JMB ^wlH 'lr*l - feMMR^^ ■::'" ' \ ifflK^fHH BIS wSE 1 "ml^iilli LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. w ft. in MAY 22 i tt{H A VINDICATION MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH BY Charles Elliott, d. d., Professor of Hebrew in Lafayette College, Easton, Penn. CINCINNATI: WALDEN AND STOWE NEW YORK: PHILLIPS 4 HUNT. 1884. Copyright by WALDEN & STOWE, 1884. PREFACE. This brief treatise does not profess to be a special contribution to the criticism of the Pen- tateuch. Its aim is to state the arguments for and against its Mosaic authorship, and to con- sider their validity. In doing this the author does not claim freedom from presuppositions, a state of mind which seems to him impossible, and which is possessed least of all by those who so rigidly require it of others. He feels, how- ever, that he has dealt impartially in the state- ment of facts and arguments. The Introduction has only a general connec- tion with the subject discussed. Its object is to give a short outline of the origin of the Higher Criticism. The plan of the treatise is first to remove objections against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and then to exhibit the positive proofs of that authorship. 4 PREFA CE. Due acknowledgment has been made in the course of the treatise of the works which have been used in the preparation of it. If this treatise shall prove useful to ministers and students of the Bible who have not access to strictly critical and exhaustive treatises on the Pentateuch, the author will be amply rewarded. CHARLES ELLIOTT. Lafayette College, Easton, Penn., "I January 1, 1884. J CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION. Biblical Criticism of Recent Origin — Used in Two Senses — Literary or Higher Criticism — Consists of Two Parts — Sometimes called "Destructive" — Its Principles not entirely New — Its History inseparably connected with that of Rationalism— The Term Rationalism not of very Recent Date — Attempt to identify Rationalism with English Deism — Distinction between Them — Roman Catholics and Rationalists have considered Rationalism a Natural Development of the Reformation — First Movements of Rationalism were among the Socini- ans — Pietism — "Wolff, English Deists, French Infidels — Lessing, Basedow — Grotius, Wetstein — Ernesti, Mi- chaelis— Semler — His Views on the Canon — His Theory of Accommodation — Sender's Distinction between the Local, the Temporary, etc — Eichhorn — Paulus — New Influences : Philosophical, Literary, Political, and Spir- itual — Kant — Jacobi — Fichte — Schelling — Hegel — Liter- ary Influences — Political Influences — Spiritual Influ- ences — Schleiermacher — De Wette — Strauss— Tubingen School — Baur — New Influences since 1848 — Leading Principle of the Higher Criticism subjective — Influ- ence of this Principle — Conclusion, .... Pages 11-39 CONTENTS. Part I. Sutl\of^ip kqd doir\po^itiori of tl\e Pei\tkteudl). CHAPTER I. THEORIES OF THE COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH. Ptolemseus — Nazarenes — Clementine Homilies — Bogomili— Isaak ben Jasos and Aben Esra — Andreas Masius — Hobbes — Isaak Peyrerius — Spinoza— Richard Simon — Clericus — Vitringa — Documentary Hypothesis — As- true — Jerusalem — Schultens — Ilgen — Eichhorn — Frag- mentary Hypothesis — Vater — Hartmann — Supple- mentary Hypothesis — De Wette — Langerke — Zuch — Stahelin — Hupfeld — Vaihinger — Delitzsch — Kurtz — E vvald — Dr. Samuel Davidson — Kuenen — Professor W. R. Smith, Pages 43-63 CHAPTER II. ARGUMENTS URGED IN FAVOR OF THE DOCUMENTARY, FRAG- MENTARY, AND SUPPLEMENTARY HYPOTHESES AND AGAINST THE MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH. Section I. Elohim and Jehovah. — The two Names are used Interchangeably, Exodus vi, 3 — The Advo- cates of the Documentary Theory contradict One Another, Pages 64-73 Section II. The two So-called Elohistic and Jehovistic Doc- uments said to be distinguished by Contradictions and vary- ing Legends. — Gen. i, 1-ii, 3, and ii, 4-iii — Gen. vi, 19, 20, and vii, 2, 3— Gen. x, 7, 13, 22, 28, 29, and xxv, 3— Gen, xv, 18; Ex ? xxiii, 31; Num. xxxiv, 1-12; Deut. CONTENTS. 7 xi, 24 ; compare Josh, i, 4 — Gen. xxv, 31-33, and Gen. xxvii, 1-29 — Gen. xxvii, 41-45; Gen. xxvii, 46-xxviii, 1-9 — Gen. xxx, 23, 24— Gen. xxx, 25-43, and xxxi, 4-48 — Gen. xxxii, 3, and xxxvi, 6-8 — Gen. xxxvi, 34 ; xxviii, 9, and xxxvi, 2, 3 — Gen. xxxii, 22-32, and xxxv, 10 — Gen. xxviii, 19, and xxxv, 9-15 — Gen. xxi, 31, and xxvi, 33 — Gen. xxxvii, 25, 27, 28 ; xxxix, 1 ; xxxvii, 28, 36; xl, 15 — Gen. xxxix, 20; xl, 4; and xxxix, 21-23— Gen. xlii, 27, 35, and xliii, 21 — Ex. iii, 1 ; iv, 18 ; xviii, 1 ; ii, 18 (compare verse 21) ; and Num. x, 29-Ex. iv, 31, and vi, 9— Ex. iv, 2, 3, 20c; vii, 9 15, 17, 19 ; viii, 16, 17 ; ix, 23, and x, 13— Ex. vi, 2ff. ; vii, 2 ; ix, 35 ; xi, 10 ; iii, 18 ; v, 1, 3 ; vii, 16 ; viii, 1 ; x, 3, 8, 24-26— Ex. ii, 22; iv, 20, and xviii, 2-6— Ex. xviii, 13ff. ; Deut. i, 9-18 — Lev. xxvii, 27 ; Num. xviii, 16; xiii, 13; xxxiv, 20 — Ex. xxi, 1-6; and Deut. xv, 12-18 ; Lev. xxiii ; Num. xxviii ; xxix ; Ex. xxiii, 14-16 ; xxxiv, 18-23; and Deut. xvi, 1-17 — Lev. xxiii, 18, 19; Num. xxviii, 27, 30— Ex. xxxviii, 25, 26 ; Num. i, com- pared with Ex. xxx, 12ff.— Num. iv, 6, and Ex. xxv, 15— Num. iv, 3, 23, 30, 35, 47, and viii, 24, 25— Num. xiv, 45, and xxi, 3, Pages 73-106 Section III Alleged Difference in the Circle of Ideas, and in the Usus Loquendi advanced as Proofs that the Pen- tateuch proceeded from Different Authors. — Difference in Language and Ideas — Usus Loquendi, . . Pages 106-110 Section IV. Alleged want of Unity in the Pentateuch ad- duced as a Proof of Plurality of Authorship. — External Unity— Chronological Order of the Books — Internal Unity, Pages 110-122 CHAPTER III. EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES WHICH ASSIGN THE PENTATEUCH TO A LATER DATE THAN THE TIME OF MOSES. Section I. — Gen. xii, 6 — xiii, 7 — xii, 8 — xiii, 10 — xiv, xiii, 8— xxxvi, 31— xxxix, 14 — Ex. vi, 26, 27; xi, 3; O CONTENTS. Num. xii, 3; xv, 22, 23; Deut. xxxiii, 1— Ex. x, 19; xvi, 35— Lev. xviii, 28— Num. xv, 32-36— Deut. i, 1— ii, 12 — iii, 9, 11, 14 — The phrase, "unto this day" — Deut. xxxiv, Pages 123-144 Section II. The Three Codes: Covenant-Code, Deuter- onomic Code, and Priest-Code — Underlying Principle — Prof. W. K. Smith— Dr. Briggs — Difficulties of the Theory — Laws belonging to each of the So-called Codes bear the impress of a Nomadic Life — The Legislation of the Pentateuch points Back to Egypt and Forward to Canaan — The Ordinance as to Kings, Deut. xvii, 14-20— Deut. xix, 14; xx— Ex. xx, 29, 30— Lev. xxvi, 3-45 — Ex. xx, 22-xxiii, 20-23, and Deut. xxvii-xxx — Deut. xii, 5-14, the Central Altar — Samuel's and Eli- jah's Supposed Ignorance of the Deuteronomic Code — "High Places" — Assumptions of the Hypothesis — The Deuteronomic and Priest Codes were often Violated after the Exile, Pages 145-174 Section III. Theory that all the Books of the Pentateuch are Post-Mosaic, that Deuteronomy was written about the year 625 B. ft, perhaps by Hilkiah, and that the Middle Books of the Pentateuch are Post-exilic. — Principa Advocates of the Theory — Arguments in Defense of the Theory — Deut. x, 8— Deut. xviii, la — Deut. xviii, 3-8 — Deut. xxi, 5 — Deut. xxxi, 9 — Ezek. xliv — Silence of the Books of Samuel and Kings in Reference to the Distinction be- tween Priests and Levites — Circumstances of the Is- raelites not Favorable to the Influence of Priests — In- timations in the Books of Samuel of an existing Hier- archical Law — Evidence of Joshua ruled out by the Critics — Notices in Joshua of the Functions of the Priesthood — Notices in Samuel and Kings — Sources of the Chronicles — Notices in Chronicles of a Graduated Hierarchy — Ezra and Nehemiah — Conclusions — Find- ing of the Book of the Law by Hilkiah— When was CONTENTS. . 9 Deuteronomy written ? — It existed in the Reign of Jo- siah ; in the Reign of Amaziah ; in the Time of Joash ; in the Time of Jehoshaphat ; in the Time of Solomon ; in the Time of David ; in the Time of the Judges— Ob- jection to Its Existence in the Time of Joshua (Josh, vii, 24, 25) — Existed in the Time of Joshua — Deuteron- omy Pre-supposes the Existence of the other Books of the Pentateuch — Date of Deuteronomy later than that of the other Books of the Pentateuch— Difficulties the Date of the Pentateuch later than the Time of Moses — References to the Pentateuch in the Subse- quent Books of the Old Testament, . . Pages 174-240 10 CONTENTS. Part II. ftooi$ of }&.o&it Sut^ojf^ip of tlje Pei^tkteti^. CHAPTER I. INTERNAL PROOFS — INDIRECT AND DIRECT. Section I. Indirect Proofs. — The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch consistent with the Use of Docu- ments—Not Inconsistent with Revision— There was Such a Man as Moses — The Art of Writing known before the Time of Moses — Antecedent Probability that Moses wrote the Pentateuch — The Author of the Pentateuch was acquainted with the Literature, Laws, and Religion of Egypt — The Pentateuch written by some one who was acquainted with, and had a share in, the Exodus, Pages 243-259 Section II. Direct Proofs that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. — Moses commanded to write the Discomfiture of the Amalekites and the Journeys of the Israelites — Deut. xxxi, 9, 24-26 — The frequently recurring phrase, "The Lord said unto Moses " — The Proof that Moses wrote Genesis Indirect, Pages 259-263 CHAPTER II. EXTERNAL PROOFS THAT MOSES WROTE THE PENTATEUCH. The Subsequent Books of the Old Testament ascribe it to Moses: Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Daniel — The Apocryphal Books— The Jew- ish Synagogues — Josephus — The Jewish Sects and the Samaritans — Christ and his Apostles — The Christian Church, . Pages 264-270 INTRODUCTION. the: higher criticism. Biblical Criticism, properly so-called, is of comparatively recent origin. Its history begins after the Eeformation. That event was a protest asrainst human authority, an emanci- Biblical criti- „ .n i i • • i cismof pation from intellectual and spiritual recent origin. slavery. At the same time the Reformers de- clared, in the most decided terms, their belief in the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures. They believed in their plenary inspiration. These Scriptures were the umpire to which an appeal was made in all questions of religious doctrine. " Every thing to the test of Scripture " was the ultimate appeal of the Reformers: "every thing to the test of reason " became that of Rational- ism. The latter seems plausible, but it is falla- cious. If the Holy Scriptures contain a rev- elation from God, if their inspiration is fully established as a fact, then reason, though it may be exercised in the examination of the 1 2 INTR OD UCTI ON. evidence of their divine origin, must bow to their authority. The expression Biblical Criticism has been used in two senses. In the one it has been applied not only to the means and efforts em- ployed to restore the text of the Bible to its original state, but also to the principles of inter- The phrase pretation. According to the other dSnused^n sense, it is confined to the former, while two senses. the i atfcer __ t h e principles of interpre- tation — constitute the science of Hermeneutics. In its strict and proper sense it comprehends the sum and substance of that knowledge which enables us to discover wrong readings, and to obtain, as nearly as possible, the very words of the sacred writers. The means of accomplishing this are the appliances of Sacred Criticism. The use of these appliances for the emendation of the text is properly designated Textual Criticism. The term " Literary " or " Higher Criticism " designates that type of Biblical Criticism which The Literary proposes to investigate the separate criticism. books of the Bible in their internal peculiarities, and to estimate them historically. It discusses the questions concerning their origin, the time and place, the occasion and object of their composition, and concerning their position and value in the entire body of revelation. THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 13 The " Higher Criticism " consists of two parts, the external and internal. The first, The Higher which is closely connected with Text- cSKsof ual Criticism, deals with external testi- two parts ' monies; e. g., in the New Testament, with the opinions of the Fathers upon the origin of the dif- ferent books, and with their citations from them. The second examines the books themselves, and seeks to draw from their contents, as a whole and as parts, the relations out of which they originated. The " Higher Criticism " has been so often employed for the overthrow of long-cherished beliefs that the epithet " destructive " sometimes culled " dc- has frequently been applied to it; and stractive." hence it has become an offense to some orthodox ears. But the very destruction which it has ac- complished — its achievements have not been com- mensurate with its aims — was, perhaps, necessary in order to raise a structure having more solid and more enduring foundations. The principles of critical investigation pro- pounded by the "Higher Criticism" are not entirely new. They are substantially principles of the old principles — abating some of its criticism'^ 1 , , . . not entirely assumptions — employed in a w r ay in new. which many reverent and devout students of the Bible do not think it legitimate to employ them. 1 4 INTE OD UCTION. Nevertheless, its methods and the historical ma- terial which it has accumulated have been turned to good service in the elucidation of the Scrip- tures. More scientific processes, a more accurate eye for reading history, and a better view of the relation of the divine and human elements of the Bible have been the incidental results. The history of the "Higher Criticism " is inseparably connected with that of Rationalism, m , . , of which it is, in its objectionable The history ' J _ " f fflher aspects, a product. To obtain a clear fnfepfrabiy idea of its origin, principles, and re- withthat d of suits, it is, therefore, necessary to Rationalism. g . ye & bHef ^^ of ^ ^^ q{ Rationalism. The term Rationalism is not of very recent date. It has been employed, for at least two cen- The term turies, to designate a skeptical type of Stofvery 31 thinking. In the beginning of the sev- recentdate. enteentu ce ntury the Aristotelian Hu- manists were called Rationalists ; and in 1688 the same epithet was applied to the Socinians by Co- menius. It was not imported into the English language from the German, either in a theolog- ical or a philosophical sense. Trench [ a Study of Words," p. 147] says : " There was a sect of Ra- tionalists in the time of the Commonwealth, who called themselves such exactly on the same THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 15 grounds as those who in later times have chal- lenged the name. Thus, one writing the news from London, among other things, mentions : * There is a new sect sprung up among them [the Presbyterians and Independents], and these are the Rationalists, and what their reason dictates them, in Church or state, stands for good, unless they be convinced with better.' " Some have attempted to identify German Ra- tionalism with English Deism; but, , & ' * An attempt though they have a historical conncc- jjSSuSnn tion, yet they are separated by wide £eism English and marked differences. Deism consists in the elevation of Natural Religion to be the standard and rule of all posi- tive religion. Its fundamental prin- Distinction ciple is that reason is the source and |he m een measure of truth. It discards, as does (a) eism ' Rationalism, the miraculous in Christianity. " It has," in the words of Hagenbach ["German Ra- tionalism," p. 49.. Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1865], " no substance, but a bare belief in God, and he, too, a distant God, a Deus, ' an unknown God/ as the Athenians called him when they erected an altar to him. This faith is sometimes called Naturalism, because its God is only known in the ordinary course of nature." He has made no book-revelation. The only revelation that 1 6 INTR OD UCTION. the Deist admits is the light of reason ; and that is the test of religious truth. " Wahr ist, was Mar ist" — clearness is the criterion of truth — is the leading principle of his system. If the term Rationalism be used in its etymo- logical sense, as meaning a rational system of (&) Rational- religious doctrine, the most orthodox lsm * believer can not object to it; for the Christian religion, if true, must harmonize with reason. But that, though intended by the Ra- tionalists to be the meaning of the word, is not the meaning that it has among evangelical divines. The word has, when used theologically, a very different signification. " Those who are generally termed Rational- ists," says Dr. Bretschneider [quoted by Dr. Hurst in his " History of Rationalism," p. 14], " admit universally, in Christianity, a divine, be- nevolent, and positive appointment for the good of mankind, and Jesus as a messenger of divine Providence, believing that the true and everlast- ing word of God is contained in the Holy Scrip- ture, and that by the same the welfare of man- kind will be obtained and extended. But they deny therein a supernatural and miraculous work- ing of God, and consider the object of Christian- ity to be that of introducing into the world such a religion as reason can comprehend ; and they THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 17 distinguish the essential from the unessential, and what is local and temporary from that which is universal and permanent in Christianity." Lecky [quoted by the same author, p. 23] says : " Rationalism is a system which would unite in one sublime synthesis all the past forms of human belief, which accepts with triumphant alacrity each new development of science, having no stereotyped standard to defend, and which represents the human mind as pursuing on the highest subjects a path of continual progress to- ward the fullest and most transcendent knowl- edge of the Deity. ... It clusters around a series of essentially Christian conceptions — equality, fraternity, the suppression of war, the elevation of the poor, the love of truth, and the diffusion of liberty. It revolves around the ideal of Christianity, and, represents its spirit without its dogmatic system and its supernatural narratives. From both of these it unhesitatingly recoils, while deriving all its strength and nourish- ment from Christian ethics." These statements — one from a man who was far from being evangelical, and the other from a decided rationalist— are sufficient to give an idea of the nature and object of Rationalism and to distinguish it from Deism. Both Roman Catholics and the Rationalists 18 INTRODUCTION. themselves have considered Rationalism as a natural development of the Reformation. They Roman catii a ^ rm * na * the principle of free sub- tSnaSste Ra jectivity began its course in the Ref- erSfRaSon- ormation, and that it ends it in Ra- naturafle- tionalism. The Reformation delivered the°R?forma- the mind from the authority of the Church; Rationalism delivers it from that of the Bible. It is admitted that they agree in form, but not in essence. Subjectivity is prom- inent in both, as it is in Christianity itself. The Reformation was a protest of the spiritual nature of its advocates against merely human principles and traditions, in the name and by the authority of the Word of God. Rationalism, on the con- trary, is a protest against the Divine Word, in the name and by the authority of human reason. It is thus essentially the very opposite of Pro- testantism. Rationalism proceeds from form, but dif- the exclusive study of the world; the fer in essence. Reformation proceeds from the study of the Bible. The Reformation taught that we are saved by grace ; that the righteousness which avails with God, is a free gift from him, so that all honor belongs to him alone. It set forth and acknowledged, as the central truth of all divine revelation, the redemption of the world through Jesus Christ. Rationalism is a stranger to this THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 19 fundamental religious experience. It started from opposite principles, and disputed the truths upon which evangelical experience rests. Ration- alism, therefore, is the very antithesis of the Reformation. The first movements of the rationalistic spirit appeared in Socinianism, in the age of the Ref- ormation itself. We shall, however, Thefirst omit any notice of its earlier manifes- S°RaiSonS- tations, together with its relation to Jfmongthe X11 . . i xx • i Socinians. llluminism and Humanism, and come down to the time of Semler, who is considered the father of the school of "destructive criticism." At this time the old polemic theology of the seventeenth century had become effete. Pietism, in whose interest the University of Pietism. Halle had been founded, dealt it a heavy blow. But Pietism was practical, not scientific, in its aim. It sought to promote an active, religious life ; and employed science only as a means of appropriating for its own use such material as was useful for edification. It was not wanting in a skillful and learned study of the Bible, for the purpose of edifying Christians individually and the Churches collectively, but it looked with distrust upon inquiries which had for their object the removal of doubts. Such inquiries could not be held in abeyance. 20 INTE OD UCTION. They were excited and promoted by a variety of external causes. Among these causes may be Wolff En- mentioned, as the most operative, the IrSchlSfi- speculative philosophy of Wolff, the introduction into Germany of the works of English Deists, and the French Infidels at the court of Frederick the Great of Prussia. The mode in which the philosophy of Wolff ministered to Rationalism consisted in making dogmatic theology a part of metaphysical philos- ophy. The Scriptures were made to rest on phi- losophy, instead of co-ordinating them with it. The Deists and Infidels brought many charges against the Bible. They professed to find errors in it. The proofs of its divine origin were, in their opinion, weak. They demanded that these proofs should be subjected to a new investigation. They did not consider a doctrine true because it was found in the Bible, for they did not acknowl- edge the Bible as the test of truth. Its history, its formation, and the relations of its parts to the whole were subjected to the most rigid scrutiny. The scalpel was applied without mercy. The Bible was ruthlessly dissected, and its disjointed members were tossed about to celebrate the tri- umph of reason and philosophy. These influences and movements, together with a literary movement indicated by Lessing, THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 21 and a deistical one embodied in the educational institutions of Basedow, were outside of the Church. But a movement was begun Lessing within the Church, which manifested Based ° w - itself in a tendency toward a historical and crit- ical study of the Scriptures. This method was followed by the eminent scholar, jurist, and theo- logian, Grotius ; and by Wctstein, professor of philosophy and Church history in the Grotius Remonstrant Gymnasium, at Amster- Wetstein - dam. These men were the forerunners of Er- nesti and Michaelis, the former of whom, at Leipzig, applied the grammatical and literary mode of interpretation, as opposed to the dog- matic formerly in use, to the New Testament; and the latter of whom, at Gbttingen, applied it to the Old. It is not just to call any of these men Rationalists, in the common accep- Erncsti tation of that term ; but Ernesti and Michaciis - Michaelis were surrounded by a skeptical atmos- phere whose influence they would naturally feel. Sender was the pupil of Ernesti, and Eichhorn of Michaelis, and these two men devel- , . _, . . Semler. oped the system ot their instructors into Rationalism. Joh. Salomo Semler, ordinary professor in Halle, was born in 1725 and died in 1791. He was a prolific writer, but his works have now 22 INTR OB UCTION. little beyond a historical value as marking an epoch in the history of Biblical Science. He commenced his investigations with the Canon, and fearful havoc he made of most of the books that had been received by the Church as canon- ical. His test of the inspiration of a book was the inward conviction of his mind that what it conveyed to him was truth. His reason was the umpire. Following its guidance, he rejected the His views on b°°ks of Chronicles, Ruth, Ezra, Ne- tue canon. hemial ^ Esther, and the Song of Sol- omon. Joshua, Judges, the Books of Samuel, Kings, and Daniel were doubtful. The Proverbs may have been the production of a number of wise men. The Pentateuch, especially Genesis, he considered to be a mere collection of legend- ary fragments. The New Testament has some good things, which are not found in the Old ; but it contains other things which are injurious to the Church. The Apocalypse of John was the work of a wild fanatic. He considered the au- thenticity and integrity of the Gospels as very doubtful, with the exception of that of John, which, in his opinion, was the only one adapted to the present state of the world, since it is free from the Jewish spirit. The general epistles were written to unify contending parties that had arisen in the early Church. THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 23 But Semler's fame rests chiefly on his theory of accommodation. He was not the author of this theory, but he revived it and carried ■ . His theory of it to such an extent as to alarm the accommoda- tion. friends of evangelical truth. Some of the early Fathers of the Church held it under, the names ao"fxardpaacz y or/ovo/ila, and dispensatio. Jahn asserts that Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Jerome extended it to formal dissimulation, fraud, and falsehood on the part of the sacred writers. It may be questioned, however, whether they went so far as to intend by it an adaptation of their doctrines to those to whom they preached or whom they instructed. They rather used it in reference to the mode of argumentation employed by the apostles, and to the accommodation of their practice to circumstances, in which no moral principle was involved. The Apostle Paul, they thought, employed the argumentum ad hominem, and became as a Jew to the Jews (1 Cor. ix, 20) ; but this differs very widely from accommodation in the matter of instruction. Every wise teacher accommodates the form of his teaching to tho capacities of his pupils or hearers; but no honest teacher would accommodate the matter of his teaching to their prejudices. This, however, in the opinion of Semler, Christ and his apostles 24 INTR OD TJCTION. did. The Jews, he said, entertained many opin- ions which it would have been impolitic in Christ to have assaiied directly ; hence, he pretended to admit them, and restated them with an admix- ture of truth. This dissimulation was, in Sem- ler's view, a stroke of policy. In this way he reduced Christ's utterances concerning angels, the second coming of the Messiah, the last judgment, demons, the resurrection of the dead, and the inspiration of the Scriptures to so many accom- modations to prevailing errors. Christ came to restore the pure religion of nature, but to effect this gradually and prudently. He retained the existing elements of the Mosaic religion, sanction- ing the prevailing ideas of the people, though frequently erroneous, that he might insinuate among them his own views. Such a doctrine of accommodation is derogatory to Him " who did no sin and in whose mouth there was no guile." (1 Peter ii, 22.) It is derogatory to his holy apostles, who taught men to " abstain from all appearance [every form'] of evil." (1 Thess. v. 22.) In connection with his method of criticism, Semler draws a distinction, somewhat allied to his theory of accommodation, between the local, the temporary, and the permanent, the eternal in the Scriptures. He held that a large portion of the Bible is only ephemeral, and that it was THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 25 never intended to be any thing else. Many things in the narratives of the sacred wri- Semler . s dlg . ters had a local interest to their con- {weenthe 6 temporaries; but after the lapse of a temporary, n ,. -. , i and the pe'r- iew generations ceased to nave any manent, the i- i • i mi -i eternal. application to mankind, lney do not now meet the wants of the world, but are only the machinery of a past civilization. It is true that some portions of the Scriptures are local and temporary, yet they are parts of a complete revelation, and furnish lessons to the Church of every age. Without them the Scriptures would be incomplete. The early history of the world may have little interest to the great majority of its present inhabitants and very little application to their wants ; yet a knowledge of it is an im- portant element in the intellectual and moral culture of the human race. Eichhorn continued the exegetical method in- augurated by Semler. He deemed miracles im- possible, but did not regard them as 7. mi • /.i Eichhorn. frauds. The narratives of them were merely Oriental modes of speech, such as hyper- bole or ellipsis, in which the steps by which the process was formed were omitted. The grand display on Mount Sinai, at the giving of the law, was a thunder-storm ; and the shining of Moses' face was a natural phenomenon. 26 INTRODUCTION. Paulus, first at Jena, and subsequently at Heidelberg, explained the miraculous cures, men- „ , tioned in the New Testament, by an Paulus. . . omission of the mention of natural remedies. The casting out of devils was effected by the power of a wise man over the insane. The transfiguration was the confused recollection of sleeping men, who saw Jesus with two un- known friends among the mountains in the beau- tiful light of the morning. The resurrection of our Lord was explained by the hypothesis that his death was only apparent. These are a few specimens of the exegesis of the Rationalistic school which culminated in Paulus, and which has been called the school of the old or common-sense Rationalism. This form of Rationalism differs, as has been already intimated, from English Deism and French Naturalism, in not regarding the Bible as fabulous and the work of priestcraft. It only denied the supernatural character of the Scrip- tures. The English Deists and French Natural- ists regarded the apostles as impostors, and did not even respect the Scriptures as an ordinary historical record. Rationalism was intended as a defense against this view; it treated the Scrip- tures as ordinary history, but denied their super- natural character. It distinguished between the THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 27 fact related and the judgment respecting the fact. It separated these two and explained away the supernatural element. The old Rationalism aimed at harmonizing Christianity with reason ; but the exegesis, which it employed for this purpose, was neither rational nor Christian. New influences were now introduced which modified the forms of theological and critical thought, and resulted in changing its Newlnflu . character. These influences have been lophicafiit, * denominated the philosophical, the lit- SafancUspir- erary, the political, and the spiritual. The first was found in the new systems of spec- ulative philosophy that arose out of the Kan- tian, viz., the systems of Jacobi, Fichte, Schell- ing, and Hegel. Immanuel Kant was born A. D., 1724, one year before Semler. He held that it is useless to suppose that we are able to lay liold of the truth by means of clear no- tions, and repudiated the maxim of Illuminism, "wahr ist, was Mar ist." He taught men to dis- trust the assertions of the theoretical reason and to seek for some firm point beyond it. This point he found in morality. Jacobi differed widely from Kant; but in their relation to the popular philos- Jacobi. ophy of their time they were fully 28 INTRODUCTION. agreed. His philosophy has been called the "faith-pliilosophy" inasmuch as he taught that all our knowledge must rest ultimately upon faith and not upon reasoning. Faith was the firm point which Jacobi found beyond the theoretical reason. Fichte's special object was to construct a system in which the matter and form of all science should be deduced from one Fichte. . „ and the same principle, and thus to solve the problem of the relation of ideas to their objects, a problem on which had always turned the conflict between idealism and realism. He would thus give to philosophy the systematic unity, with the want of which the system of Kant had been reproached. Fichte deduced every thing from the subjec- tive as creating and containing all reality. Yet why may not the objective produce the subjective as well as the subjective the objective? No rea- son can be given. We can no more deduce the infinite from the finite than the finite from the infinite by any of the processes of reflection. In order to have complete science, therefore, we must find a principle in which both the finite and the infinite, the subjective and the objective, are originally united. This principle is the Abso- lute Identity of subject and object in cognition. So reasoned Schelling, according to whom, in THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 29 the principle of absolute identity, knowing and being are one. The Absolute and its develop- ment constitute all reality. The Ab- J Schelling. solute is itself neither being nor know- ing, neither infinite nor finite, but the ground of both. A knowledge of the essences and forms of all things is attained by means of ideas of the Reason or Intuition. To be and to know are identical. Hegel, at first a disciple of Schelling, rejected the Intellectual Intuition of the latter as an un- warranted assumption, but' maintained . Hegel. its fundamental idea, namely, the unity of the subjective or ideal and the objective or real ; and this oneness is the absolute science, to which the mind rises as to its absolute truth, and is found in the truth that pure esse is pure concep- tion in itself ; and that pure conception alone is true esse. (Tennemann's " Manual of the History of Philosophy," pp. 400-450. London: Henry G. Bohn. 1852.) The literary influence was the " Romantic School," according to which the mystery of life lies in a God-given original life, in an Literary instinctively working genius of the mfluence - Ego — the Ego of Fichte, which is not the indi- vidual, but that which is common to all individ- uals — the universal personality. By Schelling 30 INTR OD UCTION. this instinctively working genius of the Ego was called " intellectual intuition ;" by Schlegel, Tieck, and Novalis " poetry ;" and by Schleier- macher, " sense and taste for the infinite." The political influence was due to the spirit of national patriotism, which glowed with such Political intensity in the heart of Germany influences. when? j n jg^ ghe roge j n her might to drive out her proud and imperious invader, the first Napoleon. " In that moment of deep public suffering," says Farrar (" Critical History of Free Thought/' p. 240), "the poetry and piety of the human heart brought back the idea of God and a spirit of moral earnestness. The national patriotism, which still lives in the poetry of the time, expelled selfishness; sorrow impressed men with a sense of the vanity of material things, and made their hearts yearn after the immaterial, the spiritual, the immortal : the sense of terror threw them upon the God of battles. It was the age of Marathon and Salamis revived ; and the effect was not less wonderful." The fourth or spiritual influence began, or rather manifested itself, on the anniversary of Spiritual tne Reformation, in 1817, when Claus influence. Harms, an archdeacon in Kiel, added to the ninety-five theses of Luther ninety-five new ones, which recalled to the rationalistic and THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 31 irreligious age the faith of the great Reformer. These theses produced a great agitation, and showed that religious interests had again become a power. "It was in vain," says Kahnis, "that the old Humanism in Halle sang, ' Strew roses on the way and forget Harms/ Harms's testi- mony did not become void. From a quarter altogether unexpected there appeared a fellow- combatant. Amnion defended Harms's theses in the pamphlet, " Eine bittere Arzenei fur die Glau- benschwdche der Zeit (a bitter medicine for the weak faith of the time)." These influences were productive of wide and important results. The second half of the last and the beginning of the present century formed a transition period from a lifeless orthodoxy to a new era in theology and religion. It was a dreary period in the history of the Protestant Church. Rationalism, on its critical side, had attempted to eliminate the miraculous element from the Bible ; on its dogmatic side, it oscil- lated between natural morality and Socinianism. This was the old deistic Rationalism. Now a new order of things arose. The gifted Schleiermacher, one of the most celebrated names in the history of German Protestant- Schleier . ism, appears on the scene. He inner- macher. ited from the Moravians, among whom he had. 32 INTRODUCTION. received his early education, the spirit of pietism, and drew his philosophy largely from Jacobi. Though he sympathized with every department of the intellectual movement of his time, yet his love for Christianity fitted him to become the leader of a new reformation. He attempted the reconciliation of knowledge and faith, and thus founded a school which has been called, from its aim, the Mediation School. This school has on its roll names of the highest celebrity, such as Neander, Tholuck, Olshausen, Twesten, Nitzsch, Miiller, Dorner, and Ullmann, and typifies the philosophical and more orthodox side of the new movement. De Wette may be considered as the most im- portant name representing the critical movement. De Wette was educated at Jena, under De Wette. the influence of the old Rationalism; and his early intercourse with Herder, Gries- bach, and Paulus exercised a powerful influence on his mind. So also did the philosophy of Fries, who modified the doctrines of Kant and Jacobi. (Tennemann's " Manual of the History of Philosophy," pp. 467, 468.) It was through the influence of this philosophy that he was pre- served from the coldness of the older criticism, and that he was brought into a reactive position in relation to it. The peculiarity of the school, THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 33 of which he may be said to have been the founder, was the investigation of the Bible for the sake of its literature, and not for the purpose of dis- covering doctrine. " Like the older Rationalists/' the critics of this school " are occupied largely with Biblical interpretation ; but, perceiving the hollowness of their attempt to explain away moral and spiritual mysteries by reference to material events, they transfer to the Bible the theories used in the contemporary investigations in class- ical history, and explain the Biblical wonders by the hypothesis of legends or of myths. Though they ignore the miraculous and supernatural equally with the older Rationalists, they admit the spiritual in addition to the moral and natural, and thus take a more scholarlike and elevated view of human history." (Farrar's " Critical His- tory of Free Thought." Lecture VI., p. 253.) To this critical school belong Hare, who was also influenced by the philosophy of Fries, Ge- senius, Knobel, Hirzel, Hitzig, Credner, Tuch, Stahelin, and perhaps Ewald, whose originality may exempt him from classification. The system of interpretation adopted by this school forms the transition between the deistic Rationalism, that preceded it, and the r 7 Strauss. system of Strauss. The old Rational- ism of Paulus admitted the facts, but explained 3 34 INTRODUCTION. them away : Strauss denied the facts, and ac- counted for the belief in them by psychological causes. His interpretation of the Scriptures is styled the " Mythical Theory." Strauss passed through several shades of opin- ion, beginning with the Romantic School and ending in Hegelianism. He belonged to the Left Section of the Hegelian School. It was this philosophy that furnished him with the construc- tive side of his work. Setting out with the pre- conception that " the idea is more important than the fact," that the fact is the mere clothing of the idea, he applied it to the interpretation of history, and regarded the Gospel history as an attempt of certain ideas to realize themselves in fact. The Gospels were partly a creation out of nothing and partly an adaptation of real facts to preconceived ideas. Such a theory destroys, of course, the historical foundation of Christianity. The controversy occasioned by Strauss's " Life of Jesus" led Ferdinand Christian Baur, the head of the Tubingen School, to in- Tubingen . J=> ' school. vestigate the New Testament. He ar- rived at the following results, namely : that the genuine epistles of Paul are the four principal ones, Romans, Corinthians, and Gala- tians ; that the most of the other New Testament writings, especially the Gospel of John, are to be THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 35 brought down to an advanced period in the sec- ond century; that the latter is not a historical, but a dogmatic, writing; that primitive Christi- anity, making Ebiouism its starting-point, devel- oped through the opposition of the latter and Paulinism, until through accomodation of the opposition, Catholic Christianity was formed, and that to this accommodation the great number of our New Testament writings belong. (Immer's Hermeneutics, p. 75. Andover : Warren F. Dra- per. 1877.) It is very common in Germany to describe the criticism of this school by the term " tendenziose " [tendency criticism~\, as its aim is to establish the hypothesis that the New Testament writings arose out of conflicting tendencies in the early Church and efforts to reconcile contending factions. According to Baur, " Christianity is not a perfect and divine production, but only a vital force in process of development." From an orthodox point of view, the effect of this school is destructive ; but viewed in reference to " the mythical theory " of Strauss, it clings to the historic side of Christianity. Both alike, however, subvert its divine foundation. Both are permeated by the Hegelian spirit. Since 1848, new influences have been at work, political and philosophical, the bare men- tion of which must suffice. The result has 36 INTRODUCTION. been the rise of a reactionary Lutheran party, which professes to return to the old Lutheran ^ . ^ symbols of the time of the Eeforma- New mflu- J S s since tion# Tnis nas ^ een calle( ^ " Neo-Lu- theranism f and the term " Hyper- Lutheranism" has been applied to its High Church position. The "Mediation School" of Schleiermacher has assumed a newer form, modi- fied by Hegelianism in Dorner; and the Tubin- gen School has been very much modified by Dr. Dittenberger, C. Schwarz, Schweizer, and others, who may rather be said to have formed another school derived from it and that of De Wette. This brief historical outline of the Higher Criticism has been confined to Germany, the land of its birth and of its greatest achievements. Its principles are not, however, limited to Germany. They find their advocates in France, Holland, Great Britain, and the United States. The Free Church of Scotland has recently been agitated by them ; and it has removed from one of its theological chairs a man who is considered one of the best exponents of them. It is thought that many sympathize with him, but hesitate to declare themselves openly. The fearful are look- ing anxiously for the result. Those who have confidence in the truth, look on calmly, assured that it will triumph. THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 37 " Truth crushed to earth will rise again, The eternal years of God are hers; But error, wounded, writhes in pain, And dies amid her worshipers." The leading principle of the " Higher Crit- icism " is subjective, and is thus form- Leading prin- . 1 . T-fc ■»% ■ l et t r> • ci P le 0f the ulated by Dr. Davidson: If scien- "Higher J Criticism" tific theology detect the groundless- subjective. ness of external evidences, the latter must give way." This principle characterizes all the stages of the so-called " Higher Criticism." First, under the old critical Rationalism, it denied -. -. , ■,..-. Influence of the supernatural, and hence eliminated tins prm- . ciple. miracle and prophecy from the Bible. Under Hegelian ism or philosophical Rationalism it required adhesion to a subjective philosophical system. In the present time it rejects what it considers contradictory, and endeavors to recon- struct what to it seems a coherent narrative. Under its guidance, the exegete assumes as true certain principles which it deems fundamental, but which have never been acknowledged as such by exegetes generally. He sees contradiction and confusion where others of equal sagacity and penetration see agreement and order. Before concluding these introductory remarks, 38 INTRODUCTION. the writer deems it proper to allude to a law of critical procedure remorselessly enforced on others by the disciples of the Higher Criticism ; but very generally neglected by them- Conclusion. T . i i i selves. It is that we should set out, in our critical investigations, without presuppo- sitions or preconceived opinions. In the words of Neander ("Life of Christ," Introduction), "to comply with it is impracticable ; the very at- tempt contradicts the sacred laws of our being. We can not entirely free ourselves from presup- positions, which are born with our nature, and which attach to the fixed course of progress in which we ourselves are involved. They control our consciousness, whether we will or no; and the supposed freedom from them is, in fact, noth- ing else but the exchange of one set for another," In fact, such a state of mind is impossible, except in the case of idiots; and were it possible, it is difficult to see what advantage it would afford. Every mind has a bias in one direction in pref- erence to another. Professors of astronomy be- lieve in the Copernican system ; but that belief does not vitiate their demonstration of it. Pro- fessors of theology believe in the existence of God, but that belief does not invalidate the proofs of that existence given to their classes. THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 39 It is enough that we exclude, as far as possible, the influence of bias and prejudice; that we judge calmly and dispassionately according to the evi- dence. One may hold the doctrine of the ple- nary inspiration of the Scriptures, and yet pros- ecute critical studies with fairness. One may admit that miracles are historically true, and yet fulfill all the conditions and qualifications required in a good exegete, so far as the demands of the critical process are concerned. We may hold these doctrines provisionally in abeyance during the process of critical investigation, so that our inquiries may be independent of our creeds and beliefs. It is possible that the results may con- flict with these creeds and beliefs ; and then, as honest men, we must modify or relinquish them. But it is certainly both unfair and uncritical to set out, as did the old Rationalism, with the denial of the supernatural ; to take for granted, with Kuenen, that the religion of the Israelites was not of divine origin, exceptional in the his- tory of religion ; but that it was merely a nat- ural evolution. This is assuming what ought to be proved. To reject the supernatural a priori and assume that accounts of miracles must be legendary is to beg the question at issue. The extreme orthodox traditionists can not go be- 40 INTR OD UCTION. yond, with their so-called uncritical methods, such absurd and unscientific treatment of the Holy Scriptures. Books of Reference F Hurst's History of Rationalism ; Hagenbach's German Rationalism ; Kahnis's History of German Protestantism. Farrar's Critical History of Free Thought; Tennemann's Manual of the History of Phi- losophy. Part I. .Au.ttiorship and Composition OF THE PENTATEUCH. Part I. CHAPTER I. THEORIES OF THE COMPOSITION AND AUTHOR- SHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH Most English readers suppose the five books of the Bible commonly called the Pentateuch to have been written by Moses. They except, of course, the last chapter of Deuteronomy, which records the death of that great lawgiver and prophet, together with some other portions, which must have been added by a later hand. This was the belief of the Jews and of the Samaritans. The Christian Church has held the same be- lief; and, in support of it, it adduces not only the authority of the Jews, but also the testimony of Christ and his apostles. It is fair to state that, in the first century of our era, a different opinion was held -by some small parties in the Church, principally Gnostics, who were opponents of Judaism and the Jewish law. In the second century, Ptolemaeus made a di- vision of the contents of the Pentateuch, assign- 44 THE PENT A TE VCR. ing a portion of it to divine revelation, another portion to Moses alone, and another to the ptoiemaeus e ^ ers °f tne people. The Nazarenes Nazarenes. affirmed that it was fictitious, and re- Clementine > Bog^ii! jected it. The Clementine Homilies ^assert that Moses' object was to prop- agate the primitive religion verbally, and that he communicated the law containing it to seventy wise men, who, after his death, and contrary to his design, committed it to writing. This, ac- cording to them, was the origin of the Penta- teuch. The Bogomili, a sect in the twelfth cen- tury, rejected the Mosaic writings; but it is not said that they questioned the Mosaic authorship. Among the Jewish scholars of the middle ages, Isaak ben Jasos and Aben-Esra expressed their doubt whether the whole Penta- sos'and teuch was written by Moses; but they Aben-Esra. . ' . * did not deny its authorship in general by him. These opinions, with the exception of those of Isaak ben Jasos and Aben-Esra, seem to have been founded upon dogmatic rather than upon critical considerations; and as they proceeded mostly from theosophic ascetic tendencies, they have no value. In modern times, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch has been assailed by men of emi- COMPOSITION AND A UTHOItSHIP. 45 nent ability, learning, and great critical acumen. Carlstadt, at the time of the Reformation, in his treatise on the Canonical Scriptures, _ . . . __ , , , Carlstadt. denied that Moses was the author, and assigned as a reason the narrative of his death at the end of Deuteronomy, which no one in his senses, according to Carlstadt, would attribute to Moses as the author. Andreas Masius, a Roman Catholic and a lawyer, born in the neighborhood of Brussels (died 1573 at Cleves), declared in the Andreas preface to his " Commentary on the Masms - Book of Joshua," that the Pentateuch, in the form in which it has been transmitted to us, was not the work of Moses, but of Ezra, or of some other inspired man. Hobbes, in his " Leviathan " (1651), expressed the opinion that the Pentateuch seems ii • Tir Hobbes. to have been written concerning Moses rather than by Moses [Videtur Pentateuchus po- tius de Mose quam a Mose Scriptus.] Isaak Peyrerius, a French Protestant divine, who subsequently went over to the Roman Cath- olic Church (died 1676), gave it as his Isaak opinion, in his work entitled, " Sys- p J" renus - tema Theologicum ex prse-Adamitorum Hypoth- esi," 1655, that Moses composed memoranda of the Exodus from Egypt, of the journeyings in the Wilderness, and of the giving of the Law 46 THE PENTATEUCH. from Mt. Sinai, to which he prefixed a history of the former times. These autographs of Moses, according to Peyrerius, were lost : the books of the Pentateuch were abstracts of them composed at a much later date, and not even immediately derived from them. Spinoza, who was expelled from the synagogue on the charge of Atheism, endeavored, in his "Tractatus Theologico-Politicus," 1670, Spinoza. ° to establish the doubts as to the Mo- saic authorship of the Pentateuch, by means of various passages in it, as well as by the phenom- ena throughout the whole work, particularly Mo- ses' use of the third person. He propounded the view that the Pentateuch, and likewise the other historical books of the Old Testament, in their present arrangement, were composed by Ezra; that he wrote Deuteronomy first, then the other four books and appended the former to them. In 1678 appeared Richard Simon's "Critical History of the Old Testament," which attributes Richard ^° Moses the literary authorship of the Simon. j jQW . j^ intimates the opinion that Moses employed official annalists, whom he ap- pointed, after the custom of the Egyptians, to write the history of his time ; and that the Pen- tateuch was compiled in a somewhat confused manner from the various writings of these annal- COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 47 ists working without connection with each other, and joined with the Mosaic book of the Law. Clericus (1685) broached the opinion that the existing Pentateuch was the work of Israelitish priests, who had been sent back from # Clericus. Babylon by the Assyrian kings, after the captivity of the ten tribes, in order to teach the worship of Jehovah to the new colonists (2 Kings xvii, 24-28) ; but he afterward retracted this opinion, and claimed the authorship of the whole Pentateuch for Moses, with the exception of a few passages inserted later by interpolation. Yitringa (1707) propounded the view that Moses employed, in writing the book of Genesis, sketches written by the patriarchs, and -. • n i • • Vitringa. sought a foundation for this conjecture in the titles, " These are the generations of," etc. No special interest, however, was attached to this question until after the middle of the last cen- tury, when more attention was given to what had been already said about the change, in different sections, of the names for God — Elohim and Je- hovah, This brings us to what is called the documen- tary theory. The Documentary Hypothesis rests on the alternate use of the divine names, Elo- him and Jehovah. The exclusive use tary n „ Al ,. . . Hypothesis. oi one oi these divine names in some 48 THE PENTATEUCH. sections, and of the other in other sections, im- plies, it is said, two different authors. The Pentateuch, therefore, it is affirmed, is composed of two different documents, the one Elohistic, the other Jehovistic, and consequently it was not written by Moses. At first this theory was limited to the book of Genesis ; then it was made to include Exodus to chapter vi ; afterward it was applied to the whole Pentateuch and to other portions of Scripture. The first who laid any particular stress on the documentary theory was J. Astruc, Astruc. a French physician, a doctor, and pro- fessor of medicine in Paris, who died in 1766. Astruc, in a work on the original documents used by Moses in composing the book of Genesis, published in Brussels, in 1753, assumed the ex- istence of two chief written sources, an Elohim- document and a Jehovah-document ; and was of the opinion that their elements pervade the whole book of Genesis. Together with these two docu- ments, he was of the opinion that there were ten others, separate fragments of which were intro- duced into Genesis, and that from these twelve documents Moses composed the whole of that book. Moses, according to Astruc, wrote the book originally in twelve columns ; but these columns were afterward written continuously, COMPOSITION AND A UT&ORSHIP. 49 one after another ; and, by the fault of transcrib- ers, certain matter got into the wrong places. Astruc was followed by several German wri- ters : by Jerusalem in his " Letters on the Mo- saic Writings and Philosophy;" by Jerusalera . Schultens, in his " Dissertatio qua dis- ?{^n! tens " quiritur, wide Moses res in libro Gene- sos descriptas didicerit;" 1 and by Ilgen, with con- siderable learning and critical acumen, in his " Urkunden der Jerusalemischen Tempel-Archivs " (Ier Theil, Halle, 1798) ; 2 and by Eichhorn (Ein- leitung in d. A. T.). Ilgen supposed that there were seventeen documents and three authors, one Jehovist and two Elohists. This documentary theory, as it has been called, was too conservative for some critics, and they adopted the theory known as the fragmentary hypothesis. Vater (Comm. ub. den Pentateuch, 1815), 3 and A. T. Hartmann (Linguist. Mini, in d. stud, der B'ueher des A. Test, 1818), 4 maintained Fragmentaxy that the Pentateuch consisted merely vater^ 68 * 8 ' of a number of fragments loosely Hartmann - strung together without order or design. Vater 1 A Dissertation on the Question whence Moses learned, the Facts related in the Pentateuch. 2 Documents of the Jerusalem Temple Archives. First Part Halle. 1798. 3 Commentary on the Pentateuch. 1815. 4 Linguistic Introduction to the Study of the Books of the Old Testament. 4 50 THE PENT A TE UCE. supposed that a collection of laws made in the times of David and Solomon was the foundation of the whole ; that this was the book discovered in the reign of Josiah ; and that its fragments were afterward incorporated in Deuteronomy. All the rest, consisting of fragments of history and of laws written at different periods up to this time, were, according to him, collected and shaped into their present form between the times of Josiah and the Babylonish exile. Hartmann, also, brings down the date of the existing Penta- teuch as late as the exile. Both these hypotheses — the documentary and the fragmentary — were assailed, and an attempt was made to establish the unity of the Pentateuch by pointing out its plan and single Supplemen- . , . . tary aim and snowing the internal connec- Hypothesis. tion of all its part with that plan and aim. In consequence of this, the fragmentary hypothesis was abandoned, and the documentary was transformed into the supplementary. This hypothesis acknowledges a unity of plan in the book, though it does not admit that this unity existed there from the beginning ; and it supposes that the Pentateuch originated by working up interpolations and supplements into the funda- mental document; and it attempts to determine these twofold elements in the individual instances. COMPOSITION AND A UTH0RSH1P. 51 This hypothesis has been adopted, with various modifications, by De Wette, Bleek, Stahelin, Tuch, Langerke, Hupfeld, Knobel, Bunsen, Kurtz, De- litzsch, Schultz, Vaihinger, and others. They all alike recognize two documents in the Pentateuch, and suppose that the narrative of the Elohist, the more ancient writer, was the foundation of the work; and that the Jehovist or later writer, making use of this narrative, added to and com- mented upon it, sometimes transcribing portions of it intact and sometimes incorporating the sub- stance of it into his own work. Though these authors agree in the main, yet they differ widely in the application of their the- ory. De Wette, for example, distin- • i i i -tai x_s * i ■» De Wette. guishes between the Elohist and Je- hovist in the first four books, and attributes Deuteronomy to a different writer altogether. Langerke does the same, with some difference of detail in the portions that he as- ,. Langerke. signs to the two editors. He places the Elohist in the time of Solomon and the Je- hovistic editor in that of Hezekiah. Tuch puts the first under Saul, and i i i « i Tuch - the second under Solomon. Stahelin declares for the identity of the Deu- teronomist and the Jehovist: and sup- ... Stahelin. poses the last to have written in the 52 THE PENTATEUCH. reign of Saul, and the Elohist in the time of the Judges. Hupfeld finds, in Genesis at least, traces of three authors, an earlier and a later Elohist and a Jehovist. He regards the Jehovistic Hupfeld. . b portion as an altogether original docu- ment, written in entire independence and without the knowledge of the Elohistic record. A later editor or compiler, he thinks, found the two books, and threw them into one. Vaihinger is also of opinion that portions of three original documents are to be found in the first four books, to which he adds some Vaihinger. * . fragments of the thirty-second and the thirty-fourth chapters of Deuteronomy. This book, according to him, is by a different and much later writer. He supposes that the Pre- elohist lived about 1200 B. C, the Elohist some two hundred years later, the Jehovist in the first half of the eighth century B. C, and the Deuter- onomist in the reign of Hezekiah. Delitzsch agrees with the writers above-men- tioned in recognizing two distinct documents as the basis of the Pentateuch, especially Delitzsch. . . . i v , . T 19, and Gen. xxxv, 9-15 ; both these refer it to Ja- xxxv, 9-lo. 7 7 cob, who had a divine manifestation there. They bear a general resemblance to each other, but vary in this, that in one Jacob gave the name Bethel to this place, which was previ- ously called Luz, on his journey into Mesopo- tamia; in the other, that he did this some years later as he returned from Mesopotamia. It is, to say the least, improbable, that both passages should have been composed originally in their present state by one and the same independent author." COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 89 Critics differ as to the authorship of these pas- sages. Vaihinger makes them both Elohistic. Tuch and others assign both to the Fundamental Document. Dr. Samuel Davidson assigns the first to the younger Elohist, and the second (except ity, vs. 9, 10) to the Elohist. When the Jehovist interpolated v. 5; and from TPI, v. 16, to nrrop, v. 20 (Davidson), it is singular that he did not obliterate such awkward repetitions and con- tradictions as critics have found in these passages. There is no contradiction between the two narratives. Jacob came to Luz, that is Bethel (xxxv, 6), and began the payment of the vow which he had made twenty-six or twenty-seven years before at this place (xxviii, 20-22). At his second visit he confirmed the name which had been given to the place at first. The place was called Luz by its inhabitants, though in the very first notice that we have of it, on Abra- ham's arrival in Canaan, it was called Bethel, without any mention of Luz (Gen. xii, 8, and xiii, 3) ; and in chap, xlviii, 3, Jacob gives it the name Luz without any mention of Bethel. It is difficult to explain these variations. The Elohist, who was the author of Gen. xii, 8 ; xxxv, 9-15; xlviii, 3; the younger Elohist, the writer of Gen. xxviii, 17-22 ; and the Jehovist, 90 THE PENTATEUCH. who was the author of Gen. xiii, 3, have left them unexplained.* There is, however, no real difficulty. The Canaanites did not adopt the name given to it by Jacob, but continued to call it Luz. Hence, when the descendants of Joseph "went up against " it (Judges i, 22-26), they found that it was called Luz by its inhabitants; but they called it Bethel, the name given to it by the patriarch Jacob. Suppose that the writer of Genesis does use the name Bethel in connection with the history of Abraham. It is not necessary. to infer from that fact that it was so called in Abraham's time. He merely designated it by a name known in his own time. A modern Greek writer might use the name Constantinople when referring to the By- zantium of ancient Greek history ; and it would certainly be very hypercritical to accuse him of an egregious blunder. 13. Beersheba is named by Abraham (Gen. xxi, 31) ; and it is named subsequently by Isaac (Gen. xxvi, 33). The rationalistic ob- andGen.' jection to the double history of the xxvi, 33. J . J . . name, in these two passages, is tnat *So Dr. Davidson distributes these passages. Vaihinger assigns chapters xii, 8 B ; xxviii, 19 ; xxxv, 9-15 ; xlviii, 3, to the ElohJst ; and chapter xiii, 3, to the Jehovist. The critics differ more than their imag- inary authors. COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 91 " identical names are not twice imposed." But Prof. J. L. Porter (Kitto's Encyclopaedia, Article Gilgal) says that this is " in full accordance with the genius of the Oriental languages and the literary tastes of the people," to renew an old name with a new meaning and significancy at- tached to it. In chap, xxvi, 18, it is distinctly stated that " Isaac digged again the wells of water, which they had digged in the days of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had stopped them after the death of Abraham : and he called their names after the names by which his father had called them." It is not stated that the well men- tioned in verses 32, 33, is the identical well that Abraham dug (xxi, 25-31). It may have been another in the same locality. Robinson says : " Upon its northern side [of Wady es-Seba], close upon the bank, are two deep wells, still called Bir es-Seba, the ancient Beersheba." (" Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai, and Arabia Petraea," Vol. I, p. 300.) 14. The merchants to whom Jo- Gen. xxxvii, 25 27 ^8 ■ seph was sold are called Ishmaelites xxxixfi! _*■ . . xxxvii, 28, 36; (Gen. xxxvii, 25, 27, 28, and xxxix, *i, 15. 1), and Midianites (xxxvii, 28, 36). The advocates of the documentary hypothesis are, of course, obliged to assign xxxvii, 28, to 92 THE PENT A TE UCH. two different authors. Accordingly, Dr. Samuel Davidson assigns the first part of the verse to Iton to the younger Elohist, and the latter part, from 'l?o"i to *]??, to the Jehovist. Yaihinger makes the Vor-Elohist the author of xxxvii, 28 a , and the Elohist the author of xxxvii, 28 bcd . Con- jectures are easy ; and one may be as good as another. Keil and Lange may be as near the truth as Davidson and Vaihinger, when the for- mer (Keil) thinks that the two tribes were often confounded, on account of their common descent from Abraham, and of the similarity of their customs and modes of life ; and when the latter (Lange) suggests that the Ishmaelites may have been the proprietors of the caravan, which was made up mostly of Midianites. Either of these explanations is certainly more natural than cut- ting up a verse into three or four fragments to satisfy different critical schemes. There is no contradiction between chap, xxxvii, 28, which states that Joseph was sold, and chap, xl, 15, in which Joseph says that he was stolen : he merely means that his enslavement was an act of vio- lence, a robbery. Gen.xxxix, 15 ' Gen « XXxix > 20 > xl > 4 > 0D the and X xxx!x, one hand, and chap, xxxix, 21-23, on 21 " 23, the other, are said to be contradictory. "The contradiction is based upon an arbi- CO MP OSITION AND A UTH ORSHIP. 93 trary identification of the keeper of the prison in xxxix, 21, with the captain of the guard in xl, 4." (KeiPs "Introduction to the Old Testament," Vol. I, p. 108.) 16. Gen. xlii, 27, 35, and xliii, 21, have been pronounced contradictory. In the first passage the sons of Jacob tell Jo- seph's steward that they opened their , , i n \ i i • Gen - xlii > sacks at the inn, and found each his 27, 35, and . xlui, 21. money in his sack ; whereas, according to the first passage, only one opened his sack at the inn and found his money ; and the rest, ac- cording to verse 35, first found their money on opening their sacks at home. " These are cir- cumstances," observes Keil, " which can not for a moment be a proof of divergence such as would point to two sources of history." "According to xlii, 35," remarks Dr. Doug- las, the translator of Keil, " it was only on emp- tying their sacks at home that the rest found their money ; but the one who opened his sack at the inn (verse 27), found his money in his sack's mouth. Nothing would be more natural than for the others to open their sacks, too, in their aston- ishment and anxiety ; but not finding the money at the mouth, they might well stop short of emp- tying their sacks ; and the details of this pro- ceeding, which had no bearing upon the general 94 THE PENTATEUCH. course of the history, are omitted, according to the usual practice, in the sacred narrative. It is really an incidental evidence of the accuracy and truthfulness of the history, that in xliii, 21, the opening of all the sacks is mentioned, even if we grant that the speakers made their statement to Joseph's steward so condensed as to fail in strict accuracy throughout; although it is quite pos- sible to defend its strict accuracy, and to leave it exposed to no charge, except possibly that of imperfection by translating." (Keil's " Intro- duction to the Old Testament/' Vol. I, pp. 108, 109.) 17. In Exodus iii, 1; iv, 18; and xviii, 1, Moses' father-in-law is called Jethro ; while in Ex m i- ii, 18 (compare verse 21), he is called xvii?, ; i;and Reuel. In Num. x, 29, he is named ii, 18 (com- -r> 1 pare v. 21); Kagliel. and Num. x, -^ ^^ ^ (( ^^ „ ^ „ j^^ „ have the same letters and vowel points, and are, therefore, the same name and person. Keil thinks that Jethro or Jether (from *V% to be pre-eminent, to excel) was a mere title of honor or office (equivalent to the title, his emi- nence, given to cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church) belonging to Raguel. This view, if correct, removes the contradiction. Josephus says that Jethro was one of the COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 95 names of Raguel. (Ant., B. II, Chap, xii, Sec- tion 1.) But on turning to Num. x, 29, we read: "And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel, the Midianite, Moses' father-in-law," etc. Was Ho- bab the father-in-law of Moses? or was Raguel? Both the original and the English translation are ambiguous ; and from them we can not determine whether " father-in-law " is in apposition to Ho- bab or Raguel.* Some think that the English version of Judges iv, 11, favors the former; viz., that it stands in apposition to Hobab. But the Hebrew word T?0 means to join affinity, to give one's daughter in marriage, to take in marriage. Dr. Cassel (Com. on Judges, Lange's Bible-Work, in loc.) says that l 7 ?^ (the participial form from *pn) m ay stand for both father-in-law and brother-in-law, just as in German, Schwaher (father-in-law) and Schwa- ger (brother-in-law) are at bottom one." Should any one, therefore, insist on placing *p. n (Num. x, 29) in apposition to Hobab, it may be ren- dered brother-in-law, w T hich would bring this pas- sage and Judges iv, 11, into harmony w T ith the others. * The Septuagillt : T<3 'Oj3a/3 vl i?; Num. f or a sin-offering, and two lambs for a xxvm, 27, 30. . peace-offering at the feast of weeks; and Num. xxviii, 27, 30, says two bullocks, one ram, seven lambs for the burnt-offering, and one kid of the goats for the sin-offering. (a) Lev. xxiii, 18, 19, treats of the sacrifices connected with the presentation of the loaves of the first fruits. (b) Num. xxviii, 27, 30 treats of the general offerings belonging to that feast-day. (c) Observe the recurring expression, "beside the continual burnt-offering" (Num. xxviii, 10, 31), which furnishes the explanation. 28. A discrepancy is alleged to exist between Num. i, and Exodus xxxviii, 25, 26, compared with xxx, 12ff. (a) In Num. chap, i, the "Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Take ye the sum of 25%6HJum. all the congregation of the children of with Ex. Israel, after their families, by the house xxx, 12ff. \ . of their fathers, with the number of COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 103 their names, every male by their polls; from twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel : thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies " (vs. 1, 2, 3). After the numbering of each tribe, the ex- pression, " all that were able to go forth to war," recurs in verses 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42. A perusal of the chapter will show that the object of the census, on this occasion, was not merely to number the people, but also to make an orderly disposition of the men of war, both in the camp and on the march. (b) Exodus xxxviii, 25, 26 (compare xxx, 12ff), assumes a simple numbering of the people for a poll-tax. 29. Num. iv, 6, says : " When the camp set- teth forward, Aaron shall come, and his sons, and they shall take down the covering veil, Num iv 6 . and cover the ark of testimony with Ex> xxv « 15, it : and shall put thereon a covering of badgers' skins, and shall spread over it a cloth wholly of blue, and shall put in the staves thereof." Exodus xxv, 15: "The staves shall be in the rings of the ark : they shall not be taken from it." Num. iv, 6, states that the staves are put into the ark after it has been wrapped up : whereas, 1 04 THE PENT A TE UCH. Exodus xxv, 15, says, "the staves shall not be taken from it." The apparent contradiction is explained by Exodus xxxvii, 5, where it is said Bezaleel " put the staves into the rings by the sides of the ark, to bear the ark ;" and Exodus xl, 20, which states that "he took and put the testimony into the ark, and set the staves on the ark." Num. iv, 6, means that, when the tabernacle was broken up and the ark packed for carrying, the staves were pulled out of the rings that the ark might be wrapped up; and that they were again put in their place when the ark was un- wrapped and set up again. 30. According to Num. iv, 3, 23, the Levites do duty from the age of thirty to that of fifty ; but according to Num. viii, 24, 25, 23, 30', 35'. 47, they serve from twenty-five to fifty and viii, 24, J J J 25. years of age. The contradiction is removed, if we consider that chap, iv refers to the bearing and the trans- porting of the tabernacle through the wilderness; and that chap, viii refers to the service at wor- ship. Chap, viii, 22, says that the Levites went in "to do their service in the tabernacle of the congregation before Aaron and before his sons." 31. According to Num. xiv, 45, the Amalekites and the Canaanites, on the southern boundary COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 105 of Palestine, drove the Israelites back to Hor- mah ; but, according to Xum. xxi, 3, Numxiv45 . the Israelites smote the king of Arad andxxi > 3 - and the Canaanites, and named the place Hormah. Keil remarks : " The former event occurred in the second year of the exodus, and the latter in the fortieth; and it is by an intentional and significant prolepsis that the place already bears the name of Hormah in chap, xiv, 45." The name Hormah signifies " devoted to de- struction ;" and it may have been applied to more places than one. There are other passages which are alleged to be contradictory ; but they are very much of the same character with those which have been cited ; and the solutions of the apparent contra- dictions are similar to those which have been given. The explanations may not, in all cases, be satisfactory; and exceptions may be taken to them on the ground that they are made on the hypothesis of the unity of the Pentateuch. Be it so. Such a process is not less scientific and crit- ical than it is to assume, on the ground of diver- sity of statement or apparent contradictions, di- versity of authorship, and then to say, whenever an apparent contradiction occurs, that verse 28 a belongs to the Vor-Elohist, 28 bcd to the Elohist, 2 b to the Elohist, and 2 a to the Jehovist. More- 106 THE PENT A TE UCH. over, the critics contradict one another ; one say- ing, this passage belongs to the Elohist ; another, no, it belongs to the Jehovist. If all passages can be harmonized on the hypothesis of unity of authorship, is it not better than to admit con- tradictions on the hypothesis of a plurality of authors ? Section III. ALLEGED DIFFERENCE IN THE CIRCLE OF IDEAS, AND IN THE USUS LOQUENDI ADVANCED AS PROOFS THAT THE PEN- TATEUCH PROCEEDED FROM DIFFERENT AUTHORS. An intimate acquaintance with the Hebrew language is necessary to understand this line of argument; and after wearisome processes and toil- some labor the results arrived at are very vague. They are so vague that the investigator will esti- mate them according to his foregone conclusions. 1. The alleged fact of a diversity in the lan- guage and ideas of the Pentateuch underlies the hypothesis of two documents — the one Difference in ___ language and Elohistic, and the other Jehovistic— and ideas. . ,. to support that hypothesis the diver- sity has been greatly exaggerated. This hypoth- esis has been shown, in the two preceding sec- tions, to have a very slight foundation. To arrive at it, it is necessary to make artificial di- visions of the text, and to assume interpolations A GAINST MOSAIC A UTHOBSHIP. 107 and retouchings of the so-called fundamental doc- ument of the hypothetical supplementer : " If the alleged fact of a diversity in the lan- guage and ideas of the Pentateuch were to be a criterion of diversity of authorship, it would be- come a valid proof of the hypothesis of supple- ments only in two ways : either, generally, if the fundamental document made a representation of primeval history and of patriarchal life which differed from the history of these times and these relations in the supplementary sections; or, in particular, if the peculiar ideas in the sup- posed different authors contradicted one another. Neither of these propositions has hitherto been proved to be true. The Elohist (the author of the fundamental document) does not give a sim- pler and less artificial representation of the relig- ious aspects of antiquity, its manners, and its arrangements of life than the Jehovist (supple- menter) ; and in depicting them he does not pre- sent ideas which would contradict the circle of ideas in which the supplementer moves." (KeiPs " Introduction to the Old Testament," Vol. I, p. 122.) It would be very prolix and, consequently, tedious to present long lists of words said to be peculiar to the different authors. They can be found in Introductions to the books of the Pen- 108 THE PENT A TE UCH. tateuch and in Critical Commentaries. In these, many instances of alleged interpolations of pas- sages said to be retouched, and of different rep- resentations of antiquity, are exhibited. But on examination it will be found that most of the ideas, which are adduced as peculiar to the fund- amental document, or characteristic of the Elo- hist, occur also in the supplementer, or, at least, agree with his ideas. In the same way, ideas which are said to be peculiar to the supplementer are partly found in the fundamental document, too, or are wanting only because in the portions assigned to it no occasion is presented for men- tioning them ; and, moreover, they are not con- stant enough or are much too seldom used to be of any value as distinguishing characteristics. Even the ideas which do occur only in the one or other class of sections in the Pentateuch, fur- nish no proofs of two different composers, for the reason that they are neutralized by other ideas, not less peculiar, which occur in both. (See Keil's " Introduction to the Old Testament/' Yol. I, pp. 122-127.) The reasoning founded on the alleged diver- sity just mentioned is fallacious. It is the fallacy called reasoning in a circle. The existence of different sets of words and phrases furnishes the hypothesis of different authors; and then to COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 109 group these words and phrases into different sets the narrative is broken up in a fantastic way into fragments which are assigned to these authors respectively. Is it antecedently probable that chapters and narratives in the Pentateuch are a patch-work such as many modern critics pronounce them to be? To most readers they appear consecutive and homogeneous; aud it requires something more than bare assertion and an ingeniously selected list of words and phrases to convince them that these narratives are to be cut up into minute por- tions and assigned to the fundamental document or to the supplementary document, to the Vor- Elohist, to the Elohist, or to the Jehovist, as the case may be. Until the critics themselves are agreed as to the passages which are to be thus assigned, it is safe to conclude that the diversity can not be so great as they represent it to be. 2. In respect to the usus loquendi no such dif- ferences can be proved to exist in the different sections of the Pentateuch as to indi- Usus ]o _ cate diversity of authorship. Discur- quendi. siveness, circumstantiality of narrative, and repe- titions are peculiarities of ancient Shemitic his- torical writing ; and where they are prominent they can be explained by the subject-matter of the narratives, their tendency, and their tone. 110 THE PENTATEUCH. We may admit that there are traces of differ- ence of style, and yet deny that this fact is any proof of difference of authorship. We find many parallel cases in literature in which difference of style does not warrant the assumption of a differ- ent author. Style varies with the subject; and often a writer is not at all times equally careful. Homer,* Shakespeare, and Milton furnish exam- ples of this in their works. Section IV. ALLEGED WANT OP UNITY IN THE PENTATEUCH ADDUCED AS A PROOF OP PLURALITY OF AUTHORSHIP. Divide et impera — divide and rule— was an old Roman maxim. The Romans applied it to government. The same maxim has, in modern times, been adopted in destructive criticism. Wolff applied it to the Iliad and the Odyssey and announced to the literary world that they were a collection of separate lays, by different authors, arranged and put together for the first time during the administration and by the order of Pisistratus. It was admitted by his opponents that these poems furnish evidence of the prior existence of lays and legends of the ballad kind ; but, notwithstanding this admission, they proved * Indignor, quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus.— Horace, Epis. ad Pisones, v. 359. CO MP OSITION AND A TJTHORSIIIP. Ill that a single poet, called Homer, compiled from these lays and legends two consistent and harmo- nious poems. In the same way, it is asserted by some Bib- lical critics that different accounts of the same thing and repetitions occur in the Pentateuch, and that these are a sure mark of at least two authors. The occurrence of double narratives renders the hypothesis of two independent and continuous histories plausible ; but the attempt to assign one of these double narratives to the Elohist and the other to the Jehovist, breaks down, from time to time, by the confession of the critics themselves. On the hypothesis adopted by some, that there was only one original, continuous history, subse- quently interpolated, the objection against unity of authorship, drawn from double narratives, falls to the ground. But, on this hypothesis, it is difficult to understand why an editor or redactor should confuse and disfigure a clear narrative by interpo- lating passages which have the appearance of rep- etitions, unless the events did really occur the second time. In explanation of some of these repetitions, it may be proper to refer to a peculiarity of the Hebrew language. Where the Aryan languages prefer to make a mere reference, the simple and 112 • THE PENTATEUCH. uninvolved style of thought, which characterizes the Semitic languages, to which Hebrew belongs, repeats what has been already said or written. We express a complex proposition by a com- pound sentence, in which the subordinate mem- bers are introduced and kept in their true place by relative pronouns and conjunctions; but the Hebrew language uses simple sentences and unites statements by the conjunction " and," to which translators assign a variety of meanings. Thus repetitions sometimes become necessary. An explanation has already been given of some double narratives, showing that they are not inconsistent with unity of authorship, that one supplements or limits the other. But it is not enough to establish unity of authorship by proving that it is not inconsistent with repeti- tions and double narratives. It is necessary to show the organic unity of the whole Pentateuch. This is not difficult to be done. Unity is visible in the whole plan and execution of the work. It is clearly seen from the chronological order which runs through the five books and unites their parts together, that is, from their external unity ; and also from their internal unity, as parts of an organic whole. The chronological order of these books begins with the creation of man ; and it is very cohe- COMP OSITION AND A UTJH ORSHIP. 113 rent, definite, and exact. It is what may be called chronologico-genealogical, con- External necting the computation of time with oio^cLiOTdSr the life-time of the Patriarchs, or of the books ' rather with the time between the birth of the father and the birth of the son named in the ge- nealogical table, who may not always have been either the first-born son or the first-born child.* The fifth chapter of Genesis furnishes us with the chronological data from Adam to Shem, or to the five hundredth year of Noah's life. Chapter vii, 6, gives the time from the latter date until the flood. Comparing this data with that given in chap, viii, 13, 14, we find the duration of the flood. In chap, xi, 10-26 (compare verse 32), are contained the chronological data from the flood to Abraham. Chap, xxi, 5, brings the chronology down to the birth of Isaac ; chap, xxv, 26, to the birth of Jacob ; and xlvii, 9, to the time of the migration of the children of Israel into Egypt. Exodus xii, 40, 41, gives the duration of their stay in Egypt.f This passage gives the month and the day of their departure from Egypt, be- *Havernick says "the first-born;" but this is very improbable in every instance. It was not so in the case of Terah and Abram. This is evident on comparing Gen. xi, 26, 32, and xii, 4. fThe four hundred and thirty years may date from the promise made to Abraham and end at the Exodus, or at the giving of the Law from Mt. Sinai (See Gal. iii, 17). Some versions favor this view. 8 114 THE PENTATEUCH. cause that day constituted the commencement of the era according to which all subsequent events of great importance were determined. (Exodus xvi, 1 ; xix, 1 ; xl, 17 ; Num. i, 1, 18 ; xxxiii, 38; Deut. i, 3; 1 Kings vi, 1.) Deut. i, 3 (com- pare Josh, v, 6), gives the time of their wander- ing in the wilderness. The question of the correctness of the Penta- teuch chronology has no place here. Correct or incorrect, it furnishes proof of external unity, and this external unity affords a strong presump- tion of unity of authorship. But its internal unity, proving its organic character, affords a still stronger presumption. Indeed, it seems impossible to account for it, except on the hypothesis that the whole Penta- teuch came from the hand of a single author. This internal unity will now be briefly ex- hibited. The central point of the Pentateuch is the covenant made, through Moses, between Jehovah and his people. Every thing, in the Pentateuch, before the time of Moses was preparatory to that covenant; and every thing, in the same book, internal during his time, was a development of unity - it. By this it is not meant that its development came to a close at the death of Mo- ses; but only that the books of Exodus, Leviti- COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. H5 cus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy give a history of it up to that time. The national covenant, made at Sinai, was preceded by and founded on the Abrahamic cov- enant recorded in Genesis. This covenant finds its explanation in the previous history, which is accordingly given by the sacred historian. Be- fore the time of Abraham there was, properly speaking, no visible Church. Before the flood the whole earth had become corrupt. All man- kind were swept away by that catastrophe, with the exception of Noah and his family. Never- theless, the new world followed the example of the old. In the days of Abraham we read that polytheism and idolatry existed ; and ignorance was becoming universal. The time had come for a new economy — an economy of particularism instead of universalism, but with ultimate refer- ence to the salvation of the world. Abraham was called and a covenant was made with him, that in him all the families of the earth should be blessed. (Gen. xii, 3.) In order to understand this covenant, and the Mosaic economy, also, the history, contained in the book of Genesis, is nec- essary. For, as Havernick properly remarks, " With the history of the world's origin begins the history of Israel. That might be thought to arise from the fashion of the East, which is fond 116 THE PENTA TE UCH. of commencing its special history ah ovo. There- fore, it must here be shown whether that com- mencement is only loosely prefixed from regard to custom or stands connected with the whole by a deeper reason. Now the work of creation, in its fundamental plan, at once proclaims itself as intimately connected with the Theocracy. It is not any sort of isolated law, insignificant in rela- tion to the whole, that is brought out by the consecration here conferred on the number of seven ; but the whole of the formal structure of the Theocracy itself, in its consistent carrying out of this sacred cycle of time, is closely con- joined with it. Viewed from its internal side, the fundamental idea of the Theocracy, to be holy like to the holy God, and the consecration of the people, the priestly family, etc., arising thence, can be apprehended only in their relation to the beginning of the human race, and its orig- inal relation to God; so that the Theocracy is connected with Gen. i, 27, as the restoration of that which formerly subsisted." (" Introduction to the Pentateuch," p. 25. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark. 1850.) Gen. i, 27, reveals to us the original destina- tion of man; and it represents the human race, in its origin, as a unit related to God as its Cre- ator and Euler. By the Fall, it became sepa- COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 117 rated from God ; but it still continued to be the object of his care and the possessor of his promise. It was necessary, therefore, that a history of the Theocracy should begin with the origin of man. Apart from man's origin and destination the Theocracy is inexplicable. Hence, the Pentateuch begins with the book of Origins. Genesis narrates : I. The Origin of Heaven and Earth. II. The Origin of the Human Race. III. The Origin of Sin in the World. IV. The Origin of Sacrifice. V. The Origin of Covenant Promises. VI. The Origin of Nations and Languages. VII. The Origin of the Hebrew Nation. The early history of the world, until the time of Abraham, is very brief. From Noah, the second father of the human family, every thing hastens on the history of Abraham's call from Ur of the Chaldees and his entrance into Ca- naan, which were a preparation for Mosaism. To him a special blessing, in his seed, upon all the nations of the earth, was promised ; and the land of Canaan was assigned to his posterity, through Isaac, as a possession. The character of Abraham was peculiar and typically theocratical. The offices of the Theoc- 118 THE PENT A TE TICK. racy appeared united in him. He is called a prophet (Gen. xx, 7); he acted as a priest by- building altars and offering sacrifices ; and to him as king, God gave the land of Canaan in perpetual possession. The history of Abraham is written in a theo- cratic spirit; and from his time until the death of Moses, the Pentateuch is confined to the his- tory of the theocratic people. The history communicates little of the quiet, uneventful life of Isaac ; but it gives many de- tails of the life of Jacob, the progenitor of the twelve tribes. The history of Joseph, with the exception of some particulars relating to the fam- ily of Judah (Gen. xxxviii), follows next, which prepares for the emigration of the children of Israel to Egypt, where Jacob died after he had blessed his sons and made to them the prophetic announcement that their descendants should pos- sess the land which they had left. The preparatory part of the theocratic history ceases with Joseph, and remains silent until the time of Moses, the leader and law-giver of God's chosen people. The book of Exodus begins with a distinct reference to that of Genesis, and is unintelligible apart from it. The early history of Moses is then briefly given. And when " the children of Israel COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 119 sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of their bondage," then, " God heard their groan- ing, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them." (Ex. ii, 23-25.) Then follows the history of their deliverance and of their journey to Sinai. At Sinai they re- ceived the law, by which they were constituted a theocratic nation. God now proceeds with his people on a strictly pedagogic plan. The Decalogue, as the funda- mental law, stands first ; and the other laws, both civil and ceremonial, are framed to carry out its principles. The whole national life was to be imbued with the spirit of the law; and all the institutions growing out of it were intended to remind the people that they should be holy, be- cause Jehovah, their God, is holy. The theocracy required that God should dwell among his people. Hence, Moses was com- manded to make a tabernacle to be a meeting- place between God and them. The building of the tabernacle, with all its appurtenances, is given with great minuteness of detail. But a taber- nacle, with appointments for religious worship, required ministers of religion. The history, ac- 120 THE PENT A TE TJCH. cordingly, gives an account of the designation of Aaron and his sons to the office of the priest- hood, with a description of their "holy gar- ments " and of the ceremonies to be used at their consecration. The book of Leviticus presupposes Exodus by a direct reference to the tabernacle from which the Lord speaks to Moses. The laws of sacrifice form the commencement of the book, in which their general nature is described, their division into bloody and unbloody, their objects, and the time, place, and manner of their presentation. Then follows the consecration of Aaron and his sons to the priesthood. The tabernacle or sanctuary having been made the center of the whole nation, the remainder of the book pre- scribes the laws of cleanness and uncleanness; and nature and all animal life are made to fur- nish a testimony of the defilement of sin and of the holiness of Jehovah. The book of Numbers also begins with a ref- erence to the tabernacle, and embraces a period of thirty-eight years. Its contents are of a mis- cellaneous character, history and legislation alter- nating with each other in the order of time. In the history of these thirty-eight years there are three salient points. The first is- the departure from Sinai ; the preparations for which, the order COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 121 of march, and the incidents of the journey to the wilderness of Paran are described in the first twelve chapters. The second is the sending of the spies to search the land of Canaan, and the rebellion of the people on hearing their report. This was in the second year of the exodus. Of the events that follow, until the third point, we have only a brief notice. The third begins with the second arrival of the children of Israel at Kadesh, and continues the history until their arrival "in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho." The book of Deuteronomy forms a natural close to the preceding books. It is an appropri- ate farewell address of Moses, the great law-giver and leader, whom God had appointed to guide his people from Egypt to Canaan. That great man having, by divine direction, appointed Joshua his successor, recapitulated to the people, whom he had guided to the border of the Holy Land, their past history ; repeated, with exhorta- tions to obedience, the law given at Sinai; pro- nounced blessings and curses as motives to obe- dience ; and then retired to Mount Nebo to die. From this rapid sketch it is evident that the Pentateuch is a continuous history — a whole. Genesis is inseparable as an introduction, Deu- teronomy as a close. 122 THE PENTATEUCH. It is evident, also, that the fragmentary theory, which disintegrates the Pentateuch into a mass of innumerable fragments, has no foundation. This theory, however, has been abandoned by the ablest critics; and the documentary has been transformed into the supplementary, which ac- knowledges a unity of plan in the Pentateuch, but denies that it existed there from the first; and not only supposes that the Pentateuch came into existence by the process of working up interpo- lations and supplements into the fundamental document, but also attempts to determine these twofold elements in the individual instances. A formal discussion of this theory will not be attempted. While it may be admitted that inter- polations and supplements may have occasionally been made by sacred writers subsequent to Moses, yet, as a theory to account for the composition of the Pentateuch, it is wholly unnecessary. The sequel will confirm this statement. EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 123 CHAPTER III. EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES WHICH ASSIGN THE PENTATEUCH TO A LATER DATE THAN THE TIME OF MOSES. Section I. SINGLE PASSAGES, WHICH POINT TO HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTAN- CES BELONGING TO A LATER TIME THAN THAT OF MO- SES, AND YET PRESUPPOSE THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AS EXISTING AT THE TIME OP THE AUTHOR.* 1. " And the Canaanite was then in the land." (Gen. xii, 6.) Bleek says : " It can not be denied that this 'then' refers to a date of authorship when the Canaanite was not in the land. . . . The re- mark is natural only if made at a time , , n , .11 Gen. xii, 6. when that tact no longer existed, there- fore after the taking possession of the land by the Israelites." Davidson : " These words obviously imply, that when the writer lived the Canaanites had been expelled from the land." *Bleek's "Introduction to the Old Testament," Vol. i, p. 229ff. London : Bell & Daldy. 1869. Bishop Colenso on the Pentateuch, pp. 97-104. 124 THE PENTA TE UCH. Three general opinions have been expressed as to the import of the " then " in that verse : (a) The Canaanite was already in the land when Abraham entered it. (b) The Canaanite was yet, or still, in the land at that time. (c) The Canaanite was actually in the land. If (a) is admissible, the difficulty vanishes. The same may be said of (c). The difficulty is with (6). But why should the use of " then " be, ac- cording to Bleek, "natural only if made at a time when that fact [the possession of the land by the Canaanites] no longer existed, therefore, after the taking possession of the land by the Is- raelites?" Was it not natural for the historian, whether Moses or any other person, to mention the inhabitants of the land just at the time when Abraham and his descendants came into histor- ical contact with them? May the statement not imply that Abraham could not enter upon the immediate possession of the land because it was inhabited by the Canaanites? or may it not as- sign a reason why he was obliged to pass through the land to Sichem to find a place of residence? Or does the hypothesis, that it came from a later hand, invalidate the generally received opinion that Moses wrote the book of Genesis? It may EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 125 have been added by an editor or redactor, say one of the prophets, to whom the conservation, revision, and continuation of the sacred writings were committed. It is not an unusual thing for editors, in modern times, to append notes to works which they edit, placing them in brackets, with their initials, or in the margin. The ancient editors, as is evident from the last chapter of Deuteronomy, and other passages, put their notes in the text without their names. 2. Gen. xiii, 7 : " And the Canaan- Gen - xm > 7 - ite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land." The explanation of this passage is the same as that of the preceding. 3. Gen. xii, 8 ; " And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west and Hai on the east." Bishop Colenso remarks : " The familiar use of the name Bethel in this passage, and in Gen. xiii, 3, in the story of Abraham's life — a name which was not given to the place till Jacob's day (Gen. xxviii, 19) — be- trays the later hand of one, who wrote when the place was spoken of naturally by this name as a well-known town." The bishop will admit that Moses lived some centuries after Jacob, in whose day Luz, as the 126 THE PENT A TE UCH. bishop acknowledges, received the name of Bethel. Jacob would naturally transmit this name to his posterity; and Moses would likely prefer it to Luz. The fact that he calls the town Bethel in the history of Abraham creates no more difficulty than a historian of New York City would do by applying its present name to it, instead of New Amsterdam, which it bore in the time of the Dutch. No fair-minded reader would cavil at such a use of the name. 4. Gen. xiii, 10 : " And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, even as the garden of Jehovah, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest to Zoar." Bishop Colenso observes : " This is supposed to have been written for the instruction, in the first instance, of the Hebrews in the Gen. xiii, 10. wilderness. But what could they have known of the nature of the country in the land of Canaan, as thou comest unto Zoar?" (Gen. xix, 22.) The objection is founded on the bishop's igno- rance. Many of the Hebrews may have pos- sessed more geographical knowledge than he is disposed to concede. Is every writer, who writes for the instruction of his readers, careful to limit himself, in his writings, to their geographical and EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 127 historical knowledge? Perhaps the bishop him- self, in his Avritings for the instruction of the Zulus, may sometimes go beyond, in his state- ments, their historical and geographical knowl- edge. 5. Gen. xiv, 14 : "And pursued them unto Dan." Bishop Colenso says : " The place was not named Dan till long after the time of Moses. For we read, ' The coasts of the chil- ? , Gen. xiv, 14. dren of Dan went out too little for them. Therefore the children of Dan went up to fight against Leshem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt therein, and called Leshem Dan, after the name of Dan their father." (Josh, xix, 47.) Further, in Judges xviii, we have the whole transaction detailed at length. And at the end it is added (verse 29), "And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their fa- ther ; howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first." Four explanations of this passage have been attempted : (a) That another place of the same name is intended. (b) That it is a prophetic anticipation, by the sacred historian, of a name which was not to exist till centuries later. 128 THE PENTATEUCH. (c) That the original contained an older name, Laish ; and that when that name was superseded by Dan, the new name was inserted in the man- uscripts. (d) Dr. Murphy says : " This name is found in the Hebrew, Samaritan, Septuagint, and On- kelos. It might naturally be supposed that the sacred reviser of the text had inserted it here, had we not grounds for a contrary supposition. The custom of the reviser was to add the other name without altering the original ; of which we have several examples in this very chapter (vs. 2, 3, 7, 8, 17). We are, therefore, led to regard Dan as in use at the time of Abram. Held at that remote period, perhaps, by some Hebrew, it fell at length into the hands of the Sidonians (Judges xviii), who named it Laish (lion) and Leshem (ligure). Names of places in that Eastern land vary, from a slight resemblance in sound (paronomasia), a resemblance in sense (synonyms), a change of masters, or some other cause. Laish and Leshem are significant names, partly alike in sound, and applied to the same town. They took the place of Dan when the town changed masters. The recollection of its ancient name and story may have attracted the Danites to the place, who burned Laish and built a new city, which they again called Dan." - EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 129 Of these explanations, which are all hypo- thetical, perhaps c, which is that of Ewald, is to be preferred, though there is force in Dr. Mur- phy's objection to it. Dr. Smith ("The Book of Moses or the Pen- tateuch ;" London : Longmans, Green & Co. 1868 ; pp. 445-454.) mentions various circumstances corroborative of the view that derives the name Dan from a Phoenician god. " The Arabic trans- lation of the name into El-Kady, meaning the Judge or Ruler" he observes, " is certainly founded on the idea that Dan here had more the nature of an appellative, like Baal, than of a proper name." In view of all the " various cir- cumstances," which he mentions, he concludes : " We can hardly be wrong in assuming that at Laish or Leshem there was a sanctuary of Pan- Adonis-Eshmun before it became an Israelitic town. And on that supposition, the appropriate- ness of the name Dan, even in those early days, at once appears." 6. Gen. xiii, 8: "Then Abraham removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain r> tv r i • i • • tt i i Gen - xiii ' 8 - ot Mam re, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the Lord." (a) Bleek remarks : " We read, on the con- trary (Josh, xiv, 15; xv, 13), that it did not re- ceive this name till a later time, and had been 9 130 THE PENT A TE UCH. previously called Kirjath-Arba. But this change of name does not appear to have taken place be- fore the age of Joshua; and we are induced to assume that this mention could not have been made before this time (cf. Gen. xxiii, 2 ; xxxv, 27), where the city is pointed out as Kirjath-Arba (that is, Hebron)." (6) Baumgarten is of the opinion that " its earliest name was Hebron, but it was later called Kirjath-Arba by the sons of Anak. When the Israelites came into the possession of the land, they restored the original patriarchal name. (Lange's Commentary, in loc.) Kurtz (" History of the Old Covenant," Vol. I, p. 215) expresses the same view. So also Haver- nick ("Introduction to the Pentateuch," p. 145). Hengstenberg is quoted to the same effect by one of the translators and editors of Lange on Genesis. 7. Gen. xxxvi, 31 : " And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, be- Gen.xxxvi,31. ° . fore there reigned any king over the children of Israel." A series of eight kings follows. If we suppose that Moses is the author of Genesis, there is ample time between Esau and him, or between the emigration of the Israelites from Canaan to Egypt and the Exodus, for eight EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 131 reigns of twenty-five or thirty years each. The very shortest time is 215 years, and some make it 430. The expression, " before there reigned any king over the children of Israel," does not imply that monarchy began in Israel immediately after these kings ; as Lot's beholding the vale of Jor- dan to be well watered before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, does not imply that the cities were destroyed immediately after Lot be- held this sight. (Gen. xiii, 10.) Nor does it im- ply that monarchy in Israel had begun in the time of the writer; as Isaac's saying, "That my soul may bless thee before I die " (Gen. xxvii, 4), does not imply that he was dead at the time of his saying so. It merely implies that Israel was expected to have kings (Gen. xxxv, 11), as Isaac was expected to die." (Murphy's Commentary on Genesis, in loc.) 8. Gen. xxxix, 14 : " See, he hath brought in a Hebrew unto us to mock us." (Compare v. 17.) Gen. xl, 15 : " For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews." (Compare xli, 12.) Abraham is called the Hebrew. (Gen. xiv, 13.) His descendants, in the line of Isaac, were still called Hebrews, instead of Israelites. Gen yyy . y (xliii, 32.) Joseph says, "I was stolen 14 - away out of the land of the Hebrews." But, 1 32 THE PENT A TE UCH. avers the objector, the land was not occupied by the Hebrews at this time, and, consequently, was not called by their name. It was known as the land of Canaan. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, however, acquired something like permanent pos- sessions in it; and Joseph knew that, according to divine promise, it belonged to the Hebrews. Had he said, " I was stolen out of the land of Canaan," he would, very naturally, have been taken as a Canaanite, which he probably did not wish to be considered. 9. Exodus vi, 26, 27 : " These are that Moses and Aaron," etc. Exodus xi, 3 : " Moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh's servants, and in the sight Ex. vi, 26, 27. n, i . -, „ Ex. xi, 3. of his people." Num. xii, 3. ->-,. „ _ „ >T ,, ,, Num. xv,22,23. JNum. xn, 3: " .Now the man Mo- Deut.xxxiii.l. ses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth." Num. xv, 22, 23 : " And ye have erred and not observed all these commandments, which Je- hovah hath spoken unto Moses," etc. Deut. xxxiii, 1 : " This is the blessing, where- with Moses, the man of God, blessed the children of Israel before his death." Bishop Colenso remarks : " It can scarcely be doubted that such statements as the above must EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 133 have been written by some one who lived in an age after that of Moses." It is quite possible. It may be admitted that some of them were written by a redactor or an editor, and yet the admission would not affect the Mosaic authorship of the books in which they occur. But such an admission is not necessary. The first (Exodus vi, 26, 27) may assign a reason for inserting the genealogy of the families of Levi in that place ; and the enumeration of four generations may point to Gen. xv, 16. The second (Exodus xi, 3) accounts for the willingness with which the Egyptians gave up their jewels of gold and silver to the Israelites. The former probably knew that Moses had com- manded the latter to ask for these things; and the knowledge of that fact prompted them to comply with alacrity. The first clause of the verse says, " the Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians ;" but this does not exclude the personal influence of Moses. Why, then, should he not, as a historian, relate what is necessary to understand the transaction? The third (Num. xii, 3) is a vindication of Moses against the sedition of Miriam and Aaron ; and intimates that he did not avenge himself, but committed his justification to God. Paul says 134 THE PENT A TE VCR. (2 Cor. xi, 5), " I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles Are they ministers of Christ ? (I speak as a fool) I am more" (v. 23). Does any one deny Paul's authorship of 2 Corinthians, because he indulges in this boasting strain ? Every one sees that it was necessary to the vindication of himself against the aspersions of his enemies. Why not allow the same in the case of Moses? The fourth (Num. xv, 22, 23) speaks of Moses in the third person, which is generally used in reference to him. Both sacred and profane wri- ters speak of themselves in this way. Csesar speaks of himself in the third person; and so does Thucydides in the very first sentence of his history. The fifth (Deut. xxxiii, 1) may be an interpo- lation by the editor; and yet such a supposition is unnecessary ; for the phrase, " before his death" may have been written by Moses himself. He knew that he was about to die; and this fact would give a greater solemnity to his words and make a deeper impression upon the people. 10. Exodus x, 19: "And the Lord turned a mighty strong west wind, which took away the locusts, and cast them into the Eed Sea." " For west wind," remarks Bishop Colenso, EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 135 "the original of the passage has wind of the sea, that is, of course, the Mediterranean Sea, from which westerly winds blew over the land of Ca- naan, but not over Egypt. This expression, obviously, could not have been familiarly used in this way till some time after the people were set- tled in the land of Canaan, when they would naturally employ ' wind of the sea/ ' seaward/ to express i west-wind/ ' westward.' " Bishop Colenso requires too great a degree of exactness in the statements of the Pentateuch. He seems to forget that it was written for popu- lar, not scientific, instruction. He should bear in mind that the Hebrews recognized the exist- ence of four prevailing winds as issuing, broadly speaking, from the four cardinal points — north, south, east, west. Hence arose their custom of using the expression, " four winds," as equivalent to the " four quarters " of the earth. (Ezekiel xxxvii, 9 ; Dan. viii, 8 ; Zech. ii, 6 ; Matt, xxiv, 31.) Any wind, from a westward direction, be- tween the points of the compass, N. and S., would be called by the Hebrews a westward direction. A wind blowing from the 1ST. W. toward the S. E. would be called a west wind, and it would pro- duce the effect stated in this verse. Moreover, the term seaward may have been used in Canaan to designate the west before the 136 THE PENT A TE UCH. children of Israel went down into Egypt; and they may have continued the use of it in Egypt, though its primary meaning was no longer appro- priate. There are analogies in other languages to show that a secondary meaning entirely supplants a primary. 11. Exodus xvi, 35: "And the children of Israel did eat manna forty years, until Ex. xvi, 35. . • -, • they came to a land inhabited ; they did eat manna until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan." Bishop Colenso thinks that "this verse could not have been written till after they had ceased eating manna, which, we are told, took place on the morrow after they had eaten of the old corn of the land." (Josh, v, 12.) In this opinion Bishop Colenso is probably correct ; though Moses, with the knowledge that the manna would cease, after the Israelites had entered the land of Canaan, might have writ- ten it. 12. Lev. xviii, 28 : " That the land Lev. xviii, 28. spew not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were be- fore you." This verse implies, it is said, that the nations of Canaan had been already spewed out ; and con- sequently it must have been written after the EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 137 time of Moses. But if the reader goes back to verse 24, he will find that the sacred writer uses the participle meshalleach, casting out, or about to cast out, denoting the proximate future. That verse, therefore, reads, when literally translated, " Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things : for in all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out [or am about to cast out] before you." The whole transaction is represented as one in progress. AVe can not, therefore, infer that the casting out of the Canaan ites was al- ready an accomplished fact. 13. Num. xv, 32-36: "And while the chil- dren of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses." Bleek observes (" Introduction to the Old Testament," Vol. I, p. 232): " ' TJie wilderness' can only refer to the Arabian desert. Num But this mode of expression presup- 32 ~ 36 - poses that these words were written when they were no longer in the wilderness, and, therefore, point to a later age." In verses 30, 31, the sacred historian speaks of presumptuous sins, and adduces the incident of the Sabbath-breaker (v. 32) as an illustra- tion. It seems that the punishment for such 138 THE PENTATEUCH. acts of transgression had not yet been defined ; and when the man was brought to Moses, he was put in ward, until the Lord should indicate what punishment should be inflicted upon him. The incident occurred in the wilderness; but Bleek thinks that Moses, on the supposition that he was the author, would not have introduced it in this shape. The objection is made from a subjective stand-point; and yet it seems, at first sight, plaus- ible. At the same time Moses — assuming that he was the author — might wish to relate not only the occasion of the offense and its punishment, but also the place where the sin was committed and its penalty defined. It furnishes a proof of the strictness with which the law of the Sabbath was enforced even in the wilderness, where cir- cumstances would naturally favor its violation. 14. Deut. i, 1 : " These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel, on this side Jordan, in the plain," etc. "On the assumption of a Mosaic authorship," says Bleek (" Introduction to the Old Testa- ment," Vol. i, p. 233), ' b e ebher hayyar- den has been translated ' this side of Jordan/ but this can not be justified by the usage of the language." He adds, " If Moses himself were the author, standing, as he did, on the east- ern bank of the river, he certainly would not EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 139 have used the expression except for the land westward of Jordan, the actual Canaan." The phrase b e ebher hayyarden was a standing designation for the district east of the Jordan; and in times when Greek was commonly spoken in the country, it was exactly represented by the proper name Persea. It was used irrespectively of the actual position of the speaker or writer, just as " seaward," or "from the sea," was used for the west. (Compare Exodus x, 19.) It had, probably, been settled by the usage of the Ca- naanites in very early times ; and passed from them to the patriarchs and the Jews generally. Yet along with this conventional use the natural one is still found ; and the phrase is used of both sides of the river. (Gen. 1, 10, 11; Josh, ix, 1; Num. xxii, 1 ; xxxii, 32 ; Deut. iii, 8, 20. 25.) The immediate context will usually determine the sense of the phrase which is thus in itself ambig- uous; but sometimes a qualifying addition is made to determine it. (Compare chap, iv, 41 ; Josh, xxii, 7.) In Num. xxxii, 19, the transjor- danic tribes use a phrase nearly identical with the one before us, first for their own territory, and then for that of their brethren ; but add terms to explain the meaning. It is evident, from a mere inspection of the passages in which the phrase is used, that no inference can be drawn 140 THE PENTATEUCH. from them as to whether the writer of Deuteron- omy dwelt on the one side of the Jordan or the other. (See the Bible Commentary, in loo.) 15. Deut. ii, 12 : " The Horims also dwelt in Seir beforetime ; but the children of Esau suc- ceeded 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 words, " As Israel did unto the land of his possession," are understood to refer to the conquest of the land of Canaan as a Deut. ii, 12. _ _ past transaction. I he reader would naturally make, at the first glance, such a refer- ence of them. The context renders this doubt- ful (vs. 13-37). These words were spoken after the Israelites had taken possession of the country east of the Jordan. The passage does not state that Israel had expelled the inhabitants from Ca- naan, but from "the land of his possession;" and Gilead and Bashan, east of the Jordan, were part of this possession. May the passage, therefore, not refer to the territory east of the Jordan, which had been already subdued? 16. Deut. iii, 9: "Which Hermon the Sidonians call Sirion; and the Amorites call it Shenir." Bishop Colenso says : " In David's time, and EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 141 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 statement as this should have been in- serted in the middle of a speech of the great law-giver ?" Why could not Moses have learned the Sido- nian name of the mountain from commercial trav- elers? A constant traffic had gone on from the most ancient times between Sidon and Egypt. Egyptian armies, from the eighteenth dynasty downwards, repeatedly traversed Syria ; and the transcription of Semitic words is said to be re- markably complete. 17. Deut. iii, 11: "For only Og, king of Bashan, remained of the remnant of giants; be- hold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron ; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon?" etc. "The conquest of the giant king, Og," ob- serves Bleek (" Introduction to the Old Testa- ment," Yol. I, p. 234), "is related __ ' . > r /> Deut. iii, 11. JNum. xxi, 33 ff, and occurred, there- fore, in the fortieth year of their journeying, a few months before the death of Moses. Moses, however, would certainly not so soon after have spoken in this way of the coffin [bedstead] ; it is here spoken of apparently as something of then existing antiquity." 142 THE PENTATEUCH. Bishop Colenso suggests two explanations that may be given, though he does not himself admit them. " It may be said, indeed," he remarks, "that it was captured by the Israelites with the other spoils of Og, but had been taken to Rab- bath Amnion before the death of Og; perhaps captured by the Amorites in some former war ; or, perhaps, sent by Og himself for presentation." But on what ground does Bleek state that " it is here spoken of apparently as something of then existing antiquity ?" There is no such inti- mation in the language used. The sacred writer gives the dimensions of the bedstead, which is far beyond the usual size of bedsteads ; if, there- fore, any one should think it incredible, he can easily verify the fact by having recourse to the bedstead itself in Rabbath of the children of Ammon. 18. Deut. iii, 14 : " Jair, the son of Manasseh, took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi ; and called Deut. iii, 14. . -r» i them after his own name Bashan- havoth-jair, unto this day." " This refers," says Bleek (" Introduction to the Old Testament," Vol. i, p. 234), " to Num. xxxii, 41, where there is an account of these vil- lages which Jair, son of Manasseh, had taken possession of and called the villages of Jair. EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 143 " These are also cited (Josh, xiii, 30) among the possessions of the half tribe of Manasseh. There is another tradition on the origin of this name (Judges x, 3, 4), in which it is derived from another Jair, likewise of the tribe of Manasseh, at the time of the Judges, who was himself a judge for many years/' Bleek continues: "We have, therefore, two varying traditions on this point." If so, they do not both belong to the Pentateuch. Were we to undertake to reconcile this account with that of Judges x, 3, 4, we might adopt the suggestion of Kurtz : " The very fact that in Judges x, S a we read, not of sixty, but of thirty Chavoth-Jair, renders it probable that the entire district may have been lost by the family in the confusions of the times of the Judges; while, at least a half of it may have been recovered by the second Jair. And, if so, it is very conceiv- able that the ancient name, which had been pre- viously lost, may have been restored either by himself or to commemorate his fame. This sup- position is expressly confirmed by 1 Chron. ii, 23, where the Geshurites and Aramites are said to have taken the whole district, with its sixty cit- ies, from the descendants of Jair." So Kurtz translates the Hebrew text. (" History of the Old Covenant," Vol. Ill, p. 412.) 1 44 THE PENT A TE UCH. 19. The phrase "unto this day," occurs fre- quently in Genesis and in Deuteronomy. (Gen. Thephr.se X * X > 3? > 38 ; *^ h U ' XXVl > 33 ; XXX "> -mitothis' 32; xxxv, 20; xlvii, 26 ; Deut. ii, 22; iii, 14; x, 8, etc.) This phrase indicates, it is asserted, a post- Mosaic authorship of the passages in which it occurs; since it implies that a long time elapsed between the time of the recorded event and that of the writer. But it does not, as used in the Bible, necessarily imply this. It may, however, be considered a gloss by a later hand. 20. Deut., chap, xxxiv: This chap- Chap. xxxiv. x A ter, with the exception of vs. 1-4, could not have been written by Moses. These passages, with the objections founded upon them against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, have been taken from Bleek's " In- troduction to the Old Testament;" and from Bishop Colenso on the Pentateuch. They are not exhaustive of Bishop Colenso's list, but suffi- ciently so to give an idea of the character of those that have been passed over. EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. , 145 Section II. ALLEGED INCONGRUITY OF THE LEGISLATION OF THE PENTA- TEUCH WITH ITS MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP. The laws of the Pentateuch have been di- gested into three distinct codes, or three principal groups : 1. The Book of the Covenant, or the Cove- nant-Code, which is the oldest. (Ex. xx-xxiv.) 2. The Deuteronomic Code. (Deut. v The Three xii-xxvi.) Codes - 3. The Priest-Code, which embraces part of Exodus, nearly all of Leviticus, and part of Numbers. No objection can be made to this codification. It is appropriate. But it is said that these codes belong to differ- ent periods in the history of Israel, and represent successive stages in the social culture and relig- ious progress of the nation. Prof. W. E. Smith says (" The Old Testament in the Jewish Church," p. 333) : " It is a very remarkable fact, to begin with, that all the sacred law of Israel is comprised in the Pen- Extractfrom tateuch, and that, apart from the Le- ProL Smith ' vitical legislation, it is presented in codified form. On the traditional view, three successive bodies 10 146 THE PENTATEUCH. of law were given to Israel within forty years. Within that short time many ordinances were mod- ified, and the whole law of Sinai recast on the plains of Moab. But from the days of Moses there was no change. With his death the Israelites entered on a new career, which transformed the nomads of Goshen into the civilized inhabitants of vine- yard land and cities in Canaan. But the divine laws given them beyond Jordan were to remain unmodified through all the long centuries of de- velopment in Canaan, an absolute and immutable code. I say, with all reverence, that this is im- possible. God, no doubt, could have given, by Moses' mouth, a law fit for the age of Solomon or Hezekiah, but such a law could not be fit for immediate application in the days of Moses and Joshua. Every historical lawyer knows that, in the nature of things, the law of the wilderness is different from the law of a land of high agricul- ture and populous cities. God can do all things, but he can not contradict himself, and he who shaped the eventful development of Israel's his- tory must have framed his law to correspond with it." Accordingly, some critics hold that God gave the Decalogue from Mount Sinai ; and that Mo- ses wrote the code in Exodus xx, 23-xxiii, 33, called the Book of the Covenant. Others ascribe EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 147 the Decalogue to Moses; and assign the date of the Book of the Covenant to the reign of Je- hoshaphat. The Deuteronomic Code was promulgated in the reign of Josiah ; and the Priest-Code in the time of Ezra. This is a proteron-hysteron theory, making the Elohist later than the Jehovist, the middle books of the Pentateuch later than Deuteronomy. It introduces confusion into the ranks of the critics, entangling the questions at issue, instead of solv- ing them. But that is their own affair, and they may settle it. The principle underlying this whole theory of the legislation contained in the Pentateuch is that of development. It is assumed underlying that the Israelitish religion is one of P rmci P lc - the principal religions of mankind ; nothing less, nothing more ; that the nation passed through the various stages of fetichism and the grossest forms of idolatry to monotheism ; and the histor- ical records are forced into harmony with this hypothesis. It is theological Darwinianism. The religion of Israel is to be looked upon as a man- ifestation of the religious spirit of mankind, as on a level with Brahminism, Buddhism, and Is- lam, and is to be examined from the same point of view. (See Prof. S. I. Curtiss's work on " The 148 THE PENTATEUCH. Levitical Priests," pp. 1, 2 ; Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark; 1877.) This is a gratuitous assumption. The Israel- itish and the Christian religions claim to be of divine origin; and furnish proofs, which ought to be seriously considered. Prof. W. R. Smith ("Old Testament in the Jewish Church/' p. 334) says : " He who shaped the eventful development of Israel's his- Prof w R t° r y must have framed his law to cor- smith. respond with it." This language ad- mits that God " shaped the eventful development of Israel's history" — in what sense he does not say — and implies the divine origin of the law of the nation. Now, if the position of Israel among the na- tions of the world was peculiar, if its law was of divine origin, why may not " three successive bodies of law " have been " given to Israel within forty years?" Dr. Briggs (" The Presbyterian Review," Jan- uary, 1883, p. 129) well remarks: "The Mosaic legislation was delivered through Moses, but it was enforced only in part, and in several stages of advancement, in the historical life and experi- ence of Israel from the conquest to the exile. It was a divine ideal, a supernatural revealed in- struction, to guide the people of Israel throughout EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 149 their history, and lead them to the prophet greater than Moses, who was to fulfill and complete his legislation. The law was the true . . Dr. Briggs. light of Israel until the first Advent, even as the Gospel is the light and guide of the Church until the second Advent. Israel appro- priated more and more the instruction of the law as the Church has appropriated more and more the doctrine of the Gospel. The history of God's people under both covenants has been essentially the same — a grand march under the supernatural light of a divine revelation." On the hypothesis that the Deuteronomic code had no existence until the time of Josiah, and that the priest-code was the result of a develop- ment between the time of Ezekiel and that of Ezra, and was written in the interest of the priestly party, it is difficult to see how and why Difficulties they were ascribed to Moses. But the of thetheor r- use of Moses* name, it is said, is merely a " legal fiction." Dr. Green (" Presbyterian Review," January, 1882, p. 114) remarks very pertinently: " Such a notion could not have arisen unless Mo- ses really was the great legislator of the nation, and something more than the ten commandments was directly traceable to him. This of itself cre- ates a presumption in favor of the Mosaic origin of the codes ascribed to him, unless there be good 150 THE PENTATEUCH. reason to the contrary. The instances which are adduced to show that customs or statutes of a later date were imputed to Moses, admit of no such interpretation, and could only be distorted to this end by one intent upon making out a case." Such an hypothesis represents the writers of the Deuteronomic and priest codes as forgers, palm- ing off upon the people laws, in the name of Moses, which had no existence until many centu- ries after his time. Here is a moral difficulty hard to explain, if they were honest men. The ready acceptance of them, on the part of the na- tion, furnishes also a psychological difficulty not easily solved. It can not be accounted for on the supposition that there was among the Israel- ites a cyclic literature called Mosaic, just as there was among the Greeks a cyclic literature called Homeric ; for there is no proof that such a liter- ature ever existed among the people of Israel. Moreover, there is a wide difference between lit- erature and legislation. Laws generally bear the names of their authors, and codes those of their compilers. In Roman history we read of the Lex Decia, Lex Domitia, Lex Duilia, Lex Flavia, Lex Flaminia, and of the code of Gregorianus, the code of Theodosius, and the code of Justinian. Some such method of designating laws and codes is found among all civilized nations. EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 151 But this hypothesis is beset with another dif- ficulty. It is the incongruity of some of the laws of the Deuteronomic and priest codes with the times at which they are said to have been in- troduced. It is enjoined in the Deuteronomic code (Deut. xvii, 14, 15) that, " When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose : one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother." What relevancy has this law to the time of Josiah, when the kingdom had been established in the line of David for many generations ? There is also a command (Deut. xxv, 19) to " blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven." Their power was broken in the time of Saul, and they degen- erated into a horde of banditti, who seem to have been exterminated in the time of David (1 Sam. xxvii, xxx). Josiah must have been puzzled what to make of such a command. No man of common sense could understand it of a few strag- gling Amalekites, who might be roaming over the peninsula of Sinai, without tribal or national organization. He might find, moreover, similar 1 52 THE PENT A TE UCH. difficulty with the command in Deut. xx, 17, " Thou shalt utterly destroy them ; namely, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites ; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee." They had been destroyed as communities centuries before. What would be thought of an act of the Ameri- can Congress, at the present day ? ordering the removal of the Indians from New York, Penn- sylvania, and New Jersey to an Indian reserva- tion in the West ? If the priest-code owes its existence to Ezra, or to men of his time, how are we to understand the minute directions concerning the ark, which was probably taken away and destroyed by Nebuchad- nezzar ? At least, there was no ark in the second temple, How are we to understand the minute description of the dress and functions of Aaron, and of the furniture of the tabernacle ? But these remarks are very general : it is necessary to examine particulars. The result of such an examination will show that laws belonging to each of the so-called codes, and the institutions based upon them, bear the impress of a nomadic life in the desert. (1.) Take the Tabernacle — the tent of Jeho- vah. Its history begins with Exodus xxv, after the first group or code of laws, after the cove- EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 153 nant with the people and the vision of the Di- vine Glory. It was in the form of a tent, which could be taken down and transported Lawslt)elong , from place to place. Its position was S^Sdes in the center of the camp of Israel. p^sVofano- Round it were grouped the tribes in their encampments. (Num. ii, 1-34.) It was con- structed of materials which were partly brought by the Israelites from Egypt, and partly found in abundance in the Arabian desert. It was evi- dently intended for a people living in tents — in other words, for a migratory people. The existence of a Tabernacle, which, the history clearly intimates, was constructed with a complex and profound symbolism, and intended for a place of religious service, implies the exist- ence of a body of ministers to perform that serv- ice, and to take down the Tabernacle and remove it from place to place. Accordingly we read that Aaron and his sons were set apart for the holy office of the priesthood (Exodus xxviii) ; and that the Levites were appointed " over the tabernacle of testimony " that they might " minister unto it." (Num. i, 50.) We find also regulations for the revenue of the priests (Num. xviii, 8-11, 12, 13, 15-19 ; Deut. xviii, 3-5) ; and of the Levites (Num. xviii, 21-24; Deut, xii, 19). 154 THE PENT A TE UCH. Consider, moreover, the allusion to the camp (Num. iv, 5), to Aaron (iii, 10, 32, 38, 39, 48, 51 ; iv, 5, 15, 16, 28), to Egypt (in, 13), and the frequent allusions to the wilderness (ix, 1, passim), and the conclusion can not be resisted, that the Tabernacle, the regulations connected with it, the priesthood, and the laws for the support of the priests and Levites, had their origin in the time of Moses. They are utterly incongruous with the time of Ezra. (2.) That part of the priest-code which pre- scribes the functions of the priests within the tabernacle, supposes the wilderness and the camp as the place of sacrifice, and Aaron and his sons as the sacrificers. (Lev. iv, 12, 21 ; i, 5, 7, 8, 11; ii, 2, 3, 10 ; iii, 2, 5, 8, 13 ; vi, 9, 13, 18 ; vii, 10, 31, 33, 35.) Leviticus xvi prescribes the ceremonial for the great atonement. Aaron is the priest (vs. 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 21, 23) : the scapegoat is sent from the camp into the wilderness (vs. 7-10, 21, 22). The sacrifice of an ox, lamb, or goat (Lev. xvii, 1-9) must be made at the door of the tab- ernacle. This is enjoined upon Aaron and his sons. So that Aaron was still living, and the scene must have been the camp. There was a remission from the strictness of this law in view of the scattered condition of Israel in Canaan. EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 155 (3.) Many laws of the priest-code suppose the proximity of every member of the nation to the tabernacle ; e. g., the law respecting unclean is- sues (Lev. xv, 2-33) ; the law regulating the vow of the Nazarite (Num. vi, 1-21) ; the law of puri- fication after child-birth (Lev. xii) ; and the law with reference to lepers (Lev. xiii ; xiv, 1-32). In all those cases, the persons concerned were to bring their offerings to " the door of the taber- nacle of the congregation." (4.) There is frequent reference in the legisla- tion of the Pentateuch to the deliverance of the children of Israel from the land of Egypt; and the covenant-code is introduced by proclaiming to them that Jehovah demanded their obedience, because he brought them " out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." (Exodus xx, 2.) But this reminder is not limited to the covenant-code ; it occurs frequently in Leviticus and Numbers. (Lev. xi, 45; xix, 36; xxii, 33; xxiii, 43; xxv, 38, 42, 55; xxvi, 13, 45; Num. xv, 41.) There are some things, also, in the out- ward Levitical ceremonial, which indicate an Egyptian type. (See " The Pentateuch," by the Eev. W. Smith, Ph. D., Vol. I, pp. 289-305; London : Longmans, Green & Co. ; 1868.) These facts prove a recent connection with Egypt. (5.) If the legislation of the Pentateuch points 156 THE PENTATEUCH. back to Egypt, it points forward to Canaan. This is a proof that it originated in Thelegisla- . x _° tion of the the time of Moses. (Exodus xii, 25- Pentateuch x ' points back 27; xiii, 1-14; xxiii, 20-33: xxxiv, to Egypt, and ' } J ' > c°an v aa r n. t0 U ~ 2Q > Lev - xiv > 34-57; xviii ; xix, 23-37; xx, 22-24; xxiii, 10-22; xxv, 2-55 ; Num. xv, 2 ; xviii, 20-24 ; xxxiv, 2-29 ; xxxv, 2-34.) Examples and proof texts that the Penta- teuchal legislation belongs, in all its essential features, to the time when the children of Israel were in the wilderness, might be greatly multi- plied. It is plain, from the history of that time, that God gave to his people a constitution, laws, which looked beyond existing circumstances to a time when they should become a settled and agri- cultural nation in the land of Canaan. It is cer- tainly more rational to view them as having a prospective reference, than as having a retrospect- ive one, to a state of things no longer existing, as it is necessary to do, if they originated in the time of Ezra. They may not have been all en- acted at once. Some of them had their origin in incidents of the way, as laws regulating the suc- cession of property (Num. xxvi, 52-56 ; xxvii, 8-11), and others. Some may have been modi- fied to suit particular emergencies; and others may have fallen into disuse ; but the three codes, EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 157 in all their essential features, existed from the time of Moses. But it is objected that there are laws which can not have had their origin in the time of Moses. " Some of the laws," observes Bleek (" Intro- duction to the Old Testament," Vol. 1, p. 236), "are of such a kind that we can not well think of them to have proceeded from, or to have been written by, Moses, as they relate to circumstances which it is very improbable Moses could have noticed in such a manner in his legislation ; and it is unlikely that these later relations should appear in them so distinctly presupposed as already in existence." (1.) The first instance, which Bleek gives is the ordinance as to kings. (Deut. xvii, Deut xvii 14-20.) 14 - 20 -' The positions assumed are : (a) The regal power had no foundation at all in the original plan of the theocratic state of the Israelites. (b) It is inconceivable that Moses, who died more than three centuries before regal govern- ment was introduced in the person of Saul, could have made mention of a king as these verses do. (c) That a regal form of government, when it was afterwards introduced, appeared as something foreign, which was added against the will of Jehovah. ; 1 58 THE PENT A TE UCH. (d) If such a law had been extant as a Mosaic one, Samuel could not easily have so long resisted the desire of the Israelites that he should grant them a king. (e) That in the narrative of the appointment of Saul (1 Sam. viii-xii) there is no reference whatever to these provisions of Deuteronomy. (/.) That the prohibitions against multiplying to himself horses, wives, silver, and gold are evi- dently suggested by the history of Solomon. (Compare 1 Kings x, 26-29 and xi, 1-4.) (g) That the reference to the traffic in horses with Egypt points to the times of the later kings of Judah. (Compare Isaiah ii, 7 ; xxxvi, 9 ; Jer. ii, 18, 36; xlii, 15-19.) These are grounds on which it is argued that this passage was written, long after the time of Moses, indeed, after the time of Solomon, prob- ably in the age of Jeremiah. The replies to these positions will be given in the same order and with the same notation. (a) This passage is not the only one in the Pentateuch in which allusion is made to kings of Israel. (Gen. xvii, 16; xlix, 10; Num. xxiv, 17; Deut. xxviii, 36.) Though the constitution of the Israelitish state was theocratic, yet that did not exclude the regal authority. The king was a theocratic king, EXPOSITIONS AND THE ORE IS. 159 the representative of Jehovah upon earth. It would seem, on a comparison of the New Testa- ment with the Old, that the typical significance of the Israelitish nation and institutions would not have been complete without a king. Christ sits upon the throne of his father David. (Luke i, 32.) (b) Moses was endowed with supernatural gifts. He was a prophet. Why should he not then have contemplated such a contingency as a change in the form of the Israelitish government? He was, moreover, a man of wide experience, and knew that the neighboring nations were governed by kings; was it not, therefore, natural to enter- tain the supposition that Israel might wish to imitate the nations around them by establishing a regal form of government? (c) Perhaps it is assuming too much to say that such a form of government, when it was afterwards introduced, was against the will of Jehovah. Their reason for asking it was cer- tainly against his will. They said to Samuel, " Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations." (1 Sam. viii, 5.) It was certainly very disrespectful to Samuel to suggest to him to resign an authority which he had wielded so wisely and so justly; and 160 THE PENTA TE UCH. which the sequel of his history, for many years, proved that he was able to maintain. It was not only disrespectful to the prophet, but it was also an indirect rejection of the authority of Je- hovah, who had appointed him to be judge over Israel. Here lay the sin of the people, and not in asking for the establishment of a monarchy. The Lord said to Samuel : " Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king." (1 Sam. viii, 22.) He said to David, " Thine house and thy king- dom shall be established forever." (2 Sam. vii, 16.) If the regal office itself was against the will of Jehovah, it is not probable that he would have spoken thus to David. (d) It is not at all remarkable that Samuel should resist the desire of the Israelites, when he perceived the motive which actuated them. (e) Though there is no reference in 1 Sam. viii-xii to Deut. xvii, 14-20, yet the terms, in which the request of the people is preferred, are very like those employed in Deuteronomy. Com- pare the words, " See ye him whom the Lord hath chosen" (1 Sam. x, 24), with the words, " Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose." (Deut. xviii, 15.) It is thought strange that Samuel, if he was acquainted with this law, does not mention it. EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 161 However strange his reticence may be, yet the narrative shows that the statute was not un- known to him. It is stated (1 Sam. x, 25), (a) that " Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom; (b) and wrote it in a book; (c) and laid it up before the Lord." In 1 Sam. viii, 11, he said, "This will be the manner of the king," etc. Here, it is said, he " told the people the manner of the kingdom;" and his writing it in a book suggests at once the direc- tion given in Deut. xvii, 18. It seems prob- able, therefore, that we have here the adoption of the Mosaic law of the regal office. (/ and g) These positions proceed upon the assumption that Moses could not foresee, or even conjecture, the future, and that he had no expe- rience of kingly government. He was brought up at a luxurious court, where he had an oppor- tunity of observing the influence of kingly power upon its possessor. " The excesses forbidden to the king of Israel were those in which Eastern potentates were wont to indulge; nor, supposing Moses to have thought of a king at all, is any thing more in keeping with the general spirit of the legislation than that he should have sought to guard against some of the more obvious and ordinary abuses of Oriental despotism?" T. E. Espin, B. D. (Bible Commentary, in loc), 11 1 62 THE PENT A TE TJCH. remarks: "It is quite unintelligible how and why a later writer, desiring to pass under the name of Moses, could have penned a passage ex- hibiting the peculiarities of the one under con- sideration. He could not have designed it as an example of the prophetical powers of the great law-giver of Israel, for it is so vaguely and generally conceived as to look rather like a sur- mise than a prediction. Nor could he have in- tended to insert it by a kind of sanction of royalty in the Mosaic legislation ; for it contains rather a toleration of that mode of government than an approval of it. Neither would he have thought of subjecting his imaginary king to rules which must have sounded, in part at least, little less than absurd to his own contemporaries, and which are in themselves such as no one in his (supposed) time and circumstances can naturally be thought to have invented." (2.) Deut. xix, 14 : " Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's landmark, which they of old time Deut xix 14- nave se * in thine inheritance, which xx * thou shalt inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it." Also, chap, xx, which relates to military service. These laws, it is said, presuppose the firm pos- session of the land, even a long abode in it. The relative clause (v. 14), " that the Lord thy God EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 163 giveth thee [the participle is used, literally is giving thee, or is about to give thee'] precludes any such supposition. Can not laws have a prospect- ive reference ? Does the clause in the Constitu- tion of the United States, framed in 1787, "The Vice-president of the United States shall be president of the Senate," imply that the govern- ment of the United States had been already firmly established, and that the Vice-president had been elected ? The clause evidently relates to the future. So do all the clauses of that fundamen- tal law of the nation. 3. On Exodus xxii, 29, 30, Bleek remarks (" Introduction to the Old Testament, Vol. I, p. 238) : " It seems already presup- Ex xxii 29) posed that the Israelites brought to 30, the priests first-fruits of their cattle, and of their wine, and of the fruits of the field. For it is enjoined, without any thing having been ordered before as to the offering itself, that they should not delay in doing this. But this occurs in the same way in the first legal ordinances which were given at Sinai. There are in the same series (Chron. xxiii, 10, 11, 16) laws as to the cultivation of the fields, vineyards, and olive- yards, and also as to the harvest-feast, ordinances that must at least excite our surprise when given at so early a time. In verse 19, the existence of 164 THE PENT A TE UCH. the sanctuary, the house of Jehovah, is presup- posed, while the ordinances for the arrangement of the sanctuary do not follow till later." These " ordinances given at so early a time," need not " excite our surprise," when we con- sider that Jehovah had brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt, and that he was lead- ing them into the land of Canaan,, which he had given to them, by promise, for a possession. It would rather " excite our surprise," if no such law had been given before their occupation of the land. The phrase, " thou shalt not delay " or defer to offer, etc., does not already presuppose that the Israelites had brought to the priests "first- fruits of their cattle," etc. It merely enjoins that they shall do it, when they are settled in Canaan. 4. Leviticus xxvi, 3-45. This passage con- tains an admonitory discourse of Moses. Bleek Lev xxvi thinks that, " as it here runs," it very 3-45. probably belongs to a much later age than the Mosaic — to a time when, after taking possession of the land, the people had given them- selves up very much to idolatry, and on this ac- count had been oftentimes punished by Jehovah. It does not imply that the people " had been oftentimes punished by Jehovah." The promises EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 165 and threatenings of the passage are hypothetical and conditional. " If ye walk in my statutes," etc. (v. 3). "But if ye will not hearken unto me," etc. (v. 14). " And if ye walk contrary unto me," etc. (v. 21). " And if ye will not," etc. (v. 27). The laws (Ex. xx, 22 xxiii, 20-23) con- clude with promises and warnings; so does the col- lection of laws in Leviticus. The former relate to the conquest of the laud of Canaan : the latter to the subsequent history of the nation. Deuteron- omy xxvii-xxx is a similar passage. 5. Deut. xii, 5-14, requires that sacrifices be brought to a central altar, to " the Deut ^ place which the Lord your God shall £>_u - choose out of all your tribes to put his name there" (vs. 5, 14). This law, it is affirmed, can not have been in force in the times of Samuel and Elijah; for Samuel sacrificed in Mizpeh (1 Sam. vii, 9) ; in "the high place" (1 Sam. ix, 12); at Gilgal (1 Sam. x, 8 ; xi, 15) ; at Bethlehem (1 Sam. xvi, 3) ; and Elijah sacrificed at Mt. Carmel (1 Kings xviii, 19-38 ; compare chap, xix, 10, 14). It is thought to be incredible that two men, so faithful and so devoted to the service of God, should transgress any command of God known to them ; and it is inferred that, if the Deuter- 166 THE PENTATEUCH. onomic code existed at that time, the command to sacrifice at the central altar could not have been unknown to them. If it be granted that Samuel was ignorant of the existence of the law of sacrifice (Deut. xii, Samuel's and 5 ~ 14 )> ** would form n ° Valid argU- posed '?g£c?" naent against the existence of the book Deuterono- 6 of Deuteronomy. God could dispense with that law ; and it is certain that, on one occasion of Samuel's sacrificing, he did (1 Sam. xvi, 2) ; and if, on that occasion, he acted under special divine direction, he may have done so on other occasions, though the fact is not mentioned. Elijah's ignorance of the Deuteronomic law is inferred from his complaint to the Lord against Israel (1 Kings xix, 10, 14). But Ahab, king of Israel, was a persecutor of the worshipers of Je- hovah ; and it may have been impossible for them to go to the temple of Jerusalem. To prevent reunion with Judah, Jeroboam I devised a policy to deter the ten tribes from going up to Jerusa- lem. In these circumstances, the Lord may have allowed them to erect altars to him in their own territory. It is certain that God manifested his approval of Elijah's sacrifice on Mt. Carmel. (1 Kings xviii, 36-38.) It is evident, therefore, that the sacrifices of EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 167 Samuel and Elijah furnish no proof that the book of Deuteronomy did not exist in their days, unless it can be shown that God permitted, in no circumstances, a departure from the law of Deuter- onomy xii, 5-14. The children of Israel sacri- ficed at Bochim (Judges ii, 5), Gideon at Oph- rah (vi, 19-26), where he built an altar by divine command ; and Manoah offered sacrifice " upon a rock unto the Lord" (xiii, 19), which was ac- cepted (v. 23). It must be borne in mind that the condition of Israel was very unsettled during the time of the Judges. " Every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (Judges xxi, 25.) The ark, after its restoration by the Philistines, was not carried back to Shiloh. The tabernacle was migratory. It was moved from Shiloh to Nob, and thence to Gibeon (1 Sam. xxi, 6 ; 1 Kings iii, 4 ; 2 Chron. i, 3) ; and the ark is supposed by some to have been seventy years in the house of Abinadab ,at Gibeah. (Compare 1 Sam. vii, 1, with 2 Sam. vi, 3.) After the death of Solomon the kingdom Avas divided ; and the northern king- dom established a cultus of its own. In such a state of things, we need not be surprised at irreg- ularities in the matter of sacrifices. Moreover, there were other places besides Shiloh, in the land of Israel, which, for certain 168 THE PENTATEUCH. reasons, were considered sacred. These were Shechem, where Joseph was buried ; and Gilgal, the first camping-place of the Israelites after the passage of the Jordan. There the covenant with God was renewed by circumcision and the pass- over. Bethel was a holy place, consecrated by Jacob. It was the temporary seat of the ark during the civil war between Benjamin and the other tribes. (Judges xx, 18, 23, 26 ; xxi, 2, Bethel in the Hebrew text.) Mizpeh was a sa- cred place (Judges xi, 11 ; xxi, 1) ; and also Gib- eon (1 Kings iii, 4). The tabernacle was trans- ferred from Nob to Gibeon, after the slaughter of the priests, and remained there for some time without the ark, which was brought by David to Jerusalem and placed first in a new tabernacle, and ultimately in the temple. (Compare 1 Chron. xvi, 39 ; 2 Chron. i, 3, 4, and 1 Kings viii, 1.) The law (Deut. xii, 5-14) requiring sacrifices to be brought to the central altar, would exclude the bamoth, or " high places." But High Places. ' ° r these were used as places ot sacrifice. Samuel went up to " the high place " to " bless the sacrifice." (1 Sam. ix, 13.) In 1 Sam. x, 5, we find the phrase " the hill of God " (Hebrew, the Gibeah of God), which, in the opinion of some, means a place of worship. At least, there is mention of " a company of prophets " and of EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 169 a " high place " in chap, x, 5. They were places of worship in Asa's time (1 Kings xv, 14); in the reign of Amaziah (2 Kings xiv, 4) ; and the reigns of Azariah (2 Kings xv, 4), and Jotham (v. 35). They were removed by Hezekiah (2 Kings xviii, 4), but rebuilt by his son, Manas- seh (xxi, 3). Josiah destroyed them again, and abolished idolatry of every kind. Now, it is argued that if the Deuteronomic law, requiring sacrifices to be brought to the cen- tral altar, had been in existence, sacrifices and worship on " the high places " would not have been tolerated. Josiah's zeal in suppressing them can be easily accounted for, because the book of Deuteronomy was written in his reign, according to the school of Kuenen, for a reform pro- gramme. On this hypothesis, it is difficult to under- stand the apology for sacrificing " in high places." "Only the people sacrificed in high places, be- cause there was no house built unto the name of the Lord, until those days." (1 Kings iii, 2.) In the account of the reforms made by Asa, we meet with the parenthetic remark, " but the high places were not removed." (1 Kings xv, 14.) Hezekiah " removed the high places." (2 Kings xviii, 4.) These passages are not easily under- stood apart from the Deuteronomic law. More- 170 THE PENTATEUCH. over, what programme did Hezekiah use for his reforms ? It is stated, " he clave to the Lord, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses" (v. 6). This verse plainly intimates that he found it in the commandments of the Lord, which he commanded Moses. The hypothesis assumes that the practice of a people comes up, in all circumstances, to the ideal standard of the law : that the law is Assumptions 7 potbSis 7 " ^ e mere ex P onent of their character and conduct. It makes no allowance for ignorance, indifference, change of circum- stances, and occasional emergencies. Every one that reads history knows the absurdity of such an assumption. Compare the history of the Christian Church, from the time of Christ down to the present, with the doctrines and precepts of the New Testament, and the want of conformity of the practice of professing Christians to these doctrines and precepts is painfully manifest. May not the same thing have existed among the Israelites in relation to their law ? Attempts have occasionally been made, in the history of the Church, to attain to the ideal standard of Christianity, and similar attempts were made in the reigns of David, Asa, Hezekiah, and Josiah to attain to the ideal standard of the Mosaic law. EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 171 The law itself contemplated certain emergen- cies, in which the observance of it might be im- practicable (Num. ix, 6-13), and relaxed its rigor. Hezekiah availed himself of this relaxation, and postponed the celebration of the passover uutil the second month. (2 Chron. xxx, 3.) How far this may have been done in other circumstances, and in other matters, we are not informed. If the arguments advanced to prove that the Deuteronomic code had no existence until the time of Josiah, on account of its supposed incon- gruity with the previous history, and that the priest-code could not have existed before the time of Ezra, for the same reason, are valid, how shall we reconcile these codes with the times subse- quent to Ezra ? By parity of reasoning, we must conclude that they did not exist then; in fact, that they never did exist as operative laws; for they were neglected, in different ways, as much after as before the exile. Malachi accuses the priests of a violation of the priest-code. (Malachi i, 7, 8, 13; Thecodenot ii, 8; iii, 8, compared with Lev. xxii, figffjS: 1 Q_99 ^ exilic times. Synagogues, for which there is no express pro- vision in the Mosaic law, were established and multiplied. A worship, independent of the tem- ple, grew up in them. Thus there arose in the 172 THE PENTATEUCH. state a spiritual power distinct irom the priest- hood; for though many of their teachers were priests and Levites, yet this was not necessary. They ultimately acquired a supremacy, not for- mally recognized by the constitution, but not less real and substantial. A maxim obtained among the Jews : " The voice of the Rabbi " — not the voice of the priest — " the voice of God." " Hence the circumstances of the Jewish history concurred in depressing the spiritual authority of the priesthood ; and as in such a community spir- itual authority must have existed somewhere, its transfer to the Rabbins, though slow and imper- ceptible, was no less certain. During the reign of the Asmoneans, the high-priesthood became a mere appendage to the temporary sovereignty."* The scribes, who were not necessarily Levites, became teachers of the people. They were the theological jurists of their day. The office first comes into view in the days of Ezra, who is de- scribed as " a ready scribe in the law of Moses." (Ezra vii, 6, 11.) " One of the sons of Joiada, the son of Elia- shib the high-priest," married the daughter of Sanballat the Horonite (Neh. xiii, 28) ; and " de- filed the priesthood, and the covenant of the -"The History of the Jews," hy Henry Hart Milman, D. D., Vol. II. ; pp. 418, 419 ; New York ; 1866. EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 173 priesthood and the Levites" (v. 29). Nehemiah, who was another Josiah, expelled him from Jeru- salem (v. 28) ; but the marriage showed that the son of Joiada did not regard " the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites;" and, in the absence of Nehemiah, he might have remained unmolested. Onias, son of the high-priest of the same name, and said to be the rightful heir of the high-priesthood, fled into Egypt, and founded a temple in the Heliopolitan nome, to which a tract of land was given for the maintenance of worship. The Jews of Alexandria claimed divine authority for this temple (Isaiah xix, 18, 19), and had the legitimate heir of the high-priesthood for their officiating minister.* There were also various factions and sects among the people — the Hellenizing party, that favored the introduction of Greek culture; the Pharisees, who made void the law by their tradi- tions; the Sadducees, or freethinkers, and the Essenes, who were mystics and ascetics, and sent gifts to the temple, but did not offer sacrifices there. It would seem, from this brief exhibition of the state of the Jewish people after the exile, that the Deuteronomic and priest-codes were very *Milman's " History of the Jews," Vol. II, p. 33. 174 THE PENTATEUCH. little regarded by a great many of the nation. The Pharisees were always strict ritualists; but they added to the law many traditions. If, there- fore, the Deuteronomic code did not exist until the time of Josiah, and the priest-code until the time of Ezra, where were they in post-exilic times ? Section III. THEOEY THAT ALL THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH ARE POST- MOSAIC ; THAT DEUTERONOMY WAS WRITTEN ABOUT THE YEAR 625 B. C, PERHAPS BY HILKIAH, AND THAT THE MID- DLE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH ARE POST-EXILIC. This idea was suggested by Vatke, George, and Von Bohlen, in 1835 ; but it was ridiculed by De Wette, and repudiated by the most emi- nent Biblical scholars of that time. Its best known advocates are Dr. A. Kuenen, professor of theology in the university of Ley- vocates of the den, in Holland; Graf, Julius "Well- hausen, professor at Greifswald ; and W. Robertson Smith, LL. D., lately professor of Hebrew and Old Testament exegesis in the Free Church College of Aberdeen, in Scotland. Though these gentlemen belong to the same crit- ical school, yet it is generally understood that Dr. Smith professes to adhere to the doctrinal standards of his Church, and there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of his profession. EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 175 The arguments advanced to prove that Deu- teronomy was written about 625 B. C, and that the middle books of the Pentateuch are post- exilic, are : 1. " The Levitical laws give a graduated hier- archy of priests and Levites; Deuteronomy re- gards all Levites as at least possible priests." 2. " Before, the strict hierarchical law was not in force, apparently never had been in force." 3. " If so, the Levitical element is the latest thing in the Pentateuch ; or, on the opposite view, the hierarchic theory existed as a legal programme long before the exile, though it was fully carried out only after Ezra." 4. " The chronology of the composition of the Pentateuch may be said to center in the ques- tion whether the Levitico-Elohistic Arguments document, which embraces most of the provcthe* laws in Leviticus, with large parts of tieor> - Exodus and Numbers, is earlier or later than Deuteronomy." (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Arti- cle Bible.) The results arrived at from these positions are, (a) that Deuteronomy was written about 625 B. C. ; (6) that the other books of the Pentateuch were written, not earlier than 445 B. C. ; (c) that Ezekiel is the bridge between Deuteronomy and the middle books of the Pentateuch. 176 THE PENTATEUCH. 1. The passages which are adduced in proof of the position that Deuteronomy regards all Levites as at least possible priests are the follow- ing, viz. : (a) Deut. x, 8 : " At that time the Lord sepa- rated the tribe of Levi to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before Deut. x, 8. . T , . . . , the Lord to minister unto him, and to bless in his name unto this day." It is claimed that, according to this passage, not only Aaron, but also the entire tribe of Levi were first set apart at Jotbath to priestly func- tions, which are described (1) " to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord ;" (2) " to stand be- fore the Lord to minister unto him;" (3) "to bless in his name." The phrase, " at that time" does not designate the time when the Israelites arrived at Jotbath ; but it is parallel with verse 1, and connects with verse 5, where the ark is mentioned. Through- out the passage the time of the events at Siuai is kept in view. The ark was carried from Horeb to Jotbath ; consequently the separation of the tribe of Levi to bear it had been made before they arrived at the latter place. The bearing of " the ark of the covenant of the Lord " was not a priestly prerogative. The priests may have borne it on extraordinary occa- EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 177 sions; but we are told by the chronicler (1 Chron. xv ? 2), " None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites : for them hath the Lord chosen to carry the ark of God, and to minister unto him forever." These are the words of David, uttered by him when he had " prepared a place for the ark of God/' long before the exile. "To stand before the Lord to minister to him" was not peculiar to the priests. Samuel ministered unto the Lord (1 Sam. ii, 11; com- pare iii, 15) ; but he was not a priest. Jehoiada, in the reign of Athaliah, in his charge to the congregation, said: "But let none come into the house of the Lord, save the priests, and they that minister of the Levites; they shall go in, for they are holy." (2 Chron. xxiii, 6.) Heze- kiah " brought in the priests and the Levites, and said unto them, Hear me, ye Levites, . . . for the Lord hath chosen you to stand before him, to serve him, and that ye should minister unto him. Then the Levites arose," etc. (2 Chron. xxix, 4, 5, 11, 12, 16.) " Of course," observes Prof. Curtiss (" Levit- ical Priests," pp. 17, 18), " the only reasonable interpretation which can be given of this passage is that which we propose to apply to Deut. x, 8, 9, namely, that in his address Hezekiah is speak- ing of the priests and Levites together as Le- 12 178 THE PENTATEUCH. vites. It seems, also, that this indefiniteness did not occasion any doubt in their minds as to their respective duties, since it is said that the priests brought out the filth from the inner part of the house of the Lord, while the Levites took what was. brought out to carry it to the brook Kidron. Certainly there was no impropriety in the Deu- teronomist's speaking of the tribe of Levi as standing to minister before the Lord ; and while he applied this with special emphasis to the priests, we may suppose, at the same time, he neither excluded the Levites nor was ignorant of the distinction between them and the priests, nor that he wished to destroy it. The citations from Chronicles certainly furnish the best com- mentary to this passage." " To bless in his name " was the prerogative of the priests. Taking into view the whole verse, we con- clude that the tribe of Levi was separated and set apart that they might discharge the functions specified in it as a tribe ; but not that each one of its members should discharge all these func- tions. Priestly functions were to be discharged by the priests : those that were not of a priestly nature by the Levites. (b) " The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi." (Deut. xviii, l a .) EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 179 It is asserted that in this passage the word " Levites" is in apposition to "priests;" and that the expression " all the tribe of Levi " , '. ,, ,j Deut. xviii, la. is in apposition to the expression, the priests the Levites." This construction attributes priestly functions to the whole tribe of Levi. There is an asyndeton between " the Levites, all the tribe of Levi," which has been removed in the English version, which reads, "the Le- vites and all the tribe of Levi." But the con- junction is unnecessary; indeed, it weakens the force of the original. " The absence of conjunc- tions in Hebrew, and its climax from the partic- ular to the general, are emphatic ; the effect might be given thus : " There shall not be to the priests, the Levites, yea, the whole tribe of Levi, any inheritance," etc. (The Bible Commentary, in he.) The tribe is prominent. It was it that was separated from secular pursuits and called to religious service. For the tribe provision was to be made, and Jehovah was to be its inheritance. Other passages can be cited, in which no con- nective particle is used, and yet it is clear that the classes are distinct. (Ezra x, 5 ; Neh. x, 28, 34 ; xi, 20.) So here the priests, as in Ezra x, 5, etc., may be considered as distinct from the Levites. The passage, therefore, furnishes no proof that all Levites were possible priests. 180 THE PENT A TE UCH. . (c) Dent, xviii, 3-8 : " And this shall be the priests' due from the people, from them that Deut. xviii °^ er a sacrifice, whether it be of ox or 2rSm sheep; and they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw. The first fruit, also, of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the first of the fleece of thy sheep, shalt thou give him. For the Lord thy God hath chosen him out of all the tribes, to stand to minister in the name of the Lord, him and his sons forever. And if a Levite come from any of the gates out of all Israel, where he so- journed, and come with all the desire of his mind unto the place which the Lord shall choose; then he shall minister in the name of the Lord his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, which stand before the Lord. They shall have like portions to eat, besides that which cometh of the sale of his patrimony." These verses confirm the interpretation of verse l a . They make separate allusion to the two parts of the tribe of Levi. The priest and the perquisites assigned to him are mentioned in verses 3-5 ; the Levite in verses 6-8. The question, however, is whether the por- tions assigned to the priest, in this passage, are to be considered a substitution for those specified in Lev. vii, or in addition to them. EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 181 Those who regard the provision here made for the priests more scanty than that in the preced- ing books, take the view that it is a substitution; and infer that the Deuteronomist points to a lower estimation of the priests than that sug- gested in the middle books of the Pentateuch. But there is nothing in the passage that points to a lower estimation of them ; neither is there any thing in it which would lead one to regard it as substituting a scantier provision than that allowed in these books. The chapter opens (vs. 1, 2) by representing that priests and Levites would require some special provision after the settlement and partition of Canaan by the other tribes. The shoulder and the maw were consid- ered among the choicest pieces, and not inferior. Verse 4 provides a new item of income for the priests; namely, "the first of the fleece of thy sheep." A distinction seems to be intended be- tween " the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and his inheritance " (v. 1), and the " priest's due from the people " (v. 3.) It appears that in later times, the priest had a recognized claim to some other portions of the victims slain than the wave- breast and heave-shoulder. (1 Sam. ii, 13-16.) It is evident from these statements that the Deuteronomist does not point to a lower estima- tion of the priests than that suggested by the 182 THE PENT A TE UCH. preceding books ; and that " the shoulder, cheeks, and maw were to be given by the people to the priests in addition to those portions claimed by the laws of Leviticus as belonging to the Lord." (Bible Commentary, in loc.) (d) Deut. xxi, 5 : " And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near ; for them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, Deut. xxi, 5. and to bless in the name of the Lord; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried." The priests were " sons of Levi," but it does not follow that the term " priests " was compre- hensive of the whole tribe of Levi. They are here associated with the elders (vs. 2, 3, 4, 6), who formed a higher class than ordinary citizens. May this fact not suggest to us that " the priests the sons of Levi " were also a higher class in the tribe of Levi? The same thing is suggested by Deut, xvii, 8-13. (e) Deut. xxxi, 9 : " And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the cove- Deut. xxxi, 9. _ 1 _ nant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel." This passage may be interpreted in the same way as the preceding. These brief considerations clearly show that EXPOSITIONS AND THE HIES. 183 the passages of Deuteronomy cited do not, when properly understood, contradict the relative posi- tions of the priests and Levites, which are so precisely defined in the middle books of the Pen- tateuch. On the hypothesis that Moses was the author of all these books, he had no fear of con- tradicting, by loose statements in a hortatory book, what he had before clearly defined in leg- islative books. The orator does not observe the technicalities of logic in an oration; nor does the advocate observe the technicalities of law when his aim is to persuade the jury. The legislator who turns historian, does not recite his laws ver- batim when he has occasion to refer to them. AVe ought to accord to Moses a like degree of com- mon sense. He did not deem it necessary to define the relative positions of the priests and Levites every time that he had occasion to men- tion them; though it is impossible not to recog- nize these two distinct classes in Deuteronomy itself, which the following passage renders suffi- ciently clear : " And it shall be when thou art come in unto the land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and possessest it and dwellest therein ; that thou shalt take of the first of all the fruit of the earth, which thou shalt bring of thy land that the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt put it in a basket, and shalt go 184 THE PENT A TE UCH. unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to place his name there. And thou shalt go unto the priest that shall be in those days, and say unto him," etc., " and the priest shall take the basket," etc. (Deut. xxvi, 1-4.) 2. Professor Smith asserts that "before the exile the hierarchical law was not in force, ap- parently never had been in force." Prof. Smith says : " We know " this " mainly from Ezek. xliv." How it can be known from that passage, it is difficult to conceive ; Ezek. xhv. r ° 7 ' for the prophet speaks of two classes of religious ministers as having already existed, viz., " the Levites that are gone away far from me, when Israel went astray " (v. 10), and " the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok that kept the charge of my sanctuary, when the children of Israel went astray from me" (v. 15). The prophet does not say that all the Levites as a class had apostatized ; but speaks of " the Levites that are gone away from me, when Israel went astray." " They shall even bear their iniquity " (v. 10). " They shall not come near unto me, to do the office of a priest unto me, nor to come near to any of my holy things, in the most holy place; but they shall bear their shame" (v. 13). " But I will make them keepers of the charge of the house, for all the service thereof, and for all EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 185 that shall be done therein " (v. 14). Is the clause, " they shall not come near unto me, to do the office of a priest" (v. 13), intended to de- prive them of functions which they had already lawfully discharged, or is it intended to restrict them to their own proper duties? May not " their iniquity," " their shame," which they were to bear, have been the sin of usurping the priest's office? It was a renewal of the sin of Korah. (Num. xvi, 1-11.) We see in Micah an attempt to revive the old household priesthood. He " consecrated the Le- vite ; and the young man became his priest, and was in the house of Micah." (Judges xvii, 12.) " The revolt of the ten tribes and the policy pursued by Jeroboam led to a great change in the position of the Levites. They were the witnesses of an appointed order and of a cen- tral worship. He wished to make the priests the creatures and instruments of the king, and to establish a provincial and divided worship. The natural result was, that they left the cities as- signed to them in the territory of Israel, and gathered round the metropolis of Judah." (2 Chron. xi, 13, 14.) (Smith's " Dictionary of the Bible," v. Levites, Vol. II, p. 106.) Under the wicked kings of Judah, their con- dition must have been very degraded, and their 186 THE PENTATEUCH. privileges restricted. During the reigns of the two reforming kings, Hezekiah and Josiah, they rise to prominence. This may have tempted them, in the reigns of the apostate kings, who succeeded Josiah, to usurp the special functions of the priesthood. The language, " they shall bear their iniquity, they shall bear their shame," would seem, from the context, to favor the idea of degradation; and that this consisted in deposing them from the priest's office. If this is the meaning, we must conclude either that all the Levites had gone away from God, " when Israel went astray/' or that those who continued faithful, if any, were degraded for the sin of their brethren. Neither of these suppositions is very probable. In the case of the priests, God did not punish the line of Eleazar when the curse fell on that of Itha- mar, though they were more intimately connected than some of the families of the Levites. But, admitting that " bearing their iniquity," and " bearing their shame," refer to degradation from the priest's office, we are not bound by any rule of logic or of interpretation to admit that they had held that office, or performed its functions constitutionally. An office may be usurped, and its duties discharged by a man who would feel degraded and humiliated by being deprived of it. EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 187 "With this view of the matter v. 13 may be only the reaffirmation of an existing law, and not the enactment of a new one. But there is another view. . Prof. Curtiss ("The Levitical Priests," p. 75) says: "We know that the house of Aaron was divided into two branches, Eleazar and Ithamar. According to the Chronicler, all the priests came from these two branches. The line of Ithamar was cursed in the person of Eli. In the second book of Samuel, Zadok and Abiathar appear side by side in the priesthood, from which Abiathar, a de- scendant of Ithamar, is excluded by Solomon, thus leaving the position of high-priest to Zadok alone. Henceforth the posterity of Ithamar oc- cupy an inferior position. Now, when we read the account of Josiah's reformation of the idola- trous priests, who are called brethren of other priests, and then turn to Ezek. xliv, 10, the whole matter becomes clear. In verse 15, of the same chapter, the priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok, are mentioned as those who went not astray. AVho, then, are the Levites spoken of (vs. 10-14) but descendants of Ithamar, who might also be termed Levitical priests, who are degraded from their priestly office on account of their apostasy?" In the allusion to Zadok (v. 15), the prophet 188 THE PENTATEUCH. points to the priest, who maintained a faithful position toward David and Solomon, as a type of the true priestly character. (1 Kings i, 8, 32-45; ii, 35.) Taking the passage in a literal sense, which Professor Smith's reference to it seems to imply, we may interpret it as assigning a histor- ical as well as a moral ground for the choice of " the sons of Zadok " to come near to Jehovah to minister unto him. After the restoration, the order of things in the sanctuary was to be the same as before the captivity. But the writer understands Ezek. xl-xlviii as a symbolical vision of Jehovah's kingdom, and " the sons of Zadok " as " a race of faithful and devoted servants, in whom the outward and the inward, the name and the idea, should properly coincide, — a priesthood serving God in newness of spirit, not in the oldness of the letter, as the people whom they represented should also have become true Israelites, themselves a royal priest- hood offering up spiritual services to the Lord." This spiritual kingdom is described in terms ap- propriate to a literal theocracy, which attained to its highest glory in the reign of Solomon, when Zadok was high-priest. The pattern of the temple described by Eze- kiel may have influenced and guided the builders of the second temple, in some things ; but an ex- EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 189 amination of the vision will show that the pat- tern was never carried out. Ezekiel himself, and every one acquainted with the physical features of the land, must have known that it was incap- able of execution. Chapters xl-xlviii represent to us symbolically " a rebuilt temple, a reformed priesthood, reorganized services, a restored mon- archy, a reapportioned territory, a renewed people, and, as a consequence, the diffusion of fertility and plenty over the whole earth. The vision must, therefore, be viewed as strictly symbol- ical; the symbols employed being the Mosaic ordinances." The silence of the books of Samuel and Kings, in respect to the priests and Levites, is urged as a proof of the position under discussion. An argument founded on the silence of a record merits little consideration. If silence of the ■> . , r> j J a books of Sam- a historian of our day does not men- ue iand tion an institution, does it, therefore, erence to the • • • distinction not exist ? If a historian, in past time, between L m priests and made no record of an event, which Levites. had no connection with the aim of his history, did it, therefore, not take place? In considering this argument, it must be borne in mind that the circumstances of the Israelites (already hinted at, p. 152), from the death of Moses to the time of David, were not the most 190 THE PENT A TE TJCH. favorable to the influence of the priests. During the time of Joshua, the people were engaged in Circum- war f° r tne possession of Canaan. SaeSefSt After they had obtained possession of the influence it, they were subject to frequent inva- sions, defeats, and oppressions. They served Chushan-rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia, eight years ; Eglon, king of Moab, eighteen years ; Jabin, king of Canaan and Midian, seven years. They also suffered from internal dissensions, the conspiracy of the Shechemites, who made Abime- lech king, and the war against the Benjamites. There seems, moreover, to have been a tendency to lapse into a system of a household instead of a hereditary priesthood. (Judges xvii, see p. 169.) Saul (1 Sam. xiii, 9, 12) and Uzziah (2 Chron. xxvi, 16) manifested a disposition to usurp the priest's office. But an examination of the books of Samuel and Kings, including the book of Joshua, will furnish intimations of an existing hierarchical law, though we find no formal distinction be- tween priests and Levites. Probably to evade the reference to a hierarchy, the critics of the Kuenen school divide the book of Joshua into two parts, " the oldest of which, " say Dr. Oort and Dr. Hooykaas, " breathes pre- cisely the same spirit as that of Deuteronomy. EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 191 It is, indeed," they continue, " a sequel to that book, and describes the fulfillment of . Intimations the promises there given. Ihe later in the books r ° of Samuel portion, on the other hand, formed a and Kings r ' 7 of an exist- portion of the l Book of Origins/ so £f ^ e v rarchi * often mentioned. The former por- tion, then, was composed shortly before the Baby- lonian captivity, and the latter portion in the succeeding period." (" The Bible for Learners," Vol. I, p. 340; Boston: Roberts Brothers; 1880.) The evidence of Joshua is, therefore, ruled out by the necessities of the theory, which places the date of Deuteronomy about 625 B. C, Evidenceof and that of the other books of the ou s t h ^ a t S led Pentateuch about 445 B. C. But every critici - one, on reading the book of Joshua, if he has no theory to maintain, can not very easily resist the conviction that it was written by one coeval with the events that it records, and by an eye- witness of them. The conquest of Canaan by the Israelites must, therefore, have been shortly before the Babylonian captivity ; and the distri- bution of the land among the tribes must have been made in the succeeding period. This con- clusion is as probable as that respecting the date of the Pentateuch. As we are not pleading before the tribunal of the Kuenen school, we refuse to submit to its 192 THE PENT A TE VCR. ruling, and admit the testimony of the book of Joshua, until it is fairly proved that it ought to be excluded. So far as any notices are given in Joshua of the functions of the priesthood, they correspond to those described in the Pentateuch. (1.) The priesthood is in the family of Aaron. (Josh, xiv, 1 ; xxi, 1 ; xxii, 30-32 ; compare Ex. Notices in xxviii, 1, and Num. xxxiv, 17.) L°ncSon°s f of (2.) The tribe of Levi, being scat- the priesthood. tered amQng ^ ^.^ ^^ ^^ ^ signed to them, perform their sacred functions. (Josh, xiii, 14, 33 ; xiv, 3, 4 ; xviii, 7 ; xxi ; compare Num. xviii, 20-24, and xxxv, 7.) (3.) The ark was carried on the shoulders of the Levites. (Josh, iii, 3, 6, 8 ; vi, 6-9 ; compare Num. iv.) The books of Samuel and Kings are not ex- cluded by the exigencies of the theory that assigns a later date to the first and middle books of the Pentateuch than to Deuteronomy. What is their testimony concerning the point under discussion ? Do they afford any intimation that " before the exile the hierarchical law was not in force, apparently never had been in force ?" In 1 Sam. chapters i-iv, a priest at Shiloh is called Eli the priest, which implies pre-eminence of some kind. The narrative shows that he was EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 193 high -priest. To him a man of God said: "Thus saith the Lord, Did I plainly appear unto the house of thy father, when they were in . _ ... - Notices in Egypt in Pharaoh's house? And did samueiand GJ r Kings. I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to offer upon my altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? and did I give unto the house of thy father all the offerings made by fire of the children of Is- rael ?" (1 Sam. ii, 27-36.) The reference in the phrase, " the house of thy father,"* is evidently and principally to Aaron, to whom God appeared in Egypt, and whom he chose, in the wilderness, to be priest. It can not refer to Ithamar, for we have no intimation that God appeared to him in Egypt, and his father Aaron was priest before him. Eli is, therefore, identified in this address by the man of God to him with Aaron as to his privileges and functions. These are here de- scribed in three grades, corresponding to the three divisions of the sanctuary : (a) " to offer upon my altar ; (b) to burn incense; (c) to wear an ephod before me" which the high-priest wore when he went officially into the Most Holy Place ; and the whole description is evidently borrowed from the circumstantial narrative of *The phrase, "the house of thy father," indicates the whole priestly connection, in all its connections, from Aaron down. 33 194 THE PENTATEUCH. the appointment of Aaron and his sons to the priestly office in Exodus xxviii, xxix. (Compare Exodus xxviii, xxix, 9, 30, 44, with Lev. viii, l ff , and Num. xviii.) 1 Sam. xiv, 3, mentions " Ahiah, the son of Ahitub, Ichabod's brother, the son of Phinehas, the Lord's priest in Shiloh, wearing an ephod." This is the same person who is called Ahimelech the priest (1 Sam. xxi, 1 ; compare xxii, 9-16, 20-22), who gave to David the sword of Goliath at Nob, where the tabernacle was at that time. His son, Abiathar, escaped the massacre of the priests of Saul, fled to David (1 Sam. xxiii, 6, 9; xxx, 7) ; carried, along with Zadok, by the com- mand of David, who was fleeing from Jerusalem, the ark of the covenant back to the city ; and was " thrust out from being priest unto the Lord " by Solomon (1 Kings ii, 27), who put Zadok in his place (v. 35). Zadok and Abiathar are distinguished from the Levites (2 Sam. xv, 24-35) in being called priests. The designations, "Ahimelech the priest," " Abiathar the priest," " wearing the ephod," and " being priest unto the Lord," imply a hierarchy. They plainly point to a chief priest. Priests are mentioned at the dedication of Solomon's temple. (1 Kings viii, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11.) In verse 4, they are distinguished from the Le- EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 195 vites, which plainly implies a gradation. Jero- boam " made priests of the lowest of the people which were not of the sons of Levi" (1 Kings xii, 31), which intimates that he broke the law, which gave the right of the priesthood to the tribe of Levi alone. This right was disputed by Korah, Dathan, and Abiram in the wilderness, but confirmed to the sons of Levi (Num. xvi). In the reign of Athaliah, Jehoiada, the priest, crowned Jehoash ; and it appears that he acted as regent during the king's minority ; at least the young king was under his instruction. (2 Kings xi, xii.) During the reign of Josiah, Hilkiah was "high-priest." (2 Kings xxii, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14; xxiii, 4, 24.) In xxiii, 4, Hilkiah is called " high-priest," and " the priests of the second order" are mentioned. So also in chap, xxv, 18, we read : " And the captain of the guard took Seraiah the chief priest, and Zephaniah the second priest." These passages clearly indicate " a graduated hierarchy," at least a priesthood, at the head of which was a " high-priest." As already intimated, there were probably many irregularities between the time of Solomon and the captivity, for many of the kings of Ju- dah, and all. the kings of Israel were wicked and 196 THE PENTATEUCH. idolatrous men. It is said, to the reproach of even some of the good kings, that " the high places were not removed : the people sacrificed and burnt incense still on the high places." (2 Kings xiv, 4; xv, 4, 35.) After the erection of the tabernacle and of the temple this was an irregularity. On the contrary, it is recorded, in commendation of Hezekiah, that " he removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made." (2 Kings xviii, 4.) What is merely intimated in the books of Samuel and Kings is clearly stated in the books of Chronicles, which give " a graduated hierarchy of priests and Levites." But the Chronicler is a suspected person by the critics of the Kuenen school. He is accused of narrowness. " In passing judgment upon him TheChron- we mus * never forget that he really lcler - loved the temple service. The neces- sity of being constantly on our guard against accepting his statements does not give us a pleas- ant impression of this man; and it is therefore all the more necessary to the formation of a fair estimate that we should remember how important an element of religion the sacred music really supplied, not only to him, but to many of his countrymen also." He " is far from being a EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 197 trustworthy guide for the history of the period before the captivity." (Dr. H. Oort and Dr. I. Hooykaas, " Bible for Learners," Vol. II, pp. 533, 534, 535.) The books of Chronicles, in their present form, belong to a time after the exile (Ibid. p. 532) ; and hence it is not strange that he should take little interest in the affairs of the northern king- dom, which had become extinct. In the cir- cumstances, it is natural that he should produce " merely a Jewish chronicle." The older Israel- itish historians speak of the prophets — the special messengers of God to a rebellious people — the Chronicler speaks of the priests and Levites, the regular ministry. Why the Chronicler should fall under the suspicion of the authors of " The Bible for Learners," and of the school to which they be- long, is easy to conceive; for his statements, if admitted to be historical, are fatal to their theory. But there is no ground to suspect his honesty and his credibility as a historian. When he copies from the books of Samuel and Kings, he copies literally. We are, therefore, authorized to be- lieve that he deals in the same way with the other documents to which he refers. There were, in his time, historical works relating to the kings of Judah and of Israel in existence. To such 198 THE PENTATEUCH. . works he often refers. For his first book he evi- dently had access to genealogical tables and registers. He cites the following sources: (1) "The book of Samuel the seer, the book of Nathan the prophet, and the book of Gad the seer" (1 Chron. Sources of the Xxix > 29 ) '> ( 2 ) " the book of Nathan chronicles. the p rop h e t, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and the visions of Iddo the seer" (2 Chron. ix, 29) ; (3) " the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies" (2 Chron. xii, 15) ; (4) "the story of the prophet Iddo " (2 Chron. xiii, 22) ; (5) " the book of the kings of Judah and Israel " (2 Chron. xvi, 11); (6) "the book of Jehu the son of Ha- nani, who is mentioned in the book of the Kings of Israel " (2 Chron. xx, 34) ; (7) " the story of the book of the Kings " (2 Chron. xxiv, 27) ; (8) " the book of the Kings of Judah and Israel " (2 Chron. xxv, 26); (9) "Isaiah the prophet" (2 Chron. xxvi, 22) ; (10) " the book of the Kings of Is- rael and Judah" (xxvii, 7); (11) "the vision of Isaiah the prophet, and the book of the Kings of Judah and Israel " (xxxii, 32) ; (12) " the book of the Kings of Israel . . . the sayings of the seers " (2 Chron. xxxiii, 18, 19); (13) "the book of the Kings of Israel and Judah " (xxxv, 27) ; (14) " the book of the Kings of Israel and Ju- dah" (xxxvi, 8). EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 199 This list of sources can be reduced, seeing that the same work is referred to several times. In the enumeration (1) refers to David; (2) to Solomon ; (3) to Rehoboam ; (4) to Abijah ; (5) to Asa ; (6) to Jehoshaphat ; (7) to Joash ; (8) to Amaziah ; (9) to Uzziah ; (10) to Jotham ; (11) to Hezekiah; (12) to Manasseh ; (13) to Josiah; (14) to Jehoiakim. The Chronicler, therefore, had before him his- torical documents covering the whole time from David to the captivity ; and these documents must have been known to the people, otherwise it is inconceivable that he should refer to them. If they were fictitious, he could not escape ex- posure ; if they were true, his contemporaries had an opportunity of judging of their truth. On the hypothesis of the Kuenen school, the Chron- icler was a knave ; and the Jews furnished the most remarkable instance of mental imbecility found in all history ; for they were not living in a mythical period when he wrote, but in the most enlightened period of the ancient world. We now turn to those passages in the Chron- icler which speak of the priests and Levites, to see what he says of " a graduated hierarchy. " In 1 Chron. xv, we have a detailed account of the preparations made by David to bring the ark to Jerusalem. The parallel text, 2 Sam. vi, 200 THE PENT A TE VCK. 11-23, gives a brief description of its removal; but here mention is made (1) of the erection of the tent for the reception of the ark (v. 1) ; of the king's conference with the priests and Le- vites (vs. 2-16) ; (3) the removal of the ark (vs. 17-28) ; (4) the description of the first solemn service before the ark in its sanctuary in Jerusa- lem (chap. xvi). In chap, xv, 2, David says : " None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites : for them Notices in natn * ne Lord chosen to carry the ark ^graduated °f God, and to minister unto him for- ever." Here there is evident allusion to Num. i, 50; iv, 15; vii, 9; x, 17, with which David must have been acquainted. In verse 11, the king clearly distinguishes between the priests and the Levites; and in verse 4, between the latter and "the children of Aaron." He mentions " the sons of Kohath " first (v. 5), for the carry- ing the most holy vessels of the sanctuary be- longed to the Kohathites, the family from which Aaron, the high-priest, sprang. (Num. iv, 15 ; vii, 9.) Levites were appointed to be " singers with instruments of music, psalteries and harps and cymbals," for the solemn occasion, (vs. 16-22.) " Doorkeepers for the ark " were also appointed (v. 23) ; and seven priests to " blow with the trumpets," according to the directions EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 201 in Num. x, 1-10, and the example of the siege of Jericho. (Josh, vi, 4-6.) In the first solemn service before the ark in Jerusalem (1 Chron. xvi), David appointed cer- tain of the Levites to minister before the ark of the Lord, and to record, and to thank and praise the Lord God of Israel," and " priests with trumpets continually before the ark of the cove- nant of God " (vs. 4-6) ; and " he left . . . Zadok, the priest, and his brethren the priests, before the tabernacle of the Lord in the high place that was at Gibeon, to offer burnt-offerings unto the Lord upon the altar of the burnt-offer- ing continually morning and evening, to do ac- cording to all that is written in the law of the Lord, which he commanded Israel " (vs. 37, 39, 40). (Compare the prescriptions of the law, Ex- odus xxix, 37, 38 ; Num. xxviii, 3-6.) The mention of Gibeon as the place of the tabernacle and of the altar of burnt-offering (1 Chron. xvi, 39, 40), proves nothing against the assumption that burnt-offerings were also offered in Jerusalem, the abode of the ark. (Compare 1 Chron. xxi, 26-29.) The distribution and ministerial functions of the tribe of Levi, at the close of David's reign, fill four chapters; viz., 1 Chron. xxiii xxiv. The king numbered the Levites, " and divided 202 THE PENTATEUCH. them into courses among the sons of Levi" (xxiii, 3-6), according to the three well-known branches of this tribe. " Their office was to wait on the sons. of Aaron for the service of the house of the Lord" (vs. 28-32). In verse 13, it is stated that " Aaron was separated that he should sanctify the most holy things, he and his sons forever, to burn incense before the Lord, to min- ister unto him, and to bless his name forever." (See Num. vi, 23; compare Num. xvi, 3, and Deut. xxi, 5.) The sons of Aaron, i. e., his descendants, were divided by lot into twenty-four orders (1 Chron. xxiv, 1-18); and the Chronicler continues (v. 19), " These were the orderings of them in their serv- ice to come into the house of the Lord, according to their manner under Aaron their father [liter- ally, according to their law by the hand of Aaron their father], as the Lord God of Israel had com- manded him." (Num. iv.) Then follow the di- visions of the singers and of the porters, " for the service of the house of God." (Chapters xxv and xxvi.) David, before his death, enjoined on Solomon the observance of this hierarchical arrangement (1 Chron. xxviii, 21), and Solomon obeyed his father's injunction. (2 Chron. v, and vii, 4-7.) During the reigns of some of David's sue- EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 203 cessors, when both kings and priests forsook the worship of Jehovah, it is probable that many of the hierarchical arrangements were neglected; not only neglected, but infringed ; yet the priests vindicated their privileges and authority when King Uzziah invaded the priest's office and at- tempted to burn incense unto the Lord. (2 Chron. xx vi, 16-20.) In the reigns of the good kings, Hezekiah and Josiah, the hierarchical ordinances of David were observed. (2 Chron. xxix, 12-35; xxx, 15-27; xxxi, 2-19; xxxiv, 9-13; xxxv, 2-18.) It is proper to observe, in connection with these passages, that David refers for his author- ity, in the matter of constituting the hierarchy, to " the word of the Lord by Moses " (1 Chron. xv, 15), and to " the law of the Lord, which he commanded Israel" (xvi, 40); Hezekiah, to "the commandment of David" (2 Chron. xxix, 25, 27), and to " the law of Moses the man of God " (xxx, 16) ; Josiah, to "the word of the Lord by the hand of Moses" (xxxv, 6). It is very clear from the whole narrative that all these kings had the Pentateuch law before them. There is a very close connection between Chronicles and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra begins with the same edict of Cyrus with which the Chronicles end. Ezra and Nehemiah 204 THE PENTATEUCH. are united in the closest manner by JSTeh. viii— xii, 26. The three books form a whole. Ezra Ezra and continues Chronicles, and Nehemiah Nehemiah. con ti nU es and finishes Ezra. In all the three books substantially the same subject is treated ; viz., the history of the city of Jerusa- lem, the worship of God in it, and the most im- portant persons who rendered services to it. Now in these books — Ezra and Nehemiah — the priests and the Levites are clearly distin- guished ; and some were put out of the priest- hood because they were not registered " among those that were reckoned by genealogy." (Ezra ii, 62.) (See Ezra i, 5; ii, 36-39, 40, 41, 42, 61, 62, 70; iii, 2-6, 8-12; vi, 16-18, 20; vii, 7, 13, 24; viii, 15-20, 24, 29, 30, 33; x, 18; Neh. vii, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 63, 73; viii, 9; ix, 4, 5; x, 8, 9, 28, 34, 38; xi, 3, 10, 15, 18, 20, 22; xii, 1-8, 12, 22-24, 27, 28, 35, 41-47; xiii, 10-13.) These passages warrant the following conclu- sions, viz. : (1) The priests and Levites, the singers and porters, kept registers of their geneal- Conclusions. . . . .. N ogies during the captivity. (Ezra n, 62.) (2) The hierarchical distinctions and services that existed from the time of David to the cap- tivity were observed after the return from exile. (Ezra vi, 16-22.) EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 205 (3) The distinction between priests and Le- vites and their distinct services are said to have been prescribed in the book of Moses. (Ezra vi, 18.) (4) A new temple w T as built to replace the one that had been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar (which was modeled after the tabernacle), and " the vessels of the house of the Lord, which Nebuchadnezzar had brought forth out of Jeru- salem, were restored by Cyrus to the second temple. (Ezra i, 7-9 ; iii, 8-13.) (5) The succession of the tabernacle, the tem- ple of Solomon, and the second temple, implies a continuity of tabernacle and temple services; and this continuity of services would seem to imply "a graduated hierarchy" of priests and Levites, before the time of Ezra, who refers to the law of Moses as the constitutive law. (Ezra vi, 18.) (6) This law must have been what critics call the Levitico-Elohistic law contained in the mid- dle books of the Pentateuch. (7) If so, " the strict hierarchical law" was in force before the exile. 3. Prof. Smith having adduced Ezek. xliv in proof that " the strict hierarchical law was not in force, apparently never had been in force, before the exile," concludes : " If so, the Le- vi tical element is the latest thing in the Pen- 206 THE PENTATEUCH. tateuch ... or, on the opposite view, the hierarchic theory existed as a legal programme long before the exile, though it was fully carried out only after Ezra." We have endeavored to show (p. 168ft,) that the language of Ezekiel does not bear the con- struction which Prof. Smith puts upon it. If the testimony of the Chronicler is admitted, the evidence is clear and explicit that " the hierarchic theory existed" not only " as a legal programme," but "was fully carried out," in existing institu- tions, long before the time of Ezra. If his tes- timony is not admitted, the many intimations in the books of Samuel and Kings to the same effect are sufficient to render Prof. Smith's con- clusion very doubtful. It seems almost incredible that any one should believe that " the hierarchical law was not in force " before the time of Ezra, if he has any regard to the statements of the book which bears his name. "When the seventh month," after their return from captivity " was come," we are informed by that book, " the people gathered themselves to- gether as one man to Jerusalem. Then stood up Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and his brethren, and builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt-offerings thereon, as it is EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 207 written in the law of Moses the man of God. And they set the altar upon his bases; for fear was upon them because of the people of those countries ; and they offered burnt-offerings thereon unto the Lord, even burnt-offerings morning and evening. They kept also the feast of tabernacles, as it is written, and offered the daily burnt-offerings by number, according to the custom, as the duty of every day required ; and afterward offered the continual burnt-offering, both of the new moons, and of all the set feasts of the Lord that were consecrated, and of every one that willingly offered a free-will offering unto the Lord. From the first day of the seventh month began they to offer burnt-offerings unto the Lord. But the foundation of the temple of the Lord was not yet laid. " Now in the second year of their coining unto the house of God at Jerusalem, in the sec- ond month, began Zerubbabel the son of Sheal- tiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and the remnant of their brethren the priests and the Levites, and all they that were come out of the captivity unto Jerusalem; and appointed the Le- vites from twenty years old and upward, to set forward the work of the house of the Lord" (iii. 1-6, 8). Masons and carpenters were hired to build 208 THE PENTATEUCH. the temple; meat, and drink, and oil were given to the Zidonians and Tyrians " to bring cedar- trees from Lebanon to the sea of Joppa, according to the grant that they had of Cyrus, king of Persia" (v. 7). The foundation of the second temple was laid with great pomp and ceremony. " The priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites the sons of Asaph with cymbals " praised " the Lord after the ordinance of David, king of Israel. And they sang together by course in praising and giving thanks unto the Lord; because he is good, for his mercy endureth forever toward Is- rael " (vs. 10, 11). The people responded with a great shout ; " but many of the priests and Le- vites and chief of the fathers, who were ancient men, that had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice" (v. 12). This narrative evidently points to hierarchical institutions and ritual, not introduced then for the first time, but established in the times of David ; and re-established after the return from the captivity. 4. Smith says: " The chronology of the com- position of the Pentateuch may be said to center in the question, whether the Levitico-Elohistic document, which embraces most of the laws in EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 209 Leviticus with large parts of Exodus and Num- bers, is earlier or later than Deuteronomy." That question will now occupy our attention. A few brief considerations will show the supreme absurdity of the hypothesis which fixes the date of Deuteronomy in the reign of Josiah, about 625 B. C, and ascribes its authorship, per- haps, to Hilkiah, who wrote it as a reform pro- gramme, and passed it off as the writing of Mo- ses, who was in no respect the author of it; and its material, the advocates of this theory say, does not rest on a reliable Mosaic tradition. " Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the Lord given by Moses. And Hilkiah an- swered and said to Shaphan the scribe, Findin of I have found the book of the law in the g£ k by of house of the Lord. And Hilkiah de- mikiah - * livered the book to Shaphan. And Shaphan car- ried the book to the king. . . . Then Shaphan the scribe told the king saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes." (2 Chron. xxxiv, 14-19.) "Hilkiah the priest found a book." What book? He says "a book [the book*] of the law * The word " book " in the original, is definite by virtue of its being in the construct state, just as the word " law " following, which is with- out the article in the Hebrew text. H 210 THE PENT A TE UCH. of the Lord given by Moses." We would natu- rally infer that Hilkiah meant the whole Torah, what we call the Mosaic law, though it is said that he meant only Deuteronomy. This point it is not essential to our purpose to discuss. The critics may have it their own way. This book, it appears, had been lost. This is not strange, when we consider the long preva- lence of idolatry and ungodliness during the reigns of Manasseh and his son Amon, who pre- ceded Josiah. " Manasseh made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to err, and to do worse than the heathen, whom the Lord had destroyed before the children of Israel." (2 Chron. xxxiii, 9.) He built again the high places which Hezekiah, his father, had broken down, erected altars to Baalim, made groves, worshiped all the host of heaven, built altars to them in the two courts of the house of the Lord, caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom, observed times, used enchantments and witchcraft, dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards, and set a carved image in the house of God. (2 Chron. xxxiii, 3-7.) It is probable that the priests, to whom the keeping of the law was intrusted, seeing the mad idolatry of the king, and his determination to subvert their whole system of worship, hid the EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 211 book of the law, lest their infatuated king might destroy it, for it was a standing rebuke to his idolatry. It is true that Manasseh, when he was a cap- tive in Babylon, repented, " besought the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers." (2 Chron. xxxiii, 12); and that, after his restoration to his kingdom, he abolished the idolatrous worship which he had established ; yet his reformation was partial com- pared with that under his grandson Josiah. " The book of the law," therefore, may have been hidden sixty years before it was found by Hilkiah ; and the copy that he found may have been the autograph of Moses. This was nothing impossible, for Josiah succeeded his father about 641 B. C. ; consequently the age of the book, supposing it to have been the autograph of Moses, would have been very short compared with that of existing manuscripts of the New Testament. But this book, some say, was not found, but was written, perhaps by Hilkiah, as " a reform programme." Hezekiah, many years before this time, com- menced a very general reformation, and was guided, it seems, by " the law of Moses the man of God" (2 Chron. xxx, 16); and Josiah, ten 212 THE PENTATEUCH. years before this time, accomplished a very thor- ough and extensive reformation, without any pro- gramme. (2 Chron. xxxiv, 3-7.) It seems, how- ever, that he had some knowledge of " the ways of David his father " (v. 2), which renders it probable that he endeavored to restore religious worship to the condition in which it was in the reign of " the son of Jesse." " In the eighteenth year of his reign, when he had purged the land, and the house, he sent Sha- phan, ... to repair the house of the Lord his God." (2 Chron. xxxiv, 3-13.) While these repairs were going on, Hilkiah found the book of the law, which is favorable to the hypothesis that it had been hidden to preserve it from the idolatrous rage of Manasseh. But the real difficulty on the part of those who attribute its authorship to Hilkiah, or to any other person of his time, has yet to be met. " And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Abdon the son of Micah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah a servant of the king's, saying, Go, inquire of the Lord for me, and for them that are left in Is- rael and in Judah, concerning the words of the EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 213 book that is found. . . . And Hilkiah, and they that the king had appointed, went to Hul- dah the prophetess, . . . And she answered them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Tell ye the man that sent you to me, thus saith the Lord, Behold I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah," etc. (2 Chron. xxxiv, 19-28.) It seems that Huldah, the prophetess, w T as either in the secret of the forgery, or that she believed that Hilkiah the priest had actually u found " the " book of the law of the Lord given by Moses." (2 Chron. xxxiv, 14.) Had she known it to be a forgery, it is not probable that she would have said to the messengers of the king, " Thus saith the Lord God of Israel," etc. (v. 23) ; but if she believed it to be the " book of the law of the Lord given by Moses," then her reply to the messengers was both fitting and timely. But is it probable that the king w T ould have rent his clothes, and have said, "great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the Lord, to do after all that is written in this book" (vs. 19, 21), had he not been convinced 214 THE PENTATEUCH. that the book was the " law of the Lord given by Moses?" He must certainly have recollected that such a book existed in the days of their fathers, the precepts of which they had "not kept/' otherwise he would very naturally have inquired how Hilkiah came by it. We might suppose the king to address Hilkiah thus: King: Hilkiah, you say that you found this book? Hilkiah: Yes. King: Who wrote it? Hilkiah: Moses. King: There is no tradition among our people that Moses wrote a book of this kind. Hilkiah: Nevertheless, he did. King: Where did you find it? Hilkiah: In the temple. King: Who have had the keeping of the writings of Moses ? Hilkiah : The priests. King : Have the priests been so negligent of their duty as to lose a book of so much importance as this, — a book on obedience to which the welfare of our nation depends ? Hilkiah : To speak the truth, I wrote it myself. King: For what purpose did you write it? Hilkiah: For a reform programme. King : Why did you attribute it to Moses ? Hil- kiah : To obtain authority for it among the peo- ple. King: I advise you, Hilkiah, to make a public confession, and write no more reform pro- grammes until you have reformed yourself. A priest's lips should speak the truth. Moreover, how could it be possible to palm EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 215 off a forgery upon a whole nation, king, princes, priests, Levites, and people? They must have been sadly deficient in critics. They had no such universities as those of Greifswald and Leyden among them ; but Hilkiah must have been a match for Kuenen in constructing history and " suspending it upon airy nothing." It can easily be conceived how a book or poem, having little or no practical relation to the people, might be a forgery ; but how a book like Deuteronomy, or the Pentateuch, containing na- tional history, biographical sketches, geographical descriptions, and national laws, could be a for- gery, is almost inconceivable. The case of Deuteronomy is very different from that of Ecclesiastes, even if it could be proved that the latter book was not written by Solomon ; for, in the first place, the writer of Ecclesiastes calls himself Koheieth, though from the superscription the reader would very natu- rally take him to be Solomon ; and, in the second place, the book of Ecclesiastes treats of things of universal, and not of national and local interest. But Deuteronomy names Moses as its author, and contains " statutes and judgments" for the chil- dren of Israel (Deut. iv, 1), and denounces curses upon him " that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." (Deut. xxvii, 26.) Josiah 216 THE PENTATEUCH. said : " Great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the Lord, to do after all that is written in this book." (2 Chron. xxxiv, 21.) Is it possible that such a book could be a for- gery? Can any one imagine that a whole nation, an enlightened nation as the Jews were, could be so deceived? The hypothesis that Deuteronomy was written by Hilkiah, or by some other person, in the reign of Josiah, must be dismissed as absurd. The book — perhaps the whole Torah or Pen- tateuch — was lost for some time, and found by Hilkiah the priest, in the time of Josiah. Suppose the book to have been When was . Deuteronomy Deuteronomy, when was it written? written ? J ? Is the date ,of its composition earlier or later than that of the other books of the Pen- tateuch ? It is acknowldged by all that it existed in the time of Josiah, about 625 B. C. As already stated, some believe that it was written at that time ; but this opinion makes Hilkiah It existed in , . , , . , . , , , the reign of a knave; the king and the whole na- Josiah. . . . tion a set or dupes. It is simply absurd. According to the narrative (2 Chron. xxxiv, 14), Hilkiah found it. It must, therefore have existed before this time. Josiah believed EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 217 that it existed in the days of " our [their] fa- thers." (2 Chron. xxxiv, 21.) The book of Deuteronomy existed in the reign of Amaziah, 828 B. C. " As soon as . , t . t n i . t . It existed in the kingdom was confirmed in his the reign of hand, he slew his servants, which had slain the king his father. But the children of the murderers he slew not : according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Mo- ses wherein the Lord commanded saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (2 Kings xiv, 5, 6.) This law is recorded in Deut. xxiv, 16; consequently Amaziah must have been acquainted with that book. At the coronation of Joash, 868 B. C, a statement is made which reminds the reader of Deut. xxxi, 26. Jehoiada brought forth the king's son, and put the crown upon the We of him, and gave him the testimony. (2 Kings xi, 12.) The Hebrew text reads: " He brought forth the king's son and put the crown upon him, and the testimony." It is generally agreed that this "testimony" was the "Book of the Law " which was kept in the ark of the cove- nant. (Deut. xxxi, 26.) Jehoshaphat (908 B. C.) was evidently ac- 218 THE PENT A TE UCH, quainted with the book of Deuteronomy. When the Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites " came against him to battle," he prayed to the time of the Lord for deliverance, and alluded Jehoshaphat. , in his prayer to Deut. ii, 4, 9, 19, the only passage in which the fact mentioned is found. The reference is plain from the fact that the king uses the term Mount Seir — used in the corre- sponding passage of Deuteronomy — instead of the more common one of Edom. (2 Chron. xx, 1-12.) It was also according to Deuteronomy that he made his judicial arrangements. (Compare 2 Chron. xix, 5, with Deut. xvi, 18; 2 Chron. xix, 8, with Deut. xvii, 8, 9 ; 2 Chron. xix, 7, with Deut. xvi, 19.) Solomon's prayer, at the dedication of the temple, is filled with thoughts and language bor- rowed from Deuteronomy, which proves that he was acquainted with the book. (Compare 1 Kings viii, 15-54, with Deuteronomy iv, 10, 20, 39; vi, 1, 2 ; vii, 6, 7, 9-12, 19 ; ix, 29 ; x, 14; xi, 2, 17; xii, 5, 10, 11 ; xiv, 2 ; xxi, 10; xxv, 1 ; xxvi, 15, 18, 19; xxviii, 15, 21-52; xxx, 1-3.) When " the Lord appeared to Sol- it existed in xl -, , . „ , , time of Solo- omon the second time and spoke with him, he used the language of Deuteronomy. (Compare 1 Kings ix, 7-9 with Deut. xxviii, 37 ; xxix, 24-26.) EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 219 Deut. xii, 5-12 must have been in the mind of David when he proposed to build the temple (2 Sam. vii, 1-3, 10-12; 1 Chron. T v ... .It existed in xxii, 7-13); for the fulfillment of the g£« d meof condition, " rest from all your enemies " (Deut. xii, 10) is distinctly mentioned. (2 Sam. vii, 1, 11.) David's charge to Solomon (1 Chron. xxii, 13) has nearly the identical phraseology of Moses' charge to Joshua. (Deut, xxxi, 7, 8.) The points of contact between Judges and Deuteronomy are too numerous to be accidental, and show clearly that the author of Re f erences to the "Book of Judges" was acquainted *£$f™ n ' with it ; and consequently that it existed u ges * before his time ; that its history is earlier than that of Judges. (Compare Judges ii, 2,'with Deut. vii, 2, and xii, 3; Judges ii, 3, with Deut. vii, 16 ; Judges ii, 22, with Deut. viii, 2, 16, and xiii, 3; Judges v, 4, with Deut. xxxiii, 2 ; Judges vii, 2, with Deut. viii, 17; Judges xi, 15, with Deut. ii, 9, 19 ; Judges xi, 18, 19, with Deut. ii, 1-8, 26; Judges xi, 20, 21, 22, with Deut. ii, 32, 33, 36 ; Judges xi, 26, with Deut. ix, 4, 5, and xviii, 12 ; Judges xiii, 22, with Deut. v, 26 ; Judges xvii, 6, with Deut. xii, 8 ; Judges xviii, 10, with Deut. viii, 9 ; Judges xx, 12, 13, with Deut xiii, 13, and xvii, 12; Judges xxi, 13, with Deut. xx, 10.) 220 THE PENT A TE UCH. It has been argued that Deuteronomy was not extant in the time of Joshua, otherwise he would not have punished the sons and daughters of Achan along with their father (Josh, vii, 24, 25), contrary to the prohibition of Deuteronomy xxiv, 16. This objection to the existence of Deuteron- omy at that time assumes that the family of Achan were not accomplices in his sin. The Objection to history does not say that they were; totlfJSe of but they may have been. If they were, founded on they were punished for their own iniq- Josh.vii, 24, 25. ., t, , ., .i uity. JBut grant that they were not accomplices, their punishment was not a viola- tion of the prohibition contained in Deut. xxiv, 16, for Joshua acted by divine command. (Josh, vii, 15.) The law of Deut. xxiv, 16, has respect to cases of ordinary guilt; but the crime of Achan was sacrilege, consisting in the appropri- ation of spoils devoted to destruction as a proof of God's detestation of idolatr}^ ; and his punishment was perfectly consistent with Deut. xiii, 12-17. The parallel between Deut. xxvii, 2-13, and Josh viii, 30-35, shows that Joshua was ac- quainted with the book of Deuteronomy, that he was guided by it when he "built an altar unto Jehovah God of Israel in Mount Ebal," and that he considered Moses its author. EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 221 The Lord's charge to Joshua (I, 3-9), com- pared with Deut. xi, 24, 25, and xxxi, References to 6-12, furnishes another parallel be- ^Z° n ' tween the two books implying the existence of Deuteronomy at that time, unless the sacred writer puts falsehood in the mouth of Jehovah — a supposition which can not be enter- tained for a moment. Joshua, moreover (i, 13-15), quotes the direc- tions given by Moses to the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh (Deut iii, 18-20), to remind these tribes of their duty to pass over Jordan and assist their brethren in the conquest of Canaan. We have now traced the book of Deuteron- omy from the time of Josiah down to the time of Moses, and seen that Hilkiah, Josiah, Ama- ziah, Joash, Jehoshaphat, Solomon, David, the author of the book of Judges, and Joshua were acquainted with its contents ; and that Moses was believed to have been its author. Deuteronomy presupposes the preceding books of the Pentateuch, and consequently it is later in date than these books. It brings before us a series of farewell dis- courses delivered by Moses to the Israelitish na- tion ; and this fact would lead us to expect a greater degree of subjectivity than in the objective form 222 THE PENTATEUCH. of the law. The author gives particular promi- nence to his personal views and feelings. The book has a prophetical coloring, and is a model of prophetical discourse. From its nature, in this respect, we may explain how a later proph- etism (Jeremiah and Ezekiel) connected itself with it. This character of the book is what the author is fully concious of. Moses himself ap- pears here as a prophet (Deut. xviii, 15ff), and the prophetic body which succeeded him is re- garded as simply carrying on his work as an institution standing in intimate connection with it. As all subsequent Hebrew prophecy has its root in the Law, and takes its point of departure from it, so also does this book. The Law — the objective divine act comes first. Prophecy — w T hich is the subjective reflection of the Law, the application of it in its importance to the life of the individual as well as to the life of the nation — follows. In the same manner Deuteron- omy comes after the other books of the Penta- teuch. It not only treats of the Law in its sub- jective application, but carries it out, develops, and completes it. Hence, there is found in it an interpretation ot the legal and prophetical ele- ments. But this mutual interpretation is so intimate, that the prophetic element itself has received, at least partially, a legal coloring and EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 223 the legal element a prophetical coloring. From this relation of the legal to the prophetical in Deuteronomy, there follows, on the one hand, the later composition of the book as compared with the other books of the Pentateuch ; and, on the other hand, the right of Moses to be considered the author of it. (Havernick's " Historico-Crit- ical Introduction to the Pentateuch ;" Edin- burgh : T. &T. Clark; 1850.) A perusal of Deuteronomy can not fail to suggest to the reader that it sustains an intimate connection with the preceding books Deuteron . and presupposes their existence. The S s P the ex- istence of the opening words would seem to imply preceding that the discourses of Moses and the events up to the eleventh month of the fortieth year (Deut. i, 3), had already been recorded ; for it is difficult to conceive why an author should give the details of the close of a history and omit those of its beginning. The place is defined : " These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan [beyond Jordan] in the wilderness, in the plain over against the Red Sea, between Paran, and Tophet, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Diz- ahab." (Deut. i, 1.) The time is defined : " And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the 224 THE PENTATEUCH. first day of the month, that Moses spake unto the children of Israel, according to all that the Lord had given him in commandment unto them" (v. 3). The subject-matter is defined: " On this side Jordan, in the land of Moab, be- gan Moses to declare this law" (v. 5). The word rendered " declare " (Heb. "^3; lxx, dtaoaipVjGat) properly means " to explain, to dig out the sense, and to set it forth ivhen dug out." (Tregelles' " Gesenius' Lexicon," s. v.) This ren- dering implies that the law, which Moses began to explain, was already in existence. Its pre- vious existence was a necessary condition to Mo- ses' explanation of it. The phrase " this law " seems to refer to what follows, and may be rendered " the following law." But this rendering creates a difficulty by neces- sitating the reference of the demonstrative "this" to the fifth chapter, thus separating the pronoun from its subject by four chapters. It may, how- ever, refer to what precedes ; and then the phrase "this law" might be rendered " the foregoing law." This is consistent with the grammatical construc- tion of the demonstrative pronoun, here em- ployed, in Hebrew. (Nordheimer's " Critical Grammar of the Hebrew Language," Vol. II, Sec. 887, 2, p. 121.) "Substantially, it is no other than the law given in the earlier books. EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 225 Substantially, there is throughout but one law." (Keil and Delitzsch, in loc.) A knowledge of the historical and legislative contents of the preceding books is presupposed in Deuteronomy, which is a conclusive proof of their previous existence. The author repeatedly refers to the promises of God made to the pa- triarchs, as having been partly fulfilled and as partly to be accomplished. (Deut. i, 7, 8, 11 ; iv, 31; vi, 10; vii, 8, 12, 13; viii, 1, 18; ix, 5; x, 11, 22; xi, 9, 21, etc.) Compare Deut. i, 9ff., with Exodus xviii, 18ff.; Deut. i, 4, with Num. xxi, 24-35 ; Deut. i, 6, with Num. x, llff.; Deut. i, 22, with Num. xiii, 2, 3, 26-33 ; Deut. i, 33, with Exodus xiii, 21, 22 ; Deut. i, 34ff., with Num. xiv, 23ff. ; Deut. iv, 34, and vii, 18, with Exodus vi-xi ; Deut. viii, 3, with Exodus xvi ; Deut. ix, 7ff., with Exodus xvi, xvii, 7, and xxxii ; Deut. ix, 22ff., with Exodus xviiff., and Num. xi. These passages in Deuteronomy refer back to the great things which God did for his people in Egypt, and to the chief events during the forty years' journeying in the wilderness, mentioned in the passages cited from Numbers and Exodus. Deuteronomy also repeats the most important individual laws, on obedience to which depended the prosperity of the Israelites in the land of 15 226 THE PENTATEUCH. promise. (Compare Deut. v, 6-21, with Exodus xx, 1-17 ; Deut. xiv, with Lev. xi ; Deut. xvi, with Exodus xii, Iff.; xxxiii, 17; xxxiv, 23; Lev. xxiii, 4ff., etc.) References to the book of Genesis frequently occur. (Compare Deut. vi , 3, with Gen. xii, 2 ; xv, 5 ; Deut. i, 8 ; vi, 10, 23 ; vii, 8 ; ix, 5, with Gen. xii, 7 ; xiii, 15 ; xvii, 8 ; xxvi, 3 ; xxviii, 13, and xxxv, 12. Deut. i, 10; x, 22, with Gen. xv, 5. Deut. xxix, 23, with Gen. xix, 24, 25. Deut. ii, 9, 19, with Gen. xix, 37, 38. Deut. i, 10, 11, with Gen. xxii, 17. Deut. x, 22, with Gen xlvi, 27.) An examination of those passages cited from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers will render it evident that they are prior Date of Deu- . , A . teronomy m date to the parallel passages in later than r I & that of the Deuteronomy ; for the latter are rep- prececung J 7 r Pentateuch 6 resented, in many instances, as a ful- fillment of the former. The date of Deuteronomy is, therefore, later than that of the preceding books of the Pentateuch. The existence of Deuteronomy has been traced back from the time of Josiah to that of Joshua, the contemporary of Moses during the sojourning of the Israelites in the wilderness. It has been shown, too, that it implies the prior date of the former books of the Pentateuch, by its frequent references to them; and that its authorship was ■ EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 227 universally ascribed to Moses. The question, then, whether its composition was earlier or later than the preceding books of the Pentateuch may- be considered as virtually settled. But the question can not be left here. Is there any evidence that the Pentateuch, as a whole, is referred to in the subsequent books of the Old Testament as a well-known work extant from the time of Moses down to the latest period of Hebrew sacred literature ? This question will now occupy our attention. Let us premise a few considerations. If the Pentateuch was not composed in the time of Moses, it is very difficult, yea, impossible, to fix on any subsequent period as the date of its com- position. It would be difficult to fix it in the time of Joshua. He experienced the vicissitudes of the Israelites in the wilderness. He had much of the experience of Moses and the benefit of that learned man's instructions; but his life, after entering Canaan, was eminently active, so that he had little time for literary labor. Moreover, he frequently refers to the authority of Moses as the reason of his own actions, and professes to carry out his instructions. No one would fix on the time of the Judges, a time of great national conflicts and national 228 THE PENTATEUCH. confusion, when " every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (Judges xxi, 25.) The time of Samuel was altogether unsuitable, for Samuel did not come into contact with Egypt and the wilderness at all; but the laws and nar- ratives of the Pentateuch evince an intimate knowledge of both. David, on his accession to the throne, found Difficulties of the kin g ] y form of government estab- dJtelfthe lished, the greater part of the Israel- laterthanthe itish nation adhering to the house of ' Saul, the tabernacle and the ark in existence, a priesthood tracing its lineage back to a period before him, and a priest wearing the ephod, — all which are inconsistent with the con- dition of things described in the Pentateuch. The time of Solomon is equally unsuitable. His temple was modeled after the tabernacle, which proves the previous existence of the lat- ter. (Smith's " Dictionary of the Bible." Article Temple, Vol. Ill, p. 1455a.) The whole organi- zation proceeds on the basis of the Pentateuch. (1 Kings viii, 1-11.) Solomon who " loved many strange women " belonging to the neighboring nations, reached the maximum of polygamy ; and " his wives turned away his heart after other gods." (1 Kings xi, 1-14.) His history, therefore, fur- nishes the clearest proof that he was not the EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 229 author of the laws commonly acknowledged as the laws of Moses. It is in vain to attempt to find a date for the Pentateuch between the time of Solomon and the captivity ; for the kingdom was divided, idolatry introduced into the northern kingdom; and many of the kings of Judah followed the example of the kings of Israel. The post-exilic date of the middle books rests on the theory that there was no " graduated hier- archy of priests and Levites " until the time of Ezra. That theory has been already considered. There is a single fact (already alluded to in a different connection, p. 191), recorded by Ezra, which of itself is sufficient to show the utter groundlessness of this theory. We read in Ezra iii, 12 : " But many of the priests and Levites and chief of the fathers, who were ancient men, that had seen the first house, when the founda- tion of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice." This statement proves the existence of a for- mer house or temple, which we know from the history of the captivity, to have been Solomon's. The temple of Solomon was erected to supersede the tabernacle, and modeled after it. The taber- nacle was set up in the wilderness according to the designs given in Exodus. In connection 230 THE PENTATEUCH. with these designs, the holy garments, and the service, and the consecration of the priests are described. The post-exilic temple, priesthood, and ritual were a restoration of what had existed before. This fact involves the existence of the middle books of the Pentateuch at or about the time of the erection of the tabernacle in the wil- derness. These considerations are general. We will now advert to particulars. Prof. Stanley Leathes, M. A., having clearly proved the unity and organic structure of the Old Testament, thus concludes: "Thus every portion of this ancient literature [historic, pro- phetic, poetic, and legal] is intimately bound up with every other; the prophecy with the poe- try, and the poetry with the history, and all together with the law, and the law of Moses is not only an integral element in the composition of the Old Testament, but is also the corner- stone of its internal structure, and the firm, essential basis of its organic and indestruc- tible unity." (" The Structure of the Old Testa- ment," p. 196: London: Hodder & Stoughton ; 1873.) The following references to the Pentateuch, in the subsequent books of the Old Testament, will confirm the statements of Prof. Leathes, and, at EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 231 the same time, prove its prior existence to these books. References to the Pentateuch in the booh of Joshua. (a) Compare Josh, i, 7, 8, with Deut. -r * ••-■<»■« rn- References to v, 32, and xxviii, 14 ; Josh, vm, 31-35, the Pent*- ' ' J 7 7 teuch in the with Exodus xx, 24, 25, and Deut. ^g^^ xxvii, 5, 6; xxxi, 9, 12, 25; Josh, xxiii, £**"**- 6, with Deut. v, 32, and xxviii, 14. In Josh, i, 3-8, the words of Deuteronomy xi, 24, 25, and xxxi, 6-12, are quoted; and in Josh, i, 13-18, the words of Deut. iii, 18-20. (6) The ecclesiastical constitution, so far as it is mentioned by Joshua, corresponds to that de- scribed in the Pentateuch. The priesthood is in the family of Aaron. (Josh, xiv, 1 ; xxi, 1, compared with Exodus xxviii, 1, and Num. xxxiv, 17.) The tribe of Levi, being scattered among the tribes, with cities assigned to them, perform the sacred functions. (Josh, xiii, 14, 33; xiv, 3, 4; xviii, 7 ; xxi, compared with Numbers xviii, 20-24, and xxxv, 7.) The tabernacle erected in the wilderness is now set up in Shiloh. (Josh, xviii, i, compared with Exodus xl.) The sacrifices are those enjoined in Leviticus. 232 THE PENT A TE UCH. (Josh, viii, 31 ; xxii, 23, 27, 29, compared with Lev. i, ii, iii.) The altar which Joshua built was constructed " as Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses." (Josh, viii, 30, 31, com- pared with Exodus xx, 25.) The ark was carried on the shoulders of the Levites. (Josh, iii, 3, 6, 8 ; vi, 6, 7, 8, 9, com- pared with Num. iv.) Joshua was commanded to circumcise the chil- dren of Israel. (Josh, v, 2-7, compared with Gen. xvii, 9-14, 23-27.) The passover was observed. (Josh, v, 10, compared with Exodus xii, 2-17.) (e) The civil constitution corresponds to that described in the Pentateuch : Joshua mentions the general assembly of the people and of the rulers. (Josh, ix, 18-21 ; xx, 6, 9 ; xxxii, 30, compared with Exodus xvi, 22.) Elders. (Josh, vii, 6, compared with Deut. xxxi, 9.) Elders of the city. (Josh, xx, 4, compared with Deut. xxv, 8.) Of&cers called Shoterim and Shophetim. (Josh, viii, 33, compared with Deut. xvi, 18.) Heads of thousands, (Josh, xxii, 21, com- pared with Num. i, 16.) EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 233 (d) Ordinances of the Mosaic law adhered to : The bodies of those that were hanged were taken down from the tree at the setting of the sun. (Josh, viii, 29 ; x, 27, compared with Deut. xxi, 23.) No league made with the Canaanites. (Josh, ix, compared with Exodus xxiii, 32.) Cities of refuge. (Josh, xx, compared with Num. xxxv, 11-15; Deut. iv, 41-43; xix, 2-7.) The land divided by lot by Joshua. (Josh, xiv, 2, compared with Num. xxxiv, 13.) The daughters of Zelophehad obtained an in- heritance among the brethren of their father. (Josh, xvii, 3, 4, compared with Num. xxvii, 1-12, and xxxvi, 6-9.) 2. In the Book of Judges. This book joins on to the book of Joshua, and appears to be a continuation of the history of Israel from the death of that great leader and conqueror. (a) It clearly refers to the laws of Moses and God's commandments by him. (Judges ii, 1, compared with Gen. xvii, 7, 8 ; Exodus xx, 2 ; verse 2, with Deut. vii, 2 ; xii, 3 ; verse 3, with Exodus xxiii, 33 ; Deut. vii, 16 ; verses 11, 12, 13, with Deut. xxxi, 16.) (b) Judah's pre-eminence. (Judges xi, 2 ; x, 18, compared with Gen. xlix, 8 ; Num. xii, 3 ; , 14.) 234 THE PENTATEUCH. (c) The office of Judge, throughout the book, compared with Deut. xvii, 9. (d) The theocratic character of the nation. (Judges viii, 22, 23, compared with Exodus xix, 6, and Deut. xxxiii, 5.) (e) Asking counsel of the Lord. (Judges xx, 23, compared with Num. xxvii, 21.) (/) Going to the house of the Lord to offer burnt-offerings and sacrifices. (Judges xx, 20, compared with Deut. xii, 5, 6.) (g) The ephod a priestly garment. (Judges viii, 27 ; xvii, 5 ; xviii, 14-17, compared with Exodus xxxix, 22.) (h) The Levites dispersed among the tribes. (Judges xvii, 7-13 ; xix, 1, 2, compared with Gen. xlix, 7, and Num. xxxv, 2-8.) (i) Circumcision distinguishes the Israelites. (Judges xiv, 3 ; xv, 18, compared with Gen. xvii, 9-14.) (Jc) Historical references in Judges to facts re- corded in the Pentateuch. (Judges i, 16, 20, compared with Num. xiv, 24, and Deut. i, 36 ; Judges ii, 1, compared with Exodus xx, 2; Judges vi, 13, compared with Exodus xx, 2 ; Judges xi, 15-27, is an epitome of Num. xx, xxi. (I) Language in Judges frequently borrowed from that of the Pentateuch. (Judges ii, 1-23, compared with Exodus xx, 5; xxxiv, 15; Lev. EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 235 xxvi, 13-17, 36; Num. xxxii, 13; Deut. vii, 2,5, 16; ix, 18; xii, 3; xvii, 2; xxxi, 16; Judges v, 4, 5, with Deut. xxxiii, 2 ; verse 8, with Deut. xxxii, 17.) 3. In Samuel. (a) Eli, of the family of Aaron, high-priest. (1 Sam. chapters i-iv, compared with Exodus xl, 12-15, and Num. xxv, 11-13.) (b) The lamp burns in the tabernacle. (1 Sam. iii, 3, according to the ordinance, Exodus xxvii, 20, 21 ; Lev. xxiv, 2, 3.) (c) The ark of the covenant is in the taber- nacle, and is considered the symbol of the divine presence. (1 Sam. iv, 3, 4, 18, 21, 22; v, 3, 4, 7; vi, 19, compared with Exodus xl, 20, 21.) (c?) The cherubim are there. (1 Sam. iv, 4, compared with Exodus xxxvii, 9.) (e) The ephod is worn by the high-priest. (1 Sam. ii, 28, compared with Exodus xxxix, 21.) (/) Burning incense. (1 Sam. ii, 28, com- pared with Exodus xxxvii, 25.) (g) The various kinds of Mosaic sacrifices are referred to ; the animals offered in sacrifice ; and the especial customs of the sacrifice. (1 Sam. i, 24, 25; ii, 13, 19; iii, 14; vii, 9; x, 8; xi, 15; xiii, 9 ; xv, 22 ; xvi, 2 ; xxvi, 19, compared with Lev., chapters i-vii ; Num. xviii, 8-19, 25-32 ; Deut. xviii, 1-8.) 236 THE PENTA TE UCH. (h) The Levites alone were permitted to han- dle the ark. (1 Sam. vi, 15, compared with Num. i, 49-53.) (i) Historical events related in the Pentateuch referred to. (1 Sam. iv, 8 ; viii, 8 ; xii, 8, com- pared with Exodus, chapters iii-xv.) (k) Verbal quotations from the Pentateuch. (1 Sam. ii, 22, compared with Exodus xxxviii, 8 ; 1 Sam. viii, 5, 6, with Deut. xvii, 14 ; 1 Sam. viii, 3, with Deut. xvi, 19.) 4. In the Poetical Boohs. (a) Compare Ps. i, 3, with Gen. xxxix, 3, 23. Ps. iv, 5 (Heb. 6), with Deut. xxxiii, 19. Ps. iv, 6 (Heb. 7), with Number vi, 26. Ps. viii, 6, 7, 8, with Gen. i, 26, 28. Ps. ix, 12 (Heb. 13), with Gen. ix, 5. Ps. xv, 5, with Exodus xxii, 25 (Heb. 24), Ex. xxiii, 8 ; Lev. xxv, 36 ; Deut. xvi, 19. Ps. xvi, 4, with Ex. xxx, 19, 20. Ps. xxx, (Heading), with Deut. xx, 5. Ps. xxxix, 12, with Lev. xxv, 23. Ps. lxviii, 1, with Num. x, 35. Ps. lxviii, 4, with Deut. xxxiii, 26. Ps. lxviii, 7, with Ex. xiii, 21. Ps. lxviii, 8, with Ex. xix, 6ff. Ps. lxviii, 17, with Deut. xxxiii, 2. Ps. lxxxvi, 8, with Ex. xv, 11. Ps. lxxxvi, 15, with Ex. xxxiv, 6. EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 237 Compare Ps. ciii, 17, 18, with Ex. xx, 6 ; Deut. vii, 9. Ps. ex, 4, with Gen. xiv, 18. Ps. exxxiii, 2, with Ex. xxx, 25, 30. (b) Compare Prov. iii, 9, with Ex. xxxii, 29 ; and Deut. xxvi, 2. Prov. iii, 12, with Deut. viii, 5. Prov. iii, 18, with Gen. ii, 9. Prov. xi, 1, with Lev. xix, 36. Prov. xx, 10, 23, with Deut. xxv, 13, 14. Prov. xi, 13,1 .,i T ' -io ' > V with Lev. xix, 16. Prov. xx, 19, ) 5. There are frequent allusions to the Pentateuch from the establishment of the northern kingdom until the captivity. (a) In the reign of Jehoshaphat, " the Book of the Law of the Lord " is mentioned. (2 Chron. xvii, 9. (b) In the reign of Uzziah. (Compare 2 Chron. xxvi, 16-21, with Num. xvi, Iff.) (c) In the reign of Hezekiah. (Compare 2 Kings xviii, 4, with Num. xxi, 9 ; and verse 6, with Deut. x, 20.) (d) Compare 1 Kings xxi, 3, with Lev. xxv, 23; and Num. xxxvi, 8. 1 Kings xxi, 10, with Num. xxxv, 30; Deut. xvii, 6, 7 ; Deut. xix, 15. 1 Kings xxii, 17, with Num. xxvii, 16, 17. 238 THE PENTATEUCH. r (e) Compare 2 Kings iii, 20, with Ex. xxix, 38ff. 2 Kings xiv, 1, with Lev. xxv, 39ff. 2 Kings vi, 18, with Gen. xix, 11. 2 Kings vii, 3, with Lev. xiii, 46 ; Num. v, 3. (/) Compare Hos. vi, 7 (Heb., they have transgressed like Adam), with Gen. iii. Hos. xi, 1, with Ex, iv, 22, 23. Hos. xii, 3, 4, with Gen. xxv, 26 ; xxxii, 24. There is an allusion to the deliverance from Egypt in Hosea ii, 15, and a reference to the law in viii, 12. In the last passage our version does not give the exact meaning of the original. Instead of " the great things of the law," the Hebrew is susceptible of two readings; one of which, the oral reading in the synagogues, is lit- erally, " the multitudes of my law ;" the other, the written text, " the myriads of my law." This reading evidently refers to something more than a single book. (g) Compare Joel ii, 3, with Gen. ii, 8. Joel ii, 1, 15, 16, with Num. x, 2-10. (h) Compare Amos ii, 10, with Gen. xv, 16. Amos ii, 11, 12, with Num. vi, 1-21. Amos iii, 1, with Ex. xii. Amos iii, 14, with Ex. xxvii, 2 ; xxx, 10 ; xxxviii, 2. EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 239 Compare Amos iv, 4, 5, with Num. xxviii, 3, 4; Deut. xiv, 28; xxvi, 12 ; Lev. vii, 12, 13*; xxii, 18-21; Deut. xii, 6. (i) Compare Obadiah, verse 10, with Gen. xxvii, 41. (k) Compare Micah vii, 17, with Gen. iii, 14. Chapter vi, 4, 5, refers to the history of the Exodus, and to Num. xxii, 5 ; xxiii, 7 ; xxiv, 10, 11. (/) In the reign of Josiah there is abundant evidence that the ordinances observed, when the temple had been purified, were those of the Mo- saic law. (1) The passover was kept as it was written in the book of the covenant. (2 Kings xxiii ; 2 Chron. xxxv, 6.) (2) The fourteenth day of the first month was the day appointed. (2 Chron. xxxv, 1, com- pared with Exodus xii, 6.) (3) The sacrifices were Mosaic. (2 Chron. xxxv, 7-10, compared with Num. xxviii, 16-31.) (4) The priests, assisted by the Levites, killed the passover and sprinkled the blood. (2 Chron. xxxv, 11, compared with Lev. i, 5-9.) (5) The priests were the sons of Aaron. (2 Chron. xxxv, 14, compared with Num. iii, 1-4, and xviii, Iff.) The prophets of the captivity and the post- 240 THE PENTATEUCH. exilic prophets refer to the Pentateuch and ac- knowledge the law as much as those who have been already cited. Malachi closes the canon of the Old Testament prophecy with these words : " Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments " (iv, 4). But as the object has been, in the preceding ta- bles, to point out the references to the law of Moses in the history and literature of the Israel- itish people before the exile, it is not necessary to go beyond that period. The numerous refer- ences, that have been given, are not by any means exhaustive; but they are sufficient to prove that the Pentateuch is the oldest portion of the Old Testament Canon. Part II. Proofs of the JVEosaie Authorship PENTATEUCH, Part II. PROOFS OF THE MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH. CHAPTER I. INTERNAL PROOFS— INDIRECT AND DIRECT. Section I. INDIRECT PROOFS. The argument in favor of the Mosaic author- ship of the Pentateuch has hitherto been merely negative : the positive side will now be presented. The positive evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch is not inconsistent with the admission that he may have used documents or traditions of patriarchal times, and authorehipof incorporated them into his historv. teuehcon- J si stent with He may have employed, as the Apos- t^l^L. tie Paul did, an amanuensis, to whom he dictated parts of it. Or, others, in the time of Moses, may have written portions of it, and he may have stamped them with his own author- ity. This supposition may explain the use of the 244 THE PENT A TEUCH. third person, when Moses is spoken of, and those passages which speak of him in a way inconsist- ent, in the opinion of some, with true modesty. It does explain them very satisfactorily, though it is not necessary to have recourse to such a supposition for their explanation. The Mosaic authorship is, moreover, consist- ent with the admission that the Pentateuch may have undergone a revision or recension in later times. Ezra, Nehemiah, and their as- Notinconsist- , ,.,... entwith sistants, may have subjected it, with revision. 7 J J } other books of the Old Testament Canon, to a careful revision. This seems to have been the opinion of the Jews and of some of the Fathers of the Christian Church. That there was such a man as Moses is not denied by skeptics ; nor is it denied that he was the leader of his people out of Egypt There was . Tx . r r i , such a man 1D to Canaan. His name and charac- as Moses. ter were known to the heathen world. Strabo (B. C. 30-A. D. 30 ; xvi, 2) mentions him and the exodus under his guidance. So does Di- odorus Siculus (Bible Hist. I, 94). Josephus (c. Apion, I, 34) quotes from Lysimachus (about 400 B. C.) an account of the exodus, and of the part which Moses took in it. He also quotes from Chseremon (a philosopher and historian of Alexandria, B. C. 30) a passage, in which that INTERNAL PROOFS. 245 heathen writer mentions Moses (c. Apion, I, 32). Pliny the elder (A. D. 70) says (xxx, 1) : " There is also another magical sect, still in these days kept up by the Jews, Moses, and Lotopeas ;" and Tacitus (A. D. 110) also speaks of him (Hist. V, 3). ("Heathen Records to the Jewish Scrip- ture History;" London: James Cornish; 1856.) Longinus, quoting Gen. i, 3, as an example of the sublime, calls him the Jewish law-giver, and a man of no common ability. (" De Sublimitate," Z. Pearce ; Novi-Eborac, 1812.) It is not necessary to ask now, as in a former age, " Was the art of writing known so early as the time of Moses? and especially was , , , * The art of it known to the Jews and the Egyp- writing GJ r known be- tians?" These questions have been fore the time 1 of Moses. answered in the affirmative by recent discoveries. Ewald, in his " History of the Peo- ple of Israel" (Vol. I, pp. 50, 51, Note, Martin- eau's Translation), observes that the words for " write," "book," and "ink" belong to all the branches and dialects of the Semitic family of languages. From this he infers that writing with ink in a book must have been known to the Semitic people before they were separated into tribes, nations, and families. He concludes that, "whatever the Semitic people may be, to which the civilized world owes this invaluable inven- 246 THE PENTATEUCH. tion, so much is incontrovertible, that it appears in history as a possession of Semitic nations long before Moses ; and we need not scruple to assume that Israel knew and used it in Egypt before Moses." That the Semitic nations had a knowledge of the art of writing from the earliest times is cor- roborated by Grecian traditions. According to these, Cadmus (i. e., "the Eastern"), the brother of Europa, introduced letters from Phoenicia into Greece. These traditions belong to the mythic ages of Greece ; but they are confirmed by the fact that the letters of the Greek alphabet have the same names and order with those of the Se- mitic alphabets ; and the names of the letters are significant in Semitic, but not in Greek, which proves that the Greeks received them from a Semitic people, and not the Semites from the Greeks. Herodotus (V, 58) says that the Greeks received their alphabet from the Phoenicians, and that the latter used for the purpose of writing goat and sheep-skins. Though the Phoenician language is a member of the Semitic family, yet the Phoenicians were of the same race as the Ca- naanites ; and in an Egyptian monument a Hittite (the Hittites were Canaanites) is specially named as a writer. " Pentaour, a royal scribe of the reign of Rameses the Great (before, as some INTERNAL PROOFS. 247 think, but more probably, soon after the exodus), composed a poem which is described as a kind of Egyptian Iliad, and which was engraved on the walls of the temple of Karnac. This mentions by name Chirapsar, among the Kheta (i. e., the Hittites) as a writer of books (Brugsch, p. 139) ; with which has been compared the fact that Joshua took a city of the Hittites, the ancient name of which was Kirjath-sepher, i. e., " the city of the book" (Josh, xv, 15), and he changed the name to Debir, a word of similar signifi- cance." (The Bible Commentary. " Introduc- tion to the Pentateuch," p. 3.) Writing existed in Egypt at a very early pe- riod. Hieroglyphics are coeval with the earliest Egyptian monuments; and the cursive hieratic character is found in monuments, parchments, and papyri, whose date is prior to the time of Moses. In the tomb of Chnoumhotep, at Beni Hassan, there are groups of figures, belonging to the twelfth dynasty, which represent a scribe pre- senting to the governor a roll of papyrus cov- ered with an inscription, bearing the date of the sixth year of Osirtasen II. This was many cen- turies before the exodus, even, according to most scholars^ before the time of Abraham. There is also a papyrus in the cursive hieratic character, which belongs to the reign of Menephthah I, of 248 THE PENT A TE TJCH. the nineteenth dynasty, whom many have identi- fied with the Pharaoh of the exodus. This pa- pyrus gives a list of nine authors distinguished for their writings in theology, philosophy, history, and poetry. Another papyrus, written in the hieratic character, found by M. Prisse, translated by M. Chabas, and containing two treatises, is attributed to a prince of the fifth dynasty. This is considered to be the most ancient of existing manuscripts — much older than that bearing the date of the sixth year of Osirtasen II. These papyri prove that the art of writing existed in Egypt long before the time of Moses, who, being brought up in the house of Pharaoh and " learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians " (Acts vii, 22), acquired, doubtless, eminent skill in that art. There is a strong antecedent probability that Moses, being a learned man and " mighty in words and deed " (Acts vii, 22), the probability leader of the children of Israel in that Moses , wrote the their march from Egypt to Canaan, Pentateuch. # _ ° J r ' and their law-giver, would write a his- tory of his people and of his own legislation. This probability is confirmed by the most satis- factory evidence. 1. The author of the Pentateuch had evi- dently an intimate acquaintance with Egypt, its literature, its laws, and its religion. INTERNAL PROOFS. 249 This has been denied ; and it has been asserted that on these points he was guilty of " mistakes and inaccuracies." Von Bohlen thinks that he transferred many things from f the Penta- Upper Asia to the valley of the Nile, acquainted -r-r i i „ -l^ • With the Ut - He says that the " Egyptians were ac- erature, J . . laws, and customed to build with hewn stone, religion of ' Egypt. and the great buildings of brick (Ex. i, 14), instead of being Egyptian, seem rather to have been borrowed from Babylonia." But his- tory and Egyptian monuments prove the abund- ant use of brick in Egypt. 1 It has been denied that asses and sheep were found in Egypt, though they are mentioned by the author of the Pentateuch in Gen. xii, 16 ; xlv, 23; xlvii, 17; and Exodus ix, 3, as belong- ing to that country. But the denial is refuted by history and existing monuments. 2 In the same way the denial by Yon Bohlen of the use of animal food among the Egyptians (Gen. xliii, 16) is proved to be groundless; his ignorance of the natural phenomena and productions of the country is exposed ; and the accuracy of the wri- ter of the Pentateuch is fully vindicated. 3 The history of Joseph is consistent with Egyp- tian customs and with the condition of Egypt at 1 Hengstenberg's " Egypt and the Books of Moses," p. 2. Edinburgh : Thomas Clark, 1845. a Ib., pp. 3-7. a Ib., pp. 8-20. 250 THE PENTA TE UCH. that time. He was sold by his brothers to an Arabian caravan that was going to Egypt (Gen. xxxvii, 28) ; and sold again by the Midianites to Potiphar, captain of Pharaoh's guard (v. 36). Now proof that trade with Egypt by caravans was established at a very early age is furnished by the fact that a king of the sixteenth dynasty erected a station in the Wady Jasoos for the con- venience of travelers through the desert. Slaves, too, were procured by the Egyptians, not only in war, but also by purchase. 4 Joseph's master is called a eunuch (Heb. saris, the root of which means to root out, to extirpate, to castrate), though he was not a eunuch in the literal sense. The term in Gen. xxxvii, 36, is equivalent to court-officer. But the transferred signification rests upon the employments, in which real eunuchs were engaged; and hence this designation of Potiphar implies that there were eunuchs in Egypt. Though it has been asserted that this can not be proved, yet the monuments furnish evidence of the fact that they were not unknown to that country. 5 Joseph's appointment to be overseer of Poti- phar's house (Gen. xxxix, 4, 5), was in conform- ity with Egyptian custom. 6 His temptation (Gen. xxxix, 7) was in keeping with the great « Hengstenberg, p. 22. 6 lb. p. 23 6 lb. p. 24. INTERNAL PROOFS. 251 corruption of manners with reference to the mar- riage relation. 7 The preparation of many kinds of pastry for the table, and the practice of carrying burdens on the head, were common among the Egyp- tians. Herodotus mentions the latter as a habit which distinguished the Egyptians from all other people. 8 In Pharaoh's dream (Gen. xli, 1, 2), the writer uses two Egyptian words, — one rendered in our version " river," and the other " meadow." In the same dream the cow appears as a symbol (vs. 2, 3, 4), which is peculiarly Egyptian. 9 The calling for the magicians and the wise men (xli, 8; Ex. vii, 11 ; viii, 7, 18, 19) is in keeping with the fact that in ancient Egypt there was an order of persons to whom application was made for the explanation of things which lay beyond the circle of common knowledge and action. 10 Shaving the head and beard (Gen. xli, 14) ; dress and ornaments (v. 42) ; the marriage of Joseph (v. 45) to the daughter of the priest of On, are illustrated by Egyptian history and mon- uments. 11 The famine in Egypt (Gen. xli, 54, 55) has appeared suspicious to some, who have charged t Hengstenberg, p. 25. 8 lb. , p. 27. • lb. , p. 28. ,0 lb. , pp., 28, 29, 11 lb., pp. 30,32. 252 THE PENTATEUCH. the author with ignorance of the natural condition of that country. But there is scarcely a land on the earth in which famine has raged so often and so terribly as in that country. Its fruitfulness, it is true, depends upon the inundations of the Nile, but these are occasioned by the rains that fall upon the Abyssinian mountains. If, therefore, these rains should fail, the inundations of the Nile would also fail. 12 The arrangements at the entertainment of Jo- seph's brethren (Gen. xliii, 32) ; 13 the practice of divining by cups (Gen. xliv, 5) ; u the settlement of Jacob and his family in Goshen (Gen. xlvi, 34) ; 15 the location of Pharaoh's treasure-houses ; 16 and the march of the Israelites from Raamses to the Red Sea 17 are in harmony with Egyptian cus- toms, and in agreement with the geographical position of Israel in Egypt. It is stated (Gen. xlvii, 20) that " Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh," with the exception of the land of the priests (v. 22) ; and this statement is confirmed by profane his- torians. 18 The custom of embalming (Gen. 1, 23, 26) was very ancient in Egypt ; and also of mourning for the dead seventy days (v. 3). 19 "Hengstenberg, p. 37. ls Ib., p. 38. »Ib., p. 39. « lb., p. 40. «°Ib., p. 47. 'lb., p. 55. 8 Ib.,p. 60. 9 Ib.,p. 66. INTERNAL PROOFS. 253 The fears of Pharaoh and the measures that he adopted for the oppression of the Israelites (Ex. i, 8-16) were entirely in accordance with the spirit of the kings of Egypt. 20 The use of papyrus and bitumen (Ex. ii, 3) was very common in Egypt ; 21 and the fact that the king's daughter went to the Nile to bathe is explained by the Egyptian notion of the sacred- ness of that river. 22 Borrowing ornaments from the Egyptians (Ex. iii, 22) implies that such ornaments were in common use among the Egyptians, which has been fully confirmed by recent discoveries. 23 Carrying a rod (Ex. iv, 2) was an Egyptian custom (vii, 12); and the name (" shoterim ") of " the officers of the children of Israel " (v. 14) is explained by the representation of subordinate officers on Egyptian monuments. 24 The preparation of stones for inscriptions (Deut. xxvii, 2, 3) is verified in the same way. 25 The arrogance of Pharaoh (Ex. v, 2) exhibits the genuine spirit of the kings of Egypt gener- ally, who, in their pride, styled themselves kings of the world, and claimed, some think, divine honors for themselves. 26 The signs and wonders mentioned in Exodus, 20 Hengstenberg, p. 78. 21 Ib., p. 85. ^Ib., pp., 85, 86. M Ib., p. 86. "lb., pp. 87,88, 92. asib., p. 90. 26 lb., p. 92. 254 THE PENTA TE UCH. chapters vii-xi, find a foundation in the natural phenomena of Egypt, and stand in close connec- tion with ordinary occurrences, which show how accurate the author's knowledge of Egypt was. 27 The statements concerning the military force of the Egyptians (Ex., chapters xiv, xv) are fully corroborated by the history and the monuments ; and so, also, are the instruments of music and singing and dancing. " Women beat^ the tam- bourine and darabooka drum, without the addi- tion of any other instrument, dancing or singiug to the sound." 28 The materials and arts employed in the con- struction of the tabernacle, and in making the priests' garments — such as cutting and carving precious stones, the art of purifying and working metals, carving wood, the use of leather, spin- ning, weaving, and embroidery, the Urim and Thummim 29 — were used and employed among the Egyptians. These things show that the Israelites did not continue their nomadic life in Egypt ; but availed themselves of the advantages of Egyptian culture and civilization. 30 » Hengstenberg, pp. 95-125. 28 lb., pp. 126-132. » lb., p. 149. According to JElian, the high-priest among the Egyptians, as supe- rior judge, wore around his neck an image of Sapphire, which was called truth. Diodorus says, "The chief judge wore around his neck an image of costly stones, suspended upon a gold chain, which was named truth." «>Ib., pp. 133ff. INTERNAL PROOFS. 255 There are many things in the religious insti- tutions and legislation of the Pentateuch that direct us, in a general way, to Egypt. A code of laws so complex would not probably have been given to a people, who had not, from for- mer circumstances, been accustomed to a law reg- ulating the whole life. 31 These references to Egyptian customs, arts, and laws, prove that the author of the Penta- teuch was intimately acquainted with them, and thus favor the generally received opinion that it was written by Moses. 2. The Pentateuch was evidently written by some one who was acquainted with, ThePenta . and had a share in, the exodus, and ^Sttenby who had an intimate knowledge of the wSac- newh ° wanderings of the Israelites in the mtXTand . , , had a share Wilderness. in.theex- • odus. A mere perusal of the narrative of the exodus can not fail to impress the reader with the conviction that it came from the pen of one who had a personal acquaintance with that great event which gave birth to the Israelitish nation. The whole narrative is so fresh and dra- matic that it could scarcely proceed from any other than an eye-witness. 31 Hengstenberg, pp. 144ff. See Dr. Georg Ebers's " Aegypten und Die Bucher Moses." Erster Band, SS. 330-360. Leipzig. 1868. 256 THE PENTATEUCH. To the Christian, the Jew, and the Moslem alike, the Wilderness is holy ground. They all invest it with moral grandeur, and view it with reverential homage. To identify its various lo- calities, travelers have exposed themselves to danger and fatigue. That a barren waste should awaken so much interest is inexplicable apart from the fact that it was the scene of the wan- derings of the children of Israel. The Pentateuch bears marks of these wander- ings. The tabernacle was a token of them. " It is proved to have been derived from the early times of the wanderings. It was only the most sacred of the many tents of a migratory people, resembling the general's tent in the midst of a camp; and according to the minute description of it, all the objects belonging to it were adapted for carrying like those of an ordinary tent." The Israelites preserved the memory of their mode of life in the wilderness in the Feast of Tabernacles, which commemorated their passage through it (Lev. xxiii, 34-36, 39-43), and which was observed from the time of Moses to that of Christ. Their language bore witness to the same thing. They used the words " camps " and " tents " long after they had ceased to be literally appli- cable. " The tents of the Lord " (2 Chron. xxxi, 2) were in the precincts of the temple. " Every INTERNAL PROOFS. 257 man to his tents, O Israel" (2 Sam. xx, 1), was the cry of sedition. Psalm lxxx, 1, 2, alludes to the march through the wilderness, where the ark of God went forth with them, and the pillar of fire shone above them. The ark itself was a memorial of life in the wilderness. It was not made of wood common to Palestine, but of Shittim wood, or acacia (Ex. xxv, 10), which was common in the peninsula of Sinai. The goats' hair and rams' skins dyed red, after Arabian fashion, indicate a residence or a sojourn in Arabia. The distinction of the different kinds of food and the animals which might be eaten, exhibit traces of the pastoral state of the Israelites in the wilderness. The ox, the sheep, the goat, the pygarg, the wild ox, the chamois, and clean fowls (Deut. xiv, 4, 5, 11), which were permitted to be eaten, are probably, at least many of them, such animals as the Israelites would hunt in the des- ert of Arabia. It is highly probable, therefore, that the permission to eat them, and the prohibi- tion of others, which are specified, were written there. The descriptions of localities in the wilderness and the exact enumeration of the stations (Num. xxxiii) would hardly be expected from a writer, who lived at a period long subsequent to the time 258 THE PENTATEUCH. of Moses. It is natural to suppose that they were written by one who was conversant with these localities, and who directed the movements of the armies of Israel. 3. An examination of some of the laws of the Pentateuch furnishes indirect proof that they must, at least, have been written in the time of Moses ; and who was so likely to be their author as that great law-giver? These laws are such as relate to situations and surrounding circumstances which could only exist while the people were living in tents or in camps in the wilderness. (See Part I, chap, iii, Sec. 2, pp. 140fF.) 4. The unity of the Pentateuch is strong pre- sumptive proof that it proceeded from a single author. It has been shown that this unity is manifest from the plan and execution of the work, from the exact chronology which runs through all the five books and links their parts together, and from the organic connection of their materials. (See Part I, chap, ii, Sec. 4, pp. 98ff.) 5. General unity of style and of ideas is also an evidence of single authorship. This point has been briefly considered. (Part I, chap . ii, Sec. 3, pp. 93ff.) If these facts which have been specified point, some of them, to the time of Moses, and others INTERNAL PROOFS. 259 to a single author, almost every reader of the Pentateuch would conclude that Moses either wrote it himself, or that it w T as compiled under his direction. Section II. DIRECT PROOFS THAT MOSES WROTE THE PENTATEUCH. The Pentateuch furnishes direct testimony that Moses was its author. 1. In Exodus xvii, 14, Moses received a com- mand from God to write an account of the dis- comfiture of the Amalekites " in a book [Heb. the book] and rehearse it in the mandedto, ears of Joshua." " The book " here comfiture of the Amale- can not mean " in writing, as Kno- kites, and the °' journeyings bel proposes to render it — which would ° t f e s h etc Srael ~ be a tautological expression — but a historical record of God's dealings with his peo- ple. The use of the article, which is not ren- dered in our version, would imply that the book had been already begun. What this book was is decided neither by the passage nor by the context. It is distinctly stated, however, that Moses kept a record of the wandering of the Israelites in the wilderness. In Num. xxxiii, 1, 2, it is written : " These are the journeyings of the children of Israel, which went forth out of 260 THE PENT A TE TJCH. the land of Egypt with their armies under the hand of Moses and Aaron. And Moses wrote their journeys by the commandment of the Lord." Moses, then, by divine command, wrote a his- tory of the journeys of the Israelites. He wrote, also, "all the words of the Lord" (Ex. xx, 2-17), and all the judgments or statutes recorded in chapters xxi-xxiii (Ex. xxiv, 3, 4). " And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words : for after the tenor of these words I made a cove- nant with thee and with Israel." (Ex. xxxiv, 27.) The book in which he wrote " the words of the Lord " is called " the book of the covenant." (Ex. xxiv, 7.) 2. In Deut. xxxi, 9, we read : " And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests Deut xxxi o- tne sons °^ Levi, which bare the ark vs. 24-6. f fae covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel. . . . And 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 in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against you" (vs. 24-26). INTERNAL PROOFS. 261 A question may arise as to the extent of the law here spoken of. It certainly can not be less than the Deuteronomic code. (Chaps, xii-xxvi.) The fact that "all the words of this law" were to be written on plastered stones on Mount Ebal (Deut. xxvii, 2-4) can create no difficulty. This statement finds abundant illustration in the walls of tombs and temples in Egypt, and its numerous monuments written all over with hie- roglyphical legends. And it surely requires no great effort to believe it feasible to trace these laws in plaster as a symbolic declaration that they were henceforth the laws of the land. Writ- ten in letters five times the size of those in ordi- nary Hebrew Bibles, they could all be embraced in the space of eight feet by three. The famous Behistun inscription of Darius in its triple form is twice as long as this entire code, besides being carved in the solid rock, and in a position dif- ficult of access on the mountain side." [The Presbyterian Review, January, 1882. Article VII, p. 113.) From the passages adduced, it is evident that Moses wrote the history of the journeys of the Israelites and certain laws. It is not said that he wrote only these and no more. It is fair to infer that he wrote all the books— at least, that he was the acknowledged author of them — in 262 THE PENTATEUCH. which the history of these journeys and laws are incorporated. 3. The frequently recurring formula, " The Lord spake unto Moses," or " the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron," in Leviticus ring phrase, and Numbers, furnishes abundant evi- " The Lord ' saiduntoMo- dence that the Levitical law was given to Moses. It is, therefore, a legiti- mate conclusion that he was the author of the three codes — the Covenant, the Levitical, and the Deuteronomic. The internal evidence, both indirect and di- rect, has been briefly exhibited. It has been shown, (1) that there is a strong antecedent prob- ability that Moses wrote the Pentateuch ; (2) the author of it was acquainted with the literature, laws, and religion of Egypt; and, it may be added, with the country itself, but not personally with the land of Canaan ; (3) that some of the laws of the Pentateuch furnish indirect proof that they must have been written in the time of Moses; (4 and 5) that the unity of the Penta- teuch and unity of style are proofs of single au- thorship. These proofs are indirect. The direct proofs are, (1) that Moses received a command to write a history of the discomfiture of Amalek and the journeys of the children of Israel ; (2) that he is said to have written certain INTERNAL PROOFS. 263 laws; (3) that the frequently recurring formula, " The Lord said unto Moses," in Leviticus and Numbers, is a proof that the Levitical law was given by Moses. The proof that Moses wrote the book of Gen- esis is only indirect, unless it can be shown " this book," and "this book of the law," Thepr00 f include it; in other words, that the wroteGene- five books of the Pentateuch make one sisindireet - inseparable volume. Genesis forms a fitting in- troduction to the Pentateuch, and constitutes a historical and organic unity with the other books. It is, indeed, the fundamental book of both the Old Testament and the New. It is, therefore, probable that the prophet and law-giver of the old dispensation, to whom tradition has attributed it, was its author. There is no one to whom it can, with so much propriety, be assigned. 264 THE PENT A TE UCH CHAPTER II. EXTERNAL PROOFS THAT THE PENTATEUCH WAS WRITTEN BY MOSES. The internal evidence of the Mosaic author- ship of the Pentateuch is confirmed by abundant historical testimony. 1. In the historical portion of the Old Testa- ment, from the book of Joshua down to Chron- Thesubse- ides, Ezra, and Nehemiah, frequent Sflhe ow s reference is made to " the law of Mo- as e cribTit to ses." That it was the Pentateuch is evident from the fact that " the law of Moses " regulated both the civil and religious polity of the Israelites ; and from the fact that, when references are made to that law, they are made sometimes to one book of the Pentateuch and sometimes to another. The book of Joshua is pervaded by reference to "the law of Moses." So close is the connec- tion of this book with the Pentateuch Joshua. that some critics consider them a sin- gle work, and make the date of its composition agree with their views of the date of the Penta- EXTERNAL PROOFS. 265 teuch. Masius, Spinoza, Hasse, and Maurer place its composition after the exile; V. Langerke, in the time of Josiah ; and Ewald, in that of Ma- nasseh, contemporaneously with Deuteronomy. But a close examination of its contents and lan- guage proves that it could not have been com- posed later than the beginning of the reign of Saul ; and it may have been composed much ear- lier. We have, therefore, the testimony of the author of this book, at a time close to that of Moses, that the Pentateuch was written by that great law-giver and leader of Israel. (See refer- ences in the book of Joshua to the Pentateuch, Part I, Chap, iii, Sec. 3, pp. 231f.) The author of the book of Judges was well acquainted with the whole Pentateuch ; but he does not refer to it in the phraseology, " the law of Moses." There is no di- rect mention of it in the books of Samuel, though the writer of these books must have been familiar with its contents. (See Part I, Chap, iii, Sec. 3, pp. 233ff.) The first mention of " the law of Moses," after the establishment of the monarchy, is in David's charge to his son Solomon, on his death- bed, in which he exhorts Solomon " to walk in the ways of the Lord his God, to keep his stat- utes, and his commandments, and his judgments, 266 THE PENTATEUCH. and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of K . n g Moses." (1 Kings ii, 3.) The words, " as it is written in the law of Moses," show that some part of the Pentateuch is referred to, probably Deuteronomy, and, if so, favoring the Mosaic authorship of that book. In 1 Kings viii, 9, it is stated: "There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt ;" and in verse 53, Solomon says : " As thou spakest by the hand of Moses thy servant, when thou broughtest our fathers out of the land of Egypt." The books of Chronicles frequently mention " the law of Jehovah," or the book of " the law of Moses." (1 Chron. xvi, 40; xxii, 12, 13; 2 Chron. xii, 1; xiv, 4; xv, 3; xvii, 9; xxv, 4; xxxi, 3, 4, 21; xxxiii, 8; xxxiv, 14; xxxv, 26.) In most of these passages the expression, " the law of the Lord " is used ; but it is fair to take this as a proof of Mosaic authorship, Chronicles. .. . , . ._ _. , - as it is said that Moses wrote by the command of God (Ex. xvii, 14 ; xxxiv, 27 ; Num. xxxiii, 1, 2) ; and in conformity with these pas- sages, the author of Chronicles says, " as it is written in the law of the book of Moses, where EXTERNAL PROOFS. 267 the Lord commanded," etc. (2 Chron. xxv, 4) ; and " a book of the law of the Lord given by Moses." (2 Chron. xxxiv, 14.) In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, frequent mention is made of "the law of Moses," of " pre- cepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand Ezraand of Moses," of " the book of the law Ne * emiah - of Moses." (Ezra iii, 2; vi, 18; Neh. i, 7,8; viii, 1, 14; ix, 14; x, 29.) Daniel refers to " the law of Moses," in the confession of the sins of his people. " Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice ; therefore, the curse is poured out upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him." (Dan. ix, 11, 13; compare Lev. xxvi, 14; Deut. xxviii, 15; xxix, 18ff.) The prophets and Psalms have many allusions to the law as a written and existing document, show an acquaintance with its historical narra- tives, and find in it materials for their predictions and themes; but, with the exception of Malachi iv, 4, they say nothing of its authorship. 2. The Apocryphal books speak of " the books of Moses," by which they mean, if we The Apocry . may judge from the references, the P halbooks - Pentateuch. (1 Esdras i, 6, 11; v, 49; ix, 39; 268 THE PENTATEUCH. Tobit vi, 12; vii, 13; Ecclesiasticus xxiv, 23; Ba- ruch i, 20; ii, 28.) 3. The Jewish synagogues acknowledged the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Paul says The Jewish (Acts xv, 21): " Moses of old time synagogues. hath {n Qyery ^ them that preacn him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day." It is a well-known fact that the Penta- teuch was divided into fifty-four Parshioth (sec- tions), so as to provide a lesson for each Sabbath in the Jewish intercalary year, provision being made for the shorter year by the combination of two of the shorter sections. (Smith's " Diction- ary of the Bible," Articles Bible and Synagogue.) 4. Joseph us, speaking of the sacred books of the Jews, says, " of them, five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the tradi- Josephus. , . . . tions of the origin of mankind till his death." (Contra Apion, Book I, Sec. 8.) 5. All the Jewish sects and parties, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Palestinian and Alexandrian The Jewish Jews, and Samaritans, were of one spots s,nd tliG Samaritans, mind as to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. (Keil's " Introduction to the Old Testament," Vol. I, p. 175.) 6. Christ and his apostles did not propose to themselves to teach Biblical Criticism or to settle the Canon. In their discourses with the Jews, they may not have called in question popul^* EXTERNAL PROOFS. 269 opinions, if right in the main ; but we can not, for a moment, suppose that they ac- Christand commoclated themselves to Jewish er- hlsa P° stles - rors. Our Savior would not have tolerated a forgery in the name of Moses; neither would his apostles have done it. The fact, therefore, that they acknowledged the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, is a strong proof that it was written by Moses. Christ makes numerous allusions to Moses as a prophet, a teacher, and a law-giver. He calls the Pentateuch " the law of Moses," the title by which it was designated by the Jews in his time. He says to the Jews : " For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me : for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John v, 46, 47.) He asks on another occasion : " Did not Mo- ses give you the law?" (John vii, 19.) Peter quotes Deut. xviii, 15, as the words of Moses (Acts iii, 22) ; and Stephen does the same (Acts vii, 37). Philip believed that Moses wrote of Christ (John i, 45)* * Compare the following passages quoted by Christ, his disciples, and the Jews, and referred to Moses as their author : Ex. iii, 6, quoted in Mark xii, 26, and Luke xx, 37 ; Deut. xxiv, 1, in Mark x, 4, and Matt, xix, 8 ; Deut. xviii, 15, 18, in John v, 46, 47 ; Ex. xri, 15, and Num. xi, 7, in John vi, 31, 32 ; Lev. xii, 3, in John vii, 22 ; Deut. xviii, 15, 18, in Acts iii, 22 ; vii, 37, and Luke xxiv, 44 ; Ex. xx, 12 ; Deut. v, 16, in Mark vii, 10 ; Ex. xxi, 17, Lev. xx, 9, in Matt. xv, 4 ; Deut. xxv, 5, in Mark xii, 19-24 ; Lev. xx, 10, Deut. xxii, 22, in John viii, 5 ; Lev. xiv, 3, 4, 10, in Matt, viii, 4, Mark i, 44, Luke v, 14. 270 THE PENTATEUCH. 7. The Christian Church, from the earliest The Christian ti mes > with the exception of some church. small parties, has held the same belief. In view of all the facts, we conclude that Moses wrote the Pentateuch ; and that it has been transmitted to us substantially as it came from his hands. This view has fewer difficulties than the opposite; and it is more in harmony with its own testimony, with that of the other books of the Old Testament, with the history and traditions of the Jews, and with the declara- tions of Christ and his apostles. Critical diffi- culties may be raised, which can not be easily solved; but that is no reason why we should disregard the voice of tradition, and the uniform testimony of Scripture, which ascribes " the law," to Moses. It is, moreover, always wise to con- sider carefully on which side the greatest difficul- ties lie. If this is done, the mind can not long hesitate, in the present instance, which view to adopt. But the question of the Pentateuch con- troversy, in some of its aspects, involves more than a choice between difficulties : it involves a choice between the authority of Scripture and the assumptions of critics. INDEX A. Page- Athanasius 23 Aben-Esra 44 Astruc 48 Apocryphal Books 267 B. Baur, F. C 35 Biblical Criticism 11 Biblical Criticism used in two senses 12 Bretschneider 16 Basedow 21 Bogomili... 44 Ben Jasos, Isaak 44 Bleek... 51, 73, 88, 137, 138, 141, 142 Bunsen 51 Baumgarten 130 Bible for Learners ...191, 197 Dr.C. A 148 C. Criticism, Biblical, see Bibli- cal Criticism 11 Criticism, Higher, or Literary 12 Consists of Two Parts 13 Sometimes called " De- structive" 13 Principles of, not entirely New 13 History of, connected with that of Rationalism 14 Leading Principle of 37 Clementine Homilies 44 Carlstadt 45 Clericus, 47 Colenso... 57, 79, 127, 134, 136, 140, 142. Covenant-Code of Laws 145 Curtiss, Prof. Samuel Ives 177 Page. Chronicles, Sources of 197 Chseremon 244 Cadmus 246 Chabas 248 Chnoumhotep, Tomb of 247 Chrysostom 23 Clement of Alexandria 23 Codes, the Three 145 D. Deists, English 15 De Wette 32, 51 Documentary Hypothesis 47 Delitzsch 52 Davidson, Dr. Samuel 57 Divine Names— Elohim, Jeho- vah, use of 65 Dorner 32 Deuteronomic Code 145 Deuteronomy, Date of 174 Diodorus Siculus 244 E. Ernesti 21 Eichhorn 25 Ewald 55, 245 F. Frederick the Great, of Prus- sia 20 Fichte 28 Farrar, Critical History of Free Thought 33 Fragmentary Hypothesis 49 G. Grotius 21 Green, Dr. W. H 149 George 174 Graf 174 272 INDEX. H. Page. Harms, Claus 30 Hagenbach 15 Hurst, Dr. J. F 16 Halle, University of 19 Hegel 29 Hobbes 45 Hartmann 49 Hupfeld 52 Havernick 78, 113, 130 High Places 168 Hooykaas 197 Hengstenberg 249 Herodotus? 246 Higher, or Literary Criticism. 12 Humanism 19 I. Infidels, French 20 Ilgen 49 Immer 35 J. Jacobi 27, 32 Jerusalem 49 Josephus 244 Jerome 23 K. Kant 27 Kurtz 143 Kuenen 58 Keil 92, 99 Kahnis 31 L. Lecky 17 Lessing 21 Literary Criticism 12 Langerke 51 Leathes, Prof. Stanley 230 Lysimachus 244 Longinus 245 M. Mediation School 36 Miehaelis 21 Page. Masius, Andrew 45 Miiller 32 Murphy, Dr. J. G 128 Milman, Henry Hart (History of the Jews) 173 N. Nazarenes 44 Novalis 30 Napoleon 1 30 Neander 32 Nitzsch 32 O. Olshausen 32 Onias 173 Oort, Dr. H 197 Osirtasen II 247 Origen 23 P. Pietism 19 Paulus 26 Peyrerius, Isaak 45 Pentateuch, Outline of 112 External Unity of 112 Internal Unity of 114 Date of 227 Mosaic Authorship of 243 Ptolemaeus 43 Porter, Prof J. L 91 Priest-Code 145 Pliny, the Elder 245 Pentaour 246 Prisse, M 248 R. Rationalism, Term not of very Recent Date 14 How Distinguished from English Deism 15 Considered as a Natural Development of the Re- formation 18 First Movements of, among the Socinians 19 Romantic School 29 Robinson, Dr. E 91 INDEX. 273 S. Page- Socinianism 19 Semler 21 His Views on the Canon... 22 His Theory of Accommo- dation 23 Schelling 28,29 Schleiermacher 31 Strauss, D. F 33 Spinoza 46 Simon, Richard 46 Schultens 49 Supplementary Hypothesis.... 50 Stahelin 51 Smith, Prof.W. R.. 145, 148, 174, 183 Schlegel 30 Smith, Dr. W 155 Synagogues 171 Straho 244 T. Trench 14 Tubingen School 34 Page. Tuch 51 Tieck 30 Twesten 32 Tholuck 32 Tacitus 245 Tertullian 23 U. Ullmann 32 V. Vitringa 47 Vater 49 Vaihinger 87, 92 Vatke :.... 174 VonBohlen 174, 249 W. Wolff. 20 Wetstein 21 Wellhausen 174 Writing, Art of, known before Moses 247 18 #s lb 'W liiWH m ■ - ku&S K:,. ^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide Treatment Date: June 2005 I PreservationTechnologies S^ A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 1 1 1 Thomson ParK Drive Cranberry Township, PA 16066 -V; ■< (724)779-2111 Ml LIBRARY OF CONGRESS m m ■ I ah ■r I m wmm Wsm WSsm Hi IHBfll MB |§§; H Bill 1