnatural for any writer to allude to it at any length or in any detail. A word, a slight touch of reminiscence, a brief quotation, are all, and they become historically sufficient to show what they presuppose all The Pejitateuch after all? 279 men to know. They become historical evidence both of the existence and the widespread currency of the literary production which is alluded to. The very infrequency of allusion to the Holy Scripture in, for instance, Bacon's Essays, and the very manner of it, proves, not its non- existence as a whole, but rather the great familiarity with it, which all well-read persons of his day may be pre- sumed to have had. Moses was read in the churches every Sabbath day. And the public reading of the Law may be presumed not to be an innovation of Ezra's time, but to have been a return to one of the ancient institu- tions of Israel, as the antiphonal chanting plainly was.* But to satisfy the ' critic,' it would hardly be sufficient to quote the greater part or the ivhole of any document or legislation. For if, perchance, any part of it were left out or incorrectly transcribed it would be opportunity for him to fix upon to build up the edifice of some alien theory upon it. Or he might say the older writer plagiarised the later. SHght allusions, if they be plain, are the most sig- nificant of all. But when some grand catastrophe shall have shattered the fabric of a nation's religious institu- tions, when in a foreign land religious privileges have yielded somewhat to confusion, when all things seem uprooted, and ' the law ' threatens to fade from the minds of men, then it is a truly consistent explanation that a prophet shall bring out of his treasure thmgs old as well as new. It is a time to impress upon the faithful the old writings of their literature. It is not unnatural to expect more than passing allusion to their time-honoured covenant, for more than passing allusion is needed. And this is Ezekiel's case. He does presuppose the completed P, and the reason why his style is thoroughly impregnated with it is, first, because the people he is addressing need the reminder ; and, secondly, because when the outward carrying out * See Joshua viii. 34, 35- 2 8o Did Moses write of the ceremonial ordinances had ceased, it was natural for a priest in exile to study the record more fondly, and to endeavour to apply its principles the more that he was in a strange land, where he could not teach his people by its practice. 2. The style of Ezekiel is impregnated with the lan- guage and ideas of every part of the supposed P. But that is not all. Side by side with this strong and effec- tive reminder of the past, to impress it upon the faithful few who heard him and received his teaching, there are other things. And these other things place a difference equivalent ' to the difference of two whole worlds ' be- tween him and the supposed P. It is well that no critic of name, apparently, has even given him a hand in building up the P structure (Driver, page 141). Rightly is it said that the evidence 'precludes' the authorship of Ezekiel in reference to P. No known person, according to the ' critic,' ever had a hand in it. According to the verdict of theoretical criticism, its authors must ever lurk in the dark. They are as shadowy as the proof of their existence. But the differences which exist in Ezekiel, and make all the difference of two worlds in the atmo- sphere in which he breathes from the atmosphere in which P lives and moves, are so instructive that it is well to learn their lesson. Let us attempt to sketch out wherein they consist. The first point to be noticed is open to the observa- tion of the general English reader. Let anyone atten- tively read Ezekiel, and observe the influences that are dominant in his prophecy. What a difference is there from the style, manner, and matter of the Pentateuch ! The Pentateuch is full of the allusion and colour which mark its age to the ordinary understanding of an edu- cated person. And that colour is as marked and charac- teristic in the parts torn away, to be given to P, as in the other parts less post-dated by the 'critic' There is the homogencousness of an old world. But in this old world The Pentateuch after all? 281 Ezekiel does not live. His allusions to it are the allusions to a distant past. The whole character of the spirit of the age is changed. The imagery of the one age will not admit of being transferred to the other. The questions and thoughts that trouble the minds of men in the one are not the questions and thoughts that prevail in the other. The ideas of the one are not the ideas of the other. They are ideas of later birth. The allusions to surrounding history, with which they both are full, are ages wide apart. Historical analogy teaches us to apply this prima facie test, And it guarantees its soundness. The writers of the Elizabethan age could not have lived in the nineteenth century. Tennyson's ' In Mcmo- riam ' is an impossible product for the Elizabethan age. As well might we transfer Carlyle or Longfellow to it. The gentle Isaac Walton's 'Angler' and Washington Irving's ' Sketch-book ' are similar in their spirit of con- templative observation, but how different ! How different in age are the essays of Addison again ! How different are the biographies of the present time in tone and scope from the biographies of a few hundred years ago ! Similar in kind, if the difference in Hebrew mind and character be taken into account, but greater in degree, is the difference of a whole world, which divides Ezekiel from the Pentateuch. But, in the second place, to come somewhat to detail, the specific differences are significant. The manner in which Ezekiel uses, perhaps sometimes almost uncon- sciously, the old words and phrases with which he is so familiar, is not the manner of a man who is making reference to some present growing influence with only its roots in the past, but is the manner of a man who is im- pregnated with the influences of something too estab- lished to be altered, too firm to be shaken, too well understood for his use of it to be misinterpreted. Let the reader bear in mind that if the completed P were being finally shaped, or if even the influences that 282 Did Moses write were to bring it to birth were only slowly moving in Israel of the Captivity, Ezekiel was of the priestly party. The priestly party were on a journey uphill. Ezekiel would naturally have been the last to confuse their aims, or to seek to render their task more difficult. But this, on the critical hypothesis, is just what, as a matter of fact, he did do. His treatment of the subjects akin to P and involved in P is perfectly intelligible on the supposi- tion, which is historical and admits of proof, that the P legislation was Mosaic, and that it consequently had its roots too deep in the nation's life to be disturbed ; that it was too well understood to have its meaning confused, and that its principles and practice were too customary to be confounded. But, on the other supposition, that the P legislation was for the most part purely traditionary, and based upon no well-established document ; that it was growing into formulation ; that it was destined by the priestly school to supplant the simpler and ruder past ; and that it was so strong in its hold upon the priestly mind that they ventured to throw it back into the past in the form of a pure fiction of an imaginary Tabernacle — on these suppositions, for which there is absolutely no proof, the behaviour of Ezekiel was unin- telligible. He was emphatically of the priestly school. His language is so impregnated with every part of the priestly code that it is certain that he knew a great number of its 'parts.' But he was so badly informed of the intentions of the priestly school, of which yet he must have been the hero and genius, that he does simply nothing but confuse their ideas, and do his utmost to render their project impossible. He must have been in character and force the strongest influence of his age. No priest of the Captivity or after it came near to him for force of character or popular influence. And yet every line he wrote was calculated, on this supposition, to hinder the Levitical code, as we know it, from coming into operation. As the law of Moses, established a The Pcntateuck after all? 28 J thousand years, realised in the splendours of the 'reiii[)Ie of Solomon, the cherished and reverend standard of the priests of Israel for many generations, it would tower above him. But as the compilation of floating traditions, authorised by men of no greater influence than he him- self had, and not so much, built up and altered to a greai extent by pure fiction, it would certainly go down before him. Ezekiel would have successfully confused the minds of men on these subjects, and rendered the priestly pro- ject impossible to realise. To suggest some of the details of the proof of this, that (i) the language of Ezekiel is the language of a later age, speaking of something ancient, though almost uncon- sciously impregnated with it, and (2) that the ideas of Ezekiel on the suppositio7i of theoretical criticism are simply confusing, is all that we can do. i. The language of Ezekiel is truly and most notice- ably impregnated with the whole course of P, but there are very significant differences. Some of these may be given, {a) The colours of the tabernacle and of Solomon's Temple after it, including the sacred Egyptian blue of the borders and fringes, are mentioned elsewhere only in Ezekiel ; but in him they occur in a different context of the lay dress of the rich and splendid. {b) Alongside the recurrence of many, if not most, of the technical terms used of the tabernacle building occur specific and later differences. D**n^t^ '^ "sed for pots, where Exodus has the word '^'•D. Ql"!*] is used for the direction south, where Exodus has the word ^Jl^. Jinnjl' which never occurs in the Pentateuch, is the expression for 'lower' in Ezekiel. 7^X, the Pentateuch word for a ram, is used in Ezekiel for a post or support ; in this sense it occurs in Ezekiel only. D'^Hp; which is only used in the Pentateuch of the east wind, is used in Ezekiel very often in the sense of east side, and in him in this sense only ; elsewhere it is always used in the older language 284 Did Moses write of the east wind. XJl? ^ word later than the Pentateuch, is used for a chamber, p^^, a building, is peculiar to Ezekiel ; H^^? of height measurement, is also peculiar to him. A considerable number of words, such as H^^? empty space ; rTHT-^? the separate place; n^lD^^ birth or nativity, are peculiar to Ezekiel. Where Exodus used i^]3D» around, we find it characteristically repeated ^^^D ^''^D ''^ Ezekiel ; just as in the phrase H^D HSDj on this side, on that side, characteristic of Ezekiel's style. A considerable number of words, demonstrably later than the Pentateuch, occur, such as P^^^H* outer court ; n^ty'T'' chamber of the temple ; nS^I) pavement ; nyp> song or dirge ; HI'li wind or spirit, as used for Side.' Ezekiel goes over the same ground as far as language is concerned, but he goes over it in a changed manner. ii. In the second place, the ideas presented could only confuse the aims of the priestly school. To affect the after action of the law of Moses was not possible, for that was established. Ezekiel's temple was confessedly for all men only a vision and a prophecy. But to confuse and confound the supposed priestly school and their purposes, he could not have taken a way more calculated to succeed. There is no ark in his temple. The word applied in Exodus exclusively to the table of the shewbread is employed by Ezekiel only of certain 'tables' for the slaughter of the sacrificial beasts, which may be presumed to be new ; and in Ezek. xl. 43 occurs the curious expression, ' Upon the tables of the flesh of the offering J^lp,' which is quite unlike the Pentateuch, and the phrase 'the table' is used as below of the altar. There is one allusion, and only one, to the tabernacle, which is so strange, if it be an allusion to a growing fiction, as to be quite incredible to be so used (xli. i) : 'The breadth of the temple was the breadth of the tent ' (7nXn)- The word T\'^T^^ used in Exodus of the branches of the candle- stick, is used by Ezekiel only in the sense of a measuring TJic Pentateuch ajtcv a//? 285 rod, as far as its technical sense is concerned. The altar, the only mention of the material of which is wood, is spoken of as a table. ' This is the table which is before the Lord ' (Ezek. xli. 22), The word 111171' 'law,' is used in the significance, ' fashion or establishment ' of the building of the Temple. 'This is the law of the house' (xliii. 12). A joint and ecjual participation of the land is to be given to resident strangers (xlvii. 21, 22, 23), which is a thing wholly new to the Levitical law and alien from the spirit of later Pharisaism. The title 'Holy of Holies,' which in the Pentateuch is confined to the part behind the vail, is given by Ezekiel to the whole Temple, and apparently its precincts (xliii. 12). And there are other things of a like kind, which could only tend to confuse the projects of the supposed priestly school. 3. The truth is, that the Capiivity and post-Captivity era was an era of retrospect. The prophecy of Ezekiel was a vision, having its elements in the past ; at once a prophecy of restoration, and a prophecy of the old order changing to give its place to the new and the Messianic order. To attribute a great spirit of origination to the post-Captivity times is a complete historical anachronism. The times were times when it was difficult enough even to restore. They lacked the spirit and impulse sufficient to devise things high and great and glorious for the first time. Out of their stony griefs they raised their Bethel. The new Temple, which rose in tears, was a shadow of the old. It did not inspire. The fine hymns of praise in the last book of the Psalter that truly adorned it are but a monument of the faith and patience of the saints, which has often been seen to rise the highest when the surrounding conditions were those of discouragement (Acts xvi. 25). Note B. TIic Samaritan Pentateuch. It will be impossible to obtain a complete idea of the question as to who wrote the Pentateuch after all, and the 286 Did Moses write extent to which the school of theoretical criticism have given any trustworthy answer to it, without an allusion to a subject, which, though the allusion to it must be brief, is yet considered to deserve the most careful attention of the reader. There is a people whom the post-Captivity writer, Jesus the son of Sirach, about two hundred years after the restoration, speaks of as his pet aversion, * They that sit upon the mountain of Samaria, and that foolish people that dwell in Sichem' (Ecclus. 1. 26). The Samaritans are a strange people with a strange history ; but their ambitions were stranger still. Reputed to be of purely Cuthcean stock by the Jews, they themselves always asserted a lineage from Ephraim and Manasseh. They were apparently a mixed race. The foreign colonists had evidently become mingled with the poo'-er and more insignificant Israelites that the Assyrians had left (2 Kings xvii. 24, et scq.). They had been taught how to fear Jehovah by a priest of Israel. When the Jews of the restoration were beginning their temple-building, these Samaritan people, apparently in all sincerity, offered their help (Ezra iv.), and were ignominiously refused. From that time dated a continuous feud, jealousy, and bitter animosity between them and the people of Jerusalem, which once yielded a little in a time of great danger to both, but which burst out again, and was the reigning feeling between them. The reader will notice carefully when it began. It began just when, according to the theoretical school, the priestly party were completing their code and its imaginary tabernacle. Now, the ground of the feud was ' the law.' The Temple-builders asserted their ecclesiastical right and inherited right to the law of Moses and the Temple. The Samaritans set up what was a rival temple hence- forward, and a rival observance of the Mosaic law. Now, the Samaritans had a Pentateuch. They did not appar- ently possess the rest of the Hebrew literature. But a copy of the law apparently had form.ed the basis of ' the The Pentatmch after all? 287 priest's' instruction as to how to fear the Lord. And they carry it out after their manner to this day. But more than this, whereas in the time of Ezra, or after, all probability points to the transliteration of the whole Hebrew literature, including the Pentateuch, into the square Babylonian character, the Samaritans, naturally enough after their rejection, did not adopt that fashion. Their Pentateuch continues in the earlier Phoenician character, which can be proved in use by the Hebrews of earlier times, and which, with some modification, is to this day the same in the Samaritan Pentateuch. Now, the use of this Samaritan Pentateuch in the earlier days as an argument by the so-called ' conserva- tive' school is treated by Bleekas shadowy and uncertain, as it applied to the earlier phases of the divisive hypo- thesis. It passed somewhat into the background as an argument for the integrity of the Mosaic text. But it passes the mind of man* how it can be entirely got rid of as an evidence against the truth of the Wellhausenian theory. For in it, word for word, is the loholc of the legislation of P, the supposed fiction of the tabernacle in- cluded. It has been too controversially treated for there to be the least doubt on the subject. The text of the Samaritan has been upheld on con- troversial principles to be far purer than that of the Hebrew, while, on the other hand, the Rabbis have said, ' You {i.e., you Samaritans) have falsified your Pentateuch. And the truth is that there are various readings indeed, some of them characteristic, and some of them in favour of the Mount Gerizim as a centre of worship, but the whole of the Pentateuch is substantially the same. Now the point is this. Here is the luholc of the * In using the term mind, we mean ordinary mind. Wellhausen would be able, possibly, to prove that the priest that taught the Cutha^ans was the very P himself, and that the Samaritans taught the Jews their P. 288 Did Moses lurite legislation of P. The Samaritans were from the first in feud with the returned Jews on the question of their law, and set up for their rivals as to their punctilious observ- ance of the law of Moses. If P in its complete form was doubtfully known to Ezekiel, and only budded out into the perfection of its code, and in the bold invention of its history in post- Captivity times, how comes it that the Samaritans ever consented to embody it in their own Pentateuch, and probably on this supposition to transcribe it into their own characters because they refused to borrow from the returned Hebrews their Babylonian square characters? How did they ever come to regard it with the same respect as it is certain they regarded the rest of the Pentateuch ? It was on this hypothesis the code which was to a large extent the new product of the very men with whom on this very point they were in bitter antagonism. Note C. Pj-ofessor F. A. Wolf and Homer. It may be useful to remind the general reader that the method of theoretical criticism has been applied to other ancient authors in a manner very similar to that employed upon the Old Testament, but, in the judgment of the calmer and more solid scholarship, never with any par- ticular success. It is, therefore, a method which has been discredited in other fields of research. This is particu- larly the case with Homer. Homer is what might be called the Greek Bible. The quotations from him in all succeeding Greek literature are analogous to the quota- tions from the Pentateuch in the Hebrew hterature. The 'critical' handling of him deals with two main proposi- tions. The first and oldest is directed against the literary tradition that he wrote the ' Odyssey' at all. This is the doctrine of the separators, and is met by the fact of the undesigned coincidences between the 'Iliad' and the The Pentateiich after all? 2cS9 ' Odyssey,' and the improbability that there were two poets of the rank and ability of Homer. The second is that which forms the subject of the 'brilliant' prolego- mena of Professor F. A. Wolf, in which he endeavours to prove that Homer never wrote the ' Iliad' at all, but that it is the product of several unknown writers called rhap- sodists, who were afterwards joined into the one poem which has come down to us. It is supposed that Mr. Gladstone's literary primer on Homer (Macmillan), along with other things of interest, makes both these theories appear very unnatural. Two or three quotations will make apparent the similarity of the process applied to Homer, and the similarity of the success that, in the judgment of plainly competent scholars, accompanies it, 'The consideration,' says Professor Blackie,' that Homer had ancient material to embody will enable the student to make short work not only with the hypercritical cap- tiousness and peeping anatomy of Lachmann, but also with the large and philosophical analysis of Mr, Grote. We must not start, in our inquiry into the unity of the " Iliad," with the strong inclination to magnify the import- ance of small inconsistencies, but with the most charitable desire possible to overlook them. This poet, as compared with Virgil, Dante, or Milton, demands the special indul- gence of the critic ; and yet it does rather seem that, from Wolf down to Grote, the whole army of objectors are keenly set upon being particularly severe, in many cases positively ill-natured, and from a poetic point of view, as Colonel Mure has triumphantly shown, positively unjust.' 'The idea that the poem of the "Iliad,"' says Mr. Grote in his 'History of Greece' (quoted in Kay's ' Crisis Hupfeldiana '), 'as we read it, grew out of atoms not originally designed for the places which they now occupy, involves us in new and inextricable difficulties, when we seek to elucidate either the mode of coalescence or the degree of existing unity. The advocates of the Wolfian 19 290 Did Moses write theory appear to feel the difficulties which beset it ; for their language is wavering in respect to their supposed primary atoms. But if it be granted that the original constituent songs were so composed, though by different poets, as that the more recent were adapted to the earlier with more or less dexterity and success, this brings us into totally different conditions of the problem ; it is a virtual surrender of the Wolfian hypothesis, which, how- ever, Lachmann both means to defend and does defend with ability ; though his vindication of it has, to my mind, only the effect of exposing its inherent weakness, by carrying it out into something detailed and positive.' ' Happily, the primary characteristics of the poet,' says Mr. Gladstone (page 45), 'are distinct from the minutely granulated evidence to be obtained from the details of the text. These are open to the observation and judgment of many persons who, without being professional or persis- tent students, are cultivated and attentive readers. Such are the structure of the plots, the delineation of characters, their sustained consistency, the unity and individuality of the style. And these, even alone, may, I hope, be gener- ally sufficient to obtain a tolerably assured verdict on the ain issues.' In other fields of inquiry the process of disintegration is discredited. But the reader must most carefully bear in mind that Homer and Moses stand upon a different footing. It is a great deal easier to imagine that the poems of Homer were composite than to imagine the Law of Moses to be so in the sense worked out by theoretical criticism. And this in two respects. First, because writing in the case of Moses was natural ; in the case of Homer it was not. His poem for ages was pub- licly recited by rhapsodists before it was written. Mr. Gladstone has shown (page 41, ^/ seq.) that this would have its safeguards as well as its dangers for the integrity of the text. But in the age of Moses, and for national histories such as the books of Moses are, we have by The Pentate2ich after all? 291 contemporary evidence shown writing to be customary and under public control and guardianship. The atmo- sphere of Hterary tradition and the conditions have been shown to be much stronger in their evidence for Moses than they are in the case of Homer. But more important still, in the second place, is it to be observed that there is, when the two theories and the two 'brilliant' prolegomena are compared, all the differ- ence of two worlds in the result, as indeed in the process. In the one case the theory of the rhapsodists afterwards pieced together into Homer is probably, as a matter of fact, quite untenable from the evidence ; but these rhap- sodists are not so far removed in historic position and authority from Homer himself. They are not separated by ages of change and historical progress from their implied times. The question for Homer is one of purely archiuological interest. Whichever way it be taken, it leaves the his torical and geographical value of what is contained in the poem imtoiiched. But in the case of Moses, and in the case of the implied contemporaneous history of the Pentateuch, the prolego- mena of Wellhausen leave these things a mass of legend, triumphantly challenged as historically worthless, and without any sacred lesson in them for mankind. The growth of the legend may be in this view scholastically interesting, but in the world of no great importance. Wellhausen robs us of a revelation of God, which, if it be true, it is alike the interest and the reward of every Christian man seriously to take to heart. This theory does not leave the historical and geo- graphical value of the Pentateuch untouched. It uproots it to plant in its place a ' brilliance ' of con- fusion and uncertainty. Elliot Stock, Paternoster Row, London. ^/-r- DATE DUE 1 •^--**. l» May ^ ^ j^(jji'^ 5 : GA YLORD PRINTED IN US A f - ', ■.'■: -(• ^i Wr, . ;6 .)