^^^^F'^ nc :-^ ^^t^ *^':i'' 'SE^sis^s^ms'ii: •Axt^^^ SA€l/. PRINCETON, N. J. "^^ w Diviyion -*7-/..rrr^..V.4r;.^ *-^ 6-^^//^« q".t...S.7.o Number _ •Vji. •■■*'^ •""♦ •• -..' . '■ v:l»^ V."'' ^, /\ BOOKS FOR BIBLE STUDENTS. Edited by the REV. ARTHUR E. GREGORY. THE AGE AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH / William Spiers, M.A. CHARLES H. KELLY, 2, CASTLE ST., CITY RD. ; AND 66, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C. 1895 BOOKS FOR BIBLE STUDENTS. Editor: Rev. Akthur E. Gregory. The EpistJes of Paul the Apostle. A Sketch of their Origin and Contents. By George G. Findlay, B.A. Small crown Svo, 2s. 6d. Fourth Thousand. The Theological Student. A Handbook of Elementary Theology. With List of Questions for Self-Examiuation. By J. Robinson Gregory. 2s. 6d. Fourth Thousand. The Gospel of John. An Exposition, with Critical Notes. By T. F. LocKYER, B.A. 2s. 6d. Second Thousand. The Praises of Israel. An Introduction to the Study of the Psalms. By W. T. Davison, M. A., D.D. 2s. 6d. Third Thousand. The Wisdom-Literature of the Old Testament. By W. T. Davison, M.A., D.D. 2s. Gd. Second Thousand. From Malachi to Matthe^o : Outlines of the History of Judea from 440 to 4 B.C. By Professor R. Waddy JMoss, Didsbury College, Manchester. 2s. 6d. Second Thousand. An Introduction' to the Study of Hebrew. By J. T. L. Maggs, B.A., Prizeman in Hebrew and New Testament Greek, London University. 5s. Iti the Apostolic Age : The Churches and the Doctrine. By Robert A. Watson, M.A., D.D. 2s. (Jd. The Siveet Singer of Israel. Selected Psalms with Metrical Paraphrases. By Benjamin Gregory, D.D. 2s. 6d. The Aqe and Authorship of the Pentateuch. By William Spiers, M.A., F.G.S., etc. 3s. Cd. IN PREPARATION. The Prophetical Writings of the Old Testament. By Professor George G. Findlay, B.A. The Synoptic Gospels. By Marcus D. Buell, D.D., Professor of New Testament Exegesis in Boston University, U.S.A. The Writi7igs of St. John. A Sketch of their Origin and Contents. By Professor George G. Findlay, B.A. An Introduction to the Study of New Testament Greek. By J. II. MouLTON, M.A., Fellow of King's College, Cam- bridge. [Inthe lyress. The Epistle to the Hehreios. By W. L. Watkinson. The Ministry of the Lord Jesus. By T. G. Selby, Author of "The Imperfect Angel." The Evidences of Christianity. By Professor J. SiiAW Banks, Headingley College. A Manual of Modern Church History. By Professor W, F. Slater, M.A. London: CHARLES H. KELLY, 2, Castle St., City Rd., E.C. Apl. 1S95. THE AGE AND AUTHORSHIP THE PEJ^TATEUCH. REV. WILLIAM SPIERS, M.A, F.G.S., F.R.M.S,, AUTHOR OF 'THE SABBATH FOR MAN," "RAMBLES AND REVERIES OF A NATURALIST, ETC. ETC. f0tttr0n: CHARLES H. KELLY, 2, CASTLE ST., CITY RD, ; AND 66, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.G. 1895. MORRISON AND GIBB, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH. ^OTE BY THE EDITOR. CoNTKiBUTORS to this series write with entire independence, and each is responsible only for the opinions he himself expresses. The Editor, whilst offering occasional suggestions, has never sought to hamper the scholars whose co-operation he has been so fortunate as to secure. On many points, those who strive together for the common faith must be free to express diverse views. This is especially true in the case of works like the present, which must necessarily be to a large extent controversial. The question, for example, of the relation of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch to the authority of our Lord is one of undoubted importance, yet one upon which it is possible for men equally reverent and loyal to hold widely different opinions. The voices of the Higher Criticism are heard on every side, and no apology can be necessary for the publication of a vigorous defence of the older " orthodox " position. A. E. G. PREFACE, The purpose of this volume is to furnish some modest contribution towards a vindication of the ancient belief in the Mosaic age and authorship of the Pentateuch, which has been so severely attacked by critics of various kinds during the last half-century. Necessarily the book will here and there assume a somewhat controversial tone and character, for it is impossible to write upon such a subject without being confronted at almost every point with the views of those who adopt what is gener- ally described as the " Higher Criticism." There unquestionably exists a need for some plain statement of the bearing of current specula- tions upon what may still be considered to be tlie popular convictions in regard to the inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures. Books of a non-technical as well as technical character, enforcing the views of the Higher Critics, are now to be found everywhere. If there is anything viii PREFACE. to be said on the other side, this is the time to say it. Multitudes who have no disposition to remove from the old moorings, will, we believe, be thank- ful for some systematic exposition of the grounds on which their beliefs are based ; while many who shrink from controversy, or lack the opportunity of contributing any share to the discussions now going on in the theological world, will readily acknowledge the fitness and necessity of a thorough examination of the positions taken up by the disciples of the neo-criticism. It may be asked why the Pentateuch is singled out for special attention, whereas current criticism affects the whole of the Bible. To this we may reply, that the field selected is wide enough to warrant separate treatment, and that it is in reference to the Pentateuch in particular that recent speculation has been most rife and dis- turbing. Moreover, our Lord so frequently and so solemnly sanctioned and enforced the universal belief of His day in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, that to deny it now seems to bring into question the doctrine of Christ's Divine character. While not aiming at a complete survey of the broad question of Inspiration, it will be seen that our argument bears in a definite and very practical PREFACE. ix way upon this subject, and is essentially related to all Christian doctrines. It is of vital interest to ask how we are to regard that Book which the world has learned to acknowledge and revere as a Eevelation from God and a Eevelation of God. If it is proved full of false statements and defects, if its claims to be accepted as of Divine authority are undermined by glaring inaccuracies, then it can no longer receive the confidence of mankind, and must be placed along with the other mythol- ogies that have had their day and ceased to be. But if it is the Voice of God, it will be possible to vindicate it from the charge of error. Assuredly, a subject fraught with such tremendous issues is one that deserves the attention of all sober and thoughtful minds. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. INTEODUCTORY. Nature and issues of the discussion — Indiscreet con- cessions—What is expected from Christian divines — Dangers and defects of specialism — What is an expert ? — True and false criticism — Importance of the question of authorship — Vital doctrines of Christianity involved ..... CHAPTER II. THE HEBREW CANOX. Unique position of Pentateuch in the Hebrew Canon — Dr. Driver's confusion between authorship, canon- icity, and the completion of the Canon — Growth of the Canon — Prologue to the Proverbs of Ben Sirach — Tripartite division of Old Testament- Letters prefixed to 2 Maccabees — Nehemiah's collection — Ezra — Tradition concerning the re- writing of the Law — Testimony of Josephus and Philo — The Samaritan Pentateuch — Hebrew and Phoenician letters — The Talmud — The Targums — The Septuagint translation — Jewish guardian- ship of sacred books — The Great Synagogue — The Sanhedrim— The Bible of our Lord— The CONTENTS. PAGE Apocrypha — Not sanctioned b}^ our Lord or the Early Church — Testimony of Christian Fathers and later scholars 9-30 CHAPTER III. METHODS OF MODERN CIIITICISM. Variety of opinions — Astruc's theory — Supposed original sources of the Pentateuch — Elohist and Jehovist theory — Ewald— Colenso — Wellhausen — Dr. Driver's views on Genesis, on Exodus, on Leviticus, on Numbers, on Deuteronomy, on the Pentateuch in general — The Hexateuch — Higher Criticism and the supernatural — What criticism claims to have established 31-44 CHAPTER IV. CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. I. Jehovist and Elohist theory examined — Did Christ know of a plural authorship ? — Test-words of the critics. II. The argument from style. III. Criteria of the theory of post-Mosaic developments — Robertson Smith's views on the Tabernacle, central worship, and sacrifices — Scholars who oppose the critical methods — Fascination of new ideas — Human elements in the Bible . . . 45-73 CHAPTER V. THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF : d 'priOrl ARGUMENT. "What is meant by "Traditional " — A literary tradition — General characteristics of the Pentateuch — What we should expect to find in the Pentateuch. I. An embodiment of some pre-existing laws and customs — The Sabbath — Patriarchal life — CONTENTS. Administration of law — The Goel — The lex talionis — Influence of Egyptian customs — Cherubim — Boring the ear of a slave. II. Some old customs condemned — Slavery. III. Air of reality in his- torical reference — Geographical and other allusions — Climate — Dr. Driver's canons. IV. Allusions which would be inappropriate at a later age — Egyptian rites and customs — Offerings to the dead — Camp and desert life — Advance in organisation. V. Forward look of Mosaic legislation — The expected Kingdom — Song of Moses — Ritual — Central worship — No other period than that of Moses possible. VI. Archaisms of language — Keil's instances — Grammatical peculiarities — Conservat- ism of Eastern languages 74-13 8 CHAPTER VI. - TRADITIONAL BELIEF : CLAIMS OF PENTATEUCH TO A MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP. Ancient writers did not affix their names to their writings — Opinion of Strauss in favour of Mosaic authorship — Passages detailed — Meaning of Torah 1 1 9-124 CHAPTER VII. TRADITIONAL BELIEF : TESTIMONY OF POST-MOSAIC BOOKS. Joshua — Judges — Early Kings and Prophets — Pro- phetical books — Amos — Hosea — Cheyne and Isaiah — Micah — Jeremiah — Joel — Ezekiel — How the critics meet this testimony .... 125-133 CHAPTER VIII. TRADITIONAL BELIEF : AFTER-INFLUENCE OF MOSAIC CODE. Joshua — Judges — Religious reformers — Saul — Sacrifi- ces, Altars, and Central Sanctuary — The argument CONTENTS. from silence — Disappearance of the Ark — Robert- son Smith's objection — Rawlinson's reply — How can the Pentateuch be retained in the Bible on the basis of the modern criticism ? . . . 134-145 CHAPTER IX. THE AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTEROXOMY : CRITICAL THEORIES. Dr. Driver's opinions — Bishop Colenso — The German School — Ewald — Robertson Smith — Wellhausen — Dean Milman — Hilkiah's book — Meaning of "Covenant" — Alleged silence of Prophets — Dr. Driver's arguments — Prophets quoted — Amos — Hosea — Isaiah — Language of Deuteronomy — Some supposed anachronisms — The narrative of Moses' death — Amalgamation of Joshua with Pentateuch 146-158 CHAPTER X. AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY: ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES WITH OTHER BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH. Supposed differences between Deuteronomy and the earlier books — Reasoning in a circle — The Priest- hood — Priests and Levites — Ezekiel's Vision — Re- lease of Hebrew slaves — Priests' portion of sacri- ficial animals — Levitical cities — Firstlings — Tithes 159-175 CHAPTER XI. AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY : ITS OWN TESTIMONY. Introduction to the Book — Passages which assert a Mosaic authorship— Character of the Book — Dr. Driver's opinion of its character — Our Lord's testimony to Deuteronomy 176-186 . CONTENTS. XV ^ CHAPTER XII. TESTIMONY OF OTJR LOED AND HIS APOSTLES. PAGE Aiitliorship of Pentateuch not merely a literary question — Our Lord's references to the Law and to Moses — Passages quoted — The Kenotic Theory — The Accommodation Theory — Testimony of the ■ Apostles — St. Peter — St. Paiil — Supposed advan- tages of critical theories ..... 187-202 CHAPTER Xin. TESTIMONY OF THE MONUMENTS : BIRD'S-EYE VIEW. Reginald S. Poole's opinions — Assp-ian monuments — Cuneiform inscriptions — Grotefend — Lassen — Rawlinson — Fox Talbot — Hincks — Sayce — Egyptian monuments— Dr. Young — Champollion 203-211 CHAPTER XIV. THE MONUMENTS : CREATION TO DELUGE. The Creation Tablets — George Smith — Translation of Creation Tablet — Tree of Knowledge — The Serpent — The fall of Adam — The Deluge — Translation of Deluge Tablet . 212-222 CHAPTER XV. THE MONUMENTS : NOAH TO ABRAHAM. The Accadians — Indo-European race — The Hittites — Babel — Chedor-laomer — Abram and Sarah — Abraham in Egypt— Cities of the Plain . . 223-231 xvi CONTENTS. CHAPTER XVI. THE MONUMENTS : ABRAHAM TO THE EXODUS. PAGE Joseph — Years of plenty and famine — The Pharaoh of the Oppression — Bricks without straw — Treasure- cities — Pentaur — Rameses ir. — Moses and Pharaoh — The Plagues — Influence of Egypt on Mosaic in- stitutions—The Golden Calf— Law and Ritual . 232-245 CHAPTER XVII. SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM : THE STORY OF CREATION. Objections to Genesis — Supposed double narrative — Geological arguments — Chalmers' hypothesis — Hugh Miller and the Days of Creation — The "day" of Genesis — The Fourth Commandment — Order of creative events — Professor Huxley's criticisms — Reconciliation of Genesis with Geology not essential — The Darwinian doctrine of the Descent of Man 246-269 CHAPTER XVIII. SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM : HISTORICAL ARGUMENTS FOR MAN's ANTIQUITY. Claims to remote antiquity by Babylonians, Chinese, Egyptians, and other nations — Manetho — Berosus — Early civilisations — Present-day savages not a type of primeval man — Varieties of the human race — Growth of languages — Max Midler's opinion 270-280 CHAPTER XIX. SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM : PREHISTORICAL ARGUMENTS FOR man's ANTIQUITY. Geological and Antiquarian evidence — Supposed Glacial Man — Thames Valley deposits — Stone Ages — CONTENTS. Bronze and Iron Ages — Flint implements — Re- mains of Early Man — Kent's Cavern — Time occupied in the formation of strata — Bones of extinct animals found with human remains — The mammoth — River-gravels and human relics — Scripture chronology — Jewish method of denoting numbers — Systems of Usher and Hales — Sir J. AV. Dawson's conclusions ...... 281-310 CHAPTER XX. ALLEGED ERRORS IN THE PENTATEUCH. "^" I. Discrepancies originated in unreliable critical methods — Genesis — Deluge — The Ark — Noah's Sacrifice — Origin of the Ethiopians — Dr. Gladden's alleged discrepancies — Abraham and Abimelech — Jacob and Laban — Jacob at the brook Jabbok — Esau's wives — The selling of Joseph — Exodus — Moses' father-in-law — The signs and the rod — The Sinaitic narrative — The Tent of Meeting — The Tabernacle — Dr. Gladden's objections against Exodus — Repetition of laws — Numbers — The Spies — Dr. Horton's error — Revolt of Korah, etc. — Sundry errors and discrepancies. II. Alleged anachronisms — Dan — Kings of Edom and Israel. III. Alleged contradictions between Old and New Testament — Stephen's Apology and the History of Jacob. IV. The Morals of the Penta- teuch — Dr. Gladden's instances of immoral teach- ing in the Pentateuch 311-352 CHAPTER XXI. CAUSES OF MINUTE VARIATIONS AND ERRORS IN THE BIBLE. Interpolations, intentional and unintentional — Im- perfections of copyists — Similarity of Hebrew b CONTENTS. consonants — Hebrew vowels — Jacob's staff — In- corporation of marginal notes or glosses — Con- clusion — Gravamen of the protest against tlie New Criticism — The Chris tocen trie fallacy . 353-364 APPENDIX. On the Language and Style of the Pentateuch (1) Peculiar and distinctive words . (2) Words of Egyjjtian origin (3) Words which changed tlieir meaning i later times (4) Archaic words in Genesis which afterward changed meaning .... (5) Old names for animals, plants, etc. . (6) Words in later books quoted from Pen tateuch Characteristics of the Priests' Code Characteristics of H . Characteristics of Deuteronomy . Characteristics of Ezekiel . 365 365 366 367 369 370 370 370 376 381 385 Index 389-395 AGE AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH. CHAPTEE I. NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE DISCUSSION. IT is impossible for any intelligent Christian to remain absolutely unmoved in the presence of the conflicts which now rage around the Bible. What is called " the Higher Criticism " is one of the great facts of the age, and whether we view it with dismay or see in it the advance of the human intellect, whether we regard its methods and conclusions as subversive of the doctrine of Inspiration, or as building up a truer conception of what Eevelation is, we cannot fail to perceive that the issues involved are of the most vital character. Bishop Ellicott declares that it is a disbelief in the supernatural which has prompted 2 NATURE AND IMPORTANCE this criticism, Dr. Blaikie attributes to it the decline of the evangelical spirit in Great Britain, and Dr. Stalker laments that it is emptying the Continental churches.^ The mere fact that men so devout and observant should see cause for uttering opinions of this kind is sufficient to impel all who are not stolidly indifferent to the interests of religion to inquire where we are drifting and what is the truth. "We are confronted with theories and specula- tions respecting the origin of certain books of the Bible which strike at the very roots of beUefs that for ages have been regarded as vital and unassailable. For example, it is common now to meet with such assertions as that large portions of Genesis are mere legends, that the belief in the supernatural character of the Old Testament is an offence against reason, that Deuteronomy is a " dramatisation " put into the mouth of Moses, and even that it is " untrue," and that " the exegesis of the New Testament, in reference to the Old Testament, cannot stand before the tribunal of science." ^ When such claims are advanced by the 1 Bishop Ellicott's Christus Gomprohator contains some most impressive utterances on the disastrous effects of the new criticism, which demand the careful attention of every serious person. See especially p. 195, etc. 2 Lux Mmidi, p. 357, etc. Wellhausen's Prolegomena to the History of Israel, pp. 37-39. OF THE DISCUSSION. 3 leaders of the critical school, is it not time for those who maintain the inspiration of the Bible to hesitate before giving even the semblance of an accept- ance to speculations so insidious and dangerous ? We frequently hear it urged that the problems concerned in the great conflict over the Bible are such as may well be left to the erudite and the expert, and that we may calmly await the results of the discussions now going on among specialists. But men of common sense and the necessary mental equipment, who read their Bible in the Hebrew and Greek, and who keep themselves abreast of the literature of the day, though they would not venture to call themselves experts or specialists, are quite competent to estimate the value of such theories as those of Kobertson Smith, Cheyne, or Driver. Moreover, it not unfrequently happens that the specialist has some favourite theory to maintain, and nothing so blinds the judgement to the weight of hostile considerations as the desire to substantiate a preconceived idea. Then, too, the expert is essentially a man of multifarious details, the accumulation of which always tends to dull the sense of proportion in estimating evidence. Who can fail to perceive this in many of the ponderous volumes which for the last thirty or forty years have been poured out in a ceaseless flood from the inexhaustible 4 NATURE AND IMPORTANCE fountains of German rationalism ? Dr. Pusey, in referring to such writings in his Commentary on ZccJiariah, remarks : " It is an infelicity of the modern German mind that it is acute in observing detailed differences rather than comprehensive in grasping resemblances." Some of the more moderate of the "Higher Critics" attempt to diminish the importance of the discussion we are about to enter upon in these pages, by the suggestion that the value of scriptural books is not affected by questions relating to their authorship. It may be freely admitted that this is so in some cases. The authorship of a book 7;^?' sc may not be vital to its acceptance as a Divine revela- tion. But if that book announces its author, and if our Lord gives His sanction to the claim, then the matter becomes one not merely of literary criticism, but is essentially related to the very existence of Christianity, the reality of a Divine revelation and the Divine character of Jesus Christ. To say that it is of little importance wlien or by whom the Pentateuch was written, so long as it can be shown to be true, implies that there is nothing in it relating to its age or origin. This is by no means the case, as we shall pre- sently show. It claims to have originated from Moses, other inspired writers admit the claim, and OF THE DISCUSSION. 5 Christ enforces it. Those who hold such views are bound, therefore, to accept the Pentateuch as the work of Moses, or to reject it altogether, and with it the authority of our Lord. If only our opinion concerning authorship were involved, nothing serious would happen should that opinion be demolished ; but if the writings of both the Old and New Testament themselves testify to their authorship, then to despise that authorship is a vital matter, and involves the credit and authority of the entire Bible. If whole chapters of post-Exilian date have been bodily transferred to the Pentateuch and handed down as the writings of Moses, and if these were quoted by Christ and His disciples as being of Mosaic origin, then how can the Bible hold' together or the foundations of Christianity escape destruction ? These are the. difficulties which confront many a sincere believer in the trustworthiness of Scripture, and which all the entreaties of compromising critics will not induce him to ignore. Small discrepancies due to transcription, and even occasional seeming con- fusions in the order of the narrative, do not materially affect the grave questions involved. If the Pentateuch is not to be believed when it refers again and again to Moses as its author, when is it to be believed ? If we are bound to accept as the writing of Moses only those parts 6 NATURE AND IMPORTANCE which dii'ectly assert their Mosaic origin, of what value is all the rest ? and who shall make for us an authoritative valuation of the whole ? Did our Lord quote as inspired truth what was of merely human origin ? Was He ignorant that what He attributed to Moses was really the work of an indefinite number of anonymous scribes, who lived for the most part after the Captivity ? Surely such notions strike at the very basis of the Christian faith. There is no bridge that can be thrown over the vast gulf that separates those who maintain the Mosaic authorship of the Penta- teuch from those who follow the lead of Well- hausen, Eobertson Smith, Cheyne, and Driver. The force of these considerations was evidently felt by Professor Davison, who put the matter forcibly enough when he remarked: " Canon Driver takes as matters of course statements which Pro- fessor Stanley Leathes thinks subversive of Christianity."^ As it is admitted, then, that scholars of the highest repute regard even such moderate exponents of the neo-criticism as Pro- fessor Driver to be engaged in an undertaking which is "subversive of Christianity," is there any wonder that multitudes of simple, quiet followers of Christ should be filled with anxiety and distress as they are made acquainted with the ^ Revieio of the Churches, vol. i. p. 389. OF THE DISCUSSION, 7 controversies of the day, and perceive some of their most cherished beliefs crumbling away under the disintegrating influences of attacks and criticisms which proceed from many whom they supposed to be among their own allies ? Again, the question of authorship involves the validity of what may be called the mode or form of revelation. If a revelation is to have authority, it must not only be true, but it must be communi- cated authentically to us. Not only the form of the revelation but the vehicle of it must have Divine sanction. To yield this point is to throw open the gates of the citadel to the wooden horse of destructive criticism. For what to one man seems to belong to the very essence of revelation may appear to another to be nothing more than its human vehicle. Hence every man would make his own Bible, which is equivalent to having no Bible at all. Of course, in the case of those books which say nothing about their authorship, we must judge upon such evidence as we can find ; but where the books themselves indicate their author, and where such authorship is affirmed by other parts of Scripture, by Christ and by His apostles, then the authorship, the channel through which the Divine communication is conveyed, is an integral part of the revelation, and both will stand or fall together. 8 NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DISCUSSION In the case of the Pentateuch these consider- ations are of especial weight. A book that is evidently a code of national laws and the rubric of a people's religion must be listened to when it puts forward claims to a certain authorship. It would never have been accepted by the Israel- ites had not its author been known. It would never have been held sacred if it had been sprung upon them from an unknown source. It would never have found its way into the Hebrew Canon, nor could it ever have received the imprimatur of pious Jews or of our Lord and His disciples, unless it had been known all along to have been a Divine revelation written by Moses. THE HEBREW CANON. CHAPTEK II. THE HEBREW CANON. A COMPLETE survey of the question of the authorship of the Pentateuch involves a preliminary inquiry as to what position it has occupied among the Jews from the earliest times. The completed Jewish Scriptures were com- monly divided into three classes, representing the three successive stages through which the revela- tion of the Old Covenant passed, the Law or Torali, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa or holy writings. This arrangement is recognised by our Lord in Luke xxiv. 44, where He spoke of " the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms." ^ ^ The three divisions of the Old Testament are also referred to as the Torah, the Nebiim (^^''33 prophet), and the Kethubim {y\TO written), which the Jews distinguish by the Gradus Mosaicus, Gradus Propheticus, and the Bath Kol. The two first are authorised by Num. xii. 6-8 : "If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, I will speak with him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, . . . with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even lo THE HEBREW CANON. (See also Matt. v. 17, vii. 12 ; Luke xvi. 16 ; Acts xiii. 15, etc.) Our business is with only the first of these, the Law, the Torah, of Moses. In the Old Testament it is called Hattorah, the Torah (Neh. viii. 2, 7, 13), and Sepher hattorali, the Book of the Law (Deut. xxxi. 26 ; Josh. i. 8), names that are descriptive of its importance as supplying the groundwork of all later writings. Its Divine character is indicated by its being referred to as the Torah of Jehovah (2 Chron. xvii. 9, xxxiv. 14 ; Neh. ix. 3), while it is frequently described as the Torah of Moses (Josh. viii. 31 ; 2 Kings xiv. 6 ; Neh. viii. 1), and the Se])her Mosheh or Book of Moses (2 Chron. XXV. 4, xxxv. 12; Ezra vi. 18; Neh. xiii. 1). Originally it was one, and still is in contents and plan, the division into five books, though simple and natural, and according to the character of the different parts, having no bearing on the question of authorship. The unique position which the Pentateuch occupied from the very time of Moses is abund- manifestly, and not in dark speeclies ; and the form of the Lord shall he behold." The Bath Kol expresses the human element, and the Jews held that the writers, though uttering their own thoughts, were yet thinking under Divine influence. The phrase means daughter or echo of the voice, and implies that either the very voice from heaven was heard or some echo of it in the soul. THE HEBREW CANON. ii antly demonstrated. All the subsequent history and legislation of the Israelites point back to the Mosaic origins as their fountain and type. The historical books of the Old Testament testify to the universal sway and supremacy of the Mosaic statutes and laws. Even in times of apostasy these laws were recognised as existing and binding, though disobeyed. In the troubled period of the Judges the priests followed the Torah in the worship at Shiloh, and pilgrimages to the house of God there were kept up according to the Mosaic instructions (Judg. xviii. 31 ; 1 Sam. i. 3, iv. 4). The monarchy was originated in harmony with the law given in Deut. xvii. When David and Solomon reformed the priesthood and public worship, it was in accord with the enactments of Moses. So also with the reorganisations by Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. xvii.), Hezekiah and Josiah (2 Chron. xxix.-xxxv. ; 2 Kings xxiii.). Even in the baser age of Jeroboam's illegal practices there were faithful men who appealed to the people on the ground of the sanctity of the Law. The prophets and the poets based their threatenings and warnings on the same sure authority. It is manifest, then, that from the very days of their promulgation the laws of Moses were held to be inviolable, and were regarded as haloed by the sanction of Jehovah. For these reasons the 12 THE HEBREW CANON. Pentateuch, from the very nature of it, took that supreme place in the reverence and affections of the Israelites which was altogether independent of, and unaffected by, the association with it of other books in subsequent periods. These observations show the importance of dis- tinguishing between the canonicity of the Penta- teuch and the question of the com2Mion of the Canon. If canonicity means the universal acceptance of a book as of Divine origin by the nation, then the Pentateuch has the right to be considered as the beginning of the Jewish Canon. Whatever may be discovered in relation to the completion of that Canon, there is no room for uncertainty as regards its commencement. All through the stages of Israel's history the Law of Moses stood at the head of the sacred books of the Jews, who acknowledged it because they knew from an unbroken tradition and from the teach- ing of the Law itself that Moses had received it from the Lord, and had handed it down to his successors as a Divine revelation. Some of these statements will need elucidation and proof, which we shall endeavour later on to present. Our purpose at this moment is merely to make it plain that there is an obvious distinc- tion between the question of the authorship of the Pentateuch and that of the completion of the THE HEBREW CANON. 13 Canon. Our object will be to show that from the begmning the Jews believed in the Mosaic authorship of the Law, and we wish to clear this matter from the confusion arising from the association with it of a multitude of details that have to do only with the inquiry as to the com- pletion of the Canon. Considerations as to canonicity only cropped up in later times when apocryphal books began to appear. The Law of Moses was at first the one sacred book to the Israelites, and contained for them a Divine cove- nant promulgated at the hands of Moses. Now, Dr. Driver has entirely confused these two utterly different questions. In his Introduc- tion to the Literature of the Old Testament he endeavours to make out that "of the steps by which the Canon of the Old Testament was formed little definite is known," and hence infers that " on the authorship of the books of the Old Testament, as on the completion of the Canon, the Jews possess no tradition worthy of real credence or regard, but only vague and uncertain reminiscences, intermingled often with idle specu- lations." The validity of a Canon is entirely distinct from the question of authorship, and the two things ought not to have been thus confused together by Dr. Driver. The sanctity of the Pentateuch is not affected in the least by later 14 THE HEBREW CANON. discussions as to the extent of or completion of the Canon. The Book of Moses was accepted before any such idea as that of a Canon at all was broached. Even though the controversy respecting the limits of the Canon had never arisen, that would not alter the fact that the Jews had certain writings which they believed were written by Moses, and which they reverenced accordingly. Whatever difficulties there may have been in after-ages in respect to other books, no one is justified in making the sweeping assertion that because of these difficulties, or because we have not the complete history of them, therefore " on the authorship of the books of the Old Testament the Jews possess no tradition worthy of credence." Tt may be partly true of the " completion of the Canon," but even if it were, it is absolutely incorrect in regard to the age and authorship of the Pentateuch, as we hope to show. There are questions prior to that of the completion of the Canon. The commencement of a Canon, when and with what books it originated, these are matters that arise before any such topic as that of the development and completion of the Canon can be discussed. And yet because Dr. Driver thinks there is no credible record of the comiAction of the Canon, he argues that therefore the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is unworthy of THE HEBREW CANON. 15 belief. We think we shall be able to demonstrate that Dr. Driver is wrong even in reference to the completion of the Hebrew Canon ; but if he were right, the question as to the beginning of the Canon would remain unaffected and independent. Almost every book in the Old Testament is crowded with references to Moses as the writer of the Law, every Jewish writer of importance bears testimony to the uninterrupted and widespread belief, Talmud and Targums bear witness to its antiquity, our Lord and His apostles re-echo it; and yet, because Dr. Driver is not quite clear as to the value of the evidences for a com'pUUd Canon, he declares there is no " tradition worthy of real credence or regard" relating "to the authorship of the books of the Old Testament." When was there ever such a splendid example of the fallacy of an ambiguous middle term ? when such a magnificent non sequihtr ? We are con- cerned only with the Pentateuch; but this sweeping statement of Dr. Driver's covers the Pentateuch, and it is right to point out that whatever difficulty there may be about the canonicity of one or two of the Old Testament books, the Pentateuch is exposed to no such objection as that which Dr. Driver raises against the entire Old Testament. It is not necessary for our purposes to do more 1 6 THE HEBREW CANON. than indicate the stages by which was developed and completed the Canon of the Hebrew Bible. Notwithstanding Dr. Driver's judgement on the value of the authorities by means of which we are enabled to trace the history of the Hebrew Bil)le, he yet supplies us with sufficient data from which to conclude that the Canon was completed. He refers us to tlie Prologue to the Proverbs of Jesus the son of Sirach (b.c. 200, translated into Greek B.C. 130), in which there is an allusion to "the Law, the Prophets, and the rest of the Books," showing that a century and a half or even two centuries before Christ the tri-partite division of the Jewish sacred writings was already in vogue. Dr. Driver then states that two letters prefixed to 2 Maccabees relate the collection into a library by Nehemiah of the writings concerning the Kings and the Prophets. He next refers to the apocryphal story about Ezra, who, it is said, lamented that the Law was burnt, and received authority from God in a vision to employ five scribes for the purpose of re- writing the sacred books. It is, of course, admitted that the last of these records is nothing but an " idle speculation," but not so the rest, and these indicate that the Jewish Canon was practically completed two hundred years before Christ. Tf there remains a slight THE HEBREW CANON. 17 doubt as to whether the phrase " the rest of the books," as used in the Preface to Sirach, was intended to denote the whole of the books now included in the Hagiographa or Ketlmhmi, it is put beyond question by Josephus that by the time of Christ the received books of the Old Testament were identical with those which we possess. In his treatise against Apion/ Josephus says : " We have only twenty-two books comprising the record of all time and justly accredited as Divine. Of these, five are the books of Moses, which embrace the laws and the traditions of the origin of man- kind, until his own death, a period of almost three thousand years." The number twenty-two is got by adding Euth to Judges, and Lamentations to Jeremiah, and by reckoning Ezra and Nehemiah as one, and also the twelve Minor Prophets as one, in order to make them fit in with the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The Old Testament there- fore was, when Josephus wrote, precisely what it is now ; and as he lived from a.d. 38 to 97, we have every right to conclude that Christ had the same Old Testament that we have. Dr. Driver does not very freely give these words the force they evidently possess, and, moreover, he stops short in his quotation. Josephus goes on to say : " During so many ages no one has been so bold as ^ Bk, i. cli. viii. 2 1 8 THE HEBREW CANON. to add anything to them, or take anything from them, or to make any change in them ; but it became natural to all Jews from their birth to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them; and, if occasion arise, be willing to die for them." This is more than "vague and uncertain reminiscence." It is the sober expression of a serious and intelligent man's opinion, and the words convey the impression that for a considerable period the Jewish Canon had been closed. The quotations and references given by Dr. Driver, then, as a whole, show how utterly wrong is his judgement in regard to the authorship of the Pentateuch, and how un- justifiable his course in classing this with the entirely different question of the completion of the Old Testament Canon. From his own showing, the sanctity of the Law — that is, its canonicity — was established by B.C. 200, and he ought not to have confused this with matters that have no bearing upon it, whatever might be the extent to which they affect the other books of the Old Testament. There is much other valuable evidence bearing on the Hebrew Canon which it is not necessary to present in detail, but some reference to it ought to be made. The Samaritan Pentateuch demonstrates that THE HEBREW CANON. 19 this portion of the Old Testament existed in its present form before the time of Ezra, thus making- it highly improbable that the books of Moses were compiled after the Babylonian captivity. The Jews and Samaritans were always at enmity. Jesus the son of Sirach speaks contemptuously of them as "they that sit upon the mountain of Samaria, and that foolish people that dwell in Sichem." They claimed to be of the stock of Ephraim and Manasseh, but no doubt they originated from the admixture of foreign colonists with those poorer Israelites who had been left behind by the Assyrians. They had adopted the worship of Jehovah, and when the Israelites returned from captivity and undertook the re- building of the Temple, these Samaritans offered their help, but it was scornfully rejected (Ezra iv.). The Samaritans thereupon set up a rival worship on Gerizim. How unlikely that in such a state of things they would adopt the religious books of their enemies ! But, according to the critical theories, it was at this very juncture that the Jews were completing their ritual and their Pentateuch, and as the books of Moses are the same in the Hebrew and the Samaritan code, it must, if these theories be correct, have been at the time of the intensest hostility between these two peoples that the Samaritans adopted the 20 THE HEBREW CANON. religious books of the Jews. It is impossible to believe they would do this. We are consequently driven to the only other alternative, that the Samaritans already had their Pentateuch, and that therefore it was in existence before the Exile. There is a very striking inscription on the back of one of the MSS. of the Samaritan Penta- teuch which shows how that people honoured the Law. It reads thus : " I, Abishuah, son of Phine- has, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, the favour of Jehovah be on them — for His glory I have written this holy Torah in the entrance of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, on Mount Gerizim, even Bethel, in the thirteenth year of the possession by the children of Israel of the land of Canaan and all its boundaries. I thank the Lord." An equally remarkable note appears at the end of Genesis on another Samaritan MS. : " This holy Torah has been made by a wise, valiant, and great son, a good, a beloved, and an understanding leader, a master of all knowledge, by Shelomo, son of Saba, a valiant man, leader of the congregation by his knowledge and his understanding; and he was a righteous man, an interpreter of the Torah, a father of blessings — of the sons of Nun — may the Lord be merciful to them — and it was appointed to be dedicated holy to the Lord, that they might read therein with THE HEBREW CANON. 21 fear and prayer in the House of the High Priest- hood — in the seventh month, the tenth day ; and this was done before me, and I am Ithamar, son of Aaron, son of Ithamar the High Priest : may the Lord renew his strength ! Amen." A strong proof of the pre-Exilic age of the Pentateuch is the change of letters which took place at about the time of the Babylonian captivity. It was then that the old square Babylonian characters^ now found in our Hebrew Bibles were substituted for the letters previously in use among the Jews. In Babylonia the Israelites became unaccustomed to their own letters, and were therefore unable to read their sacred books. What more likely than that Ezra or some other of recognised authority should be incited to transcribe these books into characters which the people could understand, so that they might thus find consolation amid their heavy sorrows ? Perhaps we have here the origin of the legend that the Law being lost, Ezra rewrote it, or caused it to be rewritten, by Divine command. The Samaritan Pentateuch, however, retained the older Phoenician letters, of which other specimens ^ These are not to be confused with the ancient Assyrian cuneiform characters. These wedge-shaped characters were a sort of hieroglyphics, and are known to have existed from remotest times. 22 THE HEBREW CANON. are found in the ancient Siloah inscription (B.C. 800), and the still older Moabite stone, which is dated by the authorities at about 900 B.C. Josephus, it is true, tried to make out that the Samaritans received their law in the time of Alexander the Great. But Dr. Blihl ^ has shown that the facts are against Josephus. The Samaritan text is not so accurate in a few places as the Massoretic, on which our present Pentateuch is based, but its existence and its form make it certain that as long ago as the period of the Babylonian captivity the books of Moses were practically identical with what we now possess. A brief reference must also be made to the testimony of Philo on the subject of the Jewish Canon. His evidence is important from the fact that he reflects the Hellenistic sentiment, while Josephus represents the Palestinian standpoint, the one speaking for the Greeks, the other for the Hebrews. Philo was born twenty years before Christ. Amid all the laxity of the Alexandrine Jews, and the symbolism with which they over- laid the Scriptures, he yet held the same opinion as that of Josephus. In regard to the number of the sacred books of the Law he writes emphatic- ally : " After a lapse of more than two thousand ^ Canon and Text of the Old Testament. THE HEBREW CANON. 23 years (the Jews) had not changed a single word of what had been written by Moses, but would sooner endure to die a thousand times than con- sent to violate his laws and customs." And although he was acquainted with the apocryphal books, he never quotes from them. While there may not be quite the same precision in Philo's testimony as in that of Josephus, yet it is earlier, and from both it can be inferred with practical certainty that our Lord's Bible w^as the Old Testament as we know it. The Jews guarded their sacred writings from corruption with the most scrupulous care. In the Talmud ^ there is a reference to the Great Syna- gogue of Hezekiah, which implies that Ezekiel and Ezra were members of the company. It would seem that by the authority of this college ^ the work of revision was completed. The synod consisted of 120 of the Jewish leaders, and is probably the same as that referred to in Neh. x. On the death of Simon the Just (292 B.C.) the ^ Baba batlira, 14&. The Talmud consists of the Mishna and Gemara. The Mishna is a collection of oral interpretations of the Pentateuch Avhich had come down from the times of the Exile, and the Gemara consisted of comments on the Mishna. There was a Babylonian and a Jerusalem Gemara, which joined with the Mishna constituted respectively the l^abylonian and the Jerusalem Talmuds. 2 ^yo or nyo. See Ezra ii. 44 ; Neh. vii. 47 ; Prov. xxv. 1. 24 THE HEBREW CANON. Sanhedrim succeeded to its powers. Both these bodies watched jealously over the interests of the sacred books.^ Dr. Driver contemns these views, but Dr. Ginsburg maintained them, as we think, successfully. These qualified and responsible men handed on from age to age what was known from the beginning concerning the books that were held to be inspired, and hence there was an unbroken testimony of unimpeachable character to the Mosaic origin of the Torah. This is not " tradition," it is authentic history. These vener- able men handed down from the time of Ezra at least, the belief that " Moses wrote his own book." It may be admitted that this scrupulous regard for the sacred literature of the Jews degenerated in after-days into a sort of superstition, as, for example, in the wearing of phylacteries contain- ing Ex. xiii. 1-16, Deut. vii. 4-9, and Deut. xi. 13-21, a custom which arose out of a too literal ^ As an example of the extreme reverence paid by Jews to tlie very letter of their sacred writings, we may refer to Ruth iii. 5, the latter part of which reads tovi'ri elai, "Thou wilt say to me." The word elai is without consonants, the Jews believing that the word was as they read it, but did not venture to add the consonants. In ver. 12 of the same chapter there is a reverse case, the word DX having no vowel point. These two instances are quite sufHcient to show the minute care and scru])ulosity with which the Jewish scholars and copyists liandled what they held to be the oracles of God. THE HEBREW CANON. 25 interpretation of Deut. vi. 8, " and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes"; but the very fact that such a superstitious practice could grow up from motives so irreproachable only strengthens our confidence in the purity and authenticity of those books which had all along been the object of this affection and reverence. The statement is sometimes made that the Old Testament which Christ had was the Septuagint, which contained some apocryphal books. It has no bearing, of course, on the question of the Law, though the assertion is made in order to throw suspicion on the whole of the Old Testa- ment.^ Christ had to use the Bible of the time. But it would be preposterous to say that the Jews held all the books included in the Septuagint as alike sacred. As well might we say that the fact that former English Bibles contained the Apocrypha proves that at the time of the Eeformation all the books in our Bible were thought equally canonical. We know from the Thirty - Nine Articles that this was not so. Similarly, we know from Jewish writers that the Torah was regarded as the most sacred and binding of all the Jewish Scriptures, and that the rest were variously esteemed. The Septuagint was a translation made for Egypt, where great ^ Gladden's Wlio wrote the Bible? 26 THE HEBREW CANON. laxity prevailed, and at first did not contain the Apocrypha, for much of it was not yet written, and though some apocryphal books were after- wards included in it, the authority by which this was done was not acknowledged by the Jews. The Greek translation of the Septuagint was used by those who spoke Greek, and was no doubt current in Palestine at that period. But it is probable that Aramaic was the language spoken by our Lord, in which case the Hebrew would be understood by those whom He taught. At all events, we may be sure that the religious teachers of the time, reading the Scriptures in the syna- gogues, would give the Law, the Prophets, and the Kethubim their proper position. There is no clear case of quotation from the Apocrypha by our Lord, and only a few such cases by His apostles, where an illustration was required. Moreover, it is impossible to say what books were circulated then, for we can hardly believe that the whole of the bulky manuscripts comprising even our present Old Testament were commonly possessed. Tiie probability is that few had even the Pentateuch. The people knew the Scriptures mainly from the synagogue readings. Dr. Gladden's remark therefore is quite unwarrant- able when he says that " Bel and the Dragon," THE HEBREW CANON. 27 " Susanna," etc., would, by our argument, be made binding on our faith. If quotations from these apocryphal books had been found in the Gospels and Epistles, then there would be some show of reasonableness in this opinion of Dr. Gladden, but there is not one direct and clear reference to them in all the New Testament. There are resemblances to the Book of Wisdom, enouoh to show that the New Testament writers were acquainted with the apocryphal books, but there is nothing to indicate that these were regarded by our Lord or His apostles as Divinely inspired. After a careful examination of the passages which have been adduced as showing that the New Testament authors accepted some parts at least of the Apocrypha, Dr. Westcott concludes that there is "little ground for believing that our Lord or the apostles sanctioned the authoritative use of the Apocrypha." ^ The supposed parallels are Wisd. v. 18-21 and Eph. vi. 13-17; Wisd. XV. 7 and Eom. ix. 21 ; Wisd. ii. 12 and Jas. V. 6; Wisd. vii. 27 and Heb. i. 3; Ecclus. v. 11 and Jas. i. 19; Ecclus. vii. 10 and Jas. i. 6; Tob. iv. 16 and Matt. vii. 12 ; Wisd. ii. 16-18 and Matt, xxvii. 43-54. There are a few New Testament passages the origin of which is un- ^ BihU in the Church, p. 48. 28 THE HEBREW CANON. known, and which some have attributed to the Apocrypha. Luke xi. 49-51 : " Therefore also said the wisdom of God " seems to be a reference to our Lord's own words as given in Matt. xxiii. 34. In Jas. iv. 5 occur the words : " Or do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, Doth the spirit that dwelleth in us lust to envy ? " St. Paul also quotes, "Eye hath not seen," etc. (1 Cor. ii. 9). But " scripture " means " writing," not always nor necessarily inspired writing. Our Lord's quotation about " rivers of living water " is a free adaptation of Old Testament figures (Isa. xliv. 3; Zech. xiii. 1). Jude also gives words which ap- pear in the Book of Enoch, but there is nothing to show that he did not obtain them from the same tradition as that which the writer of the Book of Enoch used. In none of these quotations or allusions is there anything more than the citation of an appropriate or useful passage without any approach to an acceptance of them as canonical or inspired. The quotations from the recognised sacred books are of a different kind. They are such as to show that the passages quoted were regarded as having a Divine character, and in most cases were presented as from a well-known and authorised collection, sid generis, standing out from and excelling in sanctity all other writings. AVe may conclude, then, with Dr. Westcott, that THE HEBRE W CANON. 29 " whatever may have been the general currency of Greek in social intercourse, however widely or even universally the Septuagint may have been used in public and private religious exercises, yet it is certain that an influential school of public teachers still maintained the study of the Hebrew text. Thus there was no danger in Palestine, as in Egypt, that the original limits of the Old Testament should be obscured. Popular usage, even if it went astray, was corrected by the presence of the original records ; and there is not the slightest evidence to show that the Hebrew Bible ever included any more books than are now contained in it." As we have seen, the inviol- ability of the Jewish Scriptures had been main- tained by the Great Synagogue and the Sanhedrim. The history of the Talmud evidences the same guardianship. The Tar gums, or Aramaic transla- tions of the Old Testament, by Onkelos, Jonathan ben Uzziel, and others, display the same scrupu- lous care. The labours of the Massoretes or Traditionists upon the Hebrew text from the sixth century and onwards, show that this reverent watchfulness over the sacred books continued after the time of Christ, and that therefore our text may be relied upon as being practically what He possessed. Taking all the facts enumerated in the foregoing 30 THE HEBREW CANON. pages into consideration, there remains no room to doubt that our Lord and His apostles had the same Old Testament that we have, that the number of the books was the same, that the text was practically identical, that by "the Law" He meant our Pentateuch, and consequently that whatever He said about the Scriptures applies still to the Bible as we have it. This is the position which the Christian Church took up at the beginning and has ever since maintained. The apostles all bore testimony to it, and the early Christian fathers gave their unanimous assent. Origen and Jerome, the two greatest scholars of early Christian times, spending their life on the study of the Old Testament and translating it into the languages of the time, producing the Hexapla and the Vulgate, which must for ever remain two of the most imposing monuments of human learning and industry, had no suspicion that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses. Augustine saw no reason to suggest any other authorship. Generations of scholars, Hebrew and Christian, have been satisfied with the belief that it was the actual work of Moses. Only in the eighteenth century, a period of frivolity and loose- ness of scholarship, is there the least intimation found that any other theory was possible. THE METHODS OF MODERN CRITICISM. CHAPTEE III. THE METHODS OF MODEKN CIIITICISM. IN endeavouring to present a condensed and accurate statement of the attitude of the " Higher Critics " towards the Pentateuch, we are confronted with an initial difficulty arising from the multiplicity of opinions which have been announced on almost every important point con- cerned .^ The wealth of learning and profuseness ^ We might almost say in regard to the critics, Tot liomines quot sentential. Dr. Driver claims that there is agreement among them, but the facts are quite different. Not in details only, but in vital matters the various critics disagree. All agi'ee Moses did not write much, but in regard to what he did write, or as to the limits of the supposed documents on which the Pentateuch was based, and the age of them, no two are alike. Twenty men might easily agree that the earth was not round. The value of their denial is estimated by the sort of explanation they give of the earth's movements. The critics agree that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, but their harmony means nothing when we find them in entire discord among themselves as to how the Pentateuch came into 32 THE METHODS OF MODERN CRITICISM. of detail exliibited in the many bulky volumes which have recently issued from this school are enough to stagger one whose whole life is not given up to such researches. To some extent, however, the difficulty diminishes as acquaintance with these writers grows, for it is soon discovered that they draw very largely from the same sources. The foundation of the "Higher Criticism" is held to be the suggestion made by Astruc, more than a century ago, that the two names of the Deity in Genesis — Jehovah and Elohim — indi- existence. The Introduction of De "Wette-Schrader recognises the three elements adopted by Dr. Driver, and of course they agree. When one man borrows from another it is likely there ■will be agreement. Wellhausen and Robertson Smith agree as touching the post-Exilic theory, because the Scottish divine simply copied the speculations of the German. But you have not to read far before you discover traces of difference between the members of these respective pairs. Some think Hilkiah wrote Deuteronomy, others that Jeremiah forged it. Ewald attri- buted it to a prophet who had taken refuge in Egypt during the time of Manasseh. Graf puts it doAvn to the reign of Josiah, Vaihinger to that of Hezekiah. In regard to the documents, Ewald recognises nine, Hupfeld four in Genesis only, Knobel six. Bleek recognises only a Jehovist who expanded the Elohist fragment. The newer school of Graf and Wellhausen puts Deuteronomy before the Priestly Code, whereas most others had thought it to belong to the Exilic or even post-Exilic age. All this looks rather unlike agi-eement. But Dr. Driver thinks there is a general agreement. We wish he had specified the points in which the agi-eement obtains, it would have saved us some perjdexity. THE METHODS OF MODERN CRITICISM. 33 cated that Moses made use of two principal documents in writing the book. These documents are now described as J and E, and are by some coalesced into one, usually distinguished as JE, said to have been compiled by " the Junior Elohist," but on this point there are differences of opinion. The hypothesis originated in a misunderstand- ing of Ex. vi. 2, 3 : "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord : and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by (the name of) God Almighty, but by My name Jehovah was I not known to them." Comment- ators of the very highest repute, such as Heng- stenberg, Keil, and Delitzsch, explain that it is the Divine character rather than the mere name that is denoted ; and this interpretation is in complete harmony with common Hebrew usage. The full meaning of the name Jehovah, all the significance of the Divine grace and goodness, was not under- stood by the Israelites till, as their Eedeemer, He delivered them out of the Egyptian bondage and brought them to the promised land. This suggestion of Astruc's, neglected at first, has blossomed and fruited, till now we have a large number of these hypothetical documents, varying in character, style, age, and boundaries. Undoubtedly Moses used some documents, and may have copied their exact words. This would 3 34 THE ME THODS OF MODERN CRITICISM. partly account for some slight variations in style noticeable here and there. But when it is main- tained that these documents were mainly of post-Mosaic age, and that therefore Moses had really little or nothing to do with the composition of the Pentateuch, then we are tilled with wonder that so imposing a figure as he was in Hebrew history should be supposed to have left no records nor have bequeathed any legacy of literature or statute-book to the nation he governed so long. As to the original materials which may have been utihsed by these scribes or compilers, not much that is conclusive or reassuring can be ascertained from a comparison of the various opinions avowed by the different disciples of the critical school. The Ten Commandments, perhaps a written account of the w^ar with the Amalekites,^ possibly " the Book of the Covenant " (Ex. xx.- xxiii.),^ a nucleus of pre - existing enactments and priestly customs, a tradition or even a written account of an address by Moses in the plain of Moab, — these fragments alone are allowed even by the most generous of the critics to have been factors in the original groundwork of the Penta- teuch. But Wellhausen and Cheyne would not tolerate such a yielding to the weaknesses of the more moderate followers of the Germans. They ^ Driver's Introduction^ p. 115. - See Ex. xxiv. 7. THE METHODS OF MODERN CRITICISM. 35 would run the Thames as dry as the Ehine has become. Astruc's suggestion respecting the use of Elohim and Jehovah in Genesis was made in the interests of the Mosaic authorship, but it was not long before Eichhorn and others developed the idea along those analytical lines which the German mind seems to affect in philosophy, science, theo- logy, and everything that it touches. By the end of the last century Moller had started a sort of Fragmentary theory, which assumes that the Penta- teuch originated in a number of old documents which were put together in the time of David and Solomon, and that from this was compiled the Book of Deuteronomy. This is practically the view of Kuenen. Ewald supposed a Book of Origins out of which the Pentateuch and Joshua have grown, the result of the labours of eleven authors all of course anonymous, and dating down to the time of Manasseh. It was Bishop Colenso who did most to introduce these new ideas to English students. His Pentateuch and Booh of Joslma Critically Examined began in 1862, and was com- pleted in 1872, and this series was followed by other works of a similar nature. The Elohist was thought by Bishop Colenso to be Samuel, but he also created a second Elohist. The Jehovist he took to be either Nathan or the 36 THE METHODS OF MODERN CRITICISM. second Elohist, and there was also a Deuteronomist who might have been Jeremiah. Besides these, certain Levitical legislators are assumed, who, after the Captivity, made extensive additions to Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. The early history of the world as given in Genesis is legend- ary, Jehovah or Yahveh is the sun-god,^ and Abraham and Moses mythical. Colenso has been sufficiently answered, and his books are now- used principally for the purpose of compiling imposing lists of references to the various portions of the books of Moses ascribed by critical writers to J, E, P, and the rest. The most dominant theory at the present moment is that to which Wellhausen has given prominence. He thinks a portion of Genesis and Exodus is of an early date, but that the bulk of the Pentateuch was written after the return from 1 The sting of this Jehovistic and Elohistic theory lies in the assumption that the name Jehovah was that of a mere tribal God. This, we regret to find, is countenanced by Robertson Smith {Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 272). But how can tliis view be reconciled with the sanctity with which the Jews have always invested this name ? The prophets never failed to exalt Jehovah above idols. It is true Jehovah is often spoken of as the God of Israel, the Portion of Jacob, and in other similar ways (Jcr. x. 16, etc.), but what a fragile found- ation is this for so serious an assertion ! Could Ho not be the Portion of Israel as Avell as of all other peoples who believed in Him and served Him ? THE METHODS OF MODERN CRITICISM. 37 the Captivity, the whole having then been revised by a priestly editor. The Mosaic system is looked at by him not as a revelation, but as an evolution occupying many ages. Some of these speculations, especially the post-Exilian date of the Levitical system, have been popularised by Professor Eobertson Smith in the Encyclopxdia Britamiica, in his Old Testament in the Jevnsh Church, and elsewhere. Still more recently Dr. Driver, in his Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, has expounded and laboriously illustrated the doctrines of the Wellhausenian school. As this book of Dr. Driver's is perhaps the most widely read exposition of the methods and principles of the Higher Critics in England, we must try to furnish our readers with an adequate explanation of his attitude towards the Pentateuch, or rather, the Hexateuch, which includes Joshua. On p. 12 of the Preface, Dr. Driver says: "That the Priests' Code (P) formed a clearly defined document, distinct from the rest of the Hexateuch, appears to me to be more than sufficiently estab- lished by a multitude of convergent indications; and I have nowhere signified any doubt on this conclusion. On the other hand, in the remainder of the narrative. Genesis to Numbers, and of Joshua, though there are facts which satisfy me that this also is not homogeneous, I believe that the analysis is 38 THE METHODS OF MODERN CRITICISM. frequently uncertain, and will perhaps always continue so." Again, on p. 109, he tells us that he "has always risen from the study of JE with the conviction that it is composite." Having thus given a brief indication of Dr. Driver's views in reference to the origin of the Hexateuch as a whole, it will be convenient here to present his account of the sources of each book and the manner in which it assumed its present form. As regards Genesis he thus writes : ^ " First, the two independent but parallel narratives of the patriarchal age, J and E, were combined into a whole by a compiler. . . . The whole thus formed (JE) was afterwards combined with the narrative P by a second compiler, who, adopting P as his framework, accommodated JE to it, omitting in either what was necessary in order to avoid need- less repetition, and making such slight redactional adjustments as the unity of his work required." In reference to Exodus he says (p. 20) : " The structure of the book is essentially similar to that of Genesis, the same sources, P and JE, appearing still side by side and exhibiting the same dis- tinctive peculiarities." Leviticus is largely ascribed to P. But chapters xvii. to xxvi. manifest " a foreign element." Hence he assumes an H which had become incorporated with P, adding a note to ^ Introduction^ p. 18. the effect that he would have adopted Kuenen's P^, P^, and P^, by which symbols that writer dis- tinguishes the various strata of P, only he " did not wish to impose upon himself the task, which the use of P^ would have involved, of distinguishing between P^ and P^." Deuteronomy is taken to be based on JE, and the absence of P elements is explained by Dr. Driver (p. 76) by the supposition that JE and P " were not yet united into a single work" when Deuteronomy was composed. He does, however, venture to identify a few verses as belonging to P. In regard to Joshua, he thinks it is a continuance of JE with a rare use of P ; while a new element, D^, signifying the Deuteronomic editor, is introduced. JE, a compilation of J and E, is distinguished as the prophetical narrative, and P as the priestly narrative. J is "flowing and picturesque," E is concrete, P uses the language of the jurist rather than of the historian ; E appears to have belonged to the northern kingdom, J to the southern. The two were combined about 800 B.C.; whereas P, the latest source of the Pentateuch, according to Driver, was completed after the time of Ezekiel. We may then put Dr. Driver's general explana- tion of the evolution of the Pentateuch in this way. The Jehovist and the Elohist authors " appear to have cast into a literary form the traditions 40 THE METHODS OB MODERN CRITICISM. respecting the beginnings of the nation that were current among the people, — approximately (as it would seem) in the early centuries of the mon- archy" (p. 110). The Priests' Code (P) consists of sections whicli, " when disengaged from the rest of the narrative and read consecutively, are found to constitute a nearly complete whole, con- taining a systematic account of the origines of Israel, treating with particular minuteness the various ceremonial institutions of the ancient Hebrews (Sabbath, Circumcision, Passover, Taber- nacle, Priesthood, Feasts, etc.), and displaying a consistent regard for chronological and other statistical data, which entitles it to be considered as the framework of our present Hexateuch" (p. 8). The main object of P is to serve " as an introduc- tion to the systematic view of the theocratic institutions which is to follow in Exodus to Numbers" (p. 10). Then still later, this Priests' Code being taken as a framework, various extracts from JE (an amalgamation of the Jehovist and Elohist sources) were welded into P, and thus we get the Hexateuch. In regard to Deuteronomy, JE is said to form the principal element, but to this book we shall have to devote special attention presently. The impression created on the mind by reading all this is that it practically destroys confidence THE METHODS OF MODERN CRITICISM. 41 in the Bible altogether. If these are the processes by which the Old Testament reached its present shape, then truly it is the work of accident, and is destitute of value for religious ends. Doubts and contradictions as to when these various authors lived, complete ignorance as to their identity, divided opinions as to what portions of the Penta- teuch they wrote, these are the characteristics of Dr. Driver's laborious efforts and those of his con- freres in the course they have taken. As though Dr. Driver himself perceived this, he hastens to warn us that the form of revelation is vital, not the fad, forgetting that some forms of so-called revelation are such as to disprove that they are facts. If ever this was the case, it is so in regard to the curious jumble which those who adopt a plural authorship of the Pentateuch present to us as the form of revelation. But, says Dr. Driver, "none of the historians of the Bible claim super- natural enlightenment for the materials of their narratives." This may be so with E and J and P and H, but it is not so in regard to Moses, who declared a thousand times that he spoke and wrote by the authority of the Lord. We are of opinion that far too much antagonism to the supernatural in the Bible is manifested by many of the Higher Critics, and we are at a loss to under- stand how they distinguish themselves from those 42 THE METHODS OF MODERN CRITICISM. who deliberately adopt a naturalistic standpoint in their conceptions of man and religion. There is a strong tendency in these days to eliminate all Divine agency from nature and from history ; and although we are far from suspecting that Dr. Driver is animated by any such motive, yet we cannot resist the conviction that many of his expressions, like the one just quoted, do favour the modern hostility of sentiment against the doctrine of " supernatural enlightenment " in the composi- tion of the scriptural books, and also lend support to the growing disbelief in miracle and prophecy. As we shall have to deal frequently with the speculations of other adherents to the analytical school of critics, some of whom are far more advanced than Dr. Driver would admit himself to be, it may be well to state what we gather to be the general results which are supposed to have been arrived at by the more prominent disciples of this school. It is claimed for the new criti- cism that it has established — (1) That the Pentateuch did not assume its present form till the period of the Exile or later, one thousand years after the time of Moses. (2) That the Hexateuch discloses three or more strata, belonging to different ages, which, after various revisions, were combined in the form it now presents to us. THE METHODS OF MODERN CRITICISM. 43 (3) That these strata are mainly, {a) an his- torical narrative, JE, compiled from the so-called Jehovistic and Elohistic documents somewhere about 800 B.C., during the early era of the monarchy, and constituting what Dr. Driver calls the "prophetical narrative." (5) The Book of Deuteronomy, based on the historical narrative JE, in the days of Manasseh or Josiah (B.C. 700-640), by an unknown writer D, later than JE, but of earlier date than P,^ and written to promote the centralised worship of Jerusalem as opposed to the local worship of the high places, (c) The priestly narrative, P, answering to the Grundsclirift of earlier critics, attaining its final expansion in the time of the Exile (circ. B.C. 587), and which, with additions from JE, constituted the Books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and I^umbers. (4) That the Tabernacle was a fiction framed on the pattern of the Temple.^ (5) That there was a rivalry between Prophets and Priests, the Levites and priests having in later times obtained the upper hand by originating the fiction that the tribe of Levi had been consecrated during the leadership of Moses.^ 1 Driver's Introduction, p. 131. " Wellliausen's Prolegomena, pp. B7-39. 3 Ibid. pp. 126, 221. 44 THE METHODS OF MODERN CRITICISM. (6) That all the earlier narratives of Genesis are myths.^ From all this it appears that there is a general agreement among the critics that the Pentateuch could not have reached its present form until at the earliest ahout 500 B.C., that is, one thousand years later than has always been supposed to have been the case. 1 Lux, Mundi, pp. 356, 357. CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. 45 CHAPTER IV. CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. WE propose now to test these methods and principles of the Higher Criticism. Do they harmonise with facts? Do they involve consequences which the believer in the Divine character of the Pentateuch cannot accept ? I. The Jehovist and Elohist Theory. First let us examine the theory of a plurality of authors or sources of the Pentateuch which has been built up on the use of different names for the Deity. It is inferred that the occurrence of the names Jehovah and Elohim involves a dis- tinction that warrants us in maintaining that the Pentateuch is a compilation from at least two documents, and these are called the Elohistic and the Jehovistic. The relation in which these two stand to the later Priests' Code and to the 46 CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. finally constructed Pentateuch has already been described. So convinced are the critics of the validity of this distinction, that they regard it as the easiest thing in the world to define the limits of these two documents. The veriest tiro can with certainty accomplish the feat. It can be done, says Mr. F. Newman, mechanically, say with a pair of scissors. Possibly, and that is about the only way in which it can be done. It is a powerful argument against this theory that God is referred to in the Jehovist and Elohist portions under four, not two names. These are El Shaddai (God Almighty), Jehovah (Lord, usually in capital letters in the English Bible), Elohim (God), and Elion (Most High). To be consistent, the critics ought to distinguish four documents according to this criterion. The very passage on which Astruc based his theory (Ex. vi. 2, 3) contains the three names, El Shaddai, Elohim, and Jehovah, the significance of which we have already pointed out. The Elohist is accredited with Gen. xxii. 1-14, and yet the name Jehovah occurs in ver. 14, as though even the Higher Critic dare not make mincemeat of the sublime story of the offering up of Isaac. But then, if this Canon is worth anything, it ought to be applicable throughout. In Gen. xxvii. 20, Jehovah occurs in an Elohistic narrative, and CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. 47 again in Ex. xiv. 10. In Ex. iii. 14, Elohim declares Himself as I Am that I Am, and yet in Ex. vi. 2, given to P by Driver, Elohim says, I AM Jehovah. Could confusion be worse con- founded ? The Deity is referred to in Deutero- nomy by precisely the same names as in the previous books, but no references need be made, inasmuch as the critics allow it to have been the work of one writer, whom they call D ; though most of them think that D drew upon other sources, and Dr. Driver arranges some portions under J, E, and P. It is only what we might expect, that the advocates of so artificial a theory as this should find it difficult at times to ensure even the semblance of probability to their analyses of the narrative. Noldeke suggests that E quotes from J, but this can be better estimated when the critics have decided whether J is older than E or E than J, for at present they differ among them- selves in regard to this point. Dr. Driver hints that it is the absolute use of J that is alone to be regarded. In this case he will have to recast the whole of the long analyses which he has so laboriously collected. In another place he says that perhaps the compiler has made a mistake through the influence of previous verses. A very curious specimen of the difficulties besetting this theory, which is based on the distinction 48 CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. between the names of the Deity, is presented in connection with Gen. xvii. 1-3, where all three names, Jehovah, Elohim, and El Shaddai, are given to God. Some of the critics would replace Jehovah by Elohim, and then, in order to make the verse Elohistic, the name El Shaddai is said to be equivalent to Elohim. Dr. Driver, however, ascribes it to P. Again, certain characteristic expressions are supposed to help in the determin- ation of the Jehovistic and Elohistic narratives. The Hebrew for "possession" {aclmizzah), "the land of the strangers' sojourn," " the self-same day," " Padan-Aram," etc., are Elohistic, whereas the Jehovist uses Aram-N"aharaim, or simply Aram. And yet in the very first place in which the phrase "the land in which thou art a stranger" occurs, "it is not Elohim, but Jehovah as El Shaddai, who promises to Abram and his seed the land of his pilgrimage."^ Again, the word achuzzah (possession) is found in Gen. xxiii. 4, 9, 20, xlix. 30, and elsewhere, in reference to pro- perty for which no other Hebrew word could be found. In Gen. xlvii. 27, the word is given to J. The phrase " after his kind " only occurs in con- nection with the Creation, the Deluge, and in Leviticus in reference to animals. What other expression could be adopted in such a connection ? ^ Keil, Commentary on the Pentateuch, iii. p. 523. CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. 49 The Elohistic '' tolecloth'' occurs in a Jehovistic portion, and for the simple reason that it was the proper word with which to head the lists of generations. The New Testament might be split up into fragments upon such principles. No literary production in the world could remain intact if treated after this manner. Elohim is a name which has reference to the highest fulness of Divine power, and is conse- quently used in order to denote the Creator of the heavens and the earth (Gen. i.), and with the article it signifies the absolute essence or person- ality of God, as in Gen. v. 22, vi. 9, etc. The name Jehovah, constructed from the verb " to be," corresponds with the " I Am " of Ex. iii. 14, and represents the Divine Being as manifesting Him- self in history and in the world. As Jehovah, God makes the covenant with Abram, and reveals Himself to Moses (Ex. iii.). He is thus the Author of all that makes for the salvation of the human race. Creation having to do with both of these aspects of the Divine character, manifesting power and love, we find that after Elohim has created the heavens and the earth, the double name, Jehovah-Elohim, is introduced in Gen. ii. 4-iii. 24, where the special interests of man in connection with Paradise and the Fall are prominent, and in this passage it occurs twenty times. It appears so CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. again in Ex. ix. 30, and very frequently in other Old Testament books. As God did not fully reveal His purposes of salvation previously to the Exodus, it would not have been strange if the name Jehovah had not occurred at all before that event. We do, however, meet with it in Gen. v. 29, x. 9, and in xvii. 1, in combination with El Shaddai, the Almighty. This significance of the name Jehovah is accepted by Astruc himself, for he says: "It simply proves that God had not shown the patriarchs the full extent of the meaning of this name as He had made it known to Moses." In Hebrew, name means nature. The names by which we address the Deity in our devotions will vary with our conception of His attributes formed at the time, or with our special needs at the moment. Similar considerations must guide us in trying to under- stand the reasons for God's revelation of Himself under different names. To argue that a different name implies a different author leads to the most extreme absurdities. Let any one read Psalm 1. with such an idea before him, and he cannot fail to realise the force of what is here said. And so with the Old Testament in general. The spiritually- minded man could not read these old records without being conscious of the sublime reasons that deterniined the adoption of Elohim or Jehovah CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. 51 for the name of God, any more than one could read the later chapters of St. John's Gospel with- out feeling the distinction between " God " and " the Father " as applied to the same Divine Person. This theory of the plurality of authors is not only upset by facts gathered from the Pentateuch itself, but it is at variance with many explicit assertions of our Lord. In Matt, xix., in reference to divorce, Christ quotes from Gen. i., and also from Gen. ii., combining them together as from the same hand, whereas one passage is ascribed by the critics to P, and the other to J. Christ ought to have answered to the Pharisees, " You are mistaken; Moses did not originate the law of divorce, that appears in Deuteronouiy, which was written eight centuries afterwards by some scribe who palmed it off as the work of Moses." In Mark vii. 10, 11, He quotes the fifth command- ment, and also a passage from Ex. xxi. 17, speak- ing of them both as being what " Moses said." And yet Dr. Driver has discovered that J wrote the one and E the other. So in our Lord's refer- ence to the burning bush. He said, " Moses showed in the place concerning the bush." If Dr. Driver and the rest of his school are right, Christ should have said, " All these things were written in the dark days of the Exile, or amid the 52 CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. turbulent scenes of the later kings, in those benighted times when nothing noble in literature was accomplished ; and though the Pentateuch is of the very flower of our national literature, yet it was composed by men whose names are unknown, and whose modesty was so extreme that no one living at the time was aware they had done a work so magnificent." The very opposite of all this was what Christ really did say. We may without fear take our stand with Him in saying, " The Scripture cannot be broken," as against those who would break it up into an infinite number of fragments, and dissolve its authority into the thin air of anonymity and uncertainty. We know that God spake to Moses, and we know that in these last times God hath spoken unto us by His Son, but as for this J and this E and this P, and the rest of these alphabetical wizards, no man knows whence they are. II. The Argument from Style. Another argument of the modern critical school against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is that which is based on a supposed difference in the style of its various portions. Dr. Driver pre- sents a list of words and phrases in Hebrew which is useful for the purposes of those who undertake CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. 53 to answer him. Many of these words are tech- nical, such as are used of Noah's Ark, the Taber- nacle, the priests' dress, ceremonial functions, ancient customs, the Nile grass, the Egyptian fur- nace, etc., and hence are just what we should expect in those parts of the narrative where they occur. Others are accounted for by the fact that the ijysissima verla of various speakers are quoted, as in the cases of Abraham, Sarah, Eebekah, Jacob, Joseph, and Balaam. In the narrative concerning Jethro (Ex. xviii.) there are naturally several peculiar words. In Deuteronomy we have Moses' own style, which could hardly be exclusively the case, from the very nature of things, in his other books, and perhaps his style was mellowed with age and reflection, or exalted by the thought of the solemnity attaching to his last address to the people. On looking over the list which Dr. Driver gives of the peculiarities of H (Deuteronomy),^ one is struck with the paucity of what is really peculiar. Many of them occur elsewhere, and he admits that the vocabulary "presents comparat- ively few exceptional words," the phrases being what he most relies upon. But this is just where the Moses of Exodus would differ from the Moses of forty years afterwards. It is precisely the phrases containing turns of thought that would distinguish ^ See Appendix. $4 CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. the ripened style of Moses after the forty years of responsibility in the wilderness from that of Exodus and Leviticus. This argument from style is, however, essentially fluctuating and unsatis- factory. It generally resolves itself into a question of temperament, and exposes those who adopt it to the appearance at least of an assumption of qualities which no one is obliged to recognise. Within this generation we have had examples enough of the inability of English scholars to deter- mine the authorship of even English productions. Junius has not yet been clearly identified, and we were threatened, not long ago, with the demolition of our Shakespearean idol. Who will pretend that modern Hebraists, poring over their lexi- cons, and running to Jewish rabbis with their perplexities of syntax, are competent to distinguish subtleties of style in compositions three thousand years old ? This reasoning from style, moreover, has all the vices of the fallacy usually called arguing in a circle. All you have to do is to decide that J is picturesque, and then whenever you come across a bald passage you may assign it to some one else. Let P be held to have a fond- ness for formulae, and then when you find a formal phrase, give him the benefit of it. If there should arise occasional passages which will not yield to treatment; it is still possible to escape, as Garbett CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. 55 tells US Eichhorn did, by arbitrarily pronouncing them to be interpolations, for you can alter them to your mind, or do away with them altogether. It is instructive to observe how experts in criticism differ from one another in their judgements, and how hesitatingly they speak in regard to some points of style which one would think ought not to be beyond the powers of modern scholar- ship. A good example of this is found in the conflict of opinion between Eiehni and Wellhausen on the relative ages of J and E, the former dating E 150 years before J, the latter putting J 100 years before E. One would have expected, if there were these professed distinctions of style, that these masters of th-e science of criticism would have approached more nearly than this to one another. We do not wish to press this point unduly, for undoubtedly authors have their idio- syncrasies, but neither can w^e allow too much weight to the argument, since the same w^riter under varying conditions will adopt different styles, and when treating upon dissimilar subjects will use words and phrases that are appropriate to each. Moses, calmly setting down what he had learned concerning the origin of the world and patriarchial history, would introduce modes of expression differing somewhat from those which would occur to him amid the excitement of his 56 CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. audience with Pharaoh, or when deeply stirred by the affecting circumstances connected with his farewell address on the confines of that Canaan which he had seen but was not to enter. But surely these variations of expression, begotten of transitions of feeling, are not to be taken as a pretext for subjecting his writings to the same treatment as that which Isaiah suffered at the hands of Manasseh. We will examine two or three examples of the application of this canon of criticism. The men- tion of the magicians is given to E in Gen. xli. 8-24, but to P in Ex. vii. 11, and yet the word is supposed to be a test or characteristic one. The association of Moses with Aaron is ascribed to P in the account of the Egyptian plagues, but to J in Ex. iv. 14-16, v. 1-20, for no apparent reason, and yet such association is one of the elements that help the critics to their analysis. It is pointed out also that J demands the release of the Israelites, whereas no such demand occurs in P. But was it not the one sole reason or object of the plagues to procure that release ? Again, because Ex. viii. 15 contains the formula "as the Lord had said," it is given to the " precise and formal " P, though it is evidently absurd to do so, and requires a strongly compacted verse to be violently split up into two small portions in order that J and P CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. 57 (greedy fellows !) may have a little bit each. One can hardly write gravely about such methods. To many they all seem as sacrilegious as the dividing of the seamless robe, "woven from the top throughout." Once more, since the hardening of Pharaoh's heart is described by two different words in dif- ferent places, P must be credited with PTH (to be strong), and J with "133 (to be heavy), as though a writer, having used a word once, must keep to it in every reference he may make to the same thing, and must on no account vary his vocabulary. And yet in Ex. ix. 35, and elsewhere, P's word is given to E. Two small portions of the record concerning the rod- are assigned to E, but the reason for the rod being taken at all is put down to J. In Ex. xiv. 10, the pursuit by Pharaoh is given to E, although the test-word \>V^ intervenes between two little bits ascribed to J, and though Jehovah occurs in E's portion and the word \m is apportioned to J in other places. If our Bible really was made up in this way, we should be inclined to agree with Kuenen when he says, " The principal element in the Old Testament narratives is legend." As a crucial case, take the narrative of Creation (Gen. i.-ii. 4). Any ordinary reader of this would be impressed with its graphic and poetic cha- 58 CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. racter. The style and diction are sympathetic with the sublime transactions described. There is a vividness and majesty about the composition that have led many critics to call it a piece of Hebrew poetry. We should therefore, unless our poetic faculty had become atrophied by an excessive indulgence in analytic exercises, con- clude at once that some " flowing and picturesque " writer, such as J, the hypothetical author whose style is said by Wellhausen and Driver to be of this description, had composed that narrative. But such a conclusion would only reveal our lack of the critical instinct, or, at any rate, would show how hard the ways of critics are to understand. It was P, says Dr. Driver, who wrote this chapter and the opening verses of the next. If he had another document before him, it was still not J, but E. The " formal and precise " P, the supposed author or compiler or redactor of the Priests' Code, has glowed and taken fire for once, and that not in the heat of composition, but in the calm, cold moments which confront the literary man when he first takes up his pen and combats with the intellectual inertia and the thousand distrac- tions that every author knows something about when commencing his task. Here at the very beginning of his work the formal and precise P blossoms out into poetry. But, of course, he CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. 59 settles down into a more prosaic style when giving the list of Adam's descendants and of the nations born of Japhet, Ham, and Shem. One could as easily wax warm with poetic fervour when tabu- lating the Board of Trade returns as become "flowing and picturesque" when drawing up a genealogical table. Milton probably did not introduce the lofty imagery of Paradise Lost into the business letters of Oliver Cromwell when acting as the Protector's secretary. One great proof that the Pentateuch was the offspring of so great and cultured an intellect as that of Moses, is that every part of it harmonises with the subject-matter in hand. Were this not so, we should at once infer that some such nonentity as J or E or P wrote it, and its incongruities would cause it to be banished from the attention of the world. The same objection might be raised against the treatment by the critics of the beauti- ful and natural biographies of the patriarchs, and the quiet yet grand and stately utterances of Deuteronomy. But the task is superfluous. Peculiarities of style are, of course, to be taken into account in literary criticism, but not where we have only one production from any given author. Where there are numerous works from the same pen, and an abundant literature with which to compare those works, the ingenious 6o CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. critic may set up certain canons that will help him in the determination of questions of author- ship. But even then other kinds of evidence have to be adduced before anything like convic- tion is secured. Every classical scholar knows that even with all the wealth of Greek literature at his disposal for the purposes of comparison, it is well-nigh impossible to settle questions of this kind with complete satisfaction. Some most egregious blunders in regard to the authorship of Greek and Latin and even English compositions have been made by those who would have been capable of reaching the truth if canons based on considerations of style had been reliable. But the difficulties besetting Hebrew authorship are enormously increased by the fact that we have practically no other works to use as tests of style. We have one Pentateuch, one Hebrew Bible, and nothing else. All other Hebrew compositions are reflections of these, and of much later date. With no other literature to help, how is it possible to frame canons that shall enable us to determine a question so difficult, and how shall we know whether the subtle distinctions between the different portions of the Pentateuch alleged by the critics do but reflect the varying moods of its author, or even the temperament or arbitrariness of the critic himself ? CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. 6i III. Post-Mosaic Development of the Levitical System. The late origin of the Pentateuch is said to be evidenced by the fact that some of its rites and institutions did not reach their full development until the age of the prophets, or even till post-Exilic times. The crude elements or germs might have been in existence earlier, but nothing more. Pro- fessor Kobertson Smith is specially associated with the opinion that "the priestly legislation did not exist before the Exile." It need hardly be said at this late day that he is indebted to Wellhausen for his theory, and that much of his material used in his- argument is but the cramhe repetita obtained from that laborious writer. Dr. Smith cannot see how " a people emerging from a pastoral life in the desert," or from "a nomad life in Goshen," or from " a wretched serf- dom in Egypt," were fit for institutions more appropriate to the age of Solomon or Hezekiah ; or how they could have brought into the wilder- ness the gold, silver, purple yarn, incense, and spices needed for a gorgeous tabernacle ; or how three codes could have been given within forty years.^ Dr. Driver ^ announces views of a pre- ^ Old Testament in Jewish Church, 337, etc., 410. 2 Introduction, pp. 35, 79, etc. 62 CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. cisely similar character. These writers think it more likely that the Sinaitic code (S) or Covenant (Ex. xx.-xxiii. and xxxiv.) was given in the wilder- ness, and developed gradually in after-ages. The Israelites did not, of course, receive at first the full Levitical code. God gave them the Ten Commandments " for their welfare " (Jer. vii. 23), and "He added no more" (Deut. v. 22). But when they made a golden calf and turned back in their hearts to Egypt, they received the burden- some code of Levitical sacrifices and ceremonies (Acts vii. 41). But, as Stephen said, they "had the tabernacle in the wilderness, even as He appointed who spake unto Moses that he should make it according to the figure that he had seen. Which also our fathers, in their turn, brought in with Joshua when they entered on the possession of the nations which God thrust out before the face of our fathers " (Acts vii. 44, 45). We are not compelled to believe that it was a " gorgeous " tabernacle. It was more likely a simple structure suitable to their wandering life. The altar, we know, was a rude one, made of earth or unhewn stone (Ex. XX.), and we may properly suppose that every- thing else would be made to harmonise with this. The Egyptians had given them gold and silver, and the rest of the materials were obtainable in the " wilderness." Wellhausen altogether denies CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. 63 that there was a tabernacle in the wilderness, and contends that the account of it given in Exodus was a priestly invention of post - Exilic days founded on the Temple. This is too bold an assertion for argument, and can only be met by a direct negative, based on the authority of Exodus and of Stephen. The idea of a central sanctuary being supposed to be merely the result or invention of priestly ambition in the interests of the Jerusalem party, the narrative of Exodus concerning the tabernacle, and the narrative of Deuteronomy, which enforces the idea, are deliberately transferred to later times. In appointing a central sanctuary we know that Moses sought only to prevent the people from degenerating into heathenism. The prophets had continually to rebuke the Israelites for "multiplying altars to sin" (Hos. viii. 11). Moses did not, however, interdict local sanctu- aries. Hence it is a groundless assumption that, because Samuel and others sacrificed at local altars (1 Sam. ix. 12, x. 3-5, xiv. 35), therefore the idea of a central sanctuary was not developed till the days of Josiah.^ The altars or high places on Carmel, etc. (1 Kings xviii. 30, 2 Kings xviii. 22), were not forbidden by the Mosaic code. They were necessary, and were the origin of the synagogues. ^ Driver's Introduction, p. 81. 64 CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. It was their idolatrous use that Moses denounced. " In every place where I record My name I will come unto thee and bless thee," said the Lord (Ex. XX. 24), that is, in every successive place where the sanctuary might be set, or in what- ever place God should choose. The synagogue worship co-existed with the full Priests' Code, why not therefore the wor- ship at these local sanctuaries ? In Deut. xii. 15, 21, the people were commanded to sacrifice. Samuel sacrificed (1 Sam. ix. 12, xvi. 3). Jesse's family did the same (1 Sam. xx. 6, 29). Where did they sacrifice ? They must have had some sort of altar or sanctuary. David's sacrifice on Araunah's threshing-floor was in connection with a Divine revelation (2 Sam. xxiv.). The sacrifices at such places were wrong only when an image of Jehovah was introduced into the rite, or when the great sacrificial feasts at the central sanctuary were deserted for the purpose. From all this it appears utterly unjustifiable to make Deutero- nomy post-Mosaic, or to assume a late Priests' Code which restricts sacrifices to the central sanctuary. The idea of a central sanctuary was a Mosaic idea, and local altars and sacrifices were consistent with this and contemporaneous with it.^ ^ It is clear from Josh. xxii. that the idea of a central sanctuary was familiar in the age between its iirst inception by CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. 65 But the critics find that sacrifices were widely prevalent during the time of Amos, Jeremiah, etc., and also that they were authorised by the Mosaic code, while their interpretation of Jer. vii. 22, etc., makes it deny that sacrifices were ever offered in the wilderness. Hence they declare that both sacrifices and the Mosaic code Moses and its assumed "origin" by Ezekiel. Jeroboam's sin would have been inexplicable had not such an idea been extant. The Holy of Holies in the Second Temple received the Ark, but it was destitute of the pot of manna, the rod of Aaron, the golden censer and holy fire, the Shechinah, the spirit of prophecy, etc. and the very composition of the oil of unction had become unknown, only the Sinaitic tables had survived (1 Kings viii. 9). Does not the loss of these demonstrate that they could not have originated so late as in post - Exilian times ? Some of the rabbis say that Josiah concealed the Ark to prevent its being carried away by the Babylonians (Barclay's Talmud, p. 345). 2 Mace. ii. 4 attributes the absence of the Ark from the Second Temple to the fact that Jeremiah hid it, but this is extremely improbable. Hitzig suggests that it had simply fallen to pieces from old age and decay after having been hidden during the persecution under Mauasseh. From Jer. iii. 16 it seems to have been the Divine purpose that it should cease to be remembered. It had fulfilled its meaning. Henceforth Jeru- salem should be called "the throne of the Lord." But it is clear from 2 Chron. xxxv. 3 that it was in existence after the time of Manasseh, for at the gi*eat Passover celebrated by Josiah it was restored to its place in the Temple. The most probable exj)lanation of its disappearance then is that it was destroyed during the onslaught upon Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in B.C. 587. 5 66 CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. referring to them must be of post-Mosaic origin. They can reach this conchision only by dividing up the Pentateuch and attributing to P all that bears upon the fully developed Levitical ritual, and attributing to this a later date. Their inter- pretation, like their theory, fails to satisfy us, and will not bear careful examination. Let us inquire into the meaning of Jer. vii. 22, of which Pobertson- Smith makes so much. If this does not bear the construction put upon it, the whole theory based on the inaccurate interpretation of it of course falls to the ground. It runs thus : "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor com- manded them in the day that 1 brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices." These words look like a denial that the Levitical sacrifices had been instituted in the time of Moses, or had been offered in the wilderness. But we all know how easy it is to get a wrong idea as to the meaning of a passage when it is wrested out of its context. If verses 21-24 be read as a whole, there is no difficulty : "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices and eat flesh, for I spake not," etc., *'but this thing commanded I them, saying. Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be My people," etc. What is this but the exaltation of moral conduct CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. 67 above mere ritual ? " To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams" (1 Sam. XV. 22). Similar teaching is found in Isa. i. 11; Hos. vi. 6; Amos v. 21; Mic. vi. 6; and Ps. 1. 8. The word translated "concerning" is rendered "for the sake of" in Gen. xx. 11, and " because of " in Gen. xii. 17, xx. 18, and elsewhere. It was not for the sake of sacrifices, but for the sake of their own moral and spiritual requirements, that they offered them. Jeremiah expressly mentions sacrifices in vi. 20, vii. 21, xiv. 12, xvii. 26, xxxiii. 18. So Amos v. 22, Mic. vi. 6, 7, and Joel i. 13. It may be said, indeed, that Jer. vii. 22 is only a kind of oblique quotation of Deut. xxix. 12, or Ex. vi, 7. Jeremiah had the Book of Deuteronomy, and must have known of its sacrificial requirements. He gives almost literal quotations from the Pentateuch in ii. 3, xxxii. 7, xxxiv. 8, etc., as does Ezekiel his contemporary (Ezek. iv. 14, xxii. 26). The simple explauation of the whole matter is that the people had made ritual a substitute for the earlier moral law promul- gated at Sinai, and Jeremiah (vii. 9-24) and Amos (v. 25) protested against this. Other arguments for the post-Exilic theory are based on supposed differences between Deutero- nomy and the three inner books of the Penta- teuch, these latter being made up principally 68 CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. of the Priests' Code, said to be later than Deutero- nomy. The idea is that there was a rivalry between the Prophets and the Priests, J and E representing the former, and P the latter ; while Deuteronomy was written by one of the prophets, Samuel, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel, on the basis of JE, the Pentateuch being afterwards pro- duced as a sort of amalgamation of the whole. It will not be possible to do ftdl justice to this extraordinary conception until we have more par- ticularly considered the authorship of Deutero- nomy. Then we shall be in a position to estimate the supposed discrepancies. The peculi- arity of the critical methods is, that although the Pentateuch is divided up among so many authors, yet an objection against one part of it is made to throw the whole into disrepute. The difficulties which relate to the Mosaic author- ship of Deuteronomy are tacitly transferred to the rest of the books. However, as it is not denied by the critics that some portions of tlie Pentateuch were written before the Exile, and as they only contend that it received its final shape after the Babylonian captivity, the further treatment of this part of the subject may be left over until we come to consider the assumed development of the Levitical system which they affirm received its full exposition in the final redactions of the CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. 69 Pentateuch by Ezra or Nehemiab, or some other individual of about their time. We have had to make so many references to names that are associated with the various theories which we have been examining, that an exaggerated idea of their numbers and importance may have been created. There are, however, multitudes of eminent scholars on the other side, while we believe the great majority of biblical students, after all, are content to abide in the ancient beliefs. It must not be supposed that the motives which weigh with many among the crowds of eager German professors influence all, nor that in the British Churches more than a mere liandful are tinctured with the new criticism. A few writers tilting against what all the world believes can arouse an excitement wholly incommensurate with their real proportions. And meanwhile the mass of men, confident in the issues of the conflict, prefer to leave it to the few athletes who are impelled to enter the lists. Happily, we may be sure that scholars like Hengstenberg, Havernick, Baum- garten, Tholuck, Keil, Eeginald Stuart Poole, Sayce, Eoberts, Westcott, and Ellicott, to mention only a few, do not bear badly a comparison with declaied rationalists like Kuenen, extreme theorists like Wellhausen, immature writers such as Piobertson Smith, cut down ere he reached his prime, or 70 CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. copyists like Cheyne and Driver. Geden and Pope were steeped in German, but they were untainted; Cave and Edward White are broad, but they stand firm against the tide. The pro- bability is that most of the Continental professors whose books have become so prominent in recent years have been made conspicuous by the opposi- tion they have received, and but for the boldness of their speculations would never have become known outside university coteries. The fascinations of new ideas and the influence of a few men in authority, taken in combination with the lamentable fact that so few make a profound study of the Bible, are quite a sufficient explanation of such acceptance as has been re- ceived by the theories with which we are dealing. We know how long Augustine and Aristotle Cfoverned the world. The Schoolmen had all Europe at their skirts. The errors of Calvin and Zwingli are hardly yet dead. Lyell's geological theories were long supreme. Medical experts are now believed to have been all wrong in sending consumptive patients to warm climates. Even the Evolution theory is undergoing disintegration. It has always been so, probably it always will be. Some great thinker starts a theory, and buttresses it with an imposing array of arguments which the world is not quite prepared to weigh. Multitudes CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. 71 fall into the fashion, and those who refuse to do so are despised. Then, at length, some other original mind announces another theory, and the first is laid aside. It is so in everything, and it is so in biblical criticism. The one great safeguard against all these varying winds of doctrine is to read the Bible, and this we believe is going to be the one beneficent result of the recent outburst of hostility against the received opinions and beliefs concerning the Old Testament. It is urged in favour of " the Higher Critics " that they may at any rate discover for us the human elements in the Bible. For this we mio-ht o be thankful, if it were really accomplished, but not if it is all to end in the diminution or the extinction of the Divine element. Colenso went so far as to charge Jeremiah with forgery. That is a human element which we cannot attribute to " holy men of God " who " spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Some marginal explanations unwittingly incorporated in the text, some slips of the copyists, some additions by prophets possessing the requisite credentials, such as Ezra and Nehemiah, we may allow to have caused variations of the original text; but to demand of us the admission that the Pentateuch (or " Hexateuch ") is a mere piece of conglomerate welded together by water and mud from a long 72 CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. succession of tidal waves of literary effort and ambition, is to ask far more than true Christian discipleship can grant, and far more than there is any real reason for believing. We hold that every legitimate necessity is met by the testimony of Scripture itself that Moses wrote the books which for so many centuries have stood under his name, and although he may have used existing sources of information and employed tlie pens of others, yet all these were under the control of the Holy Spirit. The human element, whether in Moses or in the other authors of the Bible, is everywhere outshone by the glory of the Divine Inspirer. Writing in a simple age, Moses did not betake himself to literary arts and subtleties ; and yet there is a rugged grandeur about his com- positions, and often a lofty poetry and a profound philosophy, which lift the whole above the pro- ductions of the unaided human intellect. It was almost in the world's morning when he wrote, and yet he found then for men rays of that light of Divine grace and truth which continued tlirough after -ages to gather in strength and glory, and which in the New Testament Scriptures reached the splendour of the perfect day. He pointed to Christ, and Christ referred to him. He wrote of Christ, and Christ owned and honoured his words. He saw at least the " backward parts " of the Divine CRITICAL METHODS TESTED. 73 glory ; and though we now have a full revelation in the face of Jesus Christ, yet we cannot afford to give up one chapter of the wondrous record of God's education and redemption of our race. It may be there are difficulties not yet quite cleared out of the way, and which, by a process of exaggeration, may be made to appear serious. Let the best efforts of modern criticism be directed to these, in order that all textual corruptions may be rectified. As to rationalistic criticism, as Bishop Ellicott has said in his admirable Christus ComprobatoT : " The real enemies and ultimate levellers of this so-called Higher Criticism are they of its own household. For a time there is a kind of union in destructive effort among the adherents of this school of thought, but when any attempt is made to formulate anything of a con- structive nature the union becomes speedily dis- solved. Expert is ranged against expert ; theory is displaced by theory, hypothesis by hypothesis ; until at lens^th the whole movement, that once seemed so threatening, silently comes to rest, and finds Nirvana among the dull records of bygone controversies. ... So, most assuredly, will it be with the destructive criticism of the Old Testament, which is now causing so much anxiety, and has been helped by so many lamentable concessions." 74 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF . CHAPTEE V. THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: A PRIORI ARGUMENT. WE proceed now to state the grounds on which rests the ancient and well-nigh universal belief that the Pentateuch was written by Moses. For, after all, this is the only effective answer to all contrary opinions. This belief we call traditional by way of ac- commodation, and not at all because it rests merely upon tradition as pojDularly interpreted. We have here, in fact, one of those question-begging epithets, against which we have to be constantly on our guard in controversy, and we only use it at all because it is by this description that the critics usually indicate the orthodox position. The tradition is a written one, and it existed in the most flourishing periods of Israel's history. It is, of course, easy to make light of the literary remfiins of the Jews, and Dr. Driver loses no opportunity of doing so ; but those remains exist, and they testify to the uninterrupted belief of the Jewish Church in the writinc^s of Moses. Moses was a man of literary instincts, he had been X PRIORI ARGUMENT. 75 trained in a land whose literature has come down to us. Other nations of his age, and some even older, had their literatures, to which we give credence notwithstanding their glaring inferiority to the Hebrew Scriptures. Who would think of comparing the literary remains of Babylon, Egypt, India, or China with the Old Testament ? Yet we accept them in so far as they agree with historical conditions. With the origin of Moses' writings we come into relation with history. Ail the successive annals of Israel harmonise with the Pentateuch ; all the laws, customs, and in- stitutions of the Jews corroborate its truth, its antiquity, and its Mosaic authorship. Of the Sanscrit Vedic Hymns, Professor Monier Williams says : " Sanscrit literature, embracing as it does nearly every branch of knowledge, is entirely deficient in one department. It is wholly destitute of trustworthy historical records." ^ Nothing of this applies to the Mosaic literature, and yet scientific critics accept the tradition as to the authors of the Hymns, while they reject the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. It is only in regard to Hebrew literature that literary tradition is suspected and denied. There may be some motive for this exception, but there is no reason in it. ^ Hinduism, p. 19. 76 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF General Charactepjstics of the Pentateuch. There is an antecedent or a priori probability that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, arising from the fact that its internal character — its modes of thought and expression, its allusions to past and contemporaneous events and conditions — is in entire harmony with such a belief. These points will have to be considered in detail, for they con- stitute the very crux of the argument. It is just here that the critical faculty is supposed to shine at its very brightest. Dr. Driver expresses it as his opinion that " the age and authorship of the books of the Old Testament can be determined only upon the basis of the internal evidence supplied l)y the books themselves." ^ We do not believe this, but it indicates, at any rate, where we must bestow our chief care in controverting the critical theories. The internal characters of the Pentateuch are of course exceedingly diversified. Tt is as well, therefore, to gain a general idea of them before taking them up seriatim. Its language and style are those of a simple age, and are characteristic of the early stages of a nation's life. It has been declared by some Germans that the ^ Introduction, xxxvi. A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 77 book is altogether beyond the literary skill of the Mosaic age. We have here another of the fanciful theories of the "Higher Criticism." Delitzsch and Eawlinson are no mean judges in such a matter, and they agree that the Pentateuch is remarkable for " plainness, inartificiality, absence of rhetorical ornament, and occasional defective arrangement." "The only style," says Eawlinson, " which it can be truly said to bring to perfection is that simple one of clear and vivid narrative, which is always best attained in the early dawn of a nation's literature, as a Herodotus, a Froissart, and a Stow sufficiently indicate." In the Penta- teuch there are scarcely ever the balanced apoph- thegms of Solomon, nor, except in the songs and pro- phecies, do we find the lofty imagery of the Psalms or the poetical outbursts of Isaiah ; wdiile, how- ever, there is the same elevated morality which is found throughout the Bible. This argument cannot receive full justice without illustrations from the Hebrew, and these would be out of place here ; but those who will look at Delitzsch's Introduction to the Pentateuch or Keil's Historical and Critical Intro- duction will find abundant reasons for maintainino- that the style of the Mosaic writings is such as we should expect from an author of those remote days, and distinguishes them sharply from later portions of the Old Testament. 78 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: Other internal characters of the Mosaic author- ship are those which relate to the customs, insti- tutions, and national history of the peoples with whom Moses came into contact. The book bears no traces of a post-Mosaic age, unless its prophetic element be denied. Who is more likely than the man whose life was the introduction of a new era to the world, and the link between the patriarchal and the Sinaitic dispensations, to undertake the task of compiling the history of the past and of tracing its developments ? How vast is the mass of allusions to incidental details of con- temporaneous history with which we meet, and which only one who was learned in Semitic and Egyptian lore could possibly have written with unvarying accuracy under such unfavourable con- ditions ! Hengstenberg, in his Egypt and the Books of Moses, mentions many matters, all the more impressive because apparently trivial, in respect to which no outsider, and no one of a later age, could have displayed the precision and correctness everywhere observable in the Penta- teuch. The Egyptian custom of carrying baskets on the head (Gen. xl. 16), shaving the beard (xli. 14), prophesying with the cup (xliv. 5), embalming the dead and the use of sarcophagi (1. 2, 3), the use of reeds, asphalt, and pitch in making baskets (Ex. ii. 3), the committal of A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 79 obscenities and crimes peculiar to Egypt (Ex. xxii. 19 ; Lev. xviii. 23, etc.), the building of Hebron and Zoan (Num. xiii. 22), the special foods of the Egyptians (Num. xi. 5), methods of punishment (Deut. xxv. 2, 3), the peculiar diseases of the time (Deut. vii. 15), the use of Egyptian names, such as Pharaoh, Potiphar, Asenath, Zaphnath-paaneh, and Gershom, and innumerable other details, are referred to in a way that demonstrates a full and practical acquaintance with the national life and institutions of the variou.s peoples with whom Moses held inter- course. In more important things, such as the civil and religious laws, genealogical tables, the Passover, inheritance (Num. xxvi. 53, etc.), money-lending (Ex. xxii. 25; Deut. xxiii. 19, 20), the priesthood, the geography of Egypt, Arabia, and Canaan (Gen. xii. 6, xiii. 7, xxxvi. 31 ; Deut, ii. 12), the same accuracy and harmony are, as we should expect, exhibited. There is always the danger of becoming tedious in dealing with details of this kind, and there can be no doubt that herein lies one of the advantages of the critic. His scalpel touches every minute point, and an accumulation of material is pre- sented to the inquirer which repels examination and imposes upon the imagination. But we have more reason to welcome than to fear the scalpel 8o THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: or the microscope of criticism, for by these means we are able to collect a body of evidence for the Mosaic authorship sufficient to outweigh all that can be brought against it, and conclusive enough to convince all who are not the victims of a preconceived hypothesis. There is no ancient classical work whose authorship is so well attested by internal characters as is that of the Pentateuch, and although here and there an isolated passage may be met with that at first sight seems adverse to this view, we generally find, on careful inspection, that it admits of reasonable explanation. Let any of our modern scholars, even with all their advantages, under- take to write in archaic language the minute civil and religious history of Scandinavia, or some other nation which existed a thousand years ago, and he will then gain an adequate conception of the im- possibility of the task which would have had to be performed by the post-Exilian writer or writers who should have undertaken to write tlie Penta- teuch ten or twelve hundred years after the time of Moses. When such an undertaking has been satisfactorily performed, the more cautious among us will be prepared to look seriously at some of the hypotheses which are now current among tlie disciples of Wellhausen. We must now particularise somewhat, for X PRIORI ARGUMENT. 8i mere generalities, though they may be sufficient for those whose minds are already made up, do not meet the requirements of such as desire to know all the facts of the case. The a ^priori argument for the Mosaic author- ship of the Pentateuch proceeds on the lines of an inquiry as to whether, in its form and aim, its historical statements, its allusions to customs and institutions, its geographical descriptions and the style of its language, it agrees with what we should expect to find in a book written at the time when Moses lived, and by a man circum- stanced as Moses was. To quote Dr. Delitzsch, we should look in such a work for "the unity of a magnificent plan; comparative indifference to the mere details, but a comprehensive and spirited grasp of the whole and of salient points ; depth and elevation com- bined with the greatest simplicity. In the magnificent unity of plan we shall detect the mighty leader and ruler of a people numbering tens of thousands; in the childlike simplicity, the shepherd of Midian, who fed the sheep of Jethro, far away from the varied scenes of Egypt, in the fertile clefts of the mountains of Sinai." This unity is seen in its Semitic cast, its doctrine of God, its continuity of narrative, its dominant aim to establish and complete a theocratic form 6 82 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: of government, and the spiritual tendency wbicli pervades all its contents. Its unsophisticated simplicity is seen in the natural turns of speech and the primitive character of many of its emblems and figures so often occurring. Of these we may instance Num. xxii. 5, 11, "covering the eye (face) of the earth"; Num. xi. 12, "as a nursing father beareth the suckling"; Deut. i. 31, " as a man doth bear his son " ; Num. xxii. 4, " as the ox licketh up the grass of the field " ; Num. xxvii. 17, " as sheep which have no shep- herd " ; Deut. xxviii. 49, " as the eagle flieth " ; Deut. xxix. 18, "a root that beareth gall and wormwood," to give but a few specimens. Only a writer situated as Moses was, and trained as he had been, would have interspersed throughout his work such modes of expression as these. A post- Exilian author, immersed in Levitical rubric and ceremony, would have been the unlikeliest person in the world to use such language, or to conceive such analogies. On the supposition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, we should expect to find in it : — I. An embodiment of some pre-existing customs and institutions in his own code and ritual. II. A condemnation of such pre - existent customs as were pernicious. III. Historical, geographical, and other kinds A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 83 of references in harmony with the times and places concerned in the narrative. IV. Allusions to some things that would have no meaning or no appropriateness in later ages. V. Indications of an ideal condition which the Israelites were to aspire after, and perhaps attain, in after-days and under more favourable conditions. VI. Distinctive peculiarities of language, anti- quated words and archaic turns of thought and expression. A literary composition which should comply with all these conditions, even if in some minutia3 it might seem difficult to demonstrate this, must certainly be regarded as a genuine and honest piece of work, and hence well worth being listened to and believed when it puts forth claims touching its own authorship. "We proceed to show that these are the very characteristics of the Penta- teuch, and that, consequently, we cannot justly make light of its testimony on the question of its own origin. I. The Mosaic legislation reveals traces of customs already existing in the national life of the Hebrews. From these it would neither be wise nor possible to break away altogether. The constitu- tion of every nation is gradually built up through 84 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: the long developments of its history. Prudent legislation perpetuates the good and condemns the bad in these developments. What is im- perfect has sometimes to be borne with as a temporary expedient till the people are prepared for better things. Hence, as our Lord said (Matt- xix. 8), " Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives ; but from the beginning it was not so." Bat, ideally at least, the good, the beneficial, is encouraged. The Sabbath is one of those pre -Mosaic insti- tutions. It was enforced in, but not originated by, the Sinaitic revelation, for it was recognised as existing before the enunciation of the fourth commandment, as, for example, in connection with the gathering of the manna (Ex. xvi.). It was for the purpose of commemorating the Creation (Gen. ii. 1-3), and recognising God's right to worship and adoration. And it responded to the physical, moral, and spiritual necessities of mankind. This is confirmed by the fact that there are traces of it among primeval nations. The Babylonians knew it as " a day of rest for the heart." Among the thousands of tablets found on the site of Nineveh, where they were deposited by Assur-bani-pal, the Sardanapalus of the Greeks, are copies of Accadian inscriptions dating back, according to Mr. George Smith, to A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 85 beyond 2000 B.C., which testify to the observance of a sacred day, a seventh day of rest. The very name, Sahlatu, is met with. Similar vestiges of a primeval Sabbath are found in the ancient literatures of India and China and other lands. The simple family life of the patriarchal age is reflected in many of the elements of the Mosaic legislation. The sanctity of marriage, the honouring of parents, the sacredness of human life, all coming down from primeval times, and characteristic of just such social conditions as prevailed before the Egyptian bondage, are incorporated in the Hebrew enactments. The priestly character of the father or elder of the family (Ex. xii. 3, 21, 22), and marriage with a deceased brother's widow (Gen. xxxviii. 8), also reflect the social conditions of patriarchal times. Altars and places of worship marked by the erection of stones are referred to in Gen. xxviii. 18, and were imitated during the wander- ings of the Israelites (Ex. xx. 24-26). Even circumcision was the survival of an antique rite, as is evidenced by its having been performed with a stone implement (Ex. iv. 25). Many other matters of this kind might be adduced, a full enumeration of which may be seen in Blunt's Uiidesignecl Coincidences. It is in the administration of law that we should 86 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: expect to find in largest measure survivals of pre-Mosaic arrangements. And this is precisely what we do find. The existence of the " avenger of blood," or redeemer, the Goel, is a curious and remarkable illustration. Such an institution betokens a very primitive state of society. The idea of a family representative, the guardian of its honour and interests, is very conspicuous throughout Genesis. Moses utilised it and safe- guarded it in his legislation (Num. v. 8; Deut. xix. 6-12). Tlie right of sanctuary was a special provision against the abuse of this custom (Ex. xxi. 13, 14) ; and, later on, cities of refuge were designed for this same purpose (Num. xxxv. 9-34). The lex talionis probably descended from very early times (Ex. xxi. 24, 25 ; Lev. xxiv. 20 ; Deut. xix. 21). Eude methods of conveyancing, marking out boundaries with stones (Deut. xix. 14, xxvii. 17), the loosing of a shoe as a trace of some primitive form of the transference of property, are also instances of the influence of ancient manners and customs. Some of these pre-existent conditions betoken an Egyptian origin. The construction of the Tabernacle, the form of the Ark and Mercy Seat, give abundant evidence of the influence of Egyptian art, which found its highest exercise in the representation of the goddess Thmei, or A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 87 Truth, which overshadowed their sacred scara- bseus, or beetle of the sun. Dean Milman thinks the cherubim were probably "like the Egyptian sphinx, animals purely imaginary and symbolic, combining different parts, and representing the noblest qualities of the man, the lion, the eagle, and the ox." ^ The common method of represent- ing them as angels is comparatively modern. Naturally the embroidery, the use of gold thread and fine linen, the working in bronze and precious metals, the use of dye, and other similar traces of industrial occupations in connection with the making of the Tabernacle, are survivals of Egyptian arts. The curious custom of boring a slave's ear, as publicly attesting the desire of the servant to remain in servitude owing to his affection for his master (Ex. xxi. 5, 6 ; Deut. xv. 16, 17), is probably another instance of the influence of Egyptian customs, as indeed slavery itself was. The laying the hands on the head of the scapegoat and its dismissal into the desert (Lev. xvi.) bear some analogy to ceremonies practised by the Egyptians in reference to tlie evil spirit Typhon. These multitudinous details, in which former life and manners, industries, arts, and religious practices are alluded to, could not have been thus ^ History of Israel, p. 47. 88 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF : accurately described by Palestinians living a thousand years afterwards. Human memory could not possibly have handed them on so faithfully, and documents were not in existence which would have enabled them to perform so delicate and yet so gigantic a task, while such national records as might have existed would certainly not have been accessible to the sort of writers postulated by the critics. II. In the Mosaic legislation there are found earlier customs and rites which are condemned, and which it would have been altogether super- fluous for a writer living a thousand years after Moses to have mentioned at all. The avoid- ance of blood (Gen. ix. 4) and the distinction of clean and unclean animals in relation to food (Gen. vii.) were both observed in the purer days of old,' but contamination with Egypt had ren- dered it necessary to condemn the violations of these valuable sanitary principles. Slavery had also become rooted among the Hebrews, but Moses took measures to alleviate its rigours and to provide for its extinction. In Lev. xvii. 7 there is a reference to sacrificing to he-goats: "And they shall not sacrifice their sacrifices any more to the he-goats,^ after which it is their custom to go a- whoring." These sacrifices were the relics of Ml. v., " he -goats, " marg. "satyrs"; A.V., "devils." A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 89 an old idolatry into which the Israelites had fallen from the example of the Egyptian animal- worship. Moses sternly repressed this. It was danger of his time, and there is no sort of indication that the evil existed in post-Exilian days. How then can we explain the mention of it by a writer living in those later times ? There is no explanation. The record was appropriate to the time it describes, and to no other. It declares it was written by Moses, and no later writer, even if he had known of the existence of snch a custom, which is highly improbable on the supposition that there was no Mosaic history, would have referred to such a detail save for the purpose of giving an air of reality to his forgery. Again and again, then, we are driven by the critical theories to the alternative that the Penta- teuch was either a contemporaneous history, or else that Moses was deliberately personated and the so-called Mosaic writings wilfully forged. We do not fear to state the issue in this bold, stern way, for a narrative so clear and straight- forward, so permeated and tinged with the varying colours of the different ages and different social and national surroundings which it portrays, cannot fail ultimately to maintain its position against theories of forgery, or of a divided and later authorship, which have nothing to rest upon 90 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: but arbitrary assumptions or unreliable canons of criticism. While the actual evils with which the Israelites had become familiarised in Egypt, such as animal worship, and the idolatries of the tribes through which they had to pass in the subsequent stages of their wanderings, as, for instance, the worship of the sun, moon, and the host of heaven (Deut. iv. 19), are condemned and forbidden, there is, strange to say, no mention whatever of the dangers and corruptions which we know, from other books of the Old Testament, prevailed during the age of Ezekiel and Jeremiah. Does not this speak volumes in favour of the old belief that the Pentateuch was written in Mosaic times and reflected the spirit and the customs of those times ? No other theory meets all the demands of the case, and this does. That theory is the most reasonable which satisfies best the conditions involved, and they are the most truly scientific who adopt such a theory. III. There is an air of historical reality about the whole of the Mosaic writings which we are conscious of as we read, and which makes it well- nigh impossible to think of them as fabrications, or the partial inventions of a later age. How natural and transparent the biographies of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph seem to the ordinary reader — ^just what one would expect from A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 91 those ancient family records which had no doubt been handed down to Moses through Joseph. What possible ground can Dr. Cheyne have for his appeal to the clergy " not to treat Genesis as a collection of immensely ancient family records when it is nothing of the kind," ^ or for his advice addressed to teachers of the young given in these words : " You must not permit the children in secondary schools, after a certain age, to suppose that you know, or that any one knows, or that the writers of Genesis professed to know, anything historically about the antediluvians, or about the three supposed ancestors of the Israelites." Moses evidently knew something about them, and he has told us. This is history. Otherwise we have no history of ancient times. Genesis bears the marks of having been composed from ancient records, and this is how all history is framed. Christ thought that Moses wrote a true history, and so St. Paul believed. A ripe and venerable scholar like Dr. Delitzsch must have had good reasons for affirming that " the historians of the Old Testament, far from inventing history, repro- duce the records from ancient sources." That, we hold, is the impression which deepens in the mind of every thoughtful reader of Genesis whose judge- ment has not been warped by rationalistic theories ^ Contemjporary Review, vol. Ixvi. p. 228. 92 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: The three books following Genesis are of a different type, but they have the stamp of historical reality. They read like the story of an eye-witness. The simplicity of construction, the archaisms of expression, and the vividness of portrayal, all indicate the same thing. Who but an eye-witness would have given such unnecessary details as the effect of the hail on the Egyptian crops (Ex. ix. 31, 32), the number of wells at Elim (Ex. XV. 27), the fact that the tables of stone were written on the one side and on the other (Ex. xxxii. 15) ? What late writer would be likely to say that the locusts were driven away by a strong west wind (Ex. x. 19), or that Aaron kissed Moses (Ex. iv. 27), or that the people bound their kneading-troughs in their clothes on their shoulders (Ex. xii. 34), or that the food of the people was " fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, garlick" (Num. xi. 5) ? and who but the framer of the laws would have preserved for us all the minutiae so carefully and systematically laid down in Leviticus and Numbers ? What writer living after the time of Moses could have set down his long addresses, which occupy nearly the whole of Deuteronomy, and which are concerned with endless details which would have baffled all memory, and not have tempted the most ingenious fabricator of legends ? Considerations like these, though A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 93 apparently insignificant when looked at separ- ately, are yet just those very features that create confidence and compel the reader to accept the record for what it claims to be. They are utterly unintelligible on any other supposition. They eloquently and powerfully plead for the Mosaic age and authorship of the Pentateuch, and there is no other theory before the world for which anything of the kind can be said, or for which there is any stronger argument than the dicta of a questionable critical acumen. There are some kinds of probability which amount to a practical certainty, and we think that the many converging lines of evidence just indicated beget a probability of this kind. But many portions of the Pentateuch are of such a nature as that they could not possibly have been written by any other than Moses. The only other alternative is that they are a forgery, an alter- native which some indeed do not fear to adopt, but which puts the Pentateuch out of court altogether, and makes it not worth arguing about. The incident of the Burning Bush could only have been related by Moses. So with the bulk of Exodus and Leviticus, which professes to be mainly what Moses alone received from the Lord. Moses either wrote these passages, or they were palmed off dishonestly as the writings of Moses, 94 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF : an alternative which the character and teaching of the books themselves at once make absurd. The Pentateuch is crowded with geographical references and descriptions in respect to which it would have been impossible, in every instance, for a late writer to have escaped error. Genesis records the names of above a hundred places, and Numbers of one hundred and thirty, accompanied often with descriptive details which characterise the places with perfect accuracy. Continued travel and research in the East are constantly throwing side - lights on these references, and strengthening our conviction of their truthfulness. Who were J and E and P, that they should feel any interest in describing, for the first time, places so many of which had vanished before the period when these writers are assumed to have lived ? There are also many allusions to the climate, the seasons, the natural scenery, the fauna and flora, of the varied countries mentioned in the Mosaic history, all of which present numerous possibilities of mistake by a foreign writer living long after the events chronicled. It would be superhuman to avoid all the pitfalls which such a minute and detailed record as that of the Pentateuch would involve to any one who should undertake to compile it in the way suggested by A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 95 the critics. If P and J and E did this, then they did it well and deserve to be known. They were inimitable. They were inspired. Professor Driver supplies us with two critical canons which serve us admirably here. On p. 173 of his Introduction he says : " Abundance and particularity of detail show that the narrative must date from a period very little later than that of the events related." And again, on p. 163, he refers to narratives which '' point forwards or backwards to one another, and are in other ways so connected together as to show that they are the work of one and the same writer," etc. If ever any piece of literary composition illustrated these conditions, the Pentateuch does. Nowhere is there any hostility with any known fact con- cerning the times, persons, countries, customs, with which it deals. How can it be a mere piece of patchwork put together centuries after Moses by men whose abilities were so unrecog- nised that not even the name of one of them has come down to posterity ? IV. Many allusions in the Pentateuch which are perfectly appropriate to the place and time in connection with which they are recorded, would have been utterly inappropriate if written at other times or places. Among the strongest evidences of this kind are 96 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF : those allusions to Egyptian rites and customs, which are so trivial that they would have escaped the notice of a writer who was not in daily contact with them, or whose meaning would have become obscure to foreigners living at a subsequent period. Of these a number of illus- trations have already been given in another connection, and many others can be obtained from the results of antiquarian research. In Gen. xliii. 32, 33, is described the banquet which Joseph prepared for his brethren, and it is said that they ''sat before him." Later writers would probably have written " reclined," as that was the position when eating which was almost universal in the East. But the w^all-paintings in the British Museum which represent Egyptian feasts show that it was customary in that country to sit at tables, and not recline on divans. Joseph is described as robed in fine linen, and as receiving the ring from the hand of Pharaoh (Gen. xli. 41, 42). Discoveries make it clear that Egypt was famed for its manufacture of linen, and that its use was a mark of luxury and wealth. This, too, will explain why the Jewish high priest in later days was commanded to wear a linen robe when entering into the holy place (Lev. xvi. 4). Many signet rings may be seen in the British Museum. The entrusting of his ring by Pharaoh A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 97 to Joseph meant that he was invested with the authority of his sovereign, for the seal of the ring was used for signing letters or documents, and the mark of the king's seal was in fact equivalent to his signature. Even in such minute details do the sacred writers faithfully reflect the spirit and the manners of their age and the surroundings of their ordinary life. In trifles like these, later writers, or those living in remote lands, would be sure to commit some anachronism, or misrepresent some trivial custom. And yet the abundant materials which have recently been put into our possession by archcTologists do not furnish one single instance in which the pentateuchal history is at fault. Another instance "where modern research has furnished us with an explanation of customs that would otherwise have been obscure or unin- telligible is presented in Deut. xxvi. 14, where the Israelite is directed to avow before the Pass- over in the year of tithing, "I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, neither have I taken away ought thereof for any unclean use, nor given ought thereof for the dead," etc. The reference is to the tithes and " hallowed things " which Moses had commanded should be consecrated to religious purposes. The words, " nor given ought thereof for the dead," would have been most perplexing but for recent discoveries, and it is 7 98 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF : hard to see how any Palestinian of post-Exilic times could ever have framed such a sentence, and still more difficult to perceive how he could have received from Egypt this vestige of a rite so ancient and so obscure. It was the custom of the Egyptians to place funeral offerings in the outer chamber of the tomb where the dead body had been deposited. They believed in immortality, and that after a prolonged period the soul of the dead person would return to the same body. Hence they provided for the " wraith " of the deceased in order that it might have sufficient nourishment to tide it over its first change of tenement. Many of these burial offerings have been found in the tombs of Egypt, and may be seen in the British Museum. Moses forbade these " offerings for the dead/' with the object, doubtless, of condemning the false views of the Egyptians in regard to the future life. We have evidence here of a belief in immortality in those remote times, while there is also a complete solution of what otherwise would have been a perplexing passage of Scripture. Other evidences of the kind we are considering are derived from the allusions to the environment of the Israelites during the successive stages of their journeyings. From the time of the Exodus there are con- A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 99 stant allusions to the camp and its surroundings. 1^0 w, we can easily conceive that P or H, writing a history, would bear in mind the necessity of introducing the tent and the camp into the narrative. But when we reflect that the very reason for supposing these late writers was that the full development of the Levitical system might be attributed to priestly mediation of a later age and of an uninspired sort, then we find it difficult to believe that these unknown geniuses could have so thoroughly succeeded in keeping up the deception, and performed with so much ability one of the most difficult feats of literary skill. The boring of the slave's ear to the door- post (Ex. xxi. 6 ; Deut. xv. 17), already referred to in another connection, is an apparent excep- tion, and yet not necessarily so, for it would be easy to keep up the form of the Egyptian rite even when living in tents. But the exception, if such it be, admits of the explanation that in the desert the custom would lie in abeyance, and would be resumed only under the more settled social conditions that would come in when the promised land was reached and the people dwelt once more in houses. Meanwhile, it was natural that the custom should be described exactly as they had known it in Egypt. Whether it is to P that the critics attribute the 100 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: record, or to the Deuteronomist, we find the same allusions in both cases to the camp and to camp life. Those parts of the sacrifices which were not burned on the altar were to be burned "without the camp" (Lev. iv. 12, 21), which is put to the credit of P by Dr. Driver, and so also in vi. 11 and viii. 17. The law of burnt offerings was for sacrifices "in the wilderness of Sinai" (vii. 38). Aaron and his sons were consecrated at "the tent of meeting" (viii. and ix.). The dead bodies of Nadab and Abihu were carried on coats " out of the camp " (x. 5). The leper was to dwell " without the camp." The scapegoat was taken " without the camp " (xvi.). Stoning took place " outside the camp " (xxiv.), a passage which Driver gives to H. There are references to the use of camps and tents in later times during war, but these we of course omit. These constant reminders that the people were living in tents give a character of reality to the narrative, and beget the impression that the writer was actually so situated, while at the same time they increase the improbability that details so numerous and insignificant would have been recorded with such scrupulous care by one who lived above a thousand years after these con- ditions had passed away. Such a narrative would have been impossible, and if possible, absurd. A PRIORI ARGUMENT, loi It is interesting also to note that after the Exodus there is a distinct advance in the organisa- tion of the people and their distribution under heads or leaders, upon what existed during the Egyptian bondage. In the time of their slavery they would not be likely to attain a high state of social organisation, and accordingly we find that there is no mention of officials or dignities save such as naturally grew out of the old family life of patriarchal times. The D^^^si (Ex. vi. 14) and D^:pr (Gen. 1. 7), heads of families and tribes, seem to have embodied in themselves whatever of self-government . or social and political status was possessed by the Israelites under their Egyptian masters. But after their emancipation there is a distinct advance in these respects, indicating the larger ideas, the political training, and the cultivated mind of Moses. The family and tribal headships give place to D''i<''bo princes (Num. ii.) and D'lib^ judges (Ex. xviii. 21), suggested probably by the Egyptian officials (Ex. i. 11), with whom Moses had held long intercourse, and of whom, indeed, he himself had been one.^ ^ Tlie Seventy Elders Avere Shoterim (Num. xi. 16), a name applied to the Egyptian overseers or taskmasters (Ex. v. 6, etc.). The heads of certain sections of the people were also thus called (Deut. xx. 9, xxix. 9, xxxi. 28 ; Josh. i. 10, iii. 2, viii. 33, xxiii. 2). In Canaan there were officials bearing the same name (Deut. xvi. 18 ; 1 Chron. xxiii. 4, xxvi. 29). 102 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF : All such incidental matters as these impress the mind with the semblance at least of a con- temporaneous history, and it is for those who date it at a much later period to explain how any human being could have devised all these things and invented so magnificent a verisimili- tude, where facts were absolutely inaccessible, and where possibilities of error were number- less. Dr. Driver thinks he cuts the ground from under all such arguments by saying that of course writers would take care to keep up a harmony with their surroundings. But the evidence is too strong to be thus dismissed with a wave of the hand. Our point is that no author could possibly do what Dr. Driver calmly assumes to be so easy. He would no doubt have done it if he could, but there are limits to human knowledge and ability. V. There are, moreover, portions of the Levitical legislation which look forward to other times and different conditions. And this is just what we should expect from a man of the sagacity of Moses. He had to construct an ideal, which could only be realised, if at all, under improved conditions and surroundings of the national life. Thus we are enabled to see the reason for the legislation concerning the kingdom when as yet there was no tendency to appoint a king as ruler (Deut. xvii. 14). Moses had foresight enough to A PRIORI ARGUMENT, 103 perceive that Israel would be affected by the example of other nations, and would eventually desire a king. He in no way recommends this course, but merely legislates for such a con- tingency : " If thou shalt say, I will place over me a king, like all the nations which are around me." The words suggest, indeed, that this would be against the spirit of their constitution, but that, if there is to be a king, then he is not to be a foreigner, nor be puffed up with excessive wealth, but should be a man who feared God. When the anticipation of Moses became a fact, then Samuel, while objecting, yet yielded to the popular demand in such a way as to follow implicitly the instructions given in Deuteronomy. The theocracy of the Mosaic age was ideal, and was described as then existing. It became deteriorated in later times, and at length, as so often happens, the ideal gave place to the practical and expedient. But it would have been utterly impossible for a writer under the kings to have represented a theocracy as pervading the whole Levitical system in every detail. The Song of Moses (Deut. xxxii.) is an inspired outburst of tender anxiety for Israel's future on the part of Moses, and gives expression to the sorrow that good men would experience should any apostasy supervene. In the lofty style of 104 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: poetry it is couched in the future tense, for it was intended for future use, but because of this Dr. Driver contends that it must have been written long after the age of Moses. Divine forecast, prophetic instinct, have no place in critical canons; even poetic licence does not appeal to critical acumen. And yet the Song itself claims again and again to have sprung from the soul and pen of the great lawgiver and father of the people. Dr. Driver commends its " literary and artistic skill," but if his theory is the correct one, he ought to have condemned it as a bungling and barefaced forgery. We think that it is an example of that foresight which is so often dis- played in the Bible, and that it provided a fitting and noble form for confession and self-abasement in those times of unfaithfulness that Moses per- ceived would come. The entire religious ritual of the Pentateuch, the Tabernacle, the Ark, the priesthood, the sacri- fices, the jubilee, and the sacred festivals, were all, in a large measure. Divine pre-arrangements. They corresponded with the conditions and needs of the days when they were instituted, but they looked forward to an ideal state of things. They were not stereotyped, but living. They were not so exclusively adapted to the moment as to become a dead letter in after - times and under altered A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 105 national conditions, but tliey took into reckoning a continued development of religious instincts and aspirations. Possessing that elasticity which characterises wise legislation, they adapted them- selves to the various phases of Israel's later history, and were typical of much that was not clearly apprehended till they became flooded with the light of the revelation which came by Jesus Christ. The existence and development of the idea of a central worship and a central sanctuary present a further illustration of the forward look in the Mosaic legislation, - while at the same time recognising existing usages in connection with separate local altars, and the dangers character- istic of the time being. These features and accompaniments of the central worship and the local and temporary modifications of it have to be borne in mind in examining the various ideas which have been broached in connection with this important matter by Wellhausen, Eobertson Smith, and Driver. The centralising of the worship of Israel, of which the embryo is found in connection with the tent of Moses, was necessary in order to preserve it from the corruptions of idolatry, than which nothing would have been more likely, owing to the proximity of the heathen peoples io6 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: among whom the Israelites were moving. But this centralisation did not mean that no other places of worship were legal. They continued to exist all along. Nor was the Divine blessing limited to the central sanctuary, but was ex- tended to all places where no idolatrous practices were indulged in. This is clear from Ex. xx. 23, 24: "Ye shall not make with Me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold. An altar of earth thou shalt make unto Me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings and thy peace offerings, thy sheep and thine oxen: in all places where I record My name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee." There is no ground whatever for the assertion, which Eobertson Smith makes, that there was no full development of a central sanctuary till the age of Josiah. The reason for the central place is plainly seen, and the existence of other altars is known as certainly. Constant reference is made to these other altars in pre-Exilian as well as post-Exilian times, and it was not till a much later period, a period of corruption and apostasy, that they practically ceased to exist and gave place to the synagogue. Possibly it was the falling away of the people into idolatry that hastened the change, as is apparently indicated in the lament of Elijah (1 Kings xix. 10): "I have A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 107 been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts, for the children of Israel have forsaken Thy covenant, thrown down Thine altars, and slain Thy prophets with the sword ; and I, even I only, am left, and they seek my life to take it away." The entire narrative relating to the inception and development of this idea of a central sanctuary, and indeed the Levitical code and ritual in general, is such as harmonises with the view that it origin- ated at a time when wilderness conditions pre- vailed. In the history, which everywhere reads like a simple, unvarnished record of contempor- aneous events, while pre-existing institutions are taken into account, there is yet the idealistic attitude and the forward look which ever belong to prudent and powerful legislation. Not only do all the probabilities of the case favour the Mosaic authorship, but also there is no other period of Jewish history to which the origin of the Pentateuch can be attributed with any appearance of likelihood. We hear of false prophets and their condemnation, but we never hear of any mention of these compilers. There must, at least, have been some important records which they used, and these must have been care- fully guarded for a thousand years, and yet there is never any mention made of them. The patriarchal narratives and genealogies, the book of loS THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: the Covenant, the ''' law of holiness " (Lev. xvii.- xxvi.), the songs of Miriam and Moses, the in- structions concerning the Tabernacle, the order of encampment, the duties of the Levites, the first and second numbering, the various narratives which Moses is said to have written in the book, the list of the spies, the boundaries of the tribes, these and other documents at least must have been at hand when the various com- pilations were made, and yet not a word is said about the laborious task of those who from these crude germs fasliioned the Pentateuch into such a beautiful and harmonious whole. These writers, supposing they had ever existed, could not pos- sibly have kept their work a secret. They would require material and help which could not in those times have been obtained without divulg- ing the purpose for which they were wanted. Moreover, the enterprise was of such a nature that no obscure or unlearned man could possibly have succeeded in it, nor would even a talented person have been able to accomplish it without extensive inquiries, which would at once have declared what was going on. These are points which Dr. Driver, amid all his learned industry and activities, has not allowed himself the leisure to consider, and yet they are of irresistible force and weight. Ezra, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, lived when A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 109 there were very few men who could have done what the critical theories require to have been effected, and they were the sort of men that would undoubtedly have been aware of any such pro- ceedings, while also they would have quickly condemned them had they heard of them. Had the work been undertaken at Babylon, Daniel must have been aware of it, and yet he not only testified to the existence of the Law (ix. 9-13), but he nowhere makes any reference to any modification of it. The later prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, could not have connived at the secret construction of such a book as the final Pentateuch would have been if it had been first issued in their time. Besides which, the Samaritan Pentateuch was already in circulation, and not long afterwards the Septuagint translation made its appearance. It matters not what period we fasten upon, it turns out, on examination of all the conditions involved, that the task of com- piling the Pentateuch from pre-existing documents was wholly impossible during that period, and consequently that the age of Moses was the only one at which the composition could have been originated. We look in vain among the writings of the critics for any adequate consideration of the difficulties which beset whatever theory they advance in regard to the post-Mosaic appearance of no THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF : the Law. Arbitrary assertions we have in abund- ance, but no full and fair dealing with what those assertions involve. Prophets and scribes of various periods are named as possible authors, but no effort is made to solve the difficulties which beset such suggestions. It is open to any one to attribute the Pentateuch to whomsoever he will, but he must show the probability of such authorship if he would get a hearing. It is pos- sible to suggest that Charles Dickens wrote the Pentateuch, and the difficulties which lie against such an authorship are not vastly greater than those which beset the idea that Ezra or Ezekiel wrote it. The probabilities are enormously in favour of the Mosaic authorship, and against that of any other who has been named. VI. There are also numerous archaisms of language and antiquated features of style in the Pentateuch which distinguish this portion of the Old Testament from all its other contents. Words and phrases occur which afterwards disappeared from the ordinary language, and which are used by writers of the post-Captivity ages when bor- rowed from the Pentateuch. Other expressions used by Moses were subsequently confined to poetry, just as our poets often affect an antique form of speech. Again, words occur in the Pentateuch which in later books have quite a A PRIORI ARGUMENT. in different meaning, and thus indicate the lapse of considerable time. Here we may quote Keil : " The pronoun ^5^^ and the noun "iVJ are used in the Pentateuch for both genders, whereas the forms i<^'^ and Tr\^)_ were afterwards employed for the feminine ; whilst the former of these occurs only eleven times in the Pentateuch, the latter only once. The demon- strative pronoun is spelt ^sn, afterwards nA^Nn- the infinitive construct of the verbs n"b is often written ri or i without D, as ib^V, Gen. xxxi. 38 ; ^nb'y, Ex. xviii. 18; nN"i, Gen. xlviii. 11; the third person plural of verbs is still for the most part the full form J^, not merely in the imperfect, but also here and there in the perfect, whereas afterwards it was softened into \ Such words, too, as n"'nx, an ear of corn ; rinnpt<^ a sack ; "iriB^ disseciiit hostias (cut in pieces), inn, a piece ; ^n2, a young bird ; lit, a present ; I^J, to present ; E^]?"}n, a sickle ; t<3D, a basket; ti\\>^T\, an existing, living thing; n^pp, a veil, covering ; ipy, a sprout (applied to men) ; "ixt^', a blood relation ', such forms as 1^3T for 12J masc, nb^2 for trnp, a lamb ; phrases like V^P'^JX ^D5^p., ' gathered to his people ' ; and many others, you seek in vain in the other writings of the Old Testament, whilst the words and phrases which are used there instead, are not found in the books of Moses." 112 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF : To these particulars furnished by Keil we may add the following. The names of the months are known to have varied, and hence indicate the period at which any given book was written. The later prophets, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zechariali, naturally used the Aramaic calendar. If the names of the months as given by them had occurred in the Pentateuch, something might be said for the late date of the books of Moses. We find, on the contrary, the old name Abib both in Exodus and Deuteronomy ; and in Kings the old names are given, with the modern explanation, showing them to be archaic. Kcenig, in his Alt. Test. Studicn, furnishes us with long lists of words of antique form, a selection from which we give in the Appendix. It is of the greatest significance that the future termination |^ un, which never occurs in the later prophets, and only three times in Ezekiel, is found more than a liundred times in the Pentateuch, and of these fifty-eight are in Deuteronomy.^ Another very striking fact pointed out by Kcenig is that some Aramaic terms occur both in the Pentateuch and in the later books, but in those of intermediate age no instances of this kind are met with. How wonderfully this corroborates the ordinary belief as to the^ relative ages of the respective books of ^ Kcenig, Alt. Test. Studicn, pp. 165, 166. A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 113 the Old Testament. Abraham spoke Aramaic when he went to Canaan, and the spies and the Israelites in later times conversed with the Canaanites, but at length the reminiscences of this dialect died out from the Hebrew tongue, and then when the Jews were carried captive to Aramaic-speaking lands they became familiar once more with the language spoken by their forefathers fifteen hundred years before. The proverbial conservatism of Eastern institu- tions is conspicuous in Oriental languages, which continue almost unchanged from age to age. The Arabic language retained its primitive character for ages until the period of Mahomet, when con- vulsion and dispersion wrought their usual work. We should expect, therefore, that Hebrew would undergo very little modification even during a period so long as that which intervened between the Exodus and the Babylonian captivity. This latter event seems to have exerted far greater influence on the language than all other agencies put together, as is illustrated by the Hebrew of Daniel. It must also be borne in mind that the psalmists and prophets would naturally affect an antique style. The Greek oracles and the Eoman augurs did the same. With the Torah before them, or committed to memory, as is still the custom among Orientals with their sacred 8 114 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF : books, the Hebrew writers of a later date would imitate it and borrow its obsolete expressions and its solecisms as well as its imagery, for the sake of impressiveness and poetic effect. But not- withstanding all these important considerations, there are hundreds of words found nowhere else in the Old Testament, and if we were to include inflexions, we should have to number them by thousands. The Hebrew vocabulary is limited, and consequently the proportion of words confined to the Pentateuch is very high. This is an argu- ment which is very forcible, and must appeal to all who are not determined to cling to a different opinion. There are nearly four hundred root- words which are peculiar to the Pentateuch. Besides which we find more than three hundred proper names occurring nowhere else. Several hundreds of others are almost confined to the Pentateuch, being found only once or twice in other books. Grammatical variations and inflexions of words peculiar to the Mosaic writings are not taken account of, or these numbers would be consider- ably increased. Those who are familiar with the elementary and limited character of the Hebrew vocabulary will appreciate the significance of facts like these. There is nothing like it anywhere else either in the Bible or out of it. It is altogether A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 115 inconceivable that such a state of things could exist if the Pentateuch had been put together by men who wrote other parts of the Old Testament, or if its author or authors had lived anywhere near the time when the bulk of its other portions were originated. With the Hebrew concordance in hand, there is no difficulty in collecting together such words as are peculiar to the several books, and to trace the various shades of meaning in later times. These facts are all the more weighty when we reflect that the Pentateuch was the one classic or standard of Hebrew. It was read and copied by the priests and almost every Jew. The English Bible has had a vast influence in fixing our language, but the Pentateuch exercised a far mightier effect. Even English has become materially modified since the translation of King James was made. Such words as saith, hath, astonied, his for its, "by myself" for "against myself" (1 Cor. iv. 4), chapiter for capital of a column, ouches, knop for knob, taches for fastenings, to ear (meaning to plough), amerce, beeves (oxen), cruse (a vessel), charger (a large dish), kine, plat (for plot), bravery (finery), prevent (go before), carriages (baggage), curious {cura, with care), sober, moderation, quicken, fellow, are a few examples which will at once occur to the mind. Similarly we find anti- ii6 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF : quated words in the Pentateuch which, for the reasons just assigned, betoken a much greater lapse of time between this part of Scripture and the later portions than the same amount of varia- tion would denote in regard to English. Some of these archaisms of expression and turns of thought impart to the Book of Genesis in par- ticular that distinctive character which we should expect it to have from what we know of its history and the sources whence its subject-matter origin- ated, while there are a few words in Genesis whose meaning is represented by other words in the subsequent books of the Pentateuch. Other anti- quated words in Genesis are not found else- where save in quotations or allusions, and many others occur in later books with changed meaning. Moreover, there are words in the Pentateuch of Egyptian origin, as well as old names for animals, and technical terms applying to the Tabernacle, to ceremonies, and to priestly apparel. (See Appendix.) No pretence is made of completeness in this part of our argument, but enough has been said to show that there are lingual and etymological peculiarities enough in the Pentateuch to separate it from all the other biblical writings, and that the obsolete and antiquated words found in it distinguish it from those compositions which we A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 117 know belong unquestionably to the very time when, accordinc^ to Wellhausen and Driver, the Pentateuch was mainly put together. Lists of aVag \iydij.im and characteristic words are now plentiful enough, and to these we must refer our readers who desire to know exactly what words are found only in the books of Moses. We think, however, that the foregoing details make it sufficiently clear that the language of the Penta- teuch, like so many other features of it, shows the critical theory of a late and divided authorship to be opposed to facts. The case is not met even by the admission that these later writers used documents already in existence, for the peculiarities and sole- cisms of language run through the entire corn- position, and affect every portion alike, whether it be ascribed to P or E or J or H or D. The word used for the Bush in Ex. iii. occurs again in Deut. xxxiii. 16, thus proving, according to the critical canon based on the use of rare words, that Exodus and Deuteronomy were from the same pen. So the word pti^, meaning to move, to swarm, to abound, is given in Ex. i. 7 to P, and in Gen. i. 21 to E. ni^np (bearing of burdens) is ascribed to E in Ex. i. 11, to J in Ex. v. 4, 5, and to P. in Ex. vi. 6, 7. By the time of the Judges it had become modified into n^'ap (Judg. xii. 6). Whether these words came from pre-existing documents or not. ii8 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: being unusual words, they indicate the worthless- ness of the critical methods which are based upon such foundations, and we have seen already how little the critics are willing to attribute to the influ- ence of traditions or records of an age anterior to that in which their hypothetical authors flourished. There is no way of getting rid of the force of the facts which philology adduces in opposition to the critical theories, nor indeed has any attempt to do so ever been made. CLAIMS TO A MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP. 119 CHAPTEE VI. THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: CLAIMS OF THE PENTATEUCH TO A MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP. THE second reason for accepting the Mosaic authorship of. the Pentateuch is the fact that there are scattered through every part of it, and involving practically the entire contents, numerous express and distinct statements to the effect that it was written by Moses, and that he believed he was declaring a Divine revelation. A religious book deserves to be listened to. But on such a simple statement of fact as that which bears upon its authorship it especially demands belief. This is not a matter involving abstruse speculations in regard to which there is room for shades of opinion. It is one to which the only possible answer is yea or nay. Does the \ Pentateuch, or does it not, affirm that it was pro- \ duced by Moses? If it does, then we must accept its testimony, or deny its right altogether 120 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: to be considered a religious book. Dr. Driver and Professor Beet ^ have both definitely affirmed that the Pentateuch does not itself claim to have been written by Moses, and most of the critics seem to care little whether it does or not. The issues before us are clear and distinct enoudi. It is not the rule among the inspired writers to state explicitly the names of the authors of the respective books. This is the case also with respect to the great bulk of ancient literature. We know that Plato and Caesar wrote their books, not from their own declarations, but from the unanimous testimony of others. It is no objection to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, there- fore, that there is no formal announcement of the autlior's name at the head of it. But there are numerous statements in it which are the equi- valent of this, and the whole of it is written in such a style as implies that it came from the hand of Moses. This is so obvious, that it has been admitted by many who on most other grounds are in antagonism to Scripture. Strauss writes : ^ " The books which describe the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, and their wanderings through the wilderness, bear the name of Moses, who, being their leader, would undoubtedly give a ^ Revieio oftlic Churches, vol. ii. p. 18, 2 Lchen Jesu Einleitung. See also Aids to Faith, p. 242. CLAIMS TO A MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP. 121 faithful history of these occurrences, unless he designed to deceive ; and who, if his intimate con- nection with Deity described in these books be historically true, was likewise eminently qualified, by virtue of such connection, to produce a credible history of the earlier periods." The credentials of Moses to write such a book as the Pentateuch are obvious. They are ex- plicitly stated in JSIum. xii. ^-'^, where it is declared, in the words of the Lord Himself, that to the prophets among the children of Israel He would make Himself known in visions, but with Moses He would "speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the form of the Lord shall he behold." Let us refer to a few of the passages which put it beyond doubt that the Pentateuch claims to have been written by Moses. The Book of Exodus is crowded with references to communi- cations received by Moses from the Lord, and often under the most solemn aud impressive circumstances, as at the giving of the Ten Commandments (chaps, xix. and xx.). Inter- woven into the history of the war with the Amalekites are these words : " And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book " (or tlie look), etc. (Ex. xvii. 14), as though Moses kept a record of God's dealings with His people in 122 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: the wilderness. In Ex. xxiv. 3-7 it is declared that Moses wrote the words of the Covenant and the laws of Israel in the book of the Covenant, and read them to the people. In Ex. xxxii. there are long passages which profess to be the very words which the Lord uttered to Moses. Again, in Ex. xxxiv. 27, Moses is commanded to write down the words of the renewed Covenant, and then it is added: "And he was therewith the Lord forty days and forty nights. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the Covenant, the Ten Com- mandments." See also Lev. xxvi. 46, xxvii. 34, where, as a kind of summary or conclusion of long revelations from God, it is added : " These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses." A glance down the lists of a concordance will show that there are nearly two hundred y passages in the Pentateuch in which the Lord is referred to as declaring His will or as speaking to Moses, and many of these passages cover long portions of the narrative. The Pentateuch is, in fact, honeycombed with such declarations, and it is not easy to find any verse that is not more or less definitely attributed to Moses or to the Divine Voice. In Num. xxxiii. 2 it is said that he wrote by Divine instruction the history of the encampments of the Israelites in the desert. That these events and commandments are specially CLAIMS TO A MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP. 123 mentioned as having been recorded by Moses, makes the inference most natural and reasonable that a full history was kept by him of God's deal- ings with His people. At the conclusion of his last address to the Israelites, it is declared that Moses "wrote this Law {Torah, law or instruction), and delivered it unto the priests, the sons of Levi," to be read to the people at the Feast of Taber- nacles (Deut. xxxi. 9-13). And in harmony with this it is stated (vers. 24-28), that " it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this Law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the Covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the Law, and put it by the side of the ark of the Covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee " (R.V.). There was, then, a book in which Moses was regularly writing by Divine commands, and which was to be sacredly guarded and statedly read by the leaders and teachers of the Israelites. In after-days, when they should attain to a settled form of government, their king was to cause a copy of this book to be made, and was to read therein all the days of his life (Deut. xvii. 18). Again and acrain is this book or Torah referred to, and always in such a way as shows that it was invested with sanctity and authority. 124 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: These passages, it will have been observed, not only do not tell us that the Lord made revelations to Moses which some one else wrote (was there then always an amanuensis with Moses, even in Sinai ?), but they declare that Moses himself wrote them in a book. The claims of Deuteronomy to Mosaic author- ship will be set forth in detail when dealing specially with that book. Meanwhile, we believe that the facts adduced in this chapter warrant us in affirming that throughout the whole of the five books of Moses there are explicit declarations that the writer of them was Moses, and that he believed he was delivering the word of God. There is hardly a passage that is not involved in these declarations, and many of them, from their very nature, cover the whole of the Mosaic writ- ings. It is clear, therefore, that we must either accept the Pentateuch as from Moses, or we must refuse to believe in it at all. If it is not to be heeded in these innumerable instances, there is nothing in it at all that deserves serious attention. TESTIMONY OF POST MOSAIC BOOKS. 125 CHAPTEK VII. THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: TESTIMONY OF POST- MOSAIC BOOKS. EEOM the time of Joshua onwards there are such references to the Law of Moses as cor- roborate the claims of the Pentateuch. When Joshua entered upon his duties as the successor of Moses, he was instructed " to do according to all the Law which Moses commanded," and it was added, " this book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth" (Josh. i. 7, 8). Accordingly he repaired to Ebal and Gerizim and made proclamation, " as it is written in the book of the Law of Moses," and "afterward he read all the words of the Law" (Josh. viii. 30-34). When stricken in age, he exhorted the people " to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the Law of Moses " (Josh. xxiii. 6). These early references to the existence and sanctity of the writings of Moses are of high evidential value, and through all the subsequent 126 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF : books of the Old Testament similar testimony is borne. The book which Moses had kept was well known to Joshua, who had left Egypt with Moses, and had accompanied him all through the wander- ings in the wilderness. This book he continued, and added to it such narrations as were of national and religious import. But he never claimed to be a prophet as Moses did. The visions which he received were of such a character as to encourage the soldier rather than to give prophetic credentials (Josh. v. 13-15). To regard his con- tinuation of the Mosaic history as at all equivalent to it in sanctity is to go directly in the face of Joshua's own sentiments and all subsequent belief and testimony. But his book certainly attained a sacred rank, and in it he recorded such revelations from God as came to him. Shortly before his death be engaged the people in a solemn renewal of the Covenant (Josh. xxiv. 26), and "wrote these words in the book of the Law of God." It has been sought to weaken the force of these many passages by the suggestion that the Torah signified only a portion of the Pentateuch, a sort of embryo out of which it grew during successive ages. This is quite opposed to the testimony derived from the Old Testament. No scriptural writer favours such a view, nor do Josephus, the TESTIMONY OF POST-MOSAIC BOOKS. 127 rabbinical writers, the Talmud, the Targums, or other Jewish writers, to whom the Tor ah meant the books of Moses. In support of their opinion some of the critics refer to Jer. ii. 8, where the phrase " those who handled the Law " occurs, as though certain "decisions" were meant, based upon mere fragments or traditions that had become associated with the name of Moses. But clearly the passage denotes the false explanation of the Law. That is its simple, natural meaning, and to speak of "handling" decisions is most strained. Another passage adduced in the same interests is Mic. iii.- 11, "the priests teach for hire," which some have curiously rendered " give Torahs or legal decisions for hire." The word "Torah," however, does not occur at all in the verse. It is the Hiphil of nn'* yarah, to instruct, that is used. Jeremiah makes it plain what he means in viii. 8, where he distinctly refers to "the Law of Jehovah," and continues : " but behold, the false pen of the scribes hath wrought falsely," that is, some had perverted the Law, the Torah, had " handled " it deceitfully. The word Torah may occasionally denote Deuteronomy, for this means the second Law, or repetition of the Law, and it was in a convenient form for reading to the people ; but this was not the common sis^nifi cation of the word. The division 128 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF : into five boolvs was merely a matter of convenience. From the beginning the Torah of Moses was one book, one continuous roll or series of tablets. A passage in the Midrash affirms that the king was to have a copy made not of Deuteronomy only, but of the whole Torah, showing that Deut. xvii. 18, where this instruction is given, meant the entire Pentateuch, and the explanation is added that Moses in this passage used the phrase Mishneh- Torah, because it was a transcription of the Law. '^) Even during the changeful times of the Judges '") the people were continually being reminded'oTthe Law given by Moses (Judg. iii. 4 ; 1 Sam. xii. 6-8). David knew of a written Law of Moses (1 Kings ii. 3). At the coronation of the kings the " testi- mony " was put on the monarch's head as required by Deuteronomy (2 Kings xi. 12 ; 2 Chron. xxiii. 11). David followed "the Law of Jehovah" (1 Chron. xvi. 40), and in his charge to Solomon ^ he speaks of " the Law of Jehovah thy God, the statutes and the judgements which Jehovah charged Moses with concerning Israel" (1 Chron. xxii. 12, 13). Eehoboam is said to have "forsaken the Law of Jehovah " (2 Chron. xii. 1). Asa enforced "the Law and the Commandment" (2 Chron. xiv. 4). Azariah charged the nation with having neglected the Law (2 Chron. xv. 3, 4). Jehoshaphat appointed Levites who " had the book of the Law TESTIMONY OF POST-MOSAIC BOOKS. iz^ of Jehovali with them" (2 Chron. xvii. 9). Amaziah spared his enemies in obedience to " the Law of the book of Moses" (Dent. xxiv. 16; 2 Chron. xxv. 4; 2 Kings xiv. 6). Hezekiah's reformation was carried out in harmony with " the Law of Jehovah " (2 Chron. xxxi.). In 2 Chron. xxxiii. 8 there is a reference to " the whole Law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses." In the historical books alone of the Old Testament " the Law of the Lord " is directly mentioned on at least thirty different occasions, and in fifteen of these instances Moses is declared to have been its author. All through the prophetical books are allusions and quotations to the same effect. The spirit and often the very words of the Pentateuch are found. We must not attempt to give full quotations, but some of the references are here presented. Amos (B.C. 790) ii. 4, 8, 10-12, iii. 1, 2, 14, iv. 4, 5, 11, V. 25, vii. 9, ix. 7 ; Hosea (b.c. 780) ii. 15, iv. 6, vi. 7, viii. 1, 12, ix. 3, 4, xi. 1, 8, xii. 3, 4; Isaiah (B.C. 758-711) i. 10-14, ii. 7, v. 24, 26, xxix. 12, XXX. 9, 16, 17. Canon Cheyne, in his Commentary on Isaiah (vol. ii. 219-225), furnishes above fifty passages in this book in which the Pentateuch is alluded to. Micah (B.C. 725) vi. 4, 5, vii. 17, 20 ; Jeremiah 9 130 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: (B.C. 626-587) xxxiv. 9-11 (ciuoting Deut. xv. 12). See also vi. 19, 20, xiv. 12, xvii. 23-26. Joel, the earliest of the prophetical books, as is generally thought (cir. B.C. 900-800), is full of the Mosaic spirit, and alludes to priests, altars, elders, the solemn assembly and the congregation, all being reminiscences of the Pentateuch. He knows nothing of a fragmentary Torah, nor of any authority in law or religion equal to that of Moses. Ezekiel, being one of the prophets of the Captivity, is late enough to have known JE, sup- posing there ever was such a document. We need not, therefore, refer to this book particularly, though, like the rest, it is crowded with allusions to earlier facts and institutions the origin of which is found in Deuteronomy. To such an extent is this the case with Ezekiel, and also with his con- temporary Jeremiah, that each of them has at different times been suggested as the possible author of Deuteronomy. Ezra, another of the later prophets, is said to have read the Law "from morning imtil midday" for seven days together (Neh. viii. 3, 18), so that it was evidently a long document, and not such a meagre affair as the critical theories would make the Law to have been. See also Ezra iii. 2 and vi. 18. Almost the last word in the Old Testament is a link in this long unbroken chain of evidence. In TESTIMONY OF POST- MOSAIC BOOKS. 131 Mai. iv. 4 it is written : " Eemember ye the Law of Moses My servant, which I commanded imto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgements." It is suggested that all these passages refer only to the traditions which had come down from the time of Moses, or to some fragmentary annals, such as the book of the War with tlie Amalekites, or the so-called book of the Covenant, but these theories cannot bear the strain of all the facts involved. Some of the passages are completely destructive of any such hypotheses, and hence we are warranted in the conclusion that they all denote the Pentateuch in its entirety. There is, then, from Joshua to Ezra an unbroken series of attestations to the existence and authority of the Mosaic writings. The oldest of the pro- phets seem as familiar with them as the latest. If the Pentateuch was written after 800 B.C., then Joel must have been acquainted with what was not yet in existence, for his references are too minute to find an adequate explanation in the statement that he had the traditions or the fragments J and E, or strata underlying these professed documents. If such fragments and traditions had ever existed, some one of the pro- phets would have said so ; some reference must have been made to them by either enemies or 132 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: friends during the long millennium throughout which they continued to be the only religious standards of the Israelites. Why has not one of the prophets told us how the Pentateuch was originated, and who did it ? What mysterious charm was there about these supposed authors of the Fragments and these redactors, that not a single mention of them is made in all the Old Testament or by any writer at any time ? Their names seem more sacred than the Tetragrammaton itself, for they are never whispered. Did every Old Testament writer connive at the plagiarism which was committed when the fragments were utilised for the final compilation of the Penta- teuch ? The only answer given to these questions is that the prophetical books were all later than is commonly supposed, and Canon Cheyne refuses a single Psalm to David. It is a poor way out of the difficulty, and shows where we may get to when once we have drifted away from safe and tested moorings. There were Old Testament writers before the Exile, or before even the assumed date of JE. There were rulers and leaders and judges in Israel from the time of Joshua. Why has not one of these given some indication of the existence of these fragmentary documents ? Why have they all conspired together to speak of Moses alone as the author of TESTIMONY OF POST-MOSAIC BOOKS. 133 their Law and the founder of their religion ? There is no answer whatever to these difficulties. They are such that they practically demonstrate the Mosaic authorship. The critics rely on in- ternal evidence. Their Csesar condemns them, If internal evidence can prove anything, it proves that " the Law came by Moses." This belief can be traced back to the period of Ezra and the Great Synagogue on through the ages of the Prophets and the Judges, to the very days of Moses himself. A " tradition " which permeates all Hebrew history, and lies at the foundations of Jewish religion and national life, cannot be set aside. 134 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: CHAPTEE VIII. THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: AFTER-INFLUENCE OF THE MOSAIC CODE. THE post -Mosaic history of the Israelites reveals the profound influence which the Mosaic writings had upon their customs, their public and private life, and on their civil and religious institutions. Some of the references given in the preceding chapter would be appro- priate here also, but we will endeavour to avoid repetition. Joshua's action in reference to the burial of the kings who had been hung on trees (x. 26, 27) was determined bj^ Deut. xxi. 23. In giving no inheritance to the tribe of Levi, while he bestowed an inheritance on the daughters of Zelophehad (xvii. 4), he followed Num. xxvii. 6, 7. Again, Ex. xl. and Num. i. and xxxv. furnished the ground for his proceedings in regard to the setting up of the Tabernacle (xviii.) and the AFTER-INFLUENCE OF MOSAIC CODE. 135 establishment of cities of refuge (xx.), while the controversy among the tribes in reference to the building of "the altar of testimony" mentioned in ch. xxii. was based on the instructions con- tained in Lev. xvii. 8, 9. During the period of the Judges public worship was conducted at Shiloh by priests of the tribe of Levi in harmony with the Law of Moses; and pilgrimages, festivals, and sacrifices were maintained according to the instructions of Moses (Judg. xviii. 31 ; 1 Sam. i.-iv.). The establishment of monarchy (1 Sam. viii.-x.) was effected in complete harmony with the laws prescribed in Deut. xvii. 14 So with the religious reforms introduced by David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah (2 Chron. xvii. 7, etc., xix. 4, etc., xxix.-xxxi. ; 2 Kings xxiii., etc.). Josiah evidently knew Lev. xxi. when he forbade defiled priests to eat with the "clean" at the Temple; and Jer. ii. 3 clearly refers to Ex. xxiii. 16 ; Lev. xxiii. 10-14 ; Num. xviii. 12, and Deut. xxvi. 10, in relation to first-fruits, The writer of 2 Kings xvii. attributes the ruin of the ten tribes to their neglect of the " statutes and ordinances, and the Law which the Lord wrote for them" (vers. 18 and 37). This could not have been written lon^r after the time 136 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF : of Ezra, if at all. Yet it was then known that the ten tribes had been unfaithful to the written Law. Now, could that have been honestly written by Ezra if the Law had never existed in the pre-Exilic ages ? Hannah's training of her son Samuel was influenced throughout by Mosaic laws and customs (1 Sam. i.), and the dress of the child-prophet was determined by Ex. xxviii. 6, etc. Saul's treatment of wizards was guided by Ex. xxii. 18. No detailed reference need be made to the offering of sacrifices during post- Mosaic times, though there are numerous records of this, since it might be said that sacrifices were part of the ordinary ritual of other peoples besides the Israelites. But we must allude to an objection in regard to this matter which Dr. Driver thus sets forth (p, 80) : " Sacrifices are frequently described as offered in different parts of the land without any indication (and this is the important fact) on the part of either the actor or the narrator that a law such as that of Deuteronomy is being infringed." The law referred to is in Deut. xii. 13, where it is pre- scribed that sacrifices are not to be offered save at the central sanctuary. Hence Dr. Driver infers that Deuteronomy was unknown until after the establishment of the monarchy. The passages referred to by him as showing that this law was AFTER-INFLUENCE OF MOSAIC CODE. 137 infringed are, Josh. xxiv. 1, 26 ; 1 Sam. vii. 9, ix. 12-14, X. 3, 5, 8, xi. 15, xiv. 35, xx. 6 ; 2 Sam. XV. 12, 32. Dr. Driver remarks that the infringe- ment of a law does not necessarily imply its non- existence, and yet his argument is just that and nothing else. It is not correct to say the infringe- ment was never condemned, so far as there was any illegality, as we shall show presently. But the real fact of the case is that Dr. Driver has quite misunderstood the law of Deuteronomy. The commands of Deut. xii. 11-14 were really for the purpose of preserving Israel from idola- trous associations. The "place which the Lord shall choose " means not merely Shiloh, Kirjath- jearim, and Gibeon, where the Tabernacle was to be set, or the Temple when it was built, but those places which the Lord should choose, and the choice of which would be made known by the manifestation of the Lord's presence. Ex. xx. 24 shows clearly enough that in all ]Dlaces where the Lord would record His name He would bless them, and this blessing would be a sufficient indication that the Lord had chosen that place. It suits the argument of Dr. Driver to interpret Deut. xii. 11 as referring only to one central place, but surely he reads in a meaning which the passage does not absolutely demand. Some towns where the Israelites would settle would be so 138 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: incurably associated with idolatry as to be under a ban, but wherever a properly authorised priest offered sacrifice and the Lord's blessing was given, there was a place of the Lord's choosing. To such places alone were the sacrificial offerings to be brought, and there alone might the sacri- ficial meals be eaten. In most of the cases referred to by Dr. Driver as showing that local altars were reared, it may be inferred that it was by the authority of the priests, but in one or two of them {e.g. Josh. xxiv. 1, 26) there is no mention of a sacrifice at all. In the case of Saul's altar, Samuel rebuked him, because he had not " kept the commandment of the Lord " (1 Sam. xiii. 11, xiv. 35). In 1 Sam. xx. 6, the reference is perhaps to a feast, and not to a sacrifice ; but even if " sacrifice " be read, there may have been a priest present. The other reference of Dr. Driver (2 Sam. XV. 12) simply records the offering of a sacrifice by Absalom or Ahithophel, men in a state of revolt, and proves nothing; while ver. 32 merely says that David worshipped God, without any mention whatever of sacrifice. There is not a single passage of those given by Dr. Driver which contradicts Deut. xii. 11-14. To beget even the semblance of contradiction, he has to wrest it from all association with Ex. xx. 24, and to AFTER-INFLUENCE OF MOSAIC CODE. 139 interpret it in a sense which, we hold, it does not fairly sustain. Professor Eobertson Smith we think to be also in error in saying that approach to God was not possible under the finished Levitical system save at the central sanctuary/ for the synagogue worship certainly co-existed with it, as indeed the assumed " Priests' Code " itself testifies. The use of altars in pre-Exilic worship is sufficiently accounted for by the Professor himself, when he says that "all slaughter of animals for food was then sacrifice." ^ Moreover, there had been certain feasts which were called "sacrifices" (Gen. xxxi. 54 ; 1 Sam. ix. 12), and the chief slaughterers at these feasts may have been called priests. We know that to Levites was committed the slaying of sacrificial victims under some circumstances. The critics, however, meet our contention that the later rites and customs of the Israelites were influenced by the Pentateuch, by affirming that during earlier times — that is, the ages previous to Ezra — there is so little trace of the Levitical rubric, and so many departures from the Mosaic laws, that it is not likely the Pentateuch could then have been in existence. It is dangerous to ^ Old Testament in Jewish Church, p. 251. 2 Ihid. p. 248. I40 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF: build upon silence, but the fact is we have a great weight of testimony that the devout at any rate did comply with the Mosaic requirements, and this we think we have demonstrated. If there were many who did not observe these require- ments, it is no more than we might expect at a time of such disorder as the period of the Judges and before it, when " every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (Judg. xxi. 25). Professor Eawlinson tlius replies to this objec- tion : — The sacred character of the Levites, their dispersion among the different tribes, the settlement of the high priesthood in the family of Aaron, the existence of the ark of the Covenant, the power of inquiring of God and obtaining answers, the irrevocability of a vow, the distinguishing mark of circumcision, the distinction between clean and unclean meats, the laAV of the Nazarite, the use of burnt offerings and peace offerings, the employment of trumpets as a means of obtaining Divine aid in war, the impiety of setting up a king, are severally acknow- ledged in the Book of Judges, and constitute together very good evidence that the Mosaic ceremonial law was already in force, and, though disregarded in many points by the mass, was felt as binding by all those who had any real sense of religion. It would be as just to say that the licentious- ness of the court and nation under Charles II. of England proves that the New Testament was then unknown in this land, as to affirm that the partial neglect of the Mosaic precepts during " the AFTER-INFLUENCE OF MOSAIC CODE. 141 heroic age " of Israel shows that the Pentateuch did not then exist. Shall we deny the Eeforma- tion because modern ritualists ignore Protestant doctrine ? When we consider the length of time required to elevate a people like those whom Joshua led over Jordan, and bear in mind how few could obtain or read the Law, the wonder is, not that there were infractions of it, but that there are so many records of its observance. These objections of Dr. Driver and others leave out of account the fact that Moses legislated not for the moment, but for the future also. Many subsequent developments were called forth by the circumstances of the time, and might per- haps for that reason seem to be discordant with the Mosaic customs. The rise of the prophets, for example, who, the critics say, were the rivals of the priesthood, was really a temporary and later requirement, but it was in entire harmony with Num. xii. 6-8 : " If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make Myself known unto him," etc. Being Divinely appointed, and for special purposes, their acts and duties are not to be estimated solely by the Mosaic ritual. If it should be found that the prophets sacrificed (1 Sam. vii. 8, 9), appointed religious festivals (1 Sam. vi. 5, 6), restored altars (1 Kings xviii. 21), we have to judge these acts in the light of 142 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF : the fact that they were special agents raised up by the Lord, and invested with Divine credentials. David is another case of the same kind. He was a sort of prophet-king, and was authorised by a theophany to offer sacrifice on a particular occasion, but this does not warrant us in supposing that any one who chose might imitate him. The same thing applies to some of the details concern- ing the maintenance of the Levites and other temporary arrangements. To regard these as con- tradicting the Mosaic injunctions, or as discrepant with the Levitical code, is to pursue an unreason- able course, and reduces the wisdom and sagacity of Moses to a lower level than that of an Indian chief. The Law of Moses was beyond the needs or capacities of liis time, and it is natural there should be temporary modifications of some of its details. The fact that it permitted of such while yet preserving its lofty ideals, indicates how great was the foresight and enlightenment of Israel's deliverer and lawgiver. Some other matters akin to the foregoing, and which are based upon the supposed silence of the later books, admit of the general reply that, even were the silence complete, the inference from it is uncertain, and is liable to be upset by some new discovery or some improved inter- pretation. AFTER-INFLUENCE OF MOSAIC CODE. 143 There is only one allusion to keeping the Passover during the life of Moses, and yet it could certainly not have been omitted. Perhaps it would not have been mentioned in that single instance but for a difficulty which arose (Num. ix.), and which made the record necessary. The Taber- nacle is not mentioned after the time of Joshua until Eli's day, and then we discover that it had existed all along. But a thorough survey of the Old Testament reveals the fact that in many alleged cases the silence is not nearly so complete as is assumed. In regard to sacrifices, for example, there are allusions to them in Deut. xii. 6, xi. 13, xiv. 27-29, from the lips of Moses himself, the narrative declares. They are referred to also in Deut. xviii. 3, We limit our references to this one book of the Pentateuch, because it is admitted that Deuteronomy was pre-Exilic, but sacrifices are alluded to often enough in the other pentateuchal books. The supposed silence is dependent upon the late date of the Priestly Code. Jer. vii. 22 is an oblique quotation from Deut. xxix. 12 and Ex. vi. 7. They are referred to also in Isa. Ixvi. 3 ; 1 Sam. XV. 22, and Prov. xxi. 27. These references to Deuteronomy and the earlier historical and prophetical books show that the critical views about the silence concerning sacrifices can be 144 THE TRADITIONAL BELIEF : refuted on their own lines, and even by accepting the dates upon which such views are based. To sum up the evidences for the Mosaic author- ship of the Pentateuch as a whole, so far as we have enumerated them, we have shown that the critical theories of a contrary nature completely break down when tested, that all the internal evidence is in harmony with our view, that the style and spirit of the Pentateuch agree with the traditional belief, that the Pentateuch itself asserts a Mosaic orio^in, that all other books confirm this, and that for this reason all the Levitical institutions were maintained and rever- enced by the pious throughout the whole period of Jewish history. Moreover, this part of Scripture cannot be kept among our sacred books if it be accredited to some later unknown scribe, although the critics do not seem to realise this difficulty. How men can look at such facts as we have adduced and hold to the inspiration of the Pentateuch with all the contradictions and falsehoods it would contain, were the new criticism true, passes our power to comprehend. With all that can be said in favour of the Mosaic authorship, and in the face of the inadequacy of explanations and assumptions based on critical instinct, that may or may not be reliable, we ought to be easily pardoned for our AFTER-INFLUENCE OF MOSAIC CODE. 145 slowuess to give up the faith of three millenniums, and empty our hearts of all the consolations that come to us as we read in this old story how " God made known His ways unto Moses, His acts unto the children of Israel." 10 [ 46 THE A UTHORSHIP OF DE UTER ONOM V : CHAPTER IX. THE AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY: CRITICAL THEORIES. rfIHE question of the authorship of Deutero- -L nomy requires special and separate con- sideration, in consequence of the extraordinary attitude which the Higher Critics take up with respect to this particular book. Dr. Driver thus expresses his opinion : " Even though it were clear that the first four books were written by Moses, it would be difficult to sustain the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy." ^ All sorts of theories have been started to account for the origin and purpose of this book. Colenso regarded it as a forgery by Jeremiah. Bleek, Reuss, Kuenen, and others, put it not earlier than Manasseh or Josiah. Ewald supposed it was a compilation from many sources made during the reign of Manasseh. Robertson Smith, in ^ Introduction, p. 77. CRITICAL THEORIES. 147 his article on the Bible in the Encydopcedia Britannica, writes concerning it that in his opinion it is "beyond doubt a prophetic legislat- ive programme, and if the author put his work in the mouth of Moses instead of giving it, with Ezekiel, a directly prophetic form, he did so, not in pious fraud, but simply because his object was not to give a new law, but to expound and develop Mosaic principles in relation to new needs." And in his Old Testament in the Jeioish Church he speaks of it as a "legal fiction" (p. 385) ; while Wellhausen declares it has " not a word of truth in it." After all this, it might seem incredible that Deuteronomy puts forward far more claims to be Mosaic than any other of the books of the Pentateuch. It is, however, a comfort to know that eminent scholars like Delitzsch, Havernick, Hengstenberg, Keil, Perowne, and Ellicott are content to regard it as the work of Moses. And Dean Milman, in his History of the Jews, remarks in reference to Ewald's views : " He assumes the composition of the book with the same peremptory — I had almost said arrogant — confidence as if he were writing of the composition of the ^neid in the time of Augustus, or of the Code and Pandects in the reign of Justinian. Having carefully examined all his alleged reasons, I confess that I 1 48 THE A UTHORSHIP OF DE UTER ONOM V : cannot discern the shadow of a sound or trust- worthy reason even for conjecture. To historical authority there is no pretence." "Ewald's assignment of Deuteronomy to the reign of Manasseh, on which reign we are almost in the dark, seems to me more utterly wild and arbitrary, and its Egyptian origin wilder still." ^ Thus far Milman, a not prejudiced or too orthodox witness. The theory of many of the critics is that Deuteronomy was the identical book found by Hilkiah the high priest in the Temple during the repairs set on foot by Josiah, and that it had been concocted as a pious fraud and placed there during the reign of Manasseh. We cannot find a jot of evi- dence for this extraordinary suggestion. The fact that Josiah had already undertaken the reform and restoration of the Temple is enough to show that it was not the discovery by Hilkiah which incited him to this, but his own religious spirit and tlie instruction he liad received during childhood in the truth of the very book that was brought to light. That truth had lingered in the land all through the dark and violent reign of Manasseh, and there were still some who were able to give such instruction to the young king, although the Scriptures themselves had been proscribed. It 1 Vol. i. p. 136. CRITICAL THEORIES. 149 was "the book of the Law" that was found (2 Kings xxii. 8), " the book of the Torah of the Lord given by Moses" (2 Chron. xxxiv. 14), which, through all Jewish times, meant the Torah or Pentateuch of Moses, and, as Josiah said (1 Kings xxii. 13), it was their "fathers" who had not hearkened to it. Professor Moses Stuart reminds us that after the Eeign of Terror in France not a single copy of the Bible could be found for some time in Paris, and it seems that Manasseh's persecutions produced a similar state of things. There could never have been more than a very few copies of the Torah in existence at one time, so that it is a wonder this one copy escaped the fanaticism of Manasseh. Dr. Driver, though adopting the view that Hilkiah's book was Deuteronomy only, yet admits that the effects produced by it might suit Leviticus equally well (p. 81). But he thinks that the allusions to the Covenant (2 Kings xxiii. 2)^ must refer to ^ The word "Covenant" is of frequent occurrence in the Pentateuch, and is apjDlied to the whole Torah, just as Jeremiah applies it to Hilkiah's book (Jer. xi. 2). See Ex. ii. 24, vi. 4, 5, xix. 5, etc. ; Lev. ii. 13, xxvi. 15 ; Num. x. 33, xiv. 44, XXV. 13; Deut. iv. 13, 23, 31, v. 2, 3, vii. 2, 9, 12, viii. 18, ix. 9, 11, 15, xxix. 1, 9. This usage continued to late times, as is evidenced by 2 Kings xxii. 8, compared with xxiii. 2 ; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 30. Jeremiah, in referring to the Torah as the Covenant (Jer. xi. 2, 10, etc.), follows the ordinary ISO THE AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY : Deuteronomy, and so he concludes there is no doubt that it was Deuteronom}^ which Hilkiah had found. Now, this is a very slender founda- tion for so vast an inference. It would be much more reasonable to suppose that " Covenant " meant the whole of the revelation by Moses, as indeed it commonly did. Of course, if there were no Pentateuch in Josiah's time, if it had not yet been put together, there would be something in these surmises of the critics, but that is a sup- position wholly opposed by the facts. And even according to the critics themselves, the document JE had already been compiled, hence it would be very unlikely that the mere discovery of Deutero- nomy, a comparatively recent forgery, as is assumed, would have produced any impression on the people that JE had not created. It is often usage of all Old Testament writers. This ''Covenant" made for the nation by Josiah Avas based on the newly- discovered "book of the Torah of the Lord given by Moses." This is made most clear from Jer. xi. 3, 4 : " Cursed is the man who obeys not the words of this Covenant which I commanded your fathers in the day when I led them from the land of Egypt," etc. Jeremiah believed this book to be the record of the Sinai tic revelation, and the critical theories practically charge him with fraud. The following verses distinctly refer to Deut. iv. 20 ; Lev. xxvi. 3 ; Ex. vi. 7, xxix. 45 ; Deut. xxvii. 15-26, How then could these books have been Avritten after the Captivity, when Jeremiah prophesied before that event ? CRITICAL THEORIES. 151 found that the best refutation of one critical theory is to compare it with another. The motives which inspired this pious fraud were the desire to centralise worship at Jerusalem, and to build up the priestly ambitions of the Levites ; and the lateness of its origin is said to be demonstrated by the fact that its ceremon- ialism differs radically from what is found in the earlier books, — that is, in the Priestly Code. Dr. Driver tells us that when Deuteronomy was written, " J£ and P were not yet united into a single work, and JE alone formed the basis of Deuteronomy" (p. 76), and adds (p. 80): "The earliest of the pentateuchal sources, it seems clear, is JE; but at whatever date this is placed . . . Deuteronomy implies a more elaborately organised civil community than that for which provision is made in the legislation of JE." He favours the idea that it was written during Manasseh's reign (B.C. 697), and this enables him to announce all sorts of discrepancies between Deuteronomy and the rest of the books. Now, if this book had been written at so short a time before its discovery by Hilkiah, according to the critical theory, the question naturally arises as to why the king should refer to their " fathers " who had disobeyed it; and, moreover, it is difficult to understand why Huldah the prophetess, the 152 THE AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY : king's scribe, the king himself, and the entire mass of the people (2 Kings xxiii.), accepted it at once as a Divine revelation. Surely it could only have been because every one knew that there had been such a writing in existence, with whose contents they had been made familiar by the oral teaching of their priests. On this assumption, too, it is difficult to understand the frequent references in Deuteronomy to " the book " (xvii. 18) and " this book of the Law" (xxxi. 26). When the Sinaitic Code, the Ten Command- ments, are referred to, there is no mention of a " book," but only " the words," the technical term for the Commandments (xxviii. 58), so that the writer of Deuteronomy did not intend them alone. Dr. Driver is of opinion that "Amos, Hosea, and the undisputed portions of Isaiah show no certain traces of the influence of Deuteronomy " (p. 83). If even this were so, the argument e silentio is but a poor one. But is it so ? It might be said that Amos ii. 7 condemns the very things referred to in Deut. xxii. or xxvii. The various sins denounced by this prophet con- tinually remind us of Deuteronomy. Nothing more than a Eeference Bible is needed to make this evident enough. But the truth is that it is the theory only that gives rise to the opinion that CRITICAL THEORIES. 153 the earlier historical and prophetical books show no influences of Deuteronomy. We have already pointed out that the Scriptures written after the days of Moses are crowded with references to the Pentateuch. But if Joshua, Judges, etc., were all of them written hundreds of years after the events, and if there is a Deuteronomic editor (D^) for Joshua and another for Judges who lived after the time of Isaiah, you get a theory which can be made to fit in with Dr. Driver's statement. There are in addition, however, numerous traces of Deuteronomic facts and institutions in Amos, Hosea, and Micah, which prove to all, save those who confuse matters by their suppositions of late authorship, that Deuteronomy existed before these prophets wrote.^ Again, Isaiah, it is said, could not have been 1 See Amos i. 11, 14, ii. 10, 11, iii. 2, is^. 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, V. 11, 25, vii. 3, viii. 14, ix. 4, 7. Compare iv. 11 with Deut. xxix. 23. See also Hos. viii. 12 : "I have written to (Israel) the ten thousand things of My Law." Hos, i. 2, iii. 3, iv. 4, V. 10, vi. 1, vii. 12, viii. 12, ix. 4, 12, x. 4, 8, 10, xii. 3, 8, xiii. 5, 10, 12, xiv. 3. Compare Hos. iv. 13 with Deut. xii. 2, Hos. viii. 13 with Deut. xxviii. 68, Hos. xi. 3 with Deut. i. 31, Hos. xiii. 6 with Deut. viii. 11-14, Isa. i. 2 (Deut. xxxii. 1, 6, 20), i. 3 (Deut. xxxii. 6, 28, 29), i. 6 (Deut. xxviii. 35), i. 9, 10 (Deut. xxxii. 32), x. 2 (Deut. xxvii. 19), v. 8 (Deut. xix. 14), V. 10 (Deut. xxviii. 39), v. 23 (Deut. xvi. 19), v. 26 (Deut. xxviii. 49), xxx. 17 (Deut. xxxii. 30), xiii. 19 (Deut. xxix. 23), xii. 4 (Deut. xxxii. 39), xliv. 2 (Deut. xxxii. 15), 1. 1 (Deut. 1 54 THE A UTHORSHIP OF DE UTERONOMY : acquainted with Deuteronomy, or he would not have adopted a pillar " as a symbol of the conver- sion of Egypt to the true faith." ^ Deut. xvi. 22, however, prohibits the setting up of a pillar or image for merely idolatrous purposes, whereas Isa. xix. 19 evidently refers to the erection of a monument to Divine grace and power. It had all along been common to set up such pillars, as for example, by Jacob at Bethel, by Joshua at Shechem, by Samuel at Ebenezer, and by others. Nothing savouring of idolatry attaches to any of these, nor to Isaiah's pillar, and that is all that the passage in Deuteronomy prohibits. In regard to the language of Deuteronomy, the same peculiarities for the most part are met with as those which have been enumerated in reference to the Pentateuch as a whole. The masculine form of the pronoun {lioo) for the feminine occurs 195 times in the Pentateuch, and of these 36 are in Deuteronomy. Naar lyj a youth, is also used for maiden, the feminine form naarali myj occurring only once in Deuteronomy (xxii. 19). In Deuteronomy as in Exodus, Abih, the older name for the month, is used. The future termination in tin, which occurs 105 times in xxiv. 1), Iviii. 14 (Deut. xxxii. 13), lix. 10 (Deut. xxviii. 29), Ixiii. 1 1 (Deut. xxxii. 7), etc. — SeeCheyne's Isaiah, ii. p. 229, etc. 1 Driver, p. 83. CRITICAL THEORIES. 155 the Pentateuch, half of which are in Deutero- nomy, is never met with in the post - Exilic books, and only a very few times in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.^ If Deuteronomy were really composed at the late date given to it by the critics, we should certainly not find in it all these peculiarities which it possesses in common with the other books of the Pentateuch, while, on the other hand, we should undoubtedly come across here and there expressions and references which would indicate the period of its composition. Several phrases of this kind have, it is true, been fastened upon as having a retrospective reference, but on investigation it turns out that it is the interpret- ations put upon them, not the words themselves, which have the supposed retrospective effect. The phrases "at that time" (ii. 34, iii. 4, 8, 12, 18, 21, etc.) and " unto this day " (iii. 14) imply, as Dr. Driver thinks, a long interval between the narration and the events recorded. Usually such an expres- sion would denote that a considerable duration of time had elapsed. In this case it is always six months at least, and in some instances more. ^ Kcenig, Alt Test. Studicn. Heft ii. gives long lists of archaic words, and many which became obsolete in later times. The English reader will find some of these in Perowne's article on the Pentateuch in Smith's Dictionary of the BihUf vol. ii. p. 782. 156 THE AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY: And it must be borne in mind that they were six months of important and exciting incidents. Other phrases which have done good service are, " beyond Jordan/' and " this side Jordan," as though the writer was living in Western Palestine, and was describing events which had taken place on the other side Jordan (cf. i. 1, 5, iii. 8, etc., with vii. 7, ix. 10). And yet the supposed writer (D) represents Moses as in Moab. Surely he would not be so inconsistent or imbecile as to put these words into the mouth of Moses if they meant literally what Dr. Driver takes them to mean. But the fact is that the phrase does not mean exclusively what the critics suppose. It often denotes "at the crossing," and is used of both sides of Jordan. Every one knows that " the sea " generally denoted the West, and similarly, " beyond Jordan " meant " the region beyond," the country afterwards called Pera^a. Dr. Driver himself allows this to be possible. ^ Moreover, the same expression occurs in Num. xxxii. 19, and refers to both sides of Jordan. The fact that the death of Moses is recorded at the end of this book, is really of very little consequence. The book of the Law clearly closes at xxxi. 13, and the great lawgiver formally deposits it with the authorised custodians of ^ Expositor, May 1892, p. 339. CRITTCAL THEORIES. 157 national documents. The Song and the Blessing are a sort of appendix; and then comes the account of Moses' death. What more natural than that such a postscript should be added by Joshua ? As the successor of Moses, he would continue the annals of the nation, the first items of which would, of course, be the manner of his own appointment and the passing away of his august predecessor. It needs but a slight know- ledge of the nature of Hebrew rolls to enable any one to understand how this postscript could become incorporated with the body of the book of Moses. But it would not be strange even if Joshua had designedly effected this, for the roll that Moses had written could not end more appropriately than with a description of the last hours of the revered leader who had left it as a priceless legacy. The unjustifiable amalgamation of Joshua with the Pentateuch to make up what the critics call the Hexateuch needs no examination here. The only point it has in common with the Mosaic narrative is that it continues the history of the Israelites. But on that ground half the books of the Old Testament might be massed together. Nothing but the exigencies of a theory based on the supposition of various later authors of the Penta- teuch could ever have led to the idea that the book 158 THE AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY : of Joshua proceeded from the same sources as the Pentateuch. But, of course, if Moses did not write the books bearing his name, then Joshua did not write the book bearing his. We have seen how crowded Deuteronomy is with declarations that it was written by Moses, and that it contains explicit revelations from God. Joshua, on the other hand, bears all the marks of being a compilation from contemporaneous annals, most of them, however, if not all, emanating from this great captain. But the theory of the late date of Deuteronomy requires also a still later date for Joshua and Judges and other books, for these are full of traces of the Deuteronomic record, as we have shown. We hesitate to accept any arbitrary pronounce- ment on Deuteronomy, which necessitates the putting of these books after the Babylonian captivity, and leaves the Hebrew nation for the most flourishing period of its history, from the time of Moses to the Exile, a full thousand years, without any history, and without any written religious code beyond a few fragments of in- definite cliaiacter and anonymous authorship. ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES. 159 CHAPTEE X. AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY: ALLEGED DIS- CREPANCIES WITH OTHER BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH. THE whole of Dr. Driver's objections to the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy are born of his assumptions that there are differences of style and discrepancies in the legislation of this as compared with the preceding books. We have already endeavoured to show how unreliable this kind of reasoning is, and how fluctuating are the conclusions to which it leads. It should be remembered that the other portions of the Pentateuch were necessarily influenced by older records, and that they were composed by Moses under totally different conditions from those which characterised the writing of Deuteronomy. In this book we have the very words of Moses, given under circumstances of the most impressive and affecting character. Moreover, it is mainly # 1 60 THE A UTHORSHIP OF DE UTER ONOM Y : made up of spoken utterances to the body of the people, as is clearly shown by a multitude of passages like xii. 13-18, xxvii. 11, etc., and, consequently, it would be necessary to avoid those technicalities and nice distinctions which were essential to the formal statement of laws previously addressed to the priests and rulers, and which were to be the framework of the sub- sequent constitution. It was the spirit of the laws rather than their formulation which is brought out in Deuteronomy. The laws themselves were already framed with precision, and the people were familiar with them. It was now necessary to supply motives to loyalty and obedience. Hence we find that in Deuteronomy emphasis is laid upon gratitude and love to God. It is almost incredible that the school of Wellhausen use this very point in order to show a conflict between Deuteronomy and the rest of the Penta- teuch. But it is not true that love to God is not used as a motive in the earlier books. The whole history of the Israelites is an appeal to these purer and finer feelings. That magnificent description of Himself by the Lord given to Moses in the cleft of the rock (Ex. xxxiv.) for ever puts to flight a criticism so shallow and so false. It is only natural, however, that Moses, as St. John did in after-ages, should, with all the ALLEGED DLSCREPANCIES, i6i solemnity and pathos that attach to farewell exhortations, appeal more forcefully than ever to their sense of dependence on God, and to their consciousness of indebtedness to that merciful and mighty Being who had done such wondrous things for them, and wrought out so many gracious deliverances in their past times of suffering and peril. These remarks supply an answer also to the similar objection of Dr. Driver, that the style of Deuteronomy is of a simpler character than that of the Priests' Code, or, as he puts it, " the liturgical institutions under which the author (of Deuteronomy) lived were of a simpler character than those prescribed in P" (p. 131). As we have said, the object Moses had in view was a simpler one. He was appealing to the laity, and not framing laws. It would be truer to say that there is no allusion at all in Deuteronomy to "liturgical institutions," but that would not create a " conflict." By the vicious method of reasoning in a circle,^ Dr. Driver carefully cuts ^ It appears almost incredible that this vicious method of reasoning in a circle permeates the whole of the productions of the critical school. We could not have believed it on mere outside testimony, and we do not expect to be believed by those who will not go to the books themselves for demonstra- tion. The common method is to affirm that such and such characteristics belong to an author, and therefore, whenever II i62 THE AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY : out of Deuteronomy all that reminds him of P. Here is the short and easy method with Deuteronomy. Take out of it all that touches upon ceremonialism and give it to P, and then, mirdbile dictu, the style of Deuteronomy is different from that of P. When P is taken away, what is left is not P. This is the critical method reduced to its simplest form. The brunt of the attack on Deuteronomy has been directed against certain alleged differences from the middle books of the Pentateuch in matters relating to the priesthood and the Levitical system. It is affirmed, in the first such cliaracteristics are absent, that author must not be credited with the passage under consideration. Or, the full development of the Levitical code was post-Mosaic, therefore all points bearing upon this are to be accredited to P. A most extraordinary specimen of this false kind of "reasoning " is furnished for us in Wellhausen's Prolegomena. The central sanctuary, says the author, is post-Mosaic in its full develop- ment, therefore the Priestly Code (Exodus to Numbers), which recognises that idea, must be of a later date than that usually ascribed to it, and then it is deliberately argued that, as the P code enforces the idea of a central sanctuary, it must have been originated by projecting the Temple into the past, hence the Tabernacle was a late conception. Of course the actual existence of the Tabernacle in the wilderness upsets the whole fabrication. Tlic idea of the central sanctuary was Mosaic, hence the narrative of its construction was Mosaic, and consequently the Tabernacle was not the shadow cast by the Temple, but the type leading on to the Temple. ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES. 163 place, that the distinction between priests and Levites was a later development, arising out of priestly ambition on the part of the Levites. This distinction is recognised in Exodus to Numbers, but, say the critics, not in Deuteronomy ; hence it is assumed that Deuteronomy must have had an earlier and a different authorship from that of the Priestly Code. On this supposition is based the further assertion that in the earlier historical books the teaching of Deuteronomy is illustrated, while the later historical books maintain the distinction so obvious in Exodus to Leviticus, sup- posed to have been written after Deuteronomy. Eobertson Smith says 1 : " The Levitical laws give a graduated hierarchy of priests and Levites; Deuteronomy regards all Levites as at least possible priests " ; and in his Old Testament in the Jewish Church the same idea is worked out in detail. Similarly, Kuenen, in his work on the Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, affirms: "The Deuteronomic law makes no distinction between those who belong to this tribe (Levi) ; they are not all priests, but they can all become priests. Not so the laws recorded in Exodus and in the following books. They confine the priesthood to Aaron and his descendants, and make all the rest of the Levites subordinate to them.''" ^ Eiicydopmdia Britannica, Avt. " Bible." 1 64 THE AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY : It might seem that if Ezra really did first promulgate the perfected Levitical code, the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah ought at least to be in harmony with this theory, and yet the distinction between priests and Levites is clearly shown to have existed before their time. Again, in 2 Chron. xxix. 5, a passage which is as late as the Persian dominion, both priests and Levites are addressed by Hezekiah as Levites. How, then, could the distinction be later than Deuteronomy ? The question is in reality a very simple one. It is nothing more than a variatiun in the biblical language. For example, 2 Chron. xxx. 27 runs : " Then the priests, the Levites, arose and blessed the people." Similarly, in 2 Chron. v. 5, we read : " These did the priests, the Levites, bring up" (RV.). It is significant that in the parallel passage (1 Kings viii. 4) the correspond- ing words are, "the priests and the Levites," indicatiniT that there is nothincj vital involved in the mere form of the language. The expression, "the priests, the Levites," probably means, as indeed Dr. Driver says it does, " the Levitical priests," in accordance with a well-known Hebrew and Greek idiom, or there may be a distinction raised between the Levitical priests and the old family priests of patriarchal times, which, at ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES. 165 least in idea or theory, still survived. But however this may be, the argument of the critics can scarcely be sustained when the language of Scripture itself thus varies. Is it not plain that in the earlier books of the Pentateuch and in the last, priests and Levites shared in priestly duties, but that there were functions entrusted to the one class which were not always performed by the other ? Where it was necessary to define their functions they were distinguished, but where they were referred to in a body, as in the address of Moses to the laity,. it was enough to characterise the Levites as priests. Deut. x. 8 describes the functions of the Levites, and Deut. xviii. 1-6 clearly shows that the earlier distinction was known to the writer of Deuteronomy. The Levites, then, evidently performed priestly functions, and shared in the offices necessary to the offering of sacrifices,^ but those who drew "nigh to the ^ The Levites had to kill the Passover lamb for every one who was not ceremonially "clean" (2 Chron. xxx. 17). The ordinary custom was for each head of an Israelite family to kill his own lamb in the place of the sanctuary, and afterwards in the Temple court. But on special occasions the Levites did this. See 2 Chron. xxiii. 18, xxxv. 2-7; Ezra vi. ; and Jer. xxxiii. 18-21, which describe the gi'eat celebrations of Hezekiah, Josiah, and Ezra. The descendants of Zadok retained the priesthood until the Maccabean period. Being Levites, they could, of course, be so described, as is the case in Deut. xvii. 9-18, xxi. 5, xxxi. 9. Their respective functions are briefly i66 THE AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY : altar " (Num. xviii. 3) were the priests of the line of Aaron, and afterwards of Zadok's branch of Aaron's family. Hence Deut. xviii. 1, referred to by Dr. Driver (p. 77) as showing that the distinction did not exist, when read with the context, really demonstrates the reverse, and the first verse must be interpreted by what follows. The differences in regard to duties existed from the first (Lev. ix. 8, etc.), and the fact that Moses, in briefly summing up the Priestly Code just before his death, does not detail the differences, ought not to be interpreted as though the writer of Deuteronomy was ignorant of them. Explained naturally, Deut. xviii. 1, " the priests, the Levites, the whole tribe of Levi" (which is the correct translation), means simply the whole of the sacred tribe. Ver. 3 makes special reference to the priest, and ver. 6 to the Levite, where it was necessary to distinguish between them. So in Deut. xvii. 9-18, xxi. 5, and xxxi. 9, where we hinted at in Ezekiel's vision of the Temple (xl. 45, 46), where it is said that one chamber was for the priests that kept the charge of the altar, and another chamber for the priests that keep the charge of the house ; all being priests, but having different duties. Among the Jews to-day, only the priest gives the blessing. The Levite reads the lesson after the priest has read. If no Levite is present, the priest can take the vacant place ; but if no priest be present, the Levite cannot perform his distinctive duties. ALLEGED DLSCREPANCIES. 167 meet with the expressions, " the priests, the Levites," " the priests, the sons of Levi/' there is simply the statement that the priests were rightly authorised, for they belonged to the tribe of Levi. Only the exigencies of a theory could require us to interpret such passages as showing that there was no distinction between priests and Levites in Deuteronomy. The suggestions that the priests had become degraded into a sort of band of outcasts, and that the Levites were no longer settled in the towns assigned to them in Num. XXXV., is to read into Deut. xviii. 6 a meaning which, to say the least, is improbable. The Levites were not the sole inhabitants of the forty- eight cities, nor were they confined to their cities. They were " within the gates " because there was a lay population as well as a Levitical in these towns, and they would, of course, travel through the country for the purpose of teaching, otherwise of what use at all would they have been ? The complete possession of these cities by the Levites was never attained : what ideal ever is attained by any Church or people ? And probably, as the result, some of the Levites might have to wander and find whatever home they could. If Deutero- nomy appears to indicate some modifications of the earlier provision made for the Levites, is it not a sufi&cient explanation of this that now on i68 THE AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY: the borders of the promised land and on tlie eve of altered conditions, Moses desired to commend to the generous consideration of the people such members of the Levitical order as might fall into adversity and need ? It is affirmed that the first clear distinction between the priests and Levites occurs in Ezekiel's vision of the Temple (xl.-xlviii.), the former dis- tinction being that between the Temple priests and the priests of the high places. The whole of this sublime narrative is pitched in a lofty, poetical, spiritual key. The Temple was as large as Jerusalem, with a stream flowing from the east threshold to the Dead Sea, and an enormous city portion with five tribes south of it. Levites who might have officiated in local high places were not to do priests' work at Jerusalem by coming near to God. This is exactly what is said in 2 Kings xxiii. 9. Such priests were only to do the outer court work. Ezekiel also con- demns the admission of foreigners into the inner court to do priests' wOrk. It is, of course, sublime imagery. The "strangers" are tlie "uncircum- cised in heart " (xliv. 9). The Levites who had "gone astray" (xliv. 10) were to "bear their iniquity." The contrast is between the faithful and the unfaithful. The sons of Zadok, the righteous one, might come into the inner court ; ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES. 169 but the unrighteous, while permitted in mercy to share in the service of God, could yet not enter upon its higher delights. Even a rigid literalism does not bear out what the critics infer from this vision, for xl. 45, 46, clearly distinguishes between the duties of the respective orders of priests. But literalism is an effectual hindrance to a true understanding of the prophets. How could we interpret literally such passages as Jer. xxv. 15, where it is stated that the Lord put a wine cup into the hand of the prophet, who gave it to the nations to drink ? By such methods what could be made out of the vision of the Valley of Bones, or that of the Swollen Eiver between Jericho and Jerusalem, in which the prophet waded up to his neck ? None but the stern, cold, analytic critic could handle the rapt visions of the prophets thus, and were all literature so treated the world would soon be emptied of poetry and religion. Let it be remembered that Ezekiel's visions are prophecies, not histories, — types, too, of Christian blessings, — and these magnificent portions of Scripture will be easily disentangled from the confusion into which recent speculations have cast them. This supposed distinction between priests and Levites is greatly emphasised by Dr. Driver, and it is therefore well for us to remember what the 1 70 THE A UTHORSHIP OF DE UTEKONOM V : relations between priests and Levites really were. The Aaronic priestliood was formally appointed at the making of the Tabernacle (Ex. xxviii.), with- out any reference to the Levites, and their duties were then specified. Subsequently the levites were " given to Aaron " (Num. xviii. 6) : "To you they are given as a gift of the Lord, to do the service of the Tabernacle of the congjresjation. Therefore thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priest's office for everything of the altar and within the veil." The purely sacrificial acts were to be performed by the Aaronic priests, and when the Levites had grown into great numbers certain duties were prescribed for them in the cities that should be established. In this sense they were priests and attached to the priestly order. There is nothing in Deuteronomy that warrants us in supposing that they ever usurped the special priestly duties that pertained to the altar. The simple fact of the case is that, as more settled conditions approached, certain additional instructions were required in relation to the respective duties of priests and Levites, and where the offices and privileges of the priestly orders were spoken of in general there is no distinction made as between priests and Levites, for the Levites belonged to the priestly caste. It would be as preposterous to say that because bishops ALLEGED DLSCREPANCIES. 171 constitute part of the clergy, therefore all the clergy are bishops, as to say that because Levites are described as belonging to the priestly caste, therefore all Levites were sacrificing priests in the same sense as were Aaron and his descend- ants. Dr. Driver points out several other cases in which he supposes Deuteronomy is discrepant with other parts of the Pentateuch: "In Deut. xv. 12-18, the legislator, without 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."^ Lev. xxv. 39-43 instructs that slaves are to be set free in the year of Jubilee. In what sense are these laws different ? The seventh year is the ordinary period of release, but where the Jubilee intervenes, the slave is then to be released. Nor is Deut. XV. 12-18 a "new law," but simply a repetition of the old law of Ex. xxi. 2, where release at the seventh year is enjoined. The reference to this in Lev. xxv. is in connection with ceremonial or religious rites, not civil privileges. It means simply that a man shall not lose the blessings of the Jubilee because he has fallen into slavery. It is a religious matter, and has no reference whatever to civil law or life. ^ Introductiop , p. 77. 1 7 2 THE A UTHORSHIP OF DE UTERONOM V : Again, Dr. Driver takes Deut. xviii. 3 as contlict- ing with Lev. vii. 32-34. These passages refer to the priests' portion of the sacrificial animal. In Leviticus this is to consist of the " wave breast and heave shoulder " (ver. 34), the right shoulder of ver. 32, called also a heave-offering in the same verse ; whereas in Deuteronomy the parts named are the shoulder, the cheeks, and the maw. Moses is explaining, however, in Deuteronomy why the priests should have a portion, not what portion they should receive, and "wave breast" means much more than the English word " breast." A generous giver will make it include the cheeks of the animal. Moses is merely interpreting in a popular way the technical sacrificial terms " wave breast and heave shoulder." Moreover, Deut. xviii. 3 means killing an animal for food, a sense in which " to sacrifice a sacrifice " must often be taken, as Eobertson Smith himself shows,^ for he tells us that the slaughter of animals for food was called a sacrifice. Another "discrepancy" has to do with the various laws of tithing given in Num. xviii,. Lev. xvii., and Deut. xiv. The supposed difierences in these passages Dr. Driver ^ takes to indicate the usages of " two distinct periods of the nation's 1 Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 248. 2 Introduction, p. 79. ALLEGED DISCREPANCLES. 173 life." According to Num. xviii. 21, etc., all tithes are to be given to the Levites as a body, and a tenth of these tithes is to be given to Aaron. By referring to Lev. xxvii. 30-32 and Num. xviii. 21, it will be seen that both animal and vegetable produce are to be consumed along with the first- lings. Dr. Driver holds that in Deuteronomy the offerer eats his vegetable tithes and his firstlings at a sacrificial feast, and the Levite comes in only as receiving the dole of charity, while the layman in Deuteronomy has what the Levites possessed according to Numbers. But Deut. xii. 6, 11, proves that the author of this book was well aware of the tithe laws and customs, and the mere fact that in ver. 17 there is an apparent special mention of vegetable tithe need not be taken as implying that animal tithe customs had been altered. In this latter passage the prominent point is the eating, not the tithing at all. The law of apportionment is regarded as being well enough known. The priest and the layman are to eat together, and at the sanctioned place. No one could suppose that the offerer would be able to eat the tenth of his whole yearly produce. Or it may be that now as they were nearing the land of promise, where vegetable produce would be more abundant than in the wilderness, it seemed prudent to draw special attention to that part of 174 THE AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY : the priests' dues. But, at any rate, the mention of vegetable offerings without a special reference to animals ought not to be taken as showing that the writer of Deuteronomy knew nothing of the Levitical laws, or that the former customs had changed. The case, then, simply is, that in Deuteronomy Moses did not think it necessary to go into every detail. All that had been previously done, and the people had their customs and laws with which they were familiar. The maintenance of the priestly order — that is, priests and Levites — was by the offerings of the people, and these were definitely described. The priests received the tithes and other gifts at the central sanctuary, and apportioned a due share to the Levites. The Levitical body, in fact, had all things in common, but certain portions were the priests' by right. There was no desire on the part of any to defraud their brethren. They would recoil from the bare idea of such sacri- lege. Nor were they exposed to any temptation to enrich themselves, for that would have brought them into contempt with the people. It was some offence of this kind that ruined the reputa- tion of Eli's sons and brought God's vengeance upon them (1 Sam. ii. 13). Such a happy con- dition of things may seem difficult to realise in the present age of strife and competition, but in ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES. 175 the halcyon period which Moses anticipated it would be a natural and beneficent arrangement. Indeed, something of the kind exists even in our time in the settlements of the Moravians. The Mosaic injunctions concerning these matters in Deuteronomy were not intended to introduce new laws, but only to enforce brotherly kindness in the carrying out of laws which were already promulgated, and which Moses had incorporated among the statutes of the nation. The alleged discrepancy between Deut. xii. 6, 17, Deut. XV. 19, with Num. xviii. 17, 18, is easily solved, by remembering that the firstlings were all due to the Lord, but if any of them were unclean or defective they might be sold and the price brought to the sanctuary (Deut. xiv. 25, 26). 176 THE AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY : CHAPTER XL THE AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY: ITS OWN TESTIMONY. EVERY objection to the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy having been shown to admit of a satisfactory answer, it only remains to emphasise the claims which the book puts forward on its own behalf. The first verses in it evidently connect it with what has gone before : " These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain over against the Red Sea, between Paran, and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Dizahab, eleven days from Horeb ])y the way of Mount Seir unto Kadesh-barnea." This passage has often been taken as a sort of heading to what follows, but a little consideration will show that such an interpretation cannot be right. The real heading is found in vers. 3-5, where it is stated that what follows was delivered ITS OWN TESTIMONY. 177 in the eleventh month, on this side Jordan, in the land of Moab, whereas the former verses refer to what had been said in the wilderness, in the neighbourhood of the Red Sea and Horeb, which is exactly true of Exodus to Numbers. It is merely a case of wrong partition of the sacred text, of which there are numerous instances in the Bible. The Pentateuch is one book, the Torah. The divisions afterwards were for convenience of reading and reference, and are only of human authority. Deuteronomy, therefore, is an essential part of the whole book of Moses, and whoever effected the division must have had Numbers before him, for the first two verses of Deuteronomy are in reality the conclusion of the previous long declarations of Moses delivered during the journey- ings of the Israelites. Now let us endeavour to estimate the force of the many affirmations to be found in this book, to the effect that its contents are the exact utterances of Moses. The first five verses are worth careful consideration in this connection, covering as they do both what goes before and what comes after them, and so asserting a Mosaic authorship for the bulk of the Pentateuch and specifically for Deuteronomy. All through the latter book are to be met with subsidiary repetitions of the same fact, with numerous declarations that Moses believed 178 THE AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY : all his former dealings with the people, and his instructions and institutions, were the result of Divine communications. The attack upon Sihon (ii. 32), on Og (iii. 3), and on other tribes (iii. 18), are of this nature. In iv. 5, Moses say& : "-Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgements, even as the Lord my God commanded me." So of the revelation at Horeb (iv. 10). In this one chapter there are half a dozen distinct declarations that Moses by Divine intimations had acted and taught as he did during the previous history of the nation. In ch. v. the Covenant in Horeb is attributed to God's merciful care for the people and the Sinaitic commandments afiu^med to be from Him. In this chapter and the sixth almost every word is accentuated with similar references to the supervision of the Lord. Ch. vii. looks forward to entrance upon the promised land, and here too Moses is the speaker, claiming to be giving what he had received from the Lord. Ch. viii. records the many instances in which the Lord had blessed and helped them, and upon this is based a solemn appeal to them to remember and obey the Lord God. In ch. ix. their idolatrous worship of the calf is described as a sin against the Lord, and the action of Moses in consequence thereof is said to have been dictated by God. The next chapter continues the ITS OWN TESTIMONY. 179 same theme, with numerous testimonies that at every step Moses was acting in pursuance of Divine instructions. The restoration of the stone tables, the separation of the tribe of Levi, and other incidents, are attributed to the same source. Then follows a detailed enumeration of duties and rites, all of which are in the words of Moses. Idolatrous altars are to be overthrown, blood is not to be eaten, holy things are to be eaten at holy places, Levites are to be cared for, and other matters are to be attended to, as all sanctioned by the Lord (xii.-xiv.). Particulars in regard to mourning, food, tithes, and firstlings are similarly spoken of in ch. xiv. The theme is continued throughout chs. xv. to xxvi., which refer to the Jubilee, the release of slaves, the festivals of the Passover, of Weeks, and of Tabernacles, the laws of sacrifices, the appointment of a king, the dues of priests and Levites, the prophecy concerning Christ, the cities of refuge, the alle\dations of war, the punishment of various kinds of offenders, the prohibition of certain kinds of dress, the settle- ment of social, family, and industrial conditions, the due rewards of labour, the carrying out of sanitary measures, with a multitude of other details touching upon the varied interests and pursuits of the people in their relations with one another, and are all covered by the sanction and i8o THE AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY : aiitliority of tlie Lord. Then Moses, in ch. xxvii., commands the people to write the Law of the Lord on stones, and urges them to obedience to those laws in a most solemn manner: "Thou shalt therefore obey the voice of the Lord thy God, and do His commandments and His statutes which I command thee this day." In this chapter are contained the blessings and the curses which Moses pronounced on Ebal and Gerizim. After this, as though to put it beyond doubt that the fearful consequences of disobedience were couched not merely in the words of the speaker, Moses continues (ch. xxix.) : " These are the words of the Covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel." The investi- ture of Joshua is fitly accompanied with a solemn repetition of the fact that had so repeatedly been made during the long addresses of Moses, that all his words, his legislative enactments, his official acts, had upon them the Divine imprimatur: " And Moses wrote this Law, and delivered it unto the priests, the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the Covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel" (xxxi. 9). The Song of Moses is intro- duced with a distinct declaration that it was Divinely inspired: "And the Lord said unto Moses, . . . Now, therefore, write ye this song for you, and teach it the children of Israel : put it in ITS OWN TESTIMONY. i8i their mouths, that this song may be a witness for Me against the children of Israel. . . . Moses therefore wrote this song" (xxxi. 19, 22). The last two chapters of the book bear upon them clear evidences that the writer of them was not Moses, nor is there any claim of this kind to be found in them. They contain the Blessing of Moses, professedly narrating his words, and the account of the death of Israel's great lawgiver and leader. There appears, in fact, to be almost a declaration that Moses did not himself formally write down the words of his Blessing, or if he did write them, that his was not the hand which incorporated them in the annals of the nation After Moses " had made an end of speaking " to Israel, the command came to him from the Lord to go up into Mount Nebo, that he might see the land of promise, and be there gathered to his fathers. And then, in the first verse of ch. xxxiii., he is spoken of as " Moses the man of God," as though another were recording the blessing which he had spoken, while ver. 4 makes it quite clear that it is not Moses who is writing the narrative : " Moses commanded us a law, even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob." The same writer adds a brief account of the ascent of Moses into Nebo, which became his sepulchre. These two chapters undoubtedly belong to the 1 82 THE AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY: Book of Joshua. We have here a similar example of wrong partition to that with which the Book of Deuteronomy opens. The testimony borne by Deuteronomy to its own authorship is all the weightier when we reflect how pure and lofty is the spirit which pervades it. Its philanthropy, its high morality, its noble conceptions of religion, are such that none save a man like Moses could have written it. Had there been another besides Moses capable of producing it, the whole world would have known who he was. His fame would not have been buried under a letter of the alphabet. Great men are not so cheap as that. The view of religion which Deuteronomy gives is that it consists in devoting the soul to the love of God, and the Divine Being is represented as loving His people. He is a faithful and covenant- keeping God. Mere rites are of secondary im- portance ; love to God and man is everything. For examples of this teaching, read iv. 37, vi. 5, vii. 9, X. 12, 15, xi. 1, xiii. 18, xix. 9, xxx. 6, 16, 20. Compassion sweetens the whole book. In earlier days Moses had said, " Ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child " (Ex. xxii. 22), and the foreigner was not to be vexed (Ex. xxii. 21). Usury had been forbidden, and pledged raiment was to be returned before niglit ITS WN TESTIMONY. 183 came on (Ex. xxii. 25, 26). But Deuteronomy not only repeats all this, it covers with its tender- ness the needs and sorrows of the most needy and helpless. Widows and orphans are remembered (xiv. 29, xvi. 11). The poor are thought of (xv.). The foreigner (xxiv. 14), the slave (xv. 12, xxi. 10, xxiii. 16), and even the beast (xxii. 1, 6, 9, xxv. 4), are protected. The weaker woman is shielded (xxi. 10-13, xxii. 13, xxiv. 1), and children are safe- guarded against paternal cruelty (xxi. 18). Truly it is the father of the people who is here speaking. No human being living eight hundred years after- wards could have projected himself into the Moses standing under the shadow of Nebo, or have glowed with the sublime and tender emotions which this whole book displays. Only he who had acted and suffered for the people, he who loved his God first and his nation next, he who stood on the margin of the eternal world, could write as the author of Deuteronomy wrote. Dr. Driver himself, to do him justice, is not wholly unimpressed by these considerations. The book is, he admits, " the expression of a profound ethical and religious spirit which determines its character in every part." Duties are enforced not by threatening the consequences of neglect, so much as by considerations based on high principles and motives of gratitude. They are to 1 84 THE AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY: be "the spontaneous outcome of a heart from which every taint of worldliness has been removed (x. 16), and which is penetrated by an all-absorbing- sense of personal devotion to God." "Nowhere else in the Old Testament do we breathe such an atmosphere of generous devotion to God, and of large-hearted benevolence to man." This is Dr. Driver's description of the book to whose rep)eated claims to be regarded as the composition of Moses and a revelation from God he sternly declines to pay heed. This is the book that he cuts up into fragments in order to distribute them among the hypothetical JE, D (with the various strata which underlie D), and P. This is the book which Eobertson Smith describes as a "legal fiction." This is the book which Colenso calls a forgery. It is indeed all this and worse, if it be not the actual work of the man it declares a hundred times to be its author. It is the most barefaced imposture the world has ever witnessed if it were not written by Moses. Such a book, if the critics are right, does not deserve the trouble of praise like that which Dr. Driver lavishes on it, and ought to be banished from the Bible. Not even Colenso's apology for the forgery, namely, that " the inner Voice whicli lie believed to be the Voice of the Divine Teacher, would become all powerful, and silence at once all doubts and ITS OWN TESTIMONY. 185 questionings/' could gain the confidence of any intelligent person for such a trickster as he would be who could write under the feigned name of Moses a book of the character of Deuteronomy. We cannot believe that if Deuteronomy were what the critics say it is, it would ever have obtained the acceptance it did among the Jews, who, in the days of Josiah, when it is supposed to have made its first appearance, were quite capable of judging whether it deserved to be considered tlie production of Moses or not. But they who have not become fascinated by the ingenuities and subtleties of Wellhausen will experience no difficulty in accepting the Book of Deuteronomy in the character it claims for itself. Its quiet grandeur, its harmony with the pathetic circum- stances of its origin, the perfect naturalness of its standpoint, and the probability that such a man as Moses would seek to leave behind him some impressive words of warning and encouragement in the interests of the people whom he had so long led, all combine to make it the most reasonable thing in the world to believe in the claims to Mosaic authorship with which this book is crowded, while to reject those claims is to admit the possibility that a human being, possessed of those remarkable mental qualities to which the book testifies, and filled with the loftiest concep- i86 THE AUTHORSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY. tions of moral excellence and nobleness, was yet capable of combining with these unsurpassed endowments a baseness, a treachery, a falsity, a profanity, a blasphemy, blacker than the world has ever known. Let them believe this who can. Ordinary minds are not so constituted as to be able to accept an improbability so stupendous. In maintaining the Mosaic authorship of Deut- eronomy, our loyalty to Christ is not put to the strain to which it is subjected by the theories which we are discussing. We may be thought unscholarly, and lacking in critical acumen, but we advance no claim to be held wiser than our Lord Himself. He found the first and great commandment of the Law in Deuteronomy, and He, in one of His sharpest trials, had recourse for His effective weapons to this armoury, putting to flight the arch tempter with three passages from this controverted book. Taking our stand with Him who is the " brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of His person," who was " one with the Father," we think we are safe, and by so doing we shall at least escape the severe censure which " He to whom all judgement is com- mitted " pronounced upon those of His day who re- jected Moses : " There is one that accuseth you, even Moses ; ... for had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed in Me, for HE WEOTE OF ME." TESTIMONY OF OUR LORD AND APOSTLES. 187 CHAPTER XII. TESTIMONY OF OUR LORD AND HIS APOSTLES. THE Christian standpoint in respect to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch differs, of course, from that of the Jews. Not only have we the same reasons for admitting it as they had, but we possess reasons of a still weightier kind. Of these the most powerful of all is the fact that our Lord Himself sanctioned and adopted this view. To deny it, therefore, is to undermine the doctrine of Christ's full and proper divinity. It is not a mere question of literary criticism ; if it were, it might be left to the experts. The omniscience and even the veracity of Jesus Christ are involved. There are utterances of our Lord which bewilder us in the presence of the dogmas of the Higher Criticism concerning the Fim Books of Moses, The Pentateuch and the Gospels seem to stand or fall together. We are told that the critics are devout Christians, and firmly adhere to our Lord's 1 88 TESTIMONY OF OUR LORD divinity. But, gladly accepting tliis assurance, we cannot help marvelling at their treatment of some of His most solemn declarations. We are driven to the alternative, that either the Penta- teuch is essentially Mosaic in its origin, as Christ again and again pronounced it to be, or else that His utterances on the subject are of such a character that we could not long hold consistently to His own presentation of His claims. First, then, let us try, as briefly as possible, to gain an idea of the verdict pronounced by our Lord on the question. It must be remembered that our Lord's frequent quotations from the Old Testa- ment range over all the canonical books, and exclude those which are regarded as apocryphal. He always referred to the Jewish Scriptures as standing apart from all other books in sanctity and authority, and very often shows the w^ords to have a deptli of meaning which the mere form of expression does not fully reveal. To these Scrip- tures our Lord refers more than four hundred times, excluding all references that are found in more than one of the Gospels. The significance of this is evident, when we reflect that His Bible was identical with our Old Testament. In the Sermon on the Mount He frequently alludes to the Law. On coming down from the mountain. He bids the leper to go and show him- AND HIS APOSTLES. 189 self to the priest, and " offer the gift that Moses commanded." On various occasions He mentions conspicuous personages of Old Testament times, among them being our first parents, Noah, Lot, Abraham, and Jacob. He also refers to the lead- ing events recorded in the Pentateuch, such as the Creation, marriage, the Sabbath, the death of Abel (Matt, xxiii. 35; Luke xi. 51), the Deluge (Matt, xxiv.), the Burning Bush (Matt, xxii.), the Exodus, the Commandments, the Sinaitic Covenant (Matt. xix. 4-9 and 16-19, xxii. 32; Mark vii. 10, 11, X. 3, xii. 26; Luke x. 25-29, xvi. 16, 17, and 29, xvii. 22-32), and the fate of Lot's wife (Luke xvii. 29, 32). In regard to circumcision, divorce, and marriage with a deceased brother's widow, our Lord definitely affirms that Moses originated these customs (Matt. xxii.). Matt, xxiii. and Luke xi., which contain Christ's denunciation of the Pharisees, are full of allusions of a similar kind. St. Luke tells us, in his record of the journey to Emmaus with the two disciples, that " begin- ning from Moses and from all the prophets. He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself" (Luke xxiv. 27). In St. John's Gospel, Christ is represented as referring to Jacob's vision (i. 51), the serpent in the wilder- ness (ch. iii.), the manna (ch. vi.), and Abraham (ch. viii.). In John vii. 19, He asks, "Did not I90 TESTIMONY OF OUR LORD MosL'S give yoii the Law?" and in ver. 22 He declares that circumcision was given by Moses. The one reference, alone, to the brazen serpent, could never have been used by our Lord as an illustration of the Atonement, had it been nothing more than a mere legend dressed up by an ambi- tious priest. From the quotations of our Lord, ranging over the entire Pentateuch, and from other utterances of His, such as those recorded in Matt. xxii. 23-40, xxvi. 56 ; Luke xviii. 31 ; John v. 39, vii. 38, and x. 35, we see clearly enough that He places the Old Testament upon such an exaltation as sufficiently indicates its uniquely sacred charac- ter, and, as Dr. Westcott points out in his BihU in the Church (p. 41), demonstrates that He recognised in the ancient Scriptures a " binding moral force." What could more strongly evidence this than the statement which He made at the beginning of His ministry, as though to make clear what the aim of that whole ministry was to be : " Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the pro- phets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled " ? Had Christ used the term " the Law " in any limited sense, such as now it is sometimes said He did, then He deceived the people, for they knew no other use AND HIS APOSTLES. 191 of the expression than as referring to the Torah, the Law-hook, the writings of Moses. The direct references of our Lord to Moses are sufficiently numerous and varied to put it beyond all question that He held the views concerning him that have ever prevailed in the Jewish and Christian Churches. Christ declares he was the giver of the Law (John vii. 19), that he was connected with real events in the history of Israel (Luke XX. 37; John iii. 14, vi. 32, etc.), that Moses wrote of Himself (John v. 46), that his words were invested with authority (John v. 47), and that this authority was universally recognised (Mark x. 3). Moreover, the incident of the Transfiguration (Matt, xvii., etc.) reveals a Moses far different from the one imagined for us by the critics, and shows the position he occupied in the gradual unfolding of God's great scheme of redemption effected by the " decease " accomplished at Jeru- salem. If possible, the case is almost stronger where Deuteronomy is concerned. On three different occasions our Lord spoke of this book in such a way as to convey the idea that He accepted its Mosaic origin. " He wrote of Me," He declared at " a feast," referring to the well-known prophecy of Deut. xviii. 15 : "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, 192 TESTIMONY OF OUR LORD of tliy brethren, like unto me ; unto Him ye shall hearken." How sadly distinct is the echo of these words in our Saviour's laments ! — " Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me " (John v. 46) ; " If tliey hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead " (Luke xvi. 31). Again, during His tempt- ation. He cited most exactly and solemnly, as genuine, authentic, and decisive Scripture, two passages from Deuteronomy (vi. 4, 5), words which are given in Deuteronomy as those of Moses. His use of them in so awful a connection makes it impossible for us to think that He supposed them a forgery. Here, then, is Christ's testimony. It is clear and emphatic, and admits of only one interpret- ation. Our Lord evidently believed, and wished others to believe, that Moses wrote by Divine authority the books which bore his name. How is this testimony dealt with by those Higher Critics who profess to believe in our Lord's divinity, for with others we are not now concerned ? The difficulty is attempted to be got over by supposing human limitations of our Lord's know- ledge. The Deity in Him, we are told, was eclipsed by the humanity ; in short, that the Incar- nate God knew no more about the past than did the Rabbis of His time. This is the strange fiction AND HIS APOSTLES. 193 of the ''Kcnosis'' the emptying of Him who said of Himself in the flesh, " I and My Father are one." This, of course, opens the vital question as to how far this " emptying " proceeded. If Christ knew no more than He learned at school and at home, or picked up in conversation, we must not go to Him for authoritative teaching. If He knew nothing about the past but what we can obtain from ordinary sources, the world can do well enough without Him, at least as a Teacher. If the Divine within Him was subject to such over- shadowing as these critics assume, then may He not have been wrong in all His other teaching ? His own personality, His mission. His atonement, His power to forgive sins, His mediatorial office, His Divine lordship, all these are at stake ; all may be ascribed to some misconception, the result of His fallibility. Where are we to stop ? Are we to sacrifice Christianity to this idol of Kenotism ? Are we to empty the Bible as well as Christ ? Some of the Higher Critics, it is true, feel the force of such arguments as these, and attempt to fence them off by suggesting that Christ did not know who was the author of the Pentateuch, but that He simply believed what every one else be- lieved in regard to the matter. He lived nearly two millenniums nearer to Moses and the prophets than we do, but He could not enter into the spirit 13 194 TESTIMONY OF OUR LORD of their reputed writings so profoundly as we can. He lived when Hebrew was practically a living language, and probably spoke a dialect of it, but He could not appreciate its subtleties so finely as the panting Hebraists of our colleges. He was of a race which so profoundly venerated their sacred books that they could not allow the omission of a yocl or an accent in their recitals of them, and yet He was totally unaware that the Old Testament reeked with errors and contradictions. Apart from His divinity, Christ, being such a man as He was, could not possibly have been subject to all these defects and ignorances. But was He liable to any error at all on subjects of such vast importance ? If so, what part of His teaching may we rely upon ? Was He not mis- taken in everything else ? Has He any more claim upon our reverence and trust than any other teacher ? Thus falls to the dust the mighty image of which the Higher Critics dream, whose feet are of clay. The curious and novel theory of the Kenosis is based on such passages as Phil. ii. 7, where it is said that the Son of God "made Himself of no reputation " (literally, " emptied Himself," \a\)Th sTtsvuffs), "and took upon Him the form of a ser- vant, and was made in the likeness of men." But this emptying (Ke7iosis) was merely the laying AND HIS APOSTLES. 195 aside of His glory that it should not be fully displayed to man's hurt and bewilderment, and even in this state of humiliation it is declared in the context that He was in " the form of God." He retained the form, the unchangeable, untrans- ferable essence of divinity. If He divested Him- self of Divine attributes, then He was no longer Divine, and the Incarnation is a delusion. Such passages as John i. 14 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16, preclude any such perilous conceptions. Christ still possessed the Spirit " without measure " ; He was still one with the Father ; He knew what was in man, and He knew the Father as no one " save the Son " could know Him ; He could still say, " All things have been delivered unto Me of My Father " ; He was still " God manifest in the flesh." Is it true or not that in Him " dwelt all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge " ? We know that Christ had power over nature; this is put beyond question by His miracles. We know that He could read the future, for His prophecies came true. We know that heaven accepted His sovereignty whilst He uas on earth ; for angels and prophets came to Him, and He was glorified before them. We know that the Divine Father and the Holy Ghost admitted His claims ; for the Voice which never deceives said, " This is My beloved Son, hear ye Him," and the Spirit came upon Him. We know 1 96 TESTIMONY OF UR. LORD that evil spirits confessed His power and His knowledge. By the Christian Church in all ages, save a few ancient, imitated by some modern, Apollinarians, Jesus Christ has been accepted as " the only wise God." Verily we are asked to pay a great price for the speculations of the Higher Criticism, when for the sake of them we are required to put in jeopardy all that Christ has taught our poor fallen race. We cannot pay this cost, for it means ruin, it means moral and spiritual beggary to all mankind. Far easier would it be for those who hold such irreconcilable hypotheses — they certainly cannot be anything but hypotheses to them — as Christ's divinity and His fallibility as a Teacher, to admit that the two conceptions are mutually destructive, and to seek some more effective method of deliverance out of the confusion into which their conjectures have beguiled them. The only passage where it could possibly be suspected that any limitation of Christ's know- ledge is taught in the New Testament, is that which refers to His not knowing the day and the hour of the final judgement (Matt. xxiv. 36) ; but even were the meaning of this expression more clear than it is, it would be unjustifiable to build upon it a tlieory that is contradicted by a thou- sand other passages. We know, however, that AND HIS APOSTLES. 197 both in Hebrew and in Greek the expression means also " to make known," to reveal. This was one of the many things that Christ had to say, but which men could not bear to hear. The revela- tions of God are never made prematurely. There is a modified form of the Kenotic theory which is offered by some writers in order to meet the difficulties of the case. It is suggested that Christ accommodated Himself to the prejudices and ignorance of the times in His use of the Old Testament. That this was so to some extent is true, and He frequently had to say, " I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." But to assume that their prejudices were right, and their ignorance a state of bliss which had better not be disturbed, is a course which no teacher worthy of the name could take. Such a degrading representation of Christ ought to be repudiated by every intelligent person. But what would Christ have gained by such a compromise ? If He really did venture on it, He entirely failed to accomplish anything by it, for He could not have been more scornfully rejected or more cruelly treated than He was. We know, however, that He did nothing of the sort. He did exactly the opposite. He sternly opposed all Jewish traditions and customs that made the word of God of none effect. He condemned in 198 TESTIMONY OF OUR LORD scorching tones all hypocrisy and casuistry. He died for doing so. It is quite unnecessary, after this exposition of Christ's teaching concerning the Old Testament, and especially the writings of Moses, to enlarge upon the views inculcated by the apostles, but brief mention may be made of their declarations, for they testified of Christ, and it was from Him that they derived their knowledge and inspiration. St. Peter, in explaining the causes of the lame man's cure at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple (Acts iii.), refers to Deut. xviii. 15 : " Moses indeed said, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me." In the same address he makes a special quotation of the promise given to Abraham (Gen. xii. 3, etc.), and alludes to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the whole work of Moses. St^Paul, before Agrippa, affirms that he had taught " nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should come," and in Kome he persuades the chief Jews "concerning Jesus, both from the Law of Moses and the prophets." A careful reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows plainly enough that our Lord had trained His disciples to believe in Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. The Epistles abundantly illustrate the same fact. The second, third, and ninth chapters of AND HIS APOSTLES. 199 Eomans are full of allusions to the writings of Moses, and exact quotations are given from Genesis and Exodus, while in the tenth chapter there are several extracts from Leviticus and Deuteronomy. All the later chapters of this Epistle are based upon Old Testament history and doctrine, and citations are given from every book of the Pentateuch. In 1 Cor. vi. 16, St. Paul quotes Gen. ii. 24, and, as Christ had already done, attributes the w^ords to God Himself: "For the twain, saith He, shall become one flesh." In ch. ix. he uses the injunction of Moses, "Thou shaft not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn" (Deut. XXV. 4), to enforce his own right to support, and describes this as being written " in the Law of Moses," thus illustrating that '' the Law " means more than the Sinaitic code. The tenth chapter contains many allusions to the history of the Israelites in the wilderness. The Epistle to the Galatians, as well as Hebrews, is honeycombed with Mosaic teaching and references to the Pentateuch and Israelitish history. St. Peter, in his Epistles, quotes from every book of the Pentateuch except perhaps Deutero- nomy, and affirms that "no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost." St. James and St. John constantly draw upon the same sources. 200 TESTIMONY OF OUR LORD In all these cases there is an exact agreement with what we know the Pentateuch contains. Speaking generally, they prove the Divine authority and inspiration of the Mosaic writings, and in some instances, as for example in reference to "the seed" (Gal. iii. 16), the very word used by Moses is said to have been of Divine origin. The conviction is burnt in us as we read these old Letters, that their writers were true-hearted, holy men, who accepted with a perfect confidence the historical accuracy and the Divine character of the Scriptures which they so largely used, and that they neither gave heed to fables nor toned down their convictions to the prejudices and ignorances of their age. Dr. Murphy, who has carefully tabulated \ all the references to the Law in the historical books of the Old Testament and in the New Testament, says that there are eighty such allusions in the New Testament to Moses, and among these he is mentioned " twenty-four times as the author, and fifteen times as the writer, of the whole or part of the Law." This surely is evidence enough of the truth of what we have had to emphasise more than once, that the New Testament is built upon the Old, and that both must stand or fall together. If Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, the apostles were not inspired, they knew not what they said, they deserve no confidence, and AND HIS APOSTLES. 201 their representation of Christ is open to the same suspicion of error as the critics assume their representation of Moses to be. But this is to bring the theory to a recludio ad ahsurdum. What advantages are offered to us by the critics that shall compensate us for the grave risks we run in adopting their views ? We shall gain a truer conception of the Bible, it is said. But which critic gives us the true conception ? for no two of them are in agreement. Is it so great an advantage to think that words which we believed came from the majestic and inspired founder of the Jewish national system were the production of some unknown J or E or P ? Is it a truer con- ception of the Bible to suppose that its oldest portions, those which deal with the origins of human life and history, were composed in a degraded era, while the most illustrious leaders of the Jews produced nothing that has survived ? We ought to have some better answers to these questions than are yet forthcoming, and some more definite information about these hypo- thetical scribes and redactors, before admitting that the conception of the Bible which the critics foster is in any sense a worthy or a true one. Again, it is promised that we shall arrive at a more satisfactory explanation of the discrepancies found in the Bible than that which can otherwise 202 TESTIMONY OF OUR LORD AND APOSTLES. be given. We have yet to be convinced that any discrepancies of an important character exist. This is a subject we shall look at in detail later on, but meanwhile we may record our judgement, based upon a careful consideration of all the alleged discrep- ancies we have met with, that there is no mistake in any biblical statement, and no discrepancy that cannot fairly be put down to the errors of copyists or the imperfections of those to whom the guardian- ship of God's word has been entrusted. Some matters, it is true, are still suh juclice, but where so much has been fully explained we need be in no haste to pronounce any passage hopelessly wrong. It is easy to acquire the habit of over- eagerness in convicting the inspired writers of error. Let those who may be staggered by any- thing they may meet with in the writings of the critics take care to suspend judgement until they have found out from those of another school of thought what may be said on the other side. TESTIMONY OF THE MONUMENTS. 203 CHAPTEK XIII. TESTIMONY OF THE MONUMENTS : BIRD'S-EYE VIEW. IT is an important branch of our inquiry to examine the historical details given in the Pentateuch in the light of such records as we possess of those primeval nations which were in any way brought into relation with the Mosaic narrative. The historical method of inquiry is, indeed, the truly scientific one. This is the method which immortalised Bacon and has made modern science what it has become. It admits of application to the facts of religious history as precisely as to the phenomena of nature, and is far more reliable than the rationalistic method, which is so largely dependent upon subjective influences. Hence the very method of the Higher Criticism is faulty and invalid. The supposed characteristics of the Elohistic and the Jehovistic writers may easily be very little more than the reflection of mental 204 TESTIMONY OF THE MONUMENTS : characteristics belonging to the critic hmiself, a supposition all the more likely as no two critics can be found who agree exactly as to what portions of the Pentateuch are Elohistic and what Jehovistic. The modern opponents of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch may be very skilful and subtle in destructive criticism, but they fail utterly in construction. So many hypotheses as to date and authorship are produced from the same evidence, as to rob all the theories constructed by rational- istic methods of every vestige of probability or usefulness. That we may not be suspected of exaggerating the superiority of the historical and archoBological argument, we quote a few sentences from one of Pieginald Stuart Poole's articles upon Ancient Egypt} This celebrated Egyptologist says, in reference to the antiquity of the Penta- teuch : " The Egyptian documents emphatically call for a reconsideration of the whole question of the date of the Pentateuch. It is now certain that the narrative of the history of Joseph and the sojourn and exodus of the Israelites — that is to say, the portion from Gen. xxxix. to Ex. xv., so far as it relates to Egypt — is substantially not much later than B.C. 1300 ; in other words, was written while the memory of events was fresh. The minute accuracy of the text is inconsistent ^ Contem'porary Review, vol. xxxiv. pp. 758, 759. BIRD'S- EYE VIEW. 205 with any later date. It is not merely that it shows knowledge of Egypt under the Eamessides and yet earlier. The condition of the country, the chief cities of the frontier, the composition of the army, are true of the age of the Eamessides, and not true of the age of the Pharaohs contem- porary with Solomon and his successors. If the Hebrew documents are of the close of the period of the kings of Judah, how is it that they are true of the earlier condition, not of that which was contemporary with those kings ? Why is the Egyptof the Law markedly different from the Egypt of the Prophets, each condition being described consistently with its Egyptian records, themselves contemporary with the events ? Why is Egypt described in the Law as one kingdom, and no hint given of the break-up^of the empire into the small principalities mentioned by Isaiah (xix. 2) ? " After citing many other coincidences of this kind, Mr. Poole concludes that, notwithstanding the difficulties involved in assigning a Mosaic date to the Pentateuch, much greater difficulties beset the hypothesis of a later date, when the evidence from the Egyptian records is taken into account. The theories as to the later age of the Pentateuch are all built up in defiance of this kind of evidence, and depend merely upon certain supposed and, in many cases, fictitious internal characters. 2o6 TESTIMONY OF THE MONUMENTS : Kecent antiquarian researches have put us in possession of an enormous amount of information concerning primeval nations. Let us see whether these early records, belonging to the very twilight of human history, corroborate the statements of the Pentateuch and harmonise with the belief in its Mosaic age. It is necessary, first of all, to give a bird's-eye view of these monuments. We must know what they are, how they originated, where they were discovered, what are their general contents, before we can estimate their value in such an argument as the one proposed. They consist mainly of tablets and cylinders which have lain for centuries under the debris of ruined Persian and Babylonian cities, and of Egyptian sculptures and mural inscriptions that have only recently been brought to light and deciphered. These various relics of antiquity have been accumulating for years, and are being constantly added to by the diligence and intrepidity of earnest explorers. They deal with the origin and history of the most ancient peoples of whom we have any knowledge, and touch continually upon the oldest and most important facts recorded in Holy Scripture. A few of them have long been known without being understood, but many of the most significant have only lately been found. Those to which we shall have to BIRD'S-EYE VIEW. 207 draw attention bear inscriptions of an intensely interesting character, written or engraved in languages that had died out, and whose very alphabet could not be deciphered until a few years ago. The study of what are known as the Assyrian tablets forms one of the most romantic episodes in antiquarian research. These are written in curious characters called cuneiform. At the beginning of the present century, a young scholar, Grotefend, studying at Bonn, set himself to the task of finding out the meaning of an inscription on a monument at Persepolis, a copy of which had been made by Niebuhr. After a laborious comparison of ancient languages, he was able to indicate a few of the letters of this unknown alphabet. Lassen, of Norway, entered into the work, and about forty years ago published addi- tional results of high value. But to a countryman of our own fell the chief honour in this pursuit. Colonel Eawlinson, a young officer attached to our agency in Persia, set to work to decipher certain inscriptions at Hamadan, unconscious of what was being done by Grotefend and Lassen. Soon afterwards he had an opportunity of visiting the famed Behistun rock near Babylon, on which are several inscriptions that had never yet been copied. From the precipitous nature of this rock 2o8 TESTIMONY OF THE MONUMENTS : it was a most perilous thing to attempt to reach the portion on which the inscriptions had been graven, but at the risk of his life Eawlinson suc- ceeded in obtaining paper casts. These copies proved to be of inestimable value, for they showed that the records were given in three languages, Scythic, Persian, and Babylonian, and by the help of the keys thus obtained the cuneiform alphabet was completed and confirmed. A full translation of the Persian text is given in Records of the Past (vol. i. p. 111). The story consists of an account of the triumphs of Darius, the son of Hystaspes. The excitement caused by these discoveries in- spired others to devote themselves to this new science. In 1857, Mr. Fox Talbot forwarded to the Royal Asiatic Society a translation of the cuneiform inscription on a cylinder bearing the name of Tidath-Pileser I. Then Dr. Hincks ascertained tlie numeral system from the inscriptions at Van. Very soon Professor Sayce was able to give an intelligible account of what may be regarded as the structure and grammar of the cuneiform language. In his recently published volume. Fresh Light from Ancient Monuments, Sayce affirms that " an ordinary historical text can be read with as much certainty as a page of one of the historical books of the Old Testament." BIRD'S-EYE VIEW. 209 When we remember that Kawlinson declares that the chronology of these tablets agrees perfectly with that of the Scriptures, what cause for thank- fulness to God has the devout believer that such men should be raised up to do this difficult work just at the time when the Bible is subjected to attacks more fierce than have before fallen to its lot! Before attempting to illustrate the agreement between the Pentateuch and these primitive records, it will be convenient to make some refer- ence to the hieroglyphic inscriptions of Egypt. These picture-writings have always been known, but until the present century travellers were content to stare at them in incurious ignorance. When Napoleon invaded Egypt, he had with him several Oriental scholars. During some excava- tions near Eosetta, at the western mouth of the Nile, in 1799, a remarkable slab of black granite was exhumed, three feet long and nearly as wide. It was seen to be covered with inscriptions in various languages, and was at once judged to be of great value. For a short time it was kept at the French Institute at Cairo ; but on the capture of Alexandria by the British in 1801 it was trans- ported to England and placed in the National Museum, where it may now be seen. The upper portion contains an inscription in hieroglyphics ; 14 2IO TESTIMONY OF THE MONUMENTS : the middle has what are called Demotic characters, which seem to have been developed from hiero- glyphics by simplifying some of the most familiar of the latter for the purpose of framing a running hand for common use ; while the lower part of the stone bears a Greek inscription. Lithographed copies of these inscriptions were distributed among the scholars of Europe, and it was not long before Person arrived at a translation of the Greek narrative, which turned out to be a decree in honour of Ptolemy Epiphanes. It was then seen that the stone possessed a significance far surpass- ing the importance of the mere narrative, for it declares that the three inscriptions are in reality the same decree in three languages. There was reason to hope, therefore, that by the aid of the Greek the hieroglyphic characters might be de- ciphered. To this difficult task many able men addressed themselves. De Sacy of Paris, and Dr. Young of London, were able to identify several words from their corresponding positions on tlie stone. But it was Champollion who first achieved complete success. He did for the Egyptian hieroglyphics what Eawlinson had done for the cuneiform language. At the age of sixteen he had mastered Coptic, and gave it as his opinion that this was the language of early Egypt. During the next ten or twelve years he studied the obelisks of that BIRD'S-EYE VIEW. 211 land. In this pursuit he came across several hieroglyphics which he had reason to think stood for Ptolemy and Cleopatra. From these he in- ferred that the symbols were phonetic, — that is, they represented sounds ; and so a key was thus obtained to the hieroglyphic system, and the mystery of these wonderful symbols was disclosed. It is most impressive that these inscriptions and sculptures, buried for thousands of years, should at length be brought forth from their tombs to shed a flood of light on the sacred volume, and scatter from it the shadows of unbelief, which were never more dark than when these great discoveries were made. We are now in a position to consider the exact bearing upon the biblical record of these monu- ments of Assyria and Egypt, which we have every right to say have been rescued from oblivion by men specially raised up and trained by Divine interposition for the purpose. 212 THE MONUMENTS CHAPTEE XIV. THE MONUMENTS: CREATION TO DELUGE. THE subject of the testimony of the ancient monuments to the accuracy and Mosaic age of the Pentateuch is one far too vast to be adequately dealt with here. To give the full effect of all the evidence of this kind which recent explorations have brought to light, would require volumes. But if we find that the more salient points in the pentateuchal narrative are in complete agreement with such inscriptions as have been discovered, we cannot be wrong in coming to the conclusion that the facts of the Mosaic history are worthy of confidence, and that all its references and allusions to the nations and annals of the various periods concerned are correct. We have already shown that many of these allusions are of such a nature that they are intelligible only on the supposition that they proceeded from Moses ; we have now to show that CREATION TO DELUGE. 213 they are corroborated, and that their age is defined by many monumental witnesses. We will begin with the Creation and the cir- cumstances associated in Genesis with the sin of our first parents. It is now known by every one that among the most remarkable results of antiquarian research is the translation of what are called the Creation Tablets in the British Museum. A complete account of these tablets, with the translations, is given in George Smith's Chaldcean Account of Genesis, and a popular resume of it in Cunning- ham Geikie's Hours with the Bible, vol. i. Many of these tablets were discovered in the mound of Kouyunjik by Layard, and subsequently others were found by Eassam, Loftus, and Smith. There are many thousands of fragments, and enormous difficulty was experienced by those who pieced them together. So far as the Creation and the Fall are concerned, the translations are naturally very defective, but sufficient is now known of them to enable antiquarians to say that they present many coincidences with the Mosaic narrative. The differences between them and Genesis make it probable that they are not the exact sources from which Moses drew, but that they are to be regarded rather as corrupted forms of the records which Abraham possessed in a 214 THE MONUMENTS : purer condition. They date certainly from B.C. 2000, and some of them are copies of records still older. Not only do they give us the Elo- hist narrative of Gen. i., but also the Jehovist account of the Fall (Gen. ii.). The second and the fifth of these tablets have been deciphered, as well as fragments of others, though, of course even the most perfect are mutilated. The first is thus translated by Mr. George Smith 1;— 1. When above were not raised the heavens ; 2. and below on the earth a plant had not grown up ; 3. the abyss also had not broken up their boundaries : 4. The chaos (or water), Tiamat (the sea), was the pro- ducing mother of the whole of them. 5. Those waters at the beginning were ordained ; but 6. a tree had not grown, a flower had not unfolded. 7. When the gods had not sprung up, any one of them ; 8. a plant had not grown, and order did not exist ; 9. were made also the great gods, etc. Of the next three tablets there are only doubtful fragments, which Mr. Smith supposes contained "the description of the creation of light, of the atmosphere or firmament, of the dry land, and of plants." The fifth tablet is of the utmost value and interest. Mr. Fox Talbot thus translates it : — ^ Chaldiean Genesis, pp. G2, 63. CREATION TO DELUGE. 215 He constructed dwellings for the great gods. He fixed up constellations whose figures were like animals. He made the year. Into four quarters he divided it. Twelve months he established, with their constellations, three by three, And for the days of the year he appointed festivals. He made dwellings for the planets ; for their rising and setting. And that nothing should go amiss, and that the course of none should be retarded. He placed with them the dwellings of Bel and Hea. He opened great gates on every side. . . . In the centre he placed luminaries ; The moon he appointed to rule the night. . . . On the seventh day he appointed a holy day, And to cease from all business he commanded. Mr. Smith compares the first tablet with Gen. i. 1, 2, the second with vers. 3-5 (1st day), the third with vers. 6-8 (2nd day), the fourth with vers. 9-13 (3rd day), the fifth with vers. 14-19 (4th day), the sixth with vers. 20-23 (5th day), the seventh with vers. 24, 25 (6th day), and the eighth, of which fragments exist, with vers. 26 and following (6th and 7th days). Unfortunately, the details of the creation of the stars are lost, and it is curious that Moses has only a brief line on this subject. The seventh tablet is imperfect, but it refers to the creation of " monsters, living creatures, cattle of the field, beasts of the field, and creeping things of the field." Other fragments seem to describe 2i6 THE MONUMENTS : man's primitive innocence and the religious duties imposed upon him by the Creator, thus indicating an Edenic revelation. There follow other disjointed references to a revolt against God and the curse after the Fall. How significant are the words : " Wisdom and knowledge hostilely may they injure him. May they put at enmity also father and son. His land may it bring forth, but he not touch it, . . . his heart shall be poured out, and his mind shall be troubled ; to sin and wrong his face shall come." On one fragment the very name Adami has been found. In the Izdiibar tablets are allusions to the tree, grove, or forest of the gods. There are other accounts of these events given on the Cutlm tablets, but we need not refer to them save to remark that they show that there were many primitive records of man's early history besides that which is preserved in Genesis, all of them, no doubt, being attempts to keep alive the tradi- tions that had come down from Eden. Thus dimly shone among the oldest nations of which we have any record, the light that had been so glorious before man's degradation, and though so dim, yet it indicates that there was one original source of illumination, the best relic of which we believe we possess in the inspired narrative of Moses. CREATION TO DELUGE. 217 The temptation by '•' the serpent," and the fall of man, with the circumstances attending these events, are also illustrated by these primeval records. In the Soane Collection there is a splendid sarcophagus, cut out of a solid piece of alabaster and covered with hieroglyphics. It was un- earthed by Belzoni seventy years ago, but its importance was not fully understood till it was possible to translate the inscriptions. For two thousand years at least this tomb had never been seen. It may then have been disturbed by the invader Cambyses, but its age is far greater. It turns out to have been the sarcophagus of Seti I., the Pharaoh " that knew not Joseph," and in it he was buried at Thebes. The mummy was not within when Belzoni discovered it, but it has been recently found, with many other royal mummies, at Deir-el-Bahari, whither it had pro- bably been conveyed by the Persians. This sarcophagus has upon it a number of serpents, and all having the same meaning. One, a very large one, is called Apophis, the Serpent of Evil. In one place Horus, the son of the god Osiris, is represented as approaching the serpent under cover of Divine protection, to destroy it with uplifted spear. Another engraving sliows the serpent chained. In a drawing given in Wilkin- 2i8 THE MONUMENTS : son's Ancient E(jyj)tians, Horus is seen with his spear transfixing the head of Apophis. The titles given to this Horus are startlingiy suggestive of those applied to Christ, such as " the Word," " the Holy Child," " the Beloved Son," and " the Giver of Life." There can be no doubt that we have here Egyptian versions of the Edenic tradition concerning the temptation of our first parents, and the promise of a Divine Deliverer who should *' crush the head of the serpent." The same kind of testimony is obtained from the Babylonian monuments. There is an Assyrian seal in the British Museum, which bears on one side a remarkable illustration of the Tree of Knowledge, with a man and woman underneath. Behind the woman is a serpent, whose suggestions are being evidently yielded to. It is absolutely clear that the ancient Babylonians knew the history of the Fall ; and Mr. W. Boscawen, after a diligent search, has found a tablet which bears the account of tliis event. It seems, then, that as soon as mankind could write anything at all, they wrote down those great and awful facts which stand at the very beginning of the Bible, and lie at the basis of all human history and religion. The next prominent event in the history of mankind is the Deluge. Beaders who have reached middle life will remember how Bishop CREATION TO DELUGE. 219 Colenso assailed this portion of the Mosaic narrat- ive. Most of his arguments are of weight only against a universal Deluge. There is nothing in Scripture to require us to hold such a view. Man had not yet replenished the whole earth, and it was to punish man that the Flood was sent. The Divine decree runs thus: "And behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon ha-aretz" the land. This Hebrew noun prefixed by the definite article is everywhere used to denote a district or territory. Then, too, the Bible does not say that the Ark rested on the top of Ararat. As the plural is here used, it must mean the mountains of Ararat, — that is, the high region stopped the Ark from progressing any farther. We are told also that the " fountains of the great deep were broken up," as though the bed of the neighbouring sea was upheaved, an occurrence which geology shows to have taken place times without number in prehistoric ages. The subsidence that would follow fully accounts for the rapid disappearance of the water. Bear- ing these matters in mind, how childish are Colenso's criticisms, and how unpardonable in a man of Huxley's position to furbish them up as he did in the Nineteenth Century (July 1890) ! Now, what have the] Assyrian tablets to tell us concerning this stupendous cataclysm which 220 THE MONUMENTS : convulsed the very heart of the country whose history they relate ? Every one may see the Deluge Tablet in the British Museum, and trans- lations of its record are common. It represents the Chakhean Noah as rehearsing the story to Gilgames, probably Nimrud. The tablet is copied from one which dates back to at least four thousand years ago. It has been preserved by those who were ever the bitter enemies of the Jews, and who would be unlikely to make it their business to do anything to substantiate the Hebrew Scriptures. Every detail of the Mosaic narrative is corroborated. Beginning with God's address to Noah, it says — Destroy the house ; build a ship, . . . Annihilate the hostile, save life. The measurements of the ship are given ; but parts of the tablets are defaced, so that the actual figures cannot be ascertained. The details of the roof, and the instruction to cover it with bitumen, are all met with. There are several copies of the original, and from them we cull the following sentences : — Swiftly it rushed. . . . And the whole of mankind was turned to corruption. Like reeds the corpses floated. (See Gen. vii. 21.) On the seventh day when it arrived, that storm ceased, and the raging flood, which had destroyed like an earthquake, CREATION TO DELUGE. 221 quieted. The sea began to dry, and the evil wind and dehige ended. (See Gen. viii. 1, 2.) In the country of Nizir rested the ship. The mountain of Nizir stopped the ship, and to pass over it was not able. (See Gen. viii. 4.) I sent forth a dove, and it left. The dove went, it turned, and a resting-place it did not find, and it came back. ... I sent forth a raven, and it left. The raven went, and the raging of the waters it saw, and it ate ; it darted about, it turned, it did not return. (See Gen. viii. 7 ei seq. ) I made an altar on the peak of the mountain. The gods smelled a savour . . . a sweet savour. (See Gen. viii. 20, 21.) From that time Makh (the Supreme) when he came, raised the heavenly bow which Anu had made as his glory. He made a bond (covenant), . . . and was gracious to us. (See Gen. ix. 13, etc.) With what minute accuracy these hoary monu- ments confirm the Hebrew annals ! The most valuable of them are those obtained from the ruins of Nineveh. From these ruins more than thirty thousand tablets have been exhumed. They had been deposited at Nineveh in a sort of national library by Assur-bani-pal, the Sar- danapalus of the Greeks. Many of them are copies of much older inscriptions, dating back, according to Mr. George Smith, to 2500 B.C. These older tablets are of Accadian origin. Accad is mentioned in Gen. x. 10, as being, with Babylon and Erech, the beginning of the empire of Nimrud, the grandson of Ham, who drove out Asshur from Babylon, and so compelled him to 222 THE MONUMENTS : build Nineveh. Their testimony to tlie earlier portions of Genesis, the subsequent history of primitive mankind, the building of Babel, and other great events of primeval ages, is as clear as that which bears upon the Deluge. We may safely affirm that the main facts in the early history of mankind and the origin of human institutions, contained in the inspired narrative, are in accord with the beliefs of the most ancient peoples of whom we have informa- tion. This will receive further illustration when we come to the Hittites, the history of Abraham, and the fascinating records that refer to Joseph, to Moses, and to Exodus. What then becomes of Mr. Gore's statement in Lux Mundi, that the first three chapters in Genesis are mythical ? And if he is wrong here, he is as likely to be in error in his pronouncements upon other Old Testament books. NOAH TO ABRAHAM. CHAPTEE XV. THE MONUMENTS: NOAH TO ABRAHAM. IMMEDIATELY after the biblical account of the Deluge, we have the particulars of the settlement of Noah's sons, and the founding of the first cities and the primeval empires by their descendants. These events are briefly alluded to in Gen. x. The progenitors of the first states are all mentioned. It is a wonderful list, and, so far as antiquarian discoveries bear upon it, there is the most complete agreement. The sources whence Moses obtained his facts were evidently of an unquestionable character. Of course the documents or tablets on which these genealogical lists were probably recorded might have been in existence and accessible to J or E living hundreds of years after Moses, but the more probable belief is that at such a late date, and by obscure writers living in Palestine, such annals would not be obtainable, whereas it is most natural to conceive 224 THE MONUMENTS: of them as having been brought to Egypt by Jacob. One of these early founders was Accad, from wliom sprang the Accadians (Gen. x. 10). They were the inventors of the pictorial hieroglyphics which developed later on into the wedge-shaped characters of the Assyrians. The oldest cities of which we possess any remains were built by them, and it is their literature which contributed what is of most value to the enormous library of terra- cotta or clay tablets that were stored so many ages ago in the national archives of Nineveh. The account given of Nimrod in Gen. x. 8-10, receives remarkable corroboration from inscrip- tions deciphered on monuments exhumed in Mesopotamia. His name is preserved in many of the ruined cities which have been discovered in that region. The origin of his empire is thus described in the sacred story : " And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech, and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went Asshur, and builded Mneveh and the city Eehoboth and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah." The inscriptions are such as to impress us with the importance of the cities explored, and they enable antiquarians to identify the very sites. All these names now stand upon our maps, and agree in every particular with what is NOAH TO ABRAHAM. 225 said of them in Genesis. But how could any post-Exilic writer have described so accurately a condition of things fifteen hundred years before his time, and which in the main was no longer existing ? It may be said he would have ancient records from which to copy. That is exactly what w^e hold Moses had; and there is vastly more propriety in believing that Moses wrote his record from sources not very ancient to him, than that, after so enormous an interval, some unknown, unnamed scribe should have alighted on histories so antique, and concerning lands so remote. In this same chapter are anticipations of two of the most remarkable discoveries of recent times. The first of these is the unity of the Indo- European race. This is borne witness to by the Accadian inscriptions, showing the primitive unity of human language, with traces of the confusion at Babel. Such relics enable Max Mliller to say : "It is possible, even now, to point out radicals which, under various changes and disguises, have been current in the three branches ever since their first separation." The primitive language is hidden from us as yet, but these earliest offshoots of it furnish satisfactory reasons for believing that it once prevailed. The other important discovery relates to the ancient empire of the Hittites. Among the names 15 226 THE MONUMENTS : mentioned in this tenth chapter of Genesis is that of Heth, a grandson of Ham. He was founder of the Hittite empire. The story of the Hittites is marvellous. Their very existence was barely known until their monu- ments were recently brought to light. What was a mere biblical name, has become, during the last dozen years, the symbol of a vast and powerful state. Traces of their influence on early G-reek civilisation have been furnished by Dr. Schliemann from Mykense, and by others from Asia Minor. Their literature and art, first collected perhaps at Kirjath - sepher, "Booktown," now crowd the cases of the British Museum. The oldest Accadian tablets of Sargon I. prove them to have been already colonisers and conquerors, and the cities which the Greeks ascribed to the Amazons were of Hittite origin. Their history is told exhaustively in Dr. W. Wright's fascinating volume, The Em'pire of the Hittites. In addition to the reference in Gen. x., we learn from Gen. xv. that their territory was included in the promise to Abraham. In Gen. xxiii. comes the account of the purchase from them of the cave and field for the burial of Sarah, by which time they were evidently a strong people. They worshipped Baalim, and were in consequence avoided by the believers in Jehovah; Eebekah was full of NOAH TO ABRAHAM. 227 anxiety lest Jacob should take a wife from among them, and many of the troubles of the Israelites in later years arose from their intermixture with these idolaters (Judg. iii. 5 ; 1 Kings ix. 20, 21). They were probably the founders of Jerusalem, for they were numerous around Hebron at the time of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua. But long before this they had become a powerful nation, as we know from inscriptions translated by Mr. Pinches, Eawlinson, and others. In referring to the Assyrian astronomical tablets, Professor Sayce says : " Already in the astrological tablets of Sargon of Agane, in the nineteenth century B.C., the Hittites are regarded as a formid- able power." Mr. Pinches dates these tablets still farther back. It is beyond question, then, that the Hittites with whom Abraham came into contact exercised rule over the whole of Meso- potamia, and sooner or later from Lebanon to the Euphrates. The promises given to Abraham, the anxiety of Eebekah, and the declaration which Moses heard at the Burning Bush, all receive a strengthened meaning from these long-buried records of a forgotten empire. One interesting inscription, on an obelisk now in the British Museum, enables us to decide that Balaam was a Hittite. Many Egyptian inscriptions give records of 228 THE MONUMENTS: this people for several centuries before the Exodus. In the Louvre, an Egyptian monument tells of Hittite towns and palaces on the borders of Egypt many years before the time of Abraham, and there are also testimonies to their wealth and artistic skill. Among the papyri there is a long poem by one Pentaur, which relates the victories of Eameses n., whose sister rescued Moses. A good translation of this is included in Records of the Past, and the reader cannot but be struck with its Mosaic stylo. Dr. Brugsch says : " Throughout the poem the peculiar cast of thought of the Egyptian poet, fourteen centuries before Christ, shines out continually in all its fulness, and confirms our opinion that the Mosaic language exhibits an exact counterpart of the Egyptian mode of speech." Pentaur was contemporary with Moses, and must have had frequent inter- course with him, so that such a striking similarity of style is at least in favour of the Mosaic age and authorship of the Pentateuch. Besides all this, there are Hittite inscriptions wdiose treasures await the results of patient study. Some of these are partially understood, and already it is affirmed that they bear testimouy to the belief in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in those remote times. The building of the Tower of Babel also has its NOAH TO ABRAHAM. 229 moniinieiital corroboration, i'or in the Kou}auijik Gallery of the British M.useum there is a tablet giving the Chaldiean account of this event. The record is just what we should expect it to be, a corrupted tradition of the purer source possessed by the patriarchs, and handed down by them to Abraham. We will now turn to the history of Abraham. The name Abu-ramu or Abram, "the exalted father," frequently occurs on the early Babylonian tablets. Sarah, or Sarrat, meaning " queen," and Milcah, "princess," the daughter of Haran, are also met with. The site of Ur of the Chaldees, now Mugheir, has been identified, and its ruins excavated. Why Abram's father should have migrated from this place to so distant a locality as Haran was for a long time a difficulty, but the cuneiform inscriptions now enable us to solve the puzzle ; for as far back as the Accadian epoch the district of Haran had come into the possession of the rulers of Chaldsea, and Haran was the frontier town of the Chaldasan empire, commanding the great road from the Euphrates to the West. The very kings whom Abraham overthrew are named, and we can fix the approximate date of the campaign. Chedor-laomer stands on the inscrip- tions as Kudur Lagamar, the servant of the god Lagamar ; and Professor Sayce tells us that several 230 THE MONUMENTS : other names have been identified. In the British Museum there is an important tablet referring to Assur-bani-pal's expedition against Elam, and the recovery of the image of the Chaldaean goddess captured by Kudur-nakhundi sixteen or seventeen hundred years before, thus proving the ascendancy of Elam two hundred years before the time of Abraham, and giving a remarkable confirmation of the account of the invasion of Canaan in Gen. xiv. When Abram went down to Egypt, he found Hyksos or Shepherd Kings holding sway at Zoan. They were of Semitic race like himself, and from them he received a hearty welcome. They had subdued the Egyptians, and had begun to assume the manners of the people they held in bondage. Abram had gone there in consequence of a grievous famine (Gen. xii. 10). We have evidences of this dearth in the construction of a vast reser- voir, called Lake Mceris, for the purpose of storing the waters of the Nile at the annual inundation. Amenemha in., who was in power not long before Abram's arrival, was the first monarch who took this means of averting famine. A sepulchral painting at Beni-hassan on the Nile, represents the appearance at this very time of a Shemite chief with thirty-six dependents, which, if not the identical company of Abram, — a not improbable NOAH TO ABRAHAM. 231 idea, considering how rarely such an incident would occur, — is at least a striking parallel to the welcome received by the patriarch at the Egyptian court. Antiquarian research confirms the narrative of the destruction of the cities of the plain. After a thorough examination of the Dead Sea and the neighbouring region. Commander Lynch writes in his report : " It is for the learned to comment on the facts which we have laboriously collected. Upon ourselves 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 investiga- tion, we were unanimous in the conviction of the truth of the Scripture account of the destruction of the cities of the plain." ^ 1 Rawlinson's Bamjpton Lectures, p. 301. THE MONUMENTS : CHAPTEE XVI. THE monuments: ABRAHAM TO THE EXODUS. THE order of events now leads us on to Joseph. The Pharaoh of this age was Apepi, the last of the Shepherd Kings. The title Pharaoh was the name of the palace in which the king lived. Later on it was applied to the king himself. The capital of these kings was in the Delta, whereas the native princes had held their court at Thebes, three hundred miles farther up the Nile. How this fact lights up the Bible statement that the sons of Jacob were placed in Goshen so that they might be near to Joseph ! A very remarkable coincidence, having reference to the religion of Apepi, is presented by a record on the First Sallier papyrus. Canon Rawlinson says of this : " Whereas previously the Shepherd Kings had allowed among their subjects, if they had not even practised themselves, the worship of a multitude of gods, Apepi took to himself a ABRAHAM TO THE EXODUS. 233 single God for Lord, refusing to serve any other god in the whole land." This was little short of a revolution, and yet the biblical narrative fits into the whole facts of the case with perfect precision. Again and again this Pharaoh uses monotheistic language, whereas Egypt is referred to as a land of idols. " Can we find such a one as this, a man in whom the Spirit of G-od is ? " asks the king in reference to Joseph ; and then, with delightful naturalness, the narrat- ive continues : " Forasmuch as God hath showed thee all this, there is none so discreet as thou." Coincidences of this kind, presented without strain or appearance of using words out of har- mony with the general current of Egyptian belief, do more to strengthen conviction in the truthful- ness of the Bible than would be effected by the most laborious arguments. Another of these minute coincidences occurs in relation to Gen. xli. 14: "Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they brought him hastily out of the dungeon ; and he shaved himself, and changed his raiment, and came in unto Pharaoh." Why is such a trifle mentioned as that Joseph shaved himself ? Well, it is no trifle. The Hebrews delighted in beards ; the Egyptians detested them. In prison, Joseph would consult no one but himself on such a matter, but in 234 THE MONUMENTS : entering the presence of the king he would of course comply with the national customs. There are many such coincidences which could never have characterised a forgery, and could hardly have been thought worth mentioning by a writer ages afterwards. There are so many references to dreams, not only in connection with Joseph's history, but in other parts of Genesis, that it would be strange if the monuments presented us with no illustra- tion of the importance attaching to them in Egypt. There is an inscription in the British Museum which records part of a dream of xA.menemhat i. of the twelfth dynasty, and al- though it does not refer to any biblical event, yet it gives a colouring of reality and naturalness specially appropriate to the times of Abraham, Moses, and Joseph, to the record of the dreams of Abimelech (Gen. xx.), Laban (xxxi. 24), the butler and baker (Gen. xl.), and of Pharaoh (Gen. xli.). It has naturally been asked by objectors why Egyptian history does not mention such startling events as the seven years of plenty and of famine. An answer can now be given which for ever silences criticism. There is a tomb in Elkab which bears an inscription written by Baba, who lived at Thebes at the very time when Joseph ABRAHAM TO THE EXODUS. 235 was in power at Memphis, hundreds of miles away. This writing gives abundant testimony to the period of plenty and prosperity. So great was the profusion of those years, that the writer found it necessary to say, '•' My words may seem a jest to the gainsay er, but I call the god Morith to witness that what I say is true." Then we come across a description of quite a different state of things: "I collected corn as a friend of the harvest-god. I was watchful at the time of sow- ing, and when a famine arose, lasting many years, I distributed corn to the city each year of famine." This is literally what Joseph advised Pharaoh to do. A famine of many years seems hardly pos- sible in a land where the Nile overflows every year. But here is one, and almost the only one, recorded by a contemporary of Joseph, the details of which are in wonderful agreement, as described by the mural inscriptions and by the writer of Genesis. Facts like these are overwhelming proofs of the accuracy of the Inspired Volume ; and surely it can only be necessary for an intelli- gent person to be made acquainted with them in order to elicit his unfaltering confidence in the Book that can thus be justified. Long has the Inspired Eecord been exposed to attacks on the ground that secular history has not substantiated its statements. But the time for such assertions 236 THE MONUMENTS : is fast passing away. One by one the statements of Scripture are being corroborated by independent records ; and we may justly anticipate the time when, by these means, the last illusion shall be dispelled, and every possible objection finally answered. There is an interval of perhaps three hundred years between the close of Genesis and the open- ing of Exodus. Apepi, who had raised Joseph to liis high position, had passed away, and with him had died out the line of Shepherd Kings. The eighteenth dynasty was established, and after a succession of kings and queens, known now as well as the Saxon rulers of our own land, " there arose a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph." There has been a variety of opinion as to the identity of this king. Brugsch and others have shown that Eameses ii. reigned conjointly with his father and alone sixty-seven years, and that he was twelve when associated with his father in the government. After the return of Moses from Midian, Kameses would therefore be seventy-nine years of age, and Moses eighty, according to the l)iblical statement that Moses was forty at the time of his flight. It must therefore have been Seti I., the father of Eameses ii., whose daughter adopted the infant Moses. This is confirmed by the fact that we now know that Eameses I. intro- ABRAHAM TO THE EXODUS. 237 duced a new dynasty. Moreover, the interval between the death of Apepi, the Pharaoh of Joseph, and the accession of Menephtah ii., son of Eameses IL. was four hundred and thirty years, and from the accession of Aahmes, who expelled Apepi, to the accession of Menephtah 11., the Pharaoh of the Exodus, about B.C. 1325, exactly four hundred years elapsed, the duration of the oppression according to Stephen (Acts vii. 6). An interesting confirmation of this is the in- scription on a granite tablet found five or six years ago in the ruins of Tanis. This stone was set up in memory of Seti L, by order of his son, Eameses 11. It is dated " in the year 400, on the fourth day of the month Mesori of King Nub." 'Nub was one of the Shepherd Kings, the last of them, usually called Apepi, as is supposed by most, and, as we have seen, Piameses 11. was king four hundred years after the expulsion of the Shepherd Kings by Aahmes. It is not of vital importance whether Seti i. or Ptameses 11. was the father of the princess who rescued Moses. But it is worth pointing out that the recent discovery of the site of Pithom, one of the treasure cities, has brought to light several references to Eameses, who probably completed the undertakings of his father ; so there is no room for doubt that the Israelites 238 THE MONUMENTS : toiled under the burdens laid upon them by these two monarchs. Long have objectors asked the mocking question, Where are the treasure cities which the Israelites built? (Ex. i. 11). The splendid researches of E. Naville at Tel-el-Kebir in 1883 have supplied an answer which has over- whelmed the critic in confusion. Among many other relics, he came across a great number of rectangular chambers, having no communication with each other, and built of rough, unstrawed bricks, with thin layers of mortar, mute witnesses of the sad toil of God's afHicted people. Many of these bricks are exhibited in the Egyptian Koom at the British Museum. They are about 18 inches long and 8 inches wide, and were impressed with a wooden stamp bearing the name of the Pharaoh in whose reign they were made. Some of them are stamped with the name of Eameses 11., who is generally held to have been the Pharaoh of the oppression. In an adjoining room there are paintings on the walls representing Eameses 11. slaying his enemies. These were copied from the vestibule of a temple near Kalabsh(^, and give an impression of the king's violent and cruel temperament, which coincides with all that is said of him in the Mosaic narrat- ive. Short sticks are also exhibited, with which the bastinado was administered by the Egyptian ABRAHAM TO THE EXODUS. 239 overseers ; and a picture represents foreign slaves being thus urged on in their brick-making two hundred years before the Exodus. Even the "tales" of the bricks kept by these "task- masters" have come to light; aud the mummies of Seti and Eameses, as well as a head of Eameses 11., cast from a figure in the Ipsamboul Cliff, are shown. This Eameses, the Sesostris of the Greeks, was one of the most magnificent of Egyptian monarchs, and the monuments of his reign are numerous. His praises were sung by Pentaur. A quotation from one of Pentaur's poems will show that he was a monotheist in religion — One only art Thou, Thou Creator of beings, And Thou only makest all that is created. — Eber's Translation. In Eber's delightful story, entitled Uarcla, which is founded upon fact, he brings out what there is no room to deny, that Pentaur knew and conversed with Moses. Pentaur is represented as praying to Him who dwelt "alone in the holiest of holies." Eising from his knees, he saw a man standing by him, with piercing eyes, and, in spite of his herdsman's dress, possessing the dignity of a king. " It is well for you," said the stranger, "you seek the true God." Pentaur looked into the face of the speaker, and cried : '' I 240 THE MONUMENTS : know you now; you are Mesu (Moses). I was a boy when you left the temple of Seti, but your features are stamped on my soul. Ameni initiated me, as well as you, into the knowledge of the one God." Fain would we linger over these records, which furnish us with such strong confirmations of the Mosaic history, but we must give as much atten- tion as possible to the circumstances connected with the Exodus. Eameses ii. reigned sixty- seven years, outliving many of his children. His fourteenth son, Menephtah, who succeeded him, was at least forty years old when he ascended the tlirone. There is a cast of his face in the British Museum, and a full-length statue of him when a young prince. Notwithstanding the flatteries of some of his priestly historians, the monuments give us information enough to warrant us in describing him as base and cowardly, the very antithesis of his father liameses and his grandsire Seti. He was evidently credulous and superstitious, and easily imposed upon. The inscriptions refer to him as believing in and practising magic, thus presenting a perfect agreement with the Mosaic record again and again repeated : " The magicians did so with their enchantments." His court was lilled with the professors of sorcery and wizardry. He is also described as weak, vacillating, and ABRAHAM TO THE EXODUS. 241 tyrannical, all of which agrees exactly with the narrative in the Book of Exodus. The condition of the Israelites at this time has given rise to many delusions. Colenso raised a host of objec- tions to the story of the Exodus, based on the supposition that they were a mere rabble of poor, starving, downtrodden slaves. Nothing could be further from the facts of the case. The brethren of Joseph had been treated honourably. A large territory had been assigned to them. Seti even declared that they were mightier than the Egyptians. Moreover, they had their own rulers and officers (Ex. v. 15, 16). These officials enjoyed the right of entrance to the royal presence. " Then the officers of the children of Israel came and cried unto Pharaoh, saying, Wherefore dealest thou thus with thy servants ? There is no straw given unto thy servants, and they say to us, Make brick : and, behold, thy servants are beaten ; but the fault is in thine own people." Here is an indication of just the kind of policy that would be pursued by a weak tyrant like Menephtah in order to crush the spirit out of an enterprising and powerful race. So soon as a year after the Exodus, we read of " the renowned of the congrega- tion, princes of the tribes of their fathers, heads of thousands in Israel." Again Colenso says : " It is inconceivable that 16 242 THE MONUMENTS : these downtrodden, oppressed people should have been allowed by Pharaoli to possess arms, or, if such a mighty host (nearly nine times as great as Wellington's army at Waterloo) had had arms in their hands, would they not have risen long before for their liberty ? " Menephtah was too cowardly to provoke so strong a nation to rebellion by demanding that they should lay down their arms to be helplessly crushed. Moreover, many of the Egyptians evidently sympathised with them, and in response to their requests gave them valuable presents, not as loans, but as gifts. "The Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let them have what they asked "(K.V.). The reasons given to Pharaoh by Moses when urging him to grant permission to the people to go three days' journey into the wilderness that they might sacrifice to the Lord (Ex. iii. 18, viii. 25-27), are such as no historian of a much later age would have been likely to have thought of. Such an appeal as that contained in Ex. viii. 26 would have been utterly beyond the comprehen- sion of one not acquainted with Egyptian customs. " Go ye, sacrifice to your God in the land," said Pharaoh. And so would any one say. Why travel into the wilderness for such a purpose? The answer is given by Moses : " Shall we sacri- ABRAHAM TO THE EXODUS. 243 fice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us ? " The bull and cow were worshipped in Egypt, and bulls were especially sacred in Heliopolis and Memphis. The ox, sheep, and goat were also held to be sacred, and it would have been re- garded as a grievous crime had the Israelites slain these animals. Hence they could not sacrifice in the land before the eyes of those who worshipped the very animals they must offer. All kinds of evidences of these Egyptian idolatries are pre- served for us among the ancient monuments. Heads of the sacred bull Apis, insects, and especi- ally the scarabaeus beetle, are found in profusion. These considerations enable us to see also wherein lay the severity as well as the justice of the Plagues, for they were mainly expressive of the Divine hatred of idols, as indeed is stated in Ex. xii. 12: "Against all the gods of Egypt will I execute judgement." The sin of Aaron, too, in fashioning the golden calf becomes the more glaring as we look upon these ancient mementoes of Egyptian worship. It denotes, in fact, a reversion to the special and distinguishing idolatry of Egypt, — the worship of the sacred calf Mnevis, or the bull Apis. The Israelites had probably during their serfdom contracted many of the religious habits of their 244 THE MONUMENTS : masters. The design of Moses in requesting that they might go three days' journey into the wilder- ness was largely, no doubt, that they might be brought under better intluences, and give their faith once more to the one God of whom their national traditions and memorials testified. There was a danger lest the true religion should die. But now Aaron, in an hour of weakness, threatens to revive all the corruptions and superstitions which the great leader had hoped were left behind for ever. No wonder he removed his tent without the camp, that he miglit make a clear, sharp distinction between the idolatrous and those who would prefer to cleave to the true God, and give a solemn appeal to the people to turn their backs upon the superstitions with which they had grown too familiar in the land of their bondage. Among the Phoenician and Assyrian monuments we come across various illustratious of the law and ritual of the Israelites. There are traces of sacrifices and customs which afford many parallels to tlie Mosaic ordinances described in the later portions of the Pentateucli. Peace - offerings, heave-offerings, the dedication of the first-born, the "ships" in which gods were carried, remind- ing us of the Hebrew Ark, the shewbrcad, unclean meats, such as wine and creeping things, lavers, ABRAHAM TO THE EXODUS. 245 and many other such things, of which there are vestiges on these early monuments, combine to show how the rites and regulations of the Mosaic economy were developed, and make it natural to regard the pentateuchal account of them as ac- curate, and as originating from Moses at a time when he could have access to such sources of information. The books bearing his name were evidently written by a truthful and competent observer. Even where the records are meagre, we never meet with contradictions. The fossil fragments fit into their proper place, although the skeleton may remain unfinished. To say that Ezra or some post-Exilian scribe compiled these ancient writings, makes a demand upon us which could hardly be admitted by any one who attends to all the conditions of the problem. A later writer than Moses, who might have undertaken to arrange or put together such a work as the Pentateuch, must have had within his reach the national records of Assyria and Egypt. This is an hypothesis too vast and too vague for any one to entertain who considers what it involves. The demands upon our faith made by theorists of the type of Wellhausen and Eobertson Smith are infinitely greater than those made by the ancient belief, and are frequently of such a character that we can only contemplate them with amazement. 246 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM: CHAPTEE XVII. SCIENTIFIC CKITICISM: THE STORY OF CREATION. THE story of Creation has come in for so much hostile criticism, that it is impossible for us in a book like the present to altogether ignore the point. The universal judgement of the critical school on this subject is that two accounts have been included by the compiler of Genesis, the first comprising ch. i. to ii. 4, the second com- mencing with the end of the fourth verse of ch. ii. and continuing to iii. 24. These differ in style, says Dr. Driver, the first being " un ornate, measured, precise," the second "is freer and more varied." We have sufficiently replied to this kind of argument, and are persuaded there is nothing in it. Moreover, we think Gen. i. to be much more poetical and stately than it suits the critics to allow. These two narratives also differ in the order of THE STORY OF CREATION. 247 events, in the first the order being the creation of (1) vegetation, (2) of animals, (3) of man ; and in the second, (1) man, ver. 7, (2) vegetation, ver. 9, (3) animals, ver. 19, (4) woman, ver. 21. In regard to the making of woman, it is enough to point out that there is no account of this in ch. i., her creation being reserved for fuller treatment, in order to avoid too great an interruption in the more systematic narrative of creation given in ch. i. The second chapter is not the story of creation at all, that having been given in ch. i. It is merely an account of the provision made for our first parents, and hence there is merely a restate- ment of the fact already described more fully, that God " made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ; and man became a living soul" (Gen. ii. 4-7). Then follows the description of the garden, after which the making of woman is described. This is no narrative of creation, but merely a restate- ment of what had gone before, with the addition 248 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM : of some points necessary to show what man was, and why the Lord cared for him and provided a place for him to dwell in and a helpmeet to live with him. It is a summary, not a history. Some differences in phraseology may be accounted for, by Moses having had before him various records or traditions handed on from patriarchal times. Stuart Poole has made it clear that the art of writing existed during patriarchal times. Baron Bunsen gives a list of Egyptian papyri, the oldest of which dates from Cheops, B.C. 2300. The Records of the Past, with their wonderful accounts of the ancient Accadian literature, put this matter beyond doubt. Is it possible that Noah would not derive some information concerning events so important as the origin of the earth and man from those who went before him ? He was separated from Adam by only one life, for Lamech his father was fifty- six years old when Adam died. And, having received this knowledge, he would be sure to hand it on. Men like Abraham and Noah would not let the tradition die. There is so much that is lifelike in the early biographies of Genesis, tliat we are compelled to believe them contem- poraneous records. These, in the hands of Moses, are quite sufficient to explain ome small variations of style. THE STORY OF CREATION. 249 But the accuracy of the Mosaic story of Creation has been impeached on the grounds of science. Geology has been invoked. Now, it must be remembered that Geology is almost the newest of the sciences, and its Genesis is scarcely yet constructed. Its doctrines are constantly undergoing modification. But we can afhrm fear- lessly that nothing has yet been established by geologists which does not admit of being har- monised with a correct interpretation of the Mosaic narrative. Ever since it has been conclusively established that the creation of the universe must have occupied an indefinite period of time, there have been men of faith and culture who have inquired whether this fact may not be accepted without sacrificing the old interpretation of the Mosaic word yom, which has been ordinarily translated " day." It is natural that Christian scientists should endeavour to demonstrate that the Word and the World are not in contradiction, and although the successive explanations of Cuvier, Chalmers, Pye Smith, Hugh Miller and others, have not been able to bear the strain of subsequent discoveries, yet their efforts were praiseworthy, and helped to lead on to better conceptions. It was Cuvier, the prince of naturalists, who 250 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM : first pointed out that the interval between the evening and the morning of the Mosaic days must have been separated by a wider interval than is the case now. This he demonstrated without reference to Geology, — a science which was scarcely born in Cuvier's time ; for the mere fact that the separate existence of the sun is declared by Moses to have begun not earlier than the fourth " day," puts it beyond doubt that the three preceding periods were not days such as we know them, whatever may have been the nature of the " days " which followed. In 1813, Dr. Chalmers, in the article on Chris- tianity which he wrote for the Ediiiburgh Ency- clopccdia, first broached that theory which for many years was deemed satisfactory by the majority of intelligent Christians, and which, indeed, in a more or less modified form, is still maintained by some. He suggested that between the original creation of the matter of the universe, which he thought to be referred to in the first verse of Genesis, and those more detailed opera- tions the account of which commences at the second verse, there might have been a vast interval of many indefinite a^ons, during which the earth passed through the various geological chanf^es, and vecfetable and animal life assumed the different aspects, to which the strata and THE STORY OF CREATION. 251 fossils of the earth's crust bear indisputable witness. Dean Buckland, Adam Sedgwick, Pro- fessor Hitchcock, and most geologists of that age, embraced the Chalmerian hypothesis. Hugh Miller seems to have adopted the views of Chalmers in his earlier years, but he found abundant reasons afterwards to lay them aside. He propounded, instead, what has ever since been termed the "age theory," — that is, he took the " days " of Moses to be periods of indefinite length. The only part of the Mosaic narrative of Creation with which Geology has to do is that which describes the work of the third, the fifth, and the sixth days. Hugh Miller identified these three Mosaic "days" with the Primary (or more precisely, the Carboniferous), the Secondary, and the Tertiary epochs. The prevailing forms of life in these three ages correspond with the organic types which Moses assigns to the three days named. Plant life is referred to the Car- boniferous period, as exemplified in coal; sea monsters and creeping things characterise the Secondary age, as is seen from the great saurians of that epoch; and cattle and beasts are the dominant creatures of the Tertiary period. These two methods of reconciliation between Moses and Geology have never been without their advocates, and they are still before the world. 252 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM : The precise form in which they have been held has varied in some of their details. Dr. Pye Smith, for instance, interpreted " earth " as apply- ing to the Land of Eden ; and Hugh Miller thought that the creative work of the six periods might have been brought within the knowledge of Moses by means of visions on six successive days. We need not, however, attend to details of this sort, for they do not materially affect the main features of the two rival interpretations. It may be said, in general, that neither of these two theories is perfectly satisfactory, and it therefore becomes a question of the balance of probabilities. Against both of them lie some objections, and neither of them can bear the strain of minute criticism in the light of geological facts. The vast majority of Christian geologists, however, maintain a modified form of the "age theory," and believe that, as the science of Geology is brought nearer to perfection, its facts will har- monise more and more completely with the brief sketch which Moses gives of the order of Creation. The objections against the interpretation of Dr. Chalmers are these : — (1) It regards the earth as having been created "in the beginning," whereas its creation was, accord- ing to Geology, a long-continued process or develop- ment, not completed until the advent of man. THE S TOR V OF CRE A TION. 25 3 (2) The MoF-aic narrative is presented as a history, though only in outline, of the creation of all things, and not merely a story of the origin of man and his immediate surroundings. (3) There is no hint whatever in the sacred language of such a break as is involved in the notion that nothing is referred to after the initial formation of the physical universe until the creation of the earth. (4) The theory subjects the language of Moses to so violent a treatment, that, were it true, we could be sure of nothing else that Moses wrote. The second verse follows so easily and naturally after the first, that we have no warrant whatever for interpolating between them those vast reons and those stupendous operations of which the rocks so distinctly speak. (5) The description of the earth's condition in the second verse is such as could not be true if the waste and formless chaos of which it speaks be made to refer to the period immediately pre- ceding the appearance of man. Geology makes it quite clear that the earth had passed through no such convulsions as this theory supposes, just prior to Adam's creation. (6) As Hugh Miller puts it in his Testimony of the Rocks : " It is a great fact, now fully estab- lished in the course of geological discovery, that 254 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM: between the plants which in the present time cover the earth and the animals which inhabit it, and the animals and plants of the later extinct creations, there occurred no break or blank, but that, on the contrary, many of the existing organ- isms were contemporary during the morning of their being with many of the extinct ones during the evening of theirs." Molluscs, and even wild animals which are still represented in our seas and forests, were in existence many ages before the human era began. The present creation dove- tails into the former at a thousand different points. The periwinkle and mussel of the Ked Crag must have been deposited in that rock millions of years before man trod our shores, and yet we have practically the same creatures inhabiting our seas. Those who wish to feel the full force of this objection should read the third lecture of the Testimony of the BocJcs, and they will, after such a perusal, cease to be surprised that the explana- tion which satisfied Chalmers, Hitchcock, and others of former days, seems now highly im- probable, if not absolutely impossible. Sir J. W. Dawson, one of the most devout men of science, and one of the most accurate geologists of our time, says, in his Origin of the World : " We may still admit that the lapse of time be ween the beginning and the first day may have been great ; 777^ STORY OF CREATION. 255 but we must emphatically deny that this interval corresponds with the time indicated by the series of fossiliferous rocks." And now, what are the difficulties in the way of accepting the interpretation of the Mosaic yom as meaning " period " ? So far as Geology is concerned, the difficulties are very trifling. Of course, since Hugh Miller's day, far more has been discovered concerning the contents of the rocks than he was acquainted with, but the order in which the various organic types appeared on the earth has not been materially affected ; and the teaching of Geology in regard to this point fairly agrees with the first chapter of Genesis. The harmony between Genesis and Geology is far more perfect, indeed, now than when Hugh Miller conducted his aston- ishing researches. Far beyond the coal system, in the primeval igneous rocks, we find the indubitable traces of the lowliest vegetable organisms ; next we are introduced to the remains of swarming marine creatures ; then to the fossils of birds, of mammals, and of man. The precise limits of the days or periods are not yet determined, for Geology has not completed its chronology, but the harmony is sufficiently close to make it reasonable for us to expect that it will one day be perfect. Geology, therefore, is substantially in 256 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM: favour of the " age theory," and is in irreconcilable contradiction with the notion of an Edenic or Adamic creation occupying six days of twenty- four hours each. The real difficulty in the way of taking the word " day " in an indefinite, sense is a supposed religious one. It is asked, How can we at all rely on the language of Scripture if words are thus vague in their meaning ? The answer is simple and conclusive. The Hebrew language is an elementary one, and, as Max Miiller points out, the words of such languages have a degree of elasticity which they lose as the vocabulary becomes more extended. The word day is used in the Scriptures in many senses, but never under conditions that lead to confusion or uncertainty as to the meaning. In the first chapter of Genesis it is stated that the evening and morning were a day, the two together constituting some period or duration of time not otherwise defined. In the second chapter we read of the day when the Lord made the heavens and the earth, thus embracing the whole of the six Mosaic days, — that is, the entire creational period. Then, too, it is said, " God called the light dayT This corresponds with our general and popular use of the word, but it could not possibly refer to our interval between sunrise THE STORY OF CREATION. 257 and sunset, for the sun is said to have been after- wards — that is, on the fourth day — brought into view. In Psahn xc. there is a contrast between the Divine day and the human day. Again, our Lord spoke of the Gospel era as His day. In common language we are continually using the word to cover an indefinite period, and this has been the practice of all writers and peoples in all ages. The astronomical day is that period of the earth's revolution on its axis during which its surface is presented to the sun. The sidereal day is the period between two transits of the same fixed star. This equals twenty-four hours, and includes darkness .and light. The solar day differs in length at different times of the year, on account of the sun's apparent movement within the tropics, which, of course, arises from the earth's motion. This will be understood by remembering that the axis on which the earth turns is not at right angles to the plane of the equator. This difficulty is met, for astronomical purposes, by calculating the average, and thus a mean solar day is found, which is 24 hours 3 min. 56-55 sees, of sidereal time. The ancients usually began their day at sunrise, the Egyptians at midnight, the Arabians at noon, which they still do. In law a day includes the whole twenty -four hours, without reference to light or darkness. From all 17 258 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM : this it follows that the meaning of the word day has to be arrived at from a consideration of the circumstances under which it is used. Many other words have to be similarly dealt with, and as a rule no confusion arises. Professor Huxley at one time thought we ought to keep to the twenty-four hours of the civil day in interpreting Genesis, and in referring to the contention that it might mean a period, said : " A person who is not a Hebrew scholar can only stand by and admire the marvellous flexibility of a language which admits of such diverse interpretations." But this flexibility, it seems, is not confined to Hebrew, nor to Moses. One might suggest that Mr. Huxley should collect together all the various interpret- ations of the word evolution, — that is, if human life is long enough for such a gigantic task. The bearing of the fourth commandment on this view of the creational periods need not be gone into fully. Let it suffice to say that the Creator's rest is also a period and still continues. There has been no resumption of special creation since the advent of man. Geology distinctly affirms that no new animal or vegetable type has been introduced upon the earth since man appeared, though some have died out. Our day of rest bears the same relation to the six secular days of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord THE ST OR V OF CREA TION. 259 bears to the six periods of His creative energy, and this is all that is intended by the fourth com- mandment. The question now arises as to whether the order in which the events of Creation are arranged by Moses agrees with what science has established. In regard to light, wliich is put to the first day, and the sun, which appeared on the fourth day, there is no difficulty, if we remember that the sun is only the central residuum of the vast nebula out of which our earth and all the planets are held by physicists to have been evolved. The condensa- tion of the nebula during the first three periods, in which the earth took shape, the dry land appearing, and lowly vegetation beginning to grow, prepared the way for the separate existence of the sun. The phrase, " He made the stars also," does not neces- sarily mean that they were originated on the fourth "day"; it reads exactly like a parenthetical remark, suggested by the reference to the sun and moon. It is on the fifth and sixth days that the chief creational processes on the earth were com- pleted, and these must now be considered. The case for Geology was put as strongly as it could be by Professor Huxley in the Nineteenth Century for 1886. We will examine his positions : — (1) He says first that Geology does not make it certain that vegetable life existed before animals. 26o SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM: and the higher plants described in Gen. i. 11 undoubtedly appeared long after fishes. To this we may reply that scientists in general admit that graphite or plumbago is carbonised vegetable matter, and that iron-ore testifies to plant life. The pre-Cambrian rocks contain de- posits of this nature. Again, Moses merely describes the origin of things, not their whole after - history and development. The first vege- tables are described in the sacred text as " grass," Heb. d6M, which signifies lowly plants in general, — i.e. seaweeds, fungi, lichens and mosses, in fact the Cryptogams, or flowerless plants, which botanists place at the bottom of the scale. Herbs yielding seed and trees bearing fruit, the higher botanical division of Phanerogams or flowering plants, appeared in later times, when the earth's condition had become more favourable to their survival. It is perfectly unwarrantable for Pro- fessor Huxley to say that ver. 11 includes " higher plants." Moses carefully refrains from using any such phrase, and those who believe in evolution from a few primeval types ought to admire him the more for so doing. (2) Mr. Huxley objects that insects, though belonging to the air population, appear from fos- silised remains to have existed during the Silurian age, when fishes were introduced. THE STORY OF CREATION. 261 Moses says that on the fifth day the waters brought forth " the moving creatures/' or sheretzim, a word which in Lev. xi. is applied to insects, creeping things, and small creatures generally. The proper Hebrew w^ord for fish does not occur till ver. 26, which refers to man's dominion over terrestrial things. The word sheretzim, meaning swarmers, refers evidently to marine life, and probably, as many insects pass their larval con- dition in water, to insects, and perhaps even to scorpions, which also occur in the Silurian age, and which may fairly be called " swarmers." Insects have quite as much right to be called swarmers as fishes have, and Moses, it seems, in putting their creation along with that of fishes, is in complete harmony with Geology. (3) Mr. Huxley's next point is that many members of the water population, such as the whale, dolphin, etc., appeared very late in geological time, whereas the Mosaic scheme requires that they should have come in with fishes. Here, however, from want of an acquaintance with Hebrew, Mr. Huxley has raised a frivolous objection. The reply is that the tanninim of ver. 21 are reptiles. In the Authorised Version the word is rendered by " whales," and elsewhere as " crocodile " and " dragon," while the Eevised 262 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM : Version has " sea-monster." ^ No more express- ive word than this could possibly have been used by which to describe those great water- reptiles with which the people of Egypt were familiar. 2 So that, after all, Moses does record the creation of reptiles, and is in perfect accordance with modern science in placing them immediately after fish, and before birds. (4) Mr. Huxley then observes that, as birds are a modification of land animals, they must have come after them ; and this agrees with Geology. Even if evolution be the method of Creation, it has been made clear that Moses, like the geolo- gists, puts reptiles before birds. Mr. Huxley classes reptiles and birds together in his treatises, and calls them Sauropsida. If he had known Hebrew, and had observed the meaning of the word tanninim, he might have quoted Moses as his authority for doing so. However, whether birds are of reptilian origin or not, Moses agrees with Geology in placing birds after reptiles. ^ See Job vii. 12 ; Isa, li. 9 ; Ezek. xxix. 3, xxxii. 2 ; Ps. Ixxiv. 13. In Ex. vii. 9 it is a serpent, and in Dent, xxxii. 33 dragon (R.V.). " It is most nnfortunate that the Revisers have perpetuated the inconsistency of the Authorised Version in their rendering oi ramas j>'J3l. In Gen. i. 21 it is translated "moving," but in vers. 24-30 it is several times correctly rendered as " creep- incr." THE STORY OF CREATION. 263 (5) Mr. Huxley's last objection is the frivolous one that " winged fowl '"' ought to include bats, which are mammals, and do not appear in the geological succession until the early Tertiary (Eocene) age, long after land animals came upon the scene. If Mr. Huxley were lecturing upon "winged fowl," he would justly feel irritated at any im- pertinent trifler who should apply his remarks to mammals with membraneous wings, such as bats are. There are those, however, who contend that the ''moving creature" of ver. 20 (margin, "creeping") means or includes reptiles, in which case this verse gives the order as fishes and insects (slieretzim), reptiles, birds. Ver. 21 gives the same order, the former verse reciting the Divine purpose or com- mand, and the latter verse its fulfilment. The very ambiguity of these Hebrew words shows how unreliable are all such arguments as those of Professor Huxley, and how fragile are the objec- tions based upon them. The method of Creation is not concerned in this discussion. Moses does not undertake to explain how God created, but only affirms that He did create. It is quite open to the believer in the inspiration of Genesis to hold that from the first types, created during the third, fifth, and 264 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM : sixth periods, all others have developed by divinely controlled laws, of which, however, none of us, not even evolutionists, know very much. In regard to man's creation, Moses does not state the method by which he attained his physical and moral pro- portions. We are quite clear that the extreme evolutionist position in regard to this is not established by science, and if it ever should be, Moses says nothing to the contrary. It is a ques- tion solely for the scientists. We have the links through which the ape group attained their higher forms ; these are preserved for us in tlie fossils that have been brought to light. We are entirely without any fossil links that show the grades through which man is said to have passed from the animal to the supreme bodily perfection and mental superiority which he possesses. Until these are forthcoming, it is thoroughly scientific to hold that man was produced in some other way than that which Darwin surmised, without any found- ation in fact save the doubtful homologies of struc- ture which our bodies present to those of the anthropoid apes. Similarities of structure admit of various explanations, and at any rate there is a great gulf fixed between the highly organised brain and nervous system of man, and those of the most highly developed animal of which we have any knowledge. Till this gulf is filled up THE STOR V OF CREA TION. 265 by fossil discoveries, men of science themselves will differ as to the origin of man, and this is the case at present. It is not to be supposed, although we have thus endeavoured to show that there is no contradiction between Genesis and the proved facts of science, that we think the character of Genesis as a Divine revelation depends upon its reconcilia- tion with Geology. The form of this first chapter of Genesis is literary and theological, not scientific. It makes no pretence to be geological or to antici- pate any of the facts of scientific discovery. Its one idea, its sole aim, is to show God in nature, and it leaves man to find out the laws or methods adopted by the Creator, whether by evolution or by any other method. It is possible to show, as Professor Elmslie has done, that the creative acts of the several days are arranged upon a literary rather than a scientific plan. The first three days comprise the spheres of creative energy, namely, the sphere of light on the first day, the waters above and below the firmament on the second, and the dry land on the third ; while the second triplet of days refers to the creation of what was to fill these three spheres, namely, the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day, birds and fishes on the fifth, and animals and man on the sixth. And after each creative epoch, where w^e should say 266 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM: " End of Part I./' Moses says, " And there was evening and there was morning, Day One." If not a single fact of science had been anticipated in Genesis, there is still a revelation of God in nature,' sublimely different from the puerile cos- mogonies of Paganism. What we have tried to do is to show that there is no contradiction of science, not that there is science. This has to be discovered by the use of those powers with which the Creator has endowed man. The unaided human intellect would not have found God in nature, and there the Divine record has given us the help we required ; but all that could be ascer- tained by man has been left to his industry and skill. As the Duke of Argyll, in his Primeval Man, has aptly expressed it : " The first chapter of Genesis stands alone among the traditions of mankind in the wonderful simplicity and grand- eur of its words. Specially remarkable — mira- culous, it really seems to me — is that character of reserve which leaves open to reason all that reason may be able to attain. The meaning of these words seems always to be a meaning ahead of science, not because it anticipates the results of science, but because it is ahead of them, and runs, as it were, round the outer margin of all possible discovery." THE STORY OF CREATION. 267 NOTE ON THE DARWINIAN DOCTRINE OF MAN'S DESCENT. Mr. Browning, with sufficient accuracy for poetry, has said — That mass man sprang from was a jelly lump Once on a time ; lie kept an after-course Through fish and insect, reptile, bird, and beast, Till he attained to be an ape at last, Or last but one. The Darwinian does not say that man comes directly from the ape ; that would be to take up a position too exposed to attack. He prefers the opinion that both man and ape are descended from a common ancestry. The convenience of this way of putting it is that it leaves to the Geology of the future to prove what the Geology of the present does not sanction. Haeckel, in ch. xxii; of his famous Natural History of Creation, imagines above a score stages from the unicellular Moneron up to man, and when pressed for evidence of only the last, and therefore presumably the most accessible of these stages, he modestly assumes a submerged continent oi Lemuria, where, under the sea, the required link may lie. Now, we do find what are said to be stages in the development of the Simian or ape race, for in the Eocene are remains of Lemurs, in the Miocene are found the Pliopitliecus and Dryojntheats, and in the Pliocene we have the Mesopithecus. Have we not the right, then, to ask for similar links in the chain of man's descent ? It is more than doubtful, however, if these Simians are thus related, for the Mesojnthecus, a long-tailed ape, is very little, if at all, higher than the Miocene representatives of the same family. But even if the connection be established, is it possible that so vast a change as would be required to produce a man from a brute could take place in the same time as has been occupied in producing the modern gorilla from the earlier Simian forms ? At least twenty-four distinct alterations of 268 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM : structure would be necessary before the highest ape could be said to be of the same type as man. Geology cannot allow the time required. It is useless to talk of the infinite cycles of years that may be drawn upon, for the whole process must be confined within those geological periods in which the higher animals are known to have existed, and this shuts us up within a shorter period for man's development than was occupied in deriving the gibbon from the monkey. Moreover, early man is shown, from the caves of Aurignac, Solutre, and Cresswell, to have been a religious being, as is evidenced by the remains of his funeral ceremonies and feasts ; and also to have possessed great artistic capacity and skill, displayed in the sketches of hunting scenes which have been found ; so that not only must his Simian ancestor have developed into the bodily struc- ture of man, but must also have acquired liis faculty of speech, his artistic powers, and his religious and moral beliefs. To accept the possibility of all this occurring in the period which Geology can allow, implies a credulity far more ignoble than the venerable belief in man's higher origin Avhich these un- scientific notions oppose. Not even in bodily structure has this been effected. The oldest races of men were far different in organisation from their reputed Simian relatives. Sir J. W. Dawson says : "The skulls, great stature, and grand develop- ment of limbs in the skeletons of the most ancient men of Europe, testify to a race more finely constituted physically than the majority of existing Europeans, and with a develop- ment of brain above the European average." Professor Boyd Dawkins considers the oldest known human skull to be that of Engis, which Professor Huxley admits to be identical in struc- ture with the modern European cranium. Owen, than whom there is not even yet a greater authority in such matters, declares that there is no evidence of a period of lower cranial development in man than is now presented, nor does he know of any four-handed species whose skulls show differences in bone or dental structure which would separate it from other THE STORY OF CREATION. 269 species of qiiadrumana so -widely as the highest ape is separated from the lowest man. It is clear, then, that Geology and Anatomy combine to place man apart as a new and distinct order of being. They, therefore, who from a few homologies of structure infer that man is only a development from the brute, set at naught the whole weight of scientific evidence of an opposite character, in their desire to establish what is nothing but a fascinating and unsubstantial theory. 270 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM , CHAPTEE XVIII. SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM : HISTORICAL ARGUMENTS FOR man's ANTIQUITY. THE Book of Genesis has been impeached by many on account of its chronological defects. The six thousand years which are said to have elapsed since the appearance of man upon the earth, do not, it is said, give sufficient time for the occurrence of all that has happened since, and there are many antiquarian discoveries which require us to believe that the human race has dwelt upon the earth for a very much longer period. The evidence which is adduced in support of the great antiquity of the human race is usually divided into historical and prehistorical. His- torical documents which are at all trustworthy, do not record any facts which date back farther than about four thousand years at the outside. The Hebrews regard their exodus from Egypt as HISTORICAL ARGUMENTS. z'ji having taken place about three thousand two hundred years ago, which would make the Egyptian nation at least three thousand seven hundred years old. The cuneiform inscriptions seem to require that Babylonia and Assyria were founded as early as B.C. 2400. Several nations it is true, have claimed a far greater antiquity than any of these dates, but their pretensions are easily shown to be unwarrantable. The Baby- lonians declared to the early Greek travellers that their astronomers had made celestial observa- tions for nearly half a million years ; but when Callisthenes, in the time of Alexander the Great, was at Babylon, he could find no observation that reached back farther than two thousand years. The chronology of Berosus, a priest living in Babylon during the third century before Christ, is manifestly legendary, and his long lists of dynasties were, no doubt, invented in order to harmonise the annals of the nation with the prevailing belief in its extreme antiquity. Mr. George Smith and Professor Sayce, than whom no greater authorities can be found, concur in the opinion that no Assyrian monuments ought to be placed much earlier than B.C. 2300. Great antiquity has also been attributed to the Sanscrit nation. Eesearch, however, has shown that the earliest event in Indian history concern- 272 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM: ing which there is anything like certainty, is the irruption of tlie Aryan tribes from the tablelands of Asia into the plains of Hindustan, which took place about B.C. 2000 ; and Max Milller does not allow that the most ancient of the Vedic hymns were composed more than three thousand years ago. Dr. G. Schlegel and others have claimed that Chinese astronomy embraces a period of at least fifteen thousand years. The Chinese themselves, however, do not go back farther than B.C. 2000, at which date they record an eclipse of the sun; while Professor Legge, who has given special attention to the subject, does not regard their national records as well authenticated till B.C. 1154, although he would not absolutely reject their "Book of History" for a thousand years earlier. Egypt is now regarded as the most promising field for evidence in favour of man's remote antiquity. Sacred history appears to imply that the Egyptian nation was one of the first com- munities whicli had a settled government. Manetho, an Egyptian priest who lived three centuries before the Christian era, did for his country what Berosus accomplished for Babylonia : he arranged his thirty dynasties over a period of thirty thousand years. A writer who gravely HISTORICAL ARGUMENTS. 273 records that the " reigns of the gods " continued for fourteen thousand years is not altogether the man to command the attention of the thoughtful, whatever he may relate ; but modern theorisers, having been ousted from every other stronghold, do not willingly give up Manetho. The papyri and stone monuments, however, which have been gradually coming to light, show how in one matter after another Manetho has exaggerated time even in those parts of his history which are the most credible, and now it is tolerably clear that the Egyptian monarchy was not established before B.C. 2600. It is un- necessary at this late day, except as a warning to the rash, to refer to the sculptured zodiacs of the Temple of Denderah and Esneh in Upper Egypt, so completely has the argument for the antiquity of the Egyptian nation which was based upon them, been exploded. Dupuis made the zodiacs at least four thousand years old, and Gori as much as seventeen thousand years. Playfair wrote an article in the Edinlurgh Bevieio for 1811, in which he affirmed that they were between five and six thousand years old ; and others triumphed over the discomfiture of the Mosaic chronology. But as soon as Dr. Thomas Young and Champollion had learned to decipher the Kosetta stone and the obelisk of Ptolemy, they 274 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM: used their acquired knowledge in translating the zodiacs, and then Champollion learned that the zodiac of Denderah belonged to the time of Augustus Caesar, while that of Esneh was no older than the reign of Antoninus. From the fore- going facts, then, the only safe inference for which there is the least show of evidence appears to be that man has existed under some form of social or political institutions for about four thousand five hundred years ; and if some go beyond the evidence and extend his age in- definitely, it is sufficient to regard their judgement as valueless, because vitiated by prejudices which are beyond the reach of argument. Closely allied to evidence of an historical cha- racter are some considerations derived from the state of civilisation to which mankind attained in early times. The growth of art, the elaboration of language, the founding of laws and states, are held to have required long periods of time before they could have reached the condition in which we find them at the dawn of history. There would be some force in this objection, if it were proved that man at first was only a savage, or some rather fine specimen of gorilla, from which low state he has gradually risen. This, however, is inconceivable to those who are not in the habit of drawing huge inferences from insufficient data ; HISTORICAL ARGUMENTS. 275 for there is no instance in which savages when left to themselves have progressed towards a higher civilisation. And, moreover, there is no warrant for supposing that early man was in a low state of barbarism. The Hebrew annals, the Babylonian monuments, the mounds of the Euphrates valley, the relics of Egypt, and the myths and traditions of all nations, favour the notion that primitive conditions of life were far removed from savagery; while the histories of the earliest civilisations concur in representing mankind as gradually deteriorating until, by an apparently superhuman process, some master- spirit has been raised up, who, by originating more enlightened institutions and a nobler morality, has emancipated his countrymen from their serfdom of mind and soul. To suppose that the barbarisms of the present day are types of primeval man, is simply one of tlie hasty assumptions so characteristic of the materialistic philosophies of our time, being quite destitute of conclusive evidence. The earliest civilisation of Egypt produced an architecture which has been the wonder of all succeeding generations. It was no nation of rude savages which reared those vast fabrics which still look down upon the astonished traveller in the valley of the Nile. Huge pyramids, covering a 276 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM: thousand acres, and containing from fifty to a hundred million cubic feet of masonry, whose angles point with perfect exactness to the four quarters of the heavens, whose chambers of polished granite reveal in their construction the most skilled mathematical attainments, are not the work of debased barbarians, but prove that the busy plains and active cities of Egypt were then inhabited by men far in advance of their degenerate successors. And in a period anterior even to the age of the Pyramids, there are not wanting signs of a far higher condition of life than that of the lower races which still exist. The sketches on ivory and stone found in the caves of Kesserloch in Switzerland, of Dordogne in France, of Cresswell and elsewhere in this country, show capacities as great as those which are now manifested by the most artistic. True, man in the beginning may have been destitute of the appliances by which his vast capabilities could exercise themselves to the fullest extent, but those capabilities were there, and only awaited the discovery of the materials that should furnish him with the opportunities for their display. Progress in the arts seems to have been left by the Creator to depend mainly upon man's own industry and fertility of invention. Tubal Cain was the first metallurgist, Jubal was the father of HISTORICAL ARGUMENTS. 277 raiisiciaus, and Jabal first tauglit our ancestors the superiority of tents over dwellings in forest shades and caves. Some of their descendants, by continued effort, would rise to the culture and refinement which were clearly enjoyed by several of the most ancient peoples ; while others, choos- ing the life of an Ishmael, would sink into bar- barism. Under unfriendly conditions the marks of civilisation soon disappear. The French ex- plorer Cartier found on the site of Montreal, in tlie sixteenth century, a populous Indian town, well fortified, and surrounded by cultivated lands; and yet three hundred years afterwards the whole had disappeared. The numerous varieties of the human race are also taken as indicating the great antiquity of man. It is fairly certain that nearly four thousand years ago there were differences of physical features between various tribes. So far as actual representations of early types are known, however, it cannot be said that the monu- ments prove any such diversities as those which exist between the Caucasian and the Negro. The more divergent races undoubtedly belong to later times. In primitive ages migrations were more frequent and extensive than subsequently, and hence differences of colour and alterations in the features would, up to a certain limit, be rapidly 278 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM: effected by the change of climatal conditions, of food, and of general habits of life. The Americans soon began to constitute a distinct type, but now seem to be stationary as regards their physical characteristics. The Jews of the East are as black as the natives, but in cold countries they are of white complexion. The Turks, though of MongoHan origin, have become assimilated, in a few centuries, to the Caucasian type of Europe. But none of these differences are of such a nature as might not conceivably have been produced by taking into account the varying conditions of life to which mankind are subjected in different parts of the globe. Anatomically, man is still identical with the earliest representatives of his species of whose structure we have any certain knowledge. The skull found by Schmerling in the Cave of Engis, and the fossil men of Mentone and Cro- Magnon, agree in every detail with the European type, except that they indicate, if anything, a somewhat greater stature. The growth of languages is regarded by some as another difficulty in the way of believing in the more recent origin of man. There are pro- bably some three or four thousand varieties of human speech at present known, and these are assumed to have developed from one stock. Max Muller, the chief living authority on such ques- HISTORICAL ARGUMENTS. 279 tions, does not claim that philological science has proved the unity of origin of all languages, but only that it indicates the probability of such unity. But supposing that all dialects were derived from a primitive language, and leaving out of sight the miraculous confusion of tongues at Babel, it is not improbable that all the existing forms of speech should have developed out of one stock during a period of five or six thousand years. In the case of wandering tribes, which have no literature and in some cases not even a written alphabet, nothing is easier than the growth of a new dialect. The renowned missionary, Dr. Moffat, relates that some of the South African tribes, when about to leave their settlements for long migrations, entrust their children to the care of a few aged or feeble persons, and the result is that the young soon fashion a language of their own. He says: "The more voluble condescend to the less precocious ; and thus from this infant Babel proceeds a dialect of a host of mongrel words and phrases, joined together without rule, and in the course of one generation the entire character of the language is changed." And Professor Max Miiller, after a laborious examina- tion of multitudes of facts, obtained from all lands and all ages, concludes that " if the work of agglutination has once commenced, and there is 28o SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM: nothing like literature or science to keep it within limits," the inhabitants of two villages, in a few generations, " will become mutually unintelli- gible." 1 If even in the case of a written and fixed language like the Latin, a large number of varia- tions have quickly sprung up in Europe, and ripened into such utterly divergent tongues as Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Wal- lachian, it is not difficult to conceive, bearing in mind the many circumstances which have all along favoured linguistic changes, that several thousands of dialects may have developed during the period that has elapsed since man first appeared on the earth, from the one primitive type which was first elaborated, or which was given to him as one of his Maker's choicest endowments. ^ Lectures on the Science of Language. PREHISTORICAL ARGUMENTS. 281 CHAPTER XIX. SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM : PREHISTORICAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN. WE have now to consider the bearing upon the age of the human race of that class of evidence which is purely prehistorical. Geo- logical and archaeological studies in caves, tumuli, and river-gravels, resulting in the discovery of large numbers of human implements and bones, have led to the division of the human period into the ages of Stone, Bronze, and Iron ; and many antiquarians contend that the Stone Age ought to be further divided into the Palieolithic or Old Stone Age, and the Neolithic or New Stone Age. By all geologists whose opinions are worth notice these ages are placed after the close of the Tertiary epoch, the point in dispute being solely as to what part of the Quaternary Period they constitute. The Quaternary Period opens with the Glacial 282 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM : Age, a remarkable geological epoch when the whole of N'orthern Europe was buried under vast fields of ice, extending in this country as far south as Yarmouth. The ice -worn boulders of the Welsh passes, the Arctic shells on the flanks of the Snowdonian hills, and the Arctic plants in the clay beds of Norfolk, all bear witness to the intensity of the cold which then prevailed. If man could be shown to have existed in Europe throughout the Ice Age, it is not easy to see at present how his duration could be limited to any- thing like six thousand years, for whatever may have been the cause of the changes in temperature, whether the alterations in tlie plane of the earth's revolution, the eccentricity of its orbit, or the precession of the equinoxes, it is fairly certain that such processes must have occupied long periods of time. Dr. James Geikie and Mr. Croll assign to this Glacial Age the rough stone imple- ments found in Suffolk, while others make them even pre-glacial. Professor Boyd Dawkins picked out a worked flint from a bed of gravel at Cray- ford, in which he had previously discovered the skull of the musk-bull, above which lay a sandy stratum containing shells which were thought to indicate the existence of man in the Thames Valley in the Glacial Period. Some years after- wards, another implement was found in a similar PREHISTORICAL ARGUMENTS. 283 bed at Erith, from which Mr. Dawkins inferred, though he does not speak with absolute certainty, that man dwelt in those districts "before the Arctic mammalia had taken full possession of the valley of the Thames, and before the big-nosed rhinoceros had become extinct." But Dr. Evans, who, in his work on the Ancient Stone Implements of Britain, contends for man's great antiquity, says : " I have not met with any conclusive evidence that man was in this country in glacial or pre-glacial times." With regard to the Thames Valley deposits, the argument for glacial man breaks down. Professor Dawkins admits that the shells cannot settle the age of the beds, and Professor Ramsay declares that he has always held them to be post-glacial. Moreover, at Ilford the shells of the Helix, of tlie same species as now exist, have been found in corresponding beds, and as the age of deposits is determined usually by their fossil contents, this throws considerable doubt on the assumption that the Thames Valley man was glacial. This question of man's existence during the great Ice Age was completely settled at a Conference held at the Anthropological Institute in 1877, when Mr. Evans, Professors Huxley, Boyd Dawkins, Prest- wich. Busk, Hughes, and many other leading men of science, discussed the age of the human species. 284 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM : It was shown by Professor Hughes that the supposed glacial beds in which implements had been found were mostly deposited in hollows scooped out of the middle of glacier beds, while others were composed of nothing more than the wash of the glacial boulder-clay and the chalk, and therefore were newer than the glacial beds. The general result of the discussion was, that no satisfactory evidence had been furnished of man's existence during the Glacial Period. It is now held by most of the leading geologists that man first appeared in North Europe at the break-up of the glacial ice, when the climate softened and vast floods and cataclysms ensued, whose traces are still to be seen in the debris and alluvial deposits which are of such frequent occurrence in Britain and France. There is room, however, in post-glacial times for an enormous antiquity to be assigned to man. Mr. James Geikie, the principal writer on this subject, supposes that the Glacial Age began at least two hundred thousand years ago, and that eighty thousand years have passed away since its termination, and many leading geologists coincide with his views. Mr. Geikie's calculations depend upon the ellipticity of the earth's orbit leading to the reversal of the terrestrial seasons every 10,500 years, and are exceedingly inconclusive. It is PREHISTORICAL ARGUMENTS. 285 open to the objector to assume from them that the last reign of ice in Northern Europe was not terminated longer than ten thousand years ago. Moreover, all the physical changes which are thought to have taken place in post-glacial times can be easily accounted for by such forces as are believed to have been in operation since the reign of ice ended, some of which forces are still actinc:. Geologists are now of opinion that the post-glacial springtime was characterised by what Sir J. W. Dawson calls " a geological deluge which separated the post-glacial period from the modern, and the earlier from the later prehistoric periods of the archaeologists." ^ The break-up of the glaciers must have caused enormous geographical changes in Europe, and many of the existing valleys and hills may have thus originated. Again, even during historic times, vast volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, of which the Hebrides furnish illustrations, have led to great alterations in the level of the coasts, and in the general contour of North- West Europe. Underneath Glasgow, at a depth of nineteen feet, a dozen well-made canoes have been discovered. The shores of the Gulf of Bothnia are known to be rising at the rate of more than three feet in a century, which implies, supposing this has been ^ Story of the Earth and Man. 286 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM: going on so long, that three thousand years ago all Eiissia was the bed of a sea. Mr. Jukes says that the land at the North Cape is being elevated at the rate of five or six feet in a century. The Temple of Serapis, near Naples, has been under the sea within historic times, and afterwards upreared, again submerged, and again elevated, before the building of the present temple, and since its erection the sea has been twenty feet above its pavement, and is now slowly retiring. Facts like these ought to have great weight with those who see in all past changes nothing but the results of laws and forces still in operation, and they are certainly enough to demonstrate to the satisfaction of all reasonable minds that physical changes to an enormous extent have occurred during the human era. The division of the human period into the ages of Stone, Bronze, and Iron, gives to man an appear- ance of antiquity which the evidence does not justify. It is not affirmed, of course, by anti- quarians, that any one of these substances was ever used universally to the exclusion of the rest, but only that in any given locality there is a gradation from the Old Stone through the New Stone and Bronze Periods on to the Iron Age. Nothing is easier, however, than to show that these ages are altogether hypothetical, and that. PREHISTORICAL ARGUMENTS. 287 in whatever locality human implements are found, the different degrees of perfection in manufacture, and the various substances of which they are made, are so intermingled as to make any hard and fast line of division absolutely impossible. Probably, just as tools and utensils of varying quality are now used by persons in different social positions, so in early times the lower races, or the dregs of a more civilised tribe, would have to be content with appliances of a ruder sort than others possessed. M. Prunieres was able to show, from implements found in the caves of Beaumes Chaudes, in the Jura, that the older cave men came into contact with those who used Neolithic arrow-heads, thus proving that the idea of two Stone ages is a delusion. Near Ma^on, around a hearth of the Eeindeer Period, were found arrow- heads of the rudest type, as well as some of polished stone. In Eobin Hood's Cave, at Cress- well, a few rude quartzites occur in the lower beds, but the same rough forms appear again in company with Samian ware and other relics of advanced civilisation. From some of the Baby- lonian mounds stone implements occur along with chains and bracelets. Even after the discovery of metals, stone tools continued to serve many purposes. The Egyp- tians and Israelites used stone knives in their 288 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM : religious rites as late as the time of Joshua ; tlie Anglo-Saxons fought with stone mauls at the battle of Hastiugs ; the Germans used stone hammers in the Thirty Years' War ; in England flint strike-a-lights were universal until recent years, and in many parts of the world stone weapons are still common. To decide, then, that any particular cave deposit or tumulus is more ancient than another simply because rude stone implements are found in it, is utterly unwarrant- able and misleading. The same confusion exists also with regard to the so-called Bronze and Iron ages. Tubal Cain forsjed instruments of brass and iron. When Nebuchadnezzar ransacked the Jewish temple, he carried off vessels of iron, gold, silver, and brass. In the time of Julius C?esar, arrows were made of stone, bronze, and iron. According to Dr. Schliemann, metal and stone implements co- existed for a long period in old Troy, and bronze was actually most abundant in the earliest strata. Dr. H. Brugsch, who spent thirty years in explor- ing the region of the Nile, has given it as his deliberate judgement, that " Egypt throws scorn on the archaeologist's assumed successive periods of stone, bronze, and iron." So also in India, Brittany, Derbyshire, and many other localities, implements of various minerals and metals are found in such PREHISTORICAL ARGUMENTS. 2S9 circumstances as to make it impossible that there has ever been an age when one of these materials was exclusively used. Confronted by these accu- mulated difficulties, geologists, for the most part, have had to reject the theory of the four ages of Stone and Metal, while those who persist in cling- ing to the figment of man's development from savagery through these various periods of pro- gressive skill and culture, typified by the use of rough and polished stone, bronze, and iron, do so against such a weight of evidence as justly lays them open to the charge of prejudice, or to the suspicion of a desire to assail the Scriptures, for there is an odium scientificum as well as an odium thcologicum. We must now endeavour to ascertain approxi- mately the age of those strata and deposits which afford indubitable proof of the presence of man. We shall have to take into account not only fossilised human bones, but also stone implements of different forms, such as celts, scrapers, arrow- heads, axes, hammers, and spear-head's, and other weapons, harpoons and needles of bone, drawings on ivory, and other relics of ancient human in- dustry and art. In the matter of flints it is important to observe that vast numbers which were once thought to have been artificial are now believed to owe their 19 290 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM: origin to natural agencies, while many others o.re simply fraudulent productions made for gain. On all clialk shores large quantities of flints are con- tinually being broken up by the action of the waves, which wear away the more friable part of the cliffs, leaving the hard, flinty nodules to be gradually chipped and w^orn by accidental causes. Many of these " implements " are now doing duty, in amateur collections as well as in provincial museums, for tools of human workmanship and vestiges of " palaeolithic man." When nodules of flint are crushed by machinery, as for instance in breaking them with Blake's patent stone-crusher, in which a large iron jaw is worked by a steam- engine, it is easy to pick out well-formed flakes which cannot be distinguished from scrapers and cores of the rude stone type. In regard to those flints which were made for the purpose of imposing on collectors, it is well known that a certain person, popularly called "Flint Jack," who plied his craft mostly in Norfolk, was remarkably skilful in turning out stone tools and weapons on demand. It is pro- bable, too, that many of the Somme Valley implements are not what M. Boucher de Perthes thought them to be, for lie habitually rewarded those who brought him good specimens, and that would constitute a temptation which some would PREHISTORICAL ARGUMENTS. 291 find it hard to resist. It is necessary, therefore, that there should be perfectly conclusive marks of human handicraft on specimens, as well as clear testimony respecting the locality and circum- stances of their occurrence, before any trustworthy argument for the existence of man can be based upon them. Stones and flint flakes of the ruder type ought to be associated with human relics of a less ambiguous character, and should show not only the " bulbs of percussion," denoting fracture, but also the thin or serrated edges which imply use. The rough flints which are found in such profusion in every chalk district, and which, it is demonstrated, are continually being fashioned by ordinary agencies, prove nothing, for they occur from the earliest quaternary, when they were probably fractured by glacial and other forces, down to the most recent times. No one can walk over the ploughed fields of the chalky downs, or along the rougher roads of Kent, where flints have been used for mending them, without being able to pick up many flakes and cores which bear on them quite as specious marks of human workman- ship as some of those which are said to prove the remote antiquity of mankind. Turning our attention, then, to those remains of early man concerning whose character there can be no doubt, we find that they occur in caves, 292 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM : and on the sloping banks or beds of rivers, at such depths in the cave -earth or strata, or in association with such extinct animals, as give rise to the notion that they are of great antiquity. Not much in the way of cave- exploration was done before 1865, when Mr. Pengelly thoroughly examined Kent's Cavern, which liad previously been disturbed by Mr. MacEnery, a Eoman Catholic priest, who in 1825 had found there some remains of extinct animals. Kent's Hole is situated in a hill about a mile eastward of Torquay harbour and half a mile from the coast. There are two openings in the hillside, and the two passages run parallel with each other for a considerable distance, until they are connected at the end by a chamber which crosses from one to the other. About twenty years ago a committee of scientific men was appointed to make a careful examination of the cave, and Mr. Pengelly from that time till his death presented a yearly report of his continued researches. These are the sources from which all our knowledge concerning the cavern is derived, but the most significant portions of that knowledge are supplied by Mr. Pengelly alone. The upper deposit consists of limestone blocks, cemented together with black vegetable mould, in which have been found various remains, some of PREHISTORICAL ARGUMENTS. 293 them of Eoman age. This, argues Mr. Pengelly, takes us back to the beginning of the Christian era. But does it follow that because bits of Eoman pottery are picked up, therefore the bed is nineteen hundred years old ? Were these utensils carried directly from the manufactory to Kent's Hole, and did no one in the region of Torquay ever possess such articles in after-times ? Such questions are enough to show the rashness of Mr. Pengelly's conclusions, and we shall meet with similar one-sided inferences when we con- sider what he says with regard to the remaining deposits. It is beyond doubt that in late Eoman times, as well as during the turbulent epoch of the Saxon wars, it was common for the natives of this country to hide and even to live in caves. And it is probable that in very modern years, perhaps during the religious persecutions of the sixteenth century, or in times of rebellion or national calamity, fugitives made these caves their home. Dr. Arthur Mitchell found in Wick Bay, not very long ago, a cave in which more than twenty people were living, and it is not un- likely that poor families even in comparatively civilised times may have been compelled to dwell in the cheerless caverns of Devonshire. Below this surface-deposit come the granular stalagmites, varying in thickness from a few 294 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM : inches to five feet, and the cave -earth, under which are remains of charred wood, indicatincr that cookery once went on there. Here are found the bones of the mammoth, cave-bear, hyc^ua, woolly rhinoceros, cave-lion, sabre-toothed lion, horse, and fox, with flakes of flint and cores, or nodules from which the flakes were struck, and also a small portion of a human jaw. ISText to these beds, which are generally considered together, are found the crystalline stalagmite from three to twelve feet in thickness, and the breccia, a dark- red sanely deposit, free from limestone, and con- taining quartz, pebble, and grit. In these latter deposits were obtained flint implements of a much ruder character than those of the cave-earth, made, Mr. Pengelly says, " by operating not on flakes, but directly on nodules, of which portions of the original surface generally remain." The strength of the argument derived from these cave contents depends entirely upon the length of time required for the formation of the various deposits. Mr. Pengelly and others commonly write of the differ- ent beds as if they reposed on one another, from the sandy bottom upwards to the surface. This, however, is calculated to convey a false impression, for they might be better described as lying along- side each other, the one thickening where the other becomes thin. It is likely, then, that two PREHISTORICAL ARGUMENTS. 295 or more of these deposits may have been in pro- cess of formation at the same time; the cave-earth, for instance, drifting in at the east, while the stalagmite was being deposited at the west. The breccia is usually regarded as the oldest of all the beds, and therefore its contents possess the greatest interest and importance. In it Mr. Mac- Enery found " one tooth of horse, one of fox, two teeth of deer, four of hysena, four of mammoth, and a few bits of coarse pottery." ^ It is pre- tended that these modern remains slipped down through cracks in the stalagmite, but that is a poor, flimsy evasion of what is felt to be a fatal difficulty in the "way of accepting the fact that " palaeolithic men " were potters. Another point which has to be looked at is the rate at which the supposed later beds of stalagmite were deposited. One Eobert Hedges immortalised himself by inscribing his name and the date 1688 on one of the stalagmitic bosses of this cavern, and another inscription dated 1604 has recently been discovered. Since these names were en- graved, not more than one-twentieth of an inch of stalagmite has been formed; hence, argues Mr. Pengelly, the granular stalagmite must have required some three hundred thousand years for its deposition. This period added to the time ^ British Association Report, 1877. 296 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM : which, he supposes, would be required for the formatiou of the crystalline stalagmite and the other layers, leads him to date man's appearance in Britain very far back in the dim past. Now, the rate at which stalagmite forms depends altogether on circumstances. In all limestone caverns, water charged with carbonic acid derived from the atmosphere and decayed vegetable matter, is continually converting the rock into carbonate of lime in solution. This being de- posited, gradually forms into the graceful icicle- like appendages of stalactite which hang from the roof and walls, while the surplus drops upon the ground as stalagmite. It follows, then, that the rapidity with which the floor is laid is determined by conditions which cannot possibly be uniform for any long period. Climatal changes, the occur- rence of floods, and the proximity of forests, would all exercise a material influence on the formation of the beds. Professor Boyd Dawkins says that, in the Ingleborough Cave, stalagmite has grown at the rate of an inch in three years; and Dr. Southall, in his work on the Recent Origin of Man, relates that a copper-plate of the thirteenth cen- tury was found in a Gibraltar cave under eighteen inches of stalagmite. The waters of San Filippo, in Italy, have even deposited thirty feet of it in the course of twenty years. It is indisputable, PREHISrORICAL ARGUMENTS. 297 then, that no just inference in favour of man's enormous antiquity can be drawn from the rate at which stalagmite has been formed in any parti- cular case, unless the whole circumstances of the process are known. And this is admitted by Mr. Dawkins, notwithstanding his inclination to put man's origin as far back as possible, for he says, in referring to the Ingleborough Cave: "It is evident from this instance of rapid accumulation, that the value of a layer of stalagmite in measuring the antiquity of deposits below it is comparatively little. The layers, for instance, in Kent's Hole, may possibly have been formed at the rate of a quarter of an inch per annum. It may fairly be concluded that the thickness of layers of stalag- mite cannot be used as an argument in support of the remote age of the strata below." ^ And yet Mr. Pengelly and some of his admirers do so use it, in the face of all consistency and reason, and in opposition to all sober and authoritative opinion. But, it is asked, does not the occurrence of the bones of extinct animals in association with human remains show that man must have been in exist- ence for a very long period ? In Kent's Cavern are found fossilised portions of the mammoth, cave-bear, hyaena, lion, and other mammals, which are either extinct or else no longer dwell in that ^ Cave-hunting, p. 41. 298 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM: locality, and these remains occur in such positions as demonstrate that man was contemporaneous with them. There is no reason, however, why we may not believe that, here and there, animals which had not altogether died out may have lived on to comparatively modern times. Pro- fessor Owen says : " The present evidence does not necessitate the carrying back the date of man in past time, so much as bringing the extinct post- glacial animals towards our own time." Certainly, with regard to many of the cave-dwellings, animal remains occur in such relation to the more skilled works of man, as either to show that some extinct species must have continued till later times, or else to deprive them of any bearing at all on the argument of man's antiquity. Mr. Pengelly him- self found in this very Kent's Hole the teeth of the woolly rhinoceros, and several other extinct animals, on the upper surface of the granular or newer stalagmite and ahove the works of skilled arti- Jicers. The cave-bear is probably the oldest extinct animal which lived down to the human period, and its remains have been found in Wtirtemburg along with those of the mammoth and horse, and in association with neolithic tools. In Italy its bones have been discovered with those of the ox, sheep, and goat, the most recent of the mammals. The cave-lion has no characteristic to distinguish PREHISTORICAL ARGUMENTS. 299 it from the existing lion, which is known to have inhabited Europe in the first century of our era. Teeth of the sabre-toothed lion were found in Eobin Hood's Cave at Cresswell, in close proximity with Eoman ware. In the Kesserloch Cave of Switzerland, the cave-lion, woolly rhinoceros, and Bos primigc7iius occur in company with the horse and wolf. It is known that the woolly rhinoceros existed in the sixteenth century in the region of Benares ; and in 1772 one was dug up in Siberia, the flesh of which was preserved ; while there were actually half-chewed leaves in its mouth. In 1806, Mr. Adams found a mammoth whose flesh was so free from decay that animals devoured it; and another was discovered in Yakutsk in 1840, the hair of which still remained. In America a mastodon was dug up which had marrow in its bones fit for use, and in its stomach were portions of vegetables which still grow in the neighbourhood. Some of these facts may be accounted for by the more extensive migrations of animals when the land was perhaps more continuous than now, and the climate somewhat different, and possibly some of the teeth found in the caves may have been carried long distances as charms, amulets, ornaments, or curiosities; but whatever may be the explanation, it is clear that the occurrence of such remains in association with works of human 300 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM : industry and art affords no safe means of estimat- ing the age of mankind. No evidence derived from the other cave-dwellings is of a very different character from that which Kent's Hole furnishes, hence the conclusion applies to them which we have reached in this typical case. Brixham Cave was explored in 1865, and, according to Sir C. Lyell and Professor Dawkins, its surface-layer contains the remains of various extinct animals, while underneath are flint tools and the bones of recent domestic animals. The four caves of Cresswell, in Derbyshire, of which Eobin Hood's Cave is the most important, have been examined by the Eev. J. Mello and Professor Dawkins, with the result that in the upper deposits of stalagmite, breccia, and cave-earth, great quantities of the remains of extinct mammals were found, along with quartzite im- plements ; while under them were an artificial flake, a flint boring tool, a needle and awl of bone, and an engraving of a horse's head. The Victoria Cave, which was studied by Professor Dawkins, and described in his book on Cavc- hunting as having been a place of refuge probably for Britons during the later Eoman period, con- tains only implements of a neolithic and more advanced character. This cave attracted special attention a few years ago, from the reported PREHISTORICAL ARGUMENTS. 301 discovery of a human bone in what was said to be a pre-glacial deposit. The bone was sent to Professor Busk, an eminent osteologist, who, with some hesitation, pronounced it to be a human fibula. Here, then, was an answer at last to the very natural question, why human bones had not been discovered with the enormous heaps of remains of those animals which, on the strength of a few roughly chipped flints, were declared to have been the companions of man. Professor Dawkins, however, examined the bone and the cave again, and came to the conclusion that the bone was a bear's fibula, with which Professor Busk afterwards agreed; and that the clay beneath which the bone was found was not glacial clay, "because clay of that kind is now being deposited in that very cave."^ Thus, through many errors, some of them ridiculous enough, and with continued changes of theories and opinions, scientific students are coming gradually to the truth, and every step they take on ground of which they feel sure, seems to bring them farther from those reckless conclusions to which superficial observers have so hastily jumped, and nearer to the old belief in the comparatively recent origin of the human race. There is only one other class of deposits ^ Gcol. Sac. Journ., 1877, p. 607. 302 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM: adduced in support of man's high antiquity which it is necessary to consider, and this consists of the various river-gravels and soils which have been laid by the action of water. The Valley of the Somme, in France, has received special attention from the scientists for many years, in consequence of the large number of flints, said to be of human workmanship, which have been found in its vicinity. In some places the valley is quite a mile in width, and the terraces rise to a hundred feet above the present level of the river. A bed of peat from twenty to thirty feet in thick- ness rests on the chalk at the bottom of the valley, from which have been extracted many articles of stone, bronze, and iron, as well as bones of various extinct animals. It is considered by some that this immense valley has been excavated by the river, which has deposited in succession the several terraces of gravel, and that, sub- sequently to these gigantic operations of the little stream, the layer of peat has grown upwards from the chalk. In the gravel beds, rough stone implements occur in large numbers, and it is said by some^ that as these must have been deposited before the river had worn down its channel to tlie present level, and consequently before the peat on the river banks had begun to grow, man, whose tools occur in the older gravels as well as PREHISTORICAL ARGUMENTS. 303 tliose more recently laid, must have inhabited this region at an indefinitely remote period. It is not universally admitted, however, that these rude flints are of human workmanship, for they occur in such vast numbers as to make it exceedingly unlikely that they were ever distributed for use. It is quite possible that they were accidentally fractured, for flints of similar shape and appear- ance may be picked up in every district where nodules are used for road-mending. Up to the present no relics indicating the presence of man have been found along with these supposed palseolithic tools, and it seems scarcely a sufficient answer to say that human bones would have decomposed, seeing that there are found with the flints other organic remains. But even allowing for a moment that these flints were really human implements, it is not demonstrated that they are of the extreme age claimed for them by the French archaBologists. It is almost an impossible conception that the gravels of the Somme Valley represent the gradual work of a small stream, which, before the valley was excavated, could not have had a fall of above a hundred feet from source to mouth, and which nowhere runs through water-bearing strata, nor is fed by important springs. If the valley is really the result of water -action and 304 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM: belongs to the Pleistocene age, it must have been worn by the joint action of glaciers and of the vast floods of the Pluvial Period which followed the disappearance of the great Ice Age ; otherwise the evidence would prove too much, for man would be the oldest creature living if his hand chipped the Somme flints, and if they were dropped by him on the tableland of the higher level when the river first began its operations. But, as Professor Huxley says, " the question as to the exact time to be attached to the alluvial remains in the valley of the Somme could not be settled satisfactorily. Few persons, except men of science, were aware that there had been enormous changes during the last five hundred years in the north of Europe. The volcanoes of Iceland had been con- tinually active; great floods of lava had been poured forth, and the level of the coast had been most remarkably changed. Similar causes might have produced enormous changes in the valley of the Somme, and therefore any arguments based, as to time, upon the appearances of the valley were not to be trusted."^ The rate at which the peat in the bed of the Somme Valley has grown, is another point in regard to which some archaeologists have adopted views that cannot stand the test of close examination. ' Times, Auf^ust 29th, 1879. PREHISTORICAL ARGUMENTS. 305 Some of these masses of peat are above twenty feet thick, and, in the opinion of M. Boucher de Perthes, could not have grown in less time than about thirty thousand years. Further researches, however, have shown that the Somme Valley was formerly covered with forests and dense vegeta- tion, the decaying leaves and roots of which would cause the peat to grow with great rapidity. Moreover, M. de Perthes himself discovered the trunks of alders and birches standing erect in the peat just as they had grown, proving that the peat must have covered them in less than fifty years, or else by that time, at the very longest, the trunks would have rotted away. As these broken trees were three feet in height in some cases, it follows that at least three feet of peat must have grown in less than half a century. This one consideration effectually disposes of the assumption that the peat beds referred to required thirty thousand years for their formation. Similar reasoning is applicable to other bogs and peats, like those of Denmark and America. We have seen, then, that no trustworthy evidence can be adduced in support of the notion that man existed anterior to post-glacial times; that all such facts as seemed at first to make mankind older than this period have either been misunderstood, or are counterbalanced by similar 3o6 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM: facts which lead to contrary conclusions; that human remains of whose character there is no doubt, occur under such conditions as do not prove man to have been originally a debased savage, nor necessitate a great antiquity for the human race ; that those extinct animals whose bones have been found in association with man's relics, have in many localities lived far on into modern times, and that neither the cave-dwellings, of which Kent's Hole is the most important and familiar example, nor the alluvial deposits, of which the gravels and peat of the Somme Valley are the most striking and most carefully-studied instance, furnish any conclusive evidence that man is older than some six or seven thousand years. There- fore we are justified in affirming, that prehistoric facts agree with inspired records in showing that the notion of man's enormous antiquity is an un- warrantable assumption. Scripture chronology would admit, without any strain, an expansion of a thousand years or more beyond the period assigned by Archbishop Usher to man's existence on the earth. His calculations are only of human authority, and his method of enumeration is such, that no reasonable person would regard the results reached as anything more than approximately accurate. The subject of Scripture chronology has always been felt to PREHISTORICAL ARGUMENTS. 307 be very complex, the difficulty of reconciliation arising from the use of letters instead of figures, which often denote by minute differences very great disparity in the numbers represented, and from the Jewish custom of referring to comparatively remote male descendants as " sons." Very various estimates of the age of man have been made by competent scholars. Panodorus, a monk of the fifth century, fixed the birth of Christ at the year of the world 5493, and his dates were for a long time accepted by the Christian Church. The Greek Christians put the birth of Christ in the year 5509; Eusebius and Bede,in 5199. Hales arranged a chronology which would make the world at present 7294 years old ; while others reach nearly 9000 years as the time which has elapsed since the expulsion from Eden. It may be that, as Assyrian studies and discoveries proceed, this difficulty, like so many others, will in its turn be solved. The Church, however, is by no means driven to any defence of her received chronology by the well-grounded facts of scientific research, and all devout men who are ready to adopt every position that science and history substantiate, may rest calmly assured that this most adequate and rational account of man's origin is not discredited by any certitudes of Geology or Archaeology. It may possibly occur to some minds, that if 3o8 SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM : the obstacles in the way of believing in the remote antiquity of the human race are so numerous and grave, it is curious that so many who are competent to perceive the truth of the matter should yet continue to accept it as a fact that man is of enormous age. It should be borne in mind, however, that the subject is intricate, and much of the evidence is only just being thoroughly sifted and fully understood. There is also the difficulty of verifying alleged discoveries and statements by those who may have been deceived or blinded by misconception. More- over, there should be taken into the reckoning the fascination which new theories never fail to exert upon the age which sees their birth, as well as the restiveness of the human intellect under anything that might seem like a restriction. lUit perhaps the main reason why there seems in our time such readiness to believe in man's extreme antiquity, is that any other view is quite subversive of the bewitching evolution hypothesis which has cast so mysterious a spell upon the scientific world. If so recently as six thousand years ago, or thereabouts, man was only just emerging from the Simian type, then it is abso- lutely impossible that he could have developed into what we know him to have been in the age of the Pyramids. PREHISTOKICAL ARGUMENTS. 309 On the other hand, however, there are many scientists of the highest order, who have not been carried away by the wild wave of speculation on whose crest some that enjoy rather than otherwise being in antagonism with biblical teaching, have been borne into extreme opinions. Of these, Sir J. W. Dawson, the accomplished geologist, is one. In his Origin of the World he says : " As a geologist, and as one who has been in the main of the school of Lyell, and after having observed with much care the deposits of the more modern periods on both sides of the Atlantic, I have from the first dissented from those of my scientific brethren who have unhesitatingly given their adhesion to the long periods claimed for human history, and have maintained that their hasty conclusions on this subject must bring geological reasoning into disrepute, and react injuriously on our noble science " (pp. 320-21). And not very long ago he summed up a long and careful survey of all the facts in these significant words : " What evidence the future may bring forth I do not know, but that available at present points to the appearance of man, with all his powers and properties, in the post-glacial age of Geology, and not more than from six thousand to eight thousand years ago." ^ ^ Fossil Man, p. 246. 3IO SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM. AVe are safe enough in such company, especially when we find veterans like Sir John Evans, Boyd Dawkins, and Mr. Whitaker declaring, as they did at the British Association Meeting of 1894, that there was no proof of a pre-giacial man, and that even those flints which seemed to indicate a glacial origin afforded no reliable intimation of their asje. As men of faith turn their attention to these subjects — which many of them are now feeling to be necessary in order to be able to defend the strongholds of their religion — the truth will not only be emancipated from the misconceptions which bind her down, but her liberty will be the more assured and lasting, by reason of that enlightenment of her sons by which her freedom was won. Truth crushed to earth shall rise again : The eternal years of God are hers ; But Error, wounded, writhes in pain. And dies among his worshippers. ALLEGED ERRORS AND DISCREPANCIES. 311 CHAPTER X;X. ALLEGED ERKOES AND DISCREPANCIES IN THE PENTATEUCH. OUE task could not be considered as complete, without some attempt to reply to the alleged inaccuracies and contradictions which the critics profess to find in the Pentateuch. Many of these have already been dealt with, so far as they related to the topics which have been discussed. But there are numerous points of detail which do not admit of being classed together, and in respect to which it is affirmed that the writer of the Pentateuch is guilty of error or inconsistency. Although it is not practic- able here to consider all the innumerable instances of this kind that are so freely scattered through- out such books as those of Colenso, Wellhausen, Dr. Robertson Smith, Dr. Gladden, and Professor Driver, yet we may assure our readers that we have examined every case that has come before us, and the conviction we have arrived at is 312 ALLEGED ERRORS AND DISCREPANCIES that nothing of a serious nature has been proved against the trustworthiness of the Mosaic writ- ings, and that for the most part these alleged discrepancies are based upon unreliable methods of criticism, misinterpretation, or, in some in- stances, mere quibbling. I. In dealing with this part of our subject, it will be convenient to follow the order of the Mosaic narrative for the greater number of the instances to which we shall refer. In the account of the Deluge, J gets the credit of part of Gen. vi.-viii., and P the rest, according to Driver ; while Wellhausen introduces Q,^ the nucleus of P. In J's portion the compiler has here and there borrowed expressions from P or Q. Surely there must be some grounds for these astonishing statements. Yes, there are repeti- tions, says Dr. Driver. Vers. 9-13 are a sort of duplicate of vers. 5-8. But they certainly are not literal repetitions. They are merely the re- statement of important facts for the purpose of emphasis or further explanation. Let the reader compare Gen. vi. 5 with vi. 11, 12, describing the evil and corruption of the earth in the days of ^ Q, the initial of quatuor, four — so called from the four covenants which Wellhausen finds at the basis of the Priestly Code. IN THE PENTATEUCH, 313 Noah, and he will see that the variations are natural enough, and are only what every serious historian might adopt under similar circum- stances. May an author never repeat an idea or fact which lies at the base of all the after- events he will have to describe ? May he never re- capitulate, for the sake of emphasis, and to con- centrate attention on something that is of vital consequence ? This is what every writer does, and he would be unfit for literary work if he did not. But the master of composition takes care to vary his phraseology. This is precisely what Moses does, and Dr. Driver often does likewise. Then, again, because ]N"oah gives particulars concerning the dimensions of the Ark and the materials of which it was made, the aid of P the formal and precise is invoked; for how could J the ".flowiEg and picturesque" write such things ? Now, men will differ as to what is " flowing " and what is " prosaic." But may not the same writer be both, according to circumstances ? One of Mr. Gladstone's famous Budget speeches could easily be thus dissected. If you are determined that J shall always be " flowing " and P always " formal," then, of course, it is easy enough to find P or J in almost everything. But is this criticism ? It is, according to Wellhausen and Driver, and it contains its own refutation. There are traditions 314 ALLEGED ERRORS AND DLSCREPANCIES enough of an early Deluge, as every one knows, and Tylor, in his Early History of Mankind, p. 332, points out the significance of the mention of an Ark in these traditions. We do not see why Moses should have been ignorant of these tradi- tions, or why he should not have recorded this impressive event. The reference to Noah's sacrifices must be late, say the critics, for the idea of sacrifices did not occur till the times of the monarchy. We have shown that this is not correct. It is mere assumption, contradicted by many facts. When once it is decided that sacrifices belong to a later age, then there is no difficulty in assigning all references to sacrifice to P or some later writer. But what is such an argument worth ? One might affirm that the idea of the Cross originated with the Empress Helena, and then proceed to argue that every passage in the New Testament which refers to the Cross must have been written after the days of Constantino. On such principles history becomes impossible, and nothing is safe from attack. In Gen. x. 8, 10, the earliest inhabitants of the Euphrates district are said to be of Ethiopian origin. " Cush begat Nimrod, . . . and the begin- ning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech and Accad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar." Many IN THE PENTATEUCH. 315 modern authorities held that they were Shemitic, and did not spring from Ham the father of Cush, the founder of the Ethiopian race, — an opinion which was strengthened by supposed affinities of language. But recent Chaldaean explorations have shown that the language of ancient Babylonia was not that of Nebuchadnezzar's age, but belonged to the Cushite or Ethiopian family. Thus does growing knowledge put to flight hasty and pre- mature judgements, and condemn arbitrary ex- pressions of opinion on ill-understood records. Dr. Gladden instances a discrepancy between Gen. xxi. 31 and Gen. xxvi. 33, where the dealings of Abraham and -of Isaac with Abimelech are narrated. The incident in each case is very similar, and in the former case Abraham is said to have given Beer-sheba its name, while in the latter case it is said that Isaac originated the name. Hence, concludes Dr. Gladden, " it is the same story ascribed to different actors." There are, however, differences, for in the latter case Abimelech brought with him his friend (V"]^, privy councillor). It was not at all unlikely that a kiu^ of Abimelech's character would interfere with Isaac's domestic felicity just as he had done with Abraham's. In those lands, too, the digging of wells was a common occurrence, and they frequently became the cause of quarrelling and of 3i6 ALLEGED ERRORS AND DISCREPANCIES leagues. The name Beer-slieba means " the well of oath/' and would be a most appropriate name for the scene of both incidents. Abraham called the place Beer-sheba, but Isaac called the well Shebah, as though the two spots were not identical. It seems, then, that Abimelech renewed with Isaac the alliance he had made with Abraham. And in harmony with this view it is significant that the two wells have been discovered and are still in existence. We will pass on to Jacob. Gen. xxvii., wliich narrates the details of Jacob's deception, is given entirely to J, with the exception of the last verse. Yet this verse is an integral part of the story. Ch. xxviii. 1-9 is assigned to P, because in it there are historical names which could not be tolerated in J. Most of the remaining part of the chapter is put to the credit of E, notwithstanding that the name "Jehovah" occurs in ver. 21. Where are the alleged discrepancies ? They are spun out of the imagination. The language is supposed to characterise E. The unity and consistency of the whole narrative of Jacob's journey, the reasons for taking it, the wonderful vision at Bethel in the course of it, are beyond question, and the different details connected with the story fully account for whatever differences of style there may be. But here, as elsewhere, IN THE PENTATEUCH. 317 Dr. Driver cannot get away from the iutiuence of his German authorities, nor resist the hypnotic spell of his favourite Wellhausen. The remark of Dr. Driver's, that xxvii. 42-45 exhibits Eebekah as influenced by a different motive from the one indicated in ver. 46, the former expressing the desire that Jacob should escape from Esau, the latter that he should find a suitable wife, hardly calls for serious notice. Is it likely that Eebekah, who had already shown so much finesse, would bunglingly declare to Isaac and Esau the real cause of Jacob's hasty departure ? The account of Jacob's relations with Laban, given in Gen. xxx. and xxxi., is said to contain a discrepancy. In the former chapter Jacob's prosperity is attributed to the stratagem of the peeled rods (ver. 37), whereas in the latter it is attributed to the interposition of God (vers. 11-13). It should, however, be observed that in the latter chapter Jacob is narrating to his wives the story of recent events, and it is hardly likely he would enlarge upon his device for influencing the colour of the new-born animals. He does, however, mention the fact that it was the colours that determined whose the young should be. Jacob believed it was the act of God, though he himself had done what he could to produce the desired results. Then, too, in the former chapter 3i8 ALLEGED ERRORS AND DLSCREPANCLES there is simply the narration of certain facts having reference to Jacob's manipulation of the flocks, while in the latter there is the record of what Jacob believed was the real cause of the increase of his own portion. " Your father hath deceived me, and changed my wages ten times ; but God suffered him not to hurt me. Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father and given them to me" (vers. 7, 9). Laban on his part had done what he could to prevent the discoloration of the young, for he had removed all the ringstraked, spotted, and brown to a safe distance. Jacob, on the other hand, had used his knowledge as a practical herdsman to produce the desired results among the cattle. All was fair, and each understood the acts and motives of the other. The issue of it all was, said Jacob, that God had given him the larger share and the greater prosperity. Where is the discrepancy ? What need is there to suppose two divergent accounts ? Such an idea would never have occurred to any one who was not compelled some- how or other to find a J and an E. In Gen. xxxii., recording the movements of Jacob at the brook Jabbok, it is asserted that there is a contradiction between vers. 22 and 23, the former stating that he went over the brook with his wives, and the latter that he did not. IN THE PENTATEUCH. 319 It is easy to understand, however, that Jacob would go over with them, and then return for solitude and meditation. The passing over such an insignificant rivulet as Jabbok is not such an affair as that it need be mentioned every time Jacob did it. A few steps would take him over and bring him back again. Besides, " sent them over " probably means " caused them to pass over," and is so translated in the margin of the A. v., in which case the difference is not even apparent. There is an alleged discrepancy between the two lists of the names of Esau's wives. In Gen. xxvi. 34, the two Canaanitish wives are said to have been Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite, the name of a third wife being given in xxviii. 9 as Mahalath daughter of Ishmael. But in xxxvi. 2, 3, the names are stated as being Adah the daughter of Elon, and Aholibamah daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite, and Bashemath, Ishmael's daughter. The accounts agree that there were three wives, and that two of them were Canaanites. The problem is solved by remembering that in ancient times double names were as common as now. More- over, it was the custom to change the name in commemoration of important events, and especially 320 ALLEGED ERRORS AND DISCREPANCIES at marriage. Bashemath and Mahalath are both called " daughter of Ishmael," and hence we may conclude they are two names of the same person. Adah and Bashemath are each described as a "daughter of Elon," consequently they are the names of the same woman. In the case of the remaining one, not only are her names different, but also the name of the father varies. In xxxvi. 24, Anah is the son of Zibeon, so that " daughter " in xxxvi. 2 must refer to Aholibamah, not to Anah, and according to Hebrew usage it signifies here "descendant" {i.e. granddaughter) of Zibeon. If Beeri be another name of Anah, the supposed contradictions vanish. Other ex- planations have been offered ; and perhaps if all the facts were known, still others might be sug- o^ested. But when so reasonable a one is forth- coming as that just given, it is a serious thing to charge the sacred writer with self-contradiction. The account of the selling of Joseph by his brethren affords Dr. Driver another opportunity of mangling a beautiful piece of history, on the plea of discrepancies (Gen. xxxvii.). There must be two accounts, says he, for one relates that the brethren sold him to the Ishmaelites, and the other that the Midianite merchants stole him out of the pit. Then, too, continues Driver, when Picuben came to the pit and found Joseph was IN THE PENTATEUCH. 321 gone, he was surprised, whereas it is implied he was with the brethren when Joseph was sold. Hence, concludes Driver, " the narrative of Joseph consists of long passages excerpted alternately from J and E, each, however, embodying traits derived from the other." All this admits of the simplest and most satisfactory explanation. It seems clear that Eeuben was not present when the sale was effected, for had he been he would certainly have protested. Indeed, the narrative says so, if we forget all about J and E, for ver. 29 describes the " return" of Eeuben. In ver. 28, Dr. Driver's interpretation requires that "they" should be made to refer to the Midianites, whereas the words are " and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites ; " that is, the same persons who sold him drew him out of the pit, the previous use of the word "Midianites" meaning exactly the same as " Ishmaelites," both being synonymous for Arabs. Once let the mind be cleared of the figment of a Jehovist and an Elohist source, once get rid of the idea of a plurality of authors in Genesis, and put in the place of these notions the natural and probable conception that Moses wrote the book with such aids as were at hand, and, in a moment, all this factitious entanglement of supposed dis- 322 ALLEGED ERRORS AND DISCREPANCIES corclance and contradiction vanishes, and a clear, straightforward history stands out before us, charming us with its simple naturalness, and drawing us on through its pages by its dramatic power and human interest. Coming now to the Exodus, we find that Dr. Driver marshals quite a host of discrepancies against that portion of the sacred narrative which deals with this momentous national event and its attendant circumstances. Here we find the same arbitrariness of judge- ment based on imagined differences in style. With monotonous reiteration we are assured that J could not have written in this way, or P in the other, until at length one feels that the whole history is being treated as nothing more than a myth or a collection of legends. We shall not follow the circuitous path to the end, but single out two or three of Dr. Driver's allegations. In ii. 18 the father-in-law of Moses is called Eeuel, but in iii. 1 his name is said to be Jethro. What could Driver's compilers have been about to leave such a glaring contradiction between two sentences so near together ? But there is no contradiction. The word translated "father- in-law" in iii. 1 is "sons-in-law" in Gen. xix. 14, and means simply "relative by marriage." So that Reuel and Jethro are two different men. IN THE PENTATEUCH. 323 Jethro probably being the son of Eeuel. Dr. Driver is undoubtedly a good Hebrew scholar, but he always adopts that rendering in doubtful cases which suits his own theory. Without blaming him for this, we yet think that the other renderings should have been given. We are apt to distrust guides who shut their eyes to what they do not wish to see. Again, it is objected that in iv. 17 "signs" are mentioned, whereas only one sign had been wrought with the rod. Well, not to emphasise the fact that the rod had been turned into a serpent and then transformed again into a rod, it is not at all unfair to point out that the verse is a prophecy and covers all that was thereafter to be done with the rod. In Ex. iv. 30, 31, the children of Israel are said to have listened to Aaron, and to have believed in the mission of Moses and Aaron, but in vi. 9 "they hearkened not unto Moses for anguish of spirit and for cruel bondage." But the occasions were different and the people were volatile. Between the two occasions Pharaoh had been visited and had refused the request that Moses had made. The burdens of the people had been increased, and they began to think it was better to endure the ills they had than fly to others they knew not of. 324 ALLEGED ERRORS AND DISCREPANCIES Even such a trifling matter as the fact that sometimes Moses goes to Pharaoh alone, and at other times in company with Aaron, is assumed to constitute a discrepancy and to furnish grounds for imagining parallel narratives. At first we know that the timidity of Moses held him back. Besides, it is just what we should expect from a wise man who had formerly held the position at court that Moses had, when he seeks to put forward Aaron, a truer representative of the oppressed people than he himself could claim to be. And so Aaron is prominent in connec- tion with the first three plagues, but Moses subsequently comes more to the front. The transactions at Sinai are dealt with by Professor Driver at great length, and with a minuteness of detail that makes it difficult to follow him or to render intelligible to those who have not his volume before them the reasons for dissenting from him. His general verdict is that " the composite character of the narrative seems to be unmistakable." He thinks the natural sequel of xix. 3 ought to be not ver. 7, " came," but ver. 14, since ver. 3 refers to the going up of Moses into the mount, and ver. 14 to his coming down. So it would be if he only went up and came down. The entire passage implies that Moses went up and came down several times. This would IN THE PENTATEUCH. 325 account for the repetition in ver. 9 which Dr. Driver thinks is another proof of the composite nature of the narrative. Each time Moses went up he "told the words of the people unto the Lord." In a highly - strung narrative a Hebrew would be almost sure to fall into the poetical style of parallelism. In ver. 13, says Dr. Driver, the "trumpet" is different from the one mentioned in ver. 19, and hence he isolates the former passage. But this may be nothing more than a mere verbal variation, just as we might describe a brass instrument as either a trumpet or a cornet. He translates "trumpet" by "ram's horn" in order to make a difference, but the Eevisers cling to " trumpet." The people were commonly summoned by a trumpet or cornet, the rams' horns being rather for com- moner uses among themselves. Again, vers. 20-25, he says, interrupt the narrative, and ver. 20 is a repetition of ver. 18, and much more to the same effect. Then, again, ver. 21 is a repetition of ver. 12, which commands that neither man nor beast should touch the mountain. And this is precisely the style that an impressive writer would adopt who described scenes so awful as those which Moses witnessed on Sinai. The recital of the words which the Lord had uttered, " Take heed to yourselves that ye go not up into 326 ALLEGED ERRORS AND DLSCREPANCLES the mount or touch the border of it : whosoever touchetli the mount shall be surely put to death," would appear tame before the fire blazed out and wreathed the summit of the lofty mountain which reared itself up before the people. But after the "thunders and lightnings," and "the thick cloud upon the mount," and the "voice of the trumpet exceeding loud " (ver. 16), what more likely than that the commandment sliould be repeated : " Go down, charge the people lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish " ? This is no mere repetition, however, and Dr. Driver has no right to treat it as such. It is connected with a special in- struction to the priests to sanctify themselves, whereas the former command is associated with the sanctification of the people by Moses, and the two commands and acts of sanctification are separated by the information that Moses went down. Who cannot see that there are here two incidents, the one in which the people are specially concerned, and the other in which the priests are singled out ? Again, Dr. Driver declares that xx. 1 is not connected with xix. Tlie last verse of ch. xix. runs : " So Moses went down unto the people and spake unto them." Then follow the Ten Commandments of ch. xx. Is it improbable IN THE PENTATEUCH. 327 that laws so solemn and binding should be written down as a separate paragraph ? But if ver. 24 be looked at, the whole matter is cleared up. For the Lord said to Moses : " Away, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou and Aaron with thee, but let not the people break through," etc. " So Moses went down " (ver. 25). It is true nothing is said about Moses and Aaron going up, but ch. xx. begins at once : " And God spake all these words," namely, the Ten Commandments. We are left to infer that they did go up. The various instructions given pre- viously were appropriate to the ushering in of events so sublime as those in which they took part. On grounds so flimsy does Dr. Driver allege discrepancies against the narrative in order to establish his theory of a double authorship, while Kuenen supposes even a third. Another discrepancy is alleged in connection with the Tabernacle. Ex. xxxvi. informs us that the work of building the Tabernacle was com- menced after Moses had come down from the mount with the second " tables of stone." But in Ex. xxxiii., say the critics, we are informed that this making of the Tabernacle was begun when Moses came down with the first tables of stone, and before he made the second ascent. The confusion has been entirely created by the 32S ALLEGED ERRORS AND DLSC REPANCLES critics themselves, who are determined to divide the narrative between P and E, and by taking the " Tent " of ch. xxxiii. to be the same as the " Tabernacle " of ch. xl. If this really were the case, what bungling it was on the part of the redactor to represent the Tabernacle as pitched and used as a central sanc- tuary before the materials for its construction had been provided. It is manifest, however, that in the former passage it is the tent of Moses that is meant, and this the Eevisers have emphasised by the translation "tent" instead of the A.V. rendering " Tabernacle." The Septuagint accords with this. What more likely than that the tent of the leader of the people should be used as a place for important meetings, like that with Jethro, and that common or central worship should have been carried on there before the Tabernacle was constructed (Ex. xviii. 7) ? This was the tent which Moses removed outside the camp as a mark of the Divine displeasure at the worship of the calf which he perceived to be going on when he came down from the mount with the first tables of stone. This tent Moses calls the " Tent of Meeting " (not Tabernacle), as though to indicate that those who would render worsliip to the true God might meet there, and that the Lord would meet witli them. Thus IN THE PENTATEUCH. 329 vanishes Dr. Driver's conception that there are two distinct accounts of the Tent of Meeting, which he says, wrongly, always means the Tabernacle, the one account being that of JE, who puts the tent outside the camp ; the other by P, who places it in the centre of the camp, and represents it as more ornate than the " Tabernacle " of JE. If we read the plain history just as Moses has given it, without introducing unnecessary divisions, or creating a plurality of authors, how naturally and how beautifully the Tabernacle ritual and sacrificial rites seem to develop and unfold. The tent of Moses, lirst mentioned in Ex. xviii. 7, becomes a place of meeting. Then the Sinaitic code is given (Ex. xx.-xxiii.). In the plain, perhaps the Wady Eahah, Moses erects an altar, and sacrifices by men appointed are made upon it. God's presence is manifested, and the idea of a central national worship springs up. The sojourn of Moses in the mount leads to the setting up of the golden calf, but Moses coming down from the mountain full of his plans for the Tabernacle, takes his tent " and setteth it out- side the camp" (Ex. xxxiii. 7-11), tlic Tent of Meeting, a name given afterwards to the Taber- nacle. The people being pardoned, the Tabernacle is constructed. On pp. 35, 36, Dr. Driver states that the ornaments mentioned in Ex. xxxiii. 4-6 were 330 ALLEGED ERRORS AND DLSCREPANCLES for the construction of the Tent of Meeting and the Ark, but the fact is that this putting off of the ornaments was an act of national humiliation. The Tabernacle did not then begin, and Driver's supposed second account, which contradicts the first, is therefore hypothetical. The Tabernacle is erected later, as recorded in Ex. xxxv., etc. The valuables given, not " lent " by the Egyptians, the acacia wood of the wilderness, the woven work of the Israelites, the skins of animals dwelling there, and the dyes from weeds, supplied material enough, and it is significant that nothing is mentioned that could have been obtained only in Palestine, but just such things as they would have in the wilderness. Two of the words de- noting these articles, D''tpt:^ (acacia) and ^nT\ (seal or badger, see Gesenius), are unfortunately left out of Dr. Driver's list of P's words (p. 123) — as though he were only concerned with what separates JE and P from one another. It is said that there is a contradiction between Ex. XX. 24 and Lev. xvii. 1, etc., and Deut. xii. 5-23, to which we had to refer when dealing with the supposition that Deuteronomy was not known during the early monarchy.^ The answer here must be similar. In Lev. xvii. 1, sacrifices are commanded to be brought to the door of the 1 See p. 1 36, et seq. IN THE PENTATEUCH. 331 " Teut of Meeting." In Dent. xii. it is ordered that holy things are to be taken " unto the place which the Lord shall choose " (ver. 26). Here, says Dr. Driver, we are in direct conflict with Ex. XX. 24, which runs thus : " In every place where I record My name I will come unto thee and bless thee." The only difficulty is of Dr. Driver's own making. The confusion, as we pointed out before, arises from Dr. Driver having taken the places of the Lord's choice to mean the central sanctuary only. The passage in Exodus refers, as any one might see, to the places where the altar might be reared during the journeyings, and the restriction was solely to prevent contamination by idolatrous associa- tions. From Deut. xii. 15 the roebuck and the hart are excepted, though this is not mentioned in Leviticus. It was the sacrificial animals that were guarded, and this because there was a tendency on the part of some to offer secret sacrifices to false gods after the manner of the Egyptians and the tribes among whom the Israelites moved in later days. Another objection raised against the Book of Exodus is from Dr. Gladden. He declares that ch. xxxiv. 17-26 is such an exact repetition of ch. xxiii. that the same writer could not possibly have written both. After liis manner he says: 332 ALLEGED ERRORS AND DISCREPANCIES " We cannot imagine that one man, with a fairly good memory, much less an infallibly inspired man, should have written these laws twice over, in the same words, within so small a space, in the same legal document." ^ But when we turn to the respective passages, what do we find ? We see that the second recital of these laws refers to what Moses wrote on the second tables of stone, and that the first occurrence was in connection with the first tables of stone which Moses destroyed. That is, he wrote exactly on the second tables what he had previously written on the first. Moses is giving history and he describes precisely what transpired. What im- pressiveness there would be about the repetition, considering all the circumstances. But this is lost on the analytical mind looking out for dis- cordances and proofs of a plurality of authors. Some other repetitions of this kind are adduced by both Dr. Driver and Dr. Gladden, but in no one case is there any difficulty whatever in per- ceiving the reason. A Hebrew scholar ought to see how common a literary method this was among Hebrew writers. They depended upon it for effect and emphasis, and the whole spirit of their poetry consisted in the skilful use of this expedient, besides which, there were often specific 1 TVho wrote the Bible ? p. 36. IN THE PENTATEUCH. 333 motives for repeating what was of deep import- ance, and especially, as was the case with most of the repetitions in the Pentateuch, when the subject-matter related to different occasions. We will now pass on to Numbers. Professor Robertson Smith quotes x. 11-28 as contradicting ver. 33, and infers that in one place the Taber- nacle is said to have been in the centre of the host in the order of march, and in the other (ver. 33) three days' march in front. But the simple explanation is that in the one passage it is the Tabernacle, and in the other the Ark, that is mentioned — that is, the Ark was not in the Tabernacle. The narrative of the scouts or spies, among whom were Caleb and Joshua, is also attacked by the critics, and, as we think, on grounds peculiarly insignificant. This history is recorded in N'um. xiii. and xiv. According to Dr. Driver, since xiii. 21 informs us that the spies searched the land from Zin to Rehob, in the far north (Judg. xviii. 28), and vers. 22-24 say that they went only as far as Hebron, there must have been two records (JE and P), and these contradict one another. More- over, on the return of the spies, they report that the land was fertile, but was such that the Israelites could not conquer it (vers. 27-31 given 334 ALLEGED ERRORS AND DLSCREPANCLES to JE), whereas ver. 32 (P) describes it as a land " which eateth up its own inhabitants," and not worth conquering. Again, in one place Joshua is not named as one of the spies, and Caleb alone stills the people (JE), while P mentions both Joshua and Caleb (xiv. 6, 30, 38). According to P, the spies went from the wilderness of Paran (xiii. 3, 26), but JE says they started from Kadesh. This, however, is not stated. Dr. Driver only infers it from Num. xxxii. 8. But as they did probably start from Kadesh, it would seem that Kadesh was in the wilderness of Paran, or that Kadesh and Paran were overlapping dis- tricts. In this case either might be mentioned as the starting-point. The silence about the north in one passage has no bearing upon its mention in another, if the whole narrative was by one writer. Moses instructs them to go southward, but he did not forbid them to go northward. Supposing they saw good reasons for going north, it is proper that the narrator should record the fact that they did this. There is no contradiction. The passing over the name of Joshua has no significance whatever, for Joshua of course stood with Moses, and when Caleb and Joshua are said to have stilled the people, it is no proof that Caleb had not already tried to do the same. Caleb is specially mentioned as entering Canaan, simply IN THE PENTATEUCH. 335 because it would be understood that Joshua as the leader of the people would be sure to enter it. The alleged contradiction in the terms of the report admits of easy explanation. It is stated that it is a good and fertile land, but the inhabit- ants are powerful. When Caleb seeks to inspirit the people, some of the spies through cowardice murmur that "it is a land that eateth up the inhabitants," a phrase that Dr. Driver inter- prets to mean an impoverished land, but it is more likely that it means an unhealthy land, a malarious district, which destroys its inhabitants by disease. This is perfectly consistent with fertility, as we know from the Campagna and other places. Dr. Horton falls into an extraordinary error in his treatment of this incident. He says : " A glance at Josh. xiv. 7, where Caleb is address- ing Joshua, shows that, according to the narrative, Caleb was certainly not thinking of Joshua as a fellow-spy." If he had read ver. 6 as well as ver. 7, he would have found that exactly the contrary of this is the fact. Caleb says to Joshua : "Thou knowest the thing that the Lord spake unto Moses the man of God concerning me and concerning thee in Kadesh Barnea." Dr. Driver has not committed this oversight, but, in the usual manner of the critics when a passage conflicts 336 ALLEGED ERRORS AND DLSCREPANCLES with their theories, he pronounces it an addition or interpolation, and declares it " must have been added for the purpose of accommodating the narrative to that of P in Num. xiii., xiv." This is an easy way of proving your theories. All you have to do is to put aside as a later interpolation all that opposes them, and it is done. But the proof is not quite so strong as a demonstration of Euclid. In connection with the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num. xvi., xvii.). Dr. Driver finds : (1) An account of the rebelHon of Dathan and Abiram, the laymen, by JE. (2) Another account of Korah representing that "all the congregation are holy," and this is credited to P. The former are swallowed up by the earth, and the latter with his followers are consumed by fire. (3) A third account ( = Kuenen's P^) relates that Korah and 250 Levites protest against the usurp- ation of the priestly office by the sons of Aaron (Ex. xvi. 8, 9). As an analysis of the history this is perhaps fair enough, but what does it prove save that the rebellion was for various reasons, that it was made up of many incidents, and that different kinds of punishment were meted out to the various conspirators? Korah is singled out first as the leader and inciter of the rebellion. Having IN THE PENTATEUCH. 337 inoculated some of the Eeubenites with his discontent, the contagion spread to the neigh- bouring Kohathites, who had been passed over in the distribution of offices. It was the rebellion itself that was of a composite character, rather than the history of it. The narrative is in harmony with the facts, and to split it up into a number of separate records is to deal with literary compositions in a manner that would stultify every historian, and would not be toler- ated with any other piece of literature. Dr. Gladden makes much of a supposed dis- crepancy between Num. xx. 1, 28, and xxxiii. The former chapter . relates that the people came to Kadesh and on to Hor, where Aaron died. This is calculated by Dr. Gladden to be in the first month of the third year. Yet, he says, we are told in ch. xxxiii. that Aaron died in the fortieth year of the wandering. The critic is wrong, however, both in his calculation and his interpretation. He has no right whatever to say that " in the first month " (xx. 1) has any reference to the time of the wandering. It is the " first month " of the fortieth year. The whole narrative shows this is so. Then by the fifth month they reached Hor, where Aaron died. Only a brief indication of other alleged historical discrepancies in the Pentateuch can 338 ALLEGED ERRORS AND DLSCREPANCLES be indulged in, for almost every detail supplies matter for one or another of the critics. Dr. Driver refers to several errors (p. 117), but they are really from Colenso, and have been answered again and again. Why should not Moses, writing nearly five hundred years after Abraham's migra- tion, inform his readers (Gen. xii. 6, xiii. 7) that the Canaanites of his own time were then in the land ? Was not Moses justified in calling his country " the land of the Hebrews " (Gen. xl. 15) after the Hebrews (Israel, Edom, Ishmael) had been two hundred years in it ? In relation to Num. xxxii. 41, Deut. iii. 14, could not Moses have been aware that the name of "Jair's hamlets" was becoming associated with Jair's captures ? Lev. xviii. 28 should be, " as it (the land) vomiteth out (^'^\>) the nation which is before you," where the participle without a pro- noun, and not the perfect " vomited," is probably the correct rendering. Driver's " Hebrew Tense " gives some analogous cases (Gen. xxxii. 6 ; Ex. vii. 15, etc.). Comparing Ex. xxii. 16, 17, with Deut. xxii. 29, nothing more is needed than to suppose that the dowry of the virgin, stated to be fifty shekels, was the custom, though the amount is not mentioned in Exodus. Lev. xxvii. 27 does not contradict Ex. xxxiv. 20, for it is not parenthetical like ver. 26, but it shows IN THE PENTATEUCH. 339 that unclean animals, which, had they been clean, would have been used for sacred purposes, if not redeemed, were to be sold. So Num. xviii. 16, 17, clean firstlings, being by law the priests', could not be redeemed, and if sold, the money must be brought to the priest. We are not obliged to suppose that in Deut. xii. 13-18, 27, xv. 20, there is a command to the laity to officiate. " Thou " refers to the nation or people in general. How could the tithes, firstlings, etc., be consumed at the sanctuary by the person who offered them ? Yet it is said, "Thou shalt eat them." It is not difficult to understand how the word gcr would soon come to mean a proselyte-stranger who would be made unclean by eating torn animals, etc. (Lev. xvii. 15), though some such food might be given to heathen strangers (Deut. xiv. 21). Professor Eobertson Smith contends that there was no Holiest Place in the Tabernacle at Shiloh, because Samuel lay down to sleep in the Temple of the Lord, where the Ark was. There was room for Samuel in the Tabernacle without going into the Holy Place. II. Several passages in the Pentateuch are adduced as containing anachronisms. We have considered two or three of these when dealing with the Book of Deuteronomy. There are a 340 ALLEGED ERRORS AND DISCREPANCIES few others on which Dr. Gladden and Dr. Driver have bestowed their attention. In Gen. xiv. 14 there is mention of a place called Dan. This is seized upon by the critics as demonstrating that the Pentateuch must have been written after the conquest of Canaan. It is rather a huge inference to draw from so minute a circumstance, and before making it we surely ought to satisfy ourselves that no other ex- planation, less tremendous in its consequences, is possible. Of course the critics tell us that Dan did not exist until after the settlement in Canaan. That is an objection that lies on the surface. But this Dan could not possibly be the Laish- Dan which the Danites conquered (Josh. xix. 47), for it was situated in the valley of Beth-rehob (Judg. xviii. 28, 29), at the central source of the Jordan, in what is now known as Tel-el-Kady. Abram, we are told, pushed on to Hobah, the modern Hoba, near to Damascus, and far away from Laish-Dan. The Dan to which Abram pursued his foe was, no doubt, Dan-jaan, men- tioned in 2 Sam. xxiv. 6, a town or settlement in Northern Persea. Had this narrative been written by a post- Exilian historian, living in Canaan, he would certainly have known of the existence of the two places, and would naturally have distinguished the obscurer town IN THE PENTATEUCH. 341 from the well-known city of the Danites. Since that distinction is not made, the passage must have been written before the conquest of Canaan. In Gen. xxxvi. 31 it is said that there were kings in the land of Edom before the children of Israel had a king over them, and it is inferred that this must have been written after the establishment of the monarchy. The Edomite kings were not subsequent to the " dukes " (alluphim, phylarchs, chieftains), as the critics suggest, but were contemporary with them. The chieftains served under the king. There was a pre-Mosaic monarchy in Edom. Moses merely states that this was so, that Edom became a kingdom before Israel. Moses foresaw that Israel would do as other nations did, and would event- ually seek a king. The words, " before there reigned any king over the children of Israel," were written with the promise in mind of Gen. xxxv. 11, which had become the hope of the nation, that kings should come out of the loins of Jacob. Of course, Gen. xxxvi. 31 may be a marginal gloss, but there is no absolute necessity to suppose this. In Edom it would seem that the alhtphim elected the king. Eight of these are named in Gen. xxxvi., and not one elsewhere. The son never succeeds the father, which implies that the sovereignty 342 ALLEGED ERRORS AND DLSCREPANCIES was elective; and Isa. xxxiv. 12 suggests that the kings and nobles (phylarchs) were contemporane- ous. Then, too, it is certain that Moses had dealings with the king of Edom at the time when the phylarchs existed, perhaps the very Hadar of ver. 39, and applied to him for permission to go through the land (Num. xx. 14, etc.). At any rate, the list of kings given in Gen. xxxvi. evidently refers to a pre-Mosaic state of things. The statement in Ex. xvi. 35 that the Israelites ate manna for forty years till they came to " the end," that is, the extreme boundary, of Canaan, could easily have been written by Moses towards the end of his life. We are not to imagine that the earlier books of the Pentateuch are a mere copy of the journal kept by Moses. There are many proofs that it must have taken final shape during the last year of Moses' life, though it may be freely admitted that the bulk of the diary was from its very nature utilised by Moses when he came to arrange and systematise what he had previously written. Only thus can we understand this reference to the manna, and the narrative concerning the pillar of cloud which guided the people throughout their journeyings. JSTor need we think that Moses wrote every word with his own hand, for he had the shoterivi or scribes at command, who would relieve him of that task. IN THE PENTATEUCH. 343 III. Another class of discrepancies are those which are said to exist between the Old and the New Testaments, only one of which bears upon that part of the Old Testament with which we are now concerned. This is in connection with Stephen's address before the Council (Acts vii.). In ver. 4, Stephen says that Abraham went to Canaan after the death of his father Terah, and yet from Gen. xi. 26, 32, xii. 4, Terah appears to have lived some years after Abraham quitted Haran. On the face of it, Abraham seems to have been 75 years old when he left Haran, and Terah 145. The death of Terah took place before Abraham left Haran, according to Stephen, and with this Genesis agrees ; and yet in Genesis it is said that Terah was 205 years old when he died. There is therefore a difference of sixty years to be explained. Can we do this without charging Stephen with error? He was learned in Hebrew history, he was filled with the Spirit so that the Jews were not able to resist his wisdom. Would such a man be likely to make a mistake on a point like this ? We ought not rashly to assume he was in error unless there be no other possible explanation. If he was mistaken, it would not affect the accu- racy of the Pentateuch, nor, for the matter of that, the veracity of St. Luke, who merely pro- fesses to report what Stephen said. Bengel 344 ALLEGED ERRORS AND DISCREPANCIES supposes that Abraham began his wanderings before his father's death, but did not fix his domicile in Canaan until after his father's death, in which case, of course, his domicile would be at Haran, where his father was living. Another explanation is that Abraham was not the eldest son of Terah, and is mentioned first only on account of his unique position in Hebrew history. Similarly, Shem is placed first in the list of ISToah's sons, although it is manifest from Gen. X. that he was not the eldest. When Abraham went to Canaan at the age of seventy- five, he took with him his nephew Lot, then a thriving and prosperous man, with many de- pendents, which makes it practically certain that Lot's father must have been older than his brother Abraham. Again, it is said that Haran died at Ur of the Chaldees, and that after his death Abraham married, so that it seems pretty clear that Haran was the eldest son of Terah. Then, too, the granddaughter of Haran, Eebekah, became the wife of Isaac, Abraham's son. Putting all these facts together, it may be con- cluded that Terali was much more than seventy when Abraham was born, and that at his death Abraham might not be more than seventy-five. The mere statement of Gen. xi. 27, " Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran, and Haran begat Lot," IN THE PENTATEUCH. 345 does not necessarily involve any contradiction of this, there being no direct assertion that the children are mentioned in the order of birth. Stephen is also said to have been in error in saying that Abraham bought a sepulchre in Shechem of one of the sons of Hamor, whereas Gen. xxiii. 17-19 describes how he purchased the field of Macpelah from Ephron the Hittite, and Gen. xxxiii. records that Jacob obtained a field at Shechem from the sons of Hamor. Stephen also appears to say that Jacob and his twelve sons were buried in Shechem, while Genesis shows that Jacob was buried in Macpelah, nothing being re- lated in reference to the place where his sons were buried. Tradition points to Shechem as the place where the sons of Jacob were buried, and Josh. xxiv. 32 records that Joseph was buried there. ]N"othing in Genesis contradicts this. As to the place of Jacob's burial, Stephen's words may be interpreted so as to convey no wrong impression. He was speaking to experts in Hebrew history, who would know as well as he himself that Jacob was buried in Macpelah. The E.V. has, " And he died himself and our fathers, and they were carried over unto Shechem," the pronoun " they " referring of course to the last substantive "our fathers," it being understood that Jacob was buried in Macpelah. In regard 346 ALLEGED ERRORS AND DISCREPANCLES to the purchase of the field, there is no difficulty in supposing that Abraham bought a field in Shechem as well as at Macpelah, and that in after years Jacob had to re-purchase it or to make good his claim to it. Tliis would explain Jacob's visit to Shechem on leaving Padan-Aram. When such explanations of the inspired narrat- ive are possible, is it right, is it fair, to set up charges of inaccuracy against the writers ? Some minds will exaggerate difficulties of this kind, and those who have theories to advocate will reject such harmonies as plausible, but the candid seeker after truth will see no special pleading in them, and will be thankful that the different parts of the Bible can thus with- out violence be reconciled with one another. Perhaps a brief reference ought also to be made to another supposed mistake of Stephen's. He gave as the number of Jacob's household who went down to Egypt seventy -five persons, whereas, according to Gen. xlvi. 27, there seem to have been only seventy. The Septuagint Version gives the number as seventy-five, not seventy, a discrepancy which might easily arise in the Greek translation from the knowledge which the translators had that the sons of Ephraim and Manasseh were born afterwards (1 Chron. vii. 14-21). Stephen had the Septua- IN THE PENTATEUCH. 347 gint, and naturally followed it. There is really no contradiction between the Hebrew and the Septuagint Greek if we suppose that the Septua- gint translators would bear in mind that Judah was dead, and that Joseph and his family were already in Egypt. This would just account for their " seventy-five," and would explain Stephen's adoption of that number, while at the same time it would give an air of even greater reality to the Hebrew narrative, which would of course deal with Jacob and his family as a whole. The point is insignificant enough, but unimportant as it is, it admits of a full and satisfactory explanation. IV. Objections of another kind have been urged against the Pentateuch and the Old Testament at large, on the ground that its moral teaching is defective and low. The deception of Jacob is a case in point. But there is no hint that the Lord approved of Jacob's sin ; indeed, the whole story indicates the opposite, and shows that he was punished for his offence, and that, too, notwithstanding his sincere repentance. It is true that Jacob inherited the blessing, but that was promised to him before his fraud, and was secured to him by the unworthi- ness of Esau. The Divine command to destroy the Canaanites 348 ALLEGED ERRORS AND DISCREPANCIES is also adduced, as thousrh it contradicted the sixth commandment. We do not always see the reason for a Divine command. In this case it would seem that the original inhabitants of Canaan had become so corrupt as that justice could no longer preserve them. Their day of mercy and oppor- tunity had been lengthened, for it was told to Abraham that his seed must abide in bondage until the iniquity of the Amorites was full. As to the nature of their punishment, that is of secondary importance. Was the Flood a crime ? was the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah a violation of right ? was the slaying of the firstborn in Egypt by the angel an iniquity ? The sword of Israel was the instrument of justice, and the use of it is no more to be condemned than that of the prison or the rope which civilised communities utilise for the vindication of law and the punish- ment of transgressors. While the fate of these unhappy tribes was justly merited, their doom was a warning to the Israelites, and became a means of preventing the truth with which they were entrusted from being adulterated and destroyed. War, we admit, is a poor remedy for evil, but it is the only scourge that appeals to the savage mind. Christian sentiment must not pro- nounce judgement on a condition of things which prevailed three or four thousand years ago. When IN THE PENTATEUCH. 349 the world was prepared for Christianity with its purity and benevolence, then the Christian religion was given, but it must not be forgotten that this very preparation was hastened on by the right- eous punishment of nations that were debased by idolatry and vice. The command given to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac is also pointed to as giving an unworthy view of God (Gen. xxii.). Dr. Samuel Cox thinks Abraham misunderstood the Divine instructions. The word translated " burnt - offering " means strictly " a going up," " an offering up." But however this may be, there was no intention that Isaac should be slain, but only that Abraham's confidence in God should be tested and human sacrifices condemned. Other instances of this character, such as the drunkenness of ISToah, the sin of Lot, the falsehood of Abraham, the anger of Moses, and similar in- consistencies of good men, need no comment, for there is merely the record of their faults, and generally also of their punishment. The fact that offences of this nature are so described as not to shock the pure-minded, speaks volumes for the high moral tone of the book whose purpose is to reveal the loathsomeness of sin. The general objection to the Mosaic age and authorship of the Pentateuch, on the ground that 350 ALLEGED ERRORS AND DISCREPANCIES the orthodox belief requires the existence of a high moral standard previously to the troubled and dark age of the Judges, when " every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (Judg. xxi. 25), is of little force. The quotation has reference to there being no king to rule, and not specially to moral conduct. But an ideal may exist where it is not realised. The New Testament preceded the benighted and corrupt Middle Ages, and no one would think of using the infidelity and immorality of England during the time of the later Stuarts as an argument that Christian doctrine and morals had not yet been preached and enforced. Dr. Gladden marshals a number of instances, such as the law of divorce, the lex talionis, etc., in regard to which he thinks that Christ condemned the Mosaic customs and practically repealed them. In a sense our Lord did condemn them, but only as they had become distorted by the Pharisees. He nowhere condemned Moses, but only the making God's word of none effect by tradition. He never criticised Moses for giving the laws, but the Jews for departing from the spirit of them. Even where He seems to imply that the Mosaic law was not perfect, as in the case of divorce. He justifies Moses, who, " because IN THE PENTATEUCH. 351 of the hardness of their hearts," had to adapt the law to the condition of the people to whom it was given, as all prudent legislators have to do in sub- ordinate matters. But in no one case did Christ "repeal" a Mosaic law, as Dr. Gladden affirms He did. He merely showed the superiority of the Gospel, for which the Law was a preparation. And in doing this He neither cast doubt on the Mosaic authorship, nor on the fact that Moses was the interpreter of the Divine will. Dr. Gladden in reality confuses the question of " infallibility " and the " eternal obligation " of a law. He sup- poses that because some of the laws of Moses were done away by the Gospel, that therefore the Pentateuch is not infallible. The Mosaic institu- tions were comparatively perfect ; they were perfect for their purpose, and were not intended to abide for ever. They were to lead to Christ, and when He came they vanished. It is by just such con- fusion of terms, so easy when the argument is spread over many pages, that Dr. Gladden and others are able to throw a kind of suspicion on some of the Old Testament writings. But any one can see that such reasonings do not touch the question of the Mosaic authorship, nor of our Lord's testimony thereto. The extensive review of the alleged discrep- ancies which has been made in this chapter and 352 ALLEGED ERRORS AND DISCREPANCIES. in the one dealing witli Deuteronomy, makes it clear that nothing of vital importance has been substantiated by the critics in the numerous pas- sages they have adduced. Many of the supposed contradictions arise only from the nature of the critical theories with which the passages are out of joint. Most of them are quoted by critic after critic, and have been answered again and again by those who have replied to Colenso, Well- hausen, and Eobertson Smith. We have faced them all once more, and our confidence in the accuracy of the Bible remains as firm as ever. CAUSES OF MINUTE VARIATIONS. 353 CHAPTEE XXI. CAUSES OF MINUTE VARIATIONS AND ERRORS IN THE PENTATEUCH. THAT there may be some unimportant in- accuracies in the Bible, need not be denied, when we remember that, like all religious bless- ings and privileges, it has been entrusted to human guardianship in a large measure. Only the special protection and supervision of the Almighty could have kept it from wholesale corruption or absolute extinction. But these inaccuracies w^eigh very little in comparison with the continuous harmony with history, geography, and archteology which our minute examination has shown the Pentateuch to exhibit. Facts derived from the undesigned coincidences of history are not to be dissipated by shadowy speculations or arbitrary opinions, or even the dicta of fallible critical instincts. Having so much that is reliable and convincing in our 23 354 CAUSES OF MINUTE VARIATIONS AND favour, we need not fear to face boldly the pro- bability that there are some slight defects which may have crept into the Bible as the result of human nedigence or intention. If this seems much to admit, we would remind the reader that it is not impossible, in most cases not difficult, to discover such defects, and though there should remain a few instances where full satisfaction has not been arrived at, yet the fact that success has attended the efforts of scholarship so often, makes it legitimate to hope for a complete settlement of all difficulties as knowledge grows, while showing how perilous it is to repose confidence in hypo- theses and objections that new discoveries may at any moment shatter. It is impossible to deny that some small errors have crept into the text as the result of the imperfections of the copyists. Perhaps we have a case of this kind in 1 Sam. vi. 19, where it is said that the Lord smote 50,070 of the men of Beth-shemesh. The population of a village could not have reached that number. Tlie Septuagint says : " The sons of Jechoniah did not rejoice amongst the men of Beth-shemesli when they saw the Ark of the Lord; and He smote of them threescore and ten men." This is undoubtedly the true number, and the Eevisers would have been justified in adopting it in preference to ERRORS IN THE PENTATEUCH. 355 their inexplicable adoption of the improbable number 50,070. Such cases, however, are very rare, and they involve nothing that is important. The canons necessary and sufficient for dealing with them are thus admirably stated by Garbett in his God' 8 Word Written, p. 218: "We are justified in adopting this explanation — (a) Whenever the evidence of the MSS. sug- gests it ; (&) Whenever Scripture itself furnishes the data for discovering or correcting the mistake ; (c) When the nature of the passage or the characters of the words render an error in transcription easy, and therefore probable." It has at various times been alleged that some variations have been intentionally introduced. The Jews and the Samaritans accused each other of this offence, but their texts are practically identical. Jerome and other Christian fathers charged the Jews with the same thing, owing, no doubt, to the fact that the Christians used the Septuagint translation. In more modern times, Lagarde has conjectured that the chronology of Genesis was falsified by the Jews in the contro- versy with Christians, but no actual proofs have 356 CAUSES OF MINUTE VARIATIONS AND been furnished, while the extreme care which we have shown the Jews always to have taken of the sacred text makes it highly improbable that anything of the sort was ever done. Dr. Buhl thinks it likely that in one or two instances intentional alterations were made for justifiable reasons, and he instances the interchange of Baal with Bosheth, which appears in some proper names. In earlier times Baal was used harm- lessly for God ; but at a later period, when Baal had become identified with Canaanitish idolatry, the people changed the form of the name. But who could blame them for such religious solici- tude, and what importance could there be in such alterations ? Of unintentional errors, hov/ever, there are, no doubt, a few. Several of the Hebrew letters are singularly alike, and might easily be misread by a fatigued copyist. Compare, for example, 3 with 3, 1 with 1, n with n, i with ^ Transcribers, too, used abbreviations which were occasionally mis- understood. '\\'\T\'' was often written \ Words beginning with the last letter of the preceding word, and clauses beginning with the same word, also lend themselves to the liability to error. Such inadvertencies, though they may by exag- geration be used by critics so as to look ugly, are yet only of a kind that healthy criticism may ERRORS IN THE PENTATEUCH. 357 overcome, and do not alter the contents of the Bible in any vital respect. A kindred source of error is that which has to do with Hebrew vowels. In early times Hebrew was written without vowels, and it was not until six centuries after Christ that it was found neces- sary to invent a system of vowel points, in order to prevent the proper pronunciation from being- lost, as Hebrew had ceased to be a spoken lan- guage. The great majority of Hebrew words have three consonantal letters, the vowel points being placed underneath. It can easily be seen, then, that mistakes might easily occur where words having the same three consonants, but differing in vowel sounds, were concerned. It speaks volumes for the reverence of the Jews for their sacred books, that so easy a source of error should yet have led to so few instances of mistake or ambiguity. The only instance in the Pentateuch where doubt arises from the peculiarities of the Hebrew alphabet that is important enough to require comment, is the interesting one which has refer- ence to Jacob " bowing upon the bed's head " (Gen. xlvii. 31). In Heb. xi. 21 the same incident is described in these words: "By faith, Jacob, when he was a-dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph ; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of 35S CJ USES OF MINUTE VARIA TIONS AND his staff"." The use which is made of this latter passage by the Eoman Catholics, in order to support their practice of bowing to images, is well known. The word rendered " bed " in Gen. xlvii. 31 would, with other vowels, mean " staff." This is the reading adopted in the Greek Septuagint, and also in the A.V. The dying patriarch probably made an effort to sit up in his bed, and supported himself by leaning on the top of his staff. The Vulgate Version, which is the one used by the Roman Catholics, reads " worshipped the top of his staff," but this has no MS. authority. Probably the Hebrew word would have been more correctly transmitted as " staff," though, according to the principles which guided the Eevisers, it seemed prudent to retain the old rendering " bed," notwithstanding the awkward- ness of the phrase, "And Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head." The late introduction of these vowel points has led Dr. Gladden to ask a very superficial question. How could Divine Wisdom, he says, have given to man an infallible book in a language consisting only of consonants, leaving the vowels to be con- jectured a thousand years afterwards ? To which question we may reply by asking, how God could have given a book of any kind to Hebrews save by means of the Hebrew language as it then was. ERIWRS IN THE PENTATEUCH. 359 At the time of the revelation there was no dif- ficulty, no possibility of confusion. When that possibility arose, then Divine Providence provided for it. Are not men guided in their arts and inventions by Divine influence and interposition ? To us it seems rather a proof than otherwise that the Bible is of Divine origin, that just when a development of the Hebrew language was needed in order to preserve it from becoming obsolete and to keep in human knowledge the sublime teaching of the Scriptures, men were incited by some impulse or other to invent a method by which the language of the Hebrews might con- tinue to be read and understood. There can be very little doubt that some inter- polations have arisen from the incorporation of marginal notes or glosses in the text itself. But their infrequency and small importance cause them to have but little effect upon the minds of those accustomed to textual criticism. It was common to write explanations of the text on the parchment or papyrus which contained it. Mar- ginal notes, as we understand them, were not possible on the sort of documents used in ancient times. There would be no difficulty in this in the case of printed matter; but, before the in- vention of printing, the glosses or explanations were so inserted as to make it very easy for the 36o CAUSES OF MINUTE VARIATIONS AND most conscientious copyist to fall into an error. Moreover, it is likely that under the various redactions through which the Pentateuch passed before arriving at its present shape, it might be deemed right to insert notes which explained geographical or historical allusions, archaic customs, or obsolete laws, for the benefit of those who could not be expected to understand such references. At any rate, it is possible that a few such marginal explanations might have been inadvertently embodied in the sacred narrative by the copyists. It is fair, then, to consider such passages as are plainly anachronisms to be nothing more than later additions made with a good motive. To describe them as proofs that the Pentateuch was written ages after the time of Moses, as Dr. Gladden does, is to take up a very unstable position, and seems to indicate that the conclusion was arrived at before the anachronisms were encountered. It is almost certain that we have instances of this kind of interpolation in Gen. xii. G : " And the Canaanite was then in the land;" and in Gen. xiii. 7 : " And the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land." It is pos- sible that Num. xii. 3, on which Dr. Gladden comments almost mirtlifully, may be another of these editorial notes which found their way into ERRORS IN THE PENTATEUCH. 361 later copies of the text. It is translated in our English Bibles, " Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were npon the face of the earth," and we at once admit that such a man as Moses is represented as being, could hardly have written thus of himself. It should, however, be stated that the word anav means "harassed," i.e. enduring opposition or gainsaying. So that, after all, Moses may have written the passage, and with perfect taste and propriety. The reference to Eachel's grave (Gen. XXXV. 20) as remaining "to this day," is just one of those expressions that might be put on the older manuscript as a marginal note. In this instance, however, Moses himself may have written the words, for he wrote several hundred years after the tomb of Eachel was constructed, and he would think it worth while to mention so remarkable a fact as the preservation of the pillar which Jacob had erected. Probably the spies, who passed through that district, saw the pillar, and brought back word that it was still standing. Indeed, all the passages in Genesis of this nature might be accounted for in this way. Even those just quoted, " And the Canaanite was then in the land," etc., would have been quite correct, sup- posing that Moses had inserted the words with his own hand, for though he probably used docu- 362 CA USES OF MINUTE VARL4 TIONS AND ments, we are under no necessity to believe tliat lie never altered those documents. We have now arrived at the close of our argument for the genuineness and authenticity of the Pentateuch. We have seen from its internal character that it is in perfect agreement with such other monuments and histories which have come to us from Mosaic times, that it was accepted by other inspired writers as invested with the authority of Moses, that all through the later developments of Israel's national life it maintained its prestige and was held to have come from his hand, and that the Divine Teacher enforced the same view of it. Against all this weight of evidence we have numerous speculations — as many opinions as critics — many of which are subversive of what is vital to the very existence of Christianity, and most of which are either based on exaggerations of partial truths or fragments of truth, or else are the structure of the imagination. Dr. Driver contends in his Preface that there are " degrees of probability " in questions of biblical criticism, and to this we may heartily subscribe. It does perhaps partly explain the discrepancies among the critics, but the probabilities of the Bible's own testimony outweigh to an inconceivable extent the discordant hypotheses of the analytical school. ERRORS IN THE PENTATEUCH. ^e^, The gravamen of our protest against the methods of the Higher Critics is, that they tend to sap confidence in the entire Bible, and to under- mine faith in the divinity of our Lord. Their minute subdivisions of the sacred text, and their creation of an endless number of anonymous writers, beget the suspicion that there is no biblical author at all who possessed Divine authority or inspiration. It is true that some of the critics seek to evade the most disastrous issues of their speculations, by taking up what they call the Christocentric standpoint, as though to regard Christ as the centre and object of revelation covered a mul- titude of defects and errors in the form of that revelation. We know Christ only by means of the Bible, therefore either the Bible must be reliable or we have no Christ. The influence of Christianity has all along been, and still is, exerted by Bible teaching and by Bible doctrine, consequently any Christocentric theory that is independent of an accurate and trustworthy Bible is a fiction, a delusion. And if the doctrines of Christ as given in the Bible are taken as the foundation of the Christocentric theory, then His testimony concerning the Old Testament must be regarded as a part of that foundation. When Christ declares that Moses wrote certain Scrip- 364 CAUSES OF MINUTE VARIATIONS, tures, we must either believe this or give up Christ altogether as a reliable Teacher. When Dr. Cheyne says that David wrote no Psalms, and Christ taught that it was David who said, " The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand till I put Thine enemies underneath Thy feet ; " or when the critics tell us that the latter portion of Isaiah was written by one of the prophets of the Exile, and our Lord quotes from both the earlier and the later chapters of this book, and read the sixty - first chapter in the synagogue without giving the least intimation of a divided authorship, — we are driven either to relinquish the subtle ingenuities of the critics, or else to dethrone our Bible and detract from the authority of our Lord. Believing, as we do, that the world's only hope of salvation is based upon the divinity of Christ's Person and teaching, and that the rejection of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch involves the rejection of His infalli- bility and omniscience, as is evidenced by the novel and mysterious conception of the Kenosis or " emptying," we dare not cease to do all that in us lies to show the hollowness of these theories, and to point out to the unwary the grave perils they threaten against the venerable beliefs of the Jewish and Christian Churches. APPENDIX. I. Notes on the Language of the Pentateuch. (1.) Words peculiar to the Pentateuch. It is, of course, impossible to give here a complete list of the hundreds of words occurring only in the Pentateuch. Tliose who have access to Kcenig's Alt. Test. Studien, or the Sjjeaker's Com- mentanj, will find much valuable information there on this and kindred points. Others, however, can easily obtain an impression of the large proportion of such words by running over a Hebrew Concordance. All we can do here is to select a few which occur indiscriminately in the various books of Moses, with the purpose of showing the probability that all the five originated from the same author. n"13Ti^ memorial (Lev., Num.) ; n''^^< rump (Ex., Lev.) ; nnX a people (Gen., Num.) ; ni?ia bdellium (Gen., Num.) ; ^^2 cooked (Ex., Num.) ; ^f)^ young bird (Gen., Deut.) ; pna abdomen (Gen., Lev.) ; nij scurvy (Lev., Deut.) ; nill aunt (Ex., Lev.) ; ion slime (Gen., Ex.) ; |^n breastplate (Ex., Lev.) ; nSDIO frontlets (Ex., Deut.) ; ny to act as husband's brother (Gen., Deut.) ; Dlp^ a living substance (Gen., Deut.) ; p"T> to spit (Num., Deut.) ; 2\^2 sheep (Gen., Lev., Num., Deut.) ; ni;3JD bonnet (Ex., Lev.) : 365 366 APPENDIX. 3t5^rD the best (Gen., Ex., Sam.) ; nD3D estimate (Ex., Lev.); D^npi^D tongs (Ex., Num.) ; j;dD a journey (Gen., Ex., Num., Deut.); mt^K^D dougli (Ex., Deut.); T'D^ofin (Lev.,Deut.); n:D bush (Ex., Deut.) ; Pjiy to remain (Ex., Num., Lev.) ; pnpD store (Gen., Lev.) ; DIQ ossifrage (Lev., Deut.) ; nmp fever (Lev., Deut.) ; 5^:p jealous (Ex., Deut.) ; }>Dp to grasp (Lev., Num.) ; niyp clish (Ex., Num.) ; ij^t^ leaven (Ex., Lev., Deut.) ; '\'W increase (Ex., Deut.) ; nsn^* consump- tion (Lev., Deut.) ; T^DytJ* linen and woollen (Lev., Deut.); nnn ark (Gen., Ex.) ; "jljn tip (Ex., Lev.). The proper names which are contined to the Pentateuch afford similar testimoD)^ of a striking character. (2.) Words of Egyptian origin and association. Dr. Driver has expressed himself unwilling to receive all the words given by Canon Cook in the 8i)caher''s Commentary as of Egyptian origin. But he will not deny that some words in the Pentateuch are of this kind. We will do no more than present a few examples from those about which there is no room to doubt. inx Nile grass-beds, or papyrus beds, on the edges of the Nile. T)2i< the Egyptian word for hailing Joseph by heralds before his chariot. The Egyptian form according to Gesenius is aurek or aperek. nST pitch ; "iDH slime ; -ii{<^ river (Nile). i^'Oy bulrush, papyrus. Adar is only the name of tiie Egyptian month Athyr. DID horse, adopted by Hebrews in Egypt. D:3 plural Qij^ lice, identified with the mosquito. |E5>33 furnace. Two different words for Ark, that of the infant Moses and the Ark of the Covenant, are of Egyptian origin. Tlie nahliuiii or ten-stringed harp is in both languages. APPENDIX. 367 The Jewisli measures are called by Egyptian words, log, ephali, hill, and bath. Gomeh, the word describing the material of the ark in which Moses was placed. The word Or, used in mourning over the dead, was used in Egypt at the retiring of the sun in lamenting the death of Osiris. Moses, or Mesu, comes from a word meaning to draw out. Some other proper names of an Egyptian character have been already given. It is a very strong point against the critical hypothesis of a late date for the Pentateuch, that Egyptian words are found in it, since no post-Exilic writer could have intro- duced into his native language elements that could only have been brought into it by the slow developments of the national history. Dr. Driver's supposition, that one of the authors of the documents (E) fled to Egypt, is pure specula- tion, and would not account for the use of Egyptian words by other authors. Archaic words are to the student of history what fossils are to the geologist. They enable him to decipher many a chapter of ancient life, and they cannot be manufactured. (3.) There are many words in the Pentateuch which in later times acquired a different meaning, or which were displaced by other words. Some of these have been mentioned, but it may be useful to add a few more. Such modifications of the meaning of words are sure signs of the lapse of time. The word translated " to bruise " in Gen. iii. 15 is so archaic that doubt exists as to its real meaning. The following words are archaic in their use in the Penta- teuch : — p5< socket; jiDN mischief; D''IOD{< barns; p5< weight, afterwards D^S; D''3Dt< stool of midwife; n'^^j^ the name of a month (Abib), which was differently denoted afterwards; toyi to kick; y]}2 beast; rn'p2 scourging; n"ii the cud; ^y;I to abhor; K^n to tread out corn; "Tiat male; i)Ot (in a lewd 368 APPENDIX. sense) to prune, etc.; Don to muzzle, used in a different sense in Ezekiel ; nipO reservoir, the idea being expressed later by nDI^; nD3D number or value; ^'^pXii convocation, po after its kind; D3D tribute; {j^Vb to feel; n^O lending, creditor, the latter word being XWI ; pi'lO to wring the neck ; riK^D to draw out; n^DDD scarceness; fc^lj to disallow; n^^^D burdens ; ]yy^ to lend, later r\"h in Hiphil ; pjy to furnisli liberally; ms) rigour; DID to rend (clothes); t^^Q dung, later the same idea was expressed by various other words; tOlQ windfall fruit; 5)>ri3 fringe or riband. i'lJD abomination; "^v a shi]^, used by Daniel and perhaps elsewhere in quotation, the usual word being n"'J5< ; T\yi to swell ; T^v used of a flint knife ; {<''-|p renowned ; pp to radiate or shine, said of Moses' face in Ex. xxxiv., where, through a misunderstanding on the part of the Septuagint translators, the idea of "horned" arose, and the Vulgate expressed it " cornutam Moysi faciem" thus supi^lying Michael Angelo with his notion of horns, so absurdly embodied in his famous sculpture of Moses. In the same connection occurs niDD, used here only of Moses' veil, the earlier word for veil in Genesis being Pjij^Vj and a later word, meaning a woman's veil, nm. whT\ is used in the sense of "times"; yvi to bore ; pp"i and pi^ to spit ; DD^' to release, in quite a dift'erent sense in later times ; D''DtJ^ referring to the acacia of Egypt and Arabia, and only found in Exotlus and Deut. x. 3, except that r\]2]^ occurs in Isa. xli. 19. r\'^ to be unmindful (n3K^ is the ordinary word) ; DHK^ demons, for which idea Isaiah uses D'^^V ; pn a " tale " of bricks ; "^ijn tip ; c*nn used in reference to the tabernacle in Exodus and Numbers ; but in Ezek. xvi. 10, in descril)ing goodly apparel, its meaning being probably dugong, seal, or badger (Geikie's Hours with the Bible, ii. 292). APPENDIX. 369 (4.) Of words occurring in Genesis which afterwards changed their meaning, a few examples are given. The significance of these is that they indicate the probability of the generally accepted belief that Moses made use of previously existing documents in the composition of that part of his narrati^'e A\hich refers to pre-Mosaic times, jllX mummy case or coffin, afterwards meaning "ark"; niDT " likeness" in which man was made, its later mean- ing being the appearance or fashion of things ; f)^2 to confound, elsewhere in the Pentateuch, " to mix " ; ^1T to seethe or stew, elsewhere in Pentateuch, to be proud, \>'^'2, meaning to seethe ; pi thin, elsewhere, small ; riSv DD'' God shall enlarge Japheth (which name means "exten- sion"), the root nriD meaning to deceive or entice; in"* strive (Gen. vi. 3) : " My Spirit shall not always strive with man." The primitive meaning is " to rule," hence, to judge. DJn to embalm, elsewhere, to ripen; ^)y? to instruct, elsewhere, to whet or sharpen ; p^ to deliver, quoted in Hosea, but having a different meaning in Proverbs. D"'ip used of the compartments of the ark, elsewhere, of the nests of birds; 'T'V used of what is caught in hunting, elsewhere, of victuals; y^v Adam's rib, though probably not meaning " rib," elsewhere, meaning side or side- chamber; D^V image (of man), elsewhere, of idols, and in a bad sense, n:i'"^J< God Almighty (nti' occurs by itself in later books) ; inn emptiness (Gen. i. 2), found elsewhere only in Jer. iv. 23, where it is a literal quota- tion, and in Isa. xxxiv. 11, where the reference is clearly to the passage in Genesis. ^13Q the flood; -|3 used of a camel's pillion, meaning elsewhere, a lamb; m corn; ^^'''13 fat ; np cold ; D''DD of many colours ; nriD prison; "inS to interpret ; tO^ myrrh ; D"'DVt2D savoury meats ; "iDj gopher wood ; "123 pitch. 24 370 APPENDIX. (5.) We also tind old names for aiiiiuals in tlie Pentateuch, such as n£)Ji< heron; n331i< hare ; ipj^ wild goat; ns^an lapwing; jV^-'-n pygarg, bison; lOT chamois; n^iTI^ osprey; ij^n wild ox; DDnn night-hawk; DDtJ'jn swan. Similarly with plants, etc., as ntD3J< melon; T")!? hazel; to^ myrrh. In addition, there are many antique words of a technical character, especially in the description of the Tabernacle ; as, for example, the Hebrew for hook, loop, ring, beaten work, grate, mercy -seat (found once in Chronicles), sockets, etc. There are also words of a more or less technical kind which refer to ceremonies, such as wave -offering, the Hebrew for which is used by Isaiah in a different sense, bunch of hyssop, offering (pip), and frontlets. Other words describe the dress of the priests, such as breast- plate, mitre, fringe, girdle, and the like. (6.) Many words of archaic character occur which are found occasionally in one or two of the older books subsequent to the Pentateuch either as allusions or as reminiscences of the Mosaic language, such as n5< vapour (Gen. ii. 6 and Job xxxvi. 27); D"':3&^ potter's wheel, woman's chair (Ex. i. 16; Jer. xviii. 3); pt< socket (Penta- teuch, Canticles, and Job); -nj^ to be glorious (Ex. xv. 6, etc., and Isa. xlii. 21) ; ni5< to consent (Gen. xxxiv. and 2 Kings xii. 9); in&^ meadow, flag (Gen. xli. 2 and Job viii. 11) ; n2*'&< enmity (Gen. iii. 15; Num. xxxv., and Ezekiel); n^X kite (Lev. xi. 14 ; Deut. xiv. 13, and Job xxviii. 7). 2. Characteristics of P (Driver's Introd. p. 123). Dr. Driver instances fifty-five of these. Now, there are between six and seven hundred words which are confined to the Pentateuch, and to P by far the greater portion of the first four books is ascribed. Surely fifty-five is a very APPENDIX. 371 small proportion of these to occur in the long Priestly Code. You might take any portion of the Pentateuch at random, and find almost the same proportion. Moreover, P is accredited with just those topics that would require peculiar words, as this document is supposed to deal mainly with the legal and ceremonial. And yet only some fifty or sixty characteristic words are discovered in it. Can any argument be based upon so fragile a founda- tion? Dr. Driver certainly tells us that he avoids legal words, his object being to point out the differences between P and JE ; but he does not adhere to this with much strictness. There are references to covenants, possessions, sojourners, families, the congregation, between the two evenings, Jehovah's commandments, rulers, princes, tres- pass, judgements, and stoning, all of which have a legal aspect. Moreover, P is " formal and precise," and such words as have to do wdtli generations, enumerations, sub- scription, and superscription, all have a " formal and pre- cise " character. They are for this reason given to P, and they are of a sort likely to lead to the use of distinctive words. Many of the words. Dr. Driver admits, belong to priestly terminology. It is not worth while spending much time on these, for, of course, they are put down to P. But is it quite a f;iir way of reasoning to give P all that is priestly, and then to say that the words you have given are char- acteristic of P ? Can such " criticism " hope to survive ? Of this kind are the phrases "between the two evenings," Jjyo to trespass, and one or two others. A number of the - T words given are of such a nature that they could not occur before the Exodus. We should not expect to find the word Protestant before the age of the Eeformation. So with the j)hrases D"'DSt^' judgements, as used in Exodus ; 372 APPENDIX. nUS n''^ fatliL'is' houses = families, "hosts of the Israel- ites," " congregation of the Israelites," " between the two evenings," describing the time of sacrifice, "ruler or prince of the Israelites," " according to the mouth (com- mand) of Jehovah " (as speaking to Moses) ; rT'VnD as referring to the half shekel paid for ransom. Now, as the bulk of Exodus to Numbers is given to P, these expressions being appropriate to no other time than a post- Egyptian period, they, of course, are found in P. Some other words and phrases are used very rarely and for specific purposes, hence they do not touch the question of authorship, but rather that of fitness, p^ after its kind, V-i{>> swarmer, as describing one of the creative acts ; tholedofh or generations, " everlasting covenant," are used in the only places where such a covenant was in question. Sojourner, sojournings, and forms of suhscri'ption and superscriiytion. These would have been as appropriate to J E as to P under the circumstances, and their occur- rence in such connections proves absolutely nothing. There are very few left now to deal with of the list of fifty-five words. The use of Eloliim is supposed to char- acterise P, and yet the double form of the divine name occurs a score of times in that part of the story of creati(jn which is not ascribed to P. It is open, of course, to say that at the final operations on the Pentateuch either Jehovah or Elohim could have been altered to Jehovah- Elohim, but in this case how can either word be fairly taken as a " characteristic " of a document ? "-To be fruitful and multiply." Both these words occur separately often enough. Their combination in a few cases may be purely accidental. "For food," n^aS^J. The root ^DS i"^ very frequent. By looking down the Concordance lists of words which APPENDIX, 373 have inflections, it might be possible to find forms of many roots that are confined to so large a portion of the Penta- teuch as is ascribed to P. nJOOj construct of T\'^'0 a hundred. Such a precise expression would be sure to be accredited to the precise P. But P uses nSD twice in the same way that JE does. yij to expire. The meaning is to nod, waver, reel, as in drunkenness, sleep, or death. In a few cases it refers to death, and these happen to be mostly in P. But in Ex. xx. 18 it is E who uses it ; a passage not given by Dr. Driver. T5S rigour, an old word, whose root is obsolete. It is rare enough to be regarded as accidental in its use. But it is found also in Ezekiel. xhvP'i. skull, head. Used in enumerations, and therefore ascribed to P ; but it is also found elsewhere. Pjlj; to remain over. A very rare word, Init found in 374 APPENDIX. Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, and therefore hardly able to escape from P, to whom those books are mainly ascribed. S''C^'3 ruler or prince. Once used in JE (Ex. xxii. 27), and always after the Exodus, for such were not appointed before. pnntJ' deep rest. The root T\1^ is frequent enough. The Nun e^jentheticum is a common device in Hel)rew, in an intensive sense. It is post-Exodic, and, Ijeing very rare, it could hardly help falling to P. n^VriD half. The root means " to break " (Deut. xxxiii. 11). The kindred form nvno occurs several times. Occurring in the three P books, it is not strange that it should Ije a P word. "•JX 1st. pers. pronoun (I), is allied to the later Aramaic pronoun, wliereas t^jj^ is the earlier Phcenician and Egyptian form. As "iJi^ is the word chiefly used in the earlier pentateuchal books, and also in Ezekiel, it no doubt was altered at a late date ; one passage, however, escaping (Gen. xxiii. 4), Kirjath-Arha for Hebron. Used by JE in Josh. xiv. 15, where it explains the change of name. As it occurs only twice in the Pentateuch, it haj^pens to fall into the bulky portion of P. Macpelah. Only used four times, which happen to be in P. The critical canons would, of course, require that the account of a commercial transaction should be ascribed to P. Paddan-Aram. Only found in Genesis and, by accident, in P. But P uses also Paddan (Gen. xlviii. 7). Aram is a very common name both in JE and P. Paddan means simply a jDlain or upland, and refers generally to Meso- potamia (the mid-river plains). APPENDIX. 375 Aram-nahamim, " the plain of the rivers," occurs in J (Gen. xxiv. 10 and elsewhere), so that the variation has no real significance. Zin and Moah occur only in Numbers, and once each in Deuteronomy ; that is, just when the Israelites reached those places. Eleazar the priest is prominent in P. Naturally, because everything that concerns priests is put to the Priests' Code. But, as Dr. Driver admits, he is mentioned in JE, as is also Phinehas, his son. After this review, in making which no difficulty has been shirked, we confess to a feeling of bewilderment when we find Dr. Driver asserting that this list of words and phrases corroborates the theory of a plurality of authors. Most of the words are of such a nature that they could not be given to any other than P, according to the critical canons, and yet, notwithstanding this, they do occur in some instances in other sections than those ascribed to P. There are so many words peculiar to the Pentateuch, that we are amazed to find such a small number confined to P, to which is credited quite the half of Genesis and nearly the whole of Exodus, Numbers, and Leviticus, with a portion of Deuteronomy. Besides, is it not really akin to reasoning in a circle to decide that all ceremonial matters shall be attributed to P, and then that all peculiar words shall be taken as test-words or characteristics of P ? Of course, as Dr. Driver says, the occasional use of a word by another writer does not prevent its being considered a characteristic word. That is so in some cases, but the exceptions are numerous, and the bulk of the narrative is given to P. 376 APPENDIX. 3. Characteristics of H (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.) (Driver's Introduction, p. 45, etc.). The Priests' Code is stated to have been constructed from several underlying strata. Kuenen distinguishes these strata as P^ and P^, but Dr. Driver contents himself with referring to the final result as P, and denotes one of these strata by H. This consists of Lev. xvii.-xxvi., which Dr. Driver thinks lacks many of the most characteristic features of P, but shows peculiar and striking similarities to the Book of Ezekiel. These chapters were described by Klostermann as Das Heiligheitsgesetz, or the Law of Holi- ness. The section, as it now stands, is assumed to be of later age than Ezekiel, but resting on older traditions, and probably combined with P after the time of Ezekiel. The grounds of this theory are (1) that Lev. xvii.-xxvi. contains "an independent body of laws," having a "dis- tinctive character," which, however, are concerned with " subjects that have been dealt with before " {Introduction, p. 44) ; and (2) that there are many characteristic phrases in the section. Now, surely it is a contradiction to say that " an independent body of laws " of " distinctive char- acter " could treat upon subjects that have been dealt with before. But let that pass. The section seems to us to indicate merely that the Mosaic narrative Mvas constructed by tlie very natural process of recording the events as they occurred, and the laws as they were called for by continu- ally changing circumstances. It is true there are a few things dealt with which had been previously referred to, but a careful study of the section will reveal differences. In some cases, too, the Ijare commands are given in the earlier narrative, while in the later there are attached curses and promises. Some of tliese repetitions in Lev. APPENDIX. 377 xvii.-xxvi. were called for by actual transgressions of the laws at the later period. The sacrifices to he-goats or satyrs were probably of this nature, and it is very clear that the laws concerning blasphemy were, since the case of the blasphemer which led to the statement of these laws is described in Lev. xxiv. The mistake which the critics make is in regarding the Mosaic history as a formal statute-book, instead of what it professes to be, a con- secutive history of events. Of course a more or less systematic code can be constructed from the Pentateuch and labelled P, and a history can be arranged and denoted by JE ; but such a process sets at nought the evident aim of the author. Bearing in mind that Moses wrote in a book a description of the events narrated as they tran- spired, and instructions to the j)eople as they were evoked by circumstances, it is the most reasonable thing in the world that subjects should be referred to more than once in some instances. But on the lines of the critical hypotheses we should expect that this would not happen. The " formal and precise " P ought not to have incorpor- ated into his code things that he had already written. On the whole, then, the traditional belief is vastly more probal)le than the critical theory. In regard to the " characteristic phrases," we give it as our opinion, based on a complete examination of every instance, that there is very little warrant for the infer- ences which Dr. Driver has stated on p. 45. We do not wish to dispute his mastery of Hebrew, we believe merely that the domination of his theory over his own mind has led him to magnify the importance of trilies and to over- look distinctions which are olivious to those who read without a theory. There are some affinities with P, Dr. Driver says, in these chapters of Leviticus. Naturally, 378 APPENDIX. because almost the whole of Exodus to Numbers is ascribed to P. But ought there to be these affinities if Lev. xvii.-xxvi. has " a distinctive character " ? The affinities, Dr. Driver affirms, are most striking in relation to Ezekiel. Our reading of the section leads us to a different conclusion. The labour of turning up a multi- tude of passages in the Hebrew Bible is so great, that we scarcely expect our readers to do this for themselves. The drudgery of such examinations gives to the critics a great advantage, while they themselves are liable to be ensnared into copying long lists of references from their prede- cessors, without careful scrutiny and verification. We will run through the list given by Dr. Driver (pp. 45, 46), and state as briefly as possible our reasons for dissenting from his views : — 1. / am Jehovah, especially at the end of injunctions. The very form of the phrase implies injunction. Yet it occurs also many times in Exodus and Numbers. 2. /, Jehovah, am holy. A very similar expression occurs in xi. 44, 45, " For I am holy." See also Isa. xliii. 3. 3. That sanctify you, them, etc., S^lph- See also Ex. xx. 8, xxviii. 3, xxix. 36 ; Lev. viii. 12 ; Deut. v. 12. AVith plural. Lev. viii. 11 ; halloiv it, Lev. xvi. 19. "It" and "him" are the same in Hebrew. See also Ex. xix. 23 and (with plural) Ex. xix. 10. Other passages occur where the 1st person occurs instead of the 3rd. It occurs twice in Ezekiel. 4. i^tfc< {>>"»{^ whoever, often occurs elsewhere. C'''5< is common enough. May not the double form be accidental, or perhaps the repetition is merely in order to intensify the idea of indefiniteness, according to Hebrew usage. 5. / loill set my face against. Two difterent Hebrew words are translated "set" both of which are found in APPENDIX. 379 Ezekiel (xiv. 8 and xv. 7), and one of them in Jeremiah. Similar expressions, " Set God before me," " Set law before me," "Set my name, etc.," are of constant occur- rence, and are practically the same idiom. 6. / will cut off from the midst of his 'peoi^le. The divine " I," Dr. Driver says, is prominent. But is it not as prominent in Ex. xxiii. 23? See also xxx. 33 ; Lev. vii. 20 ; Num. ix. 13, xix. 20. A similar construction is found with "land" (1 Kings ix. 7), with "Jeroboam" (1 Kings xiv. 10), "Israel" (Ex. xii. 15), "congregation" (Isa. xii. 19), " Ahab" (1 Kings xxi. 21). " Cut off from the earth " is very frequent. Dr. Driver observes that " from " is 2'^\>'Q in Leviticus and "^iriD in Ezekiel. Here is a difference, then. But "^in also occurs in Leviticus. Dr. Driver only refers to five passages, but the idiom is met with in all the above, and in some other instances. 7. Walk in the statutes. Dr. Driver himself gives ex- amples enough of the occurrence of this phrase elsewhere to rob it of all significance for the purposes of his argu- ment. It occurs in 1 and 2 Kings, Jeremiah, as well as in Ezekiel. Equivalent phrases, to do, keep, observe, etc., are frequent. 8. My statutes and judgements. See Gen. xxvi. 5. Statutes and laws, statutes and commandments, and other equivalents, are frequent enough. Statutes and judge- ments are mentioned together in Deut. vii. 11, xi. 1, xxvi. 16, 17, xxx. 16 ; 1 Kings ii. 3, Ye shall observe my statutes and judgements in Deut. xi. 32, xii. 1 ; 2 Chron. vii. 17 ; and in other connections in Deut. iv. 1, v. 1, 5, 8 ; Ezra vii. 10 ; Neh. i. 7 ; 1 Kings vi. 12 ; 2 Chronicles, Psalms, etc. 9. To observe and do. Several times in Deuteronomy, also in 2 Kings xvii. 37 ; Josh. i. 7, and Ezek. xxxvii. 24. 38o APPENDIX. 10. Flesh ")j]}, with pronoun for "upon him," etc., the more common expression being with itJ'X"! on his liead. Ezekiel twice uses i3, but evidently with reference to Leviticus. 18. Bread of God. See Num. xxviii. 2. Un? is one of the commonest words in the Pentateuch. Combined with God, it occurs only in Lev. xxi. and xxii., but in many APPENDIX. 381 passages there is a reference to bread given l»y God. A similar idiom is common ; for example, bread of heaven, bread of tears, bread of deceit, bread of adversity, the bread of the offering. See Ex. xvi. 32 ; Num. xxviii. 2, 24, etc. • 19, 20. To hear sin, to hear iniquitif. We fail to see why these are added, for Dr. Driver himself gives many instances besides Leviticus and Ezekiel. We think we may fearlessly ask any candid person who will go over the above additions to Dr. Driver's references, whether they justify the distinguishing of Lev. xvii.- xx^i. from the rest of Leviticus or from the Pentateuch, and whether there is any ground whatever for this theory of H. The affinities with Ezekiel are hardly greater than with some other books. By an ingenious selection of references, these affinities assume fictitious proportions. Those who examine critical theories must not fear the labour of turning over their Hebrew Bible and Concord- ance, and from our own actual experience we can assure those who will do this that they need not fear the result. The danger of the times consists in accepting witliout inquiry statements that appear and reappear so often that they are credited with an authority and an accuracy which they do not deserve. 4 Characteristic Words and Phrases of Deuter- onomy (Driver, p. 91). But for the fact that the Song of Moses and the account of his death, on which we have sufficiently remarked, are ascribed to P, and about fifty verses to JE, Deuteronomy would be accepted as the production of one mind. But that one mind, say the critics, is not that of Moses, hence 382 APPENDIX. wii are under the neces.sity of inquiiiiig on wluit grounds the language of Deuteronomy is held to differ fi'om that of the previous portions of the Pentateuch. As to par- ticular words, Dr. Driver admits at once that there are very few confined to Deuteronomy. And this, too, not- withstanding the hundreds of words which are peculiar to the Pentateuch. In regard to phrases, it is highly credible and natural that Moses should, after so long an experience, and under conditions so changed and exciting, display a more fluent and ornate style. Out of the forty examples given by Dr. Driver (p. 91, etc.), ten of them, he states, were copied from JE. That is a high proportion, considering all the circumstances. With these, then, we need not concern ourselves. But it is easy to show that in the other three-quarters there is a striking similarity. Only nine of these examples are peculiar to Deuteronomy. And yet they can hardly be called distinctive, for the words which make up the phrases are, for the most jiart, common enough. Who would say that the Gospels of St. Luke and St. John and the Book of Daniel present the same features, because the phrase "find no fault in him" occurs in all? Or what sort of an argument should we consider it, if it were stated that " in the Spirit on the Lord's day " is a characteristic of the Apocalypse ? Yet these correspond exactly with the critical instances of characteristic phrases. They may not occur in other books, but their constituent words are frequently met with, and the expressions themselves are just what any writer might use under the same circum- stances. We will examine a few of Dr. Driver's exam])les : — " Thou shalt extinguish the evil from the midst " fTiyni? extinguish, is translated "burn" in our Bible, and the APPENDIX. 383 word occurs in that sense in Nuniljcis and Exodus and elsewhere. "ini to choose (the place, the king, etc.). See Gen. vi. 2, xiii. 11, Ex. xviii. 25, Num. xvii. 20, where, as in many- other passages, the usage is similar. That the Lord thy God may bless thee. A very similar phrase is of frequent occurrence. The stranger, the fatherless, and the widoiv. All these words are often met with. It is simply a problem in permutations. pm to cleave. Also in Gen. ii. 24, xix. 19, xxxi. 23, and elsewhere. And remember that thou ivast a bondman in the land of Egypt. Such a phrase would not have been possible in the early books. Thine eye shall not spare him. Also in Gen. xlv. 20, Isaiah, and Ezekiel. And it be sin in thee. In Num. xxvii. 3, "in his own sin." The Deuteronomic idea of sin was, of course, a later idea. The good land (of Canaan). See Ex. iii. 8, Num. xiv. 7, where the difference is very slight. Of. also Josh, xxiii. 16 ; 1 Chron. xxviii. 8. That it may be well with thee. Also in Gen. xii. 13, xl. 14. y^>T\ Inf. Ahs. = thoroughly. Very often in other x^laces. It is a question of translation. To do that which is right in the eyes of Jehovah. See Num. xxiii. 27 for the verb. The adjective i^"' is met with often enougli. The priests the Levites, i.e. the Levitical priests. We have elsewhere given the reasons for this expression, and shown it to be without significance. " Aaron the Levite " occurs in Ex. iv. 14. 384 APPENDIX. JFifh all thy heart and soul. This is quite a Deutero- nomic idea, but it only reveals the advance of re- ligion. To turn ("id) neither to the right hand, etc. Num. xx. 17 has nt3!3- Botli "1ID ^^nd nDJ occur very frequently in their various inflections, and may be often translated as Dr. Driver translates. nia of the redemiition from Egypt. But "to redeem" is frequent. See xxvii. 27 ; Num. xviii. 15. It often occurs in the other pentateuchal books, and throughout the later Scriptures. To make his name dwell there (pLv). No doubt Dib' would be the more usual expression; but may not a writer vary his vocabulary % A similar idea is conveyed by still another word in Gen. xlviii. 16. So also Ex. xx. 24, to record mij name there (lat)- It is of frequent occurrence elsewhere. Shall hear and fear. It is diflicult to know why this and several other phrases are included in the list. It is impossible not to find in any extract some collocation of words which do not recur exactly elsewhere. The land whither ye go over to possess it. Such an idea could not come up till Deuteronomic times. But similar idioms occur. Almost the same expression occurs in Gen. XV. 7, the very word nn^l!? being used as in Deuteronomy. Sometimes tnj< i"^ used, but the idea is the same. See also Gen. xxviii. 4 ; Num. xiii. 30. Dr. Driver supplies some other references, for there are plenty. Jehovah's ahomination. The j^hrase is peculiar, but the distinctive word is found in Gen. xliii. 32, xlvi. 34 ; Ex. viii. 22 ; Lev. xviii. 26, etc. The latter reference is given by Dr. Driver to suggest affinity between Deuteronomy and the H stratum of the Law of Holiness. But the word APPENDIX. 385 occurs too often for any inference of tliat kind to be legitimate. Nearly all the characteristic phrases given by Dr. Driver are here brought under inspection, except the ten which he himself gives up as copied from JE, and we do not claim too much, we think, in saying that the reasons for regarding them as in any sense "characteristic" are of a very shadowy nature. They are far from being sufficient to carry conviction to the minds of those who will under- take to study them in their Hebrew Bible. It is just here, however, that we suspect lies the strength of the critics, and the weakness of those who oppose them. The result of our survey of Dr. Driver's lists is to make us more than ever determined to take nothing for granted. It is so easy for those who seek for one kind of evidence to over- look another kind. A phrase built up of several familiar words may occur in any passage from any author which is not used elsewhere. This is all that Dr. Driver's list shows to be the case, and not often this much. If the phrase were repeated exactly, he would affirm that to indicate a plurality of authorship, so that this method of argument is bound to suit the critical theories one way or the other. 5. The Language and Style of Ezekiel (Driver, p. 278). To give full effect to the argument based upon the modifications which Hebrew underwent during the post- Mosaic ages, it would be necessary to institute a comparison between the vocabulary of the Pentateuch and that of several of the more typical books of later times. This, however, would take us far beyond reasonable limits, 25 386 APPENDIX. But some attempt of tlie kind may be made in relation to Ezekiel, for that is a book which has a distinctive character, and it is a fair representative of the state of the language at about the period of the Exile ; while it is not confused by a large admixture of Chaldee forms, as is the case with some other books. Moreover, it is suggested that the similarities between Ezekiel and the Pentateuch, and especially the Law of Holiness (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.) and Deuteronomy, are indicative of at least a contemporaneous origin. Indeed, it has even been aflBrmed that Ezekiel must have been the author of these chapters. Wellhausen, Kuenen, and Driver, however, do not adopt this view, though they hold that the two were written at about the same time, the laws of H (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.) having been previously in existence. Now, if H (and Deuteronomy) originated only a short time before Ezekiel wrote his book, we should look for a very close agreement between the styles of these three productions. But what do we find ? It is true, some of the words used of the tabernacle and its appurtenances, and of the priestly offices, occur in Ezekiel, for he was saturated with the Mosaic literature. But he often adoj^ts Mosaic words in a different sense, and even uses absolutely new words by which to denote the older ideas. Ezekiel commonly uses the title " Lord Jehovah," which never occurs in H. Dr. Driver himself points out that Ezekiel never uses rT'DV, and only once VDV, the words used by H and P for neighbour and people ; also that in Ezekiel we never find " I am Jehovah " alone, but that some clause is appended to it. Moreover, there are many great differences between Ezekiel and the other two. These differences, we believe, are so great as to preclude altogether the notion that they were composed at the same period. APPENDIX. 387 Ezekiel lias a style of liis own. There was the sadness of Jeremiah and the rapture of Isaiah, and yet he is a contrast to both. He was a student, and was saturated with the religious literature of his nation. He surpasses all the prophets in his full acquaintance with the Torah. He refers to the creation (xxxvi. 11) ; he often mentions Eden (xxviii. 13, xxxi. 8, xxxvi. 35); he borrows from Gen. X. in his enumeration of the nations (xxvii.), and the boundaries of Canaan are the same as in Num. xxxi v. (Ezek. xlvii.). He also makes frequent references to Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. Far from Jerusalem, on the banks of the Chebar, north of Babylon, he could not draw upon actual surroundings, but he delighted to call up visions of the temple and its services. What impresses one particularly is the scanty use which he makes of the exact words of the Pentateuch. From what we have just said, and considering the nature of the topics on which he wrote, we might have expected to find a long list of words which occur in the Mosaic writings ; and yet, speaking in general, there are no more than would be the case with any other of the major prophetioal books. A few of his expres- sions have, of course, a Chaldaic colouring, e.g. nV3 (and Job xl. 21), "int (and Dan. xii. 3), and some of his gram- matical turns puzzled even the Massoretes, those learned Jewish scholars who gave the Old Testament text its present form and vocalised it. Examples of these peculiar- ities are presented in xl. 15 jirii^'' from nnj^, for which the Massoretes substituted pn"'J< ; xliii. 11 "inh^V ; xlvi. 22 niy^'priD, and especially ni, perhaps for nt i^ih. He also abbreviates and drops prepositions. After a thorough search, we have only found the following scanty list of words peculiar to the Pentateuch and Ezekiel, and most of these are of that special meaning that hardly any 388 APPENDIX other word could be substituted for them, while their use would be very natural to one so familiar with the Penta- teuch as Ezekiel evidently was — i?n profane, common ; Dt^"^ to be desolate ; n^i? brick ; ntJ^lilO possession ; ntno vision ; D''D33D breeches ; DDiVD mitre ; ^J^^y earring ; |iD"iy chestnut tree ; \rs^ lock of hair ; nV^ fringes ; -|■'^^ sharp stone ; nip cassia ; j;vp to scrape off ; p"ip offering ; t5>-|p a board ; ntl lean. On the other hand, there are a great number of words peculiar to Ezekiel, besides many others which occur in Ezekiel and the later books, but are not met with in the Pentateuch. It is not necessary to compile imposing lists of these, as they can readily be ascertained by a mere glance at the books in question or by means of the Hebrew Concordance. Now, it is utterly inq^ossible to suppose that none of these words should occur in the Pentateuch if it had been written or even constructed from fragmentary records, either by Ezekiel or by any other prophet or scribe at about his time ; and they who adopt such a theory do so in spite of many strong considerations of an opposite tendency. After a careful examination of the text of Jeremiah and Ezra, we are driven to the same conclusion as we have arrived at in regard to Ezekiel. The vocabu- lary of Moses has its own peculiarities which mark off his books from the writings of all other Old Testament authors, and the peculiarities of the later writers are such as to distinguish their compositions from the Pentateuch. These peculiarities on both sides altogether preclude, in our opinion, the theory that the same author had to do with both, and make it highly imjDrobable that the Pentateuch was either put into its final shape or even materially altered at any period near the Captivity. INDEX. Aaron and calf, 243 ; death of, 337 ; rod of, 57. Abimelech, 229, 315. Abraham and the monuments, 229 ; purchase of sepulchre, 345. Accadian inscriptions, 84, 221, 224, 225, 248. Accommodation theory, 197. Altars, high, 63, 138, Amaziah, 129. Amos, 67, 129. Anachronisms, alleged, 156, 339, 340. Antiquity of man, 270. Apepi, 232, 236. Apis, sacred bull, 243. Apocrypha, 26, 358. Apollinarians, 196. Apophus, serpent of evil, 217. Apostles' testimony to Law of ^ Moses, 198. A priori argument, 74. Aramaic language, 113. Aran n ah, 64. Archaisms in Pentateuch, 110. Argyll, Duke of, on Genesis, 266. Ark of Temple, 65, 244. Asa, 128. Assur-bani-pal, 84, 221. Assyrian monuments, 207. Astruc's theory, 32, etc. Authorised Version of Bible, 115. Authorshiii, importance of ques- tion, 1, etc. Azariah, 128. Babel, Tower of, 229 ; and the Sabbath, 84. Babylonian characters, 21. Babylonians and Sabbath. 84. Bath Kol, 9. Baumgarten, 69. Bede, and chronology of Old Testament, 307. Beet, Professor, 120. Belzoni, 21. Berosus, mythical chronology, 271. Blaikie, Dr., on Higher Criti- cism, 2. Bleek, Dr., 32, 146. Boscawen, Mr. W., 218. Bricks without straw, 238. Brixham Cave, 300. Bronze Age, 287. Brugsch, Dr., 228, 288. Buhl, Professor, on Old Testa- ment Canon, 22. 390 INDEX. Bunsen, Baron, 248. Burning bush, 93, 189. Caleb, 333. Calf, golden, 243. Camp-life of Israelites, 99. Canaan ites, destruction of, 347. Canon, Hebrew, 9, 12. Cave, Principal, 70. Cave-dwellings, 276. Chalmers, Dr., on Mosaic days, 250. Champollion, 210, 273. Characteristics of the Penta- teuch, 76. Chedor-laomer and monuments, 229. Cherubim, origin of, 87. Cheyne, Canon, 70, 91, 129, 132, 364. Cliinese claims to antiquity, 272. Christ's references to Old Testa- ment, 51, 186-190. Christocentric theory, 363. Chronology of Scripture, 306. Cities of Plain and monuments, 231. Cities of refuge, 135. Civilisation of early man, 274. Colenso, Bishop, 35, 71, 146, 184, 218, 241. Commandments, the Ten, 123, 152, 326. Covenant, Book of, 34, 108; meaning of, 149. Creation, days of, 249 ; methods of, 263 ; story of, 246 ; style of narrative, 57 ; Tablets, 213. Crcsswell Cave, 300. Critical methods, 31 ; tested, 45. Critics, views of Higher, 42. Cuneiform inscriptions, 21, 207. Cutha Tablets, 216. Cuvier on Mosaic days, 250. Dan, alleged anachronism, 340. Daniel, 109. David, 11, 64, 128. Davison, Professor W. T., 6. Darwinian doctrines, 267. Dawkins, Professor Boyd, on early man, 282 ; cave ex- ploration, 296 ; descent of man, 268. Dawson, Sir J. W., on antiquity of man, 254, 268, 285, 309. Day, uses of the word, 249, 256. Delitzsch, Dr., 77, 81, 91, 147. Deluge and monuments, 218, etc. ; alleged discrepancies, 312. Demotic characters, 210. Descent of man, 267, etc. Dcuterononiist, 36, 39. Deuteronomy, critical theories, 146 ; characteristics of, 182 ; alleged discrepancies, 159 ; its own testimony, 176 ; language of, 152, 381. Discrepancies, alleged, 156, 311, etc. Driver, Dr., on authorship of Pentateuch, 76 ; Canon of Old Testament, 13 ; critical canons, 95 ; Creation narra- tive, 246 ; Deuteronomy, 146, 149, 151, 184 ; discrepancies, 156, 159, 161, 171, 312, 333, 338 ; distinction between Priests and Levites, 164 ; Hexateuch, 37 ; language of Deuteronomy, 53, 381 ; sacri- fices, 136 ; Song of Moses, 104 ; style, 58 ; tithing, 172. Dupuis and zodiacs, 273. INDEX. 39T Early man, 275. Edomite kings, 341. Egypt, claims to antiquity, 272. Egyptian idols, 243 ; customs, etc., 86, 96 ; monuments, 209, 227, 235 ; words in Penta- teuch, 79. Eichhorn, 35, 55. Elim, 92. Ellicott, Bishop, on Higher Criticism, 1, 2, 73, 147. Elmslie, Professor, on the Creation, 265. Elohist document, 33, 39, 45. Enoch, Book of, 28. Errors in Pentateuch, cause of, 353 ; intentional, 355 ; unin- tentional, 356. Esau's wives, 319, etc. Ethiopians, origin of, 314. Eusebius and chronology, 307. Evans, Dr., on Ancient Stone Implements, 283, 310. Evolution theory, 70, 264, 308. Ewald, 32, 35, 147. Exodus, authorship of, 38 ; alleged discrepancies, 322. Experts, defects of, 3. Ezekiel, 67, 68, 130 ; vision of, 166, 168 ; language of, 385. Ezra, 21, 69, 130. Fall of man, 213, 217. Famine, 234. Firstlings, 173, 175. Flint Jack, 290. Form of revelation, 7. Fourth Commandment and days of creation, 258. Fragmentary theory, 35. Garbett, 54, 355. Geden, Dr., 70. Geikie, Dr. J., on Glacial Age, 282, 284. Gemara, 23. Genesis, authorship of, 38 ; alleged discrepancies, 31 2, etc. ; language, 369. Geographical references in Pen- tateuch, 94. Geology and Genesis, 249. German rationalism, 4. Ginsburg, Dr., 24. Glacial Age, the, 282, 283. Gladden, Dr., on Apocrypha, 26 ; discrepancies, 315, 331, 337, 350, 358. God, names of, in Pentateuch, 46, 49. Goel, 86. Graf, 32. Grotefend, 207. Haeckel on descent of man, 267. Hagiographa, 9. Hales, chronology of, 307. Havernack, 69, 147. Hebrew Canon, 9 ; language, 53, 110, 154, 357, 36.5-385. He-goats, worship of, 88. Hengstenberg, 11, 69, 78. Hexateuch, 40, 156. Hezekiah's reforms, 11. Hilkiah, finding of Law, 32, 148. Hincks, Dr., 208. Hittites, 225. Hitzig, 65. Horton, Dr., error of, 335. Horns, 217. Hosea, ^1, 129. Hughes, Professor, on glacial beds, 284. Human element in Bible, 11. Human race, varieties of, 277. Hupfeld, 32. 392 INDEX. Huxley, Prof., on Deluge, 219 ; on days of creation, 258 ; on order of creation, 259. Hyksos, shepherd kings of Egypt, 230. Ice Age, 282. Indo-Europeans, origin of, 225. Ingleborough Cave, 296. Inspiration, 1. Interpolations, instances of, 360. Iron Age, 287. Isaac, offering up of, 349. Isaiah, 67, 129. Israelites in Egypt and monu- ments, 240. Izdubar Tablets, 216. Jabal, 277. Jacob, and Laban, 317 ; and staff", 357 ; at Jabbok, 318 ; deception, 347 ; vision at Bethel, 316. Jelioshaphat, 11, 128. Jehovist document, 32, 33, 39, 45. Jeremiah, 36, ^^, ^%, 129. Jeroboam, 11, 65. Jerome, 30. Jesus the son of Sirach, 16. Jethro, 53, 322. Joel, 67, 130. Joseph, banquet of, 96 ; and monuments, 233 ; selling of, 320. Josephus on Canon, 17. Joshua, testimony to Penta- teuch, 125, 134. Josialr 11, 65. Jubal, 276. Jubilee, 171. Judges, testimony to Penta- teuch, 128. Keil, 69, 77, 147 ; on language of Pentateuch, 111. Kenosis, the, 193. Kent's Cavern, 292. Kethubim, 9, 26. Kings, appointment of, in Israel, 102. Knoebel, 32. Ktenig, 112, 155, 365. Korah's rebellion, 336. Kuenen, 35, 57, 69, 146, 163. Language, growth of, 278 ; of Deuteronomy, 154, 381; of the Hebrews, 110 ; of Pentateuch, 53, 110, 154, 365; of Ezekiel, 385. Lassen, 207. Law of holiness, 108. Layard, 213. Leathes, Stanley, Professor, 6. Legge, Professor, on age of the Chinese, 272. Letters, change of, in Old Testa- ment, 21. Levites, 165, 167, etc. Levitical system, post -Mosaic theory, 61 ; ideal character of, 102. Lex talionis^ 86, 350. Lux Muncli, 2, 44, 222. Lyell, Sir C. , on Brixham Cave, 300. Maccabees, 16. Macpelah, cave of, 345. Magicians, 56, 240. Malachi, 131. Mammoth, 299. Man, fossils of, 278. Man, primeval, 275. Manasseh, 149. Manetho, 272. Massoretes, 29. INDEX. 393 Menephtah II. of Egypt, 237, 240, 242. Methods of modern criticism, 31, etc. Micah, 67, 129. Midrash, 128. Miller, Hugh, 249, 251. Milman, Dean, 87, 147. Mishna, 23. Moabite stone, 22. Moeris Lake, 230. Moffat, Dr., on dialects, 279. Moller, 35. Monmnents, testimony of, 203 ; Creation, 214 ; Fall of man, 217 ; Deluge, 218 ; Noah, 223 ; Hittites, 225 ; Abra- ham, 229 ; Exodus, 232. Morals of Pentateuch, 349. Mosaic authorship of Pentateuch, 76 ; testimony of later books, 125 ; testimony of our' Lord, 187. ^ Moses, death of, 156 ; at Sinai, 325 ; Christ's references to, 191 ; credentials of, 121 ; song of, 180 ; blessing of,181. Mugheir or Ur, 229. Miiller, Prof. Max, 225, 256, 272, 278-79. Murphy, Dr., on New Testa- ment references to Old Testa- ment, 200. Naville, E., 238. Nebiim, 9. Nehemiah, 69. Nehemiah's collection, 16. Neolithic Age, 281. Newman, F. W., 46. Niebuhr, 207. Nimrod, 224. Nineveh, monuments of, 84, 224. Noah's Ark, alleged discrep- ancies, 313. Noldeke, 47. Numbering of Egypt, 237. Numbers, alleged discrepancies, 332. Offerings for the dead, 97. Officers of Israelites, 101. Onkelos, 29. Origen, 30. Owen, Sir E.., on a^Jes and man, 268 ; on antiquity of man, 298. Paleolithic age, 281. Papyri, 209, 232, 288. Passover, the, 143. Patriarchal life, 85, 90. Paul, St., testimony to Law, 198. Peat-beds, growth of, 302-4. Pengelly, Mr., on Kent's Cavern, 292. Pentateuch, authorship of, 13 ; canonicity of, 13 ; general characters of, 76 ; language of, 53, 110, 154, 365. Pentaur, 228, 239. Perowne, Bishop, 147. Peter, St., testimony to Law of Moses, 198. Pharaoh and Joseph, 96 ; Pharaoh of oppression, 217 ; meaning of name, 232. Philo on Old Testament books, 22. Phylacteries, 24. Pillars condemned, 154. Pithom, 237. Plagues of Egypt, 56, 243. Playfair and zodiacs, 273. Poole, R. S., on the date of the Pentateuch, 204. 394 INDEX. Pope, Dr. W. B., 70. Post - Mosaic development of Levitical system, 61. Pre-Mosaic customs, 83. Priesthood, 43, 162, 170. Priestly Code, 39, 40, 370. Priests and Levites, 43, 162. Priests, duties of, 170; portion of sacrifices, 172. Primeval man, 275. Prophetical books, testimony of, 129, 152. Pusey, Dr., on German ration- alism, 4. Pye Smith, Dr., and Eden, 252. Pyramids, 276. Rachel's tomb, 361. Rameses i., 236, etc. Rameses ii., 228, 236-37, 240. Ramsay, Prof., on Glacial Man, 283. Rawlinson, Prof., 77, 140, 207. Rehol)oam, 128. Reuel, 322. Reuss, 146. Revelation, 7, 55. Riehm, 55. Ring, Egyptian, 96. River-gravels, 302. Roberts, Dr., on critical theo- ries, 69. Root-words peculiar to Penta- teuch, 114. Rosetta-stone, 209, 273. Sabbath, pre-Mosaic, 84. Sacrifices, 64, 136, 143. Samaritan Pcntatcucli, 18, 109, Samuel, 67, 68, 103, 339. Sanctuary, Central, 63, 105. Sanhedrim, 24. Sanscrit literature, 271. Sarai and monuments, 229. Sardanaj)alus, 84, 221. Sargon, 226, 227. Sayce, Prof., 69,. 208, 227, 230. Scapegoat, 87. Scarabffius, sacred beetle, 243. Schlegel, Dr. G., on Chinese astronomy, 272. Scientific criticism, 246 ; pre- historical arguments for an- tiquity of man, 281 ; his- torical arguments, 270 ; story of the Creation, 246. Septuagint, 25. Sermon on Mount, 109. Sesostris, 239. Seti I. of Egypt, 236, etc. Shaddai, 46, 50. Shecliem, 217, 237. Shepherd kings, 232. Shiloh, 11, 135. Shoterim, 101, 342. Siloah, inscription, 22. Sinaitic Code, 62 ; alleged dis- crepancies, 324. Skull, oldest human, 278. Slavery, boring ear, 87, 99. Slaves, release of, 171. Smith, George, 84, 213-15. Smith, Robertson, 32, 36, 37, 61, m, 69, 106, 139, 146, 163, 333, 339. Solomon's reforms, 11. Somme Valley, flints of, 304 ; pcat-growtli, 305. Song of Moses, 103. Spies, 333. Stalactite in caves, 296. Stalagmite, 296. Stalker, Dr., on Higlier Criti- cism, 2. Stephen, alleged errors of, 343, etc. ; and Jacob's household, 346 ; and tabernacle, 62. Stone Age, 281, 287. INDEX. 395 Stone implements, 286, etc. Strauss on the Pentateuch, 120. Stuart, Prof. Moses, 149. Style, argument from, 31, 52, 161. Supernatural, the, and Higher Criticism, 41. Synagogue, the Great, 23 ; wor- ship, 63, 64, 106. Tabeexacle, 43, 62, 137; al- leged discrepancies, 327. Tables of stone, 92. Tablets, Assyrian, 207 ; Creation, 213. Talbot, E. Fox, on monuments, 208, 214. Talmud, 23. Targums, 29. Taskmasters in Egypt, 101. Tel-el-Kebir, researches at, 238. Temple, 137, 166. Tent of Meeting, 328-31. Testimony of post-Mosaic books, 125 ; of our Lord and apostles, 187 ; of the monuments, 203. Thames Valley deposits, 283. Theocracy of Mosaic age, 103. Tholuck, 69. Tithes, 172, etc. Torah, 127 ; meaning of, 9, 10, 127 ; Mosaic origin of, 9, 123, 191. Traditional theory, 74 ; dj^riori argument, 74 ; claims of Pen- tateuch to Mosaic authorship, 119. Treasure cities, 237. Tree of knowledge, 218. Trinity, ancient reference to, 228. Tubal Cain, the first metal- lurgist, 276. Unity of human race, 225, 278. Ur of the Chaldees, 229. Usher, chronology of, 306. Yaeiations in Pentateuch, causes of, 353. A^arieties of human race, 277. Victoria Cave, 300. Vocabulary of Pentateuch, 111, 114, 365; of Genesis, 369; of H (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.), 376 ; of Priests' Code, 370 ; of Deuter- onomy, 381 ; of Ezekiel, 385. Vowels, of Hebrew, 357. Westcott, Dr., 27, 69, 190. White, Edward, 70. AVilliams, Monier, on Vedic hymns, 75. Words, Egyptian, 366 ; in Genesis, 369 ; P, 370 ; Deuter- onomy. 381 ; and Ezekiel, 385. Wright, Dr. W., on Hittites, 226. Young, Dr. T., and inscrip- tions, 210, 273. Zadok, sons of, 166, 168. Zelophehad, daughters of, 134. Zodiacs, ancient, 273-74. MORRIrtON AND GIBE, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH. " The editor of this series of Handbooks is to be heartily congratulated. He has chosen his subjects well, and he has chosen the right men for them." — The Expository Times. BOOKS FOP BIBLE SJUDENTS. Editor: Reu.ARTHURJ. GREGORY. THE SWEET SINGER OF ISRAEL Selected Psalms, illustrative of David's Character and History, with Metrical Paraphrases. By Benjamin Gregory, D.D. 2s. 6d. " It contains some excellent specimens of the best kind of devotional commenting. Of parade of scholarship there is none ; of its patience and accuracy, evidences are to be found on almost every page. The charm of the paraphrases increases as the reader recognises more clearly each time of reading their high quality as jjoetry, and their adequacy as an exhibition of David's actual thoughts. But it is in the devotional com- menting that the excellence of the book especially lies. Illuslrations from a wide range of literature and from an intimate acquaintance with human nature play about the passages, bringing out the truthfulness to life of their teaching, and its serviceableness to the soul. It is a choice book, fresh, rich, vigorous, ' honey out of the rock' served up with ' the fat of the wheat ' ; and its venerable author could hardly better crown his great services to the Chiu-ches than by giving them more." — Professor Moss in The Preacher s Magazine. THE PRAISES OF ISRAEL: An Introduction to the Study of the Psalms. By W. T. Davison, M.A., D.D. Third Thousand. 2s. 6d. Dr. Marcus Dods writes : "As nearly perfect as a manual can be. It is the work of a reverent and open-minded scholar, who has spared no pains to compress into this small volume the best information and the most trustworthy results arrived at by himself and other experts." " It gives all that is most required and most apposite in an Introduction to the Study of the Psalms. It gives this in admirable form ; everywhere it furnishes the results of the best scholarship without the parade of learning." — Critical Preview. THE WISDOM LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By W. T. Davison, M.A., D.D, Second Thousand. 2s. 6d. "Dr. Davison has followed up his attractive volume in The Praises of Israel by another equally attractive. These are amongst the best con- tributions to the series." — Critical Review. " It will take its place among those modern ' Helps ' to the interpretation of Scripture which place the English reader almost on a level with those who can read the Bible in its original languages." — Methodist Times. FROM MALACHI TO MATTHEW: Outlines of the History of Judea from 440 to 4 B.C. By Professor R. Waddy Moss. Second Thousand. 2s. 6d. " Ml-. Moss's book is worthy of the series. His style is straightforward and graphic. He can tell a story rapidly and forcibly. There is vigour and there is vitality throughout. It is to be hoped that these manuals will be largely used." — The British Weekly. BOOKS FOR BIBLE STUPE NTS-CoA7^/>7^e^. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF HEBREW. By J. T. L. Maggs, B.A., Prizemau in Hebrew and New Testament Greek, London University. Small crown 8vo, 5s. Eev. W. F. MouLTON, D.D., says: "I do not know any book within the same compass which approaches this in usefulness for the beginner. The Readiug Lessons, fully annotated and supplied with references to the sections of the grammar, will prove of great service. I heartily con- gratulate the editor of the series on securing the aid of so able and scholarly a writer." Canon Dkiver says: " Would prove to be well adapted for the class of students whose needs it is designed to meet." IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE: Ths Churches and the Doctrine. By R. A. Watson, M.A., D.D. 2s. 6d. " Well fitted to be used as a text-book. . . . Every reader will be thankful for so vigorous, fresh, and candid a treatment of the most important period of the life of Church and doctrine." — The Ex2)ositor. " Certainly one of the ablest books in the series. Dr. Watson is a powerful and coui'ageous thinker, furnished with competent scholarship and knowledge. The book addresses itself to the Bible student, and directs his attention to mattei's that recpiire to be noted at the outset of his studies in Church History. Its method is as instructive as its sub- stance." — Wesley an Methodist Magazine. THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN: An Exposition, with Short Notes. By Thos. F. Lockyer, B.A. Second Thoumml. 2s. 6d. "A terse, fresh, and tlioughtful exposition of the Gospel of John. Every preacher will find useful hints in it, and the price is amazingly low — over three hundred pages for half-a- crown. It deserves to have a wide circulation." — The British Weekly. THE EPISTLES OF PAUL THE APOSTLE: A Sketch of their Origin and Contents. By Geouge G. Findlay, B.A. Fourth Thousand. 2s. 6d. " The reader will find here compressed into a small space what ho must otherwise seek through many volumes. . . . Mr. Findlay has before now proved himself an able and accomplished expositor of St. Paul, and this little work will fully maintain his character." — TJie Scotsman. THE THEOLOGICAL STUDENT: A Handbook of Element- ary Theology. By J. Robinson Gregoiiy. Fourth Tliousand. 2s. 6d. An ExjAanatory Lidex of Theolof,dcal Terms and a very full list of Questions for Self-Examination add greatly to the practical value of the book. " Mr. Gregory is ... a born and trained theologian. Some departments he has made well-nigh his own — especially the doctrine of the Last Things. And better than that, he can write for beginners." — The Expository Times. jONDON: CHARLES H. KELLY, 2, CASTLE STREET, CITY ROAD, E.C. AND 66, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C. 1 DATE DUE m ^m, CAYLORO PRINTCOINU.S A. i»^^^pss