CRISIS IIUPFBLDIANl; BEING AN EXAMIMTION OF HUPFELB'S CRITICISM ON GENESIS, AS HECRNTLY SKT FORTH TN BISHOP COLENSO'S FIFTH PART. W KAY, D,D„ /. «-, fz 1p PRINCETON, N. J. ^^ Di'vision . -XJ.. ^^ \^mC,L^ Section. CVi^ I f\ L. CBISIS HUPFELBIANA; BEING AN EXAMINATION OF HUPFELD'S CEITICISM ON GENESIS, AS RECENTLY SET FORTH IN j 8^ ^ X BISHOP COLENSO'S FIFTH PART. BY / W. KAY, D.D., FELLOW OF LINCOLN COLLEGE, OXFORD; AND PRINCIPAL OF BISHOP'S COLLEGE, CALCUTTA. " And Isaac dug again the wells of water which had been digged in the days of Abraham his father ; for the Philistines had stopped them after Abraham's death ; and he called their names after the names by which his father had called them." — Gen. xxvi. 18. ©xfort( anti iLontion: JOHN HENRY and JAMES PARKER. 1865. ^rinteb bg P^cssrs. ^arbr, Cornmarlut, ©jtforb. CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION. SECTION I. On the Use made of the Divine Names in the ATTEMPTED DISINTEGRATION OF GeNESIS. PAGE CHAP. I. On the Ideas to be associated with the Divine Names, Elohim and Yahveh ... 9 II. How the Divine Names are employed in Genesis . 13 III. On the right interpretation of Exod. vi. 2— 8 . 18 lY. Failure of the attempt to employ the Divine Names as a Criterion of diverse Authorship . 21 SECTION II. On the ATTEMPT TO MAKE OUT A DIVERSITY OF StYLE, with a VIEW TO THE DiSMEMBERMENT OF GeNESIS. CHAP. I. The Character of the so-called Argument from "Style" 33 Appendix. On Dr. Colenso's qualifications for con- ducting an Enquiry into Hebrew " Style" . 35 II. The Worth of the Phraseological Test . . .39 III. On the Way in which the Test is applied . . 43 Appendix. On Ps. Ixviii. 1 .... 44 lY. The kind of Manipulation by which the "Analyst" gets at his Eesults ...... 46 Y. Consideration of two specially strong cases, pointed to by Dr. Colenso as irreconcileable with unity of Authorship ....... 53 IV CONTENTS. SECTION III. The Real Nature of the pretended " Analysis," viewed IN ITS Principles, its Method, and its Results. PAGE CHAP. I. The Principles on which the Disintegration-theory rests: — (1) Religious Unbelief; (2) Historical Pyrrhonism . . . . . . .59 Appendix. On Dr. Colenso's Translation of * Oort on Baal-worship ' . . . . . .71 If. The Method by which the "Critics" support their foregone conclusions; viz. by introducing (1) Imaginary Cancellings ; (2) Lacunae; (3) Charges of Inadvertency. (4) Extreme Sub-division; (5) Arbitrary Assertions . . . . . .73 III. The Results of the "Analysis;"— (1) The *Elo- histic;' (2) The ' Jehovistic' Document . . 80 CONCLUSION 91 INTRODUCTION. THERE is a wide-spread opinion, at present, that learned Orientalists have made some discoveries about the " styy of Genesis, which seem to prove that the book could not have been written by Moses, or indeed by any single writer ; — that it must, in fact, be considered (in Bishop Colenso's words =^) " a composite narrative, the work of several different authors, who lived in different ages;'' or (as he says elsewhere'') " writing each from his own point of view in very different ages.'* Some few persons, who are equal to the task of examining the grounds of this opinion, have asserted that there is no foundation for it, — that it is " a mere toy, a mere exercise of fancy- criticism <=." But, for the most part, our theologians have been content to rest their rejection of the supposed "critical" results on general, historical and religious, grounds ; — the criticism meanwhile being left as an unsolved difficulty. Educated themselves in habits of sober and cautious philoso- phizing, English scholars have been unwilling to suppose that the criticism, which was put forth so confidently, and received so submissively, abroad, rested on no solid grounds whatever. Dean Mtlman supplies an interesting illustration of this state of mind. His historical training enables him to say : " The internal evidence in the Mosaic records is to me conclusive. All attempts to assign a later period for the autJior- » The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua critically examined : ParlY: p. 305. "^ lb., p. 43. ' Quarterly Review : April, 1863 : p. 486. B -6 INTRODUCTION. ship, or even for the compilation, though made hy scholars of the highest ability, are so irreconcileahle tvith facts, so self destructive, and so mutually destructive, that I acquiesce without hesitation in their general antiquity ^." Again ; after speaking affec- tionately of his friend Baron Bunsen, he says of him ^ : " He seems to me to labour under the same too common infirmity, the passion for making history without historical materials. In this conjectural history, founded on conjectural grounds, he is as jiositive and peremptory (they often differ) as Ewald himself I confess that I have not much sympathy for this — not, making bricks without straw, but — making bricks entirely of straw, and offering them as solid materials." So far all is clear. He is in his own province, and sees his way. But, when he refers to the philological question, he adopts an entirely different tone. "There may," he says^, *• be some certain discernible marks and signs of difference in age and authorship. But that any critical microscope, in the nineteenth century, can be so exquisite and so powerful as to dissect the whole loith perfect nicety, to decompose it, and assign each separate paragraph to its special origin in three, four, or five, or more, independent documents, . . . this seems to me a task which no mastery of the Hebrew language, ivith all its kindred tongues, no discernment, however fine and dis- criminating, can achieve." Again, after allowing its weight to *' the argument from language ^," as resting upon " the in- troduction of new words, of words used in new senses, of new ■1 History of the Jeivs : vol. i. p. 45, 6. Cp. p. 132. " An adversary of such opinions might almost stand aloof in calm patience, and leave the conjlicting theorists to mutual slaughter." « p. xxiv, XXV. May I presume to express a hope that the venerable writer may yet be enabled to disengage himself wholly from the " Rationalists," whose irrationalism he has so well pointed out in many parts of his Third Edition ? There are still some passages in his book which can only be read with surprise and regret. This, however, makes his testimony the more valuable where he is right. f p. xxiii. ^' p. 133. INTRODUCTION. O forms, new grammatical constructions," &c., he adds, that such instruments " must be applied with the finest observation, with the most exquisite and suspicious nicety.'^ Again : " There may, no doubt, be niceties both of style and language to he detected by fine critical sagacity, by exquisite judgment, by long and patient study ^J' And once more, he speaks of "those slight changes of phrases and ivords which are discerned with such exquisite and subtle knowledge and ingenuity by the scho- lars of our day ^." This is all extremely interesting, as shewing Avhat an English scholar would naturally exjject to be the qualifica- tions of men who undertook the task of "analyzing" the book of Genesis. As applied, however, to the actual process carried on by the " Critics," such observations are the severest irony; — the more cutting, because made in entire unconsciousness of their effect. The philology of the neo- critics is, at least, as conjectural and arbitrary as the history of Baron Bunsen. Much of it (the reader of the following pages will be able to judge for himself) is inexpressibly puerile. Perhaps some apology may be needed for my having taken Dr. Colenso's Book as the subject of review in these pages, and not that of his leadei'. Professor Hupfeld'^. The rea- sons for adopting such a course are sufficiently obvious. Not one in ten thousand would be able to verify my references to h p. 135. ' p. 209. ^ " Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung." (Berlin : 1853.) At p. vi of his " Vorrede" Prof. Hupfeld speaks of "the trustful- ness, which an Inquirer and Guide into the regions of the higher Criticism finds it indisjjensable to demand from his readers; especially," he says, "in our crafty {ahgefeimten) times, when men have learnt so cleverly, like the Sophists of Greece, to defend what is most perverse, to distort what is most simple, and to make anything out of anything." Certainly he has no reason to complain of Dr. Colenso on the ground oi want of trustfulness. Even when Dr. Colenso differs from Hupfeld, it is on Kiqifeldian grounds. b2 4 INTRODUCTION. Hupfeld ; all who will, may readily have access to Dr. Colenso's publication. The German Professor's speculation might have been safely left to be dealt with by German theologians ; Dr. Colenso's comes before the public with an emphatic statement that it is considered by its author to be " THE MOST iMPOKTANT part" of his uotorious attack on the Pentateuch ^ I have undertaken the task with reluctance, on many accounts. 1. The whole book, 688 pages thick, is so full of coarse insinuation against the writers of Holy Scripture, and so destitute of critical taste, of historical perception, and, above all, of reverence for Divine things, that it is painful to read it at all, much more, therefore, to examine it in detail. One is inclined to say, " Is it not better to leave him with the whole responsibility of whatever harm his books may do, and not to run the risk of spreading the evil by repeating, though it be in order to refute, his errors ?" 2. The very refutation of this theory makes it necessary to use terms, which of themselves involve the erroneous theory, and which, besides, can scarcely be used, as thej^ are by the critics, without profaneness : — I mean, the words " Jehovist" and " Elohist." To employ these terms is, at once, to concede standing- ground to a perfectly gratuitous theory. What then must be the effect of scattering these terms over hundreds of pages as thickly as x's and y's are spread over a book of algebra ? Nor is the unfair effect of this on the argument the only injurious result ; a still worse consequence is its obvious tendency to deaden the feeling of reverence which ought ' Fref., p. xliv. " I send forth my Fifth Part into the world, content with knowing that this volume contains the most important part of my ivork, so that if, in God's Providence, I should be prevented from completing it, I shall have at least carried it so far as to secure the main object of my labours." INTRODUCTION. ever to attach to the "glorious and aweful Name"^" of God Most High. Voltaire once acknowledged to Dr. Clarke how much he had been impressed with Sir Isaac Newton's habit of never uttering the name of GrOD without a slight pause, — as if for self-recollection. What religious mind does not wish ever to feel thus? How else, indeed, can we truly pray, (the very first petition of the Lord's Prayer,) " Hallowed be Thy Name" ? 3. The inanity of the pretended arguments is such, that, for the most part, there is nothing in them capable of sus- tainino- an aro^umentative blow ; — it is like beating the air. The "critics" abstain from stating what their principles of reasoning are, and assume iheiv facts without evidence. One is reminded of the old task of binding Proteus. Shew that they have overlooked a fact which is plainly at variance with their statements; — at once they re-adjust their assertions, (with the most lavish prodigality of hypothesis,) so as to include this once adverse fact within their lines. How could you refute an adherent of the old Ptolemaic system of astro- nomy, who persisted in adding-on a new " epicycle" to ac- count for every fresh astronomical fact which you brought forward ? Only the absurd complication of his theory could at last bring him to adopt the simple notion of a Central Force, in exchange for his unlimited supply of (imaginary) celestial mechanism. It is my hope that this small pamphlet may suggest to some, — and may Bishoj) Colenso be among the number I — how all the facts, which are so unintelligible on their scheme of gratuitous assumptions, readily fall into order and har- mony, when the true view of the sacred names is adopted. Let me add, however, that these pages will be chiefly '" Deut. xxviii. 58. 6 INTRODUCTION. ensaged witli tlie refutation of errors, I hope to speak more largely on the positive value of the Divine Names in another place. My chief object here will be to exhibit the hollowness of the claims put forth by the self-styled ' Criticism;' — the larger part of the evidence being drawn from the 'Critics' themselves. It is difficult to carry on a work of this kind, without appearing sometimes to bear hardly on the individual whose writings are the subject of comment. It is my earnest desire to -avoid to the utmost anything which (however true) may irritate rather than convince. Even in my own mind I pass no judgment on the motives of men like Bishop Colenso and Professor Hupfeld. I am utterly at a loss how to explain the fact that they should have been deluded, (as they appear to be,) by the transparent sophisms, the arbitrary suppo- sitions, the flagrant violations of all historical probability, which abound in their writings. Had the books related to mere abstract science or literature, one might have been content to employ the expression that was used of Pere Hardouin's writings, — '' ses livres out perda le droit d' etre refutes.^' But though the bool^s have forfeited all claim to be answered, the Church and the world have not forfeited their right of asking that extravagances on so momentous a sub- ject should not pass down the stream of time unexposed. That even their mistakes shall be overruled to arood, I doubt not. Many a plant has been fructified by means of pollen which was brought to it unwittingly by an insect intent solely on plans of its own : — and even a vagrant scepticism, bent only on accomplishing a work of destruc- tion, may turn out to have been instrumental in fecundating theological science. SECTION I. ON THE USE MADE OP THE DIVINE NAMES nin^ AND u'Tih^, IN THE ATTEMPTED DISINTEGRATION OF GENESIS. " Man wiii'de vielmehr sicli iiber die sen auffallenden Misgriff nnd Eiickfall der neuesten Kritik wundern diirfen, .... wenn man nicht die tyrannische Macht kannte die eine heiTschende Eichtung oder angenommene Theorie unbewust iiber den Geist auch der Besseren ausiibt." (HUPFELD, Die Quellen, p. 77.) CHAPTER I. On the Ideas to be associated with the Divine Names Elohim and Yahveh, (commonly read, Jehovah). 1. The distinction between the two names is in general quite obvious. E.g., in that oft-recurring phrase, " I am Yahveh, your Elohim," it is clear that we could no more transpose the two words, than in the expression, " I am Joseph, your brother," we could interchange the words " JosepV and " brother." ' Yahveh' stands as the personal name of the Being who is speaking ; while * Elohim' is in the nature of a common noun, (though there be but One, in fact, who can be connoted by it). 2. More particularly ; Elohim expressed the character of Him " whose Eternal Power and Godhead %" discerned in the works of nature, are objects of religious reverence'' to man's spirit. Yahveh, though etymologically signif3ang " self-existent," yet, as being the personal name, gathered up into association with itself whatever attributes were manifested in God's condescending intercourse with men, — especially, therefore, His righteousness, faithfulness, and mercy. 3. In this way provision was made, from the first, for the maintenance of a pure and true theology among the Israel- ites. The name Elohim (plural in form, yet actually sin- gular) was adapted to be a protest against ^polytheistic views ; — in Him, the one God, all Divine Powers co-existed. Yet not as Pantlieism sums up the forces of the Universe into one ; for (said the name Yahveh) He is a Personal God. • Rom. i. 20. '' The word is probably derived from a root which survives iu Arabic as dliha, to fear. 10 'Elohim' the general, 'Yaliveli' the personal Name. [s. i. And that this Personal Being was not " a God afar off," in the depths of Infinite space or of Absolute existence, was further ascertained by the words, " I am Yahveh, thij Ood ;" — 'who have placed myself in a special and condescending relation to thee.' Here, I say, was provision made for a far deeper appre- hension of the Divine character than any which unaided Reason, outside the circle of special Revelation, could pos- sibly attain to. 4. To illustrate this let me quote a passage from the work of a recent thoughtful writer, who is meditating on " the Ways of God, in connexion with Providence and Redemption^" without the slightest reference to the fact upon which we are now intent. He says : " In this high and holy sphere of Moral Government, there must be results unattainable by the exercise of one Divine perfection, or hy Power alone ; and which would make it needful (to speak with reverence) that the High and Lofty One, who inhabits Eternity, should unbosom the secrets of His heart, and unfold all the rich diversity of His heavenly goodness, His patient long-suf- fering, His stern severity and deep compassion, before the view of the wondering universe." Here we have philo- sophical speculation demanding that very distinction, for which the two Divine names in Hebrew" have made provi- sion. The general idea of Power, attached to Elohim, the Ruler of the universe, is not sufficient. There are infinite depths in the Divine Nature, which can only be known as manifested in the piersonal dealings of God with man. That God would hold intercourse with man was guaranteed by the existence of the personal name, Yahveh. 5. That a very special revelation of God's character was eventually made in connexion with this name, is undeniable ; — witness that well-known passage, Exod. xxxiv. 5 — 7 ; wit- ness tlie great appellation, " Yahveh, our Righteousness *• ;" •^ Mr. Birks : at p. 19 of a work having the above title. ^ Jer. xxiii. 6. C, I .] The Theology of the O.T. corresponds to this distinction. 11 witness (I may add) the whole Law, and Psalms, and Prophets. 6. This peculiarity of Israelitic theology, — its sense of God as a gracious Being, in communion with man, — is a plain matter of historical fact. Let me appeal to one or two unsuspected witnesses. Dean Miltnan says ^ : "In all this early narrative^ [Gen. xii — XV,] the remarkable part is the conception of the Deity : — I. His Unity, His Almightiness II. His Im- materiality. III. His Personality , His active Personality. He is more than a Poioer, a Force, a Law ; He is a Being with a will, with moral attributes, revealing Himself more or less distinctly, and holding communication not only as an over- ruling influence on material things, hut with the inward con- sciousness of man." In writing thus, the historian had not the most distant notion of illustrating the use of the Sacred Names ; hut if he had been writing expressly with this view, he could scarcely have furnished a better exposition of the intention of the use o^ ' Elohim' in Gen. i. and ii. 1 —3, and of * Yahveh-Elohim' in ii. 4, ff. Similarly Professor Jowett remarks^ : " The ivondcrs of Crea- tion are not ornaments or poetical figures strewed over the pages of the Old Testament by the hand of the artist, but the frame in which it consists. And yet in this material garb the moral and spiritual nature of God is never lost sight of. . . . The terrible imagery in which the Psalmist delights to aiTay His power, is not inconsistent with the gentlest feelings of love and trust, such as are also expressed in the passage just now quoted, ' I will love Thee, Lord, my strength.' God is in nature, because He is near also to the cry of His servants. The heart of man expands in His presence ; he fears to die lest he should be taken from it. There is nothing like this in any other religion in the world. No Greek or Roman ever had the consciousness of love towards his God. No other sacred books can show a passage displaying such a range of « Hl.H. of Jews : i. p. 13. < St. Paul's Epp., ii. p. 451, 12 Ti'iie Science siqiplies a vera causa, and explains facts, [s. i. feeling as the eighteenth or the twentj^-ninth Psalm, — so awful a conccjjfion of the majesty of God, so true and tender a sense of His righteousness and loving-kindness." 7. Here then that remarkable fact, — the existence of the two Sacred Names, — has an explanation ; which is not only in itself simple and consistent, but also proved, by the testi- mony of unimpeachable witnesses, to have a vera causa cor- responding to it. 8. There is absolutely nothing on the other side to set against this. "Criticism" cannot give any tolerable reply to this first question ; — " How is it that prophets and saints were moved with such deep reverence and love for God's Holy Name ? Why were they so zealous in pra5'ing that His Name might be known over all the earth ? Why did they look on this knowledge as so yavj precious ?" To the "' critics" the variation of the Sacred Names is, for the most part, a matter of mere arbitrary caprice, or acci- dent. How, indeed, could they embrace the truth, when that truth is diametrically opposed to the Unbelief on which their pseudo-criticism has taken its stand? Having per- suaded themselves that there is no 2^^^'sonal intervention of God possible, they can but hasten to annihilate the testimony to that intervention, which is borne by the use of the very name 'Yahveh' in the sacred writings. What remains but that they obtrude upon us the fictitious hypothesis of two authors (or sets of authors) studiously attaching themselves, (no one can say why,) to mere names as such, — empty and formal distinctions, from which all life has fled ? — that the}'- drag us through a weary, meaningless, complication of verbal details, which depend on no principle, and lead to no end ; — the driest and most meagre verbal speculations the world has ever seen ? Who, that has looked at their pretended " Analysis," does not feel that they are in want of that appropriate conception ^, which alone can reduce the facts to intelligible unity ? « See Dr. Whevvell's Pliil. of the Ind. Sc, Bk. xi. CHAP. II.] Reverence of God's Name a first principle. 13 9. Let me add, that these Sacred Names are "everywhere in Scripture referred to with deepest reverence. One of the Commandments of the First Table of the Law is directed against a light use of the Name. The very purpose of the Law is summed up thus : "that thou mayest fear this (jlorious and aioefid name, Yauyer, thy God'^T This reverence con- tinued to be the badge of true religion down to the latest times : " A hook of remembrance was written before Him for them that feared YAnvEK, and that thought upon His Name." We may unhesitatingly affirm that any theory, which neg- lects (much more, which systematically offends against) these first principles of Jewish piety, — which treats the Sacred Names as it might treat algebraic formulie, — cannot be a true one. It is avroKarciKpnos, self-condemned. CIIAPTEE IL How the Divine Names are employed in G-enesis, 1. Criticism assumes that the use of the two Divine Names indicates a difference of authorship \ Our previous chapter has shewn that such an assumption is groundless; since the distinction of names corresponds to a real distinction of ideas. We now proceed briefly to shew, by a few instances, that the facts of the case are in harmony with the explanation we have given. The reader will boar in mind that the instances here pro- duced are only intended to exemplify what has been said. A full discussion of the use of the Divine Names in Holy Scriptm'e (a very fruitful subject) is not needed, or indeed suited, for our present purpose. 2. We can scarcely have a better illustration of the whole • '' Deut. xxviii. 58. ' This assumption was made originally on the strength of a misinterpreta- tion of Exod. vi. 2 — 8 : (on which see the next Chjip.) 14 Significant employment of the Sacred Names [sect. i. question than is supplied by the first four chapters of Genesis. {a) In Chap, i and ii. 1 — 3, the name Elohim is used throughout : — for in it we have the exercise of that Divine Power, Wisdom, and Goodness, of which Heaven and Earth have been preaching to man ever since he first drew breath. (Z*) In chap, iv, when man has " fallen short of the glory of God'^," and can only be restored to it by the intervention of Divine Mercy, working out that long process of redemp- tion and moral discipline in the midst of which we ourselves are still living, the name Yahveh is employed. In this Name "mercy and judgment" are combined ; whilst God, in great condescension coming near to the first human family, accepts righteous Abel, warns and judges Cain. (c) In the intermediate Section (ii. 4, . . . iii.) we have the two names conjoined, [twenty times ; — there is only one other place in the Pentateuch where this conjunction occurs, viz. Exod. ix. 30.) The introduction of the name Yahveh corresponds to the advance made in the narrative'; which no longer exhibits man as standing amidst the works of Creation, but views him as a moral being, placed in a special relation to God as a loving Father, whose command he is bound by every tie of gratitude to obey. {cl) Just so in Ps. xix, the Sacred Name " El" is used in the First Part, {vv. 1—6), of which the sum is, " The heavens declare the glory of God ;" — whilst the Second Part, begin- ning, " The law of the Lord is perfect," has only the name " Yahveh," [seven times.) [e) But whilst the use of the name Yahveh indicates this advance, the name Elohim, employed in the former Chapter, is retained in combination with it; — stamping for ever the correlation of the Two Names. He who is the gracious ^ Rom. iii. 23. ' The change of Name was observed by Tertullian, adv. Eermoy. c. 3, and" by St. Augustine, de Gen. ad lit. viii. 2 : (quoted by Hengstenberg, Auth. d. Pent. i. 181 ft".) CHAP. II.] in the Early C/tapters of Genesis. 15 Saviour and Judge of men is none other than the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. Man's sin may, for awhile, require a severance between the Two Names. But Holy- Scripture points to a time when the two shall be re-united, and all shall confess that " The Lord God Omnipotent reigneth ''\" {/) Inside the Section ii. 4, . . . iii., however, we have a very instructive variation of the Name. In iii. 1 — 6, when the Tempter is conversing with Eve, the name 'Elohim' is used. " Yea, hath God said ?" The more remote name was certainly well suited to his purpose. It altered the point of view. It suo:2:ested some such train of thought as this : " What ? the great Creator care for your eating or not eating? He who made all things good, — can He have bidden you to abstain from what is good for food?" In other words, it removed the question away from the moral, to a speculative, rationalizing, point of view: — and how much \\ as gained when that step was once taken ! 3. In chap, v, (which, after reverting to the creation of man, traces the descent of Noah from Adam,) the name ' Elohim' is again employed. The propriety of this scarcely needs to be pointed out. But at ver. 29 of this chapter, where allusion is made to the curse which had fallen on the ground for man's sin, ' Yahveh' recurs. That sentence had all along been a mark of God's righteous intolerance of sin. Rather than leave sin unpunished. He will have the spread of physical beauty and fertility over the earth arrested. Paradise shall remain for the present an unprolific germ. The ground at large shall be cursed; — in order that man may know that " it is an evil and a bitter thing to forsake THE Lord "." 4. In the middle of chap, v we are told that Enoch " walked with God :" and the same is said of Noah in vi. 9. On this latter passage it has been asked : " Why should it be in ver. 8, ' Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord,' "' Rev. xi. 17. " -Icr. ii. 19. 16 The ajjpropriaieness of each name in general evident, [s. i. and yet in ver. 9, ' Noah walked with God ?' Whi/ not rather, ' walked tvith the Lord ?' " The answer is easy. When God condescends to accept His servant, ' Yahveh,' the Name of gracious condescension, is the appropriate term. AVhen Noah rises into the Divine life, conformed more and more to "the image oi Sim who created him," ' God' is the appropriate word. — For a like reason, we find always, " a man of God," " sons of God," (never, " a man of the Lord," or " sons of the Lord.") 5. Thus much in general may suffice for our present purpose. Any one who will pursue the inquiry may find abundance of evidence confirmatory of the distinction we have drawn. Let it be observed, however, that, because it is fitting in certain cases that one or other of the Names should be used almost exclusively, it by no means follows that in other cases they may not both be employed in the same chapter, section, or even verse, according to the varying aspects of the subject-matter. It is the " same God, who works all in all;" — but it is as the Righteous One that He condemns the ante-diluvian race to death ; as the Almighty that He exe- cutes the sentence. As God, He bids the waves of the sea roll in upon the land — so suspending for the time His own formative fiat, (Gen. i. 9, 10) ; as Lord, He bids Noah enter the ark, and closes the door behind him ; — so setting the seal of His faithful love upon that floating sepulchre. Again, it is no less obvious that there may be cases in which no special attention is called to this or that aspect of the Divine procedure ; and therefore (since one name must be used) a very slight inclination of meaning would suffice in such instances to determine which should be employed. For the most part, the appropriateness of the Name which actually occurs is readily seen. 6. Before closing this chapter, I must advert very briefly to one more portion of the Book of Genesis; — the History of Joseph, (chap, xxxvii, xxxix ... 1.) In this long portion CHAP. II.] ' Elohim' used in the Ilintonj of Joseph. 17 the name Yahveh occurs only in ch. xxxix and xlix. In cb. xxxix, indeed, it is used eight times; shedding its light over the captivity and imprisonment of Joseph. "The Lord was with Joseph and shewed hira mercy." By means of that prolonged sujffering the gracious Yahveh was working out (not only Joseph's own spiritual discipline °, but also) an im- portant step in the developoment of the Covenant-promise. After that, it might have seemed as if all went on by natural causes, under God's ordinary providential govern- ment : — as if the Covenant of special mercy, with its guarantee of Canaan, had withdrawn into the background, though the general power and wisdom and goodness of God stood out strongly to view. Accordingly Elohim is the word which is (with one exception, xlix. 18,) exclusively used in chh. xl— 1. In the midst of all this, however, the promise was not really forgotten. Jacob, dying at a distance from Canaan, parts the land among his twelve sons ; and in the very centre of his dying Address records, in one brief sentence, what was at the core of his spiritual life. " I have waited for Thy salvation, Yahveh V Not God's wondrous providential Goodness, — but His cove- nanted Faithfulness, — was what the Patriarch's inmost soul relied upon. 7. These instances may suffice for shewing that the ex- planation given in the preceding chapter is not only (as was there seen) a vera causa, but is also an adequate cause. It explains the facts and throws light on the whole course of the narrative. We have seen, too, that at the very outset of human his- tory the Divine Names were used in conjunction; almost as if it had been intended to exclude any supposition of antagonism between them p. ° Of which the Psahn speaks (cv. 19), " The word {or, promise) of the Lord tried him." 1" So much even tlic Dismemberers are compelled to allow. See Coleiiso, p. 193 ; and C. A., § 3. i. C 18 On the meaning ()/'37"n^ '"'« E,rod. vi. 3. [sect. i. 8. There certainly, then, is no prima facie reason, internal to the hook itself, why from the employment of these two Divine Names any one should infer diversity of authorship. Quite the contrary. So harmonious a use of the Names helps to bind the whole book into indissoluble unity. CHAPTEE III. On the right interpretation of Exod. vi. 2 — 8. "Whence, then," it may be asked, "did the notion of inferring a diversity of authorship from the use of the two Divine Names take its rise V The whole process had its origin, notoriously, in a certain interpretation put upon Exod. vi. 2 — 8. "VYe must, therefore, say a few words on this question. 2. The chief cause of the mistake has been, want of atten- tion to the meaning of the Hebrew verb 27"j"i3, The exact rendering of the passage is ; " God spake unto Moses and said, I am Yahveh : And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob in (quality of, or as ^) God Almighty : and (in regard to) my name Yahveh I made not myself known "■ (\"n27Tl3) to them." The patriarchs had lived under the guardian care of the Almighty ; but, as regarded the special name of covenanted Mercy, God had not manifested in act what He had promised. That this actual manifestation of Himself by experiential proof is signified by m: is made perfectly certain by such passages as the following ; — Ps. Ixxvi. 1. " Knotcn (ms) in Judah is God; In Israel great is His Name .•" — the reason of which is given in the remainder of the Psalm. He "had arisen to judgement, to '1 Cf. the use of the French en. ' So the Eng. Ver. translates the word in Ezek. vx. 5, 9. CHAP. III.] JEzekiel's exjwsitioti of the word. 19 help all the meek ones of earth.^' He had manifested Him- self by facts. Ps. xlviii. " God in her palaces is known ® {or, ascertained) as a fortress. Foil lo ! the Kings assembled, — and were dismayed — and fled." This sense of tlie word ma}' be almost said to be formu- lized in Ps. ix. 17. "Known (i^ii:) is the Lord; He has executed judgement .^' These passages shew that the verb denotes, not the com- munication of a new name, but the making good in fact that ichieh had previously been associated leith the Name. This interpretation is all but expressly put into our hands by the prophet Ezekiel (xx. 9): "I wrought/or My J^ame's sake, that it might not be polluted in the sight of the hea- then, among whom they were; in whose sight I made Mysef known i^n^y)^) to them, in bringing them forth out of the land of Egypt." With so express a comment, by a canonical writer, on the history of Exodus, there ought to be no further controversy as to the meaning of ni3- 3. TJte whole context, moreover, requires this sense. When Moses was bidden (Exod. iii. 15, 16) to go and say to the children of Israel, " Yahyeh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has appeared to me :" he answered, " Lo, they will not give credence to mo, nor hearken to my voice; for they will say, Yahveh has not appeared to thee." It never occurred to him that the people might say, " Who is Yahveh ? — We never heard of such a name. Our fathers never told us of any such name. Why think to comfort us, under our overwhelming sorrows, b}^ bringing us a strange, unheard-of, name ?" His fear was, ' I^'IT. Cp. Exod. xxxiii. 16, " Whereby shall it be ascertained ['Sl^^^) that I and Thy people have found grace in Thy sight ?" And in Elijah's prayer, (1 Kings xviii. 3G) ; "0 Yaiiveh, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be ascertained (and prove 1 by plain facts, Vl^\\ that Thou art God in Israel." c2 20 A character verified, not a new name promuhjed. [sect. i. lest they should not believe that the Person so designated had communicated with him. To meet this fear, Moses was empowered to work mira- cles (iv. 5,) "in order that they may believe that Yahveh, the God of their fat/iers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has appeared to thee." When Moses's first visit to Pharaoh issued only in adding to their misery, they say : " Yahveh look upon you and judge." They use His name naturally as one they were acquainted with ; but they believe that Moses had not really received a message from Him. To remed}' this incredulity was the purpose of the assurance given in vi. 2 — 8. It begins with " I am Yahveh ;" just as when Joseph made himself known to his brethren he began with, " I am Joseph." In both cases, it was the re-appearance of a person ; who, though intimately known of old to the parties addressed, had for a long time not held (or seemed not to be holding) any communication with them. The burden of the address was, — that He was now about- to faJfil the promise which He had made to their fathers ; " And ye shall knoio that I am Tasveh your God." Most assuredly the consolation conveyed in this message did not lie in the promulgation of a new name : — that would have perplexed, rather than comforted. It lay in the hope which the Name afforded, that He who had said to Abram (Gen. XV. 7,) "/ am YAifvi:jT, that brought thee out of Ur of -the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it," was now about to make good His word of promise. 4. Thus the passage, read along with its context, is not only not in contradiction with the passages of Genesis which use the name Yahveh ; but jyresupposes that the name had been known to the patriarchs. Over and over again, it is ; ' YAHVEn, your fathers' God, is about to make Him- self known to you.' IIoio He did so, is evident f] om the song of Moses : (F.xod. XV.) : " I will sing unto Yaiivkh, for lie has triumphed CHAP. III.] The promise made good at the Exodus. 21 cjJorioiishj .... Who is like unto Thee, Yahveh, among the gods ? . . . . Yahveh shall reign for ever and ever \" The Redemption out of Egypt was the overt act by which the Theocracy was established. From this time onward " YjinrEn, thy God" became the characteristic mark of true Israelitic faith ; as " Yahveh, He is the God," was the formula by which the Israelites renounced their allegiance to Baal. 5. Consequently, Exod. vi. 2 — 8, rightly interpreted, proves the baselessness of the supposition, on which the Dismem- berers rely for the establishment of their theory ; and with the disappearance of that supposition, cadit qiKBstio, their theory collapses. The whole remaining part of the discussion, therefore, is ex abundanti, and a work of charity. The ground on which their argument rests lias been cut away from beneath them ; the}'' have no fulcrum on which to rest their hypothesis. We now proceed to shew that, even supposing for the time the correctness of their hypothesis, their attempt to dis- member Genesis upon that hypothesis is an utter failure. CHAPTEE IV. Failure of tlie attempt to employ the Divine Names as a Criterion of diverse Authorship. That the varying use of the Sacred Names, Elohim and Yahveh, was the primary ground on which the Dismember- ment Theory took its stand, is evident. The very names assigned to the supposed writers of the different documents into which the Book of Genesis is to be resolved,—" Elohist," " Second Elohist," " Jehovist/' " Se- cond Jehovist," &c., — implies this. In many cases there is plainly no other reason than this 22 The Dismemberers pro/ess to tahe the Sacred Names [s. i. for attempting to break up the connexion of passages, as is constantly done by the "critics." Thus, on ch. xx, Dr. Colenso says : [C. A., ^. 78) : — " The resemblance between the style of these (later) Elohistic passages and that of the Jehovist is so very great that it becomes at times a matter of some difficulty to discriminate tliemP But why try to " discriminate" what is so uniform in its texture ? Only because the occurrence of the Sacred Names required you, on your hypothesis, to make the attempt. What but this, again, led you to dissever v. 18 from the rest of this chapter ? Or what but this suggested the endeavour to rend such a verse as vii. 16 into two parts ? Let us inquire, then, how far the attempt to employ this primary criterion has succeeded. §1. In many cases the decision arrived at by the dismemberers is directly in oi^position to u'hat this criterion would tvar- rant. 1. In the last eleven chapters of Genesis, comprising a quarter of the whole book, the sacred name Elohim is (with one single exception*) exclusively used. Yet eight- ninths of this large section are not included by Dr. Colenso in the (supposed) " Elohistic Document," called E, which is taken as the basis of the comparisons set on foot at pp. 18—47. This single fact is sufficient to vitiate the whole of the attempted process of disintegration. //" the use of the sacred names be taken as the Criterion, ch. xli — xlviii must be assigned to E, quite as much as ch. i or xvii. So too must ch. xxxiii, of which Dr. Colenso writes ; (C. A., p. 79) :- ' See a'love p. 17. c. IV.] as their Criterion; hat do not really asc them as such. 23 "Inxxxiii, — a Jehovistic chapter, as Hupfeld allows, — "■ Elohini' is used exclusively, four times." 3. The testimony of ch. xx, xxi, is similar. Dr. Colenso says, at p. 58 : — "A glance at xx. 1 — 17 will shew that iu this Section i^At' name '■ Elohim^ is used exclusively , (six times,) viz. in v. 3, 6, 11, 13, 17; and the same phenomenon occui's again in xxi. 6 — 22, tvhere we have '■ Elohini' nine times, v. 6, 12, 17, 19, 20, 22, and no ' Jehovah.'' " Yet these two sections, also, are placed in the list of " non-Elohistic^' passages, (denoted collectively by the term X; p. 18, fF.) Indeed Dr. Colenso is never tired of assert- ing that this " Second Elohist,'' far from living " at a very different age," (see above p. 1) from the ' Jehovist,' teas ^^ really one and the same person^'' (p. 182). He even enun- ciates this view in algebraic form thus ; J' = E2. ^^ And he is, so far, right. There certainly is no reason for doubting the identity of the writer of these chapters with the writer of the passages which he assigns to J. But then this is a confession that the presumed criterion is no criterion at all. 3. Again in ch. xxii. 1 — 12 the name Elohim occurs five times, and Yahveh only once; "which fact," say« Hupfeld, (quoted in C. A., p. 93) ^'perplexes criticism ;" i. e, the a priori criticism, the uncriticism, which is (by its own confession) chiefly intent on proving " two main conclusions, the non-Mosaic authorship of Genesis and the unhistorical cha- racter of a great portion of its contents." (p. 305.) There is nothing in the above fact to " perplex " any " Cp. p. G6. " This, in short, is the conviction which has been more and more pressed upon me as I have proceedeJ with this inquiry, viz. that all the diJficuUies of the case — the jperplexlng ijhenomeiia wliich have led to so much difference of opinion between Hupfekl and Bohmer as to the portions which should be assigned to E^ and J respectively — may all be explained on the sup- position that these 1134 verses [being three-fourths of the whole book] really helong to one and the same author." 24 Br. C.'ii stafcmonts of his results fatal to his theory, [s. ii. honest man, who wishes to conform his opinion to facts, and not make facts bend to a predetermined opinion. 4. Similarly cli. xxxi is assigned to the ' Jehovist,' ^'notwithstanding the fact that the name ' Elohim ' is used as a personal name iu it seven, times, v. 7, 9, 16, 24, 42, 50." (C A., p. 165.) 5. At p. 190, in a concise account of the results of his "Analysis,^' we find the following : — "P (E. 22, J. 0); P (E. 67, J. 7);" that is to say ; the " First Set of Jehovistic Insertions" con- tains Elohim twenty-two times, and the other sacred name not once ; and the "Second Set of Jehovistic Insertions" con- tains Elohim sixty-seven times and Yahvefi only seven. One might well ask, on reading such statements ; — Is Dr. Colenso's book, after all, not meant to refute the " Critics " in the way of reductio ad ahsurdum ? Is he not (as mathe- maticians are wont to do) adopting a false premiss for the time, in order that by arguing upon it he may arrive at results which will compel the abandonment of the premiss ? § n. Impossibility of effecting the desired severance hy this Criterion. This is implied in the formula already quoted, J^= Ej. For while the notation requires us to suppose that two diverse documents have been determined by the criterion of the Sacred Names, the equation denies that they are diverse. But we need not infer it by implication ; there is abundance of direct evidence to the same ejffect. 1. At p. 59, Dr. Colenso writes: — " While the difference in style (if any) between these two writers [J and Eo] is certainly so slight as to afford a very poor criterion for separating their different compositions, this difficulty is increased by the fact that the Jeliovist not unfreqmnthj uses the name 'JSlohim,' and sometimes even exclusively." CHAP, IV.] Ei an anihifjuons and evasive fiction. 25 It is understating the case to say merely tliat " the diffi- culty is increased f — it is really insuperable. There is absolutely no difference of style between the parts of the book, which are assigned to E,, and J. The truth is, that this fiction of a " Second Elohist " was only adopted to evade the inconvenient facts presented, by ch. xx and xxi. E2 was a bi-frontal being, who might be placed, when neces- sary, under the general description of " Jehovistic," and yet might be turned round occasionally when the "critics" were hard pressed, and viewed as " Elohistic." And even this fiction can only be maintained by arbitrarily cutting out certain portions of these chapters ; e. g. the last verse of ch. xx, (which contains the name Yahveh). So that the case stands thus : — Ch. XX contains the name 'Yahveh,' which you say is never used by the " Second Elohist." {C. A., p. 142.) Con- sequently; either your statement is untrue, if we take the chapter as it is ; or, if you wrench v. IS out of the chapter, you are giving us a mere nugatory statement, when you say that the name ' Yahveh' " never occurs in E2." How can it occur, if, whenever it does occur, you cut it out ? Either E2 is " Elohistic," and then you have no right to in- clude it, as you have done, under your X (" non-Elohistic") ; or it is "Jehovistic," and then the sacred names clearly can furnish no such criterion as you pretend they do. 2. At C. A., p. 144, he writes : — " There is, a^ Hupfeld observes, p. 43, no visible trace of any interruption in the flow of the narrative, or of any connecting Hnk interpolated between the account in xxx. 1, &c., and the pre- ceding context. And yet the latter contains only ^Jehovah,' xxix. 31 — 33, 35, tvhich name recurs again in xxx. 24"^, 27, 30; ivhile in the interval ^ Elohini' is icsed repeatedly, nine times.'" In other words the narrative, which ought y on the applica- tion of this criterion, to drop easily asunder, remains insepa- rably one. There is not so much (it is admitted) as " a trace of a seam." {C. A., p. 153.) 26 The logical momentum of a strong 'Critical' Will. [s. ii. 3. He makes xxxv. 1 — 7 to be " Jeliovistic ; " — yet the name Elohim occurs in it fve times, and the other sacred name not once. 4. In the short passage xxviii. 12—22 tlie name Elohim occurs seven times, and Yahveh: four times; yet the narra- tive will not bear to be broken up. What is to be done ? Dr. Colenso assigns the whole of it to J. Yet icithin the space of these eleven verses the name Elohim occurs as many times as the name Yahveh occurs in the whole of the First and Second Sets of " Jehovistie Insertions," which comprise 568 verses, and contain the name Elohim 89 times. That is, binefly ; — a ratio of 7 : 89 has strength enough to decide the dominant character of 568 verses, (when the " critics" WILL it;) but a ratio of 7 : 4 has no power to stamp the character of eleven verses, (when the " critics" do not WILL it.) 5. At p. 65 we have the following very explicit statement. Any of the opponents of the Disintegrators might have hesi- tated to write so vigorously for fear of being thought guilty of caricature. " In fact, even on Hupfeld's showing, something like the above conclusion must follow. He admits that these last eleven chapters of Genesis are made up almost entireljr of matter due to Eg and J, though Jte does not attempt to separate the parts due to these authors. But, if he had effected this separation, it must have appeared that J had not used here ^ Jehovah^ at all, except once in xlix. 18, but, on the contrary, had used exclusively ' Elohim ;' — "unless, indeed, the separation could have been effected by him in such a way as to leave to J only portions in which no name of the Deity occurs at all. And this I believe to be impossible." That simple narrative — the History of Joseph — baffles all the ingenuity and audacity of a "criticism" which is fettered by nothing short of impossihility ''. * Dean Milman, speaking of the History of Joseph, says, "The relation in the Book of Genesis is, perhaps, the most exquisite model of the manner in c. IV.] Serious Charges made by Dr. C. against the 'Jehovist/ 27 6. We have not, however, yet reached the acme of " criti- cal'' self-exposure. At p. 193 Dr. Colenso writes as fol- lows : — "la P we find another step taken in the same direction. The name ' Jehovah ' has now, in the latter part of David's reign, be- come more freely and popularly used ; and the writer determines to introduce it at once in his story from the first, not considering, ap- parently, or not regarding as of ang moment, the contradiction which 'Would tli'is be imported into the narrative. And, indeed, having already begun to employ it in his previous insertions (J*) perhaps he may have thought it best to do this, — abandoning the Elohistic idea of the origination of the name in the time of Moses, and repre- senting it as known from the days of the first man downwards. But in order to guard against any mistake, he PERTixAoiousLr couples the two names together, ' Jehovah — Elohim,' in ii. 4'' — iii. 24 twenty times, as if desiring to impress strongly on the reader that the 'Jehovah,' of whom he was about to write, was the same exactly as the ' Elohim' of the older writer." " lie pertinaciously couples the two names together, twenig times !" What stubborn wilfulness, — to throw so serious a difEculty in the way of men who 3,000 years later, in order to prove the book to be " unhistorical," might try to introduce the notion that these names were marks of diverse authorship ! But ^^ pertinaciouslg^^ intent as this writer was on " guard- ing against mistake" on this head, yet, — strange to say — he allows a passage to remain uncorrected, which (on Dr. Co- which HISTORY, ivithout elevating its tone, or departing from its plain and unadorned veracity, assumes the language and spirit of tlie most touching poetry." (Hist, of the Jews, I. p. 57.) To the 'critics' this is all imperceptible. " JVon tibi spiro." But, if they will not understand its historical beauty, (set aside all thought of its profound theological lessons,) they cannot escape from it. It stands a firm barrier against all their attempts to de-historieize " what may be called, by the most modest of its august titles, the oldest and most venerable document of human history. ' (Mr. Gladstone's Address at Edinburgh.) 28 ' Criticism' projecting a portrait of itself. [sect. i. lenso's li3'pothesis) " imports" a glaring " contradiction'" into the narrative, and that respecting a subject of vital import- ance. But he did not " consider," or did not " regard as of any moment," the existence of this contradiction, — although the one grand distinguishing peculiarity that made him a " Jehovist" was tliat he had " abandoned the Elohistic idea of the origination of the Name in the time of Moses." Such are the puerilities, which " criticism" parades before the world, as the means of overthrowing the "historical" character of the book of Genesis. Will it succeed ? No ! Dr. Colenso. The men of England may have allowed their theological studies to be too one-sided, and, when sur- prised by bold assertions, may be staggered for a time ; but you have not done justice to the intelligence even of the "working-classes" (p. xliii), if you think they are unable to see through, and to pass sentence on, such writing as the above. It cannot be long before they make up their minds as to tcho the 2^oco-curante party is. They cannot long doubt whether the man who has scattered contradictions over his writings, and then borne himself so lightly and heedlessly in the midst of them, be Dr. Colenso himself, or one of those whom even he is obliged to speak of as " good and great men, . . . leading men of their respective ages." (p. 180.) 7. One more proof, and we close the chapter. The xvii*^ chapter is looked upon as " the Elohistic model section." Yet the name Yahveh lies firmly imbedded in the very first verse. " This phenomenon" says Dr. Colenso, " has perplexed all CRITICAL Commentators." Similar " perplexities" occur in dealing with chapters xxii and xlix ; but there the difficulties presented by the occur- rence of this name 'Yahveh' may be evaded (though with great difiiculty) by calling the chapters " Jehovistic." But if this method were applied to ch. xvii, the whole disintegra- tion-scheme would have to be surrendered at once. CHAP. IV.] Which shall give way, — Dr. Colenso or Facts ? 29 What then is to be done ? The only resource is to f/et rid of the evidence, by altering the text. Hupfeld hints at the pomhility of resorting to what he allows to be " a doubtful assumption ;" but Dr. Colenso has no such delicacy. He says unhesitatingl}' : " / conclude, that the original text is here corrupted." That is, he admits that his view cannot he held consistently tvith the FACTS, tvhich he is pretending to analyse. In other words, either he or facts must give way. Accordingly he proceeds to set in motion all his machinery for crushing facts. {C. A., p. 67.) " The name may have ' slipt in' by an oversight on the part of the original writer," " or by an interpolation of a later Compiler/' " or by a mere error of transcription ;" — at any rate, it " has been changed sonie- how." Why ? The only reason is, — it is necessary for their pui'pose to have it so. The legitimate argument would run thus : " If our scheme for the dismembermeut of Genesis were correct, there ought to he 'Elohim' in ver. 1. — But this is not the case; therefore our scheme cannot stand." In spite of this clear evidence, however, Dr. Colenso con- tinues his course unmoved: and at a later page (C. A., p. 142) does not scruple to make this assertion : — "The Elohist never uses 'Jehovah' throughout the book of Genesis." Much more might easily be added y ; but I am willing to leave any honest mind to supply the verdict on the evidence already given. Has it not been amply proved that — even granting the " critics" full liberty, for the time, to employ their (ground- less) hypothesis, — tlie book of Genesis cannot be severed by y We shall have to recur to this suhjcct — the violent methods adopted by the Dismemberers, — at a later period. 30 This Chapter ex abundant!. [s. t. c. iv. emplo3'ing the two Sacred Names as a criterion of diverse authorship ? The reader will be pleased to bear in mind that in tliis chapter we have been exhibiting the inefficacy of the ''critical" mode of procedure, even upon thei)' own hypothesis, — that hypothesis itself having previously been proved to be contradictory to facts, and therefore worthless. SECTION 11. ON THE ENDEAVOUR TO MAKE OUT A DIVERSITY OF STYLE WITH A VIEW TO THE DISMEMBERMENT OF GENESIS. " The idea that tlie poem [the Hiad] as we read it grew out of atoms not originally designed for the places which they now occupy, involves us in new and inextricable difficulties when we seek to elucidate either the mode of coalescence or the degree of existing unity. " The advocates of the Wolfian theory appear to feel the difficulties which beset it ; for tJieir language is 7uavering in rested to their supposed primary atoms " But if it be granted that the original constituent songs were so composed, though by different poets, as that the more recent were adapted to the earlier, with more or less of dexterity and success, this brings us into totally different conditions of the problem ; // is a virtual surrender of the Wolfian hypothesis, which however Lach- mann both means to defend, and does defend with ability ; though his vindication of it has, to my mind, only the effect of EXPOSING ITS IN- HEEENT WEAKNESS, BY CARRYINa IT OUT INTO SOMETHING DE- TAILED AND POSITIVE." Me. GEOTE, History of Greece, (ii. 232). " For my part, I decline to discard any item of the Thrasyllian Canon, upon such evidence as they produce : I think it is a safer and more philosophical proceeding to accept the entire Canon, and to acco7nmodate 7ny general theory of Plato (so far as I am able to frame one) to each and all of its cofitents,''^ Me. Geote, Plato, (i. 206). 33 CIIAPTEE I. The Cliaracter of the so-called Argument from " Style." 1. Dr. Colenso is constantly speaking of the different sfi/ks of the writers, E and J. Nay, it would seem as if he had some philological test by which he can discriminate certain slighter changes of style in the same writer, so that he can divide what was written by J at an early period (J' or E2) from what he wrote at a later period (J"). He thinks he can decide that the writer has been "increasing in ease and fluency." (p. 65.) It may not be improper to ask what qualifications a per- son who undertakes to make such nice distinctions in the style of a Hebrew writer has brought to his task. This will be briefly examined into in the appendix to this chapter. At present I wish only to call attention to what Dr. Colenso means by the word " style.'' 2. We all know what a subtle thing " style" is ; — " quod nequeo monstrare et sentio tantum." ' Sometimes it has peculiarities of grammatical inflexion associated with it ; more frequently it arises from the arrangement of words in a clause, the rhythm of its sentences, or the introduction of slight nuances in the meaning of words. These, however, do not enter at all into Dr. Colenso's notion of style. Again, in a composite language like English, the mere vocabulary comes into consideration as an element of style. One style savours more of Latin, another of Saxon, &c. But it is not even alleged that there is anything of this kind possible in Hebrew, which is a simple, and not a composite, lanjjuase. 3. Dr. Colenso's notion of stijle is quite different from aught hitherto mentioned. According to his argument, the D 34 Style not to he determined by mhject-raatter . [sect. ir. recurrence of the same tvords constitutes identity of style ; the want of such recurrence implies difference of style; — difference of style in such a sense as compels us to infer diversity of authorship. Each writer is supposed to have at his disposal a limited number of "formuke" (p. 27), within the range of which he must work. He must in each chapter employ these " formulae," and these only. He must be con- tent with one small portion of his mother-tongue, and not dare to venture across the limits of that portion, — on pain of losing his identity. Consequently, (on Dr. Colenso's hypo- thesis,) if I find words present in one part of a book which are absent from another part, I am warranted in concluding that these two parts were written by different authors. 4. It might seem unnecessary to point out the absurdity of such a view. What would be thought of any man who tried to apply it to the decomposition, e.g., of Herodotus ? When Herodotus is describing Babylon, Egypt, and Scythia, he uses different words from those that occur in the speeches of Artabanus and Mardonius. Of course, it was impossible for him to do otherwise. Who ever dreamt of asserting that this implied any difference of " style," and that we must on this account break up the " Nine Muses" between several authors ? Yet this would be precisely analogous to what the "critics," whom Dr. Colenso follows, have attempted to do with the . book of Genesis. E.g. In the description of the preparation of the Earth for man^s inhabitation, and in the narratives of God's cove- nants with Noah and Abraham, many terms are used which were not likely to occur in the history of Joseph. Conversely, many words ("comfort," "fear," "love," &c.) occur in this history which were not wanted in the account of the Six Days' work. Does this justify us in inferring a difference of style between these parts, and a consequent diversity of authorship ? According to Dr. Colenso's argument throughout his CHAP. I.] Dr. Colenso's argument baseless. 35 Analysis it docs. By far the greater part of the words, phrases, and " formuliB," on which his dissection of Genesis rests, are simple and easy words % with which any intelli- gent writer must have been familiar; yet because they are not scattered indiscriminately over the whole book, — because they are not found, where they were not wanted, — we are to demand a diversity of authors, one for the places where they do occur, and another for those where they do not. He never could have attributed one particle of weight to such a method of reasoning, unless he had previously made up his mind that the dismemberment must be attempted somehow. The argument is devoid of any logical basis whatever. We might fairly abstain, then, from noticing this argu- ment from "style" any further. But as our object is to satisfy and convince, as well as to refute, we purpose, (as in the former section, so here,) to follow Dr. Colenso's actual argument into its details, and shew ex ahundanti that (even on the " critic's" own standing-ground) this verbal " analysis" is utterly ineffectual to the purpose for which it was em- ployed. APPENDIX TO CHAP. I. On Dr. Colenso's qualificntions for condiictinfj an ijiqitiri/ info Hebrew " sf//Ie '\" A FEW instances will suffice to enable the reader to form an opinion about Dr. Colenso's competency for executing so delicate a task. "■ E.g. "To send," "tell," "know," "place," "serve," "find," "leave," "slay," "grow," "run," " weep," "love," "hate," "fear," "word," "dream," " lad," " tent," "behind," "beside," " a little water," " a little food," "in that day," "in that night," " perhap.s." — Dr. Colenso admits in one place that such expressions "might have been used by the Elohist, and probably would be found used by Mm, whenever the occasion required it." (p. 35.) It follows, therefore, that so far as what he calls " style" is concerned, there is no reason why E and .T might not be one and the same person j which is just to undo nil that liis 300 pages of " Analysis" are toiling so painfully to elfict. '■ 1 would yhuliy have spared both mysulf and Ur. Culcnso the pain ul' such i) 2 36 Dr. CoJcnsd's acquaintance with Hebrew. [sect. ii. 1. What shall wo say of his rais-spelling at least eight times'^ (aud I think invariably) so common a word as the pronoun of the first person sing., "^33W ? He writes it ''p^^ ; and in four out of the eight places has enforced his wrong spelling by printing it in Italic thus ; " dnochi." This is much as if a person undertaking to dismember the Gospel of St. Matthew were to tabulate the pronoun of the first person plural thus, [eixeis, " hemeis."^ 2. Hebrew phrases, which are of common occurrence, are rendered by Dr. Colenso with a startling awkwardness of English phrase, which certainly does not suggest the idea of familiarity with the language. E.g. (a) He several times renders D^27, (" the same/') hj, " the bone of." See p. 7, 19, 200, and C. -4., p. 25, 70. Similarly in " analyzing" a French work, one might produce a large number of striking idiosyncrasies of language on almost any page by translating in this way; " heaucoup d'esprit, — _^«e- hlow of spirit ;" " je ne sais j)(i8 — I not know a step." (b) He renders C^n npb, " the lip of the sea :" (p. 32, 268, C. A., p. 96). So a beginner in Latin might render "sinus lonicus" by " the Ionian bosom." (c) He translates ''Sy, " at the mouth of," (p. 229, cp. C. A., p. 224). As if one were to render " au pied de la lettre — at the foot of the letter." 3. At p. 29 he writes the fem. of V^., as if it were the same as the fem. third pers. pret. of the verb, thus: " niv^, yaledah :" just as great a blunder as if a boy having to give the fem. of (piXo-i were to write it thus ; " (f)iXei, jyhiiei." 4. At p. 229 he renders IDn ivn, (E.V. rightly " protested unto us") by "protested among usj" shewing that he was not acquainted with so simple a construction as ^n "riTT. At an exposure. But it would be no kindness to him to omit it; and a regard to the truth, which he has so vehemently persecuted, and to the prophets and saints of God, whom he has disparaged and calumniated, demands its inser- tion. I shall confine myself to a simple exposition oi facts. Let others judge of the inferences that must issue out of them. " See p. 19, 21, (twice,) 25, 27 (twice) j and C. A., 20, 98. CHAP. I.] Sjjecimen of his critical talent. 37 this rate we ought to make Solomon (1 Kings ii. 42) address Shimei thus : " Did I not protest among thee ?" 5. These are all cases that belong to the rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew. Of course, one who could make mistakes like the above cannot possibly have entered into the nicer distinctions of grammar. Indeed, I do not re- member to have observed in any part of the volume a single trace of his being even conscious of the existence of the more special rules of Hebrew syntax. Take the following remark as a specimen in this depart- ment, {C. A., p. 217) :— "■ xli. 12, ' and there was there with us a Hebrew boy.' ''.... Perhaps Ihe Hebrew should be pointed — not UXD^, ' and there,' but — UW) 'and he placed,' comp. xxx. 41." This proves that he does not understand anj^thing of the laws of the Tenses. Every Hebrew scholar knows that 'dD^ could not possibl}/ stand here ; — we should want of neces- sity nb>^. He was evidently misled by xxx. 41, where Dtt?") occurs, but in an entirely different construction, viz. as a frequentative ; which is proved (not that there is need of proof) by the n^b:^-Hb of V. 42 ''. 6. The above cases all refer to simple grammar ; — a know- ledge of which is commonly thought essential to a critic. Let me add one out of many specimens of Dr. Colenso's qualifications for the work of exegesis. There is a narrative in ch. xxi. full of tenderness, but containing one word, (in v. 15,) which has been misunder- •• Not to let this rest only on my assertion, let me refer to Ewald, Ajixf. Lehrh. der Hehr. S. ; § 3 1.2, b. ; where this very passage (xxx. 41) is referred to as an example of the " perfectura consecutivum" used " bcl Schilderung dauernder oder oft tinederlioUer Thaten" . . . . " indem mitten an die Erzilh- lung einmal geschehener Dinge auch etwas als mchr weilend oder sich wieder- holend angekniipft werden kann, 1 Sam. 1, 3. 7, 15 f. 16, 23. 17, 20. Gen. 30. 41 f. 38, 9. 2 Kon. 6, 10. 21, 6." 38 His way of handling Gen. xxi. 14 — 20. [s. ii. c. i. stood. Still, — in spite of this, — tlie touching beauty of the narrative is most evident. Dean Milman — himself both poet and historian — observes : "History or iwetry scarcely presents us with any passage which surpasses in simple p)athos the description of Hagar, not daring to look iipon her child, while he is perishing with thirst." See, now, how Dr. Colenso treats this narrative. (C A., p. 87.) " The expressions in v. 14, 15, 20 are not incon- sistent with the idea of Ishmael's being a great boy of four- teen, even supposing that his mother carried him on her back ; since TJmkungo, son of Umpande, King of the Zulus, was just such a lad as this, and very fat, when he fled from his brother's fury not long ago ; and he was then carried by his mother, and might have been ' cast under a tree' by her, if dying from thirst.^' Such is the delicate handling the passage receives from him. Now, as a matter of fact, it is quite plain that in the Hebrew nothing occurs, which in any way countenances the notion that Ishmael was placed on Hagar's back. And, secondly, if Dr. Colenso had given a few minutes to thinking over the LXX. rendering of "JT!?^-'?!, real eppiylrev, he might have seen a new proof of the admirable tenderness of the whole description. For this is the very word used in St. Matt. XV. 30 of laying the sick '' at the feet of Jesus :" {epptyfrav avTov