APR 1 1 mi 
 
 IS THE PENTATEUCH HISTORICALLY TRUE ? M 
 
 l^ 
 
 A HAND-BOOK 
 
 SECOND PART 
 
 DR. COLENSO'S WORK 
 
 ON 
 
 AND OTHER BOOKS OF THE OID TESTAMENT ; 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 A CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE BISHOP'S ARGUMENTS, 
 
 SUMMARISED UNDER THE VARIOUS CHAPTERS 
 
 OF HIS BOOK; 
 
 WITH A FEW REMARKS ON THE WHOLE. 
 
 BY JOHN B. "Marsh, 
 
 MANCHESTER, 
 
 (ViMANCHESTER : JOHN HEYWOOD, 143, DEANSGATE;^ 
 
 ij^ LONnOX : SIMPKIN, MARSHAIX, AND CO. 
 
 S 18 6 3. 
 
 mm^^ 
 
 :^5^ 
 
 ^^m 
 
1" 
 
 a^t 
 
IS TIE PENTATEUCH HISTOEICALLY TEUE? 
 
 A HAND-BOOK APR 1 2/ 
 
 TO THE ^^OCmi CpA>^ 
 
 SECOND PAET 
 
 OF 
 
 DE. COLENSO'S WOEK 
 
 ON 
 
 AND OTHER BOOKS OF THE DID TESTAMENT ; 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 A CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE BISHOP'S ARGUMENTS, 
 
 SUMMARISED UNDER THE VARIOUS CmVPTERS 
 
 OF HIS BOOK; 
 
 WITH A FEW REMARKS ON THE WHOLE. 
 
 BY JOHN B. MARSH, 
 
 MANCHESTER. 
 
 MANCHESTER: JOHN HEYWOOD, 143, DEANSGATE 
 
 LONCOir ; fclJIPKIN, MARSHALL, A>"D CO. 
 1863. 
 
INTEODUCTION. 
 
 After having read the 2nd part of Dr. Colenso's book, in which he 
 carries on his critical examination of the Pentateuch and other books of 
 the Okl Testament, we are more firmly convinced than before of the 
 mistake committed by the learned author in the publication of part 1, 
 Every reader of the Bible must be interested in the questions that Dr. 
 Colenso discusses, in the new book now before us ; and the manner in 
 which they are set forth entitle the author to the warmest praise from all 
 lovers of the Bible. In the whole range of Biblical studies we know of 
 none more important than the question of authorship ; at the same time 
 there is not one in which the student is more likely to err. Here are a 
 number of books that have been transmitted through many generations, 
 that have been copied again and again, that contain the most undoubted 
 evidence of their divine origin, and we want to distinguish the writings 
 of the several authors of the books. Some have written whole books, it 
 may be ; some portions only, others a fragment. Such a task is one that 
 is worthy of the highest talent, and can only be engaged in by men of 
 the most unquestionable learning. The task is one that somewhat 
 resembles the labours of those who have endeavoured to assign the various 
 portions of5;he " Anglo-Saxon chronicles" to their several authors ; one 
 of so much difficulty that the editor of the original texts, published under 
 theauthorityof Government, says in his preface, "conjecture, therefore, and 
 that founded on probability, is all we can have recourse to, iu an attempt 
 to account for the phenomenon." Whatever results may be attained, it 
 is evident they can only be pronounced doubtful, and surely this must be 
 tlie case, more eminently with regard to the results of a consideration of 
 " the age and authorship of the Pentateuch." 
 
 With these few remarks, we shall at once proceed to give a careful 
 analysis of the whole of the points considered in Dr. Colenso's book; we 
 believe that not one single point will be found to* have been omitted ; 
 and content ourself with a few remarks at the close. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 " SIGNS OF DIFFERENT AUTHORS IN THE PENTATEUCH." 
 
 Of the Creation (205)* there are two stories which differ materially. 
 These are in Gen. i. 1. — ii., 3. ; and Gen. ii., 4 — 25. " In the first, 
 man and woman are created together, as the closing and completing work 
 of the whole creation;" but in the second "the beasts and birds are 
 created bettveen the man and the woman." (206.) The first of these he 
 attributes to the Elohistic ; the second to the Jehovistic writer. (208.) 
 Again, in the account of the Deluge there are two stories. In Gen. vi., 
 19, 20 (the Elohistic story), we are told that two " of every living thing 
 of all flesh" entered the ark ; and in Gen. vii., 2, 3 (the Jehovistic ac- 
 count), we are told that seven of every clean beast, and two of every 
 unclean were preserved in the ark. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 " THE ELOHISTIC AND JEHOVISTIC WRITERS." 
 
 The Bishop here explains the several characteristics of the two writers. 
 Elohim has been translated in our version " God;" Jehovah, " Lord." 
 He says (211) " The Elohistic passages, taken together, form a tolerably 
 connected whole," and they " do not generally assume the reader's ac- 
 quaintance with facts, which are mentioned only in antecedent Jehovistic 
 passages." " On the other hand, the Jehovistic passages, taken by 
 themselves, are mere disjointed fragments, and require the Elohistic story 
 to connect them with each other." (212.) " This implies at once that the 
 Elohist was the oldest of the two writers." (213.) The " Elohist uses 
 the expression El Shaddai, Almighty God, in Gen. xvii., 4 ; xxviii., 3 ; 
 XXXV. 11 ; xLiii,, 14; xlviii., 3; xlix., 25 ; which the Jehovist never 
 employs. Again, the Elohist uses Israel as a personal namcj-of Jacob, 
 Gen. XXXV., 21, 22; xxxvii., 3, 13; xliii., 6, 8, 11 ; xlv., 28; xlvl, 1, 
 2, 29, 30 ; xlvii., 29, 31 ; xlviii. 2, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21 ; xlix. 2 ; L. 2, 
 the Jehovist never. Also the Elohist uses always Padan or Padan- 
 Aram, i. «., the ' cultivated field of the highlands,' for the mountainous 
 district near the sources of the Euphrates and Tigris, Gen. xxv. 20 ; 
 xxviii., 2, 5,6, 7; xxxi., 18; xxxiii., 18; xxxv., 9, 26; xlvi., 15; 
 xlviii., 7 ; whereas the Jehovist uses Aram- Nahar aim, i.e., the * high- 
 lands of the two rivers,' Gen. xxiv., 10 (E. V. Mesopotamia), which 
 namo appears also again in Deut. xxiii., 4 ; Ju. iii. 8 ; 1 Ch. xix., 6 ; 
 Ps. Ix., (title.)" 
 
 These numbers refer to the sections of Dr. Colenso's book. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 " THE EARLIEST HISTORICAL BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT." 
 
 (225;. He says it should first be noticed " that the books of the Penta- 
 teuch are never inscribed to Moses in the inscriptions of Hebrew manu- 
 scripts, or in printed copies of the Hebrew Bible"; the Jews " designate 
 each book by the first word which occurs in it in Hebrew, except that for 
 Numbers they employ *in the wilderness.' " (226). As regards the ori- 
 gin of the Pentateuch the Bishop quotes the apocryphal story in 2 Esdr : 
 XIV., where it is said that Ezra with five men " wrote the wonderful visions 
 of the night that were told, which they knew not; and they sat forty days, 
 and they wrote in the day, and at night they ate bread," and during that 
 time they wrote the five books of Moses. He says Jerome " has no diffi- 
 culty in admitting the possibility of the truth" of the story. 
 
 (227). He says " it is probable that the Pentateuch existed originally 
 not as /ye books, but as o?ie" ; and the division may have been made when 
 the " Sacred Books were collected and set in order by Ezra, about B.C. 
 450." (228). The Psalms to the cvi : 48, existed " before the time of 
 the composition of the Book of Chronicles." (229, 230). The books of 
 Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings, were written between B.C. 560, and 
 B.C. 536. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE LATER HISTORICAL BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 (234). " The Books of Chronicles are probably due ;" the Bishop thinks 
 " to the same hand which wrote the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah ;" and 
 the writer from the partiality he shows to " the Levitical singers of the 
 time of David," was a Levite chorister,|who lived about B.C. 400. (237). 
 The Book of Ezra was written about B.C. 456 ; Nehemiah B.C. 409 or: 
 B.C. 332 ; and Esther B.C. 486 or B.C. 465. 
 
 CHAPTERS V. AND VI. 
 
 " SIGNS OF LATER DATE IN THE PENTATEUCH." 
 
 (239). " In Ex. xxx. 13, xxxviii. 24, 25, 26," mention is made "of a 
 shekel after the shekel of the'sanctuary," before there was, according to the 
 story, any sanctuary in existence. " This," he says, " is clearly an over- 
 sight, as is also the command to sacrifice ' turtle-doves or young pigeons' 
 in Lev. xiv. 22, with express reference to their Ufe in the wilderness." 
 (240). In Ex. X. 19, we have in our translations " west-wind," which 
 in the Hebrew means " wind of the sea," which the Bishop says, " could not 
 have been familiarly used in this way, till some time after the people were 
 settled in the land of Canaan." He contends that " neither Moses, nor 
 
6 
 
 one"of his age, could have invented this form of expression," and " still less 
 could he have used the phrase ' wind of the sea' to express a v:esterly 
 wind, with reference to an event occurring in the land of Egypt.'' " Tlie 
 same expression occurs in many other places of the Pentateuch, as Gen. 
 XII. 8, XIII. 14, XXVIII. 14, Ex. xxvi. 22, 27, xxvri. 12, xxxvi. 27, 32, 
 Num. II. 18, HI. 23, xi. 31, xxxiv. G, xxxv. 5, Deu. i. 7, iii. 27, xxxiii. 
 23." (242). In Deu. xi. 29, 30, the mountains of Gerizim, and Ebal in 
 Canaan, are mentioned, whereas Moses was not permitted to enter Canaan, 
 and he infers that Moses could not know anything about them. In the 
 same passage " Gilgal, beside the plains of Moreh," is mentioned, and, 
 according to Josh. v. 9, Gilgal was not known at the time of Moses. 
 (243). In Gen. xiv. 14, andm Dent, xxxiv, 1 Dan. is mentioned whereas by 
 Josh. XIX. 47, and in Jud. xviii. 29, the name was not given to it during 
 the lifetime of Moses. But in Jud. xviii, 1, it was said that the event 
 which gave rise to the naming of the place occurred when " there was no 
 king in Israel," so he concliides it must "have occurred, not only after the 
 death of Moses, but after the death of Joshua. Hence the book of Joshua, 
 of which the chapter xix * * is an integral portion, could not have been 
 written by Joshua." (245). In Gen. xxxvi. 31, reference is made to 
 " Kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king- 
 over the children of Israel ;" and he argues that this implies " that one 
 king, at least, had reigned, or was reigning, over ' the children of Israel,' 
 — that is, apparently, not over one of the separate kingdoms of Judah or 
 Israel but over the united people, — at the time when it was written. In 
 other words, it could not have been written before the time of Samuel." 
 (248). In 1 Sam. ix. 9, he calls attention to the declaration that previous 
 to the time the verse was written a Prophet was called a Seer ; and 
 argues " from this it follows that those portions of these books, 
 which contain" the word Prophet, " Gen. xx. 7, Exod. vii. 1 ; 
 XV., 20; Num. xi., 29, xii., G ; Deut. xiii., 1, 3, 5, xviii., 15, 18, 20, 22, 
 XXXIV., 10 ; Jud. iv.j 4, vi., 8, can hardly have been written before the 
 days of Samuel." (249.) Josh, x., 13, records that the sun and moon 
 were arrested in their courses by Joshua, and that the record was in the 
 book of Jasher. Upon this he says " it is inconceivable that, if Joshua 
 really wrote this book, he should have referred for the details of such an 
 extraordinary miracle, in which he himself was primarily and personally 
 concerned, to another book, as the the book of Jasher." (250.) Num. 
 XXI., 13, 15, he says *' could not have been written by Moses or by one 
 of his contemporaries. A writer of that age would not have stated in this 
 way a fact, ' Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the 
 Amorites,' which must have been notorious to those for whom he was 
 writing." (251.) In Gen. xxxix, 14, 17 ; Gen. xl., 15 ; and Gen. xli., 
 12, " the word * Hebrew' is used in a familiar way, as if it were a well- 
 known appellation of a whole iKople, — well known even in Egypt ;" but 
 he concludes " that here also expressions, which were current in a later age, 
 have been allowed inadvertently to slip into the narratiye." (252.) In 
 
Dent. I., ir, in., "transactions, in wliich Moses himself was concerned, 
 arc detailed at full length, as by one referring to events long past, \Ylicn, 
 according to the story, only a very short time could by any possibility 
 have elapsed since they took place, and, therefore, all the circumstances 
 must have been quite fresh in the memory of those, to whom Moses is 
 supposed to be speaking." (253.) He says, (" Ex, x., 19, where the 
 word 'sea' is used for 'west,') must have been composed long after the 
 times of Moses and Joshua." (254.) The Bishop states that "in one or 
 two places of Deut. xxxi., 30 ; xxxiii, 1, xxxiv, the expressions imply 
 that a later writer is professedly setting forth the words or acts of Moses." 
 (257.) The Bishop considers another proof " the frequent occurrence of the 
 expression 'unto this day,' in places where it could have had no meaning, 
 unless the ' day' referred to was considerably later than the time of 
 Moses or Joshua;" and cites amongst others the following: — Deut. in., 
 14 ; Deut xxxiv., G ; Josh, iv., 9 ; Josh. v. 9 ; Josh, vn., 2G ; Josh. 
 Yiii., 28, 29; Josh, x., 27; Josh, ix., 27. (258.) The Bishop moreover 
 considers that such expressions as "The Canaanite was then in the land," 
 Gen. XII., 6 ; " dwelt then in the land," Gen. xiii., 7, * *, "obviously 
 imply that, at the time when they were written, the Canaanite was no 
 longer dwelling in the land as its owner and lord." (259.) The Bishop 
 holds that the expressions " beyond Jordan," Gen. l., 11 ; " on the other 
 side Jordan," Deut. i., 1 ; and "on the other side Jordan," Deut. i., 5; 
 " would imply a writer who lived in the land of Canaan." (261.) In Ex. 
 XVI., 35, it is recorded that the children of Israel did eat manna, "until 
 they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan ;" this the Bishop says 
 could not have been written "until the Israelites were ivithin the Canaanite 
 boundary." (263.) The expression in Levit. xviii., 28, " as it spued 
 out the nations which were before you," implies, the Bishop holds, " that 
 the Canaanites were already exterminated, when these words were written." 
 (264.) The record in Num. xv., 32, of the finding of the man " while the 
 children of Israel were in the wilderness," gathering sticks on the 
 Sabbath-day, the Bishop believes " according to its natural interpretation, 
 would seem to have been written when the people were no longer in the 
 wilderness, that is, it could not have been written by Moses." (265.) 
 In Deut. II., 12, we read "The Horims also dwelt in Scir beforetime; but 
 the children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed them 
 from before them, and dwelt in their stead, as Israel did unto the land 
 of his possession, which the Lord gave unto them." The Bishop says 
 " In the time of Moses, Israel had not done this unto the land of Canaan." 
 (267.) In Deut. iii., 9, we read, " Which Hermon the Sidonians call 
 Sirion, and the Amorites call it Shcnir." The Bishop remarks " In 
 David's time, and afterwards, the Sidonians were well-known to the 
 people of Israel. But what could they have known of them in the days 
 of Moses, that such a note as this should have been inserted in the middle 
 of a speech of the great lawgiver ?" (268.) We read in Deut. in., 11 ; 
 " For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants ; 
 
8 
 
 behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron : is it not in Rabbath of the 
 children of Ammon ? nine cubits [16^ ft.] was the length thereof, and 
 four cubits [74ft.] the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man." Upon 
 this the Bishop remarks "a very short time, according to the story, could 
 liavc elapsed since the conquest of Og. How, then, could his bedstead 
 have been removed in that interval to Rabbath- Ammon ?" (271, 272, 
 273.) Here the Bishop remarks " names of places are often used fami- 
 liarly, which could scarcely have been known to Moses, much less to the 
 Israelites generally, at the time of the Exodus, some of which, indeed, 
 are modern names, which, according to the story itself, did not even exist 
 in the time of Moses ;" and in support of this he instances the expression 
 " Mamre, which is in Hebron," Gen. xiii., 18, while in Josh. xiv. 15, 
 XV. 13, " we are informed that the name of this city till its conquest by 
 Caleb, in the days of Joshua, was Kirjath-Arba." Again, " the familiar 
 use of the name Bethel" in Gen. xii., 8, xiii., 3, which was not given to 
 the place till Jacob's day Gen. xxviii., 19, and which could hardly ever, if 
 at all, have been in the mouth of Moses and the people of his time, — 
 betrays the later hand of one, who wrote when the place was spoken of 
 naturally by this name, as a well-known town." Again, in Gen. xiii. 10, 
 it is written : " And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of 
 Jordan, that it ivas well watered every where, before the Lord destroyed 
 Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the Lord, like the land of 
 Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar." And the Bishop asks what could the 
 children of Israel have known of the nature of the countiy in the land of 
 Canaan, " or w'hat could Moses himself have known of it?" Again, he 
 says, in the following places, " the modern name of a town or place is 
 given, as well as the ancient one," viz. : — Gen. xxiii., 2; Gen. xxxv. 19., 
 27 ; Gen. xiv., 2, 3, 7, 17. (275.) The verse in Ex. xvi., 36, " Now an 
 omer is a tenth part of an ephah," the Bishop argues " plainly imply that, 
 at the time when they were written, the ' omer' had gone out of use, and 
 was not likely to be known to the ordinary reader." (276.) The Bishop 
 further adds, " so, too, in Deuteronomy, there are little pieces of infor- 
 mation given, about the ancient history of the land of Canaan, which we 
 cannot conceive to have been spoken or written down by Moses, but must 
 ascribe to the pen of a later archaeologist ;" and instances Dent, i., 2 ; 
 Deut. 11., 9—12 ; Deut. ii., 19—23. (279, 280, 281.) In these sections 
 the Bishop says, " It is generally admitted that Deut. xxxiv. * * "must 
 have been written by a later hand" than that of Moses, as also Deut. 
 xxxiii. ; Exod. xi., 3 ; Numb. xii. 3 ; Exod. vi., 26, 27 ; Num. xv. 22, 23^ 
 
 CHAPTER VIL 
 
 "WAS SAMUEL THE ELOHISTIC WRITER OF THE PENTATEUCH?'^ 
 
 (282). The Bishop says he has now brought about " a corroboration of 
 the result, to which we had already arrived on quite other grounds, viz., 
 
9 
 
 that the greater portion of the Pentateuch, at all events, — if not, indeed, 
 the ivhole of it * * *, must have been written at a time later than the age of 
 Moses or Joshua." (283). " But, if so, there is no one mentioned in the 
 whole history before the time of Samuel, who could be supposed to have 
 written any part of it." That Samuel occupied himself in historical 
 labours, the Bishop says is plainly shown in 1 Chron. xxix., 29. (284). 
 It is possible, the Bishop thinks, that the " ' Book of Samuel' may be the 
 1 Sam. I., 1 — XXV., 1 ; and the ' Book of Nathan' may be the middle 
 part of the narrative, 2 Sam. vii., together with the sections before and 
 after, i. e., 1 Sam. xxv., 2 ; 2 Sam. xxiii., and the ' Book of Gad' may 
 be 2 Sara. xxiv. This supposition is very plausible, and certainly not 
 to be hastily rejected." The acts of David, however, " are carried on in 
 1 Kings I., II. ;" which has to be considered also " as a part of the 
 " Book of Nathan.' " (285) The historical labours of Samuel are con- 
 firmed by 1 Sam. x., 25. where it is related "that on the election of 
 Saul to the royal dignity, ' Samuel told the people the manner of the 
 kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before Jehovah.' " 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 "INTRODUCTION OF THE NAME JEHOVAH." 
 
 C294). The Bishop here introduces Ex. vi., 2 — 8, where it is related 
 that God while talking with Moses, shortly before the Exodus says, " and 
 I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of 
 God Almighty (El Shaddai) ; but by name Jehovah, was I not known to 
 them." (296). The Bishop remarks that we come upon the contradic- 
 tory fact that this name Jehovah " is put into the mouth of the patriarchs 
 themselves, as Abraham, xiv., 22; Isaac, xxvi., 22 ; Jacob, xxviii., 16." 
 (297). The Bishop goes on to say that it was apparently known" to Eve, 
 IV., 1, and Lamech, v., 29, before the Flood, and to Noah, after it, ix., 26 ; 
 to Sarai, xvi., 2 ; Rebekah, xxvii., 7 ; Leah, xxix., 35 ; Rachel, xxx., 24; 
 to Laban also, xxiv., 31 ; and Bethuel, xxiv., 50 ; and Abraham's servant, 
 XXIV., 27, — even to heathens, as Abimelech, the Philistine king of Gerar, 
 his friend, and his chief captain, xxvi., 28 ;" and "we are told that as 
 early as the time of Enos, the son of Seth, * then began men to call upon 
 the name of Jehovah,' iv., 26. (299). Again in Gen. xv., 6, 7, Gen. 
 XXVIII., 13, 21, and Gen. xxxii., 9, the name Jehovah is introduced. 
 (300). The whole of these contradictions the Bishop says are explained 
 when we know that " wherever the name, Jehovah, is put into the mouth 
 of any person throughout this book, the writer is the Jehovist. The 
 Elohist, as has been said, never uses it at all, even when narrating facts 
 of history in his own person : much less does he allow it to be uttered by 
 any one of the personages whose story he is telling." (301). The Bishop 
 calls attention to the fact that in the Elohistic portions of Genesis there 
 are many names compounded with the name Elohim, as Israel, Jemuel, 
 
10 
 
 Jahleel, &c., but not one componndetl with Jehovah. The same fact is 
 also true of Numbers, and -Joshnri. {'M}7>). The Bishop calls attention to 
 the fact that only two names, Joshua, and Jocheled, which are compounded 
 of Jehovah, occur throughout tlie whole of the Pentateuch and Book of 
 Joshua, and with respect to Jochehed he expresses his belief that it was 
 an interpolation introduced at " a later age than that even of the Jehovist." 
 (306). The Bishop says " very different is the result, however, if we 
 examine the Chronicles * * *. Here we find Azariah^ 1 Chron. ii., 8, in the 
 third generation from Judah;" as also Abiah, ii., 24; Ahijah, ii., 25; 
 Reaiah, iv., 2 ; Jonathan, ii,, 32 : and many others. (308). The Bishop's 
 conclusion is that " either the name, Jehovah, was first revealod, accord- 
 ing to the story, in the time of Moses, or it was known long before that 
 age, from the very first — from the time of Eve, Gen. iv., 1, or of Enos, 
 Gen. IV., 2G." If it was first known in the time of Moses, " how," he asks, 
 " can we account for so many names appearing in the Chronicles of per- 
 sons who lived before that age, which are compounded with Jehovah." 
 (309). The Bishop says " the fictitious character of the chronicler's state- 
 ments" is shown by his introduction of so many names compounded with 
 Jehovah. (310). Here the Bishop gives his conclusions. " (1). That 
 main portions of the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, were composed 
 heforQ the name Jehovah had been long in such familiar use, as to be freely 
 employed in the formation of proper names. (2). That they were, 
 probably, not written in the later ages, to which many eminent critics are 
 disposed to assign them — were not written, for instance, after the age of 
 Solomon, or even after the latter part of David's life, when Proper names 
 compounded with Jehovah began to be common, as the history shows, 
 and, therefore, they would most likely have crept into the text;" and he 
 instances 2 Sam, in., 4 ; xii., 25 ; xui., 3 ; xv., 27 ; xx., 23, 24; xxiii., 
 30, 32, 39. 
 
 CHAPTEE IX. 
 « THE DERIVATION OF TEE NAME MORIAH;" 
 
 AND CHAPTER X. 
 
 " MOUNT GERIZIM THE MOUNT OF ABRAHAM'S SACRIFICE." 
 
 In these chapters the Bishop expresses it as his opinion tliat it was 
 impossible that tlie place coidd have been familiarly known as " j\Ioriah" 
 — " Get thee into the land of Moriah," Gen. xxii., 2, before t'.: t event 
 took place from which the mount took its name ; and lie further c ontends 
 that there is no real ground for identifying ]\Ioriah with the Te.nfle Hill 
 at Jerusalem. In support of his view he quotes from *• Stanl 3's Sinai 
 and Palestine," who coincides with the Bishop that it was Mount Gerizim 
 upon which Abraham offered up his son Isaac. 
 
11 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 « THE NAMES ELOIIIM AND JEHOVAH." 
 
 In this chapter the Bishop discusses the true meaning of the names 
 Elohim and Jehovah. Regarding the contradictions in the two narra- 
 tives, he says (338), " The question now to be considered is, which of 
 these two writers gives the true account, or, rather, is either statement 
 correct ? Does not the very existence of this discrepancy suggest the 
 probability of neither version of the story being the right one ?" (339.) 
 The Bishop says, " We have no longer any reason for supposing it to be 
 necessary to believe that the name Jehovah really originated in the way 
 described in Ex. vi. * * *. Is linoi jyossihle, then, that the name Jehovah 
 may have been first employed by Samuel, in order to mark more distinctly 
 the difference between the Elohim of the Hebrews and the Elohim of the 
 nations round them, and make it more difficult for them to fall away to 
 the practice of idolatry ? " (344.) The Bishop states " that there is 
 very little in the Pentateuch after Ex. vi., which really belongs to the 
 Elohist. (350.) The results of his analysis of the various books gives the 
 following results, of the use of the two names Elohim and Jehovah: — 
 
 ELOiror. JEHOVAH. 
 
 Exodns 134 398 
 
 Leviticus 52 311 
 
 Numbers 34 396 
 
 Deuteronomy 334 550 
 
 Joshua 67 224 
 
 Judges 52 174 
 
 Ruth 3 18 
 
 1 Samuel 97 320 
 
 2 Samuel 59 153 
 
 1 Kings 88 258 
 
 2 Kings 77 277 
 
 CHAPTERS XII. TO XVIII. 
 
 "THE ELOHISTIC AND JEHOVISTIC PSALMS." 
 
 (352). The Bishop here says, " if we find, upon certain evidence, that 
 the name Jehovah ivas thus habitually employed by men, who, beyond all 
 doubt, lived and wrote within the period embraced by these books, we shall 
 have, so far, an agreement with the ]\Iosaic story ; * * * (353) but if, on 
 the other hand, we find the exact contrary, — if Ave find that, so far from 
 the name Jehovah being habitually used, it was used verj/ rarely much less, 
 freely than Elohim, and often not at all, by most eminent writers," we 
 shall have a strong independent proof " of the unhistorical character 
 of the Mosaic story." The Bishop then proceeds through chapters xiii. to 
 
12 
 
 chapter xviti, to discuss the Elohistic and the Jehovistic Psalms, 
 their origin, their writers, and the comparative frequency or rarity of the 
 use of the two names. The following are his results : — " In Book 1 , 
 (Psalms I. to xLi.), almost all the Psalms of which are ascribed to David, 
 the use of Jehovah is in evert/ instance^ very much more common than that 
 of Elohim. The former occurs 274 times in the book ; the latter, 65 
 times : that is, Jehovah occurs more than four times to Elohim once. 
 In Book II. (Psalms xlii. to lxxii.), in every instance the reverse is the 
 case ; Elohim is very much more common than Jehovah. The former 
 occurs, in the whole book, 214 times, the latter, 33 times: that is, Elohim 
 occurs more than six times to Jehovah once. In the first eleven Psalms 
 of Book III. (Psalms lxxiii, to lxsxix.), which form together one small 
 collection, being all entitled Psalms of Asaph, the use of Elohim also 
 preponderates, over that of Jehovah, but not so decisively. The former 
 occurs 59 times, the latter, 14 times : that is Elohim occurs more than 
 four times to Jehovah once. In the remaining Psalms of Book in. the 
 reverse is the case : Jehovah occurs 32 times, Elohim, 20 times : that is 
 Jehovah occurs about th^ee times to Elohim txoice. In Book iv. (Psalms 
 xc. to cvi.), the use of Jehovah preponderates decidedly in every instance. 
 It occurs altogether 111 times, Elohim 27 times: that is, Jehovah occurs 
 more than four times to Elohim once. In Book v. (Psalms cvii to cl.) 
 the same is the case, but much more remarkably, except in one instance, 
 Psalms cviii. Omitting this Psalm, Jehovah occurs 268 times, Elohim 
 40, times : that is Jehovah occurs nearly seven times to Elohim once.''^ 
 In (439) the Bishop says that " all the Psalms in Book ii. together with 
 the eleven Psalms of Asaph in Book iii., are decidedly Elohistic. All the 
 remaining Psalms appear to be Jehovistic, Avith one single exception. Psalm 
 cviii." But this Psalm, he thinks, is compounded of Psalms lvii. and lx. 
 " with one or two slight variations." (448). The Bishop says, " the 
 result of our examination is that there is not a single Jehovistic Psalm, 
 which there is any reasonable ground for assigning to the earlier part of 
 1 avid's life." (436). The Bishop says, " In the book of Ezra we have 
 Elohim 97 times, Jehovah 37 times, and in that of Nehemiah, Elohim 
 74 times, Jehovah 17 times, contrary to all the data of the other historical 
 books. It is quite possible that some of these later Elohistic Psalms may 
 be Ezra's." The name Jehovah " is not found in the whole book of 
 Ecclesiastes, and only in one chapter of Daniel, chap, ix." 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 "THE JEHOVISTIC NAMES IN THE BOOK OF JUDGES." 
 
 In (455) the Bishop says, " the stories of the book of Judges are also 
 like the story of the Exodus, most probably founded upon some real tra- 
 ditions." The only names compounded with Elohim are OthnieZ, i. 13, 
 Penue/, viii. 8, and in Ruth i. 2, £/imelech. (456). " Four names in the 
 
13 
 
 m 
 
 book of Judges" are, apparently, "compounded with Jehovah, viz. : Joasbj 
 VI. II., the father and Jbtham, ix. 5, the son of Gideon, Micah-MichaiaA, 
 XVII. 1. and Jonathan, xviii. 30.' (457). With respect to the first three 
 of these four names, it must be considered doubtful, whether they really 
 are compounded with Jehovah at all, and, with respect to the fourth Jonathan, 
 he concludes (443) that the name " is a very much later interpolation in 
 the original story.' ' (447). Here the Bishop refers to the song of Deborah 
 in Jud. V. and concludes (451). that it was adapted from Psalm lxviii. 
 which was the older composition. 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 "THE JEHOVISTIC NAMES IN THE_BOOKS OF SAMUEL." 
 
 (453). In 1 Sam. 18, the name Joshua is introduced, but the 
 Bishop concludes that it was written at " a considerably later time than 
 that of the event in question, that is, than the time of Samuel." (454). 
 In 1 Sam. viii. 1, 2, we have the names Joel and Ahtali, Samuel's sons ; the 
 first being supposed to be a compound of the two names Jehovah, Elohim, 
 and 1, Sam. ix. 1, AbieZ. (455, 458, 459). In 1 Sam. xiii. 2, we hare 
 Jonathan, the son of Saul ; Ahiah, xiv. 3 ; Eliah, xvi. 6 ; Adrie/, xviii, 
 19 ; and Jbab, xxvi, G. (460). In 2 Sam. there are fourteen names com- 
 pounded with EL, and eleven with Jehovah. (461). " Thus," says the 
 Bishop, " we see that, in the time of David's manhood, it was not an 
 unusual thing for parents to give their children names compounded with 
 Jehovah. Since, therefore, wherever lists of names occur in the Penta- 
 teuch, we do not find a single name of this kind (except, as before, Joshua 
 and Jochebed,) it would seem that the author or authors, to whom such 
 lists are due, could hardly have lived m a tmcch later age than this.'' 
 
 CHAPTER XXL 
 
 The following is the " Summary of the results in Part II." : 
 
 " 1. There are different authors concerned in the composition of the book 
 
 of Genesis, whose accounts in some respects contradict each other. 
 
 2. One of these authors is distinguished by abstaining altogether from 
 the use of the name Jehovah in that book, while the other uses it freely 
 from the first. — 3. The former writer composed also E. vi., as all critics 
 admit, and as internal evidence shows : and it would seem from this 
 chapter that he designedly forbore the use of the name Jehovah until he 
 had announced its revelation to Moses. — 4. Either the name was actually 
 made known to Moses in the way described, or else it is plain the Elohist 
 must have had some special reason for commending it in this way to the 
 reverence of those for whom he wrote. — 5. If the name was first revealed 
 to Moses at this time, then the Jehovistic story, which puts it in tho 
 mouths of persons of all classes from the days of Eve downwards, cannot 
 
14 
 
 « 
 be liistorically true ; and this involves at once the historical truth of all 
 the other statements of the Jehovist. — 6. And this unreal character of his 
 story is further confirmed by the fact that, amidst the multitude of names 
 which are given in the book of Genesis, down to the age of Joseph, though 
 there are numerous names compounded with Elohim, there is not a single 
 one compounded with Jehovah. — 7. But the impossibilities, which we 
 have found existing throughout the whole story of the Exodus, are equally 
 conclusive against the historical truth of the whole. — 8. We must return, 
 then, to the other supposition, viz., that the Elohist had some special 
 reason for commending the name to the regard and veneration of the 
 people. — 9. The most natural reason woiild be that he himself was intro- 
 ducing it, as a new name for the God of Israel. — 10. We find an indica- 
 tion of the fact that the name did not exist before the time of Samuel, in 
 the circumstance that, throughout the history in the book of Judges, there 
 is no single name which can be appealed to with confidence as compounded 
 with Jehovah, while there are names compounded with the Divine name in 
 the form of El. — 11. During and after the time of Samuel we observe, in the 
 books known by his name, a gradually increasing partiality for the use of 
 names compounded with Jehovah, while not one name of this kind occurs at 
 such an age, as is inconsistent with the supposition that his name may have 
 been introduced by Samuel. — 12. Hence arises the supposition that Samuel 
 was the Elohist ; and the position he held, together with the circum- 
 stances of his time, and the accounts which are handed down as to his 
 doings, and especially the tradition with respect to his historical labours, 
 tend strongly to confirm this suspicion. — 13, It is further confirmed, and, 
 as it seems to me, confirmed almost to a certainty, by the fact that David, 
 in liis earlier Psalms, as Ps. li, Ps. Ix, Ps. Ixviii, made little or no use of 
 the name Jehovah, while in his later Psalms he seems to have used it 
 more freely ; and the same appears to be true of other Psalmists of that 
 age. — 14. We conclude, then, with some degree of confidence, that Samuel 
 was the Elohistic writer of the Pentateuch. — 15. Since the Jehovistic 
 writer makes free use of the name Jehovah, he must have written in a 
 later age than the early days of David, and not earlier than the latter part 
 of David's life, when the name became more common, and names began to 
 be compounded with it freely. — 16. This is confirmed by finding that one 
 Jehovistic passage, Numb, x., 35, is manifestly copied from a Psalm of 
 David, the name Elohim, which David used, being changed to Jehovah. 
 17. ]3ut this later writer can hardly have lived long after Samuel, and the 
 time of the introduction of the name Jehovali ; since even he does not 
 introduce freely into the story names compounded with Jehovah, as a 
 later writer would most probably have done, though he uses freely the 
 name itself. — 18. In point of fact, wc shall find reason to believe that all 
 those portions of the first four books and the book of Joshua, which are 
 not due to the Elohists, were composed by one or more writers who wrote 
 in the latter days of David, and in tlie early part of Solomon's reign, — with 
 the exception of some interpolations, of which a few smaller ones occur iu 
 
15 
 
 Genesis, but larger ones in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Joshua, — 19, 
 These interpolations are all due to the same hand, that of the Deuterono- 
 raist, who revised the book as it stood in his time, and added to it almost 
 the whole book of Deuteronomy. — 20, The book of Deuteronomy was 
 written about the time of Josiah, and, as some suppose, by the hand of 
 the prophet Jeremiah," 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 It was a source of much gratification to us, that the arguments we 
 adduced in our reply to part I, were subsequently taken up by many 
 critics ; and we may also call attention to the fact, that several of the 
 errors we pointed out, such as the omission of the word "were" from Gen. 
 xlvi, 12, in 1 book, were corrected by Dr, Colenso in later copies, and 
 the second edition of that work. It is impossible for us to follow Dr. 
 Colenso in the points raised in this new book, and we shall therefore 
 only point out one or two matters we think worthy of attention. In the 
 first place we remark the wonderful mental resources of the Bishop ; 
 where he cannot introduce an argument, he throws in a suggestion, and 
 proceeds apparently as perfectly satisfied in his own mind, as if his 
 idea was corroborated in every way. These for instance are some of his 
 suggestions : that Samuel was the Elohistic writer of the Pentateuch ; 
 that a Levite chorister, wrote the book of Chronicles ; and that the dis- 
 crepancy in the two stories of the creation and the deluge, suegests the 
 probability that neither are correct. Wo do not agree with the Bishop, as 
 to the legendary origin of'the story of the Exodus, we think the testi- 
 mony that Christ bore when he said, "he (Moses) wrote of me," John v. 46, 
 is most conclusive, as to the fact of the existence of something which 
 had been written by Moses; and that the same writing, though certainly 
 not the original, the Jews possessed at the time of Christ, In chapter iii. 
 we do not like the introduction of the apocryphal story, under the wing of 
 .Jerome's credit, to throw discredit on the testimony borne by Christ, and 
 believed in by so many writers in the new Testament, In chap, v., the 
 Dr. quotes from 1 Sam. ix. 0, but he has omitted the parentheses within 
 which that verse stands, thereby making it more emphatic, as a sub- 
 stantive part of the chapter, than what it really is. We must also call 
 attention to the fact which Dr. Colenso's book will show, that in the 
 majority of instances the Biblical critics disagree as widely in their 
 ojiinions as it is possible ; that in some cases the Bishop disagrees with 
 all other critics; that from the bishops, two writers, the Elohistic 
 and the Jehovistic, the critics multiply them up to seven writers. 
 There is corresponding diversity of opinion as to the ago of the 
 several portions, and so far, Dr, Colenso has failed in the purpose 
 with which he set out, to prove the unhistorical value of the Pentateuch. 
 In conclusion, Dr, Colenso is entitled to the commendation of every 
 
16 
 
 student of the Bible, for the manner in which he has directed the attention 
 of the learned and unlearned, to important points concerning our Bible ; 
 and forced on, so to speak, a critical enquiry. We shall read with interest 
 the discussions that part 2 will excite, and form our own conclusions; and 
 our satisfaction would have been more complete with this part 2, if we 
 could have realised that our author was pursuing his investigations on 
 independent grounds, instead of in support of a foregone conclusion, 
 (which he has failed so far to substantiate,) — the unhistorical character of 
 the books xmder criticism. In part 3 Dr- Colenso promises to enter into 
 a still closer examination of the Book of Genesis. 
 
 ma>'chi:6ii:k : joun bxywoop, friktsb, 143, deaksgaie.