a';iivki:i,'l!'|t-Ki';vi'V

.

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

A. VINDICATION

MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP

PENTATEUCH.

Charles Elliott, d. d.,
Professor of Hebrew in Lafayette College, Easton, Penn.

CINCINNATI :
WALDEN AND STOWE.
NEW YORK: PHIIXirS *. HUNT.
1884.

Eto,

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 vthe 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., ")
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-
ehaelis — Semler — His Views on the Canon — His Theory
of Accommodation — Semler'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
5

CONTENTS.

Part I.
Stathor^hip kqd Composition of t\e Pentktetufh,.

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 wald — 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.
xxvu, 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. xiii, 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, 2-0— 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 Vsus 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, 14 —
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. R. 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. C, 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.
Pfoo# of Mo^id Suthof^ip of the Pentktetidu,.
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 Reformation. That event was a protest
against human authority, an emanci- Biblical cmi-
... , . . . cism of
pation from intellectual and spiritual recent srigin.
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 hitter 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

12 INTR OD UCTION.
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
Ssra'used'in sense, it is confined to the former, while
.«,,),, ^e ja^er — ^ne principle 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 ^^^
which is closely connected with Text- coluisteof
ual Criticism, deals with external testi- two part8'
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
, „ . . .. -, . , called "de-
has frequently been applied to it; and structiTe."
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"
, . . not entirely
assumptions — employed in a way in new.
which many reverent and devout students of the
Bible do not think it legitimate to employ them.

14 INTRODUCTION.
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,
_ ,_. , of which it is, in its objectionable
The history ' J
"Higher aspects, a product. To obtain a clear
inseparably idea of its origin, principles, and re-
withthafof suits, it is, therefore, necessary to
Rationalism. • i • t* .v i» j.i i'_l i?
give a brief outline 01 the history of
Rationalism. The term Rationalism is not of very recent
date. It has been employed, for at least two cen-
The term furies, to designate a skeptical type of
rStoTveiym thinking. In the beginning of the sev-
recentdate. enteenth century 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 [" 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 connec- ^fo^iism
tion, yet they are separated by wide Deism?18111311
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 £ee°
measure of truth. It discards, as does (a) Deism-
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

16 INTRODUCTION.
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
(6) Rational- religious doctrine, the most orthodox
ism. 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, ivhile 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
. „, affirm that the principle of free sub-
Roman Cath- r l
Sonausts R&' jectivity began its course in the Ref
er^6 Rrtfon-" ormation, and that it ends it, in Ra-
nitSaf de- tionalism. The Reformation delivered
ttie°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, tut dit- the exclusive study of the world; the
ferinessence. 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- of^Kat
tations, together with its relation to amonguU
-r„ . . i tt • 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 INTRODUCTION.
They were excited and promoted by a variety of
external causes. Among these causes may be
woiff En- mentioned, as the most operative, the
FrSehln*!- speculative philosophy of Wolff, the
,nl 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 BasecW
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 Wetstein, professor of
philosophy and Church history in the Grothls
Remonstrant Gymnasium, at Amster- Wetstem-
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 Gottingen, applied it
to the Old. It is not just to call any of these
men Rationalists, in the common accep- Ernesti
tation of that term ; but Ernesti and Michaeiis-
Michaelis were surrounded by a skeptical atmos
phere whose influence they would naturally feel.
Semler was the pupil of Ernesti, and Eichhorn
of Michaelis, and these two men devel-
¦ Semler.
oped the system of 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 INTRODUCTION.
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
conyeyed to him was truth. His reason was the
umpire. Following its guidance, he rejected the
His views on books of Chronicles, Ruth, Ezra, Ne-
the canon. hemianj 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 Sender'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 accommodation.
friends of evangelical truth. Some of
the early Fathers of the Church held it under
the names ooyxaT&fiaote;, olr.ovop.ia, 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 hominent,
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 the
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 INTRODUCTION.
did. The Jews, he said, entertained many opin
ions which it would have been impolitic in Christ
to have assailed 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 dla.
ters had a local interest to their con- tweentne6
temporaries; but after the lapse of a temporary,
n , ¦ j j. 1 an<i the pe'r-
iew generations ceased to have any manent.the
... i • n mi i eternal.
application to mankind. Ihey 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
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.

2G INTRODUCTION.
Paulus, first at Jena, and subsequently at
Heidelberg, explained the miraculous cures, men-
„ , tioned in the New Testament, by an
Paulus. . i
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 Avas explained by the hypothesis that
his death Avas only apparent.
These are a few specimens of the exegesis of
the Rationalistic school which culminated in
Paulus, and Avhich 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 Avas 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 Avith reason ; but the
exegesis, Avhich it employed for this purpose, Avas
neither rational nor Christian.
New influences were now introduced which
modified the forms of theological and critical
thought, and resulted in changing its Newjnflu_
character. These influences have been |opnicai?iit°'
denominated the philosophical, the lit- ca?Jan§°spir-
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 Avas born A. D., 1724, one
year before Semler. He held that it is useless to
suppose that we are able to lay hold
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-
ophy of their time they were fully

28 INTRODUCTION.
agreed. His philosophy has been called the
"faith-philosophy," inasmuch as he taught that all
our knowledge must rest ultimately upon faith and
not upon reasoning. Faith was the firm point
Avhich 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. . . , t ,
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
uuity, 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
Avhy 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, Ave
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-
, ..,„., , . . Schelling.
solute is itsell 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 Avorking genius of the mfluenee'
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. wnen> ;n jg-^ ghe roge ;n her m;ght
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, Avhich 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 Avas
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 the 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 Avay and forget Harms.' Harms's testi
mony did not become void. From a quarter
altogether unexpected there appeared a fellow-
combatant. Ammon defended Harms's theses in
the pamphlet, " Fine bittere Arzenei fur die Glau-
benschwdche der Zeit (a bitter medicine for the
weak faith of the time)."
These influences Avere productive of Avide 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- ScWeier.
ism, appears on the scene. He inher- ma<*er.
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 Avas 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, Avho 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 ' 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-
Tiibingen ° '
Baur001' 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, Avriting ; that primitive Christi
anity, making Ebionism its starting-point, devel
oped through the opposition of the latter and
Paulinism, until through accomodation of the
opposition, Catholic Christianity Avas 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
" tendenzibse " [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,
hoAvever, 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 Reforma-
New influ- J
ences since tion. This has been called " Neo-Lu-
lo4o. theranism ;" 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 Avho 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- Leadingprin-
ulated by Dr. Davidson: "If scien- "Higher
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 this prin-
ciple.
miracle and prophecy from the Bible.
Under Hegelianism 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 acknoAvledged 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 Avriter 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
selves. It is that Ave 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 Avere 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 Ave 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,
Avith Kuenen, that the religion of the Israelites
Avas not of divine origin, exceptional in the his
tory of religion ; but that it was merely a nat
ural evolution. This is assuming Avhat 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 op Reference : 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.
Authorship 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, Avhich
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 Jejws, 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 PENTATEUCH.
ing a portion of it to divine revelation, another
portion to Moses alone, and another to the
elders of the people. The Nazarenes
Ptolemaeus. x x
Nazarenes. affirmed that it Avas fictitious, and re-
Clementme '
Bo"omUi' jected it. The Clementine Homilies
assert that Moses' object Avas 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 JeAvish scholars of the middle
ages, Isaak ben Jasos and Aben-Esra expressed
their doubt whether the whole Penta-
Isaak ben Ja- . . , _ _ . .
sos and teuch was written by Moses; but they
Ahen-Esra. . , , . . ,
did not deny its authorship in general
by him.
These opinions, with the exception of thole
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 UTHORSHIP. 45
nent ability, learning, and great critical acumen.
Carlstadt, at the time of the Reformation, in his
treatise on the Canonical Scriptures,
i • i i -»«¦ i i -i 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 An<Jreas
preface to his " Commentary on the Masms-
Book of Joshua," that the Pentateuch, in the
form in Avhich it has been transmitted to us, Avas
not the Avork of Moses, but of Ezra, or of some
other inspired man.
Hobbes, in his "Leviathan" (1651), expressed
the opinion that the Pentateuch seems
ii • , ,f Hohbes.
to have been written concerning Moses
rather than by Moses [Videtur Pentateuchus po-
tius de Mose quam a Mose Scriptus.J
Isaak Peyrerius, a French Protestant divine,
Avho subsequently went over to the Roman Cath
olic Church (died 1676), gave it as his Isaa].
opinion, in his work entitled, " Sys- Pyre*us-
tema Theologicum ex prae-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 Avere abstracts of them composed
at a much later date, and not even immediately
derived from them.
Spinoza, Avho Avas 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 Avell as by the phenom
ena throughout the whole Avork, 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 Avrote 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 to Moses the literary authorship of the
Simon. Law; fcyut 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, Avho had been sent back from
V, i i i . . r. 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.
Vitringa (1707) propounded the view that
Moses employed, in Avriting the book of Genesis,
sketches written by the patriarchs, and
. r Vitringa.
sought a foundation for this conjecture
in the titles, " These are the generations of," etc.
No special interest, however, Avas 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
Hypothesis.
of one of 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 Avas not
Avritten by Moses.
At first this theory Avas limited to the book
of Genesis ; then it Avas 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 Avas J. Astruc,
Astruc. _^ i i • ¦
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 Flohim-
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 Avhich were intro
duced into Genesis, and that from these twelve
documents Moses composed the Avhole of that
book. Moses, according to Astruc, Avrote the
book originally in twelve columns; but these
columns Avere afterward written continuously,

COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 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 Jerusalem.
Schultens, in his " Dissertatio qua dis- f^nUens'
quiritur, unde Hoses res in libro Gene- lc orn'
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. Einl. in d. stud, der
Bucher des A. Test, 1818),4 maintained Fragmentary
that the Pentateuch consisted merely ^tpe?mesis-
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.
'Documents of the Jerusalem Temple Archives. First Part
HaUe. 1798.
^ 3 Commentary on the Pentateuch. 1815.
* Linguistic Introduction to the Study of the Books of the Old
Testament.

50 THE PENT A TE UCH.
supposed that a collection of laws made in the
times of David and Solomon was the foundation
of the whole ; that this Avas the book discovered
in the reign of Josiah; and that its fragments
Avere 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
Avas made to establish the unity of the Pentateuch
by pointing out its plan and single
tary ' aim and showing the internal connec-
Hypothesis. . ' .11 1 i
tion of all its part with that plan and
aim. In consequence of this, the fragmentary
hypothesis was abandoned, and the documentary
Avas 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 UTHORSHIP. 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 ™ i • -i -r DeWette.
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-
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
r ' 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. . & . .
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 Avith the writers above-men
tioned in recognizing two distinct documents as
the basis of the Pentateuch, especially
in its earlier portions ; but he differs
from them in maintaining that Deuteronomy is
the work of Moses. The kernel, or first found
ation of the Pentateuch, according to Delitzschj

COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 53
is to be found in the Book of the Covenant (Ex.
xix-xxiv), which was written by Moses himself,
and afterward incorporated into the body of the
Pentateuch, Avhere it at present stands. The rest
of the laws given in the wilderness till the peo
ple reached the plains of Moab, were communi
cated orally by Moses and taken down by the
priests, whose business it was to provide thus for
their preservation. (Deut. xvii, 11 ; comp. xxiv, 8;
xxxiii, 10; Lev, x. 11.) We are not obliged to
assume that the proper codification of the law
took place during the forty years' wandering in
the desert, inasmuch as Deuteronomy does not
presuppose the existence in writing of the entire
earlier legislation ; but, on the contrary, recapit
ulates it with the greatest freedom. The codifi
cation was made shortly after the occupation of
the land of Canaan. In that country the first
definite portion of the history of Israel was writ
ten ; and the writing of the history necessitated a
full and complete account of the Mosaic legisla
tion. A man, such as Eleazar, the son of Aaron,
the priest (Num. xxvi, 1; xxxi, 21), wrote this
history, beginning with the first Avords of Gene
sis, including in it the Book of the Covenant,
and perhaps gave only a short notice of the last
discourses of Moses, because Moses had written
them down with his own hand. Another — who

54 THE PENTATEUCH.
may have been Joshua (see especially Deut. xxxii,
44; Josh, xxiv, 26 ; compare, on the other hand,
1 Sam x, 25), who was a prophet, and spoke as a
prophet, or one of the elders on whom Moses'
spirit rested (Num. xi, 25), many of whom sur
vived Joshua (Josh, xxiv, 31) — completed the
work, taking Deuteronomy, which Moses had
written, for his model, and incorporating it into
his own book. In some such manner as this
originated the Torah, or Pentateuch, each nar
rator further availing himself, when he thought
proper, of other written documents.
Kurtz agrees substantially with De-
Kurtz. J° . J
litzsch. He arrives at the following
conclusions :
1. "It is probable that Moses composed and
committed to writing with his own hand simply
those portions of the Pentateuch Avhich are ex
pressly attributed to him.
2. " The groups of laws in the central books,
of whose authorship no express statement is
made, must have been written down by the direc
tion of Moses and under his supervision before
the addresses in Deuteronomy Avere delivered and
immediately after they emanated from the mouth
of Moses. 3. " The last revision of the Pentateuch, and
its reduction into the form in which it has come

COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 55
down to us, took place in the latter portion of
the life of Joshua, or very shortly after his death.
In the historical portions of the Pentateuch we
must admit the existence of two distinct sources,
which may be described as the ground-work
(Grundschrift) and the supplementary work (Er-
g'dnzungschrift). Whether the ground- work con
sisted originally of historical matter only, or con
tained from the very outset the groups of laAvs
in the central books ; whether it was written by
the author who compiled the central groups of
laws or not — these, and other questions of a sim
ilar character, we are utterly unable to deter
mine." (" History of the Old Covenant," Vol.
Ill, p. 444. Second Edition, Edinburgh, 1872.)
Ewald distinguished seven different authors
in " The Great Book of Origins," or Primitive
History, comprising the Pentateuch
and Joshua. The oldest historical
work, of Avhich but a very few fragments remain,
is the Book of the Wars of Jahveh [Jehovah].
Then follows a biography of Moses, of which,
also, but small portions have been preserved.
The third and fourth documents, consisting of
the Book of the Covenant, written in the time
of Samson, and of the Book of Origins, written
by a priest in the time of Solomon, are much
more perfect. In the fifth place comes the third

56 THE PENTATEUCH.
historian of the primitive times, or the first pro
phetic narrator, a subject of the northern king
dom in the days of Elijah or Joel. The sixth
document is the fourth historian of primitive
times, or the second prophetic narrator, who lived
between 800 B. C. and 750 B. C. The fifth his
torian, or third prophetic narrator, flourished not
long after Joel, and collected and reduced into
one body the various works of his predecessors.
The real purpose of the history, both in its pro
phetical and legal aspects, began now to be dis
cerned. Some steps in this direction were taken
by an unknown, writer at the beginning of the
seventh century B. C, and then in a more com
prehensive manner by the Deuteronomist, who
flourished in the time of Manasseh, and lived in
Egypt. In the time of Jeremiah appeared the
poet, who wrote the Blessing of Moses as it is
given in Deuteronomy. An editor, somewhat
later, incorporated the originally independent
work of the Deuteronomist, and the lesser addi
tions of his two colleagues, with the history as
left by the fifth narrator, and thus the whole was
finally completed.
Some eminent Biblical scholars in England
have adopted substantially the same views as
some of those that have been described concern
ing the authorship of the Pentateuch.

COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 57
Dr. Samuel Davidson, in his " Introduction to
the Old Testament," Vol. I, pp. 58-61, Dr_ gamuel
assigns the composition of it to four DaTldson-
authors, the Elohist, the younger Elohist, the
Jehovist, and the Redaotor.
Bishop Colenso holds the opinion that there
were three authors, the Elohist, the Jehovist, and
the Deuteronomist. He is very exact Colengo-
in assigning to each his portion, some
times dividing even A7erses. By internal evi
dence he has ascertained that out of 1,533 verses
of the book of Genesis, 1,150 were written by
the Jehovist (about 1040-1000 B. C), 333 by the
Elohist (1080-1060 B. C), 47 by the Deuterono
mist (640 B. C), and three by one of a number
of laier Legislationist Avriters, in the interest of ,
the priests (about 450 B. C). Out of the 1,213
verses of the book of Exodus, 510 were written
by the Jehovist, 14J by the Elohist, 86 by the
Deuteronomist, and 602J by some of the later
Legislationists (between 600 B. C. and 450 B. C).
Of the 859 verses of the book of Leviticus, all
were written by the later Legislationists. Out
of 1,288 verses of the book of Numbers, 274
were written by the Jehovist, six by the Deu
teronomist, and 1,008 by the later Legislation
ists. Out of the 959 verses of Deuteronomy,
7J were written by the Jehovist, 931 by

58 THE PENTATEUCH.
the Deuteronomist, and 20| by a later Legis-
lationist. It is doubtful whether the history of Criti
cism can furnish an example of a critical scent
so keen as that of Bishop Colensb. To chase
the Elohist into the middle of a verse and there
discover a neAV scent is certainly an unrivaled
feat of critical sagacity.
One of the latest phases of the Pentateuch
Criticism, though not entirely new, is presented
in a work entitled, " The Religion of Israel,"
written by Dr. A. Kuenen, professor
in the University of Leyden, Holland,
and in the writings of Julius Wellhausen, pro
fessor at Greifswald. The views of these writers
Avere suggested, in 1835, by George, Von Bohlen,
and Vatke; but at that time they met with no
favor. They were repudiated by De Wette and
Hupfeld, who considered them devoid of truth.
These eminent critics treated them as though
they were the hallucinations of a diseased brain.
Professor Kuenen examined the Israelitish
from the same point of view as Buddhism, Islam,
and other religions of the human family. It is
one of the principal religions of mankind, and
nothing more. It is not of divine origin, but
the result of natural development. The Israelites
passed through various stages from the lowest

COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 59
forms of religion to monotheism. Their historical
records, before the times of the prophets, or about
the middle of the eighth century before Christ, are
a mass of unreliable tradition. The prophets are
the only reliable sources of information. The
patriarchs are not historical personages. Moses
may have been the author of the commandments,
but it is probable that they came from him in a
different form from the present. The twelve
tribes Avere not the descendants of the twelve
sons of Israel, but Avere formed by an admixture
of neighboring nations. The twelve patriarchs
were an invention of later times to account for
the existence of the names of the twelve tribes.
The oldest collection of laws is the Book of the
Covenant, Exodus xxi— xxiii. Deuteronomy was
writen about 625 B. C. Its author was probably
Hilkiah, who wrote it as a reform programme.
Leviticus xviii-xxvi was composed by Ezekiel,
the latter part of whose prophecy forms the con
necting link between Deuteronomy and the mid
dle books of the Pentateuch — Exodus, Leviticus,
and Numbers. These form a programme repre
senting the wishes of the priestly party and the
scribes, a programme probably planned by Ezra.
This programme succeeded. Before the growing
legal tendency the prophet's voice became silent,
and the many ceremonial observances so minutely

60 THE PENTATEUCH.
described in the Pentateuch bore their legitimate
fruit in the refined subtilties of the Mishna.
Finally, the whole regal history was re-written
by the chronicler, long after Ezra, to illustrate
the working of this legislation ; and thus the
priestly legislation (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers)
obtained, by means of a pious fraud, historical
support. W. R. Smith, LL. D., formerly professor in
the Free Church College, Aberdeen, Scotland, in
Prof w. e. n's arti°le " Bible," in the new edition
smith. Q£ tne FJncyclopmdia Britannica, arrives
at substantially the same results. He holds that
Deuteronomy is post-Mosaic ; that it was com
posed in the reign of Josiah ; that the chronol
ogy of the composition of the Pentateuch may be
said to center in the question, whether the Levit-
ico-Elohistic document, which embraces most of
the laws in Leviticus with large parts of Exodus
and Numbers, is earlier or later than Deuteron
omy; that the laws of the Levitico-Elohistic
document give a graduated hierarchy of priests
and Levites, whereas Deuteronomy regards all
Levites as, at least, possible priests; that before
the exile the strict hierarchical law, with the two
grades of priests and LeA'ites, apparently never
had been in force; that the hierarchical theory
was fully carried out only after Ezra ; that, if so,

COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 61
the Levitical element is the latest thing in the
Pentateuch ; that all the more elaborate symbolic
observances of the ritual law are bound up with
the hierarchical ordinances ; that the priests pub
lished their ordinances mainly by oral decisions;
that they, no doubt, possessed written legal col
lections of priestly ordinances from the time of
Moses downward; that legal provisions, which
the prophets and their priestly allies felt to be
necessary for the maintenance of the truth, were
often embodied in legislative programmes, by
which previous legal tradition was greatly modi
fied; that the only vocation which, in the time
of Ezra, remained for the community that gath
ered in the new Jerusalem was to obey the law
of Jehovah, and patiently to await the coming
Deliverer; that Ezra and Nehemiah, recognizing
this vocation, established reformed institutions of
a permanent kind ; that the spirit of prophecy,
long decadent, expired with Malachi, the younger
contemporary of Nehemiah ; that the whole con
cern of the nation, from this time downwards,
was simply to preserve the sacred inheritance of
the past ; that the founders of the new theocracy
regarded the books that had upheld the exiles'
faith, when all outward ordinances of religion
were lacking, as also the fittest teachers of the
restored community ; that Ezra came to Jerusa-

62 THE PENTATEUCH.
lem armed, not with a fresh message from the
Lord, but with the Book of the Law of Moses ;
that this law-book was the Pentateuch ; and that
the public recognition of it as the rule of the
theocracy Avas the declaration that the religious
ordinances of Israel had ceased to admit of de
velopment. Such is a brief exhibition of the results of the
Higher Criticism in regard to the composition
and date of the Pentateuch. All these hypoth
eses are made to rest respectively on the use of
different divine names; on alleged contradictions
and varying legends ; on difference in the circle
of ideas; on the usus loquendi; on alleged lack
of unity ; on traces, in the Pentateuch, of an age
later than that of Moses; on historical and anti
quarian illustrations ; on references to ancient
authorities; on the assumption that the writer's
point of view, locally, was Palestine ; on a pre
supposed later state of matters than that indicated
in the Pentateuch ; on the mention of names of
places and of countries which were known and in
common use only at a later time ; on historical
repetitions; on alleged discrepancies in various
laws ; on repetition of laws ; and on the assump
tion that the Levitical laws give a graduated
hierarchy of priests and Levites, while Deuter-

COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 63
onomy regards all LeA'ites as at least possible
priests. These arguments, in their main outlines, will
be considered in the sequel.
Books of Reference: Keil's Introduction to the Old
Testament ; Bleek's Introduction to the Old Testament ;
Bishop Colenso on the Pentateuch; Kurtz's History of
the Old Covenant; Kuenen's Religion of Israel; Encyclo
paedia Britannica, Article, Bible ; Prof. Curtiss's Levitical
Priests.

64 THE PENT A TE UCH.

CHAPTER II.
ARGUMENTS URGED IN FAVOR OF THE DOCU
MENTARY, FRAGMENTARY, AN.D SUPPLEMEN
TARY HYPOTHESIS AND AGAINST THE MO
SAIC AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH.
Section I.
THE USE OF THE DIVINE NAMES, ELOHIM AND JEHOVAH.
The alternate use of these names forms the
fundamental argument in support of the docu
mentary hypothesis. The exclusive use of one
of them in some sections and of the other in
other sections, implies, it is affirmed, two differ
ent authors. The Pentateuch, therefore, it is
asserted, is composed of two different documents,
the one Elohistic, and the other Jehovistic, con
sequently, it can not" be the work of a single
author. It is not denied that Moses used documents,
especially in the composition of the book of Gen
esis, if he is the author of that book; but he
probably employed them as any other historian
employs documents. His history is not a collec-

A GAINST MOSA IC A UTHORSHIP. 65
tion of scraps, a mere patchwork, but a history
possessing continuity and coherence of parts.
(1.) The documentary hypothesis assumes that
the names, Elohim and Jehovah, are synonymous
and reciprocally interchangeable. This is a mis
take. The name Elohim (singular Eloah) and
its synonym El are connected, the for- Elohlmand
nier with the Arabic root alalia, to E1-
fear, reverence, worship ; the latter Avith the He
brew root ul, to be strong. Elohim is the generic
name of God, and, being plural in form, is prob
ably a plural of excellence and majesty.
Jehovah is derived from the Hebrew root
hayah (Chaldaic havah; Syriac hevo), to be, to exist,
to live. It is a proper name, just as jehovan
Jupiter, Apollo, Peter, and John are
proper names; and thus it differs from Elohim as
Alexander differs from man. This distinction is
clearly brought out in the words of Elijah, in
1 Kings xviii, 21. The prophet asks, " How
long halt ye betAveen two opinions? if the Lord
[Jehovah] be God [Elohim] folloAV him ; but if
Baal [be Elohim] follow him." Here Jehovah
and Baal are used as proper names and Elohim
as a common name.
The two names may be used interchangeably,
for Elohim is Jehovah and Jehovah is Elohim;
but the fundamental ideas of the two names
5

66 THE PENTATEUCH.
differ. Elohim is the Supreme Being, the Deity,
the Creator, the Preserver, and Governor of the
The two Avorld. Jehovah is He, Avho is and
tatercUnge- wil1 be> He to whom belongs contin-
ably- ued existence, the God who manifests
Himself in History, the God of revelation, the
covenant God of His people.
Though the two names may be used inter
changeably, yet there are cases in which there is
a propriety in using one rather than the other.
Jehovah does not take the possessive . suffix,
neither is it used in the construct state. Hence,
Ave do not find, in Hebrew, the expressions my
or thy or our Jehovah, nor the Jehovah of Abra
ham, Isaac, and Jacob ; but Ave do find my, thy,
and our Elohim, and the Elohim of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob.
It has been inferred from Exodus vi, 3 — "And
I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto
Jacob, by the name of God Almighty,
Exodus vi, 3. ' J ° J'
but by my name Jehovah Avas 1 not
known to them " — that the person who recorded
these words of God to Moses could not have
written a history of earlier times, in Avhich the
name Jehovah was introduced. Those parts of
Genesis, therefore, in which the name Jehovah is
used must have been added by a subsequent hand.
It has been, moreover, affirmed that names com-

A GAINST MOSAIC A UTHORSHIP. 67
pounded with the sacred name of Jah or Jehovah
do not occur until the time of Samuel ; hence it
has been inferred that the name could not have
been known nor the sixth chapter of Exodus
written until the time of Samuel.
This view proceeds from a misapprehension
of the passage cited above. The name Jehovah
was not unknown to the patriarchs; and the
words of Exodus vi, 3, properly understood, do
not convey that meaning.
In the first place, the form and derivation of
the name Jehovah point to a pre-Mosaic origin.
Its form is more nearly related to the Chaldaic
verb hfvah, and to the Syriac hevo, than to the
Hebrew hayah; and consequently it must have
come down from a time prior to the separation
of the Hebrew from its kindred Aramsean dia
lects. That would carry us back to a time not
later than that of Abraham. Again, as to names
compounded with Jah, it is a mistake to say that
they do not occur before the time of Samuel. It
evidently occurs in Jochebed, the name of Moses'
mother (Exodus vi, 20), in Azariah (1 Chron. ii,
8), in Abiah (1 Chron. ii, 24), in Ahijah (1
Chron. ii, 25), who all lived before the time of
Samuel. Moreover, names compounded Avith the
names of God are more rarely found in the early
times than in the later. This explains why Je-

68 THE PENTATEUCH.
hovah or Jah enters more frequently into the
composition of names after the time of Samuel
than in the time prior to him.
If the name Jehovah was not unknown to the
patriarchs, what then do the words of Exodus
vi, 3, mean ? The words literally are : I am Je
hovah : and I appeared to Abraham, and to Isaac,
and to Jacob by El-Shaddai; but [by] my name
Jehovah was I not known (Septuagint oux idy%a)aa,
from dvj}.6o), to point out, make known, reveal;
Vulgate: non indicavi, from indico, indicare, to
show, discover, disclose,) to them." The meaning
evidently is : I manifested myself to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob in the character of El-Shaddai,
the Almighty God; but as to my character and
attributes implied in my name Jehovah, I did not
manifest myself to them. That is the sense of
the Septuagint and Vulgate. It is no new inter
pretation framed to meet modern objections; but
it was propounded by Aben-Ezra among the
Jews, and by many Christian commentators of
past times. The meaning of the passage is sim
ply : the full import of the name Jehovah was
not disclosed to the patriarchs. The name is
opposed, not to Elohim, but to El-Shaddai, which
together with Jehovah, constitutes a twofold
form of the revelation of Elohim. In the words
of Keil (" Introduction to the Old Testament ") :

COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 69
" El-Shaddai designates only one operating force
in the manifestations of Jehovah — namely, crea
tive omnipotence — in Avhich Jehovah made him
self known to the patriarchs till the time of
Moses, when, in consequence of the full realiza
tion of his promises given to the fathers, his
nature as Jehovah unfolded itself fully." It was
Jehovah Avho revealed himself to Abraham as
El-Shaddai (Gen. xvii, 1). The names of Jeho
vah and El-Shaddai are, therefore, not mutually
exclusive; but the one implicitly presupposes the
other. 2. The advocates of the documentary theory
contradict one another, and thus convict one an
other of false criticism. Some make TheadT0.
one Elohist document, others two, oth- documentary
ers three. Some make the Jehovist Indict one"
identical with the compiler; others
make him a different person. Some make one
Jehovist, others more. Some make two, others
three, others four, Ewald seven, and Ilgen seven
teen documents, by different authors, the mate
rials of Genesis. Some assign passages to the
Jehovist which others assign to the Elohist. Dr.
McCaul remarks " that there is a great difference
whether the Elohist and Jehovist be assigned to
one or be divided among two, three, or more
persons. He who says that there is only one

70 THE PENTATEUCH.
Elohist must believe that in the whole Elohistic
portion there is unity of style, tone, spirit, lan
guage. If there be two Elohists, then the former
is mistaken as to the unity, and there must be
two diversities of style; but if there be three
Elohists, then both first and second critics are
mistaken, and there must be three different styles.
The portions assigned to each must also be
smaller. Let the three Elohists be A. B. C. The
first critic says that the whole belongs to A. The
second critic says, No; but part belongs to B.
The third critic says, part belongs to A, part to
B, and part to C. And thus the most celebrated
critics convict each other of false criticism. Hup
feld condemns Knobel ; Ewald condemns Hupfeld
and Knobel ; Knobel condemns Ewald and Hup
feld. If Knobel's criticism is correct, Hupfeld's
is worthless. If Ewald is right, the others must
be deficient in critical acumen. They may all
be wrong, but only one of the three can be right."
(" Aids to Faith," New York : D. Appleton &
Co. 1864. p. 223.)
3. The documentary hypothesis requires, more-
ever, for its validity that Elohim should be used
exclusively in those sections or paragraphs called
Elohistic, and that Jehovah should be used in
the same way in those called Jehovistic. But
this is not the fact. Jehovah occurs in the so-

COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 71
called Elohistic passages, and the Elohist refers
to the so-called Jehovistic narrative. This fact
proves that the Jehovist can not be posterior to
the Elohist; consequently, the theory fails. The
two names occur together in Genesis ii, 4, where
one is manifestly the predicate of the other. If
this verse and the subsequent verses of the same
chapter, which combine the tAVO names, were
written by the Elohist, how come they to have
Jehovah ? And if they were written by the Je
hovist, how come they to have Elohim? It
would seem that the writer of Genesis, antici
pating the critical attempts of modern times to
dismember his history, used the two names con
jointly to puzzle his critics. Such has been the
result, for that single passage has arrayed the
critics against one another.
Genesis, chapter v, is said to be Elohistic, but
Jehovah occurs in verse 29. Genesis, chapter vii,
has Jehovah in verses 1, 5, and 16 ; Elohim oc
curs also in verse 16 ; and the Elohists and Je-
hovists divide it thus : Elohist portions, vs. 6-9,
11-1 6a, 17-22, 23b; Jehovist portions, vs. 1-5, 10,
16b, 23a. Genesis xlix is divided thus: Vor-
Eiohist, vs. 3-28ab; Elohist vs. 1, 2, 28c-33.
But Jehovah occurs in verse 18 : "I have waited
for thy salvation, O Jehovah." The theorist ex
claims, Interpolation ! This is the resort of one

72 THE PENTATEUCH.
who is determined to force facts into harmony
with his theory. If the facts are opposed to the
theory, so much the worse for the facts.
A hundred examples of the same arbitrary
separation might be adduced from the Penta
teuch. (See Keil's " Introduction to the Old Tes
tament." Vol. I. pp. 85-92. Clark's Edition,
Edinburgh, 1869.)
A criticism Avhich thus arbitrarily breaks up
the continuity of the narrative is Avorse than tri
fling. It gives evidence of a deliberate purpose
to do \Tiolence to the text in order to support a
mere theory. The author of the Pentateuch,
whoever he was, was a historian who, Avithout
doubt, used documents Avhen they were required ;
but not in a manner so loose that the critic can,
by running his eyes over the history, distinguish
them as easily as he can distinguish the differ
ently colored squares of a chess-board. The doc
uments were so interwoven by the sacred histo
rian into his narrative as to produce a history
possessed of continuity, homogeneity, and unity.
The use of the divine names, Elohim and Jeho
vah, is not determined by accident or by the
preference of different authors. When the hu
man race fell and commenced its career of his
torical development, God manifested himself as
one who will not abandon it in its helplessness

COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 73
and misery. He revealed himself as Jehovah,
the God of Salvation. By the help of Jehovah
Eve bore a Son (Gen. iv, 1) ; and the pious
Sethites called upon the name of Jehovah (v. 26).
Thus at the beginning of the history of re
demption, the sacred historian introduces the
name Jehovah ; and immediately prior to the
establishment of the theocracy, God revealed its
import, which he had not done to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, though Abraham and Jacob
were acquainted Avith the name, for Abraham
said to the king of Sodom, " I have lifted up my
hand to Jehovah, the most high God, the posses
sor of heaven and earth " (Gen. xiv, 22 ; and
Jacob said, when dying, " I have waited for thy
salvation, O Lord" [Heb. Jehovah] (Genesis
xlix, 18). Section II.
THE TWO SO-CALLED ELOHISTIC AND JEHOVISTIC DOCUMENTS
SAID TO BE DISTINGUISHED BY CONTRADIC
TIONS AND VARYING LEGENDS.
Any documents, no matter how close their
agreement, may be made to contradict each other
by false assumptions and erroneous principles of
interpretation. 1. Bleek says : " In a narrative of the creation
of the world and mankind by God, an Israelite

74 THE PENTATEUCH.
might just as well employ the more general ex
pression Elohim as the more exact one Jehovah;
as to the Israelites the former name
Gen. i, 1— ii ; i i i -ri ii/-^i
3; andu, would only suggest Jehovah, the God
worshiped by them, since to no other
god could they attribute creative power. The
same rule would apply to a narrative of the deluge
sent on the earth by God. Therefore, notwith
standing the difference in the ideas conveyed by
the two words, founded on the usage of the lan
guage, the adoption of either one or the other is,
in very many cases, dependent on the habit or
discretion of the writer; and hence it arises that
the consideration of the differences existing in
this respect between various parts of Genesis, can
at least help us as a guide in finding out and sep
arating the various original records and their dif
ferent composers. Thus we repeatedly find, that
exactly those parts differ in this respect, in Avhich
we should be induced, by other circumstances, to
suppose that the original composers were different.
"This is very evident at the beginning of the
book, in the account of the creation, in which, I
think, no impartial judgment can fail to see that
two different narratives are combined, the former
of which was Avritten without connection with
the latter. The former — the account of creation
divided into separate day's work (chap, i, 1-ii, 3) —

COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 75
throughout indicates the Godhead by the general
denomination Elohim; the second, on the con
trary (chap, ii, 4 — iii, end), has the compound
name Jehovah-Elohim throughout, with the single
exception of the conversation between the serpent
and the woman (chap, iii), 1-5, where the use of
the name Jehovah would have been absolutely
unnatural and improper, where, therefore, the
name of God is called Elohim. As for the rest,
this difference prevails throughout in these two
portions immediately following one another ; for
which, if we suppose an identity of the original
author, it will not be easy to find any sufficient
ground. . . .
" There are, in addition, other circumstances
which are not easily explained, if we assume that
both passages were originally written by the same
author and in immediate connection with each
other. The second passage (chap, ii, 4), begins in
a way, in which, under the above circumstances,
it hardly would have done. There is no notice
at all taken in the second of the contents of the
first; but rather, in the second, the fructification
of the earth and the creation of living beings is
related as if there had been nothing at all said
about it in what goes before. There are, besides,
some differences in the two sections, both in the
facts related and in the ideas on which they are

76 THE PENT A TEUCH.
founded, as well as in the sequence of the differ
ent acts of creation. According to chap, i, the
creation of beasts follows that of the earth, before
that of the male and female sexes of mankind ;
on the contrary, in chap, ii, the creation of beasts
is between that of man and that of woman. In
chap, i, the creation of herbs on the earth is im
mediately referred to the Word of God, while in
chap, ii, it is stated that the springing up of the
shrubs and plants depended on the rain and hu
man cultivation. There is, also, a certain unmis
takable difference in the statements of the original
relations of man Avith God ; while, according to
chap, i, God created man in his own image, in
chaps, ii and iii, the narrative leads to the conclu
sion that man only attained to his resemblance to
God through his getting to the knowledge of
good and evil. This difference is not, indeed, of
such a kind as to forbid the possibility of dog
matical reconciliation, but it certainly is of a
nature which Avould lead us with great proba
bility to assume the fact of two original, distinct
authors." (" Introduction to the Old Testament,"
Vol. I, pp. 268, 269, 270. London: Bell &
Daldy. 1869.)
These alleged differences arise solely from the
arbitrary and groundless assumption that the
passage, beginning at chap, ii, 4, contains a sec-

COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 77
ond narrative of creation, Avith its materials ar
ranged in the order of time. The second chapter
is neither a cosmogony nor a geogony, nor Avas it
intended to be such, for it does not give a narra
tive of the creation of heaven and earth, or of
light, or of firmament, sun, moon, or stars, sea,
or dry land, fish, or creeping things. It simply
recapitulates certain creatiAre acts, arranged ac
cording to a certain association of ideas, by way
of introduction to the fall. Its general subject,
extending to chap, v, falls into three clearly
marked sections — the origin, the fall, and the
family of Adam.
It contains (v. 4) a reference to the account of
creation by Elohim in chap, i, by designating Je
hovah Jehovah- Elohim, thus combining the two
names. It also fixes the date at Avhich the new
narrative commences; viz., "when they were cre
ated, in the day that the Lord God [Jehovah-Elo-
him] made the earth and the heavens."
A question arises whether chap, ii, 4, forms a
recapitulation of what is narrated in the first
chapter, or whether it is the superscription of the
following section. Dr. McCaul ("Aids to Faith,"
p. 228) says : " The fourth verse of the second
chapter, ' these are the generations of the heavens
and of the earth,' etc., can not be the title or
the summary of what follows, but are an exact

78 THE PENTATEUCH.
recapitulation of what is narrated in the first
chapter." Havernick" seems to entertain the same opin
ion. (" Historico-Critical Introduction to the
Pentateuch," p. 63. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark.
1850.) The Jews tell us that when the words eleh
Tholedoth occur without the copulative vav, as in
this verse, they separate the words following from
those preceding; but that Avhen they have the
vav they unite Avith the preceding. The writer
does not vouch for the accuracy of this opinion.
It does not seem to be supported by the passages
that have come under his observation. In fact,
no conclusion can be drawn from the position of
the phrase eleh Tholedoth, though it is generally
the form of a commencement, the title of a fol
lowing section. (Gen. vi, 9 ; x, 1 ; xi, 10, 27 ;
xxv, 12, 19, etc.)
The word tholedoth properly signifies genera
tions, families, races, the history of families. (Gen.
v. 1 ; vi, 9; x, 1 ; xi, 10; xxxvii, 2.) Tholedoth,
taken in this sense, would describe "the process
of nature, which Avas simultaneous Avith the latter
part of the supernatural process described in the
preceding chapter. Its opening paragraph refers
to the field. The development of events is here
presented under the figure of 1;he descendants of

COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 79
a parental pair; the skies and the land being the
metaphorical progenitors of these events which
are brought about by their conjunct operation."
(Murphy's " Commentary on Genesis," p. 80. An-
dover: Warren F. Draper. 1866.)
This section (vs. 4-7) overlaps part of the
preceding and combines the creative with the
preservative agency of God. Hence the propri
ety of uniting the two names Jehovah and Elohim
in a passage which records a concurrence of cre
ation and development. It is evident, therefore,
that the second chapter is not an account of cre
ation, but of the particulars of the formation of
man and Avoman, and of their early history.
2. Bishop Colenso says : " A similar contradic
tion exists also in the account of the deluge as it
now stands in the Bible. Thus, in
Gen. vi, 19, 20, we read, 'of every 20 and'
. vii, 2, 3.
living thing of all flesh two of every
sort shalt thou bring into the ark,' etc.
"But in Gen. vii, 2, 3, the command is given
thus : " of every clean beast thou shalt take to
thee by sevens,' etc.
"It is impossible," continues Bishop Colenso,
"to reconcile the contradiction here observed, in
the numbers of living creatures to be taken into
the ark, especially in the case of the fowls, of
which one pair of every kind is to be taken,

80 THE PENTATEUCH.
according to the first direction, and seven pairs,
according to the second.
" But here, also, the matter explains itself
easily, when we observe that the former passage
is by the hand of that writer who uses only Elo
him, and the latter passage by the other writer
who uses Jehovah as well as Elohim, though he
does not use the compound phrase Jehovah-Elo-
him. It did not occur to the one — whether
aware or not, of the distinction between clean
and unclean beasts — to make any provision for
sacrificing immediately after the flood. The lat
ter bethinks himself of the necessity of a sacri
fice (Gen. viii, 20), when Noah and his family
come out of the ark; and he provided, therefore,
the mystical number of seven pairs of clean
beasts and foAvls for that purpose." (" Bishop Co
lenso on the Pentateuch," p. 91. London : Long
mans, Green & Co. 1871.)
Bishop Colenso does not seem to be very cer
tain about the author of Gen. vii, 2, 3. He
speaks of a writer who uses only Elohim, the
author of Gen. vi, 19, 20, and df another who
uses Jehovah as well as Elohim, though he does
not use the compound phrase Jehovah-Elohim.
Who is the author who uses Jehovah as well as
Elohim ? Is there a Jehovistic- Elohistic author?
Perhaps the Bishop has given an answer to this

COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 81
question, in chap, v, sec. 965, p. 305, where he
says : " But Ave are justified, at all events, in con
cluding, from the evidence at present before us,
that the Jehovistic writer — Avhether we regard
him as the writer of a complete, independent
narrative, or merely as the interpolator of the
primary Elohistic document — was one Avho Avrote
Avith considerable independence and boldness of
thought, and who felt himself in no way bound
to adhere scrupulously to the details of the orig
inal story, or to maintain with it a perfect unity
of style any more than of sentiment."
The Jehovistic writer, then, was either "the
writer of a complete, independent narrative," or
" the interpolator of the primary Elohistic docu
ment." Allowing him all the "independence
and boldness of thought " claimed for him, it is
reasonable that we should expect from him, " as
the interpolator of the primary Elohistic docu
ment," or from the redactor or editor who com
bined that document with the Jehovistic, more
regard for the truth of history than to transmit
to us a narrative self-contradictory.
But is there any contradiction in the nar
rative ?
The first account (Gen. vi, 19, 20) belongs to
the time when God commanded Noah to build
the ark. The second (Gen. vii, 2, 3) belongs to
6

82 THE PENTATEUCH.
a later period, and is simply an amplification and
special carrying out of the first. At first God
directed Noah to bring " tAvo of every sort of
every living thing of all flesh into the ark." Be
fore entering the ark, God said to him : " Of
every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by
sevens, the male and his female : and of beasts
that are not clean by two, the male and his
female." Abarbanel takes the first passage as
simply asserting that the beasts should come
paired, male and female ; the second as specifying
the number of the pairs, seven of the clean, two
of the unclean, animals. It is, however, doubtful
whether the numeral seven means pairs or individ
uals. (See Lange's Commentary, in loc.)
Taking the second passage as an amplification
of the former, there is no contradiction between
them. The tAvo accounts are perfectly consistent,
and " wholly in correspondence with the advanc
ing prophecy." The former account simply states
that Noah Avas commanded to bring into the ark
" two of every sort of every liA'ing thing of all
flesh :" the latter, that he Avas commanded to
make a distinction between the clean and the
unclean, and to take into the ark seven of the
clean and two of the unclean. Where is the con
tradiction? There is only amplification.
3. A contradiction is said to exist between

COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 83
several verses of Gen. x, 7, 13, which trace the
descent of Havilah, Sheba, Dedan, Gen. x, vs. 7,
] 3 22 28 29
and Ludim to Ham ; and vs. 22, 28, and xxv, 3.'
29, and chap, xxv, 3, which place them among
the descendants of Shem.
Are the names in chap, x, 7, 13, and those in
vs. 22, 28, 29, and in chap, xxv, 3, identical?
It must be proved that they are before a contra
diction can be alleged to exist. We meet with
recurring names, as in the genealogies of the
Cainites and Sethites. (Gen. iv, 17-19, and
v, 18, 25.)
4. A discrepancy is said to exist between Gen.
xv, 18; Ex. xxiii, 31; Num. xxxiv, 1-12; Deut.
xi, 24. (Compare Josh, i, 4.)
Various schemes of reconciling these passages
have been proposed, (a) Keil considers the three
first-mentioned passages as prophetical
promises, Avhich, agreeably to their ex. xxiii, 31 ;
, Num. xxxiv,
oratorical character, give merely cer- 1-12; Deut.
tain great and well-known points as ?0I?par|
boundaries, which are more precisely
defined and limited only when we come to read
of the land of the Canaanites, as we always
do in these very passages; whereas Num. xxxiv,
1—12, describes the boundaries with geographical
precision. (6) Another scheme proceeds on the principle

84 THE PENT A TE UCH.
that these are the widest and narrowest bounda
ries, respectively, the maxima and minima of the
promise, which admitted of a more liberal or a
more restricted accomplishment according as, in
the sequel, Israel should prove fit to occupy the
place which lay open for them in the world, or
should fail to appreciate their high calling and
the warrant to appropriate so vast a territory. In
this Avay may be explained 2 Sam. viii, 3 : " David
smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of
Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the
river Euphrates."
(c) Another explanation is, that the Israelites
are, in the future, to occupy this wide extent of
country on the occasion of their restoration to
their own land; their former occupation, on com
ing up out of Egyptian bondage, and much more,
of course, after their return from Babylon, falling
short of that which was insured to them by the
promise of Jehovah.
Either a or b removes the discrepancy and
sufficiently vindicates the sacred writer against
Avhat, in any historian, would be considered an
egregious blunder.
Gen. xxv, *>. A discrepancy is made to exist
Gefxx4, between Gen. xxv, 31-33 and Gen.
1_29- xxvii, 1-29.
The first passage relates how Esau sold his

COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 85
birthright to Jacob; the second, how Jacob de
ceived his father so as to obtain his blessing
meant for the first-born.
The alleged discrepancy evidently confounds
two things — the birthright and the blessing —
whic*h are entirely distinct. Jacob purchased the
former; but obtained the latter by fraud and
falsehood. There is no contradiction between
Jacob's deceit and Esau's sale of his birthright.
6. Gen. xxvii, 41-45, according to which Ja
cob was compelled to flee from Esau's Gen xxvii
wrath, is said to contradict Gen. xxvii, l1^^'
46 — xxviii, 1-9, according to which he xxvm' ' 1-9,
was sent to Mesopotamia to obtain a wife.
It is a sufficient solution to say that the one
motive does not exclude the other. Moreover, it
is distinctly stated that Rebekah planned Jacob's
journey to Padan-aram, under the pretense of
obtaining a wife, to save him from the execution
of Esau's threat to kill him.
7. It is said that Gen. xxx, 24, gives an ety
mology of the name Joseph different from that
in verse 23. Verse 23 gives no etymol- Gen xxx ^
ogy at all. In verse 23 Rachel says, and-T- 2i[
"God hath taken away (Heb. asaph) my re
proach : and she called his name Joseph (Heb.
Yoseph, from yasaph, to add) ; and said, The Lord
shall add to me another son" (v. 24). Joseph's

86 THE PENT A TE UCH.
birth was a proof that God had taken away from
Rachel the reproach of barrenness ; and it also
excited the wish that he would add another son.
8. The narrative, Gen. xxx, 25-43, is said to
differ from that in Gen. xxxi, 4-48. The former
Gen xxx gives an account of the manner in
Gen?'xxxi which Jacob acquired his wealth; in
the latter, Jacob represents his riches
to his wives and to Laban as a divine blessing,
and says nothing of the means which he had
employed. In this there is no contradiction to
chap, xxx, where an account is given of these
means. 9. Esau's stay in Edom, Gen. xxxii, 3, con
tradicts, it is said, Gen. xxxvi, 6-8, Avhich says
that he went there after Jacob's return
andGeii. ' ' to Canaan, and after the death of
xxxvi, 6-8. .
Isaac. Esau married Mahalath, the
daughter of Ishmael (Gen. xxviii, 9), Avho " dwelt
in the wilderness of Paran" (Gen. xxi, 21), Avhich
is near Edom. It is possible, therefore, that he
may have been there at the time of Jacob's re
turn from Padan-aram. At that time Isaac was
still alive and dwelling in Hebron, which is not
very far from Edom. It is probable, therefore,
that Esau, in the absence of Jacob, would not
make a permanent removal to Edom, but remain
near his aged father to comfort him and assist

COMPOSITION AND A VTHOESHIP. 87
, him in the management of his affairs. Hebron
may have been his chief residence and Edom an
out-station or colony.
10. Esau's wives have created some difficulty.
According to Gen. xxvi, 34, he took two wives,
Judith, the daughter of Beeri, the Hit- Gen. xxxvi,
tite, and Bashemath, the daughter of 34; Gen.
' » . *> xxviii, 9 ;
Elon, the Hittite. He added to these Gen. xxxvi,
Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael
(Gen. xxviii, 9). In Gen. xxxvi, 2, 3, his wives
are called Adah, the daughter of Elon, the Hit
tite ; Aholibamah, the daughter of Aiiah ; and
Bashemath, the daughter of Ishmael.
Vaihinger makes these passages Elohistic ; and,
of course, can not see any difficulty. Keil and
Lange reconcile them by the fact that women, at
their marriage, received new names. This was
the custom among the ancient Orientals; and it
is still in use among the Arabians. Men often
received surnames from some important or re
markable event of life. Esau was called Edom
(Gen. xxv, 30). Anah was called Beeri (man of
the spring), from the faet that he found some
"hot springs"* in the wilderness.
11. Gen. xxxii, 22—32, contains, it 22-32 and '
is said, an account of Jacob's change 10."
of name different from that in Gen. xxxv, 10.
*So the Hebrew word hayyemim (Gen. xxxvi, 24) should be trans.
lated, instead of "mules."

88 THE PENTATEUCH.
The latter instance may be regarded as a rat
ification and confirmation of the former, at Pen-
iel ; and it is connected with the Messianic prom
ise which God makes to him (Gen. xxxv, 11, 12).
Murphy suggests that, at Bethel, God "renews
the change of name, to indicate that the meet
ings here were of equal moment in Jacob's spir
itual life with that at Penuel [Peniel]. It im
plies, also, that this life had been declining in
the interval between Penuel and Bethel, and
had_ now been revived by the call of God to
go to Bethel, and by the interview." (Com. on
Genesis.) 12. Bleek (Vol. I, p. 267) observes: "There
are two narratives about the origin of the name
Bethel; (a) chap. xxA'iii, 19 ; (b) chap.
Gen. xxviii, ' \ J V > > V > f
19, and Gen. Xxxv, 9-15 ; both these refer it to Ja-
xxxv, 9-15. ' '
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 "liy, vs. 9, 10) to the Elohist. When the
Jehovist interpolated v. 5 ; and from TPl, v. 16, to
nrnap, v. 20 (Davidson), it is singular that he did
not obliterate such aAvkward 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 Avas 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
Avriter of Gen. xxviii, 17-22; and the Jehovist,

90 THE PENTATEUCH.
who Avas 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 wiiter 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-
Gen. xxi, &, . . ' .
and Gen. jection to the double history of the
name, in these two passages, is that

*So Dr. Davidson distributes these passages. Vaihinger assigns
chapters xii, 8° ; xxviii, 19; xxxv, 9-15; xlviii, 3, to the Elohist ; and
chapter xiii, 3, to the Jehovist. The critics differ more than their imag
inary authors.

COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 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 Avhich 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 Avells, still
called Bir es-Seba, the ancient Beersheba."
("Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai,
and Arabia Petrsea," Vol. I, p. 300.)
14. The merchants to Avhom Jo- Gen. xxxvii,
25 27 28 '
seph was sold are called Ishmaelites xxxix, i '.
r xxxvu, 28, 36;
(Gen. xxxvii, 25, 27, 28, and xxxix, *i,i5.
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
Tun to the younger Elohist, and the latter part,
from 'i?»"l to I1??, to the Jehovist. Vaihinger
makes the Vor-Elohist the author of xxxvii, 28%
and the Elohist the author of xxxvii, 28bcd. 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 Avhen 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 j xl, 4, on the
an;dXxxxix, one hand, and chap, xxxix, 21-23, on
21~23' the other, are said to be contradictory.
"The contradiction is based upon an arbi-

COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 93
trary identification of the keeper of the prison in
xxxix, 21, with the captain of the guard in xl, 4."
(Keil's " Introduction to the Old Testament,"
Vol. I, p. 108.)
16. Gen. xiii, 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
sacks at the inn, and found each his 27, 35, and
money in his sack ; Avhereas, 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 xiii, 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 Avould 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
xvnf;i;and Reuel. In Num. x, 29, he is named
ii, 18 (com- -r> i
pare v. 21); Kaguel.
29. um-x' In Hebrew, "Reuel "and "Raguel"
have the same letters and voAvel points, and are,
therefore, the same name and person.
Keil thinks that Jethro or Jether (from TJ,
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 Avas 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 Ave can not determine
Avhether " 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'?'1 (the participial form from 1D0) may 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 T?n (Num.
x, 29) in apposition to Hobab, it may be ren
dered brother-in-law, which would bring this pas
sage and Judges iv, 11, into harmony with the
others.

* The Septuagint : Tea 'Oj3d0 vii2 'PayovijA tw Ma&iavtrri, YaM(3f";,>
Mwuot). Luther : Zuseinem Schwager Hobab, dem Sohn Kaguels.
Vulgate : Hobab fUio Raguel Madianitse, Cognato suo.

96 THE PENT A TE UCH.
18. Exodus iv, 31, and vi, 9.
The first passage, which, according to Vai
hinger, is Jehovistic, ascribes joyful faith to the
Ex iv 3i- children of Israel from the first. The
and vi, 9. secondj which, according to the same
critic, is Elohistic, states that the children of Is
rael " hearkened not unto Moses for anguish of
spirit and for cruel bondage." Vaihinger pro
nounces them contradictory. They are contra
dictory when viewed in juxtaposition. But some
time elapsed between the interviews of Moses with
the people of Israel mentioned in the two passages.
Because speedy deliverance did not come after
the first interview, the children of Israel, disap
pointed and disheartened, would not listen to
Moses at the second. The two passages are rec
onciled by chap, v, 19-23. It is objected that
these verses speak only of the officers. But if
the officers were so dejected we might certainly
expect the people to be.
Ex. iv,.2, 3, 19. The Elohist, it is said, places
17, 19; viii, ' the rod always in the hand of Aaron
16, 17 ; ix, 23, J
and x, 13. as the worker of miracles; but the
Jehovist puts it in the hand of Moses.
The passages referred to are iv, 2, 3; iv, 20°,
and vii, 15, 17, Avhich place it in the hand of
Moses; vii, 9, 19; viii, 16, 17, which place it
in the hand of Aaron ; ix, 23 ; and x, 13, which

COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 97
put it in the hand of Moses. Chap, viii, 6, says :
" Aaron stretched out his hand."
Of these passages, according to Vaihinger,
chap, iv, 2, 3, is Jehovistic; iv, 20°, is the same;
vii, 15, 17, is Elohistic; vii, 9, 19, is the same;
viii, 16, 17, is Jehovistic; so also are ix, 23 and
x, 13. Davidson makes iv, 2, 3, 20c; vii, 15, 17;
viii, 16, 17; ix, 23; x, 13 Jehovistic; and vii,
9, 19, Elohistic.
These comparisons show that the critics do
not agree with one another. They differ more
than the Elohist and Jehovist. The Elohist, ac
cording to Vaihinger (the Redactor, according to
Davidson), says that Aaron was appointed to act
as Moses' prophet (vii, 1) ; and when the rod was
placed in his hands, it was given to him as the
prophet of Moses.
20. It is alleged that there are differences in
the representation given of the Exo- Ex vi 2ff.
dus. The Elohist speaks of the total SS^aAd35'
liberation of Israel (Ex. vi, 2ff; vii, 2; -tu'.w- via', ij
ix, 35; xi, 10); but the Jehovist '' '
speaks merely of the people going to keep a feast
to Jehovah at Sinai (Ex. iii, 18; v, 1, 3; vii, 16;
viii, 1 ; x, 3, 8, 24-26).
There is no contradiction between the two so-
called authors of these passages; and nothing to

98 THE PENTATEUCH.
indicate that they do not belong to one author.
In the one class of passages Pharaoh is com
manded to let the people go ; in the other class
a reason is assigned for the command. In chap.
x, 3, 8, 24-26, the Jehovist mentions both the
reason and the total liberation ; and chap, viii, 1,
which Vaihinger makes Elohistic, mentions the
reason along with the command.
21. Exodus ii, 22; iv, 20; and xviii, 2-6.
The first passage (Vaihinger, Elohistic ; Dav
idson, Jehovistic) says that Zipporah bore Mo
ses a son, and he called his name
Ex ii 22 *
iv,'2o'; and Gershom : the second (Vaihinger, Je-
xviii, 2-6. , . . -r^ • t i \.
hovistic; Davidson, the same) states
that " Moses took his wife and his sons, and set
them upon an ass, and he returned to the land
of Egypt:" the third (Vaihinger, Vor-Elohist ;
Davidson, Younger Elohist, except 2b) states that
" Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, took Zipporah,
Moses' wife, after he had sent her back, . . .
and Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, came with his
sons and his wife unto Moses into the wilderness,
where he encamped at the mount of God."
The contradiction, if any exists, is removed
by the words (xviii, 2b) " after he had sent her
back," which Davidson assigns to the Redactor,
but Vaihinger to the Vor-Elohist.
22. It is said that Exodus xvii, 8, and xix, 2,

COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 99
which, according to Vaihinger, are both Elohis
tic, are closely connected together ; and that chap.
xviii is an interpolation; because verse 5 makes
Jethro come to " the mount of God," which is
Mount Sinai, whereas Israel did not come to it
until xix, 2.
Keil remarks : " Were there no other reply,
it would be sufficient to say that there is no de
cisive proof of chap, xviii being meant to pre
cede chap, xix, 2, in respect of time ; the meeting
with Jethro may have been intentionally narrated
first, so as to leave room for an uninterrupted
narrative of the meeting with Jehovah at Sinai.
Compare the history of Joseph in relation to the
position of Gen. xxxviii." (" Introduction to the
Old Testament," Vol. I, p. 111.)
23. It is affirmed that the choice of judges
is placed later in Deut. i, 9—18, than in Exodus
xviii, 13ff. This rests upon too nar- ExxTiiil3ff.
row a conception of the import of the Deut *¦ 9~18-
phrase, " at that time " (Deut. i, 9), which affirms
only that it was during the stay at Horeb, as
appears from a comparison with vs. 18, 19.
24. According to Lev. xxvii, 27, and Num.
xviii, 16, the first-born of unclean ani- Lev xxvii27.
mals Avere to be redeemed with money; ^™'xXxm,
but, according to Exodus xiii, 13, and 13; xxxlv>2a

100 THE PENTATEUCH.
xxxiv, 20, they were to be redeemed with a lamb,
or otherwise to be put to death.
It has been suggested by Keil that the earlier
law, which commanded that an ass should be re
deemed with a lamb, or else put to death, was
modified for the advantage of the income of the
priests. (" Introduction to the Old Testament,"
Vol. I, p. 112.)
Such a modification was very likely to be
made, inasmuch as a large number of lambs
might, in some circumstances, be very incon-
\Tenient, unless they were sold for money or ex
changed for merchandise. Hence, it w,ould be
very natural to substitute a money redemption
for them. This is a mere hypothesis ; but it is
an hypothesis as reasonable as that of two dis
tinct authors.
25. According to Exodus xxi, 1-6, and Deut.
xv, 12-18, a Hebrew slave was to go
Ex. xxi, 1-6; . . .
and Deut. xv, tree in the seventh year of his servi-
12~18- 11 T
tude; but, according to Lev. xxv, 40,
in the year of jubilee.
These passages are not contradictory. A He
brew servant was to be set free in the seventh
year of his servitude ; but sooner, if the year of
jubilee occurred during the seven years.
26. A discrepancy is said to exist between

COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 101
Lev. xxiii, Num. xxviii, xxix, which mention
five great feasts and holy convocations, and Ex
odus xxiii, 14-16; xxxiv, 18-23; and
Deut. xvi, 1-17, which mention only NumXxxviii,
three, together with pilgrimages to the xxiii,' 14-16;
xxxiv, 18-23,
sanctuary- and Deut-
xvi 1-17.
(a) Of these passages, Lev. xxiii
gives a list of all the feast seasons on Avhichholy
convocations occurred and all business ceased.
These included not only the three great feasts,
but all the appointed times of meeting, along
with the Sabbath. "A holy convocation," there
fore, neither required nor meant a pilgrimage to
the sanctuary.
(6) Num. xxviii and xxix contain a list of all
the offerings to be brought on all the days of the
year (not on feast-days only), without determin
ing the number of great feasts.
(c) Exodus xxiii, 14-16 ; xxxiv, 18-23, and
Deut. xvi, 1—17, give us no complete calendar of
feast days ; but in connection with the ordinances
as to hallowing the first-born (compare Exodus
xxiii, 19; xxxiv, 19, 20; Deut. xv, 19-23), they
treat only incidentally and briefly of those feasts
at which Israel was to appear annually before the
Lord, at his sanctuary, with offerings of the first
fruits of the land, which Jehovah had bestowed
upon them. '

102 THE PENTATEUCH.
It Avill be evident, on considering the purport
of these different passages, that the contradiction
is caused by identifying the holy convocations
with the pilgrimages to the sanctuary.
27. Lev. xxiii, 18, 19, says that seven lambs,
one bullock, and two rams were appointed as a
burnt-offering, one kid of the goats
Lev. xxiii, °' °
is, 19; Num. for 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.
(6) 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), Avhich 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
25/26; Num. all the congregation of the children of
i ; compared T . - .
with Ex Israel, after their families, by the house
xxx, 12ff. > J
of their fathers, with the number of

COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 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.
(6) 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- XXT' 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,

104 THE PENTATEUCH.
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 Avhen 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, sa, 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 Num. xxi, 3, NumxiV]45.
the Israelites smote the king of Arad andxxl.s-
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 28a
belongs to the Vor-Elohist, 28bcd to the Elohist,
2b to the Elohist, and 2a to the Jehovist. More-

106 THE PENTATEUCH.
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
DiffGr6HC6 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 UTHORSHIP. 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 Avould be
come a valid proof of the hypothesis of supple
ments only in two Avays : either, generally, if the
fundamental document made a representation of
primeA'al 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 Avould contradict the circle of
ideas in Avhich the supplementer moves." (Keil's
" 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 PENTATEUCH.
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 Avith 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,"
Vol. 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 A UTHORSHIP. 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
narratiAres in the Pentateuch are a patch-work
such as many modern critics pronounce them to
be? To most readers they appear consecutive
and homogeneous ; and 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 Avhich 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 OF UNITY IN THE PENTATEUCH ADDUCED AS
A PltOOF OF PLURALITY OF AUTHORSHIP.
Divide et impeea — 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 Avas 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.

COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 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 tAvo 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 Avhy 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 Avhole 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
Avhich 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-

COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 113
rent, definite, and exact. It is what may be
called chronologico-genealogical, con- External
necting the computation of time Avith oiopcaiorder
the life-time of the Patriarchs, or °ftheb00ks-
rather Avith 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-
* Haverniek 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 PENTA TEUCH.
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;.l 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 Avas preparatory to that
covenant; and every thing, in the same book,
internal during his time, was a development of
unlty- 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. 115
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 PENTATEUCH.
of commencing its special history ab 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 Ruler. 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 PENTATEUCH.
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 UCH.
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 desoribed 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 Avorking 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 Avill 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, AVHICH 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 OF 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
when that fact 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 PENTATEUCH.
Three general opinions have been expressed
as to the import of the " then " in that verse :
(a) The Canaanite Avas 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 (e). The difficulty is
with (o).
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
Avell-known town."
The bishop will admit that Moses lived some
centuries after Jacob, in whose day Luz, as the

126 THE PENTA 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 writings 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 Ave 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. (6) 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 i 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
, ,. i ¦ i ¦ ¦ xx i i Gen. xiii, 8.
of Mamre, 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 PENTATEUCH.
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 put as Kirjath-Arba
(that is, Hebron)."
(6) Baumgarten is of the opinion that " its
earliest name Avas 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 xii, 12.)
Abraham is called the Hebrew. (Gen. xiv, 13.)
His descendants, in the line of Isaac, were still
called Hebrews, instead of Israelites. Gen xxxix
(xliii, 32.) Joseph says, " I was stolen u-
away out of the land of the Hebrews." But,

132 THE PENTATEUCH.
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 Avas
very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of
Pharaoh's servants, and in the sight
Ex. vi, 26, 27. » , . , „
Ex. xi, 3. of his people.
Num!xv,22,23. Num. xii, 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 Avere 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 PENTATEUCH.
(2 Cor. xi, 5), " T 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
Avas 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 Red Sea."
"For west Avind," 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 Avesterly Avinds 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 ' 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 Avinds," 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 N. 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 PENTATEUCH.
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 Avritten 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 writtgn 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. We can not, therefore, infer
that the casting out of the Canaanites was al
ready an accomplished fact.
13. Num. xv, 32-36: "And while the chil
dren of Israel were in the Avilderness, 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): "'The wilderness'
can only refer to the Arabian desert. Num xv
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), ' beebher 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 beebher 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
fur the Avest. (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 Avhich 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 loc.)
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 Avords,' " 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. .mi i ,,
past transaction, lhe 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, Avere 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
Deut. iii, 9. , _.
the bidonians 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 Avhat 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 ha\-e 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," Vol. I, p. 234), "is related
' . > f J> Deut. iii, 11.
Num. xxi, 33ff, and occurred, there
fore, in the fortieth year of their journeying, a
few months before the death of Moses. Moses,
however, Avould 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."

1 42 THE PENT A TE UCH.
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 Avar;
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. 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, 3a 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 Avhole 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.)

144 THE PENTATEUCH.
19. The phrase "unto this day," occurs fre
quently in Genesis and in Deuteronomy. (Gen.
xix, 37, 38; xxii, 14; xxvi, 33; xxxii,
Thephrase, ' ' ' ' ' ' .. '
^ unto this 32; xxxv, 20; xlvu, 26 ; Deut. n, 22;
iii, 14; x, 8, etc.)
This phrase indicates, it is assertedj a post-
Mosaic authorship of the passages in Avhich 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. t *
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 giATe 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.
. . x The Three
Xll-XXVl.) 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. R. 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- Prot Smitb"
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 laAV 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 PrmciPl0-
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 e t°rv 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, Avho Avas to fulfill and complete his
legislation. The law was the true
light of Israel until the first Advent,
e\ren 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 °fthettie°ry-
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 Avhich are
adduced to show that customs or statutes of a
later date Avere 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 Avise set him king over thee,
Avhom 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,
Avhich 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, Avho seem to have
been exterminated in the time of David (1 Sam.
xxvii, xxx). Josiah must have been puzzled
Avhat 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

152 THE PENTATEUCH.
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 Ave 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 A'ision of the Di
vine Glory. It was in the form of a tent, which
could be taken doAvn and transported ijawgDelong.
from place to place. Its position was of^he codes
in the center of the camp of Israel, pl^sVofa'no-
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 PENTATEUCH.
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 (iii, 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
Avith 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
Rev. 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- . „ __ /T1 , . .
tion of the the time of Moses. ( Hixodus xn, 25-
Pentateuch
points back 27; xiii, 1-14; xxui, 20-33; xxxiv,
to Egypt, and ' ' ; ' ' '
c°arZrn.t0 H-26 ; 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 xvil
14-20.) 14-2°;
The positions assumed are : (a) The regal
power had no foundation at all in the original
plan of the theocratic state of the Israelites.
(6) It is inconceivable that Moses, who died
more than three centuries before regal govern
ment Avas 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 Avas added- against the will of
Jehovah.

158 THE PENTATEUCH.
(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.)
(c/) 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; xiii, 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 Avhich 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 THEOREIS. 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.) (6) 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 Avas
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 PENTATEUCH.
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 Avhich 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
HoweArer 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 Avrote 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.
(f 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

162 THE PENTATEUCH.
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 Avould 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- have set 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 ^
the priests first-fruits of their cattle, and of their
Avine, 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 PENTATEUCH.
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
! 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 land 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 DeutiXli
place which the Lord your God shall &~14-
choose out of all your tribes to put his name
there" (vs. 5, 14).
This laAv, 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-sand 5~14)> 5t WOuld form U0 valid argU"
posed fgno-' ment against the existence of the book
Deuteron*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 Avorshipers 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,
Avith 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 Avith
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. a i e •*
these were used as places of 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, Ave
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, Avhat 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
of thehy- the mere exponent of their character
pothesis. l
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 Avere 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 until
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, kX^pS
1 Q OO A exilic times.
Synagogues, for which there is no express pro
vision in the Mosaic laAV, 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 Avere the
theological jurists of their day. The office first
comes into view in the days of Ezra, Avho 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," by 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, Avho 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 Avere 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.
THEORY 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-
vocatesofthe 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 Avritten 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 Argumeilts
document, Avhich embraces most of the proveCtheto
laws in Leviticus, with large parts of * eor>'
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 Avritten about 625
B. C. ; (b) 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 Avhich 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
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
Avere 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 Sinai 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
Avas 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 Avith 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.
(6) "The priests the Levites, all the tribe of
Levi." (Deut. xviii, la.)

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 "
. . ... ,, . ,, ,, 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," Avhich 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 giATen thus : " There shall not be to the
priests, the Levites, yea, the Avhole tribe of Levi,
any inheritance," etc. (The Bible Commentary,
in loc.) 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 PENTATEUCH.
(c) Deut. xviii, 3-8 : " And this shall be the
priests' due from the people, from them that
Deut. xvm on?er a sacrifice, Avhether it be of ox or
*¦*¦ sheep; and they shall give unto the
priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the
maw. The first fruit, a]so, 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 la. 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 iu 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 maAV 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-
tAveen " 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 PENTA 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 he.)
(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 folloAv 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-
Dsut xxxi 9. 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 THEORIES. 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
Avho turns historian, does not recite his laws ver
batim when he has occasion to refer to them. We
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 PENTATEUCH.
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. xliv. tr o j >
for the prophet speaks of two classes
of religious ministers as having already existed,
viz., " the Levites that are gone away far from
me, Avhen 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 Avent
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 Avas 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, 1 3, 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," Avould 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 LeA'ites 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 Avould 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 Avho Avent not
astray. Who, then, are the Levites spoken of
(vs. 10-14) but descendants of Ithamar, who
might also be termed Levitical priests, Avho are
degraded from their priestly office on account of
their apostasy?"
In the allusion to Zadok (v. 15), the prophet

188 THE PENTA TE UCH.
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
a historian of our day does not men- ueiand am
tion an institution, does it, therefore, erence'toW
_. . . . . . distinction
not exist '. If a historian, in past time, between
L 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 PENTATEUCH.
favorable to the influence of the priests. During
the time of Joshua, the people were engaged in
circum- war wr the possession of Canaan.
Israelites1 not After they had obtained possession of
the0fnfluence it, they were subject to frequent inva-
of the priests. . , „ , . ml
sions, defeats, and oppressions. I hey
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
the promises there given. The later m the books
portion, on the other hand, formed a and Kings
r of an exist-
portion of the ' Book of Origins,' so ™f{ai^archi_
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, Evl(jence 0{
and that of the other books of the oufbuya tn^led
Pentateuch about 445 B. C. But every critics-
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 PENTATEUCH.
ruling, and admit the testimony of the book of
Joshua, until it is fairly proAred 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.)
ftnctionlof (2-) The tribe of Levi, being scat-
the priesthood. tered amQng th& ^^ whh ^.^ ag_
signed to them, perform their sacred functions.
(Josh, xiii, 14, 33 ; xiv, 3, 4 ; xviii, 7 ; xxi ;
compare Num. x\-iii, 20-24, and xxxv, 7.)
(3.) The ark Avas 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
Egypt in Pharaoh's house? And did samueiand
. . 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 Avhom God appeared
in Egypt, and Avhom 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; (6) 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 Avhole 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.
13

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, lff,
and Num. xviii.)
1 Sara, 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, Avhich plainly implies a gradation. Jero
boam " made priests of the lowest of the people
which Avere 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 Avilderness,
but confirmed to the sons of Levi (Num. xvi).
In the reign of Athaliah, Jehoiada, the priest,
croAvned 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,
Ave 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
The chron- we must 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 Ave 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 PENT A TE UCH.
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 »«, 29); (2) "the book of Nathan
chronicles. the prophet, 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 stoiy of
the prophet Iddo " (2 Chron. xiii, 22) ; (5) " the
book of the kings of Judah and Israel " (2 Chron.
xvi, 1 1) ; (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 haATe 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 PENTATEUCH.
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
-agraduated of God, and to minister unto him for-
" " u> 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 ;
yii, 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 Gibeou as the place of the
tabernacle and of the altar of burut-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.
xxvi, 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 PENT A TE UCH.
are united in the closest manner by Neh. viii—
xii, 26. The three books form a whole. Ezra
Ezra and continues Chronicles, and Nehemiah
Nehemiah. continues 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.
Noav 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. . , . , . . .
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 was 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 4, 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
vitical 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. 168a,) 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 " Avas 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 Avere
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 coming
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, Avhen 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, Mnding o{
I have found the book of the law in the S|?^byf
house of the Lord. And Hilkiah de- mm^~
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 Avords 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. 14

210 THE PENTATEUCH.
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 Ave 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 Avitchcraft, dealt
with a familiar spirit, and with Avizards, 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 Avorship 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 Avas 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 laAV 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, Avent 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 Avill 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, was
either in the secret of the forgery, or that she
believed that Hilkiah the priest had actually
" 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 would 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 Avhich 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 Avhich 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 Avhole 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 hoAV 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 Koheleth, 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? .
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 of 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
the kingdom was confirmed in his thereto"
hand, he sleAV his servants, Avhich had
slain the king his father. But the children of
the murderers he sleAV 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 Avhich reminds the reader of
Deut. xxxi, 26. Jehoiada brought forth
., , . , i , ,, It existed in
the king s son, and put the crown upon the time 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 PENTA 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 deliA'erance, and alluded
Jehoshaphat. ... -^ .
m his prayer to Deut. n, 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, Avith Deut. xvii, 8, 9 ; 2 Chron. xix, 7, with
Deut. xvi, 19.)
Solomon's prayer, at the dedication of the
temple, is filled Avith thoughts and language bor
rowed from Deuteronomy, which proves that he
was acquainted Avith 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 , n , . „ , ,
time of Solo- onion 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. It existed in
xxii, 7-13); for the fulfillment of the the time of
' ' David.
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 shoAV clearly that the author of Eeferencesto
the "Book of Judges" was acquainted ^g0"-
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, Avith 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 PENTATEUCH.
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;
in fte«meof hut they may have been. If they were,
founded on they were punished for their own iniq-
Josh.vii, 24, 25. ., -,, . . ,, , ., ,
uity. But 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 idolatry ; 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 Avhen 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, Re(erences t0
6-12, furnishes another parallel be- J^f™11-
tween the two books implying the Joshua"
existence of Deuteronomy at that time, unless
the sacred Avriter puts falsehood in the mouth of
Jehovah — a supposition which can not be en.ter-
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 Avere
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 fareAvell 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 hoAV 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 —
which 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 ; aud, 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 pSesPtheex-
opening words would seem to imply preceding tUe
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 Avhy 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. "'SS; Ixx,
diaaafr/aac) properly means " to explain, to dig
out the sense, and to set it forth when 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 ; arid 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 foe.)
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, Avith Exodus
xvi ; Deut. ix, 7ff., Avith 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 PENT A TE UCH.
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, 4ffi, 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, Avith
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- , J r
teronomy m date to the parallel passages in
preceding6 Deuteronomy ; for the latter are rep-
Penteteuch? 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 k^gty form of government estab-
date ofthe lished, the greater part of the Israel-
latertnanthe 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, Avho 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 book of
Joshua. (a) Compare Josh, i, 7, 8, with Deut.
no i ••• -i a t i •¦• .->-. or Eeferencesto
v, 32, and xxviii, 14; Josh, vm, 31-35, thePenta-
' ' ' ' ' ' teuchinthe
with Exodus xx, 24, 25, and Deut. subsequent
' ' ' books of the
xxvii, 5, 6; xxxi, 9, 12, 25; Josh, xxiii, ™£es>ar
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 PENTATEUCH.
(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 Avritten in the book
of the law of Moses." (Josh, viii, 30, 31, com
pared with Exodus xx, 25.)
The ark Avas 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.)
(c) 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.)
Officers 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
id) 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 Avith the Canaanites. (Josh.
ix, compared Avith 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, Avith Deut. xxxi, 16.)
(o) 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.)
(ff) The ephod a priestly garment. (Judges
viii, 27; xvii, 5; xviii, 14-17, compared with
Exodus xxxix, 22.)
(A) 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.)
(k) 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 6f Aaron, high-priest.
(1 Sam. chapters i-iv, compared with Exodus xl,
12-15, and Num. xxv, 11-13.)
(6) 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.)
(d) 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 Books.
(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, Avith Ex. xxx, 19, 20.
Ps. xxx, (Heading), with Deut. xx, 5.
Ps. xxxix, 12, with Lev. xxv, 23.
Ps. Ixviii, 1, with Num. x, 35.
Ps. Ixviii, 4, with Deut. xxxiii, 26.
Ps. Ixviii, 7, with Ex. xiii, 21.
Ps. Ixviii, 8, with Ex. xix, 6ff.
Ps. Ixviii, 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, Avith 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.
""' ' ' ' > with Lev. xix, 16.
Prov. xx, 19, J
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.
(6) In the reign of Uzziah. (Compare 2
Chron. xxvi, 16—21, with Num. xvi, Iff.)
(c) In the reign of Hezekiah. (Compare 2
Kings XA'iii, 4, with Num. xxi, 9 ; and verse 6,
with Deut. x, 20.)
(cf) 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.
(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.
(A) 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.
(I) 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 Avith 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-
knoAvledge 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, Avith 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 riot 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 IVIosaie Authorship
OP THE
PENTATEUCH.

Part II.
PROOFS OF THE MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF
THE PENTATEUCH.

Chapter i.
INTERNAL PROOFS— INDIRECT AND DIRECT.
Section I.
INDIRECT PROOPS.
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 Avith the admission
that he may have used documents or
traditions of patriarchal times, and authorship of
t i . .... thePenta-
mcorporated them into his history, teuchcon-
x J sistent with
He may have employed, as the Apos- ^umente.
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 PENTATEUCH.
third person, when Moses is spoken of, and those
passages Avhich 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 Avith the admission that the Pentateuch may
have undergone a revision or recension in later
times. Ezra, Nehemiah, and their as-
Not inconsist
ent/with sistants, may have subjected it, with
revision. ,
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 Avas
the leader of his people out of Egypt
There was , .
such a man jnto Canaan. His name arid charac-
os Moses. ter were knoAvn 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 Avhich 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 uoav, as in a former
age, " Was the art of writing known so early as
the time of Moses? and especially was
, , t. The art of
it known to the Jews and the Egyp- writing
°^ r known be-
tians?" These questions have been fore the time
1 of Moses.
answered in the affirmative by recent
disco\reries. Ewald, in his " History of the Peo
ple of Israel " (Vol. I, pp. 50, 51, Note, Martin-
eau's Translation), obser\res 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,
" Avhatever 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 Avriting
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 PENTATEUCH.
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
Antecedent '
probability leader of the children of Israel in
that Moses
Perntatehuech. tlieir march from Egypt to Canaan,
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 o?thaeuPenta-
Upper Asia to the valley of the Nile, acquainted
tt jt i ii «ti .- with the lit-
ne says that the " Egyptians were ac- erature,
. 7 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 ;
xiv, 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 Von 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. aIb., pp. 3^7. aIb., pp. 8-20.

250 THE PENTATEUCH.
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
Avas 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 Avhich 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
Avhich real eunuchs Avere 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), Avas in conform
ity Avith Egyptian custom.6 His temptation
(Gen. xxxix, 7) Avas in keeping Avith the great
4Hengstenberg, p. 22. sIb. p. 23 GIb.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. xii, 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 (xii,
8; Ex. vii, 11 ; viii, 7, 18, 19) is in keeping Avith
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. xii, 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." The famine in Egypt (Gen. xii, 54, 55) has
appeared suspicious to some, who have charged

i Hengstenberg, p. 25. B lb. , p. 27. • lb. , p. 28. ,0 lb. , pp. , 28, 29.
"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) ;w 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'7 are in harmony with Egyptian cus
toms, and in agreement Avith 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. "lb., p. 38. »Ib., p. 39. "lb., p 40
¦°Ib.,p.47. 'lb., p. 55. sIb., p. 60. »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 j21 and the fact that
the king's daughter Avent 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, Avho, 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,

s°Hengstenberg,p. 78. aIIb., p. 85. »Ib., pp., 85, 86. "lb., p. i
"lb., pp. 87, 88, 92. ^Ib., p. 90. ""lb., p. 92.

254 • THE PENTATEUCH.
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 singing
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
Thummim29 — 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. *>l\>., pp. 126-132. »Ib., p. 149.
According to iElian, 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, TnePenta.
and had a share in, the exodus, and ^SttenSy
who had an intimate knowledge of the wSac-newh°
wanderings of the Israelites in the with"and
.-, , had a share
Wilderness. in, the ex
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.
81 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 Avanderings. 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
Avas 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, 0 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 Avas not made of wood common
to Palestine, but of Shittim wood, or acacia (Ex.
xxa', 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 Avhich 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 foAvls
(Deut. xiv, 4, 5, 11), which Avere permitted to be
eaten, are probably, at least many of them, such
animals as the Israelites Avould 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 was 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
THeb. 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 i4shetcSrael
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 Avas
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 UCH.
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 Avrote " the Avords 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,9; tne sons °^ Levi, which bare the ark
vs. 24-6. 0£ tne covenant 0f the Lor(J} an(j unt0
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 coveuant 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 Avrote 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 — iu

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
TIig recur-
ringphrase, and Numbers, furnishes abundant evi-
" The Lord '
said unto Mo- dence that the Levitical law was given
ees." °
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
laAvs 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," Tnepr00l
include it ; in other words, that the *$« oSfe-
five books of the Pentateuch make one S1S mdirect-
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 NeAV. It is, therefore,
probable that the prophet and law-giver of the
old dispensation, to Avhom 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-
Tnesubse- ides, Ezra, and Nehemiah, frequent
ofthe o7dks reference is made to " the law of Mo-
MernjeHTto 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 Avith 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 Avith 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 Avas 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 Avays 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
Kin 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. ...,,, r
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 Ezra and
of Moses," of '" the book of the law Nehemiah-
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 Avhich they mean, if we The Apocrjr.
may judge from the references, the p1""00^
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 xy> 21) : "Moses of old time
synagogues. hatn in every cjty them tnat p,.each
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. Josephus, speaking of the sacred books of
the Jews, says, " of them, five belong to Moses,
Avhich 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
soots iiinl T l~l 0
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 onestion populr~

EXTERNAL PROOFS. 269
opinions, if right in the main ; but Ave can not,
for a moment, suppose that they ac- Christand
commodated themselves to Jewish er- hls aP°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
Avhich it Avas 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 hy 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. xvi, 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, iu
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 times, 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
Briggs, 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 Bationalism  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 AV'ette  32, 51
Documentary Hypothesis  47
Delitzsch  52
Davidson, Dr. Samuel  67
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
Herodotusj  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
Kahilis  31
L.
Lecky  17
Lessing  21
Literary Criticism  12
Langerke  51
Leathes, Prof. Stanley  230
Lysimachus  244
Longinus  245
M.
Mediation School  36
Michaelis  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
Ptolemseus  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  is
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.AA'. R..145, 148, 174, 183
Schlegel  30
Smith, Dr. AAT  155
Synagogues  171
Strabo  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
Von Bohlen  174, 249
W.
Wolff.  20
Wetstein  21
Wellhausen  174
Writing, Art of, known before
Moses  247

18

9496

Yale Divinity Library
New Haven, Connecticut

ml

¦

III

IBliR

¦ ¦¦¦
HI

';