:"^- IKC-. 
 
 THE 
 
 
 %ooin^i QB^^;€ 
 
 IJ^CREDIBILITIES 
 
 OF 
 
 PART II. 
 
 OF 
 
 THE BISHOP OF NATAL'S WORK 
 
 UPON THE 
 
 PENTATEUCH. 
 
 A LAY PROTEST; 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN COLLTER -KNIGHT, 
 
 ASSISTANT IS THE LIBBAEY OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 
 
 LONDON : 
 SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS, 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 PRICE EICHTPENCE. 
 
/K(< 
 
 THE 
 
 INCREDIBILITIES 
 
 OF 
 
 P A E T II. 
 
 OF 
 
 THE BISHOP OF NATAL'S WORK 
 
 UPON THE 
 
 PENTATEUCH. 
 
 A LAY PROTEST; 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN COLLIER •KNIGHT, 
 
 ASSISTANT IN THE LIBKAEY OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 
 
 LONDON : 
 SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS, 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 PRICE EICHTPENCE. 
 
SELECTIONS PROM THE CATALOGUE 
 
 OF 
 
 SAMUEL BAGSTER & SONS. 
 
 X 
 
 Revision of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament from Critical 
 
 Sources; being an attempt to present a purer and more correct text, by the aid of the best 
 existing materials : with the Principal Various Readings found in MSS., Ancient Versions, 
 Jewish Books and Writings, Parallels, Quotations, etc., etc. By Samuel Davidson, D.D. 
 and LL.D. Octavo, price lOs. 6d. 
 
 2 
 
 Textual Criticism for English Students. — A Compariscii of the 
 
 Authorised Version of tlie New Testament, with the Critical Texts of Griesbach, Sjholz, 
 Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford, and with various Uncial MSS. ; by C. E. 
 Stuakt. Octavo and 16mo., price 3*. 
 
 3 
 
 A Treatise on the Grammar of the New Testament ; embracing 
 
 Observations on the Literal Interpretation of numerous Passages. By the Rev. Thomas 
 Sheldon Geeen, M.A. Octavo, price 8*. 6d. 
 
 4 
 
 A Re-translation of the Revelation, from a critically Revised Greek 
 
 Text. By S. P. Teegelles, LL.D. Price 25. A New Edition. 
 
 5 
 
 A Revised Translation of the New Testament. With a Notice of 
 
 the Principal Various Readings in the Greek Text. By the Rev. H. Highton, M.A., late 
 Principal of Cheltenham College, and FeUow of Queen's College, Oxford. 8vo., price 10*. 6d. 
 
 6 
 
 Scriptural Coincidences ; or Traits of Truth : being a Series of 
 
 Illustrations of the inherent Truthfulness of the Scripture Histories. By the Rev. 
 J. Duncan Ceaig, M.A. Foolscap Svo., price 3*. 
 
 7 
 
 The Commentary Wholly Biblical ; an Exposition of the Old and 
 
 New Testaments in the very Words of Scripture. With subsidiary Helps, copious Indexes, 
 Maps, etc. Three Volumes, Quarto, price ^3 3*. 
 
 Copies prepared for Presentation, always ready. 
 8 
 
 The Bible of Every Land : a History of the Sacred Scriptures, in 
 
 every Language and Dialect : with Specimen Portions of each, and Illustrative Alphabets, 
 coloured Ethnographic Maps, Tables, Indexes, etc. „ , ^ ^^ ^, „, 
 
 The Narratives contain— I. The Extent, Population, etc. of each Country.— II. The Cha- 
 racteristics of each Language.— III. The Versions executed in each Language.— IV. The 
 Results that have followed the Dissemination of the Scriptures in each Land. 
 New Edition. Quarto. Half-bound in morocco, extra. Price ^2 2*. 
 
 9 
 
 The Septuagint and Hebrew Text Interpaged ; with Various 
 
 Readings, in a single pocket volume, price 305. Kept bound in the Publishers' own 
 flexible Turkey morocco, and other styles. 
 
 10 
 
 Bagster's Paragraph Bible, in large type, in Separate Books, as 
 
 pocket volumes. With very numerous Maps, and an Introduction and Index to each Book. 
 
 Genesis, price 2*.; Exodus, 2*.; Leviticus, Is. 6rf., etc., etc. 
 
 Matthew, price Is. 6d.; Mark, Is. 4d., etc., etc. 
 
 Hebrews, price 1.?. Gd.-, James to Jude, Is. 6d.; Revelation, Is. 4rf., etc., etc. 
 Complete in Four Volumes, bound in antique cloth, price 42s. ; and m morocco, plain, 3/. 3*. 
 
 11 
 
 The Kevised Liturgy of 1689 : being the Book of Common Prayer, 
 
 Interleaved with the Alterations prepared for Convocation by the Royal Commissioners, 
 in the First Year of the Reign of "William and Mary. Edited by John Taylok. Octavo, 
 price G*. (id. 
 
.4-.c^K4, 
 
 ^.^^wTcFPftifr^ 
 
 '1 00"7 ^ 
 
 -^^ 
 
 THE 
 
 JUN 7 - 1327 
 
 << 
 
 IKCEEDIBILITIES 
 
 OF 
 
 PART II. 
 
 OF 
 
 THE BISHOP OF NATAL'S WORK 
 
 UPON THE 
 
 PENTATEUCH. 
 
 A LAY PROTEST; 
 
 BY 
 
 y 
 
 JOHN COLLYEE InIGHT, 
 
 ASSISTANT IN THE LIBHABY OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM, 
 
 LONDON : 
 SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS, 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 1863. 
 
7 
 
THE INCREDIBILITIES, 
 
 ETC., ETC. 
 
 Having in the first portion of his work maintained that the 
 "story" of the Pentateuch cannot be regarded as "historically 
 true," the Bishop takes, in this Second Part, a further step — 
 labouring with a zeal worthy of a better cause, to establish what 
 we cannot but regard as a most improbable hypothesis as to its 
 authorship. 
 
 To establish his Eureka, he first of all adopts, with some modi- 
 fications of his own, and vindicates, a previous hypothesis — that 
 known as the Elohistic ; telling us, in reference to it, that 
 " throus^hout the book of Genesis two different hands are dis- 
 tinctly visible;" that "of these two writers, one is distinguished 
 by the constant use of the word Elohim ( God) ; the other, by the 
 intermixture with it of the name Jehovah (Lord); and that some- 
 times the latter writer uses only Jehovah for considerable intervals, 
 as the other uses only Elohim: thus, in i. 1 to ii. 3, we have only 
 Elohim, thirty-five times; in xxiv., only Jehovah, nineteen times. 
 Can any one," he asks, " believe that these two passages were 
 written by one and the same writer?" (p. 175.) 
 
 Now, if taking the five books of the Pentateuch just as he finds 
 them, he could point throughout to manifest alternations from 
 what he calls the Elohistic to the Jehovistic — here a continuous 
 Elohistic portion, and there a continuous Jehovistic — first a long 
 narrative in which the names God and Lord are intermingled, 
 and then a continuous statement in which we have God only, or 
 Lord only; the hypothesis and the conclusions of this second 
 portion of his work would be so far plausible as to merit 
 investigation. 
 
 But he cannot do this. Li the first place, his instances of 
 r/enuine Elohism do not extend beyond the first chapters of the 
 
4 TUE INCREDIBILITIES, ETC. 
 
 book of Exodus, and are tlierefore not from the Pentateuch as a 
 whole; and, in the second, his Elohistic portions, even of Genesis 
 and Exodus, are for the most part not Elohistic, unless such inter- 
 polations and corruptions of the original text be assumed, as may 
 from time to time be demanded in order to bolster up his hypo- 
 thesis. Sometimes, when the hypothesis demands it, the Jehovist, 
 the later writer, is supposed to have " removed some part of the 
 Elohist's narrative; replacing it, perhaps, by one of his own." 
 (p. 175.) Sometimes, leaving the original narrative untouched, 
 he "makes his own insertions only here and there; sometimes 
 in long passages ; sometimes in short ones ; sometimes interpola- 
 tino- two or three verses only, or a single verse, or part of a verse," 
 (p. 176.) First we have a bit of the Elohistic document, then a 
 bit of the Jehovistic; and then again the Elohistic, with, perhaps, 
 if in its midst the word Jehovah makes its appearance, a Jehovistic 
 interpolation; and then another with many interpolations, and 
 then another with none at all. 
 
 For instance, we are told in Gen. xxv. 19-21 : — 
 
 19 " These are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son : Abraham begat 
 
 Isaac. -n 1 
 
 20 "And Isaac was forty years old when he took Eebekali to wife, the 
 daughter of Betlmel the Syrian of Padan-aram. 
 
 21 " And Isaac intreated the Lord {Jehovah) for his wife, because she 
 was barren," etc. 
 
 Kow, according to the Bishop, verse 20 is Elohistic, for — 
 
 " The Elohist always uses Padan or Padan-aram (/. e. the ' cultivated 
 field of the highhands,') for the mountainous district near tlie sources of the 
 Euphrates and Tigris, as in xxv. 20, etc.; whereas the Jehovist uses Aram- 
 naharaim {i.e. the ' highlands of the two rivers'), {Eng. Ver. Mesopotamia), 
 as in xxiv. 10." 
 
 Verse 21 then, which is Jehovistic, must be an interpolation, 
 and so must be verse 22, and so also verse 23. Is this probable? 
 Is this induction? Is this criticism? Can this satisfy? 
 
 In like manner the statement contained in xvii. 1, " And when 
 Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to 
 Abram, and said unto him, 1 am the Almiglitij God, walk before 
 me, and be thou perfect," is, according to the Bishop, a statement 
 of the original Elohistic narrative; for, cays he, though — 
 
 " The Elohist uses the expression El Sliaddai (the Almighty God), tlie 
 Jehovist never employs it." (p. 176.) 
 
 The words, therefore, " the Lord (Jehovah) appeared to Abram," 
 Is a Jehovistic interpolation. But where is the proof of it? ^ Tlie 
 necessities of the hypothesis demand it. Indeed; but where Is the 
 
A LAY PKOTEST. 5 
 
 proof of it? With such liberties, such assumptions, any theory 
 may be constructed, any hypothesis supported. 
 
 As far as regards tlie book of Genesis, it is quite true, indeed, that 
 in it, there are continuous sections in which the name Jehovah docs 
 not appear, but in which the Divine being is spoken of simply as 
 God ; and then long and continuous portions in which the two 
 names, Jehovah (Lord) and Elohlm (God), are intermingled. We 
 do not wish to shut our eyes to the fact. We are as anxious to 
 ascertain and to test the genuineness of the Pentateuch as the 
 Bishop himself; and to form our conclusions, not upon the autho- 
 rity of churches or of councils, but according to the data furnished 
 by the books themselves. For instance, in the account of the 
 creation contained in the first chapter, we have God only; so also 
 in chapter xxxv. (where in the first fifteen verses we have it 
 eleven times); so also in the greater portion of that succession 
 of chapters which relate to us the history of Joseph; whilst 
 in most of the others, we have either Lord God only, as in 
 Gen. 11. 3 to end, or Lord only (as in xvii. and xxix), or God and 
 Lord intermixed. 
 
 But (with the single exception of chapters 1. and 11. of Exodus) 
 nowhere else throughout the whole of the Pentateuch have we a 
 single chapter in which the Divine being is spoken of only as Elo- 
 hlm (God). Either we have Lord {i.e. Jehovah) only, or Elohlm 
 and Jehovah combined, or intermixed. 
 
 In this respect, therefore, the book of Genesis, and the first two 
 chapters of the book of Exodus, difier remarkably from the rest 
 of the Pentateuch. This cannot be denied. But it does not 
 follow therefrom that the book of Genesis consisted originally of 
 one continuous narrative (the Avork of the Elohlst), which a sub- 
 sequent writer (the Jehovist) altered, supplemented, and interpo- 
 lated. Nevertheless we cannot but think that this very remarkable 
 fact does prove something; and that which we think it does prove 
 is that the book of Genesis was rather edited by JMoses, than, pro- 
 perly speaking, written by him ; an opinion that we hold on other 
 grounds also, and that may certainly be held without impeach- 
 ment of the value and trustworthiness of the narrative. 
 
 The actual facts of the case are, we believe, that the book of 
 Genesis contains many narratives — that it is a consolidation of the 
 fragments of many writers. But that the remaining four books 
 are of tliis character — that they can be broken up into Elohlstic 
 and Jehovistic narratives — that two or more dlfierent hands can 
 be traced in them — we do most confidently deny — and as con- 
 fidently deny that it has been or can be sliown that they arc. In 
 point of fact, the Bishop does not attempt it. Thinking ho 
 has proved his point in reference to the book of Genesis, he 
 
6 THE INCREDIBILITIES, ETC. 
 
 assumes that what is true of Genesis, is true of the whole Penta- 
 teuch. He attempts to prove his hypothesis that the Pentateuch 
 is the work of more writers than one, in reference to the book of 
 Genesis and the earlier chapters of the book of Exodus; but 
 though he assumes, he makes no attempt to prove it in reference 
 to the remaining books. In fact he does not pretend that two 
 hands are discernible in the books of Leviticus at all, nor in that 
 of Exodus, or Numbers, or Deuteronomy, except to a very, very 
 small extent. 
 
 With equal confidence do we deny that the Elohistic, or so 
 called Elohistic and Jehovistic portions of the book of Genesis 
 are ever contradictory. " The following," says the Bishop, whose 
 hypothesis (so far, at least, as relates to the book of Genesis) would 
 of course be strengthened, if their discrepancy could be established, 
 " are the most noticeable points of difference between the two 
 cosmogonies. In the first, the earth emerges from the waters, 
 and is, therefore, saturated with moisture (i. 9, 10). In the 
 second, the whole face of the ground requires to be moistened 
 (ii. 6). In the first, the birds," etc. etc. (p. 172.) 
 
 But that the earth was, or was not so saturated, is the state- 
 ment of neither of the two accounts. From those accounts, we 
 may, it is true, infer either the one condition or the other — from 
 the first, that the earth was necessarily, and in the nature of 
 things, completely saturated, and that moisture was not needed; 
 from the second, that it was not so saturated, and that moisture 
 was needed. But however discrepant our inferences may be, 
 between the actual statements of the narrative there is no dis- 
 crepancy wliatever. The first chapter tells us, indeed, of the 
 emergence of the earth from the waters; but it tells us not of 
 saturation. The second tells us, that there having been, up to the 
 period spoken of, no rain, a mist went up from the earth, and 
 that this mist watered the earth — falling, of course, either as dew 
 or as rain. But that this took place when the earth was already 
 saturated, or when it took place, except that it was subsequently to 
 the creation of vegetation, it tells us not. Between the statements 
 themselves, then, there is no discrepancy. We subjoin them: — 
 
 " And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together 
 unto one place, and let the dry land appear. And God said, Let the earth 
 brinft- forth grass, etc. And the evening and the morning were the third 
 (hiy." 
 
 " Tliese are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they 
 were created in the day that the Lord God made the earth, and the hea- 
 vens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb 
 of the field before it grew ; for the Lord God had not [i. e. }iot yet\ caused 
 it to rain upon the earth [vegetation therefore was not in consequence of 
 rain], and there was not [i. e. not )/eQ a man to till the ground. But [that 
 
A LAY PROTEST. 7 
 
 tliere might be rain?] there went up a mist from the earth, and it [condensed 
 and falling as such, or as dew,] watered the whole face of the ground ; 
 and the Lord God formed man," etc. 
 
 But thougli we make these remarks in denial of the dis- 
 crepancy asserted, we would here say, once for all, that it is, we 
 believe, altogether idle to expect to be able to reason conclusively 
 and satisfactorily, upon physical grounds, in reference to the 
 astounding processes that were going on whilst creation was in 
 progress. For, if supernaturalism be allowed, is not all argument 
 absurd? Does not the supernatural suppose the abnormal — that 
 which is contrary to experience — that which is exceptional, and 
 startling, and strange? To argue, tlien, about probabilities or 
 improbabilities; to suppose that this, or that, must have been 
 — or could not have been — or, of course, was — or, was not; to 
 make shrewd guesses about the unlikely and the likely — in the 
 matter of such a marvellous instance of supernaturalism as the 
 world's creation, we cannot but regard as egregious folly. It is, 
 we believe, utterly impossible to account for the facts of creation, 
 otherwise than by allowing the possibility of all that the admis- 
 sion of supernaturalism implies. Upon physical grounds alone 
 the details of creation can be no more accounted for than can those 
 of miracle. The existing laws which govern the physical world 
 now, were not, could not have been, in full operation whilst the 
 work of creation was yet in progress — whilst, as a whole, it was 
 unfinished — incomplete. If they had, then the waters of the first 
 three days (the sun not being yet created) must have been in 
 that state of rock-like congelation in which, for want of the 
 sun's heat, they are found at the poles now. The earth, therefore, 
 at its first emergence, may or may not have been "saturated." 
 The narrative does not say that it was, and the narrative does not 
 say that it was not. 
 
 And so, with reference to tlie Deluge, and the Ark, and the 
 cubical capabilities of the same, and the food for the animals, and 
 the sun's standing still, and the like — the details of these several 
 points may have,been impossible naturally — but admit supernatu- 
 ralism, and " all things are possible." It is idle to think of ac- 
 counting for the details of Creation, or for the supernaturalisms 
 of the Deluge, or of miracle, by natural causes, or by physical 
 hypotheses. Supernaturalism is not supernaturalism, nor miracle 
 miracle, if physical difficulties or objections can disprove them. 
 
 So far, therefore, as our own reception of the narrative is con- 
 cerned, the saturation or non-saturation, the dryness or non-dryness 
 of the earth, are matters of no consequence at all. It may have 
 been saturated with moisture when it first emerged from the 
 waters, or it may not; we know nothing about it, for the narrative 
 
8 THE INCREDIBILITIES, ETC. 
 
 tells us nothing. And what was tKe condition of the earth when 
 the mist went up, or when the dew or the rain fell — of this also 
 we know nothing. And we care nothing. We accept as divinely 
 true the facts given to us; and whether we can reconcile them 
 with what we should consider probabilities, or whether we cannot, 
 we still accept them. 
 
 As regards the next discrepancy, viz., that — 
 
 "In the first account the birds and beasts are created before man (Gen. 
 i. 20, 21, 20) ; in the second, man is created before the birds and beasts 
 (ii. 17, 19.)" 
 
 it is sufficient to remark, that ii. 17, 19 say nothing what- 
 ever of precedence or succession, but merely tell us that God 
 created man, and that God created animals. It is quite true (the 
 order in which these two creations are spoken of in this second 
 chapter being the reverse of that in which they are presented to 
 us in the first) that these verses may, if there be scepticism on other 
 grounds, seem to give countenance and confirmation, but not 
 much, to the hypothesis that one of the two accounts is not correct. 
 But if there be belief, the mere difierence of order in which 
 they are brought before us is clearly no reason for the resig- 
 nation of that belief. Had the second chapter expressly said 
 that the order of these creations was the reverse of that of the 
 first chapter, this indeed would have been conclusive. But it does 
 not do this. It simply tells us that God created man, and that 
 God created beast. 
 
 But there are other discrepancies. 
 
 *' In the first account, all fowls that fly are made out of the waters 
 (i. 20) ; in the second, the fowls of the air are made out of the ground 
 (ii. 19)." 
 
 In the first account, all fowls that fly are not made out of the 
 waters. A literal translation of the verse referred to, is, of this, 
 proof complete. "And God said, Let the waters bring forth 
 abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and let fowl fly 
 above the earth. The authorised version is, '* Let the waters 
 bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and 
 fowl tliat may fly above the earth :" — but this translation of it is 
 not literal.* 
 
 We pass on to the Deluge. 
 
 " Similar contradiction," he continues, exists also in the account given of 
 the Deluge. Thus, in Gen. vi. 19, 20, we read as follows: — * Of every 
 
 * Other discrepancies of statement in these two accounts are alleged ; 
 but they are so obviously no discrepancies at all, that it is both irksome 
 and needless to endeavour to disprove them. 
 
A LAY PROTEST. 9 
 
 living thing of all flesh, hco of every sort thou shalt bring into the ark,' etc. ; 
 but in vii. 2, 3, the command is * Of exevy clean beast thou shalt take to 
 thee by sevens, the male and his female, and of beasts that are not clean, 
 hy hoo,* the male and his female : of fowls also of the air by sevens, the 
 male and the female, to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.'" 
 
 Now it is not to be denied that verses 19, 20, of chapter vi., as 
 given in the authorised version, do seem to convey the idea that 
 God directs that only "two of every sort," whether clean or unclean, 
 are to be taken into the ark. Such being tlic case, when we come 
 to vii. 2, 3, and read, as quoted by the Bishop, " Of every clean 
 beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, etc.," it is undeniable that 
 the direction given in the seventh chapter does seem to be not 
 different merely, but discrepant, from that previously issued. 
 
 Not being satisfied with the explanation^ commonly suo; Guested, 
 we have endeavoured to ascertain whether some more satisfactory 
 solution may not be discovered. And we believe that such is to 
 be found in the fact, that chapter vi. 19, is, we will not say in- 
 correctly, but ambiguously rendered. We believe that the direction 
 there given is not that " two of every sort," whether clean or 
 vmclean, are to be taken, but " twos," i. e. couples or pairs. The 
 Hebrew is ^*3P Q*^^.f How many of these "twos," or couples, 
 whether one of all animals, or whether seven of the clean and one 
 of the unclean, is a point upon which chapter vi. says nothing. 
 It simply directs that the animals preserved are to be so many 
 " twos." It is not till we get to chapter vii. that the number of 
 these couples is spoken of. That chapter furnishes additional 
 but not different directions. The directions of these two chapters, 
 then, if we understand chapter vi. 19 as above, so far from being- 
 discrepant, harmonize most thoroughly.^ 
 
 In reference to the name Jehovah (Lord), to which the re- 
 mainder of the volume is devoted, the Bishop, after quoting the 
 well-known passage, 
 
 "And God spake unto Moses, and said, I am Jehovah. And I appeared 
 unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of [rather, as§] 
 God Almight}^ but by [or rather, as /o\\^ my name Jeliovah was I not 
 known [or, )nade known*i^ to them, etc." (Exod. vi. 2, 3.) 
 
 * Or rather two ; the Hebrew being U]^^ not D^ii^ U\y:^^ . 
 
 t Tivo of all, viz., " of fowls," " of cattle,' etc." 
 
 X The Vulgate, translating the Hebrew Vap n\\\f of vi. 19, 20, hina, 
 exactly expresses the sense of our own translation. " Et ex cunctis 
 animantibus universal carnis bina (not duo) induces in arcam, ut vivant 
 tecum masculini sexiis et feminini ... bina de omnibus ingredientur tecum." 
 
 § "The name of" being a supplement not in the original. 
 
 IT See Ezek. xx. D, andxxxv. 11; where tlie word here made use of, 'TlV'^''^, 
 is so translated. 
 
10 THE INCREDIBILITIES, ETC. 
 
 observes (p. 231), that "if the name originated in the days of 
 Moses, then Moses in writing the story of the ancient patriarchs 
 would certainly not have put the name into their mouths, much 
 less into those of heathen men." 
 
 Of course he would not. But (upon precisely similar 
 grounds), if " Samuel was the Elohistic writer of the Penta- 
 teuch" (pp. 223 — 229), and if " the name Jehovah was quite 
 new to the Hebrew people in the days of Samuel" (p. 262); and 
 if the Bishop can "scarcely avoid the inference that Samuel him- 
 self must have first introduced it" (p. 263, 339);* and if, as further 
 supposed, the account given of the first introduction of the name 
 be by Samuel himself (p. 260), is it not strange that he should 
 undertake to record that the name had been known to the people 
 for more than 300 years — for that it was as old as the days of 
 Moses. May we not, slightly altering the above quotation by the 
 substitution of Samuel for Moses, with equal propriety say, that 
 " if the name originated in the days of Samuel^ then Samuel, in 
 writing the story of the ancient patriarchs, would certainly not 
 have ascribed the name to the days of Moses." 
 
 But we cannot allow that the passage in question makes any 
 such assertion as that the name " was now for the first time 
 revealed^' (p. 230). It simply tells us that to Abraham, Isaac, 
 and Jacob, " by [or as to] my name Jeliovah was I not known 
 [or made known]." An examination of scriptural usage amply 
 shows that the two expressions to he revealed, and to he known, or 
 made known, are not identical. 
 
 Premising that the meaning of the name Jehovah, according to 
 Gesenius and others, is " The Immutable" (Leo's Gesenius, p. 282), 
 we beg (in proof that they are not), to call attention to the follow- 
 ing passages ; from which it will appear that God is said in Scripture 
 to make his name known as Jehovah, the Unchangeable, not by 
 the mere announcement or revelation of his name as such, but 
 
 1st, by his judgments. 
 
 I will execute judgments in Egj^pt, and tliey shall know that I am 
 Jeliovah. Ezek. xxx. 19. 
 
 Jehovah is known by the judgment that he executetli. Psalm ix. 16. 
 
 I will cause them to know my hand and my might, and they shall know 
 that my na^ne is Jehovali. Jerem. xvi. 21. 
 
 and 2ndly, by fidelity to his engagements; 
 
 There shall he no more a pricking brier unto the house of Israel, and 
 they shall know that I am Jehovah God. When I shall have gathered the 
 
 * An inference to the proving of which a very large portion of the 
 remainder of the Bishop's book is devoted. See the chapters respecting the 
 so called Elohistic and Jehovistic Psalms. 
 
A LAY PROTEST. 11 
 
 house of Israel from tlie people among whom they are scattered, and shall 
 be sanctified in the sight of the heathen, then shall they dwell in their land 
 that I have given to my servant Jacob, and they shall know that I am 
 Jehovah their God. Ezek. xxviii. 21, 25. 
 
 In the daj^when I chose Israel and made mijself Jcnoicn* unto them in the 
 land of Eyijpt, when I lifted up my hand unto them, saying, I am Jehovah,^ 
 your God ... I made myself known unto them, in bringing them, forth out of 
 the land of Egypt. Ezek. xx. 4 — 9. 
 
 To these quotations we may add two from the book of Exodus 
 itself, whicli refer, or seem to refer, to the verse under con- 
 sideration. 
 
 In Exod. vi. 6, 7, — the third and fourth from the verse in 
 question — and which seem to be intended to explain in what way 
 it was that God would make himself known as Jehovah, i.e. as 
 the Uncliangeable, as the Faithful to his promises, we read 
 
 " I am Jehovah : and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the 
 Egyptians; and I will rid you out of their bondage; and I will redeem 
 you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments ; and I will take 
 you to me for a people ; and I will be to you a God ; and ye shall Jcnoto 
 that I am Jehovah, your God." 
 
 " And tlie Egyptians shall know that I am Jehovah." See also verses 
 17, 22 ; ix. 16 ; and x. 2, 7. 
 
 Our inference from these several passages is, that the statement, 
 " I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God 
 Almighty, but by [or as to] my name Jehovah I was not made 
 known unto them," is tantamount to saying that though God had 
 revealed himself to them as the Almighty God, and had entered 
 into covenant with them, the promises of that covenant had not 
 as yet been fulfilled. " The God of glory," says Stephen (Acts 
 vii. 3 — 5, " appeared unto our father Abraham ... but he gave him 
 none inheritance^ no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he 
 promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and 
 to his seed after him."t God had not made himself known to 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by the fulfilment of the engage- 
 ments made to them. They died in the foith, but they " re- 
 ceived not the promises" (Heb. xi. 13). But now he would 
 so make himself known. Both Israel and Pharaoh should know 
 that he was, as he ever had been, the Jehovah, the Unchangeable.^ 
 
 * The same mood, and tense, and conjugation, as Exod. vi. 3. 
 
 t "God promised Canaan to Abraham, and yet Abraham never mhented 
 Canaan. To the last he was a wanderer there. He had no possession of 
 liis own in its territory. If he wanted even a tomb to bury Ins dead, he 
 could only obtain it bv purchase." See llobertson's admirable sermon m 
 reference to God's non-fulfilment of his promises. Sermons, 3rd series, 
 
 p. 87. , . , 
 
 X " The name Jehovah was already known to the patriarchs as an im- 
 comprehended, unmeaning proper name ; but not as a descriptive appellative 
 noun, indicative of the attributes and qualities of God." Ebn Ezra in 
 Kalisch. 
 
12 THE INCREDIBILITIES, ETC. 
 
 Should this interpretation of the verse not be regarded as 
 satisfactory, it must be borne in mind, that the Hebrew, no less 
 than the English version of the same, " was I not known," may 
 be taken interrogatively. Tliere are many who so understand 
 it. To accept either the one or the other of these two interpreta- 
 tions, unless a better can be suggested, is surely more reasonable 
 than to suppose that the name in question was revealed to Moses 
 now for the first time. 
 
 The main argument by which, in the present volume, the 
 Bisliop labours to prove that the Pentateuch was not the work of 
 ]\Ioses, is based upon the fact that it contains various passages 
 that are, he thinks, so obviously of a later date, as to prove the 
 point conclusively. But, inasmuch as these passages are most 
 of them universally admitted to be the parenthetical, supplementary 
 insertions of some later writer, of Ezra, or some other, and as we 
 cannot therefore but regard the argument based upon them as 
 valueless, we pass them over. Of the few that are not of this 
 character, satisfactory solutions may be found in most commen- 
 taries. There is one of them, however, respecting which we 
 cannot withhold a brief remark — the Bishop (p. 200) thinks, 
 that in Gen. xli. 6, we have such an instance of ignorance or of 
 obliviousness of the geographical and physical differences between 
 Egypt and Canaan, as clearly to betray that the writer, whoever 
 he was, knew nothing of Egypt — the east wind being, in the 
 verse in question, spoken of as "a parching wind:" 
 
 "Which," says the Bishop, "as Gesenius observes, it certainly is in 
 Palestine, but not in Egypt ; whence the LXX., in that place, write i/oroy, 
 south-west wind, instead of evpos. 
 
 Where Gesenius says this we do not know, and cannot find out. 
 But of this we are sure, viz., that the LXX. translation of this 
 passage is not as stated. Any one that has a copy of the Greek 
 translation may see this for himself There is some mistake. 
 
 In his " Thesaurus," he tells us, indeed, that the word in ques- 
 tion is so translated in some other places; and tliat there are some 
 who think ["suntque qui cxistimant'^] that in this passage the wind 
 indicated is " contra loci naturam;" but so far is Gesenius from 
 acquiescing in the opinion, that he vindicates the text, and regards 
 the objection raised against it as valueless.* 
 
 * "Quoniam in ^gypto Eurus refrigerat potius ([uam ;vstu adurit, 
 Auster contra vehementius flat, LXX. septem locis pro DHp, Dip, votov 
 posuerunt Exod. x. 13 (bis), xiv. 21; Num. xxxiv. 15; Job xxxviii. 2t; 
 Psa. Ixxviii. 2(5 ; Ezelc. xxvii. 20 ; suntque adeo, qui, Gen. xli. (\ 28, 27, 
 .hJitrnm a scriptore sacro contra loci naturam ])ositura existinuiut (v. Bohleii); 
 sed vide possitne Eurus de quovis vento vchcmentiore dictus (ct sic Psa. 
 Ixxviii. 2G), vel ita positus esse, ut etiam Austrum comprchendat. Ita 
 
A LAY PROTEST. 13 
 
 Thinking, for the reasons assigned, that the Pentateuch, "the 
 greater portion of it, at all events, if not, indeed, the whole of it" 
 (p. 223), was not and could not have been written by Moses, the 
 Bishop infers that the earlier, or what he calls the Elohistic por- 
 tions, were probably .written by '* Samuel," "aided by the sons of 
 the prophets" (p. 225). The main grounds upon which he arrives 
 at this singular conclusion are, that "there is no one mentioned in 
 the whole history, before his time, who [if Moses did not write it] 
 can be supposed to have written any part of it;" that " Samuel did 
 occupy himself with historical labours, as we are told expressly in 
 1 Chron. xxix. 29;" in short — that if Moses did not write it, and if 
 Samuel did not write it, he does not know, and cannot think, who did. 
 
 But he does not feel confident about it. He sees clearly enough, 
 and admits, that he cannot prove his point. " AVe are now 
 entering," he says, " on the field of conjecture" (p. 226). He 
 believes that there are strong reasons for ascribing the Elohistic 
 portion, or document — a document, be it remembered, whose 
 separate existence has been anything but proved — " which forms 
 the groundwork of these books," to the age, and therefore, pro- 
 bably, to the hand, of Samuel; " yet," he says, " this is a ques- 
 tion merely of probability," and " our views, in this respect, may 
 be shewn to be erroneous" (p. 272). 
 
 But, at all hazards, the old belief that any portion of the 
 Pentateuch was written by Moses, must be given up; and so, the 
 Bishop, starting or adopting hypothesis after hypothesis; first the 
 hypothesis that the Pentateuch is later than the days of Moses; 
 and then the further hypothesis that it is the production of more 
 writers than one; and then the hypothesis tliat the parts respec- 
 tively furnished by these writers are now so amalgamated and 
 intermingled that they cannot be separated otherwise than con- 
 jecturally, reaches at length this notable, but "possibly erroneous" 
 conclusion, viz., that the greater portion of it, more than five- 
 sixths, was w^ritten by he does not know whom, and he cannot 
 tell when; except that he thinks it must have been written 
 " in the latter days of David, or in the early part of the reign of 
 Solomon," i.e. not till Moses, of whose times these five-sixths treat, 
 had been dead foi more than 400 years; but that most of the 
 small remainder, viz., "about one half of the book of Genesis, a 
 small part of Exodus, less of Numbers, and a very small portion 
 of Deuteronomy," was written "perhaps" by Samuel.* 
 
 Bochartus Hicroz. ii. 663, qui apiid Grsecos in vulgari scrmone venlum 
 orientalem ad r« vfWia, contra oceidcntaleni ad to. (Bnpeia referri doeet." 
 Thesaurus Ling. Hc4)., Lips., 1812, 4to., p. 1194. 
 
 * " Probably" (p. 226). " Provisionally and tentatively we may ascribe 
 them to Samuel" (p. 228). 
 
14 THE INCREDIBILITIES, ETC. 
 
 But we arc not to suppose that even he wrote it as a "veracious 
 Jiistory," or intended it to be received as such, but as a sort of 
 "historical experiment," for the instruction and improvement of his 
 pupils, as the following extract makes known to us: — 
 
 "There is not," says the Bishop, "the slightest reason to suppose that 
 he ever professed to be recording infallible truth, or even actual historical 
 truth. He wrote a narrative. But what indications are there that he 
 published it at large, even to the people of his own time, as matter-of-fact, 
 veracious history ? Why may not Samuel, like any other Head of an 
 Institution, have composed this narrative for the instruction and improve- 
 ment of his pupils (from whom it would gradually find its way, more or 
 less freely, among the people), without ever pretending that it was any 
 other than an historical experiment, an attempt to give them some account 
 of the early annals of their tribes ? In later days, it is true, tliis ancient 
 w^ork of Samuel's came to be regarded as infallibly divine. But was it so 
 regarded in the writer's days ?" (p. 375.) 
 
 "When, however," we are further told, "he had once set the example 
 of this mode of composing the early history of the i^eople, it was, of course, 
 most easy and natural for his disciples in a later age to follow him : more 
 especially, if, as we may very well suppose, the unfinished manuscript was 
 left in their hands by their dying master, with the permission, or even the 
 injunction, to complete and perfect it to the best of their power. The esta- 
 blishment of the Divine Service of the Tabernacle in David's time, and at 
 the Temple in Solomon's, would give occasion for additions to be made of 
 a ceremonial and ritualistic character.* . . . Yet there is no sign that the 
 laws thus laid down were 'published for general information, or enforced. . 
 In this form, the roll seems [?] to have lain for nearly four centuries, kept 
 it may be, in the Temple archives, and referred to, perhaps, occasionally 
 when information was desired, or an addition was to be made to it. . . 
 But, as we have said, we shall examine thoroughly into this point here 
 after \j>iz, in Part III.]. For the present, it is sufiicient to call attention 
 to the occurrence in Josiah's days, which is related in 2 Kings xxii., when 
 the pious king himself, as well as the people, was taken wholly by surprise 
 by the discovery of the Book of the Law in the Temple." (p. 379, 380.) 
 
 In reference to this finding of the Book of the Law in the reign 
 of Josiah, it must be remembered, that Josiah was the successor 
 of Manassch and Amon, the former his grandfather, the latter his 
 father. That the united reigns of Manasseh and of Amon were 
 fifty-seven years. That in Manasseh's reign, the House of the 
 Lord had been converted into a Temple of Baal, and " for the 
 worship of all the host of heaven" (2 Ki. xxi. 5); and that the 
 probability is (such probability being certainly far stronger than 
 any of the Bishop's probabilities) that fearing for the Book of the 
 Law of the Lord, lest it should perhaps be destroyed, either some 
 pious priest secreted it, all knowledge of the place of its conceal- 
 ment dying with him ; or, which we think a more probable sup- 
 position, that those employed by Manassch in converting the 
 
 * Of the book of Leviticus, for instance, which the Bishop refers to this 
 period. 
 
A LAY PROTEST. 15 
 
 Temple into a Temple of Baal, had stowed it away nobody knew 
 where, in some one of the many chambers of the Temple. 
 
 Towards the close of Manasseh's reign, IManasseh, repenting of 
 his wickedness, endeavoured so far as he could, to restore the 
 Temple w^orship as before. But dying, Amon succeeded him, 
 who continued the idolatry which had been established by his 
 father. He dies ; and Josiah comes to the throne, a child of eight 
 years of age. 
 
 For the first few years, Josiah seems to have suffered things to 
 go on as they had been going on under his grandfather and 
 father; but, at length, "in the eighth year of his reign, while he 
 was yet young [viz. about sixteen years of age] he began to seek 
 after the God of David his father;" and in the twelfth year [i.e. 
 when about twenty years of age] openly avowed his determination 
 to take the Lord God of his fathers to be his God. Judah and 
 Jerusalem were purged of their high places, and groves, and 
 images; the altars of Baal were broken down, and orders given 
 to repair the House of the Lord. In the course of these repairs, 
 the book of the Law is found. 
 
 Now we could scarcely expect that the boy Josiah, the son of 
 such a father, the grandson of such a grandfather, should know very 
 much about the Book of the Law, or the writings of Moses. Can 
 we wonder, then, at his proceedings wlien the concealed or mis- 
 sing document was at length found ? or at his previous ' ' ignorance 
 of the nature of its contents" ? Must we, in order to account for 
 them, adopt the monstrous hypothesis that it had lain in the 
 Temple for nearly 400 years, seldom consulted, and at length lost 
 sight of and forgotten ; and that there existed, moreover, no 
 private copy? Which is the more probable hypothesis — the latter, 
 the hypothesis of the Bishop? or, the common and common-sense 
 hypothesis? viz. that though private copies existed, the original 
 autograph Temple copy had in Manasseh's time been tossed aside, 
 or stowed away, as lumber, no one knew where, in some one of 
 the numerous chambers of the Temple. 
 
 Any further remarks that we may have to make upon the 
 above extraordinary statement we reserve until Part HL shall have 
 appeared; when arguments in support of the same will be more 
 fully before us. 
 
 But the Bishop cannot withhold one fact in reference to the 
 Book of Deuteronomy, that is to figure in this forthcoming Part; 
 it is, we suppose, so telling, so thoroughly conclusive. Indeed, 
 such is his confidence of its value, that he thinks that " This 
 single fact," viz., the one we are about to quote, " seems sufficient 
 to decide the question" as to " whether the whole of the Penta- 
 teuch was written by Moses." So we have it beforehand ! 
 
16 THE INCREDIBILITIES, ETC. 
 
 It is, that "in the other four books [or three books, rather, 
 viz. Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers] the priests are invariably 
 called the sons of Aaron (Lev. i. 5, 7, 8, 11 ; ii. 2; iii. 2; xiii. 2; 
 Num. X. 8,) never the sons of Levi; whereas in Deuteronomy 
 [which Part II L is to prove to have been written about the time 
 of Josiah], they are called invariably the sons of Levi, or Levites 
 (Deut. xvii. 9, 18; xviii. 1; xxi. 5; xxiv. 8; xxvii. 9; xxxi. 9), 
 never the sons of Aaron; and, in fact, the Deuteronomist dis- 
 tinctly mentions Levi, xviii. 1, 5, xxxiii. 8, 11, not Aaron, as the 
 root of the priestly office and dignity" (p. 359). 
 
 The inference of course is, that the authorship of the book of 
 Deuteronomy is not the same with that of the books preceding it. 
 
 Now, at first sight, it certainly does seem strange (for the fact 
 is as stated by the Bishop), that in the book of Deuteronomy the 
 designation given to the priests should differ so remarkably, and 
 so invariably, from that given to them in the other portions of 
 the Pentateuch ; so strange, that many, we doubt not, will, with- 
 out examination and without challenge, regard the Bishop's argu- 
 ment as quite conclusive. 
 
 To confirm, then, or to disprove this startling inference, we turn 
 to the text, and what do we there find? We find that in the other 
 books they are spoken of as the sons of Aaron, because in those 
 other books the priests spoken of were the actual sons of Aaron, his 
 own immediate and proper sons, Eleazar and Ithamar; but that in 
 the book of Deuteronomy, where the priests are spoken of not as the 
 sons of Aaron, but of Levi, the priests in question (with the exception 
 of those referred to in one single passage, Deut. xxvii. 9) were not 
 Aaron's own immediate sons, but the priests that should be — the 
 priests of an after generation. " If," says xvii. 9, in reference to 
 the proceedings of the people when they should be settled in the 
 land of Canaan, " there arise a matter too hard for thee in judg- 
 ment, thou shalt go unto the priests, the Levites." " If one be 
 found slain in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, then 
 the priests, the sons of Levi," etc. (xxi. 5.) And so of the other 
 passages. 
 
 And now, in sober and earnest seriousness, and in the name of 
 common sense, which is the more probable hypothesis? the hypo- 
 thesis which ascribes the Pentateuch to Moses? — an hypothesis 
 held by the Jews themselves, so far as we know, without doubt 
 and without break, from the earliest periods of their history down 
 to the present time — an hypothesis Avliich has so much to recom- 
 mend it, and which has no difficulties to overcome that may not 
 easily be set aside : — or, the hypotliesis that one-sixth of it was 
 written "probably" "by Samuel," — that this one-sixth is founded. 
 
A LAY PROTEST. 17 
 
 not upon documents, but upon tradition and conjecture, being 
 compiled " out of liis own imagination wlien tradition failed him" 
 (p. 368), — that what he wrote remained for nearly four hundred 
 years unpublished, unenforced, unknown, " kept, it may be, in 
 the Temple archives," "in the possession of the priests;" — that 
 the other five-sixths, including the whole of Leviticus, and, with 
 the exception of " a very small portion," the whole of Deu- 
 teronomy, was written nobody knows by whom, and nobody 
 knows when, except that it must have been " in the latter days of 
 David," or, " probably in the early part of Solomon's reign" (the 
 book of Deuteronomy excepted, which is referred to Jeremiah) ; — 
 that the document thus added to from time to time by those who 
 had access to it, or in whose custody it was, turned up one day in 
 the days of king Josiah, " taking the pious king himself, as well 
 as the people, wholly by surprise" (p. 380), who up to that time 
 are supposed to have known nothing of the book, and to have 
 been " in complete ignorance of the nature of its contents;" — the 
 one, an hypothesis countenanced and asserted by our Lord himself, 
 asserted in all those subsequent books of the Old Testament that in 
 any way refer to its authorship, and confirmed by various indica- 
 tions of being, so far, at least, as relates to the times of Moses, a 
 contemporaneous document (see Graves on the Pentateuch passim) 
 — the other, an hypothesis that necessitates the belief that the very 
 earliest portion of these books, viz., that ascribed to Samuel, was 
 not written until Moses had been dead 300 years, — that tliis docu- 
 ment lay neglected and unknown for nearly 400 years more, — 
 that it at length turned up ; and that when found, it was credu- 
 lously and at once accepted, though never before heard of, as the 
 genuine writings of Moses, without question and without doubt. 
 We do not ask which of these two hypotheses can be proved 
 to demonstration; but which of the two is the more probable 
 hypothesis ? 
 
 March 14th, 1863. 
 
POSTSCRIPT 
 
 Kalisch, in his Commentary on Exodus xii. 37, with a view to the 
 confirmation of the probability of the enormous increase of Jacob's 
 descendants during their residence in Egypt, refers to a narrative, 
 which he supposes to be authentic, but which is not so. This 
 narrative having been, upon the authority of Kalisch, accepted as 
 trustworthy, and Kalisch's note in reference to it having been copied 
 first into one reply to the Bishop's Part L, and now very recently 
 into another, it may be as well, perhaps, with a view to prevent 
 its further adoption, to take this opportunity of reprinting the 
 subjoined letter respecting it, addressed by the writer of these 
 pages to the Editor of the Record, and published in the January 
 26th number of that paper. 
 
 "BISHOP COLENSO, KALISCH, AND THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 "to the editor of the eecokd. 
 
 " SiE, — In one of the various replies to the Bishop of Natal's attack upon 
 the Pentateuch, we have, as a supposed confirmation of the probability of 
 the enormous increase of Jacob's descendants, during the 215 years of their 
 residence in Egypt, a statement from Kalisch's Commentary (on Exod. 
 xii. 37) that we do not need — for it is one that cannot be sustained. 
 
 " The i^assage in question is as follows : — 
 
 " ' In confirmation we refer the reader to the authentic and interesting 
 account concerning the Englishman, Pine, who was, in 1589, thrown with 
 four females upon a desert island, south-east of the Cape of Good Hope, 
 and whose descendants had, after seventy-eight years, increased to more 
 than 11,000 souls.' 
 
 " Kalisch does not give his authority for tliis extraordinary statement; but 
 I beg to state that his sole authority is a certain rare pamphlet, published in 
 1668, of which the British Museum possesses three copies, viz., the first 
 and second editions, bearing the above date, together with a reprint of a 
 later period. Its title is ' The Isle of Pines ; or, a late Discovery of a 
 Fourth Island in the Terra Australis Incognita. Being a true Account of 
 certain English Persons, who in the Dayes of Queen Elizabeth were .. . 
 wracked upon an Island near to the Coast of Terra Australis Incognita, 
 and all drowned, except one Man and four Women . . . And now lately . . . 
 a Dutch Ship, driven by foul weather there by chance, have found their 
 posterity to amount to ten thousand or twelve thousand Persons, as they 
 suppose.' 
 
 *' Kalisch assumes, clearly without examination of the pamphlet (farther 
 than to get from p. 1 the date given by him, viz., 1589), that this wondrous 
 
POSTSCRIPT. 19 
 
 narrative is a trustworthy, genuine, veritable document. Had he been better 
 acquainted with the hterature of our country at the period in question, he 
 would have known, however, that this pamphlet is of no more value, in an 
 historical respect, than Swift's ' Gulliver,' or Defoe's ' Crusoe ;'— that it is 
 a mere fiction— a mere invention— a licentious joke— the production of one 
 Henry Neville, the author of ' The Parliament of Ladies,' ' Newes from the 
 New Exchange, printed in the Year of Women without grace, 1G50,' and 
 other trash— a writer, who in the days of the Commonwealth and Charles 
 II. pandered to the depraved taste of tlie times by many such productions. 
 .See Wood's 'Athena?,' and Chalmers's 'Biographical Dictionary.' 
 
 " Such bemg the case, it is hardly worth while to add (except, indeed, for 
 the more efiectual disproof of Kalisch) that the statement that Pine's 
 descendants in 16G7 were more than 11,000, is that of the title-page only. 
 Ihe book itself simply tells us that in forty years they were 565, and nine- 
 teen years later, 1789. 
 
 Were further disproof of the trustworthiness of the pamphlet needed, 
 I might add that, in the latitude and longitude attributed to the island, 
 no such island exists. In the West Indies there happens to be one bearing 
 this name, discovered by Columbus ; but, unfortunately, that part of the 
 world known as the Terra Australis, and the West Indies, are very far 
 apart. South of New Caledonia there is another ; but this latter, at the 
 date of the pamphlet (1668), was as yet unknown, for its discoverer was 
 Cook. 
 
 And as regards the name of these two islands, they were named, from 
 the one and the other, not (as in the case of the island of the pamphlet) 
 from the name of their first occupant, but simply from the great abundance 
 of pines that were found growing upon them at the time of their discovery. 
 [' Porque vieron en ella muchos pinos la puso el Almirante Isla de Pinos ' 
 — Herrera's Hist., i., 130, Edit. 1730, fol.— 'They' {viz., the trees) 'had 
 much the appearance of tall pines, which occasioned my giving that name 
 to the island.'— Cook's Voyage towards the South Pole, vol. ii., p. 135.] 
 
 " Yours respectfully, 
 
 "J. C. KNIGHT. 
 " Beitish Museum, January 19th, 1863." 
 
 In reference to the requirement of Deut. xxiii. 12, "Thou shalt 
 have a place without the camp," etc., it may be as well also to take 
 this opportunity of stating, in addition to the remarks given in our 
 former pamphlet, " The Pentateuchal Narrative, etc.," that the 
 objection based upon it by the Bishop in reference to the encampment 
 in the Wilderness, is wholly without foundation — it being certain 
 that the command in question had nothing at all to do with the 
 proceedings of the wilderness. It was not issued till the journey- 
 ings of the Israelites were ended — when, having reached the borders 
 of Canaan, they were encamped in the plains of Moab, " in the 
 eleventh month of the fortieth year" (Deut. i. 3), on the banks of 
 Jordan, preparatory to their entrance into Canaan, upon the 
 death of Moses. It is simply a direction as to what they would 
 be required to do, when having entered the land of Canaan, they 
 should leave their homes for military service. During their pas- 
 sage through the wilderness, a due regard to decency and cleanli- 
 
20 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 ness would, of itself, most likely, lead to tlie adoption of whatever 
 decency and cleanliness might render needful; and since each 
 tribe encamped apart, it is not difficult to conceive that this might 
 easily have been done, without imposing upon them the necessity 
 of journeying " three-quarters of a mile," or more, or laying upon 
 them any command at all. 
 
 But when, having entered Canaan, their men of war, leaving 
 their homes, should go forth to do battle with their enemies — 
 then, disregarding cleanliness, they might be tempted, with a 
 view to personal safety, to fear to quit the close quarters of the 
 camp. But cleanliness is so insisted upon in the laws given to 
 Israel, that Moses contemplating the possibility under such cir- 
 cumstances of uncleanly practice in the matter referred to, directs, 
 with a view to its prevention, that even under those circumstances 
 they shall fearlessly leave the safe and close quarters of their en- 
 campment, rather than do anything in violation of decorum or of 
 cleanliness. 
 
SELECTIONS FEOM THE CATALOGUE OP SAMUEL BAQSTER AND SONS. 
 
 12 
 
 Bibles for MS. Notes ; in great variety of size and plan. 
 
 13 
 
 A Manual for Greek Students ; consisting of — I. a Practical Guide 
 
 to the language ;— II. the whole New TeBtament, Greek and English ;— III. a Lexicon. 
 Small 8vo., half-bound, price 15^. 
 
 14 
 
 A Manual for Hebrew Students ; consisting of — I. a Hebrew Gram- 
 mar ; — II. an Introductory Lesson Book grammatically analysed ; — III. the whole Book 
 of Psalms interlinearly translated ;— IV. a Lexicon. Small 8vo., half-boimd, price ISs. 
 
 15 
 
 The Holy Vessels and Furniture of the Tabernacle of Israel ; a 
 
 series of drawings on the scale of one inch to a cubit, executed in the highest style of 
 colour printing, illuminated with Gold, Silver, etc. With Scriptural Dissertations descrip- 
 tive of the various objects, and illustrative of their typical value. Oblong 4to., half-bound 
 morocco, gilt leaves, price 35*. 
 
 16 
 
 The Polyglot Bible Cabinet ; for Presentations, etc. An elegantly 
 
 Carved Oak Case, containing the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English, French^ German, Spanish, 
 and Portuguese Bibles, the Syriac New Testament, the IVeasury of Scripture ParaUels, 
 with Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac Lexicons, and Greek and English Concordances. Eleven 
 Volumes, bound uniformly in 'Bagster's flexible Turkey morocco,' tooled, price £15 15*. 
 
 17 
 
 The Names, Titles, and Characters of the Son of God. Price 4d. 
 
 18 
 
 An Introduction to the New Testament. An Examination of the 
 
 Authority, Interpretation, and Integrity of the Canonical Books. By Sa3IUEL Datid- 
 SON, LL.I). Three Volumes, 8vo., price 40*. 
 
 19 
 
 The Historic Evidence of the Authorship and Transmission of the 
 
 Books of the New Testament. By S. P. Teegelles, LL.D. Price 3*. 6d. 
 
 20 
 
 " It is Written": or Every Word of Scripture from God. Price 3s. 
 
 21 
 
 The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon: including, under 
 
 the alphabetical arrangementj every form of every word of the Hebrew Scriptures. 
 Quarto, price .£2 2*. 
 
 A New Translation of the Epistles and Kevelation, with Notes. 
 
 By Dr. J. Tuenbull. 8vo., price 10*. 
 
 23 
 
 The Analytical Greek Lexicon to the New Testament. Quarto, 
 
 price 25*. 
 
 24 
 
 The Tabernacle of Israel in the Wilderness: Illuminated Engrav- 
 ings, with illustrative Letterpress. By W. G. Khind. Folio, price 15*. 
 
 25 
 
 The Warrant of Faith. By the Eev. Eobert Whytehead, M.A. 
 
 Price 6*. 6d. 
 
 26 
 
 The Pocket Critical Greek and English New Testament. Arranged 
 
 in Parallel Columns. Price 8*. 
 
 27 
 
 The Emphatic New Testament. In which the Authorised text is 
 
 so printed as to bring out, by the use of different types, the full meaning designed to be 
 conveyed by the Greek original. By John Tatloe. Octavo, price 12*. 6a. 
 
 28 
 
 The Blank-paged Bible ; printed with alternate pages of ruled 
 
 writing paper, for the registration of manuscript notes. V^ith an Index of Subjects, and 
 Maps. Octavo ; kept in Cloth, and various styles of flexible morocco binding. 
 
SELECTIONS FROM THE CA-TALOGUE OF SAMUEL BAGSTEE AND SONS. 
 
 29 
 
 An Amended Translation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. By the 
 
 Bev. Henry Ceaik. Price 6d. 
 
 30 
 
 A New Metrical Translation of the Psalms. Dedicated, by per- 
 mission, to the Archbishop of York. Accentuated for Chanting. Post 8vo., price 5s. 6d. 
 
 31 
 
 Biblia Ecclesise Polyglotta, in Parallel Columns. 4to., price 32s. 
 
 .32 
 
 The Histories of Judah and Israel ; in Parallel Columns, with the 
 
 Prophetic Writings incorporated. With Notes and Indexes. Two Yolumes, large 8vo., 25*. 
 
 33 
 
 The Proper Names of the Old Testament Scriptures Expounded 
 
 and Illustrated. Quarto, price 25*. 
 
 34 
 
 The Gospels in Greek, Syriac, and Latin, in Parallel Columns. 
 
 With Critical Apparatus, Quarto, price 14.5. 
 
 35 
 
 An English Translation of the LXX. With Critical Notes. Two 
 
 Volumes, 8vo., price 2ls. 
 
 36 
 
 Gesenius's Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon. By S. P. Tregelles, LL.D. 
 
 37 
 
 Gesenius's Hebrew Grammar. By Professor Eodiger. 
 
 38 
 
 The English Hexapla. The Greek text is printed in the boldest 
 
 type, and accompanied with various readings and collations of different recensions. The 
 six English Translations and the original Greek are presented to the eye at one view ; and 
 the whole is preceded by an Introduction full of interesting memorials of the translations 
 and the translators. Quarto, price ^2 2*. 
 
 39 
 
 A Harmony of the Gospels in Greek. By William Stroud, M.D. 
 
 Quarto, price 24*. 
 
 40 
 
 The Codex Zacynthius : with a Facsimile page and Introduction. 
 
 By S. P. Tregelles, LL.D. Small Folio, half-russia, price 21*. 
 
 41 
 
 The Septuagint : containing the true Version of Daniel, and the 
 
 Fourth Book of Maccabees. Octavo, price 18*. 
 
 42 
 
 A Large Print Greek Testament : with Various Eeadings and 
 
 Parallel References. Octavo, price 12*. 
 
 43 
 
 Developed Criticism of the New Testament. By the Kev. T. S. 
 
 Green, M.A. Octavo, price 7*. 6d. The steps of reasoning which connect the resulting 
 Critical Text with the cited Authorities are here traced. 
 
 44 
 
 A History of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament. By 
 
 S. p. Teegelles, LL.D. Octavo, price 10*. dd. 
 
 45 
 
 A Concordance to the Greek New Testament. Price 5s. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS; 
 
 WAREHOUSE FOR BIBLES, NEW^ TESTAMENTS, PRAYER BOOKS, CHURCH 
 
 SERVICES, LEXICONS, GRAMMARS, CONCORDANCES, AND PSALTERS, 
 
 IN ANCIENT AND MODERN LANGUAGES ; 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW.